Daniel 11 – To Change or Not

[Music]study let's Stand Together As we sing it547 be thou my vision oh lord of myheart not be all else to me safe thatthouart thou my best thought by day or byNight waking orsleeping thy presence mylight be thou my wisdom be thou my trueword I ever with thee thou with meLord thou my greatfather I thy trueson thou in medwelling and I with theoneriches I heed not nor man's emptypraise thou my in heavheritance now andalways thou and thouonly first in myheart High King Of Heaven mytreasure ThouArt High King Of Heaven when Victory isonemay I reach Heaven's Joys so brightheavenson Heart of My Own Heartwhatever beforefall still be myvision ohruler ofall fatherwe've sought you thismorning you said that when we seek youwe'd find you if we seek you with allourhearts so now Lord with heart mindbody and in Fellowship we seek you andwe're asking that this day would be ablessing to us a forwarding ofunderstanding and Truth a deepening offellowship and we're just praying nowfor your guidance every step of the wayin Jesus name amen amen please beseated all right good morningeverybody I take it you had a TR you hada blessed night's sleep and arrivedfresh this morning for a day of studyand dialogue I'm very excited abouttoday we have some uh Hebrew Scholars toto share with us we have some questionsuh we're going to be looking throughsome of the anchor texts in initiallythose are the texts where there'sGeneral agreement among Adventists whydo we agree on this and then we're goingto be moving into those texts where wediverge as Adventists um we're going tobe asking is there anything in theunderlying Hebrew text the syntax thegrammar that would suggest a differenceof interpretation in these verses so uhfor those of you who are watching onlineif you have a question uh you can sendit directly to my cell phone conradinegmail.com I believe that's written up onthe on the live stream thank you Toddfor thatand uh yesterday there was a vigorousdiscussion going on online as peoplewere watching us and I was watching thefeed up at the back there and there wasa lot of people commenting on what theywere seeing and hearing and last night Ihad a stream of questions coming into mewhich I was trying to deal with earlythis morning so people are engagedpeople are watching people are beingblessed by this and yesterday thepresentations were an absolute blessingso uh we uh today we will have uh ourour morning session is 9: till noonwe're going to take a break at the topof every hour and um so there'll be twobreaks and we have no we'll have our umour lunch uh lunch will be provided inthe Family Center for everybody who ishere today and then we will gather backat 1:30 uh when we will have anotherseason of prayer and then we'll go from2: till 5: and um that then we'llconclude for today at 5:00 so um we havea group of Scholars with us here todayand would like to invite you to come andtake your seats up on the platform wehave Bull's eyes for your chests and umso we we have uh once you take yourseats we we'll ask you to introduceyourselves um if you have with you umthe the little handout the littlebrochure um that will detail the um thislittle book here um if if you have a aparticular question on a particular textum when we get to that text then youraise your hand and we'll take yourquestion um the way we're going to dothis is um we're going to ask ourScholars you know uh some questions oncertain texts and uh if you have aquestion or a comment on that um justraise your hand um I I'll catch youcatch my eyes and then um when thescholars have finished discussing itthen you can add your your inputs yourcomments your query your question forclarification and we recognize that umthat uh we're de deing in you know I'mnot a Hebrew scholar and so a lot ofthis I I want to make sure thateverybody can understand this uh so we'dask our Hebrew Scholars please um weknow there are some technicalitieswhether it's the Hile or whatever we'retalking about here or the VAVconsecutive that's all I remember fromHebrew there's a VAV consecutivesomewhere so that's good yes I don'tknow what it is but I know there's a VAVconsecutive so um we we want to makesure that uh that the the the dialoguethat comes out is understandable foreverybody and um the skill of a greatteacher as Jesus was the greatest of allteachers is to make the most profound ofall truths understandable to all theirhearers and that is what we want toaccomplish today so um Iwill I just move along here to give youa bit morespace uh so on on the little handouthere if you turn to the very middle ofthe of of of the booklet you see Daniel11 anchor and Divergence texts and thenif you turn the next page you'll seethat we've already prepared thisdocument um in in advance for todayyou'll see that on the left hand columnwe have the anchor texts those are textswhere there's General agreement amongAdventists among Adventist interpretersand on the right hand column we have theDivergence texts and we're going to betaking first in our first session thismorning the anchor texts where there isGeneral agreement why there is Generalagreement and then when we finished withthe anchor text and I hope there isGeneral agreement about the anchor textsuh then we will move on to the the thetext where there's more Divergence andwe've left the most difficult test textfor tomorrow afternoon because jesus'most important Miracles were done on thesabbaths and uh we we need a miracletomorrow as we discuss those Divergencetexts um so um maybe we can just startby let's start with uh Dr Martin can youcan you introduce yourselves and saywhere you serve and um so we have anidea who who you are good morning I'mMartin Bley I come from Austriaoriginally I'm German I'm teaching atthe Seminary there in Austria it'scalled seminar spokenhofen and I'm glad to be here and toshare with my friends andcolleagues my name is Michael Yonker andcurrently I'm with the office ofarchives statistics and research at thegeneral conference and um I have justbeen there for just a just under a yearand just finished my my studies here atAndrews as[Music]well talklouder good morning Jerome Skinner I'm aprofessor assistant professor of OldTestament Theology and ex Jesus at theSeminary um I've taught at the Seminaryfor four years this is my first yearfull timeI'm tari Lee I teach at uh OakwoodUniversity I teach classes in OldTestament and Hebrew andhermeneutics my name is SamuelNunes I am a retired professor of OldTestament ex Jesus andtheology I come from San Antonio Texasuh my name is Amanda Maguire mushan andum I am a Adjunct professor at theSeminary I teach Hebrew specifically umand ex Jesus once in awhile I'm Roy gain I'm professor ofHebrew Bible and ancient near Easternlanguages here at the SDA TheologicalSeminary originally fromAustralia so we were talking he's from aAustria now and I'm from Australia sothey have the Alps and we have the KangR don't get us confusedyes all right so um up on the screen douh can we just use first names for thisprocess okay so Roy up on the screen canyou just explain what people are seeingup on the screen okay this is theAccordance Bible software program and Inever do any serious Bible study orhardly ever read the Bible withoutopening accordance because this has somany Tools in it and I'll show you someof those along the way it's an amazinglypowerful Bible study tool um it I candrag my cursor over all of these Hebrewwords and it will show me the detailsdown at the bottom you may be able tosee down at the bottom there it uhchanges and then here I have the Englishtranslation I can pull up the Greek NewTestament the septent um ancient nearEastern inscriptions all kinds of stuffuh dictionaries um I can click threetimes on a word like this and here Ihave the um Hebrew and Aramaic lexiconof the Old Testament which is one of themajor lexicons I can come down here getanother major lexicon um dictionary ofclassical Hebrew of course you have tobuy all of the these modules but um it'san amazing tool the exciting thing aboutthis particular tool is and and Irecommend that everybody get it even ifyou don't have to be a Hebrew scholar toget this and to benefit from it uh youcan have the uh Greek and Hebrew textand English translations you can placethem next to each other and you can seewhat word you see I've put my cursorover the English word in the transtionand I can see what Hebrew word it'stranslating see that and so you canstart to to work in Hebrew even if youdon't really know Hebrew very well anduse those tools but the best thing aboutit is I can do all kinds of searches allkinds of searches so I can go into themode of Hebrew here and I can do asearch on um anything I want I can havea lexical form I can put in here and Ican just go to for example keep a allright right there's one word whoops Ididn't type that right okay I'll justtype it here and there we go and then Ijust hit return but then I can also addother things I can make it um a verb andI can choose what kind of verb I wantand so on I'm not going to go throughthe whole thing here but you can seethat um I can look up specific wordselsewhere that we're going to find inthe text of Daniel 11 to compare themwith context elsewhere because in exJesus context is King the contexts ofwords in their particular location arewhat determines the meaning as in anylanguage and one of the really greatthings is I can not only search forindividual words I can search forcombinations word strings one wordfollowing another and Then followed byanother so I can look for phrasescombinations and in any format you wantand that's extremely helpful soessentially and I'll just make this thethe last line This is a br browser it'sa Bible browser think of the the webwhich has an incredible amount ofinformation but you want to find whatyou want to find so this is a way tosurf the Bible I'm from Australia so Ilove the idea of Surfing and I love theBible so I'm very excited about it andby the way all of us here some peopleare introverts some are extroverts but Ithink all of us here aretextrovert so we're going to have agreat time if you see us enjoying eachother then you'll know that we'regetting excited about theword all right thank you very much Royso um let's start out with our firstanchor Texs they're found in chapter 11uh vers 2 and three and these havehistorically been uh understood byAdventist Scholars as referring to afterCyrus uh we have casses false smes SMsmes and daras the first and then thegreat king who was to arrive beingXerxes the Great um why is there so uhas as we look through all the AdventistScholars There is almost unanimousagreement that this is these are thekings that this verse refers to why whyare we so solid in thisinterpretation well when you read thetext um you can see that the last kinghere the mention the fourth one if westart here in Daniel 11 verse one we'rebeginning in verse two actually herewith the vision itself or not the visionthere's no vision here it's theinterpretation as as uh Kim Kier pointedout yesterday it's it's the thirdinterpretation of the vision in Daniel 8behold three more Kings shall arise inPersia a force shall be far richer thanall of them when he has become strongthrough his riches he will stir up allagainst the kingdom ofGreece now the king who did that we knowthat daras I first had some problemswith Greece and he actually got umdefeated by Athens but his son Xerxestook it down on Greece in a massive wayand he gathered one of the largestarmies in the ancient world includingmany people from many different nationswhich Persia controlled and mercenariesand everything and he launched as we allknow a massive attack on Greece okay sohe was the husband of Esther this is theAAS Hebrew aash zes um and he so he wasthe one historically this reallycouldn't be anyone who did this he wasdefeated at the battles of thermopol andmarathon and ultimately salamis thenaval battle we know all about those andwe have our marathon race in theOlympics to commemorate that um Battleof Marathon but there is one uh outlierone Adventist interpreter who thinksthat the king here is Artic Xerxes thefirst the son of Xerxes the reason isbecause following Cyrus the kings werecises the son of Cyrus that there wasFAL smus who was a usurper and thenthere was daras I first and the fourthKing was Xerxes that's why we think thatthe fourth King is Xerxes but this oneAdventist interpreter wants to Discountfalse murdis because he was a usurperand therefore uh he takes it as cisesand dasas and Xerxes and then the fourthbeing Artic Xerxes the first howeveraeres the first didn't do what this uhverse says which is to accomplish all ofthis personally I find it remarkablethat this prophecy in advance which webelieve it's in advance is evenidentifying a usurper this is a level ofdetail that God and his wisdom isrevealing and then to characterize thisso accurately ahead of time is quiteremarkable okay thank you uh there was aquestion yesterday um and we werereferring back to Daniel chapter uh 8and the question uh arose in Danielchapter 8 and verse 8 it talks about uhthe four horns uh came up towards theFour Winds of heaven and then Daniel 8and verse 9 says out of one of them grewanother horn and the question uh in in11 as we look at 11 chapter 4 it talksabout the Four Winds of Heaven onceagain and uh there was a comment made Ithink it was Martin you shared yesterdayuh the the grammar um of Daniel 88indicates uh is is it that the the umthe power that arises in Daniel 8 whichwe take to be the papacy does it ariseum out of one of the four horns or oneof the Four Winds ofHeaven go for it Martin Martin wrote adissertation on this yeah thank you umthe question was if the grammar refersto that or not yes yeah I believe itdoes not I mean in the past we have an akind of an ingenious explanation that uhthe feminine and the masculine gender Rojust go over there for a moment toDaniel 8 vers9 and 8 at theend I do that here on my computer herein the end you see the Four Winds ofHeaven and the winds is feminine it hasthe feminine plural ending and theheaven is masculine has a masculineplural ending so the argument goes likethis so that you understand why I do notrefer to this argument as conclusivethat in verse nine you see from one ofthem and the from one the is femininesingular again and the mem is masculineplural so there seems to be an alignmentbetween andat between winds andone and excuse me yes and between theheaven hashamayim and mem the pluralthem and because of this alignment theargument goes it needs to refer back tothe one wind or to one of the Winds ofHeavenuh seems interesting it seems convincingfirst but then if you go closer into theHebrew you see that this doesn't worklike this uh the one of them in Daniel8:9 is the usual way you would find onething ofthem the masculine plural is the defaultversion where you go to so it is not uhthe feminine and the masculine is herenot in alignment to to Daniel 8 verse 8at the end there's another text and Ithink that's in Chronicles I think Ihave to look that up where that is butin Chronicles you have the similar thingthat God presents David of severaloptions he could choose that is probablythen 2 Chronicles 21 I guess um theseveral options ofum of judgments he could choose becauseof his accounting of the na of thenation and then he chooses one of themand is exactly the same Greek PHR theHebrew phrase like it is in 2 Samuel 24four but in one of them interestingly inthe Chronicles text it uses the samemasculine feminines which which in theSamuel text it's all masculine so itseems to be that in the Hebrew it'spossible to have it either way and withthat the argument cannot be agrammatical one at this place but thereare other good arguments that it comesfrom one of theWinds all right so as we look at thatDaniel 8 um you would your conclusionwould be that the Daniel 8 and9 says outof one of them came another horn thatthe one of them the them refers to oneof the Four Winds of Heaven rather thanthe four horns of the uh of the GreekEmpire um what I just try to say is thatwe cannot use the argument we have usedin the past two three decades all rightuh I'm still on the line that I wouldsay it comes from one of the Winds mhmbut the arguments need to be differentlike in in verse 9 it says that the hornyat it it comes out of uh if a horncomes from another horn in Daniel 8twice the verb Allah is used to grow upfrom that's what a horn does but here itdoes yat that's a military term whereyou go out from one place to the otherto fight to to make war MH so this isnot like a horn is growing out ofanother horn it comes out from somewhereand where does it come out from this isin alignment to the the KE goat and theram before they go out from a directionand go into another direction to makewar with another entity MH and here thelittle horn the small horn is connectedwith this kind of a model to go out fromOne Direction mhm go against anotherDirection and so the yat indicates thatthis horn goes out from a direction okayand then you have to refer it back tothe Four Winds these are just two of thearguments there are several ones by theway Martin I found that text in 1Chronicles2110 yes Maha if you look I don't knowif you can see the screen you probablycan't it's behind you oh there it isright there that's right yeah is thatthe right ver and now if you compared to2 Samuel 24 you see there that it isboth masculine okay 2 Samuel 24 we justright so what we're hearing you sayMartin is that the out of one of them ismore of a generic phrase that is usedelsewhere in Hebrew scriptures and weshouldn't be making a big deal of thegenders of of that phrase um to say thatthis refers to the winds but you canmake other linguistic arguments that thehorn that arises in Daniel 8 is from thewinds I think the better one is the linkthe literary argument the the modelwhich we have going out from a Directioncoming out from a Direction go somewhereelse the yatsa here uh the little hornaligned to the RAM and the heot but weshould not use this iichi grammaticalso-called argument M yeah okay can I aska question here that's exactly relatedto that Yeta go ahead um in the Danieland Revelation committee series volumeum that discusses this I think it's theDaniel volume volume number two it talksabout this being a horizontal expansexpion uh which would be of ImperialRome first Republican Rome and thenmerging into imperial Rome and then avertical expansion from verses 10 to 12of the papacy going in a religiousDirection uh would you agree with thatthat we have Pagan room in verse 9moving towards the South that would bethe Punic Wars Carthage the East againstAntiochus II and then against theGlorious land which is the land ofIsrael pompy the great uh in perfectorder uh and William Shay says whatwould you agree well Roy has been on mydefense committee so he probably knowswhat if I agree or not um but uhactually I I I do not agree was it arhetorical question or a loaded grenadeno no it's onticgrenade um personally um I think that inDaniel 8 you do not see much of paganRome um I I think Shay made thisargument with the horizontal and thevertical yeah I can understand why he'sdoing this hle by the way he saw thedifference later on he says Pagan Romeis verse 9 and verse 10 and in verse 11because the switch of the feminine hornto the masculine horn vers 11 you havemasculine for the subject that wouldindicate a switch from Pagan to P um nowI'm not sure if there is a switch andjustbecause the main reason for that is thatthe little horn in chapter 8 is the sameHebrew phrase for the Aramaic small hornin chapter7 and I would rather go with the waythat onesymbol which is exactly phrased in thesameway uh is the same stands for the sameinterpretation as the symbol in theother chapter so in Daniel 7 we wouldall agree that the little horn is notPagan Rome in chapter 7 we would sayit's p Rome um in chapter eight I wouldsay the same it's p Rome Pagan Rome isnot in view here the horn is always on areligious political level and not juston a simple political level which in theend it says here it goes until the elhiagainst thebeautiful most translations have herethe beautiful land right and they uhinsured the land coming back from Daniel11 where we started off right now umthere you have the beautiful land thehatsui but here it's just the hatui andhatui the Beautiful comes in the OldTestament from the idea that um the landor the mountain there's also a beautifulmountain it's also in Daniel 11beautiful it is not because it has anice scenery Blue Sky larous palm treesand so on beautiful it is because theLord is there and if the Lord is therethen it makes itbeautiful so here it goes against thebeauty and that means it goes againstwhat the Lord the Lord is present therecould be the temple because the templemakes the land beautiful and themountain beautiful so I see in Daniel88:9 already the intention to go againstthe temple of God T I think all rightbrother tsy I I just wanted to add withthank you Martin for the explanationokay is it close enough yeah I guess youcan hear me now yeah I I'm not too sureabout the little horn not arising out ofone of the other horns actually I don'tthink we canuh rule that out as an interpretationbut just to add to the uh uh genderswitches you have in verse9 uh after that expression from one ofthem you have the next verb the verb youquotedyat uh to come out in a masculine so thehorn comes out that's masculine and thenin the next sentence you have a femininefor it and it willgrow but so the same horn has a verbthat's masculine followed by verb that'sfeminine and then if you move on toverse 11 you have the masculine form ofthat verb Higdeal so the the horn is masculine oncefeminine another time and so thesegenders you cannot build uhconclusions uh based on the genders inDaniel uh8 okay thank you we have aquestion from Pastor Kelly yeah I I havea question relative to the absence ofpagan Rome in the imagery and myquestion is this is itreasonablesince the Roman representation is thelongest and a persecuting power is itsdistinction against the Saints is it isit reasonable to suggest that since thePagan phase persecuted Christ and thereligio political phase persecuted hispeople that rather than actually havingto find pagan Rome in the passage wejust see the little horn representingthe main emphasis of what Rome was tothe people ofGod okay um you made the comments on youdon't see papal Pagan I've alwaysunderstood the the the fourth be Beastof Daniel 7 to be um starting off asPagan Rome and then the little horn thatcomes up to be the papal manifestationbut they're both persecuting Powers Yeahso my real question issince the papal phase lasts much longerthan the Pagan phase and it's clearlyseeking to wipe out God's church but thePagan phase was also seeking to destroyour Salvation Our Hope in Christ is itpossible that the is it unfair to Simplysay this onesymbol represents the entire thing andwe don't have to absolutely find in thetext this is Rome this is an excellentquestion of course this is a Daniel 11conference not a Daniel 8 conference butwe the reason why we have to deal withthis is because uh we we have to viewDaniel 8 and Daniel 9 the previousprophecies as the framework within whichwe look for uh anchor points and placesof Correspondence because we have apretty good idea of what Daniel 8 meansso if we find similar language and ideasin Daniel 11 we we know where we are inrelation to Daniel 8 and so that's whythis is so important uh there's anotherFactor here to sort of um amplify yourquestion and that is on the basis of theidea that because the horn symbol is thesame as in Daniel 7 and therefore itshould mean exactly the same thing as inDaniel 7 there that is the papacy onthat basis there is a prominentAdventist interpreter who has said thatafter the division of the four Kingdomsin Daniel 11 I'm looking at the anchoredDivergence text uh chart here after thatdivision into the four kingdoms Daniel11 must move directly to the papacy andSkip Pagan Rome altogether becausethat's what Daniel 8 does according tothat interpreter okay so in other wordsif you go Direct from the conspicuousone four conspicuous ones which is thefour helenistic Empires divisions ofAlexander's Empire uh then because thenif if Daniel 8:9 moves directly to thepapacy Daniel 11 which is a commentaryon Daniel 8 should do exactly the samething it should move directly from thedivision into four kingdoms and here wego in Daniel 11 directly see see we haveit in verse 4 and then verse 5 andfollowing all the way to verse 39 or sois got to be the papacy now so that'ssomething we have to we have to throwinto the mix in terms of an issueyeah I would like tosay that theexplanation ofGabriel concerning the littlehorn itsays that the little hornwouldArise at the end of the fourkingdoms that says tome that the littlehornisrepresenting the whole is a Sy do key APart rep representing the whole thing itwouldstart at the end of the fourkingdoms and itfinishes whenMichael destroys the horn from beginningto end so that would logically includeboth Pagan and Papal Ro right right yesRome in three stagesthe thir first stage Pagan Drome thesecond stage papal Rome during theMiddle Ages and the third stage payalRome during the time of the year okaythank you so I think it answers yourquestion Pastor Kelly well I canunderstand these argumentations um butin Daniel 8:23 you could read the textlike this and after the end of theirKingdom uh here in the in translationsis at the end of the Kingdom um ofcourse thetranslations they have their own biasthey want to see antas epiphanous hereand so they have to say at the end oftheir reign because uh Tigers was stillpart of one of the Greek kingdoms rightbut if you translate after in the endhere actually it's the b in but I havefound other places where it could meanwhen it is ended their Kingdom then whenthe transgressors have run their causemean when they will get full full andFuller then stands up a king so I thinkthat King could easily be also papacy atthat timeum for for the one Roy you said there'sone person in Daniel 11 who jumps fromver four already to thepH so words he is not arguing that fromDaniel 8 as I understand him I have Ihave seen that person in a lecturebecause I thought in Daniel 8 he SEstill Pagan roome there at least inverse 9 well this is more recentinterpretation of this person and I'veI've heard them on that um in a publicvideo presentation glad I made someimpact then it's a new new twist therewas a previous argument that then didn'twork out grammatically and it's beingcriticized including by by me and um butthen this is another attempt to putDaniel 8 then really to impose thatstructure on Daniel 11 um personally I'mseeing the the idea that at the latterend of their rule yes what did happenhistorically is not a gap there wasn't agap in history and we're not seeing thatkind of Gap elsewhere in Daniel a symbollike a a horn symbol is just a symbol itcould mean different things in differentplaces so obviously you have thatdifferentiation in Daniel um 8 in thevision you have this big no Daniel 7you've got this big huge T-Rex monsterand then the the horn is separate fromit clearly but then here we just have ahorn and I don't think we have tonecessarily say that it it's exactly thesame parameters that is boundaries asthe horn in Daniel 7 obviously there'ssome relationship because it's a symboland symbols can mean different thingsdifferent times what I'm seeing inDaniel uh 8 and in Daniel 11is uh whereas Daniel 7 has showed us adistinction an articulation between themDaniel 8 and Daniel 11 are showing hiscontinuity between them which ishistorically true because the papacygrew out of pagan Rome and continuedthat so it's a different emphasis andI'm what I'm seeing in Daniel um Daniel88:9 is as sheay pointed out and I agreewith him that the growth of Rome washorizontally as you pointed out yet sais horizontal and it grew toward theSouth it conquered Carthage toward theEast it conquered um the sald well atleast it attacked and uh subordinatedAntiochus the great and then pompe thegreat went toward the Glorious land soall the directions are right and this isclearly identifying a power from theNorthwest whereas earlier we had the ramcoming from the East and then we had theuh Goat coming from uh from the Westhere clearly it's a power from theNortheast these are the directions itwent I don't I think it'd be hardpressed to say that the papacy expandedspecifically in those directions when itstarted off and here we seem to bedealing with a military expansion as inthe previous verses well let me ask thequestion if it would be the papacy howwould you argue it mhm well to thehistory guys may maybe the maybe themost obvious answer to this conundrum isto go to the next anchor text yeah whichis actually the we interpret the deathof Christ in verse 22 of chapter 11because if Christ dies in chapter 11: 22under Pagan Rome is very hard to makethe case that from verse 4 through 21we're dealing with papal Rome um thatthe text doesn't jump back and forthbetween the phases of Rome uh so I'dlike to come to verse 2 um2 right now uhto remind ourselves it says armies shallbe utterly swept away and broken beforehim that we interpreted referring totiberious Caesar and the prince of theCovenant as well now this phrase theprince occurs a few times in the Book ofDaniel um it appears in Daniel chapter 8and Daniel chapter 9 UM and it alsoappears in Daniel chapter 11 uh so umwhy are we so certain that this Princeof the Covenant really is uh that thisPrince of the Covenant really is JesusChrist here in this in this verse hereum before before we go to that I justdon't want to move so quick um I want todeal with this issue of divided towardthe four ons of Heaven to get a sense ofthe relationship that we're talkingaboutcontinuity um in history if you trackthe relationship between the North andthe South and you see the verbs that areused the same verbs are used throughoutthe whole chapter to talk about theaggression to talk about the theviolence to talk about the persecutionso I think we're we're trying to makethese distinctions in our mind becausewe're looking back at history but if youjust take 11 on its own merits itdoesn't make those distinctions it justtalks about this this back and forthbetween the North and the South theNorth and the South with the same verbsso I I fear sometimes we're we're tryingto make the text make these littlecrucial distinctions that I'm not sureif you read the text just in terms ofthe battle between the North and theSouth that Daniel was trying to make MHso there's two issues when you'redealing with interpretation one is whatdid Daniel hear and then two is from ourperspective looking back what how do weinterpret it and I think we're we'resaying our interpretation is exactlywhat Daniel saw in terms of History I'mnot sure that what he saw and what we'reinterpreting are exactly the same thingI think we're looking back at historyand saying oh he saw this no he saw theNorth and the South he saw thisaggression he's not making those littlehistorical distinctions so how should weunderstand the nature of the conflictwhen we come to the King of the North tothe King of the South I think you haveto track the the verbal activitythroughout the whole chapter before weeven start talking about interpreting interms of applying any type of historicalframework um that Daniel sawso what do we see we see when it saysand it was divided toward the four onswhere does that term first occur itoccurs in 77 when it talks about the theFour Winds of Heaven were stirred upupon the great sea we understand that tobe some type of uh aggression some typeof uhconflict okay so we already know thatthis is the concern we see thishistorical concern of conflict thelittle details about history issomething that we're looking at I Ifirst want us to hear what Daniel issaying in terms of why does he say theywere divided toward the Four Winds ofHeaven as he excuse me as he referringback to 77 to to get our minds thinkingabout conflict not necessarily thespecific little details first so that'sjust I want us to to keep conscious ofthat throughout that we're not justsuperimposing you know what we sawhappen in history on what Daniel istrying to get us to understand could itpossibly be that the continuity betweenthe phrase the Four Winds of Heaven in11 we're being drawn back to whathappened in Daniel 7 that these are thesame the same events are being describedis that apossibility it's possible I I thinkthere is the sense that there's a alinear progression in history you knowthat all these kind all these kingdomslike chapter 2 says it's a hisor iCalprogression Kingdom after Kingdomthey're using the same methodologiesthey're using the same type of activitybut then the stone will come so I Iwhether you can parallel you knowexactly each you know um grammaticalissue or syntactical issue betweenchapters um that remains to be seen Butat least if we're going to read thewhole book and hear what Daniel heardfirst I want us to think in terms ofwhat is Daniel telling us what is theAngel telling Daniel is going to happenand then then when we look back inhistory we can have an idea of thesetypes of conflicts that are occurringokay this this very well taken and umanother passage that would be relevantthere uh that's maybe even closer thanDaniel 7 would be Zechariah nowZechariah is written light uh perhapslater it's right it's post exilicZechariah okay so um Zechariah 65 thoughis using the same expression these aregoing out to the Four Winds of Heavenit's talking about these horses and thenthe Chariot with the black horses goestoward the North country the Dappa onesgo toward the South Country so here theFour Winds are representing the fourdirections of the compass that so that'svery helpful in other words the um thelittle horn there SoCal little horn it'shorn from littleness right starts offlittle but then it becomes the Arnoldschwarzer horn right um big big Burlyhorn okay but it's it comes um from oneof the directions right toward whichthat is the winds which is justdirections and to which the uh Empire ofAlexandersplit I think to the question I think wehave to go to the terms used there inDaniel 11:22 you have nagid and you haveburit and they're in a constructrelationship I guess right R can you seethat thepeople okay we've got 11:22 up here isthat what you're looking at yes 22 lasttwo words the last two words is Nagibreit very good okay right there inconstruct which which means constructmeans two nouns next to each other orwords used as nouns um that are in agenitival relationship between them soit's one of the other and that of cansimply puts those words in arelationship which can mean manydifferent things depending upon thecontext so here it's nagid breath theprince notice it's translated of theCovenant what does that mean yeah it'sit's a relationship between the nagidand the Covenant they belong together insome way or form and when you look nowwhere nagid is used in Daniel umprobably you will go back to Danielchapter 9 verse 26 for example therenagid is used and the bit of course isused several times here in Daniel 11 youhave it in Daniel 1128 there it is uhused with the adjective Holy HolyCovenant uh same in Daniel 11:30 HolyCovenant of course it is also used inDaniel 113 2 just Covenant there and theHoly Covenant it seems for us is acovenant related to God something isHoly because God made it holy so it itwould be the Divine Covenant in verse 30and uh28 uh if the nagid is related toCovenant the question would be to whichCovenant would it be related is it theDivine Covenant in 30 and 28 or 28 and30 or is it the Covenant in 32 whichcould refer to just any Covenant you dobetween two majorPowers but here it just appears likethis it has no article nothing it's notthe the the nagid of the Covenant it'sjust Covenant nagit Covenant Prince andand so Adventist Scholars agree exceptfor one I know which makes it not ananchor Point all agree on but there isone who does say it's not the HolyCovenant but they agree it's theCovenant and then nid is the prince andPrince of the Covenant who is that andthen you say it's Jesus Christ becausewho else would be a prince of a covenantit might not be a high priest highpriest is not called The Prince of theCovenant never anywhere I guess youmight disagree if you know of any pointwhere he is so you're disagreeing withthe prist interpretation prist meansthat everything is fulfilled in the pastso the little horn is all back in thepast in the time of Antiochus epiphaniesand according to that view they takeonas III the high priest in those daysas the prince of the Covenant but whatyou're saying is that doesn't workbecause that language never applies to ahigh priest yes and and it locates it ofcourse then in the first century in thepower of pagan Rome let me say it justone more word if Pagan Rome is not inDaniel 8 it is not a reason why it's notin Daniel 11 it's the same thing like Ihere people argue it's in Daniel 7 so itmust be in Daniel 8 why yeah I meanBabylon is not there too the reason isobvious because Babylon has almost cometo an end but we're in the reign of KingBaza but still it's not there so do weneed to find itno so why is it so important to findpagan Rome in Daniel 8 if it has not aconsequence for Daniel 11 or for theinterpretation of Daniel 7 I think toput Pagan Rome inmight be a reflection of thinking backtomethodology we need to find history forthese uh interpretations here for thesesymbolic uh things symbolic Daniel 7 and8 and and we argue from historysometimes and I think we should startfrom the text as we have said yesterdayand if the text would not allow it Idon't need to see it there MH all rightUmi and then we have brother Greg backhere there is uh there's a lot moredetail in Daniel 11 than Daniel 8 butthat seems to be a pattern in the Bookof Daniel and uh um you know chapter 8gives us some more inform well chapter 7gives us some more information thanchapter 2 and I think chapter 8 gives usmore information than chapter7 and I think there's some value inseeing the little horn in chapter 8 ascoming out of one of the horns ratherthan one of theWinds because just as you have ablurring of the third and fourthkingdoms when you come to chapter8 there is also the blurring continuingin chapter 11 where the King of theNorth can be both a Greek entity and aRoman entity so I see a progressiontaking place in the Book ofDaniel okay thank you uh brother Gregand then we have a comment at the fronthere yeah I appreciate this uh some ofthe key words such as Prince naged ofthe Covenant being explained this isvery helpful can you put the microphoneup to your mouth Greg ohI I appreciate the prince idea of nagedand being my question is in Daniel 9:26about the ruler who will come the otherruler in Daniel 9:26 what is the Hebrewthere 9:26 the ruler who willcome is that also naged yes that's alsonaged and this is where it's many peopleget confused particularly ourdispensationalist brothers take thistext and they make it into somethingelse instead ofhistorical and so that key word rightthere is also NE a negative power ananti- Christ if you will and I think itwas probably Titus at the time but I'dlove to hear yourthoughts just so you know on that issuethere are some Adventists that say thenagid who comes some say it refers toRome and some say it refers to theJewish people so even among advenScholars it's not like there's completecontinuity um on how to interpret thatif you read uh Bill Shay's commentary Ibelieve he he points out that there arethose two positions among AdventistScholars just for your point ofreference okay but I think the point iswell made that the nagid of uh Daniel9:26 the the troops of the prince who isto come as my version translates it weshould not um assume that this nagid isJesus Christ this is another Powereither Titus and coming to Rome or maybethe Jews around the time of the fall ofRome but it isn't Jesus Christ um wehave a question from the front here canyou give your name brother yeah TerryNelson and my question is referred backto uh my brother here when you made thisstatement that horns are alwaysreligiouspolitical and yet when we look at theram in Daniel 2 those two horns are notreligious they're just political when welook at the horn in the hego that's justpolitical that's that's Alexander theGreat and it just makes sense to me andI'm I'm wanting feedback I guess myquestion is if Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 andDaniel 8 and Daniel 11 are repeat inenlargement it it doesn't make sense tome that there would be a leaving out inDaniel 8 of pagan Romebecause you have it into and you can'tat least in my thinking at least youcan't leave you can't just say wellBabylon wasn't part of it so you don'thave to have Pagan Rome because as yousaid Pagan uh Babylon was about to bedone and so it's looking at the futurebut one of the major persecutors ofGod's church was Pagan Rome and so I Ijust don't see that we leave that out ofthere and try to blend that with with proom so I guess I'm I'm asking you howhow is it that you say that the hornsare always religious political when wesee evidence that that's not always thecase maybe that depends on my German I'mI'm not sure if I said that what I meantis that the horn the one horn the smallhorn is religious political very clearlyfrom Daniel 7 I do not mean that anyhorns are I mean you have out side ofDaniel you have horns and they justrefer to power of course but in Daniel 7and Daniel 8 this the horn fromsmallness that is a religious politicalpower it's it's different than the otherones um now I can live with the PaganRome face there know I I have written inthe interpreting scripture which Gfundle edited for the BR and there Igive two versions and I give the reasonsfor the one and the reason for the otherso I can live with it okay but I justwant you to understand that we come froma interpretative point of view to seePagan Rome in there we do not work withthe text the only thing for the textspeaking for Pagan Rome is that you seesomething like a masculine femininegender change or maybe horizontalvertical but who says that thisidentifies a differentface I don't know uh let me put it thisway and then I I close with Daniel 8because we're here for Daniel 11 right Iit it seems like I'm on the defense heremy defense committee asked probably thesame question um but uh let me put itthis way in Daniel 7 the mostinteresting thing in Daniel 7 for Danielis the little horn do you agree mhmbecause that's when he comes to theinterpretation he asks questions aboutthe little horn about the four and thelittle horn specifically and theexplanation in Daniel 7 starts focusingon the little horn as tari explainedit's kind of a more detailed here youyou get the the the look through themagnifying glass on the horn now itseems to me that would continue the thiskind of narrative in Daniel 8 you justuse the heod and the the REM and the hego as a backdrop but the real player inDaniel 8 is the little horn even in theinterpretation the angel just mentionsin oneClause the the ram in one Clause thehegot and then he comes to the king andexplains a lot about the king So Daniel8 is not about Greece and metor Persiabefore it is about the littlehorn so why not skip the player inbetween to say okay just focus now onthe little horn do not focus on RomePagan pH or we are talking here about areligious War a cultic war and all thelanguage from chapter 8 from verse 9 onin my view is indicating hey cult cultcultcult and I I have a hard time to to seethat this is referring in any way toPagan Rome Pagan Rome has nothing to dowith cultyes they persecuted the Christian churchin the fact they they made the order tocrucify Christ yes but they were notinterested in in offering a differentcult to The Cult of God I guess allright um we have we have a question fromthe back here yeah and I just before askthis question I do want to affirm thetime we've spent thus far on this thoughbecause our huic has been en llarge andexpand so this is a foundation for wherewe're going we can go ahead and getready to move we do have one morequestion on this topic so it is veryappropriate and appr propo to what we'retalking about and we do appreciate thetime you've spent on it thank you okayum yeah I I hope I haven't beencompletely cut off by uh Martin by umsaying we're not going to discuss it I Ithink there's something else in the textin Daniel 8 that it's not just thevertical horizontal and the gender umvariances there but there's the thetriple gal which is uh magnifying andand the idea is that you know this thisword gdal is found in chapter 11 as wellhe magnifies himself above every God uhin the in verse 30 somewhere around 36to39 so it's not just the the littlehorn that acts in this gdal way it'sit's the the RAM and the heot and itwould indicate that it's they're all allreligious I think someone mentioned thisthey're all have a political andreligious aspect they all magnifythemselves in some way and that that youknow the emperor cult in in Rome was oneof these these ways of the magnifying ofthe emperor to the to the position of aGod but that didn't start there theGreeks did it uh you know Alexander theGreat was declared a a a God and so wasCyrus and and many of the other uhPersian accented uh emperors so there isa a continualmagnifying this word gdal which is alsoused to magnify against the prince so Ithink there's that that aspect and juston the aspect of the little horn havingto be the same in chapter 8 as it is inchapter 7 there are differentperspectives each chapter brings and inchapter 7 they all come out out of waterwhereas in chapter 8 they're coming fromdifferent directional horizontaldirections not out of water not out ofthe same uh vantage point and also whatuh tari was saying regarding there's athere's a sense of blurring it made methink of the fact that in chapter 7 it'sgot teeth like iron just like the thelegs but it also has claws like bronzejust like the the uh the waste of ofbronze so there there does seem to beeach chapter doesn't correlate exactlyso just because it's called the hornfrom littleness in chapter 7 and 8doesn't mean it's exactly the sameperspective on that horn from littlenessit could have multiple phases especiallywith the multiple uses of yeah that'sit's interesting to say that brotherBrendan there was um for my pains I didLatin at school till I was 18 I had toread a lot of Latin poetry and in thefirst century many of the Roman writersbemoaned the fact that while they hadconquered Greece militarily Greece hadconquered Rome culturally and theyrecognized that that that there was a Dthere's a dynamic interplay Romeconquered militarily but the Greek theRoman writers themselves um like catalusthe poet recognize that Greece hadconquered Rome culturally we'll take acomment from over here and then we'lltake our first breakyes Ibelieve that in order to understandchapter8 we must take into toaccount Daniel'sconcern we see in the Book ofDaniel thatDaniel is concerned aboutGod isconcerned about the Temple ofJerusalem is concerned aboutJerusalem is is concerned aboutIsrael the Covenantpeople in Chapter 2 and in chapter7Romedoesn'tanything against the Jews the Covenantpeople it is in chapter8 that wesee that ROMs destroys thetempleROMs broken theMessiah Pagan Rome RomedesolatesJerusalem and almostdestroy the people of God it's Pagan Drit is not Papr all right thank you um may just have aPS on that what you're saying is Daniel9 is the explanation of the vision ofDaniel 8 and there you have pag and Ruplay an important place yes which Daniel9 explain Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 alsoexplains Daniel8 all right it's it's kind of a realityif we lived in the 2nd Century ad wewould be focusing on the p the Paganaspect of Rome not knowing that therewould be a Papal aspect because of ourvantage point in history we see PaganPagan Imperial a republican Imperial andthen p a Papal Rome so we have much moreNuance to this understanding and maybewe are making distinctions that a secondcentury reader ad of this passage wouldnot have had any idea about Pap Rome tocome all they know is there is bad newscoming down the track um but we can lookback with from history and make thosedistinctions uh this is the question yousaid what did Daniel hear and what do weread well we have the we have thatvantage point I I I have not a goodfeeling about that because if I go a fewcenturies earlier they would see I'mTigers epiphaniesMH uh yeah I I'm not aware of uh I'm notaware of any Christians writing in thesecond century that that was ontosEpiphany take the seent the septent isfor me a a biased translation in Daniel8 mhm and I think if you see it has afew additions there I think it we somecould argue that it refers to Tigersepiphanies mhm well some could argue butI would I would say they're not correctBrotherMartin from theage point look it up foryourself con yes yes all right we willtake a 10-minute break now we'll gatherback and begin again at 10 10 thank youoneyou have a question okay when we stop[Music]speI I apprciate[Music]now he is right I'veread ohyeahno it's justsecond[Music]thought[Music][Music][Music]I never heard[Music]B probably have moreagreement people[Music]right but uh what aboutokay well but you know Imean three[Music]the g lwas the guythis[Music]last[Music][Music][Music][Music]could[Music][Music]did did youread inter[Music]right[Music]PR[Music]ch[Music]the[Music]at the same time colia you know granted[Music][Music]all right if we could ask everybody togather back together uh we shallcontinue with ourdiscussion andum we'll take a final comment on thenagidberth if we can uh take your please takeyour seats and we will get underway uhwe have a lot of a lot of distance tocover and we haven't even got to thetext where there'sdisagreement uh so we're still on theareas of agreement and um I would saythis if this if you are a married coupleand this is your area of agreement thenyou need to have marriage counselingimmediately so um welcome back everybodyand Todd are we live again okay thankyou welcome back to our viewers aroundthe world we're delighted you can bewith us and uh as we begin our nextsession let's just bow our heads againand ask for the leading of God's spiritso shall wepray Heavenly Father we claim again thepromise of your Holy Spirit father whenDaniel Prayed you sent an angel to giveunderstanding and father we are askingyou to the same for us this morning injesus' name we humbly ask a amen beforewe move on from this question of the theprince of the Covenant we have a commentfrom Brother Engel Yoda and uh brotherangle he has the black microphone Todduh we if you want touh does your microphone workthere okay can you speak up for usplease yes uh thank you for taking onemore question uh regarding verse22 uh you have it there in anchor textand uh I I question whether it should bean anchor text notbecause uh the prince of theCovenant is not Christ but the thetiming of thistext and U and I think the key is in theword uhbroken does thatmean putting to deathI raise this because uh Edwin theeltheel in his syllabus that he used toteach I think atpu uh outlines on Daniel and alsoMaxwell in his book God cares put thisverse in the MiddleAges because and they put uh theprevious verse as the introduction ofpapal Rome as the vile person or thecontemp ableperson uh and with h if that's the casewell then what follows is in the time ofpaperRome and uh and they interpretbroken not meaning putting todeath but to be broken figuratively isto bebrokenhearted and the wordbroken isshabar and it means brokendoes not mean to be put to death and ofthe 149 times it's never used to be putto death or to die in fact there'sone uh definition that means to bring tobirth and it's used that way to bring tobirth I think inIsaiah uh only on one occasion butthat's just the opposite of being put todeath and so uhuh I don'tand both Maxwell and the have havepassed awayunfortunately uh but uh Carlos MOAagrees with that the vileperson is uh the introduction of papalRome in verse21 all right I I don't know what he saysabout verse 22 but that was in a paperpresented Ed in in Rome lastyear and so uh I just want to put thatto the panel if anyone has a comment allright thank you that's an excellentquestion brother Engel uh Roy I'm shdictionary of classical Hebrew on thenifal which is the form that appears inDaniel um 11:22 nifal is the passiveform um and here is the dictionary ofclassical Hebrew and their entry showingone of the various meanings of this verbin the Neal which is the passive okayand this is very nice because since Idid the search from that verse it pullsup in red and shows me exactly where ourreference is okay so here it can meanbroken can mean be injured be crushed bedestroyed um of people B Babylon and I'mshowing I don't know if you can see butdown in the um little down in the littlewindow down at the bottom it's kind ofsmall text I've been trying to make itbigger um it's showing okay I can justit's hypertext so I just click on thathere's one instance oh there now now Ican make it bigger that's good suddenlyBabylon has fallen and been broken I canverify that that is speaking of the sameHebrew word by putting that up and nowhere we have Tisha bear same wordBabylon has been destroyed has fallenand has been broken so that means theend of Babylon right um and then we havethe cushion ites here's another one andall of these people the Ethiopians noneof them remained alive for they werebroken before the Lord and his army okayso they didn't they fell and they didn'ta for none of them mik to be alivebecause they were broken so this isspeaking about the death of Christ inDaniel11:22 Danel 11 it uses the same word uhhis kingdom will bebroken in Daniel11:4 U his kingdom shall be broken thisis uh yes about Alexander the Greatbeing broken yeah very good okay that'ssame word and he was uh he died and andthere it is in verse 4 as soon as he isArisen his kingdom shall be broken umall right in this case it means brokenup right well tats let's see shall bebroken and divided Tisha bear there itis so Alexander the Great Kingdom didn'tcome to an end so to speak it came to anend as it was in that form as a UnitedKingdom and then it was broken so youhave to look at the context of what itmeans I just want to come to sorry Ijust want to come to the um subject ofThis Niall the beginning of verse 22sayszeru when you Roy could you go back toto the Nal ofshabar when you look in halot the Hebrewand Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testamentwhen that word is used with the nifal ofthe verb it does talk about destructionthe references are in Jeremiah48:25 it says the Horn of Moab is cutoff and his arm same word is broken okayso cut off parallels broken Ezekiel30:22 therefore thus says the Lord Godbehold I'm against pharaoh king of Egyptand I will break his arms both thestrong arm and the one that is broken Iwill make the sword fall from his handso he's talking about the decimation ofEgypt and we know that that happenedhistorically by Babylon so you have tolook at what is the the antecedent ofthis third masculine um plural verb andthe verb before that comes from shitathat also is n fall and perfect thirdmasculine plural so the Zer that's youhave to look at these verbs in theirstem in their conjugation with theobject and see does it occur when itmeans to be eradicated or to be brokenoff or to be killed you just can't lookup a verb by itself you have to look atthe words that occur with it and then wecan draw conclusions after we do agrammatical and syntactical Analysisokay that's an excellent response uhMartin and to further it is a word usedalready in Daniel 8 four times and it isused there specifically for the end of apower or a kingdom so I think Daniel 11is using that wordbasically flagging the fly the flag herehello uh again think back about Daniel8 it's gone it's death So Daniel 11:22speaks about the death of the prince oftheCovenant okay thank youit is interesting tonote that in verse22 the wordSer that literally meansarms in thecontext is translated asarmies also the verbshat that literally means toinundate is translatedas wipeaway ordestroy it is a figure oflanguage in the thirdClause where it says and even the princeof theCovenant is an incompleteclause and there it doesn'tappear the wordshat but in the context and because usesthe adverb gumalso besides the armies that would bedestroyedalso the king of the Covenant would bedestroyed okay thank you so we'rehearing a variety of of linguistic andsyntactical and vocabulary relatedreasons why this is the death of theprince of the Covenant um we have aquestion here and then we have agentleman at the back Philipe if I mayjust go back for a moment to Daniel 7where we were talking about the littlehorn and uh I appreciate the fact thatwe must begin with the text and then tryto interpret that text and also I wouldsay that we should look at thefoundational beginnings of where we arecoming from now I'm reading verse 24 inDaniel7 the 10 horns are 10 Kings who shallarise from this Kingdom and anothershall arise after them he shall bedifferent different from the first onesand shall subdue threekings now the traditional Adventistunderstanding of this has been that itrefers to the 10 Germanic Barbariantribes now in history that has nothappened this verse 24 that uhthis horn that will ariseafter subduing three has not happened inhistory even though we say that itrefers to 10 Germanic Barbarian tribeswell first of all there were not 10there were probably many more than10 and then uh the papacynever uhdestroyed three out of those 10 out ofthe 10 tribes so what do we concludefrom that it has to be futureistic if it hasn't happened in historyit has to happen at some point in timein the future uh thank you brother youwe're opening up a whole another area ofdiscussion and interpretation that's notreally related to Daniel 11 right so I ISu you've asked the question but um ifwe don't focus on where we are in Daniel11 we 11 should be understood andinterpreted but we will spend the restof the day arguing were the alaman andthe Angles and the Saxons and the heryand the vandals and the Huns how many ofthem were were there and when when werethey and who were they and um we'llnever get to the bottom of thatparticular Rabbit Hole today although Irespect the question you asked umbrother Felipe at the back and then uhPastor here from montro where there is alot of snow Iunderstand um it's still in um inregards to1122 uh I agree and I've in the othermoment that I spoke that Daniel 11doeses compound several verbs andexpressions of several um propheciesoutside of it especially relating topowers that attacked the people of Godin different moments um of Israel'shistory we have a specic specific ususage of chatav and avar that appearsall over Daniel 11 so you see like inDaniel 11 uh 10uh overflow and pass through which shallkeep coming and overthrow and passthrough we have at the end in verse 40again so the countries and shall overflow and pass through and there's a arepetition at least of one of thoseverbs shat in two different occasions soyou have in verse 26 his army shall beswept away and you have in verse 22which which is the verse we were talkingabout armies shall be utterly swept awaythis combination of verbs only occuroccur outside of Daniel in um Isaiah 11and it's pretty interesting to see thatthere you see oh sorry Isaiah 8 thereit's uh the prophecy is talking aboutAssyria and how Assyria goes over thecountry of Judah and uh overflows it asa great River and uh and pass throughthe country destroying everything and inverse eight you have the specific samecombination of words that you find inDaniel 11 and it will sweep unto Judahthe Great River of Assyria it willoverflow and pass on reaching even tothe neck and its outspread wings willfeel the breath of your land oh Emmanuelit's talking about the the Messiah soabout Emmanuel the Overflow of that landthrough the same combination of verbsand that's even I think when you uh keeplooking into the language of the verse22 the the use of nagid that Covenantthat only appear within Daniel in Daniel9 and in Daniel 11 so it's a sequence ofwords that combine the language ofDaniel 11 and combine the language of aprophecy dealing with the invasion of aNation with in Judah and quotingspecifically the Messiah so uh this useof language just it's just a comment onwhat you were saying uh I think it it uhsupports the idea that this is the deathof the prince of the Covenant this thisdeals with with Christ okay thank you umbrother uh Michael I jent Pastor herecan you raise your hands again forpastor Kelly okay thank you Michael justa quick comment because I think it isrelevant for determining who the Nagiband barit are referring to the theprince of the Covenant in Daniel 11:22there is actually one other occasion uhand that's in Isaiah 55 where Nagib andbarit are associated at least with manyinterpreters this is seen as a Messianicuh prophecy here in Isaiah 55 but youactually have there in verse um 3 and 4um incline your ear come to me your soulshall live I will I will make anEverlasting Covenant with you even foruh uh even the sure mercies of throughDavid behold I have given him for awitness to the people a leader a princeand Commander to the people this isagain typically understood as Messianicand so at least you have one otherconnection where Nagib and bit are verylikely referring to Christ so okay uhthank you very much it's justinteresting to me as we have thisdialogue together that we find bit bybit all the bits of evidence that leadto the UN conclusion that this verse istalking about the death of the Messiahand um uh it's been fascinating so far apastor you have a comment to share withus and give us your name first FritzFritz Creer okay if it's talking aboutthe death of Christ then the vile personhas to betiberious who doesn't seem that worthyof mentioned to me the vile person isthe sub is the antecedent of all theHees and the hymns to the end of thatchapter and so that couldn't betiberious and Maxwell and some otherslink the vile person to the papacy backto D Daniel 8 I think what 8 and N inthere and the question I have for thepanel is normally apparently refers todeath but could it be could could thatthe meaning of that wordalso um have a little bit anotherapplicationbecause the identification of the vileperson is pretty crucial to the the restof this chapter that's right it's notone of the anchor texts though we'llwe'll get to that uh later when we whenwe deal with those level of detail um Ithink one thing that we need to do bythe way is let's look back at ouranchored texts list and we haveestablished I think pretty much Generalagreement that Xerxes is that fourthking um generally I in verse three in incomparison with Daniel chap 8 where theuh great king it is explicitly mentionedas a king of Greece in Daniel8:21 this mighty king here who arisesafter that fourth King which is Xerxesis Alexander the Great now you noticethat there's a major Gap there here inthe text and that's going to become avery important pattern that Xerxes goesagainst Greece and then that's the endwe hear of the Persians even thoughthere were a whole series of morePersian Emperors Kings and and then sohe goes against Greece he loses againstGreece and then the next verse we hearabout what happens with Greece so mightyking is Alexander and and I thinkeverybody I don't think we even have todiscuss this do we it's Alexander theGreat um then we have the division ofthe four kingdoms and and this is justlike we were talking about in Danielchapter 8 may I say something in versefour before yeah yeah sure please youknow it's interesting that uh as someoneremarked here the word shavar to breakis used hereand I think that's an echo of chapter 8since this is a commentary on chapter 8because there you have in chapter 8:8the fact that the Great Horn is brokenso it's the same expression there anywaygo go ahead sorry that was aninterruption no that's all right that'sgood so in other words that's relatingdirectly to the event in 88 would haveto agree on that right uh this is intrait's not intertextualityit's intra within the text of the Bookof Daniel itself okay so Daniel isinterpreting Daniel the first place youlook in ex Jesus is always within thesame context and especially within thesame book because it's the same umwriter um we assume but then thequestion is and there is oneinterpretation as I mentioned that inDaniel 11 then verse 5 once you have thebreakup of the Four Winds into the fourGreek kingdoms then one interpretationtakes verse 5 to be then the papacy forthe reason that I gave uh based upon thestructure in Daniel 8 but what what weneed to ask the panel is this and andthat is to say what is the relationshipbetween Verses 4 and five who are theseKing who's this King of the South andthen there's a king of the North inverse 6 does this completely skip overthe solids and the tommies the way thatone view would have it uh and or is thisreally the solids and the tommies theway almost all interpreters take itpredat historicists and andeveryone before we try to answer thatquestion again I want tocome um to these issues first andforemost from Daniel's perspective sowhat does Daniel see he sees conflictbetween the King of the North and theKing of theSouthso as we see the whole tra trory we notesomething a point that Daniel isactually making before we go to thehistorical umapplication it's always the King of theNorth that attacks the faithful so thisis the first thing that Daniel seesbefore we I just I don't want us tobypass what is actually happening in thetext you're right and I didn't I Ididn't intend for that I know you didn'tI agree with you Jordan that always thetext profile is what has to govern anyapplication so just raising the questionin terms of the application so we goback to the text and and um evaluatethat sure so before we start going tothe sald the tommies I just want to makethat point that what Daniel is saying isthat there's this conflict and as um mybrother Samuel pointed out that it'sDaniel's concern you know for his peoplefor the Messiah for the the holy thingsof God and if you just follow thetrajectory of the text I think the firstpoint that we have to see is that Danielis seeing that the conflict against thepeople of God against God himself iscoming from the King of the North oncewe have established that and we haveseen that's the flow of the text then wecan start asking these historicalquestions and then that can be a controlmechanism for how we understandhistoricalapplications because it has to be whatis happening in terms of the conflictagainst the people of God it's just wecan't random ly grab things from historyand say oh if it's here if it's here butwhat is the concern that Daniel is umhaving addressed by the angel and that'sthe conflict against his people theconflict against the Messiah theconflict against the holy things of Godso now that we have at least had a aconsciousness of concern that Daniel hasnow we can start I think trying to get asense of how do we even answer thosequestions when it comes to thehistoricala as Dr Roy has said that you can readalmost any interpreter of thischapter and they you know the thehistory of the toames in Egypt and thesolids in in Syria uh there's almostUniversal agreement vers by verse as wego from chap verse four onwards uh downum for at least 10 verses on on theinterpretation of this the battlesbetween the solids and the toids umalmost every interpreter of every streamof interpretation agrees on that so thequestion is really sort of syntacticalgrammatical semantic what is is there aclose language relationship betweenthese kingdoms divided toward the FourWinds of Heaven which are Greek and thenthe King of the South is there anyconnection between them or is this Kingof the South just sort of pulled out ofair and it's just somewhereelse Amanda well I I don't know if thisis on oh it is okay so in verse four wehave theum the horns going towards the sorry notthe horns but the kingdom being brokenup into the Four Winds and as we sawearlier Four Winds has a tendency tomean the compass points so now we'retalking about okay it was broken up intothese Compass points now we're talkingabout specific Compass points South andNorth so I think just the fact that thatphrase actually means differentdirections on the compass so to speak umthat is a strong indicator that that'srelated to verse four and as uh theancient Jews knew the uh invasions ofIsrael normally came from the directionof the North or from the direction ofthe South as people moved around thefertile cresant it makes sense fromDaniel's perspective to be talking aboutNorth and South rather than say East andWest uh brother Brendan has a a commentthen we'll come to brothertassi um so so there's kind of threedifferent different ways of looking andthey're not all mutually exclusive ofthe North and South they can be asyou're mentioning Compass points whichhas a lot of validity because of theconnection of verse uh um the two versesand the proximity there's also thequestion are they North and South inrelation to each other you know is northnorth of South and South is south ofnorth that one seems to be a little bitof circular reasoning or as as has beenbrought out is um by Jeromethe the context here is Israel in factin chapter 10 it's I'm going to tell youwhat's going to happen to your peopleand so this is a very Israel Centric uhdiscussion that's going oninterpretation that's going on so is itNorth and South because if we just gonorth of if we just go on its own Northand South out of the four Compass pointsthe lmus was really the northern of thethe four umdiodi Visions not ccus until he tookerov uh whereas ccus was more theancient area of Babylon which itself hascalled uh the Babylonian King was calledthe king out of the north from a from anIsrael perspective so is there somethingto do with that ancient idea thatAssyria and Babylon are theprototypes uh or the archetypes of ofthis idea of a king of the north andtherefore is north and south in relationto Israel not just in relation to eachother and not just Compass uh Compasspoints so when I say Compass points Idon't mean like literally you knowlooking at a map with latitude andlongitude exactly true north true Southum but in terms of the geographicallocation of Israel when and I think Royhas got a map up there you can see umthat when they were attacked by AssyriaBabylonthose armies even though technicallymaybe at some point we're south at leastBabylon um they came from the northbecause they went around the FertileCrescent not through the through thedesert and Egypt is not exactly duesouth of Israel either but it is whenthe uh the Egyptian pharaohs would comeup to conquer in that area they camefrom the south so it's not exactly a youknow perfect GPS locator kind of acompass point so Compass isn't really agreat use maybe not the best word to usebut it is talking about directions yeahin Jeremiah 1 ver4 Amanda is absolutelyright Jeremiah 1 ver14 and uh TimRosenberg pointed this out to meyesterday uh then the Lord said to meJeremiah out of the out of the Northdisaster shall be let loose upon all theinhabitants of the land which means thatthe north is the direction from whichthat power enter is the land of Israelthat's what's relevant and that's whysome are called the King of the Northit's true that the sald Empire uhincluded a lot of um Asia Minorstretched over to India at one point umit was very very much to the east but itwas also to the north and when they cameand they entered into uh the U land ofIsrael they came from the north becausehere's all desert as Amanda said theyhad to come from this direction and thenfrom Egypt the South everyone comeseither from the North or from the Southif they're coming by land to the land ofIsrael okay brothertosing you you asked thequestion no whether we know that theKing of the South is one of the uh fourthat broke up from the uh the great kingwell when when a new entity isintroduced in Hebrew there's a way inwhich that's normally done now Daniel ispost exilic Hebrew in some ways and soDaniel is a late Hebrew which doesn'tfollow all the rules of early andclassical Hebrew but still you wouldexpect a new a new person or a newentity to be introduced by being placedfirst in a sentence in Hebrew and that'snot what you have here so in verse fiveyou have the normal word order which isthe verb comes first and then you havethe subject and which tells me nothingnew is being introduced here it must beone of those for good point thank youthat's a very important point I meansome people say this is the introductionof the papacy which would be a whole newkind of power um but what you're sayingbrother tari is that the the this howthe sentence is structured indicatesthat this is uh one of the existingcoming out from the existing Powers yesyes it's a continuation rather than anew topicokay is this a conclusive argument doyou always have a a topic front a topicfronting not always but you would inother words you would naturally read itas a continuation yeah so no it doesn'thappen 100% of the time but it happensmore by the way in pre-exilicHebrew okay brother Jerome just a quickquestion um with regard to the pointthat he made about verse five is how dowe understand the previous clause and toothers besides these cuz I think thathas an important factor and how do weunderstand now the relationship of theKing of the North and the King of theSouth is it referring to the breakuptowards these four directions or is itreferring to and to others besides theseI think we need to wrestle with thatquestion before we start making thehistoricalapplication okay yes that is a goodpoint because the one who deviates saysthese three words areimportant in BiblicalHebrew especially when we arereading a predictive discourse as Daniel11 when Gabriel used AALform he was trying toindicatesuccessioncontinuity here in verse five is away is away theway as far as I understand indicateindicatesconsequence orresult what Godissaying as aconsequence of of what I have saidbefore it will happen this the King ofthe South will becomestrong he isexplainingabout thecontinuation ofGrace mhm justdivided all right does that answer yourquestion brother JamI I don't think that that answers thequestion I I think you know when you seethe switches between the King of theSouth and King of the North there's notalways a VI you know there the thegrammar shifts so you sometimes you havexal sometimes you have vatal so I I'mnot persuaded I'm not saying it's notcorrect but but I I just don't see thatbeing a grammatical argument you canmake throughout the wholechapter as we read the discourse ofDaniel if we find agual it indicatessuccession if weread an ex ytoClause the the AAL CLA indicateselaborationdescriptionexplanationEtc the verbal form way appears severaltimes in Gabrielle's discourse at leastappears seven or eight times and inevery Clause that has the way to formindicates consequence orresult so the implications of whatyou're saying is that the the the theverbal structure used indicates acontinuation in verse 5 of The Power ofverse four yes as a consequence of whathappensbefore then comes this and if it's aconse it's it's a continuation of whatcomes before what comes before isAlexandria's Empire then what'shappening afterwards is happening withinAlexander's Empire hence the toies andthe solids yes the empire was dividedand after it was divided into four lowerkingdoms now is pointing to the kingdomof the north and later on to the kingdomof the S okay thank you Amanda but the Iif I'm understanding you're correctlyyou're saying that the verb beginningverse five is a v to is that what you'resaying yes but it'snot it's a it's a v it's a v it's a vveconjunction not a vve consecutive Ididn'tsay okay that's I'm sorry I just wantedto clarify what you saying I thought yousayingokay these I think we need to talk justfor a moment aboutthear the question that jum asked andwhat he was saying was the implicationsof this that his kingdom who is thatwhose kingdom is that well it's thekingdom of Alexander the Great right uhI mean okay but let's skip the historyall right um if if that's the case thenthis individual this King whoever thatis which okay um then his kingdom isbroken and divided toward the Four Windsof heaven but not to his after part thatis his posterity apparently hisdescendants he doesn't establish adynasty is what the text is saying rightand not according to his power becauseit's split up none of them have hispower they all wanted it and they triedto get it for the next couple hundredyears uh and that's why they fought thatwith which he ruled because his kingdomshall be plucked up and go to othersbesides these these referring to hisposterity now it's true that that wordfor posterity orafterpartz is a a plural but when yourealize that Theo the singular can be acollective yes Collective referring to agroup then it's no grammatical problemand what it's saying is that thisKingdom that this King did not manage toestablish a dynasty and the kingdom wasbroken to others besides his descendantsthat's what it's saying right do do wehave agreement on thatat least from me you agree okay we canhave a vote what do you think Martin Ithink that must be the explanation thatthe plural La refers back touh refers back to the referend behindthe The Descendant hisdescendant um I can understand thatuh this other colleague would say itdoesnot um because grammatically it isdifficult but if you say it's it's acollective singular and it's like thepeople people is I'm a singular and youcan refer back to it with a plural ifyou want to stress there are manyreference within the arm and probablyyou should say Al Alexander whoever thatKing is he had some descendant pluralmaybe that was expected for a king tohave many who would come after him andno one of theseyes the kingdom is given to by the wayhow many descendants did Alexandrahave he had mainly mainly one infant sonwho was murdered wasn't he murdered yeahum but but this idea would be referringto so history would not be a good thingto start with right at this time whatwas that again history would not be agood idea to start with to explain uhwhat it means because we do not havethese there are no more than but as yousaid it's expected that a king is goingto have a lot of different descendantcuz he had many do we not see in the NewTestament the Apostle Paul discussesGod's promises to Abraham and to hisseed uh and and God's promise to Eve andher seed but the Apostle Paul narrows itdown to just to Jesus in Galatianschapter 3 we normally read um TheOffspring of of Eve in Genesis 3 and thepromises to Abraham in Genesis 12 wasplural but um Paul narrows it down tojust the one offspring that is JesusChrist in Galatians 3 we see a similarum plural and plural Clum set but anindividual application uh can we move onto uh the next passage where there isseems to be agreement and uh if if um ifif you're smiling because these are theagreement passages well um if we weredoing marriage counseling we say this isa marriage that has much opportunity forgrowth um but the next agreement passagethat we come across is 11: 301-35 and when we look across Adventistinterpreters um and many of them arehere today um who whove published inthis area there is a general sense that31 through 35 and we may differ in someof the details but this is referring toum Pagan Rome sorry papal Rome uh theunion of church and state um in itsspiritual and physical persecution ofthe saints of God and um so yes we havea hand raised hereum if you can give us your name brotherand then Pastor Kelly will bring you theum the microphone and uh gentlemen raiseyour hand againby um but this is a passage where thereseems to be General agreement that we'retalking about the persecution of theSaints by papal Rome so brother um ifyou can give us your name and yourcomment yes my name is OAwalker uh as I looked I'm I'm kind ofgoing back a little just before we moveto verses 31 on um I'm I'm looking atthe the text uh leading up to verse toverse22 and I am seeingwhere reference made to the King of theNorth he affected the people ofGod um can wait for the agreement heimposed taxes on the Glorious land andthenthe then he he he caused someis SweptAway swept away and broken is is is usedin in terms of his activity and thatactivity um even affected the prince ofthe Holy Land so it would appear to methat uh the power that would um affectthe people ofGod uh that would impose taxes on theGlorious land and affect the prince ofthe Messiah that power would not be ableto come out of umout ofGreece it doesn't appear so to me so uhwe would be to me there would be aconnection with Romethere good we'll get there yeah that'sgood so another words we we've uh prettymuch established I think that this textmoves from Alexander the Great in versethree uh through verse 4 the brokenKingdom into verse five and followingand then the question is how far do wego with the solids and the tommies fromthe North and the South and there aredifferent points at which AdventistScholars bail out and go to Rome and sowe have to discuss that and definitelythough however it has to be before or atleast by verse 22 which is your pointwhich is the death of Christ becauseChrist died under uh Imperial realm butof course that's um that's combininghistory and text again um but we'regoing to get there yeah uh so um verse31 it uh the English reads they shalltake away the daily sacrifice or justthe daily and place there theabomination ofdesolation and um almost universallyAdventist interpreters identify this asreferring to the uh the papal the papalera of the 1260 years of of Supremacy inEurope and persecution of the Saints umif we ask our scholar here is that awarranted conclusion based on thelanguage that we seehere yeahyes Ithink that we shouldlook in Gabrielle'sdiscoursewhere enters Rome into hisdiscourse either Pagan Rome or PapRome according to mystudies Pagan Rome starts in Daniel1121 and from verse21 thecontable person or vileperson continues active in the discourseofGabriel until verseTW uh45 from Daniel11:21 till verse45Gabrieldescribes the action of thecontableperson and from my point of view weshould startat that place and see where Pagan Romefinishes and when it starts P Rome andthen we can decide if that verse speaksabout people Rome or about pagan Romeokay thank you now uh I know we want tofocus on the the text first read the theinterpretation but I'm just throwingthis out depending on how you want tointerpret it uh what do we make of theKing of the South uh beginning in verse25 and how does that fit into the way weinterpret uh Rome whether it's papal orPagan I think I think we're going to getsidetracked into the controversial textif we do that the Divergence text thequestion from Conrad was um we have anyou're right what what we thought wasand and this is a question this is atest if this is really true but whatsome of us at least thought was Generalagreement on these verses and theirlanguage plug and their in texturerelation to Daniel 8 because in Daniel 8we get similar language see forces fromhim shall appear and so on and so shalltake away the burnt offering is not inthe text it just says the regular or theregularity um and we can talk about themeaning of that or maybe we won't but inany case in verse um back in Daniel 8see what is the power do we agree onwhich power um takes away I get makethat a little smaller there which is thepower that takes away the U the regularthe tamid and there's pretty muchGeneral agreement in adventism that thattamid is taken away by the papacy rightthis is all talking about the papacyhere so then the question is can weassume that because that language isused there and then there's the settingup of the abomination of desolation thedesolating abom comination in Daniel8:13 it refers to the transgression thatmakes desolate pesha is a rebellious sinthat makes desolate therefore we cancome to 11:31 and say within the streamof the flow of the narrative flow of theprophecy of the this interpretation inDaniel 11 we have arrived at at least bythis point we have arrived at the papacyand then we can go back and we can lookat the details we may have arrived atPagan or paper roome before this versebut in terms of like a function point intime can we agree that by 31 we'relooking at the papal supremacy of the1260 years that's the essential questionhere I saidbefore that Daniel'sconcernwas God's people the people of theCovenant and we must studywhere Gabriel talks about the Temple ofJerusalem that would bedestroyed according to Daniel 8 explainin Daniel 9 in Daniel9 the explanation of Gabrielis the city ofJerusalem and the sanctuary will bedestroyed it is the Heavenly Sanctuarythat would bedestroyed it would be the Jerusalem ofab that would bedestroyed or it is the Temple ofJerusalem and the City of Jerusalemthat would bedestroyed according to Daniel9:26 if Daniel 11 is an explanation ofDaniel8 we must lookwhere in at what pointGabriel explains about the destructionof the temple about thedesolation of the people ofIsrael till verse21 I have not seen the explanation ofGabriel mhmokay um I come back to what Roy said inmy dissertation I showed about 15 theremight be more relationships betweenDaniel 8 and Daniel 11 betweenthe the little horn in Daniel 8 and theKing of the North starting from first 3031 and it's very interesting to see thatthere are almost no relations to theDaniel 89 to4 text from the versesbefore so from verses four to let's sayI think the first one would be in verse27 there are no linguistic similaritiesfor importantwords um which shows to me when you cometo around verse 30 or 31 you are dealingwith a power which is described insimilar language like the little horn inDaniel8 if that would allow us to say it isthe same interpretativereference then we would gofurther um does it that's thequestion um yes there is almostUniversal agreement M but I know of oneat least one person who sees Daniel11:31 as the text to which Jesus refersto in Matthew 24:1 15 when he refersback not to Daniel 9 as we Adventistsusually say because he says from theGreek it is a a same kind of exact quotefrom Daniel11:31 so uh I don't know if you go inthat direction help me here but at leastthis person sees here the destruction ofJerusalem so to speak as a typical eventfor the destruction or the attempted weshould say the attempted destruction ofthe Heavenly Temple which is referred toin Daniel 8 now I do not believe this istrue because the reference between thereferences in the language are soclear at this point to the little hornin Daniel 8 that I think this should bethe little horn here this King of theNorth is the same as the little horn inDaniel 8 okay if we are trying to lookforparallelisms of Daniel 8 and Daniel11 in Daniel8 verse 9 itsays that the littlehorn would come out from one ofthem then it says each shall go to theSouth to theEast and to the Beautifulwhere the King of the North in Daniel11 firstgoes to theSouth where it goes to the East andwhere it goes to thebeautiful there we should startlooking at the text I'm not sure ifwe're can you speak up for thei yeah I'mnot sure if I don't mean to switch thetopic on this but you know we areassuming something uh in again goingback to the distinction betweenclassical Hebrew and late BiblicalHebrew uh it's very easy in a classicalHebrew narrative to tell the distinctionbetween when the story is moving forwardit's the next event in time and whenthings stop and you just have a seriesof Clauses that just describe somethingbut this is post exilic Hebrew this islate Biblical Hebrew and the the cluesaren't always there but I do ask thequestion is there is there a lot oftemporal progression going on here or dowe have a big long disc descriptionthat's not necessarily in temporalsequence I will answer Dr Lee'squestion it istruehistorical narrative in BiblicalHebrew if theClausebegins with a GU toneform theguo indicatessuccession in historicalnarrative in standardHebrew predictivediscourse if the Clause starts withAAL verbal form itindicatessuccession the same applies in the Bookof Daniel in Daniel 8 is a vision reportis similar to historicalnarrative in Daniel 8 wefind the guol verbal form indicatedindicating sucessioncontinuity in Daniel 11 is nothistoricalnarrative it is predictivediscourse and if the wal verbal forminitiates the Clause indicatessuccession Contin Contin to if theClause starts with a parle or ann and then comes the verbjto it indicat Gateselaborationexplanation contrast Etc I see in theBook ofDaniel F it is biblical late BiblicalHebrew also follows the same grammaticalrule of classical Hebrew yeah but if wedo that then we need to see how thatworks out I'm not sure it does but youknow that's why I'm asking I think weneed get back to the question which wehave been overlooking in verses 31 to 30do we say35 uh if if this is as Dr PR Martin wassaying if this does relate to the papacypassage in chapter 8 then what about thefollowing verses he that is he if that'sthe papacy the little horn shall seducewith flattery those who Ved the Covenantand so on and then many days they willstop or some days they'll stumble bysword flame captivity plunder is that apersecuting power is that little horn apersecuting power in chapter 7 andchapter 8 does that fit with that samepower and then um they'll receive alittle help many will join themselves tothem with flattery how does this whatdoes that mean and then after we figureout what the text means we can talkabout the history uh some of the Y shallstumble stumbling can refer to to deathin verse 19 it refers to the end of andof of a particular um power a particularKing we can find out who that is sothey'll be refined purified made whiteuntil the time of the end for it awaitsthe appointed time so that passage therewhat's that really talking about inrelation to chapters 7 and 8 um yeah mayI may may I just follow up here becauseuh the the reason why I mentioned thequestion of whether there's temporalsequence or not uh is related to whatyou were raising here you know uh arethese things do these things have tohappen after the setting up of theabomination of desolation that that'swhere I was going with those commentsokay Amanda so uh to your question isthis a persecuting power if you lookjust at verse 30 which is not one of ouranchor texts but it's immediatelypreceding our anchor text here it talksaboutum the the power becoming enraged andtaking action against the HolyCovenant which sounds very specificallylike a power that is persecuting um areligious people people group and italso seems to be maybe one of the textsthat Revelation later is is um maybe hasin mind with the the woman and her seedand then when he's not able to the thewater comes out and and the water isabsorbed into the Earth and he's upsetabout it the dragon right he goes andmakes War so Amanda what you're sayingthis the the text vers 30 it seems to bereferring to a persecuting powerpersecute persecuting the people of Godyes that may parallel the persecutingpower of Revelation 12 yes uh where thewoman seeks refuge in the wildernesswhich would be a later you knowdiscussion of this not that we're tryingto get into Revelation yet becausethat's a little premature but I'm justsaying I think this text might have beenone that Revelation had in mind allright so we need to take a break now umMartin had his hand on the buzzer beforewe go for a break if you take finalcomment Martin then we'll take a breakand then we'll continue I hope you likemy finalcomment um for theaudience um and you correct me if I if Iunderstand this wrong now what we'redoing here is going through the anchortexts and the anchor texts are textswhich anchor in history is that rightyes in the interpretation they anchor inintertexture relationship within theBook of Daniel that's the that's thequestion uh the history is subordinateto the textual issue that's right butbut of course he's asking is it Paproome because we know from Daniel 8 thehor is p um but what tari was Raisinghere is actually very important now ifif I would really have no audiencehere if it would just be us here I wouldsuggest you know what we need to go tothe text and look at all the verbs andgo through and decide from the verbswhat the structureis uh but if we do that we'll be hereuntil tonight and of course we are notgoing into the questions here on theright side our audience look actuallythis would methodologically be the bestway I mean as I see it I'm an exer I'mnot a historian and uh I do not wanthistorybe leading me in any way of course it'simportant to have history in mindbecause it it talks about real eventsyou know in the end there needs to be aa give and take from both sides butstill I would start with the text so Iwould support tari here and say let's goand and do this but I know that this istedious for the audience this will bewell I I you alono shle said oncepresident of the SPL share the fruit notthe sweatbut it's almost important to just sharethe fruit in Daniel 11 because we wantto know how these people sweat maybe weshould point out that what we're doingwith these anchor Texs is not to try tonail it permanently what we're trying todo is say this is where there's just hasbeen General agreement and does thatsort of make sense and then we're goingto test all of that when we go throughthe text with the with the Divergencetext so it it doesn't mean that we'relocked in in any way um it's just a aprocceedthat sort of makes sense so that we cangain the general overview of theoverall uh progression um that has beenseen among adverti interpretersgenerally and that's going to makethings a little more clear for ouraudience and then we'll go back throughthese details and test those things tosome extent by looking at the othersthey have to fit in otherwise we'llthrow them out right okay pastor Kellyyeah and I also just want to commentthat yesterday when Dr 14 was here wewent through three historicelements of interpreting and so thetexts matter immensely but there arethese components of history and the restof the Book of Daniel that do set someparameters and they don't forcethemselves on this chapter in anillegitimate way but they do bringaserious uh point of reference to thechapter too it's kind of a safety net atsome level not not an absolute directivebut an imbalance so I just want to makesure we we are enjoying this andlearning immensely but it it is in thecontext of those three full things so weappreciate what's happening it's beenvery very good um I we'll take a breaknow but um while we're taking a breakthis is a half um um semi humorouscomment you know how they produce thesep chant the myth they lock them awaysomewhere and said don't come out untilyou've translated the Old Testament youhave a Greek translation uh maybe weneed to lock this group away for a weekin May or June and say you do not comeout until you have a translation with aninterpretation um but so we'll take awe'll take a 10-minute break now we backat 25 past there are seven of us youknow 7 minutes all right so um let'sJohnny be quick to the restroom andwe'll be back at 25 past but that wasthatwaseeeeeeeee edospeh[Music]h[Music]h[Music]for eokay if we could gather back togethereverybodypleaseOran Spanish pronunciationall right if we could uh join backtogether for ourfinal uh session before our lunch isprepared for us we have about 25 minutesto um to uh delve into something a bitmore deeply now as we invite ourScholars to come back to the table andum I I think in the interest oftime if we could uh please take yourseats and uh concludes our ourdiscussions in the interest of timewe're going to assume that we can allagree that Daniel 121 2 and 3 refer tothe second coming of Jesus and the finaltime oftrouble uh on that basis we will moveback to some of the disagreement textstart moving into those so um PastorRosenberg can you uh take yourseat and uhPastorMartin if we can invite you back to thelectonhere we will continue with ourjourney yes so welcome back uh BrotherMartin yes yes anduh as an earlier brother martin saidhere I stand I can do no other that'sright here I so um we'd like to inviteuh the panel to to to focus um as youlook at your your handout here uh to tofocus on the the areas of disagreementand the first significant area that wewant to explore is when does Rome comeonto the scene in this chapter becausehistorically um many many Adventistinterpreters um have have taken the ideathat that that uh that Rome appears muchearlier than someone like Pastor Roygain argues uh the argument has beenthat Rome appears with Pompei standingin the beautiful land the conquest of ofuh of Israel and uh so manyAdventists have argued that um in verse16 that he who comes against him shalltake the actions he pleases and no oneshall withstand him he shall take aposition in the beautiful landand all of it shall be in his power andthat verse has often been used byAdventists to argue this is the arrivalof Rome Pompei conquering um isPalestine or Israel in about 63 BC um onthe other hand there are there is aDivergent view um espoused initially Ithink by Roy gain and others now thatwe're looking in these verses um all theway up to about verse 20 is that right19 19 we are not looking at the arrivalof Rome with Pompei and Julius Caesarbeing the one who will stumble and falland not be found in verse 19 in the IDSof March but this is actually the storyof Antiochus III Magnus the great and aswe heard yesterday in brother Brendan'spresentation this is almost a form ofinternal type and before the the deathof Jesus in verse 22 of what followslater on in the chapter and so this isan area of significant discussion whendoes Rome arise in this chapter becausewe've identified the Persians we knowthere're the Greeks the toies and theSDS so now we come to the question ofwhere does Rome appear in this chapterand maybe to start the conversation Roycan you explain to us briefly why youbelieve that this is Antiochus Magnus inthe from verse 14 onwards yes um verse14 is the first place that aside fromthat uh one interpreter who starts thepapacy in verse 5 uh Rome and and evenskips Imperial realm but but otherinterpreters and there's urri Smiththere's mvin Maxwell there's Shay andothers and there's varyinginterpretations but the first place thatAdventist interpreters then have gone touh Pagan Rome is in verse 14 and theinterpretation is really that of UriahSmith the violent ones among but but hedoesn't he's using a differenttranslation he says the robbers of yourpeople um and he says the robbers ofyour people meaning those who robbedyour people and that those who robbedyour people are the Romans because theydominated them and then they stole fromthem so the question there is whetherthis here is the Hebrewexpression this is one of thoseconstructs it's literally the violentones of yourpeople doesn't necessarily mean robberscan mean violent ones and what does thatof mean does that mean that they wererobbing from themor does it mean that they were violentamong yourpeople excuseme so we need to look at that for amoment all right so can we start lookingat that then uh could I just say thatthe expression actually begins with theword before it the sons of the violentones of your people and uh but that'sthat's part of the expression yeah good[Music]so how do we answer that syntacticallysemantically and so on we have as Ithink you said J we can't just look atone word by itself sure we have to lookat the combination sure thanks and I wasjust about to addressthat what word do we see in verse 14that we've heard before if you keepreading it says they will raisethemselves in order you can take that asa lmit of purpose in order to establishthezone so then the next question is isthis talking referring back to what'shappening in Daniel8 so then we had to say Well when Danieltalks about the hone what is he talkingabout and I think he's talking about thewhole Vision the ram the goat the littlehorn I don't think you can jump straightfrom here to history but I do think thatthis is a clear indication of you knowwhat he's referring to about these Vpeople trying to establish this hzone sowhat is it that they're trying to makestand or to establish I think thatquestion will have to be answered firstfor us to really say at what period oftime cuz if you take the the mabanRevolt just some people take the mbanRevolt um as a historical Focus here howwere they trying to establish the visionyou see so if you if you have ahistorical reference point you then haveto answer the question in what sense arethey taking this action that would be myconcern yeah that's good and the otherquestion of course is is this somebodybeing persecuted that is to say are theydoing the violence uh to your people oris it the people who are doing theviolence that's aquestion yeah it seems like again I haveto always be careful because noteverything that applies to classicalHebrew applies to post exil Hebrew butuh you you have verse 14 beginning witha temporal expression in those timesokay and then you have thesubject okay many and then you have theverb finally so it it it's kind ofalmost uh you'vegot a switch in gear so to say and so II don't know if Rome starts if Romestarts here in the not but the way verse14 starts does allow for that okay butas you read on you find that the nextsentence begins with that expressionthat we're talking about okay and thesons of the violent ones of yourpeople uh whatever that means again youhave the fact that the verb doesn'tbegin that sentence it's the subjectthat's beginning thatsentence and and then we come to theexpressionuh toestablish that can bemisleading because what you have isa an infinitive in Hebrew and it's verytempting to translate an infinitive withhe in Hebrew with an infinitive inEnglish toestablish but that may not be themeaning of it because the Hebrewinfinitive can often have a moreadverbial meaningestablishing rather than in order toestablish and so it may actually bereferring to the fact that many willrise up against the King of theSouth etc etc inparenthesis thus establishing the honebut you know those are just ideas I I'mnot I'm not uh bound to that I'm justnoticing the syntax hereuh for the sake of our audience uh couldsomebody explain the difference there'sa Mara vision and a hadson vision inDaniel uh Daniel 8 and9 can somebodyexplain for our audience thesignificance of these two words howthey'reused yeah maybe it's easier to do itwith accordance here the beginning ofDaniel 8 we have have the whole visionof the ram of the hegot is called akazon in the third year of the reign ofKing belshazzar a vision appeared to methere's the word on and I'm showing iton the screen okay and so this wholething is is a vision and then we havethis little it's been called an auditionby some Adventist interpreters where youhave the question then I heard a holyone Speaking another Holy One said tothe one who spoke So Daniel iswitnessing a dialogue between apparentlyHeavenly beings for how long is the thevision and so on and so forth and thenthe answer is given 2300 evenings andmornings which has the time element inall of this then inverse okay so when I Daniel had seen thevision okay when I had seen the that'sreferring to the whole thing but thendown in verse26 it uses a different expression andthat is the expression which is asynonym for hon meaning Vision but it'sa different word and this is referringto the time element in other words thatlittle subp part of the vision it's truethat these words actually are synonymsbut here this is used in a particularway in this context the mar is that timeelement with with that little dialoguethen when Gabriel comes in920Gabriel I have to use twohands all right I I need three handswhile I was speaking and praying and soon and then Gabriel comes and he says hemade me understand Daniel I've come togive you insight and understandingtherefore consider the word andunderstand and the what vision andthat's the same word Mar as the timeelement that's what Daniel didn'tunderstand because in827 he was very disturbed about thevision themar okay um I was appalled by the um Marwhat he especially Disturbed him wasthat time element because he wanted toknow when his people are going to be uhrestored so when we find over here we'retalking about to establish the the thethen this would be talking about thatoverall um Vision to establish that whatwould that mean and who would that bewho would do that we couldn't imagineanyone but the Jewish people doing it uhand so that's the way it's usuallyinterpreted okay you asked me though uhConrad earlier why do I say why do Ireject this and I say that this couldnot refer to Rome introduced here or in16 16 is generally most adverinterpreters say that this is the Romanscoming in and they take over theGlorious land which is the land ofPalestine they say this is the time ofpompy the great came in 63 BC took overPalestine I reject that because as aresult of introducing Rome Adventistinterpreters then go in verse 17 andthey say he shall give him the daughterof women to destroy the kingdom and theysay aha who's the really prominent Greekwoman in this period it's got to beCleopatra I 7th now that's the ElizabethTaylor Cleopatra that is to say from themovie Cleopatra okay but there were lotsof cleopatras just like there was awhole string of tommies and and the tothe cleopatras uh there was even aCleopatra from the north so they couldbe from the North or the South soAdventist interpreters have taken thisto be the last Cleopatra who messedaround with juliia Caesar had a son byhim and then Mark Anthony and she wasthe last of the toies except for heryoung son who was then killed that'swrong because and and I'm I'm dogmaticabout that uh not most things but I amabout that because it says he shall givehim the daughter of women to destroy thekingdom Cleopatra theith was never givenin marriage by anybody she went and metJulia Caesar by having herself wrappedup in a a roll of carpet and thenunrolled as a present before him becausehe didn't want to see her andfurthermore are we talking about theNorth or the South here it is the Kingof the North who stands in the Gloriousland he shall set his face to come heshall perform terms of an agreement thisis King of the North gives his daughterfrom the north to the King of the Southto destroy the kingdom the this is a tome this is an anchor point it's a veryspecific description of a historicalevent this is Antiochus III giving hisdaughter um Cleopatra the first inmarriage to Tommy vth from the souththis is still in the time of AntiochusIII therefore Rome is not introduced inverse 16 or verse 14 and then but Iintroduce Rome as the Commander in verse18 who puts an end to antiochus'sinsolence as he goes up and tries totake the coastlands of turkey and Greeceand so on and then this Commander yesRoman Commander defeated him at thebattles of thermopol and mag magnesia umand um and and then as a result he lostall of those territories had to paycrippling tribute and his son Antiochthe fourth epiphanies Antioch theAntiochus epiphanies was a hostage inRome as a result of that so this isreally the end of of the the expansionof the sald Empire we reach the heightof it under Antiochus III and then Romecomes in and starts to dominate that'sthe way I take it so anybody can thetarget is on the chest you know you canstart shooting away but that's the way Isee let me ask the question because uhJerome raised a question about the theFulfillment of the vision he said thatthat's the verse we've seen out beforein Daniel in what sense uh was the thelife and career of Antiochus III uh howdo we see that being fulfilled inrelation to Daniel 8 well this is thetime of Tommy V who was a boy King andthere's a many shall rise against theKing of the South that's true thathappened that's when the uh famousinscription that was found the bilingualinscription the Rosetta Stone found bythe um soldiers of Napoleon in 1799 thatwas written during the time of Tommy Vand it has to do exactly with that timewhen there was an uprising now we don'texactly know what it means about theviolent ones among your people will liftthemselves up to fulfill the vision uhwe haven't we didn't know exactly whatthat is historically don't have a goodreference point but within thisframework it would apparently be duringthat timeperiod all right thank you um yes wehave let's take um uh our brother fromAustralia then we'll take brotherMichael hereum so it seems some of the the thingsthat would either support like your yourthesis Roy would rise or fall on uh themain one is going to be in verse 16 butbefore that the violent ones eitherbeing a subjective or an objectiveconstruct uh in your paper on the UNmanifestation of Antiochus epiphaniesyou do argue for a a subjectiveconstruct so the violent ones among yourpeople as as opposed to Violent onesagainst your people and the the sameconstruct relationship is actually foundin in 12:1 sons of your people it's justno no longer has the sons of the violentones of your people so it's just takenout that one word so it seems to me thatwhether we see it as con objective orsubjective we would have to beconsistent sons against your people orSons among your people in verse in in ch12:1 if we're doing sons of violent onesagainst or among in 11:14 does that ringtrue mhm that's a good point Thank youjust for context but then the main thingand I want to hear what everyone has tosay for Rome to be introduced by apronoun attached to a verb in verse uhverse 16 he who comes against thatdoesn't seem to be something that wouldbe normal in Hebrew it would need to bean explicit subject before that for thefor the he to be referring to otherwisethe he should refer to the previoussubject which is the King of the Northand the the the reflexive hymn umreferring to the previous object whichwas the king of the the forces of theSouth would that makesense well if you if you're asking meand we can hear fromtari let's hear from T first well I wasgoing somewhere else so uh let's hearfrom first question then brother t i Iagree that that you have the King of theNorth comes against the King of theSouth which shall not stand or even hisbest troops for there shall be nostrength to stand and then the contrastbut he who comes against him that's theking of the north right shall do as heWills none shall stand before him heshall stand in the Glorious land andthis is the first time Antiochus III isthe first time when the land of Israelpasses into the hands of the salusinsbefore this it's been in the hands ofthe tommies so and this did happenhistorically and it fits thetext um brother tasi and then brotherMichael um going back to the question ofthe kind of genitive construction youhave here I guess I didn't make myselfclear uh if the second sentence in verse14 is a backgroundedsentence it seems to lend support to theidea that these are people who are partof the rebellion in other words uh manyrise up against the King of the Southand then in parenthesis it includes thesons of violence of your people theywill rise up too and that that that'swhere I was going with that well yeahand and from a grammatical point of viewyou see it starts the Clause then startswith ubit it doesn't start with the verbso it's not just continuing it'sparenthetical here so I totally agreebut I guess one question could be thisword paritz what does it mean elsewhereand we have another verse paritz hayotwhat does this mean is it the violentones against the animals or the violentones of the animals there will not bethere alion and theparats of the animals that would be likethe lion right the Ferocious one theviolent one of the of the animals wouldbe in parallelism with the lion rightrather than the viol ones well I guessit you could say it's the violent oneagainst the the animals here in thatsense as well you could say either wayit could go so you can't really totallyum determine that you've got another onehere um but it's not in construct so itdoesn't really help so much this isreally the only one in construct yeahthe the the construct can go either wayso the fact that it's construct doesn'treally tell us anything that's right butthe context here seems to suggest moreone that's that's the point so uh whatI'm hearing you say is that the secondhalf of this verse 14 Violent Men ofyour people shall exalt themselves andfulfillment of the vision that's reallyjust a um an echo statement aparenthetical explanatory note of thefirst half of that sentence am I hearingyou right there yes yes okay do you allagree with that as a group I mean notnecessarily explanatory of it but it'sjust something that happened there it'sa little footnote all rightMichael well it some of it has just beensaid as tari has pointed out verse 14does begin with a V disjunctive this issomewhat indicating that something inthe narrative has shifted so you seem tohave as most critical Scholars agree andI agree you have the story of Antiochusuh 3 being told and then all of a suddenum and we don't want to go to historytoo soon we never want to go to historytoo soon but uh this verse would comeright at the moment as it's preparing toshare the Apex of Antiochus 3's reignhis power so right as we get to the Apexof his power all of a suddengrammatically when we're trying to comeback to the text we do have ubam whichis a v disjunctive it this representssome sort of narrative shift uh it is aa parenthetical the whole sentence thewhole verse seems to be constructed in away that it's an afterthought you knowit's kind of telling there will berebellions around those times there'sonly one other uh precise occurrence ofthat utim in the Old Testament that thatin 2 Chronicles 155 where it is usedexactly in that way as a very broadsummary kind of around those times uhstatement so there is some sort of uhthis is a parenthetical aside explaininguh the broader context of the TheNarrative flow uh which is Antiochus 3'sat least this is widely agreed Antiochus3's uh the Apex of hisReign well Miracle of Miracles I thinkwe found agreements on a text butum brother uh Ed Nelson yeah and then umover here had um regarding Daniel 11:14um you know I've heard it suggestedbefore that this is the entrance of Romeand I had dismissed it for a long timeum and then I went and compared thatverse with uh Ezekiel 7 and I found alot of comparisons um with Ezekiel 7 tobe quite compelling um Ezekiel 7 is apassage that where God is telling I'mgoing to destroy my people I'm going todestroy my secret places I'm going toyou know the parites the robbers aregoing to enter into my holy placebecause you have taken my glory my sabidthe beautiful things I gave you andyou've you've uh made Abominations andidols and it talks about this being Aonthat will be fulfilled in the future ithas all these all these linguisticconnections uh that come back here umand so the more I thought about it andlooked at this I began to wonder um isthis is this possibly talking about Romein connection with that um and this isnot something I've heard a lot of peoplediscuss either in Daniel11: 10 this war between uh Antiochus IIIas I understand it and tmy I 5thum there's this the the battle and itsays that both of these the very lastpart of the verse will be stirred up toher Fortress the Hebrew is femininethere it says her Fortress her maos andso to me this is a reference that andboth of these kings were actuallystirred up to the very doors ofJerusalem and Tommy as Josephus tells uswanted to enter the temple and he wastold no you can't do this so both ofthese Kings were stirred up even to herforFortress um and so I think this isgiving us a view I mean the angel toldus what I'm going to tell you is goingto be about what Will befall your peopleand this isn't some random disjointeddisconnected prophecy of two WaringKings North and South it actually doesbut I haven't heard many people talkabout Daniel 11:10 as being the herFortress as that these two kings werestirred up even to her Fortress which Ibelieve is a reference to Jerusalembecause both North and South have beenmasculine masculine masculine masculinewho is this her Fortress um and then inverse 14 it talks about fulfillment ofthevision um okay just one little detailthere it's not her Fortress um if youcan see I've highlighted up there thefinal hay on me m m is the word forFortress but that final hay does nothave a dot in it which is this is atechnicality a DOT which is a mik whichwould indicate that that is a thirdfeminine singular um pronoun Accord onis labeling that as a third masculinesingular in fact in Hebrew the hey inolder older Hebrew interestingly the hecould represent the masculine singularand so it's partly a matter of contextbut the merarites did not take that asthe third feminine singular there yeah II think you may have read in somecommentaries perhaps where they suggestamending the text and adding that dot onthe hey and that would have made it apronominal suffix but in this it'ssimply a uh yeah the suffix in this caseis masculine if you take a suffix if youtake it uh in the written form therethere's a difference here between thetext as it's written and the Maticreading tradition which is the scribalreading tradition and when we follow thescribal reading tradition then you havea masculine suffix his however the textas it's writtenhas that letter at the end the questionis does the letter at the end indicatethe feminine form of the noun whichwould be MAA it would not be a suffix itwould simply mean a fortress or would itbe a pronominal suffix and then thequestion is in that form do you have toadd a DOT which would make it a feminineor is it simply as Roy was saying thethe more archaic way of writing hi inthe masculine suffix so it's complicatedcan can I ask a lay question here butthose dots didn't exist when Danielwrote this right there were no dots soit's a question of how you interpretthis so we're arguing about what themastic scribes put in in the 9th centuryad whether it's m masculine or femininebut in the original text there were nodots there were no vowel pointingswhatsoever there were no vowel pointshowever we have both the feminine formand the masculine form as possible forthe word yeah so it could be ma but itcould alsobe as the word without the suffix whenyou when you consult um the Adan so thethe the translation the subagent versionof Daniel that's more closely alignedwith the Hebrew text not the old Greekbut the theodocian it does use the Umasculine third masculine singular of ofso so yeah we can say oh maybe in the9th century they didn't think it wasfeminine but also at this time thesetranslators also didn't think it wasfeminine they thought it was masculineso that's a clue it's not definitive butit's a clue also they had a veryprecise uh long tradition of oralchanting and they would have made adistinction between the sound of the haywith the mik and without it because withthe mik it's a it's a consonant so thatwas a a very long tradition and thoseoral traditions we could discount andsay Well they're not accurate becausethey're oral that is not true also anIslamic tradition the quranic umtraditions of ofrecitation very precise had incrediblememories in fact there's my rinicteacher Berkeley told me that likelyRabbi Judah the patriarch redacted thatis added to the entire mishna in 200 aduh orally to memorizers professionalmemorizers all right there was one otheritem in connection with this I agreewith Dr gain on verse 17 that this um uhthe power there that is uh beingcorrupted uh is not uh Cleopatra I 7thbut I find interesting the verb that'sused there that says Shak uh that hewill give him the daughter of women todestroy um that that verb is used threetimes in Daniel 8 and it's not used it'snot found anywhere else in the book Bookof Daniel but Daniel 8:24 says he willdestroy fearfully speaking of the littlehorn Daniel 8:25 says he will destroymany in their prosperity again speakingof the little horn and Daniel 9:26 sayshe will destroy the city and thesanctuary again the same verb so when Icome to verse17 um it seems to be uh a proleptic viewof the destruction of Jerusalem thatthis daughter of women uh the daughterof Zion and and and God's people arespoken of as two women actually in in apassage in Ezekiel um I see I see God'speople in view here as you know prpicview of them beingdestroyed the only question that I haveis keep remember keep track when youhave King of the North doing the actionso if this is the King of the Northyou're saying that God is using the Kingof the North to do somethingum utilizing the people of God am Iunderstanding youcorrectly well the last time we hearabout the King of the North is in verse15 it's not mentioned beyond that andand I I take the the stance that inverse 16 that the he who comes againsthim is a Roman power now and so theum the the power in verse 17 that is youknow going to destroy the the daughterof women I see as a Roman power sure myquestion is in terms of historicalapplication I'm just talking about inthe flow of the whole chapter you havethe um jposition of the actions of theKing of the North sometimes that canrefer to one historical entity and thento a different one and then you have theactions of the King of the South so I'mjust asking in terms of your applicationhow does the actions of the King of theNorth if we follow the text fit intowhat you're saying that's just what Iwant to clarification on what I'm tryingto say is the King of the North The LastAction of the King of the North quote Isee as in taking place in verse 15 andthen the King of the North is notmentioned anymore I don't see Romedefined as the King of the North inapplication in any of the verses thatfollow um I I see Rome is introducedsome people have said it's the king ofthe north but I don't see that actuallyin the text and so to me that's aforeign concept so you just think Kingof the North King of the South is justcompletely dropped a new entity isintroduced and then in later on in thebook it picks back up well it's it is inverse 25 there's a there's a a subtlereference to both of these Kings willsit at the same table that's true um butI don't see I don't see Rome as the Kingof the North no um we're going to getinto this more and more um in terms ofwhat are the antecedants of pronounsthat is to say what do pronouns refer toand when the powers introduced we'regoing to see that um this the power ofRome and then the little horn thedespicable person who's introduced in 21we're going to see once they'reintroduced it's just he he he him himhim him right whether pronouns orsubjects of verbs which are uh Hebrewsinflected so they have first second orthird person in a finite verb whichincludes that he and then you haveobjects of him and so on and that justcontinues you have that continuity sothat's why if you have Antiochus IIIstarting in verse 10 or so whatevermoving all the way through it's just thesame he him King of the North and thenin verse 16 he who comes he who comesagainst himV the one uh vas the one that's the onethis is the subject of this participleHere Comes against him is justcontinuing the same power and then heshall set his face that's King of theNorth that's Antiochus theii and so onand so you don't have to name the Kingof the North King of the South all thetime to have that continuity you can'tsay that when that term no longerappears therefore you don't have thatpower because it continues through thepronouns all right it's uh almost timefor lunch we have one question here thenwe'll take lunch uh yes yeah I was justgoing back to um the the hzone in inverse14 uh the only place that's used in thechapter to my knowledge and uh so we'vegot to find out you know what vision isthat and it would seem since it's notused anywhere else in the chapter thatwe've got to look outside the chapterbecause it's not mentioned anywhere elseso we don't have kind of a referencepoint but if we go to the same verse inchapter10 we have it used there and it's onlyused one time in chapter 10 as well andverse 14 of chapter 10 gives us thereason why Gabriel is there he's thereto make Daniel understand what's goingto happen in the latter days and then hesays it's for the hone is for days tocome or for many days and so this is adirect reference back to chapter 8 whichis uh declared to be the vision for manydays at the end of chapter 8and so the the the vision that is beingtalked about in ch11:14 is the vision of chapter 8 andthere wesee that uh a power is introduced inchapter 8 that are the robbers andBreakers of God's people we don't see inthe vision of chapter 8 anywhere whereGod's people are violent we see violenceagainst God's people and so uh linkingverse 14 of chap 11 with verse 14 ofchapter 10 back to the introduction ofthe power that's the robber and breakerof God's people uh anyway I'm justgiving you my thinking onit um and you can uh toss that around Imean this this is an important pointbecause this is a Divergence uh wherepeople diverge in their interpretationsis this the arrival of Rome on the sceneor is this antios III and yesterday'spresentation from um Australia um wasalso brother Brendon valant wasdiscussing this is one of the the um thetype antitype within this chapter and sothis is a very important question it istime for us to go for us our lunch nowum can I just mention one PS to that andthat is that's the exegetical issue isit's true that some Expressions doappear recur in Daniel sometimes they'rein the same kind of context in whichthere are often multiple indicators as11:31 we saw margin perhaps hasmentioned multiple indicators othersthis leash this destruction uh you can'tsay that because it it's referring tojerus destruction of Jerusalem here forthat reason when the same verb appearsit's that you got to look at the objectand the object is different in this caseyou got to look at the whole contextjust because you have the same wordreappearing doesn't mean it's referringto the same thing you have to have othercontextual indicators as well all rightwell um as you're going through supperoh sorry lunch maybe you can be thinkingin your own minds know what is thesignificance of this Hon is thisreferring back to the hon of Daniel 8and of Daniel 10 and if so what is thesignificance are you suggesting that weshould chew on it uh yes yeah yes yeahand why don't we also encourage thescholars to spread themselves out alittle bit so the dialogue that thatisn't really afforded here is affordedthere so all right let's ask the Lord tobless our meal and then we hope you'llthank uh Stacy gusy who has made most ofit for us let's pray thank you Lord forthe free and open discussion the thestretching of Minds the sharing ofpoints the dialogue the discourse thankyou for the beautiful spirit you'veprovided now help us Lord as we get toclarify and and dialogue even moreintimately about these things uh blessthese individuals on the platform hereuh continue to give them sensitivity toSpirit sharpness of mind and freedom ofexpression and bless all of the rest ofus that are listening and taking in andbeing changed by what we're hearing wethank you now for the food bless it andthe fellowship we ask in Jesus name amenall right you can make your way down andget in line and begin enjoyingyou