logging in or signing up the book of daniel andrewneileen Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Let's Connect Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Copy embed code: Embed: Flash iPad Dynamic Copy Does not support media & animations Automatically changes to Flash or non-Flash embed WordPress Embed Customize Embed URL: Copy Thumbnail: Copy The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 648 Category: Spiritual/ Ins.. License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: March 31, 2011 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description Outline of the Book of Daniel Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript Slide 1: This commentary (515 pages ISBN 978-0-9870808-0-6) represents an intertextual reading of Daniel that places the Temple and eschatological Atonement at the centre of the book's theology. A failure of exilic prophetic interpretation inspired a failed attempt to restore the First Temple under Cyrus. The unsuccessful mission under Cyrus was corrected 21 years later during the ministries of Zechariah-Haggai under Darius Hystaspis ; precisely 62 years after the deportation of the last Judean captives by Nebuchadnezzar with the Second Temple rebuilt exactly 70 years after it had been destroyed. For this reason Daniel ignores the reign of Cyrus and proceeds directly to the conquest of Babylon by Darius Hystaspis (Darius the Mede). Daniel's history is subordinated to his theology. The initial setting of Babylonian First Temple destruction and Persian era restoration is supplemented by Antiochene desecration and Maccabean rededication of the Second Temple resulting in an already/not yet realization (apocalyptic moment). However, Daniel's enigmatic numerical time periods are not Maccabean era inventions or ex eventu prophecy as they represent supra-historical realities based on intervals between the destruction of the Temple on the ninth of Ab and prominent Jewish Feasts in the lunar Jewish Festal Calendar. The influence of Temple-Atonement theology is traced from Daniel through the New Testament where it shaped the annunciation narrative in Luke, the Synoptic trial narratives, the resurrection event (an apocalyptic moment) and the Olivet prophecy. The destruction of the Second Temple by Rome predicted in the Olivet prophecy closes this period and confirms Christ as the replacement of the Second Temple. The measuring and revelation of the eschatological Temple in the Apocalypse completes the New Testaments treatment of Daniel's Temple-Atonement oriented theology.Slide 2: “……the wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament…” (Daniel 12:3) Biblaridion Media © Paulus Wyns , 2011 ISBN 978-0-9870808-0-6 http://www.biblaridion-media.com email@example.com First Edition, Revision 1Slide 3: “History is the bearer of God’s judgment. History is both theophany and verdict” Lacocque “The words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end…..but the wise shall understand” (Daniel 12.9-10)Slide 4: Table of Contents Prolegomena……………………………. 7 1. The Structure of Daniel…………………. 19 2. Trial by Diet…………………………….. 27 3. The Doxologies of Nebuchadnezzar……. 47 4. The Parallel Visions……………………... 55 5. The Fiery Furnace………………………. 75 6. The Insanity of the King………………... 88 7. Babylon Falls…………………………… 107 8. The Cyrus Problem……………………... 113 9. The Darius Problem……………………. 146 10. In the Lion’s Den……………………….. 180 11. One Like a Son of Man………………….. 186 12. Antiochus in Daniel 7 and 8……………... 203 13. The Daily and the Abomination………… 226 14. Time Periods in Daniel…………………. 233 15. The Little Horn in NT Eschatology……... 238 16. The Seventy Prophecy…………………... 243 17. The Last Seventy………………………... 282 18. The Final Seven…………………………. 336 19. The Great Delay………………………… 360 20. Kings of the North and the South………. 367 21. Dating Daniel…………………………… 394 22. The Great Tribulation…………………... 419 23. The Post-Exilic Period…………………... 430 24. Intertextual use of Isaiah………………... 442 25. Final Conclusion………………………... 456 Bibliography……………………………... 461 Indexes…………………………………… 494Slide 5: Prolegomena There are so many commentaries on Daniel that it is valid to ask why we need another one. What does this commentary contribute and how is it differentiated from other works on Daniel? After two millennia of exegesis, is another commentary necessary? Since Porphyry [ 1] exegetes have been forced into a priori positions regarding the dating of Daniel – by either adopting an early date coinciding with Babylonian provenance, a “real Daniel” and historical accuracy, or by adopting a late date coinciding with Maccabean provenance, “ pseudonymity ” and fiction (or at the very least ex eventu prophecy). The book of Daniel has become the arena where conservative and liberal views encounter each other with the unfortunate consequence that many commentaries become either an exercise in apologetics/harmonisation or extreme criticism. This commentary has sought to break free from the constraints of the conservative/liberal approaches and to avoid apologetics as far as possible - the problem is viewed from different perspectives, not only from that of a Jew enduring Babylonian captivity, but also from a post-exilic Maccabean viewpoint and from the vantage point of first century Christianity/Judaism. The methodologies that have proved most effective in achieving these goals are those of canonical hermeneutics [ 1] In the Prologue of his commentary (P. 491) (617-618) Jerome (c. 347 – 420 AD) states; “Porphyry (a 3rd century Neo-Platonist philosopher) wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel, (A) denying that it was composed by the person to whom it is ascribed in its title, but rather by some individual living in Judaea at the time of the Antiochus who was surnamed Epiphanes . He furthermore alleged that “Daniel” did not foretell the future so much as he related the past, and lastly that whatever he spoke of up till the time of Antiochus contained authentic history, whereas anything he may have conjectured beyond that point was false, inasmuch as he would not have foreknown the future”. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, (Translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Baker Book House, Grand Rapids: Michigan, 1958 ). [cited August 2010] www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/jerome_daniel_02_text.htmSlide 6: and canonical intertextuality . [ 1] The Prolegomena is intended to function as both an introduction and an overview to the commentary that follows – idea’s that will be discussed in detail in the individual chapters, are painted here with large brush strokes to give the reader an impression of the book. The danger is that the big picture will be overwhelmed by the detail. Of more concern is obscuration of the big picture by a failure to recognise “apocalyptic moments”. Under “apocalyptic moments” we understand the temporal in-breaking of divine sovereignty in the processes of history. This is not to deny that God is always, and has always, exercised sovereignty over his creation, but rather that at specific moments divine intervention is openly manifest in events that transform the course of history. These salvic acts are earth shattering events that confront human pride and confound human wisdom – they declare the grace and demonstrate the glory of an ever loving Father who will not be mocked. These “apocalyptic moments” are not isolated events but form patterns, the same way that throwing stones in a pond will create ripples – the Passover deliverance from Egypt pointed forward to a greater Passover deliverance – Christ the “First Fruits”. The crucifixion points forward to an even greater deliverance. All these events together constitute the “Day of the Lord”, thus each historical event takes on significance beyond the mere temporal and spatial confines of the continuum of history. They are “eschatological markers”, snap-shots of the consummation of history – the in-breaking of the kingdom of God in the middle of history! Thus the veil of history is briefly drawn aside and we are allowed a view of the end – an assurance that whatever seems permanent is actually transient. The hiddenness of God is [ 1] Jordan Scheetz offers a helpful overview on the concepts of intertextuality and canon criticism in the field of biblical studies. His dissertation combines an examination of the theories of intertextuality (Julia Kristeva ), canon criticism (Brevard Childs, James Sanders), inner-biblical exegesis (Michael Fishbane ), intratextuality (George Lindbeck ), and kanonische intertextuelle Lektüre (Georg Steins) and its application to Daniel. Jordan Scheetz , The concept of canonical intertextuality and the Book of Daniel, (Dissertation, Universität Wien. Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät , Betreuer In: Loader, James Alfred,2009)Slide 7: revealed in an act of deliverance and judgement that anticipates the end- an apocalyptic moment”. The book of Daniel (God is Judge) contains a sequence of such moments and care must be taken not to confuse the “already” with the “not-yet” aspect of the visions, as the visions all have supra-historical significance. The temporal “here and now” is morphed in the prophecy with the “end” in anticipation of the final consummation. The accusation of prophetic failure is in actuality a failure of interpretation (the wise will understand) due to neglecting the diachronic nature of apocalyptic literature. The destruction of the image in Daniel 2 is an example of a prophecy that had a first century fulfilment in an “apocalyptic moment” with the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. This is equalled by the first century fulfilment of the Seventy Prophecy in Daniel 9 that anticipated the destruction of the Second Temple. Elements within Second Temple Judaism expected the end of the 490 year prophecy to culminate with a final desolation and the revelation of the Messiah. Jesus also employed Daniel 9 to warn of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary. Despite the importance of first century realizations, both prophecies are not exhausted, but await eschatological consummation. Daniel ch.7 is not completely parallel with Daniel ch.2 – it forms a prophetic digression, together with Daniel ch.8, which is fulfilled in the events of the Antiochene crisis. The persecutions and sacrilege perpetrated by the “little horn” (Antiochus Epiphanes ) are another “apocalyptic moment” that reveals the in-breaking of divine sovereignty in the judgement of human affairs. Once again the prophecy is not exhausted by events of the second century BC. The judgement of Antiochus is depicted in eschatological terms and significantly the “apocalyptic moment” described in Daniel ch.7 is encountered in the NT with the Pauline description of the Man of Sin and Johannine imagery of a composite seven-headed-ten-horned beast in Revelation. This is not simply a recycling of familiar apocalyptic imagery by the NT writers but an indication that the prophecies of Daniel have significance beyond their initial fulfilments. “The book of Daniel cannot be interpreted in isolation. The eschatological consummation of the prophecies can only be fullySlide 8: understood with help of the prophecy delivered by Jesus Christ – the book of Revelation. Unfortunately the book of Revelation suffers from the same interpretive malaise as Daniel – a failure to differentiate the “apocalyptic moment” from the continuum of history that it punctuates. A failure to recognise that both prophecies are concerned with the Jewish nation combined with a failure to correctly contextualise and therefore understand the initial fulfilment of the prophecies. Daniel defies easy classification as chs.1-6 are court tales and chs.7-12 are visions, the first six chapters are dominated by the third person narrative style and the last six chapters are chiefly in a first person style. This indicates a book that has two distinct components, however, a facile division into two halves, with each part coming from a different era is prevented by the bilingualism of the book, with Daniel ch.1 and chs.8-12 written in Hebrew and Daniel ch . 2 and ch.7 written in Aramaic. Daniel ch.7, which is pivotal to the “second half” of the Book, is clearly linked with Daniel ch.2 (by language and theme). Moreover, Daniel chs.1-12 is unified by intertextual use of Isaiah. Therefore, the arrangement of Daniel into court tales and visions is purely thematic and this is demonstrated by the unusual chronological arrangement of the Book - with chs.1-5 commencing in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and ending in the reign of Cyrus and chs.6-12 commencing in the reign of Darius and also ending in the reign of Cyrus. The temple is the focal point of this exposition. A similar position is adopted by Lebram , leading Collins to remark that, “ Lebram’s main argument is that the temple also plays a central role in Daniel and that the disruption of the cult is the author’s primary concern. He [ Lebram ] also argues that the periodization of history and the cosmic scope of the book are priestly characteristics….Collins adds,…..It is not apparent, however, that Daniel’s visions are dominated by the templeSlide 9: to the degree that Lebram claims. The great vision in ch.7 does not refer to it explicitly.” [ 1] While it is true that we do not have explicit reference to the temple in ch . 7, Fletcher-Louis has proposed that the cultic setting of ch.7 is the Day of Atonement, where the priest enters the sanctuary in a cloud of incense – this has implications for “one like a son of man” entering into the divine presence.  When this observation is added to Antiochus’ attempt to alter the cultic festivals  (which are temple-centric) and when this is placed in the wider context of the desecration of the sanctuary in chs . 8-9 the conclusion becomes inescapable that the temple and its liturgy are central elements to Daniel, with an eschatological Jubilee Day of Atonement anticipated in order, “ To make reconciliation for iniquity” (Dan 9:24). Even the court tales are related to the temple with the “temple vessels” forming an “ inclusio ” (Dan 1:2; 5:23) on the Babylonian unit. The “ten days” of trial experienced by Daniel (Dan 1:12) and his companions are reminiscent of the “ten days of awe” proceeding the Day of Atonement- considered by the Jews to be the most important temple feast. This was a time of probation before the “books” (cf. Dan 7:10) were opened. Moreover, this exegesis will seek to demonstrate that the subtext of the court tales is the destruction of the temple – the burning of the temple (cf. fiery trial in ch.3), the punishment of national pride in the ‘house’ (cf. Nebuchadnezzar’s pride and subsequent madness in ch.4) and the removal and restoration of the ‘daily’ (continual sacrifice) in the temple (cf. Daniel punished for his continual service and restored in ch . 6). Daniel’s enigmatic time periods are not Maccabean [ 1] J. J. Collins, Daniel: with an introduction to apocalyptic literature, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing,1984),37 referring to J.C.H. Lebram , The background of Jewish Apocalyptic (London: Athlone Press,1978)  Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, “The High Priest as Divine Mediator in the Hebrew Bible: Dan 7:13 as a Test Case”, (SBL Seminary Paper: Oxford, England, 1997), 163  To change the times and law (Dan. 7:25)Slide 10: revisions of the ‘end’ but draw on intervals between the fast that commemorates the destruction of the temple on the ninth of Ab and important Jewish feast days that celebrate deliverance or atonement some three-and-a-half years later. From the perspective of the Golah (exilic community) the return under Cyrus was only partially successful and was influenced by elements that were agitating for an early return (cf. Jer.28:3). The seventy years of Jeremiah are determined from the destruction of the temple (not calculated from the beginning of the exile) and terminate in the reign of Darius Hystaspis (Darius the Mede), who allowed the building of the temple during the ministry of Zechariah and Haggai in the Persian period , ensuring the temple was completed seventy years after it had been destroyed (cf. Zech 1:12; 7:5). For this reason the Danielic narrative skips the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus and proceeds directly to the conquest of Babylon under Darius. This should not surprise us because the history that Daniel presents is selective (as it is in the Neo-Babylonian era) and subordinate to his theology, which is concerned with the temple. The importance of Darius to the restoration process is indicated by the codification of the number sixty-two in the omen given in ch.5 to Belshazzar as well as the ‘age’ of Darius (Dan 6:1) and the reuse of ‘sixty-two’ in the ‘Seventy prophecy’ (Dan 9:24-27). The cipher is relevant because Nebuchadnezzar deported (581/2) the last contingent of exiles (Jer. 52.30)…… sixty-two years prior to Darius Hystaspsis taking power (520/1). The restoration under Cyrus did not live up to the questionable expectations imposed on the Isaiah prophecy concerning the ‘anointed’ (Isa 45:1) - it proved to be a disappointment as the temple was not built during the reign of Cyrus . [ 1 ] Commenting on the notion of delay [ 1] Gabriele Boccaccini states, “In its present form, the edict of Cyrus as preserved in Hebrew (Ezra 1:1-4) or Aramaic (6:1-5) by the tradition of Ezra is essentially a forgery or, more likely, a sort of free adaptation elucidating the implications of Cyrus’ general decree for the Jewish people”. Gabriele Boccaccini , Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: an intellectual history, from Ezekiel to Daniel, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans , 2002), 50Slide 11: in the context of the ‘ Maccabean ’ time periods of ch.12, Gabriele Boccaccini states; “It is time to give back the notion of the delay of the end to New Testament theology, from where it comes and to which it properly belongs.” [ 1] This is certainly true of the enigmatic time periods (1260/1290/1335) of ch.12, which are not Maccabean ‘updates’ or revisions of a delayed end. However, the motif of delay is central to the ‘Seventy Prophecy’  as it is made clear to Daniel that final restoration would not occur after Jeremiah’s 70 years, but would extend until the completion of further desolations lasting a total of 490 years. Initial indications suggest that the core of the book of Daniel was formulated in the Persian era (from earlier material) to explain the supposed failure of Jeremiah’s prophecy which was expected to be realized in the reign of Cyrus. The distance between the Persian and the Greek eras is bridged by the dramas personae —the ‘princes’ (angels) of the nations that direct the power-play of the kingdoms. Moreover, the 21 year interval between the different conquests of Babylon (by Cyrus and Darius) is supported by the angelic explanation of a 21 day delay (Dan 10:13). Significantly, this 21 year delay in the Persian period , explained to Daniel at the commencement of Cyrus’ reign, is used to introduce the turbulent inter-testament struggles between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties culminating in the great tribulation of ch.12. Therefore the concept of postponement also informs the Hellenistic era and is attributed to the concealed manipulations of the ‘princes’ of the nations…… for centuries the kings of the north and south persisted to use the ‘glorious land’ as a stage for their struggles, thus extending the ‘desolations’ beyond Jeremiah’s original seventy years and leading to further desecrations of the temple. [ 1] Gabriele Boccaccini , Roots ,199  Daniel 9:19 - “O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and act! Do not delay for Your own sake, my God, for Your city and Your people are called by Your name.”Slide 12: The re-dedication of the temple by the Maccabees 420 years [ 1] after the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar was almost certainly regarded by the Hasmoneans as a partial realization of Daniel’s Persian era “Seventy Prophecy”. No doubt the next seventy years were expected to usher in the end of Daniel’s 490 years. The Maccabees legitimized the re-dedication of the temple by elevating the nascent Persian era version of Hanukkah  to a national festival. However, the Hasmonean era did not usher in the end of the 490 years - instead it saw the rise of Roman power and ultimately the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. Rabbinical Judaism adapted the prophecy by compressing the period between the destruction of the first (586 BC) and second temples (AD 70) in the Seder Olam chronicle (a Jewish calendar ca. 160 AD), to a mere 490 years thus effectively revising history by omitting 166 years from the Persian era. With the removal of the temple cult in AD 70 attention was refocused on the codification of the oral traditions know as the Mishna and the conclusion of the “Torah era” but this is hardly a satisfactory realization of a prophecy that signified the in-breaking of God’s rule on earth and promised, “ To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy” (Dan 9:24b). [ 1] The 420 year interval is a factor of 6x 70 years, or of 2x 210 years – the former indicating that only one ‘seventy’ remained until the great Day of Atonement and the latter finding correspondence with the 21 day delay of Dan. 10:13.  The embryonic form of the ‘Feast of Lights’ (Hanukkah) originated during the ministry of Haggai/Zechariah, (Hag 2:19, cf.v.10) with the visionary symbol of lamps (Zech 4:2, 14) associated with the dedication of the post-exilic temple during the reign of Darius. The Maccabees were not averse to employing other Persian era feasts in order to further their cause. For example, Nicanor was defeated........ “on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month - which is called Adar in the Syrian language - the day before Mordecai’s day [ Purim] and from that time the city has been in the possession of the Hebrews”. (2 Macc 15:36-37). Notably the defeat of Nicanor occurred at Adasa which is very similar to the Jewish name for Esther - Hadasah (Est. 2:7).Slide 13: Daniel also influences the eschatological narrative of the NT. The Loci Citati Vel Allegati Ex Vetere Testamento lists 203 different references to the book of Daniel in the New Testament. [ 1] Most importantly the Gospel trial narratives are influenced by Daniel, with Jesus and his servant Stephen accused of attempting to destroy the temple and change the customs (like Antiochus Epiphanes ) provoking a Danielic response to the high priest and the Sanhedrin indicating that Christ himself (cf. “one like a son of man”), would act as their judge . Significantly, the Lukan birth narratives are influenced by Daniel and by the restoration prophets (Zechariah/Haggai). Calculations indicate that Luke has the birth of John the Baptist occur during the feast of Hanukkah ( Hag 2:19, cf.v.10) .  Luke intertextually links Daniel with the annunciation narratives of John and Jesus and this coincides with the commencement of the last 70 years of Daniel’s 490 year prophecy. John and Jesus function as the two ‘lights’  of Zechariah’s prophecy. [ 1] Jordan Scheetz (2009:132) offers the following overview based on Nestle-Aland; “From these 203 examples only 12 are listed as quotes. All of the quotes are found in Gospels, are from the mouth of Jesus (with the exception of Revelation 1:7), and are from only five verses in the book of Daniel (3:6; 7:13; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). From Daniel 3:6 there are two quotes (Mt 13:42, 50). From Daniel 7:13 there are six quotes (Mt 24:30; 26:64; Mk 13:26; 14:62; Lk 21:27; Rev 1:7). From Daniel 9:27 there is one quote (Mt 24:15). From Daniel 11:31 there are two quotes (Mt 24:15; Mk 13:14). From Daniel 12:11 there is one quote (Mk 13:14)”. Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece , 27th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft , 1993), 796-798.  This is discussed in Chapter 17 : The Last Seventy  The two ‘lights’ of the Fourth Gospel are celestial (sun and moon), fitting the creation language of the Prologue. However the typology also draws on Hanukkah (Feast of Lights), which essentially demythologizes the winter solstice. The Fourth Evangelist also adopts Hanukkah (Dedication) as backdrop for the charge of blasphemy (John 10:22, 33cf.5:18) levelled at Christ, echoing the Maccabean death bed confession of Antiochus Epiphanes ( 2 Macc.9:12) . Although the birth of the Baptist occurred during Hanukkah he was not the Messiah; “He was the burning and shining lamp , and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light”. (John 5:35) “He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light ”. (John 1:8)Slide 14: Luke understands the birth of Christ as the dedication of a new temple and is followed in this by the Fourth Evangelist, who has Jesus define himself as the divine dwelling place - “ Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”. (John 2:19) The Gospel depictions of Christ and his church are analogous with that of a temple (cf. “anoint the Most Holy” in Dan. 9:24b) where the Father is worshipped in Spirit and Truth (John 4:23). In order for the new temple to be validated the old temple had to be removed. The Olivet prophecy completes the Synoptic treatment of the Danielic temple topos with warnings of the coming destruction of the sanctuary. Later NT writings, such as the epistle to the Hebrews (that focuses on the status of the temple), also warn of coming wrath. Therefore, the three-and-one-half year Roman war that destroyed the Second Temple was understood by early Christians as a partial realization of Daniel/Olivet that confirmed the New Covenant and highlighted the New Sanctuary (Christ and his church) as the true Temple. The eschatological three-and-one-half year “martyr-witnessing” of Revelation 11 also alludes to the Book of Daniel and to the restoration prophets (Zechariah/Haggai). Commencing with the instruction to, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there”. (Rev 11:1) Revelation 11 alludes to Persian era feasts; the nascent Hanukkah (lamps, v. 4) and Purim (gifts, v.10) and to the dedication of the temple at the fully developed Hanukkah of the Maccabean era, where Rev.11:19 echoes the eschatological vision of the Ark of the Covenant described in Maccabees (2 Macc.2:1-12). [ 1] The theme of Rev.11 is the dedication of a temple  and an altar  [ 1] 2 Maccabees , when exhorting the readers to celebrate Hanukkah, recounts how the ark was hidden by Jeremiah only to be revealed in an eschatological vision: “Then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord (i.e. the ark) will be seen in the cloud…”  Revelation 11 has many allusions to Psalm 30 (cf. The Psalm title: A Song at the dedication of the house of David) and the 1260 days or 42 months of the Book of Revelation find correspondence with Daniel’s time periods (cf. the weight of the dedicatory gifts for the tabernacle in Numbers 7 (2x1260 shekels) and the 42 generations between Abraham and Christ enumerated in Matthew 1:17).  The altar is central to the temple in Rev 11. In Ezekiel’s temple the altar also formed t he architectural centre not the Holy of Holies. Stevenson suggests: “This focus on the Altar expresses the understanding that societal and cosmic well-being needs more than the presence of YHWH, there is also need for a means of cleansing the society and the cosmos from the effects of impurity” D. L. Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40-48, (SBLDS 154; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996),40-41Slide 15: which is analogous with the measuring of worshipers as the Apocalypse concludes with an eschatological city-temple, the “New Jerusalem” in which the absence of a temple structure is conspicuous - “But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple”. (Rev 21:22) Despite prolific Temple imagery/liturgy occurring in the Apocalypse the impact has been marginal on interpretive approaches and the topos is barely noted in commentaries. Recently this neglect has been addressed (1997/1999) by studies from Brigg [ 1] and Spatafora (s),  who investigate the use of Temple imagery in apocryphal and OT sources and the subsequent development of the Temple theme in the Apocalypse. The common feature shared by these recent works is recognition of the importance of temple imagery/liturgy in the Apocalypse, particularly the importance of the Day of Atonement, a feature also noted by [ 1] Robert A. Brigg, Jewish Temple Imagery in the Book of Revelation, (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol 10: Peter Lang Publishing,1999)  Spatafora (s) observes that, “All other studies and commentaries appear to analyse the individual recurrences, but they fail to see a relationship between them”. Andrew Spatafora and Andrea Spatafora , From the ‘Temple of God’ to God as the Temple: A Biblical Theological Study of the Temple in the Book of Revelation,( Pontificia Univ. Gregoriana:Italy,1997),7-9 H. A. Whittaker. [3 ] Therefore, Daniel, the Gospels and especially Revelation are umbilically linked by temple thematic – they all long for the restoration of true worship which encompasses the renewal of creation, the cleansing from impurity and the dwelling of Yahweh amongst his people. [3 ] H.A. Whittaker, Revelation: A Biblical Approach, (Lichfield: Staffs, 1973), 104-5 You do not have the permission to view this presentation. In order to view it, please contact the author of the presentation.