Political Theology in the Book of Daniel: An Internal Debate

Abstract

Because the book of Daniel developed over a period of nearly four hundred years, it is not surprising that it contains some divergent perspectives. Historical and redaction criticism have allowed scholars to identify different layers of the text and their historical contexts. This critical work, however, has exposed theological differences in the book and presented readers with hermeneutical challenges. In particular, the theological perspectives on the nature of gentile kingship vary significantly. In several narratives in the book of Daniel, the king humbly confesses the sovereignty of the God of the Jews, acknowledging that he rules by the will of God. Other parts of the book depict the gentile king as being part of God's plan, but a part that will ultimately be destroyed as incompatible with divine sovereignty. The final chapters of the book contain the most negative view of gentile kingship, finding it to be monstrous and utterly evil. Although one can understand the different perspectives based on particular historical circumstances, a more fruitful hermeneutical approach is to read the different perspectives in Daniel as a never-fully-resolved conversation about the good or evil nature of political power, a conversation that continues to this day.