2008-03-30 - Daniel
Chapter 11: Part 11 ~ Installment 95
Editor's note: In the midst of some recent turmoil (we lost my mother), I accidentally left out this installment of Geoff's study on Daniel Chapter 11. Please accept our apology for the confusion.
This section of Daniel speaks of a future ruler, future to Daniel, and still in our future. This individual is the last world ruler preceding the Messianic kingdom. Keep in mind that up until this section, all we've seen - while future to Daniel - can clearly be identified with what are historical events, from our perspective. This last passage, starting with 11:36 and running through 12:4 can not be tied to any clearly identifiable historic event. This leaves one of two possible conclusions. First, if this vision has been fulfilled, then the event it predicted simply hasn't been identified yet. Second, the fulfillment of the vision is still to occur in the future. Personally, I believe the latter is the more likely conclusion.
First, we must try to come to some understanding the focus of the passage. Next we will consider an application. By examining the characteristics of Antichristl we can see - in the extreme - the major difference in the behavior of one who belongs to Satan and one who belongs to God. This understanding should help us, first to have realistic expectations of those whom we deal with, and second, should make clear to us the importance of the quality of our walk as a testimony to the reality of God in our lives. Introduction: Boice notes that understanding the normal textual flow can lead to the conclusion that the King of verse 36 is the same as in the previous section. The difficulty with this view is, events recorded from 36 on don't relate to anything known about the career of Antiochus, and therefore the best understanding of the passage would be to acknowledge that this is a different individual. While there is disagreement over the interpretation of the passage, identifying this king as Antichrist offers the least problems. First, operating from the position that we are dealing with a future event - and second, that the passage isn't discussing Antiochus - then, for the sake of consistent interpretation, the passage must be handled as literally as the previous passages.
To be continued.
Comments or Questions?