Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 11:22

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 11:22
  • Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:44:33 -0500

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.








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page