Stephen
Terry, Director
From North and South to the
Beautiful Land
Commentary
for the March 21, 2020 Sabbath School Lesson
"Now then,
I tell you the truth: Three more kings will arise in Persia, and then a
fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by
his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece." Daniel
11:2, NIV
Daniel,
chapter 11 is central to the Hebrew addition to the Aramaic portion of Daniel.
Chapter 8 was the glue intended to fasten the two together. Chapters 9 and 10
are the introduction to the justification for the Maccabean Revolt. Chapter 11, is the historical and prophetic justification, and
Daniel, Chapter 12 is the denouement for this section and ostensibly for the
entire book, although there are two more chapters that were not included in our
modern, Protestant Bibles. The intro to this chapter takes us directly into the
succession of the Achaemenid kings, the Achaemenids being called that because they are descended
from the mythological heroic ruler Achaemenes. There is no positive
verification extant as to whether Achaemenes ever existed, or if so, when.
Darius I claims descent from him, but rulers previous to him do not make
mention of such descent. Nonetheless, the lineage is labeled after him for ease
of historical reference.
Seventh-day
Adventists have long held with Uriah Smith's 19th century commentary
regarding this lineage.[i]
Smith identifies the fourth king after Cyrus as Xerxes. While he is Cyrus II
and not Cyrus I, he is the founder of an Achaemenid Empire
based upon the conquests of Media, Lydia and Babylon and therefore a more
likely candidate to trace that lineage from. Cyrus I, a predecessor, was
instead an unassuming vassal to the Medes. When we trace the kings after Cyrus
II, also known as Cyrus the Great through Cambyses II, Bardiya
(or Smerdis), and Darius I, we end up with Xerxes I.
Xerxes has special meaning for the Jews, because it is from his reign that the
festival of Purim, or Casting Lots, arose, a story we know today as the Book of
Esther. While most Jewish festivals derive from the Pentateuch, Purim and
Hanukkah celebrate events that took place between the rebuilding of the temple
in Jerusalem and the incarnation of the Messiah. It is significant therefore
that this chapter then should bring us to the reign that gave us Purim,
providing spiritual support for the Maccabees who later gave us Hanukkah. If we
are to find any sort of encapsulation for this narrative within the Hebrew
portion of Daniel to match the chiasm in the Aramaic portion, it might be
through the implied historical importance of the deliverance of the Jews on
Purim and the cleansing of the sanctuary of the first Hanukkah.
While
this structure brings us to the Maccabees, it also revives, perhaps as
foundation for that contemporary struggle, the age old battles with Israel's
sometimes friends, but more often enemies, to the north and south. The north
brought struggles against the Syrians, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians.
While the south brought large Egyptian armies into Palestine, the
"Pleasant Land." Although both are ruled by Greeks descended from Seleucus in the north and Ptolemy in the south during the
Maccabean era, little has changed for the Jews. As they had done for centuries
before the Babylonian captivity, they continued to attempt to play off the two
powerful antagonists against each other and hope to survive somehow in the
buffer zone between them. However, as this chapter of Daniel makes clear, the
Jews could do little to moderate, much less stop, the ongoing conflict between
two powers that considered Palestine their rightful prize. Ultimately, the
narrative in Maccabees 1 and 2 tells us the Jews took up their own fight and
set about attempting to carve out once again a restoration of the divinely
enlightened monarchies of David and Solomon.
I
will not detail the various intrigues, battles and treaties alluded to in this
chapter as they are already well documented in Uriah Smith's book previously
mentioned. Where he and I diverge may be of more significance. This is in the
interpretation of "the robbers of thy people" as Rome and the Roman
Empire. Others equate this with the Seleucid and Macedonian Empires of the
north conspiring to take Palestine and all other Egyptian territories from a
young Ptolemaic ruler in Egypt. They were thwarted in their conspiracy by the
intervention of Rome which made Egypt a protectorate. This was an important
lesson for the Maccabees who would later use the same ploy against the
Seleucids. With the Seleucid Empire crumbling under the resulting pressure from
Rome, The Hasmonean lineage descended from the Maccabees rose to rule over
Palestine. But Rome, stepping into the power vacuum left by the fall of the
Seleucids, conquered Palestine and eventually displaced the Hasmoneans as well,
setting up the Herodians, Edomite converts to Judaism,
to replace the Hasmoneans as proxies for Rome. When you offer a powerful dog a
treat, as the Hasmoneans did with offering Rome the Seleucids, one must be wary
lest the dog take the hand holding the treat as well. It was during the reign
of the Herodian, Herod Antipas, that Jesus was born and crucified. During
Christ's lifetime, Herodians and Roman governors
ruled jointly in Palestine. This is why Jesus was bounced back and forth
between Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas before his crucifixion.
Uriah
Smith really does not deal with the Maccabees in his book. Perhaps he did not
consider them to be a significant player during the intertestamental period, or
maybe he simply failed to account for them because Protestant Bibles ignored
that era for the most part with only the book of Esther speaking to the period
after the restoration of the temple. Even today, most Protestants consider
Esther an interesting story of faith, but not doctrinally significant. While it
is sometimes the subject of published children's stories, adult Protestants
rarely give much attention to the book, the gruesome ending making it even
difficult to share it straight from the Bible with their children. The fact
that God is not mentioned in the book also seems to make it into more of a
fairy tale about a powerful prince, a beautiful princess and a wicked royal
advisor than an important doctrinal text.
Whether
Smith cares about the Maccabees or not, he and I agree on one thing, the
closing of the intertestamental period leaves Rome in charge in Palestine.
However, from this point onward, as with several other commentators, pure
speculation begins. Looking through history, Smith seeks events that might
support a particular verse and strings them together arbitrarily, asserting
that an event that occurs several centuries later is the historical equivalent
to the verse without regard to the possibility of applications more
contemporary to the Maccabean, Herodian, Roman interaction. It is as though,
although the Jewish people and Jerusalem had been significant throughout the
Old Testament and the intertestamental period, they were now relegated to the
dustbin of history. One might see this as a final rejection of Judaism as
represented by the stoning of Stephen and the selection, by God, of Paul as an
apostle to the Gentiles, but that raises other questions. Why would the
biblical focus be entirely on Rome as some have interpreted the books of Daniel
and Revelation to be? Why is there absolute silence about other great empires
such as the Mongols, the Chinese, or the Ottomans. One
might make an argument that these were not Christian, so the Bible ignores
them. Obviously even Uriah Smith was troubled by that idea because he sought a
place for the Ottomans in his interpretation of Revelation. But still, suppose
we did buy into that perspective, we even then could rightfully wonder why the Rus or the British were not mentioned. Both were Christian
empires. The British Empire even spanned the entire globe. Yet, no place is
found for it in the procession to the apocalypse. Strangely though, perhaps because
Seventh-day Adventism arose in an American context, we have made every effort
to insert the United States as a main ingredient into the apocalyptic stew,
albeit unfavorably. Perhaps it belongs there, but is it more deserving than
other major empires past or present?
Sometimes
we American Christians tend to come across as self-absorbed and indifferent to
the rest of the world. We settle on our peculiar perspective on the Bible and
the world's relevance to it, and incorporating our
peculiar perspective into a statement of doctrinal orthodoxy, we no longer
search further for understanding. After all, if we have the truth, what need is
there for anything more? We become so settled in our perspective backed up by
majority votes and published decrees that ossification sets in. There is no
need to consider anything further except to recite perpetually what we have
already decided to be the truth. God have mercy on any who would question such
a stand. Historically, mankind has not been kind to those who might question
orthodoxy, or even worse, those that might question Christianity's endorsement
of a particular perspective on anything. Vicious personal epithets at times
reveal that were it still legal, there would still be many Christs crucified
and left for the life to drain out of them, with their accusers feeling the
world was a better place for it.[ii]
Why do we find it so difficult to accept the idea that truth is progressive?
Why can't we continue to search for and find further pearls hidden in scripture,
hidden deeper than those who came before us were willing or able to go? That
can set us free from the paralysis so many have been willing to settle for in
exchange for that freedom.[iii]
