Critique of Timothy J Dailey’s The Gathering Storm16 Οκτωβρίου, 2022
At home in his topic’s habitat, History-Geography Professor and author Dailey makes his home in Bethlehem, Israel; he attempts to correlate modern expectations with his perception of first century fulfillment! Thus, he commends Revelation’s great Armageddon to a ‘future world end.’
Dr. Dailey recounts his experience as a West Bank Christian living amidst Jewish and Islamic neighbors and mightily stretches to write an apologetic for Islam devotees. At the same time, he illuminates Islam’s quest for world evangelism. Additionally, walking a tightrope between prophecy praise and condemnation, the Doctor’s precarious course tilts toward desire as he attempts to balance biblically exampled ‘propositional truths’ with futurist ‘end time’ projections; from which extractions he evinces traditional applause but without syllogistic credence.
In preface, Dailey confirms his academic prejudice early on; where, he conforms his own supernatural leanings to traditional renderings but bereft symbols and numbers recourse; thus, he applies a narrow viewpoint toward world end. Including his wife, Rebecca, as insightful prognosticator, Dailey establishes early on: “As Christians living and working in Israel, we ‘knew well’ the prophecies of the Bible regarding the battle of Armageddon at the close of human history… Who really are Gog, Magog and company?… what can we know about the mysterious figure known as the Antichrist?“
Certainly, to ‘know well’ or to ‘know incontrovertibly’ are entirely different intellectual accomplishments! To ‘know well’ is to know tradition; but ‘knowing incontrovertibly’ is to know truth. There is a great difference.
Futuristically, we cannot ignore the Bible theme’s pointedly reference toward a generational event, pending and at hand; which book does not forecast ‘end of the world or end of human history (end of time)’ but rather end of the Age (time to the end). Notwithstanding, as we address questions raised in preface, Gog/Magog and company cannot be associated as confederate armies but differentiated, as Gog from Magog, thus properly conformed as principal and principality. We paraphrase the author’s question: ‘What can we know about the mysterious figure, the Antichrist?’ Surely, many Antichrists were present in first century ambiance via I John 2:18, circa A.D. 60. As a history professor, it should present no great task to the author to identify those forces at work in A.D. 60 environs. To correlate first century Antichrist(s) as a future but singular entity might border on eschatological naiveté!
Regarding the enemies of organized religion, which terrorist philosophy condemns even peaceful infidels, Dailey admits the ambition practically confines himself and wife to house arrest, along with their pseudo-friendly Muslims. Coexistence alarms the shabiba (younger set), and they become increasingly incensed, proving efficacy of Mohammed’s philosophy: punish Muslim citizenry enough and they will capitulate-and will serve the terrorists to thus insure their own and family survival.
We can treat monotheism as an honorable institution, only up to a point, and by judging conformance via idealized ethics and ethos. All three monotheisms inhere ideological par: that is; each was established to benefit one and disenfranchise another. Islam, the most militant, mandates a continuous jihad to effect world conquest. Yet, in the USA, evidently, radical leftists defend Islam’s first amendment rights to incite our own destruction! Political sycophants also busily abet Islam’s cause – not unlike the servility exhibited in more lenient writings.
Much in politics, religion, and literature earns little or no commendation and policy comes to fruition strictly as a commercial enterprise. Yet, confirmed by syllogistic conclusions, some exegetical results are worthy of investigation. Such hard-won conclusions are available to those with the need to know.