Audio restored with Diffio. Diffio processed the original archive recording to reduce noise and produce a cleaner listening version; the original stays available.
Speech quality score (model-estimated, SCOREQ): before 2.93 → restored 4.60
Use the player's Original switch to compare.How Diffio restores old speech recordings
Yesterday we were making the point in our studies together that whereas it is profitable, very profitable to consider in any book its structure and then any patterns that emerge in the course of the text, our first and last job is to expound each passage and to make sure that we expound all the detail of that passage. The temptation when studying structures is to take one or two elements out of a story, to compare those with one or two elements in another story, and leave it there, as though somehow the fact that there are similarities is the message.
But of course, that, if we should fall into that trap, that trap leads us to neglect all the other details in the story. And that, of course, would be a failure of our duty as expositors. I want to come back to that, uh, notion today in our first session and study in particular the eighth chapter of the book of Daniel. We have already noticed the familiar pattern arising in the book of Daniel. In the first five chapters, there is one introductory chapter, and then there are two stories of images.
Nebuchadnezzar's dream image, then Nebuchadnezzar's golden image. Then there are two stories of kings. Nebuchadnezzar, who was cut down and restored. Belshazzar, who, having been warned and defying that warning, was cut down without further mercy. And we noticed how those two pairs have in each pair themes in common, though of course there are very big differences between the story in chapter three and the story in chapter two. We noticed that four and five uh are explicitly connected by the storyteller when Belshazzar in chapter five is is reminded of the events of chapter four.
So when we come to the second half of the book, we have the same pattern emerging. There is an introductory chapter, then there are two chapters, each about beasts. Then there are two chapters, uh, which have in common the theme of the writings, the writings of Jeremiah in chapter nine. and the writing of truth in chapters ten, eleven, and twelve. Having observed that, however, we come back to the principle that where there are similarities, two stories are similar, and therefore form, so to speak, a series.
Our next and more important task is to ask, what are their differences? It is most unlikely that two stories being similar should just be a question of ditto repeato, saying the same thing all over again. Of course, if they do, we've no cause for complaint. God is allowed to repeat himself if he wants to. But normally it is the differences that then become significant and show us how, while the stories are similar and basically deal with the same theme, they are presenting different sides of that theme.
If we apply that principle to chapters seven and eight, our task in eight will be to inquire first why it is thought necessary that we have two visions regarding beasts. Why wasn't one vision regarding beasts enough? What is chapter eight saying that chapter seven isn't saying? So that's the task we give ourselves to this morning, and I shall presently argue that the way to settle the matter is, having noticed the similarity, then to forget the similarity and concentrate on the detailed exposition of, uh, the story in chapter eight.
But I cannot do that without remembering, and you will remember if I don't anyway, that chapters seven and eight are a storm center of exposition of the book of Daniel. These are the embattled chapters, along perhaps with chapter eleven, in the controversy between the conservative interpretation of the book and the liberal interpretation of the book. The conservative view of the book of Daniel is that it was written by Daniel, high-ranking civil servant, Jew, in the civil service of Babylon and then of Medo-Persia, and that it was written in the sixth century BC.
The liberal view of the book is that it was not written then, it was written somewhere about one hundred and sixty seven to hundred and sixty four BC, second century BC, therefore. The issue at stake is not merely, of course, e- exposition from a literary or historical or theological point of view. It is also an issue between rationalism on the one side and faith in the possibility of miracle on the other. The chapter seven, as we know, describes the succession of Gentile world empires.
And here arises the first difference between the liberal and conservative viewpoint. The conservative viewpoint is that the four beasts therein enumerated in the vision represent the following empires. Babylon, number one. Medo-Persia, number two. Greece, number three; and Rome, number four. That is the conservative interpretation. The liberal interpretation would be different. The first beast represents Babylon.
The second beast, Media. The third beast, uh, uh, Persia, and the fourth beast, Greece. You notice the very important difference. The conservative view takes the prophecy to be prophesying not merely the end of Babylon and then the rise of Medo-Persia, and after that the rise of Alexander and his successors, but also is predicting the rise and eventual fall of the Roman Empire. The liberal po- point of view is, no, that uh prophecy of chapter seven does not prophesy the rise of Rome.
It goes only as far as the rise of Alexander the Great and his successors, the Greek empires. But then come the other large considerations. The liberal view holds that the book wasn't a prophecy at all, except for one tiny bit at the end, which the writer had a go at and got wrong. You're liable to do that if you're not used to writing prophecy, and you make it up out of your own head anyway. Uh, the book, they say, was not written in the sixth century BC.
It was written somewhere about one hundred and sixty seven to one hundred and sixty four uh, BC, in the time round about of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. You will remember, of course, what happened to the Greek Empire. In Daniel's terms, it began with the rise of that meteoric character, Alexander the Great, who defeated the Persians and took over their kingdoms and spread his empire far beyond Persia and got down to, uh, the northern parts of India. He died as a very young man as a result of his hard, arduous campaigns and his dissolute behavior.
In his place rose up four of his army generals, known as the Diadochoi, or the successors. Of those four, two became more prominent than the others. They were the general that was, uh, received Egypt as his chunk of the former empire, and the other general that received Syria. They are generally known, those two dynasties, after the names of the generals who first established the dynasties. Ptolemy in the south in Egypt, and Seleucus in the north in Syria.
They are called the Po- Ptolemaic and the Seleucid empires, therefore. Out of the Seleucid division of the empire, there eventually arose a monarch by the name of Antiochus Epiphanes. Some Jews called him Antiochus Epimenes, which sounds the same but means rather differently. Epiphanes is the name you would give to the god manifest. Epimenes means stark bonkers. Uh, but to get back to serious matters, ah, Dulce, Antiochus Epiphanes became, for reasons we not me- need not pause to discuss, he became a tremendous, notorious persecutor and oppressor of the Jews.
And it is eventually upon him that chapter eight will concentrate. The liberal theory then is that before, just before, more likely in the middle, perhaps near the end of that three-year uh period, one hundred and sixty seven to hundred and sixty BC, when Antiochus was persecuting the Jews with all his fury, some unknown writer decided that his fellow Jews needed to be strengthened in their faith and wrote the book of Daniel.
Using sundry sources that might have lain to his hand, he added there 2 prophecies. And his desire was good. He aimed to comfort the Jews, to strengthen their faith, to resist the persecution. But the prophecies weren't genuine prophecies. Living somewhere then about one hundred and sixty— what should we say, One hundred and sixty six, one hundred and sixty five uh, BCE, he made up a book that looked as if it were prophecy, but it really wasn't, you see. The prophecies were really past history.
Because living in the hundred and the and sixties, he now, uh, was in a situation where Babylon was long since past. And Medo- Media was long since past, and Persia was long since past, and a good deal of the history of the Greek Empire was long since past. But his idea was an ingenious one, I suppose. He cast that whole block of history as though it were prophecy. And because, in fact, it had already taken place, you could be sure that if you talked of it as prophecy, the prophecy would come true.
That was a ingenious notion, uh, do you see? And people would know the prophecy had come true, do you see? That would be marvelous, and they would say to themselves, well, if all that big chunk of prophecy has actually come true, well, the last little bit will come true as well. And the last little bit was the writer's, uh, effort himself to engage in a bit of genuine prophecy. Alas, if you're a novice making it up out of your own head, when you engage in an attempt to really forecast the future, instead of writing history as though a pro- a prophecy, you try to forecast the future, you're very liable to get it wrong, and he poor man got his bit wrong.
He prophesied that Antiochus would come to his eh end in such and such a fashion, and it didn't happen. His prophecies didn't come true. The little bit that he prophesied actually turned out quite differently. Never mind, says the liberal theory. Though it didn't come true, the Jews were tremendously encouraged by it, and their faith was strengthened. Mm-hmm. And within a comparatively short time, they canonized the book. But that is the liberal theory. It is held by men of massive intellect, and I suppose in the academic world it is by far the majority theory.
It strengthens itself by observing the long and detailed prophecy in chapter eleven, which, it must be admitted, is different from much other prophecy in scripture, in that it doesn't merely forecast the future in general terms, but for a whole long chapter prophesies the events that took place between the Ptolemies in the south and the Seleucids in the north over some many, many, many, many decades, and prophesies it in, uh, detail. And the liberal view says it's quite impossible to believe that this is a genuine prophecy.
There's nothing like it elsewhere in the Bible. When God prophesies, he doesn't normally prophesy in such a tiny detail. This surely is another bit of evidence that the prophecy isn't a genuine prophecy. It is Vaticanium ex eventu, as they say. It is a prophecy after the event. It is really a record of past history put in the form as though it were prophecy. That is the liberal view. The conservative view, of course, is, let me just repeat, that these prophecies are genuine prophecies. They were written not in the second century B- BC, but in the sixth century BC.
Babylon was already in existence when the first prophecies were genuine prophecies, and of course they came true. They were prophecies that, uh, uh, covered not only the rise and fall of Medo-Persia, but the rise and fall of Greece, and on to the rise of Rome and its eventual fall. Here then is a me- very interesting point, that even if the book were written in one hundred and sixty seven, one hundred and sixty six, fifty BC, if the fourth beast of chapter seven was intended as a prophecy of Rome, then here at least in the book there is a genuine bit of prophecy.
The liberal view cannot have that, of course, because he doesn't believe in the possibility of genuine prophecy like that. The liberal view will argue that the fourth beast isn't Rome. The fourth beast is Greece, and in particular Antiochus Epiphanes, and so it isn't prophecy at all. The argument, therefore, as to the identity of the fourth beast is, as you see, involved in this very big major dispute on the interpretation of the book of Daniel. Therefore, it is that if you look at the commentaries and the commentaries by conservative, uh, commentators, you will find that they spend sometimes pages and pages arguing about the, uh, fourth beast.
You'll see. There was one, there was two, there was three, there was four. And in this chapter seven, the fourth beast has horns and things, and some of them are broken off, three of them are taken away, and one rises up in its place, and this one horn, the one horn becomes the terrible Antichrist, persecutor of the people of God, and a rebel against Almighty God himself. In this story, in chapter eight, there are two beasts, one and two, and two starts off having, uh, one horn because it represents Alexander the Great.
Then that is cut off, and four come in its place, and then, uh, out of one comes this special horn. He is the great persecutor of the people of God, rebel against Almighty God himself. And the ident- the question whether this one horn is the same as this one horn comes to be at the center of the argument, because on the conservative view, this one horn comes out of the Roman Empire. But the conservatives themselves have to face the facts, of course, that this one horn is explicitly said in chapter eight by the prophet himself to arise out of Greece.
And therefore, the conservative comment- comment- uh, commentaries spend much time arguing that this horn is different from that horn. And you'll see why they spend so much time on it. I am not myself this morning going to, uh, pursue the argument any further. I'm just sketching that in the background so that we should be reminded and stirring up your pure minds by way of remembrance and perhaps your frustration. You'll see. Uh, against that background, it is understandable, I repeat, if a lot of conservative commentaries have spent an enormous amount of energy on technical questions like that.
Sometimes, maybe, to the neglect of what chapter eight is saying anyway. We this morning are going to try and come back to the book as a piece of literature, and now ask ourselves, why do you have to have two chapters on beasts? And what is this chapter saying that that chapter isn't saying? The obvious question is, why do you have a vision of four beasts here, but only two beasts here anyway? And if the two beasts here are already represented by some of the four beasts here, why do you need the repetition?
What we're looking for is now the differences between the two. And this is the important bit. We're looking for what chapter eight is itself positively saying. What is the message it is conveying through its symbolism? And what is that message that the beasts of chapter seven are not quite saying in the same way? One of the, um, big and significant differences is, of course, this, that in chapter seven the successive empires are represented by four successive beasts and horns and things.
But then the messianic kingdom which shall supplant them is described at great length. In the vision, as the Ancient of Days sits upon his throne, and the books are opened. I saw in the visions of the night there came one to him, like unto the son of, a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days, and the kingdom was given to him and to the saints of the Most High. Chapter seven therefore, spends a great deal of space and time in the series of explanations that are given in chapter seven.
It gives a great deal of space and time to the description of the Messianic kingdom, its king, the son of man, and his faithful adherents, the saints of the Most High. When you come to chapter eight, m there is almost no description of the Mes- Messianic Kingdom that shall supplant the beasts. There is a mention, if you care to look at the text at this point, verse twenty five of chapter eight. Through his policy he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand, that is the Antichrist, and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and in their security shall he destroy many.
He shall also stand up against the prince of princes, that is the Messiah, but he shall be broken without hand. And that is the sum total of the description of the Messianic Kingdom. All it says is that when Antichrist stands up against the Princes of Princes, he shall be broken without hand, that is by the intervention of supernatural power. But no description of the Prince of Princes, nor of the nature of his kingdom. A very different vision, then, not only from the four beasts here, but very different from the vision given us in chapter two, where the successive empires are represented by the metals of the image.
But then the image is destroyed by the Messiah and his kingdom, and his kingdom is represented as a rock cut out of the mountain without hands, which smashes the image and then itself grows into a great mountain. So here in chapter two, here in chapter seven, after the successive empires, the Messianic kingdom described in detail and marvelous glory. Not here. Beyond the mere fact that the Antichrist will be destroyed, there is no description of the Messianic kingdom, no detailed description of the Messiah either.
Why? How would you do if you were preaching it? Would you, uh, you'd assign Wednesday night, wouldn't you, perhaps in your series, to chapter seven? and then when you got to chapter eight, you'd say, well, Antichrist is going to be destroyed, and as we know from chapter seven, m and you give a wonderful description of the Messianic kingdom. But if you did that, you wouldn't be expounding Daniel, would you? By bringing in what Daniel eight doesn't bring in, you might be just blurring the topic a bit. Why no Messianic kingdom in chapter eight? Well, let's come to the chapter and its detail.
What is chapter eight about? Well, the vision occurred in the third reign of King Belshazzar. Daniel saw, verse three, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns. The two horns were high, and one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward and northward and southward, and no beasts could stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand. His power was so absolute that he did according to his will, did just what he liked, and magnified
himself. Here's the description of the Medo-Persian Empire. Then came this rough he-goat from the west over the face of the whole earth and touched not the ground, and this he-goat had a notable horn between his eyes, and he came to the ram that had the two horns, which I saw standing before the river, and ran upon him in the fury of his power and caught him amid ships. Poor chap. And I saw him come close to the ram, and he was moved with collar against him and smote the ram and break his two horns, and there was no power in the ram to stand before him.
But he cast him down to the ground and trampled upon him, and here we come again. And there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. You note the recurrent theme? For while the empire of Medo-Persia was strong and in its own context almost absolute in its power, there arose another empire even more powerful than Medo-Persia. That was, as we know, the empire of Alexander the Great. Colossal in its spread, vastly bigger than Medo-Persia, but also marked by a power that was bigger than Medo-Persia's.
Alexander's technique of, of training his army was a new and novel thing in the then world, and it proved its immense efficiency by bashing the old ram amid ships and knocking it to pieces, and putting itself in its place, and then became an empire that, for the time being, had a power that was almost absolute. What happens when some empire, and in particular its head and ruler, achieves almost absolute power?
Mm. The story hurriedly moves on. Some generations down the Seleucid branch, Alexander was died early, his place taken, as we said earlier, by four of his generals. Two of them became, uh, more prominent than the other two. They were the Seleucids in the north and the Ptolemies in the south. Out of the Seleucid branch, there eventually arose a monarch. We know him in history by his name Antiochus Epiphanes. To the Jew, he was the leader of that Seleucid Empire, possessed for the time being, as far as the Jews were concerned, a virtually absolute power.
And what did he do? Read it in the terms of Daniels chapter eight. Verse ten, it waxed great even to the host of heaven, and some of the host and of the stars it cast down to the ground and trampled on them. Yea, it magnified itself even to the prince of the host, and it took away from him the continual burnt offering, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down, and the host was given over to it together with the continual burnt offering through transgression, and it cast down truth to the ground and did its pleasure.
And prospered. And out of that description, I anticipate things and call your attention to the phrase, it cast down truth to the ground. Now we have a very interesting topic raised by the chapter itself, the question of absolute power or almost absolute power and its relation to truth. Now I'm going like a butterfly that I am, I am possessed of a butterfly mind, and I'm going to skip all kinds of levels and dance off to another flower completely in a different part of scripture, but to suggest to you that this question of power and truth and the relation of them between the two of them is not some little detail fit only for a brief discussion over the muffins and cream at tea time.
This is a problem that lies at the very heart of the human condition and has in time past emerged as the issue at stake in power politics, and will emerge again at the end of the age at its supreme level. It arose at that unique juncture in history when the Messiah himself, our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, stood before Pilate. And Pilate said to him, are you a king then? Because, you see, his fellow Jews had handed him over to Pilate as a political subversive, claiming to be king.
Are you a king then, said Pilate to our Lord. And Christ replied, my kingdom is not of this world. Yes, of course, in this sense I am a king, but to this end was I born, and for this purpose I came into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. We'll see Pilate, my kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom had been of this world, then my disciples would have fought to save my being arrested and handed over to you. But now is my kingdom not from hence.
This is the kind of king I am. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I came into the world, that I might, um, witness to the truth. Hard-boiled military commander, governor of the province, and politician. Pilate say, goodness me, what on earth is truth? Question number two, what on earth has truth got to do with politics? With your vast experience here in Canada and elsewhere, I wonder how you would answer that. What on earth has got truth to do with politics and power politics?
And as the conversation developed, and our Lord remained silent in face of many of Pilate's questions, Pilate got a little bit exasperated. Okay, some young man said he, you, you, you must talk. I'm in a difficult position. You must talk. Pray notice, said Pilate. You see, I have power. It's all right, you with your airy fancy notions about a kingdom of truth, but the actualities of life are, I have the power. And what is more, not to put too fine a point on it, I have the power to crucify you, and I have the power to release you.
You better talk. Power and truth. Ladies and gentlemen, what is truth? If I mistake not, this is the tremendous issue that chapter eight of Daniel is bringing before us, and you will perceive, I trust, that it's not s- not some slight matter. For in the days before the coming of Messiah in power and great glory, this will become perhaps the most, the chief issue in the world.
What is the truth? Is there a God? Is that the truth? Or isn't there? Who has absolute power? Where does power come from? Is there an almighty God to whom all else are subject, or does power lie ultimately with the nation that's got the biggest rockets, the biggest Star Wars program, the biggest military might, the biggest rockets and cannon, and with whoever is, for the time being, the head of that power block.
What is the truth about it? This dictator, when he got almost absolute power into his hands, according to, uh, Daniel chapter eight, proceeded to persecute the Jews. He had his political reasons for doing it. But he did... what, according to Daniel, none of the other preceding Gentile emperors had done. At that point, allow me to to come back to what we were saying slightly yesterday.
We should notice the difference between the first half of Daniel and the second half. This is the story of Babylon, how it took the vessels out of the house of the Lord, but put them reverently enough in its pagan fashion in a temple. It is the story how, with the last ruler in Babylon, he committed that tremendous sacrilege and took the vessels of God out of the house of the temple and brought them to his dinner table and drank there from himself. Thus saying that the final value in life was himself and his personal pleasure.
Uh, those Babylonians, in spite of what they did to the temple at Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar eventually destroyed it. Those Babylonians did not attempt to ban the worship of Jehovah. The Jews in Babylon were free to get on with their own religion and their worship of Jehovah. In fact, they became a very prosperous people. They had a exceedingly important center of Jewish learning, the synagogue and the exilarch, as he was called, at Babylon, in a place called Pum de Theta or something of the sort, became second only to the chief rabbi in Jerusalem, right up to the time of our Lord.
And it is incidentally possible that when Peter writes from Babylon, he's writing from literal Babylon. Now, from Jerusalem, when he was persecuted and escaped from prison, he went to that other great center of Jewish learning and biblical exposition, that was Pumbedita outside Babylon. That is altogether a possibility. Peace be to commentators who think different, of course. And, but to come back on track, still say. The Babylonians never tried to ban the worship of Jehovah, and that in spite of what Nebuchadnezzar did here in chapter three. Please notice that carefully.
That was not an attempt to ban the worship of Jehovah. What it was, was a demand that Jews, as everybody else, should worship Nebuchadnezzar's image and gods. Now, you may, as Christians, find this a little difficult to say. You're not pagans, thank the Lord. But pagan idolaters don't mind how many gods you worship. Worship as many as you like, or none at all. But pagan emperors were inclined to say, but among the many gods you worship must be my god.
You must worship the god of the state, then you can worship as many other gods as you like. They thought that was very reasonable. They couldn't understand how any gentleman or gentlewoman would be so bigoted as not to reverence other people's gods. Goodness me. I mean, madam, if you choose to go to Sears and you don't go to Eaton's, well, you Sears to you are the best, but you don't lambaste the woman next door who prefers to go to Eaton's store, do you? What ho? Be liberal-minded. And the pagans took that view of religion. You have some gods, jolly good stuff, but don't you talk against our gods, please.
And the emperors would say, but you must worship the god of the state, and then you can worship any old other gods you like. That was what Nebuchadnezzar was saying. You can get on worshiping Jehovah, but you'll have to worship and bow down to the god of the state. That's what the Romans said to the our first brothers and sisters in Christ under the Roman Empire. They said you can carry on worshiping, uh, Jesus Christ if you want to. Funny religion we regard it as, but for the time being you can get on with it, but you must worship the emperor. If you don't worship the emperor, we shall throw you to the lions, of course. And when the Christians became known as Christians who w- uh, people who would not worship the emperor, then of course they got eliminated on those grounds.
Lots of other people being pagans, they were quite happy to worship the emperor along with all the rest of the gods. That is paganism. The Jews, of course, had it that, uh, according to their great commandment, thou shall have no other gods but me. And therefore they wouldn't bow down and worship the emperor's god. Nebuchadnezzar did not ban the Jewish religion. Half of the book of Daniel. Darius, persuaded by his civil servants, banned praying to any god, Jewish or otherwise, for a certain limited period. You could only pray to the emperor. That was the first little rift, the first cloud in the coming storm.
The heavens grew black under Antiochus. He was the man in history that banned the Jewish religion. He exalted himself of God himself, if you put it in Jewish terms. He set up the abomination that maketh desolate, not in his own backyard, in the temple of Jerusalem, if you please. He banned the worship of Jehovah. He substituted the worship of some other god, Baal Shemaim, I suspect. He banned circumcision.
We know that from the books of Maccabees. Any Jewish woman found having circumcised her babe was taken along with the babe and thrown over the walls of the city to bash her head out on the rocks below. He banned the possession of scripture. He enforced the worship of Baal Shamaim and offered a pig upon the altar in the temple. In all probability, though this might be an excess of the Maccabean historian, he installed in the pagan manner religious prostitutes in the temple of God in Jerusalem.
That was a very significant event. Nothing like it had happened before. No wonder Daniel spends a whole chapter talking about it. That's the first thing to grasp. With such a persecution breaking over their heads. It is the sad fact of history, though Daniel re- uh, re- uh, refers to it perhaps in coded language, that the high priests of Israel's religion at the time connived with Antiochus Epiphanes, and themselves became joint persecutors of the faithful in Israel who wouldn't bow down to Antiochus Epiphanes.
And some of the high priests would have argued, what does it matter what you call God? Call him Jehovah like we used to, but what does it matter? Call him Baal like the Assyrians do, call him Zeus like the Greeks do. It's all one and the same thing. What are you making a fuss about? And the Gentiles have some truth, so why should you be so bigoted holding on to the Old Testament and that kind of thing? And the religious leaders of the nation in the form of the high priests, I repeat, connived with Antiochus Epiphanes. There arose a vast persecution of the faithful people of God.
And what did God do? Well, read, um, Daniel eight and tell me what God did when Antiochus cast down truth to the ground and took away the daily burnt offering from God, banned it, banned the people's expression of their loyalty to God and to God's truth. What did God do? Pardon?
The man prospered, yes, the old persecutor prospered. And God? When the pig was on the altar, when the abomination of desolation was set up in the temple, what happened? You say Messiah appeared in all his glory and struck down this fearful imposter. Yes, is that what you read in Daniel eight? Ladies and gentlemen, nothing happened. There came no voice out of the temple, no lightning strike, no thunder, nothing but silence.
And the silence lasted. For a very uncomfortable period. And the question is raised, verse thirteen: Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said unto that certain one which spake, How long shall the vision concerning the continual burnt offering and the transgression that maketh desolate to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot, how long shall it last that the temple be thus desecrated and God appear to do and say nothing? Why is there no description of the kingdom of the Messiah?
It's not because there won't eventually be a kingdom of the Messiah, but Israel are being warned that there will come a part time in history when, for a certain period, short though it was, the very temple of God, where they believed the presence of God was deigned to dwell, would be banned, and a man put himself in the place of God, and God would appear to do nothing. A terrible silence. Can you see what question would be raised in the minds of many a Jew.
What about truth? We thought it was true that all there was an almighty God, and not only so, but he presents himself in this temple. We thought it was true. But now look. The whole temple has been trampled down, abomination of desolation put in place, pig offered on the altar, Bible banned, the continual burnt offering taken away, the worship of God stopped. This Antiochus has defied God and his temple and substituted the worship of the state and his God.
And why doesn't God say something? Why doesn't God do something? How can you go on believing that what we've been taught is true? And the story is there, ladies and gentlemen, to warn us and Israel, that is the effect of the second half of chapter 8, that there will come again a time of similar persecution. In the years preceding the coming again of our Lord in power and great glory. So let me go over now to the book of the Revelation and chapter eleven m To show you a similar vision with a similar situation given to John the seer in the Revelation chapter eleven.
And There was given me a reed like unto a rod, and one said, Rise up and measure the temple of God and the altar and them that worship therein, and the court which is without the temple leave without and measure it not, for it hath been given unto the nations, and the holy city they shall tread under foot forty and two months. I will give to my witnesses that they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days closed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before the Lord of the earth. And if any man desireth to hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth and devoureth their enemies. And if any man shall desire to hurt them in this manner, must he be killed.
These have miraculous powers, so verse seven says, verse six says, and they resist all opposition. They have power to shut the heaven that it rain not during the days of their prophecy. They have power over the waters to turn them into blood and to smite the earth with every plague as often as they shall desire. And for a while, as they stand outside the temple, witnessing to the God of heaven, they are equipped with miraculous powers to demonstrate to the whole earth that there is a God, and God has given them miraculous power, and they stand against all comers. And then?
When they have finished their testimony, the beast that cometh up out of the abyss shall make war with them and overcome them and kill them. And their dead bodies lie in the street of that great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. And from among the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations do men look upon their dead bodies three days and a half, and suffer not their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb. And they that dwell on the earth rejoice over them and make merry, and they shall send gifts one to another, because these two prophets tormented them that dwell upon the earth.
Can you see the situation? For a while, there is this divinely, miraculously empowered witness to the fact there is a God in heaven, and this temple represents him. And then arises the beast. The future equivalent of Antiochus Epiphanes. And he says, ladies and gentlemen, don't let yourself be fooled. This power that these men have and claim it comes from some almighty God outside there. We can explain it to us. We have now been able to perform the same things and get the same results in our laboratories.
And we can do it. It doesn't come from a God out there at all. We prove their supposedly miraculous power does not come from any God. We have proved at last the truth about the universe. There is no supernatural God. Look at their bodies. And the world will go mad with delight. At last it has been proved, scientifically demonstrated, there is no God out there. Hip hip hooray, there is no God out there. Have a present, my good man. Now we can... And for that dreadful period, heaven shall appear to do nothing.
Then the question of what is truth will become the central question of the whole universe, won't it? This will be tough for believers. What? Why didn't God intervene? Why didn't he strike him dead? What is the truth then? If the very temple of God can thus be desecrated and defied, and God do nothing. Be warned, says God. It happened in the past. It will happen in the future. I'm tempted to play the part of a preacher.
I oughtn't to do that, ought I? We're studying Daniel. But it, uh, provokes me to ask, how, ladies and gentlemen, do you decide the question, what is truth? What would be the prime answer in your heart? What persuades you that Jesus Christ is truth? That's distinct from Pilate standing there and saying, look here, don't talk fancy stuff of what on earth is truth. The main point is what is power? I have power. What makes you think that Jesus Christ is the truth? You say he did so many marvelous miracles, and my faith is in the miraculous power.
Well, that's good, but steady. What's the ultimate demonstration of truth? I tell you what it is. Came to its crisis when Christ stood before Pilate. And Pilate said, I've got the power, you see, to control the vast empire of Rome and your bit of it, and power it is that counts. And Christ said, but Pilate, you see, actually you would have no power at all against me, except it were given you from above. But there's a bigger question in this universe than power, and that is truth. What is the truth about us? And the universe? And you? Are you just a chance collection of atoms?
Or is there a God who made you? And if there's a God who made you that wants to get in touch with you and prove to you the truth of the thing, how will he do it? I tell you what, how he'll do it. In the end, not by fantastic miracles that have overcome Pilate and his supposed power, little as that was. The e- the ultimate evidence is Jesus Christ nailed to a cross. This is the truth. It's the truth about the universe. It's the truth about you. It's the truth about God. You are a creature of God, and the God who made you has infinite power, but power isn't the issue at last.
Love is the issue at last. And as you look at Calvary, with Christ impaled upon a cross by the powers of his day, now you see the truth about the universe. There is a God, and he loves you. And the truth was never more manifest than when he hung apparently helpless on a tree, put there by Pilate and co. Hm. You see, for it was the battle for the heart, wasn't it? And who would you give your heart to? The man with the biggest rockets? Or the God that died for you.
What is true? Yeah, well, I- I'm making a ham-fisted job of preaching. I better get back to my last. I was not meant to be preaching, I was meant to be expounding Daniel. I'm going to suggest that that is what this, um, story is about here. And why it has no description of the coming of the Messianic kingdom. Of course that kingdom will come. When he stands up against the princes of princes, he shall eventually be eliminated, but not until untruth has had its period of apparent success in the world. And for those prescribed numbers of days and months and years, man shall appear to have triumphed and to have eliminated God.
When the New Testament talks about the coming man of sin, who shall sit in the temple of God, showing himself, trying to show himself that he is God, that there's no God out there, man is God, you will notice two Thessalonians two and the terms it uses. It comes with all deceivable powers, miracles and things, them that know not the truth. Yes, the issue is truth, isn't it? When at last the Lord is revealed from heaven in flaming fire, taking vengeance, and shall destroy him with the outshining of his appearance.
God shall send the unrepentant world a strong delusion, that it believe the lie. Why? Because they would not receive the knowledge of the truth. This is the ultimate truth. Well, uh, let me leave it there. All I want to do now is to, uh, make the point, just to reinforce it, that while these two chapters seven and eight, have much in common, it is upon their differences that ultimately we must focus our attention and, uh, not content just with the patterning or the structure, look at the thought flow and expound all the detail of these chapters.
And when we do that to chapter eight, you- we come up with something like I have so lightly sketched in. There's much more in chapter eight than that, isn't there? But these are perhaps the big issues. We notice, therefore, that while there is a similarity between three and six, or three if you like, and eight, Here was persecution of the Jews, here is persecution. But the issues at stake here were seriously different from what they are here. And if we think these two things are the same, we are missing the fine focus of the book of Daniel.
Let us look finally at this chapter here. The vision is a description of what shall happen following the collapse of Persia, the rise of the Greek Empire, and then in particular, once more, the rise of the great defiant king who exalts himself above God or all that is called. In one sense, therefore, 10, 11, 12 are telling you in more detail this history given us in chapter eight. And once more, this prophecy ends not with an exposition of Rome, as this one does.
This prophecy ends in the Seleucid period, as chapter eight does. But I better refine that statement at once. The nature of prophecy is as follows. Let me try to, uh, illustrate it. If you take old Pharaoh and his persecution of the Jews and the plagues that God rained down upon his head, you will see that it's not merely historical story, but you could take Pharaoh, project him onto the future, and you would have a kind of a foreshadowing of the future.
And just as the plagues were sent on Pharaoh as warnings to lead him to repentance, which he then defied and was finally destroyed, so the revelation says there shall come at the end time plagues very much like those that fell on Egypt. Here then in Pharaoh is a foreview of certain aspects of the future. If you want to, you can take the Assyrians, the great king of Assyria who defied God in his day. A description of him you will find in Isaiah thirteen. And that king of Assyria, who in his day defied, uh, God and his people, you can take him as a prototype of what will be in the future.
Or if you want to take old Nebuchadnezzar, so you may, and there are features about him and his persecution that become foreshadowings of the future. You can take Antiochus Epiphanes, he's a Greek, and very clearly in him there are foreshadowings of the future. He's the chap that added the nice element, the abomination that makes desolate, you see. And that will recur in the future, won't it? You can take the Roman emperors and what they did to the Christians and their self-deification, and they become a foreview of the future.
The thing to notice is that whereas these were separate people and movements in history, they are not projecting equally separate people and movements in the future. Some students of prophecy have worried their heads about this. In the future time, who will be the Pharaoh? And will he be the same one as the Assyrian? And who is the Assyrian? Read the old, uh, commentaries of the last century, they get really bothered about this. Who's going to be the Assyrian as distinct from the man of sin? And is the man of sin the same as the Antichrist, or is he somebody else, you'll see? Interesting topics. But the nature of prophecy is that each of the historical things adds certain features.
They all point to the one big thing in the future. Prophecy is like a succession, a a a history in the past and prophecy is like a succession of overhead projector films. This is old Pharaoh, you see, so you put him on the fre- on the thing and you say, look at him, and the light shines through the old film, and up here you get a vision of the future, and it looks very much like Pharaoh and the plagues on Egypt. You say, half a minute, uh, the future will be a bit more complicated than that, so you put on the Assyrian, and he did things that Pharaoh didn't do. But now when you put that film on top of the first one, you're getting a composite picture of the future.
The future will be composite like that. And you can add to that, um, Nebuchadnezzar, if you like, and you ought to add Antiochus Epiphanes, one on top of the other. And as the Holy Spirit shines through them, he will give you a detailed composite picture of what the future is going to be. And so, yes, here in chapter eight and here in chapter ten, the Holy Spirit is taking Antiochus Epiphanes of the Greeks, shining through him to project a future that will contain elements like the abomination of desolation that first were heard of under Antiochus. When you come to chapter seven and the book of the Revelation, God will take the Roman emperors.
He'll add them to the picture, and shining through them, add some details to the composite picture of the future. You see that in the beasts. When the four be- fourth beast arises, he's not an ordinary beast, I tell you he isn't. You never saw such a conglomeration of beasts all in one beast in all your life as the final beast. He's the gathering up of very many things in history. It ought not to worry us then if here in chapter seven the fourth beast is Rome, and God is using in prophecy the Romans to be a prototype of the future, and here God uses the Greeks as a prototype of the future.
That is not a contradiction, that is the way God does things. It has to be done because Antiochus was somewhat different from the Romans. In the future, there will be both the Roman element and the Greek element. And finally, before you take your coffee, um, because I am delaying you a little, you'll be entitled to two cups of coffee. The arrangements have already been made with the kitchen, and, uh, we're just going to look at that final vision once more of the Greeks here in chapter eleven of Daniel.
This is God showing Daniel what the future is going to hold. Starting from the rise of the Greek Empire, you'll see. It's a very long chapter, and it talks to us mainly of the many battles that went on between the Seleucids in the north and the Ptolemies in the south. You'll see, roughly speaking, the Seleucids were over here, here was Palestine, and here was Egypt.
And the Syrians were mostly concerned to batter the Egyptians, and the Egyptians concerned to batter the Seleucids, you see, and that was the fun and games for some many, many, many decades. But in that process, as the armies of the south swept up to deal with the northerners, and as the northerners swept down south, uh, to deal with the southerners, poor old Palestine and Jerusalem got it in the neck, do you see? Because the armies would take either the coastal road or the mountain road, they were constantly matching backwards and forwards, backwards and forwards, and in that process, they blew up from time to time tremendous crises, when it looked as one or the other was not merely going to bash his opposite number, but he was going to attack Jerusalem and destroy the rebuilt temple and bring the, uh, people into, uh, terrible suffering.
For the people of Palestine, Jews included, were originally under the Egyptians, and then they lost control of Palestine, and the Seleucids took it over. And then, as I say, in the course of those battles and the flowing forth and backwards of the great armies, and the terrible devastation, and the broken bodies, and the broken homes, and the broken minds, and the broken economies, as a result of all this absurd power politics. That blew up crises when it looked as if the people of God in Jerusalem and the temple of God was going to be cast down completely. And, uh, the interesting thing was that the thing would blow up to a crisis, and people would say, my brother, do you think, do you think this is the end time?
Surely the features are there. You can see what, what all his nibs is going to do. He- he- he's now going to attack the temple and, uh, and do away with everything. This is, this is the coming Messiah. They used to get really excited. They said, you know, all the signs are in shape. And lo and behold, the whole thing subsided. Went back to square one, and that wasn't the end, and it wasn't the coming Messiah. Oh, fancy that. Well, we made a little mistake about that. Yes, said some learned man, we oughtn't to set dates, you know. We want to be very careful about our interpretation of prophecy, but presently here came the armies backwards and forwards and fighting and wow, and and uh, in the end it looked as if, yes, he's going to do it this time.
This is it, it's going to be it. And uh, it looked as if it was. It had all the elements. And then, petered out again. Ha. The people didn't learn their lesson, did they? When it was looming up the third time, they said, yes, for sure this is this this time. I mean, the early men said theirs was, but we can see where they're mistaken, but we couldn't possibly be mistaken. It's going to happen in nineteen eighty four or something. But then it didn't happen. It will happen one day. But then you see, that's the nature of prophecy, using the prototypes.
Pharaoh was an anti-God man, wasn't he? And there was a great crisis, and there were plagues. But it wasn't the end of the, uh, of the world. Certainly wasn't even the end of the age. It's a prototype of it. So were all these others. History has a way of doing that kind of thing. We must be careful. Look what the his- the prophet is told, chapter eleven, after many shenanigans between the two powers. Verse thirteen: And the king of the north shall return and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and he shall come on at the end of the times, even of the years.
You say, what does that mean? That doesn't mean the end of the age, it means the end of that particular period, that's all. And there shall be great battles and this, that, and the other, but look at verse nineteen. Then shall he turn his face toward the fortresses of his own land, but he shall stumble and fall and shall not be found. All the apparent threat to Jerusalem subsides. Then the whole process starts over again, you'll see, great danger to the, to the people of God, it would appear. But look at verse twenty seven: And as for both these kings, their hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table, but it shall not prosper, for yet the end shall be at the appointed time.
Don't get overly excited then. What a help this would have been to the godly in those times, wouldn't it? To, to read. And oh, it comes up again worse. And this third thing is the old Antiochus Epiphanes himself, in all his tremendous persecution. But verse thirty five says of that, and some of them that be wise shall fall to refine them and to purify and to make them white, even to the time of the end, because it is yet for the time appointed. In other words, the end is not yet. The last verses from thirty six onward describe the final eruption, which will lead on to the end.
What a wise counsel that was for the people of God who had to live through those intervening centuries and live through the period of Antiochus Epiphanes. They would have learned from Daniel and this prophecy, this is not the end. And God will bring us through. But it was a prototype of the end. And what Antiochus did in his day, another who in the remote time shall arise shall do even more wickedly. He too shall come to his end. Hence the value of the vision in chapter twelve, the man standing above the river, being asked anxiously, when it comes to the end, there's going to be, if this is the end, there's going to be a time of the end.
That is a period. And just like Antiochus Epiphanes persecuted the Jews for three and a half years, so before the end there will be a time of unparalleled persecution. And of course, Daniel wanted to know how long shall this end time be? And he is told, and told with authority by the man who stands above the river. He stands above time. The river of time moves on, and we stand by the side of the river and ask ourselves, where is it going as it disappears over the horizon of the future?
Where is it going? There is a man above the river. He sees the end from the beginning. From his vantage point, he could see the end and what's going to happen. He can see the glorious day of resurrection, that they that sleep in the dust shall rise. He can see the glory of a coming kingdom, and he stands above the river to comfort his people, telling them that the worst that shall come is under the controlling hand of God as to its duration. That vision also is matched, isn't it, in the book of the Revelation, in chapter ten, just before the scene that we read from Revelation eleven where the temple shall eventually be assaulted and the witnesses overcome, and the Antichrist shall appear to have triumphed and to have demonstrated there is no God for that brief terrible period.
Just before that happens in the book of the Revelation, you had the vision of the strong angel came down from heaven, and he put his foot on the land, and he put his foot on the sea, and he raised his hand to him that lives forever and ever, and he swear by Almighty God that the time would be limited. God has it under his control, and he offered John the book of assurance of God's word and told him to take it and eat it. Yes, the Revelation and Daniel do talk about the same period in parts of their prophecy. It is not surprising that similar visions are given to John as were given to Daniel.
That is a hopelessly rough and ready comment upon Daniel, isn't it? I hope you'll take it in the spirit in which it is given. This is not a pulpit, this is a workshop, and all the rough attempts to hue out a picture leave a lot of shavings all around on the floor, don't they? Not alone that, but dust in people's eyes. You'll get over it if you wash well after going home, uh, but you will probably find here some ideas that might be useful in your study. And now for your two cups of coffee.
