The second chapter of the Book of Daniel begins by telling us that Nebuchadnezzar had a dream that troubled him. In verse 5 he says "The thing is gone from me" and then demands his court occultists to make the dream known to him or he'll kill them all.
Every single commentary or Bible Study on Daniel Chapter 2 I have read or watched or listened to has assumed that Nebuchadnezzar did not actually forget this dream, he's just doing this to test all his court magicians.
For a community that is generally all about not reading things into the text that aren't actually there, I find this really odd. Nothing in the text of Daniel 2 says or implies this.
It makes me wonder, can these people simply not relate to this happening? Because it happens to me all the time, I'll have a Dream, a Dream that was pretty bizarre and interesting, but within minutes or even seconds of waking up my memory of the dream has faded to nothingness.
Now I don't think any of my forgotten dreams were visions from God revealing his plans for the coming centuries. And I also can't relate to wanting to kill other people for not telling me the contents of a dream they didn't have, but Absolute Monarchs do a lot of such things I can't relate too.
The idea that it's a test is stupid. No one who does claim to know how to interpret dreams, claims they can interpret a dream they don't know the contents of. Now again, what Nebuchadnezzar is doing in my face value interpretation isn't rational either. But it's the people saying he's lying about this who think he's being some champion of logical thinking.
It reflects how Protestant Christians sometimes feel compelled to in certain areas think like Atheists. By thinking anything that exposures those sharletons with their Psychic hotlines must be serving the greater good. But the Hebrew Bible was never operating under an assumption that occultists have no real power.
Now when Daniel describes the Dream to Nebuchadnezzar and then interprets it, that probably jogged his memory and brought it back to him.
Showing posts with label Historicity of Daniel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Historicity of Daniel. Show all posts
Friday, September 1, 2017
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
The Books of Tobit and Judith
Originally I was going to do this on my Revised Chronology blog. But the theories about these books relevant to that are mainly the ones I'm going to be the most critical of.
I don't consider them Canon, as I already explained in my post on the Deutercanonical Books. But they can be historically interesting to contemplate.
These books have in common being clearly mainly fictional narratives, that at least in the forms we have them contain some difficult to explain geographical errors, and much more so with Judith, apparent historical anachronisms.
Damien F Mackey attempts to explain the geographical issues in Tobit by saying Media is actually regions in Arabia, (Midian, Medan, Medina). However this ignores the context of it clearly being about the deported Northern Israelites. II Kings is clear, many were taken to Media and all of then to east of the Euphrates.
I've mentioned before about how Tobit as we know it is the product of a time where First Cousin marriages were strongly encouraged. But I also have reasons to suspect Tobias's bride maybe wasn't his cousin originally before it was revised.
With the references to Ahikar we are told exactly how he fits into Tobit's genealogy, even though that character is only someone refereed to and not really part of the story (like the Author of Tobit wanted to create a Shared Apocryphal Universe). However we're not told how Sarah or her father Raguel fit into it, just that she is Tobias' cousin somehow. That could be consistent with her being a cousin being a detail added to the text later.
Sarah is the Hebrew word for Princess. According to Herodotus it was around the time frame depicted in this book that the first King of Media lived. And she is living in Ecbatane the capital of Media. Could the original narrative have been about Tobias marrying a Median Princess? And maybe the book of Judith calls the king of Media Arphaxad because they descended from Arphaxad via deported Northern Israelites?
The last verse of the book refers to the fall of Nineveh to "Nabuchodonosor and Assuerus". A lot of people assume Ahasuerus here is another name for Cyaxares I of Media. But there is evidence his son and future successor Astyages was also involved in the taking of Nineveh, and Nebuchadnezzar was also at that time the Crown Prince of his father Nabopolassar. Ahasuerus being a name for Astyages would agree with Josephus calling the Darius son of Ahasuerus of Daniel 5 a son of Astyages. Which in turn agrees with that Darius being the same as Cyaxares II of Xenophon's Cyropedia.
Damien F Mackey's theory about The Book of Judith is that the "Nebuchadnezzar" of that book is really Sennacherib under his Babylonian Throne Name. And that this is the same attempted invasion of Judah recorded in 2 Kings and Isaiah 36-39. My main problem with that theory is Judith doesn't record an Angel destroying Assyria's Army.
His argument for this largely begins with theorizing that the Ahikar of Tobit and the Story of Ahikar is the same person as Achior of the Book of Judith. I see why those names seem kind of similar, but not enough to be a smoking gun.
The revised Chronology comes into it via saying Sennacherib is the same as Nebuchadnezzar I of Babylon, conventionally dated to the end of the 12th century BC. And if I were still inclined to agree with that theory, I'd consider identifying Holofernes, a name often said to seem Egyptian, with Horemheb based on Velikvosky's view of Horemheb. But I'm not.
Three major mainstream theories about what historical context might have inspired Judith are Nebuchadnezzar as Artaxerxes III, as Ashurbanipal and as Tigranes The Great of Armenia. Of those three the Ashurbanipal one is the main one I want to talk about here briefly.
It speculates the lack of a King in Judah is because it's while King Manasseh was being held in Babylon. Which makes it interesting that Judith is called the Widow of a Manasseh. The only wife of King Manasseh mentioned in Scripture is Meshullemeth the mother of King Amon. But the Kings of Judah frequently practiced Polygamy. And some have speculated the name of Judith itself to be a symbol or code, as a feminine from of the name of the Southern Kingdom.
And since Tobit lived to see the fall of Nineveh, Ahikar could likewise have lived into the reign of Ashurbanipal.
Even if I were willing to consider changing when Nebuchadnezzar I lived. He actually fits the time of Ashurbanipal better. Ashurbanipal's brother Shamam-shum-ukin was King of Babylon during some of his reign. A similar event involving a statue of Marduk being returned to Babylon transpires during this period. Nebuchadnezzar I celebrated a victory over Elam that seems similar to Ashurbanipal's. And Nebuchadnezzar I conquered the "land of the Amorites" which could well refer to Canaan, where the Amorites originally came from, even Jerusalem specifically was sometimes linked to the Amorites.
However my own revised chronology theories generally leave the Mesopotamian Kings Lists unaltered, as supported by Vellikvosky's own writing about Hamurabi and the 12th Dynasty of Egypt.
The city or village refereed to as Bethulia, which is not otherwise known to have existed but seems to be near Jerusalem, I think is possibly meant to be Bethlehem. Both names begin with Beth. Bethulia seems to come from a Hebrew word for Virgin, Micah 4-5 tells us Bethlehem is where The Messiah will be born. And in the context of my argument that Bethlehem is Zion which is the City of David, three Bible verses refer to the Bethulah daughter of Zion, (2 Kings 19:21, Isaiah 37:22 and Lamentations 2:13). Micah 4-5 also refers to the Daughter of Zion giving birth in Bethlehem. And if Judith was a wife of King Manasseh, it ties into the element of Bethlehem remaining a city linked to the house of David all through the Kingdom Period.
Now for my own personal theory.
Today a Jewish tradition has developed to read the Book of Judith during Hanukkah. And to identify the character of Holofernes with Nicanor, both wind up beheaded for example. I haven't yet however read any theory that the Maccabees were the original inspiration for the book. But Judith 4:3 does seem to allude to The Temple being recently rededicated following a desecration.
Syria is a Greek name derived form Assyria, so calling the Seleucid Empire an Assyrian Empire is just as valid as calling the Ptolemies Egypt. And the Megalit Antiochus conflates the different Seleucid kings together in a way that explains how Judith could have one Assyrian ruler ruling over the entire career of Nicanor.
Who is Judith in this context? Well in II Maccabees in particular in 14:24, Nicanor seems to be attracted to Judas Maccabeus. Judith is the feminine form of the name Judah, which often becomes Judas in Greek Texts.
Did the author(s) of the book of Judith swap out a woman for Judas because of heteronormativity? Or is it the product of some tradition the more mainstream historians who wrote the books of Maccabees and whatever other sources Josephus used would have ignored, that Judas Maccabeus was what we'd today call a Trans Woman?
Of course a potential Queer subtext for the Book of Judith on it's own is Judith and her unnamed maid. If I made a film based on the story, I'd rename the city of Bethulia as Bethlehem, and give the name Bethulia to the maid.
Update July 2018: Or maybe it makes more sense to interpret Judas as a Trans Masculine rather then a Trans Woman?
It is natural that one's first assumption is such an Ancient History would record a Trans Person under their Assigned Gender, and it'd be left to something more poetic to regard their true identity. But those assumptions could be wrong.
Whatever their true inner Identity or assigned Biology was, Judas Maccabeus was definitely publicly presenting as male during his political and military career. And Judas was regarded as being particularly Masculine, and that it seems is what Nicanor was attracted to.
I don't consider them Canon, as I already explained in my post on the Deutercanonical Books. But they can be historically interesting to contemplate.
These books have in common being clearly mainly fictional narratives, that at least in the forms we have them contain some difficult to explain geographical errors, and much more so with Judith, apparent historical anachronisms.
Damien F Mackey attempts to explain the geographical issues in Tobit by saying Media is actually regions in Arabia, (Midian, Medan, Medina). However this ignores the context of it clearly being about the deported Northern Israelites. II Kings is clear, many were taken to Media and all of then to east of the Euphrates.
I've mentioned before about how Tobit as we know it is the product of a time where First Cousin marriages were strongly encouraged. But I also have reasons to suspect Tobias's bride maybe wasn't his cousin originally before it was revised.
With the references to Ahikar we are told exactly how he fits into Tobit's genealogy, even though that character is only someone refereed to and not really part of the story (like the Author of Tobit wanted to create a Shared Apocryphal Universe). However we're not told how Sarah or her father Raguel fit into it, just that she is Tobias' cousin somehow. That could be consistent with her being a cousin being a detail added to the text later.
Sarah is the Hebrew word for Princess. According to Herodotus it was around the time frame depicted in this book that the first King of Media lived. And she is living in Ecbatane the capital of Media. Could the original narrative have been about Tobias marrying a Median Princess? And maybe the book of Judith calls the king of Media Arphaxad because they descended from Arphaxad via deported Northern Israelites?
The last verse of the book refers to the fall of Nineveh to "Nabuchodonosor and Assuerus". A lot of people assume Ahasuerus here is another name for Cyaxares I of Media. But there is evidence his son and future successor Astyages was also involved in the taking of Nineveh, and Nebuchadnezzar was also at that time the Crown Prince of his father Nabopolassar. Ahasuerus being a name for Astyages would agree with Josephus calling the Darius son of Ahasuerus of Daniel 5 a son of Astyages. Which in turn agrees with that Darius being the same as Cyaxares II of Xenophon's Cyropedia.
Damien F Mackey's theory about The Book of Judith is that the "Nebuchadnezzar" of that book is really Sennacherib under his Babylonian Throne Name. And that this is the same attempted invasion of Judah recorded in 2 Kings and Isaiah 36-39. My main problem with that theory is Judith doesn't record an Angel destroying Assyria's Army.
His argument for this largely begins with theorizing that the Ahikar of Tobit and the Story of Ahikar is the same person as Achior of the Book of Judith. I see why those names seem kind of similar, but not enough to be a smoking gun.
The revised Chronology comes into it via saying Sennacherib is the same as Nebuchadnezzar I of Babylon, conventionally dated to the end of the 12th century BC. And if I were still inclined to agree with that theory, I'd consider identifying Holofernes, a name often said to seem Egyptian, with Horemheb based on Velikvosky's view of Horemheb. But I'm not.
Three major mainstream theories about what historical context might have inspired Judith are Nebuchadnezzar as Artaxerxes III, as Ashurbanipal and as Tigranes The Great of Armenia. Of those three the Ashurbanipal one is the main one I want to talk about here briefly.
It speculates the lack of a King in Judah is because it's while King Manasseh was being held in Babylon. Which makes it interesting that Judith is called the Widow of a Manasseh. The only wife of King Manasseh mentioned in Scripture is Meshullemeth the mother of King Amon. But the Kings of Judah frequently practiced Polygamy. And some have speculated the name of Judith itself to be a symbol or code, as a feminine from of the name of the Southern Kingdom.
And since Tobit lived to see the fall of Nineveh, Ahikar could likewise have lived into the reign of Ashurbanipal.
Even if I were willing to consider changing when Nebuchadnezzar I lived. He actually fits the time of Ashurbanipal better. Ashurbanipal's brother Shamam-shum-ukin was King of Babylon during some of his reign. A similar event involving a statue of Marduk being returned to Babylon transpires during this period. Nebuchadnezzar I celebrated a victory over Elam that seems similar to Ashurbanipal's. And Nebuchadnezzar I conquered the "land of the Amorites" which could well refer to Canaan, where the Amorites originally came from, even Jerusalem specifically was sometimes linked to the Amorites.
However my own revised chronology theories generally leave the Mesopotamian Kings Lists unaltered, as supported by Vellikvosky's own writing about Hamurabi and the 12th Dynasty of Egypt.
The city or village refereed to as Bethulia, which is not otherwise known to have existed but seems to be near Jerusalem, I think is possibly meant to be Bethlehem. Both names begin with Beth. Bethulia seems to come from a Hebrew word for Virgin, Micah 4-5 tells us Bethlehem is where The Messiah will be born. And in the context of my argument that Bethlehem is Zion which is the City of David, three Bible verses refer to the Bethulah daughter of Zion, (2 Kings 19:21, Isaiah 37:22 and Lamentations 2:13). Micah 4-5 also refers to the Daughter of Zion giving birth in Bethlehem. And if Judith was a wife of King Manasseh, it ties into the element of Bethlehem remaining a city linked to the house of David all through the Kingdom Period.
Now for my own personal theory.
Today a Jewish tradition has developed to read the Book of Judith during Hanukkah. And to identify the character of Holofernes with Nicanor, both wind up beheaded for example. I haven't yet however read any theory that the Maccabees were the original inspiration for the book. But Judith 4:3 does seem to allude to The Temple being recently rededicated following a desecration.
Syria is a Greek name derived form Assyria, so calling the Seleucid Empire an Assyrian Empire is just as valid as calling the Ptolemies Egypt. And the Megalit Antiochus conflates the different Seleucid kings together in a way that explains how Judith could have one Assyrian ruler ruling over the entire career of Nicanor.
Who is Judith in this context? Well in II Maccabees in particular in 14:24, Nicanor seems to be attracted to Judas Maccabeus. Judith is the feminine form of the name Judah, which often becomes Judas in Greek Texts.
Did the author(s) of the book of Judith swap out a woman for Judas because of heteronormativity? Or is it the product of some tradition the more mainstream historians who wrote the books of Maccabees and whatever other sources Josephus used would have ignored, that Judas Maccabeus was what we'd today call a Trans Woman?
Of course a potential Queer subtext for the Book of Judith on it's own is Judith and her unnamed maid. If I made a film based on the story, I'd rename the city of Bethulia as Bethlehem, and give the name Bethulia to the maid.
Update July 2018: Or maybe it makes more sense to interpret Judas as a Trans Masculine rather then a Trans Woman?
It is natural that one's first assumption is such an Ancient History would record a Trans Person under their Assigned Gender, and it'd be left to something more poetic to regard their true identity. But those assumptions could be wrong.
Whatever their true inner Identity or assigned Biology was, Judas Maccabeus was definitely publicly presenting as male during his political and military career. And Judas was regarded as being particularly Masculine, and that it seems is what Nicanor was attracted to.
Friday, June 5, 2015
Daniel 11:36-45 is about Octavian Caesar Augustus
I'm a Futurist on Bible Prophecy because there is no ambiguity to me what so ever that Matthew 24, I Thessalonians 4, II Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 6-22:5 are still yet future. And others I think are too, but those are what define one's views on Eschatology. Anything that indisputably depicts the Second Coming is in the future.
But too many Futurists are determined to not let any Prophecies besides the first Advent and a few other obvious ones be already fulfilled. And I feel this is a mistake. We should rejoice in showing the World those Bible prophecies that have been fulfilled to prove the reliability of God's Word and demonstrate that they should take seriously what remains to be fulfilled.
Now the part of Daniel I'm going to discus today, I had in the past assumed like most futurists to be about The Antichrist, in many posts on this blog. What I'm going to express here however only further backs up that Rome is indeed the Fourth Beast.
I even cited Hippolytus of Rome as ancient precedent for viewing this as still yet future. But on my other Blog I've explored a lot recently how even the pre-Constantine Church Fathers were already having doctrinal problems and becoming proto-Catholics. Hippolytus's "On Christ and Antichrist" I think lies at the root of what I feel has gone wrong with the Antichrist Doctrine in it's very title. Some Christians want to see the Antichrist in Scripture almost as much as Jesus. I've come to grow concerned that that is a dangerous unhealthy attitude, but one I've also been a victim of in the past.
Chris White shares a healthy skepticism of some passages assumed to be Antichrist or End Times relevant that maybe aren't. But on this passage he has to some extent come to see it rather then anything in the New Testament as the defining Antichrist passage. To him no Antichrist suspect should be taken seriously till they fight wars that match Daniel 11:40. I think that is a horrible misdirection.
Now I still don't consider it impossible that via double fulfillment and typology that the Antichrist will manage to match this passage also. In fact if he is indeed creating a revived Roman Empire then Augustus is someone he's going to want to emulate. But the core of the Antichrist doctrine needs to be based on what Jesus, John and Paul told us about the End Times, and everything else supplemental. Especially since I suspect there will likely be a decoy Antichrist before the Abomination of Desolation, maybe more then one.
II Thessalonians 2 is the only Antichrist prophecy that will be indisputably obvious when it happens. I'm sure White would not deny it when it does if the person that does it never did anything like Daniel 11:40 first. But what he may be is completely unprepared for it, or suspecting the wrong person if someone else does fight wars with Egypt and Syria.
I'm aware that others have argued for Augustus fulfilling this prophecy before. They are usually Preterists in their general view of Prophecy however, my approach will be different. And honestly the idea did enter my head before I looked and saw others had drawn the same conclusion.
Now to begin.
When I argued against those who say Rome isn't the Forth Kingdom of Daniel 2 and 7, I mentioned how Daniel 11:4 hints at the Hellenistic Kingdoms falling to another Empire. Since the rest of the Chapter is an elaboration on the last part of Daniel 11:4, I have come to feel how that happens should be part of the following Prophecy. I had also mentioned other hints of Rome's rise. I see 11:33 as foretelling both the Maccabees revolt and the Hasmonean kingdom latter falling to Rome under Pompey in 63 BC (same year Augustus was born). Rome further finished the Hasmoneans off in 37 BC when Antigonus Mattathias was defeated by Anthony and beheaded.
I will cover 40-45 first because that's the specific events, and get into how the primarily spiritual details of 36-39 apply later.
First I want to say terms like "Time of the end" also occur earlier during what few deny was fulfilled in the Hellenistic age. So selectively using that as proof we're in the full End Times here is rather disingenuous. What is notable is that Augustus lifetime overlaps into the New Testament era. In fact he was younger then the Prophetess Anna.
Daniel 11:40
Chris White's argument for the "he" here being separate from the King of The North is very good in his commentary on this. People generally do not note that the King of The South has the leadership role here. Even how this is tied into the Mahdi theory with Sufyani needs to consider the North more important.
You can probably guess where I'm going here is that this is Actium, and that the two "kings" of north and south are Anthony and Cleopatra. You may be thinking "but wouldn't it be the Queen of the South then?" The Prophetic sense simply means the King as synonymous with Nation more or less in these kinds of verses. But I could also point out that Antony and Cleopatra were more or less officially ruling in the names of Cleopatra's children.
The main one was Ptolemy Caesarion who she had by Julius Caesar, who was Pharaoh of Egypt. Then there was her and Anthony's youngest son Ptolemy Philadelhus who at the Donations of Alexandria was proclaimed King of Syria and other core Seleucid lands. Alexander Helios was mostly given Kingdoms they didn't actually control yet, Parthia, Media and Armenia. And Cleopatra Selene was given the usual Ptolemaic lands peeled off for younger brothers and bastard sons to rule. I personally speculate that Cleopatra was planning to marry Selene to Caesarion once she was old enough, the question is how okay Anthony would have been with that.
Now the movies about Anthony and Cleopatra and Octavian usually skip right from Actium to the fall of Alexandria. But in fact plenty happened in-between, You could learn about it by reading ancient historians like Josephus, or you could just read Daniel 11:41.
Then in Daniel 11:42-43 is the fall of Alexandria.
Augustus gave Egypt a special status among Roman Provinces. It was treated as his personal possession. Which is why it's Governors were appointed by him rather then the Senate even though it wasn't a military province. Egypt became his gold mine basically.
Libya (Phut in the Hebrew) in the Bible doesn't really correlate well to modern Libya or what would become the Roman province of Libya, it's more like the rest of North Africa west of Libya and Cyrene. What Rome controlled of the rest of North Africa was only ever the very northern Mediterranean coast-lands. And even then right after Egypt fell Mauritania remained a client kingdom.
Also there were wars fought between Rome and Kush during Augustus reign, but Rome never conquered them. It annoys me that people want to make Cleopatra black when there was a black African Queen contemporary with her who unlike her did keep her nation independent from Rome. But Hollywood doesn't make movies about that Queen.
Daniel 11:44
The earlier parts of Daniel 11 sometimes moved to a successor without it being obvious it was doing so. So it could be carrying over into Tiberius here, or even later Julio-Claudians. But both this and the next verse I feel can remain in the time of Augustus.
Daniel 11:45
The word translated "palace" was not even a Hebrew word but a Persian one. So it's not an allusion to The Temple or anyone deifying themselves in The Temple. It's probably the Antonia Fortress finished by Herod in 19 BC which was where the Dome of The Rock is now.
Augustus died in 14 AD, many scholars now are skeptical of the rumor that Livia poisoned him. Either way it fits the end of Daniel 11:45 fine in my opinion. And so would any other Judeo-Claudian Emperor.
Herod had a Kingdom that was pretty sizable, all of modern Israel and chunks of Jordan and Syria. After he died Augustus divided it into four Teterarchies. Archelaus got Judea, Idumea and Samaria, and Antipas got Galilee and Perea. Philip got Batanea, Trachonitis, Aurantis, Gaulantis and Ceasarea Philippi. And Herod's sister got the Gaza strip. So that is probably what "shall divide the land for gain" in verse 39 means. Though it's apparent chronological placement before Actium means it could be Rome's division between the second Triumphirate.
Now to get into the spiritual aspects of 36-39.
Augustus did not deify himself in the obvious insane way some later Emperors like Caligula would. But it was considered perfectly acceptable in Rome for him to be worshiped as a god by the conquered peoples. He didn't force it on the Jews, but the other people around Israel worshiped him as a god, in Egypt he basically took over the traditional Pharonic worship.
In Rome, he was not openly worshiped as a god while he lived, but there was a lot of quasi deification going on. The name Augustus effectively meant divine, and he was given that name the same year his adopted father Julius Caesar was officially deified, so he officially became the son of a god. More of his deification of himself will become relevant later.
I still interpret what "the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women" means the same as I have before. But I believe Rome had an Ephraimite heritage, including it's spiritual heritage. So he did descend from the Patriarchs of Genesis.
Now "the God of forces" sounds like a war god. Rome identified their local deities with Greek ones, but Ares was never a favored deity among the Greeks. To Rome however Mars was their Patron, the father of Romulus and Remus. They defined themselves by their military nature, this is part of what America has inherited from Rome, and Christians sadly take part in it.
The word for "Strange" means foreign. Apollo was the only Olympian the Romans didn't have their own deity to identify with, so even in Latin he is just worshiped as Apollo. But Apollo was not a very poplar deity in Rome before Augustus. In fact Apollo was almost unheard of to Romans before Augustus. A number of articles have been written on how greatly Augustus popularized Apollo.
A rumor circulated that Augustus was actually fathered by Apollo. Augustus's birthday (September 23rd) became Apollo's national holiday. Virgil's fourth Ecolouge contained a pseudo Prophecy from the Cumea Sybil of Augustus as an incarnation of Apollo.
The fascination that the renaissance, enlightenment and modern world has with Apollo mainly goes back to Augustus' promotion of him. Especially since it largely tends to be filtered through Virgil. So the fact that the ships that took us to the moon were all called Apollo you can thank Augustus for.
It may be that the extent to which this is typological of The Antichrist is more about 36-39, his deification, then 40-45. Just as we see The Antichrist in the first part of Ezekiel 28 because that Nagyim of Tyre sees himself as a god, but no one thinks The Antichrist will be a ruler of Lebanon specifically.
Due to the DSS manuscripts of Daniel skeptics are limited in how late they can get away with late dating Daniel. Generally they can't even allow it past the death of Epiphanes. The fact that it describes Augustus as accurately as it did Epiphanes is a major problem for them.
You may think "there were no chapter divisions originally, Daniel 12 says "at that time" referring to what just happened", 10-12 is all one revelation. I think Daniel 12 has a definite second application to Revelation 12 and the eschatological 70th Week. But I have also argued that the 70th Week can be seen as fulfilled already. Because I definitely see a double fulfillment there.
Could Michael standing up apply to the first Advent of Jesus? Maybe, what is Michael standing up linked to? The word for "delivered" means saved, it could be simply referring to the Age of Grace.
12:2 says "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake", in the past I've argued the Resurrection that is part of the Rapture is meant here. And that I still think is it's second fulfillment. But there is only one other Bible verse on the subject of Resurrection that says "many" were raised as opposed to all. Matthew 27:52-53
Matthew only seems to refer to saints being risen though, but the Rapture is the same way, the general resurrection of the unsaved isn't till after the Millennium.
Scholars complain about the accounts of Judas death allegedly contradicting each other, but I notice that neither actually refers to him as dead. Acts 1 describes something he couldn't possibly have survived however. Maybe he was resurrected for the second resurrection early and then "taken to his own place" the Abyss. And maybe it's the same with whoever of the first five kings turns out to be the Eight King. And now they're sealed away till Revelation 9.
As far as the knowledge increasing statement goes, I know it's popular to see modern technological development in that. But as Chuck Missler has said knowledge of God's Word increasing is the real intent of the passage. It could be referring to Jesus and the New Testament increasing our knowledge. I've already argued that Daniel's book being unsealed refers to the publication of Revelation.
Hebrew Daniel's applications to the End Times are mostly typological. But Daniel 7 definitely had the End Times in view. .
But too many Futurists are determined to not let any Prophecies besides the first Advent and a few other obvious ones be already fulfilled. And I feel this is a mistake. We should rejoice in showing the World those Bible prophecies that have been fulfilled to prove the reliability of God's Word and demonstrate that they should take seriously what remains to be fulfilled.
Now the part of Daniel I'm going to discus today, I had in the past assumed like most futurists to be about The Antichrist, in many posts on this blog. What I'm going to express here however only further backs up that Rome is indeed the Fourth Beast.
I even cited Hippolytus of Rome as ancient precedent for viewing this as still yet future. But on my other Blog I've explored a lot recently how even the pre-Constantine Church Fathers were already having doctrinal problems and becoming proto-Catholics. Hippolytus's "On Christ and Antichrist" I think lies at the root of what I feel has gone wrong with the Antichrist Doctrine in it's very title. Some Christians want to see the Antichrist in Scripture almost as much as Jesus. I've come to grow concerned that that is a dangerous unhealthy attitude, but one I've also been a victim of in the past.
Chris White shares a healthy skepticism of some passages assumed to be Antichrist or End Times relevant that maybe aren't. But on this passage he has to some extent come to see it rather then anything in the New Testament as the defining Antichrist passage. To him no Antichrist suspect should be taken seriously till they fight wars that match Daniel 11:40. I think that is a horrible misdirection.
Now I still don't consider it impossible that via double fulfillment and typology that the Antichrist will manage to match this passage also. In fact if he is indeed creating a revived Roman Empire then Augustus is someone he's going to want to emulate. But the core of the Antichrist doctrine needs to be based on what Jesus, John and Paul told us about the End Times, and everything else supplemental. Especially since I suspect there will likely be a decoy Antichrist before the Abomination of Desolation, maybe more then one.
II Thessalonians 2 is the only Antichrist prophecy that will be indisputably obvious when it happens. I'm sure White would not deny it when it does if the person that does it never did anything like Daniel 11:40 first. But what he may be is completely unprepared for it, or suspecting the wrong person if someone else does fight wars with Egypt and Syria.
I'm aware that others have argued for Augustus fulfilling this prophecy before. They are usually Preterists in their general view of Prophecy however, my approach will be different. And honestly the idea did enter my head before I looked and saw others had drawn the same conclusion.
Now to begin.
When I argued against those who say Rome isn't the Forth Kingdom of Daniel 2 and 7, I mentioned how Daniel 11:4 hints at the Hellenistic Kingdoms falling to another Empire. Since the rest of the Chapter is an elaboration on the last part of Daniel 11:4, I have come to feel how that happens should be part of the following Prophecy. I had also mentioned other hints of Rome's rise. I see 11:33 as foretelling both the Maccabees revolt and the Hasmonean kingdom latter falling to Rome under Pompey in 63 BC (same year Augustus was born). Rome further finished the Hasmoneans off in 37 BC when Antigonus Mattathias was defeated by Anthony and beheaded.
I will cover 40-45 first because that's the specific events, and get into how the primarily spiritual details of 36-39 apply later.
First I want to say terms like "Time of the end" also occur earlier during what few deny was fulfilled in the Hellenistic age. So selectively using that as proof we're in the full End Times here is rather disingenuous. What is notable is that Augustus lifetime overlaps into the New Testament era. In fact he was younger then the Prophetess Anna.
Daniel 11:40
And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.The Naval aspect of this battle is usually not emphasized when trying to interpret it in a modern context. Since Naval warfare hasn't really been as important as it used to be since WWII. These ships could still be aircraft carriers, but those are just glorified launching pads.
Chris White's argument for the "he" here being separate from the King of The North is very good in his commentary on this. People generally do not note that the King of The South has the leadership role here. Even how this is tied into the Mahdi theory with Sufyani needs to consider the North more important.
You can probably guess where I'm going here is that this is Actium, and that the two "kings" of north and south are Anthony and Cleopatra. You may be thinking "but wouldn't it be the Queen of the South then?" The Prophetic sense simply means the King as synonymous with Nation more or less in these kinds of verses. But I could also point out that Antony and Cleopatra were more or less officially ruling in the names of Cleopatra's children.
The main one was Ptolemy Caesarion who she had by Julius Caesar, who was Pharaoh of Egypt. Then there was her and Anthony's youngest son Ptolemy Philadelhus who at the Donations of Alexandria was proclaimed King of Syria and other core Seleucid lands. Alexander Helios was mostly given Kingdoms they didn't actually control yet, Parthia, Media and Armenia. And Cleopatra Selene was given the usual Ptolemaic lands peeled off for younger brothers and bastard sons to rule. I personally speculate that Cleopatra was planning to marry Selene to Caesarion once she was old enough, the question is how okay Anthony would have been with that.
Now the movies about Anthony and Cleopatra and Octavian usually skip right from Actium to the fall of Alexandria. But in fact plenty happened in-between, You could learn about it by reading ancient historians like Josephus, or you could just read Daniel 11:41.
He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.Yes Augustus did enter the Biblical Promised Land during this time. Herod switched sides over to him and he confirmed Herod's kingship increasing his power. A number of local governments were overthrown at this time. However Biblical Edom, Moab and much of Ammon were part of the Nabatean Kingdom that Rome never conquered till the reign of Trajan. What little of Ammon wasn't part of Nabatea was part of the Decapolis, independent city states. The Nabatean kingdom was a thorn in Rome's side all through the Julio-Claudian and Flavian periods.
Then in Daniel 11:42-43 is the fall of Alexandria.
He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.This is when the Fourth Beast fully replaced the Third. I talked in another post of mine about his visit to Alexander's Tomb.
Augustus gave Egypt a special status among Roman Provinces. It was treated as his personal possession. Which is why it's Governors were appointed by him rather then the Senate even though it wasn't a military province. Egypt became his gold mine basically.
Libya (Phut in the Hebrew) in the Bible doesn't really correlate well to modern Libya or what would become the Roman province of Libya, it's more like the rest of North Africa west of Libya and Cyrene. What Rome controlled of the rest of North Africa was only ever the very northern Mediterranean coast-lands. And even then right after Egypt fell Mauritania remained a client kingdom.
Also there were wars fought between Rome and Kush during Augustus reign, but Rome never conquered them. It annoys me that people want to make Cleopatra black when there was a black African Queen contemporary with her who unlike her did keep her nation independent from Rome. But Hollywood doesn't make movies about that Queen.
Daniel 11:44
But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.The east here no doubt means east of the Euphrates, Parthia and it's client Kingdoms. The north here must be further north then the Seleucid lands already conquered, probably other nations that were proxies between Rome and Parthia like Armenia. Alluding to the sort of cold war between Rome and Parthia. But it could also have in mind Rome's ongoing wars with the northern Celts and Germans.
The earlier parts of Daniel 11 sometimes moved to a successor without it being obvious it was doing so. So it could be carrying over into Tiberius here, or even later Julio-Claudians. But both this and the next verse I feel can remain in the time of Augustus.
Daniel 11:45
And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.I've talked about this verse elsewhere. The word for "tabernacles" here means tents. Preterists who want to make everything about 70 AD say this refers to the tents Roman soldiers camped in in Jerusalem then. Similar Roman encampments could have happened earlier during any time Roman soldiers had to take Jerusalem from rebels. Including the rebellions that broke out after Herod died, or when Archelaus was removed in 6 AD.
The word translated "palace" was not even a Hebrew word but a Persian one. So it's not an allusion to The Temple or anyone deifying themselves in The Temple. It's probably the Antonia Fortress finished by Herod in 19 BC which was where the Dome of The Rock is now.
Augustus died in 14 AD, many scholars now are skeptical of the rumor that Livia poisoned him. Either way it fits the end of Daniel 11:45 fine in my opinion. And so would any other Judeo-Claudian Emperor.
Herod had a Kingdom that was pretty sizable, all of modern Israel and chunks of Jordan and Syria. After he died Augustus divided it into four Teterarchies. Archelaus got Judea, Idumea and Samaria, and Antipas got Galilee and Perea. Philip got Batanea, Trachonitis, Aurantis, Gaulantis and Ceasarea Philippi. And Herod's sister got the Gaza strip. So that is probably what "shall divide the land for gain" in verse 39 means. Though it's apparent chronological placement before Actium means it could be Rome's division between the second Triumphirate.
Now to get into the spiritual aspects of 36-39.
Augustus did not deify himself in the obvious insane way some later Emperors like Caligula would. But it was considered perfectly acceptable in Rome for him to be worshiped as a god by the conquered peoples. He didn't force it on the Jews, but the other people around Israel worshiped him as a god, in Egypt he basically took over the traditional Pharonic worship.
In Rome, he was not openly worshiped as a god while he lived, but there was a lot of quasi deification going on. The name Augustus effectively meant divine, and he was given that name the same year his adopted father Julius Caesar was officially deified, so he officially became the son of a god. More of his deification of himself will become relevant later.
I still interpret what "the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women" means the same as I have before. But I believe Rome had an Ephraimite heritage, including it's spiritual heritage. So he did descend from the Patriarchs of Genesis.
Now "the God of forces" sounds like a war god. Rome identified their local deities with Greek ones, but Ares was never a favored deity among the Greeks. To Rome however Mars was their Patron, the father of Romulus and Remus. They defined themselves by their military nature, this is part of what America has inherited from Rome, and Christians sadly take part in it.
The word for "Strange" means foreign. Apollo was the only Olympian the Romans didn't have their own deity to identify with, so even in Latin he is just worshiped as Apollo. But Apollo was not a very poplar deity in Rome before Augustus. In fact Apollo was almost unheard of to Romans before Augustus. A number of articles have been written on how greatly Augustus popularized Apollo.
A rumor circulated that Augustus was actually fathered by Apollo. Augustus's birthday (September 23rd) became Apollo's national holiday. Virgil's fourth Ecolouge contained a pseudo Prophecy from the Cumea Sybil of Augustus as an incarnation of Apollo.
The fascination that the renaissance, enlightenment and modern world has with Apollo mainly goes back to Augustus' promotion of him. Especially since it largely tends to be filtered through Virgil. So the fact that the ships that took us to the moon were all called Apollo you can thank Augustus for.
It may be that the extent to which this is typological of The Antichrist is more about 36-39, his deification, then 40-45. Just as we see The Antichrist in the first part of Ezekiel 28 because that Nagyim of Tyre sees himself as a god, but no one thinks The Antichrist will be a ruler of Lebanon specifically.
Due to the DSS manuscripts of Daniel skeptics are limited in how late they can get away with late dating Daniel. Generally they can't even allow it past the death of Epiphanes. The fact that it describes Augustus as accurately as it did Epiphanes is a major problem for them.
You may think "there were no chapter divisions originally, Daniel 12 says "at that time" referring to what just happened", 10-12 is all one revelation. I think Daniel 12 has a definite second application to Revelation 12 and the eschatological 70th Week. But I have also argued that the 70th Week can be seen as fulfilled already. Because I definitely see a double fulfillment there.
Could Michael standing up apply to the first Advent of Jesus? Maybe, what is Michael standing up linked to? The word for "delivered" means saved, it could be simply referring to the Age of Grace.
12:2 says "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake", in the past I've argued the Resurrection that is part of the Rapture is meant here. And that I still think is it's second fulfillment. But there is only one other Bible verse on the subject of Resurrection that says "many" were raised as opposed to all. Matthew 27:52-53
The graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.Some see the reference to Michael in Jude as being linked to when Moses was Resurrected at this time.
Matthew only seems to refer to saints being risen though, but the Rapture is the same way, the general resurrection of the unsaved isn't till after the Millennium.
Scholars complain about the accounts of Judas death allegedly contradicting each other, but I notice that neither actually refers to him as dead. Acts 1 describes something he couldn't possibly have survived however. Maybe he was resurrected for the second resurrection early and then "taken to his own place" the Abyss. And maybe it's the same with whoever of the first five kings turns out to be the Eight King. And now they're sealed away till Revelation 9.
As far as the knowledge increasing statement goes, I know it's popular to see modern technological development in that. But as Chuck Missler has said knowledge of God's Word increasing is the real intent of the passage. It could be referring to Jesus and the New Testament increasing our knowledge. I've already argued that Daniel's book being unsealed refers to the publication of Revelation.
Hebrew Daniel's applications to the End Times are mostly typological. But Daniel 7 definitely had the End Times in view. .
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Hanukkah is a Biblical Holy Day
I've seen one random online forum filled with Christians really offended by the notion that Jesus was observing Hanukkah in John 10:22-23. "And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch."
They insist Jesus could not have been observing a Holy Day never actually ordained in The Hebrew Bible. That Daniel foretells the history that produced Hanukkah isn't enough for them.
They insist this "dedication" refers either to the second of Adar when the Second Temple was first dedicated. Or to how Solomon originally Dedicated the Temple with an expansion of Tabernacles to 14 days, and feel that's backed up by this following John 7-9.
The latter requires expanding the definition of Winter, (maybe so does the former, but sometimes Adar can fall during a pretty cold period). But the point is it doesn't say the anniversary of the dedication, it said the Feast of Dedication was being observed. The 25th of Kislev is the only Feast the Jews ever celebrated by that name.
Also I firmly believe the Expansion of the Festival Solomon did was the prior week not the following Week, since it clearly defines the 22nd as the day the Festival ended, and the 23rd as the day everyone went home. Also 2 Chronicles 7:9 says "And in the eighth day they made a solemn assembly: for they kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days." Which clearly defines the extra 7 days as coming first.
They insist Jesus could not have been observing a Holy Day never actually ordained in The Hebrew Bible. That Daniel foretells the history that produced Hanukkah isn't enough for them.
They insist this "dedication" refers either to the second of Adar when the Second Temple was first dedicated. Or to how Solomon originally Dedicated the Temple with an expansion of Tabernacles to 14 days, and feel that's backed up by this following John 7-9.
The latter requires expanding the definition of Winter, (maybe so does the former, but sometimes Adar can fall during a pretty cold period). But the point is it doesn't say the anniversary of the dedication, it said the Feast of Dedication was being observed. The 25th of Kislev is the only Feast the Jews ever celebrated by that name.
Also I firmly believe the Expansion of the Festival Solomon did was the prior week not the following Week, since it clearly defines the 22nd as the day the Festival ended, and the 23rd as the day everyone went home. Also 2 Chronicles 7:9 says "And in the eighth day they made a solemn assembly: for they kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days." Which clearly defines the extra 7 days as coming first.
The only objection offered to it being the prior week is the assumption of Yom Kippr being a Fast Day. The Bible never links the word Fast to Yom Kippur, in fact God expressed disapproval of annual Fast Days in Zachariah. The basis for making Yom Kippur a fast day is that the people were to "afflict your souls", fasting is a way to do that but not the only way (Jesus was afflicting His soul without fasting in Gethsemane). Either way it would be merely the 2nd or 3rd day of a two week festival being toned down by people doing whatever they feel is best to keep that command. Besides with what is supposed to go on in The Temple that day I could easily see it being treated as part of the Festival.
As far as the lack of Old Testament precedent they complain about, leaving Daniel aside for a moment.
Haggai 2:10-23 is a revelation God gave to Haggai on the 24th of Kislev, and it foretells that very day being a time to rededicate the Temple. Reading 1 Maccabees chapter 4 (it's at the end pretty much) it would seem the 24th was the day they were actually done rebuilding and cleansing everything, the 25th was the day the new Sacrifices were made.
The whole "Menorah burning for 8 days on 1 day's worth of oil" is a made up fairy tale from much later tradition. 2 Maccabees 10:1-8 tells us it was an 8 day festival because it was done in the manner of the Feast of Tabernacles. Some have conjectured the original logic was a counterpart for Tabernacles of the Second Passover law from Numbers 9. One reason to make it two months later rather then one would be the Eight Month's affiliation with The Feast of Jeroboam. But if that was the only factor it'd have been on the 15th not the 25th. Haggai's prophecy I'm convinced is why this was when it was whether they knew it or not. Actually the text of Haggai in question discuses the same issues that make Second Passover necessary in Numbers 9, and since Haggai's previous vision was during Tabernacles, it seems valid to interpret him as validating a Second Tabernacles Law.
The Hebrew word Hanukkah (Dedication) first appears in The Bible in Number 7:84&88 ("Dedicating" was used twice much earlier in the same chapter) this Chapter is about the original Dedication of the Tabernacle and may be one likely drawn on at the first Hanukkah. That right after this Aaron is instructed to light The Menorah could be the original reason The Menorah became important to Hanukkah.
Also if you do the math in Genesis, the 26th or 27th of Kislev is when the 40 days of rain that caused the Flood stopped. And it's been popular to see the Nine Candle Menorah of Hanukkah foreshadowed by Zechariah 4.
Back to Daniel, some people, especially those who want to late date Daniel but knowing they can't make it too late due to DSS manuscripts. Will insist it discuses Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecution, but not the Maccabees actual victory.
Daniel 11:32 "And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits." One Bible I have in it's marginal footnotes suggests "Take Action" as an alternate translation of "do exploits".
But more directly relevant to the idea of The Re-dedication being Biblical is Daniel 8:13-14.
The point is, that the Cleansing of The Temple in 164 BC was part of Bible Prophecy.
Josephus talks about the origin of Hanukkah in Antiquities of The Jews, Book 12, Chapter 7 in section 6 and 7, the last part of the chapter. He there directly links it to Daniel's Prophecy, which I will admit the Books of Maccabees failed to do.
An argument might also be made that John 10 doesn't tell us Jesus was celebrating or observing Hanukkah, He just happened to be there at that time.
During His ministry I find it interesting that Jesus was in Jerusalem only on Holy Days, with John in particular linking Holy Days to anytime He was even in Judea. In fact in the entire Gospel account of his life the only time we are told He was in Jerusalem when it wasn't specifically a Holy Day was to fulfill the Torah's law about being presented in The Temple 40 days after His Birth.
I'm convinced every detail of Scripture is there for a reason, and The Holy Spirit wanted us to take note of the fact that Jesus was in Jerusalem during Hanukkah.
I rant more against anti-Hanukkah Christians here.
Update 1/11/2016: I've found a site online called "Why Yahshuah Refused to Celebrate Hanukkah".
First of all "Yahshuah" is an interpretation of how to properly render Yeshua affiliated with a peculiar brand of the Sacred Name movement. So be warned.
First this site claims John 7 is about Hanukkah, (it talks about the connection between Tabernacles and Hanukkah that I talk about above), then says the John 10 reference is just continuing the same narrative. However an unqualified reference to Tabernacles always means the Tishri celebration just as an unqualified reference to a Feast of Dedication means the Kislev one. And John 10:22-23 stylistically is clearly the start of a new incident that clearly dates itself to a different time then what came just before.
This site actually claims The Jews of this period stopped observing Tishri Tabernacles all together and just replaced it with Hanukkah. There is no evidence of that, 2 Maccabees 10:6-7 says it was observed in the manner of Tabernacles but in no way says it replaced that feast.
Josephus has I'm pretty sure made clear references to Tabernacles still being observed in Tishri at this time. When Josephus describes the origin of Hanukkah which I mentioned above he doesn't mention the link to Tabernacles that only 2 Maccabees directly makes (Josephus seemed to only know 1 Maccabees) and only called it the Festival of Lights. So it's highly unlikely Josephus ever meant that any time he refereed to Tabernacles.
After making that argument they make a thing out of Jesus refusing to go up to the Feast when it started. Then says when He did show up He condemned them for not following The Law.
Read John 7 more carefully, He did go up at the same time his brothers did more or less, but was simply in secret till the midst of the Feast. And what Jesus talks about at this time the site misrepresents completely. He was observing that Feast as much as He was Passover during the Passion Week, where he also argued with the Pharisees and Sadducees.
As far as the lack of Old Testament precedent they complain about, leaving Daniel aside for a moment.
Haggai 2:10-23 is a revelation God gave to Haggai on the 24th of Kislev, and it foretells that very day being a time to rededicate the Temple. Reading 1 Maccabees chapter 4 (it's at the end pretty much) it would seem the 24th was the day they were actually done rebuilding and cleansing everything, the 25th was the day the new Sacrifices were made.
The whole "Menorah burning for 8 days on 1 day's worth of oil" is a made up fairy tale from much later tradition. 2 Maccabees 10:1-8 tells us it was an 8 day festival because it was done in the manner of the Feast of Tabernacles. Some have conjectured the original logic was a counterpart for Tabernacles of the Second Passover law from Numbers 9. One reason to make it two months later rather then one would be the Eight Month's affiliation with The Feast of Jeroboam. But if that was the only factor it'd have been on the 15th not the 25th. Haggai's prophecy I'm convinced is why this was when it was whether they knew it or not. Actually the text of Haggai in question discuses the same issues that make Second Passover necessary in Numbers 9, and since Haggai's previous vision was during Tabernacles, it seems valid to interpret him as validating a Second Tabernacles Law.
The Hebrew word Hanukkah (Dedication) first appears in The Bible in Number 7:84&88 ("Dedicating" was used twice much earlier in the same chapter) this Chapter is about the original Dedication of the Tabernacle and may be one likely drawn on at the first Hanukkah. That right after this Aaron is instructed to light The Menorah could be the original reason The Menorah became important to Hanukkah.
Also if you do the math in Genesis, the 26th or 27th of Kislev is when the 40 days of rain that caused the Flood stopped. And it's been popular to see the Nine Candle Menorah of Hanukkah foreshadowed by Zechariah 4.
Back to Daniel, some people, especially those who want to late date Daniel but knowing they can't make it too late due to DSS manuscripts. Will insist it discuses Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecution, but not the Maccabees actual victory.
Daniel 11:32 "And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits." One Bible I have in it's marginal footnotes suggests "Take Action" as an alternate translation of "do exploits".
But more directly relevant to the idea of The Re-dedication being Biblical is Daniel 8:13-14.
"Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred mornings and evenings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."The Number 2300 mornings and evenings (1150 days) is the main reason this verse in it's details I feel applies more to Antiochus then The Antichrist, I like Chris White's explanation of it, It does fit to say the time from Antiochus' Abomination first being set up until the Maccabees rededicated The Temple. But it's pretty hard to make it line up perfectly with Revelation where it's always 1260 days or 42 months being mentioned.
The point is, that the Cleansing of The Temple in 164 BC was part of Bible Prophecy.
Josephus talks about the origin of Hanukkah in Antiquities of The Jews, Book 12, Chapter 7 in section 6 and 7, the last part of the chapter. He there directly links it to Daniel's Prophecy, which I will admit the Books of Maccabees failed to do.
An argument might also be made that John 10 doesn't tell us Jesus was celebrating or observing Hanukkah, He just happened to be there at that time.
During His ministry I find it interesting that Jesus was in Jerusalem only on Holy Days, with John in particular linking Holy Days to anytime He was even in Judea. In fact in the entire Gospel account of his life the only time we are told He was in Jerusalem when it wasn't specifically a Holy Day was to fulfill the Torah's law about being presented in The Temple 40 days after His Birth.
I'm convinced every detail of Scripture is there for a reason, and The Holy Spirit wanted us to take note of the fact that Jesus was in Jerusalem during Hanukkah.
I rant more against anti-Hanukkah Christians here.
Update 1/11/2016: I've found a site online called "Why Yahshuah Refused to Celebrate Hanukkah".
First of all "Yahshuah" is an interpretation of how to properly render Yeshua affiliated with a peculiar brand of the Sacred Name movement. So be warned.
First this site claims John 7 is about Hanukkah, (it talks about the connection between Tabernacles and Hanukkah that I talk about above), then says the John 10 reference is just continuing the same narrative. However an unqualified reference to Tabernacles always means the Tishri celebration just as an unqualified reference to a Feast of Dedication means the Kislev one. And John 10:22-23 stylistically is clearly the start of a new incident that clearly dates itself to a different time then what came just before.
This site actually claims The Jews of this period stopped observing Tishri Tabernacles all together and just replaced it with Hanukkah. There is no evidence of that, 2 Maccabees 10:6-7 says it was observed in the manner of Tabernacles but in no way says it replaced that feast.
Josephus has I'm pretty sure made clear references to Tabernacles still being observed in Tishri at this time. When Josephus describes the origin of Hanukkah which I mentioned above he doesn't mention the link to Tabernacles that only 2 Maccabees directly makes (Josephus seemed to only know 1 Maccabees) and only called it the Festival of Lights. So it's highly unlikely Josephus ever meant that any time he refereed to Tabernacles.
After making that argument they make a thing out of Jesus refusing to go up to the Feast when it started. Then says when He did show up He condemned them for not following The Law.
Read John 7 more carefully, He did go up at the same time his brothers did more or less, but was simply in secret till the midst of the Feast. And what Jesus talks about at this time the site misrepresents completely. He was observing that Feast as much as He was Passover during the Passion Week, where he also argued with the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Links on the Authenticity of Daniel
There going to some details in these I don't agree with. In the future I hope to post my my own thoughts on the related issues.
DanielHistoricity
DanielChapter5
HerodotusDanielNitocris
AddaGuppi
Belshazzar
PublicationFile
DatingDaniel
BelshazzarDariusTheMede
DanielPapers
TheIdentityOfDariusTheMede
DefendingTheBookOfDaniel
Wilson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyaxares_II
DanielHistoricity
DanielChapter5
HerodotusDanielNitocris
AddaGuppi
Belshazzar
PublicationFile
DatingDaniel
BelshazzarDariusTheMede
DanielPapers
TheIdentityOfDariusTheMede
DefendingTheBookOfDaniel
Wilson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyaxares_II
Cyaxares II was said to be a king of the Medes whose reign is described by the Greek historian Xenophon. Some theories have equated this figure with the "Darius the Mede" named in the Book of Daniel. However, the fact that he is not mentioned at all in the history of Herodotus, nor in the very different history of Ctesias, has caused many scholars to debate whether such a king ever actually existed.
According to Xenophon's Cyropaedia, Cyaxares II followed king Astyages to the throne of the Mede Empire, and was also brother of Mandane, Cyrus the Great's mother. He describes the Persian Cyrus as cooperating with his uncle, Cyaxares, in order to conquer Babylon in 539 BC. However Cyaxares was by then an old man, and because Cyrus was in command of the campaign, the army came to regard Cyrus as king. Cyrus thus received not only the king's daughter (his first cousin), but his kingdom, as dowry, and the aged Cyaxares became Cyrus' viceroy in Babylon for two years until his death, when Cyrus seized that kingdom as well.
"4. That Darius the Mede was Cyaxares II, the son of Astyages. Compare the statements in (Prophets and Kings 523, 556, 557) concerning Cyrus as the nephew and general of Darius with Xenophon’s claim that (1) Cyrus, Astyages’ grandson through his mother Mandane, had become acquainted with his uncle Cyaxares during the years Cyrus spent at the court of his Median grandfather (Cyropaedia i. 3. 1; 4. 1, 6–9, 20–22; 5. 2) ; (2) that Cyaxares followed his father on the throne as king of Media, after the latter’s death (i. 5. 2); (3) that when Cyrus had conquered Babylon he visited his uncle with gifts and offered him a palace in Babylon; that Cyaxares accepted the presents, and gave Cyrus his daughter as well as the kingdom (viii. 5. 17–20). Although the details of the story as given by Xenophon cannot be accepted, it is possible that the Greek writer preserves correctly the tradition that Cyaxares was the last Median ruler, and that he was Cyrus’ father-in-law as well as an intimate friend of the great Persian. If these points can be accepted as historical facts, it can be assumed that Cyrus, upon rebelling against Astyages, permitted Cyaxares to rule as a shadow king to please the Medes. At the same time everyone in the kingdom would know that the actual sovereign was Cyrus, and that Cyaxares was a mere figurehead. In that case Darius the Mede may be identified with Cyaxares II, who, presumably, had come to Babylon at Cyrus’ invitation to act in an honorary capacity as king. That Cyaxares II was advanced in age at the time of the fall of Babylon can be shown as follows, assuming Xenophon to be correct: Cyaxares II was the father-in-law of Cyrus. Cyrus himself was most likely at least 40 years old at the time, as is evident from the fact that his son, Cambyses, was mature enough to represent him in an official position during the next New Year’s Day activities. Hence Cyaxares II could have been 62 years old at the fall of Babylon, the age Daniel assigned to Darius the Mede. His comparatively advanced age—in a time when most people died young—may have been responsible for the fact that he did not survive the fall of Babylon very long. This would explain why Daniel mentions only his first regnal year. Xenophon reports nothing further concerning Cyaxares shortly after the conquest of Babylon. Daniel’s statement that Darius was the “son” of Ahasuerus should probably be understood as meaning that he was the “grandson” of Ahasuerus. That the Hebrew word for “son” may mean “grandson,” or an even more remote descendant, can be abundantly demonstrated (see on 2 Kings 8:26). The English form Ahasuerus is from the Heb. ’Achashwerosh, which might possibly be a rendering of Uvaxshtrah, the Old Persian spelling of Cyaxares I, but not of Astyages. If after his arrival at Babylon, Darius became a special friend of Daniel’s, it is understandable that the prophet would date the visions received during this brief reign in terms of Darius’ regnal years ( Daniel chs. 9:1; 11:1), rather than of the regnal years of Cyrus. However, after the one year credited to Darius, Daniel dated events in terms of the years of Cyrus’ reign (Daniel chs. 1:21; 10:1). Contemporary evidence that might shed light on this reconstruction of the history of Cyaxares II is ambiguous and meager. There is a possible reference to Cyaxares in the Nabonidus Chronicle. Since it is certain that Gubaru lived for many years after the conquest of Babylon, whereas Ugbaru died soon after, and a state mourning was provided for some high personage during the same month, it may be possible to see Cyaxares II in the Ugbaru of the Nabonidus Chronicle. Or, the name of Cyaxares may have been in the broken line which speaks about the death of a distinguished individual for whom a nationwide mourning was held. However, there seems to be an error in the first mention of Ugbaru in the Nabonidus Chronicle. Either the name Ugbaru is a scribal error for Gubaru, or the title “governor of Gutium” was by mistake transferred by the author of the tablet from Gubaru to Ugbaru. A second possible piece of contemporary evidence may lie in the double mention of a Cyaxares in the great Behistun inscription of Darius I (on the Behistun inscription see Vol. I, pp. 98, 110). Among the several pretenders to the throne against whom Darius I fought were two who claimed to be of the family of Cyaxares. The Cyaxares in question may have been either Cyaxares I, the father of Astyages, or possibly Cyaxares II, the father-in-law of Cyrus, and last shadow king of Media. The foregoing summary makes evident that there are still many obscure factors in the solution of the problem of identifying Darius the Mede from historical and archeological sources. All things considered, however, this commentary favors the fouth view."
Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary : The Holy Bible With Exegetical and Expository Comment. Washington, D.C. : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978 (Commentary Reference Series),
Friday, September 26, 2014
Hebrew Daniel and Aramaic Daniel
Chapters 1 and 8-12 of The Book of Daniel are written in Hebrew like the rest of The Hebrew Bible. But Chapters 2-7 are in Aramaic. Aramaic is also a Semitic language, it uses many seemingly identical words, but they are still distinct.
A difference in focus and subject matter also exists between these two parts of Daniel. The popular conjecture which I agree with is that Hebrew Daniel is focused on History and Prophecy from a Jewish perspective. While Aramaic Daniel still has Jews as it's protagonists and presumes the Monotheistic Jewish religious worldview to be true, it is much more then most parts of The Hebrew Bible focused on the Gentile World and it's history.
Chris White expresses skepticism of this way of looking at Daniel. He thinks it could be true, but his skepticism of the assumption is mostly just based on observing that Gentile nations are still discussed in Hebrew Daniel.
The point is the more rigidly Jerusalem/Judah POV. 4 or 5 different Kingdoms emerged from the dividing of Alexander's Empire. Why are only two really discussed in most of Daniel 11 (King of the South=Ptolemaic Egypt and the King of The North=Seleucid Syria). Because they're the two that had Jerusalem in the disputed territory between them. So even if Daniel 11's description doesn't always seem to mention Judah's role in those wars in the text, rest assured they always had a direct impact on Judah.
The Hebrew Chapters largely revolve around Jerusalem and The Temple. The Aramaic chapters barely if at all mention Jerusalem's existence, and never The Temple. The Prophetic parts of Hebrew Daniel always involve The Abomination of Desolation, or things linked to it like the offerings being stopped. Aramaic Daniel doesn't bring up that subject at all.
The four world Empires theme comes entirely from Aramaic Daniel. Hebrew Daniel backs up this way of looking at history, but in a way that requires reading between the lines. It is also only Aramaic Daniel that records Daniel's personal relationships with world leaders. In Daniel 1 he only gets to know as high up a the chief Eunuch.
It's interesting to look at the agenda of Bible Skeptics when it comes to Daniel. Any other book they love pointing out reasons to question if the whole Book really had the same Author, like Isaiah. Here however it's a Book written in different languages but they don't want to do that, why?
Because it's Aramaic Daniel that has all the historical references that they claim are errors, and the three random Greek musical instruments they use as scholarly reasons to back up their late dating.
But it's Hebrew Daniel that has the really detailed specific future Prophecies they want to insist must have been written later. So it does not suit them to break this book up, though they could make a much stronger case for it then Isaiah.
And arguing the Aramaic is the older part would go greatly against other narratives they promote. About Hebrew dying out and being supplanted by Aramaic.
Only Hebrew Daniel gives names to Angels. Michael and Gabriel.
Aramaic Daniel used titles for God and The Messiah unique to it in the entire Canonical Hebrew Bible.
Intertestamental Apocrypha like Enoch began merging ideas from the two parts of Daniel. And The New Testament draws on Aramaic Daniel as much as it does I feel precisely because of the theme of Gentile inclusion.
"The Ancient of Days" is one such unique title. I personally feel this title is specific of The First Person of The Trinity, at least somewhat, or used to anyway, I've been rethinking that. It is also only Daniel 7 that has Son of Man as a Messianic Title. In other Prophets it's a term for any human being. In The Gospels this is Jesus favorite title for himself.
Aramaic Daniel does not use the term Messiah, that term was originally specific to the Jewishness of Jesus.
Daniel 7 and 8 are where Hebrew and Aramaic Daniel are most similar to each other. Both envision Gentile Empires as Beasts, and havie a "Little Horn" as the Villain. The two Beasts of Daniel 8 equate to the 2nd and 3rd Beasts of Daniel 7.
But what kinds of Animals are used for the beasts reflects the change from a Gentile to Jewish perspective. In Daniel 8 they're Levitically clean animals (a "Ram" and a Goat), going over Numbers 28-29 shows that both were regularly offered in The Temple on New Moons and Holy Days. While the three identified animals of Daniel 7 are all unclean, and also carnivorous. Outside Daniel they are still animals that can be used symbolically, but when contrasted in how Daniel is divided, they reflect 7 being less Levitical then 8 at the very least.
A difference in focus and subject matter also exists between these two parts of Daniel. The popular conjecture which I agree with is that Hebrew Daniel is focused on History and Prophecy from a Jewish perspective. While Aramaic Daniel still has Jews as it's protagonists and presumes the Monotheistic Jewish religious worldview to be true, it is much more then most parts of The Hebrew Bible focused on the Gentile World and it's history.
Chris White expresses skepticism of this way of looking at Daniel. He thinks it could be true, but his skepticism of the assumption is mostly just based on observing that Gentile nations are still discussed in Hebrew Daniel.
The point is the more rigidly Jerusalem/Judah POV. 4 or 5 different Kingdoms emerged from the dividing of Alexander's Empire. Why are only two really discussed in most of Daniel 11 (King of the South=Ptolemaic Egypt and the King of The North=Seleucid Syria). Because they're the two that had Jerusalem in the disputed territory between them. So even if Daniel 11's description doesn't always seem to mention Judah's role in those wars in the text, rest assured they always had a direct impact on Judah.
The Hebrew Chapters largely revolve around Jerusalem and The Temple. The Aramaic chapters barely if at all mention Jerusalem's existence, and never The Temple. The Prophetic parts of Hebrew Daniel always involve The Abomination of Desolation, or things linked to it like the offerings being stopped. Aramaic Daniel doesn't bring up that subject at all.
The four world Empires theme comes entirely from Aramaic Daniel. Hebrew Daniel backs up this way of looking at history, but in a way that requires reading between the lines. It is also only Aramaic Daniel that records Daniel's personal relationships with world leaders. In Daniel 1 he only gets to know as high up a the chief Eunuch.
It's interesting to look at the agenda of Bible Skeptics when it comes to Daniel. Any other book they love pointing out reasons to question if the whole Book really had the same Author, like Isaiah. Here however it's a Book written in different languages but they don't want to do that, why?
Because it's Aramaic Daniel that has all the historical references that they claim are errors, and the three random Greek musical instruments they use as scholarly reasons to back up their late dating.
But it's Hebrew Daniel that has the really detailed specific future Prophecies they want to insist must have been written later. So it does not suit them to break this book up, though they could make a much stronger case for it then Isaiah.
And arguing the Aramaic is the older part would go greatly against other narratives they promote. About Hebrew dying out and being supplanted by Aramaic.
Only Hebrew Daniel gives names to Angels. Michael and Gabriel.
Aramaic Daniel used titles for God and The Messiah unique to it in the entire Canonical Hebrew Bible.
Intertestamental Apocrypha like Enoch began merging ideas from the two parts of Daniel. And The New Testament draws on Aramaic Daniel as much as it does I feel precisely because of the theme of Gentile inclusion.
"The Ancient of Days" is one such unique title. I personally feel this title is specific of The First Person of The Trinity, at least somewhat, or used to anyway, I've been rethinking that. It is also only Daniel 7 that has Son of Man as a Messianic Title. In other Prophets it's a term for any human being. In The Gospels this is Jesus favorite title for himself.
Aramaic Daniel does not use the term Messiah, that term was originally specific to the Jewishness of Jesus.
Daniel 7 and 8 are where Hebrew and Aramaic Daniel are most similar to each other. Both envision Gentile Empires as Beasts, and havie a "Little Horn" as the Villain. The two Beasts of Daniel 8 equate to the 2nd and 3rd Beasts of Daniel 7.
But what kinds of Animals are used for the beasts reflects the change from a Gentile to Jewish perspective. In Daniel 8 they're Levitically clean animals (a "Ram" and a Goat), going over Numbers 28-29 shows that both were regularly offered in The Temple on New Moons and Holy Days. While the three identified animals of Daniel 7 are all unclean, and also carnivorous. Outside Daniel they are still animals that can be used symbolically, but when contrasted in how Daniel is divided, they reflect 7 being less Levitical then 8 at the very least.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
The Four Empires are Assyira-Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece-Macedon and Edom-Rome
I want to address a matter of Interpretation on
the four world Empires of Daniel 2 and 7. It is popular for skeptics of
The Bible (and also certain Preterists) to insist that the four empires were
originally meant by the author to be Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece.
Rather then the traditional Futurist view of Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece and
Rome. This is absurd to me.
Daniel 5&6 (still part of the Aramaic Daniel) clearly defined Babylon as being succeeded by a dual Medio-Persian Empire "Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." Which is also what Daniel 8 depicts, The Prophecy is given while Babylon still rules and depicts The Ram coming next "The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia." And then after that is the He-Goat which is Greece.
Media alone was an important local kingdom for a century or so, but it never conquered Israel or Egypt or Babylon. Using Scripture to Interpret Scripture only Greece can be the Third empire.
The Symbolism also only makes sense that way, The Leopard has four heads which clearly represent the same thing the four horns represent in Daniel 8. Leopards are also animals known for their speed, the Speed with which Alexander conquered his Empire is part of Daniel 8:5's emphasis as well "and touched not the ground" is an idiom of speed. This Greece as the fourth kingdom interpretation tends to require viewing the ten horns of the fourth beast as a succession of Kings, that completely ignores the interpretation the Angel gives.
The strongest Argument any of them make is "The Little Horn". They insist the little horn can't represent different things in 7 and 8 and therefore the fourth Beast of chapter 7 must be the same as the He-Goat of Chapter 8.
Daniel 2-7 are Aramaic Daniel and are focused on the World, Daniel 1 and 8-12 are Hebrew Daniel and are focused on Israel. The Little Horn is the only specific symbol used in both. Both are ultimately in their far finale ultimate fulfillment about "The Antichrist". But Daniel 8 is about how he relates to Israel, and in that context Antiochus Epiphanes is a good prototype of The Antichrist.
But Daniel 7 is about how he relates to The World, and in that context Antiochus Epiphanes is not a good prototype, from a secular historical perspective he's very insignificant, pathetic even. He is thought of as the beginning of the end of the Hellenistic era's greatness. Hebrew Daniel also acknowledges elsewhere in Chapter 11 that Epiphanes while foreshadowing the Antichrist's key Sin is overall not a successful enough leader to be him. 11:36 says of The Antichrist "And the king shall do according to his will;". This "do according to his will" phrase is used earlier of both Alexander The Great in verse 3 and Antiochus III Megas in verse 16. But it's description of Epiphanes in verses 21-32 does not use this phrase. So this phrase helps refute any argument that verse 36 is still talking about Antiochus Epiphanes. As does the fact that this king is NOT the "King of The North" (Syria) but fights a war with him.
Daniel 7 is about The Antichrist's destiny to reunite the Roman Empire, and a near fulfillment for that could be Julius or Augustus Caesar who ended civil wars, or Vespasian-Titus who restored unity after the chaotic year of the Four Emperors, or Constantine who was reuniting Rome when he adopted Christianity, or Jusitnian who tried to reconquer the Western regions. Or latter attempts to create a sort of Revived Empire, like Charlemagne, the various Holy Roman Emperors, Napoleon (and maybe also Louise-Napoleon) or Mussolini.
But also in Daniel 7 the Little Horn arises among the ten, unlike in Daniel 8 where he comes out of one of the four. I believe that at least one layer of symbolism behind The Little Horn is it being the Seleucid Dynasty, but I view this connection as genealogical not geographical.
The annoying thing is that these Atheists and Preterists don't even need to do this to argue Daniel's prophecies were all done by the Hasomnean Revolt (That argument falls apart for many other reasons). During the Maccabees period it was already pretty clear Rome was the fourth Beast. Rome was an Empire long before it ceased to be a Republic, just like America is. Rome in the second century B.C. was very comparable to America in the 20th century A.D. including being Israel's top ally as documented in the books of Maccabees and Josephus.
Polybius who died in 118 B.C. wrote a book called The Rise of The Roman Empire. His starting premise was to document how in only 53 years, from 220 B.C.(around when the Second Punic War began) to 167 B.C. when Rome defeated Macedon's king Perseus, Rome became the master of the known world. Fulfilling a quasi Prophecy by Demetrius of Phalerum that the Macedonian Empire will someday be conquered just as quickly as it rose. That period ends earlier in the same year as Epiphanes' Abomination of Desolation.
Antiochus Epiphanes had also been a hostage in Rome, after Rome defeated his father. And according to the Secular histories about him, early in his reign he was a very Romanized leader.
Daniel 5&6 (still part of the Aramaic Daniel) clearly defined Babylon as being succeeded by a dual Medio-Persian Empire "Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." Which is also what Daniel 8 depicts, The Prophecy is given while Babylon still rules and depicts The Ram coming next "The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia." And then after that is the He-Goat which is Greece.
Media alone was an important local kingdom for a century or so, but it never conquered Israel or Egypt or Babylon. Using Scripture to Interpret Scripture only Greece can be the Third empire.
The Symbolism also only makes sense that way, The Leopard has four heads which clearly represent the same thing the four horns represent in Daniel 8. Leopards are also animals known for their speed, the Speed with which Alexander conquered his Empire is part of Daniel 8:5's emphasis as well "and touched not the ground" is an idiom of speed. This Greece as the fourth kingdom interpretation tends to require viewing the ten horns of the fourth beast as a succession of Kings, that completely ignores the interpretation the Angel gives.
The strongest Argument any of them make is "The Little Horn". They insist the little horn can't represent different things in 7 and 8 and therefore the fourth Beast of chapter 7 must be the same as the He-Goat of Chapter 8.
Daniel 2-7 are Aramaic Daniel and are focused on the World, Daniel 1 and 8-12 are Hebrew Daniel and are focused on Israel. The Little Horn is the only specific symbol used in both. Both are ultimately in their far finale ultimate fulfillment about "The Antichrist". But Daniel 8 is about how he relates to Israel, and in that context Antiochus Epiphanes is a good prototype of The Antichrist.
But Daniel 7 is about how he relates to The World, and in that context Antiochus Epiphanes is not a good prototype, from a secular historical perspective he's very insignificant, pathetic even. He is thought of as the beginning of the end of the Hellenistic era's greatness. Hebrew Daniel also acknowledges elsewhere in Chapter 11 that Epiphanes while foreshadowing the Antichrist's key Sin is overall not a successful enough leader to be him. 11:36 says of The Antichrist "And the king shall do according to his will;". This "do according to his will" phrase is used earlier of both Alexander The Great in verse 3 and Antiochus III Megas in verse 16. But it's description of Epiphanes in verses 21-32 does not use this phrase. So this phrase helps refute any argument that verse 36 is still talking about Antiochus Epiphanes. As does the fact that this king is NOT the "King of The North" (Syria) but fights a war with him.
Daniel 7 is about The Antichrist's destiny to reunite the Roman Empire, and a near fulfillment for that could be Julius or Augustus Caesar who ended civil wars, or Vespasian-Titus who restored unity after the chaotic year of the Four Emperors, or Constantine who was reuniting Rome when he adopted Christianity, or Jusitnian who tried to reconquer the Western regions. Or latter attempts to create a sort of Revived Empire, like Charlemagne, the various Holy Roman Emperors, Napoleon (and maybe also Louise-Napoleon) or Mussolini.
But also in Daniel 7 the Little Horn arises among the ten, unlike in Daniel 8 where he comes out of one of the four. I believe that at least one layer of symbolism behind The Little Horn is it being the Seleucid Dynasty, but I view this connection as genealogical not geographical.
The annoying thing is that these Atheists and Preterists don't even need to do this to argue Daniel's prophecies were all done by the Hasomnean Revolt (That argument falls apart for many other reasons). During the Maccabees period it was already pretty clear Rome was the fourth Beast. Rome was an Empire long before it ceased to be a Republic, just like America is. Rome in the second century B.C. was very comparable to America in the 20th century A.D. including being Israel's top ally as documented in the books of Maccabees and Josephus.
Polybius who died in 118 B.C. wrote a book called The Rise of The Roman Empire. His starting premise was to document how in only 53 years, from 220 B.C.(around when the Second Punic War began) to 167 B.C. when Rome defeated Macedon's king Perseus, Rome became the master of the known world. Fulfilling a quasi Prophecy by Demetrius of Phalerum that the Macedonian Empire will someday be conquered just as quickly as it rose. That period ends earlier in the same year as Epiphanes' Abomination of Desolation.
Antiochus Epiphanes had also been a hostage in Rome, after Rome defeated his father. And according to the Secular histories about him, early in his reign he was a very Romanized leader.
| He
would frequently put off his royal robes, and, assuming a white toga,
go round the market-place like a candidate, and, taking some by the hand
and embracing others, would beg them to give him their vote, sometimes
for the office of aedile and sometimes for that of tribune. Upon being
elected, he would sit upon the ivory curule chair, as the Roman custom
is, listening to the lawsuits tried there, and pronouncing judgement
with great pains and display of interest. In consequence all respectable
men were entirely puzzled about him, some looking upon him as a plain
simple man and others as a madman. His conduct too was very similar as
regards the presents he made. Polybius 5-7l |
Daniel 11's history of the Hellenistic Kingdoms also alludes to it's inevitable conquest by a fourth empire. First in verse 4 after describing the division of Alexander's empire among his successors it goes on to say the Kingdom "shall be plucked up, even for others beside those." That is the summery, more details follow.
Verse 18 alludes to Antiochus III's failed war with Rome. Verse 30 refers to when Antiochus IV Epiphanes was thwarted by Rome on Cyprus. After verse 32 alludes to the Hasmonean revolt, verse 33 says they will inevitably be conquered and taken captive by some other Empire. One could argue the Willful King in verses 36-45 is a Roman conqueror.
Update: As of June 2015 I no longer view the Willful King as The Antichrist but as Augustus Caesar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)