Daniel's Prophecies: A Historical Interpretation (Part 3)

Part 2: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/05/daniels-prophecies-historical_01614904781.html

    So far, all of the prophecies that we have examined in the book of Daniel cover ancient history up until the 2nd century BC and the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, occasionally going further to the fall of the Macedonian kingdoms to Rome in the 1st century BC. However, none of the prophecies go further than this, except for describing the resurrection and Messianic kingdom in general terms (like the other OT prophets). Traditionally, the prophecy of seventy ‘weeks’ in Daniel 9 is thought to refer to the death of Jesus Christ and the 70 AD fall of the Temple, which would make it the only one of Daniel’s prophecies to extend into the 1st century AD. Daniel 9 may be the most disputed prophecy in the Old Testament. But is this the most likely interpretation of it?

    The prelude to the prophecy

    In order to better understand the prophecy of Daniel 9, it’s necessary to examine the context. The actual prophecy was delivered by the messenger Gabriel to Daniel, after he prayed to God for the exile of the Israelites to end. The chapter begins as follows:

In [538 BC]... I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of Yahweh to the prophet Jeremiah, must be fulfilled for the desolations of Jerusalem, namely seventy years. Then I turned to the Lord God to seek an answer by prayer and supplication with fasting and sackcloth and ashes. (Dan. 9:1-3)

An important piece of context is that Daniel’s prayer, which led to the prophecy, was itself inspired by Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy-year exile to Babylon. Before Gabriel gave the prophecy to Daniel, he exhorted him to “understand the matter” (of the seventy-year exile) and then “consider the vision” (v. 23). The seventy ‘weeks’ of years were an extension of the exile, presumably brought about because the Israelites were disobedient.

    To understand why this is the case, we must look at the reason for the exile. Why did God exile the people to Babylon in the first place? Daniel says that it is because

“All Israel has transgressed Your law and turned aside, refusing to obey Your voice. So the curse and the oath written in the law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us because we have sinned against You... Just as it is written in the law of Moses, all this calamity has come upon us.” (Dan. 9:11, 13)

Likewise, Jeremiah connects the exile to the fact that Israel has not followed the law of Moses, and Yahweh states, “Therefore I will bring upon them all the words of this covenant” (Jer. 11:8). This seems to refer to the covenant in Leviticus 26:

“But if you will not obey Me and do not observe all these commandments, if you spurn My statutes and abhor My ordinances, so that you will not observe all my commandments and you break My covenant, I in turn will do this to you: I will bring terror on you, consumption and fever that waste the eyes and cause life to pine away. You shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. I will set My face against you, and you shall be struck down by your enemies; your foes shall rule over you, and you shall flee though no one pursues you. And if in spite of this you will not obey Me, I will continue to punish you sevenfold for your sins.” (Lev. 26:14-18)

The same promise of sevenfold punishment is repeated in verses 21, 23-24, and 27-28 of the same chapter. Now we can see the basis of the seventy ‘weeks’ of years in Daniel 9. The Israelites were exiled to Babylon because they did not follow the Law; yet even after they were exiled, they still failed to follow the Law, and so their exile was extended from just seventy years to seventy times seven years. With this basis in mind, we are ready to begin interpreting the prophecy.

    The end purpose of the extended exile

    Fortunately, we don’t have to speculate about the purpose of the extended exile, because the messenger Gabriel explicitly tells us in Daniel 9:24:

“Seventy sevens are divided for your people, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity; to bring in perpetual righteousness, to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.”

First, the seventy sevens are explicitly said to be “for your people.” This extended exile would be significant for Israel, but not for the Gentiles.

    The purpose of the extended exile is said to be sixfold, although the first four are essentially the same thing: “to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in perpetual righteousness.” This is often connected to Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross, which atoned for the sins of and brought justification to all mankind. However, we must keep in mind the basis for this exile, which is the covenant promises in the Law of Moses. The atonement and righteousness mentioned here are not the absolute justification that comes from Christ’s sacrifice, but the righteousness which comes from following the Law of Moses that Israel had transgressed. [1]

    The next purpose mentioned is “to seal up the vision and prophecy.” This is sometimes taken to mean that the end of the seventy sevens would fulfill all prophecy, and usher in the final state. However, this simply cannot be the case, because according to the New Testament, the Messianic kingdom is not the final state (1 Cor. 15:24-28; Rev. 20-22). Rather, in context, it seems that this refers to the specific vision and prophecy of the exile found in the Law of Moses (Lev. 26). The end of the seventy sevens would mark the end of the extended exile, thus “sealing up” this prophecy.

    The final purpose of the seventy sevens is “to anoint the Most Holy.” This implies that the seventy sevens, or at least part of them, would be characterized by a lack of sacrifice, resulting in a need to re-anoint the Most Holy place of the Temple where sacrifices were offered (Exod. 40:9-10). This re-anointing would occur at the end of the extended exile.

    In summary, the purpose of the extended exile seems to be entirely Mosaic in nature. The end of the seventy sevens does not necessarily correspond to the beginning of the Messianic kingdom, nor even to the atoning death of Christ. Rather, it is specifically a prophecy for and about Israel and its exile. The end of the seventy sevens correspond to the end of the exile to Babylon. If we look for this event in the historical record, it should correspond to the beginning of independent rule over Israel, an increase in Law-following, and a re-anointing of the Temple.

    Dating the seventy sevens

    Now that we have determined the basis and purpose of the seventy sevens, we can try to date them, if indeed this prophecy has been fulfilled already. Unfortunately, the translation of this passage has been affected by centuries of Christian tradition that it refers to the coming of Jesus Christ. Although this might end up being true, it’s best to start with a literal translation and try to exegete its meaning from there. Here is a hyper-literal translation of Daniel 9:25-27:

“Therefore know and understand [that] from the going-forth of the word regarding the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem, until an anointed ruler, [are] seven sevens. In sixty-two sevens, you will have returned with the street and the conduit rebuilt, but in troublesome times.

“And after the sixty-two sevens, an anointed one will be cut off and [have] nothing, and the people of the coming ruler will corrupt the sanctuary and the city. And its end [will be] as a flood, and until the end will be war. Desolations are decreed.

“And he will strengthen a covenant with many for one seven, but in the middle of the seven, he will end sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations [will be] the desolator, even until the destruction, and the decreed [thing] is poured out on the desolator.”

    The first period of seven sevens is said to be “from the going-forth of the word regarding the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem, until an anointed ruler”. The “anointed ruler” is typically understood by Christians to refer to Jesus; however, he did not live 49 years after a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. [2] In an exilic context, this could instead refer to Cyrus of Persia, who is called God’s anointed (Isa. 45:1). Cyrus’ decree which allowed the exiles to return to their homeland took place in 538 BC, which may be seen as the ending point of the first seven sevens.

    But did anything important happen 49 years before this (587 BC), which could be described as “the going-forth of the word regarding the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem”? Not coincidentally, 587 BC was the year that Jerusalem was sacked by the Babylonians, and it was also the same year that Yahweh told Jeremiah that Jerusalem would one day be restored and rebuilt. [3] Notably, the prophecy that Jerusalem would be rebuilt is described as a “word” (dabar) of Yahweh, which is the same word used in Daniel 9:25. Therefore, the first seven sevens of the prophecy can be dated to 587-538 BC.

    Next, we are told about sixty-two sevens during which the Jews would return and the street and conduit of Jerusalem would be rebuilt. Traditionally, the sixty-two sevens are thought to directly follow the first seven sevens. However, this is not necessitated by the text, and if the two periods were consecutive, this begs the question of why Daniel wouldn’t simply say “sixty-nine sevens.” [4] Therefore, it is conceivable that the sixty-two sevens began before the end of the seven sevens. Since the seventy sevens were intended to be an extension of the seventy year exile, it is plausible that the sixty-two sevens began at the same point as the seventy year exile, which is 605 BC (Dan. 1:1-4). Although this is admittedly only an educated guess, let’s test it and see what happens.

    If the sixty-two sevens began in 605 BC, then their endpoint would be in 171 BC. According to the prophecy, at the end of the sixty-two sevens, “an anointed one will be cut off and have nothing.” Did something like this happen in 171 BC? Interestingly, in this year, the high priest Onias III was murdered by Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ appointed governor Andronicus, after being exiled in the previous year (2 Macc. 4:30-35). [5] Furthermore, Gabriel says that “the people of the coming ruler will corrupt the sanctuary and the city,” which is a very accurate description of what happened in 167 BC, when Antiochus IV’s troops pillaged and occupied the city of Jerusalem, setting up a pagan altar in the Temple. [6] After this, the Maccabean War continued until 164 BC, seven years after Onias III’s death (cf. Dan. 9:26c).

    In summary, it seems that the first seven sevens of Daniel’s prophecy can be dated securely to 587-538 BC, since this is precisely the interval between the word of Yahweh to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of God’s anointed, Cyrus. The sixty-two sevens of the prophecy can be dated to 605-171 BC, beginning at the same time as Daniel’s seventy years of exile, and the final seven can be dated to 171-164 BC, between the death of Onias III (“an anointed one”) and the end of the Maccabean War (“until the end will be war”).

The historical view of Daniel’s seventy ‘weeks’. Adapted from

Fig. 1 of Athas (2009).

    The final ‘seven’ and the Maccabean revolt

    Thus far in our interpretation of Daniel’s prophecies, we have seen that they all center around the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolt. Now that we have dated the final ‘seven’ of the extended exile to 171-164 BC, it looks like this prophecy also centers around the same events. If this interpretation is correct, then the prophesied events of the final ‘seven’ should align with the historically known events of Antiochus IV’s reign.

    First, the messenger Gabriel says, “he will strengthen a covenant with many for one seven.” In context, “he” refers to the “coming ruler” of the previous verse, whose “people” will pillage the temple and city. We’ve already connected this event to the pillaging of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV’s troops in 167 BC, which means that the “coming ruler” must be Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Did this Seleucid king strengthen a covenant with many people? Fortunately, this exact event is recorded in 1 Maccabees 1:10-14:

From them [the Macedonians] came forth a sinful root, Antiochus [IV] Epiphanes, son of King Antiochus [III]... He began to reign in the 137th year of the kingdom of the Greeks [175 BC].

In those days certain renegades came out from Israel and misled many, saying, “Let us go and make a covenant with the nations around us, for since we separated from them, many disasters have come upon us.” This proposal pleased them, and some of the people eagerly went to the king [Antiochus IV], who authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem according to the customs of the Gentiles, and made foreskins for themselves, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.

More details are given in 2 Macc. 4:7-10, which tells us that this covenant was made when the Hellenizing high priest Jason came to office in 175 BC.

    This may seem to be contrary to Daniel 9:27, which says that the covenant lasted for one seven (171-164 BC). However, what Daniel actually says is that the covenant was “strengthened” (gabar) for one seven. With the support of Antiochus IV, the high priest Jason was ousted in 172/1 BC in favor of the even more Hellenizing high priest Menelaus (2 Macc. 4:23, 50). It was Menelaus who convinced the governor Andronicus to murder the Jewish claimant to the high priesthood, Onias III (2 Macc. 4:30-35), the event which (according to Dan. 9:26) marked the end of the sixty-two sevens. Therefore, this can be considered the “strengthening” of the covenant, which indeed lasted for seven years until Antiochus IV’s death. [7]

    Next, the messenger Gabriel says that “in the middle of the seven, he will end sacrifice and offering.” This happened in the summer of 167 BC, when Antiochus IV sent his troops into Jerusalem to occupy and pillage the city (1 Macc. 1:29-40). According to Josephus (Wars I.1.1), this is also when the daily sacrifices were outlawed (cf. 1 Macc. 1:41-46), and they continued to be prevented for three and a half years, until Chislev 164 BC (1 Macc. 4:52-54; 2 Macc. 10:5). [8]

    The third event that Gabriel describes is, “on the wing of abominations shall be the desolator.” This may be a reference to “the abomination of desolation” also mentioned in Dan. 11:31 and 12:11, which the Jews of the Maccabean revolt equated with the pagan altar that Antiochus IV set up in the Temple during Chislev 167 BC (1 Macc. 1:54). Alternatively, it might simply be a general reference to the many abominations committed during the persecution of the Jews from 167 to 164 BC.

    Finally, Gabriel states that “the destruction and the decreed thing [will be] poured out on the desolator.” The “desolator” is almost certainly Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who died in 164 BC, seven years after the strengthening of the covenant in 171 BC. His death is described as follows in 2 Maccabees 9:5-9:

But the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him with an incurable and invisible blow. As soon as he stopped speaking he was seized with a pain in his bowels, for which there was no relief, and with sharp internal tortures — and that very justly, for he had tortured the bowels of others with many and strange inflictions. Yet he did not in any way stop his insolence, but was even more filled with arrogance, breathing fire in his rage against the Jews, and giving orders to drive even faster. And so it came about that he fell out of his chariot as it was rushing along, and the fall was so hard as to torture every limb of his body.

Thus he who only a little while before had thought in his superhuman arrogance that he could command the waves of the sea, and had imagined that he could weigh the high mountains in a balance, was brought down to earth and carried in a litter, making the power of God manifest to all. And so the ungodly man’s body swarmed with worms, and while he was still living in anguish and pain, his flesh rotted away, and because of the stench the whole army felt revulsion at his decay.

Although there may certainly be legendary details added to this story, the main takeaway is that Antiochus IV died of disease, and not by human hands. This was also prophesied about the “little horn” in Dan. 7:24-26 and 8:25.

    The end of exile

    With the death of Antiochus IV and the rededication of the temple in Chislev 164 BC, the final ‘seven’ of Daniel’s prophecy came to an end. Therefore, we should expect that the promises in Daniel 9:24 would come to pass at this time. Did this happen?

“...to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in perpetual righteousness”

As argued above, these promises do not refer to the absolute justification that comes from Christ’s sacrifice, but to the righteousness which comes from following the Law of Moses. Not coincidentally, after the end of the Maccabean revolt came a period of the most obedience to the Mosaic Law in all of Israel’s history. This change is even visible in the archaeological record. According to a recent monograph on the archaeological evidence for obedience to the Mosaic Law:

In each of the preceding chapters, we investigated practices and prohibitions legislated in the Torah which had come to be widely observed by the first century CE as integral components of a commonly followed Judaism. In chapter after chapter, we sought textual and material evidence that might indicate if these practices and prohibitions were being observed by regular Judeans in the centuries prior to the first century. In each and every case, we learned that the trail of the available evidence ends in the second century BCE at the earliest. In the preceding chapter, we learned that the second or first century BCE provides the earliest available evidence that regular Judeans were gathering in synagogues in order to read and interpret the Torah communally. The entirety of this evidence clearly establishes the second century BCE as the terminus ante quem for the initial widespread dissemination of the Torah among the Judean masses and its common acceptance as authoritative law. [9]

Prior to the 2nd century BC, there is no archaeological evidence that Israel followed the Law of Moses. This is actually in line with the biblical record, which tells us that only a small minority followed the Law for virtually all of Israelite history. However, with the Maccabean revolt and the formation of the independent Hasmonean Kingdom, the Law of Moses became widely acknowledged as authoritative for the first time in Israel’s history.

“...to seal up the vision and prophecy”

As argued earlier, “the vision and prophecy” refers specifically to the covenantal prophecy of Israel’s exile found in Leviticus 26. This prophecy stated that as long as Israel failed to obey the Law, their “foes” would rule over them (Lev. 26:17). Therefore, we should expect that with the end of the final ‘seven,’ Israel would once again become an independent kingdom for the first time since the Babylonian Exile. Admittedly, independent rule over all Israel did not begin in 164 BC. However, the pro-Jewish Maccabees did gain control over Jerusalem in that year, and continued to control a small portion of the country until the independent Hasmonean Kingdom was finally established in 141 BC. This was the first time since the Babylonian Exile that the Jews were without a foreign overlord.

“...and to anoint the Most Holy.”

Three and a half years after the cessation of daily offerings in 167 BC, the temple was re-dedicated and re-anointed in Chislev 164 BC, which marked the end of the final ‘seven’ of Daniel’s prophecy. This event is described with much fanfare in 1 Maccabees 4:36-58. After the Most Holy altar was re-anointed on the 25th of Chislev, the re-dedication was celebrated for eight days, which is the basis for the eight-day Jewish festival of Hanukkah.

    Conclusion

    All of the prophecies in the book of Daniel cover the period from the Babylonian Exile (6th c. BC) until the end of the Macedonian kingdoms (1st c. BC). They center around the Maccabean Revolt, which took place in 167-164 BC, during the reign of the anti-Semitic king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. This is even true of the ‘seventy weeks’ prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27, which has traditionally been interpreted to refer to the first and/or second comings of Jesus Christ, but actually fits the events of the Maccabean Revolt even better.

    The historical interpretation of the prophecies in Daniel certainly has some consequences for the eschatology of the New Testament. However, at this point, I’m not confident enough to say what these consequences are. Hopefully, in a future post, I will be able to delve more deeply into the prophecies of the New Testament; however, I need to do much more studying of these prophecies first.

______________________________

[1] This might be disputed on the grounds that it is said to be “perpetual” (olam) righteousness; however, as I have discussed elsewhere on my blog, the Old Covenant is frequently referred to as a “perpetual” (olam) covenant, along with its laws, feasts, and sacrifices.

[2] The typical Christian view is that the “anointed ruler” comes after both the seven sevens and the sixty-two sevens; however, an athnah punctuation mark in the Hebrew text clearly separates the two periods. Furthermore, if the two periods are consecutive with no event that separates them, then why didn’t Daniel simply write “sixty-nine sevens”? Some early Christian writers, in line with the Hebrew text, interpreted the “anointed ruler” as a post-exilic figure centuries earlier than Jesus (Clement, Stromata 1.21; Hippolytus, Comm. on Dan. 4.30).

[3] Jer. 30:18; 31:38; 32:44; 33:7-11; note that the date of these prophecies is given as the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, which is 587 BC (Jer. 32:1).

[4] George Athas, “In Search of the Seventy ‘Weeks’ of Daniel 9,” JHS 9 (2009), 7-8, 16-17.

[5] According to Lev. 4:3, 5, 16 and 6:22, the high priest is considered an “anointed one.”

[6] See my previous post on Daniel 11 for a more detailed description of this event.

[7] Note that Josephus (Antiquities XII.5.1) actually equates the beginning of the evil covenant with the rise of Menelaus in 171 BC.

[8] This is the same period described as “a time, times, and half a time” (Dan. 7:25; 12:7), “two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings” (Dan. 8:14), and “one thousand two hundred and ninety days” (Dan. 12:11).

[9] Yonatan Adler, The Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological-Historical Reappraisal (London: Yale, 2022), 189.

Daniel's Prophecies: A Historical Interpretation (Part 2)

Part 1: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/05/daniels-prophecies-historical.html

     In the last post, we examined at the prophecies in Daniel 2, 7, and 8. Contrary to the traditional view, but in line with the modern scholarly view, we determined that these prophecies deal with the period between the 6th century BC and the mid-2nd century BC. Here, we will look at Daniel 11, the longest prophecy in the book of Daniel, to see how it fits with these other prophecies. Does it also describe the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, or does it look forward to a yet future time?

    Background

    The prophecy begins by giving a short background account of the Persian Empire and the beginning of the Macedonian Empire. The first verse states:

“Three more kings will arise in Persia, and the fourth will be much richer than them all, and by his strength through his riches, he will stir up all the kingdom against Greece.”

The four Persian emperors mentioned in this verse can most likely be identified with Cyrus the Great, Cambyses II, Darius I, and Xerxes I, who together ruled from 539-465 BC. Xerxes I was indeed richer than the other kings and undertook many construction projects throughout the Empire. He attempted an invasion of Greece in 480 BC, but failed.

    The prophecy then fast-forwards more than a hundred years to the conquests of Alexander the Great in 336-323 BC:

“Then a strong king will arise, who will rule with great dominion and do according to his will. Yet as soon as he arises, his kingdom shall be broken up and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not according to his posterity nor his dominion, for his kingdom will be uprooted and go to others.”

This accurately describes the beginning of the Macedonian Empire. Alexander rapidly conquered Persia and other Near Eastern territories, but unexpectedly died without an heir in 323 BC. The empire ended up being divided among his four generals and split into four different kingdoms: the Ptolemaic Kingdom (Egypt), the Seleucid Kingdom (Syria), the Antigonid Empire (Greece), and the Antipatrid Kingdom (Macedon).

    The kings of north and south

    Following verse 4, A. E. Knoch argues that the rest of the prophecy is about the end of the age, based on the phrase “after some years” (lit. “at the end of these years”) in v. 6. However, “the end” is a relative term, so this isn’t a very strong argument. All other interpretive schools are agreed that at least vv. 5 through 20 continue to describe Greek history, as confirmed by the match between known history and the rest of the prophecy.

“Then the king of the south will grow strong, but one of his officers will grow stronger than him and shall rule a greater dominion than him.”

    From an Israelite perspective, the kingdom to the south would be Egypt, which means that the “king of the south” in Daniel 11 can be identified with the ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. The first king, Ptolemy I Soter, had an admiral, Seleucus I Nicator, who in 311 BC gained control of the territory of Babylon, and later Syria, beginning his own dynasty (the Seleucid Kingdom).

“After some years, they will make an alliance, for the daughter of the king of the south shall go to the king of the north to make an agreement. But she will not retain her power, nor shall his offspring. She will be given up, she and her attendants and her child and the one who strengthened her.”

    Again, the “king of the south” refers to the Ptolemaic Kingdom (south of Israel), while the “king of the north” refers to the Seleucid Kingdom (north of Israel). Around 250 BC, the Seleucid king Antiochus II married the daughter of Ptolemy II, Berenice. However, this alliance failed, because Antiochus II’s spurned former wife Laodice killed Berenice and her infant son, along with her former husband.

“In those times a branch from her roots will rise up in his place. He will come with an army and enter the fortress of the king of the north, and take action against him and prevail. Even their gods, and their idols, and their articles of precious gold and silver, he will carry off to Egypt. He will refrain from attacking the king of the north for some years. Yet he [the king of the north] shall invade the kingdom of the king of the south, but will return to his own land.”

    After the murder of Berenice, her brother Ptolemy III attacked the Seleucid king Seleucus II, and soundly defeated him in 245 BC, taking back to Egypt 40,000 talents of gold and looted statues of Egyptian gods. Over the next few years, Seleucus II re-conquered many of the lands that had been captured, and even made forays into Ptolemaic territory. In 241 BC, a treaty was signed, and there was no further conflict between the Ptolemys and the Seleucids for the rest of Ptolemy III’s reign (246-222 BC).

“His sons will wage war and assemble a large multitude of forces that will overwhelm and pass through, and will carry the war as far as his fortress. And the king of the south will be moved with rage, and go out and fight the king of the north, who will muster a large multitude, but the multitude shall be given into the hand of his enemy. When the multitude has been carried off, his heart shall be exalted, and he shall overthrow myriads, but he will not prevail. For the king of the north will again raise a multitude larger than the former, and after some years, he will advance with a great army and many supplies.”

    The sons of Selecus II, Seleucus III and Antiochus III ‘the Great’, mustered a large army to fight against the Ptolemys in the Fourth Syrian War (219-217 BC). Antiochus III rapidly conquered the land of Palestine and even carried the war all the way to the heartland of Egypt, in the Battle of Raphia (217 BC). However, Ptolemy IV defeated Antiochus III in this battle, and a peace treaty was signed which lasted until Ptolemy IV’s death in 204 BC. After his death, in the Fifth Syrian War (202-197 BC), Antiochus III made great gains against his successor Ptolemy V and re-conquered Palestine.

“In those times many shall rise up against the king of the south. The violent ones among your people will exalt themselves to fulfill the vision, but they will fail.”

    During the Fifth Syrian War, Ptolemy V was forced to deal with internal rebellions at the same time that Antiochus III was attacking him. Even some Jews supported Antiochus III against Ptolemy V, in the hope that he would reward them with independence, but their efforts failed (Josephus, Antiquities XII.3.3).

“Then the king of the north will come and build a siege mound and take a fortified city. And the forces of the south will not stand, not even his best troops, for they will have no strength to resist. But he who comes against him will do according to his will, and no one will stand against him. He will stand in the Glorious Land, and all of it will be in his power. And he shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom. He will make peace with him and give him a woman in marriage, in order to destroy his kingdom, but it will not succeed or be to his advantage.”

    Antiochus III defeated Scopas, the general of Egypt, at the Battle of Panion in 199 BC. Scopas and his troops fled to Sidon, but Antiochus III besieged the city and forced them to surrender. This effectively transferred all of Palestine from Ptolemaic to Seleucid rule, thus making Antiochus the de facto ruler of “the Glorious Land.” Antiochus III then betrothed his daughter Cleopatra I to Ptolemy V as part of a peace treaty, intending for her to undermine the Ptolemaic Kingdom from the inside, but she ended up siding with her new husband instead.

“Afterward he shall turn his face to the coastland and shall capture many, but a ruler will bring an end to his insolence, and will turn his insolence back upon him. And he shall turn his face back toward the fortress of his own land, but he will stumble and fall and not be found.”

    Antiochus III next attempted to invade Greece, and succeeded in 192 BC, but was soundly defeated by the Romans in 191 BC, forcing him back to Asia Minor. The next year, the Romans invaded Asia Minor as well, and in 188 BC, they signed a peace treaty which forced Antiochus to abandon most of his lands in Anatolia. This led to several revolts throughout the Seleucid Kingdom, and Antiochus III died in 187 BC while trying to put down a revolt in Persia.

“There shall arise in his place one who imposes taxes for the glory of the kingdom, but within some days he will be destroyed, though not in anger nor in battle.”

    Antiochus III was succeeded by his son Seleucus IV, who sent his official Heliodorus to Jerusalem to pillage the Jewish treasury, in order to fund Seleucid campaigns (2 Macc. 3). However, Seleucus IV was assassinated in 175 BC, possibly by Heliodorus himself, who took over as regent for Seleucus IV’s infant son Antiochus.

    The reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes

    Some argue that there is a break between vv. 20 and 21, so that the verses after this describe a future end-times ruler. However, verse 21 begins with “There shall arise in his place,” which is the same phrase used in verse 20 to describe the succession of Antiochus III by Seleucus IV. Therefore, it seems more likely that verse 21 continues the history of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Kingdoms. This is confirmed by the match between historical events of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the prophecy of vv. 21-39.

“There shall arise in his place a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty, but he shall come in suddenly and seize the kingdom by intrigue.”

    Seleucus IV was succeeded in 175 BC by his infant son Antiochus and his minister Heliodorus, who acted as regent for the young Antiochus. However, within just a few months, Seleucus IV’s brother Antiochus IV returned and proclaimed himself coregent, seizing the throne. Eventually, he murdered Heliodorus and the young Antiochus, just as his father was deposed earlier. (Recall that this was also prophesied in Daniel 7:24.)

“And with the force of a flood, armies will be swept away and be broken before him, even the prince of the covenant.”

    This is essentially a summary of Antiochus IV’s reign. He was a militarily powerful leader who repeatedly defeated internal revolts, most notably, the revolt of the Jews as described in 1 and 2 Maccabees. He even orchestrated the murder of the Jewish high priest Onias III in 171/0 BC (2 Macc. 4:30-38).

“And after an alliance is made with him, he shall act deceitfully and become strong with a small number of people. Suddenly he will come into the richest places of the province and do what none of his forefathers had done, lavishing them with plunder and spoil and riches.”

    Antiochus IV came to power with the help of Eumenes II, the king of the relatively smaller kingdom of Pergamum, which was itself an ally of Rome. This made it possible for him to sign a peace treaty with the Roman Empire in 173 BC. Unlike his predecessors, he spent lavish amounts of money on his troops, even giving them a year’s salary in advance (1 Macc. 3:27-30). He also lavished gifts upon the people of Syria in an attempt to win them over.

“And he shall devise plans against strongholds, but only for a time. He will stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a large army, but the king of the south will be stirred up to battle with an even greater army. Yet he will not succeed, for plots will be devised against him. Those who eat of the royal rations shall destroy him, his army shall be swept away, and many shall be slain. And the two kings, their hearts bent on evil, shall sit at one table and speak lies. But it shall not prosper, for the end will be at the appointed time.”

    Antiochus IV attacked the Ptolemaic Kingdom in 169 BC. Although this prophecy indicates that Ptolemy VI had a larger army than Antiochus IV, he was defeated, and the Seleucids captured the border fortress of Pelusium. Before Ptolemy VI could flee to safety, his own generals Comanus and Cineas launched a coup and took control of the Egyptian government. At the end of the year, Antiochus IV and Ptolemy VI met to work out an agreement, by which Ptolemy VI would act as Antiochus’ puppet king in Memphis.

“He shall return to his land with great riches, and his heart shall be moved against the holy covenant, so he shall do damage and return to his own land.”

    As Antiochus IV returned from his victory in Egypt, he took all of the treasures out of the temple at Jerusalem, which caused much sorrow among the people of Israel (1 Macc. 1:20-28).

“At the appointed time, he will return and go to the south, but this time will not be like before. For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he will be grieved and return.”

    The very next year (168 BC), Ptolemy VI repudiated his agreement with Antiochus IV, which led Antiochus to attempt to invade Egypt again. However, he was stopped by a Roman ambassador, Gaius Popillius Laenas, who forced him to withdraw. Note that “ships of Kittim” are a reference to the Romans, as confirmed by the use of this phrase in the Dead Sea Scrolls. [1] Antiochus IV was reportedly humiliated by this event, and he took it out upon the Jews.

“In rage, he will do damage against the holy covenant and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant. His forces will occupy and defile the temple and fortress, and they shall take away the daily sacrifice and set up the abomination of desolation. He will flatter with smooth words those who forsake the covenant”

    In the summer of 167 BC, Antiochus IV sent a contingency of Syrian troops to Jerusalem, where they plundered the city and slaughtered many of the people, even preventing them from offering the daily tamid sacrifices (1 Macc. 1:29-40). Antiochus IV also wrote to the people of Israel forcing them to Hellenize and forsake the Mosaic Law under threat of death (1 Macc. 1:41-53). Six months later, the Syrian troops in Jerusalem also set up a pagan altar on top of the Jewish altar, which the Maccabees referred to as “the abomination of desolation” (1 Macc. 1:54).

“...but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action. The wise among the people will give understanding to many, and yet they shall fall by sword, by flame, by captivity and plundering, for many days. Now when they fall, they will be aided with a little help, but many shall join them insincerely. And some of the wise will fall, so that they may be refined, purified, and cleansed, until the time of the end, for there is still an interval until the appointed time.”

    This is a summary of the Maccabean revolt which took place between 167 and 164 BC. According to the book of 1 Maccabees, during this persecution, many of the people in Israel “chose to die rather than be defiled by food or profane the holy covenant, and they did die” (1 Macc. 1:63).

“But the king shall do according to his will, and shall exalt and magnify himself above any god, and speak blasphemies against the God of gods. He shall prosper until the period of wrath is completed, for what has been determined shall be done. He will not respect the god of his ancestors, nor the one beloved by women, nor any god, for he shall exalt himself above them all. He will honor the god of fortresses instead of these, a god which his ancestors did not know, and will honor him with gold, and silver, and precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god. Those who acknowledge him, he will make them wealthy and appoint them as rulers over many and distribute the land for a price.”

    Some commentators believe that this section applies to the final end-times ruler rather than Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but there is no clear break in the text between vv. 35 and 36, and this description still applies accurately to Antiochus IV. This Seleucid king was the first king to refer to himself as “god” (theos) and “god manifest” (theou epiphanous) on coinage, which led to his epithet “Epiphanes.” Notably, he did not honor the patron god of his ancestors, Apollo, but instead worshipped Zeus Olympias and even set up an altar to him in the Jerusalem Temple (the abomination of desolation). Those who supported him and his cause were lavished with gifts (1 Macc. 2:17-18).

    The end of the Seleucid Kingdom

    Although vv. 21 through 39 are an extremely accurate description of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the following verses do not align with the history of his reign. For this reason, many modern commentators have thought that the book of Daniel was written during the Maccabean revolt (ca. 164 BC) and wrongly predicted its outcome. More conservative commentators argue instead that these verses refer to the final end-times ruler and have not been fulfilled yet. Both of these options would make this prophecy utterly useless to Daniel’s intended readership, the Jews of the Maccabean revolt. Is there another possibility for interpreting these last few verses?

    First, this prophecy is said to take place at “the time of the end” (v. 40). This could refer to the end of the age and Jesus’ second coming, but again, that would make this prophecy utterly useless for Daniel’s intended readership. Rather, we should look back to v. 27, which states that the alliance between Ptolemy VI and Antiochus IV failed because “the end will be at the appointed time.” This end must have something to do with the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Kingdoms, not an undefined future time. Elsewhere in the book of Daniel, the “end” refers specifically to the end of the Macedonian kingdoms (Dan. 8:19), which began around the time of Antiochus IV and continued until 27 BC.

    Did anything like the prophecy in vv. 40-45 happen at the end of the Macedonian kingdoms? As it happens, this prophecy seems to be fulfilled by the events surrounding the end of the Seleucid Kingdom:

“At the time of the end, the king of the south will contend with him, and the king of the north will come against him like a whirlwind with chariots, and horsemen, and many ships. He shall advance against countries and overwhelm them and pass through.”

    Although there were only two main characters (the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kings) earlier in the prophecy, now there are three: the king of the south, the king of the north, and an undefined “him” who they both attack. Since vv. 36-39 describe the Seleucid king (Antiochus IV), the most likely option is that “him” also refers to the Seleucid king. This means that we are now dealing with the Ptolemaic king (the king of the south), the Seleucid king (the king of the north), and another “king of the north.”

    The details of this prophecy find a match at the end of the Seleucid Kingdom. Throughout this period, there were dynastic squabbles between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. This ended in 64 BC when the Roman army under the command of Pompey defeated the last Seleucid king, Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, in a whirlwind campaign in which he annexed all the major cities of Syria.

“And he will enter the Glorious Land, and many countries will be overthrown, but these shall escape from his hand: Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon. He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and Egypt will not escape. He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver and all the precious things of Egypt, and the Libyans and Kushites will be at his heels.”

    In 63 BC, after he annexed Syria, Pompey went south and conquered the Hasmonean Kingdom (Israel), incorporating it into the Roman Empire as the province of Judaea. He attacked the Nabateans, who controlled the land east of the Jordan including ancient Edom, Moab, and Ammon, but the siege of Petra failed in 62 BC and the Romans were unable to conquer their land. In 58 BC, the Romans took control of Egypt and exiled their king Ptolemy X, although they allowed him to return as a puppet king in 55 BC.

“But news from the east and the north will trouble him, and he will go out with great fury to conquer and annihilate many. And he shall plant the tents of his pavilion between the sea and the glorious holy mountain, but he shall come to his end, and no one shall help him.”

    Despite the great success of the Roman Empire on the Mediterranean coast, they were constantly antagonized by the Parthian Empire to the northeast, which controlled the territory of modern-day Iraq and Iran (ancient Mesopotamia and Persia). In 54 BC, the Roman ruler Crassus, who was part of the First Triumvirate along with Pompey and Caesar, crossed the Euphrates river to invade Parthia. Before the campaign was over, he returned to Judaea and pillaged the land and the temple, undoubtedly pitching his tent between the Mediterranean and Mount Zion at some point (Josephus, Antiquities XIV.7.1-3). Crassus continued his campaign against the Parthian Empire in 53 BC, but faced a mutiny and was killed by the Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae.

    In summary, the prophecy in Daniel 11:40-45 is not meant to describe the end of the Maccabean revolt, nor the end of the age at Jesus’ second coming, but the end of the Seleucid Kingdom at the hands of the Roman Empire. Whereas the other interpretations make this prophecy completely useless for Daniel’s intended readership — the Jews of the Maccabean revolt — this interpretation of the prophecy would give them hope that their Seleucid oppressors would not last forever, but would themselves be destroyed in the end. The remarkable agreement between this prophecy and the Roman conquests of 64-53 BC makes any other interpretation unlikely.

    The Day of Yahweh

    After describing the end of the Seleucid Kingdom, the prophecy goes on to state the following:

“At that time, Michael, the great prince who stands watch over your people, shall stand up. And there shall be a troublesome time such as there never was, since the first nation until that time.”

    This passage is traditionally understood to refer to the tribulation at the end of the age. However, if Dan. 11:40-45 refers to the Roman annexation of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, which seems certain based on the remarkable match of events, then “at that time” cannot refer to the end of the age. Rather, it must refer to the time of Roman domination of Palestine. With this in mind, the “troublesome time” can only refer to the catastrophic events of the First Roman-Jewish War (AD 66-73), which involved the destruction of the Second Temple and unspeakable atrocities against the Jewish people. [2]

“But at that time your people shall be delivered, every one who is found written in the book.”

    Although numerous Jews were killed during the First Roman-Jewish War, the true Israel, the remnant of Jewish believers in Jesus (cf. Rom. 11:1-5), was saved from the catastrophic events. According to the ancient historians Eusebius and Epiphanius, the Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem fled the city prior to the outbreak of war, thus staying safe from its onslaught. [3]

“Many of those who sleep in the dust shall awake; some to perpetual life, and others to shame and perpetual contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars perpetually.”

    This is where exegesis of Daniel’s prophecy becomes difficult. All of the previous prophecies find a clear historical fulfillment, but no resurrection of people took place during the First Roman-Jewish War, not even a ‘spiritual' resurrection to heaven — that is, not if one takes seriously the biblical testimony about the state of the dead. There are two possibilities here. First, it may be that Daniel is indeed referring to the resurrection at the end of the age; it was common for Old Testament prophets to switch from historical judgments to the eschatological Day of Yahweh, often without warning of any transition. [4]

    Second, another (perhaps more likely) possibility is that Daniel is referring to the corporate resurrection of the believing Israelite remnant. An interesting parallel is Ezekiel 37, which speaks of bones arising and becoming living people, but the interpretation of the prophecy shows that it refers to Israel as a whole returning from exile (vv. 18-23). Compare this to Jesus’ words in John 5:24-25:

“Truly, truly I say to you that the one who hears my words and believes the One who sent me has perpetual life and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Truly, truly I say to you, the time is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”

    Some might argue that this is referring proleptically to the resurrection at the end of the age. However, “now” (nun) always refers to the present time, and is never used in prolepsis. (Note that in John 5:28-29, where Jesus is indisputably referring to the end of the age, he says only that “the time is coming” — not that it “now is.”) Therefore, it is quite possible that Daniel is saying that true Israel will be vindicated (and corporately ‘resurrected’ as in Ezek. 37) by the events of the First Roman-Jewish War, while the unbelieving Israelites will be ashamed. Admittedly, however, this is speculative.

    After this excursus, Daniel states that he saw a vision of several men who were discussing the “end of these wonders” (Dan. 12:6). One of the men said that the end would come in “a time, times, and half a time... when the shattering of the holy people comes to an end” (v. 7). This refers back to Daniel 7:25, which states that the period of Antiochus IV’s persecution would last for three and a half years (cf. Dan. 8:13-14).

    Next, the messenger tells Daniel that from the time that the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days (v. 11), which is also three and a half years, plus an intercalary month. Again this refers to the period from the beginning of persecution in Summer 167 BC to the re-dedication of the temple in Chislev 164 BC. The messenger also tells Daniel that those who persevere until 1,335 days will be happy (v. 12); although the meaning of this is not certain, it could refer to the Maccabean fortification of Jerusalem, which took place shortly after the re-dedication of the Temple (1 Macc. 4:60-61). Finally, he comforts Daniel with the knowledge that he will be raised in the Day of Yahweh (v. 13). [5]

    In summary, the entire prophecy of Daniel 11 should be understood to refer to the historical events from the beginning of the Persian Empire (539 BC) to the First Roman-Jewish War (AD 66-73). None of this prophecy is yet to be fulfilled, except for the resurrection in Daniel 12:13 (and possibly Dan. 12:2-3). The purpose of this prophecy is to provide comfort to the righteous Jews during the Maccabean revolt, so that they know that their oppression will eventually end, their oppressor will be destroyed, and they will ultimately be rewarded in the resurrection at the end of the age.

Part 3: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/05/daniels-prophecies-historical_0276931272.html

______________________________

[1] 1QpHab 2.12, 14; 3.4, 9; 4.5, 10; 4Q161 frgs. 8-10 3.5-8; 4Q169 1.3.

[2] If you have a strong stomach, see Josephus’ account of the war in his Wars of the Jews books 5-7.

[3] Eusebius, Church History 3.5.3; Epiphanius, Panarion 29.7.8.

[4] For example, see Isaiah 7, Isaiah 22, and Amos 5, which prophesy the Day of Yahweh in relation to the Assyrian conquest of Israel; see also Jeremiah 31, the book of Joel, and the book of Zephaniah, which prophesy the Day of Yahweh in relation to the Babylonian conquest of Judah; see especially Isaiah 61:1-2, cf. Luke 4:16-21, which shows that such prophecies can switch referents even in the same sentence.

[5] Although “the end of days” in Dan. 12:13 is sometimes interpreted to refer to the end of the aforementioned 1,335 days, no resurrection took place in 163 BC, so this must not be the case. Instead, it is probably a general term for the Day of Yahweh, like "the last day" in the New Testament (e.g., John 11:24).

Daniel’s Prophecies: A Historical Interpretation (Part 1)

    The prophecies in the book of Daniel are some of the most debated in the entire Old Testament. There are several different interpretive schools, each of which has a very different perspective. Within the traditional Christian interpretation, some of the prophecies in this book (Dan. 8 and 11) relate to the Seleucid king Antiochus IV’s persecution of the Jews, while others (Dan. 7 and 9) relate to the first coming of Jesus Christ. The dispensationalist interpretation agrees that Dan. 8 and 11 relate to Antiochus IV, but Dan. 7 and 9 are instead moved to the second coming of Jesus and the end of the age. The ‘Concordant’ teacher A. E. Knoch, on the other hand, argues that all of these prophecies relate to the end of the age. Finally, the perspective adhered to by most modern critical scholars is that all of the prophecies relate to the persecution of Antiochus IV. In this series of posts, we’ll examine the prophecies in their biblical and historical context to try to determine which, if any, of these interpretive schools are correct.

    The Ram, the Male Goat, and the Little Horn

    The least ambiguous prophecy in the book of Daniel is that of Daniel 8, which describes a vision about a ram, a male goat, and a ‘little horn.’ This is the only prophecy for which all interpretive schools are agreed on the meaning, since the text explicitly identifies the ram as the kingdoms of Media and Persia and the male goat as the kingdom of Greece (vv. 20-22). Therefore, this is a good place to start elucidating the meaning of Daniel’s prophecies. Regarding the ram which represents Media and Persia, it states:

And I lifted my eyes, and saw, and there was a ram with two horns standing beside the river. It had two horns, and the two horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward, so that no animal could withstand him, and no one could deliver from his hand. He did according to his will and became great. (Dan. 8:3-4)

    This is a very accurate description of the kingdoms of Media and Persia. Both of these kingdoms were allied, but although Media was the senior partner in the alliance, Persia rapidly overtook it in importance, and Media was subsumed into the Persian Empire during the reign of Cyrus the Great (559-530 BC). Next, Daniel describes how he saw a male goat (Greece or Macedonia) overtake the ram:

And as I was considering, suddenly a male goat came from the west across the surface of all the earth without touching the ground, and the goat had a great horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram with two horns which I had seen standing beside the river, and ran at him with furious power. And I saw him confronting the ram, and he was moved with rage and attacked the ram, and broke the two horns, and the ram had no power to withstand him. He cast him down to the ground and trampled him, and there was no one to save the ram from his hand. Therefore the male goat grew very great, but when he became strong, his great horn was broken, and in place of it came up four great horns toward the four winds. (Dan. 8:5-8)

    Again, this is a very accurate description of the Macedonian Empire. Under Alexander the Great, this kingdom underwent massive expansion during a series of whirlwind campaigns to the east (336-325 BC). In 333 BC, Persia was defeated and annexed by Macedonia, but Alexander continued campaigning for the next eight years; not a single battle was lost. However, Alexander died in 323 BC, and eventually the empire was divided between his four generals Ptolemy, Seleucus, Antigonus, and Cassander.

    Next, Daniel describes how he saw a ‘little horn’ come up from the Macedonian Empire(s) and become hostile toward Israel:

And out of one of [the four horns] came a little horn which became very great toward the south, and the east, and the Glorious Land. And it grew up to the host of heaven, and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars, and trampled them. He exalted himself even as high as the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. And an army was given over to him to oppose the daily sacrifices because of transgression, and he cast down truth to the ground. He did all of this and prospered... [The daily sacrifices will be stopped] for 2,300 evenings and mornings, and the sanctuary shall be cleansed. (Dan. 8:9-12, 14)

    This is where the ‘Concordant’ (A. E. Knoch) interpretation diverges from the other interpretive schools. Knoch argues that this ‘little horn’ is the final end-times ruler, the Antichrist, who will arise before the second coming of Christ, whereas other interpretations argue that this is the Macedonian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC) who persecuted the Jews. Which is the more likely interpretation?

    First, it’s important to note that the text says that the ‘little horn’ arose out of one of the four horns (Macedonian kingdoms). The last Macedonian kingdom, that of Ptolemaic Egypt, fell to Rome in 27 BC. Therefore, it seems that the ‘little horn’ must be identified with a king before that time, which rules out an end-times ruler. This is confirmed by Daniel’s interpretation of the vision, which states that this king would arise “in the latter time of their [the Macedonian kingdoms’] rule” (v. 23).

    Furthermore, we are told that this king would stop the daily offerings for “2,300 evenings and mornings,” which refers to the evening and morning tamid sacrifices (Exod. 29:38-39). Keeping in mind that the tamid sacrifices were not offered on sabbaths and feast days (Num. 28-29), this period of 2,300 tamid offerings corresponds to exactly three and a half years. [1] Not coincidentally, the sacrifices were stopped for three and a half years in the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, until the temple was re-dedicated in Chislev 164 BC. [2] In the same year that the temple was re-dedicated, Antiochus IV died, allegedly due to a divinely-inflicted disease [3], which agrees with Daniel that “he shall be broken, but not by human hands” (Dan. 8:25). [4]

    In summary, the prophecy in Daniel 8 is a very accurate description of history from the fall of Babylonia to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the mid-2nd century BC. The ram in this vision represents the kingdoms of Media and Persia, while the male goat represents Macedonia, as explicitly stated by Daniel. Contrary to A. E. Knoch, the ‘little horn’ is said to arise in the latter days of the four Macedonian kingdoms, which cannot be any time later than 27 BC. The description of this ‘little horn’ accurately describes the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, even predicting the precise amount of time that the tamid offerings were stopped.

    The Four Kingdoms of Daniel 2

    The next prophecy that we will cover is that of Daniel 2, which describes a statue of gold, silver, bronze, and iron, each metal representing a different kingdom (vv. 37-40). The identification of the first kingdom (gold) is easy, because Daniel explicitly tells us that it is Neo-Babylonia, or more specifically, Nebuchadnezzar himself (vv. 37, 38). However, the next three kingdoms have been interpreted differently. The traditional view is that these three kingdoms are Media/Persia, Macedonia, and Rome; however, the accepted view among most modern scholars is that they are Media, Persia, and Macedonia. Which interpretation better fits the prophecy and its historical setting?

    Fortunately, the book of Daniel isn’t the only text to use a four-kingdom scheme. As the historical events described in this book unfolded, other ancient texts began to use the same motif, so we can turn to these to gain some insight. Before the Greeks even conquered Persia, the ancient historians Herodotus and Ktesias referred to a model of three empires succeeding each other: Assyria, Media, and Persia. [5] The deuterocanonical book of Tobit (14:4) also describes the succession of Assyria by Media, and the canonical prophets Isaiah (13:17-19; 21:2) and Jeremiah (51:11, 27-29) report that Babylonia was succeeded by Media. Dating to the Macedonian period, the Jewish Sibylline Oracles state that four kingdoms succeeded each other: Assyria, Media, Persia, and Greece. [6] This scheme continued to be used by many Roman historians, some of whom added Rome as a fifth kingdom. [7]

    All these texts suggest that the four kingdoms are Assyria/Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece. But does this agree with the book of Daniel itself? Let’s examine the prophecy of Daniel 2 in more detail:

“You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom... are the head of gold. After you shall arise a second kingdom inferior to yours”

Very little description of the second kingdom is given, other than that it is inferior to Nebuchadnezzar himself. Does this better fit with Media or Media/Persia?

    First of all, it should be noted that there was no ‘Medo-Persian Empire’, contrary to popular belief. Media was a separate kingdom from Persia until it was subsumed into the Persian Empire, after which it ceased to be a kingdom at all. This is supported by all the texts cited earlier, including the biblical prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, all of which state that Assyria/Babylonia was followed by Media, then Persia (not ‘Medo-Persia’). The book of Daniel is in agreement with this, as it states that the last king of Babylon was succeeded directly by “Darius the Mede” (Dan. 5:30, 31). [8] Furthermore, the description of the second kingdom as “inferior” to Babylon is fitting for Media, but not for the Persian Empire, which at its height covered more than twice the territory as Babylonia. This decidedly favors the interpretation that the second kingdom is Media and not Media/Persia.

    The third kingdom is described by Daniel as follows:

“...and a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over the whole earth.”

This could conceivably describe either Persia or Macedonia, so it doesn’t help us decide between the two interpretations. The next description is much more helpful:

“And there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron; for just as iron crushes and smashes everything, it shall crush and shatter all these [i.e., the former kingdoms]. As you saw the feet and toes partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it will be a divided kingdom, but some of the strength of iron shall be in it, as you saw the iron mixed with the clay. As you saw the iron mixed with clay, so will they mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.” (Dan. 2:40-43)

    Does this description better fit Greece or Rome? First, the text states that the fourth kingdom conquered all the previous kingdoms. This was not true of Rome, because the Roman Empire never conquered the Parthian Empire, which controlled the former heartland of Babylon, Media, and Persia. However, the Macedonians did conquer all the territory of the former kingdoms. Second, we see that the fourth kingdom would be divided. This better fits Macedonia, which was divided into four kingdoms on the death of Alexander the Great, than Rome, which wasn’t divided until well after the time of Jesus. Finally, Daniel says that this last kingdom would be characterized by a number of failed intermarriages, which simply did not happen to Rome, but did happen in Macedonia, as highlighted later in the book (Dan. 11:6, 17). All of these details about the fourth kingdom fit Greece much better than Rome.

    In summary, the biblical and historical data imply that the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 are Babylonia (Nebuchadnezzar), Media, Persia, and Macedonia. But if that’s the case, then what is the “stone not cut out with hands” that came “during the days of those kings” which represents the kingdom of God (Dan. 2:44, 45)? The description of this kingdom clearly shows that it is the Messianic kingdom, which did not come before the fall of the last Macedonian province in 27 BC. Unfortunately, this problem exists in all interpretive schools, as the Messianic kingdom did not come before the fall of the Roman Empire either. One possibility is that the final kingdom described in John's Apocalypse will originate in Macedonia. Alternatively, the coming of the kingdom of God at that time may have been contingent on a favorable response from the Jews, just like Micah’s prophecy that the kingdom would come in the days of Assyrian domination (Mic. 5:5-9). [9]

    The Four Beasts of Daniel 7

    So far, both of the prophecies that we have examined describe ancient history up to the Macedonian Empire, circa 2nd century BC. Based on this, and the similarities between Daniel 2 and 7, one might be justified in assuming that the four beasts in the vision of Daniel 7 represent the same four kingdoms as the statue in Daniel 2. Nonetheless, let’s examine the actual prophecy in this chapter to see if this view stands up to scrutiny.

    First, what do the beasts in Daniel 7 actually represent? Virtually all commentators agree that they are kingdoms, but A. E. Knoch argues that they are religions instead. However, the interpretation given by Daniel does not fit with this view:

“As for these four great beasts, four kings shall arise out of the earth. But the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess it permanently... As for the fourth beast, there will be a fourth kingdom that will be different from the other kingdoms.” (Dan. 7:17-18, 23)

    The four beasts are described as “kingdoms” (Aram: malku) in the same terms as the statue in Daniel 2. Furthermore, the conception of kingdoms as beasts was quite common in ancient Jewish apocalyptic texts like Daniel. [10] So without a very good reason to believe otherwise, we should interpret them as kingdoms like the text says. Knoch’s only reason for believing that these are not kingdoms is that the first three beasts have their lives prolonged after the fourth is destroyed. However, as we will see below, this perfectly describes the history of the kingdoms of this time.

    So if the beasts are kingdoms, which kingdoms should they be identified with? Again, there are two schools of thought: traditionally these kingdoms are thought to be Babylonia, Media/Persia, Greece, and Rome, while modern scholars identify them with Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece. Let’s go through the prophecy and see which view best fits the text:

The first [beast] was like a lion and had eagles’ wings. Then, as I watched, its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a human, and a human mind was given to it.

    Simply based on the identification of the first kingdom in Daniel 2, we might expect this beast to represent Neo-Babylonia. This is seemingly confirmed by the fact that Nebuchadnezzar is described as a lion by Jeremiah (4:7; 50:17). The lion being given a human mind refers to the fact that Nebuchadnezzar was given knowledge of the God of Israel (Dan. 4:34-37).

    The next beast is described as follows:

Another beast appeared, a second one, that looked like a bear. It was raised up on one side, had three ribs in its mouth among its teeth, and was told, “Arise, devour much flesh!”

    Does this better describe Media, or Media/Persia? Again, there was no ‘Medo-Persian Empire’, so it would be strange for Daniel to combine these two kingdoms into one. The fact that this bear is propped up on one side suggests a lack of major achievements despite its ferocity. This doesn’t fit Persia very well, but it does fit Media, which did not make any major gains against Babylon despite going to war with them. The three ribs in the mouth of the bear are sometimes interpreted as the conquests of Persia against Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt; however, it could equally refer to the kingdoms of Urartu, Mannaea, and Scythia, which are said to be allied with Media against Babylon in Jeremiah 51:27-29.

    If the second beast represents Media, then we would expect that the third beast represents Persia. Does this fit the description given by Daniel?

Then, as I watched, another beast like a leopard appeared. It had four wings of a bird on its back and four heads, and dominion was given to it.

The fact that this beast has four wings and heads is often understood to refer to the four kingdoms that arose from Macedonia. However, it could just as easily refer to the four Persian emperors that are singled out in Daniel 11:2. The wings on this leopard symbolize speed, which fits with the description of Persia as a swift conqueror in Isa. 41:3, but could also fit the rapid conquests of Macedonia in the 4th century BC (cf. Dan. 8:5). Therefore, the description of the third beast could fit either Persia or Greece.

    Fortunately, we are told in much more detail about the fourth beast, which will allow us to identify it with either Greece or Rome:

Then I saw in the visions by night a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and very strong. It had large iron teeth and was devouring, breaking in pieces, and stamping what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that preceded it, and it had ten horns. I was considering the horns when another horn appeared, a little one that came up among them. Three of the horns were plucked up before it. There were eyes like human eyes in this horn and a mouth speaking arrogantly... As I looked, that horn made war with the holy ones and was prevailing over them (Dan. 7:7-8, 21)

    According to the interpretation given later in the chapter, the ten horns represent ten kings, and the ‘little horn’ represents an eleventh king before whom three of the ten kings would be deposed. Based on the vision in Daniel 8, the ‘little horn’ should be identified with Macedonian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who was indeed the eleventh king in his line. [11] Shortly before he came to the throne, his father Seleucus IV was deposed, as was his younger brother Antiochus and his brother’s regent Heliodorus. This matches Daniel’s vision remarkably well. [12]

    Regarding the ‘little horn’, we are told the following:

“He shall speak words against the Most High, shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High, and shall attempt to change the calendar and the law, and they shall be given into his power for a time, times, and half a time. Then the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away to be consumed and utterly destroyed.” (Dan. 7:25-26)

    This matches the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes against the Jews. The cessation of sacrifices during his reign lasted three years and six months — in other words, “a time, times, and half a time.” Furthermore, he was the one who attempted to “change the calendar [of religious feasts] and the law,” according to several ancient Jewish sources. [13] His death, as noted above, was alleged to be the result of a divinely-inflicted disease, rather than by human agency (2 Macc. 9:5-9).

    Following the time of the ‘little horn’, we are told the following:

And as I watched, the [fourth] beast was given over to be burned with fire. But as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. (Dan. 7:11-12)

    This is an accurate description of what happened to Macedonia after the time of Antiochus IV. Although all of the Macedonian kingdoms fell to Rome and were incorporated into its empire by 27 BC, the heartlands of Babylon, Media, and Persia remained under the control of the Parthian Empire, which did not fall until 224 AD. Therefore, it’s quite true that the fourth kingdom (Macedonia) was destroyed (by Rome) while the former three kingdoms (Babylon, Media, and Persia) lost their dominion, but remained ‘alive’ (independent of Rome).

    In summary, the four beasts of Daniel 7 represent the same kingdoms as the statue of Daniel 2: Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Macedonia. This prophecy quite accurately describes the history of the ancient Near East from the sixth century BC until the defeat of Macedonia by Rome. Contrary to futurist speculations about the book of Daniel, the ‘little horn’ of Daniel 7 does not represent the end-times ruler described in the New Testament, but the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes who persecuted the Jews for three years and six months (167-164 BC).

    In the next post, we will look at the longest prophecy in the book of Daniel — Dan. 11:2-12:3 — to see how it fits with these other prophecies.

The view of Daniel 2, 7, and 8 adopted here. Adapted

from this figure.

Part 3: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/05/daniels-prophecies-historical_01614904781.html

______________________________

[1] Michael Segal, “The Four Kingdoms and Other Chronological Conceptions in the Book of Daniel,” in Four Kingdom Motifs before and beyond the Book of Daniel, eds. Andrew B. Perrin et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 33-34.

[2] Josephus, Wars I.1.1; 1 Macc. 4:52-54; 2 Macc. 10:5.

[3] 2 Macc. 9:5-9.

[4] In contrast, according to Apoc. 19:19-21, the final end-times ruler will be killed by human hands — specifically, the hands of Jesus Christ. This is another strike against Knoch’s interpretation.

[5] Herodotus, Histories I.95; Ktesias, Persian Matters.

[6] Sib. Or. 4.49-101.

[7] Amelius Sura, De annis populi Romani; Polybius, Histories 38.22; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 1.2.2-4; Tacitus, Histories 5.8; Appian, Roman History, preface 9.

[8] The existence of “Darius the Mede,” who allegedly ruled over 120 satrapies (Dan. 6:2; cf. Est. 1:1) and preceded Cyrus of Persia (Dan. 6:29; cf. 6:28 OG) seems contradicted by the historical record, which tells us that Cyrus was the one who conquered Babylon and succeeded the last Babylonian king; see the Babylonian Chronicles and the Cyrus Cylinder, as well as the histories of Herodotus and Xenophon. “Darius the Mede” is not mentioned in any administrative or business texts dating to this period. However, whether or not “Darius the Mede” existed, the point is that the author of Daniel intended us to understand that Babylon was succeeded by Media (which may have been the purpose of adding “Darius the Mede” in the first place).

[9] Note that in this prophecy, Micah gives two possibilities for the Judahites, that the kingdom will come (vv. 5-9) or that God will destroy them (vv. 10-14). Although no contingencies are explicitly mentioned here, we can safely conclude that the coming of the kingdom was contingent on a favorable response from Judah, since the kingdom did not come and Judah was destroyed by Babylonia. The same may be true of Daniel’s prophecy. For a discussion of unstated contingencies in Old Testament prophecy, see Robert Chisholm, “When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneutic,” JETS 53 (2010).

[10] Alexandria Frisch, “The Four (Animal) Kingdoms: Understanding Empires as Beastly Bodies,” in Four Kingdom Motifs before and beyond the Book of Daniel, 62-75.

[11] Alexander the Great; Seleucus I; Antiochus I; Antiochus II; Seleucus II; Seleucus III; Antiochus III; Seleucus IV; Heliodorus (regent); Antiochus (child); Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

[12] Another possibility is that the three “uprooted” kings were the joint rulers of Ptolemaic Egypt, Ptolemy VI, Ptolemy VIII, and Cleopatra II, whom Antiochus IV defeated in 169 BC, and the other seven kings were his Seleucid predecessors (Seleucus I; Antiochus I; Antiochus II; Seleucus II; Seleucus III; Antiochus III; Seleucus IV); see Andreas Blasius, “Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Ptolemaic Triad: The Three Uprooted Horns in Dan 7:8, 20, and 24 Reconsidered,” JSJ 37 (2006). However, this would ignore the infant Antiochus who ruled briefly between Seleucus IV and Antiochus IV, as well as Alexander the Great, which seems odd if the fourth ‘beast’ (kingdom) is to be identified with Macedonia (as a whole) and not just the Seleucid Kingdom.

[13] Josephus, Antiquities 10.275-276; 1 Macc. 1:41-50; 2 Macc. 6:3-6.

Trinity theories versus Scripture

    Since around AD 381, mainstream Christians have historically insisted that a belief in ‘the Trinity’ is required for salvation, or that it is at the very least a central doctrine of Christianity. The problem with this, however, is that there is no ‘doctrine of the Trinity.’ On the contrary, there are many different ways that the traditional language of “one God in/as three Persons,” or “one essence and three subsistences,” has been interpreted by Christians, most of which are inconsistent with one another. These different Trinity theories are catalogued by philosopher Dale Tuggy in this article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In this post, I will give a short summary of each Trinity theory and analyze it using both logic and the teaching of Scripture.

    The axioms of ‘orthodox trinitarianism’

Before actually discussing each Trinity theory, let’s examine the axioms that any Trinity theory must incorporate in order to be ‘orthodox.’ There are six such axioms:

1. There is exactly one god — one supreme divine being.
2. This one god is referred to as “God” or “the LORD” or “Yahweh.”
3. The Father is God, the LORD.
4. The Son is God, the LORD.
5. The Holy Spirit is God, the LORD.
6. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each distinct from the other two. [1]

These are the elements necessary for any minimally orthodox Trinity theory (ignoring claims about eternal generation and procession). Although these six claims are often presented as the ‘doctrine of the Trinity,’ mostly by trinitarian Christian apologists, these claims do not by themselves constitute a doctrine. There are many ways in which they can be, and have been, interpreted, as you can see below.

    One-self Trinity theories

According to Tuggy, “A self is [an entity] who is in principle capable of knowledge, intentional action, and interpersonal relationships.” One human person would be a single self, even if he had multiple personality disorder, because the other personalities within his head would be unable to access knowledge that the person himself did not know (at least subconsciously), and would be unable to have true interpersonal relationships with one another. Different selves, such as multiple human persons, can have knowledge apart from one another, and have truly interpersonal relationships with one another.

    One-self Trinity theories postulate that God is a single great self. According to such theories, the “Persons” within the Trinity are not persons according to the modern sense (selves), but persons in the ancient sense of the word, that is, modes of being in which God eternally and essentially lives. The three Persons can appear to interact with one another at the same time, but are merely different ways that God ‘play-acts’ with Himself. [2] Tuggy quotes several statements from modern one-self trinitarians:

As God is in Himself Father from all eternity, He begets Himself as the Son from all eternity. As He is the Son from all eternity, He is begotten of Himself as the Father from all eternity. In this eternal begetting of Himself and being begotten of Himself, He posits Himself a third time as the Holy Spirit, that is, as the love which unites Him in Himself. [3]

[God] is — at once and necessarily — the unoriginate who mediates himself to himself (Father), the one who is in truth uttered for himself (Son), and the one who is received and accepted in love for himself (Spirit) — and... as a result of this, he [God] is the one who can freely communicate himself. [4]

...when we talk about God as one person, we mean one person in the modern sense of the word [i.e., a self], and when we talk about God as three persons, we mean three persons in the ancient sense of the word [i.e., a persona or role that is played]. [5]

According to these theories, the one god is one self who eternally and necessarily acts as three different Persons; these Persons are not selves, but essential personas of a single self. This type of Trinity theory has been common in Western Christianity since Augustine of Hippo, and was propounded by influential theologians Barth and Rahner in the twentieth century.

    One-self Trinity theories have some difficulty coherently interpreting the six axioms of trinitarianism. Yes, there is one god in the sense that there is one self. But if we say that the single self is God, then the Persons, the modes of being in which God acts, are not by themselves God. Whereas, if we define each mode as being a god named “God” and “Yahweh,” this simply makes three gods named “Yahweh.” Perhaps the best way to resolve this dilemma is simply to say that each mode just is the single self, in the same way that I might have two modes, “happy Andrew” and “angry Andrew,” but they are both still identical to myself.

    The characterization of God as a single great self is well-motivated by Scripture, which constantly depicts God using singular pronouns, having knowledge, and having interpersonal relationships with others. Whenever the uniqueness of God is described, in over a dozen passages, singular personal pronouns like “I,” “Thou,” and “He” are used: Deut. 4:35, 39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 7:22; 2 Kgs. 19:15; 1 Chron. 17:20; Neh. 9:6; Psa. 86:10; Isa. 43:10, 11; 44:6-8; 45:5, 21; 46:9; Hos. 13:4; Joel 2:27; and Mark 12:32-34. In addition, one-self theories of the Trinity take seriously the biblical claim that the Father just is the one true god (John 5:43, 44; 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17).

    Nonetheless, one-self Trinity theories fail when they are compared against other aspects of Scripture. The Father and the Son are depicted in the New Testament as having interpersonal relationships with one another, as the Son prays to the Father (Matt. 11:25, 26; Mark 14:36; 15:34; Luke 5:16; 23:34, 46; John 11:41, 42; 12:27, 28; 17); worships and loves the Father (Matt. 4:8-10; Mark 12:29, 30; John 14:31); is loved by the Father (Mark 1:11; 9:7; John 3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 17:24; Eph. 1:6); obeys the Father (John 5:30; 6:38; 14:31; 15:10; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 5:8-9); and mediates the relationship between the Father and humans (Rom. 8:34; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 9:15). Furthermore, the Son has different knowledge than the Father (Mark 13:32). According to Scripture, then, the Father and the Son are separate selves by definition.

    In addition, God and the Son have differed at the same time (or eternally). The Son has a Father, but God has no father. Jesus died, but God is undying (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16). God sent Jesus, and Jesus was sent by God (John 8:42; 17:3). Given one-self Trinity theory, God is triune or trimodal, but the Son is not trimodal. It’s self-evident that nothing can (at one time or eternally) differ from itself; we employ this type of reasoning all the time in our daily lives. Since the Son differs from God, the Son cannot be identical to God or a mere mode of God. Consequently, one-self Trinity theories are not compatible with Scripture.

    Three-self Trinity theories

In contrast to one-self Trinity theories, many Christian philosophers and lay people instead hold to a three-self view of the Trinity. On this view, rather than God being a single self, each of the three Persons is a self, who together make up (in some way) the one god.

    Social Trinitarianism

According to social trinitarianism, the divine essence is a universal — that is, a set of properties belonging to God alone — while the Persons are particulars or instances of the divine universal. One ancient social trinitarian, Basil of Caesarea, said that the relation between the essence and the Persons is like the relationship between the essence, ‘humanity,’ and three instances of humanity, such as Peter, Paul, and John (Ep. 38). The views of modern social trinitarians are the same:

God the Trinity is constituted by three persons (in Boethius’ sense of ‘an individual substance of a rational nature’) who have a common divine essence, and are individuated only by their relations to each other. Having that essence entail[s] each being omnipotent and so perfectly good. [6]

On this view, the three Persons are each selves who exist in eternal harmony and loving relationship. Social trinitarianism has traditionally been popular in Eastern Christianity, beginning with the ‘Cappadocian Fathers’ of the fourth century; however, today it is becoming more popular in the West, especially among analytic theologians like Richard Swinburne.

    It’s unclear whether social trinitarianism manages to interpret the six axioms of trinitarianism in a logically coherent fashion. One difficulty is that concrete instances of universals are entities in their own right; for example, three concrete instances of ‘humanity’ would be three humans. Therefore, three concrete instances of the divine universal would be three gods. Swinburne attempts to resolve this dilemma by saying that both the divine essence and the Persons can be called “God;” since there is only one divine essence, in this sense there is only one god. [7] But this merely papers over the problem, because on this view there are four “Gods” — entities which can be called “God” — and three gods — instances of the divine essence. Thus, social trinitarianism seems to be incompatible with monotheism.

    Does this type of three-self trinitarianism cohere with Scripture? In some ways, it coheres better than one-self Trinity theories. Three-self trinitarianism makes sense of the interpersonal relationship between the Father and the Son, and the difference in knowledge between the Father and the Son. Furthermore, it can make sense of the differences between Jesus and God, because the Son is not identical to “God” (i.e., the divine essence), but is one-third of the divine essence. On three-self Trinity theories, it is possible for Jesus to have died, even though God is undying, because the divine essence did not die when the Son died — it continued to be instantiated in the Father and the Holy Spirit.

    However, in other ways, three-self trinitarianism fails to account for the Scriptural evidence. God is consistently presented as a single great self, who uses singular pronouns thousands of times. When describing His uniqueness, God says,

I am the LORD, and there is no other beside Me. I will strengthen you even though you do not know Me, that they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting that there is none beside Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other. (Isa. 45:5-6)

Singular pronouns are also used in over a dozen other places to describe God’s uniqueness (see above). The God of the Bible is not a ‘what,’ but a single, unique self. For God to be multiple selves, and yet talk about Themselves as a single self, would be divine deception. [8]

    Furthermore, according to multiple places in the New Testament, the Father is the only god, or “the one God” (John 5:43, 44; 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17). But if three-self trinitarianism is true, then the Father is not the only god, because He is neither the divine essence, of which He is only one-third, nor the only instance of the divine essence, of which He is one of three. Consequently, any logically coherent three-self Trinity theory is simply incompatible with the testimony of Scripture, both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

    Trinity Monotheism

A more modern three-self Trinity theory is Trinity monotheism, which is the view that God just is the Trinity, because one of the divine properties is being triune. In contrast to social trinitarianism, which considers each of the Persons to be an instance of the divine essence, Trinity monotheism considers the Trinity to be the only instance of the divine essence. Here are some quotes from Trinity monotheists:

The persons of the Trinity are not divine in virtue of instantiating the divine nature. For presumably being triune is a property of the divine nature (God does not just happen to be triune); yet the persons of the Trinity do not have that property. It now becomes clear that the reason that the Trinity is not a fourth instance of the divine nature is that there are no other instances of the divine nature. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not instances of the divine nature, and that is why there are not three Gods. The Trinity is the sole instance of the divine nature, and therefore there is but one God. [9]

According to the doctrine of the Trinity [sic] there are three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of whom is fully divine, fully God. There is, furthermore, a single concrete divine nature—a single trope or instance of Godhood—that is the nature of each of the three Persons... The divine essentia, in other words, consists of a single trope of Godhood or divinity. [10]

The primary modern proponents of this view, J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, suggest that God is a single soul which possesses three complete sets of cognitive faculties, or ‘centers of consciousness.’ [11]

    Ignoring whether this concept is possible and whether three sets of rational faculties would count as three selves, does Trinity monotheism adhere to the axioms of trinitarianism? Not at all. Certainly, on this view, there is only one god, God the Trinity. But because the Trinity alone is God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not God. Moreland and Craig embrace this implication of their theory, saying that the three Persons are divine in a different and lesser sense than the Trinity; they admit that this is not the ‘orthodox’ view, but claim that it is nevertheless consistent with Scripture. [12]

    But is Trinity monotheism consistent with Scripture? Unfortunately, no. Like social trinitarianism, this theory fails to make sense of the more than a dozen instances in which God’s absolute singularity is described using singular pronouns (see above). If God were a composite of three selves, then They would use plural pronouns when describing Their uniqueness, not singular pronouns. Furthermore, the New Testament states that the only god is the Father (John 5:43, 44; 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17); under Trinity monotheism, the only god is the Trinity, not the Father. Thus, in addition to its failure to be ‘orthodox,’ Trinity monotheism is inconsistent with the testimony of Scripture.

    Four-self Trinity theory

Chad McIntosh has recently proposed a new Trinity theory, which aims to solve the Scriptural and logical problems of other three-self Trinity theories. According to this theory, the three Persons are three selves, but the Trinity as a whole is also a ‘corporate’ self. [13] McIntosh appeals to the biblical idea of ‘corporate personality,’ in which multiple individuals are, by virtue of their unified action, considered together as one self (e.g., Dan. 7:13, 14, 27; Mark 5:6ff; Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:12). [14] Therefore, God is really four divine Persons: three “intrinsicist persons” and one “functional person.”

    If the names “God” and “Yahweh” can refer either to the corporate Self or the three Persons, then this theory makes sense of the axioms of trinitarianism. There is one god, God, the corporate Self; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each God and are three selves; and each One is distinct from the other two. Furthermore, in some ways, it makes sense of Scripture. Because God is a single corporate self, He can use singular pronouns and engage in interpersonal relationships; yet because the Father and the Son are separate selves, They can have interpersonal relationships with each other.

    However, in other ways, this theory fails to cohere with the testimony of Scripture. It’s questionable whether corporate personality exists in the Bible to the extent that four-self Trinity theory requires. Yes, multiple individuals can be “one” (John 17:21, 22; Gal. 3:28), but such group entities never speak as a single self. In one of the examples that McIntosh gives, the group entity actually uses plural pronouns (“we;” Mark 5:10). Yet God uses singular pronouns in the Bible almost without exception, including when describing His uniqueness. This would still be divine deception, although perhaps to a lesser degree than on other three-self Trinity theories.

    Furthermore, four-self Trinity theory fails to make sense of the New Testament assertion that the Father is the one and only god (John 5:43, 44; 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17). According to this theory, the Father is neither the one “functional person,” of which He is only a part, nor the only “intrinsicist person.” Instead, the Father is merely one of three intrinsicist Persons who together comprise the one functional Person. Thus, four-self Trinity theory is no better than any other three-self Trinity theory when it comes to its consistency with the testimony of Scripture.

    Relative identity theory

There are a few trinitarians who believe in three selves within God, but don’t follow any of the theories laid out above, because of their conceptual difficulties. Instead, they argue that the concept of identity is itself flawed, and we should instead accept relative identity theory. This theory states that claims of numerical identity are unintelligible, and we can only use claims of relative identity (e.g., “X and Y are the same F,” but not “X is identical to Y”). For example, we cannot say that Paul just is Saul, but we can say that Paul and Saul are the same human or the same apostle. Therefore, it’s possible to say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same god, but not the same self, without being contradictory; They are “God-identical but Person-distinct.” [15]

    This theory is compatible with the six axioms of trinitarianism. There is one god, God; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each God, because all three are the same god; and each One is distinct from the other two. Furthermore, this theory is (for the most part) compatible with Scripture. It accepts that the Father is the only god (John 5:43, 44; 17:3; 1 Tim. 1:17), because the Son and Holy Spirit are the same god; but it is also compatible with the fact that the Father and the Son have an interpersonal relationship, because They are different selves. The theory runs into some trouble with the Bible’s depiction of God as a unique self, but this can be explained away by the fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “God-identical.”

    However, the problem with relative identity theory is that it is obviously logically inconsistent. It is a self-evident truth that, if X and Y are the same F, then X and Y just are one and the same. For example, the claim that “Paul and Saul are the same apostle” means that Paul is an apostle, Saul is an apostle, and Paul and Saul are one and the same. So then, it is simply not possible for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be the same god and different selves:

1. For any X and Y, if X and Y are the same F, then X and Y are numerically identical.
2. The Father and the Son are the same god.
3. Therefore, the Father and the Son are numerically identical. (from 1, 2)
4. Therefore, the Father and the Son are the same self. (from 3)

Relative identity theorists would object to this argument, because they argue that numerical identity is unintelligible. But is this really true? Is the claim that “Paul just is Saul,” or “Yahweh just is God,” really impossible to understand? Virtually all philosophers and lay people would say “no.” Furthermore, relative identity theory seems to contradict the axiom of trinitarianism which says that the one god is “God” and “the LORD.” If there is no concept of absolute identity, then it is false that the LORD just is the one god and vice versa. Therefore, although relative identity theory may be more compatible with Scripture than other Trinity theories, it’s not logically coherent.

    Mysterianism

Some trinitarians, rather than committing to any one of the Trinity theories that have been proposed, simply say that the Trinity is an unintelligible “mystery.” Mysterians typically fall into two categories: negative mysterians, who claim that the axioms of trinitarianism are impossible to interpret in an orthodox way, and positive mysterians, who claim that the Trinity is apparently contradictory. Nonetheless, they continue to believe in the Trinity because they believe it has been divinely revealed (whether in Scripture or by Church councils). Some early pro-Nicene Christians were mysterians, such as Gregory Nazianzen, and many trinitarian Christians still are today.

    Positive mysterians may have a point about orthodox trinitarianism being apparently contradictory. The Athanasian Creed, an anonymous fifth-century work which is considered to be the standard of orthodox trinitarianism by Catholics and even many Protestant churches, states that “we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge each Person to be by himself God and Lord,” and yet it also says that “we are forbidden by catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.” This logically collapses into a claim of numerical identity — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit just is the same god, self, person, etc. But we are also told not to “conflate the Persons.”

    So the Athanasian Creed declares that, in order to be saved, one must believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are and are not numerically identical. This is a clear apparent contradiction. The same confusion appears in other trinitarian declarations of faith, such as those of the Eleventh Council of Toledo (675) and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). Fortunately, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants are free to disagree with these trinitarian statements of faith, while remaining within the orthodoxy of their own tradition; but the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity appears to be contradictory.

    Is mysterianism an adequate solution to the logical problem of the Trinity, from a Scriptural perspective? No, it’s not; the term “mystery” (Gk: musterion) in Scripture refers to something which has been made known, quite the opposite of something which continues to be unintelligible or contradictory. [16] Furthermore, although there are certainly things about God which cannot be fully known, that which has been divinely revealed is supposed to be intelligible to humans (Deut. 29:29). Why would God require us to believe a doctrine that quite literally cannot be understood, in order to be saved? This is not compatible with the Scriptural depiction of God as a loving god who wants all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). Therefore, mysterianism also fails to be a Scripturally sound theory of the Trinity.

    Conclusion

There are several important takeaways from this survey of Trinity theories. First, the mainstream catholic narrative about trinitarianism is false. It’s not true that the Trinity has been universally believed by Christians, because there’s no such thing as ‘the’ Trinity. Rather than there being just one ‘doctrine of the Trinity,’ there are many interpretations of creedal trinitarian language, none of which have ever enjoyed universal support among Christians (although lay Christians tend to assume that their particular interpretation is ‘the’ Trinity). This is largely due to the fact that, when trinitarianism was first enforced as orthodoxy in AD 381, there was no widespread agreement on what it meant. The language of “one God in three persons” is merely a shibboleth of mainstream catholic tradition.

    Second, it is not true that ‘the’ Trinity is inherently contradictory, as some unitarians have claimed, because (again) there’s no such thing. There are many different interpretations of trinitarianism, and most are logically coherent, although some Trinity theories — e.g., relative identity theory and positive mysterianism — do assert or imply apparent contradictions. Nor is it true that the Trinity is polytheistic; in fact, monotheism is one of the axioms of ‘orthodox trinitarianism.’ Nonetheless, some Trinity theories — such as social trinitarianism — do also imply polytheism, so they’re inconsistently monotheistic (that is, they assert one god and three gods).

    Finally, and most importantly, none of the Trinity theories that have been put forth so far are consistent with logic and/or the testimony of Scripture, even when the axioms of trinitarianism are taken for granted. One-self Trinity theories go against the interpersonal relationship between the Father and the Son, while three-self Trinity theories contradict the clear Scriptural teaching that God is a uniquely great self. Meanwhile, relative identity theory and mysterianism contradict the simple logical concept of numerical identity. Although these theories might not exhaust all possible interpretations of trinitarianism, trinitarians must come up with an interpretation of “one God in three persons” which does not contradict Scripture or basic logic. Otherwise, unitarians will be seriously disinclined to believe it.

______________________________

[1] https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/bowman_robert/trinity/trinity.cfm

[2] This is different from Sabellian modalism, which postulates that the three Persons do not exist eternally, but that God exists sequentially, in time, as these different Persons. Perhaps He lived in Old Testament times as the Father, then ‘begat’ Himself as a human being to become the Son, and finally became the Holy Spirit to live within believers. This is different from one-self Trinity theories, which instead postulate that the three modes (Persons) are eternal and essential to God.

This non-trinitarian theology appears to be entirely ruled out by passages in which the Father and Son are seen to be interacting with one another simultaneously (see esp. Matt. 3:16-17). Nonetheless, it remains somewhat popular among lay Christians, usually those who are more biblically illiterate. Some more sophisticated modalists argue that Jesus, “the Son,” is actually the human mind which was united to the divine Person of “the Father.” Therefore, when Jesus was interacting with the Father, he was interacting with Himself, that is, interacting with the divine Person to which he was united.

[3] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics Volume I: The Doctrine of the Word of God, transl. G. T. Thomson, H. Knight, G. W. Bromiley, and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956): 1.

[4] Karl Rahner, The Trinity, transl. Joseph Donceel (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1997): 101-102.

[5] Alistair McGrath, Understanding the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: 1988): 131.

[6] Richard Swinburne, “The social theory of the Trinity,” Religious Studies 54 (2018): 419.

[7] Ibid., 425.

[8] Dale Tuggy, “Divine Deception and Monotheism,” Journal of Analytic Theology 2 (2014): 186-209.

[9] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003): 590.

[10] William Hasker, “The One Divine Nature,” TheoLogica 3, no. 2 (2019): 57, 59.

[11] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations, 594.

[12] Ibid., 590-593.

[13] Chad A. McIntosh, “The God of the groups,” Religious Studies 52, no. 2 (2016): 167-186.

[14] Ibid., 177-181.

[15] Michael C. Rea, “Relative Identity and the Doctrine of the Trinity,” Philosophia Christi 5, no. 2 (2005): 432.

[16] Mark 4:11; Rom. 11:25; 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:7, 10; 15:51; Eph. 1:9; 3:3; 6:19; Col. 1:26, 27; 4:3; 1 Tim. 3:16.