Visions of Daniel

[markedward]

DurbanDude was interested, and I'm sure this will generate lots of discussion, especially since it's never ever been discussed before. My interpretations of the visions of Daniel will be in quote-blocks.

Daniel 2
Five subsequent kingdoms. Criteria for determining identity: (a) subsequent succession, (b) specifically as it pertains to these kingdoms having dominion over the Land of Israel.

1. Gold = Babylon (identified explicitly).
2. Silver = Media-Persia (Media and Persia were unified, after which they conquered Babylon).
3. Bronze = Greece (Alexander's empire, which conquered Media-Persia).
4. Iron = Syria (i.e. the Seleucid Empire, which rose out of Alexander's empire).
5. Stone = Kingdom of God (identified explicitly).

Issues of contention: (a) The division of the 'iron' kingdom is not stated in the text to lead to a duality of that kingdom, where one half of it survives the fall of the other, nor that the tenfold toes means ten succeeding kingdoms; they are in and of themselves part of the fourth kingdom. (b) The value or usage of the metals as according to their corresponding kingdoms are irrelevant to determining the identity of the kingdom it represents (i.e. the use of 'iron' to symbolize the fourth kingdom has nothing to do with how extensively the fourth kingdom valued or used iron); the fourfold use of gold, silver, bronze, and iron was common in symbolic texts during ancient times, including in other passages of Scripture (e.g. Numbers 31.22; Joshua 6.19,24; 22.8; Isaiah 60.17; etc.). (c) Similar to the metal, the presence (and number) of the limbs on the statue are irrelevant to determining the identity of the kingdoms those portions of the statue represent (i.e. Daniel says nothing about there being two arms or two legs in relation to the identity of the kingdoms, simply that said portions of the statue happen to be such-and-such metal). (d) I believe Rome does not (in any sense, whatsoever) fit, as it does not meet criteria (a): it did not subsequently succeed (depending on other interpretations) either Alexander or Syria as according to criteria (b): in dominion over the Land of Israel; there was a gap of roughly one century.

Daniel 7
The same five kingdoms as Daniel 2. Criteria for determining identity: (a) the details of Daniel's dream provide limited indications as to the identity of the five kingdoms, (b) without interjecting any biases, the scope of Daniel's vision naturally reminds the reader of Daniel 2, so the five kingdoms must be identical, (c) if any details are provided in the second half of the chapter from the messenger Daniel speaks to, as to how to interpret the images of Daniel's dream, these details take precedence before we may begin suggestions external to the book of Daniel.

1. Lion beast = Babylon
   1. Wings plucked off = humiliation, possibly in reference to Nebuchadnezzar's humiliation (Daniel 4.31-33; 5.20-21).
   2. Raised on two feet as a man, given a man's heart = raised from a humiliated beast into a man, possibly in reference to Nebuchadnezzar's restoration from his humiliation when he recognized that Yahweh is God (Daniel 4.34-37).
2. Bear beast = Media-Persia
   1. Raised on one side = Persia's dominance over Media.
   2. Three ribs in its mouth = remains of three other 'beasts' (read: kingdoms), referencing Media-Persia's major campaigns against Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt.
   3. Told to 'devour much flesh' = suggestive of Media-Persia's aggressive military campaigns (perhaps against the Greeks, given the identity of the next kingdom).
3. Leopard beast = Greece
   1. Four wings of a bird = Alexander's speedy conquest
   2. Four heads = suggestive of the splitting of Alexander's empire, perhaps to his four mightiest generals (there were other, minor divisions outside of these four)
   3. Dominion given to it = suggestive of Alexander's speedy conquest having been 'divinely ordained' (e.g. Daniel 5.21)
4. Dread beast = Syria
   1. Great iron teeth = identification with the 'iron' kingdom of Daniel 2.
   2. The messenger adds the detail of 'claws of bronze', perhaps indicating the Syrian (iron) kingdom has origins in the Greek (bronze) kingdom.
   3. Terrifying; dreadful; exceeding strong; devours; tramples remainder = descriptive of Syria's aggressive and self-destructive military campaigns and generally oppressive nature, as opposed to the relative favor and peace the Judeans received from Media-Persia and from Alexander.
   4. Ten horns = ten kings (identified explicitly by the messenger); lack of identifications for these ten kings suggests to me that the number 'ten' may be used symbolically here, carrying the meaning of 'manyness'.
   5. Little horn = another (i.e. eleventh) king (identified explicitly by the messenger): Antiochus IV Epiphanes, per the following details:
      1. Three horns plucked up = three of the previous ten kings removed on account of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, perhaps in literal reference to Seleucus IV Philopator, Heliodorus, and Demetrius.
      2. Eyes of a man; mouth speaking great things; seemed greater than its companions; speak words against the Most High = references to Antiochus IV Epiphanes arrogant, self-deifying manner.
      3. (The following items are from Daniel's reflections of his dream and the messenger's interpretation of it.)
      4. Made war with the saints and prevailed over them; shall wear out the saints of the Most High; they shall be given into his hand = Antiochus IV Epiphanes oppressed and persecuted the Judeans.
      5. Shall think to change the times and the Law = Antiochus IV Epiphanes encouraged all peoples under his dominion to abandon their local customs and embrace his own. Any Judeans found keeping (or even owning a copy of) the Torah Law (including circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and festival-celebrating) was punished with death.
      6. For a time, times, and half a time = three and one-half years. Antiochus IV Epiphanes' persecution lasted roughly this long, from 167-164 BC.
   6. The Ancient of Days and his court sit in judgment; the Ancient of Days comes; the court shall sit in judgment = God brings national judgment upon the Syrian kingdom.
   7. The dread beast is killed, its body destroyed, and burned in the river of fire proceeding from the throne of the Ancient of Days; his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end = The Syrian dominion over the Judeans, especially as manifested through the tyrannical reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, is cast off of the Judeans.
   8. The rest of the beasts lose their dominion, but their lives are prolonged for a season and a time = Not all of the Gentile kingdoms that had dominion over the Land of Israel are doomed to utter destruction as Antiochus IV Epiphanes is.
5. Son of man = Israel
   1. One like a son of man = the saints of the Most High. In contrast to the beastly character of the pagan nations, the persecuted Judeans who follow God's commandments represent true humanity (i.e. humanity as God intended: obedient to his commandments).
   2. Comes on the clouds of heaven to be presented before the throne of the Ancient of Days; judgment was given for the saints of the Most High = the Judeans are vindicated by God for enduring the persecution of the wicked Gentile nations.
   3. Son of man is given dominion, glory, kingdom; the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom; the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High = the Kingdom of God begins to manifest within the world through the faithful obedience of the persecuted Judeans, especially as they endure through and emerge victorious from that persecution. The Kingdom of God will continue to grow undeterred through the faithfulness of God's people, even as they await the coming of their King.

Issues of contention:
(a) The 'son of man' figure is not an individual person, but instead is a personification for a nation, just as the four 'beasts' are not four individual persons, but are personifications for four nations. In the case of the 'son of man', his identity as the personification of 'the saints of the Most High' is made clear in Daniel's reflection and the messenger's interpretation. No individual person is in view here.

(b) The 'dread beast' of Daniel 7 is often identified with the beast of the sea / the abyss / scarlet from the Revelation because they share common features (e.g. ten horns, speak great things, make war on the saints), and because the beast of the Revelation is commonly identified as Rome (in some way), it is thus said that the 'dread beast' must be Rome. I do not believe the commonality of features between the 'dread beast' of Daniel and the 'beast' of Revelation lead to the conclusion that they must be the same 'beast/kingdom'. The beast of Revelation, after all, has features in common with all four of the beasts of Daniel's dream: lion-mouthed (the first beast), bear-armed (the second), leopard-bodied (the third), ten-horned (the fourth), but also seven-headed (the total number of heads of Daniel's four beasts). John is definitely reminding his readers of the dread beast of Daniel's dream, but he is also reminding them of the lion, the bear and the leopard beasts. Hence, even if John's beast is identified as Rome, this in no way means that Daniel's dread beast must therefore be Rome also, only that Daniel influenced John.

(c) It is necessary to point out, in order to avoid any confusion, that in placing the manifestation of the Kingdom of God at the time of Maccabean Revolt (for that is the event through which God cast off the Syrian oppressors), I am not equating the 'Kingdom of God' with the 'Hasmonean Dynasty' that traces its origins to the Maccabean Revolt. The Kingdom of God is, at that time, primarily spiritual in nature, as found in the obedience of the saints to God.

[Raybob]

Makes perfect sense, IMO

[TalonKarrde_X]

Nice post.

Daniel 2
Five subsequent kingdoms. Criteria for determining identity: (a) subsequent succession, (b) specifically as it pertains to these kingdoms having dominion over the Land of Israel.

Correct. Perhaps substitute 'God's people' for 'Land of Israel' (consider Dan 11:14, 12:1, 'your people').

Gold = Babylon (identified explicitly).
Silver = Media-Persia (Media and Persia were unified, after which they conquered Babylon).

Correct.

Bronze = Greece (Alexander's empire, which conquered Media-Persia).

Half points. Bronze is Greece, but not Alexander's empire. Alexander is the first king, not the only king (Dan 8:21). In chapter 7, the leopard has four heads, meaning that those four heads are a part of the Greek kingdom. So, the four primary fragments into which Alexander's empire divides are considered all part of the same Greek-system which this beast represents.

Iron = Syria (i.e. the Seleucid Empire, which rose out of Alexander's empire).

Wrong. Iron = Rome. The Greek empire was swallowed up by the Romans as they expanded eastward. First the European portions, then Syrian, then Egyptian; at which point, the whole of the Greek empire was subsumed into the Roman. Thus, Rome follows sequentially after Greece.

Stone = Kingdom of God (identified explicitly).

The obvious implication is that the Roman empire has not yet fully concluded.

Issues of contention: (a) The division of the 'iron' kingdom is not stated in the text to lead to a duality of that kingdom, where one half of it survives the fall of the other, nor that the tenfold toes means ten succeeding kingdoms; they are in and of themselves part of the fourth kingdom.

If I understand you correctly, this is perfectly correct.

(b) The value or usage of the metals as according to their corresponding kingdoms are irrelevant to determining the identity of the kingdom it represents (i.e. the use of 'iron' to symbolize the fourth kingdom has nothing to do with how extensively the fourth kingdom valued or used iron); the fourfold use of gold, silver, bronze, and iron was common in symbolic texts during ancient times, including in other passages of Scripture (e.g. Numbers 31.22; Joshua 6.19,24; 22.8; Isaiah 60.17; etc.).

Not really. The metals indicate the honour that each kingdom has in it priviledge of suppressing the Davidic line of rulership. Babylon has the most glory in this regard, because it has the priviledge of removing the ruling king in the Davidic line from his throne, and suppressing that kingship from expressing its rulership completely; so it is described by gold. Thus, each succeeding kingdom can be identified by glory it has in suppressing that line of rulership.

(c) Similar to the metal, the presence (and number) of the limbs on the statue are irrelevant to determining the identity of the kingdoms those portions of the statue represent (i.e. Daniel says nothing about there being two arms or two legs in relation to the identity of the kingdoms, simply that said portions of the statue happen to be such-and-such metal).

Actually, the limbs are relevant. Easily missed at first, but notice that the silver kingdom, which is the chest and arms represents the divided kingdom of Medo-Persia. So, the two arms signify this division. Similarly, Rome, 'the divided kingdom', is the two legs. Then, the feet represent that Roman kingdom as it enters into the time period of the end, during which time the kingdom takes on the characteristics of having a division between iron and clay, and of having 10 toes which represent all of the kingdoms within the one kingdom (10 signifies earthly completion). To clarify, during the final period of time alotted to this kingdom which has extension back to Rome, all of the kingdoms within it, will be divided according to a division between those that express 'iron-like' qualities, and those which express 'clay-like' qualities.

(d) I believe Rome does not (in any sense, whatsoever) fit, as it does not meet criteria (a): it did not subsequently succeed (depending on other interpretations) either Alexander or Syria as according to criteria (b): in dominion over the Land of Israel; there was a gap of roughly one century.

You should by now, see how this conclusion is in error.

[DurbanDude]

1.Gold = Babylon (identified explicitly).
2.Silver = Media-Persia (Media and Persia were unified, after which they conquered Babylon).
3.Bronze = Greece (Alexander's empire, which conquered Media-Persia).
4.Iron = Syria (i.e. the Seleucid Empire, which rose out of Alexander's empire).
5.Stone = Kingdom of God (identified explicitly)

I haven't got the time before Christmas to do an in depth response, but a few quick thoughts come to mind.
1) The four divisions are Greek, not post-Greek kingdoms. I do agree that the Bronze kingdom is Greece, but comparing Daniel 2 to Daniel 7, it appears that the four divisions of Alexander's Empire were regarded as part of the third beast, and not a fourth beast. Which is how the ancient world looked at it, they knew it was Greeks and not locals that ran the four divisions and this brought in the dominance of Greek culture and language to the entire region. So although your view may be possible, Daniel 7 regarded the kingdom of the Leopard beast representing not just one king, Alexander, but also the following four Greek kingdoms. I do believe its necessary to look for another kingdom that followed and conquered the Greek Kingdom to define the fourth kingdom, rather than looking internally at one of the four divisions of the Greek empire.

2) Rome was the kingdom that followed Greece. In 146BC Rome took over the Macedonian Empire, the original base of the Greek empire. In 64bc Rome took over Syria, which was the last surviving section of the Seleucid empire. In 30BC Rome took over the Ptolomeys of Egypt. The Parthians caused the Seleucid Empire to shrink. The Romans destroyed it forever. And so Rome took over from Greece. And so in every case it was the Romans that conquered Greece, not the Syrians. Rome is the more likely candidate for the fourth beast.

3) Only Rome had a clear and well known divided empire. Daniel 2 describes this iron kingdom becoming divided, into the two feet of the statue. You are right that the limbs have no relevance generally in the statue, but the difference with the feet is that they are specifically related to a divided iron empire. Syria has no such division that I am aware of.

4) Rome still exists and therefore has not yet fulfilled all the prophecies concerning Rome. This divided Rome leads us to the possible conclusion that the prophesy about the iron kingdom has not been completely fulfilled yet, because in some form the two divisions of Rome still remain today. Rome is still to complete the final prophecies about bear and the lion being included. I believe the fall of the Middle east to the West will be related , and Turkish and Israeli power in the region is growing rapidly on a month to month basis. All significant other countries in the Middle East (except Iran) have weakened politically and militarily, yet with the help of the USA Turkey and Israel have remained stable politically and are dominating militarily. Obviously (its obvious to me) Iran will fall soon. So your objections about Daniel 2 not been fulfilled yet are true. Its about to be fulfilled, Europe and Turkey (East and West Rome) are taking over the Middle East with Israel as their ally. This is happening right now as the West is assisting Turkey against their enemies.

5) I just can't relate the kingdom of the Maccabees to the timing of the beginning of the stone kingdom. God specifically promised faithful Israel that he would protect them if faithful, and not if they are unfaithful. (Leviticus 26). The fact that the romans took over Israel is a reflection of their unfaithfulness, not a reflection of their spiritual growth as the new great stone kingdom. The way you have described the introduction of the stone kingdom is a vast anticlimax in my eyes when Daniel 2 indicates that the stone kingdom would destroy all the other kingdoms suddenly.

[markedward]

Daniel 8
Daniel informs us that his next vision appeared to him during the reign of Belshazzar, while he was in Susa, of the Elam province. With these details, he is anticipating the imminent fall of Babylon (Belshazzar having already been identified as the reigning king in Daniel 5 when Babylon falls; Susa becoming a major capital of the Media-Persian empire). It is during Daniel's anticipation of the fall of Babylon that he has a vision, 'after that which appeared to me at the first'. This likely indicates that the vision of chapter 8 is an elaboration of the vision he had in chapter 7, two years earlier.

As with the vision of chapter 7, Daniel receives a messenger, identified as 'Gabriel', who interprets the vision for him. Gabriel's interpretations of Daniel's vision take precedence before we can turn to suggestions external to the book of Daniel.

1. Ram = Media-Persia (identified explicitly).
   1. One horn longer than the other = Persia's dominance over Media. (Identical to the bear raised on one side, of Daniel's previous vision.)
   2. Longer horn grew second = Persia rose after Media.
   3. Charges west, north, south = Media-Persia's major campaigns against Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt. (Identical to the three ribs in the bear's mouth, of Daniel's previous vision.)
2. Goat = Greece (identified explicitly).
   1. One large horn = Alexander (identified implicitly).
   2. Flies over the land = Alexander's speedy conquest. (Identical to the four wings of the leopard, of Daniel's previous vision.)
   3. Tramples the ram = Alexander conquered Media-Persia.
   4. Large horn breaks into four lesser horns; four kingdoms arise from his nation, but not with his power = Alexander's kingdom splits apart, dominated primarily by four of his generals: Seleucus I Nicator, Ptolemy I Soter, Cassander, Lysimachus. (Identical to the four heads of the leopard, of Daniel's previous vision.)
3. Little horn = Antiochus IV Epiphanes. (Identical to the 'little horn' of Daniel's previous vision.)
   1. Rose from the four lesser horns; at the latter end of the reign of the four kingdoms = Antiochus IV Epiphanes was ruler of the Syrian kingdom, founded by Seleucus I Nicator.
   2. Grew toward the south, east, and glorious Land = Antiochus IV Epiphanes was aggressive toward Egypt, Persia, and Judea.
   3. Grew to the host of heaven; threw down some of the host and stars; destroyed mighty men and saints = Antiochus IV Epiphanes oppressed and persecuted the Judeans who remained faithful to the Torah Law. (Identical to the eleventh king's persecution of the saints, of Daniel's previous vision.)
   4. Became great as the Prince of the Host; rise up against the Prince of Princes = Antiochus IV Epiphanes removed and replaced the high priest Onias III.
   5. Regular burnt offering taken away; the sanctuary overthrown = Antiochus IV Epiphanes emptied the second temple and ended the temple sacrifices for three years. (Identical to the eleventh king's attempt to change the seasons and Law, of Daniel's previous vision.)
   6. For 2300 evenings and mornings = 2300 days of Antiochus IV’s reign in relation to his persecution, or alternately 1150 evening sacrifices and 1150 morning sacrifices (there were two sacrifices every day in the temple), being a period of roughly 3.25 years, corresponding to the period when the temple sacrifices were not performed.
   7. The transgression that makes desolate = Antiochus IV Epiphanes put up an altar to Zeus inside the second temple and sacrificed pigs upon it, profaning the temple.
   8. In his own mind he shall become great = Antiochus IV Epiphanes was arrogant and self-deifying. (Identical to the eleventh king speaking great things, seeming to be greater than his companions, speaking against the Most High, of Daniel's previous vision.)
   9. Shall be broken, but not by human hand = Antiochus IV Epiphanes died of disease.

Issues of contention:
(a) Some identify the 'little horn' of Daniel 8 as being an end-time antichrist. I find this difficult to reconcile with Gabriel's explicit identification that the 'little horn' king comes straight from one of the four spin-off kingdoms of Alexander's empire. Alexander's empire is clearly in view, and the four major splits of his kingdom are clearly in view. Because the 'little horn' king comes from one of those four spin-offs, none of which exist anymore, this drastically limits what king the 'little horn' can be referring to.

(b) Each 'little horn' of chapters 7 and 8 are meant to be identified with the other, namely as Antiochus IV Epiphanes. While some openly admit that the 'little horn' of Daniel 8 refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, most will state that the 'little horn' of chapter 7 refers to a separate figure. I believe that, reading the book without any biases formed to begin with, the reader would naturally see the two little horns as being identical to one another, lest confusion arise by Daniel having two unrelated visions that use the same image for two unrelated figures.

(c) While it is common to include the four spin-off kingdoms as being a part of Alexander's empire, Gabriel's interpretation leaves little doubt that they were considered separately from Alexander's kingdom. 'Four kingdoms shall arise from his nation'. The spin-offs are together designated as 'their kingdom', apart from Alexander's 'his nation'.

(d) The phrases 'time of the end' (8.17), 'latter end of their kingdom' (8.23), and 'many days from now' (8.26) do not equate to 'the end of time', and hence do not require that Daniel's vision be flung into our future, only his own. The phrases are indicative of the 'end' of the series of Gentile kingdoms (of Daniel 2 and 7) oppressing the Judeans, especially as seen in persecution from the Syrian kingdom under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The 'time of the end' is the time of the end of that persecution, which from Daniel's perspective was 'many days from now'.

[John146]

Issues of contention:
(a) The 'son of man' figure is not an individual person, but instead is a personification for a nation, just as the four 'beasts' are not four individual persons, but are personifications for four nations. In the case of the 'son of man', his identity as the personification of 'the saints of the Most High' is made clear in Daniel's reflection and the messenger's interpretation. No individual person is in view here.

I disagree. I believe the NT teaches very clearly that Jesus fulfilled Daniel 7:13-14.

Dan 7:13 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. 14And 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 following passage explains the fulfillment of that passage, IMO:

Eph 1:17That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

What do both passages have in common? Both speak of the Son of man coming up to the Father and being given an eternal kingdom and complete authority over all. With the passages being so similar, I personally can't see how the Ephesians 1 passage could possibly not be referring to the same thing as Daniel 7:13-14.

[Beckrl]

Mark great thread and explainations, I totally agree.

[Nihil Obstat]

DurbanDude was interested, and I'm sure this will generate lots of discussion, especially since it's never ever been discussed before.

Actually, after you had emailed me some months back about the possibility that the fourth beast was the Seleucid Empire, I started a thread on just that to help myself work through the idea. You are the "friend" that I mentioned throughout the thread.

[markedward]

Daniel 9
Daniel opens this chapter with the statement that he was studying the prophecies of Jeremiah, specifically that of the Judean exile to Babylon, which would come to an end after seventy years. Daniel prays a great deal that God would forgive the Jews for the sins that put them in exile, and that God would be faithful to his word to return the Jews to their home Land.

Something important to note is the narrator's perception of the Babylonian exile. In chapter 1, the year the narrator says Daniel was taken to Babylon corresponds to 605 BC, nearly 20 years before the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC. Chapter 1 then ends with narrator pointing out that Daniel was in Babylon 'until the first year of King Cyrus'.

Taking into account that a full year's time did not have to pass for a 'year' to be counted, especially in regards to a king's accession year (which are a tricky, confusing business all on their own for scholars, since an accession year could literally be just the last portion of a full calendar year), the period of time that Daniel is in Babylon, as presented by the narrator, comes out to be roughly 68-70 years.

The narrator is telling us that Daniel was in Babylon for the entire duration of the Babylonian exile, from the first year of King Nebuchadnezzar, when Babylon first began deporting the Jews, straight to the first year of King Cyrus, when Babylon fell to Media-Persia and the Jews were released from their exile. In other words, the narrator is telling us when the seventy-year Babylonian exile took place: from 605 BC to 538 BC.

After Daniel prays in chapter 9, the messenger from chapters 7 and 8, Gabriel ('whom I had seen in the vision at the first'), appears to him. That it is the same messenger as before connects us back to the previous visions of chapters 7 and 8, which in turn connect back to the vision of chapter 2. Gabriel explains to Daniel that he has 'now come out to give you insight and understanding ... therefore consider the word and understand the vision'. Daniel was 'considering the word' of Jeremiah, and seeking to 'understand the vision' of chapters 2, 7 and 8. For Gabriel to tell him this suggests that what he is about to say is a revelation expanding Daniel's consideration of Jeremiah's prophecy and his understanding of the visions of the four kingdoms he had already received.

Many of the events of the previous visions noticeably correspond to events found in 1 and 2 Maccabees, though we have not yet look to those books for any specific confirmation. In this chapter, the final verses highly correspond not just to the previous visions, but are found in 1 and 2 Maccabees.

• Seventy sevens are decreed etc. = An intensified period of spiritual-exile (the seventy years of Jeremiah being multiplied several times over) has been determined for Israel, the fulfillment of which time is to be met with Israel fulfilling the actions Gabriel lists. This is not a guarantee that they will take place, but that the people of Israel should bring them to fulfillment (i.e. the fulfillment of these things are conditional to Israel's obedience upon their return from Babylon to Judah). As with the original seventy years of the Babylonian exile, the seventy sevens is primarily intended to be symbolic, and forcing it to be interpreted as exactly 490 years is unnecessary.
• Seven sevens = The first, shorter period of the spiritual-exile.
  
  • From the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem = As foretold by the Prophets, especially Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
  • To the coming of an anointed ruler = King Cyrus. Daniel is reflecting on the duration of the Babylonian exile, which ended with the coming of King Cyrus.
  • The period between the destruction of Jerusalem and the First Temple and the decree of Cyrus to rebuild Jerusalem and a Second Temple was 49 years, from 587 BC to 538 BC.
• Sixty-two sevens = The second, longer period of the spiritual-exile.
  
  • It [Jerusalem] shall be built again with streets and a wall = Jerusalem will built up and restored following the accession of King Cyrus.
  • But in a troubled time = Perhaps indicating the difficulties during the building process, as recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah.
  • An anointed one shall be cut off and have nothing = The high priest Onias III will be deposed by Antiochus IV Epiphanes and replaced. The office of the high priesthood will be reduced to power bids. (Identical to the 'Became great as the Prince of the Host; rise up against the Prince of Princes', of Daniel's previous vision.)
  • The people of the ruler who is to come = The Syrians and Antiochus IV Epiphanes, respectively. (The phrase 'who is to come' is a callback to the 'little horn' king of Daniel's previous vision.)
  • Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary = Antiochus IV Epiphanes attacked Jerusalem, burned parts of the city, killing and enslaved many residents, and emptied the Second Temple. (Identical to the 'the place of his sanctuary was overthrown', of Daniel's previous vision. See also 1 Maccabees 1.20-25,29-36)
  • Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war = The end of the seventy sevens took place amidst the Maccabean Revolt.
  • Desolations are decreed = Primarily referring to the desolation of the Second Temple. (Identical to the 'transgression of desolation', of Daniel's previous vision. See also 1 Maccabees 1.36-40.)
• One seven = The third, brief period of the spiritual-exile.
  
  • He shall make a strong covenant with many for one seven = Antiochus IV Epiphanes formed a treaty with many of the Jews, that if they abandoned the Torah Law he would give them favor. (See also 1 Maccabees 1.11-15.)
  • For half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering = Antiochus IV Epiphanes halted the sacrifices of the Second Temple for a little more than three years. (Identical to the 'Regular burnt offering taken away', of Daniel's previous vision. See also 1 Maccabees 1.39-50.)
  • On the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate = Primarily referring to the desolation of the Second Temple. (Identical to the 'transgression of desolation', of Daniel's previous vision. See also 1 Maccabees 1.36-40.)
  • Until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator = Antiochus IV Epiphanes comes under divine judgment and is brought to his end.

Issues of contention:
(a) That Gabriel has King Cyrus in mind when he first speaks of 'the coming of an anointed ruler' is found established in other Biblical literature. Isaiah 44-45 explicitly identifies Cyrus as God's 'anointed' (45.1), whose purpose was to rebuild Jerusalem as according to God's direction (44.28). And, keeping in mind that Daniel specifically say he was studying the prophecies of Jeremiah, we find that Ezra 1.1-4 and 2 Chronicles 36.22-23 together state that King Cyrus issued the decree that led to Jerusalem's restoration and the building of the Second Temple. No other decree fits with the great importance Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra and 2 Chronicles place upon Cyrus' decree. No other king is identified as God's 'anointed' for the purpose of restoring the Jewish nation.

(b) As with Daniel 8, references to 'the end' are not 'the end of time', but are the end of the the seventy sevens (9.26) and the end of the desolator Antiochus IV Epiphanes (9.27).

[markedward]

Daniel 10-12 metanarrative
Chapter 9 opened with Daniel considering the prophecies of Jeremiah regarding the exile of Judah in light of his own visionary experiences. At the messenger Gabriel had implored Daniel to seek 'consider the word and understand the vision'. Chapter 10 picks up a few years later with Daniel finally coming full circle with Gabriel's exhortation: 'he understood the word and had understanding of the vision'. As with each of the chapters before, this tells us that what is to follow in chapters 10-12 (which are one whole section) is related to the visions that Daniel has already had, and the words of the Prophets that he is seeking to understand.

Daniel tells us that he fasted for three weeks, after which he receives a messenger (apparently not Gabriel). This messenger informs Daniel that he was sent out to him, but was detained by 'the prince of the kingdom of Persia' for 21 days. In other words, God sent the messenger on the first day that Daniel had begun fasting, but he was detained for three weeks (and hence, why Daniel's fasting lasted as long). The importance of this 'coincidence' is difficult to determine. Maybe there's symbolism behind the time period (seven times three), but without anything concrete to work from, this is just speculation.

What is concrete is what the messenger tells Daniel about the angelic princes. Here he mentions 'the prince of the kingdom of Persia', and later in chapter 10 he mentions 'the prince of Greece [who] will come'. Here in chapter 10, the messenger speaks of 'Michael, one of the chief princes', and in the opening of chapter 12 he says that Michael is 'the great prince who has charge of your people'.

(It's possible that the reason the messenger was able to overcome the angelic prince of Persia at all was because Daniel's prayers resulted in God dispatching Michael to aid the messenger, i.e. if Daniel stopped praying, God would not have sent Michael to aid the messenger in overcoming the prince of Persia.)

Put simply, we see three angelic princes: the prince of Persia, the prince of Greece, and the prince of Israel. Apparently, the 'chief princes' of the angels had authority over the nations (possibly alluded to in Deuteronomy 32.8: '[God] fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God').

At the time of Daniel, the messenger informs him, the prince of Persia was in power. Later, he is told, when he will return to confront the prince of Persia, the prince of Greece will come. And then, far after this, the prince of Israel will rise up. The metanarrative presented by the actions of these angelic-princes affirms what we saw in the previous visions.

Media-Persia is currently in power, but will fall at the time Greece rises to power. And far after the rise of Greece (which, as was hinted at in Daniel 7 and shown explicitly in Daniel 8, led to the spin-off Syrian kingdom), the nation of Israel will come to power. Media-Persia was conquered by Greece, and after a great deal of time, the Hellenistic tyrants were cast off by the Judeans.

The lack of a 'prince of Rome' (or 'prince of Kittim', or any other appropriate name for the Romans) in this metanarrative (which we would expect to see prior to the rise of the prince of Israel in chapter 12) is indicative that the extent of Daniel's visions terminates before the rise of Rome's dominion over Israel.

[John 8:32]

When was the decree?

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

To finish transgression, to make and end of sins, make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and prophecy and to anoint the most Holy.

This statement is really important because it describes what is to happen.

70 Weeks = 490 days = 490 years. (Num 14:34 and Ezek 4:6)

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Which decree? There were four of them.

1) The Decree of Cyrus - Ezra 1:1-4 536BC.
2) The Decree of Darius I - Ezra 6:1-12 About 520BC.
3) The Decree of Artaxerxes I – Ezra 7:12-36 457BC.
4) The Decree of Artaxerxes – Neh 1&2 444BC.

Hmmm, four choices, which one? Let’s see 536BC + 483 years = 53BC. Did Messiah come and do what we saw in Verse 24? No? Well how about 520BC + 483 = 37BC. Anything there? No? How about 444BC? 444BC + 483 = 39AD + 1 for year 0 and we have 40 AD. No? Well, the let’s try 457BC. 457BC + 483 = 26 + 1 for year 0 and we have 27AD…

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Jesus was then cutoff in the midst of a week. His ministry lasted 3-1/2 years, middle of a week. He was also crucified on the Passover which occured on Wednesday, Nisan 14, 31 AD. Until the consummation of the age and that determined shall be poured out on the desolater, there is a long, approximately 2000 year, span in the midst of the 70th week. Much more to this prophecy, but this establishes the time frame.

[John146]

Daniel 9
Daniel opens this chapter with the statement that he was studying the prophecies of Jeremiah, specifically that of the Judean exile to Babylon, which would come to an end after seventy years. Daniel prays a great deal that God would forgive the Jews for the sins that put them in exile, and that God would be faithful to his word to return the Jews to their home Land.

Something important to note is the narrator's perception of the Babylonian exile. In chapter 1, the year the narrator says Daniel was taken to Babylon corresponds to 605 BC, nearly 20 years before the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC. Chapter 1 then ends with narrator pointing out that Daniel was in Babylon 'until the first year of King Cyrus'.

Taking into account that a full year's time did not have to pass for a 'year' to be counted, especially in regards to a king's accession year (which are a tricky, confusing business all on their own for scholars, since an accession year could literally be just the last portion of a full calendar year), the period of time that Daniel is in Babylon, as presented by the narrator, comes out to be roughly 68-70 years.

The narrator is telling us that Daniel was in Babylon for the entire duration of the Babylonian exile, from the first year of King Nebuchadnezzar, when Babylon first began deporting the Jews, straight to the first year of King Cyrus, when Babylon fell to Media-Persia and the Jews were released from their exile. In other words, the narrator is telling us when the seventy-year Babylonian exile took place: from 605 BC to 538 BC.

After Daniel prays in chapter 9, the messenger from chapters 7 and 8, Gabriel ('whom I had seen in the vision at the first'), appears to him. That it is the same messenger as before connects us back to the previous visions of chapters 7 and 8, which in turn connect back to the vision of chapter 2. Gabriel explains to Daniel that he has 'now come out to give you insight and understanding ... therefore consider the word and understand the vision'. Daniel was 'considering the word' of Jeremiah, and seeking to 'understand the vision' of chapters 2, 7 and 8. For Gabriel to tell him this suggests that what he is about to say is a revelation expanding Daniel's consideration of Jeremiah's prophecy and his understanding of the visions of the four kingdoms he had already received.

Many of the events of the previous visions noticeably correspond to events found in 1 and 2 Maccabees, though we have not yet look to those books for any specific confirmation. In this chapter, the final verses highly correspond not just to the previous visions, but are found in 1 and 2 Maccabees.


Issues of contention:
(a) That Gabriel has King Cyrus in mind when he first speaks of 'the coming of an anointed ruler' is found established in other Biblical literature. Isaiah 44-45 explicitly identifies Cyrus as God's 'anointed' (45.1), whose purpose was to rebuild Jerusalem as according to God's direction (44.28). And, keeping in mind that Daniel specifically say he was studying the prophecies of Jeremiah, we find that Ezra 1.1-4 and 2 Chronicles 36.22-23 together state that King Cyrus issued the decree that led to Jerusalem's restoration and the building of the Second Temple. No other decree fits with the great importance Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra and 2 Chronicles place upon Cyrus' decree. No other king is identified as God's 'anointed' for the purpose of restoring the Jewish nation.

(b) As with Daniel 8, references to 'the end' are not 'the end of time', but are the end of the the seventy sevens (9.26) and the end of the desolator Antiochus IV Epiphanes (9.27).

You say none of Daniel is about Jesus and it was all fulfilled 160 years before Christ came, right? How can the following not be about Jesus the Messiah?

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

[Cyberseeker]

Ten horns = ten kings (identified explicitly by the messenger); lack of identifications for these ten kings suggests to me that the number 'ten' may be used symbolically here, carrying the meaning of 'manyness'.

Problem with this interpretation is that the previous visions (Lion, bear, Leopard, Beast) relate to things specific and identifiable whereas this is unspecific and hazy. A more consistent reading of the text would suggest that 10 actual kingdoms arise from out of the 'beast' empire.

[DurbanDude]

Daniel 8
(a) Some identify the 'little horn' of Daniel 8 as being an end-time antichrist. I find this difficult to reconcile with Gabriel's explicit identification that the 'little horn' king comes straight from one of the four spin-off kingdoms of Alexander's empire. Alexander's empire is clearly in view, and the four major splits of his kingdom are clearly in view. Because the 'little horn' king comes from one of those four spin-offs, none of which exist anymore, this drastically limits what king the 'little horn' can be referring to.
.

I agree with you here. The 2300 evenings and mornings (1150 days?) apply to Antiochus and are different to the 1260 days of the so-called "antichrist."

(b) Each 'little horn' of chapters 7 and 8 are meant to be identified with the other, namely as Antiochus IV Epiphanes. While some openly admit that the 'little horn' of Daniel 8 refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, most will state that the 'little horn' of chapter 7 refers to a separate figure. I believe that, reading the book without any biases formed to begin with, the reader would naturally see the two little horns as being identical to one another, lest confusion arise by Daniel having two unrelated visions that use the same image for two unrelated figures.

I disagree here. They are both small countries that rise to become large (little horns with influence), and Antiochus is often a precursor, or similar example of the future "man of sin", but this does not mean they are the same individual just because the same phrase is used both times:"little horn". In Daniel 8 the little horn comes from one of the four divisions of Greece, in Daniel 7 the little horn comes from the empire after the four divisions of Greece.

While it is common to include the four spin-off kingdoms as being a part of Alexander's empire, Gabriel's interpretation leaves little doubt that they were considered separately from Alexander's kingdom. 'Four kingdoms shall arise from his nation'. The spin-offs are together designated as 'their kingdom', apart from Alexander's 'his nation'.

I disagree here, the wording 'Four kingdoms shall arise from his nation" emphasizes the connection rather than the seperation with Greece in my eyes. And history also emphasizes the connection, because the Greek leaders did not see themselves as locals, but as Greeks, foreign conquerers of those four regions.

(d) The phrases 'time of the end' (8.17), 'latter end of their kingdom' (8.23), and 'many days from now' (8.26) do not equate to 'the end of time', and hence do not require that Daniel's vision be flung into our future, only his own. The phrases are indicative of the 'end' of the series of Gentile kingdoms (of Daniel 2 and 7) oppressing the Judeans, especially as seen in persecution from the Syrian kingdom under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The 'time of the end' is the time of the end of that persecution, which from Daniel's perspective was 'many days from now'

Agreed, Daniel 8 is about the Greek Empire and then focusses on the Seleucid empire and does not concern the Romans or the antichrist.

[markedward]

Daniel 11-12, verse-by-verse

1. (This really belongs to the previous section, in which the messenger speaks of how he aided Michael, the prince of Israel, during the beginning of the reign of Darius.)
2. Three more kings in Media-Persia. Cyrus was presently ruling. (See the opening of chapter 10.) The three kings to follow: Cambyses, Bardiya (also called Smerdis), and Darius I. A fourth who will stir up all against the Greeks: Xerxes I.
3. Because the messenger mentions Xerxes I’s campaign against the Greeks, he skips forward a little more than a hundred years to speak of the 'mighty king' of Greece, who would come to conquer Media-Persia: Alexander.
4. Alexander’s kingdom will fracture apart, with four major splits: Seleucus I Nicator, Ptolemy I Soter, Cassander, Lysimachus.
5. The kingdoms of Seleucus I Nicator and Ptolemy I Soter became the strongest, but Seleucus I Nicator ('one of his princes') was initially subservient towards Ptolemy I Soter (South).
6. Ptolemy II Philadelphus (South) sent his daughter Berenice to marry Antiochus II Theos (North), who divorced his first wife Laodice. Ptolemy II Philadelphus died, and Antiochus II Theos eventually left Berenice. Laodice poisoned Antiochus II Theos, and had Berenice and her son killed.
7. Ptolemy III Euergetes (South), brother of Berenice, attacked and defeated Seleucus II Callinicus (North), and had Laodice put to death.
8. Ptolemy III Euergetes (South) returned to Egypt after looting idols and treasures from the North.
9. Seleucus II Callinicus (North) attempted to invade the South, but failed.
10. The sons of Seleucus II Callinicus, each attempted to invade the South. Seleucus III Ceraunus (North) was assassinated by his own army. Antiochus III Megas (North) reached as far as Judea.
11. Ptolemy IV Philopator (South) fought Antiochus III Megas (North), driving him back to Lebanon.
12. Ptolemy IV Philopator (South) returned home too quickly, leaving a strategic location open to Antiochus III Megas (North), which he took.
13. After Ptolemy IV Philopator (South) died, Antiochus III Megas (North) rallied his armies and took back some previously lost territory.
14. A commander in Egypt named Scopas (South) began to challenge Antiochus III Megas (North), with the Jews getting caught up in the feud. The Jews revolted against Scopas, but Antiochus III Megas completely ignored their (apparent) support.
15. Scopas (South) retreated to Sidon, but Antiochus III Megas (North) conquered it, forcing Scopas to surrender.
16. Antiochus III Megas (North) seized control over Israel.
17. Antiochus III Megas (North) allied with Ptolemy V Epiphanes (South). Antiochus III Megas gave Cleopatra I, his daughter, to marry Ptolemy V Epiphanes, in order to seize control of the South. Cleopatra I refused to be her father’s political tool.
18. Antiochus III Megas (North) decided to try his efforts on Greece and Rome. Rome said they would ally with him as long as he left Greece and the rest of Europe alone. Antiochus III Megas sailed to Asia Minor and captured some fortresses. Rome sent Scipio Asiaticus, who forced Antiochus III Megas to surrender, requiring of him to pay for all military expenses.
19. Antiochus III Megas (North) was losing power and went home. He tried robbing a temple in Susa, in order to come up with payment for Rome, but he was killed.
20. Seleucus IV Philopator (North) enforced heavy taxation in order to come up with payment for Rome, but his treasurer Heliodorus poisoned him and briefly seized the throne.
21. Seleucus IV Philopator's brother Antiochus IV Epiphanes (North) became king through political intrigue. He killed the usurper Heliodorus, he had his infant nephew (Antiochus, son of Seleucus IV Philopator) murdered, and exploited that his eldest nephew (Demetrius I) was a hostage in Rome.
22. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (North) removed the high priest Onias III, and replaced him with the highest bidder. Two men, Jason and Menelaus, sought the high priesthood. Initially Antiochus IV Epiphanes installed Jason as high priest, but he was later outbid by Menelaus, whom Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced Jason with.
23. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (North) made a covenant with the Hellenist Jews, gaining their favor.
24. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (North) went to rich areas of Egypt and shared war plunder with the citizens to secure their loyalty.
25. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (North) attempted to conquer Ptolemy VI Philometor (South). Ptolemy VI Philometor sent massive armies to defend Egypt, but he was defeated.
26. Many officials who served Ptolemy VI (South) defected.
27. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (North) tried to take Alexandria in Egypt, but Ptolemy VIII Physcon [that's not a numbering error] had been appointed as the ruler over the city, so Antiochus IV Epiphanes was rejected. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (North) and the brothers Ptolemy VI Philometor and Ptolemy VIII Physcon (South) each pretended to ally with one another.
28. While Antiochus IV Epiphanes (North) was away, rumors spread in Judea that he had been killed. Jason took this to his advantage and exiled Menelaus, stealing the high priesthood. Antiochus IV Epiphanes heard the news of Judea, and returned. He ousted Jason, restoring Menelaus. Additionally, he plundered the temple, stealing many of its treasures, before returning to his home.
29. Ptolemy VI Philometor and Ptolemy VIII Physcon (South) openly allied and denounce Antiochus IV Epiphanes (North) any authority in Egypt. Antiochus IV Epiphanes attempted to invade Egypt, but failed.
30. The Ptolemy brothers (South) had asked Rome ('Kittim') for help. They sent an envoy that demanded Antiochus IV Epiphanes (North) either leave Egypt alone or face war with Rome. Antiochus IV Epiphanes left Egypt, and in his humiliation, he took his anger out upon Judea. Jews who followed the Law would be put to death, while those who openly rejected the Law received relief.
31. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (North) and his armies desecrated the second temple in Jerusalem, putting the daily sacrifices to a stop. In the Second Temple, an altar to Zeus was set up and sacrificed to.
32. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (North) tried forcing all people in his kingdom to conform to his own religious ideas, but many Jews continued to resist.
33. Those who resisted continued to teach the Law, and many were caught and killed. (The 'sword', 'flame', and 'captivity' are described in 1 Maccabees 1.29-33.)
34. A rebellion against Antiochus IV Epiphanes (North) grew, led by a family called the Maccabees. They would eventually take back the temple, cleansing it and rededicating it to God.
35. Stumbling is seen here as a trial to purify individuals and the nation as a whole.
36. The messenger, from here to the end of the chapter, to recap major events of Antiochus IV Epiphanes' career and character. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (North) did what he wanted, he was exceedingly arrogant, he was not stopped by religious or moral qualms. (Identical to 'In his own mind he shall become great' from Daniel 8.)
37. And his personal 'god' was primarily his lust for power and fortune; consider that he named himself Epiphanes, which means 'god manifest'.
38. The reference to 'the god of fortresses' appears to play on the fact that Antiochus IV Epiphanes built a fortress in Jerusalem in order to consolidate his power there.
39. It is especially true that he 'shall load with honor' 'those who acknowledge him', and 'shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price'. His auctioning off the high priesthood is a primary example. (Identical to the 'strong covenant', of Daniel 9.)
40. These verses continue recapping previous conflicts in Antiochus IV Epiphanes' career. The 'time of the end', as in previous chapters, indicates the end of the period of time being discussed, not the end of history in whole. Antiochus IV Epiphanes attacked Egypt earlier in his reign, complete with ships. (See also 1 Maccabees 1.17-19.)
41. Summary of Antiochus IV Epiphanes' oppression of the Judeans, recapping 11.22-23. (See 1 Maccabes 1.20.) Edom, Moab and Ammon antagonized Israel at this time. (See 1 Maccabees 5.1-8.)
42. Recap of Antiochus IV Epiphanes' major attacks on Egypt.
43. Verses 11.42-43 recap verse 11.24.
44. Antiochus IV Epiphanes' problems in the east correspond to his campaign against Persia. We see that verses 40-44 summarize the three major campaigns of Antiochus IV Epiphanes' career: Egypt in the south, Persia in the east, and Judea the glorious Land. (Identical to the 'little horn' '[growing] toward the south, east, and glorious Land', of Daniel 8.)
45. Antiochus IV Epiphanes meets his end, divinely ordained and sudden. (Identical to the dread beast being slain in Daniel 7, the 'Shall be broken, but not by human hand' of Daniel 8, and the 'Until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator' of Daniel 9.)

1. It is here, at the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes' persecution of the Jews, that the Prince of Israel rises. As we saw before, this signified the rising of the nation of Israel itself. It was during Antiochus IV’s persecution that the Judeans rebelled and cast off their Syrian oppressors. The language of the verse anticipates the horrors of the persecution, and how the faithful will be vindicated.
2. Because of the mentioned resurrection in light of the tight chronology (that is, it doesn’t skip ahead thousands of years), an interpretation of this 'resurrection' must be kept in view of the period immediately following Antiochus IV Epiphanes' persecution of the Jews. This is likely some manner of figurative speech describing the restoration of Judea to be an independent power. Those who remained faithful through the persecution and survived will reign in the restored nation, while those who were wicked and abandoned the Covenant will suffer shame and contempt.
3. In the Torah Law, dwelling the Land was symbolized as 'life', while exile from the Land was symbolized as 'death'. Chapter 9 had Daniel studying the prophecies of Israel's exile, i.e. Israel's death. He wanted to know when Israel would return from exile, i.e. when Israel would be resurrected. Gabriel expanded the concept of the seventy-year exile into a seventy-times-seven-year spiritual exile. The fulfillment of the seventy sevens, the time when Israel's spiritual exile would end, would be marked with the casting off of the wicked oppressor, the one who would desolate the Second Temple: Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The messenger builds this up in Daniel 12; with the fall of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the exile/death of Israel would end, and the nation would be restored/resurrected. This restoration from exile is communicated in resurrection language, just as Isaiah 26.19 and Ezekiel 37 do.
4. The book of Daniel's visions are to be 'sealed' until 'the time of the end', that is, the time of their imminent fulfillment.
5. Daniel sees two other individuals standing on either side of the river. He doesn't specify who they are.
6. 'Time and times and half a time' being the relative duration of Antiochus IV's persecution of the Jews, 'the shattering of the power of the holy people'. (Identical to the 'time, times, and half a time', of Daniel 7.)
7. The rounding off of a period of trouble to 3.5 years seems to have become common in the post-exilic era. The New Testament rounds off the famine Elijah wrought as 3.5 years, and the Revelation rounds off several periods of time as 3.5 years.
8. Daniel states that he doesn't fully understand all of the things that are to take place.
9. The messenger reiterates what he said in verse 12.4.
10. Recapitulation of chapter 11.32-35.
11. Recapitulation of chapter 11.30-31.
12. Additional recap with verse 12.11.
13. Reiteration of verses 12.4 and 9.