DANIEL STUDY

[Truth7t7]

You are right of course, but there are many who are not so far along in their bible knowledge. Is is not better to pander to the needs of the lowest element?

Will you continue to teach Rome is the 7 hilled city, when scripture clearly teaches its Jerusalem as seen in post #38?

Will you continue to teach that Emperor Domitian 81-96AD is the Little Horn seen in Daniel 7:8-11, when scripture before your eyes show this Little Horn will be present to witness the second coming, final judgement, and lake of fire a (Future Event)?

As is clearly taught in scripture, Daniel's (Little Horn) and John's (The Beast) are the same future human man speaking blasphemy, that will be alive at the second coming and final judgement, and thrown into the Lake of Fire?

Daniel 7:8-11KJV
8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Revelation 19:20KJV
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

 

[oldhermit]

Will you continue to teach Rome is the 7 hilled city, when scripture clearly teaches its Jerusalem as seen in post #38?

Will you continue to teach that Emperor Domitian 81-96AD is the Little Horn seen in Daniel 7:8-11, when scripture before your eyes show this Little Horn will be present to witness the second coming, final judgement, and lake of fire a (Future Event)?

As is clearly taught in scripture, Daniel's (Little Horn) and John's (The Beast) are the same future human man speaking blasphemy, that will be alive at the second coming and final judgement, and thrown into the Lake of Fire?

Daniel 7:8-11KJV
8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Revelation 19:20KJV
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

In a word, yes. But you will have to follow along to see why.

 

[oldhermit]

Will you continue to teach Rome is the 7 hilled city, when scripture clearly teaches its Jerusalem as seen in post #38?

Will you continue to teach that Emperor Domitian 81-96AD is the Little Horn seen in Daniel 7:8-11, when scripture before your eyes show this Little Horn will be present to witness the second coming, final judgement, and lake of fire a (Future Event)?

Do you believe the fourth beast with the ten horns of Dan 7 is the empire of Rome?

 

[oldhermit]

CHAPTER EIGHT
The Vision of the Ram and the Goat

I. The Setting for the Vision, 1-2
“In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me—to me, Daniel—after the one that appeared to me the first time. I saw in the vision, and it so happened while I was looking, that I was in Shushan, the citadel, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw the vision that I was by the River Ulai.”

A. Time of the vision – In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar.
B. Place of the vision – “Shushan, the citadel, which is in the province of Elam.”

In fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy against Elam in Jeremiah 49:34, the province of Elam had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar and was still under Babylonian rule when Daniel saw this vision. Daniel says he was “by the river Ulai” at Shushan, which was the capitol of Elam. The verse seems somewhat awkward because it is unclear from the construction whether Daniel was actually at this location when he saw the vision or if he only saw himself at this location in the vision. This is really of no importance because it lends nothing to the understanding of the vision either way.

Let’s got to verses 13-20 because I want us to first see the meaning of the symbols and their historical context.

II. Revealed Meaning of Symbols and their Historical Context, 13-20
“Then it happened, when I, Daniel, had seen the vision and was seeking the meaning, that suddenly there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai, who called, and said, ‘Gabriel, make this man understand the vision.’ So, he came near where I stood, and when he came, I was afraid and fell on my face; But he said to me, ‘Understand, son of man, that the vision refers to the time of the end (not the end of time.).’”

“Now, as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep with my face to the ground; but he touched me, and stood me upright. And he said, ‘Look, I am making known to you what shall happen in the latter time of the indignation; (What he does not show Daniel is the meaning of those things that were to happen. We will cover this point at the end of the chapter.) for at the appointed time the end shall be. The ram which you saw, having the two horns—they are the kings of Media and Persia.”

Once again, revealed meaning is supplied to the symbols of the vision, this time by the angel Gabriel. The vision is target specific as defined by Gabriel. The vision concerns ONLY the empires of Medo-Persia and Greece, but involves the Jewish people. As with all of Ezekiel’s and Daniel’s visions, there are no dual fulfilments. The claim of dual fulfillment is a ploy by some to assign unrevealed meaning to these revealed symbols. We do not have the right to do this.

A. Temporal parameters are established for the fulfilment of the vision. The vision refers to “the time of the end,” “many days in the future,” (the future of the two empires of this vision) and “the latter time of the indignation.” The characters of the vision and their respective places in history give definition to “the end,” “the time of the end,” and “the latter time of the indignation.” This provides a historical context. The end of which Gabriel speaks would be the end of a specific time of indignation, not the end of time, not to the second coming of Christ, nor to some set of pre-millennial geopolitical conditions as some millennial or dispensational theorists suggest.

B. Absolute meaning of the ram.

1. The two-horned ram
In verse 20, Gabriel informs us who these figures represent. “The ram which you saw, having the two horns—they are the kings of Media and Persia.” Absolute meaning is here decreed. The identity of the ram can have no other meaning, no other application, nor can it define any other time line.

2. To explain the two horns of the ram, here is a bit of history on how the Medo-Persian alliance began.

“The empire of the ram was formed by the conjunction of the Medes and the Persians. Cyrus [the Great] was the founder of this empire. [But what placed Cyrus on both the throne of Medea and Persia was the fact that] he was the son of Cambyses, king of Persia and his mother Mandane [who was princess of Media which made] Cyrus [the] grandson of Astyages, king of Media; and after marrying the daughter of his uncle Cyaxares, king of Media, he [effectively] succeeded to both crowns, and united the two kingdoms of Media and Persia [into one kingdom]. This is why the ram is described as having two horns.” (Benson)

3. Daniel noticed that, one horn was “higher than the other, and the higher one came up last.”

“The kingdom of Media was the more ancient of the two. Persia [had been] of little note… until the time of Cyrus; but under him, the Persians rose to prominence. A ram’s head with one horn higher than the other was the royal ensign of the Persians, and is still to be seen on [archaeological remains].” (Benson)

4. In verse four, Daniel saw the tri-directional expansion of the Medo-Persian empire.

“Under Cyrus himself, the Persians pushed their conquests westward, as far as the Ægean sea, subduing Babylonia, Syria, and Asia Minor; and under his successors, Darius and Xerxes, extended them to part of Greece. Northward, they subdued the Lydians, Iberians, Albanians, Armenians, Cappadocians, and the adjacent countries. Southward, they conquered Arabia, Egypt, and Ethiopia, if not under Cyrus [himself, then] most certainly under [his] son, Cambyses, …. (Under Darius they subdued India; but in the prophecy, no mention is made of their conquests in the East, because those countries lay very remote from the Jews, and were of little concern or consequence to them.)” (Benson)

The Medo-Persian power is represented as coming from the east just as Isaiah 41:2 prophesied. “Who raised up one from the east? Who in righteousness called him to His feet? Who gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings? Who gave them as the dust to his sword, as driven stubble to his bow?” (See also Isaiah 46:11.)

 

[oldhermit]

C. Absolute meaning of the goat and its horns, 21-26
“And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. As for the broken horn and the four that stood up in its place, four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their fullness, a king shall arise, having fierce features, who understands sinister schemes. His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; He shall destroy fearfully, and shall prosper and thrive; He shall destroy the mighty, and also the holy people. Through his cunning he shall cause deceit to prosper under his rule; And he shall exalt himself in his heart. He shall destroy many in their prosperity. He shall even rise against the Prince of princes; But he shall be broken without human means. And the vision of the evenings and mornings which was told is true; Therefore, seal up the vision, for it refers to many days in the future.”

Gabriel says in verse 21 that “The male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king” of the Grecian Empire. The four horns that came up are “four kingdoms” that arise out of the goat.

Bishop Newton – from Benson
Historically, “The goat [quite fittingly represents] the Grecian or Macedonian empire because at first, about two hundred years before Daniel, the Macedonians were [called the] Ægeadæ, or the goats’ people. [According to historical tradition], Caranus, first king [of the Macedonians was] going with a great multitude of Greeks to seek new habitation in Macedonia [and] was commanded by the oracle to take the goats for his guides…. Afterward, seeing a herd of goats fleeing from a violent storm, he followed them to Edessa, and there fixed the seat of his empire. [He then] made the goats his… standard [or symbol], and called the city Ægeæ, or The Goats’ Town, and the people Ægeadæ, or, The goats’ people. [It may also be noted] that the city Ægeæ… was the usual burying-place of the Macedonian kings.

Again, absolute meaning is decreed by Gabriel. Thus, the male goat, the large horn, and the four horns can have no other meaning, no other application, nor can they define any other time line than that which has been assigned by the divinely appointed spokesman in this vision. Now, let us go back to verse three and examine Daniel’s vision.

III. The Vision of the Two-horned Ram, 3-4
“Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and there, standing beside the river, was a ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward, so that no animal could withstand him; nor was there any that could deliver from his hand, but he did according to his will and became great.”

A. Since horns in Daniel’s visions, (and elsewhere in scripture as well) represent earthly powers, the ram is seen boasting two seats of power, 3.

1. “And the two horns were high.” This speaks to the immensity of their power. Both horns were very powerful, but…

2. “One was higher than the other;” In other words, one was more prominent, more powerful than the other.

3. “And the higher came up last.” This relates to the order of time. Greater preeminence was given to the horn that came up last.

B. The military conquest of the ram, 4.
“I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward, so that no animal could withstand him; nor was there any that could deliver from his hand, but he did according to his will and became great.”

The Ram conquered in three directions and no one was powerful enough to withstand the Ram. Everything else fell before it.

IV. The Vision of the Goat, 5-7
“And as I was considering, suddenly a male goat came from the west, across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. Then he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing beside the river, and ran at him with furious power. And I saw him confronting the ram; he was moved with rage against him, attacked the ram, and broke his two horns. There was no power in the ram to withstand him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled him; and there was no one that could deliver the ram from his hand.”

This power from the west, who is defined in the text as Greece, is represented as a male goat with a single horn between its eyes, verse 5. This horn – Greece, is represented as even more powerful than the combined strength of the two horns of the Ram – Medo-Persia.
This he-goat came from the west. He came “across the surface of the whole earth,” carrying everything before him in all the three parts of the known world; “without touching the ground” [as it were]. His marches were so swift, and his conquests so rapid, that he might be said…, to fly over the ground without touching it. For the same reason, the same empire, in the vision [of chapter seven is represented as a] leopard… with four wings. (Benson)

A. Despite the strength of the horn of Greece however, it would eventually be broken off, 8-9.

“Therefore, the male goat grew very great; but when he became strong, the large horn was broken, and in place of it four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land.” [Palestine]

1. The Grecian empire had developed to its full measure of strength before the horn was broken.

2. Now, the horn was broken. Alexander the Great, the first king of Greece, is dead.

3. Four other horns would eventually come up in his place.
When Alexander the Great died, he was succeeded by his brother Philip Aridæus, and [also] by his own two sons; but in the space of about fifteen years they were all murdered, and the kingdom, was entirely broken. (Benson).

After this, the empire was divided between four of Alexander’s generals. These were the four notable horns that came up in the place of the one. These are the four heads of the leopard in the chapter 7. These four rulers divided the empire “toward the four winds of heaven,” verse 8. In other words, in all four directions.

a. Lysimachus took Thrace and much of Asia Minor.

b. Cassander controlled Macedonia and Greece.

c. Ptolemy I ruled Egypt, Palestine, Cilicia, Petra, and Cyprus and founded the Ptolemaic Dynasty which lasted until the death of Cleopatra VII in 30 BC.

d. Seleucus I ruled the remainder of Asia and founded the great Seleucid Empire which also comprised Mesopotamia, Persia, and part of India. Verse 24 says that “four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power.” The goat would never again enjoy the power it had under its first king.

 

[oldhermit]

B. The rise of the little horn, 9
Out of one of these four horns, one who is described in verse nine as ‘a little horn’ would emerge and become greater than the other three. This little horn would be Antiochus IV or Antiochus Epiphanes, or as the Jews called him, Antiochus Epimanes – the mad man.

What I want to do here is skip down to verses 23-25 to set the stage for the historical context of Antiochus. In verses 23-25, Daniel is told…

“And in the latter time of their kingdom, (the divided Grecian Empire after the death of Alexander the Great) when the transgressors have reached their fullness, a king shall arise, (Antiochus IV, the little horn) having fierce features, who understands sinister schemes. His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power (this power was granted him from above); He shall destroy fearfully, and shall prosper and thrive; He shall destroy the mighty, and also the holy people.” (The Jews)

“Through his cunning he shall cause deceit to prosper under his rule; And he shall exalt himself in his heart. He shall destroy many in their prosperity. He shall even rise against the Prince of princes (The Almighty, possibly the priesthood, perhaps both); But he shall be broken without human means.”

In other words. Antiochus was not murdered, he was not killed in battle, nor was he slain in the Maccabean revolt. While Antiochus was reportedly in Tabae in Persia, he died suddenly and mysteriously, of an unknown malady. (There is some disagreement among scholars as to whether Antiochus died in Persia or in Babylon.)

1. Verse nine says concerning this ‘little horn’, that “…it grew up to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them.” This is very picturesque language and is certainly not to be taken as literal.

a. The host of heaven seems to refer here to the Jewish priesthood. The word for host here is the same word applied to the Levites who served the sanctuary in Numbers 4:23. The fact that the little horn only “cast down some of the host,” tells us that he did not destroy the Levites altogether; but he did replace the rightful high priest.

b. Metaphorically, stars represent those of high office. Stars are sometimes used in scripture to indicate rulers of the people as in Isaiah 24:21. In Revelation 1:20 stars are used to refer to the leaders of the seven Churches of Asia Minor. The stars being thrown to the ground depicts rulers being removed from their respective positions of authority. The literal stars of the heavens do not literally fall to the earth and men do not literally trample them under their feet. This is symbolic language that we often see in scripture to represent the overthrow of earthly powers.

2. Verse eleven says that the little horn would “exalt himself as high as the Prince of the host; and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down.”

Antiochus IV would not only usurp the priesthood by having Onias III killed, but would also put an end to the services of the temple by taking away the evening and morning sacrifices. In other words, he stopped the offering of the Continual Burnt Offerings (and all other legitimate offerings as well, but what is being focused on is the Continual Burnt Offerings). All Jews were forbidden to worship Jehovah under pain of death.

3. Verse 12, “Because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifice, and he cast truth down to the ground. He did all this and prospered.”

a. The meaning here does not seem to be very clear. It is unclear if all of this was brought upon the Jews because of Jewish transgression. It may also be that “Because of sin” refers more to the sin of defiling the sacrifices by Antiochus. The Pulpit Commentary says that this perhaps may be more properly rendered, “And transgression was upon the sacrifice.”

Personally, I believe it is in response to the corruption of the priesthood of those days because Antiochus IV removed Onias III, who was by all accounts a just and pious man and the rightful high priest. He then placed Jason as high priest in 175 BC who was a corrupt man who purchased the priesthood from Antiochus with the promise of the temple treasury. (This was all a scheme by Jason to plunder the temple treasury). Then, in 172-171 BC, Antiochus became angry with Jason, and displaced him with Jason's younger brother Menelaus.

Also, Antiochus defiled the altar of God by offering pagan sacrifices and even set up an idol in the temple demanding the Jews offer sacrifices to the Greek gods. Thus, fulfilling the “transgression of desolation” of verse 13. All of this was an attempt by Antiochus to fully Hellenize all those conquered by Greece, not just the Jews.

b. 1 Maccabees 33:36 informs us that Antiochus even built a citadel in the city of David, and placed a garrison of soldiers there, to prevent the Jews from offering the morning and evening sacrifices at the temple. Thus, “an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifice.”

c. Casting truth to the ground is a picture of the Law of God being thrown into the dirt as it were. In all of this, Antiochus prospered because the Almighty permitted him to.

4. How long was this “transgression of desolation” to be tolerated? 13-14
“Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, ‘How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot?’ (The question does not come from Daniel but from another holy one.) And he said to me, ‘For two thousand three hundred days; then, the sanctuary shall be cleansed.’”

“Two thousand three hundred days.” Approximately, six years and four months. What the Hebrew literally says is “two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings.”

The 2300 days are literal days, not years as millennial theorists insist. Theorists attempt to appeal to the day/year principle of prophetic interpretation so that they can draw out the prophesy of Daniel 9 to a time yet future. The problem is that the speaker did not say 2300 days but 2300 evenings and mornings. This answers the question of how much time would transpire beginning with the taking away of the daily sacrifices, to when the temple would be cleansed.

This reveals how the Hebrew conceived of a day. This standard of measuring a day was set forth in the very beginning of creation, and this was how the Jews continued to measure a day. This is also in keeping with the context of the evening and morning sacrifices that were taken away. So, the question is this; how do these 2300 days fit into the timeline of Antiochus’ defilement of the sanctuary and the prohibition of sacrifice?

Verse 13 says that the 2300 days began when Antiochus IV first took away the daily sacrifice. He also defiled the temple with pagan sacrifices, and set up an idol in the temple of God. It extended from there to cover the period of severe persecution of the Jews by Antiochus. All of these events ran from 171 BC when Antiochus seized the city of Jerusalem and desecrated the temple and plundered the temple treasury to the time when Judah, the son of Mattathias (Maccabean) restored and cleansed the temple in 165 BC, thus ending the “transgression of desolation.”

One point that millennial theorists seem to ignore is the fact that verse 14 tells us that all of this would take place when the second temple was still in use during the time of the Grecian Empire.

 

[oldhermit]

IV. Instructions concerning the Vision, 26-27
“And the vision of the evenings and mornings which was told is true; Therefore, seal up the vision for it refers to many days in the future. And I, Daniel, fainted and was sick for days; Afterward, I arose and went about the king’s business. I was astonished by the vision, but no one understood it.”

The word for “seal up,” (satham) carries the idea of keeping something secret. It also carries the idea of completion. In other words, the prophesy is closed up. No one can add anything to it or take anything from it.

Sealing up the vision is the preservation of the mystery and the meaning of the vision, not the vision itself. These were things that were not to be understood by Daniel or anyone else until the time of their fulfilment was at hand. It does not mean the vision was to be kept a secret, only that the meaning would remain a mystery until the proper time. Paul discussed this very thing in Ephesians 2:1-6 “For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles—if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.”

Daniel was not instructed to keep the vision a secret, he was merely restricted from understanding its meaning. As we learn in verse 27, Daniel did relay this vision to others, “but no one understood it.” We will look at this again in later chapters of Daniel and compare that command to the one given to John in Revelation 22:10 were John is told, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.” What Daniel was told to do was “seal up the vision for it refers to many days in the future.” What will be hidden to Daniel in later chapters concerning times and events that even further in the future from Daniel’s time, would be more fully explained in Revelation as the fulfilment of those things was being realized in the time of John, thus, John is told, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.”

 

[Nehemiah6]

Daniel did relay this vision to others, “but no one understood it.”

But after the coming of Christ, Jesus said "whoso readeth let him understand" or "let the reader understand" (Mt 24:15). We now know how the prophecies of Daniel are connected to the book of Revelation and other NT prophecies regarding the Antichrist.

 

[oldhermit]

II. The Seventy-Weeks Prophecy, 20-27
“Now while I was speaking, praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God, yes, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, reached me about the time of the evening offering. And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, “O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you skill to understand. At the beginning of your supplications the command went out, and I have come to tell you, you are greatly beloved; therefore, consider the matter, and understand the vision:”

“Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.”

A. Seventy weeks “are determined.”
Not 70 weeks but seventy sevens, or 70 Sabbath years, or 70 x 7 years; thus, 490 years.

1. The 490 years were to concern “your people and… your holy city.”

2. Israel only had 490 years until Messiah. The mission of the Messiah would be…

a. To reconcile the sin problem.
“To finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness.”

b. He would fulfill the Law and the prophets. He would ‘seal up vision and prophecy.”
This is not the same word used in 8:24 when Daniel is told to “seal up vision and prophesy.” The word here carries the idea of ratification. The completion of the mission of Messiah would mark the fulfillment of all vision and prophesy of the ages that spoke of the coming of Messiah. This is what Jesus confirmed to the two men on the road to Emmaus in Like 24:44-49. “Then He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’ And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.’”

c. “And to anoint the Most Holy.” This would be the anointing of the King. This would be the end result of the fulfillment of his mission. This is the coronation scene of Daniel 7, Philippians 2, Hebrews 1; the end result of which is Revelation 4 where we see Jesus seated on the throne of heaven.

B. The time element is defined and limited, 25-26.
“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;”

The seventy weeks are laid out in three divisions – 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week all amounting to 483 years.
1. The “seven weeks” was the period of 49 years that would be for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, her streets, and the temple. As the text informs us, the seven weeks began from the time the command was given by Cyrus in 538 BC to rebuild the city and the temple which is recorded in Ezra 1.

2. The “sixty-two weeks” is counted from the end of the 49 weeks to the coming of the Messiah. After the 62 weeks, Messiah would be “cut off.” So, 434 and ½ years after the end of the 49 years, Jesus would be crucified. Thus, he was cut off during the 70th week. In fact, verse 27 tells us precisely when in the 70th week he would be cut off.

3. “And have nothing,” is a better rendering than “not for Himself” in the KJV. This seems to refer to the fact that he would have no descendants which fulfilled the prophesy of Isaiah 53:8 concerning the Messiah. “He was taken from prison and from judgment, and who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people, He was stricken.”

C. Symbols of the Old Covenant will be destroyed, 26-27.
“And the people (The Roman legions) of the prince who is to come (Vespasian / Titus) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war, desolations are determined.” (Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed.)

“He (Messiah) shall confirm a covenant with many (The new covenant which would include both Jews and Gentiles) for one week; (the completion of the one week would mark the fulfilment of that covenant.) But in the middle of the week, He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering (The crucifixion nullified all sacrifices of the old covenant – both bloody and non-bloody). And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate (Vespasian / Titus), even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.” (The Jews)

1. Jesus confirmed his covenant, the New Covenant, for one week. In the middle of the week (3 ½ years into his ministry) he was “cut off” thus, putting an end to the sacrifices and offerings of the old covenant. The Jews would still continue in vain to offer sacrifices that had been rendered null and void by the crucifixion of Christ for another 40 years until the destruction of the temple. It would still be another 3 ½ years from the crucifixion until the completion of the covenant week when the Samaritans and the Gentiles were brought in with the conversion of the Samaritans and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8. The covenant is now fulfilled.

2. In Matthew 24:15-16, Jesus applies the Daniel 9:27 and the “abomination of desolation” to the impending destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, an event that would be witnessed by that generation. He warns them, “Therefore, when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.” This is a reference to the “abomination of desolation” of Daniel 9, not that of Daniel 12. The “abomination of desolation” of which Jesus spoke would be the standards of the Roman army that would be placed in the “holy place.” When that generation saw the Roman army coming to surround Jerusalem, they were to flee to the mountains in order to escape the judgment that God was sending upon Jerusalem.

 

[oldhermit]

CHAPTER TEN

The last three chapters of Daniel will be treated as a single unit. Chapter ten is really little more than an introduction to chapters eleven and twelve so, I would prefer not to spend a great deal of time here. There are however, a few things I would like to look at before moving on.
I. In Chapter Ten, We Have Daniel's Encounter with the Heavenly Messenger at the Tigris River.

A. In verse one, we are provided another temporal indicator, 1
“In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, a message was revealed to Daniel, who was called Belteshazzar. The message was true, and it concerned a great conflict. And the understanding of the message was given to him in a vision.”

It is now the third year of Cyrus' rule over the Babylonian Empire and the first wave of Jews have returned to their cities and have begun to rebuild the temple. Daniel is now about ninety years old or close to it, depending on how old Daniel was when he was taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar.

B. In verses two and three, we are given the occasion for this encounter – Daniel is in mourning, 2
“In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three full weeks. I ate no rich food, no meat or wine entered my mouth, and I did not anoint myself with oil until the three weeks were completed.”

1. As is indicated from verses 12-14, the occasion for Daniel’s mourning and fasting was motivated by an overwhelming desire to understand the visions.

2. What we know about fasting as a Jewish custom is that there were two types. In this instance, Daniel had not engaged himself in the total abstinence of food or drink. That is the type of fasting that often accompanies times of great personal anguish (as in the case of David in the death of his infant son). That type of fasting was usually total but short-term abstinence. The type of fasting that was of longer duration was not a total abstinence of food but an abstinence of pleasant foods and drink. Daniel said he “ate no rich food, no meat or wine.” This suggests a diet of bread and vegetables.

I wander, when was the last time any of us denied ourselves in such a way in order to ponder long and deeply over the meaning of something in the word of God? When was the last time we become so consumed by our desire to understand something in scripture that food became nothing more than a distraction and an intrusion upon our concentration on the word of God? It is certainly clear from our text that God responds favorably to this kind of devotion and humility.

C. In verses 4-10, Daniel is again visited by the heavenly messenger.

1. His appearance, 4-6
“On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris, I lifted up my eyes, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. His body was like beryl, his face like the brilliance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of polished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.”

The appearance of this messenger is very much like that of Jesus as described by John in Revelation 1:13-15. “And in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters.”

The heavenly messenger of chapter ten is most certainly the angel Gabriel because in 11:1, the messenger says, “And I, in the first year of Darius the Mede, stood up to strengthen and protect him.” This would cover the period of chapter nine where Gabriel explained to Daniel the 70 weeks in the first year of Darius.

2. This experience proved to be a sensory overload for everyone present, including Daniel, 7-11.

a. To those in Daniel’s company.
“Only I, Daniel, saw the vision; the men with me did not see it, but a great terror fell upon them, and they ran and hid themselves.”

b. To Daniel
“So, I was left alone, gazing at this great vision. No strength remained in me; my face grew deathly pale, and I was powerless. I heard the sound of his words, and as I listened, I fell into a deep sleep, with my face to the ground. Suddenly, a hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. He said to me, ‘Daniel, you are a man who is highly precious. Consider carefully the words that I am about to say to you. Stand up, for I have now been sent to you.’ And when he had said this to me, I stood up trembling.”

 

[oldhermit]

D. The presence of this messenger was in response to Daniel’s desire to understand the meaning of the visions he had been given, 12-14.
“Do not be afraid, Daniel,' he said, ‘for from the first day that you purposed to understand and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them.”

1. This explains the reason for Daniel’s mourning and fasting. The visions Daniel had been shown over the years weighed heavily on his mind and it seems he had been overwhelmed with a desire to understand the meaning of what he had been shown (7:28 and 8:27). The appearance of the messenger was in response to Daniel’s desire to understand. “From the first day that you purposed to understand and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them.”

2. The messenger was dispatched to respond to Daniel from the very first day he began his mourning and fasting but was delayed for 21 days by the prince of Persia.

“However, the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me for twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia. Now, I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision concerns those days.”

The “prince of the kingdom of Persia” of whom the heavenly messenger speaks was not Cyrus nor any other earthly monarch. It was not Cyrus who was so powerful that he held Gabriel at bay for 21 days. This “Prince” was some powerful entity from beyond this world. One of the things we learn from this text is that the nations of the earth are nothing more than pawns in the hands of unseen spiritual powers, both good and evil. Without the aid of revelation, this is not something we would ever know.

We know from scripture that nations and political agendas are influenced by demons in the spiritual realm just as they are by the Almighty. The messenger tells us that the kingdom of Persia had a champion, a prince from the unseen world, and that his opposition to the will of God concerning Daniel was indeed formidable; so much so, that this messenger said that this prince of Persia had opposed him for 21 days, and to such a degree that he had to be assisted by Michael so he could attend to Daniel’s needs. The motive of this Prince of Persia seems to have been that, for whatever reason, he did not want Daniel to understand the meaning of the visions.

So, not only did the kingdom of Persia have its prince from the other world, but so did Israel in Michael. Paul informs us in Ephesians 6:12 of the reality of such unseen opposition. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (KJV) There is a war going on in the unseen realm for control over the nations and the souls of men.

When we see things unfold in the nations of the world, including our own, we should not make the mistake of thinking that politicians are the ones who are moving the course of human events. There are both evil and divine influences at work in all of this; and what we learn from scripture is that all things are made to serve the will of God, even the enemies of God. In 1 Thessalonian 2:17-18, Paul told the Christians at Thessalonica “we wanted to come to you—even I, Paul, time and again—but Satan hindered us.”

When you feel your prayers sometimes go unanswered, just remember that it took this messenger 21 days to respond to Daniel because of resistance from evil sources in the unseen realm. Sometimes, our prayers may be hindered in the same way.

E. Daniel is strengthened, 15-19
“While he was speaking these words to me, I set my face toward the ground and became speechless. And suddenly one with the likeness of a man touched my lips, and I opened my mouth and said to the one standing before me, ‘My lord, because of the vision, I am overcome with anguish, and I have no strength. How can I, your servant, speak with you, my lord? Now I have no strength, nor is any breath left in me.’”

“Again, the one with the likeness of a man touched me and strengthened me. ‘Do not be afraid, you who are highly precious,” he said. ‘Peace be with you! Be strong now, be very strong!’ As he spoke with me, I was strengthened and said, ‘Speak, my lord, for you have strengthened me.’”

F. The struggle with the “prince of the kingdom of Persia” was still being waged, 20-21.
“’Do you know why I have come to you?’ he said. ‘I must return at once to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I have gone forth, behold, the prince of Greece will come. But first, I will tell you what is inscribed in the Book of Truth. Yet, no one has the courage to support me against these, except Michael your prince.”

Apparently, the conflict was still in full vigor and would continue until the prince of Greece was to come. The language of verse 20 sort of gives the impression that these events were to soon take place, that all of this was to happen very quickly, but in fact, Persia would continue to rule for yet another 200 years before the prince of Greece, Alexander the Great, would come against Persia.

 

[Truth7t7]

Do you believe the fourth beast with the ten horns of Dan 7 is the empire of Rome?

I would see the fourth best as Israel/Jerusalem because the Little Horn comes from amongst them, Israel/Jerusalem that sits upon 7 mountains, not Rome.

As previously explained, Daniel's (Little Horn) is John's (The Beast) that will be alive to witness the second coming, final judgement, and be slain, thrown into the lake of fire, as "Clearly" seen in Daniel 7:9-11 below.

Daniel 7:11 (The Beast Was Slain, And His Body Destroyed, And Given To The Burning Flame)

Emperor Domitian 81-96AD died long ago, the event of Daniel 7:11 is (Futute) at (The Lords Second Coming) in fire and Final judgement.

Daniel 7:7-11KJV
7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

Revelation 19:20, is the same event of Daniel 7:11 above

Revelation 19:20KJV
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

 

[Truth7t7]

II. The Seventy-Weeks Prophecy, 20-27

A. Seventy weeks “are determined.”
Not 70 weeks but seventy sevens, or 70 Sabbath years, or 70 x 7 years; thus, 490 years.

I Disagree With Your Claim Of Daniels 70 Weeks Being 490 Years.

Daniel 9:24-27, Seventy Literal Weeks Explained?

Daniel's 70 weeks are literal 7 day periods, or 490 literal days.

If Daniel meant 490 years he would have written

(Four hundred and ninety years), simple

Daniel had no restrictions in "Writing" exact numerology as seen below.

Daniel 6:1KJV
It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom;

Daniel 8:14KJV
And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Daniel 12:11KJV
And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Below in Daniel 10:2-3 we see just another example of Daniel's literal weeks, as Daniel mourned and fasted for 3 literal weeks or 21 days.

Daniel 10:2-3KJV
2 In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks.
3 I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.

Below in Daniel 9:24-27 we see 70 literal future weeks or 490 days.

When the call/commandment goes out in Jerusalem to build unto the Jewish Meshiach/Messiah that they wait for (They Denied Jesus Christ) this will start the 7 week period.

62 literal weeks will be in building, and Meshiach/Messiah will be cut off by the Antichrist who stops the building.

The 70th literal week will see the antichrist revealed in making a covenant, and in the middle of this literal week he proclaims to be Meshiach/Messiah God to the Jews, and Jesus returned to the apostate church, to start a Millennium on earth.

The 3.5 year tribulation starts

Daniel 9:24-27KJV
24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

[Truth7t7]

C. Symbols of the Old Covenant will be destroyed, 26-27.
“And the people (The Roman legions) of the prince who is to come (Vespasian / Titus) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war, desolations are determined.” (Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed.)

I disagree that Vespasian/Titus fulfilled the time of Daniel's Abomination of Desolation below in 9:26, a (Preterist) interpretation.

As is clearly seen in Daniel 9:27 the (Little Horn) of Daniel 7:9-11 that is John's (The Beast) will be present upon earth to the (Consummation) "The End"!

Daniel 7:9-11 below shows this (Consummation) in the Lords second coming in fire and Final judgement (The End), same bad guy (Little Horn) (The Beast) seen in Daniel 9:27 below

Daniel 9:26-27KJV
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

(The Consummation, The End)

Daniel 7:9-11KJV
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

 

[oldhermit]

CHAPTER ELEVEN

The chapter break here is most unfortunate. Chapters ten through twelve should be read as a complete, unbroken discourse. There is no break in the conversation between the end of chapter ten and the end of chapter twelve. 11:1 belongs as part of 10:21which establishes the context.

I. Gabriel and Michael 1
“Yet, no one has the courage to support me against these, except Michael your prince.” 10:21

11:1 “Yet there is no one who stands firmly with me against these forces except Michael your prince.” (NAS) And I (Gabriel), in the first year of Darius the Mede, stood up to strengthen and protect him.” (Michael)

Could this imply that there was fear among the heavenly hosts in the face of such opposition in the unseen realm, and that only Gabriel and Michael were strong enough to stand against such opposition??? An interesting statement this. This just serves to reinforce the fact that we simply have no idea as to what goes on in the unseen world.

The antecedent of “him” is not Darius but Michael from 10:21. God moved Darius to return the Jews to their own land, and it is clear from chapter ten that opposition to the will of God in this matter came not from Darius, but from the demonic world via the “prince of the kingdom of Persia.” Gabriel alludes here to the fact the he had strengthened and assisted Michael in that other worldly struggle. It would have been a victory for Satan had the return of the Jews and the reconstruction of the temple, somehow been thwarted. Gabriel encourages Daniel by assuring him that nothing that has happened, or that was going to happen, would be by human design; nor would it be the result of random events; nor would it be thwarted by demonic forces, no matter how powerful they were. From the start, Gabriel and Michael were instrumental in carrying out the will of God among the nations of the earth for the benefit of God’s people.

II. The Persian Kings, 2
What Gabriel is going to do in chapters eleven and twelve is draw a picture for Daniel of the next 500 or so years of Syrian and Egyptian history as it will relate to the people of God with greater emphasis being placed on the kings of the north. This will be an explanation of the “great conflict” he mentions in verse one. Chapters eleven and twelve were to serve as an explanation of all the previous visions Daniel had been shown. We know this is true because this is what Gabriel told Daniel he was going to do in 10:14, “I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision concerns those days.”

What follows in chapters eleven and twelve is a detailed outline of political intrigue that would develop between the kingdom of the north – the Seleucid Empire, (and later the Roman empire) and the kingdom of the South – the Ptolemic Empire. This is a tale of drama and political intrigue that would rival anything Hollywood could possibly dream up.

“The [designation of these kingdoms as north and south is because of] their geographic location in relation to the land of Judah. Remember that Daniel was a prince from Jerusalem, and [the] people of Israel [were] the center of [these] prophecy. So, the two powers historically would come from regions of the globe [that were to the] north and south of Jerusalem. It doesn’t necessarily mean from extremely southern or northern regions. The Ptolemaic dynasty ruled from Alexandria in Egypt, which is south of Israel, and the kings of the North (the Persian empire) ruled from Antioch in Syria, which is north of Israel, under the names Seleucus, and Antiochus.”

Chapter eleven concerns the things that would transpire between those two nations for the next 200 years. Chapter twelve will deal with the fall of Persia, the rise of Alexander the Great, the division of the Alexandrian empire, and those things that would transpire between the Roman empire and the Ptolemaic empire for 300 years.

Verse two tells us that four more kings would arise in Persia after Cyrus. “Now then, I will tell you the truth: Three more kings will arise in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. By the power of his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.” These four kings would be:

A. Cambyses who ruled from 529-522 BC, and conquered Egypt in 525 BC.

B. ‘Pseudo-Smerdis’ (Gaumata) who only ruled for 7 months in 522 BC. He murdered his brother in order to seize the throne.

C. Darius I who defeated Gaumata and assumed the rule of Persia and ruled from 521-485 BC. According to Ezra 6:1-14, it was under Darius I that Ezra rebuilt the Temple.

D. Xerxes (Ahasuerus) who ruled from 485-464 BC

1. He was the husband of Esther, Ezra 4:6.

2. In the time of Xerxes, Israel was threatened with extermination at the hands of Haman but was saved through the intervention of Esther.

3. Xerxes is historically renowned not only for his massive armies, but also for his extraordinary wealth. He was, under no uncertain terms, the wealthiest king to ever rule Persia.

4. Not only do the riches of Xerxes point him out as the last king of Persia, but also, his conduct towards Greece may be correctly described as “stirring up” against himself “the kingdom of Greece.” He would do this to his own destruction. Verse two specifically prophecies of this war saying, “By the power of his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.” Xerxes went to was against Greece and was defeated at Salamis in 480 BC.

 

[oldhermit]

III. The Grecian Empire and the Rise of Alexander the Great, 3-4
“Then a mighty king shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken up and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not among his posterity nor according to his dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be uprooted, even for others besides these.”

A. After the death of this “mighty king,” his kingdom would be divided after him among four different kings. We know this did not apply to any Persian king because the Persian Empire was never divided.

B. So, in the time of Xerxes, a “mighty king” would arise from the South. This king (Alexander the Great) would be stronger, more powerful, greater, and more expansive than all of his predecessors. Alexander would later use the war of Xerxes to justify his own attack against Persia when he set out to conquer the world. Greece is the Ram of chapter eight and Alexander is the horn that was broken.

1. Despite his power, he would be broken and his kingdom “parceled out toward the four winds.”

2. Verse four tells us that his kingdom would not be given to his descendants, “but not among his posterity.”
“When Alexander the Great died, he was actually succeeded by his brother Philip Aridæus, and [also] by his own two sons; but in the space of about fifteen years they were all murdered, and the kingdom, was entirely broken.” (Benson). Thus, it was not divided “among his posterity.”

After this, the empire was divided between four of Alexander’s generals. These were the four notable horns that came up in the place of the one in chapter 8. These are the four heads of the leopard in the chapter 7. These four rulers divided the empire “toward the four winds of heaven,” verse 8. In other words, in all four directions.

a. Lysimachus took Thrace and much of Asia Minor.

b. Cassander controlled Macedonia and Greece.

c. Ptolemy I ruled Egypt, Palestine, Cilicia, Petra, and Cyprus and founded the Ptolemaic Dynasty which lasted until the death of Cleopatra VII in 30 BC.

d. Seleucus I ruled the remainder of Asia and founded the great Seleucid Empire which also comprised Mesopotamia, Persia, and part of India. Verse 24 says that “four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power.” After the death of Alexander the Great, four kingdoms would arise out of that nation, but the goat would never again enjoy the power it had under Alexander.

IV. The Rise of Seleucus and the Seleucid Empire, 5 (The king of the north)
Although the great Grecian “kingdom of Alexander was divided into four principal parts, only Egypt and Syria [would survive and they will be the focus of these prophesies]. Macedon had been conquered by Lysimachus, and annexed to Thrace. But later, Lysimachus was conquered by Seleucus I, thus the kingdoms of Macedon and Thrace were annexed to Syria.”

The reason Egypt and Syria are the focus of these prophecies is because Israel lay smack dab between them and would at times be in the possession of one and then the other. “Scripture typically interweaves only as much of foreign affairs [into the biblical narrative that is relative to Jewish history. Because of their] situation to Judea, the kings of Egypt and Syria are [referred to] as the kings of the north and the south.” (Bishop Newton)

“In the intrigue after Alexander’s death, Seleucus would ultimately gain control over Syria and became king of the North. The dynasty of the Seleucid line would continue until 64 B.C. The kingdom of the South would be ruled by the Ptolemies.”

Verse five says, “The king of the South will grow strong, but one of his commanders will grow even stronger and will rule his own kingdom with great authority.”

The “commander” of which verse five speaks refers to Seleucus who had originally served as an infantry general under Alexander the Great. Antigonus was the general who expelled Seleucus from Babylon and took over Seleucus’ portion of the kingdom. Seleucus then fled to Egypt where Ptolemy I made him general of his army.

Seleucus later defeated Antigonus in 312 BC and was given Syria, Palestine, and Babylon; thus, this “commander” of Egypt became a king. Seleucus I and his successors eventually spread the kingdom from north of Israel to the far-east making it a kingdom far greater in size than that of Egypt, thus, he “ruled his own kingdom with great authority.” Since the Seleucid king established his capital in Syria, he became known as the “King of the north,” verse 7.

V. Antiochus I and the Gap Between Verses Five and Six, “And at the end of some years.”


From Amazing Bible Timeline with World History
https://amazingbibletimeline.com/blog/syria-antiochus-i/
“When Seleucus I was assassinated in 281 B.C by rival generals who had also served under Alexander the Great, [his son], Antiochus I, took over the empire and inherited a huge mess. He had to make peace with Ptolemy II of Egypt who was responsible for assassinating his father. The rest of the empire began to revolt against his rule and he had trouble trying to keep it unified. He eventually went to war with Ptolemy II over the territory of Syria. Antiochus didn’t lose any territory after this conflict, yet Ptolemy sill claimed the land.”

Ptolemy II, and Antiochus I, continued to war against one another but the war would end in a deadlock. In 261 BC, Antiochus I died and was succeeded by his son, Antiochus II, and Ptolemy II continued the war against him as well.

 

[oldhermit]

VI. The Alliance Between Ptolemy II of Egypt and Antiochus II of Syria,
Verse 6 informs us that an alliance would be formed between Ptolemy II of Egypt and Antiochus II of Syria, but this alliance would be doomed to failure.

“And at the end of some years they shall join forces, for the daughter of the king of the South shall go to the king of the North to make an agreement; but she shall not retain the power of her authority, and neither he nor his authority shall stand; but she shall be given up, with those who brought her, and with him who begot her, and with him who strengthened her in those times.”

Here is how all of this drama played out.
In 252 BC, in an attempt to create peace between the two nations, Ptolemy II gave his daughter Berenice, (whom verse six calls, “the daughter of the King of the South”), in marriage to Antiochus II. Thus, “the daughter of the king of the South shall go to the king of the North.” Her purpose was to “seal an agreement” of peace.

In order to accept Berenice as his new wife, and to please the King of Egypt, Antiochus II divorced his wife Laodice who had born him two sons – Seleucus II and Antiochus III. Berenice later persuaded Antiochus to bar the sons of Laodice from succession to the throne in favor of her own son. But when Ptolemy II died two years later in 252 BC, Antiochus divorced Berenice and returned to Laodice, thus, “the daughter of the King of the South” did not “retain the power of her authority,” just as verse 6 prophesied.

But... Laodice clearly had plans that did not seem to include forgiving Antiochus nor allowing the son of Berenice to ascend to the throne. Six years later, in 246 BC, Laodice had Berenice, Antiochus II, and their infant son murdered. She then placed her own son (Seleucus II) on the throne of Syria. Thus, “neither he (Antiochus II) nor his authority shall stand.” Thus, all of Ptolemy's plans to make peace with Syria ended in disaster. “But she (Berenice) shall be given up with those who brought her, (Berenice’s entourage from Egypt who supported her as queen) and with him who begot her, and with him who strengthened her in those times.” (Ptolemy II). All of these would be dead. One result of all of this intrigue by Laodice was a series of military actions known as the Laodicean War.

VII. In Verses 7-8, Gabriel Prophesies Continual War Between Egypt and Syria From That Time On.
“But one from her (Berenice’s) family line will rise up in his place, (Ptolemy III) come against the army of the king of the North, and enter his (Seleucus II) fortress, fighting and prevailing. He will take even their gods captive to Egypt, with their metal images and their precious vessels of silver and gold. For some years he will stay away from the king of the North.”

A. Here then, is the rise of Ptolemy III of Egypt.
According to Keil, the phrase, “one from her family line,” is more accurately understood as “a branch of her root;” In other words, not one of her own descendants, but a sibling. Her brother, Ptolemy III, son of Ptolemy II, succeeded Ptolemy II as king over Egypt from 246-222 BC.
Verse 7-8 says that Ptolemy III would “come against their army and enter the fortress of the king of the North, and he will deal with them and display great strength. Also, their gods with their metal images and their precious vessels of silver and gold he will take into captivity to Egypt, and he on his part will refrain from attacking the king of the North for some years.” (NAS)

As revenge for the death of his sister, Berenice, “Ptolemy III attacked the king of the North and captured the Syrian capital of Antioch. Verse 8 also describes the recapture by Ptolemy of ‘long-lost idols and sacred treasures' (Expositor’s, p. 131) that had been stolen from Egypt by Cambyses in 524 B.C”.

During this battle, Ptolemy III killed Laodice, thus avenging the murder of his sister and her son. Ptolemy III then returned to Egypt for a time of peace, which fulfilled verse eight which says, “For some years he will stay away from the king of the North.”

Seleucus II continued to reign over Syria even though he lost the battle against Ptolemy III. He did make an effort to invade Egypt in 240 BC but was defeated thus, peace was established until his death in 226 BC. This fulfilled verse nine which says, “Also, the king of the North shall come to the kingdom of the king of the South, but shall return to his own land.”

 

[oldhermit]

B. Verses 10-13 describe the great conflict between Egypt and Syria.
“But his sons (the sons of Seleucus II – Seleucus III and Antiochus III) will stir up strife and assemble a great army, which will advance forcefully, sweeping through like a flood, and will again carry the battle as far as his fortress. In a rage, the king of the South will march out to fight the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be delivered into the hand of his enemy.” (This was divine contravention – God delivered it into the hand of his enemy).

“When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be proud in heart and will cast down tens of thousands, but he will not triumph. For the king of the North will raise another army, larger than the first, and after some years he will advance with a great army and many supplies.”

1. After their father died, both Seleucus III and Antiochus III (Antiochus the Great) attacked the Ptolemaic empire which was by that time under the rule of Ptolemy IV. This ended the period of peace between the north and south.

Now, Seleucus III only reigned for three years and his military activity was relatively minor, but at his death, his brother Antiochus III, continued the war against Egypt. In the process, he did “overwhelm and pass through,” taking Palestine away from Egypt. But if there was ever a king who was destined for failure, it would have to be Antiochus III.

2. In a second attempt to defeat Ptolemy IV, Antiochus would “again carry the battle as far as his fortress.” (the boarder of Egypt)

3. In response, verse 11 says, “In a rage, the king of the South (Ptolemy IV) will march out to fight the king of the North (Antiochus III) and defeat the larger army of Antiochus thus fulfilling verse 11 which says, “but the multitude shall be given into the hand of his enemy.”

4. Ptolemy IV would again defeat Antiochus III in 219 BC when Antiochus invaded Palestine a second time. Afterward, Ptolemy returned home and slaughtered tens of thousands of Jews in Egypt fulfilling verse 12 which says, “When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be proud in heart and will cast down tens of thousands, but he will not triumph.”

5. Antiochus III was a king who refused to give up, 13-19.
Verse 13 says that Antiochus would again amass a great army to go against Ptolemy IV. “For the king of the North will raise another army, larger than the first, and after some years, he will advance with a great army and many supplies.”

“In those times many will rise up against the king of the South. Violent ones among your own people will exalt themselves in fulfillment of the vision, but they will fail.”

“Then the king of the North will come, build up a siege mound, and capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will not stand; even their best troops will not be able to resist. The invader will do as he pleases, and no one will stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land, with destruction in his hand. He will resolve to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and will reach an agreement with the king of the South. He will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plan will not succeed or help him.”

“Then he will turn his face to the coastlands and capture many of them. But a commander will put an end to his reproach and will turn it back upon him. After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own land, but he will stumble and fall and be no more.”

a. So, from 217-200 BC, Antiochus III again built up a massive army and waited for the right time to fight Egypt yet again. This time, he overwhelmed and defeated Ptolemy IV and took possession of “the Beautiful Land” – Palestine.

b. When Ptolemy IV died in 203 BC, his son Ptolemy V, who was still only a child, assumed the throne. By now, Egypt had weakened considerably. Antiochus took advantage of the weakened Egyptian empire and attacked soon after the death of Ptolemy IV and he won the battle of Panion.

c. During this time, some of the Jews assisted Antiochus in fighting against the Egyptians. Verse 14 tells us that, “In those times, many will rise up against the king of the South. Violent ones among your own people (the Jews) will exalt themselves in fulfillment of the vision, but they will fail.”

Their alliance with Antiochus eventually meant their own downfall and the rebellion was ultimately crushed by the Egyptian general Scopus, 12:1.

d. But Antiochus III later defeated Scopus and again took control of “the beautiful land,” Palestine, 11:15-16.

e. Antiochus then devised a plan to take over Egypt, not through warfare, which was extremely expensive, but through his daughter Cleopatra I. Verse 17 says, “He will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom,”

• Antiochus III proposed peace to Egypt and sealed the agreement by giving his daughter in marriage to Ptolemy V in 198 BC. But this was not a gesture of peace on the part of Antiochus. This was an act of subterfuge.

• His hope was that his daughter would influence the young king (who was then only 12 years old when the marriage was consummated), so that Antiochus could then be able to gain control of Egypt.

• Verse 17 says, “but his plan will not succeed or help him.”
What Antiochus did not take into consideration was the possibility that his daughter would side with her husband rather than with her father. Cleopatra consistently sided with her husband against Antiochus thus, his plans to control Egypt failed yet again.

f. Antiochus then joined with Hannibal in an attempt to conquer Rome, 11:18.
“Then he will turn his face to the coastlands and capture many of them. But a commander (Scipio) will put an end to his reproach and will turn it back upon him. After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own land.”

• The Roman general Scipio defeated Antiochus III in 190 BC and made him pay 15,000 talents of silver over a 12-year period. (1,125,000 lbs of silver @ $262.79 per lb. = $295,638,750 on today's market). Scipio also took Antiochus’ war elephants, and his navy in payment for the defeat.

• As part of his fine, his younger son Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) was taken as a hostage to Rome (Butler, College Press). This experience would make quite an impression on Antiochus Epiphanes. When he eventually returned home, he would impose Roman influence upon Syria and the Jews.

g. Verse 19 tells of Antiochus III's last battle and his rather ignominious death.
Antiochus attempted to regain his losses to Rome by invading the Armenians in 187 BC but was defeated by the Elamites. According to Hans Volkmann, professor of Ancient History, University of Cologne, Antiochus was later murdered in 187 BC in a Baal temple near Susa, where he was attempting to exact tribute in order to obtain much needed revenue. As verse 19 says, “he will stumble and fall and be no more.”

6. The role of Seleucus IV 187-175 BC, 20
“In his place (Antiochus III), one will arise (Seleucus IV) who will send out a tax collector for the glory of the kingdom; but within a few days he will be destroyed, though not in anger or in battle.” Actually, he would be murdered by his own tax collector.

• Seleucus IV began his rule after his brother’s death, and like his brother, he imposed heavy taxes to regain some of the money lost to Rome. According to 2 Maccabees 7, the oppressor whom he sent to collect the money was Heliodorus.

• The death of Seleucus IV then made room for one of the most despicable persecutors of God's people of all times – Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He will be presented in the remaining verses.

 

[oldhermit]

VIII. The Rise of Antiochus Epiphanes, 11:21-12:1
“In his place (Seleucus IV) a despicable person will arise;( Antiochus IV) royal honors will not be given to him, (The nation would not, by popular consent, confer the kingdom on him as was customary,) but he will come in a time of peace (At a time when Syria was not at war) and seize the kingdom by intrigue. (In other words, this despicable person would seize the kingdom though it did not rightly belong to him.) Then a flood of forces will be swept away before him and destroyed, along with a prince of the covenant. After an alliance is made with him, he will act deceitfully; for he will rise to power with only a few people.” (NAS)

A. Antiochus Epiphanes would indeed obtain the kingdom by intrigue in 175 BC, just as verse 21 says.
The right of succession actually belonged to Demetrius I, the son of Seleucus IV, and nephew of Antiochus. According to Hans Volkmann, Professor of Ancient History at the University of Cologne, “After his [Seleucus IV] was defeated by the Romans in 190–189 BC, Antiochus IV served as a hostage for his father in Rome from 189 to 175 BC. [While in Rome, Antiochus] learned to admire Roman institutions and policies. Seleucus IV, was later able to exchange Demetrius for [Antiochus].”

Heliodorus, the man whom Seleucus had sent to collect taxes, murdered Seleucus and usurped the throne. Antiochus later overthrow him while Demetrius was still being held in Rome. Antiochus quickly made alliances with Eumenes, the king of Pergamus, as well as with Rome and others and secured their assistance in overthrowing Heliodorus. Thus, “he will come in a time of peace and seize the kingdom by intrigue.”

B. He would also destroy all who posed any threat to him seizing the throne.
Benson
[The flood of forces] “is to be understood as the forces of Attalus and Eumenes, who favored Antiochus: [with this much force behind him], his competitors for the crown, were all “swept away before him and destroyed.” (namely, Heliodorus, as well Ptolemy VI who had his own plans for Syria,)

C. He would also displace the rightful high priest.
“Along with a prince of the covenant. After an alliance is made with him, he will act deceitfully;” 23 (NAS)

“As soon as Antiochus was seated on his throne, he removed Onias as the high priest, and [gave] Jason, Onias’ brother, [the office of high priest. All of this was done solely for] the…three hundred and sixty talents of silver ($7,095,330) Jason had offered for the office of high priest. Onias, [who by all accounts, was a good high priest], was not only displaced for a wicked usurper, he…was later murdered by the king’s deputy.”

“After an alliance is made with him, he will act deceitfully.” Jason was also later replaced for the same motives – money. Jason’s brother, Menelaus offered Antiochus three hundred talents more than he had received from Jason, (appx. $13,000,000) So, Antiochus sold the office of high priest to Menelaus.

D. Antiochus’ rise to power

1. Verse 24 says, “For he will rise to power with only a few people. In a time of tranquility, he will enter the richest parts of the realm, and he will accomplish what his fathers never did, nor his ancestors;”
From Barnes Notes

“The meaning of this seems to be, that at first, his own forces would be small, and that he would go up in such a way as not to excite suspicion. [He later increased] his forces, [and] united himself [with his] confederates and lured the people by the promise of rewards. By gradually taking one town after another and adding them to his dominions, he became strong.” Thus, he “seized the kingdom by intrigue.”

2. Verse 24 says, “He shall disperse among them the plunder, spoil, and riches; and he shall devise his plans against the strongholds, but only for a time.”

Antiochus was an artist at securing allegiance through the redistribution of wealth. In order to gain as much acceptance as possible among both the people and those of power and influence, Antiochus would lavish his plunder upon them. These displays of generosity were matters of public spectacle. It would seem that money and riches were important to Antiochus only as a means to an end. 1 Maccabees, 3:30 tells us that in his liberality, and in the giving of gifts, he had surpassed all the kings who had preceded him. Polybius records that when Antiochus would meet “accidentally with people whom he had never seen before, he would enrich them with unexpected presents; and sometimes, standing in the public streets, he would throw money, and cry aloud, ‘Let him take it to whom fortune shall give it.’” (Benson)

3. “And he will devise his schemes against strongholds, but only for a time.”

a. In other words, he would plot against Egypt and develop strategies for taking control of the southern kingdom.

b. “But only for a time” because, his plans for Egyptian conquest would be thwarted by Rome.

 

[oldhermit]

IX. Antiochus’ Campaign Against Egypt in 25-28.
“And with a large army he will stir up his power and his courage against the king of the South, (Ptolemy VI) who will mobilize a very large and powerful army but will not withstand the plots devised against him. Those who eat from his provisions will seek to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall slain.”

“And the two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will speak lies at the same table, but to no avail, for still the end will come at the appointed time. (The time appointed by the Almighty.) The king of the North will return to his land with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant; so, he will do damage and return to his own land.”

“At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time will not be like the first. Ships of Kittim will come against him, and he will lose heart.”

A. Antiochus mobilizes against Egypt.
Barnes Notes
What Antiochus accomplished that all of his predecessors had failed to accomplish was that he took “complete control of Egypt. The wars of his predecessors with the Egyptians had been mostly waged in Coelo-Syria and Palestine, for the possession of those provinces. Antiochus, however, first took Pelusium, the key of Egypt, and then invaded Egypt itself, [and] seized upon its strongest places, and made the king a captive.”

Part of the reason for this mobilization against Egypt was a dispute over Coelo-Syria. Benson tells us that “Ptolemy demanded Antiochus surrender Coelo-Syria to him [which he felt belonged to him by] virtue of the marriage articles between Ptolemy V and Cleopatra I. But instead of complying with Ptolemy’s demand, Antiochus invaded Egypt with a vast force by both land and by sea.”

In response, Ptolemy dispatched strong forces to stop Antiochus and the two armies first met in battle between Pelusium and mount Cassius. Although Antiochus defeated the armies of Egypt, he still did not yet gain possession of Pelusium.

“In his next campaign, [Antiochus] would have greater success. He routed the Egyptians and took Pelusium, then ascended as far as Memphis, and made himself master of all Egypt.” 1 Maccabees 1:17-19 says, “Wherefore, he entered Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy.”

Volkmann says that “in 169 BC, [Antiochus] occupied Egypt with the exception of the capitol city of Alexandria.”
B. Verse 26 says that Ptolemy's own people would also scheme against him. “…those who eat of the portion of his delicacies shall destroy him; his army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain.”

Volkmann says that “the misfortunes of Ptolemy were ascribed to the treachery and baseness of his own ministers and subjects. Ptolemy Macron, who was governor of Cyprus, [also] revolted [against] Ptolemy VI and delivered up [Cyprus] to Antiochus. [Even] the Alexandrians, seeing the weakness of Ptolemy VI renounced their allegiance to him and proclaimed his younger brother [Physcon] as king instead.” (The word means “fatty.” He is otherwise called Ptolemy VIII).

C. The schemes of Antiochus against Ptolemy
Johann Jahn, in his History of the Hebrew Commonwealth, says that “Ptolemy VI was actually Antiochus IV’s nephew by his sister, Cleopatra I, who had married Ptolemy V. Antiochus [used the fact the he was the uncle of Ptolemy VI to try to justify his presence in Egypt. He] contented himself with ruling Egypt as Ptolemy’s “guardian,” giving Rome no excuse for intervention. The citizens of Alexandria, however, [because of their lack of confidence in Ptolemy VI], appealed to his brother, Physcon, to form a rival government.”

“Still, Antiochus slowly [took control] of one town after another until he finally [gained control] of the Ptolemy VI himself, and had him entirely in his power…. The pretended objective of Antiochus for this invasion in 168 BC was to support the claims of Ptolemy VI against his brother, but his real purpose was to subject the whole country to his own power.”

“Antiochus defeated the Alexandrians by sea near Pelusium, and then drew up his land forces before the city of Alexandria. Ptolemy VIII sent an embassy to Rome to solicit the protection of the Senate. At the same time, he entered into negotiations of peace with Antiochus. The proposals were rejected; but when Antiochus perceived that the conquest of Alexandria would be difficult, he retired to Memphis, and pretended to deliver the kingdom to Ptolemy VI, and having left a strong garrison at Pelusium, he returned to Antioch.”

This entire drama between Antiochus and the Ptolemies was nothing more than one big family squabble over who would rule Egypt. Just so you will understand who all the players are in this incestuous melodrama, Physcon, and Ptolemy VI were brothers. Their father was a Ptolemy V and their mother was Cleopatra I, who was the sister of Antiochus IV; thus, Physcon, and Ptolemy VI were the nephews of Antiochus IV. The wives of Physcon (Ptolemy VIII) were his sister’s, Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III. His daughter by Cleopatra III was Cleopatra the IV.

“[As for] Ptolemy VII, (the Younger), he died in 144 BC. He was the younger son and co-ruler with Ptolemy VI whom he succeeded in 145 BC. Still a minor, he was the ward of his mother, [Cleopatra II], who also served as his co-ruler. He was soon displaced by his uncle, Ptolemy VIII, who later executed him the following year.” (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica)