II. DANIEL THE PROPHET--Chapters 7-12
E. The Vision of World History--11:1-45
1. The two empires--vv-. 1-35
a. The Persian Empire--vv.
1, 2
(I)
General considerations
(A) Overall view
(1) Persian empire covered briefly
(2) Grecian empire covered extensively
(B) This section has provoked the most controversy.
(1) "Probably no other portion of Scripture
presents more minute prophecy than Daniel 11:1-35, and
this has prompted the sharpest
attack of critics seeking to discredit this prophetic portion."
(Walvoord, 252)
(2) This controversy goes back to the Third Century
B. C.
(a) Heathen philosopher, Porphyry
(b) He attacked the Book of
Daniel.
(c) His argument--"In his study,
Porphyry established the fact that history corresponded closely to
the prophetic
revelation of Daniel 11:1-35, and the correspondence was so precise
that he was
persuaded that
no one could have prophesied these events in the future. Accordingly,
he solved
the problem
by taking the position that the book of Daniel was written after the
events
occurred, that
is, it was written in the second century B. C." (Ibid.)
(d) Jerome, in turn, defended the
Book of Daniel from this attack.
(3) "The controversy between Jerome and Porphyry
has characterized discussion of the book of
Daniel ever since, as has been
noted in earlier discussion. Here, however, the lines are clearly
drawn as the prophecy is detailed
and specific, and fulfillment has already occurred. Daniel 11:1-35
is either the most precise and
accurate prophecy of the future, fully demonstrating its divine
inspiration or as Porphyry claimed,
it is a dishonest attempt to present history as if prophesied
centuries earlier." (op.
cit., 253)
(4) Modern critics have not come up with anything
different from Porphyry's claim.
(a) Farrar gives the critical view--"If
this chapter were indeed the utterance of a prophet in the
Babylonian
Exile, nearly four hundred years before the events--events of which
many are of
small comparative
importance in the world's history--which are here so enigmatically and yet
so
minutely depicted,
the revelation would be the most unique and perplexing in the whole
Scriptures.
It would represent a sudden and total departure from every method of
God's
providence
and of Gods manifestations of His will to the mind of the
prophets. It would stand
absolutely
and abnormally alone as an abandonment of the limitations of all
else which has ever
been foretold."
(Farrar, Frederic William, The Book of Daniel, The Expositor's
Bible. Ed. W.
Robertson Nicoll.
Cincinnati: Jennings & Graham, n. d.,299; quoted in Walvoord,
253)
(b) "Leupold observes that Farrar's
criticism was answered long before he made it by Hengstenberg
and others
who cite numerous passages which at least support the idea that prophecy
can be
detailed and
specific. . . . . The issue is a clear-cut question as to whether God
is omniscient
about the future."
(Walvoord, 253)
(c) Since when is God limited to
any particular methods? God can choose any way He wishes to
reveal His
truth. Hebrews 1:1 clearly shows this diversity of methods. It
is unbelief that tries to
limit God.
(5) Some like Keil try to mediate a compromise.
(6) "If the text is properly interpreted,
the alleged historical errors fade; and Daniel's record stands
accurate and complete, although
not without problems of interpretation such as are true in any
prophetic utterance. The
expositor of this portion of Scripture has no convenient
compromise
between the two diverse views.
Either this is genuine prophecy or it is not." (op. cit.,
254)
(7) A general principle to follow is that prophecy
is always accurate, but it does not necessarily give a
complete historical picture; it
is very selective in what it presents.
(C) Though 1 and 2 Macabees are apocrypha books and not considered
inspired, they do contain
considerable historical evidence; thus, they
are quoted from extensively by the authors this writer
quotes.
(II)
The four kings
(A) Darius the Mede
(1) Mentioned, for he was the first ruler of
the Medo-Persian Empire
(2) The speaker here
(a) The angel of 10:18
(b) Verse 1 of this
chapter is often considered to be part of chapter 10.
(c) "The statement that the
angel 'stood' in verse 1 in the sense of "standing as in a military
conflict
against the
enemy as in 10:33." (Ibid.)
(3) Who is the him here in verse?
(a) Darius
((I)) Certainly
is the closest antecedent
((II)) "His
stand is usually taken as being in support of Darius the Mede, 'to
confirm and
strengthen him." (Ibid.)
((III)) "In
the first year Darius the Mede, who destroyed Babylon and released the
Jews out
of the house of bondage, I stood a strength and fortress
to him, that is, I was instrumental
to protect him, and give him success in his wars, and, after he
had conquered Babylon, to
confirm him in his resolutions to release the Jews, which, it is likely,
met with much
opposition. Thus by the angel, and at the request of the
watcher, the golden head was
broken, and the axe laid to the root of the tree." (Henry, 1101;
italics are his.)
(b) Michael
((I)) The archangel
who in particularly oversees Israel
((II)) "In
the first year of Darius the Mede when the world power passed from
the Babylonian to
the Medo-Persian, the angel stood by Michael , the guardian of Israel,
until he succeeded in
turning the new kingdom from hostility to favor toward Israel. The
story of Chapter 6
demonstrates that efforts were made in the first year of Darius
to make him hostile toward
Israel. But God sent His angel on that occasion and shut the
lions mouths (Dan 6:22). The
miraculous deliverance by the angel caused Darius the Mede to reverse
his policies to favor
Israel (6;26-27). The beginning of the second great empire
with the fall of Babylon in
chapter 5 was, then more than a military conquest or triumph of the
armies of the Mede and
Persians. It was a new chapter in
the divine drama of angelic warfare behind the scenes, and
the
change was by divine appointment." (Walvoord, 255)
(B) The three kings
(1) The phrase Now I will tell thee the
truth
(a) "The truth of what
will come to pass in the future (Cf. 'the scripture of truth,' 10:21)."
(Ibid.)
(b) "Now I will tell thee
the truth, that is, the true meaning of the visions of the
great image, and
of the four
beasts, and expound in plain terms what was before represented by dark
types."
(Henry, 1101;
italics are his.)
(2) The kings
(a) As usual controversy
exists as to who these are.
(b) The first four kings
of the Medo-Persian Empire
((I)) In addition
to Darius
((II)) Later
kings unimportant and in decline
(c) The kings are future
to Cyrus.
((I)) Prophecy
was the third year of Cyrus.
((II)) Darius,
Cyrus, and probably Cyrus II are excluded.
(d) Who are they?
((I))
Cumbyses
((A)) 529-522 B. C.
((B)) Not mentioned in the Old Testament
((II))
Pseudo-Smerdis
((A)) 522-521 B. C.
((B)) Probably not mentioned in Old Testament either; his reign was
very short.
((III)) Darius
I Hystaspes
((A)) 521-486 B. C.
((B)) Ezra 5 and 6
(C) The fourth king
(I) His description
(a) Richer than all the
others
(b) Uses his strength and
riches
(2) His duty
(a) To stir up Greece
(b) "There shall be a fourth,
far richer them they all, that is, Xerxes, of whose wealth the
Greek
authors take
notice. By his strength (his vast army, consisting of 800,000
men at least) and his
riches,
with which he maintained and paid that vast army, he stirred up all
against the realm of
Greece.
Xerxes's expedition against Greece is famous in history, and the shameful
defeat that
he met with."
(Ibid., italics are his.)
(3) His identity
(a) Some eliminate Pseudo-Smerdis
because of his short reign.
(b) Substitutes Xerxes I
(c) Then fourth ruler would
be Artaxerxes I
((I)) 464-424
B. C.
((II)) Ezra
7:11-26
(d) "However, according to
the prophecy, the fourth ruler is the one who contends against Greece
which was
not true of Artaxerxes." (Walvoord, 256)
(e) Thus he is probably Xerxes
I
((I))
Ahasuerus--Esther 1
((II)) "The
ill fated expedition against Greece may have occurred between chapters 1
and 2 of
Esther." (Ibid.)