Powered By Blogger

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Early Life Of Daniel In Babylon


Early Life Of Daniel In Babylon

Article contributed by www.walvoord.com

The first chapter of Daniel is a beautifully written, moving story of the early days of Daniel and his companions in Babylon. In brief and condensed form, it records the historical setting for the entire book. Moreover, it sets the tone as essentially the history of Daniel and his experiences in contrast to the prophetic approach of the other major prophets, who were divine spokesmen to Israel. In spite of being properly classified as a prophet, Daniel was in the main a governmental servant and a faithful historian of God’s dealings with him. Although shorter than prophetical books like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, the book of Daniel is the most comprehensive and sweeping revelation recorded by any prophet of the Old Testament. The introductory chapter explains how Daniel was called, prepared, matured, and blessed of God. With the possible exceptions of Moses and Solomon, Daniel was the most learned man in the Old Testament and most thoroughly trained for his important role in history and literature.

The Captivity of Judah

1:1-2 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.

The opening verses of Daniel succinctly give the historical setting which includes the first siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. According to Daniel, this occurred “in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah,” or approximately 605 b.c. Parallel accounts are found in 2 Kings 24:1-2 and 2 Chronicles 36:5-7. The capture of Jerusalem and the first deportation of the Jews from Jerusalem to Babylon, including Daniel and his companions, were the fulfillment of many warnings from the prophets of Israel’s coming disaster because of the nation’s sins against God. Israel had forsaken the law and ignored God’s covenant (Is 24:1-6). They had ignored the Sabbath day and the sabbatic year (Jer 34:12-22). The seventy years of the captivity were, in effect, God claiming the Sabbath, which Israel had violated, in order to give the land rest.

Israel had also gone into idolatry (1 Ki 11:5; 12:28; 16:31; 18:19; 2 Ki 21:3-5; 2 Ch 28:2-3), and they had been solemnly warned of God’s coming judgment upon them because of their idolatry (Jer 7:24— 8:3; 44:20-23). Because of their sin, the people of Israel, who had given themselves to idolatry, were carried off captive to Babylon, a center of idolatry and one of the most wicked cities in the ancient world. It is significant that after the Babylonian captivity, idolatry never again became a major temptation to Israel.

In keeping with their violation of the Law and their departure from the true worship of God, Israel had lapsed into terrible moral apostasy. Of this, all the prophets spoke again and again. Isaiah’s opening message is typical of this theme song of the prophets: They were a “sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward… Ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment” (Is 1:4-6). Here again, the ironic judgment of God is that Israel, because of sin, was being carried off captive to wicked Babylon. The first capture of Jerusalem and the first captives were the beginning of the end for Jerusalem, which had been made magnificent by David and Solomon. When the Word of God is ignored and violated, divine judgment sooner or later is inevitable. The spiritual lessons embodied in the cold fact of the captivity may well be pondered by the church today, too often having a form of godliness but without knowing the power of it. Worldly saints do not capture the world but become instead the world’s captives.

According to Daniel 1:1, the crucial siege and capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came “in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah.” Critics have lost no time pointing out an apparent conflict between this and the statement of Jeremiah that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon was in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer 25:1). Montgomery, for instance, rejects the historicity of this datum.36 This supposed chronological error is used as the first in a series of alleged proofs that Daniel is a spurious book written by one actually unfamiliar with the events of the captivity. There are, however, several good and satisfying explanations.

The simplest and most obvious explanation is that Daniel is here using Babylonian reckoning. It was customary for the Babylonians to consider the first year of a king’s reign as the year of accession and to call the next year the first year. Keil and others brush this aside as having no precedent in Scripture.37 Keil is, however, quite out of date with contemporary scholarship on this point. Jack Finegan, for instance, has demonstrated that the phrase the first year of Nebuchadnezzar in Jeremiah actually means “the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar”38 of the Babylonian reckoning. Tadmor was among the first to support this solution, and the point may now be considered as well established.39

What Keil ignores is that Daniel is a most unusual case because he of all the prophets was the only one thoroughly instructed in Babylonian culture and point of view. Having spent most of his life in Babylon, it is only natural that Daniel should use a Babylonian form of chronology. By contrast, Jeremiah would use Israel’s form of reckoning which included a part of the year as the first year of Jehoiakim’s reign. This simple explanation is both satisfying and adequate to explain the supposed discrepancy. However, there are other explanations.

Leupold, for instance, in consideration of the additional reference in 2 Kings 24:1 where Jehoiakim is said to submit to Nebuchadnezzar for three years, offers another interpretation. In a word, it is the assumption that there was an earlier raid on Jerusalem, not recorded elsewhere in the Bible, which is indicated in Daniel 1:1. Key to the chronology of events in this crucial period in Israel’s history was the battle at Carchemish in May-June 605 B.C., a date well established by D. J. Wiseman.40 There Nebuchadnezzar met Pharaoh Necho and destroyed the Egyptian army; this occurred “in the fourth year of Jehoiakim” (Jer 46:2). Leupold holds that the invasion of Daniel 1:1 took place prior to this battle, instead of immediately afterward. He points out that the usual assumption that Nebuchadnezzar could not have bypassed Carchemish to conquer Jerusalem first, on the theory that Carchemish was a stronghold which he could not ignore, is not actually supported by the facts, as there is no evidence that the Egyptian armies were in any strength at Carchemish until just before the battle that resulted in the showdown. In this case, the capture of Daniel would be a year earlier or about 606 b.c.41

In the present state of biblical chronology, however, this is too early. Both Finegan42 and Thiele,43 present-day authorities on biblical chronology, accept the assumption that the accession-year system of dating was in use in Judah from Jehoash to Hoshea. Thiele resolves the discrepancy by assuming that Daniel used the old calendar year in Judah which began in the fall in the month Tishri (Sept.-Oct.) and that Jeremiah used the Babylonian calendar which began in the spring in the month Nisan (March-April). According to the Babylonian Chronicle, “Nebuchadnezzar conquered the whole area of the Hatti country,” an area that includes all of Syria and the territory south to the borders of Egypt, in the late spring or early summer of 605. This would be Jehoiakim’s fourth year according to the Nisan reckoning and the third year according to the Tishri calendar.

Still a third view, also mentioned by Leupold,44 offers the suggestion that the word came in Daniel 1:1 actually means “set out” rather than “arrived” and cites the following passages for similar usage (Gen 45:17; Num 32:6; 2 Ki 5:5; Jon 1:3). Keil, following Hengstenberg and others, also supports this explanation.45 This argument, which hangs on the translation “set out” (for the Hebrew bo’), is weak, however, as the examples cited are indecisive. In verse 2, the same word is used in the normal meaning of “came.”

Both of Leupold’s explanations given as alternates are far less satisfactory than the method of harmonization offered by Finegan and Thiele. The probability is that Wiseman is right, that Daniel was carried off captive shortly after the capture of Jerusalem in the summer of 605 B.C. In any case, the evidence makes quite untenable the charge that the chronological information of Daniel is inaccurate. Rather, it is entirely in keeping with information available outside the Bible and supports the view that Daniel is a genuine book.

According to Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar, described as “king of Babylon,” besieged Jerusalem successfully. If this occurred before the battle of Carchemish, Nebuchadnezzar was not as yet king. The proleptic use of such a title is so common (e.g. in the statement “King David as a boy was a shepherd”) that this does not cause a serious problem. Daniel does record, however, the fact that Jehoiakim was subdued and that “part of the vessels of the house of God” were “carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god.” “Shinar” is a term used for Babylon with the nuance of a place hostile to faith. It is associated with Nimrod (Gen 10:10), became the locale of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:2), and is the place to which wickedness is banished (Zee 5:11).

The expression he carried is best taken as referring only to the vessels and not to the deportation of captives. Critics, again, have found fault with this as an inaccuracy because nowhere else is it expressly said that Daniel and his companions were carried away at this time. The obvious answer is that mention of carrying off captives is unnecessary in the light of the context of the following verses, where it is discussed in detail. There was no need to mention it twice. Bringing the vessels to the house of Nebuchadnezzar’s god Marduk46 was a natural religious gesture, which would attribute the victory of the Babylonians over Israel to Babylonian deities. Later other vessels were added to the collection (2 Ch 36:18), and they all appeared on the fateful night of Belshazzar’s feast in Daniel 5. Jehoiakim himself was not deported, later died, and was succeeded by his son Jehoiachin. Jehoiakim, although harrassed by bands of soldiers sent against him, was not successfully besieged (2 Ki 24:1-2).

Jewish Youths Selected for Training

1:3-7 And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes; Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful, in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king’s meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king. Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abed-nego.

In explanation of how Daniel and his companions found the way to Babylon, Daniel records that the king “spake unto Ashpenaz,” better translated “told” or “commanded,” to bring some of the children of Israel to Babylon for training to be servants of the king. The name Ashpenaz, according to Siegfried H. Horn, “appears in the Aramaic incantation texts from Nippur as ‘SPNZ, and is probably attested in the Cuneiform records as Ashpazdnda.” Horn goes on to identify him as, “the chief of King Nebuchadnezzar’s eunuchs (Dan. 1:3).”47 The significance of the name Ashpenaz has been much debated, but it seems best to agree with Young that “its etymology is uncertain.”48

It is probable that by eunuchs reference is made to important servants of the king, such as Potiphar (Gen 37:36), who was married. It is not stated that the Jewish youths were made actual eunuchs as Josephus assumes.49 Isaiah had predicted this years before (Is 39:7), and Young supports the broader meaning of eunuch by the Targum rendering of the Isaiah passage which uses the word nobles for eunuchs.50 However, because the word saris means both “court officer” and “castrate,” scholars are divided on the question of whether both meanings are intended. Montgomery states, “It is not necessary to draw the conclusion that the youths were made eunuchs, as Jos. hints: Tie made some of them eunuchs,’ nor to combine the ref. after Theodt., with the alleged fulfillment of Is 39:7.”51 Charles writes in commenting on the description in Daniel 1:4, no blemish, “The perfection here asserted is physical, as in Lev. 21:17. Such perfection could not belong to eunuchs.”52 All agree, however, that saris, translated “eunuch” in Isaiah 56:3, refers to a castrate. Ultimately the choice is left to the interpreter, although, as indicated above, some favor the thought of “court officer.”

Those selected for royal service are described as being “the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes.” The reference to the children of Israel does not mean that they were selected out of the Northern Kingdom which already had been carried off into captivity, but rather that the children selected were indeed Israelites, that is, descendants of Jacob. The stipulation, however, was that they should be of the king’s seed, literally “of the seed of the kingdom,” that is, of the royal family or of “the princes”—the nobility of Israel.

The Hebrew for the princes is a Persian word, partemim, which is cited as another proof for a late date of Daniel. However, inasmuch as Daniel lived in his latter years under Persian government as a high official, there is nothing strange about an occasional Persian word. As a matter of fact, it is not even clear that the word is strictly Persian, as its origin is uncertain.53

In selecting these youths for education in the king’s court in Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar was accomplishing several objectives. Those carried away captive could well serve as hostages to help keep the royal family of the kingdom of Judah in line. Their presence in the king’s court also would be a pleasant reminder to the Babylonian king of his conquest and success in battle. Further, their careful training and preparation to be his servants might serve Nebuchadnezzar well in later administration of Jewish affairs.

The specifications for those selected are carefully itemized in verse 4. They were to have no physical blemish and were to be “well favoured,” that is, “good ones in appearance.” They were to be superior intellectually, that is, “skilful in all wisdom”; and their previous education, such as was afforded royal children or children of the nobility, was a factor. Their capacity to have understanding in “science” should not be taken in the modern sense, but rather as pertaining to their skill in all areas of learning of their day. In a word, their total physical, personal, and intellectual capacities as well as their cultural background were factors in the choice. Their training, however, was to separate them from their previous Jewish culture and environment and teach them “the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.”

The reference to Chaldeans may be to the Chaldean people as a whole or to a special class of learned men, as in Daniel 2:2, i.e., those designated as kasdi‚m. The use of the same word for the nation as a whole and for a special class of learned men is confusing, but not necessarily unusual. The meaning here may include both: the general learning of the Chaldeans and specifically the learning of wise men, such as astrologers. It is most significant that the learning of the Chaldeans was of no help to Daniel and his companions when it came to the supreme test of interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Their age at the time of their training is not specified, but they were probably in their early teens.

Although an education such as this did not in itself violate the religious scruples of Jewish youths, their environment and circumstances soon presented some real challenges. Among these was the fact that they had a daily provision of food and wine from the king’s table. Ancient literature contains many references to this practice. A. Leo Oppenheim lists deliveries of oil for the sustenance of dependents of the royal household in ancient literature and includes specific mention of food for the sons of the king of Judah in a tablet dating from the tenth to the thirty-fifth year of Nebuchadnezzar II.54 Such food was “appointed,” or “assigned, in the sense of numerical distribution.”55

The expression a daily provision in the Hebrew is literally “a portion of the day in its day.” The word for “meat” (Heb. pathbagh), according to Leupold, “is a Persian loan word from the Sanscrit pratibagha.”56Although it is debatable whether the word specifically means “delicacies,” as Young considers that it means “assignment,”57 the implication is certainly there that the royal food was lavish and properly called “rich food” (as in the RSV).58

The bountiful provision of the king was intended to give them ample food supplies to enable them to pursue their education for a three-year period. The expression so nourish them three years literally refers to training such as would be given a child. The goal was to bring them to intellectual maturity to “stand before the king,” equivalent to becoming his servant and thereby taking a place of responsibility.

In verse 6, Daniel and his three companions—Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah—are mentioned as being children of Judah included among the captives. These only of the captives are to figure in the narrative following, and no other names are given. The corrupting influences of Babylon were probably too much for the others, and they were useless in God’s hands.

The name of Daniel is a familiar one in the Bible and is used of at least three other characters besides the prophet Daniel (1 Ch 3:1, a son of David; Ezra 8:2, a son of Ithamar; and in Neh 10:6, a priest). Conservative scholars, however, find a reference to the prophet Daniel in Ezekiel 14:14, 20; and Ezekiel 28:3. As pointed out in the Introduction, critics usually dispute the identification of Ezekiel’s mention of Daniel as the same person as the author of the book as this would argue against their contention that the book of Daniel is a second century b.c. forgery. As noted previously, however, it would be most significant and natural for Ezekiel, a captive, to mention one of his own people who, though also a captive, had risen to a place of power second only to the king. Jewish captives would not only regard Daniel as their hero, but as a godly example. The contention of critics that Ezekiel is referring to a mythological character mentioned in the Ras Shamra Text (dated 1500-1200 b.c.) is, as Young states, “extremely questionable.”59

The change in the name of Daniel and his three companions focuses attention upon the meaning of both their Hebrew and Babylonian names.

Scholars are generally agreed that Daniel’s name means “God is judge” or “my judge is God” or “God has judged.” Hananiah, whose name also appears elsewhere in the Bible, referring to other individuals (1 Ch 25:23; 2 Ch 26:11; Jer 36:12; etc.) is interpreted as meaning “Jehovah is gracious” or “Jehovah has been gracious.” Mishael (Ex 6:22; Neh 8:4) may be understood to mean “who is He that is God?”60 or “who is what God is?”61 Azariah may be interpreted, “The Lord helps”62 or “Jehovah hath helped.” All of the Hebrew names of Daniel’s companions appear again in other books of the Old Testament in reference to others by the same name. Significantly, all of their Hebrew names indicate their relationship to the God of Israel, and in the customs of the time, connote devout parents. This perhaps explains why these, in contrast to the other young men, are found true to God: they had godly homes in their earlier years. Even in the days of Israel’s apostasy, there were those who corresponded to Elijah’s seven thousand in Israel who did not bow the knee to Baal.

All four of the young men, however, are given new names as was customary when an individual entered a new situation (cf. Gen 17:5; 41:45; 2 Sa 12:24-25; 2 Ki 23:34; 24:17; Est 2:7).63 The heathen names given to Daniel and his companions are not as easily interpreted as their Hebrew names, but probably they were given in a gesture to credit to the heathen gods of Babylon the victory over Israel and to further divorce these young men from their Hebrew background. Daniel is given the name of Belteshazzar, identical to Belshazzar and meaning “protect his life,”64 or preferably “May Bel protect his life” (see Dan 4:8).65 Bel was a god of Babylon (cf. Baal, the chief god of the Canaanites).

Hananiah was given the name of Shadrach. Leupold interprets this as being a reference to the compound of Sudur, meaning “command,” and Aku, the moon-god. Hence the name would mean “command of Aku.”66 Young considers the name a perversion of Marduk, a principal god of Babylon.

Mishael is given the name of Meshach. Leupold considers this to be a contraction of Mi-sha-aku meaning, “who is what Aku (the moon-god) is?” Montgomery holds that the first part of Mishael means “salvation,” following Schrader and Torrey but rejecting an alternate translation “who is what god is?” followed by most modern commentaries.67 Montgomery is probably right, although Young does not feel the identification of this name is sufficient to give a definition.68

Azariah is given the name of Abed-nego which probably means “servant of Nebo” with Nebo corrupted to nego. Keil does not venture an opinion on the meaning of Shadrach or Meshach, but agrees with the interpretation of Abed-nego.69 Nebo was considered the son of the Babylonian god Bel.

Daniel, in his later writing, generally prefers his own Hebrew name, but frequently uses the Babylonian names of his companions. The fact that the Hebrew youths were given heathen names, however, does not indicate that they departed from the Hebrew faith any more than in the case of Joseph (Gen 41:45).

Daniel’s Purpose Not to Defile Himself

1:8-10 But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king.

Daniel and his companions were confronted with the problem of compromise in the matter of eating food provided by the king. No doubt, the provision for them of the king’s food was intended to be generous and indicated the favor of the king. Daniel, however, “purposed in his heart” or literally, “laid upon his heart” not to defile himself (cf. Is 42:25; 47:7; 57:1, 11; Mal 2:2). The problem was twofold. First, the food provided did not meet the requirements of the Mosaic law in that it was not prepared according to regulations and may have included meat from forbidden animals. Second, there was no complete prohibition in the matter of drinking wine in the Law; but here the problem was that the wine, as well as the meat, had been dedicated to idols as was customary in Babylon. To partake thereof would be to recognize the idols as deities. A close parallel to Daniel’s purpose not to defile himself is found in the book of Tobit (1:10-11, RSV) which refers to the exiles of the northern tribes: “When I was carried away captive to Nineveh, all my brethren and my relatives ate the food of the Gentiles: but I kept myself from eating it, because I remembered God with all my heart.” A similar reference is found in 1 Maccabees (1:62-63, RSV), “But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. They chose to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die.”70

The problem of whether Daniel and his companions should eat the food provided by the king was a supreme test of their fidelity to the law and probably served the practical purpose of separating Daniel and his three companions from the other captives who apparently could compromise in this matter. His decision also demonstrates Daniel’s understanding that God had brought Israel into captivity because of their failure to observe the law. Daniel’s handling of this problem sets the spiritual tone for the entire book.

Keil summarizes the problem in these words:

The command of the king, that the young men should be fed with the food and wine from the king’s table, was to Daniel and his friends a test of their fidelity to the Lord and to His law, like that to which Joseph was subjected in Egypt, corresponding to the circumstances in which he was placed, of his fidelity to God (Gen. 39:7 f.). The partaking of the food brought to them from the king’s table was to them contaminating, because forbidden by Law; not so much because the food was not prepared according to the Levitical ordinance, or perhaps consisted of the flesh of animals which to the Israelites were unclean, for in this case the youths were not under the necessity of refraining from the wine, but the reason of their rejection of it was that the heathen at their feasts offered up in sacrifice to their gods, a part of the food and the drink, and thus consecrated their meals by a religious rite; whereby not only he who participated in such a meal participated in the worship of idols, but the meat and the wine as a whole were the meat and the wine’ of an idol sacrifice, partaking of which, according to the saying of the apostle (1 Cor. 10:20 f.), is the same as sacrificing to devils. Their abstaining from such food and drink betray no rigorism going beyond the Mosaic law, a tendency which first showed itself in the time of the Maccabees… Daniel’s resolution to refrain from such unclean food flowed, therefore, from fidelity to the law, and from steadfastness to the faith that ‘man lives not by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord” (Deut. 8:3).71

Daniel’s handling of this difficult situation reflects his good judgment and common sense. Instead of inviting punishment by rebellion, he courteously requests of the prince of the eunuchs that he might be excused from eating food which would defile his conscience (1 Co 10:31). Although critics attempt to equate this abstinence with fanaticism and thereby link it to the Maccabean Period,72 there is no excuse for such a charge since Daniel handles the situation well. Leupold points out that Daniel did not object to the heathen names given to them nor to their education which involved the learning of the heathen, including their religious view.73 This was not a direct conflict with the Jewish law. Here Daniel is exercising a proper conscience in matters that were of real importance.

When Daniel brought his request to the prince of the eunuchs, we are told that God had brought Daniel into favor and compassion with him. The King James Version implies that this predated his request. It is more probable that it occurred at the time the request was given, as brought out by the literal rendering of the Hebrew, “God gave Daniel favour” and so forth. As Young puts it, “The sequence of ideas is historical.”74 The word “favour” (Heb. hesed) means kindness or good will. The translation “tender love” (Heb. rahami‚m) is a plural intended to denote deep sympathy. It is clear that God intervened on Daniel’s part in preparing the way for his request.

The prince of eunuchs, however, was not speaking idly when he replied to Daniel, “I fear my lord the king,” for indeed it was not an overstatement that, if he did not fulfill his role well, he might lose his head. Life was cheap in Babylon and subject to the whims of the king. The prince, therefore, did not want to be caught changing the king’s orders in regard to the diet of the captives. If later they showed any ill effects and inquiry was made, he would have been held responsible. The expression “worse liking” (i.e., worse looking, poor in comparison) does not imply any dangerous illness but only difference of appearance, such as paleness or being thinner than his companions. Although the prince could have peremptorily denied Daniel’s request, Ashpenaz attempted to explain the problem. This opened the door for a counterproposal.

Daniel’s Request for a Ten-Day Test

1:11-14 Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king’s meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants. So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days.

Daniel’s next step was to appeal to the steward who had immediate charge of Daniel and his companions for a ten-day test. Montgomery observes, “Dan. then appeals privately to a lower official, the ‘warden,’ as the Heb. word means, who was charged with the care of the youths and their diet… Tradition has rightly distinguished between this official and the Chief Eunuch.”75 The King James Version indicates this request is made to Melzar (Heb. Hamelsar). The probability is that this is not a proper name and simply means “the steward” or the chief attendant.76 The Septuagint changes the text here to indicate that Daniel had actually spoken to “Abiezdri who had been appointed chief eunuch over Daniel.” Critics, such as Charles, have used this as a basis for questioning the text of Daniel with the idea that Daniel would not speak to the steward but would rather continue his conversation with the prince of eunuchs. Young, after Calvin, refutes this idea, however, and holds that Daniel’s action is perfectly natural and in keeping with the situation.77 Having been refused permission for a permanent change in diet, Daniel naturally took the next course of attempting a brief trial. As Montgomery says, “An underling might grant the boon without fear of discovery.”78 The chief steward, not being in as close or responsible a position as the prince of eunuchs in relation to the king, could afford to take a chance.

The proposal was to give a ten-day trial, a reasonable length of time to test a diet and yet one that would not entail too much risk of incurring the wrath of the king. The request to eat “pulse” or vegetables included a broad category of food. Young agrees with Driver that this did not limit the diet to peas and beans but to food that grows out of the ground, i.e., “the sown things.”79 Calvin may be right that Daniel had a special revelation from God in seeking this permission and for this reason the youth made the proposal that at the end of the ten days their countenance (or appearance) should be examined and judgment rendered accordingly.80 The steward granted their request, and the test was begun.

Daniel’s Request Granted

1:15-16 And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king’s meat. Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse.

At the conclusion of the test, Daniel and his companions not only were better in appearance but also were fatter in flesh than those who had continued to eat the king’s food. Although God’s blessing was on them, it is not necessary to imagine any supernatural act of God here. The food they were eating was actually better for them. On the basis of the test their request was granted, and their vegetable diet continued.

God’s Blessing on Daniel and His Companions

1:17-21 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azatriah: therefore stood they before the king. And in all matters bf wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm. And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus.

The closing section of Daniel 1 is a summary of the three years of hard study and the result of God’s blessing upon the four faithful young men. The word children is better translated “youths.” By the time they completed their education, they were probably nearly twenty years of age. In addition to their natural intellectual ability and their evident careful application to their studies, God added His grace. The article precedes the name of God, and by this is meant that He is the true God. By knowledge and skill (or intelligence) is indicated that they not only had a thorough acquaintance with the learning of the Chaldeans, but that they had insight into its true meaning (James 1:5). Calvin is probably wrong that they were kept from study of the religious superstitions and magic which characterized the Chaldeans.81 In order to be fully competent to meet the issues of their future life, they would need a thorough understanding of the religious practices of their day. Here the grace of God operated, however, in giving them understanding so they could distinguish between the true and the false. They not only had knowledge but discernment.

The expression “in all learning and wisdom” has reference to literature and the wisdom to understand it. As Keil puts it, Daniel “needed to be deeply versed in the Chaldean wisdom, as formerly Moses was in the wisdom of Egypt (Acts vii. 22), so as to be able to put to shame the wisdom of this world by the hidden wisdom of God.”82

Although all four youths shared in an intelligent understanding of the literature of the Chaldeans and were able to separate wisely the true from the false, only Daniel had understanding “in all visions and dreams.” This was not a foolish boast but an actual fact necessary to understand Daniel’s role as a prophet in the chapters which followed. In this, Daniel differed from his companions as a true prophet. His ability to discern and interpret visions and dreams primarily had in view the interpretation of the dreams and visions of others. However, this did not include the ability to know Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2, which Daniel received only after earnest prayer; and it did not necessarily as yet give Daniel the capacity to have visions and dreams himself as he did in chapter 7 and following.

Daniel’s capacity included distinguishing a true dream from one that had no revelatory meaning and also the power to interpret it correctly. God’s hand was already on Daniel even as a young man much as it was on Samuel centuries before. Although critics like Montgomery and others deprecate the significance and the importance of the prophetic gift in Daniel on the assumption of a second century date for the book, it becomes quite clear as the book progresses that though Daniel differed somewhat from the major prophets, his contribution is just as important and in fact, more extensive than that of any other book of the Old Testament.83 To no other was the broad expanse of both Gentile and Hebrew future history revealed in the same precision.

In verse 18 the conclusion of their period of preparation is marked by a personal interview before Nebuchadnezzar, and they were brought into his presence by the prince of eunuchs himself. The expression at the end of the days means at the end of the three-year period. At this time, apparently all of the young men in training were tested by the king.

Under Nebuchadnezzar’s searching questions, Daniel and his three companions, named with their Hebrew names, were found “ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.” By this is meant that they had high intelligence and keen discernment in the matters which they had studied. The statement that they were “ten times better,” literally, “ten hands,” at first glance sounds extravagant but signifies that they were outstandingly different. Even this praise, however, is mentioned in such a matter of fact way and so evidently due to the grace of God that Daniel is delivered from the charge of boasting. Their straightforward character and honesty, as well as the deep insight of these young men into the real meaning of their studies, must have stood in sharp contrast to the wise men of the king’s court, who often were more sly and cunning than wise. Nebuchadnezzar, himself an extraordinarily intelligent man as manifested in his great exploits, was quick to respond to these bright young minds.

Chapter 1 concludes with the simple statement that Daniel continued unto the first year of king Cyrus. Critics have seized upon this as another inaccuracy because, according to Daniel 10:1, the revelation was given to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus. The large discussion that this has provoked is much ado about nothing. Obviously to Daniel, the important point was that his ministry spanned the entire Babylonian empire, and he was still alive when Cyrus came on the scene. The passage does not say nor necessarily imply that Daniel did not continue after the first year of Cyrus—which, as a matter of fact, he did.

The attempts to dislodge both verses 20 and 21 as illustrated in the comments of Charles, who wants to put them at the end of the second chapter, have been satisfactorily answered by Young.84 Charles argues, “If the king had found the Jewish youths ten times wiser than all the sages of Babylon he would naturally have consulted them before the wise men of Babylon, and not have waited till, in ii.16, they volunteered their help.”85 This is, however, an arbitrary change in the text. If the events of chapter 2 follow chronologically at the end of chapter 1, they had demonstrated only proficiency in study, not ability to interpret dreams as in chapter 2. There is no indication in chapter 1 that they were immediately given the rank of chief wise men. Therefore, they were not called to interpret the dream of chapter 2. A similar situation is found in chapter 5, where Daniel, even with his record of interpreting dreams and visions, is not called in until others have failed. Critics are too eager to change the text of Scripture to suit their interpretations.

As is pointed out in the discussion of Daniel 2:1, it is entirely possible that the vision of Daniel 2 and the interpretation of the dream occurred during the third year of Daniel’s training, before the formal presentation of the four youths to the king. This would take away all objections concerning the statement of Daniel 1:20, as it would make Daniel’s graduation after the events of Daniel 2. That the book of Daniel is not written in strict chronological order is evident from the placing of chapters 5 and 6 before chapters 7 and 8, out of chronological order. In any case, there is no justification for arbitrary criticism of Daniel’s record.

The narrative as it stands is beautifully complete—an eloquent testimony to the power and grace of God in a dark hour of Israel’s history when the faithfulness of Daniel and his companions shines all the brighter because it is in a context of Israel’s captivity and apostasy. In every age, God is looking for those whom He can use. Here were four young men whose testimony has been a source of strength to every saint in temptation. Certainly Daniel would not have been recognized as a prophet of God and the channel of divine revelation if he had not been a man of prayer and of uncompromising moral character, whom God could honor fittingly. Daniel and his companions represent the godly remnant of Israel which preserved the testimony of God even in dark hours of apostasy and divine judgment. The noble example of these young men will serve to encourage Israel in their great trials in the time of the end.

36 J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, pp. 113-16.

37 Carl Frederick Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, p. 60.

38 Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, p. 202.

39 Hayim Tadmor, “Chronicle of the Last Kings of Judah,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15:227.

40 D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings, pp. 20-26.

41 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, pp. 47-54.

42 Finegan, pp. 194-201.

43 Edwin R. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, p. 166.

44 Leupold, pp. 54-55.

45 Keil, pp. 62-71.

46 Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, p. 38.

47 Siegfried H Horn, Seventh Day Adventist Dictionary of the Bible, p. 83.

48 Young, p. 39.

49 Flavius Josephus, The Works of Flavius Josephus, p. 222.

50 Young, p. 39.

51 Montgomery, p. 119.

52 Robert H. Charles, The Book of Daniel, p. 7.

53 *In his discussion, Leupold observes correctly, “Critics should use uncertain terms with proper caution” (Leupold, p. 59).

54 A. L. Oppenheim, “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 308.

55 Montgomery, p. 127.

56 Leupold, p. 62. See Montgomery, pp. 127-28 for a complete discussion; cf. Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon to the Old Testament, p. 834.

57 Young, p. 42.

58 The privilege of sitting at the king’s table is discussed by Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, pp. 120-23.

59 Young p. 274.

60 Leupold, p. 64.

61 Keil, p. 79; Young, p. 43.

62 Keil, p. 79.

63 Cf. Young, p. 43.

64 Ibid.

65 Cf. Leupold, p. 65.

66 Ibid.; cf. Montgomery, p. 128.

67 Montgomery, pp. 128-29; Brown, Driver, and Briggs, p. 567; Horn, p. 724.

68 Young, p. 43.

69 Keil, pp. 79-80.

70 Cf. Tudith 12:1-4; Book of Jubilees 22:16; and the interesting account in Josephus, Life 3 (14), where we hear of certain Jewish priests in Rome who avoided defilement with Gentile food by living solely on figs and nuts (cf. Montgomery, p. 130).

71 Keil, p. 80.

72 Young, p. 45.

73 *Leupold credits Kliefoth as expressing this concept (Leupold, p. 66).

74 Ibid.

75 Montgomery, p. 131.

76 Cf. Leupold, p. 70; Keil, p. 81.

77 Young, pp. 45-46.

78 Montgomery, p. 131.

79 Young, p. 46; cf. Montgomery, p. 132.

80 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, 1:105.

81 Calvin, 1:112.

82 Keil, p. 83.

83 Montgomery states, “Dan.’s specialty in visions and dreams does not belong to the highest category of revelation, that of prophecy; the Prophets had long since passed away, 1 Mac. 4:46, and the highest business of the Jewish sage was the interpretation of their oracles” (Montgomery, p. 132). Montgomery rejects, of course, a sixth century B.C. date for Daniel, well before the last of the prophets. For refutation, see Young, pp. 49-50.

84 Young, pp. 52-53.

85 Charles, p. 12.

Monday, February 6, 2017

Latter Rain Theology And The Pre-Tribulation Rapture


Latter Rain Theology And The Pre-Tribulation Rapture
Presented by Joseph R. Chambers, D.D. Charlotte, North Carolina
This theology in a broad sense embraces at least eight different concepts or ideas. There is a lot of variations from minister to minister or ministry to ministry. Tommy Ice has done an excellent job explaining the background; therefore, I will not try to repeat his material. Rather, let me show you how these ideas are impacting the present day church. Let's look at the different concepts that relate to "Latter Rain" theology.
1. This theology teaches that there is a distinct period of revival to occur at the end of the church age, which is above, greater, and more complete than any revival of the Second Testament church.
Bob Jones, a vineyard minister and one of the original "Kansas City Prophets" stated, "They will move into things of the supernatural that no one has ever moved in before. Every miracle, sign and wonder that has ever been in the Bible - they'll move in it consistently. They'll move in the power that Christ did. Every sign and wonder that's ever been will be many times in the last days. They themselves will be that generation that raised up to put death itself underneath their feet and to glorify Christ in every way... and the Church that is raising up in the government will be the head and the covering for them. So that that glorious church might be revealed in the last days because the Lord Jesus is worthy to be lifted up by a church that has reached the full maturity of the god-man!" (Visions & Revelations, Fall, 1988.)
Jewel Van der Merwe, an Assembly of God member, describes this "New Wave Theology", which is promoted by the Vineyard church as following,
"Vineyard Ministries are holding conferences overseas and throughout the U.S.A. Churches and denominations are being proselytized and preyed on with a 'gospel' they claim is ordained to bring forth:
(1) the greatest revival the Church has ever known;
(2) the greatest baptism of the Spirit the Church has ever experienced;
(3) the greatest Army (Joel's Army) distinguished by invincibility, immortality and divinity;
(4) the greatest purging (inquisition) in the history of the Church;
(5) the greatest ministry - the Prize of all Ages; and
(6) the greatest miracles, supernatural signs and wonders far exceeding that of the Apostles and Prophets of old." (Joel's Army, pp. 1-2.)
2. They believe that there must be a restoration of all prophetic and apostolic offices to accompany this end time revival.
Mike Bickle with the Kansas City Prophets and Vineyard Church stated the following, "There's Apostles, there's Imminent Apostles and there's MOST IMMINENT APOSTLES... There's

various levels of Apostles and the Lord was showing that... out of this Movement there would be 35 apostles... that will be of the highest level of apostolic ministry... the whole government of this movement in its highest level in all places it goes ... the government rests on Apostles and Prophets... Though I believe there will be hundreds of apostles in this movement and every movement will have its apostles and prophets, I believe God, He's merging Apostles in a number of movements now and He's going to add prophets to the prophets that are already there and He's going to bring us to higher statures." (Visions & Revelations Kansas City Fellowship.)
Rick Joyner in great reputation among the Charismatics stated, "The dismantling of organizations and disbanding of some works will be a positive and exhilarating experience for the Lord's faithful servants. .. a great company of prophets, teachers, pastors, and apostles will be raised up with the spirit of Phineas . . ." (The Harvest Rick Joyner.)
A book written by Richard Kelly Hoskin, entitled Vigilantes Of Christendom describes these warriors. he says of them, "As the Kamikaze is to the Japanese, As the Shiite is to Islam, As the Zionist is to the Jew, So the Phineas priest is to Christendom."
3. They believe that Joel's Army, as described by the prophet Joel and John the Revelator, will be a Christian army taking dominion for Jesus Christ on the earth.
Paul Cain, one of the biggest names in Charismatic circles, described this army as following,
"You know this message is 35 years old and I'm just preaching it again. Thank God I've found some- body to preach it to. I told you about the vision, what I've had. This recurring vision of standing at the crossroads of life and the angel of the Lord said, 'You are standing at the crossroads of life. What do you see?' And I saw a brilliantly lit billboard which reads JOEL'S ARMY NOW IN TRAINING... See, I've been wanting to share this so long and find somebody - how would you like to have something on the back burner for 35 years and nobody had any - boy this is, I mean this isn't leftovers. I mean this has been hot with me all these years, but everywhere I tried to preach it, they cooked my goose. Don't you boo me. This kind of fiery preaching is a lost art today except in a very mild degree." ("Joel's Army", cassette from Kansas City Prophets.)
Jack Deese, another Vineyard minister, gives a very clear description of this army, 11... this army is totally unique. This army, there's never been one like it and there never will be one like it in ages to come... It's so mighty that there's never been anything like it before. Not even Moses, not even David, not even Paul. What's going to happen now will transcend what Paul did, what David did... what Moses did, even though Moses parted the Red Sea... there'll be a numerous company... Revelation hints at this when it talks about the 144,000 that follow the Lamb wherever He goes and no one, no one can harm that 144,000. See, that's a multiple of 12. What's 12? Twelve is the number of the Apostles, 12 is Apostolic government. And when you take an important number in the Bible and you multiply it, it means you intensify it. So 12,000 times 12,000 + 144,000 [Wrong math]. That is the ultimate in Apostolic government. Revelation talks about that. Well, here Joel is talking about it now in different words, a powerful, a MIGHTY ARMY with many Paul’s, many Moses, many David’s." (Joel's Army Vineyard Ministries International,

4. Many within this movement believe that the church has the right of dominion over all institutions and powers of government, commerce, education, and judiciary. Pat Robinson has stated this on numerous occasions.
Gary North is one of the leaders preparing for this world takeover, "We are now witnessing the beginning of a true paradigm shift.. . the Christian community in the United States has at last begun to adopt the intellectual foundation of a new world view, and this is always the first step in the replacement of a dying civilization which is based on a dying world view... the rotten wood is ready for burning, and a new civilization is being prepared to replace it. (DOMINION AND COMMON GRACE: The Biblical Basis of Progress, Gary North.)
Rick Joyner expresses his concept of this New World Order that he believes the church is going to establish, "We are all members of one another and we must start acting like the church - as a body. I believe the same thing could be said today that was said before the Revolutionary War - because I tell you, we've come to a time of a spiritual revolution What Benjamin Franklin said, 'We've gotta join or die' is becoming increasingly applicable to the Church. Those that refuse to tear down the walls - if the leaders refuse to tear down the walls, I tell you the people are going to do It. They going to come down. And just as those of the former ORDER - who did not recognize that a NEW ORDER had come, they got swept away with the changes when they came. If we do not recognize the times in which we live - if we do not recognize the NEW ORDER has come upon the Church - that there is a NEW ORDER TODAY. There is a Revolution taking place in the Church today. I tell you, if we do not recognize that, if we do not become a part of that, we are going to be swept away by these changes when they come because they are coming - they are irresistible. The Kingdom of God is coming and I'll tell you, there is nothing that we can do to stand against it...
"I remember some of the most penetrating scenes that I saw in the news last year were the communist leaders who just weeks before were some of the most powerful men in this world, were on their knees begging the people to listen to them and the people were saying, 'Away with you, we will not listen to you because you were part of the OLD ORDER, we will never listen to you again.' A NEW ORDER has come. I tell you, you are going to see the same thing taking place in the Church. If you wait until it becomes politically expedient to jump on the bandwagon, I tell you, it will be too late. Today is our day of visitation. Now is the time to stand up for that which is coming. There are changes. The Lord is going to bring down every wall that separates His people." (Harvest Conference, Denver, CO, R. Joyner, November, 1990.)
5. They believe that the Rapture doctrine, especially in its pre-Tribulation form, was nothing but Escapism Theology. Some believe He will come only after they take dominion over the earth. Others believe that the full "manifestation of the Son's of God" on earth is actually the Biblical Rapture.
Rick Joyner was quick to announce the death of a "Rapture" doctrine. He stated, "The doctrine of the rapture was a great and effective ruse of the enemy to implant in the church a retreat

mentality, but it will not succeed. Already this yoke has been cast off by the majority in the advancing church, and it will soon be cast off by all..." (The Harvest, Rick Joyner.)
Francis Frangipane appears to teach that the Rapture is the final perfection of the "Manifest Sons of God." "Most of true Christianity shares a doctrine commonly called the 'rapture' of the church (I Thessalonians 4:16). And while study and debate surround the timing of this event, Scripture assures us it will occur before Jesus Himself returns. However, before the rapture occurs, there will be a time of unusual grace in which the living church of Jesus Christ, like a bride, makes '...herself ready'. In this unparalleled season of preparation, those who are alive in Christ shall realize a level of holiness and blamelessness of the quality in which Jesus Himself walked.
"The result of this new level of holiness will be a new level of unity.
"During the rapture our bodies will be changed. But our character, that is, the essence of who we have become, will remain intact. There will be no regrets or wondering how 'those from that church' made it, for the living bride will be a church built together in love, meeting in separate buildings but serving the single Lord.
"It is highly significant that the Scriptural term for the rapture is called 'the gathering together'. What ultimately will be consummated in our gathering together physically to the Lord will be precipitated by a spiritual gathering together of His body on earth. Concerning the '...end of the age,' Jesus taught that the 'good fish' shall be gathered.. . into containers'
"The pastors of the last Christian church will be under-shepherds to the Lord Jesus; they will be anointed to gather together His remnant and under that anointing shall be 'fruitful and multiply.'
"Indeed, right now, in the context of humbling ourselves and submitting our hearts to His will, we are participating in being 'gathered together.' (Mr. Frangipane's new rapture.) And that process will progressively increase until the barriers between brethren are melted by the over- coming nature of Christ's love. Before Jesus returns, we will truly be‘ one flock with one Shep- herd.' We will be a holy and blameless sheepfold, meeting in different buildings, but baptized into one body." (Exposing The "Accuser Of The Brethren" Francis Frangipane, pp. 13-16.)
6. Another aberrant teaching is the idea of "Manifest Sons of God." I just heard Kenneth Hagin tell a large church filled with his ministers and followers that this "New Wave" will perfect them until their body works perfectly.
Francis Frangipane teaches this idea in a very prolific manner. He stated, "In another sense, Mary, the mother of Jesus, also was 'a body [God] has prepared' (Hebrews 10:5). When Christ first entered our world as a child, it was Mary whom God chose to give Christ birth. Mary's life symbolized the qualities the church must possess to walk in the fullness of

Christ... Like Mary, our humble state as the Lord's bond slaves is but a preparation for the coming forth of Christ in our lives . ...Indeed, our purity, our spiritual virginity as the body of Christ, is nothing less than God Himself preparing us, as He did Mary, to 'give birth' to the ministry of His Son. Even now, in the spiritual womb of the virgin church, the holy purpose of Christ is growing, awaiting maturity; ready to be born in power in the timing of God!
"Through intense prayer and the agonizing of the Holy Spirit, in groanings too deep for words, she embraces her appointed destiny - until the very voice of Christ Himself is heard again through her prayers: 'Lo, I have come to do Thy will, 0 God!' Birthed in His Spirit and in His power, fused together through love and suffering, this holy people becomes, as it were, a 'body [God] hast prepared.'
"Even now, hell trembles and the heavens watch in awe. For I say to you, once again the
'virgin is with child.'
"Before Jesus Himself returns, the last virgin child shall become pregnant with the promise of God. Out of her travail the body of Christ shall come forth, raised to the full stature of its Head, the Lord Jesus ... Yet in the midst of darkness, the visible powerful glory of the Lord Jesus shall rise upon the virgin church .. . Radiant shall they appear, for their hearts shall possess the beautiful Star of the Morning. In holy array, from the womb of the dawn, their light shall exult like the dew!" (Holiness Truth And The Presence Of God, Francis Frangipane, pp. 128-130)
7. One of the greatest sources of false teaching within the Latter Rain Movement is its acceptance of New Revelation on equality with Holy Scripture. The entire landscape of their theological ideas are filled with strange interpretations of Scripture dreams and visions.
Here is a quote out of Rick Joyner's book, There Were Two Trees In The Garden Mr. Joyner says, "Here is wisdom. 'Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.' (Revelation 13:18). The number 666 is not taken arbitrarily. Because man was created on the sixth day, the number six is often used symbolically in the Scriptures as the number of man. This number is further identification of the spirit of the beast, which is the spirit of fallen man. In verse 11, we see that this beast 'comes up out of the earth.' This beast is the result of the seed of Cain having been a 'tiller of the ground' or earthly-minded. The beast is the embodiment of religion that originates in the mind of man. It comes up out of the earth in contrast to Christ who comes down out of heaven." (There Were Two Trees In The Garden Rick Joyner, pp. 17-18.)
Here is a breathtaking departure into fantasy by a minister's wife, Bonnie Chavada. "I hear a voice say, 'This is the refreshing: IT WILL BE VERY VIOLENT.'
"As I watched, a series of scenes from the movie adaptation of the American classic by L. Frank Baum, the 'Wizard Of Oz,' passed before me. With each picture, a voice described things that will take place as this coming 'wind' moved over the land. I understood that it

will not be sinners, false religions, or even political institutions, including the media, that will most vehemently question and oppose the coming 'wind.' It will be institutions of Christian tradition and influence, including those who claim the 'fullness of the Spirit
"I saw the girl Dorothy, in her humility, purity, and faith, as a type of the bride of Christ. "There will be those who will call this wind "demonic" because of what it will make manifest. Demons will be stirred up, the flesh will be made obvious, things formerly hidden will be exposed and seen as they are in relation to My Spirit: BUT THIS WIND IS FROM ME!' I realized how human logic and tradition, not being subject to the Spirit, will misread the appearance of what is to come, and will deny that Jesus is driving this wind.
"'I have come not to bring peace, but a sword, 'and again, 'Anything spoken against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.'
"The Holy Spirit says, 'Do you know who I am in this picture?' Though this would certainly
offend the religious, and surprised me, the Lord said, 'Jam "Tote" -just like Toto is Dorothy's constant comforter, friend, protector, and guide, Jam with you!'
"Witchcraft wants to control the Holy Spirit and put God in a box! Miss Gulch is a picture of the spirit of witchcraft working through the arm of the flesh and legalism to 'manage', define, and ultimately resist God through religious tradition and control.
"They are unified, not because they are alike, nor because any one of them is great in themselves, but because they have one common goal, to see the Great Oz.
"The spirit of religion will refuse My army and resist their entrance to and possession of the resources of their kingdom.
"I could feel intense power and heat as thunderings and fire came forth when Oz spoke."
Prophetic Perspective Vol. 5, Part V. Charlotte, NC. Vision described by Bonnie Chavada at the April '95 Cleveland, OH, MCMI’s Healing The Nations Conference.)
8. The latest and most deceptive of the Latter Rain teachings is their confused doctrines concerning Jesus Christ and His death.
Look at Benny Hinn's teachings concerning Jesus and the nature of Satan. "Ladies and gentlemen, the serpent is a symbol of Satan. Jesus Christ knew the only way He would stop Satan is by becoming one in nature with him. 'What did you say? What blasphemy is this?' No, you hear this! He did not take my sin, He became my sin. Sin is the nature of hell. Sin is what made Satan. You remember, he wasn't Satan till sin was found in him. Lucifer was perfect till Ezekiel says, sin was found in thee. It was sin that made Satan. Jesus said, 'I'll be sin. I'll go to the lowest place. I'll go to the origin of it. I won't just take part of it.' I'll be the totality of it. When Jesus became sin, sir, he took it from A-Z and said no more. Think about this. He became flesh that flesh might become like Him. He became death so dying man can live. He became sin so sinners can be righteous in Him. He became one with the

nature of Satan so all those who had the nature of Satan can partake of the nature of God." - Benny Hinn.
Now, let's look at Kenneth Hagin's teaching on this same subject. "He [Jesus] tasted spiritual death for every man. And His spirit and inner man went to hell in my place. Can't you see that? PHYSICAL DEATH WOULDN'T REMOVE YOUR SINS He's tasted death for every man. He's talking about tasting spiritual death." - Kenneth Hagin. (Christianity In Crisis Hank Hanegraaff, p. 60.)
Look at the same idea from Kenneth Copeland. He said, "The Spirit of God spoke to me and He said, 'Son, realize this. Now follow me in this and don't let your tradition trip you up.' He said, 'Think this way - a twice-born man whipped Satan in his own domain.' And I threw my Bible down ... like that. I said, 'What?' He said, 'A born-again man defeated Satan, the firstborn of many brethren defeated him.' He said, 'You are the very image, the very copy of that one.' I said, 'Goodness, gracious sakes alive!' And I began to see what had gone on In there, and I said, 'Well, now you don't mean, you couldn't dare mean, that I could have done the same thing?' He said, 'Oh yeah, if you'd had the knowledge of the Word of God that He did, you could've done the same thing, 'cause you're a reborn man too." (Kenneth Copeland, "Substitution and Identification" [Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1989], tape #00-0202, side 2.)
LATTER RAIN MUSIC
Most of the new music being sung in Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Evangelical churches is "Latter Rain" theology put to song. Look at the words to one of the most important songs of the Pensacola Phenomenon.
"FIRE IN HIS EYES" (COME RIDE WITH ME) He has fire in His eyes and a sword in His hands. He's riding a white horse across this land. He has fire in His eyes and a sword in His hands. And He's riding a white horse all across this land. He's calling out to you and me, will you ride with me?
We are saying, 'Lord we'll ride with you.'
We will stand up and fight.
We will ride, We will be dressed in white.
We're saying, 'Lord, we'll ride. Yes, Lord, I'll ride with you.'
He has a crown on His head.
He carries a scepter in His hand
And He's leading the army all across this land.
He's calling out to you and me, Will you ride with me?
That fire in His eyes is His love for His bride.
And He's longing that she will be with Him right by His side. That fire in His eyes is His burning desire
that this Bride will be with Him right by His side.

And He's calling out to you right now, 'Wifi you ride with me?' We say, 'Yes, Lord.' We say, 'Yes, Lord, we'll ride with you.' Say, 'Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord.'
Here are two more songs being widely sung:
THE RIVER IS HERE
Down the mountain the river flows
And it brings refreshing wherever it goes Through the valleys and over the fields The river is rushing and the river is here.
The river of God is teeming with life
And all who touch it can be revived
And those who linger on this river's shore Will come back thirsting for more of the Lord.
Up to the mountain we love to go
To find the presence of the Lord
Along the banks of the river we run
We dance with laughter giving praise to the Son.
Chorus
The river of God sets our feet a-dancing. The river of God fills our hearts with cheer. The river of God fills our mouths with laughter. And we rejoice for the river is here.
THE DRINKING SONG (To be sung to the tune of "When The Roll Is Called Up Yonder")
Now I laugh like an idiot and bark like a dog,
If! don't sober up, I'll likely hop like a frog!
And I'll crow like a rooster 'til the break of day,
'Cause the Holy Ghost is moving, and I can't stay away!
Now I roar like a lioness who's on the prowl,
I laugh and I shake, maybe hoot like an owl! Since God's holy river started bubbling up in me, It spills outside, and it's setting me free!
So, I'll crunch and I'll dip and I'll dance round and round, 'Cause the pew was fine, but it's more fun on the ground! So, I'll jump like a pogo stick, then fall on the floor, 'Cause the Holy Ghost is moving, and I just want MORE!
CHORUS:
Now I'm just a party animal grazing at God's trough, I'm a Jesus junkie, and I can't get enough!
I'm an alcoholic for that great New Wine,

'Cause the Holy Ghost is pouring, and I'm drinking all the time!
(Written by Kathryn Riss (Richard Riss 's wife). He is historian for the Latter Rain Movement.
Let me share from my notes a few more quotes and then a few excerpts from videos.

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Confident About Salvation (Philippians 1:3-6)


Confident About Salvation (Philippians 1:3-6)



One of the most important questions for every person to answer is, “How can I be confident that I am truly saved?” And, some follow-up questions are just as crucial, “If I am truly saved, can I know for sure that I will not lose my salvation?” “What about our loved ones? Can we know if they are truly saved and if they will persevere?”

These are crucial questions because they concern matters of our own and our loved ones’ eternal destinies. If we are truly saved, but lack assurance, we will live in constant anxiety about the state of our souls. On the other hand, if we or our loved ones think we are saved when we are not truly saved, we will be in for the most rude awakening when we someday stand before the Lord only to hear Him say, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (Matt. 7:23). So we must be careful not to rest on false assurance, or to give it to others. But, if we can obtain true assurance from God about our salvation, then we need it.

Our text gives us some answers to these questions. It is not all that is written on this topic, of course. The entire epistle of First John was written so that those who had believed in Christ could know that they had eternal life (1 John 5:13). John gives a number of tests which we can both apply to ourselves and also to others, to make sure that we are in the faith. But Philippians 1:3-6 is an important text. James Boice calls verse 6 one of the three greatest verses in the Bible that teaches the perseverance of the saints, “the doctrine that no one whom God has brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ will ever be lost,” the other two texts being Romans 8:38, 39 and John 10:27, 28 (Philippians, An Expositional Commentary [Zondervan], p. 40).

It is tempting to develop these verses along the theme of joy (as I did the first two messages on Philippians), because Paul begins by mentioning his joy as he prayed with thanksgiving for these believers. It’s certainly remarkable that Paul’s focus was not on himself. He was in prison in Rome facing possible execution; fellow Christian leaders were preaching against Paul out of envy and strife (Phil. 1:15); but he was filled with joy because his focus was on God and His faithfulness and on what God was doing with the Philippian church.

If you are feeling down, a prescription for joy is to fix your thoughts on God’s faithfulness. If He has used you in the past to lead someone to Christ or to minister to a fellow believer, think about them and pray for their continued growth. In other words, get your focus off of self and onto God and others and you’ll be flooded with God’s joy.

But to return to the other theme, of how we can be confident about our own or others’ salvation, the apostle teaches us that ...

If there is evidence that God has begun the work of salvation in us, we can be confident that He will complete it.


My view on this subject will probably be different than the views many of you have heard or believe. Some teach that a person can be truly saved, but if he turns away from Christ, he can lose his salvation. This view is called Arminianism, and also was promoted by John Wesley. I believe this view is in error. Others teach that if a person professes faith in Christ, he is saved and, thus, eternally secure. One of the first things to share with this person is assurance of salvation. Even if he later falls away and goes back into the world, with no evidence of salvation in his life, this view teaches that he will be in heaven someday because, “Once saved, always saved.” I believe that this view is incomplete and thus in error.

I believe that Scripture teaches that salvation is entirely the work of God, not of man. The God who is powerful to save is also powerful to keep the ones He saves. At the same time, the enemy is deceitful to counterfeit the work of God. Thus some, like the seed sown on the rocky ground and on the thorny ground, seem at first to be saved. But time proves that they were not truly saved, because they do not persevere by bearing fruit unto eternal life. Thus we must be careful to distinguish in ourselves and in others the true saving grace of God from the counterfeit work of the devil. If there is evidence that God has truly begun His work of salvation in us, then we can be confident that He will complete what He has begun. Let’s develop this further:

1. God begins the work of salvation.

“He who began a good work in you” refers to God and the work of salvation which He began in the hearts of the Philippians. We have seen (in Acts 16) how the households of Lydia and the Philippian jailer responded to the gospel, and perhaps also the demon-possessed slave girl. It is the preaching of the good news that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3, 4) that is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16).

We also saw in our first study that God is decidedly the author of salvation. He elected us to salvation in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). He sent the Savior at the proper time. He ordained that Christ must die for our sins as the only acceptable substitute (John 1:29; Acts 2:23). He prohibited Paul and his companions from going into certain areas to preach and instead directed them to Philippi (Acts 16:6-10). When they obeyed God’s leading and preached the gospel to Lydia, “the Lord opened her heart to respond” (Acts 16:14). As Jesus Himself stated plainly, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him”; “... no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father” (John 6:44, 65). “Salvation is from the Lord” (Jonah 2:9).

We also need to understand that the gospel message is not, “If you’ve got some problems in your life and you’d like to have a happier life, trust in Jesus. He will give you an abundant life.” We often hear variations of this theme presented as the gospel, but they miss the heart of the matter, which is of far greater consequence than enjoying a happy life here on earth. The true gospel confronts our fundamental problem, namely, our alienation from a holy God due to our sin and rebellion. If we die in this condition, we will be eternally separated from God, under His just wrath in hell. But God, who is rich in mercy, provided His substitutionary Lamb to make atonement for our sin, so that all who trust in Him are saved from God’s judgment.

When that good news is proclaimed, the Holy Spirit bears witness to the objective truth of it in the hearts of those whom the Father is drawing to Himself. Apart from any human merit, God supernaturally imparts to that person an abiding change of nature through regeneration (the new birth). He grants them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2:25) and faith to believe it (Phil. 1:29). Thus salvation is not at all from man, but rather is “by grace through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast” (Eph. 2:8, 9; see Titus 3:4-7; John 1:12-13).

It is important to affirm the true nature of the gospel and of salvation, because if we mistakenly think that salvation depends upon us, or upon a human decision, then that decision could be reversed or rescinded. The Arminian error is that God has given us a free will, so we can decide by ourselves either to choose God or reject Him. But Scripture is abundantly clear that the human will is not free, except to continue in sin and rebellion against God (Rom. 3:10-18; 8:7-8; Eph. 2:1-5). Even John Wesley sang his brother, Charles’, great hymn which says, “Long my imprisoned spirit lay Fast bound in sin and nature’s night. Thine eye diffused a quickening ray; I woke--the dungeon flamed with light! My chains fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.”

If you want to read a powerful refutation of the idea of “free will,” read Martin Luther’s, The Bondage of the Will (translated by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnson [Revell]). For over 300 pages, Luther relentlessly devastates the view that salvation depends on our “free will.” He argues that if it depended on such a thing, we could never have assurance that we are right with God. He admits to his own misery in believing that for years before his conversion (pp. 313-314). Then he states (p. 314),

But now that God has taken my salvation out of the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfortable certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him. “No one,” He says, “shall pluck them out of my hand, because my Father which gave them me is greater than all” (John 10:28-29). Thus it is that, if not all, yet some, indeed many, are saved; whereas, by the power of “free-will” none at all could be saved, but every one of us would perish.

Please understand, a person is not saved apart from faith in Christ. But Scripture clearly teaches that when a person believes in Christ, that faith is not the product of his “free will,” but rather comes from God who powerfully works faith in us. Salvation is totally from God.

2. God’s salvation is always accompanied by evidence.

The “good work” which God begins works its way out as a believer grows to maturity and is progressively conformed to the image of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29). In other words, salvation is always accompanied and followed by sanctification, or growth in holiness. As Jonathan Edwards argued in his profound work, “A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections” (in The Works of Jonathan Edwards [Banner of Truth], 1:236), “True religion, in great part, consists in holy affections.” He means that “love and the pursuit of holiness is the enduring mark of the true Christian” (Jonathan Edwards, A New Biography [Banner of Truth], by Iain Murray, p. 259).

The evidence in the Philippian believers to which Paul calls attention was their “participation in the gospel from the first day until now” (1:5). “Participation” is the word “fellowship” (Greek, koinonia), which means “sharing together in.” The Philippians had shared with Paul in the gospel, first by believing it and being saved, then by devoting themselves to it and all that it entails. Like all who are truly saved, they were not just occasional dabblers in religion; rather, they were vitally joined together with the apostle in the great cause of Jesus Christ, so that he could rightly refer to them as fellow-sharers, participants, in the gospel. While there is far more evidence that could be compiled from the rest of the New Testament, I want to point out four lines of evidence of salvation contained in these verses.

A. SALVATION IS ALWAYS ACCOMPANIED BY THE EVIDENCE OF FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD.

To fellowship in the gospel is to fellowship with God Himself, who gave us the gospel. Christianity is not just believing a set of doctrines, as essential as doctrinal truth is. It is coming to know the living and true God, and that through His Son Jesus Christ. As Jesus prayed, “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3). Or, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9).

Thus if a person is genuinely saved, he enters into a personal relationship with the personal God. Relationships involve a progressive knowledge of the other person. We grow to know God as He has revealed Himself in His Word. A relationship involves time spent together, sharing our deepest thoughts, fears, and hopes with this God who knows us thoroughly. A relationship implies that we are interested in the things that concern the other person. Even so, an evidence of salvation is that a person becomes interested in the things of God as revealed in His Word. When a true Christian is around other Christians, he delights to talk about God and His Word. If there is no interest in the things of God and no evidence of personal fellowship with God, it is doubtful if a person is truly saved.

B. SALVATION IS ALWAYS ACCOMPANIED BY THE EVIDENCE OF FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD’S PEOPLE.

By entering the fellowship of the gospel, the Philippians had entered into fellowship with Paul, Timothy, Silas, and Luke who brought the gospel to them. Paul shares his deep feelings of love for these people. His remembrance of them brought tears of joy to his eyes and a longing to his heart. There is nothing humanly to explain this bond of love between this Asian who was formerly a Jewish zealot and these mostly Gentile Europeans who were formerly worldly pagans. One evidence of salvation is that it brings us into genuine fellowship with the people of God, no matter how different our backgrounds.

I believe this is a powerful proof of the reality of the gospel. All of us who know Christ have had the experience of meeting someone we’ve never met before, and discovering that this person also knows Christ. In just a matter of minutes, even though the person was a total stranger, the fact that we both know the Lord draws us together into a bond of fellowship that often seems closer than you feel toward some family members who do not know Christ. One of the glories of the church is that people who otherwise would have nothing in common--people like Lydia, the businesswoman; the formerly demonic slave-girl; and, the career military man (the jailer)--suddenly become “partakers of grace” (1:7) together and join together in the great cause of the gospel (1:27).

C. SALVATION IS ALWAYS ACCOMPANIED BY THE EVIDENCE OF A NEW FOCUS AND ENDEAVOR: THE GOSPEL.

The Philippians, from day one, joined with Paul in the fellowship of the gospel. Rather than living for self and pleasure, as they formerly did, they now lived to serve Jesus Christ, even in the face of opposition (1:27-30). This was also the experience of the early church in Jerusalem, as we read in Acts 8:4, “Those who had been scattered [by persecution] went about spreading the good news of the word” (lit.). That’s not referring to so-called preachers only, but to all the believers. If your life has been transformed through the gospel, so that you have experienced the forgiveness of your sins by God’s grace and you have been raised from spiritual death to life by God’s power, then with the early apostles you must say, “We cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20).

God doesn’t save anyone so that they can live a happy, self-centered life. When He saves you, you become a minister (servant) of the gospel. We have different spiritual gifts and we have different ways and situations in which to exercise those gifts. But there is simply no such thing as a saved person who is not supposed to be serving the Lord and His gospel in some capacity. You view all of life through the lens of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:23).

One way (not the only way) that the Philippians had fellowshiped with Paul in the gospel was by frequently sending him financial support (4:15-16). It’s safe to say that if the gospel has not touched your money, it has not touched your heart, because your heart is bound up with your treasure (Matt. 6:21). So a powerful evidence of the new birth is when, quietly and without public notice (Matt. 6:1-4), out of a desire to please God, you begin giving generously to support the work of the gospel.

D. SALVATION IS ALWAYS ACCOMPANIED BY THE EVIDENCE OF LIVING IN LIGHT OF THE LORD’S COMING.

Paul says that God will perfect His good work “until the day of Christ Jesus” (1:6), that great day when He comes back in power and glory. We shall see Him and shall be like Him (1 John 3:2). We will give an account to Him of our management of what He has entrusted to us. Every true child of God will hear those joyous words, “Well done, good and faithful slave; ... enter into the joy of your master” (Matt. 25:21, 23). The Lord will then reveal “the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God” (1 Cor. 4:5). If you often think of the Lord’s coming and our meeting Him in the air, it’s a powerful evidence that He has begun the work of salvation in your heart.

3. God completes the work of salvation.

What God begins, He finishes. If salvation is, even in part, the work of man, there is the chance that it won’t be finished. But if God has begun it, and we see evidences of it, then we can be confident, whether in ourselves or in others, that He “will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” As Paul states later in this letter, it is a process in which we never arrive in this life, and so we must press on toward maturity (3:12-14). Perfection in these evidences is not going to happen until we’re with the Lord.

The fact that God does it does not imply that we are passive. God is at work, but we work with Him. We must work out our salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in us, both to will and to work for His good pleasure (2:12, 13). But our assurance and confidence is never in ourselves or in our working, but only in God and in the evidences we see of His faithful working in and through us. If there is evidence that God has begun the work of salvation in us, we can be confident that He will complete it as we continue to participate in the gospel.

Conclusion

A message like this may have the effect of shaking the assurance of salvation that some of you formerly had. If that assurance was a false assurance because there is no evidence that God has truly begun His good work in you, then it needs to be shaken. Or, if your assurance was based on your decision to follow Christ (rather than on His sovereign, unmerited grace), or if it was based on what you have done for God through your good deeds (rather than on what God has done for you in the death of His Son), it needs to be shaken. You need to abandon your pride and call out to God for His saving grace.

But if you can see how God sovereignly, graciously has called you to Himself, and you see the evidence of His working through your fellowship in the gospel, then you can be confident that He who began the good work in you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus.

Discussion Questions

What Scriptures counter the common notion that people have the “free will” to choose God? (Try Rom. 9:16; James 1:18.)
In light of the parable of the sower (Matt. 13:3-9, 18-23), is it wise to share “assurance of salvation” with someone who just professed faith in Christ? Why/why not?
Can a Christian who has turned away from the Lord have assurance of salvation? Should we share it with him?
Some argue, “If salvation requires evidence, then it is not by faith alone.” Why is this fallacious?
Copyright 1995, Steven J. Cole, All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

BIBLE AND HISTORICAL FACTS ABOUT IRAN


BIBLE AND HISTORICAL FACTS ABOUT IRAN

by David Hocking
Many of our listeners and readers have asked questions about Iran and what we should know about this important and strategic country in our world. The earliest history we have deals with ELAM. At the time of Abraham (about 4000 years ago–Genesis 14) we learn of a confederacy of nations that appears to have as its leader a man named Chedorlaomer who is stated to be the “king of Elam.” In a battle with the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham and his 318 trained men pursued them and rescued Lot.
The prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 21:2) mentions Elam and seems to imply a relationship with ancient Media (the Medes). The prophet Jeremiah also refers to Elam in Jeremiah 49:34–39 and refers to their coming destruction as a nation. The dating of this prophecy is at the time of Zedekiah, king of Judah. It perhaps occurred by the domination of Babylon who also destroyed Jerusalem in 586 B.C. The interesting Biblical fact of prophecy in Jeremiah 49:39 is this: “But it shall come to pass in the latter days, that I will bring again the captivity of Elam, saith the LORD.” It is quite possible that this is a reference to the future Day of the Lord.
In the 7th century B.C. a small kingdom was established at Parsumash under Achaemenes whose name is used by history in describing the first Persian dynasty. The son of Achaemenes was a man named Teispes (675–640 B.C.), and apparently his kingdom was dominated by the Medes. After he was given his freedom from the control of the Medes, history records that the weakness of Elam allowed him to gain control of the province of Parsa (modern Fars). It was the Assyrians under Ashurbanipal that put an end to the nation of Elam.
The son of Teispes was Cyrus I who came in contact with the Assyrians as the leader of the Persians. The son of Cyrus I was Cambyses who married the daughter of the Median king Astyges. Their son of Cyrus I was Cambyses who married the daughter of the Median king Astyges. Their son was Cyrus II, known in history as Cyrus the Great (559–530 B.C.), the first great and dominant king of ancient Persia. Cyrus II also conquered the Medes, and defeated his grandfather Astyges, and made the Median capital of Ecbatana his own capital. Cyrus also invaded Asia Minor and defeated Croesus, king of Lydia. He also captured Babylon in 539 B.C. (the official date of the fall of the Babylonian Empire) with little resistance.
The son of Cyrus II was Cambyses II (529–522 B.C.) who conquered Egypt. Cambyses II was succeeded by Darius I, known as Darius the Great (522–486 B.C.) and as Darius Hystaspes (his father was one of the satraps of the Persian Empire). Darius created 20 satrapies (provinces) in order to administrate effectively the growing strength of the Persian Empire. Darius I also moved the capital from Pasagadae to Persepolis. He was a follower of Zoroaster and a worshiper of Ahura Mazda (also followed by Xerxes and Artaxerxes of Biblical history). This is the same king mentioned in the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah. The Temple project was completed by the Jews in 516 B.C. during his reign.
Darius I was succeeded by his son Xerxes (485–465 B.C.). An inscription at Persepolis lists the nations under his control. He is also the same King Ahashuerus mentioned in the Book of Ester. Following his reign, Artaxerxes Longimanus I came to power (465–424 B.C.) and it was in the 20th year of his reign that the decree to restore the wall of Jerusalem was given to Nehemiah (Nehemiah 2:1).
According to Daniel 9:24–27 that decree to restore the wall was the beginning of a “countdown” to the coming of the Messiah—the prophecy known as the 70 weeks.” But, it was not “weeks” but rather “years” to which the Hebrew word for “seven” was pointing. A prophetic year of 360 days (lunar calendar) multiplied by 483 years brings us to 173, 880 days from the decree to Artaxerxes Longimanus I until the Messiah would come. Two tragic events are mentioned by Daniel that would take place before the final 70th “seven” would begin: the Messiah would be “cut off” and the city and the sanctuary” of Jerusalem would be destroyed. We are still waiting for the beginning of the 70th “seven”—known to Bible students as the coming Day of the Lord (mentioned 25 times in the Bible) or the Tribulation Period (Matthew 24:21–22).
After the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus I, Darius II came to power (423–405 B.C.) followed by Artaxerxes Mnemon II (404–359 B.C.), Artaxerxes Ochus III (358–338 B.C.), Arses (337–336 B.C.), and Darius III (335–331 B.C.), whose armies were defeated by Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. Upon the death of Alexander in 323 B.C., Persia came under the control of one of Alexander’s generals (Seleucus). According to Daniel 11 there was continual conflict between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies (another general who was given Egypt) over the Land of Israel, a fact that is still remembered by Iran today.
Bible students are quite aware of the presence of Persia in the battle that attacks the Land of Israel (Ezekiel 38–39). Persia seems to be the lead country in that attack (at least they are mentioned first in the list).
This amazing empire of the past continued to be known by the name Persia until 1935 A.D. when its name was changed to Iran. The official modern language of Iran is Persian or Pharsi, an indo-European language written in Arabic characters.
In 1979 A.D. Iran experienced what history calls “The Islamic Revolution.” Shiite Muslims took over the country and installed Sharia Law. Although many Arabs live in parts of the country, Iran is NOT an Arab state. Their connection and support with Arabs is completely based upon the religion of Islam. In many cases throughout the history of Islam, Iran has been a powerful force to oppose the Sunni Muslims of Saudi Arabia who control the holy sites of Islam at Mecca and Median. Iran also experienced eight years of war with its western neighbor Iraq when Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, was in power. Many Shiite Muslims from Iran have populated the southern regions of Iraq and now have become a powerful force in the elected Parliament of Iraq. Historically and traditionally, Iran believes that Iraq belongs to them as well as many other countries in the Middle East (including Israel). They desire the glory of the former Persian Empire (one of the largest empires of history in terms of geography) to be restored.
It should be obvious that Iran (primarily because of oil) is now a major player in the world both politically, economically, and militarily. They are the main suppliers of weapons to Islamic terrorists throughout the Middle East. Most of their weaponry has been made possible by Russia, China, and North Korea.
The Nation of Israel faces serious challenges from the leadership of Iran and its continual threats. The LORD GOD of ISRAEL hears them all and Biblical prophecy will include Iran among all the nations of the world that come against Israel. They will suffer defeat at the hands of the returning Messiah, our blessed Lord Yeshua!