19 And he said, “Behold, I am going to let you know what will occur at the final period of the indignation,18 for it pertains to the appointed time of the end. (the end of the Jewish system prior to the new covenant) 20 “The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 “And the shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king. 22 “And the broken horn and the four horns that arose in its place represent four kingdoms which will arise from his nation, although not with his power. 23 “And in the latter period of their rule, When the transgressors have run their course, A king will arise insolent and skilled in intrigue. 24 “And his power will be mighty, but not by his own power, And he will destroy to an extraordinary degree And prosper and perform his will; He will destroy mighty men and the holy people. 25 “And through his shrewdness He will cause deceit to succeed by his influence; And he will magnify himself in his heart ( on the coins he had inscribed Theos Epiphanies, meaning God manifest), And he will destroy many while they are at ease. He will even oppose the Prince of princes, But he will be broken without human agency. 26 “And the vision of the evenings and mornings Which has been told is true; But keep the vision secret, For it pertains to many days in the future.” (for it shall be for many days; it were three hundred years, or more, from the reign of Belshazzar to the death of Antiochus, in which this vision ends.)
Greek historian, Polybius, in his 40 volume history, describes Antiochus exactly how Daniel prophesied he would be.
Gabriel informs Daniel about the subject matter of the vision he has received: the events of the “final period of the indignation” (verse 19). Though not synonymous with the “appointed time of the end,” it does pertain to it. The “final period of the indignation” precedes the “appointed time of the end.” One might say the period of indignation precipitates the time of the end.
During part of his reign, this wicked “horn” appears to prevail against God; reality is otherwise. The “horn” is granted a period of time to rebel against God and to succeed, not because he is stronger than God, but because his rebellion is a part of the purpose of God. His reign is divinely purposed and permitted so that God’s indignation may be poured out on a sinful people. Because of sin, God’s indignation is poured out on mankind through this “horn:”
And on account of transgression the host will be given over to the horn along with the regular sacrifice; and it will fling truth to the ground and perform its will and prosper (Daniel 8:12).
The vision pertaining to the ram and the goat, recorded in verses 5-8, is interpreted in but two verses (20 and 21), one verse for each empire. The ram represented Medo-Persia; the goat, Greece. Nothing is mysterious or debatable about this part of the vision. The difficulty comes with the interpretation of the “little horn” in verses 22-26, which receive the greatest emphasis and attention in Gabriel’s interpretation of the vision.
The four horns, arising after the breaking off of the goat’s one horn, are four kings, whose resulting kingdoms never approach the power and dominion of the first. Later in the reign of these kings, the little horn does emerge from one of the four kingdoms. From a merely human perspective, he arises because of his own power and greatness. From the divine point of view, he is raised up and given power because the “transgressors have run their course” (verse 23). As the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full and the Israelites would have to wait over 400 years to possess the land of Canaan (Genesis 15:16), so the “little horn” was not allowed to rise to power until sin had run its full course, and the time for God’s indignation to be poured out through this king had come.
The sins of the Jews are in view here, for it is against the Jews and against Jerusalem that this king pours out his wrath. Through this king, God gives His people what they deserve, in full measure.
NOTE: it is interesting to learn that modern Rabbinic tradition feels this is descriptive of the Roman Catholic Church!
While verses 23-26 describe the actions of this king, their primary focus is his character. Arrogant, cunning, and deceptive, he is powerful, but “not by his own power.” He is so wicked and evil that it becomes apparent someone is behind him, someone greater than he, granting him power and expanding his pride. The source of this power can be no other than Satan himself. Here, as in Isaiah 14, a wicked king is described with the characteristics and attributes of Satan:
11 Again the word of the LORD came to me saying, 12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “You had the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering; The ruby, the topaz, and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx, and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise, and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, was in you. On the day that you were created That you were prepared. 14 You were the anointed cherub who covers, And I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 You were blameless in your ways From the day you were created, Until unrighteousness was found in you. 16 By the abundance of your trade You were internally filled with violence, And you sinned; Therefore I have cast you as profane From the mountain of God. And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I put you before kings, That they may see you. 18 By the multitude of your iniquities, In the unrighteousness of your trade, You profaned your sanctuaries. Therefore I have brought fire from the midst of you; It has consumed you, And I have turned you to ashes on the earth In the eyes of all who see you. 19 All who know you among the peoples Are appalled at you; You have become terrified. And you will be no more” ‘“ (Ezekiel 28:11-19; see also, Isaiah 14:5-6, 12-15).
This king will evidence the same pride which characterizes Satan. He will deceive and destroy “to an extraordinary degree.” He will be a master of destruction. His destruction will be all the greater because in some way he will put men at ease, bringing about their destruction when they do not expect it.
His destruction will come upon him as unexpectedly as that which he brought on others, but not by any human agency. If the ram was subdued by the goat, this “horn” will be destroyed by God.
Yet v. 25 predicts Antiochus's sudden destruction, not by human means, but by God's intervention. As a condign penalty for having taken "his stand against the Prince of princes" (the Lord God Almighty), Antiochus would be removed from the scene. He was. After making an unsuccessful attempt to pillage Nanaea, a wealthy temple in Elymais, he died of a sudden malady.
Ancient sources have somewhat diverse accounts of Antiochus's fatal illness. 1 Macc 6:4, 8-16 says that he withdrew to Babylon after his repulse at Elymais, that he became deathly ill after hearing of the victories of Judas Maccabaeus, and that he died many days later. 2 Macc 9:1-28, however, states that Antiochus had attempted to raid a temple in Persepolis (rather than Elymais), and that it was at Ecbatana that he heard the disturbing news of the Maccabean victories. Then, as he was uttering dire threats of reprisal against them, he was seized with severe abdominal pains that never left him; and thus he fell out of the chariot in which he was riding. Finally, as a result of his severe injuries from the fall and the attack of worms on his bowels, accompanied by a revolting stench, he finally died with vain petitions on his lips, imploring the God of Israel to spare his life. Josephus affirms that it was the temple of Artemis that Antiochus attacked in Elymais (as in 1 Macc 6) and then follows in general the description of 2 Macc 9 in regard to the fatal illness and the final admission of wrong in opposing the God of the Hebrews (cf. Antiq. XII, 354-59 [ix.1]). At all events, these accounts agree in stating that the tyrant met his end by a nonhuman agency, whether by a chariot fall, by abdominal cancer, or by some other illness. (Roger Simpson [EBr, 14th ed., 2:77] suggests that Antiochus died of "consumption" in Gabae, or Isfahan, in Persia.) This question of the place and manner of Antiochus's death becomes a matter of special importance in 11:45.
How will the other anti-christ die? Different than the way antichus does:
Daniel 11: 42-45 Verse 42 continues Antichrist's triumphant progress. Apparently the king of the South is going to suffer defeat at the hands of Antichrist ("the king of the North"), even though he had at first felt strong enough to initiate the conflict with the king of the North. Egypt will at last be defeated, whether or not it is completely and permanently added to Antichrist's realm. He will go on to capture all the reserves of silver and gold locked up in their vaults, for v. 43 states: "He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt." Their loyal allies, the Libyans to the west and the Nubians (or Sudanese) to the south, will also be subjugated by him. At last his triumph over the powerful antagonists to the south will be consummated. But his satisfaction over this will be short-lived because (v. 44) news of trouble in the Middle East will bring him out of Egypt in a fury to crush his opponents in Palestine. There, perhaps in the vicinity of Megiddo, he will encamp ("between the seas" [v. 45], indicating the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean), within easy striking distance of Jerusalem itself--"the beautiful holy mountain," i.e., Moriah, where the temple stood.
Verse 45 ends with this abrupt obituary: "Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him." This comes with a jolt, just at the moment when Antichrist seems to be sweeping away all opposition. All at once crushing disaster overtakes him, like that which will overtake the pillaging and raping attackers of the Holy City, when suddenly "the LORD will go out and fight against those nations" (Zech 14:3) and the attackers will disappear. Similarly in Revelation 19:19-20, the "beast and the kings of the earth" gather against the Lord to make war on his people. In the next verse (20) we read: "But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet ... The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulphur." This seems to pick up Revelation 16:16: "Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon" (i.e., har- Megiddo, "the mountain of Megiddo"), which lies "between the seas."
Such will be the sudden end of the Antichrist of Daniel 11:36-45, and it will take place in the Holy Land. This prediction of the location of his death eliminates the figure of Antiochus Epiphanes, who met his end in Persia, after an unsuccessful raid on a temple in Elymais. There is no possibility of explaining this prediction as a vaticinium ex eventu, concocted by a Maccabean storyteller who wanted to stir up patriotic ardor by a set of spurious prophecies. Therefore the entire case for a rationalistic explanation for the composition of Daniel in the second century after the fulfillment of its predictions is logically untenable. There is no way the details of vv. 40-45 can be fitted into the career of Antiochus Epiphanes. A rationalistic critic may label this paragraph unsuccessful or unfulfilled prophecy, but he cannot convincingly avoid the implication that the other predictions too may have been made before the time of their fulfillment. If the author of Daniel did not wait till the fulfillment of 11:40-45 before composing these verses as predictions there is no valid reason for insisting that he devised the other predictions fulfilled in the fourth, third, and second centuries only after they had actually been fulfilled.
Gabriel’s final words provide instructions for Daniel concerning his vision: the vision is true and reliable and the events are certain to take place. But they are events in the distant future, long after Daniel’s death. Daniel must not make these visions known to anyone else, almost as though this vision is recorded in Daniel’s diary to be published after his death.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
