Daniel 11:36-45: Faulty Forecast, Future Finale, or Focal Flip (PART 3)

11 Comments

1. 

   Patricia Watkins

   May 23, 2018 at 1:24 am

   Hi Carmine,

   Although I can understand why the North was typically used for judgment, accompanied by the whirlwind you are emphasizing, remember this point: in the AD 70 era, judgment on Israel would be coming from ALL FOUR winds of heaven loosed upon the land. This is in Revelation 7, where these four winds were temporarily being held back, just until the 144,000 First-fruits saints were sealed for protection against the overwhelming tribulation that would come from ALL FOUR directions. That’s one reason why this “Great Tribulation” period had never been and never would be equalled ever again.

   Tribulation that came upon the land of Israel in general and Jerusalem in particular originated from:

   #1) the “king of the NORTH” (Simon bar Giora / aka “Gog” from his Northern headquarters in Nain near Galilee)
   #2) the “king of the SOUTH” (the Southern nation of Idumea’s attack against Jerusalem in AD 67 or 68, resulting in the death of the Two Witnesses of Rev. 11, Ananus ben Ananus and Joshua ben Gamaliel)
   #3) the WEST (because the Sea Beast headed by Rome was one that John saw coming up out of the Mediterranean Sea – which was called “the hinder sea”, west of Jerusalem)
   #4) and the EAST ( because the bodily-returning Christ was prophesied to come fight against the nations battling a civil war in Jerusalem – “And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem ON THE EAST…” – Zechariah 14:4. Physically speaking, a literal earthquake on that day produced a landslide rubble field on the Mount of Olives that is still lying on the slopes of the Mount of Olives to this day. For some very interesting discussions about the earthquake rubble blocking the valley all the way to Azal – which was at Christ’s second coming, I believe – check out these two links: http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/preterist-forum/ye-shall-not-flee-to-azal/ and this one at http://zechariahfourteenfive.wordpress.com/ To me, it’s fascinating to look at those old photos of slumping rubble fields on Jerusalem’s Mount of Olives and realize that Christ bodily returned to those very hills already back in AD 70. In Zechariah 14:4-5 LXX, the East, West, North, and South directions were ALL affected when Christ touched down on the Mount of Olives to gather all the resurrected saints and “receive them unto Himself” through the portal of the EASTERN gate of Jerusalem.

   This is why God gave the prophet instructions in Ezekiel 46:1-3 for the people to worship at this exact location of the EASTERN gate “in the Sabbaths and in the new moons”. He was telling them in symbolic language about WHERE and WHEN His second coming would occur. Daniel, too, was given an even more precise countdown to the exact day this would occur – the 1,335th day, to be exact. I have given a detailed description of when this 1,335th day fell on the calendar in comment # 19 at this link: http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/preterist-forum/the-paradigm-for-the-three-resurrections/

   Carmine, I believe your emphasis on the “whirlwinds” is a justifiable one, based on how scripture brings this idea forward . In contrast to the four winds of heaven being used to JUDGE Israel and Jerusalem in the AD 70 era, we encounter those same four winds also bringing restored LIFE to the dry bones of the whole house of Israel in Ezekiel 37:9, after the 70 years of exile. “Come from the four winds, O breath and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.” God can give life or take it away, using the same means.

   Symbolically, Christ also compared the Holy Spirit’s work in giving the new birth to this same wind in John 3:8. “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth: so is every one that is birth of the Spirit.”

   Carmine, I may not find agreement with every deduction you are making about the operation of the whirlwind as it relates to prophecy, but I do think you have hit the nail on the head with the type of cyclical pattern God employs when sending his winds of judgment. This following Ecclesiastes 1:6 verse is one you may even be using as part of your line of proof for this judgment pattern by the whirlwind. “The wind goeth toward the South, and turneth about unto the North; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to its circuits.” This seems to bolster the idea you are highlighting; that God employs one nation as His judgment tool, but then turns around and disciplines that tool for having exercised that judgment with a wicked mind. That would explain why a formerly-preserved Sea Beast (placed under the RIGHT foot / aka the South side of the mighty angel in Revelation 10:2) was first of all called “HIS armies” that came against Jerusalem, but as the 4th beast, it eventually was itself slain and destroyed by the burning flame in Daniel 7:11.

   Let me know if any of these observations seem viable to you, Carmine.

   Reply
2. 

   Carmine Hetrick (Post author)

   June 11, 2018 at 6:39 pm

   Hi Patricia,

   Thank you for investing the time to read my research and to comment on it. I am deeply appreciative. I apologize it has taken so long for me to respond. I have had many other obligations that required my attention over the past several weeks and I’m just now returning a focus to my research.

   Thank you also for the reference to the whirlwind in Ecclesiastes. That’s actually one I had missed in my studies. The word there translated ‘whirleth’ is ‘halak’ (H1980). I’m not sure a relationship to ‘caar’ (H5190/H5191) as discussed above can be demonstrated but it is interesting that the wind is portrayed as progressing toward the south first, then the north. This is especially true considering the context of generations coming and passing and the sun rising and setting. Thank you for pointing this passage out.

   In reading your response, it sounds as if perhaps you see the significance of the whirlwind in Daniel 11:40 as being an allusion to the 4 winds of Revelation 7 rather than the indicator of a transition of identities of the kings of the North and South that I proposed. Are you of the opinion that this imagery has no interpretive value with regard to Daniel 11?

   Regarding the intepretation you presented of the raising of the dead and the 1,335 days in Daniel 12, I think you may be onto something there. However, I hesitate to affirm your conclusions regarding the timing and number of resurrections being predicted.

   The proposal you’ve put forth argues for 3 bodily resurrections. One surrounding Christ’s death, another on Pentecost of A.D. 70, and one that is yet future. I do expect a future bodily resurrection.
   Though, perhaps we can discuss some potential problems with the proposal that there were 2 others in the 1st century.

   First, a few words about the raising of the dead saints recorded in Matthew 27:52-53. As you are probably aware, there are significant problems surrounding this event regardless of whether it’s viewed as a resurrection or resuscitation. For a thorough examination of these problems and a resolution I personally find reasonable, please search the web for the JBL article “Matthew 27:52-53 as Apocalyptic Apostrophe: Temporal-Spatial Collapse in the Gospel of Matthew” by Kenneth L. Waters, Sr. I’m interested in how you would respond to the issues raised there.

   Now, regarding a resurrection event on Pentecost A.D. 70. I’ve read the posts to which you referred and I do find it interesting that the date you propose based on the 1,290 and 1,335 days of Daniel 12 works out to Pentecost 70 A.D. This actually fits quite well with the Jubilee theme that runs throughout Daniel. Also, notice that the difference of 45 days is exactly 1/8th of a ‘time’ (i.e. a 360 day year). The 8 (H8083) alluded to here is significant especially considering that those who made it the extra 45 days were said to be “blessed” (H835). There are intimate connections between the Hebrew words for 8 and blessing. There are also other firm connections between the number 8, Pentecost and the Year of Jubilee. Connections I’ll be writing more about in an upcoming article as they have major implications on what I believe to be the correct identification of Darius the Mede.

   Now, do these connections between the 1,290, 1,335, 8, Jubilee and Pentecost mean that a mass bodily resurrection occurred on Pentecost 70 A.D.? Maybe but not necessarily. Could there be other interpretations?

   Reply
   • 

     Patricia Watkins

     June 12, 2018 at 3:33 am

     Hi Carmine,

     I tried to get a pdf of the Kenneth Waters article you mentioned, but it is proving to be rather elusive. From another person’s commentary on what he said about the Matthew 27:52-53 passage, apparently Kenneth Waters assigns an apocalyptic sense to the whole story, as a metaphoric picture of the later resurrection at the close of human history, correct? If Kenneth Waters perhaps believes that this event is not even a real one, that doesn’t stay in sync with the way the entire book of Matthew is presented – which is a rather linear, chronological, historical rendering of literal events and facts, complete with many particulars to establish the historical record.

     I completely reject the whole “resuscitation” angle for these Matthew 27 resurrected saints as a physical impossibility, after the Spirit has done the work of raising them from the dead. One might as well say that you can put the Holy Spirit to death. I have heard people attempting to reason that all these saints were “freshly dead” and were merely resuscitated to life, only to die again later. Revelation 14:14-16 tells us otherwise about this “harvest of the earth” when it says that this harvest performed by the single-crowned Son of Man was “dried” – in other words, these saints had been dead for a loooooong time, not that this makes any difference to the Spirit who gave them incorruptible life. Perhaps you could give me a brief synopsis of Kenneth Waters article, Carmine, until I can read his article for myself? Just some bullet points, maybe.

     As for the Daniel 11:40 verse with the different nations transitioning between the north and the south label, I see one problem with this. I listened to your audio again, and caught that you are saying that this “king of the North” came against the “king of the South”. That’s not the case here. Gurney has the referent mixed up. The “king of the South” pushes against “THE KING” from up above in Daniel 11:36-39. Then, the “king of the North ALSO comes against this same “THE KING” from Dan. 11:36-39, with even more force than the other “king of the South” had. The rest of the Daniel 11 chapter goes on to describe all the other actions performed by the “king of the North” in the “glorious land” (the land of Israel).

     So, I read it that “THE KING” had two enemies acting against him at “the time of the end”. Since Daniel 12:1-2 talks about the Great Tribulation and a resurrection, this “time of the end” in Daniel 11:40 can only be the AD 66-70 era of conflict before the end of the Old Covenant Age.

     We are not given much of a clue about who “THE KING” is, but since it comes directly after the description of the Maccabean struggle for freedom from Syrian rule, I can only think that “THE KING” is the high priesthood of Israel, which at that period had examples of those who grabbed both the title of a national “king”, and that of the high priesthood as well.

     Another reason why “THE KING” in Daniel 11:36 could be identified as the high priesthood lasting until the end of the Old Covenant Age is because this Daniel 11:32-35 text covered the period when Israel was becoming an independent kingdom nation – i.e. the Rev. 17 Scarlet Beast which once “WAS”(under the Maccabean leadership), then “IS NOT” (after Pompey conquered it), then “IS” once more in existence, once the Zealots kicked off the Roman yoke in AD 66 and started minting coinage for themselves as a sovereign independent nation.

     Reply
3. 

   Carmine Hetrick (Post author)

   June 12, 2018 at 6:25 pm

   Hi Patricia,

   Given the biblical precedents of the symbolism of North vs. South and the whirlwind, there is surely some very great significance to the use of this imagery here in Daniel. That significance would seem to me to be setting the expectation of the reader that 1) the passage has judgement of a nation as a main focus, 2) there would be an eventual shift in nationalities of the kings involved and 3) somehow, the patterns of God’s judgement with respect to North vs. South and the appearance of whirlwinds might reasonably be expected to come into play as indicators as to when those changes occur.

   While your theory acknowledges some significance to the North vs. South and whirlwind symbolism, it’s unclear to me if this symbolism can be applied to facilitate the transitions that you propose take place for the kings of the North and South. If that could be done, I think your case would be stronger. The idea that the king of the North changes from a king of Syria to a Zealot leader of Israel and the king of the South from a king of Egypt to a king of Idumea would certianly be more compelling if you could present some clues from the text of Daniel itself, not history alone, that such changes occurred.

   You have explained parts of these themes in Simon bar Giora (King of the North) as judging the office of High Priest (“the king”). Also with Idumea (King of the South) in turn judging Simon bar Giora (still King of the North). However, in applying this symbolism, the expectation would seem to be that another nation from the geographical North with respect to Israel would judge Simon, not a nation in the geographical south with respect to Israel. Despite the symbolic uses of the terms North and South, a hypothesis that also incorporates them without rendering the underlyng physical geography irrelevant may be preferable. Also, I’m still not sure that your proposal takes seriously enough the occurrence of the whirlwind.

   Further, consistent with these elements of symbolism, it seems from the prophecy as though Egypt was being judged (for what exactly is a separate issue) and Syria was apparently the executor of that judgement. While your understanding of these passages does at least position the King of the North both as an executor of judgement and eventually a target of judgement itself, it doesn’t seem to me to do the symbolism full justice. Having these identities switch as you suggest leaves the greater judgement scenario that the chapter opens with and builds up completely unresolved in that Syria never receives the judgement presumably coming to it.

   To my mind, interpretations of this prophecy that do not somehow culminate in Syria being judged (i.e. transitioning from the King of the North to King of the South) fail to bring this symbolism to its fullest possible significance. This is especially true considering that a king of Syria (Antiochus IV Epiphanes) is a central figure in Daniel itself and Jewish literature from the Hellenistic period clearly portray him as a great persecutor and archenemy of God and His people. The end of him and the kingdom that brought him to power would be a fitting, even anticipated end to this portion of the prophecy. In fact, I believe there is credible scriptural evidence that he is even to be seen as something of a sinister counterpart to Darius the Mede, highlighting the eschatological and symbolic significance of both men.

   Regarding the identification of the second “him” in v. 40, you are correct that it’s possible that this ‘him’ could refer to “the king” from v. 36 as does the first ‘him’ of v. 40. But the grammar of the text is ambiguous. It could just as easily be a reference to the King of the South mentioned in the first clause of v. 40. Dr. Gurney talks about this ambiguity near the middle of page 9 of Chapter 7 in the PDF version of “God in Control”. In my view and his, “the king” of v. 36 simply refers back to the King of the North from verse 28. Therefore, for me to say that the second ‘him’ of v. 40 was the King of the North would have the King of the North rushing against a King of the North (possibly himself). This doesn’t make much sense to me and seems counter to the judgement theme. Therefore, the most reasonable option from my view then is that the second ‘him’ of v. 40 is the King of the South.

   I realize that you see “the king” of v. 36 as a new entity within the prophecy. You are not alone in this. Philip Mauro and others who seem partial to his theory like Bryan T. Huie and John Evans see this king as being connected with Israel too. Specifically, they identify him as Herod the Great though and not the High Priesthood as you suggest. The absense of any specifier here is interpreted as a reference to a king relative to Daniel’s own people.

   While I can see this as a possibility, it’s not without its own difficulties and I personally just don’t see a warrant for such a suspicion. This omission of a specifier seems quite natural if v. 36 is simply picking up referring to the king last mentioned in the verses preceding the parenthetical comments regarding “the wise” of vv. 33-35. That would appear to be the King of the North/Syria.

   You mentioned in another comment in part 1 of this article series that in the Septuagint, ‘ho’ (G3588) may indicate a cause for suspicion that “the king” was not the King of the North/Syria but a different king. The exact phrase in Daniel 11:36 LXX is “ὁ βασιλεὺς”. This phrase occurs nearly 60 times in the LXX version of Daniel itself. 3 of those times are in Daniel 11, once in v. 36 as you pointed out. It is also in vv. 5 and 25 where it’s applied to the King of the South. In light of these observations, there does not appear to be a particular significance surrounding the lack of designation for this king.

   In response to your request for a summary of the problems Dr. Waters presents with viewing the raising of the dead saints in Matthew 27:52-53 as an event contemporary to Christ’s earthly ministry, I will try my best to give you an overview. You seem to be well aware of the problems with the resuscitation theory so I will skip those details. I will briefly present the problems with the situational details of the event itself as well as those of the resurrection theory specifically.

   First, despite the many events that accompanied the passing of Jesus on the cross, the centurion’s response here only seems to be logical if he were reacting to the earthquake, the opening of the tombs and the saints coming to life. Those are the only events mentioned that he could have possibly witnessed personally and evoked the sort of response he demonstrated. However, the risen saints are said to have come out of the tombs and entered the “holy city” only after Jesus had Himself risen from the dead 3 days later. This situation is very awkward to envision playing out over a period of several days.

   Second, if Christ was truly (i.e. chronologically) the first-born of the dead as Scripture teaches in various places, regardless of when the risen saints left the tombs, to even have only the actual resurrection of the people on Good Friday becomes problematic for this teaching.

   Third, the reference to the “holy city” seems in almost all other cases in the New Testament to be most logically interpreted as a reference to a visionary or metaphysical location (i.e. the Jerusalem from above). To see it as the historical, earthly city in Matthew 27 runs counter to this trend.

   The bulk of the paper expounds on these main points, demonstrates that collapsing of time and space in narratives is not at all uncommon in the Bible or other ancient Jewish literature, and demonstrates that such collapsing is actually quite powerful in explaining what may actually be going on here in Matthew 27. Given that this portion of Matthew describes such a climactic and chilling prophetic event as the murder and seeming defeat of God incarnate, it would seem more than fitting that a visionary flash-forward to the glory that would result might be woven into the account.

   Waters has also written a companion paper entitled “Matthew 28:1-6 as Temporally Conflated Text: Temporal-Spatial Collapse in the Gospel of Matthew”. A free copy of both papers can be obtained for new registrants at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3268388 and http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0014524605053988

   Reply
   • 

     Patricia Watkins

     June 14, 2018 at 1:15 pm

     Hi Carmine,

     Thank you for the links provided – that helped. I read through the first one completely and have what I believe are viable points that counter his positions. Will get to that second one a bit later. Earning a paycheck does tend to be an obnoxious distraction to digging into subjects as quickly as I would like.

     I very much appreciate the gift of your free time in discussing these things, since spare time for any working man is a rarity. I’ll try to be concise here in responding to some of your counterpoints. No promises, but I’ll try! Brevity is not my strong suit.

     First, you say that the great significance of the “North”, “South”, and “whirlwind” terms set up an expectation that there should be the judgment of a NATION as the main focus. YES, very true. The particular nation under predicted judgment in Daniel 11:40 was eventually going to be the independent kingdom nation of ISRAEL that was formed after the Maccabean struggle spoken of in Daniel 11:31-35 (i.e., the Scarlet Beast of Rev. 17). Daniel had already been given the vision earlier in Daniel 8:9-14 of this same Maccabean struggle under Antiochus Epiphanes that resulted in the sanctuary being cleansed. Antiochus was said to “stand up against ‘the Prince of princes’ ” (the high priesthood of Israel) as he was destroying “the mighty and holy people” for those “2,300 mornings and evenings” (or 1,150 days from 168 BC – 165 BC). Following the cleansing of the temple by Judas in 165 BC, the independent nation of Israel (the Scarlet Beast) was subsequently formed not long after that.

     Carmine, you have asked just where my theories include an end for Antiochus Epiphanes and the kingdom that brought him to power. This “ending” for both Antiochus, and shortly thereafter the Syrian kingdom, are spoken of in two places:

     First, the anticipated end for the Syrian kingdom (which I believe was one of the 4 kingdoms included within the entire scope of the single Greek kingdom) is found in Daniel 8:23 (LXX). As the angel was describing what composed “the last end of the indignation” (Dan. 8:19), he said in v. 23, “And at the LATTER TIME of THEIR kingdom” (the SINGLE Greek kingdom that all 4 kingdoms were a part of) “when THEIR sins are come to the full, there shall arise a king bold in countenance and understanding riddles”. This is Antiochus Epiphanes, emerging at the LATTER TIME, or the ending period of the four kingdoms that were the last part of the Greek empire.

     We know that in 168 BC, Perseus and the kingdom of the Macedonians was defeated by the Roman legions, indicating the ascendance of the next, 4th beast kingdom (headed by Rome), even though the fading remnants of the Syrian and Egyptian kingdoms were not quite completely absorbed yet by the 4th Roman beast kingdom. Rome was beginning to call the shots at that time, as evidenced by the many nations that desired to pay homage and tribute, wishing to be aligned with Rome’s growing power. Rome’s humiliating “line in the sand” challenge for Antiochus in Alexandria in 168 BC was only one such example, which goaded him into attacking the Jews instead, since he was deprived of his intentions against Egypt.

     Second, as for the destruction of Antiochus himself, It would seem that Antiochus Epiphanes’ violent destruction of the Jews and their religion for those 2,300 mornings and evenings (from 168 BC to 165 BC) was the final straw bringing “sins to the full”, that caused God to strike Antiochus suddenly with disease that made him rot to death in 164 BC. This was in fulfillment of Daniel 8:25, which predicted that the “king of bold countenance” who had “destroyed the mighty and holy people” would himself be “broken WITHOUT HAND”. In other words, it would not be in battle, or by the hand of any human agency, but God’s power alone that would break him. If you have a copy of Ussher’s “Annals”, Carmine, you may be interested in the details of how God killed Antiochus IV in the year 164 BC. It’s a little gross.

     At any rate, to the point of our discussion, at this “latter end” of the 4 kingdoms near the close of the Greek empire, when the Maccabees were battling for, and eventually achieving an independent NATION for themselves, this was the time I believe when “THE KING” was identified as the leader of this independent NATION of Israel. It’s the start of the Rev. 17 Scarlet Beast’s existence. And we know any time a new BEAST is introduced to us in either Daniel or Revelation, it represents an empire or a kingdom. “THE KING” was the high priesthood leadership system over this independent kingdom of Israel. A NATION, if you will. A nation that would eventually have two of it’s kings, (Simon bar Giora of Galilee in the North, and the leader of Idumea in the South) come against their own kingdom in the AD 66-70 era of CIVIL WAR.

     Remember, when the Rev. 17 Scarlet Beast “arose out of the abyss” by re-emerging as an independent nation once more in AD 66, they chose 10 generals – the 10 horns, as Adam M. has brought up – as leaders of the war. Idumea of the South, and Galilee of the North were specifically mentioned by Josephus as having some of these 10 horns over them (Wars 2.20.3-4).

     The Idumean opposition against Israel (the king of the South) was lighter by comparison – it merely “pushed at” “THE KING” of Israel by killing about 7,000 or so of the moderate high priest party that night of the Idumean attack on Jerusalem in AD 67 or 68, which killed the 2 former high priest witnesses, Ananus and Joshua. In contrast to this one-time attack by Idumea (the king of the South), the campaign against the nation of Israel by Simon (the king of the North) would be much more intense and of longer duration. Simon / Gog with his army would come like a whirlwind (Dan. 11:40), or a storm with clouds (Ez. 38:99) to cover the land of Israel.

     If you want to say that the second “him” of Daniel 11:40 implies that the king of the North is coming against the king of the South – instead of coming against “THE KING” from Dan. 11:36, – that alternative could be true also, because Simon did come against Idumea and compelled many Idumean citizens to assist his own campaign against Jerusalem in AD 69. This was when he killed Matthias, the high priest who had actually invited Simon into the city.

     Carmine, you mentioned that the application of my theory might not be giving full weight to the “whirlwind” of judgment concept. It is not an under-estimation of the “whirlwind” concept to apply it to Simon’s actions. After all, we are talking about the total eradication of national Israel and its priesthood for all time, with Simon / Gog from the North parts being used as one of God’s main tools to accomplish this destruction of the Scarlet Beast in Jerusalem. It is the end of an epoch – the culmination point of the Old Covenant. Even the Romans acknowledged the significance of Simon’s actions by giving him the title of the leader of the rebellion, and having him publicly executed as such after the Roman triumph. And Simon, “king of the North” actually was destroyed by a Northern opponent of sorts, if you consider that Caesarea on the coast near Galilee in the North was the headquarters for Vespasian’s and Titus’ Roman troops to spill out over the land of Israel as they conquered each major city in turn (Wars 5.1.6.39-40, and 3.9.1). Once Titus’ troops captured Simon in AD 70, he was held at Caesarea, and sent to Rome from there for the triumph and his execution.

     Carmine, I really have made a serious attempt to read through Daniel 11 several times, trying to envision “THE KING” of Daniel 11:36 as either Antiochus IV of Syria or even Herod and his dynasty, as John Evans has proposed. Even though the described actions in v. 36-45 can be made to fit either man, the main roadblock I keep running into when I do this is the fact that “THE KING” is a force in place that extends chronologically from the Maccabean era all the way until “the time of the end” and its Great Tribulation and resurrection spoken of in Daniel 12:1-2. There is no way that Antiochus cold fulfill this entire timespan. Neither is it possible for Herod and his dynasty to fulfill this, since he was not yet on the scene during the Maccabean times.

     The only possible way to explain how an entity could span this entire period from the Maccabean times until the Great Tribulation and resurrection of AD 70 (Dan 11:31 – 12:1-2) is for “THE KING” to represent the high priesthood system, operating within the Scarlet Beast kingdom of Israel found in Rev. 17 that once WAS for about 80 years, then IS NOT after Pompey squelched it, then was ABOUT TO ARISE out of the abyss as John was writing Revelation. The time brackets of Daniel 11 are what cinch the identification of “THE KING” as the high priesthood, at least for me.

     Just to dip into the Matthew 27:52-53 subject….the amazed response of the centurion seems to be based on the following observations taken from the gospel accounts:

     #1) hearing Christ’s death cry, as in Mark 15:39: “And when the centurion, which stood over against Him, saw that He so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, ‘Truly this man was the Son of God.’ ”
     #2) viewing the 3-hour darkness over all the land and the rending of the temple veil, and hearing Christ’s death cry with a final plea to His Father to receive His spirit: probably hearing the repentant thief requesting remembrance of himself when Christ came into His kingdom, and Christ’s response: probably hearing Christ’s request for His Father to forgive those crucifying Him, all as found in Luke 23:34-37. “Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God saying ‘Certainly this was a righteous man.’ ”
     #3) in the Matthew 27 account, the centurion seeing the three hours of darkness over the land, hearing Christ’s death cry, seeing and feeling the earthquake, and viewing the breaking open of the tombs by the earthquake, and the temple veil being torn. However, he did not witness the raising of the saints and their appearance in the holy city, because that was said to not occur until the day of Christ’s resurrection, when Christ brought this “multitude of captives” WITH Him as He arose from the dead (Eph. 4:8-13).

     Everything else that this centurion heard and saw (except for the actual rising of the saints and their being seen of many in the holy city) was ample cause for the centurion’s response. Given that I believe Christ was crucified on the Mount of Olives, the centurion’s view from that perspective could conceivably see the first veil of the temple being torn, so this presents no contradiction for me.

     Also, the chronological necessity for Christ to be the “FIRST-born” from among the dead” presents no difficulties, if one understands what the definition of being the “First-born” fully entails. There were many authentic bodily resurrections of saints BEFORE Christ was raised, most obviously Lazarus (who never died again, as I have taken pains to research). However, the full range of our bodily-resurrection experience is NOT COMPLETE until we stand face-to-face with God Himself in heaven in that glorified body. Intimate, close fellowship fully restored in an incorruptible spirit, soul, and body in God’s very presence – that is the entire package deal for our salvation. Christ was absolutely the first to fulfill all of this in a glorified human form on His resurrection day. This was the first time He ascended to the Father, when He was made our high priest in heaven that day.

     Psalms 2:7 testifies as to this one particular day: “I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, “THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE…” This is a “birthday” for Christ, when He was brought before the Ancient of Days, and was given the high priesthood over His kingdom (Daniel 7:13-14). Again, it is specifically called “THE DAY which the Lord hath made” that all the saints can be glad and rejoice in (Ps. 118:24). John calls it “the Lord’s Day” in Revelation 1:10, because the first day of the week had been given that honorary title ever since Christ arose and ascended for the first time on that day of the week. In faith, Abraham also rejoiced to “see” Christ’s DAY, and was glad of it (John 8:56).

     We know that Christ testified in John 3:13 that “…no man hath ascended into heaven but He that came down from heaven…” This limitation was in place until Christ became the first to ascend into God’s presence as the “FIRST-born”. Christ would, so to speak, “open the matrix” for all His siblings to follow Him to heaven in the AD 70 bodily resurrection. These Matthew 27 saints who had been made “alive, and who remained” on the earth until then (think I Thess. 4:15 & 17 here) would immediately follow their newly-resurrected brethren to heaven at that time. Until that AD 70 bodily resurrection, God had work for them to do on earth that no other ordinary living saints could have performed except them.

     Carmine, if you haven’t already, you might want to read Adam’s post at this link where I wrote at some length about other places these Matthew 27:52-53 saints are referred to in the New Testament. http://kloposmasm.com/2015/03/04/comparing-matthew-24-and-i-thessalonians-4-5/#comments
     Here’s another simpler comment I made about the identity of these saints with reply #45 at this link: http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/144000-28924/msg1055053238/
     Another link very similar to this is a reply #30 at: http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/144-000-35658/msg1055070888/

     As to Dr. Kenneth Waters’ opinion that the “holy city” is NOT referring to the physical city of Jerusalem on earth being spoken of in Matthew 27:52-53, it is fairly simple to refute his position. Just cross-reference two or three passages about this.

     Matthew 24:15 – “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in THE HOLY PLACE, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)”

     Luke 21:20 (the parallel account to the Matt. 24:24 text) – “And when ye shall see JERUSALEM compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.”

     Linking these two parallel verses together shows us that “the HOLY PLACE” as further defined by Luke was the PHYSICAL CITY of JERUSALEM, with physical armies surrounding it, after which time the disciples were to flee Judaea for the mountains for their safety.

     Here is another verse that also calls the location of Jerusalem “the holy place”. It is found in Acts 6:13, where certain members of the synagogue brought accusations against Stephen. It says they brought him to the council (the Sanhedrin, with the high priest present), “And set up false witnesses, which said, ‘This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against THIS HOLY PLACE, and the law…” After Stephen’s trial, they “cast him out of the CITY, and stoned him” (the city of Jerusalem). Conclusion: Jerusalem the physical city is called the “Holy Place” in the New Testament, not to mention those occasions of Revelation11:2 and Matthew 4:5 when it is called the “holy city”, which Dr. Waters does not admit are describing the physical city of Jerusalem that then existed and was about to be destroyed in the AD 70 era.

     Not to denigrate Dr. Waters’ command of the English language, but I don’t think Christ meant the Matthew 27 historical account of the crucifixion to be so obscure that it would take a doctorate to understand it. It takes real imagination to interpret this Matt. 27:52-53 text as a far-distant future prediction, and sandwich it between two very plain-speaking verses giving a blow-by-blow account of a real historical event. Simply because Dr. Waters doesn’t know what other references exist in the NT that speak about these Matthew 27 saints does not give him leave to actually alter the placement of phrases in this text to have it conform to his perception of how it ought to read instead. I found that rather presumptive on his part. How’s that for gall, Carmine? I’ve got a high school diploma to my credit, and I’m calling a Doctor in question for his presumption. I took God seriously when He said that “the righteous are bold as a lion” (or a lioness, as the case may be).

     I hope you will excuse my lengthy rambling here – it’s a problem severe enough to test the patience of any saint. Must be a side effect of not having a local assembly anymore to fellowship with. In the meantime, thank you for your feedback, and I’ll look into that other link you gave me as soon as I can.

     Reply
4. 

   Carmine Hetrick

   June 15, 2018 at 5:47 pm

   Hi Patricia,

   Thank you again for another well stated, thorough response. This is a refreshing dialogue. I appreciate your interest and time spent on these posts, especially with the knowledge that you have a business and paying customers to attend to.

   You stated that the main roadblock you see with “The King” of v. 36 being Antiochus IV or even Herod the Great and his dynasty is that “The King” is a force in place that extends chronologically from the Maccabean era all the way until “the time of the end”, the Great Tribulation and Resurrection of Daniel 12:1-2. I think I understand your argument for why you see Herod’s dynasty as a troublesome fit. I’m still unclear on why Antiochus and Syria are not viable.

   I don’t see justification for imposing the requirement that Antiochus or Syria must last ALL THE WAY UNTIL the Great Tribulation and Resurrection. As I understand, Antiochus or Syria only have to last through the BEGINNING of the period that INCLUDES the Great Tribulation and resurrection. If I’m understanding your proposal correctly, it sounds as if you would place this BEGINNING of “the time of the end” some time after Israel had gained their independence. Possibly even after the Hasmonean dynasty had ended. Could you kindly try restating the summary of your view on this point in more specific terms to help me understand better?

   Regarding your response to where your theories include an end for Antiochus Epiphanes and the Syrian kingdom, I think maybe my concern could have been phrased more precisely itself. You responded that you saw his fall in 2 places in Daniel 8. We both agree here.

   What I meant to ask was where specifically in DANIEL CHAPTER 11 do you see the end of Antiochus? Here are my points in asking this.

   The Daniel 11 prophecy itself sets the stage for the downfall of Syria and Antiochus Epiphanes WITHIN DANIEL 11 itself. When that downfall happens, according to the scriptural patterns of judgement, we would expect that Syria will no longer be the “King of the North” but will assume the identity of the “King of the South”. Another nation will take its place as “King of the North”. In your interpretation, WITHIN DANIEL 11 itself, where does this happen?

   I look forward to your response but from my current understanding of your proposal, this does not happen. That is, Daniel 11 never represents Syria as the “King of the South” and a nation that historically judged Syria is never represented by the “King of the North”. I see this as problematic. To my mind, to simply acknowledge or surmise that Syria’s downfall occurs somewhere in the prophecy (which I believe you would place around Daniel 11:32-35 based on the description of this fall in Daniel 8) does not fulfill the expectations instilled in us at the prophecy’s outset.

   As further evidence that this symbolism really is intended to guide the reader to follow such interpretive cues, we see in verse 40 a whirlwind with chariots and horses. These are unmistakable symbols of God’s whirlwind-wheeled firey chariot-throne which itself is scripturally connected with God ARRIVING in judgement from the NORTH. This ARRIVAL implies that judgement BEGINS for the entity being visited (Jeremiah 49:38; Isaiah 66:15; Daniel 7:8-11,21-22,26). In the context of Daniel 11, the whirlwind arrives at a point where a judgement on the “King of the South” has already been under way for most of the chapter. This strongly suggests that the judgement on the real-world referent underlying the “King of the South” has been completed at this time and a new real-world referent has taken its place where its judgement will begin. Again, according to scriptural patterns, this real-world referent behind the “King of the South” has become that which had just previously been underlying the “King of the North”. This then means the real-world referent underlying the “King of the North” has also been replaced with a different nation.

   With the presence of such strong symbolic indicators of change, it hardly seems justifiable that the reader should ever have been expected to see these types of changes in referents at places in the prophecy where these symbolic indicators were not stated. Yet that’s precisely what must happen in an interpretation that does not see the “King of the North” as Syria and the “King of the South” as Egypt ALL THE WAY THROUGH the first clause of v. 40 where the whirlwind appears.

   If these deductions are unwarranted, what other credible explanation can be offered for the intent behind each of these symbols occurring in conjunction with each other? In all sincerity and respect, what would have been the point in casting the prophecy in such language in the first place if these symbols were not meant to lead us to the above guiding principles of interpretation?

   Thank you also for reviewing the research of Dr. Waters. That is quite an investment of time. You made some interesting counter arguments. While I would sincerely like to continue discussing Matthew 27:52-53, I don’t want to veer too far off the topic of these articles. This is a topic in which I haven’t much stake and I’m not too set in my interpretation. I just prefer to tread lightly on the nature and timing of the resurrection and felt I should make that known. I’d like to resume that discussion at another time, possibly in another thread, if that would be agreeable with you Patricia. Please feel free to post more comments on that subject here if you desire but I will not be able to respond to those specific points at this time.

   Reply
   • 

     Patricia Watkins

     June 18, 2018 at 5:04 pm

     Hi Carmine,

     Apologies for the delay in responding to your comment – had a Father’s Day celebration to plan and execute.

     You asked for a synopsis of my view as to the timing for the “Time of the end” spoken of in Daniel 11:40 and Daniel 12:1, and if I believe the destruction of Antiochus and Syria intersects with this “time of the end”. It is my contention that this “time of the end” that includes an unprecedented “time of trouble” with a resurrection to follow can only be referring to the ONE singular period of trouble that Christ predicted for the Jewish nation in AD 66-70 (as taught in Matt. 24:21 – “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.”)

     The beginning point of this time of great tribulation I believe to have been launched in AD 66 at the start of the Jewish rebellion, during the season when the daily sacrifice for the Roman empire and its emperor were taken away (as in Dan. 12:11). This AD 66 date was also the same season that re-established the existence of the Scarlet Beast (the independent kingdom nation of Israel which the Maccabean victories had once created, and which lasted for only about 79 years until Pompey’s actions turned it into a Roman province in 63 BC.) John had written in AD 59 that this Scarlet Beast was “ABOUT TO COME UP out of the abyss” in his days, only to go into destruction again soon after that (Rev. 17:8).

     Since the “time of the end” started in AD 66, there is no possible way this could be referring to either Antiochus or the Syrian kingdom (as part of the Greek kingdom). Rome was the empire in power during this “time of the end”, not Syria. If this were not true, we would have no way to explain how Caesar Augustus could send out a decree in Luke 2:1 that “all the world should be taxed”, if he did not possess world power over the whole habitable world. We also would have no explanation for the statement of the citizens of Philippi (“a chief city of that part of MACEDONIA and a colony…” – Acts 16:12), who claimed quite proudly that they were ROMANS. When Paul and Silas disrupted the “soothsaying” business of the possessed girl, her masters brought them before the magistrates, saying, “…These men being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, and teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, BEING ROMANS.” This is a Macedonian colony claiming to be under Roman laws in Paul’s days. This would not be possible, if the Greek kingdom had not disappeared by then, with the Roman empire established as the 4th kingdom, and the 4th beast.

     Basically, Carmine, the main issue that causes our viewpoints to diverge, as far as I can tell, is the identity that each of us assigns to the 4 kingdoms of Daniel’s image. I believe you are dividing them as follows, correct?

     #1) the kingdom of gold – Babylonian or Chaldean
     #2) the kingdom of silver – the Medes
     #3) the kingdom of brass – the Persians
     #4) the kingdom of iron – the Greeks, with the Ptolomy’s and the Seleucid’s kingdoms lasting until the arrival of Christ’s kingdom

     Two main disadvantages of this system are that the existence of the Roman empire is turned into a total non-event in scripture. Also, that it ignores all the references in scripture to a JOINT empire of the Medes and Persians. Daniel 6:8 & 15 is one example. The book of Esther also has several references to the JOINT rule of the law of the Medes and Persians (Esther 1:1, 1:18 & 19, 8:9, 10:2). When Cyrus the Persian married the only daughter and heiress of the kingdom of the Medes in 539 BC, he was given all the kingdom of the Medes as a dowry. This united the kingdoms of Media and Persia, which is a picture of the 2nd “bear” kingdom in Daniel 7:5, that “raised up itself on ONE side”. This meant that the Persian side of this joint empire of Medes and Persians would predominate, which it did.

     So, personally, I have to go with the following division of the 4 empires:

     #1) gold – Babylonian or Chaldean
     #2) silver – Medes and Persians
     #3) brass – Greek, which was subdivided into 4 after Alexander’s death, with the Syrian and Egyptian kingdoms actually being the “king of the North” and the “king of the South” respectively, in the FIRST part of Daniel 11
     #4) iron – Roman, which was in power “at the time of the end” when the power of Daniel’s people was shattered by the end of AD 70

     This “end” involved the final destruction of the revived Scarlet Beast of an independent Israel. In other words, I place the “BEGINNING of ‘the time of the end’ ” in AD 66, when the Zealot’s rebellion had re-instated their former independence which they had once enjoyed after the Maccabean victories until 63 BC, when Pompey and the Romans took it from them.

     Carmine, you also asked if I see the end of Antiochus described in Daniel 11. NO, I don’t. It’s not even necessary, since both you and I recognize that the destruction of Antiochus and the Syrian kingdom was already predicted in Daniel 8. Why, then, would it have to be necessary for Daniel to repeat the prediction of the Syrian kingdom and Antiochus coming to an end?

     You say that Daniel 11 “sets the stage for the downfall of Syria and Antiochus Epiphanes WITHIN DANIEL 11 itself”. What I see Daniel 11 doing is repeating SOME of Daniel 8’s story about Antiochus’ activities, and showing how these fit into the context of history as related to Daniel’s people in particular. We already know from Daniel 8 that Antiochus and the Syrian kingdom have an end. That was already an established prophecy. What we have in the last third of Daniel 11 is how Antiochus’ actions are connected to the END OF DANIEL’S PEOPLE. THEY are the primary reason that all of Daniel’s visions were given to him. The fate of the world’s empires could ebb and flow, but the primary reason Daniel’s people were the underlying theme behind all the visions is that CHRIST would eventually come through Daniel’s people, for the benefit and blessing of the entire world. It shouldn’t surprise us to see the culminating focus of Daniel 11 and 12 honing in on Daniel’s people, with the rest of the world empires taking a back seat to this theme.

     This intensifying focus on Daniel’

     Reply
     • 

       Patricia Watkins

       June 18, 2018 at 5:28 pm

       (Oops, hit the post button too soon by mistake.) To finish up:

       This intensifying focus on Daniel’s people themselves is why I see the focus shifting in Daniel 11:36-45 from the earlier Daniel 11 identity of “the king of the North” / Syria, and the “king of the South” / Egypt into a new identity of “the king of the North” / Galilee in Israel’s northern quarter, and a “king of the South” / Idumea, in the southern quarter of Israel. This shift in focus is not unlike your own view, Carmine, when you speak of a time when “the real-world referent underlying the ‘king of the North’ has also been replaced with a different nation.” All I am saying is that this “different nation” is one from ISRAEL instead, since both Antiochus and the Syrian kingdom were predicted to be out of the picture by then. You place the time for this shift to a different nation to take place in Daniel 11:40. I place the time for this shift to the different nation of Israel to take place in Daniel 11:36, when it brings up the subject of “THE KING” of the independent kingdom of Israel that the Maccabean struggles of Daniel 11:32-35 had helped to set up.

       The significance of God’s “whirlwind” in Daniel 11:40 alerts us to the fact that God is coming in judgment on DANIEL’S PEOPLE. The conclusion of this whirlwind judgment against Israel is evidenced in Daniel 12:7, when the power of Daniel’s people is shattered after “a time, times, and an half” (the period of 3 1/2 years, in which Daniel 11:40-45 through 12:1-3 takes place).

       Let me know, Carmine, if all this above just served to muddy the waters even further.

       As for continuing a discussion of that Matthew 27:52-53 text, I agree that subject would be better off confined to another post topic, so as not to divide attention from your topic at hand. However, the subject of the resurrection in Daniel 12:1-2 is embedded within this entire Daniel 11 – 12 context, so we can’t eliminate the resurrection entirely from the conversation. It is, after all, the hope of every saint in every generation.

       Reply
       • 

         Carmine Hetrick

         June 19, 2018 at 6:32 pm

         Hi Patricia,

         I hope you had a nice Father’s Day with those you meant to honor with your celebration. I appreciate your response.

         Regarding the starting point of the “time of the end”, the evidence you presented seems to argue only for the beginning point of the Great Tribulation, not the beginning point of the “time of the end”. Much of what you said I would agree with. But you seem to be equating the beginning of the Great Tribulation with the beginning of the “time of the end”. Nowhere is the “time of the end” defined for us as starting with the Great Tribulation. The “time of the end” includes the Great Tribulation as a distinct point within it but it does not necessarily start with it.

         In contrast, considering the exact phrase for “time of the end” in either Hebrew (`eth qets) or Greek (καιροῦ πέρας) according to the LXX, it would seem as though Daniel’s prophecies themselves indicate that the ” time of the end” included the fall of Antiochus or at least the absorption of the last remnants of the Greek Empire (i.e. Egypt) into the Roman Empire in 27 B.C. (see “God in Control”, Chap. 1, p. 13 and Chap. 7, pp. 9-10) . The exact same Greek and Hebrew phrases are used in Daniel 8:17, 11:35 and 12:9. Relative to Daniel’s time of writing, this entire period could certainly be considered the end. Despite the evidence presented thus far, the “time of the end” is completely compatible with the time period encompassing Antiochus Epiphanes, the birth of Christ and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

         Also, I don’t think I can agree that the “main issue that causes our viewpoints to diverge” in our views on Daniel 11 is “the identity that each of us assigns to the 4 kingdoms of Daniel’s image”. The interpretation of what’s happening in Daniel 11:40 given in my last response was arrived at and presented based primarily on information from this single vision and a consideration of biblical patterns of judgement as established outside of Daniel altogether. My reference to Daniel 7 was only mentioned as additional support of the idea that even Daniel saw the setting of God’s throne (i.e. His flaming whirlwind-chariot) in a nation as the BEGINNING of judgement. That can be established from that particular set of passages without any further inferences about the identities of the beasts in that vision or, for that matter, the corresponding segments in the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.

         That being said, you are correct in that I do believe that the evidence supports that the visions regarding the beasts and image do represent the Babylonian, Median, Medo-Persian, and Greek kingdoms. I also think the identities of the kingdoms arrived at for Daniel 11 do have some interpretive value regarding the kingdoms in the other visions of Daniel. This series of articles is not meant to defend that view although I do feel it can be done. Dr. Gurney in particular addresses all the common arguments against this progression of kingdoms including the separation of the Median kingdom from the joint kingdom of the Medes and Persians that you mentioned. This is particularly true in Chapters 1 and 5 of his book.

         Further, I don’t quite understand why one might think scripture is obliged to present the Roman Empire in prophecy to any particular degree. Although I do believe Rome is actually acknowledged to a considerable level even in an interpretation that doesn’t see it as Daniel’s 4th kingdom, it is by no means required any more than we would expect that any of the earth’s other empires would be described in biblical prophecy. Still, Dr. Gurney demonstrates exactly how, as he says, “verses 40 to 45 are a perfect description of the destruction of the Greek empire and the arrival of the Romans.”

         You also stated that the ‘significance of God’s “whirlwind” in Daniel 11:40 alerts us to the fact that God is coming in judgment on DANIEL’S PEOPLE.’ The limit of applicability that appears to be being read into this symbol seems unwarranted to me. While the whirlwind does symbolize judgement and alludes to a particular pattern in that judgement, scripturally, it’s not limited in application to Israel alone. I agree, Daniel 12 does describe an eventual judgement on Daniel’s people but not in any comparatively great detail and it does not necessarily follow that judgement on Israel is in view in Daniel 11:40. I’ve already laid out the basic evidence against that view and in favor of another. You are of course free to dismiss it if you wish in favor of a view you find more fitting.

         Regarding the similarities between our theories, I appreciate the fact that in both your proposal and mine, the kings of the North and South at some point transition to some nations other than Syria and Egypt. I must graciously say that, as of this moment, the evidence given that the identities to which this transition resolves in your proposal is not as convincing as I think the evidence could be.

         Reply
         • 

           Patricia Watkins

           June 24, 2018 at 5:34 pm

           Hi again Carmine,

           Have you considered adding the following text to your collection of “whirlwind” references? The context of Zechariah 10:12-17 seems to be connected to the same Maccabean struggle that Daniel 11:31-35 speaks about, but in this case, it appears that God’s whirlwinds come from the SOUTH instead, in order to accomplish His judgments on Greece. “…when I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man. And the Lord shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning: and the Lord God shall blow the trumpet, and shall go with whirlwinds of the south…” The entire flow of this text seems to be describing the eventual Maccabean victories over the sons of Greece, which would be an apt description of the Syrian forces that fought with the Jews during those Maccabean times. Have you any comments one way or another about this text, Carmine? In particular the allusion to the whirlwinds from the South in this text?

           Also, I’ve been doing some further study this week on this Daniel 11 chapter, and a closer review of the free pdfs that Dr. Gurney supplied for his “God in Control” chapters, since much of your viewpoint mirrors his. In answer to one of your objections to my last post, it would seem that Dr. Gurney actually agrees with me in part.

           Your quote: “But you seem to be equating the beginning of the Great Tribulation with the beginning of the ‘time of the end’. Nowhere is the ‘time of the end’ defined for us as starting with the Great Tribulation.”

           Now for Dr. Gurney’s view on this. Speaking about Daniel 12:1, Dr. Gurney’s quote from his “God in Control” chapter 8, p. 3 says the following: “We must now establish the meaning of ‘at that time’, and the identity of the ‘time of trouble’. The words ‘at that time’ come at the beginning of Daniel 12. Clearly ‘that time’ must refer to THE LATTER PART OF CHAPTER 11 which was all about Antiochus and the destruction of the Greek empire.”

           Personally, I can agree with the part of this sentence that I capitalized above, where Dr. Gurney connects the “at that time” point of time in Daniel 12:1 to be the same as Daniel 11:40 “at the time of the end”. Where I cannot agree with his interpretation is when he states that the end of the Greek empire is in view at the end of Daniel 11.

           To continue, Dr. Gurney goes on in chapter 8, p. 4 to define Daniel 12:1’s “time of trouble”: “Now for the ‘time of trouble’. This is identified for us by Jesus Christ Himself.” (He goes on to quote Matthew 24:20-21 here.) “These words suggest that the great ‘time of trouble’ is the Jewish War, which culminated in the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.”

           Between these two statements of Dr. Gurney’s, he equates Daniel 11:40 and its “time of the end” with the “time of trouble” taking place in AD 70. This actually is contradicting himself when he inserts the ending of the Greek empire as taking place at the same “time of trouble” when the AD 70 siege and destruction of Jerusalem would be going on. Unless I’m reading him wrong, this appears to be a huge misstep on his part The Greek empire was long out of power by AD 70 – not possible for it to end “at that time” of great trouble, let alone the time of the Daniel 12:1-2 resurrection.

           The context of Matthew 24 tells us exactly when “the end” would come. Wars and rumors of wars would come, but “the end is NOT YET” (Matt. 24:6). Then various persecutions and “sorrows” would take place, that the saints were to “endure unto the end” (Matt. 24:13). The gospel would be preached in all the world to all nations (which was done, according to Paul), and “THEN SHALL THE END COME” (Matt. 24:14), at a time when there was the abomination of desolation Daniel spoke of (which was armies surrounding Jerusalem, according to Luke 21:20). At THAT time, when people saw Daniel 12:11 being fulfilled (the abomination of desolation in Matt. 24:15), this would be what started the “great tribulation” such as was never equalled before or since that time (Matt. 24:21). So, Matthew 24 most definitely spells out for us that the “time of the end” does indeed START with the Great Tribulation in that first-century generation.

           However, not every reference to the “time of the end” in Daniel is speaking of the same “end” point on history’s timeline. One example is in Daniel 11:13, for which Dr. Gurney supplied the historical names of those that fulfilled the biblical activities. This is where Antiochus the Great would come against Ptolemy Epiphanes around 198 BC “after certain years”, which in Hebrew is translated as “at the end of times, even years.” This is an obviously different “end of times” than is spoken of in Daniel 11:40.

           As another example of a “time of the end”, the Daniel 8:17 verse you supplied does mention a “time of the end”, or “an appointed time” for the vision. In the Greek, this is translated “AN end of time” – one of several, in other words. The angel describes this “appointed time” specifically as “the last end of the INDIGNATION” (Daniel 8:29), when this time of “indignation” would come to a conclusion. As you noticed yourself, Carmine, this word “indignation” is a kind of cue word that pops up again in Daniel 11:29-30, when Antiochus comes at the “appointed time” having “indignation against the holy covenant”. This was his 168 BC attack on Jerusalem and Judaism, lasting those 2,300 mornings and evenings until the winter of 165 BC. But again, this is not the same “time of the end” as in Daniel 11:40 – it is only “AN end of time” – one of several.

           After some more intent viewing of this “indignation” term (the Hebrew word ‘za’am’ that you brought up in your Part 1 post, Carmine), I can see where the references to this “indignation” period can all relate to Antiochus’ destruction of the Jews and Judaism during that predetermined 2,300 period from 168 BC – 165 BC. And the more I look at the actions of “THE KING” of Daniel 11:36 who would “prosper till the INDIGNATION be accomplished”, the more these actions dove-tail with those of Menelaus the high priest that Antiochus Epiphanes set over Judaea.

           This high priest Menelaus truly did “according to his will” by “exalting himself”, speaking “marvelous things against the God of gods”, disregarding the “God of his fathers” (which shows “The King” to be of Jewish ancestry), and honoring a god whom his fathers knew not (by honoring the god of Antiochus Epiphanes, whose very name itself can mean “God manifested”). It was this “god” of Antiochus Epiphanes that Menelaus “honored with gold and with silver, and with precious stones and with pleasant things” (Daniel 11:38) by traitorously helping Antiochus raid the temple treasury in 170 BC.

           The Daniel 11:39 phrase about “dividing the land for a price” was also fulfilled when Menelaus agreed to pay Antiochus that heavy bribe to gain the high priest position of ruler over his own people. Even Dr. Gurney acknowledges in his chapter 7 p. 8 that this “price” in Daniel 11:39 was the bribe that Menelaus promised to pay to Antiochus.

           If this Daniel 11:36-39 section is describing the profane high priest Menelaus as “THE KING” or high priest that Antiochus Epiphanes chose to rule over Judaea, this would make a smooth, logical transition from speaking about Antiochus’ oppression of Daniel’s people in Daniel 11:30-32, to the Maccabean struggles in Daniel 11:32-35, to the high priest Menelaus’ oppression of his own people during that time, using Antiochus’ support of his high priesthood as leverage in Daniel 11:36-39.

           Then from Daniel 11:40-45 forward, the prophecy continues to speak of Daniel’s people and their high priesthood as it related to “the time of the end”. This time, the discussion of this particular “time of the end” includes the Great Tribulation and the resurrection , at a time that would finish with the power of Daniel’s people being completely shattered (i.e., by AD 70). These “days of vengeance” on Daniel’s people were very much aligned with the whirlwind of God’s judgment upon them. Though Daniel does not supply all the details of this judgment, the gospel accounts in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, etc. do supply this information, and link that judgment specifically to Daniel’s predictions (Matt. 24:15).

           It is true as you say, Carmine, that these days of vengeance would not be confined strictly to Israel alone. For one thing, the Jews were scattered all over the known world at that time, and a judgment on that generation of Daniel’s people would necessarily have to cover more geographical territory than just the confines of Judaea itself. In addition, we have Paul’s words in Acts 17:30-31 to prove that the entire habitable world would be affected to some extent. When addressing those on Mars Hill in 54 AD, Paul said, “And the times past of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth ALL MEN EVERYWHERE TO REPENT: because He hath appointed a day in the which He will judge” (is ABOUT TO judge) “the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men in that He hath raised Him from the dead.” From AD 54 when Paul said this, until the AD 66 start of the Great Tribulation was not long to wait for this judgment.

           As far as Daniel’s people were concerned, however, the “end of these wonders” described in this entire vision of Daniel 10-12 would culminate in their power being shattered. The phrase “All these things shall be finished” included everything that was mentioned in the Daniel 10-12 vision, including the AD 70 resurrection.

           Carmine, I know the topic of this post doesn’t exactly cover the theme of Daniel’s four kingdoms that follow in succession, but I am firmly convinced myself that there was no 2nd kingdom for the Medes alone that is in Daniel’s line-up between the first kingdom of Chaldea and a third kingdom for the Medes and Persians. Perhaps if I am ever able to register with the theos.org website, I would be able to address this topic with you in that venue, since I notice you started a post with a theme about Darius the Mede’s identity. Or, if you post on that subject here at Daniel-reloaded, I can comment here. I am of the opinion that scripture defines Darius the Mede as simply a regnal name for Cyrus the Persian, the ruler of Daniel’s 2nd kingdom of the Medes and Persians. It takes just a bit of cross-referencing scripture to prove this, and it naturally ends up establishing Rome as Daniel’s 4th kingdom – not Greece. But that’s a subject for another day and another post.
5. 

   Carmine Hetrick (Post author)

   June 28, 2018 at 12:05 am

   Hi Patricia,

   Regarding registration on theos.org, have you tried again recently? There was a recent discussion raised on the forum about some trouble they were having a while back. I think that has been resolved. If you are still having difficulties, perhaps emailing Steve himself would help. He doesn’t maintain the site but he can put you in touch with those who do. I actually had to contact him when I first joined the site too because new registrations were then disabled as a means of protecting against spammers which have caused problems in the past.

   If you are able to join there, I’d be happy to discuss my views on Daniel’s 4 Kingdoms and Darius the Mede. I have several posts where I bring up the 4 kingdoms. ‘The “little horn” and “the man of lawlessness”‘ is the thread in which Adam Maarschalk’s research was brought to my attention. My original post where I asked for feedback on Dr. Gurney’s work was titled “Daniel’s last 3 Kingdom’s as Media, Persia, and Greece”. Either of those would probably be good places to begin a discussion about Daniel’s 4 kingdoms.

   Regarding Darius the Mede, I plan on posting several articles on the subject, hopefully in the next couple of weeks. I’m happy to discuss your thoughts on how viewing this identity as the regnal name of Cyrus demonstrates that the 2nd kingdom could not have been Media. My understanding of the 4 kingdoms doesn’t rely much on the identity of Darius the Mede (at least not to my knowledge) but I’d be delighted to learn about the connections you see between them.

   On the topic of the whirlwinds of the south in Zechariah 9:12-17 (you mentioned chapter 10 but I think you meant 9), I actually did mention this passage in Part 2 of this article series and around the 32:50 mark of my video. In those places, I cited these passages as demonstrating that judgement was being executed in the south at the hands of executors from the north. I think a case can be made for that interpretation but even then I didn’t think it was a particularly strong one and that there were perhaps better explanations for what was going on here. I was able to resolve this issue to my own satisfaction then but felt a treatise on that subject would be too much of a digression to take on during an introduction to my basic theory. A discussion of these verses probably deserves its own post. I will publish my response in a few days. Perhaps then we can discuss the details in the comment section of that post. Thank you for bringing this point up.

   With regard to Gurney’s possible mis-step in the relationship he saw between the beginning of the ‘time of the end’ and the Great Tribulation, I don’t quite see how the two statements you quoted from Dr. Gurney nor the statement of Jesus in Matthew demonstrate that either of them saw the ‘time of the end’ as BEGINNING with or even BEING the Great Tribulation. In both cases, I understand them to simply be saying that the Great Tribulation would occur near the future end-point of the ‘time of the end’. The comment of Jesus that the end was not yet could mean simply that the VERY END of the PERIOD referred to as the ‘time of the end’ had not yet come. You seem to be able to accept that even the exact same phrases within Daniel itself can be interpreted as referring to different events and vastly different points in time. Surely the words of Jesus cannot be pressed to a greater level of consistency with the phrases within Daniel than Daniel demonstrates within itself.

   The point I’m perhaps failing to communicate is that the “time of the end” need not be a POINT or tiny sliver in time as seems to be your perspective. It can reasonably be a PERIOD of time and a particularly long one at that. For instance, if the time of Daniel’s writing was well prior to 500 B.C. and we take the “time of the end” to refer to a period starting no earlier than the half-way point of that time and extending forward to the time of occurrence for the latest event predicted in Daniel’s prophecy (70 A.D. in your understanding), then the “time of the end” could reasonably be seen to span more than 250 years. Of course, the context may put further constraints on that figure. However, I don’t believe that there is any place in Daniel or elsewhere in scripture where those constraints are set quite as narrow as you believe them to be. Dr. Gurney offers a similar explanation in Chap. 1 p. 14 starting in paragraph 5.

   Reply