Continued from previous post
Sister Ann states: The eleventh chapter is complicated as it becomes a back and forth confrontation between the two countries now designated as king of the North or king of the South. The last King of the North, Antiochus the 4th, did "not stand, for schemes" were "devised against him---those who eat his choice food will destroy him" Dan 11:25, 26. Both Syria and Palestine declined in power and both were eventually made province of Rome in 64-63 B.C.E.
In Reply, “The history which is told in few words in Dan 8:9, 10 is related with greater detail in Chapter 11:5-19. In this detailed account, Egypt is spoken of as the King of the South; while the Grecians, and afterward the Romans, their successors in power, or the new horn out of Greece, are designated the King of the North. Woven between these, linked now with the one and again with the other, is the history of God's people--Daniel's people--in whose ultimate blessing, as promised by God, Daniel trusted. It is tedious and unnecessary to trace this history in its many details of conflicts between Alexander's generals and their successors, until Verse 17, which refers to Cleopatra, queen of Egypt. And since all are agreed thus far, we need go no farther into the past.
At Verse 18 those who claim that Verse 31 applies to Antiochus Epiphanes continue to apply the prophecy to the little squabbles and battles between Seleucus, Philopater, Antiochus Epiphanes and Ptolemeus Philomater down to the end of the chapter--as the Jews were evidently accustomed to apply it.
The Jews, continuing this interpretation into chapter twelve, would have strong grounds for expecting deliverance by Messiah speedily; and so we read that at the time of our Lord's birth "all men were in expectation" of him, and through him, of their deliverance from the Roman yoke.
But (and this is the important thing) from Verse 18 onward, we who see THE REAL "abomination," part company from them, and understand the prophecy merely to touch prominent characters down to Papacy; and then, touching and identifying it, to pass on to the end of its power to persecute, and to mark that date by a detailed account of one of the most noted characters of history--Napoleon Bonaparte.
But it may be asked,
Why this change of the particular method of the preceding verses, to touch only prominent features of history?
We answer, that this has been part of God's method of sealing and closing the prophecy. “But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end.” (Dan 12:4) Besides, everything in prophecy was so arranged as not to stumble Israel at the first advent. Had the minutiae and detail of twenty centuries been spread out as is that prophecy contained in Verses 3 to 17 of this chapter, it would have been long, tedious and beyond comprehension; and it would have given the Jews and the early Christian church an idea of the length of time before the Kingdom of God should come; and this was not God's purpose.
Proceeding, then, we understand Verses 17-19 to apply to the times and incidents in which Mark Antony and Cleopatra figured, when Antony fell, and Egypt (the "King of the South") was swallowed up (becoming a province of) the Roman Empire (this took place under the ruler-ship of Augustus Caesar in B.C. 30).” C 27-29
As for your statement in regards to Dan 11:25 you should be a little more careful of how you state the facts my sister so as to avoid any confusion, you state,
The last King of the North, Antiochus the 4th, did "not stand, for schemes" which were "devised against him---those who eat his choice food will destroy him."
Let us take another look at the quoted text, Verse 25
“And he [Rome] will stir up his power and courage against the King of the South [Egypt], with a great army; and the King of the South shall be stirred up for the war with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand; for they will [treacherously] devise plans against him.”
From the foregoing it is obvious that it was NOT the King of the North but rather the King of the South who did “not stand, for the schemes (treacheries)” which were “devised against him”.
This king or ruler we understand WAS NOT Antiochus, but rather Queen Zenobia a descendant of Cleopatra. No hostilities had occurred between the two kingdoms until her reign in 269 A.D. Her reign was short; Aurelian, the Roman emperor at the time conquered her in A.D. 272. Aurelian then returned to Rome covered with honor and with great wealth as described in Verse 28. Although his army proved very successful in war nevertheless many were slain and in the end Aurelian himself was assassinated by his own generals, as foretold in the prophecy, “those who eat his choice food (eat at his table) will destroy him” Verse 26. C 33, 34
I believe the problem here my sister is that you are relying much to heavily upon the record of history (written by men), and of the interpretation of these events as recorded by those who like the misguided Jews were unable to see the true picture and so through their ignorance (i.e. a lack of understanding) they were caused to stumbled at our Lord’s First Advent (misunderstanding the prophecies concerning him) even so the same is true today (in regards to the Second Advent) and for the very same reason (a lack understanding).
Here at the end of the Gospel age during our Lord’s Second Advent (his parousia) the professing church, the nominal spiritual house, stumbles over some of the very same things, specifically in regards to the time, purpose, and manner of his presence, but even so it is as the Lord said it would be. (Isa 8:14)
Once again we will continue continued with our next post.
