Daniel The Man who Feared God 2016

Swaggering Scorn (36-39)

1. 
   Who is the king spoken of in this section?
   
   1. 
      Almost all commentators agree that to this point, chapter 11 has dealt with a sequence of significant rulers from Cyrus to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. However, the king spoken of in verses 36-39 has led to considerable debate. Many different views of who this king is (or will be) have been postulated over the past 2,000 years.
      
   2. 
      In order to provide a consistent interpretation of the remainder of this chapter we should state some interpretive principles:
      
      1. 
         This chapter is dealing with events relating to the Jewish people; ‘your people’ (10.14; 11.14), not with events that would occur in the Christian (or NT Church) era. Chapter 11, so far, has been dealing with foreign kingdoms immediately intersection with the Jews in Palestine from the time of Daniel, onward.
         
      2. 
         The period it covers is from the time of Daniel until the arrival of the Messiah (9.24-27) and is given as a straightforward narrative that includes all the important personages who interacted with the Jews in Judea.
         
      3. 
         The explicit accuracy of the mapping of events recorded in this chapter, thus far, against identifiable historical personages of significance leads us to expect the same level of accuracy for the remainder of the chapter.
         
      4. 
         A king who is from the general period of Antiochus needs to be under consideration because of the explicit references to Edom and Moab (41), which ceased to exist before the time of Christ; and to the wealth of Egypt (43), which certainly does not apply today.
         
      5. 
         The interpretation should be straightforward and not require a complex or convoluted explanation (e.g., as proposed by the dispensationalists).
         
      6. 
         These verses (36-39) speak of a notoriously wicked tyrant who would interact with the Jews.
         
   3. 
      Antiochus IV Epiphanes
      
      1. 
         Some suggest that this passage gives more information about Antiochus—in particular his additional incursions into Israel.
         
      2. 
         However, the details given in these verses do not fit with any of the extra-Biblical historical information known about Antiochus.⁵¹⁸
         
      3. 
         One writer has said that, “Exegetical necessity requires that 11:36–45 be applied to someone other than Antiochus IV.”⁵¹⁹
         
   4. 
      The Roman Empire
      
      1. 
         Calvin, for example, held this view.⁵²⁰
         
      2. 
         The passage is too specific to refer to an empire; rather it points to an individual.
         
   5. 
      The papacy and the Pope
      
      1. 
         This view had a following among Protestant Reformers and Puritans.
         
   6. 
      Another individual that lived between the time of Christ and our present day
      
      1. 
         Nero, Constantine, Omar ibn El-Khatttab (with the wars between the Caliphs and the Romans being referred to in 36-39), and others have been mentioned.
         
   7. 
      The NT antichrist of 2 Thessalonians 2.4
      
      1. 
         It is argued that this passage speaks either of a generic antichrist (for example the papal system) or a specific, yet to appear, individual.
         
      2. 
         This is the most popular view among Evangelical commentators today, and the prevailing view, particularly among premillennialists and dispensationalists.
         
      3. 
         They argue that this passage provides a portrait of the antichrist given in the NT. While this is true in general, and there are allusions to Daniel’s account in the NT (2 Thes 2.4; Rev 13.5, 6), it may be better to understand the individual mentioned here (36-39) as a type or precursor of the antichrist rather than the specific antichrist (if there is to be a single person filling the role).
         
      4. 
         They also argue that this passage is given in the context of the ‘last days’ (11.40, 12.2, 4, 13). However, these references do not necessarily have to do with the time of Christ’s second coming but may refer to his first coming and the end of the Jewish age. We will reserve further comments on this interpretation until we study those verses.
         
      5. 
         This view fails to meet the interpretive conditions we laid out above. It also introduces a gap of over 2,000 years between verse 35 and verse 36. This does not make sense exegetically, since the Hebrew in verse 36 starts with the conjunction “and,” and indicates sequence and an expected continuity.
         
   8. 
      Herod the Great
      
      1. 
         A new personality, ‘the king’, is introduced in verse 36. He is like Antiochus in his drive to persecute God’s people, but is a different individual. He is not introduced as the king of the north or south, but only as ‘the king’. The implication is that this individual is the king in Judea, not a foreign (Syrian, or Egyptian) king with suzerainty over Judea.
         
      2. 
         As we noted in the previous section, the Maccabean revolt lead to the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty and the Jews remained independent (though subject to the Seleucids) from the death of Antiochus until Pompey captured Jerusalem and subjected the territory to Roman rule. The Hasmonean dynasty ended in 37 BC when the Idumean Herod the Great became king of Israel.
         
      3. 
         Herod is the logical next king, following Antiochus IV Epiphanes, with whom the Jews have to contend.⁵²¹
         
         1. 
            Herod is called ‘the king’ in the Gospels (Mt 2.1, 3), and he alone held the title ‘king’ among the Jews after the death of Antiochus.
            
         2. 
            It would be remarkable and strange indeed, if the history from Cyrus to Christ included Alexander, the Seleucids and Ptolemies, Antiochus Epiphanes IV, and the Maccabees, but did not mention Herod “who exerted upon Jewish affairs and destinies an influence greater than they all, and who sat upon the throne of Israel when Christ was born.” ⁵²²
            
         3. 
            The historical data given in this passage fits what we know about Herod from extra-Biblical accounts.
            

2. 
   What did this king do?
   
   1. 
      Did as he pleased
      
      1. 
         This idea occurs often in Scripture to express a spirit of lawlessness (Gen 6.5, Dt 12.8; Judg 21.25; Dan 8.4; 11.3, 16; Mk 9.13).
         
      2. 
         Herod was excessively self-willed.⁵²³ He secured and maintained despotic power through schemes with Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Octavius Caesar and Cleopatra; murdered his wife Mariamne and some of his sons because he suspected them of aspiring to his throne; and slaughtered the infant boys in Judea (Mt 2.16-18).
         
      3. 
         “When he [Emperor Augustus] heard that among the boys in Syria under two years old whom Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered to kill, his own son was also killed, he said: it is better to be Herod's pig, than his son.”⁵²⁴
         
   2. 
      Exalted himself above every god (36) and above all (37)
      
      1. 
         Herod exalted himself above every ruler and authority in Israel. He took the title ‘king’ to himself.⁵²⁵
         
      2. 
         Whether we understand ‘god’ here to mean ruler or authority, or an idol, it speaks of Herod. For example, he deposed (and even murdered) incumbents in the high priest’s office, and appointed whom he wished to that office. He appointed his own brother-in-law, Aristobulus (not a Levite), Mariamne's brother, to the office, and shortly after had him murdered.⁵²⁶
         
   3. 
      Spoke astonishing things against God.
      
      1. 
         This could be a reference to Herod’s decree for the slaughter of the children in Judea. A decree to slaughter the Messiah—the Son of God—is to speak astonishing things against God.
         
   4. 
      Ignored the gods of his fathers
      
      1. 
         Herod was an Idumean (as an Edomite, a circumcised descendent of Abraham), and “a practicing Jew, as the Edomites and many Nabateans had been converted to Judaism by the Hasmoneans.”⁵²⁷
         
      2. 
         Herod referred to the Jews’ ancestors as ‘our fathers’.⁵²⁸
         
      3. 
         He ignored the gods—the true God of his Covenant fathers and the gods of his pagan ancestors—and at times he aligned himself with the Roman gods and at other times did not honour any gods.
         
   5. 
      Ignored the desire of women
      
      1. 
         Many have identified the ‘beloved of women’ as the king’s lustful passions (‘the desire of women’) or a Syrian goddess.
         
      2. 
         Others have suggested that this is a reference to the Messiah. Jewish women desired to be the mother of the Messiah.
         
      3. 
         Herod clearly did not have any regard for the one desired by women and repudiated the Messianic hope of the Jews. The slaughter of the infant boys in Judea (Mt 2.16-18) is the clear evidence of this, and is probably the direct fulfillment of this part of Daniel’s prophecy.
         
   6. 
      Honoured a god of fortresses, one his fathers did not know
      
      1. 
         Some have suggested this could be a reference to Zeus (Jupiter) or to Mars. Others suggest that he made war his god—his religious substitute for God was war.
         
      2. 
         The expression, “god of forces” or “god of fortresses” may be a reference to the Roman Empire, which had the most extensive military force ever seen to that point in history. He used flattery and bribery (through gifts of gold, silver and precious stones) of the Roman Caesars as a means of gaining their support. For example, he rebuilt Samaria calling it Sebastos (Augustus) and rebuilt Strato's Tower the seaport of Tyre and dedicated it to Caesar Augustus, calling it Caesarea.^529,530 He built other fortified cities and named them in honour of Caesar.⁵³¹
         
   7. 
      Dealt with a strong fortress under the patronage of a foreign, false, god
      
      1. 
         This is supported by the words of Josephus: “[Herod] took care to have external security for his government as a fortress against his subjects; for the orations he made to the cities were very fine, and full of kindness; and he cultivated a seasonable good understanding with their governors, and bestowed presents on every one of them, inducing them thereby to be more friendly to him, and using his magnificent disposition so as his kingdom might be the better secured to him, and this till all his affairs were every way more and more augmented. But then this magnificent temper of his, and that submissive behavior and liberality which he exercised towards Caesar, and the most powerful men of Rome, obliged him to transgress the customs of his nation, and to set aside many of their laws, and by building cities after an extravagant manner, and erecting temples—not in Judea indeed, for that would not have been borne—it being forbidden for us to pay any honor to images, or representations of animals, after the manner of the Greeks; but still he did thus in the country [properly] out of our bounds, and in the cities thereof. The apology which he made to the Jews for these things was this: That all was done, not out of his own inclinations, but by the commands and injunctions of others, in order to please Caesar and the Romans, as though he had not the Jewish customs so much in his eye as he had the honor of those Romans, while yet he had himself entirely in view all the while, and indeed was very ambitious to leave great monuments of his government to posterity; whence it was that he was so zealous in building such fine cities, and spent such vast sums of money upon them.” ⁵³²
         
      2. 
         Herod rebuilt the Temple in Jerusalem, and while he was at it he turned it into a fortress—the mightiest in the land. The citadel he called the Tower of Antonia, after Mark Antony.⁵³³ It was on the stairs leading to this tower that Paul spoke to the crowd of Jews (Acts 21.34-40).
         
      3. 
         He set up statues of Caesar to be worshipped in various fortified places. He even placed a large golden eagle (an emblem of imperial Rome) at the gate of the temple, causing a riot—it was torn down in 4 BC. He, thus, honoured the god of forces (Caesar).⁵³⁴
         
   8. 
      Honoured those who acknowledged him
      
      1. 
         Persons who vowed allegiance to Herod were rewarded with leadership positions and territories to rule.⁵³⁵
         
   9. 
      No other person in history can fulfill the details of this prophecy as does Herod. And what was prophesied about him was completely and accurately fulfilled.
      

3. 
   In spite of his wickedness, why would he be successful? (36)
   
   1. 
      The word “indignation” is a translation of a Hebrew word (זַ֔עַם) that can speak of the wrath, anger, or fury of God (Is 10.5, 25; 13.5); the equivalent in men (Jer 15.17); or man’s insolence (Hos 7.16).
      
   2. 
      The duration of this king’s rule was been determined by God, and his success or prosperity would last until the indignation (wrath) was accomplished.
      
   3. 
      The indignation is probably the slaughtering of the infant boys in Judea (Mt 2.16-18). However, Philip Mauro understands the end of the indignation to have occurred with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD which brought to an end the Herodian dynasty and their persecutions of God’s people—John the Baptist was killed by Herod Antipas, John was killed by Herod Agrippa I, Peter was imprisoned by Agrippa, and Herod Agrippa II sent Paul to Rome as a prisoner.⁵³⁶
      
   4. 
      Jesus was born in 4 BC. Herod died in 4 BC. Herod prospered until the indignation was accomplished. This reinforces the fact that the wicked activities of Herod were decreed and permitted by God to accomplish his purposes.
      

4. 
   What are some lessons that we can derive from this section?
   
   1. 
      Accuracy – We have noted numerous times the exquisite accuracy with which the prophecies in Daniel are realized in history.
      
      1. 
         The accounts are so accurate that many interpreters refuse to believe that the account (in chapter 11) was written in 6^th century BC, hundreds of years before the events happened.
         
      2. 
         We should sit in silent awe marvelling at how God first tells us what would happen and then unfolds his plan precisely as he said it would.
         
      3. 
         Only the Creator God who controls all events in time and space, who holds the hearts of kings in his hand, and who has infinite knowledge even down to numbering the hairs on our heads, could achieve such accuracy—“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.” (Rev 4.11).
         
   2. 
      Anarchy – We are reminded of the wickedness of the human heart (Gen 6.5; Jer 17.9).
      
      1. 
         Herod’s evil life is indicative of where all men who have power would go without God’s leavening grace.
         
      2. 
         If it were not for God’s placing limits on evil, as he did when he ended Herod’s destructive actions, once his purposes for Herod had been fulfilled, Herod would have carried out even more perversions.
         
      3. 
         If it were not for God’s general grace, all men would follow Herod’s path of swaggering scorn:
         
         1. 
            Doing as they please – Men strive for autonomy and despise God’s Law; for example, they claim that there is no standard for morality, other than that we should treat others as we want to be treated.
            
         2. 
            Exalting themselves above God – They set themselves forward as the normative standard against which God must be judged; for example, they challenge God to prove himself.
            
         3. 
            Speaking against God – They blame and blaspheme God in their philosophical systems and in their personal practice; for example, they use the names of God as swear words and present atheism and evolution as replacements for God.
            
         4. 
            Despising Christ – They despise Jesus Christ and treat him as nothing more than a wise guru or example or as an inconsequential quixotic fool.
            
         5. 
            Honouring a god of war – Even if they claim to be pacifists, men quickly become antagonistic and war-like if they feel that their ‘rights’ are being abused; for example, it is easy to see how quickly men revert to violence when they are in a mob after a sports team has lost a championship or they are confronted by supporters of the other team.
            
         6. 
            Building monuments for themselves – Men would claim that they do not care about building monuments. In fact, they do, but don’t have the power or means to do it. A simple way to show that all men wish to have a monument as a memorial is to delve into a man’s inner fear that no one will attend his funeral.
            
         7. 
            Playing favourites – Playing favourites is rampant throughout government and business; for example, there are ‘standards’ for the common folk and privileges for those in the ‘inner circle’.
            
   3. 
      Antichrist – While this section is not dealing explicitly with the NT antichrist, it certainly is dealing with a person who typifies the antichrist.
      
      1. 
         The actions Herod took against Jesus and God’s people is generally prophetic of what most interpreters claim that the antichrist would do (2 Thes 2.4; Rev 13.5, 6).
         
      2. 
         Whether the antichrist is a specific individual (e.g., Nero, or a person yet to arise), a false religion (e.g., Islam), a religious system (e.g., the papacy), human government, or a general reference to the evil wrought by Satan is debated, and adds no value. It seems best to conclude that the antichrist is all world systems (religious and political) and individuals who oppose Christ (1 Jn 2.18, 22; 4.3; 2 Jn 7).
         
      3. 
         Regardless, Herod was certainly an antichrist and a type for all subsequent antichrists.