Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment

While I don't know as much as Brian I have discussed some of these issues and had a good look at them before.

quote:

---

Matthew (24:15) is the only one who refers back to the Book of Daniel (9:27)concerning the abomination that causes desolation. Mark (13:14) and Luke (21:20) don't. Luke doesn't even say abomination.

---

Mark's reference is pretty clear - and the authorial aside "let the reader understand" is a strong hint, Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse is pretty heavily rewritten - probably with knowledge of the events of 70 AD - which don't agree that well with the version found in Mark and Matthew. Luke would know, for instance, that there was nothing corresponding to Daniel's "Abomination".I suppose that it is possible that Matthew (also written after 70 AD, according to mainstream estimates) left the Olivet Discourse largely unchanged because it didn't fit events that well. And it is possible (but not that likely) that Mark was copied from Matthew. But I don't think that you have a very strong case for this example (unlike those in Matthew's Nativity - which could easily be original to Matthew's gospel).Having said that I do feel that "Double fulfilment" is something of an ad hoc excuse. In my experience the second "fulfilment" relies on picking out bits and pieces of the prophecy, and so has a very dubious claim to be called any sort of "fulfilment".

quote:

---

I don't see that the author of Mark is insinuating that this is a second fulfillment of Daniel, but more of a similar event. Times just as bad as described in Daniel. We assume it refers to Daniel or have been told it does; but I don't see it in the text.

---

I would say that the author of Mark regarded it as a fulfilment of Daniel - I can see no indication that he felt it to be merely "similar" events. Whether the author saw it as a second fulfilment requires determining his opinion of whether the prophecy had already been fulfilled or not - which we cannot even do for Matthew. We must remember that the End did NOT come according to Daniel's "predictions" so it is distinctly possible that the authors reinterpreted Daniel as referring to later events.

quote:

---

Strong case for what?

---

The idea that the use of Daniel in Matthew's version of the Olivet Discourse is satire. Taken at face value it seems to be a simple replacement for the authorial aside, conveying the information that the author of Mark intended that the reader should discover.

quote:

---

1 Maccabees also mentions the abomination of desolation and describes what happened. The author of Mark could also be referring to that incident. Notice they fled to the mountains.

---

Mark also refers to "The Son of Man" which is taken to be a reference to Daniel. (And I would think that Matthew would be more likely to refer to merely "similar" events than Mark).

quote:

---

The Book of Daniel is grouped with the writings in the Jewish Bible, not the prophets.

---

Which does not nean that it was not viewed as predicting the future by Jews. Josephus certainly seemed to think so, relating a story - almost certainly ahistorical - about Alexander reading Daniel.

quote:

---

That one reference is not what makes the book of Matthew a satirical writing.

---

I never said otherwise. All I said was that the case for that reference being satirical was weak.

quote:

---

Daniel wasn't necessarily canonical at the time of Mark's writing. Was the writer of Mark alluding to Daniel or the actual Maccabean event which would remind the people of what did happen when they were overrun before?

---

Josephus was active at that time, and IIRC probably did include Daniel as canonical. And as your source states 1 Maccabees is no more likely to be considered canonical itself.

quote:

---

Why? Ezekiel is called son of man many times.

---

Because the Son of Man in Mark appears to be a more-than-human figure.

quote:

---

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.

---

Daniel still seems more likely.

quote:

---

Josephus said there were 22 books, but Daniel wasn't mentioned by name.

---

As we know, Josephus (wrongly) believed that Daniel was written at the time the story is set. Thus Daniel could certainly fall into the canonical group - and 1 Maccabees could not. Also if you read your own source it proposes that Ruth is counted as part of Judges and Lamentations as part of Jeremiah to explain the count of 22.

quote:

---

Considering that that author of Mark was referring to Jesus throughout the book as the son of man, he would have been referring to Jesus.

---

It would be more accurate to say that the author of Mark has Jesus referring to himself as the "Son of Man".

quote:

---

The verse in Daniel says "one like a son of man".

---

Exactly. An entity that looks like a human - but presumably is not.

quote:

---

My point is that what was written by Mark, Matthew, and Luke doesn't necessarily imply the writer sees this as a second fulfillment of Daniel. It could just as easily be a reference that the coming event will be just as bad as described in the Maccabees.

---

As I have already said the evidence supports the idea that the authors of Mark and Matthew saw it as A fulfillment of Daniel. First or second is impossible to tell.
I don't see much of a link to Maccabees (which is linked to Daniel anyway).

quote:

---

Does Josephus actually list the 22 books? I didn't see a list. If he doesn't list them, we don't that Daniel was or wasn't part of it.

---

No, we can't know for sure. However, since Josephus took Daniel at face value, it seems very likely that it was counted as one of the 22.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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 31 BCE, the roman ruler Octavian defeated the forces of the last Ptolemaic queen, Cleopatra VII, 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 30 BCE, 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.

​

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 31 BCE, the roman ruler Octavian defeated the forces of the last Ptolemaic queen, Cleopatra VII, 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 30 BCE, 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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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

---

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 ?

quote:

---

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 Antiochus IV 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.

---

This appears later in the prophecy. 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.
In other words you seem to be disqualifying him BECAUSE he fits with the prophecy, which seems to be a very odd attitude.

quote:

---

there is a long time period between vs 19 and vs 20

---

I know that you claim that, but there seems to be absolutely no textual support for such an idea.

quote:

---

Aniochus IV ruled as king of the north until 163BCE
But Vs 20 is speaking of a new King of the north and i'll explain why.

​

After the death of Antiochus IV 163 BCE, Syria was subjugated to Rome and eventually became a Roman province in 64 BCE. 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

---

The 6th Syrian war does not start until after the reign of Seleucus, so you need to disqualify him - and Antiochus IV - before it is even relevant to the interpretation of 11:20. All your argument attempts to do is argue that it is legitimate to regard Rome as taking on the roles - but it does nothing to suggest that verse 20 is where it does so. (And I would argue that it is unsuccessful even in doing that).SO, you need to ignore the fact that 11:20 is naturally read as referring to the immediate successor of Antiochus III. That that successor actually fits the prophecy better than your alternative candidate. That there is no mention of the Roman conquest of either state anywhere in Daniel (although the conquests of Babylon and Persia - and the division of Alexander's Empire are given prominent mention). And there are more problems to come in later verses.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

So they exactly fit the prophecy ! 11:20 mentions no conflicts with the King of the South so obviously that ruler can't have any such conflicts.

quote:

---

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?

---

I don't think that it means that they must always be fighting wars even when the prophecy doesn't mention any ! And if the prophecy is about those conflicts then it should mention them - and there is none mentioned in Daniel 11:20.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).

quote:

---

But Seleucus IV did not do such things against the king of the South.

---

So he didn't do something that the prophecy doesn't mention him doing (and ought to mention if he did !). This is supposed to be an argument ?

quote:

---

...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.

---

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'm still waiting for any real justification that Daniel 11:20 is about Augustus.

quote:

---

his brother was seleucid... why do you think Antiochus IV was not?

---

What on earth are you talking about ? I never said any such thing.

quote:

---

i dont believe i did that,

---

Then go back and read the thread. You say that Daniel 11:19 is about Antiochus III and the next "King of the North" in 11:20 is Augustus.

quote:

---

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.

---

So where - according to you - is Antiochus IV in the prophecy given that you have already claimed that it jumps straight from Antiochus III to Augustus ?

quote:

---

i tried to explain it but obviously not very good.

---

Given that all of your reaosns are obviously invalid. "not very good" seems to be an understatement.

quote:

---

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.."

---

At the end of the reign of Antiochus III (which is where we are at with Daniel 11:19 - according to you) Rome had not subjugated Syria or Egypt, Seleeucus IV took the place of Antiochus III and sent Heliodorus to extract money from Judah. In other words your "explanation" doesn't explain anything at all.

quote:

---

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)

---

That is Antiochus III according to your own Message 35 The successor to Antichus III was Seleucus IV according to your own Message 35.Thus Seleucus IV fits here.

quote:

---

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.

---

Not according to you earlier:

quote:

---

I thought i did answer your question directly. You wanted to know what reasons there were for accepting 'another' interpretation other then the application to the time of the maccabees. I explained that it was because Jesus used Daniels prophecy about the disgusting thing as something yet to come. This means that according to Jesus, the fulfillment of Vs20 could not have been 163 years earlier.

---

i.e. your interpretation is not justified by the text of Daniel. In fact this just illustrates the problem Jazz wanted to bring forth. You feel that you have to reject the plain reading with its clear fulfillment because you have another interpretation that you prefer for reasons external to the text of Daniel. Proposing a double fulfillment would permit you to keep both interpretations.

quote:

---

If you believe that Jesus was the Messiah, then you'd have to accept that his words are truth as he said they were. You'd also need to explain why Antiochus IV did not desolate the temple in the same complete sense that the Romans did.

---

Antiochus DID desecrate the Temple, and arguably more completely than the Romans. Antiochus actually set up a pagan altar in the Temple itself and pagan sacrifices were held there. That's more than the Romans did.

quote:

---

I would think that this is evidence that the prophecy was more fulfilled by the Romans seeing they put Jewish worship completely out of action...that is complete annialation. The priesthood was never reinstitued in Isreal and the 'constant feature' of sacrifices was gone and still is gone. Antiochus had a 3 year battle that ended and the temple suffered no permanent damage. Life went on and the temple and its priesthood survived.

---

And that is a much better fit for Daniel. Daniel 12:11 states that there will be 1290 days from the abolition of the sacrifices and the setting up of the abomination. The Roman destruction of the Temple was in 70 AD - more than 1900 years ago.

quote:

---

We have already entered the 'end times' and we are living them right now.

---

Daniel 8 places the "end times" in the Hellenistic period, as I have pointed out. How do you deal with that ?