[b-hebrew] Daniel 11:22

Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Wed Aug 30 09:44:33 EDT 2006


Bryant J. Williams III wrote:

>Mashiach is not used here in this verse.
>

HH: Yes, I know that. That was not my point. But thanks for the 
information below anyway. I believe that Antiochus IV was a type of the 
antichrist, and that the antichrist is referred to later in the chapter 
in 11:36-45. So the poster's question was not so irrelevant as Shoshanna 
suggested. The fact that he used a term like "antichrist" is somewhat a 
matter of terminology. It is obvious in the Tanakh that the Messiah 
comes to a world where forces exist that are ranged against Israel and 
against God. There is a human leader at the head of these forces, and he 
has a kingdom of worldwide power. So that human leader can be described 
as against the messiah, or anti-christ.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard

> In fact, the sequence of events
>promulgated by Daniel, ca. 640-630 BCE, is such that it describes the
>conflict between the Ptolmeys and the Seleucids after the division of the
>Empire of Alexander the Great (11:1-4). Judea was between a rock and a hard
>place as the Ptolmeys and the Seleucids fought over control of the land.
>Eventually, Antiochus III won out ca. 193 BCE. The rest they say is history.
>I would recommend I Maccabbees and Josephus to be read in conjunction with
>Daniel 11. It is most illuminating. Furthermore, it appears that Rome got
>involved, when the "ships of Kittim" (KJV), "ships of the western
>coastlands," (NIV-with note Hebrew- of Kittim) in 11:30. Thus, the "prince
>of the covenant" would not be the Mashiach. The Hebrew reads, "begid berit",
>LXX, "hGOUMENOS DIAQHKHS." BTW, eventually the Roman , Gnaeus Pompeii
>Magnus, took over control of the land in 64 BCE. This brought to the
>forefront Antigonus, father of Phasallus and Herod (later known as the
>Great). We all know what happened after that.
>
>
>
>  
>
>>Dear Shoshanna,
>>
>>    
>>
>>>NONE of these verses refer to any "anti-christ" - which is a foreign
>>>concept after all, if this were a Christian book, the rabbis would
>>>not have included it in our Tanach.
>>>
>>>
>>>Verse 22 refers to the covenant that the Jews made with the Romans -
>>>ie; they will also be crushed by them - this does not refer to
>>>Mashiach.
>>>
>>>Verse 21 refers to the Roman Empire, not to an "anti- christ"
>>>("contemptible one" = Roman empire)
>>>
>>>Verse 20:  The Hashmonean Dynasty will succeed Antiochus in
>>>Jerusalem, but it will eventually fall as a result of a battle of
>>>succession between the two brothers, Aristobulos and Hyrcanus.
>>>
>>>Verse 23:  By signing a "holy covenant" of friendship (see verses 28,
>>>30) with the Hashmoneans, Rome will be able to conquer the countries
>>>surrounding the Land of Israel without fear of Hashmonean
>>>Intervention.
>>>
>>>
>>>PLEASE don't put foreign doctrine into our scripture, where it does not
>>>      
>>>
>exist.
>  
>
>>>      
>>>
>>HH: You may not realize this, but Christ is the English form of the
>>Greek word Cristos, which means "anointed one" and is the Greek
>>equivalent of Messiah (meshiach). The antichrist is the one is who is
>>against Christ, or who imitates Christ as a pretender.
>>
>>    
>>
>  
>




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list