# comment

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>


text:
<h4>He shall also come into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom, and Moab, and the chief leader of the children of Ammon- This could also be translated "and myriads shall stumble", referring to the spiritual stumbling of God’s people at the time of the invasion of Judea. And if we stick with "many countries", the reference is to territories around Israel, showing yet again that the focus of Daniel is upon the land and people of Israel and not Europe or the entire planet. In the AD70 fulfilment, the reference would be to the Nabataean kingdom being taken over by Vespasian and Titus as they marched towards Jerusalem. But the Nabateans collaborated with the Romans, providing soldiers to join the Roman advance on Jerusalem, and so they were not "overthrown"; the area was not annexed into the Roman empire until AD106. But which countries did the Romans "overthrow" on their march towards Jerusalem? Again we have the sense that the fulfilment was hardly a perfect fit; the ultimate, seamless, unquestionable fulfilment will be in the last days. In the&nbsp; Antiochus fulfilment, it is notable that "Moab, Ammon, and Mount Seir" were his allies. And yet the language of escaping from him is another reason to see this fulfilment as an imperfect fit, and looking ahead to the major latter day fulfilment.</h4><h4>I suggested on :40 that the invasion of Israel and Jerusalem specifically has already begun. "The glorious land", the land of glory, is clearly Israel. And "many countries" could be an intensive plural for the country, the land of Israel, forming a parallel with "the glorious land"; see on :40. Perhaps this is repeated in order to emphasize the point; but Israel will then be the land of glory because the Lord Jesus is already enthroned in Zion. This would be the scenario of Psalms 2, 2 Thessalonians 2 and Ezekiel 38, all of which picture the surrounding nations furiously attacking the Lord Jesus and His people within Jerusalem, and being destroyed; the invasion described in those passages is therefore unsuccessful.</h4>


text:
<h4>He shall stretch out his hand also on the countries- As suggested on :40 and :41, "the countries" may be an intensive plural for the singular country, Israel. It is the Hebrew word eretz. The same Hebrew for "stretch out his hand" is used of how Haman sought to ’stretch out his hand’ upon the Jews (<a href='B:190 8:7'>Est 8:7</a>).</h4><h4>And the land of Egypt shall not escape- The idea of the original may not be that Egypt too shall be conquered, but rather than Egypt shall not be a place of escape / deliverance; which would continue a long Biblical theme, of Israel vainly looking to Egypt for help. The LXX says that Egypt shall not be a saviour. This makes more sense; for the idea is of an invasion coming from the north, aiming at Jerusalem, taking all territories on its southward journey until it comes to Jerusalem. Egypt is south of Jerusalem. And as a result of the Jewish war, the Egyptian Jewish community in Alexandria was massacred in AD66.</h4>


text:
<h4>But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps- The AD70 fulfilment was in Vespasian going to Egypt from Palestine in order to take control of grain supplies for the Roman empire. He only left Alexandria in Summer of AD70 after being declared emperor (Josephus, The Jewish War 4:658; 7:21–22; Tacitus Hist. 4:81). Libya and Ethiopia were very supportive of Vespasian being declared emperor.</h4><h4>The Antiochus fulfilment could fit reasonably well at this point; he got support from the Libyans and Ethiopians and sought out the treasures of Egypt for himself. But this was in an earlier invasion of Egypt, not in the final invasion suggested here. So again, the fit may be good in some ways, but is imperfect. I suggested on :40 that both kings of north and south attack Jerusalem and the God of Zion; it could be that the king of the north has dominance over the resources of the latter day "king of the south" and uses their resources in this final onslaught against Jerusalem.</h4>


text:
<h4>But news out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him; and he shall go forth with great fury to destroy and to devote many to destruction- As explained on :43, Vespasian left the campaign against the Jews in the hands of Titus, and went to Alexandria in Egypt, where he was declared emperor. Exactly North East of Alexandria was Jerusalem.</h4><p>In the Antiochus fulfilment, he also turned northwards and entered Palestine as a result of bad news received; he met his end by doing so, at the hand of the Romans. Tacitus [Histories 5:8] attributes his change of plans to being "hindered by [news of] a Parthian war" and also of a revolt in Armenia; again, news from the North East. 1Ma_1:24-28 and&nbsp; Josephus, Antiquities 12:5:3 claim that Antiochus was so angry at being thwarted by the Romans in Egypt that he attacked the Jews with all his might as a kind of anger transference. The "tidings" from the North East could simply have been the news of the restoration to some extent of Jewish rule in Jerusalem.</p><h4>The religious dimension of the latter day invasion is found here, albeit masked by translation, and without any clear precedent in the primary fulfilments. The King of the North willinvade eretz Israel "to destroy and utterly to make away many" (AV). The Hebrew word charam translated ’to utterly make away’ specifically means to consecrate, NEV "to devote", to make something over to another, specifically their god or religion. And this is the stated motive of the jihadist groups- to sanctify Israel as a spoil of war to Allah and the Prophet. This is the predicted call found in Joel 2, to sanctify war against Israel- the very language of jihad, holy war. We could speculate that the "tidings" the latter day king of the north hears are the news that the Lord Jesus has returned and established Himself King in Zion, and this provokes his final furious attack. The news of Jewish restoration may have been the tidings from the north east which Antiochus heard and which provoked him to attack them.</h4>


text:
<h4>He shall plant the tents of his palace between the sea and the glorious holy mountain- Or, "seas", referring to the Dead Sea and Mediterranean. The AD70 interpretation would apply this to Vespasian [in Alexandria, Egypt] ordering Titus [the commander on the ground] to establish two encampments on Mount Scopus and the Mount of Olives:&nbsp;The AV "tabernacle" is more or less correct, so we see here a hint at a religious dimension to this invasion, which is only going to be fully fulfilled in the latter day invasion. This invasion unlike those mentioned earlier in this chapter is not apparently successful; the tabernacle is not planted on mount Zion, but between there and the "sea". This would then equate with the unsuccessful attack against the enthroned Jesus in Zion of Psalms 2, 2 Thessalonians 2 and Ezekiel 38. There is no very clear historical fulfilment of this by Antiochus nor Titus, for neither made a tabernacle or encampment between Mount Zion and the Mediterranean. These events are specifically for the last days.</h4><p>Yet he shall come to his end- The end of Antiochus doesn’t really fit here. And the AD70 invader did not come to an end after an unsuccessful attack upon Jerusalem. Clearly the fulfilment is yet future. "Holy mountain" is the language of <a href='B:340 9:16'>Dan 9:16</a>; <a href='B:340 9:20'>Dan 9:20</a> about Jerusalem. I suggested on :40 that the "time of the end" is "the end" of Jerusalem as spoken of in the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9; and the same "end" of the invader is in view here. But here the first century, Roman fulfilment ceases to be impressive. The Romans won, not lost. And Daniel 12 goes on to explain that this "end" is at the hand of Messiah’s appearance and the resurrection of the dead. Clearly enough, all the primary fulfilments of this chapter which are discernible all come unstuck; because they are no more than shadowy fulfilments, pointing forward to the ultimate fulfilment which is in the last days before the Lord returns. However, it’s possible to translate the original here as meaning that it is the "glorious holy mountain" which comes to his end, rather than the king of the north. "The end" refers to the end of the Jerusalem temple in <a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a>; and "the end of these wonders" likewise does in <a href='B:340 12:6-7'>Dan 12:6-7</a>. This ambiguity in translation is purposeful; because indeed there is a primary fulfilment in the Roman desolation of Jerusalem in AD70, but the main fulfilment is in the destruction of the latter day "king of the north" at the last day. "The end" of <a href='B:340 12:6-7'>Dan 12:6-7</a> is in the three and a half year desolation of the temple by the Gentiles, which is repeatedly applied to the very last days in Revelation and the Olivet prophecy. "The end" of the king of the north is "the time of the end" (:40); as Daniel 12 will go on to explain, the "end" of Israel’s tribulations at the hand of this "king of the north" will be in Messiah’s coming, the resurrection of the dead and the establishment of Israel’s Kingdom as God’s Kingdom on earth. This never fully happened; the series of invasions of the land by the kings of the north and south are yet to happen, and will be ended by the Lord’s return to earth.</p><h4>And none shall help him- The Romans mocked the Jews for trusting in allies who never came to help them: "Did you rely on::. the fidelity of allies? Pray, what nation beyond the limits of our empire would prefer Jews to Romans?” (Josephus, The Jewish War 6:330). This assumes the"him"is the king in Jerusalem. But the more natural interpretation is that the king of the north is destroyed without helpers as a result of attempting to attack the God of Zion, the fortress (see on :40). And that has no clear historical fulfilment; it is for the last days.</h4>


text:
<h4>At that time- The"time of the end"of <a href='B:340 11:40'>Dan 11:40</a>. The chapter break is unfortunate. This verse is interpreted by the Lord as referring to both AD70 and the last days (<a href='B:480 13:19'>Mar 13:19</a>; <a href='B:470 24:21'>Mat 24:21</a>; <a href='B:490 21:23'>Luk 21:23</a>). I have outlined on Daniel 11 the initial fulfilment in the Roman invasion of Judea in AD67-70, but it was not a perfect fit with the prophetic text. This is simply because it was but a primary fulfilment, and the latter day fulfilment will be the perfect fit, although at our standpoint in history we cannot exactly discern how it shall all work out.</h4><p>Shall Michael stand up, the great prince who stands for the children of your people- ’Michael’ elsewhere in Daniel refers to an Angel, the Angel especially responsible for Israel, and therefore one of the most powerful Angels-"Michael one of the chief princes"(<a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a>),"the great prince"(<a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>). The LXX renders <a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a> as “the great Angel” (AV “great prince”). The closeness of association between the Angel Michael and His people Israel is shown by the fact that when He ’standsup’ in the last days many of the people of Israel ("Your-Daniel’s-people") also ’stand up’ in resurrection (<a href='B:340 12:1-3'>Dan 12:1-3</a>).</p><p>The standing up of Michael in heaven reflects the standing up of a new king and kingdom on earth. I explained on Daniel 11 that there is there an account of the succession of empires and kings also found in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, from the Persians through the Greeks and Romans to the establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth at Messiah’s coming. This could therefore have potentially happened in AD70; but it didn’t. Israel didn’t repent. And so there is a gap in fulfilment until the last days, when the image shall stand complete, all the beasts of Daniel 7 reappear in the final terrible beast, to be destroyed by the Lord’s coming.</p><p>Amos 7 speaks of God through His Angels ’standing up’ for Israel as the result of the prayer of Amos and a faithful remnant. Amos sees visions of the impending judgements on Israel. After each he prays"O Lord God, forgive, I beseech Thee: who shall stand for Jacob? (’If you, his Angel-God, don’t?’) For he is small". The answer comes:"The Lord repented for this. It shall not be, saith the Lord". He repented for the sake of one intense prayer! Notice too Amos asking"Who shall stand for Jacob?". Michael the Angel stands for Israel in the court of Heaven, and thus it appears Amos is pointing out that if Israel is condemned and punished they will have no Angel with them- and so the Angel changes His mind.</p><p>"The children of your people"may be a reference to how Daniel had hoped that the young people of his generation would return to the land and re-establish God’s Kingdom. That would happen- but not when Daniel was expecting it.</p><p>And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time- Here the fulfilment in the events of AD70 comes to an end; the time of Jacob’s trouble which <a href='B:300 30:7-11'>Jer 30:7-11</a> spoke of, and which is here alluded to, would bring about the establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth, the re-establishment of Israel’s kingdom, the mountain being established in Jerusalem and spreading throughout the earth. And this didn’t happen. Any attempt to apply this to the events of the day of Pentecost is misplaced, because that was 37 years before AD70, and the Roman empire was not then destroyed by the little stone. Mark 13 speaks of how"in those days"those in Judaea should flee to the mountains;"for in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of creation::. neither shall be (referring to <a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a> concerning our last days)::. except that the Lord had shortened those days::. in those days, after that tribulation::. then shall they see the son of man coming". Surely"in those days"shouts for a continuous application to the same"days"- the days of the second coming. At best,"those days"can have a primary reference to the events of AD70, but the main fulfilment of the whole prophecy must be in the last days. This point seems impossible to answer by those who disallow any reference to the second coming.</p><p>And at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who shall be found written in the book- The Lord seems to allude to this in saying that"the chosen"shall escape the traumas of the destruction of the temple (<a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a>; <a href='B:480 13:20'>Mar 13:20</a>). This only had a primary fulfilment in AD70; the deliverance is to eternal life through the resurrection of the dead (:2), which refers without doubt to the last days. The references to"your people"reflect Daniel’s deep and abiding concern for his people, even though they had generally turned away from God in Babylon, and only he and his friends had resisted eating meat offered to idols in their youth, only his friends had refused to bow down to the image, and he alone had insisted on still praying to Jerusalem under threat of death. He still felt identification with God’s people, even in their weakness.</p><h4>In the final tribulation of Israel, those Jews who are"written in the book", i:e. who are acceptable believers (<a href='B:20 32:32'>Exo 32:32</a>; <a href='B:730 21:27'>Rev 21:27</a>) will be delivered. So there will be a minority in latter day natural Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal, as in Elijah’s time- which is typical of the situation at the latter day Elijah ministry.</h4>


text:
<h4>Many of those- Literally,"many from those". This is not teaching a universal resurrection. And the"many"may be relative to the wonder of resurrection and salvation, rather than implying a large percentage of dead persons shall awake. It could be that the"many"are a subset of"those who sleep", i:e. those who have hope of resurrection. This could imply that this is a particular group who are resurrected, perhaps of those who are slain in the final traumas upon Jerusalem. The primary fulfilment may have been in the resurrection of some in Jerusalem in <a href='B:470 27:52-53'>Mat 27:52-53</a>.</h4><h4>Who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt- The reference is to the curse upon Adam, that having been formed of"the dust of the earth"he was to return to it (<a href='B:10 2:7'>Gen 2:7</a>; <a href='B:10 3:19'>Gen 3:19</a>). The curse shall be overcome; those who have suffered for their sins, which is Israel in this context, shall still be saved ultimately. And this again is huge comfort to ourselves. It is not the personally righteous alone who shall be saved, but those who suffered for their sins and yet believed. But some of them shall receive eternal"contempt"; not all Israel shall be saved. But all who are responsible to judgment will be resurrected; and the final reward shall be given then, at the Lord’s coming, and not at the point of death nor in this life. The word for"contempt"is only elsewhere used in <a href='B:290 66:24'>Isa 66:24</a>, of how the bodies of those within Israel who refused to accept the restoration of the Kingdom would be eternally despised by those who are saved. The ’eternal’ nature of it doesn’t imply their conscious existence. It is ’eternal’ by its nature in that they have missed out on eternity, their decisions in this life had eternal moment and consequence. And perhaps we who by grace shall live eternally will eternally despise or somehow remember those who in this life refused it.</h4>


text:
<h4>Those who are wise shall shine as the brightness of the expanse; and those who turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever- <a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a>; <a href='B:340 12:10'>Dan 12:10</a> draw a parallel between those having wisdom and those who turn many to righteousness. The RVmg. translates “those that be wise” as “the teachers”, reflecting the play within the Hebrew sense of ‘wisdom’- to have wisdom is axiomatically to teach it. To possess God’s Truth therefore means that we will teach it to others. One primary application would have been to the maskilim who were murdered by Antiochus IV (see <a href='B:340 11:33-35'>Dan 11:33-35</a>). But again, these were but a primary fulfilment of the wonderful prophecy.</h4><p>"Shine"translates a Hebrew word elsewhere translated to the effect of ’teach’. Their wisdom was in turning others to righteousness; and they shall continue eternally doing the essence of what they did in this life, which was to shone as the stars for the sake of others. God’s people have been described as"stars"in <a href='B:340 8:10'>Dan 8:10</a> (s:w:). They were stars, and shall eternally be. This simply means that we should focus upon our spiritual ministry to others in this life; because it’s what we shall be eternally doing. The making of others righteous or cleansed connects with another passage in Daniel 8, this time with <a href='B:340 8:14'>Dan 8:14</a>, which speaks of the sanctuary [God’s people?] being cleansed or [s:w:] ’made righteous’. It seems that we have here a specific reference to those who preach to and teach Israel within the land / eretz of the last days, risking the wrath of the beast to do so. They shall be specifically rewarded. But the essence is true for us all; we shall eternally continue our service and ministry which we each developed in this life:&nbsp; This group of people are defined in <a href='B:340 12:10'>Dan 12:10</a> as “the wise” amongst latter day Israel who are purified and refined in the latter day time of Jacob’s trouble such as never was for Israel. The very same phrase occurs in <a href='B:340 11:35'>Dan 11:35</a>, where we read that some of these wise and understanding ones will perish during “the time of the end::. the time appointed” (RV)- of the three and a half year tribulation? One wonders if the Lord had these “wise” in mind in His parable of the “wise virgins” of the latter days. This would all suggest that some amongst Israel will repent and zealously preach in the last day tribulation, even if it costs them their lives. And Revelation 11 seems to be saying something similar.</p><p>Thus in the practice of preaching today, we are working out who and how we shall eternally be. The very concept of preaching is therefore partly designed by God for our benefit, to develop us into the persons we shall eternally be, by His grace. When we read that God will ’require the blood’ of those to whom we fail to preach His word (<a href='B:330 3:18'>Eze 3:18</a>), we may here have another reference to a ’going through’ of our deeds at the day of judgment. There, perhaps,&nbsp;we will have to give an account, an explanation, of why our neighbours and workfellows lie eternally dead- because we were too shy, too weakly convinced of the eternal realities we knew, to tell them. For the Hebrew word translated"require"implies some kind of inquisition / explanation. Here we see the vital importance of witness.</p><p><a href='B:290 53:4-5'>Isa 53:4-5</a> prophesied that through the cross, the Lord Jesus would"justify the many". Yet this phrase is picked up in <a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a> and applied to those who preach the Gospel- and thereby become"those who justify the many". The implication is plain enough. Through preaching, we live out the Lord’s death for others in practice, we placard Him crucified before the world’s eyes. We are not simply"Him"to them; we are Him crucified to them. The honour of this is surpassing.</p><p>Those who have lived in Christ will then shine as the brightness of the firmament. But the description of the Lord’s face shining as the sun draws on this; as if to say that our shining in the future Kingdom will be because we were and are in Him. We will shine forth then (<a href='B:470 13:43'>Mat 13:43</a>), as the Sun of righteousness Himself. The allusion is to the promise that Abraham’s seed shall be as the stars (<a href='B:10 15:5'>Gen 15:5</a>). It is through the resurrection at the last day that the covenant will be finally fulfilled.</p><h4>All the prophecies could have had a more immediate fulfilment, but the possibility was messed up by Israel’s impenitence. <a href='B:290 40:5'>Isa 40:5</a> had called out to a Zion about to be restored that “the glory of the Lord shall be revealed”. In other words, the temple ought to have been a re-establishment of Solomon’s, with God’s attendant acceptance of it also. However, this didn’t happen. Ezekiel saw a vision of the glory of Yahweh filling the temple (<a href='B:330 43:5'>Eze 43:5</a>), as if to show that this, in line with Haggai’s words, was what could have happened at the restoration. However, it’s fulfilment must now await the future. Daniel’s prophecy that there would be a time of trouble for Israel, followed by a resurrection and judgment, may have had a potential fulfilment in Haman’s persecution. The LXX of Esther 5 includes her prayer, in which she says that Haman was seeking to hinder the work of the temple. This would explain why initially the Samaritans persuaded the Persians to make the work cease, but then (humanly inexplicably) another edict is given for it to resume. The people were delivered (<a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>), as they were by Michael the Angel manipulating Esther. But the resurrection, judgment and Kingdom didn’t follow, because Israel weren’t ready for it. Then those who turned many to righteousness- i:e. the priesthood, in the primary context- would be rewarded (<a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a>). But Malachi and Haggai repeatedly criticized the priesthood at the time of the restoration for being selfish and not teaching Israel (<a href='B:460 2:7'>Mal 2:7</a>). Daniel and Jeremiah were heartbroken that there had to be such a delay to the full fulfilment of the Messianic restoration of the Kingdom.</h4>


text:
<h4>But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of its fulfilment- The meaning of the final prophecy of Daniel would only be clear at the time of its fulfilment; and this is the case with all prophecy. It would’ve been hard for Daniel to accept, who obviously wanted to understand his own prophecies immediately. But the imagery of shutting and sealing could suggest that an interpretation of it was possible in Daniel’s lifetime, but that was now precluded, and the interpretation and outworking was now hidden until the time of the end. This would confirm what we noted on Daniel 2 - that the restoration of Israel’s Kingdom as God’s Kingdom on earth could have come during Daniel’s lifetime, but it was precluded by Israel’s lack of repentance. And so the prophecies would come true, but at a longer term moment. This is a classic example of <a href='B:670 1:12'>1Pe 1:12</a>"Unto whom it was revealed (in response to their enquiries) that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister". And yet the Lord’s death opened the book, broke the seals. But the end didn’t come then, the book to us remained sealed, because the intended, possible fulfilment in AD70 didn’t come about- again, because Israel didn’t fully repent.</h4><p>A sealed book or scroll is one that cannot be opened or read (<a href='B:290 29:11'>Isa 29:11</a>). The opening of the seals in Revelation surely alludes here; they will be opened in the very last days, rather than over a long period of continuous history. The seals of Revelation bring forth events on earth; here, the seals represent the limitations upon understanding Daniel’s visions. The idea surely is that when the visions start to be fulfilled, then the faithful of the last days will perceive this and understand the prophecies which previously were unclear. We should therefore not put too much energy into trying to apply them to current world events; their fulfilment in the land promised to Abraham in the last days will be clear to all.</p><p>The repentance of Israel will be associated with an opening of their eyes to God’s word."The Lord hath poured out upon (Israel) the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes (quoted in <a href='B:520 11:8'>Rom 11:8</a> concerning Israel’s blindness to Christ)::. the vision of all (God’s word) is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed::. (but) in that day (of the Kingdom) shall the deaf hear the words of the book"(<a href='B:290 29:10-11'>Isa 29:10-11</a>; <a href='B:290 29:17-18'>Isa 29:17-18</a>). This will be when the book is unsealed at"The time of the end". It will be in our last days that Israel’s blindness starts to be cured, thanks to a Word-based revival, led by the Elijah ministry.</p><h4>Malachi’s prophecy of the faithful remnant earnestly speaking to each other about the word in preparation for the Lord’s coming can be equally applicable to spiritual Israel. The flagship verse concerning the opening of our eyes to latter day prophecy must be <a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a>; <a href='B:340 12:10'>Dan 12:10</a>:"Shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro (an idiom often used concerning response to God’s word: <a href='B:230 119:32'>Psa 119:32</a>; <a href='B:230 119:60'>Psa 119:60</a>; <a href='B:230 147:15'>Psa 147:15</a>; <a href='B:370 8:11-12'>Amo 8:11-12</a>; <a href='B:420 2:2'>Hab 2:2</a>; <a href='B:600 3:1'>2Th 3:1</a> Gk:), and knowledge (of Daniel’s prophecies) shall be increased::. many shall be purified, and made white, and tried (in the tribulation); but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand". This is all in the context of the Angel rejecting Daniel’s plea for insight into his own prophecies. All he was told was that they would be fulfilled in the far distant future, but he was comforted with the thought that the faithful at that time would understand. Thus <a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a> LXX reads:"Seal the book until the time of its accomplishment"- then it will be unsealed and the meaning become apparent to our generation."None of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand"suggests that this true understanding of God’s word motivates the faithful remnant in holding on to a righteous lifestyle in the morally chaotic latter day world. Those who are"wicked"will not understand, indicating that understanding God’s word correctly is in some sense a moral issue and is related to our spirituality. Those who do God’s will therefore understand His doctrine (<a href='B:500 7:17'>Joh 7:17</a>). Time and again Israel are condemned because their lack of understanding of the prophecies led them into sinful behaviour (<a href='B:50 32:29'>Deu 32:29</a>; <a href='B:230 94:8'>Psa 94:8</a>; <a href='B:290 44:18'>Isa 44:18</a>).</h4><p>Many shall run back and forth, and knowledge shall be increased- This speaks of a time in the very last days when “many shall run to and fro (an idiom often used concerning response to God’s word: <a href='B:230 119:32'>Psa 119:32</a>; <a href='B:230 119:60'>Psa 119:60</a>; <a href='B:230 147:15'>Psa 147:15</a>; <a href='B:370 8:11-12'>Amo 8:11-12</a>; <a href='B:420 2:2'>Hab 2:2</a>; <a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a> RV; <a href='B:600 3:1'>2Th 3:1</a> Gk:), and knowledge shall be increased [the context is of Daniel wanting to understand about the second coming of Jesus]::. many shall be purified, and made white, and tried (in the tribulation); but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but he wise shall understand". This increase of knowledge of the Gospel is to be spread world-wide by many running to and fro in the last days. The great commission will be fulfilled then as never before.</p><h4>The vision was to be made plain, so that a herald may run with it (<a href='B:340 12:2-3'>Dan 12:2-3</a> Heb:). The latter day preaching of the Gospel world-wide will be motivated by this true and thrilling understanding of latter day prophecy. We will see our place in God’s larger plan, and respond to it. Many will run to and fro to increase knowledge, i:e. to increase knowledge amongst others- for running to and fro will not increase knowledge amongst the runners (<a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a>):&nbsp;Yet according to 2 Thessalonians 2, there will be a massive apostasy from the Truth in the very last days, whilst antiChrist is enthroned. Could this not be because so many of the true Christian community have been expecting that antiChrist will not reign like this, that Israel will never possibly be overrun, and that they have had to own up to having been looking the wrong way in their decades of analysis of the Roman Catholic church and Russia? When they finally own up to the anti-Semitism of Britain, will it not be they will find it hard to maintain faith in a God whom they had hitherto believed had prophesied that Tarshish / Britain would save Israel? And yet, the Gospel will be accepted world-wide in the final preaching of it; and when it has gone into all nations, then shall the end come.</h4>


text:
<h4>Then I Daniel looked- The section called "the scripture of truth" which began at the start of Daniel 11 has now finished; what follows now is a kind of appendix to it.</h4><h4>And behold, two others stood, one on the river bank on this side, and the other on the river bank on that side- "Others" suggests that they too were Angels, like the Angel who has been telling Daniel the things noted in "the scripture of truth"; and that Angel seems to be "the man clothed in linen" of :6. "The river" is the Hiddekel or Tigris of <a href='B:340 10:4'>Dan 10:4</a>; but it is called "the great river" in <a href='B:340 10:4'>Dan 10:4</a>, a term usually used of the Euphrates. The Tigris is joined to the Euphrates by the Hiddekel. Effectively, the Hiddekel is the Euphrates. This would have been the north eastern border of the land promised to Abraham. Angels also stand guarding this river in <a href='B:730 9:14'>Rev 9:14</a>, and they signal the time of the end by releasing the latter day invaders of Israel to come pouring across the river to dominate the land, crush God’s people, and thereby lead the remnant to repentance. Perhaps the idea of the two Angels (Michael and Gabriel? Although Gabriel is the man clothed in linen of <a href='B:340 10:4'>Dan 10:4</a>) is that they were witnesses to the utter truth of the words of the Angel who stood above the waters of the river (:6), representing God, and made a solemn oath (:7). The two Angels of <a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a> seem to serve a similar witnessing function.</h4>


text:
<h4>One said to the man clothed in linen- The Septuagint makes Daniel the speaker: "And I said to the man clothed in linen, who was standing over the waters of the river, When shall be the end of these marvels?". His words in this case would be the basis for those of the disciples in <a href='B:470 24:3'>Mat 24:3</a>, who likewise wanted to know "How long?", as do all the saints.</h4><h4>Who was above the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?- There were two Angels seen, one on each side of the river. One of them had power over the waters [was "over" them]. The other asked him "how long:::?". This was precisely Daniel’s question. That Angel therefore represented him. The idea of guardian Angels is not far off the truth; although the Hebrew Bible portrays a court in Heaven, a heavenly throne room, where Angels represent men and situations on earth before God. And that is what we have here. The Angels likewise have genuine questions, seeing they don’t have total knowledge (<a href='B:480 13:32'>Mar 13:32</a>); they desire to look into these things (<a href='B:670 1:12'>1Pe 1:12</a>). In this case therefore the Angel was not merely representing Daniel but was himself genuinely in his position before God.</h4>


text:
<h4>I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever-&nbsp;This is the scene of <a href='B:730 10:5'>Rev 10:5</a>. I suggested on :5 that the other two Angels were as it were legal witnesses in the court of Heaven as to the utter truth of these things. The "man clothed in linen" may represent God Himself; for He Himself swears by Himself as He can swear by no greater (<a href='B:650 6:13'>Heb 6:13</a>), and lifts up His own hand to Heaven and swears by His own eternity (<a href='B:50 32:40'>Deu 32:40</a>).</h4><p>That it shall be for a time, times, and a half- If "time" is taken for one year, and "times" as two years, then we have the three and a half year tribulation period, the 42 months or 1260 days, comparable with the ministry of the historical Elijah. This period is so relatively common that we can indeed expect such a period in the chronology of the last days. It could possibly have had a primary fulfilment in the period between Antiochus entering Jerusalem and the cleansing of the temple by the Maccabees. But all such primary applications are hazy and problematic; clearly the idea is that from Daniel’s time there could have been a three and a half year period to the full restoration, but this didn’t happen, and so the time period definitely refers to the last days for its main fulfilment. The original word for "time" can refer to a feast day; perhaps the idea is of a period of events featuring significant things on the Jewish feast days. The book of Revelation is structured around the Jewish feast days, which are frequently alluded to, and one possible interpretation of Revelation is that it is an account of the final three and a half year tribulation. Paul Wyns has demonstrated that the ’feast’ allusions in Revelation make up a total of three and a half years. But it is difficult to understand Revelation as a strictly chronological prediction of latter day events, which would be required by this approach.</p><h4>And when they have made an end of breaking in pieces the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished- LXX "When the dispersion is ended they shall know all these things". The Hebrew for "breaking in pieces" can mean as AV "to scatter". The idea seems to be that Daniel would not understandthese time periods, but they would become clear "when the dispersion is ended". This is in line with the purpose of prophecy generally- not to provide a timeline of events ahead of time, but so that when the fulfilment comes, we realize that prophecy has been fulfilled. Fulfilled prophecy gives meaning to event when it happens; but not beforehand. All we know beforehand is that events are not random, God is in control, and they are all moving towards a final end in the Lord’s return and establishment of the Kingdom. If the Masoretic Text reading is correct, then the holy people must be broken in pieces before the time period is fulfilled. That breaking in pieces is allusive to the actions of the little horn and fourth beast against God’s people. Israel must be "broken" in the last days, and then the salvation will come. The Lord alludes to this by saying that we can fall upon Him and be broken right now, so that we shall surely be saved at the last day (<a href='B:470 21:44'>Mat 21:44</a>). The latter day tribulation would be avoidable if they would only fall upon the rock of Jesus the Christ right now. And the purpose of the latter day tribulation is to bring Israel to this point, of accepting Jesus as Christ. The AV and other texts read "He" instead of "they", as if referring to God; "finished" or "accomplished" is often used of the accomplishing of God’s anger with Israel. It was ultimately God who broke or scattered them. If there had been a total return of scattered Jewry, then their judgments would have been finished and the Messianic Kingdom re-established. But most of them preferred to remain scattered, by remaining in the lands of their captivity. And so the prophecy will have its final fulfilment in the last days, when again the holy people are broken into pieces, a clear figure of judgment.</h4>


text:
<p>I heard, but I didn’t understand: then I said, my lord, what shall be the issue of these things?- Daniel came to “understand” the vision of Daniel 9, but only in that he understood that he would not see its fulfilment; hence he was so shocked, depressed and disappointed that the fulfilment would not be in his days (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a>). 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.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Go your way, Daniel; for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end- Daniel was to ’go his way’, but to rest in the sleep of death (:13). Death, although it is not consciously experienced, is all the same part of our journey. It is a going away, towards a certain future. Daniel was to understand that this prophecy of the three and a half years would not be understood until "the time of the end"; "the end" often refers to the end of Israel’s judgments. Daniel wanted it of course to be "the end" of them in his day; but all he knew was that there was to be a time period before they ended. Like all the prophets, Daniel was made to understand that he was not reporting these things for himself, but for later generations (<a href='B:670 1:12'>1Pe 1:12</a> surely alludes here). Only when the prophecies come true will the faithful at the time perceive the fulfilment. As noted on :4 and <a href='B:340 8:26'>Dan 8:26</a>, the meaning was shut up to Daniel; and yet the same word is used of how Daniel was famed for having no "secret" (s:w. "shut up" thing) hidden from him (<a href='B:330 28:3'>Eze 28:3</a>). This was therefore a way of humbling him; and we all have to be brought down, particularly in our last days in this world, that we might be exalted in due time. The sealing of the words, as in a scroll, is obviously alluded to in Revelation, when the scroll is unsealed, and the opened seals refer to events of the last days. The unsealing of the book is therefore in the last days; any historical application of the seals is incidental or at best only a primary fulfilment compared to the major fulfilment, when believers of the last days shall see these things unambiguously fulfilled before their eyes, and shall be encouraged thereby in their tribulation.</p>


text:
<h4>Many shall purify themselves, and make themselves white, and be refined- The day of judgment will involve the Lord sitting "as a refiner of silver::. for he is like a refiner’s fire" (<a href='B:460 3:2-3'>Mal 3:2-3</a>). And yet these very Hebrew words are used about how in the final tribulation, God’s people will be "refined as silver is refined" (<a href='B:450 13:9'>Zec 13:9</a>), and "be made white and refined" (<a href='B:340 12:10'>Dan 12:10</a>). So the essence of judgment day will be worked out for us in our response to the latter day tribulation. This makes sense- the generation that are alive and see the Lord’s return will effectively experience the judgment seat as they pass through the tribulation. It is to prepare them for being the only mortal generation to be alive at His return, the generation who shall greet Him, and never actually die. The faithful will be "tried" (AV) by the latter day invader, as Israel were by the Babylonian invasion of the past (<a href='B:300 9:7'>Jer 9:7</a>). The same word is used in <a href='B:450 13:9'>Zec 13:9</a> and <a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a> concerning the faithful remnant in Jerusalem enduring their future sufferings. The idea seems to be that prior to this refining process in the final tribulation, they were impure and not refined. For both natural and spiritual Israel, the tribulation functions to prepare that generation for acceptance at theLord’s return. The returned exiles ought to have purified themselves from Babylon when they left (<a href='B:290 52:11'>Isa 52:11</a>; <a href='B:330 20:38'>Eze 20:38</a> s:w:); but they did not. And so this three and a half year tribulation, perhaps initially envisaged at the hands of Antiochus and then the Romans in AD66-70, was intended to purify them. But instead their love of materialism and self-righteousness would not be purged, and the fulfilment was delayed until our last days. Likewise the word for "made white" is used of how Judah could have made themselves white by repentance (<a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a>); but they didn’t, and needed this final tribulation to bring about that repentance; and also the word for "refined" is used in just the same way (<a href='B:290 1:25'>Isa 1:25</a>). Judah’s experience at the Babylonian invasion and in exile in Babylon was the intended refining (<a href='B:290 48:10'>Isa 48:10</a> s:w:); but they didn’t respond. The refiner refined in vain (<a href='B:300 6:29'>Jer 6:29</a> s:w:). The latter day tribulation will be successful in this refining attempt; a third will be refined when Jerusalem is taken (<a href='B:450 13:9'>Zec 13:9</a> s:w:). And then immediately, the Lord will come; He will in that sense appear on earth as the ultimate refiner of Israel (<a href='B:460 3:2-3'>Mal 3:2-3</a>). And it is why we ought to be breaking up the ground for it by preaching repentance to Jewish people.</h4><h4>But the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand; but those who are wise shall understand- This is the spirit of <a href='B:730 22:11'>Rev 22:11</a> which may allude here, in concluding the visions of Revelation just as this concludes the visions in Daniel: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still". As noted earlier on this verse, not all will respond to the refining process of the tribulation; the wicked shall do wickedly, but a minority of wise "shall understand", and it is that understanding which is the intellectual basis for their moral purification and repentance in practice.</h4>


text:
<p>From the time that the continual burnt offering shall be taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days- The LXX is clearer that the abomination is set up exactly when the daily sacrifice is ended: "And from the time of the removal of the perpetual sacrifice, when the abomination of desolation shall be set up". There could have been a 1290 day period from the ending of the daily sacrifice by Antiochus and then also by the Romans in AD70, which would have terminated in the establishment of the Kingdom. But that didn’t happen. This is an example of potential prophecy which didn’t come about because the various preconditions, not least the repentance of Israel, didn’t come about. Rather like the detailed descriptions of the restored temple in Ezekiel 40-48 didn’t come about, because the Jews didn’t build it that way and didn’t truly repent. If this approach is correct, then we need not particularly worry about working out the meaning of this time period. If it is to apply in the last days, then the Jews would have to re-take the temple mount, build a temple and institute the daily sacrifices there. For the significance of the 1290 days in the latter day chronology, see on :12.</p>


text:
<h4>Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days- As noted on :11, there was a potential fulfilment of significance at the end of the 1290 period from the establishment of the abomination by the desolator. And 45 days later there could have been another significant event. Perhaps these were all only potential scenarios after the daily sacrifices were ended by Antiochus and then later in AD70. Just as the Lord could have returned in AD70, but Israel didn’t bring forth the fruit of repentance, and so the potential fulfilment was lost.</h4><h4>And yet it would seem that the three and a half year period [time, times and a half, or 1260 days / 42 months] occurs often enough in latter day prophecy for us to understand it literally, as going to happen in the last days. "Comes" here is Heb. ’to reach, stretch unto’ the (end of) the 1335 days. This suggests the difficulty in enduring to the end. But those who spiritually endure to the end of the tribulation period will be saved (perhaps the Lord in <a href='B:470 24:13'>Mat 24:13</a> had <a href='B:340 12:12'>Dan 12:12</a> in mind). There are forty five days between Passover and Pentecost; the difference between the 1290 and 1335 day periods. And there are thirty days between Purim and Passover- the difference between the 1260 and 1290 days (:11). So nearly all these time periods will start or finish on a Mosaic feast day. It is not without relevance that the period of the last days is described often as "the day of the Lord"- but "the day of the Lord" is a phrase very commonly used to describe the Jewish feast days. Good cases can be constructed for thinking that the Lord will return on Jewish feast days; but the whole period of the last days may well be based around significant events which occur on each of the feast days. If this proves nothing else, it shows that it is quite legitimate to view the time periods as literal days.</h4>


text:
<h4>But go you your way until the end; for you shall rest, and shall stand in your lot, at the end of the days- The allusion is to the way that Daniel has just heard that the faithful who "sleep" shall be resurrected at the Lord’s return; and he is being told that he will be among them (:2). If the false doctrine of the immortality of the soul and life after death in heaven were true, this would be the place we should read of it. But instead, Daniel is comforted with the Biblical hope of the resurrection of thebody at the last day. He was however told to go his way "until the end". Although death is not a conscious experience, it is all the same part of our spiritual journey; he was to go his way to his grave, but he was going his way on a journey unto "the end", when he would stand in his lot. We each have a specifically designed, unique eternal future, a name written which nobody else knows apart from us and the Lord; and Daniel too will have his unique "lot" or inheritance. He would receive it "at the end of the days", perhaps referring to the various periods of days just spoken of; they were to terminate in the resurrection of the dead at the last day. Any attempts to interpret them with end points other than that are therefore faulty, or at best only primary fulfilments.</h4><h4>There are some definite links between the Greek text of Matthew’s record of the commission, and the LXX of the end of Daniel 12 :</h4><table><tr><td></p><h4></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MATTHEW</h4><p>Go ye into all the world (<a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a>)</td><td><a href='B:340 12:13'>Dan 12:13</a> LXX</p><p>Go thou thy way</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><h4>“…then shall the end come” (when the Gospel has been preached to all the world)</td><td>till the end</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I am with you all the days (28:20 Gk:)</td><td>for still there will be days</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>unto the end of the world</td><td>to the end of the world.</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Daniel being sent away with God’s promised blessing, the very picture of spiritual calmness and peace with his maker, sure in hope, yearning for the day… this is the very picture which the Lord gives of His preachers as He sends them forth. If we are to understand the time periods at the end of Daniel as literal days, i:e. a three and a half year period at the end, then we have in the great commission a specific hint that it will be fulfilled during the three and a half year tribulation.</h4>


text:
<h4>The beginning of the word of Yahweh that came to Hosea- We will note on :2 that the word which came to Hosea was a call to live a life which reflected God’s grace and anguish for Israel. The word that comes to us is likewise not simply lexical items and sentences of words, but a life lived in practice after the pattern of the Lord Jesus, the word made flesh as to a lesser extent Hosea was.</h4><h4>That came to Hosea the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel- Let’s remember that the events in Hosea’s life, according to the information in <a href='B:350 1:1'>Hos 1:1</a>, occurred over a span of at least 30, and perhaps even 50 years. His love for Gomer was the love of a lifetime, the hope and pain of a lifetime. And this in its turn reflects the long term love of the eternal God for His people. The judgments threatened in Hosea are sometimes hard to pin down, and this may be because his words were equally relevant to the judgments upon both Israel and Judah; hence as explained on :5, "the day of Jezreel" could refer to incidents within the judgments of both Israel and Judah.</h4>


text:
<h4>When Yahweh spoke at first by Hosea- The first time the word of the Lord came to Hosea, he was told to marry “a wife of whoredoms”. Note that this was “the beginning of the word of the Lord” to him (<a href='B:350 1:2'>Hos 1:2</a> - NEV "When Yahweh spoke at first by Hosea"). He’d have been tempted to just ignore it, to think he’d been dreaming something, to run away from it. But to his credit, he obeyed. According to the Mosaic Law, a whore should be burnt. She shouldn’t be married. Hosea was told to break the letter of the Law, and marry a prostitute. And he was told to be a father to her “children of whoredoms”. And so he began what was to be quite a theme in both his life and his prophecy- that in the face of sin, God shows His grace. We’ve likely all seen this in our own lives- at our very weakest moments, the kindness and care of God for us is revealed. Humanly, when someone does something wrong to us, we respond in anger and dissociation from them. The grace of God is quite the other way. In the very depths of Israel’s unfaithfulness, God reminds them through the prophets of His love for them, and His plan to ultimately save them. But God’s grace can’t be abused endlessly. :.</h4><p>Yahweh said to Hosea, Go, take for yourself a wife of prostitution and children of unfaithfulness; for the land commits great adultery, forsaking Yahweh- See on <a href='B:350 2:4'>Hos 2:4</a> Her children. The extent of God’s grace is powerfully reflected through the life of Hosea. Hosea was asked to manifest the love of God towards Israel, with all the emotional pain that this involved. The unfaithfulness of Gomer to Hosea represented Israel’s idolatry and unfaithfulness to God. The ten commandments taught that adultery was to be paralleled with idolatry. The two tablets each contained five commandments, and each of them were related to the other- thus the second commandment "You shall have no other gods" corresponds to the seventh, "You shall not commit adultery".</p><p>Receipt of God’s true revelation involved dialogue with God, even disagreement with Him for a moment, response, pleading, speech and counterspeech. It wasn’t a case of merely passively hearing a voice and writing it down. Part and parcel of hearing the word of God and being inspired with it was to react to it in daily life- hence Ezekiel couldn’t mourn for his wife, Hosea had to marry a whore as a reflection of God’s love for Israel, Isaiah had to walk naked (<a href='B:290 3:17'>Isa 3:17</a>). Truly “The prophet threw his whole self into his prophecy, and made not his lips alone, but his whole personality, the vehicle of the divine ‘word’” (H:H. Rowley, The Servant Of The Lord (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965) p. 118:). The inner accord which the prophets had with the mind and word of God led to their personalities being like God’s.</p><h4>Adultery of course implies that she wasn’t adulterous at the time of marriage. Additionally, Andersen and Freedman argue on grammatical grounds that “a wife of whoredoms” in <a href='B:350 1:2'>Hos 1:2</a> means a wife who would become adulterous (F. Andersen and D:N. Freedman, Hosea (London: Doubleday, 2004 ed:) p. 159:). No young man would surely marry a woman whom he knew would be adulterous later on. And yet perhaps in a way Hosea is saying that he did know this, but, his love for her was so strong, he married her. Just like God, when He met idol-worshipping Israel in the wilderness. They carried through the desert their god Remphan and the tabernacle of Moloch with them, as well as Yahweh’s tabernacle. And yet it was there that Yahweh, the God who knows the future and the destiny and spiritual path of every man, fell in love with them and spread His skirt over them in love and delight and betrothal (Ezekiel 16, 23). Just as Hosea did. For he married Gomer bat Diblaim (<a href='B:350 1:3'>Hos 1:3</a>)- which was apparently the name for a temple prostitute (H:W. Wolff, Confrontations with Prophets (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), p. 17).</h4>


text:
<p>So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; and she conceived, and bore him a son- See on :2. The usual Biblical rubric for describing conception and birth is to say that a man goes in to a woman, she conceives, and bears a child. <a href='B:350 1:3'>Hos 1:3</a> says that Gomer conceives and bears a son to Hosea; there is no mention that he ‘went in’ to her, and in <a href='B:350 1:6'>Hos 1:6</a>; <a href='B:350 1:8'>Hos 1:8</a> we are told simply that Gomer conceived. The way the final child is called Lo-ammi was because “ye are not my people” (<a href='B:350 1:9'>Hos 1:9</a>). This suggests that although Hosea did presumably have sexual relations with Gomer, these children were not actually conceived from him- i:e. she was continuing her relations with other men. This suggestion is confirmed by the way that Hosea asks the children when they are older to plead with their mother to stop her adultery (<a href='B:350 2:2'>Hos 2:2</a>). Hosea explains further: “Their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully: for she said, I will go after my lovers…” (<a href='B:350 2:5'>Hos 2:5</a>).</p>


text:
<h4>Yahweh said to him, Call his name Jezreel- Hosea has to name the subsequent children Jezreel, speaking of God’s plan to avenge Himself and “to cause to cease the kingdom of thehouse of Israel”, Lo-ruhamah (“for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel”) and Lo-ammi (“for you are not my people”) (<a href='B:350 1:4'>Hos 1:4</a>; <a href='B:350 1:6'>Hos 1:6</a>; <a href='B:350 1:9'>Hos 1:9</a>). Hosea isn’t the only example of a person being taught by personal experience how God Himself feels. The whole parenting experience is another example. Or take Amos’ message to Amaziah: “Your wife shall be a harlot in the city [Bethel- the house of God], and your sons and your daughters shall fall by the sword, and your land [i:e. Amaziah’s personal family plot] shall be parcelled out by line” (<a href='B:370 7:17'>Amo 7:17</a> RSV). It was God’s wife who acted as a harlot in the house of God, it was God’s children who fell by the sword, it was God’s land which was divided to others. But He wanted Amaziah to know how it feels, to some extent, to be God. And in our lives there are multiple examples [if we perceive them] of Him doing likewise, in seeking to explain to us how He, our Father, really feels.</h4><p>For yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel on the house of Jehu- God sees that our behaviour can be read on more than one level; the same action has elements of righteousness and sin within it. Thus Jehu’s massacre at Jezreel was commanded by God, and Jehu was praised for his obedience in doing it (<a href='B:120 10:30-31'>2Ki 10:30-31</a>), but he was also condemned for it (<a href='B:350 1:4'>Hos 1:4</a>). Yet we simply cannot make such analysis, although we must recognize that this is in fact how God analyzes. And for this reason alone, we are quite unable to anticipate the outcome of the judgment with regard to other believers.</p><p>We see an example of God’s sensitivity in this prophecy that the blood of Jezreel would be visited upon the house of Jehu (<a href='B:350 1:4'>Hos 1:4</a>). At Jezreel, Jehu had killed Ahab’s family in a quite literal bloodbath. And God had commented that because Jehu had done this and thus fulfilled His word, Jehu’s family would reign for the next four generations (<a href='B:120 10:30'>2Ki 10:30</a>). So why, then, does Hosea start talking about punishing the house of Jehu for what they did to the house of Ahab? Jehu became proud about the manner in which he had been the channel for God’s purpose to be fulfilled, inviting others to come and behold his “zeal for the Lord” (<a href='B:120 10:16'>2Ki 10:16</a>). Jehu and his children showed themselves to not really be spiritually minded, and yet they prided themselves in having physically done God’s will. And because of this, Hosea talks in such angry terms about retribution for what they had done; the house of Jehu’s act of obedience to God actually became something his family had to be punished for, because they had done it in a proud spirit. We see this all the time around us. Men and women who clearly are instruments in God’s hand, like the Assyrians were, doing His will… but being proud about it and becoming exalted in their own eyes because of it. And Hosea is so sensitive to the awfulness of this, he goes ballistic about it.</p><h4>And will cause the kingdom of the house of Israel to cease- This would have reference to the ending of Jehu’s dynasty with the death of Jeroboam II at Jezreel (:5).</h4>


text:
<p>It will happen in that day that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel- This could refer to judgments upon both Israel and Judah at different times; see on :1. "The bow" refers to human strength. And this was to be broken. It was whilst Israel felt strong that they committed adultery against God, and we see this reflected in how men who feel ’strong’ in various areas of human life tend to then become sexually promiscuous. Judah were defeated here by the Assyrians, to whom Hosea refers specifically in his later prophecies,; but even then, through the ministry of Isaiah and Hezekiah there was the possibility of salvation. And this grace and opportunity within Divine judgment is to be typical of Hosea. The more obvious fulfilment is to the ending of Jehu’s dynasty with the death of Jeroboam II at Jezreel (:4); this may also be the reference of <a href='B:350 10:14'>Hos 10:14</a>. Zechariah who followed him was not from that dynasty, and in that sense the "bow" or dynasty ended (<a href='B:230 127:4'>Psa 127:4</a>).</p>


text:
<h4>She conceived again, and bore a daughter. Then he said to him, Call her name Lo-Ruhamah- See on :4. "I will no more have grace" was how Hosea doubtless felt, having had mercy upon Gomer over so many incidents; and now again she conceives by another man. This reflects the just anger of God at sin, that as it were flares up in His face. But the tortured prophecy and experience of Hosea comes to the conclusion that God like Hosea will in fact allow mercy to triumph over judgment.</h4><p>For I will no longer havemercy on the house of Israel, that I should in any way pardon them- Even if this is applied to the ’utter taking away’ [Heb:] of the ten tribes, there were still plans for their restoration and ultimate salvation, as various of the prophets make continually clear.</p><h4>Hosea spoke in God’s Name. He would’ve known how that Name was a memorial of the characteristics of God, His pity, mercy, forgiveness etc. as outlined in <a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a>. And yet Hosea uses those very words in saying that now, God will not have mercy, pity or forgiveness toward Israel. But Hosea spoke in the Name of Yahweh; and predicted that the Yahweh who had been their elohim from the land of Egypt, would still be their God (<a href='B:350 12:9'>Hos 12:9</a>). In this we see Hosea’s personal involvement in the tension of God; for he spoke in God’s Name, with all that Name implied. And we too carry that Name, having been baptized into it. And we speak in that Name to this world, bearing within us the same conflict between the reality of future judgment, and the earnest grace of God to save this world. Hosea’s prophecy concludes by declaring the victory over the pole of God’s graciousness over that of His necessary judgment of sin. "I will love them freely", with the freedom of Divine grace. And yet that final Divine position is arrived at through all the anger against sin which there has to be.</h4>


text:
<p>But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and will save them by Yahweh their God, and will not save them by bow, sword, battle, horses, or horsemen- As noted on :6, this was how God felt at the time. As I will note on :11, God’s purpose changed in this matter of rejecting Israel and saving Judah. But later prophecies indicate His desire for the repentance, salvation and final ingathering of the ten tribes as well as Judah; and eventually He has to judge Judah as He judged Israel, with Ezekiel pointing out that Judah ended up even more sinful that Israel. We see here that just as Hosea’s feelings ebbed and flowed, so it is with God. He is not capricious nor unstable; it’s just that His gracious, saving love ends up stronger than His desire and necessity of judging sin. When we say that "God is love", we must remember the tortuous internal path that He has travelled to that point.</p>


text:
<p>Now when she had weaned Lo-Ruhamah, she conceived, and bore a son- Breast feeding is often a natural form of contraception. For her to become immediately pregnant as soon as she had finished breast feeding could indicate a sexual obsession on her part, which will be noted later. And the child she conceived was not Hosea’s people (:9), again, she had been unfaithful to him.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Call his name Lo-Ammi; for you are not My people, and I will not be yours- Lo-Ammi- See on 1:3,4. Hosea names his child [if indeed he was the father of it], ‘Not my people’. Consider his hurt, to reject a child from his family. This was God’s hurt. God, like Hosea, had no other children, no other people. For God to say to Israel ‘You are not My people’ would leave God without a people, as it were alone in the earth. Hosea shared the tragic loneliness of God. In the end, God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. But that final position of God was as it were arrived at through the traumatic process of feeling just as Hosea did, that ’these are not My children’. We are left to imagine the web of lies, crocodile tears and fake repentances all spun by Gomer, and the endless tug upon the heart strings of Hosea because, quite simply, he so loved her. And all this God experiences oftentimes with man, with us, with you and me. For all our sins and modern day idolatries are symbolized in her behaviour.</p>


text:
<h4>Yet the number of the children of Israel will be as the sand of the sea, which can’t be measured nor numbered- The promises to Abraham would be fulfilled, despite such unfaithfulness; and they are the basis of God’s new covenant with all those baptized into the Lord Jesus. Constantly in Hosea we see the paradoxes within grace, or at least, so they appear to men. Those who were "not My people" (:9) were still going to be God’s people because they were beloved for the fathers’ sakes, they were the seed of Abraham which would be as the sand of the sea. It is this paradox of utter grace which is the context in which this verse is quoted by Paul in Romans.</h4><p>And it will come to pass that, in the place where it was said to them- "In the place::." is hard to interpret. Perhaps it is Jezreel, or Jerusalem, although there is no specific reference to that being the place where they were told of their rejection. It was in exile that they were "told" they were not God’s people; so the Chaldee reads: "And it shall come to pass in the place where they lived in exile among the peoples::.". The potential possibility was that there in Babylon they would have a spiritual revival and return to beingGod’s children. But most of the exiles preferred to remain there when the time for restoration came. This then becomes one of many prophecies of what could potentially have happened at the restoration which didn’t come to pass because Israel would not.</p><h4>‘You are not My people’, they will be called ‘sons of the living God’- When Lo-ammi was born and named “you are not my people”, immediately the prophet is inspired to make a tender prophecy of Israel’s final glory: “You are not my people, and I will not be your God. Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea…it shall be said unto them, You are the sons of the living God” (<a href='B:350 1:9-10'>Hos 1:9-10</a>; another example is in <a href='B:350 12:8-9'>Hos 12:8-9</a>; <a href='B:350 13:8-9'>Hos 13:8-9</a>). The word to circle in our Bibles is “yet”. In the face of all Israel’s sin, in the face of the inevitable judgment which this attracted, in the very moment when it is declared, God goes on to speak of His loving salvation. This is so hard for humans to take on board, called as we are to manifest this same grace of God. In the heat of the moment of others’ sin against us, we rarely find it in us to think let alone speak of their ultimate hope of salvation by grace. But this is the challenge of Hosea.</h4>


text:
<h4>The children of Judah and the children of Israel will be gathered together- Remember that Hosea was a prophet to both Judah and Israel. Again we have a paradox, for in :7 we read of God’s original plan to end things with Israel but save Judah. This apparent irrationality, or bouncing between two opposite positions very quickly, is exactly how Hosea would have felt each time he realized Gomer had fallen pregnant by another man. The potential possibility was that at the time of Judah’s restoration from Babylon, the ten tribes would also return, and the Kingdom of God re-established in the land with a Messiah King, and the temple rebuilt in Zion according to the plans of Ezekiel 40-48. But this didn’t happen, because Israel and Judah didn’t repent, and most preferred to remain in the lands of their exile; they preferred exile to restoration, just as many do in essence today. For the gospel of the restoration of the kingdom under the new covenant is in essence the same Gospel preached by us today.</h4><p>And they will appoint themselves one head, and will go up from the land- The allusion is to how Israel had appointed themselves a leader to return to Egypt (<a href='B:40 14:4'>Num 14:4</a>). But that will be changed; instead they "will go up from the land" under this chosen ruler, just as they went up from Egypt towards Canaan (<a href='B:20 13:18'>Exo 13:18</a>). That exodus is continually alluded to in the restoration prophets, as the prototype of the restoration from Babylon and even Assyria. It was God’s dream that they would reverse their previous unfaithfulness, just as Hosea dreamt that Gomer would; we see the same kind of reasoning in <a href='B:350 2:15'>Hos 2:15</a>, where the valley of Achor, symbol of Israel’s previous unfaithfulness, is to be turned into "a door of hope".</p><h4>For great will be the day of Jezreel- "Jezreel" is literally ’the sowing of God’, and the same word for ’sow’ is found in <a href='B:350 2:23'>Hos 2:23</a>, where God says that "I will sow her unto me in the earth". In line with the reversal of Israel’s historical shame mentioned earlier in this verse, so the place of their previous defeat and judgment (see on :4) would be turned into the place of their being sown by God, to rise up in resurrected life. For this is how the metaphor of sowing is understood in 1 Corinthians 15. Israel and Judah had been sown amongst the nations of their dispersion, but God’s hope was that they would arise from there and again enter covenant relationship with Him and bring forth fruit to Him (<a href='B:300 31:10'>Jer 31:10</a>). This was Hosea’s hope of Gomer, but that never seems to have come true; and in a sense it was the same for God in that His people were unwilling to make the restoration which He had envisaged and potentially enabled.</h4>


text:
<p>Say to your brothers, ‘Ammi! [My people]!’ and to your sisters, ‘Ruhamah! [I will have mercy!]’- In an attempt to bring about Gomer’s repentance, Hosea addresses his children as “Ammi” and “Ruhamah”, i:e. ‘my people’ and ‘I will have mercy’- purposefully changing the names God had given them. On this basis he appealed for Gomer’s repentance: “Let her therefore put away her prostitution” (<a href='B:350 2:2'>Hos 2:2</a>). As Paul was to later say in so many words, the mercy and grace of God is intended to lead us to repentance. Rather than that grace leading to a laissez-faire indifference and continuance in sin, the very reality of His grace to us in our weak moments should of itself inspire our repentance. But there is of course a limit, if we continually refuse: “Lest I strip her naked…and slay her” (:3). We too at baptism are given the new name, righteousness in Christ is imputed to us, but we must live in practice how we are considered in status. Through appealing to the children, Hosea was hoping to win back the heart of their mother. And something similar was going on in God’s prophetic appeal to the children of Zion. "Not my people" being called "my people" is understood by Paul as referring to the Gentile converts to Christ who are counted as spiritual Israel. And their conversion was intended to provoke the mother, Zion, Israel after the flesh, to repent and turn to God again.</p>


text:
<h4>Contend with your mother! Contend, for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband- This is Hosea feeling that he has divorced Gomer, and yet he continually affirms his total love and commitment to her as his wife. He calls the children to "contend", a word usually used in a legal context of pleading, as if the children were to be involved in the divorce case. This fluctuation of emotion is understandable for Hosea. But it points forward to the internal conflict within God as regards His people. "She is not my wife, neither am I her husband" is a verbatim quotation from various Babylonian divorce formulas, and was later incorporated into the Talmud as a divorce formula (Umberto Cassuto, Biblical And Oriental Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973) Vol. 1 p. 122). Likewise the threat to strip her naked (<a href='B:350 2:3'>Hos 2:3</a>) was what was done in the case of divorce for adultery; Hosea’s threat to withdraw her clothing, her "wool and flax [linen]" in <a href='B:350 2:9'>Hos 2:9</a> likely refers to the same thing. Yet Hosea keeps wanting Gomer to return to him; he wishes to divorce her, and yet in his heart keeps coming back to her. This was an exact reflection of God’s feelings for His people.</h4><p>And let her therefore put away her prostitution from her face, and her adulteries from between her breasts- <a href='B:260 1:13'>Son 1:13</a> speaks of myrrh between the breasts being used as an aphrodisiac; and prostitutes paint their faces in <a href='B:300 4:30'>Jer 4:30</a> and <a href='B:330 23:40'>Eze 23:40</a>. The judgment of removing the signs of adultery from Gomer’s face and from between her breasts also give a window into the level of her sexual addiction. "Her adulteries" is proof enough that she had committed adultery against Hosea and the children were not him; see on 1:3 She conceived.</p><p>2:3 Lest I strip her naked, and make her bare as in the day that she was born, and make her like a wilderness, and set her like a dry land- This was the punishment for a prostitute, a punishment which she should’ve had right back at the start. But instead of this punishment, Hosea had married her. We are perhaps nervous to equate our sinfulness, our rebellion, our unfaithfulness, with Gomer’s prostitution. But this, surely, is what we are intended to do, and to thereby perceive the extent of God’s patient love toward us, to the end that that grace and goodness might lead us to repentance. Because Hosea had loved this woman, he had feelings of anger- he desired to strip her naked and slay her, to “discover her lewdness in the sight of all her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of my hand” (<a href='B:350 2:10'>Hos 2:10</a>). These feelings were quite natural. Hosea was the wounded lover, the betrayed man. And these are exactly the feelings of God over the unfaithfulness of His people.</p><p>The metaphors used to describe the anger of God with Israel are awful. Her children to be slain with thirst, she was to be stripped naked by her husband (Hosea 2), gang raped by her lovers; all similar to the language of having her nose cut off and left a battered, bleeding mess in the scrubland (Ezekiel 16, 23), to have her skirt pulled up over her head and her nakedness revealed (<a href='B:300 13:20-27'>Jer 13:20-27</a>), wishing to pluck off her own breasts for shame (<a href='B:330 23:34'>Eze 23:34</a>). Jerusalem is to be raped, violated and humiliated, according to Ezekiel. Indeed, Ezekiel’s images verge at times on what some would consider pornographic. He speaks of the woman Israel’s pubic hair, breasts, menstrual cycle (<a href='B:330 16:7'>Eze 16:7</a>; <a href='B:330 16:10'>Eze 16:10</a>); the gang rape by her enemies which God would bring about, leaving her mutilated and humiliated (<a href='B:330 16:37'>Eze 16:37</a>; <a href='B:330 23:22-49'>Eze 23:22-49</a>); about the size of her lovers’ sexual organs and coital emissions, and how she let them fondle her breasts (<a href='B:330 23:8'>Eze 23:8</a>; <a href='B:330 23:20'>Eze 23:20</a>). This is shocking language, which perhaps we skip over in our Bible reading from sheer embarrassment- and we are modern readers brutalized by exposure to this kind of stuff in the media. For early Israel, it would all have been even more shocking. It all seemed out of proportion to having ‘merely’ made a few political alliances with Egypt and Assyria. Was that really like a wife letting other men fondle her breasts and have sex with her, admiring their bodies as she did so? Did it all have to end in such brutality and vulgarity? Today, sex and violence are what attract attention. From lyrics of songs to advertising and movies, that’s clear enough. And the prophets are using the same tactics to arrest Israel’s attention, all the more so because nudity and sex were things simply not up for public discussion. There’s an anxiety which any talk about sex seems to arouse in us, and it was the prophets’ intention to make us likewise get on the edge of our seats, anxious, rapt, sensitive for the next word… realizing that really and truly, this is what human sin does to God. The outrageous sex talk was to bring out how outrageous and obscene are our sins and unfaithfulness to the covenant we cut with God in baptism.</p><p>And kill her with thirst- The punishment intended for Hagar, which was again rescinded by grace. All the allusion to the wilderness and thirst is to give insight into how God felt toward Israel in the wilderness, when He wanted to destroy them for still worshipping the Egyptian idols; but by grace alone He did not.</p><h4>Let’s remember that God’s own law was pretty clear about adultery. The adulterous woman was to be punished with death- for one act of adultery. Even if she repented. And in any case, it was a defiling abomination [according to the Mosaic Law] to remarry a divorced wife. But Hosea doesn’t strictly keep the law; his love and grace are beyond it. He lets his wife commit multiple acts of adultery, and he still loves her and pleads with her- even though he was a man in love with God’s law. And this reflects the turmoil of God in dealing with human sin, and His sinful people. Hosea outlines his plan in Hosea 2. He will hamper her movements so she can’t find her lovers; if she does find them, he will take away her food and clothing, so she appreciates his generosity to her; and if she still doesn’t return, he will expose her naked and shamed in front of her lovers. But there’s no evidence Hosea ever did that. He just… loved her, was angry with her as an expression of that love, loved her yet more, yet more… And this perhaps too reflects God’s mind- devising and declaring judgments for Israel, which are themselves far less than what He has earlier stated in His own law, and yet the power of His love means He somehow keeps bearing with His people. Even in the context of speaking of His marriage to Israel, God says that He will punish them "as women that break wedlock are judged" (<a href='B:330 16:38'>Eze 16:38</a>; <a href='B:330 23:45'>Eze 23:45</a>). And yet, He didn’t. His love was too great, His passion for them too strong; and He even shamed Himself by doing what His own law forbad, the remarriage to a divorced and defiled wife. Perhaps all love involves a degree of paradox and self-contradiction; and a jealous, Almighty God in love was no different. This, to me, is why some Bible verses indicate God has forsaken Israel; and others imply He hasn’t and never will. Somehow, even right now, the Jews you meet… are loved still by their God. And he still fantasizes, in a way, over their return to Him. Imagine His utter joy when even one of them does in fact turn to Him! That alone motivates me to preach to Israel today.</h4>


text:
<h4>Indeed, on her children I will have no mercy; for they are children of unfaithfulness- Hosea appears to have been speaking about the children on his own account, whilst also thereby manifesting the spirit, feelings and words of Yahweh about His people Israel. Hosea’s mood swings, alternating between love and anger, reflected God’s.</h4><p>Hosea had initially been told to marry Gomer and also take on her “children of whoredoms” into his family (<a href='B:350 1:2'>Hos 1:2</a>), so it would seem unlikely that his rejection of Gomer’s children because “they be the children of whoredoms” refers to them. Surely he refers to what appeared to be ‘his’ children, whom she had borne after her marriage to him. Note how he calls them “her children”. The children are described by Hosea as “her children” rather than “my children” (Hos 26-7)- as if they were not his, although she bore them whilst newly married to him. Indeed, Gomer appears to reason in <a href='B:350 2:14'>Hos 2:14</a> that the children were her lovers’ payment to her for her sexual services. And in the parallel relationship between God and Israel, Israel were unfaithful to Yahweh and “engendered foreign children” (<a href='B:350 5:7'>Hos 5:7</a>). We can learn much about the nature of Gomer’s behaviour with Hosea by seeing how Israel are described subsequently in Hosea’s prophecy. So often they are spoken of in terms of an unfaithful woman, and we are surely intended to understand that they were epitomized by the woman Gomer. So we can ‘read back’ from what is said about Israel in the prophecy to Gomer personally. God made the accusation that “[Israel] have dealt treacherously against the Lord: for they have begotten strange children”, whilst at the same time claiming to keep the sacrifices and Sabbaths of the Law (<a href='B:350 5:6-7'>Hos 5:6-7</a>; <a href='B:350 2:11'>Hos 2:11</a>). This would confirm that Gomer acted as Hosea’s wife, assuring him of her faithfulness, in the same way as the sacrifices and Sabbaths were intended to reflect Israel’s exclusive faithfulness to Yahweh.</p><h4>&nbsp;Throughout the book, Hosea clearly speaks on God’s behalf, even though he at times speaks in the first person. It’s hard at times to realize whether Hosea is talking about his own marriage, or about God’s feelings to Israel. And that’s understandable, given the view of inspiration we have been discussing. The feelings of Hosea were God’s feelings; He was inspired with the spirit / mind / attitude of God Himself. Thus here in <a href='B:350 2:4-23'>Hos 2:4-23</a> we appear to have a monologue in which Hosea speaks to his wife and kids; but he speaks to them as if it’s God speaking. So close was his identity with God’s feelings as a result of the pain of his failed marriage and family life. See on <a href='B:350 3:2'>Hos 3:2</a>.</h4>


text:
<p>For their mother has played the prostitute. She who conceived them has done shamefully; for she said, ‘I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink’- See on <a href='B:350 1:3'>Hos 1:3</a>. Notice how her conception of the children is said to have been “shameful”. And in addressing the children, Hosea never calls them ‘his’ children. The list of things here refer to basic food and clothing, and these were what a husband was bound to provide for his wife. But what Hosea provided for her, she liked to understand as what her lovers had given her. "My lovers" presumably refer to the men with whom Gomer had relationships before she married Hosea, and to whom she returned ("I will go::."). This clearly speaks of how Israel returned to the idols of Egypt which they brought with them through the Red Sea, and which they continued worshipping after their marriage covenant with God at Sinai. The good things Yahweh provided for Israel as the blessings of the covenant, they assumed arose from their idol worship. And they thanked their idols for what Yahweh had in fact provided. All this has strange and biting relevance for us. We too can assume that the idols of careers, investments and hard work are what give us the daily blessings which are ultimately from God and not anything else.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore behold, I will hedge up your way with thorns, and I will build a wall against her, that she can’t find her way- In Ezekiel, building a wall against Zion God’s people refers to the siege of Jerusalem. Hosea planned to put Gomer in a position where she couldn’t find her way to her lovers, and then she would return to Hosea. We can assume from the language of going and returning in :5 and :7 that she had left Hosea and was living with them. Hosea planned to make her ’way’ there difficult, hedging the path with thorns and building a wall to stop her in her path. "Thorns" were the punishment for Adam and Eve’s sin; the consequences of her sin were intended to lead her to repentance. Rather like God tried to stop Balaam on his path to apostacy from Him. And this was all reflected in God’s besieging Zion through their invaders; and being hedged in is the language of the Babylonian invasion in <a href='B:310 3:7'>Lam 3:7</a>; Lam 39. It was judgment, but it was all intended to bring Israel back to Him. And thus in wrath God remembers mercy; His judgments are not simply statements of anger, but designed to elicit repentance, at least on a national scale.</p>


text:
<h4>She will follow after her lovers, but she won’t overtake them; and she will seek them, but won’t find them. Then she will say, ‘I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now’- See on 2:8. In the same way as Hosea had this plan to get Gomer to “return” to him, so God likewise planned that “afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God” (<a href='B:350 3:5'>Hos 3:5</a>). Both God and Hosea thought that “I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence… in their affliction they will seek me early” (<a href='B:350 5:15'>Hos 5:15</a>). But it didn’t work out like this. Both God with Israel and Hosea with Gomer ended up pleading with her to return (<a href='B:350 14:1'>Hos 14:1</a>); “and they do not return to the Lord their God, nor seek him for all this” (<a href='B:350 7:10'>Hos 7:10</a>). It was and is a tragedy. In our preaching to Israel, indeed to mankind generally, we are pleading with them to accept this most unusual love. The pain of God, the way He is left as it were standing there as a tragic figure, like Hosea was, of itself inspires us to plead with people all the more passionately. Notice in all this that ‘return’ is probably an idiom; neither Hosea nor Gomer appear to have physically split up, but both of them had ‘left’ the other one, as in so many marriages today. &nbsp;The intention was that Gomer would "go and return" to Hosea as Israel and Judah would. But when the opportunity for the restoration came, most of them preferred to stay in the lands of their exile. And this was prefigured in how it seems Gomer didn’t in fact fully return to Hosea. The call to return to God was because He was still married to Israel (<a href='B:300 3:14'>Jer 3:14</a>; <a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a>).</h4><h4>The image of the unfaithful wife played deeply on male fears of female sexuality. Hosea was a Hebrew male. And they all feared their women in one way- that she might be unfaithful to him. And this was and is the fear of God for our sin, our unfaithfulness. The Jews who first heard Hosea and others would’ve been led into taking sympathy with the man, agreeing that the punishment for the woman was appropriate to her sin (<a href='B:300 2:30-37'>Jer 2:30-37</a>; <a href='B:300 13:20-27'>Jer 13:20-27</a>). And yet of course the point was that it was they who were the woman in all this. We’ve all seen jealous men in relationships, querying every guy who calls their home number, wanting to know whom the wife’s been out with… and on a far higher and altogether not petty level, this is the kind of God with whom we are in relationship. The men of Old Testament times feared their woman’s unfaithfulness as it placed his whole honour and status as a man at stake. <a href='B:350 2:7'>Hos 2:7</a>; <a href='B:350 2:12'>Hos 2:12</a> reveals Hosea’s hurt and anger that his wife considered other men to be the providers of her food and needs; for this was his honour, to provide for his wife, and for other men not to do that. And so we could say that in our unfaithfulness, in our turning to other supports other than Him… no less that God Himself is at stake. God is at stake. That’s how he sees it. That’s how much He’s risked Himself for us, when He could have never even gotten involved with us. No less than God Himself is at stake. And perhaps I need to stop writing and you need to stop reading for a moment, to reflect on the tragedy of that.</h4>


text:
<h4>For she did not recognize that it was I who gave her the grain, the new wine, and the oil, and multiplied to her silver and gold, which they used for Baal- By allowing her lovers to provide her food and clothing, she was insulting her husband Hosea (<a href='B:350 2:7'>Hos 2:7</a>); for these were the basic necessities which a husband provided for his wife. And as God does with us, Hosea gave Gomer far more than that- he multiplied silver and gold to her. The silver and gold were ’hers’ in that they were the betrothal gifts demonstrating she wasHosea’s. See on 2:13.</h4><p>Our lack of faith that God really will provide, our seeking of those things from others apart from Him, is a similar insult to Him at the most essential level of His being and our relationship. The parallel in the God / Israel relationship is clear. The Baal cult was a fertility cult. The idea was that be sleeping with the temple prostitutes, Baal would provide fertility in family life and also good harvests and fullness of bread. Yet Yahweh was the giver of bread to Israel (<a href='B:20 16:29'>Exo 16:29</a> cp. <a href='B:50 8:18'>Deu 8:18</a>; <a href='B:230 136:25'>Psa 136:25</a>; <a href='B:230 146:7'>Psa 146:7</a>). For Israel to trust Baal for these things was a denial of Him.</p><h4>Hosea did everything for this worthless woman. He gave her “corn, wine, oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they [her lovers] prepared for Baal”. He was presumably a wealthy man, and yet gave it all to his wife, who in turn blew it all with her boyfriends on Baal worship. And once he gave it to her, he had given his all; I will suggest on <a href='B:350 3:2'>Hos 3:2</a> that afterwards he had little else to give her. It’s like the billionaire marrying a worthless woman who manipulates him into giving her his money, which she blows down at the casino day by day, and sleeps with the guys she hangs out with down there. But “she did not know that I gave her…” all these things (2:8)- i:e. she didn’t appreciate it one bit. And so Hosea decides that he will withdraw this generosity from her, and then, he surmises, “she shall say, I will go and return to my first husband” (2:7). This was Hosea’s hope, and in his own mind, he put these words in her mouth. The hopefulness of Hosea was a reflection of the love he had for her. And all this speaks eloquently of the hopefulness of the Almighty Father who thought “surely they will reverence my Son” when He sends Him. And the purposeful anti-climax of the parable is that no, they don’t and won’t reverence His Son, and even worse, they kill Him.</h4>


text:
<h4>Therefore I will take back My grain in its time, and My new wine in its season, and will pluck away My wool and My linen which should have covered her nakedness- It was a husband’s duty to provide food and clothing for his wife. To "take [them] back" is therefore tantamount to a divorce. This is how Hosea and therefore God felt about Gomer / Israel. The historical fulfilment would have been in how droughts and famine plagued the Jews who returned from exile at the time of Haggai. Their apparent faithfulness to the covenant was hypocritical, and in their hearts they were still with their idols- which morphed from literal idols to the idols of hypocrisy and self-righteousness. We see here Hosea’s anger as a reflection of God’s. The wrath of God, His grief at sin and being rejected, is intertwined with His amazing grace and love. That the extent of God’s anger arises from the degree of His love is perhaps reflected in the way the Hebrew words for “lover” and “hater” are so closely related- oheb and oyeb. The gravity and emotional enormity of each ‘side’ of the total equation, the huge tension of the equilibrium that keeps them in perfect balance in God’s character and words, was reflected in the prophets personally; and it will be in us too. The result of this is that the anger of both God and His prophets becomes understandable as more an expression of His and their sorrow, the hurtness of their love, even their weariness.</h4><h4>According to <a href='B:20 21:10-11'>Exo 21:10-11</a>, a husband should provide for his wife food, clothing and sex. The ancient Near Eastern cultures generally felt that in the case of divorce, a husband could recover everything from his wife, on the basis that they had never become part of her property, as she had not been a faithful wife. This could be the idea behind the Hebrew here: “I will take back the grain to myself”, along with “my grain… my must… my wool… my flax” [i:e. material for her clothes]. Gomer had taken these things from her lovers, and thus she declared herself not to be Hosea’s wife. Israel had ‘taken’ these things from the Baal fertility cult, and thus declared themselves not to be Yahweh’s wife. And if we trust in our own strength to provide these things- our jobs, salaries, investments, pensions, families- we are effectively denying our relationship with God. He has promised to provide the basics- and this we need to accept in faith.</h4><h4>The linen was to cover her nakedness. Uncovering “nakedness” is used in <a href='B:10 9:22-23'>Gen 9:22-23</a> as a euphemism for her genitals. This uncovering of her nakedness is parallel with exposing her lewdness (<a href='B:350 2:10'>Hos 2:10</a>). This will be the shame of the rejected at the day of judgment; and it’s why any personal game plan that depends upon looking good to our brethren when we’re rotten in God’s sight will end in the most acute shame ultimately. But the promises and prophecies and even fantasies of Israel’s future glory always occur within a few verses of such outpourings of wrath. The prophets are full of this, and Hosea especially, following the feelings of Hosea toward Gomer.</h4>


text:
<p>Now I will uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and no one will deliver her out of My hand- The idea is that she would be made naked. To strip a woman naked was the punishment for adultery. But this was to be done before or "in the sight of" the lovers, who represented Israel’s idols. Idol worshippers made themselves naked before the idols (<a href='B:20 32:25'>Exo 32:25</a>; and it is especially used of the idolatry at the time of Ahaz, <a href='B:140 28:19'>2Ch 28:19</a>, in whose time Hosea prophesied, <a href='B:350 1:1'>Hos 1:1</a>). So the punishment was in fact their sin. Sin is its own punishment. Sinners live out their own condemnation by what they do. "No one will deliver her::." refers to the "lovers". None of the idols in whom Israel trusted could deliver them from Yahweh’s judgment and jealous wrath.</p>


text:
<p>I will also cause all her celebrations to cease: her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths, and all her solemn assemblies- Hosea was prophesying in the context of the reforms of Jeroboam II, which had appeared on the surface to root out Baal worship- but in reality, the people remained deeply committed to it. All this was reflected in the surface level commitment of Gomer to him whilst committing adultery with multiple partners. God through Hosea said that He despised Gomer and Israel’s keeping of the Sabbaths, sacrifices and solemn feasts. Gomer and Israel offered sacrifices with flocks and herds (<a href='B:350 5:6'>Hos 5:6</a>). Gomer was an observant Jewess- all part of her deceptive life with Hosea. The feasts ["celebrations"] may refer to the extra feasts which the Jews inaugurated upon their return from Babylon (<a href='B:450 7:5'>Zec 7:5</a>; <a href='B:450 8:19'>Zec 8:19</a>). This apparent devotion to Yahweh when they were self-centred, materialistic and self-righteous were abhorrent to God, and the latter half of Isaiah’s prophecies make the same point. They were matched by Gomer’s apparent devotion to Hosea.</p>


text:
<h4>I will lay waste her vines and her fig trees, about which she has said, ‘These are my wages that my lovers have given me; and I will make them a forest’, and the animals of the field shall eat them- Gomer received vines, fig trees and forests from her lovers. She even became “rich” because of this (<a href='B:350 12:8'>Hos 12:8</a>). All of this was done whilst married to Hosea. His patience and love for her must have been amazing. And even that was and is a poor reflection of the depth of God’s love and grace for Israel, and for us too. It’s more than sobering, to be in a relationship where we are loved so much more deeply than we love back. It’s worrying and challenging, to the point that every fibre in our being should be crying out to love this wonderful God far, far more than we do. Gomer must have lied to Hosea so much. And Israel are criticized throughout his prophecy for just the same. “Ephraim compasses me about with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit… they have spoken lies” (<a href='B:350 11:12'>Hos 11:12</a>; <a href='B:350 7:13'>Hos 7:13</a>). In fact, the untruthfulness became compulsive and obsessive: “He daily increases lies” (<a href='B:350 12:1'>Hos 12:1</a>). Gomer would’ve lied about where she was going, about how she spent Hosea’s money, about whose the children were… And the key proof of our spiritual sincerity is whether we are in the core of our beings truthful , both with our God and with ourselves.</h4><h4>Presumably Gomer went to the idol shrines and was a prostitute. She describes the things she supposedly possessed in her own right as what she received from her lovers. And the idols of Israel are described by Hosea as their lovers, with whom they were unfaithful to Yahweh (<a href='B:350 2:7-15'>Hos 2:7-15</a>; <a href='B:350 8:9'>Hos 8:9</a>; <a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a>). It all fits together. Gomer got pregnant with the idol worshippers, she was unfaithful to Hosea by sleeping with them, just as Israel were doing the same to Yahweh by worshipping those idols. No wonder Hosea came to know the heart of God through his experience with Gomer. He knew, it seems, ahead of time, that Gomer was a wife who was going to become adulterous.</h4>


text:
<h4>I will visit on her the days of the Baals, to which she burned incense, when she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and went after her lovers- She wore a nose ring and pendant in order to ‘go after’ her lovers. And yet these things would’ve been understood as wedding gifts, akin to a woman today wearing a wedding ring. The awful thing is that she used the very things Hosea had given her as an expression of his unique commitment to her- as a means for adultery. Likewise the silver and gold of her dowry, she used in Baal worship (<a href='B:350 2:8'>Hos 2:8</a>). She wasn’t doing it for money or because she was in need; the implication is that she was using the aphrodisiac to excite and sexually stimulate herself rather than her lovers, and was therefore going in search of them. We have to ask what wilful stimulations to sin, to unfaithfulness to our Master, we allow into our lives.</h4><h4>And forgot Me, says Yahweh- God’s lament through Hosea, “but me she forgot” is an insight into His broken heart. And how many hours of our days slip by with no conscious thought of Him… does He feel the same?</h4>


text:
<h4>Therefore behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness- The allusion is to Israel redeemed from Egypt and allured into the wilderness (:15). It was there that Hosea intended to appeal to Gomer, just the two of them together far from anyone else. It was in the desert that God appealed to the redeemed Israel to become His covenant people at Sinai. And it is after baptism that we are taken into the wilderness, and God sets up situations in our lives so that we are fundamentally alone with Him, away from our idols and other influences, in order that we might become solely His. Whether we are located within large families or congregations, this process will be discernible. There in those isolated situations, God wishes to speak tenderly, to our hearts.</h4><h4>And speak tenderly to her- "Speak tenderly to her" is Heb. ’to her heart’. This is an idiom elsewhere used about seeking to win the heart of a woman by persuasive words (<a href='B:10 34:3'>Gen 34:3</a>; <a href='B:80 2:13'>Rth 2:13</a>; <a href='B:70 19:3'>Jdg 19:3</a>); Hosea dreamt of winning Gomer back to him by his words. This has a direct equivalent in the restoration context- for the same term is used in <a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a>, where God through the prophets seeks to speak to the heart of Zion and persuade her to return from Babylon to Him in Jerusalem and enjoy the married life of His Kingdom. And yet like Gomer, they either didn’t want to hear, or responded on a merely surface level.</h4>


text:
<h4>I will give her vineyards from there- From the desert, Israel entered immediately into the vineyard region of Israel. Hence "from there", the desert, was she to be given vineyards. And they would be "her vineyards", not "my vineyards", reflecting how we are genuinely given blessing from God which becomes legitimately ours.</h4><p>And the valley of Achor for a door of hope- The valley of Achor was the symbol of Israel’s unfaithfulness to God and their punishment for coveting Babylonian idolatry. That exactly fits the context of the returned exiles, who brought Babylonian idolatry with them. See on :22.</p><h4>And she will respond there, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt- Israel became God’s covenant wife at Sinai. Just as Hosea fantasized about having a second marriage ceremony with Gomer, so God had the hope that Israel would again enter covenant with Him as they had done at Sinai. But they would not, and the new covenant is now sealed with every believing Christian heart.</h4>


text:
<h4>It will be in that day, says Yahweh, that you will call Me ‘my husband’, and no longer call Me ‘my master’- "My master / owner / possessor", or, ’Baal’. Gomer called Yahweh ‘Baal’- in other words, she thought that by worshipping Baal she was in fact worshipping Yahweh. This was how Israel justified their Baal worship, reasoning that actually they had never left Yahweh, they still kept His feasts and sacrifices, but they worshipped Him through their Baal worship. This implies that Israel even called Yahweh “my Baal”. And so when Gomer participated in these fertility rituals, she was living out the very picture of Israel’s unfaithfulness to their God.</h4><p>In <a href='B:350 2:16-23'>Hos 2:16-23</a> we appear to have a fantasy of Hosea about his family. After nostalgic dreaming about the early days of their relationship, Hosea fantasizes about once again wooing Gomer, becoming betrothed to her, marrying her in some sort of outdoors wedding ceremony in which the animals and physical creation witness the vows and enter the joy, enteringa new covenant with her, and renaming their children from ‘Not my people’ to ‘My people’. As the children were to be renamed, Lo-ammi becoming Ammi, so the valley of Achor would become a door of hope (<a href='B:350 2:15'>Hos 2:15</a>), and Jezreel, scene of Israel’s rebellions, would become the place of joyful reconciliation between God and His people. The valley of Achor had previously been a block to Israel’s entry to the land; now it becomes the entrance to it. In that awful place, God wanted to stage an outdoor wedding ceremony with His re-married people. <a href='B:290 65:10'>Isa 65:10</a> mentions Achor as a place of special blessing in the Kingdom of God on earth- it’s as if God’s grace rejoices in inverting things, pouring out His richest blessing upon the places of our darkest failures. And we in daily life, in the interactions we have with others, are asked to reflect this same kind of grace.</p><h4>This fantasy was and is the fantasy of God for His people. For doesn’t love involve an element of fantasy, imagination, wild hope? If God loves His people with passion, is it so inappropriate that He should have such fantasy about them? And this God is our God! Although He may appear silent, our response to the new covenant must give Him great joy, although this doesn’t cancel out the sorrow and tragedy of all His other rejected love. It makes me for one want to preach the harder to persuade men and women of His love. Let’s remember that the events in Hosea’s life, according to the information in <a href='B:350 1:1'>Hos 1:1</a>, occurred over a span of at least 30, and perhaps even 50 years. His love for Gomer was the love of a lifetime, the hope and pain of a lifetime. And this in its turn reflects the long term love of the eternal God for His people. Hosea’s fantasy for Gomer was unbounded. He fantasized of how when she returned to him with all her heart, with the children renamed, actually the whole of creation would join with him and her in some sort of ceremony of renewal (<a href='B:350 2:16-23'>Hos 2:16-23</a>). The heavens would echo back the earth’s joy. The wonderful thing is that this will happen when finally the Lord Jesus returns and Israel returns to their God. His fantasy was also God’s. And God’s fantasy for His people will in the end come true. And yet the whole language of Israel’s rejection and then a new covenant being made between God and her is in essence marriage language.</h4>


text:
<p>For I will take away the names of the Baals out of her mouth, and they will no longer be mentioned by name- The Baals of our day are sin in all forms; and such things are "not to be named amongst us" now (<a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a>). God here promises to stop Israel serving Baal. This suggests a psychological miracle- the work of the Spirit directly on human hearts, and the new covenant we too are in promises the same- the gift of a new heart and spirit, and a desire for God in truth. "Take away" is the same Hebrew word in :2 where Israel are asked to "put away" their adulteries. Their adultery was with the Baals. And now God says that He will even do this for them, such is His desire to have them. This is the power of the Spirit in the new covenant.</p>


text:
<p>In that day I will make a covenant for them with the animals of the field, and with the birds of the sky, and with the creeping things of the ground. I will break the bow, the sword, and the battle out of the land, and will make them lie down safely- This covenant with the animals recalls the covenant in Eden and also with the earth / eretz after the flood. Judgment would come, but the faithful Israel were to have part in a wider covenant with all creation, looking forward to the restoration of their Kingdom being the re-establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth under Messiah. Dwelling safely without war and in harmony with the natural creation, who would also be blessed, is also the language of the blessings for obedience to the old covenant detailed in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. I suggested on :17 that God’s intention was to make them obedient, to make them blessed, to take away sin from them. All that is within us cries out that they themselves had to be obedient, and then get the blessings. But God’s love goes even beyond that; measure for measure and crime and punishment is all subsumed beneath the power of His saving grace.</p>


text:
<p>I will betroth you to Me forever. Yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness, in justice, in loving kindness, and in compassion- On the level of Hosea and Gomer, this reflects Hosea’s fantasy of remarrying Gomer, starting over, with him reflecting all the characteristics of God’s Name which are declared here. On the higher level of God and Israel, it speaks of the articulation of God’s deepest character in bringing Israel again into covenant with Him. The penalty for adultery was death under the old covenant. So we have here implied a new covenant, of grace, and yet within that grace, there was "justice". This is exactly the theme of Paul in Romans 1-8.</p>


text:
<p>I will even betrothyou to Me in faithfulness; and you shall know Yahweh- The faithfulness of God is here emphasized apart from the other characteristics which comprise His Name (:19). Gomer had been unfaithful, and yet Hosea, reflecting God’s feelings toward Israel, assured her of his utter faithfulness. "You shall know Yahweh" uses ’knowing’ in the Hebraic sense of relationship. Through experiencing His utter grace toward their unfaithfulness, they would know Him. And this is the amazing paradox which continues to this day; through serious failure we come to know Him in spirit and truth. And that knowledge is quite separate to the academic, theological truth which is thought by many to be so important- until they face up to their own sins and the wonder of God’s grace. The Hebrew idea of "faithfulness" is that of truth; the deepest truth is not a set of theological propositions, however accurate and faithful to the Biblical text; but rather the experience of God’s eternal faithfulness to His covenant to us, and His immense desire to make the relationship work.</p>


text:
<p>It will happen in that day, I will respond, says Yahweh, I will respond to the heavens, and they will echo down to the earth- I suggested on :16 that Hosea has been fantasizing about an outdoor remarriage ceremony with Gomer in which even the natural creation gets involved, but the emphasis is now upon God. He will "respond" to the marriage vows with a voice so mighty that it reaches from earth to heaven, and echoes back to earth. That was how Hosea felt he would cry out in response to the "I do!" of a marriage covenant. And this is the force of God’s word to us- it is a powerful voice, louder than that heard at Sinai, which endlessly assures us of His "I do!" toward us. God places Himself at this point as if on earth; for His voice uttered on earth ascends even to Heaven and then echoes back to earth. This is how closely identified God is with us. The whole idea of course recalls the Sinai covenant, but as we read in Hebrews 12, the new covenant involves a voice more powerful even than that. "Respond" is the same word used in <a href='B:20 19:8'>Exo 19:8</a>; <a href='B:20 19:19'>Exo 19:19</a> of how God "answered" the people and they "answered" to Him. Hebrews 12 interprets the voice associated with the new covenant with the word made flesh in the blood of God’s Son.</p>


text:
<h4>And the earth will respond to the grain, and the new wine, and the oil- Corn, new wine and oil are the three things consistently associated with blessings for obedience to the old covenant (<a href='B:50 7:13'>Deu 7:13</a>; <a href='B:50 11:14'>Deu 11:14</a>; <a href='B:50 28:51'>Deu 28:51</a>; <a href='B:50 33:28'>Deu 33:28</a>). But these blessings are brought upon Israel simply in response to the returned echo of God’s great cry of solemn fidelity to Israel. "The earth", the eretz promised to Abraham, often stands for the people of that land, God’s covenant people. They will respond to the echo of God’s word of covenant fidelity, His "I do!" toward Israel (see on :21). And this was Hosea’s hope, that Gomer would respond to His gracious offer of remarriage to her, and the blessings he would give her despite her unfaithfulness.</h4><h4>And they will respond to Jezreel- Jezreel, the scene of Israel’s judgment by her Divinely sent invaders, would be the responded to by blessings for obedience, just because God wanted to give those blessings. In the same way, the valley of Achor, scene of Israel’s apostacy and preference for Babylon over Canaan, was to be transformed into a door of hope; see on :15.</h4>


text:
<h4>I will sow her to Me in the earth; and I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy- "Jezreel" means ’the sowing of Yah’. Sowing implies fruit, spiritual fruit; and the return of the exiles to their land was intended to be the basis of their spiritual fruit, filling the face of the earth with it (<a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a>). But this sowing in the earth by Yahweh, ’Jezreel’, was to arise out of their judgment at Jezreel. And so out of judgment for sin comes spiritual fruit. That was God’s intention, just as Hosea’s intended outcome from the open air remarriage ceremony he envisaged was "fruit", children by Gomer, rather than the children she had had by her adulterous liaisons. But this intention didn’t work out for Hosea, and it only did for God by redefining "Israel", as Paul explains in Romans.</h4><h4>And I will tell those who were not My people, ‘You are My people;’ and they will say, ‘You are my God!’- Through it all, Hosea was hopeful. He looked and hoped for a day when he could say to Gomer’s children: “You are my people”. If Gomer came back to him truly, then he longed to call those children of adultery his very own children. The allusion here is again to wedding vows; as the woman accepted her husband as her lord, so Israel were to accept God as their God; and "You are my wife" became for God "You are My people". This was God’s intention for Israel as it was Hosea’s for Gomer, but the tragedy is that such love, such huge heart for the beloved, was not appreciated nor ultimately accepted. It is for us, to whom God has now turned, to resolutely vow to do all we can to respond to it and be His faithful woman to the end.</h4>


text:
<h4>Yahweh said to me, Go again- This could refer to God’s relationship with Judah. But I take this to mean that God was telling Hosea to as it were re-marry Gomer, to try to start the marital relationship over again, just as some couples desire to have a ‘re-marriage’ after a period of difficulty between them. Notice how Hosea was commanded to “love” her. We may think that love is something spontaneous, that can’t be ‘commanded’. But the essence of love, even the love that binds a marriage together, is the love that is an act of the will rather than pure emotion. Hosea’s offer to Gomer to start over and as it were re-marry was made when she was “yet an adulteress”. He didn’t say ‘If you stop whoring around, then we can maybe have some sort of re-marriage’. His very offer of the re-marriage was made whilst she was still doing it, such was his love and hope for her, according to the principle that the grace of God leads to repentance. And God does the very same with us, day by day, if only we will perceive it. He reveals His amazing love and grace when we are furthest from Him, in order to bring us back to Him. And this must set the pattern for the way in which we deal with those who sin against us, in things great or small, in family life, in church life, in the workplace…</h4><h4>Note that when God tells Hosea to “go again” and marry this woman, He uses ‘Yahweh’ about Himself, rather than speaking in the first person: “Go yet, love a woman… according to the love of Yahweh toward the children of Israel” (<a href='B:350 3:1'>Hos 3:1</a>). Perhaps this was in order to demonstrate the grace and passionate love so inherent within God’s very Name.</h4><p>Love a woman loved by another, and an adulteress, even as Yahweh loves the children of Israel- It’s hard to understand what was happening in <a href='B:350 3:1'>Hos 3:1</a> - it appears Hosea attempted to force through to realization his fantasy about re-marrying Gomer and starting over, and so he redeemed her again to himself for marriage. But still she went astray from him. Another suggestion is that <a href='B:350 3:1'>Hos 3:1</a> actually speaks of a second wife, who according to the analogy of Ezekiel 23, might have represented Judah. In this case we see the extreme love of Hosea, and God; having gone through all that heart break over Gomer, he was still so full of love that he was prepared to risk all yet again in another relationship. The reference to "Israel" rather than "Judah" could be problematic for this interpretation, but it was always God’s intention that the community restored from Babylon would include both Judah and Israel.</p><p>Though they turn to other gods- This is the amazing thing. As Hosea was eager to push through his fantasy of remarriage with Gomer even though she was impenitent, so God too had the same kind of love. Even though Israel were worshipping other gods, He wanted them to re-enter covenant with Him. Repentance and moral purity are of course critical to the human response to God. But His grace is such that He wishes to save His people and have relationship with them even whilst they are yet in their sins. This is the powerful lesson we take away from Hosea.</p><h4>And love cakes of raisins- This reflects Israel’s mixture of Yahweh worship with Baal worship. According to <a href='B:100 6:19'>2Sa 6:19</a>, these cakes appear to have been part of the legitimate worship of Yahweh- and yet in <a href='B:260 2:5'>Son 2:5</a> they are referred to as an aphrodisiac. There was a heady mix of Yahweh worship with participation in the sexual rituals of the Baal cult. It was this mixture which was so abhorrent to God- and time and again, in essence, we likewise mix flesh and spirit. A brother may express the most awful hatred and spite in ‘upholding the faith’ against one whom he perceives as apostate- and thus show the same mixture of flesh andspirit. A sister may indulge in gossip, kidding herself it’s all for the cause of Christian love and concern… and the examples multiply, hour by hour, in daily Christian experience. We see it again in <a href='B:350 3:4'>Hos 3:4</a>. The word for "cakes" refers to the dibla, the raisin cakes used in the Baal cult, from which the word Diblaim comes, the father of Gomer. Hosea knowingly married a temple prostitute, just as God married Israel, in the hope that their intense love and covenant relationship would reform her and make her responsive to their love.</h4>


text:
<p>So I bought her for myself for fifteen pieces of silver and a homer and a half of barley- The way Hosea redeems his wife, partly in cash and partly in kind, suggests he now wasn’t wealthy. He had given her all his wealth (see on <a href='B:350 2:8-9'>Hos 2:8-9</a>). Now he gave absolutely all he could scrape together for that worthless woman. And this was the cost to God, even His feelings, in redeeming His people- ultimately, through the blood of His own Son. And think of how Hosea accepts the children Gomer produced as his children- when they were the children of her whoredom. But it’s also possible to argue that he redeemed her for the proposed second marriage from one of her lovers. But the price asked was very low, half the price of a slave (30 pieces of silver, <a href='B:20 21:32'>Exo 21:32</a>), and he made up the rest with barley. Or threw in just a bit extra. This could indeed reflect his poverty, having like God given his all for this worthless woman. Or it could be that she was now reduced to a sex slave, and not a very valuable one at that, worth only half the stipulated price for a slave, with some barley thrown in on top. Judah were redeemed from servitude in Babylon, and were weak, unattractive servants anyway. But it was God’s intention, and potentially possible, for them to remarry Him and re-establish Israel’s Kingdom, filling the face of the earth with the resultant fruit of that grace (<a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>I said to her, You shall stay with me many days. You shall not play the prostitute, and you shall not be with any other man. I will also be so toward you- After the second marriage, Hosea’s idea was that they would both abstain from sexual relationships for a period. She was not to be a prostitute, nor [additionally] have relationships with men. He too would be focused solely upon her despite their lack of intimate relationship. But Gomer was still unfaithful. This period may speak of the 70 years of captivity in Babylon, where Judah were still God’s people, but there was a period of abstaining from intimate relationship whilst they repented and reflected. But God’s total focus was to be upon them, just as it is upon us. This amazing and unique, exclusive focus of God, king of the cosmos, upon a few mixed up people on this tiny planet::. is love and grace indeed.</p>


text:
<h4>For the children of Israel shall live many days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice- I suggested on :3 that the "many days" may refer to the 70 years of captivity. They had no princes, for they were slain and the line of Zedekiah brought to an end (<a href='B:330 21:25-27'>Eze 21:25-27</a>); and they could not offer sacrifice as the temple was in ruins.</h4><h4>And without sacred stone, and without ephod or idols- As noted on :1, the people were using “cult pillars… ephods” in their Baal worship. The patriarchs set up pillars in faith; and an ephod was part of Yahweh worship. But yet again, the same external things were used in a wrong context with wrong motives. Excavations of the Elephantine community reveal that the Jews mixed Yahweh and Baal worship to such an extent that they believed that Yahweh , like Baal, had a consort called Anat. Inscriptions from Quntillet Ajrud show the names Yahweh and Baal mixed together, including one which appears to speak of “Yahweh and his asherah”. &nbsp; <a href='B:330 16:21'>Eze 16:21</a> and <a href='B:330 23:39'>Eze 23:39</a> are quite specific about this anyway- Israel offered sacrifice to idols in Yahweh’s own temple.</h4>


text:
<p>Afterward the children of Israel shall return, and seek Yahweh their God, and David their king, and shall come with trembling to Yahweh and to His blessings in the last days- This "return" referred initially to the potential for "Israel", Judah and the remnant of the ten tribes, to together return from captivity and re-establish God’s Kingdom in Israel under a Messianic king in the line of David, trembling in repentance, and receiving Divine blessings. See on :3,4:&nbsp; It reflected Hosea’s plan that his lavishing of grace upon Gomer would lead her to return to him. But this didn’t happen as intended. God has set objectives in history, but He doesn’t force their fulfilment. Finally all this shall come true, in the coming of a new Israel to Zion in repentance and acceptance of the Lord Jesus, the Messianic seed of David- "in the last days".</p>


text:
<h4>Hear the word of Yahweh, you children of Israel; for Yahweh has a charge against the inhabitants of the land-&nbsp; &nbsp;Hosea 4 described a "charge" or law suit (<a href='B:350 4:1'>Hos 4:1</a> Heb:) between God and the inhabitants of the land- and it’s over lack of integrity, mercy and knowledge of God. Verse 4 and Hos 51 continues the legal language. These things are paralleled in the law suit with murder, stealing and adultery- things which most people would shrug at are considered by Him to be criminal matters. At the end of chapter 3 we find God hopeful that His relationship with Israel might be re-established at the return from exile. But here, the tone changes. However it could be that we have here a prophecy from earlier in Hosea’s ministry, where he explains why Israel is to be judged.</h4><h4>Indeed there is no truth, nor goodness, nor knowledge of God in the land- These are the very things we have read of in Hosea 2. As noted on <a href='B:350 2:20'>Hos 2:20</a>, the knowledge of God meant relationship with Him, based upon repentance and being given God’s grace. This was the ultimate "truth". Israel didn’t want this, and yet God wanted to give it to them anyway, just as Hosea so loved Gomer that he wanted by all means to force through the restored relationship with her, just as God wanted the restored community of exiles to be His.</h4>


text:
<p>There is cursing, lying, murder, stealing, and committing adultery; they break boundaries, and bloodshed causes bloodshed- There is a downward spiral in sin, both on an individual and communal level. It is evident on the communal level, where "bloodshed causes bloodshed". "Break boundaries" translates a word meaning literally "to increase". It is used in :10; they had thought that they had increased, but all such human gain is in fact not any gain, and this is even perceived by those who so seek it.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the land will mourn, and everyone who dwells therein will waste away. All living things in her, even the animals of the field and the birds of the sky; yes, the fish of the sea also die- This repeats the language of other prophets, especially Isaiah, about the calamity to befall Judah in order to appeal for her repentance (<a href='B:290 19:5'>Isa 19:5</a>; <a href='B:290 19:8'>Isa 19:8</a>; <a href='B:290 24:4'>Isa 24:4</a>; <a href='B:360 1:10'>Joe 1:10</a>; <a href='B:360 1:12'>Joe 1:12</a>). The words and language is so similar. But famine and drought were God’s way of not simply punishing His people for their sins, but appealing for their repentance; just as Hosea in Hosea 2 had thought of punishing Gomer so that she repented. And there was, as always, collateral damage due to sin; the physical creation would suffer. For "the land" is here paralleled with God’s people upon it. The ’mourning’ of the land was a hint at God’s hope that they would mourn in repentance, just as Hosea hoped of Gomer.</p>


text:
<p>Yet let no man bring a case, neither let any man accuse; for Your people are like those who bring charges against a priest- As noted on :1, God has brought a legal case against Israel. But the tendency of Israel was to argue back against God, as the returned exiles did: "Wherein have we despised Your Name::. polluted You?" (<a href='B:460 1:6-7'>Mal 1:6-7</a>). Bringing charges against a priest is an allusion to <a href='B:50 17:12'>Deu 17:12</a>, where the sin of presumption is defined as arguing back against the judgment of God’s priest. To argue back against God’s judgments was effectively to put God in the dock and condemn Him. Paul uses exactly this concept in Romans, perhaps picked up from Hosea 4, in saying that if we seek to justify ourselves when in court with God, we are putting God in the dock; see on <a href='B:520 3:4'>Rom 3:4</a>. Hosea wished his audience to accept that&nbsp; they had sinned and were in the dock before God; to not accept this was the sin of presumption. And doubtless he had lived all this out in discussions with Gomer, who endlessly justified her conscienceless behaviour. And this is what we are doing if we refuse to recognize our sin, or shrug it off with excuses.</p>


text:
<h4>You will stumble in the day, and the prophet will also stumble with you in the night- This stumbling spoke of what was to happen at the invasions of Assyria and Babylon (<a href='B:290 8:15'>Isa 8:15</a>); but they had spiritually "stumbled in [lack of] justice" (<a href='B:290 28:7'>Isa 28:7</a>), and so their judgment was but a living out of their own attitudes and behaviour. Sin is its own judgment, and in that sense "we make the answer now", constantly standing before the judgment throne of God in daily life. Stumbling at noonday was what the returned exiles did (<a href='B:290 59:10'>Isa 59:10</a>) because they "had no eyes", no spiritual vision. The prophet who also stumbles with them could refer to false prophets. But as Hosea spoke these words to his audiences in Israel and Judah, he was "the prophet". He is thereby professing his unity with them, just as both God and himself were united with their unfaithful wives even in their fall. Such was their love.</h4><h4>And I will destroy your mother- This initially reflects Hosea’s anger with Gomer’s children, whom she had apparently born to him, when they were the children conceived in her adultery. Hosea had thoughts of deep anger against Gomer, telling her / his children that he would "destroy" their mother. Just as in Hosea 2 Hosea angrily says he will strip Gomer naked and kill her in the wilderness. But then his passionate love for her gets the better of him; and this all reflected the feelings of God for Israel, and His feelings for us who are sinners and unfaithful to the covenant. Jerusalem was seen as "the mother" (<a href='B:550 4:26'>Gal 4:26</a>), so the Babylonian invasion and destruction of Jerusalem may specifically be in view.</h4>


text:
<h4>My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge- Although God has just threatened to "destroy your mother" (:5), this was a reflection of how they had destroyed themselves (<a href='B:350 13:9'>Hos 13:9</a>) through "lack of knowledge". The "knowledge" in view is not academic, theological propositions. Genuine intellectual failure is not a reason for the wrath of God, nor of any reasonable person against another who simply fails to understand. "Knowledge" is being used in the Hebraic sense of ’knowing’, having a relationship. Just as Gomer rejected intimacy of relationship with Hosea, "knowledge" in the relational sense.</h4><p>Because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you- As noted above, this doesn’t mean punishment for intellectual failure. One doesn’t get angry with a child who adds up a sum in math and comes to a wrong answer. "Knowledge" is being used in the Hebraic sense, of relationship. And again, God’s judgment upon His people is only reflective of the position they had adopted themselves. They rejected intimate relationship with Him, and so the relationship was over. And it was therefore axiomatic that He also rejected them.</p><p>That you may be no priest to Me- It was God’s intention that not just the Levites but all Israel should be a nation of priests (<a href='B:20 19:6'>Exo 19:6</a>), mediating relationship ("knowledge") of Him to the surrounding Gentile world. But instead they committed spiritual adultery with them. So they precluded their own potential, as being a priest to the world. Just as we do, if we become indistinguishable from the world. The word must become flesh in us as it was in the Lord, like Him we are to live amongst them that we may be the light of the world, but if we become as them then we can no longer be their light.</p><h4>Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I will also forget your children- <a href='B:460 2:7'>Mal 2:7</a> clearly applies Hosea’s argument in this verse to the returned exiles: "For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth". As noted on <a href='B:350 1:1'>Hos 1:1</a>, Hosea prophesied over a long time in various contexts, to both Israel and Judah. What was true of God’s people at the time of the prophecy before the exile was sadly true of them once they returned from it; in essence they repeated the same failures which had led to their exile. "I will also forget your children" again has a basis in Hosea’s momentary feelings about Gomer’s children, whom she claimed were his when he knew they were hers by reason of her adultery. The law of Israel’s God was their covenant with Him; they had forgotten that covenant and committed adultery with the Gentiles, just as Gomer had forgotten her marriage covenant with Hosea and had children by her lovers. But although that was how Hosea felt, it was not how he finally was with Gomer. And God likewise; He would never forget Zion’s children, although He felt like doing so and disowning them completely. The "hope of Israel" speaks partly of the hope Israel have of final restoration to God, despite being so hopelessly separated from Him by their unfaithfulness. This is indeed a blessed hope, and the fact Israel have such hope to this day is a profound window onto God’s grace. Israel forgot their God and their covenant with Him (<a href='B:300 2:32'>Jer 2:32</a>), but of Zion’s wayward children God said: "Yes they may forget, yet I will not forget you" (<a href='B:290 49:15'>Isa 49:15</a>).</h4>


text:
<h4>As they were multiplied, so they sinned against Me- The multiplication refers to the literal multiplying of Israel’s seed in accordance with the promises to Abraham. The more Hosea showered Gomer with material blessings, the further she went from him, using it to pay her lovers to sleep with her (Hosea 2). And God had the same experience with Israel, both new and old. If we seek material blessing from God, we must remember that it is likely to lead us astray spiritually; "Jeshurun became fat, and kicked" (<a href='B:50 32:15'>Deu 32:15</a>).</h4><h4>I will change their glory into shame- Again, it was Israel who had changed their glory [which should have been in their relationship with Yahweh] into the shame of idolatry (<a href='B:230 106:20'>Psa 106:20</a>; <a href='B:300 2:11'>Jer 2:11</a>). So God was only confirming them in what they themselves had done. <a href='B:350 10:5'>Hos 10:5</a> is clear that the glory of Israel was their idols. But they were to be ashamed of them; and here again there is the hint of repentance, for shame is intended to lead to repentance. This was and still is the intention of all God’s anger and judgments- to elicit repentance. Perhaps Hosea’s hard words to and about Gomer and her children were likewise spoken with the intention of provoking her to repentance. The pain of it all was that Gomer, like Israel with God, went through the motions of being the faithful wife.</h4>


text:
<p>They feed on the sin of My people, and set their heart on their iniquity- The "they" could be the priests, who ate the sacrifices of the people. Those sacrifices were a smoke in God’s nostrils, and were "sin" (<a href='B:290 66:3'>Isa 66:3</a>). But the "they" could also refer to the idols of :7, who were thought to ’eat’ or feed upon the sacrifices placed before them. The Hebrew is difficult here, and the GNB may have the idea about right: "You grow rich from the sins of my people, and so you want them to sin more and more". Gomer spent Hosea’s wealth on getting men to sleep with her, and Israel squandered the riches of their spiritual inheritance on their idols. This was why the lovers wanted Gomer to sleep with them more and more. Or it could be that the priests of Yahweh were also working as priests of the shrines; for :9 goes on to say that priest and people shall perish together. They had turned Yahweh, Israel’s glory, into the shame of idolatry (:7).</p>


text:
<p>It will be, like people, like priest; and I will punish them for their ways, and will repay them for their deeds- The parallel of people and priest was perhaps because the worship of Yahweh had become mixed with that of idols; or maybe the same Levitical priests who ministered in the temple also worked at the idol shrines, as suggested on :7 and :8. Whilst leaders or spiritual facilitators [the priests] have a greater responsibility, those willingly led by them are still culpable of sin. They would alike be punished. The parallel between "ways" and "deeds" is typical of how Hebrew poetry rhymes in terms of ideas, but the two rhyming ideas are not identical, although having the same referent. Each individual deed or act of sin was felt by God, just as each of Gomer’s adulteries were felt by Hosea. But the "way" of life is made up of the stream of such deeds. We can deduce from this that individual "deeds" of sin are felt and yet passed over by God; the question is whether they are so consistent and habitual that they become a "way" of life. And we need to likewise not focus upon the isolated failures of a person, but see them within the overall way of life the person has. See on :18.</p>


text:
<h4>They will eat, and not feel satisfied- This again is the theme of the prophets who criticized the Jews who returned from exile, having apparently re-entered covenant with their God. They focused upon their own satisfaction, and were not satisfied (<a href='B:440 1:6'>Hag 1:6</a> s:w:). I suggested on :8 that the eating in view was in the practice of eating the sacrifices offered to idols, intended to symbolize the idol eating or feeding upon the sacrifice. But this would not ’satisfy’. The same word is used in the curses for disobedience to the old covenant; Israel would eat and not be satisfied (<a href='B:30 26:26'>Lev 26:26</a>). They looked for their satisfaction from alliances with Egypt and Assyria (<a href='B:310 5:6'>Lam 5:6</a> s:w:), which were spiritual adultery against Yahweh. But their relationships with Egypt and Babylon left them unsatisfied (<a href='B:330 16:28-29'>Eze 16:28-29</a>). They treated wealth as their satisfaction (<a href='B:330 7:19'>Eze 7:19</a>). As Ecclesiastes makes clear, seeking satisfaction in anything other than God’s ways will leave us not satisfied. And this is the tragedy of secular man; he is never satisfied. There always has to be more travelling to reach the end of the rainbow, another million, a better house or car. Gomer was sexually addicted; but she was insatiable sexually (<a href='B:330 16:28-29'>Eze 16:28-29</a>). Being unsatisfied is the nature of all addiction; see on <a href='B:350 5:11'>Hos 5:11</a>. The same word is so often used of the righteous being satisfied in God. This is a huge blessedness.</h4><p>They will play the prostitute- They had thought that they had increased, but all such human gain is in fact not any gain, and this is even perceived by those who so seek it. See on :2. As noted above, Gomer was sexually addicted and yet never satisfied (<a href='B:330 16:28-29'>Eze 16:28-29</a>), even paying men to sleep with her, and therefore only ’playing the prostitute’.</p><h4>And will not increase; because they have abandoned giving to Yahweh- This could mean that Israel like Gomer would become barren, and not bear children any more to her lovers (<a href='B:350 9:14'>Hos 9:14</a>). "Giving to" might be better translated "holding to".</h4>


text:
<p>Prostitution, wine, and new wine take away the heart- Alcohol and illicit sex are addictive; Gomer’s heart had been "taken away" by them. She was sexually addicted, even paying men to sleep with her, and her heart was taken away by wine- perhaps a reference to the psychological disease of alcoholism, as well as to the wine drunk by Israel before their idols (<a href='B:350 7:14'>Hos 7:14</a>). Alcoholism is wrong because it is largely a disease of the mind, in that the alcoholic keeps drinking because of a mindset which they are in; and therefore the cure is related to the things of the spirit / mind:&nbsp; The alcoholic cannot trust himself, their thoughts, feelings or best intentions. They persuade themselves they will really only have one drink; and invariably they end up drunk. The desire for alcohol and the need to survive as an active alcoholic makes them totally self-centred; people become [sub-consciously] merely things to be manipulated to allow the alcoholism to continue. It’s a disease the mind persuades them has to be continued in at all costs. Alcoholism thus becomes the epitomy of all sinful living.</p>


text:
<h4>My people consult with their wooden idol, and answer to a stick of wood- These sticks were phallic symbols. The idea of the original seems to be that they asked of their idols and [felt they] received answers from them, or that Israel answered to the idols. Although the idols were but wood and inanimate, yet Israel "answered" or responded to them. They felt a call from them; but that call they felt from something inanimate was really the call of their own lusts which they had transferred to the idol. And that is the essence of modern day idolatry.</h4><h4>Indeed thespirit of prostitution has led them astray, and they have been unfaithful to their God- As Gomer was sexually addicted and insatiable, even paying men to sleep with her, so the spirit of Israel was wrong. It wasn’t a case of occasional, out of character failure; but a spirit of living. They were led astray by a mindset or spirit which sought self satisfaction, rather than the satisfaction which is from God alone. And it was this spirit which "led them astray". The essential issue in our day is whether we have the Spirit of Christ, without which we are none of His, or that of the world.</h4>


text:
<h4>They sacrifice on the tops of the mountains, and burn incense on the hills, under oaks and poplars and terebinths, because its shade is good- The idolatry involved sleeping with the priests or priestesses (:14); therefore "shade" and some&nbsp; seclusion was required.</h4><p>Therefore your daughters play the prostitute-&nbsp; "Your daughters" may have initial reference to other children of Gomer whilst married to Hosea. They did these things because "they", Israel, their parents, did them. The implication would be that those children of Gomer also grew up to live highly immoral lives. Again the problem with sin is the collateral damage done; others are influenced to sin. We have more influence upon others through our example than we think. Bearing in mind that the punishment for such whoredom was death, we see how God’s grace in Hosea’s lovely character actually contradicts the letter of the law, and certainly contradicts all natural human desire for judgment and expiation against those who have wronged us. Here was grace, pure and wonderful.</p><h4>And your brides commit adultery- The sexual addiction in Israel was at such a tempo that brides committed adultery, sleeping with the male priests at the idol shrines, just as Gomer paid men to sleep with her.</h4>


text:
<p>I will not punish your daughters when they play the prostitute, nor your brides when they commit adultery; because the men consort with prostitutes, and they sacrifice with the shrine prostitutes; so the people without understanding will come to ruin themselves- The idea is that God need not additionally punish Israel because sin is its own punishment; they would ruin themselves. And I have noted throughout this chapter that so many of the Divine judgments upon Israel were merely a reflection of how they themselves acted. Punishment for adultery, sexual sin and idolatry was very clear within the Law of Moses. But God says He will do this; He would let sin be its own punishment. Hosea likewise thought of punishing Gomer for her unfaithfulness, including judging her as a prostitute was to be judged under the Law; but he refrained. All this behaviour was because the people lacked "understanding". The reference is not to incorrect theology, but to the "understanding" which is part of ’knowing’ God in a relationship (<a href='B:290 6:10'>Isa 6:10</a>; <a href='B:300 4:22'>Jer 4:22</a>). Hosea concludes with an appeal for "understanding" in the sense of walking in God’s ways (<a href='B:350 14:9'>Hos 14:9</a>).</p>


text:
<h4>Though you, Israel, play the prostitute, yet don’t let Judah offend- In the end, Judah behaved more immorally than Israel did (<a href='B:330 23:4'>Eze 23:4</a>; <a href='B:330 23:11'>Eze 23:11</a>; <a href='B:330 23:18'>Eze 23:18</a>). I suggested on <a href='B:350 3:1'>Hos 3:1</a> that perhaps Hosea married two wives who were both prostitutes. Hosea’s hope was that the second one would not be so bad, and this reflected God’s hope for Judah. It is so tragic that God’s dearest desires for people often don’t come true. He so respects human freewill that He will never force obedience or devotion to Him, just as Hosea would not force this to come about.</h4><h4>And don’t come to Gilgal, neither go up to Beth Aven, nor swear, ‘As Yahweh lives’- These locations were just over the border from Judah, in the territory of Israel. Judah could just cross over briefly into Israelite territory and perform idolatry at the shrines there and then return to Judah. "Beth Aven" is literally ’house of vanity / idols’; perhaps the idea is that Beth El, the house of God, had become a house of idols as Israel had made Yahweh worship into idol worship. Gilgal had shrines (<a href='B:70 3:19'>Jdg 3:19</a>; <a href='B:350 12:11'>Hos 12:11</a>) and was very attractive to Judah as a place of sin (<a href='B:370 4:4'>Amo 4:4</a>; <a href='B:370 5:5'>Amo 5:5</a>). "All their wickedness is in Gilgal" (<a href='B:350 9:15'>Hos 9:15</a>) shows how utterly abhorrent this is to God; to maintain an appearance of superior devotion to Him, whilst briefly slipping over the border to sin. This is the besetting weakness of our age; quietly, online, unseen by others, we can slip over the border to regular idolatry and then return. The oath "As Yahweh lives" was the oath of exclusive loyalty to Him; and yet God’s people swore by Him and also by their idols (<a href='B:50 10:20'>Deu 10:20</a>; <a href='B:430 1:5'>Zep 1:5</a>). Just as Gomer appeared faithful to Hosea, and yet slipped off to her lovers. It is a powerful challenge to us, demanding our total and exclusive loyalty to God; for anything less is adultery and idolatry.</h4>


text:
<p>For Israel has behaved extremely stubbornly, like a stubborn heifer. Then how will Yahweh feed them like a lamb in a meadow!- There is an intended dissonance between the images of a stubborn heifer in a stall refusing to be goaded or coaxed and backsliding (AV) away from her owner; and a lamb being fed by a shepherd in a meadow. This was how things could have been; but Israel would not. God dreamed of it, as Hosea fantasized about a remarriage with Hosea. This was the whole tragedy of the Hosea-Gomer relationship, and of that between the God of all passionate love and His unfaithful people. The ten tribes to whom Hosea was prophesying had made God in the image of a heifer or calf (<a href='B:110 12:28'>1Ki 12:28</a>). And they had become like that which they worshipped. That principle is true for us all.</p>


text:
<p>Ephraim is joined to idols. Leave him alone!- "Joined" alludes to how a man is "joined" to a woman in marriage and the sexual act. Again the simile continues; Israel’s worship of idols was adultery against God. And in practice, they worshipped idols through performing the sexual act of joining. It could be that this verse is a direct warning from God to Hosea to stop trying to appeal to Ephraim, the ten tribes. The way Hosea apparently kept trying with them would therefore have been a reflection of his lifelong efforts with Gomer. And yet God like Hosea has never left Ephraim alone, despite his being joined / married to idols. We see throughout the wonderful passion of God, expressing His rightful sense of hurt and disengagement with Israel, and yet His love and grace continuing that engagement.</p>


text:
<p>Their drink has become sour. They play the prostitute continually. Her rulers dearly love their shameful way- See on 7:4 Burning. This is the last stage of the addiction process; the drink is distasteful, "sour", but is still drunk. The "way" is loved to the end, despite the shame. "They play the prostitute continually" is just two words in the Hebrew: "Prostitution, prostitution". They were sexually addicted just as Gomer was. This is the end result of dabbling in sin, like dabbling with narcotics. What is of the essence is our "way"; see on :9. Occasional sin becomes a way of life, or an addiction.</p>


text:
<h4>The wind has wrapped her up in its wings- This ultimately came true in <a href='B:450 5:9'>Zec 5:9</a>: "Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven"- and carried it back to Babylon. As explained on :18, their dabbling in sin, hopping over the border to commit idolatry in Israel (:15), had led them to shameless addiction. They were now to be carried by the wind- both into captivity in Babylon and scattering in Assyria, and also spiritually or literally scattered back to Babylon even after they returned from exile, which is the context of Zechariah 5.</h4><h4>And they shall be unfulfilled in the offering of their sacrifices- As noted on :10, there is a major theme of unfulfilment. Gomer was not satisfied by her affairs; she became sexually addicted, even paying men to sleep with her. This is the tragic end of all who follow the flesh. Their sacrifices to the idols, or to Yahweh, would not bring satisfaction because of their deep psychological devotion to their own flesh and their resistance of ’knowing’ Yahweh, having a relationship with Him which was exclusive and took their entire heart</h4>


text:
<h4>Listen to this, you priests! Listen, house of Israel, and give ear, house of the king!- The royal family, the priests and the ordinary people are all addressed; we note on :9 that Hosea went throughout the land appealing to the ordinary people. The masses cannot pass off responsibility to their leadership, neither can the leadership blame the people. For God values the human person, and judges our individual response to Him. We note Hosea’s bravery in witnessing against the royal family and those in religious power. The motivation for such bravery was surely love, in that he hoped for their repentance. For that is what his message is all about. The appeal for them to "listen" to their judgment was because even though judgment had been pronounced, there was still room for repentance. According to :7, it could have been just one month or new moon after which judgment would come.</h4><p>For the judgment is against you- As noted on <a href='B:350 4:1'>Hos 4:1</a>; <a href='B:350 4:4'>Hos 4:4</a>, there is a legal case between God and Israel; and the judgment is against them.</p><h4>For you have been a snare at Mizpah, and a net spread on Tabor- They were condemned for their negative influence upon others, acting as a snare and trap. Making others stumble is so abhorrent to God; we need to carefully search our positions and our ways lest we are making others stumble. Mizpah [’watchtower’] was in the east and Tabor [’high place’] in the west; the idea was that all the high places across the land were used by the priests to ensnare people. There is a Jewish tradition that these two places were the scene of ambushes and murders of those Israelites who were on their way up to Jerusalem for Yahweh worship; and they were murdered there (:2). <a href='B:350 6:9'>Hos 6:9</a> seems to support this.</h4>


text:
<p>The rebels are deep in slaughter; but I discipline all of them- As noted on :1, this could refer to ambushes of the faithful Israelites on their way to Jerusalem for Godly worship, as in <a href='B:350 6:9'>Hos 6:9</a>. But the text is difficult; hence GNB "A deep pit at Acacia City, and I will punish all of you" and LXX: "Which they that hunt the prey have fixed: but I will correct you".</p>


text:
<h4>I know Ephraim, and Israel is not hidden from Me- As noted on :1, Hosea is pleading with Israel to "listen" to God’s judgment, and to realize the most basic reality-that God sees and knows all, and nothing can be hidden from Him. The basis for this was in Hosea obviously knowing that Gomer was acting as a prostitute whilst married to him. We can like her go on in sin, comfortably numb to God’s knowledge and judgment of all.</h4><h4>For now, Ephraim, you have played the prostitute; Israel is defiled- Ephraim is sometimes used as a title of Israel, the ten tribes; but here and in :5 there appears to be a difference. Perhaps Hosea had a ministry in the tribal area of Ephraim and warned them specifically. Perhaps it was geographically within Ephraim that there were many idol shrines, which in turn caused defilement to all Israel.</h4>


text:
<p>Their deeds won’t allow them to turn to their God; for the spirit of prostitution is within them, and they don’t know Yahweh- As explained on <a href='B:350 4:12'>Hos 4:12</a>, Israel were addicted to idolatry just as Gomer was sexually addicted. See on <a href='B:350 7:4'>Hos 7:4</a> Burning. It wasn’t that they sinned so awfully that they could never repent; repentance is always possible. But the problem with sin is that it gains a psychological grip upon people. Their deeds of sin were done due to a "spirit of prostitution", and they would not allow the influence of God’s Spirit to create within them a new psychology. We see this in people today, who continue in sin up until their graveplanks because they will not accept a new pair of eyes, the new psychology and structuring of desires which only God’s Spirit can give. They resisted the Holy Spirit, which sought to turn them to God (<a href='B:290 63:10'>Isa 63:10</a>; <a href='B:510 7:51'>Act 7:51</a>). <a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a> is clear that the blessing of the gift of the Spirit is to be turned to God away from our sins. But God will not force His way upon the human heart or spirit if we are resistant to it. If we are open to it, then indeed we find that strength to think and act differently. They refused to know Yahweh, to have a relationship with Him, instead seeing their duty to Him as merely a few ritual acts which were isolated from their heart. See on <a href='B:350 6:6'>Hos 6:6</a> for what is implied in knowing Yahweh.</p>


text:
<h4>The pride of Israel testifies to his face. Therefore Israel and Ephraim will stumble in their iniquity, Judah also will stumble with them- As noted on :3, Ephraim is sometimes used as a title of Israel, the ten tribes; but here and in :3 there appears to be a difference. Perhaps Hosea had a ministry in the tribal area of Ephraim and warned them specifically. It is pride which hinders human repentance (<a href='B:350 7:10'>Hos 7:10</a>; <a href='B:300 13:17'>Jer 13:17</a>). They knew it; for in the legal language of the courtroom which fills these chapters, their pride testified against them. But they refused to do anything about it. There is a difference between the stumbling and the iniquity; it could be that the sin of pride made them stumble, and call into sin. And Judah were influenced by Israel’s pride.</h4><h4>It’s hard to know if the prophecies in Hosea are chronological; he prophesied over a long period in various geographical areas, to both Israel and Judah. It’s interesting to speculate as to whether the appeal of <a href='B:350 4:15'>Hos 4:15</a> was before or after <a href='B:350 5:5'>Hos 5:5</a>. Hosea now clearly knew that both Israel and Judah would fall together in condemnation for the same sins (<a href='B:350 5:5'>Hos 5:5</a>; <a href='B:350 6:4'>Hos 6:4</a>; <a href='B:350 6:10-11'>Hos 6:10-11</a>; <a href='B:350 12:1-2'>Hos 12:1-2</a>); and yet Hosea appeals to Judah to not sin as Israel had so that they would avoid that same condemnation (<a href='B:350 4:15'>Hos 4:15</a>; <a href='B:350 11:12'>Hos 11:12</a>). Likewise, knowing the destruction that would come on all except Noah, God waited in the hope that more would be saved. He as it were hoped against His own foreknowledge that more would saved (<a href='B:670 3:20'>1Pe 3:20</a>).</h4>


text:
<p>They will go with their flocks and with their herds to seek Yahweh; but they won’t find Him- He has withdrawn Himself from them- See on <a href='B:350 2:11'>Hos 2:11</a> Her feasts. Sacrifice alone will not please God (<a href='B:290 1:11-15'>Isa 1:11-15</a>). Yet God promises that He will always be found of those who seek Him. So their seeking of God with herds of sacrifices would not "find" Him; for He desires mercy and knowledge / relationship with Him, not sacrifice and ritual (<a href='B:350 6:6'>Hos 6:6</a>). The fate of the rejected will be to seek God at judgment day, when it is all too late; for life is the time to seek Him. The Lord quotes these words about an Israel who all too late will seek Him, at judgment day (<a href='B:500 7:34'>Joh 7:34</a>).</p>


text:
<h4>They are unfaithful to Yahweh; for they have begotten foreign children- See on <a href='B:350 2:4'>Hos 2:4</a> Her children. As Gomer had children by her lovers whilst married to Hosea, so Israel bore fruit to the Gentiles through worshipping their idols. <a href='B:300 3:20'>Jer 3:20</a> speaks of this unfaithfulness to Yahweh as what brought about the Babylonian invasion of Judah. But Hosea’s words have relevance to the Assyrian invasion of the ten tribes as well.</h4><p>Now the new moon will devour them- Or as AV&nbsp; "Now shall a month devour them" (as in <a href='B:450 11:8'>Zec 11:8</a>). Maybe Hosea uttered this judgment just one new moon or month before judgment was going to fall. God states judgment to come, giving Nineveh 40 days to repent, but in the gap between His word and its execution, we can repent. This gives intensity to our lives.</p><h4>With their fields- Literally, "with their portions", a term used about their idols in <a href='B:290 57:6'>Isa 57:6</a>; <a href='B:300 10:16'>Jer 10:16</a>. We become like what we worship; they were identified with their idols, and would be destroyed along with them. We worship God who is eternal, and are thus identified with eternity.</h4>


text:
<p>Blow the cornet in Gibeah, and the trumpet in Ramah! Sound a battle cry at Beth Aven, behind you, Benjamin!- These towns in Benjamin were where the invader was to come. The picture is of Benjamin having turned their backs and being chased by the invaders uttering their battle cry. The scene of these towns fleeing before the Assyrians is found again in <a href='B:290 10:29'>Isa 10:29</a>. Hosea may have been consciously repeating Isaiah’s message. The trumpets were blown to warn of invaders; I suggested on :7 that Hosea’s audience had but a month to repent. The invaders were upon them. There was an urgency in this call to repentance, as there is for us. For "the judge stands before the door", now as never before in human history.</p>


text:
<h4>Ephraim will become a desolation in the day of rebuke- The "desolation" was a "rebuke", and a rebuke is aimed at reformation. The terrible judgments at the hands of Babylon and Assyria were to be used positively as an appeal for repentance, and not simply the outpouring of the anger of an offended omnipotent being.</h4><h4>Among the tribes of Israel, I have made known that which will certainly be- This is Hosea’s summary of his mission amongst the ten tribes; he had gone up and down, as we should, imploring people desperately to repent. His mission was not simply a one time statement to the royal family and priesthood; see on :1. It would "certainly be" on one hand, and yet the whole purpose of Hosea’s proclamation was so that it would not be. This is no sign of any capricious, not serious God. Rather does it reflect how sensitive He is to human repentance, and how our appeal for repentance can really make an eternal difference in outcomes which are otherwise "certain".</h4>


text:
<p>The princes of Judah are like those who remove a landmark. I will pour out My wrath on them like water- "Landmark" is literally "border"; the reference may not be so much to removing ancient landmarks, but specifically to the removal of the borders on the laver by Ahaz and his princes in <a href='B:120 16:17'>2Ki 16:17</a> in order that the Assyrian idol altar could be placed there. This would explain the pouring out of God’s wrath because of the removal of borders. If the reference is to princes literally removing landmarks, we can perceive that such apparently small, secret, unnoticed attempts to expand our wealth base at others’ expense call forth the uttermost anger of God Almighty.</p>


text:
<h4>Ephraim is oppressed, he is crushed in judgment- The "judgment" of :1, which had been uttered and was yet future, but could be averted. But it was as if the judgment was already upon them, hence the present tense. We too live under Divine judgment, yet can repent and change the judgment, as Paul explains in Romans. They had "crushed" the needy (<a href='B:370 4:1'>Amo 4:1</a> s:w:), and so their judgment was appropriate to how they had acted toward the needy. See on <a href='B:350 6:5'>Hos 6:5</a>.</h4><h4>Because he is obsessed in his pursuit of idols- This obsession is the language of addiction; see on <a href='B:350 4:10'>Hos 4:10</a>. They were judged not for individual acts of failure, but because of their way of mental being, their obsession with sin; see on :4. The AV "Because he willingly walked after the commandment" could refer to the commandment of Jeroboam to worship the calves rather than at the Jerusalem temple; likewise the commands of king Omri to perform idolatry were kept religiously as if they were Divine commands (<a href='B:400 6:16'>Mic 6:16</a>).</h4>


text:
<p>Therefore I am to Ephraim like a moth, and to the house of Judah like rottenness- In <a href='B:350 4:15'>Hos 4:15</a>, God had earlier entertained hope that Judah would be different; but now He speaks as if both Israel and Judah would alike be judged. This reflects how God’s hopes and intentions, like those of Hosea for Gomer, were so often disappointed. We as it were feel for Him. The language here still continues the marriage reference; for "She that makes ashamed is (to her husband) as rottenness in his bones" (<a href='B:240 12:4'>Pro 12:4</a>). <a href='B:290 50:9'>Isa 50:9</a> uses the same figure about the restored community being a moth-eaten garment, and the New Testament understands that as meaning that it was permanently destroyed and would be replaced by the covering which is in Christ</p>


text:
<h4>When Ephraim saw his sickness, and Judah his wound- Again, this is Isaiah’s language for the state of Judah (<a href='B:290 1:6'>Isa 1:6</a>); <a href='B:300 30:12'>Jer 30:12</a> says that the wound was "incurable", but we must remember that Hosea here is desperately appealing for repentance so that they could be cured. So it was "incurable" by human help.</h4><p>Then Ephraim went to Assyria- Menahem in <a href='B:120 15:19'>2Ki 15:19</a> gave 1000 talents of silver to Pul, and Hoshea likewise appealed to Shalmaneser (<a href='B:120 17:3'>2Ki 17:3</a>).</p><p>And sent to king Jareb- This clause matches what Judah did when he saw his wound. Jareb ought rather to be translated, ’their defender’;&nbsp; in <a href='B:70 6:32'>Jdg 6:32</a>, Jerub, as in Jerubbaal, means&nbsp; ’to plead one’s cause’. This is another example of courtroom language. God had made the case against His people; but He would also be the pleader of their cause. But instead they turned to human strength.</p><h4>But he is not able to heal you, neither will he cure you of your wound- Hosea prophesied in the time of Hezekiah (<a href='B:350 1:1'>Hos 1:1</a>). He was contemporary with Isaiah, whom he often quotes or alludes to [or did Isaiah quote from Hosea?]. At this time, Judah had sent to Jareb, just as Hezekiah sought help from Egypt to avert God’s judgment. But it was not yet manifest that this "Jareb" would be unable to heal them. So Hosea may have been prophesying this at the time of Hezekiah’s sickness, during which it seems Hezekiah sent to Egypt for help. All this became so relevant for Hezekiah; his incurable sickness at the time was comparable to that of Judah. But he was saved out of it, just as Judah were saved from the Assyrians. But like Judah, he was ungrateful and unresponsive to such great grace, just as Gomer was to Hosea’s grace.</h4>


text:
<p>For I will be to Ephraim like a lion, and like a young lion to the house of Judah. I myself will tear in pieces and go away; I will carry off, and there will be no one to deliver- "I myself" reflects the intensity of God’s manifestation through the ’lions’ of Babylon and Assyria. Even if we were to read that the Lord Jesus was ’God Himself’, this would not justify the erroneous idea of the Trinity; God can be intensely manifested in individuals who are not Him personally. God can be manifest in a tiny moth (:12) as well as like a roaring lion who tears in pieces; Hosea here is quoting <a href='B:230 50:22'>Psa 50:22</a>. The ’carrying off’ of Judah to Babylon was therefore done by God; and yet the analogy requires that God took them to Babylon as a lion carries the prey. So in wrath He remembered mercy, and as it were went with the to Babylon. Thus Ezekiel saw the cherubim of glory leave Jerusalem and then reappear amongst the captives in Babylon.</p>


text:
<h4>I will go and return to My place, until they acknowledge their offence, and seek My face- The allusion is to a lion returning to his "place" or lair. But the lion does so with his prey. Again there is grace in these judgments; God would as it were go with His judged people to Babylon. The Hebrew idea may be of ’accepting the punishment of their offence’. The hope of God, as of Hosea with Gomer, was that they would repent after a period. The prophecies of the restoration were contingent therefore upon Judah and Israel repenting in their captivity. But they did not, and therefore Daniel 9 explains that the 70 years captivity prophecy of Jeremiah had to be recalculated because they had not repented. See on <a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a>. To seek someone’s face was to beg their grace and favour. But this would only happen because they repented.</h4><h4>In their affliction they will seek Me earnestly- This was God’s hope, as it was that of Hosea for Gomer. But it didn’t come about as He hoped and intended. The exiles who returned did so largely in the hope of personal betterment in Judah, and most of them remained in Babylon and Persia.</h4>


text:
<p>Come, and let us return to Yahweh; for He has torn us to pieces, and He will heal us; He has injured us, and He will bind up our wounds- This threatened attack by the lion of Hos 515 has now happened. In the analogy, an animal torn to pieces by a lion is dead and cannot be healed. But Hosea appeals for repentance amongst the remnant in line with God’s hope that they would repent in <a href='B:350 5:15'>Hos 5:15</a>. Their revival would be a miracle because it would be like resurrecting (:2) and healing an animal torn to pieces by a lion. Hosea urges them to understand that it was God who had done this; the invading armies were His hand. The idea of returning to God and being healed is found in Jeremiah in the context of the potential for the exiles to return from Babylon and re-establish God’s Kingdom in the land (<a href='B:300 30:17'>Jer 30:17</a>). Hosea’s prophecy was encouraging them to do this. But the exiles who did return didn’t do so seeking for such healing, and most preferred not to return to the land at all. The prophecy therefore looks ahead to the latter day repentance of Israel before the reestablishment of God’s Kingdom in Israel under the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<h4>After two days He will revive us. On the third day He will raise us up, and we will live before Him- The two and three days may simply mean that if Israel were to repent and seek healing (see on :1), then literally in a matter of days afterwards they would have a national revival, akin to resurrection. ’Two or three’ means ’a few’ in <a href='B:290 17:6'>Isa 17:6</a>; <a href='B:490 13:32-33'>Luk 13:32-33</a>. See on <a href='B:350 8:10'>Hos 8:10</a>.</h4><h4>As explained on :1, an animal caught by a lion and torn to pieces is dead. To speak of it being healed is therefore tantamount to a belief in resurrection. The wounds which were to be healed speak of the spiritual sickness of Israel; this was to be cured, so that the spiritually revived nation would live with new life "before Him":&nbsp; Sin would no longer be a barrier precluding being in His presence, and again they would be "before Him" as His covenant people. Literally the Hebrew is "to live in His sight", which would imply in the land of promise (<a href='B:120 17:20'>2Ki 17:20</a>). The restoration fro exile is in view:&nbsp; The same word for "revive" is repeatedly used in Ezekiel 37 of how the dry bones of Israel in captivity would be revived, given life by the Spirit which was to be the gift of the new covenant they would enter with God. And Hosea concludes with the hope that such revival would come to Israel (<a href='B:350 14:7'>Hos 14:7</a>). The gift of revival, of spiritual life, would be given when they sought the Lord (<a href='B:370 5:4'>Amo 5:4</a> s:w:). Hosea likewise in his distress over Gomer had oscillated between wanting to kill her and yet dreaming of an outdoor wedding ceremony when he remarries her and they then bring forth fruit (Hosea 2). But this didn’t happen. And neither did it happen between God and His people after the restoration from Babylon. And so the prophecy and the promised gift of spiritual life has been recalculated and reapplied- to us. Note that it is God who does the reviving; always the work of the Spirit is of His initiative. We see a clear reference to the idea of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus "on the third day". And it becomes a description of Israel seeking to repent in the last days, wishing to associate themselves with the resurrection of Christ, so that when He returns they might share in it. Israelite repentance is a condition for the Lord’s return.</h4>


text:
<h4>Let us acknowledge Yahweh. Let us press on to know Yahweh- Israel, like Gomer regarding Hosea, never denied Yahweh. They acknowledged Him as their God, as Gomer acknowledged Hosea as her husband. But they only knew about Yahweh, rather than knowing Him in personal relationship. To "know Yahweh" would bring about the appearance of a Messianic Kingdom in the terms of the second stanza of this verse. But it was repentance which would bring that about (see on <a href='B:350 5:15'>Hos 5:15</a>). This is to know God. And so often, Christian groups have become so fixated with knowing about God, correctly interpreting this or that Bible passage or theme, enshrining it in their statements of faith, that they have not known Yahweh in terms of personal relationship. All the failures of natural Israel are warnings to Israel after the Spirit. True theology is all about the radical transformation of human life in practice. The AV is helpful: "Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord". If we seek that relationship - knowledge with Him, "then shall we know". The Lord maybe alluded to this passage in teaching that if anyone seeks to know God’s will and do it, i:e. to have relationship with Him, then he will intuitively know or discern true doctrine or teaching; see on <a href='B:500 7:17'>Joh 7:17</a>.</h4><h4>As surely as the sun rises, Yahweh will appear. He will come to us like the rain, like the spring rain that waters the earth- <a href='B:230 72:6'>Psa 72:6</a> and <a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a> use exactly this imagery to describe the Messianic Kingdom to be established at the return of the Lord Jesus. The gift of rain was to be the result of obedience (<a href='B:50 11:14'>Deu 11:14</a>), but the obedience required was simply repentance and a desire for relationship with God. The return from exile could have potentially seen the Kingdom of God re-established in Israel under a Messianic king. But so much potential was wasted. Yahweh would have appeared, so that as Ezekiel 48 concludes, the rebuilt temple was known as the place where ’Yahweh is there’, in some form. But the Jews did not repent, nor did they rebuild the temple nor manage it according to the commands of Ezekiel 40-48.</h4>


text:
<p>Ephraim, what shall I do to you? Judah, what shall I do to you? For your love is like a morning cloud, and like the dew that disappears early- As often in the prophets, the personal pronouns change. Hosea has been speaking in :3, and now God Himself directly appeals to the people; Hosea is so taken over with God’s Spirit and identity with God’s cause that he speaks for God in the first person. God’s feelings here were exactly how Hosea had felt about Gomer, desperate to do something which would make her love him in truth rather than just as an appearance. The morning dew cloud disappears as the sun rises; but in :3, the sunrise has been used of the coming of Messiah and reestablishment of the Kingdom (as in <a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a>). Instead of that sunrise, there was another one. The same language of the morning cloud vanishing is used of Israel themselves in <a href='B:350 13:3'>Hos 13:3</a>; their attitude to God was them. And so we too are ultimately defined by our attitude towards God.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore I have cut them to pieces with the prophets; I slew them with the words of My mouth. Your judgments are like a flash of lightning- God’s word hewed Israel like a hammer (<a href='B:300 23:29'>Jer 23:29</a>); and the lightning flashes recall the cherubim of Ezekiel’s visions. God’s word is presented here as His actions. His word of slaughter was as if they had been slain; just as in creation, He spoke and it was done. As noted on <a href='B:350 5:11'>Hos 5:11</a>, God’s judgements against Israel happened as soon as they were spoken; yet there was a gap between the statement being uttered and it being actualized on earth. In that gap, with Israel already under condemnation, they could change the verdict by their repentance. Paul develops this theme in his legal argument in Romans 1-8. We too stand in that gap, condemned at the present judgment seat of God; and yet in Christ we can change the verdict. This gives intensity to life, and deep gratitude for the freedom from condemnation we now experience in the Lord Jesus. See on <a href='B:350 8:8'>Hos 8:8</a>.</p>


text:
<h4>For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings- Showing mercy is here paralleled with the knowledge of God. I explained on :3 that the knowledge of God in terms of relationship meant repentance and the grateful receiving of forgiveness by His grace. This is here paralleled with our showing mercy. For we cannot really experience that forgiveness without in turn showing mercy to others. We will forgive, as we have been forgiven. If we do not forgive, then we have not really known forgiveness on a personal level. The simple cure for unforgiveness is to let ourselves be convicted of the weight of our personal sins, and on that basis to allow our forgiveness of others to follow as part of a natural process. <a href='B:400 6:6-8'>Mic 6:6-8</a> makes the same point- that ritual sacrifice, even of ones own child, is not required [even under the old covenant] as much as loving mercy and humility before God as a result of realizing our sinfulness.</h4><h4>Israel cried out that “My God, we [do] know You” (<a href='B:350 8:2'>Hos 8:2</a>). Israel’s attitude to the Law can so easily be our attitude to God and to the first principles of the Gospel, the New Covenant, in which we stand. We can ‘know’ it all, and externally keep it… but in reality not know it at all, focusing on the external sacrifices whilst knowing nothing of the God we supposedly worship. All this was exemplified by Gomer being an observant Jewess, whilst worshipping Baal and living a shameful life. She broke the marriage covenant as Israel like Adam “transgressed the covenant” (6:7; <a href='B:350 8:1'>Hos 8:1</a>). Israel / Gomer knew the Law on one level, but “the great things of my law… were counted as a strange thing” (<a href='B:350 8:12'>Hos 8:12</a>). They called upon the Most High, but refused to exalt Him in their hearts (<a href='B:350 11:7'>Hos 11:7</a>). The very experience and fact of ‘knowing’ God’s word on a surface level, as academic theology, can mask the fact that to ‘know’ Him in practice is quite a different thing. The simple possession of the right knowledge about Him can of itself deceive us. This ought to provoke constant self-examination:&nbsp;As Gomer protested that she ’knew’ Hosea and was in covenant relationship with him, so Israel did to God. Hosea’s reference to daath elohim, the knowledge of God, has been observed as strikingly intimate, hinting as it does of God ‘knowing’ His people and them knowing Him, in the same way as a man ‘knows’ a woman. Hence the utter pain of <a href='B:350 5:4'>Hos 5:4</a>: “The spirit of harlotry is within them, and they know not [i:e. sexually] the Lord”-&nbsp;although they ‘knew’ so many others, they were sexually obsessed. This was God’s pain, lived out by Hosea. It was that very “knowledge of God” which He desired, rather than burnt offerings (<a href='B:350 6:6'>Hos 6:6</a>). For as Amos put it, “You only have I known…” (<a href='B:370 3:2'>Amo 3:2</a>).</h4>


