THE PREDICTED PATH (Part 3)

Introduction

-Anytime we study Scripture, we always have to be careful not to take our preconceived notions and then force Scripture to fit into those notions like puzzle pieces. Every piece of Scripture needs to be taken within its context—a context that is foreign to us, and so the reason that it takes careful study. I am preaching to myself right now because I have certain beliefs and ideas on how Scripture flows, but I need Scripture to speak for itself.

-This is especially true when it comes to end time views. We have to be careful, if we see wording in Scripture that says something to the effect of “last days” or “end of times” it is not necessarily speaking of the end times like we think of the end times. It might just be referring to the end of the era or age that the passage is talking about.

-And so we come to the end of Daniel 11, part of a vision given to Daniel by God through an angel talking about what would happen to his people Israel over the next few centuries. The angel says that he is getting this information from the book of truth which appears to be God’s plans for history. And here in chapter 11 it has, so far, specifically prophesied about what would happen during the Greco-Macedonian empire, the fight between two factions of that Empire (the Ptolemies of Egypt and Seleucids of Syria) and how Israel would be stuck in the middle as they fight it out. In the first 35 verses we have been able to look at these prophecies and see how they had been fulfilled as history has recorded the back and forth between those two powers.

-However, when you get to v. 36 the historical references aren’t as clear. Historians have a more difficult time putting specifics to what is described. And because the history is a little fuzzy, scholars are not all agreed as to what they are referring to. And I made the comments about the end times because some people see these verses referring to the end times as we think of the end times. However, it might rather just be speaking about the end of an era. Let’s read the passage and then I will give you how these are viewed by some, and through your own study you figure out what it most likely refers to.

Daniel 11:36–45 ESV

36 “And the king shall do as he wills. He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is decreed shall be done. 37 He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all. 38 He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these. A god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He shall deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god. Those who acknowledge him he shall load with honor. He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price. 40 “At the time of the end, the king of the south shall attack him, but the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships. And he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through. 41 He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites. 42 He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt, and the Libyans and the Cushites shall follow in his train. 44 But news from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go out with great fury to destroy and devote many to destruction. 45 And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him.

-In the verses leading up to this passage we saw that Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucids would have control of Israel and would persecute the Jews, set up an altar for Zeus in the temple, and desecrate the land. A group of priests from the Maccabean family would lead a revolt against him. Some Jews would join Antiochus to try an squelch the revolt, but they would eventually fall because they were fighting against the people of God.

-V. 36 goes on to talk about a king who would do as he wills, exalt himself over his own gods as well as the God of Israel, and would do his own things, trying to get all honor for himself. But who is the king. There are some things that a few folks believe as not fitting with what is known about Antiochus. But who else could it be.

-For premillennial dispensationalists (those who hold to a literal millennium, rapture and then 7-year tribulation, etc.), they see this section referring to the Antichrist of the end times. They believe that the king it refers to is a politician who has personal charisma, intelligence, great political power, but is secretly an evil character. This Antichrist will arrogantly believe that he can function sufficiently well without God, and the wording of these verses may be an indication that he is an atheist although he will use religion for his own political purposes and quite possibly set himself up as a god for worship. This Antichrist is warlike whose god will be his military might and power (or, as it says in the passage, the god of fortresses), and through force he will make his will come to fruition. He will grow his influence through military power and use money for political advantages (through bribes, payoffs, etc.). Those who defy him will be destroyed through military force, and those who kowtow to him will be rewarded, possibly with important political and governmental positions.

-The passage talks about the king of the south coming to attack him. Some believe that a military force from Africa will arise against the Antichrist. The Antichrist will then make his way through Israel to meet these forces and subdue them. But while dealing with that army, another army will be a threat which will cause him to withdraw from dealing with the African nations in order to go meet that new enemy, and this possibly sets up the battle of Armagedon (which means all of this is going on in the last half of the 7-year period, a time referred to as the Great Tribulation).

-There is obviously a whole lot more detail that others go into with this view, but I have to admit that I think this view is problematic. There is nothing that indicates that there is any sort of jump in the timeline of events such that it all of a sudden starts talking about thousands of years into the future. There is no literary indicator that would make it seem that the prophecy makes a big leap into the far future where kings referred to no longer speak about the kings of the Greeks.

-Some believe that although we might not have direct historical corroborations, that the verses continue to talk about Antiochus Epiphanes, possibly reviewing his career, not necessarily going in chronological order. Epiphanes did do whatever he pleased in spite of what his advisors or political allies would have desired. He did exalt himself above his own gods and the god of Israel. It speaks about him not paying attention to the god beloved by women which may refer to the Babylonian goddesses Ishtar or Tiamat.

-It says that this king would honor the god of fortresses which might indicate someone who was a warmonger—someone whose God was war. Epiphanes conducted many battles against Egypt and also attempted to expand his empire eastward. This is where he would find his power and prestige. And if these verses speak of him, it definitely shows he had a great view of self-importance. Eventually Antiochus died of an illness, which some saw as punishment for the way he treated the temples and shrines of his enemies, because he disregarded any God or symbols of deity. In a sense it’s true that he would be punished because the one true God took him out of this world and he is judged for what he did in Israel.

-Some see these verses as giving a very shortened view of what would happen with the Seleucid kings who would follow Antiochus Epiphanes of which there are many, although there is no consensus by scholars about which kings it speaks of. Some believe it may refer to the conglomeration of all the rest of the kings before the fall of that empire.

-Another view is that the king referred to in v. 36 is the Roman Empire who would take over the territory of the Greco-Macedonian empire. They believe that the events spoken of here lead to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. But again, there is no indication that there is a change of subject.

-Some see the verses as talking about the local politics of Israel after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. After the success of the Maccabeans in cleansing the temple, they set up what was known as the Hasmonean dynasty who ruled over the Israelite local politics and religion for about 100 years. As the Romans rose to power, Julius Caesar appointed Antipater to be procurator of Judea in 47 BC and Antipater appointed his sons Phasael and Herod to be governors of Jerusalem and Galilee respectively. Antipater was murdered in 43 BC; however, his sons managed to hold the reins of power and were elevated to the rank of tetrarch in 41 BC by Mark Anthony. In 40 BC the Parthians invaded the Roman eastern provinces and managed to expel the Romans and those associated with the Romans. In Judea the Hasmonean dynasty was restored under king Antigonus. Herod the Great managed to escape to Rome. There he was elected "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate. However Herod did not fully conquer all Israel until 37 BC. He ruled for 34 years.

-Those who view these verses as speaking of local politics think the king to which they refer is Herod the Great. Although a Jew, he in no way was a godly man. He was full of wickedness and tyranny and exalted himself above everything else. He had no regard for the God of his fathers, and some see the reference to the disregard of the desire of women as a disregard of the Messiah, as he tried to kill the Messiah. They believe his regard for the god of fortresses refers to his alliance with the Caesars seeing as they took upon themselves divine honors and titles. Herod was put in power by them and paid them tribute and secured his political future.

-Some see v. 39 as a reference to his remodeling of the temple as his converted it into a fortress for his own purposes, and possibly committing sacrilege by putting Roman emblems in its vicinity. Those who hold to this view also believe that vv. 40-45 speak of the Actian War between Rome and Egypt where Caesar Augustus invaded Egypt via a route through Israel. Those who hold this view think that v. 44 speaks of Herod’s fury, either toward the Magi for what they did in not reporting back to him about Christ, or it could be speaking of the fury he unleashed on his own family whom he thought were plotting against him. V. 45 then speaks of Herod’s end when God’s wrath finally fell upon him, and his dynasty would eventually be destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

-That is a whole lot of information in a short amount of time, and you might see why there is some confusion about these last verses. Personally, I believe that the verses are summing up Antiochus Epiphanes—it seems to follow the path of the context. But either way, there are many lessons to learn here. First, when you set yourself up against God you set yourself up for a great fall—no one ever opposes God and wins. Second, but it goes with the first, pride most certainly comes before the fall—so stay humble. Third, some may trust in horses and some in chariots and some in guns and some in fighter jets, but the only correct path of life is to trust in the Lord. Fourth, even when circumstances are adverse, God still takes care of His covenant people. Fifth, there will come a time when all the enemies of Christ and His church will be destroyed, but it is not by our hand, it will be by the hand of the Lord—until then, we patiently and boldly go forth proclaiming the truth of the gospel.