(11:30) The two Ptolemies had sought the aid of the Romans who responded by sending a fleet to contact Antiochus Epiphanes at the siege of Alexandria. (Kittim in the OT is a reference to Cyprus, but also was a general reference to all those regions which lay across the sea to the west of Palestine, i.e. Cyprus and points west, including Rome. See Josephus AJ, i, 6, 1.) Popilius Laenas commanded the Roman ships, and delivered to Antiochus the demand of the Roman Senate that he desist further aggression on threat of provoking Roman attack. Popilius drew a circle in the sand with his staff around Antiochus, and commanded him to reach his decision before he stepped out of the circle. Whereupon Antiochus unwillingly agreed. He then returned home by way of Judea, and gathered information concerning those Jews who would support him (i.e. apostate Jews).
(11:31) The armed forces of Antiochus
Epiphanes stood as guards at the temple, and regular worship was
discontinued. On the Sabbath the city
was attacked, women and children were captured, and multitudes were slain. His army occupied the citadel overlooking the
temple. Heathen idolatry was made
mandatory and Hellenic culture was enforced on Jewish life. The climax of profanation was the erection of
the image of Zeus Olympias in the Jewish temple on the alter of burnt offering.
(11:32) Some Jews yielded to the purposes of
Antiochus, and apostatized from the religion of Israel. But those who remained true to God refused to
eat unclean things, and many died for their faith.
(11:33-35) During this period of persecution,
a group of godly persons was formed called Hasidims, who stood for the law (I
Macc. 2:42). Judas Maccabaeus, son of
Mattathias, led a successful revolt against the Syrians and brought much relief
from persecution. However, his successes
(and those of the rest of the Maccabean family) were not permanent. There was still much suffering. Apostates were treated with bloody severity
by Judas Maccabaeus.
* * * * *
This ends the recorded history that fulfills
Daniel’s prophecy. Why did Prof.
Mitchell stop here when there is more to Danial 11 and 12? It is because he believed that what follows
is still future. Verse 35 says, “until
the time of the end; because it is still for the appointed time.” It seemed to him that “then” (at the
beginning of v36) meant at the time of the end.
There are others who disagree, believing that the phrase in v40, “at the
time of the end,” is where Daniel begins to speak of the future.
Those who hold to the latter view see 11:36-39
as referring to Antiochus Epiphanes. It
speaks of a willful king who blasphemes the God of gods. Those who see this as speaking of a future
king see it as describing the coming Antichrist. If there is any concern about the proper
view, my view is that Antiochus Epiphanes is a pre-figuring of the
Antichrist. I am comfortable in
referring the passage to both, and seeing it as a transition from past history
to future history.
In the end, we are left with the most detailed
prophecy in all of Scripture, with an account of its precise fulfillment. It’s no wonder that those who choose to
oppose God must concoct a scheme whereby some other author wrote these things
in the name of Daniel, but at a time after they had already occurred. There is nothing in Daniel to suggest such a
deception. The only reason some hold to this is that they hold to a view that
denies anything “supernatural.” Let’s
see if we can state their view accurately: “We don’t believe in God because
God-like activity (i.e. the supernatural) can’t happen.” What idiocy!
Another illustration of Rom. 1:18:
they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”
No comments:
Post a Comment