Follow
One of the most critical phases in Western Civilization is the period of post-Alexandrian Greece prior to the rise of Rome. It is the period following Alexander’s death in 323 B.C. when his kingdom was divided, leading up to the period of Rome’s dominance on the world stage. That period weighs heavily in any discussion of Danielic eschatology, especially Daniel chapters 8 and 11, because in those chapters, he prophesies about exactly that period in history—the division of Alexander’s kingdom and the wars that followed. The fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies of the period are foundational to Christian eschatology, and much of what John saw in Revelation draws on the imagery and symbolism of Daniel’s several visions of the post-Alexandrian Greek empire. For this reason, a comprehensive Christian eschatology cannot be developed without knowledge of the era. And yet, from an historiographical perspective, it is one of the darkest periods in human history, for very little written evidence exists from which a complete story can emerge. Thus, at the period in history when our need for data is most critical, the historical record is least generous.
As The Cambridge Ancient History informs us, the period is so poorly documented that we are left extracting information from coins, inscriptions and “scattered literary references”:
“The whole history of the Greek East in the third century B.C. is very poorly documented, and this includes the Syrian Wars. There are practically no detailed accounts of this period by ancient historians. The preserved part of Diodorus’ history is interrupted in the year 302 B.C. and Polybius does not take up the narrative until the last few decades of the third century; … The gaps can be filled, rather sketchily, on the basis of scattered literary references, of inscriptions and, to a lesser degree, the evidence provided by coins.” (The Cambridge Ancient History vol VII, part I (Cambridge University Press, 413).
In their assessment of the Hellenistic period, historians Roger S. Bagnall and Peter Derow explain the significance of the profound gaps in the written records, and the historiographical poverty under which we labor as we examine the time after Alexander. We are forced to rely not only upon fragments, but upon fragments of fragments:
“For the Hellenistic period, the lacunae in the historical record are especially profound, and there can be few epochs in the history of the ancient Greek world for which the documents are proportionately as important as they are for the period from the end of the fourth century to the Roman triumph a quarter-millennium later. For this period we have no connected, completely preserved, historical accounts, just pieces of varying size here and there – particularly in Greek–Roman relations thanks to the contemporary Polybius – and the biographical tradition represented for us mainly by Plutarch. Here inscriptions and even papyri are called upon by historians to fill in the missing narrative, a much more difficult task. Usually a single inscription gives us at best a few frames from a long film, with a large break until another inscription gives the next few frames. There is also a further complication: the Greek world no longer offered even the relatively unified narrative canvas that it had in earlier centuries, and while an inscription is shining a light on a moment in Priene, the entire course of events in Antioch in Syria may be unknown. History from documents is thus even more fragmentary than that offered by the fragmentary literary tradition of the Hellenistic period; and the fragments are generally of a quite different kind.” (Roger S. Bagnall (editor) and Peter Derow (editor), The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation (Blackwell Publishing, 2004) xxvi)
And thus under the dim light of the limited record of post-Alexandrian Hellenism, we begin to examine the period of history that Daniel prophesied in most of Daniel chapters 8 and 11. It is the period of the division of Alexander’s empire which is so critical to our grasp of eschatology.
Both Daniel’s vision, and Gabriel’s explanation of it, pass over Alexander’s death (323 B.C.), the four-way division of his empire, and the rise of Antiochus IV (175 B.C.), in just two verses each:
Daniel: “Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.” (Daniel 8:8-9)
Gabriel: “Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.” (Daniel 8:22-23)
But what happened in those 148 years between Alexander and Antiochus? Who were the successors and what were the boundaries of their territories? Alexander’s successors—known to history as the Diadochi—fought among themselves for decades for the right to wear the crown after Alexander, a struggle that led to the Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C.. Ipsus and its immediate aftermath served as the catalyst that would finally force the diadochi into their four respective territories during the following decades. That division resulted in a state of almost perpetual war that then served as the backdrop not only for the rise of Antiochus IV, as depicted in Daniel 8, but also for the prophecy of almost all of Daniel 11. And yet just when we would turn to the historical record to discover the outcome of the battle, the historical record turns cloudy.
Diodorus Siculus, one of the best sources for the events leading up to the Battle of Ipsus concludes Book XX of his Library of History by promising to give the full details of that momentous battle:
“In this way, then, the forces of the kings were being gathered together, since they all had determined to decide the war by force of arms during the coming summer. But, as we proposed in the beginning, we shall make the war that these kings waged against each other for supreme rule the beginning of the following book.” (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Book XX chapter 113.5)
Unfortunately, Diodorus’ next book, Book XXI, now exists only in fragments.
Pompeius Trogus also wrote exhaustively on the Macedonian Empire in his Historiae Philippicae, including the division of Alexander’s territories. But Trogus’ work is now lost, and is only summarized by Justinus in his Epitome of Trogus’ histories and in his Prologi. Justinus assures the reader that he has included “whatever was most worthy of being known,” intending to “refresh” the memories of those already familiar with the period (Marcus Junianus Justinus, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, preface). There is no guarantee, of course, that what Justinus found “worthy of being known” is the same that a Christian eschatologist would. Such is the condition of the literary legacy of the era.
The Early Church Fathers, facing the same limited record, were by no means unanimous in their interpretation of the Diadochi. In fact, only a few writers even ventured to identify them. Hippolytus (170 – 235 A.D.) was the first to attempt to name all four:
“The beast had also four heads.’ When the kingdom of Alexander was exalted, and grew, and acquired a name over the whole world, his kingdom was divided into four principalities. For Alexander, when near his end, partitioned his kingdom among his four comrades of the same race, viz., ‘Seleucus, Demetrius, Ptolemy, and Philip;’ and all these assumed crowns, as Daniel prophesies, and as it is written in the first book of Maccabees.” (Hippolytus, Fragments from the Scriptural Commentaries of Hippolytus, On Daniel, Third Fragment, 6)
We take Hippolytus here to refer to Seleucus I “Nicator” of Syria, Demetrius I “Poliorcetes” of Asia Minor, Ptolemy I “Soter” of Egypt, and Philip Aridæus, Alexander’s half-brother and immediate successor before the wars of the Diadochi.
Eusebius (c. 260 – 340 A.D.) identifies five lines of successors by name and territory, but not in the context of Daniel’s visions. He merely recounts the history of the region after Alexander. Philip Aridaeus is the first king of Macedonia after Alexander, and is succeeded by Cassander and his sons, then Demetrius, and after a 10-year period of chaos, Demetrius’ descendants (Eusebius, Chronicle, (Schoene-Petermann translation, p. 241)). As for the rest, Antigonus was the first king of Asia Minor and after dying at Ipsus, his son “Demetrius escaped to Ephesus, and lost control of all of Asia,” eventually surrendering to Seleucus. “Meanwhile, Lysimachus was ruling in Lydia [Asia Minor] opposite Thrace and Seleucus was ruling in the eastern regions and Syria,” and Ptolemy was “the first king of the Egyptians.” (Eusebius, Chronicle (p. 247)).
When he does address the visions of Daniel, Eusebius cites Origen’s Philocalia approvingly: “the four successors of Alexander king of Macedon … are thus foretold” (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, Book 6 , chapter 11, citing Origen’s Philocalia, Chapter 23, paragraph 5), but Origen does not identify all four by name, and neither does Eusebius. Given that Eusebius described the territories of five lines of the Diadochi, and then opted not to expand any further on Lysimachus (i.e. “No account will be given of Lysimachus’ reign…” (Eusebius, Chronicle (p. 249)), it would seem that Eusebius did not see Lysimachus as one of the final four.
Jerome (c. 347 – 420 A.D.) followed Hippolytus in his identification of the four successors, differing only in the identity of the king of Asia Minor. Jerome had Antigonus ruling there, while Hippolytus appears to have had his son, Demetrius. Commenting at Daniel 7:6, Jerome identified the Diadochi by name,
“And by the four heads reference is made to his generals who subsequently rose up as successors to his royal power, namely Ptolemy, Seleucus, Philip, and Antigonus.” (Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 7:6)
Then commenting at 8:8, he expands and identifies them by territory:
“For Ptolemy, the son of Lagos, seized Egypt; the Philip who was also called Aridaeus, the brother of Alexander took over Macedonia; Seleucus Nicanor took over Syria, Babylonia, and all the kingdoms of the East; and Antigonus ruled over Asia Minor.” (Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 8:8)
He repeats this list again at 11:4, expanding a little more on their territories, and assigning the four cardinal directions to them (Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 11:4).
Other writers focused on the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Seleucids in Syria, but to our knowledge, no others attempted to name all four successors. Taking what little we can from the Early Church Fathers, Hippolytus, Eusebius and Jerome appeared to understand the four-way division of Alexander’s empire in terms of Asia Minor to the North, Egypt to the South, Syria and Babylon to the East and Macedonia to the West, differing only on the identity of the initial ruler of Asia Minor.
The early reformers who wrote explicitly on the topic—Johannes Oecolampadius (1530), Martin Luther, (1530), Philipp Melanchthon, (1543) John Calvin (1560), Heinrich Bullinger (1565) Johann Wigand (1571), Hugh Broughton (1599), Amandus Polanus (1599), Andrew Willet (1610), John Mayer (1653)—were practically universal in their identification of Antigonus as the ruler of Asia Minor, Seleucus as the ruler of Syria and beyond to the East, and Ptolemy as the ruler of Egypt. They differed on the identification of the ruler of Macedonia, some identifying Philip, some Antipater or his son, Cassander, and one identifying Lysimachus. As with the Early Church, there is no clear unanimity on the identification of all four, but there is an emergent consensus that the four territories were Asia Minor to the North, Egypt to the South, Syria and Babylon to the East and Macedonia to the West.
Our point in reflecting upon these various interpretations of the Diadochi is to highlight the significance of the condition of the historical record. These writers based their conclusions on the fragments of historical records from one of the most obscure periods in human history. The identification of the Diadochi is not a trivial task, and opinions vary. The historical record is quite fragmented, and the data are not always consistent.
As imperfect as it is, however, the library of fragments that serves as the historical record of the period, is all we have. To that end, we thought it might be of some value to survey the data from the period and extract what we can from the records. We will spend our time this week on 35-year period of the reduction of the Diadochi from considerably more than ten at Alexander’s death in 323 B.C., to the point in 288 B.C. when no more than four lines of successors were left.
Alexander’s Death (323 B.C.)
At Alexander’s death, he was survived by “one son very small and another yet unborn,” as well as a half-brother, Aridæus, son of Philip of Macedon. Upon Alexander’s death, Aridæus was named King Phillip to rule until Alexander’s sons reached the age of majority (Appian’s History, Syrian Wars, Chapter IX.52). The year was 323 B.C.. More than thirteen of Alexander’s, friends, bodyguards and generals were established as governors over Alexander’s many territories (Quintus Curtius Rufus, History of Alexander, Book X, chapter X, Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Book 18.3.1-5), and one of his generals, Perdiccas was assigned to remain with King Philip as guardian (Quintus Curtius Rufus, History of Alexander, Book X, chapter X). None of the Diadochi yet dared take the title of king while Alexander’s own relatives were still living (Marcus Junianus Justinus, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, book 15.2). Over the next 22 years, the diadochi would be reduced to just six men of five family lines.
Reduction of the Diadochi to Five (323-301 B.C.)
The most notorious reductions of the Diadochi had been performed by Alexander’s own mother, Olympias, and his general Cassander. Olympias murdered Alexander’s half-brother Aridæus in 317 B.C. (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Book 19.11.5) to eliminate him as a successor, and Cassander then murdered Olympias in 316 B.C, to safeguard his claims to the Macedonian throne (Diodorus Siculus, Book 19.51.4-5), Cassander then put to death Alexander’s mistress, Barsine, and his son by her, Hercules in 309 B.C. (Diodorus Siculus, Book 20.28.1-3; Pausanias, Description of Greece 9.7.2; Justinus, Epitome 15.2) and eliminated Alexander’s wife, Roxanne, and her son Alexander IV in 310 B.C. (Justinus, Epitome 15.2, Pausanias, Description of Greece 9.7.2).
With Alexander’s mother, wife, mistress, brother and sons removed from the picture, the remaining Diadochi each began to claim the right of succession. Antigonus was first to take the crown, claiming it also for his son Demetrius as co-regent. Demetrius had recently won victories over Ptolemy in the siege of Salamis in 306 B.C. and the naval battle that immediately followed, and Antigonus thought they should rule the remnants of Alexander’s empire together (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Book 20.47-53; Justinus, Epitome 15.2).
Then Seleucus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus and Cassander quickly followed suit and took the crown as well (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Book 20.53.2-4; Justinus, Epitome 15.2; Plutarch, Life of Demetrius 18:1-2). Fearing the growing dominance and belligerence of the co-regents of the Antigonid line, “Ptolemy and Cassander, forming an alliance with Lysimachus and Seleucus, made vigorous preparations for war by land and sea” (Justinus, Epitome 15.1). Antigonus in turn summoned Demetrius to his side “since all the kings had united against him”(Diodorus, Book 20.109.5).
This was the prelude to the watershed Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C. where Antigonus and Demetrius together “made war against a coalition of four kings, Ptolemy, son of Lagus, king of Egypt, Seleucus, king of Babylonia, Lysimachus, king of Thrace, and Cassander, son of Antipater, king of Macedonia” (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Fragments of Book 21.4b). At the conclusion of that battle, Antigonus was dead (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 29.5), and Demetrius was on the run with only 5,000 soldiers and 4,000 horses remaining (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 30.1).
The remainder of Alexander’s empire was thus left to the victors, Ptolemy, Cassander, Seleucus and Lysimachus (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 30.1). But it would be a mistake to count the Antigonid line out of contention out at this point. Demetrius had been defeated, but he was not dead. He had merely retreated in order to fight another day.
Defeated but not destroyed, Demetrius retired to Ephesus to regroup (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Fragments of Book 21.4b; Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 30.2; Eusebius, Chronicle (p. 247)), “and gathered up … the remnants of his [father’s] imperium.” (Justinus, Prologi, XV). He retained Cyprus, as well as control of the eastern Mediterranean Sea (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 33.1-4) and within a few years, he was a regional superpower again, fielding both an army and a navy almost as impressive as any that Alexander had ever deployed (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 44.1). Ipsus had not reduced the Diadochi to four. It had only reduced the Diadochi to five:
• The Antigonid Line: Demetrius, son of Antigonus;
• The Seleucid Line: Seleucus I “Nicator”;
• The Lagid Line: Ptolemy I “Soter,” son of Lagus;
• The Lysimachæan Line: Lysimachus of Thrace; and
• The Antipatrid Line: Cassander of Macedonia
Reduction of the Diadochi to Four (301-288 B.C.)
Within four years of Ipsus, Cassander had died, leaving his unstable Macedonian kingdom to his three sons, Philippus, Alexander and Antipater. Philippus “died soon after his father,” and the remaining two “were perpetually at variance” (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 36.1), and Demetrius was now threatening the unstable kingdom. Lysimachus, king of Thrace and with vast holdings in Asia Minor, tried persuading the warring brothers to make peace with each other rather than allow Demetrius to take Macedonia (Justinus, Epitome 16.1). Lysimachus’ strategy failed, and Demetrius had Alexander killed (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 36:1-6), and then convinced the people of Macedonia that it would be unfitting for anyone in Cassander’s line—which was responsible for the murder of Alexander’s mother, wife, mistress and children—to occupy Alexander’s former throne. Accepting this rationale, the people made Demetrius king of Macedonia in 294 B.C. (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius 37:2-3; Justinus, Epitome 16.1).
Lysimachus, facing a war for control of his kingdom in Thrace, made a hasty peace with Demetrius, and left the whole of Macedonia in his hands. In the ensuing battle for Thrace, Lysimachus was briefly imprisoned by Dromichaetes, who asked only for the return of his occupied territories, and then released him and “placed a diadem on his head, and sent him on his way” (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Fragments of Book 21.12.3). Demetrius, upon first word of the news that Lysimachus had been captured, “marched towards Thrace with all possible speed, hoping to find it in a defenceless state,” but turned back on the report that he had been set free, and his crown restored (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 39.7).
About this time Ptolemy had taken back Cyprus from Demetrius (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 35.3) and maintained control of his territories in “Egypt, with the greater part of Africa, Cyprus, and Phoenicia” (Justinus, Epitome 15.1). Seleucus was firmly entrenched in the eastern provinces “from India to the Syrian Sea” (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 32.7) and Demetrius was king of Macedonia. With Cassander’s line no longer in contention for a crown, the Diadochi had been reduced to four.
With only four left, each in possession of sufficient strength to engage but not dominate the remaining Diadochi, new alliances formed. Seleucus married Demetrius’ daughter, in an attempt to forge an east-west alliance with Macedonia. Lysimachus and his son each married a daughter of Ptolemy, in an attempt to forge a north-south alliance with Egypt (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 31.5). The alliances did not last long.
Demetrius seized Cilicia from his new brother-in-law , and refused Seleucus’ attempt to purchase it back from him (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 46.7). Nor would Demetrius cede to him control of Tyre and Sidon (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 32.7). Demetrius, having now regained his strength (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 31.3) was also “master of Macedonia and Thessaly,” as well as a “great part of Peloponnesus too, and the cities of Megara and Athens” (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 39.1). Attempting to restore the empire of his father (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 43.2), he now set his sights on Asia Minor. He raised an army of 98,000 men and 12,000 horses and was building 500 ships (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 43.3-4), and “provided such an armament for the invasion of Asia as no man ever had before him, except Alexander the Great” (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 44.1 ).
With Demetrius renewing his belligerence, the others—Seleucus in the east, Ptolemy in the south, and Lysimachus in the north—had no option but once again to form an alliance against him. They invited Pyrrhus, king of Epirus to join them (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 44.1). As Lysimachus invaded Macedonia from Thrace, and Ptolemy sent a fleet from Egypt, Pyrrhus was troubling Demetrius from the west, and in the end, Lysimachus and Pyrrhus divided Macedonia between themselves (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 44.2-3).
Despairing, but not defeated, Demetrius’ hope for a kingdom seemed to be entirely extinguished, “and yet it broke out again, and shone with new splendour. Fresh forces came in, and gradually filled up the measure of his hopes.” Demetrius “collected all his ships, embarked his army, which consisted of 11,000 foot, besides cavalry, and sailed to Asia,” hoping to take some of Lysimachus’ territories in Asia Minor (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 45:4). He marched through Caria and Lydia, and on to Phrygia in Asia Minor “with an intention to seize Armenia, and then to try Media and the Upper Provinces” of Asia Major (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 46.7). Lysimachus’ son, Agathocles, followed at a distance through Asia Minor, cutting off Demetrius’ supply lines, and when Demetrius crossed the Taurus Mountains into Cilicia with his army, Agathocles sealed off the mountain passes, trapping him there (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 46.7-47.2).
Seeing Demetrius unable to retreat, Seleucus recognized the opportunity to recover a coveted territory. “Seleucus marched into Cilicia with a great army,” and engaged in multiple skirmishes and battles with Demetrius, and at some considerable cost finally gained the upper hand (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 47.5-49). Hungry, and without options, his forces diminished by plague, famine, attrition and abandonment, Demetrius finally surrendered to Seleucus, and was held under arrest until his death (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 47-50).
In 288 B.C., while in Seleucus’ custody, Demetrius formally abandoned his ambitions, and released his claim to the crown by a letter to his son, Antigonus Gonatas, instructing him “to act as if he were dead, and to keep the cities and all his remaining estates” (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 51.1). It is at this point that Antigonus Gonatas took the crown in his father’s stead, but was not to regain control of Macedonia for another ten years (Eusebius, Chronicle (p. 237)). After Demetrius’ abdication, a period of chaos resulted as rulership of Macedonia changed hands repeatedly, but finally returned to his son, Antigonus Gonatas, and remained in Antigonid hands for more than 100 years, until Macedonia finally capitulated to Rome in 168 B.C. (Eusebius, Chronicle (p. 239)).
Thus, were the lines of the Diadochi reduced to four. We will have more to say later about the boundaries of their territories—Lysimachus to the north, Ptolemy and his descendants to the south, Demetrius and his descendants to the west, and Seleucus and his descendants to the east. For now we return briefly to Daniel chapter 8 when Daniel describes the rise of Antiochus IV, the Little Horn that came out of one of these four horns.
After Daniel has described the division of Alexander’s kingdom, he draws our attention back to the Seleucid line from which Antiochus IV would spring:
“And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.” (Daniel 8:9)
Seleucus I “Nicator” was succeeded in 281 B.C. by his son Antiochus I “Soter.” Antiochus I was succeeded in 261 B.C. by his son Antiochus II “Theos.” Antiochus II was succeeded in 246 B.C. by his son Seleucus II “Callinicus.” Seleucus II was succeeded in 225 B.C. by his son Seleucus III “Ceraunus.” Seleucus III was succeeded in 222 B.C. by his son Antiochus III “the Great.” Antiochus III was succeeded in 187 B.C. by his son Seleucus IV “Philopator.” And Seleucus IV was succeeded in 175 B.C. by his brother, Antiochus IV “Epiphanes.”
This Antiochus IV is the antagonist who occupies the rest of Daniel’s vision in chapter 8, significant portions of Daniel 11, as well as the events we have recently addressed in the Seventieth Week of Daniel 9 and All the Evenings and Mornings. We will pick up next week with the rest of Daniel 8.
Here is one example of using the Psalms and Scripture alone to interpret historical post-mill eschatology.
———
Walt,
It appears to me that Gog and Magog will be involved (according to Ezekiel 39–especially vs. 8-29 which describes the great and terrible day of the Lord– which I think refers to the pouring out of the seventh vial) in battle with God’s people “once” at the end of the 1260 to 1290 year period, and “also” that they will “again” (after being revived for a short season) be involved in a second battle with God’s people for a short period after the 1000 year millenial period ( just prior to the second coming of Christ) according to — Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
Thus Gog and Magog will be destroyed “once” at the 1290 year point, –at which time Israel (the ten lost tribes) will be massively restored along with a systematic restoration among the Gentile nations — Satan will be bound at the 1335 year period and the world will experience the promised millenial period. “After” the 1000 year millenial period, and after Satan is loosed–Gog and Magog will be consequently revived to again trouble the people of God once more and their final assault on God’s people will usher in the second coming of Christ who will certainly destroy them. Then follows the great white throne judgment.
Here is a short overview a section of the Psalms which may encourage you with your Psalm reading/singing
I would read Psalm 110-118 -(which of course includes the great Hallel –see also the Alleluia’s of the first 6 verses of Rev. 19)–as the description of the events just leading up to and right near the end of the 1290 year period. Psalm 118 is descriptive of the time when all nations surround Jerusalem and the Lord fights for his people with the seventh vial and Israel is greatly converted to Christ–see especially Zech 14 throughout the whole chapter–especially at the beginning of the chapter–read also from Zech 8 forward for a more full description of that time–as well as Joel chapter 1, 2, and 3–also Isaiah chapters 24 through 35) which walks you through the time of the judgments of the seven vials and then up to the millenial time.
Psalm 119 is the acknowledgement of the Jews subsequent to the great victory at Jerusalem (1290) –(now being married (covenanted) to Christ and in the process of being restored) to Christ’s word/moral law.
Psalm 120-134–called the Song of Degrees–describes the ongoing restoration of the Jews –by degrees– as they return “from” the four corners of the earth–as they return “to” their promised land–or in some cases (Psalm 126) “long” to return from the four corners of the earth to their promised land– as covenanted Christians.
Psalm 135 and 136 focus upon their completed future national establishment in the promised land.
Psalm 137 onward describes the various trials and battles which they as the Church of Christ now established in the promised land –will face– as various surrounding nations resist and are either overcome or converted by the grace of God.
Obviously this is a very surface overview. I have a significant amount of further detail worked out–which I hope to write about in the future. I hope this is helpful and I would love to discuss this in detail with you, whenever you might get chance to talk by phone. Keep up the good work my brother–your comments are/were a great encouragement to me.
———–
> This is SPECULATION (written by Walt), and based upon research into the order of events:
>
> Daniel speaks about 1260, 1290 and 1335 year periods. I believe these are year periods, not days.
>
> The period of the 1260 years may be coming to an end and there will be a slaying of the witnesses or killing of the testimony.
>
> Before the end of the 1260 and after the killing of the testimony, the Papacy will take a hugh hit or the time of one-tenth part of the city falls. A small remnant will begin the restoration of Israel into the Christian Church.
>
> The end of the 1260 will start the seven vials which pour out upon the beast and ten horns (eg., Western Europe). This goes for 30 years.
>
> The battle of Armageddon ends at the 1290 and completes the seventh seal. Israel now sees that Christ is their rejected cornerstone.
>
> The period from 1290 to 1335 starts a massive restoration of Israel into the Christian Church. There will be resistance, but great building until the 1335 period (45 years) and Satan is then bound after a short battle of Gog and Maggog.
>
> The millennium, which may or may not be 1,000 years long, begins after the 1335 and binding of Satan.
>
> The second coming of Christ will be at the end of the millennial period to judge the nations, etal.
For further study–take a look at this these pages:
http://www.fivesolas.com/esc_chrt.htm#chart1
http://www.fivesolas.com/esc_chrt.htm#chart2
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/apocint.htm
APOCALYPTIC INTERPRETATION
Since the time of the great Reformation, there have been no less than SIX PROMINENT THEORIES of interpretation, each claiming for itself the palm of merit, and all demanding the unanimous suffrage of the Christian Church. They are subjoined in the following order:-
I. THE ANTI-PROTESTANT FUTURIST THEORY. The originator of this theory was a Spanish Jesuit priest, Ribera by name, who, A.D. 1585, published a Commentary on the Revelation, in which he laboured to turn aside the Protestant application of the Apocalyptic prophecies and symbols from the Church of Rome. The opinion had matured into settled conviction, in the minds of many, that the Great Apostasy, spoken of in the Scriptures, was Papal; and that the “Little Horn” of Daniel, the “Antichrist” of John, the “Man of Sin” mentioned by Paul, and the Apocalyptic “Beast,” were all identical. Against this view Ribera originated the Futurist theory. It is so called, because it passes by the Papacy, overleaps almost the whole immense interval of time between the date of the Apocalypse and the distant future, and holds that the events symbolised in the Apocalypse refer to the immediate antecedents or accompaniments of Christ’s second coming. It argues a parallelism between the events of the Seven Seals and the successive signs of Christ’s coming, as specified in his prophecy on Mount Olivet. Antichrist is not regarded as the Papacy, but avowed infidelity.
II. THE ANTI-PROTESTANT PRATERITE (PRETERIST-ed.)THEORY. This was originated by a Spanish Jesuit also, Alcasar of Seville, who, A.D. 1615, published a work having in view the same end as Ribera, viz., to set aside the Protestant application of the Apocalyptic prophecies and symbols. Ribera endeavored to throw everything forward into the future. Alcasar endeavoured to throw every thing backward into the past. He stops short in the course of history, and makes all the Apocalyptic symbols to have been fulfilled within the first five six centuries. The Germanic Neronic Form; so called because it dates the Apocalypse (an essential point for interpreters) about the end of Nero’s reign, A.D. 67 and because it is thus regarded by the critical, rationalistic school of German expositors, and by Professor Stuart in America. According to this view, the Apocalypse can only refer to the overthrow of Judaism and Heathenism, and the triumph of Christianity, but not to the Papacy. The early date, viz., A.D. 67, makes room for supposing a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70; and the six centuries, for the overthrow of Heathenism, and the prevalence of Christianity, but not for the demolition of the Roman Catholic Church! The Papal Domitianic Form; so called because it fixes the date of the Apocalypse about the end of Domitian’s reign, A.D. 96; and in this form prevails with the Papacy. Of course, this form of the theory excludes application of the symbols of the Apocalypse to the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred twenty-five years previous to this date, inasmuch as the events recorded were to come into being after the time John wrote.-(Rev. 4:1). The fall of Judaism and the doom of the Roman Catholic Church are not referred to at all, but only the overthrow of Heathenism and the triumph of Christianity. Such is the loose and wholesale mode of generalising in these two forms of Praeterism (the latter of which has yet some truth), that any upstart has a precedent before him for applying the Apocalyptic symbols to the destruction of any enemy he please.
III. THE MODIFIED FUTURIST THEORY. This theory resulted from a conviction in the minds of the Futurists themselves that great violence had been done to the Apocalypse, by completely closing its lips upon the subject of the Papacy, and by causing it to pass over in silence the stirring events of more than a thousand years. Such a scheme was too dashing and bold to escape merciless criticism and ridicule. It failed to secure the respect and confidence of its own supporters. Certain Futurists have endeavoured to modify it; in other words, to Protestantise Futurism, and conciliate the friendship of the historical interpreters. The chief points of supposed improvement are two: 1. With reference to the violent plunge into the distant future; and 2. With reference to the anti-Protestantism. Thus, the white horse and rider of the first seal represent the triumphant progress of Christ and his gospel until now: (!) we are near (!) the time of the end, when the Papacy will become (!) the Apocalyptic Beast, and Rome the Apocalyptic Babylon, but not Antichrist; (!) and soon Antichrist will appear, when the remaining seals will receive their fulfillment, and then the grand consummation will take place.
IV. THE TYPICO-SPIRITUAL THEORY. We coin this name for want of a better designation, or rather because the advocates of it have not given a satisfactory one themselves. It holds that prophecy is not an anticipation of history, but deals alone with the idea of good and evil. A particular man, city, or nation, may be taken as the representative or type of such idea, to be fulfilled, as intimated, in a lofty, spiritual, but not low, historical sense. The details of literal history are not ample enough to satisfy the fore announced demands of prophecy. Thus, Rome Papal answers only partly to the Apocalyptic Babylon; and hence, as ancient Babylon was only partly the subject of anti-Babylonic prophecies, so Rome Papal is only partly the subject of anti-Papal prophecies in the Revelation. There can only be an imperfect historical fulfillment in any case; and we must wait for a realization, not literally, but spiritually, of the grand idea, viz., the downfall of the true Babylon, which is the world (!) as opposed to the church. The influence of German philosophy, in the fabrication of this theory, is evident.
V. THE PARALLEL SEPTENARY THEORY. This is one of the two principle Protestant theories which have divided the opinions of orthodox interpreters. It argues against considering the Apocalypse as a progressive whole evolving its events in continuous succession. Instead of regarding the seven trumpets as the development of the seventh seal, just as the seven vials appear to be of the seventh trumpet, it considers them as parallel chronologically, and supplementary to each other, each septenary running from John’s time to the consummation. It is eminently a church scheme, the church itself being the subject of the prophetic figurations, in its sevenfold phase, from the beginning to the end. This theory was brought into repute by Pareus and Vitringa shortly after the Reformation.
VI. THE CONTINUOUS HISTORICAL (HISTORICIST-ed.) PROTESTANT THEORY. This was the principle theory which attracted the attention of the most orthodox and enlightened expositors until the earliest part of this century. It looks upon prophecy as an actual anticipation of veritable history. It regards each seal as successor to the preceding, in chronological order; each trumpet and each vial in the same way; and, objecting to the previous theory, maintains that the septenary of trumpets are subsequent to the septenary of seals, and the septenary of vials subsequent to the septenary of trumpets. The exclusive church scheme is discarded, and the Apocalypse is viewed as setting forth, in regular progression and detail, the chief secular and ecclesiastical events of the existing dispensation. An anti-Papal solution is given to the symbols and predictions respecting the “Beast.” It was the theory of the Waldenses, Wickliffites, and Hussites; and the great body of the Reformers in the 16th century-German, Swiss, French, English, generally received it. It has been the view of the vast majority of Scottish presbyterians. It was also the view of many prominent American divines, from Edwards to the 19th century Princeton theologians-the Alexanders, the Hodges, Miller, etc. It is preeminently the theory of the Reformation, and therefore has been violently opposed by Roman Catholics, prelatists, rationalising expositors and other foes of reformational principles.-L’Avenir
Tim, how do you resolve the issue of accuracy in date setting with a high degree of certainty? It does appear you have a high degree of certainty of your dates according to the last 3 blog posts you have made referencing how you calculated the dates with certainty and accuracy.
One person told me:
“I have not done any further research on the calenders. In short, I think we can use current dates for calculations such as the 1260 year period since that period (approx.756AD to 2016AD ) or the 1290 period are based upon and begin with periods considering our current calendar. Calculation such as the 2300 days/years of Daniel or the 70 weeks /490 years of Daniel however are another story–I am very unsure as to how to calculate those dates based on differences in calendars. I have looked at various possibilities but that is as far as I have gone.”
> This link http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm says:
>
> “Date setters, making irresponsible predictions! Misleading the ignorant masses for higher TV ratings and book sales!
>
> An untold number of people have tried to predict the Lord’s return by using elaborate time tables. Most date setters do not realize mankind has not kept an unwavering record of time. Anyone wanting to chart for example 100 BC to 2000 AD would have contend with the fact 46 BC was 445 days long, there was no year 0 BC, and in 1582 we switched from Julian Years (360 days) to Gregorian (365 days).
> Because most prognosticators are not aware of all these errors, from the get go their math is already off by several years.
“The late Rev. Alexander M’Leod, D. D., who had the works of learned predecessors before him, has successfully corrected many of their misinterpretations in his valuable publication, entitled “Lectures upon the Principal Prophecies of the Revelation.” At the time when he wrote that work, he possessed several advantages in aid of his own expositions. He had access to the most valuable works which had been issued before that date, (1814.). He was then in the vigor of youthful manhood; and he was also comparatively free from the trammels which in attempts to expound the Apocalypse, have cramped the energies of many a well-disciplined mind, political partialities. At the time of these profound studies, he occupied a position “in the wilderness,” from which as a stand point, like John in Patmos, he could most advantageously survey the passing scenes of providence with the ardor of youthful emotion, and with unsullied affection for the divine Master. With all these advantages, however, the dispassionate and impartial reviewer may discover, in the rapid current of his thoughts, that the active powers of the expositor some times took precedence of the intellectual. Two special causes may be assigned for this, hereditary love of liberty, and the actual condition of society at the time. Born in Scotland, the cradle of civil and religious liberty from the days of John Knox, Dr. M’Leod’s traditions and mental associations were necessarily imbued with the atmosphere of such surroundings. To such causes may be attributed occasional declamation, extravagant verbosity and unconscious inconsistencies, not well comporting with the solidity and self possession so desirable on the part of an expositor. Yet even in such outbursts of impassioned eloquence we may sometimes discover noble conceptions commanding our admiration, if not altogether such as to secure our approbation. It ought to be considered, moreover, that the “Lectures” came from their author in a turbulent, if not in a revolutionary condition of society. Peninsular Europe was convulsed by the successful military career of that brilliant general, Napoleon. England and the United States were also at war. The independence and even the existence of the young Republic were apparently in peril. The lecturer very naturally sympathized with the land of his adoption, in which resided his domestic treasures and many of the “excellent ones of the earth,” to whom he was bound by conjugal, paternal and covenant ties. In a condition of actual warfare, he could not but feel most keenly the constriction of these manifold and endearing bonds, especially when thought to be jeopardized.”
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14485/14485-h/14485-h.htm
“Daniel was solicitous to “know the truth (interpretation) of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others,” (ch. vii. 19.) Although “diverse from all the others” in geographical extent and destructive power, this fourth beast combined in one all the ravenous propensities of the three predecessors, but in reverse order. The “leopard, bear and lion of Daniel,” by which Grecian, Persian and Chaldean dynasties were symbolized, are all comprised in John’s beast of the sea,—the antichristian Roman empire.
Since this beast of the sea embodies all the voracious properties of the three persecuting powers which went before it; this may be a suitable place briefly to review the sufferings inflicted by them upon the saints, that we may know what the witnesses were taught to expect at the hands of this monstrous enemy.—”Israel is a scattered sheep, the lions have driven him away: first, the king of Assyria hath devoured him, and last, this Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon hath broken his bones.—The violence done to me and to my flesh, be upon Babylon, shall the inhabitant of Zion say; and, My blood upon the inhabitants of Chaldea, shall Jerusalem say.” (Jer. 1. 17; li. 35.)—”Haman, the son Hammedatha, the Agagite, the Jews’ enemy,—thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone.”—”If it please the king, let it be written that they (the whole people) may be destroyed; and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver,—to bring it into the king’s treasuries.”—”Behold also the gallows, fifty cubits high, which Haman had made for Mordecai, who had spoken good for the king, standeth in the house of Haman. Then the king said, Hang him thereon.” (Esth. iii. 1, 9; vii. 9.)
***Such were the crimes and such the punishments of the enemies of God’s people in Babylon and Persia, as already matter of inspired history: and had we equally full and authentic records of the punishments as we have of the cruelties of Antiochus and other successors of Alexander the Great, the king of Greece, we would see, as in the other cases, “the just reward of the wicked.” Of all these idolatrous, tyrannical and persecuting powers, which the Divine Spirit represented by beasts of prey, it was foretold that they were to be removed in succession and with violence.***
This fourth beast, “dreadful and terrible and strong exceedingly, was to devour and break in pieces, and stamp the residue with the feet of it.” (Dan. vii. 7.) Moreover, while it is predicted of them that “they had their dominion taken away,” it is also added,—”yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time,” (v. 12.) That is, though their distinct and successive dominions were severally swept from the earth, yet their lives,—the diabolical principles by which they had been actuated survived; and these passed, by a kind of transmigration, into the body of the fourth beast.
This transition of animating principles or imperial policy of inveterate hostility to the kingdom of God, we think, is plainly indicated by the three features of this beast of the sea, the “leopard, bear and lion.” If these three “slew their thousands,” this monster has “slain his ten thousands” of the saints; and the remnant of the woman’s seed are yet to be “slain as they were,” (ch. vi. 11.)”
Tim, see my highlighted area. Do you know what Steele means when he says, “Such were the crimes and such the punishments of the enemies of God’s people in Babylon and Persia, as already matter of inspired history: and had we equally full and authentic records of the punishments as we have of the cruelties of Antiochus and other successors of Alexander the Great, the king of Greece, we would see, as in the other cases, “the just reward of the wicked.”?
Walt,
I believe Steele means that if we had “equally full and authentic records” (i.e., Scriptures) for Antiochus’ demise as we have for the demise of Assyria and Haman, we would would see that Antiochus, too, justifiably met his end as other persecutors have. We have no reliable records of Antiochus’ demise. 1 Maccabees 6 has him dying of grief in Babylon, but 2 Maccabees 9 has him mounting his chariot and riding to Jerusalem intent on murdering even more Jews before he is “seized with a pain in his bowels for which there was no relief and with sharp internal tortures.” The data are unreliable—I think that’s all M’leod is saying.
One other point on M’Leod: I like his work, but I would disagree with his identification of the Fourth Beast of Daniel 7 with the First Beast of Revelation 13. He writes,
If I am reading him correctly, he sees the Fourth Beast of Daniel 7 as an aggregation of the preceding 3 and as the First Beast of Revelation 13. He concludes this based on Revelation 13’s description of a Beast with 7 heads and 10 horns (Revelation 13:1-2).
However, his interpretation creates a symbolical inconsistency. The three preceding beasts only had a total of six heads (Babylon 1, Medo-Persia 1, Greece 4) and no horns. If the Fourth Beast of Daniel 7 is merely an aggregation of the preceding three, it would only be depicted in Revelation 13 as a beast with 6 heads and no horns. Since the Beast of Revelation 13 (and that of Revelation 12 and 17) has seven heads and ten horns, rather than six heads and no horns, we must conclude that Rome, the fourth Beast of Daniel 7, had 1 head, just as the Lion and the Bear did.
Under that scenario, we can see the First Beast of Revelation 13 as an aggregation of the Four Beasts of Daniel 7, but we do not see the Fourth Beast of Daniel was an aggregation of the three that preceded it. The fourth Beast of Daniel 7 was “dreadful and terrible,” and “diverse from all the beasts that were before it” (Daniel 7:7), but did not share any of their unique identifying attributes.
The Beast of Revelation 13 is rather identified as the Little Horn of Daniel 7, for it is the “Little Horn” and the Beast of Revelation that have “a mouth speaking great things” (Daniel 7:8; Revelation 13:5). And it is into the hands of the Little Horn and the Beast of Revelation 13 that the saints are given (Daniel 7:25, Revelation 13:7). Thus, the First Beast of Revelation 13 is the Little Horn of Daniel 7, not the Fourth Beast of Daniel 7.
Likewise, the “diabolical principles” of the Lion, the Bear and the Leopard are “passed, by a kind of transmigration” to the Little Horn, not to the Fourth Beast. You can see this in Daniel when you see that the preceding three beasts of Daniel 7 have their lives prolonged after the Fourth Beast’s body is destroyed and given to the flame (Daniel 7:11-12). Their lives are prolonged in the Little Horn, which survives the destruction of the Fourth Beast’s body, and manifests their attributes when he is described in Revelation 13 as an aggregation of the four Beasts of Daniel 7.
I hope that helps.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim wrote:
“One other point on M’Leod: I like his work, but I would disagree with his identification of the Fourth Beast of Daniel 7 with the First Beast of Revelation 13. ”
Actually, that was David Steele writing as you will see in the link. The reason I added the comments about M’Leod was that they supported your contention that one has more complete information on history than past generations. Another point is that Steele mentions the presuppositions of M’Leod which is interesting in light of some of the criticism I hear about you from those who find Steele and M’Leod the best authors of all eschatological scholars.
It is too bad that you don’t have a solid understanding of these authors or those of our generation who have had a lot more historical background made available to them as you have made to you. There is some good reason to reference the best reformers on the subject rather than the early Church Fathers and the pre- and first-reformation reformers in comparison to what your theory teaches.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Wake me when you actually quit taking us on this run around and actually get you your point.