In each blog, I often reference many different topics that I've already covered (or will soon cover), and maybe you've missed. Please review my blogs to read more...
CLICK HERE! for an index to previous blogs.
__________________________
Daniel 11 is a summary of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid wars.
CLICK HERE! for an index to previous blogs.
__________________________
Daniel 11 is a summary of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid wars.
The Battle of Salamis: Persian Invasion-(480 B.C.).
[Dan 11:2 LSB] So now I will tell you the truth. Behold, three more kings are going to stand in Persia. Then a fourth will gain far more riches than all of them; as soon as he becomes strong through his riches, he will arouse the whole empire against the kingdom of Greece [H3120 - yavan, modern day Turkey - not Greece].
Four kings are specifically mentioned in the Hebrew Bible: Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes (=Ahasuerus in Esther), and Artaxerxes. King Xerxes of Persia, who was famously married to Queen Esther, was known as the wealthiest among these four kings (Ezra 4:5-15; Esther 1:1). However, there were many more than fours kings who followed Cyrus.
Notice above the note concerning "yavan"... this has been covered in other blogs, and yavan refers to modern day Turkey.
Alexander the Great
Seleucid & Ptolemaic kings
The death of Alexander in 323 B.C. and the division of his empire among his generals. The history of the kingdom division is long and brutal. It can be found online. The point is that these conflicts set the stage for the animosity between the Ptolemies and Seleucids, of which most of Daniel 11 is concerned with.
The great measure of intrigue, conflicts, and battles that took place throughout Alexander’s former dominion between the Seleucid Dynasty (in the North) and the Ptolemic Dynasty (in the South) continued for roughly the next 150-200 years.
"Then the king of the South" refers to Ptolemy I Soter of the Ptolemaic Empire (modern day parts of Egypt, Libya, and Sudan).
Alexander the Great
[Dan 11:3 LSB] And a mighty king [Alexander the Great] will stand, and he will dominate with great domination and do as he pleases.
[Dan 11:4 LSB] But as soon as he stands, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his own descendants, nor according to his domination with which he dominated, for his kingdom will be uprooted and given to others besides them.
The great measure of intrigue, conflicts, and battles that took place throughout Alexander’s former dominion between the Seleucid Dynasty (in the North) and the Ptolemic Dynasty (in the South) continued for roughly the next 150-200 years.
[Dan 11:5 LSB] Then the king of the South will grow strong, along with one of his princes who will grow strong over him and obtain dominion; indeed, his domain will be a great dominion.
"one of his princes" is a little misleading when referring to Seleucus I Nicator since he was initially assigned an independent province.
For most of the third century, the Ptolemaic kingdom was more powerful. But from the perspective of someone writing in the mid-160s B.C.E., the dominance of the Seleucid kingdom would be the accurate perception. Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 340). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.
[Dan 11:6 LSB] And after some years they will form an alliance, and the daughter [Berenice] of the king of the South [Ptolemy II] will come to the king of the North [Antiochus II] to carry out an equitable arrangement. But she will not retain her position of power, nor will he continue to stand with his power, but she will be given up, along with those who brought her in and the one who fathered her as well as he who strengthened her in those times.
Antiochus II married Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II, who brought with her a large dowry. Antiochus, however, was already married to the powerful Laodice, whom he divorced in order to marry Berenice. Antiochus died in 246, probably of illness, though Jerome (on 11:6) claims that he was poisoned by Laodice. Both women were the mothers of sons who had claims to succeed Antiochus II, but Berenice and her son were murdered at the behest of Laodice and her son Seleucus II. The text of v. 6 is extremely difficult. Although it clearly refers to these events, the identities of “those who brought her” and “the one who supported her” are uncertain. Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 341). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.
The Laodicean War (c. 245–241 B.C.)
[Dan 11:7-9 LSB] But one of the descendants of her line [Berenice’s brother, Ptolemy III] will stand in his place, and he will come against their military force and enter the fortress of the king of the North, and he will deal with them and display strength. [8] And also their gods with their metal images and their desirable vessels of silver and gold he will bring into captivity to Egypt, and he on his part will stand back from attacking the king of the North for some years. [9] Then the latter will enter the kingdom of the king of the South, but will return to his own land.
Ptolemy III had become king in January 246 and instigated the Third Syrian War (246–241) in retaliation for Berenice's murder and that of her child. Ptolemy III is known for returning idols, and such, back to Egypt.
Seleucus II quickly took back most of the land temporarily conquered by Ptolemy in the Third Syrian War. In 242 Seleucus briefly tried to press toward the south and for a short time took parts of southern Syria and Phoenicia, but then was driven out.
The Fourth Syrian War: The Battle at Raphia (219-217 B.C.)
[Dan 11:10-12 LSB] And his sons will wage war [Seleucus III & Antiochus III]. So they will gather a multitude of great forces; and one of them [Antiochus III] will keep on coming and overflow and pass through, that he may again wage war up to his very fortress. [11] And the king of the South [Ptolemy IV] will be enraged and go forth and fight with the king of the North [Antiochus III]. Then the latter will cause a great multitude to stand, but that multitude will be given into the hand of the former. [12] Then the multitude will be carried away, his [Ptolemy IV] heart will be lifted up, and he will cause tens of thousands to fall [Battle of Raphia]; yet he [Antiochus III] will not prevail.
Antiochus III turned his attention to the reconquest of Coele-Syria, initiating the Fourth Syrian War (219–217).
Antiochus III captured the port city of Seleucia-in-Pieria. Moreover, the governor of Syria defected, turning over Tyre and Ptolemais-Acco to Antiochus III. In the campaign of 218 the Ptolemaic defenses between Sidon and Damascus meant that Antiochus’s army could not be supplied from the north. He therefore turned his troops eastward, securing northern Palestine both east and west of the Jordan, including Galilee and the productive Jezreel valley. Although the military campaign did not reach Jerusalem, Samaria was occupied. Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 342). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.
The pattern described by v. 12 is thus apt: the overconfidence and complacency resulting from the victory at Raphia was soon followed by a near collapse of the Ptolemaic state. Ptolemy’s successor, Ptolemy V Epiphanes, was a child of six, and his accession to the throne was the occasion for political murders and coups. Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 343). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.
[Dan 11:13-14 LSB] And the king of the North [Antiochus III] will again cause a much greater multitude than the former to stand, and at the end of the times of those years, he will keep on coming with a great military force and much equipment. [14] Now in those times many will stand against the king of the South; the violent ones among your people will also lift themselves up in order to cause the vision to stand, but they will fall down.
Above we find the fifth Syrian war. It is also here that we find very interesting details that could easily be applied to our future Antichrist. I need to paste a section, from Carol Newsom's commentary, as I believe this (specifically, third paragraph below) could play into a future scenario.
In order to understand the reference to “the violent ones of your people” in v. 14, additional historical background is required. Ptolemaic forces led by the general Scopas counterattacked in a winter campaign in 201/200, when Antiochus had sent most of his troops to winter quarters. Scopus quickly recaptured Palestine, including Jerusalem. Josephus (Ant. 12.136) quotes the Greek historian Polybius as saying “Scopas … during the winter subdued the Jewish nation.” This phrasing suggests that the Jews, too, had switched sides and freely supported Antiochus.
Certainly, when Antiochus counterattacked in 200, defeating Scopas at the Battle of Panion in northern Palestine, the Jews supported him with provisions and helped expel the Ptolemaic garrison in Jerusalem.
At the conclusion of the war, they were thanked by Antiochus for these actions, given substantial support to restore the city and temple damaged by war, and granted a variety of tax remissions. They were also given permission to enforce purity regulations in Jerusalem. The documents authorizing these provisions are quoted by Josephus (Ant. 12.138–46). Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (pp. 343-344). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.
The Battle of Panium c. 200 B.C.
[Dan 11:15-16 LSB] Then the king of the North [Antiochus III] will come, cast up a siege ramp, and capture a well-fortified city [Sidon]; and the might of the South will not stand, not even their choicest troops, for there will be no strength to make a stand. [16] But he who comes against him will do as he pleases, and no one will be able to stand in opposition to him; he [Antiochus III] will also stand for a time in the Beautiful Land, with destruction in his hand.
These verses continue the description of Antiochus III’s aggression. The "siege ramp" and "fortified city" refer to Sidon, where Scopas retreated with the remains of his army after the Battle of Panion, specifically his "select troops", the Aetolian mercenaries he had hired for the campaign.
The Battle of Magnesia: Roman Republic -Seleucid War (v. 18-19)
[Dan 11:17-19 LSB] And he [Antiochus III] will set his face to come with the authority of his whole kingdom, bringing with him an equitable proposal which he will put into effect; he will also give him [Ptolemy V] the daughter [Cleopatra I Syra] of women to destroy it. But she will not take a stand for him or be on his side. [18] Then he will turn his face to the coastlands [Thrace and Greek territories] and capture many. But a ruler [Roman general Lucius Scipio.] will make his reproach against him cease; moreover, he will repay him for his reproach [Treaty of Apamea]. [19] So he will turn his face toward the fortresses of his own land, but he will stumble and fall and be found no more.
Once again, the author’s interest in the pattern of historical events seems to lead him to attribute intentions to Antiochus III that he did not possess (Grainger 189). Antiochus had no plan to invade Egypt itself at this time, having secured his dynasty’s historic claim to Coele-Syria, though he did capture Ptolemaic possessions on the coast of Asia Minor in 197/196. Since Antiochus IV will be the one who invades Egypt in vv. 25–28 and 40–43, the author may here be foreshadowing those events by attributing such an intention to Antiochus III, as also seems to be the case in the following part of the verse. Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 345). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.
Antiochus III had become a vassal of Rome. He had to send 20 prisoners (including his son Antiochus IV) to Rome and pay a huge indemnity. He was later assassinated trying to secure money to pay tribute to Rome.
The King of the North Seleucus IV: Raises of Taxes (187-176 B.C.)
[Dan 11:20 LSB] Then in his place one will stand [Seleucus IV] who will have an oppressor [Heliodorus] pass through the Jewel of his kingdom; yet within a few days he [Seleucus IV] will be broken, though not in anger nor in battle.
You can read about this account in 2 Maccabees, chapter 3:
[2Ma 3:26-27 KJVA] Moreover two other young men appeared before him, notable in strength, excellent in beauty, and comely in apparel, who stood by him on either side; and scourged him continually, and gave him many sore stripes. [27] And Heliodorus fell suddenly unto the ground, and was compassed with great darkness: but they that were with him took him up, and put him into a litter.
Seleucus IV was later assassinated by Heliodorus due to a heavy tax burden, hence: "will be broken, though not in anger nor in battle".
This assassination set in motion a complex and messy struggle for succession, to which Daniel 11:21 alludes.
[Dan 11:21-23 LSB] And in his place a despised person [Antiochus IV Epiphanes] will stand, to whom the splendor of the kingdom has not been given, but he will come in a time of ease and take hold of the kingdom by intrigue. [22] But the overflowing might will be flooded away before him and broken, and also the prince of the covenant. [23] And after an alliance is made with him, he will practice deception, and he will go up and gain power with a small force of people.
The reference to his not being given the “majesty of kingship” alludes to the fact that he was not the heir to the throne, since he was the younger brother of Seleucus IV. After Seleucus’s assassination, the crown should have gone to his eldest son, Demetrius. He, however, was a hostage in Rome, fulfilling the terms of the Treaty of Apamea. Demetrius’s younger brother, also named Antiochus, was proclaimed king, with his mother Laodice as regent, since he was only a small child. Thus only by “stealth” and “intrigue” did Antiochus IV became king. Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 346). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.
The key to the situation was Laodice, whom Antiochus IV promptly married. Although Antiochus IV initially ruled as coregent with his nephew and stepson, the boy was murdered five years later, after Antiochus and Laodice had produced a son of their own. Antiochus IV had no intention of being displaced by the boy or of sharing real power with him. Thus he well deserves his designation as treacherous. Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 347). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.
More recently, biblical commentators equate the Jewish high priest Onias III with “a prince of the covenant,” since typically the expression “the king of the South” is used to identify the Ptolemies. Hill, Andrew E.. Daniel (The Expositor's Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 6481-6483). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.
[Dan 11:24 LSB] In a time of ease he [Antiochus IV] will enter the richest parts of the province, and he will do what his fathers never did, nor his fathers’ fathers; he will distribute plunder, spoil, and possessions among them, and he will devise his schemes against strongholds, but only for a time.
Verse 24 is likely referring to the events of 1 Maccabees 3. When referring to "his fathers" is it speaking of previous kings (verse 30 below).
[1Ma 3:27-30 KJVA] Now when king Antiochus heard these things, he was full of indignation: wherefore he sent and gathered together all the forces of his realm, even a very strong army. [28] He opened also his treasure, and gave his soldiers pay for a year, commanding them to be ready whensoever he should need them. [29] Nevertheless, when he saw that the money of his treasures failed and that the tributes in the country were small, because of the dissension and plague, which he had brought upon the land in taking away the laws which had been of old time; [30] He feared that he should not be able to bear the charges any longer, nor to have such gifts to give so liberally as he did before: for he had abounded above the kings that were before him.
Having paid the army a year’s pay in advance in order to motivate them, “he feared that, as had happened once or twice, he would not have enough for his expenses and for the gifts that he was accustomed to give with a lavish hand—more so than all previous kings. Greatly perplexed, he decided to go to Persia and levy tribute on those provinces, and so raise a large sum of money” (1 Macc 3:30–31 NABRE). Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 347). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.
[Dan 11:25-26 LSB] And he will stir up his strength and heart against the king of the South with a great military force; so the king of the South will wage war with an extremely large and mighty military force for war; but he will not stand, for schemes will be devised against him. [26] And those who eat his choice food will break him, and his military force will overflow, but many will fall down slain.
This is Antiochus' first invasion of Egypt.
[1Ma 1:18-19 KJVA] And made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt: but Ptolemee was afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death. [19] Thus they got the strong cities in the land of Egypt and he took the spoils thereof.
The Ptolemaic army was defeated, by the Seleucid army, in the Sinai desert not far from Pelusium. Antiochus then gained control of the Nile which was the first successful invasion of Egypt since Alexander the Great.
Following the initial victories of Antiochus IV, two members of the Alexandrian aristocracy, Comanos and Cineas, staged a coup and replaced Eulaios and Lenaios as regents. The book of Daniel blames these various courtiers (“those who eat his provisions”) for the Ptolemaic failure and the deaths resulting from the war, a judgment also made by other ancient sources (see Polybius 28.20). Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 348). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.
[Dan 11:27 LSB] And as for both kings [Antiochus IV & Ptolemy VI], their hearts will be intent on evil, and they will speak falsehood at the same table; but it will not succeed, for the end is still to come at the appointed time.
[Dan 11:28 LSB] Then he [Antiochus IV] will return to his land with great possessions; but his heart will be set against the holy covenant, and he will take action and then return to his own land.
Antiochus, on his return to Syria, was still focused on all things Israel. The primary sources for these events are 1 Macc 1:20–21; 2 Macc 5:11–21; and Josephus (Ant. 12.246–47) although some claim these events are better suited after his second attempt at Egypt two years later (below). Other claim Antiochus vented his rage at Jerusalem after both attacks on Egypt.
[Dan 11:29-31 LSB] At the appointed time he will return and come into the South [Egypt], but this last time it will not happen the way it did before. [30] Indeed, ships of Kittim [Rome] will come against him; therefore he will be disheartened and will return and become indignant at the holy covenant and take action; so he will come back and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant. [31] Mighty forces from him will stand, profane the sanctuary fortress, and abolish the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation.
Popillius [Rome] confronted Antiochus in Eleusis, a suburb of Alexandria, in a dramatic meeting known in antiquity as the “Day of Eleusis.” Although many ancient writers gave an account of this meeting (see Gera 172n171 for a comprehensive list), the influential Polybius set the tone for much interpretation by describing it as a personal humiliation for Antiochus. According to Polybius (29.27.1–8), Popillius handed Antiochus the Roman terms, and when Antiochus said he wished to consult with his counselors, Popillius drew a circle around Antiochus in the sand and demanded that he decide before he stepped out of the circle (29.27.7). Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 350). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.
The events to which v. 31 refer appear to be the mission of the Seleucid official Apollonius the Mysarch (1 Macc 1:29; 2 Macc 5:24), who arrived in Jerusalem with a substantial body of troops, likely in the summer of 167 (so Gera 224). Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (pp. 350-351). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.
Apollonius entered peaceably, but began slaughtering the men, capturing women and children to be sold into slavery, and began plundering and burning the city. He also rewarded Jewish traitors who supported his policies.
The "desolating abomination" refers to a pagan altar that was apparently erected on top of the altar of burnt offerings (1 Macc 1:54), thus making it impossible to conduct the daily burnt offerings according to the law.
Antiochus issued an edict decreeing the forced Hellenism of the Jews in Judea and outlawing all Jewish religious practices, such as circumcision, possessing the Hebrew Scriptures, observance of Sabbath and feast days, and the daily morning and evening sacrifices (all on threat of death; cf. 1 Macc 1: 50, 63). The paganization of the Hebrew temple culminated in the institution of imperial cult worship in Jerusalem and the erection of an altar or idol dedicated to Zeus in the temple on 15 Chislev (December) 167 BC (cf. 1 Macc 1: 54– 61; 2 Macc 6: 2; see also comments on 9: 27). Hill, Andrew E.. Daniel (The Expositor's Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 6555-6559). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.
[Dan 11:32 LSB] And by smooth words he will turn to godlessness those who act wickedly toward the covenant, but the people who know their God will display strength and take action.
"by smooth words" probably alludes to the enticing promises made by Antiochus to bestow honor and wealth on those Jews who join in the support of his pagan policies (cf. 1 Macc 2: 18; 2 Macc 7: 24). Hill, Andrew E.. Daniel (The Expositor's Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 6573-6574). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.
“the people who know their God” (v. 32) probably refers to the cross-section of those Jews who resisted, including the followers of Mattathias (1 Macc 2:19–26), the group known as the Hasidim (1 Macc 2:29–38, 42, “Hasideans”), the circles of resistance behind the Enochic literature (1 En. 90:6–12), and behind the figures of Taxo and his sons in Testament of Moses (= As. Mos. 9:1–7), as well as the “wise” (maśkîlîm) in Danielic literature. One should also include the many individual resisters represented by the idealized figures of Eleazar and the seven brothers and their mother in 2 Macc 6–7. The modes of “taking action” varied among these resisters, from the militancy of the Hasidim, the Maccabees, and their Enochic supporters; to the voluntary martyrdom of Taxo and the martyrs of 2 Maccabees; to the teaching by the wise in Daniel (see below). Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 351-352). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.
[Dan 11:33-35 LSB] And those who have insight among the people will give understanding to the many; yet they will fall by sword and by flame, by captivity and by plunder for many days. [34] Now when they fall, they will be granted a little help, and many will join with them in intrigue. [35] And some of those who have insight will fall, in order to refine, purge, and make them pure until the time of the end, because it is still to come at the appointed time.
Those that "have insight" likely refers to those who do not submit to Antiochus. They remain faithful to Yahweh's covenant. These obviously face consequences for speaking out against Antiochus.
What they cause “the many” to understand is the divinely ordained pattern in history that governs the sequence of the four kingdoms (ch. 7), the mystery of the increasing power and sudden downfall of mighty kings (ch. 8), the hidden prophecy in Jeremiah’s words and the nature of its fulfillment (ch. 9), and the very detailed pattern of history that will culminate in the events of the “appointed time” (ch. 11; cf. 8:19; 11:27, 29, 35). Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 352). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition.
One purpose of the visions in Dan 10–12 is to set the apparent defeat of the wise in a context that explains the reason for eschatological hope. There has been a lot of conjecture as to what this verse is explicitly referring to. I may come back to it sometime in the future.
A Shift to Future Antichrist
Verse 36 is the point at which most commentators proclaim that the focus is shifted from the historical context (above) to the future Antichrist.
[Dan 11:36-39 LSB] Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will speak astonishing things against the God of gods; and he will succeed until the indignation is finished, for that which is decreed will be done. [37] He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will magnify himself above them all. [38] But instead he will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his fathers did not know; he will honor him with gold, silver, costly stones, and desirable things. [39] And he will take action against the strongest of fortresses with the help of a foreign god; he will give great honor to those who recognize him and will cause them to rule over the many and will apportion land for a price.
These verses interrupt the historical narration in order to focus on the person of Antiochus and in particular his relationship with deity.
Previous kings had challenged one another, but now - this king is even challenging Heavenly powers amounting to blasphemous arrogance from a human. Antiochus IV was the first to exploit this designation as part of his popular image. Some of his coins used the title BASILEŌS ANTIOCHOU THEOU EPIPHANOUS (“Antiochus the King, God Manifest”).
[Dan 11:40-45 LSB] And at the time of the end, the king of the South will collide with him, and the king of the North will storm against him with chariots, with horsemen, and with many ships; and he will enter lands, overflow them, and pass through. [41] And he will also enter the Beautiful Land, and many countries will fall; but these will be rescued out of his hand: Edom, Moab, and the foremost of the sons of Ammon. [42] Then he will send forth his hand against other countries, and the land of Egypt will not escape. [43] But he will rule over the hidden treasures of gold and silver and over all the desirable things of Egypt; and Libyans and Ethiopians will follow at his heels. [44] But reports from the East and from the North will dismay him, and he will go forth with great wrath to destroy and devote many to destruction. [45] And he will pitch the tents of his royal pavilion between the seas and the beautiful Holy Mountain; yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.
Many of the “modern” scholars assume vv. 36– 45 continue the narrative of vv. 21– 35, since there are no grammatical markers hinting at a transition of any sort, and they presuppose that the passage “imaginatively” looks forward to the downfall of Antiochus IV— the king of the North (e.g., Towner, 163– 65; Hartman and Di Lella, 303; Goldingay, 305; Lucas, 292– 93; Seow, 184– 86). Hill, Andrew E.. Daniel (The Expositor's Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 6624-6627). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.
Since the time of Jerome, some Christian interpreters have seen an “antichrist” figure in vv. 36– 45 (cf. Lucas, 292). The interpretation is based on Daniel’s description of the “little horn” (7: 8), “another horn” (8: 9), and “the ruler who will come” (9: 26) in his previous visions, as well as NT teaching concerning “the man of lawlessness” (2Th 2: 3– 12), the “antichrist” (1Jn 2: 18), and the “beast” (Rev 11– 20; cf. Miller, 306). The extreme difficulties inherent in understanding the text of Daniel at this point must be recognized and the need to proceed with humility and charity acknowledged (agreeing with Longman, 280; cf. Archer, 144, on the difference of opinion even among conservative interpreters on the meaning of vv. 36– 45). Hill, Andrew E.. Daniel (The Expositor's Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 6631-6636). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.
Daniel 11:40–45 — The final war involving "ships of Kittim" (Roman fleets), the Antichrist invading Israel, and dying "between the seas and the beautiful holy mountain" with no one to help him — none of this happened to Antiochus IV, who died quietly in Persia in 164 BC. A 2nd-century forger writing after Antiochus’ death would never have added these glaringly wrong details.
Some of these excerpts are from my personal notes copied from 30+ years of studying... some of these notes are direct copies of various sources - I do not claim to have authored every word of this... it's just a mass collection I've tucked away over the years for my own personal studies... I didn't consider a bibliography at the time I directly copied small excerpts from various authors. Also, any emphasis (underlines, bold text, all CAPS, etc.) noted above was only meant to capture my personal attention as I studied...
No comments:
Post a Comment