Visions of Daniel

[DurbanDude]

The text does not necessitate that a new individual is being introduced in verse 36. It is an arbitrary rule imposed on the text, not a rule the text makes of itself. The 'king' of verse 36 is the king of the north. The 'he' whom the king of the south attacks in verse 40 is the king of the north, and the 'he' whom the king of the north attacks is the king of the south.

I do see your point here, if you read the verse your way its also grammatically correct so yes, he could be the king of the north.

.

The various descriptions found in Daniel 7 for the 'little horn', Daniel 8 for the 'little horn', Daniel 9 for 'the prince who is to come' each correspond to parts of the whole of Daniel 11.21-45 (not just 21-35, not just 36-39, not just 40-45, but the whole section) for the 'king of the north'. My belief is that this is because each of these four visions are talking about the same individual and events, Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his persecution of the saints and their eventual vindication

You are referring to one character, I believe thee are two characters in mind, each with similarities that your chart does reflect and also differences that your chart reflects as well as some differences that your chart does not reflect.

History: (165 bc)
Antiochus desecrated the temple for 1150 days
Antiochus died suddenly of health problems.
The sanctuary was reconsecrated.

Prophecy: (after 30AD)
Jesus said that there would be a future abomination spoken of by the prophet Daniel, shortly before the second coming/resurrection. Daniel's abomination was for 3.5 years (Dan 12) until the resurrection.
2 Thess 2 says there would be a man of sin at the temple grounds shortly before the second coming.
Rev 13 says there would be a man who would rule for 3.5 years

Both history and prophecy say the man exalts himself, has a lot of power, desecrates the temple and comes to his end.

Looking at Daniel 7/8/9/11 there are parts that fit clearly into history around 165BC, and there are parts that fit clearly into NT prophecy. The parts that refer to 1150 days (Daniel 8) or have exact matches with history (Daniel 11:21-35) are about Antiochus.

The parts that are associated with an end to all dominions (Daniel 7) or associated with the resurrection (Daniel 11:36-12:2) or are associated with Jesus' future abomination (Daniel 12) are referring events after the first advent and not 165BC. Additionally the parts associated with 3.5 years and not 3.2 years are referring to events after the first advent.

[Cyberseeker]

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).

"And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." (Daniel 2:44)

The Maccabean period was not the 'iron' beast as far as John the Baptist was concerned. He, referring to Daniels prophecy, says:

"The kingdom of God is at hand." (Matthew 3:2)

What kingdom was he talking about if it wasn't the same one that Daniel was talking about? And when did he say it? During the Roman occupation, yes?

[jeffweeder]

"And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." (Daniel 2:44)

The Maccabean period was not the 'iron' beast as far as John the Baptist was concerned. He, referring to Daniels prophecy, says: What kingdom was he talking about if it wasn't the same one that Daniel was talking about? And when did he say it? During the Roman occupation, yes?

very good way of putting it Cyberseeker.
Daniel saw 4 world empires, and then Christ setting up a highway to our God....no greater Prophet than John the Baptist as to the identity of who Messiah was.

[jeffweeder]

God setting up the kingdom, the Messiah coming, and the voice crying in the wilderness to prepare the way for the kingdom, cannot be seperated...therefore Rome was ugly 4th beast...surely

[markedward]

He, referring to Daniels prophecy, says: What kingdom was he talking about if it wasn't the same one that Daniel was talking about? And when did he say it? During the Roman occupation, yes?

For John to say that 'the kingdom of God is at hand' doesn't mean it was not already around. Jesus showed that the kingdom of God was 'at hand' (i.e. 'in your midst') whenever someone was carrying out the work of God. Paul taught that it manifested through faithfulness. These are both true of the 'saints of the Most High' that remained faithful to the Covenant during the persecution from Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

In addition to this, I believe the kingdom of God manifests more and more over time. It showed itself with the faithfulness of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It showed itself with the herald John. It showed itself with the power of Jesus the Christ. It showed itself with the patient endurance of the saints under Nero Caesar. And so on, until it shows itself in its fullness at the time of Christ's coming. The tree grows, the stone becomes a mountain, etc.

I believe that the internal testimony of Daniel's visions climax with the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, that history bears witness to this fulfillment, which leads me to believe that any references made by John, Jesus, and the Apostles were building off of Daniel's fulfilled visions through midrash, not reinterpreting them as being literally fulfilled in Jesus.

[John146]

The KJV colors the verse in such a way (via capitalization and insertion of definite articles) to point to Jesus. It also heavily botches the dissection of the three time frames of the seventy sevens, effectively making the first dissection (between the 'seven sevens' and the 'sixty-two sevens') completely pointless if nothing historical happened in between them. I believe the KJV is terribly inaccurate in its translation of this passage.

What translation of the passage do you believe is accurate then, if any? And what about this verse:

26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

I suppose you think this is translated poorly as well? What would be your understanding of the part that says "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.". Also, what is your understanding of Daniel 9:24? I can easily see Christ as fulfilling that verse as He made an end of sins, made reconciliation for iniquity, brought in everlasting righteousness and so on.

The post you're responding to already contains my response to your above question, but I'll reiterate:

The Hebrew speaks of 'the coming of an anointed ruler'. First, I already pointed out that 'anointed' (Hebrew 'messiah') can apply to essentially any king. Jesus is called 'messiah' because he is the King of Israel, not because the word 'messiah' is a unique title for Jesus.

Yes, I know that and so does probably everyone else here. I never claimed that only Jesus could have that title.

Second, As I showed in the post, King Cyrus is specifically called God's 'anointed' for the purpose of returning the Jews from exile, and decreeing Jerusalem and its temple to be rebuilt, which is what Daniel 9 as a whole, and verse 25 in particular, is discussing.

Do you see verse 26 as referring to King Cyrus as well then? If so how could it be applied to him?

And, while I'm at it, since you claim that all of Daniel is fulfilled I wonder how the following could have already been fulfilled even before Jesus said it would be fulfilled at some point in the future:

Matt 24:¹⁵When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand ¹⁶Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

This is clearly referring to something that had not happened yet that Daniel had prophesied about and yet you are trying to say that everything Daniel prophesied was already fulfilled before this.

Note: After reading through the rest of the thread I can see that you apply the midrash method to that passage. I don't buy it. Jesus specifically said that they would see the abomination of desolation that Daniel spoke of. He didn't say it would be like something Daniel spoke about, He said it would be something that Daniel actually prophesied about. And Daniel did prophesy about the destruction and desolation of Jerusalem and the temple in Daniel 9, IMO.

[John146]

Just so you're aware, a response to this is included in the post titled 'relationship to the New Testament'.

To summarize what I said there:

The New Testament does not teach that Jesus fulfilled Daniel 7.13-14.

As Hosea 11.1 (most people don't go read the whole verse when Matthew 2.15 alludes to it, so they don't see the part that says 'When Israel was a child, I loved him'), as Hosea 11.1 is not about Jesus but about Israel's exodus, the New Testament only sees Jesus in Hosea 11.1 through midrash, not through literal fulfillment. In the same way the New Testament sees Jesus in Daniel 7.13-14 only through midrash, not through literal fulfillment.

Midrash is the method of interpreting new events through similar or parallel events from past Scripture. It was commonplace in the first-century AD, it was entirely acceptable at that time, and is perhaps the most-used method of interpretation in the New Testament by the Apostles.

Hosea 11.1 remains about Israel's exodus even if the image of 'out of Egypt I called my son' is reapplied to Jesus to give meaning to the events of his infancy, and likewise, Daniel 7.13-14 remains about Israel's vindication through the persecution from Antiochus IV Epiphanes even if the image of 'the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven' is reapplied to Jesus to give meaning to the events of his resurrection and ascension to God's throne in heaven.

I don't buy this midrash stuff at all. I guess it's just a coincidence that Jesus fulfilled Daniel 7:13-14 just as it is written when He ascended to the Father and was given dominion over all things. Do you believe Jesus specifically fulfilled any OT prophecies?

[markedward]

What translation of the passage do you believe is accurate then, if any?

In this particular case, the ESV, the JPS, and the GNTD are some of the more accurate translations of the text, primarily because they accurately convey the point that there are three separate divisions of the seventy sevens, and not two (i.e. that it's 7, 62, and 1, and not 69 and 1 as most translations effectively have it).

What would be your understanding of the part that says "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.".

I'm wondering, since this is the second time (and more below, which I will note for clarity) I will be pointing out that my 'response' to your question is actually contained in the post you're replying to, if you took the time to actually read it before replying?

'And after the sixty-two sevens, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing.' From the original post about Daniel 9: 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.)

Also, what is your understanding of Daniel 9:24?

Third. From the post about Daniel 9: 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.

Yes, I know that and so does probably everyone else here. I never claimed that only Jesus could have that title.

It's simply a reminder. You seemed to be implying that, because 'messiah' is mentioned, it must thus be the messiah Jesus.

Do you see verse 26 as referring to King Cyrus as well then? If so how could it be applied to him?

Fourth.

Above, I stated that 'an anointed one who shall be cut off' is Onias III.

From the post about Daniel 9: 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.)

After reading through the rest of the thread I can see that you apply the midrash method to that passage. I don't buy it.

I'm not asking you to 'buy it'. I'm only explaining what it is I believe.

Jesus specifically said that they would see the abomination of desolation that Daniel spoke of. He didn't say it would be like something Daniel spoke about, He said it would be something that Daniel actually prophesied about.

Let me ask: do you believe that when Matthew says

and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I called my son.'

that he was claiming
​​​​​​​​

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. ​​​​​​​The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols. ​​​​​​​​Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk; I took them up by their arms, but they did not know that I healed them. ​​​​​​​I led them with cords of kindness, with the bands of love, and I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws, and I bent down to them and fed them. ​​​​​​​They shall not return to the land of Egypt, but Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me.

was originally a prediction about Jesus?

Matthew doesn't say it was something like what Hosea spoke about, he says, point-blank, 'this was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken'. Understanding Matthew as claiming Hosea 11.1b was predicting Jesus' departure from Egypt when he was a child creates problems when we actually go read the text of Hosea 11.1b, because in its own context, Hosea 11.1b was not about Jesus. But those problems completely disappear if we understand that Matthew was using Hosea 11.1b as midrash, not literal fulfillment.

This is how I understand Jesus' references to Daniel.* Like I said, I'm not asking you to 'buy it'. I'm just saying, this is what I believe makes the most, internally consistent sense out of what Daniel was saying and out of what Matthew was saying (and later on, what John was saying).

* (Adding to this, anyone familiar with 1 Maccabees will see that Matthew 24.16-18 has Jesus paraphrase the section of text that shows the Jews' response to the 'abomination of desolation' as mentioned by name mere verses before in 1 Maccabees, so that as a whole Jesus is intentionally reminding his listeners that the fulfillment of Daniel's visions can be found in 1 Maccabees, and hence, to understand what he is predicting will happen in the future in light of what already happened in the past.)

[markedward]

I guess it's just a coincidence that Jesus fulfilled Daniel 7:13-14 just as it is written when He ascended to the Father and was given dominion over all things.

This is why the midrash application fits so well. It's not a 'coincidence' anymore than Hosea 11.1b being about Israel's exodus from Egypt can also be applied in midrash to Jesus' departure from Egypt. The former foreshadows the latter precisely because God determined it should happen that way.

Do you believe Jesus specifically fulfilled any OT prophecies?

I believe he fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies in a manner greater than the Prophets had expected.

Do I believe we can read through the Old Testament and find a series of items that can be compiled into a list titled 'Predictions that are specifically about Jesus'? Not in this sense. Do I believe Jesus can be found in the Old Testament at all? Yes, in this sense, and more.

[Beckrl]

I don't buy this midrash stuff at all. I guess it's just a coincidence that Jesus fulfilled Daniel 7:13-14 just as it is written when He ascended to the Father and was given dominion over all things. Do you believe Jesus specifically fulfilled any OT prophecies?

Are you saying that only for Daniel 7-9 that you don't buy the midrash stuff? I'm sure you accept midrash as types and shadows, right?

[John 8:32]

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.

Verse 40 does mean the time of the end as in when Christ returns. Notice 12:1, the great tribulation and vs 2, the resurrection of the dead at the last trump and Christ's return.

[markedward]

Verse 40 does mean the time of the end as in when Christ returns.

'The end', within the context of Daniel, is simply the end of the time frame being spoken of. This time period extends only as far as Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the king who reigns at the 'latter end' of the four kingdoms that sprung up from Alexander's broken empire.

Notice 12:1,

I don't mean to sound overly defensive, but how could you think I didn't notice these verses, when the quote you're responding to has my interpretation of the entire chapter, verse-by-verse?

the great tribulation

This is, within the context of Daniel's visions, the persecution the Jews suffered under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. I've provided a great deal of reasoning, verse-by-verse, as to why I believe this. Please excuse me when I ask, if you're going to advocate a particular view so matter-of-factly, that you be able to provide a reasonable defense for it, instead of simply saying 'this is this'.

and vs 2, the resurrection of the dead

My response to this is already contained in the post you're responding to, for verses 12.2-3. I would ask for a direct response to what I have laid out there.

at the last trump and Christ's return.

Daniel mentions neither any trumpets, nor the second coming of Jesus.

[John 8:32]

'The end', within the context of Daniel, is simply the end of the time frame being spoken of. This time period extends only as far as Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the king who reigns at the 'latter end' of the four kingdoms that sprung up from Alexander's broken empire.

This jumps to the end of the age, if not show a blow by blow account of how it was fulfilled in history.

I don't mean to sound overly defensive, but how could you think I didn't notice these verses, when the quote you're responding to has my interpretation of the entire chapter, verse-by-verse?

You seemed to have missed the entire resurrection of the dead thing. 1 Cor 15 & 1Ths 4 show that this resurrection occurs at the return of Christ.

This is, within the context of Daniel's visions, the persecution the Jews suffered under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. I've provided a great deal of reasoning, verse-by-verse, as to why I believe this. Please excuse me when I ask, if you're going to advocate a particular view so matter-of-factly, that you be able to provide a reasonable defense for it, instead of simply saying 'this is this'.

Well, the time frame I just established precludes Antiochus IV being the major fulfillment. He was just a type of the end-time King of the North.

My response to this is already contained in the post you're responding to, for verses 12.2-3. I would ask for a direct response to what I have laid out there.

Daniel mentions neither any trumpets, nor the second coming of Jesus.

Mark 13 and Luke 21 do not mention any trumpets, do you conclude from the lack of mention of trumpets that these chapters are not about the end-time or the second coming?

[markedward]

This jumps to the end of the age, if not show a blow by blow account of how it was fulfilled in history.

Where does the text indicate such a 'jump'?

You seemed to have missed the entire resurrection of the dead thing. 1 Cor 15 & 1Ths 4 show that this resurrection occurs at the return of Christ.

For the second time, please respond to what I wrote concerning Daniel 12.2-3. I will supply it here for ease:

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. 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.

Well, the time frame I just established precludes Antiochus IV being the major fulfillment.

You didn't 'establish' anything. You simply stated it as a fact, without providing any reason or support for it. Contrast that to how I took the time to go through all of chapters 11 and 12, verse-by-verse. I provided reasoning and support for my belief. The least you could do is the same.

Mark 13 and Luke 21 do not mention any trumpets, do you conclude from the lack of mention of trumpets that these chapters are not about the end-time or the second coming?

The lack of trumpets is irrelevant here; I was simply pointing out that Daniel 12 does not mention trumpets or the second coming. (On the other hand, I don't believe Mark 13 or Luke 21 are even remotely about the second coming of Jesus, and no, it has nothing to do with a lack of trumpets.)

[John 8:32]

Where does the text indicate such a 'jump'?

The historical context. You well know that this was not written in chapter and verse and that 11 flows right over into 12. Vs 2 sets the time frame...

Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

What time is verse 1 speaking of? Dan 11:40-45, the time of the end.

For the second time, please respond to what I wrote concerning Daniel 12.2-3. I will supply it here for ease:

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. 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.

I don't think you can 'figure of speech' away the resurrection. This is the one and the same mentioned elsewhere throughout God's word. 1 Cor 15, 1 Ths 4, Rev 20, etc. Citing all the scriptures about the resurrection would take up too much space so a few will have to suffice, that is unless you think the resurrection is figurative also.

Anyhoo, Chapter 11 is the understanding given to Daniel acoording to this...
Dan 10:14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.

You didn't 'establish' anything. You simply stated it as a fact, without providing any reason or support for it. Contrast that to how I took the time to go through all of chapters 11 and 12, verse-by-verse. I provided reasoning and support for my belief. The least you could do is the same.

The time of the end, the great tribulation (there can be only one time of trouble such as never has been), the resurrection of the dead,
prophecy sealed until the time of the end, Dan 12:9. How many times of the end are there? Seems there was a thread on that.

The lack of trumpets is irrelevant here; I was simply pointing out that Daniel 12 does not mention trumpets or the second coming. (On the other hand, I don't believe Mark 13 or Luke 21 are even remotely about the second coming of Jesus, and no, it has nothing to do with a lack of trumpets.)

O.K. then what would this be?

Mar 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
Luk 21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

How do you apply your rule about it being figurative? When is the Bible figurative and when is it not? By your reasoning, all is figurative if it fits your particular view.