In the Days of … WHICH Kings? Part 1: Points Pulliam Glossed Over

Part 8 of this series

Introduction

I think it’s a good time to address the main Title of Pulliam’s book: “In the Days of Those Kings” (also the title of Lesson 17 therein). The title is a reference to Daniel 2:44 – “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.” (1995 NASB) Pulliam must think this passage is a smoking gun for his view (which seems to be partial preterism, mixed with some ideas from other variants of amillennialism), because the book’s cover photo shows a bust of the Roman emperor Tiberius, and he thanks the one responsible for the image (I won’t drag his name into this) for the “gift of one of ‘those kings.’” {“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 4. Italics and boldface mine.} Having dealt with Lesson 16 (on Daniel 9) of his book here, I’d like to deal with Lessons 17 (“In the Days of Those Kings”, on Daniel 2 & 7) and 18 (“The Latter Prophecies in Daniel”, on Daniel 8-12) in this 2-part post (although I’ll actually save the bulk of his discussions on Daniel 12 for yet another post, since it fits better with that one).

That may sound like way too much ground to cover in only two posts, but Pulliam’s substantial discussions about these passages are suspiciously brief. Here are all the verses from Daniel he cites from these chapters between both lessons:

  • 2:27f, 36-45;
  • 7:11f, 12, 13-14, 26;
  • 8:5, 8, 13-14, 15, 17, 19, 20f, 25;
  • 10:13, 14, 20;
  • 11:2, 4ff, 7-8, 11-12, 31, 33, 35, 36, 40;
  • 12:1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11-12, 13.

Now here are the verses from Daniel he actually quotes any portion of:

  • 2:44;
  • 7:11-12, 26;
  • 8:17, 19;
  • 10:14;
  • 11:40;
  • 12:1, 2, 9, 11, 13.

I guess he just thinks the average reader will take it for granted that the entire passage supports his interpretation. Of course, I’m far from an average reader.

So sorry this post is so long (as is Part 2; in fact, each Part wound up being over 11,000 words!). If anything, Pulliam’s brevity is arguably one of the reasons I have so much to cover here. If I may offer a censored paraphrase of Brandolini’s Law: the amount of effort it takes to refute false claims is an order of magnitude greater than the amount of effort it took to make them in the first place.

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

Let’s kick off this post with the namesake of his book:

Daniel 2 foretells the future kingdom of the Messiah through a dream. Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, dreamed of a great image, and Daniel alone could interpret it. That interpretation is found in Daniel 2:36-45.
Daniel explained the meaning of the image according to the wisdom given him by God (Dan 2:27f). Each part of the image represented a kingdom, with the first part representing the kingdom of Babylon (Dan 2:37-40). The three kingdoms after Babylonia are not named in the prophecy, but we can look back in history to know their identity. After the Babylonian Empire came the Medo-Persian Empire, then arose the Macedonian (or Grecian), and then the Roman (see chart at right).
During his description of the fourth kingdom, Daniel said, “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people …” (Dan 2:44). In other words, during the days of the Roman kings, the Messiah would come and set up His kingdom.

{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 179. Italics in original.}

Wow, Pulliam already glossed over A LOT of details in this passage to type that last paragraph! But, get this, he tries to justify doing so:

Visions given by God can present a vivid message of future events, but we must be careful that we not see more in them than God intended.
Dispensationalists seek out little details in visions, hoping they will prove their doctrine. Walvoord does this in claiming that the destruction of the Roman Empire had to be a violent event. His proof is in the rock striking the base of the image and crushing the kingdoms. Since that looks like a single violent event, he claims that it cannot possibly be a spiritual kingdom that currently spreads in the hearts of men by the rule of Christ’s law [as Pulliam believes].
The problem here is in seeing more in the vision than intended. In the vision, all of the kingdoms are seen together while the head is ruling. The head of gold did not appear first, and then the other kingdoms come one by one. In fulfillment, the four kingdoms would not be existing at the same time [actually, they did and still do, as I’ll explain later]. We are not intended to make anything out of the rule of four kingdoms where they are represented as one object. If we were, then Babylon’s power (the head) would have still been around at the establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom. LaHaye and Ice present the legs of the great statue as the Eastern and Western branches of Catholicism. Catholicism was not, and is not the Roman Empire [true enough, but Catholicism is the widow of the Roman Empire (Revelation 18:7), since the church at Rome wedded itself to Imperial Rome in A.D. 325, and has persisted even after Western Rome’s fall in A.D. 476 and Eastern Rome’s fall in A.D. 1453]. Daniel tells us that the legs would be the fourth kingdom (Rome). Hitchcock, like most others, divides the Roman Empire into two phases with the feet being a separate period of time from the legs. If that is true, we should see the attachment of feet to legs as a clear prophecy of the Roman Empire still existing, not of its existence being in a separate time [again, the Romans still have living descendants, and Rome is still a capital city (of Italy); but also, the connection of the feet to the lower legs need not mean the kingdoms will be consecutive, as I’ll show below]. These Dispensational interpretations are good examples of speculation, which is required to make any argument in favor of Dispensationalism.
In Daniel 7, the same four kingdoms are seen as four beasts, where one quickly follows another. [Woah, hold up! The text of Daniel 7 never says each beast quickly followed the other! Who’s the one “seeing more in the vision than intended” here?!] The fourth kingdom falls, but the kingdom of the Lord endures. You are not asked to figure out how He will make that happen. You are simply seeing the fact that He will make that happen, and that is exactly what has been presented in the fall of the image at the time of the fourth kingdom (Rome).
Walvoord interprets the ten horns on the fourth beast as reigning at the same time, because they are seen at the same time. He didn’t interpret the four kingdoms of the image in Daniel 2 as existing at the same time. [You’ll see below and early on in Part 2 that my interpretation of these chapters doesn’t have this problem.] For some reason, he gets to change the rules to fit his doctrine. When we begin to speculate on the significance of every little detail in these visions, our interpretation becomes very subjective.

{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 181-182. Italics and boldface in original. Contents in brackets mine.}

That last sentence can be true, but Pulliam seems to be forgetting a good criterion for avoiding that subjectivity: internal self-consistency among one’s interpretations of all passages! (Of course, all the contradictions in his positions that I point out throughout this series make it easy to believe that he honestly has forgotten about this criterion!)

Yet, this cop-out manages to get even more pathetic when you skip ahead to Lesson 22 and read his treatment of the ten kings represented by the ten horns of the beast in Revelation 17 (which is obviously drawing on the fourth beast of Daniel 7 for its imagery):

The ten kings have had many explanations through the years. Each explanation has difficulties associated with it. Since their identity is not important to understanding the overall meaning of the vision [um, how not?!], let’s simply understand them as further alliances against God and His people. Remember, it’s only necessary that the original readers be able to identify every detail in Revelation. The book of Revelation was not written directly to us, but it is preserved for our benefit.

{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 239. Italics and boldface in original. Content in brackets mine.}

As far as I’m concerned, these are nothing short of excuses to be lazy when studying God’s word, and to avoid dealing with passages contrary to the position one holds (which can set the Bible student on the right track in the process). Isaiah 55:11 makes it clear that every word God included in the Bible is there for a purpose; that includes “every little detail in these visions”. If you’re willing to ignore words, phrases, or sentences within a passage, you can interpret it however you want; the same goes for ignoring some passages (or portions thereof) to interpret other passages however you want. That’s far more dangerous than speculation, any day!

I suspect another reason Pulliam is making excuses to pick-and-choose the details he’ll pay attention to in prophecies is because if he didn’t, the sheer level of detail in many Old Testament prophecies would practically require him to interpret them in a straightforward manner (which his position is blatantly built on not doing). After all, if these prophecies were meant to metaphorically portray something, there’s absolutely no reason for God to get as long-winded as He does in them. Ezekiel 40-48 is easily the best example to illustrate this. I really like the way Paul Henebury said it after giving a list of reasons why that passage should be interpreted as a vision of a future, literal temple on physical land (among the many other details implied by taking the passage at face value): “If someone doesn’t believe these evidences and instead wants to interpret a portion of the Bible that is longer than First Corinthians as a “word-picture” or “type”, then let them explain their interpretation from the text.” (Boldface added)

Indeed, even in passages that are meant allegorically, the details are still important. For example, while I’ve seen many teachers (especially within the Church of Christ) teach that the story of the Rich Man & Lazarus gives us important details of what the afterlife is like (even building their understandings of the human soul on it), the passage is actually an allegory about Jesus & the second destruction of Jerusalem and its apostate priesthood. For example, have you ever wondered why a parable (which you’d expect to be a bare-bones story with necessary details only) includes the oddly specific detail that the Rich Man had 5 brothers? It’s because the priestly tribe, Levi, was descended from one of the 6 sons of Jacob through Leah, the other 5 being Reuben, Simeon, Judah, Issachar, & Zebulun (see Genesis 29:32-35, 30:17-20). The outline I just linked to documents similar Biblical cross-references for every last detail in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. So, I’ll entertain the idea that Ezekiel 40-48 was meant allegorically once someone presents a similar outline for every last detail in all 9 of those chapters. Nobody who claims that section of Scripture is allegorical can pretend to have a legitimate case for it unless and until they can present such an outline.

When God goes into great detail, it’s because those details are important to understand — if not by the original audience (see my first paragraph after quoting the Daniel 2 passage below), then by the future readers living when the information has been “unsealed” (e.g., Daniel 8:26, 12:4).

The Dream of Daniel 2

So, let’s consider the entire dream of Daniel 2, along with Daniel’s interpretation of it. You may feel overwhelmed by all the remarks I’m adding to this passage in brackets, but please bear with me (after all, I spent 2 nights of my life lining up the phrasing with the original Aramaic as precisely as possible!).

31 “You, O king, were looking and behold, there was a single great statue [literally, “and behold! A single great image/figure”; the Aramaic word properly refers to an idolatrous figure]; that statue [figure], which was large and of extraordinary splendor [literally, “that figure, large and its splendor surpassing”], was standing in front of you, and its appearance was awesome [literally, “was terrifying”].
32 The head of that statue [figure] was made of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of bronze,
33 its [lower] legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.
34 You continued [literally, “You were”] looking until a stone was cut out without hands [literally, “until that stone cut itself out, and that not with hands”; the Aramaic word for “that” here, while not translated in the 1995 NASB rendering, was often used (particularly after verbs involving seeing, as is the case here) to introduce the subject of a sentence {Scroll to entry 3 under “Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon”}–see my remark on verse 45 for why I translated the Hithpeel-form verb for “cut out” reflexively instead of passively], and it struck the statue [figure] on its feet of iron and clay [literally, “its feet of the iron and the clay”; “iron” & “clay” both have definite articles attached to them] and crushed [literally, “and it shattered”; the verb is in the Haphel form, indicating it’s causative in force and active in voice] them.
35 Then [properly, “At the same time” or “Immediately” {Scroll to “Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon”, specifically the line for בֵּאדַיִן}] the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed [literally, “were shattered”–the same verb as in verse 34, but in the Peal form (corresponding to the Qal form in Hebrew, which expresses the “simple” active form of the action); this implies that the shattering action in verse 34 is more direct than the shattering action in verse 35] all at the same time [literally, “shattered as one”] and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found [literally, “the wind carried them, and no place at all was found for them”]. But the stone that struck the statue [figure] became a great mountain and filled the whole earth [or, “and it filled all the land”].

36 “This was the dream; now we will tell its interpretation [literally, “dream, and its interpretation we will tell”] before the king.
37 You, O king, are the king of kings [literally, “You, the king, are king of the kings], to whom the [better, “kings, that”; same Aramaic word for “that” I discussed back in verse 34] God of heaven has given [literally, “has given to you”] the kingdom, the power, the strength and the glory [or “honor”];
38 and wherever the sons of men dwell, or the beasts of the field, or the birds of the sky, He has given them into your hand and has caused you to rule over [literally, “in” or “among”; the preposition is בְּ, not עַל] them all. You are [or “are indeed”; this Aramaic pronoun can be used to return to a subject while emphasizing it] the head of gold [literally, “of the gold”; “gold” has a definite article attached to it].
39 After [literally, “And after”] you there will arise another kingdom inferior to you [literally, “another kingdom of earth more than you”], then [literally, “and”] another third kingdom of [better, “kingdom, that of”; same word from verses 34 & 37] bronze [literally, “of the bronze”; definite article attached to “bronze”], which will rule over [literally, “in” or “among”; בְּ, not עַל] all the earth [or “the land”].
40 Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron [literally, “And a fourth kingdom there will be, strong as the iron”; definite article on “iron”]; inasmuch as [properly, “iron; on this very account because” {Scroll to “Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon” & read the note on the phrase כָּל־קְבֵל דִּי}] iron crushes and shatters all things [literally, “the iron is shattering and crushing (or “subduing”) the whole”], so, like iron [literally, “and so, like the iron”; definite article on “iron”] that breaks in pieces, it will crush and break all these in pieces.
41 In that you saw the feet and toes [literally, “And that you saw, the feet and the toes”; definite articles on “feet” & “toes”], partly of potter’s clay [literally, “partly clay, that of a potter,”] and partly of iron, it will be [or “become”] a divided [Aramaic פְּלַג (H6386), corresponding to the Hebrew פָּלַג (H6385), which Genesis 10:25 explicitly gives as the root of the name Peleg (פֶּלֶג, H6389)] kingdom; but it will have in it the toughness of iron [literally, “and part of the toughness, that of the iron, it will have in it], inasmuch as [same Aramaic phrase as in verse 40] you saw the iron mixed with common clay [literally, “with clay of the mud”].
42 As the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of pottery [literally, “And toes of the feet, partly iron and partly clay], so some of the kingdom [literally, “clay, part of the kingdom’s end] will be strong and part of it will be brittle [literally, “broken”].
43 And in that you saw [literally, “That you saw,] the iron mixed with common clay [literally, “with clay of the mud”], they will combine with one another [literally, “joined, they will be,”; with the passive participle for “joined” being in the Hithpaal form, indicating a mixing that’s more intensive, yet done to themselves or by others] in [or “with”] the seed of men [literally, “with seed of the mortal human”; the word rendered “men” in the 1995 NASB is אֵנֶשׁ (H606), the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew word אֱנוֹשׁ (H582), the root of the name “Enosh”, which properly means “mortal man” and connotes man/humanity in a less dignified sense–the normal Hebrew word for “human/ity” is אָדָם (H120), the root of the name “Adam”]; but they will not adhere to one another [literally, “will not cling, this with that], even as iron [literally, “as the iron”; definite article on “iron”] does not combine with pottery [literally, “iron joins not itself with the clay”; “joins” is in the Hithpaal form again, but the participle is active, so the action must be reflexive here; again, “clay” has a definite article attached to it].
44 In the days of those kings [literally, “And in their days, those of those kings] the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed [literally, “which is for remote times (or, “for perpetuity”), and never will be destroyed”], and that kingdom [literally, “and the kingdom”] will not be left for another people; it will crush [literally, “will break into pieces”] and put an end to all these kingdoms [literally, “all these, the kingdoms”], but it will itself endure forever [literally, “kingdoms, and it will stand for the ages”].
45 Inasmuch as [same Aramaic phrase as in verses 40 & 41] you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands [literally, “saw that from the mountain, a stone cut itself out, and that not with hands,”; the verb for “cut out” is in the Ithpeel form, which denotes an intensive and reflexive action] and that it crushed [literally, “and it broke into pieces”] the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future [literally, “king that which will take place after this”]; so the dream is true [or “reliable”] and its interpretation is trustworthy.” (Daniel 2:31-45 1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added)

First, since Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan king, and thus not necessarily interested in the end times, and Daniel only gave him the interpretation this once before Nebuchadnezzar promoted him (as indicated by the fact that verse 46 begins with the word בֵּאדַיִן, which means “Immediately”, as noted in my first remark in verse 35) — meaning, for instance, that any terms that can be better understood at one place in the passage wouldn’t have automatically had their meanings transferred to another place in Nebuchadnezzar’s head — it’s safe to conclude that Nebuchadnezzar himself was only meant to understand the interpretation in a general sense; not necessarily every little detail. So, for instance, he would’ve cared about the kingdoms after him and how powerful and extensive they were, but not necessarily any implications of what he was being told for end-times prophecy. Hence, there are almost certainly some ambiguous words or phrases in this prophecy (one example of which I’ll discuss in the next paragraph) that weren’t meant to be fully understood at the time–but rather, were meant to be understood later, in light of additional divine revelation.

Second, note that Pulliam and I have pretty much the same understanding of Daniel’s explanation until verse 41. Pulliam interprets the feet and toes as being the same kingdom as the lower legs (despite the fact that the prophecy is obviously distinguishing them from each other by saying their makeup is different), clearly interpreting “a fourth kingdom” (verse 40) and “a divided kingdom” (verse 41) as referring to one and the same kingdom. However, if that meaning was intended, why didn’t Daniel make that more explicit to Nebuchadnezzar by telling him “the kingdom will be divided”, attaching a definite article to “kingdom” (to unequivocally link it to the previous instance of “kingdom” in verse 40) and using “divided” with the Hithpeel stem (to indicate passive action) and Imperfect tense (to indicate future completion), rather than making it a Peil Passive Participle (as it is in the Masoretic Text; functioning as an adjective with no time component, rather than an action verb with a timing component) followed by a verb that could mean “it will be” or “it will become”–the latter of which necessitates prior existence in a non-divided form, but the former of which doesn’t? It seems that Daniel was divinely inspired to use the more ambiguous phrasing “a kingdom divided it will be(come)” to give Nebuchadnezzar adequate information to understand what he needed to, while leaving more than one possibility open for future revelation (which could ultimately clarify this point; of course, I believe this clarification came along in Revelation 17, taken in conjunction with Daniel 7; more on that in Part 2 of this post).

It’s worth reinforcing the connection between the word for “divided” here (pᵊlaḡ, pronounced peh-LAG) and the name “Peleg”, used in Genesis 10:25: “Two sons were born to Eber; the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.” (1995 NASB). The “division” referred to here isn’t the continents splitting apart (the vast majority of continental drift would’ve happened during the Flood, with a minuscule fraction of it occurring since), but the early post-Flood families being dispersed from Babel by language barriers and claiming different portions of the earth’s surface for their own nations. Since there were dozens of families involved in this (Genesis 10), it’s clear that the type of “division” associated with this word isn’t restricted to division into only 2 parts! Transferring this point about the Hebrew word’s connotations to its Aramaic equivalent is especially acceptable in this case, since the word for “divided” in Genesis 10:25, H6385, is a relatively rare Hebrew word for “divided”, used only 4 times in the OT (Genesis 10:25, 1 Chronicles 1:19, Job 38:25, & Psalm 55:9)–for example, the word for “divided” in Genesis 10:5,32 is H6504, which is used 26 times in the OT. In fact, among all the Hebrew words rendered “divide” in the KJV, only H1334 is used less often than H6385 (twice in Genesis 15:10, and nowhere else)! These points (and all the Biblical precedent meshed in with them) should be borne in mind when considering any eschatological implications of this passage.

Third, note that the “stone” strikes the figure on its feet and toes. Pulliam and I agree that this event (whenever it was meant to happen) marks the beginning of Jesus’ reign in its fullest form. But that creates a major historical problem for Pulliam. The Roman Republic conquered the Seleucid Empire in 63 B.C., transitioned from a Republic to an Empire in the period between 44 & 27 B.C., and conquered the Ptolemaic Empire in 30 B.C. These two conquests (and those of the rest of the former Alexandrian Empire, whose land holdings included much of the former Medo-Persian and Neo-Babylonian Empires) fulfilled Daniel 2:40; hence, verse 40 has been fulfilled ever since 30 B.C. However, Pulliam holds that Christ’s Kingdom began (fulfilling verse 44) in A.D. 33 (in a chart on p. 137, Pulliam seems to identify the exact starting point of the Kingdom as Jesus’ death on the cross, an event I place in A.D. 30 {HIDMF p. 663,669-672}). So if Pulliam’s interpretation is correct, then all the events of verses 41-43 (the kingdom under discussion being divided [verse 41] between multiple “kings” [verse 44], and becoming weak and in danger of collapsing in its latter days [verse 42] due to the rulers marrying, having offspring with, mingling with, and/or making alliances with those who aren’t of the ruling class [verse 43]) must have been fulfilled between 30 B.C. and A.D. 30/33. So, when in that time range did these events happen? The answer is simple: THEY DIDN’T! Aside from the fact that the “kingdom’s end” (verse 42) for the Roman Empire didn’t come until centuries after Jesus’ time, with the Western Roman Empire collapsing in A.D. 476, the Pax Romana, the period of history where the Roman Empire experienced the greatest peace and stability, lasted from 27 B.C. to A.D. 180! (Fitting, isn’t it, that the “Prince of Peace” came to Earth incarnate during a time of peace that was unprecedented in the history of civilization? Also note that Ezekiel 38:11 implies that the War of Gog & Magog occurs at a time when Israel is experiencing a period of even greater peace–to the point where cities no longer have walls, gates, bars, etc.! What nation in history has ever experienced that level of peace?! This is the main giveaway that the events prophesied in Ezekiel 38-39 occur at the end of Jesus’ Millennial reign.) The situation in the Roman Empire leading up to and during Jesus’ ministry was exactly the opposite of what was prophesied in verses 42-43! This would also explain why the stone isn’t said to strike the figure “on its lower legs, feet, and toes” (as you’d expect the text to say if the lower legs and the feet & toes were the same kingdom).

Fourth, returning to the point made above about God withholding details because it wasn’t the right time to reveal them (and thus, leaving multiple possibilities open until additional revelation is given later): something similar may be going on with a number being given in verse 40, but not in verse 41. Pulliam seems to interpret the lack of the word “fifth” in verse 41 as meaning that the same kingdom is referred to throughout verses 40-43. But consider the implications of including the word “fifth” when the first four kingdoms (which are numbered) turned out to be consecutive. If “fifth” had been included in verse 41, and the Roman Empire was the fourth kingdom, then the fifth kingdom would naturally be the Byzantine Empire! (The Roman Empire split into Western and Eastern halves in A.D. 330, with the Western half continuing to be headquartered in Rome, and the Eastern half being headquartered in Constantinople. The Western Roman Empire fell in 476, while the Byzantine Empire endured until 1453–nearly a millennium later!) To my knowledge, nobody is claiming that Jesus’ Kingdom began at the fall of Constantinople! (And lest you object that the nations being discussed in these passages are obviously the nations with control over Israel following the first destruction of Jerusalem, the Roman Empire held the land of Israel until the early 4th century, when it transferred to the Byzantine Empire, who eventually lost it to the Muslims in the 630s.) Hence, another possible interpretation is that Daniel was inspired not to include a number in verse 41 because the lower legs and the feet & toes represented two non-consecutive kingdoms, with other kingdoms rising and falling between them! And before Pulliam objects that this amounts to “speculation”, rendering the interpretation “subjective”: which interpretation is correct must be decided in light of additional divine revelation.

As a quick aside, “the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold” being “shattered as one” as an indirect result of the stone striking the feet and toes doesn’t contradict the fact that the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Macedonian, Seleucid, Ptolemaic, and Roman Empires no longer exist–because they do still exist, just not by those names or with their former glory or extent. All these nations still have remnant populations to this day: Babylonia is now Iraq; Media & Persia are now Iran; Macedonia is now Greece, North Macedonia, and parts of surrounding nations; the Seleucid Kingdom is now Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and parts of other nations throughout the Middle East; the Ptolemaic Kingdom is now Egypt, coastal Libya, and the Island of Cyprus; and the Roman Empire is now most of Europe, northern Africa, and the westernmost parts of the Middle East. My openly futurist understanding is that for every nation that’s ever harassed or oppressed Israel in ancient times, what’s left of those nations will be judged for it on the Day of the Lord (e.g., Isaiah 13:1-14:2, which mentions the city of Babylon being judged on the Day of the Lord and its survivors being taken to Israel as servants–which didn’t happen following the Babylonian Exile; and Obadiah 15 — the first Biblical mention, chronologically, of the Day of the Lord — which mentions that “the day of the LORD draws near on all the nations.” — 1995 NASB, boldface added), they and the Israelites will be planted back on their ancestral lands, and only those willing to repent and worship the God of Israel will be permitted to survive (Jeremiah 12:14-17) and participate in Christ’s Kingdom (Psalm 2:9 LXX; Matthew 22:1-14, especially verses 11-13; etc.).

An Example of Preterist Eisegesis

Now, let’s consider Pulliam’s follow-up argument for the interpretation he presents on p. 179 (don’t worry, this discussion will be much shorter!).

When we come to the New Testament, an inspired proclamation begins to go forth: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mk 1:15). What time was fulfilled? Jesus was saying that those days were the intended time for Old Testament prophecy to be fulfilled. It was the days of that final kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar’s image. The fourth kingdom (Rome) was in power (Lk 3:1), and the messenger to prepare the way had already come (Mk 1:1-5, cmp. Mal 3:1; Isa 40:3). Any effort to move the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy into the future makes Christ’s proclamation a mistake. He said the time was fulfilled. God’s timetable placed the kingdom in the days of the Roman kings. The stage was set, the curtain had risen, and the players were in place.

{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 179-180. Italics and boldface in original.}

This is simply a non-sequitur (perhaps even a straw grasp). There’s nothing in the context of Mark 1:15 indicating that the time that “has been fulfilled” (the verb is perfect-tense, not present-tense) was the time for Old Testament prophecy (as a whole or regarding Daniel’s visions) to be fulfilled. In reality, Jesus was referring to the prophecies about John the Baptist’s ministry (Malachi 3:1 & Isaiah 40:3, as Pulliam conveniently pointed out), in light of the fact that Mark 1:14 informs us that Jesus said this “after the delivering up of John [into prison]” (YLT). As for Jesus’ remark that “the reign of God hath come nigh” (Mark 1:15b YLT): again, the verb for “at hand”/“come nigh” is perfect-tense, not present-tense, implying something that had already happened and was currently yielding its results when Jesus said this. It’s clear from the discussions in these posts that the Kingdom of God isn’t in its fullest form yet, so it obviously wasn’t in its fullest form when Jesus made this proclamation early in his earthly ministry, either. In fact, the understanding of Mark 1:15 that Pulliam’s putting forth here contradicts his own idea that the Kingdom didn’t commence until the time of Jesus’ death on the cross (per the image of a cross in his chart on p. 137)! So to be consistent with that idea, Pulliam must agree with me that Jesus’ statement here refers to something other than the present Kingdom (as understood by Pulliam or myself).

I hold that, as God’s representative acting on His behalf, Jesus wielded some authority of his Father (and by extension, His Kingdom) during his earthly ministry (this was why he was able to cast out demons, for instance: “if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” — Luke 11:20c 1995 NASB, boldface added). Hence, Jesus embodied the Kingdom of God during this time! Once he ascended to heaven at the end of his earthly ministry, he continued exercising this authority over those things that had been under the heavenly dominions since the beginning (angels, miraculous occurrences, etc.). And once the Holy Spirit was poured out on believers at Pentecost, they and any institutions that they would submit to Christ’s authority came under the heavenly dominions, as well. And once Jesus returns, everything on Earth that presently isn’t in the heavenly dominions will become part of it. This understanding of how Christ’s Kingdom has expanded and will expand over time sufficiently explains all of the passages brought up on the subject throughout this series — including Mark 1:15.

Daniel 10 & 11

Pulliam’s discussion on Daniel 10 is his briefest of all in these 2 lessons. But for once, I agree with just about everything he says:

For the purpose of this study, there is only one aspect we need to dwell on in Daniel 10. Mention of Persia and Greece sets the tone for the reader moving forward into Daniel 11. The stage is set, and the players are about to become involved in the great drama engulfing “the end.” Persia has been withstanding, and Greece will soon come onto the stage (Dan 10:13 & 20). Daniel is about to learn what will happen to his people in “the latter days” (Dan 10:14). These “latter days” begin with the kings of Persia (Dan 11:2), and work their way through the history of the Grecian empire from Alexander onward.

{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 191. Italics and boldface in original. Underlining mine.}

Daniel 10 indeed sets the background for Daniel 11; after all, the lack of Daniel’s name in Daniel 11:1 implies that God’s preincarnate Son (note that the description of Jesus in Revelation 1:13-15 draws most of its details from the description of the messenger in Daniel 10:5-6) was speaking those words to Daniel — in fact, this implies that everything from Daniel 10:20b through 12:4 is Jesus’ words! Moreover, note that Daniel 11:1b mentions something this messenger did “in the first year of Darius the Mede” (KJV)–which was also the first year of Cyrus over the Jews (Cyrus installed Darius the Mede — his father-in-law — as king over Babylonia once Belshazzar had been slain), which was also the year during which the 70 “sevens” began (Daniel 9:3,23,25, Isaiah 44:24-45:13, Ezra 1:1-4) {for a more thorough discussion of this timing detail, see HIDMF p. 656-668}! Hence, Pulliam is on the right track by concluding that all the events of Daniel 11 would occur during the 70 “sevens”.

However, there’s something worth noting here that Pulliam seemed to not be aware of (although I’m not in a position to say he’d have a problem with it). The Hebrew phrase the 1995 NASB rendered “the time of the end” in Daniel 11:35,40 & 12:4,9 is עֵת קֵץ; the same phrase in 8:17 is עֶת־קֵץ (the same words as the instances from Daniel 11 & 12, but with the first vowel different to accommodate the preposition prefixed to the phrase); and the phrase rendered “the appointed time of the end” in 8:19 is מוֹעֵד קֵץ (the same word for “end” as in verse 17, but a different word for “time”–specifically, H4150, a word normally applied to a set time of year or a time set aside to meet for some purpose). Yet the Hebrew words for “the latter days” in Daniel 10:14 (1995 NASB) are totally different from all the ones just listed: אַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים. God’s Son was evidently designating “the latter days” as a longer period of time that would end with “the time of the end”! So while “the latter days” started during the Persian period, “the time of the end” didn’t.

Pulliam says regarding Daniel 11:2-35, “For the most part, interpretations of their fulfillment in history agree.” {“In the Days of Those Kings”. 192.} My interpretation of those verses is no exception. Verse 2 predicted the wealth and military instigations of the 4th Persian King after Cyrus II, Xerxes I. Verses 3-4 predicted the conquests of Alexander the Great, and the partitioning of his empire among 4 of his generals after his death. Verses 5-20 predicted the intrigue within and between the royal houses of 2 of those 4 partitions, the Seleucids (the “king of the north”) and the Ptolemies (the “king of the south”), that took place over the next century-and-a-half. Verses 21-32a predicted many of the despicable acts of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. And verses 32b-35 predicted the Jews’ persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, the Maccabbean Revolt, and the persecution and testing of Jews by Gentile nations from the time of their victory over the Seleucids all the way “until the time of the end” (verse 35b ESV)–I suspect all the anti-Semitism we’ve seen over the centuries is one aspect of the fulfillment of verse 35.

Sure, Pulliam insists that there’s no such thing as “partially fulfilled prophecy” (which I’m implying verse 35 to be an example of, since anti-Semitism is sadly still a thing), but I demolish that claim here. It’s worth adding that while verse 36 begins with a waw-consecutive perfect-tense verb, the prior waw-consecutive perfect-tense verb is “and … will join” from verse 34 (NASB). Between the facts that (a) verse 35 opens with a waw-disjunctive construction (the letter ו prefixed to a non-verb at the start of a sentence); (b) the verb for “will fall” (NASB) is imperfect-tense without a waw-consecutive construction; and (c) verse 35 features the phrase “until the time of the end” (ESV), using the same Hebrew phrase for “the time of the end” found in verse 40 (עֵת קֵץ); it’s clear that verse 35 is a parenthetical statement whose time of completion isn’t necessarily tied to the chronological sequence created by the waw-consecutives following it in the prophecy! Don’t believe my claims about the Hebrew text? Feel free to check here by clicking the word “TOOLS” next to the highlighted verses.

Aside from that, it’s not until verse 36 that I start disagreeing with Pulliam (as he probably would’ve guessed). However, he probably wouldn’t have guessed that I also disagree with dispensationalists at this point!

Pulliam says a fair amount on p. 182-183 about the importance of “knowing Bible history”. It’s ironic, then, that he makes mention early on in his book about “Daniel 11:36-39 (which refers to Antiochus Epiphanes around 168 BC)” {“In the Days of Those Kings”. 32. Boldface added.}. Yet on p. 192, he points out that Antiochus Epiphanes isn’t the only king prophesied about in Daniel 11 in order to counter dispensationalist theologian John Walvoord’s argument that “verses 36 onward [must apply to the Antichrist because they] could not apply to Antiochus Epiphanes.” {Boldface mine. See also source cited therein.} Seriously, how many more contradictions am I going to find in Pulliam’s work?!

Walvoord was correct that verses 36 onward weren’t fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes. Indeed, this is the main reason most Biblical scholars think the fulfillment of every verse from Daniel 11:36-12:3 is still future! (Even most amillennialists think these verses have yet to be fulfilled, though perhaps not literally; about the only scholars who don’t are preterists, who are compelled to push the fulfillment of every OT prophecy into the past–just as Pulliam tries to do throughout his book!) However, the mistake dispensationalists are making here is a somewhat surprising one: they’re trying to place their time jump to the apocalypse too early in the text! Despite his citation of verse 40 on p. 193, Pulliam makes no mention whatsoever of the phrase “And at the time of the end” in verse 40a (KJV), which forces us to conclude that the time jump to the apocalypse that dispensationalists place at the start of verse 36 (and that Pulliam denies is anywhere to be found in the text) is actually at the start of verse 40! This further indicates that Daniel 11:40-12:3 (and only those verses, in the entire prophecy from 11:2-12:3) were to be fulfilled “at the time of the end” and/or beyond it. Therefore, verses 36-39 were to be fulfilled before “the time of the end”.

I agree with Pulliam that the events of Daniel 11:2-12:1 would all be fulfilled during the 70 “sevens”: after all, those 70 “sevens” refer to a set of 500 Hebrew years (not 490, as nearly all scholars have assumed–each set of 7 consecutive “sevens” amounts to a complete Jubilee cycle, so an extra year must be intercalated after every 7 “sevens”, making them 50 years long instead of 49; more details may be found in {HIDMF p. 675-680}) during which God would deal with Israel as a nation, and the events mentioned in Daniel 11:2-12:3 are singled out among all the historical events that would take place during that time period because these events would impact Israel. Of course, the major difference between Pulliam and I is which years we associate with the 70 “sevens”. He believes that the 70 “sevens” ended in A.D. 36, 3.5 years after the date he accepts for Jesus’ crucifixion. I, on the other hand, peg the first 69 “sevens” as occurring between Rosh Hashanah of 464 B.C. (the start of the first Hebrew year to begin after Cyrus issued the decree mentioned in Daniel 9:23,25) and Rosh Hashanah of A.D. 29. (the start of the Hebrew year during which the crucifixion actually occurred), and the 70th “seven” as occurring between Rosh Hashanah of 2029 and Rosh Hashanah of 2037 (note the gap of exactly 2,000 Hebrew years between the 69th & the 70th “seven”, which I briefly — yet conclusively — justify in this post; I give a much more thorough justification in Appendix D of my upcoming book {HIDMF p. 723-750}). Since the fulfillment of Daniel 11:35 began around 164 B.C., we should constrain our search for fulfillments of the remaining verses to what years of the 70 “sevens” remain after 164 B.C. by each of our reckoning. Pulliam’s time window would thus be 164 B.C.-A.D. 36, while my time window would be 164 B.C.-A.D. 29, OR 2029-2037.

In fact, the fulfillment of verses 36-39 fits into both time windows. As the late Bryan T. Huie explained: “Both secular history and the New Testament record the acts of a king who appeared on the scene in Israel at the end of the Hasmonean period. As we shall see, this king fulfilled every prophetic description given in verses 36 through 39. That king was Herod the Great.” (boldface mine; feel free to click that last hyperlink for historical details on how Herod fulfilled these verses!) Josephus said Herod the Great ruled Judea on behalf of the Romans for 37 years, and I peg his death as being early in 1 B.C. {HIDMF p. 710-711}; hence, Herod reigned from 38-1 B.C. It’s worth adding that a certain Murrell Selden once wrote that: “Based upon the writings of Josephus (which appear to be mostly accurate), the anchor date of the war between Antony and Octavius Caesar, and calculations of relevant lunar events, it appears that Herod the Great died on January 26 (Shebat 2) in 1 B.C.E.” If January 26 was indeed the Julian equivalent of Shebat 2 (which Jewish tradition holds to be the day of the year on which Herod died) for the year 1 B.C., this would be consistent with my conclusion that the lunar eclipse Josephus said occurred shortly before Herod’s death was the total lunar eclipse of January 10, 1 B.C. {HIDMF p. 710} (too bad Selden’s lunar eclipse dates for that period are totally off {scroll to p. 41-42 in the PDF–the white area on each map is where the eclipse would’ve been visible, and negative years are off from the BC date by 1; i.e., 0001 means A.D. 1, 0000 means 1 B.C., -0001 means 2 B.C., etc.})!

Recall that verse 40 opens with the phrase “And at the time of the end” (and note that Huie’s explanation of verse 40 totally ignored this phrase). The ו before a preposition and a noun (suggesting either a waw-disjunctive or a waw-conjunctive) and the 2 imperfect verbs (rendered “will collide” and “and will storm” in the 1995 NASB) without waw-consecutives make this seem parenthetical at first glance (i.e., waw-disjunctive instead of waw-conjunctive) in light of my discussion about verse 35. However, we go on to see not one, but three waw-consecutive perfect-tense verbs further into verse 40 (rendered “and he will enter”, “overflow”, and “and pass through” in the 1995 NASB). Hence, the ו at the start of verse 40 operates as a simple conjunction, and the sequence indicated by the 3 waw-consecutives (and the waw-consecutives throughout the remainder of the passage) starts from “the time of the end” indicated in verse 40. This means that the interpretation of Huie (and Pulliam) that verses 40-43 were fulfilled in the fall of Ptolemaic Egypt to Rome can’t be correct, since Herod’s “not giv[ing] heed … upon the desire of women” (my right-to-left translation of the phrase לֹא יָבִין וְעַל־חֶמְדַּת נָשִׁים in verse 37b) was fulfilled in his slaughter of all the boys in Bethlehem under the age of 2–nearly 3 decades after the fall of Ptolemaic Egypt! Hence, the fall of Ptolemaic Egypt is a type of this passage’s eventual fulfillment, at best.1

However, early on in Lesson 18, Pulliam gave himself an “out” (maybe consciously, maybe not) on this point about the fall of Ptolemaic Egypt not fulfilling the events of verses 40-43 because the fall of Ptolemaic Egypt didn’t occur “at the time of the end”. He did so by drawing the reader’s attention to an admittedly important issue: what “the time of the end” refers to.

The first explanation within this section [Daniel 8-12] begins at Daniel 8:15. The first thing we need to understand is that this vision “pertains to the time of the end” (Dan 8:17). The “time of the end” must be understood by what is revealed in this text. Many Bible students, including Dispensational scholars, immediately assume that these prophecies are about the End Times.…
The word “end” is also used in Daniel 11, but we must remember that it does not tell us anything without understanding what is “ending.” We must know how that word is being used. Before we study Daniel 10 and 11, we must take a brief look, at Daniel 8. Although, for the most part, we are agreed on the fulfillment of chapter eight, these same events are discussed with greater detail in Daniel 11.

{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 188. Boldface and italics in original. Underlining and content in brackets mine.}

Fair enough. The prophecy of Daniel 8 was given in the 3rd year of Belshazzar, while that of Daniel 9 was given in the 1st year of Darius the Mede (which was also the 1st year of Cyrus over the Jews), and those of Daniel 10-12 were given in the 3rd year of Cyrus; hence, following chronological Biblical precedent would require you to define terms that aren’t defined by the context in the prophecy of Daniel 9 in light of how those terms are used in Daniel 8, and to define such terms in Daniel 10-12 in light of how those terms are used in all of the chapters preceding each of them. Thus, the use of “the time of the end” in Daniel 8 defines the term for the rest of the book.

Daniel 7

Well, there’s also Daniel 7:26c (given in the 1st year of Belshazzar, before any of the prophecies later in the book), which refers to the kingdom with 10 kings and another king after them as being “taken away, to annihilate and to destroy it unto the end”, when you check the Aramaic text. (Not “annihilated and destroyed forever”, as in the 1995 NASB, which Pulliam quotes to refute the dispensationalist claim that the Roman Empire will be revived in the future {p. 181}; of course, while I place the kingdom of this verse in the future, I also reject the idea that it will be a “revived Roman Empire”, on the technicality that Revelation 17:12,16,18 tells us this kingdom’s rulers will hate the city of Rome–why, then, should we expect them to place their kingdom’s capital there?!) Pulliam applies this verse to the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, but he can only do so by completely ignoring the very next verse, which thoroughly contradicts Pulliam’s view of Christ’s Kingdom: “Then the sovereignty, the dominion and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints [literally, “the holy ones”] of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey Him.” (Daniel 7:27 1995 NASB, underlining and boldface added) The phrase “under the whole heaven” rules out the idea that the Kingdom referred to here would be in heaven, and the fact that “the sovereignty, the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms… will be given to the people of the holy ones of the Highest One” tells us that authority over governments, cultures, economies, etc. will be included in the Kingdom being spoken of here–not just the hearts and minds of the faithful. This matches my views on Christ’s Kingdom perfectly, but it rules out the possibility that the fourth beast of Daniel 7 (the one destroyed in verse 26) was the Roman Empire–or any other kingdom up to the time of this writing!

Speaking of which, let’s consider Pulliam’s full discussion on Daniel 7 (yes, it really is this brief).

Another prophecy of the coming kingdom is revealed in Daniel 7. In this prophecy, Daniel sees a vision of four beasts, and then the vision is interpreted for him. Like the prophecy of Daniel 2, this one foretells four kingdoms and the Messiah coming to reign during the time of the fourth kingdom. Concerning the end of the four kingdoms in this prophecy, Daniel says:

11 “… I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire. 12 As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time.”

(Daniel 7:11f)

Of great interest here is the fact that the first three kingdoms are granted “an extension of life” for a “period of time,” but the fourth kingdom comes to an end with no extension of life granted to it. When Rome fell, there was no kingdom or country left of it. Only a city bore its name. The previous three kingdoms (Babylonian, Persian, and Grecian) all had territorial boundaries remaining after they were conquered. Later in Daniel 7, we read, “But the court will sit for judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, annihilated and destroyed forever” (v26). Dispensationalists claim that the Roman Empire will be revived so the Messiah can establish His kingdom. This prophecy says that the Roman Empire can never be revived. Rome was completely slain. It was annihilated and destroyed forever.

Within this vision is the Son of Man (Jesus) receiving power from the Ancient of Days (the Father). At this point, the Son of Man is given dominion, glory and a kingdom (v14). The Dispensationalist tells us that this is fulfilled by Christ’s current reign in heaven, but that we must still wait for Him to sit on the throne of David. Jesus did go into heaven, and as we have already learned, Jesus is on the throne of David at the right hand of God now.

Daniel not only pins down the time when the Messiah would come, but also declares that he would set up His kingdom at that time. If the Messiah’s kingdom did not come during the Roman Empire, then prophetic Scripture has failed. Dispensationalism fails to uphold the prophetic word that it claims to interpret so accurately.

{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 180-181. Indentation, italics, and boldface in original. Underlining mine.}

Once again, Pulliam has overlooked several details. I’ve already dealt with the point about verse 26 (and called out his lack of discussion about verse 27) above, but it’s worth bringing out that he claimed that this prophecy foretold 4 kingdoms, and includes Babylonia as one of them–despite the fact that Daniel received this vision in the first year of Belshazzar (verse 1), the last Babylonian king! If this vision foretold four kingdoms, then it was given too late for Babylonia to be one of them! Once again, the context contradicts Pulliam’s claims. But this is admittedly a minor mistake, since his identifications for the first 3 beasts are correct: The first beast, “like a lion with eagles’ wings” (Daniel 7:4b NLT), represents the Babylonian empire; the “second one, resembling a bear” (verse 5b NASB), represents the Persian empire; and the third one, “like a leopard, with four wings of a bird on its back” (verse 6b ESV), represents the Alexandrian empire. This will come up again in Part 2.

As for the point about an “extension of life” for the first 3 kingdoms: this easily comports with the above-mentioned points about the nations being judged on the Day of the Lord and Jesus striking the final world superpower before his return (recall that 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 portrays Jesus’ parousia, the rapture, and the Day of the Lord as all occurring together {HIDMF, p. 773-774}) directly, but the other kingdoms less directly. The kingdom of the Antichrist will not be allowed to persist past the start of Jesus’ reign, but many other nations that are still on Earth at that time will. The sheer number of foreign nations that are named in OT prophecies describing the Messiah’s Kingdom make it clear that there will still be national distinctions within the Kingdom–not to mention the remark in Revelation 22:2c that “the leaves of the tree [of life] are for the healing of the nations.” (NIV, boldface added) Indeed, this is why Jesus will be called the “King of kings, and Lord of lords” (Revelation 19:16c YLT) at that time–Jesus will be the King and Lord that all the other kings and lords in the world will have to answer to; after all, this is the sense of the phrase “king of kings” when applied to Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 26:7; Daniel 2:37, as we saw above!) and Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:12)!

It’s also worth pointing out another contradiction in Pulliam’s logic. He points out in Lesson 5 (“Two Monumental Words”) that the Biblical words for “forever” or “everlasting” don’t necessarily mean “never-ever-ending” {p. 49-57}. “We know that the words forever and everlasting have a wide range of application. It is up to us to be careful that we not apply the wrong meaning. The definition of this word has the power to determine what you believe about the entire Bible.” {p. 56. Italics in original.} Yet Pulliam shows no carefulness whatsoever when interpreting “forever” in Daniel 7:26 as meaning “never-ever-ending”! Why can’t dispensationalists just use Pulliam’s own logic against him to claim that this verse is saying that the Roman Empire will only be destroyed for a finite amount of time (especially in light of the Aramaic phrasing, which I brought out at the start of this section) when Pulliam himself supports his point in Lesson 5 by pointing out that Jeremiah 17:4 used the term “forever” with reference to the 70-year captivity in Babylon?! {p. 54} Clearly, Pulliam’s decisions for what “forever” means in which passages are much more arbitrary and incoherent than he wants his readers to think!

Note Pulliam’s remark that he and his dispensationalist opponents are in agreement that Daniel 7:13-14 was fulfilled when Jesus ascended to his Father’s right side. Here are those verses from the version Pulliam personally told me he prefers, the 1995 NASB:

I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.

(Underlining added)

Pulliam and his dispensationalist opponents have both made the mistake of claiming that this prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus’ ascension to the Father’s right side, when it will actually be fulfilled with Jesus’ second coming. As you may have guessed, that’s not a mere assertion on my part; it becomes clear that this prophecy hasn’t been fulfilled yet once you look more carefully at the Aramaic text of verse 14:

וְלֵהּ יְהִיב שָׁלְטָן וִיקָר וּמַלְכוּ וְכֹל עַמְמַיָּא אֻמַיָּא וְלִשָּׁנַיָּא לֵהּ יִפְלְחוּן שָׁלְטָנֵהּ שָׁלְטָן עָלַם דִּי־לָא יֶעְדֵּה וּמַלְכוּתֵהּ דִּי־לָא תִתְחַבַּל׃ פ

Here’s a word-by-word translation of this verse, with slashes to represent the spaces between words and dashes to represent a ־; note the underlined phrase carefully, especially in light of the italicized phrase “men of every” in the 1995 NASB, revealing that those words weren’t in the Aramaic text.

And to him / was forcibly given [the Peil stem indicates a more intensive form of giving; i.e., what had belonged to the world is being repossessed by the Father and given to His Son] / dominion / and honor / and a kingdom. / And all / the peoples, / the nations, / and the tongues: / to him / they will pay reverence. / His dominion / is a dominion / age-enduring, / that which — never / will pass away, / and his kingdom / that which – never / will be destroyed. / [end major train of thought]

In the phrase “all the peoples, the nations, and the tongues”, the word “all” is qualifying all three terms following it. Do all nations pay reverence to Jesus now? Absolutely not. Individuals within any given nation may worship Jesus, but that nation on the whole doesn’t. A nation is a distinct entity from the people comprising it (whether individually or collectively); that was as true in the ancient world as it is today. But another relevant point is something that was true in the ancient world, but generally isn’t true today (which is probably another reason why dispensationalists misunderstand this verse; after all, their “bride-beating groom” argument for pre-Tribulationism displays a penchant for ethnocentrism! {HIDMF, p. 780}): in the ancient world, every nation had its own god that was worshiped on the national level.2 The Greeks actually extended this to the city level (e.g., Athens got Athena, Corinth got Aphrodite, Ephesus got Artemis, etc.)! This was a major reason why Israel’s neighbors needed some convincing that “the God of Israel” was the One who’d created the heavens and the earth, as opposed to just another local god like theirs!

Hence, Daniel 7:13-14 foretells a time when the Son of Man would be worshiped by all nations on a national level for the rest of eternity. The constant cries in our day about “separation of church and state” should be Exhibit A that such a time hasn’t arrived yet!

Teaser: The Key to this Whole Prophetic Puzzle

Anyway, back to the point about “the time of the end” being defined in Daniel 8. Pulliam’s exposition on what the term means in Daniel 8 focuses on the conquests of Alexander the Great over Persia, the splitting of the Alexandrian empire into 4 parts, and the subsequent rise of Antiochus Epiphanes. He then gives some conclusions that I have no doubt he thinks are especially powerful:

Among the kings of the North, would arise a wicked king named Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He defiled the temple in Jerusalem in 168 BC so the Jews could not offer sacrifices (see chart on page 192). Josephus tells us of his death, indicating the fulfillment of verse twenty-five.
All of this is what we are to understand as “the time of the end.” (Dan 8:17). This is repeated a few verses later: “Behold, I am going to let you know what will occur at the final period of the indignation, for it pertains to the appointed time of the end.” (Dan 8:19). We must remain true to the context to understand what “end” is being discussed. This vision is set during the period when Persia and Greece were in conflict, and the conflict that would immediately follow when Alexander died. Dispensationalists agree with this portion of its historical fulfillment.

{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 189. Underlining mine.}

However, despite Pulliam’s insistence that “We must remain true to the context”, he conveniently leaves out the fact that the vision Daniel 8:15 starts explaining as “pertaining to the time of the end” ends in verse 14. And it’s in the last 2 verses of that vision that we get a key detail that the correct interpretation of what set(s) of years are referred to as “the time of the end” in Daniel 8 (and by implication, throughout the rest of Daniel) must be able to explain:

Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, “For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?” And he said to me [the Septuagint, Theodotion’s Greek translation, & the Latin Vulgate all have “to him”], “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state [or “shall be made right”].” (Daniel 8:13-14 ESV, boldface and underlining added)

What’s Pulliam’s view on the 2,300 evenings and mornings mentioned here? He never says, despite the fact that this number clearly “pertains to the time of the end”! He evidently tries to apply these two verses to Antiochus Epiphanes in the 2nd century B.C., in light of the quote above that references his timeline on p. 192, which cites “Dan 8:13-14” & “Dan 11:31” under “168 BC”. The problem with this is that the time of the desolation of Jerusalem’s second temple under Antiochus Epiphanes was only 3 lunar years (also according to Josephus!), which isn’t even half as much as 2,300 days! I can’t say I blame him for not touching this number with a ten-foot pole, though: nearly all eschatological camps fail to give a coherent explanation for these 2,300 evenings and mornings! In fact, in 1998, Larry W. Wilson presented the following results of a historical survey of expositors throughout the Christian era {Scroll to “Introduction and Historical Survey”}:

After reviewing 66 prominent scholars who wrote explanations on prophecy between the years of A.D. 430 to 1781, it is interesting that few expositors say anything at all about Daniel 8. Among these expositors, no consensus on the meaning of Daniel 8 exists, especially the 2,300 days mentioned in verse 14. Notice how their conclusions, written over a period of 1,351 years, are summarized:

1. The 2,300 days represent years: 21 writers
2. The 2,300 days are 2,300 literal days: 3 writers
3. The 2,300 days reach to the end of the world: 6 writers
4. The 2,300 days represent 1,150 24-hour days: 1 writer
5. No comment on the 2,300 days: 35 writers

For this survey, I purposely selected writers who wrote before the beginning of the 19th century when Baptist evangelist, William Miller, and many others, both in Europe and the United States began teaching that the 2,300 days would end during the 19th century. It is important to note that before the 19th century there was no consensus position on the meaning of Daniel 8. In fact, very little has ever been written on Daniel 8 during the past two millenniums.

Of course, this amount of variety (and failure) shouldn’t surprise us, since the explanation of Daniel 8 ends as follows: “The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.” (Daniel 8:26 ESV, boldface added) Wilson’s own view (which would fall under category #1 in the above list, with the years being from 457 B.C. — when Artaxerxes’ decree to Ezra was given according to the mainstream chronology, which Wilson pegs as the starting point of the 70 Weeks of Daniel 9; see HIDMF, p. 691-692 for my discussion of the main problem with this decree being the one of Daniel 9:25 — to A.D. 1844, when the Heavenly Temple would supposedly be cleansed), aside from having no significant event in 1844 to make the fulfillment obvious to anyone (which is presumably why he makes out the endpoint to be something that happened in heaven, not on Earth), makes the common mistake of assuming a 49-year Jubilee Cycle, violating the clear words of Leviticus 25:11 {see also my discussion in HIDMF, p. 675-678}. The most coherent view I’ve seen other than the one I espouse was this one by Rick Lanser, which he subsequently repudiated and refuted here–and replaced with an explanation that amounts to 2,204-2,264 days, preceded by a period of 36-to-96 days that history has left us no documentation for the length of!

The view I espouse, on the other hand, achieves a level of precision that Lanser settled for dreaming of (“As a former draftsman and computer programmer, I have always valued precision. I have found, though, we have to be content with only as much precision as the actual evidence God has preserved for us allows. Exactness cannot be an end in itself.” {See previous hyperlink}). I’ve already mentioned my answer to this puzzle in Appendix D of my upcoming book, but I had to condense the explanation there in an attempt at brevity (that Appendix wound up being 108 pages long, for crying out loud!). So I’ll supplement that discussion by giving a more thorough explanation in the next post, with plenty of Biblical statements to corroborate it. And we’ll also see that it just so happens to line up perfectly with all the passages from Daniel that Pulliam appeals to in Lessons 17 & 18 to justify placing “the time of the end” in the days of the Roman Empire. (But since I still have yet to complete and submit the proposal for my book, here’s a hint: my explanation fits into category #2 in Wilson’s list.)

  1. What of Huie’s remark about verse 43 indicating that this verse must have been fulfilled before Egypt was stricken with the poverty it’s had from its fall to Octavius to today? Well, I have 2 remarks in response to that. First, the Hebrew words “all” and “precious things” are in construct forms, modifying “Egypt”, while “gold” and “silver” are in absolute forms, being modified by “hidden treasures”, which is in the construct form. Hence, the “precious things” are Egypt’s, but not necessarily the gold or silver. Second, consider all the priceless artifacts from ancient Egypt that have been unearthed in recent centuries. Could this verse be predicting that the Antichrist will gain control over all the museum collections of ancient Egyptian artifacts and take advantage of the monetary value of those artifacts? Sure, that sounds far-fetched, but it won’t once you learn who the Antichrist will be! {I’ll link specifically to the paragraph bringing it all together.} ↩︎
  2. How did the occasional pagans throughout history who worshiped the true God get through these national worship services without betraying Him? They probably just “went through the motions” when attending such national worship, like too many people do in churches today. Also bear in mind that most of these national religions wouldn’t have been very strict about their worship criteria, being more “do your own thing” in nature; they were among the plethora of “ethically easy” religions, in contrast to the few “ethically hard” religions like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam! ↩︎

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *