Peace is able to Destroy
“He
will be a master of deception, defeating many by catching them off
guard as they bask in false security. Without warning he will destroy
them. So great will he fancy himself to be that he will even take on
the Prince of Princes in battle; but in so doing he will seal his own
doom, for he shall be broken by the hand of God, though no human
means could overpower him.” (Daniel 8:25, the Living Bible)
“He
will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior.
When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand
against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by
human power.” (Daniel 8:25, New International Version)
“And
through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand;
and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace
shall destroy many:
he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be
broken without hand.” (Daniel 8:25, King James Version)
So
here are three versions of Daniel 8:25. The first is from the Living
Bible (1971), which is a paraphrase of the American Standard Version
(1901), which in turn is a revision of the King James Bible (1611).
The
second is from the New International Version (1978), which is a
translation of the earliest, most reliable Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic
texts available.
The
Third is from the King James Version, or King James Bible, a
translation of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts by scholars in the
time of King James 1 of England, ca. 1611.
This
and surrounding verses prophesy about a mighty king who will arise
and will through political skill and manipulation cause the land to
prosper, thereby lulling the population into softness and
unpreparedness after which his goal will become clear, namely to
destroy the people to feed his greed. He will challenge God himself,
but will be defeated.
For
many, these stories are predictions of the nature of the apocalypse,
the end time of everything. Depending on a variety of views of the
apocalyptic sequence (post- or pre-millenial, for instance) Daniel’s
portrayal of what’s been called the brief, destructive reign of the
Antichrist
will differ, of course. The folly of assigning roles in a current
time to characters in Daniel has been demonstrated again and again by
those who see prophecy primarily as prediction.
Nevertheless,
the Daniel visions serve a purpose in Christian theology; if not,
they wouldn’t have made the canon, I’m guessing. Indeed, rulers
like Daniel’s Antichrist
have come and gone repeatedly throughout history, have subjugated
their people, promised them protection and finally, bilked them of
everything that’s important. Daniel’s visions are warnings that
apply in any era: complacency in times of apparent peace and
prosperity plows the field for tyrants to sow their weeds.
Peace
Shall Destroy Many, the
novel by Rudy Wiebe, takes the principle in the passage surrounding
and including Daniel 8:25 into a modern context. Although I’ve
never heard him link the novel with Daniel’s vision, the
implication that complacency—especially when manifested in the
reliance on pious orthodoxy—can breed conditions for sin and,
eventually, destruction seems clear. To me, it's logical: fat and happy
people become lazy; laziness erodes vigilance; with no external
danger against which to defend, we turn on each other. The rest is
historically demonstrated, repeatedly.
And
strange as this may seem, Daniel’s vision may serve to warn the
Western church that it’s just had too much peace for its own good
lately. It’s one thing to become ideological and doctrinaire about
issues but—in the North America in which I’m living today—the
strident pursuit of difference at the expense of common
purpose pretty much characterizes the repeated and repeated news
of animosity, back-biting and division. As surely as Daniel’s dream
of disaster ferreting it’s way into the tranquility of a people
rendered lax and torpid was once a strident, necessary warning, the
signs around us today desperately cry out for a similar
prophetic vision.
Or
am I dreaming? Is the ability to achieve common purpose—even for a
most critical calling—an impossibility, given human nature? It’s for becoming Christ-like in our daily walk that we were “reborn;”
being right by proving others wrong on theological
niceties is not a reaching toward the Kingdom, it’s a symptom of a
modern-day reenactment of Daniel’s (and Wiebe’s?) vision of
self-destruction.
Isn't it?
Let’s
concede, at the very least, that peace has the ability to destroy
many.
Comments
Post a Comment