Daniel 4

 On this page we will study Daniel 4:1-37

READ Daniel 4:1-3 -- 'Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you. 2. I thought it good to show the signs and wonders that the high God hath wrought toward me. 3. How great are his signs! and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an (1) ____________ kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation.'

King Nebuchadnezzar is now ready to speak to all the people, nations, and languages, of God. The wonders and signs of God. He praises God to all of them claiming how great are God's signs, how mighty are God's wonders. He even goes so far as to proclaim that God's kingdom is everlasting. That isn't a minor point there. The King, the ruler of his own amazing, earthly kingdom is announcing to all that there is one God and amazing God, an everlasting God with his everlasting kingdom. Yes, very astounding. Not only has Nebuchadnezzar proclaimed God as everlasting, he's going to go on to tell all about God chastising him and his humiliations. He'll confess of his pride and vanity and how God dealt with him. Nebuchadnezzar truly has a repentant spirit and he wants God's majesty to be known. Surprising too, or not, the king is no longer claiming that his own kingdom won't change. He's surrendering fully to God. Amazing.

READ Daniel 4:4-18 -- 'I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in mine house and flourishing in my palace: 5. I saw a dream which made me afraid, and the thoughts upon my bed and the visions of my head troubled me. 6. Therefore made I a decree to bring in all the wise men of Babylon before me, that they might make known unto me the interpretation of the dream. 7. Then came in the magicians, the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers; and I told the dream before them, but they did not make known unto me the interpretation thereof. 8 But at the last (2)_____ came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and before him I told the dream, saying, 9. 0 Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof. 10. Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed: I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. 11. The (3) ___  grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth; 12 The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all: the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it. 13. I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven; 14. He cried aloud, and said thus, Hew down the tree, and cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, and scatter his fruit: let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches: 15. Nevertheless, leave the (4) _____ of his roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth; 16. Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given onto him; and let seven times pass over him. 17. This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones; to the intent that the living may know that Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. 18. This dream I king Nebuchadnezzar have seen. Now thou, 0 Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation thereof, forasmuch as all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known unto me the interpretation: but thou art able; for the spirit of the holy gods is in thee.

Oh! Another troubling dream! Let's look at a few points about the verses above.

First, the king was resting in his house. He'd subdued many small nations around him such as Phoneicia, Egypt, Syria, Judea, and Arabia. He had to be a little uhm, shall we say, full of himself for all that he'd managed to do, to conquer. He was resting from all the conquering and all he'd done and just when he was resting, God sends him another troubling dream. No rest for the king now.

Secondly, we have to realize that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't scared by much, right? He was a fighting man, used to the horrors of battling. He'd probably looked death in the face more than once and managed to overcome his adversaries. Sending any outward sign probably wouldn't have had the impact of a dream. We know that from the previous dream he didn't take too kindly to not understanding dreams that troubled him. Maybe the horrors of war didn't trouble him, but his own dreams seemed to be able to get the better of him. We could probably say they terrified him, hmn? So God choosing this means to get to Nechadnezzar was perfect really.

Thirdly, once again the king calls in his magicians and his soothsayers and the like and this time he ~tells~ them the dream. The last time he couldn't even remember the dream and his soothsayers told him- what? They told him it was impossible to give him what he wanted. This time, the king tells him his dream and they ~still~ can't interpret it for him! What a blow to their egos, yes? Only the prophet of God could give the king what he wanted.

Fourth, how appropriate was the dream vision of Nebuchadnezzar's rule. A tree in the midst of the earth. This tree reached to heaven, and the leaves were pretty. There was external beauty for the tree just as Babylon was a gorgeous kingdom. Gorgeous and glorious, the kingdom had outward and inward beauty. The picture depicted in this dream talks of the beasts, and the fowl, and all flesh being fed by the tree, such magnificent in representing how the kingdom of Babylon was run. King Nebuchadnezzar knew how to take care of his people, his kingdom.

Fifth, that grand tree was ordered to be cut down. Not a good thing, right? But even in that order there is care for what's left of the tree. The stump and roots are left and protected so they don't rot. Protected to flourish again? Cut down not to destroy it, but for a purpose. One day not too distant the wicked aren't going to have that kind of protection are they? Root and branch will be destroyed. READ Malachi 4:1 'For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall (5) ____ them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.' Not so here with this tree.

Sixth, 'Let seven times pass over him' As a plain and literal narration, it's a literal time. Seven years. A time in the literal translation is one year, however as a symbol prophetically a 'time' is a prophetic year.

Seventh, only by God allowing it did Nebuchadnezzar attain the status he did. Humans like to take pride in themselves and their own actions and forget that it is only because God allows that they are given such positions.

Eighth, it's wonderful to note that Nebhuchadnezzar admits that God is the true God over all other supposed gods. He wants Daniel to figure out this dream for him, telling Daniel that he knows that the 'spirit of the holy gods is in thee'.  Let's read on.

READ Daniel 4:19-27 --'Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was astonied for one hour, and his thoughts troubled him. The king spake, and said, Belteshazzar, let not the dream, or the interpretation thereof, trouble thee. Belteshazzar answered and said, My lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies. 20. The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth; 21 Whose leaves were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all; under which the beasts of the field dwelt, and upon whose branches the fowls of the heaven had their habitation: 22. It is (6) ____, 0 king, that art grown and become strong; for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth. 23. And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts of the field, till seven times pass over him; 24. This is the interpretation, 0 king, and this is the deecree of the Most High, which is come upon my lord the king; 25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. 26 And whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots; thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee, after that thou shalt have known that the (7)_______  do rule. 27. Wherefore, 0 king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquility.'

What did Daniel do upon receiving Nebuchadnezzar's request? Did he rush to interpret it? No. He took a full hour with troubled thoughts plaguing him. No wonder he was troubled. Having to give someone the interpretation of a dream that isn't something you know they'll want to hear can be cause for contemplation, and troubling contemplation at that. Finally the king having let Daniel dwell on the dream spoke up. He came right out and told Daniel not to let the dream or the interpretation trouble him. That was nice of him wasn't it? He obviously suspected that Daniel was troubled by something and he was trying to reassure him that no matter what he could tell him.

Daniel answered the king after that and said what? The dream is for them that hate the king, and the interpretation to his enemies. Meaning those who hate the king are going to be happy to hear what Daniel had to say, and obviously Daniel wasn't among those hating the king and it troubled him. The tree Daniel told him represented him, the king himself. The king had dreamed of himself. The judgements given in the dream to that tree, to the king were conditional though, to teach the king that heavens do rule, that God ruled, not the king. In kindness, Daniel tells the king to let his counsel be acceptable, to stop sinning, to show mercy to the poor. Daniel obviously hoped by counseling the king would listen and maybe this whole matter wouldn't happen, things would be tranquil instead.

We're not told how the king felt at that point by Daniel's interpretation of his dream, but let's read on to a year later.

READ Daniel 4:28-33-- All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar. 29. At the end of twelve months he walked in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon. 30. The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honor of my (8)_______? 31. While the word was in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, 0 king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken: The kingdom is departed from thee. 32. And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field; they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it unto whomsoever be will. 33. The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar; and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagle's feathers and his nails like bird's claws.

Well, as we can see, Nebuchadnezzar didn't heed the warning of Daniel. His pride only grew. '~I~ have built.' 'by the might or ~my~ power' 'for the honor of ~my~ majesty' Yes, the king certainly was filled to over brimming with pride and self-love. He claimed all that was done was by his own power, for his own honor. So a full year later the dream the king had come true. God forewarned, God then acted. For seven years the king was mad, and treated as such. For seven years he was left to eat grass, sleep outside and his comely countenance was gone, instead his hair was long and wild, his nail like claws. Picture it if you will. The king reduced to a mad man.

READ Daniel 4:34-37-- 'And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up, eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, I (9) ________ the Most High, and I praised and honored him that liveth forever, whose dominion is an everlasting, dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: 35. And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? 36. At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honor and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me 37. Now Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment; and those that walk in pride he is able to abase'

What a change of heart! The whole reason Nebuchadnezzar suffered so was to teach him that God is first and foremost, that to God be the glory and majesty and that he can boast all he wants, but in the end he needs to know who truly reigns. To his credit, as soon as his reason was given back to him, the king was quick to praise God. He blessed the Most High, praised and honored God, announced that God's dominion was everlasting and his kingdom would go from generation to generation. He didn't stop there, he went on the say that all the people of the earth are nothing. That God will do according to His own will, in heaven and earth, that none could stop God. With such praise on his lips he was quickly given back all that was taken from him, and then some. He also continued to praise God, knowing that the prideful are abased, they're brought low and he had seven long years that proved that to be true.

This is the last Scripture record of Nebuchadnezzar. This decree is dated in the authorized version, says Dr. Clarke, 563 B.C., one year before Nebuchadnezzar's death; though some place the date of this decree seventeen years before his death. It's safe to say that he didn't relapse into idolatry, or let his pride overcome him.

Nebuchadnezzar was an amazing man, God chose him, touched his life in many ways and used him in His glory. The golden head of the great prophetic image was the Kingdom Nebuchadnezzar had ruled in and now the king was no more, but the lessons learned from him and how God worked in his life are lessons for us still today.

May God Bless Us All!

(1) everlasting  - Daniel 4:3

(2) Daniel - Daniel 4:8

(3) tree - Daniel 4:11

(4) stump - Daniel 4:15

(5) burn - Malachi 4:1

(6) thou - Daniel 4:22

(7) heavens - Daniel 4:26

(8) majesty - Daniel 4:30

(9) blessed - Daniel 4:34

Daniel 3

 On this page we will study Daniel 3:1-30

READ Daniel 3:1 'Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits; he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.'

Because the statue was erected after the dream, some 23 years, it's easy to assume it was made with some reference to the statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

The fact it was made of gold only goes to show that King Nebuchadnezzar wasn't all that happy about the fact there would be ~other~ kingdoms after his own.

He didn't make just a head of gold and display it, he made a huge golden statue, head and body.

He definitely didn't try to portray the other metals signifying a change from one kingdom to the next, though Daniel was very explicit in his description of the dream and the image. No where in his interpretation did he mention a golden image, he did however mention the head was gold.

Read Daniel 2:32 'This image's head [was] of fine gold…'

A 90 foot tall statue- pedestal and all. Though whether or not it was pure gold is something that is in doubt. Being overlaid with thin gold plates would have given the image it's completely gold appearance.

Imagine it if you will.

90 feet tall!

That's 15 - 6 ft tall men.

An 8 story high building.

5 Giraffes (18ft tall each)

From the heel to the top of the head of the Statue of Liberty is 111 ft, so just shy of that 21 ft.

90 feet, that was one huge statue.

READ Daniel 3:2-7 - 'Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counselors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the (1)______  which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. 3. Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counselors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. 4. Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, 5. That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of (2) ____, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up; 6. And whoso falleth not down and worshipeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. 7. Therefore at that time, when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of music, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and (3)________ the goIden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.

The 90 ft tall statue was worthy of a dedication. This statue was an amazing monument and worthy of being dedicated, right? All the princes, governors, captains, judges, treasurers, counselors, sheriffs, and rulers were gathered there for the occasion. Today we would call that a huge celebration! Think the President, Prime Minister, some other important figure holding a huge gathering and inviting many a dignitary, but not stopping there everyone is invited to this huge dedication.

But… we can't imagine anyone in our day and age commanding all those in attendance to fall down and worship …anything!

Idol worship was common back in Nebuchadnezzer's era. People worshipped many an idol representing various gods.

Nebuchadnezzar wanted people to bow down and worship the image of gold that represented him and his kingdom.

The command went out for such to happen though and what was the penalty for not bowing down?

READ Daniel 3: 6 'And whoso falleth not down and worshipeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.'

WHAT?! Cast where? Into a burning fiery furnace. In other words if you didn't fall down and worship this 90 foot tall golden statue you were going to be put to death very painfully! If that wasn't enough incentive to bring a person to their knees, well… it'd be the last incentive they'd be subject to. Also of note vs 6 contains the first mention to be found in the Bible of the division of time into hours. It was probably the invention of the Chaldeans.

READ Daniel 3:8-12 - 'Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews. 9. They spake and said to the king Nebuchadnezzar, O king, live forever. 10. Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer and all kinds of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image; 11. And whoso falleth not down and worshipeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. 12. There are certain (4)____ whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee; they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

Tattletales! Oh yes, it would be noticeable if someone didn't bow down when everyone is commanded to do so, everyone, that doesn't leave much room for anyone who doesn't want to stand out in the crowd for not bowing.

The Chaldeans- remember they were asked to interpret the king's dream and failed miserably- they took note of three Jews, important Jews at that- set over the kings affairs- who didn't bow down as ordered during the decree. They not only took note they hurried to the king himself and made sure he knew that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego hadn't obeyed the king's command. How wonderful it was to be able to disgrace these Jews who were nothing more than slaves brought out of Jerusalem to Babylon and taught their ways, who through Daniel usurped those who had been dedicated to the king and eager to please him in all ways. 

Obviously Daniel himself must have been absence on business, because we can rest assured he would have been right there with his three companions, not bowing to the statue and yet there is no mention made of him.

What happened when the three, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were tattled on?

READ Daniel 3:13-18 - 'Then Nebuchadnezzar in his (5) ____ and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. Then they brought these men before the king. 14. Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? 15. Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made, well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands? 16. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. 17. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. 18. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not (6) ______ thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

Rage and fury. It's easy to get the picture. Nebuchadnezzer wasn't a little mad, he wasn't a touch upset upon hearing that there were those who didn't do as he commanded. The king was furious! In his fury he ordered the men to be brought to him, and not just taking the Chaldeans at their word, he asked the three outright if it were true, but before they could answer he was already giving them an opportunity to fix what might have been an oversight on their behalf. He didn't want to have these three men put to death. He knew there hadn't been an oversight, how could there have been? Yet he was going to let them fix things, show the Chaldeans and everyone that they too would worship him. 

What did the three say to his gracious offer to spare their lives? They tell him outright that they will not serve the king's gods, nor will they worship the image. They were not going to avail themselves of this second and most gracious opportunity to spare their own lives. They heldfast to their faith, a faith that decreed that they would have no other gods before God. A Faith that decreed they not worship idols. They told the king that if their God wanted he would deliver them from death, from the king's decree and if He didn't, oh well.. because they weren't going to do as the king wanted.

How bold! How incredible. Such faith, such conviction.

READ Daniel 3:19-25 - Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; therefore he spake, and commanded that they should heat the furnace one (7) ______ _____ more than it was wont to be heated. 20. And he commanded the most mighty men that were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace, 21. Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. 22. Therefore because the king's commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. 23. And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. 24. Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counselors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. 25. He answered and said, Lo, I see (8)____ men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

We know for a fact that the king was enthralled with Daniel and it was Daniel that asked for his friends to be given positions of power and such. The king hadn't hesitated, he instantly granted Daniel's wish for his friends. So here we have a king whose second in command isn't going to be too thrilled with this turn of events, and yet even so the king had a kingdom to rule. He ~was~ the king! He was to be obeyed! He had to uphold authority. He could not make a decree and go back on it. As it was he'd given a decree and then he offered these three favored a second chance to obey it when death was warranted the first time around. So being magnanimous in his offer he probably had never entertained the idea that they would refuse his offer, yet they did. The king's reaction?

He became so furious his visage- his facial features- were distorted as he looked upon the three that dared to disobey him, that dared to throw his graciousness back in his face and in front of all those around them. Fury. Have you ever seen anyone so angry they just changed right before your eyes? What did the fury do? Make them red-faced, contorted and twisted their normal features, yes, fury is frightening to behold and the king was just that furious. What did he do in his fury? 

He ordered that the furnace where these three traitors were to be thrown to their unimaginably painful deaths be heated seven times hotter that normal. Seven times hotter! He was going to make sure they suffered, make sure that they were burned completely and utterly for their disobedience. The king told his mighty men to bind them up and throw them into that furnace, no more chances for them to bow down and obey now, they'd taken Nebuchadnezzer's graciousness and slapped him in the face with it, they sealed their fate. Unfortunately for the mighty men that grabbed up the three- dressed them well, more clothes to burn you see- and took them to the furnace, the fire was so hot it killed them as they were throwing the three inside. HOT fire! Surely the king hadn't meant to sacrifice the mighty men, they were being obedient to him, they weren't the ones who hadn't bowed down and disobeyed him. Nevertheless they died doing their duty to the king, but what happened to the three disobedient men? Shock. Astonishment so much so he stood up, peering into the fire. Quickly he asked his counselors whether or not they threw three men into the fire, why? He asked because he saw four men in the fire! The counselors told them they had thrown three in and yet the king told them there were four and they were walking around in the fire unhurt! The fourth was like the son of God.

Wow! Not only were those three disobedient men alive and unharmed there was someone else in there. Obviously not referring to Jesus, but a son of God, a supernatural figure of some sort was in there with the three. Nebuchadnezzer refers to him as an angel later. So there we have it. Nebuchadnezzar had the audacity to throw three of God's chosen into the fiery furnace to kill them, even after he'd witnessed the power of their God back when Daniel interpreted the vision for him. His audacity was rewarded with a vision of God's power, not only the spared lives of the three but the vision of another supernatural being in the fire walking with them. How amazing is that? To have God's power so revealed. Once again God showed Nebuchadnezzaer who was the one and only true God. No other god they worshipped could have saved others under similar circumstances.

READ Daniel 3:26-30 - Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego came forth of the midst of the fire. 27. And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counselors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them. 28. Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent his angel, and (9) ____________ his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any God, except their own God. 29. Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill; because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort. 30. Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in the province of Babylon.

Witnessing this miracle, Nebuchadnezzar called into the fire for the three to come out. The three hadn't taken it upon themselves to walk out, they remained in there with the fourth like to the son of God, an angel, until they were told to come out by the king. Leaving the fiery furnace that had killed the very men that had brought them to the furnace to throw them inside, it was that hot, the three stepped out and miraculously the fire hadn't touched them at all whatsoever, they didn't even stink of fire. With the tangible proof before them, the fourth in the furnace was forgotten as the three were closely examined by everyone! It was a miracle unlike anything they had ever seen before in their lives. Nebuchadnezzar was so awed that he said, 'Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.'

Here is a God worthy of worship. Here is a God that changed the king's word, that just wasn't done! No one could change a decree once the king issued it, no one. God did when He spared the three from the death decree made by Nebuchadnezzar. Knowing that only the true God, a God worthy of worship could have ever done that Nebuchadnezzar goes on the make a new decree. Everyone was order not to speak anything amiss against the God of the three or they would die and not by fire, they'd be cut in pieces and their houses would be made dunghills. Oh yes, those very men who dared to bring the three in before the King for their failure to bow down and worship, those men who most likely wanted to see these three slaves- turned important men - killed were now ordered not to speak against their God or they would be killed. Talk about a backfiring situation. 

Not only were they all under orders not to speak against the God of the three, the three men were promoted! Promoted into even higher positions. Of course Nebuchadnezzar was far from stupid. He'd witnessed the power of the true God and he wasn't going to do anything to garner His wrath. What wonder, what amazing faith, and reward of that faith. What witness for God to all the nations and peoples of that time. Amazing!

Praise God who works in such wondrous, mysterious, and miraculous ways!

This concludes our study on Daniel Chapter Three

May God Bless Us All

(1) image Daniel 3:2

(2) music Daniel 3:5

(3) worshiped Daniel 3:7

(4) Jews Danie 3:12

(5) rage Daniel 3:13

(6) serve Daniel 3:18

(7) seven times Daniel 3:19

(8) four Daniel 3:25

(9) delivered Daniel 3:28

Daniel 2 Pt 4

 On this page we will study Daniel 2:43-49

Picking up from our last study of Daniel 2:39-42, lets recap.

We learned of the various kingdoms portrayed by the great dream image Nebuchadnezzar dreamed, a dream interpreted by Daniel, a prophet of God.

We also studied a bit on the various theories people have had concerning the ten toes of the image, toes of iron and clay combined.

Let it suffice us to say they do represent ten kingdoms, and we take the interpretation as literal and logical considering how all the previous kingdoms came into being.

The Ten Kingdoms—

Ten kingdoms which the Roman empire (legs of iron) were divided into.

The division was made between the years 351 AD and 476 AD, 125 years from the middle of the fourth century to the last quarter of the fifth century. Studying the works of the historians, none place the beginning of the division of the Roman empire before 351 AD. There is also a very general agreement that it closed in 476 AD.

Those dates are a precise timeline which each of the ten kingdom rose on the ruins of the Roman empire. There are some differences of view among historians which isn’t odd at all considering the entire period was one of great confusion. The map of the empire of Rome had many revision, very sudden and very violent changes as hostile conquerors entered their land and their paths were crossed time and time again, making for much confusion. All historians however agree that out of the land of Western Rome ten separate kingdoms were established. We can even assign these kingdoms safely between the established dates 351AD and 476AD.

These ten kingdoms, without concerning ourselves right now with the exact time of their individual establishment are as follows—Huns, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Vandals, Suevi, Burgundians, Heruli, Anglo-Saxons, Lombards

The connection between these and some of the modern nations of Europe, is still traceable in the names, as England, Burgundy, Lombardy, France, etc. Such authorities as Calmet, Faber, Lloyd, Hales, Scott, Barnes, etc., concur in the foregoing enumeration. (Look up Barnes's concluding notes on Daniel 7- Barnes' Notes on the Old and New Testaments, 14 Volumes By: Albert Barnes)

Just a little note here, some like to object that Rome was divided before the ten kingdoms into and Eastern and Western divisions. Obviously the two legs symbolize this division, and the ten toes further divisions.

Let us continue on with Daniel. READ Daniel 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not (1)______ one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

Rome was the last Empire that was so all encompassing around the land God chose for His people. When Rome fell there followed nothing like it ever again. When the kingdom of Rome fell that power fell with it as well.

The iron of Rome was mixed with clay. There was no longer cohesiveness, and there will never be man ever able to unite all that territory again. History has proven this beyond a doubt. How long have we gone, right up until our present day without any one world kingdom, one world ruler? Can you even imagine such a thing? I can’t. The Bible certainly tells us prophetically that it will never happen- even if attempts are made towards that end.

Being part of iron and part of clay, the divided kingdoms, powers, countries would survive until the end when a stone not cut by human hands smite it’s feet, breaking it into pieces and scattering them to the wind, forever. Until that day however the toes would be partly broken and partly strong, iron mixed with clay. History denotes this without question. Shall any endeavors to unite the kingdoms into one succeed? No. Some have tried through marriage alliances, but the Bible says clearly-' They shalt not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.'

The history of Europe is a running commentary on the exact fulfillment of these words. From the time of Canute to the present age, it has been the policy of reigning monarchs, the beaten path which they have trodden in order to reach a mightier scepter and a wider sway. The most recognizable occurrence of this in history is none other than Hitler during his reign as he sought to conquer the surrounding lands and people and put to death those not fit for his kingdom, his dictatorship. Before him it was Napoleon. He ruled in one kingdom and wanted by alliance the others he could not get by force.

Iron mixed with clay- it’s just not a cohesive joining and it never will be, never. Many attempt has been made to mingle, but nothing has lasted- as prophecy so predicted.

It isn’t too surprising that mankind will forever seek to obtain a one world kingdom of sorts, not what we’d call it today. But even now people envision a future of one world union, a joining. It won’t happen. None of the powers are willing to give up their individuality, and none are strong enough to conquer by force no matter how they might try. The Bible will not be proven wrong.

READ Daniel 2:44-45 - And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven ___ up a kingdom, which shall never be (3) _________; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great (4)___ hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter; and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

Who would eventually set up a single Kingdom- it’s not man. God is to do so. The end of this prophecy takes us to the point where, as we pray the Lord’s prayer and this is so familiar to many- ‘Thy kingdom come’ God’s kingdom will come.

No longer will man rule in any manner. The great image is completely and utterly destroyed. In its place God sets up his kingdom for his righteous. But when is this kingdom to be established? God’s word doesn’t leave us in the dark. We might not know the exact date of His coming, but He gives us signs, and more prophecy to study so that we may get an approximation as to what generation may see this wondrous Godly kingdom ushered in. We’ve dates up to 476AD already with the establishment of the ten kingdoms. Kingdoms that will in some manner or form still exist when God sets up the final kingdom. It’s obvious that the kingdom God is to set up, isn’t Jesus’ coming. For the division of Rome didn’t take place until many years after that, and it’s more than obvious we still live in a world with many different countries. Even Jesus knows that the kingdom His Father will establish is not at hand during his life upon earth- 

READ Matt 26:29- ‘But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s (5) _______.’

Christ did not set it up before his ascension either. READ Acts 1:6 - ‘When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the (6)________ to Israel?’

Flesh and blood cannot inherit it.  READ I Cor. 15: 50- ‘Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.’ It is a promise to the apostles, and to all that love God.  

READ James 2:5 –‘Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?’ 

The little flock receives a promise. READ Luke 12:32 – ‘Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

Only by going through a lot of tribulation the saints are to enter the kingdom.  READ Acts 14:22 –‘Confirming the souls of the disciples, [and] exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

Christ shall judge the living and the dead and then it’ll be set up.  READ 2 Tim. 4:1- ‘I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom. Christ shall come in his glory with all his holy angels.

READ Matt. 25:31-34 - When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

READ Daniel 2: 46-49 Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and (7)__________ Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odors unto him. The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your (8)___ is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret. Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego over the affairs of the province of Babylon; but Daniel sat in the (9)____ of the king.

We’ve taken four studies to get through the second chapter of Daniel, studying at length the interpretation of the dream which Daniel revealed to King Nebuchadnezzar. Here at the end of the chapter as Daniel concludes his interpretation just imagine the scene.

All those soothsayers, all the magicians, the Chaldeans, all the wise men of the king’s kingdom (we can only imagine how numerous they were), all of these men were unable to give the king what he wanted and there stands young Daniel, not even a Chaldean, not even from their lands but a captive trained up by them and this young man alone could answer the king.

Can you imagine what those man had to have been thinking when they saw the king fall on his face and worship Daniel? When the king commanded that they offer oblations and sweet odors to him? They had to be totally blown away by it all, there is no other way to imagine it taking place. The impossible had been made possible. You can be sure that they didn’t like being upstaged like that, no, not at all. The king was ecstatic. You might think he’d be otherwise, having been told his kingdom wasn’t going to last forever, but he was thrilled that Daniel made known this vexing dream, he couldn’t even remember, to him.

Obviously there was more said- the king goes on to tell Daniel that his God is the God of Gods. Daniel wasn’t going to take the glory upon himself, he definitely wanted God praised for it was He who had revealed it to Daniel. The king goes on to give riches to Daniel and not only riches, but power. Men are considered great when they have these two things, aren’t they? Daniel was made ruler over the whole province of Babylon, chief of the governors over all the wise men. Daniel was rewarded, but he hadn’t acted thinking he would be so. He wanted to reveal God to these people, and be God’s servant. As one who was faithful to God, he was as a result rewarded beyond anything he could have possibly imagined. Again, Daniel wasn’t selfish even after being given all that wealth and power. What did he do? 

‘Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego over the affairs of the province of Babylon; but Daniel sat in the gate of the king.’

He asked the king that his fellow companions, those who had been with him since their initial captivity, those who had stood by him, prayed with him, he asked that they two share in this reward. At his request they were placed over all the goings on of Babylon, and Daniel himself sat in the gate of the king. The gate was the place where councils were held, and matters of chief moment were deliberated upon. The record is a simple declaration that Daniel became chief counselor to the king.

~

This concludes our study on Daniel Chapter Two

May God Bless Us All!

(1) cleave Daniel 2:43

(2) set Daniel 2:44

(3) destroyed Daniel 2:44

(4) God Daniel 2:45

(5) kingdom Matthew 26:29

(6) kingdom Acts 1:6

(7) worshipped Daniel 2:46

(8) God Daniel 2:47

(9) gate Daniel 2:49

Daniel 2 Pt 3

 History Prophesized --  Biblical proof of the Bible's validity, of God's reality.  Prophecies that have come to pass! If these prophecies have come to pass, the rest will as well!

(Daniel 2:39-42 Discusses the statue in Nebuchadnezzar's dream that God gave Daniel the prophet interpretation of. 

Synopsis: Head of Gold- Babylon, Arms of Silver- Medo-Persia, Belly and Thighs of Brass- Greece, Legs of Iron- Rome, Feet and Toes of Iron and Clay- Ten Kingdoms that followed Rome. In-Depth Biblical/historical study follows.)

Daniel 2 -  

Verse 39. And after thee shall arise (1)_______ kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-three years, and was succeeded by the following rulers: His son, Evil-merodach, two years, Neriglissar, his son-in-law, four years, Laborosoarchod, Neriglissar's son, nine months-- which, being less than one year, is not counted in the canon of Ptolemy,  Nabonadius, whose son, Belshazzar, grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, was associated with him on the throne, and with whom that kingdom ended. 

The Fall of Babylon. (We need to know this history because it is this very history that was predicted in advance by Daniel interpreting the Babylonian king's dream. Prophecy that came to pass. Prophecy that proven to be true would mean all of that prophecy would be true. If all the prophecy is true then we have a prophecy that leads right to our Savior's second coming! So please, take the time to read this history, no matter how boring it may seem to those who are not interested in such things. Read it once and know that the Bible is absolutely true, reliable, something we need to know!)

Neriglissar, two years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, broke out a fatal war between the Babylonians and the Medes, which undermined the entire Babylonian kingdom. Cyaxares, king of the Medes, also called Darius, in Dan. 5: 13- called for help from his nephew, Cyrus, of the Persian line, wanting help against the Babylonians. Until the third year of Belshazzar, the eighteenth of Nabonandius, the Persians and Medes seemed to be winning, claiming success after success. Then as Cyrus warred against the city of Babylon itself, those inside claimed provisions for twenty years, and their impregnable walls seemed like they’d keep them safe. They even taunted Cyrus thinking they were safe from him. God, however had found them wanting as the balances were weighed and His will could not be thwarted.

While seeming secure and relying on that security they didn’t allow themselves to believe they were in any danger. Cyrus however was adamant and wasn’t giving up easily. Using very strategic thinking he plotted and planned to take the city during an annual festival.                                                        

Using the River Euphrates to get into the city was his only option. He had to use his great resources and divert the water from the city. Using three different groups of soldiers he had one group turn the river at a given hour into an artificial lake just a short ways above the city. The second group were station to enter the city were the river normally would have. The third went about 15 miles below where the river entered the city. The two groups stationed to enter the city were told to do so as soon as the diverted water allowed them access and it being night they were to sneak in to the palace of the king and capture or kill him.

The plan worked, but only because the Babylonians were so secure in the fact they were safe they gave into the festivities heartily as only those not fearful could. Had they been on guard things would have been different. Even the palace gates within the city were left open they were so unconcerned with the goings on of their enemies.

The great neglect cost them everything. As they slept that night secure in their kingdom, they woke up overthrown by their enemy, the king of Persia.

Belshazzar died fighting, and the feast of Belshazzar in the fifth chapter of Daniel reads as such. ‘In that (2)_____ was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.’

God’s prediction had come to pass, Babylon the head of gold gave way to the Medes and Persians and that kingdom was never to equal the grandeur of Babylon, never.

God had predicted the city of Babylon would become a heap, the habitation of beasts of the desert. READ Isa. 13:19-22

{13:19} And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. {13:20} It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there. {13:21} But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. {13:22} And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in [their] pleasant palaces: and her time [is] near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

To become so isolated and empty obviously the king of Persian couldn’t make it his seat of authority. In fact that went to Susa in the province of Elam, east to Babylon and set on the Rive Choaspes part of the Tigris.

Darius took down the gates of the city, and beat down the walls from two hundred cubits to fifty cubits. This was the beginning of its destruction. With the protective walls gone it was open to all sorts of ravaging bands. Xerxes returning from Greece stole the tremendous wealth in the temple of Belus and destroyed the edifice. Alexander the Great tried to rebuild it but died before that was accomplished. In 294 BC, Seleucus Nicatro built a new Babylon near the old, taking from the old city liberally to do so. The old city lay in complete and utter ruin. Near the end of the 4th century the Persian kings used what was left of the enclosure for wild beasts. At the close of the 12th century the few remaining leftovers of what was once Nebuchadnezzar’s grand palace were so filled with snakes and other venomous reptiles that people could no longer explore them.

And today where there is hardly anything left to mark where the most glorious of kingdoms even existed. God’s word was true. To those living in the time and splendor of Great Babylon, they would never envision such devastation, never and yet God predicted as much and it came to past just as He said it would. God’s word is true, His prophecies unfailing.

"And after thee shall arise another (3) ______ inferior to thee."

The use of the word kingdom here, shows that kingdoms, and not kings, are depicted by the different parts of this image mentioned, and so when it was spoken to Nebuchadnezzar, "Thou art this head of gold," although the personal pronoun was used, the kingdom, not the person of the king, was clearly meant.

Medo-Persian Kingdom - The kingdom that came after Babylon was Medo-Persia.

This kingdom is represented by the arms of silver on that great image shown to Nebuchadnezzer. The silver meaning obviously that it would be inferior to the gold that was Babylon.

Just how was the kingdom a lesser kingdom?

Obviously power wasn’t an issue because Cyrus put into subjection all the East from the Aegean Sea to the River Indus, and erected the most extensive empire that up to that time had ever existed. But it was inferior in wealth, luxury and magnificence. It didn’t have the pomp that Babylon had at all, it didn’t have the glory in riches that marked Babylon as a great city.

Strictly from a Biblical viewpoint the main event in the Babylonian rule was the captivity of the children of Israel. Under Medo-Persian rule Israel was restored to their own lands.

As a benevolent act on his part, Cyrus gave the conquered city over to Darius, his uncle. In 536 BC two years later, Darius died and so did the king of Persia- Cambyses, Cyrus’s father. With Cyrus sole ruler of the empire now it would be this year that ended Israel’s 70 years of captivity. The famous decree went forth for the Jews to return to their lands and rebuild their temple. (See Ezra 6:14) From the first of the great decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem the restoration was completed in the year 457 BC during the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes, it is also the beginning of the 2300 day of Daniel chapter 8, the most important prophetic era mentioned in the Bible (Daniel 9:25) You will see this all unfold as we continue our in-depth study.

After seven year, Cyrus left the kingeom to Cambyses, his son. Cambyses ruled for seven years and five months up to 522 BC. Eight rulers with varying lengths of reigns starting at 7 months to 46 years, each held the throne until 336 BC. They are as follows—

Smerdis the Magian, seven months, in the year B.C. 522, Darius Hystaspes, from B.C.521 to 486, Xerxes from B.C. 485 to 465, Artaxerxes Longimanus, from B.C. 464 to 424, Darius Nothus, from B.C. 423 to 405, Artaxerxes Mnemon, from B.C. 404 to 359, Ochus, from B.C. 358 to 338, Arses, from B.C. 337 to 336, 

The year 335 BC is marked as the first year of Darius Codomanus, the last of the line of the old Persian kings.

This man, according to Prideaux, (The Old and New Testament connected in the history of the Jews -- By Humphrey Prideaux) ‘Was of noble stature, of goodly person, of the greatest personal valor, and of a mild and generous disposition. Had he lived at any other age, a long and splendid career would have undoubtedly have been his. But it was ill-fortune to have to contend with one who was an agent in the fulfilment of prophecy; and no qualifications, natural or acquired, could render him successful in the unequal contest. " Scarcely was he warm upon the throne," says the last-named historian, "ere he found his formidable enemy, Alexander, at the head of the Greek soldiers, preparing to dismount him from it. "

The reason for the contest between the Greeks and the Persians are better left to historians devoted to such matters. It is enough to say that the deciding point was reached on the field of Arbela, 331 BC, where the Grecians, though only one to twenty in number as compared with the Persians, were entirely victorious; and Alexander became absolute lord of the Persian empire.

Grecian Empire. –

"And another third kingdom of brass shall bear rule over all the earth," said Daniel.

It’s amazing how we so few words the prediction of the kingdoms following one after the other was made.

Grecia come after Medes and Persians, and is known as the third great universal empire of the earth.

When Alexander finally defeated the king of Persia (Darius) and the man was dead, the new ruler could begin to branch out to other lands, conquering them as he went. A Grecian fable about the sons of Jupiter, Bacchus and Hercules, comes to mind here as Alexander fancied himself a son of Jupiter as well. With absolute arrogance he gave the cities he overthrew to his soldiers, letting them do as they willed to those therein and a blood-thirsty lot they were. Alexander himself was also known to have killed his own friends in bouts of drunkenness. Gratifying his lusts was prominent. At the urging of others all of them drunk, he razed the city and palace of Persepolis, one of the most magnificent palaces in all the world. History states that after an excessive amount of drinking he was taken over by a violent fever and died 11 days later in either May or June of the year 323 BC, only 32 years old. 

More notable distinctions in the history of the Grecian empire will be noted further in other prophecies, let’s continue on.

READ Daniel 2:40 - VERSE 40. ‘And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as (4)____; for as much as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.’

Iron Monarchy of Rome –So far, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia are in order noted to be representative of the head of gold, the breast and arms of silver, and the thighs of brass, something acknowledge by all. However the fourth kingdom has brought in room for diverse views and differing of opinions. What is symbolized by the fourth element in the great image, the legs of iron? What kingdom rose after Grecia? Really there was only one so those who like to nitpick haven’t very much to go by. History itself is the recorder of what kingdom came up after Grecia, one kingdom and one only and that was Rome. Rome conquered Grecia and ruled everything.

The beginning of Christianity the Roman empire consisted of the whole south of Europe, France, England, most of the Netherlands, Switzerland, and south Germany, Hungary, Turkey, and Greece, as well as parts of Asia and Africa. Gibbon (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Early Sources in Classics) says of it; ‘The empire of the Romans filled the world. And when that empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world became a safe and dreary prison for his enemies. To resist was fatal; and it was impossible to fly.’ Rome was clearly depicted by its iron rule, but even Roman was to fall. 

READ Daniel 2:41,42 - VERSE 41. ‘And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be (5)________; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. 42. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly (6) ______.’

Rome in pieces- Before it was dividing into the ten kingdoms of toes made up of the weaker element of clay mingling with iron, Rome ruled with an iron will more so than any previous kingdom. History notes that the luxury and degenerate behavior of the nation as a whole and its individual rulers easily weakened it’s strong hold, which made the coming divisions of the kingdom possible, all predicted by God through Daniel His prophet many years before. Dividing the Roman empire into ten kingdoms. The question here is what kingdoms do the ten toes represent?

It’s rather easy if you take a natural, straightforward interpretation of God’s word, but harder if you wish to interpret it otherwise to suit other agendas those not of God. There are Romanists universally that will cling to errors along with some Protestants. In a book by H. Cowles, D. D there is an exposition on this- the errors are glaring really. He states that the third kingdom was Grecia during the lifetime of Alexander only, but we know it is kingdoms, not kings that God was talking about. He goes on to say, the fourth kingdom was Alexander's successors and that the last kingdom had to end a the manifestation of the Messiah. That God set up His kingdom then and the image was destroyed.

To touch on a few facts of the matter, given that one erring viewpoint we’d have to say that the Babylon empire was only Nebuchadnezzar, and that Persia was solely Cyrus, and Alexander, Grecia. It would put off the entire statue if we started picking it apart by king rather than kingdom rule. Even by this erring theory the first, second, and third kingdoms would have been long ago over and we would have been into many more than what the image represented if we were to go by the pick and choose supposition of Cowels.

Clearly Alexander's successors did not constitute another kingdom, but a continuation of the same, the Grecian kingdom of the image.

When Persia conquered Babylon, the second empire comenced and when Grecia conquered Persia, the third began. Alexander's successors, four leading generals,did not conquer his empire, and erect another, they simply divided among themselves the empire which Alexander had conquered, and left ready to their hand.

‘Chronologically,’ says Professor Cowel, ‘the fourth empire must immediately succeed Alexander, and lie entirely between him and the birth of Christ.’ Chronologically, we say, it is impossible.

The birth of Christ didn’t usher in a fifth kingdom as you’ll see when we continue our study. Cowel overlooks almost the entire duration of the third division of the image, confusing it with the fourth, and leaving no room for the divided state of the Grecian empire as symbolized by the four heads of the leopard of chapter 7, and the four horns of the goat of chapter 8. ‘Territorially,’ Professor Cowel goes on, ‘it [the fourth kingdom] should be sought in Western Asia, not in Europe; in general, on the same territory where, the first, second, and third kingdoms stood.’ Why not Europe? Each of the first three kingdoms possessed territory which was peculiarly its own. Why not the fourth? Analogy requires that it should.

And the third kingdom was a European kingdom? It rose on European territory, and took its name from the land of its birth? How did Grecia ever occupy the territory of the first and second kingdoms? Only by conquest. Rome did the same. Thus far as the territorial requirements of the professor's theory are concerned, Rome could be the fourth kingdom, as truthfully as Grecia could be the third. ‘Politically,’ he adds, ‘it should be the immediate successor of Alexander's empire’. . . changing the dynasty, but not the nations.’ 

Analogy is against him here.

Each of the first three kingdoms was distinguished by its own peculiar nationality. The Persian was not the same as the Babylonian, nor the Grecian the same as either of the two that preceded it. Analogy requires that the fourth kingdom should possess a nationality of its own, distinct from the other three. And this we find in the Roman kingdom, and in it alone. The grand fallacy which sustains this whole system of misinterpretation, is the too commonly taught theory that the kingdom of God was set up at the first advent of Christ. It can easily be seen how fatal to this theory is the admission that the fourth empire is Rome. For it was to be after the division of that fourth empire, that the God of heaven was to set up his kingdom. But the division of the Roman empire into ten parts was not accomplished previously to A.D. 476; consequently the kingdom of God could not have been set up at the first advent of Christ, nearly five hundred years before that date.

Rome must not, therefore, from their standpoint, though it answers admirably to the prophecy in every particular, be allowed to be the kingdom in question. The position that the kingdom of God was set up in the days when Christ was upon earth, must, these interpreters seem to think, be maintained at all cost. 

Such is the ground on which some appear, at least to be standing upon. It is for the purpose of maintaining this theory we have to prove the fourth empire came into being as the others did, one after the other in a logical order that holds fast to all the previous points. We can’t bend prophecy to fit out theories. We have to look at history in its entirety and work from there. 

Christ did not smite any image when He lived and died. He did not conquer as in times past we’ve seen the kingdoms conquered. The prophecy states the image becomes chaff and is blown away and the stone becomes a mountain fill the whole new earth. This did not happen. Christ’s life and death were not wrought in violence and overthrowing, there is no possible way if we’re to look through history and place things in perspective to the great image of Daniel, that we can say a Christ was a conquering kingdom. There was no smiting, no breaking anything into pieces. To lull yourself into that belief would defy all the previous predictions, those already accepted as having happened. God is not contradictory. When all the previous kingdoms were conquered none were smitten and broken to pieces, none were obliterated and no place found for it. We have to understand that the violent overthrowing with wars and strife are predicted and not to be ignored. That they weren’t said to be each totally obliterated, dashed to pieces by a stone cut out of a mountain without hands, says a lot. There is going to be more violence such as none of the other kingdoms were conquered with when that last kingdom is set up, not a quiet take over without nary a sound. It is really absurd to take on the theory of Cowel and others like him and believe that we are already living in the time of the last kingdom that conquered so magnificently it did so in a way no other had to date.

Do those toes, those made of iron and clay represent the ten divided kingdoms of the Roman empire? Yes. Facts speak for themselves. Simply- The great image of chapter 2 is parallel with the vision we find later in chapter seven of the four beasts. The fourth beast in chapter seven represents the very same image of the iron legs. The image of chapter 2 is exactly parallel with the vision of the four beasts of chapter 7. The fourth beast of chapter 7 represents the same as the iron legs of the image.

There are ten horns on that beast and they match up very naturally to the ten toes of the great image and in that vision the horns are noted to be ten kings to arise. Obviously they’d be ten individual kingdoms such as the other kingdoms were entities unto themselves. We know from Daniel’s interpretation that he uses the words king and kingdom interchangeably. In vs. 44 he says that, ‘in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom.’

This shows that at the time the kingdom of God is set up, there will be a plurality of kings existing together. It cannot refer to the four preceding kingdoms; for it would be absurd to use such language in reference to a line of successive kings, since it would be in the days of the last king only, not in the days of any of the preceding, that the kingdom of God would be set up. 

This will conclude this week's study (Daniel 2:39-42) and next week we shall begin with the Ten Kingdoms and what kingdoms they are in fact symbolically representing. 

Thank you for joining me in this study, it is my prayer that God grant us all understanding and help us to learn more and more of that which he’d have us know. May Jesus’s grace rest upon all of us and it is in His name I ask this. Amen.

Because the study of Daniel chapter 2 is very lengthy it will be broken up into several pages.

This concludes Daniel 2B The study of Daniel 2:39-42

(1) another Daniel 2:39

(2) night  Daniel 5:30

(3) kingdom Daniel 2:39

(4) iron Daniel 2:40

(5) divided Daniel 2:41

(6) broken Daniel 2:42

Serious Study

 *******

Resurrection of the Just and Unjust

*******

(EXCERPT)

The unjust will be resurrected, some object to this truth. The article we've been studying is vindicating the truth of the resurrection of the unjust- scripturally, logically. Pray for enlightenment through our Savior, by the Holy Spirit.

A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Unjust By J.H. Waggoner 

CONCLUDING STUDY….Dan 12:2  And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

But a few expressions in the New Testament, often quoted, remain to be noticed. I will introduce them by the following quotation: 

"Add to this the positive testimony, 'He that believeth not shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him,' John 3:36, and we think we are fully justified in saying the resurrection of evil-doers does not embrace being made alive, and is used (John 5:29), in a sense not literal, i. e., the wicked have no life by their resurrection, whatever that term here imports." Life from the Dead, p. 41. 

Why may we not affirm that John 3:36, is not literal, and it therefore cannot contradict the positive statement of chap. 5:28, 29? or does the decision of such points belong to our opponents exclusively? Hitherto they have talked as though that were the case. But I shall claim that we have the advantage on these texts in this respect: that the words in John 5:28, 29, are literal and unqualified, as every expression in them and their connection proves, while those in chap. 3:36, not

only admit of, but, taken in connection with other passages, absolutely demand, qualification. Compare that text with chap. 7:53: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Were they therefore dead at that time? Oh, no! replies our opponent, it means they have not eternal life. A very important explanation; and now suppose we read John 3:36, in the same manner: He that believeth not shall not see eternal life; and this is doubtless correct; for the same verse says, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." So everlasting or eternal life is the life which they have not, and shall not see. I accept the explanation; it expresses my faith on both these texts, and leaves them both in harmony with the plain testimony of chap. 5:28, 29, and other texts of like import.

Again, let us look at chap. 8:51: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying he shall never see death." Does this mean that the followers of Jesus shall not die-that they never have died? Oh, no! this too must have its explanation. I use their own words, as I heard them from one of the ablest speakers of that faith: "Shall never see death, that is, so as to be retained thereby, or past recovery; they shall not die so as to remain dead." Your other explanation I admitted; the context and the sense of the text itself demand it. But I do not admit this construction; for I do not think it is just. I do not believe the Saviour referred to that death which the saints do see, or "taste of," verse 52. Has not Abel tasted death, or seen death, as actually as any person can? Or is not six thousand

years in the grave long enough to taste of death? But there is a death-the second death-of which Jesus' followers shall never taste, and to this alone our probation relates, and to this alone this scripture refers; for it is a death the seeing of which is contingent on a certain course of action, which is not the case with present or Adamic death. But as this is fatal to the non-resurrection theory, we will not be so ungenerous as to take it utterly from them if by any possibility they can claim it; only if they persist in claiming such a method of interpretation as just, we shall insist on the privilege of using it also. Then when it says of a certain class, they shall never see death, it means, so as to remain dead. And so also, when it says of another class, they shall never see life, it means, so as to remain alive! They shall not live again so as to continue to live, or not be subject to the second death. But this is equally fatal to their theory, and they lose on either side, unless they claim that this method of interpretation belongs exclusively to them! I admit that it belongs to them by invention, for I should never have thought of it if they had not adopted it. And now I repudiate it, as not giving the true sense of the Scriptures. But, if it is not just, they should not use it; if they still claim that it is just, we are entitled to its use. And the sum of it is this: If they renounce the

interpretation, then John 8:51, must of necessity be referred to the second death, which is fatal to their whole theory; but if they insist on the interpretation, then we shall apply it to their proof texts, and so deprive them of even the appearance of evidence on those texts. So far as the argument is concerned, I care not which side they choose-they lose all. But so far as the truth is concerned, I choose to use the Scriptures in their obvious sense, and yet preserve the harmony of the whole. And I shall therefore treat these texts as not referring to temporal or Adamic death, or to life in the resurrection of damnation; but the second death and to life everlasting. 

It is further objected to the literality of the resurrection in John 5:28, 29, that the original of graves is not hades, or the word usually translated grave in the New Testament. This objection was certainly raised by somebody who knew the difference of the two Greek words; and I have heard it urged with all assurance, as though it were a most important fact in this controversy. The original word in John 5:28, is mnemeiois; and now in respect to the bearing of this fact on the question:

1. The words grave, tomb, and sepulcher, unitedly occur 48 times in the English Version, according to Cruden. Thus, grave 8 times; tomb 8 times; sepulchre 32 times.

2. The Greek word hades is translated grave just once. It is never translated tomb or sepulcher. So much for the use of that word. Its proper signification is not grave. 3. The word sepulcher is translated five times from the Greek taphos; and this word is never translated tomb or grave. 4. All the other occurrences of these three words are from the same Greek word that is used in John 5:28; thus, sepulcher 27 times; tomb 8 times; and grave 7 times; making the use of the Greek for grave, tomb, and sepulcher, as translated in our version, mnema 42 times; taphos 5 times; and hades once. "I wot that through ignorance ye did it;" but ignorance is not always an excuse for persistently affirming that to be true which you cannot know is true. For the use of mnema look at such texts as Matt. 27:52, 53: "And the graves [mnema] were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves [mnemeion]. Acts 2:29: "David is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher [mnema] is with us unto this day." And so John 5:28: "All that are in the graves

[mnemeiois] shall hear his voice and come forth." While speaking of the use of the Greek, it may be well to notice a change of translation to accommodate the theory in question, which, I think, is a perversion. I refer to the rendering of krimatos in Acts 24:25, and krinein in chap. 7:31, rule

instead of judge. The definition of these words is "judge" or "judgment." Greenfield says they are tropically used for rule, "since in the East the king is judge." So that, even then, these words are associated with ruling, only as ruling is associated with judgment. The common English Version is strictly correct. And in this change will be noticed the tendency of that theory, to which I have before called attention, to follow the old beaten track of Universalism in its efforts to obliterate

from the Scriptures all ideas of a future judgment.

Again, it is said that the term "sleep" is never used "in the New Testament" in reference to the wicked in death. This is a mere catch; the same spirit that dictated the New Testament, dictated also the Old. Jer. 51:39, and Dan. 12:2, are correct translations of the original, and both refer to the state of the wicked in death. The former is much used as a non-resurrection text, in which the LXX have hupnos which is also used in the New Testament. A literal rendering from the Septuagint would be, "Sleep a sleep eternal." Dan. 12:2, embraces both classes, righteous and wicked, in death, and calls it sleep. Here the LXX have katheudo, which is also used in the New Testament; for example, see 1 Thess. 5:10, "Whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him." A distinction is not only claimed on the word "sleep," but also on the word "death." We have seen that no such distinction exists in regard to "sleep;" let us examine the claim on the word "death." I quote: "Death is either extinction of life, or a suspension of the functions of life. Death as a penalty, i. e., as 'the wages of sin,' is extinction of life. Such a death none but the unpardoned die; it is the death of those who 'die in their sins,' and hence 'are perished.' See 1 Cor. 15:17, 18, and also John 8:21, 24. Such a death all impenitent and unbelieving men do die; their life is extinct, and they 'find it' no more.

"Death, which is a suspension of life, the pardoned believer may die: but his life is not extinct, for it 'is hid with Christ in God,' Col. 3:3, and 'when Christ who is' their 'life shall appear, then shall' they 'also appear with him in glory.' Their life was not extinct, though for a time its functions were suspended, so as not to appear to themselves or others; but they were not dead under the penalty of the law; for that penalty was remitted in their case." Life from the Dead, p. 40. 

And again:

"The bread of Heaven does not preserve, in all cases, from a temporary suspension of life; but it does preserve from that death which the wicked die, and from which there is no revival into life. In that sense believers shall 'not die.' Their life may be, and is, suspended in its active operation, for a time, but is never extinct." Id., p. 32.

Several points may be made against these statements:

1. They are directly contradicted in the same work by the author's theory of the "blood life" as a forfeit to the law. He says: "Thus the claim of the law is not given up, nor relaxed, but the blood or animal life is eternally lost by every sinner, and never recovered." Id., p. 93.

That these remarks are intended to hold good in regard to all who have incurred condemnation by sin, saints as others, is evident from what follows: "The blood life never is restored; the forfeiture of that is final; justice claims and holds it; but a new life-element is given by virtue of union with Christ. . . .Man's natural life is forfeited or lost by sin. That life perishes forever, and justice holds it as 'the wages of sin;' but another life-element is introduced for 'the dead,' by means of one who took his place." Now if that theory be correct, the only death the righteous can suffer is the loss of this "animal or blood life;" but this is exactly the life the wicked lose. How is it, then, that the saints "do not die that death which the wicked die?" And how is it that their life is only "suspended," and "never extinct," if it be also true that the only life they can lose "perishes forever," is "eternally lost," and "never recovered?" The whole theory is inconsistent and self-contradictory.

2. The reference to Col. 3:3, is a misapplication, for it is spoken to those yet in possession of natural life, whose death consisted in "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh," not natural death; this is further proved by their "being buried with Him in baptism," not in the grave. Chap. 2:11, 12. 3. It represents the wicked as perishing in death, in distinction from the righteous, whose vital functions are only suspended. But this distinction is contrary to the plain averments of the Scriptures. See the following passages: Eccl. 7:15: "There is a just man that perishes in his righteousness." Isa. 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart." Luke 11:50, 51: "That the blood of all the prophets . . . from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple," etc. Chap. 13:33: "For it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." This suspension theory is utterly irreconcilable with the Scriptures, as it is with

their own statements. Why not put in a plea for Cain against the charge of murder, on the ground that Abel has not died; his life is not extinct; that it is only a case of "suspended animation?" Surely the plea is a just one if the sentiments of  the foregoing extracts be true. And again, can the righteous ever have a resurrection "from the dead," if they have never been dead? Can they ever "live again" who have never entirely ceased to live? For if death does not extinguish life, a resurrection cannot be to restore it. And once more, is there not a strong savor of the old-fashioned "immortalsoul" doctrine in these extracts? I think the author of the memorable "Six Sermons" made a future life contingent on the resurrection of the dead. But the foregoing extracts clearly make future life contingent upon not becoming entirely dead. If life is once extinguished, it is "lost forever!" This is following Prof. Bush in the denial of any resurrection: the wicked will not be raised, and the righteous cannot be, for they never fully die! A few words on the order of the judgment may be necessary in this connection. It is clearly revealed in the word of God that the saints are raised immortal, incorruptible. They are not raised and immortalized afterwards; but

"raised in incorruption," "raised in glory;" "raised in power;" "raised a spiritual body;" "the dead shall be raised incorruptible." 1 Cor. 15:42, 43, 44, 52. And as immortality, or eternal life, is the gift of God in the gospel, the reward of the righteous, it is evident their judgment precedes their resurrection, as it would be absurd to suppose that they receive their reward before their judgment. And this gives us to understand that there is a difference between the judgment, either for or against a party, and the execution of its decisions. From this it has been argued that there will be no  judgment of determination or investigation after the resurrection of the saints. But that is deciding the case on a part of the testimony. Paul says the saints shall judge the world, and they shall judge angels; and this judgment is beyond "this life." 1 Cor. 6:2, 3. The same also is proved by chap.

4:5: "Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come." But Peter and Jude both say that the unjust and the fallen angels are reserved to the judgment of the great day. In that day the saints sit in judgment on them; and therefore they judge the world of the ungodly and the fallen angels after their own judgment is past. That is, the judgment of the wicked takes place during the thousand years between the two resurrections; and the execution of the judgment is after the thousand years. All the Scripture declarations of these solemn truths; all their descriptions of the events connected with "the judgment of the great day," are but a mere farce, idle words, if the theory of the nonresurrection of the wicked be true. The dead, according to their view, are not condemned to die, but to not live again. But Job says of the wicked that God "rewardeth him and he shall know it. His eyes shall see his destruction, and he shall drink of the wrath of the Almighty." Is it consistent to apply this to natural death, to that which occurs before the Judgment of the great day? and to affirm

that he shall neither see nor know anything about his destiny after the decision is rendered? He shall see and know of that decision and his destruction, because he shall be brought forth to the day of wrath. This day is definitely located in the New Testament, and to this day the ungodly are reserved to be punished.  Much stress is laid on Rom. 5, on the ground that it speaks of  justification to life," only of the righteous. Were that proved, or admitted, I cannot see that it

warrants their inferences; as it does not contradict what is elsewhere said of the resurrection of the unjust and the second death. As before remarked, the silence of any one passage on a doctrine is no evidence against it while there are other passages that speak of it. They infer much from Rom. 5, but an inference which is contradicted by the plain testimony of other passages, should not be entertained for a moment. Many other points might be noticed; but I think I have now examined those most directly bearing on the question, and presented sufficient evidence to guide the inquiring into the way of truth. I have tried to examine this subject with care in all its bearings. I have read and heard all I possibly could on that side of the question. I know that I have no prejudice against their writers and speakers. No individual connected with the cause and doctrines of the second advent of the Lord has been more highly esteemed by me than Elder George Storrs. And I esteem him highly still; I believe him to be an honest, earnest advocate of what he considers sacred truth. But on this subject I think he is in error; and with that error I consider it my duty to deal faithfully. And the same I may say of Elder Rufus Wendell, of Salem, Mass., with whom I have formed a very happy acquaintance. And so I might speak of others. Nor do I think my feelings have been those of prejudice against the doctrine. I have too long occupied unpopular ground to be frightened with names or appearances. But I have both read and heard with a strong and constantly increasing conviction that they were in error; and I now appeal to what I have written, as proof that my convictions were well grounded. When I read the plain, positive testimony of Christ and his apostles in regard to the resurrection of the unjust to condemnation and the second death, of the great day of wrath to which they are reserved to be punished, I considered it both a right and duty to regard everything conflicting with their statements as error, and to put it closely to the proof. I think that the advocates of the doctrine in question have entirely failed to prove their position, and I am obliged to reject their faith as dangerous in its tendency and results. I am well aware also that the controversy on this subject is but just begun. Very little has yet been written by Second Adventists in favor of the resurrection of the wicked. Some of its opponents have therefore regarded themselves as entitled to the ground; and I have seen too much of their zeal and energy to

expect them to yield it without a struggle. But I have no fear for the result. I am satisfied that the more thoroughly the ground is canvassed-the more closely it is contested, the more clearly will the truth shine out. I have done no more than my duty in writing these pages. I deeply regret that

I have done it no better. Much of this has been written under a pressure of other business, in traveling, preaching, etc. I have done what I could under my circumstances, and prayerfully send it forth, hoping it may do some good to God's dear people and the cause of Bible truth. 

Study Concluded.

http://www.centrowhite.org.br/files/ebooks/apl/all/JHWaggoner/A%20Vindication%20of%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20the%20Resurrection%20of%20the%20Unjust.pdf

Truth or Lies- You Need to Decide Which You'll Believe.

 God would have us know His truth. He won't force feed truth to us. He's given us His word and has left it up to us to read, to study, to live its truth. Some of these truths are more complex than others, but there is nothing we can't comprehend that our Lord won't help us to know if we need to know it. To discard hard truths because they are just too confusing to us, without a diligent effort to study to know truth, is something we are accountable for. This study here has been and continues to be a long one. Why is it important? Because we need to comprehend what happens after we die- and to understand what happens we need to know Biblical facts. 1. The dead know nothing-they sleep death's sleep. 2. When Christ returns the dead in Christ will rise. 3. The dead who are not in Christ will live again after 1000 years (during that time the Dead in Christ will have become immortal and live in heaven with Christ). 4. After the 1000 years the dead not in Christ will rise and these are the unjust. 5. At their resurrection they will receive their sentence, then their punishment, and their ultimate second death which is when they are in existence no more in any form, never to be again.  All these are just bullet points that can be backed by extensive Biblical proofs if someone is willing to study. In knowing all this we cannot be deceived by Satan to believe in the immortality of the soul, that there is immediate life after death, that most people go to heaven, that we need not be concerned with facing any real punishment. When we consent to believe in immediately life after death we are in league with Satan who told our first parents they would not die if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once we consent knowingly to believe that there is no true death where we no longer know anything at all, we aren't guiltless, we are liable and accountable to perpetuating lies. You see, our Savior needn't have died for us if we never die. Our Savior died so we could live again one day in the mansions He is preparing. He died knowing He would one day return for us, not so we could just live in heaven right after we die our first death. The Bible is so clear on this,God tells us that Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, none of those well-known Biblical figures are in heaven right now, none have received the promise as of yet and won't, not without all those who are going to be God's, and this takes place when our Savior returns!  So many people choose to turn a blind eye to this, thinking it just doesn't matter. They are deceived! 

God help us to keep studying for truth and only truth no matter how much it destroys our cherished beliefs!

All through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior now and forever! Amen!!!!!!!

*******

Resurrection of the Just and Unjust

*******

(EXCERPT)

The unjust will be resurrected, some object to this truth. The article we've been studying is vindicating the truth of the resurrection of the unjust- scripturally, logically. Pray for enlightenment through our Savior, by the Holy Spirit.

A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Unjust By J.H. Waggoner 

CONTINUING STUDY….Dan 12:2  And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

*******  (Note- the following excerpt shows so clearly that people can pervert scripture to mean what they desire it to mean without taking all scripture into consideration. People used by Satan will twist any Bible verse they can to meet their own ends which mean the everlasting destruction of any and all who fall under their delusions. Pray that you may perceive only truth, study deeply, let the Holy Spirit guide you in your search for nothing but God's truth, God's will, God's love. All through our Savior, Jesus Christ.)

Isa. 26:13, 14: "O Lord our God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us; but by thee only will we make mention of thy name. They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise; therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish." 

There are at least two evident reasons why the claim put forth on this text is not warranted. It is not certain that it refers to the resurrection or non-resurrection of the dead at all; but that it only states that the "lords" who had dominion over them should not rise to exercise dominion over them any more. And, were it proved or admitted that it refers to the subject in question, it is yet far from appearing that it is already fulfilled. The same prophet, speaking of the destiny of the wicked, says: "The inhabitants of the earth are burned." Chap. 24:6. This is as definite, and the same in tense, as the text in question; but it remains to be fulfilled. See verses 1-5. The text says, "Thou hast visited and destroyed them." Chap. 24:22, says they shall be gathered as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and "visited after many days." Their visitation and destruction will be in the great day of wrath.

Many texts speak of the destruction of the wicked as already past, if we remove them from the page of prophecy and make history of them; but by so doing, they are perverted, and put in direct conflict with the plainest statements of the New Testament. If we take them as they are, as prophecies, they will harmonize with the words of the Saviour and his apostles, and with all the Scriptures on the subject of "the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." Isa. 43:16, 17: "Thus saith the Lord, . . . which bringeth forth the chariot and horse, the army and power; they shall lie down together, they shall not rise; they are extinct, they are quenched as tow." 

Were the passages in John 5; Acts 24, etc., no more intimately related to the subject than this, we should no more be surprised that our opponents should set them aside as figurative or irrelevant. The chariot, the horse, the army, the power, lie down together, they shall not rise; therefore there will be no resurrection of the unjust! (((Lies!))))

Words cannot express our astonishment that such a text as this should be quoted as a plain, literal denial of the resurrection of evil-doers, and John 5:28, 29; Rev. 20:5, 6, and others, should be set aside as "figurative," as having no bearing on the subject of the resurrection! 

The power of an army, and the army itself, as an army, may be destroyed without destroying half the individuals composing it. Were they all cut off, so that the army could never again appear, they might all be raised "to the judgment of the great day" without conflicting with that fact. I pray that I may never be found advocating a doctrine which needs to be sustained by such a use of the Scriptures.

Jer. 51:39: "In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, saith the Lord." Does this text forbid the idea, so plainly revealed in the Bible, of the "wicked suffering the second death?" or coming "forth from the graves to the resurrection of damnation," and to utter destruction? Does it even seem to contradict the plain testimonies of the word of God in favor of the resurrection of the unjust? If it does, I have not the ability to perceive it.

Hos. 8:14: "They that swear by the sin of Samaria, and say, Thy god, O Dan, liveth; and, The manner of Beersheba liveth; even they shall fall and never rise up again." Do the words "fall" and "rise up" refer to death and the resurrection? It certainly does not appear in the text or context. Or if the words do so refer, may it not refer to the second death in the lake of fire, from which there is no rising? And this is quoted to prove that the evildoers will not come forth from the graves, to a resurrection to judgment and the second death, by the very ones who affirm that John 5:28, 29, do not refer to the resurrection at all! Strange consistency, indeed! And these are the "positive proofs" on that side of the question. (((Such delusion, God preserve us from all untruth!))))

To be continued…

The Book of Daniel Chapter 2 Pt 2