Daniel 11 - 12

00:00

Daniel 11 - 12

In this discourse, Steve Gregg provides an in-depth analysis of Daniel chapters 11 and 12. He discusses the role of the archangel Michael, the coming of Alexander the Great and the subsequent split of his kingdom, the reigns of various rulers, and the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes. Gregg also delves into the significance of certain prophecies, such as the abomination of desolation and the Maccabean revolt. He concludes by stating that while there are multiple theories regarding the interpretation of these passages, no one theory fits all the facts perfectly.

Transcript

Now we're in Daniel chapter 11. At the end of our last session, I read some of the opening verses. We'll start over and take the whole chapter.

At this point, I want to remind you that there's some very obscure historical events that fortunately are known by historians who study this particular era and this particular region, but which are not generally known by those who simply read, you know, ordinary history because these events are not as important to world history as most historians would think, and therefore these are lesser kings having lesser squabbles. But to Israel's history, they were centrally important because they led to the terrible oppression of the tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes. The messenger is still speaking in chapter 11, verse 1. He says, Also in the first year of Darius the Mede, I, even I, stood up to confirm and strengthen him.

That is the messenger speaking. I, the messenger who's giving the message to Daniel, stood up and strengthened him. Him could be Darius the Mede or could be Michael, who is mentioned at the end of chapter 10.

In any case, what the role was of this messenger strengthening either Darius or Michael is not entirely clear what was going on in the first year of Darius the Mede, except of course that was when Babylon fell. And it may be that there was a tremendous conflict among the principalities in the heavenly sphere. Perhaps the principality of Babylon had to be deposed so that the principality of Persia could come into power.

And Michael, one of the greatest angels, the only one in the Bible who's called an archangel in scripture, Michael may have been deposed to help overthrow the principality of Babylon with the help of this messenger. Hard to say. In any case, we can't make much of it.

We need to move along and we can't know for sure exactly what is meant. Verse 2, And now I will tell you the truth. Behold, three more kings will arise in Persia, and the fourth shall be far richer than them all.

The fourth, I believe, is Xerxes that is referred to here. And by the way, Xerxes was Ahasuerus, the husband of Esther. And he engaged in wars against the upstart kingdom of Greece under the upstart general Alexander the Great.

And it was very much to Persia's detriment that he did so because Alexander defeated the Persian Empire. And it says, Then a mighty king shall arise, which is Alexander, who shall rule with great dominion and do according to his will. And when he has arisen, his kingdom should be broken up.

That's because basically almost as soon as Alexander had made his conquest, he died. And his kingdom was divided between his four generals, divided toward the four winds of heaven, meaning the four compass points, four directions. But not among his posterity, that is, Alexander's children did not inherit his kingdom.

His children were actually assassinated after his death, and therefore his generals took over his kingdom. So it's not according to, not among his posterity or according to his dominion with which he ruled. That is, none of the four generals ruled as much as Alexander did, as much territory.

They divided it up. For his kingdom shall be uprooted even for others besides these. Now we begin to have this series of conflicts between a series of kings of the south of the Ptolemaic dynasty and a series of kings of the north of the Seleucid dynasty.

Then the king of the south shall become strong as well as one of his princes, and he shall gain power over him and have dominion. His dominion shall be a great dominion. As I understand it, Seleucus was at one time a general under Ptolemy and was perhaps one of his princes, and yet gained ascendancy or authority through becoming the king of the Syrian branch of the empire.

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

Now what this is referring to is the fact that Ptolemy II, who is the son of the original Ptolemy, gave his daughter Berenice to be married to Antiochus II, who was the grandson of the original Seleucus. So this is a couple generations after Alexander's death. The third ruler of Antiochus II and the second ruler of Egypt, Ptolemy II, entered into a covenant of marriage between their children.

Or I should say it was the son of Seleucus gave his son Antiochus II in marriage to Berenice. Now this was intended to be a political arrangement that would be to the advantage of Egypt. But Berenice was the second wife of Antiochus.

He had an earlier wife named Laodicea, obviously Laodicea was named after her. And she was deposed or replaced by Berenice, which made her upset of course. Now when Ptolemy died, the father of Berenice, Antiochus divorced his daughter.

Apparently he never loved her, he married her for a political arrangement with Ptolemy, and Ptolemy was now dead, so that was not an issue. So he divorced Berenice and reinstated his first wife Laodicea, but she was of course bitter because of having been displaced, so she poisoned her husband and secured the throne for her own son Seleucus II in the year 246 BC. And Laodicea and her son had Berenice and her son murdered.

So this is what is meant by they shall join forces when the daughter of the king of the south, that's Berenice, shall go up to the king of the north, that's Antiochus II, and they'll make an agreement, but she shall not retain the power of her authority, because she was divorced after her father died. And neither he nor his authority shall stand, that is the king of the south. But she shall be given up with those who brought her.

And that would be no doubt when Laodicea had her murdered and her son and so forth. Now, verse 7, But from a branch of her roots one shall arise in his place, who shall come with an army, enter the fortress of the king of the north, and deal with them and prevail. And he shall also carry their gods captive to Egypt with their princes and their precious articles of silver and gold, and he shall continue more years than the king of the north.

Now, what happened here is Ptolemy III, who was the brother of Berenice, a branch from the same roots she came from, a sibling. He was the successor of Ptolemy II, his father, and he attacked Syria to avenge his sister's death. When Laodicea killed Berenice, it was to avenge Berenice's death that Ptolemy III attacked Syria.

And he took Damascus and Antioch and he executed Laodicea. And after further pillaging in Syria, Ptolemy returned to Egypt, taking much booty with him, which makes reference to him taking all the treasures of silver and gold and so forth in verse 8. And verse 9 says, Then the king of the north shall come to the kingdom of the king of the south, but shall return to his own land. And that is Seleucus II, who was the son of Laodicea, who was murdered by Ptolemy.

Her son came to avenge her death. He made an abortive counterattack, but instead agreed to a 10-year truce. And he later died in a riding accident.

So that was the end of him. However, his sons shall stir up strife and assemble a multitude of great forces. And one shall certainly come and overwhelm and pass through.

Then he shall return to his fortress and stir up strife. And the king of the south shall be moved with rage and go out and fight with him, with the king of the north, who shall muster a great multitude, but the multitude shall be given into the hand of his enemy. When he has taken away the multitude, his heart will be lifted up, and he will cast down tens of thousands, but he will not prevail.

Now this refers to the two sons of Seleucus II. One of them was Seleucus III, and the other was Antiochus III, who is also called Antiochus the Great. And Seleucus III reigned for two years, and they both attacked Ptolemy IV, and they brought 15,000 men, but they were defeated at Raphia in 217.

So it talks about this great muster and a great multitude, but the multitude shall be given into the hand of the enemy. The Syrian army failed in this attempt to conquer Egypt. Then verse 13, For the king of the north will return and muster a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come at the end of some years with a great army and much equipment.

And in those times many shall rise up against the king of the south. Also certain violent men of your people, meaning Jews, shall exalt themselves in fulfillment of the vision, but they shall fall. Ptolemy IV, having died, Antiochus III re-entered Palestine and had the support of some of the Jews against Egypt.

So this is talking about some of Daniel's people exalt themselves against Egypt also, but they failed to accomplish anything. Verse 15 says, So the king of the north shall come and build a siege mound and take a fortified city, and the forces of the south shall not withstand him. Even his choice troops shall have no strength to resist.

This is talking about Antiochus being defeated by an Egyptian army and then they besieged and captured Gaza and Sidon. And verse 16 says, But he who comes against him shall do according to his own will, and no one shall stand against him. He shall stand in the glorious land, meaning Israel, with destruction in his power.

This is with Egypt powerless to resist. Antiochus entered Jerusalem, generally welcomed by the Jews. And we read in verse 17, He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom and upright ones with him.

Thus shall he do, and he shall give him the daughter of women to destroy it, but she shall not stand with him or be for him. This was an attempt of Egypt to gain power over Syria of Syria to gain power over Egypt. Antiochus gave his daughter Cleopatra to be married to Ptolemy V. So this is another marriage covenant made between them.

And he hoped that her presence in Egypt would weaken Egypt and bring them over to him. He hoped to gain political advantage, but it didn't work out for him because Cleopatra, and this is not the famous Cleopatra of later history in the Roman times, but this Cleopatra did not stand with her father, but she stood with her husband in Ptolemy. And therefore it failed to materialize in any advantage for the king of the north.

Verse 18, after this, he shall turn his face to the coastlands and she'll take many, but a ruler shall bring the reproach against them to an end. And with the reproach removed, he shall turn back on him. Then he shall turn his face toward the fortress of his own land, and he shall stumble and fall and not be found.

This is referring to the fact that Antiochus invaded Greece and Asia minor, but he was defeated by the Roman commander Scipio at Magnesia in 190 BC. The terms of peace were expensive to Antiochus. He left his son Antiochus IV, later known as Antiochus Epiphanes, who was raised as a hostage in Rome until he could pay his indemnity to Rome.

So Antiochus IV spent some time as a hostage, sort of as security against payment that was owed by his father to the Romans. And he spent some time in Rome, gained some awareness of Rome's power, though Rome had not at this time risen to its powerful status that it was later to have when it would defeat the Grecian Empire and take over that realm. Rome was rising.

Rome was gaining power, and Antiochus could see that as he was a captive there for some time. In attempting to cover these debts, Antiochus plundered the temple of Elemaeus near Susa and was killed in the process. As he was plundering the temple, it was a sacrilege, and people killed him for doing that.

And so it says he shall stumble and fall and not be found. Now verse 20. There shall arise in his place one who imposes taxes on the glorious kingdom.

But within a few days he shall be destroyed, but not in anger or in battle. And in his place shall arise a vile person to whom they will not give the honor of royalty, but he shall come impeacably and seize the kingdom by intrigues. Now the collector of taxes is referring to the fact that Seleucus IV, who succeeded Antiochus III, was left with his father's crushing war debts and imposed heavy taxation on his realm.

He attempted to plunder Jerusalem's temple, but he was unsuccessful. He was assassinated by his prime minister, Heliodorus. And so this raiser of taxes is referred to in verse 2. One shall arise who imposes taxes on the glorious kingdom.

That is Seleucus IV trying to pay off his father's unpaid war debts. Now the vile person who arises in Daniel 11.21 is Antiochus IV, whom we have been calling Antiochus Epiphanes, because that's what he called himself. So we now in verse 21 through verse 35 are talking about the career of this vile person.

The earlier Seleucid and Ptolemaic kings are passed over very briefly, but now we've come to the main interest at this point in the history, and that is to focus more detail upon Antiochus Epiphanes. It says in verse 22, Now the Prince of the Covenant is a reference, no doubt, to the high priest. Antiochus Epiphanes, he removed one high priest and put another in his place, and that's probably what's referring to him intruding into the authority of the Prince of the Covenant, the priest.

Verse 23, and his courage against the King of the South with a great army. Yes, those who eat of the portion of his delicacies shall destroy him, his army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain. Both these kings' hearts shall be bent on evil, and they shall speak lies at the same table, but it shall not prosper, for the end will still be at the appointed time.

And while returning to his land with great riches, his heart shall be moved against the Holy Covenant, so he shall do damage and return to his own land. Now there's a lot of coverage here of Antiochus' rise to power and his conflicts with Ptolemies, and even negotiations. There was actually a time when they sat down to try to negotiate peace.

It didn't come to anything, but they were both devising evil against each other while sitting at the peace table. But when it says that in verse 28, well, actually 27 and 28, it says, Both these kings' hearts shall be bent on evil, and they shall speak lies at the same table. Then it says, for in the end, it'll be for an appointed time.

This is simply referring to the indecisive wars and negotiations between these two kingdoms, which led to something much more decisive, which is recorded in verse 29. By the way, when the peace talks between them kind of broke down, when he returned to his own land, he passed through Palestine, of course, and he did a lot of damage. He actually killed a lot of Jews and did a lot of damage, and that's what's referred to in verse 28, that he will be moved against the Holy Covenant, and he'll do damage and return to his own land.

But verse 29 gets us to a more interesting portion, I believe. It says, At the appointed time, he shall return, that is, Antiochus Epiphany shall again attack Egypt, and go toward the south. But it shall not be like the former or the latter, for ships from Cyprus shall come against him.

Therefore he shall be grieved and return in rage against the Holy Covenant and do damage. So he shall return and shall regard for those who forsake the Holy Covenant. Now this is talking about the fact that in 168 BC, there was another attack, a second attack that Antiochus made against Egypt, and he actually conquered Memphis and was in very near to conquering Alexandria.

He was within view of Alexandria, but he was intercepted, not by Egyptian forces, but by the Roman Navy. Now remember Antiochus had spent some time in Rome as a hostage and was very much aware of their military power. They had not yet attacked or sought to conquer the Grecian world, but he knew that they were impressive.

And the Romans did not like the idea of Antiochus gaining more power in the region. They certainly didn't want him to conquer Egypt and consolidate his power there. And so they actually sent a naval power, a Roman fleet, under Pompilius Lanus, and they intercepted him outside of Alexandria.

And there was Antiochus with his troops, they'd conquered Memphis, they were ready to conquer Alexandria, and then the Romans show up. And this commander of the Roman fleet draws a circle in the sand around where Antiochus is standing. And he says, do not step outside this circle until you command your troops to retreat back to your land.

And obviously this was a pretty tense face-off, but Antiochus realized that he didn't want to enrage the Roman power against himself. And so, humiliated, he retreated, and he went back to Syria. But he was frustrated and angry, and he took his wrath out on the Jews.

And so that is when he defiled the temple, that is when he slaughtered a lot of the Jews who were not compliant with his rules. He was actually, he's the one who outlawed the practice of Judaism. And he defiled the temple so that there would be no sacrifices offered.

He slaughtered Hasidim, that is holy Jews who were keeping the Sabbath because they wouldn't resist him on the Sabbath. And he was just a tyrant who just brought horrible disaster on the Jewish people and on their religious practice. He brought an end to their religious practice.

And that's why he is as significant as he is. That's why much more time is given to him than any of the others, including more important people like Alexander the Great, who has passed over with little comment. And so we have more on Antiochus and his oppression here.

In verse 31, forces shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress, which means the temple. Then they shall take away the daily sacrifices and place there the abomination of desolation. Now we encountered the expression abomination of desolation back in chapter 9, verse 27.

The abomination that makes desolate. We were told in chapter 9 that on the wing of abominations there shall be one that makes desolate. A strange phrase, but very clearly it indicates that there would be some abominations of which one in particular would make the temple desolate.

This would be, remember, in Luke, Jesus is quoted as saying when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that desolation is near. That's where Matthew and Mark say when you see the abomination of desolation. So it's talking about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in chapter 9, verse 27.

But this is a different abomination. And this desolates the temple a different way. This does not destroy the temple as the Romans did.

This just makes it impure by offering a sow, a pig, on an altar to Zeus there, which is what Antiochus did. That was an abomination to the Jews and to God. And it brought about the desolation of the temple in that it brought the end to the sacrificial system until a later date.

It says those who do wickedly against the covenant, he shall corrupt with flattery. That is, there were a lot of Jews that were compliant with Antiochus. In Israel at that time, there was a cultural war going on.

There were the Hasidim who wanted to retain the Jewish distinctives, circumcision, keeping the law, and all that. They were apparently in the minority. There were then the Hellenizers among the Jews.

They were the ones that wanted the Greek culture to prevail. And actually at this time, Greek culture was prevailing. The Greek language was imposed.

Greek Olympic games, not Olympic, but Greek athletic games, contests, were practiced in Jerusalem. They actually built a stadium in Jerusalem for the running of games. And the Jewish men, young men, were running in these games, which were of a Greek fashion.

They ran in the nude. That was the Greek thing. They ran without clothing on.

That offended some of the conservative Jews. So you can see, actually, as I understand it, some Jews were actually trying to remove the marks of circumcision. I have no idea how that is done.

But they were surgically trying to make themselves seem uncircumcised. And so there was this influx of the Greek culture that most of the Jews were embracing. They were the ones who forsake the covenant.

So just as there is in our country right now, where more conservative people of a Christian sort, with Christian values, are seeing their country being invaded by a culture of secularism and of immorality, there is this culture war going on. There was a culture war of the same sort going on in Jerusalem in the days of Antiochus, and there were Jews on both sides of it. That's why it was a war, a cultural war.

Some Jews were doing wickedly against the covenant. And they were on Antiochus' side. They didn't object to him defiling the temple and so forth.

They were the Hellenizing Jews. But it says in verse 32, But those, the people who know their God, shall be strong and carry out great exploits. Now these great exploits, I believe, refers to the Maccabean Revolt and the Maccabean War.

Those who knew God were in the minority, but they were tough. And it says in verse 33, Those of the people who understand shall instruct many. Yet for many days they shall fall by the sword and flame by captivity and plundering.

Now when they fall, they shall be aided with a little help, but many shall join them by intrigue. And some of those of understanding shall fall to refine them, purge them, and make them white until the time of the end. Because it is still for an appointed time.

The appointed time. Now the Maccabean Revolt is what this is talking about. The Hasidim, the holy Jews, were dying because they were being killed for keeping the Jewish law.

And Antiochus Epiphanes was the man who was outlawing it and enforcing it. So he was the enemy. And he even required the Jews to offer sacrifices to the false gods.

And there was a little village called Modian, not far from Jerusalem, that a Syrian official under Antiochus came and set up a pagan altar in that village. And there was an assembly of the villagers there and the Syrian officer commanded one of the villagers to offer actually offer the priest whose name was Mattathias told him to offer a sacrifice to a pagan god on this altar. Mattathias refused.

And another Jew stepped forward and said I'll do it. And Mattathias the priest took a sword and killed that Jew for his apostasy and then killed the Syrian officer too. Well obviously if you kill the Syrian official that means there's going to be reprisals.

And so Mattathias and his sons, I believe there were five of them originally four or five, fled into the hills and lived in the forest and were joined by other people who were Hasidim of a similar sentiment. And they organized into a guerrilla band and ran raids on the Syrian occupational troops. And this is what was called the Maccabean revolt.

And the wars they conducted for the next three years called the Maccabean War. These are recorded in the book of 1st Maccabees which is an apocryphal book. And Josephus of course talks about them too because this is a true story.

It's called Maccabean because one of the sons of Mattathias the priest was named Judas Maccabeus or Judas was his name and they called him Maccabeus which is a term that means the hammer. It's not known exactly why he was called the hammer. The most flattering suggestion is because he was such a military man that he came down on his enemies like a sledgehammer.

There have been other suggestions. Some say actually that he was called the hammer because of the shape of his head. And that is a possibility too.

But whatever the reason is he was nicknamed the hammer and the word hammer is Maccabeus. And therefore the revolt is sometimes called the Maccabean War. Mattathias the priest died in the conflict and so did all of his sons.

One at a time. But not without inflicting tremendous losses on the Syrian troops and there were others that rose when one would die another would rise to lead and there's some real adventurous things. One of the sons actually I believe Antiochus himself was riding on an elephant and one of the sons of Mattathias got under the elephant and stabbed it in the belly with a sword and it collapsed it landed on him and he died.

He died because of that and it might not have been Antiochus himself. I don't remember all the details. I'm not as familiar as I would be if I was reading the book of Maccabees as much as I read the Bible.

But the details are amazing. It's a tremendous heroic war. This band of Jews that are referred to as being the Hasidim are aided with a little help.

This small band actually drove out the Syrians after three years and allowed them to rededicate the temple and they claimed their independence and maintained it for a hundred years until the Romans came along and conquered the region. So the Maccabean revolt was a revolt that led to Jewish independence briefly and is one of the great events of Jewish history though it happened in the intertestamental period and is not recorded in our biblical books. Now verse 36 then comes to this difficult portion of the willful king.

Let me read about him. Then the king shall do according to his own will. Now it says the king which sounds as if it continues to talk about Antiochus Epiphanes and therefore Antiochus would be the first intuitive king to identify with this person but the problem is the remainder of this chapter does not correspond with the known later history of Antiochus which makes most commentators believe that it's talking about yet another king after him.

Then the king shall do according to his own will. He shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the god of gods, shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished for what has been determined shall be done. He shall regard neither the god of his fathers nor the desire of women.

Now the desire of women might be a reference to him not being heterosexual but it also might mean the desire of women could be a reference to some of the deities that were referred to as the desire of women in some other parts of the bible. We don't have time to really dissect that and decide. Nor regard any god for he shall magnify himself above them all but in their place he shall honor a god of fortresses and a god which his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver with precious stones and pleasant things.

Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god which he shall acknowledge and advance its glory and he shall cause them to rule over many and divide the land for gain. At the time of the end the king of the south shall attack him and the king of the north shall come against him. So he's neither the king of the north or the south.

He's another king. He's attacked from both sides. Like a whirlwind like with chariots, horsemen and with many ships and he shall enter the countries overwhelm them and pass through.

He shall also enter the glorious land Israel and many countries shall be overthrown but these shall escape from his hand. Edom, Moab and the prominent people of Ammon. He shall stretch out his hand against the countries and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver and over all the precious things of Egypt. Also the Libyans the Ethiopians shall follow at his heels but news from the east and the north shall trouble him. Therefore he shall go out with great fury to destroy and annihilate many and he shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain.

Yet he shall come to his end and no one will help him. Wow. Now it will be somewhat impossible to identify the fulfillment of the details of this partly because the identity of this king is not agreed upon.

And the reason it's not agreed upon is because although one would think it was still Antiochus in verse 36 yet clearly in verse 40 we're not talking about Antiochus because the kings of the north and the south both attack him and Antiochus was the king of the north. So we've got another king after Antiochus apparently but who? And this is something there have been I've read at least seven different theories some people think it's the Muslims some people think it's the Romans, some people think it is Antiochus but that the information is muddled. Some people think it's the Herods.

There's quite a few different theories and obviously if there is one theory that fit all the facts perfectly then that theory would stand. There are not various conflicting theories about the earlier parts before verse 35 because they so harmonize with what is known from history you can identify the characters without question and say something about what is said about them here. There is no character in history that is exactly described in such a way that everyone would recognize them here.

However, we have some hint in the fact that we are moving forward through Jewish history and after the Jews declared independence from Antiochus Epiphanes the next oppressor of the Jews was the Roman government the Roman Empire. About 100 years after the time of Antiochus the Romans conquered and therefore they would be reasonably the next persons to think about if we are talking about Daniel's people, the Jews. And therefore it is likely that this king represents in some way the Roman Empire or some representatives of the Roman Empire.

As I say, some people think it's the Herod family. The Herods were appointed, although they were Idumean by race, they were appointed by Rome to rule in that region. And yet it would not be restricted to Herod probably.

The main thing would be that concerns us and that connects with anything historical is verse 45 the very last verse that says, "...he shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain." Now the glorious holy mountain certainly must be Jerusalem. And that he plants his tents of his palace well, tents of his palace would suggest either that he's ruling in Jerusalem or perhaps besieging Jerusalem. After all tents usually are occupied by armies not emperors.

But it does appear that at least by the end of this chapter as obscure as the details are and all commentators fumble around with them and find difficulty knowing who this is what it is it's saying about him what he did and so forth I'm not going to do better than they. But I would say that it brings us up to the time where this power is now encamped either ruling in or besieging Jerusalem. And therefore this king has something to do with the next persons that ruled or threatened Jerusalem after Antiochus.

That would be of course a Roman power. Whether it's an individual Roman emperor or an individual Roman leader like Herod or whether it means the Roman Empire as a whole I do not know. And I cannot resolve.

However, I do believe that that is what brings us to the time frame of chapter 12. While the Romans are either besieging or ruling over Jerusalem, it's at that time, verse 12 that Michael shall stand up the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people and there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that time and at that time your people shall be delivered everyone who is found written in the book. So there's a time of trouble that would come on Daniel's people the Jewish nation like no other which is what Jesus said would happen with reference to the Roman invasion and destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

I believe we're looking at that same time here. And it says but your people who are written in the book will be delivered. Yes.

The Jews who are written in God's book the remnant were delivered. Remember Jesus said to his disciples don't rejoice that the demons are subject to you but rejoice that your names are written in heaven. You're written in God's book.

The remnant in Israel were of course the Christians in Israel at that time and they were delivered from this calamity, this holocaust. It was a great time of trouble like no other for the people of Daniel in general but his people who were of the remnant written in the book were delivered. That is true.

That did happen. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake some to everlasting life some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever and ever.

Now verse 2 looks as if it's talking about the resurrection at the end of time. Is it? It might be. But if it is we can still harmonize it with verse 2 being about 70 A.D. Now I'm not sure that verses 2 and 3 are the end of time.

I'll make an alternative case. But let's take for the time for the sake of argument the thought that in verse 2 and 3 we are looking at the end and the resurrection at the end of time. This would be most people's intuitive take on those verses.

And assuming that is right how could it be that verse 1 would be describing 70 A.D.? Well because verse 1 says there's this great time of trouble but it says the people who are written in God's book will be delivered. How long does that deliverance take? As long as there are people being saved the people written in the book are being delivered. The whole church age could be encompassed in this one phrase.

The people will be delivered who are written in the book. This is talking about salvation. And therefore the whole age of salvation, the whole age of the church could be encompassed in that one phrase so that we then come to the end of the church age and the resurrection in verse 2. It's possible.

If I were to conclude that verse 2 is talking about the resurrection, I think that's how I'd have to see it. And to my mind it would not be an unreasonable way to see it. It doesn't do any violence to the wording of the text.

On the other hand it may not be necessary. It may be that verses 2 and 3 are also talking about 70 A.D. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake. The problem with this is it says many of them will.

Jesus said that at the resurrection all who are in the graves will come forward. And this doesn't just say many will, but many of them will. A portion of all those who sleep in the dust will come forth.

So it makes it seem like it's not talking about the general resurrection. But it's rather talking about something else. And we know that in the Old Testament images of resurrection are used figuratively sometimes.

In Ezekiel 37 he had a vision of dry bones which assembled together into skeletons, then bodies, and then breath was in them and they came to life. This was obviously a picture of a resurrection of dead bodies, but when the interpretation was given by God, he said it was God saying that the people of Israel in Babylon were like bones dried up and scattered. They said our bones are dried and our hope is lost.

So the dry bones are not referring to literal dry bones, but the people of Israel's attitude about themselves while they're in Babylon. They were dead and decayed and dried. They were hopeless.

But he was going to restore their nation. He was going to bring them back to their land, which he did of course. And the restoration of the exiles back to Jerusalem was referred to as these dry bones assembling and coming back to life.

The nation came back to life. It was a figurative description. Now, in Luke chapter 2, when Simeon came, when Jesus was born and he was taken to the temple, they brought Jesus at his dedication to the temple to be presented.

And there was a man named Simeon there who met them. And he made a prophecy about Jesus. And he says in verse 29, Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace according to your word.

For my eyes have seen the salvation which you have prepared before the face of all peoples, a light to bring revelation to the Gentiles and the glory of your people Israel. And then he said to Mary, in verse 34, the Simeon said to Mary, Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be spoken against. Now, the word rising there in the Greek is anastasis, which is the word resurrection.

This child is set for the fall and the resurrection of many in Israel. Many will rise. Many will fall.

Some in Israel will fall. Some will rise. Remember, Jesus said that in John 5, 24, He that hears my words and believes in Him who sent me has eternal life and shall not come into condemnation because He has passed from death into life.

There are people who entered out of spiritual deadness into spiritual livingness. They were essentially resurrected through Him. But others who were not the remnant fell under judgment.

Simeon seems to be saying that God is going to make a division through your child of those in Israel. Many of them will fall and many of them will rise. Now, in Daniel it says many of those who sleep in the dust will rise.

The same imagery. But I believe Simeon is not referring to the resurrection of the last day. I think Simeon is referring to the fact that some will spiritually come to life while others will be destroyed.

And I think that this may be, in fact, alluding to Daniel 12.2 where it says many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake. Some to everlasting life. Some to everlasting contempt.

Now, the word contempt here is the same Hebrew word that is used in Isaiah 66.24. Although it's translated differently in Isaiah, it's the same Hebrew word. In Isaiah 66.24 it talks about they shall go forth and look upon the corpses of the men who have transgressed against me. For their worm does not die, and their fire is not quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence.

That is the same word translated contempt. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh. In Isaiah 66 we noted that this is something Jesus takes up as a reference apparently to the destruction of those who perish under judgment in Jerusalem and their bodies are thrown into the valley of Hinnom.

And they become an abhorrence or an object of contempt to all people. And Jesus coming caused some Jews to come to life. Others ended up becoming an everlasting abhorrence or contempt.

And it says in verse 3 those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever. Now I'm open to the possibility that this is talking about the resurrection at the end of time. That is a possibility.

The prophecy ends here. And therefore it may look beyond the destruction of Jerusalem to the end of the world briefly. Because and that gap between the two would be spanned by the statement your people will be delivered everyone who is found written in the book.

If throughout the church age God is delivering or saving those who are written in his book then we could have the resurrection in verse 2 without any difficulty. But I'm saying that the language itself doesn't sound quite like the resurrection as described because it says many of them will awake. It seems like Jesus is saying very clearly in John 5, 28 that all who are in the grave shall hear his voice and come forth at the resurrection.

So it makes me wonder is Daniel talking about the resurrection or not? It's possible he is not. We may not be able to solve that mystery. But verse 4 the prophecy is over now and he says but you Daniel shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end and many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall increase.

That is the book is sealed up. People will not know what it means until the time of the end. After that they will.

That is knowledge of it will increase. A lot of people want to make verse 4 be a reference to traveling in airplanes and increasing in scientific knowledge so it describes our present times. People are running to and fro throughout the world.

And knowledge has increased tremendously in the past century. So this is the end times. But he's talking about knowledge about this mystery.

About this vision. It's sealed up. Which means it will not be understood immediately because it's not for that generation to know.

Then I Daniel looked and there stood two others. One on the river bank. On this river bank and the other on that river bank.

And one said to the man clothed in linen who was above the waters of the river. How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be? Then I heard the man clothed in linen who was above the waters of the river when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven and swore by him who lives forever that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time. And when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered all these things shall be finished.

Now the power of the holy people completely shattered. If the holy people are the Jews their power seemingly was completely shattered in AD 70. And all these things will be finished at that time.

He said and Jesus said Jerusalem will be destroyed so that all things that are written may be fulfilled. Now there's another reason to think this is talking about the first century and that is because of what Peter said in 1 Peter chapter 1. 1 Peter chapter 1. Peter speaks generically of the Old Testament prophets and he says in verse 10 of this salvation that is New Testament salvation, ours the prophets have inquired and searched diligently who prophesied of the grace that would come to you searching what or what manner of time the spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when he testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them, that is to the prophets who were inquiring of God into this matter, to them it was revealed that not to themselves but to us they were ministering the things which have now been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things which the angels desire to look into.

Now notice this Peter said there are things that the prophets spoke about our salvation which they didn't fully understand and they actually inquired of God tell me more about this and they were told no it's none of your business, it's for a later generation. Peter says we're the generation, those of us who have had the gospel it was for us that they prophesied, the first century Christians and those afterwards. What salvation? Well Peter he says these prophets asked for more information and were put off.

What prophets ever did that? The only prophet we know of that did that is Daniel. It's probable that Peter is assuming there were other prophets like Daniel who may have inquired similarly but the only case we know of that he could be referring to is Daniel because in verse 8 Daniel 12 8 it says although I heard I did not understand, then I said my Lord what shall the end of these things be? And he said go your way Daniel for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end, not the end of the world, the time of the end of Israel the last days many shall be purified made white and refined but the wicked shall do wickedly and none of the wicked shall understand but the wise shall understand now here Daniel says I didn't understand so I asked and he said never mind it's not for you to know the time will come when people will know, knowledge will increase later on, the book's sealed up for now, this is the only Old Testament case that Peter could be referring to which means that Peter if he's referring to this means that Daniel was talking about our salvation, he said the prophet spoke about our salvation where did Daniel speak of that? Maybe in verse 1, your people will be delivered, everyone who's found written in the book in any case remember Peter closes his remarks in 1 Peter 1 12, these are things which the angels desire to look into and we actually have one of the angels asking about it in Daniel chapter 12 it says in verse 5 I Daniel looked and there stood two others, one on this river bank one on the other river bank, no doubt they were angels, one said to the man clothed in linen who was above the waters, how long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be? So the angels are even curious about this the prophets are curious about this but neither the angels nor the prophets are really given the full revelation that would be given to those of a later generation namely Peter's generation who had the gospel preached to them so Peter sees the fulfillment of Daniel 12 in his own time and therefore no doubt would have seen the trouble coming on Jerusalem in Daniel 12 as belonging to his own time also he certainly does not indicate that he saw this as being about the end of the world now by the way when the angel over the waters the man over the waters was asked how long it would be, he lifted both hands to heaven and swore by God that it would be for time and times and half a time now this is possibly an evasive answer you know it's not very exact unless it means three and a half years literally but it doesn't say years it doesn't say three or a half, it says time and times and half a time, it's a vague statement true, revelation takes up this statement and equates it with 42 months but this angel didn't it could be an evasive answer saying it's a vague undetermined, unrevealed length of time but whatever it means he says when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered and that did happen through the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews, all these things shall be finished and Peter believed this was about his time and he makes reference to both the angels and the prophet asking for more information but not being told the answer by the way he is told in verse 10 many shall be purified and made white and refined that's what 1 Peter goes on to talk about in his epistle and especially, I mean he talks about how much suffering the church should face for its own refinement but in 1 Peter 5, 10 he says may the God of all grace who called you to his eternal glory by Christ Jesus after you have suffered a while, perfect establish, strengthen and settle you, this refining of suffering is really the theme of 1 Peter and he may have been influenced somewhat even by Daniel 12 to which he alludes about people being purified, the remnant being purified, made white and refined through suffering now the last verses of Daniel 12 are very unsatisfying and my commentary will be very unsatisfying it is a shame once you've had consideration of a long book to have to leave it on a down note, but the truth of the matter is nobody knows what the last verses of Daniel means and the ones who think they know, don't know here's what it says in verses 11 through 13, from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be 1290 days, till what? we have from this starting point, there will be this many days until what? till something else, but what? we're not told and then more confusingly verse 12, blessed is he who waits and comes to the 1335 days what are those? not a clue is given 1290 days and then 1335 days the difference between those numbers is 45 days but there's no previous reference to the 1335 days and when he says blessed are those who come to the 1335 days what 1335 days? there's been no reference to them previously and they don't they're not connected to any events at all in the statement, there's no starting point nor ending point of them suggested we have no idea what they refer to now some think they are 45 days added to the 1290 days previous some feel that the abomination of desolation is the antichrist sending up his image in a rebuilt temple in the end times in the middle of the tribulation and it'll be 1290 days from there till the end of the world now there's no mention of the end of the world but it could be that it is to the end of the world though I disagree about the identification of the abomination of desolation but if the 1290 days is as dispensations say the time to the end of the world to the second coming of Christ actually what is the 1335 days? well they say well there's another 45 days after Jesus comes back during which he's judging the nations and so the judgment takes place for 45 days well it's not a very strong suggestion but I'll give them an A for effort I mean at least they have a suggestion it doesn't make a lot of sense first of all I don't believe this is talking about the end of the world I don't think that's the time frame of any of the prophecy secondly why would it take 45 days for God to judge the world if we're going to judge the thoughts and intents and every idle word that every man speaks that's going to be billions and billions of people and their entire lifetime has got to be surveyed can that be done in 45 days? and if someone says well but God's outside of time you know what takes us millions of years might take him but a moment, true it might he might be able to judge everyone's complete lives in an instantaneous moment but it doesn't take 45 days then what's the purpose of 45 days why would it take that long there's nothing to suggest that it would take that long there's nothing to suggest that that's what's under discussion in fact the 1335 days might be an entirely different period than the 1290 days it might not just be adding 45 more days to that earlier period it might be a different period we don't know, we're told nothing and it's a very bizarre way to end a book that has told us a lot of very specific things but it's aggravating which abomination of desolation is it the one that Antiochus set up in 168 BC or is it the one that the Romans bring about in 70 AD which abomination of desolation in both cases the sacrifice and offerings were taken away, the statement is ambiguous, we don't know what the starting point is and we're not given a clue what the ending point is or what the significance is of those numbers it's not even the same as the 1260 days mentioned multiple times in Revelation that'd be three and a half years but this is 390 days, that's three and a half years plus a month and then you add 45 more days and what do you got? You got confusion is what you got God's not the author of confusion so we shouldn't be confused we can simply accept our ignorance or you can settle on an answer of your own contrivance I won't put my name to it though I'm convinced from reading the commentaries that nobody knows what these numbers refer to but you verse 13 go your way till the end for you shall rest and will arise to your inheritance at the end of days so at the end of days Daniel will rise up in the resurrection this might be an allusion back to verse 2 which would identify verse 2 as the resurrection although the wording is not the same but it could be the same thing so identifying verse 2 as the resurrection is a possibility but if we don't we could still have this promise to Daniel be about the resurrection you're gonna die, you're gonna get old you're not gonna understand this just content yourself with the fact that you'll rise up at the end and all will be well but what these numbers mean nobody can say or people can say but they can't really authoritatively say because you can't answer that question without any data and the bible gives no data about those periods so we end Daniel a very interesting book on a very frustrating note and I always have dreaded coming to the end of Daniel, the very end for that reason because it's very difficult to know what God expects us to do with those numbers about which he gives us no clues but maybe it's his way of saying there are still unsolved mysteries you just have to live with that, at least we do and so we will