01INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1 

Introduction

The Messiah

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is both Man and God, and the Saviour of the world. This belief depends to a large extent on the reliability of the New Testament documents — but not entirely. We have, for instance, a completely independent testimony in the shape of the Old Testament, a collection of writings formed long before Christ was born and held sacred by a people who are often hostile to the Christian faith. In these writings God promises that He will send a Saviour into the world — a God-Man known to the Jews as the ‘Messiah’. ‘Christ’ means exactly the same thing as ‘Messiah’ — that is, ‘the anointed one’. The former word is derived from the Greek and the latter from the Hebrew. Now Jesus’ whole teaching was saturated with the claim that He was the Messiah. The following is an example:

‘The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”’ (John 4:25, 26)

Again and again Jesus showed how He was fulfilling all the Messianic prophecies. The early
Christian church (which was itself at first largely Jewish) continued to lay tremendous
emphasis upon this when witnessing to the Jews.
‘… they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in,
as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures, explaining
and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and
saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”’ (Acts 17:1-3)
The Old Testament builds up a very detailed picture of the Messiah, and the first piece of
this picture can be found right at the beginning of the Bible, in the third chapter of Genesis.
Genesis 3:15 seems to indicate that the first promise of the coming Saviour was given to the
human race immediately after it had become separated from God by sin. The Saviour was to
be a human being, a descendant of Adam and Eve. He was to crush Satan, but in the process
the Saviour Himself would be hurt in some way. As we read on through the Old Testament,
we find that He was to be a descendant of Abraham, Jacob, Judah and David. Although He
would be born a man, He would also be God. He would be a prophet, priest, king and
‘shepherd’. He would be the Saviour not only of the Jews, but also of the whole world. He
would be born of a virgin1 and would come from Bethlehem. He would bring His glory to the
regions of Zebulun (containing Nazareth) and Naphthali (containing Capernaum) by Galilee.
He would come into Jerusalem as the Messiah, riding on the colt of an ass. He would be
despised and rejected. He would humble Himself and allow Himself to be led as a lamb to the
slaughter, and He would be killed. In His death He would be associated with both the wicked
and the rich. He would suffer greatly, but in doing so He would be receiving the punishment
due to us for our sin. His body would never see corruption.
These are only some of the Messianic prophecies.2 In this book we shall deal with some of
the others — those found in the book of Daniel. These latter prophecies are among the most
amazing to be found in the Bible. They give us many details about Christ, but in particular, so
I believe, they predict the actual year of His coming, together with its setting in world history.
These prophecies are like a great searchlight directed upon the Messiah and in its beam we
can see the path of history which led up to Jesus Christ. The prophecies are full of rich
meaning, but in this book we shall deal largely with only one side of them. We shall see how
Introduction 2
the date and historical setting of Christ’s arrival was accurately foretold long before His birth.
The early Christians were thrilled and excited by the way in which Christ fulfilled Old
Testament prophecies. It is a vital aspect of the Bible’s teaching and should be known and
understood to some extent by all Christians. May we not be found worthy of the rebuke the
risen Christ gave His two disciples on the way to Emmaus:
‘And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have
spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his
glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the
scriptures the things concerning himself.’ (Luke 24:25-27)
The book of Daniel
The book of Daniel is a part of the Jewish scriptures which are known to us as the ‘Old
Testament’ of the Bible. Its author claims (in the case of chapters 7 to 12, at least) to be a man
named Daniel, a Jewish statesman, probably of royal blood, who lived and prophesied during
the time of the Jewish exile in Babylon in the sixth century before Christ. The book contains,
among other things, a series of prophecies which predict the course of history from the time
of Daniel up to the coming of the Messianic kingdom of Heaven.
In the Hebrew Bible the book of Daniel is found in the third division, the ‘Writings’, and
not in the second, where the prophetical works occur. This is because Daniel was not a
prophet in the technical sense — he was a statesman who possessed the gift of seeing and
interpreting visions and dreams. He possessed the prophetical gift, but not the prophetical
office. It is interesting that another Jew who rose to high office in a foreign court (Joseph)
possessed a similar gift — and in both cases it was partly because of their prophetical gifts
that they did rise to high office.
The prophecies of Daniel are the chief Old Testament example of a form of literature known
as ‘apocalyptic’ (apocalyptic features can be found also in other parts of the Old Testament,
such as Isaiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah). The book of Revelation, in the New Testament, is the
other major apocalyptic work in the Bible. Apocalyptic literature was very popular during the
two centuries before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and large quantities were written around
that time. The relationship between the book of Daniel and these later, far inferior, noncanonical
apocalypses will be referred to briefly a little further on.
The book of Daniel can be divided into two parts. Chapters 1 to 6 contain straightforward
narrative material (for the most part), and chapters 7 to 12 contain prophetical or apocalyptic
material. In spite of this division, the two parts are closely integrated (the first vision, for
example, comes in chapter 2, thus forming part of the narrative section) and a common theme
runs through the whole book — the theme that the God of Israel is the only true God and that
He is far above all heathen idols, kings and empires. He is in control, and His ultimate victory
is certain. His saints will be gloriously vindicated, but they must remain faithful to Him,
whatever the cost.
The narrative section contains several stories which illustrate this theme. They are set in
Babylon and involve Daniel and his three friends, and also three different kings —
Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and Darius the Mede. This narrative section will be referred to
when it helps us to understand the prophecies, but I shall not deal with it in any detail. In this
book I shall concentrate almost entirely on the prophetical section (including chapter 2).
The critical view
Now critical scholars claim that Daniel was not the real author, and that possibly he never
Introduction 3
even existed. They believe that the book was composed much later, in the second century
before Christ, at a time when the Jews were being savagely persecuted by Antiochus
Epiphanes, a Greek king. At this time, most of the ‘predicted’ events had already taken place.
Thus most of the ‘predictions’ were not predictions at all — they were simply a record of past
history. According to the critics, the book was concocted (perhaps with the inclusion of a
certain amount of pre-existing material) for the purpose of encouraging the Jews in their
resistance to Antiochus’ persecution — and in fact the prophecies do concentrate very much
on the Greek empire, particularly the period of Antiochus’ reign.
It is certainly true that a very important purpose of the book of Daniel was to strengthen and
encourage those who were persecuted for their faith in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes —
and in all other times too. It reveals the one great true philosophy of history — which is that
God is in control. Godless man may appear to be all-powerful; but God is in control. In His
own time, He will destroy His enemies, and His saints will be vindicated and exalted. This is
true. But to critical scholars, this is the book’s only real value. As far as they are concerned,
the book deals only with the time of Antiochus. There is no reference — of a specific sort —
to the coming of Christ or any other future event.
They point out that the ascribing of a work to some well-known earlier historical person (a
device known as ‘pseudonymity’) and the presentation of historical material in the form of
predictive prophecy (although it was actually past history) were literary devices used quite
commonly in those times — especially in apocalyptic literature. They suggest that it is wrong
for us to judge this type of literature by modern Western literary conventions and to describe
it as ‘fraudulent’. They claim that there is no reason why a piece of literature of this type
should not be included in the canon of Scripture and be regarded as ‘divinely inspired’.
Up to this point, the critical argument may well be acceptable to some evangelicals. But the
critics claim also that the book of Daniel contains many historical errors and that when the
author does attempt to make some genuine predictions, they are completely wrong. In my
view, this latter aspect of the critical argument degrades the book of Daniel to the level of
ordinary literature, robs it of any right to be regarded as ‘divinely inspired’ and is
incompatible with the teaching of Jesus. He regarded the Old Testament as the Word of God
and ‘unbreakable’ — and this view underlies all that He said and did. He repeatedly showed
His disciples how it had foretold His coming, and He continued to do this after His
resurrection (Luke 24:25-27, 44-47). Furthermore, He referred directly or indirectly to
Daniel’s prophecies on several occasions, and He applied them to Himself or to events which
took place around the time of His first advent. His acceptance of the book of Daniel is shown
both by His attitude towards the Scriptures as a whole (see, for example, Matthew 5:17, 18;
22:29; John 5:46, 47; 10:35) and by His references to the book itself, including the specific
mention of Daniel by name (Matthew 24:15).
Predictive prophecy
The critical argument fails to do justice to the importance which the Bible attaches to
predictive prophecy. According to the Bible, one of the tests by which we can know whether a
prophet is true or false is that of seeing whether or not his predictions are fulfilled. If the
events he predicts do not come to pass, we can know that that prophet was not inspired by
God.
‘When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come
true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it
presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.’ (Deuteronomy 18:22)
Introduction 4
This means, surely, that if the critics are right about Daniel’s prophecies, the author was a
false prophet who was not inspired by God — and the book of Daniel has no right to be
included in the canon of Holy Scripture.
According to Isaiah, one of the things that distinguishes the true God from false gods is the
fact that God is able to, and does, reveal the future through predictive prophecy. He is in
control of world history and knows both the past and the future, right up to the end of time
(Isaiah 41:21-23; 44:6, 7; 46:9, 10; 48:3-5).
This teaching is at the heart of the theology of the book of Daniel. One of the things the
book is saying is that because God has predicted the future, we can be sure that He is superior
to the heathen gods and He is in control. If Daniel’s predictions are not genuine, one of the
book’s major arguments is invalidated — it is based upon false evidence. If God did not
predict the future, what guarantee is there (in this context) that He is superior to the heathen
gods and that He is in control?
As I have agreed, an important purpose of the book of Daniel was to encourage the Jews
who were persecuted by Antiochus Epiphanes. This was the first time they had been
persecuted for their faith, and some sort of encouragement was desperately needed. When the
persecution arose, they found that it had been predicted by God long ago in the book of
Daniel; and they were assured that it was all part of God’s plan — He was in control. But if
they had known that the prophecies were not truly predictive, they would not have got much
encouragement from them. If the predictions are not genuine, the book loses much of its force
and authority — it is little more than a piece of eloquent, but human, exhortation. It provides
no real evidence that God is in control.
We know, however, that the Jews regarded the book as very much more than a piece of
eloquent exhortation, because they accepted it into the canon of Holy Scripture. Although
large quantities of apocalyptic literature were written between the times of Antiochus and
Christ, none of it was accepted into the canon. The book of Daniel was given a unique place.
If the Jews rejected the later apocalypses as unworthy of the canon, why did they accept the
book of Daniel? The most likely reason is that they regarded it as completely genuine. If they
had known it to be pseudo-predictive, it is unlikely that they would have accepted it into the
canon, and it is equally unlikely that they were deceived into thinking it was genuine when it
was not. (If the Jews were deceived, incidentally, there is good reason to question whether the
book has any right to be included in the canon.)
Although it is something of a digression here (I am discussing the importance of predictive
prophecy in the Old Testament), I must add a word about another aspect of the book’s
message of encouragement. An essential part of this message was its prediction that although
the forces of evil would appear to triumph, this would not be the end. God would intervene
and establish His kingdom. Thus the book pointed beyond Antiochus to the coming of Christ
and His kingdom. If we fail, like the critics, to recognize that the book really did point to
Christ, we reduce it again to a piece of eloquent, but erroneous, exhortation.
Returning to the question of predictive prophecy, therefore, we have seen that the Old
Testament attaches great importance to it. But so also does the New Testament — and Jesus
Christ Himself is its chief exponent. He often referred to the predictions about Himself in the
Old Testament (e.g. Luke 24:25-27, 44-47). A fundamental, vital and central aspect of
Christ’s teaching was His claim that He was fulfilling the Messianic prophecies of the Old
Testament. Furthermore, the New Testament indicates that these prophecies were specific and
detailed — not vague and indefinite (e.g. Matthew 2:4-6; 4:12-16).
Jesus also made His own predictions (e.g. Mark 13), and one of the reasons He gave for
Introduction 5
doing so was very similar to the reasons given by God in the book of Isaiah (see references
listed above).
‘And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place, you may
believe.’ (John 14:29)
In saying that Daniel’s ‘genuine’ predictions are erroneous, the critics are saying — whether
or not they intend it — that the author was a false prophet who was not inspired by God. Jesus
Christ, on the other hand, referred to Daniel as ‘the prophet Daniel’ (Matthew 24:15). This
seems to indicate that He accepted the real existence of a prophet named Daniel and He
accepted him as a genuine prophet of God. He accepted the book as a part of Holy Scripture,
and He applied at least one of its predictions to events yet future at that time. I believe
therefore that full acceptance of the critical view of Daniel is tantamount to rejection of the
teaching of Jesus.
Now predictive prophecy is a supernatural phenomenon — a kind of miracle — and
whatever critical scholars may say to the contrary, they tend to make the assumption that
‘miracles do not happen’. One of the reasons they give for a second century date of authorship
is that some of Daniel’s predictions are so detailed and accurate that they cannot be genuine
— they must have been written after the events described had taken place. Predictive
prophecies as detailed and accurate as this simply ‘do not happen’.
But to eliminate every miraculous element from the book of Daniel, as the critics do, is
gratuitous. There is a vast amount of evidence, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, that miracles
do happen. And, furthermore, it is entirely reasonable and appropriate that God should
perform miracles sometimes. If He never revealed Himself in supernatural ways, how could
we be sure that He is not a figment of the imagination? And concerning that supreme miracle,
the resurrection of Jesus, the Bible itself says, ‘If Christ has not been raised, your faith is
futile’ (I Corinthians 15:17).
Daniel’s prophecies are of a very specific and detailed nature. It may not be God’s usual
practice to reveal the future in the sort of detail we find in the book of Daniel — but the incarnation
was not exactly a ‘usual’ event. The prophecies of Daniel look forward to the most
important event in world history. And not only was it the most important event, but also it
was a unique event. In order that He might redeem rebellious and lost mankind, God became
man. God the Son put aside His glory and took upon Himself the human form and nature.
Compared with this miracle, the miracle of Daniel’s prophecies is small indeed. If these
prophecies do indeed look forward to the coming of Christ, it is entirely appropriate that they
should be unique.
Historical accuracy and date of authorship
Now the critics say that some of Daniel’s prophecies are historically inaccurate — particularly
those which concern Babylon, Media and Persia, and also those which concern events after
about 165 B.C. (when, they say, the prophecies were actually written). The former prophecies
are inaccurate because they are about the distant past (relative to the time when they were
written), and the latter ones are inaccurate because they are attempts at genuine prediction.
Prophecies which concern the Greek empire up to about 165 B.C., on the other hand, are both
detailed and accurate — because the author was writing about recent past history. Thus the
closer the author comes to his own time, the more detailed and accurate is his historical
knowledge. But when he passes over into genuine prediction, he loses all contact with
historical reality.
These assertions form the most important part of the critical argument for a second century
Introduction 6
date of authorship. However, we shall show in the following pages that as far as the historical
inaccuracies are concerned, the critical argument is completely wrong. We shall show that all
the predictions are extremely accurate, even when they speak of events which took place long
after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, the very latest possible time of authorship (Antiochus
died in 163 B.C.). We shall see that events leading right up to the time of Christ are described
in accurate detail. To a large extent, therefore, the critics’ main argument for a second
century date of authorship is invalidated.
Furthermore, it has become increasingly apparent that the author of the book of Daniel was
extremely familiar with the Babylonian, Median and Persian empires. He was accurate in his
descriptions, both of history and of background detail. Archaeology has confirmed
dramatically the truth of certain historical and cultural details in the book of Daniel, and has
led many critical scholars to suggest that the stories (chapters 1-6) came into circulation well
before the second century B.C.
For example, critical scholars used to deny the historicity of Belshazzar, because there was
no record of his existence outside the book of Daniel. But then the archaeologists unearthed
cuneiform texts which confirmed that Daniel was right after all. Dougherty wrote: ‘The fifth
chapter of Daniel ranks next to cuneiform literature in accuracy …. The total information
found in all available chronologically-fixed documents later than the sixth century B.C….
could not have provided the necessary material for the historical framework of the fifth
chapter of Daniel.’3 Archaeology has proved that the historical and cultural background to the
stories in the book of Daniel is far more accurate than the critics realized. It has provided
powerful external evidence for an early date for at least parts of the book.
Another example of Daniel’s familiarity with the Babylonian, Median and Persian empires
is his accurate dating of events. For example, we are told that the vision of the ram and the
he-goat (chapter took place in the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar. The ram
(which Daniel saw at the beginning of the vision) represented the Persian-dominated Medo-
Persian empire. The third year of Belshazzar’s reign was the very time at which Cyrus the
Persian created the Medo-Persian empire (550 B.C.) This date was not only accurate, but also
it was given as a particular year in the reign of a king who was forgotten in later times. The
Greek historians did not even know that Belshazzar existed. It is highly unlikely that a second
century author could have dated the vision so precisely and in such a manner. Note also that
this date appears in the book’s prophetic section, which critical scholars insist must have been
written in the second century B.C.
Further evidence for a sixth century date of authorship can be found in the book of Ezekiel,
in the first book of Maccabees (in the Apocrypha), and in the works of the Jewish historian
Josephus:
‘Other lines of evidence of the historicity of Daniel, as adduced by the late Professor R. D.
Wilson of Princeton, are these: He is twice mentioned by Ezekiel,4 who was carried off to
Babylon about eight years after Daniel.
The first book of Maccabees presupposes the existence and common knowledge of the
book of Daniel prior to the Maccabean age. In chapter two specific reference is made to
Daniel and his three friends, who are grouped with such historical characters as Abraham
and David.
That the Jews believed Daniel to have written long before Antiochus Epiphanes, appears
from the story of Josephus, of the high priest Jaddua’s encounter with Alexander the Great.
When Alexander came to Jerusalem, the high priest sought to placate him by showing him
the prophecy of Daniel that a king of Greece should overthrow Persia.’5
Professor Wilson mentions three different authors who referred to Daniel by name. The first
Introduction 7
is Ezekiel, who wrote of Daniel’s righteousness and wisdom. Needless to say, many scholars
do not accept that Ezekiel was referring to his contemporary in Babylon — and in fact there
are some apparent problems with this identification. In particular, Ezekiel associates
righteous Daniel with Noah and Job, both of whom lived in the remote past and were not
Hebrews (Ezekiel 14:12-20). The order of the names (Noah, Daniel, Job) is further problem.
It is objected also that if Ezekiel wanted to name a Hebrew man who was outstandingly
righteous, he could have named someone like Abraham, who had lived long ago like the
others.
In the Ras Shamra (Ugaritic) texts, a certain King Dan’el is described as being just and
pious. He was a non-Hebrew and he lived several centuries before Ezekiel’s time. It is
possible also that the Jewish exiles in Babylon had heard of him, although there is no specific
evidence of this. Many scholars believe therefore that this was the ‘Daniel’ to whom Ezekiel
was referring. However, there are problems with this identification also. In particular, as
Dressler puts it, ‘Is it conceivable that the same prophet [Ezekiel the priest] would choose a
Phoenician-Canaanite devotee of Baal as his outstanding example of righteousness? Within
the context of Ezekiel this seems to be a preposterous suggestion.’6 One way of answering
this is to assert that Ezekiel is talking about personal integrity — not religious adherence.
Another is to suggest that the Ugaritic Daniel was righteous according to the light that he had
(Romans 2:14, 15). Nevertheless, I believe it is extremely unlikely that Ezekiel’s Daniel could
have been a polytheistic Baal-worshiper.
For the following reasons, I believe it is much more likely that he was the man of the book
of Daniel. Ezekiel was a priest who had denounced idolatry in no uncertain terms (8:5-18;
14:1-11), and in 14:12-20 he was speaking ‘the word of the Lord’. I believe therefore that the
Daniel to whom he referred must have been a worshiper of the one true God. Also, he must
have been well-known by name and reputation to the Jews of that period, as well as being
righteous and wise. The outstandingly wise and godly hero of the book of Daniel matches this
description in every respect. The fact that he is classed as a righteous man with Noah and Job
seems rather strange at first sight. But it does not disqualify him. To me, these three names
convey the message that God’s people are drawn from every period of history and from every
race — from the beginning to the end of human history, and from Jews and Gentiles. Noah,
Daniel and Job illustrate this well. Noah had lived long ago and was the ancestor of all
peoples on earth, both Jews and Gentiles. Daniel was a Jew, and lived in the present, whereas
Job was a Gentile, and had lived in the past. Another point is that although Noah and Job were
not Hebrews, they were Biblical characters, and they did worship the one true God (unlike the
Ugaritic Daniel).
Ezekiel mentions Daniel again later, but this time as an outstandingly wise man, and he
compares him with someone from whom ‘no secret can be hidden’ (Ezekiel 28:3). This is the
very type of wisdom attributed to Daniel in the book of Daniel. Furthermore, the Ras Shamra
text does not explicitly refer to Daniel as a wise man. I suggest therefore that the reference to
Daniel’s wisdom confirms that Ezekiel’s Daniel is Daniel’s Daniel. The events of Daniel 2
took place in 603/602 B.C., and Ezekiel 14 and 28 are internally dated to 592/591 and
587/586 B.C. Therefore Daniel’s reputation was established in Babylonia already (Daniel
2:48). He was well known to the Jewish exiles for his righteousness and wisdom, and
doubtless they were aware that the secret of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream ‘had not been hidden
from him’. By contrast, we do not know if the exiles had even heard of the Ugaritic Daniel.
The second author cited by Professor Wilson is the writer of I Maccabees. This man wrote
in about 103 B.C., only sixty years after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. Therefore his life
may well have overlapped that of Antiochus. Clearly he was in a much better position than we
Introduction 8
are to judge whether Daniel was a historical person or an invention of the second century B.C.
He quoted from the book of Daniel and regarded Daniel as fully historical.
The third author is Josephus, who was born in 37 or 38 A.D. He accepted without question
that Daniel was a historical person and was the author of the book which bears his name. He
wrote about two centuries after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes; so his evidence is not as
direct as that of I Maccabees and Qumran (see below). But he lived close to the time of Jesus.
Therefore he provides powerful evidence that the Jews of Jesus’ time accepted the book of
Daniel as a work of the sixth century B.C. This, in turn, indicates that when Jesus referred to
‘the prophet Daniel’, He was thinking of a sixth century prophet, and not of some unknown
writer living in the second century B.C. (see ‘Jesus and Pseudonymity’ below).
Evidence of another kind has been provided by the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ of Qumran. The book
of Daniel is well represented amongst the scrolls, and it is worth quoting R. K. Harrison on
the subject: ‘Since the community was itself Maccabean in origin, it testifies to the way in
which Daniel was revered and cited as Scripture in the second century B.C….. That this
prophecy was unquestionably popular with the sectaries is evident from the number of
fragments and copies of the book found in the Qumran caves. But since all these manuscripts
are copies, and not the original composition, the date of the autograph of Daniel must of
necessity be advanced by half a century at the very least, so as to allow the absolute minimum
of time for the book to circulate and be accepted as Scripture.’ 7
There is much more that has been written, both for and against a second century date of
authorship. But we cannot enter into all the pros and cons of the debate here. For further
details, the reader is referred to other works by evangelical scholars.8
Apocalyptic literature
As mentioned already, apocalyptic literature (characterized by visions, lurid symbolism,
pseudonymity, etc.) was very popular during the two centuries before the fall of Jerusalem in
70 A.D., and large quantities were written around that time. There are certain very obvious
similarities between this literature and the book of Daniel, and it is generally accepted that to
a large extent it was actually imitating Daniel.9 Now the critical view is that the book of
Daniel was written around the same time as these imitations. We should note, however, that
apocalyptic features can be found in parts of the Old Testament other than the book of Daniel
(particularly Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel and Zechariah) — parts which even the critics agree were
written long before the second century B.C. So the mere fact that Daniel’s prophecies are
apocalyptic in nature is no reason for assuming a second century date of authorship.
Furthermore, it is widely recognized that the book of Daniel is vastly superior to, and in
certain ways very different from, these later apocalypses. It is, in fact, a distinctive piece of
literature in a class of its own. It is highly significant that Daniel was accepted into the canon
of Scripture, whereas the later apocalypses were not. The book of Daniel has strong affinities
with prophecy and the Wisdom literature, and in some ways it is ‘definitely misleading’, to
quote Heaton, to class it with apocalyptic writing. ‘Daniel has suffered the misfortune of
being classed with his second-rate imitators.’ 10
If the non-canonical apocalypses are ‘second-rate imitations’, we can describe the book of
Daniel as ‘the genuine article’. These ‘second-rate imitations’ are frequently pseudonymous
and contain pseudo-predictive prophecy — but it is completely unwarranted to assume that
this must be true also of ‘the genuine article’.
‘Pseudonymity’ is the device of attributing a work to some well-known hero of the past,
such as Enoch or Moses. But Daniel is known to us with certainty only from the book itself;
Introduction 9
so it cannot be said that the book was attributed to a well-known hero of the past. Hence it
cannot be said that the book is typically pseudonymous. Why should there be this difference?
In the light of the factors outlined above (including the author’s special knowledge of
historical details forgotten in later times — e.g. the regency of Belshazzar), there is good
reason to believe that the book of Daniel is not pseudonymous at all — it was written by
Daniel himself.
Jesus and pseudonymity
I believe that if Jesus accepted that Daniel’s prophecies were written in the sixth century B.C.,
then they were written then. I find it impossible to believe that God the Son, who was in full
communion with God the Father, could have allowed Himself to swallow the idea that
Daniel’s astounding prophecies were genuine when they were not.
If Jesus was deceived by the device of pseudonymity, He was not merely deceived over a
matter of authorship. He was deceived into believing that God had predicted the course of
history hundreds of years in advance, whereas He had not. He was deceived into believing
that God had mightily demonstrated His power — in the way described by Isaiah — whereas
this was not so.
It is true that Christ was not omniscient during His life on earth; but this is very different
from saying, as many critics do, that He could be deceived and could propagate error. Jesus
plainly indicated that His teaching was both divinely inspired and infallible. The words that
He spoke were the very words of God (see below).
As I have pointed out already, Jesus continued to explain to His disciples after His
resurrection how the Old Testament had foretold His coming. Now it is safe to assume that
after His resurrection, Jesus was free of the limitations He had during His life on earth. Did
He modify or alter the teaching which He had given before His resurrection, when His
knowledge had been limited? No! His attitude towards the Scriptures (including the book of
Daniel) was exactly the same as it had been before. He had said, ‘The word which you hear is
not mine but the Father’s who sent me’ (John 14:24). ‘Heaven and earth will pass away, but
my words will not pass away’ (Matthew 24:35). I repeat that if Jesus accepted that Daniel’s
prophecies were written in the sixth century B.C., then they were written then.
In Matthew 24:15 we read that Jesus said, ‘So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken
of by the prophet Daniel….’ But do these words mean necessarily that Jesus believed in the
existence of a sixth century Daniel? Almost certainly the correct answer is that they do mean
this — unless it was common knowledge that the book was pseudonymous, because in that
case the disciples would have understood clearly that Jesus was referring to a pseudonymous
Daniel. Pseudonymity was a literary device with which the Jews were perfectly familiar. If
there is any possibility that it was a well-known fact that Daniel was pseudonymous, then
obviously there is a possibility that Jesus did not believe in a sixth century Daniel. As I have
shown, however, we have solid evidence that the Jews of that time accepted without question
that the book of Daniel was written in the sixth century B.C. by Daniel himself.
An evangelical scholar has argued recently that acceptance of a second century date of
authorship is not incompatible with belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture.11 Most
evangelicals would disagree with this; but the fact is that evangelical scholars are recognizing
more and more the humanity of Scripture (without denying its divinity). The Bible is written
in ordinary human language, and often in the form of ordinary human literature. Critical
scholars led the way in recognizing the humanity of Scripture — this we acknowledge — but
they did so at the expense of its divinity, with disastrous results. A right balance must be
Introduction 10
reached in understanding both the divine inspiration and the humanity of Scripture.
It seems to me that pseudonymity could, in theory, be compatible with divine inspiration —
provided there was no element of deception. That is, provided it was openly pseudonymous,
and was clearly recognized for what it was by the original readers. However, for several
reasons (which I have outlined already), I believe that the book of Daniel is not
pseudonymous. All the reasons which I have given are compelling; but the most important
one is that the Jews, and above all Jesus Himself, accepted that ‘the book of Daniel’ was
indeed written by Daniel in the sixth century B.C.
Pseudonymity and the coming of Christ
However, let us suppose for a moment — for the sake of argument — that evangelicals are
mistaken, and that the book of Daniel was composed in the second century B.C. Should we, if
the book were proved to be a second century work, abandon our belief that the prophecies
look forward to Christ?
I would answer this question with an emphatic No! Even if the book of Daniel were proved
to be a second century work, I would still insist that it looks forward to the coming of Christ.
And by that I would mean that it looks forward to the coming of Christ in a specific way —
not in the rather vague and indefinite way allowed by some critics. It was not just an accident
or happy coincidence that Christ fulfilled the prophecies.
I would concede that the book was written originally to encourage those who were being
persecuted for their faith by Antiochus Epiphanes. I would even be willing to concede that the
author may have thought that God’s kingdom would be established immediately after the
death of Antiochus. The author may have thought that 9:24-27 was entirely concerned with
the events of his own day, and he may have thought that 11:40-45 described the last days of
Antiochus. All this I would be willing to concede.
I would believe, however, that guided by the Holy Spirit, the author actually pointed to the
coming of Christ more than a century and a half later. He may not have appreciated the full
significance of what he was predicting — but in the case of predictive prophecy, how can the
prophet possibly understand the full significance of his divinely inspired utterance? That the
prophecies of Daniel really do point to Christ will be shown clearly in the following pages.
The critical view is that the book predicted that God’s kingdom would be established in its
full glory immediately or very soon after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. And since this
did not happen, it follows (so the critics tell us) that the author was grossly mistaken.
However, in this book we shall see that this view can be refuted simply by examining
Daniel’s prophecies very carefully and comparing them with the facts of history.
We shall see that Daniel did not say that God’s kingdom would be fully established
immediately after the death of Antiochus. Whatever the author may have thought, what he
actually said was that it would be fully established after the death of Antiochus and the total
destruction of the Greek empire (assuming 2:33 and 7:7 refer to the Greek empire). As a
matter of historical fact, this destruction was a process which continued up to 27 B.C., only a
few years before the birth of Christ.
The critics have been so engrossed in the details of their theory (that the book was written to
help the Jews persecuted by Antiochus) that they seem to have completely overlooked the fact
that Daniel’s prediction actually was fulfilled. It is the critics who are mistaken — not the
book of Daniel.
Basic assumptions
Introduction 11
All books which deal with controversial subjects are written from a certain point of view and
make certain assumptions; and this is particularly true of non-academic books. The present
work is no exception; so it will be helpful if I indicate very briefly the nature of its basic
assumptions.
These assumptions are based upon certain facts of history — facts which any open-minded
person can verify, if he or she takes the trouble to examine the evidence. Our chief source of
information about these facts is the New Testament, and the weight of evidence which it
provides is far greater than most people realize. For example, it has been proved beyond
doubt that the author of Luke and Acts was one of the best and most accurate historians of
ancient times. It is very highly probable that he was a companion of Paul, and that he was
personally acquainted with many of those who knew Jesus during His life on earth. He was an
educated man, and in the prologue to his Gospel he specifically states, ‘Therefore, since I
myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me
to write an orderly account for you ….. so that you may know the certainty of the things you
have been taught’ (Luke 1:3, 4, N.I.V.). Outside the New Testament, supporting evidence is
found in the writings of Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus, the Jewish Mishnah and
Gemara and one or two other sources. There is also some archaeological evidence.12
These historical facts concern a unique historical person — Jesus Christ — and the main
details are as follows. Jesus Christ was a Jewish teacher who lived from about 6 B.C. to about
30 A.D. He was born of a virgin in Bethlehem and was of the family of David, but He lived
most of His life in Nazareth. He performed many miracles and claimed to be the Messiah.
And by implication, at least, He claimed also to be God incarnate. He was crucified during the
reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was Prefect of Judaea. He died on
Passover eve, which was a Friday, and on the following Sunday He rose from the dead. As a
result of this event, the Christian church was formed, thus changing the whole course of world
history.
I believe that if Jesus rose from the dead, it is reasonable to assume that His teachings are
true, with all that that implies — including His deity and the divine inspiration of the Old
Testament. It is also reasonable to assume that He enabled His disciples to produce a body of
divinely inspired writings which incorporate a reliable record of those teachings (John 14:26
and 16:12-14 support this assumption).13
If the New Testament is divinely inspired, we should accept and believe what it says — and
that includes its teachings on the subject of Old Testament prophecy. If we want to know
what God meant by the prophecies of Daniel (and what could be more reasonable if it was He
who inspired them?), we must pay attention to what He says about them in the New
Testament.
As indicated already, one of the most fundamental aspects of New Testament teaching is the
claim that Christ was fulfilling the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. However, we
can show that Daniel’s prophecies look forward to the first coming of Christ even if we leave
out the teaching of the New Testament, and even if we accept a second century date of
authorship. All we ask of critical or unbelieving readers is that they do not start off with the
assumption that miracles never happen and that predictive prophecy is impossible.
Daniel’s prophecies
We shall turn now to the prophecies themselves and view them briefly as a whole before
studying the details. The first two prophecies are revealed in two very similar dreams. In both
of them, four great empires are seen to arise in turn, the God of Heaven finally destroying the
fourth empire and setting up His own kingdom. The fourth empire is described in much
Introduction 12
greater detail than the others.
In the first dream (chapter 2) Nebuchadnezzar sees a great image composed of four different
metals. The fourth empire is symbolized by legs of iron and feet of iron mixed with clay. In
the second dream (chapter 7) Daniel sees four great beasts. The fourth beast has ten horns, but
then another ‘little’ horn grows up and fights against God and His saints.
In the third vision (chapter we are treated to a description of the Medo-Persian and Greek
(Macedonian) empires. The description of the latter includes a detailed account of Antiochus
Epiphanes. The two empires are symbolized by two beasts, and of the two the Greek is
described in much the greater detail.
The fourth prophecy (chapter 9) takes an entirely different form. In it Daniel is apparently
given the exact date of the Messiah’s arrival, together with certain details about His work and
the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem.
The fifth prophecy (chapters 11 and 12) consists of two parts. The first consists almost
entirely of a detailed account of the rise and fall of the Greek empire, and includes an
elaborate description of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is preceded by a very short description of the
Persian empire. The second part deals with a time of deliverance and glory awaiting the
people of God.
The controversy over interpretation centres mainly on the first two visions. There are three
main schools of interpretation:
1. The orthodox school. This school believes the four empires to be Babylon, Medo-Persia,
Greece and Rome. The ten horns stand for kingdoms which exist during a second phase of
Rome’s history. It may be that they are merely able to trace their origin back to the Roman
empire. The little horn appears during a third phase and may represent a man, government,
coalition of governments, or an ideology. It opposes the saints until the judgment of God
brings about the complete destruction of the Roman empire.
2. The dispensationalist school. This school also identifies the empires as Babylon, Medo-
Persia, Greece and Rome. They believe there will be a revived Roman empire which will be
divided into ten kingdoms, and so the ten horns of the fourth beast are compared with the ten
toes of the image — although Daniel does not tell us how many toes this image has. This
period, yet future, will occur after the return of Christ for His people. There are others who
believe that Christ will return for His people after this period. The little horn represents a
satanically inspired prince of the revived Roman empire (the ‘Antichrist’). This period will
last seven years (the seventieth ‘seven’ of chapter 9) and will be ended by yet another return
of Christ, who will reign on earth with His saints for a thousand years (Revelation 20:1-7). He
will then withdraw and chaos will prevail until He finally appears for the third or fourth time.
3. The critical school. This school identifies the four empires as Babylon, Media, Persia and
Greece (the Macedonian empire). The little horn is identified as Antiochus Epiphanes, a king
of the Syrian part of the Greek empire.
My own belief is that the four empires should be identified as Babylon, Media, Persia and
Greece. Many people feel that belief in this interpretation is tantamount to acceptance of the
critical school’s version of the book’s authorship. But this is not so. I believe that all the
prophecies are genuine predictions and that the events described are historically true.
(Incidentally, there were conservative Christians who held the ‘Greek’ view long before it
was adopted by the critics.)
Let the reader consider, for a moment, the fact that critical scholars believe the fourth
kingdom is such a detailed and accurate picture of the Greek empire that the author must have
Introduction 13
lived during the time of that empire after the events described had taken place. Clearly we
must give very serious consideration to the possibility that the fourth kingdom was the Greek
empire, even if we do not accept the critical version of the book’s authorship. Evangelicals
must not allow their judgment to be warped by their distaste for critical theology. We may not
agree with the critics’ view of the book’s authorship; but this does not mean that they have
nothing to teach us. Their observation that Daniel’s fourth kingdom accurately pictures the
Greek empire is perfectly valid. In fact one can think of several reasons (they are summarized
in chapter 5) why Greece should he given greater prominence than Rome. Furthermore, at
least one of these reasons should commend itself to conservative scholars more than to critical
scholars.
One of the reasons critical scholars give for their belief in a second century B.C. date of
authorship is the fact that the Greek empire is described very accurately and in much greater
detail than the preceding empires. They claim that the author’s knowledge of the Babylonian,
Median and Persian empires is both scanty and inaccurate, and they point out various
supposed errors concerning them in both the prophetic and narrative sections of the book.
They believe that Daniel’s first three kingdoms are supposed to represent Babylon, Media and
Persia, but that his description of them is inaccurate.
Against this, conservative scholars have shown that there is good reason to believe that all
the historical details in the stories are perfectly accurate. As mentioned earlier, archaeology
has confirmed the accuracy of the historical background to such an extent that many critics
now reckon that these stories came into circulation well before the second century B.C. —
some perhaps even as early as the sixth century. In the present work I will show that the
prophecies also are completely accurate. In particular, I will show that the ‘four kingdoms’
are an accurate, true-to-history description of the Babylonian, Median, Persian and Greek
empires.
Daniel, like all other Old Testament writers, is ultimately looking forward to the New
Covenant and all the glories of the Messianic kingdom — the New Israel. When Christ came,
He taught that He was the Messiah, that the New Covenant is through His shed blood and that
the New Israel, the Israel of God, is not an earthly kingdom, but is a heavenly kingdom whose
citizens are drawn from all nations. The New Testament makes it quite clear that the kingdom
of God was established at the time of Christ’s first advent.
I believe therefore that Daniel is looking forward primarily to the first coming of Christ. He
describes how four empires will precede the kingdom of Heaven. God will begin setting up
His kingdom by destroying the fourth empire (the Greek one) and He will strike the first blow
in the reign of a particular king (Antiochus Epiphanes). In some very wonderful way, His
kingdom will appear after the total destruction of the Greek empire.
In fact the Greek empire did begin to crumble at the time predicted, and Christ entered the
world almost immediately after the final destruction of the Greek empire. Rome began her
real conquest of the Greek empire (at this time consisting of a number of separate kingdoms)
by defeating Macedon in 168 B.C. and the Jews began their successful war of independence
in 167 B.C., all during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Syria was annexed in 65 B.C., and
the last vestige of the empire vanished when Egypt became a Roman province in 27 B.C.
Shortly afterwards, in about 6 B.C., Christ entered the world to complete the process of
setting up His kingdom. This kingdom is now undergoing a process of development, and a
final consummation awaits it; but the initial establishment of the kingdom has already taken
place.
(Note that the ninth chapter of Zechariah also seems to associate the coming of the Messiah
with the passing of the Greek empire.)
Introduction 14
Objections
I have indicated that I believe the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Greek empire
heralded the coming of Christ. I have shown also that the final destruction of the Greek
empire was followed — almost immediately — by the birth of Christ. But, the reader objects,
if the death of Antiochus and the destruction of the Greek empire were supposed to herald the
arrival of the Messiah, why is there a gap of over a hundred and fifty years between the death
of Antiochus and the birth of Christ? Why did it take so long for the Greek empire to be
destroyed?
It is natural for us to feel that a rapid destruction of the Greek empire, followed immediately
by Christ’s arrival, would have been more impressive and convincing. But God’s ways are not
our ways. He does not do things the way we expect. (An example of this was the way in
which Christ came as a suffering servant and not as an earthly, conquering, Davidic king.)
The period of delay may have been unexpected, but it was, in fact, remarkably fruitful. A
tremendous hope and expectation of a coming Messiah built up over the years after the time
of Antiochus. And this expectation was very strong — almost at fever pitch — around the
time of Christ. This, perhaps, is one reason why Christ delayed His coming.
The rise of a Messianic hope was closely connected with the development of apocalyptic
literature. And as we have noted, this literature was, to a large extent, inspired by the book of
Daniel. It is likely that during the persecutions of Antiochus, people began to ‘run to and fro’
(12:4) through Daniel’s prophecies as they saw his predictions coming to pass. A flame of
Messianic hope was kindled in their hearts — a flame which burned ever more brightly as the
years passed by. It is true that their concept of the Messiah was a mistaken one, but they were
expecting Him.
Measured by the scale of a man’s lifetime, a hundred and fifty years does seem rather a long
time. But is this the sort of scale we should use? The book of Daniel describes history from
six hundred years before the birth of Christ, and the Bible as a whole covers the entire span of
human history — a period of several thousand years. If we think a hundred and fifty years is a
long time, we are getting things out of perspective. We need to stand back (mentally) and try
to visualize the whole course of human history. Measured on this scale, a hundred and fifty
years is actually a very short time.
Another factor which has to be taken into account is the phenomenon of ‘foreshortening’ in
Biblical prophecy. Events which actually take place over long periods of time are sometimes
squeezed together so that they seem to happen all at once, over a short period of time. We
shall discuss this phenomenon a little further on in this chapter.
If the conservative reader finds the gap between Antiochus and Christ difficult to
understand, the critical reader finds it even more so — or perhaps one should say that he
thinks he understands it perfectly. To him, it is confirmation that the prophecies have nothing
at all to do with Christ. The second century author was simply writing about the events of his
own day. His prediction of God’s kingdom was no more than a noble, but over-optimistic,
hope.
To the critic, this is a thoroughly rational explanation which ties the whole thing up very
neatly. In support, he cites the evidence for a second century date of authorship, including the
book’s tremendous emphasis on the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes. In addition, he
asserts that some of the predictions which evangelicals say refer to Christ were actually
fulfilled during the time of Antiochus (e.g., the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27). Predictions
which were not fulfilled around the time of Antiochus are dismissed as erroneous, and the fact
Introduction 15
that they were fulfilled by Christ is largely ignored.
What is my answer? I have discussed the question of authorship already, so this point need
not detain us. I have indicated that the prophecies would still point to Christ even if a second
century date were proved. I have agreed also that the book had a special message of
encouragement for the Jews who suffered under Antiochus.
But how can we explain the fact that some of the predictions about Christ were also fulfilled
(apparently) around the time of Antiochus? We can begin by noting that the events of
Antiochus’ reign fulfilled these predictions imperfectly, whereas those of Christ’s time
fulfilled them perfectly. One highly unlikely explanation is that the book was, as the critics
say, written in the second century B.C. The author thought that he was writing about his own
time only; but guided by the Holy Spirit, he was actually pointing forward to the coming of
Christ.
But what if the book of Daniel is a work of the sixth century B.C.? I emphasize that these
prophecies (9:24-27; 12:1-3, 7) were fulfilled perfectly by the coming of Christ and the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., but imperfectly in the time of Antiochus. There is a
superficial similarity between the events of Antiochus’ reign and the events described in 9:26,
27 and 12:7, but there is very little, if any, correspondence with the other parts of these
prophecies (9: 24, 25 and 12:1-3) — these parts were fulfilled by Christ, and Christ alone.
The similarities could be passed off as a coincidence, but there seems to be more to it than
this. As we shall see, Christ Himself applied the prophecy of 9:26b, 27b to the events of 70
A.D., but He seemed also to link it with the persecution of Antiochus (which preceded His
first advent) and the tribulation which is to precede His second advent. The primary reference
is to the events of 70 A.D., but there seems to be some sort of secondary reference to the
‘tribulation’ which preceded the first advent and to another one which will precede the second
advent. (This problem of ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ fulfilments is discussed a little further on
in this chapter.)
I cannot help feeling also that part of the answer may be that Daniel’s prophecies are
something of a riddle — and that God made it this way deliberately. Jesus sometimes
obscured His message by speaking in parables — and He did it deliberately, for a reason
(Matthew 13:10-17). In other words these predictions were deliberately inspired by God in
such a way that people can avoid seeing that they point to Christ. If a person has decided the
issue in advance, there are some things that he simply does not want to see — and God does
not force people to see the truth against their wills. If the reader finds this idea difficult to
accept, he should look up the passage I have just referred to (Matthew 13:10-17). The way in
which some of Daniel’s predictions about Christ appear to apply to the time of Antiochus
provides an easy way out for those who do not want to believe. But I believe these people are
deceiving themselves.
It is easy to feel that God would have done better to have made these predictions absolutely
plain and obvious. But I repeat that His ways are not our ways. He does not always lay
everything on a plate before us — He wants us to search for the truth. The kingdom of
Heaven is like hidden treasure (Matthew 13:44). If we approach the subject with truly open
minds, with attitudes of belief and expectation, and of respect for God’s Word, our search will
be rewarded. ‘Seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you’ (Matthew 7:7).
Doubts and uncertainties
Now a good many readers, both critical and conservative, will disagree already with much of
what has been said so far. And I acknowledge that the whole subject is highly controversial
Introduction 16
and that it is unwise to be dogmatic.
Although the New Testament lays great stress on the fact that many things about Christ
were prophesied in the Old Testament, it does make it plain that the prophecies are not crystal
clear in meaning. The Jewish people as a whole did not understand them, and most of them
did not recognize Christ when He came. Even the disciples of Jesus were slow to understand.
And even with our present knowledge of Christ, with the advantage of hindsight, it is still
possible for Bible-believing Christians of equal sincerity to differ over the interpretation of
some parts.
Having thus cautiously admitted the controversial nature of the subject and the
inadvisability of being dogmatic, I will now proceed to stick my neck out slightly further. The
interpretation expounded in the following pages is largely concerned with known facts of past
history. Clearly, such an interpretation is capable of a greater degree of proof than
interpretations concerned with the unknown future. I myself feel that Daniel’s prophecies
apply so perfectly to events preceding and immediately following Christ’s first advent, that I
have considerable confidence in the correctness of this interpretation. However, I feel that
these past events undoubtedly typify, at least, certain events yet to come. Whether the
prophecies will find more specific fulfilment than this in the future is a matter for debate and
conjecture. It may or may not be so. Time will tell.
It seems that some predictive prophecies in the Bible had primary fulfilments which took
place soon after the prophecies were given, but also more distant secondary fulfilments. It is
possible that Daniel’s prophecies are of this type. I suggest that if they are, the interpretation
expounded in this book is the primary fulfilment, and the secondary fulfilment is the one that
is yet to come. I do indicate in the final chapter of this book what sort of secondary
application I prefer, but I am not dogmatic about it — I acknowledge the possibility that there
may be a more specific future fulfilment. I maintain, however, that even if there is such a
future fulfilment, it will be a secondary one which need not alter in any way the primary
fulfilment expounded in the following pages.
In connection with this question of ‘primary and secondary’ fulfilments, it is worth
reminding ourselves here that apart possibly from the books of Luke and Acts, the entire
Bible was written by Jews. And Jesus Himself was a Jew. If we are to understand the Bible
fully, therefore, it is sometimes necessary for us to see it through the eyes of the Hebrews.
People often get very perplexed and confused over the question of whether Daniel’s
prophecies look forward to the first advent or the second advent, and whether Jesus was
referring (in Matthew 24) to 70 A.D. or to His second advent. In fact Jesus was probably
referring to both events at one and the same time — and it may well be that this was perfectly
natural to Hebrew thought. Although separated by hundreds of years, these two happenings
are, in some sense, a single event. Daniel’s prophecies look forward to the first advent and the
second advent. The prediction of Israel’s punishment in Deuteronomy 28 looks forward to
Nebuchadnezzar’s siege and the siege of 70 A.D. Let us remember that Daniel’s prophecies
come to us from the East, and that they do not necessarily conform to the Western concept of
time. (I am indebted to Martin Goldsmith, a Hebrew Christian, for this insight.)
In Biblical predictive prophecy, therefore, events which are separated by long periods of
time are sometimes telescoped together in such a way that they seem to be (because in one
sense they are) one event. Likewise, events which take place over long periods of time are
sometimes squeezed together or ‘foreshortened’ (like a range of mountains viewed from a
distance) in such a way that they seem to happen all at once. Daniel saw that God’s kingdom
would be established at a certain point of time in world history, and he saw that it would fill
the earth and have absolute dominion. But he did not see that many centuries were to elapse
Introduction 17
between the founding of the kingdom and the time when it would, in every sense of the
phrase, ‘fill the whole earth’. Likewise he did not see that a number of years were to elapse
between the death of Antiochus Epiphanes and the final destruction of the Greek empire.
I believe, therefore, that Daniel’s prophecies look forward to the first coming of Christ, but
they look beyond it to the second coming also. They were fulfilled by the first coming, to a
large extent; but it is only when Christ returns at the end of this age — when God destroys the
present universe and creates ‘a new heaven and a new earth’ (Revelation 20:11; 21:1) — that
the fulfilment will be total and complete.
Times and numbers
Before concluding this chapter, I would like to say a few words about the vexed question of
‘times and numbers’ in the book of Daniel. Daniel’s prophecies contain references to certain
mysterious measurements of time, together with cryptic numbers, which have always been a
cause of some confusion. The tendency amongst evangelical scholars is to assume that these
numbers and units of time are entirely symbolical and are not to be taken literally.
I agree that these numbers are highly symbolical, but as far as I can see, there is no good
reason why they should not have a literal significance also. In the case of the ‘seventy weeks’
(9:24-27), for example, we shall see that there was a literal fulfilment; but at the same time,
the number seventy does have a symbolic significance.
Another period of time which crops up more than once, but in different forms, is that of
three and a half years. The figure three and a half has a definite symbolic significance, yet at
the same time it is a fact that Antiochus’ persecution did last for approximately three and a
half years — as did the public ministry of Jesus and the Jewish War of 67-70 A.D. We shall
deal with the literal aspect of these ‘times and numbers’ as we encounter them, but their
symbolic significance will be dealt with in the final chapter.
In one case, incidentally, the numbers seem to serve the purpose of helping us to distinguish
between different historical events which might otherwise be confused with each other. In
7:25 we are told that Antiochus’ persecution lasted three times and part (pelag) of a time. In
12:7, however, mention is made of a period of three times and half (chatsi) a time. The
difference is small, but as we shall see, it indicates that these verses describe two completely
different events. In the former case it is Antiochus’ persecution, and in the latter it is the
Jewish war of 67-70 A.D.
Conclusion
I would like to emphasize again that in this book I do not deal with every aspect of Daniel’s
prophecies. I concentrate mainly on showing that the historical predictions were accurate, and
that they foretold the date and historical setting of Christ’s first coming. However, I do also
relate the prophecies to the age in which we are living now. I do this in the final chapter,
mainly; but also, to some extent, throughout the book.
Several issues have been raised in this introduction, not all of which have been dealt with
very thoroughly; but enough has been said for this book’s purpose. For a more thorough
treatment of some of these issues, see Introduction to the Old Testament, by R. K. Harrison,
and Daniel, by J. G. Baldwin. So without further ado, let us now examine the prophecies in
detail.
1. The precise meaning of almah in Isaiah 7:14 is disputed. See articles on ‘Immanuel’ and
Introduction 18
‘virgin’ in The New Bible Dictionary, Inter-Varsity Fellowship.
2. Genesis 3:15; 12:3; 49:10; Numbers 24:17; Deuteronomy 18:18, 19; Psalms 16:10; 110:4;
Isaiah 7:14; 9:1, 2, 6; 49:6; 53:1-12; Jeremiah 23:5; Ezekiel 34:23, 24; 37:24; Micah 5:2;
Zechariah 9:9.
3. R. P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, (New Haven: Yale, 1929), pp. 199f.
4. Ezekiel 14:14-20; 28:3. Ezekiel spelt his name in a slightly different way — Dani’el
rather than Daniy’el. But this does not matter, for in personal names the vowel letters
were in free variation with one another, just as Do’eg (1 Samuel 21:7; 22:9) was spelt
Doyeg only a few verses later (22:18, 22). See ‘Daniel’ in The Illustrated Bible
Dictionary, Inter-Varsity Press.
5. J. Oswald Sanders, Bible Men of Faith, (H.E.Walter, 1982), p. 66.
6. H. H. P. Dressler, ‘The Identification of the Ugaritic DNIL with the Daniel of Ezekiel’,
Vetus Testamentum 29 (1979), p. 159. See also D. B. Wallace, ‘Who is Ezekiel’s
Daniel?’, bible.org.
7. R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, (Tyndale Press, 1970), pp. 1107, 1118.
8. See, for example, the chapter on Daniel in Introduction to the Old Testament, by R. K.
Harrison, also the chapter on Problems of Old Testament History, particularly the section
on the Captivity and Return, pp. 338-347. See also the article on Daniel in The New Bible
Dictionary (Inter-Varsity Press, 1962) and the Introduction in Daniel, by J. G. Baldwin
(Inter-Varsity Press, 1979).
9. Leon Morris, Apocalyptic, (Inter-Varsity Press, 1973), is a good introduction to the
subject.
10. E. W. Heaton, The Book of Daniel, (S.C.M. Press, 1956), pp. 35, 37.
11. J. E. Goldingay, Themelios, January 1977.
12. A helpful book on the subject of New Testament reliability is The New Testament
Documents, by F. F. Bruce (Inter-Varsity Press, 1960).
[http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm]
13. A helpful book on the subject of Biblical inspiration is Christ and the Bible, by John W.
Wenham (Tyndale Press, 1972).
© 1980, 2006 R.J.M. Gurney.
Revised and updated for the Web by the author.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/book_god-in-control_gurney.html