Precise Predictions

Divine Foreknowledge in the Book of Daniel

I am God, and there is none like me, declaring . . . from ancient times the things that are not yet done.—Isaiah 46:9,10

David Rice

One of the strong evidences for divine inspiration in Scripture is the inclusion of prophecies which accurately predicted episodes in history. It indicates a foreknowledge of the future that only divine providence could account for.

The Book of Daniel contains such prophecies, some so specific that Daniel is a focal point of debate on inspiration. So forceful is the witness of these prophecies that critics are obliged to suppose the book was written after the events it claims to predict. After all, what other explanation could suffice?

The first record of this view comes from a pagan writer of the third century named Porphyry, "one of the most sagacious and learned antagonists of Christianity under the Roman empire" (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia, volume 8, page 420). That view lay dormant for centuries until revived by critics in modern times. A well known presentation of this position is Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires by H. H. Rowley, published in 1935.

The Prophetic Foreview

Daniel was among the captives of Judah taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, whose rule began in the closing years of the seventh century BC. His prophecies mention by name the empires that would succeed Babylon—Medo-Persia and Greece—and that the Grecian empire would be divided into four segments following the death of its first emperor (Daniel 8:20-22).

All this fits the facts so precisely that no one doubts the application. Critics therefore suppose these prophecies were composed after the Grecian empire had split into four parts—in fact, during the second century BC, during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of the Syrian fragment of the Grecian empire, at about the time of the Maccabean Revolt.

Of course this expedient is not adequate to answer the issues. For example, Daniel 7 shows that after the first three empires, a fourth would rise stronger than its predecessors, "a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly" (verse 7). This was fulfilled by the Roman empire, which rose to its zenith some time after the Maccabean Revolt. This empire would decompose into several fragments (the ten horns), dominated by a powerful system which would "wear out the saints of the most high" for 1,260 years during the dark ages. Just such a system did rule, from Rome, from 539 to 1799 (Studies in the Scriptures, volume 3, chapter 3), and the history of its oppression is renown (Studies in the Scriptures, volume 2, chapter 9).

Also, texts in Daniel 9 predicted the exact years of the baptism and death of Messiah, Jesus, who appeared nearly two centuries after the Maccabean Revolt. Ezekiel testifies of the historical Daniel (Ezekiel 14:14,20), Jesus does the same (Matthew 24:15), and the apostles Paul and John endorse Daniel’s prophecies by their reference to them (2 Thessalonians 2:8; Revelation 13:2-7).

All of this, however, is on a spiritual level, and does not much impress the critics. But for other reasons intrinsic in the narratives, critics are retreating from their position as regards the first six chapters of Daniel.

"According to nearly every modern commentator, the tales of chapters 1-6 are originally products of a Jewish community in a Gentile environment, whose concerns were rather different from those of Jews who read these tales in Palestine in the Maccabean period" (Philip Davies, cited in The Skeptical Review, March/April 1999, page 6).

This implies an abandonment of the several lesser arguments they have traditionally used, which depend on texts in the first six chapters (such as Daniel 1:1; 3:5; 5:31). What, then, are the critics left with to support their view? Simply a disbelief such precision as Daniel contains could actually be of divine origin.

A Detailed History

Though prophetic themes are intertwined throughout Daniel, the prophetic visions of Daniel himself are recorded, sequentially, in the last six chapters. They are four in number, chapters 7, 8, 9 each recounting different visions, and chapters 10, 11, 12 constituting one narrative recording the fourth prophecy. This latter is the most detailed. It was given in the "third year of Cyrus king of Persia" (10:1), and gives a preview of history from that time forward to the establishment of the kingdom of Christ.

In chapter 11, verse 2, Daniel speaks of the three successors after Cyrus—Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius—and a fourth, Xerxes (the Ahasuerus of Esther), who would surpass the others in wealth and advance his kingdom against Greece. Herodotus speaks of this famous campaign (Book 7), and numbers the whole body of Persia’s soldiers and their retinue at 5,000,000, a figure so great as to be suspect. Whatever the actual number, it was a stirring of the whole force of the empire against Greece . . . but in vain. The invasion proved abortive, and a turning point in history.

Verse 3 refers to Alexander the Great, the king of Greece who rose a century and a half later and conquered Persia. Verse 4 explains that after his death (323 BC) the kingdom would be divided in four parts, none of which would be given "to his posterity," and none would rule "according to his dominion." The division was not immediate, but in a few years four segments emerged: Cassander in Macedonia, Lysimachus in Thrace, Seleucus in Syria, and Ptolemy in Egypt.

The narrative which follows traces two parts of this empire, those north and south of Judea, namely Syria and Egypt. (Macedonia was later defeated by the others, then Cassander by Seleucus, leaving the Syrian and Egyptian fragments the most powerful.) The following list ofkings, and the length of their reigns, will beuseful as we proceed through the narrative. These six generations of rulers are all that are referred to in the prophetic narrative. (The last four entries under Syria are two pairs of brothers.)

Verse 5—the King of the South is Ptolemy Soter, for a time the strongest of Alexander’s successors. By his assistance one of his generals, Seleucus Nicator, received control of Syria. Ultimately his domains extended from Asia Minor to the border of India, and he became the strongest of Alexander’s successors—"one of [Ptolemy’s] princes . . . shall be strong above him . . . his dominion shall be a great dominion."

Verse 6—"In the end of years," after many disputes, a marriage alliance would be effected between them. "The king’s daughter of the south [Berenice, daughter of Philadelphus] shall come to the king of the north [Antiochus Theus] to make an agreement." Antiochus put away his previous wife, Laodice, so he might marry Berenice, but he later had a change of heart (after the passing of Philadelphus?) and recalled Laodice. She made sure she would not be put away again. She poisoned Antiochus, and had Berenice, Berenice’s new son by Antiochus, and all Berenice’s Egyptian attendants killed.

Verse 7—"Out of a branch of [Berenice’s] roots shall one stand up . . . and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north and shall deal against them, and shall prevail." Berenice’s brother, Ptolemy Eugertes, recently come to the throne, was outraged. He invaded Syria, occupied the capital Seleucia (which he maintained with garrisons for some years), had Laodice slain, and would have occupied the entire kingdom of the north, had not unrest called him back to Egypt. As he went he took "into Egypt their gods with their metal images and their precious vessels of silver and gold" and refrained "from attacking the king of thenorth for some years" (verse 8, NASB). Eugertes took 40,000 talents of silver, and retrieved 2,500 images which Cambyses, Persian monarch, had taken from Egypt centuries earlier.

Verse 9 is translated quite differently in the NASB than the King James. "Then the latter [king of the north] will enter the realm of the king of the south, but will return to his own land." Seleucus Callinicus, son of the deceased Laodice, sought revenge for the vengeance taken by Eugertes. "Justin says that he fitted out a great fleet, which was destroyed by a violent storm; and after this he raised a great army to recover his dominion, but was defeated by Ptolemy, and fled in great terror and trembling to Antioch" (Gill’s Commentary).

Verse 10—"But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through." Callinicus’ sons Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus Magnus continued the quest for retribution after their father’s passing, but Ceraunus was poisoned by two of his generals and Magnus became king. Thus "sons" were stirred up, but only "one," Antiochus Magnus, followed through. Magnus was "stirred up, even to his fortress," retaking Seleucia and other lost portions of his northern kingdom.

Verse 11—Ptolemy Philopator met this challenge with an attack northward, and though "the king of the north . . . shall set forth a great multitude . . . the multitude shall be given into [Philopator’s] hand." Philopator returned through Judea where he assayed to see the Holy of Holies at Jerusalem. He was barely restrained by the Jews, but so offended that when he returned to Egypt he caused the death of 40,000 Jews at Alexandria. As verse 12 says, "his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened"—this proud evil served only to weaken his kingdom.

Verses 13, 14—"After certain years"—about 14 years—Magnus assembled yet a greater force to attack Egypt, encouraged by the demise of Philopator and the ascent of theyoung child Ptolemy Epiphanes in Egypt. Magnus was joined by others: "in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south." Philip, king of Macedonia, conspired with Magnus to divide Egypt’s kingdom between them. The Roman Senate entrusted the education of young Epiphanes to Emilius Lepidus, who appointed Aristomenes his guardian. Aristomenes dispatched Scopas, a famous general then in service to the Egyptians, northward. After initial successes he was defeated by forces from Magnus and fled to Sidon where he submitted to a disgraceful surrender

This is the first intrusion of the Roman power into the chain of events, and it was unsuccessful: "the breakers [literal rendering] of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish thevision; but they shall fall" (verse 14). The crushers of Daniel’s people would be Rome, and Rome would play the dominant role in this vision, but not yet. In this first appearance, Rome’s endeavors would prove abortive.

Verses 15, 16—Thus Magnus took "a well-fortified city" (NASB), opening his way for a southern conquest. As he marched through the "glorious land"—the land of Israel (Zechariah 7:14)—it also would fall to his control.

Verse 17—"He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones [Jewish soldiers, the Hebrew word #3477 is similar to Jeshurun #3484 (see Isaiah 44:2)] with him." But as he approached Egypt, he came upon a plan calculated to claim the kingdom by subtlety rather than force. He married his daughter to Ptolemy Epiphanes, hoping to work through her to effect his influence. However the plan failed because "she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him" —her allegiance shifted away from her father, in favor of her new husband.

Verse 18—"After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many." Magnus "brought into subjection nearly all the maritime ports on the coast of Asia, Thrace and Greece" (R. E. Streeter, Daniel the Beloved of Jehovah, 1998 edition, page 190). His name Magnus, "Great," properly denoted the strength of his rule, and conflict with Rome was inevitable. After being repulsed at sea by Livius and Aemilius, Magnus was defeated near Magnesia in Asia Minor by the Roman general Scipio. Thus "a commander will put a stop to his scorn" (NASB).

Verse 19—Magnus never recovered from the blow, and the tribute he was obliged to render Rome under the terms of "peace" was onerous. He was obliged to plunder territories in his own empire. "So he will turn his face toward the fortresses of his own land, but he will stumble and fall and be found no more." As he was plundering the Temple of Jupiter in Elymias, eastward in his realm, he and his attendants were killed by the locals.

Verse 20—His son Seleucus Philopator came to the throne, who exacted taxes to raise the tribute owed Rome. In a famous episode in the history of Israel, he sent his tax collector Heliodorus into Judea, "the glory of the kingdom," to seize the money he heard was deposited in the temple at Jerusalem, but he was beaten by an angel as he began the plunder (2Maccabees 3). Within a few years Philopator would be "shattered, though neither in anger nor in battle." This describes something other than a natural death, yet not on the battlefield, nor by an act of passion. In fact Philopator was killed by Heliodorus in a palace coup.

Verse 21—Heliodorus, however, did not receive the kingdom, which thereafter was taken neither by the conspirators nor by Philopator’s heirs, but obtained "peaceably . . . by flatteries" by his brother Antiochus Epiphanes, a "vile person" who received the power, but never the honor, of the kingdom.

An Application so Precise

The foregoing application is so precise, so fitting to the circumstances, that it is acknowledged even by critics. It may seem complex as one wades through the detail, but actually it is reasonably straight-forward. Ptolemy Soter is clearly intended in verse 5, and his successor Philadelphus clearly intended in verse 6, whose daughter Berenice was married to Antiochus Theus.

Berenice’s brother Ptolemy Eugertes is specified in verse 7, and his adversary Seleucus Callinicus in verse 8. Thereafter Callinicus’ sons appear in verse 10, and the exploits of the younger son, Magnus, are detailed in verses 11-19. His successor Seleucus Philopator is given but one verse, and his successor Antiochus Epiphanes is introduced in verse 21. Each of the six generations of rulers, from the death of Alexander through to Antiochus Epiphanes, is carefully documented.

A Transition . . . and a Challenge

Since Daniel 12:1,2 take us to the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, more than 2,000 years after Antiochus Epiphanes, the prophecy cannot continue with a generation by generation narrative. There must be a change of tempo, or a large break, somewhere. So it was with the connection between Persia and Greece. The Scriptures identified five sequential monarchs—Cyrus, Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius, Xerxes—and then jumped in one leap to the Grecian empire at the time of Alexander.

The question facing students of Daniel 11 is where to make the break to Rome, the successor of Greece, and where to identify Papacy, the Man of Sin, shown in Daniel 7 as the successor of Imperial Rome.

The 1,260 years of Papal rule evidently began at the same time as the 1,290 years, and the latter began "from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up" (Daniel 12:7,11). This language is drawn directly from Daniel 11:31, "they . . . shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate." Therefore those who recognize Papacy as the Man of Sin recognize Daniel 11:31 as referring to Papacy.

How, then, do we get from Daniel 11:21 (Antiochus Epiphanes) to Daniel 11:31 (Papacy)? This is the task which confronted the Adventists in the 1800s. Uriah Smith, about 20 years senior to Bro. Russell, in The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation used a method similar to that used by Bro. Russell in Thy Kingdom Come.

The exact applications vary, but the method is to skip from highlight to highlight in the Roman empire, for example, touching Julius Caesar (verse 17), Augustus (verse 20), Tiberius (verse 21), Aurelian (verse 25) and Papacy (verse 26). Another option, embraced by Isaac Newton, Thomas Newton, and a broad array of thoughtful Protestant expositors, is found in the book Daniel, the Beloved of Jehovah by Bro. R. E. Streeter. It recognizes the career of Antiochus Epiphanes in verses 21-30, and indeed these verses do outline the campaign of this monarch just as closely as we saw verses 10-19 detail Antiochus Magnus. (On verse 22b, compare 2 Maccabees 4:1-38. This murder of righteous Onias, the high priest, may be typical of the death of Messiah.)

In this approach verse 31 becomes the turning point. The text speaks of polluting the temple, removing the daily sacrifice, and placing an abomination, something which on different levels was accomplished by Antiochus and later Rome in the literal temples, and Papacy in the spiritual temple. This approach has two benefits:

1. It is consistent with our Lord’s application of Daniel 11:31 in Matthew 24:15, 16, applying it literally to the Roman desecrations in Judea, and figuratively to the Papal desecrations in Christendom.

2. It preserves the continuity of Daniel 11. For example, there is nothing to indicate in verses 16, 17 or 25 a change of monarch such as the other view requires. (Such changes are clearly marked in verses 7, 10, 20, 21 for example.)

The Remainder of the Chapter

The Adventists had a great advantage over earlier expositors in that they lived after the end of the 1,260 years, i.e., after 1799, and could look back upon Napoleon’s role in ending Papal power. So much did they recognize his influence, they attributed him more exposure in the prophecy than seems due. Thus they supposed him introduced in verse 36, whereas a natural reading of the passage would imply verse 36 refers to the same power as verse 31.

In support of this observation is Paul’s reference to verse 36 in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. There, referring to the Man of Sin (Papacy), Paul says "who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." A close comparison of this with Daniel 11 indicates that verse 36 was the source of Paul’s comments.

Evidently, therefore, Daniel 11:31-39 all refer to the Papacy. Verse 40 explains its demise as a two-step process, that first a southern power would "push" at him (the Ottoman Empire), then a northern power would "come against him like a whirlwind . . . he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over" (Napoleon, whose career continues through verse 45).

A Firm Foundation

There are some challenging details in Daniel’s prophecies. But the main outlines of history are laid down so precisely there can be no doubt about its meaning. Babylon was followed by Medo-Persia, to be defeated by the Greek Empire, which would split into four parts and later be consumed by the most powerful kingdom known to antiquity, Rome. The fragments of that kingdom (the ten horns) would be dominated by a powerful institution which would "wear out the saints of the most high" for centuries during the dark ages. Finally judgment would fall, and subsequently "the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the . . . saints of the most High" (Daniel 7:27). Not only in the details of history, but in the circumstances attending the breaking of the new day, our faith is deeply confirmed in the prophetic word.