The Time Is Near: Volume 1—A Reference Commentary on the Visions of Daniel [1] 9781452525303, 1452525307

Citation preview

Ian Foley has written a masterpiece combining illumination of God’s Word with rigorous research. The Time is Near is a significant contribution to the church in understanding the book of Daniel and end-time events. Ps James Loke, Regional Pastor, Hope International Ministries

I have known Ian well over ten years and in this period of time he has consistently been a dedicated and careful student of the Bible. In particular, his passion to explore the book of Daniel and the events of the End Times has resulted in this interesting and detailed thesis. I recommend the reading and study of his writings, as Ian offers fresh perspectives to the interpretation of the book of Daniel. In view of recent developments in the global arena, Ian’s writings are well worth our time and effort to help us dwell deeper into these subjects, and gain some valuable insights. Ps Simon Eng, President and International Elder, Hope International Ministries T  H  E TIME IS NEAR Volume 1—A Reference Commentary on the Visions of Daniel Ian Foley, PhD

Copyright © 2008, 2014 Ian Foley, PhD. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Balboa Press A Division of Hay House 1663 Liberty Drive Bloomington, IN 47403 www.balboapress.com.au 1 (877) 407-4847

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them. The author of this book does not dispense medical advice or prescribe the use of any technique as a form of treatment for physical, emotional, or medical problems without the advice of a physician, either directly or indirectly. The intent of the author is only to offer information of a general nature to help you in your quest for emotional and spiritual well-being. In the event you use any of the information in this book for yourself, which is your constitutional right, the author and the publisher assume no responsibility for your actions. Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only. Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock. ISBN: 978-1-4525-2529-7 (sc) ISBN: 978-1-4525-2530-3 (e) Balboa Press rev. date: 09/29/2014 Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved. “Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE(R), Copyright (C) 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,197 5,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.” The Holy Bible, New King James Version Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson Inc. All rights reserved. 1917 by The Jewish Publication Society (JPS) The Electronic Text is copyright © 1995, by Larry Nelson,

P.O Box 1681, Cathedral City, CA, 92234. (760) 770– 1. All rights reserved. Used by permission. “Scripture quotations contained herein from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version are copyright ©2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.” “The Scripture quotations contained herein from the New Revised Standard Version are copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations from the New International Version are denoted NIV. All scripture quotations are from the NIV unless otherwise noted. Scripture quotations from the King James Version are denoted KJV. Scripture quotations from the New King James Version are denoted NKJV. Scripture quotations from the New American Standard Bible are denoted NASB. Scripture quotations from the Revised Standard Version are denoted RSV. Scripture quotations from the New Revised Standard Version are denoted NRSV. Scripture quotations from the New English Bible are denoted NEB. Scripture quotations from Young’s Literal Translation are denoted YLT. Scripture quotations from the English Standard Version are denoted ESV. Contents Tables And Figures Foreword Preface Acknowledgments Chapter 1 The Time Is Near

A.   The Big Picture A1.   The Antiochene View A2.   The Antichrist View A3.   The Preterist View A4.   The Process B.   Interpretation Principles C.   Hebrew Parallelism D.   An Overview Of The Book Of Daniel E.   The History And Chronology Of Daniel F.   The Structure Of Daniel Chapter 2 Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream A.   Setting The Scene B.   The Dream C.   The Interpretation D.   Conclusions Chapter 3 The Four Beasts And A Little Horn A.   The Vision B.   The Interpretation B1.   Daniel’s First Question And The Answer B2.   Daniel’s Second Question And The Answer C.   Conclusions Chapter 4 The Ram, The Goat, And A Little Horn A.   The Vision A1.   The Ram A2.   The Goat

A3.   The Little Horn B.   The Interpretation B1.   The Time Of The End B2.   The Ram B3.   The Goat B4.   The Little Horn C.   The Two Little Horns Compared C1.   The Most Obvious Similarities C2.   The Most Obvious Differences C3.   The Time Element D.   Conclusion Chapter 5 The Seventy Sevens A.   Daniel’s Prayer B.   The Seventy Sevens B1.   To Finish The Transgression And To Anoint The Most Holy B2.   To Make An End Of Sins And To Seal Up The Vision And Prophecy B3.   To Make Atonement And Bring In Everlasting Righteousness B4.   Conclusions C.   Daniel’s Sevens D.   Daniel’s Punctuation E.   An Analysis Of Daniel 9:25–27 E1.   The First Part (Verse 25) E2.   The Second Part (Verse 26) E3.   The Third Part (Verse 27A) E4.   The Fourth Part (Verse 27B) E5.   The Consolidated Translation E6.   The Starting Year For The Vision

F.   Conclusions Chapter 6 The Final Vision A.   Daniel And The Messenger B.   The Persian Empire C.   The Greek Empire C1.   Alexander (The Great) C2.   The Diadochi C3.   The Southern Kingdom Reigns C4.   Antiochus Iii (The Great) C5.   Seleucus Iv C6.   Antiochus Iv C7.   Reflection D.   The King D1.   The Character Of The King D2.   The History Of The King D3.   The Jews In Great Trouble E.   How Long? F.   Epilogue Chapter 7 The Conclusion Of The Matter A.   Putting It All Together A1.   Overview A2.   The Earlier Visions Revisited A2.1   Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream A2.2   The Four Beasts And A Little Horn A2.3   The Ram, Goat, And Little Horn A3.   The Seventy Sevens Revisited

A3.1   What Is Now Known A3.2   The Little Horn A3.3   The Antiochus Iv Abomination That Caused Desolation A3.4   The Final Abomination That Caused Desolation A4.   The Roman View A4.1   Flaws In The Antiochene, Antichrist, And Preterist Views A4.2   The Antiochene View A4.3   The Antichrist View A4.4   The Preterist View A4.5   The Roman View A5.   The Unity And Structure Of The Book Of Daniel A5.1.   The Linear Structure A5.2.   The Chiasmic Structure B.   A Comparison Of Major Views Of The Seventy Sevens Prophecy B1.   The Traditional View B1.1   Critical B1.2   Messianic B1.2.1.   Seventy Sevens, 490 Years To The End B1.2.2.   Sixty-Nine Sevens, A Gap, And Then The Final Seven Years B1.2.3.   69.5 Sevens, A Gap, And Then The Final 3.5 Years B2.   The Chronographic View B3.   The Chronology Of Jesus B4.   The Coming Prince B4.1   The Basis Of The Calculations B4.2   Anderson’s Calculation B4.3   Faith Versus Sight B5.   Corrections To Anderson’s Calculations

B5.1   Anderson’s Errors B5.2   Hoehner’s Amendments B6.   Other Calculations B6.1   Problems With The Prophetic Year B6.2   The Prophecy Starts With Cyrus In 457 Bc B6.3   The Decrees Of Cyrus, Darius, And Artaxerxes Are Treated As One B6.4   The Prophecy Starts With Artaxerxes In 454 Bc B7.   Conclusions About The Seventy Sevens Prophecy B7.1   Why The “Sevens” Are Not “Sevens Of Years” B7.2   Why The Punctuation In Daniel 7:25 Is Valid B7.3   Problems With The Messianic Views B7.3.1.   Seventy Sevens, 490 Years To The End B7.3.2.   Sixty-Nine Sevens, A Gap, And Then The Final Seven Years B7.3.3.   69.5 Sevens, A Gap, And Then The Final 3.5 Years B7.3.4   Additional Comments B7.4   The Time, Times And Half A Time C.   Overall Conclusions Chapter 8 The New Testament View Of Daniel A.   Gabriel B.   Jesus’s View Of Daniel B1.   The Righteous Will Shine Like The Sun B2.   Jesus And The Seventy Sevens B3.   The Son Of Man B4.   The Desolation Of The People, Jerusalem, And The Temple B5.   This Generation Under Judgment B6.   Jerusalem And The Temple B7.   General Signs

B7.1.   Do Not Be Deceived B7.2.   There Will Be Wars, Famines, Plagues, And Great Earthquakes B7.3.   Christians Will Be Persecuted B7.4.   The Great Commission Must Be Completed B8.   Jerusalem Is The Focal Point B8.1   The Devastation Of Jerusalem In Ad 70 B8.1.1   Luke 19:41–44 B8.1.2   Matthew 23:37–39 B8.1.3   Luke 21:20–24A B8.1.4   Luke 23:28–31 B8.2   The Complete Restoration Of Jerusalem In 1967 B8.3.   The Final Devastation Of Jerusalem B8.3.1   The Abomination That Causes Desolation B8.3.2   Comparing What Has Been Written B9.   Jesus Will Return B9.1.   Sudden And Visible B9.2.   Heavenly Dynamics B9.3.   In The Clouds B9.3.1   Jesus Returns The Same Way That He Left B9.3.2   The Sign Of The Son Of Man In The Sky B9.3.3   Coming In A Cloud With Power And Great Glory B9.3.4   The Trumpet And The Elect Gathered B10.   This Generation B11.   When Will Jesus Return? C.   Paul’s View Of Daniel C1.   The Day Of The Lord C2.   Deception And Rebellion C2.1   The Rebellion (Verse 3)

C2.2   The Man Of Lawlessness Revealed (Verses 3–4) C3.   Paul’s View Of The Role Of Nations Chapter 9 New Perspectives Of Daniel A.   The Unfolding Drama In Daniel A1.   Daniel’s Preparation (1) (605 Bc) A2.   Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream (2) (603 Bc) A3.   The Vision Of Four Beasts (7) (552 Bc) A4.   The Ram And The Goat (8) (550 Bc) A5.   The Seventy Sevens (9) (538 Bc) A6.   The Final Prophecy (10–12) (535 Bc) B.   New Perspectives On Daniel B1.   The King In Daniel 11:36–45 B2.   The Time Of The End B3.   The Time, Times And Half A Time B4.   The Identity Of The Little Horn In Daniel 7 B5.   The Identity Of The Little Horn In Daniel 8 B6.   The Seventy Sevens Prophecy C.   Overall Structure Of Daniel C1.   The Linear Structure C2.   The Inverted Parallel Structure C3.   The Content Summary Additional Note 1: The Rise And Fall Of The Roman Empire 1.1   The Character Of Rome, Daniel 11:36–39 Daniel 11:36 Daniel 11:37–38 Daniel 11:39 1.2   The History Of Rome, Daniel 11:40–45

Daniel 11:40 Daniel 11:41 Daniel 11:42–43 Daniel 11:44 Daniel 11:45 1.3   The Suffering Of The Jews, Daniel 12:1–7 Daniel 12:1–4 Daniel 12:5–7 Additional Note 2: Scenarios Of The Seventy Sevens Prophecy Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Appendix 1 The Horns In Daniel 1.   The Horn That Is The Power And Might Of An Empire With All Its Kings 2.   The Horn That Is The Power And Might Of A Single King 3.   The Four Horns That Are The Power And Might Of Four Kingdoms 4.   The Ten Horns Of The Terrifying Beast 5.   The Vision Of The Little Horn, The Ten Horns, And The Three Horns Appendix 2 The Time Of The End Appendix 3 The Saints Of The Most High Appendix 4 The Time Of Wrath Appendix 5 The Interpretation Of The Hebrew Text 5.1   The Punctuation Of Biblical Hebrew

5.2   Daniel 9:24 5.3   Daniel 9:25 5.4   Daniel 9:26 5.5   Daniel 9:27 5.6   Overall Analysis Appendix 6 Discussion Of The English Translations 6.1   The Word Translated “Reign” 6.2   The Word Translated “Inferior” In Daniel 2:39 6.3   The Ambiguity In Daniel 2:40 6.4   Daniel 7:25 6.5   Daniel 8:9–12 And 8:23–25 6.6   Daniel 11:6 6.7   Daniel 11:20 6.8   Daniel 11:28 6.9   Daniel 11:33 6.10 Daniel 11:40A 6.11   Daniel 11:41 6.12   Daniel 12:6 Appendix 7 The Seventy Sevens Prophecy 7.1   The Word For “Sevens” 7.2   The Word For “Seven” 7.3   Additional Comments Appendix 8 The 360-Day Prophetic Year Appendix 9 The First Year Of Belshazzar

Appendix 10 Bible Chronology 10.1 Calendars Julian Gregorian Astronomical Hebrew Names Of Ancient Months 10.2 Chronological Reckoning Regnal Years Accession And Non-Accession Year Reckoning Inclusive And Exclusive Reckoning 10.3 Key Dates Appendix 11 Anstey’s Chronology Appendix 12 Abductive Interpretation 12.1   Background 12.2   Dealing With Multiple Competing Interpretations 12.3   Finding The Best Interpretation 12.4   The Evaluation Of End-Time Books Bibliography End Notes Tables and Figures Table 1: Dates from Median to Grecian Empire Table 2: Dates of Kings of North and South Table 3: Summary of conclusions so far Table 4: The eastern advance of the Roman Empire

Table 5: Possible dates for the crucifixion Table 6: The Gospel’s record of the Sermon on the Mount Table 7: Final conclusions about Revelations given to Daniel Table 8: Hebrew disjunctive accents Table 9: Hebrew conjunctive accents Table 10: Hebrew codes for marks and symbols Table 11: Hebrew months and their English equivalent Figure 1: Map of Ptolemaic control of Palestine Figure 2: Map of Seleucid control of Palestine Figure 3: Map of Roman control of Palestine Figure 4: The suffering of the Jews Figure 5: Jerusalem before and after the 1967 war. Figure 6: The Middle East Figure 7: The Assyrian and Babylonian Kingdoms, Ninth to Sixth Centuries BC Figure 8: The Sufferings of the Jews We need to prepare our people for what is to come upon the world. —Luke 21:26 Foreword It brings me great pleasure and privilege to write the foreword for my friend and colleague in the Gospel. I have known of his efforts to study and subsequently write this commentary over a period of well over a decade. It is a product of a man dedicated to the cause of the Church, who sincerely desires to see the Church reach the fullness of glory which God has destined for her. Ian is a man who sincerely desires to honour God and by the grace of God has chosen to walk with humility and integrity. In over two decades of working with him, I have seen these outstanding characteristics shining through again and again; even through the most challenging of times. This quality continues to be evident in this monumental work. Ian comes to the task, perhaps with a number of advantages. His doctorate training as a physicist and subsequent academic tenure in computing, has cultivated in him a highly developed appreciation for detail. An element I am certain will be evident to readers of this commentary. Though I am by nature a meticulous person and completed my doctoral in engineering (a somewhat

less intellectually vigorous field than physics, at least in the view of most physicists), the depth of careful detailed analysis documented in this commentary has astounded me. This is a testament to his dogged pursuit of facts, in order that he may uncover the truth. Another advantage is that Ian did not hold strongly to any existing end-time theories and hence is not emotionally attached to any specific view. This has enabled him to approach the Scriptures with fresh eyes. I believe there is considerable value when one can be detached from one’s theological and church heritage, in the pursuit of truth embodied in the Scriptures. Lastly, due to his role as a senior pastor over many years, he brings considerable pastoral concerns into this task. He is well aware of the impact that end-time theologies can have upon the typical church members. Hence, though this commentary has been produced with an academic emphasis, it was not approached from a purely academic mindset. Ian is well aware of the potential impact such significant works can have upon the faith and choices of a Christ-follower. This commentary offers a substantial contribution to end-time theology, particularly in relation to interpreting key sections of the book of Daniel foundational to interpreting the book of Revelation. The commentary first reexamines key existing views and carefully dissects some of their foundational assumptions, exposing significant anomalies and therefore bringing into question the veracity of their conclusions. It then offers a new and unique thesis to interpreting those sections of the book of Daniel. I believe that such contributions are critical to the ongoing analysis of the Book of Daniel and by extension, the book of Revelation. I hope that this work will be a catalyst for renewed studies of end-time theology and help bring greater consensus in the near future. I hereby commend this new commentary in the hope that it will help us better grasp God’s destiny for His Church in the end times. Dr. Wilson Lim International Elder, Hope International Ministries Preface The thrust of the message of this book is a word of prophecy from the Lord to the worldwide church. I give it to the church as a gift. I ask the church to test it, to analyze it, to assess it, to receive what is right, and to reject what is wrong. With this book I lay down my life to the Lord. I take full responsibility for what is written, but at the same time I present it to the church as a vital message that I believe the Lord wants to bring to us now. This book has been deliberately written to place the new perspectives on a strong academic footing. It has been as carefully researched and as thoroughly written to examine everything as far as practical circumstances have allowed and ability permitted. This is not a book to read in a day; it is a reference commentary. For those who want to gain a quick overview of the conclusions, please turn to the final chapter. However, if you want to

understand the basis behind those conclusions, you will need to turn to the relevant chapters and examine the detail. As far as possible, this book has addressed every viewpoint of the book of Daniel. It has not just examined popular Evangelical and Pentecostal views. Thus it has seriously addressed the issues of those who believe in second century BC authorship as well as sixth century BC authorship. As a result, it is significantly longer and more complicated than it otherwise would have been. In his commentary of the Gospel of Mark, Edwards (2002, 402) writes, “The mischief caused by the misuse of eschatology has resulted in a virtual eclipse of eschatology in the life of the church. This unfortunate set of circumstances—both its abuse and its subsequent neglect—has weakened the church rather than strengthened it.” I totally agree with his statement. The church is very curious about the end-times, and longs to understand it, but is confronted by a variety of views, often presented with conviction. The church sees that the return of Jesus is near but does not know how near and is confused by all the divergent and often complicated views. End-time theology is in crisis as increasingly current views are shown to be inadequate. New views are hard to sort out and frequently seem inadequate too. Over the last few hundred years, through the Reformation and until today, the Lord has continued to restore the church’s teaching and practice in many areas. Now we are in desperate need to restore our end-time theology too, as within the mainstream church it remains the last major area of biblical understanding that needs a major injection of clarification. As this work has progressed, it has become more and more apparent that our understanding of the end-times and especially the book of Revelation correlates directly to our understanding of the book of Daniel. Since there are currently so many divergent interpretations of the book of Daniel, it is critical to get Daniel right in order to get our end-time theology right. This book is volume 1 of a planned two-volume series. It is a reference commentary on the visions of Daniel as it focuses on the introduction in Daniel 1 and the five revelations that are recorded in Daniel 2 and from Daniel 7 onward. This is because it has been written with a particular purpose in mind. The stories in Daniel 3 to 6 are well understood, and the commentaries cover them well. This is not to say that I feel they are less important or irrelevant; it is more a question of focus. In this book, I am concerned to reveal a whole new perspective and understanding, and so I have focused on those parts of Daniel that are impacted and which impact on that understanding. For those readers who have made extensive research and study on the book of Daniel, I would like to make the following comments. As far as I know, the conclusions reached in this study are radically different from anything that has previously appeared in print. They do not fit into any existing category very well. I believe they will seriously challenge whatever view you hold, and so I do request that you examine them with an open mind and with humility. One of the big puzzles that remain in my mind and for which I have intensively sought the Lord is why has this understanding never been seen

before. It is my conviction now that it is the most obvious and natural understanding of this book. Will your reaction be the same? I do not know, but I hope so. As far as I can tell, it is the only view that explains all of Daniel clearly with no major unexplained passages, including Daniel 11:36– 45 and the 1,290 days and 1,335 days in Daniel 12:11–12. It results in a book that has a remarkable balance and unity of content and structure. I believe the reason why it has not been seen before is because a few major detractors exist whose effect has been to blind us to the obvious; these detractors have been examined carefully, their roots examined, and their basis exposed. As a result, the whole book of Daniel comes together in a remarkable unity, balance, and clarity, which I feel will leave you just as astonished as I was. It will leave you with a remarkable picture of the rise and fall of many nations together with the miraculous survival of the little but crucial nation of God’s people, the Jews, like you have never seen before. It will leave you amazed at God’s plan. When the conclusions of this understanding are applied to the book of Revelation, which is being done in volume 2, the results are dramatic and will be for the Christian at the same time both tremendously exciting and wonderful, and absolutely terrible. A correct translation is essential to understand the book of Daniel. I am not a Hebrew scholar, but I have looked very carefully at the Hebrew text and obtained as much help as has been possible. As a consequence, I have seriously questioned a number of places where the English translators, in their efforts to make the English clear to us, have applied their predetermined understanding of the book to the interpretation of the original words. This has occurred because the interpretation given in this book is substantially different from anything previously in print. I believe that many scholars, particularly from the Evangelical and Pentecostal traditions, have relied too heavily on the KJV and, therefore, have not detected some areas of textual controversy and, in my view, have been seriously misled as a result. This is particularly evident and significant in the seventy weeks prophecy in Daniel 9:24–27. If I may make some personal comments, I would have to say that I have been on an incredible journey, and this is only the first stage of it. For the first time, the whole of the book of Daniel is meaningful, and there are no longer any substantial mysteries. The picture presented is very clear and very sobering. Human nature, reflected in the actions of nations and their rulers, is on trial, and their greed, arrogance, and selfishness are very apparent. By inference and observation, it would seem that the nations today have not changed, but through technology their capacity to cause enormous harm is drastically increased. At the same time as I am excited to understand God’s sovereignty over history and God’s tremendous love and justice and the wonderful plan that is unfolding for His people, I am tremendously concerned at the coming Day of Judgment. It is very near now, nearer than we think. The enormous loss of life that we are seeing today, which is clearly described in the book of Revelation should cause us to cry to God for mercy and pray for a worldwide spiritual revival. Every day I sense the burden of the Lord for the salvation of all men and women; the Day of Judgment will be far worse for the Lord than it will be for us, because He loves us so much.

He longs to pour out His Spirit in revival. It will surely happen, and as Christians we need to be ready and prepared for the coming of the Lord. It is not far away now. God is purifying His people and making His bride ready for His coming. Many churches will rise in power and authority; many other churches will die. In the not too distant future, the visible church will be destroyed, and the worldwide church will be forced underground. We cannot be complacent. If we truly love the Lord, we must lay down our lives for Him. I remain seriously concerned at the lack of unity in end-time teaching. Among the goals that lie behind this book is to see the whole church come together in unity in their understanding of the end-times. This is what I believe the Lord wants to do now. For this reason, not only does this book present a rather new perspective on the book of Daniel; not only does that perspective seriously impact on our view of the book of Revelation, but the book seriously attempts to show how and where our previous interpretations have gone wrong. You may feel I am arrogant to say that or even attempt to do so, but I do want you to understand that I believe God’s time has come to expose His full plan to His people. My overriding motivation is love for the truth and love for the Truth-giver. There is nothing personal in my comments about the works of others. My concern is for the truth. I’m writing this book because I feel the Lord wants me to do it. Please love the truth and approach what is written with an open mind; it is trying to build up, not pull down. It respects the works of others, but is hungry for the truth. My prayer is that that hunger is reflected in the care that has been given to fully and properly understand what God wants to say to us. My heart is also to respect the many scholars that have gone before, and with diligent effort and careful thought they have given to us many treasures from this wonderful book. They also have seriously sought to discover the truth and pass it on to us. As this work continued, new cross links, associations, and understanding emerged. What you have in your hand is a book of Daniel which is far more integrated and far more remarkable than has been previously recognized. Too little attention has been given to the Hebrew structures, and the links across Daniel to the seventy sevens prophecy have not been correctly recognized and understood. Generally, it would seem that too much exegesis has followed standard lines and too little attention has been given to the incredible creative nature of this book so that its actual text at the detailed level has not been examined carefully or closely enough. At the risk of being labeled arrogant and of overreaching myself, I wish to humbly say in faith that part of the call of the Lord on my life is to challenge the prevailing worldwide church’s views of the end-times in order to be a catalyst to bring about unity of the church in this area and so prepare it for the coming of the Lord. This book is volume 1 of the endeavor to achieve that. For many years I have had the conviction that when the return of Jesus is very near, at the time He chooses, God will make known a full understanding of the meaning of the book of Revelation. I have felt that many of the difficulties would be cleared up and what has been a difficult puzzle will become as clear as other New Testament books. That will be the time when

the Lord will start to bring unity to the church in our understanding of the end-time puzzle. In the conviction that this time has come, this book has been written for your careful analysis and prayerful consideration. It is hard for me to convey the emotion that lies behind this statement, as I have gone over many parts of what is written many times and reconsidered whether there is something that I have overlooked that will totally invalidate it all. However, each time the result is the growing conviction that it is right or nearly so. At the same time, I am in increasing awe of the God of heaven who planned it all from the very beginning and who has given us sufficient information so that we His people can be properly prepared for what is coming on the world. Indeed, as John wrote in Revelation 10, the future ahead of us is as sweet as honey in our mouths but bitter in our stomachs. The terrible suffering that is nearly upon the world is indescribable in its intensity; the glorious splendor of what God has prepared for His people is also equally indescribable. When I look out my window I find it almost unbelievable that the world I see may not be there in just a short time, as both Peter and John tell us that world we know will be destroyed by fire. Then I am reminded of Noah and see that indeed it is very possible for the God of Heaven to do this, as He holds the world in His hands and can do whatever He desires. I am so amazed that God cares for me so much and has afforded to me and to all those that trust in Jesus the full spiritual protection that we need. But I am horrified at the Day of Judgment that will soon be upon us. Brothers and sisters, there is much that God wants us to do in these last days, and there is very little time to do it. Ian Foley June 2008 Minor updates January 2014, Version 2.11. In particular, this included the addition of appendix 12 on abductive interpretation and the inclusion of related thoughts into the text. Acknowledgments I wish to dedicate this work to my wife and to thank her and my family for their wonderful support. This was no mean undertaking which began in December 2006, so this book has been over a year in preparation. So I would like to thank my wife and family for their patience and understanding throughout this period as I would often need to work by myself for substantial periods of time. My brother, Dr John Foley, provided tremendous help in working through the text of the book and suggesting many expression and grammatical improvements. I am grateful for my colleagues in the church for their encouragement and providing a listening ear to the many different ideas as they were put forward. Many people have kept me in their prayers. To all these, I give my heartfelt thanks.

CHAPTER 1 The Time Is Near Revelation 1:1–3 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near. Revelation 22:10 Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near. There is tremendous confusion and amazing variety when it comes to what the church believes the Bible teaches about the events leading up to and surrounding the Second Coming of Jesus. A relatively small number of scholars have studied this in detail, but because of the uncertainty surrounding the actual truth, most Christians place this whole topic in the “too hard basket,” and detailed teaching in this area lacks authority. A significant number of Christians today seem to recognize that Jesus’s return is near and that there is great urgency to complete the Great Commission. In a fairly general sense, it is recognized more and more that the “signs of the end” that Jesus spoke about in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are coming to pass. It can be seen that certain signs, such as the preaching of the gospel to the whole world and the return of the Jews to their homeland, signal the nearness of Jesus’s return, yet the church is far from being able to reach anything like unity in sorting out the detail in the Word of God. There are just too many divergent views. To add to the confusion, while a number of scholars have very strong and firm convictions about the detail of the endtimes events, great variety exists in these convictions. It is very strange that this confusion abounds in the final revelation that Jesus gave to the church. Our natural human minds would reason that if God wanted us to understand it, He would have made it very clear. Instead, it is written as a series of visions that Jesus gave to John using language with many symbols from his Jewish heritage, Greek culture, and the ancient world, which are hard for us to grasp. One of the important criteria to help us understand the visions is to know our Bible very well, as many of the symbols come from these backgrounds. This is especially true of the book of Daniel, which has a very close integration with the book of Revelation. Another criterion is that since visions are “mental images,” it is necessary to try to picture them in our minds to see what both Daniel and John saw as well as to understand the word symbols . Our expectation is that all the visions will have meaning; however, often the domain being described is so far away from our experience that its meaning can only be understood using language that is the “tip of the iceberg” of the actual reality.

Given that the book of Revelation was written by John during the second half of the first century AD, it is surprising that Jesus tells him that the “time is near” (Revelation 1:3, 22:10), a phrase that is repeated at the very end of the book as if to emphasize the fact. From God’s perspective of the whole history of the universe, even two thousand years or so of history is very short. This shortness of time is also true for Satan. When he is cast out of heaven as described in Revelation 12, John tells us that his time is very short too. (See Revelation 12:12.) It is important that God’s perspective of time is understood, since it is very different from ours, given that a person’s lifespan rarely exceeds one hundred years. As will be seen, there is urgency in what God requires of us. When John wrote Revelation, the time was near; now it is extremely near! I believe that God is telling us now that the end is much nearer than what is generally, unconsciously understood. It is my conviction that this perspective could have been recognized more than thirty years ago, but we missed it! We have work to do! There is no longer time for complacency! This is the reason for the title that has been chosen. There is urgency in God’s heart. At the same time, I am convinced that God is never too late. He is in control, but more than ever, He is looking for obedient and willing servants to complete the task He has given to His church. It is my expectation that some of the content of this book will take time to digest. Please do not come to hasty conclusions but carefully weigh up the complete picture of what has been written and test it against the Word of God and against history. This work has been written in two parts. The first volume primarily focuses on what can be learned from the book of Daniel independent of any later input from New Testament authors. In other words, it is the book of Daniel as he saw it and as can be understood by us today looking back with the history known today. According to Daniel, the words that have been written in the scroll are closed and sealed until the time of the end (Daniel 12:4). This first part answers this question: how much can we learn from the book of Daniel without the additional insights from the book of Revelation? It sets the context for the second part. It will provide new and substantial evidence that the book of Daniel was written in the sixth century BC and that Daniel and his colleagues were the authors. It will deal with the famous seventy sevens prophecy of Daniel 9 with some very startling results. In chapter 8, it will also examine some New Testament understanding of the book of Daniel and the end-times, especially those of Jesus and Paul.

The second volume deals with the book of Revelation. From Revelation 1:1, it is apparent that the book is the final revelation from the Lord. It will be shown that Daniel interacts with Revelation to an extent not previously recognized, and as part of this interaction, important keys from Revelation will open new aspects of Daniel. The book of Daniel will then supply an understanding of the book of Revelation that will clear up many points that have been sources of controversy in the past. With the new time element and other details revealed from the book of Daniel, it will become apparent that most of the book of Revelation up to and including chapter 13 is past and present history from the perspective of the current year, which is 2007. The result is simultaneously wonderful and terrible. For those readers who are familiar with other end-times works, the position I have adopted is like that of the Futurist School, except that the final years before the Second Coming of Christ are seen to be longer than seven years or three-and-a-half years and are understood to have already begun. Like the Futurist School, I hold to a more literal interpretation of the book of Revelation than other views. Like the Futurist School, I see the majority of the book of Revelation as finding fulfilment shortly before the Second Coming of Christ but utilizing a meaning of the word short that is generally longer than the meaning held by those of the Futurist School. I also see that the book of Revelation has major elements in common with the Progressive Parallelism view, except that there are only five parallel structures. I also see major content and structural parallels between the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation. In the sense that I see the book of Revelation as the unfolding of human history throughout the church age, my view is like the Historicist School, without the extremes of spiritualization or allegory. But unlike this school, my view is anchored by the book of Daniel so that only one interpretation is possible. All in all, my view cannot be properly classified within any of the prevailing views. However, the result is a very clear picture with all the confusion resolved. A.   The Big Picture One of the major goals of this book is to discover the underlying foundational basis that lies behind the different interpretations of the book of Daniel held by Christians today. The outcome has been very interesting. To assist in this process, a broad classification of the different views is made. Naturally, in broadly classifying these views, many scholars will differ in points of detail; however, this perspective will enable us to view the overall picture more clearly without being cluttered by the differences at the detailed level. Note that the view developed in this work is substantially different from the views described below and is not fully explained until chapter 7. A1.   The Antiochene View

In this view, the book of Daniel has been written for the Jews in the time of distress propagated by Antiochus IV from 171 to 164 BC and was written by authors during this time. They drew from past material for the stories and sometimes described the visions and revelations in a literary form using signs, symbols, and numbers to reveal history that is frequently referred to as apocalyptic. It can be dated in the second century by using the latest known historical references in the book of Daniel to events during the reign of Antiochus IV. In this view, the visions are seen as largely quasi prophecy written as though they are prophecy but designed to encourage the people that God is in sovereign control of all rulers and empires. He will protect His people, but it is important that they are wise in following God’s way and trusting in Him. In this view, the four metals in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2 and the four beasts in Daniel 7 are usually seen as the Babylonian, Median, Persian, and Greek Empires, with the little horn being Antiochus IV and the time of the end being the persecution in his time. The little horn in Daniel 8 is also Antiochus IV. The seventy sevens prophecy in Daniel 9:24–27 points to the persecution under Antiochus IV, interpreting the predicted timing in different ways: sometimes treating the sevens as sevens of years, sometimes saying that the timing is erroneous, and sometimes treating the timing as not being exact chronology, but chronography—a schematic view of the timing of history. The vision in Daniel 10–12 focuses on the Greek empire and is completed with a perspective of the suffering of the Jews under Antiochus IV. This view is held by many biblical scholars, including some of an evangelical persuasion. The recent commentaries by Goldingay (1989) and Lucas (2002) reflect a view similar to this and have been major references used in this book. A2.   The Antichrist View Another major group of scholars who tend to be Evangelical and/or Pentecostal see Daniel in a more literal way according to what it actually says. For these, Daniel or his colleagues wrote the book in the sixth century. Daniel chapters 1–6 are history and chapter 7–12 are prophecy. For these scholars the four metals in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and the four beasts in the Daniel 7 vision are the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman Empires. These tend to see the little horn in Daniel 7 as an end of the age Antichrist emerging from a restored empire derived from Roman origins with ten authorities. Some see the toes of iron and clay in Nebuchadnezzar’s image as also representing this Antichrist kingdom. The little horn in Daniel 8 is Antiochus IV but is also a type of the Antichrist. The Daniel 10–12 vision contains prophecy concerning Persian, and then Greek, empires up to Antiochus IV. But the final passage in Daniel 11:36ff concerns the end-time Antichrist in the final three and a half years of the age. The length of this period is determined from the “time, times and half a time” in Daniel 12:7 and earlier in Daniel 7:25 with respect to the little horn there. For many scholars the seventy sevens prophecy in Daniel 9:24–27 describes a period of exactly 490 years, predicting with some precision the coming of the

Messiah. For some there is a large time gap after the Messiah before completing either the last seven or the last three-and a-half years, depending on variations in the interpretation. Among this group are also a few scholars who hold to a sixth century authorship but hold to some of the Antiochene perspectives and reject the exact chronology of the Antichrist view, for example see Baldwin (1978). A3.   The Preterist View This view is held by a number of scholars who interpret Daniel in a way that is largely similar to the Antichrist view except that his prophecy ends in the first century AD either around the time of the death of Jesus or around AD 70. The term comes from the interpretation of the book of Revelation that sees the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation all being fulfilled or largely so by the end of the first century AD. Within this view, those with a partial preterist view are also included. Also included is Gurney (2006), whose views on the book of Revelation are not known but who sees Daniel’s prophecies as ending at this time. A4.   The Process The process that has been adopted in the development of this book is somewhat analogous to doing a jigsaw puzzle in a systematic way, starting with the edges and then focusing on completing major parts with a similar color pattern one by one so that the total picture gradually emerges. If some pieces of the puzzle are in the wrong place, then the picture cannot be completed. This is how the Antiochene view outlined above seems to be; because some of the pieces are in the wrong place, the interpretation of Daniel 11:36–12:13 contains much guesswork and some parts that cannot be understood. There are also other less significant areas of difficulty and uncertainty. This is clear evidence that something is wrong with the interpretation. Gurney’s view shares some of these problems but removes some of them through the clearer interpretation of Daniel 11:40–45. However, it will be seen that there is questionable interpretation as well, partly because of the perspective that he has borrowed from the Antichrist view. The process that has been adopted is also somewhat analogous to a detective trying to solve a mystery. It seems it was a bit like that for Daniel too; as each event and revelation occurred, the clues enabled him to gradually solve the mystery. Interestingly, during this process, some of the new clues deepened the mystery in some of the parts and left him very troubled, especially in the case of the Daniel 7 and 8 visions. Finally, with the final vision revealed in Daniel 10–12, the picture became clear to him except for the part so far in the future that it was not for him to know. That part is revealed to us in the book of Revelation. A third perspective that is shared is that of the research scientist. In the scientific method of investigation, the scientist puts forward a hypothesis that is proposed to explain the mystery or at least improve our understanding of it. The expected outcomes from the hypothesis are then determined, and the research then continues with experiments designed to

test it. If the hypothesis is a good one, then the predicted outcomes occur; a very good hypothesis will explain the mystery completely. These rigorous standards of investigation have been applied in this book, standards which are (hopefully) consistent both in the viewpoint adopted and in the evaluation of the other views. For this reason, it is not seen that the Antiochene view is a very good one because it leaves Daniel 11:36–12:13 largely a mystery. In other words, although it does explain some things well, it leaves other things unsolved. The quality of the hypothesis has been measured partly by the completeness with which it explains the whole book of Daniel. The problem with the Antichrist view is not that it leaves parts unexplained; in fact, it does explain the difficult parts such as Daniel 11:36–12:13 and the little horn in Daniel 7 although the explanations are not testable (except for Gurney, 2006) because they are placed in the future at the very end of the age. The problem is with the rigor and validity with which the hypothesis has been applied; the primary problem is with the methodology. The correctness of the Antichrist view fundamentally depends on a single precise prediction of the year of the crucifixion of Jesus (some scholars predict it even more precisely than this). In scientific investigation, a single precise prediction would be treated as a coincidence unless it was backed up substantially by other supporting evidence and especially other precise predictions. It is of concern that it is not known from history with certainty in which year Jesus was crucified, so the prediction cannot be validated (although recent evidence may change this—see chapter 7, section B3). Even further, the calculation of the prediction ignores the ambiguities in the original text, has questionable exegesis and is based on a specific interpretation of Daniel 9:24–27 (which probably has a greater variety of different interpretations than any other passage in the Bible). It is also based on assumptions such as the starting year of the prophecy. Their validity is based on the accuracy of the outcome whose year is still unsure. Overall, the logic is flawed. This is discussed in detail in Chapter 5. The conclusions that emerge are described in chapter 7. Some of them provide a radically different way of looking at the book of Daniel. The implications of these conclusions will be found in the second of these volumes, interpreting the book of Revelation. It will then be seen that Daniel and Revelation are remarkably integrated and indeed together provide a complete picture of history and of God’s people, including both the Jews and the church, from the beginning of the exile in 605 BC until Jesus returns. B.   Interpretation Principles This work has sought to be totally consistent and respectful of recognized sound hermeneutical principles. The following summarizes those that have been applied. 1. The Biblical Inspiration Principle . The fundamental position with regard to the Bible is that it is God’s word and that the original words written carry authority and were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This means that 2 Timothy 3:16–17 is applicable, that “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,

correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Consistent with this is the conviction that the original text was written so that every word is significant. It is also recognized that transmission and copying errors occur and that some minor editing of the original text may have happened when translators applied their own reason in trying to make the translation meaningful according to their own understanding. In general it is recognized that for the book of Daniel, the Qumran documents and other early manuscripts provide evidence that the various early texts on which our modern translations are based are substantially similar to the original. This means that when it might seem that the authors of the books of Daniel and Revelation have made mistakes, it is more probable that they have not been understood correctly. It also means that the position taken is that the content of the book will not mislead us. For example, when in Daniel 7:1 it is said that Daniel had a dream and wrote down the substance of his dream, then what has been written is indeed the substance of his dream apart from any transmission, copying, and editing changes mentioned above. There is substantial evidence supporting this position, and logical consistency with this stance will determine particular views of the book of Daniel. It is outside the scope and purpose of this book to examine the basis for this position, but readers are asked to respectfully recognize that if their view of biblical inspiration is different, then some of the conclusions may not contain sufficient argument to justify the position that has been adopted. All possible care has been taken to present an internally consistent document. Although recognizing the possibilities of textual corruption, unless there is verification from variant readings of respected early textual resources, this book has tended to give more weight to the Masoretic Text than other early resources. Generally, when English versions have translated a verse differently, then the Masoretic Text and commentaries that discuss that text have been carefully consulted. These resources have also been consulted when the interpretation in this book differs from those normally recognized. Additional more technical discussion of these areas has been recorded in the appendices so that the basis behind the decisions that have been made can be evaluated. The meticulous care exhibited by the authorities that sought to preserve the Hebrew language and created the Masoretic text needs to be clearly recognized. Significant respect has been given to the interpretations they made, which are reflected in the richness and depth in the punctuation of the Hebrew text. 1. The Sound Exposition Principle . It is recognized that there are vastly different abilities and skills in all expositors of the word of God. In the light of this, the word of God must be approached with a teachable heart and humility. A key feature of sound exposition is to rely on what the word of God actually says as well as applying a consistent, incontext interpretation. Very often, sound exposition fails because the interpreter has applied preconceived views to the text without fully recognizing what the text is actually saying.

The Consistent Interpretation Principle . When numerical calculations 2. are being done, they should be done consistently and with a consistent level of accuracy. Numerical calculations should not be based on an assumed solution or forced to produce the desired outcome. Having one or two seemingly remarkable hits with known historical events is not taken as sufficient in itself to establish truth. All numerical calculations must be consistent, unforced, and lead to an understanding that is fully consistent with nonnumeric interpretation, so that a complete, unambiguous, and clear interpretive picture emerges for the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation. The interpretation must be consistent with the entire Bible and remove the numerous areas of uncertainty and ambiguity that currently exist. The understanding achieved must also be in agreement with known history. 3. The Translation Conflict Principle . When different English translations of a passage show conflict, then it is very important to examine the text in the original languages. This is especially applicable to the seventy sevens prophecy in Daniel 9:24–27. For example, many authors of endtime books rely very heavily on the KJV, which has assumed a specific eschatology by translating the Hebrew word for ‘an anointed person” as “Messiah the Prince” in Daniel 9:25 and “Messiah” in Daniel 9:26 and interpreting these references to be the same person and to be Jesus. When examining the Hebrew text, this is far less clear as, for example, the NRSV translation demonstrates. 4.

1. The Complete Picture Principle . If a particular interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, leaves significant portions of these books still obscure, then considerable caution needs to be exercised about the degree of confidence in that interpretation. Fundamentally, under the first three principles above, there has to be unity and clarity in its true meaning. As an example of this, since there is so much uncertainty and diversity about the meaning of Daniel 11:36–12:13 under all existing views, then those views should be held with commensurate caution and without dogmatism since the relevant context is itself unclear.

C.   Hebrew Parallelism In recent years, a small but relatively steady stream of scholars have worked in the area variously called chiasm or literary analysis or rhetorical criticism. Bailey (1983) takes considerable time to evaluate some literary structures in the interpretation of the parables of Luke. A simple example of this from Mark 2:27 will serve to illustrate this. A                         B The Sabbath was made for man, B                   A not man for the Sabbath.

If a line was drawn connecting the As and the Bs, the lines would form an X, which is like the Greek letter Chi , which is where the term chiasmus comes from. This is often termed a chiasm. Strictly speaking, this term should be reserved for this simple ABBA pattern. However, the term is often used more loosely, as in this book. In Hebrew literature, there are many forms of parallelism. Although present in many languages, it is common and distinctive in Hebrew literature. Three types of parallelism are given below, all of which will become important in our understanding of both Daniel and Revelation. Daniel, as a devoted Jewish scholar, would have understood these structures, and so we need to do so as well in order that we will be able to better understand Hebrew literature. Since the examples are given in English, it is, of course, necessary that the translation reflects the structure of the Hebrew. Many of our translations today try to do this. Very common in both the Old and New Testaments is standard parallelism , illustrated below from Psalm 3:7. A. Arise, O LORD!       A’. Deliver me, O my God! B. Strike all my enemies on the jaw;       B’. break the teeth of the wicked. As is seen the parallel phrases follow an AA’BB’ pattern. The next example illustrates step parallelism and follows an ABCA’B’C’ pattern and is taken from Luke 11:9 –10 A. Ask and it will be given to you;    B. seek and you will find;    C. knock and the door will be opened to you. A’. For everyone who asks receives;    B’. he who seeks finds;    C’. and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. For example, this will be used to help us understand Revelation 14 and can be used to help interpret Genesis 1 as well. The third example illustrates inverted parallelism following an ABCDC’B’A’ pattern. See Proverbs 6:16–19 There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him:

A. haughty eyes    B. a lying tongue C. hands that shed innocent blood       D. a heart that devises wicked schemes    C’. feet that are quick to rush into evil    B’. a false witness who pours out lies A’. and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers The comments that follow illustrate how recognizing this structure can often yield important understanding in interpretation. In this passage, although the heart is mentioned only once, it is at the center and therefore becomes the important focus. Also notice how the A-A’, the B-B’ and the C-C’ pair up so nicely. Especially interesting is pairing “haughty eyes” with “a man who stirs up dissension”—it is not so obvious that these phrases are linked together, but the A-A’ pair makes that association definite so that something new is learned. Note that sometimes the central phrase (D above) will have a D’ too. In the text that follows, these different kinds of structures may sometimes be referred to as “chiasmic structures” even though strictly speaking that term should be applied only to a structure that has the “X” pattern. Care will be taken in applying these structures. It would be easy to go too far and force chiasmus to text when it is inappropriate. Blomberg (1989) discusses this issue and lays down some good criteria to test the correct determination of these structures. He writes (page 5), “chiasmus was used far more widely in the ancient world than it is today, so that it likely underlies numerous portions of Scripture where it has not usually been perceived.” Sometimes, the recognition of the chiasmic structure will reveal textual relationships otherwise obscured, as in the Proverbs 6:16–19 example above. In these situations, they become a valuable exegetical tool. For example, these structures supplied important exegetical evidence in the identification of the horn in Daniel 8 and the understanding of the millennium in the book of Revelation. D.   An Overview of the Book of Daniel It is not intended that this book provide a full commentary on the book of Daniel. A significant number of existing commentaries do that well and reference to them will often be made. However, the book is directed toward establishing a whole new way of looking at biblical eschatology, which sees a degree of unity and interaction between Daniel and Revelation not previously considered. It would be too much to provide a full commentary of Daniel and Revelation at this stage, so the goal has been to include as much as is necessary to support the position adopted. Thus volume I (this book) focuses on understanding as much as we can of the book of Daniel without consideration of the further insights that the book of Revelation will provide.

For this reason, this book will not discuss much about the stories of Daniel in chapters 1 to 6 except for some discussion of dates, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2, and some broad perspectives that the stories give us. The overall perspective revealed is that the content of the book of Daniel flows into the content of the book of Revelation; each is incomplete without the other, and a full understanding of each is not possible without the insights of the other. There is a sense in which the book of Revelation continues and completes the book of Daniel to an extent previously unrecognized so that together they expose God’s plan for His people from the Babylonian exile until the end of the ages and for the new heaven and new earth. E.   The History and Chronology of Daniel The “time element” is important when interpreting and understanding the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation. For this reason the chronology of events in Daniel’s time and later is essential. Substantial historical investigation was necessary to write this book. The tables below show many of the dates that are relevant to the book of Daniel. ¹ ² Table 1: Dates from Median to Grecian Empire Table 2: Dates of Kings of North and South F.   The Structure of Daniel Daniel is a Hebrew book with a typical Hebrew structure. Understanding this structure actually helps us to interpret the book. It seems that every word has been carefully chosen and carefully positioned. If something is there it is there for a reason not only for the time it was written but for us today. Frequently, when some commentaries discuss obscure or ambiguous passages, the suggestion has been made that there has been textual corruption or later editorial amendment; experience however, continues to suggest that our lack of understanding of the passage is more likely to be the problem. It does not take much effort when reading Daniel to discern that the first six chapters contain stories that are enjoyable and relatively easy to understand but that the second six chapters are visions and prophecies and are much harder to understand. This is the most common way that commentaries structure the content at the highest level. Interestingly, the time order of the stories in the first six chapters is chronological, and so is the time order of the receipt of the visions in the last six chapters. However, there is another way of viewing the content; chapters 2.4b to 7 are written in Aramaic; the rest is in Hebrew. Goldingay (1989, 158) and Baldwin (1978) also recognize that chapters 2 to 7 follow a chiasmic structure. It is also suggested that chapters 8 to 12 are chiasmic too. So Daniel has two parts that follow after an introductory prologue. There is also something akin to an epilogue, which can also be viewed as part of the final message that Daniel received. Note that the chapters are not in chronological order. Chapter 5 was actually written after Chapter 8 and Chapter 6 was written after Chapter 9

(see the opening words of these chapters to see their time element). However, all the Aramaic chapters (2.4b–7) are positioned together, and all the Hebrew chapters (except 1) are positioned together in order to set up the chiasmic structure. These features help to confirm to us that the structure was planned and deliberate and that the book has a strong unity, suggesting that there can only be one author. CHAPTER 2 Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream This chapter is an exposition and interpretation of portions of chapters 1 and 2 of the book of Daniel. A.   Setting the Scene Daniel 1:1–7 NIV (1) In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. (2) And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia and put in the treasure house of his god. (3) Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring in some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility— (4) young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians. (5) The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king’s table. They were to be trained for three years, and after that they were to enter the king’s service. (6) Among these were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. (7) The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego. Daniel 1:18–21 NIV At the end of the time set by the king to bring them in, the chief official presented them to Nebuchadnezzar. (19) The king talked with them, and he found none equal to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah; so they entered the king’s service. (20) In every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king questioned them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom. (21) And Daniel remained there until the first year of King Cyrus. Discussion: The history surrounding the events described in Daniel 1 is interesting and complex and of some importance. It is significant that it is now possible to piece together the history in some detail with remarkable accuracy and in

some cases to the very day. However, there are uncertainties with regard to some of the details, leading to differences of opinion among scholars about those details. The overall goal is to provide an understanding of the background and to determine when these events happened and to give an idea of the precision that can be attached to the result. Nabopolassar became the king and founder of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 626 BC. The Babylonians used accession year dating, so his accession year was 625 BC and his regnal years count from 625 BC (see appendix 10). This year is dated with considerable precision because Ptolemy records the following lunar eclipse: “For in the year 5 of Nabopolassar … the moon began to be eclipsed in Babylon; …” (Jones 2004, 277). This eclipse has been precisely dated to 15 April, 621 BC (Gregorian calendar). Since it is known that Nabopolassar reigned for twenty-one years, it is possible to date the death of Nabopolassar to 605 BC, which is also the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s accession to the throne, and according to the Babylonian Chronicle (5:10), this occurred on the first day of Elul, which is August 30, 605 BC (Gregorian). With these data it is possible to cross-link the biblical record with history obtained from extrabiblical sources and so precisely identify the years when the biblical events occurred with an accuracy of about one year. In 612 BC, Nabopolassar crossed the Tigris River. Joining forces with the Median king, Cyaxares, he advanced on Nineveh. The battle with the Assyrians raged for two to three months, but around July/August the city was ransacked, the Assyrian king, Sinsharishkun, was defeated and killed, and the treasures of the victory were shared between the victors. Following this victory, Cyaxares returned to his homeland and Nabopolassar used the ruined city as a base for further operations. However, Assyria survived with a new king, Ashuruballit, ruling from the city of Harran near the Euphrates and on the extreme western fringe of the kingdom. It would also seem that the Egyptian army under Pharaoh Psamtik I was involved in this region in alliance with the Assyrians. This may have caused the Babylonians not to follow up against the Assyrians after their capture of Nineveh. Subsequently, Nabopolassar conquered and plundered the surrounding regions. In October/November 610 BC, the Medes and Babylonians again united and laid siege against Harran, overran and plundered it (probably in January/February 609 BC), and then returned to their homelands leaving a garrison to defend Harran. Around July-September 609 BC, the Assyrians attempted to retake Harran but were unsuccessful. The Egyptians were also involved, but our English translations differ in their interpretation of the Egyptian role. The ESV, NASB says in 2 Kings 23:29 that Pharaoh Neco went up to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates; the KJV says that Pharaoh Neco went up against the king of Assyria, and the NIV (and NKJV) says that Pharaoh Neco went to help the king of Assyria. The parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 35:20 says Pharaoh Neco went up to fight at Carchemish. Some scholars have the view that the Egyptians now under Pharaoh Neco II (610– 595 BC), since Pharaoh Psamtik I had died in 610 BC, had changed their allegiance and were now against the Assyrians, but this seems doubtful since the Egyptians would most likely want to protect their control of the land from Egypt to Carchemish against the growing power of the

Babylonians. In 2 Kings 23:29 and 2 Chronicles 35:20–21, the Bible records how Josiah intercepted and tried unsuccessfully to prevent Pharaoh Neco II from reaching the Euphrates River and taking part in the battles there. The Bible records how Josiah fought against the Egyptians at Megiddo and was killed; this probably occurred in around April to June 609 BC. However, since the Egyptians were trying to defend the Syrian region from being overrun by the Babylonians, they were probably sending forces there every year. The reason why Josiah sought to intercept the Egyptians remains unclear. Perhaps he thought that the prophets had foretold that the Babylonians would invade all the nations and that seemed to be the way history was unfolding, and so it would be better to ally Judah with the Babylonians, but he had misjudged the timing of God’s plan and acted according to his own wisdom rather than seeking the Lord. After the death of Josiah, the people of Judah appointed Jehoahaz as king, but he reigned only three months (2 Kings 23:30–34, 2 Chronicles 36:1–4). The Egyptians sought to bring Judah under their control and so put him in chains and took him to Riblah in the north, where Pharaoh Neco II was fighting, and subsequently to Egypt, where he died. The Egyptians then installed Jehoiakim, his brother, as king and demanded that Judah pay a massive tribute to Egypt, which they did. So in the early years of Jehoiakim’s reign, Judah was very much a vassal state of Egypt. This then brings us to the critical question as to the year when Daniel was taken to Babylon. From this background it would seem that Jehoiakim became king of Judah around September 609 BC. This date seems to be the best fit to the evidence available, but some scholars opt for 610 BC or 608 BC. From 609 to 605 BC, the Egyptians sought to defend their territories in Syria, Palestine, and Judah, but they were soundly defeated at the battle of Carchemish in May–June, 605 BC, which Jeremiah 46:2 identifies as occurring in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. Since Jeremiah is clearly using Nisan to Nisan dating (in Jeremiah 36:22, the ninth month is clearly identified to be winter), it would seem clear that the first official regnal year of Jehoiakim’s reign was 608 BC. It is important to note that the fourth year of Jehoiakim is an important one in the book of Jeremiah, as quite a few of his writings are dated to this year (Jeremiah 25, 36, 45, 46:2). It is of additional interest that in Jeremiah 25:1, the fourth year of Jehoiakim is connected to the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. The Hebrew word for “first” here is unique, only occurring this one time in the Bible. It means the beginning of his reign, his accession year. Since Jehoiakim’s appointment as king of Judah was initiated by Egypt, when the Babylonians defeated Egypt, his loyalty to Babylon was questionable. Thus it is not surprising that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah (2 Kings 24:1–7) and that Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years. Further information is provided in 2 Chronicles 36:5–8, which informs us that Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jehoiakim and bound him with bronze shackles to take him to Babylon (without actually saying this occurred). These verses also record that articles were taken from the temple in Jerusalem and taken to Babylon. This most likely occurred after Nebuchadnezzar’s accession to the throne between September 605 and January 604 BC. Further evidence that this invasion occurred at this time is

seen in Jeremiah 36 when Baruch went to the temple on a fast day to read the scroll that Jeremiah had dictated to him; the date given to us for this fast is the ninth month of Jehoiakim’s fifth year (December 604 BC, Jeremiah 36:9), which was perhaps the one year anniversary of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion. The fact that this kind of fasting occurred is seen in Zechariah 7:3, 5 and 8:19, where fasts in 518 BC had been held for nearly seventy years in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months to commemorate significant disasters associated with the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 586 BC. It may have been that since the destruction of Jerusalem, no fast was held in the ninth month, as in Jeremiah 36:9, because that first invasion by Nebuchadnezzar was no longer significant. This is then most likely the time when Daniel was taken to Babylon and concurs with Daniel 1:1–2. This explanation leaves us with two particular problems which have caused some to believe that the book of Daniel is in error, and others to propose that Daniel was taken to Babylon at a different time; however, there are other possibilities. 1. The first problem is how Nebuchadnezzar could have invaded Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, since based on the accession year dating and inclusive reckoning used in the book of Jeremiah this would be 606 BC. 2. The second problem is how Daniel could have completed the three years training specified by Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 1:5 and 18 and then be interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in his second year of reign if he was deported to Babylon in 605 BC. Since the Babylonians used accession year dating and Nisan to Nisan reckoning, Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year would be 605 BC; his first year 604 BC, and, therefore, his second regnal year would be 603 BC. In answer to the first problem, the following alternatives have been proposed. 1. Jones (2004, 189) takes the view that the only possible solution to this first problem is that Nebuchadnezzar must have besieged Jerusalem and Daniel must have been exiled in 606 BC. However, this solution creates as many problems as it solves because (1) Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king in 606 BC. (However, he was crown prince, and perhaps the title of “king” could be used), (2) Jones uses nonaccession year reckoning for the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar so that his second year is 604 BC, and it is not clear why he did not use accession year reckoning to make Nebuchadnezzar’s second year 603 BC. (3) Until the defeat of the Egyptians at the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BC, there is strong evidence that Egypt controlled Judah and Palestine and that Nebuchadnezzar’s expeditions prior to that involved conflict with Egypt in Syria and further north, and (4) there are other solutions to the two problems that would satisfy Jones’s view of biblical inspiration without the need to propose Daniel’s exile in 606 BC.

Some scholars take the view that Josiah did not engage in battle with 2. Neco until 608 BC so that the first year of Jehoiakim, according to Babylonian accession year reckoning, would be 607 BC. In this case, if Judah and Jeremiah followed the Egyptians nonaccession year reckoning, 608 BC would be his official first year, and 605 BC could be regarded as the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign, as in the book of Jeremiah, but the third year in Daniel. 3. Baldwin (1979, 21) considered that Daniel 1:1 might be using an accession year dating with Tishri to Tishri reckoning for Jehoiakim’s reign. On this basis, a siege of Jerusalem beginning in September 605 BC could just be valid. It is possible that Judah could have been using this form of reckoning, since Jehoiakim was made king by the Egyptians, so their form of reckoning could have been used. However, it seems unlikely that Daniel would use this form of reckoning given that both Jeremiah and Babylon clearly used Nisan to Nisan reckoning, and Judah normally did. Therefore, this option seems remote. Lucas (2002, 51) also considers solving the problem through different dating systems, but the dating systems suggested, such as a Babylonian autumn New Year, seem less likely. 4. In understanding the first problem, it may be important that the Hebrew word translated reign in Daniel 1:1 (NIV) is malchut which appears to be a less specific term for the years of reign than regnal years, since its use conveys the thought of “kingship” or “sovereign power” (see appendix 6.1 for further discussion). It is often used without a specific length of time, (e.g., Ezra 4:5– 6, Nehemiah 12:22, Jeremiah 49:34) or used in a different way, as in 2 Chronicles 15:10, where the fifteenth year of Asa’s reign (kingship) is probably dated from his birth rather than from his accession year. Thus Daniel 1:1 could be translated “in the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim” and could reflect a less precise reckoning that ignores the month to month differences and sees his reign beginning in 608 BC and the current year being 605 BC, a difference of three years. This approach may also help us to understand the second problem, since it should be noted that the Hebrew word for reign in Daniel 2:1 is also malchut , so 603 BC must be the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. In addition to all of this, it is quite reasonable to propose that exclusive reckoning is being used, since there are clear biblical examples of this being done. For example, Nehemiah 5:14 speaks of Nehemiah being governor in Judah from the twentieth to the thirty-second year of King Artaxerxes, a period of twelve years. It may even be true that Daniel uses malchut specifically for exclusive reckoning in contrast to Daniel’s use of the Hebrew word malak in Daniel 9:2, which is clearly a reference to the beginning of the official reign of Darius the Mede. This provides the simplest and most obvious answer. So in setting the scene for the book of Daniel, it would seem most likely that Daniel was taken from Jerusalem late in 605 BC for the purpose of being trained in Babylonian ways. He completed this training very successfully, probably in 602 BC, and then entered into the king’s service, remaining there until the first year of Cyrus. Although this chapter focuses on the

beginning of Daniel’s life in Babylon, it is perhaps more to the point that Daniel’s life spanned the whole period of seventy years prophesied by Jeremiah 25 (especially verse 11) in which his people would serve the king of Babylon and that Daniel was in the service of royalty from the very beginning of this period right through to its end. In considering the second question, the answer is that Daniel must still have been in training when Nebuchadnezzar received his dream. His training was probably completed late in 602 BC. Daniel 2:1–4 NIV (1) In the second year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; his mind was troubled, and he could not sleep. (2) So the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, and astrologers to tell him what he had dreamed. When they came in and stood before the king, (3) he said to them, “I have had a dream that troubles me, and I want to know what it means.” (4) Then the astrologers answered the king in Aramaic, “O king, live forever! Tell your servants the dream, and we will interpret it.” Discussion: From the earlier discussion, it has been seen that Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in August 605 BC and that his accession year would have been 604 BC. The use of the Hebrew word malchut for “reign” probably implies a less technical word for the period of time, which has likely been computed exclusively, so his second year is probably 603 BC. Daniel is still a young man undergoing training. He is new to the land and has had to face some major adjustments and challenges, yet God has blessed him. His life is now threatened, and God comes to the rescue. It can then be said that 603 BC is the year when Daniel’s ministry as a prophet and intercessor began. This year also marks the beginning of God’s prophetic word to His people living under Gentile rule. From Daniel 1:21 it is learned that Daniel remained in the service of the Babylonian Empire from this time until Babylon came under Persian rule. As will be seen, these two years—605 BC, the beginning of the exile, and 603 BC, the first word from the Lord through Daniel— will be important in later considerations. B.   The Dream Daniel 2:27–30 NIV (27) Daniel replied, “No wise man, enchanter, magician or diviner can explain to the king the mystery he has asked about, (28) but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries. He has shown King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in days to come. Your dream and the visions that passed through your mind as you lay on your bed are these: (29) “As you were lying there, O king, your mind turned to things to come, and the revealer of mysteries showed you what is going to happen. (30) As for me, this mystery has been revealed to me, not because I have greater

wisdom than other living men, but so that you, O king, may know the interpretation and that you may understand what went through your mind. Discussion: Nebuchadnezzar is intensely interested in this dream because he has recognized its importance. From Daniel, it can be inferred that Nebuchadnezzar, in spite of his brilliance as a king, was quite insecure. He was deeply concerned about how to keep and secure his empire and how to maintain absolute authority over his subjects. It can also be inferred that Daniel showed wisdom in the way that he communicated with the king but that he never compromised in communicating that his God is in control and supreme. It is God who wants Nebuchadnezzar to know this, and He does this by revealing what is going to happen in the future. Daniel 2:31–35 NIV (31) “You looked, O king, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. (32) The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, (33) its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. (34) While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. (35) Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were broken to pieces at the same time and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth. Discussion: Before considering the interpretation, it should be noticed that the dream starts off with a picture of the whole statue. This takes time to describe and is a static image. The dynamic aspect of the dream was the rock hitting the feet of the statue resulting in its destruction and the huge mountain that resulted from the rock filling the whole earth. In understanding the dream and the interpretation that God gave to Nebuchadnezzar, it will help to be able to visualize the dream and its static and dynamic features. Then it will be important to identify what Daniel understood, as it is desired to see the revelation unfold as Daniel did. It may be that the description of the dream is not complete, as there are items in Daniel’s interpretation that would be hard to arrive at from the description given in the dream; for example, the bronze kingdom will rule over the whole earth (see verse 39). There is nothing given in the dream from which this interpretation can be inferred. However, this in no way can be used to establish that the dream originally had a different meaning from the one given in our Bibles or that the interpretation is in some way invalid. If the integrity of the text is doubted, then little can be learned from it, and our effort is largely futile. Since the integrity of the text is a starting assumption for this book, logic dictates that what has been given is what is needed to arrive at the intended conclusions. The strength of this position is seen in the final outcome at the end of the book.

C.   The Interpretation Daniel 2:36–38 NIV (36) “This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. (37) You, O king, are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; (38) in your hands he has placed mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold. Discussion: There are three main thrusts in the dream. First, that God is in control, no power or authority can function outside of His will. Nebuchadnezzar is now the king of kings, but God has given this authority to him. God controls the rise and fall of world powers; He is in sovereign control. So God was challenging the very foundations of Nebuchadnezzar’s thinking that he was equal to God and deserved the worship of his subjects. Second, it is clearly stated that the head of gold is Nebuchadnezzar. God’s appointment of Nebuchadnezzar to this supreme role is very important; Nebuchadnezzar is responsible for his rule over the kingdom. Finally, it is God’s kingdom that will finally rule and rule forever. God will be Lord of all. All the other kingdoms rise and fall; God’s kingdom will one day be set up and will be eternal. It would be of great importance to Nebuchadnezzar that the interpretation of the dream identifies that he is the head of gold and that he has absolute authority. History evaluates him as the greatest king of his time and of any time up until then. Nebuchadnezzar was a great conqueror who deported many captives to the provinces around Babylon and used them in major construction projects, especially to embellish the capital, the most famous being the “hanging gardens,” one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. The glory of the empire came to a focus in the cult of Marduk (or Bel), the supreme god of the Babylonians. A great New Year festival was held each year whose center was the temple of Marduk, whose statue was reported by Herodotus (Histories 1.183) two centuries later to have contained twentytwo tons of gold. At this festival was a reenactment of the drama of creation, which was the endorsement of Marduk’s eternal authority. This served also as an endorsement of the absolute rule of Babylon, which was a delegated responsibility to ensure the order of the world (Roberts 2002, 179). Jeremiah 50:2–3 mentions both Bel and Marduk, and Jeremiah 51:44 the festival where the nations streamed to worship Bel. In a very real sense, the glory of this empire was reflected in its religion and the way that religion was imposed on the empire as a whole. Daniel 3 also reflects this glory, as Nebuchadnezzar demands worship from his subjects to a ninety-foot statue of gold that he had set up. Daniel 2:39a NIV (39a) “After you, another kingdom will rise, inferior to yours.

Discussion: Today there is great interest in identifying the other layers in the statue. For Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel in 603 BC, however, their identification was not of great importance. God has a plan, and Nebuchadnezzar is part of that plan, and he has an important role to play in that plan. The later details of that plan did not matter so much then. In the interpretation, it is quite clear that the position of each layer from the top down reflects kingdoms that arise in chronological sequence; the next kingdom arises after Nebuchadnezzar’s (see Daniel 2:39) and the third kingdom arises after the second. The natural sense of the words here is that the second kingdom follows after the previous one and is not concurrent with it. This is a problem with interpreting the second kingdom as Media, since the Babylonian kingdom was simultaneously present. The second kingdom is described in our English translations as being “inferior” to Nebuchadnezzar’s. This is used by some to support the interpretation that the second kingdom is Media. Gurney (2006: chapter 2) argues that after Nebuchadnezzar died, the Babylonian Empire rapidly declined, so that Media became the predominant empire from 562 BC to 550 BC. In 550 BC, Cyrus successfully wrested the rule from Astyages, the Median king, and the Medo-Persian Empire began. However, although it is known that the Babylonian Empire declined, the history that is known is insufficient to determine which kingdom was predominant, so the argument is inconclusive. In fact, little is known of the Median kingdom, but its extent was huge and its power strong even before the Neo-Babylonian kingdom arose. In addition, it was the Median Empire in alliance with the Babylonian Empire that brought down the Assyrian Empire. This means that the way the second kingdom is inferior to Babylon must be carefully examined. In the image, the second layer is made of silver, which was regarded as of less value than gold. The literal meaning of the Hebrew words translated “inferior to yours” is “more earthly than yours” as the adverb comes from the noun which means “the earth.” This is suggestive of the way in which the second kingdom is inferior. Nebuchadnezzar was an absolute ruler in the strongest sense of the word and at various times demanded worship from all his subjects; for example, in Daniel 3 he demanded the worship of the image that he set up on pain of death. The next kingdom will be less demanding on its subjects; the rule less absolute. The comparison is not describing the next kingdom as inferior in the sense of smaller extent or lesser power as is often understood from the use of the English word “inferior,” rather it is focused on the nature of his rule so that the word “inferior” is too broad (see appendix 6.2). Given all these factors, at this stage the result is inconclusive. The kingdom could be Median, but it also could be Medo-Persian. The resolution between these two possibilities will have to wait until later. Daniel 2:39b NIV (39b) Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth.

Discussion: As each metal layer is considered from the top, it becomes apparent that each successive layer from top to bottom of the statue decreases in value (in a financial sense) but increases in hardness, but note that the mixture of iron and clay in the feet make them hard but brittle. Gold is known to be the most malleable and ductile of all the metals and is soft and is usually alloyed to give it strength. Silver is a little harder than gold but is still very ductile and malleable. Bronze is a copper alloy that contains no iron and is definitely harder than silver. Iron is harder still. The third kingdom is described as ruling over the whole earth, which should probably be understood as the known world. This description could be made to fit both the Medo-Persian and Greek Empires. The Medo-Persian Empire was the largest empire up until its time. Its extent perhaps marginally exceeded the Greek Empire, and it lasted for about two hundred years. However, with respect to the known world from Daniel’s point of view, it did not overcome the Greek Empire, which grew in power concurrently with it and at various times defeated it in battle. Technically, therefore, the Persian Empire did not embrace the entire known world. Under Alexander the Great, however, the power of the Greek Empire did indeed stretch over the entire known world. Following the death of Alexander, its cultural impact remained strong for some time, but its power gradually declined, especially in the East as the Parthians grew in power and then in the West as the Roman Empire grew. So whereas the Persian Empire remained large until the end and then was destroyed suddenly by Alexander; the Greek Empire grew extraordinarily rapidly and then slowly declined in size and power. With respect to this third kingdom, Gurney (2006: chapter 2, p2) says, “This is a perfect description of the Persian Empire.” This overstates the case, as it is quite clear that the Persian Empire did not overpower the Greek Empire, which was very definitely part of the known world. In reality, therefore, given that the Persian Empire did not overcome the Greek one and that it is questionable whether the far eastern portions of these empires are within the domain of the known world, the description of the third kingdom matches the Greek Empire slightly better although not conclusively. Even though the Persian Empire might have been slightly larger than the Greek one, this is not really crucial to the argument. All in all, the identification of this third kingdom is again inconclusive. Daniel 2:40–43 NIV (40) Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. (41) Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. (42) As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. (43) And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay. Discussion:

The interpretation by Daniel supplies us with much more information about the fourth kingdom than about the others. However, there are some major issues that need to be addressed in the attempt to resolve the meaning of these four verses. First, there is an ambiguity in the Hebrew text, which English versions have resolved by applying the strength of the fourth kingdom as being used to break all the previous kingdoms (plural). A literal translation of verse 40 by Green (1986) is, “And a fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron. Inasmuch as iron crushes and smashes all things, and as the iron that shatters all these, it will crush and shatter. The question is does the “all these” refer to the previous empires or to the “all things”? If the three previous kingdoms are Babylonian, Median, and then Persian, then this fourth kingdom has to smash not only the Persian kingdom, but the ones already smashed by the Persian kingdom. The same problem arises if the three kingdom sequence is Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Grecian; the Grecian kingdom has already smashed the previous ones. It seems more likely, therefore, that the “all these” is referring to the crushing and smashing of “all things”; that in fact, the fourth empire is one which imposes powerfully onto its subjects right down to the grass-root level. If this kingdom is Grecian, then it can be seen that Alexander the Great certainly crushed the military might of the Persian kingdom. However, in implementing his kingdom, he appointed many Persian satraps to govern, encouraged intermarriage and built cities reflecting Hellenistic culture right through the empire. Hellenistic culture certainly penetrated the empire; it was not forced on the people; it was made attractive so that people willingly adopted the culture to the extent they desired. An exception to this is Antiochus IV, the Greek Seleucid ruler, who sought to impose Hellenistic culture onto the Jews from 171 to 164 BC but failed. If this kingdom is Roman, there is a better match to the description. Rome turned its conquered lands into Roman provinces by military might and then set up governors to enforce Roman rule, Roman law, and sometimes worship of its emperor onto the people. It frequently conscripted its subjects into the military or as slaves in order to resource its engineering and building projects and to impose the “Pax Romana” onto the people. Baldwin says that the strength of iron suggests that power comes through an enforced policy. (Baldwin 1979, 93) Second, many scholars see a chronological progression between verse 40 and verses 41–43. In an interesting hypothesis, Gurney (2006, chapter 2) suggests that verse 40 represents the advance of the Grecian Empire under Alexander the Great and that verses 41–43 represent what happened when the kingdom subsequently divided after his death. Another group of scholars see verse 40 as the Roman Empire and then verses 41–43 as a later extension or revival of the early Roman Empire at the end of the age. These essentially see the feet and toes as a fifth kingdom and even make a link between the ten horns of the fourth beast in Daniel 7:8 and the (supposed) ten toes of this image, even though Daniel makes no mention of ten toes, so they may not be important in the dream.

The problem that is seen with these views is that although possible, the evidence for the chronological progression in the text is weak. If a fifth kingdom was intended, it is surprising that it is not mentioned, given the very clear identification of the first four. The natural interpretation of the “so this will be a divided kingdom” in verse 41 is a reference to the fourth kingdom rather than to the “feet and toes,” which are nowhere referred to as a kingdom separate from the fourth. So what about the possibility that there is chronological progression within the fourth kingdom? The answer is similar. The language of the interpretation of the dream clearly sees the four kingdoms arising one after the other; however, there is no language that portrays the feet and toes arising afterward in a chronological sense. The basis for chronological progression is that the feet and toes are of different composition from the legs (iron mixed with clay rather than pure iron) so that they could be a different layer in the image. From the text, however, the force of the words used is that the iron kingdom is weakened by the presence of clay rather than that the iron and clay mixture appears later on in the kingdoms history. Although possible, it would seem unlikely that a time progression within the fourth empire is intended. Let us now examine the characteristics of this fourth empire. First, it is an empire which is very strong so that it breaks and crushes everything. This would apply to the new nations that it invades and everything within those nations. Second, it is a kingdom which is divided (2:41). After Alexander the Great, the Grecian kingdom split into multiple independent kingdoms, of which the most powerful were the Macedonian, Seleucid, and the Ptolemaic. From this time on there was no single authority over all, and these kingdoms continuously fought against each other or were in alliance. In contrast, the Roman Empire remained under a single authority, which was continually divided by factionalism and civil war. Under Imperial Rome, emperors had difficulty establishing a line of succession, and internal intrigue and corruption often resulted in the assassination of key people. Eventually, the Western Roman Empire fell apart as much from internal corruption and disunity as from external aggression. Third, the kingdom is described as being partly strong and partly brittle (2:42). The implication here is that parts of the kingdom were strong, and others were weak. It would certainly be true that the various independent Grecian kingdoms varied in strength; some of them were completely defeated and absorbed into the others. The Roman provinces also varied greatly in strength depending upon their allegiance to the empire, their resident military force, the caliber of their governors, and their economic wealth. So this characteristic could also be equally applied to both the Grecian and the Roman Empires. Finally, there are the intriguing statements in verse 43. Literally, from Green (1986), “And as you saw the iron mixed with the clay of the clay, they shall be mixed with the seed of men. But they shall not adhere to one another, even as iron does not mix with clay.” In this there is very definitely the

suggestion of alliances through intermarriage that did not last, which are very much part of the history of the Grecian kingdom. However, when you examine the history of the Roman Empire, there are many cases of political and commercial relationships sealed by marriages, many of which did not last as well. There are also many cases of the mixing of peoples, which also failed. The history of the Jews is a major example of this. Gurney (2006: chapter 2, page 3) says “this is a perfect description of the Macedonian Greek Empire.” Careful examination of his argument suggests that he has overstated the strength of this conclusion. For example, at one point he compares Alexander’s combat record in that he never lost a battle in his eleven years of campaigning, with the Roman Empire’s record over hundreds of years, which included some losses, to establish that Rome did not “shatter all things.” As has been shown above, it is questionable that verses 40–43 contain a chronological progression. However, if there is, then the only fair comparison would be to look at some point of time when Rome reached predominance and then look at its combat record at that time. The difficulty is there is no obvious point of time from which to make this comparison. As a result, there is no reasonable way to compare these two empires like this. The reality is that the description can be made to fit both the Grecian and the Roman empires. Daniel 2:44–45 NIV: (44) “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. (45) This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold to pieces. “The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and the interpretation is trustworthy.” Discussion: In the dream, the feet and toes are struck by the rock. This suggests that God’s kingdom will be set up during the time of the fourth kingdom. This would confirm that the phrase “those kings” (Daniel 2:44 NIV) refers to kings of the fourth kingdom. God’s kingdom lasts forever. In this way it is different from all the others and has a spiritual dimension. It is not an earthly kingdom. Gurney’s position (2006, chapter 2) seems hard to defend. From the dream he notices that the rock struck the feet and the toes first, and then the whole image came down, and after that the rock grew into a mountain. From this he argues a chronological sequence so that first the Grecian Kingdom was destroyed and then afterward God’s kingdom initiated by Jesus was set up. However, the interpretation of the dream specifies that in the days of those kings, while they were still active, God’s kingdom was set up. The two interpretations seem to contradict each other. It is more natural from the

text to see the fourth kingdom as the Roman Empire and God’s kingdom being set up during this empire. Those scholars that see the feet and toes as representing an end of the age empire also see that the setting up of God’s kingdom is part of the Second Advent. However, the recognition that it is unlikely that there is a chronological progression from the iron legs to the feet and the toes as discussed above argues against this interpretation. In conclusion, it is hard not to see the Roman Empire as more naturally fulfilling the role of the fourth empire from these two verses. A few scholars have suggested that the four metals are four kings and not four kingdoms. There are two sequences of kings that have been suggested (see Lucas (2002, 75–76). The one by Davies described in Lucas suggests that they are all kings of the Babylonian Kingdom (Nebuchadnezzar, AmelMarduk, Neriglissar, and Nabonidus and thus ignoring the nine-month reign of Labashi-Marduk). Another suggestion is Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian, the most prominent leaders mentioned in the book of Daniel. This suggestion will be demonstrably incorrect if Darius and Cyrus turn out to be the same person. All in all, these suggestions are speculative; they do not fit the interpretation of the dream given by Daniel here and do not fit well with other details given in the later visions. D.   Conclusions The primary purpose of the dream must not be forgotten. It is that Nebuchadnezzar would recognize God’s sovereignty in giving and taking power from one earthly kingdom to the next. God is in control, and whatever power and authority Nebuchadnezzar possesses comes from Him. Not only that, he must see that as the supreme and absolute ruler he is responsible for the empire. With power comes responsibility. Finally, he must see that though kingdoms rise and fall as God determines, God will set up a final kingdom that will destroy all the previous ones and rule forever. Since these are early days in the Babylonian kingdom, the identification of the subsequent kings is not important to Nebuchadnezzar or Daniel. However, for us today, the identification of those kingdoms is important. In this chapter, the investigation of the text describing and interpreting the dream has been carefully and deliberately examined and compared with known history in order to establish as much as possible about these kingdoms without reference to any later revelations. The goal remains to put the pieces of the puzzle together in the order that a sixth century BC Daniel would have received them so that they can be interpreted from his perspective as well as our own. A second century BC authorship is also included in this analysis, as it is generally agreed by those scholars supporting this date that the court tales from Daniel 1 to 6 were written by someone familiar with Babylonian times. There are two main proposals to choose from, since the option that the four metals represent four kings has been dismissed. These proposals are that either the four metals are the Babylonian, Median, Persian, and Grecian

Empires or they are the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, or Roman Empires. At this point our analysis is inconclusive. Both proposals are possible. However, the text does seem to favor the second option, with the destruction of the feet and toes by the rock in the days of the fourth kingdom providing the strongest support for this view. CHAPTER 3 The Four Beasts and a Little Horn This is an exposition and interpretation of the book of Daniel chapter 7. Daniel 7 introduces us to a vision received by Daniel of four beasts and a little horn. In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar had a dream of a statue made of four metals with a head of gold and increasingly hard substances of decreasing value as the focus of attention proceeds down to the feet. In the dream, the statue was destroyed by a rock targeted to the feet. The vision in this chapter has more detail and more interpretation and is placed at the beginning of the reign of Belshazzar in 552 BC (see appendix 9). When discussing the meaning of the dream in chapter 2, a decision as to the identity of each of the metal layers except the first was withheld. The goal was to seek what Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar would have understood then. Keeping in mind that Daniel is still living in the Babylonian kingdom, this approach will continue, with this new vision refining our understanding and hopefully eventually leading to a single possible conclusion. However, it is noted that this approach is substantially at variance with those scholars who believe in a second century BC authorship, such as Goldingay (1989, 157). He examines the formal characteristics of the vision and arrives at the conclusion that this vision is “more likely a quasi-predictive vision deriving from the period on which it focuses,” which is the king represented by the little horn. This conclusion from the form is based on the observed parallels between this vision and the “Animal Apocalypse” recorded in 1 Enoch 85–90, which addresses the Maccabean crisis. As a result, the king is interpreted by him to be Antiochus IV, and because this vision implies the Jewish deliverance is still future, he dates the vision in mid-167 BC. The period of history on which the book of Daniel is focused according to Goldingay and many other scholars is thus that of Antiochus IV, an upstart Grecian king who severely persecuted the Jews. So in the approach that follows, there will be three major strands. The first will be to examine the text as though it was written by a sixth century BC Daniel, who had not yet been given the later visions. It will examine what Daniel would have understood. This will be the format for most of the supplied exegesis of the verses. The second strand will then look at the verses, given what is known today, and will seek to further inform our understanding of what the text means. The third strand will be to take the approach of second century BC authorship similar to that described in the previous paragraph. However, in this third strand, the authors would have known the outcome and be writing with that knowledge, so it is, of course, a very different perspective, and care must be taken about the conclusions that are made.

This chapter is placed in an interesting central location in the book of Daniel. It is the first of the prophetic visions, and using this vision, the book starts to build a picture of the future of God’s people. It might be said that Nebuchadnezzar’s dream described in chapter 2 contains prophecy as well. This is true since it described future empires; however, the major purpose of the dream was to show Nebuchadnezzar that no power operates outside God’s plan and control. The revelation of the future was included to support this purpose. Not only is chapter 7 the first of the prophetic visions; it is also the last of the Aramaic content of the book, since the rest of the book was written in Hebrew. Indeed this vision reflects a transition from history to prophecy and the transition from the story of the Jews told with a Gentile focus to their story told with a Jewish focus. This vision belongs to both the past and the future; it covers from the beginning of the exile to the distant future from Daniel’s point of view, perhaps even to the end of the age. So it also is puzzling why this chapter should be written in Aramaic and the rest in Hebrew if this vision is quasi prophecy written in the second century BC, and the authors are living in an oppressive and persecuted environment. As will be seen, the content of this vision parallels the content of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2. His dream of a static image with four layers of metals representing four kingdoms followed by an eternal, spiritual kingdom pictured as a rock that destroys the image, is paralleled here by a dynamic vision of four beasts emerging one after the other, representing four kingdoms ultimately replaced by a kingdom that lasts forever. The major difference is the addition of the “little horn” that emerges from the fourth kingdom and oppresses the “holy ones” for a time, times and half a time. The dynamic nature of this vision is intriguing. Events unfold in a particular order, which reflect a chronological sequence. At various points it is like a snapshot, and then at other points the picture changes as in a movie. This is important, and without being dogmatic, it challenges the idea that, for example, the ten horns represent a chronological sequence of ten rulers rather than ten concurrent rulers. The fact that the fourth beast has ten horns seems to imply in the dynamic nature of the vision that those horns were concurrently present throughout the existence of the fourth beast. The identity of this fourth beast and the little horn in this chapter is a major question of interest, and so this vision will be examined thoroughly considering the different possibilities but without applying the additional clues from the later visions. This is in order to see how much can be learned from the vision itself and from what is already understood. The majority of commentaries on the book of Daniel apply their interpretation to each vision immediately based on the whole of the book of Daniel and so do not so objectively examine each vision from what it says alone, independent of later visions. A key focus will be to examine the book from sixth century BC Daniel’s point of view as well as from what is known now, independent of later revelations to Daniel. A.   The Vision

Daniel 7:1 NIV: (1) In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying on his bed. He wrote down the substance of his dream. Discussion: The timing of this vision is important because it breaks the chronological sequence of the first six chapters. The timing is also important because of the momentous historical events that were taking place. Nebuchadnezzar was gone, and new rulers now command. Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC after forty-three years of rule. He was followed by Amel-Marduk (562–560 BC), Neriglissar (560–556 BC), Labashi-Marduk (556 BC), and then Nabonidus (556–539 BC). The first year of Belshazzar’s would be the first year of his coregency with Nabonidus, who was absent from Babylon and in Arabia for at least ten years of his reign. This will most likely be 552 BC (see appendix 9). This is more than fifty years since Daniel had been deported to Babylon in 605 BC. The significance of this time is that it is after the commencement of Cyrus’s rise in power in comparison to the Medes and shortly before Cyrus began his reign over the Medo-Persian Empire as Cyrus the Great (550–530 BC) after superseding the authority of Astyages (585– 550 BC), the king of Media. The second beast in Daniel’s vision that follows is emerging, and the first beast is declining in power, so Daniel would be able to relate the vision to the events around him. The history of these times is also consistent with the word of Jeremiah 27:6– 7, “Now I will hand all your countries over to my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; I will make even the wild animals subject to him. All nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his land comes; then many nations and great kings will subjugate him.” It is certain that Daniel recognized the significance of the vision because of the verbose introduction, which emphasizes the circumstance in which the vision was received and the fact that he saw it as important enough to record. It is also significant in the interpretation of the vision given later (verses 15–28) that Daniel does not ask specifically about the first three beasts, and no mention is made of them. This suggests that they were not of primary concern to Daniel and that they were understood by him. In the vision, the beasts appear one after the other, and there can be little doubt that in 552 BC Daniel recognized the lion beast as the Babylonian Empire. The more challenging question is whether Daniel would have perceived the bear beast to be the Median Empire or prophetically as a new empire under Cyrus. This is also a major question in modern scholarship and is important to us in the interpretation of Daniel. Note that there is significance in the timing of each of Daniel’s revelations. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is given just after the beginning of his reign. This vision is given just before Cyrus becomes ruler of the Medo-Persian Empire. The next vision, in Daniel 8, is given two years later and makes no mention of the Babylonian Empire. It will be seen that the Daniel 9 revelation is received just after the victory of the Persians over the Babylonians and the excitement that Daniel must have felt as the seventy years of Babylonian

domination over Jerusalem was nearly over. The final vision was two to four years later and may well correspond to when Zerubbabel began to rule over the exiles in Jerusalem and the completion of the exile. More on this will be described later. Thus Daniel would have understood the starting point of the vision that follows. The vision is anchored at a point in history, which enables Daniel to see the vision from the perspective of the current events of his time. This is important. Daniel 7:2–3 NIV: (2) Daniel said: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. (3) Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea. Discussion: It is our conviction that Daniel is writing revelations that he received from the Lord and that he is not composing the vision himself. This and the remaining visions will be treated this way. Along with many commentaries, it is recognized that the Hebrew Scriptures and the writings and myths of Babylon and other nations would have provided a cultural context so that the symbols of this vision would have been meaningful to Daniel. This has been extensively researched with care and detail, as Lucas (2002) and Goldingay (1989) describe. That discussion will not be repeated here, but it is acknowledged that this background would have helped him to understand the vision. The picture is vivid and creates awe and fear. The NIV “and there before me” does not quite capture the more emotional “and behold” of the Aramaic text repeated six more times (7:5–8 and twice in 7:13). The vision is dynamic as the beasts move, transform, devour, trample, and crush, and there is also a sudden impact when the bear beast appears, whereas the leopard, the fourth terrifying beast, and the little horn emerge in sequence as time passes. It is the four winds of heaven (literally the four winds of the heavens) that churn up the great sea. From other references to this phrase (Jeremiah 49:36, Ezekiel 37:9, Daniel 8:8, Daniel 11:4, Zechariah 2:6, Matthew 24:31, Mark 13:27, and Revelation 7:1) it is apparent that the domain of the whole known world is being considered; the winds come from all directions and go out in all directions. It is also probable that not only the physical world is involved but the spiritual as well, since “heavens” is plural, and the Matthew reference suggests that it is the wider domain of the heavens and the earth that is in mind—all of God’s creation. The events described are hugely significant. In the Bible, the “great sea” always represents the Mediterranean Sea (Numbers 34:6, Numbers 34:7, Joshua 1:4, Joshua 9:1, Joshua 15:12, Joshua 15:47, Joshua 23:4, Ezekiel 47:10, Ezekiel 47:15, Ezekiel 47:19, Ezekiel 47:20, Ezekiel 48:28, and Daniel 7:2) from the perspective of an Israelite living in the Promised Land. The sea also had awe-inspiring, symbolic

application as, for example, in Psalm 14:25–26 where the sea is seen as vast and spacious and the home of the leviathan. In this vision, the beasts, which are later interpreted to be kingdoms (7:17), emerge from the great sea. The beast in Revelation 13 also emerges from the sea, and in Revelation 17:15, the waters are described as peoples, multitudes, nations, and languages. Thus, the great sea represents the seething cauldron of national and social life, out of which emerge the great kingdoms of the world centered on Jerusalem and the Promised Land. From the mass of humanity in the Eastern Mediterranean region, four powerful kingdoms emerge; the vision that follows describes something of the nature and chronology of these kingdoms. Daniel 7:4 NIV: (4) “The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a man, and the heart of a man was given to it. Discussion: The parallel interpretation of the dream in Daniel 2:36–38 describes the king of Babylon as one with dominion and power and might and glory over mankind and over the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. Interestingly, Jeremiah 27:6–7 describes Nebuchadnezzar as one who even ruled over the animals. The lion is regarded as the king of beasts on land and the eagle as king of the birds of the air, so the characteristics given to the head of gold in Daniel 2 match those of the first of these beasts well. Some commentaries see the transformation of this beast into a man as an act of judgment depriving the beast of speed and power; however, none of the descriptions of the remaining three beasts incorporate judgment. That happens later, in 7:11ff in the second half of the vision as the chiasmic structure of the vision also makes clear. Further, the transformation of the beast into a man in no way necessarily implies less power and speed, as man is superior to all the beasts and birds; what is emphasized is that “a heart of a man was given to it.” The predominant character of beasts is their lack of spiritual sensitivity; they devour flesh to meet their physical needs. The transformation in Nebuchadnezzar described in Daniel 4, who was Babylon’s predominant ruler, is one resulting from repentance and submission to God. It would result in being given a heart of a man and so becoming kind to the oppressed (Daniel 4:27). Nebuchadnezzar was one of the most absolute monarchs in all human history, but he changed from being a cruel master to a humble servant of the people (Daniel 4:37). In agreement with most other commentaries, it is therefore seen that the lion beast is a picture of the Babylonian Empire. There can also be little doubt that this is how Daniel would have interpreted this vision. In 7:19 it is seen that Daniel had no curiosity about the first three beasts; this would be because their meaning would have been clear to him or that they are not described as creating difficulties for his people. One of the characteristics of all the dreams and visions is that their starting point is one that was familiar

to Daniel; they are always anchored in what he knows. This important feature of the revelations will assist in their interpretation. Daniel 7:5 NIV: (5) “And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, ‘Get up and eat your fill of flesh!’ Discussion: In the interpretation of this vision, sight must not be lost of the fact that it is dynamic. Further, it is not necessary that the picture is limited to what a real bear could do. Daniel watches the first beast until “the heart of a man is given to it,” and then “there before me was a second beast” indicating that the second beast emerges suddenly. It is already active, as it has three ribs in its mouth, and it is raised up on one side. In this position it is asked to get up and eat more flesh, suggesting a beast with a voracious appetite whose hunger is only partially satisfied. This beast is already in the middle of its beastly activity when it appears in the vision. The timing of this vision is significant. At the time that Cyrus the Great came to the throne around 559 BC, Persia was a vassal state of the Median Empire. He probably ruled from Pasargadae either after the death of his father, Cambyses, or possibly in coregency with him. Media was a powerful empire and played a major role with Babylon in the downfall of Assyria, so it had already captured much territory. Not a great deal is known about its organization or its extent, partly because its capital, Ecbatana, (mentioned in Ezra 6:2) has not been excavated. Its western border was agreed to by treaty with the kingdom of Lydia in Western Asia Minor, and its eastern border probably lay in modern Afghanistan. About 553 BC, Cyrus rebelled against his Median overlord king, Astyages, who retaliated by invading Persia. When he met in battle with Cyrus in 550 BC at Pasargadae he lost even though he outnumbered the Persian army because, so the story goes, he was abandoned by his troops (see Herodotus 1:108ff), Xenophon (2000), and see also Hedrick (2006) for a possible alternate story, which suggests he gained power through diplomatic skill and superior leadership. Whatever the truth, Cyrus gained control of the Median capital in 550 BC and by a nearly bloodless coup became ruler of Media. This success might well be what is represented by the three ribs in the mouth of the bear, or it may refer to the earlier Median victories. Another possibility is that the three ribs relate to the small kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Askenaz mentioned in Jeremiah 51:27–29. Whatever the precise timing of the vision, the historical background fits the context of Cyrus the Great about to emerge in power and subsequently growing in power to overwhelm the Lydian kingdom (546 BC) and the Babylonian Empire (539 BC) and to make major advances in the East over the next twenty years. Subsequent emperors took Egypt, Thrace, and the Indus valley, creating an empire substantially larger than the previous Babylonian one.

The view expressed in the notes on this verse in the NIV Study Bible suggests a slightly different perspective. Although saying that the first year of Belshazzar was probably 553 BC (see note to Daniel 7:1), the note says that the bear “‘raised up on one of its sides’ refers to the superior status of the Persians in the Medo-Persian alliance. The three ribs may represent its three principal conquests: Lydia (546 BC), Babylon (539 BC) and Egypt (525).” It is suggested that this interpretation is unlikely for the following reasons. First, this interpretation requires that the whole description of the bear is future for Daniel in 553 BC, since Persia did not gain predominance until 550 BC, even though the bear appears suddenly, and its entry into the vision is not preceded by an “after that” as is done with the subsequent leopard and fourth beasts. Second, when the bear appears suddenly it already has three ribs in its mouth. Third, if the three ribs are the three principal conquests, there is no additional flesh that the bear can devour. Finally, the phrase that the bear is raised on one side is ambiguous since it does not specify which empire is predominant. Historically, Media was predominant in 553 BC, and Persia became predominant in 550 BC. Therefore, this phrase must be about the preparedness to devour more flesh rather than which empire in the alliance was superior. The commentaries reflect a diverse range of opinion about the different phrases describing the bear. However, they seem to lack picturing the vision simultaneously (1) as a whole, (2) as dynamic, and (3) in the context of around 552 BC, when Cyrus the Great was about to emerge as victor over the Medes. So although wanting to allow that some of these variations are possible, it would seem most likely that something close to what has been described is in mind. It is not felt that it is necessary to identify the three ribs with specific nations of the time; variations in this detail would not add anything important to change the overall picture. Overall, the strong impression communicated is of a kingdom that is already powerful having devoured some kingdoms and about to devour a whole lot more. In this the recognition given by Gurney (2006) that the Median Empire was powerful is acknowledged, but there is no compelling evidence that this power exceeded the power of Babylon, since the history that is known does not enable such quantitative conclusion to be made. What then can be said about the identification of the bear? When compared with the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2, the kingdom that is represented by the second layer, which contains the silver metal, would be the same kingdom as that represented by the second beast, the bear. In the dream, this kingdom is described as “inferior” to the Babylonian Empire in our English translations. It has been shown, however, that the Hebrew word translated “inferior” in our English versions, which literally means “more earthly,” implies a kingdom that is less absolute rather than one that is necessarily of smaller extent and power. As a result, there is no compelling reason from the text for this description to support a Median Empire as opposed to a Medo-Persian one. The primary support for the bear being the Median Empire is not from the description in the Daniel 2 dream and the Daniel 7 vision, but rather from the conviction that the terminus of the book of Daniel is with the king, Antiochus IV. Many scholars would want the bear to be the Median Empire, the leopard the Persian Empire, and the

terrifying beast the Greek Empire so that the little horn can be identified with Antiochus IV and thus establish unity to the book of Daniel. In contrast to this, the stronger evidence of this vision is that in the first year of Belshazzar, the bear represents a kingdom already powerful and about to increase in power. This view favors the bear being the Medo-Persian Empire and becoming more powerful. In describing the Persian Empire, Haywood (2005, 51) writes that although the Greeks regarded the Persian Empire as a tyranny, it was in fact a tolerant empire and a melting pot of cultures. He writes, “When Darius built a new palace at Susa he deliberately incorporated materials and styles from across the empire to display its size, wealth and diversity.” In this, the Persian Empire needs to be seen as one that did not impose its power so strongly on the people; in these days this was seen as a weakness, and thus the empire could be described to be inferior to the Babylonians, who applied absolute power in their rule. In addition to this, although Cyrus made rapid gains to his empire (much through annexation), the broad characteristic of the Persian army throughout most of its period of power was of a military machine with a large army of mostly poorly equipped and poorly trained levies, who were hard to feed, moved slowly, and were supported from the wealth of the empire. This was why Alexander the Great was able to defeat them with his highly trained, rapidly moving, and much smaller army. The characterization of Persia as a bear, large and moving relatively slowly and crushing its enemies, is very apt. Daniel 7:6 NIV: (6) “After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads and it was given authority to rule. Discussion: In contrast to the second beast, which appears suddenly while the first beast is visible, the third beast emerges “after that,” which implies that the second beast has had its “fill of flesh” when the leopard beast appears. Most scholars have no difficulty here in seeing the progression in the vision as symbolic of a progression in time. This beast moves swiftly, as is reflected by its description as a leopard and the presence of four wings. This beast moves faster than any of the others, even the lion, which also has wings, but the leopard moves faster than the lion and has greater stealth. The four wings suggest the ability to fly in all four directions with sudden changes of direction. The precise meaning of the Aramaic word translated “back” is not quite clear; it may be side or rim or rings of a curved surface (for example, see the Hebrew equivalent word in Ezekiel 1:18). It is probable that the four wings of a domestic fowl rather than a wild bird are in mind; the characteristic of the former is its use of wings for rapid movement over the surface of the ground rather than for high-flying aerial dominance. In any case, the emphasis seems to be on rapid and flexible movement in all directions rather than anything else.

The four heads suggest worldwide scope. The bronze metal kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream also had worldwide scope. When the extent of the Medo-Persian and Greek Empires are compared, the differences are not very great; in fact, the Medo-Persian Empire might be slightly larger. However, in considering the worldwide scope of these empires there needs to be recognition that right through the life of the Medo-Persian Empire, the Greek Empire was a force to be reckoned with, and the Medo-Persians were defeated by the Greeks on more than one occasion. Technically, then, as said before, the Medo-Persian Empire did not embrace the entire known world. Gurney’s (2006) argument that the swift conquests of Cyrus the Great better match the description of the leopard than the rapid advances of Alexander the Great is not convincing. The fact is that when Cyrus replaced Astyages and captured Ecbatana, the whole Median Empire became his. He fought against Lydia and was initially defeated, but the overall strategic situation was in Cyrus’s favor, so he eventually triumphed. With the defeat of Babylon, the whole Babylonian Empire became his. Thus the vast majority of the Medo-Persian Empire came to Cyrus not so much through swiftly moving powerful armies, but through overwhelming force and astute and skillful government. The rapid advances of Alexander’s army right across the whole Persian Empire with the need to win battles at every point fits the description of a winged, leopard beast much better than the rapid territorial gains of Cyrus the Great. So what or who are the four heads? Those commentators who interpret this beast to be the Persian kingdom will point to Daniel 11:2, which refers to four kings. Putting aside a full debate on this until later, it is noted that there is controversy whether there are four or five kings, and the interpretation has difficulties because it is known that there were more Persian kings than this. Besides all this, it is clear that the revelation in Daniel 11 is focused on at least the Greek kingdom. Probably all the description of the Persian kingdom is doing is to set the context and prepare for that later focus, and so it is not trying to be complete. In addition, the inconsistent hermeneutics in allowing beasts that appear one after the other in a dynamic vision to represent chronological sequence but interpreting four heads that appear together in the vision to represent a time sequence of kings is to be noted. Some may argue that Nebuchadnezzar’s dream image shows all four metals simultaneously present, representing a sequence in time, but the comparison is not valid since Nebuchadnezzar’s image is given as a complete and static picture, not an image that revealed itself dynamically in time sequence. The four heads are all concurrently visible to Daniel; they do not appear in sequence as do the beasts. It is also valid to ask why “four heads”; usually, if authority is in mind, the description is of “four horns.” It is suggested that the reason for this might be that the four authorities have independent power and are not under a single overriding authority. This interpretation would match the Greek Empire better.

From this analysis it would seem that the description fits the Greek Empire significantly better than the Medo-Persian one. However, given the nature of vision language and without explicit interpretation both are possible. Again the majority of scholars take the view that the leopard is the Persian kingdom in order that the next beast can be the Grecian kingdom with the persecution of God’s people by the little horn, representing Antiochus IV. The assumed big picture of the terminus of the book of Daniel overrides the less supportive evidence of the details of this vision. Daniel 7:7–8 NIV: (7) “After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns. (8) “While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully Discussion: It is now necessary to confront the really big questions facing readers of the book of Daniel. The majority of scholars today believe that this beast is a symbol of the Greek Empire, and the little horn is Antiochus IV. A smaller, significant number, especially from the evangelical and Pentecostal persuasions, believe this to be the Roman Empire. Of those that believe that this beast is the Roman Empire, they further divide into those who interpret the little horn as symbolic of an evil ruler but leave him unidentified (Baldwin 1979). Others see that the ten horns and the little horn are an end of the age phenomena that are most active in the final three and a half years before Jesus returns. There are also other specific views that have been put forward; for example, Skolfield (2001, 2007) interprets the little horn to be Hitler. Who or what is right? The answer to these questions will only begin here as further information and interpretation is given in Daniel 7:15–28. This beast is more savage and terrible than any of the previous ones. As the fourth beast with its large iron teeth, it is likely to correspond to the fourth layer of iron in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream image. However, the dream image was static; this one is dynamic. This beast crushes and devours its victims and tramples underfoot whatever is left. This beast leaves nothing untouched; it imposes itself down to the roots of every nation it captures. It is indeed an awesome picture. This beast is unnamed, which adds to its mystery and power; it is worse than any known beast, and its features have no known match with any existing beast. Its description is largely through its actions because words cannot describe its appearance apart from its great iron teeth and ten horns. It is a significant observation that nothing about the speed of advance of this beast is mentioned; the focus is on its total dominance over the nations that come under its control.

The dynamic of this vision is seen because as Daniel is thinking about the ten horns (so he has questions about them), another little horn appears among them. This little horn is unique in that it has eyes like a man and a mouth that speaks boastfully. It is looking in a particular direction, and it is the three horns in front of it that are uprooted. This little horn is purposeful and prideful and is therefore definitely very dangerous. Further discussion of this beast and the little horn is given later. Daniel 7:9–10 NIV: (9) “As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. (10) A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened. Discussion: The time element of the events in these two verses raises an important question that is related to the interpretation. Verse 9 starts off with “As I looked”; Green (1986) in his literal translation writes, “I was looking until.” The picture created is then in some way concurrent with the emergence of the beast and the little horn. It is understood that the Ancient of Days is an expression for God so that the picture is the setting up of the throne in heaven. Many thrones are set in place, but our attention is focused on this Ancient One, who takes his seat. The purpose of the many thrones is not explained here, but the book of Revelation (chapter 4) does refer to many thrones in heaven, and their purpose is explained there. The picture presented strongly suggests that this person is God himself and that He is beginning to function in the role of judge as the court has just been seated and the books opened. The picture of whiteness suggesting purity, fire suggesting judgment, and wheels suggesting mobility to go anywhere, surrounded by myriads of beings is most awesome, and the immeasurable

power of God is very evident. The picture painted has parallels with Ezekiel 1, the vision of the son of man in Revelation 1 and the throne scene in Revelation 4. The reference to the books being opened relates to the record of the lives of every person and is always associated with judgment. Daniel 12:1 makes a reference to this too, “But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered.” The book of Revelation does, eleven times and especially on the occasion of the judgment at the great white throne in Revelation 20:11–15. Moses also asks God to blot his name out of the book that God was writing. The picture of judgment beginning is important. Only when the thrones are set up and God takes His place on His throne does judgment begin. There is a subtle chronological implication that this begins sometime during the time of the fourth beast. An association of this with the throne scene in Revelation 4 and 5 lends support to this occurring during the Roman Empire and thereby suggesting a link between the fourth beast and the Roman Empire. Daniel 7:11–12 NIV: (11) “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. (12) (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.) Discussion: The thrones have just been put in place and the Ancient of Days has taken His place and begun judgment as Daniel continues to watch and the boastful words of the little horn keep coming out. He keeps watching until the beast is destroyed; the text does not say that he kept watching until the little horn was destroyed. Note that from the text of this verse it is not possible to be certain that the little horn stops or is destroyed when the beast is destroyed. Logic may convince some that this has to be so since the little horn is attached to the head of the beast, but given the vagaries of vision language and content, it is not possible to make this conclusion certain. Lions and leopards don’t have wings; leopards don’t have four heads; the beasts do not correspond exactly to creatures that are known to us, so it is not possible from these words to be sure that the little horn ends when the beast ends; further insight is needed to be able to determine this. The statement about the other beasts is interesting. The form of words suggests that the other three beasts continued to live concurrently with the fourth beast and the little horn, but without authority, beyond the life of the fourth beast for a given length of time. With regard to the actual length of time, some English translations may be incorrect by not retaining the literal Hebrew “a season and a time” and translating this as a set “period of time.” The description “a season and a time” may in fact intend to mean a total period, which is made up of a shorter period of time followed by a longer period (later evidence may support this). Also note that from this text it is not possible to make any inferences about the actual length of time involved.

From history it can be said that the Grecian Empire was finally destroyed in 31 BC when Egypt became a Roman province, and the Ptolemaic dynasty came to an end. The Western Roman Empire, centered on Rome, was destroyed in AD 476. The Eastern Roman Empire, centered on Byzantium, occupied the domain of the first three beasts and continued until AD 1453 with gradually decreasing power. Some scholars believe that the Roman Empire continues on and will regain power at the end of the age so that the fourth beast is finally destroyed when Jesus returns. This will be examined later, as at this stage it is not possible to choose between the options discussed above. In the east, the Parthian, Sassanian, and later empires continued in the region of the Persian and Greek Empires for a long time. Daniel 7:13–14 NIV: (13) “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. (14) He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. Discussion: As with Daniel 7:9–10, prose gives place to poetry. Up until this point the vision flows in sequence, punctuated by phrases such as, “and there before me,” “after that,” and “as I looked.” Here there is a break, and a new picture is seen. These two verses form a conclusion. Clouds in the Bible are frequently associated with the presence of God, hiding His glory in order to protect us and through which He enters or leaves our world. Without the clouds to hide the glory of God, people would die (see Exodus 19). Jesus ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives, and Acts 1:9 says, “After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.” Revelation 1:7 says that Jesus is “coming with the clouds.” For this reason the “one like a son of man” must be either coming from the earth or going to the earth. It is also the same “one like a son of man” who next enters the presence of the one on the throne. Therefore, it must be the ascension of Jesus and His entry into the presence of God that is being pictured. This event is also described in greater detail in Revelation 5. In the same way that Nebuchadnezzar’s dream concluded with the setting up of God’s eternal kingdom, so does this vision. The contrast with the earlier parts of the vision stands out; the picture is no longer of beasts on earth doing beastly things but of one who looks human, a representative of the human race, being presented before the Ancient of Days after coming from the earth. See Baldwin (1979, 142). It is this representative man who is given authority, glory, and power, which makes him equal to the “Ancient of Days.” He is also given worship like the “Ancient of Days.” The dominion is forever. This son of man must be Jesus when He ascended into heaven to reign together with His Father.

Based on earlier insights, Goldingay (1989, 153) and Lucas (2002, 164) and many others suggest that an inverted parallel structure like the following can apply to this vision (from verse 2 to 14). A.   The four beasts emerge from the sea (2–3)    B.   The first three beasts are described (4–6)       C.   The fourth beast is described (7)          D.   A little horn makes great claims (8)             E.   A throne scene (9–10)          D’.   The little horn makes great claims (11a)       C’.   The fourth beast is destroyed (11b) B’.   The first three beasts are destroyed (12) A’.   The Son of Man begins to reign (13–14) This structure is encouraged from the obvious features that, as has been seen, the beasts are destroyed in the reverse order to their introduction, the central focus on the throne, and the final victorious conclusion. As a result, recognizing this structure leads to additional interpretive and chronological features so that the whole is more than the parts. From this structure, there is a clear inference of God’s sovereign authority over history, as His rule and judgment is the central focus of this structure. There is, then, the striking contrast between the role and history of the four beasts and the rule of the son of man over God’s eternal kingdom implied by the association AA’. Then the BCDD’C’B’ clauses show the four beasts and the little horn being introduced in chronological order, but their ongoing history is deliberately described in the reverse order. The destruction of the little horn is presented in a subtle way, since it is implied that he continues to the end and is then dealt with, but his literary position in the description deliberately maintains the inverted parallel structure. Overall, the clauses are introduced and maintained in chronological order. Thus it is seen that the presentation of this vision is extremely clever, embedding history together with theology in an elegant and insightful way. B.   The Interpretation Daniel 7:15 NIV: (15) “I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. Discussion: Both here and at the end of the vision (Daniel 7:28), Daniel records how he was troubled by the vision. The reason for these emotional feelings is considered later in the discussion of verse 28.

B1.   Daniel’s First Question and the Answer Daniel 7:16 NIV: (16) I approached one of those standing there and asked him the true meaning of all this. “So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: Discussion: If the author is a second century BC writer, it is possible to see this statement as just a feature of Daniel’s apocalyptic style. However, if the author is Daniel writing in the sixth century BC, then this as what Daniel actually did; he sought greater understanding from one of the spiritual beings that he discerned to be present. The interpretation is given by revelation; it is not Daniel’s creation. Examining the text, it can be seen that Daniel asks two questions, and he receives two answers. The first question is very general and receives a fairly brief, broad answer, so Daniel seeks for more understanding in the second question, which leads to greater detail in the interpretation. The first answer is in the next two verses. Daniel 7:17–18 NIV: (17) ‘The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth. (18) But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’ Discussion: The answer given here would enable Daniel to match this vision with the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream given in chapter 2. In both cases, there are four great, earthly kingdoms, which are ultimately replaced by God’s eternal kingdom. This vision would reassure Daniel that the eventual outcome is consistent with that previous revelation. God is sovereign. His kingdom will ultimately reign forever, but all the earthly kingdoms will eventually fall. The identity of the “saints of the most high” is discussed at length in the commentaries and also in appendix 3. The view adopted here is that they are God’s people who as human beings are persecuted on earth but will share eternity with the Most High being, given the sovereignty, power, and greatness of His kingdom together with the son of man. However, the answer given to Daniel, although reassuring, does not enable Daniel to understand some details of the vision that concern him most, and this leads him to the next question. It is not the first three beasts that are his greatest concern; rather it is fourth beast and the little horn. This is discussed further under Daniel 7:28. B2.   Daniel’s Second Question and the Answer

Daniel 7:19–22 NIV: (19) “Then I wanted to know the true meaning of the fourth beast which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. (20) I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. (21) As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them (22) until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom. Discussion: First let us note that in this question, Daniel repeats some of the observed features described in Daniel 7:7–8, and he describes additional features as well. The four additions are, first, the bronze claws, which add strength to the fourth beast’s ability to trample underfoot what was left of its victims. It is seen here that the major feature of the fourth beast that imposed itself on Daniel is the total suppression of everything in its domain. It is the completeness of the overwhelming physical power of this beast that really troubles Daniel; it will have far greater impact on his people and the world than any of the previous beasts. The second addition is that the little horn “looked more imposing” (NIV) than the others. Some translations say the little horn “looked bigger,” implying that it is the size of this horn that is in view. Whichever way the appearance of this horn is interpreted, the impact it makes surpasses that of all the others. The third addition is the picture of the little horn waging war against the saints and defeating them until the very end. Unlike the four beasts, this “little horn” targets God’s people, those that have set themselves apart for God. Its power therefore has substantial spiritual capacity, and it continues to defeat the saints until the very end. This is in stark contrast to the physical capacity of the fourth beast. The final addition is that the end of the horn is through divine intervention and not by human hands. It is finally defeated when God steps into the rescue. From verses 21–22 it can be seen that the little horn functions until the very end. He continues to successfully defeat the saints until this end. It is not known when this end is, and it cannot be concluded here whether the fourth beast also lasts until that end; this point will be addressed later. These additional features were surely part of the original vision, but in Daniel’s record he only introduces them here. So it is now possible to begin to understand why Daniel was troubled. The way he organizes this material makes for great impact and enables us to see the focus of his thinking. His greatest concerns are with the way the fourth beast tramples everything and the way the little horn defeats the holy ones right to the very end. He wants

to understand these features because he recognizes their relatively much greater significance and the way they directly impact his people. No wonder he is troubled! Also note how that, if these additional features had been included in the description of the original vision, they would have unbalanced the inverted parallel structure there. Daniel 7:23 NIV: (23) “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. Discussion: The fourth beast is different from the earlier ones, because not only does it rule over the whole known world, but it devours it and tramples on what was left. This is the first time that this beast’s worldwide dominion is revealed. This is a beast with comprehensive power whose rule impacts the very foundations of society and impacts every individual. This feature has not been adequately discussed in the literature. This is a physical kingdom that imposes itself and touches every individual life, the very fabric of society. Hellenistic culture certainly penetrated the life of every individual, and Antiochus IV sought to impose the Hellenistic values on the Jews. However, this fourth beast impacts the whole known world this way, not just the Jews. The description of devouring everything and trampling what’s left suggests a far stronger control and impact over the individual life than the Greek kingdom ever exerted. For second century authorship this might be justified given the overwhelming impact of Antiochus IV in the domain of the author’s world. However, this would necessitate the author having a very narrow Jerusalemcentric worldview, and evidence for this is absent. Such a view would conflict with the global perspective of Isaiah but perhaps harmonize with the parochial views exhibited by the early Christian Jews. For a sixth century BC Daniel, it is rather doubtful that this narrow view is in mind. Daniel 7:24 NIV: (24) The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings Discussion: From the description of the vision in verses 7 and 20, it can be seen that Daniel saw in the vision a beast that had ten horns on its head; the ten horns were all visible together and did not appear one after the other. Overall, the complete vision is dynamic, some changes occurring gradually and others rapidly or instantaneously, and the dynamism also reflects sequential activity in time. Thus the little horn appearing after the ten horns and displacing three of them will contain the meaning of afterward in time.

This is in conflict with Goldingay (1989, 179), who advances the idea that the ten horns need not be contemporaries. Lucas (2002, 193), when discussing this issue, says that those that search for ten contemporaries of Antiochus IV, three of which are displaced by him, are pressing the symbolism too far. It is agreed that this application presses the symbolism too far, but it is also pointed out that he nowhere justifies taking the ten horns as a sequence of kings. He just says that “most look for a sequence of kings.” It is argued here that the character of the vision strongly suggests ten contemporary kings. This is a fundamental problem for the Antiochene view; if the fourth beast is Greece, there is no reasonable interpretation for the ten horns, and it is hard to see how Antiochus IV emerges from ten horns and displaces three of them. The identification of the ten horns has been an issue of considerable discussion, and no overall agreement has been reached. It is perfectly natural to view the ten as symbolic of completeness of human rule (this is a common view), and so the fourth beast is an empire that stretches across the known world and that is ruling through a number of regional governments spread across the empire under one supreme authority. This makes the fourth beast very different from the previous ones, reinforcing the clear interpretation given in the previous verse. This kind of organizational structure is hard to match with the Grecian kingdom, which had three independent kingdoms at the time of Antiochus IV (Seleucid, Ptolemaic, and Macedonian) and which was reduced to only two before the demise of Antiochus IV. It is perhaps closer to the Persian Empire with its satrapies, but then the Persian Empire was different in other ways; in particular it gave each nation considerable freedom to live the way they wanted. The Babylonian Empire was an absolute monarchy and so completely different again. In line with this understanding, it can be seen that when the little horn displaces three horns, it is not the actual number of horns that is of prime importance; it is the proportion. The little horn takes over about three tenths, or one third, of the fourth empire if it is recognized that in dealing with integers from one to ten, three tenths is the closest to one third that is possible. If the ten horns are actually ten kings, then it would be right to expect three horns to be three kings. However, if ten horns represent the whole of the known world empire, then the most logical explanation of three horns is a proportion of about one third; definitely something less than a half. A large number of scholars have difficulty interpreting the ten horns. Baldwin (1979, 140) sees the ten horns as pictorially depicting the extraordinary power of this beast but goes no further. Goldingay’s view (1989, 164) is similar, and he also points out that ten is a standard round number and can therefore represent completeness. Many other scholars want to take the number as precisely ten kings. Those that see this beast as symbolic of the Grecian Empire agree that probably a sequence of ten rulers is in mind, but there is substantial divergence of opinion about who those rulers are. Alternatively, if the Roman Empire is investigated, the number of provinces changed over time, and it was always

more than ten. When Islam appeared, only the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) remained; it had the following provinces: Africa, Cyrenaica, Aegyptus, Palestine, Syria, Pontica, Asiana, Thraciae, Cyprus, Creta, and Moesiae—eleven in all. Of crucial importance here is to see that this beast when it appears already has ten horns, so when examining the text itself a literal and natural understanding has no hermeneutic grounds on which to insert a large time gap between the emergence of the beast and the emergence of the ten horns. The natural, literal understanding of this picture is that the beast always has ten horns from its beginning to its end. The nature of the Babylonian rule was that of an absolute monarchy. On the other hand, the Persian success was due as much to diplomacy as generalship. They were merciful to defeated rulers and did not burden conquered populations with excessive demands for tribute or interfere with local customs, religions, and laws. The empire was divided into administrative districts called satrapies, the main role being to maintain a standing army and supply labour for public works. Greek Empire authority was enforced in a similar way to the Persian Empire. Alexander established about seventy cities as centers of Greek civilization and placed garrisons in them to maintain control. The Roman government was much more comprehensive, with each province ruling over its regions with an iron hand, imposing Roman law and forcing (for some of the time) worship of the emperor. Who is this other king that displaces three others? Daniel 7:25 NIV: (25) He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. Discussion: This is a particularly important verse, and the English translations may have missed some of the intention of the Hebrew text because of the interpretation placed on it by the translators. See appendix 6.4 for some additional comments on this verse and its punctuation. The NIV translation misses the textual balance suggested by the Masoretic Text. Literally, and reflecting the Hebrew word order, the translation is: And words against the Most High shall he speak, And the holy ones of the Most High shall wear out. –––––––––––––––––— And he will try to change times and law, And they will be given into his hand until a time and times and one-half time.

The dashed line is inserted to reflect the Masoretic Text punctuation (an atnah) that divides the verse into two balanced halves as shown. This literal translation is similar to Goldingay (1989, 143) and Lucas (2002, 160). Note that there are clearly two pairs of thought units, each with two parallel lines (two bicolons), which implies that the “they” of the last line must be taken to refer to the “times and law” and not to the “saints,” as interpreted by the NIV. This association of the “they” is also supported by the fact that the “times and law” are the immediate antecedent of the “they.” This structure also implies that the little horn will continue to function by trying to change the times and law for a time, times and half a time. The important point of interest here is how most English translations associate the “they” of the last phrase as being associated with the saints rather than the times and law. This would fit the interpretation usually given of a persecution under the little horn for three and a half years. The discussion given by Goldingay (1989, 181) on the time, times and half-atime in reference to this verse is important. He says the Hebrew word translated “time” in the NIV is not simply a substitute for “year” although it could be. He says that the time, times and half-a-time “suggests a time that threatens to extend itself longer: one period, then a double period then a quadruple period … but the anticipated sequence suddenly breaks off, so that the seven periods (in effect an eternity) that were threatened are unexpectedly halved.” Then he goes on to say in relation to the little horn, “The period he rules is a long one, but is brought to a sudden termination. This way of speaking carries no implications whatsoever of the chronological length of time that will correspond to these periods.” It is, therefore, interesting that the NIV Study Bible notes that the time, times and half a time is three and one half years, a literal meaning that cannot be inferred from this text! If the little horn is Antiochus IV as many scholars believe, then the actual length of time of the “time, times and half a time” is barely more than three years—three years and eight days, to be exact. This will be looked at later. Another large group of scholars believe the little horn is the end of the age ruler who appears three and one half years before the end of the age. This hypothesis is exegetically harder to support from the text, since it requires introducing a very long time gap into Daniel 7:7–8 before the appearance of the ten horns, which is poor hermeneutics, as has already been discussed, and by also proposing the rise of a second Roman Empire at the end of the age that perhaps takes the shape of something like the European Union today. However, the overall and natural exegesis of this verse implies that the little horn emerges out of the fourth empire and continues to the end of the age, a period of time that symbolically is described as a “time, times and half a time.” Who is this little horn?

From the description in this verse it is apparent that the actions of the little horn are spiritual in nature. This ruler challenges the religious fundamentals of the nations it controls. Daniel 7:26–27 NIV: (26) ‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. (27) Then the sovereignty, power, and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’ Discussion: In Daniel 7:10, in the vision of the Ancient of Days taking His seat on the throne, the court was seated and books were opened. Here, judgment is made, and the power of the little horn is taken away and completely destroyed forever. The sovereignty of God is paramount; His plan is fulfilled in His time. Only when the power of the little horn is taken away and completely destroyed can the saints come into the authority and rule intended by God at creation in Genesis 1:26–28. The restoration of all things suggested by Acts 3:21 and Revelation 11:15 will only occur after the little horn has been destroyed. No reference to the fourth beast is made here; it is the end of the little horn that is of paramount importance. The little horn defeats the saints until God intervenes. By inference, then, the fourth beast has been destroyed long before this in answer to the question that was put forward about Daniel 7:11; the demise of the fourth beast does not mean the end of the little horn. After this, the authority for the whole heaven is given to the saints forever. Daniel 7:28 NIV: (28) “This is the end of the matter. I, Daniel, was deeply troubled by my thoughts, and my face turned pale, but I kept the matter to myself.” Discussion: The beginning and the end are clearly identified in this vision. It is also seen that this vision troubled him a great deal, but he was unable to share it. C.   Conclusions The vision made a deep and strong impression on Daniel, but at this time he is unable to share it with others. This would be a strong reason why he would want to write down the substance of the vision (see Daniel 7:1); he would not want to forget the detail, and he would want to make sure that he had an accurate record of what he saw and what interpretation was given.

Verse 15 tells us that Daniel was deeply troubled, but no reason is given except there is a clue because it is written that the visions alarmed him, and so he approached one of those in attendance, probably an angel, seeking an interpretation. The first answer he receives assures him that the final outcome will be victory for the saints, who will eventually rule the final kingdom forever. This is not unlike the outcome in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and it is certain that Daniel will make the connection between the two, with the four metals of the statue corresponding to the four beasts. However, this still leaves Daniel with many unanswered questions, and so he asks for further interpretation after providing, in verses 19–22, additional details of the vision not given earlier. Why wasn’t this detail included earlier? It is a matter of literary style. If this detail was included earlier, it would have unbalanced the chiasmic structure. Further, Daniel wants us to focus on and recognize those parts of the vision that were troubling him the most. First, he is troubled by the awesome power of the fourth beast, which devours and then crushes and tramples underfoot what remains. Second, he is troubled by the little horn, which directly challenges God’s authority, and third, he would be deeply troubled by the little horn overcoming the saints until the Lord steps in to claim His kingdom. It is significant that he does not ask any questions about the first three beasts. So what can be inferred from the additional interpretation given to Daniel? (1) The first beast would be clearly identified to Daniel as the Babylonian kingdom, and so he would not need to ask further questions about it. (2) The second beast will most likely be identified by Daniel as the Median kingdom or the Medo-Persian kingdom. This identification would depend on the exact year that would correspond to the first year of Belshazzar. Either way it does not matter to Daniel, because the beast is already devouring some flesh (it has ribs in its mouth) and will devour more, and that would be precisely the history that is unfolding at that time. This would be seen by Daniel to fit the current context and so to anchor the starting point for the vision. This would also fit the picture of the second beast being initially the Median kingdom, becoming the Medo-Persian kingdom and later the Persian kingdom. The second beast could be all of these. History sees the replacement of Astyages by Cyrus as more the result of internal events than that of one empire overthrowing another, since the rule of Cyrus was initially that of a vassal state of the Medes. Although possible, it seems much less likely that the Median kingdom and the Medo-Persian kingdom are being seen as two separate beasts. (3) The third beast would also not cause Daniel to be troubled because it is not described as a beast that is troubling Jerusalem or his people. It is a beast that the four wings suggest will be given worldwide authority in agreement with the third metal of bronze, which will “rule the whole earth”

(Daniel 2:39). The imagery of a leopard with four wings also suggests a kingdom that advances with great rapidity in comparison with the others. Although the imagery of four heads can be satisfied by interpreting this as a worldwide kingdom, if this is all that is implied by the four, it has to be asked why it is necessary to add this given that the four wings already imply a worldwide kingdom. It is therefore more likely that the four heads are telling us that this empire has four domains. The question might then be asked why this beast is not described as having four horns. The answer is that this is not a beast that has a single worldwide authority with four authorities underneath; rather it is a beast with four independent authorities. The distinction is important. Given the huge extent of this kingdom, identification with the Medo-Persian kingdom or the Grecian kingdom is possible. The extraordinarily rapid advance of this kingdom was also a feature of both Cyrus’s and Alexander’s conquests. However, note that Alexander the Great did this by military conquests right across the empire, whereas much of the territory came to Cyrus as he replaced the existing Median and Babylonian authority with his own through diplomacy and wise leadership. The four independent Greek kingdoms that followed Alexander’s death also match the vision well. The mention of four kings of Persia in Daniel 11:2 (which may in fact be five depending on interpretation) is not a likely match because this is a feature of intended scope of that vision rather than history. (4) The fourth beast troubles Daniel a great deal because it is very different by being very terrible (verse 19). It leaves nothing behind. Not only is it worldwide in scope (like the third beast) but the interpretation tells us that it “devours the whole earth.” Nothing is untouched; it impacts everything. When Daniel is thinking of his people, he cannot but conclude that this beast must impact them in very serious ways. Furthermore, it has ten horns, which suggests distributed, comprehensive, worldwide authority, further enhancing the way this beast will penetrate every aspect of daily life. The fourth beast is bad enough, but the little horn is even more troubling. The identity of this little horn has been a matter of great controversy and widely divergent views, but it is unlikely that the identity was a big issue for Daniel. At this point the focus is on what troubled him. From Daniel’s perspective this little horn is very different; it is humanlike (it has eyes and a voice), and it speaks against the Most High so that it has religious authority and seeks to change the times and laws, thereby undermining the very fabric of godly society. The fourth beast has tremendous physical power; the description of the little horn suggests that this final authority has purposeful, spiritual power. It uproots three of the ten horns of the fourth beast; the ones that are in front of it, in the direction it faces as it speaks boastful words. It has been seen that it replaces about one third of the existing fourth beast’s power, and so with respect to the ten horns and the three horns the description is literal and accurate, but it is the proportions that are important. The fourth beast has authority over the whole of the known world through powers that it sets up throughout the kingdom; the little horn replaces about one third (less than half) of that kingdom.

Most troubling to Daniel would be that the little horn “wears out” or “oppresses” the saints—God’s holy ones. The little horn does not devour all its subjects; it targets God’s people and wears them out. The little horn overcomes God’s people, not by killing them, but by oppression that is religious and spiritual in nature. Not only is this oppression very troubling, but the period of time of this oppression is an undefined, unspecified, time, times and half a time. It is a length of time that threatens to go to seven times (forever), but is cut off by God at the end. It is felt that Goldingay (1989, 181) expresses this well when he says, “It is a time that threatens to extend itself longer: one period, then a double period, then a quadruple period … but the anticipated sequence suddenly breaks off, so that the anticipated seven periods (in effect an eternity) that were threatened are unexpectedly halved.” This explains the reason for three and one half without having to identify the actual length of time, but it has the feel of a long time (much more than three and one half years) because it threatens to go forever. Daniel is not seeing the little horn as a fifth earthly kingdom. The vision is not concerned with the little horn’s activities as a worldwide kingdom. The focus is on its spiritual impact on God’s people. That is why a fifth beast is never introduced. The perspective that God is giving Daniel does not deal with the little horn’s activities with respect to the whole earth. Rather, its focus is on the persecution of God’s people. Daniel’s primary concern is for his people. God is answering that. Who then or what is the little horn? What is the time horizon of this vision given to Daniel? Many scholars identify the fourth kingdom as Greece. From what has been said above, this does not fit the characterization of the fourth beast very well. Greece did not impose physically, so devouring people and trampling on what is left is not a good description. To a large degree, Greek culture spread because it was attractive, not by force. Many scholars also identify the little horn with Antiochus IV, and indeed there are some significant similarities. However, the differences must also be accounted for in order for the match to be confidently supported. The little horn oppresses and overcomes the saints right until God intervenes, and from then on God’s kingdom rules forever. History reveals that the Jews rose up in rebellion against Antiochus IV and eventually overthrew his authority some time before his untimely death. Certainly Antiochus IV sought to impose Hellenistic culture and religion onto the Jews, but it was the Jews who overcame him, and after that their subsequent rule was only temporary, lasting until the Romans came in 63 BC. Other scholars identify the fourth beast as the Roman Empire but then go on to postulate a second Roman Empire rising up in the last days with ten authorities. The ten is taken literally, but the literal description of the fourth beast as “having” ten horns is overlooked. The natural, literal description is that the fourth beast has ten horns so that proposing a large gap in time before the ten horns emerge is not supported by the text. The foundation for this view of the ten horns is based on the interpretation that the time, times and a half a time in Daniel 7:25 is three and one half years so that the description of events with the ten horns and the little horn is relegated to

the last three and one half years at the end of the age. This interpretation then cannot be tested so easily because it is in the future; however, it will be challenged by other means later. Who then is the little horn? This understanding is sufficient to explain why Daniel was so troubled and impacted physically and why he had to keep it to himself. CHAPTER 4 The Ram, the Goat, and a Little Horn An exposition and interpretation of Daniel 8 A.   The Vision Daniel 8:1 NIV: (1) In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me. Discussion: The Hebrew word used for “reign” here is again malchut , which if interpreted consistently with the interpretation used in Daniel 1:1 and Daniel 2:1 using exclusive reckoning would make this year probably 550 BC if research indicating that Belshazzar’s coregency with Nabonidus began in the latter’s third year is correct (see appendix 9). Thus it will be true that Cyrus soon will or already had replaced King Astyages when this vision was received. This vision occurs about two years later than the one in chapter 7. The last phrase in the verse suggests that the vision is connected with the previous one. Since the interpretation of this vision clearly identifies the MedoPersian Empire and the Greek Empire, it can be retrofitted to the previous one and clear up some of the mystery surrounding it, especially the identification of the beasts. This vision also introduces a horn that starts small. Among other questions, an important one is whether this horn has the same identity as the one that emerges from the fourth beast in chapter 7. This will be another area of great interest. The identity of the little horn here is something to be more carefully investigated than is done in many other commentaries; it is not assumed that it is Antiochus IV. This identification will be investigated for both a second century BC authorship and a sixth century authorship by a Daniel who knows nothing about the contemptible person revealed and described in Daniel 11:21–32 who is undoubtedly Antiochus IV. Daniel 8:2 NIV: (2) In my vision I saw myself in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam; in the vision I was beside the Ulai Canal.

Discussion: This vision centers on Susa, which became (and probably already was) the winter capital of Cyrus in 550 BC. This suggests the vision occurred late in 550 BC. It is probable that Daniel had visited Susa, as there were many scattered Jews with settlements there possibly going back to the days when Assyria was the predominant power and had deported many of the conquered peoples of Israel into different parts of its empire. Susa had been sacked by the Assyrians in 647 BC. Together, the Medes and Babylonians had defeated Assyria in 612 BC. The province of Elam was part of the Babylonian Empire for a period of time; however, the evidence from Hedrick (2006) suggests that it had become part of the Medo-Persian Empire by this time. From the text it can be inferred that Daniel is not there in person; he is there in vision. The events in the book of Esther are located in Susa, and it is apparent that many Jews lived in this city in her day. Today, an ancient tomb in Susa is said to be that of Daniel. A1.   The Ram Daniel 8:3–4 NIV: (3) I looked up, and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later. (4) I watched the ram as he charged toward the west and the north and the south. No animal could stand against him, and none could rescue from his power. He did as he pleased and became great. Discussion: From the interpretation given later in Daniel 8:20, the ram with two horns is the Medo-Persian Empire. Longer horns suggest more strength. The interpretation is clear; the longer horn is Persia, which came into greater power when Cyrus II replaced Astyages and formed the Medo-Persian Empire. The shorter horn is Media. The fact that the second horn had already grown longer strongly suggests that Cyrus had already emerged as the superior power. So this vision starts with something that Daniel would know and understand, and so it anchors the beginning of the vision in context. This seems to be the pattern with all the visions, and it is important to recognize this. If it was possible to place the year of this vision precisely, then it would be known for certain whether the Medo-Persian Empire under Cyrus had already begun or whether the vision is prophetic of what was about to happen. Either way, the timing of the vision is important, but the interpretation is only marginally affected. The unfolding of surrounding historical events may well be able to clear up some of the mysteries of the previous vision in chapter 7. For a Daniel writing in the sixth century, who has not yet received the final vision in chapters 10–12, it would be natural to connect the two-horned ram in this vision with the bear in chapter 7. This is because both animals clearly have two phases. The bear already had three ribs in its mouth and was poised and commanded to devour more but had not started to do so, but two years later the ram has two horns of varying length and the longer one has already emerged. The presence of this longer horn suggests that Cyrus was

already more powerful and that the transfer of power has already occurred, supporting the view that the year is already 550 BC. This identification of the year of the start of the vision further supports the hypothesis that each of the revelations to Daniel are carefully positioned so its beginning is anchored at a point he can identify and that they each occur at key points of change in history. The order of the ram’s charge is historically correct. He advanced to the west and north before defeating the Babylonians, who would have been southward from the perspective of the Medo-Persian Empire. Notice that the Medes already possessed extensive territory to the north and east; the east is included in addition to the west, north, and south in some ancient texts, but it does not really matter to us whether the east should be there or not, as the far eastern regions of the Persian Empire are beyond the known world from Daniel’s perspective. Alternatively, since no Jews resided there, it is outside the focus of this vision. The phrase “he did as he pleased” occurs four times in Daniel, and this is the first. It is later used of Alexander the Great and Antiochus III, and in Daniel 11:36 a fourth king, who has been variously identified in the literature as Antiochus IV, an end of the age ruler, or Herod the Great. His identity will be further discussed in chapter 6. The phrase describes the historical reality of a ruler who has overwhelming power that could not be stopped so that the kings could grow their empires exactly as they wished. History verifies the reality of Cyrus’s ability to grow this empire this way with extraordinary success. Another option adopted by some scholars is to connect the ram to the chapter 7 vision so that the first horn of the ram corresponds to the bear and the second horn to the leopard. This is impossible for a sixth century Daniel, as this would make the bear the Median Empire, and he could see that this empire only lasted two or three more years before Astyages was replaced and that the new Medo-Persian Empire was poised to grow (devour more flesh). Gurney (2006: chapter 4, page 2) suggests that perhaps the bear did not obey the command to devour more flesh; if this is so it would be strange to include this command in the vision, as it would serve no purpose. A third option is that Daniel would connect the ram to the leopard. This suffers from a similar problem to the previous option unless the bear is positioned historically somewhat earlier, perhaps around the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s death in 562 BC, so that the Median kingdom has time to devour more flesh. However, there is little evidence of significant territorial gains made by the Medes in this period of time, and it would be contrary to the observed pattern of all the other revelations in Daniel for the vision to go backward in time from its initial start year. Gurney’s argument (2006, chapters 4 and 5) supporting this view is poor for the following reasons: 1. He does not identify in what sense the second empire, which he believes is Media, is inferior to the first, and it has been shown in chapter 2 that the nature of the inferiority is in the way in which the second empire exerted more gentle authority over its people compared

with the first empire’s absolute rule. It has nothing to do with the relative extent or size of those empires. In any case, the Median Empire was probably larger in extent than the Babylonian so that size is unlikely to be the measure of inferiority the dream was describing. 2. He sees a contradiction in the speedy territorial gains of the Persian Empire with the dynamic of a relatively slow and ponderous bear beast; the winged leopard would better depict the rapid Persian growth. However, history shows that the Persian Empire’s growth had as much to do with annexing first the Median and then the Babylonian Empire and with politically astute leadership and diplomacy as with military success. This is in contrast to the extraordinarily rapid and brilliant military campaigns of Alexander the Great. 3. The argument that there is an absence of evidence that the bear did “arise and devour much flesh” is weak (see Gurney 2006, chapter 4, page 2). The probable assumption is that the bear did do this. Why else would it be included in the vision? As has been seen, the reason for including this component in the description of the bear is much more likely to be because the bear has already devoured some nations and is about to devour more. If this is the case, then Gurney’s argument fails, for it would not match the history of the Median Empire, which was soon to come under the authority of Cyrus. Unfortunately, many commentaries, for example Baldwin (1979) and Lucas (2002), do not make a detailed analysis and comparison of the visions. Lucas sees the visions from a big picture perspective, concluding that the lion is the Babylonian kingdom and the little horn in chapter 8 is definitely Antiochus IV. He then infers that this must mean that the bear is Median, the leopard Persian, and fourth beast Grecian so that the little horn in chapter 7 can be Antiochus IV too. However, a detailed comparison of the features of the chapter 7 and 8 visions is not made; perhaps because the analysis undertaken yields sufficiently plausible conclusions, so he feels there is no need to do so. However, the investigation here suggests that careful comparison does yield important understanding. As part of the analysis, Lucas (2002) argued that since Media was a major empire around this time and also contained many exiles from the Promised Land, the fact that Media never controlled Judah and Jerusalem does not rule it out as a possible candidate for the bear in the chapter 7 vision. The problem with this reasoning is that it cannot be established with certainty and is less likely. The weight of evidence of all the revelations in Daniel and later in the book of Revelation is that their central focus is on empires that at some time occupied and ruled over Judah and Jerusalem; the fact that Jewish exiles did reside in Median cities does not necessarily qualify the Median Empire as a candidate for the bear. So there are substantial reasons to doubt Lucas’s (2002) conclusions, but they cannot be totally dismissed. If the author(s) are writing in the second century BC, then they would naturally write so that the later chapters 8–12 are consistent with the earlier Aramaic chapters 2–7 (which most scholars believe are written to be authentic to the Babylonian era). Therefore, it is strange that the fit between

the visions is so contradictory. When a comparison is made of the details of each of the Daniel 2, 7, and 8 revelations without the later revelation, the outcome leans significantly in favor of an interpretation in contradiction to what would be required for second century BC authorship; that is, that the fourth beast and the iron layer is the Roman Empire and not the Grecian one. Surely the chapter 8 vision, if written in the second century BC, should have been so clearly supportive of the ram matching the leopard and bronze layer and the goat matching the fourth beast and iron layer that there would have been no doubt about the conclusion. A2.   The Goat Daniel 8:5–8 NIV: (5) As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. (6) He came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. (7) I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. (8) The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven. Discussion: From Daniel 8:21–22 the interpretation of the goat is that it represents the Greek Empire. Without doubt the “prominent horn” is Alexander the Great. The picture of a goat crossing the whole earth without touching the ground is a good match to chapter 7’s vision of a four-winged leopard beast’s rapid, flexible movement and Alexander’s extraordinarily rapid military advances. Alexander began his Persian campaign in 334 BC in Asia Minor and with some stunning victories advanced and defeated Darius III at the battle of Issus in November 333 BC. In 332 and 331 BC he subjugated Syria, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. In October 331 BC he defeated Darius a second time at the battle of Gaugamela; Darius fled, and Alexander proclaimed himself king of Asia and entered Babylon and Susa, seizing Persian gold worth fifty thousand talents. In 330 BC Persepolis was burned, and Pasargadae and Ecbatana were occupied. He conducted Indian campaigns from 327 to 325 BC. By 325 BC, territory equivalent to the previous Persian Empire had been captured in an amazing eleven years. In 323 BC Alexander died of disease in Babylon; indeed, at the height of his power he was “broken off” as verse 8 dramatically describes. Of all the four beasts in the chapter 7 vision, the leopard’s description is the one that most strongly emphasizes rapid, flexible movement. Although the Persian Empire grew rapidly, its rate of growth did not equal that of Alexander by a long way, although the eventual size of their empires was similar. When comparing the fourth beast with the goat, it is immediately apparent that speed and flexibility of movement are not featured in the fourth beast’s description, which is much more about strength. The goat is

described as knocking the ram to the ground and trampling on him, but this falls well short of the fourth beast’s strength and thoroughness in crushing and devouring its victims with iron teeth and then using bronze claws to trample underfoot what was left. After Alexander’s death, there was a period of struggle for rule by his successors known as the Diadochi. Initially, the central control of the throne of Alexander’s empire was transferred to the Macedonians; however, wars ensued. In 301 BC, at the battle of Ipsus, Seleucus and Lysimachus defeated Antigonus, the last representative of central power. At this point, four independent Grecian kingdoms were established; Thrace and Asia Minor came under Lysimachus, Macedonia under Cassander, Egypt under Ptolemy, and the Persian heartlands (the largest territory) under Seleucus. This is the point in history where the four horns replacing the original prominent horn who was Alexander the Great can be seen. In the vision of the goat, the focus is on tracing the sequence of the progress of the prominent horn and the subsequent emergence of four kingdoms, so the symbolism of the four horns replacing the original prominent horn is quite appropriate. On the other hand, the description of the leopard with four heads in the previous vision is a snapshot of the beast in its more prevailing form, so rather than tracing the historical development of the initial four independent kingdoms, it is more appropriate to describe them as four heads; this shows how the two visions complement each other’s description. When the ongoing history of these empires is followed, it is discovered that the four kingdoms did not last. In 281 BC, at the battle of Corupedium, Lysimachus was defeated by Seleucus so that at the end of the wars of the Diadochi, only three kingdoms remained—Macedonia under the Antigonids, Asia Minor and the Persian heartlands under the Seleucids, and Egypt under the Ptolemies. Later the Seleucid forces under King Antiochus III were badly mauled by the Romans around 190 BC; their navy was defeated, and all except ten vessels surrendered when the peace treaty was signed at Apamea in 188 BC. Macedonia became a Roman province in 168 BC, leaving only two Greek kingdoms during Antiochus IV’s period of rule over the Seleucids. Ultimately, the Seleucids were destroyed by the Romans in 64 BC and the Ptolemies by the Romans in 31 BC. Many authors interpret the goat as matching the fourth beast of the chapter 7 vision. Often their discussion presents the aspects that are in common while ignoring the differences, and the discussion is dominated by the preconceived belief that since the little horn is Antiochus IV, the fourth beast and the goat must represent the same empires. However, it is important to carefully examine both the similarities and the differences in order to make a properly informed decision, and the differences cannot be explained if the goat is the fourth beast of chapter 7. A3.   The Little Horn Daniel 8:9–12 NIV: (9) Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. (10) It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry

host down to the earth and trampled on them. (11) It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low. (12) Because of rebellion, the host of the saints and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground. Discussion: Although Daniel would understand that this description is in the future to him, his greatest concern would be the suffering of his people and especially the defilement of worship and the desecration of the temple precincts. This would trouble him a great deal. There is no possibility that Daniel would know of Antiochus IV at this stage. If it is accepted that this horn is Antiochus IV, then there is a substantial time gap from the appearance of the four kingdoms in 301 BC and Antiochus IV, who ruled from 175–164 BC. During this time, the four empires were reduced to three in 281 BC and then to two in 168 BC when the region of Macedonia became a Roman province. During this period, the fortunes of the Seleucid Empire oscillated as territory in the east was repetitively lost and regained to the Parthians and Indians, and control over Asia Minor varied. Antiochus III the Great recovered control of some of this territory, but after his death the Seleucid Empire gradually declined. The “out of one of them” could thus mean one of two things; either the horn emerges from one of the kingdoms that remain, or it emerges from future kingdoms or the regions that are in the domain of the four. Since both views are logically possible, it is not necessary that this little horn emerge during the period of the Greek Empire. In the light of this, the following observations are made with regard to Antiochus IV fulfilling the role of this horn. He emerged from one of the original four kingdoms. When he started to rule, his empire was not small; it was still the largest and most powerful of the three that remained. As the second son of Antiochus III, he was not an inconsequential person although not a legal heir to the throne. He therefore had to gain support and power after taking over the kingship, which he did through cunning and intrigue. However, to say that he started small is barely valid; in Daniel 8:8 it is the horn, the ruling authority that started small, but when Antiochus IV began to rule it was over the largest of the three Greek kingdoms. He defeated the Ptolemies early in his rule, but his attempts to gain control over Egypt, although initially looking promising, eventually failed because of the growing Roman power and because the resistance of the Ptolemies was never totally overcome. He made few gains in the east (if any), and before his end the revolt of the Jews against him was growing in success. All in all, to say that he grew in power to the south and east and toward the beautiful land is also invalid because he started his rule with much of this territory under his control and gained nothing in addition. Daniel 8:12 says that the horn succeeded in all that he did; this is clearly not correct for Antiochus IV. In fact, the picture presented of the little horn in Daniel 8:23–25 is one of extraordinary success, which was only stopped with his sudden demise at the end; this does not match the history of Antiochus IV very well at all.

Examining the Hebrew text, it seems that there is a balanced pattern that will assist in the interpretation; the paraphrase below is close to the translation by Lucas (2002). (9a)   From out of the four kingdoms there came a small horn. (9b)   It grew extremely great towards the south, the east and the beautiful land. (10)   It grew until it reached the host of the heavens and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. (11a)   It grew great even to the prince of the host. (11b)   And from the prince the regular sacrifice was removed . And the place of his sanctuary was cast down (12a)   And a host will be set over the regular in an act of rebellion And will cast down truth to the ground. (12b)   It will succeed in all it does. In the sequence of text from verses 9a until 12b, but omitting verses 11b and 12a, it is seen that a horn which starts small, grows and grows and grows (notice this word occurs three times) and succeeds in all it does. Each growing reflects a greater level of successful achievement. The first level of success is purely territorial (9b), the second success is against God’s people since some of the host are thrown down and trampled on (10), and the third level of success is to even reach the ruler of God’s people (11a). There is a growing level of success from the purely physical domain into the spiritual. This is a very powerful horn with enormous physical and spiritual capability. Verses 11b and 12a form two parallel statements that are like a parenthesis, explaining the manner in which the horn reached to the prince of the host. The first describes what was taken away from the prince—the regular worship given to him and the desecration of the place of the sanctuary. The second describes the success gained by the horn—the host that was thrown down will be set over the regular worship so that worship of the prince will be defiled in an act of rebellion; truth will be lost so that deception will be rife. If the horn is Antiochus IV, verses 10 to 12a describe the persecution of the Jews well. However, the territorial gains and the degree of success described do not seem to match history with the same degree of precision for reasons that have already been given. Verse 10 has not been easy to understand; the phrase “host of the heavens” is not clear. It would seem that there is a spiritual dimension to the growth so that some of the Jews are deceived and fall from faith, and the people are desolated. Verses 11 and 12 have been difficult for translators; commentaries suggest that the difficulties have been caused through either poor expression or

textual corruption. However, there is a real possibility that Daniel has written these words deliberately and with subtlety. This horn first gains physical power and then seeks to replace the worship given to the prince with worship given to him (note how in 11a the horn grows to equality with the prince) in an act of rebellion using physical power and deception. Although the daily sacrifice is referred to, the emphasis is on the corruption of worship rather than the daily practice of the Jews under Mosaic Law. Notice that the text also says that the holy place is desecrated not destroyed, so it is the location of the defilement that is paramount, not the temple building itself. For these reasons, it is not necessary to assume that these verses say that before the appearance of this horn, the Jews were practicing the offering of the daily sacrifice in a temple. It is therefore not necessary for the Jews to have resumed their Old Testament worship, nor is it necessary for them to rebuild the temple before these verses can be fulfilled. It would seem that the little horn prospers through deceitfulness, and the people are desolated by the increasing power being exercised in rebellion against God. If the authorship is in the second century BC, it is possible that the writers could exaggerate the spiritual power and apparent success of this ruler. If they were in the middle of persecution, that might even be justified in order to communicate the overall message of God’s sovereign control and ultimate victory in order to give hope to persecuted Jews. However, if this approach is adopted, then there is clearly a reduction in the expected or required precision of the Daniel writings because the interpretation boundaries widen, and therefore the intended meaning is obscured. The result then is less confidence in the value of detailed analysis of the vision. The reader’s view of biblical inspiration and the resultant level of expected accuracy in the detail of the vision then becomes an issue. More will be written on this later when considering the final vision. Further analysis will be given when discussing verses 23–25, which give the interpretation of this horn and the vision. Daniel 8:13 NIV: (13) Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?” Discussion: The starting and ending of this period is clearly defined to encompass the active period of the little horn against the host of the heavens and the prince of the host. The period of territorial growth to the south and east and toward the beautiful land is excluded; it is the period of attack against God’s people and their ruler that is in mind. Daniel 8:14 NIV:

(14) He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.” Discussion: Two interpretations of the meaning of this period of time are generally given: 1. Under the Mosaic Law, the daily sacrifice was offered evening and morning—remember Jews regarded the day as starting and ending at sunset—so the evening sacrifices are the first of the day. So if twentythree hundred sacrifices are in mind, then a period of 1,150 days will elapse. However, the discussion above has suggested that the text is focused on worship of the prince, which was via the daily sacrifice in Daniel’s day, so that this interpretation is less likely. 2. Alternatively, the writer has in mind twenty-three hundred literal twenty-four-hour days, about 6.3 years. The use of the expression “evenings and mornings” makes it clear that Daniel is thinking of literal twenty-four-hour days, not a period of days that are symbolic of longer periods such as years; he carefully removes the ambiguity. In Daniel 8:26, the period of time is reaffirmed, suggesting both its importance and precision. Many scholars see this period as connected to the period of persecution under Antiochus IV from 171 BC to 164 BC; the daily sacrifice is known to have stopped for three years and eight days (see Macabbees). More will be said about this later. B.   The Interpretation Daniel 8:15–16 NIV: (15) While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and trying to understand it, there before me stood one who looked like a man. (16) And I heard a man’s voice from the Ulai calling, “Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision.” Discussion: Consistent with his character as one who diligently sought to understand truth, Daniel is trying to understand the vision that has been revealed to him. He knows that it can be understood, and so he persists. Although it is possible that these two verses are part of the literary style of these apocalyptic visions, if this vision has sixth century BC authorship, it is more likely that the writer is faithfully recording what happened. Note that only in the book of Daniel are angels named; Gabriel appears twice, here and in the next vision. B1.   The Time of the End Daniel 8:17–19 NIV:

(17) As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. “Son of man,” he said to me, “understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.” (18) While he was speaking to me, I was in a deep sleep, with my face to the ground. Then he touched me and raised me to my feet. (19) He said: “I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.” Discussion: The identification of the “time of the end” is a key factor that will ultimately help identification of the “little horn” of this vision. However, the two occurrences of “the time of the end” here are the first two in the book of Daniel, and it is important to try to understand how the writer would have understood them. If second century BC authorship is accepted, then the words that have been written will be seen as past history, and a very different perspective emerges; the “time of the end” would be the very time in which the authors were writing these words. If a sixth century BC Daniel is recording what Gabriel actually said, then the question is more interesting. All the visions will be looking far into the future from his perspective. Daniel would recognize from the content of the vision, from the interpretation which follows, and from the history unfolding around him that he is at the beginning of the Persian Empire. He also knows about the existence of the Greeks, as they are part of the known world, so when the vision portrays the rise of a Greek Empire after the Persian one, then that would be within his knowledge. At this stage there is nothing in the vision to indicate how long these empires will last, so he does not know how far into the future he is seeing. The previous analysis indicates that Daniel would equate the Greek Empire with the leopard beast in chapter 7; then he will know that the fourth beast and its “little horn” follow after the Greek Empire. In this case, it is certain that Daniel would not equate the “time of the end” with the Greek Empire, since there is clearly another empire to follow with all its associated history. In fact, he will see the fourth beast as the last, and therefore much more likely conclude that its emergence is in “the time of the end.” He would also note that the “little horn” in chapter 7 is finally destroyed by divine intervention, and so is the “little horn” in chapter 8, and that these are also within “the time of the end.” There is a further important possibility that Daniel might recognize; he might equate the end of the time of wrath with the end of the time, times and half a time in Daniel 7:25. This he would do because the half a time is like a time suddenly cut short, which suggests divine intervention, and because both “times” are terminated this way as well as this little horn (see Daniel 8:25). B2.   The Ram Daniel 8:20 NIV:

(20) The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. Discussion: The interpretation clearly identifies the two horned ram. This is examined fully in the discussion of the vision for verses 3 and 4. B3.   The Goat Daniel 8:21–22 NIV: (21) The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. (22) The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power. Discussion: The goat is also clearly identified and additional information about the goat is included; he is shaggy. Literally, the goat is a hairy he-goat. What is the significance of this? Probably the hairiness of the goat gives it adaptability to a wide range of climates, suggesting the goat’s ability to range over the whole Persian Empire, whose climate varied from the very cold to the very warm. Alexander’s army was relatively small, fast-moving, and very flexible and adaptable, so this choice of animal is quite appropriate. B4.   The Little Horn Daniel 8:23 NIV: (23) “In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise. Discussion: One of the very interesting features about this interpretation is that it adds many new things that are not in the original vision; in fact, it is nearly all new. Thus not much explanation is given of the original vision, and interestingly enough, it is not the content of the vision that creates the difficulty but rather the translation of the Hebrew text. So it seems that the role of this interpretation is to complement what has already been said. Of further interest is that symbolic language ceases, and the additional features are written much like history. For those adhering to second century BC authorship, this might be explained by the authors’ writing of recent and current events of which they are familiar. For all proposed authorships, this language is vivid and the persecution of the people something very close to their heart. The account is all the more vivid because it gives the detailed account of a single individual. The NIV translation of verse 23, “In the latter part of their reign,” is difficult to apply to the Greek Empire given that the number of kingdoms gradually reduced and their power and territory changed over the period from 301 BC

until the final end of the Ptolemaic Empire in 31 BC. That places Antiochus IV in the middle of this period (166 BC)—hardly the latter part of their reign. This problem is not resolved by other English versions such as the NKJV, which reads, “And in the latter time of their kingdom.” For the NIV the question has to be asked, “Whose reign?” or for the NKJV, “Whose kingdom?” Examining the Hebrew opens up some interesting possible alternative renderings that overcome the above problem. For example, it could be translated, “At the last period of time of their kingdom.” This could then mean “the very end of the history for the people living in the region defined by the four kingdoms.” This would place the coming of this ruler right at the end of the age. For now, it is important to see that the Hebrew text allows this possibility and that the horn does not have to be Antiochus IV. The next phrase in verse 23 of the NIV, “when rebels have become completely wicked,” is also hard to understand. NKJV reads, “When the transgressors have reached their fullness,” and the NRSV reads, “when the transgressions have reached their full measure.” The phrase seems to speak of the increase of wickedness (or wicked people) reaching a limit of completely evil behavior. This is not unlike Paul’s characterization of behavior in the last days in, for example, 1 Timothy 3:1–9. Gurney (2006: chapter 4, page 4) describes the falling away from God that occurred for the Jews over the period of Greek rule. However, it would be difficult to conclude that their wickedness had reached completion or the fullness described here. Overall, the phrase seems to be more appropriate to the end of the age, not to the persecution under Antiochus IV. It is probable that the underlying principle is that God brings final judgment when the people’s hearts have been hardened to the point that no more repentance will occur. This was the situation when the flood came in the days of Noah. The third phrase of verse 23 describes this king as stern-faced; he rarely shows a smile and is always serious; nor does he show emotion; he is totally unfeeling, and cruelty will be one of his characteristics. An expressionless face is also a feature of one who deceives; he hides what he is really thinking. The final phrase of verse 23 is that this king that arises is also a master of intrigue. Was Antiochus IV really that clever? He had coins made with epithets that increasingly gave him divine honor, even to the extent of the title “God Manifest” being imprinted on one of them. His people recognized his arrogance and nicknamed him “Epimanes,” which means “madman.” This does not seem to be the kind of reputation to be associated with one who was a “master of intrigue” and who was highly successful. Daniel 8:24 NIV: (24) He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people. Discussion:

The first phrase suggests that this king gains power through resources other than his own through circumstances that unfold to provide the opportunity. This hints at one way he would exhibit being a “master of intrigue.” Written from the perspective of second century BC, authors in the middle of persecution by Antiochus IV, the second phrase can make sense. However, from an historical or known world perspective, when you compare the reign of Antiochus IV with other great kings, the second and third phrase greatly exaggerate his achievements. Antiochus IV did not succeed in everything he did. It can hardly be said that he destroyed mighty men. Only in Palestine could it be said that he caused astounding devastation and destroyed holy people. Toward the end of his reign, the local Jews mounted an effective resistance and eventually overcame the persecution promulgated by Antiochus IV. This contradicts the statement that he succeeded in all that he did. If these events are being interpreted as occurring at the end of the age, there are three references to “mighty men” in addition to verse 24 that are likely to refer to end-time military powers. These are in Ezekiel 39:18, 20 and Revelation 19:18. The “holy people” are God’s people; to Daniel they would have been Jews. Thus this little horn will succeed in defeating military powers and destroying God’s people. Daniel 8:25 NIV: (25) He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power. Discussion: The cunning and deceitfulness of this king exceeds anything previously seen. The vision spoke of truth being thrown to the ground (verse 12), but this interpretation emphasizes his success through deceitfulness and intrigue to a far greater level than could be recognized in the vision described in verses 10–12. The second sentence is interesting, as it illustrates one way this king will deceive and reflects his gross arrogance. It would seem that when the people, who were previously fearful because of what was happening, feel safe and secure, at that time the king will rise up and embark on massive devastation and even seek to defy God. This suggests the breaking of an agreement that catches the people by surprise as the beginning of great persecution. Ultimately, this king is overcome and destroyed, but not by human power. The little horn in chapter 7 is similarly defeated. The picture presented here does not match the history of Antiochus IV well. In his final years, the uprising against him was gaining in momentum. Although he died suddenly of sickness, and in this sense can be said to have been destroyed by other means, the lead-up to his death is not that of one who was outstandingly successful right to the very end.

There are parallels here with Antiochus IV, but the focus is on a king who not only gains power through lies and deceit but grows in power the same way. He will talk nicely, but do differently. Antiochus IV was not all that successful; he lost some battles and was outmaneuvered by the Romans and had to retreat from the path he had taken. Although the degree of desolation that Antiochus IV perpetrated in Jerusalem and its surroundings must not be underestimated, the degree of success and victory described here seems to far exceed that of Antiochus IV. History has many examples of what happens when evil men gain authority over nations and then overreach themselves. In recent times it is only necessary to think of Hitler and Saddam Hussein to start with. Deception is a major characteristic of all evil regimes. So is the sense of enormous power superior to all opposition. Daniel 8:26 NIV: (26) “The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.” Discussion: Here is a double confirmation that the vision and its associated period of time are true. The double affirmation emphasizes both its truth and importance. If it is so important then it must be expected that at some time it will make sense. Since Daniel is asked to seal up this vision, then the full understanding is not meant to be revealed to him or to us until God’s time. So an important question for us is how the time for proper understanding can be known. The broad answer to this is likely to be “the time of the end,” but it may be more precise than that; perhaps it is the latter time of the end. Daniel 8:27 NIV: (27) I, Daniel, was exhausted and lay ill for several days. Then I got up and went about the king’s business. I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding. Discussion: This vision adds onto the one in chapter 7, and perhaps Daniel had some expectation that the deep troubles he had about that vision would be cleared up. However, it would seem from this response that his trouble has increased; he is not just troubled; he is appalled. C.   The Two Little Horns Compared In making these comparisons, keep in mind that the additional understanding that comes from the revelations given in chapters 9 and 10– 12 are not yet being considered. From the perspective of a sixth century BC Daniel, the visions will reflect the future as he would see it, and the two little horns will be future prophecy. This is very different from the perspective of a second century BC

writer in the middle of persecution looking back in history and seeking to communicate God’s sovereignty and hope into their current situation. Generally, the discussion in the literature in this area is inadequate, as it tends to be biased toward one of the two views of authorship, with the result that the arguments for and against the chosen interpretation are never fully canvassed. In this work, the attempt is made to present both perspectives comprehensively. The conclusions are interesting. For those who favor second century BC authorship and/or take the Antiochene view, the little horn in chapter 7 and in chapter 8 must be one and the same person, both arising from the Greek Empire. For most of those that accept sixth century BC authorship and accept that the fourth beast is the Roman Empire, then the little horn of chapter 7 cannot be Antiochus IV and might be an end of the age ruler, Hitler, Muhammad (the prophet of Islam), or some other world leader yet to be determined. There are a few, such as Gurney (2006), who take sixth century BC authorship and interpret the fourth beast as the Greek Empire and then argue for the chapter 7 little horn to be Antiochus IV. For these, the chapter 8 little horn is either Antiochus IV or the end of the age ruler. For some, he is both, with Antiochus IV being a type of the end of the age ruler. Should the chapter 7 little horn represent Muhammad, then the horn in chapter 8 must be an end of the age ruler. These options will be revisited at length later in the book. All of these interpretations are possible. As a result, a comparison between what has been recorded about these two horns is important. Is it possible to be certain that they are the same person? Must they be different, or is the resolution of this question unclear? C1.   The Most Obvious Similarities 1. They both start small. In Daniel 7:8, the horn is described as a “little one” in the NIV. Subsequent references to this horn do not mention its size with the possible exception of Daniel 7:20, which the NIV translates “more imposing than the others.” The horn in Daniel 8:9 starts small but keeps on growing stronger and stronger. There is a historical problem in associating the Daniel 8:9 horn with Antiochus IV in that when he came to power, he was ruling over the largest empire of the time; thus, when he became a horn, he was already big, and as you trace his history he really doesn’t increase in power very much. There is no such obvious historical problem with associating the little horn in Daniel 7:8 with Muhammad. 2. They both become great. The horn that starts small in Daniel 7:8 continues to wage war against the saints and defeat them until divine intervention (Daniel 7:21). That is also true for the horn in chapter 8. If both horns are Islamic, then their similarity should be expected. 3. They are both destroyed by divine intervention. See Daniel 7:22, 26 and Daniel 8:25.

Both emerge from the second stage of a kingdom. Lucas (2002) sees 4. this as a significant point in supporting the view that both horns are Antiochus IV. However, since other identifications of the horns can also be supported from this comparison (for example, Muhammad in Daniel 7 and Antiochus IV in Daniel 8), it is not compelling. 5. Both successfully persecute God’s people. See Daniel 7:21 and Daniel 8:10–12, 24–25. 6. Both directly oppose God. See Daniel 7:25 and Daniel 8:11, 25. 7. If the Daniel 7 little horn is Antiochus IV, then the Daniel 8 little horn almost certainly must be too. The converse position, that if the Daniel 8 little horn is Antiochus IV then the Daniel 7 little horn must be too, is far less certain. C2.   The Most Obvious Differences 1. The little horn in Daniel 7:8 emerges from a terrifying beast with ten horns, whereas the horn which starts small in Daniel 8:9 emerges from a goat that has four horns. Therefore their origin seems very different. 2. The little horn in chapter 7 tries to change the times and laws and to control them for a time, times and half a time. This characteristic is not mentioned in chapter 8. There is considerably greater detail about the horn in chapter 8 than about the horn in chapter 7. Neither of these descriptions contradicts, and they could complement each other well. C3.   The Time Element For those that believe in the second century BC authorship of Daniel, then the time horizon for this book is the reign of Antiochus IV, and the time of the end is the persecution of the Jews under his reign. In this case, the time, time and half-a time in Daniel 7:25 must be three and one half years, and the persecution of the saints in chapter 7 will last for the same length of time. The divine intervention that terminates this persecution is then described in both chapters 7 and 8. The twenty-three hundred evenings and mornings would then describe the last 6.3 years of the reign of Antiochus IV. If the little horn in chapter 7 is an end of the age ruler, then the time, times and half-a-time is interpreted as the three and one half years before the Second Advent. The basis for this view rests on the interpretation of the chapter 9 vision and the book of Revelation. This view will, therefore, be examined later. Other identifications of the little horn, such as Hitler (see Skolfield) will also be examined later. If on the other hand the little horn in chapter 7 is Muhammad, then the time element is very different because his influence through the Islamic Kingdom still prevails. In this case, the time, times and half-a-time must be a long period, which could start as early as AD 610 and is still unfinished today. For a sixth century BC Daniel writing prophecy without knowledge of the later visions, it is possible to interpret the time, times and half-a-time as a long period of time, but it must be kept in mind that Daniel has no idea of the

time spans involved; there would be no basis for him to take the time, times and half-a-time as three and one half years or any other length of time. Goldingay’s perception of this time being one time, two times, and threatening to go to four times but being suddenly cut off seems very plausible. There would be no basis for Daniel to connect this to the twentythree hundred evenings and mornings either. D.   Conclusion For a Daniel writing in the sixth century BC, the conclusion is different from what was expected at the outset. It was expected that there would still be large uncertainty about who the four beasts are. However, the associations make it clear. The lion beast is the Babylonian Empire; the bear beast is the Medo-Persian Empire, and the leopard beast is the Greek Empire. This means that the little horn emerges from the empire after the Greek one. In Daniel’s thinking, then, the “time of the end” would be linked to an empire that was beyond the empires that he would have known. The Greek Empire was a power to be reckoned with in his world although quite weak relative to the emerging Persian Empire. However, as has been seen, the fourth beast was something else. The little horn in chapter 8 troubles him even more; it must be a power that emerges after the Greek Empire. If the book of Daniel was written in the second century BC, however, the conclusions would be very different. In this case, all the revelations must somehow fit past events. This can be done. Some associations will have to be forced unnaturally, but they are possible. For scholars who believe in second century BC authorship, it would seem that the final conclusion is going to depend on the final revelation. But first, it will be necessary to examine the seventy sevens in chapter 9. This revelation is the primary determinant of most evangelical and Pentecostal views on the book of Daniel and Revelation. For the most part, these scholars accept many of the conclusions above for a book of Daniel written by a sixth century BC author. However, there are some major variations concerning the identities of the little horns and some of the details, for example, the ten horns of the fourth beast. CHAPTER 5 The Seventy Sevens

In this chapter, the focus is on the exegesis of Daniel chapter 9, arguably one of the most interesting, difficult, and significant chapters in the Bible. The interpretation of Daniel 9:24–27, which is often referred to as the seventy weeks prophecy, has been the primary driver of most end-time interpretations of the book of Revelation. This is all the more remarkable, given the difficulty, confusion, and diversity that surround all the different views that have been put forward. As far as is known, the perspective put forward in this chapter and completed in chapter 7 is rather different from anything that has previously appeared in print. For those of you who have studied the end times, it will seriously challenge what has previously been understood and therefore seriously challenge every end-time interpretation that has ever been considered. Keep in mind the context of this chapter. What Daniel knows is the chapter 8 vision, which enhances the chapter 7 vision. He also knows that the Babylonian Empire has come to an end (the lion beast of chapter 7) and that the empire of the bear beast in chapter 7 and the ram in chapter 8 is under way. He has been told about the Medo-Persian Empire (the ram) and the Greek Empire (the goat). He has been told that there is a little horn that emerges from the fourth beast described in chapter 7 and a little horn that emerges from the region of the four horns in chapter 8. He knows nothing about the time that elapses between the four horns and the little horn in chapter 8, but he does know that this little horn appears in the time of the end. The analysis of these revelations to Daniel has shown significant weighting in favour of the view that the sequence of kingdoms is Babylonian, MedoPersian, Greek, and the next kingdom, which Daniel would not be able to identify but which would be known today as Roman. However, this conclusion has not been totally confirmed. The identity of the two little horns is still an open question, although some suggestions have been advanced. The other sequence, namely Babylonian, Median, Medo-Persian, and Greek is still possible but forced against the more natural interpretation, and in this case, the little horn in both chapters 7 and 8 would have to be Antiochus IV, but Daniel would not know this. A summary of the present understanding is given in the table below Table 3: Summary of conclusions so far A.   Daniel’s Prayer Daniel 9:1–2 NIV: (1) In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom—(2) in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. Discussion: First, although the identification of Darius the Mede remains uncertain, the fact that this chapter occurs in the first year of his reign over the Babylonian

kingdom is important. Note that his reign is only over the Babylonian kingdom, not the whole Medo-Persian Empire. The identity of his father is also uncertain. Since Darius is a Mede by descent, his father must have been also, but the Hebrew text gives a Persian name, so it may not be surprising if the father is unknown to the few other historical records that we have. Second, note that Darius was made king; it was an appointment given to him, not a position that he won. Third, note that the Hebrew word translated “reign” in verse 2 is malak the normal one used to express the official regnal years of a king’s reign in the Bible and not the word used in Daniel 1:1, 2:1, and 8:1. Fourth, we can deduce that the Persian Empire used Tishri to Tishri reckoning. The evidence for Tishri to Tishri dating in the Medo-Persian Empire in the Bible is found by examining Nehemiah 1:1 and comparing with Nehemiah 2:1 and observing that the month Kislev (November/ December) of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes precedes the month of Nisan (March/April) and is still the twentieth year. This is only possible with Tishri to Tishri reckoning. Jones (2004, 123) discusses further extrabiblical evidence in support of this conclusion. Fifth, we also deduce that the Medes and Persians used nonaccession year dating, so that the first year of Darius the Mede was 539 BC, and he took up this position immediately upon the fall of Babylon in October of that year as implied by Daniel 5:30. We make this deduction because the fall of Babylon would have triggered Daniel’s recognition that nearly seventy years of desolation of Jerusalem would have occurred leading to his prayer of intercession in Daniel 9. Daniel 9:1 says that this occurred in the first year of Darius the Mede. It is known that after the sack of Babylon, Cyrus appointed his son Cambyses II as regent over Babylon for one year (see Brosius (2006, 12), Roux (1992, 406), and Lucas (2002, 135–136). It is not known precisely when Cyrus became king of Persia; but the evidence of the book of Daniel is that he had not yet adopted that title. Therefore, the probable first year of the reign of Cyrus as the king of Persia would be 538 BC in September/ October. The identity of Darius the Mede has been extensively discussed in the literature and is not known from extrabiblical sources. The following possibilities have been considered, but see Lucas (2004, 135) for a more complete discussion of the first four. 1. A majority of scholars have concluded that he is a literary construct, not a historical person. This is a dangerous conclusion, since in research the absence of evidence leads to uncertainty about the conclusion rather than that the research is wrong. This is especially true in historical research, which continually refines and updates our knowledge so that unresolved historical problems frequently become resolved when later research brings new evidence to light; an example of this in the research into the book of Daniel is the historicity of Belshazzar. In fact, in the study of the book of Daniel, the trend has been that fewer and fewer “errors” remain as research advances our understanding. 2. For a period of time, a good number of scholars held the view that Darius the Mede was another name for the general who captured

Babylon, variously named as Ugbaru or Gubaru and in classical writings as Gobryas. However, it was later found out that Gobryas died a few weeks after the capture of Babylon. 3. Another view, which is not generally supported now, is that Darius the Mede is Gubaru, who was originally confused with the general discussed in point 2. It is now known that he only became governor of Babylon in the fourth year of Cyrus. 4. Cyrus the Great and Darius the Mede are one and the same person (a possible interpretation of Daniel 6:28). Since the father of Cyrus was Cambyses I, king of Anshan, and his mother was probably Mandane, daughter of Astyages, who was king of the Medes (Herodotus I, 107ff), Cyrus could be regarded as a Mede, with King Astyages being his grandfather. Most references say that Astyages reigned from about 585 to 550 BC, but there is less certainty about the beginning of the reign of Cambyses I, suggestions varying from 600 to 580 BC. Although not directly stated by Herodotus, it would seem that Cambyses I married Mandane after Astyages became king, but Herodotus does state that Cyrus was born within a year or two of his marriage, which would place his birth around 580 BC. It is fairly certain that Cyrus began his reign in the Persian province in 559 BC. Overall, if Darius the Mede is the same person as Cyrus the Great, then the sixty-two years of age given to Darius in Daniel 5:30 seems possible but unlikely, as that would make him rather old. That would mean that he was born about 600 BC and that he would have already been forty years old when he became king of Anshan and that he was actively leading his armies until he died in 530 BC at about seventy years of age. In addition, the fact that Darius was made king, that his Mede descent is emphasized, and the majority of references in Daniel see him as distinct from Cyrus suggest that he is a different person. 5. In the light of the weakness of the previous four views, it is not unreasonable to consider an old view based on the somewhat unreliable ancient writings by Xenophon in his Cyropaedia . See also the book by Hedrick (2006) about Cyrus based on Xenophon’s writings and the book by Ussher (2003). The evidence of this literature suggesting that Darius the Mede may be the uncle of Cyrus the Great named Cyaxares has never been proven, but it has not been refuted either. Based on this evidence, some scholars still consider that Darius the Mede was indeed Cyaxares, the uncle of Cyrus the Great and the brother of Mandane, his mother, and Astyages, the Median king. Xenophon writes how Cyrus and Cyaxares had close association with one another when Cyrus went to stay with his grandfather, King Astyages, until he was fifteen (Book 1), and it appears that they remained friends. Xenophon says that Cyaxares became king of Media when his father died, at which time Cyrus was thirty-three years old. He says that Cyrus led the armies of the Persian vassal state in alliance with the Median troops against the Babylonians, but through skillful leadership and diplomacy and military skill he became the effective ruler of the Medo-Persian kingdom. After capturing Babylon, Cyrus set up a palace there for Cyaxares, and Cyaxares offered his daughter in marriage to Cyrus. According to

Xenophon, Cambyses I and Mandane, the parents of Cyrus, were still alive at this time, and Cyrus only married Cyaxares’s daughter after receiving his parents’ permission. Xenophon also says that Cambyses I was still king of Persia at this time and died shortly afterward so that Cyrus was king of Persia for only seven years, suggesting that he became king of Persia only after his father’s death about 537 BC. Xenophon says that a Mede by the name of Cyaxares succeeded to the throne of Babylon. In this solution, for Darius the Mede (Cyaxares) to be sixty-two years old (Daniel 5:31) seems plausible. Although some aspects of this story may be in conflict with other historical evidence, other features about it are attractive since they do contain a possible explanation for the content of the book of Daniel and provide a different, but plausible, interesting hypothesis about the relationship between the Medes and Persians. First, Cyaxares, the brother of Cyrus’s mother, would likely be at least twenty years older than Cyrus, which makes the recorded age of Darius the Mede (sixty-two years in Daniel 5:31) more plausible and makes the age of Cyrus about forty to fifty years when he captured Babylon, which leads to an estimate of when he was born that is in accord with other evidence. Second, both of Cyaxares’s parents would be Medes, making the title of Darius the Mede more appropriate. Third, if Cyrus did not become king of Persia until 537 BC, this matches the record in the book of Daniel very well. Fourth, the delay in Cyrus becoming king of Persia improves the precision of Jeremiah’s prophecy for the period of desolation of Jerusalem being seventy years. One of the features of this view is that Cambyses I remains king of Persia until about 538 BC, whereas many scholars consistently maintain that Cyrus the Great became king of Persia in 550 BC in spite of the fact that the book of Daniel does not attribute this title to him until after the fall of Babylon. Perhaps he was coregent with his father, who probably did not die until 538 BC. Since the historical records of Persia are so scant, it seems not unreasonable that other plausible alternatives will arise, and a final resolution of these historical issues is still in the future. Although Xenophon’s Cyropaedia is a romantic story more than a history, written with a particular agenda in mind for primarily a Greek readership, it may contain a more factually historical basis than is currently proven. Whatever answer is eventually found, it is evident that Cyrus did not adopt the title of king of Persia until at least about one year after capturing Babylon at the earliest, by which time his power over the whole MedoPersian kingdom was secured. This would have been in September/October 538 BC. It is interesting and important that the proclamation by Cyrus, king of Persia, to the men of Judah and Israel to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple was to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah (2 Chronicles 36:22 and Ezra 1:1) and that this occurred in the first year of Cyrus, king of

Persia, probably in 538 or 537 BC. Given that we don’t know when in Cyrus’s first year the return was decreed, that it would have taken time for God’s people to organize the return and that it is unlikely they would make the journey in winter, then the earliest possible date for the seventh-month building of the altar in Jerusalem is about September/October 536 BC, and the laying of the foundations would then be in the spring of 535 BC, the third year of Cyrus as king of Persia (Daniel 10:1). All in all, there is a significant probability that Cyrus became king of Persia one or two years later than has generally been assumed. A possible interesting outcome of all of this is that the date of Daniel’s final vision recorded in Daniel 10–12 as the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, is now most likely to be 535 BC. This could well be the same year in which the foundation for the temple was laid in Jerusalem, precisely seventy years after the initial desolation of Jerusalem and Daniel’s exile. Notice that it is the desolation of Jerusalem that Daniel refers to here, not the period of exile of God’s people. There are two important words in Jeremiah that reference seventy years. The first, in Jeremiah 25:1–14, given in 605 BC, speaks of Judah, Jerusalem, and the surrounding nations serving the king of Babylon for seventy years. As has already been extensively considered in the discussion of Daniel 1:1, the prophecy in Jeremiah 25:1 is also said to have been during Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year, so it is likely to have been at least September 605 BC and would likely have synchronized well with the beginning of Judah being a vassal state of Babylon as described in Daniel 1:1, 2 Kings 24:1–7, and 2 Chronicles 36:5–8. In fact, in Jeremiah 25:18, Jeremiah speaks of Jerusalem already being in ruins and an object of horror and scorn and cursing, so it is likely that the invasion by Nebuchadnezzar had already occurred when this word came to Jeremiah, probably late in 605 BC. In addition, in Jeremiah 25:29, God speaks of already beginning to bring disaster on Jerusalem. Daniel himself was probably taken to Babylon around this time. He probably knew Jeremiah personally, and the invasion by Nebuchadnezzar would have been very clear to him. So when Babylon was captured by Cyrus in October 539 BC, Daniel would have recognized that the servitude of Judah to Babylon was coming to an end, having lasted nearly seventy years. The other reference to seventy years by the prophet Jeremiah is in Jeremiah 29:10–14, where he says that after the seventy years are completed for Babylon, God will fulfill His gracious promise to His people to bring them back to the land. Note carefully that Jeremiah never says that the period of the exile is seventy years. Daniel seeks God when the seventy years requirement on Babylon is approaching and because he knows that after this his people will return if they seek God with all their hearts. Then in obedience to God’s word in Jeremiah (Jeremiah 29:13–14) he does just that. It is interesting to note that based on the available historical evidence the desolation of Jerusalem can be said to have lasted from 605 BC to about 535 BC, and the temple which was destroyed in 586 BC was rebuilt by 516 BC (see Zechariah 1:12 and 7:5), both periods being close to seventy years in length. Daniel 9:3 NIV:

(3) So I turned to the Lord God and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes. Discussion: Daniel’s humble obedience to the word of God is seen here and through the prayer that follows. It is important to see that Daniel’s passion to seek the Lord with all his heart is in agreement with the requirement for his people’s return and reflects the extent of his obedience to Jeremiah 29:13–14 and the focus of his mind on Jeremiah’s prophecies. Unfortunately, in understanding the context of this chapter, far too much focus has been given to the “seventy years” and far too little to the total word of God given to Jeremiah, which certainly lies behind the message given to Daniel by Gabriel in Daniel 9:24–27. It is important that the full extent of the content of Jeremiah’s prophecy is recognized, as it contributes to our overall understanding of the progress of God’s plan for His people and the content of the prophecy at the end of chapter 9. The prophecy given by Jeremiah about seventy years for Babylon, part of which was first given in 605 BC, directly connects to God’s plan for judgment against His people for their sin, the desolation of Jerusalem for a period of seventy years being part of that. It also connects to God’s word about the destruction of all the surrounding nations and the return and rebuilding of Jerusalem afterward. This complete picture is covered in Jeremiah’s prophecies, especially in Jeremiah 25 to 33 and 36. There is a sense in which all these prophecies can be considered connected, with a key public pronouncement of them in 605 BC. In support of this, consider the following. 1. In Jeremiah 25:1–3, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (605 BC) the word from God reflects the fact that Jeremiah had been prophesying for twenty-three years from the reign of Josiah. It also contains God’s word of judgment on the nations and the seventy years of servitude to the Babylonian Empire. 2. In Jeremiah 36:1–3, in the same year, God instructs Jeremiah to write down all the prophetic words God had given him from the reign of Josiah. It would seem, therefore, that these two words from the Lord are connected in that they encompass all the words given to Jeremiah up until then for Israel, Judah, and the surrounding nations. Verse 3 indicates that at this time, if the people repent, God will forgive their sin. 3. It took some time for these words to be written, since it was not until the ninth month (November/December) of the fifth year of Jehoiakim (604 BC) that Baruch read these words in the temple at a time when fasting was proclaimed for all the people. By then, Jeremiah was restricted and not able to prophesy publicly. See Jeremiah 36:4–10. 4. The ninth month was not the time for a regular fast, so it was probably connected to Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion in the previous year, which would have occurred at about this time.

In Jeremiah 36:20–26, it is learned that the scroll was subsequently 5. read to Jehoiakim in the same month and that he destroyed it. 6. In Jeremiah 36:27–32, Jeremiah is instructed to re-create the scroll. He did this, adding additional prophetic words as well (see verse 32). It is not revealed how long this rewrite took, but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that a substantial amount of the book of Jeremiah that we have today was written at this time. 7. Of particular interest is to identify precisely when Jeremiah’s prophecies about the restoration of Israel and Judah and the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Jeremiah 30 and 31 were made. In Jeremiah 30:1–2, God instructs Jeremiah to write all the words He has spoken to him. From the content of these two chapters, it is seen that they concern both Israel and Judah, and there is a strong suggestion that these words were given over a substantial period of Jeremiah’s prophetic ministry and that these words of rebuilding and restoration have been consolidated together. In Jeremiah 32–33 there are more words of restoration, which are clearly dated to just before the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. Overall, it seems best to recognize that God gave a specific word of judgment to Judah in 605 BC that was applicable for a period of seventy years. He also gave words of restoration and rebuilding of both Israel and Judah and specific words about restoring Jerusalem. Although, it is not possible to determine when the words in Jeremiah 30–31 were given, there is no doubt that they are connected to the seventy years prophecy of desolation for Jerusalem given in 605 BC as part of God’s overall dealing with the nation. The points that follow elucidate some of the important content in Jeremiah’s word from the Lord, which also provides the context for the seventy sevens prophecy. 1. The scope of the restoration in Jeremiah 30–33 encompasses both Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 30:3) and over a much longer time than the seventy-year period of servitude under Babylon. In fact, the time span includes the inauguration of the new covenant implemented by what Jesus did (Jeremiah 31:33–34) and embraces all of the time up until the end of the age. This scope and time span informs the prophecy in Daniel 9:24–27. 2. Four vital principles in God’s plan for history centered on Judah and Jerusalem are contained in Jeremiah 30. First, in Jeremiah 30:3 the Lord says, “I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their forefathers to possess.” The scope of this return is reflected in Jeremiah 30:7–10 NIV. (7) How awful that day will be! None will be like it. It will be a time of trouble for Jacob, but he will be saved out of it. (8) “‘In that day,’ declares the LORD Almighty, “I will break the yoke off their necks and will tear off their bonds; no longer will foreigners enslave them. (9) Instead, they will serve the LORD their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for

them. (10) “‘So do not fear, O Jacob my servant; do not be dismayed, O Israel,’ declares the LORD. “I will surely save you out of a distant place, your descendants from the land of their exile. Jacob will again have peace and security, and no one will make him afraid. The scale of this restoration seems to far exceed what was achieved when God’s people returned to the land after the Babylonian exile. God will fulfil the promise He gave to Abraham. In Genesis 17:4–8 He says, “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. (5) No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. (6) I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. (7) I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. (8) The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.” Second, God’s plan will be to allow different nations to have authority over His people and then to judge those nations on how they treat His people. Generally, the nations mistreat His people which usually mean that they rise and fall as His judgment comes upon them, frequently resulting in their destruction. In contrast, God will not completely destroy His people, and even though they might suffer tremendously for their sin, they always will survive through the faithful remnant. For example, this is seen in Jeremiah 30:11 NIV: ‘I am with you and will save you,’ declares the LORD. ‘Though I completely destroy all the nations among which I scatter you, I will not completely destroy you. I will discipline you but only with justice; I will not let you go entirely unpunished.’ As the book of Daniel unfolds, this principle is clearly seen. All the nations that attack and oppress His people are eventually destroyed, but His people always survive. At the same time there is justice, because God always punishes the sins of His people too. This is a key theme in the book of Daniel. Prophetically, this can be seen to be true of God’s dealings with Israel and other nations right until the present day. This discussion lies in the domain of a major area of theological controversy. Many Christians have believed that God has finished with the Jews and that the Old Testament prophecies will be fulfilled through the church. Some of this thinking also underlies those who hold to the pretribulation rapture, where the church is removed from the world seven years before Jesus

returns, and during those last seven years God deals with the Jews. However, both these theological positions are not necessary for there to be a future for the Jews and God still to be just. A thorough discussion of this is outside the scope of this book. Third, God will punish His people for their sin. Jeremiah 30:12–15 NIV “This is what the LORD says: “‘Your wound is incurable, your injury beyond healing. (13) There is no one to plead your cause, no remedy for your sore, no healing for you. (14) All your allies have forgotten you; they care nothing for you. I have struck you as an enemy would and punished you as would the cruel, because your guilt is so great and your sins so many. (15) Why do you cry out over your wound, your pain that has no cure? Because of your great guilt and many sins I have done these things to you. Finally, God will judge the nations in part on the basis of how they treat Israel. He says in Jeremiah 30:16, “‘But all who devour you will be devoured; all your enemies will go into exile. Those who plunder you will be plundered; all who make spoil of you I will despoil.” As subsequent history unfolds, the fulfillment of this pattern of God’s dealings both with the nation of Israel and all other nations can be seen. The book of Daniel prophetically reveals this as well. 1. In Jeremiah 30:18, God foretells the rebuilding of Jerusalem; among other things He says, “the city will be rebuilt on her ruins.” See also Jeremiah 31:38–40. This is prophetically foretold in Daniel 9:25b, as will be seen. 2. In Jeremiah 31, Jeremiah writes of the restoration of His people. For example, in Jeremiah 31:4 NIV, I will build you up again and you will be rebuilt, O Virgin Israel. Again you will take up your tambourines and go out to dance with the joyful. 1. In Jeremiah 33:6–25 a comprehensive restoration of the city of Jerusalem and of the people of Israel and Judah is promised. This is followed with a promise of a coming righteous ruler from David’s descendants. This is then followed by a strong covenant promise of God ensuring that there will always be a man to sit on the throne and a priest who will always be able to offer sacrifices on behalf of the people. This covenant promise is then doubly affirmed by the Lord in strong words that they will be fulfilled. This context is very important in fully understanding the seventy sevens prophecy. Many other words of restoration and rebuilding are also given in Jeremiah that have not been written here. It is important that Jeremiah 25–33 be carefully read to fully appreciate the full scope of the word of prophecy that Jeremiah gave, starting from 605 BC during those last years before

Jerusalem was ransacked by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 or 586 BC. These words from Jeremiah would be close to Daniel’s heart as he listens to the seventy sevens vision in verses 24 to 27, and they need to be close to our heart too. There is much more than just seventy years of desolation for Jerusalem, and the whole word must be properly understood to appreciate Jeremiah’s context, Daniel’s prayer, and Gabriel’s answer. Daniel 9:4–6 NIV: (4) I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed: “O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands, (5) we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws. (6) We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes and our fathers, and to all the people of the land. Discussion: Daniel’s prayer begins with two vital statements about God’s nature that are crucial to God acting on behalf of his people. The first of these is God’s ability to do what is required; He is great and awesome. Daniel starts with worship, adopting a position of humility and submission to his God. The second statement is insightful in that it recognizes that God adheres to what He has promised and also recognizing God’s love for His people. Before this God, Daniel confesses the sins of his people and at the same time identifies with them: “we have sinned and done wrong.” Daniel 9:7–11a NIV: (7) “Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame—the men of Judah and people of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you. (8) O LORD, we and our kings, our princes and our fathers are covered with shame because we have sinned against you. (9) The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him; (10) we have not obeyed the LORD our God or kept the laws he gave us through his servants the prophets. (11a) All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you. Discussion: Here Daniel continues to reinforce God’s righteousness, mercy, and forgiveness, and His just dealings with His people. The people are covered with shame because of their sin, disobedience, and transgression of the laws given by God to them. These words reinforce the sinfulness of Daniel’s people, and he includes himself in this assessment too. Daniel 9:11b–14 NIV: (11b) “Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have

sinned against you. (12) You have fulfilled the words spoken against us and against our rulers by bringing upon us great disaster. Under the whole heaven nothing has ever been done like what has been done to Jerusalem. (13) Just as it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come upon us, yet we have not sought the favor of the LORD our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth. (14) The LORD did not hesitate to bring the disaster upon us, for the LORD our God is righteous in everything he does; yet we have not obeyed him. Discussion: This is Daniel’s acknowledgement of God’s justice in the way that his people have been punished. What is it that is unique about what has been done to Jerusalem? It is that what was predicted has come to pass. The nation was forewarned hundreds of years before it happened, forewarned about what would happen if the people did not obey God’s law. This was unique. In verse 13, Daniel acknowledges that his people still have not changed. This is important in his understanding of God’s dealings with his people. It is certain that he is familiar with the law in Leviticus 26 and recognized that the punishment that had been received was in accord with what God had said many hundreds of years before. He would also realize that the continued failure to confess sin and return to God would lead to punishment “seven times over” (Leviticus 26:18, 21, 24, and 28). He knows that the reality of this component of the covenant will impact on what God has planned for the nation’s future. The sevenfold component in the prophecy which follows reflects God’s consistency and faithfulness to His covenant word. Daniel 9:15–16 NIV: (15) “Now, O Lord our God, who brought your people out of Egypt with a mighty hand and who made for yourself a name that endures to this day, we have sinned, we have done wrong. (16) O Lord, in keeping with all your righteous acts, turn away your anger and your wrath from Jerusalem, your city, your holy hill. Our sins and the iniquities of our fathers have made Jerusalem and your people an object of scorn to all those around us. Discussion: Here Daniel pleads to God for mercy on his people. He again confesses the nation’s sin and the shame they rightfully carry as a result. He pleads for God to turn away His anger from Jerusalem, which he also identifies as God’s holy hill. In this prayer, nothing that Daniel says shows that his people deserve God’s mercy. Daniel 9:17–19 NIV: (17) “Now, our God, hear the prayers and petitions of your servant. For your sake, O Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary. (18) Give ear, O God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. (19) O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive! O Lord,

hear and act! For your sake, O my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name.” Discussion: Daniel becomes very passionate. The basis of Daniel’s plea for mercy is not the righteousness of his people but God’s mercy and His name. Daniel reminds the Lord of the desolation of His holy place and of the city that bears His Name. He appeals to God on the basis that Jerusalem is His city. His sanctuary is desolate and his people are God’s people, and along with this association is the honor and reputation of God’s name. Note the focus on the three components that are affected by God’s judgment: His people, His city, and His sanctuary. These three components figure strongly in God’s answer in Daniel 9:24–27. In this prayer, the theology that underlies God’s prophetic word in the book of Daniel is revealed. This chapter is a key chapter partly because it reveals the features of God’s nature and the covenant that He made with His people that determine His plans for them. God’s people have sinned and broken covenant with Him. God has been just and has acted according to the commitment that He made. The people still have not changed and may therefore have to face the seven times judgment that God expounds in His covenant with His people in Leviticus 26. Daniel’s prayer of intercession is not based on any conviction that his people deserve God’s grace. He knows they do not. He appeals to God on the basis of His name and His mercy. No other grounds exist. An aspect of God’s answer that will reflect the effectiveness of Daniel’s prayer is that in His plans for the nation, He always preserves a remnant. Whereas all the other nations rise, they also fall never to rise again. However, for God’s people there is always a little help, so that although they suffer greatly (arguably more than any other nation), God never completely destroys them. This is a most amazing aspect and a vitally important feature of God’s dealings with His people that must be carefully observed. God is just, and His people suffer more than any other nation as a result of their sin. Great privilege is given, but great responsibility is required; superabundant blessings follow obedience, but terrible judgment follows disobedience, though never to totally obliterating His people. In all God’s dealings, His people always survive so that in this way His love toward His people and His promises remain, but so does His justice. Daniel 9:20–23 NIV: (20) While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the LORD my God for his holy hill— (21) while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. (22) He instructed me and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. (23) As soon as you began to pray, an answer was given, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the message and understand the vision: Discussion:

It is important to see how God responds to the prayer of Daniel. What would have happened if Daniel had not prayed? That is not known. However, it is known that God did respond to Daniel’s sincere and obedient prayer on behalf of his people. The answer that God brings will give insight and understanding (see verse 22). It contains a message (giving insight in verse 24) and understanding (via the vision in verses 25–27). From this it is expected that Daniel would have clearly understood the answer that follows. It is therefore strange that for twenty-five hundred years, diversity, confusion, and lack of understanding have surrounded the interpretation of this vision and indeed so much of the book of Daniel. Part of the reason for an approach of trying to understand the visions in sequence was that it would be possible to understand them as Daniel would have done. The last phrase in verse 23 is important. The Hebrew text is quite clear and the force of the words missed in the NIV translation. Literally, Gabriel says to Daniel “understand the word (Hebrew dābār ) and understand the vision” that is now going to be given. The actual words used suggest strongly that the “word” is the word given in Daniel 9:24 defining the objectives that will be achieved, and the vision is the prophecy that follows explaining how the objectives will be achieved. If there is second century BC authorship, then some of this thinking is somewhat blurred, because much of this revelation can be stated as being created by the authors and not by direct revelation from the Lord as described in the chapter. In this case, the theology may not be Daniel’s, but rather that of the authors and their sources, and the book is targeted to people living before Jesus with far less clear relevance and application to us today. In fact, the boundaries of possible interpretations widen, making it almost impossible to arrive at definite conclusions. B.   The Seventy Sevens For many, the final four verses in this chapter are of supreme importance to the book of Daniel and for understanding the end-times and the book of Revelation. These verses are also arguably the most controversial passage in the whole Bible, with a diversity of interpretation that is truly extraordinary. Because of this diversity, it will be necessary to spend some considerable time examining all these views. There are two features that will make this examination of Daniel’s words different. First, it is examined from a Daniel living in the first year of Darius, about 538 BC. From this perspective, Daniel is not familiar with any of the content of the vision received later and recorded in chapters 10–12. Second, it is examined with our current knowledge of history at that point of time. Given that Daniel would be very familiar with his own history, it is likely that the perspective gained this way will be closest to what Daniel would have understood. No later knowledge is applied either from chapters 10–12 or the New Testament; it is assumed that what is known to Daniel is from the previous revelations that he has received. Later the additional knowledge gained from chapters 10–12 will be applied.

If the book of Daniel was written in the second century BC, then it would be reasonable to assume that this chapter was written with the full knowledge of the outcome. In this case, it would be expected that it would have been written so that its meaning would be clear, but it doesn’t, as will be seen. This is rather surprising for a second century authorship. Daniel 9:24–27 NIV (24) “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. Discussion: The answer that Gabriel brings contains both good and bad news. The major blessing to Daniel would be the assurance that what he prayed for will eventually come to pass. The bad news is that it will take a long time, during which his people and Jerusalem will suffer a great deal. The word translated “decreed” here in the NIV is not a command or decree issued by a ruler; it is something predetermined. So the period of time translated as “seventy sevens” is not something commanded by the Lord; rather, it is a period of time preplanned and determined by the Lord to complete the six objectives that are summarized in the following phrases. The prophecy is unconditional, and the appointed times of its fulfillment are predetermined! It is significant and rather enigmatic that the period of time chosen, “seventy sevens,” avoids specifying a precise length of time; however, it does carry the meaning of a very long period of time. The lack of qualification of the seventy sevens is surely deliberate, and it is unlikely that Daniel would have interpreted this as years, as the next section will show. Although Daniel does have the seventy years of Babylonian dominance predicted by Jeremiah in mind, his prayer shows that he is predominantly looking for God’s mercy on his people and the restoration of Jerusalem and the sanctuary. His focus is on the future of his people, and the content of Jeremiah’s prophetic word would be a major source of hope. Therefore, the phrase “seventy sevens” would most likely have communicated to him a long time, which is like a seven-times period of exile (see Leviticus 26 for a discussion of the application of seven times punishment), not specifically 490 years, since Gabriel would most likely have specified years if years were meant. It is interesting and significant that by the time of Jesus, 70x7 was an expression containing the thought of a large number (see Matthew 18:22) not specifically 490. Other than that, the period is a long time; the exact length in years can hardly be of interest or meaning to Daniel himself. Next, it should be noticed that the plan specified by the prophecy is targeted to his people and Jerusalem and that the final objective specifies anointing “the most holy,” which is a phrase referring to the sanctuary or to the place of the sanctuary. This would be reassuring to Daniel, as these three components, the people, the city, and the sanctuary, are the three major concerns in his prayer of intercession. The plan also focuses on those three

things, which were what troubled him most about the visions in chapters 7 and 8. Thus the prophecy deals with the major issues reflected in what has been revealed to him and the content of his prayer. The six objectives that are to be completed by the end of the seventy sevens are important. Whatever interpretation is placed on this prophecy; these six objectives must be completed. Scholars variously see the prophecy being fulfilled either in the time of Antiochus IV, at or near the first coming of Jesus, or at the end of the age. Whichever view is adopted, this end point will be when the seventy sevens are completed. Baldwin (1979, 168) and others see that the six objectives divide into two sets of three. The first set is focused on failures (the transgression, sins, and iniquities) and is concerned with God overcoming these and forgiving sin. This is also the problem that exercised Daniel in his prayer. The second set of three is focused on the successes that will install God’s right purposes. Unsurprisingly, there is considerable variation both in the understanding of these six objectives and in when it is expected that they will be fulfilled. Goldingay (1989, 257) and Lucas (2002, 241) see all six objectives being fulfilled by the events surrounding the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV, and this viewpoint has influenced the translations they have made. Lurie (1988: 9ff) sees the seventy sevens as sevens of an integral number of years. The objectives are seen to apply only to the Jewish people and Jerusalem, being fulfilled at the end of the age. He sees the atonement for iniquity being made by Jesus at the cross, but that Israel has not yet entered into the blessings of the New Covenant. So he sees the beginning of the fulfillment of the objectives at the cross. Conner (1981, 2004) has a similar view, seeing the achievement of the objectives being inaugurated in the first coming of Jesus and consummated at the end of the age. An examination of the punctuation in the Hebrew text (see appendix 5.2) shows that the major divider follows the fourth objective and not the third as might have been expected from observing the six objectives dividing into two sets of three. It is also apparent that the atonement promised in the third objective inaugurates the beginning of the end of transgression, sins, and iniquity, but that this end is not consummated until the final objective is achieved (whenever that might be). In prophecy, it is not surprising to see the foreshortening of the objectives so that they appear to be fulfilled at one time but that in fact there is a process requiring a period of time to complete them. It also seems that there is an inverted parallel pattern in these six statements as follows. The text of the phrases below is from the literal translation by Green (1986). A.   to finish the transgression

   B.   and to make an end of sins       C.   and to make atonement for iniquity       C’.   and to bring in everlasting righteousness –––––––––––––––—    B’.   and to seal up the vision and prophecy A’.   and to anoint the most holy The reason for the dividing line is to take account of the punctuation, which demonstrates that “to bring in everlasting righteousness” counters all the previous three negatives. For this pattern to be valid, it must be established that there is significance in the AA’, BB’, and CC’ pairs as well as in the sequence of three negatives followed by three positives, and there is. These parings are examined in the next three sections. B1.   To Finish the Transgression and to Anoint the Most Holy Some commentaries (e.g., Baldwin (1979, 168) rightly point out that the Hebrew word ( peša ) that is translated transgression (but that also could be translated rebellion, as in Lucas (2002, 227) does not appear in Daniel’s prayer of intercession in verse 5. However, it does appear in the vision in Daniel 8:9–14, and in that vision it is closely linked with the sanctuary and the holy place; rebellion occurs until the sanctuary is reconsecrated. As explained in Harris et al (1980) the word represents the rejection of the authority of God, resulting in rebellion or transgression (crossing the defined boundaries) of the covenant and authority of God. It is interesting to see how these two objectives link to Jeremiah’s prophecy. In Jeremiah 33:6–9 NIV: (6) “‘Nevertheless, I will bring health and healing to it; I will heal my people and will let them enjoy abundant peace and security. (6) I will bring Judah and Israel back from captivity and will rebuild them as they were before. (8) I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me. (9) Then this city will bring me renown, joy, praise and honor before all nations on earth that hear of all the good things I do for it; and they will be in awe and will tremble at the abundant prosperity and peace I provide for it.’ Although this prophecy seems to have immediate reference to the restoration of Judah and the city following the return from Babylonian exile, the words suggest a longer perspective too; God will cleanse their sin and forgive their rebellion. The city will ultimately bring God renown and create awe from the nations well in excess of that which followed the return from exile. This seems to point to a much later and more substantial restoration. There is a sense in which the exile, with the consequent restoration of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple after the return from exile,

foreshadows the much greater work of God, which will be completed at His Second Coming. In a similar way, the symbolic sense of the seven sevens as foreshadowing the far greater work that will be completed after seventy sevens is evidence that the seven sevens corresponds to the period of the exile. It will be later seen that the literary structure of Daniel 9:24, when lined up alongside Daniel 9:25–27, also reflects this pattern. In Daniel 8:11b, the little horn grows in success until it is able to cast down the sanctuary and replace the worship of God with the worship of itself in an act of rebellion ( peša ). Then in answer to the question “How long?” in Daniel 8:13, the period of time until the sanctuary is reconsecrated is given as twenty-three hundred evenings and mornings. The word used for “anoint” can also be translated “consecrate.” So it can be seen that there is a clear link between the “AA’” phrases in this verse and the events described in the vision in chapter 8. Since the interpretation clearly specifies that the appearance of the little horn is in the “time of the end” (Daniel 8:17, 19), it can be inferred that the completion of the seventy sevens must also be at the end of this time. Overall, it is appropriate that the completion of all the objectives occurs when the sanctuary and the worship of God is totally restored. B2.   To Make an End of Sins and to Seal Up the Vision and Prophecy The first feature of these two phrases that stands out is that the Hebrew verb translated “to make an end” literally means “to seal” and is very similar to the Hebrew word verb translated “to seal up.” This is also the same word used in Daniel 12:4 and Daniel 12:9 to seal the scroll and seal the words until the time of the end. The two verbs are therefore synonymous. The making an end of sins is paralleled by making an end of the vision and prophecy. So although Daniel does not know how or when this is going to happen, he does know that there will be a time when sin will be no more and that there will be a time when vision and the need for prophecy will also end. In addition to all of this, the idea of sealing also conveys the thought of God’s authentication of what He has promised, especially through His words of vision and prophecy. B3.   To Make Atonement and Bring in Everlasting Righteousness One of the features of chiastic structures is that they focus attention on the center. This is evident here so that to make atonement for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness is at the heart of God’s predetermined plan. The word for atonement is the normal word used for the covering of sin through blood sacrifices used in the Old Testament, and this is how Daniel would have understood it. However, since animal sacrifices have to be regularly and continually offered under Mosaic Law to obtain reconciliation with God, it is not so clear that Daniel would understand how everlasting righteousness could be obtained. The central place that bringing in everlasting righteousness has in God’s plan means that the punctuation in the Masoretic Text (an atnah) after this phrase is reasonable, in contrast to what Goldingay (1989, 229) suggests.

As has been seen, these six objectives have directed attention to the vision in Daniel 8:9–14 as well as Daniel’s prayer just completed. Daniel would have been comforted and reassured from these words of Gabriel, for he would see that what he had prayed for will eventually be achieved. He knows his people do not deserve forgiveness, and he may not fully understand the grounds by which God can justly forgive sins, but he makes his prayer crying to God for mercy. God has listened, He will be merciful; He will act, and He will forgive as Daniel had pleaded in Daniel 9:19. For us today, it is possible to see how God has made atonement for iniquity and how He can bring in everlasting righteousness. This is achieved through the death of Jesus on the cross as a once for all atoning sacrifice made on our behalf, thus opening the way for us to be justly reconciled to God. Only the death of Jesus is able to bring in everlasting righteousness. The two phrases in this verse are therefore closely associated together and also point to the purpose of the prophecy, including the work of Jesus on the cross. A sixth century Daniel may not have made the Messianic connection, but it is certainly a component of the prophecy that is right at the heart of the successful fulfillment of God’s plan. B4.   Conclusions It must be said that the evidence pointing to the validity of this chiastic structure is very compelling. All three parallel pairs of phrases make sense, and they establish the need for the atonement to bring in everlasting righteousness as a central component of God’s plan. They also reflect evidence of a common end point where all will be achieved after a long period of time. The end point suggested here also synchronizes neatly with the end point in the chapter 8 vision with both describing the consecration (or anointing) of the “most holy.” The translation and comments on this verse in Goldingay (1989, 257) are unconvincing. If Daniel 9:24 had been written by a sixth century BC Daniel, they would have been understood as meaning a far more comprehensive achievement of God’s purpose than what was achieved by the final overthrow of Antiochus IV. If they had been written by a second century BC author in the middle of persecution under Antiochus IV, it is hard to deny that they still contain prophetic content of a future hope. It is hard to see these words as not containing substantial spiritual content. To translate the Hebrew text corresponding to “make atonement for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness” (NIV) as “to wipe away waywardness, to bring in lasting vindication” as in Goldingay (1989, 226) seems to be possible, but it is nevertheless driven by the assumed interpretation as much as by the Hebrew text itself. Some scholars see the six objectives all being fulfilled by the first coming of Jesus. This is essential for those who take the preterist and partial preterist interpretation of the book of Revelation, since for them the seventy sevens prophecy must be fulfilled within the first century AD. Gurney (2006, chapter 6:3) after quoting the RSV translation of verse 24, which starts with “Seventy weeks of years are decreed,” assumes this is correct, so he sees that the prophecy is fulfilled in 490 years literally. It

should be noted that the later revisions of the RSV and the ESV and the NRSV omit the “of years” qualification, more accurately reflecting the actual Hebrew text. It needs to be emphasized that the Hebrew text for Daniel 9:24 does not state that the prophecy will be fulfilled literally in 490 years; that period of time is an inference based on certain assumptions, the validity of which has yet to be established and which will be strongly contested later in this book. Gurney does not discuss the fulfillment of the first two objectives and agrees with the discussion above for the next two objectives. However, he sees that “to seal up vision and prophecy” is achieved by the Old Testament form of divine revelation coming to an end, with John the Baptist being the last of these prophets, but he provides no evidence that this form of prophecy should be the end point. The “anointing of the most holy” is seen to be achieved by Jesus, “the anointed one,” but he does not refute the alternatives. Overall his position is unconvincing. Mauro (1944), who also takes the position that the seventy sevens prophecy is fulfilled within the first century AD, does not address the positions of other scholars who see the end point either at Antiochus IV or the end of the age. He says that it should be kept in mind that the six objectives “were to be fulfilled (and now have been fulfilled) by Christ being ‘cut off’ and by what followed immediately thereafter, namely, His resurrection from the dead, and His ascension into heaven.” Although he advances possible explanations for each of the six objectives in support of this view, he does not evaluate the other possible alternatives. In addition, it seems that rather than examining carefully the meaning of each of the Hebrew phrases, there is a tendency to impose a meaning that fits the conclusion that the six objectives are fulfilled by the work of Christ at His first coming without having established that this is what the prophecy is really all about. Conner (1981, 25ff, 2004) comes to a different conclusion as he sees the six objectives only partially fulfilled by the first century AD. He does examine the phrases describing the six objectives more carefully, and his conclusions seem plausible too. He has seen the progression from the three negative clauses to the three positive ones, but he has not seen the additional relationships suggested by the chiastic structure. Overall, at this stage, it is necessary to wait until the whole prophecy is fully understood before final conclusions can be made about precisely what Gabriel had in mind. The final rendering of this verse that represents the meaning presented in this section is as follows. Daniel 9:24 (NIV slightly modified and with added structure) Seventy sevens are decreed for your people and your holy city A.   to finish the transgression    B.   and to make an end of sin       C.   and to make atonement for iniquity

      C’.   and to bring in everlasting righteousness –––––––––––––––   B’.   and to seal up the vision and prophecy A’.   and to anoint the most holy C.   Daniel’s Sevens Many scholars assume or interpret that the seventy sevens (Daniel 9:24), the seven sevens (Daniel 9:25), the sixty-two sevens (Daniel 9:25, 26) and the one seven in Daniel 9:27 (occurs twice) are sevens of years. Sometimes the English translation has replaced the word “sevens” by “weeks.” The fact that Daniel 9:1–2 refers to the seventy years of desolation of Jerusalem also encourages the interpretation that the seventy sevens is seventy sevens of years. The basic reasoning is that since the exile has lasted for seventy years and the people have not repented, a sevenfold punishment is now forthcoming so that the seventy sevens prophecy is seventy times seven years so that 490 years will be needed to implement God’s plan. This interpretation is partly based on analogy with the “seven weeks of years” in Leviticus 25:8 but also on the sevenfold punishment in Leviticus 26:18, 21, 24, and 28. This interpretation also leads to the inference that Jesus the Messiah, the anointed one, must be involved. This has led to the many attempts to interpret this prophecy as predicting precisely the first coming of Jesus. The fact that advancing 490 years forward from Daniel’s time brings us near to the years of Jesus’s life on earth encourages us to think that indeed maybe this is so. However, in the discussion that follows here and later, it will be seen that this thinking has been too superficial, sometimes relying too much on the KJV and overlooking significant features of the Hebrew text. A number of authors examine other references to “weeks” in the Bible and conclude that the idea of seventy sevens of years is perfectly acceptable. This book does not repeat that good research here. Most of these authors do not examine the Hebrew text; many rely almost totally on the KJV. Certainly, sevens of years is possible; however, the important question is whether this is what was intended by the author. The context of Daniel 9:1–2, in addition to guiding us to think of seventy years, should also guide us to think in terms of Jeremiah’s prophecy. The content of Jeremiah 25–33 focuses on both the desolation and the restoration of Jerusalem and God’s plan for His people. These issues are very much part of Daniel’s prayer of intercession and of the seventy sevens prophecy too. The interpretations of the seventy sevens prophecy have focused too strongly on the literal “seventy years” and have not given sufficient attention to the literal significance of Jeremiah’s prophecy, whose scope includes the new covenant, the city of Jerusalem, Israel, and Judah, and extends to the end of the age. It should also be noted that it is Daniel who recognizes the near completion of the seventy years of desolation and it triggers his intercession, but it is Gabriel who brings the prophecy in Daniel 9:24–27 that is his response to Daniel’s intercession on behalf of his people, the city, and the sanctuary, so that the context of “years” in Daniel 9:1–2 is

questionable and does not, in itself, prove that the seventy sevens are seventy sevens of years. A number of significant features about the Hebrew text have already called into question the interpretation of key verses in Daniel in our English versions, and some here cannot be ignored as well. The Hebrew noun (šābûa’, plural: šābû ’ îm) translated “seven(s)” or “week(s)” in Daniel 9:24– 27 (five times) and also in Daniel 10:2 and 3 is in the masculine form, which is unique to Daniel and may be an Aramaism, see Lucas (2002, 229). The literal translation of Daniel 10:2–3 (Green 1986) is, “In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three weeks of days. I ate no food for delight, and no flesh or wine came into my mouth. I did not anoint myself at all until three weeks of days were fulfilled.” In these two verses the masculine, plural, and absolute state of the word translated “weeks” is used (identical to those in Daniel 9:24–26) and is specifically qualified to show that Daniel is referring to weeks of days. However, in Daniel 9:24, 25, and 26, although the same plural form of the word “sevens” and in Daniel 9:27 the same singular form for the word “seven” is used, no time period has been provided. It has long been known that this Hebrew word connotes only “a period of seven” and does not necessarily imply seven years (McComiskey 1985, 40), Whitcomb (1981, 260). The fact that it was necessary to qualify this word in Daniel 10:2 and 3 by adding “days” underscores this requirement and suggests that if the “sevens” in Daniel 9 were “sevens of years” then “years” would have been added. Thus, since the time period is missing the interpretation must rely on the context. Has the book of Daniel assumed that the qualification is obviously “years” and therefore omitted it? Or alternatively, did Daniel leave it off because “years” was not intended? It is because of this uncertainty that the context of seventy years from Daniel 9:1–2 is insufficient to prove the intention of the prophecy, and additional evidence is needed. It is Daniel who recalled the seventy years in Jeremiah’s prophecy, which led him to pray; it is Gabriel who gives the prophecy in answer to his prayer, so Gabriel’s context is Daniel’s prayer, not the seventy years, and his goal is to give Daniel understanding. The context of the prophecy is the content of the prayer, not primarily the seventy years. Daniel will be more focused on the symbolic meaning of the time periods in order to understand the meaning of the prophecy rather than the actual time when the predicted events happen. Besides, it will be of little relevance to him to know in which year events in the far future will occur. So in reality, both from the Hebrew text and from the context of Daniel 9, there is nothing that can enable us to be certain that “years” is intended as the time period for the “sevens.” It is an inference that needs verification from elsewhere. The evidence here and additional evidence to be advanced later strongly favor the view that “years” was not intended. A literal interpretation of the passage therefore cannot be said to require a period of 490 years for the prophecy; rather, it can only say that a long, undefined period is in mind. Responsible exegesis cannot be certain that this prophecy predicts in some way the precise date or year of Jesus’s first coming, since there are substantial reasons to doubt that the seventy sevens was ever intended to be 490 years.

It is encouraging that Young (1949, 196) supports this conclusion. He writes, “Most expositors find here a week of 7 years duration, a total of 490 years. To support this, various expedients are adopted, but the most convincing is an appeal to the years of Jer.” A little later he writes, “But this appeal to the years of Jer. does not prove that weeks of years are intended, and in fact, there is no satisfactory proof of this position.” He then quotes that this is “an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, whose chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.” D.   Daniel’s Punctuation The version of the Hebrew Scriptures now in use is known as the Masoretic Text (often abbreviated MT). The oldest extant manuscript is dated about AD 895 (Ross, 2001, 16). Around this period of time, the Masoretes preserved the knowledge of how the Hebrew text should be read by adding the points and marks that are seen today. Recent research by Robinson and Levy (2002) suggests that the punctuation accents may be a very important interpretive tool; this is discussed in appendix 5. This mammoth work by the Masoretes required some interpretation of what the text intended. It is likely to be correct most of the time. It is possible that some bias against Christian interpretations was applied, although there is no evidence of this. Such thinking must be balanced by the strong Masoretic motivation to preserve the original meaning and pronunciation precisely. The extraordinarily detailed and comprehensive punctuation system reflects this motivation. It is gratifying that the Qumran fragments dated in the century before Christ contain ancient Hebrew text, and where portions of the scriptures have been found, they match the Masoretic Text closely without the points and marks. This is strong testimony to the reliability of the Hebrew text available today. As a further comment on the punctuation in the Masoretic Text, research would enable us to analyze the whole Old Testament carefully and test its precision. Robinson and Levy (2002) present some compelling examples to show how the punctuation can resolve ambiguities and enhance meaning. Those examples also verify that when the required punctuation is obvious from the text, the Masoretic Text does apply it correctly. At this stage, then, it is not an unreasonable conclusion to assume that the punctuation is usually correct. In appendix 5 a full constituent structure analysis of Daniel 9:24–27 is made, with interesting results that suggest how some ambiguities should be resolved. There is a crucial punctuation in the Masoretic Text for Daniel 9:25 (an atnah) that when applied gives a very different meaning to the text when compared with its exclusion. ³ It should also be considered that Christian translators, by ignoring this punctuation, could also be said to be biased toward their favored eschatological interpretation. The NIV ignores the punctuation (as do NKJV, KJV, and some other English versions) and translates Daniel 9:25–26 as: Daniel 9:25–26 NIV: (25) “Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be

seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. (26) After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. The interpretation is then that the anointed ruler in Daniel 9:25 appears after sixty-nine sevens and is the same person as the anointed one of Daniel 9:26 who is cut off. Incidentally, the NIV also capitalizes the anointed one, implying that the person is the Christ, namely Jesus. The ESV applies the punctuation (as also does the RSV, NRSV, NEB, Goldingay, and Lucas) and translates these verses as: Daniel 9:25–26 ESV: (25) Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. (26) And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. In this case, there is an anointed ruler who appears after seven sevens and then there is a different anointed one (who is not qualified as being a ruler) who appears after a further sixty-two sevens. Therefore, the two anointed people are different. There is no capitalization so either one may be Jesus, but neither need be. Baldwin (1979, 170) rejects the punctuation because it was not part of the original text; in fact, none of the original text had punctuation. Therefore, it is the validity of the punctuation in our Hebrew text today that is important, not whether it was part of the original, and so the reason given for rejecting it is not adequate. Goldingay (1989) and Lucas (2002) both include the punctuation, primarily because it gives a good reason for separating the sixty-nine sevens into two portions so that the appearance of the anointed ruler marks the end of the seven sevens and the actual beginning of the restoration of Jerusalem. A stronger reason for accepting the punctuation comes from the constituent structure analysis in appendix 5.3; it becomes clear that the verse has two well-balanced halves and that there is an inverted structural relationship between these two halves. The division into two halves is therefore apparent from the balance and structure of the content of the verse even without the punctuation. In McComiskey (1985, 43) further reason is given to support the punctuation in Daniel 9:25. He writes, “It is vital to note that important historical events determine the limitations of the various periods in the structure of the weeks in Jewish Apocalyptic. This is significant for our study. In the messianic view, the chronological placement of the rebuilding of the city is somewhat vague. It occurs after the sixty-nine weeks in the order of the clauses yet is placed either during or after the seven weeks in

that view because of the unusual combination of the numerical concepts seven and sixty-two. This lack of precision is overcome in the Masoretic arrangement of the clauses because it places a distinct historical event at the end of the seven weeks—that is the appearance of Cyrus—and defines the sixty-two weeks in terms of the rebuilding of Jerusalem.” This general principle is also seen in all the visions in Daniel in that the beginning of all of them is clearly marked historically at a point that Daniel can determine; without this their meaning could not be determined by Daniel; he would not be able to understand them. In conclusion, it is important to see that these considerations show that this prophecy was never intended to predict the date or year of an event during the life of Jesus’s first coming. E.   An Analysis of Daniel 9:25–27 As the Hebrew text and the various English translations for these verses have been examined, it has become more and more clear that there are many ambiguities. This is one of the most ambiguous passages in the Old Testament. It is no wonder that there are so many different variations! It is perhaps also valid to ask how it is possible for such an ambiguous passage, with so many divergent interpretations, to become the key passage in the interpretation of the book of Revelation. For this reason the translation is broken into four parts (v25, v26, v27a, and v27b) so that the different English translations for each part can be examined and put together to form a variety of textual sequences. Ultimately one sequence will be chosen as the best. Given the ambiguities and divergent interpretations, it has been surprising that a “best” solution became possible. Note that all translations of the word “leader” have been changed to “ruler” and all translations of the word “weeks” to “sevens” in order to be consistent in the analysis that follows. E1.   The First Part (Verse 25) The first part has four translations. This part is denoted 1P. 1P1 (verse 25, use KJV. NKJV, NIV are similar.) 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. (verse 25, use NIV.) Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.

Discussion: From the perspective of a sixth century BC Daniel, it should carefully be pointed out that there is no way that Daniel could have made much sense of this vision, unless he was able to determine its starting point. Thus if its starting point is a commandment given by Cyrus, Darius, or Artaxerxes, then it would be difficult for Daniel to make sense of what follows unless there is some link from his now to the vision that he can discern. Given that all the previous revelations given to Daniel had a clear starting point in his time, and the angel says that he has come to give Daniel insight and understanding (see verse 22), it is therefore unlikely that this vision would be contextually placed so that he could not discern its beginning. This point is important and needs to be recognized. In these versions, the Hebrew word dābār (1,439 occurrences in the KJV), which is commonly translated “word” (807 occurrences in KJV) can be translated as “decree” or “commandment” (only 20 occurrences in KJV), but this is relatively rare. By opting to favor the word “decree” or “commandment,” the translators are imposing their interpretation by taking the origin of the issued word to be from a ruler or ruling authority. Since the origin is not specified in the prophecy, it would have been safer to use a term with broader meaning, as is done by Lucas. Note that the Hebrew word translated “decreed” in verse 24 of the NIV is a different one from the Hebrew word dābār used here; there it has the thought of “determined” and has nothing to do with an edict issued by a ruler. However, note that dābār is used twice in verse 23 and in the NIV it is first translated “an answer” and then “the message.” A literal translation, as in Green (1986), for verse 23 is, “At the beginning of your prayers, the word came forth, and I have come to reveal. For you are greatly beloved. Then understand the matter (word) and pay attention to the vision” (parenthesis mine). The NIV, NKJV, and KJV ignore the punctuation in the Masoretic Text as discussed above. The effect of this is that the “Anointed One” (NIV) or Messiah (KJV) in Daniel 9:25 must be the same person as the one in Daniel 9:26 and appears after sixty-nine sevens. The fact that the NIV (along with some other English versions) favors capitalizing this person means that they are interpreting this person as the Messiah, Jesus Christ. However, since the Hebrew word for an anointed one can be applied to kings, governors, or priests, there are other possibilities, such as Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1), Joshua, and Zerubbabel (see Zechariah 3 and 4, especially 4:14.) So there is insufficient ground for identifying him from the text itself; again, it would have been better to prefer the less specific “an anointed one.” The effect of ignoring the punctuation is that the reason for including both periods, the seven sevens and sixty-two sevens rather than just sixty-nine sevens, is unclear. These translations run the risk of ignoring the kind of precision of writing that is intended in the book of Daniel. An alternative translation is to break verse 25 into two consecutive pieces as follows: 1P2a (verse 25a, use Lucas. RSV, ESV, NRSV, NEB, JPS, and Goldingay similar)

You must know and understand: from the going out of a word to restore and build Jerusalem to an anointed ruler there will be seven sevens. 1P2b (verse 25b, use Lucas. RSV, ESV, NRSV, NEB, JPS, and Goldingay similar) For sixty-two sevens it will be restored and rebuilt with square and moat but in a time of distress. Discussion: The important difference between 1P1 and 1P2a+1P2b is the association of the first seven sevens to the coming of an anointed ruler in 1P2a. The NIV has an “and” between the seven sevens and the sixty-two sevens and so the anointed ruler comes after sixty-nine sevens (KJV, NKJV also do this). 1P2a together with 1P2b follow the Masoretic Text which is the Hebrew translation rather than the Vulgate and Theodotion’s Greek Translation of Daniel. They imply that the anointed ruler that comes after seven sevens is a different anointed person from the one who appears after a sixty-nine sevens. There is possibly a variation of 1P2a that communicates something more clearly. 1P3a (verse 25a, variation of Lucas) And you will know and understand that from the going out of a word to restore and build Jerusalem to an anointed ruler there will be seven sevens. Discussion: There is a real possibility that this is the intended meaning because it anchors the beginning of this prophecy to an historical point of time that Daniel can identify. All his previous revelations do this, so it would be strange if this one did not. It is rather unlikely that the starting point of this vision would be at some future point of time beyond Daniel’s experience as many interpreters assume, as this would conflict with the pattern of all the other revelations that Daniel received. It would prevent him from understanding the vision, which is contrary to what Gabriel had said in verse 23. The starting point of this vision is discussed further in a later section of this chapter, as it is a major point of divergence among many scholars. This variation has changed the word “must” to “will” based on the fact that the Hebrew words for “know” and “understand” are in the imperfect tense. The difference is important because it more clearly anchors Daniel’s time element in the prophecy. In all Daniel’s previous revelations, he is clearly aware of his time element; thus the first metal in chapter 2 was identified with the Babylonian Empire. The first beast in chapter 7 was also the Babylonian Empire, and the second beast was just emerging. The ram in chapter 8 was clearly the Medo-Persian Empire, which he could see was about to begin or had just started. In this prophecy, the Babylonian domination had just ended, and an anointed ruler was soon to emerge. By making this change the meaning becomes that when the anointed ruler

appears, then Daniel will know the end of the seven sevens has occurred. In other words, when the anointed ruler (which may be either Cyrus or Zerubabbel) appears that will signal to Daniel the end of the seven sevens, and he will know this. In this case, the word would clearly be the prophecy of Jeremiah and the length of the seven sevens, seventy years. The beginning of the prophecy is then clearly anchored at a known point as far as Daniel is concerned, and this anchoring is then consistent with the pattern of the previous revelations that Daniel has received. 1P2b (verse 25b, use Lucas. RSV, NRSV, NEB, JPS, and Goldingay similar) For sixty-two sevens it will be restored and rebuilt with square and moat but in a time of distress. Discussion: Notice here that it is the city that is being restored and rebuilt. The word translated “square” means a broad open place; the translation “street,” for example in the KJV and NEB, would be incorrect. The KJV translates the word “moat” here as “wall”; this is also now regarded as incorrect by scholars, and given that part of the argument used by some to define the starting point of this prophecy is the rebuilding of the wall by Nehemiah in 445 BC, the recognition of the actual Hebrew word used is important. So the picture presented is the full restoration of the city including open places and defenses; the words given are designed to indicate the complete restoration of the city, not just its walls, streets, houses, and temple. In colloquial English, it might be said, “For sixty-two sevens it will be restored and rebuilt inside and out but in a time of distress.” As history confirms, the rebuilding of Jerusalem did indeed occur in times of distress. It is unlikely that Goldingay’s (1989, 226) translation linking the time of distress with what follows in verse 26 is correct, as the words here describe accurately what actually happened, and this change is not needed. As will be seen, sixty-two sevens is a long time, and during that time Jerusalem went through many times of difficulty and distress. The wording that is used here does not rule out the possibility of severe damage occurring and the city being restored again during this period of sixty-two sevens. Overall discussion: To interpret the seventy sevens prophecy with confidence, it has already been seen that it is essential to discover whether the punctuation that divides this verse into two sections is correct. The constituent structure analysis in appendix 5.3 provides some enlightening insights into this question. It shows that this verse is remarkably balanced and symmetrical down to every single word. The result is seen if the text is written in the same word order as in the Hebrew text, as in the inverted structure below. A.   And you will know and understand that from the going out of a word    B.   to restore and build Jerusalem to an anointed ruler

      C.   there will be seven sevens –––––––––––––––––––––       C’.   for sixty-two sevens    B’.   it will be restored and rebuilt with square and moat A’.   but in a time of distress Notice how the period of time after the word goes out in A is matched with the “time of distress” in A’. This is additional evidence that the seven sevens is the period of the exile. B and B’ are about restoration and rebuilding Jerusalem; C and C’ are about time periods. The two halves are also in chronological order. The inverted structure conveys more than what a plain reading of the text might discern. There is a clear repeated pattern in this verse that would be recognized when the verse is read in Hebrew. There is symmetry to the phrases that would surely help to preserve the original words, since if any were missing the symmetry would be corrupted. This is strong evidence that the punctuation is valid. Note that the verse clearly divides into two symmetric halves. Further evidence that the punctuation is valid will emerge as the book unfolds. If Lucas is right to leave off the definite article before “sixty-two sevens,” it is possible to make 1P2a and 1P2b start at the same time so that they run concurrently. When this is done, taking the “sevens” as sevens of years results in 605 BC-434 (62x7) years=171 BC, an excellent prediction of the year when the sixty-third week began under Antiochus IV. However, it is considered that this numerical prediction is unlikely to be intentional because without a second witness it could be considered coincidence, and in any case it does not serve any substantive purpose. Also, although placing the seven sevens and the sixty sevens concurrently is technically possible, it is rather strange. E2.   The Second Part (Verse 26) The second part (verse 26) has three translations to consider. This part is denoted 2P. 2P1 (verse 26, use NIV. KJV, NKJV similar) After the sixty-two “sevens,” the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 2P2 (verse 26, Lucas, like Goldingay)

After sixty-two sevens an anointed one will be cut off, having neither city nor sanctuary. A ruler who comes will devastate a people, and its end will be with the flood. Until the end of the warfare, desolations are decreed. Discussion: A number of significant questions need to be asked about the translation of this verse, as the variety of English translations reflects the difficulty of understanding the Hebrew text. It is also apparent that many of our English versions have imposed their interpretation of the passage into the actual English words that have been chosen. That interpretation is by no means clear, so the attempt has been made to follow as literal an interpretation as is possible, even taking into account all the punctuation in the Masoretic Text. The capitalization of the “Anointed One” in some English versions implies an interpretation that this person is Jesus the Messiah. This has already been discussed, with the conclusion that it would have been better to have said “an anointed one” as it is not at all certain from the original texts that this person is Jesus. Many translations write that the ruler (or the people of the coming ruler) “will destroy” the city and the sanctuary. The Hebrew lexicons indicate this verb can be interpreted morally and/or physically so the ruler could be described as one who “will corrupt” or “will bring to ruin” or “will devastate” as well so that the total destruction implied by the word “destroy” is not necessary and the use of “will devastate” in Lucas (2002) and Goldingay (1989) is possible. This overcomes the difficulty for those who see the ruler as Antiochus IV, who did not destroy the city or the sanctuary. This use of the word “devastate” is also seen in other translations of this Hebrew verb in Daniel 8:24–25. It should also be noted that the Roman General Titus did not totally destroy Jerusalem in AD 70 either; it was severely damaged and certain parts were destroyed, but people continued to live in the city. It perhaps could also be pointed out that at the end of the age, Zechariah 14:2 says that only half the city will go into exile; even then the city is not destroyed. Overall, it would seem more appropriate in context to use the word “devastate” rather than “destroy,” which encompasses a broader, slightly less drastic outcome on the city and sanctuary. From considering the content of this verse and the constituent structure analysis in appendix 5.4 the following points are suggested. 1. The anointed one who is cut off with nothing is an antagonist to the coming ruler and his people. The ambiguity is removed. 2. The devastation on the city and the sanctuary are the result of the actions of the people of a coming ruler. 3. Some of the difficulty of the interpretation of this verse arises from the use of the word “destroy” to refer to what happens to the city and the sanctuary, since this outcome is too severe. The use of the word “devastate” is less total and is also a possible translation of the Hebrew word.

The coming ruler is not identified. 4. 5. The people and the ruler are bound together by a conjunctive accent in the Hebrew text. Even though it is not possible to determine whether the Hebrew noun for people is in the absolute or construct state because the masculine singular form has no written difference, the accent confirms that it is. Therefore, it is the people acting under the authority of the coming ruler that cause the devastation. 6. Although the NIV and NKJV and many other translations separate the phrase “The end will come like a flood” from the actions of the people of the coming ruler, the punctuation confirms that this is a feature of the devastation that the ruler brings. This view is also supported by other scholars, for example Harman (2007, 243) on semantic grounds. 7. This makes the literal translation of the Hebrew “its end will be like a flood” a perfectly meaningful description of the devastation of the city and sanctuary being caused by an unstoppable and overwhelming force. 8. It is now clear that the final sentence as translated in Lucas (2002) and Goldingay (1989) “until the end of the warfare desolations are decreed” is distinct and separate from “the end that comes like a flood.” The latter relates to the devastation of the city and the sanctuary. This leads us to the following translation of this verse. 2P3 (verse 26, taking account of the above) After sixty-two sevens (A)   an anointed one will be cut off and will have nothing. (B)   People of a coming ruler will devastate the city and the sanctuary and its end will be with a flood.          (C)   Until an end of warfare, desolations are decreed. Discussion: It is clear from this translation that there is a time phrase followed by three parts (a tricolon); the labels have been added to make this clear. The structure is important as well as the content. The focus of this verse is the cutting off of the anointed one and the devastation and subsequent desolation that will come upon the people, the city, and the sanctuary led by the people of a coming ruler. From this Daniel will see the coming suffering of his people until the end. E3.   The Third Part (Verse 27a) The third part has five alternative translations and the sixth is created as a result of the analysis of this verse. This part is denoted 3P.

3P1 (verse 27a, use NIV) He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ 3P2 (verse 27a, use NKJV) Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one seven; 3P3 (verse 27a, use Lucas) He will make a strong covenant with many for one seven. 3P4 (verse 27a, use Goldingay) A covenant will prevail for the multitude for one seven; 3P5 (verse 27a, use NRSV) He shall make a strong covenant with many for one seven, Discussion: The conjunction “and” is usually omitted in our English versions (it is present in the KJV) although the Hebrew text has it. Note that the NKJV translates the conjunction as “then,” which suggests that the confirmation of the covenant follows after the previous events, which is strange since Daniel 9:26 describes what happens until the end. In fact, both Daniel 9:26 and 27 proceed to an end, and these verses appear to describe concurrent events with a common end rather than sequential events. The constituent structure analysis discussed in appendix 5.5 strongly confirms the parallel nature of these two verses, reinforcing that they are a description of concurrent rather than sequential periods of time. Harman (2007, 244) points out that the Hebrew phrase translated “confirm a covenant” in the NKJV (3P2 above) is very unusual and is the only occurrence of it in the Old Testament. He says it is not “initiating a covenant” or “confirming a covenant” because then different Hebrew words would have been used. Along with Harman, it seems best to adopt the use of the phrase “strong covenant,” whose intended scope is one seven. This kind of problem is typical of the ambiguity of the words used in this prophecy and reflects the fact that it is a pattern prophecy that only takes on unambiguous meaning in the context of a specific scenario.

The identity of the “he” who makes a strong covenant with many for one seven is not likely to be the “anointed one” in verse 26 as he is not grammatically the immediate antecedent and also because it would be expected that he should be someone with authority, a ruler. The anointed one in verse 26 is not said to be a ruler, and this may be significant. However, it is still somewhat ambiguous as there are two previous rulers, the “anointed ruler” in verse 25 and the “ruler” in verse 26. For now, it should be taken as the ruler in verse 26 as he is the immediate antecedent; however, there is another way of understanding this verse that will be addressed in chapter 7. Some scholars still insist on the “He” as being Jesus because of their overall interpretation of the prophecy; however, from the perspective of Hebrew grammar, this is less natural. Goldingay (1989, 230) recognizes that the subject of the verb is not clearly identified and therefore translates like “And a covenant prevailed with the many for one seven” which is also possible; however, it is felt that once the scenario of the prophecy is understood this problem will resolve so that it is better to retain the “he.” It is important to remember that the “seven” is a “period of seven” not a seven of years because of the absolute state of this noun in Hebrew, and it is invalid to require that the “seven” be a seven of years; it is just a period of seven where the meaning of the seven will be determined from the context. This leads us to the following translation. 3P6 (verse 27a, adapted) And he will make a strong covenant with the many for one seven. E4.   The Fourth Part (Verse 27b) The fourth part has five alternative translations, and the sixth is created as a result of the analysis of this verse. This part is denoted 4P. 4P1 (verse 27b, use NIV) In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. 4P2 (verse 27b, use NKJV) But in the middle of the seven He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate. 4P3 (verse 27b, use Lucas) In the middle of the seven he will end sacrifice and offering. Upon the wing of abominations there will be a desolator, until a decreed destruction overwhelms the desolator.

4P4 (verse 27b, use Goldingay) in the middle of the seven sacrifice and offering will cease, and upon a wing will be a desolating abomination: until a conclusion which has been decreed overwhelms a desolate one. 4P5 (verse 27b, use NRSV) and for half of the seven he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.” Discussion: An important issue is the identification of the “he,” the subject of the covenant that is made and the “one” who makes an end to sacrifice and offering. Is the “he” that is involved with the covenant the same as the “one” who causes the daily sacrifice to cease? The solution adopted leaves the answer to that question open and is safer since it is by no means certain that the one seven will be limited to the lifetime of a single individual. Note that 4P5 is a more precise translation by specifying that the sacrifice and offering cease for the second half of the seven rather than just at the middle of the seven—see comment on the Hebrew by Goldingay (1989, 230). The word “wing” has been difficult for translators partly because it is ambiguous. The RSV and NRSV have gone as far as placing a textual note to say that the meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain. Also the decreed end should be poured out on the desolator, not on the desolate. This leads to the translation below. 4P6 (verse 27b, adapted) From the middle of this seven (A) sacrifice and offering will be made to cease,    (B) and upon a wing desolating abominations,       (C) until an end which is decreed will pour out on the desolator. Discussion As in the second part, this part starts with a time phrase and is followed by three distinct parts (also a tri-colon). This is important. The labels on the clauses have been added to make these phrases distinct. It is apparent that this part focuses on the religious aspects of the unfolding events, whereas the second part focuses on its physical aspects. E5.   The Consolidated Translation Putting all the previous discussion together, the following emerges:

The seventy sevens is a period of time determined by God to complete His plan for the city and the people. The literal period of time is undefined; however, it is long, and there is the suggestion of sevenfold punishment following the seventy years of exile. The outcomes that will be achieved by the end of the seventy sevens fall into an inverted parallel pattern, which is divided at the point where God’s dealing with evil is achieved. The heart of God’s plan is in the atonement for iniquity that will create the circumstances through which everlasting righteousness will be achieved. Daniel 9:24 Seventy sevens are decreed for your people and your holy city A. to finish the transgression    B. and to make an end of sin       C. and to make atonement for iniquity       C’. and to bring in everlasting righteousness ––––––––––––––––––––—    B’. and to seal up the vision and prophecy A’. and to anoint the most holy The details of God’s plan are now laid out. Verse 25 covers the first sixty nine sevens of the seventy in two remarkably balanced parts that also form a chiasmic pattern. Daniel 9:25 A. And you will know and understand that from the going out of a word    B. to restore and build Jerusalem to an anointed ruler       C. there will be seven sevens ––––––––––––––––––––––       C’. for sixty-two sevens    B’. it will be restored and rebuilt with square and moat A’. but in a time of distress The final two verses cover the final seven in two equally remarkable balanced parts, each with a time clause followed by three distinct phrases. In the middle of these two parts is a statement about the covenant made for this final seven. Daniel 9:26

After sixty-two sevens A. an anointed one will be cut off and will have nothing. B. People of a coming ruler will devastate the city and the sanctuary and its end will be with a flood.       C. Until an end of warfare, desolations are decreed. Daniel 9:27a And he will make a strong covenant with the many for one seven. Daniel 9:27b From the middle of this seven A. sacrifice and offering will be made to cease,    B. and upon a wing desolating abominations,       C. until an end which is decreed will pour out on the desolator. Careful consideration of the tricolon in each of Daniel 9:26 and 27b shows that they are related; the cutting off of the anointed one with the ceasing of the sacrifice and offering, the devastation of the city and sanctuary with the desolating abominations (notice how this is plural, implying multiple abominations), and the continuation of the effects of these things until the end. They all start after a time phrase that is within the period of the final seven, and so the events in Daniel 9:26 and 27b are concurrent. It is also apparent that Daniel 9:26 deals with physical effects, whereas Daniel 9:27b is associated with religious ones. Thus in these verses there is a clear and distinct structural and content pattern. Further analysis of this will be given later. E6.   The Starting Year for the Vision The starting year for the fulfillment of this vision has been a major point of debate by scholars over many years. Some of these issues have already been discussed above when considering the translation of the Hebrew text. A summary of that thinking is now given before considering the different alternatives more thoroughly. 1. Some scholars have relied only on the KJV or RV of the Bible, which translates the Hebrew word dābār in Daniel 9:25 to the English word “commandment,” and they have also not carefully examined the Hebrew text. As a result, recent scholars, who have frequently relied on earlier work, especially Anderson’s The Coming Prince , whose tenth edition was published in 1916, have only considered the words (decrees and commandments) from known rulers such as Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes as possible starting points. They have ignored the possibility that a prophetic word might be in mind.

Those scholars who rely on the KJV also assume that the seventy sevens 2. vision clearly speaks of the Messiah—Jesus. As has been seen, the KJV, NKJV, and the NIV and some other English versions translate the passage so that the “Anointed Ruler” (in capitals) appears after sixty nine sevens of years (483 years) and is then cut off, which is interpreted as a reference to His crucifixion. However, as has been shown, when the Hebrew text is carefully understood there is little doubt that this translation is incorrect. Many of these scholars look to the precision of the prediction as proof of the validity of the translation; however, there are also considerable doubts about the methodology used to arrive at these predictions. This doubt is especially evident because there is such a divergent variety of ways by which this one prediction is computed. These conclusions will be further examined later in this book. In addition to the above, those scholars have also assumed, based on the KJV, that the prophecy is about the fairly precise prediction of the first coming of Jesus; either the start of His ministry, His triumphant entry into Jerusalem, or His crucifixion. As a result, one of the conditions used for the choice of the correct starting point is that the prediction of the Messiah’s year of coming is historically correct. This is poor hermeneutics as it involves the adjustment of the interpretation of the text to fit the assumed solution. The vast array of different alternatives, all of which seem to produce this exact calculation, is evidence that in some way the interpretation is fundamentally at fault. Assuming that the punctuation for Daniel 9:25 in the Masoretic Text is correct, then the word given is surely that given by Jeremiah, whose most prominent public announcement was first given in 605 BC, but whose scope and content included seventy years of desolation for Jerusalem followed by a rebuilding and restoration for the people. This position is strengthened by the appearance of a suitable anointed ruler (either Cyrus or Zerubabbel) who would mark the end of the seven sevens and the beginning of the sixtytwo sevens. It is also strengthened by the context of this vision being the near completion of Jeremiah’s seventy-year prediction in Daniel 9:1 and by the way this would give Daniel insight and understanding (verse 22) and thus position him at a known starting point in the vision. It is further strengthened by the historical fact that both candidates who could satisfy the role of the “anointed ruler” in Daniel 9:25 did in fact appear within his lifetime. Another alternative for the source of the word in Daniel 9:25 is Gabriel (538 BC), but this is considered very unlikely since his word is for a different purpose as defined in Daniel 9:24 in which the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem is just a part of the process. Scholars who uphold a Messianic prediction in this vision and some others as well who look for a commandment or royal decree for the restoration and

rebuilding of Jerusalem look to Daniel’s future in the following six possibilities. 1. The decree of Cyrus recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22–23 and Ezra 1:1–4 which speaks of the rebuilding the temple. The year of this proclamation will be 538 BC, the first year of Cyrus as king of Persia. All references assume that this is 538 BC although there is nothing specific to prove this. Consideration of this starting point should also take into account Isaiah’s prophecy about the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple by an anointed ruler named Cyrus in Isaiah 44:24– 45:13. Although the Bible does not record a command by Cyrus to rebuild Jerusalem, Isaiah 44:28 says that Cyrus will initiate such a process. Therefore, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that the rebuilding of Jerusalem did occur as a result of the command he gave even if the Bible does not specifically record it. It should be noted that Gurney (2006: chapter 6:4) overlooks Isaiah 44:28 when he says that there is no evidence that the exiles tried to rebuild the city. He also ignores Haggai 1:4, which suggests that the returned exiles were living in “paneled houses,” and Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, which describe the exiles as returning to Jerusalem and Judah. It should perhaps also be noted that the letter sent to Artaxerxes recorded in Ezra 4:12–13 states that some rebuilding of the city had already occurred by Jews that had come “from you” and is probably a reference to new rebuilding activity by the exiles that returned with Ezra in 458 BC. Gurney uses this as an argument to support the idea that rebuilding of Jerusalem did not occur until this date; however, this ignores the earlier evidence of rebuilding that would have occurred with each new return of the exiles and is unconvincing. It is hard to conceive that the rebuilding of the temple did not involve some rebuilding of the connected infrastructure of the city and that the workers did not actually live in Jerusalem in some rebuilt accommodation while working on the temple. 2. A few authors consider that Cyrus’s decree was issued in 457 BC, not in 538 or 537 BC. See for example Anstey (1913), Conner (1981, 2004) and Eberle and Trench (2006). ⁴ This position seems to be based on a logical inference from the following five points; (1) that only Cyrus’s decree satisfies the requirements of a command to rebuild Jerusalem, (2) the Bible is the word of God, (3) the seventy sevens is 490 years, (4) the seventy sevens prophecy is about the prediction of the date of Jesus first coming, and (5) the interpretation of Ezra and Nehemiah given below. It is also reasoned that biblical integrity overrides all secular research, so the true year must be 457 BC in order that the prediction be accurate. This reasoning is clearly incorrect because it is based on an unproven assumed eschatology about the purpose of the seventy sevens prophecy and, as has been seen, the seventy sevens is not sevens of years. Anstey’s chronology of the Bible, produced in 1913, relies on Ezra 2:2 (which mentions a person called Nehemiah, someone called Mordecai, and someone called Seraiah—who is inferred to be Ezra) to show that all secular chronologies are in error by eighty-one years so that Cyrus’s decree was actually given in 457 BC.

From Ezra 2:2, it is argued that two of the Persian rulers that secular chronologies assume ruled later are the same person as an earlier one; that is, that Darius in Ezra is the same person as Ahasuerus in Esther and the same as Artaxerxes in Nehemiah. Later research has shown that this view is not supportable for at least six reasons. 2.1. Connecting Ahasuerus with Darius relies on the KJV translation of Esther 2:5–6 and possible ambiguities in the Hebrew text. Most English translations translate so that it was Kish (Mordecai’s grandfather) who was carried into exile from Jerusalem, not Mordecai. This view is supported by Harrison (1970:1091) who writes, “A careful reading of the Hebrew text is sufficient to dispose of this objection, however, for on examination it becomes apparent that the relative pronoun “who” in verse 6 obviously refers to Kish.” On the other hand, Jones (2004, 203) says that an accurate rendering of the Hebrew construction affirms that it was Mordecai who was carried away with Jeconiah. Constituent Structure Analysis (see appendix 5) clearly shows that the Benjamite is Kish and not Mordecai and that this Benjamite is the immediate antecedent of the relative pronoun “who.” Jones does not explain his point of view. 2.2. Connecting Artaxerxes with Darius relies on the events in Ezra 4:6–23 being opposition experienced by Jews prior to the building of the temple in 516 BC, when this passage in fact describes the opposition experienced right up until the time of Nehemiah in 445 BC. 2.3. There is no substantial evidence to connect Seraiah in Ezra 2:2 and Azariah in Nehemiah 7:7 with the person of Ezra. 2.4. Zerubbabel was leader and Joshua was priest when the temple was being built. Nehemiah was the leader when Ezra was priest when the walls were being rebuilt. These two pairs could not have been concurrently carrying out their roles. 2.5. The fact that two places in the Bible have the same name for a person does not, in itself, mean that they are the same person. Additional evidence must be found. 2.6. Conner (2004, 212) then states that if there is doubt about these calculations, then we can work backward from the established date of the Messiah’s manifestation. There are two major problems with this approach: (1) the exact year when Jesus began His ministry is not precisely known, and (2) the interpretation that the seventy sevens prophecy is about predicting the dates of Jesus’s manifestation is extremely doubtful for the many reasons already given plus others that will be introduced later. As a variation on this, Pickle (date unknown) suggests that the decrees of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes in the seventh year of his reign, which is in 457 BC, which are referred to in Ezra 6:14, can be considered a single decree. He says, “It is as if Cyrus began the decree and Artaxerxes finished it.” This is a most unlikely way to interpret the decree in Daniel 9:25, especially since only Cyrus is described as being involved with restoring and rebuilding the city (see Isaiah 44 and 45); the decrees themselves only reference the temple. It is really stretching history to see these three

decrees as one decree and a commandment process as satisfying the “word” given about restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem in Daniel 9:25. 1. Darius’s decree in Ezra 6:1–12 (521 BC) relating to the rebuilding of the temple. There is little doubt that this decree does not include any rebuilding of the city; only the temple. For this reason, it would not satisfy the word given in Daniel 9:25. 2. Artaxerxes’s decree in Ezra 7:12–26 (457 or 458 BC) which is associated with the offerings for the temple and with articles being returned to the temple. Leftover monies could be used for other purposes considered important. There is nothing substantial about rebuilding Jerusalem in the decree. 3. Artaxerxes’s permission in Nehemiah 2:7–8 (c 445 BC, although some argue for 444 BC or 446 BC), related primarily to rebuilding the city walls, but also included the gates of the citadel by the temple and the governor’s residence. The context in Nehemiah 1 and 2 suggests that Nehemiah was given a specific period of time and that he was given supplies that would allow him to rebuild the walls, gates, and the governor’s residence. The rebuilding of the whole city was not in mind here. 4. A recent variation to point 5 proposed by Jones (2004, 236) is that Artaxerxes began his reign as a coregent with his father in 473 BC so that his twentieth year was in fact 454 BC, not 445 BC as previously thought. From a consideration of these commands given by three rulers, namely, Cyrus, Darius I, and Artaxerxes I, it is clear that only Cyrus could possibly satisfy the requirements of the word given in Daniel 9:25a. From Isaiah 44:28, it can be inferred that Cyrus would have given a command to rebuild Jerusalem, although the Bible does not record this command for us; only his decree to rebuild the temple. The decree by Darius I is focused on rebuilding the temple. The permission given to Nehemiah by Artaxerxes I related to rebuilding the walls, gates, and citadel and gave provision for the specific materials required to achieve this and also a time limit. The command by Artaxerxes I in 445 BC (or 454 BC) does not, therefore, encompass a full restoration of the city including “square and moat” as specified in Daniel 9:25b. In the overall picture, it is hard to envisage exiles returning to Jerusalem about 536 BC, starting to rebuild the temple and not doing some restoration of Jerusalem as well. Some of them would have chosen to live in this city, and it is not unreasonable to envisage them starting to build houses, clearing some of the streets, and opening some retail outlets in order to provide some of the infrastructure that would be needed to support the rebuilding process. From Nehemiah 2:11, it is clear that although the walls are in ruins, some streets, gates, and houses must have been functional. For these reasons, the restoration of Jerusalem must have begun when the exiles returned, and Cyrus would have been supportive of the necessary reconstruction of the city to provide the people the infrastructure they needed to support the temple reconstruction.

For these reasons, the only reasonable starting points for the seventy sevens prophecy are the word given by Jeremiah beginning in 605 BC and the (assumed) command given by Cyrus about 537 BC. Since it is known that the rebuilding of Jerusalem began with the return from exile, then starting the seventy sevens prophecy with Cyrus’s command will only work if the Masoretic Text punctuation is not present because only about two years would separate the command and the beginning of restoration. It is hard to see the seven sevens in Daniel 9:25a corresponding to only two years of elapsed time. In this case, there would also be no meaning to saying seven sevens and sixty-two sevens. It is hard to see how Daniel would make any sense out of this, especially as Cyrus would not yet have given his decree and Gabriel come to give him understanding (Daniel 9:22). For the many reasons already given, it would thus seem practically certain that the starting point has to be Jeremiah’s word, which began in 605 BC. From the perspective of Daniel writing in the sixth century BC, it would be in conflict with the pattern of the previous revelations for the fulfillment of this word to start sometime in the future. With his knowledge of Jeremiah’s prophecy and the words of the vision, it is highly probable that Daniel would be looking for the emergence of an anointed ruler in order to position the start of the rebuilding of Jerusalem; this rebuilding did not start when Cyrus gave the order to rebuild the temple, but rather when the exiles had returned to Jerusalem one or two years later. So it is more likely that the anointed ruler in Daniel 7:25a is Zerubbabel. That was the word that was given to him. As Baldwin (1979, 170) points out, the words translated “anointed ruler” are open to more than one interpretation because the Hebrew word used is vaguer than the English reader might suspect. In the Bible this Hebrew word is used to describe Cyrus, the kings of Israel, and Zerubbabel (in Zechariah 4), as well as Jesus. The word for “ruler” is also not very specific. Goldingay (1989, 261) points out that the Hebrew words translated “anointed ruler” are more characteristically used of Israelite leaders, and there is something out of the ordinary in the use of “anointed” in Isaiah 45:1 and “ruler” in Ezekiel 28:2. He says a non-Israelite ruler would more naturally be referred to here as melek as is commonly used in Daniel. In the absence of any indication to the contrary, an “anointed ruler” is then more likely to be an Israelite person. This also points to Zerubbabel being the anointed ruler in Daniel 9:25a. A third argument in favour of Zerubbabel being the “anointed ruler” is that he is in the line of ancestry from David to Jesus, see for example the genealogy in Matthew 1:12. In addition, note the word of the Lord to Jeremiah 22:24–30 and Haggai 2:23. In spite of the judgment that the Lord gave to Jehoiachin through Jeremiah, there is a measure of reinstatement of Zerubbabel in the line of anointed rulers as a result of his obedience to the Lord in Haggai 2:23. The perspective of second century BC writers would start as above. The problem is that they would see the end of God’s dealings with them as about to occur! If this view is correct, then most of Daniel becomes irrelevant to

us; it is only the principles of God’s dealings with people that can be applied today. This is strange also because from the way chapter 9 has been written, it would appear to embrace all of God’s dealings with His people; not just up to Antiochus IV. F.   Conclusions Can this vision now be understood from the perspective of a sixth century BC Daniel? Daniel will surely connect this prophecy with what he already knows from the previous ones, especially because of features that are common to them. In particular, the chapter 8 vision refers to what the little horn will do to the daily sacrifices, the sanctuary, and the rebellion and the associated desolation. Keep in mind that Daniel does not yet know about Antiochus IV described in Daniel 11:21–32. These aspects are carefully avoided in this discussion when a sixth century BC Daniel’s perspective is being examined. Daniel 9:25 A. And you will know and understand that from the going out of a word    B. to restore and build Jerusalem to an anointed ruler       C. there will be seven sevens –––––––––––––––––––––––      C’. for sixty-two sevens    B’. it will be restored and rebuilt with square and moat A’. but in a time of distress This is the word of the Lord given by Jeremiah starting from 605 BC until an anointed ruler appears, who has been identified to be Zerubbabel. This is a period of seventy years. Therefore the seven periods of sevens is sevens each of ten years duration. Some may argue that from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 or 586 BC to Cyrus in 538 or 537 BC is about forty-nine years and that Jeremiah’s prophecies about the restoration of Jerusalem and the new covenant in Jeremiah 30–31 were finished by Jerusalem’s fall. However, whatever precise interpretation is given about the seven sevens, there are just too many links between the words of prophecy from the past and the reality of Daniel’s present for him not to put this together and work out that the seven sevens must correspond to the period of exile and be completed when Zerubbabel appeared as the ruler over the exiles and began the restoration of Jerusalem. A period of rebuilding then occurs from Zerubbabel (535 BC) for sixty-two sevens until a strong covenant is made, which marks the beginning of the final seven. The sixty-two sevens contain sevens of unqualified length, so there is an undefined period of time between the events known to Daniel at the beginning and the final seven at the end. In broad terms this period is described as “a time of distress.”

The final seven is now examined. Daniel 9:26 After sixty-two sevens A. an anointed one will be cut off and will have nothing. B. People of a coming ruler will devastate the city and the sanctuary and its end will be with a flood.       C. Until an end of warfare, desolations are decreed. Daniel 9:27a And he will make a strong covenant with the many for one seven. Daniel 9:27b From the middle of this seven A. sacrifice and offering will be made to cease,    B. and upon a wing desolating abominations,       C. until an end which is decreed will pour out on the desolator. To see that there is a connection of this prophecy with the vision in chapter 8, the following features are compared. In particular, note the following from Daniel 8 (see chapter 4, section A3). (11b) And from the prince the regular sacrifice was removed And the place of his sanctuary was cast down (12a) And a host will be set over the regular in an act of rebellion And will cast down truth to the ground. There is a clear connection between the removal (chapter 8) with the ceasing of the daily sacrifice (chapter 9) and the defiling of the worship (chapter 8) with the devastation of the sanctuary (chapter 9). There is clear evidence of the link between the little horn that grows increasingly more powerful (chapter 8) with the coming ruler (chapter 9) who overwhelms the opposition like a flood. The little horn causes devastation (Daniel 8:24) and so does the coming ruler in Daniel 9:26. The little horn is destroyed but not by human hands (Daniel 8:25); the desolator comes to a decreed end in Daniel 9:27. There is a suggestion of a covenant being in place by the phrase “When they feel secure” in Daniel 8:25 as there is also an element of surprise when the little horn destroys many and even reaches the ruler of rulers. With this connection being established, the next point to observe is that the chapter 8 vision is fulfilled in “the time of the end” (see Daniel 8:17 and 19).

The discussion in the previous chapters has shown this will be during the period of the fourth beast and the little horn in Daniel 7. It is in the distant future from Daniel’s perspective. The chapter 8 vision also specifies that there is a length in time containing four events (Daniel 8:13); (1) what happens to the daily sacrifice, (2) the rebellion that causes desolation, (3) the surrender of the sanctuary, and (4) the host that will be trampled underfoot. These events are said to span twenty-three hundred evenings and mornings in Daniel 8:13, which is reaffirmed in Daniel 8:26. Comparing these passages shows that this final period corresponds to what happens from the middle of this final seven in Daniel 9:27b—the ceasing of the daily sacrifice and desolating abominations. Who then is the anointed one who is cut off? As has been seen in the discussion of the term for the anointed ruler in Daniel 9:25, he would most likely be an Israelite but a different person from the one in Daniel 9:25. From Daniel’s perspective, the second half of this final period of seven then lasts for twenty-three hundred literal days. Initially the coming ruler will make a covenant with the many so that they feel secure. However, about halfway through the seven, he will cause the daily sacrifice to cease, and he will defile the holy place, probably by instigating false worship, by rebellion, and by success through deception. There is huge devastation, and wars continue and desolations will follow until the end. This would have been what Daniel understood when he first received the seventy sevens prophecy. All the ambiguities in the Hebrew are removed by the chapter 8 context. Keep in mind that Daniel has no idea about when this end is going to occur; he just knows that it is in the distant future, in the time of the end. The perspective of a second century BC author is very different since the identity of the final ruler and the knowledge of the end point are quite clear. It would be easy to substitute Antiochus IV here with a high degree of agreement. In fact, if this was the meaning, it is rather surprising that this was not done with all the ambiguities being removed given that this prophecy was given to provide understanding (Daniel 9:22). However, to be sure of a full and correct understanding of this passage, it is important to wait until all of the revelations to Daniel have been given. CHAPTER 6 The Final Vision An exegesis and interpretation of Daniel 10–12 Up until now the unfolding of the various revelations has still not enabled a final conclusion to be made. It has been shown that if the book of Daniel was written in the sixth century BC by Daniel himself or his peers, then there is a strong preference for the four metals in the Daniel 2 dream and the four beasts in the Daniel 7 dream being the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman Empires although, of course, Daniel would not know the identity of the fourth metal or beast, only its character. The identity of the little horn

in chapter 7 still needs to be determined. The identity of the little horn in chapter 8 could be Antiochus IV but is more likely to be an end of the age ruler. So although there is a favored position, it is not conclusive. On the other hand, if the book of Daniel was written by authors who wrote in the second century BC during the persecution under Antiochus IV, a conclusion is imposed on these earlier visions in order to preserve the unity of Daniel. This conclusion forces the four metals and the four beasts to represent the Babylonian, Median, Persian, and Greek Empires and the two little horns to be Antiochus IV. It also means that the “time of the end” must be during the reign of Antiochus IV. However, what has been shown is that although this interpretation can be made, it is like a poorly fitting coat being forced on the wearer. It doesn’t seem quite right, but it’s the best that can be done. For these reasons, the final visions in the chapters from Daniel 10–12 are the most important for the interpretation of the whole book. Its vision language is not symbolic, and it supplies substantial historical detail. For those who see that the primary focus of Daniel is on Antiochus IV, the vision reaches a climax in the description of his reign. These also see the book as written to help those Jews living in this second century BC period. Most of these scholars date the book of Daniel based on the latest history perceived in this vision. Therefore, for these, this vision is critical. Another substantial group opt for a Messianic interpretation of the seventy sevens prophecy in chapter 9, which leads to an understanding that the end of the age ruler will be prominent in the last three and one half years before Jesus returns. These see Daniel 11:36–45 or Daniel 11:40–45 as applying to this same final period. For these, the interpretation of the time, times and half a time in Daniel 12:7 as three and one half years is necessary. Thus, in a very real sense, our understanding and interpretation of this final vision will be the crux of the whole book. A.   Daniel and the Messenger Daniel 10:1–4 NIV: (1) In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, a revelation was given to Daniel (who was called Belteshazzar). Its message was true and it concerned a great war. The understanding of the message came to him in a vision. (2) At that time I, Daniel, mourned for three weeks. (3) I ate no choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips; and I used no lotions at all until the three weeks were over. (4) On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris, Discussion: There continues to be precision in the way in which the book of Daniel seems to identify the time when each story or vision or revelation occurs. Verse 4 goes even to the extent of specifying the very day, the twenty-fourth day of the first month. The year is most likely 535 BC.

The translation of verse 1 given in the ESV is closer to the Hebrew text and for four reasons is simpler and easier to understand. Daniel 10:1 ESV (1) In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar. And the word was true, and it was a great conflict. And he understood the word and had understanding of the vision. First, the NIV writes about a revelation being given to Daniel, a revelation which contains a “message”; the ESV is more literal in translating the words “revelation” and “message,” simply saying “a word was revealed,” since the single Hebrew word “dābār” is used, and there is no distinction in the Hebrew text between the revelation given and the message of that revelation. Second, the KJV and NKJV translation of the ESV’s “a great conflict” as “the appointed time was long” is very unlikely and not generally supported, see for example Harman (2007, 250). Third, the word revealed is contained in ESV’s “the vision” that follows in Daniel 11:2–12:7, not the indefinite “a vision” as translated in the NIV. Finally, and most important, the key fact being described about the word revealed is that Daniel now understands the word and has understanding of the vision. Previously, in all the revelations given, there were significant parts that Daniel did not understand; now he really does understand. The contrast and emphasis is important. It should be important to us as well since we should be able to gain understanding too if the book of Daniel is no longer closed and sealed (Daniel 12:4, 9). The confusion that surrounds the interpretation of Daniel should be able to be overcome, so this is an important motivation to dig deep until it makes complete sense. The Hebrew text is precise and important, but many English translations have diluted and confused that precision. As an additional comment, it is curious that in Daniel 9:23, Daniel is asked “to consider the word and understand the vision.” What followed was the seventy sevens prophecy. Here in verse 1 we are told that Daniel “understood the word and had understanding of the vision” using almost exactly the same Hebrew words. Does this mean that when Daniel received the word that follows from the man in linen, he then understood the seventy sevens prophecy previously given? This seems likely, as that is exactly what happened when the vision that followed was understood. Notice that Daniel is also positioned on the bank (or the side) of the Tigris River, according to many English translations. The Hebrew word is interesting as it is frequently translated “hand,” so the phrase could be literally translated “by the hand of the great river.” It is therefore interesting to speculate whether there was a specific location on the Tigris River known by this term, a place where the river split into multiple tributaries, like a hand divides into fingers. Daniel is in mourning, and it is important to ask why. It seems likely that the third year of Cyrus ties in with the beginning of the rebuilding of the temple described in Ezra 3 or perhaps opposition to its rebuilding. It says there that the rebuilding began in the second month of the second year after their

arrival (Ezra 3:8). This reference also places Zerubbabel in a position of authority at the commencement of the rebuilding of the temple. The date Daniel received this vision is precisely timed to the twenty-fourth day of the first month of the third year of Cyrus. If the third year of Cyrus is the same as the second year after their arrival, which is quite possible, then a stronger reason for the timing of this final vision becomes apparent; the temple rebuilding had not yet begun. Not only that, if the anointed ruler in Daniel 9:25 is Zerubbabel, then the positioning of the beginning of the sixtytwo sevens of Jerusalem’s restoration in Daniel 9:25 is precisely timed at a point that Daniel can recognize. This point in history may well be when Daniel will identify the “You will know and understand” of Daniel 9:25. This may also mean that the beginning of “these astonishing things” in Daniel 12:6 is tied in precisely to history and to the seventy sevens vision as well! Although this cannot be proved exactly to the year, the chronology that is known is very close to this so that it is not likely to be wrong by more than a year. It is interesting and important that this passage continues to refer to both Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian. Cyrus is first mentioned in Daniel 1:21. Since it says there that Daniel remained in Babylon until the first year of Cyrus, and this is now the third year, some transition in Daniel’s circumstances might have occurred in the last two years. The next mention of Cyrus or Darius in the book of Daniel is in Daniel 5:31, where it is said that Darius the Mede, at age sixty-two, took over the kingdom. In Daniel 6, Darius the Mede is ruling and appoints Daniel to a very high-ranking position as a chief administrator along with two others over 120 satraps. He is second only in authority to the king. In chapter 6, it is written that Darius the Mede has sufficient authority to make laws for the Medes and Persians that cannot be repealed. In Daniel 6 it is further said that Daniel occupied this position of authority for a sufficient period of time to prove his exceptional qualities (Daniel 6:3–4) so that Darius the Mede planned to promote him even further. At this point of time, jealousy by his peers resulted in a conspiracy that failed, leading to their deaths. In Daniel 6:28 a summary statement explains that Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian. It therefore seems likely that Daniel continued to retain important responsibilities beyond his first year and may have transferred to a different location. From the Nabonidus Chronicle column III, 12–17, it is written that Babylon fell on 12 October 539 BC (after converting the Babylonian date to a Gregorian calendar). In his famous inscription found in the Cyrus Cylinder in Babylon, Cyrus made known his supreme authority. In adaptation of the Babylonian royal title, he now called himself “Cyrus, king of the world, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters (of the world)” (Cyrus Cylinder 1.20). Another point of interest comes from Ezra 6:1–5. The memorandum issued in the first year of Cyrus giving the Jews authority to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple was found, not in Babylon but in Ecbatana. It is probable that the summer capital from which Cyrus ruled was the Median one, so that would be why the archives of his decrees would be held there.

One final comment: most sources say that Cyrus’s decree regarding the building of the temple was issued in 538 BC and that the Jews returned to Jerusalem and started rebuilding in that year. However, the Bible gives us no statement that says that they returned in the same year. It seems possible that the first year of Cyrus could have been the first year he was known with this title and that it could be either 538 BC or 537 BC; given the time required for the events described in chapter 6, 537 BC is more than likely. And remember the Persians used Tishri to Tishri dating so that the first year of Cyrus king of Persia would begin at September/October 538 BC. All in all, there seems to be growing evidence that Cyrus did not adopt the title king of Persia immediately, but one to two years after taking Babylon. Given this and the time needed for the exiles to return to Jerusalem, the third year of Cyrus might well be the year in which the rebuilding of the temple began in the second month (Ezra 3) and could have been 535 BC, which means that it may not have quite started when Daniel undertook the three-week fast that is described here in chapter 10. It is therefore also possible that seventy years is the precise length of time from when Daniel was taken into exile to Babylon. The chapter 9 prayer and revelatory response occurs in the first year of Darius the Mede. This message in chapters 10–12 is in the third year of Cyrus king of Persia. Darius the Mede is again mentioned in Daniel 11:1 as the person being supported and protected in his first year of rule by the person who brings Daniel the message in response to his fasting and praying. In further consideration of why Daniel was mourning and fasting, recall that the seventy sevens prophecy described in Daniel 9:24–27, which had occurred two to four years earlier, may have left him devastated as he realized the enormous length of time and the tremendous suffering his people would have to endure before God’s plan was consummated. So this may have been the seventieth year of the desolation of Jerusalem; the edict from Cyrus to return to Jerusalem had been issued in the first year of his reign 538–537 BC. However, it is not clear from the Bible exactly when they left and when they arrived although it is known from Ezra 7–8 that it would take about four months to complete the trip. If all the forty-thousand-plus people made the trip together, it would have taken a considerable time to prepare for the trip. Or perhaps they journeyed in smaller groups and came together in the land from many different parts of the Persian realm. In any case, the year in which the daily sacrifice was resumed as described in Ezra 3 is not specified. So it is possible that the third year of Cyrus was the seventieth year, and the people had not yet begun rebuilding the temple, thus leading Daniel to seek the Lord. The Hebrew text translated weeks here could literally be translated “sevens of days” with the Hebrew word for “sevens” being precisely the same word as in Daniel 9:24 (masculine, plural, and in the absolute state). However, here the “sevens” is specifically qualified with the Hebrew word for “day” so the exact period of time is certain. Note that this final vision gave Daniel understanding. As each revelation given to Daniel has been traced, it is apparent that substantial parts of what

was given to Daniel remained obscure to him as they do for us. If the book is a unity, then it is not surprising that until the final vision, complete understanding is missing. What has been revealed so far, deliberately it seems, has left a number of things ambiguous. That is why there is so much debate about the identity of the four metals in the image in chapter 2 and the four beasts in chapter 7 and the little horns in chapters 7 and 8. This final vision, which comes across as history and not in the figurative language of the earlier revelations, is intended to clear up many things. That is why scholarly process is severely flawed when it so strongly insists on a particular interpretation of Daniel, when Daniel 11:36–12:7 remains obscure. From the information that is known prior to this final vision, the identification of the four beasts as Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece, or Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, respectively, are both defendable, but it has been argued that the latter identification is better supported. This final vision resolves the lack of understanding for Daniel and should do that for us as well. That is why it is so crucial. Daniel 10:5–9 NIV: (5) I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. (6) His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude. (7) I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; the men with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. (8) So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless. (9) Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground. Discussion

The picture of the “man dressed in linen” is a very vivid one, and his identity has occasioned considerable discussion among scholars. There are similarities with the vision of Jesus received by John and described in Revelation 1:12–16. In particular, his eyes, his belt, his legs, and his voice are similar. The description of the mighty angel in Revelation 10:1 also has some similarities, but the description there is less comprehensive. All commentaries agree that this “man dressed in linen” is either a mighty angel or perhaps even a theophany, that is, an appearance of God himself. From Daniel 12:5–7 it is apparent that this personage has great authority, as he has authority over other spiritual beings. If he was Gabriel, it is surprising that he is not named or identified with the same angel that appeared in the two previous visions. In Daniel 10:13, it is stated that “the man dressed in linen” is detained by the prince of Persia for twenty-one days and that Michael; a high-ranking angel, came to support him. The fact that he has many similarities with John’s vision of Jesus in Revelation 1:12–16 does not prove that he was a theophany since John himself was unable to distinguish between the high-ranking angel and Jesus in Revelation 19:10 and 22:8–9. All this suggests that “the man dressed in linen” does not have the supreme power that would be expected of a theophany. He must therefore be a mighty angel. Daniel’s detailed description of this appearance suggests a real experience rather than just a literary device to communicate a message. The fear and fleeing of the men who accompanied him and his own extraordinary physical incapacity left an indelible imprint on his memory that he could not forget. Daniel 10:10–14 NIV: (10) A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. (11) He said, “Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you.” And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling. (12) Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. (13) But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. (14) Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come.” Discussion:

This vision is to give Daniel understanding. He has learned much, but there are still mysteries. There are aspects of what he has heard and seen that he does not understand. Quite specifically, the “man dressed in linen” has come to explain “what will happen to your people in the future.” In coming to understand this book, all of us must eventually choose between sixth and second century BC authorship. If it is truly a sixth century BC Daniel receiving this vision, then the vision is prophetic of what will happen to his people in the future otherwise it is past history. If it is future, the next major decision is whether this future is focused on the experience of Daniel’s people during only the Greek Empire or is it more. These are the fascinating questions that will be dealt with by this vision. Goldingay (1989, 293), along with many scholars, takes the view that the focus of this vision is on Antiochus IV. This issue will be tested later. It is crucial to the whole of Daniel’s book. Whatever viewpoint you adopt, this vision is unique in the Bible in its picture of the rise and fall of nations and the way it depicts how the exercise of power creates consequences. There is a sense in which significant principles of the rise and fall of nations throughout history are beautifully and concisely illustrated in this vision. Power is exercised by one nation in seeking to expand its territory, increase its wealth, and control more people and so strengthen its influence and prosperity. However, this is always achieved in a way that causes other nations to suffer. As a nation gains power, it eventually starts to fall apart through internal dissolution or opposition resulting in power reversal or change. Power projection is achieved through military victory, intrigue, or political arrangements including intermarriage. Frequently, the most powerful nation overreaches its real capability, and there is a rebound, with the opponent winning back some lost ground. All victories only result in temporary advantages. In some cases, the powerful leader reaches a point where he can do as he pleases, but an end always comes, and it seems like those nations that achieved the greatest power, collapse with the greatest weakness ensuing. Then carefully observe how all nations except God’s people rise to power and then completely fall with no one to help. God’s people suffer greatly, but they always receive a little help and survive for the next wave of a new power to persecute them. This is the very important lesson of this vision and indeed the whole of the book of Daniel. Daniel 10:15–19 NIV: (15) While he was saying this to me, I bowed with my face toward the ground and was speechless. (16) Then one who looked like a man touched my lips, and I opened my mouth and began to speak. I said to the one standing before me, “I am overcome with anguish because of the vision, my lord, and I am helpless. (17) How can I, your servant, talk with you, my lord? My strength is gone and I can hardly breathe.” (18) Again the one who looked like a man touched me and gave me strength. (19) “Do not be afraid, O man highly esteemed,” he said. “Peace! Be strong now; be strong.” When he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, “Speak, my lord, since you have given me strength.”

Discussion: The impact of these verses is to arouse our curiosity and focus our attention. What is to follow is important. It has been a long preamble compared with the other visions. Daniel 10:20–11:1 NIV: (20) So he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; (21) but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince. (1) And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him.) Discussion: The messenger is not unaware of the urgency of the times, but he takes the time to deliver the message, and it is not short. The princes of Persia and Greece would be spiritual beings with authority since it also has been given that the “man dressed in linen” is a spiritual being with high authority. Michael is the prince over the Jews. This gives us more insight into the reality of spiritual angelic forces behind events in our physical world. The revelation gives us a rare and fascinating insight, although sparse, of the spiritual battles behind the events on earth. Paul in Ephesians 6:10–18 and especially the book of Revelation gives us much insight into this realm. The whole universe is embroiled in a titanic struggle, the vast majority of which is hidden from our eyes. It would be far wiser to respond in faith to what God has revealed, rather than to demand visible proof outside our normal experience. As the leaves respond to the wind, so history gives evidence that the spiritual realm is no fiction even though it is not visible. The reference to the “Book of Truth” is important. The man in linen is revealing to Daniel a portion of God’s plan from a spiritual resource. From Daniel 12:9 (see later) it becomes apparent that not all the contents of this book are given to Daniel. The mention of Darius the Mede is curious. The “man dressed in linen” is detained by the king of Persia (verse 13) and earlier in time mentions here how he supported Michael in the first year of Darius the Mede. At the very least this suggests that the status of Darius the Mede and the king of Persia were very similar. B.   The Persian Empire Daniel 11:2 NIV: (2) Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece. Discussion:

Note again how the phrase “three more kings” further establishes Daniel’s “now” in relation to the unfolding of the vision. He is located in time in the lifetime of the king before these three. Not much is said about the Persian Empire in this vision, and since there were thirteen Persian kings altogether (see chapter 1E for details) there is controversy about which ones are in mind. Some recent authorities (Baldwin, Goldingay, and others) suggest this might be an idiomatic expression such as “for three things and for four” implying all the Persian kings similar to Proverbs 3:15–31 and Amos 1–2. The most natural and the most commonly accepted view is that the “three more kings” are those who followed immediately after Cyrus (Cambyses, Smerdis, and Darius I) so that the fourth king mentioned would be Xerxes I. Both Darius I and Xerxes I were aggressive kings. In 513 BC Darius I subjugated the Indus valley region and then turned his attention west, invading Thrace (north of Macedonia) and establishing a satrapy there. The need to suppress the initially successful revolt by the Greek city states in Ionia (along the West Asia coastline) against the Persian Empire forced Darius I to restore order, which he eventually achieved by 493 BC. He then attempted punitive expeditions against the Greek states. In 492 BC a Persian fleet was destroyed by a storm in the Northern Aegean Sea and then in 490 BC, when Darius I was attempting an invasion of Greece, he was defeated at the Battle of Marathon and forced to withdraw. It was Xerxes I, who was indeed very wealthy, who invaded Greece with a large army of one hundred thousand men, captured Athens and was almost successful, but his fleet was defeated at the Battle of Salamis in 480 BC, and this forced him to withdraw. Subsequent to this, no further campaign against the Greek states was mounted, and indeed the Persian kings had their hands full dealing with internal revolts and managing their huge empire. Given this knowledge of history, there can be little doubt that Xerxes I satisfies the requirement for the fourth king very well and that no later Persian king would do so. Although Darius I did attempt an invasion of Greece, it had a punitive goal and was not mounted with anywhere near the same purpose, financial support, and vision as was the very determined and almost successful invasion by Xerxes I. However, the impact of this invasion on Greece was huge and in the end provided the motivation for Greece to act against Persia when the opportunity arose. This then explains the nature of what was given to Daniel about Persia in this vision. It explains just those factors that relate to why Greece rose up against Persia in later years. From the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, it is apparent that the Persian Empire itself gave considerable support to the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem and the protection of God’s people. The Jews did experience considerable difficulties from the surrounding peoples, but, in general terms, under the Persian Empire they were able to build up their nation, and they were given stable and protective government. The leadership over them was generally tolerant and noninterfering and at critical times very supportive of the rebuilding of the temple and the city walls, preventing the genocide of the Jews by Haman when Ahasuerus (probably Xerxes I) was king. For this reason, given the goal of this vision to

trace the history of the future of God’s people, nothing is lost by omitting the later details of the Persian Empire in the vision, and overall there is no compelling reason to see this omission as a problem. The final issue that needs to be discussed is the identity of the four heads of the leopard beast in Daniel 7:6. This is relevant because a significant number of scholars equate this beast with the Persian kingdom in order that the fourth beast can be Greece and the little horn of Daniel 7:8 Antiochus IV. Gurney (2006: chapter 7) sees four kings being referred to here, which he identifies as Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I, and Xerxes I. From the actual text here in Daniel 11:2, it is seen that there are five kings and not four. It is also not clear how Smerdis (whom Gurney regards as an impostor) can be legitimately omitted even if he was an impostor. The fact that all the remaining Persian kings can be ignored even if they were on the decline is a further difficulty, especially since they were still reigning over a huge empire. A further difficulty is that, as has been seen, treating the four heads as appearing sequentially conflicts with the natural dynamic of the vision in Daniel 7:6. All in all, it is very doubtful that the four heads of the leopard can be assigned to Persia in any specific way. Both Goldingay (1989) and Lucas (2002) recognize these difficulties and neatly sidestep the issue by seeing the four heads as representative of the worldwide nature of the kingdom in all four directions. None of these sources addresses the fact that the four heads actually match the Grecian Empire better than the Persian one, reflecting their independent authority and complementing the four horns on the head of the goat in chapter 8, which reflects their common origin. C.   The Greek Empire C1.   Alexander (the Great) Daniel 11:3 NIV: (3) Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. Discussion: There is no doubt that this king is Alexander the Great, who came to the throne in Macedon in 336 BC. In the space of just eight years (from 334 BC to 326 BC) he defeated the Persian king and established a realm from Macedonia to India and from central Asia to Egypt. He died of a fever in Babylon in 323 BC. He is the first of three rulers in this chapter who are described as being able to do as they please (see verse 16 in reference to Antiochus III and verse 36 in reference to “the king”). This suggests that they had supreme authority and power for a period of time, so that they were unrestrained by other nations in what they could do. C2.   The Diadochi Daniel 11:4 NIV: (4) After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it

have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others. Discussion: Here is illustrated the common motif of the rising power of one ruler followed by his demise and a period of weakness and unrest. Generally, the pattern seen is the stronger the ruler the greater the weakness that follows. After Alexander’s death, there was a period of unrest with the Ptolemaic Dynasty in Egypt and the Seleucid Dynasty centered on Syria emerging after some years as the two most powerful empires. However, none of these realms attained the power that Alexander achieved. In what follows, “the king of the South” refers to a succession of Ptolemaic kings and “the king of the North” to a succession of Seleucid kings. These titles reflect the way the vision centers on Jerusalem and God’s people, and it is important to recognize this locus in the rest of the account; these kingdoms are to the north and south of the “beautiful land.” From time to time, the impact of the struggle between these two kings seriously affects God’s people, and then the vision will have a greater focus on those specific events, as this vision is about the future of God’s people. C3.   The Southern Kingdom Reigns Daniel 11:5 NIV: (5) “The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. Discussion: The “king of the South” here is Ptolemy I Sota (322–285 BC) who was the founder of the Egyptian dynasty. Seleucus I Nicator (312–281 BC) initially ruled from Babylonia, but he was defeated by Antigonus, the ruler of Asia Minor, in 316 BC and fled to Egypt, where he became one of Ptolemy’s generals. Together they defeated Antigonus at the Battle of Gaza in 312 BC, whereupon Seleucus I regained Babylonia. In 301 BC Antigonus was defeated and killed at the Battle of Ipsus when all the other Diadochi combined against him. Seleucus I subsequently gained control of Asia Minor, his kingdom becoming the largest of the four kingdoms that succeeded Alexander. At this time the Ptolemaic Kingdom exercised control over Jerusalem and God’s people. Daniel 11:6 NIV: (6) After some years, they will become allies. The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father and the one who supported her. Discussion:

Some fifty years later (about 250 BC), Ptolemy II Philadelphus (the king of the south here, 285–246 BC) while seeking to restore relationship with the Seleucid kingdom, whose capital had now moved to Antioch, made an alliance with Antiochus II Theos (the king of the North, 261–246 BC), which was sealed by giving him his daughter Berenice in marriage. Apparently, Antiochus II divorced his wife Laodice, who had two sons by him, to make this possible. Two years later Antiochus II returned to Laodice, who had him killed along with his son by Berenice and thus ensuring that the Seleucid line was preserved through her. Ptolemy II, her father, also died in the same year. Notice that verse 6 bypasses any mention of the Seleucid king Antiochus I Soter (280–261 BC). Daniel 11:7 NIV: (7) “One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. Discussion: Berenice’s brother Ptolemy III Euergetes (246–221 BC) was the next Ptolemaic king. He invaded the Seleucid kingdom with considerable success, gaining control of Antioch (a fortified port on the Mediterranean coastline) and Seleucia, Babylon, and a substantial portion of Syria and lands further to the east. Here the king of the North is Seleucus II Callinicus (246–226 BC). Daniel 11:8 NIV: (8) He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. Discussion: Ptolemy III captured a great deal of booty and the Seleucid idols and took them to Egypt but did not press on to total conquest although he could have done so. Thus he allowed Seleucus II to retain the throne and reestablish himself. Daniel 11:9 NIV (9) Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country. Discussion: In 242 BC, Seleucus II thought he was strong enough to recover the huge territorial losses to Ptolemy III, and he attempted to invade Egypt, but his army was badly mauled, and he had to retreat and take refuge in the Taurus Mountains and Asia Minor. C4.   Antiochus III (the Great)

Daniel 11:10–13 NIV: (10) His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress. (11) “Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated. (12) When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be filled with pride and will slaughter many thousands, yet he will not remain triumphant. (13) For the king of the North will muster another army, larger than the first; and after several years, he will advance with a huge army fully equipped. Discussion: Verses 7 to 13 describe the battles between the North and the South that raged from 246 to about 203 BC. At first it looks as though Ptolemy III is winning, and history suggests he could have done so if he had pressed his advantage. Then gradually and finally under Antiochus III, Palestine comes firmly under the control of the northern kingdom. For those Jews living in Palestine, it would have been a difficult time as first one army then the other crossed forward and then backward across their land. The first son of Seleucus II was Seleucus III Soter (226–223 BC) who was murdered while campaigning in Asia Minor. He was followed by his brother Antiochus III Magnus (223–187 BC) also known as Antiochus III the Great. Overall he successfully rebuilt the empire in the east, but failed in his attempt to challenge Roman ascendancy in Europe and Asia Minor. At first he had to deal with rebellion from the previous administration, which he had retained when he first became king; especially Molon, one of the two governors of the eastern provinces of Media and Persia, whom he defeated in 220 BC on the far bank of the Tigris. Antiochus III was then free to mount a campaign against Egypt to attempt to recover the territory lost to Ptolemy III. He assembled a powerful army and began what is called the Fourth Syrian War (219–216 BC). He recaptured Seleucia-in-Pieria, Tyre, and Ptolemais, and then invaded Palestine, conquering a large part of it. “His fortress” is the Egyptian fortress on or near the border with Palestine and is probably Raphia although Gaza is possible. The NIV phrase “which will sweep on like an irresistible flood” translates the Hebrew text, which literally reads, “and overflow and pass through.” This same phrase is used in Daniel 11:40 and will be further examined there. The key feature of an army advancing like a flood is that it is so overwhelming that it is irresistible or unstoppable; it is not that it is sudden and has caught the enemy by surprise. The same Hebrew word for unstoppable, overflowing advance is also used in Daniel 9:26. The Battle of Raphia in 217 BC was a major victory for Ptolemy IV Philopator (221–203 BC) in a fairly evenly matched contest. In the subsequent peace settlement, Antiochus III gave Palestine and southern Syria back to Egypt, but Ptolemy IV did not follow this victory up with further attempts to regain the territory of his father and left Antiochus III alone. The question of who were the many that were slaughtered by the king of the South is not addressed in many commentaries. The story of persecution of the Jews recorded in 3 Maccabees is not regarded as reliable;

however, it is true that Ptolemy IV after his victory at Raphia had the opportunity to enter Jerusalem. He did recover all of Palestine and so could have carried out the slaughter described (Bevan 1927, chapter 7). The problem is that there is no record of it, so no conclusions can be made apart from the biblical record itself. After his defeat, Antiochus III regrouped and over the next fourteen years extended his control to the north and east. He first proceeded to attack Achaeus, who had set himself up as king over Asia Minor. Antiochus III captured him in 213 BC in his capital at Sardis and so pacified the entire northern region. After this he entered upon his famous eastern campaign (212–205 BC) pressing forward as far as India. Having established a magnificent system of vassal states in the east, the Greeks, comparing him to Alexander the Great, also surnamed him “the Great.” After the death of Ptolemy IV, he mustered his army, which was stronger than before, to attack the king of the South. Daniel 11:14 NIV: (14) “In those times many will rise against the king of the South. The violent men among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. Discussion: In preparation for the battle of Raphia, Ptolemy IV had trained a substantial number of his troops in modern methods of warfare, and this force was the factor that enabled him to win at Raphia. However, these troops rebelled against Ptolemy IV in a civil war in Egypt that lasted for twenty years as the powers in southern Egypt tried to restore the old rule of the Pharaohs. Apart from the biblical evidence that exists, Josephus 12.3.3–4 also suggests that these were difficult times for the Jews. Evidence exists that conditions prevailed from which a Jewish rebellion, probably against the king of the South, could have occurred, but specific details of such a rebellion are absent. See Lucas (2002, 281) for further discussion on this point.

Figure 1: Map of Ptolemaic control of Palestine Daniel 11:15–16 NIV: (15) Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. (16) The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. Discussion: After the death of Ptolemy IV, Antiochus III made a secret treaty with Philip V of Macedonia for the division of the Ptolemaic Empire outside of Egypt. When Philip V attacked Rhodes and Pergamum, they appealed to Rome for help and revealed the alliance that Antiochus III had created with Philip V. Rome intervened decisively, and Philip V was defeated in the Second Macedonian War (200–196 BC), Antiochus III refusing to come to his aid. Instead, taking advantage of Rome’s involvement with Philip V, he attacked Egypt. Ptolemy V Epiphanes (203–181 BC) was now on the throne of Egypt. History records that Scopas was in charge of the Ptolemaic forces and that they were defeated by Antiochus III in 199 BC at the Battle of Paneas. Antiochus III laid siege to Gaza in 201 BC, but the reference here is more likely to be Sidon, captured in 198 BC when famine forced its surrender. “Their best troops” probably refers to the Aeolian mercenaries that Scopas employed. At the conclusion of these battles, Antiochus III was left in control of the whole of Palestine.

The capacity of Antiochus III to “do as he pleases” is important as only Cyrus, Alexander, and the king in Daniel 11:36 achieved this level of superiority. The fact that he established himself in the land of God’s people so strongly that he could have destroyed them is interesting; history records that he did not destroy them. Daniel 11:17 NIV: (17) He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans will not succeed or help him. Discussion: At this point, Antiochus III could have invaded Egypt, but chose not to do so because, so historians believe, of the growing power of Rome. Instead, he made peace in 195 BC and came permanently into possession of southern Syria. He also made a marriage alliance with Ptolemy V through his daughter Cleopatra, probably hoping to gain some political advantage that would enable him to gain control of Egypt through peaceful means. Unfortunately, this plan failed because Cleopatra remained loyal to her husband even to the extent of encouraging an alliance with Rome against her father. Daniel 11:18 NIV: (18)Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back upon him. Discussion: In his expansionist ambitions, Antiochus III occupied parts of Pergamum in 198 BC and some Greek cities in Asia Minor in 197 BC. In 196 BC he crossed the Hellespont into Thrace, claiming rule over territory previously won by Seleucus I in 281 BC. Tensions between Antiochus III and Rome increased. Antiochus III offered an alliance with Philip V, but was rebuffed. Philip V, Rhodes, Pergamum, and the Achaean League joined Rome, but the Aetolians, in their growing discontent with Rome, called on Antiochus III to be their liberator. Antiochus III landed in Demetrias in 192 BC but found little support within Greece. In 191 BC, the Romans cut off his reinforcements from Thrace and outflanked his position at the pass of Thermopylae. He was defeated and fled by sea to Ephesus. The army of Antiochus III then attacked Pergamum but was rebuffed, following which the Pergamene and Rhodian fleets took to the sea. Despite an initial Rhodian naval defeat at Samos, a combined Roman, Pergamene, and Rhodian fleet had a major victory off Samos, followed by an even greater naval success against Hannibal at Myonnesus. These naval victories enabled the Roman army to cross the Hellespont, whereupon Antiochus III tried to negotiate a peace treaty, but they insisted that he retreat west of the Taurus Mountains first. He refused, gathering an army of over seventy thousand men but was then decisively defeated at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC. Following this

a treaty was made at Apamea in 188 BC where he resigned all his claims on Europe and Asia Minor west of the Taurus Mountains. He agreed to surrender his elephants and all his navy except ten ships and to pay an indemnity of fifteen thousand talents over the next twelve years. Daniel 11:19 NIV: (19) After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more. Discussion: The financial burden placed upon Antiochus III forced him to seek funds; he launched an offensive against southwest Persia that was a total failure, and in 187 BC he was murdered in a temple near Susa. The Parthians counterattacked and regained all the territory Antiochus III had won from them (see Farrokh 2007, 121). The Seleucid kingdom was now reduced to Eastern Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Western Persia. As has already been seen and will be seen again, earthly kings rise and in their pride and ambition reach beyond their capability, and in their greed they overextend their power. They then fall, lose much or all of what they had gained and then die with no one to help them. During these periods, the Jews suffer, never growing very large in numbers or power, but they survive. That is an important point to see in the book of Daniel as it is repeated over and over again.

Figure 2: Map of Seleucid control of Palestine C5.   Seleucus IV Daniel 11:20 NIV:

(20) “His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle. Antiochus III had two sons. The older of these, Seleucus IV Philopator (187– 175 BC) succeeded him on the throne. He inherited the huge debt with Rome, and so his primary focus was to clear these debts. 2 Maccabees 3 describes how he sent his prime minister, Heliodorus, to seize the treasures from the Jerusalem temple. It is believed that Seleucus IV was assassinated in 175 BC. It should also be noted that Parthian expansion began anew during the reign of Seleucus IV (see Farrokh 2007, 121). The literal translation of the Hebrew text translated here in the NIV as “In a few years” is actually “But within a few days.” As can be seen, the actual period of his reign is twelve years, so the NIV interpretation is correct, but most English versions retain the literal Hebrew. The interesting thing about this is the equivalence of periods of time given as days to periods of years. C6.   Antiochus IV Daniel 11:21 NIV: (21) “He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. Discussion: The younger son of Antiochus III was Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC), who was kept as a hostage in Rome while Seleucus IV was on the throne. Just before Seleucus IV was murdered, he had sent his eldest son Demetrius to Rome to replace his brother as hostage. Antiochus IV was in Athens on the way home when his brother was assassinated by Heliodorus, a usurper, and he may have been involved in the plot. Antiochus IV then, with the help of Eumenes of Pergamum, managed to seize the Seleucid throne even though his nephew Demetrius was the legal heir. The actual detail of how he did this is unclear. The literal translation of the Hebrew for verse 21 by Green (1985) is, “And a despised one shall stand up in his place and they shall not give to him the honor of the king; but he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom by intrigues.” The NKJV translates as, “And in his place shall arise a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty; but he shall come in peaceably, and seize the kingdom by intrigue.” Antiochus IV returned home and then seized the throne by intrigue and so is not given the celebratory coronation normally given by the people to induct the person into the royal position. The NIV translation suggesting that it was when the people felt secure that Antiochus IV seized the throne seems an alternate possibility to the NKJV, which says that Antiochus IV returned “peaceably then seized the throne.” In addition, note that the text uses very derogatory language to describe him; in different English versions he is variously described as “vile,” “despised,” or “contemptible.” It is therefore

hard to escape the feeling that the author goes to some length to show us that Antiochus IV was not worthy to have the title of the “king of the North” and, more importantly, that he deliberately avoids doing so. For this reason, the NIV translation of verse 28 is unsafe in trying to help us understand that verse by specifically giving Antiochus IV the title the “king of the North”; the Hebrew text only refers to the pronoun “he” as do other English translations. The identity of the “king” in verse 36 and “the king of the North” in verse 40 will be considered later. Daniel 11:22–24 NIV: (22) Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. (23) After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. (24) When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time. Discussion: These three verses seem to be discussing the rise of Antiochus IV to power within the Seleucid Empire. The text suggests that he seized the throne and needed to deal with the internal opposition from within the empire. It suggests he made an agreement with the army but then acted deceitfully with a few key people to take control so that the powers against him were broken. It suggests that he then entered the richest provinces or perhaps the most powerful, and then through bribes bought their support. The fortresses might have stood against him at first so that he thought to overpower them by force, but it looks as though he was able to buy off their opposition so that this was not necessary. In 173 BC, he paid off the war indemnity that had been imposed on the Seleucids by the Romans at the treaty of Apamea in 188 BC. This kind of behaviour is reflected specifically by the Jewish history recorded in the Maccabees. Many scholars believe that Onias III, the high priest over the Jews when Antiochus IV came to power, is the “prince of the covenant” that was destroyed. Onias III was a devout Jew who was opposed to the Hellenization policies of Antiochus IV. Jason, Onias’s brother, offered bribes to Antiochus IV to allow him to replace Onias in return for supporting the Hellenization policies. In 172 BC, Menelaus from the rival Tobiad family offered even bigger bribes and was given the job. Onias III, his life now seriously threatened, fled, but he was murdered in 171 BC. Daniel 11:25–27 NIV: (25) “With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. (26) Those who eat from the king’s provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. (27) The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time.

(28) The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country. Discussion: At this time both the Egyptians and the Syrians appealed to Rome for help, but it was not given. The Egyptians were planning to march north, but Antiochus IV attacked first and conquered Pelusium, and by 169 BC he had occupied all of Egypt with the exception of Alexandria. Ptolemy VI was Antiochus’s nephew since Antiochus’s sister Cleopatra had married Ptolemy V. So Antiochus IV contented himself with ruling Egypt as Ptolemy’s guardian, thus giving Rome no excuse for intervention. The growing power of Rome was well known and the fear of their power at this time is very apparent. The citizens of Alexandria appealed to Ptolemy VIII, Ptolemy VI’s brother, and Cleopatra II to form a rival government while Antiochus IV had to return to Syria to deal with disturbances in Palestine. Antiochus IV set up a strong garrison in Pelusium to safeguard his access to Egypt. Daniel 11:29–30 NIV: (29) “At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. (30) Ships of the western coastlands will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant. Discussion: In the winter of 169/168 Perseus of Macedonia begged Antiochus IV to join forces with him against Rome, but he refused. The fleet of Antiochus IV was victorious over the Egyptians at Cyprus, and the island surrendered to him. Then in 168 BC, Antiochus IV invaded Egypt again, occupied Lower Egypt and camped outside Alexandria demanding that Pelusium and Cyprus be ceded to him. All seemed lost for the Egyptian cause, but on June 22, 168 BC, the Romans defeated Macedonia at the Battle of Pydna; Macedonia became a Roman province, and Rome became free to come to their rescue. The Roman ambassador Gaius Popillius Laenus came to Alexandria and presented Antiochus IV with an ultimatum to evacuate Egypt and Cyprus immediately. Against the might of Rome, and surprised and dismayed at the public humiliation, Antiochus IV had no alternative but to comply, his only consolation being that he was allowed to keep Syria. While this was going on Jason conquered Jerusalem, with the exception of the citadel, and murdered many of the adherents to his rival Menelaus, who Antiochus IV had appointed as high priest to support his policy of Hellenization. When Antiochus IV returned from Egypt in 167 BC, he took Jerusalem by storm, established a permanent Syrian garrison, and began a severe persecution seeking to force all Jews to leave their faith and adopt Greek culture and idol worship. Under this persecution, many Jews departed from their religion.

Examining the text, three points should be noted. First, these events occurred “at the appointed time,” a phrase which occurs a number of times in Daniel and here illustrates again that nothing occurs outside God’s sovereign plan. It also suggests that these are key events in God’s plan. Second, notice how the region of Greece, the Aegean, and western Asia Minor is referred to as the “western coastlands.” Third, notice how the “holy covenant” is the term used in Daniel to refer to the covenant that God had made with His people. Daniel 11:31–32 NIV: (31) “His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. (32) With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him. Discussion: In addition to military victory, Antiochus IV sought to abolish the Mosaic Law and force all Jews to convert to Greek ways. As part of this, he stopped and forbade any of the Jewish rites, especially the daily sacrifice as from 167 BC. He also erected an altar to Zeus right in the temple and made sacrifices to this idol. Notice how the word for abomination here is singular; a single action is in mind in contrast to Daniel 9:27. Throughout the land many Jews were killed or forced to worship the Greek gods and to stop practicing circumcision. All these things brought desolation to the land. All Jews who rejected their faith were given Antiochene citizenship and financial incentives and so became corrupt. Under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus, Jews gradually united in revolt against this oppression. A remarkable rebellion began with guerrilla warfare, but the rebel Jews became increasingly able to fight against the Syrian armies in the field and eventually overcame them. In 164 BC they were able to retake Jerusalem, rededicate the temple, and resume the daily sacrifice precisely three years and eight days after it had been stopped. The Hebrew text for “will firmly resist him” can be literally translated “will show strength and act.” There is a suggestion here that Antiochus IV was defeated, but his actual defeat and end are not described. This is possibly another example of the derogatory way in which Antiochus IV is regarded. History tells us that Antiochus IV died a short time after his defeat in Judea. At this point it is probable that the description of the career of Antiochus IV ends. Others believe that it ends at verse 35 and still others at verse 45. This will be discussed later. Although not discussed in the book of Daniel, Antiochus IV faced increasing pressure from the rising strength of the Parthians in the east. He was defeated in Persis and Elam and was forced to retreat to Ecbatana. He also lost territory in the Elburz Mountains and Hyrcania, and subsequent Seleucid kings lost further ground to them. Antiochus VII (138–129 BC) deployed a very powerful army of eighty thousand troops and attempted to regain territory lost to the Parthians. There were some initial successes, but

the Parthians surprised the Seleucids in a counterattack with a large force, and Ecbatana fell in 129 BC. This set the final seal on the 150 year Greek presence in Persia. Overall, it is seen that Antiochus IV was not all that successful. Although he made some initial gains in Egypt, he ended up losing Egypt, Palestine, and some of the Eastern provinces. This recognition of the actual history of Antiochus IV is important in identifying the little horns in Daniel 7 and 8 and the king in Daniel 11:36–45, especially as the success of the little horns seems to exceed that of Antiochus IV by a wide margin. Daniel 11:33–35 NIV: (33) “Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. (34) When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. (35) Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time. Discussion: These three verses are not just meant to be a conclusion to the Jews’ experience under Antiochus IV, but a conclusion to their whole history under the Greek kings. For this to be the case, the description of Antiochus IV would have to finish with verse 32. It is in character with the derogatory description of Antiochus IV here to ignore his end. This interpretation, however, is going to depend on the interpretation of the verses that follow. Note that the Hebrew text “for a time” is “for days.” In actual fact, years were involved. The actual length could be quite long “until the time of the end” and may refer to the time until the coming of Rome, but at the very least it will be a few years—the period of rebellion against the Syrian army of Antiochus IV. If Antiochus IV were the ruler in chapter 8, perhaps this period of time is related to the twenty-three hundred evenings and mornings in Daniel 8:14, but this interpretation is unlikely given the huge success of the little horn in Daniel 8 compared with the massive failures of Antiochus IV even before his untimely end. The phrase “Those who are wise” occurs here and is repeated in Daniel 12:3. The “wise” are a class of people in Daniel’s visions who are mentioned four times altogether: 11:33, 35; 12:3; and 12:10. The wise are also described as those who will be “refined, purified and made spotless” in 11:35 and almost identically in 12:10 (the word order changes to “purified, made spotless and refined”). The presence of these three verses together here is a strong clue that there is a textual break, a summary to mark the end of God’s dealings with His people under the Greek Empire. What follows is likely to be something different, which will also conclude in a similar way in Daniel 12. C7.   Reflection

At this point, a pattern is emerging that should be discerned. Recall that this vision is about the future of Daniel’s people as the angel said in Daniel 10:14. There are cycles of the rise and fall of kings or kingdoms, and with each cycle there is increasing mention of Daniel’s people, with increasing levels of distress for them. Under the Ptolemaic kingdom, the distress to Daniel’s people can only be inferred as the northern and southern kingdoms compete for control of the land. Under Antiochus III a pattern is starting to emerge that first focuses on his character and then is followed by his history reflecting first his rise to increasing power and then his demise without help. Next is a section about Daniel’s people, followed by a short section on Seleucus IV which shows his attempts to derive financial income and his demise without help. The description of Antiochus IV then follows with this pattern much more prominently. His character, illustrated by the way he gained power through deception, is first described, and then his history, which shows mixed success. Finally this is followed by his persecution of Daniel’s people causing suffering to them at a level not previously seen, leading to their rebellion against him. There is an implied success in this rebellion, and the contemptible feelings against him are reflected in that he is never called a king and his demise is never described. Finally there is encouragement to the wise, so that even though some may fall, they will receive a little help, and there is a resulting refinement leading to their being purified and made acceptable to God until “the time of the end,” which has not yet arrived. A similar cycle is repeated in what follows. A king is introduced who is not given the name of king of the North or king of the South. His character is then described in a fashion that shows greater opposition to God than the descriptions given to the previous kings and greater success as well. This is followed by his history, which begins “At the time of the end” (see verse 40), and reveals some connection to both the king of the South and the king of the North. It continues showing his rise and then his fall with no one to help (verse 45). In a somewhat similar fashion to the description of the persecution under Antiochus IV, the distress of God’s people during this period is said to exceed any previous suffering they have experienced. Then it goes on to talk about the rewards for the wise and terrible judgment for the rest. This will continue until the “power of the holy people has been broken” in Daniel 12:7. Finally there is mention of the refinement and purification of people, also in a similar fashion to that described after the history of Antiochus IV. The logic of this development suggests that this king is not Antiochus IV but comes after him. There is thus one very obvious hypothesis that stands out, and that is that this is a description of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, with the persecution of the Jews under that regime also being described. The mystery is why this obvious solution has never been investigated in any literature that this writer knows about with the exception of Calvin in the sixteenth century, but whose description is broad and general, as he does not seem to have access to the detailed history that is available today. Many scholars believe that this description contains further details of Antiochus IV, so that option will also be investigated. The third major option is that it is a

description of the end of the age ruler. In the following sections, these three options will be analyzed and compared. A fourth option will also be examined, which is a substantial variation to the second; that option is described in Gurney (2006). A fifth option is that the king is “Herod”; this option is described in Mauro (1944). When these verses are interpreted so that the king is either Antiochus IV or the end time ruler, then the resultant inferences lead to a huge difference in the overall understanding of the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation. Interpreting these verses so that the king is the Roman state or emperor results in another very different perspective. As will be seen, the effect is dramatic. D.   The King Who is this king in Daniel 11:36? The answer to this question is arguably the most important key to understanding the book of Daniel. It is a major thrust of this book to show that the absence of a clear answer to this question is what has caused enormous difficulty and confusion in its understanding. The related and equally important question is, “What are the historical referents to the description given in Daniel 11:40–45? Given the way in which the description in Daniel 11:36–39 is connected to Daniel 11:40–45, then the answer to one of these questions will almost certainly provide the answer to the other. The converse will almost certainly be true as well; if the answer to one of these questions is not clear, then the answer to the other cannot be said to be clear either. This is a fundamental objection to the confidence that many scholars have in their interpretation of the whole book of Daniel. With reference to Daniel 11:40–45 Lucas (2002, 290) writes, “These verses have been a source of perplexity to commentators down the centuries. On the one hand, they seem to continue the story of Antiochus IV, providing the expected account of his downfall and death. On the other hand, they do not correspond in any way with the events following the second withdrawal from Egypt and the beginning of the persecution of the Jews.” Walvoord (1971, 1989, 270) writes, “In contrast to the preceding section, there is no specific correspondence to history. Accordingly, scholars who regard this as genuine Scripture, usually regard this section as future and unfulfilled.” Goldingay’s comment (1989, 305) is even more remarkable. He writes, “But vv 40–45 cannot be correlated with actual events as vv 21–39 can; further, in vv 40–45 the utilization of scriptural phraseology becomes more systematic than was the case earlier (see Form ). These facts suggest that v 40 marks the transition from quasi -prediction based on historical facts to actual prediction based on Scripture and on the pattern of earlier events; this continues into 12:1–3. These predictions, then, are not to be read as if they were mere anticipatory announcements of fixed future events; like the promises and warnings of the prophets, they paint an imaginative scenario of the kind of issue that must come from present events.” Then he writes, “It is not the nature of biblical prophecy to give a literal account of events before they take place.”

The problem is taking a strong position based on something that is currently not understood clearly. There is the huge risk that at some time, someone will find an understanding that will totally invalidate the strong position. Thus, if it is found that Daniel 11:40–45 does indeed match a set of fixed future events, then Goldingay’s position that it is not the nature of biblical prophecy to give a literal account of events before they take place could be shown to be invalid. And if these events are later than Antiochus IV, then the whole argument supporting second century BC authorship for the book of Daniel will collapse as well. So in the section that follows, the different views are examined and compared together with a new hypothesis that does indeed fully connect every clause in Daniel 11:36–12:7 with known history; a possible solution which demonstrates a pattern and unity in the vision not seen before. The different views are now summarized. In subsequent sections the passage is examined in detail. At one end of the spectrum of views, there are those who see the date of the book of Daniel as being in the second century BC and the events recorded in this vision as largely past history (or quasi prophecy) rather than prophecy that climaxes in the time of Antiochus IV. These scholars see the book of Daniel as being written during the time (or at the end) of the persecution of Antiochus IV with the purpose of encouraging the people to stand firm in their faith during this terrible time. They then see Daniel 11:40–45 as the only prophetic content by describing the demise of Antiochus IV. Some others see Daniel 11:40–45 as looking to the time at the end of the age with the view that it will not make any sense until that time. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those that date the book of Daniel in the sixth century BC with Daniel as the author, and these see the whole vision as prophecy and Daniel 11:36–45 as a description of the end of the age satanic ruler. Some of these see Daniel 11:36–39 as applying to Antiochus IV and Daniel 11:40–45 as at the end of the age. Gurney (2006) has a unique view in seeing the book of Daniel terminating at the first advent of Jesus. To him, Daniel 11:36–39 describes Antiochus IV, but then Daniel 11:40–45 describes the demise of the Greek Empire. Mauro (1921, 1944) similarly sees the book of Daniel terminating with the devastation of Jerusalem by the Roman armies in AD 70. For him, the “king” in Daniel 11:36 is Herod the Great and his dynasty. For him, Daniel 11:36–39 described the character of Herod and his dynasty, and then Daniel 11:40–43 is like a parenthesis describing the battles of Caesar Augustus who is the king of the North. The final two verses (Daniel 11:44–45) then resume the history of Herod. Unfortunately, Mauro’s views are seriously flawed. He did not properly evaluate his assumption that the seventy sevens prophecy is sevens of years and his chronological foundation in Anstey (1913) who dates the decree of Cyrus as being given in 457 BC. From this he infers that Daniel’s prophecies terminate in the first century AD. The other difficulty with taking Herod the Great and his descendants as the “king” is that they were appointments by Rome, which means he did not have full authority. In addition, there is a period of history from 63 BC to 37 BC before the

appointment of Herod the Great that is unaccounted for in Daniel. Mauro’s solution ignores the scale and scope of Rome’s authority over Judea from 63 BC. The interest in the views of Gurney and Mauro partly springs from their recognition of some of the history contained in the new hypothesis below, but their overall perspective is damaged by constraints imposed by the interpretation of the seventy sevens prophecy. The new hypothesis that will be examined and compared with the above views is that Daniel 11:36–39 is in fact a description of the character of the Roman Empire. This is then followed by its history (Daniel 11:40–45) and the trials of the Jews under this empire (Daniel 12:1–7). If it is the Roman Empire that is in mind, then the expectation should be that all the history that relates to God’s people is presented; not just a short portion of it. This is what has occurred in relation to the description of the Persian Empire, which although incomplete from a historian’s perspective, has sufficient to lead us into the description of the Greek Empire. And besides, it was a period of relative peace, safety, and restoration for the Jews. This is also the case for the presentation of the Greek Empire. This was a period of variable fortune and instability in the land, terminating with the persecution under Antiochus IV. After this, for the next one hundred years, under the Hasmonaeans, God’s people enjoyed a substantial measure of freedom and self-government so that there is nothing more that needs to be said in this prophecy. Unlike the Greek Empire with its succession of kings, the Roman Empire is presented as a single entity. Such was the way in which the Roman state, with its philosophy and law, imposed itself on every person throughout its history and domain that it is quite reasonable to present the character of Rome in a single description. Under Greek rule, each king was different. Under Roman rule, the nature of the state prevailed throughout its history so it is not necessary to trace the events that occurred under every ruler. For this reason, the longer period of Roman rule does not need the same length of description to present the detail of its history and communicate the experience of the Jews in its time. D1.   The Character of the King Up until this point, this vision contains no reference to any king without qualifying his title with either “of the North” (eight times in the NIV) representing the Seleucid Empire or “of the South” (nine times) representing the Ptolemaic Empire. So the natural inference is that the king in Daniel 11:36 represents someone different from either of these two. The reference to the king of the North in Daniel 11:6 is Antiochus II, in Daniel 11:7–9 it is Seleucus II and in Daniel 11: 11, 13, and 15 the reference is to Antiochus III. The reference to the king of the South in Daniel 11:5 is Ptolemy I, in Daniel 11:6 it is Ptolemy II, in Daniel 11:9 it is Ptolemy III, in Daniel 11:11–12 it is Ptolemy IV, in Daniel 11:14 and 17 it is Ptolemy V, and in Daniel 11:25 (two times) it is Ptolemy VI. Up until now the Hebrew text never gives Antiochus IV the title of king although he was a ruler with

significant power, and his persecution against the Jews was substantial. Although the derogatory terms in which Antiochus IV is described might incline the reader to think that he was a contemporary of the writer of this text, it is not necessary that this be the case, since an evaluation of his rule by other authors at other times could easily reach similarly derogatory conclusions. In Daniel 11:28, the NIV reference to the “king of the North” certainly corresponds to Antiochus IV, but this phrase is not present in the Hebrew text and in other English translations of this verse; as previously discussed, it is an unlikely translation because it is probable that the writer deliberately avoids giving Antiochus IV the title of king. Goldingay (1989, 304) advances a number of arguments in support of Daniel 11:36–45 continuing the story of Antiochus IV. He says the “paragraph begins resumptively” so that it could be read to say, “The northern king will act as he pleases,” and then goes on to say, “There is no hint that the subject might be different from that in vv 21–35.” There is a significant alternative interpretation. First, as has been noted above, this is the first occurrence of the unqualified reference to “the king,” so without further evidence to assume that this is the king of the North the inference lacks confirmation. Second, whereas most of chapter 11 focuses on events that occurred with a verse or two on the characteristics of the king, especially of Antiochus III and IV, Daniel 11:36–39 has a different feel about it. All these four verses focus on characteristics of “the king,” far more than the vision describes the characteristics of either Antiochus III or IV. Third, as later discussion will show, the description in Daniel 11:36–39 does not match Antiochus IV very well. Fourth, Daniel 11:32 ends the description of Antiochus IV as the earlier discussion of that verse showed. Fifth, as discussed above, Daniel 11:33–35, which begins, “Those that are wise” summarizes the consequences of the trouble on the Jews and seems like a marker to end a section (that referring either to Antiochus IV or more likely to the whole period of the Greeks). A similar textual formula is repeated in Daniel 12:4–10 to mark the end of the section describing “the king.” Finally, as will be seen, the text of Daniel 11:40 provides strong evidence that “the king” is a different person from the “king of the South” or the “king of the North.” Some scholars wish to insist that “the king” has to be a single individual who only appears once in history. As has been seen, the references to the “king of the North” and the “king of the South” are to different individual rulers, so there is no reason why “the king” cannot do this as well. Further, it is possible that these four verses could describe, in a generic sense, either a set of rulers with similar characteristics or perhaps even the characteristics of the empire itself. The prophetic words in Daniel 2:33–35, 40–45, and 7:7, 11, 19–20 have been frequently understood to be about the Roman Empire. For reasons that are unclear, no one except Calvin seems to have examined Daniel 11:36–12:7 as applying to that empire. This chapter is now going to do this, but first some background. The Roman republic was first established in 509 BC. The Romans arose from an Etruscan background—a tribe that resided in central Italy. They had their own worship, and in particular they worshipped a wolf god. As time

progressed the Romans basically forgot much of their Etruscan religious heritage, adopting the Greek pantheon of gods as their own. Greek influence was enormous. During the Republic and Imperial Rome, land sales were very important, and the land owned by the nobles depended very much on their rank. Under Julius Caesar and some of the later emperors, the Roman state demanded worship of their emperors as if they were gods. In the period from about 100 BC onward, the republican form of government had difficulty ruling over the whole empire, especially when successful generals such as Marius, Pompey, and Julius Caesar where able to command enormous popular support. Julius Caesar was emperor for a short time until he was assassinated in 44 BC by a clique of senatorial diehards. After this, civil war broke out between Octavian and Antony until Octavian defeated Antony at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. At this time Octavian (Augustus Caesar) legitimized the role of emperor (27 BC), and strong, centralized, dictatorial rule then began. From this time on until Constantine is the period of Imperial Rome; a period of about 350 years. The hypothesis examined below is that Daniel 11:36–12:7 describes the character and history of the Roman state and includes the period when the Jews experienced tremendous suffering. In this period, the people started to look more and more upon the emperor as divine. Frequently, divine status was given by the state after the emperor died! As time advanced, the features of the old republic weakened; the emperor saw himself more and more as divine and wielded his authority with greater absoluteness until Constantine. For these reasons, it would seem logical and natural to examine the “king” in Daniel 11:36 as either the Roman Senate, the Roman emperor or perhaps even the Roman state itself, and the description from Daniel 11:36–39 as a general characterization of the main features of this empire. Daniel 11:36a NIV: (36a) “The king will do as he pleases. Discussion The phrase “the king will do as he pleases” occurs four times in the book of Daniel. The first of these is in Daniel 8:4 referring to Cyrus the Great; the second is in Daniel 11:3 referring to Alexander the Great, and the third is in Daniel 11:16 referring to Antiochus III—also called “Antiochus the Great.” The final occasion is here. If this king is Antiochus IV, there is a problem for in many respects he was constrained by the circumstances around him and did not have anywhere near the freedom of those previous three “greats” to do as he wished. He manipulated and bribed to obtain power in the Seleucid Empire after usurping power deceitfully. He attacked Egypt with reasonable success but never obtained complete control. He was constrained because he did not want to face the growing might of Rome which severely embarrassed him, forcing him to give away control of Cyprus and Egypt. He battled with rebellion in Palestine and was defeated there. He eventually lost substantial portions of territory in the east to the Parthians. Therefore, to describe Antiochus IV as a king “who will do as he pleases” just does not match any

period of his history. The only way this might possibly be seen to be valid is by second century BC writers in the midst of persecution who would then have a less objective understanding of the big picture. However, such a view is speculative at best and is not supportable by what is known. If, however, the king is Rome, to say that “he did as he pleased,” would match a general description of Rome’s history throughout much of its period of greatness very well. If the king is Rome, then the account here in Daniel now changes to focus on Rome rather than Greece. Rome was the growing power, and there are two hints of conflict with Rome in the earlier text—the first in Daniel 11:18 with Antiochus III (192–188 BC) and then in Daniel 11:30 when Antiochus IV was humiliated by the Roman general and forced to turn back else he would lose a battle he never could have won (168 BC). So there have been hints of a rising power in the west as the scene is being set for the much greater onslaught from the Roman juggernaut. Up until now the focus has been on the king of the South and the king of the North; as the story unfolds, the new focus on the Roman rulers now becomes apparent. The problem in identifying Herod the Great and his dynasty with this description is that they were always subservient to Rome, and after Herod the Great, the territory was divided among his descendants so they had reduced authority. One of those descendants, Archelaus, whose vassal state was over Judea, was so incompetent that Rome annexed it and incorporated it into the Syrian province in AD 6. This dynasty never had the power of Cyrus, Alexander, or Antiochus III to give them this overwhelming control. Daniel 11:36b NIV: (36b) He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. Discussion: During the imperial period, religious worship of the emperor was frequently required by the state ( The Penguin Atlas of History , Volume 1, 1978, 87). Generally speaking, it was only abandoned after the emperor Constantine I started supporting Christianity. In 44 BC, Julius Caesar declared himself as dictator for life over Rome and also allowed a statue of himself with the inscription in Latin “the unconquered god” to be created. Augustus Caesar initiated the building of a temple in Rome to the divine Julius and titled himself “son of a god.” Up until Hadrian, Roman emperors generally avoided claiming the status of deity in their own lives however; as previously stated, deceased emperors were frequently given this status. After Hadrian, the power of the emperors had become so absolute that they claimed divine status even during their lives so that the imperial cult became an aspect of persecution of Jews and Christians under some emperors. Loyal citizens of the empire were expected to make a periodic offering of incense to the emperor, and when they did this they received a certificate that they had demonstrated loyalty to the emperor by sacrificing. Loyalty tests became an element of the imperial cult

that was applied to Christians. They regarded this as idolatry and refused to participate in this worship, so it was used to identify them. The imperial cult was abandoned when Constantine I became emperor, as he adopted the Christian religion. Daniel 11:36c NIV: (36c) He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. Discussion: If the “time of wrath” is until the persecution and desolation of the Jews under Antiochus IV ended, then to say that he will be successful until then just does not match history. The Jews rose up in rebellion, defeated the Seleucid armies, and regained control of the temple. Mauro (1944) does not comment on this phrase but assumes that the “time of wrath” is completed in AD 70. To state that the Herodian dynasty was successful until AD 70 overstates what really happened. In addition, history shows that the Jews suffered frequently under Rome, suggesting that the “time of wrath” continued for many more years. If, however, the time of wrath is a reference to the persecution and desolation of the Jews under Rome, the historical picture is accurate. From 63 BC, when Pompey captured Jerusalem and entered the temple, the Jews were under pressure and from time to time engaged in rebellion against Rome, the most severe being the Jewish War (AD 66–73). Gradually, the Jews were scattered more and more, and during this time Rome remained successfully in control. Thus it would be completely accurate to say that the empire was very successful according to God’s timetable spelled out here. God is in control even though He may not appear to be so. A more complete discussion of the “time of wrath” is given in appendix 4. Overall it can be seen that verse 36 is a general statement describing the character of the king as Goldingay (1989, 304) affirms. This statement is then followed by greater detail of his character in verses 37–39. Goldingay sees these verses as reflecting the religious attitudes of Antiochus IV moving from the “earthly plane of attacks on people and sanctuary to the heavenly plane of attacks on God himself.” But careful analysis of these verses shows that this is not quite what they are saying. It’s not so much that this king sees himself as divine or directly attacking the God of gods but rather that he puts his trust in himself and in particular his military might, as verse 38 shows, and so devalues the God of gods. He places his highest honor and trust on his own military prowess in order to do as he pleases. Because he exalts his military power, he then has no reticence to say insulting and dishonoring things about the God of gods. This precisely describes the character of Rome and does not reflect the character of Antiochus IV, who wished to Hellenize the Jews and force them to worship the Greek gods. Antiochus IV did not exalt and trust in his military might the way that Rome did and in the way that is clearly described in these verses.

When it says that the king acted as he pleased, it emphasizes exactly what is meant. He did what he wanted using his military power and nothing could stop him. It does presage disaster as Goldingay (1989, 304) says, but this is not really the point. Goldingay does not examine the degree of Antiochus’s success and does not reflect on the fact that he was not really that successful. The verses here are not about the king suppressing worship of other gods, nor about claiming divinity; rather they are about the exaltation of his military power above all gods; it is worship in that sense. According to Goldingay, Antiochus IV regarded himself as more important than any god and is said to have taken his divinity more seriously than most for political reasons. However, this king puts the “god of fortresses” above all else, a phrase those scholars who see the king as Antiochus IV are unable to apply to him with any confidence, nor can they apply it to Herod the Great and his dynasty. This king focuses on the military; he is very different. Daniel 11:37–38 NIV: (37) He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. (38) Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. Discussion: Antiochus IV replaced Apollo by Zeus as the god of the Seleucid dynasty, apparently for political reasons (see Goldingay 1989, 304). On the other hand, Rome no longer acknowledged her Etruscan gods, in particular the wolf god. They still consulted entrails and looked for signs to guide their decisions; this aspect of their Etruscan heritage was continued. The Roman gods were from a strange mixture of influences. Before Rome became a big city, the area around it, called Latium, was settled by superstitious villagers, the Latins, who believed in many gods and spirits. As Rome grew into a city and began to become more powerful, it came into contact with the Greeks, who had a complex Pantheon of their own. It seems that the Roman gods were a mix of those two main influences; Latin and Greek. In many cases, the Romans found there were Latin and Greek gods for one and the same thing. They tended to take the two and make them one. So for example, Vulcan was the old Latin god of fire. But the Greeks had a god called Hephaestus, who was very similar. And so the Romans just mixed the two together and made them one. If the king is Antiochus IV, then the “one desired by women” may possibly be a god favored by Egypt (Adonis or Dionysius) or perhaps even Tammuz whose legendary death was mourned annually in Canaanite rituals. However, these options are very unconvincing, especially as they apply only to a subgroup of peoples within the Seleucid domain. On the other hand, if the king is Rome, the god whom women loved would be Juno (the wife of Jupiter) and there could be little question that worship of Juno would apply generally to women in the empire.

If the king is Antiochus IV it is difficult to say that he had no regard for any god even if his motivation was political. On the other hand, most of the Roman leaders trusted in their own power. Under imperial Rome, the Roman state required a declaration of loyalty, in effect seeking godlike status for the emperor and demanding worship from their subjects. However, having given that commitment of loyalty, subjects within the empire could then go and worship whatever gods they desired. In this way they showed less respect for their gods than for their military might. The main Roman gods were Jupiter (the Greek Zeus), Juno (his wife), the Greek Hera (the goddess of women and fertility), Mars (the god of war), Venus (the goddess of love), and Minerva (the goddess of wisdom and learning, the Greek Athena). Although many individuals from the more lowly classes worshipped their own gods, Rome did not mind this providing they were willing to show their loyalty to the state. If the king is Antiochus IV, then the identity of the “god of fortresses” is obscure. Although various proposals have been put forward, none of them has a strong basis in history. If the king is Rome, however, this term precisely characterizes its worship of military power as has been seen. Rome was very good at both defending and attacking cities, especially strongly fortified ones. Their siege technology was second to none in its day. They were not as fast-moving as the Greeks or Parthians, but they were very strong, and their infantry was superb. This enabled them to exert control and garrison their provinces, defend them strongly, and maintain control as no previous empire had done. The Roman Empire had a well-defined boundary protected by a fortified line or by a network of castles and fortifications (see Kennedy 2007, 363). This was partly why it lasted so long. The Roman Empire was a very powerful military machine. It placed its confidence in its military might. The strength and security of the empire was very dependent on the legions, and this is where it placed its trust. Rome invested enormous funds into building and training its military machine. This cannot be said to be true of Antiochus IV to anything like the same extent. Daniel 11:39 NIV: (39) He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. Discussion: The interpretations that have been made for understanding “the help of a foreign god” when Antiochus IV was king seem most unlikely; for example, Lucas (2002, 290) writes, “The reference here is probably to the establishing of the fortresses in Jerusalem and Judea, garrisoned by worshippers of pagan gods.” This possible solution is guesswork with little concrete evidence that it is valid. On the contrary, under Rome, the solution is clear and applies throughout the empire: the foreign god is Mithras, a Persian god who was very popular with the soldiers. Roberts (2004, 415) writes, “Roman soldiers first came into contact with the Persian god Mithras in Asia Minor. The Mithraic cult, which offered hope of life after death, became immensely

popular in the Roman army and quickly spread throughout the empire.” In this first phrase, there is perhaps a trace of sarcasm; Rome glorified its military power but attacked the strongest opponents needing the help of a foreign god! If the king is Antiochus IV, then the remaining phrases are hard to interpret, as most commentaries will show. If the king is Rome, the meaning is clear and appropriate. Rome honored anyone who honored Rome. They especially honored those who were successful, military success even resulting in victory parades before the emperor in Rome, promotion, increased status, and even governorships resulting in greater land allocations and wealth, which enabled purchase of property too. So you were richly rewarded if you aligned your actions with the direction and philosophy of Rome, and you could be successful even if not born as a Roman citizen. Land gifts and distribution were given to Roman citizens according to their status; the land could be anywhere in the empire. Roman law and engineering were also developed to a much higher level than anywhere before. Conclusions: With respect to these verses Baldwin says (1978, 198), “Commentaries vary their assessment of verses 36–39 as a history of the career of Antiochus Epiphanes.” Generally, the description of him is fairly obscure, and there is much debate as to what each phrase might mean with no clear certainty about many of them. The discussion of this passage by both Goldingay (1989) and Lucas (2002) concurs; they both reflect similar difficulties. The only aspect that seems clear is that Antiochus IV magnified himself above all gods; the evidence for this seems to rely heavily only on the coinage. In general his subjects regarded him as arrogant and mad; this is in stark contrast to the way the Roman world viewed its emperor; he truly had godlike status for much of the nearly four hundred years of imperial Rome. It is also unclear why this additional description of Antiochus IV in Daniel 11:36–39 would be needed given that his whole life except his end has been covered quite comprehensively in the earlier description. When this comparison is done, it is very clear that the text matches the Roman state far better than the empire of Antiochus IV. It is also very clear that the text very concisely and precisely captures the major features of the Roman Empire. No phrase leaves us in much doubt about its meaning, and all contribute to give a complete picture. If the king is an end of the age ruler, then the details described in these verses cannot be tested against history as they are still in our future. Note that scholars with this view usually interpret the iron layer in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and the fourth beast in Daniel’s vision as the Roman Empire. If this is so, it would be surprising if the history of the Jews under the Roman Empire was not discussed in this vision in Daniel 11. They suffered tremendously under the Romans, and it lies within the domain of Daniel’s prophecies and greatly impacted the future of God’s people. The main arguments used to support that the king is an end of the age ruler are first that there is no match of Daniel 11:36–45 with known history, and

second the view that the time, times and half a time in Daniel 12:7 is the final three and one half years before the end of the age. The former basis is being refuted here, and the discussion of Daniel 12:7 will address the second point. Before coming to some final conclusions, it will be important to see how well the different views are matched by the events described in the next six verses. The quality of the match will determine the extent of confidence in the various views being tested. D2.   The History of the King

Figure 3: Map of Roman control of Palestine The discussion of these verses in the literature is unsatisfactory and confusing to say the least. It seems that no scholar has considered Daniel 11:36–12:7 to be the Roman Empire, although some scholars have considered Antiochus IV or a transition to either Antiochus V, Pompey the Great, Herod the Great, or the end of the age ruler (sometimes referred to as the Antichrist)—see, for example, Goldingay (1989, 305). It is probable that the reason for this is partly because it has been thought that “the king” must be a single individual, rather than a generic word for a group of rulers with similar characteristics. This is in spite of the fact that both the ‘king of the North” and the “king of the South” are associated with multiple individuals in the vision. As far as it has been possible to determine, no writer (with the exception of John Calvin) has associated these verses with the whole of the Roman Empire. When this is done, it will be seen that there is a very good match with known history. With the exception of Mauro (1944) and Gurney (2006), who does identify verse 41b, no known scholar has been able to match these verses with any known history except perhaps verse 45, which is frequently understood to be the demise of Antiochus IV or the Antichrist. For those who see “the king” as the Antichrist, all the description given would, of course, be future and therefore unverifiable.

Another possible reason why these verses have not been associated with the Roman Empire is because of the change in time scale. The history of this empire described here spans more than 650 years. This should not really be surprising considering that this period is in the time of the end as verse 40 says, and so a foreshortening of history as time proceeds from its starting point in the third year of Cyrus should be expected. In addition, since Rome as a state performed fairly uniformly over its history compared with the Greek Empire, perhaps less detail would be needed. One of the main objections to these verses referring to Antiochus IV is that they cannot be matched with his history. To an extent it is not surprising if prophecy cannot be interpreted with certainty until the events forecast have occurred; that is why a great variety in the understanding of Daniel by the early Christians in the Roman period should be expected. However, those that consider these verses past history should remain in considerable doubt about the Antiochene view because the historical outcomes do not match the actual text; history should verify the written words of the book of Daniel if it is correctly understood. If these verses are about the Roman Empire, the basis for seeing them as quasi prophecy written by authors in the second century is seriously challenged. In fact, it will become clear that this whole vision would have to be prophecy since it terminates around AD 600, well after the earliest known fragments of the book of Daniel from the Qumran caves. It also means that the focus of Daniel is not for people living in the Antiochene period as is often maintained. This would also cast serious doubts on the interpretation given to the earlier dreams and visions by many scholars as well. Daniel 11:40a NIV: (40a) “At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. Discussion: The events described here begin “at the time of the end.” See appendix 2 for a complete discussion of this important phrase. Altogether, there are six occurrences of the phrase in Daniel, and when analyzing these phrases it becomes clear that the “time of the end” must begin with the Roman Empire if the interpretation in this book is correct. This phrase needs to be understood from Daniel’s perspective, since the events being described are a long time in the future for him; prophecy in the future can often be foreshortened. It is therefore not unreasonable for this phrase to apply to events that are ancient history from our perspective today, twenty-five hundred years after Daniel. This understanding is also consistent with all the Old Testament prophets, who see the coming of the Messiah as a single event and do not distinguish between His first coming and His second. Even in Jesus’s day this is apparent, as all the Jews were expecting the Messiah to set up His earthly kingdom, and when Jesus failed to do this, they rejected His Messianic

identity. Even the disciples were still expecting this after His resurrection as Acts 1:6 makes clear. John the Baptist, who recognized his own prophetic role as preparing the way for the coming of the Messiah, joined the prophecies of Isaiah 40 and Malachi 3 and expected that Jesus was coming as judge and so had questions about Jesus’s identity as the Messiah (Matthew 11:3). On the Day of Pentecost, Peter stood up to preach and quoted from Joel and identified that the outpouring of the Spirit was something that God was going to do in the “last days.” The early church was looking for the soon return of Jesus, realizing they were in the last days. It is only in our day that we realize that “the time of the end” in Daniel is similar to “the last days” in the New Testament and has stretched over more than two thousand years of history. From the context of this text, the “him” would have to be “the king” in verses 36–39 as discussed above. Both the king of the South and the king of the North are interacting with “the king,” so three different kings are in view here. For those that see “the king” to be Antiochus IV (for example, Goldingay (1989, 305) and Lucas (2002, 257), the interpretation of this verse is obscure; the first “him” is the king of the North and the second the king of the South, which conflicts with the natural understanding of this verse. It would seem that in order to fit the larger assumed picture, the natural exposition of this verse has been bypassed. The subsequent history then matches nothing that is known. Baldwin (1978, 201) says these verses are not history but look forward to how Antiochus IV (or the tyrant, the king) will meet his end. Goldingay (1989, 305) has similar difficulties and along with Lucas sees these verses as most likely describing how Antiochus IV will meet his end. It is no surprise that Lucas (2002, 290) writes, “These verses have been a source of perplexity to commentators down the centuries.” The view taken by Mauro (1944, 52ff) that verses 40–43 are like a parenthesis describing the activities of Caesar Augustus is also hard to support, because the identity of the various kings is unnatural. Cleopatra is king of the South (not queen) and the king of the North is the Roman general Octavian, who became Caesar Augustus; at this time Syria had become a Roman province, and the Seleucid Empire no longer existed. This is inconsistent with all the previous uses of the “king of the North.” In addition, the conflict was really Octavian against Anthony supported by Cleopatra rather than Octavian against Cleopatra supported by Anthony. Historians record this conflict as a civil war between Roman leaders, not Rome versus Egypt. In addition, Herod’s degree of support for Cleopatra is unclear and is motivated by political expediency. After Anthony’s defeat, Rome under Caesar Augustus still allowed Herod the Great to govern Judea. Overall, the big picture of Herod being a king who could do as he pleased as described in Daniel is not supportable. In addition to all this, Mauro’s work was completed before Israel became a nation in 1948, and so his perspective that the period up to AD 70 was the “last stage of the national existence of Daniel’s people” (see Mauro (1944, 57) is clearly incorrect. Although it is possible to critique the other historical references that Mauro makes, it is not really necessary to do so.

In reality the events recorded in Daniel 11:40 backtrack slightly from the immediately preceding history of Antiochus IV to the time of Antiochus III so that the account can trace the entire advance of the Roman Empire into the Eastern Mediterranean. This is done in order that the scope of the history encompasses all events in the known world of the book of Daniel. Remember that the focus of Daniel is a focus on God’s people in Israel and Jerusalem, and this necessitates giving the full perspective of the growth of Roman power in the East. If it is thought strange to backtrack chronologically, then reflect that it is quite common when recounting events in multiple places to first trace events from one perspective and then to trace concurrent events from another perspective. Earlier, from Daniel 11:3–35, the events have been described from a Greek perspective centered on Jerusalem. Now, from Daniel 11:36–45, they are described from a Roman perspective but also centered on Jerusalem. They start from when Roman power began to emerge in the Eastern Mediterranean in conflict with Antiochus III (the region being the known world from Daniel’s point of view), but then extending well beyond the end of the Greek Empire. Verse 40a, then, clearly describes the warfare between Rome, the Ptolemaic kingdom to the South, and the Seleucid kingdom to the North. Daniel 11:18 has already alluded to the war between Rome and Antiochus III, which resulted in victory for Rome and which involved the large Seleucid navy. It is significant that this war between Rome and Antiochus III is the only one in the Eastern Mediterranean that includes large naval forces as well as armies until the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. As a result of this investigation, the historical association of this conflict with Daniel 11:40a is very precise and cannot be mistaken. At this time, the Seleucid kingdom surrendered its navy without a fight, and Rome became master of the Mediterranean Sea, beginning its inexorable advance across Asia Minor and into the domain of Daniel’s known world. This conflict resulted in the end of the Seleucid kingdom in 64 BC with the settlement obtained by Pompey the Great that created the Syrian province of the Roman Empire. Chronologically, the history described backtracks to the first major conflict between Rome and the Seleucid kingdom under Antiochus III in the coastland regions of the Aegean (192–188 BC). In Daniel 11:18 this encounter is described but from the perspective of Antiochus III (the “he” is Antiochus III); but here in Daniel 11:40 the focus is on Rome (the “him” is Rome). As a result of the defeats at the Battle of Thermopylae in 191 BC, at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC, the naval defeats in the Aegean prior to this battle, and other defeats, the king of the North, Antiochus III, was forced to pay an indemnity, leaving Rome master of the Eastern Mediterranean (Bruce 1969). This was the beginning of Rome’s advance into the East. The Ptolemaic Dynasty was founded in 305 BC and lasted until 30 BC when Egypt became a Roman province. During the reign of Ptolemy V (204–181 BC), Antiochus III and Philip V of Macedon made a pact to divide the Ptolemaic possessions overseas. Philip seized several islands and places in Caria and Thrace, while the Battle of Panium (198 BC) definitely transferred

Coele-Syria, including Judea, from the Ptolemies to the Seleucids. After this, Antiochus III made peace and gave his own daughter Cleopatra I to Ptolemy V Epiphanes as wife (193–192 BC). Nevertheless, when war broke out between Antiochus III and Rome, Egypt aligned itself with Rome since Antiochus III was seeking to take over the islands under Ptolemaic jurisdiction. Subsequently, it is found that the Ptolemaic Dynasty was consistently in alliance with Rome and being more and more influenced by Rome. If this verse does indeed describe that the king of the South was on the same side with Rome in engaging in battle with the king of the North, then the remaining issue to resolve is the translation of the first phrase of this verse in our English versions. This is discussed in detail in appendix 6.10. The outcome is that a translation such as “At the time of the end the king of the South will engage together with him in battle” is a perfectly acceptable translation of the Hebrew and is in agreement with the historical interpretation that is being given. So the thought is that the king of the South (Ptolemy V) is on the same side with the king (Rome), and together they are against the king of the North (Antiochus III). This accords with history and is within the meaning of the Hebrew words. Since it is being said that the events described in this verse go back thirty years or so before Antiochus IV, some may question whether this can be validly described as “at the time of the end.” However, biblical prophecy regularly exhibits this characteristic of telescoping the future, so that more distant events merge with the nearer ones so as to become indistinguishable from them. Given that the focus is the Roman Empire as opposed to the Greek one that preceded it and that it is the Roman Empire that is in the “time of the end,” this is not really a problem. Keep in mind that Rome extended many hundreds of years beyond the Grecian ones. Daniel 11:40b NIV: (40b) He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. Discussion: It is clear from all of Daniel that the focus of events centers on Jerusalem and the nation of the Jews. For this reason, the primary domain is the Eastern Mediterranean. The Roman Empire continued to expand until around AD 117 under Trajan. The description of the expansion being like a flood is a good characterization of the Roman advances. The advance of Rome is traced in the following table. Table 4: The eastern advance of the Roman Empire

The description of sweeping through many countries is clearly accurate. Since the advance is from one country to the next adjacent ones, the picture of an unstoppable, advancing flood conveys very well the nature of the expansion. After that time, relatively small gains were made at a much slower rate, and imperial Rome went into a phase of consolidating and exploiting these gains. Daniel 11:41a NIV: (41a) He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Discussion: In 64 BC Pompey marched into Syria and deposed the final Seleucid king, Antiochus XIII Asiaticus (69–64 BC) and made that country a Roman province. In 63 BC he advanced farther south, in order to establish the Roman supremacy in Phoenicia, Coele-Syria, and Palestine. After that he captured Jerusalem. The Jews refused to submit to him and shut the gates of Jerusalem against him, and it was not until after a siege of three months that the city was taken. Pompey entered the sacred Holy of Holies in the temple; this was only the second time that someone had dared to penetrate into this sacred spot. Daniel 11:41b NIV: (41b) Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. Discussion: Whatever interpretation is applied to Daniel 11:36–45, the references to Edom, Moab, and Ammon are challenging to understand. When Rome advanced into Judea, the land previously occupied by these nations had already been overrun by the Nabateans, with the exception of a small region in southern Israel, which became known as Idumea; what was left of Edom. After the Romans put down the Jewish revolt in 66–AD 70, Idumea was totally absorbed into the Roman province of Syria. The NIV translation of the reference to Ammon as the “leaders of Ammon” is a difficult phrase for translators. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament suggests that the more probable reading is the “best of the Ammonites.” The NRSV reads, “the main part of the Ammonites.” Perhaps “most of Ammon” is possible, as in the Living Bible. Another possibility is “what is left of Ammon” as in the Good News Bible or the “best part of Ammon” as in the New living Translation. Since it should be understood that it is the region of these countries that is meant and not the people (see next paragraph) a translation such as the NRSV would be correct. So it is necessary to understand that the references to Edom, Moab, and Ammon are circumscribing the region rather than identifying the people. From history it is known that this region was under the control of the Nabataeans by the time Antiochus IV became ruler and also when the Romans came. A significant feature of this description is to recognize that

Moab and Ammon did not exist as nations anymore in the second century BC, and Edom was compressed into a small region identified as Idumea, so for a writer in the second century BC to refer to these three nations by name when they had long disappeared rather than by a current second century BC name to reflect their Arab occupation would be strange. It is also significant that the writer has listed these three nations together and so defined the region that would be occupied by the single Nabataean nation by the time of the Romans. These factors argue that this text must have been written at an earlier time when the three nations existed in their own right and that prophetically they have defined a region that would be occupied by a single nation when the prophecy was to be fulfilled. The description of the “main part of Ammon” is also significant in that the Nabateans were not in control of what was the northerly domain of Ammon in Daniel’s time; the high probability is that this phrase is therefore quite precise. It is also interesting to note that this understanding fulfils the words of prophecy in Ezekiel 25:1– 11 that both Ammon and Moab will be given “to the people of the East as a possession”; note that the people of the East are unlikely to be the Babylonians, as the Jews were already in exile under the control of Babylon when this word was given. In addition, Ezekiel 25:12–14 accords well with the ultimate destruction of Edom by Israel. The Roman military did not ultimately succeed in its campaigns against the Nabateans in the last century BC; in 62 BC Marcus Aemilius Scaurus accepted a bribe of three hundred talents to relieve a siege on Petra (the Nabataean capital), partly because of the difficult terrain and also because Scaurus had run out of food provisions (See Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews , 14.5.1). The Nabateans subsequently became allies of the Romans, which served to provide a buffer for them against invasion from nations farther to the east. They continued to flourish throughout the first century AD. Their power extended far into Arabia along the Red Sea to Yemen, and Petra remained a cosmopolitan marketplace. Under the Pax Romana (the peace afforded to all nations under Rome) they lost their warlike and nomadic habits, and were a sober, acquisitive, orderly people, wholly intent on trade and agriculture. Rabbel II Soter was the last king of the Nabataeans, ruling from AD 70 until AD 106. After Rabbel II Soter’s death, the Emperor Trajan (AD 98–117) annexed the Nabataean kingdom in AD 106, and it became the Roman province of Arabia. From this description, it is possible to see how the region was indeed delivered from the hands of the Romans. They were never conquered by military power, and indeed Petra was delivered from their hand. They subsequently remained allies of Rome for a significant period of time, and the transfer to Roman rule in AD 106 was through a largely peaceful annexation rather than military conquest. Remarkably, history has shown that at the time when the “beautiful land” was invaded by the Romans, and many countries in the East fell to their military conquest, the Nabataeans were indeed delivered from their hands in 62 BC in the only significant military threat to their sovereignty by either the Seleucids or the Romans! Daniel 11:42 NIV: (42) He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape.

Discussion: Not only did the Romans defeat many countries in battle, they also made these countries into provinces, setting up a provincial government in them and in many cases stationing legions to provide security and protect the territory gained from external invasion by other empires. In pursuit of total control of the empire, Julius Caesar, after conquering Gaul from 58 to 50 BC, entering Rome in 49 BC, and defeating Pompey in the battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC, pursued the fleeing Pompey to Egypt. In Egypt, Pompey was killed, and Julius Caesar participated in the Alexandrian War from 48 to 47 BC. He won this war and put Cleopatra on the throne of Egypt. Eventually he became the Roman Empire’s first dictator in 44 BC. After the assassination of Julius Caesar one month later, the Roman Empire entered a period of civil war between three powerful generals—Anthony, Octavian, and Lepidus. Egypt became a Roman province in 30 BC after Octavian won a major naval victory over Anthony (the battle of Actium in 31 BC) in the civil war between them. This story is covered by Shakespeare and popularized by the movie Anthony and Cleopatra . In 27 BC, Octavian reached a constitutional settlement with the Senate at Rome, which gave him the title “Augustus” and made him the first Roman emperor. This was the beginning of imperial Rome. The peaceful provinces were left in the control of senatorial governors; while in frontier and other provinces where military action might be needed, Augustus chose his own governors. Daniel 11:43 NIV: (43) He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. Discussion: From the time of Augustus, wealthy Egypt provided most of the grain for Rome’s urban population. These countries were rich in natural resources. Nubia is the Ethiopia of today. Daniel 11:44 NIV: (44) But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. Discussion: Here we see prophecy being foreshortened. Rome fought many battles in the east against the Parthian Empire and later the Persian Empire and against the encroaching Germanic peoples such as the Goths, Visigoths, Huns, and others in the north over the next few hundred years. In the final centuries BC, the empire of the Parthians progressively took control of Persia and Mesopotamia in the East. In 53 BC, they inflicted a crushing defeat on the Roman general Crassus at Carrhae, and in 36 BC they caused heavy casualties to Mark Anthony’s retreating army. But by the second century AD, they were no longer the force they had been. Emperor

Trajan successfully invaded Mesopotamia in AD 114 and controlled the whole country for a brief period. Nearly a century later, as a result of the Parthian Wars (195–199 AD), Rome established two new provinces in the eastern portion of Mesopotamia. A subsequent attack in AD 217 by Emperor Caracalla, although it weakened the Parthians, did not result in further territorial gains. The middle of the third century was a period of weakness in the Roman Empire as it was threatened by internal strife and foreign invasions, especially from the Goths in the northeastern provinces. The Goths even managed to mount a combined land and sea offensive in AD 268 and sack Athens. In the 220s, the Persians overcame their Parthian overlords to establish a new empire east of the Euphrates. They staged multiple attacks in the east culminating in a great invasion in AD 253 when Antioch was sacked. The Romans fought back successfully on all fronts, and within a few years the Persians were driven back beyond the Tigris and the Goths beyond the Danube. With the accession of Emperor Diocletian in AD 284, the empire entered into a period of reorganization and recovery. Unwilling to share power like Diocletian, Constantine defeated his rivals, reunified the empire, made Christianity the state religion, and moved the capital to Constantinople in AD 330. Prosperity continued through most of the fourth century. In AD 378 the Romans lost the Battle of Adrianople and subsequently the Western Empire gradually disintegrated with attacks from the Northern Germanic Vandals, Visigoths, and Goths. Finally, the last Western Roman emperor, Romulus, was forced to abdicate in AD 476 as Rome became part of the Ostrogothic kingdom. From this point on, the Eastern Roman Empire became known as the Byzantine Empire, with its capital in Constantinople. Eventually, this empire was destroyed by the Islamic Empire in AD 1453. It is probably worth pointing out that with this verse, Mauro (1944, 61) reverts back to seeing the history as that of Herod the Great. However, the ground used for changing the antecedent for “he” between verses 43 and 44 is absent other than that the history can be made to match. The historical referents are also unconvincing since they seem to be at the detailed level rather than at the big-picture level of national conflict. Daniel 11:45a NIV: (45a) He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him. Discussion:

If the history is traced from Daniel 11:40–45, it is seen that the events are unfolding in chronological order in a similar way to the earlier events during the Greek Empire. To be consistent with this pattern, it would seem that this phrase would have to refer to something late in the history of the Western Roman Empire. The other alternative is that this verse is a summary statement, which is the view that is probably correct. Both views are examined below because they are interesting. The Late Roman History Alternative: Given the breadth, scope, and quality of the description of the Roman Empire so far, it would seem reasonable to expect something about the acceptance of Christianity late in the history of the empire and/or the move of the capital to the East. That is why the following option became a serious consideration. The phrase “pitch his royal tents” in the NIV has been variously translated as “pitch his royal headquarters” (Goldingay 1989, 274), “pitch his palatial tents” (NRSV), and “plant the tents of his palace” (NKJV). All these phrases could imply the placement of the ruling center of the empire to its new location in the East (Constantinople). From the translations and commentaries it would seem that two textual variations are possible for the description of the location: (1) between the Mediterranean Sea and the beautiful holy mountain or (2) between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. It was therefore examined whether the first phrase could be a reference to the move of the Roman capital under Emperor Constantine in AD 330. Constantinople became the capital of the Roman Empire from AD 330 to AD 395 and of the Byzantine (or Eastern Roman) Empire from AD 395 to AD 1453. In this context, the seas would clearly be the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea. However, it is not clear what the beautiful holy mountain would then be, and this location does not recognize that the beautiful holy mountain would almost certainly have to be the temple mount in Jerusalem. In a symbolic sense it could refer to the fact that Constantinople became not only the governing center of the empire but also the religious center starting with the conversion of Constantine to Christianity. A paraphrase of this verse might then be, “Even though the emperor moved his capital from Rome to Constantinople in AD 330 and adopted Christianity as the state religion, yet he still came to his end with no one to help him.” However, from the considerations below the next alternative is much more likely. The Summary Alternative: In this view it is seen that the phrase “He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain” describes the creation of the province of Syria when the empire set its authority over Jerusalem and the temple mount. A paraphrase of this verse might then be, “Even though the emperor created the province of Syria, which lies between the Mediterranean and Dead Seas in AD 6, and set up his authority over the land of Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple mount, and even destroyed the

temple in AD 70, yet the Roman Empire still came to its end with no one to help it.” In this interpretation, all phrases of the verse have an acceptable meaning. It is possible that this verse could be dated from 63 BC when Pompey imposed Roman rule on Judea although it did not become part of the Syrian province until AD 6. The paraphrase might then read: “Even though Pompey imposed Roman rule over Judea, which lies between the Mediterranean and Dead seas, in 63 BC and set up his authority over the land of Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple mount, and even though the Romans devastated Jerusalem and destroyed the temple in AD 70, the Jews survived, but the Roman Empire still came to its end with no one to help it.” In 37 BC, the Roman Senate appointed a Jew, Herod the Great, to be king of Judea. He was unpopular and imposed heavy taxes, some of which were used to build grandiose buildings, especially the rebuilding of the temple. At his death in 4 BC, the kingdom was divided between his three sons, which was an unsatisfactory arrangement from the Roman point of view. That is why this government was superseded in AD 6, when Judea became part of the Roman province of Syria, governed from Caesarea. In AD 26 Pontius Pilate became procurator, effectively the governor in the region, for the next ten years. This reduction of the authority of the Herodian dynasty is a problem for Mauro (1944) in choosing the “king” in Daniel 11:36 to be Herod the Great. Under Roman rule, the treatment of Judean subjects was often callous and brutal. In AD 66 there was a major Jewish uprising, and the Roman legions were needed to retake Jerusalem in AD 70. They utterly destroyed the temple, which meant the daily sacrifice was stopped, and the rebellion was finally crushed in AD 73. This was not the end of Jewish turbulence, but it was a major turning point. Judeans continued to live in their land in significant numbers and were allowed to practice their religion until the second century, when Julius Severus ravaged Judea while putting down the Bar Kokhba revolt in AD 135. At this time 985 villages were destroyed, and the Jews were banished from Jerusalem; the Jewish population then centered on Galilee. The ongoing activities of the Jews are a problem for the interpretation given by Mauro (1944), who sees the national power of the Jews totally broken in AD 70.

Many of the Jews living in Judea were sold into slavery while others became citizens in other parts of the Roman Empire. This is part of the explanation of the Diaspora, or the Jews who were scattered all over the Roman and Persian Empires. However, many of the Jews in the Diaspora were most likely descendants of Jews previously deported from Israel and Judah or who migrated to the cities of the Hellenistic world, especially to Alexandria and Asia Minor. They would have been affected by the Diaspora in a spiritual sense, as the loss and homelessness that became a cornerstone of the Jewish creed was also supplemented by persecutions in various parts of the world. The policy of conversion, which spread the Jewish religion throughout the Hellenistic civilization, seems to have ended with the wars against the Romans and the following reconstruction of Jewish values for the posttemple era. Of critical importance for the reshaping of Jewish tradition from the templebased religion to the traditions of the Diaspora was the development of the interpretations of the Torah found in the Mishnah and Talmud. Jews were widespread throughout the Roman Empire and to a lesser extent in the period of Byzantine rule in the central and eastern Mediterranean. The militant and exclusive Christianity and caesaropapism of the Byzantine Empire did not treat Jews well, and the condition and influence of Diaspora Jews in the empire declined dramatically. Several pogroms were initiated under a variety of emperors, and the treatment of Jews can be generalized as vicious and cruel. As we have already seen, the Western Roman Empire eventually succumbed to the northern invasion in AD 476. The Eastern Roman Empire, later called Byzantium, was eventually destroyed by the Islamic Kingdom in AD 1453. The end of the Roman Empire is an interesting contrast to the attempt to destroy the Jews under Antiochus IV, where it is said in Daniel 11:34 that they will receive “a little help” and in Daniel 12:1 of the help they received from Michael. When the Roman Empire was finally destroyed, there was no one to help; however, the Jews received help and survived and outlasted both the Greeks and the Romans. This is a fact the writer of Daniel wants us to know. This final phrase in Daniel 11:40–45 is the only one that could be applied with some confidence to Antiochus IV. However, it can be applied equally as well to the Roman Empire and fits the overall context far better. As a result of this analysis, it would seem appropriate to paraphrase these verses to reflect the interpretation that has been given, since translations have assumed the eschatology in their translation and imparted a meaning that has been shown to be invalid. We have based this on the NIV, but it could have equally well come from other translations. Note that the parenthesis is mine. Daniel 11:40–45 modified: (40) “At the time of the end the king of the South will a engage in battle together with a him, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many

countries and sweep through them like a flood. (41) He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but (the regions defined by) Edom, Moab and the b main part b of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. (42) He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. (43) He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. (44) But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. (45) He will pitch his royal tents between the seas and the beautiful holy mountain (Caesarea). Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him. Comment: 40a-a: This paraphrase reflects the fact that the Hebrew word translated “with” depicts a close relationship emphasizing companionship, togetherness, and fellowship. It can be understood to be in battle against, as many translations imply, but the idea of fighting on the same side and being in alliance is also possible and reflects accurately the relationship that the Ptolemaic kingdom made with Rome in battle against Antiochus III in the Aegean region and their subsequent cooperative relationship until Egypt became a Roman province. 41b-b: The paraphrase here reflects the meaning of the Hebrew word that contains the idea of “the best of.” However, it needs to be seen that the words are designed to reflect the land region of these three nations in the sixth century, and not the people, so translating as “the leaders of Ammon” as in the NIV is less appropriate. By the time of Antiochus IV, this entire region was occupied by the Arab people known as the Nabateans, with their capital at Petra. Although concise, these six verses give us an accurate overview of the history of the Roman Empire in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The detail level corresponds well with the earlier description of events under the Greek Empire. Keep in mind that under Rome, in a broad general sense, a single kind of rule operated even though the rulers changed; the Roman state in republican and imperial form was substantially similar in character until Constantine and even after that did not change that much. Its focus on military power was still similar. During the Greek Empire, the circumstances changed dramatically with each king, as first the South and then the North dominated the “beautiful land.” Under Rome, in a general sense, similar circumstances prevailed throughout the period so that greater detail of the history under each senate and each emperor is not needed. D3.   The Jews in Great Trouble Daniel 12:1 NIV: (1) “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. Discussion:

At this point, the evidence seems beyond reasonable doubt; Daniel 11:36–45 must be a description of the Roman Empire. There is yet more evidence to come and support this conclusion; however, at this point the conclusion is very compelling. It is not necessary to still consider interpretation of this passage under Antiochus IV. There are still points to consider in relation to the king being the end of the age ruler. The view of Gurney (2006) can no longer be supported as well. Daniel’s phraseology here is very significant. History shows that during the Roman Empire the Jews suffered terribly and were scattered all over the empire but that they were not destroyed. The phrase “at that time” surely refers to the period of time just described. It is very significant that Daniel says their degree of distress will be unequaled “until then” since it ranks the level of distress as the worst up until now, but leaves open the possibility that there may be a time of distress even worse in the future. Daniel 12:2–3 NIV: (2) Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. (3) Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. Discussion: At this point there is a clear pattern providing summary statements associated with the end of the Roman Empire not unlike those at the end of the Greek Empire. Gurney (2006) argues that the repetition of this pattern from that in Daniel 11:33 under Antiochus IV supports this passage referring to the period of Antiochus IV. However, it could also mark the end of the suffering of the Jews under Rome, and the whole context that has been studied from Daniel 11:36 onward would support this conclusion. It is very important to understand that God’s treatment of His people is really special, and even though many of them rejected the Messiah, they are judged according to their faith in what they know. Daniel 12:4 NIV: (4) But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.” Discussion: Most scholars interpret that this scroll is the whole book of Daniel, not just the final vision; however, we leave that question open. Both are possible. Daniel is to close and seal this book, and it will remain that way until “the time of the end,” which is now known to start in the period of the Roman Empire.

The basic meaning of the Hebrew word translated “close up” here is to “hide.” It is not that the book is to be closed so that it cannot be read, rather that its meaning is to be hidden. The idea of “sealing” then implies that the book should not be available to everyone but only to those to whom authority has been given. In this way God is controlling the measure of understanding that is given to us. It should be explained then that this “hiding” and “sealing” does not prevent people from reading the book, but it does imply that its meaning will not be fully understood until God’s appointed time. It may also mean that Daniel has put together this book in such a way that it cannot be fully understood until certain keys have been supplied. It is an encoded prophecy. This may well explain the considerable confusion that still exists in our understanding of this book. Note that it is Daniel that is to do the closing and sealing. The final sentence may relate to this perception. People “will go here and there” to seek understanding, but the statement is rhetorical. Knowledge will increase, but understanding will not be obtained until God’s appointed time. E.   How Long? Daniel 12:5–6 NIV (5) Then I, Daniel, looked, and there before me stood two others, one on this bank of the river and one on the opposite bank. (6) One of them said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, “How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?” Discussion: The Hebrew text for the “how long” question has led to some differences in translation that impact on the understanding of precisely what is being asked. These differences need to be resolved. The interlinear translation in Green (1985) is, “Until when (is) the end of the wonders?” which is translated in the margin as “How long until the end of these wonders?” KJV: “How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?” NKJV: “How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be? NRSV: “How long shall it be until the end of these wonders?” NASB: “How long will it be until the end of these wonders?” JPS: “How long shall it be to the end of the wonders?” Mauro (1944), who examines only the KJV, assumes that the words in italics should not be there and interprets the question to mean, “How long the end of these wonders?” in other words, “How long will it take to complete all the wonders that occur in the time of the end?” However, this view conflicts with the weight of scholarly understanding reflected in all the translations.

Harman (2007, 305) gives a puzzling statement saying, “The question relates to when the astonishing events that have been spoken about will commence.” He does not define what the astonishing events are, and it is therefore strange not to recognize them as beginning in the third year of Cyrus. It is even more strange that on the next page, when considering the answer in verse 7, that the commencement of these events is a period of time and not a point in time. Of interesting and critical importance is to identify what is the beginning and ending of “these astonishing things,” for that will define the period of time to which the “how long” question applies. Notice how these verses parallel the end of the vision in Daniel 8. In Daniel 8:13 a holy one asks a key question, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled?” The question is then further qualified by defining four components of the vision, which are the subject of this “how long” question. In other words, the question only includes the part of the vision concerned with the little horn, which is at the end of the vision. It excludes the earlier part of the vision concerning the ram and the goat. The answer given is very specific. In the interpretation of this vision, the length of time of the answer given is confirmed and then Daniel is told to seal up the vision because it concerns the “distant future.” Baldwin (1978, 207) takes the “astonishing things” as the sufferings and deliverances in Daniel 11:31–12:3 without giving the reason for this limit. Lucas (2002, 296) takes the “astonishing things” to be the events of Daniel 11:29–12:3 since the “word used for ‘awesome events’ is a different form from the same root as the word used for Antiochus’s deeds in Daniel 8:24 and 11:36.” This argument is not strong, especially as it is uncertain that Daniel 8:24 and 11:36 do in fact refer to events associated with Antiochus IV, as has been seen in the discussion of those verses. Goldingay (1989, 309) says the “awesome events” apply only to events that came to a climax in Daniel 11:29ff so does not clearly define what part of the vision is involved. Kevin Conner (2004, 288) interprets Daniel 11:36–12:7 as referring to the end of the age ruler and for reasons to be discussed in volume 2, now replaced by The Thirty-Two Theses , interprets the time, times and half a time as three and one half years. In effect, the components of the “awesome events” are inferred from the answer to the “how long” question. Overall, it is strongly apparent that the identification of the beginning and the ending of the “awesome events” have been inadequately addressed in the literature that has been examined. Given the quality of the Daniel writings and also the force and importance that is given to the answer in Daniel 12:7, it seems unlikely that the author would have left the domain of the “how long” question unclear. If the question “how long will it be before …” was asked, the normal understanding would be that the starting point is the time the question was posed. The natural, logical, and normal understanding of the domain is that the “how long” question refers to the whole vision. There is really no reason to doubt that this is what he intended, for if he meant some subset of the whole vision he would have qualified the question with the intended components just as he did in Daniel 8:13.

From the whole context of this passage then, it would seem difficult to interpret this question as starting from anything other than the third year of Cyrus and ending sometime around the end of the Roman Empire; the end point is more precisely defined in the answer to the question in the next verse. Daniel 12:7 NIV: (7) The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, “It will be for a time, times and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.” Discussion: The whole tenor and context of this passage with the man clothed in linen and the two others and the swearing by Him who lives forever seems to be to establish the authority and the witness behind the statement that the length of the period is a time, times and half a time. A total of four heavenly beings are involved! Baldwin (1978, 208) has difficulty interpreting the phrase “when the power of the holy people has been finally broken” because the assumed historical time period is Antiochus IV, and the end result of the persecution and rebellion then was the success of the Maccabees. The interpretation that the final events of the vision refer to an end of the age ruler runs into the same difficulty, since when Jesus returns God’s people will not have their power shattered, but rather they will be completely victorious! Lucas runs into a similar difficulty, and Goldingay is vague. In the context of the whole vision, it is very difficult to see how this period could be only three and one half years. However, by understanding that Daniel 11:36–12:7 refers to the Roman Empire, the interpretation is compelling, simple, and natural and accords well with known history. The final phrase, “the power of the holy people has been finally broken,” seems to be a very apt description of the end result of the scattering of the Jews all over the known world at this time. Indeed, the Jews were left with no power in Jerusalem by the time the Islamic Kingdom captured Jerusalem in AD 638 and built the Dome of the Rock from AD 687– 691. Additional evidence for this in detail is found in the paper by Abramson and Katz (2004). The following points journal Roman invitations and Jewish attempts to rebuild the temple and have been taken from that paper. 70 CE, The temple is destroyed. 100 CE, Trajan gives Jews permission to rebuild the temple, which, however, they neither could nor would make any use. 118 CE, Hadrian allows the Jews to return to Jerusalem and grants permission for the rebuilding of their holy temple, but soon reneges.

132 CE, Rebel Bar Kochba reinstitutes ritual sacrifice in Jerusalem, with aspirations of rebuilding Jewish temple. 138 CE, Antoninus Pius allows Jews to return to Jerusalem. 332 CE, “Bordeaux Pilgrim” reports that Jews anoint the “lapis perfusus” rock near Hadrian’s statues on Temple Mount. 333 CE, Edict of Milan, the Jews start to build the temple. 362 CE, Julian besieges the Persian city of Ctesiphon. Julian plans to rebuild the temple and even begins construction. 438 CE, Eudokia (wife of Theodosius II) gives the Jews permission to pray on Temple Mount. 443 CE, Eudokia permits temple reconstruction. 512 CE, Jewish Exilarch Mar Zutra II tries to make Jewish State in Persia. 525 CE, Joseph Asher Dhu Nuwas, king of the Jewish Kingdom of Arabia, revolts against Rome with Persian help. 584 CE, Maurice sent Jewish builders from Constantinople to Jerusalem to repair Julian’s structure on Temple Mount. 614 CE, Persian-Jewish alliance conquers Jerusalem, and attempts to construct a temple on the Temple Mount. 638 CE, Judeo-Arab alliance conquers Jerusalem. Jews build wooden temple on the Temple Mount. 691–692 CE, Dome of the Rock is built by ‘Abd al-Malik on (or adjacent to) the site of the Jewish temple. Throughout this period a number of Jewish rebellions occurred, initially promoted from within the land but later financed and encouraged from the Jewish Exilarch. With the advance of Islam, these power bases declined. The many attempts to rebuild the temple all failed, and the daily sacrifice either was never resumed or if it was, only for short periods of time. As can be seen from the journal above, the conquest of Jerusalem in 638 BC by the growing Islamic kingdom, with help from the Jews, is the final show of power by the “holy people” over Jerusalem until the modern era. The discussion given by Goldingay (1989, 181) on the time, times and half-atime in reference to Daniel 7:25 is repeated here because of its importance. He says the Hebrew word translated “time” in the NIV is not simply a substitute for “year” although it could be. He says that the time, times and half-a-time “suggests a time that threatens to extend itself longer: one period, then a double period then a quadruple period … but the anticipated sequence suddenly breaks off, so that the seven periods (in effect an eternity) that were threatened are unexpectedly halved.” Then he goes on to say in relation to the little horn that, “The period he rules is a long one, but is brought to a sudden termination. This way of speaking carries no

implications whatsoever of the chronological length of time that will correspond to these periods.” Similar reasoning can be applied to the time, times and half a time in Daniel 12:7. It seems that the conclusion based on Daniel 12:7 is irrefutable if Daniel 11:36–45 describes the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. The time, times and half-a-time is the period from the beginning of the vision given to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus around 535 BC until its end when the power of the Jews was finally broken. This occurred after the demise of the Western Roman Empire in AD 476 and at least until the capture of Jerusalem by the Muslims in AD 638. This is a total period of time coming close to twelve hundred years! For this reason, it is impossible that the king described in Daniel 11:36–45 can be an end of the age ruler. This conclusion is startling and has a huge impact on the interpretation of the book of Revelation. The time, times and half a time cannot be three and one half years. There can be no doubt that Daniel would have been very curious to know more. The vision that has been revealed to him would be as stunning to him as it is to us. He would have been deeply concerned that his people are left with their power broken and with many more years of desolation to follow. Of course he would want to know what was going to be the end of all this. The viewpoint presented here sees two climaxes rather than one in this final vision and then an undefined period beyond that whose details remain to be revealed in “the time of the end.” The first climax is in the reign of Antiochus IV where persecution of the Jews is severe and their survival under threat. Daniel 11:21–35 focuses on this period. The end of this period is signaled in Daniel 11:33–35 in an interesting segment beginning with “those that are wise” and referring to suffering, refinement, and a little help being received sufficient to enable survival. Daniel 11:32 shows firm resistance to Antiochus IV, implying but not specifically mentioning his final failure. The second climax is described in the verses that follow (Daniel 11:36–12:7) and, as well as describing the nature and history of the Roman Empire, builds to a conclusion where the persecution of the Jews and the threat to their existence is even more severe. The Roman Empire is finally destroyed with no one to help (Daniel 11:45), but the Jews survive with help from Michael; however, the power of the Jews is broken (Daniel 12:7), and from history it is known that they were completely scattered with only a small number remaining in Jerusalem. The end of this period is also signaled in the text with the same phrase as in the first climax; the phrase “those that are wise” together with similar phrases describing their suffering and refinement (12:4 and 12:10), thus revealing a deliberate pattern in the way the whole vision has been put together. F.   Epilogue The vision that begins in Daniel 10 was given to Daniel by a man clothed in linen. These verses contain the final words from this heavenly messenger. The dialogue continues from the previous verse. Daniel 12:8 NIV:

(8) I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, “My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?” Discussion: Daniel, having heard the answer to the “how long” question, has many more questions in his mind. He can see some things that he does not understand. Daniel’s question is—“My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?” It is very likely that he is puzzled because he knows that in the end, the desolation of his people will be concluded and his prayer answered. But the answer to the last question has left his people scattered, defeated, and with no power. This cannot be the final end, so he wants to know more. NKJV: “My lord, what shall be the end of these things?” NRSV: “My lord, what shall be the outcome of these things?” Green: O My lord what the end of these? What will be the future, the last point of these things? He knows His people are not going to end with their power completely broken. He knows there is more to happen. They will be delivered (Daniel 12:1), but it is strange that their power is completely broken. Daniel 12:9 NIV: (9) He replied, “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. Discussion: It can be seen that the closing and sealing is metaphorical. He hears this response and knows that it is not the time for the complete answer to be given. He knows that further revelation is needed, which will only be given at the time of the end. The “Book of Truth” will be opened and unsealed at the time of the end. The full understanding will happen after a later revelation is given, but it is not for him to know. It should be noticed that these words are given by the “man in linen” who is informing Daniel that the words are closed and sealed. It is not Daniel who is to close and seal these words, so this is the closing and sealing of a different resource accessible to the man in linen. The context then demands that this resource be the “Book of Truth” mentioned in Daniel 10:21. The revelation is incomplete, there is yet more to be given, but not until the time of the end. Until then, the additional revelation is to remain hidden and then exposed to those given the authority to reveal God’s plan. Daniel 12:10 NIV: (10) Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand. Discussion:

Then Daniel is given just a few insights into that time. The first of these, given here, is very general and is chiastic with an ABB’A’ pattern. It applies to God’s people the Jews. A. Many will be purified, made spotless and refined,    B. but the wicked will continue to be wicked.    B’. None of the wicked will understand, A’. but those who are wise will understand. As a result of this pattern, the first and last phrases are related, the righteous, those who will be purified, made spotless, and refined, are also the wise who will understand. The two middle phrases are also related; the wicked will not change and none of them will understand. The wicked are blind; they will not understand God’s plan and neither will they see that God is in control. They will not see. This book has shown that in the end the wicked have nothing, and their power on earth is totally destroyed. In this verse there is a clear link with Daniel 11:35; the wise will stumble with the same result. The same three words are used, but their order is different. However, the circumstances do explain that God’s people will be made righteous, and there is a time limit, until “the time of the end.” Here in Daniel 12:10, the same process continues, and the context shows us that it continues right through “the time of the end.” Daniel 11:35 describes a process applicable to the Greek Empire; Daniel 12:10 is the ongoing process from the beginning of the Roman Empire until the end of the age. Daniel 12:11–13 NIV: (11) “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. (12) Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days. (13) “As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.” Discussion: The words to Daniel suggest to him that there is a lot more time to pass before the end; two specific time periods and two events are specified, and then Daniel is told that he will rest until the end of the days. Daniel 12:13 suggests that there is yet a long time to pass before the end of the days, and so the 1290 days and the 1,335 days must be long periods of time and not literal twenty-four-hour days. The vision has started with Daniel positioned at the beginning of the Persian Empire. He has seen in the vision many kings rise and fall. He has seen many kings’ rise and fall within the Greek Empire, which he knows will follow after the Persian one. That will then be followed by another empire in the time of the end during which his people will suffer a time of distress like never before and at the end of which their power will be totally broken. At

that point he is told to seal up the vision and prophecy. He knows that a long period of time; many hundreds of years, must pass before this point is reached. He also knows that there must be a whole lot more, because from the seventy sevens prophecy he knows from Gabriel that God will be victorious in the end so that his prayer for his people will be answered. Therefore, his people cannot finish up with their power totally broken. The two concluding words will ensure him of two things. First, the righteous will receive their reward and receive their inheritance, and God will be just. God’s plan will not fail. Second, and this will be discussed further in the next chapter, it can be seen that Daniel would have inferred that the time, times and half a time in Daniel 12:7 is related to the 1,290 days and the second one in Daniel 7:25 to the 1,335 days. They are divided in the middle by the removal (stopping or ending) of the daily sacrifice and the setting up of the abomination that causes desolation. Notice how the abomination that causes desolation is singular here; only a single event is envisaged. This is the pattern of God’s template for the history of His people given in the seventy sevens prophecy. The final seven in that prophecy describes two periods of three and one half, which are separated by the abolition of the daily sacrifice and the setting up of the abomination that causes desolation. Thus he would know that this abomination that causes desolation is a third one; different from that in Daniel 8:13 and different from that in Daniel 11:31. Daniel is now told to rest until the end of the days. He would see this as being many years in the future. Did Daniel know what these two lengths of time meant? I think so, but it is not possible to prove that this is so. CHAPTER 7 The Conclusion of the Matter It is now possible to consider all the revelations and form a complete picture of the book of Daniel. It is very important to see that final, definite, and unambiguous understanding of this book is only possible once all the revelations have been received. This is how it was for Daniel, and it should not surprise us if this is true for us as well. The book of Daniel is quite unique in the Old Testament. As the revelations unfold, the overall picture becomes more complex, and by the end of the revelations of chapters 7 and 8, Daniel was left deeply troubled. There is no recorded reaction by Daniel at the end of chapter 9; however, the prophecies in chapters 9 and 10 were preceded by intense prayer and fasting by him. So it is necessary to see how the picture unfolded for Daniel because that will help us in understanding what it means. It is like a detective story with each revelation providing additional clues until all is in place, and the problem is finally solved. It is also like a jigsaw puzzle; the picture gradually forms, and if some pieces are in the wrong place, the picture cannot be completed. It is a key to understanding Daniel, that the revelations are Jerusalem centric with scope ranging from Macedonia in the west, encompassing the Eastern Mediterranean, and to the east as far as Persia. A few parts may center on Babylon or Susa. The north to south boundaries seems to

encompass Asia Minor to the north and Ethiopia and Arabia to the south. It is doubtful that the book of Daniel looks outside these boundaries in any significant way; this is the known world for the Jew in Daniel’s time. A.   Putting It All Together A1.   Overview Three major conclusions arise from the exegesis of the final vision in the previous chapter. 1. With the final prophetic vision now continuing the history to at least AD 638, it is no longer possible to hold to the Antiochene view, and second century BC authorship of the book of Daniel is clearly shown to be invalid. 2. With the final prophetic vision now continuing the history to at least AD 638, the preterist and partial preterist views are also no longer viable. The prophecies of Daniel clearly extend well beyond the first century AD. These interpretations of the book of Revelation must also be invalid. 3. With the time, times and half a time coming close to twelve hundred years rather than 3.5 years, the Antichrist view is also incorrect so that the futurist views of the book of Revelation must be invalid as well. Unless the exegesis of the final vision above can be successfully refuted, virtually all existing interpretations of the book of Revelation will need to be rethought. This is a stunning conclusion. It is now apparent that the major flaw in the Antiochene view is that Daniel 11:36–12:13 remained fairly obscure with many parts unresolved and others just possible guesses but nevertheless uncertain. The interpretation of the earlier revelations given to Daniel under this view is defendable although somewhat forced against the most natural meaning of the text. However, there has always existed a risk in this view because of the largely unexplainable Daniel 11:36–12:13; it should have been held with greater caution. Unless the exegesis given in the previous chapter can be refuted, the Antiochene view is untenable. Therefore the book of Daniel must be an amazing work of prophecy with a sixth century BC authorship being essential; Daniel and/or close colleague(s) of his must have been its author(s). No other conclusion seems possible. Given that the author(s) of the content are living in Daniel’s time, then their degree of education and intelligence should not be underestimated; they appear to have had the tremendous privilege of being trained in the very best educational institutions of the Babylonian Empire. It is therefore likely that they were fluent in its major languages and highly knowledgeable in Babylonian science, culture, religion, and history. It is also apparent that they are Jews who had a very thorough understanding of the Law of Moses and Hebrew literature that they think like Jews and are very committed to following the law. They are very devoted, obedient followers of the God of

Israel. They have a very deep love for their people and very strong faith in the promises of God for their people. They are deeply religious men, with a disciplined prayer life and a close relationship with God. In all probability therefore, it is likely that Daniel himself is the major author, perhaps supported by his colleagues. It is now important to work out the full implications of the conclusions arrived at in the final vision on all the earlier revelations given to Daniel. If they do not fit well, then these conclusions will be considered uncertain. However, if they fit well, it will tend to confirm those conclusions. If the whole book of Daniel comes into a new coherent unity and a comprehensive, meaningful, and complete picture, then it will be extremely difficult to refute these conclusions. A2.   The Earlier Visions Revisited A2.1   Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream The discussion in chapter 2 resulted in two possible interpretations of the metal layers in the statue. The first interpretation, which is necessary for those who see the book of Daniel as written in the second century BC terminating when Antiochus IV was persecuting the Jews, is that the gold head is the Babylonian Empire, the silver layer the Median Empire, the bronze layer the Persian Empire, and the iron layer the Grecian Empire. However, from the text of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, it was shown that there was a preference for the silver layer being the Medo-Persian Empire, the bronze layer the Grecian Empire, and the iron layer the Roman Empire, although not conclusively. With the identification of Daniel 11:36–45 being a description of the Roman Empire voiding any possibility of second century BC authorship and clearly extending the time of the end and the perspective of the book of Daniel to Rome, there can no longer be any reasonable doubt that the second interpretation is correct. An unexpected outcome of this solution is that there is now a nice balance between Daniel’s first and last revelations in that they both end up with Rome as the final earthly empire. This also suggests that for the purpose of presenting details of the empires, the Roman Empire is Daniel’s time horizon. A2.2   The Four Beasts and a Little Horn A similar line of reasoning for Daniel’s vision of the four beasts in chapter 7 leads to the definite identification of the lion beast symbolizing the Babylonian Empire, the bear beast the Medo-Persian Empire, the leopard beast the Greek Empire, and the final, terrifying fourth beast the Roman Empire. This conclusion is reassuring because the analysis of this chapter favored this identification, which means the detail of the Hebrew text fully supports the conclusion obtained in the most natural, literal way. Who then is the little horn? Let’s review the characteristics of this little horn. 1. He emerges from the Roman Empire, which had complete governmental control over the nations within a large empire.

He successfully overthrows about one third of this empire. 2. 3. He is human and prideful (he has the eyes of a man and speaks boastfully). 4. He speaks against God. 5. He is very religious because he targets and successfully “wears out” the saints. 6. He introduces his own times. 7. He introduces his own law. 8. He lasts for a time, times and half a time. 9. He is finally overthrown by God. Since the time, times and half a time in Daniel 12:7 is near twelve hundred years long and begins in about 535 BC and continues until the Roman Empire has been in power for a long time, then the Daniel 7:25 time, times and half a time cannot be concurrent since it emerges during the Roman Empire. Therefore, it would seem to continue on from where the previous one ended. This strongly points to Daniel’s prophecies going to the end of the age with this time, times and half a time continuing on from where the previous one finished and still continuing today. It must therefore also exceed twelve hundred years in length as well. Remember that it has also been seen that the prophecies in Daniel are Jerusalem centric. What power has had control of Jerusalem for most of the time since AD 638? This leads to a very clear, definite, and startling conclusion for the identity of this little horn. He must be Muhammad! Muhammad was born in AD 570. He received his first vision in AD 610 and died in AD 632. From AD 610 the Islamic Empire expanded rapidly in what is sometimes referred to as the first Islamic jihad until AD 762. The advances included Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Africa, which were previously part of the Byzantine Empire (there are at least three provinces). In AD 750, the Umayyad caliphate was decisively defeated at the battle of the Zab. The leadership of Islam passed to the Abbasid caliphate, which moved its capital from Damascus to Baghdad in AD 762. This is probably a good marker for the end of the Jihad since Persian rule was more peaceful and less violent than the Arabic. The important thing to note is that about one third of the Byzantine Empire became part of the Islamic Empire, which neatly matches the little horn uprooting three of the ten horns of the Roman Empire.

The literal meaning of what the little horn does to the saints in Daniel 7:25, that is to “wear out” the saints, is important. If the little horn is Muhammad, then this is a good word to describe the effect of the dhimmi , the treatment of non-Muslims as second-class citizens in strict Islamic countries. If they were Jews or Christians, the Islamic Law requires that they convert to Islam, pay a tax, or be killed. The control exerted over the times and the law also described in Daniel 7:25 is a good description of the use of the Islamic calendar, the Islamic rules, and the Shariah Law in Islamic countries. If there is then a question about the longevity of the single individual ruler Muhammad, consider the fundamental creed of Islam, which proclaims that Muhammad is a prophet and that he continues to be worshipped even until today and that any dishonoring of his name is backed up by strong protest. In other words, his authority continues even until today. A2.3   The Ram, Goat, and Little Horn A variety of reasons lead us to the conclusion that the “little horn” in the Daniel 8 vision is the end of the age ruler (sometimes referred to as the Antichrist) that will appear immediately before Jesus’s Second Coming. 1. Let us remember that the beasts in chapter 7 symbolize empires, and the horns are kings, governments, or authorities. So the little horn here will be some form of ruler. 2. In Daniel 8:17 and 19, the interpretation is said to apply to the “time of the end.” In the final vision, “time of the end” was identified to be from the Roman Empire on. In appendix 2, this phrase is also examined in more detail. It occurs six times in the book of Daniel, and the conclusion arrived at is that the phrase applies to events from the emergence of the Roman Empire into the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond. 3. Notice that the “little horn” in chapter 7 is the first ruler in this new regime. The symmetry of the pattern in the structure of the book of Daniel suggests that the “little horn” here must be at the end of this time. 4. It is noticed that there are significant similarities between the descriptions of Antiochus IV in Daniel 11:21–35 and the little horn here. There are also clear differences especially in that the little horn is extremely successful right until the end, when he is destroyed supernaturally; the two therefore cannot be the same. The period of time associated with Antiochus IV in Daniel 11 is about eleven years (175–164 BC); in fact, history tells us that Onias III was murdered in 171 BC, and from the abolition of the daily sacrifice until its restoration was three years and eight days, so the final seven is known to be about seven years, but its exact length is unknown. The period of the little horn in Daniel 8 is twenty-three hundred evenings and mornings; the phrase evenings and mornings is probably used by Daniel to mean a literal twenty-four-hour day rather than days that could be interpreted as years.

In Daniel 8:26, Daniel is told to seal up the vision because it concerns 5. the “distant future.” This phrase only occurs here and implies that both its start and finish is in the distant future in support of the previous points, which suggest this little horn is right at the end of the age. 6. Notice how the length of this event gets a double confirmation in verses 14 and 26. This is the only length of time that has this degree of affirmation. Its exactness is emphasized. 7. The period of time defined (twenty-three hundred evenings and mornings) seems to encompass the period of the little horn’s recognized public history; this means there must be a large time gap between the Greek empires led by the four prominent horns in Daniel 8:8 and this end of time little horn. However, notice that the little horn arises out of one of the four horns (Daniel 8:9); it is necessary to see this little horn as arising out of the regions occupied by these four prominent horns and not from existing Greek empires. This means that the little horn in chapter 8 must appear during the Roman Empire or later. Since the description of the emergence of this little horn, arising from the domain of the Greek Empire and then growing to the south and to the east and to the “beautiful land” does not match any history that can be associated with Rome, it must be later. It is also noted that both little horns are destroyed by supernatural power. The only possible conclusion from all of this is that the little horn in chapter 8 must be an end of the age ruler and cannot be Antiochus IV, contrary to the position held by most scholars. Given that the four regions are predominantly Islamic today, it is most likely that this little horn is also Islamic like the one in chapter 7. This conclusion is beyond reasonable doubt and is very significant when examining the understanding of Jesus and Paul, which is discussed in the next chapter. A3.   The Seventy Sevens Revisited A3.1   What is Now Known It has now been firmly established that the book of Daniel could not have been written in the second century BC and that the reign of Antiochus IV occurred before the time of the end. It has also been confirmed that it must have been written in the sixth century BC and that Daniel was the author, perhaps with some assistance from contemporary persons. This means that the discussion on the seventy sevens prophecy in chapter 5 of this book, which sought to discover what Daniel would have understood as each revelation unfolded, is valid. It also means that the conclusions arrived at in that chapter are strong. A3.2   The Little Horn When Daniel first received the seventy sevens prophecy, the knowledge of events relating to Antiochus IV would have been unknown to him. As a result, he would have associated the events in Daniel 9:26–27 with the earlier vision in Daniel 8 as has been discussed in chapter 5.

It is now clear that the sixth century BC perspective discussed in chapter 5F above is applicable. It is also clear that the final seven must be at the end of the age since the interpretation of the vision in Daniel 8:17 and 19 clearly specifies that the vision refers to the “time of the end,” which is now known to be the Roman Empire or later. It is also clear that the little horn in Daniel 8 cannot be Antiochus IV because he appears before the “time of the end” and also he was not successful right to the end, in contrast to the little horn. The text for Daniel 9:26–27 is now repeated here and additional inferences are made. Daniel 9:26 After sixty-two sevens A. an anointed one will be cut off and will have nothing. B. People of a coming ruler will devastate the city and the sanctuary and its end will be with a flood.       C. Until an end of warfare, desolations are decreed. Daniel 9:27a And he will make a strong covenant with the many for one seven. Daniel 9:27b From the middle of this seven A. sacrifice and offering will be made to cease,    B. and upon a wing desolating abominations,       C. until an end which is decreed will pour out on the desolator. All the events described in these two verses occur within the period of the final seven, whose length in time is undefined; however, the middle of this seven begins twenty-three hundred days (about 6.3 years) before the end. So a period of time between ten and twenty years is likely, given that the “middle” of the seven is not a precise term. The coming ruler will be involved in a treaty with “the many” for this final seven. The “many” will most likely be rulers of nations involved in the treaty or the nations themselves. The anointed one must be against the coming ruler and probably an Israelite as has been suggested in chapter 5. Daniel 8:24 says that the little horn will destroy the holy people. The best conclusion that can be drawn from what is known today is that this anointed one is not an individual, but the remnant of faithful Israel personified who will be severely persecuted by the end of the age coming ruler. It is relevant that the suffering servant in the book of Isaiah, as well as being a clear prophetic picture of Jesus the Messiah, can also be considered the “ideal” Israel personified and as the nation of Israel, which suffers for its own sins. It is outside the scope of this book to pursue

this option closely, but consider, for example, Isaiah 40:1–2: “Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been paid for, that she has received from the LORD’s hand double for all her sins,” and envisage this being fulfilled not just by John the Baptist and Jesus, but by Israel after times of great trouble. Notice also that in Daniel 8:11, it is the “place of his sanctuary” that is cast down, which implies that it is not necessary that the temple be rebuilt prior to the appearance of this end of the age ruler, but only that the location where the temple was built be devastated. Overall, the picture that emerges is that there will be a final period of enormous distress for God’s people; this view is also supported from other Old Testament passages such as Zechariah 13–14, Joel 3, and Ezekiel 38–39. A3.3   The Antiochus IV Abomination that Caused Desolation So how is Daniel going to think when it is revealed that there is a second stopping of the daily sacrifice and a second abomination that causes desolation? As Daniel 11:35 makes clear, this is prior to the time of the end. He will see the similarity between the rulers in Daniel 11:31 and in Daniel 8:9–27, but he will also know that they are not the same for the various reasons given in section A2.3 above. He will know that the period of persecution under Antiochus IV lasts “for days” (see the Hebrew text for Daniel 11:33) and that it is during the reign of a single ruler. Therefore, he knows that it could not last for more than a few years. In fact, history tells us that the abomination that causes desolation lasted for only three years and eight days. He will infer from the vision record in Daniel 11:21-32 that this ruler is eventually defeated and that his people receive help and so survive. He can thus envisage a short period of desolation for his people under a ruler who is finally defeated according to God’s plan. So he will begin to see that the seventy sevens prophecy has a second fulfillment and infer that the seventy sevens prophecy must be a pattern or a template of God’s dealings with His people. He will see that this template can fit more than one event. He will see that the ambiguity in the Hebrew text is deliberate; it is deliberate in order that it can accommodate different scenarios. The text previously determined for Daniel 9:25–27 in chapter 5 is repeated here for convenience. Daniel 9:25 A. And you will know and understand that from the going out of a word    B. to restore and build Jerusalem to an anointed ruler       C. there will be seven sevens

–––––––––––––––––––––––      C’. for sixty-two sevens    B’. it will be restored and rebuilt with square and moat A’. but in a time of distress As previously explained, the word in (A) is the word of the Lord given by Jeremiah starting from 605 BC, which will be fulfilled when an anointed ruler appears who has been identified as Zerubbabel. This is a period of seventy years. Therefore the seven periods of sevens is seven periods each of ten years duration. A period of rebuilding then occurs from Zerubbabel (535 BC) for sixty-two sevens until a strong covenant is made, which marks the beginning of the final seven. The sixty-two sevens contain sevens of unqualified length, so there is an undefined period of time between the events known to Daniel at the beginning and the final seven at the end. In broad terms this is period is described as “a time of distress.” The final seven is now examined. Daniel 9:26 After sixty-two sevens A. an anointed one will be cut off and will have nothing. B. People of a coming ruler will devastate the city and the sanctuary and its end will be with a flood.       C. Until an end of warfare, desolations are decreed. Daniel 9:27a And he will make a strong covenant with the many for one seven. Daniel 9:27b From the middle of this seven A. sacrifice and offering will be made to cease,    B. and upon a wing desolating abominations,       C. until an end which is decreed will pour out on the desolator. Today it is known that Antiochus IV began his reign in 175 BC and that the period of trouble for the Jews began in 171 BC. In this context, the “he” of Daniel 9:27 would refer to the “coming ruler” of the previous verse, who is Antiochus IV. The covenant would be a reference to the covenant made by Antiochus IV with the Hellenizing Jews according to 1 Maccabees 1:11–15. We quote the passage from the Apocrypha. 1 Maccabees 1:1–64 NRSVA

(1) After Alexander son of Philip, the Macedonian, who came from the land of Kittim, had defeated King Darius of the Persians and the Medes, he succeeded him as king. (He had previously become king of Greece.) (2) He fought many battles, conquered strongholds, and put to death the kings of the earth. (3) He advanced to the ends of the earth, and plundered many nations. When the earth became quiet before him, he was exalted, and his heart was lifted up. (4) He gathered a very strong army and ruled over countries, nations, and princes, and they became tributary to him. (5) After this he fell sick and perceived that he was dying. (6) So he summoned his most honored officers, who had been brought up with him from youth, and divided his kingdom among them while he was still alive. (7) And after Alexander had reigned twelve years, he died. (8) Then his officers began to rule, each in his own place. (9) They all put on crowns after his death, and so did their descendants after them for many years; and they caused many evils on the earth. (10) From them came forth a sinful root, Antiochus Epiphanes, son of King Antiochus; he had been a hostage in Rome. He began to reign in the one hundred thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks. Calculations show that 1 Maccabees dates the kingdom of the Greeks from the first year of the Seleucid king Seleucus 1, who began his reign in 312 BC (see chapter 5 C3 and Daniel 11:5) so that 137 years later computes to 175 BC. (11) In those days certain renegades came out from Israel and misled many, saying, “Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles around us, for since we separated from them many disasters have come upon us.” (12) This proposal pleased them, (13) and some of the people eagerly went to the king, who authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. (14) So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, (15) and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil. (16) When Antiochus saw that his kingdom was established, he determined to become king of the land of Egypt, in order that he might reign over both kingdoms. (17) So he invaded Egypt with a strong force, with chariots and elephants and cavalry and with a large fleet. (18) He engaged King Ptolemy of Egypt in battle, and Ptolemy turned and fled before him, and many were wounded and fell. (19) They captured the fortified cities in the land of Egypt, and he plundered the land of Egypt. (20) After subduing Egypt, Antiochus returned in the one hundred forty-third year. He went up against Israel and came to Jerusalem with a strong force. (21) He arrogantly entered the sanctuary and took the golden altar, the lampstand for the light, and all its utensils. (22) He took also the table for the bread of the Presence, the cups for drink offerings, the bowls, the golden censers, the curtain, the crowns, and the gold decoration on the front of the temple; he stripped it all off. (23) He took the silver and the gold, and the costly vessels; he took also the hidden treasures that he found. (24) Taking them all, he went into his own land. He shed much blood, and spoke with great arrogance. So we see that Antiochus IV began to defile the temple 143 years from Seleucus I, which is in 169 BC. In this case we see that the covenant was made by unfaithful Israelites with the Gentiles around Jerusalem some time before 169 BC.

(25) Israel mourned deeply in every community, (26) rulers and elders groaned, young women and young men became faint, the beauty of the women faded. (27) Every bridegroom took up the lament; she who sat in the bridal chamber was mourning. (28) Even the land trembled for its inhabitants, and all the house of Jacob was clothed with shame. (29) Two years later the king sent to the cities of Judah a chief collector of tribute, and he came to Jerusalem with a large force. (30) Deceitfully he spoke peaceable words to them, and they believed him; but he suddenly fell upon the city, dealt it a severe blow, and destroyed many people of Israel. (31) He plundered the city, burned it with fire, and tore down its houses and its surrounding walls. (32) They took captive the women and children, and seized the livestock. (33) Then they fortified the city of David with a great strong wall and strong towers, and it became their citadel. (34) They stationed there a sinful people, men who were renegades. These strengthened their position; (35) they stored up arms and food, and collecting the spoils of Jerusalem they stored them there, and became a great menace, (36) for the citadel became an ambush against the sanctuary, an evil adversary of Israel at all times. (37) On every side of the sanctuary they shed innocent blood; they even defiled the sanctuary. (38) Because of them the residents of Jerusalem fled; she became a dwelling of strangers; she became strange to her offspring, and her children forsook her. (39) Her sanctuary became desolate like a desert; her feasts were turned into mourning, her sabbaths into a reproach, her honor into contempt. (40) Her dishonor now grew as great as her glory; her exaltation was turned into mourning. (41) Then the king wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, (42) and that all should give up their particular customs. (43) All the Gentiles accepted the command of the king. Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the sabbath. (44) And the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the towns of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, (45) to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane sabbaths and festivals, (46) to defile the sanctuary and the priests, (47) to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and other unclean animals, (48) and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane, (49) so that they would forget the law and change all the ordinances. (50) He added, “And whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die.” (51) In such words he wrote to his whole kingdom. He appointed inspectors over all the people and commanded the towns of Judah to offer sacrifice, town by town. (52) Many of the people, everyone who forsook the law, joined them, and they did evil in the land; (53) they drove Israel into hiding in every place of refuge they had. (54) Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred forty-fifth year, they erected a desolating sacrilege on the altar of burnt offering. They also built altars in the surrounding towns of Judah, (55) and offered incense at the doors of the houses and in the streets. So we see that the desolating abomination was set up in the 145th year, which computes to 167 BC in agreement with the dates listed later. (56) The books of the law that they found they tore to pieces and burned with fire. (57) Anyone found possessing the book of the covenant, or anyone

who adhered to the law, was condemned to death by decree of the king. (58) They kept using violence against Israel, against those who were found month after month in the towns. (59) On the twenty-fifth day of the month they offered sacrifice on the altar that was on top of the altar of burnt offering. (60) According to the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised, (61) and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mothers’ necks. (62) But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. (63) They chose to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die. (64) Very great wrath came upon Israel. After these sixty-two sevens, an anointed one is cut off with nothing. Most scholars today see this anointed one as Onias III, since he was a Jew and the high priest who was murdered in 171 BC; however, it is also possible that it is the faithful remnant of Israel personified who were severely persecuted in a similar interpretation to that in the previous section at the end of the age. Antiochus IV was a ruler whose forces certainly devastated the city and the sanctuary in a way that could not be prevented. Following this was a period of warfare, and there was much desolation until the end. This part of the prophecy focuses on what happens physically to the people, the city, and the sanctuary. Antiochus IV is then certainly the one who forced the cessation of the daily sacrifice and defiled the holy place. He did this by offering pigs to Zeus on the altar and through the continuing unholy practices during his occupation of the temple. This accurately pictures the desolating abominations, which continued from 167 to 164 BC when the temple was reconsecrated after three years and eight days, and the Jewish uprising defeated the Seleucid army. In this interpretation, the sixty-two sevens define the period from Zerubbabel through to the appearance of Antiochus IV about 171 BC, with the final period of seven being about seven years, although the exact length is not known. Overall, this interpretation matches well with the vision given to Daniel in Daniel 11:21–35 and the seventy sevens prophecy. All the ambiguities in the Hebrew are removed by this context. Keep in mind that Daniel has no idea about the year when this end is going to occur, and it would not be important to him, but he does know it is during the Greek Empire before “the time of the end.” History suggests a period of time from about 535 BC to 171 BC, a total of 364 years. While not crucial to the argument, it may be significant that this is very close to a period of one year of days, where each day represents one year, and so foreshadows the much greater devastation that will occur in the final seven just before the end of the age after a period of time that is about seven times as long. A3.4   The Final Abomination that Caused Desolation What then will Daniel think of the final abolition of daily sacrifice and the abomination that causes desolation in Daniel 12:11–12? When the man in linen answers the question, “How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?” in Daniel 12:6–7 and the answer

comes, “It will be for a time, times and half a time,” three things are likely to be uppermost in Daniel’s mind. 1. It will be a long time because it will span the period of the Persian, Greek, and the next empire. He will not know the length in years, but he will see many hundreds of years. The actual length would not be important to him. 2. He will see the symbolic meaning of the words “time, times and half a time” as implying a period of three and one half. 3. Because the phrase is rather striking, he will immediately connect this “time, times and half a time” with its one other occurrence in Daniel 7:25. The three and one half here in Daniel 12:7 is a length of time that he knows terminates at the end of the Roman Empire (Daniel will not know its identity). He will also know that the three and one half in Daniel 7:25 starts from a ruler that emerges after the demise of the same Roman Empire in the chapter 7 vision. So he will infer that the two three and one halfs join together to form one continuous period of seven. Remember that Daniel already would have realized that the terrifying fourth beast in Daniel 7:7 is symbolic of the empire after the Grecian one because he would have connected the leopard beast in Daniel 7:6 with the Goat in Daniel 8:5; the latter being interpreted to him as the Grecian Empire. So when the man in linen adds the final revelation of the stopping of the daily sacrifice and the abomination that causes desolation in Daniel 12:11– 12, the context will cause him to make the following additional links. 1. This final abomination. which causes desolation, is in the middle of two long periods of time. It is preceded by 1,290 days and succeeded by 1,335 days. He will see the periods as long because of the implication (in Daniel 12:13) that the use of the word “days” refers to many years and because of previous uses in Daniel 11:20 and 11:33 where periods of days are likely to be years. The other use of “days” in Daniel 10:2 and 3 refers to sevens of days, which is specifically qualified to be twenty-one days in Daniel 10:12 and could not possibly have been years. 2. In the context, this abomination that causes desolation occurs after the demise of the Roman Empire just described, which he knows to be a long time in the future. From our knowledge today this would be after AD 638; but of course Daniel would not know this. 3. Since he has already seen the seventy sevens prophecy function as a pattern, he will immediately link this abomination that causes desolation to the final seven in Daniel 9:27. He will see how that final seven, which is just a period of seven (not seven years) is split into two halves. The first half he knows starts in the third year of Cyrus until the demise of the power of his people and around the end of the Roman Empire. The second half is the period of the little horn in Daniel 7:25! Since he has already recognized that the seventy sevens prophecy is a pattern, a template of God’s dealings with his people, he will be open to

a further pattern being applicable. How will he see this fitting into the seventy sevens vision? 4. Since this final seven begins in the third year of Cyrus, it must follow after the seven sevens in Daniel 9:25. He is then likely to see the pattern of the year of Jubilee in Leviticus 25:8–12, seven Sabbaths of years, which is equivalent to seven times seven years or forty-nine years followed by the year of Jubilee, which is the fiftieth. The year of Jubilee was a year of rest and liberation to celebrate forty-nine years of faithful obedience. However, the seven sevens in Daniel 9:25 is a period of judgment and desolation in exile, so that the one seven that follows is a continuation of judgment and not just a single period but a sevenfold one. It lasts for one period of seven. It is a long period of distress and desolation because of continued disobedience and failure to return to the Lord. It corresponds to the sevenfold punishment that God gave to the Israelites in Leviticus 26:14–45 if they continued to disobey Him. It is not without significance that in Daniel’s prayer in Daniel 9:13, he acknowledges that his people have not changed. Even after seventy years in exile, they have not turned from their sins and sought the favor of the Lord. 5. He already knows that the anointed ruler in Daniel 9:25a must be Zerubbabel, governor of the returned exiles. Daniel will know him to be a descendent of David, and he would also be familiar with the promises made by God to David. So he will see Zerubbabel as continuing that promise of God that is normally referred to as the Davidic Covenant, and which connects back to the earlier covenants given by God to Abraham and Moses. This means that the person who makes the strong covenant in Daniel 9:27 is the anointed ruler in Daniel 9:25a that is Zerubbabel, a startling inference! 6. Because the one seven in Daniel 9:27 joins to the seven sevens in Daniel 25a, then the period of time that begins with the sixty-two sevens must in some way be concurrent with this one seven, and a different way of seeing the seventy sevens prophecy emerges.

As the diagram shows, Daniel 9:25–27 can now be viewed in a different way to reflect this new perspective. With stunning implications, Daniel will see that the one seven must follow after the end of the seven sevens! The third year of Cyrus is when Daniel received this vision and when he would know that the anointed ruler has appeared. The one seven can be seen to be like a

seven times Jubilee period of trial following the seven sevens of exile needed for God to bring in salvation and complete His work. In this case, we read the text of Daniel 7:25–27 as two sequences as follows. The first is Daniel 9:25 A. And you will know and understand that from the going out of a word    B. to restore and build Jerusalem to an anointed ruler       C. there will be seven sevens       C’. for sixty-two sevens    B’. it will be restored and rebuilt with square and moat A’. but in a time of distress Daniel 9:26 After sixty-two sevens A. an anointed one will be cut off and will have nothing. B. People of a coming ruler will devastate the city and the sanctuary and its end will be with a flood.       C. Until an end of warfare, desolations are decreed. Then there is a second parallel sequence. Daniel 9:25a A. And you will know and understand that from the going out of a word    B. to restore and build Jerusalem to an anointed ruler       C. there will be seven sevens Daniel 9:27a And he will make a strong covenant with the many for one seven. Daniel 9:27b From the middle of this seven A. sacrifice and offering will be made to cease,    B. and upon a wing desolating abominations, C. until an end which is decreed will pour out on the desolator.

So Daniel will know that the abomination that causes desolation in Daniel 12:11–12 must be yet another event, a third one, which occurs in the middle of this final seven and which is surrounded on each side by a time, times and half a time. He will know that this third abomination fits into the final seven very differently because the previous two were very short in duration following after the sixty-two sevens, but this one is very long. He will also know that this final seven begins in his “now” and is concurrent with the start of the sixty-two sevens rather than following after it completes. 1. The meaning of the seven sevens is the same as before so that Daniel’s anchor point in the prophecy remains. It is the word of the Lord given by Jeremiah starting from 605 BC until an anointed ruler appears in 535 BC, who is Zerubbabel. This is a period of seventy years. Therefore the seven periods of sevens is seven periods each of ten years duration. 2. A period of rebuilding then occurs from Zerubbabel (535 BC) to an anointed one. From Daniel’s knowledge, the sixty-two sevens contain sevens of unqualified length, so there is an undefined period of time between the appearance of an anointed ruler (Zerubbabel in 535 BC) and the appearance of an anointed one who is cut off after sixty-two sevens. 3. The final seven will start at the same time as the sixty-two sevens. 4. He will recognize the pattern as seven sevens followed by a Jubilee as in Leviticus 25. 5. However, this Jubilee is a sevenfold one, and it is a Jubilee of suffering because his people have continued to disobey the Lord. 6. This time the covenant is different, as it is connected to the reinstatement of a descendent of David as the authority over God’s people, thus confirming God’s covenants made to David, Moses, and Abraham. The “he” in Daniel 9:27 must be Zerubbabel! The “many” are the beneficiaries of this covenant who are God’s people who faithfully follow the requirements of this covenant. 7. After sixty-two sevens, an anointed one appears who is cut off. The people of a ruler appear who devastate the city and the sanctuary. The ruler is the antagonist to the anointed one and is a different person. Devastation is unstoppable, and wars will continue right to the very end. 8. In the middle of this long seven, the daily sacrifice is stopped, and the abomination that causes desolation sets up. This abomination is going to last right through the long period in the second half of the seven. 9. There are parallels between the three events that occur after sixty-two sevens and the three events that occur from the middle of the final seven. In particular, the anointed one being cut off is parallel to the sacrifice and offering being made to cease; the devastation of the city and sanctuary is parallel to the desolating abominations and the parallel consequences until the end.

From Daniel 12, Daniel will know that his people will suffer severe 10. persecution and their power will be totally broken (Daniel 12:7) before this final abomination that causes desolation is set up (Daniel 12:11). This must mean that the sixty-two sevens has completed before the middle of the final seven, and so the anointed one would have been cut off before this middle point. 11. So there are three abominations that cause desolation! Daniel will now understand why the Hebrew word for “abominations” in Daniel 9:27c is plural. Now compare this with the six objectives in verse 24. A. to finish the transgression    B. and to make an end of sins       C. and to make atonement for iniquity       C’. and to bring in everlasting righteousness ––––––––––––––––––––—    B’. and to seal up the vision and prophecy A’. and to anoint the most holy First, it is important to keep in mind the careful distinction that was made between the inauguration and the consummation of the six objectives when discussing Daniel 9:24 in chapter 5B. Second, it could be said that the period of seven sevens as the seventy years of exile inaugurates the finishing of transgressions. Ezekiel 20 clearly describes the idolatry of Israel as rebellion against God leading to the exile. However, Daniel in his prayer clearly recognizes that his people still have not changed; there are yet more dealings by God to bring in the consummation of His plan. This is now considered in relation to our understanding today. Given our knowledge of history today, a close correspondence can be seen between Jesus and the anointed one who is cut off. The subsequent devastation that came to Jerusalem and the temple from the Roman legions in AD 70 is also clear. The daily sacrifice was stopped. Perhaps ten attempts were made to rebuild the temple and restart the daily sacrifice up until AD 638 when the Muslims captured Jerusalem. War and desolation have continued to dog the history of the Jews until the present day. There is a very clear correspondence between Jesus being the anointed one and Him fulfilling the objective of making atonement for iniquity! This occurs after the sixty-two sevens. It is tempting to see whether a chronological prediction of Jesus’s death exists in these numbers, but there is no obvious calculation, and it is not necessary. If Jesus was crucified in AD 30, then the period of time represented by the sixty-two sevens begins in

about 535 BC and ends not later than AD 30, a period of not more than 564 years. A strong candidate for the abomination of desolation is the Dome of the Rock constructed on the Temple Mount from AD 687 to AD 691. In this respect, it is interesting that research suggests that the location of the Dome of the Rock is in the outer regions of Solomon’s Temple, rather neatly satisfying the phrase in Daniel 9:27 that suggests that the abomination of desolation is to be set up on “a wing” or part of the border where Solomon’s Temple was constructed. The six objectives given in Daniel 9:24 are now examined in the light of the seventy sevens prophecy and our knowledge of history. As is seen, an interesting consequence of this approach is that it forces us to see the six objectives being fulfilled in a particular way, because they parallel Daniel 9:25–27, some of which are enlightening. (A) To finish the transgression. There is an element of surprise here as it would seem that the objective of finishing transgression is inaugurated by the exile that prophetically accompanies the period of the seven sevens. If it is considered that the exile is the punishment given to Israel for their rebellion seen in their idolatry, then that punishment was completed and their sin paid for. This inaugurates its purpose, which is initially fulfilled through the exile. (B) To make an end of sins. Not until atonement is made for iniquity is it possible for sins to be sealed up. So this is the period of time that leads up to the death of Jesus. (C) The cutting off of the anointed one is then seen to be the act that makes atonement for iniquity. (C’) This clause specifies the events that will occur over the period of time needed to bring in everlasting righteousness following the atonement being made for iniquity, a period of desolation and warfare. (B’) The prophetic word was given out at the beginning of the prophecy. It will take one seven for that word to be confirmed, and it will need to prevail right until the end, at which time there will no longer be any need for vision and prophecy. (A’) At the end of the seven, the anointing on the most holy will occur, reversing the desolation caused by the abomination and certainly finishing the transgression. The prophetic word was given out at the beginning of the prophecy. It will take one seven for that word to be confirmed, and it will need to prevail right until the end. At the end of the seven, the anointing of the most holy will occur, reversing the desolation caused by the abomination. Overall, the prophetic picture that emerges is quite remarkable and very sobering. God’s people will suffer tremendously for a long time before God’s plan is finally fulfilled.

A4.   The Roman View The view supported by this book has been denoted as the Roman view. This is primarily because the text from Daniel 11:36–12:7, which previously has been obscure to scholars, is now clearly seen to be describing the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. The history of this text starts from about 192 BC when Rome began to appear in the Western regions of Daniel’s known world as a result of conflict with Antiochus III. The history extends to at least 638 BC when the Moslems entered Jerusalem and the power of the Jews was totally broken (Daniel 12:7). It has been shown that the description of the Roman Empire in this period is as accurate as the earlier descriptions of the Greek Empire were. In this view, the history in the book of Daniel is presented in fair detail up to the middle of the Roman Empire, but gradually tapers off in detail the further into the future Daniel looks, with a final burst of detail in the last years just before the end of the age. This view is very different from the other views, and the overall result is dramatic. Under the Antiochene view, Daniel presents history in fair detail up to Antiochus IV and then comes to a fairly abrupt end. Under the preterist view, the prophecies in Daniel terminate in the first century AD. Under the Antichrist view, history is presented up to the Messiah with somewhat less detail about the Roman period and then is silent until the very last seven, or three and a half years of the end of the age. The four metals in Nebuchadnezzar’s image are interpreted to be the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman Empires, but unlike some who hold to the Antichrist view, the toes of iron and clay are seen as part of this Roman Empire. The four beasts are also pictures of these empires, but the little horn in chapter 7 is seen to be Muhammad, and the authority given to him will continue to the end of the age. The little horn in chapter 8, who emerges out of the same geographic region as the Greek Empire, is an end of the age ruler whose persecution of the Jews is of extreme intensity. The seventy sevens prophecy is something altogether different; it is a pattern of God’s dealings with His people incorporating the three main periods of intense suffering of the Jews. At the same time it integrates all of Daniel’s visions into one and reflects the theology that underlies God’s dealings with His people. Whereas chapter 8 focused on the persecution of the Jews at the end of the age, the final vision in chapters 10–12, provides significant detail of the Greek and Roman periods and focuses on the distress of the Jews under these two empires. It is seen that the book of Daniel centers on the history of the Jews but also focuses on five periods of God’s dealings with His people. The distress under the Babylonian Empire is treated as history and is reflected in the stories. The distress is minimal under the Persian Empire and happens to be covered elsewhere in the Bible, and so Daniel does not have a strong focus on this period. The distress under the Greek, Roman, and Final Empire is treated as prophecy and increases in intensity until the consummation of the age.

The view supported in this book is the only one that is able to provide confident meaning to every verse in the book except for the occasional difficulties in the translation of the original texts. Most verses can be reasonably interpreted with minimal guesswork. Another feature is that because it is based largely in past history, it is largely testable. It is now seen that the book of Daniel is about God’s sovereignty and protection, and the suffering of the Jews throughout history to the end of the age, with particular foci on the increasing times of trouble under Antiochus III, Antiochus IV, Rome, and the final empire. It is seen that the time perspective of this view is substantially longer than the Antiochene view. The chapter 9 prophecies explain the underlying theology that has determined God’s plan for the Jews. The seventy sevens prophecy has not only shown that the suffering the Jews will experience encompasses a long time, but it will also integrate the entire book of Daniel into a single picture bringing the different revelations together into a unity. In the next volume, when the book of Revelation is examined, it will be seen how Daniel and Revelation closely integrate to form a complete and coherent picture of God’s dealings with His people (Jews and Christians) from the beginning of the exile in 605 BC right to the end of the age. This being so, it is unlikely that any of the words of the book of Daniel or any aspects of its structure are accidental. The structural unity of the book that will be seen below argues strongly that the complete book of Daniel is in our hands. The fragments of Daniel found in the Qumran caves support the contention that although there are some transcription errors they are not large, so that the text we have today is not very different from the original text. Although a scholarly examination of these points could be done, it is outside the scope of this book to address them here. However, the important conclusion of this is that it is unlikely that Daniel would make errors of calculation, wording, or prediction. The underlying principle of interpretation that has been used is therefore that if something has been written it was deliberate, calculated, and intended; if it is not known how to interpret or apply it, then more understanding is needed rather than concluding that Daniel made an error in what he wrote. As this work has been developed, it has been continually found that many passages previously obscure or controversial have become clear, suggesting that the book has been put together with masterful planning and care and is remarkably precise in what it says. In fact, it would seem that much of the difficulty stems from wrong assumptions and understanding about some of the passages; the book of Daniel was like a giant jigsaw puzzle with some of the pieces in the wrong place, preventing the puzzle from being completed. That is no longer true. It is our prayer that as you read through this book, you will discern the pieces of the puzzle that have been put in the wrong place. Then as you fit the pieces in the right place and see the beauty of the final picture and at the same time discern the urgency of the present and the desperate need of billions of people heading for disaster in these last days, you will gaze in wonder and amazement at the God who has planned it all. A4.1   Flaws in the Antiochene, Antichrist, and Preterist Views

The major flaw in the Antichrist and preterist views is that there has been too much dependence on the KJV and inadequate consideration of the Hebrew text. At times, their exposition makes dogmatic inferences and associations with inadequate foundation. There has also been too much dependence on the precise numerical prediction of the times of events in the first coming of Jesus as a means of validating the literal interpretation given. There has been too much focus on interpreting the numbers literally while overlooking the natural, literal understanding of the text in context. Fundamentally, the hermeneutic at various places is doubtful and not applied with enough care and precision. The major process of scientific research is to propose a hypothesis, derive the expected outcomes from this hypothesis, and then examine the actual outcomes of experiments designed to test the hypothesis. A comparison between the expected and actual outcomes is then used to judge and refine the original hypothesis. The goal is to produce a hypothesis with actual outcomes that precisely match the expected ones. If this is achieved, the hypothesis is seen to be excellent and becomes part of our scientific knowledge. If even one expected outcome is not achieved, the whole hypothesis is thrown into uncertainty. With all of this, it must be added that scientists do not like hypotheses whose expected outcomes are untestable, for these cannot be verified; in these cases, the hypothesis will remain as an interesting idea but will not carry with it much confidence. This is not unlike the process needed in the interpretation of the book of Daniel. Most Christians find Daniel a difficult book to understand because there are so many uncertainties and such a variety of different views. We all desire to know the truth, and the extent to which there is uncertainty is a measure of our lack of understanding of the truth. This is one reason why so many Christians steer clear of the study of the end-times and the books of Daniel and Revelation in particular and why it seems to be relegated to the status of a hobby by some; this is sad. Let us for a moment equate an interpretation of the book of Daniel with a scientific hypothesis and then seek to measure how well the whole book becomes understandable as a result. We now examine the four views in this way. A4.2   The Antiochene View The major problem that is immediately apparent is that the portion of text from Daniel 11:36–12:7 is obscure. It is like a scientific experiment where the actual outcome does not fit with the hypothesis. The natural investigative process would then be to say that there is likely to be something seriously wrong with an interpretation that leaves such an important section of text unexplained. Along with this, there are quite a few interpretations of text where the consequent meaning is not clear and the options are weighed and the best guess that fits the overall interpretation becomes the best supported view. Thus, for example, when the fourth beast is interpreted as the Roman Empire this does not fit with the interpretation that the focus of the book is on Antiochus IV, so the fourth beast has to be the Greek Empire so that the

little horn that emerges from it can be Antiochus IV. As a further outcome it is then necessary for the second beast in chapter 7 to be Media and the third to be Persia, whereas the ram in chapter 8 is a combined Medo-Persian Empire. What is seen is the kind of thing that happens in scientific investigation; if the hypothesis is in error, wrong interpretations propagate as a consistent total view is sought, and we are left with uneasiness about the interpretation while not being able to identify why we feel that way. A4.3   The Antichrist View A major problem that is immediately apparent is that the portion of text from Daniel 11:36–45 cannot be tested because it is relegated to the last three and one half years of history. It is like a scientific experiment where the expected outcome cannot be tested. The natural investigative process would then say that we cannot be sure of the interpretation until that period of time comes. Another problem is that part of the justification for Daniel 11:36–45 being fulfilled in the future is that it has not been found to match any known history in the past. It is the view of this work that this is no longer true since the Roman view provides an excellent match with history for every phrase in these verses. It is strange hermeneutics that the reference to the “king of the north” and the “king of the south” in Daniel 11:40 is not interpreted consistently with the meaning given to them earlier in each of their five previous references. In all those previous cases the “king of the south” is the Ptolemaic king, and the “king of the north” is the Seleucid king. It is strange that in Daniel 11:40 they are not interpreted the same way but allocated to distant kings near the end of the age. Another major problem area is the way numerical predictions are seen to prove the interpretation even when they are based on doubtful assumptions. This will be examined in much more detail later in this chapter. A fourth problem is the way in which literal interpretation is applied to the numbers but not to the context in which the numbers are used. For example, the fourth beast’s ten horns must be interpreted literally as exactly ten, but the fact that the Roman beast has ten horns is ignored because they are assumed to appear at the very end of the age rather than to be present on the beast from the very beginning. Overall, when examined in detail, there are many areas of questionable interpretation such as those itemized above. Not the least of these is the reliance that is often placed on the KJV to ascertain the literal meaning. A classic example of a potential problem here is the translation of the seventy sevens prophecy with the word “Anointed” with a capital “A” on two occasions in Daniel 9:25 and 26. The translators have interpreted the Hebrew word as referring to Jesus; they have assumed the eschatology in their translation when trying to make the meaning clear to us but have then hidden the underlying doubts about the correctness of the translation adopted.

A4.4   The Preterist View The problems with this view are similar to those with the Antichrist view although the interpretation of Daniel 11:36–45 is testable, so that is not one of them. Mauro (1944) sees this passage as referring to Herod the Great and his dynasty and Gurney (2006) sees this passage as the demise of the Greek Empire. Both these interpretations have major flaws in their match with history. Others see this passage as referring to Antiochus IV, which has the same problems as the Antiochene view. A4.5   The Roman View The view expounded in this book does not have any of the problems itemized above as far as is known simply because if it did there would be unwillingness to seriously put forward the view presented. Most gratifying is the completeness, balance, and unity that results; the interpretation does fit all the text with nothing substantial remaining obscure. Rather than appearing to be a book that was put together from stories and writings over many centuries, the book of Daniel emerges as a very carefully designed and unified document that is substantially the same as when it was first compiled in the sixth century BC. It contains a substantial amount of remarkably accurate prophecy that can be tested. The strongly attested text from the Qumran caves, which dates well before the end of the Roman Empire, establishes the authenticity of the text well before some of the prophecies are fulfilled. However, what you have in your hand is an interpretation of Daniel that is new and significantly different from anything previously available. You have been given the basis of that interpretation, and you are able to fully evaluate what has been given alongside the other views in the literature. The groundwork has now been laid. What will emerge in the later parts of this book and especially in the next volume is astounding and very serious. It will challenge our current walk with God and whether we are prepared for the final return of our Lord. Truly, the time is near! A5.   The Unity and Structure of the Book of Daniel The words of the man in linen in Daniel 12:4 suggest that the book of Daniel finally came together as a whole right at the end of Daniel’s life. Until the very last words are given, mystery surrounds its interpretation, and it would seem that only at this point does Daniel have a complete enough picture for there to be closure and unity in its content. There is still some mystery for him, but he is clearly informed that the part that remains (Daniel 12:8–9) is not for him to know. It will be revealed in the time of the end. For now, he is to close and seal up the scroll (Daniel 12:4). Now having put together the full interpretation of its content a remarkable degree of unity and symmetry emerges. This is a cleverly and subtly structured and unified book. It is a book truly worthy of the God of heaven. A5.1.   The Linear Structure

This is the way the vast majority of commentaries structure the book. It is clear and obvious to any reader. I. Historical Focus: Daniel’s preparation (1) Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream (2) The Fiery Furnace (3) Nebuchadnezzar’s Conversion (4) The Fall of Babylon (5) The Lion’s Den (6) II. Prophecy Focus: The Vision of the Four Beasts and a Little Horn (7) The Vision of the Ram, the Goat, and a Little Horn (8) The Seventy Sevens Prophecy (9) The Prophecy of Three Great Kingdoms (10–12) The importance is this. The stories of the first six chapters are history as far as Daniel is concerned—history during the period of the exile. The visions from chapter 7 onward are prophecy; they focus on the future. However, all the prophecies are anchored in Daniel’s time so that the starting point of each is clear and significant. The vision in chapter 7 begins with the first beast being the Babylonian Empire, which was still in place when the vision was received; keep in mind that the date of this vision is shortly after Nebuchadnezzar’s death and just before the Medo-Persian Empire came into being. The vision in chapter 8 is dated at the beginning of the Medo-Persian Empire just after Cyrus the Great had emerged. The seventy sevens prophecy in chapter 9 is dated just after the Babylonian Empire has been destroyed but before the exiled Jews return, and the prophecy begins with the period of exile. The final vision is given just a few years later, probably just before or just after the returned exiles began their rebuilding under Zerubbabel. Daniel was a watchman and witness to the whole period of the exile. It might be argued that Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2 is also prophecy; however, it is quite clear that the initial purpose was not to foretell the future but rather for Nebuchadnezzar to understand that it is God who gives kings power and God who takes that power away and that ultimately God’s kingdom will be supreme. Earthly empires rise and fall under God’s sovereignty, but only His empire prevails to the end and forever. It has been shown that the seventy sevens prophecy in chapter 9 has a scope that enables Daniel to make sense of it and contains the primary theology that underpins God’s plan. It has been shown that like the structure of the

book itself, which anchors the first six chapters in history, the first seven “sevens” of the seventy sevens are past history; the remainder is future prophecy; it has the same symmetry as the book, a shorter period of history followed by a longer period of prophecy. The seven sevens of exile followed by a return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple and city foreshadow the much longer period of seventy sevens that concludes God’s plan and leads ultimately to a complete dealing with sin and the perfection of worship in God’s temple. The seventy sevens prophecy integrates the whole book, connecting all the parts together; and extends over the same time period as the other content in the book. This prophecy also focuses our attention onto what will be the three most critical periods in the history of God’s people—the three occasions where their very existence will be seriously threatened. The first of these, which occurred at the end of the first of the final seven periods (the persecution under Antiochus IV), foreshadows the second critical period right at the end of the age, which will consummate God’s plan. This pattern reflects the same pattern of seven sevens of exile and seventy sevens to consummate God’s plan. The third critical period starts in the middle of the remaining history with a period of suffering that extends to the very end of the age. Thus this prophecy contains a remarkable, elegant, sophisticated, and structured pattern. A5.2.   The Chiasmic Structure There is also a more subtle chiasmic structure to Daniel that helps us to see the whole book in a different light. Daniel focuses on four great empires, the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Greek, and a fourth (that we know today as the Roman) but that was in “the time of the end” as far as Daniel was concerned. There is also a rather faint but real fifth represented by the little horns in chapters 7 and 8 but that is never seen clearly enough by Daniel to be recognized as a beast, although it emerges from the ruins of the previous four. When this book is integrated with volume 2, now replaced by The Thirty-Two Theses , an overall picture will emerge that sees five empires spanning history from the beginning of the Babylonian Empire until the end of the age. Daniel deals with the first three, part of the fourth, and part of the fifth, especially addressing the issue of God’s protection of the Jews. Revelation deals with part of the fourth and the fifth with a major focus on the church and the final empire and includes further aspects related to the Jews. Daniel flows into Revelation. We can graph the subjective level of distress that the Jews have experienced and will further experience against time. This will help us to piece together the structure of the book of Daniel.

Figure 4: The suffering of the Jews Daniel describes five dreams and visions. Let us examine them from a broad perspective. In this view, the book divides into two parts, with section 1 having a Gentile focus and mostly written in Aramaic, while section 2 has a Jewish focus and is written in Hebrew. In section 1 there are two dreams and visions as follows: 1. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2 describes a statue with four parts representing these four kingdoms. During the fourth kingdom God creates a spiritual kingdom that will crush the previous four and last forever. From the perspective of the history of earthly kingdoms this dream therefore extends only to the Roman Empire. 2. Daniel’s vision in chapter 7 pictures these same four kingdoms as beasts. From the fourth beast a little horn emerges later that opposes God and is allowed to effectively persecute the saints until the end of the age when the Son of Man comes and an eternal kingdom, including the saints, is set up. In this case, the history of earthly kingdoms is extended right to the end of the age. The prophetic horizon of the physical empires in Daniel is Roman. However, there is a description of the emergence of an individual (the little horn) during the Roman Empire that extends the vision to the end of the age. In section 2 are three dreams and visions as follows: 1. Daniel’s vision in chapter 8 pictures the second and third empires. From one of the four kingdoms into which the third (the Greek) empire subdivides, a little horn emerges. The time element for the emergence of this little horn is important. It has been shown that this little horn in fact emerges right at the end of the age. Examining the overall structure of Daniel, it is seen that this position enables the symmetry of the chiasmic structure to be preserved. Human history described in this

vision then starts with the Medo Persian Empire and extends to the end of the age, but the focus of the vision is an individual ruler (the little horn) who will emerge from the domain of the four Greek kingdoms near the end of the age and threaten the survival of the Jews. It has been seen that this little horn has features in common with Antiochus IV as described in Daniel 11:21–35, but there are other features that are quite distinct and hard to match with Antiochus IV. 2. Daniel’s vision in chapters 10–12 pictures history from the MedoPersian Empire through the Greek until the demise of the Roman Empire until after the fall of Jerusalem to Islam in AD 638. Its primary focus is on the suffering and preservation of God’s people, especially under the Greek and Roman Empires. 3. Daniel’s vision in Daniel 9:24–27 integrates all the previous four into a comprehensive history spanning from the beginning of the Babylonian Empire to the end of the age. The prophecies in Daniel have three focal points in the Greek, Roman, and the final Empires (see the diagram above); this is significant in the interpretation of the seventy sevens prophecy. Without this vision, the whole of Daniel will appear as a set of independent visions with complementary parts expressed with different degrees of detail. With this vision, they are also linked and integrated together into a unified whole. In the following diagram, the numbers in brackets are the references to the book of Daniel. Prologue: (1) I. Gentile Focus: in Aramaic from 2.4b to 7 A. Four Empires (2)    B. God’s people in affliction by the Babylonian Empire (3)       C. First Babylonian king judged (4)       C’. Last Babylonian king judged (5)    B’. God’s people in affliction by the Persian Empire (6) A’. Four empires and a little horn to the end (7) II. Jewish Focus: in Hebrew from 8 to 12 A. Two empires and a little horn to the end (8)    B. The theological basis of God’s plan (9:1–19)    B’. The pattern of God’s dealings with His people (9:20–27) A’. Three empires (10–12:7) Epilogue: (12:8–13)

Overall picture from beginning to the end A. Affliction (1,290 days)    B. Daily sacrifice abolished    B’. Abomination that causes desolation begins A’. Desolation (1,335 days) In addition to the chiasmic structure, note that sections 1 and 2 are concurrent although section 1 starts earlier in time. Also note that the Gentile history in chapter 7 is considerably more detailed than the one in chapter 2. Similarly, the Jewish history in chapters 10–12 is more detailed than in chapter 8. In addition to this, note how there is a balance between the end of Section 1 Part A and Section II Part A’ (they both extend to the Roman Empire) and between section 1 Part A’ and section 2 Part A (they both extend to the end of the age). Another interesting feature of the structure is that the visions in chapter 8 and chapters 10–12 are closed. In Daniel 8:26 the vision is closed because it concerns the distant future. In Daniel 12:4, Daniel is instructed to “close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end.” The difference in these two verses is significant. The “scroll” is to be closed and sealed. Given the position and time of this command (near the end of Daniel’s final vision) it is recognized that the scroll is the final vision; it is to be closed and sealed because there is no more to be added. This concept of “sealing” suggests that the contents are authenticated and protected and that there is more to be revealed later when the book is reopened. B.   A Comparison of Major Views of the Seventy Sevens Prophecy Many end-time interpretations of Daniel and all published interpretations of the book of Revelation correlate and depend to some extent on the interpretation of Daniel 9:24–27. Based on the analysis in this book, the result of this is either (1) conclusions that are too indefinite, or (2) uncertain conclusions being treated with greater certainty than they should be, or (3) conclusions that are wrong. To put it bluntly, what is being said is that all the end-time views are at least partly wrong because of this. There is a wealth of divergent views interpreting this Bible passage. It is sad to see this enormous, diligent, and sincere effort being invested with the strong love for the word of God and love for the truth motivating these investigations yet yielding such conflicting results. The natural, logical conclusion of this is that the right answer is not known. Appendix 12 on abductive reasoning suggests an approach toward coming to a consensus in the light of all the divergent views. This section examines many of these views and seeks to determine the better interpretations.

The following points are very important when evaluating the variety of interpretations of this passage. 1. Given the difficulties and variations in the translations, responsible interpretation should examine the original text of Hebrew and Greek languages before reaching definite conclusions. It would be unwise to base our understanding on just one translation such as the RSV, ESV, NRSV, NEB, NIV, KJV or NKJV; they are seriously different. 2. From an analysis of the text of Daniel 9:24–27 alone, it is not possible to determine which of the possible translations are correct because of the inherent ambiguities. Unless there is a way of resolving these ambiguities, no interpreter can be certain of the conclusions. The main impact of all the variations is on the time element to use in interpreting Daniel and Revelation. If the time element is wrong, then our understanding will be seriously impaired. B1.   The Traditional View Many scholars hold to the view that the “sevens” in the prophecy are “sevens of years.” The effect of this view is that the seventy sevens is understood to represent a total of 490 years made up of three components (1) seven sevens for a total of forty-nine years, followed by (2) sixty-two sevens totaling 434 years, which is then followed by (3) a final seven of seven years. Three primary arguments are put forward to support this interpretation. They are: 1. The context of this prophecy in Daniel 9:1–3 is that Daniel, in the first year of Darius the Mede (538 BC), is motivated to pray when he recognized that the seventy years of desolation of Jerusalem prophesied by Jeremiah have nearly ended. Thus, the period of the prophecy, seventy times seven appears to be literally seven times longer. 2. By analogy with the “seven Sabbaths of years” in Leviticus 25:8 combined with the sevenfold punishment in Leviticus 26:18, 21, 24, and 28, seventy times seven years for a total of 490 years would seem to reflect the ongoing suffering of the exile multiplied seven times because the people had still not repented of their sin. 3. As a result of interpreting the prophecy as applying to a specific number of years, then the application of the resultant numeric calculation to predict the date or year of the first coming of the Messiah would seem to validate the interpretation. These numbers have been applied and interpreted in an enormous number of different ways. The subdivisions below try to capture the major groupings of those that interpret the prophecy this way. B1.1   Critical

Under this view are grouped most scholars who believe that the book of Daniel was written by an anonymous author (or authors) about 164 BC. These usually see the seventy sevens prophecy as being quasi prophecy with a focus on Antiochus IV, the Seleucid ruler who was persecuting the Jews at that time. The book of Daniel is then seen to be focused on providing encouragement to the Jews who were living through a time of difficulty. Under this interpretation, the anointed one who is cut off is frequently seen to be Onias III, who was murdered in about 171 BC. Simple calculations then show that with the prophecy being given in 538 BC and sixty-two sevens of years equaling 434 years, the year of fulfillment is 104 BC, which is nearly seventy years too late. In general, these scholars tend to see that the book of Daniel is inaccurate about the chronology, so that precise prediction was never the goal of what was written. Most scholars with this view accept that the punctuation in Daniel 9:25, which separates the seven sevens from the sixty-two sevens, is valid. As a result, the word about restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem is seen to have been given between 605 BC and 586 BC inclusive. Of interest is the fact that 605 BC-434 BC (the sixty-two sevens in years)=171 BC, the year when Onias III was murdered, but it is hard to interpret the seven sevens and the sixtytwo sevens as starting at the same time and being fulfilled concurrently. One of the major problems of this approach is the lack of boundaries on what can be written. Incorporating an apocalyptical style and the concept of “quasi prophecy” opens the door for a huge range of things to be written in the book of Daniel and still be within the range of possibility. This also leads to the meaning of the book as being so broad and general that apart from a few principles, the book becomes of very little practical value for us today. It also conflicts with the way Jesus, Paul, and John interpreted Daniel. An important variant of this view is held by a few who believe Daniel was written in the sixth century BC and is prophecy but who also say that the seventy sevens terminate with Antiochus IV. B1.2   Messianic The remaining applications of the traditional view are all “messianic” in that they focus on the year and date predictions of the first coming of Jesus. Almost without exception they utilize the KJV and so ignore the punctuation in the Masoretic Text for Daniel 9:25, so that the seven sevens and the sixtytwo sevens are unbroken. This means that there are sixty-nine sevens (483 years) from a commandment (the KJV translation of the Hebrew word “dābār” in Daniel 9:25a which is usually translated “word”) to rebuild and restore Jerusalem to the anointed one. As a result, the anointed ruler in Daniel 9:25a and the anointed one in Daniel 9:26a who is cut off after sixtytwo sevens is interpreted to be one and the same Messiah. These interpretations can be generally grouped into three categories with many minor variations. B1.2.1.   Seventy Sevens, 490 Years to the End

In this interpretation, the beginning of the seventy sevens is with the “commandment” given by Cyrus, which is taken to occur in 457 BC, see for example Conner (1981, 2004) or Eberle and Trench (2006, 99). In their second edition, published in 2009, Eberle and Trench modify their statement about the commandment without comment; retaining the same year, 457 BC, they now say it was issued by Artaxerxes as written in Ezra 7:12–26. The problem with this decree serving the purpose declared in Daniel 7:25 is that it is focused on providing for proper worship in the temple in Jerusalem and not about rebuilding Jerusalem. Alternatively, based on Ezra 6:14, a “single” decree is defined to be a process that begins with Cyrus, which is affirmed by Darius, and which is finally completed by Artaxerxes in 457 BC (see the Internet articles by Bob Pickle). With this choice of starting year, the terminus of the sixty-nine sevens falls on AD 26 or 27 about when Jesus was baptized and began His ministry. Since Jesus’s public ministry is calculated to have lasted about three and a half years, His death in about AD 30 is matched to the anointed one being cut off in Daniel 9:26a and to result in the stopping of the daily sacrifice in the middle of the final seven. The abomination that causes desolation is then the continuation of the daily sacrifice after Jesus’s death, since following the death of Jesus no further sacrifice for sin is needed. The people of the coming ruler who devastate the city and the sanctuary would be a reference to the Romans, who sacked Jerusalem in AD 70. The person who makes the covenant is Jesus, and it takes seven years for this covenant to be installed. The final seven years are continuous with the previous 483 years and terminate with Stephen, who was martyred about three and a half years after the crucifixion. This marks the end of the seven years of God’s favor on the Jews. All scholars who see the seventy sevens prophecy as being fulfilled within the first century AD fall into this category. Many of these also see the book of Revelation being largely fulfilled within this time period, so this group includes those that hold to a “preterist” or “partial preterist” view of the book of Revelation. The significant thing for us to note is that it depends critically on being able to interpret the seventy sevens prophecy as being completed in the first century AD. These interpret the first sixty-nine sevens in a similar way to the categories described below but differ in the interpretation of the final seven. B1.2.2.   Sixty-Nine Sevens, a Gap, and Then the Final Seven Years In this interpretation, the beginning of the seventy sevens is with the “commandment” given by Artaxerxes in the twentieth year of his reign in 444 BC or 445 BC (see Nehemiah 1–2). The anointed one who is cut off refers to the death of Jesus, which occurs after the sixty-nine sevens (see Daniel 9:26a). The only way in which the mathematics will work out is then if a 360-day “prophetic” year is assumed so that the 483 years in the sixtynine sevens becomes about 474 solar years; in this way the terminus of the sixty-nine sevens will occur in AD 32 or 33, the latter being a possible year for the death of Jesus. This is then followed by the people of the coming ruler devastating the city and the temple (Daniel 9:26b), which is interpreted to be the sack of Jerusalem perpetrated by the Roman legions under Titus in AD 70. At this point, it is then understood that God suspends His dealing with the Jews until the final seven. There is a large gap in time

(of the order of two thousand years), which is the church age before the seventieth seven, which is right at the end of the age. This computes to be around AD 2040. This final seven-year period is referred to as the Great Tribulation. It begins with a (now future) coming world ruler making a treaty with the many (usually taken to be Israel). He will promise peace and security and is seen to emerge from a revived Roman Empire. Halfway through this final seven, the coming world ruler will break his covenant, turn against Israel, and force them to cease temple worship in a rebuilt temple and cause astounding suffering and persecution. These scholars interpret Revelation 4– 19 as events within that final seven-year period. This view of Revelation is one form of the “futurist” view, since most of the book of Revelation is fulfilled in the future. Many in this view are “pretribulation, premillennialists”; that is, they hold to the view that Jesus will come and rapture the church from the world prior to that final seven years of the Great Tribulation. They also believe in a literal one thousand year millennial reign of Jesus after He returns as described in Revelation 20, with the final judgment occurring at the end of these one thousand years. B1.2.3.   69.5 Sevens, a Gap, and Then the Final 3.5 Years The interpretation in this category is the same as for the first one, except that the final three and a half years is not continuous with the previous sixtynine-and-a-half sevens but occurs only after a long gap and is thus completed at the end of the age around AD 2037. In this category the covenant is made by Jesus and lasts to the end of the age. In this category, the first half of the final seven completes when Jesus is crucified and encompasses the period of Jesus’s three-and-one-half-year ministry on earth. There is then a large gap covering the church age followed by the Great Tribulation, which lasts for three and a half years. Revelation 11–19 then covers events in this final three and a half years, which is then followed by the millennial reign as described in Revelation 20. In this category, most scholars tend to believe that the rapture and Jesus’s Second Coming are close together as part of a single event. This category is also seen as futurist, with the primary difference being that the Great Tribulation lasts only three and a half years, and the church goes through it. B2.   The Chronographic View Holding this view are those scholars who have examined the huge variety of interpretations that attempt to use the seventy sevens prophecy for a precise prediction of the first coming of Jesus and who have concluded that this is not valid or not its purpose. Instead they see the prophecy as setting out a chronographic scheme that lays out the content of God’s dealings with His people but not in a precise chronology. That is, the sevens are not exact, literal years but symbolically constructed to represent the elapsed periods of time marked off by specific events. The abomination that causes desolation is then usually inferred to be the one in Daniel 11:31 (Antiochus IV) and the one in Daniel 8:9–14, which is usually seen to be Antiochus IV as well. This leads to interpretations of Revelation that are less specific so that much of Revelation can only be understood in general terms.

Those that are amillennialists and others tend to interpret this prophecy figuratively and do not try to find literal time predictions in this prophecy. These are unable to give confident interpretation of much of Revelation (and Daniel too) and also tend to be more conservative in their exegesis and/or tend to provide more spiritualized interpretations of end-time events. B3.   The Chronology of Jesus Extensive research has been done by many scholars in the attempt to arrive at the precise dates and years of the birth of Jesus, His ministry, His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and His death and resurrection. This research seems to lead to only two remaining possibilities, of which one is much more likely than the other. The main arguments are outlined here. Tradition holds that the Last Supper took place on the night of the Passover, which is defined as occurring at sunset of the 14th Nisan (Leviticus 23:5). There are two possible ways in which the Passion Week events can be calculated. The first option is that the Passover was celebrated on Thursday evening (that is, that 14 Nisan began at sunset on Thursday). Jesus was arrested later in that evening and was tried and convicted early on Friday morning. He would have been crucified at about 9:00 a.m. and died at about 3:00 p.m., and his body would then have been taken down from the cross before the start of the Sabbath at 6:00 p.m., 15 Nisan. He would then have been raised early on the morning of 16 Nisan (a Sunday). There are two problems with this option: (1) In Matthew 12:40 it is strongly suggested that Jesus would be dead specifically for three days and three nights, and (2) John 19:31 suggests that Jesus died on the day of the preparation and the following day was a special Sabbath (the first day of the feast of unleavened bread), which would agree with Leviticus 23:1–7. This suggests that the following second option is more likely. In this option, the Passover is celebrated on the Wednesday evening (that is, that 14 Nisan began at sunset on Wednesday) so that it was Thursday afternoon when he died. 15 Nisan was then the first day of unleavened bread (a special Sabbath and a Friday) which was then followed by the regular Sabbath on 16 Nisan so that Jesus was raised on the Sunday morning, 17 Nisan. Prior to AD 500, the calendar was changed yearly. Therefore, it is not possible to state on which day of the week the 14 Nisan occurred for any year before AD 500 without historical documents that attest to a particular day of the week or without mathematical and astronomical calculations that can compute the new moon and thus identify 1 Nisan within a day or two. In Luke 3:23, it is stated that Jesus was about thirty years old when he started his public ministry. Since Jesus’s birth was somewhere in the range 4–6 BC based on the fact that it must have occurred within two years of the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC, then this points to the beginning of His public ministry being sometime around AD 26 to 27. Another fact to be considered is Luke’s statement that John the Baptist’s ministry began in the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius (Luke 3:1–2). Tiberius’s sole reign began on Augustus’s death on August 19, AD 14. If this was the start of his reign, which is referred to in Luke, then John’s appearance would be in AD 29 by official Roman reckoning (counting AD 14

as an accession year and AD 15 as the first full year). This is in conflict with the earlier date of AD 26–27 calculated above and encourages the year of crucifixion to be dated as AD 33. If this view is correct, then Jesus’s age when he started his public ministry would have to be thirty-three or thirtyfour years, which strongly tests the “about thirty years” in Luke 3:23. However, proponents of the crucifixion year being AD 30 point out that Tiberius was already coregent emperor several years before the death of Augustus, making it possible that the beginning of his reign would be counted from AD 11 or 12, which would put the beginning of John’s ministry in about AD 26. This is more consistent with the “thirty years old” statement in Luke 3:23. Another important piece of information attested to in the Gospels is that both John the Baptist’s and Jesus’s ministry occurred under the administration of Pontius Pilate. Extrabiblical sources confirm that Pontius Pilate held his position from AD 26 to AD 36. Luke 3:1–3 clearly states that John the Baptist began his ministry when Pontius Pilate was governor, so AD 26 is the earliest year that is possible for Jesus to begin His public ministry. The result of the calculations shown in the table below reveals that the only years on which the 14 Nisan can fall on the appropriate days are AD 30 or AD 33 if option 1 is followed, but only AD 30 if option 2 is correct. Different scholars have defended both these dates, but option 2 seems more likely, as it is consistent with all the relevant scriptures. The following tabulates the possible dates for the crucifixion. All dates are displayed using the Julian calendar. Note that the estimates for 1 Nisan could be later, but not earlier, as then they would be too close to the new moon. The output in this table was obtained from three independent sources, all with a large measure of agreement (Ahmed, 2001), Walker (Internet) and Jones (2004, 273) Table 5: Possible dates for the crucifixion • Jones (2004, 273) computed the new moon to occur at 7:38 p.m. (Julian day number 1732096, which is Wednesday 22 March, AD 30 Julian). This would not be more than three hours different from those shown in the table, which is in Universal Time. ** Keep in mind that the local time in Jerusalem is about two hours ahead of UT and that the new moon will only become visible some fifteen to twentyfive hours after the time given for the new moon. This is why 1 Nisan is sometimes one day and sometimes two days after the new moon. 1 Nisan would have started at 6:00 p.m. on the given Julian date. Bearing this in mind, AD 30 seems the much more likely year of the crucifixion, with AD 33 also being possible but only for the option where Jesus celebrated the Passover on the Thursday night. B4.   The Coming Prince In this section, an evaluation is made of Sir Robert Anderson’s classic book, whose tenth edition was published in 1916. This work has been the

foundation of many modern end-time views that see the seventy sevens prophecy as predicting the dates of Jesus’s first coming. It seems that many writers today accept these findings largely without question, in spite of the fact that this work is now nearly one hundred years old. When this book is read, there is no doubt that it is an excellent work of scholarship based on all that was known at the time it was written. The care, detail, and thoroughness of the work presented are to be greatly commended. B4.1   The Basis of the Calculations The discussion and calculations in Anderson’s book rely on: 1. The KJV and RV translations of the Bible. At no point does Anderson examine the Hebrew text that underlies all our English versions of Daniel 9:24–27. As has been seen, the result of this is to seriously question whether the seventy sevens, seven sevens, sixty-two sevens, and the final one are sevens of years. This means that there are serious doubts that this prophecy has 490 years duration. A second result of examining the Hebrew text is the significant probability that the Masoretic Text punctuation in Daniel 9:25 is valid. There are also serious doubts that the anointed person in Daniel 9:26a is meant to be Jesus and whether he is the same person as the anointed ruler in Daniel 9:25a. It is also probable that the command in Daniel 9:25a is actually a prophetic word and does not have to come from a king. There are also other ambiguities in the passage that need to be resolved for a confident meaning to be ascertained. All in all, the translation of the Bible that Anderson has used is seriously misleading in this passage, and he has not recognized this. 2. The “three hundred and sixty day” prophetic year. In our day a much greater understanding of the calendars used in Daniel’s time is available. Anderson’s assertion that calendars in use in Babylonia were based on twelve months of thirty days (see page 68) is now known to be incorrect. In fact, by 539 BC all nations in Daniel’s known world had adopted a variety of calendar systems to accommodate a year of approximately 365 days duration. His “proof” that 360 days was indeed the correct length of a year to use in Daniel’s book is based partly on there being 25,202 days between the beginning of desolations for Jerusalem, which is chosen to be the investment of Jerusalem (see Ezekiel 24:1–2) and Haggai 2:19 where the Lord says, “From this day on I will bless you.” This also occurred at a precisely defined date (Haggai 2:10) and seventy “three hundred and sixty day” years amounts to 25,200 days. His choice of start and end days for this period of time is somewhat arbitrary and is in error by two days and therefore the possibility of coincidence cannot be ruled out. His other basis of “proof” is the use of 1,260 days in the book of Revelation being equivalent to three and a half years of 360 days. This interpretation is based on doubtful exegesis and will be discussed later and in volume 2, now replaced by The Thirty-Two Theses .

That a command given by Artaxerxes for the restoration and rebuilding 3. of Jerusalem was issued on Friday, March 14, 445 BC (Julian), which is Saturday, March 9, 445 BC (Gregorian) and that this is the starting point for the prophecy. As has already been discussed, Daniel’s word specifies that Jerusalem will be rebuilt with “square and moat,” which means a full rebuilding. As the book of Nehemiah clearly tells us, Artaxerxes’s release to allow Nehemiah to supervise the rebuilding of the walls and gates was a specific project with a clearly defined time limit (see Nehemiah 2:1–9). It was not a command or decree he issued but permission given in response to Nehemiah’s request. It was neither the beginning of the rebuilding of Jerusalem (which would have commenced when the exiles returned as has already been discussed and would have included the rebuilding of the temple as part of the overall task), nor was it a complete rebuilding of the city. Daniel 9:25 also says that the restoration and rebuilding was to take sixty-two sevens to complete, not the limited time that was given to Nehemiah. For these reasons, it is historically and exegetically unsound to use this as the starting point for the prophecy. 4. That the precise date of Jesus’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19:28–44) was on Sunday, April 6, AD 32 (Julian), which is Sunday April 4, AD 32 (Gregorian) and that this date marks the precise end of the sixty-nine sevens of Daniel 9:25. Note that this calculation makes 14 Nisan Thursday, April 10, which is different from the table in section B3, and will be discussed later. Note that a number of possible events in Jesus’s life could have been used to mark the end of this period, and this particular date has been chosen because it is a possible date and exactly fits the desired prediction. So as part of this process, the precise calculation of the coming of Jesus has involved adjusting the start and end points in order to fit the supposed outcome. It is assumed that the seventy sevens prophecy is about predicting the coming of Jesus. The process therefore is about finding those starting and end points that match the assumed outcome. In other words, the outcome is not prophecy at all. B4.2   Anderson’s Calculation Anderson adopted the Messianic position that after sixty-nine sevens of years (483 years), Jesus would be crucified. Based on Genesis 7:11, 24; 8:3– 4, Revelation 12:6, 13–14, and 13:4–7, he inferred the concept of a “prophetic” year of 360 days rather than the solar year or the 365.25 days per year used in the Julian calendar in Roman times. Applying this to Daniel 9:25, he computed that 483 years x 360 days = 173,880 days. This is equivalent to about 476.4 solar years. His famous calculation is: Start of prophecy:   Nisan 1 in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes was Friday, March 14, 445 BC (Julian). End of prophecy:   Nisan 10, when Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey, which was calculated to be Sunday, April 6, AD 32 (Julian).

The intervening period is then 476 years plus the twenty-four days from 14 March to 6 April. From its publication, this famous calculation has been accepted by many scholars up until today and is the foundation of many end-time views. B4.3   Faith Versus Sight Anderson page xliv, in his preface to the fifth edition, clearly states that he is relying on the exact prediction (accurate to the day) of the coming of the Messiah as “proof” of the correctness of Daniel’s prophecy. On page xlvii he plainly states that the matter of this proof is fully dealt with and every objection answered. “Suffice it to repeat that in presence of the facts and figures thus detailed no mere negation of belief is possible.” There is, however, a major problem with the process and that is the reliance of belief on precise numerical calculations. If but one error should be discovered, belief then becomes invalid. The calculation is therefore a very dangerous practice, and the process of using such calculations as a foundation to our faith is flawed. Our faith should not rely on the precise calculations of a single human individual that leads to belief in the mind based on “sight” rather than belief in the heart based on faith. In fact, Anderson’s calculations as described in the previous section have been shown to be based on doubtful hermeneutics and exegesis and on a questionable methodology tied to the 360-day prophetic year, which is most likely invalid. The consequences of this are serious indeed. Tim Lahaye in his book on Revelation (1975, 92) when discussing the seventy sevens prophecy of Daniel writes, “Sir Robert Anderson’s masterful book, The Coming Prince , shows that Christ’s coming into Jerusalem the Sunday before His crucifixion occurred in exactly the right year. To my knowledge, his book has never been refuted.” His whole interpretation of the book of Revelation used to depend on Anderson’s calculations! As a result, the interpretation that Revelation 4–19 is about the last seven years before Jesus’s return is based on a highly doubtful foundation and certainly should no longer be taught dogmatically. Anderson’s book is seriously refutable. In fact, rather than being a proof of our Christian faith it becomes a stumbling block to our knowledge of the truth. It is therefore somewhat gratifying to note that in a recent publication, LaHaye and Hindson (2006, 249) have recognized the errors in Anderson’s calculations and have reverted to being satisfied with predictions accurate to one year. However, they still retain the 360-day prophetic year and the start of the prophecy with the decree of Artaxerxes, now changed to 444 BC so that the crucifixion occurs in AD 33, which has been shown in B3 above to be a slightly possible date, but that AD 30 is much more likely. As the following discussion will reveal, this position is seriously refutable and is likely to be generally recognized as unsustainable in the near future. B5.   Corrections to Anderson’s Calculations In recent years, a number of chronologists have found errors in Anderson’s calculations. This means that our worst fears have been realized. More to

the point is that it is now impossible that precise calculation can establish the day which is being sought for. B5.1   Anderson’s Errors Anderson’s most substantial error was that since he was using a Julian calendar, he should not have removed the leap years that end in “00” and are not divisible by 400 as he did, because this is a Gregorian calendar rule. Thus the number of leap years is 119 (the extra 3 days are for 100 BC, 200 BC, and 300 BC) and should be added, making a total of 119 days, not 116 days; the length of the period of time is therefore 173,883 days. This one error totally invalidates his attempt to show that the elapsed period is exactly 483 “prophetic” years. Fundamentally, he has mixed the rules from two different calendars. In addition, Sunday, 6 April, AD 32 is 6 Nisan, not 10 Nisan, and so the days are wrong. Jones (2004, 226) confirms this error. However, it seems Pickle (Internet) may be wrong in saying that the start date cannot be Friday, 14 March, 445 BC, since the new moon occurs on 13 March at about 8:15 (UT) so that the evening of 14 March is possible and the software by Walker and MoonCalc 6.0 software does compute 1 Nisan as a possible Hebrew date for this Julian date. The calculations shown in the table in section B3 show that it is not possible for Jesus to have been crucified in AD 32, since the date in this year is a Sunday or perhaps a Monday. B5.2   Hoehner’s Amendments To deal with the problems in Anderson’s calculations, Hoehner (1978) made some changes to them as follows 1. The twentieth year of Artraxerxes should be 444 BC, not 445 BC. 2. The start date is 1 Nisan 444 BC, which was 5 March, 444 BC (Julian). This has a Julian day number of 1559315.5. 3. The end date is 10 Nisan, AD 33, which is Sunday, 30 March, AD 33 (Julian), with a Julian day number of 1733199.5. The problem with Hoehner’s calculations is that instead of multiplying the 476 days difference between these two dates by 365.25 days, the number of days in a Julian year, he used the solar year of 365.24219879 days, thereby introducing a four-day error into the calculations. In actual fact, the difference between these two dates is 173,884 days as a simple subtraction of the Julian day numbers will show. Furthermore there is an additional problem with Hoehner’s calculations, as Pickle pointed out. This is that 5 March, 444 BC is too early to be 1 Nisan; 1 Nisan is really Thursday, 2 April, 444 BC (Julian), with a Julian day number of 1559343.5.

Even further, it is unclear from the book of Nehemiah what was the actual day in the month Nisan that Artaxerxes gave permission to him; the Bible does not say. With regard to the other possible decrees, it is also unclear on which day the decree was issued. Overall then it can be seen that it is therefore impossible for the seventy sevens prophecy to ever predict the first coming of Jesus to the very day. However, the investigation will continue to see if a prediction to the year is possible. B6.   Other Calculations Although many other hypotheses have been put forward to predict the first coming of Jesus, only a few of the major ones are considered here. Note that all the different possible start dates for this prophecy are examined in chapter 5 section E6. B6.1   Problems with the Prophetic Year Many scholars have rejected the validity of calculations using the prophetic year. They understand that the Jews clearly knew that a year was longer than 360 days. Although they may have used this period in a symbolic sense, it is highly unlikely that they would have used it in calculations. By the time of the Babylonian Empire every nation had developed its own calendar in order to take account of the real length of a year. Because of this, it is impossible for the seventy sevens prophecy to predict the year of the first coming of Jesus if it starts around the assumed date for the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. The following are the major alternatives. 1. The prophecy starts in the seventh year of Artaxerxes in Ezra 6:14, which would have been 457 BC. 2. To follow Jones’s (2004) proposal that Artaxerxes began his reign earlier as coregent with his father so that his twentieth year is ten years earlier, in 454 BC. These are now examined. B6.2   The Prophecy Starts with Cyrus in 457 BC Many scholars consider that only the decree of Cyrus fully meets the criterion of being about the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem. In 5E6 an examination of the proposal by Anstey that Ptolemy’s canon was in error by eighty-two years so that in fact Cyrus began his reign in 457 BC was made and shown to be no longer valid. In particular, the recent work of Jones (2004, 228ff) should be consulted to see that Ptolemy’s canon is largely valid for the period of the Persian kings but that it becomes less accurate for the period prior to the Neo-Babylonians. Quite a few scholars, notably Mauro (1944), Conner (1981, 2004) and Eberle and Trench (2006) have relied on this date for their calculations. Taking 457 BC as the start date, the sixty-nine sevens of years would therefore finish in

AD 27 around the time of the start of Jesus’s ministry. The interpretation then follows that given above in sections B1.2.1 or B1.2.3 with Jesus being crucified in the middle of the final seven years. B6.3   The Decrees of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes Are Treated as One In order to still recognize that the decree of Cyrus was really given in about 538 BC, but still date it in 457 BC, the interpretation of Ezra 6:14 is that there is really one decree, which is progressively revealed and finally completed by Artaxerxes. However, the text of Ezra 6:14 clearly sees the decrees of these rulers as separate and independent. B6.4   The Prophecy Starts with Artaxerxes in 454 BC Jones (2004, 224), argues that taking into account the arguments of Ussher (2003, 152) based on the writings of the Greek historian Thucydides, Artaxerxes became coregent with his father Xerxes and so began his reign earlier than is suggested by Ptolemy’s canon. As a result, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes is really 454 BC. Taking this year as the start date, then the sixty-nine sevens of years would finish in AD 30 when Jesus was crucified. The interpretation would then follow that given in section B1.2.2 above. It is even possible, that Artaxerxes coregency could have started as early as 470 BC so that the seventy sevens prophecy might have begun in 451 BC with the crucifixion in AD 33. B7.   Conclusions about the Seventy Sevens Prophecy B7.1   Why the “Sevens” Are Not “Sevens of Years” 1. Every occurrence of the Hebrew word for “seven(s)” in Daniel 9:24–27 is unqualified in contrast to the two occurrences of the same Hebrew word in Daniel 10:2–3, which are explicitly qualified with the time period “days.” The literal interpretation is then a “period of seven” not a “sevens of years.” Therefore, additional evidence is needed to establish the actual length of the period of time in the prophecy. 2. Daniel’s prayer was motivated by his recognition of the near completion of seventy years of desolation for Jerusalem in Jeremiah’s prophecy. Gabriel’s answer, which is the seventy sevens prophecy of Daniel 9:24– 27, is in response to Daniel’s prayer; it is not directly because of the seventy years. Therefore, the contextual flow from Daniel 9:1–3 into Daniel 9:24–27 is not direct and is consequently less certain. 3. The precise calculations of the first coming of Jesus exhibit all the characteristics of a wrong inference. There is a wide divergence of opinion of the starting year and date (four decrees are possible, but there is not complete certainty about those years). There is also a wide divergence of opinion about the finishing year and date, which is usually one of five possibilities—the birth of Jesus, His baptism, the beginning of His public ministry, His entry into Jerusalem, or His crucifixion. The actual date of these events is also unclear. Previous calculations, which used to carry great authority, such as those by Anderson and Hoehner, have been shown to contain errors, and the

refinement and adjustment of these calculations is still occurring. Not only that, the starting and finishing points are chosen to fit the outcome so that rather than proving the remarkable accuracy of God’s word all that has been shown is the weakness of mankind. Since the proof of a precise prediction would validate the “sevens” as “sevens of years,” the absence of such a proof supports the contention that “sevens of years” was never in mind. 4. The analogy with the “seven Sabbaths of years” in Leviticus 25:8 combined with the sevenfold punishment in Leviticus 26:18, 21, 24, and 28, 70x7 years for a total of 490 years, does not in itself establish that the seventy sevens prophecy is a “sevens of years.” What it does do is show the importance of this structural pattern in the prophecy. 5. There is a clear demonstration of literal meaning, but it is not aimed toward predicting the year or date of Jesus’s first coming. B7.2   Why the Punctuation in Daniel 7:25 Is Valid In particular, consideration is being given to the “atnah,” which separates the verse into two halves as seen below. The Masoretic Text supports this punctuation, but the Vulgate and Theodotion’s Greek translation of Daniel does not. The KJV, NKJV, and the NIV follow the Vulgate and Theodotion, whereas the NRSV does not. Daniel 9:25 A. And you will know and understand that from the going out of a word    B. to restore and build Jerusalem to an anointed ruler       C. there will be seven sevens –––––––––––––––––––––––      C’. for sixty-two sevens    B’. it will be restored and rebuilt with square and moat A’. but in a time of distress 1. The strongest reason to include the punctuation is seen in the structure of the verse above. It has clear inverted content that neatly divides the verse into two beautifully balanced halves. 2. The effect of the punctuation is to give significant meaning to the seven sevens and the sixty-two sevens as two separate events. If the punctuation is ignored, then the word to restore Jerusalem and its rebuilding in a time of distress merge into a single event with ambiguous application as to when within the sixty-nine weeks they occur. In this case, the logic of having two separate time periods, even though two events are mentioned, is lost.

The resultant interpretation of the seven sevens as the period of the 3. exile initiated by a prophetic word by Jeremiah and terminated by an anointed ruler, who appears so that Daniel can know and understand, fits beautifully into an overall structure of meaning. It leads to a completely unified suite of prophecies in Daniel, which in turn fit beautifully with the resultant interpretation of the book of Revelation. 4. As has been seen, every conceivable attempt has been made to enable this prophecy to predict the dates or years of the Messiah’s coming, some with incredible ingenuity. Not one of them is very compelling, and the majority of them are clearly wrong. 5. When a prediction has been made of the first coming of Jesus, it logically leads to an end-time view with significant, uncertain interpretations of some of the passages in Daniel and Revelation. It is like a hypothesis that has some truth but is not completely right and so leads to a dead end when attempting to interpret some scriptures. B7.3   Problems with the Messianic Views The pattern determined for the seventy sevens establishes a clear structure for valid interpretation that often conflicts with Messianic interpretations. It is quite clear that the events in Daniel 9:26, which occur after sixty-two sevens, must be events that are part of and concurrent with the final seven. It is clear because: 1. It would be exegetically unsound for any prophetic events in the prophecy to occur outside the boundaries of one of the seven, sixty-two, or final sevens. 2. There is a clear structural match between the three physical events in Daniel 9:26 and the final three religious events in Daniel 9:27. 3. Daniel 9:27a defines the final seven and is central to the three clauses in Daniel 9:26 and the following three clauses in Daniel 9:27b. 4. The event that signals the end of the sixty-two sevens and the beginning of the final seven is the covenant with many, not with the anointed one being cut off. 5. The covenant (or treaty) in Daniel 9:27a must span the period of the one seven and cannot extend beyond it. This is seen not only because of the “for one seven” but also because the final clause in Daniel 9:26 that parallels the final clause in Daniel 9:27 describes what will happen until the end. 6. The person involved with the covenant in Daniel 9:27a must be a ruler who is the immediate, grammatical antecedent. He needs to be a ruler in order to be able to provide strength to the covenant so that it can last throughout the period of this final seven. He therefore cannot be the anointed one in Daniel 9:26a who is cut off.

Nothing in the seventy sevens prophecy suggests that the covenant is 7. broken in the middle of the final seven. However, there is the suggestion of a major change in circumstances with unexpected outcomes. When these seven factors are taken into account, they will clear up the misunderstanding and ambiguity of many features of the Messianic views. It is now apparent that the seventy sevens prophecy was never intended to predict the years associated with Jesus’s first coming; nothing in the Bible suggests that this is its purpose. Many interpretations have striven with skill and effort in the belief that the seventy sevens must be sevens of years yielding a total of 490 years, when a literal reading of Daniel 9:24–27 clearly omits the specification of years. Thus it is not clear that literal years were ever intended. Scholars are divided over whether this prophecy is giving chronology or chronography. In spite of the fact that there is a reference to seventy years in Daniel 9:2, the reference to seventy sevens in Daniel 9:24 does not automatically mean that seventy sevens of years were intended; proof is needed, and it is lacking. In fact, the evidence is the opposite and lies in the direction that the omission is deliberate because years were not intended. The interpretation is especially doubtful for the seventieth week, where the Hebrew noun means “period of seven” and is in the absolute state. It is important to recognize that the symbolic understanding of a “sevenfold” seventy is sufficient in itself to justify the use of these words so that the resolution to seventy sevens of years is not required. It is also necessary to keep in mind that Jesus used seventy times seven in Matthew 18:22 as a term to indicate a large and indefinite number of times to apply forgiveness rather than a literal 490 times. There is a huge array of “precise” predictions of the first coming of Jesus. It is remarkable to see the variety of different ways this “precise” prediction is made even though there is uncertainty about the starting date and the actual dates associated with Jesus’s first coming. And yet these “precise” predictions are used as proof that the Bible is a true word of prophecy. At the same time, there has also been a continual process of refinement and correction of these calculations demonstrating the huge risk and uncertainty associated with them and illustrating that it is impossible to prove that convergence in these calculations has been reached. In the light of this, there can be no doubt that the various interpretations of this passage that lead to either a seven-year or a three-and-one-half-year tribulation either in the time of Antiochus IV, in the first century AD, or just before Jesus returns will always be under a cloud of uncertainty unless additional supporting evidence can resolve points 1 to 7 above. An incredible number of understandings of the book of Revelation are based on this very shaky foundation. B7.3.1.   Seventy Sevens, 490 Years to the End • Cyrus did not issue a commandment in 457 BC. The references to his decree in Ezra 1:1–4, 2 Chronicles 36:22–23, and Isaiah 44:28 would have occurred within the period 538 BC to 536 BC. There is strong historical and biblical support for these years, which is first pinned to Nebuchadnezzar’s

attack on Jerusalem in 605 BC and subsequent historical and biblical records of the Babylonian Empire. • To regard Ezra 6:14 as referring to the year (457 BC) when a single decree was issued by seeing the decree as a process starting with Cyrus (538–536 BC), affirmed by Darius, and completed by Artaxerxes (457 BC) is exegetically unsound. Clearly, multiple rulings were issued by these leaders. There is no hermeneutically sound way to connect the “word” given in Daniel 9:25a as a commandment given by a royal personage in 457 BC. • The actual point of time defined by “unto Messiah the Prince” (Daniel 9:25a KJV) has been confidently argued to be either the baptism of Jesus (since that is when it might be said that He was anointed by the Spirit, see Luke 3:22, 4:1, and Acts 10:38) or His triumphant entry into Jerusalem (see Anderson page 121–128 and the reference in Luke 19:41 to “this day”), which is the only time Jesus is recognized by the people with the title of a king. In point of fact, the terminus of the prophecy is chosen to be the one that leads to the correct computation of the year of the prophecies’ fulfillment. Both events could serve this role. The process is at fault here because the event is chosen to fit the assumed eschatology, and so it cannot also serve the function of proving the precision of the prophecy as well. • The person who makes the covenant in Daniel 9:27a is the Messiah, who is the anointed one who is cut off in Daniel 9:26a. He is therefore not the immediate antecedent in the text; that person is the “coming ruler.” Thus, the natural, literal meaning of the text is bypassed in order to fit the assumed eschatology rather than by its most natural meaning. • The person who makes the covenant in Daniel 9:27 is seen to be Jesus. However, this covenant is not made at the beginning of the seven, but is a reference to the new covenant inaugurated by Jesus when He died on the cross in the middle of the seven. The period of time of the covenant is not the period of time over which the covenant lasts but rather the period of time needed to put it into place. This really stretches the meaning of “He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven’” (Daniel 9:27a, NIV). Since the new covenant is still operational, sin is still around, and vision and prophecy are still happening, the question needs to be asked, “Have the six objectives of Daniel 9:24 really been fulfilled?” and it would seem that the answer is no. • In the book by Eberle and Trench (2006, 48), the people of the coming ruler who devastate the city and the sanctuary do this in AD 70, well beyond the period of the seventy sevens prophecy, which ends in AD 34. A similar problem exists for the abomination of desolation, which occurs in the middle of the final seven, since this abomination is interpreted to be the Roman armies surrounding the city of Jerusalem in AD 70. B7.3.2.   Sixty-Nine Sevens, a Gap, and Then the Final Seven Years One of the exegetical problems that must be addressed is the assignment of Daniel 9:26 to a period after the sixty-nine sevens but before the final seven. For Anderson, the beginning of this verse is the triumphant entry of Jesus into Jerusalem a few days before His crucifixion. Thus Jesus is the anointed

one who is cut off at His crucifixion, after the end of the sixty-two sevens. Nearly forty years later, the Roman legions attack Jerusalem under Titus, thus fulfilling the second clause of Daniel 9:26. Both these events occur between the sixty-two sevens and the final seven. In this interpretation the final clause of Daniel 9:26, which speaks of wars to the end and desolations, is not mentioned and so is assumed to also occur in this in-between period. The idea of a gap in time is perhaps defendable, but for there to be a portion of the actual prophecy that is outside the scope of all of the seven sevens, the sixty-two sevens, and the final seven seems very unlikely. Overall then, the calculations of the date and year of Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem have been shown to be wrong and the exegesis of the prophecy unsound. This interpretation therefore lacks biblical authority. B7.3.3.   69.5 Sevens, a Gap, and Then the Final 3.5 Years Many of the comments made in B7.3.1 apply here. The major difference is that instead of the final three and one half years being continuous with the rest of the prophecy, it is proposed that a large gap of time is inserted so that the last three and one half years occurs at the end of the age. B7.3.4   Additional Comments Instead of this it cannot be denied that the actual description of the events surrounding the life of the little horn in Daniel 8 is so closely matched by the seventy sevens prophecy, that it is not reasonable to doubt that there must be an application of this prophecy to him. Further, it cannot be denied that the actual description of the events surrounding the life of Antiochus IV in Daniel 11:21–32 is so closely matched by the seventy sevens prophecy that it is not reasonable to doubt that there must be an application of this prophecy to him as well. This is why it is often assumed that the little horn in Daniel 8 and Antiochus IV must be the same person. Third, it cannot be denied that Jesus saw the seventy sevens prophecy as pointing forward to himself, the atonement for iniquity that would be made, and the persecution under the Roman Empire. This will be examined in the next chapter. In fact, a rather extraordinary conclusion has been reached. That is that all end-time interpretations of the Bible currently in existence are at least partially incorrect in a substantive way! It is a key feature of this view that Daniel 11:36–12:7 describes the rise and fall of the Roman Empire; this interpretation must be successfully refuted in order to maintain the views described below. Until this issue is resolved, the uncertainties associated with the views below mean that all views are under trial and should not be taught with conviction because they lack biblical authority. All of us need to heed the warnings of James 3:1–6 and fear the Lord more than men as the Lord said to Isaiah in Isaiah 8:13–16 lest we be found to be false teachers leading our people astray.

The view presented here eliminates any possibility that the “preterist” and “partial preterist” interpretations of the end-times are correct. These views see the seventy sevens prophecy as taking 490 years to complete, that this prophecy predicts the year of Jesus’s first coming, that the 490 years ends in the first century AD, and that this is the end point of Daniel’s prophecy except for the predictions related to the reign of God’s people forever when this kingdom is established. B7.4   The Time, Times and Half a Time The interpretation that this is a period of three and one half years is primarily based on the book of Revelation from Revelation 11:2–3; 12:6, 13– 14, and 13:5 and will be examined in detail in volume 2, now replaced by The Thirty-Two Theses . It is based on the assumption that the periods of 1,260 days, forty-two months, and time, times and half a time are concurrent and all start and finish at the same time. However, there are exegetical problems with this interpretation that have never been properly addressed and answered. They include: 1. Do they start at the same time? 2. Do they end at the same time? 3. Why are three different terms used, if they have a common meaning? 4. How can the contextual differences surrounding the use of these three periods of time be explained? 5. Is it valid to use a prophetic year? 6. If the prophetic year is not valid, how can both the forty-two months and the 1,260 days be reconciled as both being 3.5 years? This is especially important for those who emphasize interpreting the Bible literally. 7. There often appears to be faulty logic. For example, the 360-day prophetic year is recognized as not being valid by some who then still interpret the 1,260 days as 3.5 years and who also still insist on a literal interpretation. This is particularly a problem for those who choose 457 BC as the starting date for the seventy sevens prophecy so that the prophecy can predict the coming of Jesus at the beginning of His public ministry about AD 26 without using a prophetic year, but these scholars still insist that the 1,260 days is 3.5 years. In practice what has happened is that rather than examine the book of Revelation to determine what these concepts mean, they are assumed to mean the same 3.5 years (probably because they look the same) and then an interpretation is applied based on this assumption. C.   Overall Conclusions

The perspective expounded by this book is unlike any of the existing ones and perhaps can be best summarized by the following six points. 1. Daniel 11:36–12:7 describes the persecution of the Jews under Rome and the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. 2. Daniel 11:40 describes the entry of Rome into the region of the known world in about 192 BC as a result of conflict with the Seleucid king Antiochus III (also known as the Great) and so identifies the “time of the end” as from the Roman Empire onward. 3. The “time, times and half a time” in Daniel 12:7 stretch from the third year of Cyrus (535 BC) until the power of God’s people is totally broken, which would be at least AD 638, a period near to twelve hundred years. 4. The “time, times and half a time” in Daniel 7:25 follow after the one in Daniel 12:7 so that the two together encompass the whole history from the third year of Cyrus to the end of the age. The little horn in Daniel 7 must be Muhammad, since Islam is the major world empire that had authority over Jerusalem throughout most of this period. 5. The little horn in Daniel 8, who emerges in the time of the end out of one of the regions of the Greek Empire and is destroyed by other than human power (Daniel 8:25), must be an end of the age ruler whose most prominent activities span the last twenty-three hundred days before the end. 6. The seventy sevens prophecy is a pattern (or a template) describing God’s dealings with His people. The first seven sevens describe the exile, which is followed by a long period of sixty-two sevens of restoration and rebuilding of the city and the sanctuary. This pattern foreshadows the far greater and more complete work of God, which will require seventy sevens of distress and desolation before the final consummation of God’s plan, which will last forever. Three scenarios are supplied to fit this pattern that when taken together describe God’s dealings with His people, city, and sanctuary. The first, the persecution under Antiochus IV, foreshadows the second, the final persecution under the end of the age ruler, both involving intense suffering over a short period of time. The third scenario reflects the suffering of God’s people throughout this whole period centered on the atoning sacrifice of an anointed one that brings in everlasting righteousness. As Christians it is now vital that we deal seriously with the churches’ confusion over the end-times. This is one of the major goals of this work. We are grossly misleading our people if we continue to teach: 1. That the church will be taken from the world prior to the tribulation. This view is substantially based on an interpretation of the seventy sevens prophecy that has now been refuted. 2. That the world will now get better and better before Jesus returns. This view is substantially based on an interpretation that the seventy sevens

prophecy was fulfilled in the first century AD. This view has also been refuted. 3. The multitude of other views that are based upon the seventy sevens prophecy. All these perspectives will lull our people into a false sense of security and prevent them from being prepared for what is to come upon the world. Leaders of the church must consult together to come to a proper understanding of the truth. The Bible teaches that God is totally just and fair in His dealings with mankind. He must judge sin, while seeking to maximize and give every opportunity for all mankind to repent and come to knowledge of the truth. Difficult times will maximize this. This means that He needs the church to be present on earth during the final tribulation in order to show the way to those that seek after Him in repentance and faith. The tribulation is necessary and will be both a terrible time of suffering and a wonderful time of revival in which God will show great power and glory. We are not ready for this now; we must get ready now for this time, which is now very, very near. CHAPTER 8 The New Testament View of Daniel In this chapter, the writers of the synoptic Gospels are examined and particularly the views of Jesus and Paul. One or two aspects of John’s view are also investigated, although most of the examination of the book of Revelation is left until the next volume. Part of the reason for doing this is that there is a substantially new understanding of the book of Daniel revealed in the previous chapters. In this chapter, this new understanding will be applied to various New Testament passages, especially Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and 2 Thessalonians 2. It will be found that this new perspective is able to provide new understanding of these chapters; parts which were previously obscure and controversial now take on a fresh meaning. This is good evidence that the interpretation of Daniel that has been given is correct. If the many different end-time views are examined, it is seen that they all critically depend on the interpretation of the book of Daniel. So if it is possible to show that a basic understanding from Daniel is incorrect, we shall eliminate that end-time view from the realm of possibility. In fact, the dream is that the vast diversity of end-time views could be eliminated and the church reach unity of understanding that matches its theological importance. The reality is that if God has revealed His plan to us in His word, there must be just one correct view, and it is certain that as the return of Jesus approaches, there will be a convergence in the diversity of our views. It is in this hope that this chapter starts to address the working out of the new understanding of the book of Daniel in our understanding of the New Testament.

It is perhaps worth pointing out that the understanding gained about the meaning and purpose of the seventy sevens prophecy eliminates any possibility that the “preterist” and “partial preterist” interpretations of the end-times are correct. These views see the seventy sevens prophecy as being fulfilled in the first century AD and that this is the end point of Daniel’s prophecy except for the predictions related to the reign of God’s people forever when His kingdom is established. So in this chapter, it will be important to see whether the new perspective gained on the book of Daniel will resolve previous difficulties of interpretation in the New Testament. A.   Gabriel It is an interesting fact that the angel Gabriel appears explicitly just four times in the Bible, twice in the Old Testament to Daniel (Daniel 8:16, Daniel 9:21) and twice in the New Testament; once to Zechariah to bring him the good news that he will have a son in his old age who will be the forerunner to the Messiah, (John the Baptist, Luke 1:19) and once to Mary to reveal her role as the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:26). In Luke 1:11, Gabriel is described as an angel of the Lord, who startled Zechariah when he first appeared and gripped him with fear. Subsequently, Gabriel was able to calm him down and convey the good news of the coming birth of John. In Luke 1:19, Gabriel explains how he stands in the presence of God and has been sent to convey a very important message. Six months later he appears to Mary with the even more important message about the birth of Jesus. Since the appearance, timing, and crucial nature of the message Gabriel brings are of such importance, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the two appearances to Daniel must equally be seen to be of great importance. In the Old Testament, only to Daniel is the identity of a heavenly messenger revealed, and when he appears a similar initial reaction of fear in Daniel is described (Daniel 8:17). From the perspective of the whole Word of God, it is hard to escape the inference that the two messages from Gabriel followed by the further message from the “man dressed in linen” in Daniel 10 in some way parallel the two messages from Gabriel to Zechariah and Mary and the final revelation to John from Jesus himself in the book of Revelation. In some way Daniel’s message to God’s people Israel in the Old Testament parallels John’s message to God’s people (Israel and the church) recorded in the book of Revelation in the New Testament. These two books, Daniel and Revelation, have a related and parallel role in the whole counsel of God to His people. In the past, this relationship has been underestimated; with a more complete understanding of this relationship comes a new, aweinspiring and very exciting revelation of God’s dealings with mankind. B.   Jesus’s View of Daniel From the rather brief account of Jesus’s early life, it is very apparent that He was a very dedicated student of the scriptures of His day. Even at twelve years of age He amazed teachers at the temple with His understanding (Luke 2:47). It is therefore assumed that He had learned to read. When He

began His ministry, He amazed the people because He spoke with authority (Luke 4:32). It is probable that Jesus had also read the other literature available in His day, including the Apocrypha and books such as the Maccabees. For this reason, nearly all the prophecy in the book of Daniel would have been past history even to Him, so there is no reason why Jesus could not have arrived at a very similar understanding of the book of Daniel to that described in this book. However, what Jesus says about the book of Daniel should provide us with insight into how He understood it. The evidence of this understanding is reflected in the words He spoke to His disciples and especially in His final sermon given to the disciples on the Mount of Olives in the very last days before His crucifixion. These are recorded for us in Matthew 10:17–22, Luke 11:37–54, Luke 12:11–12 and 35–40, Luke 13:34–35, Luke 17:20–37, Luke 19:41–44, Luke 23:28–31, Matthew 23–25, Mark 13, and Luke 21. B1.   The Righteous Will Shine Like the Sun In Matthew 13:24–30 Jesus related the parable of the weeds to His disciples. In Matthew 13:36–43 he gave the interpretation of this parable. Interestingly, the picture of harvest and judgment at the end of the age that is presented here is picked up in John’s vision in Revelation 14. However, of particular interest is verse 43, “Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” This expression is a clear allusion to a similar expression in Daniel 12:3, and both passages speak of end of the age blessing and judgment suggesting a connection that would not have been lost on His disciples. B2.   Jesus and the Seventy Sevens Another interaction of interest is in Matthew 18:21–22 NASB Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus *said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. Of interest is Jesus’s use of the expression “seventy times seven” as a reference to a large number. It suggests that the use of this phrase is as a colloquial expression for a large number rather than a specific number and challenges the use of the phrase “seventy sevens” in Daniel 9:24 as a specific period of 490 years as it is frequently interpreted to mean. In support of this, the exegesis of this passage in chapters 5 and 7 of this book has shown that it was never intended to mean 490 years but rather a very long period of time. B3.   The Son of Man The term “the son of man” is used 183 times in the NIV version of the Bible. This phrase has occasioned considerable discussion in the literature. God frequently calls Ezekiel a “son of man” and Jesus adopted this term as His own title many times, and these two uses account for 173 occurrences of the term. Of the remaining ten uses, six are in the Old Testament and four are in the New. Of particular interest to us, however, is its use in Daniel 7:13 where the “the Son of Man comes in the clouds of heaven” and allusions to

this in the New Testament where the coming of the “Son of Man” is associated with clouds. This occurs in Matthew 24:30, 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27; Revelation 1:7, 14:14–16. When the six uses of “son of man” in the Old Testament that are not Ezekiel are examined, it becomes apparent that Jesus’s adoption of this phrase is an allusion to its use in Daniel 7:13. B4.   The Desolation of the People, Jerusalem, and the Temple There is no doubt that Jesus had a very strong prophetic understanding of the impending judgment that was to come upon His people living in the land. As with all the prophets, it would seem that this came as a result of input from three sources—first the Word of God given through the Scriptures, especially the Law and the Prophets; second, from His understanding of the days in which He lived; and third, His fellowship with His heavenly Father through the Holy Spirit. It is beyond the scope of this book to analyze this fully, but consider the following points. All the four Gospels record the last, triumphant entry of Jesus into Jerusalem before His crucifixion (Matthew 21:1ff, Mark 11:1ff, Luke 19:29ff, and John 12:12ff). John 12:1 describes how six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany; this was probably a Thursday but possibly a Friday (it is not important to the main thrust of this section). His triumphant entry into Jerusalem would have probably been on this day, as Mark 11:11 records how He arrived late in Jerusalem, looked around the temple, and then went to Bethany to stay. Mark 11:12 then explains how the next day they went into Jerusalem, and Jesus went into the temple and drove out those who were buying and selling, so this was probably the Friday, as He would not have done this on the Sabbath. The Last Supper would have been celebrated on the following Wednesday evening, and Jesus would have been crucified on the Thursday (the alternative possibility that this occurred one day later is less likely, as has been seen). In these last few days before He was crucified, Jesus stayed in Bethany. He would walk into Jerusalem, teach in the temple precincts, and discuss with all who would come to talk with Him. In Luke 21:37 it is seen that He taught in the temple during the day and then went to the Mount of Olives in the evenings, where He shared with the disciples alone. It is perhaps on the very last time He left the temple that He went with His disciples to the Mount of Olives and sat there facing the temple about half a kilometer to the west across the Kidron Valley. It was on this occasion that He gave His famous discourse about the destruction of the temple and His return and what He said is written in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. ⁵ He said a number of important things. Each of the Gospels has a different emphasis, and it should be recognized that their writers are less interested in the detailed chronology than we are today. The result of this is some uncertainties about the timing of events in the Passion Week and less precision in the chronology of the predictions Jesus gives us in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. It seems that the destruction of the temple, the desolation of Jerusalem, and the return of Jesus are presented in a prophetically foreshortened way so that they appear very much all part of “the end” without exact precision about their relative timing, although there is no reason to doubt the order of events. In fact,

there is a strong focus on being alert and ready for what is coming on the world without being too much focused on the precise timing. However, the emphasis on the people, the temple, and Jerusalem is similar to the emphasis in the prophecies of Daniel. There is no doubt that Daniel’s revelation is one of the key (perhaps the key) Old Testament passages that is guiding the content of what Jesus said. Jesus even mentioned Daniel’s name in His discourse when speaking about the coming abomination of desolation (Matthew 24:15). Daniel is the only prophet mentioned by name in these passages. This point is important. The Gospel of Matthew is written with a focus on Christians who are also Jews. Matthew is more interested than the other synoptic Gospel writers on the fulfillment of prophecy, the teachings of Jesus to the Jews, and seeing the events that occurred from a Jewish perspective. He has a stronger focus on judgment, especially on the Jewish leaders, and has much about Jesus’s teachings for all Jews, including the disciples, the people, and leaders of the nation. It also seems that until the last two hundred years or so, the church put greater emphasis on this Gospel than either Mark or Luke and that Mark was treated with less respect than Matthew. There is also a suggestion that this priority given to Matthew over Mark and to a lesser extent over Luke also applies even today. When it comes to end-times teaching; Matthew 24 is frequently given a stronger emphasis. It is of particular importance that the latter half of Matthew 24 seems to put together into one discourse content that is contained in about four passages in Luke. Is Jesus repeating what He said earlier, or is Matthew combining separate teachings of Jesus because of his literary or structural purpose? The Gospel of Mark is simpler, using ordinary spoken vocabulary, and is more focused on events and less on the teaching. It was probably written to portray the person and mission of Jesus for Roman Christians undergoing persecution under Nero (Edwards 2002, 10). Mark quotes relatively infrequently from the Old Testament and explains Jewish customs unfamiliar to his readers. The emphasis in Mark 11–16 is on the demise of the temple in Jerusalem as the center of worship and the new focus on Jesus as the Son of God. In the end, at the moment when Jesus died, Mark records how the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom (Mark 15:38). Mark’s vigorous narrative leaves the impression of close proximity to the events described. Attendant narrative details, for example when Jesus was at a given place or who was with Him, are kept to a minimum. The result is like a modern play with a sparse setting and backdrop, so as to focus full attention on Jesus. It is also apparent that Mark arranges his material using literary conventions to convey a theological meaning. In particular, Mark employs a “sandwich” technique where he frequently interrupts one story or pericope by inserting a second in between (3:20–35, 4:1–20, 5:21–43, 6:7– 30, 11:12–21, 14:1–11, 14:17–31, 14:53–72, and 15:40–16:8). The importance of this in understanding Mark 13 is to recognize that Mark may arrange and choose his material with a specific purpose in mind; thus he will be faithful to what Jesus said but may organize it with a selective purpose that will include consideration of the intended readership.

The emphasis in Luke is much more on reaching the Gentiles, and so there is less emphasis on the temple and more on the people and the city of Jerusalem. Luke sets his narrative in the context of secular history more firmly than the other Gospels, especially with respect to the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5), the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1), and the beginning of John the Baptist’s public ministry (Luke 3:1–2). His opening verses suggest that many in his time had undertaken to write down an account of what had been handed down from those who were eyewitnesses of Jesus’s life. He then goes on to say that he had investigated everything from the beginning and set out to write an “orderly account.” The Greek word used for “orderly” ( kathezēs ), which only Luke uses in the New Testament, has the thought of “consecutively,” leading some scholars to feel that he set out to write his account in chronological order. Other scholars feel that this would be reading too much into his intention and that it is more that he set out to write with “logical and artistic arrangement,” see Morris (1974, 66). However, if this is what Luke has done, it would not be a very distinctive feature of this Gospel when compared with the other three because that would be true of them as well. The point of interest for this chapter is whether Jesus actually presented His teaching on the signs of the end at the Mount of Olives as in Matthew 23–24 in one consolidated message, or more separately as recorded in Luke, or whether Jesus repeat His teaching in different contexts. The Gospel of John seems to be written more for disciples of Jesus and contains more detailed teaching from Jesus for His disciples, filling out important areas not covered in the other Gospels. From this, the following hypotheses are put forward. 1. The message given by Jesus to the disciples on the Mount of Olives in the Passion Week is reflected in His teaching recorded for us in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. However, each of the Gospel writers has selected the material for that teaching to reflect the emphasis in his Gospel, and some of the recorded teaching came from earlier sessions with Jesus’s disciples. None of the three records in the synoptic Gospels completely covers all that He taught on the Mount of Olives. 2. The template of God’s dealings with the Jews given to Daniel, especially in the seventy sevens prophecy of Daniel 9:24–27, is strongly reflected in the Mount of Olives teaching combined with the overall events of the Passion Week. Each complements the other in its description and focus of God’s dealings with His people, the temple, and the city of Jerusalem. 3. The book of Daniel, and the seventy sevens prophecy in particular, but together with other Old Testament prophecies, are the primary sources of Jesus’s understanding of His role in God’s plan and the details of that plan. 4. It is only together with an interpretation of the book of Daniel that it is possible to fully understand what Jesus shared so that the multiple views of Daniel lead to corresponding variations in the interpretation of

what Jesus said. Thus, if it is believed that the seventy sevens prophecy terminated in the first century AD, it will be possible to find, although with some difficulty, an interpretation of Jesus’s discourse that sees the abomination that causes desolation in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 to be part of the same event as the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman armies in AD 70. If the Antichrist view of Daniel is adopted, then Jesus’s discourse will be understood (also with some difficulty) to mean that the abomination that causes desolation is just before Jesus returns, whereas the record in Luke 21:20–24 would refer to the Roman siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. The following discussion shows that with the Roman view espoused by this book an interpretation similar to the Antichrist view results, but with fewer difficulties. If the Roman view of Daniel is adopted in the consideration of Jesus’s teaching on the Mount of Olives from the perspective of today, the following should be noted 1. In a general sense, many of the signs that Jesus described have been broadly fulfilled, and some are still unfolding. The spread of the gospel is still occurring. It is hard to know whether these signs have been completed, and from them we can only conclude that the return of Jesus is near without really being able to say how near. 2. There are three very specific signs that should be unmistakable. Each refers to something that will happen to the city of Jerusalem. The first of these, the devastation of the temple and the city of Jerusalem (Luke 19:41–44, 21:20) occurred in AD 70; all scholars are agreed about this. The second of these, the point of time when Jerusalem is no longer being trampled on by the Gentiles (Luke 21:24b), was fulfilled in 1967 as a result of the Six-Day War. To some, this second point will be controversial, but it needs to be tested, and even now pressure is mounting on the nation of Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders; let us wait and observe what happens. The third of these, the coming of the abomination that causes desolation and the near annihilation of the elect (Matthew 24:15–28, Mark 13:14–23) just before Jesus returns, is yet to come and will also be controversial to some. Therefore the Roman view results in two intense periods of suffering for the Jews in Jesus’s future, one of which is past history to us (the siege of AD 70 and the persecution and the scattering of the Jews) and one of which is still future. So both Daniel and Jesus are telling us that there is yet to come a period of intense suffering for the Jews exceeding anything that they have experienced up until now. 3. Some commentaries are incorrect to assume that the signs are imprecise. For example, Turner (2008, 569) says, “The signs are imprecise and cannot be used to determine the date.” He is correct to say Jesus’s answer “does not stress chronology,” and it is true that most of the signs cannot be used to determine dates; however this is not correct for the signs concerning Jerusalem. B5.   This Generation under Judgment Matthew 23:29–36:

(29) “ Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. (30) And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ (31) So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. (32) Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! (33) “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? (34) Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. (35) And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. (36) I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. Discussion: Jesus says in verse 36 that judgment will be poured out on “this generation.” From the context it would seem that Jesus is very definitely referring to the Jewish leaders in His day. In verse 34 He says that He will be sending prophets and wise men and teachers to them, and they will persecute them just like their forefathers. If we regard the early Christians as these prophets, wise men, and teachers then this word from Jesus was very definitely fulfilled within the next forty years. We know that the year Jesus said this is most likely AD 30, but possibly AD 33, which would bring us forward to AD 70 when the temple was totally devastated by the Roman armies. B6.   Jerusalem and the Temple Matthew 24:1–3: (1) Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. (2) “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (3) As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” Mark 13:1–4: (1) As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” (2) “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (3) As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, (4) “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?” Luke 21:5–7:

(5) Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, (6) “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.” (7) “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?” Discussion: The final week before the crucifixion was spent by Jesus in Jerusalem. It seems that every day he went to the temple. It would also seem that this departure from the temple was the very last and precipitated a remarkable set of teachings from Jesus. Jesus had already said much about the end, especially as He approached Jerusalem. All three synoptic Gospels are very consistent in their record of what happened. Jesus was leaving the temple. The positioning of this discourse in all three Gospels suggests this is the last time that Jesus was leaving the temple. The disciples called attention to the magnificent temple buildings with massive, beautiful stones financed from gifts by the people and Herod. Jesus’s response must have been both startling and sobering to the disciples even though He had said some similar things before in Luke 19:41–44. He said something like, “the time will come when not one stone will be left on another, and every one will be thrown down.” Since these words are so similar in all three Gospels, they must have been strongly etched on the memories of the disciples. Jesus was saying the destruction of the temple will be total, in vast contrast to the appearance of the structure, which looked as though it would last forever. It is important to see that Jesus’s mind-set was very different from that of all the disciples. He knew what was happening; He knew what was going to happen, and His actions were focused and very deliberate. He was fully aware of how the Old Testament had prophesied this time. In particular, it needs to be seen that it was the prophecy of Daniel (especially the seventy sevens prophecy in Daniel 9:26–27) that most clearly predicted the destruction of the temple, the devastation of the city, the suffering of the people, and the theological reason why this must happen. It is also apparent that Jesus had identified that this must occur during the Roman Empire. He would already know about the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV, and it is more than likely that He would recognize “the King” in Daniel 11:36 as Rome and the distress of His people in Daniel 12:1 as a result of suffering under Rome (see later). Therefore, if Jesus had inferred the understanding that has been given in this book, then that would have helped Him to come to the prophetic conclusions that the temple will be devastated in His near future. Perhaps the disciples were stunned. As they walked the three kilometres to the Mount of Olives they would have been quiet as they thought about what Jesus had said. The place where Jesus sat was very significant. It was opposite the temple. So they were facing west looking at the temple, between one to two

kilometres across the Kidron Valley. The group would have been slightly higher and looking at Jerusalem. The sitting position was the position adopted by great teachers. It was a position of authority. When they reached the Mount of Olives, they asked Jesus these questions privately. Note that they did not reject what Jesus had said. They asked “when” and “what” questions. What Jesus had prophesied did not look likely then, so to ask when they will occur would be natural. Neither did they ask Jesus, “How do you know this?” so it is seen that the disciples believed Jesus. Matthew 24:3: Context: Jesus sitting on the Mount of Olives “When will this happen?” “What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” Mark 13:3–4: Context: Jesus sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple “When will these things happen?” “What will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?” Luke 21:7: Context: not given “When will these things happen?” “What will be the sign that they are about to take place?” There are basically three questions. From the disciples’ point of view, these questions may not have been separate. All have to do with the end, and the future is foreshortened in their minds. For the disciples, the devastation of the temple and the end of the age would have been all part of the same event. 1. All three writers record the disciples asking “When?” in relation to the destruction of the temple, which is the “these things.” 2. Mark and Luke also record the disciples asking for the sign (singular) that it is about to happen. 3. Only Matthew records the question about the sign of Jesus’s coming and of the end of the age.

When examining the answer Jesus gave, it must be seen that it is not always clear which question is being answered; there is a sense in which Jesus treats the questions as one and He is not really interested in chronology in the way that we are today, even though the signs are presented in some kind of chronological order. It is also clear that Jesus’s answers in all three Gospels encompass all three questions. His answer is now examined. B7.   General Signs The following signs that Jesus described are general in nature and are applicable right throughout the church age. There is nothing in them that connects to the content of the book of Daniel in a specific way. However, in a very broad sense the rise and fall of nations, their greed for power and how the different ways that power was used to bring about suffering, is part of the content of the book of Daniel. B7.1.   Do Not Be Deceived Matthew 24:4–5: (4) Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. (5) For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. Mark 13:5–6: (5) Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. (6) Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. Luke 21:8: (8) He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. Discussion: The greatest threats are internal, not external. “I am the Christ” (all three Gospels) and “The time is near” (Luke only). “Many will come in my name”: that is, with authority that is claimed to be from God. The fundamental principle here is false claims in God’s name, not just the specific claims that Jesus is the Christ. It is necessary to be very careful about those that (1) come and claim authority equal to God. Or (2) come saying they are a later revelation of the truth and who are therefore more correct. Or (3) come saying that they have additional words from God that change, delete, or add to what is already in the Word of God, the Bible. Or (4) come saying the Word of God has errors. Luke says “Do not follow them.” B7.2.   There Will Be Wars, Famines, Plagues, and Great Earthquakes Matthew 24:6–8: (6) You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. (7) Nation

will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. (8) All these are the beginning of birth pains. Mark 13:7–8: (7) When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. (8) Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains. Luke 21:9–11: (9) When you hear of wars and revolutions, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.” (10) Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. (11) There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven. Discussion: To summarize the events encompassed in all three Gospels these are (1) wars and rumors of wars, (2) nation will fight against nation, (3) kingdom against kingdom, (4) famines in various places, and (5) earthquakes in various places. Matthew and Mark say these are the beginning of birth pains (Matthew 24:8, Mark 13:8). The birth pains are about the suffering needed to bring about God’s new kingdom. Therefore the remainder of what Jesus says will cover the middle and the end, which means that all the pain that precedes the return of Jesus is covered. As the time approaches, our awareness that the time is near increases, and it also becomes possible to sense with increasing accuracy when that time will be. The Bible says a great deal about Jesus’s Second Coming and many clues are given as to events that must happen before He comes. For this reason, it is now known that the return of Jesus is very near, even though the exact time is not known. B7.3.   Christians Will Be Persecuted Compare the Mark reference with Matthew 10:17–22 (and note that the content of Mark 13:10 is not in Matthew 10:17–22) and the Luke reference with Luke 12:11–12 Matthew 10:17–22: “Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. (18) On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. (19) But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, (20) for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. (21) “Brother

will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. (22) All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. Matthew 24:9–13: (9) “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. (10) At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, (11) and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. (12) Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, (13) but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. Mark 13:9–13: (9) “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. (10) And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. (11) Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit. (12) “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. (13) All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. Luke 12:11–12: “When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, (12) for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.” Luke 21:12–19: (12) “But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. (13) This will result in your being witnesses to them. (14) But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. (15) For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. (16) You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. (17) All men will hate you because of me. (18) But not a hair of your head will perish. (19) By standing firm you will gain life. Discussion: God’s people will be persecuted, but the Holy Spirit (Mark 13:11) or the living Jesus (Luke 21:15) will help by guiding us with what to say; standing firm to the end is what matters. Under these difficulties many will turn away from the faith, but Jesus encourages us to stand firm.

There are allusions in these verses to the encouragement given to God’s people in Daniel 11:33–35 and Daniel 12:3 and 10 during their periods of suffering. B7.4.   The Great Commission Must Be Completed Matthew 24:14: (14) And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. Mark 13:10: (10) And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. Discussion: The end will not come until the gospel has been preached to the whole world. God’s people have been commissioned by God for the key task in His plan. Jesus will not return until this task is accomplished. This is a specific prediction that does not have multiple fulfillments. It will be attained at a specific point in time; however, it is not clear how this point will be known precisely. However, if history is examined, it is possible to see that this prediction by Jesus is approaching fulfillment and that the technical ability is now available to achieve it. This is one of the evidences that the return of Jesus is near. B8.   Jerusalem Is the Focal Point Most of the signs that Jesus talked about are general in nature. As history is examined it is apparent that all that He said has been happening, but there is nothing up until now which enables us to pinpoint a specific time when these have been fulfilled. That is why His prophecies about Jerusalem are very important. This prophetic focus by Jesus is like that in Daniel; Daniel’s prophecies focus on Jerusalem too. As has been seen, Daniel writes about people of a coming ruler devastating Jerusalem and the temple (Daniel 9:26–27), and he writes about the desolation on the city that will follow until the end. The interpretation given in the previous chapters has suggested that the seventy sevens prophecy is a pattern prophecy that applies to three separate situations. The key question to ask is whether Jesus had this understanding too. If He does, then that will tend to confirm the interpretation. When examining the commentaries on this passage, it is apparent that there is significant divergence of opinion. The view expressed here is that this controversy is present precisely because they parallel the same problems that have been seen in the interpretation of the book of Daniel. Once it is recognized that the seventy sevens prophecy describes three different situations, not just one or two, then the difficulty resolves. In the first instance, it is hard to doubt that Jesus would have known that the abomination that causes desolation in Daniel 11:21–33 was past history

related to Antiochus IV, which He would have heard or read about from the two books of the Maccabees and from other sources. The top scholars of His day recognized His authority and understanding. For this reason, it cannot be doubted that Jesus realized that there must be at least two occurrences of the abomination that causes desolation; the one in Matthew 24:15ff and Mark 13:14ff is future and so cannot be the one perpetrated by Antiochus IV. By God’s sovereign choice, the city of Jerusalem occupies a very special place in God’s plan and in His heart. The city of greatest suffering is also the city of our greatest hope. Chosen by God, the city is given the place of greatest responsibility and the place of greatest privilege in God’s plan. When Jerusalem failed, it suffered the severest judgment, but God’s promise does not fail, and it will receive the greatest blessing at the end of the age. There is always equality in God’s dealings with mankind. This principle also applies to God’s choice of Israel as His special people. In all the Bible passages it is possible to replace the word “Gentiles” with the word “nations” in order to get the meaning. History shows how much the Jews have suffered. The amazing thing is that while nations have risen and fallen, Israel has survived. With this background, the three specific events that are directly connected to the city of Jerusalem are now examined. It will be seen that these events clearly mark points in time that can be identified in history, unlike all the other signs, which are general and less specific. B8.1   The Devastation of Jerusalem in AD 70 The first specific event that Jesus talked about is the devastation of Jerusalem, which is now widely recognized to have occurred in AD 70. Jesus recognized that “this generation” will experience this event (Luke 21:32), and the sign He gives is very clear (Luke 21:20); when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies. This happened in AD 70 when in quelling a Jewish uprising, the Roman legions came and besieged Jerusalem, defeated the defenders, totally destroyed the temple, and devastated the city. History records that the Christians took heed of Jesus’s warning and fled from the city when the Roman legions began to gather (Luke 21:21). A huge loss of life occurred in Jerusalem, but the Christians got away. Jesus said this is the time of punishment that He had previously spoken about (Luke 21:22). The Bible records four separate occasions in Jesus’s last days on earth before His crucifixion when He spoke of the devastation that will come upon Jerusalem within the near future; within the period of “this generation.” These prophecies were fulfilled about forty years later. These four occasions are now examined. B8.1.1   Luke 19:41–44 Luke 19:41–44

(41) As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it (42) and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. (43) The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. (44) They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” Discussion: The punishment Jesus had already indicated would occur. The people did not recognize the coming of Jesus. Also, they had previously rejected the prophets. Daniel in his prayer in Daniel 9 recognizes the sin of his people and the fact that they had not changed, which would then result in a long time of affliction and desolation before the end. Jesus knew this. Here is seen the sorrow in Jesus’s heart because the people were blind as a result of sin. God had longed to pour out great blessing but instead suffering will follow. As Jesus approached Jerusalem for the final period of time, Luke records these words from His lips. 1. It should never be thought that God has pleasure in watching us fail and in judgment. He wept over Jerusalem. So also God weeps when we fail! In a just and caring person, the anger that goes with wrong behavior of a loved one is paralleled by great sorrow at their failure. The heart of God to give grace is waiting for the opportunity to pour out love, if only we would repent. 2. The people were blind because of sin. If they had not sinned, they would have understood what would bring peace. Because they continued to sin without repentance, then God further blinded their eyes to the truth. This hiding of the truth by God was part of the judgment. 3. Jesus then prophetically forecasts the judgment that will come upon this city. Enemies will surround and lay siege against the city. The city will be captured and many people will die. The city will be devastated. It is of interest that Jesus emphasizes the extensive devastation that the enemies will impart to Jerusalem with the phrase “they will not leave one stone on another.” All other uses of this phrase refer to the temple; see Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2, and Luke 21:6. 4. God’s judgment on the city will come because sin blocked their recognition of the time of God’s coming. B8.1.2   Matthew 23:37–39 Matthew 23:37–39:

(37) “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. (38) Look, your house is left to you desolate. (39) For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” Luke 13:31–35: (31) At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.” (32) He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ (33) In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem! (34) “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! (35) Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” Discussion: The context of the passage in Luke 13:34–35 is different from that in Matthew even though the wording is almost precisely the same. Luke places it earlier, but it is Jesus’s last word to Jerusalem in Matthew. From His emotional words about the desolation that is to come on Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37–38, Jesus is anticipating the judgment that will come upon Jerusalem. How did He know this? If Jesus had the Roman view, He would see that the prophecies in Daniel 9:26 in the third scenario predict devastation that will come upon Jerusalem and the temple as a result of the armies of the Roman Empire followed by wars and desolation that will continue until the decreed end. Both the preterist and the Antichrist view also predict something similar. These words may be what Jesus said the very last time He left the temple. Perhaps the next day (see Matthew 26:2) He celebrated the Passover for the last time, then was arrested and crucified. Jesus longed to show love toward His people, but He could not because the people were not willing. Sadness flows out of Jesus’s heart as He sees prophetically the desolations that will occur on the city. These identical words are also recorded in Luke 13:34–35 in the context of Jesus being on His way to Jerusalem, but His actual time and location when He said those words is not specified. It is interesting that the triumphal entry into Jerusalem is reported in all the four Gospels (Matthew 21:1–11, Mark 11:1–11, Luke 19:28–40, John 12:12–16) and during the entry the crowd all shouted, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” quoting from Psalm 118:25–26. However, their chronological position in Matthew 23:37–39 after the triumphal entry is more likely correct since these words quoted by the crowd have already been said. The next occasion

they will be quoted is when Jesus returns after a long period of desolation of the temple. 1. Again it is seen how the Lord has no pleasure in seeing His people do wrong. He longs to show love toward His people, but they have been unwilling to come to Him for help. 2. The city killed those who came to bring the message of life. 3. The consequence is that the house is left desolate. God leaves and the spiritual life of the city disappears. Disaster and trouble follow. 4. There is just one ray of hope. Only when the city acknowledges who Jesus is will the judgment of God come to an end. True repentance and faith is necessary. The amazing thing is that God still allows this one opportunity. However, it is necessary to remember that God’s patience will come to an end. God must be just. B8.1.3   Luke 21:20–24a Luke 21:20–24a: (20) “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. (21) Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. (22) For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. (23) How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. (24a) They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Discussion: These words began to be fulfilled about forty years later in the Jewish War, whose main focal point was the fall of Jerusalem and its destruction by the Romans in AD 70. And indeed, the Christians did flee and were saved from the horrors of the siege. Jesus speaks of great distress on His people in similar terms to Daniel 12:1 —distress unequaled until then. 1. Jesus had already forecast desolation in Matthew 23:38. The disciples’ question is when will this happen and what will be the sign that it is about to happen? Jesus does not answer “when” in chronological terms; however, the sign He gives is very clear, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies (verse 20). This happened in AD 70 when in quelling a Jewish uprising, the Roman legions came and besieged Jerusalem, defeated the defenders, totally destroyed the temple, and devastated the city. 1. History records that the Christians took heed of Jesus’s warning and fled from the city (verse 21). A huge loss of life occurred in Jerusalem, but the Christians got away. Note the precision in the words of Jesus

written here. The similar description in Matthew 24:17–18 and Mark 13:15–16 stresses that the disciples must flee immediately when the abomination that causes desolation is seen in the temple location. In Luke, the sign is different; it is to flee when armies surround the city, but the same degree of urgency is absent. 2. Jesus said this is the time of punishment that He had previously spoken about (verse 22). We described that in the two previous sections. God will fulfill what He has promised, whether it is good or bad; He is just. 3. We need to know that God is true to His word. He is patient, but He will do what He says. The beginning of wisdom is to fear God. 4. “For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written” (verse 22). The words of Jesus here seem to refer to judgment at this specific time in history in fulfillment of Old Testament predictions. Although there are many general words of judgment falling on Jerusalem as a result of covenantal unfaithfulness, as commentaries are quick to point out, only in the book of Daniel is this judgment clearly at this point of time. It is not so clear where else in the Old Testament Jesus is referring to, since most of the Old Testament prophecies either refer to the punishment during the Babylonian exile or to the punishment at the end of the age. Two major places can now be identified as fulfilling this word from Jesus. The first is in Daniel 9:24–27 in reference to the third scenario (see 7A3.4 for a full explanation), whose abbreviated paraphrase is quoted below. Let us recall Daniel 9:24 (NIV slightly modified and with added structure) and the understanding that has been derived. Seventy sevens are decreed for your people and your holy city A. to finish the transgression    B. and to make an end of sin       C. and to make atonement for iniquity       C’. and to bring in everlasting righteousness ––––––––––––––––––––—    B’. and to seal up the vision and prophecy A’. and to anoint the most holy The six objectives specified here are fulfilled in a specific way, which is described in Daniel 9:25–27. The objective of finishing transgression is inaugurated by the exile, which prophetically accompanies the period of the seven sevens. If it is considered that the exile is the punishment given to Israel for their rebellion seen in their idolatry, then that punishment was completed and their sin paid for.

Not until atonement is made for iniquity is it possible for sins to be sealed up. So “making an end of sin” is the period of time that leads up to the death of Jesus. The cutting off of the anointed one is then seen to be the death of Jesus that makes atonement for iniquity. It will then take time for the message of salvation through Jesus to be preached to the whole world thus bringing in everlasting righteousness; a period of desolation and warfare. The prophetic word was given out at the beginning of the prophecy. It will take one seven for that word to be confirmed, and it will need to prevail right until the end, at which time there will no longer be any need for vision and prophecy. At the end of the seven, the anointing on the most holy will occur, reversing the desolation caused by the abomination and certainly finishing the transgression. Did Jesus perceive this structure? Did Jesus understand that He was living in the period of the fourth beast in Daniel 7:7? Did Jesus understand that He was living in the period of “the king” in Daniel 11:36–12:7? If He did, then it would be possible to infer that Jesus: 1. could from Daniel 9, understand the sin of His people and their lack of repentance and so would perceive that the seventy sevens prophecy implied a long period of time before God’s plan could be completed. He would see that Jerusalem as a city had been rebuilt and restored in times of distress but that further suffering must occur because the people had still not repented; 2. knew that He was to die; the cutting off of an anointed one in Daniel 9:26 is associated with making atonement for iniquity, one of the objectives of the seventy sevens prophecy in Daniel 9:24. From other passages of the Old Testament such as Isaiah 53, He would understand that He had to die to achieve this goal; 3. knew that an army would come led by a ruler who would devastate Jerusalem and destroy the temple. It is very likely that, under the Holy Spirit, Jesus’s prophecy in Luke was in part directed by this Old Testament prophecy; 4. knew that the devastating power of the people of the coming ruler would overwhelm His people like a flood as described in Daniel 9:26. He would see that this would be fulfilled by the Roman army; 5. knew that wars and desolation would occur for a long time and that His people would be scattered among the nations. The fact that Jesus’s words here in Luke 20:21–24a complement Daniel 9:24–27 so well is significant evidence that Jesus did understand Daniel this way. The second is in Daniel 12:1–3 NIV: (1) “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. (2) Multitudes

who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. (3) Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. The “At that time” in verse 1 refers to the context in Daniel 11:36–45. As has been expounded in chapter 6, these words are a clear description of the history of the Roman Empire from 192 BC to its demise in AD 476 and beyond. Although Jesus is in the middle of this period, only Daniel 11:44, 45b and 12:7 had not yet occurred. So to Jesus, these verses would have been very current, and it would have been possible for Him to discern this interpretation. Of course, the key question is, “Did Jesus interpret Daniel 11:36–45 this way?” The points that follow supply evidence that He did. 1. In Luke 21:23b Jesus said, “There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people,” which is clearly a reference to the suffering His people are going to endure under Rome. This statement should be compared with Daniel 12:1 where the Jews are said to endure “a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then,” and contrasted with the even greater suffering that Jesus describes in Matthew 24:21 where He says, “For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now— and never to be equaled again.” The similarity between Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 suggests that Jesus is aware of the statement in Daniel 12:1, but the extra qualification in Matthew 24:21 (“and never to be equaled again”) implies that Jesus saw there is to be an even greater period of distress still to come at the end of the age (see the later section B8.3 for more on this). The overall force of these words is that Jesus recognized the distress in Daniel 12:1, to be suffering under Rome and not at the end of the age. The reason many scholars do not interpret Daniel 12:1 this way is because of the belief that the time, times and half a time in Daniel 12:7 is the last three and one half years before the end of the age. This book has produced compelling evidence that that interpretation is invalid. Daniel 12:1 is the suffering the Jews will experience under Rome and contributed to Jesus understanding prophetically about what was going to happen to His people. 2. From Luke21:24a Jesus knew that many of His people would die (“fall by the sword”) under Rome and later. 3. From Luke 21:24a Jesus also knew that His people would be scattered to all the nations. History records the accuracy of this word. From Daniel 12:7 Jesus knew that this time of distress would come to an end: “When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.” 4. Jesus knew that the length of this time of desolation would be very long. He said that Jerusalem would be governed by Gentile powers until the “times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” This is discussed in the next section.

All of this provides significant evidence that Jesus did indeed understand Daniel in a way similar to that which has been expounded in the previous chapters. B8.1.4   Luke 23:28–31 (28) Jesus turned and said to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. (29) For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ (30) Then “‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!”’ (31) For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?” Discussion: These words by Jesus as He carried the cross emphasize how much Jesus sensed that the coming suffering on His people was going to be terrible. Here again it is women and children and especially pregnant women who are mentioned in particular. What is especially interesting is not reflected in the NIV translation. In the NKJV, for example, verse 30 starts off, “Then they will begin to say.” There is just a hint here that the soon coming suffering under the Roman armies is just the beginning of the suffering that is to come. B8.2   The Complete Restoration of Jerusalem in 1967 Luke 21:24b: (24b) Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Discussion: The Greek word used for “trampled” ( pateo , Strong’s 3961) speaks of treading down or under. This verse would then mean that the city of Jerusalem will be under the oppressive authority of a foreign power until this particular period of time has been completed. Morris (1974, 299) says the phrase “the times of the Gentiles” “is not an easy expression and a variety of explanations has been suggested.” However, perhaps the understanding of this expression can be clarified by recognizing the changing status of the authority over Jerusalem and, in particular, a time when the authority over Jerusalem is no longer another nation, but has been returned to the Jews. If history from AD 70 to today is examined, there is only one clear and definite point in time when authority over Jerusalem was returned to the Jews. As a result of the Six-Day War in June 1967, the nation of Israel gained full governmental control over the whole of the city. The cease-fire between Israel and Jordan in 1949 gave Israel control over Western Jerusalem, but as a result of the Six-Day War, the whole of Jerusalem passed into Israeli hands. Derek Prince (2005, 95–96) says, “In Jesus’s prediction, however, one key word indicates a limit to the period of Gentile domination—the word until .

Jerusalem will indeed be trampled on by the Gentiles, but not forever—only until “the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” This means that the end of the times of the Gentiles will be marked by a specific event: The government of Jerusalem will once again pass into the hands of the Jewish people . Can we say that this event has taken place?” He then goes on to write, “At what point did the control of this area pass out of Gentile hands and back into Jewish hands? Again, the answer is not in doubt: It was in June 1967, as a result of the Six-Day War.” It is possible, of course, to make a distinction between governmental control and absolute control. The state of Israel now governs this whole area, but it does not exercise absolute control over it. The most sacred and controversial section—the actual area of the temple—is still the site of a Muslim mosque in the hands of the Arabs. Nevertheless, when all due allowance has been made for the limits that are set to Jewish sovereignty, the fact remains that in June 1967 the governmental control of Jerusalem, including the old city as Jesus knew it, passed out of Gentile hands and into Jewish hands. Thus it is possible to look back over history since AD 30 and see that what Jesus predicted has indeed come true. Since this interpretation relates to recent events and is one of considerable significance as well as controversy, the following additional comments have been made. In the past, many premature and inaccurate interpretations of prophecy have been made, which have created a justifiably healthy scepticism. All of us desire proof positive, but we are very different from each other when it comes to the quality of information necessary to convince us of a new thing. So it would be very wise to exercise extreme caution. At the same time, it will never be possible to completely prove an interpretation. The word of God requires us to exercise faith in the heart, not only in the mind. At some point it is necessary to cross the limits of what can be established with the mind and exercise faith according to the revelation of the Holy Spirit into our hearts. So it is here. This interpretation cannot be proved conclusively and must be tested over a period of time. The recent history of Israel is important; Israel became a nation in 1948 and at the end of the 1948–9 war, Jerusalem was divided between Israel and Jordan (then known as Transjordan). The 1949 cease-fire line between Israel and Jordan, which was part of the Green Line, cut through the center of the city from 1949 until 1967, during which time West Jerusalem was part of Israel and East Jerusalem was part of Jordan. Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, a decision that was subsequently enshrined in national legislation in 1980, and all the branches of Israeli government (presidential, legislative, judicial, and administrative) are now seated in Jerusalem. From 1950 to 1967, the capital declared by Israel was comprised of only West Jerusalem. In the period of time leading up to June 1967, there was an escalation of tension between Israel on the one side and Syria, Jordan, and Egypt on the other, and both sides were building up their armed forces. In particular, there were border conflicts between Israel and Syria, as Syria sought to divert water from one of the sources to the Jordan River to prevent Israel

from carrying out its National Water Carrier Plan. In April 1967 an air battle resulted in six Syrian MiG-21s being shot down. On 13 May 1967, Soviet intelligence passed on incorrect information to Egypt and Syria that the Israelis were massing their armed forces on Syria’s border. On 14 May the Egyptian supreme commander put the army on full alert, and the Egyptians began to mass their army in the Sinai Peninsula, although realizing that they were not ready to invade Israel. Two days later they escalated the tension even further by requesting the UN to withdraw all its peacekeeping forces there. On 21 May, the Egyptians closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. Both Egypt and Syria called for the destruction of the State of Israel. Jordan, despite the fact that it had signed a military cooperation agreement with Egypt, took a more ambiguous position. Israel, in response, mobilized its reserves and deployed the bulk of its armor opposite the Egyptian forces in the Sinai. On the morning of June 5, before the Egyptians had completed their deployment, the Israelis attacked. The attack opened with an early morning IAF (Israeli Air Force) strike against Egyptian airfields. The Egyptians were caught totally by surprise, and the bulk of their air force was destroyed on the ground. Subsequent strikes in the afternoon against Syrian and Jordanian airfields had similar results. By the end of the first day of the war the Israelis had achieved total air superiority. Also on the first morning of the war, the Israelis launched a ground offensive into the Sinai. Again the shock to the Egyptians was so great that by the morning of June 6, the Israelis had achieved a complete breakthrough and were racing toward the Egyptian rear areas. The Egyptians ordered a general withdrawal from the Sinai, but the Israelis reached the critical road junctions and passes before the Egyptians managed to escape. The withdrawal quickly turned into a rout, and by the end of the third day of the war, the Egyptian army had been decimated, and the Israelis were sitting on the banks of the Suez Canal. On the Jordanian front, the Jordanians sought to show their general support for the Egyptians by merely bombarding Israeli airfields with long-range artillery. In all likelihood they were seeking to find a middle road that would permit them to stay out of the war. However, the Israelis used the bombardment as reason enough to attack and put together an ad hoc invasion force to storm into the West Bank. The Jordanians were caught by surprise, and within two days the Israelis captured the whole of the West Bank and Jerusalem. On the Syrian front, the Arabs did very little to draw Israeli forces away from the other two fronts. On the fifth day of the war, with the United Nations clamoring for a cease-fire, the Israelis massed as many troops and tanks as they could on the border and swept the Syrians from the Golan Heights in a day and a half. With minutes left before the cease-fire was to begin, the Israelis captured the strategically important locations of Kunietra and Rafid. In the end, the Israelis enjoyed a complete military victory that gave to them reasonably defensible borders. But it was also a victory that gave rise to an

issue still plaguing international politics: that of the Palestinian residents of the conquered territories. Ever since Israel captured eastern Jerusalem from Jordan in this 1967 SixDay War, Israel has administered and has asserted sovereignty over the entire city. An Israeli law of 1980 declared Jerusalem to be the “eternal, undivided” capital of Israel, while East Jerusalem is being claimed as the intended capital of a future Palestinian state. The status of the city and of its holy places is disputed in law, but control is being exercised by Israel in practice. UN Security Council Resolution 478 declared that the 1980 Israeli law was “null and void and must be rescinded forthwith” and instructed member states to withdraw their diplomatic representation from the city as a punitive measure, which the few countries with embassies in Jerusalem did, relocating their embassies to Tel Aviv. Most UN member states had already located their embassies in Tel Aviv prior to resolution 478. Currently, only two UN member states have their embassies within the city limits of Jerusalem, Costa Rica and El Salvador, with the embassies of Bolivia and Paraguay to be found in Mevasseret Zion, a suburb of Jerusalem. Most of the international community argues that Israel’s annexation of the eastern part of Jerusalem from Jordan during the Six-Day War was in violation of international law and that the final issue of the status of East Jerusalem should be determined in future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Therefore, although all ambassadors and other official diplomats submit their accreditation to the president of Israel in his house at Jerusalem, nearly all countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv, Israel’s economic and financial center. The two maps below illustrate the change in control over Jerusalem that came about as a result of the Six-Day War.

Figure 5: Jerusalem before and after the 1967 war. (From Google Maps whose data source was www.theocracywatch.org )

Since Israel became a nation in 1948, the surrounding nations have continually tried to destroy it. Some of those nations are still technically at war with Israel. Most have refused to recognize her as a nation. Zechariah 12:1–9 looks very much like a description of what has happened to Jerusalem and the nation of Israel since 1948. Zechariah 12:1–9 NIV: (1) This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him, declares: (2) “I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. (3) On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves. (4) On that day I will strike every horse with panic and its rider with madness,” declares the LORD. “I will keep a watchful eye over the house of Judah, but I will blind all the horses of the nations. (5) Then the leaders of Judah will say in their hearts, ‘The people of Jerusalem are strong, because the LORD Almighty is their God.’ (6) “On that day I will make the leaders of Judah like a firepot in a woodpile, like a flaming torch among sheaves. They will consume right and left all the surrounding peoples, but Jerusalem will remain intact in her place. (7) “The LORD will save the dwellings of Judah first, so that the honor of the house of David and of Jerusalem’s inhabitants may not be greater than that of Judah. (8) On that day the LORD will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the Angel of the LORD going before them. (9) On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem. Surrounded by nations seeking to destroy her, Jerusalem has been like an immovable rock, and it has been her enemies that have been routed. There also seems to have been a progression where Jerusalem has become increasingly stronger as time has progressed. At the same time, the nation as a whole has not recognized that Jesus is the Messiah and turned to Him; that day is still to come. It is now more than forty years since the Six-Day War. Many Arab nations are still technically at war with Israel, the key issue of peace being the demand made to Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders. We cannot ignore the fact that after forty years, the outcome of the 1967 war is still the major issue in the Middle East. Even now negotiations are under way in the attempt to bring about a peace treaty. For these reasons the significance of the outcome of the 1967 war must not be underestimated. The years 1948 and 1967 are the two outstanding dates in Jewish history since AD 70 and biblical prophecy is focused on Jewish history focused on Jerusalem. At the very least then, this interpretation must get very serious consideration. Looking to the future, the achievement of a peace treaty between Israel and her neighbors or between many nations, including many in the Middle East, will be an event of notable importance. Such a treaty will have sufficient significance to be a strong candidate to mark the beginning of the final seven in the seventy sevens prophecy end of the age scenario. Remember,

that that final seven is not seven years long, but that the final abomination that causes desolation will mark the middle (in a broad sense, not a precise mathematical middle) of this final seven twenty-three hundred days (about 6.3 years) before the end of the age (see Daniel 8). Remember, from the start of this final covenant, a period of peace will be terminated by the actions of one termed the coming ruler in Daniel 9:26. It is now to that final event that attention is turned.

Figure 6: The Middle East (This a google map with data source www.godweb.org . It is a Central Intelligence Agency map of the Middle East in 2003) B8.3.   The Final Devastation of Jerusalem The reason why the events in the verses below are seen to be a third and final devastation of Jerusalem will be revealed. This will involve an extensive and careful evaluation of many different views and a comprehensive

examination of all that Jesus said together with the added understanding from the previous chapters in this book. Before discussing these passages, it is important to recall that Jesus’s knowledge of the Old Testament was exceptional. Even at twelve years of age, He was able to amaze the leaders in the synagogue at Jerusalem with His exceptional insight and questions (Luke 2:41–52) and this discourse on the Mount of Olives was twenty years later. In the Passion Week, all the synoptic Gospels record Jesus’s dialogues with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Teachers of the Law, the end result of which shows that He clearly confounded them all so that they dare not ask Him any more questions (Mark 12:28–34). Many of the people in His time recognized the authority with which He spoke, so it is important to see that Jesus’s understanding was recognized to be at least equal to the top scholarship of His day. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that He had such a good understanding of the book of Daniel that His views should carry authority. Before discussing these passages in detail, a general comment is in order. Many scholars consider that Matthew 24:15–28, Mark 13:14–23, and Luke 21:20–24 all refer to the devastation wrought by the Roman armies in AD 70. The major reason for this has been their interpretation of the book of Daniel. But another important reason has to do with the similarities between the three descriptions. All three contain the injunction to those in Judea to flee to the mountains and all three say how dreadful it will be for pregnant women. On this basis it is often assumed that the same event is being discussed. However, the differences between these passages are also important and seem to be frequently overlooked. What is more, little attempt has been made to reconcile what Jesus says in Luke 17:20–37 with the very similar phrases in Matthew 24:15–28 and 36–42. B8.3.1   The Abomination That Causes Desolation Matthew 24:15–16: (15) “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—(16) then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Mark 13:14: (14) “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Discussion: There is a considerable divergence of opinion as to how to interpret the “abomination that causes desolation.” Before actually discussing this, note that this sign is something that will be “seen” in contrast to the earlier signs in Matthew 24:6 and Mark 13:7 that will be heard. Also note that Jesus says, “When you see,” indicating something that will surely occur without telling us when it will occur. Luke 21:20 also starts with “when you see,” but there Jesus says that what will be seen is “Jerusalem being surrounded by

armies”; the sign is different. Some scholars believe that this is a different perspective on the same event; others believe that it is a different event. This is a key question that needs to be resolved. The results from the earlier chapters of this book have led us to some very different conclusions about Daniel’s prophecies. The impact of those conclusions is crucial to understanding what Jesus is saying. The “abomination that causes desolation” and Jerusalem being “surrounded by armies” are signs that precipitate suffering of incredible severity. They are also very specific and convey the sense that when they occur they will be unmistakable. When Jerusalem was surrounded by the Roman army, the fulfillment of Jesus’s words was and remains unmistakable. However, the “abomination that causes desolation” still remains an issue whose interpretation is controversial. This, in itself, is evidence that it has not yet occurred. What does the phrase “abomination that causes desolation,” which occurs three times in Daniel (9:27, 11:31, and 12:11) mean? The phrase is a literal translation of the Hebrew words of an event that is so offensive that Daniel does not want to say it directly, so he uses an expression for “abomination” that sounds in Hebrew a bit like “Ba’al-shemaim” which means “lord of the heavens,” the name of a false god. The meaning is that there will be terrible horror and desolation as a result of judgment because of the offense against God of a false god occupying God’s holy place or false worship in God’s holy place. It may also be important to notice the slight difference between Daniel 9:27, where the “desolating abominations” is plural, compared with Daniel 11:31 and 12:11, where it is a single abomination that is set up. There should be little doubt that the “abomination that causes desolation” in Daniel 11:31 would be clearly understood by the Jews. As well as Daniel, other well-known books such as the Maccabees record historical detail about the events described in Daniel 11:31, which was known to be past history. This occurred in 167 BC when Antiochus IV, the Seleucid ruler, was desolating the nation. Antiochus IV outraged the Jews by erecting an altar to Zeus on the altar of burnt offering in the temple and sacrificing pigs on it. Note that in this case the Seleucid army devastated the city, but the abomination was the worship of Zeus by offering pigs on the altar, not the Seleucid army itself. This sacrilege provoked the Maccabean Revolt, which against all odds earned the Jews their only century of political self-rule between 586–587 BC when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and 1967 when Israel regained full control of Jerusalem. So there can be no doubt that Jesus’s reference to the “abomination that causes desolation” that will come cannot be a reference to the sacrilege committed by Antiochus IV in 167 BC. In Matthew 24:15, Jesus says that what will be seen is an abomination that causes desolation “standing in the holy place.” In Mark 13:14 this abomination is “standing where it does not belong” and the marginal reference suggests that it could be a person standing in the holy place. It is clearly the stationary location of this offensive thing that is in mind, and the location is most likely in or around the temple. If Jerusalem or Judea was in mind, there would more likely be a

reference to the holy city or the Promised Land in Jesus’s words. His reference to the context of Daniel 9:27 or Daniel 12:11 is much more likely a reference to a religious location such as a temple rather than to a secular location such as a city. In Daniel 8:11 it is the place of the sanctuary that is brought low, and this occurrence was associated with the “abomination that causes desolation” in chapter 5 of this book. Therefore, It is hard to escape the conclusion that Jesus knew of at least two and possibly three “abominations that cause desolation” in the book of Daniel. The first of these must be that described in Daniel 11:31, an event that is clearly past history. The “spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—” in Matthew 24:15 NIV is interesting. A similar, more abbreviated phrase is found in Mark 13:14. In his commentary on Mark, Edwards (2002, 396) sees this as a rather baffling editorial comment by Mark. In contrast, Morris (1992, 603) sees this as a statement by Jesus to His hearers to read about “the abomination that causes desolation” in the book of Daniel carefully in order to understand what is meant. Given the interpretation made in this book that there are two future occurrences of this abomination, the reason why Jesus might say this does seem fairly obvious; He doesn’t want us to be confused about which occurrence He is talking about. If there was potential for confusion, we might wonder why Jesus didn’t make it clear and spell it out precisely. However, it is frequently part of Jesus’s style not to tell us everything, because He is always inviting us to think more deeply, and He doesn’t want to just “spoon-feed” us with the truth. He frequently spoke in parables for just this same reason. This means that Jesus was confident that His hearers could work out which “abomination that causes desolation” He was talking about, but He is cautioning us to think carefully otherwise we might get it wrong. This means we should be able to work it out today as well. At this point, it will be valuable to consider the different views that have been discussed in the commentaries in order to see why there has been confusion. Before doing this, it is obvious that the interpretation of the book of Daniel will hugely impact our understanding about what Jesus said. If our understanding is different from that of Jesus, confusion about the meaning of the “abomination that causes desolation” is inevitable. On the other hand, if the meaning becomes clear, then that is strong evidence that our understanding of Daniel is correct. If Jesus had an Antiochene view (1A1, 7A4.2) of Daniel’s prophecies, then His words would be especially difficult to understand, because all the “abominations that causes desolation” would be past history. Then it would be impossible for Jesus to speak about disciples seeing this occurrence in the future. The clear inference is that Jesus could not have had an Antiochene view. If Jesus had a preterist view (1A3, 7A4.4) then precisely two events associated with the “abominations that cause desolation” must be recognized in Daniel’s prophecies. The first of these would be that described in Daniel 11:31 discussed above. According to Mauro (1944) and Eberle and

Trench (2006, 48, 2009) the second occurrence is the “armies surrounding Jerusalem” in AD 70. In this interpretation, the Roman legions that caused the devastation of the city and the destruction of the temple are also the abomination that caused desolation; this is in contrast with the first event, where the army caused the devastation, but the abomination was caused by defiling worship. As has been seen, Jesus spoke of the abomination “standing in the holy place,” which is much more likely to have been in the temple precincts rather than the region of the holy city. Thus biblically, it is difficult to see the physical presence of ungodly armies surrounding Jerusalem as a defiling action. Defiling actions are associated with what happens in the very presence of God or in the special structures or places where He is known to dwell, such as temples. This interpretation by the preterist view is also open to the question of why every army that has surrounded Jerusalem should not also be viewed in the same way. The preterist might then draw attention to Matthew 24:28 NIV “where there is a carcass there the vultures will gather,” which in the NKJV is, “For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.” The NKJV has translated “vultures” as “eagles,” which is a possible translation of the Greek. The relevance of this is that the Roman legions carried banners whose insignia was an “eagle.” However, the exegetical problem is that eagles do not gather to dead carcasses like vultures do so that the NIV must be correct. It really does not make sense to use the symbol of the Roman legions, “the eagle,” gathering around Jerusalem, “the carcass,” especially as the Jews were still very much alive until they were defeated as an outcome of the siege. In reality, the meaning of this verse is something different, as will be seen. Overall, the preterist view is constrained by the need for all of Daniel’s prophecies to be fulfilled within the first century AD. In particular, the final seven begins in AD 27, and Jesus is crucified in the middle of the final seven. Eberle and Trench (2006, 104ff, 2009) explain that the daily sacrifice was ended spiritually when Jesus died since “Jesus made obsolete the Jewish religious system,” even though it did not end physically until AD 70. Further difficulties arise because according to Daniel 9:27c, the “abomination that causes desolation” must occur in the middle of the final seven, which ends in AD 34, so this interpretation is a problem if the abomination is the same as the armies that surrounded Jerusalem in AD 70. It is also a problem in this view that the devastation of the city and the sanctuary that is described in Daniel 9:26b as occurring after the start of the final week occurs beyond the extent of the seventy sevens. It really misses the point to say as Mauro (1944) that the offense occurred spiritually when Jesus was crucified in about AD 30, so that AD 70 was just the physical outworking of what had already occurred spiritually. With this view also, the abomination that causes desolation described in Daniel 12:11 together with the 1,290 days and the 1,335 days does not have a precise explanation, only a guess as to what it might mean (see Mauro 1944, 69ff). If Jesus had an Antichrist view (1A2, 7A4.3) then there would also be precisely two “abominations that cause desolation.” The first of these would be the same as for the preterist view that described what Antiochus IV did in Jerusalem in 167 BC. However, the second would be at the end of the age.

Those with this view deny that there was an abomination that causes desolation in the first century AD. Edwards (2004, 396) rejects the proposal by some that the Roman Emperor Caligula (AD 37–41) was the abomination that causes desolation on two reasonable points. The first is that his attempt to erect a statue of himself in the temple of Jerusalem and have Jews worship him as a god never actually eventuated and the second is that the Christians did not “flee to the mountains” (Mark 13:14). The problems with accepting the destruction of the temple by Titus in AD 70 as the abomination that causes desolation are also delineated by many scholars even though this is the most common explanation. Some aspects of what Jesus said do concur with this event. The problem is that there are other aspects that are in conflict so that the explanation is not totally satisfactory. The first of these is that many Jews fled into Jerusalem, not away from it. The second is that the Roman soldiers defiled the temple after the Christians had fled, and the focus of history is not on Titus standing in the temple but on the fire and conflagration that destroyed it. The third issue is that the Christians followed Jesus’s instructions in Luke 21:20 to flee when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies, not when the Romans defiled the temple. This is why the preterist takes the view that it is the Roman armies that are the abomination, but this interpretation is questionable, as has been seen. For these reasons, those with an Antichrist view see the abomination that causes desolation in Matthew and Mark as a separate event from the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies as described in Luke They see it as occurring at the end of the age just before Jesus returns. They therefore see just two abominations that cause desolation in the book of Daniel. It is hard to reject the idea that Jesus must have gained His discernment of the need for His death to make atonement for iniquity, the invasion of Judea by the Roman legions, and His expectation of God’s judgment against His people from His consideration of Daniel 9:24–27 and Daniel 11:36–12:13. The suffering that His people had already experienced and would continue to experience is laid out prophetically in Daniel with full theological support and justification. However, the Antichrist view tries to make the seventy sevens prophecy in Daniel 9:26 fit His first coming and Daniel 9:27 fit an end of the age ruler. It does this with difficulty and ultimately in a way that is unacceptable to many scholars. For those who see the final tribulation of seven years at the end of the age (see for example LaHaye and Hindson (2006) the major problems that have been identified are: 1. All the events described in Daniel 9:26 are seen to occur within the proposed time gap of two thousand years between the sixty-ninth and seventieth seven, but they are outside the boundaries of the seven sevens, the sixty-two sevens, and the one seven. This is not seen as a problem to those with this view, but it should be. 2. According to natural Hebrew grammar, the identity of the one who makes a covenant with the many for one seven in Daniel 9:27a is the coming ruler in Daniel 9:26b. However, the people of this coming ruler

are interpreted to be the Roman legions who devastated the city and destroyed the temple in AD 70 under the leadership of Titus. In Daniel 9:27a this person is interpreted to be the end of the age Antichrist. Thus the “coming ruler” takes on multiple identities. This might be all right if the “coming ruler” was interpreted generically, but then logical consistency would require that the “people of the coming ruler” in Daniel 9:26b was meaningful to both identities. This is only logically possible if the seventy sevens prophecy is interpreted as a pattern prophecy with multiple scenarios. For those who see that the final tribulation is three and a half years at the end of the age, the problems are fewer but still substantial. 1. The anointed one being cut off (Daniel 9:26a) occurs after the sixty-two sevens at the end of the midpoint of the final seven. This is still within the seventy sevens and so is possible. 2. The people of the coming ruler (Daniel 9:26b) interpreted to be the Roman legions under Titus in AD 70 and the suffering that follows, occurs outside the boundaries of the seven sevens, the sixty-two sevens, and the one seven. 3. The identity of the one who makes a covenant with the many for one seven in Daniel 9:27a would normally, by the rules of natural Hebrew grammar, be the coming ruler in Daniel 9:26b, who is the immediate antecedent. However, in this interpretation, he has to be Jesus, and so the covenant has to stretch across the gap to the end of the age. It is therefore partially outside the boundaries of the seven sevens, sixty-two sevens, and the final seven. 4. It is strange to impose a large time gap in the middle of the final seven. 5. Conner (1981, 84ff) sees the desolating abominations to be the continuation of the offering of animal sacrifices and the perpetuation of Mosaic rituals for forty years until AD 70 after the death of Jesus, the one perfect sacrifice for sins. However, the problem with this is that there is no single event that the disciples can see to trigger “fleeing to the mountains.” The Christians did flee as Josephus reports, but this was in response to Jerusalem being surrounded by armies; they did not flee when the Jews continued to offer sacrifices after the death of Jesus. It is also a problem that if this is the abomination that causes desolation, then it occurs outside the periods defined in the seventy sevens prophecy but within the gap in the middle of the final seven. In addition, Conner (1981, 103ff) sees the continuation of the Mosaic ritual as an abomination that God allowed, giving an “extension of forty years grace and probation.” This is nowhere explained as the purpose in the Word of God. In fact, after the terrible suffering in AD 70, the Jews continued to rebel against the Romans and attempted to restart the Mosaic rituals and to rebuild the temple until their power was totally broken by AD 638 when the Muslims took Jerusalem. 6. With Conner (1981, 92ff), it is also a problem that the desolation described in Daniel 9:27 as part of the final seven is largely being

fulfilled in the period of the gap between the three and a half years of Jesus’s ministry and the final three and a half years of tribulation. Overall, the problems are so severe that it is difficult to see how Jesus could adopt a view like these. The evidence is therefore strong that there is something seriously wrong with the framework of the interpretation; no existing interpretations of the book of Daniel overcome the difficulties. For these reasons, Jesus must have seen the situation somewhat differently. The problem is that the hypotheses considered are all too simple to encompass the complete picture; what is needed is a framework with three abominations that cause desolation, not two. That is why the Roman view that is proposed in this book has the flexibility to accommodate the picture that Jesus has painted for us in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 together with His other comments. Jesus must have known that: 1. The seventy sevens prophecy was a pattern prophecy with three, yes three, different scenarios. 2. There are three abominations that cause desolation as referenced in Daniel 11:31, Daniel 12:11, and Daniel 9:27. Since Daniel 9:27c is part of the pattern prophecy; it cannot be the third abomination that causes desolation. As has been discussed, the prophecy with regard to the little horn in Daniel 8, who directs worship to himself and brings the place of the sanctuary low (Daniel 8:11) must be the third abomination! It was the first one that Daniel understood. It definitely cannot be a prophecy about Antiochus IV. 3. This would clearly explain Jesus’s statement “let the reader understand” in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14. It is easy to see that there are two abominations that cause desolation, but it requires a bit more thought to see that there must really be three of them. The problem can be solved, but it is harder than it appears. 4. It would now be possible for Jesus to see one seventy sevens pattern referring to Antiochus IV, which is past history. A second pattern would be where He is cut off and the Roman legions under Titus come and devastate the city and the sanctuary followed by war continuing for a very long time. There is then a third pattern right at the end of the age just before He returns. 5. Jesus would see that the second pattern where He is cut off also contains the abomination that causes desolation in Daniel 12:11, which is in the middle of the one seven involving a very long period of desolation for His people. He does not need to talk about this in the Olivet Sermon, since it is not an important sign within the purpose of His discussion with the disciples. It is in the future but not at the end near His Second Coming. Although Luke’s description of the sack of Jerusalem (fulfilled in AD 70) and Matthew’s and Mark’s descriptions also tell of enormous suffering in Jerusalem in similar words, there are significant differences too. The compelling evidence is that Matthew and Mark are describing enormous

suffering in Jerusalem just before Jesus’s return, whereas Luke is describing the suffering and distress in Jerusalem in the near future from the Roman Empire. From the perspective of today, Luke is describing past history; Matthew and Mark are describing events yet to come. The remaining verses in this section are now examined and compared in more detail. B8.3.2   Comparing What Has Been Written From the similarities and differences between the three Gospel records of the Mount of Olives discourse, it must be concluded that the authors have selected what to include. Thus it is apparent that what has been written in Luke 21 is significantly different from Matthew 24 and Mark 13, whereas what is written in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 is fairly similar. It is also apparent that Luke 17:22–37 has recorded words that Jesus spoke that are similar to what is recorded in Matthew 24 and to a much lesser extent in Mark 13, but in a different context. In particular, it is noted that Mark 13:9–13 is not present in Matthew 24, but in Matthew 10:17–22 when Jesus sent out the twelve. Portions of this are in Luke 21:12–15, but similar words are duplicated in Luke 12:11–12, establishing that Jesus taught some things multiple times. In the Passion Week, Luke 21:37 tells us that Jesus went to the Mount of Olives each evening. It is therefore possible that the discourse that has been recorded reflects Jesus teaching over more than one evening and/or that it reflects an emphasis on different components of what He shared, so that the synoptic Gospels together reflect the total package. To help untangle this, the following table has been set up below Table 6: The Gospel’s record of the Sermon on the Mount Discussion: 1. It has been established that the abomination that causes desolation in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14a is an event different from that described in Luke 21:20; an event that occurs at the end of the age. This is a simpler solution than seeing how they can be the same. 2. In all three Gospels Jesus strongly advises people “in Judea to flee to the mountains” (Matthew 24:16, Mark 13:14b, and Luke 20:21a). Notice that it is not just people in Jerusalem that are to flee; the devastation is going to impact the whole region. Although the words in the three verses are almost identical, this does not establish that only one event is in mind. 3. The next consequential instruction by Jesus in Matthew 24:17–18 and Mark 13:15–16 is very similar to Luke 17:31 but is distinctly different from that in Luke 21:21b. Luke explains that people should leave the city and that those outside the city are not to enter it, further elucidating what is meant by fleeing to the mountains. However, there is not the same sense of urgency for immediate action that the other

passages convey. In Matthew 24:17–18 and Mark 13:15–16 the force of the words is that there is not even enough time to go down into the house to get anything. Edwards (2002, 397) says, “People on their flatroofed Palestinian homes must flee by the outside staircase without going inside.” This degree of urgency would not have been necessary when the Roman armies started to surround Jerusalem, as it would have taken some time to complete the investiture, and prior to this there would have been significant time to observe the armies approaching. However, in response to the “abomination that causes desolation” people should run without any delay with the same urgency that Lot was asked to run from Sodom (see Luke 17:28–30 and Genesis 19:15–22); it is interesting that in Genesis 19:17 Lot too is asked to “flee to the mountains,” perhaps relating us to the context of Jesus’s words. 4. Only Luke (21:22) relates that the desolation that is to come on Jerusalem is as a result of punishment “in fulfillment of all that has been written.” Jesus has spoken frequently of coming judgment on “this generation,” and so it is most relevant for Him to point out the reason behind the desolation that is to come within the lifetime of those disciples listening to Him. In Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14a it is the abomination that causes the desolation, whereas in Luke 21:20–22 it is the wrath of God poured out in punishment that does this; there is a clear difference between the two causes of desolation. 5. The degree of suffering is measured in almost identical terms in all three Gospels, by the suffering that will be experienced by “pregnant women and nursing mothers.” The similarity in these words does not establish that only a single event is in mind. 6. Only Matthew 24:20 and Mark 13:18 include the statement to “pray that your flight will not take place in winter.” Matthew adds “on the Sabbath” too, which reflects his focus on a Jewish readership. It is relevant to say that history records that the Roman siege under Titus in AD70 occurred from July to September, which was the middle of summer. It is evident that flight in winter would provide inadequate time to prepare for the privations of cold, wind, and flood especially for pregnant women and mothers with young children. Apparently, this would not be an issue for the flight in AD 70, as the departure does not need to be so sudden, and so its omission from Luke 21 is no surprise. 7. There is a strong parallel between Jesus’s words in Matthew 24:21 and Mark 13:19 with those in Daniel 12:1–3. As has been seen, Daniel 12:1 is speaking of great distress during the Roman Empire. When Jesus speaks in similar words about great distress, He qualifies it with the words “and never to be equaled again.” This looks very deliberate; Jesus has already alluded to Daniel in the earlier verses so He is thinking in the context of Daniel’s prophecies. It would seem that He is making clear to us that this distress is at a different level from that in Daniel 12:1–3—a period of distress greater than that under Rome, and never to be equaled. In contrast, the distress described in Luke 21:23b– 24a is quite different; here there is great distress, but it is not

described in comparative terms; rather, the focus is on distress resulting from the wrath of God and military action. 8. In the next verses in Matthew 24:22–25 and Mark 13:20–23, Jesus says that this distress will be so great that unless God intervenes to shorten those days (and He will for the sake of the elect) no one would survive. During this time, the danger is enhanced through deception resulting from false claims and extraordinary signs and wonders that will have the potential to deceive even the elect. It should be apparent that since the elect (presumably Christians) had fled the city in AD 70 to take refuge in the city of Pella (Josephus records this), no intervention by God would be needed to ensure their survival. History records that the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 proceeded to completion, and there is no evidence that it was cut short in any way. Besides, since the elect had fled the city, there were none remaining to protect. Jesus said that unless God intervenes “no one would survive”; although this might be seen as hyperbolic language to describe extreme persecution in AD 70, it is more natural to take Jesus’s words as literally true. In addition, a sudden intervention by God at the end of the age is predicted in a number of Old Testament and New Testament scriptures. See for example Daniel 7:22, 26, Daniel 8:25, Daniel 9:26 and 27, here in the Gospels, 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17, 5:1–4, and others, especially in the book of Revelation. Further, the distress that occurred during the siege of Jerusalem did not include false prophets and mighty signs and wonders, and all the elect have escaped and so were not present to be deceived. Rather, the distress that occurred during the Roman Empire resulted from military action, and God protected His people by scattering them all over the empire, at the same time breaking their power as a united force. Thus the degree of distress and God’s intervention are quite unique to this final end-time occurrence and are rather different from what happened in AD 70. Those with a preterist view attempt to explain God’s intervention as something that happens in heaven—see Eberle and Trench (2006, 65). This will be addressed later. 9. Interestingly, the next verses in Matthew 24:26–27 that are also similar to Luke 17:23–25 have been omitted from both Mark 13 and Luke 21. The passage in Luke 17 is very clearly associated with Jesus’s Second Coming so the close parallels in the text of Luke 17 with Matthew 24 point strongly to Matthew 24:15ff and therefore Mark 13:14ff being a description of events near the end of the age. The main thrust of these verses is to emphasize that Jesus’s coming will be very sudden and that everyone will see it, and so we are not to be deceived by anyone claiming to be Jesus who comes in any other way. 10. There is a strong probability that references to the “day” are not limited to just the specific moment in time when Jesus returns, but rather to the short period of time over which God consummates His plan. This is seen for example in Luke 17:31 where Jesus gives instructions about the urgent escape to the mountains “on that day” with His similar instructions in Matthew 24:15–16 and Mark 13:14 to flee at the appearance of the “abomination that causes desolation”

coupled with the surprise and total lack of expectancy and preparation of the world when these end-time events unfold. The verses preceding Luke 17:31 describe the “days of the Son of Man” (Luke 17:26) like the days of Noah, where people were living normal lives and then the flood came, and similarly in the days of Lot, when the destruction of Sodom with fire and sulfur was even more sudden. Such is the rapidity with which events will overtake the people that only some will escape, but many others will be caught and be like dead bodies so that the “vultures” will be able to deal with them easily. This seems to be the sense of Luke 17:23–37. Matthew 24:26–28 and 36–42 reflect a similar meaning, and all of these are supported by the gruesome picture of final events in Ezekiel 39:3–6, 17–20 and Revelation 19:17–18. 11. In Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32, Jesus says, “No one knows about that day or hour.” This is frequently interpreted to mean that it is “when” that day or hour is that is not known, but that is not what these verses say. The word is more general, and the amazing thing is that He refers to himself as the “Son,” a remarkable acknowledgment by Jesus of His relationship to His Father which is even more remarkably associated with a statement that He does not know something. Jesus admits His limitations as a man, but acknowledges His total faith in His heavenly Father. 12. It is in Matthew 24:42 and Mark 13:33 that Jesus says that we do not know the day that He will come. 13. In Matthew 24:29 the words Jesus gave are quite precise —“immediately after the distress of those days” Jesus will return. The implication seems clear that the return of Jesus is part of what God does to shorten the distress of those days. In Mark 13:24, the words are also clear—“But in those days, following that distress” Jesus will return. So the evidence is very compelling; what is being talked about here in Matthew 24:15–28 and Mark 13:14–23 is the final days at the end of the age. The consideration of the detail of these passages further reinforces the conclusions that we made earlier. What Jesus described in Luke 21:20–24a is a prediction of the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman legions in AD 70; what is described in Matthew 24:15–28 and Mark 13:14–23 is still future. There is yet to be a very intense period of suffering just before Jesus returns. It is now clear that when Jesus speaks of the “abomination that causes desolation standing in the holy place,” He is referring to an event still future, but described in detail in Daniel 8 and supplemented by the seventy sevens prophecy. The “abomination that causes desolation” is a person occupying and ruling from God’s holy place. When this happens, it will be known that Jesus’s return is not far away; in fact, we will know that it is only twenty-three hundred days (about 6.3 years) away. Especially distinctive is that the end-time “abomination that causes desolation” is an evil, unholy person occupying and ruling from the place of God’s earthly temple who brings the place of the sanctuary low by drawing worship to himself rather than God; whereas the other “abominations that cause desolation” are defiling objects occupying the holy place that are set up as clearly stated in

Daniel 11:31 and 12:11. The reason for the plural “desolating abominations” and the ambiguity of the “wing” in Daniel 9:27 are now revealed; three different occasions are being described corresponding to the three scenarios predicted by the seventy sevens pattern prophecy. In these verses Jesus describes the final attempt to destroy the Jews and Jerusalem before He returns. It almost succeeds. When this evil person appears, Jesus advises those in Jerusalem to immediately flee Judea, for there will be a time of distress that exceeds all previous ones, so much so that unless the Lord intervenes no one would survive. It would appear that this person has the power to do signs and wonders so that he might deceive even the elect (Matthew 24:24). Zechariah 13 suggests that only one third of the nation will survive. Zechariah 14 suggests that Jerusalem will finally be captured and one half of the city will go into exile. These predictions seem to be reinforced by what Jesus has said. Some may ask, if there are three “abominations which cause desolation,” why is it that no early Christian literature reflects this possibility? Although the reason for this is not known, the following points are relevant 1. There is substantial evidence that significant understanding that the early church possessed has been lost and during the last few hundred years is being rediscovered. A prominent example of this is Luther’s rediscovery of justification by faith. Other examples can be seen in the restoration of many aspects of the early church that have occurred in the modern era. 2. It is interesting that Morris (1991, 217) writes in relation to the rebellion and the “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4 that “this is an extraordinarily difficult passage, not made any easier by the fact that its subject matter is not dealt with elsewhere.” It is the view of this work that the rebellion is discussed quite extensively in Daniel 8 in particular and in a few other places as well. This seems to be a clear case of wrong end-times understanding obscuring something that is, in fact, quite clear. B9.   Jesus Will Return Jerusalem is central to God’s plan. When Jesus returns, it is to the Mount of Olives just adjacent to Jerusalem. The place where God will set up His throne in the New Earth is the New Jerusalem. For this reason, the spiritual conflict between God and Satan centers now physically on Jerusalem. There is a sense in which even today we can discern the gathering of physical powers in the Middle East with Jerusalem right at the center of the conflict. B9.1.   Sudden and Visible Matthew 24:26–28: (26) “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. (27) For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. (28) Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

Luke 17:23–25, 37: (23) Men will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. (24) For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. (25) But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. (37) “Where, Lord?” they asked. He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.” Discussion: The return of Jesus will be very sudden and very visible; like lightning. He will not come to the desert; nor will He come in secret. The visual picture of lightning being visible across the whole sky emphasizes that everyone will know when Jesus comes. Any other kind of return is false; this will be an important way to distinguish between false Christs and the true one. The explanation of these verses by Eberle and Trench (2006, 56) that sees this as Jesus coming “up above,” that is, in heaven rather than in the desert or in secret, is puzzling since the force of these words is its suddenness and visibility. If it is an outward manifestation of Jesus taking His throne in heaven, then there is nothing in what the disciples could see that suggests this. Besides, apart from the fact that the Bible teaches that Jesus took His throne in heaven after His ascension, the Bible does not tell us exactly when this occurred, and it certainly cannot be pinpointed to AD 70. They also interpret the next verse as the Roman soldiers (with their banners depicting eagles) gathering around Jerusalem (the carcass), which would be a very puzzling change of context from the previous verse and which also ignores the context of Luke 17:37. The reference to “a carcass to which vultures gather” reinforces the rapidity with which Jesus’s return will lead to the total defeat of evil. It is a strange and yet very powerful picture of the sudden but overwhelming defeat of God’s enemies as the previous section discussed. B9.2.   Heavenly Dynamics Matthew 24:29: (29) “Immediately after the distress of those days ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’ Mark 13:24–25:

(24) “But in those days, following that distress, ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; (25) the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’ Luke 21:25–26: (25) “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. (26) Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. Discussion: Matthew and Mark see the physical signs described as occurring immediately after the times of extreme distress. They both seem to clearly differentiate between “these days” when referring to signs pointing to the destruction of the temple and to “those days” when looking further into the future. Luke is less specific about the immediacy of the signs after Luke 21:24b. This is consistent with there being a longer period of time after the Jews gain full governmental control of Jerusalem before the final end. In Luke 21:25 Jesus said, “On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.” The “sea” is often used as a description of the mass of peoples from every tribe, people, nation, and language. This is seen in Daniel 7:2–3 as well; the four beasts emerge from the “churning of the great sea,” the seething mass of humanity. Given the association of the “sea” with the turbulent and dynamic nature of the rise, fall, and relationships between peoples and nations in Daniel, it is necessary to see a similar dynamic in what Jesus is saying. This matches the unfolding of events today. Consider 9/11, the Middle East wars, the threat of nuclear war, global climate issues, peak oil, the huge loss of life in the Middle East, and the huge threat to the survival of Israel; this is more than enough to match Jesus’s description in Luke. The events unfolding in the world today are very definitely causing huge anguish and perplexity. We just have to recall the enormous concern over new nations acquiring nuclear power. And what of the huge anguish and perplexity that has existed as nations have tried to bring peace in the Middle East and defeat terrorism. Global warming, war, nuclear war, oil shortage, and economic ruin are looming catastrophic possibilities. In addition, history will unfold so that wars will become increasingly horrific and world threatening, and it will not be possible to prevent this happening because of greed and wickedness.

What is meant by signs in the sun, moon, and stars, and the heavenly bodies being shaken is less clear. It is not clear that these signs can be identified yet. However, it should be noted that given the observational language of the Bible, the signs in the heavens can be associated with the appearance of things in the sky and do not have to mean actual events on the sun, moon, and stars. For this reason, these signs could well result from the use of modern technology in warfare or space exploration or physical events on Earth of huge magnitude such as fires, volcanoes, and earthquakes. Perhaps it should not be overlooked that when Jesus was crucified, the Bible says that darkness came over the land from the sixth to the ninth hour (Mark 15:33), and Matthew (27:51) says that the earth shook and the rocks split. The physical signs described are very similar to descriptions given in Isaiah 2:19–21, 13:9–13 (Babylon), 24 (especially verse 23), 30:26 (perhaps), 34 (especially verse 4), Ezekiel 32:7–8 (Egypt), 38:17–23, Joel 2:10, Joel 2:28–32 also quoted by Peter in Acts 2:17–21, Joel 3:15–16, Zechariah 14:3–7, 2 Peter 3:10, and Revelation 6:12 (and see The Thirty-Two Theses ). Isaiah 13:9–13 speaks of judgment on Babylon, but it also foreshadows the much greater judgment at the end of the age. The prophets use hyperbolic language but nevertheless point forward to events whose physical manifestation will be very frightening and terrible. These verses provide strong evidence that what Jesus was describing referred to the final battle that is variously described in these books. Thus, just prior to Jesus’s return, there will be great distress in Israel and the world. Some of the things that Jesus describes in Luke could be associated with the actual return of Jesus described in the next verses. Eberle and Trench (2006, 67–70) interpret Matthew 24:29 as the use of symbolic, apocalyptic language associated with the devastation of Jerusalem in AD 70. However, the question is not whether this kind of language can be used for terrible devastation (it can; see Ezekiel 32:7–8), but rather what particular period of time is being spoken about by Jesus. The answer to that question depends first of all on the interpretation of the book of Daniel. However, from a number of the prophetic references given, this kind of language is very definitely relevant to what will happen at the end of the age on the day of the Lord. B9.3.   In the Clouds B9.3.1   Jesus Returns the Same Way That He Left Acts 1:9–12: (9) After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. (10) They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. (11) “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

(12) Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. Discussion: It is important for us to see that Jesus ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives and that as He was taken up, a cloud hid Him from their sight. It is also important that a number of disciples were witnesses to His ascension into heaven and heard the message about His return from the two men dressed in white. From their message, the following is very clear about His return. 1. The same Jesus will return. 2. He will return the same way that He was taken up into heaven. 3. This must mean that He will descend from heaven and appear from out of clouds. 4. The location of the return is the Mount of Olives. This is a short distance from the city of Jerusalem. It is important to see that His return is physically to the Mount of Olives and that He will appear out of clouds in the sky. This means that “Jesus coming with the clouds” does have a literal, physical aspect. B9.3.2   The Sign of the Son of Man in the Sky Matthew 24:30a: (30a) “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. Zechariah 12:10: (10) “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. Revelation 1:7, the words of John: (7) Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. Discussion:

There is no question that it is the “sign” that appears. The structure of the sentence means that the “sign” could be Jesus, or it could be something else that is not specified, but it will be unmistakable. This sign appears “in the sky” or “in heaven”; both translations are possible from the Greek words used. However, the preterist sees that the sign is the destruction of the temple and the devastation of Jerusalem on earth and that the sign indicates that Jesus has arrived in heaven; He is now ruling from His throne and has come into His kingdom; see Eberle and Trench (2006, 64–66). However, this interpretation really stretches the Greek text; the sign must appear in the sky or in heaven; the text cannot be forced to mean that the sign which appears (by inference on earth) is Jesus in heaven. Eberle and Trench (2006, 70–72) then go on to say that the “the nations of the earth” can be translated “the tribes of Israel in the land,” and so the ones that mourn are the people of Israel when they see the devastation of their city. Zechariah 12:10 tells us that the Jews will mourn, but this will happen when they see the Messiah, the one they have pierced, when God pours out His Spirit of grace and supplication. The mourning does not follow seeing the devastation of Jerusalem. However, Revelation 1:7, which is Jesus’s words to His church, also says “all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him” when He is seen. It is hard to understand how these words by John, which are very similar to what Jesus said in Matthew 24:30a, can apply only to the tribes of Israel. B9.3.3   Coming in a Cloud with Power and Great Glory Daniel 7:13–14: (13) “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. (14) He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. Matthew 24:30b: (30b) “They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. Mark 13:26: (26) “At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. Luke 21:27–28: (27) At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. (28) When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” Matthew 26:63–65:

(63) But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” (64) “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (65) Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. Mark 14:61–64: (61) But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (62) “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (63) The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. (64) “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death. Revelation 1:7, the words of John: (7) Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. Discussion: The similarity between the prophetic words given in Daniel 7:13 and the prophetic word Jesus gave about himself both to His disciples and to the high priest before the Sanhedrin is very striking. It was on the basis of this prophetic word by Jesus given at His trial, which also contained His claim to be the Son of God, that He was convicted of blasphemy and sent to the cross. The word to the disciples is quoted in all three synoptic Gospels, and His word before the high priest and the Sanhedrin is quoted in both Matthew and Mark. In the Old Testament, clouds are often associated with the presence (Exodus 13:21, 33:9) and glory of God. In particular, clouds hid the glory of God so the people would not die (Exodus 16:10, 19:9, and 24:15–16). As described earlier, the “Son of Man” is a most interesting title that Jesus adopted for himself and is a very direct reference to His likeness to man and His representation of man before the “Ancient of Days.” In Daniel 7:13–14, Daniel sees a vision of this “son of man coming with the clouds of heaven.” He then approaches the throne on which sits the Ancient of Days and is given full authority over the kingdoms of this earth. This person is both human and divine, and Jesus makes the claim both to the disciples and before the Jewish supreme authority in Jerusalem that this will become His position. That authority is accepted by the former but rejected by the latter.

It is important to see that there are two parts to the prophetic word given by Jesus to the Sanhedrin. In the Bible (see Hebrews 1:3, Acts 2:32–35, Psalm 110:1, Acts 7:56, and Romans 8:34), He will sit at the right hand of His Father in heaven and He will take this position following His ascension. However, Jesus does not yet have this position of authority over the nations and peoples of the earth. Clouds hide the glory of the presence of God on earth so flesh will not die. Clouds are not needed in heaven. So to say with Eberle and Trench (2006, 71), “When Jesus referred to “ the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory,” He did not say that the Son was coming back to earth, He meant this event was to happen in heaven. There Jesus was clothed with power and glory,” misunderstands the role and significance of clouds to protect flesh from God’s glory. The vision language of Daniel describes the “Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven”; He comes from the glory of the presence of God to the earth. He would not need clouds to come into the presence of the Ancient of Days in heaven. It is only after His Second Coming that He is given full authority; that is, when the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:63–65) will see Jesus. He will then be judge with all the authority that Daniel 7:14 speaks. That is why, when He comes in a cloud it is with power and great glory. There is no way that these words of Jesus can be reasonably fulfilled by anything other than His Second Coming. B9.3.4   The Trumpet and the Elect Gathered Matthew 24:31: (31) And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Mark 13:27: (27) And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens. 1 Corinthians 15:51–52: (51) Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed (52) in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17: (15) According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. (16) For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. (17) After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

Discussion: Matthew records that the gathering of the elect is accompanied by a “loud trumpet call.” Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:51–52 writes about the change that will occur to our physical bodies at the “last trumpet.” Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 writes of the resurrection of those dead in Christ being gathered to Him “in the clouds” along with those that are alive and remain following “a loud command,” “the voice of the archangel” and “the trumpet call of God.” There can be little doubt that these are connected events all associated with the return of Jesus. It is significant, that in Exodus 19 (see especially verses 16 and 19 and also Exodus 20:18) the sound of a loud and long trumpet blast is associated with the first direct contact between God and His chosen people on Mount Sinai. On that occasion, the presence of God was hidden in thick clouds (Exodus 19:16). Exodus 20:18 says, “Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, the whole mountain trembled violently.” The parallel here between God’s first appearance to His earthly bride Israel and His second appearance at the gathering together of the church should not be overlooked. In the Old Testament, the trumpet call is frequently used to summon or initiate new activity for a large group of people, but only in Exodus 19–20 and at Jesus’s return does the sound come from the presence of God. It is important to see from Matthew and Mark that the elect are gathered from everywhere to Jesus by His angels; Jesus is the focal point. This verse is not directed to the task of worldwide evangelism; the emphasis is on the elect being gathered to the Son of Man. It is not about going out and calling the lost from all over the world; it is the gathering to Jesus of those that are already His. It would also be very strange for His angels to be released to begin to gather people from every nation at the fall of Jerusalem. If this was a reference to starting the task of world evangelization, it would have commenced forty years earlier. B10.   This Generation Matthew 24:32–35: (32) “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. (33) Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. (34) I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (35) Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. Mark 13:28–31: (28) “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. (29) Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. (30) I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (31) Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Luke 21:29–33: (29) He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. (30) When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. (31) Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. (32) “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (33) Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. Discussion: These passages express the nearness of Jesus’s coming and strongly affirm its certainty. In the parable of the fig tree, Jesus focuses on the tree’s budding and the leaves appearing to indicate that summer is near. Since the coming of summer in the parable equates to the coming of Jesus, the “all these things” must equate to the signs that precede His coming and not to the coming itself. So the “all these things” will not include the immediately preceding verses, which describe His actual coming. Turner (2008, 586) makes this clear when he says, “If ‘all these things’ (parabolically the fig tree’s spring buds) included the coming of Jesus (parabolically the summer), 24:33 would be saying, ‘When you see the coming of Jesus, you will know that he is near.’ This tautology goes without saying. But if ‘all these things’ refers only to the preliminary signs, the statement makes sense, since seeing the signs confirm that the coming is near.” For this reason, it is not entirely clear whether the events starting with the abomination that causes desolation in Matthew and Mark should be regarded as part of Jesus’s coming or part of the signs that precede His coming. Edwards (2002, 385) is strong in his interpretation of Mark 13 that “these things” relates to signs that precede the abomination that causes desolation. The events that occur in “those days,” which start with the abomination that causes desolation, are at the end of the age and outside of the domain of “these things.” In all the synoptic Gospels, it is apparent that the specific referent of the phrase “these things” is the destruction of the temple in AD 70 when the Roman armies won a great victory, although the general signs are also included. However, the disciples questioned Jesus not only about the destruction of the temple but also about the signs of Jesus’s coming and the end of the age. It seems that in their mind, they were all events associated with the end, and so they were not really separated into distinct events with a distinct chronology. Jesus’s answer does seem to reflect events in some sequence but gives no indication of timing. For these reasons, the rather pedantic way in which the phrase “this generation” is sometimes interpreted reflects a greater precision than Jesus had in mind. Although Jesus’s answer encompasses the time until His Second Coming, the initial focus is on events leading up to the destruction of the temple. Thus Jesus gives a broad answer that contains the specifics of what happened up until AD 70 but also takes us much further. The other crucial term is “this generation.” Turner (2008, 586) writes, “Although some futurists argue that the word refers either to the nation of

Israel or to the eschatological generation that is alive at Jesus’s coming, the use of the term clearly shows that Jesus is talking about his contemporaries.” He then says, “But if Jesus is speaking only of the signs that augur his coming, he does not err. Jesus simply predicts that his contemporaries will see those signs, including the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 CE.” In addition to this, there is a major uncertainty about the interpretation that has been applied to Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32. For example, Matthew 24:34 reads, “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” The question surrounds the translation of the Greek verb translated “have happened,” which is an undefined (aorist) subjunctive. According to Mounce (2003,193ff and 288ff), this form of the verb has no time significance only aspect, and in the aorist form it only indicates an undefined action, and there is no concept of absolute past or absolute present in the subjunctive. This means that time has to be determined from the context, and the ingressive aorist is a real possibility. In this form, the verse could be translated, “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things begin to happen.” Mounce (2003, 193) discusses this specific possibility for this verse, and this translation makes a great deal of sense. This generation will begin to see these things happen and will know that the end is near, so they must be ready. Jesus emphasizes the importance of being alert and ready for His coming, and this translation imparts that focus very succinctly. The preterist view is strong in its insistence that the phrase “this generation” means that what Jesus says from Matthew 24:5–34 will be fulfilled by AD 70 within the generation of those who were alive when Jesus was crucified. However, we have also seen that another valid interpretation only requires that this generation sees the beginning of these things by AD 70. Other interpretations are also possible. Partial preterists Eberle and Trench (2006, 11) look for a literal fulfillment of Jesus’s words here and in Matthew 23:36 within a forty-year period of time. However, in pressing for this, some consequent interpretations of what Jesus said become difficult to substantiate, and a nonliteral or spiritual fulfillment of some of what Jesus said becomes necessary, as is summarized below. 1. In order to show that the distress the Jews will suffer in the destruction of Jerusalem will be the worst it will ever experience as per Matthew 24:21 and Mark 13:19, it becomes necessary to prove that the Jews’ suffering in AD 70 is the worst ever. This is logically impossible to do, although Eberle and Trench (2006, 52) argue that it was greater “in the sense of suffering and anguish” than even the Holocaust during World War II, even if not the greatest in magnitude. In making this comparison the primary resource to measure the suffering in AD 70 is the works of Josephus, who is not recognized as being the most reliable historian. 2. The signs in the sun, moon, and stars (Matthew 24:29) must become nonliteral since they did not occur when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. This interpretation is untestable and forced by the framework of the completion of these things by AD 70.

Matthew 24:30: “All the tribes of the earth will mourn.” The word earth 3. is interpreted to mean “land,” so it is only the Jews who mourn, and they do so as a consequence of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The sign of the Son of Man is the destruction of Jerusalem. Again this demonstrates making a less likely interpretation in order to fit the AD 70 completion framework. 4. In Matthew 24:30 “the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the sky (heaven)” is interpreted to be His ascension to glory in heaven, not His physical return to the earth. 5. Matthew 24:31 then becomes the trumpet that sounds to send forth the angels to gather people from every nation and describes the beginnings of world evangelism. Thus in forcing a particular literal meaning to “this generation,” nonliteral interpretations of other things that Jesus said become necessary. Whatever interpretation is adopted for Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, it is apparent that it depends very substantially on the understanding given to the book of Daniel, and in particular the specific interpretation of the seventy sevens prophecy. With the Roman view propounded in this book, resulting in three “abominations that cause desolation,” it seems possible to resolve all the difficulties in understanding what Jesus said. All the other views lead to areas of difficulty that are hard to resolve. In particular, it seems that Jesus recognized that His people were soon going to suffer tremendously under the Roman Empire and that they will suffer even more just before His return. Jesus’s understanding of the book of Daniel seems to have been a strong prophetic word to guide Him to that conclusion. B11.   When Will Jesus Return? Matthew 24:36: “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Mark 13:32: “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 1 Thessalonians 5:1–4 NIV: (1) Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, (2) for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. (3) While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. (4) But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. Discussion: It was a key question in the disciples’ mind: “When will these things happen?” In His answer, Jesus gave a number of important signs, which have been examined above. These signs will enable us to know when the time is near, so that the coming events will not catch us by surprise, providing we

remain vigilant. Jesus encourages us to be ready and alert and to be prepared but discourages us from trying to make exact calculations; even He doesn’t know the day or the hour. As this passage points out to us, it is very important that we keep alert. We are not in darkness that the coming of the Lord should surprise us like a thief. This contrasts with the world. So we need to live in hope and expectation of what God is going to do and as the day approaches be prepared in all the ways that the Bible teaches. There is no future event for which we should prepare more than this one. It is important that we see that there are three groups of people. The first group is those who will be totally unprepared for His return and for whom His coming will be a big surprise. The second group is the disciples who have remained alert and ready by their faithful obedience to the will of God. To them His coming will not be a surprise, and they will recognize the signs so that they know His coming is near. Both Jesus and Paul use the analogy of a woman giving birth to a child; as the day for birth approaches, the mother knows with increasing precision when the delivery will occur. So we need to see that Jesus expects us to see the signs and to be prepared. The problem today is that many in the church have kept clear of this area of study because of the churches’ confusion and because of faulty interpretation in the past. However, it is vital that we do not ignore what the Bible teaches and that we do understand and recognize the signs that have been given to us. The third group is therefore disciples who should know better but, partly because of the problems just referred to, have remained ignorant about what the Bible teaches and who are unprepared as a result. C.   Paul’s View of Daniel In this section, the goal is not to exhaustively locate and interpret every reference by Paul to the book of Daniel, which is beyond the scope of this book. However, there is a special interest in what Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2, because there are allusions to the book of Daniel that were previously obscure but now are clear. The understanding of Daniel that has been given gives authority and more clearly supports a clearer exegesis of Paul’s words in this chapter. This is the focus of what follows, especially verses 3 and 4. C1.   The Day of the Lord 2 Thessalonians 2 (1) Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, (2) not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Discussion: Paul wrote about the day of the Lord in his previous letter to the Thessalonians as well as here. From both these letters Paul teaches that when Jesus returns two things happen. Brothers and sisters in the Lord are

gathered to Him, whereas terrible judgment comes on the unbeliever. This event is so important for us that we cannot be complacent about it. And this day is very near. C2.   Deception and Rebellion (3) Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. (4) He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. Discussion: The Thessalonians had heard false teaching whose origin is unknown to us today, and it had created confusion to those young Christians. Paul is concerned, for it should not have caused a problem. The things he had told them previously should have been enough to guard them against lies and deception. However, this teaching was presented so that it appeared to have come from Paul, so they were confused. How could Paul, who had taught them one thing earlier, now say something that contradicts? Therefore, he has to write. Just as Jesus had so strongly warned His disciples about the dangers and risk of deception (Matthew 24:4–5, 23–26; Mark 13:5–6, 21–23; Luke 21:8, and elsewhere), so does Paul. This letter was probably written before any of the Gospels, but the knowledge of what Jesus taught would have been well known to the Christians in the early church. There can be no doubt that Paul would have covered the teachings of Jesus on His return along with His other teaching. There is much evidence that Paul taught at length; see for example the events in Acts 20:9 that describe how Eutychus was sinking into a deep sleep “as Paul talked on and on”! Paul was a scholar and a teacher trained in the very best institutions of his day. Paul says that two happenings must very definitely occur before the day of the Lord. These will be unmistakable. Paul is strong in his words; don’t let anyone deceive you; these two things must happen first. They are now examined. Morris (1991, 217) writes, “This is an extraordinarily difficult passage, not made any easier by the fact that its subject matter is not dealt with elsewhere.” On this point it will be shown that this is not correct. In fact, it is probable that we know today what Paul knew then, and we know even more since the evidence of the approach of these two events is all around us. They have not happened yet, but they will happen soon. In the same way that Habakkuk was told to look at the nations and be prepared for a big surprise (Habakkuk 1:5), so it is for us today. C2.1   The Rebellion (Verse 3) This means the “widespread and violent defiance of God’s authority.” It includes forsaking one’s former loyalty but also envisages active opposition against God’s rule. It excludes the defiance of nonaction and apathy.

Morris (1956, 126; 1991, 218) explains the word translated “rebellion” in the NIV. The Greek word is apostasia , which was used of political or military rebellion. The KJV translation “falling away” is not strong enough to capture the force of the Greek word used. There is also a definite article, “ the rebellion,” which suggests that it is a specific rebellion that Paul had talked about before. The Greek Bible also has the word “first,” which is omitted from the NIV. It might be said that the translation “the rebellion must come first” would be a more exact translation. However, “first” is implied in the NIV, so the omission is not very important. What is seen is that before the day of the Lord comes there must be a period of strong, active rebellion against God’s authority. From the end-time perspective that has been developed in this book, the inference is clear that Paul is talking about the period of the end-time ruler in Daniel 8. What would need to be the characteristics of “the rebellion”? 1. It would have to be a rebellion with a spiritual dimension, possibly associated with a visible kingdom on earth but which in any case is opposed to everything that God stands for. It would have to deny the foundations of Christian teaching. 2. It would have to have an alternate god. The first of the Ten Commandments specifies, “You shall have no other gods before me,” Exodus 20:3. There must be no god who competes, challenges, or comes above the God of Heaven, the God of the Bible. 3. It would have to deny that Jesus is God’s Son and that He died for us on the cross and rose again. 4. Its ethos would be opposite to that of Jesus. It would be a system of hatred and violence that uses physical force to achieve its goals rather than a system of love and grace to encourage willing choices to achieve its goals. It would be a system whose goal is to destroy the church and everything that Christians stand for and to bring the whole world under its authority. 5. Its laws would be opposite to that of Jesus. Under Jesus there is a freedom to willingly follow the direction of the Holy Spirit; the law is written on our hearts, and we follow that. Under this opposite system, a rigid set of laws would place the followers in terrible bondage and capture their followers in a false sense of security when they obey the law and leave them in a false guilt when they fail to follow the law. C2.2   The Man of Lawlessness Revealed (Verses 3–4) This person seems to be an individual who will be revealed in the last days preceding the coming of the Lord. He is a counterfeit of Jesus who as an individual represents the head of the spiritual kingdom opposed to God.

In technical language, he is referred to as the Man of Sin or the Antichrist. Notice how he is described as sitting in God’s temple. He opposes God and replaces God. This person has not yet been revealed. We need to be prayerfully on the alert. He is described as sitting in God’s temple, and Christians differ in interpreting whether this is a spiritual or physical temple. When he is revealed, we will know for sure. C3.   Paul’s View of the Role of Nations Paul’s sermon in Athens summarized in Acts 17:22–31 contains some important perspectives on God’s dealings with nations that complement the general picture given to us in the book of Daniel. In particular, God’s sovereignty over nations is seen in Acts 17:26–27, “(26) From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. (27) God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.” From this it is seen that the rise and fall of every nation is in God’s sovereign control, a major theme of the book of Daniel. It is also seen here how the rise and fall of nations is connected to God’s desire that all people should seek for Him and find Him. This speaks to us something of the redemptive purpose that God has in store for every nation. CHAPTER 9 New Perspectives of Daniel All the previous chapters have been fairly technical; they represent a reference commentary to the visions of Daniel. Their purpose is to put the thesis of this book on a strong academic footing. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the major new interpretations derived from the analysis and exegesis applied. This chapter is for those who want a quick overview of the whole book without having to wade through all the detail. If you come directly to this chapter, one perspective that will be missed is to see how the interpretation of each vision unfolds from Daniel’s point of view. It has been found an important aid to interpretation to do this. Most commentaries miss this perspective and have been too quick to apply interpretation based on the full knowledge of history and literature that we have today. Most of us know we’re near the end-times. Most of us have very little idea of the time scale to the end. It could be ten years or two hundred years for all we know. The church is massively confused about the end-times. The huge variety of very different viewpoints is testimony to this confusion. But the confusion is very dangerous. Many Bible teachers are remarkably confident about what they are teaching, even though their views are hugely different from each other. If wrong, they will be seriously misleading our people.

As this work has progressed, it has become more and more apparent how critically our understanding of the church age and the end-times derives from the interpretation of the book of Daniel. The interpretation of the endtimes teaching of Jesus, Paul, and John in the New Testament and especially in the book of Revelation depends directly on the interpretation given to the book of Daniel. Frequently, New Testament books and commentaries in these areas depend critically on the interpretation of the book of Daniel, while only superficially examining it. This is the major reason for the wide divergence of views. If our interpretation of Daniel can converge, so will the interpretations of the book of Revelation. Conversely, volume 2, now replaced by The Thirty-Two Theses , will show that much of the confusion and ambiguity in interpreting the book of Revelation is directly connected to problems interpreting the book of Daniel. The Lord now wants to remove that confusion. The time is now. We cannot be complacent about this huge area, which is a major component of what the Bible teaches and which is largely avoided and yet a huge area of fascination for many people. This must be changed so that end-time teaching is taught in a balanced way along with all the other aspects that we teach. It should be taught with the same balance as the New Testament church. It must be moved out of the arena of the specialist into something we all teach along with everything else. It no longer needs to be confusing. The picture is clear. Nothing substantial is any longer obscure and uncertain. • All prophecies in Daniel are Jerusalem centric. • Daniel’s known world is as seen in the map below.

Figure 7: The Assyrian and Babylonian Kingdoms, Ninth to Sixth Centuries BC (From Google Maps sourced from www.sheltonstate.edu ) A.   The Unfolding Drama in Daniel The following outlines the major thrusts in the dreams and visions in Daniel’s prophecies. A great deal of detail is omitted in this summary, and only the major conclusions are supplied. It is first developed and interpreted from the perspective of a Daniel living through the history in his time. This proves very revealing. It becomes apparent that with each new revelation Daniel is able to understand more, but the complete picture is only reached at the end. This picture is then updated with our current knowledge of how history unfolded and later theology. This is different from the approach of most commentators, who interpret Daniel by applying their full knowledge of the Bible and history when each revelation is discussed. A1.   Daniel’s Preparation (1) (605 BC) Daniel would probably have been taken to Babylon late in 605 BC or early 604 BC and commenced his three years of training soon afterward. Daniel 1:1 says that this occurred in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign when Nebuchadnezzar made his first invasion of Judah and Jerusalem. This must have been soon after he had defeated the Egyptians in May-June 605 BC at the Battle of Carchemish (Jeremiah 46:2) and ascended to the throne of the Babylonian Empire in August 605 BC. No earlier date is possible since history shows us that Egypt was in control of the region around Jerusalem

prior to this. The Hebrew word for “reign” here in Daniel 1:1 is a different and less precise word than that used in Jeremiah 25:1. Jehoiakim began his reign over Judah in 608 BC, so 605 BC is the third year if exclusive reckoning is used, rather than in the inclusive calculation in Jeremiah 25:1, which says that this was the fourth year of Jehoiakim. A2.   Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream (2) (603 BC) Daniel 2:1 says that Nebuchadnezzar received this dream in the second year of his reign, which would be 603 BC, so Daniel would still be in training. This is the year his prophetic ministry began. The interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream clearly identified the head of gold in the statue as the Babylonian Empire. The next three layers of silver, bronze, and iron in the statue are the next three empires that will follow. To Daniel in 603 BC their identity is not important. However, God’s eternal kingdom clearly begins during the fourth. The language of the interpretation in Daniel 2:40–43 is quite clear that the iron and clay toes describe the brittle characteristics of the fourth kingdom rather than a fifth later kingdom, and the number of toes in the statue are unknown. ⁶ The vitally important message to Nebuchadnezzar is that God is in sovereign control of the rise and fall of nations, including his reign. A3.   The Vision of Four Beasts (7) (552 BC) The most likely year for the first year of Belshazzar is 552 BC. In this year Cyrus, who had authority over Persia (a vassal state of the Median Empire at this time) either as king or in coregency with his father (more likely), ⁷ was emerging as an increasing power in the Median Empire. The parallels between this vision and the dream in Daniel 2 make it very clear that the four beasts must be the same empires as the four metal layers in the statue of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. In Daniel 2:38, Nebuchadnezzar was told that his reign was over mankind, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the air. In Daniel 7:4, the beast was like a lion (the king of the beasts) and had wings of an eagle (the king of the birds), clearly alluding to the absolute authority of this Babylonian Empire. The further description of the change to a more humane rule that occurred late in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign as described in Daniel 4 further verifies the clear equation of these first two empires. It is also clear in this vision that God’s throne is set up during the period of the fourth beast’s empire, thus establishing the equivalence of the commencement of God’s eternal kingdom. From the unfolding history in 552 BC, it is certain that Daniel would have identified the second beast (the bear) as the current Median Empire, since in the vision the bear already had three ribs in its mouth. The vision says that this beast was about to rise up with greater power and replace the Babylonian Empire. A4.   The Ram and the Goat (8) (550 BC) This vision occurs two years later and is connected to the previous one (see Daniel 8:1), so the year is most likely 550 BC. The vision of the Ram

identifies the changed authority of this empire by the longer horn that emerged later, which is clearly specified to be the Medo-Persian Empire in Daniel 8:20. Cyrus has now emerged as the leading authority over this realm, and the Median Empire has now become the Medo-Persian Empire. Daniel would realize this. In the vision, the Medo-Persian Empire is to be followed by the Grecian one, pictured as a fierce shaggy goat. The fact that this is the Greek Empire is identified without doubt by the interpretation in Daniel 8:21. From the description of the four horns that will emerge after the demise of the Greek Empire’s prominent horn, the links with the fourheaded leopard beast make it certain that Daniel would have equated the leopard beast with the Greek kingdom. At this juncture, Daniel would deduce that the fourth beast followed after the Greek one and from his perspective would emerge in the “time of the end” as Gabriel stated in Daniel 8:17 and 19. The phrase “the time of the end” is often mistakenly interpreted to be just the few years before Jesus returns at the end of the age. In reality, it must be seen from the perspective of a sixth century Daniel looking into the distant future. The foreshortening of far future prophecy must be recognized. For Daniel, the little horn that emerges from the fourth empire and displaces three of its ten authorities (that is, about one third) in Daniel 7:8, ⁸ must be a future king that arises during the fourth empire. In the vision, the authority of this king continues to function until God intervenes. Daniel is told that in the time of the end, another king (horn) that starts small will emerge out of one of the four regions of the Greek Empire (Daniel 8:9), when rebels have become completely wicked (Daniel 8:23), and he will be very successful. Daniel is also told that this king will operate in the distant future (Daniel 8:26) and will ultimately be destroyed by a nonhuman power. A5.   The Seventy Sevens (9) (538 BC) The fervent prayer of Daniel that led to this famous seventy sevens prophecy (Daniel 9:24–27) was triggered by Daniel’s recognition that the seventy years of desolation of Jerusalem prophesied by Jeremiah was nearly completed. It is very important to recognize that the context of this prophecy is the prophetic words of Jeremiah that speak of the return of the Jews to the land and the restoration of Jerusalem. There are significant variations in the English translations of this prophecy. These variations reflect the divergent interpretations understood by the translators and indicate to us that the Hebrew text must be carefully examined. The result is the structure and translation revealed below.

The seventy sevens is a period of time determined by God to complete His plan for the city and the people. The outcomes that will be achieved by the end of the seventy sevens fall into an inverted parallel pattern that is divided at the point where God’s dealing with evil is achieved. The heart of God’s plan is in the atonement for iniquity that will create the circumstances through which everlasting righteousness will be achieved. Daniel would see the sevenfold judgmental nature of this prophecy (see Leviticus 26:18–46), but has not specified years, suggesting the seventy sevens is a long time of a factor of seven severity. The “sevens” is a translation of the Hebrew word that simply means “period of seven.” In Daniel 10:2–3, this Hebrew word is qualified with “days,” so we can be certain that a week was meant. However, here in Daniel 9, the period of seven is unqualified and has led to much scholarly debate. It must be interpreted from the context. Daniel 9:24: ⁹ Seventy sevens are decreed for your people and your holy city (A) to finish the transgression    (B) and to make an end of sin       (C) and to make atonement for iniquity       (C’) and to bring in everlasting righteousness ––––––––––––––––––––—    (B’) and to seal up the vision and prophecy (A’) and to anoint the most holy The details of God’s plan are now laid out. Verse 25 covers the first sixtynine sevens of the seventy in two remarkably balanced parts, which also form a chiasmic pattern. Daniel 9:25: ¹⁰ (A) And you will know and understand that from the going out of a word    (B) to restore and build Jerusalem to an anointed ruler       (C) there will be seven sevens –––––––––––––––––––––––      (C’) for sixty-two sevens    (B’) it will be restored and rebuilt with square and moat (A’) but in a time of distress

The final two verses make a statement about a covenant for the final seven preceded and succeeded by a tricolon. ¹¹ These tricolons are both identified by a time clause followed by three distinct, balanced, and matching phrases. Daniel 9:26: After sixty-two sevens (A) an anointed one will be cut off and will have nothing. (B) People of a coming ruler will devastate the city and the sanctuary and its end will be with a flood.       (C) Until an end of warfare, desolations are decreed. Daniel 9:27a: And he will make a strong covenant with the many for one seven. Daniel 9:27b: From the middle of this seven (A) sacrifice and offering will be made to cease,    (B) and upon a wing desolating abominations, (C) until an end which is decreed will pour out on the desolator. Careful consideration of the three clauses in each of Daniel 9:26 and 27b shows that they are related; the cutting off of the anointed one with ceasing of the sacrifice and offering, the devastation of the city and sanctuary with the desolating abomination, and the continuation of the effects of these things until the end. The two time phrases identify a period of time that must be within the period of the final seven, and so the events in Daniel 9:26 and 27b are concurrent. It is also apparent that Daniel 9:26 deals with physical effects, whereas Daniel 9:27b is associated with religious ones. When Daniel received this prophecy, there were two contexts that he would immediately apply to its interpretation—the prophecies of Jeremiah that triggered his prayer and, from the content of his prayer, that were uppermost in his mind, and the previous visions in Daniel 7 and 8. From this we can infer the following. First, his focus on the prophecies of Jeremiah (especially those in Jeremiah 25–33 and 36) would make it obvious and natural that the word of the Lord about the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem that he knows (Daniel 9:25a) is that which was given by Jeremiah. Although Jeremiah’s prophecies spanned a number of years, the most significant would be that given in 605 BC (see Jeremiah 25:1). The fact that the seventy years of desolation prophesied by Jeremiah was so clear in his mind probably means that he was in Jerusalem and heard Jeremiah give this prophecy before his exile later in the year. ¹²

Second, Daniel would connect some of the statements about the final seven with the activities of the little horn in Daniel 8, especially those referring to the daily sacrifice and the desolating abominations, with Daniel 8:11–13. These verses also speak of the rebellion against God and in Daniel 8:23–25 with the astounding success and devastation this little horn will cause until he is finally “destroyed, but not by human power.” Thus we can be certain that Daniel would perceive the fulfillment of this prophecy to be in “the time of the end.” A6.   The Final Prophecy (10–12) (535 BC) The date of this prophecy, the third year of Cyrus (probably 535 BC) and the first month of the Jewish calendar, and Daniel’s actions that precipitated the revelation (his fasting) supply a subtle hint. When compared with Ezra 3:8, it is likely that the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem under Zerubbabel began just a few days later. In other words, Daniel would realize that the period of the seven sevens of the previous vision had just ended and the sixty-two sevens had just begun. He would also know he had been in exile precisely seventy years. That prophecy (Daniel 9:25) had said Daniel would be given understanding and that he would be able to identify this point of time when an anointed ruler appeared and the rebuilding began. Daniel would know that Zerubbabel was a descendent of David and therefore would qualify to be an anointed ruler. Now he knows precisely when the sixty-two sevens begin. This is a remarkable narrative prophecy, which does not use apocalyptic language. It is so detailed and accurate that many scholars believe that it must have been written after the events described. This prophecy focuses on the rise and fall of three empires and especially their impact on God’s people. It is well accepted that Daniel 11:2 describes the Persian Empire. It is also accepted that Daniel 11:3–35 describes the history of the Greek Empire focusing on the rise and fall of various Ptolemaic and Seleucid kings that fought over the Promised Land. The prophecy about the Greek Empire culminates with the two that impacted God’s people the most, Antiochus III and Antiochus IV, after which the Jews had control of the Promised Land until the Romans came in 63 BC. When Daniel received the prophecy in Daniel 11:21–35, which speaks of a ruler who sought to annihilate the Jews, who abolished the daily sacrifice, and who set up an abomination that causes desolation; he would immediately connect this with the seventy sevens prophecy and realize that it was a pattern prophecy with two fulfillments. We know today that this passage describes the persecution under Antiochus IV; Jesus would also have known this. In this scenario, the sixty-two sevens end in 171 BC, and there are about seven years to the end of the scenario. It is the Seleucid army under Antiochus IV that devastates the city and the sanctuary (he did not destroy it). He set up an abomination that caused desolation in the middle of this final seven, and history tells us that after three years and eight days the temple was reconsecrated as the Jewish uprising defeated Antiochus IV.

B.   New Perspectives on Daniel The next sections focus on the new things learned from Daniel that totally revolutionize our perspective both on the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation. B1.   The King in Daniel 11:36–45 What is most remarkable is that no commentary has been found that even examines the possibility that this description might be the rise and fall of the fourth empire. This would be most natural as Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and the vision of the four beasts both envisage a fourth empire, and the other two extend through the period of time when the fourth empire was in force. Although Daniel could not have known, today we know that this empire is Rome. Careful research will show that Daniel 11:36–12:7 describes the rise and fall of the Roman Empire starting from the conflict between the Romans and Antiochus III about 192 BC until beyond AD 638 when the power of God’s people was totally broken as they were scattered all over the Roman world. The king in Daniel 11:36 is a generic name referring to the Roman state. His character is described in Daniel 11:36–39, his history in Daniel 11:40–45, and the impact on God’s people in Daniel 12:1–7. Every clause can be shown to have a clear and precise match with history with a similar precision to the earlier description of the Persian and Greek Empires. In effect, these final verses describe the impact of the Roman Empire on God’s people and the Promised Land starting from the time it emerged within the domain of Daniel’s known world. This interpretation totally rules out any possibility of second century authorship of the book of Daniel, since the basis of this view is the latest historical event in the book, which is taken to occur during the persecution under Antiochus IV at about 164 BC. With Daniel 11:36–12:7 being the rise and fall of Rome, the latest historical event is at least AD 638, more than seven hundred years later than the earliest known manuscripts of Daniel found in the Qumran caves. This interpretation also has logical and exegetical consequences on the earlier prophecies in the book of Daniel. From our understanding today, consistent interpretation leads to the points that follow. B2.   The Time of the End From Daniel 11:40, it then becomes clear that “the time of the end” starts with when the emerging Roman Empire enters the territory of Daniel’s known world. Note that in Daniel 11:35, during the time of Antiochus IV and the Greek Empire, the time of the end is still future even though the actual dates overlap. The actual chronology is not the primary determinant of “the time of the end”; it is the period of the empires themselves. From Daniel’s perspective, the period of the Roman Empire is far into the distant future and merges with events right up until the end of the age. B3.   The Time, Times and Half a Time

In Daniel 12:6 (NIV), the question was asked, “How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?” The answer given is in Daniel 12:7b (NIV), “It will be for a time, times and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.” With the continuity of the history described in Daniel 10–12, proper exegesis will naturally conclude that the period of time must begin in Daniel’s now (535 BC, the third year of Cyrus) and end sometime after AD 638 when the power of the Jews was totally broken, which occurred when they were totally scattered throughout the Roman Empire, and Jerusalem was captured by the Muslims. This is a definite period of time near to twelve hundred years in length but given to us using symbolic language. Notice that the time, times and half a time is a period of one, then two, and which threatens to go to four, thereby totaling seven (the number of completeness), but is cut off ending in three and one half. It is a period of time which is terminated by external intervention so that, for example, in Ahab’s day it did not rain for three and one half years and Jesus’s public ministry was about three and one half years. Here it is terminated when God’s people have been rendered powerless by being scattered throughout the Roman Empire. Important comment : If you accept the above three points as being valid, then consistent interpretation of the word of God will render every existing end-time view difficult to sustain. If they are valid, you should also expect that the interpretation of the rest of the relevant Bible passages will fall into place with no substantial exegetical uncertainties. B4.   The Identity of the Little Horn in Daniel 7 The little horn that emerges out of the fourth beast in the Daniel 7 vision can now be identified. Given that the fourth beast in Daniel 7 must be the Roman Empire, then the little horn that emerges out of the Roman Empire (destroying about one third of it in the process) must last until God intervenes at the end of the age. Therefore, it is seen that the time, times and half-a-time in Daniel 7:25 defines a period of time that starts from around when the rise of the little horn began during the period of the Roman Empire until he is destroyed by the Lord at the end of the age. There is now an overall picture that looks like this 3.5                              3.5 Daniel 12:7                     Daniel 7:25 |–––––––––––-|–––––––––––—| 535 BC               >AD 638               end of the age Given that the predominant authority over Jerusalem for most of the period of the second time, time and half a time has been Islamic, this little horn must be Muhammad. A careful analysis of Daniel 7:21 and 25 will show that the characteristics of this little horn do indeed match Islam very well. The implications of this interpretation of the “time, times and half a time” on the book of Revelation are huge because Revelation 12:14 uses this very

same distinctive phrase to describe a period of protection for “the woman” from the power of “the serpent.” Its use in Revelation 12:14 is a clear allusion to the same phrase in Daniel, and its consequence is a very specific and unambiguous understanding of the identity of “the woman” as well as removing the controversy surrounding the meaning of the forty-two months and the 1,260 days in Revelation 11–13. A totally different time element is now imparted to the interpretation of the book of Revelation with astounding implications and a new clarity and unity as over and over again passages in Revelation that were previously ambiguous or obscure resolve into a clear meaning. B5.   The Identity of the Little Horn in Daniel 8 The little horn described in Daniel 8:9–14 appears in the “time of the end” (according to Daniel 8:17 and 19), that is the Roman Empire or later. He emerges out of one of the four regions of the Greek Empire and grows in power toward the south, east, and toward the land of Israel, succeeding in all that he does and acting with devastating impact using deception, especially during his last twenty-three hundred days (about 6.3 years), at the end of which he is destroyed but not by human power (Daniel 8:25). This person must be an end of the age ruler and cannot be Antiochus IV as many commentaries say since he is far too successful and far later in time. As discussed earlier, the coming of this end of the age ruler would also be understood by Daniel as the first scenario in the seventy sevens prophecy. B6.   The Seventy Sevens Prophecy The discussion above has already identified two scenarios that are predicted by the seventy sevens prophecy. The first is the prediction of the end of the age ruler also covered in Daniel 8. The second predicts Antiochus IV, also described in Daniel 11:21–35. As the revelation of the final vision completes, Daniel would also begin to discern a third scenario in the seventy sevens prophecy. To recognize this, consider the following points that Daniel would see. 1. The daily sacrifice is taken away and the abomination that causes desolation is set up when the power of God’s people is broken, that is at the end of the first time, times and half a time in Daniel 12:7 and at the beginning of the one in Daniel 7:25. The diagram would look like this. 3.5                              3.5 Daniel 12:7                     Daniel 7:25 |–––––––––––-|–––––––––––—| 535 BC               AD 687–691               end of the age Daniel 12:11–12 Daily Sacrifice is taken away Abomination that causes desolation set up

Dome of the Rock Adding the two “time, times and half a time” together, he would see this as another final seven in Daniel 9:27. 1. Since this final seven starts in 535 BC and ends at the end of the age, it must join directly onto the seven sevens in Daniel 9:25a. From this, Daniel will recognize the pattern of the Jubilee described in Leviticus 25, but since the seven sevens is a period of judgment, the final seven is not a Jubilee in a positive sense but a Jubilee of suffering. It is also not one period of suffering but a sevenfold one because his people have not repented (see Leviticus 26). He will see a long period of suffering but with his prayer answered in the end. 2. Daniel will see that in this scenario, the sixty-two sevens start at the same time as the one seven and from about the middle of this seven, the events described in Daniel 9:26–27 occur. 3. Looking at the structure of Daniel 9:24–27, the pattern can be rewritten in a different way by combining the matching As, the Bs and the Cs in the two tricolons in Daniel 9:26–27 in order to match the picture that is being painted. For this scenario the seventy sevens prophecy can then be viewed as follows. Seventy sevens are decreed for your people and your holy city A. to finish the transgression    B. and to make an end of sin       C. and to make atonement for iniquity       C’. and to bring in everlasting righteousness    B’. and to seal up the vision and prophecy A’. and to anoint the most holy Because the one seven in Daniel 9:27 joins to the seven sevens in Daniel 25a, then the period of time that begins with the sixty-two sevens must in some way be concurrent with this one seven, and a different way of seeing the seventy sevens prophecy emerges.

As the diagram shows, Daniel 9:25–27 can now be viewed in a different way to reflect this new perspective. With stunning implications, Daniel will see that the one seven must follow after the end of the seven sevens! The third year of Cyrus is when Daniel received this vision and when he would know that the anointed ruler has appeared. The one seven can be seen to be like a seven times Jubilee period of trial following the seven sevens of exile needed for God to bring in salvation and complete His work. In this case, we read the text of Daniel 7:25–27 as two sequences as follows. The first is Daniel 9:25: A. And you will know and understand that from the going out of a word    B. to restore and build Jerusalem to an anointed ruler       C. there will be seven sevens       C’. for sixty-two sevens    B’. it will be restored and rebuilt with square and moat A’. but in a time of distress Daniel 9:26: After sixty-two sevens A. an anointed one will be cut off and will have nothing. B. People of a coming ruler will devastate the city and the sanctuary and its end will be with a flood.       C. Until an end of warfare, desolations are decreed. Then there is a second parallel sequence. Daniel 9:25a: A. And you will know and understand that from the going out of a word    B. to restore and build Jerusalem to an anointed ruler       C. there will be seven sevens Daniel 9:27a: And he will make a strong covenant with the many for one seven. Daniel 9:27b: From the middle of this seven A. sacrifice and offering will be made to cease,

   B. and upon a wing desolating abominations, C. until an end which is decreed will pour out on the desolator. So Daniel will know that the abomination that causes desolation in Daniel 12:11–12 must be yet another event, a third one that occurs in the middle of this final seven and that is surrounded on each side by a time, times and half a time. He will know that this third abomination fits into the final seven very differently because the previous two were very short in duration, following after the sixty-two sevens, but this one is very long. He will also know that this final seven begins in his “now” and is concurrent with the start of the sixty-two sevens rather than following after it completes. 1. The covenant that is confirmed in Daniel 9:27a is then the covenant God made with Israel to always have a ruler on the throne in the line of David (Zerubbabel). The “He” connects with the anointed ruler in Daniel 9:25a since the final seven starts at the end of the seven sevens. From the perspective of today, with most of the prophecy fulfilled, additional interpretation can be made. The anointed one who appears after sixty-two sevens is Jesus, who will be cut off, and the Roman army is the people who will devastate the city and the sanctuary like a flood. This is probably a major factor in how Jesus recognized that the Romans would surround Jerusalem in Luke 21:20–24a. These events should not be confused with the end of the age devastation described in scenario 1 and linked to what Jesus said in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. We know that Jesus was crucified (probably in AD 30) and that the Roman army under Titus devastated Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. We know that the daily sacrifice was stopped in AD 70 and that the Jews tried to restart it on a number of occasions over the next few hundred years. By AD 638, when the Muslims captured Jerusalem, the power of the Jews was totally broken, and there was no further possibility of the daily sacrifice being offered. In this scenario, the Dome of the Rock constructed on the Temple Mount AD 687–691, must be the abomination that causes desolation. The desolation continues to the end of the age. From history, we can verify that indeed this has occurred up until now. Oh how much God’s people, the Jews, have suffered! When this is done, notice how the third objective in Daniel 9:24, “making atonement for iniquity,” lines up with the third event in the prophecy. There is a direct connection between making atonement for iniquity, the death of Jesus, and the abolition of the daily sacrifice! All the other objectives can be matched too, but they are less dramatic. A final comment is now made on all three scenarios. Careful thought needs to be given to the seventy sevens prophecy to see how incredibly it reflects God’s dealings with Israel from the beginning of the exile right until the end of the age. The three scenarios focus around the three periods of suffering that most threaten the survival of the Jewish people. We need to be very aware that the final one has yet to occur but is very close. The time is near!

C.   Overall Structure of Daniel A key feature of the book of Daniel is that it has two structures that form two layers. The first of these structures is obvious and is the structure adopted by most commentaries on the book of Daniel. It has been labeled the “Linear Structure” since it follows a sequential plan. The second structure is much more subtle and reflects a remarkable balance. It needs to be understood to appreciate the unity of the book of Daniel and in order to fully interpret the prophecies correctly. There is evidence that it has been deliberately hidden by Daniel until some interpretive keys make the structure certain. C1.   The Linear Structure This is the way the vast majority of commentaries structure the book. It is clear and obvious to any reader. The first number in brackets is the chapter reference. I. Historical focus: Daniel’s preparation (1) (605 BC) Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (2) (603 BC) The fiery furnace (3) Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion (4) The fall of Babylon (5) (539 BC) The lion’s den (6) (538 BC) II. Prophecy focus: The vision of the four beasts and a little horn (7) (552 BC) The vision of the ram, the goat, and a little horn (8) (550 BC) The seventy sevens prophecy (9) (538 BC) The prophecy of three great kingdoms (10–12) (535 BC) Notice how each of these two sections is in chronological order of when each part occurred. The importance is this. The stories of the first six chapters are history as far as Daniel is concerned—history during the period of the exile. The visions from chapter 7 onward are prophecy; they focus on the future. However, all the prophecies are anchored in Daniel’s time so that the starting point of each is clear and significant. The vision in chapter 7 begins with the first beast being the Babylonian Empire, which was still in place when the vision was received; keep in mind that the date of this vision is shortly after Nebuchadnezzar’s death and just before the Medo-Persian Empire came into being. The vision in chapter 8 is dated at the beginning of the Medo-Persian

Empire just after Cyrus the Great had emerged. The seventy sevens prophecy in chapter 9 is dated just after the Babylonian Empire has been destroyed but before the exiled Jews return, and the prophecy begins with the period of exile. The final vision is given just a few years later, probably just before the returned exiles began their rebuilding of the temple under Zerubbabel. Daniel was a watchman and witness to the whole period of the exile. C2.   The Inverted Parallel Structure Superimposed on this structure, there is another two-part structure corresponding to the original language used. This second structure has two neatly balanced, inverted, parallel sections; however, they are no longer in chronological order. The arrangement does not have a chronological basis but rather a thematic one and demonstrates the unity of the book. It is possible that Daniel deliberately arranged the parts to hide this second structure. In the following diagram, the numbers in brackets are the references to the book of Daniel. Prologue: (1) (605 BC) I. Gentile focus: in Aramaic from 2.4b to 7 A Four empires (2) (603 BC)    B God’s people in affliction by the Babylonian Empire (3)       C First Babylonian king judged (4)       C’ Last Babylonian king judged (5) (539 BC) B’ God’s people in affliction by the Persian Empire (6) (538 BC) A’ Four empires and a little horn to the end (7) (552 BC) II. Jewish focus: in Hebrew (8 to 12) A Two empires and a little horn to the end (8) (550 BC)    B The theological basis of God’s plan (9:1–19) (538 BC)    B’ The pattern of God’s dealings with His people (9:20–27) A Three empires (10–12:7) (535 BC) Epilogue: (12:8–13) C3.   The Content Summary Summary table • The 62x7 is concurrent with the first part of this 1x7

Table 7: Final conclusions about Revelations given to Daniel The above table summarizes the conclusions that have been made about revelations given to Daniel. The three columns under Daniel 9 represent the three different scenarios to which this pattern prophecy refers. A significant feature of all these five revelations is that Daniel is very clear about the meaning and the timing of the beginning of each of them. They all start at a point in history when he is alive so that he can match their beginning with the unfolding history around him. A graphical overview of the historical coverage of the book of Daniel is shown below. The level of distress shown is totally subjective, but the relative degrees of distress should be about right. The horizontal time access is not to scale and stretched here and there to make room for the textual comments.

Figure 8: The Sufferings of the Jews Overall then, there is a remarkable unity and balance in the content of this book. It has huge scope spanning the whole of history from the beginning of the exile in 605 BC to the end of the age. It depicts the rise and fall of five empires and God’s purpose in all of this. For God’s chosen people, there is both blessing and judgment. The nation survives and those who are wise and faithful enter into God’s blessing. As will be seen, the effect of this understanding of the book of Daniel will be to expose a very exciting meaning to the book of Revelation. It will be significantly different from others, but it will be complete. The interpretation of Revelation will converge and leave no passage in ambiguity. Additional Note 1: The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire This note summarizes Daniel 11:36–12:7 to show how well the passage describes the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.

1.1   The Character of Rome, Daniel 11:36–39 Daniel 11:36 The “king” is mentioned for the first time. The natural inference is that he is someone different from either the king of the South or the king of the North. It is okay for the “king” to be a generic name, because the king of the South and the king of the North refer to multiple Ptolemaic and Seleucid kings. A new perspective begins because of the pattern in the text. A summary comment is made about the “wise” in 11:33, 35; 12:3 and 12:10. A summary comment is also made about the wise being “refined, purified and made spotless” in 11:35 and 12:10. The vision thus has two markers of a distinct change in perspective at the end of the Greek Empire and at the end of the Roman Empire. The king will do as he pleases is a description of rulers who obtain overwhelming power so that they are totally free to do what they wish. Daniel uses this phrase to describe Cyrus, Alexander, Antiochus III, and here. The king will exalt himself—certainly true of Rome, which in the imperial period demanded godlike status of their emperors The overall history of Rome is one of outstanding success until its demise with no one to help. Daniel 11:37–38 Rome worshipped its military power and invested enormous wealth into its creation and upkeep. Rome forgot about its Etruscan heritage and the worship of the “wolf” god, but its women worshipped Juno, the wife of Jupiter. Although Rome allowed its people to worship freely, they only did so providing proper respect was first given to the emperor. Fundamentally the Romans exalted their military prowess. Their military machine was second to none, and they invested enormous wealth into its maintenance. Daniel 11:39 The Roman military were masters of the siege and held onto their fortresses as a strong defense to protect their provinces. Many of their soldiers worshipped the Persian god Mithras, who offered hope of life after death. Rome honoured those who were successful and respected Rome’s authority even if they were not born Roman citizens. They introduced laws and were great engineers and owned and distributed property according to status and citizenship throughout the Empire. 1.2   The History of Rome, Daniel 11:40–45 Daniel 11:40 The history begins very naturally at the point in time when Rome entered into the known world of Daniel in 192 BC when in conflict with Antiochus III in Macedonia.

Rome (him) engaged in battle with (together with, on the same side as) the king of the South, but against the king of the North. Antiochus III came against Rome with its army and navy and was soundly defeated, culminating in the treaty of Apamea in 188 BC. Notice that all translations have assumed that him (which we here identify with Rome) fought against the king of the South but that the Hebrew text allows them to be allies. This translation has occurred because the actual historical event had not been correctly identified. The fact that the history here chronologically backtracks slightly from the history of Antiochus IV (175–164 BC) does not matter, because the history is now being recounted from a Roman perspective rather than a Greek one. Following this, history tells us that Rome inexorably advanced across Asia Minor from one country to the next, Syria becoming a province in 64 BC under Pompey. They were unstoppable and did indeed advance like a flood. Daniel 11:41 Pompey then invaded the Promised Land and took Jerusalem after a threemonth siege. He then laid siege against Petra, the capital of the Nabateans, whose domain was the same region as the combined territories of Edom, Moab, and the main part of Ammon (these countries no longer exist, although they did exist in Daniel’s time). Josephus tells us that the king of Nabatea bribed the Roman general for three hundred talents, and from then on, they became allies! This is one of the most remarkable fulfillments of prophecy in the Bible. Note that many of our translations are incorrect to translate as “the leaders of Ammon”; the Hebrew simply says the “main part of Ammon,” and it is the region of land that is in mind, not the people. Daniel 11:42–43 Egypt became a Roman province in 30 BC, and with Libya and Ethiopia became the major sources of wealth for the empire. Daniel 11:44 History foreshortens here. Rome fought against the Parthians in the east, first in 53 BC, but then over the next 250 years. Subsequently, they were in conflict with the Sassanids in the same region. In the north they fought against the Germanic tribes, who eventually caused the downfall of the Western Roman Empire with the capture of Rome in AD 476. Daniel 11:45 This is a summary statement. Rome had authority over the Promised Land but was eventually destroyed with no one to help, which neatly contrasts with Daniel 11:34, which shows how God’s people received a little help and survived. Rome set up the capital for this province in Caesaria. 1.3   The Suffering of the Jews, Daniel 12:1–7

Daniel 12:1–4 This describes the persecution and suffering of the Jews under Rome. The degree of distress received is described as the worst up until then. It also describes how they will be protected and helped so that they are not utterly destroyed. We know that Jesus knew this was suffering under Rome because when speaking to the disciples about the abomination of desolation and the persecution that was to come on the Jews at the end of the age he referred, in similar words, to distress unequaled until then but never to be equaled again (Matthew 24:21). Daniel 12:5–7 Ultimately, the history progresses until the power of the Jews was completely broken as they were scattered all over the Roman Empire, and authority over Jerusalem first passed to the Eastern Roman Empire and then to the Muslims in AD 638. Overall, this is a very concise, comprehensive, and accurate picture of the rise and fall of Rome. Additional Note 2: Scenarios of the Seventy Sevens Prophecy The “sevens” are not “sevens of years.” It is very significant that in Daniel 9:24–27, the Hebrew word for seven (which occurs six times) is always unqualified, whereas in Daniel 10:2–3 the same Hebrew word for seven is twice qualified with the Hebrew “of days.” The fact that Daniel is impassioned to pray for His people, the city, and the sanctuary comes from his recognition that the seventy years of desolation for Jerusalem is nearly completed. The mention of seventy years here does not, of itself, provide sufficient context to be certain that the sevens are sevens of years. Additional evidence in the form of precise predictions resulting from this interpretation is needed to establish this interpretation. The substantive context of Daniel’s prayer and Gabriel’s prophecy is primarily focused on all the prophecies of Jeremiah 25–33, which speak of restoration of the people and the rebuilding of the city. The weight of evidence suggests: 1. The word that went out about the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem is the prophetic world of Jeremiah. Note that this fits the context of the prophecy very well. 2. That Daniel would be able to recognize the end of the seven sevens and the beginning of the sixty-two sevens in Daniel 9:25 from when the exiles returned. It is probably pinpointed in his final vision in the third year of Cyrus in Daniel 10–12. At this time he would recognize the end of the seven sevens by the appearance of the anointed ruler, Zerubbabel, whom he would know is in the ancestral line of David and would therefore be able to continue the covenants that God had made with His people.

The Masoretic Hebrew text and the symmetric balance of Daniel 9:25 3. clearly show that the punctuation in the middle of this verse is valid and separates the seven sevens from the sixty-two sevens. The translation of the NRSV is most likely correct, and the KJV, NKJV, and NIV are incorrect at this point. 4. This punctuation in the middle of Daniel 9:25 prevents the anointed ruler in verse 25a and the anointed one in verse 26 from being the same person. 5. In all the other revelations Daniel received, he is positioned in time at their beginning. Unless this is so in this prophecy, it is not possible that he could gain the understanding that Gabriel came to bring him, as is clearly stated in Daniel 9:22–23. Therefore, it is not reasonable for the fulfillment of this prophecy to begin after his death. 6. This being so, this prophecy cannot predict the year or date of Jesus’s first coming and was clearly never intended to do so. 7. In any case, the numerous unconvincing attempts to juggle the start and end dates for the prophecy and so to predict the date of some aspect of Jesus’s first coming clearly show that this presumption for its purpose is wrong. 8. Overall then, the fact that the six occurrences of the Hebrew word for seven are unqualified is much more likely to mean that the symbolic meaning is always valid, but the actual literal meaning can vary depending on the context rather than that a period of sevens of years is meant. This prophecy clearly specifies that God’s plan will be fulfilled in three periods of time—the seven sevens, the sixty-two sevens, and the final seven. Although it might be possible to justify a gap in time in prophetic words, it is considered unlikely that this is so in this prophecy. A far more serious problem, however, is to interpret events contained in the prophecy as occurring outside the boundaries of these three periods of time. This is frequently done with interpretations that view the sevens as sevens of years spanning 490 years. Thus the preterist view (and its variations) often posits the destruction of the Jerusalem temple (the people of the coming ruler devastating the city and the sanctuary) nearly forty years after the end of the 490 years. Another example is in the Antichrist view, which positions the anointed one cut off (Jesus’s crucifixion) after the sixty-nine sevens in a proposed time gap between the sixty-nine sevens and the final seven. In all the scenarios that follow, the following is always true. The seventy sevens is a long period of sevenfold judgment (see Leviticus 26), which is made up of three periods of time. The seven sevens is what Daniel knows and is always a period of time from 605–535 BC that corresponds to the period of the desolation of Jerusalem. The word that goes out is Jeremiah’s prophecy, which was begun in 605 BC (see Jeremiah 25:1), but contains his prophecies recorded in Jeremiah 25–

33. The end of the seven sevens occurred when the Jews returned to Jerusalem and began to rebuild under the leadership of the anointed ruler Zerubbabel. The sixty-two sevens are the period of restoring and rebuilding of Jerusalem in times of distress. It can vary substantially in length in the different scenarios and can involve multiple restorations. It always starts at the same point of time immediately after the seven sevens. In the first two scenarios, it fills out the time between the seven sevens and the final seven. In the last scenario, it is concurrent with the first part of the final seven. Scenario 1 Describes what Daniel would understand immediately by application of what he knows from Daniel 7 and especially the little horn in Daniel 8. Daniel will know that the sixty-two sevens extend for a long period of time into the time of the end. He will know that the final seven occurs at the end of the age. The final seven begins with the end of the age ruler (the little horn in Daniel 8) making a strong covenant with many as stated in Daniel 9:27a. Daniel 8 suggests that this ruler will grow strong to the South and East and into the beautiful land and will be successful in all that he does and that he will use deception to gain ever more power. This suggests that his origin is to the north of Jerusalem. Sometime after that, the people of this ruler will invade the Promised Land and devastate the city and the sanctuary like a flood. Combining Daniel 8 with Daniel 9:27, there is the suggestion that this ruler will set up authority on the temple mount in Jerusalem and draw worship to himself. This abomination that causes desolation will start from the middle of the seven and last for twenty-three hundred twenty-four-hour days, at which point of time the end will come. This end of the age ruler will try to destroy the Jews, who are probably the “anointed one” personified who is cut off as described in Daniel 9:26. The Jews who survive will turn to Jesus; Zechariah 13 suggests that this will be about one third. This is what Jesus describes in Matthew 24:15ff and Mark 13:14ff and Paul describes in 2 Thessalonians 2. It also connects with Ezekiel 38–39, Joel 3, and Zechariah 13–14. Although there may be other ways of interpreting this prophecy, if Israel establishes a peace treaty with the surrounding nations in the near future, this may well signal the beginning of this final seven. Note that it is longer than seven years, but our current context gives us a sense of how near the end could be. Scenario 2 Daniel would see this from Daniel 11:21–35, but it would be in the far future for him. We know today that this is the persecution under Antiochus IV; Jesus would also have known this. In this scenario the sixty-two sevens ends in 171 BC, and there are about seven years to the end of the scenario. It is the Seleucid army under Antiochus IV that devastates the city and the sanctuary (he did not destroy it). He set up an abomination that caused

desolation in the middle of this final seven, and history tells us that after three years and eight days the temple was reconsecrated as the Jewish uprising defeated Antiochus IV. Scenario 3 Daniel would see this at the end of the final vision in Daniel 10–12 and would know its fulfillment is in the time of the end. 3.5                              3.5 Daniel 12:7                     Daniel 7:25 |–––––––––––-|–––––––––––—| 535 BC                  >AD 638                  end of the age Daniel 12:11–12 Daily sacrifice stopped Abomination that causes desolation? He would see this as the final seven, and thus we can infer the following. Since this final seven starts in 535 BC and ends at the end of the age, it must join directly onto the seven sevens. Daniel will recognize the pattern of the Jubilee described in Leviticus 25, but since the seven sevens is a period of judgment, the final seven is not a Jubilee in a positive sense but a Jubilee of suffering. It is not one period of suffering, but a sevenfold one because his people have not repented (see Leviticus 26). He will see a long period of suffering but with his prayer answered in the end. Daniel will see that in this scenario, the sixty-two sevens start at the same time as the one seven, and from about the middle of this seven, the events described in Daniel 9:26–27 occur. The covenant that is confirmed in Daniel 9:27a is then the covenant God made with Israel to always have a ruler on the throne in the line of David (Zerubbabel). The “He” connects with the anointed ruler in Daniel 9:25a since the final seven starts at the end of the seven sevens. Jesus would recognize that after sixty-two sevens, He is the anointed one who will be cut off, and the Roman army is the people who will devastate the city and the sanctuary like a flood. This is probably a major factor in how Jesus recognized that the Romans would surround Jerusalem in Luke 21:20– 24a. These events should not be confused with the end of the age devastation described in scenario 1 and linked to what Jesus said in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. We know that Jesus was crucified (probably in AD 30) and that the Roman army under Titus devastated Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. We know that the daily sacrifice was stopped in AD 70 and that the Jews tried to restart it on a number of occasions over the next few hundred years. By AD

638, when the Muslims captured Jerusalem, the power of the Jews was totally broken, and there was no further possibility of the daily sacrifice being offered. In this scenario, the Dome of the Rock constructed AD 687– 691, is most likely the abomination that causes desolation. The desolation continues to the end of the age. From history, we can verify that indeed this has occurred up until now. Oh how much God’s people, the Jews, have suffered! For this scenario, an abbreviated seventy sevens prophecy can be viewed as follows. A. You will know that from a word to an anointed ruler, seven sevens    B. Sixty-two sevens restoring Jerusalem       C. After sixty-two sevens an anointed one is cut off and from the middle of the final seven the daily sacrifice is stopped       C’. After sixty-two sevens, people of a ruler devastate and from the middle of the final seven desolating abominations are set up B’. Until the end, war and desolation and final overwhelming of desolator A’. He made a strong covenant with the many for one period of seven When this is done, notice how the third objective in Daniel 9:24, “making atonement for iniquity,” lines up with the third event in the prophecy. There is a direct connection between making atonement for iniquity, the death of Jesus, and the abolition of the daily sacrifice! All the other objectives can be matched too, but they are less dramatic. A final comment is now made on all three scenarios. Careful thought needs to be given to the seventy sevens prophecy to see how incredibly it reflects God’s dealings with Israel from the beginning of the exile right until the end of the age. The three scenarios focus around the three periods of suffering that most threaten the survival of the Jewish people. We need to be very aware that the final one has yet to occur but is very close. The time is near! APPENDIX 1 The Horns in Daniel The word “horn” or “horns” occurs in eighteen verses of the book of Daniel. The four occurrences in Daniel 3 all refer to musical instruments; these are ignored here because our interest is the interpretation of the word in the visions and not with musical instruments.

The Aramaic word for horn (Strong’s 7162) occurs fourteen times and is translated horn ten times and cornet four times in the KJV. The Hebrew word (Strong’s 7161) occurs seventy-six times and is translated horn seventy-five times in the KJV. The primary meaning of the word is that of the horn of animals, which is the meaning we are interested in here. Horns were the means by which animals exerted their power, and so the horn became a symbol of might and power. In this appendix, the particular concern is with how to translate the word, particularly when a specific number of horns are expressed. The other problem is whether the horn is a king, a set of kings, an authority, a nation, or a province. How exactly should we interpret this word? Let’s examine the different uses of the word. 1.   The Horn That Is the Power and Might of an Empire with All Its Kings Daniel 8:3 NIV: I looked up, and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later. Daniel 8:7 NIV: I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. Daniel 8:20 NIV: The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. In Daniel 8:3, the ram has two horns. In Daniel 8:20, the two-horned ram is interpreted as the kings of Media and Persia. In this case, each horn represents the might and power of all the kings of each empire. In Daniel 8:7, the goat attacks the ram, shattering its two horns. The two horns again represent the might and power of both Media and Persia. 2.   The Horn That Is the Power and Might of a Single King Daniel 8:5 NIV: As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. Daniel 8:21 NIV: The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. In Daniel 8:5, the goat has a single prominent horn. In Daniel 8:21, the horn is explained to be the first king of Greece. We know that this is Alexander

the Great. This horn is a single king. Daniel 8:21 also says that the goat is the king of Greece; here there is a blur in the distinction between the goat being a king, a kingdom, and a set of kings. Daniel 8:9 NIV: Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. This is a single king, as later verses show. 3.   The Four Horns That Are the Power and Might of Four Kingdoms Daniel 8:8 NIV: The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven. Daniel 8:22 NIV: The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power. Daniel 8:8 shows us that the single prominent horn was broken and that four others grew up afterward. The four winds of heaven suggest all four directions of the compass. Daniel 8:22 explains that the four horns are four kingdoms that will arise after Alexander but with less power. When Alexander died, his kingdom was being ruled from Babylon; the four directions of the four kingdoms are accurate only in a general sense. A consistent picture emerges from these uses of the word horn in Daniel 8. The horns represent might and power and so can indicate a single king, a kingdom, or a successive set of kings or authorities. The horns represent might and power and so may correspond to authority in different ways. In Daniel 8 the context showed how to interpret each case. 4.   The Ten Horns of the Terrifying Beast Daniel 7:7 NIV: “After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns. Whether the ten horns represent the power and might of exactly ten individual rulers, nations, provinces, or kingdoms or whether it represents an empire that governs over the whole known world has to be determined from the context. Since ten can be used to symbolize completeness, an empire that exercises authority throughout the known world through multiple authorities would also be a possible interpretation of the ten horns. Many, who see the terrifying beast as the Roman Empire, insist that the ten horns must represent ten provinces or nations. Since there is no way that

the Roman Empire can ever be said to have had ten authorities (the number varied over time and was probably never less than twelve), these see the ten horns as emerging from an end of the age Roman Empire. This, of course, cannot be tested. However, the insistence of a literal ten authorities ignores the literal sense that the beast “had ten horns” when it was first seen in the vision, leading to a contradiction of interpretation principles. The only alternative then is that the ten must be interpreted symbolically of completeness; in other words, this is an empire with worldwide coverage of power and might, which is how it should also be interpreted in Revelation 12, 13, and 17. 5.   The Vision of the Little Horn, the Ten Horns, and the Three Horns Daniel 7:8 NIV: “While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully. Daniel 7:11 NIV: “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. Daniel 7:20 NIV: I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. Daniel 7:21 NIV: As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them, Daniel 7:24 NIV: The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. The little horn would seem to represent the power and might of a single individual. In all cases in Daniel, a single horn is a single ruler, and here he is further qualified as having eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully. This little horn has been identified in many ways. The most strongly held view by scholars is that this little horn is Antiochus IV. It is also frequently identified with the Antichrist. In chapter 7 we argue for a third option.

The three horns displaced by the little horn pose a problem if the little horn is Antiochus IV, as there is no clear interpretation of three out of ten horns. If the little horn is the Antichrist, no interpretation is testable. In chapter 7 we supply a clear interpretation. If the ten horns represent a worldwide empire, then three horns should be interpreted as a proportion, that is, three-tenths or more probably one third of the original worldwide empire. The little horn could then be said to capture about one-third of the original empire. This interpretation seems much more likely. APPENDIX 2 The Time of the End In this appendix the “time” words in Daniel are examined. This is done because the perspective of what is meant by these words significantly influences interpretation. There are two major current views. The first of these is that the “time of the end” is the very last few years before the end of the age, and the second is that it is the time for when the book was primarily written for those who accept a second century BC authorship; that is, the time of the persecution under Antiochus IV. However, there is a third view proposed by this book that relies on accurate exposition, which also sees these words from Daniel’s viewpoint and which recognizes the foreshortening of time as Daniel looks further into the future. In addition, in this appendix, care will be taken to carefully distinguish between words that define events that occur at a specific point of time and words that identify lengths of time, and also to consider the intended precision with which these time words have been written. It is interesting that Daniel is always careful to identify the time when each of the stories and each of the visions occurs. This is done to the extent that it is possible to discern both the chronological order of the stories and visions and also see how that order has been changed. Given the care with which each component is identified in time, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the order of the content is deliberate. Modern research has also established that things in Daniel that many scholars used to think were errors of history and time are now explainable—for example, the question of the identity of Darius the Mede. We are also at a time in history where modern research can pinpoint events in past history with a fair degree of precision and confidence; this will enable us to put forward some hypotheses about the intention of some of the time words in some very interesting ways. In this respect, it should be noted that the writer is very careful to reveal in Daniel 1 that he is highly educated in the language and literature of the Babylonians, that he is surrounded by friends and peers who are similarly educated, and that he spent most of his life with this educated elite. In this context, it should be recognized that a book with high reputation and authority, which ultimately ended up in the Hebrew canon, is unlikely to contain substantial errors of fact and time in its original form. With this background, the event timing and time lengths in the book of Daniel cannot be dismissed as inaccurate and unimportant. It is especially

interesting to see the force behind the answers to the two “how long” questions in Daniel 8:13–14, 26, and Daniel 12:5–7, and the very specific time lengths of 1,290 and 1,335 days located in a very significant place in the text (the last three verses). It is hard to escape the conclusion that the writer means us to know something very precise here. Examining the actual times placed on events, it would seem that a precision of a year or so is intended. The reference to Daniel receiving his inheritance at the “end of the days” using the same Hebrew word for “days” as in the reference to the 1,290 and 1,335 days in the preceding two verses also suggests that this is not about literal twenty-four-hour days here, but rather a much longer period of time. Given the premise of the intelligence and the evidence of deliberate intention and focus of the writer and the whole context of the book the equivalence of the “days” here to years seems likely. The twenty-three hundred evenings and mornings of Daniel 8:14 with a double affirmation in Daniel 8:26 leaves us with the feeling that the reason for the “evenings and mornings” is not just because of the times of the daily sacrifice, but because the writer wants us to see that this period is a literal twenty-four-hour day and that he is not talking about twenty-three hundred years here. The specific phrase “the time of the end” is significant and its usage revealing, and the following observations are made about the six occurrences of the phrase in the book of Daniel. 1. In Daniel 11:35, which describes events around the time of the conclusion of the life of Antiochus IV, the “time of the end” is still future. 2. The events described in Daniel 11:40 are placed at the “time of the end.” This identifies the “time of the end” as beginning with the Roman Empire; it is the empires that define the era more than the actual chronology, and so an overlap in time between the Greek and Roman Empires occurs but does not invalidate the general picture. 3. In Daniel 12:4 and Daniel 12:9, the context is that the visions and the scroll (which is likely to represent the whole book of Daniel) should be closed and sealed until the “time of the end.” 4. The other two occurrences of this phrase are in Daniel 8:17 and 8:19. This phrase is used with regard to the interpretation of the vision of the ram, the goat, and the little horn. At first, it might be thought that this “time of the end” could begin with the word about the ram, who is identified to be the empire of the Medes and Persians. However, from Daniel’s perspective, since this vision was given in the third year of Belshazzar, that would mean the “time of the end” would only be a few years into the future. Since Daniel 11:35 suggests that the “time of the end” is still future from the perspective of the Greek Empire, then a consistent understanding must place the events related to the “little horn” of Daniel 8 in the time of the Roman Empire at the earliest.

The net result of this analysis is a consistent picture of the “time of the 5. end” as the period of time that starts in the time of the Roman Empire and ends at the end of the age. If Daniel 11:36–45 is about an end of the age ruler, then a consistent conclusion that the “time of the end” fits the last few years before Jesus returns is possible. However, there are major expositional difficulties with this interpretation, as has already been seen and will be seen further in volume 2, now replaced by The Thirty-Two Theses . It is also more difficult to establish this view, as the history has yet to be written and so cannot be tested. If Daniel 11:36–45 is about Antiochus IV, then it is hard to see how the “time of the end” can mean anything else other than around this time because of Daniel 11:40, and the focus of the book of Daniel is then on the distress of the Jews in his era. It leaves the meaning of Daniel 11:35 obscure when it seems to see the “time of the end” in the future. It makes nonsense of the meaning of the words “the time of the end” given that it is really far from the end of the age, and much suffering for the Jews is still to follow. It also tends to make a large part of the purpose of the book of Daniel irrelevant today. It also creates problems with the interpretation of Jesus’s words in Matthew 24:15–25 and Mark 13:14–23 when He points to Daniel as containing words about the distress of the Jews in the period of time just before His return. Is it reasonable that if there is a persecution of the Jews of far greater severity than under Antiochus IV and much later in time, for the book of Daniel to refer to the persecution under Antiochus IV as the “time of the end”? APPENDIX 3 The Saints of the Most High In the NIV, the word “saints” occurs seven times in Daniel. The meaning of this word is different in Daniel 8:12 since a different Hebrew word is used; see discussion of that verse below. Daniel 7:18 NIV: But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’ Daniel 7:21 NIV: As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them, Daniel 7:22 NIV: until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom. Daniel 7:25 NIV:

He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. Daniel 7:27 NIV: Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’ Discussion: The word “saints” is used for beings that belong to the “Most High,” namely God. They belong to God. The question is, “Who are they”? In Daniel 4:17 the term is applied to angels, and so the enduring kingdom given to these saints might suggest that they are “heavenly beings.” However, in Daniel 7:27, the saints are described as the people of the Most High, and they are given sovereignty, power, and greatness that parallels that given to the son of man in Daniel 7:14. Lucas (2002, 191) discusses this issue and demonstrates that there is semantic evidence supporting the “angelic” view, but there is also a weighty case against it. Examining these verses it does seem clear that these “holy ones” are being persecuted on earth but will receive an eternal kingdom so that in some respects they will share a presence in the heavenly realm along with the angels so that the ambiguity is not really surprising. They belong to the Most High and will be given sovereignty, power, and greatness together with the son of man. They are God’s people. For Daniel these would be Jews, but the general use of the word allows us to also include Christians as God’s people if this proves to be applicable in our day. Daniel 8:12 NIV: Because of rebellion, the host of the saints and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground. Discussion: The translators of the NIV have inserted the word “saints” here since the Hebrew contains the thought of a large number being given over to the little horn, but the Hebrew word for “saints” is not present. The reason for the NIV translation is obscure; it would seem the translators are placing an interpretation on the word. APPENDIX 4 The Time of Wrath

In the Bible, the word “wrath” almost always applies to the wrath of God. A major question to ask for its use in the book of Daniel is whether it is God’s judgment against evil nations or against Israel because of her sin or both. The word translated “wrath” in the NIV occurs three times, and these verses are quoted below. Daniel 8:19 NIV: He said: “I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end. Daniel 9:16 NIV: O Lord, in keeping with all your righteous acts, turn away your anger and your wrath from Jerusalem, your city, your holy hill. Our sins and the iniquities of our fathers have made Jerusalem and your people an object of scorn to all those around us. Daniel 11:36 NIV: “The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. In Daniel 9:16, Daniel asks God to turn away His wrath against Jerusalem and His people. The context of Daniel’s prayer, right near the end of seventy years of exile, suggests that Daniel has recognized his people’s sin, recognized that the seventy years of Jerusalem’s desolation is nearly over, but is not certain that God’s wrath will end given that he can see that the people still have not changed. The answer God brings in Daniel 9:24–27 suggests that it will be a long time before God will be able to consummate His plan for His people; there will yet be many years of suffering under the wrath of God. In Zechariah 1:12–17, it is apparent that there is an end to God’s wrath against His people when the seventy years has been completed, and God will now show mercy on His people and bring judgment against the nations that continued to mistreat them. Lucas (2002, 219–220) argues from this that the meaning of the “time of wrath” in Daniel 8:19 seems to be the same as in Zechariah, because “all the rebellion and transgression comes from earthly kings.” So the “time of wrath” is to be understood as the whole period from the beginning of the exile onward, covering the period of the four kingdoms in Daniel 2 and 7 and reaching its end under the Antiochene persecution perpetrated by the little horn. Thus Lucas sees the “time of wrath” extending until the Antiochene persecution because His view is that this is the endpoint of Daniel’s prophecies. There are major problems with this in that there are three occasions that are “times of wrath” involving the Jews in the book of Daniel. The first of these was during the exile in Babylon and is identified as a period of God’s anger against His people in Zechariah 1:12; from Daniel’s perspective in the third year of Cyrus when the final vision was received, this was past history.

According to Lucas, there is a “time of wrath” that ends with Antiochus IV. However, the book of Daniel does not say that this persecution was a “time of wrath” unless the little horn in Daniel 8 and the “king” in Daniel 11:36 is Antiochus IV. This book has argued that this interpretation is not correct. So the second “time of wrath” (see Daniel 11:36) is under the Romans, which Jesus said explicitly was punishment against God’s people in Luke 19:41–44 and Luke 21:22 and wrath against them in Luke 21:23. The third “time of wrath” is that period described in Daniel 8:19 and that is also referred to by Jesus in Matthew 24:21–22 and Mark 13:10–20 and is the worst time of distress for the Jews that Jesus said would be “cut short” otherwise there would be no flesh left living, and for the sake of the elect, it will be cut short. Since the trial perpetrated by the little horn in Daniel 8 and the empire of the king in Daniel 11–12 caused tremendous suffering for the Jews, it is inferred that the time of wrath is God’s wrath against His people. In addition, if Daniel 11:36–12:7 is about the Roman Empire there is consistency with what Jesus said in Luke 19:41–44 and 21:20–24 in seeing the trial of the Jews during this period as a “time of wrath.” There are also many other times of wrath by God against other nations described elsewhere; the ones in the book of Daniel seem to focus on His people. If the period of trial the Jews experienced under Antiochus IV is not a “time of wrath” and if the “times of the end” begin with the Roman Empire (see appendix 2), it is not possible that the little horn in Daniel 8 is Antiochus IV. Since both “times of wrath” in Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 occur in the “time of the end,” they cannot occur earlier than the period of the Roman Empire. It has been seen in the discussion of Daniel 11:36 that the time of wrath there is during the period of the Roman Empire (see chapter 6). The context of Daniel 8 suggests a period of time when the little horn emerges from the four kingdoms of the Greek Empire. Daniel 8:19 says that the little horn appears in the last days of the time of wrath. This would best match the description given by Jesus of the final days of trouble for the Jews before His return in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. This would be consistent with the views that have been put forward for the little horn in Daniel 7 and would cause the chiasmic structure of the book of Daniel to balance. It is no wonder that Daniel was appalled at this vision and did not understand it (Daniel 8:27). There is one other very interesting connection that should be seen and that is the connection between the “time of wrath” and the “time, times and half a time” in Daniel 7:25 and Daniel 12:7. Notice that the two “times of wrath” mentioned by Daniel in Daniel 8:19 and Daniel 11:36 both come to an end when their corresponding “time, times and half a time” come to an end. In other words, God intervenes to “cut short” the activities of His enemies, which He is using as His instrument of judgment against His people, and so terminates the two “times of wrath” in order to preserve His people from total physical annihilation. This understanding is further evidence that Goldingay’s (1989, 181) understanding of the “time, times and half a time” as a time followed by two times that try to go to four times and thereby make seven times altogether but is cut short is correct.

APPENDIX 5 The Interpretation of the Hebrew Text The interpretation of Daniel presented in this book is significantly different from any that has been seen in the literature up until now. Every possible attempt to verify the interpretations that have been given has been made, and the extent of confidence in the interpretation has depended heavily on the ability to verify its validity. Many English translations have been consulted, the main ones being the NIV, NKJV, KJV, NRSV, NASB, and the JPS. In addition to this, access to the Masoretic Text has been through the Interlinear Bible produced by Green (1985) and the JPS Hebrew English Tanakh (2000). Significant weight has also been given to the translations in the commentaries by Goldingay (1989) and Lucas (2002) since they provide their own translations and have made quite detailed comments as to the basis behind the translation decisions that have been made. The lexicons by Brown, Driver, and Briggs and by Davidson have also been consulted. Appendices 6 and 7 address issues where the interpretation made has caused doubt to be cast on the translation in our English versions. In general, it is observed that English versions frequently impose their own interpretation onto the translations that have been made. This is a common feature of translations, as they seek to communicate a clear meaning but often have to adopt an interpretation in order for the English to make sense. For most books of the Bible this is not a big problem, but for the book of Daniel the diverse interpretations applied to the text combined with the precision that is needed make a big difference to the meaning. This is particularly the case for the seventy sevens prophecy in Daniel 9:24–27 and so appendix 7 discusses this passage in considerable detail. Thus the reliance of many interpreters on just one English translation, especially the KJV, without thorough and careful consultation of the Hebrew text as well has caused many difficulties. As the writing of this book has continued, the author has gained a growing understanding of the Hebrew language. Of most recent interest has been the recognition of how the authors of the Masoretic Text were meticulously careful. This is especially seen in the remarkable system of punctuation they invented, which frequently suggests how those early Hebrew scholars interpreted the text. Recent scholarship in this area is reflected in the two papers by Robinson and Levy (2002) which show how this punctuation can be used in constituent structure analysis to reveal the associations between separate words and clauses of the Hebrew text. This has been used on the key passage of Daniel 9:24–27 and a few others to help resolve some of the ambiguities in understanding. It should be pointed out that although it is not possible to prove that the punctuation accents in the Masoretic Text reflect the original intention, analysis of many Bible passages shows that it usually does and that it helps to resolve ambiguities. Therefore, the only reasonable approach is to accept the punctuation as a strong guide unless there is good reason to ignore it.

Some examples of punctuation are now given, which challenge common biblical interpretations, but which suggest how important it may be (see the later section to understand the punctuation terms). 1 Samuel 3:3:             And the lamp of (Mehuppakh) God          Pashta             not yet (Munah) had gone out       Zaqef             and Samuel          Tifha             was lying down Atnah             in the temple of (Munah) Jehovah       Zaqef             where was          Tifha             the ark of (Munah) God Taking the punctuation as valid, the translation should be something like, “The lamp of God had not yet gone out and Samuel was asleep; in the temple of Jehovah was where the ark of God was.” Most translations put Samuel sleeping in the temple. Genesis 1:16:             And made (Munah) God       Zaqef             two (Munah) lights       Tifha             great Atnah             the light (Mehuppakh) greater          Pashta

            for the rule of (Munah) the day       Zaqef             and the light (Mehuppakh) smaller          Pashta             for the rule of (Munah) the night       Zaqef             and          Tifha             the stars This can then be translated, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day and the smaller light and stars to rule the night.” This is consistent with Psalm 136:7–9, but differs from many English translations, which do not give the stars rule over the night. 5.1   The Punctuation of Biblical Hebrew The following are the accents used in all the Old Testament books except Job, Psalms, and Proverbs (denoted the three books). They are in order of strength. The explanations below are not totally precise, and a book of Hebrew grammar should be consulted for a more exact meaning and description. The three tables are adapted from the paper by Helmut Richter DISJUNCTIVE ACCENTS 1 The Silluq ( end ) is the strongest disjunctive accent and is equivalent to a full stop. It is written as a vertical bar under the tone syllable of the last word in the verse, which also always ends in a symbol that looks like a colon and is called a sof passuq. 1. The Atnah, (which means rest ), divides the verse into two logical halves, which can be different lengths. It is written as an inverted “v” under a word. 3a. The Segolta is used as the primary subdivider of the first half verse; the section ending with an Atnah (e.g., Genesis 1:7, 28). It is written as three dots in a triangle above and after the word which carries it 3b. The Shalshelet (i.e., chain ), is used as the Segolta (seven times altogether) when this would stand at the head of the sentence; cf. Genesis 19:16. It is a rare variant of the Segolta and consists of two signs, a small symbol above the word and a vertical bar at the end of the word. 4a. Great Zaqef, is written as a small colon followed by a small vertical bar above the word.

4b. The Little Zaqef is written as a small colon above the beginning of the tone syllable and is used to divide either or both halves of a verse. It is by nature stronger than Great Zaqef; but if they stand together, the one which comes first is always the stronger. In the diagrams below we denote this punctuation as Zaqef. 1. The Tifha marks the disjunction immediately before a Silluq or Atnah but is very often the principal disjunctive of the whole verse instead of the Atnah; it is always so when the verse consists of only two or three words (e.g., Isaiah 2:13), but also in longer verses (e.g., Genesis 3:21). It is denoted by a small backslash at the beginning of the tone syllable. 2. The Revia is a single dot (or diamond) placed over the beginning of the tone syllable. 3. The Zarqa is denoted by a small hook above and after the word. 8a. The Pashta is written as a small backslash (sometimes curved) above and sometimes to the left of the last letter of a word. It should not be confused with the conjunctive Azla, which is the same symbol but written above the tone syllable. 8b. The Yetiv is an equivalent variant which is written under, but just before the word as a small “less than” symbol. 1. The Tevir is written under the tone syllable and always after its vowel as a small forward slash. 10a. The Geresh is written above the tone syllable as a small forward slash. 10b. The Double Geresh is equivalent to the Geresh as a punctuation marker but contains two forward slashes 11a. The Pazer is written something like a small “T” rotated anticlockwise above the tone syllable. 11b. The Great Pazer, sometimes called the cow horns, is only used sixteen times, for special emphasis. It looks a bit like a doubled Telisha. 1. The Telisha has two forms; the disjunctive form is more strictly called the “Great Telisha.” It is written above and before the word and consists of a small circle with a small tick coming from its bottom left. 2. The Legarmeh is formed from an accent that is a small reverse “L” below the word and a vertical bar at the end.

Table 8: Hebrew disjunctive accents CONJUNCTIVE ACCENTS. 1. The Munah is written under the tone syllable of a word as a small reverse “L.” It is used to bind this word with the word that follows as do all the following accents.

The Mehuppakh is denoted by a small “less than” symbol under the 2. tone syllable and is often used to bind a word to another that carries a Pashta. 16a. The Merekha is denoted by a small forward slash under the tone symbol and is often used to bind a word to another that carries a Tifha. 16b. The Double Merekha is a variant form of the Merekha. 1. The Darga is denoted by a small “s” under the tone symbol. 2. The Azla or Qadma is denoted by a small backslash above the tone symbol and is often used to bind a word to another that carries the Geresh. It is identical in appearance to the Pashta but can be distinguished because the Pashta always occurs at the end of the word. 3. The Little Telisha is denoted by a small circle with a tick above and after a word. 4. The Galgal is denoted by a small inverted “v” under the tone syllable. 5. The Mayla is denoted by a small backslash under the tone syllable.

Table 9: Hebrew conjunctive accents Table 10: Hebrew codes for marks and symbols The pattern that is used below to display the constituent analysis tree is as follows. All the nodes except the leaf nodes represent disjunctive accents; the leaf nodes are the Hebrew text. If there is more than one Hebrew word in the leaf node then all of them except the last use a conjunctive accent to reveal the join; the disjunctive accent is on the last word. In this way, every Hebrew word must have an accent.             Leaf node          Left node             Leaf node Root node of tree (usually an Atnah)             Leaf node          Right node             Leaf node The deepest level of the tree contains the text. The important conjunctive accents are added to the text in parentheses following the word to which they are attached. Note that every Hebrew word has some form of punctuation; either to join it to the next word or to place it in the hierarchy, so that the integrity of the leaf node is preserved. Therefore, there is no

opportunity for any ambiguity of meaning. The comprehensive nature of this punctuation scheme will also serve to preserve the text, since any inconsistencies will be immediately obvious. This shows part of the remarkable way in which the text of the Hebrew language has been preserved with a high degree of accuracy over more than two thousand years. Robinson and Levy (2002) have shown how constituent structure trees of Hebrew verses can be constructed, sometimes yielding useful analysis to help us translate the Hebrew text. This makes full use of the disjunctive and conjunctive accents, of which there are at least twenty-seven in the Hebrew language. They have shown how the Masoretes grouped clauses together and this will supply us with additional intelligence about how to translate verses. 5.2   Daniel 9:24 Using the methods in the paper by Robinson and Levy (2002), a constituent analysis tree of this verse is now formed.

                  Sevens (Azla) seventy       Geresh                   are decreed (Merekha) for your people          Legarmah                   and to city (Munah) your holy       Revia                   to finish (Azla) the transgression                Geresh                   and to seal up (Mehuppakh) sins          Pashta                   and to atone for (Munah) iniquity    Zaqef                   and to bring in       Tifha

                  righteousness (Munah) everlasting Atnah                   and to seal up       Pashta                   vision (Munah) and prophecy    Zaqef                   and to anoint       Tifha                   the holy of (Merekha) holies The Legarmah, with its vertical bar that looks like a very distinctive separator, serves as an important contextual break that is supported by the meaning of the words. The clauses before define the time limit and physical scope of the prophecy, whereas the rest of the verse defines its objectives. The Legarmah overrides the priority of clause association, which would normally follow from the tree structure. Normally, scholars see the six objectives as divided into two sets of three, the first three dealing with evil and therefore being seen as negative and the last three being seen as positive. Because of this it is surprising that the major verse divider is at the end of the fourth objective and not the third. However, when careful thought is applied, it is apparent that the fourth objective is the positive that reverses the first three. The last two do not deal with evil directly, but will also follow by the time the seventy sevens are completed. This structure therefore gives us important clues to its interpretation. This is an example of how Hebrew writers think a bit differently from the way we do today. It might help to see the structure in the following way. Seventy sevens are decreed for your people and your holy city A. to finish the transgression    B. and to make an end of sin       C. and to make atonement for iniquity       C’. and to bring in everlasting righteousness ––––––––––––––––––––—    B’. and to seal up the vision and prophecy A’. and to anoint the most holy 5.3   Daniel 9:25

The constituent analysis tree of this verse shows a very distinctive precision in its symmetry. Every clause in the first half has its corresponding clause in the second.

                  and you will know (Azla) and understand       Geresh                   from the going out of (Munah) a word       Revia                   to restore          Pashta                   and build Jerusalem             Pashta                   to an anointed (Munah) ruler    Zaqef                   sevens       Tifha                   seven Atnah                   for sevens          Double Geresh                   sixty (Munah) and two       Revia                   again          Pashta                   it will be built             Pashta                   square (Munah) and moat

   Zaqef                   even in affliction of       Tifha                   the times The inverted nature of the relationship can be clearly seen. A. And you will know and understand from the going out of a word    B. to restore and build Jerusalem to an anointed ruler       C. sevens seven ––––––––––––––––––––––       C’. for sevens sixty and two    B’. again it will be built square and moat A’. even in affliction of the times Notice how the CC’ are clauses with a time period and how the BB’ are clauses to do with rebuilding Jerusalem. Also notice how the period of time after the word goes out in A is matched with the time of distress in A’. This is evidence that the seven sevens would also be a corresponding time of distress that is consistent with the period of the exile. What is implied is that there is a shorter period of time of seven sevens whose termination is marked by the appearance of an anointed ruler. There is a clear repeated pattern in this verse that would probably be recognized as the verse is read, since the accents also controlled the tone and rhythm. There is symmetry to the phrases, which would surely help to preserve the words intact, since if any were missing the symmetry would be corrupted. This is strong evidence that the punctuation is valid. Note that the verse clearly divides into two halves based on content alone; the punctuation reinforces what is evident from the pattern of the phrases that are used. There is clear evidence here that the KJV, NKJV, and NIV are incorrect to omit the punctuation that separates the seven sevens from the sixty-two sevens. 5.4   Daniel 9:26 A careful comparison of the structure of this verse and verse 27 shows that they are very definitely parallel to each other and should be taken together. This is important in the interpretation.

               And after (Mehuppakh) the sevens       Pashta                Sixty (Munah) and two    Zaqef                will be cut off (Merekha) an anointed one       Tifha                and not is (Munah) to him Atnah                the city and the sanctuary          Geresh                will devastate             Telisha                a people (Munah) of a ruler (Mehuppakh) coming       Pashta                and its end (Munah) will be like a flood    Zaqef                And until          Pashta                an end (Munah) warfare       Zaqef                are decreed          Tifha                desolations Notice how the Atnah makes the first phrase fairly short and abrupt; however, this makes for the natural division of this verse to be in three parts, not two. This is important. Two things are resolved through this analysis. 1. The noun for people is joined to the ruler and this would confirm that it is in the construct state so that the translation “a people of a ruler” would be valid. Since the Hebrew noun for people is masculine,

singular, and the pointing for absolute and construct state are the same, it’s not possible to establish construct state from the text alone. Notice how the complete leaf node joins all three Hebrew words so that the subject of the phrase becomes a “people of a coming ruler.” 2. The phrase “and its end will be like a flood” is clearly connected to the devastation being wrought by the people of the coming ruler and not to the warfare that will continue to the end. This is in agreement with the translations of Goldingay (1989) and Lucas (2002), who argue that it makes more sense for the devastation of the city and the sanctuary to be unstoppable and for this phrase to describe the overwhelming power of an invader. This translation conflicts with English versions, which separate this phrase and leave its association with the clause before and the clause after ambiguous. This clearly shows us that two distinct ends are in mind. As a result, it becomes very clear that this verse starts with a time phrase, which is then followed by three major clauses that describe three distinct events B. and after the sixty-two sevens an anointed one will be cut off C. people of a coming ruler will devastate the city and sanctuary, the end being unstoppable D. and until the end war, desolations are decreed. 5.5   Daniel 9:27 The first interesting feature of this constituent analysis tree is the placement of the Atnah very near its beginning after a single clause. An explanation for this will be given later, but part of the reason is that this verse divides into four sections. These are as follows: 1. The confirmation of a covenant with many for one seven It’s an interesting question as to whether to regard this as a single event defined at the beginning of the seven or something that stretches over the whole seven. From the middle of the seven 1. The sacrifice and offering being made to cease 2. Desolating abominations on a wing 3. Even until the end when the desolator will receive the decreed outcome

               And he confirmed (Merekha) a covenant (Merekha) with many    Tifha                for seven (Munah) one Atnah                And in the middle of (Azla) the seven          Geresh                he will make cease             Legarmah                sacrifice (Munah) and offering       Revia                and upon (Azla) a wing (Mehuppakh) abominations          Pashta                desolating    Zaqef                even until end          Pashta                and that which was decreed       Zaqef                will pour out          Tifha                on the desolator The next question to resolve is whether the events that occur from the middle of the week are 2. and 3. alone or whether 4. is also to be included. The placement of the Atnah suggests that everything after it applies from the middle of the seven. Overall, then, there is the suggestion of the following structure A. The confirmation of a covenant for one seven B. From the middle of the seven sacrifices and offering are made to cease       C. The desolating abominations on a wing

         D. Even until the end when the desolator will receive the decreed outcome 5.6   Overall Analysis The other association of interest is the strong parallels between verse 26 and verse 27. These parallels are: the anointed one being cut off with the sacrifice and offering being made to cease, the devastation being wrought by the people of the coming ruler with the desolating abomination, and finally the statements about the continuation until the decreed end. It is fairly clear that these statements are related and that verse 26 relates to physical events whereas verse 27 refers to religious ones. Overall there seems to be a structure linking these three verses as follows: Seventy sevens for the people and the city are needed to complete God’s plan A. From a word to restore Jerusalem to an anointed leader, seven sevens A’. For sixty-two sevens, Jerusalem will be restored in troubled times    B. after the sixty-two sevens an anointed one is cut off       C. people of a coming ruler devastate the city and the sanctuary          D. and until the end war and desolations are decreed A.” He confirms a covenant with the many for one seven B’. From the middle of the seven sacrifices and offering will be stopped       C’. The desolating abominations are set up on a wing          D’. until the end when the desolator will receive the decreed outcome Therefore, the fulfillment of the prophecy occurs in three segments. The content of the final seven is contained in two sets of three parallel statements centered on the confirmation of a covenant (shown as BCD and B’C’D’ above). The first set occurs after sixty-two sevens, the second set from the middle of the final seven. Both logic and structure confirm that both sets of three occur chronologically within the span of the final seven even though the first set is written before the statement about the covenant being confirmed with the many for this seven. In this arrangement, the three segments (AA’A”) are in chronological order. Since the BCD and B’C’D’ can be considered as parallel structures within the final seven, it is also possible to see this prophecy structured as: Seventy sevens for the people and the city are needed to complete God’s plan A. From a word to restore Jerusalem to an anointed leader, seven sevens

A’. For sixty-two sevens, Jerusalem will be restored in troubled times B. after the sixty-two sevens an anointed one is cut off and from the middle of the seven sacrifices and offering will be stopped C. people of a coming ruler devastate the city and the sanctuary and the desolating abominations are set up on a wing D. and until the end war and desolations are decreed and until the end when the desolator will receive the decreed outcome A.” He confirms a covenant with the many for one seven In this arrangement the two segments AA” are in chronological order and A’BCD is concurrent with A.” This structure is like the seven times seven years followed by the year of Jubilee described in Leviticus 25. When this arrangement is compared with the structure of the six objectives in Daniel 9:24, it can be seen that they match in interesting ways so that, for example, the objective of “making atonement for iniquity” parallels “an anointed one is cut off and from the middle of the seven sacrifices and offering will be stopped.” APPENDIX 6 Discussion of the English Translations As the book of Daniel has been closely examined, it has become apparent that there are a number of places where the English translators have imparted their interpretation to the available old texts and given a meaning that is different from the meaning supported by this book because of different understanding. Every effort has been made to be faithful to the original material and especially the Hebrew text. In some cases, it has been felt that the English translations have gone too far because the interpretation given is based on an unproven but assumed eschatology. This is discussed in this section. 6.1   The Word Translated “Reign” This is a discussion of this word that occurs in Daniel 1:1, 2:1, 5:26, 6:28 (twice), 8:1, 8:23, and 9:2. The particular problems to be solved are: 1. How to reconcile Jeremiah 25:1, which says that Nebuchadnezzar’s first year was the fourth year of Jehoiakim, with Daniel 1:1, which places Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim.

How Daniel could have completed the three years training specified by 2. Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 1:5 and 18 and then be interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in his second year of reign if he was deported to Babylon in 605 BC. Since the Babylonians used accession year dating and Nisan to Nisan reckoning, Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year would be 605 BC; his first year 604 BC, and therefore his second regnal year would be 603 BC. The Hebrew word translated “reign” in Daniel 1:1 (NIV) is malchut , which may be a less specific term for the years of reign than regnal years since its use conveys the thought of “kingship” or “sovereign power,” and it is often used without a specific length of time (e.g., Ezra 4:5, 6, Nehemiah 12:22, Jeremiah 49:34) or used in a different way as in 2 Chronicles 15:10 where the fifteenth year of Asa’s reign (kingship) is probably dated from his birth rather than from his accession year. With this approach, Daniel 1:1 could be translated, “In the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim” and could reflect a less precise reckoning that ignores the month to month differences and sees his reign beginning in 608 BC and the current year being 605 BC, a difference of three years. This approach may also help us to understand problem two; since it should be noted that the Hebrew word for reign in Daniel 2:1 is also malchut , so 603 BC is probably the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. Another alternative is that malchut implies exclusive reckoning, since there are clear biblical examples of this being done. For example, Nehemiah 5:14 speaks of Nehemiah being governor in Judah from the twentieth to the thirty-second year of King Artaxerxes, a period of twelve years. It may even be true that Daniel uses malchut specifically for exclusive reckoning in contrast to Daniel 9:2, which uses malak and which is clearly a reference to the beginning of the official reign of Darius the Mede. Further consideration of the use of this word is discussed in appendix 10. Three major Hebrew words translate as “reign” in the NIV. The first of these is yom , the word that means “days” or “years”; for example, 1 Chronicles 7:2 translated “during the reign of David” is more literally translated “during the days (or years) of David.” The second word, malak , occurs 350 times, and in the book of Kings is usually translated “began to reign” and may be a word that specifically targets the regnal years of a king. This word is used once in Daniel in Daniel 9:2 with reference to the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede. The third word, malchut , occurs ninety times and seems to be a somewhat less specific word for “kingship” or alternatively for periods of reign calculated using exclusive reckoning. In the book of Daniel it is used in Daniel 1:1, 2:1, 5:26, 6:28 (twice), 8:1, and 8:23. A suggestion proposed by Aaronson (1989) is that Daniel 1:1 refers to the time in Jehoiakim’s reign when he had full independent authority. Keep in mind that his initial appointment in 608 BC was by Egypt, and then he became a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar in 605 or 604 BC and then rebelled in 601 BC. Thus the invasion by Nebuchadnezzar in this verse may be what happened in the eleventh year of his reign, three years after he gained independent authority, although when it happened in 598/597 BC he was already dead. Although interesting, this seems a doubtful interpretation unless further evidence comes to light.

6.2   The Word Translated “Inferior” in Daniel 2:39 This section examines the word translated “inferior” in the NIV in Daniel 2:39. This word is used as part of the argument to justify that the silver layer of the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is the Median Empire and cannot be the Medo-Persian one, since the latter is in no sense inferior to the Babylonian Empire, which is the gold layer above. The literal Hebrew means “more earthly” and probably means that the silver empire style of leadership was less absolute and controlling than the gold one and has nothing to do with the size and power of the empire. Note: The root of the Aramaic word translated “inferior” here is ’arah (Strong’s 772) and occurs twenty-one times (in the KJV it is translated earth twenty times and inferior once). The equivalent Hebrew word occurs 2,504 times and is translated as “land” 1,543 times and “earth” 712 times. It is usually used as a noun; the adverbial use here is its only occurrence. It is therefore suggested that to translate this word as “inferior” may be a much broader form of inferiority than is intended by the author and to translate it as “more earthly” is literally close to the root meaning and does not mislead. Translating as “more earthly” is a more precise description of the comparison that is being made. 6.3   The Ambiguity in Daniel 2:40 There is an ambiguity in the Hebrew text of Daniel 2:40 that English versions have often resolved by applying the strength of the fourth kingdom as being used to break all the previous kingdoms (plural). A literal translation of verse 40 by Green (1986) is, “And a fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron. Inasmuch as iron crushes and smashes all things, and as the iron that shatters all these, it will crush and shatter.” The question is does the “all these” refer to the previous empires described in the dream or to the “all things” in this verse? If the three previous kingdoms are Babylonian, Median, and then Persian, then this fourth kingdom has to smash not only the Persian kingdom, but the ones already smashed by the Persian kingdom. The same problem arises if the three kingdom sequence is Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Grecian; the Grecian kingdom has already smashed the previous ones. It seems more likely, therefore, that the “all these” is referring to the crushing and smashing of “all things” within the kingdom wherever it goes; that in fact, the fourth empire is one which imposes powerfully onto its subjects right down to the grassroots level. 6.4   Daniel 7:25 Daniel 7:25 NIV: He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. (25) He a shall speak pompous words against the Most High, Shall persecute b,c the saints of the Most High,

And shall intend d to change times and law. Then the saints e shall be given into his hand For a time and times and half a time f . (NKJV) a: Isaiah 37:23, Daniel 11:36, Revelation 13:1–6 b: Revelation 13:6 c: literally “wear out” d: Daniel 2:21 e: Revelation 13:7, 18:24 f: Daniel 12:7, Revelation 13:14 Discussion: This is a particularly important verse, and the English translations may have missed some of the intention of the Hebrew text because of the interpretation placed on it by the translators. The literal meaning of what the little horn does to the saints, which is to “wear out” the saints, is important. If the little horn is Muhammad, then that is a precise word to describe dhimmi , the treatment of non-Muslims as second-class citizens in Islamic countries. If they were Jews and Christians, Islamic Law requires that they convert to Islam, pay the tax, or be killed. The NIV translation misses the textual balance suggested by the Masoretic Text and is probably incorrect in saying that it is the “saints” that will be given into the hands of the little horn. Literally: And words against the Most High will he speak, And the holy ones of the Most High wear out. –– (an atnah punctuation break) –— And he will try to change times and law, And they will be given into his hand until a time and times and one-half time. This literal translation follows Green (1986) closely and is near to Goldingay (1989, 143) and Lucas (2002, 160). Note that the “they” of the last line is taken to refer to the “times and law” and not to the “saints” as interpreted by the NIV. This fits the Masoretic Text punctuation (an atnah) and the balance of the two halves of the verse better and the fact that the “times and law” are the immediate antecedent of the “they.” Goldingay (1989, 143) treats the “times and law” as hendiadys translating as “times set by decree,” which fits his interpretation of the little horn as Antiochus IV better; however, if the little horn is Muhammad, the interpretation above is fine.

The important point of interest here is how most English translations associate the “they” of the last phrase as being associated with the saints rather than the times and law. This would fit the interpretation usually given of a persecution under the little horn for three and one half years. However, if the correct interpretation is the control exerted in Islamic countries, then the use of the Islamic calendar, the Islamic rules, and the Islamic Law is accurately described, and the interpretation of the time, times and half a time as a long period of time exceeding twelve hundred years is strongly supported. The NKJV references given above are an interesting observation of how the translators are interpreting the verse as an end-time ruler and their interpretation of the book of Revelation. The NIV study bible notes even specify that the time, times and half a time is three and one half years! 6.5   Daniel 8:9–12 and 8:23–25 The constituent structure tree for verses 11–12 is important in order to compare these verses with Daniel 9:26–27. Verse 9:             And out of one (Munah) of them    Zaqef          c   ame (Merekha) a horn       Tifha             little Atnah             and he became very great       Tevir             toward the south (Merekha) and toward the east    Tifha          and toward the beautiful land Verse 10:             And it became great    Tifha             even to the host of (Munah) the heavens Atnah             and it made fall (Merekha) to the ground

      Tevir             of the host (Merekha) and of the stars    Tifha             and trampled them Verse 11:             Even to (Merekha) ruler of the host    Tifha             he magnified himself Atnah             and by him       Double Geresh             was removed (Munah) the regular sacrifice    Zaqef             and it cast down       Tifha             the place of (Merekha) his sanctuary Verse 12:             and a host       Tevir             was given (Merekha) with the regular sacrifice    Tifha             through rebellion Atnah             and it cast down (Mehuppakh) truth       Pashta             to the ground       Zaqef             and it worked

      Tifha             and prospered Although there are subtleties in the way, the comparison should be made; there are clear parallels between these verses and Daniel 9:26–27. 1. Verse 11 sees the combination of removing the regular sacrifice and what was done to the sanctuary. This parallels the two middle phrases of Daniel 9:27. 2. There are also parallels between verse 12 and Daniel 9:26 as well, especially if the rebellion is related to the devastation by the people of the coming ruler and the connection between the Hebrew word translated “devastate,” which can also be translated “corrupt,” referring to the moral effects imposed by this ruler and truth being cast to the ground. The connection between these events and between Daniel 8:23–25 must also be noted when examining the success of the little horn and the coming ruler. Verse 23:             And in the latter time of       Pashta             their kingdom    Zaqef             when have finished       Tifha             the transgressors Atnah             shall stand up       Tevir             a king (Merekha) strong of face    Tifha             and skilled at (Merekha) intrigues Verse 24:             and mighty (Mehuppakh) his power       Pashta             but not own (Munah) by his power

   Zaqef             and marvelously (Merekha) shall he destroy       Tifha             and he shall prosper (Munah) and accomplish Atnah             and destroy (Merekha) the mighty    Tifha             and people the holy Verse 25:             And through his skill       Revia             he will make succeed (Mehuppakh) deceit          Pashta             in his hand    Zaqef             and in his own heart (Munah) he will lift himself       Zaqef             and be at ease          Tifha             he shall destroy (Munah) many Atnah             also against (Mehuppakh) the ruler of rulers       Pashta             he shall stand up    Zaqef             but without (Merekha) a hand       Tifha             he shall be broken

6.6   Daniel 11:6 There may be a question about why the Hebrew text uses the word for “years” in Daniel 11:6 given that it uses the word “days” later in Daniel 11:20 and 11:33 when years are intended. The answer is that these words can be used interchangeably, so that it does not really matter. 6.7   Daniel 11:20 The NIV translates the Hebrew word “days” as “years” in Daniel 11:20. All other translations stay with the original Hebrew word and translate more literally as “days.” It is believed that the NIV interpretation is correct here, as Seleucid IV reigned for twelve years, and the translation to “a few years” is a possible English translation of the Hebrew and matches known history. 6.8   Daniel 11:28 The NIV has “the king of the North” when the Hebrew has “he” in Daniel 11:28. The NIV is trying to remove the ambiguity and make the English translation more readable, but this misses the understanding that the Hebrew writer was deliberately avoiding giving Antiochus IV the title of king, so it would have been safer to keep the “he.” 6.9   Daniel 11:33 The NIV has “for a time” when the literal Hebrew is “(for) days” in Daniel 11:33, but years is implied. 6.10 Daniel 11:40a Daniel 11:40a NIV: (40a) “At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. There is an important issue to discuss with respect to the translation of the first phrase of this verse in our English versions. Consider the following seven different translations: NIV: “At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle.” KJV: “And at the time of the end shall the king of the South push at him.” NKJV: “At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him.” Lucas: “At the time of the end the king of the South will engage in a struggle with him.” Goldingay: “At the time of the end the southern king will engage in a struggle with him.” Young’s Literal Translation: “And at the time of the end, push himself forward with him doth a king of the South.”

Green: “And at the time of the end shall engage in butting with him the king of the South.” Let’s add the two Strong’s numbers for the words of special relevance to the KJV: “And at the time of the end shall the king of the South push (5055) at him (5973).” The Hebrew word translated “push” in the KJV and YLT comes from a primitive root that means to “butt with horns” and can also be translated “engage in battle” if the subject and the object are in conflict against each other. In this case it is in the hithpael verb pattern (reflexive or reciprocal action), imperfect (future or incomplete action), and third person, masculine, singular. The Hebrew word translated “at him” in the KJV is based on an incorrect translation, which is corrected in modern versions. The preposition should be translated “with him.” (See The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon , page 14 for the declension of the preposition with its singular, masculine, third person form.) The interpretation would mean “with” in the sense of “against” if the king of the South was fighting against the Romans, but the context of the Hebrew text does not allow us to know this. However, what is known of history at this time tells us that the king of the South was on the same side as the Romans against Philip V of Macedon some of the time and Antiochus III. A better translation would be: “And at the time of the end the king of the South will push with him” or “engage in thrusting with him” leaving the question of whether they are fighting against or on the same side open but with a much stronger suggestion of alliance as opposed to conflict; if conflict was intended, why not use the Hebrew for “at him” rather than “with him.” The fact that “he” is in battle against the king of the North is unambiguously clear. In fact, the contrast between the words used for the relationship of “him” with the king of the South and the king of the North suggests quite strongly the historical interpretation that is being put forward. It has been shown that the Hebrew text is ambiguous as to whether the king of the South is fighting against “him” or is on the same side as “him.” The Hebrew text is literally “engage in battle with him.” All English translations that supply interpretation assume the king of the South is against “him.” This is not justified, given that this verse is clearly stated in all commentaries to be not understood. The only valid translation would therefore be a literal one, and if interpretation is supplied, it could easily mislead. As has been explained, the contrast between the king of the South and the king of the North suggests the king of the South was on the same side as the “him,” and history confirms this.

The interesting observation here is that those translations that impart less interpretation in their wording (the last four) display a meaning that can be understood to be close to the actual history of the Ptolemaic kingdom and that is that they fought with (in fellowship or relationship with) Rome rather than against Rome. The NIV and NKJV have imparted an interpretation to the original Hebrew according to the translators’ understanding of what is meant. Since this verse is being seen in a new way, it is not surprising that this should happen. 6.11   Daniel 11:41 Some translations (e.g., the NIV), interpret the text as “Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon.” A more literal translation would say “Edom, Moab and the main part of Ammon.” Again the translators are unwise to impart an interpretation to a passage that is not understood. As has been shown from history, it is the region of the prophecy that is in mind, not the people, so it should be translated “the main part of Ammon”; it is the region of territory to be occupied by the Nabataeans when the king invaded in 62 BC that is in mind, not the people. 6.12   Daniel 12:6 “How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?” (NIV). The debate that centers on this question can be seen by comparing this translation with: KJV: How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? NKJV: “How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?” NRSV: “How long shall it be until the end of these wonders?” JPS: “How long until the end of these awful things?” Goldingay: “How long is it to the end of these awesome events?” Lucas: “How long will it be until the end of these awesome events?” Green: “How long until the end of these wonders?” Three statements need to be made. 1. Phillip Mauro (1944, 68) takes the KJV and removes the words in italics added by the translators and so interprets the question to mean, “How long will the period of time when these wonders occur at the end last?” In other words, it is not the length of time until the end but the duration required for the wonders to complete. The NKJV could also be interpreted that way, but all the others have the thought, “How long until the end of these awesome events?” which assumes that the starting point is obvious from the context.

Allan Harman (2007, 305) is less clear in that he says the question 2. relates to when the astonishing events will commence, which is a little obscure since he says that the answer given is a period of time, not the time of commencement. 3. Apart from the KJV and NKJV, all the other translations support the idea that the question is, “How long until the end of these awesome events?” In reality then, two major questions need to be answered. 1. When did this period of time begin? The natural and obvious answer to this question is the beginning of the prophecy, that is, the third year of Cyrus. This is because if a question is asked “How long until?” the normal understanding is that the current time of the starting point is “now.” Two things might change this. The first is if it was proved that the “time, times and half a time” is indeed three and one half years; this issue will be tackled in volume 2, now replaced by The Thirty-Two Theses ; however, the study that has been done on Daniel in this book provides no evidence that this should be the length. The second is if the awesome events could be proved to be some portion of the events in this final vision, which is the subject of the next point. 1. What are the awesome events that are being referred to? From the literature, it is apparent that all scholars are quite vague about the identity of the awesome events and really give it little attention. Lucas (2002, 296) indicates that the word used for “awesome events” is a different form from the same root as the word used for Antiochus’s deeds in Daniel 8:24 and 11:36 and suggests that the events are those in Daniel 11:29–12:3, but there is no reason given to pick out those events from any other events in the final vision. Overall, the ill-founded perception that the time, times and half a time is three and one half years is dictating the interpretation, rather than the exegesis of this passage. Harman writes (2007, 306), “as in 7:25, this language cannot equate to precise chronological time and should be understood in a symbolic sense,” a view that is a refreshing change, although this work suggests that a definite time period is in mind as well as there being a symbolic aspect to the three and one half. Given that the final portion of this vision from Daniel 11:36 onward is a description of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, then there can be no doubt that this vision is a continuous narrative history from the third year of Cyrus until the demise of the Roman Empire. This being so, there can be no reasonable doubt that the awesome events must imply all the events in the whole vision. Natural exegesis then leads us to the clear meaning. The time, times and half a time must be the period of time from the third year of Cyrus to the demise of the Roman Empire; a period of near twelve hundred years in total! APPENDIX 7 The Seventy Sevens Prophecy

This appendix contains additional analysis of the Hebrew text for Daniel 9:24–27. To assist in this, the Hebrew text for these four verses is given below.

7.1   The Word for “Sevens” This word occurs in three verses—24, 25, and 26—in Daniel 9. It is the very first Hebrew word in Daniel 9:24 (remember to read from right to left). Grammatical analysis shows that it is a masculine plural noun in the absolute state, and its Strong’s number is 7620. This fact is clearly seen in Davidson (1850, 698). An image of the relevant line is shown below.

This “sevens” has frequently been linked with Leviticus 25:8 and interpreted as a week of years; however, it is by no means certain that this is intended here. This Hebrew word only occurs in Daniel 9:24, 25, and 26 and in Daniel 10:2 and 3. It may be an Aramaism, but another interpretation is also possible. In Daniel 10:2 and 3, the Hebrew text explicitly includes the word for days so that the interpretation is unambiguously a “week of days.” However, in Daniel 9:24, 25, and 26 no qualification defining the meaning of the “sevens” is given. Therefore this masculine plural form simply indicates a period of time which is a period of seven and requires additional information if it is to mean more than a symbolic meaning. Frequently, it is argued that from the context in Daniel 9:2, where Daniel reveals his awareness that Jeremiah’s prophecy of seventy years of desolation of Jerusalem has almost completed, that the seventy sevens prophecy must be an elapsed time seven times greater than the seventy years, that is, 490 years. However, the important thing for Daniel contextually is not so much

the length of time, but rather all that Jeremiah prophesied in Jeremiah 25–33 and the immanency of its fulfillment. So it is very strange that if “years” is what Gabriel meant, he did not specify seventy sevens of years, as in Daniel 10:2 and 3, when “days” was clearly meant (see Daniel 10:13), and it was still specified. The implication is surely that something different is in mind and that this was deliberate. The interpretation that this is seventy weeks of years (totaling 490 years) is therefore unclear unless additional evidence can be produced to prove it one way or the other. 7.2   The Word for “Seven” In a similar way to the word for “sevens” in Daniel 9:24, 25 and 26, the word for “seven” in Daniel 9:27 occurs twice, and it is a masculine singular noun and also in the absolute state. You can check this by examining the Hebrew text and comparing this with the entry from the lexicon in the previous section. The lexicons tell us that this word can be translated in one of three ways; either as (1) a week—a period of seven (days or years), (2) a feast of weeks, or (3) as heptads (a group or series of seven) a period of seven units or times—just a straight period of seven. This means that in Daniel 9:27 a correct translation could be “one period of seven” not “one seven of something” or “one seven of years.” A valid translation would be just “one period of seven” or “a period of seven” without implying a week or seven of something. This is highly significant and further supports the idea that the omission of “years” to qualify the seventy sevens was deliberate because “years” was never intended! 7.3   Additional Comments With respect to Daniel 9:25, it is worth emphasizing that the balanced structure of the content (see appendix 5.3) argues strongly for the separation of the verse into two parts—the first with seven sevens and the second with sixty-two sevens. Such is the strength of this pattern that sound exegesis ought to include it unless there is good reason to leave it out; it is very unlikely to the result of bias against Christians by the Masoretes, as the pattern is discernable from the content and so cannot be hidden without changing the words themselves. There is an interesting variety of translations of the first phrase of Daniel 9:25. The following are the translations in a number of different versions. Literal interpretation in Green has “then know and understand.” NIV has “know and understand.” KJV, NKJV, and NRSV have “know therefore and understand.” YLT has “and thou dost know and dost consider wisely.” Lucas, Goldingay has “you must know and understand.” This issue is not discussed in the commentaries. Is Daniel being instructed to know and understand something new, or is he being told to recognize

what he already knows and understands. In other words, is this first phrase about the exile; that is, a word going out for seven sevens until an anointed ruler, or do the seven sevens start in the future? Given that the verbs are in the imperfect tense, which implies incomplete action, either the simple future or continuous action, the words can be translated as “and you will know.” This can mean that you already know and will continue to know, or you will come to know in the future. It would seem that some of the English translations make this phrase possibly appear imperative, when it is imperfect. Those that use “therefore” or “then” are implying something that can be inferred from what has been said before; this is possible, but rather as a knowable starting point whose end point he will recognize (that is, the end of the seven sevens, which Daniel will think of as the end of the seventy years). Overall, it seems much more likely that Daniel will see this first part as something he knows about —that is, the exile and not as a command to know something he did not know before or something he could logically deduce. The seventy years are not quite up yet, so to say the first period “will be” seven sevens makes sense. It is likely he will see this as a Jubilee period in a negative sense. It is a seven sevens period of exile, a judgment. So it would not be surprising for him to see the Jubilee year as not one of rest but of continuation. It is therefore inferred that Daniel lived to see the end of the seven sevens and that would have been related to the reason for the three-week fast described in Daniel 10, which was the precursor to God’s final revelation to him. The rebuilding of Jerusalem described in Daniel 9:25 included the “square and moat.” The translation by KJV as “street and wall” is not correct. The thought is like our English expression “inside and out”; in other words, the city was completely rebuilt. All commentaries discuss the difficulty of translating the word rendered “wing” in the NIV translation of Daniel 9:27. It probably refers to the edges or borders of either the altar, the temple itself, or its location, and is deliberately ambiguous to cater for the different scenarios discussed in this book. In each scenario, its meaning is perfectly clear. APPENDIX 8 The 360-Day Prophetic Year It is certain beyond reasonable doubt that the application of the 360-day “prophetic year” is invalid. Biblical evidence for the 360-day year in the Old Testament only exists in the time of Noah. The biblical evidence in the New Testament is based on doubtful exegesis. Research has shown that from about the seventh century BC, all the major nations and empires in Mesopotamia were aware that the year was more than 360 days, and all provided their own calendar, which adjusted for the fact that the year was about 365.25 days but in different ways. There may be some evidence that the 360-day year was used chronographically but not for literal time periods.

Sometimes the supposed correspondence between the 1,260 days, the fortytwo months, and the time, times and half a time in the book of Revelation chapters 11 to 13 is used as proof that the 360-day prophetic year was in use at the end of Bible times. It is also used to prove that the time, times and half a time is a period of three and one half years. However, it should be noted that careful exegesis of these chapters will show the following: (1) these times symbolically represent a time that threatens to go to completion but is cut short, (2) that a literal interpretation of these verses and the recognition of the biblical inspiration must consider that there is likely to be a deliberate reason why these time lengths are different, (3) that there are contextual differences associated with each use of these time lengths that are significant, (4) that when the book of Revelation was written the length of a year was determined by the Julian calendar of 365.25 days, and (5) that the correspondence between the use of these time lengths is unproven. In actual fact, the adjacency of the references to forty-two months and 1,260 days in Revelation 11:2 and 3 has been interpreted to mean that they are the same length of time and equal to three and one half years. This has been used to prove that the 360-day prophetic year is in use. However, careful exegesis will establish that the contextual differences between these two verses have not been understood, and this is the reason why there is controversy on their interpretation. Thus the interpretation rests on a questionable foundation. In all this, no one is seriously trying to solve the question of why, if they are meant to be the same length of time, different lengths are written. APPENDIX 9 The First Year of Belshazzar Daniel received the vision of the four beasts and the little horn in the first year of Belshazzar. All of Daniel’s revelations occurred at critical times of change in the Middle East region. If it is possible to precisely identify which is the first year of Belshazzar, then the context of the Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 visions will be more precise, and the interpretation will not have to be concerned to cover different possible variations, making it somewhat simpler. Overall, it will not make much difference to the resultant understanding, but it will make it a little more precise and clear. There are two main variations. First, there is the view that Belshazzar’s coregency began about 550/549 BC, which would be just after Cyrus had gained his victory over Astyages in 550 BC and had taken up Ecbatana as his capital. The second possibility is 553/552 BC, which was about when Cyrus began to emerge as a growing authority during the Median kingdom when he was king of the vassal state of Persia. In both views, it is known that Nabonidus was absent from Babylon for about ten years and resided in Tema in the Arabian Peninsula. The question centers around whether they were ten consecutive years or whether there were more years of absence, of which only ten of them are known. The NIV (2002) study notes say the year was probably 553 BC, but the reason is not supplied. The Wikipedia Encyclopedia says the same thing in

its entry for Belshazzar, but also no reason is given. Baldwin (1979, 138) says the year was 552/551 BC, but again the reason is not given. Goldingay (1989, 159) says that the first year of Belshazzar would probably have been 550/549 BC based upon the knowledge that he was absent for ten years. Lucas (2001, 176) says that Nabonidus was absent from Babylon for ten years but does not specify the first year of Belshazzar; he seems to be relying on Goldingay here. Further detail is provided in the paper by Trecartin (1996), and this perhaps represents the latest research on this topic. From this paper it is known that Nabonidus reigned from 556 to 539 BC, a period of seventeen years. He writes, “Concerning the date beginning Belshazzar’s co-regency, a comparison of both the Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus and the Nabonidus Chronicle is helpful. It is clear from a comparison of these that the event depicted in the Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus where Belshazzar is entrusted with the kingship by Nabonidus before he goes on a campaign to Tema was in the third year of Nabonidus reign. As mentioned already, this continued until at least the 14th year of Nabonidus and there are no further cuneiform records that provide information about this subject.” According to the Babylonian system of computing a king’s reign, this would mean the first year of Nabonidus would be 555 BC and his third year 553 BC. That would also mean that the probable first year of Belshazzar would be 552 BC. This is the best conclusion that we can make at this time. APPENDIX 10 Bible Chronology In recent times, considerable advances have been made in the precision with which the dates of ancient events are known. This appendix supplies an overview of this topic sufficient for the reader to understand the complexity and estimate the accuracy of the dates that have been determined. 10.1 Calendars Julian In 45 BC, Julius Caesar decreed a new calendar in which there should be three years of 365 days followed by one year of 366 days (the leap year). This became known as the Julian calendar. It is exactly 365.25 days per solar year. The start of the year was changed from March 1 to January 1. To realign the calendar with the seasons, 46 BC was made 445 days long; the Romans called this the “year of confusion.” It should be observed that this calendar removed any dependence on the lunar year and so greatly simplified date calculations. This calendar was a vast improvement over previous ones, but is still not completely accurate since the mean solar year is actually 365.24219879 days. Thus there is a difference between the Julian calendar and the mean solar year of eleven minutes and fourteen seconds a year, so the difference becomes significant over the course of centuries.

Gregorian In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII made a change and introduced the Gregorian calendar, which is what is used today. The mean Gregorian year has 365.2425 days. The changes made were that every year ending in “00” whose number cannot be divided by 400 will not be a leap year. Thus 1700, 1800, and 1900 were not leap years but 2000 was. The Gregorian year is only twenty-six seconds longer than the mean solar year and so will suffice for more than one thousand years. When this calendar was introduced in 1582, ten days were eliminated from the year so that the day after October 4, 1582, became October 15, 1582. Many countries did not adopt this calendar then, but they did so later. To make the conversion from Julian to Gregorian dates, add ten days to the Julian date from October 5, 1582, through to February 28, 1700. Then add eleven days to Julian dates from March 1, 1700, to February 28, 1800; add twelve days from March 1, 1800, to February 28, 1900, and so on. As explained below, it is possible to compute an equivalent Gregorian date prior to 1582. When we do this we must recognize that there is only one year between 1 BC and AD 1. When we have done this, we have flagged the date by specifying Gregorian in brackets. Astronomical A particular feature of the Julian and Gregorian calendars is that there is no year “0,” so when counting the number of years from BC to AD, one year must be subtracted from the total. Thus 1 BC is followed by AD 1 with a difference of just one year. The astronomical calendar does not have this problem, and dates using this calendar can be displayed as -620 JP (Julian Period, not to be confused with the Julian calendar) for 620 BC and so on. Occasionally, calculations are made of the equivalent Gregorian date prior to 1582. A more suitable way of doing calculations with dates is to use the Julian date, which is the total number of days that have elapsed since January 1, 4713 BC. Again, this has nothing to do with the Julian calendar discussed above. A peculiar feature of this date is that the day begins at midday, so the Julian date for noon, 23 July, 1980, is 2,444,444.0. Hebrew The Hebrew calendar is a luni-solar calendar. This means that the lunar cycles determine the months, and the solar cycles govern the year. Since the mean solar year is 365.24219879 days, and twelve lunar cycle’s average 354.367056, then twelve lunar months are about 11.25 days less than the length of a solar year. The difference is referred to as the “epact.” The effect of the lunar calendar being shorter than the solar one was that every year the seasons would occur at earlier and earlier dates. To overcome this in Daniel’s time, a thirteenth month was inserted in the third, sixth, and eighth years of each eight-year cycle just before Nisan (the first month).

The determination of the beginning of the month was based on the first observation of the new moon’s slim crescent. This would normally be between fifteen to twenty-five hours after the actual conjunction of the sun and the moon. Names of Ancient Months Table 11: Hebrew months and their English equivalent 10.2 Chronological Reckoning Regnal Years Most nations used either the spring or autumn months as the beginning of the New Year, not January 1 as is done today. The majority began the New Year at a new moon near the spring or vernal equinox. If March-April was the start of the New Year, we sometimes refer to Nisan to Nisan reckoning because that was the name of the Hebrew month. Alternatively, if the New Year began September-October, we sometimes refer to Tishri to Tishri reckoning. Accession and Non-Accession Year Reckoning When calculating the years of a king’s reign, nations used different systems. The southern kingdom of Judah used Nisan to Nisan, accession year dating. This means that the first year of a king’s reign was reckoned from the beginning of the next year after the king ascended to the throne. The northern kingdom generally used Tishri to Tishri years with nonaccession year reckoning, following the pattern of the Egyptians. Careful consideration of these issues enables us to resolve many chronological problems that were previously thought to be errors. As a result, research seems to be leading to a convergence of opinion as to dates back to the reigns of David. It is now known that the Babylonians used Nisan to Nisan, accession year dating like the kingdom of Judah, whereas the Persian used Tishri to Tishri dating (see Nehemiah 1–2). Inclusive and Exclusive Reckoning The other difference that can arise is in the way that the length (in years) of a king’s reign is calculated. It can be calculated either using inclusive or exclusive reckoning. With inclusive reckoning both the starting and ending year are counted so a reign from 620 to 618 BC would be counted as three years, whereas in exclusive reckoning it would be only two. 10.3 Key Dates Using ancient records of astronomical phenomena such as a lunar eclipse, it is possible to pinpoint the actual date of certain key events in ancient history. One of the most important of these is the lunar eclipse reported by Ptolemy as occurring in the fifth year of Nabopolassar, and which has been determined by computer calculations to be -620 JP and which according to the Gregorian calendar is 15 April 621 BC. Based on this and other information, there is a high degree of certainty that the Battle of

Carchemish occurred in May-June 605 BC. Thus the Babylonian Chronicles (5:10) state that Nebuchadnezzar began his reign over Babylon as sole rex on the first day of Elul, which computes to August 30, 605 BC Gregorian. APPENDIX 11 Anstey’s Chronology Some authors rely substantially on the chronology of Anstey to date the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem as coming from Cyrus in 457 BC. This is examined below in order to show that in spite of the excellent research done by him, later research establishes that his dating of Cyrus to 457 BC is incorrect. Kevin Conner uses Anstey’s chronology as the foundation for taking Cyrus’s decree to rebuild Jerusalem as occurring in 457 BC and not 536 BC, an error of seventy-nine years. Eberle and Trench (2006) also use this as the foundation of their partial preterist view. Below is an extract from Anstey’s Chronology of the Old Testament (page 239). In Ezra 2:1–70 we have a list of the families of the 42,360 captives who returned with Zerubbabel. This list afterwards fell into the hands of Nehemiah, many details therein having been meanwhile revised and corrected, or brought up to date, whilst the total, 42,360, remained unaltered and unrevised. The revised list is given in Neh. 7:5–73. Amongst the leaders of the people who returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua in the 1st year of Cyrus, we find (Ezra 2:2) the names of Nehemiah, Seraiah (alternatively called Azariah, Neh. 7:7, and possibly identical with Ezra) and Mordecai. There is no reason why these three should not be identified with the well known Nehemiah the Tirshatha (Neh. 8:9), Ezra the priest the scribe (Neh. 8:9), and Mordecai of the Book of Esther. These three men take first rank. They stand at the very head of the list of the exiles who returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua, and the prominence given to them in the narrative of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther is quite in accord with the position assigned to them here. It is only the mistaken identification of the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah with Artaxerxes Longimanus (B.C. 464–424) instead of with Darius Hystaspes (B.C. 521–485), and by consequence the mistaken date assigned to Nehemiah that has led to the distinguishing of the Nehemiah of the first year of Cyrus (Ezra 2:2; 7:7) from Nehemiah the cupbearer and the Tirshatha of Neh. 1:11 and 8:9. And it is only the mistaken identification of the Ahasuerus of Esther with Xerxes (B.C. 485–465) instead of with Darius Hystaspes (B.C. 521–485), that has led to the distinguishing of the Mordecai of the first year of Cyrus (Ezra 2:2 and Neh. 7:7), from the Mordecai of the Book of Esther, and the

torturing of the passage in Esther 2:5,6 to make it mean that Kish was carried away with Jeconiah, instead of what it really does say, which is, that Mordecai was carried away with Jeconiah (B.C. 597). From Ezra 3:1–6 we learn that on the 1st day of the 7th month of the 1st year of Cyrus the people gathered together as one man, to Jerusalem. Zerubbabel and Joshua built an altar and offered burnt offerings, but the foundation of the House was not yet laid. The key to proving this chronology is to establish the identity of Nehemiah, Ezra, and Mordecai in Ezra 2:2. This is now done. 1. Is the Mordecai in Ezra 2:2 and Nehemiah 7:7 the same person as the Mordecai in Esther 2:6? The following quote from Harrison (1970, 1091) shows the problem. “A careful reading of the Hebrew text is sufficient to dispose of this objection, however, for on examination it becomes apparent that the relative pronoun “who” in verse 6 obviously refers to Kish, the great grandfather of Mordecai, and not to Mordecai himself.” This misunderstanding has arisen because of the translation of Esther 2:5–6 in the KJV, “Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite; Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away.” The NIV translates this verse more correctly, “Now there was in the citadel of Susa a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, named Mordecai son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, who had been carried into exile from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, among those taken captive with Jehoiachin king of Judah.” Thus it is seen that in fact it was Mordecai’s great-grandfather who was taken captive with Jehoiachin; the translation in KJV has caused this misunderstanding. The NKJV makes this very clear, “(5) In Shushan the citadel there was a certain Jew whose name was Mordecai the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite. (6) Kish had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captives who had been captured with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away.” 2. Is the Nehemiah in Ezra 2:2 and Nehemiah 7:7 the same person as the Nehemiah in Nehemiah 8:9? For the exiles who returned, it is clear from Ezra and from Haggai and Zechariah that Zerubbabel was the leader and Jeshua (the same person as Joshua) the high priest. It is also clear that the temple was completed during the reign of Darius (522– 485 BC) in 516 BC; the sixth year of Darius in Ezra 6:15. Nehemiah was the leader and Ezra the priest according to Nehemiah 8, so this must have been a different time. The opposition that the Jews experienced as described in Ezra 4 must be seen as the opposition from the very beginning right up until Nehemiah heard about the difficulties the Jews were having in Jerusalem. Ezra 4:6–23 must be seen as like a parenthesis inserted to reflect all the difficulties during both the rebuilding of the temple and the restoration of Jerusalem from Cyrus (536–530 BC), Cambyses (530–522 BC), Pseudo-Smerdes (523 BC),

Darius (522–485 BC), Xerxes (486–465 BC), and Artaxerxes I (465–425 BC). 3. Is the Seraiah in Ezra 2:2 and the Azariah in Nehemiah 7:7 the same person as the Ezra in Nehemiah 8:9? Ezra 7:1 says that Ezra was the son of Seraiah; however, other than the fact that the names are the same, there is no other evidence to support what Anstey argues. In addition, note that the list of names in Nehemiah 7:7 has twelve names whereas that given in Ezra 2:2 has only eleven, and there are some differences, possibly due to copying errors, therefore the identification of the names listed should be done with caution. Thus it has been shown that the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah is not Darius and that the Ahasuerus of Esther is also not Darius as Anstey attempts to prove. In addition, it appears that Anstey uses Daniel’s seventy times seven in Daniel 9:24 interpreted as 490 years to help bridge the gap and complete the Bible chronology. This is done on the assumption that Daniel’s prophecy was intended to predict the exact coming of Jesus and also assuming that the seven was a “week of years.” In other words, Anstey makes assumptions to make the dates coincide. Of course, the 483 years of the sixty-nine weeks will match if the 490 years is used to complete the chronology; however, if this is done, it is doubtful that it can be regarded as a prediction. A careful reading of Kevin Conner’s book on Daniel (2004) from page 205 onward is encouraged. It will be seen that there is some doubt about the chronology there. If Anstey is used, there is doubt because of his interpretation as seen above. Alternatively, the calculation can be done by working backward from known dates for Jesus’s ministry that can lead to a starting date for the decree at about 457 BC. However, the bigger problem is that from the Hebrew text it is not clear that Daniel’s prophecy is intended to predict the year of Jesus’s ministry anyway; that thought has been imposed on us by an uncertain interpretation used by the translators of the KJV, NKJV, and NIV. The important thing to see is that predicting this year is not necessary for us. Another crucial thing for us to see is that a massive amount of the interpretation of the book of Revelation rests on this uncertain foundation. APPENDIX 12 Abductive Interpretation In attempting to understand the book of Daniel, we have to deal with substantial theological and interpretive differences between Christians. Our approach has been that where there are significant differences, we carefully examine the biblical basis in order, if possible, to determine whether there is a compelling basis to resolve the differences. This appendix was added in 2013. 12.1   Background

It is quite remarkable how so many Christians will hold onto their biblical interpretation so tightly that there is a lack of neutrality, openness, and effort to properly examine the scriptures to see if other positions are possible. Quite often Christians can become quite judgmental about even the spirituality of others, even to the extent that they are accused of being false prophets and false teachers, deceived by the devil and denying the inspiration of the word of God. In truth, we need great humility in our search for the truth, which includes a willingness to look carefully at the basis underlying other interpretations. Instead we are quite insecure, afraid of being wrong, and have difficulty being open-minded to other views. It also seems that we often lack grace. We should honour the work of those who have gone before and respect the integrity with which so many have sought for the truth. We should realize that there is ongoing revelation so that new truth gradually unfolds and so that our own views require review. Yes, we all do make mistakes and often bad ones, but we are all loved by God and love Him too, and it is not our task to call other Christians to account unless they are under our authority. At the same time, we should be strict in our search for truth, carefully test prophecies, and require a high standard in exegesis and biblical interpretation. We should be like the Bereans Acts 17:10–11 ESV: 10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. We should also fear God and see how strongly the word of God exhorts us to understand the consequences of the words that we communicate. James 3:1–5 ESV: 1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2 For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. 3 If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. 4 Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. 5 So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. So we need to be very careful about our prophetic teaching, especially when we realize that there is such a large number and such a great diversity of views that most of the positions must be seriously in error. There are huge consequences if we mislead our people, and it takes considerable time and effort to impart correction to wrong teaching. As teachers we are responsible to God for what we teach. Our research suggests that much prophetic teaching is inadequately supported by careful exegesis and appropriate checks and balances. We are too quick to proclaim our revelation and too slow to test it adequately.

At our points of difference, it is not enough to just state our position. We must be willing to engage with each other and search for understanding and resolution at those points of difference. We must be willing for our view to come under scrutiny and be tested as we must also do for other views. In general, we believe that Christians apply interpretation principles to the best that they know how. However, our observation would be that there are vastly varying skills in applying these principles, and some of us think more highly of ourselves than we should. 12.2   Dealing with Multiple Competing Interpretations It is a fact that there are an extraordinary number of different interpretations of the book of Daniel. These in turn lead to even more vast diversity of interpretations of the book of Revelation (because they are usually, if not always, related to the interpretation of the book of Daniel) and ultimately to our end-time theologies. In our view, this is not acceptable, and there is enough knowledge and understanding so that these differences should be able to be resolved. In particular, we feel that the interpretation approach discussed below will greatly help us when we are faced with a domain of understanding where there are a huge number of competing interpretations. What we need is an approach that enables us to find the “best interpretation” from a large range of possible interpretations. This is similar to the approach used in historical scientific research when it is not possible to test a hypothesis in the laboratory, but rather we have to gather evidence from history and the study of our universe and resolve between different explanations of what we discover. It is also similar to the approach used by detectives to solve crimes. The key to this approach is not only to find a plausible interpretation of a biblical passage but also to show why all the alternatives are not as good or are even wrong. Most scholars will explain their position in detail but put relatively little effort into showing why the alternatives are not as good or why they fail. Some just explain their position apparently assuming that it is obviously correct or providing inadequate discussion of its basis. Our growing conviction when we do this is that many interpretations of the book of Daniel and Revelation and endtime theologies can be shown to have an inadequate biblical basis to be held onto with confidence. Therefore, in addition to interpretation principles that are widely used and generally agreed, we have found it very effective to adapt abductive reasoning used by historical scientists ¹³ and detectives, which we now explain, to specifically deal with situations of multiple competing interpretations. Abductive reasoning was first described by the American philosopher and logician Charles Sanders Pierce. He noted that, unlike inductive reasoning, in which a universal law or principle is established from repeated observations of the same phenomena, and unlike deductive reasoning, in which a particular fact is deduced by applying a general law to another particular fact or case, abductive reasoning infers facts, events, or causes in the past from clues or facts obtained in the present. It applies what is called retrospective causal analysis. Applied to biblical interpretation, we seek to infer the meaning of biblical passages written in the past from known facts, events, or causes using history, geography, and the sciences, together with good exegesis and the application of sound

interpretation principles. We look for an explanation that unifies the whole word of God and resolves ambiguities and that results in no inadequately explained biblical passage. In effect, retrospective analysis is applied to find the best interpretation. As an example, the biblical passage Daniel 11:36–12:13 is inadequately explained by all published end-time theologies, a fact that is often acknowledged by scholars and to that extent creates uncertainties in the interpretation of the book of Daniel and end-time theologies. Frequently, it is assumed that this passage is unexplainable, rather than recognizing that as the final segment of the final vision in Daniel it is likely to be of crucial importance. Therefore, to leave this passage unexplained more likely suggests problems with the overall interpretation rather than that the passage is unexplainable. This book has suggested a clear interpretation of this passage that is by far a better interpretation than any previous one and leads to a wholly new and different way of interpreting the book of Daniel. Let’s consider a simple example of a syllogism that utilizes abductive reasoning. ¹⁴ If it rains, the streets will get wet. The streets are wet. Therefore, it rained. The problem in this thinking is that there could be other causes of wetness in this example. This logical error is called “affirming the consequent.” In reality, there are multiple competing explanations of why the streets could be wet—a road cleaner might have passed by washing the streets; there might have been a heavy frost; it might have snowed, and the snow melted; there might have been a burst water supply main. What we need to do to establish the truth is to apply inference to find the best explanation, which involves retrospective causal analysis; that means we do further study in the hope that new facts will eliminate all but one of the possible causes or make one cause much more likely. Here is another example of this reasoning. For example, let’s imagine that you have a nap and wake up and see that your car and drive are wet. You consider that there are three possible causes. Note that we are often careless in our thinking and only consider one cause. Often people with a pessimistic bias will consider only the most negative cause, or people with an optimistic bias the most positive cause. 1. It rained. 2. The sprinkler turned on. 3. Someone washed the car. Which is the best explanation among these multiple competing explanations? We need to examine the competing possible causes by

retrospective analysis of all the evidence. Let’s imagine that the following evidence emerges when we examine further. 1. We discover the grass is not wet; therefore it could not be rain or the sprinkler, because then everything would be wet. 2. We notice a bucket of soapy water at the rear of the car. We therefore conclude that someone washed the car. In this case the best explanation is the only one that fits all the observations. In general, if Y has only one cause (X) then we can say: X is necessary to the occurrence of Y Y exists Therefore, X existed If there are multiple possible causes, then we have to find the best one. Historical scientists use the method of multiple competing hypotheses. They look for the best causal explanation. This is similar to the method detectives use to solve crimes or historians use to arrive at lessons from history. Historical scientists attempt to identify the cause(s) of past events. They formulate distinctive types of explanations in which they cite specific events as causes. They make inferences from distinctive (abductive) logical formulations of evidence. They evaluate the relative explanatory power of an inference to determine its strength, plausibility, or likelihood. This was how historical scientific theories were tested. They were tested by reference to distinctively historical criteria for determining the explanation that qualifies as the “best” explanation from the range of possible explanations. They test their theories against the explanatory power of their competitors. They do this by an examination of causal adequacy based upon our present knowledge of cause and effect relationships. This is also supplemented by tests of causal existence. Thus historical scientists evaluate the strength of competing abductive inferences by comparing their explanatory power We see that a similar approach can be used in biblical interpretation. In fact, we find faulty abductive reasoning is often present. This is especially true of the interpretation of the books of Daniel and Revelation and in end-time theologies, which strongly depend on them, since there are often many competing interpretations and usually only one of these, the one being promoted, is examined with sufficient care. Applied to biblical interpretation, we can write the following two syllogisms. 1. If Y is a biblical passage in the book of Daniel or the book of Revelation, and X is its interpretation then, If Y has only one interpretation, X, then we can say, X is the interpretation of Y.

Y is being studied; Therefore, X must be its interpretation. If there are multiple competing interpretations, then we have to find the best one through a careful study of all the Xs. 1. If Y is the Bible, and X an end-time theology then, If Y has only one end-time theology then we can say, X is the only end-time theology of Y. Y is being studied to determine its end-time theology; Therefore, X must be the correct end-time theology. If there are multiple competing end-time theologies, then we have to find the best one through a careful study of all the Xs. We now examine this in more detail. What is very clear is that the failure to properly examine the alternatives to find the best one exhibits a major problem of affirming the consequent. It is also a major problem if there is a failure to identify all the alternatives. 12.3   Finding the Best Interpretation In order to proceed, we need to find a way of identifying and describing a specific interpretation or end-time theology. Our investigation suggests that this can be achieved from the following three steps. 1. The interpretation of a few key biblical passages that define the framework for a particular interpretation or end-time theology. This framework will guide and filter the interpretation of all other relevant biblical passages. The formation of this framework may be iterative in the sense that it may be refined by its application to these other biblical passages. 2. Defining the interpretation principles that have been applied to all biblical passages. The interpretation principles used can make big differences to the interpretation, especially if the passage is symbolic; however, in other cases, such as historical narrative, the differences can be quite small. Therefore, the nature of the key passages chosen to define the framework can make an impact on the confidence we have in the outcome. 3. For interpreting the book of Revelation and for all end-time theologies, defining whether the chronological order of the fulfilment for the visions in the book of Revelation is in the order in which they have been written. This step is necessary because some interpretations assume this without providing the basis for the assumption.

Having completed these steps for all possible interpretations or end-time theologies, the challenge is to find the best one. In the ideal situation, there will be only one possibility. How do we find the best interpretation? This is a big and complex task about which a full treatment is beyond the scope of this appendix, but we do suggest some important steps for consideration. 1. The correct interpretation of the key biblical passages is crucial. Therefore, the ideal situation is when there is only one plausible interpretation, because finding the best interpretation and identifying the framework will be obvious and the framework clear. Key passages whose original language is ambiguous or difficult to translate will likely have significant divergence in their translations into modern languages and will inevitably lead to multiple competing interpretations. Therefore if the interpretation of the key passages is controversial that will seriously weaken the framework. This criterion seriously weakens the majority of major frameworks in end-time theology. This is because many depend on the interpretation of Daniel 9:24–27, which is widely recognized as having highly ambiguous Hebrew and being difficult to translate and is one of the most controversial passages in the Bible; personally, we would estimate that there are more than fifty different interpretations to this passage. This weakness is especially relevant to preterist and futurist end-time theologies. The preterist end-time theology would also claim Matthew 24:34 as a key passage, and this has at least six interpretations. Other key passages in some interpretations of Daniel and in many end-time theologies are Daniel 2:28–45 and Daniel 7, both of which have significant variations in their interpretation. This book proposes Daniel 11:36–12:13 as its key passage and supplies a new, very compelling interpretation that overcomes the strong assertion that this passage has no satisfactory interpretation. 2. Especially for the key passages, it is important to compare translations and examine the original languages, structure, grammar, punctuation, and relevant history to be sure that we understand the key words and have the best translation. For example, in our interpretation of the book of Daniel, we have identified Daniel 11:36–12:7 as the key passage. In the past, this passage has had two main interpretations: (1) the king is Antiochus IV, for which the text of the passage gives a very bad fit with history and leads to imposing an interpretation on earlier prophecies in unnatural ways as explained in this book, and (2) the king is the end-time ruler where the fit with history is untestable, has some bad features such as the king of the South and the king of the North not being Ptolemaic and Seleucid kings, respectively, and in fact is derived from an interpretation of Daniel 9:24–27 that is highly controversial and that is applied circuitously via the book of Revelation to show that the time, times and half a time in Daniel 12:7 is three and a half years. Our interpretation, that this passage describes the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, has a remarkably accurate fit with history, and when applied to the rest of Daniel resolves its interpretation because of the result that the

time, times and half a time is directly determined to be more than twelve hundred years, and the structural changes, balance, and unity that it imparts. 1. Further tests of the quality of the framework will then be made as the framework is applied to other biblical passages. Confirmation of the position will become increasingly certain if the framework provides the most likely interpretation of all other passages and brings unity to the Bible. The best frameworks will provide the most natural interpretation of all the other relevant biblical passages and will not require less likely interpretations in order for the passages to fit the framework. We should be very wary when interpretations to passages are made to bring alignment with the framework by imposing the framework on the passage rather than the passage speaking for itself and fitting the framework naturally. The balance between the passage speaking for itself at one end of the spectrum of plausible interpretations and the framework imposing the interpretation at the other end is extremely important. This is especially true for the interpretation of symbolic passages, as the boundaries on reasonable interpretation of symbols can be very loose when trying to fit a passage into the framework. 2. Overall, the problem is to find an interpretation that: • Explains all the relevant passages consistently • This is achieved without leaving ambiguous parts • And does full justice with what the text actually says • And is testable We will now see how this works for the partial preterist end-time theology. This position creates an end-time theological framework based on the interpretation of a set of three key passages—Matthew 24:34, Daniel 9:24– 27, and Daniel 2:28–45. These three passages have many plausible interpretations; Matthew 24:34 has six, Daniel 9:24–27 probably at least fifty, and Daniel 2:28–45 at least four. In presenting this end-time theology, an examination of all these plausible interpretations to find the best is very inadequate, so the choices made lack compelling authority. Then, in application of the framework to other passages, the interpretation is often imposed in relatively unlikely ways that probably would not have been considered apart from trying to fit the framework. 12.4   The Evaluation of End-Time Books When presenting and discussing an end-time theology, authors of end-time books frequently exhibit the following weaknesses: • The study of key passages lacks depth and care. This is evidenced by there being substantial uncertainty and dispute over the interpretation of one or more of the key biblical passages. Often the authors assume fundamental ideas without recognizing them or just repeat the conclusions of previous scholars without testing them.

• The investigation into alternative interpretations is relatively superficial. • Putting these two points together, there has not been enough work to find the “best interpretation” of the key passages. • The principles of interpretation are often not clearly identified. • The interpretive framework is imposed on other passages, and the authors are satisfied if a plausible interpretation that fits the framework is found. • Often the “best interpretation” of a passage is not sought for and retrospectively used to test the interpretive framework. • Often too strong a reliance is placed on a particular English translation of the Bible (this is especially true of the KJV) rather than the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek text. A classic example of this is the conviction by many that the seventy sevens prophecy in Daniel 9:24–27 is about the coming of the Messiah because the Hebrew word for an anointed person is translated specifically as the “Messiah” in the KJV (and in the NKJV and the NIV) rather than recognising that the Hebrew word can refer to any anointed person who might be a prophet, priest, or king. Here we are not saying that this translation is wrong. What we are saying is that the quality of the investigation to establish that the anointed person is the Messiah is inadequate. • Often the examination of the interpretation style (symbolic, literal, or both) and structure (visions fulfilled in chronological order or chronologically in parallel) applied to the book of Revelation is inadequate. By style we mean the extent of balance between symbolic and literal interpretation of the visions, which is confused by a difference in understanding about what “literal” interpretation means. This is further compounded by the often assumed chronologically sequential ordering of the fulfilment of the visions; no one really questions that the visions are recorded in the order they were given, but it’s the order of their fulfilment that is crucial to the interpretation. Most preterist, historicist, and futurist scholars largely assume this ordering with little if any discussion. Literalists tend to assume chronological order without question. This is very strange since the strong links between Daniel and Revelation and the presence of chronologically parallel visions in Daniel is universally accepted and suggests that Revelation would be structured this way too. We see there are especially two assumptions that are highly significant in end-time theology that are accepted without adequate proof. 1. That the periods of seven in the prophecy in Daniel 9:24–27 are periods of seven years. Our investigation suggests that the evidence is insufficient to prove this and favors the view that this is not the case. 2. That the time, times and half a time in Daniel 7:25, Daniel 12:7, and Revelation 12:14 is 3.5 years. When taken together, if true, it will be found that the invalidity of these two points will severely damage virtually every existing end-time theology.

Bibliography Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible . HarperCollins, 1999. Abrahamson, Ben, and Joseph Katz. The Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614 CE compared with Islamic conquest of 638 CE . Draft copy, 2004. (PDF file downloaded from the Internet.) Aaronson, Brad. The Jerusalem Chronology of the Israelite Monarchies . Jerusalem Institute of Ancient History, 1989. From the Internet at http:// www.starways.net/lisa/essays/timeline.html . Ahmed, Dr. Monzur. Moon Calculator (MoonCalc 6.0) , associated data files and this document are copyright (c) by Dr. Monzur Ahmed 1993–2001. All rights reserved. This program was used to calculate moon data. Anderson, Sir Robert. The Coming Prince . Kregel Classics. Reprinted in 1957 from the tenth edition. This is the classic work on the interpretation of the book of Daniel, especially the seventy weeks. Although unconfirmed, it seems that the original edition was published by Kregel in 1882. Anstey, Martin. The Romance of Bible Chronology . Marshall Brothers, 1913. Bailey, Kenneth. Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes . Eerdmans, Combined edition, 1983. Chapter 3 used as the primary reference to understand the biblical literature structures such as parallelism, chiasm, and the whole range of patterns described as the inversion principle on page 49. Baldwin, Joyce. Daniel . Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, Inter Varsity Press, 1978. This is a very valuable and concise reference giving many insights. Beale, G. K. 1–2 Thessalonians . InterVarsity Press, 2003. Bevan, E. R. The House of Ptolemy . London: Methuen Publishing, 1927. Blomberg, Craig. The Structure of 2 Corinthians 1–7 . Criswell Theological Review 4.1 (1989). Bock, Darrell L. Luke . Baker Academic, 1996. Brosius, Maria. The Persians: An Introduction . Routledge, 2006. Brown, Driver, and Briggs. Hebrew Lexicon . Bruce, F. F. Israel and the Nations . Paternoster Press, 1969. An excellent historical survey of the history of Israel. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the book of the prophet Daniel . Vol. II. Translated by John Meyers. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. First published in the sixteenth century.

Cole, Alan. The Gospel according to Mark . Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Revised Edition, 1961. Conner, Kevin. The Seventy Weeks Prophecy . Acacia Press, 1981. __. The Book of Revelation (An Exposition). KJC Publications, 2001. Both of Kevin Conner’s books are insightful and very thorough. __. The Book of Daniel (An Exposition) . KJC Ministries, 2004. Eberle, Harold, and Martin Trench. Victorious Eschatology . Worldcast, 2006. This book is written as a simple and clear statement of the partial preterist interpretation of the book of Revelation. However, it bypasses any attempt to provide the exegesis and biblical foundations behind the assumption that the seventy sevens prophecy is fulfilled in the first century AD. Its reliance on 457 BC as the year of Cyrus’s decree and the start date for the seventy sevens prophecy (page 99) is unlikely and therefore the whole work lacks biblical authority and the whole position will collapse should this start year prove incorrect. __. Victorious Eschatology . 2nd ed. Worldcast, 2009. Most significant is their replacement of Cyrus’s decree in 457 BC with a similar decree but instead by Artaxerxes, the king of Persia. See the notes for a discussion of this, but note that it is problematical. Edwards, J. M. Ancient History from the First Civilizations to the Renaissance . Lifetime Distributors, “The Book People,” 2004. Edwards, James R. The Gospel according to Mark . Pillar New Testament Commentary, Eerdmans and Apollos, 2002. Farrokh, Dr Kaveh. Shadows in the Desert . Osprey, 2007. Foley, I. M. The Thirty-Two Theses . To be published soon. Gesenius, F. W. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar . Edited by E. Kautzsch & S. A. E. Cowley. 2nd English ed. (59). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2003. Goldingay, John E. Daniel . Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 30. Nelson, 1989. This is a very detailed and thorough commentary of considerable value. Green, Gene L. The Letters to the Thessalonians . Eerdmans, 2002. Green, Jay P. The Interlinear Bible . Hendrickson, 1986. Gurney, R. J. M. God in Control . H. E. Walter, 2006. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 14–28 . Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 33B, 1995. Harman, Allan M. Daniel . EP Study Commentary Series, Evangelical Press, 2007. This is a refreshingly good commentary that carefully examines the Hebrew text.

Harris, Laird, Gleason Archer, and Bruce Waltke. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament . Moody Press, 1980. Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament . First British edition. Inter-Varsity Press, 1970. Harton, George M. “An Interpretation of Daniel 11:36–45.” Grace Theological Journal 4.2 (1983): 205–31. Haywood, John. The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Civilizations . Penguin Books, 2005. Hedrick, Larry. Xenophon’s Cyrus the Great: The Arts of Leadership and War . St Martin’s Griffin, 2006. Herodotus. The Histories . Penguin Books, 2003. Hoehner, Harold. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ . 1978. Ice, Thomas. The Seventy Weeks of Daniel . From http://www.pre-trib.org/ data/pdf/Ice-TheSeventyWeeksofDani.pdf . Jones, Floyd Nolen. The Chronology of the Old Testament . 16th ed. Master Books, 2004. Kennedy, Hugh. The Great Arab Conquests . Weidenfield and Nicolson, 2007. Kistemaker, Simon. Revelation . New Testament Commentary, Baker Academic, 2004. This reference has many valuable insights from a different perspective. Lahaye, Tim. Revelation Illustrated and Made Plain . Revised edition. Zondervan, 1975. LaHaye, Tim, and Ed Hindson, eds. The Popular Bible Prophecy Commentary . Harvest House, 2006. Liel, Lisa. JCIM Timelines at http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/ timeline.html . This is an update in online production of the paper by Aaronson (1989). Lucas, Ernest. Daniel . Apollos Old Testament Commentary, Intervarsity Press, 2002. This is an excellent detailed and scholarly reference with many useful understandings. Lurie, David. The Covenant, the Holocaust and the Seventieth Week . Messianic Century, 1988. The interesting thing about this book is the careful examination of the Hebrew text, especially for the interpretation of the “sevens” in the seventy sevens prophecy. This book at least shows that when examining the Hebrew text, interpreting the “sevens” as years is not as certain as many scholars assume. Mauro, Philip. The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation . 1944 revision of the 1921 edition downloaded from the Internet. The importance of this

work is a detailed exegesis of Daniel that supports the preterist viewpoint. This essentially supplies us with a good description of the biblical foundation in the interpretation of Daniel that leads to the seventy sevens prophecy being fulfilled in the first century AD. This is the essential background to the preterist interpretation of the book of Revelation, and should it prove to be in error, the preterist position will become unsupportable. McComiskey, Thomas Edward. “The Seventy “Weeks” of Daniel against the background of ancient near eastern literature.” Westminister Theological Journal 47 (1985): 18–45. Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell . HarperCollins e-books, 2009. __. Darwin’s Doubt . HarperCollins, 2013. Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to Matthew . The Pillar New Testament Commentary, Eerdmans and Apollos, 1992. __. Revelation . Revised ed. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 1987. A superb expositional commentary because there is always an explanation based on the actual words themselves, so the result is always an objective perspective on the meaning of the text. __. Luke . 1st. ed. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 1974. A good expositional commentary because there is always an explanation based on the actual words themselves, so the result is always an objective perspective on the meaning of the text. __. The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians . First ed. Tyndale Press, 1956. __. The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians . Revised ed. Eerdmans, 1991. Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek . 2nd ed. Zondervan, 2003. Nelson’s Complete Book of Bible Maps and Charts . Copyright 1996, 1993. By Thomas Nelson. Pawson, David. When Jesus Returns . Hodder and Stoughton, 1995. An excellent introduction to the post-tribulation, millennial view of end-times. Pickle, Bob. “An Examination of Anderson’s Chronological Errors Regarding Daniel 9’s First 69 Weeks.” From the Internet. __. “Hoehner and Ice’s Calculations of Daniel 9’s First 69 Weeks.” From the Internet. Reilly, Jim. Nebuchadnezzar and the Egyptian Exile . Displaced Dynasty Series, 2000. From the Internet at http://www.displaceddynasties.com . Richter, Helmut. Hebrew Cantillation Marks and their Encoding . From the Internet, 2005. Roberts, J.M. Ancient History . Duncan Baird, 2002.

Robinson, David, and Elisabeth Levy. “The Masoretes and the Punctuation of Biblical Hebrew.” BFBS MAT Team, 2002. __. “Masoretic Hebrew Cantillation and Constituent Structure Analysis.” BFBS MAT Team, 2002. Ross, Allen P. Introducing Biblical Hebrew . Baker Academic, 2001. Roux, Georges. Ancient Iraq . Penguin Books, 1992. Simulation Publications. The Conquerors: The Romans, Mediterranean Expansion, 200–189 BC , 1977. This is a board war game, with important researched detail of the battles Antiochus III had with Rome based on important referenced material contained in the rules book. Skolfield, Ellis. The False Prophet . Fish House, 2001. This is an important reference since its interpretation fills out about 75 percent of the end-time puzzle. I have great admiration for an author who identified certain understandings way ahead of his time. Other resources from his website were also consulted. __. Islam in the end times . Fish House, 2007. This is an update to his previous publication of The False Prophet . Tasker, R. V. G. The Gospel according to Matthew . Revised ed. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 1961. Taylor, R. A. “Revelation: A Reference Commentary.” 2005. This is available from the Internet at http://www.thefishersofmenministries.com/revelatn.pdf . It is a high-quality commentary from an author who is open-minded to different points of view and presents them well but clearly establishes his own position. The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon . The Babylonian Chronicles . The Nabonidus Chronicle . The Persian verse Account of Nabonidus . Trecartin, H. The Relationship between Nabonidus and Belshazzar . 1996, http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/belshazzar.htm . Turner, David L. Matthew . Baker Academic, 2008. Ussher, James. The Annals of the World . Master Books, 2003. Van der Merwe, Naude, and Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar , Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Walker, John. http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/moonapper.html . This resource was used to calculate moon data.

Walvoord, John F. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation . Moody Press, 1971. Moody paperback edition, 1989. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A significant amount of history came from this Internet source under the GNU Free Documentation License. Whitcomb, John C. “Daniel’s Great Seventy-Weeks Prophecy: An Exegetical Insight.” Grace Theological Journal 2.2 (1981) 259–63. Xenophon. Cyropaedia . Translated by H. G. Dakyns, February 2000, Project Gutenberg Etext, Downloaded from the Internet. Young, E. J. A Commentary on Daniel . Banner of Truth Trust, 1949. END NOTES 1    BC-Using combination of sources up to 2010 2    BC-From Jones (2004) 3    An atnah is a punctuation marker (an inverted v under the text) in the Hebrew text created by the Masoretes. It divides the verse into two logical halves. 4    In their second edition, published in 2009, Eberle and Trench correct this error but replace it with a starting point in the same year but related to the decree given by Artaxerxes in 457 BC, which is recorded in Ezra 7:12– 26. As discussed later, however, there is nothing clear in this decree that mentions rebuilding Jerusalem, contrary to what they have written in their book. The decree does not satisfy the prophetic word given in Daniel 9:25. They have replaced one mistake with another. 5    It is possible that what He shared could have been given over more than one evening, so that each of the Gospels conveys a perspective that focuses on certain emphases in what Jesus shared. 6    It is not valid to assume that there were ten toes as some scholars do. There is no basis to know how many toes were there. 7    Cyrus did not become King of Persia until after the fall of Babylon in 539 BC. His first year as king of Persia was the same year that he issued a proclamation letting the exiled Jews return to Jerusalem and encouraging them to rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:1-4). Our calculations suggest this was most likely September/October 537 BC since the Persians used Tishri to Tishri dating. This means the return would have happened in 536 BC (they would need time to prepare and would not travel in winter) so that 535 BC would be the second year (Ezra 3:8). 8    Some scholars insist that because there were never precisely ten provinces in the Roman Empire, the ten horns must not yet have emerged and see this part of the vision as being fulfilled just before the end of the age. Since this verse also says that the fourth beast “has” ten horns, the solution is to infer that there must be a future revived Roman Empire. Such an interpretation violates the normal rules of the naturalness of literal

interpretation. The obvious natural interpretation is to take the “ten” as representative of a worldwide (known world) authority that governs through a second tier of distributed, more local governments. Since “ten” can be used as a number symbolic of completeness, this is consistent with the symbolic nature of the whole vision. 9    Careful consideration of this verse reveals that A and A’, B and B’ and C and C’ phrases match. The horizontal line is placed where the Masoretic text punctuation (an atnah) which divides the text in half has been placed. The structure focuses our attention on the central role of the atonement, which is able bring in everlasting righteousness, in the fulfilment of God’s plan. 10    Careful examination of the Hebrew word order shows that this verse is remarkably balanced into two halves. In this case, the inverted parallel structure is very clear as each of the AA’, BB’ and CC’ phrases match. Some scholars have argued that the Masoretic text punctuation (the atnah) was not in the original Hebrew and might reflect the bias of the Jews against Christianity. However, the content of the verse very clearly shows us that its placement is valid. This separation of the seven sevens and the sixty-two sevens rules out any possibility that this prophecy could be used to predict the year of Jesus’s first coming. It therefore eliminates any possibility of proving that the sevens might be sevens of years. 11    In Fields (2008, 261), he discusses Hebrew poetry and structures. Step 1 is the line count of parallel lines in the Hebrew text, and the unmarked form is the bicolon, which contains two parallel lines. He writes, “When the poet wants to draw special attention to a line, he varies from the bicolon. The variations from the bicolon usually serve to indicate some special discourse function, perhaps to give additional emphasis …” In Daniel 9:26– 27 there are two tricolons, both of which are specially marked by a beginning time phrase followed by three phrases ABC where the two As, the two Bs and the two Cs are parallel to each other. 12    Of course, we cannot be precisely sure of this, but we know that Jeremiah’s prophecy was given in 605 BC and that Daniel was exiled late in 605 BC or early 604 BC when Nebuchadnezzar invaded. It makes no sense that he will “know and understand” if this prophecy will only commence about eighty years into his future, as many scholars believe, when the contextual match with Jeremiah is so strong. 13    One example is the study of evolution, which uses evidence from fossils, rock formations, and other scientific evidence to formulate an explanation. 14    Some of what follows was first seen in Meyer (2009, 153ff). It has been adapted to the issue of biblical interpretation.