# commentaries

text:
<h4>Belteshazzar, master of the magicians- As noted on :8, Daniel had perhaps distanced himself from the magicians, or had been demoted. And so the king is accepting that Daniel was far greater than them all.</h4><p>Because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you- This is the language used of Joseph in a similar situation (<a href='B:10 41:38'>Gen 41:38</a>). Not only did situations recur within the experiences of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel, but between the lives of Joseph and Daniel. Daniel would have been encouraged that he was no treading a unique path, but that the same loving Divine hand was at work according to a broadly similar pattern.</p><h4>And no secret troubles you, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and its interpretation- The book of Daniel goes on to record that Daniel was indeed troubled by some secrets and visions which he never understood precisely. It’s as if Daniel’s humility was such that he wished this to be recorded.</h4>


text:
<h4>Thus were the visions of my head on my bed: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth- A tree represents a kingdom, e:g. Assyria (<a href='B:330 31:1-18'>Eze 31:1-18</a>) or the Kingdom of God (<a href='B:470 13:31-32'>Mat 13:31-32</a>). Nebuchadnezzar as a person was intimately associated with his kingdom, hence he transformed himself from being the head of gold to being the entire image in the statue which he made. It is a human tendency to so identify ourselves with our kingdom, be it our career, family or firm we founded::. that we cannot extricate ourselves to stand alone before God. And Nebuchadnezzar needed immense humiliation before he made that separation. Being "in the midst of the earth" may be a reference to his capture of Jerusalem, as the central point of the eretz promised to Abraham. This was his deepest sin, and what he was wrongly glorified for. It was the seed of Abraham who were to grow into God’s Kingdom "in the midst of the earth" (<a href='B:10 48:16'>Gen 48:16</a>), and not the people of Babylon.</h4><h4>And its height was great- The king of Babylon is pictured as having done this specifically in connection with his intention to conquer Jerusalem: "Thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north" (<a href='B:290 14:13'>Isa 14:13</a>). As noted above, it was Nebuchadnezzar’s prideful attitude against Israel and Jerusalem in particular which was at the root of his sin.</h4>


text:
<p>The tree grew, and was strong, and its height reached to the sky, and its sight to the end of all the earth- "The earth" is clearly not the entire planet. The way it was seen throughout the empire referred to how Nebuchadnezzar exalted himself personally and was looked towards by all; it alludes to how he had built the image of himself in Daniel 3. He "reached to the sky" in terms of his pride and playing God. The growth of the tree refers to the growth in the king’s pride; he said "in his heart" that he would grow as high as heaven (<a href='B:290 14:13'>Isa 14:13</a>)</p>


text:
<p>The leaves of it were beautiful, and its fruit much, and in it was food for all: the animals of the field had their shadow under it, and the birds of the sky lived in its branches, and all flesh was fed from it- This is the language of God’s Kingdom (<a href='B:330 17:23'>Eze 17:23</a>; <a href='B:470 13:32-33'>Mat 13:32-33</a>). His kingdom had been a fake kingdom of God.</p>


text:
<h4>I saw in the visions of my head on my bed, and behold, a watcher and a holy one came down from Heaven- The watcher even a holy one [one Angel, not two] had already been revealed to Nebuchadnezzar when he observed the Angel with the friends in the fiery furnace. He almost didn’t need Daniel to explain it all. God was constantly working with him to help him, nudge by nudge, come to fully accept Him.</h4><h4>The Angels are ’watchers’ in the sense that they ’watch over’ God’s word to perform it in practice; God would ’watch over’ His words of condemnation of Babylon to fulfil them, and likewise ’watch over’ His word of restoration toward Judah (<a href='B:300 31:28'>Jer 31:28</a>; <a href='B:300 44:27'>Jer 44:27</a> etc:). See on <a href='B:340 9:14'>Dan 9:14</a>. Nebuchadnezzar appreciated that Daniel had the spirit of the "holy ones", and yet he saw a "holy one" come from Heaven. He thereby was being taught that Daniel was in league with God and the court of Heaven, and the Angels were able to fulfil the prophetic words Daniel was uttering. See on <a href='B:100 23:1-3'>2Sa 23:1-3</a>.</h4>


text:
<p>He cried aloud, and said thus: Cut down the tree, and cut off its branches, shake off its leaves, and scatter its fruit: let the animals get away from under it, and the birds from its branches- This is a command to the animals and birds, rather than just a prediction of the disintegration of the Babylonian empire. We can infer that the intention was that Nebuchadnezzar preached this message, bringing about the demise of his own empire, inviting the tributary peoples [especially Judah] to leave the empire and regain their freedom. But Nebuchadnezzar wouldn’t do so. Perhaps if he had done so, then the restoration of Judah could have begun.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless leave the stump of its roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of the sky: and let his portion be with the animals in the grass of the earth- The stump of the roots was therefore representative of Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom; for it was he personally who had his portion with the animals. Iron and brass were metals in the image of Daniel 2 which were to come after Nebuchadnezzar. He was to be cut down, and bound by the fact that other kings were to arise after him and take away his dominion. The vision of Daniel 2 was indeed going to come true, much as he had struggled against it through building the state of gold in Daniel 3.</p>


text:
<h4>Let his heart be changed from man’s, and let an animal’s heart be given to him- Man is but as the beasts that perish in his death (<a href='B:230 49:20'>Psa 49:20</a>). Nebuchadnezzar had the idea that he was somehow divine, that he as the head of gold would in fact continue and never give way to others- hence his deconstruction of the Daniel 2 image by his own image of total gold in Daniel 3. But he had to be made to realize that he was not divine, he was human, and human nature is animal nature. The Father works with us likewise for decades to help us realize these same truths, so that we might fully grasp the good news of His Kingdom and eternity.</h4><h4>And let seven times pass over him- The closer one looks, the more conditional prophecies and Divine statements there are. The statement that Nebuchadnezzar would be humiliated for seven times could &nbsp;have been changed by his repentance (cp. :27-29). "Seven times" may not have to be seven years; the number seven is so often symbolic. The idea could be that a significant, defined period would pass over him so that he might thereby be perfected, literally ’seven-ed’. Israel too were to suffer "seven times" of judgment for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:18'>Lev 26:18</a>; <a href='B:30 26:21'>Lev 26:21</a>; <a href='B:30 26:24'>Lev 26:24</a>; <a href='B:30 26:28'>Lev 26:28</a>), seventy sevens (<a href='B:300 29:10'>Jer 29:10</a>), and Nebuchadnezzar had played his part in bringing them about. He was now to realize how he had treated God’s people, suffering the same essential judgments he had poured out- not simply as a ’measure for measure’ judgment for the sake of it, but in order to elicit in him repentance.</h4>


text:
<h4>The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, and the judgment decision by the word of the holy ones- Nebuchadnezzar was told that the destruction of his power was a “matter by the decree of the watchers [i:e. Angels, the eyes of the Lord], and the demand by the word of the holy ones” (<a href='B:340 4:17'>Dan 4:17</a>). The Chaldee words translated “matter, “decree” and “demand” are all legal terms, implying a legal answer / response, “a judicial decision” as Strong defines “the demand”. The book of Daniel often records the kings issuing decrees; but they are nothing compared to the decrees of Heaven. Something came before the court of Heaven- presumably the matter in question was Nebuchadnezzar’s pride and his position on the Jews. Daniel’s advice in 4:27 to shew mercy to the poor may be a reference to what the King should’ve been doing to the Jews- perhaps by enabling their return to their land. And a ‘judicial decision’ was made and “a watcher and a Holy One came down from Heaven” to operationalize it (<a href='B:340 4:13'>Dan 4:13</a>). If this is the extent of Angelic attention to the heart of a Gentile king- how much more earnestly are they debating the states of our hearts and our actions, and issuing decrees for action accordingly?</h4><h4>Nebuchadnezzar’s humiliation was “by the demand of the word of the holy ones”. Was it that the Angels had noticed this man’s awful pride, reported it to God Himself in the court of Heaven, and then been empowered to carry out his demise? The same context reminds us that God does according to His will in the army of Heaven (<a href='B:340 4:35'>Dan 4:35</a>). And yet His purpose is to some extent moulded by them. And we are led to ask, how much influence do we His beloved children have upon His actual purpose? In the context of Daniel, one observes that a “herald” cried aloud to peoples of all nations and languages, and bid them worship the Babylonian image, on pain of being cast into a fiery furnace (<a href='B:340 3:4'>Dan 3:4</a> ff:). And yet in <a href='B:730 14:6'>Rev 14:6</a>, an Angel cries to all nations and languages, warning them that if they do worship the image, they will be cast into the lake of fire. The Angels had observed Nebuchadnezzar’s arrogance and defiance, and many centuries later they will work out their way of parodying it in their future proclamation. The point is, they have the power to work out their way of operation in accordance with their perceptions and understandings; in this we see the “freedom of the spirit” which is now and shall be ever accorded to Yahweh’s elohim.</h4><p>To the intent that the living may know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever He will- The Divine intention at this time was that all the Babylonian empire would come to accept the truth of the message of the Kingdom as explained in the image of Daniel 2.</p><h4>And sets up over it the most abased of men- Everyone would have known the strange abasement of Nebuchadnezzar. The fact he was restored to his throne, rather than being deposed during his incapacity, was therefore an amazing and most unusual object lesson- before exaltation over God’s Kingdom there must come humility and abasement. The Lord seems to allude to this in teaching that he who abases himself the most shall be exalted the highest in God’s Kingdom (<a href='B:470 18:4'>Mat 18:4</a>; <a href='B:490 14:11'>Luk 14:11</a>). The Lord clearly had Himself in view, and Philippians 2 confirms this- He was the most abased, that He might be the most highly exalted.</h4>


text:
<p>This dream I, king Nebuchadnezzar, have seen; and you, Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation, because all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known to me the interpretation; but you are able; for the spirit of the holy gods is in you- <a href='B:530 1:21'>1Co 1:21</a> may allude here: "the world by wisdom knows not God". This is no mere ancient history; the principles apply in all ages and situations. Nebuchadnezzar recognizes that his "wise men", whose supposed wisdom was intimately connected with their pagan religious beliefs, were powerless. He tacitly admits that they don’t possess the spirit of the gods which they claimed to. Remember that the text we are reading was part of the proclamation made by Nebuchadnezzar after his humiliation.</p>


text:
<p>Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was stricken mute for a while, and his thoughts troubled him. The king answered, Belteshazzar, don’t let the dream, or the interpretation, trouble you. Belteshazzar answered, My lord, the dream is to the side of those who hate you, and its interpretation to your adversaries- This is the classic encouragement to all of us when we fear to speak forth God’s word, scared of how our audience will receive it. This verse is still part of the proclamation made by Nebuchadnezzar throughout his realm, he wished to show everyone what had transpired. The fact he didn’t have Daniel immediately slain is to his credit; Daniel was fearful because he knew just how proud Nebuchadnezzar was, and how the king had railed against Daniel’s interpretation of the Daniel 2 dream by building an image of gold, subverting the idea that the head of gold was to pass away. He was likely encouraged by the Biblical examples of young Joseph and Samuel speaking forth God’s word to men whom they knew would not welcome their message. The haters and adversaries of Nebuchadnezzar were symbolized by the brass and iron which bound the stump; the metals of the Daniel 2 image which were to supercede Nebuchadnezzar.</p>


text:
<p>The tree that you saw, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached to the sky, and its view to all the earth- "Which grew" translates the same Hebrew term translated "made [Daniel] a great man" (<a href='B:340 2:48'>Dan 2:48</a>). Daniel had eased himself out of that exaltation; whenever he was exalted, he seems to have slipped out of the limelight, for the next time he’s needed, he has to be searched for. But Nebuchadnezzar hadn’t yet learnt that true greatness is not in this life. "Height" is the same word used in <a href='B:340 5:20'>Dan 5:20</a> for how his heart was "lifted up"; as noted on :22, it was the state of his heart which was of such critical importance to God. And therefore the king uses it in :37 to say that now he extols or lifts up the one true God- rather than himself. To repent of pride is very difficult, and Nebuchadnezzar sets a great example- although it was only achieved by grace alone, and repeated Divine efforts and a huge abasement.</p>


text:
<p>Whose leaves were beautiful, and its fruit much, and in it was food for all; under which the animals of the field lived, and under whose branches the birds of the sky had their habitation- The similarities with imagery of God’s Kingdom are clear (<a href='B:470 13:31-32'>Mat 13:31-32</a>). On one level, Babylon was a pseudo kingdom of God with Nebuchadnezzar as a fake God and Messiah. But the similarities perhaps also point to how that if Nebuchadnezzar had repented and his people accepted his testimony about God’s Kingdom, his kingdom could have become part of the revived kingdom of God in Israel. The submission of all animal life to Nebuchadnezzar is after the pattern of Adam in Eden; and his pride led him to a fall after the pattern of Adam.</p>


text:
<p>It is you, O king, that has grown and become strong; for your greatness is grown, and reaches to the sky, and your dominion to the end of the earth- "Strong" is the word for "hard"; it is used again in <a href='B:340 5:20'>Dan 5:20</a> "his mind was hardened in pride". This prophecy about the king is therefore specifically about his heart; this is the essential nature and indicator of a person before God. Nebuchadnezzar’s empire was largely inherited, and even Babylon was glorious when he came to the throne; he rebuilt parts of it and made cosmetic improvements. So the astounding growth depicted here refers more to the growth of his own glory within his own proud mind. "It is you" focuses the interpretation upon Nebuchadnezzar as a person, but clearly the language of :20,21 is about his kingdom. He was his kingdom, just as the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus is within or amongst people; He is the One in view, the king is so identified with His Kingdom (<a href='B:490 17:21'>Luk 17:21</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Whereas the king saw a watcher and a holy one coming down from Heaven and saying, Cut down the tree, and destroy it; nevertheless leave the stump of its roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field, and let it be wet with the dew of the sky: and let his portion be with the animals of the field, until seven times pass over him- See on <a href='B:300 23:18'>Jer 23:18</a>; <a href='B:300 23:22'>Jer 23:22</a>. "And destroy it" is added here; in contrast with how God’s Kingdom shall never be destroyed (<a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>). Nebuchadnezzar had tried to deconstruct that image by making an entire image of gold. And yet the leaving of the stump in the earth showed that he could still have hope of life even after that.</p>


text:
<p>This is the interpretation, O king, and it is the decree of the Most High, which has come on my lord the king- This contrasts with :17 "the decree of the watchers"; the one and only Most High God is to be accepted rather than the king’s vague idea of Divine "Watchers". Again we see the Father’s patient efforts to spiritually educate this proud man whom we would likely not have bothered preaching to.</p>


text:
<p>That you shall be driven from men, and your dwelling shall be with the animals of the field, and you shall be made to eat grass as oxen, and shall be wet with the dew of the sky, and seven times shall pass over you; until you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever He will- The king was initially like a tree with all the animals of the field beneath him, and now he was to be made like one of them. Every sin is in some form an essential replication of that of Adam and Eve. They passed through the same. Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion to the Gospel of the Kingdom of God involved recognizing that man is but as the beasts which perish, mortal and not immortal.</p>


text:
<p>Whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the roots of the tree; your kingdom shall be sure to you, after that you shall have known that the Heavens do rule- We are guided in understanding the meaning of the stump by <a href='B:220 14:7'>Job 14:7</a>, which seems to be saying that a tree whose stump is left at least has the hope of sprouting again, which Job understood as meaning resurrection. Tree stumps are not usually bound with brass and iron; such bonds would not stop the tree sprouting again. The point is that the root was not removed. I suggest that Nebuchadnezzar was being taught that his earthly kingdom would indeed end and the kingdoms of brass and iron would play a part in that, as taught by the Daniel 2 image vision. But if he redefined his kingdom as the Kingdom of God, which is eternal, then his kingdom, which would beGod’s Kingdom when the kingdoms of this world become those of God (<a href='B:730 11:15'>Rev 11:15</a>), would indeed be eternal. And there is every reason to think that Nebuchadnezzar was finally converted to this good news of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom is only "made sure" to anyone by resigning our own kingdoms and making God’s Kingdom ours.</p>


text:
<h4>Therefore, O king, let my advice be acceptable to you, and break off your sins by righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; if there may be a lengthening of your prosperity- The prophecy about his humiliation need not have come true if he had repented; just as the statement that Babylon would be destroyed in 40 days didn’t come true because of the Ninevites’ repentance. But like us, Nebuchadnezzar had to be an empirical learner, rather than humbling himself before the word of God and just obeying it. The "righteousness" and "mercy to the poor" may have specifically referred to his allowing the restoration of God’s Kingdom in the form of the kingdom of Judah. "Righteousness" is a favourite theme of Isaiah’s prophecies of the restoration (<a href='B:290 45:8'>Isa 45:8</a>; <a href='B:290 54:14'>Isa 54:14</a>; <a href='B:290 56:1'>Isa 56:1</a>; <a href='B:290 63:1'>Isa 63:1</a> etc:). "Mercy to the poor" is the word used of how God would "favour" Zion at the restoration (<a href='B:230 102:13-14'>Psa 102:13-14</a>; <a href='B:290 30:19'>Isa 30:19</a>). "The poor" is literally ’the afflicted ones’, a term used of Judah afflicted by the Babylonians (<a href='B:150 8:21'>Ezr 8:21</a>; <a href='B:290 60:14'>Isa 60:14</a>; <a href='B:310 5:11'>Lam 5:11</a>).</h4><h4>&nbsp;"Break off" is a term used of removing the yoke upon captive Judah (<a href='B:230 136:24'>Psa 136:24</a>; <a href='B:310 5:8'>Lam 5:8</a>; <a href='B:330 19:12'>Eze 19:12</a>); and "sins" may be an intensive plural for his one great sin, which was the holding of Judah in captivity. All this could be reversed by Nebuchadnezzar repenting of his pride, handing his kingdom over to Yahweh, and allowing the Jews to return and re-establish the Kingdom of God in Judah.</h4>


text:
<p>All this came on the king Nebuchadnezzar- This is tantamount to saying that he did not accept Daniel’s plea for his repentance in :27.</p>


text:
<p>At the end of twelve months he was walking in the royal palace of Babylon- So often, God makes a statement of judgment, but there is a gap between the statement and the fulfilment. We all are located within that gap until we die. But there are specific matters over which we may be given a period of time to repent of. Nebuchadnezzar was given twelve months. And he didn’t. But there was a plan D for him still, involving serious humiliation. And it seems he responded to that. We have such things going on in our lives, although they are seen clearer in the lives of others.</p>


text:
<h4>The king spoke and said- These words may well have been simply his innermost thoughts. But as the Lord makes clear, the thoughts of the heart are read by God as our words. He apparently said or thought these things whilst viewing the city, so he would have been on a rooftop, the place of solace and meditation (cp. <a href='B:100 11:2'>2Sa 11:2</a>).</h4><h4>Is not this great Babylon, which I have built for the royal dwelling place, by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?- Nebuchadnezzar realized after his humbling that one of his reasons for pride had been due to him not realizing the extent to which the "great Babylon which (he) had built" and the Kingdom he had gained were&nbsp; in fact the total result of the work of the Angels; "He doeth according to His will in the army of Heaven (the Angels), and among the inhabitants of the earth" (:35). The bricks of ancient Babylon all have Nebuchadnezzar’s name on them. Pride in our own homes, or our kingdoms no matter how small or great in secular terms, can be the same essential sin. A sense of God’s majesty and power is essential if we are to avoid this temptation to glorify our own power and apparent majesty. And much of that apparent majesty is anyway in our own eyes only, as it was for Nebuchadnezzar; for Babylon was already great when he became king, and all he did was to rebuild parts of it and make cosmetic improvements.</h4>


text:
<h4>While the word was in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from Heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is spoken- See on <a href='B:680 2:10'>2Pe 2:10</a>. I suggested on :30 that his statement may have been simply in his own heart, but it was counted as being a word in his mouth by the God who considers thoughts to be words. His word and the Divine word are here contrasted.</h4><h4>The kingdom hasdeparted from you- The same word is used of how the Daniel 2 image vision meant that God "removed" (s:w. "departed") kings, including Nebuchadnezzar (<a href='B:340 2:21'>Dan 2:21</a>; <a href='B:340 7:12'>Dan 7:12</a>). He ought to have continued believing in that Divine word; but he had to be brought to accept it through this deep humiliation, when he could have avoided that by simply accepting God’s word as it is. And it’s the same for us. This is why attitude to God’s word, rather than simply reading it, is so critically important in human life. It is why acceptance that the Bible is the inspired word of God has such endless implications in human life.</h4>


text:
<h4>And you shall be driven from men; and your dwelling shall be with the animals of the field; you shall be made to eat grass as oxen- The AV translates this as if it was the "men" who would make him eat grass. In this case, we have implied humiliation at the hands of his own courtiers, rather than simply an illness. This seems confirmed by <a href='B:340 5:20'>Dan 5:20</a>, which speaks of his glory being taken from him.</h4><h4>And seven times shall pass over you; until you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever He will- "Times" in Daniel can mean a year, but in other places, simply a period of time. It could have been seven days, months or some other period. Nebuchadnezzar had been taught that God rules over the kingdoms of men and would in due course subsume them into His Kingdom. He had momentarily accepted that at the end of Daniel 2. But that understanding of the Gospel of the Kingdom was but theoretical and transient. He had to be taught the personal truth of it by humiliation. But that could have been avoidable had he accepted God’s word through Daniel in his heart.</h4>


text:
<p>The same hour was the thing fulfilled on Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and ate grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of the sky, until his hair was grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws- This could have been the medical condition known as insania zoanthropica, but it seems more likely that it was a uniquely designed punishment with the aim in view of eliciting his repentance. The dew was "from heaven", as if to point out that God was in all this, seeking to bring Nebuchadnezzar unto Himself.</p>


text:
<h4>At the end of the days- The "seven times". "Times" need not refer to years, it could be literal days or any period.</h4><p>I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted up my eyes to heaven- This is the language of prayerful repentance.</p><p>And my understanding returned to me- The only true understanding is that we are as beasts and God’s Kingdom is over all. It "returned to me" in that he returned to the humility before God which he had momentarily had after the Daniel 2 image vision and after Daniel’s explanation of his latest dream 12 months previously. Nebuchadnezzar had earlier recognized that Daniel was the one with "understanding" (<a href='B:340 1:4'>Dan 1:4</a>; <a href='B:340 1:17'>Dan 1:17</a>; <a href='B:340 2:21'>Dan 2:21</a>; <a href='B:340 5:12'>Dan 5:12</a> s:w:). It’s as if he was saying that he had once accepted Daniel’s "understanding", which was God’s understanding- that he was only the head of gold, and his kingdom would pass away and ultimately be subsumed within God’s Kingdom. And now he again accepted that, his earlier humility and "understanding" of a moment returned to him permanently.</p><h4>And I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honoured Him who lives forever; for His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom from generation to generation- Now finally he accepts the truth of the image vision of <a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>. If he had accepted it more deeply and from the heart at the time, he wouldn’t have needed to be so humiliated in order to learn its truth on a personal level. We too need to convert our Sunday School Christianity, or our previous acceptance of the Gospel of God’s Kingdom, into deep personal reality. If we won’t do so, still proudly seeking to build up our own kingdoms, then we too shall be humbled in a desperate Divine attempt to help us accept the truth of His Kingdom so that we might enjoy it eternally.</h4>


text:
<h4>All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing- This is not to say that God doesn’t value the human person. Nebuchadnezzar had proudly reflected that all the peoples of the "earth" which he knew were under his control. But that, he now realized, was nothing.</h4><p>And He does according to His will in the army of heaven- The apparently invincible Babylonian army, through which Nebuchadnezzar had attained his empire, were nothing compared to the Angelic army of Yahweh of hosts.</p><h4>And among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand, or ask Him, What are You doing?-Nebuchadnezzar’s image of gold had been an attempt to stay God’s hand, to stop him as the head of gold being deposed and taken over by others. Now he more deeply accepted the truth which he had briefly perceived after Daniel had explained it to him in Daniel 2. The same word for "stay" is used of how the stone "smote" the image and ground all of it to powder, including Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom (<a href='B:340 2:34-35'>Dan 2:34-35</a>).</h4>


text:
<h4>At the same time my understanding returned to me- See on :34.</h4><h4>And the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and brightness returned to me; and my officials and my lords sought to me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent greatness was added to me- There is no historical evidence that Nebuchadnezzar in his final years became even greater and more glorious than when he proudly strutted the rooftop admiring great Babylon which he had built. Having committed his kingdom and glory to God’s Kingdom and glory, it would read rather strangely if in fact he then regained all his secular glory. I suggest that he is now reframing his understanding of glory and majesty. The glory we have, and which he had, was to be with the Lord God, on the side of His Kingdom and prophetic program. The AV offers: "And for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me". The idea would be that instead of secular glory, he had the glory of knowing God in truth. The return of "my understanding", which as noted on :34 referred to his understanding of God’s ways, is paralleled with the return of his glory. But his glory was in that he now knew God in the sense of having relationship with him. There is a strong appropriacy of <a href='B:300 9:23-24'>Jer 9:23-24</a> to Nebuchadnezzar: "Thus says Yahweh, Don’t let the mighty man glory in his might, don’t let the rich man glory in his riches; but let him who glories glory in this, that he has understanding, and knows Me, that I am Yahweh who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, says Yahweh". The "excellent greatness" that he felt had been added to him was therefore in reference to God’s grace, rather than any reference to secular things. The original seems to mean "the pre-eminent, ultimate" greatness; and he now realized that the ultimate exaltation was to walk humbly with your God and have the hope of the Kingdom.</h4>


text:
<p>Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honour the King of heaven; for all His works are truth, and His ways justice; and those who walk in pride He is able to abase- "Extol" is literally ’to lift up’, the same word used of how previously he had lifted himself up rather than God (see on :20). He openly accepts his pride and appropriate abasement. His acceptance of Yahweh as the ultimate King, rather than himself or his previous god Bel, was effectively a resignation of his own kingship and kingdom to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand- Belshazzar was the effective king of Babylon whilst Nabonidus was in north Africa. Belshazzar means "Bel Protect the King", and he clearly believed that Bel would protect Babylon even with the Medes approaching- and he believed this to the extent of recklessly feasting with the Medes outside the gates. Again, we find the historical accounts in Daniel to be deconstructions of the supposed power of the Babylonian gods, who are revealed as powerless before Yahweh’s purpose; just as the dream of Daniel 2 had depicted. The feast was likely an annual religious festival, and Cyrus / Darius planned the attack at precisely that time. Again, we see the victory as being a victory specifically against the guardian gods of Babylon. The destruction of Babylon whilst feasting was specifically foretold (<a href='B:290 21:4-5'>Isa 21:4-5</a>; <a href='B:300 50:24'>Jer 50:24</a>; <a href='B:300 51:39'>Jer 51:39</a>; <a href='B:300 51:57'>Jer 51:57</a>).</p>


text:
<h4>Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels- This was a conscious act of blasphemy. The God of Israel had foretold in Daniel 2 that Babylon would be taken over by another empire; and Jeremiah had made it clear in the previous generation that although Babylon would take Jerusalem, Babylon would also fall to her enemies (<a href='B:300 50:28'>Jer 50:28</a> etc:). Belshazzar seems to have been aware of this, and with enemy armies outside the gates, he trusts in his god to preserve him and mocks Yahweh. He was turning the table of Yahweh into the table of Bel and the gods supposed to preserve Babylon. In essence we commit the same sin if we turn the Lord’s table into our table, in glorification of our own religion and worldview.</h4><h4>Which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, might drink from them- The miserable critics point out that Belshazzar’s father was the usurper Nabuna’id [Nabonidus]. But "father" simply means ’ancestor’ in practice, and could refer to Nebuchadnezzar as his grandfather (as in <a href='B:10 28:13'>Gen 28:13</a>; <a href='B:10 32:9'>Gen 32:9</a>), which he could have been, if Nabuna’id had Belshazzar through one ofNebuchadnezzar’s daughters. Indeed this would appear a likely and logical way for Nabuna’id to enforce his claim to the throne and establish his dynasty. That Belshazzar was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar is confirmed by <a href='B:300 17:27'>Jer 17:27</a>: "All the nations shall serve him (Nebuchadnezzar) and his son, and his son’s son until the very time of his land come". But father-son relationships were presented at the time in a far less specific sense than the terms are used today.</h4>


text:
<p>Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of God’s house which was at Jerusalem; and the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, drank from them- "The temple of God’s house" means not generally ’the temple’ ["God’s house"] but specifically the holy and most holy place. There would not have been many "golden vessels" there; just those used for pouring out the blood on the day of atonement. They would therefore have passed these vessels between them all, as they all drunk from them (:23), rather like a mock communion service. It was very deep blasphemy. It seems that the golden candlestick from the holy place was also present (:5). They were pretending that their table of drunken revelry was the most holy place of the Jerusalem temple.</p>


text:
<p>They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone- They were imitating the worship of Yahweh (see on :3), and replacing Him with their gods. The golden vessels were now see as part of the paraphernalia of the worship of their golden gods. Gold, silver, brass, iron and a little stone all feature in the vision of Daniel 2. In Daniel 3, Nebuchadnezzar tried to say that the vision was wrong and he as the golden head was going to be the entire image. So here, they were saying that their gods of those same metals were the true gods and that the image was really just a composite of their gods, with the king of Babylon as the eternal head of it.</p>


text:
<h4>In the same hour came forth the fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote opposite the lampstand- This candlestick may have been the one taken from the holy place of the Jerusalem temple; as noted on :3, they were pretending that their table of drunken revelry was the most holy place of the Jerusalem temple.</h4><p>On the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace- Literally, "the chalk"; and this was exactly how the palace walls unearthed in Nineveh appear to have been constructed.</p><h4>And the king saw the part of the hand that wrote- "The palm". I will suggest on :8 that the hand covered the writing, and only Daniel could as it were make the Angelic hand move to reveal it (:24). This would explain the confusion between the palm and the fingers which wrote.</h4>


text:
<p>Then the king’s appearance changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; the joints of his thighs were loosened, and his knees struck one against another- This is the picture of a man facing Divine judgment. We should all be there; the wonder is that for us, as Paul explains in Romans, we are there, but then saved from it by grace through Christ. And it is the picture of the middle eastern world, and indeed the whole planet, on the eve of Divine judgment (<a href='B:490 21:25'>Luk 21:25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. The king spoke and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whoever shall read this writing, and show me its interpretation, shall be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom- It was the job description of the wise men to interpret such things; to offer them huge reward for doing their job indicates not only the king’s desperation, but also the tacit recognition that usually they could not really accurately interpret such things. History was of course repeating, for this was the very scene of Daniel 2, when the image vision was interpreted as meaning that Babylon too must pass over to others. Belshazzar should have perceived the similarities, and called for Daniel immediately. Again we note the similarities with Joseph (<a href='B:10 41:42'>Gen 41:42</a>), who would have been a great role model for Daniel. We too will find such role models in the Bible as we face our various life experiences.</p>


text:
<p>Then came in all the king’s wise men; but they could not read the writing, nor reveal to the king the interpretation- As noted on :7, this is a conscious repetition of the scene in Daniel 2. But Belshazzar failed to respond appropriately. Perhaps they couldn’t read the writing because the Angelic hand was covering it, and only Daniel had the power to remove that hand (:24).</p>


text:
<p>Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his appearance was changed, and his lords were perplexed- <a href='B:490 21:25'>Luk 21:25</a> appears to allude here. The king was on the eve of God’s judgment, and he knew it. Why be so worried about what could have been shrugged off as an optical illusion? He was after all quite drunk. We see in this matter evidence enough that even the most hardened blasphemers have a conscience, somewhere deep down. This should encourage us to never consider anyone not worth witnessing to. There is a gap in every heart and psyche which only the gospel of God’s Kingdom can satisfy. We were wired that way. The description is that of Nebuchadnezzar when he realized that the three Jewish friends were being preserved in the fire by an Angel (<a href='B:340 3:24'>Dan 3:24</a>), and of Nebuchadnezzar when he saw the revelation of his own downfall (<a href='B:340 4:5'>Dan 4:5</a>). The historical incidents in Daniel all share such points of commonality, to demonstrate the same Divine hand in the affairs of men. He works according to a similar imprint and hallmark. And that continues to this day. It is why we can look back upon our lives and see that they make sense. "Appearance" is the same original word translated "brightness"; Nebuchadnezzar’s appearance was likewise changed but he repented, and it changed back to how it previously was (<a href='B:340 4:36'>Dan 4:36</a>). But Belshazzar would not repent. He failed to learn from history. The same word is used of the bright appearance of the image in <a href='B:340 2:31'>Dan 2:31</a>, which was to be changed and brought to nothing. Time and again, we see the basic truth of that image revealed in the immediate history of those times.</p>


text:
<p>Now the queen because of the words of the king and his lords came into the banquet house: the queen spoke and said, O king, live forever; don’t let your thoughts trouble you, nor let your appearance be changed- This may refer to the king’s mother, the queen mother, hence she is mentioned separately to his wives in :2,3. As noted on :2, this would then refer to Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, who would therefore have remembered Daniel’s interpretations.</p>


text:
<p>There is a man in your kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of your father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, were found in him. The king Nebuchadnezzar your father, the king, I say, your father, made him master of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and soothsayers- The history of Daniel and his interpretations was therefore well known, although Belshazzar had put it out of his mind, even though he knew Daniel and employed him as one of his workers (<a href='B:340 8:1'>Dan 8:1</a>; <a href='B:340 8:27'>Dan 8:27</a>). We too can put inconvenient truth far from our minds instead of recalling it to mind and being humbled by it unto repentance. We note her laboured emphasis of the fact that Nebuchadnezzar was his ancestor, which may have been counted on the basis that she was a daughter or granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar. She was aware of Nebuchadnezzar’s repentance and perhaps hoped that Belshazzar would likewise humble himself.</p>


text:
<p>Because an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, the interpreting of dreams, and revealing of strange messages, solving of problems and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation- Daniel was still working for Belshazzar and was therefore known (<a href='B:340 8:1'>Dan 8:1</a>; <a href='B:340 8:27'>Dan 8:27</a>). The way he is spoken of as being somewhat distant and unknown therefore suggests he had been ousted from the ranks of the dream interpreters, or had removed himself from them, and was working for the king in a different capacity. We too may need to remove ourselves from situations where we are in a conflict of conscience, even if it means a loss of power and kudos.</p>


text:
<p>Then was Daniel brought in before the king. The king spoke and said to Daniel, Are you that Daniel, who are of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Judah?- We must remember that Belshazzar knew Daniel and employed him (<a href='B:340 8:1'>Dan 8:1</a>; <a href='B:340 8:27'>Dan 8:27</a>). "Are you that Daniel:::?" doesn’t have to mean that Belshazzar didn’t know or recognize him; it is similar to Saul enquiring who David was after the victory over Goliath (<a href='B:90 17:55-56'>1Sa 17:55-56</a>), and David enquiring who Bathsheba was, when she was his next door neighbour and wife of his loyal friend Uriah (<a href='B:100 11:3'>2Sa 11:3</a>). To enquire who someone was must be read as a Semitic literary device, and not literally. The idea was in all these examples: ’I want you to do something for me and serve me as I ask you’.</p>


text:
<p>I have heard of you, that the spirit of the gods is in you, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in you- The wise man all claimed that they could interpret dreams because they possessed "the spirit of the gods". But their failure meant that they were charlatans, or that in fact the gods of Babylon whom they were so strongly trusting in that evening were not in fact the true God. God so often leads men to situations where they are forced to jettison their myths and favoured beliefs, and accept His truth. But in the final analysis, Belshazzar still would not do this.</p>


text:
<p>Now the wise men, the enchanters, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and tell me its interpretation; but they could not show the interpretation of the thing- As noted on :14, this was a tacit admission that the gods were not in fact in touch with Belshazzar and his courtiers. But as explained on :1 and :2, they were desperately trusting those gods to deliver them from the armies outside the city walls. God was nudging Belshazzar towards total repentance, but he resisted, although accepting the theoretical truth of Daniel’s interpretation.</p>


text:
<p>But I have heard of you, that you can give interpretations, and dissolve problems; now if you can read the writing, and tell me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about your neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom- As noted on :17, that kingdom was about to fall. All such rewards would be only for a few more hours at the most. Perhaps the "third ruler" meant being one of the three rulers of Dan 249, who had once been comprised of Daniel’s friends. It’s as if the king was promising to return the Jews to the places from which they had been deposed. But such symbolic repentance was too little and too late now.</p>


text:
<h4>Then Daniel answered before the king, Let your gifts be to yourself, and give your rewards to another- This was said not only because Daniel didn’t want to again be in a position where his conscience to God would be hopelessly compromised. He knew from Daniel 2 and from the writing on the wall that the kingdom of Belshazzar was about to fall. To be made third ruler in that kingdom for just a few more moments was not what anyone wanted. Daniel would have been aware of <a href='B:290 13:15'>Isa 13:15</a>, which in the context of the fall of Babylon had warned: "he that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword". As it happened, the honours were forced upon Daniel, but God recognized that this was not Daniel’s will. We too may find ourselves promoted to situations we would rather not be in, and God understands that. It is for us like Daniel to seek to remove ourselves from those situations as best we can.</h4><h4>Nevertheless I will read the writing to the king, and tell him the interpretation- The difference between reading and interpreting it would suggest that the writing was in an alphabet unknown to the king; perhaps it was in Hebrew.</h4>


text:
<p>As for you, O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father the kingdom, and greatness, and glory, and majesty- To call Yahweh the most high was in direct criticism of the mockery of Yahweh and glorification of the Babylonian gods which had been going on. Daniel could well have been executed for this, but like Joseph and Samuel before him, he spoke forth God’s truth as he had done in Daniel 2 and Daniel 4.</p>


text:
<p>And because of the greatness that He gave him, all the peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him: whom he would he killed, and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he raised up, and whom he would he put down- This is all the language of Yahweh Himself. But these possibilities were all given to Nebuchadnezzar by God. He had such power in order to make him later reflect that indeed, such Divine possibilities could only have been given him by God. Our experiences of exaltation are used likewise. We may reflect: ’How could I have ever::. passed that exam, held that job down, done that or this’. The experiences are given so that we may realize that it was all of God, and be humbled; but if we fail to make that realization, then we end up proud and playing God.</p>


text:
<p>But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened so that he became proud, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him- The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was from God. Here too, the psychological attitudes of Nebuchadnezzar were confirmed by God. The spirit of God works in this way, confirming our spirit. Which is why our spirit, our mind, our deepest inner heart, is so significant. For God confirms us in it. Pride is a hardening of the spirit or the heart / mind. "They took his glory from him" would confirm what we suggested on <a href='B:340 4:32'>Dan 4:32</a>, that Nebuchadnezzar’s own courtiers robbed him of his glory rather than nursing him through a psychological illness.</p>


text:
<p>And he was driven from men, and his heart was made like an animal’s, and his dwelling was with the wild donkeys; he was fed with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of the sky; until he knew that the Most High God rules in the kingdom of men, and that He sets up over it whomsoever He will- The humiliation was "until" he recognized the truth of the Daniel 2 image vision. But the prophecy of Daniel 4 had been that he would be in this humbled situation for a period of "seven times". We noted there that "times" is undefined; it could have referred to seven days, periods of time, weeks or years. In this sense God’s time periods are open ended and capable of redefinition. And of course Nebuchadnezzar didn’t have to repent; repentance had to be from the heart, of his choice. The "seven times" prophecy regarding Nebuchadnezzar could have been falsified by his refusal to repent, and we will see something similar in later time periods in Daniel regarding Israel’s repentance, especially in the prophecy of the sevens in Daniel 9. This is how we can have a sense of excitement with God as we read His words and consider the open ended possibilities which stretch before us.</p>


text:
<p>You, his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, though you knew all this- We are intended to learn from the experiences of others, both contemporary with us and as recorded in the Bible. As noted on <a href='B:470 21:32'>Mat 21:32</a>, the Jews of the Lord’s day were held guilty for not repenting when they saw the example of prostitutes and tax collectors repenting. We may not be humbled ourselves as Nebuchadnezzar was, but if we see others humbled, then we are expected to take the lesson and humble ourselves. The experiences of those around us are therefore not random, but brought into our lives by God so that we might learn from them. And we are held responsible for our response to them. This has very far reaching practical consequence, and gives an urgency and significance to social life of an altogether different dimension to what most experience.</p>


text:
<p>But have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines, have drunk wine from them; and you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which don’t see, nor hear, nor know; and the God in whose hand your breath is, and whose are all your ways, you have not glorified- Realizing the basic truths about our nature, that we are not our own, that our fragile breath is in God’s hands, with nothing inherently immortal within us, and that our ways are "His" in that they are known to Him::. will lead us to humility and repentance. All true theology must have its issue in practice. "The God, in whose hand your breath (spirit) is" was language which pointed to how the same Angelic hand&nbsp; had written on the wall.</p>


text:
<p>Then was the part of the hand sent from before him, and this writing was inscribed- I have explained on :5 and :8 that the hand wrote the words and then the palm of that Angelic hand covered the words. Only Daniel had the power to remove that Angelic hand.</p>


text:
<p>MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN- This could be rendered: "There is counted a mina, a shekel, and two half minas"; for justification of the translation, see R:H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel p. 135. "Mene" is the word used for counting or numbering. This has more obvious connection with the interpretation of the words given in :26-28. The mina would then refer to Nebuchadnezzar, the shekel (a 50th part of a mina) to Belshazzar, who was found of little weight or account; and the two half minas would then refer to the Medes and Persians. Indeed the word "upharsin" in Aramaic sounds like "and the Persians". The repetition of the word "mene", "numbered", is another connection with the dream which Joseph interpreted for another king; it was stated twice because the fulfilment was so certain and would begin fulfilment immediately (<a href='B:10 41:32'>Gen 41:32</a>). As noted on :26-28, the original text carries the implication that these things were immediately happening. But Belshazzar only theoretically accepted that, by still trying to promote Daniel within his already ended kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>This is the interpretation of it: MENE; God has numbered your kingdom, and brought it to an end- As noted on :28, the original suggests that it has now imminently been ended, although Belshazzar’s response in elevating Daniel reflects how he only accepted the truth of these words on a theoretical and not a personal level. Numbering is a figure for the final judgment (<a href='B:220 31:4'>Job 31:4</a>), the final taking of account; but the essence of judgment day is right now, before the God who weighs and numbers actions and lives as they happen.</p>


text:
<p>TEKEL; you are weighed in the balances, and are found wanting- As noted on :26 and :28, the original implies that this was the situation at that moment. There was no desperate plea from Belshazzar for mercy, no statement of repentance, but rather he continued with life as it had been by elevating Daniel within his already ended kingdom. And this is a cameo of so much human response before God’s word. The final judgment of men is likened to a weighing in the balances (<a href='B:220 31:4'>Job 31:4</a>; <a href='B:220 31:6'>Job 31:6</a>), but the essence of judgment is going on right now in this life. "We make the answer now".</p>


text:
<p>PERES; your kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians- The original implies that this is imminently happening. But by elevating Daniel to third ruler in the kingdom, Belshazzar showed that he only theoretically acknowledged this truth, just as some terminally ill people deny the realities right up to the end. And so it is with us all; we have a tendency to think that God’s urgent word is not true quite as stated, although on another level we may genuinely accept the truth of it. The division of the kingdom could refer to it being given to both Medes and Persians, but ’division’ may more carry the sense of dividing it out, to others, just as required by the image vision of Daniel 2. We note that division is judgment; so often the enemies of Israel were judged by being divided against themselves. Those who make the Lord’s house divided are effectively working out their own judgment / condemnation. The division of the kingdom perhaps also alludes to the divided state of the kingdoms of men presented in the image of Daniel 2.</p>


text:
<p>Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with purple, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom- This response was surprising in that to give such bad news would typically have warranted immediate execution. Belshazzar humbled himself and tried to return Daniel to the three senior rulers, who had once been comprised of his Jewish friends (<a href='B:340 2:49'>Dan 2:49</a>). But Belshazzar’s humility and apparent repentance was too little and too late. To accept the truth of God’s word is not of itself enough. The way he proclaimed Daniel to a third ruler in his kingdom was of itself a tacit reflection of his inability to accept that his kingdom had been ended and given to the Medes (:28). The gold chain, purple clothing which was the insignia of the kingdom and proclamation was all so bizarre to Daniel, who knew that at that moment, the kingdom was ended. All our exaltation in this life is similarly inappropriate and meaningless. For the end of all things is at hand, and the judge stands before the door.</p>


text:
<p>In that night Belshazzar the king of the Chaldees was slain- It is hard to know whether this was by his courtiers, or as a result of the Medes entering Babylon. There may indeed be a gap of some years between the death of Belshazzar and Darius taking the kingdom (:31). Such gaps in history are found at other points in the Biblical narrative. We think of how in 1 Kings 14, Ahijah states to Jeroboam’s wife that Abijah would die, Jeroboams dynasty would be overthrown, and Israel’s kingdom ended. These things appear to all happen at the same time, when there were significant time periods between them. However, I have noted on :25-28 that the idea is that these things happened immediately, at that moment; and this leads me to support the traditional view that immediately, that night, the Medes took Babylon. This is also the implication of Jeremiah’s prophecies, that in the night of her feasting, Babylon would fall. H:P. Mansfield gives relevant support for this: "Xenophon (Cyrop. 7:5) is quoted as stating:"But Cyrus, when he heard that there was to be such a feast in Babylon in which all the Babylonians would feast and revel through the whole night, on that night, as soon as it began to grow dark, taking many men, opened the dams into the river (i:e. he opened thedykes which had been made by Semiramis and her successors to confine the waters of the Euphrates to one channel), and allowed them to again flood the country, so that he could enter Babylon beneath its walls in the channel of the river". He quotes the address of Cyrus to his army:"Now let us go up against them. Many of them are asleep; many of them are intoxicated; and all of them are unfit for battle". Herodotus (Book 1:19) states:"it was a day of festivity among them; and whilst the citizens were engaged in dance and merriment, Babylon was. for the first time, thus taken". Isaiah predicted that the gates of brass would no longer provide a defence, and that the"bars of iron would be cut asunder’"(<a href='B:290 45:2'>Isa 45:2</a>). Herodotus states that these brazen gates were situated along the banks of the river, but at the time of the attack, some of them had been left open, probably by some within the city who had come to terms with the Persians".</p>


text:
<p>Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old- "Darius the Mede" may be another name for Cyrus (so D:J. Wiseman),&nbsp; Cambyses the son of Cyrus (so Boutflower) or Gubaru, whom Cyrus appointed as governor of Babylon immediately the city fell (Whitcomb and several other prominent commentators, although this runs into difficulty at <a href='B:340 9:1'>Dan 9:1</a>). "Darius" may well be a title [meaning ’subduer’] rather than a name. The Medes took Babylon by diverting the flow of the Euphrates and entering the city along the river bed; this is the historical basis for the imagery of the drying up of the Euphrates in the last days, so that Babylon falls(<a href='B:730 16:15-16'>Rev 16:15-16</a>). The "kings of the east" of the last days therefore correspond to the hordes of various Arabian mercenaries who were used by the Medes as soldiers. We can already see the development of such groups in the Middle East today.</p>


text:
<p>It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred and twenty satraps, who should be throughout the whole kingdom- These 120 satraps were symbolized by the 120 lion statues along Babylon’s main procession street. The destruction of their representatives by lions is another inversion of Babylonian power and values which is common in Daniel. Herodotus records that "Darius" [’restrainer’] was a title for the king, an appellative like ’Pharaoh’, rather than a personal name. This may therefore be a different ’Darius’ to that of <a href='B:340 5:31'>Dan 5:31</a>. It could well be that the Darius of Daniel 6 was in fact Cyrus the Persian (see on :28). This would then fit the historical interpretation of <a href='B:340 7:5'>Dan 7:5</a>, which requires a Mede to be in power before the elevation of Cyrus. The book of Esther records 127 satraps at that time, so 120 at this time sounds right. However, the 120 could have been over the newly conquered province of Babylon.</p>


text:
<p>And over them three presidents, of whom Daniel was one; so that these satraps might give account to them, and that the king should have no loss- The elevation of Daniel would have been because it was known that he had bravely prophesied the victory of the Medes over Babylon. He was well known for this, hence his elevation; but this means that the Babylonians also would have known Daniel’s position about them, and he would have been in a similar position to Jeremiah, who likewise was within the besieged city [of Jerusalem in his case] and prophesied the victory of the enemy. These similarities between human lives all serve to give us encouragement and warning, as well as demonstrating that all is indeed under Divine control and we are not at the mercy of random event.</p>


text:
<h4>Then Daniel was promoted above the presidents and the satraps, because an excellently wise spirit was in him- This spirit perceived within him was that of God (<a href='B:340 4:8-9'>Dan 4:8-9</a>; <a href='B:340 5:11'>Dan 5:11</a>; <a href='B:340 5:14'>Dan 5:14</a>). His wisdom of spirit is elsewhere associated with his interpretation of Divine dreams; perhaps the promotion was because of this, as it was every other time he was promoted. His interpretations had of course predicted the Medo Persian victory against Babylon, and yet they also demanded their fall. Perhaps it was because of his words against Babylon that he was promoted. But it may equally have been because of his general wisdom and integrity. He was promoted several times, and each time he seems to slip out of the limelight, either by his own will or because he was manipulated out of the position. To be in any position of power within those empires would’ve involved him in conflicts of conscience to his God. We too at times need to allow ourselves to slip away from the limelight and situation provided by promotion of whatever kind.</h4><h4>And the king thought to set him over the whole kingdom- This could refer to the province of Babylon. But just as Joseph had the promotion to a similar position over all Egypt, perhaps Daniel’s integrity and evident connection with Yahweh made the king desire to give him practical responsibility for the entire empire.</h4>


text:
<p>Then the presidents and the satraps sought to find occasion against Daniel regarding the things of the kingdom; but they could find no case nor fault, because he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him- The content of the Gospel is "the things [of] the kingdom" (<a href='B:510 1:3'>Act 1:3</a>; <a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a>; <a href='B:510 19:8'>Act 19:8</a>). The kingdoms of the world at Daniel’s time are setup as fake kingdoms of God, with their leaders as an imitation Christ, an antiChrist. As ever, jealousy motivated all personal criticism of Daniel. It would have been an unpleasant experience for him, living as a foreigner amongst jealous men seeking his downfall, and all the time not wanting the exalted position anyway.</p>


text:
<p>Then these men said, We shall not find any occasion against Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God- This has remarkable implications about Daniel’s absolute integrity, for which all God’s servants should be known in their secular lives.</p>


text:
<p>Then these presidents and satraps assembled together to the king, and said to him, King Darius, live forever- All the monarchs had the idea that they were immortal and expected this to be recognized- hence the address "live forever". Nebuchadnezzar had sought to demonstrate this by making the statue of gold completely, when he was but the head of gold according to the image of Daniel 2. We note however that Daniel, despite his sensitive conscience toward his God, still goes along with this form of address (:21), even though he of all people knew from his own prophecies that the kings were far from immortal and would all come to their end.</p>


text:
<h4>All the presidents of the kingdom- This was untrue, because Daniel was one of them. The king ought to have perceived that this was a set up.</h4><h4>The deputies and the satraps, the counsellors and the governors, have consulted together in order to establish a royal statute, and to make an enforced decree, that whoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, except of you, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions- Darius knew full well that Daniel would be praying to his God. For Daniel prayed with his windows open toward Jerusalem in full view of everyone, "as he did previously" (:10). It was therefore known to all that Daniel did this. Darius knew that Daniel had contact with his God and had made prophecies through God’s Spirit (see on :3).</h4>


text:
<p>Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which doesn’t alter- It was only by tradition that it didn’t alter. The king was all powerful. The only thing required to change it was his humility, but as we note on :9, his pride was too great. The courtiers seemed to have guessed that when it came to killing Daniel for praying to Yahweh, the king was likely to want to change; and so they remind him that this law cannot be changed. The only reason Darius would have agreed to this was because of the appeal to his pride- that he was divine, and a divine being didn’t change his principles.</p>


text:
<h4>Therefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree- As noted on :7, Darius knew full well that Daniel was in the habit of openly praying to his God, and I suggested on :7 that the king surely knew that Daniel was being set up. And yet Darius clearly respected Daniel, which was why he had promoted him, and on account of which he was so distressed when he realized that Daniel had to die. Why then did he sign the decree? A theme of Daniel is the almost unbelievable power of human pride. The king’s better judgment was overridden by his pride, and his wish to go along with his flatterers in believing the myth of his times- that he as king was in fact Divine and immortal. This had been the undoing of Belshazzar, and it had almost been the undoing of Nebuchadnezzar. We see therefore the power of human pride and what happens if we succumb to flattery and the human tendency to play God. Our better judgment and spiritual side is flattened beneath the weight of it. Darius acts in accordance with how the other monarchs in the book of Daniel are presented- they could have repented and were given the chance to, they theoretically accepted the truth of God’s prophetic word and personally respected Daniel; but their pride stopped them from accepting the basic truth of the image of Daniel 2, that they too would pass, they were not eternal, were men and not God, and needed to accept the reality of God’s Kingdom and resign their own kingdoms.</h4><h4>In the same way as they could have repented, they could also have restored captive Judah to their land, and thus helped re-establish the Kingdom of God in Israel. Cyrus is presented by name in Isaiah as a Messiah-like figure who could have orchestrated this, by destroying Babylon and empowering Jewry to return. If the Darius in this chapter was indeed Cyrus as suggested on :1 and :28, then we see how far he failed to realize what was potentially possible. He gave the decree to allow Judah to return in the first year of his reign (<a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>); but now he seems to have faltered and become consumed with pride so that he didn’t live up to his potential; and Judah likewise failed to grasp the Divinely presented opportunities, with the majority of them preferring to remain in captivity.</h4>


text:
<h4>When Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he still went into his house (now his windows in his room were open toward Jerusalem) and he kneeled on his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did previously- He prayed toward Jerusalem with reference to how Solomon had said that Israel in their sin and captivity would pray toward the temple (<a href='B:110 8:33'>1Ki 8:33</a>; <a href='B:110 8:35'>1Ki 8:35</a>; <a href='B:110 8:38'>1Ki 8:38</a>; <a href='B:110 8:44'>1Ki 8:44</a>; <a href='B:110 8:48'>1Ki 8:48</a>). Daniel was deeply aware of the sin of Judah and felt it as being his own sin; his prayer in Daniel 9 is full of such identification with Israel’s sins. He felt that duty towards his weak and sinful brethren as stronger than his own fear of a miserable death. He saw this as a Divine command which although not explicitly expressed as a command, is effectively a commandment because it is so strongly implied as necessary for us. This incident is surely thebasis of <a href='B:510 5:29'>Act 5:29</a>: "We ought to obey God rather than men". Many Jews surely consoled themselves that prayer is a private matter, and wouldn’t have advertised their prayers, certainly not by opening their windows and praying on their knees in full view of religious informers. But Daniel was willing to die for the sake of how important he felt prayer to be. And he challenges us all in this, we who so often are guilty of praying when overtired, or spending ou time on petty things until we have no time left to pray. Our time budget needs to give prayer serious priority, at whatever loss- even of life itself, according to Daniel’s example. To pray regularly three times / day, perhaps as David did at dawn, noon and unset (<a href='B:230 55:17'>Psa 55:17</a> cp. <a href='B:510 10:9'>Act 10:9</a>) required no small discipline. He had a demanding job and life situation, just as David did. His requirement for time to pray regularly was therefore advertised to his contemporaries; it was no secret. This is such a challenge to those in demanding careers; it is no more the done thing to take time out to pray than it was for Daniel, living as he did in an environment where leadership was connected to religion, and he was clearly out of step with the surrounding religious views.</h4><h4>Solomon’s prayer, to which Daniel is alluding, required prayer to be made specifically toward the temple in Jerusalem. But that temple lay in ruins. Daniel’s prayer toward it therefore reflected his understanding that God’s presence doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands. "That is true" (literally "the thing is true", as AV) is the very term used of the truth of Daniel’s prophetic revelations (<a href='B:340 7:16'>Dan 7:16</a> - remember that the visions of Daniel 7 were given before this time, see <a href='B:340 7:1'>Dan 7:1</a>). If this "Darius" is indeed Cyrus, then we note that in his third year, Daniel received another vision, "and the thing was true" (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a>). But Darius would not humble himself before the truths of God and change his perceived truth, just as we and many others struggle to.</h4>


text:
<p>Then these men assembled together, and found Daniel making petition and supplication before his God- The petition and supplication (the idea is of "grace") was surely for the revival of Judah’s fortunes with the re-establishment of God’s Kingdom in Israel, and the fulfilment of the prophecies of the restoration. But Daniel knew that due to Judah’s weakness, this would have to be by grace, and thanks to the intercession of a righteous remnant represented by himself. This was for Daniel more important than his personal death. "Before his God" suggests that the presence of God was just as much there in a room in Babylon as it was in Zion.</p>


text:
<p>Then they came near, and spoke before the king concerning the king’s decree: Haven’t you signed a decree, that every man who shall make petition to any god or man within thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered, That is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which doesn’t alter- Now was the moment when the king could say: ’Yes I did, but I was wrong, I am not going to have Daniel killed. Mock me as you will, assume that I cannot actually be divine because I am now changing my position, but change it I will’. And he doesn’t do that. His pride was too great, although at one and the same time, as the text often implies, he had a level of faith and spirituality. But human pride is so strong.</p>


text:
<p>Then they responded and said to the king, That Daniel, who is of the captives of Judah, doesn’t respect you, O king, nor the decree that you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day- "That Daniel" indicates how they despised him. This is the extreme power of human jealousy. "Doesn’t respect you" was just what the courtiers had eagerly told Nebuchadnezzar when the three friends refused to bow to his image in Daniel 3. Darius ought to have learnt from Divine history and perceived that he was being set up for a major fall. But he refused to join the dots, just as we do, because his pride made him act illogically in spiritual terms.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king, when he heard these words, was very displeased, and set his heart on Daniel to save him; and he struggled until the going down of the sun to save him- This struggle or ’labouring’ may perhaps have involved consultations with legal experts, but more likely it refers to the internal struggle within him against his own pride. And the fact he didn’t command Daniel’s release shows that he lost it; his pride was stronger than his humility and displeasure with himself ("sore displeased with himself", AV).</p>


text:
<p>Then these men assembled together to the king, and said to the king, Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians, that no decree nor statute which the king establishesmay be changed- "These men" had the upper hand over the king, but only because they knew that his pride was such that he could not retract the law. The same happened when Herod refused to retract his oath and had John the Baptist murdered. This is the power of human pride; it can bring down the most powerful person.</p>


text:
<h4>Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions- Being cast to the lions and preserved may therefore be used in <a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a> and <a href='B:670 5:8'>1Pe 5:8</a> in a figurative sense, encouraging us to see ourselves as in Daniel’s shoes and likewise preserved.</h4><h4>Now the king spoke and said to Daniel, Your God whom you serve continually, He will deliver you- Service to God is here paralleled with prayer. Those who lament their apparent inability to do much physical service should remember this. Prayer is no less a service to God. I have suggested that Darius did on one level believe, but his pride squashed his spirituality. We see his more spiritual side expressed here, weak though it was; he believed that God would deliver Daniel. We note too that Darius knew full well that Daniel prayed / served his God "continually". His signing of the decree was therefore done in the full knowledge that it would affect Daniel. I don’t think he was simply an elderly man who was fooled and manipulated by his courtiers. Rather was he like us, knowing truth on one level, and yet allowing his pride on the other hand to lead him to decisions of a moment which he would later bitterly regret. This seems to me the more likely and imaginable understanding of why he signed the decree. By admitting that Daniel’s God could save Daniel whereas the king could not, Darius was tacitly accepting that he was not God, and his acceptance of prayer solely to himself was therefore wrong. But as with Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar initially, his repentance didn’t go far enough. His apparently solid faith that God would deliver Daniel contrasts with his query in :20. Again we see repeated a feature of all the monarchs in the book of Daniel- they displayed spirituality, faith and humility for moments, but like us, found it hard to maintain their intensity.</h4>


text:
<h4>A stone was brought, and laid on the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet ring, and with the signet ring of his lords; so that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel- The situation has evident similarities with the sealing of the Lord’s tomb (<a href='B:470 27:66'>Mat 27:66</a>), after Pilate like Darius before him allowed his pride to override his better judgment. It could be that Darius wanted his lords and himself to take total responsibility, and believed that God would deliver Daniel (:16) and their collective power and authority would thereby be declared as null and void. But by doing so we could also understand that even at the very end, he still lacked the required humility to disassociate himself from the execution.</h4><h4>&nbsp;As explained on :10, Daniel had risked his life to pray for Judah and confess their sins because he felt so identified with them. Being placed in a grave to die was a response to that; for he was suffering the punishment upon Judah, who were figuratively "cut off in the dungeon" with a stone barring their escape (<a href='B:310 3:53'>Lam 3:53</a>). In this again we see a pointer forward to the Lord Jesus, whose death and burial was likewise an act of identity with His people.</h4>


text:
<p>Then the king went to his palace, and spent the night fasting; no musical instruments were brought before him: and his sleep fled from him- The Aramaic word for "palace" can also mean ’temple’. We again meet the theme of the Babylonian religious system being trounced and declared powerless. The lack of sleep recalls the parallel situation in <a href='B:190 6:1'>Est 6:1</a>; circumstances repeat in history, because it is the same Divine hand at work. It is our wisdom to perceive this, and to conclude that man is never alone, never in an unprecedented situation. This is the purpose of Biblical history. The king’s fasting was presumably in order to beg God to deliver Daniel. If he had humbled himself, then he could simply have released Daniel. We see here how things so often turn out; he had a lower level of spirituality because he wouldn’t take the highest level, which was to simply release Daniel as Pilate could have released the Lord. But the point is, he did fast to God, and even through his own weakness, God urged him closer to Himself. We marvel at God’s patience and desire to work with all men, even the proud, to bring them to Himself.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king arose very early in the morning, and went in urgency to the den of lions- Again we see the conscience of the king at work. He was not disinterested. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p>When he came near to the den to Daniel, he cried with a lamentable voice; the king spoke and said to Daniel: Daniel, servant of the living God, is your God, whom you serve continually, able to deliver you from the lions?- His apparently solid faith that God would deliver Daniel in :16 contrasts with this query. Again we see repeated a feature of all the monarchs in the book of Daniel- they displayed spirituality, faith and humility for moments, but like us, found it hard to maintain their intensity. "The living God" is a term used to differentiate the one true God from the idols (<a href='B:510 14:15'>Act 14:15</a>; <a href='B:590 1:9'>1Th 1:9</a>). We see here the progress in his thinking. His night of fasting to Daniel’s God led him to believe that the one "living God" was Daniel’s God and not his idols. We would likely have given up in disgust with Darius, after he sacrificed Daniel’s life for the sake of his proud agreement to play God. But God worked with him, and brought about this undoubted spiritual progress in the man.</p>


text:
<p>Then Daniel said to theking, O king, live forever- The LXX reflects the ambivalence of the terms used: "O King, I am alive!". But I suggested on :6 that despite his sensitive conscience, knowing that all these kings would be deposed, Daniel went along with this form of address. We too have to make decisions as to whether we shall ’go along’ with incorrect ideas and behaviour, or make a point, as Mordecai did by not bowing to Haman. Sometimes Daniel did make a point, e:g. regarding eat meat offered to idols; on this point, which didn’t directly concern him personally, he didn’t. See on :26. It could also be that Daniel used the term "O king, live forever" but understood it in his own way, namely that he wished that the king would repent and thereby live forever in God’s eternal kingdom.</p>


text:
<h4>My God has sent His angel, and has shut the lions’ mouths- The shutting of the mouth of the pit by men is contrasted with the Angel shutting the mouths of the lions. Daniel’s faith in this would have been developed by his knowledge of what had happened to the three friends in the furnace. This is how friendship and fellowship in Christ should work in our days- the experiences and deliverances of others become our pattern and inspiration. See on :23. It was Daniel’s faith which stopped the mouth of lions (<a href='B:650 11:33'>Heb 11:33</a>); but he says that it was God who shut them. We see here how faith makes us as it were workers together with God; what we believe in, He does, to the point that therefore we, as it were, do it. This is the level of intimacy possible between God and faithful man.</h4><p>And they have not destroyed me; because before Him innocence was found in me; and also before you, O king, have I done nothing wrong- The Lord’s innocence was likewise the basis of His ’resurrection’ (<a href='B:510 2:24'>Act 2:24</a>). Perhaps Daniel inspired Paul, who wrote of how he too was delivered from lions (<a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a>) and who likewise claimed to be innocent before God and man (<a href='B:510 24:16'>Act 24:16</a>). Daniel was no mere Sunday School or Synagogue story for him, and neither should it be for us; we are to see ourselves in Daniel and be inspired to act in faith likewise.</p><h4>One part of our message is of the Kingdom of God; we should be living witnesses to the current rulership of God over our lives, and thereby we testify with credibility and integrity to the future establishment of that Kingdom on earth at the Lord’s return. If we are living the eternal life, the Kingdom life, then we are in ourselves advertisements for the good news of the Kingdom. Daniel is an example of this. The Aramaic verb habal occurs several times in Daniel, and between them we build up a picture of how Daniel was a living witness to the Kingdom. The word means to hurt / destroy. We find that the Kingdom of Babylon was to be cut down and destroyed; whereas the Kingdom of God was to never be destroyed (<a href='B:340 4:23'>Dan 4:23</a>; <a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>). The mouths of the lions were closed so that they did not "hurt" [s:w. ’destroy’] Daniel (<a href='B:340 6:22'>Dan 6:22</a>); and because of this, Darius praises God, saying that His Kingdom would never be ’destroyed’ (<a href='B:340 6:26'>Dan 6:26</a>). Daniel was not destroyed; and thus Darius came to believe that God’s Kingdom would not be destroyed. Because Daniel was set up as a living part and foretaste of that Kingdom. To a far greater extent, "the Kingdom of God" is a title given to the Lord Jesus- because He in His mortal life was the essence of that Kingdom, the embodiment of the Kingdom life.</h4>


text:
<p>Then was the king exceeding glad, and commanded that they should take Daniel up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no kind of harm was found on him, because he had trusted in his God- Again we see a similarity with the deliverance of Daniel’s friends from the furnace, upon whom no smell or trace of fire was even found. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>The king commanded, and they brought those men who had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions mauled them, and broke all their bones in pieces, before they came to the bottom of the den- This breaking in pieces connects with the image prophecy, where the little stone crushes to pieces the kingdoms of men. The historical incidents in the book of Daniel were all evidences that the larger Divine program would just as surely come to fulfilment. Such punishment of men with the very experience they intended to inflict upon others is in accordance with God’s law (<a href='B:50 19:11-13'>Deu 19:11-13</a>; <a href='B:50 19:19'>Deu 19:19</a>; <a href='B:50 24:16'>Deu 24:16</a>), and the whole scene is presented as analogous to the destruction of the rebels in the wilderness (<a href='B:40 16:32'>Num 16:32</a>). Perhaps Darius had been made aware ofGod’s law through the preaching of Daniel; to have agreed to destroy Daniel because of his pride therefore makes his failure all the more serious. And God’s continued grace and patience with him all the more wonderful.</p>


text:
<p>Then king Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations, and languages, who dwell in all the earth: Peace be multiplied to you- This copied Nebuchadnezzar in making a multi-lingual declaration of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to all peoples. That the king had power to unilaterally do this further indicates that he was not as weak and manipulated as some like to make out. He was proud and powerful, that was the problem. His power to do this suggests further that this "Darius" was not "Darius the Mede" who would not have had such wide authority.</p>


text:
<h4>I make a decree, that in all the dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel; for He is the living God, and steadfast forever, His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed- Perhaps the king is alluding to how he was usually addressed "O King, live forever"; and he now recognizes that he is not in fact Divine, and only Daniel’s God lives for ever. See on :21. He is accepting the truth of the image of Daniel 2. He was clearly aware of passages like <a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>, but had previously resisted the implications of the message. Now he accepted it and preached it to all peoples. The similar vision of the four beasts was given before this incident (<a href='B:340 7:1'>Dan 7:1</a>), and the king likely was aware of the same teaching expressed there- that God’s Kingdom alone would be eternal, and would triumph over his empire.</h4><h4>And His dominion shall remain to the end- This could simply mean ’eternally’. But perhaps this passage is behind Paul’s explanation of how the Lord Jesus delivers the Kingdom to God the Father at "the end" (<a href='B:530 15:24-26'>1Co 15:24-26</a>).</h4>


text:
<h4>He delivers and rescues, and He works signs and wonders in heaven and in earth, He who has delivered Daniel- This suggests that Darius realized that Daniel’s deliverance was only one of many ongoing miracles and activities of God in "heaven and in earth" at that time. He recognized the wider hand of God in human affairs. Darius is here using the words of Nebuchadnezzar (<a href='B:340 4:3'>Dan 4:3</a>); perhaps he was trying to make a similar repentance, inspired by the example of a previous monarch who had likewise encountered Daniel. The examples of repentance we see and read of in others are intended to inspire us to repentance (see on <a href='B:470 21:31-32'>Mat 21:31-32</a>).</h4><h4>From the power of the lions- Darius may also have in view how Daniel’s enemies were as a den of lions to him, which is how the figure is used in <a href='B:330 22:25'>Eze 22:25</a>.</h4>


text:
<p>So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian- The identity of Darius is problematic; this could be a way of saying "Darius, who was Cyrus the Persian". But Darius is specifically called a Mede, although perhaps this is a way of saying that he now called himself a Persian.</p>


text:
<h4>The Beasts of Daniel 7</h4><p>The four metals of the image of Daniel 2, followed as they were by the feet and ten toes part of iron and clay, are matched by the four beasts of Daniel 7, culminating in the beast with ten horns, which is also destroyed by the second coming of Christ. It is emphasized that Nebuchadnezzar ’saw’ the image, or literally, he had a vision of it (<a href='B:340 2:26'>Dan 2:26</a>; <a href='B:340 2:31'>Dan 2:31</a>; <a href='B:340 2:34'>Dan 2:34</a>; <a href='B:340 2:41'>Dan 2:41</a>; <a href='B:340 2:43'>Dan 2:43</a>; <a href='B:340 2:45'>Dan 2:45</a>). The same word is used in Daniel 7 of how now Daniel ’saw’ or ’had a vision of’ the four beasts (<a href='B:340 7:1-2'>Dan 7:1-2</a>; <a href='B:340 7:4'>Dan 7:4</a>; <a href='B:340 7:6-7'>Dan 7:6-7</a>; <a href='B:340 7:9'>Dan 7:9</a>; <a href='B:340 7:11'>Dan 7:11</a>; <a href='B:340 7:13'>Dan 7:13</a>; <a href='B:340 7:21'>Dan 7:21</a>). The Daniel 7 vision or ’seeing’ was perhaps from God’s perspective, Heaven’s view of the same realities which Nebuchadnezzar saw from an earthly perspective. There are many verbal similarities, as well as the general outline similarity between the four kingdoms. Thus the intention of the Daniel 2 image was to show how God ‘sets up kings’ who ‘rise up’ (<a href='B:340 2:21'>Dan 2:21</a>; <a href='B:340 2:31'>Dan 2:31</a>; <a href='B:340 2:39'>Dan 2:39</a>), and the same word is used of how both the lion and the bear are ‘set up’ or ‘raised up’ (<a href='B:340 7:4-5'>Dan 7:4-5</a>); indeed, all four beasts “are four kings which shall arise out of the earth” (<a href='B:340 7:17'>Dan 7:17</a>). The kingdoms of Daniel 2 reigned over the earth, and that clearly refers to the eretz promised to Abraham, Israel, rather than the entire planet. Daniel 7 makes the point that these kings or kingdoms will arise out of that same ‘earth’ which they later dominate. Clearly we are not to look for any identification of the beasts or kings from outside the land promised to Abraham.</p><p>The ten horns likewise represent “ten kings” which shall “arise” (<a href='B:340 7:24'>Dan 7:24</a>); and although it is not stated specifically, we are to assume that they arise also out of the same area, the “earth” / land. &nbsp;We should therefore be looking for a group of four kings / kingdoms, out of which arise ten kings / kingdoms; and out of them arises one “little horn” in particular. Revelation’s take on the beasts adds more detail- there are also seven heads, a false prophet acting as publicity agent for the beast, a whore riding the beast, sitting on seven hills / kings. The four beasts / kings are initially in conflict, striving with each other upon the sea, and arising from that comes the fourth beast entity, the composite beast including elements of all the previous ones. And from that there arises the ten horns and one little horn. We should not, however, think of these situations as having to be chronological developments, i:e. first the four, then the fourth beast, then the ten horns, then the little horn. It may work out like that, but not necessarily. The precise details need not concern us ahead of time; the picture is of a series of leaders and powers involved in the domination of the land promised to Abraham. The fact is, the beasts will all exist together in the last days, just as the metals of the image will. These various entities will “arise” from the land. And this is what we see happening already- in the last few years there has been what is called the Arabic, and particularly Sunni, sahwa, ‘awakening’. Powers and kings have risen up out of the scrubland and desert of the eretz, united in their hatred of Israel, but bitterly divided against each other.</p><p>We are for sure in the stage of the winds / ruach / Angel controlled nations ‘striving’ with each other- the eretz is full of conflict as never before, not just between Israel and her neighbours, but between those neighbours. There are currently four non-Jewish nations within the eretz- Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. But they exist just on paper as lines on the map; there are other significant entities within the area, e:g. Kurdistan, the Islamic State, Gaza, parts of Egypt and Turkey [depending how one defines the northern border of Israel], parts of Saudi Arabia [depending how the eastern border is defined]. In total they make ten kingdoms, but the number ten may not be literal. We would then be awaiting for the “little horn” to arise- a charismatic, antiChrist leader, or perhaps another very small entity. For the horn is called the little horn, and yet it is the most powerful in the very last days. However, the Hebrew and Aramaic words translated “little” can mean ‘short’ in terms of time as well as size. The idea may be that it lasts a very short time indeed, maybe literally days or hours in the very last day, and is the human representative of the beast / horns who personally challenges the Lord Jesus and is destroyed by the brightness of His coming.</p><p>The Origins of the Beasts</p><p>The empires of Daniel 2 dominate the earth. The Hebrew eretz can refer either to the entire planet, or to the land- the land promised to Abraham, the land of Israel, from the Euphrates to the river of Egypt. The dominion of the four beasts is therefore over the same area. Daniel saw the beasts arising out of the great sea. This could be a reference to the laver, which is also called a ’sea’ (<a href='B:110 7:23-26'>1Ki 7:23-26</a>; <a href='B:110 7:39'>1Ki 7:39</a>). This was a huge circular bowl for washing which was set upon 12 bronze oxen, representing the 12 tribes of Israel. They were arranged in four groups of three, facing north, south, east and west, in imitation of the camp of Israel in the wilderness. The beasts therefore arise out of the territory promised to the twelve tribes of Israel.</p><p><a href='B:730 17:15'>Rev 17:15</a> interprets waters or seas as "peoples". The beasts therefore arise out of the peoples who are to be found in the land of the 12 tribes of Israel. The interpretation is confirmed by the words of the Angel in <a href='B:340 7:17'>Dan 7:17</a>, who says that the four beasts who arise out of the sea are four king[dom]s which "shall arise out of the earth / land".</p><p>Another possibility regarding the "great sea" is that it refers to the area of Babylon’s dominion. The vision of Daniel 7 clearly parallels that of Daniel 2, which was intended to explain what would happen after the Babylonians. The arena of the "great sea" was to be dominated by other kingdoms apart from Babylon. In confirmation of this, we find the word rab ["great"] used about the greatness of Babylon ("great Babylon", <a href='B:340 4:30'>Dan 4:30</a>; <a href='B:360 2:2'>Joe 2:2</a>; <a href='B:360 2:11'>Joe 2:11</a>). But rab is also translated "master" (<a href='B:340 1:3'>Dan 1:3</a>), "lord", "captain", "chief" (<a href='B:340 2:10'>Dan 2:10</a>; <a href='B:340 2:14'>Dan 2:14</a>; <a href='B:340 2:48'>Dan 2:48</a>), "master" (<a href='B:340 4:19'>Dan 4:19</a>; <a href='B:340 5:11'>Dan 5:11</a>). We could understand the "great sea" as the sea of nations ruled over by the master, the lord of the sea, the king of Babylon- and Daniel is seeing this vision in the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon (<a href='B:340 7:1'>Dan 7:1</a>). As in the Daniel 2 vision, Daniel is explaining that the leadership of Babylon will not last, other kingdoms will arise to also dominate the sea of nations which was then under Babylon’s sole control. This again pushes us towards understanding the entire vision as specifically concerning the area over which Babylon had dominion, and not the whole planet.</p><p>Let’s not get caught up with the idea that Israel shall survive and defeat the invaders in her own strength. The beast must dominate Israel. Jerusalem will be taken. <a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>; <a href='B:340 7:21'>Dan 7:21</a> speaks of how the beast made war with the saints and prevailed against them- Israel- until the Ancient of days came; in <a href='B:340 7:23'>Dan 7:23</a> he devours the whole land [as a beast] and shall tread it down. The beast of Revelation is so powerful in the earth / land that "the world" wondered at it and at the whore riding it (<a href='B:730 13:3'>Rev 13:3</a>; <a href='B:730 17:6-7'>Rev 17:6-7</a>), feeling unable to make war with it. This of itself requires the demise and degrading of America, Europe and the West generally. <a href='B:340 11:41'>Dan 11:41</a>; <a href='B:340 11:45'>Dan 11:45</a> are likewise clear about the latter day King of the North: “He shall also come into the glorious land… He shall plant the tents of his palace between the sea and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him”.</p><h4>-------------</h4><p><a href='B:340 7:1'>Dan 7:1</a></p><p>In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon- This was about 10 years before the fall of Babylon. As with all Bible prophecy, there was a short term initial fulfilment which guaranteed that the larger picture would likewise finally come true.</p><h4>Daniel had a dream on his bed: then he wrote the dream and told the conclusion of the matters- The entire vision of the beasts of Daniel 7 is summed up in <a href='B:340 7:1'>Dan 7:1</a>: "the rosh of the words" (AV "sum of the matter"). And the rosh surely refers to the individual of <a href='B:330 38:2'>Eze 38:2</a> who will lead the latter day armies against Israel. The whole system of beasts is summed up in an individual rosh or leader, just as the metals of the image in Daniel 2 are in the form of a man with the face of Nebuchadnezzar. The little horn of Daniel 7 is actually called "the beast": "I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame" (<a href='B:340 7:11'>Dan 7:11</a>).</h4>


text:
<p>Daniel spoke and said, I saw in my dream and, behold, the four winds of Heaven broke forth upon the great sea- This again is a deconstruction of Babylon’s religion; the Enuma Elish describes the god of Babylon, Bel (or Marduk) using four winds to destroy sea monsters and become god of gods. This narrative is subverted so that Yahweh is to be recognized as God of all gods.</p>


text:
<h4>Four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another- This again is a subversion of the entire narrative of Babylon, for the walls of the Ishtar Gate were decorated with identical great beasts, who were said to defend Babylon. They would all come to their end beforeIsrael’s God. The nations represented by the beasts come from the earth, the eretz or land promised to Abraham (:17). The imagery of the sea may therefore simply be because there is a deconstruction going on- as explained on :2, the god of Babylon was supposed to have dominated the monsters of the sea in order to become the supreme god.</h4><p>Wild beasts were the threatened punishment upon Israel for their sin. So we are to expect the dominion of these beasts to be over the land and people of Israel. And this is what the metals of the image of Daniel 2 speak of likewise- dominion over the earth / land of Israel. Indeed, the ancient world often spoke of the arising of beasts as punishment for breaking a covenant (evidence provided in G:W. Buchanan, The Book of Daniel p. 167). And Israel had broken covenant; and these were the judgments to come upon them. The point is, the dominion of these beasts was to be over Israel; that is the focus of the vision, not Europe nor the rest of the planet.</p><h4>Daniel saw this vision at the very end of the Babylonian empire, in the reign of Belshazzar (:1), whom Daniel 5 presents as the last king of Babylon. But he sees the beasts, including the first beast [which is clearly based upon historical Babylon] arising from the sea. Yet Babylon had already arisen at the time of the vision, and was waning in power. This underlines the fact that the essential fulfilment of this vision is in the last days, for all the beasts exist together then just as all the metals in the image exist, to be broken by the Lord’s return. Whatever historical fulfilments there were, the vision speaks of entities arising in the very last days to abuse God’s people and be destroyed by the coming of His Son.</h4>


text:
<h4>The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings- Both lion and eagle are symbols of Babylon (<a href='B:300 49:19-22'>Jer 49:19-22</a> cp. <a href='B:310 4:19'>Lam 4:19</a>; <a href='B:350 8:1'>Hos 8:1</a>; <a href='B:420 1:8'>Hab 1:8</a>). They are also associated with Islam; Ali, Mohammad’s on in law, is called "The lion of God, always victorious". The plucking of the wings could refer to Nebuchadnezzar’s loss of power. <a href='B:300 49:19-22'>Jer 49:19-22</a> specifically calls Nebuchadnezzar the lion, and his soldiers the eagles. The primary potential fulfilment of the vision was in matching the four metals of Daniel 2, which spoke primarily of four kings rather than kingdoms which were to arise. A lion with eagles’ wings would have appeared like a sphinx, a monster assumed to be a demonic being. The point is that all that was considered demonic and radically evil was all the same under Divine control and manipulation; there is no radical evil in creation. This is why the New Testament uses the language of demons when describing the Lord’s miracles, which clearly showed that whether or not demons actually exist, they are of no power compared to God.</h4><p>I saw until its wings were plucked- Maybe a reference to the mental illness of Nebuchadnezzar, or the decline of the empire after his death. I have suggested several times on Daniel 2-6 that the various monarchs had the opportunity to repent and restore the Jews, and to resign their own kingdoms under the Kingdom of God they were allowing to be re-established in the form of the kingdom of Judah. But they all failed in this. The lifting up of the plucked lion would therefore refer to how after Nebuchadnezzar’s final repentance, the kingdom could have been lifted up and glorified. Whether or not Nebuchadnezzar maintained his repentance to the end of his days we don’t know, but his kingdom and successors didn’t. And so their kingdom likewise had to fall.</p><p>And it was lifted up from the earth, and made to stand on two feet as a man; and a man’s heart was given to it- The lifting up from the earth / ground may simply mean that this beast becomes like a man. The first beast, representing Babylon, had "the heart of a man". It was the embodiment of an individual person- Nebuchadnezzar. The latter day Babylon likewise will be centred around a person- the antiChrist figure of the last days, who in turn will profess to be the incarnation or embodiment of the false prophet Mohammed. What happened here is the reverse of what happened to Nebuchadnezzar (<a href='B:340 4:16'>Dan 4:16</a>; <a href='B:340 4:33'>Dan 4:33</a>). It could be that we have here a potential prophecy, of what could have happened after Nebuchadnezzar’s repentance after his years of mental illness, living as a beast. The beasts are represented as having human features because like the metals of the image, the primary possibility of the prophecies was that Nebuchadnezzar would be followed by a series of kings rather than kingdoms, which would climax in the revelation of Messiah and the re-establishment of the Kingdom. That didn’t happen, but it was the potential, which Judah’s spiritual indolence disallowed.</p><h4>Nebuchadnezzar in his madness became as a beast- with a body like a beast, hair like an eagle, and nails like those of a beast (<a href='B:340 4:33'>Dan 4:33</a>). This language is all used about the beasts in the later prophetic parts of Daniel’s prophecy. They had features of eagles (<a href='B:340 7:4'>Dan 7:4</a>), bodies of beasts (<a href='B:340 7:11'>Dan 7:11</a>), and remarkable nails or claws (<a href='B:340 7:19'>Dan 7:19</a>). Nebuchadnezzar became like such a beast because the latter day beast would be the embodiment of him, just as the image of Daniel 2 had the face of Nebuchadnezzarand was in the form of a man. The beast is epitomized by a man- "the number of the beast:::is the number of a man" (<a href='B:730 13:18'>Rev 13:18</a>).</h4>


text:
<h4>Behold, another beast, a second, like a bear; and it was raised up on one side- The original could mean "half crouching", or standing on its hind legs, ready to pounce in attack. The historical application could be to the Medes arising and then the Persians, hence it appears to have two sides to it.</h4><h4>And three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth: and they said thus to it, Arise, devour much flesh- "Arise" is a command to the beast to stand up as a man, on two feet. As noted on :4, these beasts are all epitomized in a man, the latter day antiChrist figure who is based upon Nebuchadnezzar. The "three ribs", the remnant of other beasts devoured by this beast, encourage it to stand up as a man and devour even more flesh; to do to others, as had been done to them. The three ribs could refer to the conquering of Lydia, Egypt and Babylon by Medo-Persia; or to the three great Assyrian cities of Nineveh, Calah, and Resen which they sacked. But it’s hard to understand how their remnants encouraged Medo-Persia to devour others. The relevance to Lydia, Egypt and Babylon was therefore but a primary fulfilment; the vision, like that of Daniel 2, speaks primarily of the last days, in the same way as the entire image of Daniel 2 [the basis of Daniel 7] stands complete in the last days.</h4>


text:
<h4>After this I saw, and behold, another, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it- The four heads could suggest a looking to expand in all directions. The historical application would be to the kingdom which succeeded Babylon. But I have explained that just as the image of Daniel 2 stands complete in the last days, so all the beasts likewise exist on the eve of the Lord’s return (:12). They can refer to different aspects of the latter day entity which dominates the land promised to Abraham. The fact Daniel saw them successively arise is on one level just the furniture of the vision, and doesn’t have to mean that there will be a chronological sequence of entities in the last days. There will be an element of four wings and heads in this particular manifestation of the latter day beast.</h4><h4>Historically, the leopard could refer to the lightning speed of the Persian troops, if the bear is understood as Media. The four heads / wings would then refer to the first four Persian kings, from Cyrus to Xerxes. Or it could refer to the lightning speed of the Greek ascendancy to power in the region under Alexander the great and his four generals, Ptolemy, Seleucus, Philip, and Antigonus; who may each be represented by the four wings and heads. Unless the generals are represented by the heads, and the wings speak of the four divisions of the Greek empire: Greece, Western Asia, Egypt, and Persia / India. The problem with all these historical interpretations is that they fail to meet the required criteria- that the vision of the beasts, like that of the image in Daniel 2, concern domination of the eretz promised to Abraham and not areas far outside of it such as Greece and India. The similarities are at best vague, and the main fulfilment will become clear in the latter domination of the eretz by an entity which includes all these previous elements. It should also be remembered that in <a href='B:730 17:13'>Rev 17:13</a>, horns represent kings, and heads represent mountains or kingdoms. Whether the four heads can represent Persian kings or parts of the Greek empire is therefore questionable, especially as the Greek conquests were not established as kingdoms under a king. The decorum of the symbolism requires that the wings and the heads are different in their meaning; four wings would suggest two pairs of wings. It may simply be allusive to the double winged beasts which were the classic symbols of Babylon and Assyria, as if to say that there were elements of their abuse of Israel in this beast.</h4>


text:
<h4>After this I saw in the night visions, and, behold, a fourth beast, awesome and powerful, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces- This is what the little stone of <a href='B:340 2:34'>Dan 2:34</a>; <a href='B:340 2:45'>Dan 2:45</a> does. This entity tries to execute judgment which only God should, and which He will do in the return of His Son to earth. This playing God is a significant factor in the judgment of these latter day entities.</h4><p>And stamped the residue with its feet: and it was diverse from all the beasts that preceded it; and it had ten horns- This beast was a composite beast, including the elements of the former beasts. It would have appeared very similar to Marduk, god of Babylon. Just as the image of Daniel 2 stands complete in the last days, headed up by a latter day Nebuchadnezzar, so this final beast is Babylon revived.</p><h4>The difference between devouring and then stamping the rest with its feet could suggest that this entity was not content merely with conquering, but destroyed [stamped upon] the rest which it could not conquer. This is hard to fit to any particular historical entity, but it complements the general impression we get of the latter day entity conquering the eretz of Israel and then causing destruction to the surrounding peoples. Such a scenario can easily be imagined given the current nature of things in the Middle East. The stamped bits of beast, as it were, would then correspond with the brief final part of the Daniel 2 image, a mixture of metal mixed with clay. That is how the Middle East will end up, and the Lord’s return will be in judgment upon that final phase of the Daniel 2 image and the mess left by the fourth beast.</h4>


text:
<h4>I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one- As explained in the introduction to this chapter, this appears to speak of an individual who arises, the antiChrist, who deposes others in order to establish himself as the personal epitomy of the fourth beast, which in turn is the composite of all the beasts. It is this individual who faces off against the real Christ at His second coming and is judged by His appearance on earth (:9). The horn / king was "little", and the original may mean one who has been diminished. The one made little arises or ’comes up’ to be the greatest, an imitation Christ. It could be that this individual has been humiliated in some previous conflict, but now arises again. This could be associated with the way the beast received a deadly wound but was healed (<a href='B:730 13:3'>Rev 13:3</a>; <a href='B:730 13:12'>Rev 13:12</a>).</h4><h4>Before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots: and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things- The plucking up of three horns (= kings, <a href='B:340 7:24'>Dan 7:24</a>; <a href='B:340 8:20'>Dan 8:20</a>; <a href='B:730 17:12'>Rev 17:12</a>) by such a dominant individual is hard to conclusively prove as having been historically fulfilled. It has a latter day application which is yet to become clear. This ndividual king is as it were the personification of the beast. He arises in the last days and will be alive at the time of the Lord’s return. This simply doesn’t fit a Pope being given three states in Italy. The horns are kings, not kingdoms. Mountains or kingdoms are heads not horns (<a href='B:730 17:9'>Rev 17:9</a>). The destruction of the little horn simply cannot refer to the supposed "loss of temporal power of the papacy" in 1870. This individual is destroyed by the Lord’s return and not some generations previously. And he is destroyed by the Lord’s return, not some European individual of bygone centuries.</h4>


text:
<p>I saw until thrones were placed, and One who was the ancient of days sat: his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of His head like pure wool; His throne was fiery flames, and its wheels burning fire- There is an abrupt change from the earthly realities of :8, which are recorded in prose, to this poetic [in Aramaic] description of the Divine throne and judgment. This abrupt change is intentional; to get the point over, that the situation on earth is going to be dramatically, suddenly changed by the Lord’s return. The thrones were "placed" or as AV "cast down". The kings and kingdoms of men are to be destroyed by the Lord’s coming, just as the little stone destroys all the metals. The kingdoms of men become those of the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:730 11:15'>Rev 11:15</a>). The ambiguity between ’placing / imposing’ and ’throwing down’ is because the placing of God’s throne is upon the casting down of human thrones. The "thrones" plural may be an intensive plural referring to the one great throne, sat on by "Him" singular (:10). Or the plural may be because it is the thousands of elohim, the judged and persecuted people of God, who now as it were sit on the Lord’s behalf to judge their persecutors.</p>


text:
<h4>A fiery stream came forth from before Him- The original for "stream" is only elsewhere used about "the river", Euphrates. Now the forces represented by that river are to be judged. But the equivalent Hebrew idea is repeatedly used for how the nations were to flow as a river to Jerusalem (<a href='B:290 2:2'>Isa 2:2</a>; <a href='B:290 60:5'>Isa 60:5</a>; <a href='B:300 31:12'>Jer 31:12</a>; <a href='B:400 4:1'>Mic 4:1</a>). The harder side of God strangely attracts. As the judgments flow out of Zion, so the peoples flow towards it. When God’s judgments are in the earth / land, its inhabitants come to learn righteousness (<a href='B:290 26:9'>Isa 26:9</a>).</h4><p>Thousands of thousands ministered to Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him- These are not myriads standing before Him to receive judgment, but the myriads of the seed of Abraham who now as it were sit with Him in judgment upon their persecutors. ’Standing before’ is being used as a parallel to ’ministering’.</p><h4>The judgment was set, and the books were opened- The Lord Jesus returns to earth with the Angels. They play a part in the final judgment. The placing of thrones (:9) and the sitting of the judgment is likely metaphor, part of the idea of the thrones / kingdoms of the world being subsumed beneath God’s throne / Kingdom. I discussed on :9 that the "Him" may refer to the Lord Jesus personally, but it could be that the plural "thrones" mean that God’s people now sit in judgment upon their persecutors, with their representative Angels now physically with them.</h4>


text:
<p>I saw at that time because of the voice of the great words which the horn spoke; I saw even until the beast was slain, and its body destroyed, and it was given to be burned with fire- The destruction of the beast is spoken of immediately after introducing the little horn. That horn&nbsp; or leader is presented as the personification of the beast, the whole evil system of its day and previous generations all represented in one person. Thus the words of the horn call forth the beast’s destruction; it will be the ultimate case of being condemned for the sake of words (<a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a>), and the Lord applies that principle as warning to us all. The language suggests that it was the words of the horn which led to the beast’s destruction. There will be teaching and claims made by the horn which are the most blasphemous ever; there was something dramatically noteworthy about them. The</p>


text:
<p>As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time- Just as all the metals of the image exist together when the little stone [Messiah] comes to earth and destroys them, so all the beasts likewise exist together at the time of His coming. The taking away of all human dominion surely speaks of their being subsumedbeneath God’s eternal kingdom. But their lives bring prolonged for a period, a season [a period until a Jewish feast?] and a time [a year?], may be in order to give them the chance of repentance. The original word for "Prolonged" only occurs elsewhere in <a href='B:340 4:27'>Dan 4:27</a>, where Daniel urges Nebuchadnezzar to repent so that there might be a lengthening or prolonging of his life. This connection should serve to guide us in interpreting this prolongation of their personal lives after their political destruction; it will be in order to help these terrible abusers of God’s people to repent. Such is God’s earnest desire to bring all men unto repentance, and we should share in that Spirit today.</p>


text:
<p>I saw in the night visions, and behold, there came with the clouds of the sky One like a son of man, and he came up to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before Him- Those who bring the "son of man" [Jesus] before the "ancient of days" [God] are surely the Angels. They received Him out of the sight of the disciples in Acts 1 and as it were introduced Him to Heaven. This ’coming of the Son of Man’ is clearly understood as the second coming (<a href='B:470 24:27'>Mat 24:27</a>; <a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a>; <a href='B:470 24:37'>Mat 24:37</a>; <a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a> etc:). Just as at His ascension, the Lord was introduced to the Father and in the court of Heaven, given all dominion; so at His second coming He is likewise given from God the moment and authority to now take this dominion unto Himself in actual terms on earth.</p>


text:
<h4>There was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed- This is the equivalent of the little stone becoming God’s eternal Kingdom on earth in <a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>. The purpose of the Kingdom becoming God’s is so that people from all nations, languages etc. should serve Him. It is not merely a taking power for the sake of it. The language here is therefore at the basis of the great commission, to even now make this same appeal to all nations. The Kingdom of God is a case of now but not yet. We proclaim it worldwide right now, in the spirit in which it shall be proclaimed at the Lord’s return. Because the Kingdom is to spread world-wide, we should therefore spread the Good News of this coming Kingdom world-wide. In prospect- and no more than that, let it be noted- the Kingdom has been established in that the Lord Jesus Christ has all power in Heaven and earth (<a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a>). This is the language of <a href='B:340 7:14'>Dan 7:14</a> concerning the future Kingdom. The believer must live the Kingdom life now, as far as possible (<a href='B:520 13:12-13'>Rom 13:12-13</a>). At the establishment of the Kingdom, we will be spreading the Gospel throughout this planet. In this life too we should live in the spirit of the Kingdom in this regard.</h4><h4>The great commission of&nbsp; Matthew 28 has evident reference to <a href='B:340 7:14'>Dan 7:14</a>, where the Son of Man is given authority and power over all so that people of all nations, races and languages should serve Him. We must remind ourselves that out of the 5,000 or so languages in the world, the vast majority have no true Christian representatives; and only about half of them have the Bible in their own language. And as of the year 2001, only 12% of the world have English as a first or second language; yet the majority of our community are English speaking. We have a long way to go in fulfilling this. Either that, or the scope of God’s acceptance of men from all these languages and nations over time and over space today is far wider than we as a community have thought. However, I personally am driven instead to understand that the Truth of Christ must be taken into literally all the world by our community in these last days:&nbsp; <a href='B:730 5:9'>Rev 5:9</a> presents us with the picture of men and women redeemed from every kindred [tribe / clan], tongue [glossa- language], people [a group of people not necessarily of the same ethnicity] and nation [ethnos- ethnic group, lit. ‘those of the same customs’]. This means that, e:g:, not only redeemed ‘Yugoslavs’ will stand before the throne in the end; but Macedonians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrans, Bosnians:::every ethnic group, with every custom, will have representatives who will have believed the Truth and been saved.</h4>


text:
<p>As for me Daniel, my spirit was grieved in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me- Daniel was not merely relaying a Divine message. He was deeply concerned at the content. As the Psalmist was "pricked in my reins", so the grief of Daniel for his people was deeply internal; this was no passing feeling of ’Oh what a pity it is that more won’t hear the Truth’. He was grieved in the midst of his body. He had hoped for the restoration of the Kingdom of God in his lifetime; and now he feared that in fact it would be terribly delayed to well beyond his time. And he grieved for that. Even after he was given the interpretation, his spirit remained grieved (:28). So the grief was not because he didn’t have the interpretation, but essentially because he figured thatIsrael’s kingdom was not to be restored during his lifetime, and his people must yet suffer the more.</p>


text:
<h4>I came near to one of those who stood by- Presumably an Angel. He was given the vision surrounded by Angels standing by him. In :10 we read of myriads of Angels and their charges ’standing by’; Daniel was as it were transported forward in time to the day of the Lord’s coming back to earth.</h4><h4>And asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things- We see here the basic principle, that God’s truth is revealed to those who wish to know it. It is not immediately apparent; hence the Lord used parables so that those who wanted a quick obvious message wouldn’t find it. But those who asked Him for the interpretation received it. This is why some find the Bible hard to understand- exactly because they do not truly seek to understand it, nor can they humble themselves to recognize that without Divine help, we cannot of itself properly understand the Divine words we read or hear.</h4>


text:
<p>These great animals, which are four, are four kings, who shall arise out of the land- They dominated the land / eretz from which they arose. Their provenance was from the eretz. They are to be understood as powers which arise from within the territory of the land promised to Abraham, and come to dominate it. This makes many of the continuous historical interpretations of the beasts at best primary fulfilments. The major fulfilment is yet to come, and the situation within the eretz now helps us see that this can realistically happen soon. We note the beasts were "four kings" rather than ’kingdoms’. This would look ahead to four such rulers arising in the last days. Perhaps there was a potential fulfilment in three or four kings arising after Nebuchadnezzar, climaxing in the re-establishment of Israel’s Kingdom; and Daniel lived through the reigns of that many monarchs. But du to lack of repentance, that scenario didn’t happen. The fulfilment is therefore in the last days. Seeing all the beasts exist together at the time of the end (:12), we need not think that there must be a chronological sequence of four leaders who arise. They are aspects of the same entity, viewed from different angles. The fact Daniel has to describe them in chronological order and saw them perhaps one after another doesn’t mean that they have a chronological fulfilment. This is the tendency of Greek, linear thinking. But here we are reading Hebrew apocalyptic, which places little stress upon linear chronology.</p>


text:
<p>But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever- Daniel would have understood these "saints" as God’s people, Israel, who would be the ones persecuted in the last days by the beast system (:25). "Come inherit the Kingdom prepared for you" perhaps alludes here. The same term is used of how Darius "took the kingdom" (<a href='B:340 5:31'>Dan 5:31</a>). Maybe even there, "the kingdom" refers to the kingdom of Israel. Because the prophetic theme in Daniel is that the various metals and beasts had dominion over the kingdom of Judah and the land promised to Abraham, and this was to be surrendered to Messiah at His appearing. Eternal possession naturally alludes to the promises to Abraham, that his seed would inherit the eretz for ever (<a href='B:10 17:8'>Gen 17:8</a>; <a href='B:10 22:17-18'>Gen 22:17-18</a>). That eretz was "the kingdom" they would eternally inherit.</p>


text:
<p>Then I desired to know the truth concerning the fourth beast, which was so different from all of them, exceedingly terrible, whose teeth were of iron, and its nails of brass; which devoured, broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet- The brass claws weren’t mentioned in the initial description. Iron and brass were metals within the image of Daniel 2. The idea is that this beast is a composite of all the previous beasts, just as the image as a whole is a composite of all the different metals which were within it. "The residue" is literally ’the remnant’ and is used of the remnant of Judah who had survived the Babylonian invasion (<a href='B:150 6:16'>Ezr 6:16</a> "the rest of the children of the captivity"; <a href='B:190 9:16'>Est 9:16</a>; <a href='B:290 10:20-22'>Isa 10:20-22</a>; <a href='B:290 11:11'>Isa 11:11</a>; <a href='B:290 11:16'>Isa 11:16</a>; <a href='B:290 28:5'>Isa 28:5</a>). But the more immediate reference in the context is to the "rest" or remnant of the previous beasts (:12 s:w:). The fourth beast tramples those who remain of the other beasts and those who remain of the Jews, and parts of them (the iron and brass) as it were stick to this fourth beast, becoming part of it. This produces the brief element of the image upon which the Lord returns- a weak mixture of clay and iron shards which has been trampled down. For breaking in pieces and trampling would be the only way to actually produce such a situation. We can expect an absolute bloodbath in the eretz promised to Abraham, and the scene for that is now set.</p><h4>describes the fourth beast as having the iron and brass metals of the image of Daniel 2 in it. The fourth beast had feet and teeth, we are specifically told. The lion, representing the head of gold, had feet (<a href='B:340 7:4'>Dan 7:4</a>); the bear, representing the breast of silver, had powerful teeth. The fourth beast has “claws of brass”, but brass referred to the third empire in the sequence of empires in the parallel Daniel 2. The point being, that the fourth beast has elements of the previous beasts in it. And likewise, the final entity which dominates Israel at the time of the Lord’s return in glory will have within it elements of all the previous dominators. Thus the fourth beast had all the characteristics of the other beasts. By it being destroyed through its ten horns being smitten by Christ’s return, it is as if the image of Daniel 2 is standing erect and complete in&nbsp; the last days, being hit on the ten toes (cp. the ten horns of the beast) by Christ’s return.</h4><p>Various Possible Outcomes</p><p>The four beasts are described as “diverse” from each other (<a href='B:340 7:3'>Dan 7:3</a>). The Aramaic word translated “diverse” is used 21 times, and every time it distinctly means to be changed from one state to another. It is used about ‘altering’ a king’s word (<a href='B:150 6:11'>Ezr 6:11</a>; <a href='B:340 3:28'>Dan 3:28</a>), the face of a man being ‘changed’ from one appearance to another (<a href='B:340 3:19'>Dan 3:19</a>; <a href='B:340 5:6'>Dan 5:6</a>). The idea is not simply that there were four beasts which were different from each other; it’s surely axiomatic that four different beasts are going to be different from each other. The beasts of Daniel 7 are clearly related to the metals of the image in Daniel 2; but this is not to say that the same thing is being said simply through different symbolism. That would be relatively pointless. There is an extension of the ideas and a modification of the way in which the final end [the establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth] will be achieved. I have suggested in the appendix that Daniel’s prophecies were conditional; a sequence of four kings could have arisen after Nebuchadnezzar, culminating in the establishment of the Kingdom on earth. Daniel’s long life spanned the 70 years captivity of Judah and the reign of at least four kings; the prophets repeatedly state that the intention of that captivity was that the captives might “know that I am Yahweh”; the experience was to be God’s pleading with His people to repent (<a href='B:330 20:36'>Eze 20:36</a>). Daniel wrote his visions for others to read, indeed it is specifically mentioned that he spoke out loud the Daniel 7 vision (<a href='B:340 7:1'>Dan 7:1</a>). The visions were part of that pleading with the captives to accept God’s perspective and join in on the side of His Kingdom. But Israel, as a whole, would not. Most of them preferred the soft life in Babylon and did not return at the time of the restoration. They would not “know Yahweh” nor did they repent- instead, as Ezekiel 18 makes clear, they blamed their captivity upon the sins of their fathers being visited upon them by an unjust God. Because of this lack of response, the possible outworking of the visions changed.</p><p>The passing of power from Babylon to the Medes could have continued according to the Daniel 2 vision; four kings could have arisen (note they are called ‘kings’ and not ‘kingdoms’ in <a href='B:340 7:17'>Dan 7:17</a>), and the Kingdom of God would have been established at the end of the 70 years captivity. But there were delays because of the Jews’ lack of response. Hence Daniel’s sorrow and shock throughout the book as he saw the final outworking being delayed. Therefore the fact the beasts are ‘changed’ or ‘altered’ is seamlessly in context with this idea of delayed and recalculated outcomes of the prophecies. This would explain why the further visions of the beasts in Daniel 8 suggests that in the time of the third kingdom [the Greeks], a charismatic leader would arise [clearly having Antiochus Epiphanes in view] who would be destroyed by the coming of God’s Son and the establishment of His Kingdom on earth. But that scenario also didn’t work out, and Antiochus Epiphanes became a prototype of the final antichrist, requiring a gap between that part of the prophecy and the last days. Perhaps this is why Daniel’s first vision in Daniel 7 is of the first three beasts, and then “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast” (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>)- as if the vision of the first three beasts was separate to that of the fourth beast. Likewise at the end of Daniel 11, the king of the north is clearly Antiochus Epiphanes throughout the chapter; but 11:40- 12:5 clearly envisages him standing up against “Michael” and being destroyed at the time of the resurrection of the dead. This didn’t happen, and so there arose a hiatus in fulfillment. This is not to say that God’s word is falsified; rather is it proved ultimately true in a way which takes on board human freewill. For otherwise, the very existence of God’s prophetic word would be deterministic of human behavior to an extent that human freewill is taken away by the very existence of the Divine word.</p><h4>It’s noteworthy that the vision of Daniel 7 is presented as seven separate visions, each introduced by the rubric “I saw” (7:2,4,6,7,9,11,13). Revelation is an expansion upon Daniel’s visions, and there we find seven visions which are in turn subdivided into seven visions and some of those subdivisions even are subdivided into seven visions. Admittedly, these can be defined in various ways, but some of the more obvious ones are: 7 visions:</h4><p>1) Revelation 4 to 8:1</p><p>2) <a href='B:730 8:2-11'>Rev 8:2-11</a></p><p>3) Revelation 12to14</p><p>4) Revelation 15, 16</p><p>5) Revelation 17, 18</p><p>6) Revelation 19</p><p>7) Revelation 20</p><p>The seven visions of conflict explaining the Establishment of God’s Kingdom between <a href='B:730 11:15'>Rev 11:15</a> to <a href='B:730 13:8'>Rev 13:8</a>:</p><p>1. The woman with child: the birth of Jesus, 12:1-2</p><p>2. The great red dragon: the enemy of Peace, 12:3-6</p><p>3. The war in heaven: the Cross, 12:7-12</p><p>4. The dragon, the woman, and her children: the struggle of God’s people, 12:13-17</p><p>5. The seven-headed beast from the sea: the power of Rome, 13:1-4</p><p>6. The war against the saints: persecutions, 13:5-10</p><p>7. The beast and his mark: corruption of the emperor and the dragon’s agents, 13:11-18</p><p>Then there are the Seven Visions of Mt. Zion, <a href='B:730 14:1-20'>Rev 14:1-20</a>; the Seven Bowls of the Wrath of God, <a href='B:730 15:1'>Rev 15:1</a> to <a href='B:730 16:21'>Rev 16:21</a>;the Seven Visions of the Fall of Babylon, <a href='B:730 17:1'>Rev 17:1</a> to <a href='B:730 19:10'>Rev 19:10</a>; the Seven Visions of Recompense, <a href='B:730 19:11'>Rev 19:11</a> to <a href='B:730 21:5'>Rev 21:5</a>.</p><p>The point is that the outline scenario of Daniel 7 is repeated in more detail in Revelation. But the primary reference remains the same- a prediction of a final time of trouble within the land promised to Abraham, which will come to term in the return of Christ to earth to establish His Kingdom upon the ruins of Israel’s enemies.</p><p>The Four Beasts and the Cherubim</p><p>It’s apparent that the four beasts are full of allusion to the cherubim vision seen by Ezekiel- also whilst in captivity in Babylon, just as Daniel was. The cherubim were likewise four separate living creatures [beasts] which somehow were also one. The four beasts of Daniel 7 become comprehended in the fourth beast and in the one composite beast of Revelation 13, which includes all elements of the previous beasts within it. Note that the Hebrew / Aramaic for “beast” means literally a living one- the living creature of the cherubim vision. The cherubim featured the faces of lion, ox, man and eagle (<a href='B:330 1:10'>Eze 1:10</a>), and lion, ox and eagle feature in the descriptions of the four beasts; the ‘man’ element is found in that the lion has the heart of a man, and the little horn of the fourth beast has the eyes of a man. The first living creature has wings which are lifted up from the earth (<a href='B:340 7:4'>Dan 7:4</a>)- which is precisely the language of the cherubim wings being lifted up from the earth in <a href='B:330 1:19'>Eze 1:19</a>; <a href='B:330 1:21'>Eze 1:21</a>; <a href='B:330 10:16'>Eze 10:16</a>; <a href='B:330 10:19'>Eze 10:19</a>. As the first beast is made to stand on its feet (<a href='B:340 7:4'>Dan 7:4</a>), so the cherubim caused Ezekiel to stand on his feet (<a href='B:330 2:2'>Eze 2:2</a>; <a href='B:330 3:24'>Eze 3:24</a>). The second creature had a “side” which was “lifted up” (<a href='B:340 7:5'>Dan 7:5</a>), as the cherubim likewise had ‘sides’ which were ‘lifted up’ (<a href='B:330 1:8'>Eze 1:8</a>; <a href='B:330 1:20'>Eze 1:20</a>). The third beast had four wings as each of the living creatures / cherubim did (<a href='B:340 7:6'>Dan 7:6</a>; <a href='B:330 1:23'>Eze 1:23</a>). The first and fourth beasts / living creatures have feet (<a href='B:340 7:4'>Dan 7:4</a>; <a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>) as the cherubim do (<a href='B:330 1:7'>Eze 1:7</a>). The description of how these living creatures / beasts will be judged by the Lord Jesus includes language also used inEzekiel’s cherubim visions- One seated upon a throne, wheels of burning fire (<a href='B:340 7:9'>Dan 7:9</a>).</p><p>Ezekiel’s vision was surely well known to Daniel. The connection is surely that throughout the course of human history, especially the course of Gentile domination of the land of Israel, the glory of God shone through it all, it was all going according to His purpose; and the various beasts were in fact manipulated by the living creatures of the Angel cherubim. Daniel 7 says this in different terms by opening with the statement that the four spirits / Angels of Heaven were responsible for the uprising of the four beasts (<a href='B:340 7:2-3'>Dan 7:2-3</a>). Events were not just taking their course, with everything spinning out of control; but rather, God through the Angels was powerfully in control. And His glory shone through the apparent cruelty, shame and randomness of the events that appeared to be happening to His land and people.</p><p>The great comfort is that these four beasts are reflected in <a href='B:350 13:7-8'>Hos 13:7-8</a>, where God threatens that He will be to Israel like a lion, a leopard, a bear and a wild beast. All these beasts are significant because of what they do to Israel; that is the territory and arena of their domination. But they are all acting as it were on God’s behalf, like the four beasts of the cherubim. There is no radical evil, evil out of control in the cosmos, with God’s people at risk from being dominated by it. God is completely in control, and even the terrible things done to Israel by the beasts are under His total control.</p><p>If we are looking for a power or ideology within the land promised to Abraham which focuses upon the destruction of Israel, then we do not have far to look. Islam explicitly encourages Moslems to attack Israel and force Jews to either convert to Israel or be killed: Consider these passages from the Hadith: "You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him" (Book 41:6981). Book 19:4366 likewise: "I will expel the Jews and Christians from Arabia and will not leave any but Muslim". The ’Arabia’ here is often interpreted as the Arabian Peninsula, but that was probably not in Mohammed’s perceptual geography. By ’Arabia’ he meant ’the lands where the Arabs live’, and that area includes Israel, inhabited as it is by several million Palestinian Arabs.</p><p>The Eclipse of the West</p><p>However we interpret the fourth beast and its horns, the point has to be accepted that it is radically different to any entity or empire which has ever dominated the earth / land of Israel before. It was "terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong::. it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it" (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>). It is this same beast which led John in Revelation to be staggered and amazed. For such an entity to dominate Israel in the last days, the current geopolitical situation must change. The West will be powerless to stop it. The historical support of Israel by the West, and their continual involvement on the ground in the Middle East to avert catastrophe and protect their interests there::. will end. This could be because of their financial collapse, or an oil / energy stranglehold over them,&nbsp;or the uprise of domestic forces allied with Islam which leave them powerless to get involved; or maybe they genuinely turn against Israel.</p><p>Or perhaps the beast entity is in possession of military technology, just as Goliath was, which leads to the sense that nobody can make war with this beast: "Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?" (<a href='B:730 13:4'>Rev 13:4</a>). And if ’all’ that is required for peace is to let these guys have their way with Israel::. well, that will be a price which will seem cheap compared to the unleashing of nuclear, germ, chemical or some other kind of technology against the West. "Who is like unto the beast?" suggests that it is felt that nobody is comparable with the beast in order to make war with it; there is a superiority of military ability which is perceived which results in recognizing that this entity cannot be challenged. The language is very much of David and Goliath. The current dependency of Israel upon military technology to maintain the upper edge over their enemies must therefore come to an end. All those scenarios are well on the way to development. Nuclear technology is already in the hands of Iran, and can spread easily to irresponsible hands. It would also be typical of Russian foreign policy to spite the West by arming the West’s enemies with such technology. Without the West as the power broker in the Middle East, such an entity will surely arise. The release of the restrained horsemen on the banks of the Euphrates may refer to this restraining influence being removed (Revelation 9, 16). The growth of the IS shows the potential for it, if nothing else. So the very prediction of such an entity arising in the land promised to Abraham has some radical implications for the West.</p><p>Judah’s invasion by the Babylonians is clearly a type of the latter day invasion by the Islamic entity or state. The Biblical record emphasizes Judah’s sense of betrayal, in that her lovers and friends [i:e. other nations] had not come to her aid as they had promised and as she had hoped (Lamentations is full of such language). This has its counterpart today, in that Israel depends upon the West to be the power broker deflecting any major strike against them by the Islamic powers around them. But that factor will be removed, the promises and undertakings will not come true- because the Biblical picture is of a huge state in power over Israel without opposition.</p><p>The Horns on the Beast</p><p>The ten horns represent ten kings- the reference may be to individual leaders rather than to nations (<a href='B:340 7:24'>Dan 7:24</a>). They arise out of the head of the beast, maybe implying they share the same overall ideology or thinking. That ideology would be that of hatred of Israel and a common desire to destroy her- which rather suggests Islam. That is the only appropriate ideology within the earth / land promised to Abraham which could be the candidate for the fulfilment of this prophetic requirement.</p><p>The overall picture presented by the descriptions of the horns is of conflict with each other, whilst at the same time dominating the earth / land of Israel. The little horn ‘subdues’ [to abase / humiliate / degrade] three of the horns, and according to <a href='B:730 17:16'>Rev 17:16</a>, the ten horns hate the whore, the individual riding the beast entity, and bitterly destroy and burn her. And the fortunes of the entire entity ebb and flow- one of the wounds has a deadly wound but revives, the beast itself has a deadly wound from a sword but revives (<a href='B:730 13:3'>Rev 13:3</a>; <a href='B:730 13:12'>Rev 13:12</a>; <a href='B:730 13:14'>Rev 13:14</a>), the beast was, is not and yet is (<a href='B:730 17:8'>Rev 17:8</a>), and we are beginning to see this ebb and flow of the fortunes of the entity developing in the land / earth. This is precisely the picture that has more recently unfolded in the land promised to Abraham- a series of increasingly powerful and aggressive leaders and powers, morphing together from the perspective of Israel and God’s people into a system of abuse such as has never been seen and never will be. And yet from another viewpoint, they are bitterly divided against themselves.</p><h4>The tendency is to want to clearly identity each of the ten toes / ten horns of the fourth beasts, the wings of the lion, the three ribs in the mouth of the second beast, the four wings and four heads of the third beast, the three horns who are plucked up by the little horn of the fourth beast, and then in Revelation we have seven heads found on the beast, as well as the ten horns, who in Revelation “hate the whore” and burn her; and the whore who rides the beast sits on seven hills or kings. Each of these attributes [toes, horns, wings, heads] refer to kings / kingdoms. Looking at the scenarios through half closed eyes, as it were, not sweating the details, we have the impression of a latter day entity dominating the earth / land promised to Abraham, which is comprised of a bewildering array of smaller powers and charismatic leaders who are often pitted against each other. This is exactly the position we see developing in that geographical area. We don’t need to interpret the fine details ahead of time- that is not how prophecy functions. When it all happens, then it will be clear. What we are seeing is the general picture developing- an array of aggressive powers, some strong and some weak, broadly grouped into four groups, matching the four beasts who will exist in the last days. They are all united around a desire to dominate Israel. It’s not hard to imagine how they will destroy each other, which is God’s preferred method of judging His people’s enemies.</h4><p>The Little Horn</p><h4>The changing of times and laws by the antichrist figure of <a href='B:340 7:25'>Dan 7:25</a> sounds like the radical Islamist desire to impose the Islamic calendar and sharia law in the land promised to Abraham, which they see as their caliphate; and for sure, if Israel becomes part of an Islamic state, then the keeping of the Jewish calendar will be outlawed. The implementation of sharia law and changing legal structures to reflect it, is a major theme in their program. It’s clear that the three and a half year domination of Jerusalem and changing of the Jewish law and calendar had an initial fulfilment in the abuses of Antiochus Epiphanes, who desecrated the temple. There was a three and a half year period from the edict of Antiochus in June 168 BC to the rededication of the temple in December 165 BC:&nbsp; The little horn of Daniel 8 comes out of the Greek kingdom, but the horn of Daniel 7 out of the fourth kingdom. I suggest that this is because the prophecy could have been fulfilled totally at the time of Antiochus- Messiah could have come and destroyed him. But the various required preconditions weren’t met, and so there was another possibility of it coming true out of the Roman kingdom [another possibility is that the four beasts and metals refer to Babylon-Media-Persia-Greece rather than Babylon-Medo Persia-Greece-Rome]. Revelation uses the same imagery to describe the antiChrist of the last days, who will incorporate some elements of the previous historical fulfilments of the little horn in men like Antiochus Epiphanes.</h4>


text:
<p>And concerning the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up, and before whom three fell, even that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spoke great things, whose appearance was more aggressive than its fellows- This horn can be understood as vaguely relevant to Antiochus Epiphanes, and also Vespasian in AD70 (see on :24). The prophecies had various primary fulfilments over time, each of which pointed forward to the major fulfilment which is yet to come, where the latter day horn will have all the features of its previous historical incarnations. The great and blasphemous things spoken by this horn would be associated with the changing of Divine times and seasons by the same horn which we read of later.</p>


text:
<h4>) but they play out before the court of Heaven the situation on earth. Later in Daniel we find Angels likewise representative of kings and kingdoms (<a href='B:340 10:13'>Dan 10:13</a>; <a href='B:340 10:20'>Dan 10:20</a>). The comfort is that God is aware of all that happens on earth, and in fact He orchestrates it. The situation on earth is therefore not ultimately spinning out of control. My point in this context is that the four beasts strive with each other and do not naturally bond with each other. This is the same situation as we find in the feet and toes made part of iron, part of clay, mixed with each other but not cleaving to each other. Just as the image stands erect in the last days in order for it to be destroyed, so the sequence of beasts which we have in Daniel 7 are not simply a historical outline of a sequence of empires. Each of them exists in some form in the last days, and are united together in their brief domination of the earth / land promised to Abraham. The first three beasts stand ’before’ the fourth one, the original meaning ’in the presence of’, rather than previously in chronological terms (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>). The fourth beast has its body destroyed, although the other beasts are also present there and have their lives prolonged "for a season" (<a href='B:340 7:11-12'>Dan 7:11-12</a>). The historical interpretation of the beasts is not irrelevant, however. The final entity dominating Israel will incorporate aspects of all the previous systems which have dominated the land promised to Abraham.</h4><p>The Fourth Beast</p><p>The fourth beast with the ten horns equates with the legs or iron and ten toes of the image of Daniel 2. This entity will be in existence at the time of Christ’s return, because it is to be destroyed by His coming. And we have that same picture in Revelation. Historically, the legs of iron represent Rome, but the beast is not a historical entity, it exists in the last days. So although there are parallels and outline similarities between the metals of the image and the beasts, this is not to say that they are all one and the same. The final beast has elements of all the previous beasts, it is a composite entity including all the elements of the previous systems which have dominated the land and people of Israel. Just as the image stands complete in the last days, so the final beast stands complete. The whore sits on many waters, representing various languages and peoples; and yet she sits upon the beast (<a href='B:730 17:1'>Rev 17:1</a>; <a href='B:730 17:3'>Rev 17:3</a>; <a href='B:730 17:15'>Rev 17:15</a>). The latter day beast is therefore not one nation but an amalgam of peoples.</p><p>As the entire image was "terrible" (<a href='B:340 2:31'>Dan 2:31</a>), so the fourth beast system is described with the same word (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>). As the image appeared “excellent” (<a href='B:340 2:31'>Dan 2:31</a>), so the strength of the fourth beast was ‘excellent’ (s:w. <a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>). <a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a> emphasizes that this final beast is altogether more aggressive than any previous beast / dominator of the land: "Dreadful, terrible, strong exceedingly::. it was different from all the beasts that were before it". The original word translated “dreadful” suggests whoever sees it slinks away in fear- its strength and advantage over others is “exceeding”. This is the same awe we find in Revelation 13, where the world looks on at the beast, marvelling at this entity and feeling that nobody can even begin to make war with him. This speaks of an entity that is more aggressive and fear-inspiring than the aggressive Babylonians, Assyrians or abusive Nazis. It implies too the eclipse of the West as the dominant world power block and power broker. The Islamic jihadists may develop into an entity which fits this bill- a reign of terror involving cutting off children’s heads and parading their actions on videos, live crucifixion of any who don’t agree with them, but with a stranglehold advantage over any critics::. The same radical difference between this final beast and all previous ones is brought out by the way in which John, after all he had earlier seen, was in shock at the way the beast drunk the blood of the saints, i:e. the people of God, Israel in their land (<a href='B:730 17:6'>Rev 17:6</a>). The whole world likewise is in shock horror at this beast (<a href='B:730 13:3'>Rev 13:3</a>; <a href='B:730 17:8'>Rev 17:8</a>). The Islamic jihadists haven’t yet struck so much fear into everyone, but the time is surely coming. <a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a> puts it this way: "There shall be a time of trouble such as never was" for God’s people, and they will be saved from it by the standing up of Jesus for His people, the resurrection of the dead and the destruction of the "king of the north". The "time of Jacob’s trouble" from which he shall be saved (<a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a>) must be understood in the context of how the phrase "time of trouble" is used in the Bible to describe times of Israel’s invasion and suffering at the hands of their neighbours (<a href='B:290 33:2'>Isa 33:2</a>; <a href='B:300 2:27-28'>Jer 2:27-28</a>; <a href='B:300 8:15'>Jer 8:15</a>; <a href='B:300 11:12'>Jer 11:12</a>; <a href='B:300 11:14'>Jer 11:14</a>; <a href='B:300 14:8'>Jer 14:8</a>; <a href='B:300 14:19'>Jer 14:19</a>; <a href='B:330 7:7'>Eze 7:7</a>). "There shall be a time of trouble such as never was" therefore suggests a time of abuse of Israel such as has never been seen. And this includes the Nazi holocaust, the death camps of Europe, the Babylonian and Assyrian atrocities::. It’s purely wishful thinking to hope that the IDF and Israel’s military technology will stave this off. It will not. Jerusalem is to be taken and the women raped (<a href='B:450 14:2'>Zec 14:2</a>). The beast is to dominate the earth / land of Israel.</p><h4>The "iron teeth" of the beast (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>) can be connected with the way that "Damascus" tore the Israelites with teeth of iron (<a href='B:370 1:3'>Amo 1:3</a>). Damascus is a key player in the future Islamic state which is to be established in the land promised to Abraham. There will be an element of the historical Syrians in the entity which finally dominates Israel. And we can clearly see that in the Islamic jihadists. The same figure of a beast with huge teeth closing in upon Israel is to be found in <a href='B:360 1:6'>Joe 1:6</a>, describing the Babylonian and / or Assyrian invasion of the land. Teeth like lions are also mentioned in the picture of men with long hair arising like aggressive locusts out of the earth / land to torture to death those who live there for five months (<a href='B:730 9:4-8'>Rev 9:4-8</a>). This very much sounds like the long haired jihadist fighters of the IS briefly dominating the land at the end. But they are part of the beast system, which includes this element of teeth because it is a composite figure including all elements of Israel’s persecutors.</h4><p>The beast will "devour" the land (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>), just as the historical Babylon ’devoured’ Jerusalem with fire (<a href='B:300 30:16'>Jer 30:16</a>; <a href='B:310 4:11'>Lam 4:11</a>; <a href='B:330 15:5'>Eze 15:5</a>; <a href='B:330 19:12'>Eze 19:12</a>; <a href='B:330 23:25'>Eze 23:25</a>; <a href='B:350 8:14'>Hos 8:14</a>; <a href='B:370 1:4'>Amo 1:4</a>; <a href='B:370 2:5'>Amo 2:5</a>) and the Assyrians devoured the land (<a href='B:300 50:17'>Jer 50:17</a>; <a href='B:350 11:6'>Hos 11:6</a>; <a href='B:350 13:8'>Hos 13:8</a>; <a href='B:360 1:4'>Joe 1:4</a>; <a href='B:360 1:19-20'>Joe 1:19-20</a>; <a href='B:360 2:3'>Joe 2:3</a>; <a href='B:360 2:5'>Joe 2:5</a>; <a href='B:360 2:25'>Joe 2:25</a>). All these verses use the same word translated ’devour’ in <a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>. Clearly enough, the ’devouring’ of the fourth beast is a summation of all previous ’devourings’ of God’s land and people. Even in Old Testament times, this idea of a singular beast embodying all Israel’s enemies was not unknown. For <a href='B:330 34:28'>Eze 34:28</a> looked forward to the day when "Neither shall the beast of the land devour them [any more]". <a href='B:460 3:11'>Mal 3:11</a> likewise speaks of how "the devourer" will be rebuked by God when finally Israel respond to the Elijah prophet (<a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a>). This again suggests that the final devouring of Israel will be whilst the Elijah prophet is making an ongoing appeal for their repentance and acceptance of Jesus. Once they do so, the devourer is rebuked and Jesus returns to His desperately repentant people.</p><p>The beast stamps on others (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>); the same word is used for how Egypt did this to God’s people and others within the land promised to Abraham (<a href='B:330 32:2'>Eze 32:2</a>). Although Egypt doesn’t figure in the sequence of metals in the image of Daniel 2, the beast incorporates aspects of all Israel’s previous dominators- and they include Egypt. We can therefore expect the beast entity to include features of Nazi, Catholic and other historical persecutors of God’s people, even though those entities weren’t part of the Daniel 2 image. This is why the historical interpretations of 666 and the beast which apply them to Nero’s Rome and various Catholic persecutions are not per se incorrect. They were true for their time. But the final persecuting entity will include them all within what it is and what it does.</p><p>The Remnant</p><p>It is specifically stated that the beast "stamped the remnant" after it had torn and destroyed the land. This could refer to the remnant or “rest” of the beasts (7:12 s:w:). But it may mean that as a result of all the persecution and destruction of the majority of Jews in the land, the surviving remnant of God’s people is stamped underfoot, or subjected to despite. The very same metaphor is used of how the city of God will be "trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled". Those "times" may well refer to the period of 1260 days, three and a half years, spoken of in the prophecies of the tribulation. This trodden down and abused remnant are those who willfinally repent and accept Jesus. There are prophecies of how this "remnant" (same word translated "residue" in <a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a> AV) will finally repent (<a href='B:290 10:20-22'>Isa 10:20-22</a>; <a href='B:290 28:5'>Isa 28:5</a>). <a href='B:290 11:11'>Isa 11:11</a>; <a href='B:290 11:16'>Isa 11:16</a> speaks of the latter day gathering of this "remnant" from areas throughout the land promised to Abraham- as if there will be a literal taking captive of the surviving Jews left in the land, scattering them throughout the ’land’ promised to Abraham. The chronology fits well- the beast briefly dominates the land, the majority of Jews living there are killed, a remnant remains, who are stamped underfoot whilst Jerusalem likewise is trodden underfoot, and this leads to their repentance and therefore the return of the Lord Jesus to save them from the jihadists. It’s worth noting that the word "remnant" is used repeatedly of the remnant of Judah who were in captivity in Babylon at Daniel’s time and the remnant of them who returned to the land. This would’ve been how his first audience naturally understood the term- referring to Jewish people who had been taken out of their land by their neighbours (<a href='B:150 3:8'>Ezr 3:8</a>; <a href='B:150 4:3'>Ezr 4:3</a>; <a href='B:150 4:7'>Ezr 4:7</a>; <a href='B:150 4:9'>Ezr 4:9</a>; <a href='B:150 6:16'>Ezr 6:16</a>; <a href='B:160 10:28'>Neh 10:28</a>; <a href='B:160 11:1'>Neh 11:1</a>; <a href='B:160 11:20'>Neh 11:20</a>; <a href='B:190 9:16'>Est 9:16</a> "the remnant of the Jews that were in the king’s provinces"):&nbsp;</p><p>Then shall come to pass the word of <a href='B:450 12:8'>Zec 12:8</a>: "He that is feeble among them [s:w. <a href='B:340 11:41'>Dan 11:41</a> about how many in the land of Israel will be overthrown or made feeble] in that day shall be as David". The suggested allusion is to David overcoming the Palestinian Goliath, who all else feared to make war with as he spoke his blasphemy against God and Israel- exactly the language of <a href='B:730 13:4-8'>Rev 13:4-8</a>.</p><p>The Beasts all Exist Together</p><p>There is a clear parallel between the four winds which strove with each other upon the sea, and the four beasts who came up out of the sea. The impression is that these beasts all exist at the same time, and their conflict with each other leads to the final appearance of a beast which represents all of them; and this entity dominates the earth / land promised to Abraham, and God’s people upon it. The appearance of this entity will therefore be brought about by massive conflict within the land promised to Abraham- and this is what we are seeing before our eyes. The only uniting issue between the powers in that area is a common hatred of Israel and desire to take Jerusalem. This will be the basis of the final beast arising. We can perhaps look to the development of four distinct power groups within the land promised to Abraham, giving rise to ten ‘kings’ or leaders, the horns of the beast, the ten toes of the image. The period of conflict between those groups could be very brief. We need not, therefore, think that the Lord’s coming isn’t near because we can’t currently identify those four entities or ten leaders. What we are seeing before our eyes is the winds blowing on the sea, striving between the peoples of the land / earth promised to Abraham, leaving millions dead and the entire region in bitter division. And this, according to Daniel 7, will give rise to the emergence of the final entity of abuse, probably an Islamic State, likely on the pattern of the entity now known as the Islamic State.</p><p>The beast of Revelation 13 has elements of all the other beasts. And so does the fourth beast of Daniel 7. It had iron teeth and brass nails (<a href='B:340 7:19'>Dan 7:19</a>), alluding to the brass of the third kingdom and the iron of the fourth kingdom. It had “eyes of a man” and a human eye on its horn, (<a href='B:340 7:8'>Dan 7:8</a>; <a href='B:340 7:20'>Dan 7:20</a>), just as the first beast, the lion, had a human heart and stood up like a man (<a href='B:340 7:4'>Dan 7:4</a>). The bear, the second beast, had three ribs in its mouth, representing its conquest of three other powers; the fourth beast features a little horn which conquers three other horns (<a href='B:340 7:8'>Dan 7:8</a>). The bear also ‘devoured much flesh’ (<a href='B:340 7:5'>Dan 7:5</a>); the fourth beast ‘devours’ the land (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>). The third beast, the leopard, had four heads (<a href='B:340 7:6'>Dan 7:6</a>), rather like the fourth beast also has ten horns; and Revelation 13 explains that these are later located on seven heads. The fourth beast of Daniel 7 is therefore a composite beast; the other beasts merge into an entity which includes all of them, even though they still exist separately- for in the final Divine judgment, the fourth beast entity is destroyed, but the beasts have their dominion taken away although their lives are “prolonged for a season and time” (<a href='B:340 7:12'>Dan 7:12</a>). This may mean that the final entity is destroyed, but the individual components of it continue to exist “for a season and time”. The only other reference in Daniel to a period being “prolonged” is when the same word is used in <a href='B:340 4:27'>Dan 4:27</a> regarding the possibility of the king of the kingdom prolonging his life by repentance; it could be that the delay or prolonging is in order they repent:&nbsp; This may also explain why the first beast, representing Babylon, is pictured as having a man’s heart being given to it after its wings [power] are cropped. The historical king of Babylon had a beast’s heart (<a href='B:340 4:16'>Dan 4:16</a>), but his understanding [a human heart] returned to him on his repentance (<a href='B:340 4:34'>Dan 4:34</a>). So this feature of the first beast may be a hit at a repentance after the pattern of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel chapter 4.</p><p>The Revival of all the Beasts</p><p>On one hand, the metals of the image in Daniel 2, and the sequence of beasts which parallel them in Daniel 7, speak of a series of kingdoms in history which dominated Israel. And yet on the other hand, they must all exist in the last days, under the headship of a latter day Babylon. I suggest this will be fulfilled by the latter day entity which dominates Israel including elements of all the previous empires which dominated Israel. The other prophecies in Daniel contain more detail about these various empires in their historical fulfilment. Elements of those prophecies will therefore also have some application in a latter day sense; various characteristics of those empires will be seen in the final entity which dominates Israel. It will be not only Assyria redivivus &nbsp;but also Persia, Greece and Rome redivivus. This kind of thing is seen elsewhere in the Scriptures- for often Israel’s enemies are described in terms of their previous oppressors, especially Egypt. Take <a href='B:290 52:4'>Isa 52:4</a>: “My people went down into Egypt to live there, and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause”. It was the Egyptians who oppressed Israel in Egypt, but they are here called the Assyrian- because at Isaiah’s time, the Assyrians were the threat to Judah, but they are cast by Isaiah in terms of the Egyptians of previous centuries.</p><h4>Daniel 7 depicts the various metals of the image as various beasts. The final beast of the last days incorporates all the elements of the previous beasts. But her head will be Babylon, replete with a latter day Nebuchadnezzar. Note that the first three of the empires of Daniel’s image had Babylon as their capital. It is appropriate that the latter day revival of the image and beast has Babylon likewise as its capital. It surely cannot be accidental that in Babylon today, “the ancient temple of Ishtar has been rebricked, replastered and whitewashed… carved into the bricks are reliefs of oxen and a mythical beast called the mushrishu, with the head of a serpent, body of a fish, front legs of a lion, and back legs of an eagle” (Chattanooga New Free Press, April 5, 1987). Latter day Babylon chooses to identify itself as an amalgam of beasts!</h4><p>The various beasts and metals must all be in existence at the time of Christ’s return in order for him to destroy them by his coming. The little stone hits the image on its ten toes- corresponding to the ten horns of the fourth beast of Daniel 7. The ten horns must in a sense be in existence at the time of Christ’s coming. But so also is the fourth beast, corresponding to the legs of iron- because it is at the coming of Christ that “the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame” (<a href='B:340 7:11'>Dan 7:11</a>). Likewise at this same time, “the rest of the beasts… had their dominion taken away” (<a href='B:340 7:12'>Dan 7:12</a>). The other beasts, corresponding to the earlier metals in the image, are ‘alive’ at the coming of Christ. Just as the image stands complete, so all the beasts are alive in order to receive judgment. The horns are presented as part of the fourth beast; their destruction is part and parcel of the fourth beast’s destruction.</p><h4>Daniel sees the four beasts (corresponding with the four metals of the image of Daniel 2) all come up together after the waves of the sea are troubled (<a href='B:340 7:3'>Dan 7:3</a>), connecting with the Lord’s description of the last day powers around Israel in the same way (<a href='B:490 21:25'>Luk 21:25</a>). The fact they all come up together shows that he was not only seeing a continuous historic vision. The way he sees the beast representing Babylon come up when historical Babylon at the time of the vision had already ’come up’ shows it was not a historical description of those powers. The beasts all exist again in the last day, just as all the metals of the image exist together in order to be destroyed together by the Lord’s return. Yet the ’traditional’ interpretation of the beasts as depicting the various empires which dominated Israel in the past still holds true; the point is, the final beast incorporates elements of all those powers which once dominated Israel. It is in this sense that the whole image of Daniel 2 stands complete in the last days; the latter day Nebuchadnezzar has beneath him all the elements of Israel’s previous persecutors.</h4>


text:
<p>Until the ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom- These are the same "saints" who are prevailed against in :21. I have mentioned at several points in expounding Revelation that it could well be that those of God’s people slain during the final tribulation are resurrected separately, and are used to judge their latter day abusers.</p>


text:
<h4>Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on the land- The land in view is that promised to Abraham. This is parallel with the fourth power in the image vision reigning over "all the earth" or land.</h4><h4>Which shall be different from all the kingdoms, and shall devour the whole land, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces- In :19, the fourth beast devours, treads down and breaks in pieces "the remnant", both of Israel and of the earlier beasts, just prior to being destroyed by the Lord’s return to earth. All the beasts are therefore in existence together in the last days. Any attempt to find historical fulfilments of these things is therefore doomed, and at best only vague fulfilments can be suggested. Instead of devouring persons, "the remnant", here the fourth beast devours and abuses "the whole land". This is clearly the land promised to Abraham. No very satisfying fulfilment of this can be found in the various historicist interpretations. It is the "land" which is from where the beasts arise, it is that same land where they have dominion and are devoured by the fourth beast. It is the picture of a total bloodbath in the entire eretz promised to Abraham, and the scene is now set for that to happen. It is the sheer scale of the evil, aggression, torture and bloodletting which makes this final beast "different" from all others in history. The same word is used in Daniel for how the face of Nebuchadnezzar was "changed" because of the extreme wrath he felt towards the Jews (<a href='B:340 3:19'>Dan 3:19</a>). Whilst all the beasts ’differed’ from each other (:3), there was something radically different in how this beast was different to all of them (:7,19). Any attempt to apply this to historical Rome fails to account for this radical difference required by the text.</h4>


text:
<p>As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom shall ten kings arise: and another shall arise after them; and he shall be different from the former, and he shall put down three kings- The language used in Daniel 7 about "the little horn" matches that of <a href='B:340 11:36-45'>Dan 11:36-45</a> about "the king of the north", who was Vespasian in the AD70 context. The shadowy primary fulfilments help us to imagine the kind of latter day fulfilment which is the primary burden of these prophecies. Vespasian directed war against the Jews and Jerusalem in particular for three and a half years, from the battle of Ptolemais in April AD67 to September AD70 when Jerusalem fell (Josephus, The Jewish War 3:29; 6:407; 435). He was made emperor in AD69, a year which saw three emperors in one year: Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. One cannot deny an initial fulfilment here; but Vespasian was in Palestine and Egypt all that time, and it is hard to say that he ’put them down’ in the terms required by the language here. So we have to accept that this was but a primary fulfilment, looking ahead to a greater one when antichrist is established in the last days, presiding over the three and a half year tribulation of Israel and the Jews. Kenneth Gentry points out that if Julius Caesar is counted as the first emperor of Rome,&nbsp; then Vespasian would have been the tenth emperor, the tenth horn who was also the little horn (Kenneth L. Gentry Jr:, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (San Francisco: Christian Universities Press, 1997) pp. 154–159). But this horn, different from the others just as the fourth beast differs from the other beasts (:7,19) is something radically different and unprecedented in human history. It points, as noted on :24, to a radically abusive destruction within the eretz promised to Abraham; it will truly be the unprecedented time of Jacob’s trouble (<a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a>; <a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>). The Nazi holocaust will pale into insignificance before it.</p>


text:
<h4>He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear down the saints of the Most High; and he shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time- The little horn seeks "to change times and laws"; but we go straight on to read that God’s people are given into his power for "a time and times and the dividing of time" (<a href='B:340 7:25'>Dan 7:25</a> AV). It could therefore be that the time period of time, times and half a time [three and a half years?] is in fact defined and chosen by the little horn, as part of him seeking to establish "times". This could explain why there is some variableness in this period- Daniel 12 mentions 1260,1290 and 1335 days. If Israel repent, or other preconditions are met, then the time of intended abuse is changed. Israel were to be punished "seven times" for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:18'>Lev 26:18</a>; <a href='B:30 26:21'>Lev 26:21</a>; <a href='B:30 26:24'>Lev 26:24</a>; <a href='B:30 26:28'>Lev 26:28</a> etc:). Perhaps those seven times are halved to three and a half times, due to God’s desire to shorten the days of this awful tribulation. It may be that the little horn power or ruler decrees a time of abuse for the remaining Jews. Or it may be that the new caliph seeks to change some tenets of Islam, as he already is doing by shifting the focus of Islam from Mecca (which is in Saudi Arabia, who are officially against the Islamic jihadists currently)- to Jerusalem. Or it may be that they seek to change GMT time to Mecca time- something radical Moslems already live by, and seek to spread to the entire planet. Indeed, the biggest clock in the world has been built in Mecca in a bid to enforce Mecca time on all Moslems rather than GMT. The Mecca Clock Tower has been designed in purposeful contrast to Big Ben.</h4><p>The little horn of Daniel 7 is the beast of Revelation 13 :</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>Daniel 7</td><td>Revelation 3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"::. a mouth speaking great things" (verse 8) "And he shall speak great words against the most High ::." (verse 25)</h4><p>"I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them" (verse 21)</td><td>"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies . . . And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven" (verses 5,6) "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them" (verse 7)</td><td></td></tr></table><h4>Notice that the little horn of Daniel 7 is actually called "the beast": "I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame" (<a href='B:340 7:11'>Dan 7:11</a>).</h4><p>The little horn is also to be connected with the “King of the north” of Daniel 11, which is historically based upon Antiochus and the leaders of the northern part of the Greek empire, from Syria. The fact the Islamic jihadists and their leadership have emerged from Syria is maybe significant in this context:</p><table><tr><td></p><h4></td><td>Daniel 7</td><td>Daniel 8</td><td>Daniel 11</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.</td><td>The little horn</td><td>The little horn</td><td>"The king"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>At the end</td><td>At the end</td><td>At the end</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>of the times</td><td>of the times</td><td>of the times</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>of the Gentiles</td><td>of the Gentiles</td><td>of the Gentiles</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>Very aggressive</td><td>Very aggressive</td><td>Very aggressive</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>"A look more stout than his fellows"</td><td>Magnifies himself</td><td>Magnifies himself</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5.</td><td>A mouth speaking</td><td></td><td>Speaks marvellous</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>great thingsagainst</td><td></td><td>things against the</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the Most High</td><td></td><td>God of gods</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6.</td><td>Makes war against the saints and prevails</td><td>Destroys the holy people</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7.</td><td>Destroyed by the</td><td>Destroyed by the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Ancient of days</td><td>Prince of princes</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table><p>We note further that the little horn of Daniel 8 is connected with the beast of Revelation:</h4><table><tr><td></p><h4>". . . it cast down some ::. of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them"</td><td>"And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven and did cast them to the earth"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(<a href='B:340 8:10'>Dan 8:10</a>)</td><td>(<a href='B:730 12:4'>Rev 12:4</a>)</td><td></td></tr></table>


text:
<h4>But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away- The "they" refers to "the saints", who shall judge the world. The saints refer to natural and spiritual Israel as well as the Angels. <a href='B:530 6:2-3'>1Co 6:2-3</a> seems to have this passage in mind: "The saints shall judge the world. And if the world is to be judged by you::. You shall judge Angels". This could therefore mean that the "saints", the Christian believers, shall along with Angels judge as Angels. For that is the idea here in Daniel 7, which was clearly in Paul’s mind. The ’taking away’ of the dominion is the same word as in <a href='B:340 2:21'>Dan 2:21</a> - God "removes kings". The image vision shall come ultimately true at the hands of God’s once oppressed people.</h4><h4>His dominion, to consume and to destroy it to the end- Just as the fourth beast consumed and destroyed, so it shall be consumed and destroyed. This is a major theme of Revelation- the judgments poured out upon the earth / land of Abraham by the latter day abusers are then given to them. Babylon drinks her own cup.</h4>


text:
<p>The kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole Heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High: His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him- "Under the whole Heaven" now moves the focus further than "the land" which has been in view so far in this chapter. The kingdoms of the entire world shall be given to the saints. "The people of the saints" may suggest that "the saints" are Angels, and their "people" are those amongst natural and spiritual Israel whom they have represented before the court of Heaven. This is the moment when the kingdoms of this world become those of God and His Christ (<a href='B:730 11:15'>Rev 11:15</a>). This is fair evidence that the Kingdom of Godshall be established on earth, for it is on planet earth that present human kingdoms and "dominions" [empires] exist.</p>


text:
<p>Here is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my thoughts much troubled me, and my appearance was changed: but I kept the matter in my heart- I suggested on :15 that Daniel was troubled and upset, to the point of his appearance changing, because he realized that the prophetic program was no longer to restore the Kingdom of God in Judah during his lifetime. "But I kept the matter::." may suggest that like Moses, he considered that possibly God’s purpose may yet be changed by fervent prayer and repentance.</p>


text:
<h4>In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, even to me, I Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first- Belshazzar only reigned a few years, so the vision was given about a year before he died and his deposition by Darius the Mede recorded in Daniel 5. Perhaps as with Nebuchadnezzar, this prophecy was as it were a serving of notice upon him, and he had like Nebuchadnezzar one year in which to repent and altar the otherwise prophesied and inevitable chain of events. Belshazzar was aware of what had happened to Nebuchadnezzar and was condemned by Daniel for not having learnt the lesson from it. We too are expected to learn from situations going on in the lives around us or in our families. This is one channel of God’s word of communication with us.</h4><h4>"To me, even to me" is a phrase picked up by Peter when he says that the vision of beasts and Gentile inclusion was given even to him (<a href='B:510 11:5'>Act 11:5</a>). He read Daniel as we should- not as mere history alone, but as a living pattern to be followed.</h4>


text:
<p>I saw in the vision; now it was so, that when I saw, I was in the citadel of Susa, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision, and I was by the river Ulai- This could mean that he was in Susa when he had the vision, although that is unlikely as he worked for Belshazzar of Babylon (:27) and the Persians were his enemies; or that he was transported in the vision to Susa. Daniel was seeing the vision of Medo-Persian power, viewing in vision the citadel or palace, just a year before that power would conquer Babylon. If he relayed the vision to Belshazzar, this was similar to his revelation of a dream of downfall to Nebuchadnezzar a year before he fell. So Daniel was having a repeat experience, just as circumstances repeat in our lives. Perhaps he was seeing what Elam, once a province of the Babylonian empire, was to soon turn into- a citadel epitomizing Persian and not Babylonian power.</p>


text:
<h4>Then I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high- Ulai was a canal joined to the Euphrates, so "the river" can have reference to that. We have the impression of a ram about to no longer be restrained by a river [Euphrates] and surge toward Babylon. This is the picture we have in <a href='B:730 9:14'>Rev 9:14</a>; <a href='B:730 16:12'>Rev 16:12</a>. Again, the historical application to Medo-Persia must be seen as only a pointer towards the fulfilment in the last days, when Babylon falls as a result of hordes of Islamists bursting across the Euphrates into the eretz promised to Abraham which is the focus of Bible prophecy. The ram was a symbol of Persia, embossed on their medallions and on the crown of their kings.</h4><h4>But one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last- The power of the Medes was far less than that of the Persians who followed them under Cyrus. All the beasts and horns in Daniel are observed coming or growing up, and then being destroyed. When a power or individual are in the ascendancy, observers tend to think that they are unstoppable and invincible. Daniel’s prophecies make the simple point that they too shall fade and fall, unlike the things of God’s Kingdom.</h4>


text:
<p>I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward; and no beasts could stand before him, neither was there any who could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and magnified himself- This is language elsewhere used about Yahweh, who alone does His own will to the ultimate term, and is alone to be magnified, and before whom none can stand nor be delivered from. All the monarchs and empires considered in Daniel are all guilty of playing God, and are punished accordingly. The compass points recall Abraham being bidden look to them all, and being told that all he saw was to be part of the land eternally promised to him, the eretz. The ram didn’t push East in the vision because the Persians came from the East, and their conquests Eastwards to India were irrelevant to the prophetic focus upon the eretz promised to Abraham. This small detail is strong confirmation of our position that the prophetic dominion of the beasts is over eretz Israel and not anywhere beyond that.</p>


text:
<h4>As I was considering- It was Daniel’s desire to understand which led to further revelation and understanding. This recalls how those who enquired further about the Lord’s parables were given further understanding "in the house".</h4><h4>Behold, a male goat came from the west over the surface of the whole land, and didn’t touch the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes- The speed of the goat speaks of the lightning speed of Alexander’s conquest. The "notable horn" was Alexander. Alexander’s son was named Alexander Aegus, "Son of the Goat". The other horns in the visions can also be seen as individuals; the notable little horn we encounter on the fourth beast is therefore an individual who makes great and amazingly fast conquests, something like that seen by the jihadists taking large swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria overnight in 2015.</h4>


text:
<p>He came to the ram that had the two horns, which I saw standing before the river, and ran on him in the fury of his power- Alexander defeated the Persian Darius at the river&nbsp; Granicus in 334 BC. His fury was from his desire to revenge the Persian domination of Greece.</p>


text:
<h4>I saw him come close to the ram, andhe was moved with anger against him- Persia had previously cruelly dominated Greece, and this was the anger of bitter revenge by Alexander the Great.</h4><h4>And struck the ram, and broke his two horns; and there was no power in the ram to stand before him; but he cast him down to the ground, and trampled on him; and there was none who could deliver the ram out of his hand- Perhaps a specific reference to the burning and trampling of the Persian city of Persepolis. The trampling and casting down is exactly the language of the later abusers of God’s people, the horn of <a href='B:340 7:8'>Dan 7:8</a>. The clear historical fulfilment in how Alexander of Macedon / Greece treated the Persians is intended to explain how the latter day little horn shall act. Alexander was characterized by small forces winning amazingly quick victories against much larger forces due to their speed and military technology; and we can imagine this being repeated in the latter day little horn. This is already the feature of organized Jihadist groups. The two horns broken refer to the ending of the Medo Persian empire.</h4>


text:
<h4>The male goat magnified himself exceedingly- <a href='B:450 9:5'>Zec 9:5</a>; <a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a> foretells Alexander’s attack on Gaza and Palestine and paints him as the arrogant antithesis of the humble Messianic King of Israel, who was to ride a donkey rather than Alexander’s charger. Alexander is thereby set up as a fake, imitation Christ, an antiChrist.</h4><h4>And when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and in the place of it there came up four notable horns toward the four winds of the sky- This refers to the untimely death of Alexander the Great and his kingdom being divided amongst his four generals. "Lysimachus ruled over part of Thrace, Asia Minor, part of Cappadocea, and the countries within the limits of Mount Taurus. Casander possessed Macedonia, Thessaly and part of Greece. Ptolemy obtained Egypt, Cyprus, Cyrene, and ultimately Coele-Syria, Phoenicia and Judea. Seleuchus obtained Phoenicia, Syria, Babylonia to the Indus". Daniel 11 focuses upon the two of them, the kings of the north and south, who dominated God’s people and land of Israel. Again we see that the focus of the prophecies are upon them and not upon any other geographical area. But they were directed "toward the four winds of the sky / heaven", as if to say that they were under the domination of heaven, or perhaps opposed against heaven; the "four winds" may refer to the four cherubic Angels, as God makes His Angels spirits or winds (<a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>). See on :10.</h4>


text:
<p>Out of one of them came forth a little horn, which grew exceedingly great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the glorious land- Many historicists like to understand this "little horn" as Rome and the Papacy. But this little horn came out of one of the four generals who succeeded Alexander the Great. The reference seems without doubt to Antiochus. Israel even then was the land of glory- potentially. It was their legalism and apostasy which meant that the Messianic kingdom was not then established, but potentially it could have been. Rather like apostate believers are still&nbsp; given exalted titles in the New Testament because of the potential status they had.</p>


text:
<h4>It grew great, even to the army of Heaven; and some of the army and of the stars it cast down to the ground, and trampled on them- These are defined in :24 as "the mighty and holy people", the army of Yahweh (<a href='B:20 12:41'>Exo 12:41</a>). And yet the language sounds applicable to Angels. As <a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a> explains, Israel have an Angel superintending them, and perhaps we are to understand each individual member of God’s people as having an Angel representing them. Hence the language here refers to both individual Jews as well as their representative Angels. The stars are specifically a symbol of the faithful Israelites in <a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a>. The language also recalls that of <a href='B:290 14:13-14'>Isa 14:13-14</a> regarding the desire of Babylon to take the temple mount.</h4><h4>Angels can represent political powers before God; see on :8. This has interesting implications in Daniel 8 : "Four notable ones toward the four winds of Heaven (the number four and"winds"both have Angelic connections). And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which::. waxed great, even to the host of Heaven (the Angels controlling the Jewish people); and it cast down some of the host and of the stars (both"host"and"stars"are Angelic words), and stamped upon them; Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host (the"Most High"Angel, the Angel of Jesus, who was the real prince of the Angel hosts), and by him::. the place of His sanctuary (i. e. the temple, where the"Most High"Angel dwelt) was cast down. And an host (of Angels controlling the soldiers of Antiochus) was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the Truth to the ground". "The Truth" here does not necessarily refer to a set of doctrines or people holding them which comprises the true Gospel. This can never be thrown down, and in any case "the Truth" in this sense was not thrown down after the sacking of the temple. "The truth"&nbsp; being thrown down may parallel the host and stars being cast to the ground in :10- in which case "the truth" represents the Jews in covenant relationship- or it may hint at the Mosaic Law being "thrown down" by the Angelic destruction of the temple and the Mosaic system. "Thy Law (of Moses) is the Truth" (<a href='B:230 119:142'>Psa 119:142</a>). This all lays the basis for Revelation 12 describing the conflicting groups of Angels in Heaven at the time of the final abolition of the Mosaic system.</h4>


text:
<h4>Yes, it magnified itself, even to the prince of the army- The army is the host of God’s people and their representative Angels (see on :10). Their prince is "the prince of princes" (:25), "the God of gods" (<a href='B:340 11:36'>Dan 11:36</a> cp. <a href='B:340 7:8'>Dan 7:8</a>). So God Himself could be in view. But the prince could equally refer to the high priest. And the language of "prince of princes" is applied to the Lord Jesus in <a href='B:730 1:5'>Rev 1:5</a>. So whilst this prophecy may have application to the rage of Antiochus against Israel’s God, it clearly is recorded because all the previous abusers of God’s people point forward to the final entity which shall abuse hem, which will incorporate features of all Israel’s previous abusers. As Antiochus magnified himself against God and the Jerusalem temple, so shall the latter day antiChrist against the real Christ, the prince of princes. The little horn makes himself as if he is “the prince of the host” (<a href='B:340 8:11'>Dan 8:11</a> Heb:); he sets himself up as an alternative Christ, an antiChrist. God is presented in Daniel as being able to depose kings and change or decree the times and seasons; the decree of Nebuchadnezzar to kill all the Babylonian wise men was “changed” by the revelation of His prophetic word through Daniel. The same words are used for how the little horn will change times and laws [s:w. ‘decrees’] (<a href='B:340 7:25'>Dan 7:25</a>). In terms of 2 Thessalonians 2, he declares himself as God enthroned in the temple of God, after the historical pattern of Antiochus.</h4><p>And it took away from him the continual burnt offering- This was specifically ordered by Antiochus (1Ma_1:20; 1Ma_1:47; 1Ma_1:54; 1Ma_1:59). Such a command was not specifically made by the Romans. The requirements of the text here fit Antiochus very well, but are a very imperfect fit to the events of AD67-70.</p><p>And the place of his sanctuary was cast down- This speaks of "the prince of the Host" living in the temple, a phrase recalling the Angel captain of the Lord’s host in <a href='B:60 5:15'>Jos 5:15</a>. See on <a href='B:230 78:60'>Psa 78:60</a>. The prince of the army was therefore God manifest through the Angel superintending Israel. The casting down of the temple was not specifically done by Antiochus, but his abuse of the sanctuary is thus described because this history points forward to the latter day antiChrist who shall do this.</p><h4>&nbsp;The LXX of <a href='B:340 8:9-11'>Dan 8:9-11</a> would imply that only at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, the captivity of Judah would be "delivered": "And out of one of them came forth one strong horn, and it grew very great toward the south, and toward the host: and it magnified itself to the host of heaven; and there fell to the earth some of the host of heaven and of the stars, and they trampled on them. And this shall be until the chief captain shall have delivered the captivity". Thus the period of only70 years in captivity was lengthened; and even then, this is not how things worked out in practice. Likewise the time for the restoration of the temple from the hands of pagan abomination is redefined in <a href='B:340 9:27'>Dan 9:27</a> LXX as now no longer being in Daniel’s time, nor any time close to it, but rather at the time of the Kingdom of God: "on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation".</h4>


text:
<h4>The army was given over to it- This could be translated as AV "A host / army was given him". As in :13 and elsewhere, it is emphasized that all power is "given" to these horns and beasts. See on :24. Ultimately they were given power by God. The world is not radically out of control; there is no radical evil in the cosmos. All is finally under God’s control, and this Divine giving of power to Israel’s was "on account of [their] disobedience".</h4><p>Along with the continual burnt offering on account of disobedience- Most expositors note the paganism of some of the Jews who returned from Babylon, and quote 1 Maccabees 1 : "In those days went there out of Israel wicked men, who persuaded many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the pagan that are round about us; for since we departed from them we have had much sorrow::. Whereupon they built a place of exercise (a school) at Jerusalem, according to the customs of the pagan; and made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the pagan, and were sold to do mischief". This is true, but specifically the opportunity to offer the daily burnt offering was taken away because of "disobedience". Many of the Jews who returned from Babylon were proud of their obedience; but the prophets repeatedly warned them that their daily burnt offerings were a provocation to God because of their hypocrisy and legalism (<a href='B:290 43:23'>Isa 43:23</a>; <a href='B:290 66:3'>Isa 66:3</a>; <a href='B:370 5:22'>Amo 5:22</a>; <a href='B:460 3:3'>Mal 3:3</a>)</p><h4>And it cast down the truth to the ground, and it did according to its will and prospered- See on :10. <a href='B:290 59:14'>Isa 59:14</a> had lamented that amongst the restoration community, "truth is fallen in the street". Antiochus merely confirmed in physical terms the blasphemy of the sanctuary which they had committed in spiritual terms.</h4>


text:
<h4>Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who spoke- The tribulations which come upon God’s people are described as being under the control of a "certain one", "Palmoni", or the ’wonderful numberer’ as that can be translated, implying that there is one powerful Angel who co-ordinates the timing of all things, and other Angels ask this Angel for information concerning the time periods worked out for the saints in their charge, as here in Daniel’s case. Job seemed to have sensed very keenly the "appointed time" for his trials to end and for his "change" of nature to occur. We have seen that the phrase "appointed time" is the same word as "host" used regarding the Angels. But like Job, because we can’t see the Angel physicallyit’s easy to get bitter about the trials brought upon us by them, as Balaam got bitter with the ass until he physically saw the Angel causing the trial (<a href='B:40 22:23'>Num 22:23</a>). See on <a href='B:220 14:5'>Job 14:5</a>; <a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>.</h4><h4>How long shall be the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, and the abomination that makes desolate, to give both the sanctuary and the army to be trodden under foot?- The desolation caused by transgression (the Jews’ transgression, see on :12) is clearly initially that done by Antiochus (<a href='B:340 11:31'>Dan 11:31</a>). But there is a 1290 day period between the end of the continual burnt offering and the placing of the desolation (<a href='B:340 12:11'>Dan 12:11</a>). This may possibly have been true in the time of Antiochus, but it was not true in AD67-70; the daily sacrifices were offered then right up to AD70. They were but incipient fulfilments- the last days will see the final fulfilment. <a href='B:340 9:26-27'>Dan 9:26-27</a> require the city of Jerusalem to be taken, and the abomination of desolation placed there; and this is quoted by the Lord Jesus as requiring fulfilment in the last days just prior to His return (<a href='B:470 24:14-15'>Mat 24:14-15</a>; <a href='B:470 24:29-31'>Mat 24:29-31</a>). Any previous fulfilments were incipient at best; they did not immediately herald the Lord’s visible return as required by the Oliver prophecy. <a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a> adds: "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled". The allusion is to <a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a>: "The transgression of desolation gave both the sanctuary and the host (i:e. the people of Israel) to be trodden underfoot".</h4>


text:
<h4>He said to me- In :13, Daniel has as it were overheard a discussion between two Angels. Daniel has within him the obvious question: "In that case, how long:::?". One of the Angels asks that very question, and then the answer is directed to Daniel. We are to understand that our representative Angel carries our questions and fears before the court of Heaven, and answers are given. Note the parallel between Angels and God’s people discussed on :11.</h4><h4>To two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed- The phrase "evening-mornings" refers to the daily sacrifices, which were offered twice daily, morning and evening. 2300 evening-morning sacrifices were therefore 1150 days. The various time periods in Daniel all seem around this number- 1260, 1290, 1335 days, and three and a half times [years?] which is 1260 days. Perhaps the variations are because the final periods are flexible, depending upon how quickly Israel repent in the last days, and how intense are our prayers and longing for "the end". Or it could be that the 2300 is the period from the beginning of the tribulation until the time when the abomination is ended. Perhaps the days of the elect’s tribulation are shortened from 2300 to 1260 (<a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a>).</h4>


text:
<h4>It happened when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, that I sought to understand it; and behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man- "Man" is geber, suggesting the name Gabriel (:16). Daniel sought to understand the meaning of a vision; but two verses earlier, an Angel had asked another Angel for understanding of the same vision. Here surely we have the practical meaning, in Angelic terms, of God knowing our prayers and arranging the answers before we even ask them. Perhaps it was Daniel’s guardian Angel who asked a more senior Angel for the interpretation of the vision, knowing Daniel was going to be asking for it. Yet it was the second Angel who actually gave the answer to Daniel (<a href='B:340 8:14'>Dan 8:14</a>). Verse 16 describes the one Angel standing at the Ulai river calling out: “Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision”. Yet at this time, Daniel himself was in vision at the Ulai river (:2). His guardian Angel was there, right in front of him. And He had foreknown Daniel’s feelings and arranged for another Angel to respond to them:::and so the second Angel (Gabriel) also comes near where Daniel was standing (:17). His guardian Angel had literally called Gabriel to come over to Daniel::. And all this is going on for you and me hourly in the court of Heaven! There’s another example of this in Daniel 12. There are two Angels with Daniel by the river (:2). One of them asks the other: “How long shall it be to the end:::?” (:6; cp. 8:13). Yet this was exactly the spirit of Daniel! And then the other Angel gives Daniel the answer. His guardian Angel knew his unexpressed questions and desires, and passed them on to another Angel to answer. See on <a href='B:450 1:12'>Zec 1:12</a></h4><h4>8:16 If our Angel has not the strength or authority to give us a blessing which He sees we need, He can ask another Angel to bring this about- thus Daniel’s guardian Angel had to ask Gabriel to help Daniel understand the vision which He knew Daniel so desperately wanted to have interpreted (<a href='B:340 8:16'>Dan 8:16</a>). It may be that this request by the guardian Angel was not for the best for Daniel, because it seems to have been denied by God- v. 27 says that at the end of the interpretation or "understanding" being given by Gabriel, "I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding" (v. 27 N:I:V:). In that case, it would seem that when Gabriel said "Understand, O son of man" (v. 17), Gabriel Himself either did not appreciate that giving Daniel the understanding would not help him, or He obeyed the request from the guardian Angel unquestioningly. Or alternatively, was Gabriel saying in v. 17 that Daniel was to understand that the vision would not be fully understood till the last days, as in <a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a>? This would mean that it is in the hands of the Angels as to at what time, both individually and as the body of God’s people generally,&nbsp; we gain spiritual understanding of certain parts of the word, in the same way as the Angels debated "Shall I hide from Abraham the thing which I do?". This may&nbsp; be&nbsp; very&nbsp; relevant&nbsp; to the various interpretations of Revelation held by God’s true people down through the years, each interpretation giving great encouragement to a certain group of saints, despite&nbsp; their details varying considerably. This process would then be seen to be under the direct control of the Angels.</h4>


text:
<p>I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision- Gabriel is El-Gibbor, a title of the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a>). Hebrews 1 labours the point that the Lord was not an Angel. This Angel was not the Lord Jesus, but just as Michael represented Israel (<a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>), so this Angel was the representative of the Messiah. I have noted on :11 the theme in Daniel of men and entities having Angelic representatives. It is only through reading the Old Testament in the light of the Lord Jesus that we can come to any correct understanding.</p>


text:
<p>So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was frightened, and fell on my face: but he said to me, Understand, son of man; for the vision concerns the time of the end- Daniel was face down (:18), the manner of the Jews to bury. He experienced a symbolic death and resurrection, because the vision concerned "the time of the end". Although the vision clearly concerned Antiochus and Alexander, clearly the essential fulfilment was not in them but in the events of the last days. This makes any other primary fulfilments of the prophecy no more than that- primary fulfilment. "The end" is the "end" is the final cleansing of the sanctuary (:14), "the end" of <a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a>; <a href='B:530 15:23'>1Co 15:23</a>, the visible return of the Lord Jesus to earth to destroy the blasphemous edifice and system then enthroned in Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>Now as he was speaking with me, I fell into a deep sleep with my face toward the ground; but he touched me, and set me upright- See on :17; <a href='B:340 9:21'>Dan 9:21</a>. Clearly enough, as noted on :17, the time of Daniel’s resurrection was to be the time of the end, when these things would have their fulfilment. Any historical interpretations of the horn and desolation of the sanctuary are therefore not the essential fulfilments.</p>


text:
<p>He said, See, I will make you know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation; for it concerns the appointed time of the end- This is as clear a statement as we could wish that the events described in the vision speak of the last days, and the historical fulfilments were only incipient, clear as they were.</p>


text:
<p>The ram which you saw, that had the two horns, they are the kings of Media and Persia- It has just been stressed in :17,19 that the vision is of the time of the end. The obvious historical fulfilments in the kings of Media and Persia were therefore only primary fulfilments. There must be a latter day equivalent, but in the very last days, the times when Daniel would be resurrected (see on :17,18).</p>


text:
<p>The rough male goat is the king of Greece: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king- Philip was king of Macedon before Alexander; this may be an example of where the prophecy will only have its ’best fit’ fulfilment in the last days (:17,19). Or "first" may simply mean ’greatest’. Their great leader, Alexander the great, was “the great horn” on the goat (<a href='B:340 8:21'>Dan 8:21</a>); this was broken, and four kingdoms arose out of that (<a href='B:340 8:22'>Dan 8:22</a>). But out of them arose “a king of fierce countenance” who was to be “broken without hand” (<a href='B:340 8:25'>Dan 8:25</a>). This is the very language of the entire image being broken by the stone cut out without hands, which speaks of the return of Christ to earth (<a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>). But at first blush, this seems out of chronological sequence- that a fierce king arising out of the breakup of the Greek empire [surely referring to Antiochus in its historical sense of fulfilment] should be broken by the second coming of Christ- many centuries later. But the problem is solved once we understand that the image stands erect and complete in the last days, in the sense that elements of all the previous empires and leaders would be incorporated in the final entity which shall be destroyed “without hand” by the return of the Lord Jesus. Daniel 7 has spoken of the fourth beast having a little horn which is destroyed by the coming of Christ and the establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth. But Daniel 8 speaks of the third beast, the third kingdom of the image of Daniel 2, as having a “little horn” which is destroyed by the Kingdom of God. The conclusion would seem to be that at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, to whom the little horn of Daniel 8 clearly refers, there could have been the coming of Christ and establishment of the Kingdom. But this didn’t happen, and so Antiochus Epiphanes became a prototype of the latter day little horn, which will emerge from the fourth beast; and there is a large gap or delay in fulfilment between his time and that of Christ’s coming</p>


text:
<p>As for that which was broken, in the place where four stood up, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not with his power- The four generals who took power after the death of Alexander the Great did not have "his power". But as laboured in :17,19, these historical events were not the ultimate fulfilment; they point forward to events specifically around the "time of the end", the establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth, when Daniel shall be resurrected. We can look therefore for the arising of an individual like Alexander, who shall be broken before the Lord’s return.</p>


text:
<h4>In the latter time of their kingdom- The idea could be that the historical kingdoms and related events of Greece, Antiochus, Medo-Persia etc. are to have their latter day fulfilment, as stressed in :17,19.</h4><p>When the wicked have come to the full, a king of fierce appearance and understanding mysteries shall stand up- This person arises in the time of the end- and this phrase in Daniel always has some reference to the time of the Lord’s return and Daniel’s personal resurrection (:17,19). He is to arise out of the Syrian Kingdom, i:e. part of the divided empire of Alexander the Great. Historically, this must refer to Antiochus who arose in the latter time of the kingdom of the four generals; Rome just doesn’t fit here. Some Protestant expositors seem to wish to see the Papacy here, and so have ignored the obvious application to Antiochus and tried to force everything into a Roman context. The individual king of fierce countenance applies so much better to Antiochus than to any of the Roman generals involved in the events of AD67-70. But whether Antiochus or Rome, the vision specifically refers to the very last days. The time when he will arise will be the time when “iniquity is come to the full”- which fits most comfortably with the very last days. The iniquity is that of :12, the sin of Israel in rejecting Jesus as Messiah. <a href='B:340 8:17'>Dan 8:17</a>; <a href='B:340 8:19'>Dan 8:19</a> make it clear: “The vision pertains to the time of the end::. the final period of indignation::. the appointed time of the end”. This is the time when Israel’s wickedness (:12) has come to its full point, when final judgment and deliverance will come. Such a point of the final filling up of Israel’s sin is envisaged in <a href='B:470 23:32'>Mat 23:32</a>; <a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a>. "Understanding mysteries" can mean that he would use deceit, as explained on :25. This makes sense when applied to Antiochus: "The king sent his chief collector of tribute, who came unto Jerusalem with a great multitude, and spake peaceable words unto them; but all was deceit: for when they had given him credence, he fell suddenly upon the city, and smote it very sore, and destroyed much people of Israel::. Antiochus sent also that detestable ringleader, Apollonius, with an army of two and twenty thousand, commanding him to slay all those that were in their best age, and to sell the women and the younger sort; who, coming to Jerusalem, and pretending peace, did forbear until the holy day of the Sabbath, when, taking the Jews keeping holyday, he commanded his men to arm themselves, and so he slew all them that were gone to the celebrating of the Sabbath" (1Ma_1:30; 2Ma_5:24).</p><h4>The manifestation of a Kingdom in its leader is to be found in the way the antiChrist is called "the king of fierce countenance" in <a href='B:340 8:23'>Dan 8:23</a>. But the entire nation or entity which persecute Israel in the last days is a "nation of fierce countenance" (the same words are used- <a href='B:50 28:50'>Deu 28:50</a>). Their leader is an embodiment of them.</h4>


text:
<h4>His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; he shall be very destructive, and shall prosper and do his own will- See on <a href='B:730 21:12'>Rev 21:12</a>. The Lord was intensely intellectually conscious throughout His sufferings. Often it is possible to see in His words allusions to even seven or eight OT passages, all in context, all relevant. Reflect how His response to Pilate “thou couldest have no power against me"(<a href='B:500 19:11'>Joh 19:11</a>) was a reference to the prophecy of Daniel 8, about the persecutors becoming mighty “but not by his own power". The apparent mightiness was due to God giving him the power; that is the point. See on :12. God only gives power to the Gentile persecutors of Israel because of their sins and His desire for their repentance. This is why the repentance of Israel is such an important precondition for the Lord’s return, and we ought to be preaching it to them right now.</h4><p>The reference however may also be to how the beast is given power not of himself but from the entity known as "the dragon" (<a href='B:730 13:2'>Rev 13:2</a>), an earlier entity which has arisen.</p><h4>And he shall destroy the mighty ones and the holy people- Or, "the people of the holy ones". As noted on :10,11, each of God’s people have a representative Angel. What is done to them is effectively done to the Angels who represent them before the court of Heaven.</h4>


text:
<h4>Through his policy- The singular "his" clearly refers to the latter day antiChrist individual in view. It appears somewhat of a twist to make this apply to generations of Roman Catholic leaders, as historicists do. It is the official policy of Islam to use deceit to bring down their enemies and to destroy under the banner of peace. The individual would fit a radical Islamist in the last days.</h4><p>He shall cause deceit to prosper; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and in their security shall he destroy many- The fierce king "by peace shall destroy many" (AV); perhaps alluded to in the prophecy that the sudden destruction wrought by the Lord’s return will be when men are saying "peace and safety" (<a href='B:590 5:3'>1Th 5:3</a>). This certainly sounds like the result of jihadist Islam, the [supposed] religion of peace. The Semitic consonants S-L-M are at the root of the words Islam and also Shalom, Salaam [Hebrew and Arabic for ’peace’]. There were no vowels in ancient Hebrew and Arabic. The connection is in that peace [’salaam’ in Arabic] is believed to come from ’islam’, submission. Muslim apologists frequently justify their religion by claiming that Islam is a religion of peace [even if they believe in murdering anyone who disagrees]. As we survey the atrocities being performed in the name of Islam today in the territory of the land promised to Abraham::. we are seeing this being fulfilled. By peace / salaam / Islam, many are being destroyed. What however we are still waiting to see is more focus upon the leader of the jihadists, for these prophecies focus upon ’kings’ and ’horns’ [kings] more than more abstract ’kingdoms’. This may partly be because God attaches much importance to the responsibilities of leaders, but also because there must arise prominent leaders, especially an antiChrist figure who is the "fierce king" orchestrating this destruction of many by his religion of ’peace’.</p><p>The latter day beast of Revelation and his publicity agent likewise do apparent miracles; the little horn of <a href='B:340 8:24'>Dan 8:24</a> will destroy by miracles (AV “wonderfully”, but the Hebrew is elsewhere translated as ‘miracles’ or ‘performing miracles’). The Koran claims that God will perform miracles in support of Moslem activity and judgment of unbelievers, especially Israel. The prophet Mohammad is the pattern and “aim” of Islam and their leaders. The miracles attributed to Mohammad in the Hadith are similar to latter day judgments upon Israel. It may be that the Islamists bring these judgments in a manner which appears miraculous:</p><p>Multiplying bread and water Volume 4, Book 56, Numbers 779, 780</p><p>Making animals speak Volume 3, Book 39, Number 517</p><p>Splitting the moon Volume 6, Book 60, Number 388</p><p>Making stars appear Volume 1, Book 8, Number 454</p><p>Making rain Volume 8, Book 73, Number 115</p><p>Making a dead body arise Volume 4, Book 56, Number 814</p><p>Ascended into the sky and thence to Heaven</p><p>All these things are spoken of as happening in the various seal or trumpet judgments. It may be that the Caliph of the final jihadist Islamic entity does indeed appear to be able to do miracles, and he consciously does these things because he wishes to impersonate Mohammad. Remember article 8 of the Hamas Covenant: "Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model”- also quoted by the jihadists today.</p><p>The coming of the"wicked one"is"after the working [Gk. energeia] of the Satan". The Satan of the last days is as defined in Revelation 12 - the beast of the last days. But God sends"strong delusion that they should believe a lie"(<a href='B:600 2:9'>2Th 2:9</a>; <a href='B:600 2:11'>2Th 2:11</a>)."Strong delusion"again uses the same term, energeia. The energy in the whole thing is from God, not some ’satan’ in the orthodox sense of radical evil in the cosmos. The satan-beast of the last days is under God’s direct Angelic control, as made clear in Revelation. Due to the false miracles, the masses will flock to believe in this individual. We are already seeing something of the sort in the land promised to Abraham, where the Islamic extremism and its caliph is being believed and followed in a way which is strange and unbelievable to the rational observer. God will confirm these people so that they believe this individual and the beast-satan system behind him.</p><h4>He shall also stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without human hand-&nbsp; The Lord Jesus is called"Messiah the Prince"in <a href='B:340 9:25'>Dan 9:25</a> in order to contrast with how the anti-Christ, the fake Christ, is also called"the prince of the host"in <a href='B:340 8:11'>Dan 8:11</a>."It became great, even as great as the Prince of the host"(ESV). This prince"shall stand up against the Prince of princes", the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:730 1:5'>Rev 1:5</a>; see on :11). There will be a final showdown between these two princes, and their respective followers and Kingdoms. The armies of the earth /land will be gathered together against those of the Lord Jesus. And the Moslems will eagerly rush into this final conflict, believing that this is"the Day of Discrimination, the day when the two armies met"(Sura 8:41). Being broken without human hand is clearly the language of the Lord’s return to destroy the king of the north and the entire image system he personifies (<a href='B:340 2:34'>Dan 2:34</a>; <a href='B:340 11:45'>Dan 11:45</a>). This individual therefore exists at the time of the Lord’s return and shall be destroyed thereby. It cannot therefore majorly refer to any system or individuals before that time. The historical fulfilment would have been in Antiochus dying not in battle but of a mysterious illness. It is hard to see any possible application to the destruction of any Roman entity associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.</h4>


text:
<p>The vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true: but seal up the vision; for it belongs to many days to come- Again we see emphasized, as in :17,19, that the obvious historical fulfilment in the likes of Alexander and Antiochus was only the incipient fulfilment; these things belong to the very last days, the time of Daniel’s personal resurrection (:17-19). The simple statement that the vision is true is lifted from <a href='B:340 2:45'>Dan 2:45</a>. As noted on :25, the destruction of the image system and the beasts is the same as the destruction of this latter day arrogant individual who will personify them. The vision was to be sealed until the time of the end, which <a href='B:340 12:9'>Dan 12:9</a> explains as meaning that it would not be understood until the time of the Lord’s return; as <a href='B:730 13:10'>Rev 13:10</a>. The unsealing of the scroll in Revelation therefore also majorly refers to the events of the very last days before the Lord’s return. Only then, when prophecy is being fulfilled before the eyes of the faithful, will the ultimate interpretation be apparent. All we can do now is muse over the primary fulfilments, and get some broad picture of how things shall unfold at the end. The purpose of prophecy is not to predict the future, but so that the generation that sees the fulfilment will realize that this was all foretold and all is going wonderfully according to plan. And the traumas of the last days will mean that this is vital encouragement.</p>


text:
<h4>I Daniel, fainted, and was sick for some days; then I rose up, and did the king’s business: and I wondered at the vision- This is the same kind of conclusion to Daniel 7; Daniel feels sick after the interpretation is given, having realized that the fulfilment was not until"many days to come"(:26). As noted on <a href='B:340 7:15'>Dan 7:15</a>, he had the welfare of God’s people so deeply in his heart that he felt actually ill because he realized that their restoration was not going to happen as had been potentially possible when Jeremiah first uttered the restoration prophecies and mentioned a 70 year period.</h4><h4>But none understood it- This may mean that he discussed it with Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, but they too did not totally understand it.</h4>


text:
<p>In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans- The end of the Babylonian domination of Judah spurred Daniel to study and pray for the restoration of the kingdom of God in the form of Judah. He had seen the first part of the image and beast prophecies come true, at least in its historical form. He obviously thought that in some sense, the"end"could come- if there was sufficient repentance. And his prayer of repentance was an attempt to demonstrate that. He didn’t merely resign himself to there having to be a further sequence of kings and kingdoms dominating the land before the end came. He was open to the idea of God’s flexibility and ability to change a predicted set of events, in line with human repentance and spirituality. Or perhaps he understood the image as standing complete under the headship of Babylon, and now being ready for destruction by the little stone, seeing that the Babylonian headship had now been removed.</p>


text:
<h4>In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by the books- Not by vision and direct revelation, but by his own studies. Hence his deep disappointment when he received the visions of Daniel 7, 8 about how the end was not going to be after the 70 years of Jeremiah’s prophecy, but there had been delays incorporated into the Divine program because of Judah’s sin and refusal to fully repent. The record of this prayer is in the past tense (:4). It could be that after realizing at the end of Daniel 8 that things were not going to work out as had been potentially possible, Daniel recalls his previous prayer of his, and recognizes that it has not been answered as he had wished; it would be answered, but not within the time frame he had expected. And so was fulfilled <a href='B:330 14:14'>Eze 14:14</a>, which had stated that even Daniel could not avert the calamity to befall Judah.</h4><p>The number of the years about which the word of Yahweh had come to Jeremiah the prophet for the accomplishing of the desolations of Jerusalem, even seventy years- Daniel understood that after 70 years Jerusalem must be restored; but he earnestly prayed for their forgiveness so that this would happen (<a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a> cp. 19). Perhaps he opened his window and prayed towards Jerusalem exactly because he wanted to fulfil 2 Chronicles 6 : “If they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they are carried captive, and turn, and pray unto thee… toward their land… and toward the city which thou hast chosen”. He knew that repentance was a precondition for the promised restoration to occur.</p><h4>In the context of the returning exiles, Daniel was aware that the 70 years of desolation had to be fulfilled, and yet he asks God not to defer the promised restoration(<a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a> cp. 19), as if he understood that the predicted revival of Israel could still be delayed by God on account of their unpreparedness, even though it was prophesied. Daniel understood from Jeremiah’s prophecies that Jerusalem’s fortunes would be revived after the 70 year period was ended. Yet he goes on to ask God to immediately forgive His people, as if Daniel even dared hope that the period might be shortened. Daniel lived into the reign of Cyrus (<a href='B:340 6:28'>Dan 6:28</a>), and so he would have witnessed “the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem” (<a href='B:340 9:25'>Dan 9:25</a>; <a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>). But it seems to me that whilst the prophecy of the 70 years came true in one sense, the Jews didn’t respond as they should, and so the time of Zion’s true freedom in the Messianic Kingdom was delayed. Daniel had been petitioning the Father to not delay beyond the 70 year period in doing this. But in another sense, the prophecy was re-interpreted; Daniel was now told that there was to be a “seventy weeks of years” (<a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a> RSV) period involved in order to gain ultimate forgiveness for Israel as Daniel had just been praying for. The 70 years had become “seventy weeks of years”. The command to rebuild Jerusalem was given in the first year of Cyrus (<a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>); but Daniel must have watched in vain for any sign that Zion’s glad morning had really come. And so it is recorded that in the third year of Cyrus Daniel was given a vision that confirmed to him that “the thing was true, but the time appointed was long [Heb. ‘extended’; the word is also translated “greater”, “more”]: and he understood the thing” (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a>). What was “the thing” that was true, which Daniel sought to understand? Surely it was the vision of the 70 years that he had sought to “understand” in <a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a>. The Hebrew “dabar”, translated “thing”, is usually translated “word”. He was comforted that the word of prophecy would come true; it was “noted in the scripture of truth” (<a href='B:340 10:21'>Dan 10:21</a>). It was just that it had been extended in its fulfilment; “for yet the vision is for many days” (<a href='B:340 10:14'>Dan 10:14</a>). And this was how he came to “understand the thing / word”. The essential and ultimate fulfilment of the 70 years prophecy would only be after a long time, involving 70 “weeks of years”. Thus Daniel came to “understand” the vision (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a>); hence he was so shocked, depressed and disappointed that the fulfilment would not be in his days. But he is set up as a representative of those of us in the very last days who shall likewise “understand” (s:w. <a href='B:340 12:10'>Dan 12:10</a>) the very same prophecies which Daniel studied. Daniel is described as both understanding, and also not understanding (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a>; <a href='B:340 12:8'>Dan 12:8</a>). Surely the idea is that he understood the principle of deferment and the outline meaning of the prophecy; but he didn’t understand the details. And so perhaps it is with us who will, or do, likewise “understand” as Daniel did.</h4>


text:
<h4>I set my face to the Lord God- Daniel prayed with his windows open toward Jerusalem. Yet he was praying to God, not Jerusalem as a city or the temple as a material place. The physical praying toward Jerusalem was merely to focus him upon the essence, that God was still somehow present in ruined, Divinely judged Jerusalem. If however the idea is that he prayed heavenwards, this could be read as him recognizing that as Ezekiel had described, the glory of the Divine presence had indeed now left Jerusalem.</h4><h4>To seek by prayer and petitions, with fasting and sackcloth and ashes- He recognized that Bible prophecy isn’t just automatically fulfilled. He realized that the idea of revival after 70 years required prayer and deep repentance. Or maybe that 70 year period had already expired, and so Daniel begs for the restoration to happen. We see here the openness of God, which is a function of His extreme sensitivity to human prayer and repentance. This is why the 70 year period was understood by Daniel to be flexible, and why there are various time periods in Daniel which apparently reflect the varying possibilities in fulfilment. This is why we can never construct an exact chronology of latter day events in advance. So much is open.</h4>


text:
<h4>I prayed to Yahweh my God, and made confession, and said, Oh Lord- John Collins has observed that the prayer"flows smoothly, full of traditional phrases and free of Aramaisms"(Daniel p. 347). This is what we would expect when a native Hebrew speaker prays in Hebrew to his God; we can have every confidence that we are reading the actual words prayed by a man many centuries ago. The Hebrewtranslated"confession"is the common word used for praise or worship. To confess sin in such true penitence is the ultimate worship; we too easily associate worship with musical performance, but this is not the idea in Hebrew thought. God may be worshipped upon or using musical instruments, but the essence of worship is within the heart.</h4><p>The great and dreadful God- The phrase is used to distinguish God from the gods of the nations (<a href='B:50 7:21'>Deu 7:21</a>; <a href='B:50 10:17'>Deu 10:17</a>; <a href='B:130 16:25'>1Ch 16:25</a>; <a href='B:230 96:4'>Psa 96:4</a>; there are many allusions to Deuteronomy in this prayer). Daniel realized that idolatry was the essence of Israel’s sin. That there is only one God has such huge implications in human life. This title of God is also used by Nehemiah (<a href='B:160 1:5'>Neh 1:5</a>; <a href='B:160 4:14'>Neh 4:14</a>; <a href='B:160 9:32'>Neh 9:32</a>). Nehemiah was also influenced in his prayer of penitence by Daniel’s prayer. We too should reflect Biblical influence in our words and reasoning; in this sense the Bible becomes a living word, a word for our lives.</p><h4>Who keeps covenant and loving kindness with those who love Him and keep His commandments- Daniel accepts that covenant relationship requires obedience, and yet he is going to confess that Israel have been disobedient; and he has faith that despite their continued disobedience, his singular repentance and prayer might be accepted by God, so that the covenant blessings might be restored to Israel. This speaks to the issue of whether God’s grace is conditional or not. As Daniel states, the grace of"loving kindness"of the new covenant is conditional upon obedience; and yet that grace is such by its nature that we can hope to receive this grace despite personal disobedience, through the mediation of another (the Lord Jesus, in our case). If Daniel had not understood that, he would not have prayed this prayer as he did.</h4>


text:
<h4>We have sinned and have dealt perversely, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even turning aside from Your precepts and from Your ordinances- The prayers of Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 9 are similar to this prayer, with the faithful individual taking upon himself the guilt of the nation. Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel were likely inspired and encouraged by the examples of each other in doing so. It is the very opposite of the guilt by association mentality which is so strongly within human nature, and which has been wrongly glorified in so many religious communities. These men eagerly accepted the guilt by association, because they so loved God’s people and were themselves part of that people. The Lord Jesus on the cross exemplified this attitude. As stated in :4, covenant relationship and the related blessings were conditional upon obedience; Israel had been disobedient, and were impenitent on an individual level. And yet as noted on :4, that grace is such by its nature that we can hope to receive this grace despite personal disobedience, through the mediation of another (the Lord Jesus, in our case). If Daniel had not understood that, he would not have prayed this prayer as he did.</h4><h4>"Done wickedly"translates the word usually understood as ’condemned’, and the word for"ordinances"[literally ’verdicts’] continues the legal language. Israel had sinned and been condemned. And yet Daniel even at this stage pleads for their restoration and salvation. Paul develops this in Romans; we are condemned sinners, the verdict has been given; and yet even in our dire situation we can still be not only forgiven but counted righteous, thanks to the new covenant in Christ. The essence of the new covenant was what was promised to Abraham, so it was in operation at Daniel’s time.</h4>


text:
<p>Neither have we listened to Your servants the prophets, who spoke in Your name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land- The prophetic ministry is not described in such detail in the historical accounts. This verse implies that they spoke not simply occasionally to kings and leaders, but to absolutely everyone in Israelite society. Daniel was himself a prophet and yet he identifies himself here with the disobedient people, whom"we"had not listened to. This deep self-identity with sinners when not having sinned personally in that way is the essence of the work of the Lord Jesus and of all those in Him.</p>


text:
<h4>Lord, righteousness belongs to You, but to us shame of face, as at this day- As explained on :5, Israel had sinned and were in shame. Confession of sin involves an acceptance that Yahweh is righteous, and we are not. We see the same in David’s confessions of sin after the Bathsheba incident. One title of the Lord Jesus is"the Lord our righteousness"; our confessed sin is a declaration that the Lord is righteous, and through imputed righteousness, all those in the Lord Jesus are therefore and thereby declared as righteous. If righteousness"belongs to You", then we are to identify with that righteousness rather than our own sinfulness. On a psychological level, the essence of repentance and indeed Christianity is a question of identity; despite our past and ongoing sinfulness, with whom and with what do we essentially self-identify? With our sin, or His righteousness?</h4><h4>To the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, who are near and who are far off, through all the countries where You have driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against You- Daniel and Judah were in captivity, but the ten tribe kingdom of Israel had been scattered by the Assyrians much earlier. But Daniel’s vision was that repentance by himself and the remnant of Judah could lead to a total restoration of all Israel, in line with the prophecies of the restoration.</h4>


text:
<p>Lord, to us belongs shame of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against You- This repeated emphasis upon"shame of face"(:7) or ’blushing’ reflectshow deeply Daniel felt the presence of God. In that presence, he as it were blushed with shame. This is how close we can realize God’s presence. In :6, Daniel has spoken of the shame of the same categories, the kings, princes, fathers and common people. Daniel was a prince (<a href='B:340 1:9'>Dan 1:9</a>), but here he identifies himself with the common people. He speaks of"us", and then the kings, princes and fathers. He is a powerful example of identifying with people in order to try to save them, just as God did in His very human Son. And our outreach to the world is likewise at its best when we identify with our target audience.</p>


text:
<p>To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgiveness; for we have rebelled against Him- The term"mercies and forgiveness"is only used twice, and each time about how the punished exiles could receive mercy and forgiveness if they repented (<a href='B:110 8:50'>1Ki 8:50</a>; <a href='B:290 55:7'>Isa 55:7</a>). But they had not repented, yet Daniel seeks to as it were do this for them."Rebelled"is the word and idea used of how Israel rebelled against God in the desert and therefore didn’t return to the promised land (<a href='B:40 14:9'>Num 14:9</a>), and the word is repeatedly used about those who apparently rebelled in not wanting to inherit the land intended for them (<a href='B:60 22:16'>Jos 22:16</a>; <a href='B:60 22:18-19'>Jos 22:18-19</a>; <a href='B:60 22:29'>Jos 22:29</a>). The same had happened with the exiles; they had rebelled, and most of them preferred to remain in Babylon rather than enter the promised land (<a href='B:160 9:26'>Neh 9:26</a>; <a href='B:330 2:3'>Eze 2:3</a>; <a href='B:330 20:38'>Eze 20:38</a>). Daniel is aware of the situation, and yet has the spiritual vision to believe that in the spirit of Moses influencing God to all the same save Israel, so he could perhaps alter the nation’s condemnation and bring about the immediate restoration of the Kingdom in his lifetime. God didn’t agree to this, giving the 70 weeks prophecy as His response; after all, most of Judah had remained in Babylon and didn’t want the good news of the restored Kingdom. The essence of Daniel’s request would come true, but not the timing. It seems he was too strongly influenced by his personal desire not to die and to see the restored Messianic Kingdom in his own lifetime.</p>


text:
<p>Neither have we obeyed the voice of Yahweh our God to walk in His laws, which He set before us by His servants the prophets- We note that the words of the prophets were still counted as God’s"law"(:11); this means that the"law"could be ammended, added to, and also subtracted from. Many of the laws were only really applicable to Israel in the wilderness; and this affects the issue of the Sabbath. The laws were not eternal but flexible, even in Old Testament times; and this paves the way for understanding the abrogation of those laws by the Lord’s death.</p>


text:
<h4>Yes, all Israel have transgressed Your law- Again Daniel focuses upon the ten tribes as well as Judah,"all Israel", because his vision was for the fulfilment of the prophecies of Israel’s total restoration from wherever they had been scattered.</h4><p>Turning aside, that they should not obey Your voice- The"turning aside"was in order that they should not obey; the idea is that they turned their ears away so that they didn’t hear what they had to obey. I suggest that the psychological basis for all apparently intellectual failure to understand God’s voice is because we subconsciously fear that if we understand rightly, we shall have to obey. See on :18.</p><h4>Therefore the curse and the oath written in the law of Moses the servant of God has been poured out on us; for we have sinned against Him- The Mosaic curse for disobedience to the oath was punishment"seven times". Daniel seems to have thought that the sacking of the temple and Babylonian exile was that"seven times"punishment. The prophecy of the 70 weeks seems to be saying that the time of punishment was not yet over, not least because Israel had not repented, and most of the Jews preferred to remain in Babylon rather than participate in the restoration.</h4>


text:
<h4>He has confirmed His words which He spoke against us, and against our judges who judged us, by bringing on us a great evil- The term"great evil"is exactly that used about the"great evil"of Judah’s sins (<a href='B:150 9:13'>Ezr 9:13</a>; <a href='B:160 13:27'>Neh 13:27</a>; <a href='B:300 44:7'>Jer 44:7</a>). The sin was in effect its own punishment; the"great evil"of their sin was matched with the"great evil"of the Babylonian invasion and exile (<a href='B:300 16:10'>Jer 16:10</a>; <a href='B:300 32:42'>Jer 32:42</a>).</h4><h4>For under the whole Heaven such has not been done as has been done to Jerusalem- Daniel would have been unable to legitimately say this if he referred to the whole planet; for all he knew, similar desolations had been wrought in other laces and times."The whole Heaven"in view was as it were the sky over the land promised to Abraham, the earth-heaven system in Daniel refers specifically to that area, as I have explained on Daniel 2 and Daniel 7.</h4>


text:
<p>As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil has come on us: yet have we not entreated the favour of Yahweh our God, that we should turn from our iniquities, and accept Your truth- Daniel doesn’t say ’We have not prayed for forgiveness’, rather does he say ’We have not prayed that we might be turned away from our sins’. The promised blessing of the Spirit, that which was promised to Abraham, was not simply forgiveness but a being turned away from our sins, the same phrase is used in <a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a>. Daniel realized likewise that the gift of a holy spirit can be received from God; He can give us a new worldview, a new pair of eyes, a psychological acceptance of Divine truth. Daniel recognizes that sin is addictive, and we need to pray for direct Divine action upon the human heart so that we might turn away from sin and accept His Truth. Although Judah had not turned away from their sins, Daniel uses the same word to ask God to turn away His judgment of Zion (:16). He clearly had the spiritual vision to believe in the power of God’s grace to accept the mediation of just one person, on behalf of those who are impenitent. We think of how the Lord accepted the faith of the friends on behalf of their friend (<a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>)."The truth"which they should accept would be the great truth that they had sinned, and that God through His grace could save them out of that sin to restoration through the Spirit."Mercy and truth"is a common phrase for the promises to Abraham, and according to <a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a> the turning away from sins is part of this covenant promise.</p>


text:
<h4>Therefore has Yahweh watched over the evil, and brought it on us- The implication could be that the evil is pronounced, but there is a period of time after that during which repentance is possible. This was clearly seen in the lives of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. But because Judah refused to repentant, God watched over the evil and brought it upon them. The idea may be that the Angels who are the eyes of Yahweh watched upon it, i:e. they brought it about.</h4><h4>For Yahweh our God is righteous in all His works which He does, and we have not obeyed His voice-&nbsp; Again we see that repentance involves the declaration of God as right and ourselves as wrong (<a href='B:230 51:4'>Psa 51:4</a> etc:).</h4>


text:
<p>Now, Lord our God, You who brought Your people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and has gotten Yourself renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly- Daniel wished God to bring Judah back from Babylon to the land just as He had brought Israel out of Egypt to the same land. But the reality was that most of Jewry remained in Babylon and didn’t want to restore the kingdom themselves.</p>


text:
<h4>Lord, according to all Your righteousness, please let Your anger and Your wrath be turned away- The spirit of this prayer is that God has rightly decreed judgment upon Israel, but the course of that projected history can be changed or ammended in outworking by prayer and repentance. This is similar to what Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar experienced, both being given the chance to repent in order to avoid stated judgments. The openness of God is seen clearer in Daniel than anywhere else. Jeremiah prayed at this point because <a href='B:300 29:10-14'>Jer 29:10-14</a> had predicted that after the 70 years, Judah would pray to God and the kingdom be restored; and Daniel saw himself as representative of Judah, reasoning that the prayer of just one man could be counted as that of the nation. Although in this case God didn’t accept that, the principle was valid and is exemplified in the work and mediation of the Lord Jesus for us:"For thus says Yahweh, After seventy years are accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you and perform My word of grace towards you, in causing you to return to this place. For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, says Yahweh, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you hope and a future. You shall call on Me, and you shall go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. You shall seek Me and find Me, when you shall search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you, says Yahweh, and I will turn again your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places where I have driven you, says Yahweh; and I will bring you again to the place from where I caused you to be carried away captive".</h4><p>From Your city Jerusalem, Your holy mountain; because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Your people have become a reproach to all who are around us- The same word for"reproach"is repeatedly used in Nehemiah of the"reproach"of Judah even after the exiles returned. The end of Judah’s"reproach"was associated with the projected restoration from Babylon and reestablishment of God’s Kingdom in the form of Judah under a Messianic ruler (<a href='B:290 54:4'>Isa 54:4</a>; <a href='B:330 36:15'>Eze 36:15</a>; <a href='B:330 36:30'>Eze 36:30</a> cp. <a href='B:360 2:19'>Joe 2:19</a>). But while God’s word was a"reproach"to Judah, so their reproach would continue (<a href='B:300 6:10'>Jer 6:10</a> s:w:). Judah’s reproach was to be"eternal"(<a href='B:300 23:40'>Jer 23:40</a>), but Daniel believed that the restoration prophecies about the removal of reproach would reverse this. So to pray for the"reproach"to end was tantamount to asking for the prophecies of the restoration to come true. Daniel certainly had spiritual ambition and vision in praying for this, when the spiritual preconditions in Judah were simply not there. He had learnt from the example of Moses and his own life, that God is prepared to bless a spiritually weak majority for the sake of a righteous minority and their intercession. And this is the essence of what was achieved in the Lord Jesus, as Romans 1-8 makes clear.</p><h4>The"great mountain"ofGod’s Kingdom fills the whole earth, but the mountain initially begins at one point on the planet. Elsewhere in Daniel, the mountain is defined superficially as Jerusalem:"Your city Jerusalem, even Your holy mountain". The toes are therefore specifically dominating Jerusalem at the initial point of impact of the stone upon the land. And this is what we would expect from an Islamist confederacy dominating the land of Israel- Jerusalem is the key issue for them. And we know from Zechariah that"the city shall be taken".</h4>


text:
<h4>Now therefore, our God, listen to the prayer of Your servant, and to his petitions- Daniel had the vision to believe that"just"for the sake of his singular intercession, this restoration of God’s Kingdom in Judah could occur. He clearly understood ’the power of one’, as Peter Stringer put it to me some years ago. This is the spirit of Christ in Daniel; for our redemption as condemned sinners is on account solely of His work for us, the just for the unjust.</h4><h4>And cause Your face to shine on Your sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake- The 70 weeks prophecy, given in response to this prayer, speaks of the placing of an abomination which desolates, using the same word as used here for"desolate". The answer was that indeed the desolation would finally be removed, but not when Daniel hoped, i:e. immediately, in his lifetime. The word is repeatedly used in the curses of <a href='B:30 26:22'>Lev 26:22</a>; <a href='B:30 26:31-32'>Lev 26:31-32</a>; <a href='B:30 26:34'>Lev 26:34</a>. <a href='B:30 26:35'>Lev 26:35</a>; <a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a> mention that the desolation of the land would be to cover all the Sabbaths and jubilees that had not been kept. The prophecy of seventy sevens of continued desolation until the final cleansing could refer to 70 weeks or Sabbaths or jubilee years. The shining of God’s face upon Zion is the language of Isaiah’s prophecies of the restoration; Daniel was praying that the Messianic, restored kingdom would then be reestablished on account of his prayer.</h4>


text:
<h4>My God, turn Your ear, and hear- As noted on :11, Israel had turned away their ears from God’s word lest they understood it and had to obey it. Daniel recognizes this, but had such an insight into the depth of God’s grace and His willingness to accept the intercession of just one man, that he asks God all the same to turn His ear to Judah’s desolation.</h4><h4>Open Your eyes, and see our desolations, and the city which is called by Your name: for we do not present our petitions before You for our righteousness, but for Your great mercies’ sake- Daniel has admitted that Judah have turned their ear away from God (:11) and were impenitent. But he doesn’t therefore assume that God will not respond to them. He realizes that grace means that God can cover even that, for the sake of the intercession of the faithful. And so he appeals to God’s great grace, admitting that Judah had absolutely no righteousness of their own, and that despite their sins, Zion was still called by God’s Name, claimed as His own because He had an eternal purpose with it. This is the great significance of being baptized into that Name and thereby also becoming those claimed as God’s very own, whom He will continue to work with according to His purpose even if we turn away from Him.</h4>


text:
<p>Lord, hear; Lord, forgive; Lord, listen and do; don’t defer, for Your own sake, my God, because Your city and Your people are called by Your name- As noted on :18, this appeal was for God to hear a people who didn’t hear Him (see on :11), to forgive those who were impenitent, to listen to those who didn’t listen to God. It was an appeal to His absolute grace and willingness to accept intercession. And that grace was ’God’s own sake’, it is at the very heart of God and is the quintessence of all He is and stands for."Don’t defer"reflects Daniel’s understanding that the purpose of God can be delayed or deferred; the 70 years prophecy of Jeremiah appeared to him to be being delayed in fulfilment, and the answer he receives in the 70 weeks prophecy is effectively a deferment. <a href='B:290 46:13'>Isa 46:13</a> could mean that at the final restoration, Zion’s redemption will no longer be delayed (s:w:); and Rev 106 is clear that in the last days, there will be"delay no longer". We may appeal against it, as Daniel does here, knowing that God is open to dialogue. But He also knows best and operates His delays and hastenings with a justice and grace beyond our comprehension.</p>


text:
<h4>While I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel- Daniel was aware that he too was a sinner, although the record presents him as almost spotless. Or it could be that he felt so identified with the sin of Israel that he felt personal guilt because of it. This helps us understand how the absolutely perfect Lord Jesus could be made a sin offering for us, could be identified with sinners to such an extreme extent that He died the death of a criminal on a Roman cross. I will note on <a href='B:340 10:17'>Dan 10:17</a> that Daniel had yet to be even deeper convicted of his own sins and also those of Judah.</h4><h4>And presenting my supplication before Yahweh my God for the holy mountain of my God- Note the personal pronouns. As I have repeatedly noted, he believed in ’the power of one’, that ’just’ one righteous man interceding for a sinful nation could cause their restoration and salvation. This is immense encouragement to us in our intercession for others who currently are far from God; see on <a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>.</h4>


text:
<h4>Yes, while I was speaking in prayer- We are to imagine Daniel praying out loud.</h4><p>The man Gabriel- Gabriel was an Angel, but was clearly portrayed as a man and perceived in that way by Daniel.</p><p>Whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning- Gabriel had first appeared in <a href='B:340 8:16'>Dan 8:16</a>; but the vision of Daniel 8 was given before the events of Daniel 9 (<a href='B:340 8:1'>Dan 8:1</a> cp. <a href='B:340 9:1'>Dan 9:1</a>). So the idea is ’the vision I had seen earlier’. But"beginning"means just that. Perhaps the idea is that the vision of Daniel 8 was the beginning of the motivation Daniel received to pray that events might work out differently, and God’s purpose be hastened.</p><h4>Being caused to fly swiftly- God’s purpose and response was indeed hastened; although the chronological hastening of events was not granted to Daniel, he was assured that God was not therefore indifferent, and had immediately responded. The implication is that Gabriel had been sent forth from Heaven to earth by God to explain the vision to Daniel. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on <a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a>. An alternative reading is that Gabriel was caused to"fly with weariness"(<a href='B:340 9:21'>Dan 9:21</a> AVmg. ); this would then be an example of the Bible’s ‘language of limitation’ which may refer to the Angels rather than God personally. The Angel flying swiftly should be compared with the passages which talk about running swiftly in order to understand and obey God’s word (<a href='B:420 2:2'>Hab 2:2</a>; <a href='B:370 8:11-12'>Amo 8:11-12</a>; <a href='B:230 147:15'>Psa 147:15</a>; <a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a>; <a href='B:600 3:1'>2Th 3:1</a>). <a href='B:340 8:18'>Dan 8:18</a> also describes how the Angel gave Daniel spiritual revelation.</h4><h4>Touched me about the time of the evening offering- The daily offerings were presumably not made in captivity, but Daniel’s heart was very much in the land of promise and in the hope of the restoration of Israel’s kingdom. He therefore calculated time according to the time of the offerings. Daniel understood his prayers as an offering to God (as in <a href='B:230 141:2'>Psa 141:2</a>), and Gabriel therefore responded appropriately, answering prayer at the time of the evening sacrifice. In <a href='B:340 8:18'>Dan 8:18</a>, the touch of Gabriel, literally ’laying the hand upon’, is a sign of Daniel’s acceptance. And so we learn that even if our prayers aren’t answered as we wish, this is not to say that we are not acceptable with God. Gabriel seems to have been at pains to help Daniel understand this.</h4>


text:
<p>He instructed me, and talked with me, and said, Daniel, I am now come forth to give you wisdom and understanding- This isprophetic of the faithful community in the very last days. The Lord says that when the abomination of desolation appears, then His people should flee Jerusalem; and “let him that reads,&nbsp; understand” (<a href='B:470 24:15-17'>Mat 24:15-17</a>). Whatever application this had to the events of the three and a half years tribulation of AD67-70 was at best a sketchy and incomplete fulfilment. The tell tale phrase is “let him that reads, understand”. This is inviting us to be like Daniel in <a href='B:340 9:22-25'>Dan 9:22-25</a>, who also wanted to understand the meaning of the “abomination” prophecy. But he was told that the meaning of that vision about the abomination that desolates would only be revealed in the very last days, i:e. at the time of its fulfilment (<a href='B:340 8:17'>Dan 8:17</a>; <a href='B:340 8:26'>Dan 8:26</a>; <a href='B:340 12:9'>Dan 12:9</a>). The implication of all this is that there will be believing Jews living in the Jerusalem area at the time of the setting up of the abomination; and they will have special understanding of this prophecy which will lead them to flee. The importance of this for our present study is that this indicates that there will be believers in Israel just before the Lord returns. They will have “understanding” and will be motivated by this to respond. “Let him… understand” is paralleled with “let him that is on the housetop [flee immediately]… let him that is in the field not return”. Understanding leads to action- both then and now.</p>


text:
<p>At the beginning of your petitions the commandment went forth, and I have come to tell you; for you are greatly beloved: therefore consider the matter, and understand the vision- Daniel’s prayer, at least as it is recorded here, doesn’t ask for understanding. Instead it is a request for God to act immediately, to not defer the fulfilment of Jeremiah’s ’70 years until the restoration, if you pray’ prophecy. But God sees through to the essence of our prayers, just as the Lord saw that the essence of the tears and intercessions of Martha and Mary was effectively asking ’Raise Lazarus right now’. And so the essence of Daniel’s heart was that he wanted to understand, and this therefore was the answer given. As explained on <a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a>, we know not what to pray for as we ought, but the hidden spirit of our deepest heart is read and understood as our request. We also note in this context that as soon as Daniel prayed, the essence of his heart was read and Gabriel dispatched immediately; he was heard immediately. See on <a href='B:340 10:12'>Dan 10:12</a>.</p>


text:
<h4>Seventy weeks are decreed on your people and on your holy city, to finish disobedience, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy- The end point of the 70 weeks was to be the time when they would no longer be punished for their sins and would be reconciled to God. All prophecy would then be sealed or finished. Any other end point apart from the Lord’s second coming is therefore not going to fit the requirements perfectly. We will discuss various intriguing possibilities, but these were all potential fulfilments which didn’t work out.</h4><p>The chapter begins with Daniel praying for Jeremiah’s prophecy of the 70 years desolation of Judah to be brought to an end. But Daniel and those who lived after him in the Maccabean period would have struggled to understand how this prophecy had been fulfilled, with Jerusalem still not liberated. I suggest that the 70 weeks prophecy is a reinterpretation of the 70 years prophecy of Jeremiah. The preconditions for the restoration were not met. Most of Judah preferred the soft life in Babylon, and as the restoration prophets make clear, the few who did return failed to fulfil the prophecies of restoration. They did not build nor operate the temple according to the requirements of Ezekiel 40-48, and so that prophecy was revealed as conditional, and was perhaps reapplied in a purely spiritual sense, or delayed in fulfilment. And the prophecy of 70 years desolation is now extended and tweaked by this prophecy of 70 sevens. But the simple takeaway point was and is that the period of Gentile domination of God’s people is limited, an end will come, however delayed. The day for a year interpretation doesn’t have to be pushed; the"sevens"could refer to"seven weeks of years". The idea of seven weeks of years, i:e. 49 years, must make every Jewish mind think of the year of Jubilee. 70 x 49 = 3430 years; but the problem is fixing when the first Jubilee was kept after Israel entered the land of Canaan under Joshua. And then there is the problem of the significance of the 7, 62 and final 1 week, which on this basis do not yield any particularly significant chronological points. It is significant that one of the few indirect references to the year of Jubilee in Scripture is in the time of Hezekiah, where it would appear that the great invasion of the land by the Assyrians was in a Jubilee year (<a href='B:290 37:30'>Isa 37:30</a> and context). That invasion and its dramatic destruction by God’s direct intervention would therefore typify the events at the end of the final half week, 3:5 year period of suffering.</p><p>The language of the ending of sin and bringing in eternal righteousness naturally has some application to the Lord’s finished work upon the cross. The whole prophecy was in prospect ulfilled then, but only in the ’now but not yet’ sense that we encounter continually throughout the Bible. God for the sake of that prayer of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross [“Father forgive them”] forgave us all our sins then (<a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a>), the whole concept of sin was ended in prospect (<a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a>), one final sacrifice was offered for sins (<a href='B:650 10:12'>Heb 10:12</a>). The result of this is that we should repent, search ourselves and confess as many of our sins as possible, knowing they have been conquered. And we too should forgive each other in the same manner as we have been forgiven (<a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a>), not waiting for repentance, but learning the spirit of the Lord Jesus and the attitude of our Father.</p><p>"I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do", ultimately finished when Christ cried"It is finished"(<a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a>; <a href='B:500 19:30'>Joh 19:30</a>), alludes to several Old Testament passages. <a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a> had prophesied that Messiah’s sacrifice would"finish transgression::. make an end of sins::. make reconciliation for iniquity:::bring in everlasting righteousness::. and to anoint the Most Holy", as if a new sanctuary were being inaugurated. In prospect, the whole concept of sin was destroyed at the point of Christ’s death, the devil (sin) was destroyed, the opportunity for us to have the everlasting righteousness of Christ imputed to us was opened up."It is finished"may well have been uttered with an appreciation of this passage (for surely Daniel 9 was in the mind of our dying Lord). In this case, Christ died with the final triumphant thought that our sinfulness had now been overcome. Surely this should inspire us to a fuller and more confident, joyful faith in this.</p><h4>But when we come to try to fit this in to the chronology of the 70 weeks prophecy, it is clear that the 70 weeks do not end on the cross. There are no significant events in the week and half week before this, nor 62 weeks before that last week. We must look to the last days for a complete, best fit fulfilment.</h4>


text:
<h4>Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem- This commandment to restore Jerusalem could refer to that of Jeremiah, who in 605 / 604 BC predicted restoration after 70 years. But the natural objection is that a command to restore could hardly be given before Jerusalem had been destroyed. So the reference could be to the word for restoration given right at this time by Gabriel in :23. Or perhaps the decree of Cyrus is in view (539 BC), or that of Artaxerxes (458 BC) or that given to Nehemiah (445 BC). But again, as noted on :24, no starting point yields significant events after 7, 62 and 69:5 weeks. And one has to imagine an inserted hiatus even if we wish to apply the last 3:5 years to the last days. And this does violence to the whole idea of a 70 week period.</h4><h4>To the Anointed One, the prince- According to <a href='B:290 45:1'>Isa 45:1</a>, this potentially could have been Cyrus. But it could have many other referents (Joshua, Zerubbabel, Ezra, Nehemiah or Sheshbazzar), or to the Angelic prince Michael who stood for Israel (<a href='B:340 10:21'>Dan 10:21</a>). I suggest below that it could refer to the Lord Jesus and His work on the cross. But the chronological problems stubbornly remain. Just as Jeremiah’s 70 years prophecy was recalculated and reapplied into this 70 weeks prophecy, so this 70 weeks prophecy itself has to be recalculated, and shall come true in perfection in the last days, perhaps during a literal 70 week or 70 ’sevens’ period within the final 3:5 year tribulation.</h4><h4>Shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troubled times- The Lord Jesus is called"Messiah the Prince"in <a href='B:340 9:25'>Dan 9:25</a> in order to contrast with how the anti-Christ, the fake Christ, is also called"the prince of the host"in <a href='B:340 8:11'>Dan 8:11</a>."It became great, even as great as the Prince of the host"(ESV). This prince"shall stand up against the Prince of princes", the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:340 8:25'>Dan 8:25</a>). There will be a final showdown between these two princes, and their respective followers and Kingdoms. The rebuilding of the temple coincides with the appearance of the"Anointed One". And he is"cut off"then (:26). This just doesn’t fit with an application to the Lord Jesus in the first century, although on :26 I give a possible attempt to make it fit. But the coincidence with the rebuilding of the temple is definitely problematic. So I feel confirmed in repeating that just as the 70 years prophecy was conditional and was reinterpreted and reapplied in the 70 weeks prophecy, so that too didn’t work out as potentially possible because of Judah’s impenitence. It will in essence come true in the last days, perhaps in a literal period of 70 weeks during the three and a half year tribulation.</h4>


text:
<h4>After the sixty-two weeks the Anointed One shall be cut off- The reference could be to the killing of the High Priest Onias III in 171 BC as recorded in 2Ma_4:23-28 (also mentioned in <a href='B:340 11:22'>Dan 11:22</a>). This would have been 62 weeks / 434 years after the prophecy of Jeremiah about the 70 years in BC 605. That would require the initial seven week / 49 year period to run concurrently with the 62 week period. But the temptation is to apply it to the murder of the Lord Jesus, the Christ / anointed one. The prophecy clearly had multiple possible applications, but none of them seem to fit exactly. This is not due to some prophetic miscalculation; just as the 70 year period to restoration didn’t happen because of Judah’s lack of repentance, and had to be recalculated and reapplied, so the reapplication was likewise a potential that Judah’s lack of repentance precluded from happening.</h4><p>And shall have nothing: and the people of the prince who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and its end shall be with a flood, and even to the end shall be war; desolations are determined- This appears to have similarities with the desolations of Antiochus IV; the"people / troops of the prince"would then be the Seleucid soldiers who settled in Jerusalem (<a href='B:340 11:31'>Dan 11:31</a>; 1Ma_1:29-40). But Antiochus didn’t destroy the sanctuary; he desolated Jerusalem and defiled the temple (1Ma_1:46; 2Ma_6:2) but didn’t destroy it quite to the extent required by the language here. There are of course similarities with the Roman destruction in AD70, but this Roman approach fails to make any sense in :27. And both references to Antiochus and the Romans run into difficulties in fitting in to the required chronology of the 7, 62 and final one week. The prince to come points to a specific individual, whose people or troops destroy the city and temple. He is an anti-Christ, an imitation of the One who is the true Prince of the kings of the earth (<a href='B:730 1:4-5'>Rev 1:4-5</a>).</p><p>However, a case can be made that the anointed one is the Lord Jesus, the Christ [Messiah, anointed one]. But again, the chronology is problematic, unless the periods are given big gaps between them, especially between the 62 weeks and the last half week. Such gaps seem to do violence to the whole concept of 70 weeks. But some may still find the idea attractive.</p><p>In reply to Daniel’s prayer, God promises that:</p><p>- In the short term, there will be a decree made to enable the rebuilding of Jerusalem;</p><p>- A time for the ending of Israel’s iniquity does lie ahead; their cleansing will be through the coming of their Messiah;</p><p>- To enable this, a new kind of covenant would be established with them;</p><p>- The means to forgiveness would involve a doing away of animal sacrifices and a destruction of the temple, with abominable idols standing there making it" desolate".</p><p>- Eventually this desolation would be done away with.</p><p>Thus Daniel’s prayer for the forgiveness of Israel and his enquiry about the fortunes of the temple is given a complex answer; very soon a command would go forth to rebuild the temple, but the full judgment for Israel’s iniquity still had to come. This would be through the death of their Messiah, great desolation of the temple and other times of trouble. However, ultimately the death and work of their Messiah would enable the eventual cleansing of Israel from their iniquities in a permanent fashion, so that never again would God’s House lie desolate. After 69 weeks from the decree to rebuild the temple Messiah was to be"cut off". This ought to silence once and for all the constant Jewish objection to a suffering Messiah; he was to be"cut off". The decree of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem was given in BC457. Commentators have frequently multiplied 69 by 7 to give a period of 483 day/years that were to elapse before Messiah’s death. However, Jewish time is often reckoned in Lunar cycles rather than Solar, as Europeans are accustomed to. On the basis of Lunar time, 69 weeks of years comes out at 486:5 Lunar years. Allowing for a BC/AD calendar inaccuracy of 4 years, this brings us to AD33:5 for the time of Messiah being cut off; which is exactly when Jesus was crucified, 33:5 years after his birth.</p><p>The 69 weeks being split into 7 weeks and 62 weeks is understandable once it is appreciated that most Bible prophecy has some immediate reference to the period around which it was given. 7 weeks of years would come to around 50 years. According to the records of the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Ezra, Nehemiah and Haggai it would appear that the bulk of the work was done in the 50 years after the issuing of the decree for rebuilding. This mini time period would doubtless have been of great encouragement to the Jews of the time as they laboured in the rebuilding work amidst so much opposition.</p>&nbsp;<p>The description of the sacrifices ceasing and the temple being desecrated by an"abomination"can comfortably apply to the final destruction of the temple in AD70. Application to the time of the Maccabees is difficult because despite the disruption of the temple services, the sacrifices did not"cease"permanently. The Hebrew word for"cease"is also translated in the Old Testament as"to cause to fail","suffer to be lacking","put down","to rid","to take away", showing that the sacrifices in the second temple were to be ended permanently. The placing of abominations in the temple sounds like the Roman desecration of it with the idols of their legions after its final capture in AD70. Jesus also interpreted this part of Daniel 9 with reference to the events of AD70 (<a href='B:470 24:15'>Mat 24:15</a>).</p><p>The abomination that caused desolation in AD70 can also be referred to the abomination of Israel’s sins, which finally resulted in the desolation of both the land and the temple. <a href='B:340 8:11-13'>Dan 8:11-13</a> (R:V:) has many connections with this prophecy of Daniel 9 :"The daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down::. an host was given against the daily sacrifice by reason of (Israel’s) transgression::. the transgression of (’making’) desolation". Israel’s sins reached the maximum degree to which God was willing to let them accumulate without intervening in judgment. If the Jewish crucifixion of Jesus a few years earlier was indeed their rejection of God’s Messiah, then this is understandable. Deuteronomy chapters 28-31 consistently link the ideas of desolation and Israel’s disobedience. Josephus (Wars of the Jews, 4:6:6-8) records how the Jewish Zealots made the temple a garrison in AD70 and thoroughly desecrated it by their actions even before the Romans tookit.</p><p>If the middle of the 70th week was the destruction of the temple in AD70, then it follows that from BC457 to AD70 is 69:5"weeks". Therefore, if AD70 was the middle of the 70th week, it follows that there was a gap in the fulfilment of the prophecy. Thus it should not appear unreasonable to say that the first 69 weeks had a chronological fulfilment from BC457 to AD33, and that the first half of the 70th week ended in AD70. Now it is of the utmost significance that the Jewish wars which culminated in the sacking of Jerusalem in AD70 began 3:5 years previously in AD66/67. Thus the first half of the 70th week of the judgments upon Jerusalem started at this time. We must ever remember that the 70 weeks prophecy was concerning the judgments upon Jerusalem and how God was going to deal with their sins, which formed the burden of Daniel’s initial prayer.</p><p>This gap in the 70 weeks between AD33:5 and AD66:5 must be significant. It could imply that something happened in AD33:5 which gave Israel the opportunity to repent, and that during that time the judgments to come upon them were suspended, although being resumed in AD66:5-70, presumably due to Israel’s failure to do anything in the former period to avert those judgments? The Christian reasoning surely sounds uncannily true, that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah who was crucified in AD33:5, and that due to Israel’s failure to repent as they should have done the judgments continued. It is noteworthy that the judgments on Jerusalem in the first half of the 70th week were to be by Messiah’s armies (<a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a>). Having been given control of all things on earth (<a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a>) after His resurrection, the Lord Jesus was able to send the Roman armies, effectively His armies, against Jerusalem in judgment. Indeed, He foretold the future destruction of Jerusalem by God’s armies (<a href='B:470 22:1-7'>Mat 22:1-7</a>); which became His when God gave Him all power after His resurrection.</p><h4>The final half (i:e. 3:5 day/years) of the 70th week is difficult by anyone’s standards. Masada, the last outpost of Jewish resistance to the Roman re-invasion, fell in AD73:5, which could suggest that the final part of this week and indeed the whole prophecy, finished then. But we wonder why that point should be the end of Judah and Jerusalem’s sufferings and the introduction of eternal righteousness. It was surely not that significant. This would mean that by AD73"reconciliation for iniquity::. everlasting righteousness"as promised in <a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a> would have been brought in. But surely that was achieved 40 years before, on the cross. The idea of Jesus as the perfect sacrifice which permanently overcame sin, thus doing away with the need for animal sacrifices, seems to fit what happened on the cross, not in AD73. The (new) covenant of Messiah was"confirmed"(the Hebrew implies violently, with strength) during the 70th week (<a href='B:340 9:27'>Dan 9:27</a>), and therefore the Old Covenant of the law (<a href='B:50 4:13'>Deu 4:13</a>) was finally done away then; yet surely this was achieved on the cross (<a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a>). The"vision and prophecy"being"sealed"(<a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a>) at this stage may hint that it was by AD70 or just after that the Holy Spirit gift of prophecy was taken away, and inspired writing ceased. There is ample internal evidence that the whole New Testament canon was written before AD70. But again, this doesn’t seem a totally comfortable, best-fit interpretation.</h4><p>However, it is also possible to argue that the second half of the 70th week refers to a time yet future. The new covenant of Messiah must be powerfully confirmed to Israel, and finally an end of all Israel’s punishment for sin must be made, with the result that an end (i:e. a permanent end) must be made to the powers that desolate Jerusalem (:24,27). Such an end clearly did not come in AD73, and the final deliverance of Israel from God’s judgment and desolators of the temple mount must be yet future. Other scriptures suggest that there will be a final 3:5 year downtreading of Jerusalem during which time Messiah’s covenant will be confirmed mightily to Israel, and at the end of which time there will be a final end to Israel’s sufferings and the destruction of their desolator. There are other references to a 3:5 year period of trouble for God’s people in Daniel:"A time (a year), times (two years) and an half", i:e. 3:5 years (<a href='B:340 7:25'>Dan 7:25</a>; <a href='B:340 12:7'>Dan 12:7</a>; <a href='B:730 12:14'>Rev 12:14</a>). The New Testament speaks of a similar period: 1,260 days -also 3:5 years (<a href='B:730 12:6'>Rev 12:6</a>; <a href='B:730 11:3'>Rev 11:3</a>); 42 months (3:5 years) (<a href='B:730 11:2'>Rev 11:2</a>; <a href='B:730 13:5'>Rev 13:5</a>). It seems fair to assume that they are all speaking of an identical or associated period of time. We have stressed that during the 70th week, the covenant of Messiah will be powerfully confirmed. Therefore we should see this happening during this final 3:5 years; and <a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a> describes the coming of the future Elijah prophet as"The messenger of the covenant", i:e. he will preach Messiah’s covenant to Israel. It is thrilling to find that Jesus and James mention that Elijah’s first ministry lasted 3:5 years (<a href='B:490 4:25'>Luk 4:25</a>; <a href='B:660 5:17'>Jas 5:17</a>; it would be so fitting in the light of this for Elijah’s second ministry to last the same period of time. Given the present world situation, this 3:5 year downtreading of Israel by those who would take every delight in desecrating Jerusalem and the temple area with their anti-Jewish abominations could begin any moment now.</p><p>This interpretation is not without problems. But we can note that the cutting off of Messiah and the temple’s destruction do not have to be simultaneous, although they both occurred at some stage after the end of the 62 weeks; Messiah’s death resulted in the abolition of the temple, seeing that on account of his death the Old Covenant had been done away.</p><h4>Josephus describes how the Jews at the time of Jesus were looking for Messiah to come at that time due to their study of Daniel 9 and other such prophecies:"That which chiefly excited them (the Jews) to war was an ambiguous prophecy, that at that time, someone within their country should arise that should obtain the empire of the whole world. This they had received, that it was spoken by one of their nation". This is confirmed by the New Testament recording that"all men were musing in their hearts"about Messiah at this time. Daniel 9 could indicate that Messiah was to have two comings: firstly as a prince, and then returning as a King who has received his Kingdom. This is how the Lord Jesus saw himself in the parable of the nobleman (<a href='B:490 19:12'>Luk 19:12</a>). The time period of 69 weeks from the command to rebuild the city ended in both"Messiah the Prince"(<a href='B:340 9:25'>Dan 9:25</a>) and also in him being"cut off"(<a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a>), i:e. killed. Thus it would appear that it was at His death that Messiah became"the prince", the definite article suggesting that this was the specific Messiah and the greatest ever prince. This is all fulfilled by Jesus Christ’s triumphant death/sacrifice being rewarded by His being exalted to God’s right hand in Heaven, and being made a"Prince and a Saviour"by Him (<a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a>), so that due to His death and subsequent glorification in resurrection he became"the prince of (i:e. over) the kings of the earth"(<a href='B:730 1:5'>Rev 1:5</a>). Messiah’s making of"the sacrifice and oblation to cease"was at the end of His 3:5 year ministry. The exposition offered above applies this to His death bringing about the destruction of the temple in AD70.</h4>


text:
<h4>He shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week He shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease- The application to the Lord Jesus in the first century runs into problems here. It is hard to make the 69 weeks end at the beginning of the Lord’s ministry. The covenant He made was eternal and not just for a week. And if the midst of the week when sacrifices were ended by Him refers to the cross, then it is out of decorum with the idea of 70 weeks that there should be a 2000 year delay until the fulfilment of the second half of the week. The historical fulfilment could have been in the"covenant"reported in 1Ma_1:11 between the Jewish hellenizers and Antiochus, which led to the sacrifices being stopped for three and a half years. This certainly fits the 1260 day [three and a half year] period mentioned in Daniel. There was no such covenant made after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. So</h4><p>And on the wing of abominations shall come desolation- This"abomination that makes desolate"is applied by the Lord Jesus to the events of the very last days; it is this desolation which shall be removed by His literal return to Zion. The phrase is used in <a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a>; <a href='B:340 11:31'>Dan 11:31</a>; <a href='B:340 12:11'>Dan 12:11</a> [see notes there]. In each case, it has discernible fulfilments at the time of Antiochus, when the temple was rededicated to Zeus and pigs sacrificed upon it, and the Romans who placed idolatrous symbols in it; but the context always required that it have a latter day fulfilment, and the earlier fulfilments are never without problems when compared to the text. It’s the same here in <a href='B:340 9:27'>Dan 9:27</a>. The outline fulfilments in Antiochus and the Romans don’t fit perfectly with the prophetic language, nor do they fit the specific required chronology of the various weeks and days. Any references to the abominations placed in the temple by Antiochus and the Romans in AD70 are at best incipient fulfilments. A Messiah figure could have come then and restored Judah’s kingdom, but the final, perfect-fit fulfilment shall be at the Lord’s return.</p><p>Even to the full end, and the wrath that is determined shall be poured out on the one who makes desolate- This"full end"and total destruction of the desolator never came true of the Romans, and it is the language of the last days. Any applications to Antiochus and Rome are therefore at best incipient fulfilments. The chronology of the 7,62 and 1 weeks didn’t work out; but it shall do so, in the last days. This final period of 70 weeks [and they may be literal weeks or some other form of"sevens"] will culminate in"the full end"and the full establishment of God’s Kingdom. That was what Daniel longed to see happening and it forms the context of the 70 weeks prophecy. It could have come true at the time of Antiochus and the Romans, but Judah’s lack of repentance precluded it. And so it shall come true in the last days.</p><p>Daniel 9 speaks of a coming “prince”, an emir or caliph, in Arabic terms, who will lead Israel’s enemies in desecrating the temple area and capturing Jerusalem. This figure had incipient fulfilments in Antiochus Epiphanes and the AD70 Roman desecration of the temple mount. The final conflict with a true Messiah figure and the establishment of God’s Kingdom could have come at these points, but it was delayed, so that these became but shadows of the final fulfilment in the last days.</p><p>It is however significant that the Roman desecration of the temple is used by the Lord Jesus in the Olivet prophecy as a prototype of that which shall be done in the last days. The Roman empire began as the republic of the city of Rome; but there were simply not enough literal ‘Romans’ to dominate the large area of the Roman empire. The majority of Roman soldiers were not Romans, but mercenaries or nationals of other areas apart from Rome. What’s interesting is that the legions which destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in AD70 were largely comprised of Arabs, Syrians and other neighbouring nations who bitterly hated the Jews.</p><p>Tacitus explains: “Titus Caesar… found in Judaea three legions, the 5th, the 10th, and the 15th… To these he added the 12th from Syria, and some men belonging to the 18th and 3rd, whom he had withdrawn from Alexandria. This force was accompanied… by a strong contingent of Arabs, who hated the Jews with the usual hatred of neighbours…” (Tacitus, The History, New Ed edition Book 5:1. Editor: Moses Hadas, Translators: Alfred Church, William Brodribb (New York: Modern Library, 2003)). This Arab / Syrian destruction of Jerusalem in AD70, albeit under the control of a larger ‘beast’ entity, is a detailed prototype of that which is yet to come. Josephus confirms the record of Tacitus by saying that the Roman troops were gathered in Syria, i:e. the army was gathered together from Syrian recruits: “"So Vespasian sent his son Titus [who], came by land into Syria, where he gathered together the Roman forces, with a considerable number of auxiliaries from the kings in that neighborhood"(Flavius Josephus, The Complete Works of Josephus, The Wars of the Jews or The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, Book III, Chapter 1, Paragraph 3)”. Josephus also mentions that at least 6000 Arabs were sent by just one Arab king: “"Malchus also, the king of Arabia, sent a thousand horsemen, besides five thousand footmen, the greatest part of which were archers; so that the whole army, including the auxiliaries sent by the kings, as well horsemen and footmen, when all were united together, amounted to sixty thousand"(Flavius Josephus, The Complete Works of Josephus, The Wars of the Jews or The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, Book III, Chapter 4, Paragraph 20)”.</p><h4>This picture of a Syrian / Arab desecration of Jerusalem in AD70 is supported by other discoveries and reports. “Legions based in Cappadocia, Syria, and Egypt were made up of recruits from Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt”, Nigel Pollard, Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria (University of Michigan Press,&nbsp; 2000) p:15. Josephus claims that in the siege of Jerusalem, “the whole army, including the auxiliaries sent by the kings, as well horsemen and footmen, when all were united together, amounted to sixty thousand” (Flavius Josephus, The Complete Works of Josephus, The Wars of the Jews or The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, Book III, Chapter 4, Paragraph 20). A legion contained around 5,000 soldiers and he says there were four full legions and two partial legions involved in the attack- around &nbsp;25,000 &nbsp;legionaries. This means that the remaining 35,000 were auxiliaries, relatively local men. Josephus confirms this when by noting that the auxiliaries were “sent by the kings” from “the neighbourhood” of Syria, Asia Minor and Arabia. Pollard gives more reason to think of there being many Syrians involved:"Other evidence that Syrian legions of the Flavian period were characteristically ’Syrian’ in some way comes from Tacitus’ reference to Legion 3 Gallica saluting the rising sun ‘according to the custom of Syria’ [ita in Syria mos est]… in A:D. 69"(op cit p. 116). Josephus is quite explicit about this:"The greatest part of the Roman garrison was raised out of Syria; and being thus related to the Syrian part, they were ready to assist it"(The Wars of The Jews, History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, by Flavius Josephus. Trans. William Whiston, Book II: Chapter, Para. 7).</h4><p>What we do know from <a href='B:340 11:31'>Dan 11:31</a> is that the “vile person” is also called “the king of the north”, and this is a common title for the ruler of Assyria- present day Iran / Iraq / Kurdistan / Syria. And we’ve shown above that Old Testament passages about the ruler of Assyria are the basis for other ‘antichrist’ prophecies of the New Testament. The phrase “vile person” is interesting in itself. If the first usage of a word in Scripture is significant, then <a href='B:10 25:34'>Gen 25:34</a> is indeed helpful here- because it is used of Esau, father of many of the Arab tribes. And it recurs in describing Edom in <a href='B:380 1:2'>Oba 1:2</a>, Goliath the Philistine / Palestinian (<a href='B:90 17:42'>1Sa 17:42</a>), “Tobiah the Ammonite and Geshem the Arabian” (<a href='B:160 2:19'>Neh 2:19</a>), and Haman the persecutor of the Jews (<a href='B:190 3:6'>Est 3:6</a>). All these men were Arab prototypes of the “vile person”, the ruler of Assyria, who is to again persecute God’s people. Note that “the man of sin” of 2Th2:8 alludes to “the wicked one” of <a href='B:290 11:4'>Isa 11:4</a> LXX, who is, again, “the Assyrian”! So it would appear very likely that the antichrist figure comes from ‘Assyria’. And what’s going on in Iraq and the territory of ‘Assyria’ right now is gripping the whole world’s attention:&nbsp; Note how the Assyrian is described in <a href='B:290 30:31-33'>Isa 30:31-33</a> as being thrown into a lake of fire- just as the future beast will be (<a href='B:730 19:20'>Rev 19:20</a>).</p><p>A Jewish-Muslim Antichrist Covenant?</p><p>The “prince that shall come”, who finally stands in opposition to “Messiah the Prince”, will “confirm the covenant with many for one week”, during which he places the abomination of desolation (<a href='B:340 9:27'>Dan 9:27</a>). The same language is used here as about the “little horn” of Daniel 7, 8. This individual is characterized in <a href='B:340 8:24-25'>Dan 8:24-25</a> as being politically crafty: “He shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand”. Note that amad translated “stand up against” is a word also found in Arabic, and is one of the names of the prophet Mohammad (Sura 61:6). The latter day caliph or “prince of the [Moslem] faithful” will (like all good Moslems) be the emulation of Mohammad. I have explained in commenting on Revelation chapters 6 and 7 that radical Islam has a special theological interest in forcing Jewish people to convert to Islam. And they will feel justified in brutally punishing those who resist- all as predicted in those chapters of Revelation. The idea of Antichrist making a covenant with the Jews is in fact required by the Koran in Sura 3:64: “Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah”. It would seem that a covenant is made whereby the Jews accept Islam in return for mercy; but then this covenant is broken and the Jews are butchered. Such agreements featured in Israel’s Old Testament history. Sura 4:154,155 and commentary upon it justifies the fiercest punishment of the Jews by Moslems because"We took from them a firm covenant. But because of their breaking of their covenant…". We can imagine how things will develop: The downtrodden people of Israel will enter a covenant with the radical Muslims or jihadist Islamic Beast / State, then they will be accused of breaking it, and this will justify the Moslems in embarking upon a policy of totally destroying them, believing they are being obedient to the Koran by doing so. Sura 5:14,15 likewise: “And because of their [O children of Israel] breaking their covenant, we have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their context [in distorting the Torah to contradict the Koran] and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished… Therefore we have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection”. This “enmity and hatred” is the kind of hatred against God’s people in the land that is described in the prophecies of the latter day beast, venting “the old hatred” (<a href='B:330 25:15'>Eze 25:15</a>) against Israel.</p><h4>The Koran frequently complains that Israel broke their covenant with God and were punished, and the commentaries on the Koran passages about this urge that Muslims should in God’s Name punish Jews for doing the same: Sura 7:12"We found no [loyalty to any] covenant in most of them. Nay, most of them we found wrong-doers". Sura 7:134-136 is relevant:"And when the terror fell on them they cried: O Moses! Pray for us unto thy Lord, because He hath a covenant with thee. If thou removest the terror from us we verily will trust thee and will let the Children of Israel go with thee. But when we did remove from them the terror for a term which they must reach, behold! they broke their covenant. Therefore we took retribution from them; therefore we drowned them in the sea: because they denied our revelations and were heedless of them". Jihadists believe that they must punish Israel, and then make a covenant with them in order for the punishment and terror to be lifted; but Israel will break that covenant and therefore be totally destroyed. This is precisely the picture we get from Daniel 9, speaking of how the Antichrist will make a covenant with Israel after abusing them first, and then attempt to totally destroy them for breaking that covenant. Sura 33:7,8 and commentaries thereon almost revel in the pain to be exacted upon Israel for breaking the covenant:"We took from them [O children of Israel] a solemn covenant; that He may ask the loyal of their loyalty. And He hath prepared a painful doom for the unfaithful".</h4>


text:
<h4>In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia something was revealed to Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar- According to <a href='B:150 3:12'>Ezr 3:12</a>, some old men returned to Judah when the possibility was created in the first year of Cyrus. Why not Daniel? Admittedly he was very old at this time. Is this one of the few indications of spiritual weakness in Daniel? Note his confession of personal sin in <a href='B:340 9:20'>Dan 9:20</a>. Others would be in Daniel 3, where the obvious question is ‘Where was Daniel’? Another would be the consideration from <a href='B:340 10:4'>Dan 10:4</a> cp. <a href='B:20 12:18'>Exo 12:18</a> that he didn’t keep Passover (see on :4). The thirdyear of Cyrus meant 72 years after the captivity. Daniel therefore was wondering why there had been no successful restoration according to Jeremiah’s 70 years-to-restoration prophecy- he’d been over 70 years in Babylon. He may also have been distressed that the majority of Jews in Babylon had chosen not to return to Judah; and he would’ve heard that those who had returned had faced huge opposition, indeed the rebuilding of the temple was halted until the second year of Darius (<a href='B:150 4:24'>Ezr 4:24</a>):&nbsp;Jewish tradition has it that Daniel did return, finally.</h4><h4>And it was true, even a great warfare: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision- The"great warfare"is that between the kings of north and south described in chapter 11, which forms part of this vision Daniel now receives. Or we can read as AV"But the time appointed was long", alluding to Daniel’s deep disappointment that prophetic timetables were not going to lead to the restoration of the Kingdom during his lifetime. This is a recurrent theme in Daniel.</h4>


text:
<p>In those days I Daniel was mourning three whole weeks- In <a href='B:340 9:23'>Dan 9:23</a>, Daniel had experienced praying and then being told that the moment he started to pray, the answer had been given. And now he has another example of it. His fasting we can assume was associated with prayer; three weeks of prayer makes 21 days, and in :12 Daniel is told by the Angel that"from the first day:::your words were heard, and I am come for thy words". So because of his prayer ("words"- perhaps put like that to emphasize the power of the ’mere’ words uttered in prayer),&nbsp; an&nbsp; Angel&nbsp; was&nbsp; sent&nbsp; from&nbsp; God&nbsp; to&nbsp; give&nbsp; him the&nbsp; understanding he had asked for. His very first prayer for this was answered- but the actual answer came three weeks later. The reason for this was that the Angel had been withstood by the prince of Persia for 21 days (:13). Three weeks is 21 days. So Daniel’s first prayer was answered, but it took the Angel three weeks to work out the answer in practice; but during this time Daniel kept on praying, although at the time it must have seemed to him that no answer was forthcoming. So let us be prepared to persevere in prayer, as those saints in Revelation 8 did and were rewarded by the incense finally being offered by the Angel to the Lord Jesus Christ, and thence to God. It may just be possible that there is a mighty Angel of answered prayer (Gabriel?), in the same way as there is a ’wonderful numberer’ co-coordinating the timing of God’s purpose, and an Angel specifically representing Jesus and Israel (do these four make up the four forms of Angel manifestation in the cherubim and four living creatures?). This Angel would co-ordinate the presentation and answering of prayers. The Angel then describes&nbsp; how he confirmed and strengthened Darius (<a href='B:340 11:1'>Dan 11:1</a>) to the same end to enable the prayer to be answered- as if when our Angel sees someone set in a course of action which will lead to the answer of our prayer, they are confirmed and strengthened in it. The wonder of all this needs some reflection. Our words, the thoughts within human brain cells, call forth the Angels from the court of Heaven. “When we cried unto the Lord, he heard our voice, and sent an angel [from the myriads standing on the right and left hands of His throne] and brought us forth out of Egypt” (<a href='B:40 20:16'>Num 20:16</a>). Yet the voice that Angel responded to was the voice not so much of specific prayers but of the situation of the people. And the same is with us::. See on <a href='B:450 3:1'>Zec 3:1</a>; <a href='B:450 6:8'>Zec 6:8</a>; <a href='B:440 1:2'>Hag 1:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine into my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, until three whole weeks were fulfilled- This was not only fasting, but an expression of genuine sadness over the Passover period (see on :4). His sadness was clearly that the prophetic program was going to be seriously delayed beyond the 70 years-to-restoration prophecy of Jeremiah, and this was because of the weakness of Judah. Daniel had prayed in Daniel 9 for the restoration to happen anyway, but had been answered by the 70 weeks prophecy. And he would have been so sad that the opportunity to return to the land given in the first year of Cyrus had been responded to by so few Jews; and at the time of the third year of Cyrus (:1) the rebuilding of the temple had been delayed.</p>


text:
<p>In the twenty fourth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river which is Hiddekel- This means that for 21 days before this, he had been fasting, throughout the Passover period. So Daniel didn’t keep Passover- he kept the eating of unleavened bread but if he didn’t eat any meat, he didn’t eat the Passover lamb. Was his faith in God’s deliverance of His people fading? Or was he spiritually so on another plane that it was OK for himnot to keep the Passover, even though the person who didn’t keep it was to be cut off from amongst God’s people? See on :1.</p>


text:
<p>I lifted up my eyes, and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, whose thighs were adorned with pure gold of Uphaz- See on <a href='B:730 1:13'>Rev 1:13</a>; this appears to be a vision of an Angel representing the Lord Jesus in glory. The white linen represented righteousness (<a href='B:730 19:8'>Rev 19:8</a>), and yet the visions of Zechariah present the leaders of Israel as clothed in"filthy garments". This therefore was the Messianic Saviour who was perfect. It connects with the prophecy of <a href='B:290 11:5'>Isa 11:5</a> about the Messiah who would restore Judah:"Righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins and faithfulness the girdle of his reins". The gold therefore represents His faith and truth (<a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a>). This awesome vision of an Angel representing the then-future Lord Jesus was to encourage Daniel that although his life was ending not as he wished, and things hadn’t worked out as he had hoped, yet God’s purpose remained sure, and there would be a wonderful Messianic redeemer figure who would save him and all God’s people from their hopeless lethargy and sin, and bring about the restoration promised, which in their own strength Israel could not bring about.</p>


text:
<h4>His body also was like the beryl- This stone in the breastplate represented Dan, meaning ’judgment’ (<a href='B:20 28:17-21'>Exo 28:17-21</a> cp. <a href='B:40 2:25'>Num 2:25</a>). But Dan. is absent from the list of the tribes in <a href='B:730 7:5-8'>Rev 7:5-8</a>. Perhaps the idea is that this is the future Lord Jesus in judgment; and yet also identifying with Dan, the condemned excluded from the Kingdom.</h4><p>And his face as the appearance of lightning- This was the feature of the Angel cherubim who are presented as present at Judah’s exile and being the source of their potential restoration (<a href='B:330 1:13'>Eze 1:13</a>). But the vision is ultimately of the Lord Jesus. The final restorer and Saviour of Israel is Him and not Angel cherubim, and so we note the connection with the vision of the glorified Lord Jesus with a face like the sun, the beams of which could be compared to lightning (<a href='B:730 1:16'>Rev 1:16</a>).</p><p>And his eyes as flaming torches- The Angels are as it were God’s eyes, and they are associated with the potential work of restoring Judah through the activity of the cherubim (<a href='B:330 10:12'>Eze 10:12</a>; <a href='B:450 4:10'>Zec 4:10</a>). But this is a vision of the future Lord Jesus, who was to take over the work of Angels and personally enable the ultimate restoration of God’s people. It is He who has eyes as a flame of fire (<a href='B:730 1:14'>Rev 1:14</a>). Hebrews 1 labours the point that the Lord is not and was never an Angel. Here an Angel is used to represent Him to Daniel, in His then future glory.</p><p>And his arms and his feet like burnished brass- The idea of a man who had passed through a furnace [the idea of"burnished"] would have reminded Daniel of the experience of his three faithful friends. This Messianic Saviour was truly human, and representative of all the faithful. Again, this is the language of the cherubim (<a href='B:330 1:7'>Eze 1:7</a>) who were associated with Judah’s exile and restoration. But their role and ministry for God’s people was to be replaced by the Lord Jesus who likewise is presented as having such feet and arms (<a href='B:730 1:15'>Rev 1:15</a>).</p><h4>And his voice like the voice of a multitude- This likewise is the language of the cherubim associated with the exile and restoration (<a href='B:330 1:24'>Eze 1:24</a>), but this is also the voice of the Lord Jesus in <a href='B:730 1:15'>Rev 1:15</a>. He has taken over their work, and the potential restoration of Judah to their land by the cherubic Angels has now become reworked as the narrative of the Lord Jesus ultimately restoring and eternally saving all God’s true people from bondage to sin.</h4>


text:
<p>I Daniel alone saw the vision; for the men who were with me didn’t see the vision; but a great trembling fell on them, and they fled to hide themselves- There are evident similarities with Saul’s encounter with the glorified Jesus in a vision (<a href='B:510 9:7'>Act 9:7</a>; <a href='B:510 22:11'>Act 22:11</a>). We are to understand this vision as being of an Angel who was not Jesus, not represented Him in His then future glory. The Lord Jesus, the future Messiah, was the answer to all Daniel’s concerns aboutthe when, where and how of the restoration of the Kingdom. Their trembling and fleeing into hiding is Biblically associated with the reaction of those who feel unworthy and who are condemned. Daniel’s faith in God’s saving grace was apparently stronger than theirs at this time.</p>


text:
<h4>So I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me; for my moisture was turned in me into corruption- Daniel was to undergo a figurative death and resurrection. Perhaps this is why he had to be"left alone", to experience the totally personal issues and feelings of death and resurrection.</h4><h4>And I retained no strength- As in <a href='B:340 11:6'>Dan 11:6</a>. Often in Daniel we read of “power” coming from God and being given to and taken from men. Daniel learnt in his own personal experience what this felt like, to enable him to better understand the prophecies he was giving. His mortality and weakness, and ours, is the whole world’s mortality and weakness. The Hebrew word for “power” is that used in <a href='B:340 1:4'>Dan 1:4</a> - Daniel had ability [power] to stand before the earthly King; now he is unable to stand and has no power, before the Heavenly King. All his human strength was being shown to be nothing. Not by [human] power but by God’s Spirit would the restoration be achieved (<a href='B:450 4:6'>Zec 4:6</a>).</h4>


text:
<p>Yet heard I the voice of his words; and at the time I heard the voice of his words, I had fallen into a deep sleep on my face, with my face toward the ground- This alludes to how in Persian courts, the accused lay prostrate with their face to the ground until the verdict was given; they were raised up if they were innocent. <a href='B:340 10:9-11'>Dan 10:9-11</a> describes in parabolic form the judgement, with Daniel representing the saints, rising from the grave (as he rose from"deep sleep"on the ground) in great fear and sense of unworthiness, but being comforted by the Angel with news of how pleasing we have been to them ("O Daniel, a man greatly beloved"). This indicates that the Angels will have a large part to play in the judgement; the Lord Jesus returns from Heaven with the Angels with Him, and they are sent forth to gather the responsible to judgment.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, a hand touched me, which set me on my knees and on the palms of my hands- Presumably this was a repeat of how Gabriel had twice touched him in reassurance before (<a href='B:340 8:18'>Dan 8:18</a>; <a href='B:340 9:21'>Dan 9:21</a>). Daniel’s great fear and weakness was because the whole vision was a foretaste of the final judgment, when he was to be resurrected and stand before the saviour Messiah of Israel- and be accepted. This was the final answer to all his concerns, and the disappointment of a life that had not turned out as he had expected by witnessing the restoration of the Kingdom as prophesied.</p>


text:
<p>He said to me, Daniel, you man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak to you, and stand upright; for I am now sent to you. When he had spoken this word to me, I stood trembling- Daniel’s figurative resurrection was appropriate, because he was so heartbroken that his life was not going to conclude as he had expected, in seeing the restoration of God’s Kingdom in Judah. But he is comforted through the vision of the Lord Jesus in His future glory that there would be the sure hope of personal resurrection. Gabriel says that"I am now sent", after the three weeks delay from the first prayer of Daniel being answered. Gabriel came so that Daniel might"understand", but from the end of Daniel 12 it’s clear that Daniel didn’t understand all the details. But there is no need to understand all the prophetic details to"understand"the essential picture- that God’s Kingdom purpose shall come finally true through the Lord Jesus. Or maybe Daniel’s final lack of apparent ’understanding’ was because he didn’t want to finally accept that, and still hankered for Kingdom now.</p>


text:
<h4>Then he said to me, Don’t be afraid, Daniel- Whenever Angels appear to God’s people, they urge them not to fear. Angels will be sent to gather us to judgment, and meeting them will be the first we know that"He’s back!". And surely we can expect the same words in that great day.</h4><p>For from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard- Daniel’s prayer for Israel’s restoration was above all a desire to"understand"; but his prayer was surely for the forgiveness and immediate restoration of Israel, as he had prayed in Daniel 9. But God sees to the core. In essence, Daniel was struggling to understand, and God saw this and read this as his prayer. As explained on <a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a>, weknow not what to pray for as we ought, but the hidden spirit of our deepest heart is read and understood as our request. See on <a href='B:340 9:23'>Dan 9:23</a>.</p><h4>And I have come for your words’ sake- This is the extreme sensitivity of God Almighty to the words of prayer, the words meant in our hearts. Human words call forth an Angel to be sent from Heaven all the way to a man on earth, struggling for three weeks to human obstacles to the fulfilment of the wish. We see the same thing in Revelation, where human prayer and actions on this earth call forth Angels to leave Heaven and do mighty things on earth- all for our sakes. We could have no greater encouragement towards seriousness and intensity in prayer. One word of prayer can result in Angels being sent all that ‘distance’ from Heaven to earth to assist us, as in <a href='B:40 20:16'>Num 20:16</a> “when we cried unto the LORD, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and hath brought us forth out of Egypt”.</h4>


text:
<h4>But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; but, behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia- In the record, Cyrus seems willing to restore Israel- but he resisted three weeks. At this time (10:1) the rebuilding of the temple had been temporarily halted, and it took the Angel three weeks to overcome this. Things aren’t what they seem- people may appear to act or believe one way, when they’ve greatly resisted it. This means that Cyrus didn’t simply wake up one morning and decree that the rebuilding could continue; he resisted it, and the Angel had an ongoing battle with him over it. Those who appear ‘on our side’ in life may have actually battled against Angels not to be like that to us. In <a href='B:340 10:20'>Dan 10:20</a> Angel fought with him; and he remained fighting with the rulers of Persia, and strengthening Darius the Mede in <a href='B:340 11:1'>Dan 11:1</a>. The"prince"refers to the human prince of Persia, but then the Angel Michael is called"one of the chief princes". Intentionally, the term"prince"is used for both Angels and those whom they represent on earth, in this case, the princes of men. I suggest that the"princes"in apparent conflict are Angels within the court of Heaven; there, each Angel represents a person or entity upon earth. All the Angels are righteous, but they act out the roles of the various situations on earth, and God gives His judgment upon them:&nbsp; <a href='B:50 32:8'>Deu 32:8</a> LXX suggests each nation has a representative Angel.</h4><p>We note that the prince of Persia"withstood". God of course could have forced him to do His will. But God respects human freewill more than that. He does not force, treating men as mere puppets, but operates at length in such a way whereby His will is done whilst respecting human freewill and self-determination. The original for"withstood"is literally ‘to stand before / in front of’- the same two Hebrew words here translated “withstood” recur in <a href='B:340 10:16'>Dan 10:16</a>, where Daniel ‘stood before’ the Angel. As Daniel stood before the Angel, so the Prince of Persia had also stood before the Angel. It could be understood that Daniel likewise withstood the Angel [see on 10:1 about Daniel’s possible weakness]. But more likely are we to perceive that the Angel had both Daniel and the Prince of Persia standing before Him- and had had this situation for the past three weeks in which Daniel had been in prayer. Our prayers are therefore a coming before God in a judgment scenario; we stand before Him, as our adversaries do; and He will hear us.</p><p>Michael came to"help"Gabriel- a common word in the restoration prophecies, promising God’s “help” for Judah’s restoration (<a href='B:290 41:10'>Isa 41:10</a>; <a href='B:290 41:13-14'>Isa 41:13-14</a>; <a href='B:290 44:2'>Isa 44:2</a>; <a href='B:290 49:8'>Isa 49:8</a>). Those promises of “help” were fulfilled in the Angels being sent to help. Michael being"one of the chief"implies a hierarchy amongst Angels; hence <a href='B:720 1:9'>Jud 1:9</a> speaks of"Michael the Archangel".</p><h4>Gabriel"remained"with the princes of Persia, implying the physical presence of the Angels is significant. They can as it were only be in one place at a time. We are invited to see them as leaving the court of Heaven in response to our prayers and needs (as in <a href='B:110 22:19-22'>1Ki 22:19-22</a>), and moving around the earth to operationalize God’s answers to our prayers- as in <a href='B:340 10:20'>Dan 10:20</a>; <a href='B:340 9:21-22'>Dan 9:21-22</a>; <a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a>. Or we can read the text as meaning that when Michael came to help the other Angel overcome the prince of Persia, that Angel “was not needed there with the kings of Persia” (<a href='B:340 10:13'>Dan 10:13</a> RVmg:). It seems that once the job was done, the Angel wasn’t physically required there any more. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on <a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a>.</h4>


text:
<p>Now I have come to make you understand what shall happen to your people in the latter days; for the vision is yet for many days- This understanding is through the"writing of truth"(:21) which refers to the revelations of Daniel 11. As noted throughout that chapter, the various conflicts between the kings of north and south over the promised land have undeniable connections with historical realities, but they are never a perfect fit to them. They therefore refer to a situation yet to come in the last days; and here we are told that in so many words.</p>


text:
<p>And when he had spoken to me according to these words, I set my face toward the ground, and was mute- The fact that the [fulfilment of] the vision was"yet for many days"(:14) was obviously distressing for Daniel. He had several times already been told that he was not to live to see the full restoration of the Kingdom, but no matter how many times we are told things in God’s word, even by direct Angelic revelation in his case, we still struggle to accept them on a personal level. Our preconceptions of how things must work out in our own lives are very strong, and to resign them, or allow them to be re-interpreted by God, is so difficult. I will suggest on :16 that Daniel’s muteness and staring at the ground is in shame, having been convicted of his sin.</p>


text:
<h4>Then behold, one in the likeness of the sons of men touched my lips: then I opened my mouth, and spoke and said to him who stood before me- The one"like the son of man"is the Lord Jesus in <a href='B:340 7:13'>Dan 7:13</a> and <a href='B:730 1:13'>Rev 1:13</a>, a vision very similar to the vision of the heavenly being Daniel has just seen. The one who stood before Daniel was presumably the same one who touched his lips. The awesome being Daniel has just seen was a vision of an Angel, perhaps Gabriel, manifesting the yet unborn Lord Jesus in His future glory, such as will be displayed at His return to resurrect Daniel and restore Israel’s Kingdom. There is a similarity with how out of the same cherubic vision which condemned Isaiah, there came a being who touched Isaiah’s lips and cleansed him from his sin (<a href='B:290 6:5-7'>Isa 6:5-7</a>). This would mean that Daniel’s muteness and staring at the ground in :15 was in shame for his sins; he as representative of Israel, as well as a personal sinner, perhaps feeling guilt that he had so insisted upon seeing the restoration in his own lifetime, felt convicted of sin by the vision of the Christ in glory. And yet it was that same saviour Christ who also cleanses him from his sin.</h4><h4>My lord, by reason of the vision my sorrows are turned on me, and I retain no strength-"Sorrows"is an idea Biblically associated with sin. The vision convicted him of his sinfulness, as any human being would feel in the presence of the Lord Jesus- although of course the Lord didn’t then exist, and was represented in His future glory by an Angel."Turned on me"is the same word as in :8; Daniel’s human strength was now felt by him to be nothing, he was totally convicted of his sin.</h4>


text:
<p>For how can my Lord’s servant talk with my lord? For as for me, immediately there remained no strength in me, neither was there breath left in me- This sense of inability to talk with"my Lord"[perhaps said in the same way as David in spirit called Jesus"Lord", <a href='B:470 22:43'>Mat 22:43</a>] reflects a sense of moral unworthiness. He feels not only convicted totally as a sinner, but also dead, as if he has no breath. Daniel has previously identified himself with Israel’s sins and also confessed his own sins in <a href='B:340 9:20'>Dan 9:20</a>. But now before the presence, as it were, of the Lord Jesus, the Messiah he had so hoped to see in his own lifetime, he is the more deeply convicted of his sin. It is one thing to intellectually admit that we are sinners; but there are levels to that conviction, and Daniel now reaches a very high level of contrition. And yet from the very vision which convicted him, he is given cleansing and every assurance of salvation. It is the same experience we may pass through, perhaps when remembering the Lord Jesus as appointed at His memorial table.</p>


text:
<p>Then there touched me again one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me- This could be another Angel, or perhaps the same"son of man"of :16, representing the Lord Jesus, but described as a different personage here because He assumed a different form. The Lord Jesus likewise used physical touch to assure sinners throughout His ministry; although I again emphasize that the Lord had no personal pre-existence, and we are reading here of an Angel representing the then future Lord Jesus in the glory He shall have at His return in judgment. Hebrews 1 explains in detail that the Lord was not an Angel, but in vision He could be represented by Angels.</p>


text:
<h4>He said, Greatly beloved man, don’t be afraid: peace be to you, be strong, yes, be strong- I have explained on :15-18 that Daniel was deeply convicted of his sinfulness by this encounter with the Angelic representative of Messiah in glory. Hence he is again assured, and told not to be afraid- of condemnation for his sins. The"peace"wished to him is surely peace with God. And he is encouraged as we are to accept the strengthening of the Spirit.</h4><h4>When he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, Let my lord speak; for you have strengthened me- Daniel accepts God’s grace in Messiah, and believing that he is indeed forgiven and cleansed, he agrees to listen and have dialogue with"my Lord", the Angelic representative of the then future Lord Jesus</h4>


text:
<h4>Then he said, Do you know why I have come to you? Now I will return to fight with the prince of Persia. When I go forth, behold, the prince of Greece shall come- The Greeks were required to take over from the Persians according to Daniel’s visions of Daniel 2, 7, 8. But they were still some way off in time; but the Angel Gabriel was showing Daniel that he was already at work, even with Persia at its zenith under Cyrus, to bring about God’s longer term purpose. Gabriel explained to Daniel that he had to battle with both the rulers of Persia and Greece in order to bring about the fulfilment of Daniel’s prayer for the final restoration to happen. By appreciating the local politics which the Angel brought about between Persia and Greece, we can better understand why Gabriel had to manipulate Greece in order for the Persians to allow the Jews to return, and even to encourage them to do so: “From the point of view of the Persian king a strong pro-Persian Judea was a major threat to the Greek coastal lifeline, and as long as the Greeks dominated the coast and Egypt he supported a strong Judean province headed by a Judean-Persian official and peopled by a pro-Persian population, most of whose families were hostages in Babylon and Persia”- Othniel Margalith.</h4><h4>The references to the Angel princes of Greece, Persia and Israel in <a href='B:340 10:20-21'>Dan 10:20-21</a> could suggest that each nation or people has an Angel representative in Heaven. Indeed <a href='B:50 32:8'>Deu 32:8</a> appears to say so:"[God] laid down the boundaries of every people according to the number of the sons of God", i:e. the Angels. It could even be possible that the strange reference in <a href='B:560 6:12'>Eph 6:12</a> to wicked spiritual beings in the Heavens refers to the Angelic representatives of the evil nations and powers here on earth. Those righteous Angels represent those powers in the court of Heaven- without themselves personally being the least bit wicked or sinful.</h4>


text:
<h4>But I will tell you that which is inscribed in the writing of truth- What is noted"in the writing of truth"is the detailed predictions in chapter 11. Other such predictions in Daniel, and generally in the prophets, are presented in terms of visions which must be interpreted. But here we have a direct statement of future history without symbols and visions. This has fazed many interpreters, as they encounter what appears to be a recounting of history told in the future tense. But the key is to appreciate that this is simply a revelation to men of what is noted in God’s book of time. The events are stated as they shall be, without symbols and visions.</h4><p>It may be that the Bible or&nbsp; the"whole counsel of God"existed in written form in Heaven before it was revealed to men. The fact that there is a literal book of life with writing in it indicates that the Angels do use their capacity to read; and will we too in some form in the Kingdom?&nbsp; But the writing in view is likely the details of the great wars of Daniel 11. This passage would seem to necessitate some written record in Heaven capable of interpretation by the Angels, the meaning of which was being given to Daniel. Gabriel goes on to say"now will I shew you the truth"(<a href='B:340 11:2'>Dan 11:2</a>). So the Angels hear God’s word in Heaven, and sometimes inspire men to write some of these words down. Likewise in <a href='B:730 1:1'>Rev 1:1</a> we learn that the Revelation came from Jesus originally (and from God before that), but was sent to us and signified by the Angel. Does it follow that the Angel was responsible for working out the symbology, the signifying (putting into sign language) of the book, under the infallible guidance of God and Jesus? If so, we can better understand how the Angels eagerly watch over our attempts to understand the word, and are in a position, as Gabriel with Daniel, to step in and assist us in our understanding of it- not least through the trials of life which they bring opening our eyes to it (cp. <a href='B:220 36:15'>Job 36:15</a>). However, we know that not all the Angels have this ability, but rather earnestly look into the things contained in the word; or alternatively, they are used by God to work out the symbology which they themselves do not fully understand.</p><h4>And there is none who holds with me against these, but Michael your prince-"Holds with me"is the same word used for ’strengthen’ in this chapter. The word ‘strengthened’ occurs several times in Daniel 10. An Angel ‘strengthens’ Daniel, and then comments that “Michael your prince”, another Angel, had also helped him- he had “strengthened himself with me” (<a href='B:340 10:21'>Dan 10:21</a> RVmg:). But then the Angel comments that “As for me…I stood up to confirm and strengthen him”, i:e. Michael (<a href='B:340 11:1'>Dan 11:1</a> RV). The Angel who strengthened Daniel was helped by another Angel, Michael, strengthening him; and then that Angel strengthened Michael. This is possibly a window into the nature of our existence and relationship with each other in the future age! The great Angel Michael is described as"your (Daniel’s) prince"- i. e. his personal guardian Angel (<a href='B:340 10:21'>Dan 10:21</a>)?</h4>


text:
<p>As for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him- See on <a href='B:340 10:12'>Dan 10:12</a>. This is the Angel of Daniel 10 speaking. Darius the Mede took the Kingdom from the Babylonians in fulfilment of the prophecies f Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, that Babylonian was to be succeeded in dominating the earth / land promised to Abraham. The Angel ’stood’ to do this, and the desire of Darius was confirmed by the Angel who strengthened him to achieve this. And the Spirit works in our lives in the same way, confirm and strengthening us in our desires to do God’s will. &nbsp;Multiple times David uses the same word in describing God as his ’strength’ or ’strengthener’. The word occurs several times in this chapter (<a href='B:340 11:7'>Dan 11:7</a>; <a href='B:340 11:10'>Dan 11:10</a>; <a href='B:340 11:19'>Dan 11:19</a>; <a href='B:340 11:31'>Dan 11:31</a>; <a href='B:340 11:38-39'>Dan 11:38-39</a>); clearly the idea is that the apparent strength of human leaders, armies and kingdoms is from God, as His hand moves in human history.</p>


text:
<h4>Now will I show you the truth- As noted on <a href='B:340 10:21'>Dan 10:21</a>, the Angel is allowing Daniel to hear what is written in God’s planned history. The material is presented as historical statements of fact, and is not shrouded in vision, apocalyptic and imagery as is found in the other prophecies. This is an unusual genre within the Biblical record. The higher critics cannot accept that God can predict history in advance and so they claim that such a detailed outline of the history of the kings of north and south simply could not have been written in advance. To disbelieve God’s word is a basic human tendency, the record of Adam and Eve’s sin opens the Bible by making this point. The higher critical approach has merely made this lack of faith intellectually respectable. But as often, the critics have failed to do their homework. As I will demonstrate throughout the commentary on Daniel 11, the fit between the history and the prophetic word is not that good. There are indeed outline similarities and points at which the correspondence, or fit, is indeed very tight. But not consistently. I explain this by stating that Daniel 11 just like Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 describes a situation specifically existing in the last days, which will be the perfect fit. There were hazy hints of continuous historical fulfilments, but they were but incipient, primary fulfilments. This situation is also due to the way that much Biblical prophecy is conditional; as explained on Daniel 2, there were potential fulfilments, scenarios which could have come true, and led to the appearance of a Messiah figure and the re-establishment of Israel’s Kingdom as God’s Kingdom on earth. But Israel’s lack of repentance precluded them. And so we are left with an apparently messy scene in the aftermath- bits of prophecy which had partial fulfilments, at times very clear, at times not at all clear. But God’s word shall ultimately come true in the situation of the last days.</h4>&nbsp;<p>This prophecy has many hints that it will all come true in the last days,"at the end of years"(:6). We can therefore expect intrigue and strife between two entities who both seek to dominate the eretz promised to Abraham, the latter day kings of north and south. The reference could be to Shia and Sunni Islamic extremists, the two groups of Israel’s latter day abusers represented by the two feet / legs of the image of Daniel 2. All Bible prophecy has its final fulfilment in the last days. The image of Daniel 2 stands complete; the final abuser of God’s land and people will include elements of all the previous entities who have done this, headed up by a Nebuchadnezzar type ’head’ or individual, the antiChrist. The events of Daniel 11 are an expansion upon those of Daniel 8, where we learn of how the Persians were replaced by the Greeks. But the historical fulfilments we can discern in Daniel 11 are only partial; the situation could have resulted in a charismatic king of the north appearing, and being crushed by the appearance of a Messiah. But that didn’t happen; but the detailed historical fulfilment of the predictions in Daniel 11 came true up until that point. The detail of the predictions and the exactness of their fulfilment serves as a guarantee that the final fulfilment shall also come. All these historical aspects of the various recorded dominations of the land shall be repeated in essence in the last days; there will again be kings of north and south who at times unite to dominate the eretz, at times fight each other, with the king of the north coming out as dominant and then an individual figure arises who seeks to dominate the land; and he is brought to his end by the return of the Lord Jesus and the full re-establishment of Israel’s Kingdom as that of God.</p><p>Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia- Cambyses, Smerdis and Darius I.</p><p>And the fourth- Xerxes. The fourth who is the third could also be a way of saying that the third king would be the most significant and final king.</p><p>Shall be far richer than they all: and when he has grown strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece- Xerxes is the Ahaseureus of Esther, proud of his riches (<a href='B:190 1:4'>Est 1:4</a>; <a href='B:190 1:6-7'>Est 1:6-7</a>). Xerxes raised an army of 5 million men to invade Greece. But the original could also mean that he would stir up all the realm of Greece.</p><h4>I suggested on Daniel 2 thatDaniel’s prophecies had potential fulfilments which never came about; there is also a discernible although inconsistent and vague fulfilment of some elements of the visions throughout history; and the main fulfilment is in the last days, when the image stands complete, all the beasts of Daniel 7 are incorporated into the final beast which is to be destroyed, and likewise Daniel 11 may come true in a way we cannot yet imagine, in our last days. The initial possibility of the image prophecy was that there would arise a sequence of kings immediately after Nebuchadnezzar, which would climax in the appearance of Messiah and the re-establishment of God’s Kingdom. And here again we have a sequence of four kings arising after Babylon.</h4>


text:
<h4>A mighty king shall stand up, who shall rule with great power- This king is Alexander the Great of Greece (:4). The focus shifts from Persia in :2 to Greece here in :3, against whom the Persians came with a huge army but were unable to dominate."Great power"is better"great dominion", in reference to how Alexander ruled the largest ever known empire on earth until that time.</h4><h4>And do according to his will- The language of <a href='B:340 8:4'>Dan 8:4</a> about the ram. Yet the language is allusive to how Yahweh rules with the greatest dominion and does according to His will (<a href='B:340 4:35'>Dan 4:35</a>). The various kings and kingdoms of men are all portrayed as playing God, as being fake Messiah figures, and will all have their summation in the final antiChrist figure of the last days.</h4>


text:
<h4>When he has arisen- As soon as Alexander had arisen to power, he suddenly died. We can look to the arising of a latter day individual or entity which appears to dominate the eretz promised to Abraham, but this will fall and be divided, resulting in two power blocs struggling for dominance of the eretz.</h4><p>His kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of the sky, but not to his posterity- There was an attempt to keep the Kingdom intact under the rulership of Alexander’s half brother and then in the name of his son who was born after his death, but these attempts failed. The four winds are the four generals of Alexander, the four heads of the leopard (<a href='B:340 7:6'>Dan 7:6</a>) and the four horns of the goat in <a href='B:340 8:8'>Dan 8:8</a>; <a href='B:340 8:22'>Dan 8:22</a>.</p><h4>Nor according to his power with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others besides these- The kingdom was divided between Alexander’s four generals. But the focus of Bible prophecy is upon the powers which dominate the eretz promised to Abraham, and so only two of them are now spoken of; the king of the north, the Syrian [Seleucid] kingdom, and that of the south, referring to the Egyptian [Ptolemaic] kingdom, the division taken by Alexander’s general Ptolemy Soter.</h4>


text:
<h4>The king of the south shall be strong- Ptolemy Soter defeated the other generals and established a strong kingdom dominating the land of Israel. His ’strength’ again is in relation to dominance of the land of Israel, which is the earth / land which the powers of the image in Daniel 2 reigned over.</h4><h4>And also one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion- The reference is to Seleucus Nicator. He was driven out of the northern kingdom and took refuge with Ptolemy, but then returned and became the king of the North, ruling the Seleucid section of the Greek empire.</h4>


text:
<h4>At the end of years- This could simply mean ’in the future’ or ’after a period of years’, but that is surely axiomatic. The marriage between the leadership of the two groups happened 35 years after the death of Seleucus. This is one of the many reasons to think that the ultimate fulfilment of these prophecies will be"at the end of years", in the last days, before the Lord’s return. See on :2.</h4><p>They shall join themselves together- There were attempts at unity between the kings of north and south, the two parts of the Greek empire which sought to dominate Israel. Likewise the two groups of Israel’s enemies may unite together in the last days in their common hatred of Israel, but as explained throughout this chapter, they will not remain together and will bitterly fight each other. This is the iron and clay of the feet of the image not mixing together. The joining in view here is the marriage of the grandson of Seleucus, the first leader of the northern Greek empire ["Syria"], and the daughter of Ptolemy, the leader of the southern Greek empire in Egypt.</p><p>And the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the strength of her arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm; but she shall be given up, and those who brought her, and he who became the father of her, and he who strengthened her in those times- The marriage between the leading families of the kings of north and south came to an end when the wife poisoned her husband."His arm"can also be rendered"his seed"; the idea of a joint offspring uniting the two groups came to nothing. But the language here is detailed, and will have its fuller fulfilment in events of the last days which are yet to unfold."Those who brought her"would refer to the Egyptian courtiers who came with the wife, who were also murdered."He who became the father of her"is AVmg."whom she brought forth"; the offspring of the marriage was also killed.</p><h4>The"king of the North"throughout Daniel 11 refers to the King of Syria- so the latter day King of the North who attacks Israel and is destroyed at Christ’s return, as detailed at the end of Daniel 11 and the start of Daniel 12, must refer to an individual based upon a King of Syria. Such an individual could easily be the leader of a jihadist entity like ISIS, who took power in Syria.</h4>


text:
<p>But out of a shoot from her roots shall one stand up in his place, who shall come to the army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail- In revenge for the murders, the southern kingdom [Egypt] invaded and devastated the Syrian kingdom of the north.</p>


text:
<p>Also their gods, with their molten images, and with their attractive vessels of silver and of gold, shall he carry captive into Egypt; and he shall refrain some years from the king of the north- Or,"And he shall continue more years than the king of the north". The king of the south at this point was Ptolemy Euergetes, who lived and reigned longer than the king of the north, Seleucus Callinicus. The latter day application of this may be in that the king of the south is to be extremist Islamic, who wishes to destroy all images and perceived idols.</p>


text:
<p>He shall come into the realm of the king of the south, but he shall return into his own land- If we read as AV"So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land", this would then appear to be a summary of the events of :8. But why the repetition? The alternative reading would refer to an unsuccessful attack on Egypt by the king of the north about 240 BC. However, :29 states there have been three attacks on Egypt by the king of the north, and so here in :9 we read at least of an attack only upon"the realm"of the southern kingdom, i:e. Palestine.</p>


text:
<h4>His sons shall war, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come on, and overflow, and pass through; and they shall return and war, even to his fortress- The focus of Bible prophecy is upon the land of Israel. The various conflicts between the kings of north and south, the Syrian and Egyptian wings of the Greek empire, are recorded only insofar as they affected Israel. This confirms my view that the"earth"ruled over by the metals of Daniel 2 and beasts of Daniel 7 is the land promised to Abraham. The two sons of the king of the north, Antiochus, attacked Palestine in order to retake it from the king of the south, Egypt. He passed through Palestine up to the border of Egypt but with Winter approaching (BC218), he ’returned’ to his fortress in Ptolemais and then in the spring of BC217 returned towards Egypt. The king of the south [Egypt] counterattacked and drove him back to the Ptolemais fortress.</h4><h4>The language of overflowing and passing through is also used of the Assyrian invasion of Judah (<a href='B:290 8:8'>Isa 8:8</a>) and of the Babylonian invasion (<a href='B:300 47:2'>Jer 47:2</a>); and here in <a href='B:340 11:40'>Dan 11:40</a> it is used of how the king of the north shall overflow and pass through Israel"at the time of the end". So we are encouraged to see this as also having a latter day application; there will be waves of invasions of the land. It is only radical Islam which has such an interest in dominating Israel and Jerusalem.</h4>


text:
<p>The king of the south shall be moved with anger, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north; and he shall set forth a great multitude, and the multitude shall be given into his hand- This refers to the great battle fought at Raphia, near Gaza, which was won by Ptolemy Philopator, the king of the south.</p>


text:
<p>The multitude shall be lifted up, and his heart shall be exalted; and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail- The great victory at Raphia wasn’t followed up on. Ptolemy wished to enter the inner sanctuary of the temple, but was refused by the priests. He therefore threatened the whole nation of the Jews with destruction, and murdered thousands of them. In Alexandria, 40,000-60,000 Jews were slain. Again we note that the prophecy focuses upon history as it affects God’s people and land.</p>


text:
<p>The king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former; and he shall come on at the end of the times, even of years, with a great army and with much substance- Antiochus III invaded Palestine again in 201 BC. Again we note that the prophecy focuses entirely upon the relationships between the kings of the north and south insofar as it affects God’s land and people."At the end of times"again suggests that whatever historical application this clearly had, it points ahead to the major fulfilment in the last days. If the idea was simply ’after a period of time’, then this would have been expressed differently. The idea of ’after a period of time’ would refer to the 16 year gap between the battle at Raphia (see on :11) and this second campaign against the king of the south.</p>


text:
<h4>In those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the children of the violent among your people shall lift themselves up to establish the vision; but they shall fall- From this verse onwards, commentators are divided between those who see the prophecy continuing to describe the conflicts between the northern and southern parts of the Greek empire; and those who see the focus now upon the Roman empire, which according to some interpretations of Daniel 2, was the next power to take over dominating the land promised to Abraham. Both lines of interpretation have some undeniably valid connections between the prophetic words and history. But unlike the preceding verses, the match is not so precise as from :4-13. I suggest again that it is the conditional nature of Bible prophecy which explains this. A path of events could have been followed but it was not, because Israel did not fully repent; and so God tried again, and again. Therefore these same prophetic words have some limited application to both the Greek kingdoms and the Roman empire. I suggest this is understandable if we accept that the main fulfilment of the entire chapter is in the future; the latter day entity which dominates the land and people of Israel will have elements of both Greek and Roman empires, just as the image stands complete in the last days, and the last terrible beast of Daniel 7 and Revelation is a composite of all the previous beasts.</h4><p>The flow of thought seems to continue naturally from :13, which speaks about the king of the north invading Palestine; and now he directly attacks the king of the south, who at the time was the infant king Ptolemy Epiphanes:&nbsp; Antiochus was not the only one to rise against this infant king of the south;&nbsp; Agathocles, his prime minister, and other groups within Egypt joined in; and Antiochus was supported by Philip of Macedon.</p><h4>"The childrenof the violent among your people"are interpretted as the Romans by John Thomas and those who follow the AV"Also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision". But"they shall fall"seems out of sequence; the Romans didn’t fall for a long time afterwards. And the original does demand that these violent ones or robbers are"among your people". The reference seems more naturally to Jews among Daniel’s people who sided with Antiochus as he attacked Jerusalem."Your people"is the phrase elsewhere used in Daniel about Daniel and his people the Jews. This surely means that the words of Daniel 11 were given to Daniel as prophecy, and are not some later description of elapsed history presented as prophecy and added by another hand (as some claim)."Establish"is the same word translated"stand up"earlier in the verse. These Jewish traitors"stood up"with the Syrian invaders because they justified their actions by saying that they were making this vision of Daniel 11 ’stand up’ or be established. They justified joining in the destruction of Jerusalem by saying that it had been prophesied in this vision.</h4>


text:
<p>So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mound, and take a well-fortified city: and the forces of the south shall not stand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to stand- This can apply to both the siege of the Romans in AD70 [although there would be a large gap in the prophecy in this case] or to Antiochus. The Antiochus interpretation fits better with the forces of the south not standing, and the ones chosen by Ptolemy of Egypt failing to resist Antiochus. As noted on :14, these same prophetic words have some limited application to both the Greek kingdoms and the Roman empire. I suggest this is understandable if we accept that the main fulfilment of the entire chapter is in the future; the latter day entity which dominates the land and people of Israel will have elements of both Greek and Roman empires, just as the image stands complete in the last days, and the last terrible beast of Daniel 7 and Revelation is a composite of all the previous beasts. However,"the king of the north"in the context refers not to Rome but to the northern part of the Greek empire, Syria, governed by the Seleucids. The king of the south, Egypt, true to Biblical precedent, failed to help the Jews against the king of the north, just as Egypt had not saved them from the Babylonians and Assyrians. The lack of strength to stand may refer to a severe famine which led to the garrisons of the king of the South surrendering; this was why the army led by Scopus who took refuge in the walled city of Sidon had to surrender to the king of the north, Antiochus.</p>


text:
<p>But he who comes against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, and in his hand shall be destruction- This refers to the actions of Antiochus and the Syrians in Palestine at this time, and the inability of Ptolemy and Scopus, the leaders of the"king of the south", to resist. The language is similar to that about God in <a href='B:340 4:35'>Dan 4:35</a>. This is a major theme of Daniel- that the apparently invincible armies of men are brought to nothing before God. Those who appear so invincible are merely playing God and will be judged by He who is ultimately invincible, and whose will triumphs over human will. And that is the simple takeaway lesson for us to this day. In Daniel’s time, Palestine was largely in ruins. But he is reminded that it is still"the glorious land"from God’s perspective, and was invited to see it that way with the eye of faith.</p>


text:
<h4>He shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom- Antiochus determined to focus all his resources on the destruction of Egypt, the king of the south.</h4><p>And he shall bring terms of an agreement and perform them- Antiochus was unable to do as he planned, due to the growing threat of Rome. So instead he tried to make treaties with Ptolemy, the king of the south.</p><h4>He shall give him the daughter of women, to corrupt her; but she shall not stand, neither be for him- Ptolemy married Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus. The intention was that Cleopatra would be her father’s secret agent in Egypt. But Antiochus didn’t succeed in corrupting her; she came to support her husband rather than her father.</h4>


text:
<h4>After this shall he turn his face to the islands, and shall take many- After Rome defeated Philip of Macedon, Antiochus capitalized on this by grabbing many of the Greek islands.</h4><h4>But a commander shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; yes, moreover, he shall cause his insolence to return upon him- The Romans demanded that Antiochus relinquish all the islands and territory of Philip of Macedon which he had seized. He refused, and reproached the Romans, but the Romans defeated Antiochus at Magnesia.</h4>


text:
<p>Then he shall turn his face toward the fortresses of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found- After the defeat at Magnesia, the Romans demanded a tribute of 15,000 talents. Antiochus tried to raise this by breaking into temple citadels ["fortresses"] of various gods. Whilst plundering the temple of Jupiter Belus in Elymais, Antiochus was killed.</p>


text:
<h4>Then shall stand up in his place one who shall cause a tax collector to pass through the kingdom to maintain its glory- &nbsp;As noted on :19, the Romans had laid a huge tribute upon Antiochus and the northern Seleucid kingdom. His successor, Seleucus Philopator, tried to raise the tax / tribute by plundering temples, including that in Jerusalem. The tax was particularly levied upon Judah,"the kingdom"and land which is the focus of the prophecies.</h4><p>But within a few days- He reigned only 11 years; although"a few days"implies somewhat less than that. This is an example of where the"fit"between prophecy and history is good in places but not in others. This is because the fulfilments were either potentials which began to ’work out’ and then didn’t; or only primary fulfilments. Only the latter day fulfilment will be the perfect fit.</p><h4>He shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle- Seleucus Philopator was poisoned by his trusted minister Heliodorus.</h4>


text:
<h4>In his place shall arise a contemptible person, to whom they had not given the honour of the kingdom- The reference appears to be to Heliodorus who poisoned Seleucus Philopator. But he was unpopular and"not given the honour".</h4><h4>But he shall come in time of security, and shall obtain he kingdom by flatteries- This appears to refer to how Antiochus IV Epiphanes returned from imprisonment in Rome, came to Athens and flattered the Athenians to support him rather than Heliodorus. Whilst Antiochus IV Epiphanes fits the following verses quite well, his taking of power doesn’t nicely fit here. It was not a"time of security", and he actually amassed a large army against Heliodorus although he didn’t use it.</h4>


text:
<h4>The overwhelming forces shall be overwhelmed from before him, and shall be broken; even the prince of the covenant- The idea may be that Antiochus took control of Syria and overcame some"prince"who opposed him, possibly Onias III, according to 2 Maccabees 4. Or it could be that another invasion of Egypt is described, although this is hard to find historically at this time; and we ask why"the prince of the covenant"should be mentioned in this connection. Here as mentioned earlier, there seems a gap between the prophetic words and the possible historical fulfilment. The main fulfilment is yet future."Shall be broken"recalls how the iron legs of Daniel 2 and the fourth beast of Daniel 7 are to"break"others, and yet then be broken by the Lord’s return. This king of the north again acts as a fake Messiah, an antiChrist."The prince of the covenant"refers most comfortably to the Lord Jesus;"even"is elsewhere translated"in like manner as". Perhaps we are to understand that his ’breaking’ is just as the little stone, Messiah, the prince of the covenant, will in turn break him. He is thereby presented as an imitation Christ, who shall be destroyed by the real Christ, in the latter day manifestation of these things.</h4><h4>Another view is that"the prince of the covenant"refers to Antiochus removing Onias as high priest in Jerusalem in favour of his own supporters. But this bit of political intrigue against a priest who was himself a political animal hardly seems to fit the language of the prince of the covenant being"broken". And why call the priest a"prince"if Messiah is not in view? All the other suggestions seem out of step with historical reality- e:g. the idea that it refers to"Ptolemy Philometor, the son of Cleopatra, Antiochus’ sister, who was joined in covenant with him". How were such people"broken", we ask. And :23 speaks of Ptolemy Philometor as now making a league with Antiochus, so he was hardly"broken"by him in the preceding verse.</h4>


text:
<p>After the treaty made with him he shall work deceitfully; for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people- This seems to speak of the treaty between Antiochus as king of the north and Ptolemy Philometor as king of the south, who was then but a child and was deceived. Under the guise of assisting Ptolemy Philometor to rule over all Egypt, Antiochus came with a small army and grabbed much of Egypt. We can likewise imagine the latter day king of the north arising from a position of weakness; rather than being the leader of an already large people such as Russia.</p>


text:
<h4>Without warning he shall come into the richest parts of the province- Antiochus used the guile explained in :23 to take the best parts of Egypt, around Memphis and Alexandria, for himself. But why describe Egypt as a"province"? Again we do not see a perfect fit of the history to the prophetic language; that shall only come in the latter day fulfilment, when there are two power blocs dominating the land and people of Israel with various intrigues between them.</h4><p>And he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them prey and spoil and substance- This was the first time that the king of the north had so totally taken over Egypt, the king of the south. The historical fulfilment is recorded in 1&nbsp; Macc. 1:17-20,"And the kingdom was established before Antiochus, and he had a mind to reign over the land of Egypt, that he might reign over two kingdoms. And he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots and elephants and horsemen, and a great number of ships: and he made war against Ptolomee, king of Egypt, but Ptolomee was afraid at his presence, and fled, and many were wounded unto death. And he took the strong cities of the land of Egypt: and he took the spoils of the land of Egypt". But again the fulfilment is not exact, because there is no record of Antiochus scattering the Egyptians. Perhaps in the last days the two warring factions in the Middle East will end up with the king of the north briefly dominating the king of the south. Who those latter day players are, isn’t clear. There could be a clear divide amongst Israel’s enemies, like the two legs of the image; perhaps along the lines of the Sunni-Shia divide. Or perhaps the king of the north will be the latter day Assyrian, and the king of the south corresponds to Western forces in the Middle East.</p><h4>Moreover, he shall devise his devices against the strongholds, but only for a time- Egypt had a series of fortresses for defence, which Antiochus overcame. Egypt was a protectorate of the rising Roman empire, and they demanded Antiochus retreated from Egypt.</h4>


text:
<h4>He shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall war in battle with an exceeding great and mighty army; but he shall not stand- This mighty army of Antiochus is described in 1 Maccabees 1 as quoted on :24. Ptolemy likewise raised a mighty army to drive Antiochus out of Egypt. But again the chronology seems slightly"out"; this great invasion ought to have been described before the events of :24 it was to apply totally to Antiochus. The difficulties in correspondence are again a reminder that Antiochus was only a primary fulfilment of the greater which was to come. According to :29, there were three invasions of the king of the south by the king of the north, and this was the first and greatest of them.</h4><h4>For they shall devise devices against him- Ptolemy Philometor [the king of the south] was weak and betrayed by his own nobles and their intrigues.</h4>


text:
<p>Yes, they who eat of his dainties shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain- 1Ma_1:18 describes how"Many fell wounded to death". His army was"swept away"(NIV, RSV). Ptolemy Philometor was betrayed by those who ate"at his table"(LXX). To eat together was a sign of mutual trust and fellowship, and our breaking of bread at the table of the Lord Jesus speaks of His acceptance of us. All we have to do is to accept it; and we should therefore never deny another presence at His table.</p>


text:
<p>As for both these kings, their hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table: but it shall not prosper; for yet the end shall be at the time appointed- This again is a hint that the entire situation here is intended for ultimate fulfilment in the last day and not in a continuous historical sense, although there clearly are elements of primary fulfilment in history. All the power and device of human politics and military might will not prosper, because it is God’s intention that things shall come to"the end"at the"time appointed"by Him. And this is a wider comfort in human life and experience. Antiochus sat at Ptolemy’s table, pretending to be just merely supporting him, when he was lying to him. And yet again, the historical fit isn’t exact, because this deceit was really before the massive invasion of :25. The fulfilment is vague and inexact- because it was but a primary fulfilment, and we look to the last days for the exact fit.</p>


text:
<p>Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do his pleasure, and return to his own land- Antiochus took the riches of Egypt and returned northward. He heard that Jerusalem was in festivity because of a false report about his death, and so he decided to stop there on the march homewards and punish them. His heart was not simply against the Jews but against their holy covenant. In the latter day scenario, it is"the holy [Abrahamic] covenant"which is the root source of bitterness between Islam and Judaism, and between Israel and her neighbours. Antiochus sought to replace Jewish culture with Greek [Hellenic] culture, introducing Greek games on the temple mount, such as naked wrestling and discus throwing. He killed 40,000 Jews there at this time according to Josephus, and desecrated the temple. There will be something similar done by the latter day king of the north.</p>


text:
<p>At the time appointed he shall return, and come into the south; but it shall not be in the latter time as it was in the former- The evil planned against Judea and Jerusalem was"at the time appointed"; those who thought they were indulging their own plans were in fact under Divine control. This is the consistent comfort of the prophecies. Antiochus made a second attack upon the king of the south, but not as successful as that of :26-28; and his third attack upon Egypt in :42,43 was likewise not so successful as the first one.</p>


text:
<h4>For ships of Kittim shall come against him- A reference to Roman forces and envoys arriving in Egypt, which they saw as their protectorate, forcing Antiochus to back off and return homeward.</h4><p>Therefore he shall be afraid and shall withdraw, and have indignation against the holy covenant, and shall do his pleasure: he shall even return- On his return northward, as happened in :28, he attacked Jerusalem. He sacked the city and again, his anger was against the covenant; he again sought to impose Greek culture upon the Jews. Maccabees records that he forced the Jews"that they should follow the law of the nations of the earth, and should forbid holocausts and sacrifices, and atonements to be made in the temple of God. And should prohibit the sabbath and festival days to be celebrated. And he commanded the holy places to be profaned, and the holy people of Israel. And he commanded altars to be built, and temples, and idols, and swine’s flesh to be immolated, and unclean beasts. And that they should leave their children uncircumcised, and let their souls be defiled with all uncleannesses, and abominations, to the end that they should forget the law, and should change all the justifications of God. And that whosoever would not do according to the word of king Antiochus should be put to death". Such spiritual and psychological domination of the Jews is to be expected from the latter day king of the north, and radical Islam seems a very likely way of fulfilling this.</p><h4>And pay attention to those who forsake the holy covenant- The idea could simply be that the punishments inflicted by Antiochus were judgments upon the many in Judah who had forsaken the covenant. But the original can as well be translated"and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant"(AV). This would then refer to how Antiochus used the apostate high priest Menelaus to develop a group of Jewish apostates who supported the imposition of Greek [Hellenic] culture upon Judaism. The Biblical background of the term"those who forsake the covenant"is that because of this, the temple would be destroyed and Israel judged by their neighbours (<a href='B:50 29:25'>Deu 29:25</a>; <a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a>; <a href='B:110 19:10'>1Ki 19:10</a>; <a href='B:300 22:9'>Jer 22:9</a>). We are therefore set up to expect what we read in :31, that the temple and people of Judah were to be judged.</h4>


text:
<h4>Forces from him shall appear, and they shall profane the sanctuary, even the fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering, and they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate- This is the language of <a href='B:340 9:27'>Dan 9:27</a> about what the Romans did in AD70, and it is understood by the Lord to refer to both the Roman actions in AD70 and more fully, the situation immediately before His return (see on <a href='B:470 24:15'>Mat 24:15</a>). But that is not to preclude a reference to the blasphemies of Antiochus, who dedicated the Jerusalem temple to Zeus and placed a statue of Zeus on the altar (2Ma_6:2). <a href='B:490 21:20'>Luk 21:20</a> alludes to the same idea but connects this with <a href='B:340 9:27'>Dan 9:27</a>, seeing the desolator as the Roman armies of AD70 and the armies of the latter day invader. However, the"he"here can have application to John of Gischala, the Jewish zealot leader, who was actually the one who made the sacrifices to cease, and with whom Josephus records he pleaded to re-instate them. Josephus saw John as the fulfilment of this prophecy. And yet in the context it clearly also refers to what was done by Antiochus (1Ma_1:45; 1Ma_1:54; 1Ma_1:59; 1Ma_4:52-53). And so we again see that the prophecies have various historical fulfilments, all of them not a perfect fit with the actual prophetic words; but they will have their full and seamless, perfect fit fulfilment at the time of the Lord’s return. Just as the metals of the image and the various beasts had their historical fulfilments but will all exist at the Lord’s return, when the image of Daniel 2 stands complete. The final abuse of God’s land and people will contain all the elements of the previous abusers; in this case, by the likes of Antiochus and John of Gischala.</h4><h4>The abomination that makes desolate can be understood as that which desecrates the temple, as in <a href='B:340 8:12-13'>Dan 8:12-13</a>,"the transgression of desolation"); and also as&nbsp; ’the abomination of the desolater’, which is how Antiochus Epiphanes is described in 1Ma_1:29; 1Ma_1:37-49. The abomination in view was in each historical context some material shrine or altar built on the temple mount, once fortified by the Jews ["the fortress"], with the agreement of apostate Jews. 1Ma_1:54 describes what happened at the hands of Antiochus:"Now in the fifteenth day of the month Casleu in the 145th year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Judah on every side". The temple was dedicated to Jupiter Olympius, and a smaller altar built upon the original altar for sacrifices to this god, with an image of the idol upon it;"abomination"in the Old Testament means an idol. The Roman ’desolation’ of the temple was in similar terms, and so we can look to something similar happening in the latter day fulfilment. This abomination is to be set up in the last days by the latter day invader, and then destroyed by the Lord’s return, and 2 Thessalonians 2 is likewise clear about this; so I cannot see the Mosque of Omar currently on the temple mount as anything more than at best a primary fulfilment of it, along with the erection of a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus on the temple site in AD 132.</h4>


text:
<h4>Such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he pervert by flatteries- Antiochus got the apostate Jews on his side. Alcimus and other apostate high priests were used by Antiochus to enforce the Greek culture over the Hebrew. There is a strong theme in all the fulfilments, that apostate Jews enabled the desolation of the temple. And we are to expect this in the greater, final fulfilment of the last days.</h4><h4>But the people who know their God shall be strong, and do exploits- There was a reaction against this enforced Hellenization. There arose the hasidim, called"the Assidseans"in the Book of Maccabees, headed by Mattathias and his sons. Their"exploits"against the Hellenists are recorded in the books of the Maccabees, particularly those by Judas Maccabaeus. Those who"know their God"are those who are faithful to the covenant; the whole purpose of the Abrahamic covenant was and is to know God personally, in the sense of having a personal relationship with Him.</h4>


text:
<p>Those who are wise among the people shall instruct many; yet they shall fall by the sword and by flame, by captivity and by spoil, many days- The revolt against the Hellenization of Antiochus and the apostate Jews was intellectual as well as in terms of military rebellion and massacres of garrisons etc. This revival of attention to the Mosaic law by the hasidim (see on :32) spawned the movements such as the Pharisees which were so opposed to the Lord Jesus when He came. This group are alluded to in <a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a> as being sure of resurrection and eternal blessing because of their teaching of righteousness. But again, there is an imperfect fit here; because the hasidim were often teaching more nationalism than true spirituality, and their understanding of the covenant was Biblically weak. Much of what they said and believed was hardly Biblical spirituality. The falling or stumbling alludes to the judgments upon Israel for forsaking the covenant (<a href='B:50 32:35'>Deu 32:35</a>; <a href='B:30 26:37'>Lev 26:37</a>); perhaps the implication is that they too were not faithful to the covenant. We could conclude that even those who misunderstand are blessed despite their doctrinal weaknesses. But the latter day application is a far tighter fit; that there will be those who teach about Jesus as Messiah within the persecuted Israel of the last days under [Islamic?] domination, who will be eternally blessed. Several passages in Revelation can be seen as referring to them; these are the pastors who will be given to repentant Israel of <a href='B:300 3:15'>Jer 3:15</a>.</p>


text:
<h4>Now when they shall fall, they shall be helped with a little help- The Maccabees won amazing victories, but as noted on :33, they were generally far from Biblical spirituality. This was reflected in God giving them a"little help". They of course claimed, as did subsequent Judaism, that their amazing victories against"the king of the north"were due to God being with them. But the record here distinctly downplays that. And there is the statement here that the"little help"would be received at the time of their"fall". Again, the victories of the Maccabees doesn’t exactly fit with the Biblical prediction, and we are to look to a latter day fulfilment for the perfect fit.</h4><h4>But many shall join themselves to them with flattery-"Join"may suggest marriage (AV"cleave"). Some joined the revolutionaries, even intermarrying with them, as agents of the Hellenists, the king of the north. Infiltration of the Jewish ranks was seen in the time of Antiochus and also the AD70 scenario, and we can expect it to feature in the final, last days fulfilment.</h4>


text:
<p>Some of those who are wise shall stumble, to refine them, and to purify, and to make them white, until the time of the end; because it is yet for the time appointed- The situations at the time of Antiochus and AD70 could have led to the ultimate"time of the end". But that potential wasn’t realized; Israel did not repent, and instead focused upon nationalism and the hope of a political Kingdom of God. And therefore and thereby these words of Daniel 11 concern the situation in the ultimate"time of the end", the same"end"foreseen in Daniel 9. The LXX gives:"And some of those of understanding shall consider to purify themselves both to be chosen and to be purified to the time of the end, for the season is for hours". It could be that for the sake of the faithful minority, those who were"wise", the time of the end was but hours away; but that"end"still didn’t come. The potential was not reached fully. The ’stumbling’ of"those who are wise"could refer to their ’falling’ by the sword as in :33,34. But the Hebrew for"stumble"is very often used about spiritual stumbling (<a href='B:290 8:15'>Isa 8:15</a>; <a href='B:290 28:13'>Isa 28:13</a>; <a href='B:290 59:10'>Isa 59:10</a>; <a href='B:290 59:14'>Isa 59:14</a>; <a href='B:300 6:21'>Jer 6:21</a>; <a href='B:300 18:15'>Jer 18:15</a>; <a href='B:460 2:8'>Mal 2:8</a> etc:). The idea seems to be that some of the wise spiritually stumbled. The Hebrew, followed by AVmg:, suggests that it is the fall of some of the wise, either physically or spiritually, which will be the refining and purifying of the truly faithful. And yet even their experience of stumbling, physically and / or spiritually, was part of the Divine effort to purge them so that they might be acceptable at the time of the end, the day of final judgment. The latter day application is imaginable; some of the wise fall in the persecutions of :33,34, some spiritually stumble, but those who are purified by these experiences are those of <a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a> who shall be resurrected to especial glory. But the text clearly requires that this group who are purged by the sufferings of some of the wise, or even their stumbling in faith, will endure until the time of the end; the time when"Michael"stands up for God’s people and the dead are resurrected (<a href='B:340 12:1-3'>Dan 12:1-3</a>). Clearly the language demands a latter day application for its main fulfilment. Any attempt to apply this language to the time of Antiochus or AD70 is weak and patchy, and at best but an incipient fulfilment of the final, greater one. This focus upon the faithful Jewish remnant of the last days is found at several points in the visions of Revelation, not least those of the 144,000. The ultimate ’making white’ is through accepting the cleansing of the Lord’s blood (<a href='B:730 7:9'>Rev 7:9</a>).</p>


text:
<h4>The king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods- John Thomas and others see this"king"as the Romans. But Roman power did not extend until the indignation is accomplished, i:e. the last day, and surely"the king of fierce countenance"here and in <a href='B:340 8:23'>Dan 8:23</a> better fits Antiochus. But even that is not a perfect fit. As noted on :35; this looks forward to the latter day antichrist, a charismatic"king of the north". The blasphemy of Antiochus is well recorded. His coins bore his image with the inscription"Antiochus: God manifest". He claimed he could touch the stars (2Ma_9:8-10) and could like Yahweh weigh the mountains in his scales. Parts of the prophecies seem to ’best fit’ Antiochus, others, the Roman-Jewish war of AD67-70. This is intentional. But all these shady and incomplete historical fulfilments prepare the way for the major one, in the last days. They also reflect the conditional nature of the prophecy; the program could have all come true in the time of Antiochus, but it didn’t; and likewise in AD70 with the Romans. The factor which precluded it each time was the lack of repentance and true spirituality amongst the Jews.</h4><p>And he shall prosper until the indignation be accomplished; for that which is decreed shall be done- The individual spoken of here, the king of the north, was to"prosper"until the last day. Although the time of the accomplishment of wrath could refer specifically to God’s judgments upon Jerusalem, as in Daniel 9. But when that finishes, and the times of Gentile domination of her are accomplished, then the Messiah shall come and Israel’s Kingdom be re-established. So again we see that the ultimate fulfilment of these words is in the last days. The LXX renders:"And shall prosper until the wrath be accomplished; for on him there is an end". The idea of"an end"could be another hint that these prophecies had various provisional, conditional fulfilments in history, various"ends"were potentially possible, but they did not come about. Yet ultimately, the final"end"shall come at the Lord’s coming. Thus it could be argued that :36-40 is a summary of the situation which is brought about by the events of :41-45. This approach fits the AD70 situation fairly well, but not perfectly because the main fulfilment of all this chapter is in the last days.</p><h4>The allusion here in :36 is back to <a href='B:340 9:26-27'>Dan 9:26-27</a>, leading us to see these words as having an initial fulfilment in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. And yet as I have so often reasoned, all these historical events were not the main fulfilment of these words; they were but precursors of the main fulfilment which is yet to come. But this same language of the self-exalted king is used of Alexander (:3), Antiochus (:16), Medo-Persia (<a href='B:340 8:4'>Dan 8:4</a>; <a href='B:340 8:20'>Dan 8:20</a>) and the little horn (<a href='B:340 8:12'>Dan 8:12</a>; <a href='B:340 8:24'>Dan 8:24</a>). The latter day abuser of God’s people will include elements of all the previous ones, which explains the similarities. It could be that :36-39 is a description of how the situation in :40 arises, when the kings of north and south both unite against a third party who is within Jerusalem. So"the king"here would refer to someone in Jerusalem; I suggest in the AD70 context this was John of Gischala, the zealot king / leader. :36-39 would then be describing him.</h4><p>The exaltation of John above every god was through his blasphemy, as Josephus comments about him:"John, when the plunder from the people failed him, had recourse to sacrilege, melting down many of the temple-offerings and many of the vessels required for public worship, bowls and salvers and tables; nor did he abstain from the vessels for pure wine sent by Augustus and his consort. For the Roman sovereigns ever honoured and added embellishment to the temple, whereas this Jew now pulled down even the donations of foreigners, remarking to his companions that they should not scruple to employ divine things on the Divinity’s behalf, and that those who fought for the temple should be supported by it. He accordingly drew every drop of the sacred wine and of the oil, which the priests kept for pouring upon the burnt-offerings and which stood in the inner temple, and distributed these to his horde, who without horror anointed themselves and drank therefrom. Nor can I here refrain from uttering what my emotion bids me say. I believe that, had the Romans delayed to punish these reprobates, either the earth would have opened and swallowed up the city, or it would have been swept away by a flood, or have tasted anew the thunderbolts of the land of Sodom"</p><p><a href='B:340 11:36-37'>Dan 11:36-37</a> are clearly given a latter day application by Paul’s allusion to them as descriptive of the latter day antichrist figure who will be enthroned and destroyed by the Lord’s second coming (<a href='B:600 2:3-8'>2Th 2:3-8</a>). And yet Paul writes as if that person or entity was alive in his time;"the mystery of lawlessness"was already at work, he wrote; although the man of lawlessness was alive but restrained at the time of writing. But again, that was only a primary fulfilment; the main and essential fulfilment is in an individual or entity at the time of the Lord’s return.</p><h4>The references to Rome are however significant. Daniel 11 began with the Persians taking over from Babylon, then talks about the Greek domination of the land, and now we have Rome, then the breakup of Rome, and finally the coming of Messiah to destroy them and establish God’s Kingdom. This is exactly the sequence of rulership we have in the visions of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. And yet the entire image, all the beasts, and the scenario of Daniel 11, all exist together in the very last days when the Lord returns. The value of appreciating any historical fulfilments are only in that they provide assistance to us in imagining how the final scenario will work out.</h4>


text:
<h4>Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all- In the AD70 context, Josephus says of John of Gischala:"But now John, aspiring to despotic power, began to disdain the position of mere equality in honours with his peers, and, gradually gathering round him a group of the more depraved, broke away from the coalition:&nbsp; Invariably disregarding the decisions of the rest, and issuing imperious orders of his own, he was evidently laying claim to absolute sovereignty:&nbsp; Some yielded to him through fear, others from devotion (for he was an expert in gaining supporters by fraud and rhetoric); a large number thought that it would conduce to their own safety that the blame for their daring crimes should henceforth rest upon one individual rather than upon many; while his energy both of body and mind procured him not a few retainers:&nbsp; On the other hand, he was abandoned by a large section of antagonists, partly influenced by envy—they scorned subjection to a former equal—but mainly deterred by dread of monarchial rule; for they could not expect easily to depose him when once in power, and thought that they would have an excuse for themselves if they opposed him at the outset:&nbsp; Anyhow, each man preferred war, whatever sufferings it might entail, to voluntary servitude and being killed off like slaves".</h4><p>His attitude to women and lack of desire for them is again explained by Josephus:"John’s lack of an appropriate desire for women can be seen in his abandonment of the women and children in the middle of his flight from Titus to Jerusalem (The Jewish War 4:103–11), and also in his allowing his Galilean contingent in Jerusalem to rape women for sport, to indulge in effeminate practices, and to imitate the passions of women (4:558–63)".</p><p>Rejecting the god of his fathers fits Antiochus, who rejected the gods of Syria. And yet his establishment of idols in the temple hardly sounds as if Antiochus didn’t regard any god. Not regarding the desire of women is hard to pin on any of the candidates; Antiochus apparently destroyed the idols which were beloved by women, but we must look to the latter day fulfilment for the perfect fit.</p><h4>The dominant individual presented here doesn’t fit perfectly with John, nor with Antiochus, let alone with Constantine [as John Thomas suggests]. Clearly there is to be an individual who must appear in the last days; the focus is very much upon the individual rather than the ’kingdom’ represented. I suggested on Daniel 2 that the metals of the image primarily spoke of a sequence of kings, rather than kingdoms. And this will come to its final term in this super-king figure. The LXX offers:"Because that in everything he shall be exalted". This is a personality cult such as never seen in human history. The refusal to regard any god / idol may refer to some radical form of Islam which smashes everything they perceive as idolatry.</h4>


text:
<h4>But instead he shall honour the god of fortresses- Trusting in his own fortifications as if they were God, rather than in the true God (cp. <a href='B:420 1:11'>Hab 1:11</a>). Or the idea may be that the God of the fortress is the fortress of :31, the sanctuary of Zion. He honours Israel’s God as well as a god whom his fathers didn’t know. This would fit John of Gischala; it also helps us understand the renegade nature of the final antichrist, who Paul says shall sit in the temple of God as"the son of perdition", a phrase used about Judas, one of the twelve. He will be a partial believer, perhaps a renegade Jew. It would also fit how Antiochus likewise glorified his military technology.</h4><p>But the LXX"And to his place he shall move"reflects the difficulty of the Hebrew here. The future antiChrist will"move"to Jerusalem and enthrone himself there, in a way which none of the previous fulfilments have done. The Peshitta offers:"The mighty god he shall honour in his possession, and a god whom his fathers have not known shall he honour". How can this latter day individual honour"the mighty god"and yet also honour a god whom his fathers have not honoured? The cry of radical Islam is Allah Akhbar, Allah above all; and this insistence upon the supremacy of Allah is taken to an extent unknown to previous more moderate Muslims. The idea that Allah is above all leads to the total destruction of anyone and anything outside their group and religion.</p><p>"Fortresses"could be an intensive plural referring to the God of the one great fortress, Zion. This is its reference in :31, the fortress of the temple sanctuary (<a href='B:330 24:25'>Eze 24:25</a>). And Zion is often described like this by contemporary writers. Perhaps the latter day antiChrist will claim to worship the God of Zion. But as suggested on :40, actually they come against this one true God in the final fury which leads to their destruction.</p><h4>And a god whom his fathers didn’t know shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things- The language of serving a god whom his fathers didn’t is that of an apostate Israel serving new gods which their fathers didn’t know. The suggestion in the latter day context could be that this antiChrist figure is a renegade Jew. The AD70 application would be to John of Gischala, the self proclaimed king of Jerusalem who provoked the Roman onslaught. He used the precious things of the temple in order to worship"the god of fortresses", the god of trusting in human military power. But as always, the historical interpretation is incomplete and therefore to the skeptic would appear forced, and that is fair enough as observation; because the full and seamless fulfilment is yet to come, in the last days.</h4>


text:
<h4>He shall deal with the strongest fortresses by the help of a foreign god: whoever acknowledges him he will increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for a price- This can be seen as partially true for Antiochus as well as the AD70 situation. Antiochus well rewarded the Jews in Jerusalem who accepted him as king. His division of the land for a price would refer to his annulling of the law of Jubilee, and selling the land at cheap prices to the Jews who supported him, or giving it to his mercenaries in lieu of wages. The strong fortresses would then refer to the towns he built throughout Palestine, inhabited by Syrian mercenaries, who pushed their foreign gods as part of the process of Hellenization. But again, this seems an imperfect fit; we look to the last days for the fulfilment in detail. The purpose of prophecy is not to predict the future in advance, but so that when things happen, then we perceive the fulfilment of prophecy. The primary fulfilments (in this case, in Antiochus and the AD70 situation) serve to direct us towards some imagination of how the final fulfilment may materialize.</h4><h4>Another translation is “And he [the king] will take action against the strongest fortress with a foreign god; whoever will acknowledge him [the foreign god] will increase honor, and he [the foreign god] will cause them to rule over the many, and he [the foreign god] will apportion land for a price". Whatever historical fulfilment is suggested is at best sketchy and apparently forced. This is simply because this passage along with the entire prophecy will have its fulfilment in the last days. The purpose of prophecy is not to predict the future, but in order that when events happen, those who know the prophecies will immediately see their obvious fulfilment. And this passage is a classic example of that. "The strongest fortress" would refer to the fortress of :31, the fortress of the temple sanctuary (<a href='B:330 24:25'>Eze 24:25</a>). In the first century fulfilment, Josephus records that John and the Zealots “converted the temple of God into their fortress [note that word] and refuge from any outbreak of popular violence, and made the Holy Place the headquarters of their tyranny” (Jewish War 4:151; also 4:172, 208–16). Tacitus likewise describes the temple area as a fortress,&nbsp; "built like a citadel”, “the mountain-citadel” (Hist. 2:4; 5:12). John fought against the other zealot factions within Jerusalem, and apportioned land within Jerusalem to his followers (The Jewish War&nbsp; 4:135–50, 326–33, 389–97, 558–73).</h4><p>Perhaps the idea is that the latter day capture of the temple mount will be ascribed to their false god, and then the land of Israel will be divided up, just as envisaged in the last days in <a href='B:360 3:2'>Joe 3:2</a>. This conquest of the great fortress, Zion and the temple area (:31), would connect with how 2 Thessalonians 2 portrays the latter day antichrist as sitting in the temple of God- and then being suddenly destroyed by the brightness of the Lord’s coming.</p><h4>&nbsp;The period of history between <a href='B:340 11:39-40'>Dan 11:39-40</a> is not described because it is irrelevant to the Jews in Israel, just as there is a gap in fulfilment between the iron legs and the feet in the historical outworking of the image in Daniel 2.</h4>


text:
<h4>At the time of the end shall the king of the south contend with him; and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen- I have suggested that Daniel’s prophecies have an element of conditionality to them. There were various potential paths of historical fulfilment which Israel’s lack of repentance precluded. And yet the prophecies will all come wonderfully true in the events of the last days. Hence it has been commented:"Whereas the events leading up to the sacking of the Temple in 167 and the immediate aftermath are remarkably accurate (chapter 11:21–29), the predicted war between the Syrians and the Egyptians (11:40–43) never took place, and the prophecy that Antiochus would die in Palestine (11:44–45) was inaccurate (he died in Persia)". Even if we read this as meaning that the king of the south pushes at the king of the north, there is little historical evidence that Egypt pushed at the king of the north after the third invasion of Egypt by Antiochus which is apparently in view. The correspondence with the historical situation breaks down- because it will be finally fulfilled in the last days.</h4><p>"The time of the end"naturally suggests the time of the Lord’s return. But"the end"in Daniel’s context would be an allusion to <a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a>, the end of the 70 weeks prophecy:"[Jerusalem’s] end will come with a flood, and until the end will be war”. That prophecy could have been fulfilled in the re-establishment of Israel’s Kingdom as God’s Kingdom in AD70, but they did not repent, and so the Lord’s ’coming’ then was in judgment and not salvation. The ’overflowing’ spoken of in <a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a> is repeated here, where the king of the north is likened to an overflowing river, after the pattern of the earlier Assyrian invasion of Judah. A primary fulfilment would have been in the invasion of Vespasian and Titus against John of Gischala, the self proclaimed "king" in Jerusalem. The king of the south in the AD70 context would have been Tiberius Julius Alexander who was the prefect of Egypt and second in command to Titus, and the king of the north would have been Vespasian, who had just defeated Syria and replaced "the king of the north" in its Greek manifestation. He attacked Jerusalem as commander of the Syrian Legion [X Fretensis]. But this interpretation runs into various problems; it doesn’t fit all the details. This is because it was but a primary fulfilment, looking forward to the main fulfilment at the Lord’s return.</p><p>The "him" in view may be a third party, against whom both kings of north and south unite to attack. It could be the Lord Jesus, then enthroned in Jerusalem and attacked by His enemies (as outlined in Psalms 2 and Ezekiel 38). Historically, it could have referred to John of Gischala who commanded the zealots within Jerusalem in AD70.</p><p>But if the "him" is the king of the south, then the Antiochus fulfilment would be in that it is claimed that he attacked Egypt, the king of the south; this would be the third and final attack upon Egypt mentioned in :29. The events of :40-45 have some relevance to both Antiochus the Great and to Antiochus Epiphanes. All these various but not incomplete historical fulfilments were because in each one, there was the potential for the end to come. But it didn’t, and God sought other opportunities to bring about "the end"; and that end shall finally come in the last day. But the historical evidence for this third attack upon Egypt by Antiochus is lacking; and the "many ships" would have been largely unfulfilled. Again we are to understand that this is but a primary fulfilment, and the main fulfilment is yet to come.</p><p>The "him" in terms of grammar and context most comfortably refers to "the God of the great fortress / citadel" of :38. The two power blocs in the land of the last days, the kings of north and south, would then each come against this God. Thus would be fulfilled the scenario of Psalms 2 and 2 Thessalonians 2 - the united fury of the various neighbouring enemies of Israel and the Lord Jesus being thrown against Him. The king of the north ’pushes’ against Him, the idea being of a beast in wild fury goring someone. This again fits in with the evidence elsewhere provided that the king of the north, the antichrist, is the epitome of the final beast.</p><p>And with many ships- In the AD70 context, this would refer to the fleet used by Vespasian to ship his soldiers into Judea (Tacitus records this in his Histories 2:4). Any attempt to conquer Palestine and Jerusalem would likely involve shipping in soldiers to the coast, and we shall see this again in the latter day invasion. There were also naval battles on the sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea in AD67/68.</p><p>According to some, Antiochus also came with many ships in his campaign against Egypt, so it is claimed. But the problem is that many claims of historical fulfilment are influenced by Jewish sources such as Josephus who wanted to see the fulfilment of this prophecy in Antiochus. And once one commentator picks up on that, the others tend to follow suite, until the claim becomes perceived as hard historical fact. Antiochus was bankrupt, stealing from pagan temples in order to pay his troops; he wouldn’t have had the resources to obtain "many ships" at this point.</p><p>And he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass through- This appears to be a summary of what we will read in :41-45, which lists "the countries" taken. The LXX gives "the land" for "the countries", perhaps reading the Hebrew as an intensive plural, "the [singular, most significant] country". The overflowing and passing through of the land would then be in the spirit of the Assyrian invasion being described by Isaiah in the same terms. The overflowing flood of <a href='B:340 9:26-27'>Dan 9:26-27</a> is likewise against Jerusalem rather than the surrounding lands. Against this is the statement in :41 that he shall enter "the glorious land", but see commentary upon that.</p><p>Both the prototype in Hezekiah’s time and the descriptions in <a href='B:340 11:40'>Dan 11:40</a> and Ezekiel 38 require there to be a personal leader of the northern invasion. Rabshakeh and latter day Sennacherib equate with Daniel’s "King (not ’power’) of the north", and Ezekiel 38’s specific reference to a rosh [mighty one, chief prince] and use of the personal pronoun "thee": "Turn thee back::. thy jaws::. thine army::. be thou prepared::. thy company" etc. All this emphasis needs some explanation. If the prototype of latter day Sennacherib / Rabshakeh is to be closely followed, this individual need not be a nation, but a young, headstrong, powerful army commander that mirrors Rabshakeh. To make the clues more exciting, remember that Rabshakeh was probably an apostate Jew (note his references to the covenant name, and evident knowledge of conditions inside Jerusalem):&nbsp; "The man of sin" that is to sit in the temple of God in the last days would seem to have reference back to the "abomination that maketh desolate" and to&nbsp; the&nbsp; planting&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; king&nbsp; of the North’s tabernacles "between the seas in the glorious holy mountain"- i. e. in the temple area of Jerusalem (<a href='B:340 11:45'>Dan 11:45</a>). This "man of sin" points to an individual.</p><p>Daniel 11 speaks of an invasion of Israel by “the king of the north” which results in a time of trouble for Israel such as never was, and the standing up of ‘Michael’ and the resurrection of the dead. The period of history between <a href='B:340 11:39-40'>Dan 11:39-40</a> is not described because it is irrelevant to the Jews in Israel, just as there is a gap in fulfilment between the iron legs and the feet in the historical outworking of the image in Daniel 2. The section speaking of the last days begins by saying that the king of the north hears “tidings” (<a href='B:340 11:44'>Dan 11:44</a>). The same word is used of Assyria at the time of her invasion of Israel and siege of Jerusalem: "I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumour, and shall return to his own land" (<a href='B:120 19:7'>2Ki 19:7</a>):&nbsp;Thus at the very time of Assyria’s destruction by God, her previous allies turned against her, exemplifying how Arab in-fighting will be one of the means which God will use to finally destroy them (<a href='B:450 14:13'>Zec 14:13</a>, etc:). "A blast" (Heb. ’ruach’, a spirit/angel?) being sent upon Sennacherib is the same term used about Pharaoh’s destruction (<a href='B:20 15:8'>Exo 15:8</a>) and that of Babylon (<a href='B:300 51:1'>Jer 51:1</a>), both of which are typical of the final Islamic defeat. Babylon also hears ’rumours’ at the time of her destruction (<a href='B:300 51:46'>Jer 51:46</a>):&nbsp;It is to these ’rumours’ of wars within the land / earth promised to Abraham which Christ may allude in <a href='B:470 24:6'>Mat 24:6</a>, speaking of "rumours of wars" in the very last days:&nbsp;The smaller nations associated with Babylon/Assyria also hear "tidings" (same word translated "rumour") in <a href='B:300 49:23'>Jer 49:23</a>, showing that they meet the same judgment as ’Assyria’ to some extent.</p><h4>Close analysis of <a href='B:340 11:40-44'>Dan 11:40-44</a> reveals that it is couched in terms of the Ezekiel 38 invasion, which is based upon that of Assyria:&nbsp;&nbsp; However, it is also full of direct allusions to the Assyrian invasion:</h4><p>"The king of the north" (<a href='B:340 11:40'>Dan 11:40</a>) - Assyria (cp. <a href='B:430 2:13'>Zep 2:13</a>).</p><p>"Shall come against him like a whirlwind" (<a href='B:340 11:40'>Dan 11:40</a>), as God will against the invaders in response to this (<a href='B:450 9:14'>Zec 9:14</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:290 28:2'>Isa 28:2</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;God comes up "like a storm::. a cloud to cover the land" in a similar way (<a href='B:330 38:9'>Eze 38:9</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp; A whirlwind attacks from all sides. The combined typology of the previous invasions has shown them coming from all points of the compass. The final combined ’Assyrian’ invasion will also have this feature, as it did in Hezekiah’s time.</p><p>"With chariots, and with horsemen" (<a href='B:340 11:40'>Dan 11:40</a>), for which the Assyrians were famous, and Gog likewise (<a href='B:330 38:4'>Eze 38:4</a>).</p><p>"He shall enter into the countries" (<a href='B:340 11:40'>Dan 11:40</a>) as Assyria did en route to Israel; "and shall overflow and pass over" (<a href='B:340 11:40'>Dan 11:40</a>), as Assyria under Sennacherib (<a href='B:290 8:8'>Isa 8:8</a>; <a href='B:290 43:2'>Isa 43:2</a>) and Babylon (<a href='B:300 47:2'>Jer 47:2</a>) are said to have done:&nbsp;&nbsp;The Hebrew root for "overflow" means "to cleanse", occurring in <a href='B:330 16:19'>Eze 16:19</a> concerning God ’thoroughly washing away’ Israel’s sins in the last days, as a result of their final tribulations. Thus the ’Assyrian’&nbsp; ’overflowing’ of the land in the last days will result in Israel’s spiritual cleansing. "The consumption decreed (the final invasion) shall overflow in righteousness" (<a href='B:290 10:22'>Isa 10:22</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;"He shall enter also into the land of delight" (<a href='B:340 11:41'>Dan 11:41</a> A:V. mg:):&nbsp;&nbsp;At the time of Sennacherib’s destruction, God termed the land ’delight’ (<a href='B:290 62:4'>Isa 62:4</a>).</p><p>This could indicate that this invasion comes after the return of Christ and the establishment of the Kingdom:&nbsp;The ambiguity is because of the ’variable’ timing of Christ’s return, seeing this is related to Israel’s spiritual reformation - at least it appears this is how God wishes us to see it.</p><p>"Many countries shall be overthrown" (<a href='B:340 11:41'>Dan 11:41</a>):&nbsp; <a href='B:120 18:34'>2Ki 18:34</a> lists these countries in the Sennacherib context:&nbsp;This confirms that there will be conflict throughout the land / earth immediately prior to the final ’Assyrian’ attack on Israel. We are seeing this before our eyes.</p><p>"But these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief (’rosh’) of the children of Ammon (<a href='B:340 11:41'>Dan 11:41</a>):&nbsp; These areas were not meddled with by Sennacherib:&nbsp;There is a triple emphasis on how the other nations fell into his"hand"in <a href='B:120 18:33-35'>2Ki 18:33-35</a>.</p><p>"He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries” continues this "hand" connection, "and the land of Egypt shall not escape" (<a href='B:340 11:42'>Dan 11:42</a>):&nbsp;There is a possible allusion here to Moses stretching out his hand upon Egypt (<a href='B:20 9:15'>Exo 9:15</a>), which would show that the latter-day "king of the North" will claim that he has received Divine guidance to judge Israel:&nbsp;&nbsp;Assyria’s invasion of Egypt was associated with that of Israel, further demonstrating that the invasion of <a href='B:340 11:40-43'>Dan 11:40-43</a> is alluding to Sennacherib’s battle plan.</p><p>"He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver" (<a href='B:340 11:43'>Dan 11:43</a>). We are seeing the IS fulfil this by taking over oil wealth as well as billions of dollars of gold reserves.</p><p>"The Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps" (<a href='B:340 11:43'>Dan 11:43</a>) may appear to contradict Ethiopia suddenly becoming opposed to Assyria during the final attack on Jerusalem (<a href='B:120 19:9'>2Ki 19:9</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;This can be reconciled by realizing that Daniel 11 speaks of two phases in this final invasion:&nbsp;&nbsp; Ethiopia is with Assyria during the blitzkrieg towards and through Israel, but is not necessarily with her in the final ’going forth with great fury’ against Jerusalem (<a href='B:340 11:44'>Dan 11:44</a>).</p><p>There were these same two phases in the Assyrian prototype - the "great fury" of the king of the north is modelled upon Sennacherib’s rage of <a href='B:120 19:27-28'>2Ki 19:27-28</a>:&nbsp;The fact that Ethiopia is described as being with Gog in the Ezekiel 38 invasion may be an indication that this prophecy is not concerning the final push on Jerusalem, but rather the Assyrian/Arab pillaging of the land for "a spoil and a prey::. cattle and goods" (<a href='B:330 38:12'>Eze 38:12</a>) after the pattern of the neighbouring peoples raiding the land in the Judges period:&nbsp;&nbsp;Ethiopia being mentioned in tandem with Libya in both <a href='B:330 38:5'>Eze 38:5</a> and <a href='B:340 11:43'>Dan 11:43</a> could suggest that the North African Arabs break ranks with those of ’Assyria’ during the attack on Jerusalem, as evidently occurred in Hezekiah’s time (<a href='B:120 19:9'>2Ki 19:9</a>).</p><h4>"He shall plant the tabernacles of his palace::. in the glorious holy mountain" of Zion (<a href='B:340 11:45'>Dan 11:45</a>) is the language of <a href='B:290 14:13-14'>Isa 14:13-14</a> concerning both Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar desiring to take Jerusalem:&nbsp;Thus <a href='B:340 11:45'>Dan 11:45</a> is saying that the latter-day Assyria/Babylon will do this, seeing that Jerusalem will be taken by their final invasion (<a href='B:450 14:2'>Zec 14:2</a>). <a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a> says that it is at this time of the latter-day Assyrian/ "king of the north" being in Jerusalem, that Israel will suffer "a time of trouble such as never was", out of which the righteous remnant will be delivered ("every one that shall be found written in the book") by God’s intervention, which will be associated with the resurrection (<a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a>).</h4>


