Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment

In order to determine what God's ultimate purpose for a given prophecy, one must have a working knowledge of God's plan for the ages. The most significant clue as to the ultimate purpose of Daniel's prophecies, for example, is the little statement in the last chapter, 12:4 where Daniel is instructed to shut up the words of his prophecy and seal the book until the end time.As time goes from generation to generation, century to century, history passes and new insight on the end time prophecies is available.Daniel's prophecies itemized the world class kingdoms which would rise and fall before the end time when a messianic power would become the final one. Corroborating the prophets, it becomes clear that the sign for the ultimate fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies would be a restoration of the nation of Israel, as one nation, i.e not two divided kingdoms such as was the contemporary situation. (See Ezekiel, chapters 36-39 for the most complete sequential prophecy of the restoration and end time events which would come to pass for the ultimate fulfillment prophecies relative to the nation of Israel.) This is indicative that the ultimate end time fulfillment of Daniel, of the Genesis Abrahamic covenant/prophecy in Genesis and of Ezekiel and others relative to the Israeli messianic kingdom are becoming realized.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

because all prophecies revolve around the outworking of Gods purposes and there are many prophecies about each of those purposes, not just one.
His original purpose for the earth for instance was for it to be a paradise. But the earth is not a paradise is it. So any prophecies regarding the paradise are yet to be fully realised.
Jesus himself spoke about the earth and in Matt 5:5 he said "The meek shall inherit the earth" This is an expansion on Isreals inheritance of the promised land.He also told the man on the stake next to him "trully I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise" The promised land was said to be a paradise for isreal. At Deut 8:7-9 Moses called it "a good land, a land of torrent valleys of water...a land in which you will not eat bread with scarcity, in which you will lack nothing..." The land of Isreal was like this description, especially during the reigns of good kings such as David and Solomon.But obviously in Jesus day, 2000 years ago, that earthly paradise was not a reality, though Jesus knew that it would be a reality in the future which is why he could confidently tell the man that he would be in paradise. The prophecies about the promised land and Isreal, were merely a foreshadow of the greater fulfillment for if you read prophecies such as Psalm 37:29 it says The righteous themselves will possess the EARTH, and they will reside forever upon it.Psalms show that the whole 'earth' is involved in Gods pupose, not just the borders of Isreal.And then you have to take into consideration that Gods purpose was not only for one nation, it was for all nations as the following prophecies show:Genesis 22:18 All the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your descendants, because you have obeyed My command.the overall result of genesis 22:18 is seen in Rev 21.3Revelation 21:3"With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. 4And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.So i guess im attempting to show you that many of these prophecies are related to one another which is why they will often have greater fulfillments. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Ok, well Im sure there are many interpretations, i'll give you one of them.firstly, Matt 24:15 Jesus quotes from Daniels prophecy to explain to his apostles that a war was coming. "When you catch sight of the disgusting thing... as spoken through Daniel the prophet, know that the desolating of her (jerusalem) has drawn near"this just shows that parts of Daniels prophecy was soon to be fulfilled in the first century. Jesus obviously knew the prophecy of Daniel and could quote from it.The prophecy of Daniel involves one king who rules supreme while the other becomes inactive and it becomes a continual conflict between these two rival kings who are termed 'the king of the North' and the 'king of the south'The identities of them change though, they are not always the same kings. Evidence for this is that Daniel is told to roll up the scroll until the 'time of the end' This is a reference to the last days which means the kings cannot have been the same kings throught all these thousands of years.But you are right in that it began with Syrian King Seleucus I Nicator & Egyptian KingPtolemy Lagus. the following verses show how they developed into the king of the North and king of the South

quote:

---

Daniel 11:2 Look! There will yet be three kings standing up for Persia, and the fourth one will amass greater riches than all others. And as soon as he has become strong in his riches, he will rouse up everything against the kingdom of Greece.

---

this is Cyrus the Great, CambysesII, and DariusI and his son and successor XerxesI.

quote:

---

Daniel 1:3 A mighty king will certainly stand up and rule with extensive dominion and do according to his will,

---

this is Alexander the Great in 336BCE

quote:

---

Daniel 11:4 When he will have stood up, his kingdom will be broken and be divided toward the four winds of the heavens, but not to his posterity and not according to his dominion with which he had ruled; because his kingdom will be uprooted, even for others than these.

---

This is the sudden death of Alexander at age 33, his family members briefly had the power but they were all killed off. His brother PhilipIII Arrhidaeus was murdered in 317BCE. His son AlexanderIV ruled until 311BCE but was killed by Cassander, one of the generals. His illegitimate son Heracles was murdered in 309BCE so now his 'posterity' ended and his kingdom was divided toward the four winds.
By 301BCE 4 generals were in power over the territory that Alexander had conquered. Cassander ruled Macedonia and Greece. Lysimachus got Asia Minor and Thrace. Seleucus I Nicator ruled in Mesopotamia and Syria. And Ptolemy Lagus took Egypt and Palestine.From these four kingdoms only two eventually became the strongest and most dominant. kingsSeleucus I Nicator over Syria and Ptolemy I over Egypt. With these two kings began the long struggle between the king of the north and the king of the south, Daniels prophecy leaves the kings unnamed because over the ages their identity and nationality would change. Also its important to know that Daniels prophecy was a warning to Gods people, so these kings would be the ones who had a direct bearing on Gods people.Judah was under the dominion of the king of the south Ptolemy I and remaind under his until 198BCEAt the beginning of the conflict between the 2 kings,

quote:

---

Daniel 11:6 says At the end of some years they will ally themselves with each other, and the very daughter of the king of the south will come to the king of the north in order to make an equitable arrangement. But she will not retain the power of her arm; and he will not stand, neither his arm; and she will be given up, she herself, and those bringing her in, and he who caused her birth, and the one making her strong in those times.

---

The successor of Antiochus I, was AntiochusII. He fought a long war against PtolemyII, the son of Ptolemy I. AntiochusII and PtolemyII respectively constituted the king of the north and the king of the south. In 250B.C.E., these two kings entered into an equitable arrangement. they made a marriage alliance whereby Ptolomy II married Berenice, the very daughter of the king of the south.Berenice’s arm, or supporting power, was her father, PtolemyII. but when he died in 246BCE, she did not retain the power of her arm with her husband. AntiochusII rejected her, remarried Laodice, and named their son to be his successor. As Laodice planned, Berenice and her son were murdered along with her attendants. Then Laodice poisoned AntiochusII, and thus his arm, or power, also did not stand. This left SeleucusII, the son of Laodice, as Syrian king.remember this is a constant struggle so how did the king of the North continue the struggle?

quote:

---

Daniel 11:7 One from the sprout of her roots will certainly stand up in his position, said the angel, and he will come to the military force and come against the fortress of the king of the north and will certainly act against them and prevail.

---

the sprout of Berenice’s parents, or roots, was her brother. At his father’s death, he ‘stood up’ as the king of the south, the Egyptian Pharaoh PtolemyIII. At once he set out to avenge his sister’s murder. Marching against Syrian King SeleucusII, who Laodice had used to murder Berenice and her son, he came against the fortress of the king of the north. PtolemyIII took the fortified part of Antioch and dealt a deathblow to Laodice. Moving eastward through the domain of the king of the north, he plundered Babylonia and marched on to India.

quote:

---

Daniel 11:8 And also with their gods, with their molten images, with their desirable articles of silver and of gold, and with the captives he will come to Egypt. And he himself will for some years stand off from the king of the north.

---

200 years earlier the Persian King CambysesII had conquered Egypt and carried home Egyptian gods, their molten images. PtolemyIII recovered these gods and took them back to Egypt, he had accomplished what he set out to do and so now took a break from waring with the king of the north. But now the king of the north continues the struggle.

quote:

---

Daniel 11:9He will actually come into the kingdom of the king of the south and go back to his own soil.

---

Syrian King SeleucusII struck back and entered the kingdom, of the Egyptian king of the south but was defeated, he returned home with a remnant of his army and ‘went back to his own soil,’ in about 242BCE After he died he was succeeded by his son SeleucusIII

quote:

---

Daniel 11:10 Now as for his sons, they will excite themselves and actually gather together a crowd of large military forces. And in coming he will certainly come and flood over and pass through. But he will go back, and he will excite himself all the way to his fortress.

---

The 2nd son of SeleucusII assembled great forces for an assault on the king of the south, who was by then PtolemyIV. He successfully fought against Egypt and won back the seaport of Seleucia, the province of Coele-Syria, the cities of Tyre and Ptolemas, and nearby towns. He took many cities of Judah and in 217BCE, AntiochusIII left Ptolemais and went north, all the way to his fortress in Syria.

quote:

---

Daniel 11:11 The king of the south will embitter himself and will have to go forth and fight with him, that is, with the king of the north; and he will certainly have a large crowd stand up, and the crowd will actually be given into the hand of that one.

---

With 75,000 troops, the king of the south, PtolemyIV, moved northward against the enemy. The Syrian king of the north, AntiochusIII, had raised a large crowd of 68,000 to stand up against him. But the crowd was given into the hand of the king of the south in battle at the coastal city of Raphia, not far from Egypt’s border.Im going to let you digest this before i go on because there is a long way to go before we get to the kings who exist in the 'time of the end'but as you can see, the kings of the north and south were changing even back then depending on who was ruling at the time. Its the same in our day, there are dominant world powers and those who have struggles with each other.

Thank you for the recap. No need to pause for digestion as I already know this. The interesting bits are at the end anyway. =)Please continue.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

ok then on we go....

quote:

---

Daniel 11:12 And the crowd will certainly be carried away. His heart will become exalted, and he will actually cause tens of thousands to fall; but he will not use his strong position.

---

PtolemyIV carried away 10,000 Syrian infantry and 300 cavalry into death and took 4,000 as prisoners. They then make a treaty dedicing that AntiochusIII keep the Syrian seaport this was a victory for him so he was 'exalted'
Ptolemy IV kept control of Judah he did not use his strong position for long for he died soon after and his five-year-old son, PtolemyV, became the next king of the south.

quote:

---

Daniel 11:13 The king of the north must return and set up a crowd larger than the first; and at the end of the times, some years, he will come, doing so with a great military force and with a great deal of goods.
14 "In those times there will be many who will stand up against the king of the south, And the sons of the robbers belonging to your people will, for their part, be carried along to try making a vision come true; and they will have to stumble

---

When young PtolemyV became king of the south, AntiochusIII set out with a crowd larger than the first to recover the territories he had lost to the Egyptian king of the south. To that end, he joined forces with Macedonian King PhilipV.

quote:

---

Daniel 11:15, 16 The king of the north will come and throw up a siege rampart and actually capture a city with fortifications. And as for the arms of the south, they will not stand, neither the people of his picked ones; and there will be no power to keep standing. And the one coming against him will do according to his will, and there will be no one standing before him. And he will stand in the land of the Decoration, and there will be extermination in his hand.

---

Military forces under PtolemyV, or arms of the south, succumbed to assault from the north. At Paneas (Caesarea Philippi), AntiochusIII drove Egypt’s GeneralScopas and 10,000 select men, or picked ones, into Sidon, a city with fortifications. There AntiochusIII ‘threw up a siege rampart,’ taking that Phoenician seaport in 198BCE. He acted according to his will because he proved stronger then the Egyption forces. he then marched against Jerusalem, the capital of the land of the Decoration, and in 198BCE, Jerusalem and Judah passed from domination by the Egyptian king of the south to that of the Syrian king of the north. And AntiochusIII, the king of the north, began to stand in the land of the Decoration.

quote:

---

Daniel 11:17He [nth] will set his face to come with the forcefulness of his entire kingdom, and there will be equitable terms with him; and he will act effectively. And as regards the daughter of womankind, it will be granted to him to bring her to ruin. And she will not stand, and she will not continue to be his.

---

The king of the north, AntiochusIII, set his face to dominate Egypt using his entire kingdom. But he ended up making equitable terms of peace with PtolemyV via a marriage alliance. But then the guardians of PtolemyV turned to Rome for protection and Rome flexed its muscles forcing AntiochusIII to make peace with the king of the south and return the conqured territories. He chose to give his daughter Cleopatra I the daughter of womankind in marriage to PtolemyV. and he used the provinces including Judah the land of the Decoration, as her dowry...however Cleopatra did not continue to be his, when she sided with her husband. When war broke out between AntiochusIII and the Romans, Egypt took the side of Rome.

quote:

---

Daniel 11:18, 19. And he [AntiochusIII] will turn his face back to the coastlands and will actually capture many. And a commander [Rome] will have to make the reproach from him cease for himself [Rome], so that his reproach [that from AntiochusIII] will not be. He [Rome] will make it turn back upon that one. And he [AntiochusIII] will turn his face back to the fortresses of his own land, and he will certainly stumble and fall, and he will not be found.

---

A war broke out in Greece in 192BCE, and AntiochusIII was induced to come to Greece "the coastlands'. then Rome formally declared war on him. He suffered a defeat at Roman hands. About a year after losing the battle of Magnesia in 190BCE, he had to give up everything in Greece, Asia Minor, and in areas west of the Taurus Mountains. Rome exacted a heavy fine and established its domination over the Syrian king of the north. Driven from Greece and Asia Minor and having lost nearly all his fleet, AntiochusIII ‘turned his face back to the fortresses of his own land,’ Syria.
After he "fell" by death in 187BCE he was succeeded by his son SeleucusIV, the next king of the north.this ends the pre messianic times...here after we have a new set of circumstances because the Messiah had appeared, so that was pre messiah, and from Danel Vs 20 onward is post Messiah. in Vs 20 It was the king of the norths sending out of the exactor through the Roman Empire that guided matters for Jesus, in fulfillment of prophecy, to be born in Bethlehem, this was when Augustus ruled

quote:

---

20And there must stand up in his position one who is causing an exactor to pass through the splendid kingdom, and in a few days he will be broken, but not in anger nor in warfare.

---

on August 19, 14CE, a short time after having ordered this registration, Augustus died, neither ‘in anger nor in warfare.’ The despised person who succeeded Augustus was Tiberius. It was during Tiberius’ rule that the prophetic Leader of the covenant, Jesus Christ, was broken in death.

quote:

---

21And there must stand up in his position one who is to be despised, and they will certainly not set upon him the dignity of [the] kingdom; and he will actually come in during a freedom from care and take hold of [the] kingdom by means of smoothness."
22And as regards the arms of the flood, they will be flooded over on account of him, and they will be broken; as will also the Leader of [the] covenant."

---

When Tiberius became the king of the north, his nephew Germanicus Caesar was commander of the Roman troops on the Rhine River. In 15CE, he led his forces against the German hero Arminius, with some success. However, the limited victories were won at great cost, and Tiberius thereafter aborted operations in Germany. Instead, by promoting civil war, he tried to prevent German tribes from uniting. Tiberius generally favored a defensive foreign policy and focused on strengthening the frontiers. This stance was fairly successful. In this way the arms of the flood were controlled and were broken.Im going to shoot forward now to 'the time of the end' Many beleive this 'time' began in 1914. Yes you know that year, it was the outbreak of the first world war and this was a turning point in the history of mankind and the struggle between the two kings kicks off in brutal fashion with a world war on a scale never before experienced.

quote:

---

Dan. 11:40-43.In the time of the end the king of the south will engage with him in a pushing, and against him the king of the north will storm with chariots and with horsemen and with many ships; and he will certainly enter into the lands and flood over and pass through. . . . And he will actually rule over the hidden treasures of the gold and the silver.

---

Now your going to want me to post info about these modern day kings, yet i cant right now becasue i have to go out for a while...when i get back i will complete it. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

I think that your interpretation has some big problems.Firstly you jump from the Hellenistic period to the Roman between verse 19 and 20. What is the justification for that ? The ruler of verse 20 appears to be the immediate successor to the ruler of verse 19.The latest date for the registration accompanying Jesus' birth is 6 AD - most conservative Christians try to introduce an (unrecorded) registration even earlier. Even the later date gives ~8 years to Augustus' death which is not a "comparatively short time". The more obvious candidate Seleucus IV Philopater tried to gather money from the Jewish Temple in 173 BC, and died in September of that year - to be succeeded by the despised Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

why does it need to be justified...they have to cross over at some point considering the romans gained control from the helenistsic rulersor have i misunderstood your question?

quote:

---

why does it need to be justified...they have to cross over at some point considering the romans gained control from the helenistsic rulers

---

It needs justifying because you are inserting a (large) gap into the narrative. It should be marked. Instead the text taken at face value seems to simply carry on with the next of the Seleucid rulers (who fits the prophecy better than Augustus).And no, the prophecy does NOT have to cross over to Roman rule. (In fact Daniel 8 indicates that it should not - see 8:17 and 8:20-26).

quote:

---

or have i misunderstood your question?

---

I don't know. But your answer seems to say to me that since your interpretation demands a mangling of the text, mangling the text is the way to go.

what sort of gap are you refering to? gaps in time between events??AntiochusIII died in 187BCE and was succeeded by his son SeleucusIV
and later Heliodorus murdered SeleucusIV. AntiochusIV, his brother, then succeeded him to the throne.if there is a gap in the time it is not a problem for the prophecy for the prophecy does not give any details as to the timing of the events.

quote:

---

what sort of gap are you refering to? gaps in time between events??

---

That's a big part of it. But it is also a break in the narrative. The translated text at least looks like a continuous narrative. You have it suddenly jumping to a different time and different people with no obvious connection. What is there in the text that justifies such an interpretation ?

quote:

---

Antiochus III died in 187 BCE and was succeeded by his son Seleucus IV
and later Heliodorus murdered Seleucus IV. Antiochus IV, his brother, then succeeded him to the throne.

---

And the relevance of this is ?

quote:

---

if there is a gap in the time it is not a problem for the prophecy for the prophecy does not give any details as to the timing of the events

---

The problem is in your interpretation of the prophecy.I repeat the question. What is there in the prophecy that justifies your insertion of a gap between verses 19 and 20 ?

ah right, i very well may have done that... here is the verses in full from vs 18-21

quote:

---

18And he will turn his face back to the coastlands and will actually capture many. And a commander will have to make the reproach from him cease for himself, [so that] his reproach will not be. He will make it turn back upon that one.
19And he will turn his face back to the fortresses of his [own] land, and he will certainly stumble and fall, and he will not be found.

​

20And there must stand up [Caesar Augusta] in his position one who is causing an exactor [Quirinius] to pass through the splendid kingdom [Judah], and in a few days he will be broken, but not in anger nor in warfare.

​

21And there must stand up in his position one who is to be despised, [Tiberius Caesar] and they will certainly not set upon him the dignity of [the] kingdom; and he will actually come in during a freedom from care and take hold of [the] kingdom by means of smoothness. 22And as regards the arms of the flood [Germanic wars], they will be flooded over on account of him, and they will be broken; as will also the Leader of [the] covenant [Jesus Christ].

---

Vs 19 ends with Antiochus III falling and not being found...AntiochusIII in 187BCE He ‘fell’ in death and was succeeded by his son SeleucusIV, thus was no longer found.
Seleucas IV became the new syrian king of the North, while the King of the south remained a egyption ptolomic king.In verse 20 the identity has once again changed, this time though, its moved to the ruling Roman nation as they became the dominant force among world powers.
The one ‘standing up’ in verse 20 proved to be the first Roman emperor, Octavian, who was known as Caesar AugustusThe splendid kingdom of Augustus included the land of the Decoration or Judea. It was in 2BCE (and i know this is a debated point) Augustus sent out an exactor by ordering a registration, or census who was Quirinius. In August 14CE not long after decreeing the registration, Augustus died at the age of 76 as a result of illness.Vs 21 now mentions the one who is to be despised This proves to be Tiberius Caesar. Augustus hated this stepson because of his bad traits and did not want him to become the next Caesar. The dignity of the kingdom was unwillingly bestowed upon him only after all other likely successors were dead. Augustus adopted Tiberius in 4CE and made him heir to the throne. After the death of Augustus, 54 year old Tiberius ‘stood up,’ and assumed power as the Roman emperor and became the new king of the north. because 19 says "...and he will certainly stumble and fall, and he will not be found"and 20 says "And there must stand up in his position..."this shows that the king in Vs 19 was going to die and a new king in vs 20 would stand in the place of him. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Vs 19 ends with Antiochus III falling and not being found...Antiochus III in 187 BCE He ‘fell’ in death and was succeeded by his son Seleucus IV, thus was no longer found.
Seleucas IV became the new syrian king of the North, while the King of the south remained a egyption ptolomic king.

​

In verse 20 the identity has once again changed, this time though, its moved to the ruling Roman nation as they became the dominant force among world powers.
The one ‘standing up’ in verse 20 proved to be the first Roman emperor, Octavian, who was known as Caesar Augustus

---

You still haven't answered the question. Why interpret it as Augustus rather than Seleucus IV ? Why Quirinius rather than Heliodorus ? Why Tiberius rather than Antiochus ? What is there in the test that suggests the change ?Also compare your translation with the NASB

quote:

---

because 19 says " ...and he will certainly stumble and fall, and he will not be found"

​

and 20 says "And there must stand up in his position..."

​

this shows that the king in Vs 19 was going to die and a new king in vs 20 would stand in the place of him.

---

Which points to Seleucus IV, not Augustus.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

It couldnt have been Seleucas VI for the reason that he was murdered before he had any impact on Judah.
His brother AntiochusIV on the other hand had a huge bearing on Judah. He dedicated Jerusalem’s temple to Zeus, or Jupiter. In December 167BCE, he erected a pagan altar in the temple courtyard this is what led to the Jewish uprising under the Maccabees and a battle that lasted 3 years.

quote:

---

It couldnt have been Seleucas VI for the reason that he was murdered before he had any impact on Judah.

---

You mean Seleucus IV - and he sent Heliodorus to extract money from the Temple - which seems sufficient impact for someone who only rates a single verse.So Seleucus IV did stand up in place of Antiochus III (he was his successor), did send a man to extract money from Judah and did die shortly afterwards (and not in battle). Three out of three. Augustus only did one of these things.Seleucus IV fits the prophecy much better than Augustus - but you say that it can't refer to him and must refert to Augusuts. Why ?

quote:

---

His brother Antiochus IV on the other hand had a huge bearing on Judah

---

Which is another big problem with your interpretation, but we can deal with that later.

there is another reason why it couldnt be the northern king Seleucas IV. Sure he may have had an intent to steal treasures from jerusalems temple, but it was his brother who profaned the temple by dedicating it to a foreign god.the position of king of the south was held by the Egyption Ptolemaic dynasty for over 130 years, but During the battle of Actium, in 31BCE, the roman ruler Octavian defeated the forces of the last Ptolemaic queen, CleopatraVII, and Mark Antony. After Cleopatra
committed suicide Egypt became a Roman province. The king of the south was now in Roman hands.By the year 30BCE, Rome had supremacy over both Syria and Egypt and therefore they dominated over the king of the north.So not only was seleucas dead by this time, but the dominant king was Rome...the new king of the south.