MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

6. Noah’s Deliverance: God Keeps His Word (Genesis 8:1-9:28)

Related Media

Introduction

When the floods came, Noah and his family probably felt relief and safety. One wonders how they felt as time passed by. While there is no explicit verse that tells us exactly the total length of the time that they were all in the ark, you can put together all the details in two different ways:

1) Using the number of days: 150 (Gen. 8:3) +74 (8:5) +40 (8:6) +7 (8:10) +7 (8:12) +28 (8:13) +56 (8:14) = 362 days

2) Using the dates of Noah’s life: from 17th day of 2nd month of Noah’s 600th year to 27th day of 2nd month of Noah’s 601st year = 370 days. It seems to me that this  second calculation is probably the accurate one as there is one period of time (8:13) when the number of days is not mentioned and you have to calculate it from Noah’s age anyway.

So, from the time they entered the ark until the time they came out was just over one year. I wonder how they coped during that time. How did they wash themselves and prepare food? How did they tend to all those animals? As I write this in March 2020, we are confined to our homes in Canada as the public health officials struggle to bring the international corona virus crisis under control. Already, after only a couple of weeks, many people are beginning to get cabin fever. What must it have felt like for Noah and his family to have been confined to the ark for over a year? And particularly, what must it have felt like during the extended period of time after the rain stopped? Would they ever be free to disembark and walk outside again? That year inside the ark must have seemed like forever.

During that time, every air breathing creature outside the ark died. Those who may have tried to escape to the tops of the mountains died. Everyone who refused to heed Noah’s warning and to accept God’s offer of safe refuge in the ark died. By the time Noah stepped out of the ark, the world was devoid of humans and animals, and it had been excised of everything that God hated, like “the wickedness of man” (6:5) and “violence and corruption” (6:12-13).

The subject of the passage we are studying in this sermon is: God’s faithfulness in keeping his word. The overall lesson in the passage is that God will preserve his redeemed people from final judgement. Notice, firstly, that…

1. Redeemed People Wait Patiently For God’s Deliverance (8:1-14)

Dealing with such an extended period of confinement in the ark must have required enormous patience – patience with inter-personal relationships in the family, patience with physical confinement, patience with the animals etc. Had God forgotten them? No! God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark (8:1a). That God “remembered” Noah does not infer that God had previously “forgotten” him. Rather it is an expression indicating that after their confinement comes liberty; that after the judgement comes deliverance; that God’s ways with and through Noah are about to resume. Now his wrath was exhausted and “God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided (8:1b-3).

On the 17th day of the 7th month in Noah’s 600th year, the ark must have jerked with quite a bump as it “came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (8:4-5). But Noah still waited another 40 days before he opened the window to find out how things were going on earth. Then he let out a raven and a dove to see if conditions were suitable for them all to disembark from the ark. Though the earth was still wet, the raven was able to keep flying until it was dry (8:7). But the dove “found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth” (8:9).

When I was a teenager I used to have a large walk-in aviary, which was divided down the middle so that my brother could keep his tumbler pigeons on one side and I could keep my mourning doves on the other. It’s interesting that doves feed on the ground. In our back yard today, most birds feed on our birdfeeder, but the doves always feed on the ground. Perhaps that was why the dove returned to Noah in the ark while there was still water on the ground.

Seven days later, Noah let the dove out again and it brought back an olive leaf (8:10-11). Then, after a further seven days Noah let it out again and “she did not return to him anymore” (8:12). That must have been a thrilling day for Noah and his family. At last they could enjoy freedom, fresh air, fresh food, and peace and quiet. Can you imagine what it must have been like with elephants trumpeting and baboons screaming all that time (or, perhaps in the providence of God they didn’t)?

And so, on the 1st day of the 1st month in Noah’s 601st year (New Year’s Day!), Noah removed the covering of the ark (I guess the ark was the first convertible!).

Amongst many other things, the record of the flood and the period of time that Noah and his family spent in the ark should teach us that redeemed people wait patiently for God’s deliverance. Notice the second lesson, that…

2. Redeemed People Worship Gratefully for God’s Deliverance (8:15-9:17)

Noah waited another 56 days until the 27th day of the 2nd month of his 601st year,  until the earth was finally dry. When they entered the ark, God shut them in (7:16). When they exited the ark, God let them out. “Then God said to Noah, ‘Go out from the ark…’” (8:15-19). There is nothing to indicate that Noah ever got frustrated, claustrophobic, or antsy during the entire time of his incarceration in the ark. He was with God inside the ark and he was with God outside the ark.

God spoke and Noah worshipped. Once outside the ark, Noah built an altar to the Lord and he took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar”(8:20). There is no indication that God commanded Noah to build the altar or what sacrifices he should offer on it. This was Noah’s spontaneous response of worship to God as an expression of who God is and the gratefulness of Noah’s heart for his deliverance. This is an indication of Noah’s spirituality, his walk with God. He didn’t say: “Phew! Glad that’s over. Now let’s get on with our lives.” Rather, he worshipped the Lord by offering clean animals and birds, which were symbolic of a holy offering, of pure worship. Undoubtedly that’s why God had told Noah to take seven of each clean animal in order to have enough to offer them up before the Lord. Noah evidently knew this and responded willingly.

Humanly speaking, this was risky and wasteful. After all, Noah could have argued that he needed every animal he could get to replenish the earth and to provide food. But this was a godly, holy act. What was due to God takes precedence over practical or logical matters. Noah’s offering was a sacrifice of a sweet aroma to God. This is how Noah offered it and this is how God received it: The Lord smelled a soothing aroma (8:21). Noah’s sacrifice was a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (Eph. 5:2); a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God (Phil. 4:18).

So, first, redeemed people wait patiently for God’s deliverance. Second, redeemed people worship gratefully for God’s deliverance. Third…

3. Redeemed People Welcome a New Beginning from God’s Deliverance (8:21- 9:29)

“And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, ‘I will never again curse the ground because of man’” (8:21a). God’s response to Noah’s sacrifice was to establish the Noahic covenant to never again judge the earth with a flood or interrupt the natural daily and seasonal cycles of life on earth with a flood, despite the fact that man’s sinful nature had not changed for “the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (8:21b-22). Note that God made this covenant initially “in his heart” (8:21a) and did not disclose it to Noah and his sons until 9:8-17.

Following this great deliverance, God renewed his plan for the procreation of a new humanity. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (9:1). Noah is now viewed as a second Adam, the new head of a new race, to whom God repeats and reaffirms his original instruction to Adam (1:28) for the proliferation of mankind.

Then, God establishes a new relationship between humanity and the animal kingdom: The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish in the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything” (9:2). The pre-flood relationship between humans and animals was that humans ruled and subdued the earth (1:28) in order for them to peacefully co-exist in a pre-fall, perfect environment. But after the flood, conditions on earth have evidently changed substantially, presumably because of the violence and corruption that precipitated the flood. Not only had humans rebelled against divine rule, but, it seems, animals had rebelled against human rule. Now every moving creature would live in “fear and dread” of humans because man’s authority over them was elevated in order to deal effectively with the post-flood conditions, including the wild animals. God once more affirms human rule over animals, but it would no longer be a relationship of peaceful co-existence. Now, humans would exercise the authority of life and death over the wild animals.

Moreover, a new diet is permitted (9:3-4). The death of animals at human hands seems to coincide with the addition of meat to the human diet. Perhaps this is an indication of man’s absolute control. Also, no longer is there a distinction between clean and unclean animals, or between animals and vegetation. “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything(9:3).

In the pre-flood world, humans and animals, it seems, were both vegetarian. This would make sense for a peaceful co-existence. But after the flood, humans were given freedom to eat meat. This is an entirely new relationship and a new diet. Why was this permitted at this time and not before? I’m not sure, but it’s interesting that one of the marks of end times apostasy is the command to abstain from meats (1 Tim. 4:1-3).

Further, a new law is imposed (9:5-7). No longer will man be permitted to live without restraint of law or accountability. A murderer shall be put to death (9:6). This still governs the state’s right to do so (e.g. Rom. 13:3-4), such is the sanctity of human life in God’s eyes. And yet murders of thousands of preborn babies occur every day with the state’s approval and now medically assisted murder of dying people is legal! How have the mighty fallen! (2 Sam. 1:25, 27).

The new covenant (the Noahic covenant) that God made within himself in 8:21-22 is now disclosed and confirmed to Noah and his sons (9:8-17). This covenant is valid for Noah, his descendants, and all living creatures that came out of the ark (9:9-10). The scope of the new covenant is that God would never again destroy all flesh by a flood judgement (9:11). As a concrete seal and constant reminder of his new covenant, God establishes a new sign – the sign of the rainbow (9:12-17). Remarkably, it is spoken of as a reminder to God of his promise: “‘15I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.’ 17God said to Noah, This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth (9:15-17).

The beauty of the rainbow’s colors speak of the beauty of God’s creation. The arc in the sky speaks of God’s protection of his creation. Ironic, isn’t it, that the homosexual community has taken the rainbow as their symbol? I wonder why? Is it to mock God?

I am sure you will notice in these new initiatives the grace of God that is displayed for the benefit of his redeemed people after the flood. God makes every provision for his people and his creatures for them to live in a new world with new conditions. This was a new beginning.

I wonder if the judgement of the flood and the life of God’s redeemed people after the flood is a preview of the final judgement of God on this world (Matt. 25:31-46; Acts 17:31; Rev. 20:11-15) and what will follow, when God will say, “Behold I make all things new” (Rev. 21:5)? Maybe not explicitly, but it certainly gives us a glimpse of that final scene – judgement for some; deliverance for others.

The focus now shifts from Noah to his three sons (9:18) and all future generations and descendants. After God’s judgement, Noah emerges as the new head of the human race along with his three sons - “from these the people the whole earth was dispersed (populated)” (9:19).

This new head of the new human race begins a new occupation. “Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent” (9:20-21). Now Noah continues Adam’s post-fall legacy, working the cursed ground by the sweat of his brow. But Noah adds a new venture. He is the first person to plant a vineyard and begin to produce wine. Unfortunately, wine, which was intended to cause joy of heart (Ps. 104:15), when abused, can lead to drunkenness and nakedness. It certainly did so in Noah’s case.

Drunkenness leads to all sorts of lewd, vulgar, and immoral behavior. Drunkenness is often associated with sexual impropriety as with David and Uriah (2 Sam. 11:9-13) and Lot’s daughters (Gen. 19:30-38). David made Uriah drunk in order to induce Uriah to abandon his righteous convictions and to sleep with his wife, Bathsheba, in order to cover up David’s adultery with her (2 Sam. 11:9-13). But his plan didn’t work. Lot’s daughters made their father drunk in order to commit incest with him during his drunken oblivion and thus “preserve offspring” (Gen. 19:32, 34) by their father. “Thus, both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father” (Gen. 19:36).

Sad, isn’t it, that after all these years of faithfulness and obedience to God, Noah came to this at the end of his life. No details are given as to why he planted a vineyard and then got drunk. But what we learn here is (1) that godly people can make bad choices which can lead to embarrassing ends – in this case, drunkenness and nakedness; and (2) that old age and experience don’t protect you from the utter wickedness of the human heart.

Let this be a warning to you. “Woe to him who makes his neighbors drink—you pour out your wrath and make them drunk, in order to gaze at their nakedness! (Hab. 2:15). Beware of the dangers of serving and imbibing alcohol. It is a highly addictive, mind-altering drug. The mind-altering effects of alcohol can cause you to speak and act in completely out-of-character ways. When you come under the influence of alcohol you can so easily and quickly come under its control. The Addiction Center calls alcohol the deadliest drug (https://www.addictioncenter.com/community/why-alcohol-is-the-deadliest-drug/). According to the American Addiction Centers, alcohol is the third most addictive drug after cocaine and heroin (https://americanaddictioncenters.org/adult-addiction-treatment-programs/most-addictive).

Scripture is replete with warnings about the dangers of alcohol (e.g. Prov. 20:1; 23:31-32; 23:29-30; 31:4; Isa. 5:11; 24:9; 28:7; Mic. 2:11; Lev. 10:9; Num. 5:2-3; Jdgs. 13:7; Deut. 29:6). I believe, especially in our day when alcohol content is artificially intensified in its inebriating effects through industrial production, that total abstinence is the wisest and best course for all believers. By abstaining from alcohol, you preserve yourself from the potential of dishonoring the Lord and of bringing shame to yourself and your family, as Noah did.

We don’t know what led Noah to this point but what is clear is that he ended up making a bad choice and his bad choice led to his son’s lewd behavior. One sin leads to another. Noah’s drunkenness led to nakedness which, in turn, led to Ham’s invasion of his father’s privacy, violating his dignity, and exposing his shame (9:22). This was not the case of a man catching a glimpse of a naked woman and succumbing to sexual temptation, as David did of Bathsheba. That was bad enough. But here a son purposefully viewed his naked father and then held him up to public ridicule. Rather than spare his father from further embarrassment, Ham broadcasted what he had seen to his other two brothers. Thankfully, they had higher moral sensitivity and maturity than Ham and expressed their rejection of Ham’s ridicule and their respect for their father by covering him up, even walking backwards to spare his feelings and not look at his shame (9:23).

The power of alcohol brought Noah down from the lofty heights of walking with God to the depths of a drunken stupor and nakedness, completely incapable of self-control and completely unaware of self-consciousness. What could be more embarrassing to a man whose portrait has been painted with such spirituality, such godly obedience, such patience, such faith, such grace, to be reduced to such shame and indignity and to be the subject of such ridicule by his son?

Concluding Remarks

It’s sad, isn’t it, that the story of some people’s lives starts out so well but ends so badly. When Noah recovered from his drunken stupor and found out what his youngest son, Ham, had done to him (9:24), he cursed Ham’s youngest son, Canaan saying, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers’” (9:25) and blessed his other two sons, Shem and Japheth saying, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant’” (9:26-27).

Because Ham made the drunkenness and nakedness of his father public, causing Noah shame, rather than keeping it private and preserving his dignity Noah pronounces a curse on Canaan, his grandson (Ham’s son). It’s important to understand that Scripture mentions different kinds of curses. This is not a curse that we might associate with, for example, witchcraft. Rather, Noah’s curse here seems to have the character of prophetic insight into what awaits the descendants of Canaan. You see another example of this in Deut. 27:12-26, that serves as a warning of what would happen to the Israelites if they disobeyed.

Somehow Noah saw in the distance the warning signs of what Ham’s immaturity would lead to in subsequent generations – his shamelessness, lack of wisdom, immaturity, and ridicule. Here we see what can so easily happen when sin is publicized and trivialized. It becomes so commonplace that those who do such things are shameless – no conscience, no embarrassment. It becomes the subject of jokes and ridicule. Such would be the characteristics of the Canaanites in the future.

In our church, when we are faced with sin issues that need attention by the pastors and elders, we try to keep sin as private as possible. We do not shy away from exercising pastoral and, if necessary, congregational discipline. But wherever possible, we try to keep private most sins that we become aware of. Sometimes that isn’t possible because it has already become public or because the sinning brother or sister refuses to repent, even after multiple attempts to bring about repentance. But as much as possible we try to keep sin private so that it doesn’t defile or influence others, so that it facilitates restoration, and so that God is not dishonored publicly.

Ham’s character flaw would plague his descendants after him and for that they will be cursed to become “the lowest of slaves” (lit. “a slave of slaves”) to the descendants of Ham’s brothers, Shem and Japheth (9:25). This prophecy was fulfilled years later when the Shemites invaded the land of Canaan and conquered its inhabitants (1 Kgs 9:20-21), in accordance with God’s promise that the land of Canaan would be given to them.

As we consider what has happened in history, we can see how Noah’s curse of Canaan and his blessing of Shem and Japheth have come true. The descendants of Shem (from which we get our term “Semite”) are the Jewish people (cf. Gen. 10:21-31). Noah’s prayer for the Shemites is directly connected to their relationship to “the God of Shem” (9:26). Noah foresaw that they would be worshippers of Yahweh, the Elohim of Shem. We know that this came true. God chose the Jews to be his special people, through whom came the oracles of God and the Messiah.

Ham is considered to be the father of African people (cf. Gen. 10:6-20) and we all know from history the awful suffering and oppression and exploitation that African people have suffered under white people for many generations, much of that suffering being from slavery. It is important to note that Noah’s curse was on his grandson, Canaan, and Canaan’s descendants, not on his son, Ham, directly. Scripture does not explain why this is so, but it is an important point because some people claim that black skinned people are cursed to slavery. This is not so. In fact, some of Ham’s descendants were definitely not slaves (e.g. the Egyptians).

The descendants of Japheth are the Caucasians, Gentiles (cf. Gen. 10:2-5). Noah’s prayer for Japheth is that his geographical and national borders would be expanded and that the blessing on the Shemites would be his also (9:27). This too has come to pass as the Gentiles have been blessed with the enlargement of their territories and influence and have come into the spiritual blessings of the Shemites.

Thus ends the colorful and, in many ways, sad story of Noah, his life and times. He begins as the righteous “savior” of all living creatures but ends as a naked drunk, which two aspects of Noah are represented in his sons. Shem and Japheth represent and continue his righteous life, his obedience to God. Ham represents Noah’s sinfulness and shame. And from these three sons all peoples of the world have descended. Thus, we see (1) that the human heart has not changed, despite the mighty deliverance of God from the flood judgement; and (2) that the human race today still reflects the two aspects of Noah’s character (as he did the two aspects of Adam’s character) – namely, righteousness and unrighteousness.

It’s amazing, isn’t it, that nothing changes? God continues to extend his grace, despite which man continues to demonstrate the utter sinfulness of his heart.

Related Topics: Character Study, Christian Life

5. Belshazzar’s Feast And The Fall Of Babylon

Article contributed by www.walvoord.com

Almost seventy years have passed since the events of chapter 1 of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar himself had died in 562 B.C. Daniel does not record his immediate successors, and extrabiblical literature is somewhat confused. A plausible account of Berosus, in his third book, found in a fragment preserved by Josephus summarizes the history between Nebuchadnezzar’s death in 562 B.C. and the fall of Babylon 539 B.C.

According to Berosus, Nebuchadnezzar died after a reign of 43 years and was followed by his son Evil-Merodach. Because his rule was arbitrary and licentious, he was assassinated by Neriglisar after he had reigned only two years. The next four years Neriglisar occupied the throne. At his death his son Laborosoarchod, who was only a child, reigned for nine months until a conspiracy resulted in his being beaten to death. The conspirators appointed Nabonidus, one of their number, who reigned for seventeen years before being defeated by Cyrus the Persian. Nabonidus fleeing Babylon went to Borsippa but was forced to surrender to Cyrus. Nabonidus was allowed to live in Carmania until the time of his death, but he was not allowed to come to Babylonia.245

The account of Berosus preserved by Josephus is supported by other evidence such as the short fragment of Abydenus preserved by Eusebius.246

Until the discovery of the Nabonidus Cylinder, no mention of Belshazzar, whom Daniel declares to be king of Babylon, had been found in extrabiblical literature. Critics of the authenticity and historicity of Daniel accordingly were free to question whether any such person as Belshazzar existed. Since the publication of Raymond Dougherty’s scholarly research .on Nabonidus and Belshazzar, based on the Nabonidus Cylinder and other sources, there is no ground for questioning the general historicity of Belshazzar; and only the details of the scriptural account unverified by extrabiblical sources can be challenged by the critics.247 Montgomery states that the story is “unhistorical” but “nevertheless contains indubitable reminiscences of actual history.”248

On the other hand, such a careful scholar as Edward J. Young states, “The identity of Belshazzar has long caused difficulty to commentators. Some have denied his historicity… The king’s name, however, has now appeared upon the cuneiform documents, so that there can be no question as to his historicity. This is the first point at which this ch. exhibits its remarkable accuracy.”249 The controversy over Belshazzar, because of the extensive investigation and great variety of findings, has become one of the most complicated problems in the entire book, but the problem itself is comparatively simple. Was Belshazzar actually king of Babylon and was he murdered on the night that Babylon was conquered?

A solution of the problem has depended largely on the premises of the scholars dealing with it. Those critical of the authenticity and accuracy of Daniel, especially those zealous to prove second-century authorship, proceed on the premise that Daniel must be in error until he is proved otherwise. Here the discussion is lost in a maze of conflicting facts in extrabiblical literature concerning which the critics themselves are not agreed. Although such ancient records are notoriously inaccurate and at best are fragmentary, the argument of the critics was that Belshazzar never existed because his name did not appear in any of the ancient records. This omission, however, was later remedied, as mentioned above, by the discovery of the name of Bel-shar-usur (Belshazzar) on cylinders in which he is called the son of Nabonidus. Critics, having to recede from their former position that no such person existed, have since centered their attack on the fact that the word king does not occur in connection with Belshazzar on any extant Babylonian records.250 The establishment of Nabonidus as the father of Belshazzar, or at least his stepfather, nullifies most of the critical objections, although Rowley in an extensive discussion maintains stoutly that to call Belshazzar a king “must still be pronounced a grave historical error.”251

Since Rowley, however, even liberal scholars have tended to accept the explanation that Belshazzar acted as a regent under his father, Nabonidus. Norman Porteous, for instance, writes, “On the other hand it is known that Belshazzar was a historical person, the son of the last Babylonian king Nabonidus, who acted as regent of Babylon for several years before its fall, while his father was absent at the oasis of Teima in Arabia.”252 This would begin Belshazzar’s regency about 553 B.C., when Nabonidus went to Teima. Not only the record in Daniel but also the external evidence is now sufficient to support the conclusion that Belshazzar’s coregency is almost beyond question. This is another illustration of how critical objections based on lack of external evidence are frequently overthrown when the evidence is uncovered.253

Additional evidence that Nabonidus was away from Babylon on the night of Daniel 5 is given in the fragment from Berosus, previously cited, which indicates that Nabonidus had left Babylon only to be vanquished in battle and flee to Borsippa. This would involve the premise that Nabonidus, although usually living at Teima, had returned to Babylon for a visit just prior to the siege of Babylon, had gone out to battle before Babylon was actually surrounded, and then was defeated, thereby permitting the Persians to besiege Babylon itself. Under these circumstances, Belshazzar would indeed be king of Babylon in the absence of his father. Problems of his relationship will be considered at the proper place in the exposition, including the possibility that Belshazzar’s mother was a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar and thus in the royal line, whereas Nabonidus was not. There are actually so many plausible possibilities in Daniel’s account, supported by the evidence cited, that the storm of objections can hardly be taken seriously.254

Belshazzar’s Feast in Honor of the Gods of Babylon

5:1-4 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.

About seventy years had elapsed since the capture of Jerusalem recorded in Daniel 1. In the interpretation of the image in chapter 2, Daniel had predicted to Nebuchadnezzar, “After thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee” (Dan 2:39). Now, in chapter 5, this prophecy is about to be fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar’s humiliating experience in chapter 4 had been followed by his death in 562 b.c. Approximately twenty-three years elapsed between chapter 4 and chapter 5. In this period, a number of monarchs had succeeded Nebuchadnezzar. According to Berosus, Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son, Evil-Merodach, also known as Amel-Marduk, who was killed in 560 b.c. He was followed by Neriglissar, also spelled Nergal-shar-usur, a son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar who died in 556 b.c. of natural causes. He was succeeded by Laborosoarchad, also known as Labashi-Marduk, a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, who was assassinated after less than a year. Nabonidus assumed the throne in 556 b.c. and reigned until 539 b.c. when conquered by the Medes. Belshazzar is best identified as his son, whose mother was either a wife or a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar and thereby strengthened the claim of Nabonidus to the throne. This explains why Belshazzar in the lineal descent from Nebuchadnezzar was honored as a coruler under Nabonidus. Although there are alternative explanations and some dates vary, this succession of kings and identification of characters seems to have reasonable justification. Most expositors disagree with Keil, who identifies Belshazzar with Evil-Merodach, preferring the identification of a son of Nabonidus, based on later evidence not available to Keil.255 The identifications of Leupold are more satisfactory.256

In the quarter of a century which elapsed between chapter 4 and chapter 5, the further revelations given to Daniel in chapters 7 and 8 occurred. Chapter 7 was revealed to Daniel “in the first year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon” (Dan 7:1) and the vision of the ram and he-goat in chapter 8 occurred “in the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar” (Dan 8:1). The information embodied in these two visions, insofar as Daniel understood it, therefore was known to Daniel before the event of chapter 5 which chronologically came after chapters 7 and 8. If Belshazzar began his reign in 553 b.c, when Nabonidus went to Teima, the visions of chapters 7 and 8 actually occurred about twelve years before the events of chapter 5.

Verse 1 of chapter 5 introduces the fact that Belshazzar as king of Babylon had made a great feast to which a thousand of his lords had been invited with their wives. That such a large feast should be held by a monarch like Belshazzar is not at all strange. Leupold cites the ancient historian Ktesias to the effect that Persian monarchs frequently were known to dine daily with 15,000 people.257 M. E. 50:Mallowan mentions the great feast that Ashusnasirpal II gave to 69,574 guests when he dedicated his new capital city of Calah (Nimrud) in 879 b.c.258

Although the size of the banquet is not amazing, the situation was most unusual. If the setting can be reconstructed, Nabonidus previously had gone forth from Babylon to fight the Medes and the Persians and had already been captured. The whole surrounding territory of the city of Babylon and the related provinces already had been conquered. Only Babylon with its massive walls and fortifications remained intact. Possibly to reassert their faith in their Babylonian gods and to bolster their own courage, this feast in the form of a festival had been ordered. The storehouses of Babylon were still abundant with food and wine, and there is evidence that there was plenty of both at this feast. The expression “drunk wine before the thousand” indicates that Belshazzar was probably on a platform at a higher level than other guests and led them in drinking toasts to their deities. Under the stimulus of wine, the thought occurred to Belshazzar to bring in the gold and silver vessels taken from the temple in Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar almost seventy years before. The implication in the clause “whiles he tasted the wine” is that Belshazzar in his right mind probably would not have committed this sacrilegious act.

Drinking bouts such as characterized Babylon were also common among other peoples, such as the Persians. Athenaeus quotes Heracleides of Cumae, the author of Persian History, in describing in detail the custom of drinking to excess after dinner.259 The luxury of both the drinking and the eating is also illustrated in Athenaeus in describing dinners among the Persians of high station as follows: “For one thousand animals are slaughtered daily for the king; these comprise horses, camels, oxen, asses, deer, and most of the smaller animals; many birds also are consumed, including Arabian ostriches—and the creature is large—geese, and cocks.”260

Much has been made of the reference of Belshazzar’s relationship to Nebuchadnezzar, who is described as “his father” in verse 2; and even Keil is influenced by this to consider Belshazzar a literal son of Nebuchadnezzar.261 This is not entirely impossible, of course, for as Leupold shows,262 Nabonidus could have married a widow of Nebuchadnezzar who had a son by Nebuchadnezzar who then could be adopted by Nabonidus by way of strengthening his own hold upon the throne. As Nabonidus assumed the throne in 556 B.C., only six years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, and Belshazzar was probably at least a teenager when Nebuchadnezzar died—if he was old enough to be coregent with Nabonidus in 553 B.C.— it is possible that he was a genuine son of Nebuchadnezzar and that his mother, after Nebuchadnezzar’s death, was married to Nabonidus. This, however, is conjecture; and probably it is more natural to consider Belshazzar a son of Nabonidus himself.

Although the precise identity of Belshazzar may continue to be debated, available facts support accepting Daniel’s designation of Belshazzar as king. The reference to father may be construed as “grandfather.” As Pusey states, “Neither in Hebrew, nor in Chaldee, is there any-word for ‘grandfather,’ ‘grandson.’ Forefathers are called ‘fathers’ or ‘fathers’ fathers.’ But a single grandfather, or forefather, is never called ‘father’s father’ but always ‘father’ only.”263

The sacred vessels taken from Jerusalem had apparently been kept in storage without sacrilegious use from Nebuchadnezzar’s day until the occasion of this feast. Now these holy vessels are distributed among the crowd and used as vessels from which to drink wine. Verse 2 cites that “the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines” drink from them; and this fact is restated in the actual act in verse 3 where only the golden vessels are mentioned. The Revised Standard Version, following the Vulgate, adds in verse 3 “and silver vessels.” This act of sacrilege was an intentioned religious gesture in praise of the gods of Babylon mentioned in descending order of importance as “gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.” That Belshazzar well knew the blasphemous character of his act is evident from Daniel 5:13, 22. He knew Daniel and knew the history of Nebuchadnezzar’s experience with God’s chastening. Some have found, in the six materials mentioned, a typical reference to “the number of the world amenable to judgment because of its hostility to God.”264 In the original, the gods of gold and silver are separated by the conjunction “and,” not true of the listing of the gods of brass, iron, wood, and stone, as if there were two classes of deities. This distinction is supported by Keil.265

Their pride in their deities may have been bolstered by the magnificence of the city of Babylon itself, interpreted as an evidence of the power of their gods. Herodotus gives a glowing account of Babylon as a monument to the genius of Nebuchadnezzar and undoubtedly a source of much pride to all the Babylonians. According to Herodotus, Babylon was about fourteen miles square, with great outer walls 87 feet thick and 350 feet high, with a hundred great bronze gates in the walls. A system of inner and outer walls with a water moat between the walls made the city very secure. So broad and strong were the walls that chariots four abreast could parade around its top. Herodotus pictures hundreds of towers at appropriate intervals reaching another 100 feet into the air above the top of the wall.266

Modern interpreters view Herodotus’ figures as greatly exaggerated, with the real dimensions only about one-fourth of what Herodotus claimed. The outer wall seems to have been only seventeen miles in circumference, instead of about fifty-six as Herodotus claimed, with much fewer towers and gates; and probably even the towers were not more than 100 feet tall. While the dimensions may be questioned, the magnificence of the city was not seriously exaggerated.267

The great Euphrates River flowed through the middle of the city in a general north-south direction and was bordered by walls on each side to protect the city from attack from the river. Within these walls were beautiful avenues, parks, and palaces. Many of the streets were lined with buildings three and four stories high. Among these buildings were the Temple of Bel, an eight-story structure, and the magnificent palace of the king, actually a complex of buildings, which have now been excavated. A great bridge spanned the Euphrates River, connecting the eastern section and the western or new section of the city. The bridge was later supplemented by a tunnel mentioned by Diodorus. The famed “hanging gardens” of Babylon were large enough to support trees.

Although Babylon has been only partially excavated with but a small part of the original city recovered, the system of mounds which mark the city today more or less indicate its boundaries. Archeological research is complicated by a change in the course of the Euphrates River and a higher water level, but more than 10,000 inscribed texts have been discovered.

In many respects, Babylon was the most fabulous city of the ancient world both for the beauty of its architecture and for the safety of its huge walls and fortifications. It was hard for the Babylonians to believe that even the Medes and the Persians who had surrounded their beloved city could possibly breach the fortifications or exhaust their supplies which were intended to be ample for a siege of many years. Their confidence in their gods was bolstered by their confidence in their city.

The Handwriting on the Wall 5:5-9

In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom. Then came in all the king’s wise men; but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof. Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied.

While the feast was in progress with its drinking of wine and shouting of praises to the gods of Babylon, suddenly there appeared the fingers of a man’s hand which wrote on the plastered wall of the palace. With only the fingers of the hand visible and producing writing upon the wall, the spectacle immediately attracted attention.

In the ruins of Nebuchadnezzar’s palace archeologists have uncovered a large throne room 56 feet wide and 173 feet long which probably was the scene of this banquet. Midway in the long wall opposite the entrance there was a niche in front of which the king may well have been seated. Interestingly, the wall behind the niche was covered with white plaster as described by Daniel, which would make an excellent background for such a writing.268

If the scene can be reconstructed, it is probable that the banquet was illuminated by torches which not only produced smoke but fitful light that would only partially illuminate the great hall. As the writing according to Daniel was written “over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace,” it may have appeared in an area of greater illumination than the rest of the room and thus also have attracted more attention.

The effect upon the king and his associates was immediate. According to Daniel, his countenance changed, that is, changed color and became pale. His thin courage, bolstered by wine drunk from vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had plundered and were seemingly a symbol of the power of the gods of Babylon, now deserted him. He was instead filled with terror to the point that “the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.” In his excitement, he no longer could sit down but hardly had the strength to stand. Probably before the babble of conversation in the banquet room had subsided, the king began to cry aloud “to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers.” Only three classes of wise men are mentioned, but it is doubtful whether any class was intentionally omitted as verse 8 refers to “all the king’s wise men.” The astrologers were actually the magicians; the Chaldeans were a broad class of scholars and learned men in the lore of the Babylonians; and the soothsayers corresponded more closely to the modern concept of astrologers, although they may have also practiced sorcery. It is possible in the decline of the Babylonian Empire that the number of the wise men was far more limited at this point in history than it was under Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. In any event, there is no proof for the suggestion discussed by Keil that the classification of wise men mentioned purposely excluded Daniel. As Keil points out, the king was ready to listen to anyone who could interpret the writing.269

As soon as a suitable number of the wise men had assembled, the king addressed them offering the reward that, if one of them could read the writing and show the interpretation, he would be clothed with scarlet and have a chain of gold about his neck and become third ruler in the kingdom. To be clothed in scarlet and to wear a chain of gold about the neck were special tokens of the king’s favor and certainly would have been coveted by any of the wise men.

Much speculation has arisen concerning the expression that he offered them the position of being “the third ruler in the kingdom.” There is some question as to whether the Aramaic indicates specifically “the third ruler.” The ordinal numeral would be tÿli‚ta„y (as in Dan 2:39) whereas the Aramaic here is actually talti‚. Scholars are not agreed as to the precise meaning of this term, but the suggestion is made that it may be a title for an office of honor which did not necessarily correspond precisely to the meaning of the word. As Keil expresses it, “It is not quite certain what the princely situation is which was promised to the interpreter of the writing… That it is not the ordinale of the number third, is, since Havernick, now generally acknowledged.”270 However, recent scholarship has tended to confirm the translation “the third ruler.” Franz Rosenthal, for instance, confidently translates the term “one-third (ruler), triumvir.”271

In spite of the problem in the word, it is probable that the offer of honor was that of being the third ruler. Belshazzar under Nabonidus was considered the second ruler, and the position of a third ruler would be the highest that he could offer. Belshazzar was evidently in no mood to bargain but was terrified and desperately desired to know the meaning of the writing.

The large reward that was offered, however, was to no avail, for the wise men who assembled could not read the writing nor interpret it. This implies a twofold difficulty. Some have claimed that the text does not plainly indicate the language. Charles, for instance, suggests that the writing was in unfamiliar ideograms.272 This, however, is mere conjecture. The probability is that the writing was in Aramaic and therefore not entirely unknown to the wise men.

In any case Daniel read the writing as Aramaic, and the suggestion of puns in the language (see later discussion) depends upon the Aramaic. The difficulty of the wise men in reading the writing may have been that it was written in Aramaic script without the vowels being supplied; but if written in cuneiform, the vowels would have been included. Daniel does not explain the difficulty in reading the writing on the wall, but the problem apparently was not that it was a strange language but rather what the words signified prophetically. For further discussion, see exposition of Daniel 5:25-27.

The inability of the wise men to decipher the writing only increased the concern of Belshazzar. Perhaps the full force of his wickedness in using the vessels taken from the temple in Jerusalem had begun to dawn upon him, or the fears suppressed concerning the presence of the armies which surrounded Babylon may have now emerged. His concern was shared by the entire assembly.

Belshazzar’s predicament is another illustration of the insecurity and powerlessness of the rulers of this world when confronted by the power and wisdom of God. How God holds in derision the rulers of the world who take counsel against Him (Ps 2:1-4)! Like Nebuchadnezzar before him, Belshazzar was soon to experience divine judgment but without the happy ending.

Daniel Suggested as the Interpreter

5:10-12 Now the queen by reason of the words of the king and his lords came into the banquet house: and the queen spake and said, O king live for ever: let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed. There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers; Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation.

The crisis produced by the inability of the wise men to interpret the handwriting on the wall is met by the entrance of one described as “the queen.” Much speculation surrounds the identity of this person as it is related to the larger question of Belshazzar’s lineage. Keil and Leupold both consider her to be a wife of Nebuchadnezzar and the mother of Belshazzar.273 As the wives of the lords and the king himself had earlier been declared to be at the banquet (v. 3) one who had the role of “queen” would most probably be Belshazzar’s mother. She had not attended the banquet. This would be understandable if she was elderly and the widow of Nebuchadnezzar. If she were the wife of Nabonidus who was in captivity she probably would not have desired to come alone. Hearing the unusual clamor at the banquet and learning of the distress of her son, because of her position she was able to enter the banquet hall freely and speak to the king. Her address is courteous, “O king, live for ever,” but directly to the point. Like a mother, she told her son in effect to pull himself together because there must be some solution to his problem. As one holding her position was normally highly regarded and treated with respect, she could speak out in a way that no other could do. Honoring of parents was characteristic of the Israelites (Ex 20:12; 1 Ki 2:13-20; 2 Ki 24:12-15). The same was true in the Gentile world, and the dowager queen was able to enter the banquet hall without an invitation.

Montgomery, opposing the idea that the queen is Belshazzar’s wife, comments, “Also the lady’s masterful appearance on the scene betokens rather the queen-mother than the consort.”274 Jeffery, likewise, writes, “…she speaks to him of his father in a way that suggests a mother speaking to a son rather than a wife to a husband.”275

The solution to the problem which the queen suggested was that they invite Daniel the prophet, who had been discovered as a man of wisdom by Nebuchadnezzar, to interpret the writing. The queen uses the very words which presumably she had heard Nebuchadnezzar express (Dan 4:8, 9, 18). According to the queen, Daniel had “the spirit of the holy gods.” In the time of Nebuchadnezzar, to whom she refers as “thy father,” Daniel had been found to have the wisdom of gods and possessing “light,” that is, enlightenment, “understanding” or insight, and in general wisdom comparable to the wisdom of the gods. So great was his genius that Nebuchadnezzar had made him “master” or chief of his wise men, which in itself was a remarkable position for one who was not a Chaldean; and this honor placed upon him testified to the confidence of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel’s abilities. The reference to Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar, as previously indicated, should probably be either grandfather or greatgrandfather as the same term would be used for any of these designations. It does imply, however, that Belshazzar was in descent from Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel’s excellent qualities manifested themselves in “an excellent spirit,” unusual knowledge and understanding, and the ability to interpret dreams, difficult sentences, and “dissolving of doubts,” that is, solutions to problems. The word for doubts ( qitÿri‚n) is actually knots, joints, difficult problems. Daniel had not been assembled with the other wise men because he probably was in semiretirement and was no longer chief of the wise men. The queen urged, however, that now he be brought in to solve the present problem.

Daniel Called Before the King

5:13-16 Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry? I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee. And now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and make known unto me the interpretation thereof: but they could not show the interpretation of the thing: And I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom.

When Daniel was brought before the king, he addressed a natural question to reassure himself of the identity of Daniel. It seems clear that Belshazzar knew something of Daniel, for his form of address in verse 13 goes beyond the information supplied by his mother. He knew for instance that Daniel was of the captivity of Judah and that he was one of the captives which Nebuchadnezzar had brought out of Jerusalem. It may well be that because of awareness of his ancestry and religious convictions that Daniel had been demoted by Belshazzar himself. Now Belshazzar was all too eager to have the gifts of this man exercised to interpret the writing. Belshazzar goes on in verse 14 to repeat what his mother had said concerning Daniel’s wisdom.

Belshazzar informs Daniel of the inability of all the wise men either to read or to interpret the writing. Belshazzar then offers Daniel the same promise he made to the others of being clothed with scarlet and having a chain of gold and the privilege of being “the third ruler in the kingdom,” that is, the triumvir. As in the previous instances in Daniel 2 and 4, the wisdom of the world is demonstrated to be totally unable to solve its major problems and to understand either the present or the future. Daniel as the prophet of God is the channel through which divine revelation would come, and Belshazzar in his extremity was willing to listen.

Too often the world, like Belshazzar, is not willing to seek the wisdom of God until its own bankruptcy becomes evident. Then help is sought too late, as in the case of Belshazzar, and the cumulative sin and unbelief which precipitated the crisis in the first place becomes the occasion of downfall.

The situation before Belshazzar had all the elements of a great drama. Here was Daniel, an old man well in his eighties, with the marks of godly living evident in his bearing—in sharp contrast to the wine-flushed faces of the crowd. In the midst of this atmosphere of consternation, apprehension, and fear, Daniel’s countenance alone reflected the deep peace of God founded on confidence in God and His divine revelation.

Daniel’s Rebuke of Belshazzar

5:17-23 Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation. O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour: And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down. But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him: And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will. And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this: But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified:

Daniel’s reply to the king is properly called a sermon, and as King says, “What a great sermon it is!”276 Daniel begins by disavowing any interest in the gifts or rewards which the king offered. This was not prompted by disrespect nor by the evident fact that they would be short-lived. What Daniel is saying is that he will give an unprejudiced interpretation with no attempt to seek favor from the king. He promises both to read and to make known the interpretation.

In addressing the king, Daniel does not begin with a formal salutation as he does for instance in connection with Darius in Daniel 6:21 where he says, “O king, live for ever.” No doubt Daniel holds Belshazzar in contempt for his desecration of the sacred vessels. However, the narration here must be considered in the form of a condensation; and probably Daniel addressed the king in a formal way. A parallel is found in Daniel 2:27, where Daniel addresses Nebuchadnezzar without formal greeting, and in Daniel 4:19, where Daniel replies to Nebuchadnezzar simply with the expression, “My lord.” This was hardly a time in any case for Daniel to greet Belshazzar with such an expression as he gave to Darius, “O king, live for ever,” when as a matter of fact, Belshazzar’s hours were numbered. Instead, in verse 18 he recognizes him as king but then immediately delivers his prophetic message of condemnation.

Daniel first reminds Belshazzar that God gave Nebuchadnezzar his great kingdom and the honor that went with it. Daniel describes graphically in verse 19 how Nebuchadnezzar was feared and had absolute authority of life and death over his people and, accordingly, was an absolute sovereign. As Young points out, however, the very character of this absolute authority delegated to Nebuchadnezzar by God also made Nebuchadnezzar responsible.277 This is demonstrated and supported by Nebuchadnezzar’s experience of insanity in Daniel 4 when, as Daniel expresses it, “he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him.” Daniel then itemizes in detail the characteristics of Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity, how he lived with the wild beasts, ate grass like the ox, and was wet with the dew of heaven. All of this proved that God was greater than Nebuchadnezzar and held him responsible for his authority. Only when Nebuchadnezzar was properly humbled did God restore him to his” glory and kingdom.

These facts are pertinent to Belshazzar’s situation as they were well known by everyone as Daniel expresses it in verse 22, “And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this.” The contrast between the supreme power of Nebuchadnezzar and the very limited power of Belshazzar is also evident. Belshazzar was not even the first ruler in the kingdom and was humiliated by the fact that Babylon was besieged and had already lost its power over the provinces surrounding the city.

Belshazzar’s situation and his knowledge of Nebuchadnezzar’s humbling made all the more blasphemous his taking of the vessels captured in Jerusalem from the house of the Lord and using them to drink wine in praising the gods of Babylon. With what eloquent scorn Daniel declares that Belshazzar, his lords, wives and concubines had drunk wine from these sacred vessels and had “praised gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified.”278

Although the Scriptures do not state so expressly, it is probable that the message of Daniel to the king was heard by the entire company. It would have been quite improper for the entire company to keep on talking, especially in these dramatic circumstances, when Daniel was reporting to the king. They would naturally want to hear what he had to say. One can well imagine the tense moment as these ringing words reached every ear in the vast hall in the deathlike silence that greeted Daniel’s prophetic utterance. Here was a man who did not fear man and feared only God. Daniel spoke in measured tones the condemnation of that which was blasphemous in the sight of the holy God. There was, however, nothing insolent or discourteous in Daniel’s address to the king; and the charges were stated in a factual and objective way. In any case, the king was in no position to dispute with Daniel, even though Daniel’s words brought even greater fear and apprehension to his heart.

Daniel’s Interpretation of the Writing

5:24-28 Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written. And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

In beginning his explanation of the handwriting on the wall, Daniel first of all reads the writing; and for the first time, the words are introduced into the text of this chapter. Transliterated into English, they are given as “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.” There has been almost endless critical discussion as to what the meaning of this inscription is, and the interpretation is complicated by a number of factors.279 In the book of Daniel the words are given in Aramaic, but some have questioned this.280 If it was written in Aramaic script, however, only the consonants may have appeared. If in cuneiform, the vowels would be included. While in ordinary discourse the lack of vowels could normally be supplied rather easily, in a cryptic statement such as this the addition of vowels is a problem. The inscription on the wall may have appeared like this, “MN’ MN’ TQL UPRSN.” The order of the letters in the Aramaic, of course, would be the reverse of this, that is, from right to left.

Young suggests, after some of the rabbis, that the characters may have been written vertically,281 and in that case in the Aramaic order they would have appeared as follows:

P T M M

R Q N N

S L ’ ’

If, in addition to the complications of the Aramaic, a language which was known, some unfamiliar form of their characters was used, it would indeed have required divine revelation to give a suitable explanation and interpretation, and may account for the difficulty in reading the writing.

Because of the variety of words that could be identified merely by the consonants, another suggestion has been made. MENE could be considered equivalent to the maneh of Ezekiel 45:12; Ezra 2:69. TEQEL could be considered as representing the Hebrew shekeL PERES could be read as PERAS, or a half-maneh, although this identification is questionable. Under this interpretation, the writing would read, “A maneh, a marieh, a shekel, and a half-maneh.” Having arrived at this conclusion, however, it still remains to be determined what it means. Young in his discussion on this point gives J. Dymeley Prince282 the credit for the suggestion that the maneh refers to Nebuchadnezzar, the shekel (of much less value) to Belshazzar, and the half-minas refers to the Medes and the Persians.283 Daniel’s explanation, however, is far more cogent and reasonable, and does not give any indication that the words mean other than he indicates.

The word MENE means “numbered,” and Daniel interprets this in verse 26 as indicating “God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.” It is in keeping with the idea that man’s days are numbered, and the repetition of the word twice is probably for emphasis. Like the other words, it is a passive participle.

TEQEL means “weighed,” with the thought that Belshazzar has been put into the balances and found wanting, that is, short of true weight.

PERES means “divided,” and is merely another form for UPHARSIN as in verse 25 having the u, which is equivalent to the English and, with PHARSIN being the plural of PERES. Leupold suggests that PHARSIN could be understood by changing the vowels to be “Persians”284 and might have a double meaning as indicated by Daniel’s explanation “given to the Medes and Persians.” A pun may be intended on this third word. Having been interpreted to mean “divided,” it is also understood as a reference to the Aramaic word for Persian, thereby hinting a Persian victory over Babylon.

The interpretation of Daniel is clear and much more satisfactory than the alternatives offered by some expositors. Belshazzar is made to understand that Babylon will be given to the Medes and the Persians. Even while Daniel was interpreting the writing on the wall, the prophecy was being fulfilled as the Medes and the Persians poured into the city.

Daniel’s Reward and the Prophecy Fulfilled

5:29-31 Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

The drama of the writing on the wall and its interpretation is now brought to its fulfillment as Belshazzar keeps his promise. Daniel is clothed with scarlet, a chain of gold put about his neck, and a proclamation issued that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. All of these honors, however, were short-lived and useless, as Daniel well knew, and typical of the honors of this world. In its rise to power the Babylonian Empire had conquered Jerusalem, taken its inhabitants into captivity, looted its beautiful temple, and completely destroyed the city. Yet this empire was to have as its last official act the honoring of one of these captives who by divine revelation predicted not only the downfall of Babylon but the course of the times of the Gentiles until the Son of man should come from heaven. Man may have the first word, but God will have the last word.

Herodotus gives an interesting account of the circumstances surrounding the capture of Babylon:

“Cyrus… then advanced against Babylon. But the Babylonians, having taken the field, awaited his coming; and when he had advanced near the city, the Babylonians gave battle, and, being defeated, were shut up in the city. But as they had been long aware of the restless spirit of Cyrus, and saw that he attacked all nations alike, they had laid up provisions for many years, and therefore were under no apprehensions about a siege. On the other hand, Cyrus found himself in difficulty, since much time had elapsed, and his affairs were not at all advanced. Whether, therefore, someone else made the suggestion to him in his perplexity, or whether he himself devised the plan, he had recourse to the following stratagem. Having stationed the bulk of his army near the passage of the river where it enters Babylon, and again having stationed another division beyond the city, where the river makes its exit, he gave order to his forces to enter the city as soon as they should see the stream fordable. Having stationed his forces and given these directions, he himself marched away with the ineffective part of his army; and having come to the lake, Cyrus did the same with respect to the river and the lake as the queen of the Babylonians had done; for having diverted the river, by means of a canal, into the lake, which was before a swamp, he made the ancient channel fordable by the sinking of the river. When this took place, the Persians who were appointed to that purpose close to the stream of the river, which had now subsided to about the middle of a man’s thigh, entered Babylon by this passage. If, however, the Babylonians had been aware of it beforehand, or had known what Cyrus was about, they would not have suffered the Persians to enter the city, but would have utterly destroyed them; for, having shut all the little gates that lead to the river, and mounting the walls that extend along the banks of the river, they would have caught them as in a net; whereas the Persians came upon them by surprise. It is related by the people who inhabited this city, that, by reason of its great extent, when they who were at the extremities were taken, those of the Babylonians who inhabited the centre knew nothing of the capture (for it happened to be a festival); but they were dancing at the time, and enjoying themselves, till they received certain information of the truth. And thus Babylon was taken for the first time.”285

Keil discusses at length both Herodotus’ account and that of Xenophon in his Cyropaedia, which is similar, and summarizes the arguments of Kranichfeld discounting these records. Discoveries since Keil tend to support Herodotus and Xenophon, although not accounting for Darius the Mede. The battle probably took place much as Herodotus records it.286

Prophecy anticipating the fall of Babylon is found in both Isaiah and Jeremiah, written many years before. Isaiah and Jeremiah had prophesied that Babylon would fall to the Medes on just such a night of revelry as Daniel records (Is 13:17-22; 21:1-10; Jer 51:33-58). Some of these prophecies may have their ultimate fulfillment in the future (Rev 17-18). More specifically of the invasion of the Medes, Isaiah writes, “Go up, O Elam: besiege, O Media” (Is 21:2), and continues, after describing their dismay, “My heart panted, fearfulness affrighted me: the night of my pleasure hath he turned into fear unto me. Prepare the table, watch in the watchtower, eat, drink: arise, ye princes, and anoint the shield” (Is 21:4-5). Finally, the tidings come, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground” (Is 21:9). Jeremiah is explicit, “And I will make drunk her princes, and her wise men, her captains, and her rulers, and her mighty men: and they shall sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the King, whose name is the Lord of hosts. Thus saith the Lord of hosts; The broad walls of Babylon shall be utterly broken, and her high gates shall be burned with fire” (Jer 51:57-58).

The account of Cyrus, himself, of the fall of Babylon has now been recovered in an inscription on a clay barrel:

Marduk, the great lord, a protector of his people/worshipers, beheld with pleasure his (i.e., Cyrus’) good deeds and his upright mind (lit.: heart) (and therefore) ordered him to march against his city Babylon… He made him set out on the road to Babylon… going at his side like a real friend. His widespread troops—their number, like that of the water of a river, could not be established—strolled along, their weapons packed away. Without any battle, he made him enter his town Babylon,… sparing Babylon… any calamity. He delivered into his (1:e., Cyrus’) hands Nabonidus, the king who did not worship him (i.e., Marduk).287

Daniel himself records with graphic simplicity the fulfillment of his prophecy in the words, “In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.” The concluding verse of the chapter in English versification records how Darius the Median became ruler of Babylon at the age of 62 years. The identity of this conqueror, unknown outside the Bible by this name, has touched off endless controversy and discussion which will be considered in the next chapter.

The long chapter devoted to this incident which brought the Babylonian Empire to its close is undoubtedly recorded in the Word of God not only for its historic fulfillment of the prophecies relative to the Babylonian Empire but also as an illustration of divine dealing with a wicked world. The downfall of Babylon is in type the downfall of the unbelieving world. In many respects, modern civilization is much like ancient Babylon, resplendent with its monuments of architectural triumph, as secure as human hands and ingenuity could make it, and yet defenseless against the judgment of God at the proper hour. Contemporary civilization is similar to ancient Babylon in that it has much to foster human pride but little to provide human security. Much as Babylon fell on that sixteenth day of Tishri (Oc. 11 or 12) 539 B.C., as indicated in the Nabonidus Chronicle,288 so the world will be overtaken by disaster when the day of the Lord comes (1 Th 5:1-3). The disaster of the world, however, does not overtake the child of God; Daniel survives the purge and emerges triumphant as one of the presidents of the new kingdom in chapter 6.

245 The actual text of Berosus is as follows: “After beginning the wall of which I have spoken, Nabuchodonosor fell sick and died, after a reign of forty-three years, and the realm passed to his son Evilmaraduch. This prince, whose government was arbitrary and licentious, fell a victim to a plot, being assassinated by his sister’s husband, Neriglisar, after a reign of two years. On his death Neriglisar, his murderer, succeeded to the throne and reigned four years. His son, Laborosoardoch, a mere boy, occupied it for nine months, when, owing to the depraved disposition which he showed, a conspiracy was formed against him, and he was beaten to death by his friends. After his murder the conspirators held a meeting, and by common consent conferred the kingdom upon Nabonnedus, a Babylonian and one of their gang. In his reign the walls of Babylon abutting on the river were magnificently built with baked brick and bitumen. In the seventeenth year of his reign Cyrus advanced from Persia with a large army, and, after subjugating the rest of the kingdom, marched upon Babylonia. Apprised of his coming, Nabonnedus led his army to meet him, fought and was defeated, whereupon he fled with a few followers and shut himself up in the town of Borsippa. Cyrus took Babylon, and after giving orders to raze the outer walls of the city, because it resented a very redoubtable and formidable appearance, proceeded to Borsippa to esiege Nabonnedus. The latter surrendering, without waiting for investment, was humanely treated by Cyrus, who dismissed him from Babylonia, but gave him Car-mania for his residence. There Nabonnedus spent the remainder of his life, and there he died”^ Flavius Josephus. “Against Apion,” in Josephus 1:221-25. For discussion of Josephus’ account, see Keil, pp. 164-71.

246 Eusebius, Praeper. Ev. 9:41, cited by C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, p. 164.

247 See Raymond P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar.

248 James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, p. 249.

249 According to J. A. Brinkman, “Probably the first recorded mention of Belshazzar, Prince of Babylonia under Nabonnedus” is in a cuneiform text 135 in a collection at the Archaeological Museum in Florence published in 1958-60 by Professor Karl Ober-huber of the University of Innsbruck. The text is definitely from the sixth century B.C. This text indicates that a person known as Bel-sarra-usur was a res sarri, an officer of the king, under Neriglissar who came to the throne in 560 B.C., as had been earlier pointed out in a text YBC 3765:2 published by R. P. Dougherty in 1929 in Nabonidus and Belshazzar, pp. 67-68. This, no doubt, prepared the way for the co-regency under Nabonidus which probably began 553 B.C., supporting Daniel 5. (Cf. J. A. Brinkman, “Neo-Babylonian Texts in the Archaeological Museum at Florence,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 25:202-9.)

E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, p. 115.

250 Cf. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, p. 210; and George A. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible, p. 481 ff.

251 H. H. Rowley, “The Historicity of the Fifth Chapter of Daniel,” Journal of Theological Studies 32:12.

252 N. W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, p. 76.

253 The new evidence confirming the theory that Nabonidus was absent is found in the statement in the “Prayer of Nabonidus” that Nabonidus was at the oasis of Teima in Arabia at this time. See J. T. Milik, “ ‘Priere de Nabonide’ et autres ecrits d’un cycle de Daniel,” Revue Biblique 63:407-15. Although it is possible to question the historicity of portions of the “Prayer of Nabonidus,” as it is undoubtedly apocryphal, the consensus of both liberal and conservative scholarship seems to take the account as repeating in the main a true story. Cf. Norman Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, p. 76.

254 For further discussion of this problem, see Young, pp. 115-19; Keil, pp. 162-79; and Leupold, pp. 208-14. Cf. the interesting discussion of Belshazzar by C. Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel, pp. 114 ff.

255 Keil, pp. 165-76.

256 Leupold, pp. 208-13.

257 Montgomery mentions a marriage feast of Alexander with 10,000 guests (Montgomery, p. 250).

Ibid., p. 214. See also Keil, p. 179, citing Athenaeus, as does Young, p. 118.

258 M. E. L. Mallowan, “Nimrud,” in Archaeology and Old Testament Study, p. 62.

259 Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae IV, 145.

260 Ibid., p. 165.

261 Keil, pp. 174-75.

262 Leupold, p. 211.

263 Edward B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet, p. 346. See also Leupold, pp. 216-17, who discusses this quotation from Pusey.

264 Otto Zockler, Daniel, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, p. 126.

265 Keil, p. 181.

266 Herodotus, History of the Persian Wars, 1:178-83.

267 Cf. Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary, pp. 115-16; and T. G. Pinches, “Babel, Babylon,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1:350. For a map of Babylon in sixth century B.C., see D. J. Wiseman, “Babylon,” in The New Bible Dictionary, pp. 117-20. For pictures and further details, see R. K. Harrison, “Babylon,” in The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, pp. 89-93.

268 Cf. Montgomery, p. 253, citing Koldewey, Das wieder erstehende Babylon; and E. G. Kraeling, Rand McNally Bible Atlas, p. 327.

269 Keil, pp. 182-83.

270 Ibid., p. 184.

271 F. Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, p. 71.

272 R. H. Charles, The Book of Daniel, pp. 57-59; cf. Keil, pp. 184-85.

273 Keil, p. 185; Leupold, pp. 224-25.

274 Montgomery, p. 258.

275 Arthur Jeffery, “The Book of Daniel, Introduction and Exegesis,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, 6:426.

276 G. R. King, Daniel, p. 148.

277 Young, p. 124.

278 There is a remarkably close parallel to the language of 5:23 in the “Prayer of Nabonidus” found in Qumran Cave 4:See J. T. Milik, pp. 407-15.

279 In the end, even the critics accept either the interpretation of Daniel (mene, “numbered”; tekel, “weighed”; peres, “divided”); or the reading, “ a maneh, a maneh, a shekel, and a half-maneh,” see exposition.

Cf. Montgomery, pp. 262-64.

280 Charles, pp. 57-59; Keil, p. 126.

281 Young, pp. 125-26.

282 Since Prince, who wrote his commentary in 1899, many others have followed the suggestion of Clermont-Ganneau (Journal Asiatique) 1886, that the inscription contained a string of weight names. E. G. Kraeling (“The Handwriting on the Wall,” Journal of Biblical Literature 63 [1944]: 11-18) assuming that five kings are in view—i.e., mene is given twice and the upharsin equals two half-minas—suggests that the five kings following Nebuchadnezzar were intended, viz., Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk, Nabonidus and Belshazzar. D. N. Freedman (“Prayer of Nabonidus,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 145 [1957]: 32) identifies the three kings as Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus and Belshazzar. Freedman cites H. Louis Ginsberg (Studies in Daniel, pp. 24-26) as holding that only three kings are referred to, viz., Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach and Belshazzar.

283 Ibid., p. 126; cf. Montgomery, pp. 263-64.

284 Leupold, p. 235.

285 Herodotus, 1:190-91.

286 Keil, pp. 171-72.

287 J. B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, pp. 315-16.

288 John C. Whitcomb, Jr., Darius the Mede, p. 73.

The Origins of the Church at Rome

Introduction

When Paul wrote his letter to Christians at Rome towards the end of his third missionary journey, he was communicating with what appears to be a firmly established collection of believers in that city. This article tackles a question that primary extant sources do not specifically address: how did that collection of believers in Rome come into existence? The earliest available sources leave only indirect clues towards solving this puzzle. As a result, the answer to the question of how the Roman church began must be framed in terms of probabilities rather than certainties. In this article, we will examine the major sources that contribute to the discussion, analyze how scholars have assessed the material, and propose tentative solutions that best explain the data.

Jews in Rome Prior to the Origin of the Church

Sources indicate that before Christians emerged in Rome, Jews had already established a presence in the city. Inscriptions from Jewish catacombs and comments from literary documents open a window into the life, organization, and struggles of the Jews in Rome. The catacomb inscriptions have most recently been dated from the late second through the fifth centuries A.D.1 Richardson concludes that the inscriptions attest to the existence of at least five synagogues in Rome in the early first century, with the possibility of even more. The “Hebrew synagogue” probably arose first, with subsequent synagogues named after famous allies of the Jews.2 The language used in inscriptions suggests that many of the synagogues were in the poorer districts of the city.3 Scholars have noted the lack of evidence for a central organization or leadership structure that oversaw the different synagogues.4 At the same time, in the inscriptions only leaders are identified in relation to their synagogues. Ordinary Jews affiliated themselves with Judaism as a whole rather than their particular synagogue.5 Thus the Jews viewed themselves as a unified group despite the apparent lack of a controlling body of spiritual leaders in the city.

Literary excepts describe the social and political environment of the Roman Jews. For instance, as early as 59 B.C., Cicero offers his opinion on the Jews during his defense of Flaccus: “You know what a big crowd it is, how they stick together, how influential they are in informal assemblies… every year it was customary to send gold to Jerusalem on the order of the Jews from Italy and from all our provinces.”6 Cicero’s remarks confirm the presence of a large community of Jews in Rome and indicate misgivings about their separatist tendencies. Comments by Philo about events under the reign of Augustus provide further information:

“[T]he great section of Rome on the other side of the Tiber is occupied and inhabited by Jews, most of whom were Roman citizens emancipated. For having been brought as captives to Italy they were liberated by their owners and were not forced to violate any of their native institutions… . [T]hey have houses of prayer and meet together in them, particularly on the sacred Sabbaths when they receive as a body of training in their ancestral philosophy … [T]hey collect money for sacred purposes from their first-fruits and send them to Jerusalem by persons who would offer the sacrifices.”7

Like Cicero, Philo notes that the Jews maintained a distinct identity. The section of Rome Philo mentions (Trastevere) was “the chief foreign quarter of the city, a district characterized by narrow, crowded streets, towering tenement houses, teeming with population.”8 Philo also refers to the reason some of the Jews now lived in Rome: their ancestors had been forcibly taken to Rome as slaves (under Pompey).9 Once freed, the Jews bore the title libertini.

As seen from Philo, the Jews were permitted to freely engage in Jewish practices under the favorable policy of Augustus. Things changed under the emperor Tiberius. Tacitus reports that Tiberius took action against the Jews in 19 A.D.:

“Another debate dealt with the proscription of the Egyptian and Jewish rites, and a senatorial edict directed that four thousand descendants of enfranchised slaves, tainted with that superstition and suitable in point of age, were to be shipped to Sardinia and there be employed in suppressing brigandage … The rest had orders to leave Italy, unless they had renounced their impious ceremonial by a given date.”10

Tacitus thus adds another witness that many Roman Jews were freed slaves. He also labels their beliefs as “superstition,” alluding to the scorn Jews endured as a result of their special religious practices. Most important, the record of Tiberius’ move against the Jewish population stands as the first of several actions against the Roman Jews in the first century.11

The pre-Christian sources about Jews in Rome are valuable in two ways. First, they provide a glimpse at the Jewish environment from which Christianity likely emerged. Jews maintained their distinct identity and practices through participation in synagogues that were found mostly in poorer districts of the city. They encountered suspicion from outside observers and occasional unwelcome intervention by the government. Second, the Jewish sources help us to understand later important texts more accurately. The lack of central oversight by Jewish religious authorities, the presence of separate synagogues throughout the city, the existence of a group of libertini, and the government’s policy towards the Jews all set the stage for interpreting later texts related to Christianity’s emergence in Rome.

Christianity’s Presence in Rome in the Time of Claudius

Several important texts relating events in the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) rest at the center of any discussion of the origins of the church in Rome. In this section we will inspect the primary testimony of Cassius Dio, Suetonius, and Luke, supplemental information presented by Josephus and Orosius, and conflicting theories derived from the records.

The historian Cassius Dio reports the following action taken by Claudius against Roman Jews: “As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings.”12 Most scholars agree that Dio places this event at the beginning of Claudius’s reign (A.D. 41). The text states clearly that Jews, while restricted from congregating, were not removed from Rome.13

Difficulties arise when Suetonius relates the following account during Claudius’s reign: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.”14 It is not impossible that Dio and Suetonius have the same event in mind. There are similarities between the two descriptions (Claudius enacting measures against the Jews), and neither Dio nor Suetonius mentions two separate edicts. Suetonius does not list this event as part of a chronological sequence, allowing correspondence to Dio’s date of A.D. 41. Still, Dio specifically indicates that Claudius did not expel the Jews, which seems to contradict the account by Suetonius. The arguments for these options will be further evaluated in a later section.

Luke’s passing comment in Acts 18:2 aligns closely with Suetonius’s record: “And he (Paul) found a certain Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently arrived from Italy with Priscilla his wife, on account of Claudius commanding all the Jews to leave Rome.” Paul’s first encounter with Aquila and Priscilla can be dated to around A.D. 49, based on Acts 18:12 and the Gallio inscription, as well as the chronological marker in Acts 18:11. The couple’s arrival can likewise be located near A.D. 49, based on the term prosfavtw" (“recently”).

Josephus further complicates matters by painting a picture of Claudius’s early reign that appears to diverge from Dio’s depiction. Josephus presents an edict given by Claudius:

“Kings Agrippa and Herod, my dearest friends, having petitioned me to permit the same privileges to be maintained for the Jews throughout the empire … I very gladly consented, not merely in order to please those who petitioned me, but also because in my opinion the Jews deserve to obtain their request on account of their loyalty and friendship to the Romans… . It is right, therefore, that the Jews throughout the whole world under our sway should also observe the customs of their fathers without let or hindrance.”15

Josephus’ portrayal does not allude to any negative action by Claudius early in his rule. Instead, Claudius appears to guarantee certain Jewish rights.16

Finally, Orosius, who as a Christian authored an account of history in A.D. 417, makes the following contribution:

In the ninth year of his reign, Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. Both Josephus and Suetonius record this event, but I prefer, however, the account of the latter, who speaks as follows: ‘Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because in their resentment against Christ they were continually creating disturbances.’17

Orosius claims that Claudius’s action against the Jews occurred in A.D. 41. The problem is that the sources he relies on cannot verify the date he puts forward. Suetonius’s report does not fall within a chronological framework, and no known record of this event by Josephus exists. Most scholars view this testimony with suspicion, regarding Orosius as biased and unreliable.18

The major questions surfacing from the above documents are 1) were there one or two moves by Claudius against the Jews, and 2) did one or both events involve conflicts between Christians and Jews?

Following the majority view, it is most likely that Claudius initiated two actions against the Jews in Rome, with the event recorded by Dio preceding that of Suetonius.19 Dio’s date of A.D. 41 for the restrictions on Jewish assembly is too difficult to reconcile with Luke’s date of the late 40’s in Acts 18:2. In addition, Luke and Suetonius agree that Claudius actually expelled the Jews, while Dio specifies that Claudius did not remove them. Incidentally, Orosius’s viewpoint, though suspect, conforms to the view that there was a separate expulsion in A.D. 49.

The attempt to harmonize the different accounts of edicts against the Jews fails to convince. Major contradictions in dates (Dio versus Luke) and outcome (Dio versus Suetonius and Luke) must be resolved through assuming a major error or omission by one or more of the historians. Penna dismisses the historical value of the account in Acts 18 and opts for an early date (A.D. 41) for Dio and Suetonius.20 Benko appeals to the apparent inconsistency between the portrayal of Claudius’s early policy towards the Jews in Dio and Josephus to conclude that Dio’s description aligns with Suetonius’s, at the later date of A.D. 49.21 Hoerber attempts to relate all accounts to one event by assuming that only the leaders of the disputes were driven out.22

If two different events are distinguished, it remains to be seen whether one or both were instigated by controversy over the claims of Christianity. It is possible that the decree in A.D. 41 was caused by disputes over Christ, as implied by Dio in the juxtaposition between permitting Jewish traditional practice (apart from Christ) while outlawing turbulent meetings.23 Evidence shows, however, that starting with the reign of Tiberius, Romans viewed the Jewish population with suspicion. Indeed, in A.D. 19 Tiberius had dealt with perceived Jewish liabilities by removing many Jews from Rome. Similar dynamics in A.D. 41 provide a plausible explanation of events without requiring the identification of Jewish-Christian conflicts.24

Stronger evidence supports that Jewish-Christian turmoil led to Claudius’s reaction in A.D. 49. First, it is easier to place the conversion of Aquila and Priscilla in Rome rather than in Corinth, after they met Paul.25 Paul’s immediate cooperation with the husband and wife team suggests that they already shared his faith in Christ (see Acts 18:3). It is noted also that Paul does not mention baptizing Aquila or Priscilla (1 Cor 1:14-16).26 The religious status of Aquila and Priscilla alone does not prove that Jewish-Christian disagreements provoked Rome’s action. More significantly, Suetonius’s reference to Chrestus is best understood as referring to Jesus Christ. Early sources exhibit evidence of inadvertent or deliberate spelling variations related to “Christ.” For instance, in the early fourth century, Lactantius comments, “But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant, who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus.”27 Finally, a disruption within Judaism over the claims of Christ accords well with events unfolding in cities such as Jerusalem, Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Corinth.28 Therefore, Suetonius’s mention of Chrestus probably identifies Christ as the reason for the conflicts.

The claim that Christ stands at the center of the conflict of A.D. 49 is contested on several fronts. First, the most straightforward reading of Suetonius’s account implies that Chrestus himself was present in Rome, as an instigator of the unrest.29 In response to this objection, some advocates of seeing Christians in the mix of the unrest of A.D. 49 propose that either Suetonius or his source was confused about the event.30 Other scholars have supposed that instead of Suetonius confusing the vowels in the name, Christian copyists incorrectly copied the document.31 Alternatively, it is contended that the Latin sentence structure allows for Chrestus being simply identified as the cause of the disturbance rather than being physically present in Rome.32 In further rebuttal of the Christian hypothesis, critics point out that Suetonius only later introduces Christian movement, at the time of Nero.33 This suggests that the Christianity had not been on Suetonius’s radar up to that point. Spence counters by explaining that the chief aim in Claudius 25.4 is to highlight the Jewish rather than Christian experience, even though the claims of Christ were involved.34

Scholars skeptical of a Christian angle to the controversy offer an alternative theory. They assert that the reference to Chrestus indicates that a messianic figure living in Rome was generating turmoil among the Jews.35 One problem with this theory is that no such person is known from any other historical sources. Moreover, Suetonius does not qualify his description by designating the character as “a certain Chrestus,” which would be more expected if the leader had been a figure of only fleeting interest.36 Finally, a rebellion led by a messianic figure would have evoked a more violent response from the Roman authorities.37 The more likely scenario is that Jewish contentions involving the claims of Christ brought about the Roman opposition.

The State of Christianity in Rome as Seen in Paul’s Letter to the Romans

Years after the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, Paul addresses Christians in the city. Once the whole letter of the Romans is admitted into evidence, we may attain a detailed picture of the state of Roman Christianity in the late 50’s.

Some scholars contend that Romans 16 was actually written to Christians in Ephesus and was attached to Paul’s original letter to Rome. Advocates of this view argue that in this chapter Paul names too many people for a city he had never visited, and that some of the names fit especially well with Ephesus rather than Rome.38 The diverse locations of Romans 16 in the manuscripts (see especially P 46, which places the doxology of Rom 16:25-27 at the end of chapter 15, with the rest of chapter 16 following the doxology) are used as further support.39

Against this hypothesis, Donfried maintains that Paul includes a long list of names in order to boost his credibility with the Roman recipients of his letter.40 Lampe observes that Paul did not necessarily personally know every believer in the list, since the wording only requires personal acquaintance with twelve of the people.41 Furthermore, there are too few names for the Ephesian scenario, since Paul omits mention of important co-workers expected to be found in Ephesus.42 Finally, the final remark in 15:33 is atypical to Paul’s style of closing a letter, and the particle de in 16:1 assumes prior material, making the Ephesian theory less plausible.43

Accepting the integrity of the letter, the believers’ established history in the city is indicated (Rom 15:23), along with the presence of Christians who had believed before Paul had (16:7). The presence of these believers and the many others listed in Rom 16 adds further evidence for the development of Christianity in Rome in the years before Paul’s direct contact with the people there. Christians such as Prisca and Aquila had returned to Rome after having been banished from the city, while Christianity among the Gentiles had blossomed in the city outside the synagogue structure, perhaps from even before Claudius’s edict.44

From Paul’s greetings in Rom 16, we can discern the existence of several gatherings of Christians in the city. Rom 16:3-4 speaks of the house church of Prisca and Aquila.45 Also, two more groupings of Christians surface in verses 14 and 15. Beyond this, the existence of additional groups is less clear. The wording in verses 10 and 11 may suggest that house churches are associated with these households.46 The references to other individuals throughout the chapter create possibilities of other Christian meetings in which these believers participated. The evidence points to the existence of at least three house churches, with the possibility of even more.

Some scholars have highlighted the divisions between the house churches, normally along Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian lines, based on Paul’s instruction in 14:1-15:13.47 This, however, understates the underlying unity assumed by Paul’s address to them as a single entity.48 In Rom 16, some of the individuals are identified as Jews (note use of term suggenhv" in Rom 16:7, 11; cf. Rom 9:3), while many of the remaining are likely Gentiles. The names of believers are presented side-by-side without insinuations of friction between them. The absence of the term ejkklhsiva as applied to the Roman believers as a group has been used as to contend that the Roman Christians were independent from each other.49 But Paul omits this attribution in Philippians, Ephesians, and Colossians as well.50 The fundamental Christian unity mirrors the shared identity the Jews felt in spite of their participation in separate synagogues.

The Gospel’s Spread from Jerusalem to Rome

Next, we evaluate different possibilities about how Christianity made its way from Jerusalem to Rome. In addition to clues from Luke’s account in Acts, both ancient Christians and modern scholars propose theories about how Christianity spread from Jerusalem to Rome.

Acts 2:10 includes visitors from Rome in the list of people who witnessed the events of Pentecost. The term for visitors, also seen in Acts 17:21, is a participle of the verb ejpidhmevw, which denotes “to stay in a place as a stranger or a visitor.”51 A number of scholars suggest that these temporary residents of Jerusalem may have taken the gospel back to Rome.52

In Acts 6:9, Luke mentions Stephen’s confrontation with Jews from the Synagogue of the Freedmen (tine" tw'n ejk th'" sunagwgh'" th'" legomevnh" Libertivnwn). These libertini likely correspond to the freed slaves mentioned in sources examined earlier. If some of these freedmen eventually received the gospel message, their contact with libertini elsewhere could have facilitated the spread of the gospel to other regions, including Rome.53 The geographical spread of the gospel to new regions would have been further encouraged when persecutions against Christians erupted in Jerusalem (see Acts 8:1).

Clues from Acts may be incorporated into a wider model that surmises that geographical dispersions of Christians in the first century likely brought Christianity to Rome.54 Both Roman inhabitants who visited Jerusalem before returning to Rome and Jews who settled into Rome for the first time may have played a role.55 Once Jewish Christians reached Rome, they would have had relatively unhindered ministry access in the synagogues, since no Jewish controlling authority could step in to quickly and definitively oppose the propagation of the message.56

A competing theory promotes Peter as the carrier of the gospel to Rome. The mysterious reference in 12:17 (Peter “went to another place”) opens the door to speculation that Rome was the destination.57 Later church tradition asserts that Peter’s ministry as bishop of Rome spanned 25 years. While the biblical evidence rules out a continuous presence in Rome, it is surmised that Peter could have founded the church in A.D. 42 and then continued his leadership over the church even when in other locations.58 Finally, Rom 15:20-24 could contain an allusion to Peter’s ministry to the Romans, which dissuaded Paul from focusing his outreach in Rome.59

A closer look at earlier Patristic testimony lessens the probability that Peter established the church at Rome. In the mid-second century A.D., Irenaeus envisions a founding role for Peter alongside Paul: “Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, laying the foundations of the Church.”60 Soon after, he refers to the “universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.”61 Immediately, the problem surfaces that in comparing Peter to Paul, who arrived to Rome relatively late in the church’s history, Peter’s unique founding influence in the church becomes less likely.62 More likely, relatively obscure Christians made contributions to the church’s establishment, leading to a vital and growing community. As a parallel, Christianity surfaces in places like Cyprus and Cyrene without any apparent missionary journey by noted apostles (Acts 11:20). In the fourth century, the theologian Ambrosiaster shares a similar perspective on the beginnings of the Roman church:

“It is established that there were Jews living in Rome in the times of the apostles, and that those Jews who had believed [in Christ] passed on to the Romans the tradition that they ought to profess Christ but keep the law … One ought not to condemn the Romans, but to praise their faith; because without seeing any signs or miracles and without seeing any apostles, they nevertheless accepted faith in Christ.”63

Scholars are quick to discount the value of Ambrosiaster’s viewpoint as independent testimony.64 Even so, one would expect that the memory of a prominent founder such as Peter or Paul would not likely be forgotten if one of them had indeed established the church of Rome.65

Conclusion

Based on a study of relevant biblical and extra-biblical documents, it is generally agreed that non-apostolic Jewish Christians brought the faith of Christ to Rome in the early decades of the church. After generating both interest and controversy within the synagogues, Christianity was forced to reorganize in the wake of Claudius’s edict against the Jews. The resulting Gentile-dominated church that received Paul’s letter in the late 50’s met in small groups around the city of Rome but maintained communication and held onto a common identity and mission. Paul and Peter leave their mark on these believers, though they merely strengthen the work that had already begun to flourish in the capital city. Beyond these main points, scholars still differ on the exact timeline of the birth and growth of the Christian community, as well as on to what degree Roman reactions against Jewish instability stem from disagreements about Christ. When all is said though, the overall picture of the emergence of Christianity in Rome constitutes yet another significant example of God’s extraordinary work in the early church during the decades following Christ’s death and resurrection.


1 Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000), 264.

2 Peter Richardson, “Augustan-Era Synagogues in Rome,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 19-29. Richardson notes that as many as thirteen synagogues have been identified from Roman inscriptions, but only these five can be assumed to have existed before the arrival of Christianity to Rome.

3 Harry J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (The Morris Loeb Series; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1960), 92.

4 Ibid., 258.

5 Stephen Spence, The Parting of the Ways: The Roman Church as a Case Study (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 5; Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 25.

6 Cicero, Flac. 28.66 (Lord, LCL).

7 Philo, Legat. 155-156 (Colson, LCL).

8 Leon, Jews of Ancient Rome, 136. This later becomes the home to a significant number of the early Christians in Rome (Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries [ed. Marshall D. Johnson; trans. Michael Steinhauser; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003], 65).

9 Most notably, King Aristobulus and his family were removed to Rome (Plutarch, Pomp. 45.4; Josephus, Ant. 14.79). Levinskaya notes that Cicero’s speech, given shortly after this event, assumes that a substantial Jewish population already existed before the addition of these slaves (Irina Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting [vol. 5 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; ed. Bruce W. Winter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 169).

10 Tacitus, Ann. 2.85 (Jackson, LCL). The “disenfranchised slaves” mentioned in this passage refer to the libertini mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

11 In Josephus’ version of Tiberius’ decision against the Jews, he reports the same basic historical reality: “[Tiberius] ordered the whole Jewish community to leave Rome. The consuls drafted four thousand of these Jews for military service and sent them to the island of Sardinia; but they penalized a good many of them, who refused to serve for fear of breaking the Jewish law” (Josephus, Ant. 18.83-84 [Feldman, LCL]).

12 Cassius Dio 60.6.6 (Cary, LCL).

13 It is observed that Dio does not offer an explicit explanation of the reason for Claudius’s decision to forbid Jewish assemblies. He only provides the reason for the action Claudius did not take.

14 Suetonius, Claud. 25.4 (Rolfe, LCL).

15 Josephus Ant. 19.288-290 (Feldman, LCL).

16 Though Josephus appears to contradict Dio, it is possible that Josephus is emphasizing the positive aspects of Claudius’s early policy, which would correspond to the allowances made for the Jews’ “traditional mode of life,” as mentioned by Dio.

17 Orosius 7.6, in Seven Books of History Against the Pagans: The Apology of Paulus Orosius (trans. Irving Woodworth Raymond; New York: Columbia University Press, 1936).

18 Ibid., 19.

19 The position is adopted by, among others, Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, Vol 1: Jesus and the Twelve (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2004), 806; F. F. Bruce, “The Romans Debate – Continued,” in The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition (ed. Karl P. Donfried; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991),179; Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, 106; Spence, Parting of Ways, 67. Wiefel departs from the majority by positing that Claudius expelled leaders of the Jewish conflicts first (from Suetonius) and then introduced a moderating policy allowing for residence in Rome without rights to assembly (with Dio). His main argument is that Dio and Josephus disagree, meaning that Dio must report a later reality. Though this order fits nicely into Wiefel’s reconstruction of the origins of the church at Rome, he fails to make a strong enough case for abandoning the widely accepted date of A.D. 41 for Dio’s account. (Wolfgang Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity,” in The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition [ed. Karl P. Donfried; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991],94).

20 Romano Penna, “Les Juifs a Rome au Temps de L’Apotre Paul,” NTS 28(1982): 331.

21 Stephen Benko, “The Edict of Claudius of A.D. 49 and the Instigator Chrestus,” TZ 25 (1969): 407-408. He harmonizes Suetonius and Dio by supposing that some Jews decided to depart Rome (Suetonius) since they were no longer permitted to meet (Dio).

22 Robert O. Hoerber, “The Decree of Claudius in Acts 18:2,” CTM 31 (1960): 692. Like many other scholars, he believes that Luke’s use of pa'" is literary rather than literal (Acts 2:5; 3:18; 8:1; 9:35; 19:10), allowing for a portrayal that corresponds to Suetonius and Dio. An alternative theory regarding Luke’s assertion that all the Jews were expelled posits that the edict was comprehensive but not fully enforced (Schnabel, Christian Mission, 811). Both explanations envision a smaller-scale expulsion that helps explain the silence of Josephus and Tacitus on the event. In addition, it is important to remember that pertinent periods from some sources (Dio, Tacitus) are known only through secondary references: the original accounts are not extant.

23 See Schnabel, Christian Mission, 806.

24 In addition, if Jewish-Christian conflicts were already erupting in A.D. 41, then we must assume either that the disputes subsided for a while and then resurfaced, or that the Romans tolerated the growing disturbances for another eight years, until the eventual expulsion of those involved.

25 Luke does not explicitly state that Aquila is a Christian because his interest lies “not on his religious convictions but on his ethnic affiliation” (Schnabel, Christian Mission, 811).

26 Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 11.

27 Lactantius 4.7 (Fletcher, ANF). See also Tacitus, Ann. 15.44; Codex Sinaiticus: Acts 11:26, 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16.

28 Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 12.

29 Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, 207.

30 Bruce, “Romans Debate,” 179; Wiefel, “Origins,” 93; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans:A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 31.

31 Levinskaya, Acts in Diaspora Setting, 179-180; Schnabel, Christian Mission, 809. Note the scribal confusion in the verses from Codex Sinaiticus, as mentioned earlier.

32 Spence, Parting of Ways, 76-77.

33 This argument is made by E. A. Judge and G. S. R. Thomas, “The Origin of the Church at Rome: A New Solution,” RTR 25 (1966): 85. Suetonius says, “Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition,” Suetonius, Nero 16.2 (LCL, Rolfe).

34 Spence, Parting of Ways, 77.

35 Judge and Thomas, “Church at Rome,” 85-86; Benko, “Edict of Claudius,” 412-413. Proponents of this viewpoint note that Chrestus was a common name for slaves in the Roman Empire.

36 Spence, Parting of Ways, 99.

37 Ibid., 92.

38 In particular, the reference to Prisca and Aquila’s house church in Rom 16:3 resembles their situation in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19).

39 T. W. Manson, “St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans – and Others,” in The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition (ed. Karl P. Donfried; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 12-13.

40 Karl P. Donfried, “A Short Note on Romans 16,” in The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition (ed. Karl P. Donfried; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 48-49.

41 Peter Lampe, “The Roman Christians of Romans 16,” in The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition (ed. Karl P. Donfried; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 216.

42 Ibid., 216. Lampe notes that the missing names include “Epaphras, Mark, Luke, Aristarchus, Demas (Phlm, 23-24; cf. Col 4:17-14); Sosthenes (1 Cor 1:1); Apollos, Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:12, 17).”

43 Ibid., 217.

44 James C. Walters, “Romans, Jews, and Christians: The Impact of the Romans on Jewish/Christian Relations in First-Century Rome,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 177.

45 Jeffers discusses the design and function of apartment structures (insulae) in first century Rome. Most dwellings would have been too small for Christian gatherings, though the largest few rooms in each unit could have accommodated the type of small meetings envisioned from a reading of Rom 16 (James S. Jeffers, “Jewish and Christian Families in First-Century Rome,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 132-133).

46 Schnabel, Christian Mission, 812, favors a reference to a house church here, while Caragounis is skeptical (Chrys C. Caragounis, “From Obscurity to Prominence: The Development of the Roman Church between Romans and 1 Clement,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 255-256).

47 Walters, “Romans, Jews, and Christians,” 178-179.

48 See Rom 1:7, 11-12; 15:15, 30-33; 16:1-2, 19.

49 Lampe, “Roman Christians,” 229.

50 Caragounis, “Obscurity to Prominence,” 253.

51 BDAG, “ejpidhmevw,” 370. This term has more relevance for the identity of the Roman onlookers than the word for longer-term residents (katoikou'nte") that introduces the list of Pentecost observers in Acts 2:5 (contra Judge and Thomas, “Church at Rome,” 83).

52 Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 4; Fitzmyer, Romans, 29.

53 Schnabel, Christian Mission, 805; Bruce, “Romans Debate,” 178, Cranfield, Romans, 790.

54 Fitzmyer sees slaves and merchants as possible candidates for spreading the gospel in the early decades of Christianity (Fitzmyer, Romans, 30).

55 Rudolf Brändle and Ehkehard W. Stegemann, “The Formation of the First ‘Christian Congregations’ in Rome in the Context of Jewish Congregations,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 127.

56 Wiefel, “Origins,” 92.

57 John Wenham, “Did Peter Go to Rome in AD 42?” TynBul 23 (1972): 95.

58 Ibid., 97-98.

59 Ibid., 100. Schnabel, Christian Mission, 26, rightly objects that this is not the best explanation for this verse.

60 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1 (Roberts and Donaldson, ANF).

61 Ibid., 3.3.2.

62 The opposite difficulty arises if Paul is given primary credit for founding the church, having taken scattered Christians and forming them into a apostolically legitimate church (see Judge and Thomas, “Church at Rome,” 81-82). In that case, it would be difficult to credit Peter with an equal role in the origin of the church.

63 As quoted by Donfried, “A Short Note on Romans 16,” 47.

64 Cranfield, Romans, 20.

65 1 Clement 5:3-6 (late first century) and Ignatius, Rom. 4:3, though recognizing the important role of Peter Paul in the life of the Roman church, stop short of identifying them as the founders of the church.


Related Topics: History

Somo la 7: Kanisa

Related Media

Kanisa ni nini? Lilianza lini? Ni kwa nini kuna madhehebu mengi? Kundi hili linaabuduje katika kanisa la Biblia?

Neno kanisa kwa Kiyunani ni ekklesia. Neno hili lina maana ya, “kilichotengwa kwa kusudi maalum; kusanyiko.”

Jambo la kwanza la kujifunza ni kwamba Biblia inalizungumzia kanisa kwa namna mbili tofauti: Kanisa la ulimwengu wote kama mwili mmoja, na kanisa la mahali fulani kama taasisi.

Kanisa La Ulimwengu Wote – Mwili

Maana: Kanisa la Ulimwengu Wote ni jumla ya waamini wote wanaounda mwili wa Kristo kwa njia ya ubatizo kwa Roho Mtakatifu, na liliundwa siku ya kwanza ya Pentekoste, ni tofauti kabisa na taifa la Israeli na haliishii mahali fulani au dhehebu fulani tu.

Kila mtu, akiwa hai au amekufa, ambaye aliwahi kumpokea Yesu Kristo na kumwamini kama Bwana na Mwokozi wake, tangu siku ile ya Pentekoste hadi sasa, ni mmoja wa Kanisa la Ulimwengu, yaani mwili wa Kristo ambapo yeye, Kristo ndiye kichwa (Waefeso 1:22)

Yesu Alisema Nini Kuhusu Kanisa?

Soma Mathayo 16:18-19

Kristo alilizungumzia kama la wakati ujao

Kristo alipozungumza maneno haya, kanisa lilikuwa ni kitu cha wakati ujao kwa hiyo halikuwepo wakati akiwa hapa duniani. Je, ni nani msingi ambako kanisa limejengwa? Ni nani au ni nini ambacho ni mwamba, Kristo alichokuwa anaelezea?

Petro mwenyewe anasema kwamba Kristo ndiye Mwamba (1 Petro 2:4-8; 1 Wakorintho 3:11, hakuna msingi mwingine; Waefeso 2:20).

Au inaweza ikawa kwamba ukiri wa Petro, “Wewe ndiwe Kristo, Mwana wa Mungu aliye hai”, ndio mwamba, kwa sababu kila mtu anayejiunga na kanisa la ulimwenguni lazima aamini kwamba huu ndio ukweli kuhusu Yesu.

Kanisa Lilizaliwa Lini?

Soma: Matendo 1:5 na 2:1-4

Kanisa lilizaliwa siku ya Pentekoste, kama siku kumi hivi baada ya Yesu kupaa kwenda mbinguni. Roho Mtakatifu alishuka ili kumwingiza kila mwamini katika mwili wa Kristo na kumkalia kila mwamini kibinafsi kabisa. Pentekoste kwa Roho Mtakatifu ilikuwa ni kama Krismasi kwa Yesu. Alikuja kuhusianisha waamini wote kwa namna mbalimbali.

Paulo analizungumzia kanisa kama siri:

Soma Waefeso 3:6

Siri hii ni kwamba Wayahudi na watu wa Mataifa wanaungana na kuunda kitu kimoja kwa njia ya ubatizo wa Roho Mtakatifu. Sifa pekee kwa ajili ya kujiunga ni imani katika yule Mwokozi aliyefufuka. Kanisa ni kitu kipya kabisa ambacho huundwa na Wayahudi na Watu wa Mataifa.

Kwa hiyo ni wazi pia kwamba, kila mwamini tangu siku ya Pentekoste, akiwa hai au amekufa, ni kiungo katika mwili wa Kristo, ambao ni kanisa la ulimwengu wote. Waamini waliokwishafariki dunia wako pamoja na Bwana wakisubiri siku ambayo tutakuwa pamoja.

Kanisa La Mahali – Asasi

Maana. Kanisa la mahali ni kusanyiko la waamini waliojipambanua wanaofuata mapokeo fulani na mfumo fulani wa uongozi, na ambao wanaigusa jamii kwa ajili ya Kristo kwa njia ya kumwabudu Mungu hadharani, wakiwajenga waamini, na kuhubiri injili kwa waliopotea.

Kuna tofauti kati ya kanisa la ulimwengu wote na kanisa la mahali. Kanisa la ulimwengu wote lina waamini tu, lakini kanisa la mahali lina watu ambao wanadai kuwa ni waamini wakati kwa kweli hawaamini kabisa. Inawezekana ukawa muumini wa kanisa la mahali lakini ukawa sio mwamini katika mwili wa Kristo. Hii inafanyika kwa njia ya ujinga au udanganyifu. Baadhi ya makanisa wana masharti ambayo inabidi uyafuate lakini hawakuambii kwamba imani katika Kristo ndiyo ambayo kwa kweli inaokoa, wala hawaangalii kwamba mtu amefanya uamuzi huo wa kuamini. Watu wengine wanaweza kudai kuwa wanaamini lakini ukweli ni kwamba ni waigizaji tu, ni wanafiki. Katika kanisa letu, huwa tunawataka watu wanaotaka kujiunga na kanisa letu watoe ushuhuda wao kuwa ni lini walifanya uamuzi wa kumpokea Kristo kama Mwokozi wao. Lakini hata kwa hilo bado tunaweza kudanganywa. Ni Mungu tu ndiye anayeijua mioyo!

Ni Kwa Nini Kuna Madhehebu Mengi Ya Kikristo?

Madhehebu mengi yalianza kwa kukubaliana kuhusu mapokeo ya mafundisho fulani na kutokukubaliana katika mengine kama vile namna ya ubatizo, kama mtu anaweza kupoteza wokovu wake, namna za uponyaji wa kimwili, karama za kiroho na namna za kuabudu kanisani. Ninaamini kwamba aina nyingi za madhehebu tulizo nazo zinakidhi mahitaji ya watu wa aina mbalimbali. Kuna wanaopenda liturgia ya namna fulani, kuna wanaopenda mafundisho ya ndani sana ya Biblia, kuna wanaopenda burudani, wengine wanapenda nyimbo za kuchangamka na kuamsha hisia na wengine ni kwa kiasi tu.

Uongozi Wa Kanisa

Kuna aina tatu kuu za uongozi wa kanisa.

Uongozi wa ki-episkopo (Episcopos): Katika uongozi huu mamlaka ya kanisa hukaa katika Askofu. (Kwa Wamethodisti ni ule rahisi; ila kwa Waanglikana ni mgumu kidogo; na kwa Wakatoliki wa Rumi utawala upo kwa Papa)

Uongozi wa ki-presibiti (Presbuteros): Mamlaka ya kanisa ipo katika kundi la wawakilishi ambao wamepewa mamlaka na kusanyiko lote pamoja na wazee. (Hii ipo kwa kanisa la Presibiterian na makanisa mengine ya kiBiblia.)

Uongozi wa Kusanyiko: Huu ni uongozi unaosisitiza juu ya nafasi ya kila Mkristo mmoja-mmoja, jambo linalofanya kusanyiko liwe na uamuzi wa mwisho katika maamuzi. Kila mwamini ana kura ya maamuzi. (Hii ipo kwa makanisa ya ki-Baptisti na makanisa mengine ya Kiinjili, pia makanisa huru na ya kiBiblia.) Kanisa letu ni muunganiko wa hayo mawili ya mwisho. Tunaongozwa na wazee na kusimamiwa na mtu mmoja aliyeajiriwa, na kusanyiko huwa linapiga kura juu ya Mchungaji wanayemtaka. Mchungaji Msaidizi, Wazee, na bajeti.

Wazee Wa Kanisa

Uongozi wa Kiroho ni wajibu wa wazee. Sifa za wazee tunazipata katika 1 Timotheo 3:1-7 na Tito 1:6-9, ambapo kazi hii wamepewa wanaume. Wanao wajibu wa kulilinda kanisa dhidi ya mafundisho potofu na kulihudumia kanisa kama wachungaji wanaochunga kundi la Mungu. (Matendo 20:17, 28)

Mashemasi

Mashemasi wanafanya kazi ya uongozi katika mamlaka waliyo nayo wazee. Hawa huwa wanatunza washirika walio na mahitaji katika kanisa. Wanawake wanaweza kuwa mashemasi. (Warumi 16; 1 Timotheo 3:8-11.)

Taratibu Za Kanisa La Mahali

Taratibu:Ni mambo ya nje yaliyoelezewa na Kristo yanayofanywa na kanisa.”

Makanisa mengi huziita sakramenti.

Sakramenti: “Sakramenti ni kitu kinacholetwa kwenye milango ya fahamu kikiwa na nguvu, kwa uwezo wa kiungu, sio kwa ajili ya kuweka alama tu, lakini pia kikiwa na uwezo wa kuleta neema.” (Kwa mujibu wa Baraza la Katoliki).

Hatuamini kwamba ama Chakula cha Bwana au ubatizo ni namna ya kupeleka neema. Tunaamini kwamba vitu hivi hufanywa kwa kuyatii maagizo ya Kristo na kutoa taswira ya kile ambacho tayari kimeshafanyika ndani ya mioyo yetu. Matendo haya yote hukumbusha juu ya kufa, kuzikwa na kufufuka kwa Kristo.

Ubatizo

Soma: Mathayo 28:19

Namna: Kuzamisha ndiyo maana ya msingi ya neno ubatizo (baptize)

Kuzamisha hutoa picha ya umuhimu wa ubatizo, ambapo ni kifo cha mtu wa kale na kufufuliwa kwa mtu mpya. Kanisa hili linabatiza kwa kuzamisha, lakini linabishana na kugawanyika juu namna za kubatiza jambo ambalo halina tija. Kila mwamini anapaswa kubatizwa mara baada ya kujua kuwa Kristo aliagiza hivyo. Ni ushuhuda wa hadharani kwamba umeungana na Kristo. Kama ulibatizwa kabla ya kuamini, usisite kubatizwa tena kama mwamini. Ubatizo ni utii kwa Bwana wako.

Chakula Cha Bwana, Ushirika Au Ekaristi

Soma: 1 Wakorintho 11:23-32.

Kuna makusudi kadhaa ya kushiriki Chakula cha Bwana au Meza ya Bwana.

  1. Ni ukumbusho wa maisha na kifo cha Bwana wetu. Mkate usiotiwa chachu unawakilisha maisha makamilifu ya Bwana wetu ambayo yalimpa sifa ya kuwa sadaka inayokubalika kwa ajili ya dhambi zetu. Inawakilisha mwili wake ambao ulibeba dhambi zetu pale msalabani. Mvinyo unawakilisha damu yake aliyoimwaga kwa ajili ya ondoleo la dhambi zetu.
  2. 1 Wakorintho 11:26 inasema kwamba chakula hiki hutangaza mambo ya msingi ya injili. Hutangaza mauti ya Bwana.
  3. Ni kutukumbusha kwamba Yesu Kristo anarudi tena na tunapaswa kuendelea kushiriki hadi ajapo.
  4. Inapaswa itukumbushe kuhusu Umoja wetu sisi kwa sisi katika mwili wa Kristo na ushirika tunaoushiriki kama viungo katika mwili huo (1 Wakorintho 10:17).

Ni nani anayeweza kushiriki?

Mtu asiyeamini hapaswi kushiriki kwa sababu karamu hii ni utambulisho kwa hao ambao wamekiri imani katika kufa na kufufuka kwa Yesu Kristo kwa ajili ya upatanisho wa dhambi zao.

Je, mwamini yeyote anaweza kushiriki bila kujali kuwa ni wa dhehebu gani? Jibu ni ndio. Hii ni Meza ya Bwana na waamini wote wa kanisa la ulimwengu wanaalikwa. Sio meza ya kanisa la kiBaptisti, kikatoliki au kipentekoste. Migawanyiko hii ni kinyume na wito wa watu wote kuwa wamoja katika kanisa la ulimwengu wote. (Uliofanyika Lausanne)

Onyo! 1 Wakorintho 11:27-32: Tunapaswa kuipeleleza mioyo yetu Na kuungama dhambi zetu kabla ya kushiriki Meza ya Bwana. Vinginevyo tunaweza kubadilishwa—Kama vile kugusa au hata kufa.

Kusudi La Kanisa La Mahali

  1. Kuabudu na kuonyesha upendo wake kwa Bwana (Ufunuo 2:4).
  2. Kuwahudumia waamini wake ili waweze kutiana moyo katika kupendana na kufanya matendo mema (Waebrania 10:24).
  3. Kushiriki katika kulitii Agizo Kuu. Yaani kwamba Injili ihubiriwe katika huduma za kanisa ili wasioamini waipokee na kuokoka.
  4. Kuwajali waamini wake ambao wana mahitaji, kama wajane, yatima na maskini (Yakobo 1:27; 1 Timotheo 5:1-16)
  5. Kufanya matendo mema katika ulimwengu (Wagalatia 6:10).
  6. Kuzalisha Wakristo waliokomaa, wenye msimamo na watakatifu (Wakolosai 1:28; Waebrania 6:1; Waefeso 4:14-16). Hii inaweza kumaanisha kuwa na nidhamu katika eneo la maadili na usafi katika mafundisho (1 Wakorintho 5, 2 Timotheo 2:16-18).

VIelelezo Vya Kanisa La Ulimwengu

Kristo ni Mchungaji na sisi ni kondoo (Yohana 10) – utunzaji na usalama

Kristo ni mzabibu na sisi ni matawi (Yohana 15) – kuzaa na kupata nguvu

Kristo ni jiwe la Pembeni na sisi ni mawe katika jengo (Waefeso 2:19-21) –Jiwe la pembeni hutoa mwelekeo na huwekwa mara moja tu.

Kristo ndiye Kuhani Mkuu na sisi ni ufalme wa makuhani (1 Petro 2) –tunajitoa kwake, nafsi zetu na huduma zetu.

Kristo ni Kichwa na sisi ni viungo vya mwili Wake (1 Wakorintho 12)—akiwa kama Kichwa, huongeza; na sisi kama viungo tunahudumiana kwa kutumia karama za kiroho ambazo ametugawia.

Kristo ni Bwana-Arusi na sisi ni bibi-arusi wake (Waefeso 5:25-33, Ufunuo 19:7-8)—upendo wa milele na ukaribu.

Kristo ni Mrithi na sisi ni warithi-wenzake (Waebrania 1:2, Warumi 1:17)—tutaushiriki utukufu wake.

Kristo ni Malimbuko na sisi ni mavuno (1 Wakorintho 15:23)—ufufuko wake unatuhakikishia kuwa na sisi tutafufuka.

Kristo ni Bwana na sisi ni watumishi Wake (Wakolosai 4:1, 1 Wakorintho 7:22)—mtumishi hufanya mapenzi ya bwana wake. Bwana naye humtunza mtumishi wake.

Sasa Tunayatendeaje Kazi Mambo Haya?

Inatupasa kila mmoja wetu kuhakikisha kuwa tunajiunga na kanisa la ulimwengu wote, bila kujali kuwa tunaabudu kwenye dhehebu gani. Kuwa katika kanisa la ulimwengu wote kunafanyika wakati mtu anapompokea Bwana Yesu Kristo kama Mwokozi wako. Kuna uhakika mkubwa sana katika kujua kwamba wewe ni miongoni mwa walioko katika kanisa la ulimwengu wote, yaani Mwili wa Kristo. Uhakika huu unatakiwa ukutie moyo kujitambulisha katika kanisa la mahali ambapo utaweza kukua na kutumika. Kanisa kama la kwetu halihitaji uwe mwanachama ili upate huduma zetu. Lakini huoni kwamba ni vizuri kuunga mkono na kutoa ufadhili mahali ambapo unapokea baraka na ukuaji wa kiroho kwa kujiunga kikamilifu? Kujiunga kikamilifu ni kujitambulisha na watu waliopo hapo. Hiyo ndio familia yako. Ndiko unakotoa sadaka zako kifedha. Ndipo pia utakaposaidia wale walio na mahitaji. Unafanya ushirika wako hapo, yaani UNAJITOA KIKAMILIFU! Kama umekuwa ukija kusali katika hilo kanisa kila Jumapili, kwa nini usiamue kulifanya kanisa lako na ujiunge kabisa? Madarasa ya waamini wapya hufanyika mara nne kwa mwaka. Huwa yanafanyika kwa Jumapili mbili mfululizo zinazofuatana asubuhi. Ukipenda kujiunga utaonana na mzee wa kanisa, atakuuliza maswali na kukuongoza ili uweze kutoa ushuhuda wako. Kisha utatambulishwa rasmi katika kanisa.

Maswali unayoulizwa yanahusu uelewa wako juu ya msimamo wa kanisa hili na kuhakikisha kuwa una msingi na rasilimali muhimu kwa ajili ya mtu yeyote atakayekuuliza kwamba, “Kanisa lako linaamini nini”?

Maswali Ya Kujifunza

Soma: Mathayo 16:13-18; Matendo 2:1-4, 41-47

1. Je, Yesu alitumia wakati gani kulizungumzia kanisa wakati alipokuwa hapa duniani? Je, kanisa lilizaliwa lini? Je, kuna shughuli gani zinazowatambulisha waamini katika kanisa?

Soma: 1 Wakorintho 3:9-10; Waefeso 2:19-22

2. Ni nani ambaye ndiye pekee msingi wa kanisa?

Soma: 1 Timotheo 3:15; 1 Wakorintho 12:13, 27; Waefeso 2:19-22; Waefeso 5:30-32

3. Katika kila aya uliyosoma, kanisa linaitwaje? Ni nini umuhimu wa kila alama? Je, unafikiri hii inaelezea kanisa la mahali au kanisa la ulimwengu? Ni nani washirika wa kanisa la ulimwengu wote? Je, wanatofautianaje na washirika wa kanisa la mahali?

Soma: 1 Wakorintho 12

4. Sura hii inakuambia nini kuhusu jinsi washirika wa mwili wa Kristo wanavyopaswa kutumika?

Soma Mathayo 26:26-29; Luka 22:19-20; 1 Wakorintho 11:23-31

5. Ni utaratibu upi ambao Yesu aliamuru kanisa Lake liutunze hadi arudipo? Je, unatukumbusha nini? Ni nini kinampasa kila mmoja wetu kukifanya kabla ya kushiriki? Ni adhabu gani itakayompata mtu atakayeshiriki “isivyostahili”?

Soma Mathayo 28:18-20; Matendo 2:36-47; Warumi 6:1-5

6. Ni utaratibu gani mwingine ambao Yesu aliamuru kanisa liutunze? Huu ulitunzwa lini kwa kanisa la mwanzo? Je, utaratibu huu ni alama ya nini? Je, unakuwaje ushuhuda kwa wengine?

Soma Yohana 15:9-10

7. Je, ni sababu ipi inayowafanya waamini wabatizwe na kushiriki ushirika wa meza ya Bwana? Je, utii wetu unathibitisha nini? Je umeshabatizwa tangu ulipomwamini Kristo?

8. Ni kwa nini ni muhimu kwamba tujishirikishe na kanisa la mahali kwa ajili ya ukuaji na ukomavu wetu kiroho? Je, ni nini tutakikosa kama tutakuwa tu washirika wa kanisa la mahali? Utamjibu nini mwamini anayesema, “Sihitaji kwenda kanisani. Ninamwabudu Mungu peke yangu”?

Related Topics: Curriculum, Ecclesiology (The Church)

Lesson 7: The Church

What is the church? When did it begin? Why are there so many denominations? Why does this group worship in a Bible church?

The word church is a Greek word--ekklesia. It means “that which is called out for a special purpose; an assembly.

The first thing to learn is that the Bible speaks of the church in two different ways: the Universal Church, which is an organism, and the Local Church, which is an organization.

The Universal Church--an Organism

Definition: The universal church is that organism of professing believers making up the body of Christ through baptism by the Holy Spirit, which was formed first on the day of Pentecost, is distinct from the nation of Israel, and is not limited to local congregational or denominational affiliation.

Everyone, living or dead, who has ever put their faith in Jesus Christ from the day of Pentecost till now, is a member of the universal church, Christ’s body, of which He is the head (Ephesians 1:22).

What did Jesus say about the church?

Read Matthew 16:18-19.

Christ spoke of the church as future.

When Christ spoke these words the church was still future, so it did not exist when He was here on earth. Who is the foundation upon which the church is built? Who or what is the rock that Christ referred to?

Peter himself says that Christ is the Rock (1 Peter 2:4-8; 1 Corinthians 3:11, no other foundation; Ephesians 2:20).

Or it may mean that Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”, is the rock, because everyone who becomes a member of the universal church must believe that is the truth about Jesus.

When was the church born?

Read Acts 1:5 and 2:1-4.

The church was born at Pentecost, about ten days after Jesus ascended back to heaven. The Holy Spirit came down to place every believer into the body of Christ and to indwell every believer personally and permanently. Pentecost was to the Holy Spirit as Christmas was to Jesus. He came to relate to all believers in different ways.

Paul speaks of the church as a mystery.

Read Ephesians 3:6.

This mystery is that Jews and Gentiles are joined together to form a new entity through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The only qualification for membership is faith in the risen Savior. The church is a totally new thing made up of believing Jews and Gentiles.

It is clear then, that every believer since Pentecost, living and dead, is a member of the body of Christ, the universal church. Dead believers are alive with the Lord waiting for the day we’ll all be together.

The Local Church--an Organization

Definition: The local church is an assembly of professing believers who observe ordinances, are organized under a certain governmental structure, and who impact their community for Christ through the public worship of God, the edification of the members, and evangelization of the lost.

There is a distinction between members in the universal church and the local church. The universal church consists only of believers, but the local church can have members who say they are believers and really are not. It’s possible to be a member of a local church and not be a member of the body of Christ. That can be through ignorance or deception. Some churches require that you go through their rituals but don’t explain that faith in Christ is really what saves, nor do they determine that a person has made that decision. Some people may say that they believe, but they are pretenders, hypocrites. In our church, we do our best to ask each person who wishes to join to give their personal testimony about when they trusted Christ as Savior. But we can still be fooled. Only God knows the heart!

Why so many different Christian denominations?

Most denominations started out agreeing on the basic doctrines of the faith, but they disagreed on other things--mode of baptism, whether salvation can be lost, physical healing, charismatic gifts, church government, styles of worship. I believe that the variety we have meets the needs of different people. Some like ritual and liturgy, some like strong Bible teaching, some like casual services, some like a lot of emotion, some like very little.

Church Government

There are three basic forms of church government.

Episcopalian (Episkopos): Authority over the church resides in the bishop. (Methodist, simple; Episcopal/Anglican, more complex; and Roman Catholic, hierarchy headed by the Bishop of Rome, Pope.)

Presbyterian (Presbuteros): Authority over the church resides in a group of representatives to whom authority has been granted by the congregation, elders. (Presbyterian, Reformed and some Bible churches.)

Congregational: This stresses the role of the individual Christian, making the congregation the final authority in matters. Every member has a vote. (Baptist and Evangelical Free, Bible and independent churches.) Our church is a combination of these last two. We are Elder governed and Staff run, and the congregation votes on the Pastor, Associate Pastor, Elders, and the budgets.

Elders

Spiritual leadership is the responsibility of the elders. Their qualifications are found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9, which restricts this office to men. They are responsible to protect the church from doctrinal error and to serve the church as shepherds (pastors) caring for God’s flock (Acts 20:17, 28).

Deacons

Deacons do the practical work of leadership under the spiritual authority of the elders. They take care of those in the congregation in need. Women can be deacons. (Romans 16; 1 Timothy 3:8-11.)

Ordinances of the Local Church

Ordinance: “An outward rite prescribed by Christ to be performed by the church.”

They are called sacraments by some.

Sacrament: “A sacrament is something presented to the senses, which has the power, by divine institution, not only of signifying, but also of efficiently conveying grace.” RC Council of Trent.

We do not believe that either the Lord’s Supper or baptism is a means of conveying grace. We believe that they are done in obedience to Christ’s commands to picture externally what has already taken place internally in our hearts. Both of these ordinances commemorate the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

Baptism

Read Matthew 28:19.

Mode: Immerse is the primary meaning of the Greek word baptizo.

Immersion best pictures the significance of baptism, which is death to the old life and resurrection to the new. This church practices immersion, but arguing and dividing about mode of baptism is non-productive. Every believer should be baptized as soon as he or she knows that Christ commanded it. It’s a public testimony to your identification and union with Christ. If you were baptized before you became a believer, then you shouldn’t hesitate to be re-baptized as a believer. Baptism is obedience to your Lord.

The Lord’s Supper, Communion, Eucharist

Read 1 Corinthians 11:23-32.

There are several purposes for observing the Lord’s Supper:

1. It’s a remembrance of the life and death of our Lord. The unleavened bread represents the perfect life of our Lord which qualified Him to be an acceptable sacrifice for sin. It represents His body which bore our sin on the cross. The wine represents his blood shed for the remission of our sins.

2. 1 Corinthians 11:26 says that this memorial supper proclaims the basic facts of the gospel. It proclaims the Lord’s death.

3. It reminds us that Jesus Christ is coming again and we are to observe it till He comes.

4. It should also remind us of our oneness with each other in the body of Christ and of the fellowship which share as fellow members of that body (1 Corinthians 10:17).

Who can partake?

A non-believer shouldn’t because it’s a ceremony to identify only those who have professed faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the atonement of their sins.

Can any believer partake regardless of denominational membership? Yes. This is the Lord’s Table and all members of the universal church are invited. It’s not Baptist or Catholic or Bible church. Restrictions based on denominational affiliation go against the call for unity in the universal church. (Communion at Lausanne)

Warning! 1 Corinthians 11:27-32: We are to observe soul-searching and confession of sins before partaking. Otherwise, we may be disciplined--such as by sickness, or even death.

The purpose for the Local Church

1. Worship and show its love for the Lord (Revelation 2:4).

2. Minister to its own members so that they encourage each other to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24).

3. Be the agency for carrying out the Great Commission. The gospel should be preached in the services so that unbelievers can respond.

4. Should care for its own who are in need, e.g., widows, orphans and the poor (James 1:27; 1 Timothy 5:1-16).

5. Do good in the world (Galatians 6:10).

6. To produce mature, stable, holy Christians (Colossians 1:28; Hebrews 6:1; Ephesians 4:14-16). This may mean discipline in the area of morals and maintenance of purity in doctrine (1 Corinthians 5, 2 Timothy 2:16-18).

Illustrations of Universal Church

Christ is the Shepherd and we are the sheep (John 10)--care and security.

Christ is the vine and we are the branches (John 15)--fruitfulness and strength.

Christ is the cornerstone and we are the stones in the building (Ephesians 2:19-21)--Cornerstone gives direction and is laid only once.

Christ is the High Priest and we are a kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2)--we offer ourselves, our substance and our service.

Christ is the Head and we are members of His body (1 Corinthians 12)--as Head, He directs; as members we serve each other through the exercise of the spiritual gifts he has given us.

Christ is the Bridegroom and we are His bride (Ephesians 5:25-33, Revelation 19:7-8)--everlasting love and intimacy.

Christ is the Heir and we are joint-heirs (Hebrews 1:2, Romans 1:17)--we will share all His glories.

Christ is the firstfruits and we are the harvest (1 Corinthians 15:23)--his resurrection guarantees ours.

Christ is the Master and we are His servants (Colossians 4:1, 1 Corinthians 7:22)--the servant does his master’s will. The master takes care of the servant.

How do we apply these facts?

We should each be sure that we are members in the universal church, no matter what church we worship in. Membership in the universal church is secured by trusting the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior. There is great assurance in knowing that you are a member of the universal church, the body of Christ. This assurance should motivate you to identify with a local church where you can grow and you can serve. A church like ours doesn’t require membership for service in most areas. But isn’t it a good idea to indicate your support for the church where you receive blessing and spiritual growth by joining it? Joining means that you identify yourself with the people here. They are your family. You give financially. You support and help those in need. You fellowship, you serve. Joining means COMMITMENT! If you have been coming to this church regularly and consider it your church, then don’t you think you should become a member? New membership classes are held at least four times a year. They are held on two consecutive Sunday mornings. If you apply to join, you have a personal interview with an elder, so that you can give your testimony of faith in Christ. Then you are presented to the church.

I hope this overview of our doctrinal statement has informed, encouraged, stabilized and given you the resources you need to answer anyone who asks you, “What does your church believe”?

Study Questions

Read Matthew 16:13-18; Acts 2:1-4, 41-47

1. In what tense did Jesus speak of the church when He was here on earth? When was the church born? What activities characterized the believers in the church?

Read 1 Corinthians 3:9-10; Ephesians 2:19-22

2. Who is the only foundation of the church?

Read 1 Timothy 3:15; 1 Corinthians 12:13, 27; Ephesians 2:19-22; Ephesians 5:30-32

3. What is the church called in each of these passages? What is the significance of each symbol? Do you think this refers to the local church or the universal church? Who are the members of the universal church? How might they differ from members of the local church?

Read 1 Corinthians 12

4. What does this passage tell you about the way members of the body of Christ should function? How are we alike? Different? What attitude should we have towards each other? Towards ourselves?

Read Matthew 26:26-29; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-31

5. What ordinance did Jesus command His church to keep until He returns? What does it commemorate? What should we each do before participating? What is the punishment for taking it “in an unworthy manner”?

Read Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 2:36-47; Romans 6:1-5

6. What other ordinance did Jesus command His church to keep? When was it done in the early church? What does it symbolize? How is it a testimony to others?

Read John 15:9-10

7. What is the major reason that believers should be baptized and observe communion? What does our obedience prove? Have you been baptized since you trusted Christ?

8. Why is it necessary for our growth to spiritual maturity to be involved in and committed to a local church? What will we miss that can only be found in a local body of believers? What answer would you give a believer who says, “I don’t need to go to church. I worship God on my own”?

Related Topics: Curriculum, Ecclesiology (The Church)

45. Consequences of Christ's Coming (Luke 12:49-59)

“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

He said to the crowd: “When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘It’s going to rain,’ and it does. And when the south wind blows, you say, ‘It’s going to be hot,’ and it is. Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time? “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?

As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way, or he may drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” (Luke 12:49-59).

Introduction

The word “fire” can arouse a wide variety of responses. If someone were to yell, “Fire!” at the top of their lungs at this moment, it would probably produce fear, and a great commotion. One the other hand, in the middle of the winter, the suggestion to “build a fire in the fireplace” arouses all kinds of warm emotions. There is that phrase in one of the secular Christmas songs which speaks of “chestnuts roasting in an open fire.” Now that produces a warm, sentimental feeling.

When John the Baptist began to introduce Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, he spoke of a “baptism of fire” which Jesus would perform. There are strongly differing views as to what was being referred to as this “baptism.” Now, in our text, Jesus is speaking about fire. He said that He had come to “cast fire upon the earth” (Luke 12:49, NASB). The kindling of this fire was something which Jesus said He was eager to do. In order to understand His message, we must first learn the meaning of “fire” as He speaks of it in our text.

We will attempt to define the term “fire” which is found in our text by surveying the ways in which “fire” was used in the Old Testament and by John the Baptist. We will then seek to show why our Lord was eager to light this “fire.” Finally, we will try to show how this fire affects all men.

The Structure of the Passage

In verses 49-53, Jesus explains the way in which His coming will “cast fire on the earth.” He also expresses an eagerness to get on with the process of bringing fire to the earth. This “fire” has implications for the family, but not those which we would prefer. The coming of Christ will cause great division within families, driving wedges between those family members between whom we normally find a strong bond.

In verses 54-57, Jesus speaks specifically to the multitudes, pointing out a very serious hypocrisy. He reminds them that while they can forecast tomorrow’s weather by looking at present indicators, they cannot see the coming kingdom of God as being foreshadowed by Christ’s first coming.

Verses 58 and 59 conclude the chapter by making a very personal and practical application. Reconciliation with their opponent needs to take place prior to standing before the judge.

The structure of our passage can thus be summarized:

(1) Consequences of Christ’s Coming—vv. 49-53

(2) Conclusions Called For by Christ’s Coming—vv. 54-57

(3) Crucial Application of Christ’s Coming—vv. 58-59

Christ’s Coming and Its Consequences
(12:49-53)

“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Jesus said that He came to bring fire to the earth, that He was eager for it to be kindled, but it has not yet been kindled. It would seem that He must first undergo a baptism before it would be kindled. But what is that fire which He came to kindle? The answer to this question comes from the Scriptures. Let us first search the Scriptures to see if they speak of fire in any way which relates to the coming of Messiah. The following texts are those which I find to be crucial to our understanding of “fire” as it relates to the coming of Christ, Israel’s Messiah.

Fire in the Scriptures

GENESIS 19:24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens.

1 KINGS 18:24, 38 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by FIRE—he is God.” Then all the people said, “What you say is good.” … Then the FIRE of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.

2 KINGS 1:12 “If I am a man of God,” Elijah replied, “may FIRE come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men!” Then the FIRE of God fell from heaven and consumed him and his fifty men.

1 CHRONICLES 21:26 David built an altar to the Lord there and sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. He called on the Lord, and the Lord answered him with FIRE from heaven on the altar of burnt offering.

PSALM 21:9 At the time of your appearing you will make them like a fiery furnace. In his wrath the Lord will swallow them up, and his FIRE will consume them.

PSALM 78:21-22 When the Lord heard them, he was very angry; his FIRE broke out against Jacob, and his wrath rose against Israel, 22 for they did not believe in God or trust in his deliverance.

ISAIAH 10:16-19 Therefore, the Lord, the Lord Almighty, will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors; under his pomp [glory, NASB] a FIRE will be kindled like a blazing flame. 17 The Light of Israel will become a FIRE, their Holy One a flame; in a single day it will burn and consume his thorns and his briers. 18 The splendor of his forests and fertile fields it will completely destroy, as when a sick man wastes away. 19 And the remaining trees of his forests will be so few that a child could write them down.

ISAIAH 30:27-33 See, the Name of the Lord comes from afar, with burning anger and dense clouds of smoke; his lips are full of wrath, and his tongue is a consuming FIRE. 28 His breath is like a rushing torrent, rising up to the neck. He shakes the nations in the sieve of destruction; he places in the jaws of the peoples a bit that leads them astray. 29 And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the Lord, to the Rock of Israel. 30 The Lord will cause men to hear his majestic voice and will make them see his arm coming down with raging anger and consuming FIRE, with cloudburst, thunderstorm and hail. 31 The voice of the Lord will shatter Assyria; with his scepter he will strike them down. 32 Every stroke the Lord lays on them with his punishing rod will be to the music of tambourines and harps, as he fights them in battle with the blows of his arm. 33 Topheth has long been prepared; it has been made ready for the king. Its FIRE pit has been made deep and wide, with an abundance of FIRE and wood; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of burning sulfur, sets it ablaze.

ISAIAH 31:9 Their stronghold will fall because of terror; at sight of the battle standard their commanders will panic,” declares the Lord, whose FIRE is in Zion, whose furnace is in Jerusalem.

ISAIAH 66:16-19 For with FIRE and with his sword the Lord will execute judgment upon all men, and many will be those slain by the Lord. 17 “Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following the one in the midst of those who eat the flesh of pigs and rats and other abominable things—they will meet their end together,” declares the Lord. 18 “And I, because of their actions and their imaginations, am about to come and gather all nations and tongues, and they will come and see my glory. 19 “I will set a sign among them, and I will send some of those who survive to the nations—to Tarshish, to the Libyans and Lydians (famous as archers), to Tubal and Greece, and to the distant islands that have not heard of my fame or seen my glory. They will proclaim my glory among the nations.

JEREMIAH 15:14 I will enslave you to your enemies in a land you do not know, for my anger will kindle a FIRE that will burn against you.”

JEREMIAH 21:12-14 O house of David, this is what the Lord says: “‘Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like FIRE because of the evil you have done—burn with no one to quench it. 13 I am against you, Jerusalem, you who live above this valley on the rocky plateau, declares the Lord—you who say, “Who can come against us? Who can enter our refuge?” 14 I will punish you as your deeds deserve, declares the Lord. I will kindle a FIRE in your forests that will consume everything around you.’”

LAMENTATIONS 4:11-13 The Lord has given full vent to his wrath; he has poured out his fierce anger. He kindled a FIRE in Zion that consumed her foundations. 12 The kings of the earth did not believe, nor did any of the world’s people, that enemies and foes could enter the gates of Jerusalem. 13 But it happened because of the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests, who shed within her the blood of the righteous.

EZEKIEL 20:47-49 Say to the southern forest: ‘Hear the word of the Lord. This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am about to set FIRE to you, and it will consume all your trees, both green and dry. The blazing flame will not be quenched, and every face from south to north will be scorched by it. 48 Everyone will see that I the Lord have kindled it; it will not be quenched.’” 49 Then I said, “Ah, Sovereign Lord! They are saying of me, ‘Isn’t he just telling parables?’”

JOEL 2:1-3 (NASB) Blow a trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm in My holy mountain! For the day of the LORD is coming; Surely it is near, A day of darkness and gloom, A day of clouds and thick darkness. As the dawn is spread over the mountains, So there has never been anything like it, Nor will there be again after it To the years of many generations. A FIRE consumes before them, And behind them a flame burns. The land is like the garden of Eden before them, But a desolate wilderness behind them, And nothing escapes them.

AMOS 2:4-5 (NASB)233 Thus says the LORD, “For three transgressions of Judah and for four I will not revoke its punishment, Because they rejected the law of the LORD And have not kept His statutes; Their lies also have led them astray, Those after which their fathers walked. So I will send FIRE upon Judah, And I will consume the citadels of Jerusalem.”

MALACHI 4:1 (NASB) “For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze,” says the LORD of hosts, “so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.”

LUKE 3:9, 15-17 “The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the FIRE.…” 15 The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Christ. 16 John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with FIRE. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable FIRE.”

LUKE 9:54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call FIRE down from heaven to destroy them?”

REVELATION 13:13 And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing FIRE to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men.

REVELATION 20:9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But FIRE came down from heaven and devoured them.

From all of these verses, I believe that we can make the following generalizations about “fire” as it is used in the Bible:

(1) Fire is closely linked with the presence and the power of God.

(2) Fire is often used, either symbolically or literally, as an instrument of divine wrath, exercised against sinners, both Israelites and Gentiles.

(3) Biblical prophecy speaks of “fire” as yet to come, brought by God against sinners, both Gentiles and Jews.

(4) The future fire of divine judgment is closely linked with the coming of Messiah.

(5) At the outset of Jesus’ ministry, John the Baptist spoke of the coming Messiah as bringing fire.

On the basis of these premises, one can only conclude that the “fire” of which Jesus spoke is the same fire about which the prophets, including John the Baptist, spoke—the fire of divine wrath. When Jesus said that He had come to “kindle a fire” He is therefore saying that He has come to bring about the outpouring of God’s wrath on sinful Israel.

How can this be? Elsewhere Jesus has clearly stated that He did not come to judge, but to save (cf. John 3:16-17; 8:11)? The answer is that Jesus did come the first time to save men, but for all who reject Him there is no other means of salvation. When He comes again, He will come to judge, especially those who have rejected His salvation.

How can our Lord be so zealous for this “fire” to be kindled, as His words indicate? If He is going to bring about the judgment of God upon sinners, and if this is not a work in which He takes pleasure, why is He eager for the “fire” to be kindled? I think the answer is simple—this painful and unpleasant (for both God and men, I believe) outpouring of wrath is a prerequisite of and preliminary to the establishment of the kingdom of God. In order for the kingdom of God to be established, sinners must be punished and sin eliminated.

There are a number of seeming contradictions in our Lord’s words, here and elsewhere in the gospels. He is the Prince of Peace, but He will bring division. He promises men life, but He calls on them to give up life. He tells men to lay up treasure in heaven, but they are to give up the pursuit of riches in this life, and to give to the poor. The difference is, on the one hand, that between “then” (heaven, the kingdom of God) and “now.” Another crucial difference is that between “ends” and the “means” by which they are achieved. “Peace” is the end, but a sword and division is the means. “Life” is the end, but death—our Lord’s death, and the disciple’s “taking up his cross” is the means. “Blessing and riches” are the end, but giving up the pursuit of them is the means. Since the means appear to contradict the ends, we must go about these means by faith, and not by sight.

The means by which God has determined to bring about His kingdom (“fire”—the judgment of sinners) is not just painful to sinful men. It is exceedingly painful to God, not only because men will suffer for their sins, but because Jesus Christ, God’s Son will suffer His wrath as a payment for man’s sins. Jesus said that before He cast fire on the earth He had a baptism with which to be baptized.234 This baptism is clearly the death which He would die on the cross of Calvary. His death on the cross would set in motion a series of events, which will eventuate in the pouring forth of God’s divine wrath on sinners. The sad reality is that it is not really necessary, because Jesus experienced the full extent of God’s wrath on the cross. For those who trust in Him, that is the full payment for their sins, but for those who reject Him, there is yet to come the outpouring of God’s wrath in the day of judgment.

Jesus could look forward to His baptism and to the “fire” that was to be kindled in the same way that a pregnant woman can look forward to her “labor.” She is eager to get on with it, not because it is pleasant and enjoyable, but because of what will result. The “fire” of God’s wrath, first poured out on Christ on the cross, and yet to be poured out on those who reject Him, is that which will bring to pass the coming kingdom of God.

The Israelites had forgotten this. They had neglected or overlooked the sequence of events which was to bring in the kingdom of God. They looked forward to the “day of the Lord” as the day of salvation, rejoicing, and blessing, but they forgot that the day of the Lord began with judgment. This is what the prophet Amos reminded them:

“Alas, you who are longing for the day of the LORD, For what purpose will the day of the LORD be to you? It will be darkness and not light; As when a man flees from a lion, And a bear meets him, Or goes home, leans his hand against the wall, And a snake bites him. Will not the day of the LORD be darkness instead of light, Even gloom with no brightness in it? (Amos 5:18-20).”

If the Lord’s coming meant the “fire” of judgment for Him, and also for those who reject Him, it also had a cost for those who would believe in Him. While He is the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), He is also the source of division. He will cause great division among men, even within families, where the bond of union is the most intimate:

“Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in- law” (Luke 12:51-53).235

The division which Jesus speaks of here has several interesting features. First, there is a division which occurs within the family, in which the closest human bonds are to be found (“blood is thicker than water”). History has borne testimony to the fact that the gospel divides men and women, husbands and wives, parents and children, for faith in Christ requires ultimate allegiance to Him. Second, there is a polarization which is described, so that it is not “one against one,” or to follow the imagery established by our Lord, “one against four,” but “two against three” and “three against two.” Those who have come to faith in Christ will join together, while those who have rejected Christ will also find a new bondage, a new basis of unity, in opposition to Christ. This is how the Pharisees (the right wing conservatives of that day) and the Sadducees (the liberals) could join together in rejecting Christ and in opposing Him, and ultimately in orchestrating (humanly speaking) His death.

Third, there is, I believe, some allusion to the role of “authority” in this division. The division described out in these verses is all within the family, but it also crosses lines of authority. Fathers have authority over sons, as mothers have authority over daughters. Allegiance to Christ takes precedence over all other authority. Normally, we would expect that the Christian’s faith would enhance his or her obedience to those in authority, as we see the Scriptures teaching (cf. Ephesians 5:21–6:10), but there will be times when we must obey God rather than men, and in these instances, division will occur, as well as at other times. An unbelieving father will find it difficult to accept when his son now feels his ultimate responsibility is to obey God and to please Him, putting earthly allegiance and duty on a lower level.

Jesus refuses to paint a glorious picture of uninterrupted bliss and pleasure for those who would follow Him. While men can expect forgiveness of sins and the joy of obedience to Him in this life, faith in Him will produce persecution (2 Timothy 3:12). There will be inestimable joy and pleasure in heaven, but there will also be pain and persecution for Christians on earth. This is one of the central themes of Peter’s first epistle. The Christian’s perspective should be like that of the apostle Paul, who saw the pain and trials of this life as nothing when compared to the joys of heaven (2 Corinthians 4:16-18). Jesus does not minimize the price of discipleship, because of the magnitude of the prize of discipleship.

There is no way that we can avoid pain and suffering. The one who follows Christ will suffer now, and will renounce certain of life’s present pleasures, but will experience the limitless joys of heaven later (cf. Hebrews 11:24-26). The one who rejects Christ and lives only for pleasure now will suffer eternal torment in hell.

One more thing needs to be said here about the “family.” Family has become the in word among Christians, and others. It is now popular to talk about a church as a family church. This week, I have heard a church “commercial” running on the radio, which gives the listener the impression that Christ has come to “put the family back together.” There is a sense in which this is true, but let us not minimize or neglect our Lord’s words, which in the clearest terms possible tell us that His coming will divide many families.

The Challenge of Christ’s Coming
(12:54-59)

If verses 49-53 spell out the negative consequences of Christ’s coming, verses 54-59 are a challenge to men to respond as they should to His coming. Verses 54-57 call upon men to think clearly and independently, and to act decisively. In verses 58 and 59 our Lord concludes by challenging His listeners to act quickly on what He is saying:

He said to the crowd: “When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘It’s going to rain,’ and it does. And when the south wind blows, you say, ‘It’s going to be hot,’ and it is. Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time? “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?

As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way, or he may drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” (Luke 12:49-59).236

At the beginning of chapter 12, Jesus spoke of the hypocrisy of Israel’s leaders (cf. v. 1). Now, Jesus focuses on the hypocrisy of the masses. These words are addressed specifically to the crowds (v. 54). Jesus calls them hypocrites. Why is this so? In what way are they hypocritical?

A hypocrite is one who acts inconsistently, who does not act as one believes. The people all knew how to judge the future in the light of the present. Jesus illustrated this by showing that they knew how to predict the weather. When a cloud appeared in the west, they quickly concluded that it was going to rain. It only took one cloud, not a whole sky full of them. And this one cloud was sufficient reason for them to immediately conclude that rain was coming. It did not take long deliberation. The conclusion was obvious. The evidence was clear, even though but one cloud.

So, too, with a south wind. A southerly wind was sufficient evidence for the Israelite to conclude that it was going to be a hot day. In both cases, the predictions proved true. The cloud from the west produced rain, just as the southerly wind produced heat.

The ability to judge evidence and to see its implications was not restricted to the experts. Everyone would come to the same conclusion from the evidence they received. Why, then, could these people, skilled at reaching conclusions about the weather, not come to the conclusion that Jesus was the Messiah, based upon the mountains of evidence which had piled up, all of which conformed perfectly to the predictions of the prophets?

Were Israel’s leaders guilty? They certainly were, but this did not let the masses off the hook. They should have seen the obvious and come to the right conclusion about Jesus, even if their leaders did not. Jesus’ rebuke to the masses seems to be that they did not think clearly, nor did they think independently of their leaders. They were guilty of letting their leaders think for them. Listen to our Lord’s words again:

“And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?” (verse 57, NASB, emphasis mine).

They should have thought for themselves, Jesus charged. Their leaders were guilty, but so were the followers for following them. Let the crowd look at the evidence and judge rightly.

Quite frankly, my friends, people are too easily swayed by the thinking of the “experts.” We want people to do our thinking for us. We want to let others be responsible for coming to the right answers. But Jesus is very clear here. The important truths, those which really matter, are self-evident to anyone who will look at the evidence. God has revealed His truth to babes, not scholars (Luke 10:21). We are all responsible to “search the Scriptures” and to see if what is taught is true, even when Paul is the teacher (Acts 17:11). Let us study the Word for ourselves and let us believe the self-evident truths which are there, and which are revealed to all men who seek it through the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14-16). It is in this light that I believe John wrote these words:

These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for any one to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him (1 John 2:26-27).

We are not, by these words, told to be Lone Rangers, neglecting the gift of teaching which God has given to the church, but neither are we to be so dependent upon the teaching of others that we believe whatever we are told. God gives us the Spirit to teach us, and He therefore holds us accountable for our conclusions. The multitudes who heard Jesus thus had the weight of responsibility for the actions placed on themselves.

The last two verses of our text seem almost out of place. They have caused some commentators to wonder why they are found here, used in a way that appears to be quite different from their use in Matthew chapter 5:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” (Matthew 5:21-26).

Before we consider the difference in the way Jesus uses this illustration, let us take note of the similarity. In both texts the motivation is the “fire” of God’s judgment. In the light of the “fire of hell” (Matthew 5:22), one should quickly reconcile with his brother, knowing that anger toward one’s brother is deserving of eternal damnation. So, too, in our text, the “fire” which our Lord has come to bring is a strong incentive.

In Matthew’s text it may well be that our adversary, our opponent, with whom we should quickly be reconciled, may well be our brother. But who is the adversary in our text in the gospel of Luke? Verses 51-53 speak of division between family members, but this is the result of different responses to the gospel. Reconciliation, in this instance, is impossible, apart from all parties coming to faith in Christ.

A fellow elder first suggested it to me, and then a commentary suggested the same—that the adversary here is none other than our Lord Himself. If Jesus is coming to the earth to bring fire upon it, the fire of divine wrath (verse 49), and if men are responsible for their decisions concerning Him (verses 54-56), then men had better seek to be reconciled to Him before that final day of judgment arrives, when it will be too late.

All men must come to Christ. Some will come to Him now, as their Lord and Savior. They will accept His baptism as their own. They will accept His death in their behalf as their death. They will find Him as the One who brings forgiveness of sins and peace with God (and also as One who brings division). Others will reject Him now, and will face Him when He comes the second time, to bring fire upon the earth.

May none of you be a part of this second group. Jesus in His first coming has already endured the “fire” of God’s wrath. He has already died for the sins of men. Trust in Him and you will never need to fear His second coming. Be reconciled to God through Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20-21), and do it before you face Him as your judge, and before you must face the fire of His wrath. Do it decisively. Do it quickly. Do it now!


233 This indictment against Judah is the climax of a series of indictments in chapter 1 and 2, each of which threatened fire in divine judgment. Thus, there is a seven-fold threat of fire in 1:1—2:5 (1:4, 7, 10, 12, 14; 2:2, 5).

234 The text, as the marginal note in the NASB indicates, literally reads, “I have a baptism to be baptized with.”

235 Note the tension between the promise of Malachi 4:5-6, the last promise of the Old Testament, a promise of unity and harmony in the family, and that of our text, along with Micah 7:6, from which it seems to be quoted. The solution, I believe, is that just as sin divided the family (as in the first case of Cain and Abel, Genesis 4:1-8), Christ alone can unite the family. When some members of the family reject Christ and others accept Him, great division is to be expected. Only where Christ alone rules is there true unity. To put the matter differently, Christ coming spells division now, but promises unity ultimately, when man is finally and fully freed from the presence and power of sin.

236 Notice that in the parallel passage, Jesus went even further: The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven. He replied, “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away (Matthew 16:1-4).

Jesus rebuked His audience, not only for their failure to believe what they had seen and what He had said, but for demanding some miraculous proof. They did not need a miracle. Why, then, do we sometimes demand them?

Related Topics: Christology, Eschatology (Things to Come)

How to Refuse a Bit Part in an Idiot’s Tale

Two Paths

Believers travel on a “path of life” where “fullness of joy” abides “forevermore” (Psalm 16:11). Created and adored by a God of infinite excellence, our earthly delight in God’s goodness gives a small taste of the boundless love and happiness we will enjoy forever in our future home with God.

The journey of unbelief, however, takes a different road. Grasping a barren hope to a gloomy end, the godless life has been expressed as part of a tale “told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”; a “brief candle” on “the way to dusty death.”1 And while Macbeth spoke from personal anguish and loss, his words will haunt anyone willing to ponder a life without eternal significance. In them Shakespeare echoed Solomon’s view of earthly pursuits without God: “Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity. What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun? A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever” (Ecclesiastes 1:2-4 ESV).

The Dividing Line

The line between insignificance, despair, and eternal death on the one hand and significance, joy, and eternal life on the other is drawn for us in the first four words of Scripture, “In the beginning, God.” When God stands as the author and explanation of the universe, life is worthwhile, a gift to be treasured. When He is cast aside as mythical or unimportant, the words of evil Macbeth ring true and the world recedes into pointless absurdity. Apart from the God of Scripture, all life, meaning, design, beauty, language, knowledge, truth, and morality are impossible. “In the beginning, God,” then, forms the proper starting point for right thinking and living. In the infinite excellence of the Maker and explanation of all things we have the answers to the deepest questions of life.

Life, Truth, and Eternal Purpose

Scripture unfolds the great works of God from eternity past to eternity future in the new heavens and earth. In our relationship to the Creator and Sustainer of the universe we have life and meaning, while our trivial pursuits gain importance as part of God’s eternal purpose. From His love and grace we have forgiveness of sin and eternal life in Christ, in whom we possess all good things and the divine resources to resist the evil forces that would destroy us. Covered in His righteousness we will stand “blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy” (Jude 24 ESV). From God we have all truth and the ability to know truth; the basis for a proper understanding of God, ourselves, and His universe; and the sure foundation for joy, assurance, and unbreakable faith in the midst of an antagonistic culture of unbelief. Apart from God we become a bit part in an idiot’s tale—pointless and absurd—both now and forever.

—Adapted from Craig Biehl, God the Reason (Carpenter’s Son Publishing, 2015).


1 William Shakespeare, Macbeth. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, accessed February 11, 2014, http://www.shakespeare.mit.edu/macbeth/macbeth.5.5.html, Act 5, Scene 5.

Related Topics: Apologetics

7. Daniel’s Vision Of Future World History

Article contributed by www.walvoord.com

In the interpretation of biblical prophecy, the seventh chapter of Daniel occupies a unique place. As interpreted by conservative expositors, the vision of Daniel provides the most comprehensive and detailed prophecy of future events to be found anywhere in the Old Testament. Although its interpretation has varied widely, conservative scholars generally are agreed, with few exceptions, that Daniel traces the course of four great world empires, namely, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, concluding in the climax of world history in the second coming of Jesus Christ and the inauguration of the eternal kingdom of God, represented as a fifth and final kingdom which is from heaven.314

Interpreted in this way, the chapter forms a major outline of future events to which additional details are given later in the book of Daniel and in the New Testament, especially in the Revelation. Such a panorama of future events is of great importance to the student of prophecy, as it provides a broad outline to which all other prophetic events may be related. Conservative interpreters are agreed that this is genuine prophecy, that it is futuristic, that is, related to future events from Daniel’s point of view, and that its culmination is in the kingdom which Christ brings.

In the introduction to his discussion of “The Four World-kingdoms,” Keil has well summarized the issues involved in chapter 7. He writes,

There yet remains for our consideration the question, What are the historical world-kingdoms which are represented by Nebuchadnezzar’s image (ch. 2), and by Daniel’s vision of four beasts rising up out of the sea? Almost all interpreters understand that these two visions are to be interpreted in the same way. “The four kingdoms or dynasties, which are symbolized (ch. 2) by the different parts of the human image, from the head to the feet, are the same as those which were symbolized by the four great beasts rising up out of the sea.”315

Keil continues, “These four kingdoms, according to the interpretation commonly received in the church, are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedo-Grecian, and the Roman. In this interpretation and opinion,’ Luther observes, ‘all the world are agreed, and history and fact abundantly establish it.’ This opinion prevailed till about the end of the last century, for the contrary opinion of individual earlier interpreters had found no favour. But from that time, when faith in the supernatural origin and character of biblical prophecy was shaken by Deism and Rationalism, then as a consequence, with the rejection of the genuineness of the book of Daniel the reference of the fourth kingdom to the Roman world-monarchy was also denied.”316

Conservative scholarship has solid reasons for interpreting the fourth kingdom as Roman as well as considering the second and third kingdoms as Medo-Persian and Grecian. As Keil has pointed out, supported by Luther, the prevailing opinion of orthodoxy has always held this position since the early church. Porphyry, the third century a.d. pagan antagonist of Christianity who invented the idea of a pseudo-Daniel writing the book of Daniel in the second century B.C., did not find Christian support until the rise of modern higher criticism. The whole attempt, therefore, to make the book of Daniel history instead of prophecy, written in the second century and fulfilled by that date, has been considered untenable by orthodoxy. With it, the view that the fourth kingdom is Greece and not Rome has been also rejected by conservative scholars as unsupported by the book of Daniel and contradicted by the New Testament as well as historic fulfillment.

Christ Himself in Matthew 24:15 predicted the abomination of desolation of Daniel 12:11 as future, not past. Prophecies of the book of Revelation written late in the first century also anticipate as future the fulfillment of parallel prophecies in Daniel. For example, Revelation 13 parallels the final stage of Daniel’s fourth empire. This could not, therefore, refer to events fulfilled in the second century B.C. Daniel 9:26 prophesies that the Messiah will be cut off and the city of Jerusalem destroyed, events which occurred in the Roman period. The author of 2 Esdras, who lived near the close of the first century a.d., clearly identifies the fourth kingdom of Daniel’s vision as the Roman Empire (2 Esd 12:11-12). To these arguments may be added the details of the second, third and fourth empires throughout the book of Daniel, which harmonize precisely with the Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman Empires. The alternate views of the critics can be held only if Daniel’s prophecy be considered in factual error in several places as the details of the prophecies do not really coincide with the critics’ theories. For these reasons, conservative scholars have held firmly to the traditional identification of the four empires in chapter 7 of Daniel as in chapter 2.

The conservative interpretation, however, has been confronted with a broadside of critical objection to the plausibility of such detailed prophecy of future events. In general, critical objections are based on the premise that the book of Daniel is a pious second-century forgery. Critics hold that the real author of Daniel lived in the time of the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.), and that from the viewpoint of the second century B.C. he looked backward over the preceding four centuries, organized history in a manner which was significant for him, and made this the basis for anticipating a climax to the Maccabean persecution then under way. Accordingly, the pseudo-Daniel considered Antiochus as symbolic of the wickedness of the powers of this world which the author believed were soon to be judged by God, who was to intervene and replace the rule of tyranny under Antiochus by that of the saints of the Most High. This interpretation, of course, requires interpretation of many statements in Daniel as less than factual and actually not scriptural prophecy at all. Their point of view as a whole is an expansion of the unbelief of Porphyry rather than a product of a reverent, believing study of the Scriptures.

Critics approach Daniel somewhat a priori, assuming that prediction of particular events in the future is incredible and, therefore, requiring a late date for the book of Daniel so that it is history rather than prophecy. This is often denied, however, by such scholarly writers as H. H. Rowley who states, “The conclusions we have reached have not been born of a priori disbelief in accurate prophecy, but of a posteriori demonstration that we have not accurate prophecy.”317 Nevertheless, it is quite plain, as the critical view is unfolded, that the content of Daniel itself is quite offensive to the critical mind and that broad statements are made that this or that fact in the book of Daniel is untrue either because of its nature or because there is no outside confirming evidence.

Although the multiplicity of variations in interpretation of the entire book of Daniel, and in particular chapter 7, is all too evident to any reader of the literature in the field, the critical view as defined by H. H. Rowley may be taken as representative.

According to the critics, the four empires of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 are the empires of Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. Although their arguments embody many details, their theory has two major supports. First, they find evidence that the kingdom of Media is represented as being in existence in the book of Daniel by the mention of Darius the Mede (5:31; 6:1, 6, 9, 25, 28). Actually, there was no Median Empire in power at the time of the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C., as it had already been swallowed up by Persia by 550 b.c. Moreover, recent discoveries support the idea that Cyrus the Persian ruler himself entered Babylon eighteen days after the fall of Babylon on the night of Belshazzar’s feast.318

The alleged error in relation to Darius the Mede, however, puts a teaching in the book of Daniel which actually is not there. The fact that Darius was a Median indicated his race, but it does not mean that the empire was Median. Chapter 6 of Daniel is very plain that the kingdom at that time over which Darius the Mede was reigning in Babylon was the kingdom of the “Medes and Persians” (vv. 8, 12, 15). In other words, the book of Daniel itself states clearly that this was a Medo-Persian empire, not a Median empire at this point. The error is in the critics’ interpretation, not in what Daniel actually teaches.

The second critical argument is that the fourth empire is Greece—hence already history at the time the pseudo-Daniel wrote the book in the second century. This would require the second and third empires to be Media and Persia. The fact that Daniel’s “prophecies” of these empires does not fit the facts of history is taken as error on the part of the pseudo-Daniel. The weakness of the critical approach here is unconsciously recognized in H. H. Rowley’s discussion in which he puts most of his weight on the attempt to identify the fourth kingdom as Greece.319 While few works can claim more scholarship and research than that of Rowley, the conservative interpreter of the book of Daniel finds that Rowley’s interpretation tends to emphasize extrascriptural sources, magnify minor points of obscurity and often ignores the plain statements of the book of Daniel itself.

Montgomery adopts an interpretation even more extreme than Rowley. Montgomery not only attributes the book of Daniel to a second-century author but takes the position that the first six chapters of Daniel were written by a different author and at a different time from chapters 7 to 12. Montgomery states, “The criticism of the unity of the bk. began in the 17th cent, with the observation of the distinction of languages, the Aram, and Heb.; Spinoza discovered two documents, cc. 1-7 and 8-12, referring the latter to the undoubted authorship of Dan., and confessing ignorance as to the origin of the former.”320 In order to support this, Montgomery holds that chapter 7 was originally written in Hebrew instead of Aramaic as we now have it.321 Montgomery confesses, however, “But a critical distinction on the basis of diversity of language is now generally denied. The extreme positions taken respectively by the defenders and the impugners of the historicity of Dan. have induced the great majority of critics to assign the bk. as a whole to either the 6th or the 2d cent., with as a rule little or no discussion on the part of the comm. of the possibility of composite origin; indeed most ignore the problem.”322 Montgomery goes beyond the normal critical view of one pseudo-Daniel to the hypothesis that there were at least two pseudo-Daniels, both of whom were second century writers who may have used some earlier sources.

Montgomery credits his view as being first advanced by Sir Isaac Newton. Montgomery states, “The distinction between the Stories and the Visions was first made by Sir Isaac Newton: ‘The bk. of Dan. is a collection of papers written at several times. The six last chapters contain Prophecies written at several times by Dan. himself; the six first are a collection of historical papers written by other authors’; and cc. 1. 5. 6 were written after his death.”323

The final decision can only be made on which view offers the most plausible explanation of the text of Daniel. The inherent congruity of the conservative interpretation of Daniel 7 as opposed to the critical theories will be considered under the interpretation relating to each kingdom. If Daniel is genuine Scripture, of course, it tends to support the conservative interpretation. If Daniel is a forgery, as the critics assert, and its prophecy is actually history, the book of Daniel becomes quite meaningless for most Bible expositors. Rowley presents the hollow claim that the critical view “which has been adopted does not destroy faith but strengthens it, in that it provides a reasonable ground for it.”324 Actually Rowley is saying that the choice is between faith in error and faith in the “true view,” that is, the critical interpretation.

Daniel’s First Vision: The Four Great Beasts

7:1-3 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream, and told the sum of the matters. Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.

In the opening verses of chapter 7, Daniel introduces his remarkable experience of having “a dream and visions of his head upon his bed” which occurred in the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon. The year was probably 553 B.C., fourteen years before the fall of Babylon. Nabonidus, the actual king of Babylon beginning in 556 B.C., had appointed Belshazzar as his coregent in control of Babylonia itself while Nabonidus conducted military maneuvers in Arabia.325 As Nebuchadnezzar himself had died in 562 B.C., nine years before Belshazzar began to reign, it is clear that the event of chapter 7 occurred chronologically between chapters 4 and 5 of Daniel.

In the mention of the specific time of the vision, Daniel is consciously and deliberately rooting the visions which he received as occurring in the historical background of the sixth century b.c. The vision of chapter 8 is dated in Belshazzar’s third year. According to Daniel 9:1-2, Daniel discovered the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the seventy years of captivity in the first year of Darius the Mede and, later in the same chapter, had a third vision. The fourth vision of Daniel in chapters 10-12 occurred in the third year of Cyrus (10:1). In chapter 11, there is mention of an earlier activity of the angel in strengthening Darius the Mede in his first year, another historical event related to the prophetic portion of Daniel. All of these are introduced so naturally and are so integral to the narrative that they support the sixth century date for the book of Daniel.

In the opening verse of chapter 7, Daniel speaks of his experience as a dream and a vision, apparently indicating that he had a vision in a dream. Here, for the first time in the book of Daniel, a vision is given directly to Daniel, and in verse 2, Daniel is quoted in the first person, reciting his experience of the dream and its interpretation.

A great deal of discussion has been devoted to the significance of the seventh chapter in relationship to the book as a whole. One point of view, held by conservative as well as liberal interpreters, is that the book of Daniel divides into two halves with the first six chapters providing a unit and the second six chapters providing a second unit. From the standpoint of world history, this has much to commend itself; for the vision of Daniel in chapter 7 is at once a summary of what has been revealed before, especially in the vision of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 2, and the outline of world history with which the last half of Daniel is primarily concerned. In the first six chapters, generalities are revealed. In the last six chapters, specifics are given, such as the detailed end of the times of the Gentiles and the relationship of Israel to world history, with special reference to the time of great tribulation.

From a literary standpoint, there is good support for the obvious division of the book into the stories (1-6) and the visions (7-12). Chapter 7, moreover, contains in semipoetic form a more explicit version of the expectations disclosed in chapter 2. With the elucidation and prosaic details given in concluding chapters, the division of Daniel into two halves is the conclusion of the majority of conservative scholars.

Another point of view argued strongly by Robert Culver is that the book of Daniel divides into three major divisions: (1) introduction, Daniel 1; (2) the times of the Gentiles, presented in Aramaic, the common language of the Gentiles at that time, Daniel 2-7; and (3) Israel in relation to the Gentiles, written in Hebrew, Daniel 8-12.326 Culver’s point of view, which he credits to Auberlen,327 has much to commend itself and is especially theologically discerning because it distinguishes the two major programs of God in the Old Testament, namely, the program for the Gentiles and the program for Israel. In either point of view, however, chapter 7 is a high point in revelation in the book of Daniel; and, in some sense, the material before as well as the material which follows pivots upon the detailed revelation of this chapter.

Also to be noted in the introduction of chapter 7 is the sharp contrast between the vision given to Daniel and the vision given to Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 2. On the one hand, in chapter 2, a wicked and heathen king is used as a vehicle of divine revelation which pictures world history as an imposing image in the form of a man. In chapter 7, the vision is given through the godly prophet, Daniel, and world history is depicted as four horrible beasts, the last of which almost defies description. In chapter 2, Daniel is the interpreter. In chapter 7, an angel is the interpreter. Chapter 2 considers world history from man’s viewpoint as a glorious and imposing spectacle. Chapter 7 views world history from God’s standpoint in its immorality, brutality, and depravity. In detail of prophecy, chapter 7 far exceeds chapter 2 and is in some sense the commentary on the earlier revelation.

Critics have massed their severest criticism against the credibility of Daniel 7 and treated it almost contemptuously, but by so doing they only reveal the artificial criteria by which they judge divine revelation. Conservative scholars, on the other hand, have hailed chapter 7 as one of the great prophecies of the Bible and the key to the entire program of God from Babylon to the second coming of Christ. Critics have suggested that the original form of this chapter was Hebrew and later it was translated into Aramaic,328 but there is really no justification or documentary support for this apart from a premise that Daniel itself is a forgery. From a literary standpoint, it is only natural that the Aramaic section of Daniel, dealing as it does with the Gentile world, should be in Aramaic, commonly used as the lingua franca of that time.

Beginning in verse 2, Daniel records what he calls “the sum of the matter” in verse 1, that is, the details of his vision which he declares he “saw” (see 7:7, 13; cf. “beheld,” 7:4, 6, 9, 11, 21). The words I saw and I beheld are the same verb in the Aramaic ( h£a„ze„h ha†we‚th) and can be translated, “as I was looking.” The verb consider in 7:8 is a different word. In the vision, four winds are seen striving on a great sea. Symbolically, the sea may represent the mass of humanity, or the nations of the world, as in Matthew 13:47 and Revelation 13:1 (cf. Is 8:6-8; Jer 46:7-8; 47:2; Rev 17:1, 15). The sea is identified with the earth in 7:17 and is clearly symbolic. The turbulence of the sea may well represent the strife of Gentile history (Is 17:12-13; 57:20; Jer 6:23).329

As Keil states, “The great sea is not the Mediterranean, … for such a geographical reference is foreign to the context. It is the ocean; and the storm on it represents the ‘tumults of the people,’ commotions among the nations of the world,.. . corresponding to the prophetic comparison found in Jer. 17:12, 46:7 f. ‘Since the beasts represent the forms of the world-power, the sea must represent that out of which they arise, the whole heathen world’ (Hofmann).”330

Keil continues, “The winds of the heavens represent the heavenly powers and forces by which God sets the nations of the world in motion.”331 Keil also finds that the number four has the symbolic meaning of representing people from all four corners of the earth, that is, all peoples and all regions.332 The sea, however, is only a background to the vision which will follow; and Daniel records that out of the sea came four great beasts, each differing from the other.

Commentators such as Leupold333 agree with Keil that the major elements of the introduction to the vision, namely, the four winds of heaven, the great sea, and the four great beasts indicate universality. It seems clear that the sea represents the nations and the four great beasts represent the four great world empires which are given subsequent revelation. If this is the case, what is the meaning of the four winds?

Although the Scriptures do not tell us, inasmuch as the wind striving with the world is a symbol of the sovereign power of God striving with men (Gen 6:3; Jn 3:8), the prophetic meaning may be the sovereign power of God in conflict with sinful man. God often used the wind as a means to attain His ends (Gen 8:1; Ex 10:13-19; 14:21; 15:10; Num 11:31; 1 Ki 18:45; 19:11). Compare Satan’s use of wind in Job 1:19. Of more than 120 references in the Bible to wind (more than 90 in the O.T. and about 30 in the N.T.), well over half are related to events and ideas which reflect the sovereignty and power of God. In Daniel, wind is uniformly used to represent the sovereign power of God, which is the viewpoint of the book. The history of the Gentiles is the record of God striving with the nations and ultimately bringing them into subjection when Christ returns to reign (Ps 2).

The First Beast: Babylon

7:4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it.

Daniel describes the first beast as being like a lion but having the wings of an eagle.334 As Daniel beheld, or as Leupold puts it, “kept looking” that is, looking intently,335 he saw the wings plucked from the beast, the beast lifted from the earth, made to stand upon his feet as a man, and given a man’s heart, that is, a man’s mind or nature. Interpreters of the book of Daniel, whether liberal or conservative, generally have agreed that chapter 7 is in some sense a recapitulation of chapter 2 and covers the same four empires. Likewise, there is agreement that the first empire represents the reign of Nebuchadnezzar or the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Concerning this identification, Rowley comments, “Of this there is little dispute. In Dn 2:38 we read that Daniel specifically informed Nebuchadnezzar: ‘Thou art the head of gold.’ There is, therefore, no uncertainty that in this chapter, the first kingdom is either the reign of Nebuchadnezzar or the Neo-Babylonian empire which he represents. A few have adopted the former view, but most the latter.”336

Rowley also finds that, apart from a few exceptions, scholars are agreed on the identification of the first kingdom of chapter 2 and chapter 7. One of the exceptions, according to Rowley, is Hitzig, who considered the first two empires of chapter 2 that of Nebuchadnezzar first, and Belshazzar second, but in chapter 7 identifies the first beast with Belshazzar.337 Rowley also cites Eerdmans’ view that the first beast of chapter 7 represents Egypt, and the viewpoint of Conring and Merx that the first beast represents the Median Empire. He goes on to say, “But apart from a few such rare exceptions, there is complete agreement that the Neo-Babylonian empire is again intended.”338 There is more unanimity on the identification of the first beast of chapter 7 than on any other point in this chapter.339

The elements of the revelation are most significant. The beast is compared to a lion with eagle’s wings. The lion is a common representation of royal power. Solomon, for instance, had twelve lions on either side of the steps leading up to his throne (1 Ki 10:20; 2 Ch 9:19). Winged lions guarded the gates of the royal palaces of the Babylonians. The lion was indeed the king of the beasts. In like manner, the eagle was the king of the birds of the air. In Ezekiel 17:3, 7, a great eagle is used as a picture first of Babylon and then of Egypt.

In spite of the power indicated in the symbolism of the lion with eagle’s wings, Daniel in his vision sees the wings plucked and the lion made to stand upon his feet as a man, with a man’s heart given to it. This is most commonly interpreted as the symbolic representation of Nebuchadnezzar’s experience in chapter 4 when he was humbled before God and made to realize that, even though he was a great ruler, he was only a man. His lion-like character, or royal power, was his only at God’s pleasure. The symbolism is accurate and corresponds to the historical facts. As Leupold states, “This is undoubtedly an allusion to the experience of Nebuchadnezzar which is related in detail in chapter four. The incident signifies that, as nearly as it is possible for a beast to become like a man, so nearly did Babylon lose its beastlike nature.”340

Although Daniel in this vision does not dwell on the fall of Babylon, described in detail in chapter 5, the decline of Babylon and the rise of The Medo-Persian Empire is implied. Other prophets spoke at length on the fall of Babylon. From the reference to the tower of Babel in Genesis 11, there is no biblical mention of Babylon until the major prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel discuss Babylon’s future. Isaiah describes the fall of Babylon as similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Is 13:1-22), with particular mention of the Medes in Isaiah 13:17-19. A future destruction of Babylon at the second coming of Christ seems to be indicated in Isaiah 13:20-22 (cf. Rev 17). Another extended prophecy about Babylon is found in Isaiah 47.

Jeremiah who witnessed the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians refers to Babylon throughout his prophecy, of which the most important sections are Jeremiah 25:11-14; 29:10; 50:1-51:62. The last three long chapters of Jeremiah are devoted entirely to Babylon. Ezekiel, himself a captive, is occupied with Babylon (Eze 17:12-24), and predicts like Jeremiah Babylon’s conquest of Egypt (Eze 29:18-20; 30:10-25; 32:1-32). Daniel, writing later, ties together these prophecies about Babylon.

The Second Beast: Medo-Persia

7:5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.

The second beast of Daniel’s vision is described as corresponding to a bear.341 As Daniel observes, the bear raises itself on one side and Daniel notices three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. Daniel hears the instruction given to the bear to “Arise, devour much flesh.”

In contrast to the unanimity of identifying the first beast with Babylon is the diversity of interpretation of the second beast. Critics such as Montgomery,342 Rowley,343 and R. H. Charles,344 and practically all liberal higher critics, identify the second beast as the Median Empire. Rowley cites almost overwhelming support for this identification which, according to him, “is found in the Peshitta version of the book of Daniel, in Ephraem Syrus and in Cosmas Indicopleustes. It also stands in the anonymous commentator whose work is published in Mai’s Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio.”345 Rowley notes that this long-forgotten theory was revived in the eighteenth century. Among its modern adherents he lists an imposing group of scholars, as follows: Eichhorn, deWette, Dereser, von Lengerke, Maurer, Bade, Hilgenfeld, Bleek, Westcott, Davidson, Kamphausen, Kranichfeld, Graf, Delitzsch, Kuenen, Reuss and Vatke, whom Rowley designates as the older scholars, and the more recent scholars, Schurer, Meinhold, Bevan, Behrmann, von Gall, Curtis, Buhl, Prince, Driver, Marti, Bertholet, Steuernagel, Andrews, Haller, Baumgartner, Montgomery, Charles, Willet, Obbink, and Eissfeldt.346

Although conservative scholars are outnumbered, it is significant that most scholars attributing accuracy to the book of Daniel regard the second kingdom as that of the Medo-Persians. Even Rowley admits that his view hangs upon the identification of the fourth empire as that of Greece which, as already has been stated, depends first on the conclusion that Daniel is a forgery, and second on the assumption that prophecy cannot be accurately given in detail concerning future events.

The identification of the second kingdom as the Medo-Persian Empire, which even Rowley recognizes as “the traditional identification,” is ably supported by one of the greatest Old Testament scholars of modern times, Robert Dick Wilson. His entire work on Studies in the Book of Daniel methodically devastates the liberal point of view; and even though this work is brushed aside impatiently by Rowley, no one has actually answered Wilson’s arguments.

Recent discoveries have proved beyond question that the second empire was in fact the Medo-Persian Empire. The Persian ruler Cyrus himself came to conquered Babylon in less than a month, and the myth of a separate Median empire at this time is not supported by the facts. The liberal position has to hold that the vision of the second beast is a false prophecy which does not correspond to the facts of history. If Daniel’s revelation is truly from God, it must correspond precisely to what history itself records. In chapter 6 of Daniel, a combined kingdom of the Medes and Persians is mentioned repeatedly as in verses 8, 12, and 15. These references alone should shut the mouth of the critic who wants to attribute to Daniel a fallacious and unhistorical kingdom of the Medes. Daniel’s record corresponds to history, whereas the critics’ view does not.

If Daniel’s revelation is true prophecy, what is the symbolism of the bear? Normally, this animal is not related to symbolism in the Old Testament. The meaning seems to be that the second empire will be powerful like a bear, ferocious (Is 13:17-18), but less majestic, less swift, and less glorious. The beast of Revelation 13 which gathers into its power the characteristics of all previous beasts is said to have feet as a bear (Rev 13:2).

The bear pictured apparently lying down is described as raising itself up on one side. Such an action, of course, is typical of an awkward animal like the bear. As Driver expresses it, “In the O. T. it is spoken of as being, next to the lion, the most formidable beast of prey known in Palestine (1 Sam. 17:34; Am. 5:19; cf. 2 Ki. 2:24; Hos. 13:8); at the same time, it is inferior to the lion in strength and appearance, and is heavy and ungainly in its movements.”347 Why, however, does the beast raise itself on one side? Although the Scriptures do not answer directly, probably the best explanation is that it represented the one-sided union of the Persian and Median Empires. Persia at this time, although coming up last, was by far the greater and more powerful and had absorbed the Medes. This is represented also in chapter 8 by the two horns of the ram with the horn that comes up last being higher and greater. The ram with its unequal horns is identified as “The kings of Media and Persia” (Dan 8:20). This interpretation also helps to support the Medo-Persian character of the second empire and is true to the facts of history.

The bear is described as having three ribs in its mouth. Normally a bear lives mostly on fruits, vegetables, and roots, but will eat flesh when hungry and attack other animals and men. Scripture does not tell us the meaning of the three ribs, and many suggestions haye been offered. Probably the best is that it refers to Media, Persia, and Babylon as representing the three major components of the Medo-Babylonian Empire. Jerome offered this suggestion.348 An alternative view offered by Young is that it represents Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt.349 Young’s objection to Jerome’s viewpoint is that it would make the bear devour itself.

The bear, however, is the symbol of government and military conquest and the ribs are the people subdued. The bear is instructed to continue its conquest and to “devour much flesh.” This apparently refers to the additional conquests of the Medes and Persians in the years which followed the fall of Babylon. Young errs in making this command simply to devour the three ribs already in the mouth of the bear. It would seem clear that the flesh is not the same as the ribs but refers to further conquests. As Leupold expresses it, “The question arises whether the command, ‘Arise, devour much flesh,’ implies that the flesh on the ribs is to be eaten, or whether, after substantial conquests have been made, further conquests are to be attempted. The latter seems to be the more reasonable interpretation.”350 Among the nations yet to be conquered were Lydia and Egypt. Taken as a whole, the prophecy of the second beast accurately portrays the characteristics and history of the Medo-Persian Empire which, although beginning in Daniel’s day, continued for over 200 years until the time of Alexander the Great, 336 B.C.

The Third Beast: Greece

7:6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.

Daniel in describing the vision next depicts a third beast differing from either of the two preceding animals. The third is like a leopard, has four wings on its back, and has four heads. The third beast is commonly identified as the empire of Greece.351 The only thing said about this beast is that dominion was given to it.

The expression “After this I beheld” has in it the implication of intense scrutiny. The leopard in contrast to the lion, the first beast, is less grand and majestic, but it is swifter and was much feared as an animal of prey in Old Testament times. The swiftness of the leopard made it the standard of comparison in Habakkuk 1:8 where the horses of the Chaldeans are described as swifter than leopards. Leopards characteristically would lie in wait for their prey (Jer 5:6; Ho 13:7) and then pounce upon their victims with great speed and agility. Young prefers the translation “panther” instead of leopard, to indicate a leopard of unusual size and power.352

The impression of great speed inherent in a leopard is further enhanced by the presence of four wings on its back. Although these wings are not declared to be the wings of an eagle as in the case of the first beast, their presence emphasizes the concept of speed. Of significance is the mention that there were precisely four wings in keeping with the four heads of the beast, whereas in the first beast the number of wings is implied to be only two, like an eagle.

The four heads obviously refer to intelligent direction of the beast and indicate, in contrast to the earlier beasts which had only one head, that the third empire would have four governmental divisions with corresponding heads.

In their zeal to promote the idea that the third empire is Persia, liberal critics bring up many petty objections to equating the third beast with Greece. On the face of it, however, the history of Greece under Alexander the Great corresponds precisely to what is here described.

With the swiftness of a leopard, Alexander the Great conquered most of the civilized world all the way from Macedonia to Africa and eastward to India. The lightning character of his conquests is without precedent in the ancient world, and this is fully in keeping with the image of speed embodied in the leopard itself and the four wings on its back.

It is a well established fact of history that Alexander had four principal successors. Calvin, after Jerome, considered these Ptolemy, Seleucus, Philip, and Antigonus.353 Keil and most modern commentaries prefer to recognize the four kings who emerge about twenty-two years after the death of Alexander after the overthrow of Antigonus at the battle of Ipsus (301 B.C.). These four kings and their reigns were, according to Keil, Lysimachus, who held Thrace and Bithynia; Cassander, who held Macedonia and Greece; Seleucus, who controlled Syria, Babylonia, and territories as far east as India; and Ptolemy, who controlled Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia Petrea.354

In spite of the aptness of the interpretation of verse 6 which would identify the leopard as the kingdom of Alexander and the four wings and four heads as its fourfold component parts which became evident after Alexander’s death, other views have been offered. The conservative scholar, Young, although agreeing that the third empire is Greece, takes the four heads as representing the four corners of the earth; and, therefore, he denies that it refers to four Persian rulers (after Charles and Bevan) or to the four successors of Alexander (after Jerome and Calvin) or to the geographical divisions of Alexander’s conquests, namely, Greece, Western Asia, Egypt and Persia. Young states, “Here the four heads, representing the four corners of the earth, symbolize ecumenicity of the kingdom.”355 In view of the transparent fact that Alexander did have four generals who succeeded him and divided his empire into four divisions, neither more nor less, it would seem that the interpretation of the four wings and the four heads as referring to the divisions of the Grecian Empire with their rulers is the best interpretation. This would confirm the identification of the third beast as the Grecian Empire. As Leupold states, in regard to the critics’ identification of the second and third kingdoms as Media and Persia, “We are more firmly convinced than ever that they [the four beasts] are Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. The arguments advanced in support of Media as being the second in both series are not convincing.”356

The interpretation which takes the four horns as reference to the four subdivisions of Alexander’s kingdom is quite superior to the interpretation of those who want to relate this to Persia in order to eliminate the prophetic element. The issue here, as so often in the book of Daniel, is whether Daniel can accurately foreshadow future events—in this instance, the. fourfold division of the Grecian Empire several hundreds years before it occurred. The difficulty of the liberal critics in interpreting these prophecies is further evidence that they are operating on the wrong premises. The interpretation disputes of the first three empires, however, are relatively insignificant in comparison to the interpretative problems of the fourth world empire which was to extend to the end of human history as Daniel saw it and contains so many elements that by any stretch of the imagination cannot be conformed to history of the second century B.C. or earlier.

The Fourth Beast: Rome

7:7-8 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

The crucial issue in the interpretation of the entire book of Daniel, and especially of chapter 7, is the identification of the fourth beast. On this point, liberal critics generally insist that the fourth beast is Greece or the kingdom of Alexander the Great. Conservative scholars with few exceptions generally identify the fourth beast as Rome.

The dominion of Rome, beginning with the occupation of Sicily in 241 B.C. as a result of victory in the first Punic conflict, rapidly made the Mediterranean Sea a Roman lake by the beginning of the second century B.C. Spain was conquered first, and then Carthage at the battle of Zama in North Africa in 202 B.C. Beginning by subjugating the area north of Italy, Rome then moved east, conquering Macedonia, Greece, and Asia Minor. The Roman general Pompey swept into Jerusalem in 63 B.C. after destroying remnants of the Seleucid Empire (Syria). During following decades, Rome extended control to southern Britain, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Germany west of the Rhine River. The Roman Empire continued to grow gradually for four centuries or more (reaching its height in a.d. 117), in contrast to the sudden rise of the other empires which preceded it. It likewise declined slowly, beginning in the third century. The decline became obvious in the fifth century a.d., with the Romans leaving Britain in a.d. 407 and suffering a sack of Rome in 410 by the Visigoths. It was not until a.d. 1453 that the last Roman or Byzantine ruler was killed in battle and Mohammed II conquered Constantinople. The question facing the exposition is whether Daniel is here describing the Roman empire, clearly the greatest of all empires of history. The interpreter of the book of Daniel is forced to make a decision as the evaluation of the supporting evidence, the theological implications, and the resulting prophetic program depend almost entirely on this question.357

On this issue the question of whether the book of Daniel is a genuine sixth-century writing or a second-century forgery is determinative. Rowley objects strenuously to the accusation that the liberal view—that the fourth kingdom is Greece—stems from prejudice, and he attempts to turn the argument against the conservative as unfairly accusing the liberal. Rowley quotes Charles H. H. Wright as follows, “Wright imports prejudice into the question by saying: ‘the real objections of the modern school to the old “Roman” interpretation arise from a determination to get rid at all costs of the predictive element in prophecy, and to reduce the prophecies of the Scripture, Old and New, to the position of being only guesses of ancient seers, or vaticinia post eventa.’ That the Greek view commanded so long and respectable an array of names among its supporters, prior to the establishment of the modern school, is a sufficient refutation of this unworthy remark. That since the establishment of the critical school, the Greek view has continued to be held by scholars of unimpeachable orthodoxy, is ample proof that the case for that view rests on a far more substantial basis than prejudice.”358

It is probably fair to say that liberals are not conscious of their prejudice in this matter, but Rowley himself gives the matter away in his later discussion. After describing the bewildering variety of views, both in support of. the Roman and of the Greek empire interpretations, Rowley states,

Within the circle of those who hold the Greek view, therefore, there is wide divergence on this point, and while up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, their reading of history and of the visions run concurrently, and they may be considered together, the only form of the Greek view which is here claimed to fit the prophecies is that which locates the composition of these chapters, at any rate in the form in which they now stand before us, in the Maccabean Age. On this view, the author was a man who was moved of the spirit of God to encourage his fellows to resist the attack of Antiochus Epiphanes upon the religion and culture of his race, and who rightly perceives that the victory must lie with them, if they were to be loyal unto their God, but whose message was coloured with the Messianic hopes that were not to be fulfilled.359

In other words, Rowley himself says that the only sensible support for the Greek interpretation is that the book of Daniel is a second-century production.

In addition to making this major admission that identification of the fourth empire as Grecian depends on the thesis that the book of Daniel is a forgery of the second century, Rowley completely fails to support the Grecian empire interpretation by any consensus among its followers, and his discussion is a hopeless maze of alternating views which he either rejects or accepts often as mere matters of opinion.

While the diversity of interpretation is indeed confusing to any expositor of this portion of Scripture, if the book of Daniel is a sixth-century writing, and therefore genuine Scripture, it follows, even as Rowley indirectly admits, that the Roman view is more consistent than the Greek empire interpretation. This is especially true among those following pre-millennial interpretation. The Roman view is supported in the exegesis of the passage which follows, which endeavors to demonstrate that the prophecies of Daniel are best explained by identifying the fourth kingdom as the Roman Empire.

Daniel describes the fourth beast in verse 7 as a fascinating spectacle upon which he fixed his eyes. The fourth beast is described as “dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly.” This description is supported by its great iron teeth which distinguished it from any known animal. As Daniel watched, the beast was observed to devour and break in pieces and stamp the residue of the preceding kingdoms. Daniel is explicit that the beast is quite different from any of the beasts which were before it.

The description of the beast to this point more obviously corresponds to the Roman Empire than that of the empire of Alexander the Great. Alexander conquered by the rapidity of his troop movements and seldom crushed the people whom he conquered. By contrast, the Roman empire was ruthless in its destruction of civilizations and peoples, killing captives by the thousands and selling them into slavery by the hundreds of thousands. This hardly is descriptive of either Alexander or the four divisions of his empire which followed. As Leupold states, referring to the iron teeth, “That must surely signify a singularly voracious, cruel, and even vindictive world power. Rome could never get enough of conquest. Rivals like Carthage just had to be broken: Carthago delenda est. Rome had no interest in raising the conquered nations to any high level of development. All her designs were imperial; let the nations be crushed and stamped underfoot.”360 The description of Daniel 7:7 clearly is more appropriate for the empire of Rome than for the Macedonian kingdom or any of its derived divisions.

Probably the most decisive argument in favor of interpreting the fourth empire as Roman is the fact, mentioned in earlier discussion, that the New Testament seems to follow this interpretation. Christ, in His reference to the “abomination of desolation” (Mt 24:15) clearly pictures the desecration of the temple, here prophesied as a future event. Even if Young is wrong in identifying this with the destruction of the temple in a.d. 70361 and the view is followed that it represents a still future event signalling the start of the great tribulation, in either case, it is Roman not Grecian, as the Grecian view would require fulfillment in the second century B.C. The New Testament also seems to employ the symbolism of Daniel in the book of Revelation, presented as future even after the destruction of the temple.362 These New Testament allusions to Daniel which require the fourth empire to be Roman (cf. also Dan 9:26) make unnecessary the tangled explanation of Rowley and others attempting to find an explanation of the ten horns or at least seven of them in the Seleucid kings.363

The interpretation identifying this as Rome immediately has a major problem in that there is no real correspondence to the Roman Empire historically in the phrase, “and it had ten horns.” This and the succeeding matter has no correspondence either to the history of Greece or to the history of Rome. The interpretation of the vision later in the chapter only serves to emphasize this problem.

Interpreters of this chapter who agree that it is Roman divide three ways in their explanation of how this relates to the Roman Empire. Amillennial scholars like Young and Leupold tend to spiritualize both the number ten and the number three, and thus escape the necessity of finding any literal fulfillment. Both of them find literal fulfillment impossible because there are no ten kings reigning simultaneously in the Roman period.364 Young, however, considers fulfillment in the Roman Empire in the past, and no further fulfillment is necessary.365 Leupold finds ultimate fulfillment at the second coming of Christ, rather than in past history.366 Pre-millennialists offer a third view, providing literal fulfillment: ten actual kingdoms will exist simultaneously in the future consummation.

In verse 8, as Daniel continued to gaze intently upon the vision, he saw another little horn emerging from the head of the beast, and in the process, uprooting three of the first horns, that is, three of the ten horns previously described. The little horn is described as having eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth speaking great things.

If there were no commentary upon this passage and the interpreter was left to find its meaning simply on what the text states, it would be a reasonable conclusion that the little horn is a man, and that, therefore, the ten horns which precede were also men who were rulers in relationship to the fourth kingdom. The fact that the horn has eyes and a mouth identifies the human characteristics.

Commentators have been quick to note that in chapter 8 there is also a little horn which conservative expositors have identified with Antiochus Epiphanes. This has been taken as evidence that the little horn of Daniel 7 is also from the Grecian or Maccabean period in its latter stages. Further consideration is given to this in chapter 8. It must be observed, however, that the little horn of chapter 8 comes out of an entirely different context than the little horn of chapter 7. Although both horns are described as “little,” the horn of chapter 7 is not said to grow like the horn in chapter 8, although in the end he becomes a greater power than the little horn of chapter 8. To assume that the two horns are one and the same because both are little horns is to decide a matter on assumed similarities without regard for the contradictions. Archer, in an excellent discussion, states,

There can be no question that the little horn in chapter 8 points to a ruler of the Greek empire, that is, Antiochus Epiphanes. The critics, therefore, assume that since the same term is used, the little horn in chapter 7 must refer to the same individual. This, however, can hardly be the case, since the four-winged leopard of chapter 7 clearly corresponds to the four-horned goat of chapter 8; that is, both represent the Greek empire which divided into four after Alexander’s death. The only reasonable deduction to draw is that there are two little horns involved in the symbolic visions of Daniel. One of them emerged from the third empire, and the other is to emerge from the fourth.367

It is also true that the Aramaic word for horn in chapter 7 is different from the Hebrew word for horn in chapter 8. However, this may be accounted for on the basis of the difference in language and does not in itself determine the interpretation.

The Vision of the Ancient of Days

7:9-10 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

No system of biblical interpretation can claim to be adequate unless it provides a satisfactory interpretation of the conclusion of the vision. Three major facts stand out in verses 9-14. First, in verses 9 and 10, Daniel has a vision of heaven at the time of final judgment on the nations. Second, in verses 11 and 12, the little horn representing the last ruler of the times of the Gentiles is destroyed and with it his empire. Third, the fifth kingdom, the kingdom of the son of man who comes with the clouds of heaven is brought in, beginning the everlasting dominion of God. It is obvious that all three factors combine to make clear that this is a summary conclusion which is catastrophic in nature and introducing a radical change. The critical explanation of the fourth empire as belonging to Alexander has no reasonable explanation of any one of these three factors, let alone an explanation of all of them. If this is genuine prophecy, it belongs to a future consummation which was not realized by the Greek Empire nor by the Roman Empire as far as recorded history is concerned.

In verse 9, Daniel sees thrones in heaven on which the Ancient of days is seated. The expression in the King James Version that “the thrones were cast down,” is better interpreted as “the thrones were placed.” This is the establishment not the destruction of a throne in heaven. The scene as a whole corresponds to what John saw and recorded in Revelation 4-5. The Ancient of days seems to correspond to God the Father, as distinct from God the Son who is introduced in Daniel 7:13 as Son of man.

A. C. Gaebelein, basing his argument on John 5:22, declares, “The Ancient of Days is the Lord Jesus Christ,” and finds confirmation in Revelation 1:12-14.368 To support this, he divides chapter 7 into four separate visions instead of one vision as it is generally taken. However, if in the same chapter the Ancient of days is clearly God the Father in Daniel 7:13, it is futile to argue from other passages in the same chapter that the Ancient of days is Jesus Christ. The expression “Ancient of days” is used of God only in this chapter where the title is repeated in verse 13 and 22. His garments are said to be white as snow and His hair as pure wool. The emphasis is on purity rather than on age, although it also may imply that God is eternal.

The Ancient of days is described as sitting upon a throne, one of many, as indicated in the contrast between the plural early in verse 9 and the singular in the latter part of verse 9. Who sits on the thrones first mentioned is not indicated, but this may either refer to angelic authority or the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity may be intended. The major characteristic of the throne is that it is a burning flame (like is not in the original Aramaic), and the wheels of the throne, whatever their meaning, are also burning (cf. Eze 1:13-21). The glory of God, pictured as a fiery flame, is a common representation in Scripture. The fire is a symbol of judgment and is associated with theophanies in the Old Testament. In Psalm 97 it is revealed that “righteousness and judgment are the habitation [“foundation,” RSV] of his throne” (v. 2), and “A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about” (v. 3). In the glorified revelation of Jesus Christ a similar description of God is given, “His head and his hairs are white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace” (Rev 1:14-15; cf. Ex 3:2; Deu 4:24; 1 Ti 6:16; Heb 12:29). That Christ as the Son of man should have a similar glory to the Ancient of days is no contradiction, as their glory is the same even though their persons are distinguished in Daniel 7.

In this scene of blazing glory, innumerable saints and angels (cf. Deu 33:2) are pictured as ministering to God, in number ten thousand times ten thousand. In the glorious presence of God, the books are opened and the judgment is set. It is apparent that this is the hour of final decision as far as the nations of the world are concerned. Daniel does not enlarge on the concept of “the books.” The implication is, however, from Revelation 20:12, that this is a record of the works of men (cf. Is 65:6 for record of evil deeds, and Mai 3:16 for remembrance of good deeds). As Leupold states it, “In them are written, not names, but deeds of men, a record of their ungodly acts, on the basis of which they will be judged.”369

In Matthew 25:31-46, there is a corresponding judgment which chronologically may be considered to follow the one here pictured. In Daniel, the judgment is in heaven and relates to the little horn and the beast. In Matthew, the judgment follows the second coming of Christ pictured in Daniel 7:13-14 and extends the original judgment upon the beast to the entire world. Even without any emendation or explanation from other texts of the Bible, it is clear that this is at the end of the interadvent age and the end of the times of the Gentiles. It, therefore, demands a fulfillment which is yet future, and it is futile to attempt to find anything in history that provides a reasonable fulfillment of this passage.

The Destruction of the Beast

7:11-12 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.

As Daniel kept looking intently upon the vision that was before him, the scene shifted once again to earth. Young, after Montgomery and Keil, holds that because of should be translated “from the time of.”370 Their point is that the vision of heaven immediately followed the arrogant words of the little horn. As the prophet listened to the great words uttered by the little horn of verse 8, he saw the beast destroyed and given to burning flame. This passage is another illustration of how quickly God can dispose of the mightiest of men, and how men in their wickedness are ultimately brought to divine judgment. Critics maintain that the beast here is the Seleucid power in general and the mouth is Antiochus Epiphanes, killed in battle in 164 B.C. But the kingdom of God from heaven did not follow the downfall of Antiochus. Although the Maccabean revolt was followed by the independent Jewish kingdom, and the Roman conquest was not until a century later in 63 B.C., the ultimate beneficiary of Antiochus was Rome. The destruction of the beast, however, does not fit the historic Roman Empire which took centuries to lose all its strength. This is a sudden act of divine judgment in which the major ruler is killed and his government destroyed. This passage is an obvious parallel to Revelation 19:20 where the beast and the false prophet are cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone at the time of the second coming of Christ.

Verse 12 has been a stumbling block, especially to the liberal critics such as Rowley, who have great difficulty in understanding how the rest of the beasts have their lives prolonged even though their dominion is taken away. If the earlier beasts are empires which were succeeded by the fourth beast, how can they be prolonged after the fourth beast? As Rowley states it, “Further, we are told that when the fourth beast was destroyed, the other beasts were spared for a time, though denied any dominion. But how can it be maintained that at any time contemplated by the various forms of this interpretation Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece enjoyed a measured existence that was denied to Rome?”371

The point is that the destruction of the fourth beast here described refers to a time yet future in connection with the second advent of Christ. Montgomery suggests that the expression a season and a time are semantic equivalents (cf. Dan 2:21; Acts 1:7) and denote “a fixed fate.”372 What verse 12 is saying is that the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Grecian empires were to some extent continued in their successors; that is, Gentile power shifted as to rulership but continued more or less in the same pattern: By contrast, at the second coming of Christ the fourth beast is completely destroyed, and a totally different kingdom which is from heaven succeeds the fourth empire. The destruction of the first three beasts is not stated directly in this chapter. Evidently the first three continue to survive in another form in the kingdom which replaces them. Hence, “They had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.” This is borne out by the image of chapter 2, as Driver states, “the entire image remains intact until the stone falls upon the feet (representing the fourth and last kingdom), when the whole of it breaks up together.”373

When Medo-Persia followed Babylon, the dominion of Babylon was taken away, but in some sense the lives of the participants were prolonged. The same is true when Greece succeeded Medo-Persia and when Rome succeeded Greece. But the end of the fourth beast is to be dramatic, cataclysmic, and final. Both the rulers and the people involved are to be destroyed. This interpretation agrees with Revelation 19:19-20, which records the beast as destroyed and its ruler cast in the lake of fire at the second coming of Christ, and is confirmed by Matthew 25:31-46, the judgment of the nations at the return of Christ.

The Fifth Kingdom of the Son of Man from Heaven

7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

The climax of the vision is now seen by Daniel. Again, it is heaven rather than earth that is in view. Verse 13 follows verse 10 chronologically. Verses 11-12 are explanatory and do not advance the narrative. Porteous correctly notes, “The interposition, however, of vv. 11 and 12 is necessary to express the author’s meaning.”374 One described as “like the Son of man,” in obvious contrast with the beasts and the little horn, comes before the throne of the Ancient of days, attended by the clouds of heaven. The phrase they brought him near before him can be better translated, “he was brought before him.” The purpose of this heavenly presentation is indicated in verse 14 where the Son of man is given “dominion, and glory, and a kingdom.” This kingdom would be a worldwide kingdom involving “all people, nations, and languages.” In contrast to the preceding kingdoms, it would be an everlasting kingdom which shall not pass away and be destroyed. This kingdom is obviously the expression of divine sovereignty dealing dramatically with the human situation in a way which introduces the eternal state where God is manifestly supreme in His government of the universe.

Conservative scholars are agreed that the Son of man is a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ rather than an angelic agency. The description of Him as being worthy of ruling all nations is obviously in keeping with many passages in the Bible referring to the millennial rule of Jesus Christ, as for instance, Psalm 2:6-9 and Isaiah 11. Like the scene in Revelation 4-5, Christ is portrayed as a separate person from God the Father. The expression that He is attended by “clouds of heaven” implies His deity (1 Th 4:17). A parallel appears in Revelation 1:7, which states, “Behold, he cometh with clouds,” in fulfillment of Acts 1 where in His ascension He was received by a cloud (Ac 1:9) and the angels say that he will “come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Ac 1:11). Clouds in Scripture are frequently characteristic of revelation of deity (Ex 13:21-22; 19:9, 16; 1 Ki 8:10-11; Is 19:1; Jer 4:13; Eze 10:4; Mt 24:30; 26:64; Mk 13:26). The liberal scholar, Driver, interprets the clouds as meaning “superhuman majesty and state.”375

Driver, however, objects to the phrase the Son of man which probably should be better translated “a son of man.”376 The Aramaic does not have the definite article. Driver does not like the concept that this is a formal title. He claims that it merely implies humanity.377 Although there is some linguistic support for the concept that this is merely a human being in appearance, the frequent introduction of this term in the New Testament referring to Jesus Christ is the divine commentary on the phrase (cf. Mt 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27, 28; 17:9, 12, 22, etc.)

Obviously, the expression the Son of man should be interpreted by the context. In verse 13, He is presented as being near the Ancient of days, and in verse 14 given dominion over all peoples and nations. This could not be an angel, nor could it be the body of saints, as it corresponds clearly to other Scriptures which predict that Christ will rule over all nations (Ps 72:11; Rev 19:15-16). Only Christ will come with clouds of heaven, and be the King of kings and Lord of lords over all nations throughout eternity. Inasmuch as all the nations which survive His purging judgment and come under His dominion are saints, it would be tautology to make the Son of man the personification of the saints. Keil states on this point,

With all other interpreters, we must accordingly firmly maintain that he who appears with the clouds of heaven comes from heaven to earth and is a personal existence, and is brought before God, who judges the world, that he may receive dominion, majesty, and a kingdom. But in the words “as a man” it is not meant that he was only a man. He that comes with the clouds of heaven may, as Kranichfeld rightly observes, “be regarded, according to the current representations, as the God of Israel coming on the clouds, while yet he who appears takes the outward form of a man.”378

Young observes that some expositors regard the Son of man as representing the people of Israel. Young states, “This view has been adopted by a long line of expositors of which M [Montgomery] is one of the latest representatives.”379 As Young goes on to point out, however, the earliest interpretation regarded this as Messianic and referring to Christ, and this interpretation is confirmed by the fact that Jesus Christ took the title Himself in the New Testament.380

In the statements of verse 14, it should also be apparent that Daniel is given revelation in addition to what he could see visually in the vision. While the vision could portray the Son of man receiving authority, the purpose of this act would have to be revealed: that His domain would be over all people, and that His kingdom would be everlasting and not subject to destruction. At every point the kingdom from heaven is in contrast, superior, and a final answer to the preceding kingdoms of the four great world empires.

In the futuristic interpretation of the prophecy of Daniel beginning with the phrase “it had ten horns” in verse 7 and continuing through verse 14 as prophecy yet to be fulfilled, a question naturally arises why Daniel has not included in his prophetic scheme the events of the age between the first and second advents of Christ.

In the main, commentators have had three options: first, like the liberal scholars, they could deny literal fulfillment and even claim that Daniel was in error; second, they could find these prophecies symbolically fulfilled in church history—this has been the viewpoint in part of postmillennialism and amillennialism; third, they could find these prophecies to be distinctly future and not at all fulfilled by the first coming of Christ, the decline of the Roman Empire, or that which is historic. The third view, which is the futuristic interpretation, is the only one which provides the possibility of literal fulfillment of this prophecy.

Although it has been fondly projected and enthusiastically supported that the church is the fifth kingdom, that the coming of the Son of man is His first coming to the earth, and that the church is responsible for the decline of the Roman Empire, nothing is stranger to church history than this interpretation. It is questionable whether the Roman Empire had any serious opposition from the Christian church or that the growing power of the church contributed in a major way to its downfall. Edward Gibbon in his classic work on the Roman Empire enumerates “four principal causes of the ruin of Rome, which continued to operate in a period of more than a thousand years: 1. The injuries of time and nature. 2. The hostile attacks of the barbarians and Christians. 3. The use and abuse of the materials. And, 4. The domestic quarrels of the Romans.”381 While undoubtedly the presence of the church in growing power in the declining Roman Empire was a factor in its history, and Gibbon includes, “the rise, establishment, and sects of Christianity”382 in a detailed list of factors contributing to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, it is quite clear to everyone that the church was not the major factor and in no ways can be identified as a sudden and catastrophic cause for the fall of the Roman Empire. Although the church dominated Europe during the Middle Ages, its power began to be disrupted by the Protestant Reformation at the very time that the Roman Empire was gasping its last in the fifteenth century. Although the power and influence of the Roman Catholic church is recognized by everyone, it does not fulfill the prophecy of Daniel 7:23, that the fourth kingdom “shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.” This would require figurative interpretation of prophecy far beyond any correspondence to the facts of either prophecy or history.

Far better is the interpretation which does honor to the text and justifies belief in its accuracy as prophetic revelation. This point of view, which is quite common in the Old Testament, is that the present church age is not included in the Old Testament prophetic foreviews. The first and second comings of Christ are frequently spoken of in the same breath, as for instance in Isaiah 61:1-2, which Christ expounded in Luke 4:18-19. Significantly, Christ quoted only the portion dealing with His first coming and stopped in the middle of a sentence because the last part of the sentence related to His second advent, separated from the first coming by more than nineteen hundred years. In a similar way, in his prophetic vision, Daniel takes human history up to the first coming of Christ when the Roman Empire was in sway, and then leaps to the end of the age when, in fulfillment of prophecy, the fourth empire will be revived and suffer its fatal judgment at the hands of Christ at His second coming to the earth. This interpretation, though not without its problems, allows an accurate and detailed interpretation of this prophecy and is genuinely predictive.

Even Leupold, who may be classified as a conservative amillenarian, states,

Why does the sequence of historical kingdoms in this vision extend no farther than the Roman whereas we know that many developments came after the Roman Empire and have continued to come before the judgment? We can venture only opinions under this head, opinions that we believe are reasonable and conform with the situation as it is outlined. One suggestion to be borne in mind is the fact that the prophets, barring the conclusion of chapter 9 in Daniel, never see the interval of time lying between the first and second coming of Christ. In the matter of history, therefore, Daniel does not see beyond Christ’s days in the flesh and perhaps the persecution as it came upon the early church.383

If Daniel 7 had concluded with verse 14, it is probable, with the help of the book of Revelation and other scripture passages, that a reasonable explanation could be made of the text. In view of the complexity and importance of the prophecy, the chapter continues, however, to give the reader a divinely inspired interpretation. It should be borne in mind that when a symbol is interpreted, while the symbol is obviously parabolic and figurative, the interpretation should be taken literally. Accordingly, the explanation can be taken as a factual exegesis of the truth involved in the vision.

The Interpretation of the Four Beasts

7:15-18 I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me. I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things. These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

Having recited in detail the main features of the vision, Daniel now proceeds to give his own reaction and the interpretation given him in answer to his question. Having such a vision in the midst of the night must have been a terrifying experience, as it is obvious to Daniel that he had seen a panorama of tremendous events to come. Like Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 2, Daniel, although a prophet, is troubled by his lack of understanding of the vision. He was grieved in his spirit and troubled by the visions of his head.

By being “grieved” Daniel indicates his distress; by “spirit” he refers to his whole personality. The expression in the midst of my body, literally “in the midst of the sheath,” compares the soul in the body to a sword in its sheath. Although the expression is peculiar, it is not without parallel as Keil states, “The figure here used, ‘in the sheath’ (E.V. ‘in the midst of my body’), by which the body is likened to a sheath for the soul, which as a sword in its sheath is concealed by it, is found also in Job 27:8, and in the writing of the rabbis (cf. Buxt. Lex. talm. s. v.). It is used also by Pliny, 7:52.”384

Writers like Driver and Montgomery385 find some difficulty with this, but in the main agree with Keil. The Septuagint changes the text to read, “on this account,”386 but this is not really necessary. Daniel is merely summarizing his extreme concern, affecting spirit and body, and caused by the “visions of my head” (cf. Dan 7:1).

In verse 16, Daniel becomes an actor in the scene by addressing a question to one who stands by, generally considered to be an angel. When Daniel inquired concerning what truth was being revealed by this vision, the interpreter made known the meaning of his vision. Although this aspect of the vision increases the critical questions of those who do not accept Daniel as a sixth-century prophetic book, because Daniel could not himself interpret the vision, there is nothing unusual about this situation. A similar account is found in Genesis 28 when God speaks to Jacob on the occasion of his vision. In Exodus 3, God speaks to Moses out of the burning bush. Conversation with people seen in visions occurs in Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple (Eze 40-48), in the visions of Zechariah (Zec 1-6). Almost exact parallels can be found in the book of Revelation where frequently John in the experience of a vision is given the interpretation of what he saw. Revelation 20 involves not only the vision but its God-given interpretation. In Revelation 21:9, one of the seven angels explains to John the new Jerusalem. Daniel has the same experience of a vision plus its explanation in Daniel 8, Daniel 10, and Daniel 12. This is not an abnormal situation.

The interpreter of Daniel’s vision first of all gives a general interpretation in verses 17 and 18. In the verses which follow in answer to Daniel’s question, more details are given. The summary statement in verse 17 is that the great beasts represent four kings which shall arise out of the earth. Liberal scholars have criticized the fact that the verse states twice that the beasts were four, and Charles states, “The words ‘which are four’ are omitted by the Septuagint. They are certainly unnecessary; for the seer knows perfectly well the number of the kingdoms.”387 The repetition of the number, however, is to make clear that the four beasts, each individually, represent a king. The “four kings” obviously refer to four kingdoms, as the beasts represent both a king and a kingdom.

Criticism has also been directed at the statement “shall arise out of the earth,” as if this were a conflict with the four beasts coming out of the sea (Dan 7:3). Charles, for instance, says, “…the words ‘shall arise out of the earth’ are certainly corrupt. According to 7:3, they arise out of the sea: cf. Rev. 13:1, 4, Ezra 11:1.” Charles goes on to say, “By a careful study of the LXX and Theod. we arrive at the following text: ‘These great beasts are four kingdoms, which shall be destroyed from the earth.’”388 What Charles does not take into consideration is that the sea represents symbolically the nations covering the earth, and what is symbolic in Daniel 7:3 is literal in Daniel 7:17.

In verse 18, the interpreter states that “the saints of the most High” shall take and possess the kingdom forever. Although there has been considerable discussion as to the reference of “the saints,” it would seem to include the saved of all ages as well as the holy angels which may be described as “the holy ones” (cf. Dan 7:21, 22, 25, 27; 8:24; 12:7; cf. Ps 16:3; 34:9; Jude 14). In The Wars of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness, the faithful Jews have celestial warriors mingled with them in their ranks.389

The expression in verse 18 that the saints “shall take the kingdom” can also be translated “receive the kingdom” as in most revised versions and in Young’s translation.390 However, Montgomery prefers to translate it, “shall take over the sovereignty,”391 which is probably the preferred meaning in Daniel 5:31. The thought is, as Young expresses it, “They are not to establish or found the kingdom by their own power,”392 and yet it is more than merely a passive reception. This is implied in the statement that “Darius the Median took the kingdom” (5:31), meaning that he took aggressive steps to establish his control over the kingdom. Daniel 7:18 goes on to emphasize that the saints possess the kingdom forever, contrasting the everlasting character of the fifth kingdom to the preceding kingdoms, which in due time passed away.

The reference to “the most high,” from the Aramaic Elyonin, is a translation of a plural noun which could mean “high ones” or “high places.” Young is correct, however, in identifying this as God, with the plural expressing majesty. The expression is repeated in Daniel 7:22, 25, 27. The expression although similar should not be confused with the “heavenlies” of Ephesians 2:6 referring to the peculiar position of saints in the present age which refers to place or position, not to God Himself. The kingdom possessed by saints of the most High, while eternal in its characteristics and sovereignty, may without difficulty include the millennial kingdom and the eternal rule of God which follows.

Daniel Requests Interpretation of the Fourth Beast

7:19-22 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet; and of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

In asking the question concerning the fourth beast, Daniel gives a recapitulation of the particulars which were of immediate concern to him, especially those which distinguished the fourth beast from those which preceded. After the end is introduced in verse 18, when the saints receive the kingdom forever after the destruction of the fourth beast, in verse 19 attention again focuses on the conflict leading up to this and the items requiring explanation. Among these were aspects of the vision described as “exceeding dreadful,” that is, items which produced fear, such as the teeth of iron, the nails of bronze (KJV, “brass”), the stamping of the other beasts, the ten horns, the other horn which came up later, the three horns which fell, and the horn which had eyes and a mouth speaking great things and which looked stronger than the other horns. Daniel also adds particulars not previously indicated in his recital of the vision, that the nails were of bronze, that the little horn was stronger than the other horns, that the little horn made war with the saints and prevailed against them (cf. Rev 11:7; 13:7), and that judgment was given to the saints of the most High.

The fact that Daniel is raising questions about the fourth empire rather than the preceding ones has been taken by critical scholars as another proof of the late date for Daniel. They argue that if Daniel actually lived in the sixth century B.C., as conservative scholars maintain, he would have also been very curious about the first three beasts. Montgomery, for instance, states, “The seer’s contemporary interest is revealed by his inquisitiveness concerning the last beast and the judgment which hitherto had been hid in figures.”393

There is really no justification, however, for this argument as the vision given to Daniel obviously emphasized the fourth beast. Whereas only three verses are given to the first three beasts, the remaining twenty-one verses of the chapter concern the fourth beast and his era; and Daniel, in his recital of the vision, uses eight verses to describe the details. If this is genuine prophecy, it is also true that Daniel is being guided providentially to that which is important from God’s standpoint. Even from a human standpoint, the end of the ages with the triumph of the saints would be a matter of primary concern to Daniel. The argument of the critics is dissipated by their own premise that even the fourth kingdom was already history at the time a second-century writer recorded it, and in that case Daniel’s curiosity would have to be faked in seeking the interpretation of history rather than a prophetic vision. There is no indication whatever in the text that Daniel thought the fourth beast already had been fulfilled in history.

The expression “judgment was given to the saints of the most High” in verse 22 probably means that judgment was given on their behalf or executed for them, rather than to make the saints judges themselves.394 As Keil states, “…not to be rendered, as Hengstenberg thinks (Beitr i. p. 274), by reference to 1 Cor. 6:2: ‘to the saints of the Most High the judgment is given,’ i.e. the function of the judge. This interpretation is opposed to the context, according to which it is God Himself who executes judgment, and by that judgment justice is done to the people of God, i.e. they are delivered from the unrighteous oppression of the beast, and receive the kingdom.”395 The reference to “the Ancient of days” is to God as in verses 9 and 13, and is identical to “the most High” as in verses 18, 25, and 27. As in the preceding revelation of the vision, the destruction of the fourth beast and the inauguration of the fifth kingdom from heaven is described as the time when the saints will possess the kingdom, a clear factor pointing to the end of the age and the second coming of Jesus Christ.

The Interpretation of the Vision of the Fourth Beast

7:23-25 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

The interpreter of the vision states plainly in verse 23 that the fourth beast represents the fourth kingdom, an earthly kingdom which will be different from the preceding kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, that is, be worldwide in its sway. In the process, it will tread down and break in pieces the preceding kingdoms. By so much, the interpretation eliminates the idea that the fifth kingdom refers to the rule of God in the new heavens and the new earth (Rev 21 and 22) or that it is merely a spiritual kingdom which gradually gains sway by persuasion, such as the kingdom of God in the earth at the present time. By its terminology the interpretation of verses 23-27 demands that, for the fifth kingdom to overcome the fourth, the fifth must be basically a sovereign and political kingdom, whatever its spiritual characteristics. By so much, it also demands that this be a future fulfillment, inasmuch as nothing in history corresponds to this.

The ten horns of the vision in verse 24 are declared to be ten kings that shall arise. They clearly are simultaneous in their reign because three of them are disrupted by the little horn which is another ruler, but not given the title of king here. He also will be different from the first, that is, from the ten horns, and shall subdue three of them.

The endless explanation of critical scholars attempting to find these ten kings in the history of the Grecian Empire or to find them later in Rome, by their very disagreement among themselves demonstrate the impossibility of satisfactorily explaining this verse as past history. If the ten kings are in power at the end of the age, which also seems to be supported by the ten kings of Revelation 13:1; 17:12, it follows that they must be still future. The fact that they appear in the book of Revelation, written long after the fall of the Grecian Empire, plainly relates them to the Roman Empire in its final stage.

Just as there is special emphasis upon the fourth beast in the vision, so in the prophetic interpretation particular attention is given to the little horn, the outstanding personage at the end of the age, who will be destroyed with the inauguration of the kingdom from heaven. He is described as a blasphemer who “shall speak great words against the most High” and as a persecutor of the saints who “shall wear out the saints of the most High.” He will also attempt to “change times and laws,” that is, to change times of religious observances and religious traditions such as characterize those who worship God. Critics relate this to Antiochus Epiphanes.396 While Antiochus may foreshadow the activities of the little horn of Daniel 7, the complete fulfillment will be much more severe and extensive.

The duration of the power of the little horn over the saints and the world is described as continuing “until a time and times and the dividing of times.” This expression, also found in Daniel 12:7, is incorrectly identified with “the times of the Gentiles” in Luke 21:24 by Montgomery. As Montgomery points out, however, the normal, traditional explanation is that the expression means three and one-half years. As Montgomery states it, “Essaying an exact interpretation, ‘time’ may be interpreted as ‘year’ after the usual interpretation at 4:13 (q.v.). The traditional, and by far the most common, understanding of ‘times’ is as of a dual; the word is pointed as a pl., but the Aram, later having lost the dual, the tendency of M [Massoretic text] is to ignore it in BAram… Accordingly, one plus two plus one-half equals three and one-half years. The term is identical with the half-year week of 9:27 [which] equals three and one-half years.”397 Although this expression might be difficult if it were not for other Scriptures (cf. Dan 4:25 where times equals years), the meaning seems clearly to refer to the last three and one-half years preceding the second advent of Christ, which will bring in the final form of the kingdom of God on earth. The three and one-half year computation is confirmed by the forty-two months, or three and one-half years, in Revelation 11:2 and 13:5, and the 1260 days of Revelation 11:3. Daniel also refers to 1290 days in 12:11 and 1335 days in 12:12 which apparently includes the establishment of the fifth kingdom as well as the destruction of the beast. All of these considerations lend support to the futuristic interpretation of this final period of world history.

The Destruction of the Fourth Empire and the Establishment of the Everlasting Kingdom

7:26-28 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. Hitherto is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me, and my countenance changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart.

As Daniel has previously indicated, the interpreter now confirms the significance of the vision as describing judgment upon the fourth beast and its ruler, the taking away of his power to rule, and how he is destroyed in the end, that is, either at the end or destroyed eternally. At the destruction of the fourth empire, the kingdom then becomes the possession of “the people of the saints of the most High.” This does not mean that God will not rule, as verse 14 plainly states that dominion is given to the Son of man, but it does indicate that the kingdom will be for the benefit and the welfare of the saints in contrast to their previous experience of persecution. In contrast to the preceding kingdoms, which terminated abruptly by God’s judgment, the final kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and in it all powers and peoples will serve and obey God.

Daniel then pens a postscript to the interpretation of the vision, “Hitherto is the end of the matter,” or as Montgomery translates it, “At this point the end of the word.”398 Daniel expresses again how his thoughts troubled him, his countenance changed, but he kept the matter in his heart, that is, did not reveal it to others. The thought of the expression, my countenance changed in me, is probably what Montgomery indicates, “and my color changed.”399 Thus ends one of the great chapters of the Bible which conservative scholarship recognizes as a panoramic view of future events revealed to Daniel in the sixth century B.C.

The very early suggestion that the fourth empire was Greece, attributed to the Sibylline Oracles (Book iii, line 397) which appeared shortly after the Maccabean period in the second century B.C., is cited by Rowley as evidence of early interpretation that the fourth empire was Greece.400 Rowley also cites a number of other writers who support interpretation of the fourth empire as Greece before the rise of the modern critical school.401 Nevertheless, it is true that, until the rise of modern critical interpretation, the majority view was that the fourth kingdom is Rome. There is really nothing in chapter 7 of Daniel to alter the conclusion that the fourth empire is Rome, that its final state has not yet been fulfilled, and that it is a genuine prophetic revelation of God’s program for human history. In a modern world, when attention is again being riveted upon the Middle East, and Israel is once again back in the land, these items become of more than academic interest, because they are the key to the present movement of history in anticipation of that which lies ahead.

314 For an outline study of Daniel’s view of world history by the author, see The Nations in Prophecy, pp. 53-60.

315 C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, p. 245.

316 Ibid., pp. 245-46.

317 H. H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel, p. 179.

318 For Daniel the prophet, living in the sixth century B.C., to make such a palpable error as to teach a Median empire is considered incredible by the critics. Therefore, they consider this another proof that the book of Daniel was written by a second century B.C. writer who was confused about the facts in general and about Darius the Mede in particular (for previous discussion on Darius the Mede, see chapter 6).

D. J. Wiseman, “Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel,” in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, p. 10.

319 In this attempt he uses a total of 67 pages, whereas he devotes only 21 pages to proving that Daniel taught that the second and third kingdoms are the Median and Persian kingdoms (Rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires, pp. 70-137).

320 James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, p. 88.

321 Ibid., p. 282.

322 Ibid., pp. 88-89.

323 Ibid., p. 88.

324 Rowley, p. 179.

325 D. J. Wiseman, “Belshazzar,” in The New Bible Dictionary, p. 139.

326 R. D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, pp. 95-104.

327 C. A. Auberlen, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelations of St. John.

328 Montgomery, p. 282.

329 Arthur Jeffrey, “The Book of Daniel,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, p. 452.

330 G. H. Lang argues at length that “the great sea” is the Mediterranean, citing a large number of Scripture references (Num 34:6-7; Jos 1:4; 9:1; 15:11-12; 15:47; 23:4; Eze 47:10, 15, 19, 20; 48:28). He concludes that the disturbance symbolized by the beast coming out of the sea prophesies that the origin of action would be the Mediterranean. This is, at least, a plausible interpretation (George Henry Lang, The Histories and Prophecies of Daniel, pp. 86-89).

Keil, p. 222.

331 Ibid.

332 Ibid., pp. 222-23.

333 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, pp. 284-85.

334 For a study of the prophecies concerning Babylon, see Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy, pp. 61-69.

335 Leupold, p. 287.

336 Rowley, p. 67.

337 Ibid.

338 Ibid.

339 The radical textual emendations of H. 50:Ginsberg (Studies in Daniel, chap. 2, pp. 5 ff.), have been successfully disposed of by H. H. Rowley (“The Unity of the Book of Daniel,” in Hebrew Union College Annual 23:233-73, and The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament, pp. 250 ff.).

340 Leupold, pp. 289-90.

341 For a summary of the biblical references to and prophecies about the Medo-Persian empire, see Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy, pp. 70-75.

342 Montgomery, p. 283.

343 Rowley, Darius the Mede, pp. 138-60.

344 R. H. Charles, The Book of Daniel, p. 68.

345 Rowley, pp. 144-45.

346 Ibid., pp. 145-46.

347 S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel, p. 82.

348 Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, p. 74.

349 E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, p. 145.

350 Leupold, p. 292.

351 For a summary of Daniel’s prophecies about Greece, see Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy, pp. 76-82.

352 Young, pp. 145-46.

353 J. Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, 2:18-19; Jerome, p. 75.

354 Keil, p. 293.

355 Young, p. 146.

356 Leupold, p. 287.

357 For a summary of the history of Rome, see Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy, pp. 83-87.

358 Rowley, p. 71.

359 Ibid., p. 93.

360 Leupold, pp. 297-98.

361 Young, p. 293.

362 Cf. ibid.

363 Cf. ibid., p. 290.

364 Cf. Young, pp. 275-94; and Leupold, pp. 298-99.

365 Young, pp. 148-50.

366 Leupold, p. 308.

367 G. 50:Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, p. 384.

368 A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel, p. 77.

369 Leupold, p. 305.

370 Young, p. 152.

371 Rowley, p. 87.

372 Montgomery, p. 302.

373 Driver, p. 87.

374 N. W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, p. 110.

375 Driver, p. 88.

376 Cf. Young, p. 154; and Leupold, p. 307.

377 Driver, p. 88.

378 Keil, p. 236.

379 Young, p. 155; Montgomery, pp. 317-24.

380 The Jewish apocryphal Book of Enoch, which is earlier than Jude, attests that the term refers to an individual. See the excellent footnote in the Jerusalem Bible at Daniel 7:13 (p. 1437, O.T.) and Matthew 8:20 (p. 27, N.T.).

Young, pp. 155-56.

381 Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 2:1441.

382 Ibid., p. 1458.

383 Leupold, pp. 313-14.

384 Keil, pp. 237-39.

385 Driver, p. 89; Montgomery, p. 306.

386 Driver, p. 89.

387 Charles, p. 79.

388 Ibid.

389 T. H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures, p. 275.

390 Young, p. 157.

391 Montgomery, p. 307.

392 Young, p. 158.

393 Montgomery, p. 309.

394 Ibid.; Driver, p. 91.

395 Keil, p. 240.

396 Driver, p. 92; cf. also Montgomery, pp. 311-12.

397 Montgomery, p. 312.

398 Ibid., p. 316.

399 Ibid.

400 Rowley, Darius the Mede, p. 70.

401 Ibid., p. 71.

5. The Day of the Lord

Article contributed by www.walvoord.com

1 Thessalonians 5:1-11

1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 deals with the subject of the Day of the Lord. The Bible indicates that tremendous events are ahead for the world. Gathered under the expression “the day of the Lord” is a large group of prophetic events predicted in both the Old and the New Testaments. The subject of the translation of the church revealed in Chapter 4 of 1 Thessalonians, however, is never mentioned in the Old Testament. There is no reference in the Old Testament to saints being raptured, taken from earth to heaven without dying. There are many references to Christ coming back to the earth and of resurrection from the dead, but no rapture, no translation in the Old Testament, except by way of illustration in the cases of Elijah and Enoch.

What Is the Day of the Lord?

In considering the Day of the Lord, we at once are plunged into a tremendous Old Testament doctrine, a doctrine that covers many pages in the Old Testament. Before examining the Scriptural revelation, it is necessary to determine precisely what this expression, “the day of the Lord” means. We say that the present age is the day of grace. We do not mean that there was no grace shown by God in the previous dispensations. Obviously, many of God’s dealings with man from the Garden of Eden down to the present day have manifested the grace of God. But God in this present age has especially singled out the doctrine of grace for display, revealing grace as a basis for salvation and for our Christian life. Grace speaks of God’s unmerited favor to us through Christ who loved us and who died for us. The Scriptures picture that after this day of grace has come to its close, which may be simultaneous with the translation of the church, the Day of the Lord will begin.

The Day of the Lord is a period of time in which God will deal with wicked men directly and dramatically in fearful judgment. Today a man may be a blasphemer of God, an atheist, can denounce God and teach bad doctrine. Seemingly God does nothing about it. But the day designated in Scripture as “the day of the Lord” is coming when God will punish human sin, and He will deal in wrath and in judgment with a Christ-rejecting world. One thing we are sure of, that God in His own way will bring every soul into judgment.

The word day is used in the Bible in various ways. Sometimes it is used to refer to daylight; for instance, the hours between dawn and sunset. Sometimes it is used to refer to a twenty-four hour day. The Jewish day began at sunset and continued to the next day at sunset. That also is referred to as a day. Sometimes the word day is used in the Bible as a period of time, just as we use it in English. We speak of the day of our youth; what do we mean by that? We do not mean that we were young only one day, but we mean the extended period of time in which we were young. In 1 Thessalonians 5 the Day of the Lord is used in the sense of an extended period of time, but having the characteristics of a twenty-four hour day. That is, it is a day which begins at midnight or in the darkness, advancing to dawn and then daylight. It will close again with another period of darkness after daylight has passed. That apparently is the symbolism involved in the Day of the Lord. A few sample passages, out of literally dozens of them in the Old Testament, will give the general content of this period.

The Day of the Lord in the Old Testament

The prophecy of Isaiah 13:9-11 speaks for itself: “Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.” In other words, there will be a great and dramatic judgment, manifest in the physical world, which will interfere with the light of the sun, moon, and stars. God will put down the proud and deal with the sinners. It is a time of judgment.

The same thought is found in Zephaniah 1:14-16: “The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, a day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers.” This passage continues in the same strain. The Day of the Lord, according to the Old Testament, is a time of God’s judgment and a time of God’s dealing with the world in its sin.

The Day of the Lord is also a time of deliverance and blessing for Israel. The millennium—the whole kingdom reign of Christ on earth—in which Christ personally directs the government of the world, is also included in the Day of the Lord. In Zephaniah 3:14-15, by way of illustration, there is a picture of Israel’s blessing in that day, obviously following the time of judgment: “Sing, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with all the heart, O daughter of Jerusalem. The Lord hath taken away thy judgments, he hath cast out thine enemy; the king of Israel, even the Lord, is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more.” The passage here sets forth the praise and joy and rejoicing of Israel in the millennium. The Day of the Lord, as revealed in the Old Testament, indicates first a time of wrath and judgment upon a wicked and Christ-rejecting world which is followed by a time of peace in which Christ shall be in the midst of the earth and will rule over the earth and bring blessing to the nation Israel. The millennium will end with another night of judgment (Rev. 20:9-15).

The Day of Wrath

The truth concerning the coming of Christ for His church is revealed in 1 Thessalonians 4. The question which is answered in 1 Thessalonians 5 is “What relationship has the coming of Christ to the Day of the Lord?” In verse 1, accordingly, Paul writes: “But of the times and seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.” The word time here is a translation of the Greek word from which we get our word chronology. Of the time—the general chronology, and of the seasons—the particular time—he states he has no need to write unto them. In other words, they had already been instructed, first, concerning the general time when Christ would come and, second, concerning the particular time. In a word, it is this: the general time can be known, but the particular time cannot. That is the point of his message.

In verses 2 and 3 he says: “For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.” The Day of the Lord is described as a day of wrath, which is a very important point. Compare this passage with the sixth chapter of Revelation which is about the time of the beginning of the great tribulation. This portion of Scripture is also similar to what Isaiah and Zephaniah said about the day of judgment in the Day of the Lord. Is not this the same period?

Revelation 6:12-14 states: “And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood, and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.” This is exactly the same thought and is also a warning of judgment upon men.

In Revelation 6:16-17 we learn that the wicked cry out and say “to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?” Isaiah said it was a day of wrath; Zephaniah said it was a day of wrath; Revelation 6 says it is a day of wrath. In other words, the picture we have here of the great tribulation—the time of trouble on the earth—is identical to the picture of the Old Testament revelation of the beginning of the Day of the Lord.

Relation to Coming of the Lord

The question is: “How does the coming of Christ for His church relate itself to the Day of the Lord which precedes the second coming of Christ by a number of years?” This Day of the Lord will come suddenly and unexpectedly. What is the point? The point is that just as the translation of the church is the end of the day of grace it also marks the beginning of the Day of the Lord. In other words, the one event seems to do two things: it serves as the closing of one day and the beginning of the other. If that is true, it gives us some very positive and definite teaching along the line that the church will be taken out of the world before the day of trial and trouble overtakes the world. Paul is telling the Thessalonians that the Day of the Lord is going to come, and this follows immediately the passage which dealt with the coming of Christ for His church. In 1 Thessalonians 5 it is revealed that the Day of the Lord comes suddenly and unexpectedly. It is described: “the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.” A thief in the night comes unheralded. There are no signs that pertain to a thief.

Unexpected by the World

The judgment will come when the world is expecting peace and safety—just the opposite of the time of trouble which is predicted. At the time of the beginning of the Day of the Lord there will be some evidence for peace. Apparently the world situation at the beginning of the Day of the Lord will provide a false basis for peace. This may be accomplished by a strengthened “United Nations” or world organization. This state of peace is quite in contrast, however, to the revealed situation at the second coming. Then the armies of the world will be drawn in battle array at Armageddon. The world will be engaged in a gigantic military struggle then. But at the beginning of the Day of the Lord they will be saying “Peace and safety.” In that very time sudden destruction comes. In the Greek New Testament the word sudden is emphasized. That event will not be preceded by signs, that is, there will be no warning. There will be no possibility of escape. The illustration given is that of travail coming suddenly upon a woman with child. It will be God’s divine, unescapable judgment upon those who are “in darkness.” The beginning of the Day of the Lord is clearly not the second coming of Christ. It is rather begun much before this and may begin at once when the day of grace closes with the translation of the church.

Day of the Lord Does Not Overtake Christians

How are Christians related to this judgment? Verse 4 states: “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.” Christians, of course, do not know when the Day of the Lord is coming either. As far as expectation is concerned, they are in the dark about it. Christ could come today and the Day of the Lord would follow, but no one can set the day. It is unexpected in this sense for us. What does He mean then by the statement, “ye …are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief”?

The best explanation is that we will not be here. When the Day of the Lord comes, we will be in glory. “Ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.” In other words, we belong to a different dispensation, to a different day. We belong to the day of grace. Why should a child of God’s grace—who is saved by grace, who is kept by grace, who has all the wonderful promises of God—be forced to go through a period which according to Scripture is expressly designed as a time of judgment upon a Christ-rejecting world? We belong to the day; they belong to the night. The passage continues: “Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.”

Application of the Truth

In verse 5 the doctrinal section rs brought to its close. Verses 1-5 have revealed that the Day of the Lord will come suddenly as a destruction upon the wicked, but we as Christians will have no part in it because we do not belong to that period of time. In verses 6-11 Paul makes the application. All true prophetic teaching has an application. The study of prophecy is not just for prophecy’s sake. God has taught us concerning future things because He wants us to be informed and, being informed, to be better Christians. One of the reasons for presenting the doctrine of the imminent return of Christ is that it is an impelling motive to be living for Him every day. There is no better reason for working for Christ, apart from real love for Him, than the motive that we may see Him today. It makes a tremendous difference whether Christ is coming now or whether our prospect is that we will go through the tribulation and our only hope of seeing Him without dying would be to go through that awful time of trouble. The imminency of the Lord’s return is a precious truth.

On the basis of this hope an exhortation is given, based upon the imminency of the Lord’s return: “Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.” The word sober in the original means exactly what is meant by it in English. It is the word for not being intoxicated. We are so prone to be intoxicated, not necessarily by liquor but by the stimulants of the world — its glamour, pleasures, and appearance. Paul’s message to these Thessalonian Christians reveals also that we should be watching for the coming of the Lord. If we realize the solemnity of the event for us and for those who will be left behind, how earnestly it should make us watch and be sober! How we should be diligent in our Christian life and profession because of the imminent coming of Christ!

Faith, Hope, Love

Paul goes on to plead his case: “They that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.” That is the world’s life. “But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.” In Chapter 1 mention was made of these same three things—faith, love, and hope. In 1:3 Paul reminds the Thessalonians of their labor of love, and their work of faith, and patience of hope. In 1 Corinthians, Chapter 13, the same triad is found— faith, hope, and love. On the basis of our being “of the day,” we are to go on in the faith for the Lord. We are to put on the breastplate of faith and love, the best possible protection for spiritual battles. In addition, we should put on’ ‘for an helmet, the hope of salvation.”

Not Appointed to Wrath

In verse 9 it is stated: “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.” In this passage he is expressly saying that our appointment is to be caught up to be with Christ; the appointment of the world is for the Day of the Lord, the day of wrath. One cannot keep both of these appointments. Certainly, there will be some after the church is gone who will turn to Christ, and in Revelation 7 it is stated that there will be an innumerable company of martyrs. Many will be saved after the church has gone to heaven, but they will experience the awfulness of that period. As the wrath of God is poured upon the earth, it will involve them too.

When an atom bomb explodes over a city in the tribulation, it will kill believers as well as those who are not. They will participate in the awful trials and troubles of that day, and the reason they will be subjected to these things is that they were not ready for Christ when He came for His church. They had not trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ at that time. But you and I who have trusted Him, who have believed in Christ as our personal Savior, are not appointed to that day of wrath. We are appointed unto the day of grace to meet Christ in the air and to be forever with the Lord. This passage of Scripture teaches that Christ is coming for His church before the Day of the Lord begins, before the day of trouble pictured in Revelation and all through the Bible overtakes the world. We are not appointed to wrath, but to salvation.

Appointed to Salvation

The passage explains the basis for this. In that day, in connection with our faith in Christ, we will have obtained “salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. Wherefore, comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.” In other words, whether we “wake,” that is, are living in the world at the time the Lord comes, or whether we “sleep” and our bodies have been laid in the grave, though our spirits have gone to heaven, when Christ comes back for His church there will be a wonderful reunion— both a translation of the living saints and a resurrection from the dead. It is all based on the hope of the death of Christ. Some think that only very spiritual Christians are going to be raptured, including of course those who hold this theory. Most of us would like to meet some of these specially spiritual folks. We may know many very fine Christians, but have we ever found one yet who was perfect? No, not yet. If our being translated depended upon our perfection, all of us would be required to go through the tribulation. If, on the other hand, our being raptured depends on the death and the resurrection of Christ as this picture indicates, then every true believer in Christ who has trusted in Him as his sacrifice for sin and as his God and his Savior will be translated when Christ comes and will go home to glory with the Lord and with the loved ones who have gone on before.

The Exhortation

On the basis of this wonderful prospect, we should “comfort” one another and encourage one another in the faith, “even as also ye do.” As we look forward to the coming of the Lord, may it not only be a part of our theology and of our hope, but may it be the mainspring of our Christian life and testimony. If today is the last day on earth before Christ comes, may it be a day that is well spent in God’s service for His glory and for the testimony of the truth!

Questions

    1. What is the meaning of the expression “the day of the Lord”?

    2. To what extent is the Day of the Lord a day of wrath?

    3. How does the Day of the Lord relate to the rapture?

    4. Why does the Day of the Lord overtake the world as a surprise but does not overtake Christians as a surprise?

    5. What exhortations does Paul give on the basis of the truth of the coming of the Day of the Lord?

    6. Relate the words faith, love, and hope in Chapter 5 with Chapter 1.

    7. How do you explain that Christians are not appointed to wrath and how does this relate to the question of whether Christians will be on earth during the Day of the Lord?

    8. How does Paul relate to our comfort the fact that Christians will not enter the Day of the Lord?


8. The Vision Of The Ram And The Goat

Article contributed by www.walvoord.com

Two important factors mark Daniel 8 as the beginning of a new section. First, beginning with this chapter, the language returns to Hebrew instead of the Aramaic used by Daniel from 2:4 through 7:28. Second, the change of language is in keeping with the change in thought introduced by this chapter. From here to the end of Daniel, the prophecy, even though it concerns the Gentiles, is occupied with human history as it relates to Israel. Therefore, although many expositors divide the book of Daniel into two halves (1-6 and 7-12), there are also good reasons for dividing Daniel into three sections (1, 2-7, 8-12).402

The first of Daniel’s own visions recorded in Daniel 7 is a broad summary of the times of the Gentiles, with emphasis on the climactic events culminating in the second coming of Christ to the earth. Beginning in chapter 8, Daniel’s second vision concerns the empires of Persia and Greece as they relate to Israel. Under Persian government, Israelites went back to rebuild their land and their city, Jerusalem. Under Grecian domination, in particular under Antiochus Epiphanes, the city and the temple were again desolated. Daniel 9 presents Israel’s history from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah to the inauguration of the kingdom from heaven at the second coming of Christ immediately preceded by the time of great trouble for Israel. Chapters 10-11 reveal the events relating the Persian and Greek Empires to Israel, with emphasis on the Gentile oppression of Israel. The final section, 11:36—12:13, deals with the end of the age, the period of the revived Roman Empire, and the deliverance of Israel. It is fitting that the last five chapters of Daniel should be written in Hebrew, the language of Israel.

The Vision at Shushan

8:1-2 In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first. And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.

The second vision of Daniel occurred, according to verse 1, “in the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar,” in other words, about two years after the vision of chapter 7. Because it took place in the reign of Belshazzar, it is clear that both chapter 7 and 8 chronologically occur before chapter 5, the night of Belshazzar’s feast. Before archeological discoveries confirmed the historical character of Belshazzar, it was common for critical expositors to conclude that the events of chapter 8 occurred immediately before chapter 5. Some recent expositors also follow this interpretation, although there is no ground for it. For instance, A. C. Gaebelein states, “It was the year when the feast of blasphemy was held and Babylon fell. Then God took His faithful servant aside and revealed to him new things concerning the future.”403 Edward Young assumes without evidence the same chronology, stating, “At any rate, this vision occurred shortly before the events of the fatal night of ch. 5.”404 Zockler also places this chapter “shortly before the end of this king [Belshazzar].”405

On the basis of The Babylonian Chronicle, it is now known that Nabonidus began his reign in 556 b.c, and apparently Belshazzar became co-regent three years later, 553 b.c, when Nabonidus took residence at Teima, as brought out in chapter 5. Belshazzar previously had served in other royal capacities beginning 560 b.c. Accordingly, if the vision of chapter 7 occurred in 553 b.c, the vision of chapter 8 occurred in 551 b.c, or twelve years before Belshazzar’s feast in chapter 5. There is, therefore, no support for placing Daniel 8 near the downfall of Babylon as was the customary chronology before The Babylonian Chronicle was discovered. A. L. Oppenheim points out that Belshazzar was officially recognized as coregent while also the crown prince. He cites two legal documents dated in the twelfth and thirteenth years of Nabonidus, the king, and Bel-shar-usur, a variation of Belshazzar, the crown prince, for which there is no parallel in cuneiform literature.406 This confirms beyond question both the role of Belshazzar as coregent and the dating of this vision before 539 b.c, the date of Belshazzar’s death, and indicates the probability of the year 551 b.c as the date of the vision as the sixth year of Nabonidus as well as the third year of Belshazzar.

The vision of chapter 8 is somewhat different in character from that of chapter 7, as it apparently did not occur in a dream or in a night vision. As Young correctly says, “This vision was not a dream vision like that of ch. 7.”407 Keil says in a similar way, “But not in a dream as that was, but while he was awake.”408 Daniel is careful to distinguish not only the character of the vision but its time by adding “after that which appeared unto me at the first,” that is, the vision of chapter 7.

Although this much is clear, expositors have differed widely as to whether Daniel was in the palace at Shushan in the province of Elam, by the river Ulai (as 5:2 indicates) or was transported there in vision and actually was in Babylon at the time. Ancient Susa (called Shushan in the King James Version), about 150 miles north of the present head of the Persian Gulf, was situated midway between Ecbatana and Persepolio, and later became one of the main residences of the Persian kings. According to Josephus, Daniel was actually in Elam.409 Keil notes that Bertholdt and Rosenmuller interpret Daniel as stating that he is actually in Shushan (Susa). He also notes that Bertholdt uses this to substantiate a charge of error against the pseudo-Daniel.410

Most expositors, whether liberal or conservative, understand Daniel 8 to teach that Daniel was actually in Babylon and in vision only was transported to Shushan. Montgomery cites the overwhelming weight of scholarship on this point that Daniel was there only in vision, which is supported by the Syriac version and the Vulgate, and held by John Calvin and many contemporary writers.411 Ezekiel also was transported in vision, presumably (Eze 8:3; 40:1 ff.).

The question as to whether Babylon at this time controlled ancient Susa is debated but is beside the point; in any case, in the vision Daniel is projected forward into the prophetic future of the Persian and Grecian Empires.

The probability is that Babylon did not control this city or area at this time, and this perhaps accounts for Daniel’s astonishment as he contemplated the vision to find that he was in this place rather than at Babylon. The expression Shushan the palace reoccurs in historical sections dealing with the Persian Empire (Neh 1:1; Est 1:2, 5; 2:3, 5). By the palace is probably meant the king’s residence, which was more in the form of a castle or fortress than merely a luxurious building. Shushan the palace, nevertheless, was destined in the Persian Empire to become the capital rather than Babylon. This was unknown at the time that this vision was given to Daniel, although Susa had served as the capital of the Elamites in antiquity; and conservative scholars find a genuine prophetic prediction in this reference to Susa.

Daniel finds it necessary to define in particular the location of this city, something a second-century pseudo-Daniel would not have had to do. Some critics have attempted to prove that Daniel was in error because Elam was probably not a province of Babylon at that time; however, Daniel does not literally say that it was.412 Daniel also mentions that he was by “the river of Ulai.” In regard to this stream near ancient Susa, Montgomery states, “The Ulai can best be identified with an artificial canal which connected the rivers Choastes and Coprates and ran close by Susa.”413

In a word, Daniel finds himself projected in vision to a town little known at that time and unsuspected for future grandeur, but yet destined to be the important capital of Persia, the home of Esther, and the city from which Nehemiah came to Jerusalem. Beginning in 1884, the site of ancient Susa, then a large mound, has been explored and has divulged many archeological treasures. The code of Hammurabi was found there in 1901. The famous palace referred to by Daniel, Esther and Nehemiah was begun by Darius I and enlarged by later kings. Remains of its magnificence can still be seen near the modern village of Shush.414 This unusual setting described in detail by Daniel in the opening verses of the eighth chapter now becomes the stage on which a great drama is portrayed in symbol describing the conquests of the second and third empires.

The Ram with the Two Horns

8:3-4 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.

Daniel, in his vision, sees a ram with two horns which are unequal, one higher than the other, and the higher one growing out of the ram last. As Daniel watches, he sees the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward; but no mention is made of pushing toward the east. No other beast is found to stand before the ram nor was anyone, whether man or beast, able to deliver from his power. As Daniel summarizes it, the ram does according to his will and becomes great.

The interpretation is provided in Daniel 8:20 that the ram is Medo-Persia, with the two horns representing its major kings. The fact that the ram represents both the Median and Persian Empires in their combined states rather than as separate empires is another important proof that the critics are wrong. The critics attempt to prove, on the basis of the reference to Darius the Mede, that Daniel erroneously taught two empires, first a Median and then a Persian. This, of course, is contradicted by history; and critics use this in attempt to prove Daniel in error. The critics, however, attribute to Daniel what he does not teach; and the problem is their own faulty interpretation. As Young puts it, “Neither here or elsewhere does Dan. conceive of an independently existing Median empire.”415 Historically, it was the combination of the Medes and the Persians which proved irresistible for almost two hundred years, until Alexander the Great came on the scene.416

The portrayal of the two horns representing the two major aspects of the Medo-Persian Empire, that is, the Medes and the Persians, is very accurate, as the Persians coming up last and represented by the higher horn were also the more prominent and powerful. The directions which represent the conquests of the ram include all except east. Although Persia did expand to the east, its principal movement was to the west, north and south. It is the accuracy of this portrayal, rather than any alleged inaccuracy, which is embarrassing to the critic who does not want to accept a sixth-century Daniel who wrote genuine prophecy.

In regard to the use of a ram to represent that great empire, Keil observes, “In the Bundehesch the guardian spirit of the Persian kingdom appears under the form of a ram with clean feet and sharp-pointed horns, and… the Persian king, when he stood at the head of his army, bore, instead of the diadem, the head of a ram.”417 The references to beasts, as Keil states, “represent kingdoms and nations.”418

Not only are both the ram and the goat mentioned in the Old Testament as symbols of power, but Cumont has noted that different lands were assigned to the signs of the Zodiac according to astronomical geography. In this view, Persia is thought of as under the zodiacal sign of Aries, the “ram,” and Greece as sharing with Syria, the principal territory of the Seleucid monarchy, the zodiacal sign of Capricorn, the “goat.” The word Capricorn is derived from the Latin, caper, a goat and cornu, a horn.419 Taken as a whole, as Driver states, “The verse describes the irresistible advances of the Persian arms, especially in the direction of Palestine, Asia Minor, and Egypt, with particular allusion to the conquests of Cyrus and Cambyses.”420

The He Goat from the West

8:5-7 And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.

Interpreters of Daniel 8 are generally agreed that the he goat or literally, “buck of the goats,”421 represents the king of Greece, and more particularly the single important horn between its eyes, as also stated in Daniel 8:21, is “the first king,” that is, Alexander the Great. All the facts about this goat and his activities obviously anticipate the dynamic role of Alexander. Like Alexander, the he goat comes “from the west on the face of the whole earth,” that is, his conquests beginning in Greece move east and cover the entire territory. The implication in the vision, where it states that the he goat “touched not the ground,” is the impression of tremendous speed, which characterized the conquest of Alexander. The unusual horn, one large horn instead of the normal two, symbolically represents the single leadership provided by Alexander.

As Daniel considers, the he goat attacks the ram. The ram is identified with the one seen earlier in the vision as standing before the river. An unusual feature of the attack by the he goat is that it is accomplished “in the fury of his power.” There was considerable feeling based upon the historical background in which the Persians had attacked Greece earlier in history. Now it was time for Greek retaliation against the Persians. The goat accordingly “moved with choler against him,” that is, “in great anger,” and butting the ram, breaks the ram’s two horns. This symbolically refers to the disintegration of the Medo-Persian Empire with the result that the ram had no power to stand before the he goat. The contest ends with the he goat casting the ram to the ground and stamping upon it.

All of this, of course, was fulfilled dramatically in history. The forces of Alexander first met and defeated the Persians at the Granicus River in Asia Minor in May 334 B.C., which was the beginning of the complete conquest of the entire Persian Empire. A year and a half later a battle occurred at Issus (November 333 b.c.) near the northeastern tip of the Mediterranean Sea. The power of Persia was finally broken at Gaugamela near Nineveh in October 331 b.c.422

There is no discrepancy between history, which records a series of battles, and Daniel’s representation that the Persian Empire fell with one blow. Daniel is obviously describing the result rather than the details.423 That the prophecy is accurate, insofar as it goes, most expositors concede. Here again, the correspondence of the prophecy to later history is so accurate that liberal critics attempt to make it history instead of prophecy.

The divine view of Greece is less complimentary than that of secular historians. Tarn gives high praise of Alexander, for instance: “He [Alexander] was one of the supreme fertilizing forces in history. He lifted the civilized world out of one groove and set it in another; he started a new epoch; nothing could again be as it had been… Particularism was replaced by the idea of the ‘inhabited world,’ the common possession of civilized men… Greek culture, heretofore practically confined to Greeks, spread throughout the world; and for the use of its inhabitants, in place of the many dialects of Greece, there grew up the form of Greek known as the koine, the ‘common speech.’”424 Porteous comments on Tarn’s praise, “Not a glimmer of all this appears in the book of Daniel.”425 God’s view is different from man’s.

The Great Horn Broken

8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

As Daniel contemplates in his vision the triumph of the he goat, an unexpected development takes place. The great horn between the eyes of the he goat is broken just when the he goat has reached the pinnacle of its strength. Out of this grows four notable horns described as being “toward the four winds of heaven.” Expositors, both liberal and conservative, have interpreted this verse as representing the untimely death of Alexander and the division of his empire into four major sections. Alexander, who had conquered more of the world than any previous ruler, was not able to conquer himself. Partly due to a strenuous exertion, his dissipated life, and a raging fever, Alexander died in a drunken debauch at Babylon, not yet thirty-three years of age. His death left a great conquest without an effective single leader, and it took about twenty years for the empire to be successfully divided.

Practically all commentators, however, recognize the four horns as symbolic of the four kingdoms of the Diadochi which emerged as follows: (1) Cassander assumed rule over Macedonia and Greece; (2) Lysimacus took control of Thrace, Bithynia, and most of Asia Minor; (3) Seleucus took Syria and the lands to the east including Babylonia; (4) Ptolemy established rule over Egypt and possibly Palestine and Arabia Petraea.426 A fifth contender for political power, Antigonus, was soon defeated. Thus, with remarkable accuracy, Daniel in his prophetic vision predicts that the empire of Alexander was divided into four divisions, not three or less or five or more.

The Emergence of the Little Horn

8:9-10 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

While there is comparatively little disagreement as to the identity of the ram and the he goat, practically all the controversy over this vision has centered on the meaning of the little horn described in verses 9 and 10. According to Daniel’s account, the little horn emerges from one of the four notable horns mentioned in verse 8. The horn, small in the beginning, grows “exceeding great” in three directions: toward the south, toward the east and toward the pleasant land. The implication is that the point of reference is Syria, that “the south” is equal to Egypt, and “the east,” in the direction of ancient Medo-Persia or Armenia, and “the pleasant land,” or “glorious land” referring to Palestine or Canaan, which lay between Syria and Egypt. The original for “pleasant land” actually means “beauty,” with the word for ‘land” supplied from Daniel 11 (cf. Dan 11:16, 41, 45; Jer 3:19; Eze 20:6, 15; Mai 3:12). Actually, the meaning here may be Jerusalem in particular rather than the land in general.

These conquests, of course, are confirmed in the history of Syria, especially under Antiochus Epiphanes, the eighth king in the Syrian dynasty who reigned 175-164 B.C. (1 Mace 1:10; 6:16). In his lifetime, he conducted military expeditions in relation to all of these areas. Montgomery considers the expression “toward the pleasant land” as a gloss “which is absurd when aligned with the given points of the compass, in which the book is remarkably accurate.”427 There is no justification for this deletion from the text, however, as from Daniel’s viewpoint in this whole section, the important question is how the times of the Gentiles relate to Israel. The land of Israel indeed became the battle ground between Syria and Egypt, and the setting of some of Antiochus Epiphanes’ most significant blasphemous acts against God. According to 1 Maccabees 1:20, Revised Standard Version, Antiochus first invaded Egypt and then Jerusalem: “after subduing Egypt, Antiochus returned in the one hundred and forty-third year. He went up against Israel and came to Jerusalem with a strong force.”

As a result of his military conquests, the little horn, representing Antiochus Epiphanes, is said to grow great “even to the host of heaven.” He is pictured as casting some of the host and of the stars to the ground and stamping upon them. This difficult prophecy has aroused many technical discussions as that of Montgomery which extends over several pages.428 If the mythological explanations such as identifying stars with heathen gods or the seven planets is discarded and this is considered genuine prophecy, probably the best explanation is that this prophecy relates to the persecution and destruction of the people of God with its defiance of the angelic hosts who are their protectors, including the power of God Himself. As Leupold says, “That stars should signify God’s holy people is not strange when one considers as a background the words that were spoken to Abraham concerning the numerical increase of the people of God, Gen. 15:5; 22:17. To this may be added Dan. 12:3, where a starlike glory is held out to those who “turn many to righteousness.” Compare also Matt. 13:43. If the world calls those men and women stars who excel in one or another department of human activity, why should not a similar statement be still more appropriate with reference to God’s people?”429 Leupold considers the host and the stars in apposition, that is, “the host even the stars.” That Antiochus blasphemed God and heavenly power as well as persecuted the people of Israel, the people of God, is all too evident from history. Even Driver states, “The stars are intended to symbolize the faithful Israelites: cf. Enoch 46:7.”430

The Desolation of the Sanctuary

8:11-14 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Up to Daniel 8:11, it is not difficult to find fulfillment of the vision in the history of the Medo-Persian, Alexandrian, and post-Alexandrian periods. Beginning with verse 11, however, expositors have differed widely as to whether the main import of the passage refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, with complete fulfillment in his lifetime, or whether the passage either primarily or secondarily refers also to the end of the age, that is, the period of great tribulation preceding the second coming of Jesus Christ. The divergence of interpretation is so wide as to be confusing to the student of Daniel. As Montgomery states, verses 11 and 12 “constitute … the most difficult short passage of the bk.”431

If the many divergent views can be simplified, they fall into three general classifications. First, the critical view that Daniel was a second-century forgery written by a pseudo-Daniel regards this prophecy as simply history written after the fact and completely fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes. This, of course, has been rejected by the great majority of conservative scholars. Second, the view that this is genuine sixth-century B.C. prophecy, but completely fulfilled historically in Antiochus Epiphanes. Edward J. Young is strongly in favor of this interpretation432 and speaks in general for many amillenarians who are conservative interpreters. Third, the view that the prophecy is genuine prediction fulfilled historically in the second century B.C., but typical and anticipatory of the final conflict between God and Gentile rulers at the time of the persecution of Israel prior to the second advent of Christ. The third view sometimes confuses the prophetic and typical interpretations or attempts to find dual fulfillment literally of both aspects of the prophecy. The ultimate decision must rest not simply on verses 11 through 14 but on the interpretation of the prophecy given in verses 20-26.

According to verse 11, the little horn, fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes historically, magnifies himself even to the prince of the host. By this is meant that he exalted himself up to the point of claiming divine honor, as brought out in his name Epiphanes which refers to glorious manifestation such as belonged to God. His pretentions are similar to the little horn of Daniel 7:8, 20. Antiochus, however, obviously also directed blasphemous opposition against God Himself and to this extent magnified himself against God as well as reaching toward the glory and honor belonging to God.

As a specific illustration and supreme act manifesting this attitude, it is stated that he took away the daily offerings and desecrated the sanctuary. “By him,” in verse 11, is literally, “from him,” that is, from God. By this is meant that Antiochus stopped the morning and evening sacrifices, taking away from God what were daily tokens of Israel’s worship.433 The expression daily sacrifices, from the Hebrew tamid, which means “constant,” applies to the daily offerings (cf. Ex 29:38 ff.; Num 28:3 ff.). Young, accordingly, feels that it should not be restricted to the morning and evening sacrifices, but that it included all the offerings customarily offered in the temple services.434

This is brought out in 1 Maccabees 1:44-49, referring to the command of Antiochus Epiphanes to depart from the worship of the law of Moses, “And the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane Sabbaths and feasts, to defile the sanctuary and the priests, to build altars in sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and unclean animals, and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane, so that they should forget the law and change all the ordinances. And whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die” (RSV).

Although it is not necessary to take the expression “the place of his sanctuary was cast down” as meaning destruction by Antiochus of the temple itself, it is of interest that in 1 Maccabees 4:42 ff., in connection with the cleansing of the sanctuary, they literally tore down the altar and built a new one, “they also rebuilt the sanctuary and the interior of the temple, and consecrated the courts” (1 Mace 4:48). As Young comments, “Apparently Antiochus did not actually tear down the temple, although eventually he desecrated it to such a point that it was hardly fit for use.”435

The obvious parallel between the cessation of the daily sacrifice by Antiochus Epiphanes and that anticipated in Daniel 9:27, which occurs three and one-half years before the second coming of Christ, has led some expositors to find here evidence for reference to the end of the age and not simply to Antiochus. As far as this prophecy is concerned, however, it did have complete fulfillment in Antiochus.

Verse 12 is a recapitulation of Antiochus Epiphanes’ activities against God. The statement that an host was given him apparently refers to the fact that the people of Israel were under his power with divine permission. The phrase against the daily sacrifice can be translated “with the daily sacrifice,” that is, the daily sacrifices were also in his power and he was able to substitute a heathen worship. The phrase by reason of transgression should be understood as an extension of this, that is, the daily sacrifices are given in his power in order to permit him to transgress against God. The result is that Antiochus “cast down the truth to the ground,” that is, the truth of the law of Moses, practiced his activities, and seemingly prospered. Although the translation of this verse is very difficult, conservative scholars generally interpret it to mean that the people of Israel along with their worship are given over to the power of Antiochus Epiphanes with the resulting transgression and blasphemy against God. The extent of departure from the law is indicated in 1 Maccabees 1:44-49 Revised Standard Version.

Having described the nefarious activities of Antiochus Epiphanes, Daniel now records a conversation between two “saints” or “holy ones,” apparently angels, concerning the duration of the desecration of the sanctuary. The question is “How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden underfoot?”

The answer given in verse 14 has touched off almost endless exegetical controversy. Daniel is informed that the answer to the riddle is “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” The answer is said to be given “unto me,” that is, to Daniel rather than to the other angel. Obviously these angels are brought in for Daniel’s benefit and the result is that Daniel hears the answer. The interpretation and fulfillment of this passage is to some extent the crux of this entire chapter.

The Seventh Day Adventists understood that the two thousand and three hundred days referred to years which, on the basis of their interpretation, were to culminate in the year 1844 with the second coming of Christ.436 The year-day theory for all practical purposes was excluded by the fact that Christ did not come in 1844 in any real fulfillment of the anticipation of this interpretation.

If the twenty-three hundred days are to be considered as days, instead of years, two basic alternatives are offered. Many have taken this as twenty-three hundred twenty-four hour days. Because the days are related to the cessation of the evening and morning sacrifices, another theory was that the phrase actually referred to eleven hundred and fifty days, that is, twenty-three hundred evenings and mornings as set forth by Ephraim of Syria and Hippolytus.437

Obviously, the interpretation of this difficult time period is determined largely by the expositor’s desire to find fulfillment either in history or in parallel prophecies concerning the future. Generally, expositors even of differing schools of eschatological interpretation follow the idea that these are twenty-three hundred literal days. The concept that the period in view is eleven hundred and fifty days also is taken by some to coincide with the three and one-half years of the great tribulation predicted in Daniel 9:27 and elsewhere, even though there is a discrepancy of over one hundred days.

Keil, in his discussion extending over nine pages, concludes,

A Hebrew reader could not possibly understand the period of 2300 evening-mornings of 2300 half days or 1150 whole days, because evening and morning at the creation constituted not the half but the whole day. Still less, in the designation of time, ‘till 2300 evening-mornings,’ could ‘evening-mornings’ be understood of the evening and morning sacrifices, and the words be regarded as meaning that till 1150 evening sacrifices and 1150 morning sacrifices are discontinued. We must therefore take the words as they are, i.e., understand them as 2300 whole days.438

Keil supports this by numerous arguments including the fact, “when the Hebrews wished to express separately day and night, the component parts of a day of a week, then the number of both is expressed. They say, e.g., forty days and forty nights (Gen. 7:4, 12; Ex. 24:18; 1 Kings 19:8), and three days and three nights (Jonah 2:1; Matt. 12:40), but not eighty or six days-and-nights, when they wish to speak of forty or three full days.”439

If they are literally twenty-three hundred days, what is the fulfillment? The attempts to relate this to the last seven years of the Gentile period referred to in Daniel 9:27 have confused rather than helped the interpretation. Twenty-three hundred days is less than seven years of 360 days, and the half figure of eleven hundred and fifty days is short of the three and one-half years of the great tribulation. Exegetically, a safe course to follow is to find fulfillment in Antiochus Epiphanes, and then proceed to consider what eschatological or unfilled prophecy may be involved.

Innumerable explanations have been attempted to make the twenty-three hundred days coincide with the history of Antiochus Epiphanes. The terminus ad quem of the twenty-three hundred days is taken by most expositors as 164 B.C. when Antiochus Epiphanes died during a military campaign in Media. This permitted the purging of the sanctuary and the return to Jewish worship. Figuring from this date backward twenty-three hundred days would fix the beginning time at 171 b.c. In that year, Onias III, the legitimate high priest, was murdered and a pseudo line of priests assumed power. This would give adequate fulfillment in time for the twenty-three hundred days to elapse at the time of the death of Antiochus. The actual desecration of the temple, however, did not occur until December 25, 167 B.C. when the sacrifices in the temple were forcibly caused to cease and a Greek altar erected in the temple. The actual desecration of the temple lasted only about three years. During this period, Antiochus issued coins with the title “Epiphanes,” which claimed that he manifested divine honors and which showed him as beardless and wearing a diadem.440

Taking all the evidence into consideration, the best conclusion is that the twenty-three hundred days of Daniel are fulfilled in the period from 171 b.c. and culminated in the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in 164 b.c. The period when the sacrifices ceased was the latter part of this longer period. Although the evidence available today does not offer fulfillment to the precise day, the twenty-three hundred days, obviously a round number, is relatively accurate in defining the period when the Jewish religion began to erode under the persecution of Antiochus, and the period as a whole concluded with his death.

The alternate theories produce more problems than they solve. Considering the days as year-days has provided no fulfillment. Using the figure of eleven hundred and fifty days only creates more problems as it does not fit precisely any scheme of events and has a dubious” basis. By far the simplest and most honoring to the Scriptures is the solution that the twenty-three hundred days date from 171 b.c. to 164 b.c. This prophecy may safely be said now to have been fulfilled and does not have any further eschatological significance in the sense of anticipating a future fulfillment. As far as Daniel 8:1-14 is concerned, there is no adequate reason for considering it in any other light than that of fulfilled prophecy from the standpoint of the twentieth century. It is adequately explained in the history of the Medo-Persian and Greek empires, and specifically, in the activities of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Vision Interpreted in Relation to the Time of the End

8:15-19 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision. Now as he was speaking with me, I “was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright. And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.

With the entire vision recorded and, to some extent, already interpreted, Daniel now enters into active participation in the vision and, as in chapter 7, sought an interpretation. According to verse 15, Daniel “sought for the meaning”; and in response to his desire, a personage stood before him described “as the appearance of a man,” but obviously an angel. In verse 16, the angel Gabriel is mentioned specifically, and a man’s voice is addressed to Gabriel to instruct Daniel in understanding the vision. The man’s voice may be that of Michael the Archangel or even the voice of God, but it is not identified in the text. Calvin believes that the man speaking is Christ.441 Young points out that the word for man in verse 15 is ga„ber, similar in sound to Gabriel and denoting strength or power.442 To this is added el, the word for God, to form the name Gabriel.

Of interest is the fact that this is the first mention in the Bible of a holy angel by name. Gabriel is again mentioned in Daniel 9:21 and in Luke 1:19, 26, where he is the messenger to Zacharias, announcing the future birth of John the Baptist, and to the virgin Mary, announcing the coming birth of Jesus Christ. The only other angel in Scripture named, aside from Satan, is Michael, mentioned in Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1, and in the New Testament in Jude 9 and Revelation 12:7. The restraint of Scripture in naming angels is in contrast to prolific nomenclature of angels in apocalyptic literature outside the Bible.443

Because of the whole context of the vision, the powerful presence of Gabriel, and the mysterious voice which may be the voice of Deity, Daniel is afraid, actually panic-stricken, and falls on his face. The situation is not much different from that of John the apostle in Revelation 1 at the tremendous vision of the glorified Christ. The words of Gabriel are reassuring, and he instructs Daniel, using the title son of man, and for the first time in the entire chapter indicates that “the time of the end” is in question in relation to the vision.

Although Daniel apparently had been awake in the earlier part of the vision, we now learn that, as Gabriel was speaking, Daniel had fallen into a deep sleep with his face toward the ground. Montgomery translates I was in a deep sleep as “I swooned.”444 In any event, it is not a natural sleep but the result of his fear described in verse 17. As in the case of Ezekiel (Eze 1:28-2:2), Daniel is aroused: as stated in verse 18, Gabriel “touched me, and set me upright.” Porteous suggests that the expression, set me upright (v. 18), “probably means ‘made me stand up where I was.’ Daniel is keeping his distance.”445 In verse 19, Gabriel then begins a further explanation of what he introduced in verse 17 concerning the time of the end, making clear his intention to let Daniel know “what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.” In the verses which follow, details of interpretation of the vision are given.

The expression, the indignation, judging by the context (cf. Dan 11:36, where it occurs again) here seems to refer to God’s anger against Israel. As in the days of Isaiah, when God used Assyria as His chastening rod (Is 10:5, 25), God in His indignation was using for His corrective purposes the tyranny of Antiochus and “lawless men” (cf. 1 Macc 1:11-15) who carried out Antiochus’ orders. In any case, the point is that God is permitting the persecution as a chastening of Israel in this instance.

Because of the introduction of the term the time of the end (Dan 8:17, 19) and the additional expression in verse 19 of “in the last end of the indignation,” many scholars find in this chapter reference to the ultimate consummation of Gentile times at the second advent of Christ. Although an adequate fulfillment can be found of the prophecy through verse 14 in the history of the centuries before Christ, how can these references to the time of the end be understood? The entire matter is complicated by references which clearly relate to the end of the Gentile period in Daniel 9:27 and by the extended passage Daniel 11:35 ff., where again the time of the end is mentioned, with additional references in chapter 12. The expositor has numerous options, each of which has some support from reputable scholarship.

Although a great deal of variation is found in details of interpretation, four major views emerge: 1) the historical view that all of Daniel 8 has been fulfilled; (2) the futuristic view, the idea that it is entirely future; (3) the view based upon the principle of dual fulfillment of prophecy, that Daniel 8 is intentionally a prophetic reference both to Antiochus Epiphanes, now fulfilled, and to the end of the age and the final world ruler who persecutes Israel before the second advent; (4) the view that the passage is prophecy, historically fulfilled but intentionally typical of similar events and personages at the end of the age.

Premillenarians who emphasize historical fulfillment in this chapter invariably agree to typical anticipation. The historical view is supported largely by liberal critics and amillenarians. S. R. Driver, representing liberal criticism, states, for instance, “In ch. 8 there is a ‘little horn,’ which is admitted on all hands to represent Antiochus Epiphanes, and whose impious character and doings (8:10-12, 25) are in all essentials identical with those attributed to the ‘little horn’ in ch. 7 (7:8 end 20, 21, 25): as Delitzsch remarks, it is extremely difficult to think that where the description is so similar, two entirely different persons, living in widely different periods of the world’s history should be intended.”446

Driver, identifying the fourth empire of Daniel 7 as the Greek Empire, as liberal critics do in contrast to most conservative expositors, finds the two little horns identical. In keeping with this, he defines the time of the end as meaning from Daniel’s standpoint “the period of Antiochus’s persecution, together with the short interval consisting of a few months, which followed before his death (xi. 35, 40), that being, in the view of the author, the ‘end’ of the present condition of things, and the divine kingdom (7:14, 18, 22, 27, 12:2, 3) being established immediately afterwards.” Driver goes on, “This sense of ‘end’ is based probably upon the use of the word in Am. 8:2, Ez. 7:2, ‘an end is come, the end is come upon the four corners of the land,’ 3, 6: cf. also ‘in the time of the iniquity of the end,’ Ez. 21:25, 29, 35:5; and Hab. 2:3, ‘For the vision is yet for the appointed-time [has reference to the time of its destined fulfillment], and it hasteth toward the end.’”447

Conservative amillenarians as represented by Edward J. Young, distinguish between the little horns of chapter 7 and chapter 8. In summarizing his view of the identity of the fourth empire, Young writes, “A comparison of the horns of ch. 8 and the little horn of ch. 7 makes it apparent that the two horns are intended to represent different things. Since the horn of ch. 8 evidently stands for Antiochus Epiphanes, it follows that the little horn of ch. 7 does not stand for Antiochus Epiphanes.”448 In a word, Young finds chapter 8 completely fulfilled in history. The principal difficulty with the purely historical view is that it provides no satisfactory explanation of the expression the time of the end, the other references in the book of Daniel which use it as the end of the time of the Gentiles, and certain details that are given in the interpretation of the vision.

A second view, in sharp contrast to the historical interpretation, is that which takes the reference to the little horn of chapter 8 as being the same as the little horn of chapter 7 but considers the entire prophecy to be subject to future fulfillment. It is like the liberal critical view in identifying the two horns, but unlike the liberal critical view in relating it to the Roman Empire in the future and not to the Greek Empire of the past. Although only a few writers have taken this position, G. H. Pember takes as “the first clue to the interpretation” the premise: “The vision is no prophecy of Antiochus Epiphanes: the Little Horn is a far more terrible persecutor, who will arise in the last days.”449

Tregelles argues for the same conclusions, stating, “Further, the four divided kingdoms which formed themselves out of the empire of Alexander were one by one incorporated within the Roman empire, but it is out of one of these kingdoms that the horn of this chapter springs, hence it is clear that he belongs to the Roman earth. Thus the person spoken of in the two chapters are found within the same territorial limits.”450 Tregelles goes on to compare the similarities between the little horn of chapter 7 and the little horn of chapter 8 as well as a description of the final world ruler in Daniel 11:36-45. Tregelles concludes, “The conclusion from all this appears to be inevitable, that the horn of chapter 7 and chapter 8 are one and the same person.”451

The majority of premillennial expositors, however, have not followed this view because the Roman Empire is not clearly in view in chapter 8, and, as a matter of fact, there are a number of contradictions. Although the territory involved in the various world empires is often the same, this does not prove that the events are the same or the personages are the same; and this is the crux of the matter which Tregelles ignores. Pusey, for instance, points out, “In the Grecian empire, the little horns issues, not from the empire itself, but from one of its four-fold divisions… Antiochus Epiphanes came out of one of the four kingdoms of Alexander’s successors, and that kingdom existed in him, as the fourth horn issued in the little horn. But in the fourth empire, the horn proceeds, not out of any one horn, but out of the body of the empire itself. It came up among them [the horns], wholly distinct from them, and destroyed three of them. Such a marked difference in a symbol, otherwise so alike, must be intended to involve a difference in the fact represented.”452

While there are obvious similarities between the two little horns of chapter 7 and chapter 8, the differences are important. If the fourth kingdom represented by Daniel 7 is Rome, then obviously the third kingdom represented by the goat in chapter 8 is not Rome. Their characteristics are much different as they arise from different beasts, their horns differ in number, and the end result is different. The Messianic kingdom according to Daniel 7 was going to be erected after the final world empire. This is not true of the period following the he goat in chapter 8. The familiar rule that similarities do not prove identity is applicable here. Two men or events may be alike in many respects but are distinguished by one definite dissimilarity. In this case, there are many factors which contrast the two chapters and their contents.

In view of the problems of a purely historical fulfillment on the one hand or a purely futuristic fulfillment on the other, many expositors have been intrigued with the possibility of a dual fulfillment, that is, that a prophecy fulfilled in part in the past is a foreshadowing of a future event which will completely fulfill the passage. Variations exist in this approach with some taking the entire passage as having dual fufillment, and others taking Daniel 8:1-14 as historically fulfilled and Daniel 8:15-17 as having dual fulfillment. This latter view was popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible. Both the 1917 and the 1967 edition interpret chapter 8 as being fulfilled historically in Antiochus, but prophetically, beginning with verse 17, as being fulfilled at the end of the age with the second advent.453

Many premillennial writers follow this interpretation. Louis T. Talbot, for instance, writes “When the vision recorded here was given to Daniel, all of it had to do with then prophetic events; whereas we today can look back and see that everything in verses 1-22 refers to men and empires that have come and gone. We read about them in the pages of secular history. But verses 23-27 of the chapter before us have to do with ‘a king of fierce countenance’ who shall appear ‘in the latter time’ (v. 23); and he is none other than the Antichrist who is to come. Again, while verses 1-22 have to do with history, yet the men of whom they speak were shadows of that coming ‘man of sin,’ who is more fully described in the closing verses of the chapter.”454 Talbot varies from the pattern somewhat by finding typical fulfillment in verses 1-22 and futuristic fulfillment in verses 23-26. Strictly speaking, this does not conform to any of the divisions indicated here, but illustrates that the passage gives prophecy in two different senses.

A number of other expositors find chapter 8 dealing with both Antiochus Epiphanes and the future world ruler. Among them are William Kelly,455 Nathaniel West,456 and Joseph A. Seiss.457

This view is ably summarized by J. Dwight Pentecost. Pentecost gives a most illuminating overall view of chapters 7 through 12 in the following statement: “The key to understanding chapters 7 through 12 of Daniel’s prophecy is to understand that Daniel is focusing his attention on this one great ruler and his kingdom which will arise in the end time. And while Daniel may use historical reference and refer to events which to us may be fulfilled, Daniel is thinking of them only to give us more details about this final form of Gentile world power and its ruler who will reign on the earth. In Daniel chapter 8, we have another reference to this one. Daniel describes a king who is going to conquer the Medo-Persian Empire. This is an historical event that took place several centuries after Daniel lived. There was an individual that came out of the Grecian Empire who was a great enemy of the nation Israel. We know him as Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus Epiphanes was a ruler who sought to show his contempt for Palestine, the Jews, and the Jewish religion by going to the temple in Jerusalem with a sow which he slaughtered and put its blood upon the altar. This man was known as one who desolated, or ‘the desolator.’ But this passage in Daniel 8 is speaking not only of Antiochus in his desolation and his desecration of the Temple; it is looking forward to the great desolator who would come, the one who is called ‘the little horn’ in Daniel 7. In Daniel 8:23 we read of this one and his ministry.”458

Pentecost summarizes the facts from Daniel 8:23-25 as a description of the beast in that (1) he is to appear in the latter times of Israel’s history (Dan 8:23); (2) through alliance with other nations, he achieves worldwide influence (Dan 8:24); (3) a peace program helps his rise to power (Dan 8:25); (4) he is extremely intelligent and persuasive (Dan 8:23); (5) he is characterized by Satanic control (Dan 8:24); (6) he is a great adversary against Israel and the prince of princes (Dan 8:24-25); (7) a direct judgment from God terminates his rule (Dan 8:25).459

It may be concluded that many premillennial expositors find a dual fulfillment in Daniel 8: some of them achieve this by a division of the first part of the chapter as historically fulfilled and the last part prophetically future; some regard the whole chapter as having, in some sense, a dual fulfillment historically as well as in the future; but most of them find the futuristic elements emphasized, especially in the interpretation of the vision.

A variation of the view that the last part of the chapter is specifically futuristic is found in the interpretation which has much to commend itself. This variation regards the entire chapter as historically fulfilled in Antiochus, but to varying degrees foreshadowing typically the future world ruler who would dominate the situation at the end of the times of the Gentiles. In any case, the passage intentionally goes beyond Antiochus to provide prophetic foreshadowing of the final Gentile ruler.

The Interpretation of the Ram and the Rough Goat

8:20-22 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

The interpretation of the ram and he goat vision as given in verses 20-21 makes explicit what has been assumed in preceding exegesis. Most significant is the fact that Media and Persia are regarded as one empire, refuting the liberal notion that Daniel taught the empire of Media was separate from Persia, which liberals use to justify the exegesis that the second and third empires of Daniel 7 were Media and Persia. All agree that history does not support this, and the liberal interpretation assumes that Daniel was in error. Here the matter is made clear by Daniel himself, and it is evident that the critics are guilty of attributing to Daniel something he did not teach. The he goat described as “rough” or shaggy, although called “the king of Grecia,” is an obvious reference to the kingdom as a whole, as the great horn between its eyes is identified as the first king. Practically everyone agrees that this is Alexander the Great.

The four kingdoms represented by the four horns which replaced the great horn that was broken are identified as four kingdoms arising from the he goat nation. They are described as not having the power of the great horn. Aside from expositors pressed to relate this to the Roman empire, where there is no reasonable parallel, the four kingdoms are obviously the four generals of Alexander who partitioned his empire as previously noted. Most expositors agree that verses 20-22 have been fulfilled completely in history in connection with the Medo-Persian and Greek empires and the four divisions following Alexander the Great. The exegetical problems arise in the passage which follows.

The Latter Time of the Kingdom

8:23-26 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

In this section of Daniel 8, an individual is pictured prophetically who is said to have the following characteristics: (1) he will appear “in the latter time of their kingdom,” that is, of the four kingdoms of verse 22; (2) he will appear “when the transgressors are come to the full”; (3) he will be “a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences,” that is, having a strong or bold countenance and able to interpret riddles, a mark of intelligence (1 Ki 10:1); (4) he shall have great power but his power shall be derived from another (either God, Satan, Alexander the Great); (5) he shall accomplish great exploits including destroying Israel, the mighty and holy people; (6) by his policies “he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand,” always busy hatching plots (1 Macc 1:16-51), that is, wickedness shall be on the increase; (7) he shall exalt himself, as did Antiochus Epiphanes; (8) by means of a false peace, he shall destroy many people; (9) he shall oppose “the Prince of princes”; (10) in the end “he shall be broken without hand” (Antiochus died of a foul disease), that is, his power shall be destroyed without human intervention. Finally, Daniel is cautioned that the total vision is true, but the understanding of it shall be delayed for many days as well as its fulfillment.

A careful scrutiny of these many points will justify the conclusion that it is possible to explain all of these elements as fulfilled historically in Antiochus Epiphanes. Most of the factors are obvious and the principal difficulty is occasioned by the expression in the latter time of their kingdom and in the statement he shall stand up against the Prince of princes. Antiochus Epiphanes, of course, did arise in the latter time of the Syrian kingdom. However, the use of other terms such as the end in verses 17 and 19, and the last end of the indignation in verse 19 are difficult to harmonize with Antiochus Epiphanes.

It is also objected, as expressed by W. C. Stevens, “The time of Antiochus was in the former time of those kingdoms. His day was not even in the latter time of the old Grecian Empire; for he came to his end more than one hundred years before the Grecian Empire ended. The simple solution is that those four kingdoms are to have ‘a latter time’; i.e., they are to be again represented territorially as four kingdoms in the last days at the Times of the Gentiles.”460 The expression the end frequently occurs in references in Daniel 9:26; 11:6, 27, 35, 40, 45; 12:4, 6, 9, 13.

Another problem is the statement that the king “shall also stand up against the Prince of princes.” H. A. Ironside expresses a common viewpoint that the “Prince of princes can be none other than the Messiah; consequently, these words were not fulfilled in the life and death of Antiochus.”461 However, this objection is not unanswerable, because opposition to God, to Israel, and to the Messianic hope in general, which characterized blasphemers of the Old Testament, can well be interpreted as standing up against “the Prince of princes.” After all, Christ existed in Old Testament times as God and as the Angel of Jehovah and as the defender of Israel.

Taken as a whole, the principal problem of the passage when interpreted as prophecy fulfilled completely in Antiochus is the allusions to the end of the age. These are hard to understand as relating to Antiochus in view of the larger picture of Daniel 7 which concludes with the second advent of Christ. It is for this reason, as well as for the many details in the passage, that many expositors believe the interpretation goes beyond the vision. If the vision itself of the little horn can be fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes, the interpretation given by the angel seems to go beyond Antiochus to the final world ruler.

Some premillennial interpreters, however, convinced of the futuristic character of the interpretation of the vision, identify the personage here as a different future character than the little horn of Daniel 7. The little horn of Daniel 7 is identified as a Roman and a future world dictator, whereas the little horn of Daniel 8 in its futuristic interpretation is understood by them to refer to the king of the north in Daniel 11:6-15, who is also identified with “the Assyrian” (Mic 5:5-6).462 Contemporary expositors, however, generally interpret these references to Assyria in other prophetic passages as either already fulfilled in the previous invasion of the Holy Land by Assyria or a description of Assyria in the millennial kingdom. These passages then do not become relevant to Daniel 8.

It may be concluded that this difficult passage apparently goes beyond that which is historically fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes to foreshadow a future personage often identified as the world ruler of the end time. In many respects this ruler carries on a persecution of Israel and desecration of the temple similar to what was accomplished historically by Antiochus. This interpretation of the vision may be regarded as an illustration of double fulfillment of prophecy or, using Antiochus as a type, the interpretation may go on to reveal additional facts which go beyond the type in describing the ultimate king who will oppose Israel in the last days. He indeed will be “broken without hand” at the time of the second advent of Jesus Christ.

In concluding the interpretation, Gabriel makes plain that the vision will not become immediately understandable to Daniel and that its fulfillment will occupy many days.

Effect on Daniel

8:27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king’s business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.

As a result of the tremendous vision given to Daniel and his exhaustion because of it, Daniel records that he fainted and was sick for days thereafter. Upon his recovery, he was able to resume his conduct of the king’s business. Jeffrey notes that Daniel by his immediate resumption of his work in the king’s service proves that he had been in Babylon all the time, and that his presence in Susa was purely visionary.463

The dramatic character of the vision and its tremendous implications, although not understandable to Daniel, remained in his mind. But he could find none that could give him the complete interpretation. It is obvious that the intent of the vision was to record the prophecy for the benefit of future generations rather than for Daniel himself. Unlike the previous instances where Daniel was the interpreter of divine revelation, here Daniel becomes the recorder of it without understanding all that he wrote or experienced.

The emphasis of the eighth chapter of Daniel is on prophecy as it relates to Israel; and for this reason, the little horn is given prominence both in the vision and in the interpretation. The times of the Gentiles, although not entirely a period of persecution of Israel, often resulted in great trial to them. Of the four great world empires anticipated by Daniel, only the Persian empire was relatively kind to the Jew. As Christ Himself indicated in Luke 21:24, the times of the Gentiles is characterized by the treading down of Jerusalem, and the subjugation and persecution of the people of Israel.

402 Cf. R. D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, pp. 95-104.

403 A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel, p. 94.

404 E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, p. 165.

405 Otto Zockler, “The Book of the Prophet Daniel,” in A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 13:171; cf. pp. 33-34.

406 A. L. Oppenheim, “Belshazzar,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1:379-80.

407 Young, p. 165.

408 C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, p. 285.

409 Josephus is also the source of the story that Daniel built a building at Ecbatana in Media in which later the kings of Media, Persia and Parthis were buried. Cf. Montgomery’s discussion on the tomb of Daniel at Susa, and the tradition that Daniel built a tower at Ecbatana (The Book of Daniel, pp. 10-11, 325).

J. A. Montgomery, The Book of Daniel, p. 325. Cf. Josephus, The Works of Flavius Josephus, p. 320.

410 Keil, p. 285.

411 Montgomery, pp. 325-26.

412 S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel, p. 111.

413 Montgomery, p. 327.

414 Cf. M. F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary, pp. 1022-23.

415 Young, p. 178.

416 For a brief history of Medo-Persia, see Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy, pp. 70 ff.

417 Keil, p. 290.

418 Ibid., p. 291.

419 F. Cumont, “La plus Ancienne geographie astrologique,” Klio 9:263-73.

420 Driver, p. 113.

421 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, p. 339.

422 Young, p. 169; cf. Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy, pp. 76 ff.

423 Young, p. 169.

424 William W. Tarn, Alexander the Great, 1:145-46.

425 N. W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, p. 123.

426 Young, p. 169; Leupold, p. 344; Montgomery, pp. 332-33.

427 Montgomery, p. 333.

428 Ibid., pp. 333-35.

429 Leupold, p. 346.

430 Driver, p. 116.

431 Montgomery, p. 335.

432 Young, pp. 165 ff.

433 Montgomery, pp. 335-36.

434 Young, p. 172.

435 Ibid.

436 Uriah Smith, The Sanctuary and the Twenty-three Hundred Days of Daniel 8:14, p. 119.
Editors note: The Millerites (precursor to the Seventh-Day Adventists) were the ones who predicted the 1844 second coming of Christ.

437 Young, p. 173.

438 Keil, p. 304.

439 Ibid., pp. 303-4.

440 See D. H. Wheaton, “Antiochus,” in The New Bible Dictionary, pp. 41-42.

441 J. Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, 2:112.

442 Young, p. 175.

443 For extrascriptural mention of angels, see Montgomery, p. 345.

444 Ibid., p. 346.

445 Porteous, p. 128.

446 Driver, p. 99.

447 Ibid., p. 121. Bracketed material in the original.

448 Young, p. 288.

449 George H. Pember, The Great Prophecies of the Centuries Concerning Israel and the Gentiles, pp. 289-90; cf. Clarence Larkin, The Book of Daniel, p. 165.

450 S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel, p. 82.

451 Ibid., p. 83.

452 E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet, p. 135.

453 Cyrus 1:Scofield, ed., Scofield Reference Bible, p. 913, and New Scofield Reference Bible, p. 911.

454 Louis T. Talbot, The Prophecies of Daniel, p. 143.

455 William Kelly, Lectures on the Book of Daniel, p. 132.

456 Nathaniel West, Daniel’s Great Prophecy, p. 103.

457 Joseph A. Seiss, Voices from Babylon: Or the Records of Daniel the Prophet, p. 221.

458 J. Dwight Pentecost, Prophecy for Today, pp. 82-83.

459 J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come, pp. 332-34. These points are a summary of an extended discussion.

460 William C. Stevens, The Book of Daniel, p. 125.

461 H. A. Ironside, Lectures on Daniel the Prophet, p. 150.

462 Cf. Ironside, pp. 147-51; and A. C. Gaebelein, pp. 111-13.

463 A. Jeffrey, “Daniel,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, 6:483.

Pages