|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Hi Jazzns
Jassns writes: My question is, what is the Biblical support for this theology of double fulfillment? There certainly is biblical support double, greater fulfillments of prophecies. Many prophecies find a typical fulfillment in the nation of Israel and then find a complete fulfillment later on. In other words, the typical fulfillment itself in turn becomes a prophecy pointing forward to a still greater event. One example is the prophecy at Exodus 23:31 which foretold the boundaries of the Promised Land that Isreal would come to possess. This prophecy had its typical fulfillment in David’s day when David expanded the kingdom to the divinely set boundaries between 1077 B.C. and 1037 B.C. But it will have a greater fulfillment when Christ Jesus enforces his dominion to the very ends of the earth by means of the Kingdom of God. At that time the boundaries of the promised land will encompass the whole earth.
Jazzns writes: what Biblical support is there for another fulfillment of 11 which part of daniel 11 are you refering to? Its a fairly long chapter and its not all refering to 1 specific prophecy but actually contains several. It is an overview of the struggles between world powers right thru the ages until the 'last days' or 'our day'.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
purpledawn writes: Why? Ezekiel is called son of man many times. ezekiel is called son of man becasue he prefigured Jesus christ because Ezekiel served as both prophet and priest in isreal.
purpledawn writes: The point is that Mark isn't necessarily referencing Daniel. It could be Daniel or Maccabees. Luke backs away from it, since that book was probably written after the destruction and he knew the events foretold in Mark 13 hadn't happened. Matthew in chpt 24:15 said the disgusting thing that causes desolation is the one that was spoken of through Daniel the prophet.This is clear evidence that they were referencing the book of Daniel seeing he mentions Daniel as the one it was spoken through. Also, the apostles were using the greek septuagint in many of their quotes as is seen by the fact that they not only write their gospels in greek, but the quotes they use came directly from the Greek Septuagint Version...you can compare them and you'll see the phrases are identicle. Josephus does cite 22 books in all and he certainly didnt including any of the maccabees books in that list. Its pretty clear that the maccabee books werent included in the septuagint because as your link mentions
quote:Maccabees was written around the 2nd century bce...that puts them much later then the period josephus mentions. It also proves that Daniel was indeed written well before the time critics claim. Remember that Daniels book tells the story of Belshazzar...other historians in the first century bce did not know about him, nor did anyone until recent times, so for Daniel to have written about him means that Daniels book was written at the time of Belshazzars ruling. This is 500BCE. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Jazzns writes: what I want which is Biblical reference or example in history of double fulfillment. Daniel chpt 11 probably isnt an example of double fulfillments for the reason that is stated in msg 13... it is a prophecy about the various ongoing struggles between world powers. for instance, it speaks about Alexandert the great and how his kingdom would be divided between 4 other kings...once this happened, the prophecy was fulfilled. When alexander died, his kingdome was divided between his 4 generals, they each taking a part of it. Alexander isnt coming back, the prophecy is fulfilled. the kings of the north and kings of the south are ever changing until the final ruling king or world power comes to his destruction at the hands of the Messianic kingdom spoken of in Dan 12.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Jazzns writes:
because all prophecies revolve around the outworking of Gods purposes and there are many prophecies about each of those purposes, not just one. What reason do you have to expand beyond the initial fulfillment? That is really what I am asking about. If God promises or a prophet divines that X will happen in the future, and X does happen, why is it not just simply fulfilled and done with?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 21.3 Revelation 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Jazzns writes: I am not personally aware of all the variety of interpretations of Daniel 11-12 but at the very least 11 is describing in quite exquisite detail the comings and goings of the wars between the Selucids and Ptolomys during the 2nd centry BC. In fact, the King of the North who makes a covenant for 7 years but breaks it halfway though only to descreate the temple exactly describes Antiochus Epiphanes and independent accounts of what he was doing to Helenize the Jews at the time. 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: this is Cyrus the Great, CambysesII, and DariusI and his son and successor XerxesI.
quote: this is Alexander the Great in 336BCE
quote: 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 198BCE At the beginning of the conflict between the 2 kings,
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
ok then on we go....
quote: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: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: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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
PaulK writes: 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. why does it need to be justified...they have to cross over at some point considering the romans gained control from the helenistsic rulers or have i misunderstood your question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
PaulK writes: It needs justifying because you are inserting a (large) gap into the narrative what sort of gap are you refering to? gaps in time between events?? AntiochusIII died in 187BCE and was succeeded by his son SeleucusIVand 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
PaulK writes: 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 ? ah right, i very well may have done that... here is the verses in full from vs 18-21
quote: 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 Augustus The 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.
PaulK writes: What is there in the prophecy that justifies your insertion of a gap between verses 19 and 20 ? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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 Cleopatracommitted 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
PaulK writes: How is that a reason why it couldn't be Seleucus ? There's nothing in the prophecy that states that Antiuchus profanation of the Temple has to occur between verses 19 and 20. Paul i apologise! i did make a mistake on seluceus. Seluceus was the immediate successor of Antiochus III. But Seluceus was not the next King of the North as i stated in msg 41
peg writes: Msg 41: 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. Seleucus never had a struggle with the king of the south. He did try to steal treasures from the temple at jerusalem to pay his fathers debt to Rome, but Jerusalem was never the king of the south. In any case, he was killed before any serious conflict arose which is why later i said that it was his brother AntiochusIV who was the king of the north. It was his actions that caused the Jewish uprising under the Maccabees with a battled that lasted three years and was eventually intervened in by Rome.
PaulK writes: All of which assumes that verse 20 is about the situation after 30 BC - which begs the question. Neither of your two "reasons" has any basis in the text of the prophecy. So you have failed to answer AGAIN. there is a long time period between vs 19 and vs 20 Aniochus IV ruled as king of the north until 163BCEBut Vs 20 is speaking of a new King of the north and i'll explain why. After the death of AntiochusIV 163BCE, Syria was subjugated to Rome and eventually became a Roman province in 64BCE. See the sixth syrian war Because Rome had supremacy over both Syria and Egypt neither of them could be considered to be in the position of the kings of north and south at that time. It actually means that Rome became the new dominating force and in turn, the new king of the North. so verse 20 has to be speaking about Rome and the one who ruled it was Caesar Augustus. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Jazzns writes: You don't consider double fulfillment but rather you plug in progressive histories as fulfillment instead. You also abandon the very connected sequence of history that Daniel is describing in favor of one with a number of gaps which it seems is not the most straight forward reading of the scripture. there is evidence that there are gaps in the verses. Why do you think there should not be gaps, and what sort of time frame do you think the prophecies need to be fulfilled in? I have in mind that Jesus repeated the prophecy of Daniel 11:31 "31And there will be arms that will stand up, proceeding from him; and they will actually profane the sanctuary, the fortress, and remove the constant [feature]. And they will certainly put in place the disgusting thing that is causing desolation." Jesus quoted from that verse and told his disiples to be prepared for this event. This shows that this particular verse was yet for a future time. It actaully occured 66CE and 70CE obviously, this was many years after the events of Vs18-19 which happened almost 200 years earlier So what sort of time period between versus do you think is reasonable to expect?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
PaulK writes: Since the Kings of the North seem to be the Seleucids (see Daniel 11:4) I would disagree. What are your reasons for saying otherwise ? because Seleucid IV was killed before he had any major conflicts with the king of the south whereas his brother Antiochus IV actually did have a major conflict with the Egyption King of the South. remember the kings are always in coflict with each other and the prophecy is about those conflicts. If Seleucus IV did not have any conflicts, how can he be identified as the king of the North?
PaulK writes: Remember that the King of 11:20 only succeeds Antiochus III, sends someone to extract money from Judah and dies shortly afterwards. Seleucus IV did all these things. But Seleucus IV did not do such things against the king of the South. The prophecy is about the struggles between these two kings. He was too busy trying to pay off his fathers debt to Rome to wage in any major conflicts with egypt. It was only his brother who did this which is why its reasonable to say that his brother became the king of the north.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
PaulK writes: Seluecus IV can easily be identified as King of the North because the Kings of the North are the Seleucids (see Daniel 11:4 for important context). his brother was seleucid... why do you think Antiochus IV was not?
PaulK writes: Aside from the problems with your reasoning which I have already dealt with (and the fact that Antiochus IV appears later in the prophecy) you don't identify Antiochus IV as a King of the North either. You jump straight to Augustus. So again, you are only undermining your case. i dont believe i did that, i have maintained that Antiochus IV became the next king of the north after the death of his father Antiochus III Antiochus IV was the next king of the north who participated in a major battle with egypt as my link shows. He became known as Antiochus the Great because of this battle with Egypt. Is this where the confusion is coming in?
PaulK writes: I'm still waiting for any real justification that Daniel 11:20 is about Augustus. i tried to explain it but obviously not very good. Rome had subjugated both Syria and egypt... This made Rome the new King of the north. Vs 20 says that "And there must stand up in his position one who is causing an exactor to pass through the splendid kingdom.." It says that 'there must stand up in HIS position' as this is a follow on from vs 19, then the 'position' we are talking about is the position of the King of the North (Antiochus IV) A new ruler would stand up in the king of the norths position. This has to be a roman ruler because Rome was the new dominant world power at this time. This ruler would also have to have somethign to do with Judah 'the splendid kingdom' The first Roman emperor, Octavian, also known as Caesar Augustus made Judea a Roman province of Judea. In 2BCE, he ordered a registration, or census, then in 14 CE not long after he died as a result of illness.So he fits perfectly. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024