SRR #58 | Eschatology And The Danielic Imperative Part 3

ThornCrown Network iconThornCrown Network

0 views

0 comments

SRR #59 | The Single Frame Hypothesis (Eschatology And The Danielic Imperative Part 4)

00:02
I do a podcast. I'm not interested in your podcast. Folks, these are wolves.
00:11
Truth be told, I oftentimes lay awake at night trying to figure out how I can get rid of wolves in the church.
00:23
We are unabashedly, unashamedly Clarkian. And so the next few statements that I'm going to make,
00:29
I'm probably going to step on all of the Vantillian toes at the same time. And this is what we do at Simple Riff around the radio, you know.
00:36
We are polemical and polarizing Jesus style. I would first say that to characterize what we do as fashion is itself fashion.
00:56
It's not hate. It's history. It's not fashion. It's the Bible. Jesus said,
01:06
Woe to you when men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way, as opposed to blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.
01:20
It is on. We're taking the gloves off. It's time to battle. And now
01:32
I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them.
01:40
And when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece.
01:46
And a mighty king shall arise who shall rule with great dominion and do as he wills.
01:52
And as soon as he is risen, his kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the authority with which he ruled for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others.
02:09
Besides these, Daniel 11, 2 through 4. This podcast is a member of the
02:23
Bible Thumping Wingnut Network. Welcome everybody to another podcast episode with Simple Riff around the radio.
02:29
Hi, welcome to Theology Gals. Welcome everyone to the Logical Belief Ministries podcast.
02:35
Well, welcome to School of Biblical Harmonetics. Welcome everybody to Rappling with Theology.
02:41
What is going on, guys? Shining lights coming at you. Well, welcome to Slick Answers. Good evening and welcome to Conversations from the
02:50
Port. Hello and welcome to Living in the
02:57
Vine. This is the Council of Google+. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Bible Thumping Wingnut Podcast.
03:04
The Bible Thumping Wingnut Network. 12 podcasts, 1 network. Check them out at BibleThumpingWingnut .com.
03:12
Looking for that perfect track for your next evangelism outreach? Look no further. At TrackedPlanet .com
03:18
we have solid biblical tracks that are a breeze to hand out. They are beautifully designed and are the highest quality tracks available.
03:26
With over 80 different designs in stock and literally hundreds more available by custom order, we're sure to have just the right one for you.
03:35
You can get any of our items printed with your church or ministry information or have us design a brand new track just for you.
03:42
We are committed to the solid biblical message of law to the proud and grace to the humble. Each track is firm on the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the necessity of repentance and faith in salvation.
03:52
Come check us out at TrackedPlanet .com and make sure you use coupon code BTWN at checkout for 10 % off your entire order.
04:03
That's TractPlanet .com, coupon code BTWN. Okay, I want to welcome everybody back to another episode of Semper Ephraim on the radio.
04:16
My name is Tim Shaughnessy and I am here with Tim Coffman once again for another episode in eschatology.
04:24
But before we get into that, I just want to give Tim an opportunity to say hello and welcome him to the show.
04:31
Thank you, Tim. It's good to be here. I appreciate the folks who've been listening. I hope they've been getting a lot out of it and we appreciate everybody's patience.
04:38
There's a lot of detailed information to go through in each of these episodes and we'll cover it to the best of our ability and hopefully people will be able to listen to these and the whole series and have a better understanding of Daniel and his timeline, which is really the focus of the entire series right now.
04:59
Well, Tim, in the intro we read a passage from Daniel chapter 11 and Daniel chapter 11 is going to be our focus for today.
05:09
So this is something that I'm certainly enjoying, but I have very little to add to it.
05:14
So I'm just going to get out of the way and I'm going to allow you to lead us in our discussion for today.
05:20
So if you want to just go ahead and get started. So I want to start with just revisiting what we covered in the first two episodes.
05:29
And basically what we addressed was the harmonization of Daniel chapter 7 and Revelation chapter 17.
05:36
And what happens in Daniel chapter 7 is that there are four beasts that are four kingdoms that would arise on the earth and the fourth beast had ten horns.
05:45
A little horn comes up, uproots three of the first horns and rules among the remaining horns.
05:53
And typically, historically, that has been understood to mean that there were ten horns to start. The little horn took three of the ten, leaving seven total horns to reign among.
06:04
Now, the problem that creates is when we get to Revelation chapter 17. And what happens in Revelation chapter 17 is that the lamb returns.
06:16
The beast is ready to make war with him and the beast has ten horns with him to make war against the lamb.
06:23
The problem is that there should have only been seven horns remaining. If little horn had come up and taken three of the ten in Daniel chapter 7, there should have only been seven horns left in Revelation chapter 17.
06:36
Instead, we find that there are still ten horns remaining. And what we concluded in our first two episodes was that either
06:42
John recorded too many horns in Revelation 17 or we have understood too few horns at the end of Daniel chapter 7.
06:53
And what we showed was that Daniel had actually shown each of those four beasts in succession in its final configuration just before the next empire arose.
07:03
And the series of empires actually depicts five total empires. The Babylonian Empire, depicted as a lion.
07:11
The Medo -Persian Empire, depicted as a bear. The Greek Empire, depicted as a leopard. The Roman Empire is a fierce, terrible beast with ten horns and then a little horn coming up.
07:24
And that little horn is the fifth empire in succession. But what we showed was that if we are to harmonize
07:30
Daniel chapter 7 and Revelation 17, there must have been thirteen horns. It's just that three of the horns are removed by the little horn before he comes up to reign as the successor and therefore the ten horn configuration is simply the final configuration of the
07:45
Roman Empire after three have been removed in preparation for the little horn to come up.
07:51
So, Daniel was aware of thirteen horns. The little horn removed three of the thirteen, came up among the remaining ten.
07:57
And that little horn with those ten makes war against the lamb when he returns in Revelation chapter 17.
08:04
Thus, we should have been looking for not a ten -way division of the Roman Empire, but a thirteen -way division of the
08:11
Roman Empire. And historically, ever since people have been investigating Daniel and trying to understand the fulfillment of the prophecies, they have been awaiting a ten -way division of the
08:22
Roman Empire as an indication that it was time for Antichrist to rise. In fact, they should have been looking for a thirteen -way division of the
08:29
Roman Empire, little horn to take three of those and then rise up among the remaining ten.
08:34
And what we showed in our last episode last week was that Roman Catholicism arose as that little horn in the latter part of the 4th century.
08:44
There was a ten -year period between 373 AD and 383 AD when we know the
08:50
Roman Empire was finally divided thirteen ways and the Bishop of Rome occupied a seat in the city of Rome.
08:59
And based on what we know both from the ecclesiastical standpoint and the civil standpoint, the person in Rome only managed the city and a few adjacent suburbs to the city.
09:10
The actual metropolitan seat of the Diocese of Italy was not Rome, but rather Milan.
09:17
And so what happened was that Constantinople had the temerity to suggest that the church at Constantinople was second to Rome.
09:25
Rome responded saying that no, Jesus had established his church on Peter and Peter had been established in the three
09:33
Petrine Seas of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. By then, he was describing what were essentially the three metropolitan cities of the three
09:44
Dioceses of Italy, Egypt, and the East, with the sole exception of the fact that Milan, rather than Rome, was the chief metropolis of the
09:55
Diocese of Italy. And that's what gets us to the point in the Danielic timeline where the angel explains that the little horn not only uproots three of the thirteen horns that emerged from the
10:07
Roman Empire, but subdues three kings in the process. And what we showed last week was that the
10:13
Bishop of Rome, first, could not share Italy with the Bishop of Milan, and in 378
10:20
AD asked the emperor to subordinate Milan to Rome, which essentially made
10:25
Rome the chief metropolis of the Diocese of Italy. When the Roman emperor declared that Roman Catholicism was the new religion of the
10:35
Empire, he identified it as the religion of the Bishop of Rome and the
10:40
Bishop of Alexandria. And we also know from a chronological standpoint, Peter had gone to Antioch and lived there quite a while before he ever went to Rome.
10:50
So, within the Diocese of Italy, Milan had the primacy. When it came to establishing the religion of the
10:57
Empire, Alexandria was on equal footing with Rome. And when it came to a chronological primacy,
11:04
Antioch had the primacy ahead of Rome because Peter went there first. And in the process, Rome subordinated those three
11:10
Petrine, those three Cs. First, subordinating Milan to make
11:15
Rome the chief metropolis of the Diocese of Italy, and then subordinating Alexandria to himself, saying that among the three,
11:23
Alexandria is second, and then finally putting Antioch in third place. And that's what historically has been known as the doctrine of the three
11:29
Petrine Cs. And popes, long since then, have been claiming that a Petrine succession of the
11:35
Church is established on the foundation of the three Petrine Cs, which by then, of course, were the three chief metropolis, three of the thirteen dioceses of the
11:46
Roman Empire. And as we also noted, it was at this same time that Roman Catholicism was becoming a civil power and not just ecclesiastical power.
11:55
And that's the fulfillment of Daniel chapter 7, where once you harmonize
12:03
Daniel chapter 7 with Revelation 17 and recognize that each of those four beasts is depicted in its final configuration just prior to the rise of the next empire, we see that what
12:14
Daniel had seen was that there had been thirteen horns and the little horn came up, removed three, and then arose among the remaining ten, and eventually assumed the civil power.
12:25
And that's what Roman Catholicism did once the Roman Empire was divided thirteen ways. So where that gets us to now and what we want to cover in episode 3 is that historically, and basically,
12:37
I would say for the last 2 ,000 years, it has been assumed that the little horn of Daniel 7 also does some of the things that the king of the north does in Daniel chapter 11.
12:54
And we need to understand not just the Roman Empire and how it was divided, because that's the centerpiece of Daniel chapter 7, we also have to understand the division of the
13:07
Greek Empire, which is basically the framework that's established at the very beginning of Daniel chapter 11.
13:15
The reason we have to know this is because the prophecies of Daniel are completely wrapped up in the division of these two empires.
13:23
Now, the problem that we face, and the problem that eschatologists have faced for a long time, is that the division of the
13:31
Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century is one of the most obscure facts of the
13:36
Roman Empire that really only came to light after about 1 ,200 years of obscurity, it came to light in the middle of the 16th century.
13:44
As we mentioned last week, the 12 -way division of Rome under Diocletian occurred in 296
13:49
AD, and that's recorded for us in the Latriculus Verinensis, which is a Roman administrative document from about 314
13:57
AD. And the final division into 13 occurred at the latter part of the 4th century, and that was preserved for us in the
14:04
Notitia Dignitatum, also a late 4th century Roman administrative record that lay hidden in obscurity for 1 ,200 years.
14:11
It wasn't uncovered and published until the middle of the 16th century. The significance of that fact alone is profound, because what it tells us is that the most ancient
14:21
Christian and early Reformed and Protestant eschatologies were established without the knowledge of that final division of the empire.
14:30
One of the most profoundly significant events in the history of the Church, in the history of Christian eschatology, was the division of the
14:38
Roman Empire 13 ways at the latter part of the 4th century, and it was lost to us for more than a millennium.
14:45
The 4 -way division of the Greek Empire is even more difficult, and this is what we're going to jump into today.
14:52
The Cambridge Ancient History informs us that the period is so poorly documented that we are left extracting information from coins, inscriptions, and scattered literary references, to use their words.
15:04
This is from Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 7, Part 1. The whole history of the
15:11
Greek East in the 3rd century BC is very poorly documented, and this includes the
15:17
Syrian Wars. There are practically no detailed accounts of this period by ancient historians.
15:22
The preserved part of Diodorus' history is interrupted in the year 302 BC, and Polybius does not take up the narrative until the last few decades of the 3rd century.
15:31
The gaps can be filled rather sketchily on the basis of scattered literary references, of inscriptions, and to a lesser degree, the evidence provided by coins.
15:40
Now, the reason that this has happened this way is that we have largely relied on histories of nations.
15:48
There was a Greek nation, and there were Greek historians. There was a Roman nation, and there were
15:54
Roman historians. There was a Syrian nation, and an Egyptian nation, and those nations all recorded their histories.
16:00
So much of the division of the Greek Empire that took place after the death of Alexander occurred in Asia Minor.
16:09
The problem is that Asia Minor was never the home of an indigenous national demographic.
16:17
It was always being invaded from the north, the south, the east, and the west, and therefore its population was never really a national entity, at least not during this time frame.
16:27
And so you don't have national historians recording the national history of this particular part of the
16:33
Greek Empire. It's actually something that we can only discover in fragments, in inscriptions, and to some degree, evidence provided by coins.
16:43
I want to now turn to Roger Bagnall and Peter Darrow, who were preeminent historians of the
16:48
Hellenistic era, and they explain the significance of the profound gaps in the written records and the poverty under which we labor as we try to examine the time after Alexander's death.
17:00
By poverty, I mean an historiographical poverty. The written record is so poor.
17:06
In a lot of ways, we're struggling in the darkness to try to find out what actually happened. This is what
17:12
Bagnall and Darrow wrote in their book, The Hellenistic Period Historical Sources in Translation.
17:20
This is Blackwell Publishing, 2004. In the intro, page 26, he says,
17:26
For the Hellenistic period, the gaps in the historical record are especially profound, and there can be few epics in the history of the ancient
17:35
Greek world for which the documents are proportionally as important as they are for the period from the end of the fourth century to the
17:41
Roman triumph a quarter millennium later. For this period, we have no connected, completely preserved historical accounts, just pieces of varying size here and there.
17:51
There's also a further complication. The Greek world no longer offered even the relatively unified narrative canvas that it had in earlier centuries.
18:00
History from documents is thus even more fragmentary than that offered by the fragmentary literary tradition of the
18:06
Hellenistic period, and the fragments are generally of quite a different kind. So, here we are trying to dive into the division of the
18:15
Greek empire after Alexander, and we're entering a period of relative darkness when it comes to the historical record, and we're forced to rely not only on fragments, but upon fragments of fragments.
18:28
In other words, two of the most important phases in Western civilization, from an historical perspective and an eschatological perspective, are the four -way split of the
18:41
Greek empire after Alexander and the 13 -way split of the Roman empire in the latter part of the fourth century.
18:49
And yet the historical record of these two periods has been quite obscure, and yet that's what we have to sort through in order to understand the prophecies.
18:59
We are directed to these prophecies to observe them, to watch them as they happen, and to understand them when they happen so that we can understand the warnings that we are given.
19:09
And so, it's very important for us to dive in and understand, and I will say that there are some parts of the
19:15
Greek record that are so recent that they have been only in the last 100 to 150 years have they even discovered some of the most critical information about the division of the
19:28
Greek empire and the boundaries of the four nations that arose after Alexander. And those boundaries are critical to us, because the boundaries themselves are not identified for us in chapter 11 of Daniel, which is what we're covering today.
19:40
The boundaries have to be determined by their fulfillment, and that is what
19:47
I mean is the fulfillment of the prophecies can only be understood when we understand what actually happened in this period.
19:53
So, where we're going with episode 3 this week, we noted last week that the rise of Roman Catholicism as the little horn of Daniel chapter 7 is largely missed, because without harmonizing
20:06
Daniel 7 with Revelation 17, we end up looking for a 10 -way division of the Roman Empire instead of a 13 -way division.
20:13
And what ends up compounding this mistake is that the little horn of Daniel 7 is then identified with the king of the north in Daniel chapter 11.
20:21
Now, this is problematic for more than just one reason, but one big reason that it's problematic is that the centerpiece of the narrative of Daniel chapter 7 is a
20:32
Roman framework. Although four beasts are identified, the angel explaining this to Daniel says that there are four beasts upon the earth, but he focuses on the fourth beast.
20:44
It's during the period of the fourth beast that the saints receive a heavenly kingdom, but also during the period of the fourth beast that it becomes fragmented and the fifth empire rises up.
20:52
And that fifth empire persecutes the saints, and it's not until that fifth empire is destroyed that the saints receive an earthly kingdom under heaven.
21:00
But that's in a Roman framework. There's not a lot of discussion about what happens under the
21:06
Babylonian Empire, the Medo -Persian Empire, and the Greek Empire. Most of the narrative in Daniel chapter 7 is about the
21:14
Roman Empire and its fragments and the empire that came after that. When we turn to Daniel chapter 11, the introduction to the chapter says there are only a few kings left of the
21:26
Persian Empire, and then there will be a Greek Empire, and that Greek Empire will be split four ways toward the four winds of heaven.
21:33
That's the framework of Daniel chapter 11. There's nothing in the text of Daniel chapter 11 that suggests that Daniel has shifted his focus back to Daniel chapter 7 or forward to a
21:44
Roman period. He introduces a Greek period in Daniel chapter 11 and then proceeds to walk through a narrative that for all intents and purposes appears to be set in a
21:56
Greek framework. Nevertheless, the church has historically linked the little horn of Daniel chapter 7 to the king of the north in Daniel chapter 11.
22:09
I'm going to throw this out there as our next big assumption that we need to deal with.
22:15
The first assumption, of course, being that when Daniel wrote chapter 7, he said that the little horn subdued three of the ten kings or uprooted three of the ten horns, something he never actually says, and the other assumption being that the first horns were numbered in the number of ten, and Daniel never actually says that either.
22:35
Those were assumptions that are brought into the text, and so we had to deal with those assumptions, especially because we were approaching the text understanding that it cannot contradict and it must be coherent and consistent, and when we harmonized
22:46
Daniel 7 with Revelation 17, we realized that there were in fact 13 horns. So now we're going to look through how has the church looked at Daniel chapter 11 and turned it back into a narrative about something that was taking place in Daniel chapter 7, and I want to give two examples of that.
23:06
The first is Lactantius. He is writing in the early fourth century in his
23:12
Divine Institute's book 7 chapter 16, and he's writing about Daniel chapter 7 and then he transitions to Daniel chapter 11 as if it was the most natural transition.
23:23
I'll just read it for you. It says, But lest anyone should think this incredible, I will show how it will come to pass.
23:31
First the kingdom will be enlarged and the chief power, dispersed among many and divided, will be diminished. Then civil discords will perpetually be sown, nor will there be any rest from deadly wars until ten kings arise at the same time who will divide the world not to govern but to consume it.
23:46
These, having increased their armies to an immense extent and having deserted the cultivation of the fields, which is the beginning of overthrow and disaster, will lay waste and break in pieces and consume all things.
23:56
Then a most powerful enemy will suddenly arise against him from the extreme boundaries of the northern region. So for some reason
24:03
Lactantius has been looking at Daniel and he moves right from the ten kings to a northern antagonist coming.
24:14
And then he continues, he said, A most powerful enemy will suddenly arise against him from the extreme boundaries of the northern region who, having destroyed three of that number, who shall then be in possession of Asia, shall be admitted into alliance by the others and shall be constituted prince of all.
24:28
So Lactantius is talking about the ten kings and then suddenly a northern king comes and destroys three of those ten.
24:38
And that is a reference to Daniel chapter 11 because there's no reference to a northern king in Daniel chapter 7.
24:43
Lactantius has shifted to Daniel chapter 11 and has assumed that the northern antagonist in Daniel 11 must be the little horn of Daniel chapter 7.
24:53
But there's nothing in the text of either chapters that would suggest that link. My next example is
24:58
Hippolytus. He's writing at the beginning of the third century and this is his work on Daniel, book 2, paragraph 52.
25:06
And notice again how he switches so easily between Daniel chapter 7 and Daniel chapter 11.
25:13
He says, And after he has overmastered three horns out of the ten in the array of war and has rooted these out, that is,
25:21
Egypt and Libya and Ethiopia, and has got their spoils and trappings and has brought the remaining horns which will suffer into subjection, he will begin to be lifted up in heart and to exalt himself as a master of the whole world.
25:33
Now, notice how he has identified Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia as the three horns of Daniel chapter 7.
25:40
Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia are identified in Daniel 11, 43. But again, when we look at Daniel chapter 7, we're looking at it in a
25:50
Roman framework. When we look at Daniel chapter 11, we're looking at it in a Greek framework. And there's nothing in the text of Daniel chapter 11 that suggests that Daniel has shifted his focus back to Daniel chapter 7 and is now talking about that little horn again.
26:06
So Daniel 11 begins, as we've said, with a prelude to the Greek Empire, but both Lactantius and Hippolytus interpret
26:12
Daniel 11 as if at some point Daniel stopped talking about the Greek Empire and started prophesying again about the little horn of Daniel 7, a horn that is supposed to emerge from the
26:22
Roman Empire. These two examples, I think, are a fair summary of how the
26:28
Church has historically understood Daniel 11 and 7, trying to harmonize them by making the antagonist of Daniel 11, which is the northern king, equal to the antagonist of Daniel chapter 7, which is the little horn.
26:44
And as we asked at the beginning of the series, this is one of the assumptions that we identified that needs to be challenged.
26:50
Are we to assume that Daniel 11, at some point, simply stops talking, without any notice at all, stops talking about the
27:01
Greek Empire and now is shifting back to a discussion on the little horn of Daniel 7? I do not believe it's a valid assumption, but what
27:08
I really want to address is why the Church ended up assuming that identification, that identification of the little horn of Daniel 7 with the northern antagonist of Daniel 11.
27:19
And there are two main reasons that we're going to address today. We're going to address most of this today, and we're going to pick up with this in the next episode.
27:28
First, expositors and commentaries have historically struggled with Daniel 11 because it appears to diverge from known history after only four verses.
27:37
We're going to examine how the typical attempt to solve the problem geographically actually compounds the problem even further, rather than solving it.
27:45
And we're going to provide a solution that is actually surprisingly simple, and that solution is right there in the text.
27:51
We're just going to show you where it is. And second, the boundary that separates north from south in Daniel 11 is assumed, historically, to be the
27:59
Mediterranean Sea, an assumption that is largely grounded on extremely limited historical evidence.
28:06
Today we're going to explain why that evidence is so limited and how late discoveries in just the last 100 years show where the real boundary between north and south actually was during this time.
28:19
And I want to emphasize that the boundaries between the north and the south are not identified for us in the text of Daniel 11.
28:26
They are shown to us in the fulfillment of the prophecy. And so what we're going to do is we're going to address these two geographic issues and we're going to explain why they matter so much to the solution of Daniel chapter 11.
28:38
Once those two geographic issues are resolved, the continuity problems go away. Again, I want to just emphasize the reason that Daniel 11 has become so confusing to us is because it appears to diverge from known history.
28:54
There's a major continuity problem in Daniel chapter 11 based on the assumptions that we have brought with us to the text.
29:02
Once those assumptions are removed, the continuity problem goes away. And when that continuity problem goes away, with it goes the assumption that the northerly antagonist of Daniel 11 is identified with the little horn of Daniel chapter 7.
29:18
The significance to us is that once we realize that the northern antagonist of Daniel 11 is not identified with the little horn of Daniel chapter 7, we no longer have to look for the little horn of Daniel chapter 7 to do the things at the end of Daniel chapter 11.
29:34
If we await the little horn to do those things, we'll be waiting for something that's never going to happen.
29:41
In the process, we will overlook the Antichrist, the little horn, the beast of Revelation 13 that we were warned about.
29:49
So, as I mentioned, the Roman division and the Greek division are very, very challenging topics historically.
29:57
But with the Roman division, we were able to narrow down the 13 -way split. That is, when the
30:04
Roman Empire was formally divided 13 ways into 13 dioceses, and that occurred between 373 and 383
30:10
AD. Once we could identify when that happened, we began to look for, okay, finally the
30:16
Roman Empire is divided 13 ways, now who tries to take three of the 13 dioceses? And we identified
30:22
Roman Catholicism as the culprit there. Roman Catholicism is that little horn of Daniel chapter 7.
30:28
Now, we're going to turn our attention to the Greek Empire, and we need to focus on when the Greek Empire was split four ways.
30:35
What we'll be discussing is what is called post -Alexandrian Hellenism, which is just a way of saying the
30:41
Greek Empire after Alexander. We have to understand post -Alexandrian
30:47
Hellenism because Daniel refers to it to establish a framework for the prophecies, and he does this four times.
30:53
Four different times he refers to the four -way division of the Greek Empire. And that alone should be enough for us to desire to establish exactly when the
31:04
Greek Empire was divided four ways. I'm citing from four verses in Daniel. In Daniel 7 .6,
31:10
he says, After this I beheld, and lo, another like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl.
31:17
The beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it. In Daniel 8 .8, Therefore the he -goat waxed very great, and when he was strong the great horn was broken.
31:26
And for it came up four notable horns toward the four winds of heaven. It's Daniel 8 .8. Now, that being broken, that is, we're now moving forward to Daniel 8 .22,
31:36
which is the angelic interpretation of that vision, referring to the broken horn between the eyes of the goat, he says,
31:42
Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it. Four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
31:49
And then finally to the chapter that has our attention today, referring to the king of the Greeks who will stand up, it says,
31:55
And when he shall stand up his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven. So four times we are told about a four -way division of the
32:05
Greek Empire, and twice we're told that it is divided toward the four winds of heaven. And I would encourage our readers to study in the scriptures what the four winds of heaven are.
32:15
And it's very clear from the scriptures that the four winds of heaven are north, south, east, and west.
32:20
And you see all four winds of heaven identified that way throughout the scriptures. So the question before us, just like it was last week or the week before, we asked,
32:33
When did the Roman Empire divide 13 ways? We have to examine when the Greek Empire divided four ways.
32:41
And to do that, we're going to have to understand what happened after Alexander died. So we're going to be discussing something that is covered in one of my blog posts called,
32:51
Reduction of the Diadochi. And the Diadochi is just a Greek term for the successor kings of Alexander.
32:58
And so when Alexander died, there was almost an innumerable cohort of successors.
33:06
They were all trying to claim that they were going to be his successor. Now, immediately upon his death, of course, everybody put their ambitions aside, and they simply revered and honored their king who had died.
33:19
He had been a great general and a great king to them. But it didn't take very long for them to start realizing that somebody's got to take the reins.
33:26
And there was tremendous power wielded by Alexander. And whoever could take the kingdom after him would be very powerful as well.
33:33
So the most notorious reductions of the Diadochi were performed by Alexander's own mother,
33:38
Olympias, and his general, Cassander. Olympias murdered Alexander's half -brother,
33:44
Aridaeus, in 317 BC to eliminate him as successor.
33:49
And Cassander then murdered Olympias in 316 BC to safeguard his claims to the Macedonian throne.
33:56
Cassander then put to death Alexander's mistress, Barcene, and his son by her,
34:02
Hercules, in 309 BC. So now Alexander's mother and mistress and his half -brother and his illegitimate son are all dead now.
34:14
And then eventually, Cassander eliminated Alexander's wife, Roxanne, and her son,
34:19
Alexander IV, in 310 BC. So this information comes to us from scattered remnants of the historical record of post -Alexandrian
34:30
Hellenism. But we're able to put it all together largely from those narratives trying to figure out who killed whom after Alexander died.
34:39
So what happened next is that with Alexander's mother, wife, mistress, brother, and sons all removed from the picture, the remaining
34:46
Diadochi each began to claim the right of succession. And Antigonus was the first to take the crown.
34:53
And he and his son Demetrius claimed the crown as co -regents, and they were claiming that they were going to rule over Alexander's empire.
35:04
And Demetrius had recently won victories over Ptolemy in the south in the
35:09
Siege of Salamis in 306 BC, and the naval battle that immediately followed.
35:15
And Antigonus thought that they're both doing so well in their wars that they should rule his empire together.
35:21
And then the other candidate successors were Seleucus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Cassander, and they quickly followed suit and all took the crown as well.
35:30
So now Antigonus and Demetrius have started something. Now everybody's claiming a crown and claiming to be the successor of Alexander.
35:40
So fearing the growing dominance and belligerence of Demetrius and Antigonus, Ptolemy and Cassander formed an alliance with Lysimachus and Seleucus and made preparations for war against Antigonus and his son
35:52
Demetrius. And so Antigonus then establishes a defensive posture to get ready because all the kings had united against him.
36:00
That's from Diodorus, Book 20. So these events that we're talking about, as we reduce the diadochi from 20 or 30, all the way down to the current complement, we're down to about five different family lines that are all claiming succession.
36:17
So we're not quite at the four -way division yet. So this all leads us up to the watershed battle of Ipsus in 301
36:24
BC, where Antigonus and Demetrius together made war against the coalition of four kings, Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus, and Cassander.
36:34
At the conclusion of that battle, Antigonus was dead and Demetrius was on the run with only 5 ,000 soldiers and 4 ,000 horses remaining.
36:43
The remainder of Alexander's empire was left to the victors, Ptolemy, Cassander, Seleucus, and Lysimachus.
36:50
However, and I want to highlight that fact, however, Demetrius was defeated, but he was not destroyed.
36:57
He still had 5 ,000 soldiers and 4 ,000 horses with him. And so Demetrius retired to Ephesus to regroup.
37:04
And the reason we can't rule out Demetrius is because he ended up retaining
37:12
Cyprus as part of his possessions and maintained control of the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea.
37:18
And within just a few years, he was a regional superpower again and fielded an army and navy almost as impressive as any that Alexander had ever deployed.
37:26
And so when we look at the history of the Greek Empire after Alexander, after the Battle of Ipsus, we still have five diadochi, five family lines that are claiming to be successors to Alexander.
37:39
You've got the line of Antigonus. He's dead, but his son Demetrius is still a superpower in the region.
37:47
Seleucus has claimed the east in Syria. Ptolemy has claimed
37:53
Egypt to the south. Lysimachus has Thrace and will eventually control
38:00
Asia Minor within the Taurus Mountains. And of course, Cassander is in Macedonia.
38:08
So those are five lines, but within four years of Ipsus, Cassander died, leaving his unstable
38:13
Macedonian kingdom to his three sons, Philippus, Alexander, and Antipater. Philippus died soon after his father and the remaining two were perpetually at variance, a lot of sibling rivalry there.
38:26
And eventually Demetrius came in and threatened the unstable kingdom. And what happened was
38:32
Demetrius convinced the people of Macedonia that it would be unfitting for anyone of Cassander's line to take the throne of Macedonia because Cassander's line was responsible for the murder of Alexander's mother, wife, mistress, and children.
38:46
Anybody who had destroyed Alexander's line was completely unfit to occupy
38:51
Alexander's throne. So the people of Macedonia accepted that rationale and made
38:57
Demetrius king of Macedonia in 294 BC. So what happens is it's the line of Cassander that eventually gets ruled out here, and we're finally down to four that are controlling four regions after Alexander.
39:11
So we have the line of Cassander is eliminated. Demetrius is of the line of Antigonus and he has
39:19
Macedonia. Control of Macedonia shifted back and forth for the next decade or so, but when it comes to the line of kings that ruled over Macedonia until it finally capitulated to Rome when
39:31
Rome rose as an empire, it was of the line of Demetrius, which is of the line of Antigonus.
39:38
Seleucus had taken the east from Syria to Babylon. Ptolemy had taken the south, which was largely defined as Egypt.
39:51
And Lysimachus basically controlled Thrace and Asia Minor within the Taurus Mountains.
39:57
And so I want for our listeners, if they can just make a mental image in their mind, because we need to superimpose a compass over it.
40:05
If you think about Macedonia is in the west, and Syria is in the east,
40:11
Asia Minor, or modern -day Turkey, is in the north, and Egypt is in the south. And those are the four points of the compass.
40:19
That state of affairs was maintained until 281
40:24
BC, at which time the Seleucids invaded Asia Minor and killed Lysimachus at the
40:30
Battle of Choropedium. The significance here is that in 281 BC, the family lines of succession were reduced to just three.
40:40
So we know between 294 BC and 281 BC, that's when the
40:46
Greek Empire was divided four ways. It was divided four ways toward the north, south, east, and west, toward the four winds of heaven.
40:54
Lysimachus ruling in Asia Minor within the Taurus Mountains, Ptolemy ruling in Egypt, Seleucus ruling in Syria, to Babylon to the east, and the line of Demetrius after him controlling
41:07
Macedonia until the time when the Romans took over. So we have this period of history where we can pinpoint when the
41:15
Greek Empire was divided four ways, and we need to examine this particular period, not just so we can know what
41:24
Daniel had foreseen, but also to understand the boundaries of these kingdoms, because those boundaries make a big difference to us in our understanding of Daniel chapter 11.
41:34
The reason they make a difference is because the king of the north is always invading the king of the south, the king of the south is invading the king of the north.
41:41
We need to know where their boundaries are in order to understand what constitutes an invasion between the two, because the fulfillment of this is only understood to us in the historical record, and that's what we have to examine.
41:56
Tim, did you have a question? It is fascinating. I wanted to ask you a question.
42:02
When did these things come to light? You said that the reformers didn't have access to this information, the early church didn't have access to a lot of this historical record.
42:14
Is this something that has come to light within the last century? When did these historical records come to light?
42:20
Okay, that's a great question. I'll say that the historical record that I just cited from, that is from Plutarch and Justinus and Diodorus Siculus, this is all information that's largely available to us, and it's largely available to the reformers and also to the early church.
42:41
That part of the information, as sketchy and as fragmented as it is, very much of this was available to the early church, to the reformers, and is available to us today.
42:54
The significance of the recent understanding of post -Alexandrian
43:01
Hellenism specifically has to do with the boundary between the north and the south in Daniel chapter 11, and we're going to get to that in just a little bit.
43:10
In fact, we'll dedicate an episode to that next week, just because it's so significant, this idea of if north versus south is what we're facing in Daniel chapter 11, we have to know what constitutes north and what constitutes south.
43:24
Once we establish what north and south are and where the boundary was between the two, we'll be in a better position to understand the fulfillment of the prophecies.
43:33
Again, part of the confusion of Daniel chapter 11 is the assumption that we make in order to try to understand why
43:42
Daniel chapter 11 appears to diverge from known history. The other part of it is that we have not properly understood the boundaries between the two.
43:50
We'll address both of those and we'll show that Daniel chapter 11 can be understood as a continuous narrative in the
43:58
Greek period without any interruptions and simply without any shifting that would lead us to believe that Daniel had suddenly started talking about a
44:09
Roman antagonist again after having introduced the chapter in a Greek framework. Let's turn our attention to this.
44:15
What we want to focus on for the remainder of this podcast today is that how did it get so unnecessarily confusing in Daniel chapter 11?
44:25
The way the chapter starts, it is written in the first year of Darius the Mede.
44:31
Daniel is told that there will be three more kings of Persia. We're talking about the transition from the
44:38
Medes to the Persians. Then after the Persians, there will arise a king from the realm of Greece.
44:45
We're talking about a double transition. One is from the rise of the Persians after the
44:51
Medes in the Medo -Persian Empire and then the rise of the Greeks over the
44:57
Persians. When we talk about that mighty king rising up, that's Alexander the Great, the first king.
45:03
From that point forward to the end of the chapter, there's an ongoing conflict among the kings and their sons.
45:09
But there's no further discussion of the Medo -Persian or Greek Empires or any name to dynasty at all.
45:15
All we know is the first king of the Greeks is killed and then his kingdom is divided toward the four winds of heaven.
45:23
It says specifically not to his posterity. So it's important for us to show that that's why none of his children, whether his illegitimate child by his mistress or his actual legitimate child by his wife, neither one of them actually was able to receive the kingdom.
45:40
It went to other people besides those. That's what Daniel tells us in Daniel chapter 11. From that point forward, we have a conflict and it's largely a conflict between the king of the north and the king of the south.
45:53
The problem is there's no mention of their nationalities or their boundaries. There's only a discussion of the resulting kingdoms, but no mention of their names or their ethnicities or anything like that.
46:05
So the only identifying attribute we have is each kingdom's geographic position relative to the others.
46:11
That's why the solution here has to be a geographic one. So throughout this narrative, what makes the chapter so challenging is that the nations and boundaries of the warring kings are very important to our understanding of the fulfillment, but they're never explicitly described.
46:26
Throughout chapter 11, the angel refers repeatedly and explicitly to countries and regions and territories and cities and other locations with different levels of geographic specificity, but never tells us the geographic boundaries of the kings.
46:43
And just to show the contrast, the angel refers to Media and Persia and Greece and Egypt and Israel and the
46:52
Greek Isles and Chittim and Edom, Moab and Ammon and Libya and Ethiopia and the
46:59
Temple Mount itself, but never actually tells us the geographic names of the territories of the warring kings, except by the cardinal directions.
47:11
Then in verse 44, one of the kings receives unwelcome news and again, even though the narrator was so free to describe references in other parts of the vision, for example, in verse 8, one king's booty is carried into Egypt.
47:25
A ship intervenes from Chittim in verse 30 and desirable goods come from Egypt in verse 43.
47:33
And yet here we have a case where undesirable news comes from the north and the east, but we don't know the name of the territory where it comes from.
47:40
All manner of nationality and geography is used freely to describe everything else in the chapter, except the identity of these warring kings.
47:50
So the angel was clearly authorized to name all these different nations and locations, but never tells us the territories and the nationalities of the warring kings, except by cardinal directions relative one to another.
48:05
So despite the lack of geographic knowledge of the actual four kingdoms from Daniel chapter 11, historians and eschatologists have almost universally concluded that the bulk of the chapter deals largely with the century of conflict known as the
48:23
Syrian Wars, the conflict that raged between the Seleucid dynasty and the Ptolemaic dynasty between 274 and 168
48:31
BC. So what's the problem with this? Well, the problem is that the bulk of Daniel 11 describes a series of conflicts between the king of the north and the king of the south.
48:44
And this is the first puzzle. The historical evidence suggests, and the commentaries largely agree, that the prophecies in the chapter were fulfilled by a series of wars between the kingdoms of Syria to the east and Egypt to the south.
48:58
In other words, the prophecy of a sustained conflict between the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom has been fulfilled by a series of wars between the eastern kingdom and the southern kingdom.
49:11
Shouldn't Daniel, at least that's the question that gets asked, shouldn't Daniel have prophesied a conflict between the king of the east and the king of the south instead of a conflict between the king of the north and the king of the south?
49:24
That's the question. Why is it that he prophesies battles between the northern kingdom and the southern and then what happens in the fulfillment is a series of conflicts between the king of the east and the king of the south?
49:37
That is, the Seleuces who occupied the eastern territory and the Egyptians, the Ptolemies, who occupied the south.
49:44
So the apparent inconsistency traditionally has been resolved by assuming that the frame of reference changed from one centered on Alexander's empire at verse 11, chapter 11, verse 4, to one centered on Judea in the next verse.
49:59
I would call these two references the Alexandrian frame of reference and the Judean frame of reference.
50:05
The Alexandrian frame of reference has Asia Minor, or modern -day Turkey to the north,
50:10
Egypt to the south, and Syria to the east, and Macedonia to the west. But in a
50:16
Judean frame of reference, Syria would be north of Israel and Egypt would be south of Israel.
50:23
Thus, the writers who address the Syrian -Egyptian wars in the context of Daniel's vision typically consider
50:30
Syria to be the northern kingdom in a Judean frame of reference. Even though Asia Minor and so many of the commentaries all agree on this.
50:39
They say, yes, from the perspective of Alexander's empire, the empire was divided in four ways.
50:46
Asia Minor to the north, Egypt to the south. And in fact, Daniel starts the whole narrative that way and then proceeds to describe a series of wars between north and south which was fulfilled in a series of wars between the king of the east and king of the south.
51:03
Thus, the frame of reference is assumed to change at 11 .5. In other words, in order to make
51:09
Daniel 11 align with the historical record, we have assumed that between verse 11 .4
51:16
and 11 .5, Daniel has introduced a Judean frame of reference having just started the chapter by introducing an
51:23
Alexandrian frame of reference. Well, this solution has led to some rather creative cartography.
51:30
Although every writer of note who addresses the puzzle approaches it in largely the same way,
51:35
I think Calvin's attempt is the most illustrative of the problem because it shows how much we have to strain at the compass in order to make the prophecy fit history.
51:47
And the fact that we strain so much is our caution flag. The prophecy was intended to instruct us, we should not be straining against the compass that Daniel established in 11 .4
52:01
in order to make it fit. We should instead be asking, why didn't it fit?
52:07
And when it does, when we ask that question, we find that it actually fits history perfectly as we should have expected, but there's no change in the frame of reference.
52:17
So, I want to use Calvin as an example here. I do like Calvin. I'm not against Calvin.
52:23
I think that Calvin made a mistake here, and the mistake is very, very obvious.
52:30
He invokes an Alexandrian frame of reference when he is writing his commentary on Daniel 8 .8.
52:36
He says, by the four winds of heaven, that is the four winds of the atmosphere, and he's talking about north, south, east, and west, and he says, now the kingdom of Macedon was very far distant from Syria, and Asia was in the midst, and Egypt lay to the south.
52:51
Basically, what he says is that Seleucus was toward the east and united with Syria and had
52:58
Persia as well. The kingdom of Asia was to the north, that is Asia Minor, and Macedonia was to the west, and Egypt is in the south.
53:07
That's from Calvin's commentary on Daniel 8 .8. Asia Minor north, Egypt south, Syria and Persia east, and Macedonia west.
53:15
Now, we're going to fast forward to Daniel 11 .4, and he completely changes the compass around, commenting on the fact that the kingdom shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven.
53:28
This is what Calvin wrote. He said, these are the four kingdoms of which the angel now treats, for Egypt was situated to the south of Judea and Syria to the north, and as we shall afterwards have occasion to observe,
53:41
Macedonia came afterwards, and then Asia Minor both east and west. So here, in Daniel 8 .8,
53:48
identifying according to the four points of the compass, Asia Minor is north, Egypt is south,
53:55
Macedonia is west, and Syria is east. Now that he's at 11 .4, and he realizes that that compass doesn't help us anymore, because the fulfillment of Daniel 11 appears to diverge from known history, he says that Syria is north,
54:11
Egypt is south, Macedonia is west, and Asia Minor is east. And that's, like I said, it's very creative cartography, and I would say that that's a very strained interpretation, and that should be our caution flag, but we have to add, in Calvin's defense, that the shifting frame of reference has been almost universally reflected in the commentary since the church first began to expound upon the prophecies.
54:37
So what happens now is, because the prophecies appear to be fulfilled between the king of the east and the king of the south, but what was prophesied was a series of wars between north and south, we shift our frame of reference, and we say, actually, one verse after establishing an
54:55
Alexandrian frame of reference, we then shift to a Judean frame of reference where Syria is north of Israel.
55:02
That solves the problem in the short term, but later in the chapter, because we have introduced a new frame of reference, later on in the chapter we arrive at yet another point when the prophecy appears to diverge from known history, and so what happens is we introduce yet another frame of reference.
55:20
And this is what I would call the eschatological frame. We started with an Alexandrian frame, in the next verse,
55:27
Daniel appears to diverge from known history, and so we shift to a Judean frame, we proceed through Daniel from that point forward and realize, oh goodness, now
55:35
Daniel has diverged again from known history, and so he must have introduced another frame of reference, at which point he must be talking about the future
55:43
Antichrist. This is why, when we look at the ancient commentaries, and the commentaries of the
55:48
Reformation as well, we see a consistent theme, that somehow, someway,
55:55
Daniel must have changed his frame of reference between verse 4 and verse 5, and started talking about a
56:02
Judean frame of reference. That has solved the problem for the next few verses, but then next what we find out is that because we have imposed a foreign construct on the text,
56:15
Daniel again appears to diverge from known history later, and that's why we have decided that he must be talking about a future
56:21
Antichrist, which is why we start talking about Daniel 11, the antagonist of the North, being equated with the little horn of Daniel chapter 7, and that puts us in a position where we are waiting for the little horn of Daniel chapter 7 to invade
56:37
Egypt, because that's what the antagonist of the North does in Daniel chapter 11. And just to show the chaos that has resulted historically from the introduction of these other frame of reference,
56:49
I'm going to go back to Lactantius, actually I'm going to go all the way back to Hippolytus, and Hippolytus, he thought the eschatological frame of reference was introduced in verse 31, and he identifies the antagonist as a
57:02
Latin Antichrist, who is in possession of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia, that's from Hippolytus' exegetical fragments, second fragment of the
57:11
Visions, and also from his third fragment, Scalia on Daniel. So, Lactantius, who we referred to earlier, understood the transition to an eschatological framework no later than verse 35, and he saw the antagonist coming from the northern territories into Syria, which he has toward the east.
57:30
Victorinus touches only tangentially on the Diadochi, but understood the eschatological frame to begin in verse 37.
57:39
Jerome saw the transition to the eschatological frame as early as verse 24, and in verse 11, 43, he has
57:48
Antichrist in possession of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia, and then Antichrist is disturbed by news he hears from the north and the east, and here he's in Africa, and so he's hearing news from Judea, which is north and east of Egypt.
58:05
So, that's from the ancient commentaries, and the Reformers were all over the map as well. Broughton and Willett thought the
58:11
Judean frame of reference was maintained to the end, even though chapter 11, verses 40 to 45 doesn't refer to anything that happened by the hands of Antiochus, they still thought that it was referring to Antiochus IV in some way.
58:26
He was actually a descendant of the Seleucid line. Ocolampadius, Bullinger, Polinus, and Meyer, also
58:32
Reform commentarians, saw the transition to the eschatological framework taking place at 1121.
58:39
Melanchthon saw it at 1132. Calvin and Wiggins saw it at 1136. Luther saw the transition to the eschatological frame taking place at 1140.
58:49
He cut short his commentary on Daniel 11 at verse 39, saying, only in experience can this chapter be understood.
58:56
Now, I'm going to go back to Calvin, and I don't mean to pick on Calvin too much, but I think that he typifies the confusion that has occurred by introducing all these other frames of reference.
59:08
And what Calvin does when he's commenting on verse 27 in Daniel 11, he's absolutely marveling at the accuracy of the prophecies.
59:19
And this is from his commentary on Daniel, and he's referring to the prophecies that are so clearly pointed out when the angel predicts the future so exactly and so openly narrates it as if it was a matter of history.
59:33
And this is Calvin, he's just overwhelmed by the fact that the prophecies are so accurate. But then we get to Daniel 1140, and all that accuracy is out the window, and Calvin basically does the intellectual equivalent of throwing up his hands.
59:48
He says, I dare not fix the precise time intended by the angel. The angel did not propose to mark a continued series of times.
59:55
Whatever be the precise meaning, sometimes events were so confused that the Egyptians coalesced with the Syrians, and then we must read the words conjointly.
01:00:03
Nor is it necessary here to indicate the precise period, since the Romans carried on many wars in the East. Now, just compare
01:00:10
Calvin's hermeneutical despair in 1140 after the confidence that he exuded in 1127, when he says, wow, the prophecies are so clearly pointed out, it's almost like the angel is prophesying as if he was reading yesterday's newspaper.
01:00:30
So there are many other similar examples to these to grapple with in the puzzles of chapter 11.
01:00:36
But we can identify the cause of these problems by the fact that we introduced something foreign to the text.
01:00:46
And by we, I mean we all did it. In fact, I spent years trying to analyze Daniel 11 under a shifting frame of reference, and did so, a lot of toil and effort went into that, and I just came up with nothing.
01:01:01
And it wasn't until I sat down and said, what if we look at Daniel as if he established an
01:01:08
Alexandrian frame of reference from the beginning, did not shift to a Judean framework in 11 verse 5, and then does not later shift to an eschatological framework at some unspecified point later in the chapter.
01:01:22
What if the entire chapter from start to finish was written in an Alexandrian frame of reference, where North always refers to Asia Minor, South always refers to the
01:01:34
Egyptian territories to the South of the Northern Kingdom, East always refers to Syria and beyond.
01:01:41
What if we do that? And so that's what I started looking at. So what if Daniel had written the entire chapter in the very frame of reference that it appears that he wrote it from the text itself, where it's an
01:01:53
Alexandrian frame of reference toward the four winds of heaven, North, South, East, and West, Asia Minor within the
01:02:01
Taurus Mountains being the Northern Kingdom, and the Egyptian territories being the Southern Kingdom. What if we look at it that way, and that's where the solution emerges, and once that solution emerges from the text, we are able to analyze
01:02:15
Daniel in the single frame of reference, and guess what happens? All the discontinuities that troubled the early commentators disappear.
01:02:25
There are no more discontinuities in the text of Daniel if we look at it as if it was narrated in a single frame of reference, and that's where we're going to pick up on next week in next week's episode.
01:02:36
We appreciate everybody listening. I know this is a lot of data, but I wanted to deal with one of the most important issues in eschatology is not just how to understand
01:02:47
Daniel chapter 11 in a single frame of reference, but importantly to understand how we got to the point where we had so many frames of reference introduced that ended up causing so much confusion in the text.
01:03:00
We'll pick up on this next week, but thank you very much for listening, and we hope everybody will stay tuned as we jump in next week on understanding
01:03:09
Daniel chapter 11 in a single frame of reference, a way that completely removes any identification of the northern antagonist of Daniel chapter 11 with the little horn antagonist of Daniel chapter 7.
01:03:23
Thanks for listening, everybody. We look forward to it, and we will check you guys next week. Be sure to send us an email at semper .refermanda