"THE BOOK OF DANIEL" The Vision Of The Time Of The End - III (11:36-12:13) INTRODUCTION 1. We have been studying the final vision recorded in the book of Daniel... a. Depicting what will affect Daniel's people (i.e., Israel) - Dan 10:14 b. Describing events "in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come" - Dan 10:14 c. Its words were closed and sealed "till the time of the end" - Dan 12:9 -- For such reasons this vision has been called "The Vision Of The Time Of The End" 2. In the introductory remarks of the vision, there is a glimpse of spiritual warfare... a. Angelic forces withstanding each other - Dan 10:13a,20 b. Angelic forces helping each other - Dan 10:13b,21; 11:1 -- Such forces affecting the nations of Persia and Greece 3. As the vision unfolds, a series of future conflicts involving nations is described... a. Between the Persians and the Greeks - Dan 11:2-4 b. Between kings of the South (Egypt) and kings of the North (Syria) - Dan 11:5-35 1) In this conflict, Israel would be caught in the middle 2) Israel would suffer extreme blasphemies by one Syrian king (Antiochus Epiphanes) 4. Beginning with Dan 11:36, there is a large diversity of opinion... a. Regarding the identity of the king described in Dan 11:36-45 b. The time in which events described in Dan 11:36-12:13 would be fulfilled [As with any difficult portion of Scripture, especially one involving prophecy, dogmatism should be avoided. In this study, our final one in this series of lessons on the Book of Daniel, I shall offer what I believe is a plausible explanation of the text...] I. THE IDENTITY OF THE KING AND HIS TIMES A. THREE DIFFERENT VIEWS... 1. The king is Antiochus Epiphanes of Syria a. The vile and blasphemous ruler described in Dan 11:21-35 b. The time of his persecution would therefore be 169-167 B.C. c. The time of the Maccabean revolt -- This view is espoused by Albert Barnes in his commentary 2. The king represents the Roman emperors a. Who persecuted Christians in the early years of the church b. The time of this persecution would therefore be 60-313 A.D. -- This view is proposed by Robert Harkrider in his workbook 3. The king represents the Anti-Christ a. A future ruler still to come b. The time of this persecution would be shortly before the return of Christ -- This view is held by pre-millennialists, but also by some amillennialists (e.g., Edward Young) B. ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES SEEMS A LIKELY CHOICE... 1. The allusion in previous verses is undoubtedly to Antiochus Epiphanes 2. There is no indication in the prophetic narrative of any change; notice... a. "Then the king shall do..." - Dan 11:36 b. "At the time of the end the king of South shall attack him..." - Dan 11:40 c. "At that time Michael..." - Dan 12:1 d. "And at that time your people shall be delivered..." - Dan 12:1 3. A sudden transition, with no given indication, is not in accordance with what is usually found in prophetic writings (Barnes) 4. The word "king" is never applied to Antichrist (if there in fact be "the Antichrist", as the Bible speaks of many antichrists - 1Jn 2:18,22; 4:3; 2Jn 7) 5. The description that follows can easily be applied to the person and times of Antiochus Epiphanes [This is not imply there is no difficulty with applying this passage to Antiochus Epiphanes and his times, but I believe it possesses fewer difficulties than alternative views. Now let's consider what is described to come...] II. THE EVENTS AT "THE TIME OF THE END" A. THE BLASPHEMY OF THIS KING... 1. He shall magnify himself above every god - Dan 11:36-37 a. Speaking blasphemies against the God of gods b. Prospering till the wrath that has been determined is done (suggesting that this was allowed by God as part of divine judgment against Israel) - cf. Dan 11:35; as with the case of Assyria and Israel, Isa 10:5-12 c. He shall not regard the god of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor any god 2. He shall honor a god of fortresses - Dan 11:38-39 a. A god which his fathers did not know (some suggest the Roman god Mars, or Jupiter) b. He shall act against the strongest fortresses with this foreign god, rule over many and divide the land for gain -- In his commentary, Albert Barnes explains how this could apply to Antiochus B. THE CONQUESTS AND END OF THIS KING... 1. The king of the South (Egypt) shall attack him - Dan 11:40 a. Note that this will occur "at the time of the end" b. This may help pinpoint the meaning of the "latter days" of Dan 10:14 2. The king of the North (Antiochus Epiphanes) will respond and overwhelm the countries - Dan 11:40-43 a. Entering the "Glorious Land" (Israel) b. Overthrowing many, while Edom, Moab and Ammon will escape c. Egypt will not escape, even Libyans and Ethiopians will submit 3. He shall come to his end - Dan 11:44-45 a. News from the east and north will trouble him (from Persia) b. He shall proceed to destroy and annihilate many, planting his tents between the seas and the glorious holy mountain (Mt. Zion, Jerusalem?) c. Yet he shall come to his end, no one helping him (Antiochus died in 163 B.C. of a terrible disease) -- Again, Barnes relates in detail how these events could refer to Antiochus C. THE ULTIMATE VICTORY OF DANIEL'S PEOPLE... 1. To occur "at that time" - Dan 12:1 a. To be assisted by "Michael...the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people" - cf. Dan 10:13,21 b. In a time of a trouble not seen before c. Deliverance of Daniel's people "at that time" 1) I.e., the time just previously described 2) I.e., the time of the conflict involving Antiochus Epiphanes 2. Many who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake - Dan 12:2 a. Some to everlasting life b. Some to shame and everlasting contempt -- Note that this is not likely the physical resurrection of the dead, for then "all" (not "many") shall be raised - Jn 5:28,29 3. Those who will shine at this time - Dan 12:3 a. The wise will shine like the brightness of the firmament b. Those who turn many to righteousness will shine like the stars forever and ever -- Using the figure of the resurrection, this may depict the Maccabean revolt when the Jews came out of caves and mountain hideouts to resist Antiochus - cf. Dan 11:33-35 D. FINAL INSTRUCTIONS AND ANSWERS GIVEN TO DANIEL... 1. Shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end - Dan 12:4 a. Perhaps what is meant is to stop writing, and secure what he has written b. Compare this with Dan 8:17,19,26 1) Both visions (Dan 8, 10-12) were to be sealed up 2) Both pertained to many days in the future 3) Yet both visions were fulfilled within 200-400 years c. Contrast this with Rev 22:10 1) The vision of the Revelation was not to be sealed, for the time was at hand 2) How then the explanation of some that the events of Revelation have yet to begin, nearly 2000 years later? 2. Two final questions answered a. One question overheard by Daniel - Dan 12:5-7 1) Daniel saw two others, one on each side of a river bank 2) One asked the man clothed in linen (cf. Dan 10:5-6) above the river: "How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?" 3) The answer: "...a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished." a) The "time, times, and half a time" (3 and a half years, 42 months, 1260 days) is commonly used to describe a definite, marked, period of tribulation - cf. Dan 7:25; Re 11:2,3; 12:6,13-14; 13:5 b) When the persecution has accomplished its purpose, then the things described will take place b. The question asked by Daniel - Dan 12:8-13 1) Not understanding, Daniel asks: "...what shall be the end of these things?" 2) Daniel is first told: a) To go, for the words are closed and sealed till the time of the end b) That many shall be purified, and the wise shall understand - cf. Dan 11:33-35 c) That the wicked shall do wickedly, and not understand - cf. Dan 11:32 d) That there will be a period of "1290 days" beginning from: 1/ The time the daily sacrifice is taken away - cf. Dan 11:31 2/ The abomination of desolation is set up - cf. Dan 11:31 e) Those who wait and come to "1335 days" will be blessed -- Whether literal or figurative, these numbered days appear to apply to the period of the Antiochian persecution (ca. 168 B.C.) 3) Daniel is then told: a) To go his way till the end b) For he shall rest and arise to his inheritance at the end of the days -- This "end" or "end of the days" may refer to the actual resurrection on the day of Judgment, not "the time of the end" spoken of throughout this vision CONCLUSION 1. We have seen that "The Vision Of The Time Of The End" describes events that would... a Affect Daniel's people (i.e., Israel) - Dan 10:14 b. Take place "in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come" - Dan 10:14 c. Occur in "the time of the end" - Dan 11:35,40; 12:4,9 2. From the context, "the time of the end" likely refers to the closing days of God's dealings with Israel as His covenant nation; i.e.,... a. The inter-testamental period between Malachi and Matthew b. The period involving the Greek-Persian and Egyptian-Syrian conflicts -- Which is how the phrase is used in "The Vision Of The Ram and The Goat" that depicts many of the same events - cf. Dan 8:1-27 (esp. 17,26) 3. As we conclude our study of the Book of Daniel, we have found it to be a book that... a. Strengthens faith in God and His Word through its fulfilled prophecies 1) Describing the rise and fall of world empires - Dan 2,4-5 2) Foretelling the establishment of God's everlasting kingdom - Dan 2,7,9 3) Depicting the events to befall the people of Israel - Dan 8,9, 10-12 b. Inspires faithfulness to God through its examples of dedicated faith and service 1) Of Daniel - Dan 1,6 2) Of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego - Dan 3 While there is certainly much in this book that challenges our understanding, may we never neglect to mine its spiritual treasures preserved for the people of God: "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." - Ro 15:4Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011
10/25/14
From Mark Copeland... The Vision Of The Time Of The End - III (Daniel 11:36-12:13)
From Mark Copeland... The Vision Of The Time Of The End - II (Daniel 11:2-35)
"THE BOOK OF DANIEL" The Vision Of The Time Of The End - II (11:2-35) INTRODUCTION 1. In the tenth chapter, we saw the beginning of the final vision recorded by Daniel... a. A vision that pertains to what will affect Daniel's people (i.e., Israel) - Dan 10:14 b. Describing what will occur "in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come" - Dan 10:14 c. Its words were to be closed and sealed "till the time of the end" - Dan 12:9 -- For such reasons this vision has been called "The Vision Of The Time Of The End" 2. In the introductory remarks of the vision, we were given a glimpse of the spiritual warfare that was going on "behind the scenes"... a. With angelic forces withstanding each other - Dan 10:13a,20 b. With angelic forces helping each other - Dan 10:13b,21; 11:1 [Beginning with Dan 11:2, "The Vision Of The Time Of The End" begins in earnest. The "glorious man" proceeds to tell Daniel what will happen "in the latter days" (Dan 10:14), beginning with...] I. THE PERSIAN-GREEK CONFLICT A. FOUR PERSIAN KINGS WILL ARISE... 1. Three more kings will arise in Persia, and then a fourth - Dan 11:2 a. The fourth shall be far richer than them all b. By his strength and riches, the fourth shall stir up all against Greece 2. As confirmed by history, these kings who followed Cyrus (Dan 10:1) were: a. Cambyses b. Smerdis c. Darius Hystaspis (Darius the Great) d. Xerxes (called Ahasuerus in the book of Esther - Es 1:1) B. A MIGHTY GREEK KING SHALL RISE AND FALL... 1. A mighty king shall arise - Dan 11:3 a. He shall rule with great dominion b. He shall do according to his will -- This was Alexander the Great 2. His kingdom shall be broken and divided into four pieces - Dan 11:4 a. This was also prophesied in Dan 8:21-22 b. The kingdom will not be given to his posterity, nor will the dominion be as great c. As confirmed by history, Alexander's empire was eventually divided between his four generals after he died in 323 B.C. 1) Seleucus I - who began the Seleucid (Syrian) empire, from Turkey to India 2) Cassander - who took over Macedonia (Greece) 3) Lysimachus - who took Thracia (between Greece and Turkey) 4) Ptolemy I - who ruled over Egypt [At this point, the "glorious man" begins to describe an extended conflict between "the kings of the North" and "the kings of the South" which will have a big impact upon the people of Daniel (Israel)...] II. THE EGYPTIAN-SYRIAN CONFLICT A. THE CONFLICT WILL BEGIN... 1. The "king of the South" will gain in strength - Dan 11:5a a. This king is Ptolemy I b. Who ruled Egypt (306-284 B.C.) 2. As well as "one of his princes", who will gain power over the other - Dan 11:5b a. This is thought to refer to one of Alexander's princes (generals) b. In which case it is Seleucus I, who ruled Syria (312-280 B.C.) -- Caught in the middle between Syria and Egypt, Israel will bear the brunt of much of the conflict between these two empires B. THERE WILL BE A FAILED ALLIANCE... 1. The "daughter of the South" will go to the "king of the North" - Dan 11:6a a. The event occurred in the reigns of Ptolemy Philadelphus (284-246 B.C.) and Antiochus Theus (261-246 B.C.) b. Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus was given to Antiochus, upon the condition that Antiochus divorce his wife Laodice c. Hoping to make peace between Egypt and Syria 2. But the "daughter of the South" will not retain her authority - Dan 11:6b a. Two years after the marriage, Berenice's father (Ptolemy Philadelphus) died b. Antiochus put her away and restored his first wife Laodice c. Laodice killed Antiochus, and Berenice fled, but was later put to death along with her children and attendants C. THE SOUTH WILL RISE IN ANGER... 1. A "branch of her roots" will come with an army - Dan 11:7 a. This was Berenice's brother, Ptolemy Euregetes (246-221 B.C.) b. Who failing to save his sister, attacked Syria to avenge her death 2. The avenger (Ptolemy Euregetes) will succeed - Dan 11:8 a. Euregetes took their gods, princes, and precious articles to Egypt b. Euregetes ruled longer than the next Seleucid king, Seleucid Callinicus (246-226 B.C.) D. THE CONFLICT WILL ACCELERATE... 1. The "king of the North" (Seleucid Callinicus) will try to invade the kingdom of the South - Dan 11:9-10 a. He does not succeed, though his sons (Seleucid Ceraunus and Antiochus the Great) shall stir up strife b. One son in particular, Antiochus the Great (225-187 B.C.), does succeed in overwhelming Egypt (actually, regain Syrian land taken by Egypt) 2. The "king of the South" will respond in rage - Dan 11:11-13 a. This king of Egypt is Ptolemy Philopator (221-204 B.C.) b. Angry that Antiochus the Great regained control of Syrian territory, he gathered a great army and defeated Antiochus at Raphia c. His victory was short-lived, for Antiochus returned with a better-equipped army in 203 B.C. 3. Others will contribute to the war against the South - Dan 11:14 a. This included Philip, king of Macedon, who aligned with Antiochus b. Also some violent Jews, prompted by what they perceived as the fulfillment of the vision, but they shall fall 4. The "king of the North" shall prevail against the South, but then fall - Dan 11:15-19 a. Again, this is Antiochus the Great 1) The forces of the South were not able to resist him 2) He stood in the "Glorious Land" (Israel) with destruction in his power b. He tried to strengthen his kingdom by giving his daughter in marriage 1) His daughter Cleopatra, given to Ptolemy Epiphanes (204- 180 B.C.) 2) But she came to favor the purposes of her husband rather than her father c. Antiochus then turned his attention to the coastlands (Mediterranean) 1) Making war with the Romans 2) But was defeated by Scipio Asiaticus, a Roman military leader d. Defeated by the Romans, Antiochus the Great returned home and died soon after [At this point our attention is focused on one leader of the Seleucid (Syrian) empire, who would have a powerful impact upon the people of Daniel, Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.)...] III. THE RISE OF ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES A. PRECEDED BY A TAX COLLECTOR... 1. One who will impose taxes on the "glorious kingdom" (Israel?) - Dan 11:20 a. This is Seleucus Philopator (187-175 B.C.) b. Oldest son of Antiochus, and his immediate successor 2. Whose reign will be short-lived a. Compared to his father, who reigned thirty-seven years b. Who died, not in battle, but was poisoned B. THEN WILL COME A VILE MAN WITH NO HONOR... 1. Held in contempt, the people will not give him honor - Dan 11:21 a. His official name was Antiochus "Epiphanes" (the Illustrious) b. His people refereed to him as Antiochus "Epimanes" (the Insane) 2. He shall take the kingdom peaceably, but with intrigue - Dan 11:21-24 a. This may refer to his dealings with the Egyptians (or perhaps Israel) b. After making a league with them, he will act deceitfully and become strong with a small number of people c. Through peaceful means he will plunder the riches places of the province 3. He will provoke the "king of the South" - Dan 11:25-28 a. Two times Antiochus invaded Egypt b. The Egyptian king, Ptolemy Physcon, sought to oppose him, but was betrayed by his own people c. Both kings were deceitful liars, but their plotting was subject to the times and manner appointed by God d. On his return home, Antiochus passed through Israel, and was moved against the holy covenant (the institutions of the Law of Moses) C. HE WILL BRING BLASPHEMIES AGAINST ISRAEL... 1. Once again Antiochus Epiphanes will head toward the South - Dan 11:29-30a a. This was his third invasion b. But he was not as successful as before c. For Roman ships from Cyprus (Kittim) threatened reprisal 2. Frustrated, he will take out his rage against "the holy covenant" - Dan 11:30b-32a a. By showing regard for those who forsake the holy covenant b. By defiling the sanctuary fortress (i.e., the temple) c. By taking away the daily sacrifices d. By placing there "the abomination of desolation" e. By flattering those who do wickedly against the covenant 3. In the years 169-167 B.C., Antiochus Epiphanes: a. Took the city of Jerusalem and plundered the temple b. Commanded the Jews to worship the Greek idol which he set up in the temple c. Put an end to daily sacrifices and polluted the altar by offering swine flesh on it d. Forbid circumcision, the observance of the Sabbath, and possession of a copy of the law D. THOSE WHO KNOW GOD WILL RESIST VALIANTLY... 1. They shall be strong - Dan 11:32b-33a a. Carrying out great exploits b. Instructing many 2. When they fall, they shall receive aid - Dan 11:33b-34 a. For many days they shall fall by sword, flame, captivity and plunder b. They will receive a little help, even from many through intrigue 4. When those of understanding fall, it will be to refine them - Dan 11:35 a. To purge them, and make them white b. Until "the time of the end; because it is still for the appointed time." -- The events described here were fulfilled during the Maccabean period, which began in 168 B.C. with the revolt of Mattathias (an elderly priest) and his five sons CONCLUSION 1. Up to this point, there is little controversy over the content of the vision... a. It describes the conflict between the Persians and the Greeks, followed by the conflict between the Syrians and the Egyptians b. The latter described in detail, because Israel was caught in the middle c. Israel in particular would suffer the blasphemies of one Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes 2. From Dan 11:36 on, there is quite a diversity of opinions... a. Some believe Antiochus Epiphanes is still the subject b. Others suggest that a Roman emperor is being described c. Still others believe it refers to someone yet to come We shall examine the remaining portion of this chapter and the final chapter in our next study... Note: The historical information in this lesson was taken from Albert Barnes' commentary on Daniel.Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011
10/24/14
From Gary.... Is a tummy rub a good thing?
Rub my tummy; no doubt about it!!! I see it every day and would recognize it no matter what the breed!!!! I wonder, is there a human equivalent??? I think there is and it is found below...
2 Timothy, Chapter 4
1 I command you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his Kingdom: 2 preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all patience and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after their own lusts; 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside to fables. 5 But you be sober in all things, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, and fulfill your ministry.
In 1973, I saw firsthand the pressures that can be exerted upon a preacher: one week he preached on the fallacies and doctrinal errors of free masonry and the next he recanted because a man-made board threatened his job. Then and there, I knew I was in the wrong place and went looking for the truth. Some people are more interested in hearing what they want to hear- instead of a sincere desire to hear what God has said. So, there is in fact a "tummy rub" for humans, but it isn't a good thing!!!! Fortunately, there are preachers like Timothy out there who still- tell-it-like-it-is, but with as much love as the circumstances dictate. Be one of those people!!! As for me, I am still working on it!!!
From Jim McGuiggan... Using truth to tell lies
Using truth to tell lies
Interpretation of scripture requires more than lexicons, grammars, historical and cultural knowledge and an understanding of the latest literary theory. Somewhere, in all our getting, we've got to get the big picture! It isn't enough to know many specific truths and be able to exegete correctly many specific verses and spit them out as if they stood unrelated to God and his over-arching purpose. How are these specific truths to be used within the context of the Big Picture and to serve his over-arching purpose so as to be true to God? That's part of the interpretive obligation.The book of Job teaches us many things—some of them we can easily see. I’m of the opinion that commentators abuse the book of Job as surely as Job’s friends—in the end—abused Job. But you can’t help being impressed with how much truth his friends spoke and yet at the conclusion of the matter God said to those friends (42:7), "I am angry with you...because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."
Is that not a kick in the head? Job is the one that now and then screams slander against God and the friends say things like this. "Is not God in the heights of heaven? And see how lofty are the highest stars! Yet you say, ‘What does God know?’...Submit to God and be at peace with him...Accept instruction from his mouth and lay up his words in your heart." So said Eliphaz in 22:12-13, 21-22. And God is angry at those words?
Earlier (22:2-3) Job’s friend and God’s defender said, "Can a man be of benefit to God? Can even a wise man benefit him? What pleasure would it give the Almighty if you were righteous? What would he gain if your ways were blameless?" God is so exalted, Eliphaz said, that he needs humans like he needs a hole in the head. The man is glorifying God and stressing his eternal majesty—how can that be wrong?
The same wise man said (4:17): "Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?" Is he not right? Of course he’s right; so how can God be angry with him for not speaking what is right? Listen to Eliphaz as he continues to extol and proclaim the majesty of God. "If God places no trust in his servants, if he charges his angels with error, how much more those who live in houses of clay, whose foundations are in the dust...?" Psalmists and prophets and NT apostles spoke like that and we glory in it! So how come God scathed Eliphaz and his friends for bearing witness on his behalf?
He scathed them because of what they did with truth! It’s possible to take truth and make points with it that are clearly false (compare 13:7 and the anguished man’s protest). It’s possible, of course, to take truth and use it to maim and destroy but there’s no reason to think Job’s friends were not friends even to the end. The reverse is true (42:10).
To take truth about God and to use it so that it reflects badly on God is folly. Those who took the truth of God’s utter holiness, his utter majesty and his complete self-sufficiency and in the name of that God buried a man that floundered in faith and ignorance—they committed folly (42:8).
(You might be interested in my little book on Job: Life on the Ash Heap. In The USA, call toll free 877-792-6408)
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.
Only True Christianity is Defensible by Kyle Butt, M.A.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=3585
Recently I was involved in a very productive discussion with two atheists. They were in their early thirties, intelligent, and extremely well spoken. We arranged the meeting to discuss why they had chosen to adopt atheism, and reject God and Christianity. In the course of the two-hour discussion, it became clear that many of their complaints about “Christianity” were legitimate. In fact, I heartily agreed with a host of their lengthy refutations of, and rebuttals to, “Christianity.” Lest I mislead the reader, however, let me explain. Notice that I have put in quotation marks the “Christianity” against which they railed, because the term demands qualification. Much of the “Christianity” that so incensed these young men involved gross misrepresentations of God and heinous misinterpretations of the Bible. For instance, during the discussion, one of the men explained that if, according to John Calvin’s views, God arbitrarily chose some people to be saved and some to be lost, regardless of their choices, then God would be unjust. He explained this point in detail for several minutes. After listening attentively to his astute refutation of Calvinism, I completely agreed with him, but noted that Calvinism is not true Christianity. It seemed that since Calvinism had been so inseparably bound-up in many “brands” of “Christianity” to which this young man had been exposed, he was taken aback that any “Christian” would so readily agree with his assessment of its evident flaws.
The discussion with these men, coupled with a critical reading of the atheistic community’s primary authors, has impressed upon my mind the fact that skeptical writers have a knack for exposing pseudo-Christianity for the error that it truly is. Unfortunately, skeptics often use the pseudo-Christianity and misinterpretations of the Bible that they so adequately debunk as straw men that they insist represent true Christianity. In truth, they certainly do not. It is a useful study, however, to notice several areas of biblical misinterpretation and un-Christian beliefs that skeptics have correctly identified as flawed.
Regarding those who attempt to compromise the literal nature of Genesis and accept both the Bible and evolution, Mills wrote: “Citing the Day-Age theory, these Great Pretenders make believe that Genesis actually describes an ancient Earth. The purpose of this pompous intellectual charade is to allow the Great Pretenders to ‘have it both ways’—imagining themselves to be both religious and scientific at the same time” (p. 151). In what sounds exactly like a young Earth apologist’s writings, Mills then commented: “In seeming anticipation and preemptive rebuttal of the Day-Age theory, however, the Book of Genesis itself provides a clear and specific definition of Creation Week...‘the evening and the morning’ were a day—a literal 24-hour day” (p. 151).
Mills is exactly right in regard to the fact that a compromise of the Genesis account of Creation is indefensible and illogical. He does an excellent job of showing that the special pleading needed to warp the text of Genesis into agreement with modern evolutionary ideas cannot stand critical scrutiny. He concludes correctly that: “A 6000-year-old Earth means therefore that Genesis and the Theory of Evolution are forever irreconcilable” (p. 137). Those who compromise the text of Genesis in an attempt to force it to agree with modern evolutionary teachings have gotten it wrong, and would do well to listen to Mills’ criticism of their inaccurate interpretation.
Unfortunately, Mills leaves his critical thinking at the doorstep of his correct assessment that the Bible and evolutionary theory are irreconcilable. He incorrectly reasons that the Bible has been wrong all along and that evolution is the true creative agent of our planet. We have shown repeatedly that such simply cannot be the case (cf. Jackson, et al., 2008), and Mills and other atheists would do well to apply the same critical thinking to the false evolutionary theory as they so aptly apply to indefensible compromises of the biblical text.
Christopher Hitchens, in his discussion of Christ’s death on the cross, wrote:
Hitchens, Dawkins, and numerous other atheistic writers correctly conclude that a god who condemns children because they inherited their ancestors’ sins would be an unjust being unworthy of worship. The biblical portrait of God, however, is not of such a cruel, unjust being. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The Bible points out in unambiguous terms that children do not inherit the sins or guilt of their ancestors. The prophet Ezekiel wrote: “The one who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (18:20). It has been shown repeatedly and beyond doubt that the Bible never indicates that children inherit sin or guilt from their parents (Butt, 2004), nor do children ever suffer any type of spiritual punishment as a result of the sins of their parents (Butt, 2003). While it is the case that children often suffer physical consequences of their parents’ wrong choices, such as when a drunken father abuses his children, it is not the case that those children bear any of the father’s spiritual guilt or inherit any of their parents’ sin.
One can completely understand why the skeptical community would be aghast at a being who would cast innocent babies into hell as punishment for the sins of their parents. Yet, a correct interpretation of the Bible shows that such is not the case. While it is sad that many religious people have falsely taught such a view, their false teaching on the subject, and the skeptics’ acceptance of that false teaching as a correct interpretation of the Bible, cannot be used as a legitimate weapon to impugn the character of the God of the Bible.
The false view that faith is “a leap in the dark” without adequate evidence provides the skeptical community plenty of fodder for their atheistic, anti-Bible cannons—and rightly so. If believing in God, or the divine inspiration of the Bible, or the deity of Jesus Christ is not established by rational, logical evidence, then those ideas are as unworthy of belief as the unprovable ideas of atheism and evolution. Knowing the inconsistency of such a false definition of faith, Sam Harris wrote: “In fact, every religion preaches the truth of propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable. This put the ‘leap’ in Kierkegaard’s leap of faith” (Harris, 2004, p. 23, italics in orig.). Christopher Hitchens, building on the “leap of faith” idea, opined:
When Dawkins states, “Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don’t have to make the case for what you believe” (p. 306), he manifests his lack of knowledge of what biblical faith is. Biblical faith is based completely and solely on truth and reason, as the apostle Paul succinctly stated in Acts 26:25. The prophet Isaiah underscored this fundamental truth about biblical faith when He recorded God’s invitation to the Israelites: “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ says the Lord” (1:18). Luke, in his introduction to the book of Acts, pressed the point that Jesus’ resurrection was attested by “many infallible proofs” (1:3). For one to believe in the resurrection requires faith, based on infallible proofs.
Sam Harris wrote: “It is time that we admitted that faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail” (Harris, 2006, p. 67). Harris’ accusation is justified when it is applied to false religions, and to those who attempt to defend Christianity without providing a logical, rational justification for their belief. But his allegations, and similar sentiments from Dawkins, Hitchens, and other atheists, are wholly inadequate to attack true, biblical faith. Sadly, too many self-proclaimed Christians open the door for the skeptical community to bash Christian “faith,” when, in reality, the “faith” that is being destroyed was never biblical in the first place.
Barker’s assessment of the event was, “It was comical; and it was sad. The man was practicing medicine without a license, raising false hopes and endangering lives. (Many of his believers have discarded medicine or cancelled doctor’s appointments.) I remember having participated in meetings just like this when I was a full-gospel evangelist, and I was ashamed” (p. 294). Barker’s caustic assessment of Popoff’s “faith healing scam” is accurate in many ways. As Barker admitted, he at one time in his past participated in many false-healing events, and thus he knows the inherent dishonesty involved in such deceptive shenanigans. Here again the skeptical community has logically and correctly concluded that such faith healings are not valid. As David Mills wrote: “If God has the power to miraculously cure others (though invariably in a vague and uncertain way), why doesn’t God ever help amputees?” (2006, p. 161).
Mills is right to surmise that if the miraculous power that was available during the time of the apostles is still available today, as many Christians erroneously teach and believe, then miracles that can be empirically verified like the healing of amputees should be documented. After all, even the enemies of the apostles had to admit that the miracles worked by the apostles were empirically verifiable: “For indeed, that a notable miracle has been done through them is evident to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it” (Acts 4:16).
In truth, the skeptical community does an excellent job of showing that such “faith healing” events are emotionally charged frenzies that do not produce legitimate medical results. The problem arises, however, when the skeptical community tries to lump all Christians into this mold, or attempts to use these verifiably false miracles to discount the possibility of any type of miracle at any time in history. The fact of the matter is, the Bible predicted that the miraculous power that was available to the apostles would come to an end, and would not continue throughout the ages until modern times (Miller, 2003). Furthermore, it has been repeatedly and definitively shown that such false miracles sustain no argumentative value against the historical legitimacy of true miracles recorded in the Bible, such as the resurrection of Christ (Butt, 2002).
Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion).
Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?” Reason & Revelation, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/121.
Butt, Kyle (2003), “Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2255.
Butt, Kyle (2004), “Do Children Inherit the Sins of the Parents?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2543.
Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin).
Harris, Sam (2004), The End of Faith (New York: W.W. Norton).
Harris, Sam (2006), Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).
Hitchens, Christopher (2007), god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: The Twelve).
Jackson, Wayne, Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2008), Surveying the Evidence (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking and Holy Spirit Baptism—A Refutation,” Reason & Revelation, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569.
Mills, David (2006), Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).
Sharp, Doug and Jerry Bergman, eds. (2008), Persuaded by the Evidence (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Sztanyo, Dick (1996), Faith and Reason (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1988), (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster).
Only True Christianity is Defensible
| by | Kyle Butt, M.A. |
Recently I was involved in a very productive discussion with two atheists. They were in their early thirties, intelligent, and extremely well spoken. We arranged the meeting to discuss why they had chosen to adopt atheism, and reject God and Christianity. In the course of the two-hour discussion, it became clear that many of their complaints about “Christianity” were legitimate. In fact, I heartily agreed with a host of their lengthy refutations of, and rebuttals to, “Christianity.” Lest I mislead the reader, however, let me explain. Notice that I have put in quotation marks the “Christianity” against which they railed, because the term demands qualification. Much of the “Christianity” that so incensed these young men involved gross misrepresentations of God and heinous misinterpretations of the Bible. For instance, during the discussion, one of the men explained that if, according to John Calvin’s views, God arbitrarily chose some people to be saved and some to be lost, regardless of their choices, then God would be unjust. He explained this point in detail for several minutes. After listening attentively to his astute refutation of Calvinism, I completely agreed with him, but noted that Calvinism is not true Christianity. It seemed that since Calvinism had been so inseparably bound-up in many “brands” of “Christianity” to which this young man had been exposed, he was taken aback that any “Christian” would so readily agree with his assessment of its evident flaws.
The discussion with these men, coupled with a critical reading of the atheistic community’s primary authors, has impressed upon my mind the fact that skeptical writers have a knack for exposing pseudo-Christianity for the error that it truly is. Unfortunately, skeptics often use the pseudo-Christianity and misinterpretations of the Bible that they so adequately debunk as straw men that they insist represent true Christianity. In truth, they certainly do not. It is a useful study, however, to notice several areas of biblical misinterpretation and un-Christian beliefs that skeptics have correctly identified as flawed.
THEISTIC EVOLUTION IS INDEFENSIBLE
In 2006, David Mills authored a book titled Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism. Much of the material in that book is incorrect. But chapter six, titled “Can Genesis Be Reconciled with Modern Science?” has some trenchant things to say about those who claim to believe the Bible but try to bend its interpretation to jibe with modern evolutionary findings. At the beginning of the chapter, Mills stated:According to Genesis, God made Adam and Eve on the sixth day of Creation Week. The Genesis genealogies then detail the exact ages at which Adam and his male descendants “begat” their own male offspring. The New Testament books of Matthew and Luke [NOTE: Matthew and Luke actually do not give ages—KB] then continue the genealogy from David to Jesus, again specifying the age at which each male descendent “begat” the next generation. Since we have a fixed “historical” time period for Jesus’ birth, creationists thereby calculate that the heavens and Earth were created by God in the year 4004 B.C. Earth, therefore, is only 6000 years old by biblical chronology. [NOTE: Although Mills is correct about the general age of 6,000 years, the chronology is not so precise as to nail down the exact date of 4004 B.C.—KB.] Despite widely divergent viewpoints, creationists and evolutionary biologists agree on a crucial fact: Six-thousand years is insufficient time for evolution to have produced the complex life-forms we observe on Earth today.... A 6000-year-old Earth means therefore that Genesis and the Theory of Evolution are forever irreconcilable (p. 137).Mills further noted:
If Earth’s history began with Creation Week, and if Genesis provides an accurate historical record, then Earth had no prehistoric eras, no prehistoric peoples, and no prehistoric animals. Dinosaurs walked the Earth only a few thousand years ago, side-by-side with modern man (p. 141).Mills went on to write: “If creationists now wish to abandon their historical position and acquiesce to an ancient Earth, then I applaud their progress. But it is a farce to maintain that Genesis never really demanded a young Earth since the genealogies were always intended as metaphors” (p. 148, emp. added).
Regarding those who attempt to compromise the literal nature of Genesis and accept both the Bible and evolution, Mills wrote: “Citing the Day-Age theory, these Great Pretenders make believe that Genesis actually describes an ancient Earth. The purpose of this pompous intellectual charade is to allow the Great Pretenders to ‘have it both ways’—imagining themselves to be both religious and scientific at the same time” (p. 151). In what sounds exactly like a young Earth apologist’s writings, Mills then commented: “In seeming anticipation and preemptive rebuttal of the Day-Age theory, however, the Book of Genesis itself provides a clear and specific definition of Creation Week...‘the evening and the morning’ were a day—a literal 24-hour day” (p. 151).
Mills is exactly right in regard to the fact that a compromise of the Genesis account of Creation is indefensible and illogical. He does an excellent job of showing that the special pleading needed to warp the text of Genesis into agreement with modern evolutionary ideas cannot stand critical scrutiny. He concludes correctly that: “A 6000-year-old Earth means therefore that Genesis and the Theory of Evolution are forever irreconcilable” (p. 137). Those who compromise the text of Genesis in an attempt to force it to agree with modern evolutionary teachings have gotten it wrong, and would do well to listen to Mills’ criticism of their inaccurate interpretation.
Unfortunately, Mills leaves his critical thinking at the doorstep of his correct assessment that the Bible and evolutionary theory are irreconcilable. He incorrectly reasons that the Bible has been wrong all along and that evolution is the true creative agent of our planet. We have shown repeatedly that such simply cannot be the case (cf. Jackson, et al., 2008), and Mills and other atheists would do well to apply the same critical thinking to the false evolutionary theory as they so aptly apply to indefensible compromises of the biblical text.
INHERITED SIN
Many people who consider themselves Christians today have accepted the idea that humans are born with a sinful nature. These religious people believe that sin can be inherited from one’s ancestors, and that every human, even infants, deserve death due to their inherently sinful nature. The Bible, however, nowhere teaches such a doctrine. Thus, when atheists and skeptics seize on this false interpretation of Scripture, they correctly insist that such a teaching would manifest a contradiction in the nature of the God of the Bible.Christopher Hitchens, in his discussion of Christ’s death on the cross, wrote:
Furthermore, I am required to believe that the agony was necessary in order to compensate for an earlier crime in which I also had not part, the sin of Adam.... Thus my own guilt in the matter is deemed “original” and inescapable. However, I am still granted free will with which to reject the offer of vicarious redemption (2007, p. 209, italics in orig.).Hitchens correctly concluded that such an idea “negates the moral and reasonable idea that the children are innocent of their parent’s offenses” (p. 99). Richard Dawkins weighed in on the idea as well: “The sin of Adam and Eve is thought to have passed down the male line—transmitted in the semen according to Augustine. What kind of ethical philosophy is it that condemns every child, even before it is born, to inherit the sin of a remote ancestor?” (Dawkins, 2006, p. 251, emp. added).
Hitchens, Dawkins, and numerous other atheistic writers correctly conclude that a god who condemns children because they inherited their ancestors’ sins would be an unjust being unworthy of worship. The biblical portrait of God, however, is not of such a cruel, unjust being. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The Bible points out in unambiguous terms that children do not inherit the sins or guilt of their ancestors. The prophet Ezekiel wrote: “The one who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (18:20). It has been shown repeatedly and beyond doubt that the Bible never indicates that children inherit sin or guilt from their parents (Butt, 2004), nor do children ever suffer any type of spiritual punishment as a result of the sins of their parents (Butt, 2003). While it is the case that children often suffer physical consequences of their parents’ wrong choices, such as when a drunken father abuses his children, it is not the case that those children bear any of the father’s spiritual guilt or inherit any of their parents’ sin.
One can completely understand why the skeptical community would be aghast at a being who would cast innocent babies into hell as punishment for the sins of their parents. Yet, a correct interpretation of the Bible shows that such is not the case. While it is sad that many religious people have falsely taught such a view, their false teaching on the subject, and the skeptics’ acceptance of that false teaching as a correct interpretation of the Bible, cannot be used as a legitimate weapon to impugn the character of the God of the Bible.
WRONG DEFINITION OF FAITH
It is unfortunate for Christianity that some who call themselves Christians completely misunderstand the basic concept of faith. For many in Christendom, faith is a warm feeling in their hearts when they have failed to find adequate evidence to justify their beliefs. Modern dictionaries have done much to engrain this false definition of faith into modern Christianity. For instance, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary states that faith is “a firm belief in something for which there is no proof” (1988). The American Heritage Dictionary gives as a primary definition of faith: “belief that does not rest on logical or material evidence” (2000, p. 636). The idea that faith is a warm, fuzzy feeling divorced from logical thinking and separated from all “material evidence” does not coincide with what the Bible actually says about faith (cf. Sztanyo, 1996). As Sztanyo correctly noted: “There is not a single item in Christianity, upon which our souls’ salvation depends, that is only ‘probably’ true. In each case, the evidence supplied is sufficient to establish conclusive proof regarding the truth of the Christian faith” (1996, p. 7).The false view that faith is “a leap in the dark” without adequate evidence provides the skeptical community plenty of fodder for their atheistic, anti-Bible cannons—and rightly so. If believing in God, or the divine inspiration of the Bible, or the deity of Jesus Christ is not established by rational, logical evidence, then those ideas are as unworthy of belief as the unprovable ideas of atheism and evolution. Knowing the inconsistency of such a false definition of faith, Sam Harris wrote: “In fact, every religion preaches the truth of propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable. This put the ‘leap’ in Kierkegaard’s leap of faith” (Harris, 2004, p. 23, italics in orig.). Christopher Hitchens, building on the “leap of faith” idea, opined:
Actually, the “leap of faith”—to give it the memorable name that Soren Kierkegaard bestowed on it—is an imposture. As he himself pointed out, it is not a “leap” that can be made once and for all. It is a leap that has to go on and on being performed, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary (2007, p. 65).In his analysis of religion, Richard Dawkins quipped: “The whole point of religious faith, its strength and chief glory, is that it does not depend on rational justification” (2006, p. 23, emp. added). Because of his belief that biblical faith is belief without rational justification, Dawkins concluded: “We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that” (p. 283). What Dawkins really means to say is that no fundamentalist who has adopted the concept that faith does not depend on rational justification would abandon his or her belief if evidence were provided to the contrary. But if his definition of faith is wrong, then he is incorrect to conclude that those who believe in God, the divine inspiration of the Bible, and the deity of Christ would not alter their views based on the evidence. In fact, according to a proper definition of biblical faith, it is only because of the rational justification and logical evidence available that true Christians hold to their beliefs.
When Dawkins states, “Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don’t have to make the case for what you believe” (p. 306), he manifests his lack of knowledge of what biblical faith is. Biblical faith is based completely and solely on truth and reason, as the apostle Paul succinctly stated in Acts 26:25. The prophet Isaiah underscored this fundamental truth about biblical faith when He recorded God’s invitation to the Israelites: “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ says the Lord” (1:18). Luke, in his introduction to the book of Acts, pressed the point that Jesus’ resurrection was attested by “many infallible proofs” (1:3). For one to believe in the resurrection requires faith, based on infallible proofs.
Sam Harris wrote: “It is time that we admitted that faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail” (Harris, 2006, p. 67). Harris’ accusation is justified when it is applied to false religions, and to those who attempt to defend Christianity without providing a logical, rational justification for their belief. But his allegations, and similar sentiments from Dawkins, Hitchens, and other atheists, are wholly inadequate to attack true, biblical faith. Sadly, too many self-proclaimed Christians open the door for the skeptical community to bash Christian “faith,” when, in reality, the “faith” that is being destroyed was never biblical in the first place.
MODERN MIRACLES
It is often the case that “Christianity” is abused by modern skeptics due to the tendency of many in Christendom to claim that the Holy Spirit continues to work miracles today just as He did during New Testament times. Atheist Dan Barker wrote about the time that he was thrown out of “Peter Popoff’s ‘miracle’ rally” (1992, p. 291). Barker wrote that Popoff “grabbed a woman’s head, deliberately mussed up her hair, shook her and pronounced her healed” (p. 293). During Popoff’s healing antics, Barker noted, “The audience punctuated his ‘healings’ by loudly speaking in tongues, raising their arms, shaking, crying, and hollering ‘Amen,’ ‘Thank you, Jesus!’ and ‘Hallelujah!’ It had the feel of one of those professional wrestling matches on TV” (p. 293).Barker’s assessment of the event was, “It was comical; and it was sad. The man was practicing medicine without a license, raising false hopes and endangering lives. (Many of his believers have discarded medicine or cancelled doctor’s appointments.) I remember having participated in meetings just like this when I was a full-gospel evangelist, and I was ashamed” (p. 294). Barker’s caustic assessment of Popoff’s “faith healing scam” is accurate in many ways. As Barker admitted, he at one time in his past participated in many false-healing events, and thus he knows the inherent dishonesty involved in such deceptive shenanigans. Here again the skeptical community has logically and correctly concluded that such faith healings are not valid. As David Mills wrote: “If God has the power to miraculously cure others (though invariably in a vague and uncertain way), why doesn’t God ever help amputees?” (2006, p. 161).
Mills is right to surmise that if the miraculous power that was available during the time of the apostles is still available today, as many Christians erroneously teach and believe, then miracles that can be empirically verified like the healing of amputees should be documented. After all, even the enemies of the apostles had to admit that the miracles worked by the apostles were empirically verifiable: “For indeed, that a notable miracle has been done through them is evident to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it” (Acts 4:16).
In truth, the skeptical community does an excellent job of showing that such “faith healing” events are emotionally charged frenzies that do not produce legitimate medical results. The problem arises, however, when the skeptical community tries to lump all Christians into this mold, or attempts to use these verifiably false miracles to discount the possibility of any type of miracle at any time in history. The fact of the matter is, the Bible predicted that the miraculous power that was available to the apostles would come to an end, and would not continue throughout the ages until modern times (Miller, 2003). Furthermore, it has been repeatedly and definitively shown that such false miracles sustain no argumentative value against the historical legitimacy of true miracles recorded in the Bible, such as the resurrection of Christ (Butt, 2002).
CONCLUSION
Mortimer J. Adler once stated, “Christianity is the only logical, consistent faith in the world” (as quoted in Sharp and Bergman, 2008, p. 288). Unfortunately, the truth of his statement is often obscured by the copious, false philosophies and inaccurate biblical interpretations that masquerade as Christianity. Calvinism, theistic evolution, inherited sin, misdefined faith, and a belief in modern-day miraculous healings are just a few of the obstacles standing in the way of a proper understanding of New Testament Christianity. To this list could be added hundreds of similar ideas fraught with error such as the unscriptural concepts of purgatory, limbo, modern-day Divine inspiration, the perseverance of the saints, and a plethora of ridiculous “predictions” supposedly rooted in the biblical text of Revelation. Those who genuinely wish to defend the validity of New Testament Christianity must be willing and able to assess the writings of modern skeptics, separating the wheat from the chaff. By acknowledging the mistakes that are inherent in false concepts of “Christianity,” the honest-hearted truth seeker can be led to see that such foibles and errors do not mar authentic, defensible Christianity.REFERENCES
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion).
Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?” Reason & Revelation, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/121.
Butt, Kyle (2003), “Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2255.
Butt, Kyle (2004), “Do Children Inherit the Sins of the Parents?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2543.
Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin).
Harris, Sam (2004), The End of Faith (New York: W.W. Norton).
Harris, Sam (2006), Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).
Hitchens, Christopher (2007), god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: The Twelve).
Jackson, Wayne, Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2008), Surveying the Evidence (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking and Holy Spirit Baptism—A Refutation,” Reason & Revelation, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569.
Mills, David (2006), Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).
Sharp, Doug and Jerry Bergman, eds. (2008), Persuaded by the Evidence (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Sztanyo, Dick (1996), Faith and Reason (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1988), (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster).
From Mark Copeland... The Vision Of The Time Of The End - I (Daniel 10:1-11:1)
"THE BOOK OF DANIEL" The Vision Of The Time Of The End - I (10:1-11:1) INTRODUCTION 1. As mentioned in previous lessons, the second half of Daniel contains four visions... a. The vision of the four beasts - Dan 7:1-28 b. The vision of the ram and the goat - Dan 8:1-27 c. The vision of the seventy weeks - Dan 9:1-27 d. The vision of the time of the end - Dan 10:1-12:13 -- In which God reveals to Daniel many things about His purpose and plan in history, regarding the nation of Israel and the everlasting kingdom to come 2. In the tenth chapter, therefore, we find the beginning of the final vision recorded by Daniel... a. A vision that pertains to what will affect Daniel's people (i.e., Israel) - Dan 10:14 b. Describing what will occur "in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come" - Dan 10:14 c. Its words were to be closed and sealed "till the time of the end" - Dan 12:9 -- For such reasons this vision has been called "The Vision Of The Time Of The End" 3. But what is meant by the expression "the time of the end"? a. Is it the end of time as we think of it, when Christ returns? b. Or does it refer to the end of God's dealings with Israel as His covenant nation? [As we seek to address this and other questions raised in this difficult portion of Scripture, we first notice...] I. THE APPEARANCE OF A GLORIOUS MAN A. THE DATE AND SETTING OF THE VISION... 1. It occurred in the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, on the 24th day of the first month (ca. 535 B.C.) - Dan 10:1,4 2. Daniel had been in mourning (fasting) for three weeks - Dan 10:2,3 3. He was beside the Tigris river - Dan 10:4 B. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE GLORIOUS MAN... 1. Daniel saw a certain man - Dan 10:5-6 a. Clothed in linen, whose waist was girded with gold of Uphaz b. With a body like beryl c. His face like lightning, his eyes like torches of fire d. His arms and feet like burnished bronze in color e. His words like the voice of a multitude 2. Only Daniel saw the vision - Dan 10:7 a. The men with him did not b. They fled with great terror to hide themselves 3. The impact on Daniel - Dan 10:8-9 a. Without strength, his vigor turned to frailty (he was probably in his nineties!) b. When he heard the sounds of the man's words, Daniel was in a deep sleep with his face to the ground [The similarity between this "certain man" and John's vision of the Son of Man (cf. Re 1:12-17) have led many to wonder if this was a Christophany (an appearance of the preincarnate Christ); but he may have been only an angel. As we continue, we next read of...] II. THE CONVERSATION WITH THE GLORIOUS MAN A. THE MAN'S INITIAL WORDS TO DANIEL... 1. A hand touches Daniel, causing him to tremble - Dan 10:10 2. The man addresses Daniel - Dan 10:11 a. Calling him "man greatly beloved" - cf. Dan 9:23; 10:19 b. For Daniel to understand, and to stand up c. For the man has been sent to Daniel -- Daniel stands up, but trembling 3. The man comforts Daniel - Dan 10:12 a. Telling him not to fear b. That he has come because of Daniel's humility, and desire to understand 4. The man explains the reason for the delay - Dan 10:13 a. The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood him twenty-one days (the same time during which Daniel had been in mourning - cf. Dan 10:2-3) 1) Spiritual warfare seems to have been taking place (cf. Re 12:7; Ep 6:12) 2) The "prince" (angel?) of the kingdom of Persia had been withstanding him - cf. Dan 11:1 b. But Michael came to help him who had been left alone with the kings of Persia 1) Michael is described as "one of the chief princes" 2) Later he is called "your prince" and "the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people" - Dan 10:21; 12:1 3) Jude calls him "the archangel", who contended with the devil over the body of Moses - Jude 9 -- Michael appears to have served as the guardian of the nation of Israel 5. But now the man has come make Daniel understand - Dan 10:14 a. What will happen to his people (Israel) b. What will occur "in the latter days", "many days yet to come" -- From what follows, the expression "latter days" appears to refer to the time leading up to the coming of the Messiah and into the Messianic period (Harkrider) - cf. Dan 2:28; Ac 2:16-17 B. DANIEL IS STRENGTHENED... 1. Daniel is initially speechless - Dan 10:15-17 a. With his face turned to the ground b. But one with "the likeness of the sons of men" touched his lips (some think this may have been Gabriel, who had helped Daniel before - Dan 8:16) c. Daniel can now speak, but is overwhelmed with sorrow and without strength 2. Daniel is strengthened - Dan 10:18-19 a. By the touch of the one having the likeness of a man b. By the words bestowing love, peace and courage c. Ready now to hear what he has to say C. THE MAN RESUMES HIS WORDS WITH DANIEL... 1. Though he must soon return - Dan 10:20 a. To fight with the prince (angel?) of Persia b. To deal with the prince (angel?) of Greece yet to come 2. Yet he will tell Daniel what is noted in the Scripture of Truth - Dan 10:21-11:1 a. Adding that only Michael helps him against them (the angelic princes of Persia and Greece) - cf. Dan 10:13 b. Adding that he had confirmed and strengthened him (Michael?) in the first year of Darius the Mede CONCLUSION 1. At this point (Dan 11:2), "The Vision Of The Time Of The End" begins in earnest... a. Describing what will happen "in the latter days" b. Referring to what will occur "many days yet to come" -- Which we shall examine when we resume our study in the next lesson 2. In these introductory remarks of the vision, we find a glimpse of the spiritual warfare that was going on "behind the scenes"... a. With angelic forces withstanding each other - Dan 10:13a,20 b. With angelic forces helping each other - Dan 10:13b,21; 11:1 c. With Michael introduced to Daniel as: 1) "one of the chief princes" - Dan 10:13 2) "your prince" - Dan 10:21 3) "the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people" - Dan 12:1 While there is little we truly know about this "spiritual warfare", and to what extent it may be going on today, perhaps our study will encourage us to take more seriously Paul's words: "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." "Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." - Ep 6:12-13 What are we doing to take up the armor of God, that we might be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might (cf. Ep 6:10-18)?Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




