Daniel 11 is about Antiochus?

DeaconDean · Mar 13, 2006

Artaxerxes I authorized Ezra to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the walls surrounding the city of Jerusalem, (458-455 BC (?)) (Ezra 7:11-13; Neh. 2; Dan. 9:24) thus beginning the seventy weeks of Daniel. His son, Artaxerxes II, around 402-401 BC lost control of Egypt. Beginning around 332 BC this era would become known as the Greek period.
At this time the rough goat would become known to the world as Alexander the Great. According to Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews Book 11, chapter 7, section 5, the priests in Jerusalem see Alexander the Great approaching the city. They march out to meet him dressed in fine linen while the high priest came out dressed in holy garments. When the high priest approached Alexander he adored the name and saluted him. Alexander is led back to the city and taken to the temple where the priest open up the book of Daniel and show him the prophecies concerning him. Therewith Jerusalem and the city came under the control of the Greeks without any bloodshed on either side.
After Alexander the Greats death, the Greek lands are divided up among five others Ptolemy Soter is given the land of Egypt. During his war with Syria he captures and subjugates Jerusalem in 320 BC. It was also that, as it would happen one Antiochus the Great (Dan. 11) came to power and rule in Syria. In order to solidify his power his son Antiochus II marries Bernice, daughter of Ptolemy II. This person is referred to as the king of the south in Daniel 11:6. Next on the scene was one Antiochus III the Great, who in 198 BC captures Jerusalem. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 12, Chapter 3, Sect. 3) Antiochus IV Epiphanes, not to be confused with Ptolemy Epiphanes, becomes king of Syria around 175 BC. In order to return Syria to its former glory, Antiochus Epiphanes goes to war with Egypt. It was also at this time that Ptolemy VI Philometor was ruling in Egypt. His wife was Cleopatra, she just so happened to be the daughter of Antiochus III, the Great. Antiochus Epiphanes was initially successful in driving back Ptolemys army all the way to Alexandria.
Now sometime prior this happening, Egypt came under the watchful eye of the Romans. The Roman army had defeated Antiochus III, the Great when he invaded Greece in 197 BC in an attempt to capture that country. Antiochus Epiphanes was warned by Rome to let that country alone. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 12, Chapter 5, Sect. 2) While retreating from Egypt, Antiochus Epiphanes came to Jerusalem and decides to lay siege to the city. He captured the city without any opposition. And according to Josephus, returned to Syria. He ten returns two years later on the pretense of peace only to slay a great many people and strip the temple bare of its treasures. Even the inner court and the holy-of-holies were to be not spared. Josephus records:

So he left the temple bare, and took away the golden candlesticks, and the golden altar (of incense), and the table (of shewbread), and the altar of burnt offerings; and did not abstain from even the veils, which were made of fine linen and scarletAnd when the king had built an idol altar upon Gods altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the Jewish religious worship in that country.

-Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews

Book 12, Chapter 5, Section 4

It was also at this time that Antiochus Epiphanes tried to Hellenize the Jews. He forbid them to worship God and tried to force them to worship idols of other gods. Ceremonial circumcision was forbidden. Sometime between 170-166 BC, the Maccabaen revolt began Ending sometime around 165 BC when the temple was purified. Worship and ritual sacrificing was restored. It is interesting to note that reveal that the Pharisees emerge as a major political power during this time. Another interesting point is that from 165 to 63 BC was the only period of time that Israel was independent since before the Babylonian invasion.

So much for the history lesson.

Starting in Dan.11: 2 we see that Alexander the Great die and his kingdom will be divided up among four others. (v. 4) Verses 5-6 tell the exact same story that Josephus relates with Antiochus II marrying Ptolemy IVs daughter thus they shall join themselves together (v 6) Many will say that Antiochus Epiphanes is the one of whom is being addressed in verse 15-20. It may be that is indeed Antiochus Epiphanes, but according to Josephus, Rome turned back Antiochus Epiphanes at or near Alexandria. And turning forward in the scriptures we see And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. (v. 31)

From here I turn to The Pulpit Commentaries and will bring the exposition from Dan. 11:31:

The render*ing of the LXX. is close to the above, And arms shall stand by him, and shall pollute the sanctuary of fear probably the LXX. read rwOgm; (magor),fear, instead of zw[m (maoz), fortress, a change probably due to the fact that [ sounded in Greek ears like W hard, Ga>za for hz;[; and they shall take away the sacrifice and place (dw>sousi give) the abomination of desolation. Theodotion, from a mistaken vocalization, renders, And seeds reading µy[ir;z] instead of µy[iroz] shall spring up from him
and shall pollute the sanctuary of power, and shall change the continual (sacrifice), and shall place (dw>sousi) the abomination of things that have disappeared (hjfanisme>nwn). The Peshitta is quite different in the firs;
clause, And their strong ones shall arise from them, and they pollute the sanctuary of strength, and they cause the sacrifice (qorban) to pass away, and they shall hang up the abomination in the temple. The Vulgate
rendering is in accordance generally with the Massoretic, And arms shall stand from him. and shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall remove the continual (juge) sacrifice, and shall place the abomination of
desolation. Arms shall stand on his part. This word arms here is not to be understood as weapons a misunderstanding possible in English. Arms here stands as the symbol of physical power generally. On his
part is represented by the preposition mi, which means with or from; hence we find the Septuagint translating by para>, and Theodotion by ejx. Probably the most natural view is to take the preposition as equivalent to by, that is, he shall set physical forces in motion. And they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength. That the temple in Jerusalem had all the characteristics that fitted it to become a fortress, was proved in every one of the numerous sieges it has endured. It becomes still more a fortress, of course, when the Tower Antonia was erected overlooking the temple area. There may, however, have been a reference to the fact that the collectors of tribute sent by Antiochus fortified the city of David, and used it as a basis of operations from which to assail the temple and defile its courts with blood (1 Macc. 1:35-36). And take away the daily sacrifice. The Hebrew word here used means continual, and the substantive sacrifice is supplied. In ver. 45 of the same chapter of 1 Macc. we are told that Antiochus forbade burnt offerings, and sacrifices, and drink offerings in the temple. And they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. One must note here the source of dw>sousi which we find in both Greek versions, and dabit, which we find in the Vulgate. The Hebrew has Wnt]n;w (venathnoo), and they shall give or set. It seems to refer to an altar to Jupiter, which was erected on the brazen altar (1 Macc. 1:59). This altar is spoken of in ver. 54 as the abomination of desolation (bde>lugma
ejrhmw>sewv). The Hebrew phrase has been borrowed from<270927> Daniel 9:27; hence the suggestion of Professor Bevan, to read here yyvl[b, is not necessary. Also of note would be that the temple was not left desolate. It was robbed, but not desolated. And that the sacrifice ceasation was only for a few years. For wasnt it seventy years that the Hebrews went without a daily sacrifice while in Babylon?

And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that that is determined shall be done. (v 36)

The LXX. does not differ greatly from this, And the king shall do according to his will, and shall be enraged, and be exalted above every god, and against the God of gods shall he speak marvellous things (e]xalla)
and shall prosper until the wrath be accomplished; for on him (eijv aujto>n) there is an end. The difference in the last clause is considerable between the LXX, and not easily explicable. Theodotion differs somewhat more,
And he shall do according to his will; and the king shall be exalted, and be magnified, and he shall speak marvellous things, and he shall prosper until the wrath is ended; for it is to a determined end (sunte>leian). The Peshitta is closely related to the Massoretic, even in the last clause, where a difference is manifested in the others. The Vulgate affords no occasion of remark. The question that has to be settled here is Who is the king who shall do according to his pleasure? Aben Ezra maintained the reference was to Constantine the Great. Rashi, followed by Calvin, would make it the Roman Empire personified. He notices the Rabbins referring this to Titus and Vespasian. As above mentioned, his own view is that the Monarchia Romana is here intended. Jephet-ibn-Ali sees in this a prophecy of Mohammed; others, Wordsworth and Rule, following Jerome and Luther, think the reference here is to the antichrist of the New Testament. For our own part, we see no necessity for supposing any other monarch than Epiphanes is referred to. While Livy and Polybius remark on the piety of
Epiphanes, it may seem strange to refer what is said here to him; but his ruthless plundering of temples proved that his piety was merely a political expedient. Speak marvellous things against the God of gods. We have no
record of any proclamations of Antiochus which exactly suit this; but then we must bear in mind that we have only compendious accounts of what he did proclaim. To the heathen, moreover, as to Polybius and Livy, words of contempt against Jehovah would seem nothing worse than impolitic; but to the Jew, blasphemous words would be so horrible that they would not be recorded, as being a contamination: hence it is not extraordinary that we hear nothing of blasphemy in the history of Antiochus. The forbidding of sacrifices and of circumcision, while clearly enough dishonouring to God and to the Jewish nation, do not contain enough to justify the statement. Shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished. If by the indignation ( µ[z, zaam) is meant the sufferings endured by the Jewish people, then the prosperity of Epiphanes his life, indeed did not last so long as the sufferings inflicted on the Jews; for these continued for some time after his death. There is probably here an indication that the writers horizon did not reach to the death of Antiochus. Certain, by his faith in God, that Antiochus would perish, he thinks that until that time he may prosper. For that that is determined shall be do,to. There is considerable difficulty as to the text here, but all the various forms convey the same meaning a definite limit to oppression.

Continued in next post.....

DeaconDean · Mar 13, 2006

But here is where it changes concerning Antiochus Epiphanes.

But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. (v 43)
The rendering of the LXX. Is somewhat fuller, He shall have power over the place of gold and the place
of silver, and over all the desire of Egypt, and Libyans and Ethiopians shall be in his multitude. The word translated treasures is a late one, but evidently the Septuagint translator had µqm (maqom) instead of ynem"k]mi. (michemanay). Theodotion renders, And he shall have power over the secret hoards of gold and silver, and over all the desirable things of Egypt, and of Libyans, and of AEthiopians in their fortresses. Theodotion has read wyrwxm (metzorayo) instead of wyd;[;x]mi (mitzadoyo). The Peshitta rendering is, And he shall have power over the house of the treasures of gold and silver, and of the pleasant things of Egypt, and the Libyans, and the Cushites (Ethiopians) are his allies. The Vulgate follows a slightly different rendering, And he shall rule the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; through Libya and AEthiopia, too, shall he pass. Having a different reading in the last clause from the Massoretic, the natural Hebrew equivalent for transibit is rbo[]y" (yabor) a word that could scarcelv arise by mistake from that in the text. He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silcer, and over all the precious things of Egypt. Strictly speaking, this never was the case, as Antiochus never wholly conquered Egypt, although in that expedition, in which he had laid siege to Alexandria, he came very near completing his conquest. And the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall beat his steps. This certainly is not true in the sense in which Jerome takes it, he shall pass through Libya and Ethiopia. Though Antiochus more than once invaded Egypt, he never passed further into Africa. These nationalities are associated with each other; e.g. in Jeremiah 46:8, 9, we have, The Ethiopians and the Libyans that handle the shield. So in Ezekiel 30:5 we have the countries spoken of together. It may merely mean that individuals belonging to these nationalities had joined his armies. This is
altogether a more ornate and poetical passage than the rest of this chapter, and gives the feeling of a different hand; therefore, probably, it belongs to a time nearer that of Daniel, and contains more of the original prophecy.
Professor Fuller remarks on a reference being made to the help Ptolemy received from Cyprus. Cyprus, or Chittim, is referred to in the earlier part of this chapter, hut not here. The Lubim and Cushim are contemporary
with Edom, Moab, and the sons of Ammon.

While the evidence is overwhelming that these passages speak of Antiochus Epiphanes, there is no certainty in saying that it is him, and likewise there is no certainty in saying that it isnt him. While Antiochus Epiphanes fits most of the passages, he does not fulfill all of them as in verse 43. If you want to argue that it is Antiochus Epiphanes in these scriptures, you could be right, if you want to argue that it isnt Antiochus Epiphanes, you could be right. This is one instance where the positive and the negative may well be entirely right. And as I stated before, Antiochus is a type of antichrist, which is yet to come. Just as Moses was a type of the Christ which would come. He may have fit some prophesies, but what we are to look for is one who not only matches Antiochus Epiphanes, but will in all certainty, fulfill everything. Daniel 11 also contains references to another Antiochus which does make it harder to narrow down the possibilities.

LittleLambofJesus · Mar 13, 2006

While the evidence is overwhelming that these passages speak of Antiochus Epiphanes, there is no certainty in saying that it is him, and likewise there is no certainty in saying that it isnt him. While Antiochus Epiphanes fits most of the passages, he does not fulfill all of them as in verse 43. If you want to argue that it is Antiochus Epiphanes in these scriptures, you could be right, if you want to argue that it isnt Antiochus Epiphanes, you could be right. This is one instance where the positive and the negative may well be entirely right. And as I stated before, Antiochus is a type of antichrist, which is yet to come. Just as Moses was a type of the Christ which would come. He may have fit some prophesies, but what we are to look for is one who not only matches Antiochus Epiphanes, but will in all certainty, fulfill everything. Daniel 11 also contains references to another Antiochus which does make it harder to narrow down the possibilities.

Makes sense to me.

Btw, I just about have it translated and may put some of it up here later to let you look at, ok? Maybe we can find Jesus or maybe Pentecost in there somewhere.

Luke 21:22 "For these are the days of vengeance, that ALL things which are WRITTEN may be Fulfilled.

1 Peter 4:7 But the End of ALL things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers.

Revelation 10:7 but in the days of the voice of the seventh messenger, when he may be about to sound, and the secret of God may be FINISHED as He did declare to His own servants, to THE PROPHETS.

Daniel 9:24 70 7's, he is decreeing [#2852] on your people and on a city of a holy of you, to shut up[#03607] the transgression[#06588] and finish[#08552] sealing[#02856] up sin["02403] and to atone/cover[#03722] over iniquity[#05771] and come into/enter[#0395] in righteousness[#06664] of eons[#05769] and to seal up[#02856] vision[#02377] and prophet[#05030] and to annoint[#04886] holy[#06944] holy ones[#06944] .

Daniel 12: 6 and he saith to the one clothed in linen, who [is] upon the waters of the flood, `Till when [is] the End of these wonders?'...... 13 And thou, go on to the End, then thou dost rest, and dost stand in thy lot at the End of the Days.'

good4u · Mar 14, 2006

vinsight4u said:
[/

Why do you do this? You delete your posts frequently, even if they are in a minority, are you embarrassed?

You don't have to be, prophecy is difficult and not easy to understand. I don't fault you for that.

holdon · Mar 14, 2006

DeaconDean said:
Artaxerxes I authorized Ezra to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the walls surrounding the city of Jerusalem, (458-455 BC (?)) (Ezra 7:11-13; Neh. 2; Dan. 9:24) thus beginning the seventy weeks of Daniel.

Ezra 7 is in the 7th year of the King. Neh. 2 is in the 20th. So, they are not the same point of time. I believe Neh. 2 is the starting date for the 70 weeks.

His son, Artaxerxes II, around 402-401 BC lost control of Egypt. Beginning around 332 BC this era would become known as the Greek period.

At this time the rough goat would become known to the world as Alexander the Great. According to Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews Book 11, chapter 7, section 5, the priests in Jerusalem see Alexander the Great approaching the city. They march out to meet him dressed in fine linen while the high priest came out dressed in holy garments. When the high priest approached Alexander he adored the name and saluted him. Alexander is led back to the city and taken to the temple where the priest open up the book of Daniel and show him the prophecies concerning him. Therewith Jerusalem and the city came under the control of the Greeks without any bloodshed on either side.
After Alexander the Greats death, the Greek lands are divided up among five

After all the fights 4 remain. See Dan. 7:6; 8:8; 11:4. Their names and territories are: Ptolemy over Egypt; Seleucus over Syria; Lysimachus over Thrace; Cassander over Macedonia.

So much for the history lesson.

And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that that is determined shall be done. (v 36) The question that has to be settled here is Who is the king who shall do according to his pleasure? Aben Ezra maintained the reference was to Constantine the Great. Rashi, followed by Calvin, would make it the Roman Empire personified. He notices the Rabbins referring this to Titus and Vespasian. As above mentioned, his own view is that the Monarchia Romana is here intended. Jephet-ibn-Ali sees in this a prophecy of Mohammed; others, Wordsworth and Rule, following Jerome and Luther, think the reference here is to the antichrist of the New Testament. For our own part, we see no necessity for supposing any other monarch than Epiphanes is referred to.

I think v. 36 which introduces "the king" is the king of Israel at future date: the Antichrist.

Continued in next post.....

holdon · Mar 14, 2006

DeaconDean said:
But here is where it changes concerning Antiochus Epiphanes.

While the evidence is overwhelming that these passages speak of Antiochus Epiphanes, there is no certainty in saying that it is him, and likewise there is no certainty in saying that it isnt him. While Antiochus Epiphanes fits most of the passages, he does not fulfill all of them as in verse 43. If you want to argue that it is Antiochus Epiphanes in these scriptures, you could be right, if you want to argue that it isnt Antiochus Epiphanes, you could be right. This is one instance where the positive and the negative may well be entirely right. And as I stated before, Antiochus is a type of antichrist, which is yet to come.

I agree with that. A. Epiphanes is a precursor of the final evil king of Israel: the Antichrist.

LittleLambofJesus · Mar 14, 2006

holdon said:
I agree with that. A. Epiphanes is a precursor of the final evil king of Israel: the Antichrist.

Are you saying that Dan 11 is about Antiochus Epiphanes and that whole chapter is going to start over from the beginning? I don't really understand that part as it is one continuous event up to Dan 12, and Jesus mentioned it in the Olivet Discourse, so I would have thought Jesus would be shown somewhere in it bringing the NC to Israel and Judah. EGAD, my aching head.

Did you get a chance to check this site out by any chance?

http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/daniel.html

A doctrine of the 'revived Roman empire' was then concocted, and at the time this happens, the clock will start ticking again and that last bit of prophecy will finally be fulfilled. This might explain chapter nine, if you choose to accept such nimble interpretation, but another excuse would have to be cooked up for chapters 10 to 12, for it is self evident that in this source (written in the second century in response to Antiochus IV) the world did not end immediately after Antiochus despoiled Jerusalem and the temple, Michael was not outraged enough to promptly end the world.

This 'clock' must have 'stopped ticking' as well, awaiting the awakening and the rise of the 'revived Selucid Greek empire' at which time it will finally be fulfilled. This would, of course, require ending the world twice (once to Revive the Romans and thus salvage chapter 9, and a second go at it to revive the Greeks and salvage chapter 12. Whether or not we can all tolerate suffering through two ends of the world is a good question, but this would be required to salvage the doctrine of 'Biblical inerrancy.'

Dan 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the continual, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate

Did not Jesus make this Prophecy while the Jewish Temple and Nation were still around?

Matthew 24:15 Whensoever, therefore, ye shall see the abomination desolation, that was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place,--he that readeth, let him think,

holdon · Mar 14, 2006

By W. Kelly

"For the ships of Chittim shall come against him." There are these indefatigable Romans that come in again. They had dealt with his father when he had made an attack upon Greece; and now that the son had his hand over the throat of his prey, the Roman consul came, and at once forbade his doing anything further. He even drew a circle round him, as is well known, when the artful king wished to gain time to evade. The answer was demanded before he stepped out of the circle, and he was obliged to give it. This was a death-blow to all his policy. He went home a miserable, defeated man, with a heart vexed and infuriate, though putting on a humble appearance before the Romans. What should hinder him from wreaking out the anger of his heart upon the Jews? As it is said here, "Therefore shall he be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant." Poor as the Jews were, they were witnesses for God upon the earth; and Antiochus hastens to pour out his fury upon whatever bore a testimony to God among them. This was his ruin, and brought God's vengeance upon him. "He shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant," i.e. with the apostates of the Jews. "And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate." He will put an end to the Jewish service, and will set up an idol, "the abomination that maketh desolate," in the temple of Jerusalem. It is a mistake to suppose that this refers to the last days. It is only a type of what will take place then. The latter part of the chapter, and the next chapter, do refer to the latter day in the full sense of the word. But here is the step of transition from what is past to the future.
We come down in regular historical order to Antiochus Epiphanes, and then meet with a great break. Scripture itself intimates as much. But Antiochus did on a small scale what the great northern king of the latter day will do on a larger one. It is said (verse 35).... "even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed." There God stops. He says, as it were, I have come to the man that shows you in type what is to befall you in the latter days; and so He dwells emphatically upon this king, laying before them the extreme wickedness of his heart and conduct. The Spirit then cuts short the course of the history, and plunges at once into the last scene. This, however, must be reserved for another occasion. What we have seen shows us that whatever may be the general outline of events elsewhere, God can be, and sometimes is, singularly minute in the details of a prophecy, and nowhere more so than in this very chapter. And what is the main objection raised by infidels against it? That it must have been written after the events had taken place! Certain it is, that there is no historian since these times who gives us such an admirable account as we have in these few verses. If I want to know the history of these two contending monarchies, Syria and Egypt, I must look here. How entirely we can confide in the word of God about everything! It may be an exception to His general rule to dwell upon the kings of the north and of. the south, but He does so at times. The great thing on which He bestows care is the souls of His people. May our hearts answer to the interest He takes in us!
From the twenty-first verse we have had the account of the king of the north, known in profane history as Antiochus Epiphanes. The Spirit of God has entered into much fuller detail in speaking of his history, because his conduct, specially at the close, in meddling with the Jews, and their city, and their sanctuary, furnished the occasion for a type of the last king of the north, who will be found following in his predecessors' wake, save that his guilt will be incomparably graver in the sight of God so flagrant indeed, that His judgment can tarry no longer. This accounts for a circumstance that has often perplexed the students of Daniel's prophecy. We read of an ''abomination that maketh desolate" in the predicted account of Antiochus (Dan. 11: 31); and it has been commonly supposed that our Lord refers to this in Matthew 24: 15. Those who looked for the future fulfilment of this abomination have sought to reconcile it with the facts by the assumption that the Spirit of God must have branched off to the future personage that Antiochus represented. But in my judgment there is no need for anything so unnatural. Antiochus Epiphanes was only a type, and verse 31 does not go beyond his history, save as a foreshadowing.
In other words, to the end of verse 31 all is strictly historical typical, of course, of the future, but nothing more. And therefore the answer to the difficulty that some find in our Lord's quoting, as they suppose, Daniel 11: 31, is really as plain as possible. He does not quote this verse. The passage He refers to is in Dan. 12. In Dan. 12: 11, you will find an expression similar to this. "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 Jays." There we. have a defined date, which connects this last setting up of the desolating abomination with the deliverance our Lord predicts in Matthew 24; for Jacob's most fiery trial is that which just precedes his deliverance.
Now there are more reasons than one for believing this passage in Daniel 12 to be what our Lord cites. Some of them depend upon considerations more fit for the study than for public ministry. But the sum of the matter is, that the expressions the Holy Ghost employs, in Dan. 11: 31 and in Dan. 12: 11, differ. In Dan. 11: 31 it means the abomination of him that desolates, or of the desolator. Whereas, in Dan. 12: 11, the true meaning is that which is given in our Lord's words not the abomination of him that maketh desolate, but the "abomination of desolation"; which is, I suppose, what is meant in the English version by the words, "that maketh desolate." Thus the two phrases are distinct. Although there is a resemblance between them, there is also a difference; and that difference is enough to show that our Lord spoke not of the abomination set up by Antiochus, but of that mentioned in Dan. 12. Consequently, there is, in fact, no difficulty to be removed; because the desolation spoken of in Dan. 11 is past, and the desolation of Dan. 12, that our Lord draws attention to, is future.
That this is so, will appear from other considerations also. Thus, in the verses that follow, we have a state of things distinct from what will be in the future tribulation of Israel. "Such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits." Now we find from the Revelation, and other parts of Scripture which speak about the future of Israel, that the godly remnant could hardly be said to do exploits. They will suffer; but I do not think that deeds of power thus characterize the blessed ones who are to pass through the dreadful crisis of the future. In the days of Antiochus, it was not so much suffering, but being "strong," and doing "exploits" exactly what was true of the Maccabees and others, who undoubtedly were not so much a band of martyrs as a set of men who roused the spirit of Israel, and resisted the cruel and profane scourge of that day. Again, we read, "And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days." There is a long period, observe, of sorrow and trouble, that follows the outbursts of courage and prowess against the desolator, and this is still continued in the following verses. "Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed." Clearly, then, these trials are before the time of the end. The Spirit of God is here referring to what has already taken place. Accordingly we have a picture of terrible disaster that goes on, as it is said, "to the time of the end."
From all this, I infer, then, that the Spirit of God singles out the desolation which then befell the people of Israel, and the defiling of the sanctuary under Antiochus or his generals. This brought vividly out the circumstances of the last days; but, along with them, certain other circumstances were added, which ought not to be expected in those days. In other words, we arrive at what may be called the long and dreary blank that severs the past history of Israel, and the struggles in their land against neighbouring aggressors, from the great crisis of the last days. This is where the true break occurs. Certain disasters were to go on "to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed." There is no place in the chapter where the interruption of the history so well fits in as after verse 35.

to be cont'd.

holdon · Mar 14, 2006

cont'd

But now, in verse 36, we have another person abruptly introduced into the scene. We are not told who he was, or whence he came; but the character that is given of him, the scene that he occupies, the history that the Spirit of God enters into in connection with him all declare, too plainly, that it is the terrible king who will set himself up in the land of Israel in personal antagonism to the Messiah of Israel, the Lord Jesus. He it was of whom our Lord spoke, when He said that, if they refused Him who had come in His Father's name, they would receive another coming in his own name. Nor is this the only passage of Scripture, where this same false Christ, or rather Antichrist (for there is a difference between the terms), is described as "the king." Not only are there different references to him under other epithets, but in the greatest and most comprehensive prophecy of Scripture, Isaiah, like Daniel, introduces "the king," as if he must be known at once. In Isa. 30 we have an enemy of Israel, called the Assyrian. Doubtless, looking at past history, Sennacherib was their great head in that day. But he only furnished the opportunity to the Spirit of God to bring out the future and final adversary of Israel. His fall is here brought before us. "For through the voice of the Lord, shall the Assyrian he beaten down, which smote with a rod. And in every place where the grounded star shall pass, which the Lord shall lay upon him, it shall he with tabrets and harps: and in battles of shaking will He fight with it." After the end of that victory there will be exceeding joy for Israel; instead of the train of sorrow, which most victories bring, there follows unfeigned gladness before the Lord. "It shall be with tabrets and harps." For the enemy there will be proportionate misery. Something still more awful and unending than temporal destruction falls upon the proud foe. "For Tophet is ordained of old: yea, for the king it is prepared; He hath made it deep and large: the pile therefore is fire and much wood; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it." In our version there is a singular obscurity' remarked by another, in this verse At first sight it might appear that the Assyrian and "the king" were the same person. The true rendering is, "For the king also it is prepared" that is, Tophet is prepared for the Assyrian, but besides, for THE KING also. Just as in our passage in Daniel, we have the Assyrian or king of the north on the one hand, and "the king" on the other. The same frightful end awaits them both. But I only refer to this now for the purpose of showing, that the expression, "the king," is not unprecedented in Scripture, and that it applies to a notorious personage the Jews were taught in prophecy to expect. God, in judicial retribution for their rejection of the true Christ, would give them up to receive the Antichrist. This is "the king." He would arrogate to himself the royal rights of the true King, the Anointed of God. Tophet was prepared for the king of the north, and also for "the king."
But this is not all. In Isaiah 57 we have him introduced quite as unexpectedly. In Isaiah 55 are shown the moral qualities that God will produce in His people. In Isaiah 57 He shows us the fearfully iniquitous state then also found in Israel. And in that day God will no longer endure anything but reality. Forms of piety, covering uncleanness and ungodliness, will have passed away. There "the king" is suddenly introduced to us. (v. 9) "Thou wentest to the king with ointment, and didst increase thy perfumes, and didst send thy messengers far off; and didst debase thyself even unto hell." To have to do with him was to debase oneself unto hell. No wonder that for "the king also" Tophet was prepared. This shows that, before the mind of Israel from the first, there was one that the Spirit of God led them to expect to reign over the land in the last days, who is called "the king."
Thus at once is furnished a most important clue to Daniel 11. We are come to the time of the end. The blank is closed the long dark night of Israel's dispersion is well-nigh over. The Jews are in the land. In what condition'' Are they under Christ? Alas! there is another and a terrible scene that must first be enacted there. "The king" that we have read of is there, and the course he pursues is just what we might expect from the landmarks of the Holy Ghost. "The king shall do according to his will." Ah! are any of us sufficiently aware what a fearful thing it is to be the doers of our own will? Here is the end of it. It was the first great characteristic of sin from the beginning. It is what Adam did, and the fall of the world was the immediate result. Here is one who at that day may seem to be the loftiest and most influential of Adam's sons. But he does "according to his will." And nothing worse. Are we to read such a history as this without moral profit to our own souls? To forget what an evil thing it is ever to be the doers of our own will? Let none suppose that, because they may be in a position to rule, they are therefore outside the danger. Alas! it is not so: no one thing so unfits a person for righteous rule as the inability to obey. It is good first to know what it is to be subject. Oh! may it strike deep into all our hearts, that "the king," the Antichrist, is first stamped as one doing his own will. May it test us how far we are seeking ours! how far, under any circumstances, we are doing, or allowing anything, that we would not wish every soul in this world to see perhaps even those that are nearest to us. Alas! one knows, from experience and observation, the difficulty and danger in these things from one's own heart. Yet there is no one thing more contrary to that Christ whom we have learnt. We are sanctified "unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." It is not only to the blessing, in the sprinkling of the blood, but to the obedience of Jesus Christ to the same spirit and principle of obedience; for that is the meaning of the expression. We are not like the Jews who were put under the law, and whose obedience had the character of obligation to do such and such things under penalty of death. We are already alive unto God, conscious of the blessedness in which we stand, and awakened to see the beauty of the will of God; for His will it is which has saved and sanctified us. This is our calling, and our practical work here below. Christians have no other business, properly speaking, than to do the will of Another. We have to do God's will according to the character of the obedience of Christ as sons delighting in the will of the Father. It does not matter what we may have to do. It may be one's natural daily occupation. But do not make two individuals of yourselves with one principle in your business or family, and another for the Church and worship of God. Never allow such a thought. We have Christ for everything and every day. Christ is not a blessing for us merely when we meet together or are called to die; but if we have Christ, we have Him for ever, and from the first moment we are emancipated from doing our own will. This we learn is death; but it is gone now in Christ's death. We are delivered, for we are alive in Him risen. But what are we delivered for? To do the will of God. We are sanctified unto the obedience of Jesus Christ.

LittleLambofJesus · Mar 14, 2006

Thus the two phrases are distinct. Although there is a resemblance between them, there is also a difference; and that difference is enough to show that our Lord spoke not of the abomination set up by Antiochus, but of that mentioned in Dan. 12. Consequently, there is, in fact, no difficulty to be removed; because the desolation spoken of in Dan. 11 is past, and the desolation of Dan. 12, that our Lord draws attention to, is future.
That this is so, will appear from other considerations also. Thus, in the verses that follow, we have a state of things distinct from what will be in the future tribulation of Israel.

So where does the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century show up in either one of those? :scratch:

Why does everyone purposely leave out that event or maybe it never happened. Anyway, I will let you all here figure it out.

holdon · Mar 14, 2006

LittleLambofJesus said:
So where does the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century show up in either one of those? Why does everyone purposely leave out that event or maybe it never happened. Anyway, I will let you all here figure it out.

Daniel mentions the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in Daniel 9:26 "and the people, of the prince that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary".

LittleLambofJesus · Mar 14, 2006

Thus the two phrases are distinct. Although there is a resemblance between them, there is also a difference; and that difference is enough to show that our Lord spoke not of the abomination set up by Antiochus, but of that mentioned in Dan. 12. Consequently, there is, in fact, no difficulty to be removed; because the desolation spoken of in Dan. 11 is past, and the desolation of Dan. 12, that our Lord draws attention to, is future.
That this is so, will appear from other considerations also. Thus, in the verses that follow, we have a state of things distinct from what will be in the future tribulation of Israel.

holdon said:
Daniel mentions the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in Daniel 9:26 "and the people, of the prince that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary".

So we skip from abomination of antiochus to the one in Daniel 12, but neither of those are on the Jewish nation in the first century. Hmmmm. How convenient. No wonder the jews think we are "confused" religion.

holdon · Mar 14, 2006

LittleLambofJesus said:
So we skip from abomination of antiochus to the one in Daniel 12

Maybe it's not convenient for your theories, but the abomination of Dan 12 is not the same as in Dan 11.

, but neither of those are on the Jewish nation in the first century.

Indeed.

Hmmmm. How convenient. No wonder the jews think we are "confused" religion.

It depends. If they are dealing with a confused christian, they may think so. But that doesn't mean that all Jews should think that all christians are confused...

But Dan. 9:26 does speak about the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70AD. So, does Luke in his gospel:
21:20 "But when ye see Jerusalem encompassed with armies, then know that its desolation is drawn nigh."

And after that destruction, Jerusalem is left desolate, trodden by the nations UNTIL the times of the gentiles are fulfilled. See Luke 21:24.

During these times of the gentiles "these glad tidings of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole habitable earth, for a witness to all the nations, and then shall come the end." Mt 24:14

Then at the end, that is after the times of the gentiles, there is the abomination of desolation of which Jesus spoke:
"When therefore ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which is spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in what is a holy place, (he that reads let him understand,)" Mt. 24:15 [So, it is clear that this abomination of desolation of which Daniel and Jesus spoke is not at the time of Titus, but after that. After that the times of the gentiles are fulfilled. After that Jerusalem will have been trodden down by the nations, during the same period.]

Then, after the abomination of desolation stands in the holy place: "then shall there be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be;" Mt 24:21; Dan 9:27.

Then, (when these times of the gentiles are fulfilled) there shall be signs in sun and moon and stars (Luke 21:25; Mt. 24:29) and then the Son of Man will appear from heaven. Mt 24:30; Luke 21:27.

LittleLambofJesus · Mar 15, 2006

Dan 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the continual, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate

Did not Jesus make this Prophecy while the Jewish Temple and Nation were still around?

Matthew 24:15 Whensoever, therefore, ye shall see the abomination desolation, that was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place,--he that readeth, let him think,

So we skip from abomination of antiochus to the one in Daniel 12

Maybe it's not convenient for your theories, but the abomination of Dan 12 is not the same as in Dan 11
But Dan. 9:26 does speak about the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70AD. So, does Luke in his gospel:
21:20 "But when ye see Jerusalem encompassed with armies, then know that its desolation is drawn nigh."

And after that destruction, Jerusalem is left desolate, trodden by the nations UNTIL the times of the gentiles are fulfilled. See Luke 21:24.

During these times of the gentiles "these glad tidings of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole habitable earth, for a witness to all the nations, and then shall come the end." Mt 24:14

.

, but neither of those are on the Jewish nation in the first century.

Indeed.

Hmmmm. How convenient. No wonder the jews think we are "confused" religion.

It depends. If they are dealing with a confused christian, they may think so. But that doesn't mean that all Jews should think that all christians are confused...

We will get to the abomination of Daniel 11/12 and Matt 2 after you answer this.

May I ask if you believe this is a literal physical Sanctuary and worshippers being measure or a "symbolic/spiritual" Sanctuary and worshippers being measure?

(Young) Revelation 11:1 And there was given to me a reed like to a rod, and the messenger stood, saying, `Rise, and measure the sanctuary of God, and the altar, and those worshipping in it;

(Young) Revelation 11:19 And opened was the sanctuary of God in the heaven, and there was seen the ark of His covenant in His sanctuary, and there did come lightnings, and voices, and thunders, and an earthquake, and great hail.

(Young) Revelation 15:8 and filled was the sanctuary with smoke from the glory of God, and from His power, and No One was able to enter into the sanctuary till the seven plagues of the seven messengers may be finished.

LittleLambofJesus · Mar 18, 2006

Any more views on Daniel 11/12 and it's possible fulfillment in revelation? Thanks.

Daniel 11 is about Antiochus?

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

<font color="darkblue"><font size="3"><b><i><font

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Similar threads