Chapter 11: Vision 4- Restoration and the End (Part 2) ​

Introduction

Chronology of Ch. 10-12

With the Clouds of Heaven: The Book of Daniel in Biblical Theology The Canon of Scripture

Evangelical persuasion and canonical methodology intersect in the following two conclusions: (1) that Daniel was written prior to the events the book prophesies, and (2) that the Old Testament canon was closed before the Maccabean crisis. These conclusions have tremendous interpretative implications.

Next, Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Great. Who are these two? What is their relation to each other and the dating of this vision and its apparent discontinuity?

How to Read Daniel (Darius the Mede)

Darius the Mede. The book presents Darius the Mede as the ruler of Babylon at the beginning of the Persian period. The problem is that according to all other records, biblical and ancient Near Eastern, that position belongs rather to Cyrus.

One solution proposed by some is that the mention of Darius the Mede is simply a historical error. A number of scholars believe that the book of Daniel was composed long after the sixth century BC, the setting of the events of the book of Daniel, and that Darius the Mede is simply a mistake generated by the distance of time between its setting and when the book was actually written. (See below on the debate concerning the time of the composition of the book.) As H. H. Rowley put it in 1935, Darius the Mede was the result of the “conflation of confused traditions.” Others, including myself, don’t want to be hasty in such a conclusion, especially considering how the mystery surrounding Belshazzar ultimately was solved with more information.

Thus, there are various possible explanations put forward on the basis of the knowledge that we have presently, though it would be mistaken to give the impression that any of these ideas are widely accepted. These explanations begin with the recognition of the well-attested practice of giving kings a different throne name in the various parts of the empire in which they ruled. A biblical example of this is when the well-known Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III is called “Pul” in 1 Chronicles 5:26. This raises the possibility that Darius the Mede was a second name given to a person whom we might know by another name.

A number of candidates have been put forward as possibilities that might be identified with Darius the Mede. Perhaps Darius the Mede is actually Gubaru, whom we know from texts written in Akkadian as the governor of Babylon under Cyrus. Another theory identifies Darius the Mede as the Babylonian throne name of none other than Cyrus the Great.13 If this were the case, then we would translate Daniel 6:28 as “Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even [rather than and] Cyrus the Persian.” Recently, Anderson and Young have reasserted the view that there is a Darius who would have been contemporary with Daniel and the defeat of Babylon that is mentioned in a couple of obscure references. The citations are allusive and enigmatic, though, and have failed to persuade many scholars.

These and other hypotheses have been put forward to try to solve the question of the identity of Darius the Mede, but as we have already admitted, none are conclusive. But rather than taking this question as evidence against the historical reality of Darius, we should, in my opinion, reserve judgment pending further information.

Cyrus the Great. Finally, we come to Cyrus the Great. We have already considered the possibility that Cyrus and Darius the Mede are one and the same, but we are not at all certain about this. What we do know is that Daniel survived into the beginning of his reign (Dan 1:21; 6:28) and that Daniel had his last vision in that king’s third year (Dan 10:1). Cyrus was named “Great” by tradition because he was the one who brought various tribal/national elements in western Iran (particularly the Persians and Medes) together to form a powerful core that then expanded its empire by defeating Lydia, a power in Asia Minor and then Babylon, which brought that entire empire under its sway.

The book of Isaiah views Cyrus very positively (Is 44:28; 45:1, 13). After all, he conquered Babylon, which had subjugated Judah and deported its leading citizens. Judah, now referred to as Yehud, remained a province under the dominance of Persia, but Cyrus initiated a different foreign policy that allowed more autonomy among its friendly vassals. The end of 2 Chronicles (2 Chron 36:22–23) and the beginning of Ezra (Ezra 1:1–4) both record the so-called Cyrus Decree that allowed the Jews who were exiled by the Babylonians to return to their homeland.

As the book of Esther, set in the time of the later Persian king Xerxes, indicates, not all Jewish people decided to return. It is likely that the aged Daniel did not choose to return. He almost certainly died soon after Cyrus achieved his great military and political victories.

Key Point

Resilience in the face of evil opposition serves as a reminder that we are not merely at war with flesh and blood, but principalities and darkness. The need of the ever-present hour is to have the perspective of the Lord of history despite how abominable situations may become.

Read the Text

Replay the Text

Four Movements

A structure arises that collating visions from Ch. 2, 7, 8, & the present unit of 10-12 we have complementary ways of understanding what is unfolding. Hamilton structures it this way:

With the Clouds of Heaven: The Book of Daniel in Biblical Theology Kings of South and North in Daniel 10–12

The elements of this pattern are straightforward: (1) at the time of the end (2) a king of exaggerated wickedness arises (3) who attacks God’s people and (4) tries to keep them from worshipping him, (5) setting up instead an abomination of desolation, (6) thereupon a horrible time of tribulation will continue for three-and-a-half years (7) before the wicked king meets sudden, irreversible destruction, (8) resulting in deliverance for the righteous.

Each builds on the previous in such a way that the times signified throughout Daniel’s writings are given a fine point or historical culmination which will point toward a final cataclysmic event at the parousia or ‘appearing’ of the Lord.

Movement 1: Re-Arranging the Board

11:2- second kingdom: three more kings after Darius? and then a fourth who is richest of them all shall elicit the attention of the King of Greece (Alexander)

The Persian Kings: Smerdis, Cambyses, and Darius I, and that the rich fourth king is Xerxes, known from the book of Esther. While Xerxes was far from the last king of Persia, he was the one who first campaigned against the Greeks and thus “stir[red] up everyone against the kingdom of Greece” (Dan 11:2).

OR

How to Read Daniel (Section One: The Transition from the Persian to the Greek Empire (Dan 11:1–4))

numerical parallelism that is not uncommon in wisdom literature (see for instance, Prov 30:18–31) and the prophetic tradition. In the latter, we can take special note of the judgment oracles against the nations in Amos 1 and 2. These oracles each begin with such a numerical parallelism as it lays out the indictment against the various nations. The first oracle against Damascus is a case in point: “For three sins of Damascus, even for four, I will not relent” (Amos 1:3).

Notable is the fact that the passage goes on to simply give one example of a sin: “Because she threshed Gilead with sledges having iron teeth” (Amos 1:3). The “three, yea four” parallelism seems to have the effect of saying that there are a number of accusations to be made, not that there are specifically only three or four. So rather than thinking the “three, yea four” number of kings in Daniel means that there will be only four, it could be that a number of Persian kings will appear before the Greeks take over.

(Longman, Tremper, III. How to Read Daniel. How to Read Series. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2020, 124)

11:3-45 will pertain to Greece and various events of its reign.

11:3- Alexander the Great

11:4 (elaborates and confirms 2:39b-c; 7:6; 8:8) four generals: Antigonus, Ptolemy, Cassander and Seleucus

The struggle among the Diadochi reached its climax when Antigonus, after the extinction of the old royal line of Macedonia, proclaimed himself king[2] in 306 BC. Ptolemy, Lysimachus, Cassander and Seleucus, the other four principal Macedonian chiefs, soon followed and assumed the title and style of basileus (king).

Movement 2: Rise of the King of the South and Rebellions

11:5-20- Ten Kings

How to Read Daniel (Section Two: Back and Forth between the Kings of the South and the North (Dan 11:5–20))

The first king of the North is Seleucus, who established his capital at Antioch in Syria, and the first king of the South is Ptolemy, who established his capital at Alexandria in Egypt. Thus, we commonly refer to the dynasties that flow from them as the Seleucids and the Ptolemies and their kingdoms as the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms.

Before beginning to rehearse the interactions between these kingdoms as prophetically described in Daniel 11, we should take note of the unfortunate location of Jerusalem as right in the middle between these two kingdoms. We will find that Jerusalem and the province of Yehud are contended territory between these two kingdoms as they jockey with each other for power.

As we move into this phase of the prophecy, we can, in historical retrospect, plug in names for the various kings and others in the North and the South. Indeed, it is as simple as reading a historical account of the period written by a modern historian who is basing their research on the writings of ancient historians. In other words, a modern reader not versed in the history of the eastern Mediterranean region, including Egypt in the late fourth to mid-second century BC, will be mystified by Daniel 11:5–45, but those who are familiar with the time period will recognize well-known monarchs and their actions in these words. That said, we will run into a well-known and difficult reference in regard to the final king in the very end of this section. Indeed, it is this final king who seems to be the focus of the whole section, though the question will be, Does the comment on the final king morph into something larger and further in the future?

What is clear is that the time period between the fall of Persia to Greece and the early Greek period is simply creating the setting for sustained focus on the climactic king. Thus, as we describe the contents of Daniel 11:5–20 and make reference to the history it points to (from our historical vantage point), we will not be exhaustive. To make things clear, I will summarize the contents of the biblical text in normal font but italicize our later understanding in the light of historical events.

The first round (Dan 11:5–6) of the kings of the South (Ptolemaic) and the North (Seleucid) describes how the first king of the former will grow in power, but he will have a commander who grows even more powerful. Here the reference is to the first Ptolemaic king, Ptolemy I, and his commander, Seleucus I, who had gone to Egypt in the midst of a conflict with another general of the deceased Alexander—namely, Antiochus. But the king and his commander eventually form an alliance. Ptolemy and Seleucus together defeated Antiochus and soon after established the latter’s kingdom with its capital at Antioch. Palestine with its major city at Jerusalem was supposed be part of the Seleucid kingdom, but Ptolemy took it. Seleucus and his successors never conceded this, and thus conflict would break out over the long run between the two dynasties. The daughter of the king of the South will try to form an alliance with the North but fail. Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, a member of the royal family, was given in marriage to a grandson of Seleucus in an attempt at a dynastic marriage between the two sides. The grandson had been divorced from his first wife, Laodice, who eventually reconciled with her former husband but then assassinated him, Berenice, and her son. Thus, the daughter of the king of the South did not maintain her power.

In Daniel 11:7–10 we hear that a family member of the previously mentioned daughter of the king of the South came to the throne. Berenice’s brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes, took the throne in Alexandria around 246 BC. He warred against the new king of the North, Seleucus II Callinicus, the son of Laodice who had killed his sister. He was successful, and in good Near Eastern practice (see comments above on Daniel 1:1–3), he took the idols and other ritual paraphernalia from Syria back to Egypt. But eventually the North attacked the South. While not victorious, the North recovered lost land.

Daniel 11:10 says that the son of the king of the North (Seleucus II)—namely, Seleucus III Cerannus (227–223 BC), and especially Antiochus III (223–187 BC) swept into the South as far as the fortress (maybe Gaza, south of Jerusalem). But then the king of the South (Ptolemy IV Philopater), according to Daniel 11:11, fought the king of the North (Antiochus III) in a battle that has come to be known as battle of Raphia (217 BC). The king of the South won, but his victory was short-lived because the king of the North came back and pushed back against the South.

Movement 3: Man of Contempt

Antiochus Epiphanes

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC)​

Daniel already prophesied about Antiochus in 8:9–14, 23–26​

His title “Epiphanes” means either “illustrious” or, more likely, “manifest [appearing of a god].”​

It is purported that part of the reason for honing upon this key figure is his relation to or typifying of the Anti-Christ as Jerome writes, ​

"since many of the details … are appropriate to the person of Antiochus, he is to be regarded as a type of the Antichrist, and those things which happened to him in a preliminary way are to be completely fulfilled in the case of the Antichrist" (1958: 129).​

Antiochus is eventually overthrown in the Maccabean revolt and the temple rededicated in 164 BC​

Antiochus dies a rather meager death in Tabae in Elymais (Elam, modern southwest Iran) of a wasting disease after having robbed or attempted to rob a temple

11:21-35

About His title

Daniel Context

The latter interpretation makes his title a blasphemous claim to demigod status. His critics behind his back called him “Epimanes,” meaning “madman” (Polybius, Histories 26.1).

His Character

Daniel Context

According to classical historians, Antiochus Epiphanes was an utterly unpredictable personality. At one moment he appeared to be a capable, energetic administrator, a shrewd tactician, and a man of great generosity. At another moment he became fiercely tyrannical and unstable, a “madman” (Polybius, Histories 28:18; Diodorus, History 30:18; Livy, History of Rome 41.19.8–9). The latter characteristic is seen in his harsh treatment of the Jews.

Daniel Context

As already noted, Antiochus IV’s First Egyptian Campaign in 169 BC led him to ally himself with his nephew Ptolemy VI Philometor and attempt to restore Ptolemy VI’s rule after Philometor was reduced to co-ruler with his brother Ptolemy VIII Euergetes and his sister Cleopatra II. But neither man achieved his goal. Antiochus IV captured Memphis (modern Cairo) and besieged Alexandria, but he did “not succeed” in capturing all of Egypt because of “plots” against him (v. 25c).

His betrayal/soothesaying

Daniel (Context)

Antiochus IV justified his invasion on the guise of restoring Philometor to the throne, but his promises were meant to disguise that he really hoped to control Egypt through his nephew and make him a puppet ruler. Philometer received from Antiochus his “provisions” (פַּתְ־בַּג) of food (v. 26), a Persian loanword used of the royal provisions given to Daniel and his friends (Dan 1:5, 8, 13, 15–16). Yet they both spoke “lies at the same table” (v. 27). Philometer deduced Antiochus’ duplicity and for his part double-crossed Antiochus by secretly negotiating an agreement with his brother and sister. According to the deal, Philometor would return to the throne, though he did “not succeed” in regaining sole rulership. He was made senior member of the triumvirate, thus eliminating Antiochus IV’s legal basis for invading (Livy, History of Rome 45.11.2–7). Philometor thanked Antiochus for his help and asked him to return home. But Antiochus IV, angry over being tricked, purposed to fight against both Philometor and Euergetes unless the region around the Egyptian city of Pelusium and the island of Cyprus were ceded to him by Egypt (Livy, History of Rome 45.11.8–10).

Yet Antiochus also did “not succeed.” In the fall of 169 BC, having lost his “legitimate” cause of restoring Ptolemy VI to his throne, Rome pressured Antiochus IV to leave Egypt alone, break his besiegement of Alexandria, and withdraw (Josephus, Antiquities 12.243–246; Polybius, Histories 29.25). Antiochus then attempted to repair his relationship with Rome by sending emissaries (Polybius, Histories 28.22), hoping soon to renew his Egyptian activities without Roman interference. All of this came at the “appointed time” (v. 27c) (מוֹעֵד) or a fixed time, a term that also occurs in 8:19; 11:29, 35. It implies the sovereign working of God (see §3.8, §7.3).

Dan. 7:8; 20-22 seem to further anticipate this fact that of all the rulers mentioned throughout the visions/dreams of Daniel, this one is whom God will deal most directly (i.e., the desolation and abomination of the Temple in the Maccabean period is referenced by Jesus and marks significant events in God’s eschatological fulfillment of this passage).

Abomination of Desolation

Setting the Stage

Daniel (Context)

This humiliation put Antiochus IV into a foul mood that led him to “rage against the holy covenant” (v. 30b). After his failed second invasion of Egypt, Antiochus put down another rebellion in Jerusalem, perhaps again incited by Jason. Enraged by the rejection of his appointee to the high priesthood and generally irritated by his Jewish subjects, Antiochus took drastic action. He attempted to abolish the Jewish religion and force the Jews to adopt Greek religion instead. In particular, Antiochus acted to “desecrate the temple fortress” (v. 31a; or “the sanctuary fortress,” NASB, NKJV; ​ הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הַמָּעוֹז), turning it into a temple of Zeus. He commanded Israel to build altars to idols in the temple sanctuary, allowed prostitution in the temple precincts, abolished the Sabbath and sacred festivals, and demanded that Greek religious festivals be adopted instead (1 Macc 1:41–50; 2 Macc 6:1–11). He forbade the “regular sacrifice” (see comments at 8:11) to the Lord (v. 31b; cf. Dan 8:11; 12:11) as well as other Jewish offerings (1 Macc 1:45).

In contrast Antiochus was happy to “favor those who abandon the holy covenant” (v. 30c). The expression rendered “favor” (Qal of עַל + בין; also in v. 37) is an unusual nuance of a verb that usually means “to understand.” Other suggestions are “pay attention/heed to” (ESV, NRSV) and “show regard for” (NASB; CSB at v. 37). Many Jews became Hellenists, that is, Jews speaking Greek and following Greek customs. Some went so far as to abandon Jewish religious customs completely, removing the marks of circumcision from their flesh and establishing “gymnasiums,” which observant Jews considered shameful. Gymnasiums were educational facilities where boys were instructed in the (sometimes idolatrous) values of Hellenism and where athletic actives were conducted in the nude (1 Macc 1:11–15). The high priest Jason, a Hellenist, won Antiochus’ support for the priesthood both by bribes and by encouraging the establishment of a gymnasium in Judah to teach youth the Greek way of life (2 Macc 4:9–12). Jason influenced not only laymen but also priests to participate in the gymnasium, to the neglect of their priestly duties and in violation of the Mosaic law (2 Macc 4:13–17).

On “abomination of desolation” (v. 31c), see comments at 9:27. Antiochus IV’s abomination or sacrilege was epitomized by the idolatry introduced to the temple and his offering of pigs and other unclean animals on a pagan altar placed atop the temple’s altar (1 Macc 1:47, 59; 6:7; Josephus, Antiquities 12.253). He made continuing to practice Judaism punishable by death (1 Macc 1:49). Children who were circumcised were killed, along with their families (1 Macc 1:60–61; 2 Macc 6:10).

The Maccabean Revolt

Daniel (Context)

Certain pious Jews at the time of Antiochus IV “die [literally “stumble”; see comment at v. 14] by the sword and by the flame” (v. 33b). Some Jews let themselves be massacred rather than violate the Sabbath when the Seleucids attacked them (1 Macc 2:29–38). The Maccabees for practical reasons did fight on the Sabbath (1 Macc 2:39–41). Some were captured and plundered (1 Macc 1:32; 5:11–13), though this was limited by God in his sovereign plan for history (see §3.8, §7), lasting only “for a time” (v. 33; literally “days”).

Judas Maccabeus’ military campaign repeatedly defeated larger Syrian armies with his smaller Jewish forces. He made alliances with those who “helped” him (v. 34a), including the Romans who were supporting Ptolemy VI against Antiochus IV (1 Macc 8:17–21), though some joined “insincerely” (v. 34b). With Judas’ help the temple was cleansed and rededicated to the Lord on the twenty-fifth day of Kislev (December) in 164 BC, an event subsequently celebrated by the feast of Hanukkah.

These events allowed the Jewish people to be “refined, purified, and cleansed” (v. 35a) by restraining the process of Hellenization that was undermining the Jewish faith. As a result of the Maccabean Revolt, and subsequent challenges to the Jewish people, the Jews as a whole became more faithful to their covenant with God. The expression “the time of the end” (v. 35b) was previously used of the future time of judgment at the time of Antiochus IV (8:17, 19). But here it seems to extend to the fixed eschatological time of judgment

Movement 4: North and South Collide

11:36-45- The fall of the “little horn” of the 3rd Kingdom

Daniel (Context)

A case can be made that Dan 11:36–45 describes neither Antiochus IV nor first-century BC Roman dealings in Palestine. Rather, it describes a future figure, the antichrist. Verse 35 states that Daniel’s people would be purified “until the time of the end”; therefore, it is reasonable to expect the next discussion to bring us to “the time of the end.” With 11:36–45 we have arrived “at the time of the end” (v. 40). Moreover 11:36–44 is closely connected with 12:1–3, which predicts an unprecedented great distress and a clearly eschatological event, the resurrection of the just and unjust “at that time” (12:1). Thus 12:1–3 seems to place 11:36–44 in an eschatological context, making 11:36–12:3 as a unit parallel with Daniel 7 and Daniel 2 in which the kingdoms of the world are displaced by the kingdom of God (see outline).

This fits the pattern of the four kingdoms of Daniel. We have argued earlier that the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7 are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome-and-beyond. Here we argue that “the king” of verse 36 may be from the fourth kingdom of Rome-and-beyond (not the Greeks), a view also held by Calvin. Hence there is consistent transition in Daniel 10–12 as found elsewhere in Daniel from Medo-Persia to Greece to Rome-and-beyond to the kingdom of God (see chart).

Daniel (World Kingdoms Ended and the Righteous Established (11:36–12:3))

(A) Beginning of story (1:1–21)

(B) Dream about four world kingdoms ended by the kingdom of God (2:1–49)

(C) Judeans faithful in the face of death (3:1–30)

(D) Royal pride humbled (4:1–37)

(D′) Royal pride humbled (5:1–31)

(C′) A Judean faithful in the face of death (6:1–28)

(B′) Vision about four world kingdoms ended by the kingdom of God (7:1–28)

(E) Vision of Persian and Greek kingdoms to Antiochus (8:1–27)

(F) Vision of seventy weeks (9:1–27)

(E′) Vision of Persian and Greek kingdoms to Antiochus (10:1–11:35)

(B′′) World kingdoms ended and the righteous established (11:36–12:3)

(A′) End of story: Vision sealed until the end (12:4–13)

(See Review Chart)

Why Prophecy?

What is the significance of prophecy for the people of God and why does God use it? We have addressed different genres employed and the use of, for example, court narrative to communicate wisdom or apocalyptic literature to reveal visions or heavenly knowledge that when revealed offers comfort, instruction, or something else. Prophecy has two primary senses for which it is employed: to foretell and to set forth. The former is to describe what is to come and the latter addresses in a present and potent manner, often preceded with a “Thus saith the Lords.” The way prophecy through apocalyptic visions has been used in Daniel enables a picture to Daniel—and his readership—into a panorama of what God is doing in orchestrating world events: terrible, wonderful, and mystifying as they often are. However, why prophecy and not just an even more straightforward historical accounting? We confess God as the God over history every time we say the Creed, “We believe in One God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth...” If the Psalmists relay the history of God looking backward and His mighty acts of salvation (Ps. 105). Why can’t the same be true looking forward? What we are met with instead are approximations of what will come, but nevertheless with much precision. Why not just exact foretelling (though that is what some will argue is occurring and seek to make every timeline fit precisely)? I think the reason for this is at least two-fold with two sub-points under one primary reason. 1) The purpose—not unlike what the Psalmist is doing—is that the people of God would have confidence in their mighty King for which to reference and therefore, as God’s people may be suffering or in a season of plenty, they may remember God’s promises (both viewing them forwards and backwards). This prepares us to be ready to make a defense for the hope that is in us (1Pet. 3:15). 2) The way in which God uses prophecy is less about an historical precision that meets our expectations and more a reminder that God has an unfolding purpose and therefore we should be emboldened to accomplish our purposes (God’s will) that He has charged us with. This point of prophecy exemplifies a way in which we can learn to read Scripture as unfolding in typological ways in which one epoch of history satisfies a partial fulfillment while still remaining a need for a complete and final fulfillment. This is the pattern beginning in Gen. 3:15 and finds fulfillment: foremost in the Passion of Christ (see Heb. 2:14-16) and then apocalyptically and eschatologically in John’s Apocalypse (Rev. 19:17-21; 20:7-10.

How to Read Daniel (Part One: Vision: The Kings of the South and the North (Dan 11:1–36))

Tell us, you idols, what is going to happen.

Tell us what the former things were,

so that we may consider them

and know their final outcome.

Or declare to us the things to come,

tell us what the future holds,

so we may know that you are gods. (Is 41:22–23)

(Extra Quote)

Daniel Bridge

This passage reveals to Daniel what will occur in “the last days” (10:14) from Daniel’s perspective, though it is ancient history from today’s perspective. This unit constitutes some of the most remarkable fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible. It predicts in detail events from the Persian period (11:3) and the Greek period (11:3–35) and demonstrates God’s foreknowledge of the future (see §3.5). This theological interpretation requires rejection of the critical view that considers Daniel’s prophecies to be history in the guise of prophecy (see §1). The traceable fulfillments laid out in the commentary show the supernatural nature of biblical prophecy and the truth of God’s revelation (11:2; see §2). Though the Macedonian-Greek kingdoms were powerful and at times their rulers did whatever they wanted (11:3, 16), they too experienced frustration and failure, showing the fleeting nature of conquest (see §7.3). Human endeavors quickly fall into futility (Eccl 1:1–2, 14).

Christ-Connection

The connection we have to the Lord Jesus is most evident in this passage—not in typological sightings nor clear allusions to him, but—by understanding what the Lord Jesus views himself as doing in both his own age and the age to come.

Matt. 24 has many facets to it. Both some which have a partial fulfillment in 70 AD and that which is yet to come. This is a similar pattern in the Scriptures with the global flood, Babylonian exile, Crucifixion, and then final judgment. The temple of God was first abominated in the garden, then it was defiled in the day of the Kings of Israel, it was defiled by Antiochus, then Nero, and finally at the end of time there will be a kind of defilement of the temple of God. The judgments of God are always against sinners and have climatic points which lead to the culmination. Similarly, since the dawn of creation in which God set His abode to be with His creatures who bear His image, and since that day when His presence was defiled by the establishment of idolatry and the evil one’s influence, so then has been the abomination of true worship before God.

In Christ, the true worship of God is restored as He said to the Samaritan woman (Jn. 4:23-24), in spirit and truth, and this worship is performed and realized through union with Him by the Spirit of Truth.

Application

How do we live in light of this?​

Remember God's promises (Jn. 14:18-21) ​

Remember God's purposes (Js. 1:2-4)​

Prepare for Suffering (1Ti. 3:10-17)​

Pray for the Persecuted Church (Phil. 4:10-20)​

Conclusion

Ezekiel, Daniel: Old Testament, Volume 12 (11:1–45 The Kings of the South and the North)

This chapter seems like a historical narrative under the form of an enigmatic description of events then future. The angel relates and places before his eyes occurrences yet to come to pass. We gather from this very clearly how God spoke through his prophets; and thus Daniel, in his prophetic character alone, is a clear proof to us of God’s peculiar favor toward the Israelites. Here the angel discusses not the general state of the world but first the Persian kingdom, then the monarchy of Alexander and afterwards the two kingdoms of Syria and Egypt. From this we cleverly perceive how the whole discourse was directed to the faithful. God did not regard the welfare of other nations but wished to benefit his church, and principally to sustain the faithful under their approaching troubles. It was to assure them of God’s never becoming forgetful of his covenant, and of his so moderating the convulsions then taking place throughout the world, as to be ever protecting his people by his assistance.