Why does apocalyptic literature appear so cryptic? Why aren’t prophecies clearer than what they are, when one reads them? It is as though prophecy is a language unto itself that needs an interpreter. Why is that? In chapter seven of the Book of Daniel, we begin the second half of the book, which by and large records Daniel’s visions and dreams. We begin in the first year of Belshazzar, the king of Babylon (Daniel 7:1). So, in effect, the Book of Daniel takes us back in time, prior to when Darius conquered Babylon (Daniel 5:30-31). Here, in chapter seven the text tells us of Daniel’s dream, and then we are given its interpretation. So, in verse-1 Daniel tells us he had a dream and the text says he wrote down what he saw and: “told the sum of the matter.” The word sum (H7217) refers to the chief or head of something. In other words, it might be described as a summary of what is particularly significant about the dream Daniel saw. What this, obviously, means is, the telling of the dream isn’t as clear or as detailed as the explanation of it, which Daniel was given by the one who stood by later in the dream (cp. Daniel 7:15-27). Its telling makes it a bit obscure.
Why is this necessary? I believe it has to do with a man’s freewill.[1] Think of it this way. God gives men free moral agency, yet the Lord, himself, isn’t subject to time, to which he has subjected man. The Lord sees all things and knows all things. What lies in our future is just as present to God as the reality of our past. The past, the present and the future things are always before God. So, if God wished to tell one of his servants something that would be experienced sometime in our future, he could do so, but what is revealed must be somewhat unclear, as far as other folks finding out is concerned. After all, if a powerful empire were to be destroyed in the future by a nation only beginning to become strong, and, if that same powerful nation understood the prophecy, it could destroy the weaker nation, before it became strong enough to destroy the nation the Lord wished to judge in its own future.
If such a thing were to occur, the plan of God would be at risk. Thus, prophecy must be relatively obscure in its telling, but clear enough in its reading to know what was actually predicted, once the prophecy had been fulfilled. Otherwise, if names and dates etc. are too clear in the telling of the matter, the prophecy would become void, in that it wouldn’t be predicting the future. Instead, it would be the cause or impetus of the future, which may or may not be reflected in the original wording of the so-called prophecy.[2]
In the text before us, we are told: “Daniel had (H2370) a dream and visions in his head…” What this means is Daniel beheld or saw etc. He didn’t just have a dream, like it was a nightly matter, but he saw it; he beheld it (Daniel 7:1). As he lay there dreaming, in the dream, itself, he was grieved in his spirit, and he was troubled by the visions he saw (Daniel 7:15). When he awoke, he wrote the dream down on a scroll, telling or giving the sum of the matter. In other words, he held back some of the things he was later told, concerning what he saw. This is similar to how Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter two. First, he told the king what the king saw (H2370) in his dream (Daniel 2:31-36). Then, Daniel offered its interpretation. In the interpretation, however, Daniel clearly mentioned that the king saw four kingdoms, his own and three that would come immediately afterward. Nevertheless, Daniel identified only the first kingdom. He, Nebuchadnezzar, was the head of gold (Daniel 2:37-38), but the three kingdoms that would come after him, Daniel left anonymous (Daniel 2:39-40)! Similarly, Daniel would write about his own dream in the first year of Belshazzar the king of Babylon (Daniel 7:1). The mysterious beasts, which Daniel saw in his dream, anonymous at first, are unveiled as time goes on.
_______________________________________________________
[1] See my previous study: Prophecy and Free Moral Agency!
[2] An exception to this general rule would be the fact that Daniel’s vision of the Goat and the Ram (Daniel 8), where Greece would conquer Persia, and that there would be thee more kings of Persia after Cyrus, before the mighty king of Greece would conquer the kingdom (Daniel 11:2-3). Since these things were private matters between Daniel and God, and not something Daniel was to preach to either Persia or Greece, the general rule seems unaffected.
Smoodock's Blog 