Daniel's Prophecies: A Historical Interpretation (Part 2)

Part 1: https://thechristianuniversalist.blogspot.com/2023/05/daniels-prophecies-historical.html

    In the last post, we examined at the prophecies in Daniel 2, 7, and 8. Contrary to the traditional view, but in line with the modern scholarly view, we determined that these prophecies deal with the period between the 6th century BC and the mid-2nd century BC. Here, we will look at Daniel 11, the longest prophecy in the book of Daniel, to see how it fits with these other prophecies. Does it also describe the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, or does it look forward to a yet future time?

    Background

    The prophecy begins by giving a short background account of the Persian Empire and the beginning of the Macedonian Empire. The first verse states:

“Three more kings will arise in Persia, and the fourth will be much richer than them all, and by his strength through his riches, he will stir up all the kingdom against Greece.”

The four Persian emperors mentioned in this verse can most likely be identified with Cyrus the Great, Cambyses II, Darius I, and Xerxes I, who together ruled from 539-465 BC. Xerxes I was indeed richer than the other kings and undertook many construction projects throughout the Empire. He attempted an invasion of Greece in 480 BC, but failed.

    The prophecy then fast-forwards more than a hundred years to the conquests of Alexander the Great in 336-323 BC:

“Then a strong king will arise, who will rule with great dominion and do according to his will. Yet as soon as he arises, his kingdom shall be broken up and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not according to his posterity nor his dominion, for his kingdom will be uprooted and go to others.”

This accurately describes the beginning of the Macedonian Empire. Alexander rapidly conquered Persia and other Near Eastern territories, but unexpectedly died without an heir in 323 BC. The empire ended up being divided among his four generals and split into four different kingdoms: the Ptolemaic Kingdom (Egypt), the Seleucid Kingdom (Syria), the Antigonid Empire (Greece), and the Antipatrid Kingdom (Macedon).

    The kings of north and south

    Following verse 4, A. E. Knoch argues that the rest of the prophecy is about the end of the age, based on the phrase “after some years” (lit. “at the end of these years”) in v. 6. However, “the end” is a relative term, so this isn’t a very strong argument. All other interpretive schools are agreed that at least vv. 5 through 20 continue to describe Greek history, as confirmed by the match between known history and the rest of the prophecy.

“Then the king of the south will grow strong, but one of his officers will grow stronger than him and shall rule a greater dominion than him.”

    From an Israelite perspective, the kingdom to the south would be Egypt, which means that the “king of the south” in Daniel 11 can be identified with the ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. The first king, Ptolemy I Soter, had an admiral, Seleucus I Nicator, who in 311 BC gained control of the territory of Babylon, and later Syria, beginning his own dynasty (the Seleucid Kingdom).

“After some years, they will make an alliance, for the daughter of the king of the south shall go to the king of the north to make an agreement. But she will not retain her power, nor shall his offspring. She will be given up, she and her attendants and her child and the one who strengthened her.”

    Again, the “king of the south” refers to the Ptolemaic Kingdom (south of Israel), while the “king of the north” refers to the Seleucid Kingdom (north of Israel). Around 250 BC, the Seleucid king Antiochus II married the daughter of Ptolemy II, Berenice. However, this alliance failed, because Antiochus II’s spurned former wife Laodice killed Berenice and her infant son, along with her former husband.

“In those times a branch from her roots will rise up in his place. He will come with an army and enter the fortress of the king of the north, and take action against him and prevail. Even their gods, and their idols, and their articles of precious gold and silver, he will carry off to Egypt. He will refrain from attacking the king of the north for some years. Yet he [the king of the north] shall invade the kingdom of the king of the south, but will return to his own land.”

    After the murder of Berenice, her brother Ptolemy III attacked the Seleucid king Seleucus II, and soundly defeated him in 245 BC, taking back to Egypt 40,000 talents of gold and looted statues of Egyptian gods. Over the next few years, Seleucus II re-conquered many of the lands that had been captured, and even made forays into Ptolemaic territory. In 241 BC, a treaty was signed, and there was no further conflict between the Ptolemys and the Seleucids for the rest of Ptolemy III’s reign (246-222 BC).

“His sons will wage war and assemble a large multitude of forces that will overwhelm and pass through, and will carry the war as far as his fortress. And the king of the south will be moved with rage, and go out and fight the king of the north, who will muster a large multitude, but the multitude shall be given into the hand of his enemy. When the multitude has been carried off, his heart shall be exalted, and he shall overthrow myriads, but he will not prevail. For the king of the north will again raise a multitude larger than the former, and after some years, he will advance with a great army and many supplies.”

    The sons of Selecus II, Seleucus III and Antiochus III ‘the Great’, mustered a large army to fight against the Ptolemys in the Fourth Syrian War (219-217 BC). Antiochus III rapidly conquered the land of Palestine and even carried the war all the way to the heartland of Egypt, in the Battle of Raphia (217 BC). However, Ptolemy IV defeated Antiochus III in this battle, and a peace treaty was signed which lasted until Ptolemy IV’s death in 204 BC. After his death, in the Fifth Syrian War (202-197 BC), Antiochus III made great gains against his successor Ptolemy V and re-conquered Palestine.

“In those times many shall rise up against the king of the south. The violent ones among your people will exalt themselves to fulfill the vision, but they will fail.”

    During the Fifth Syrian War, Ptolemy V was forced to deal with internal rebellions at the same time that Antiochus III was attacking him. Even some Jews supported Antiochus III against Ptolemy V, in the hope that he would reward them with independence, but their efforts failed (Josephus, Antiquities XII.3.3).

“Then the king of the north will come and build a siege mound and take a fortified city. And the forces of the south will not stand, not even his best troops, for they will have no strength to resist. But he who comes against him will do according to his will, and no one will stand against him. He will stand in the Glorious Land, and all of it will be in his power. And he shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom. He will make peace with him and give him a woman in marriage, in order to destroy his kingdom, but it will not succeed or be to his advantage.”

    Antiochus III defeated Scopas, the general of Egypt, at the Battle of Panion in 199 BC. Scopas and his troops fled to Sidon, but Antiochus III besieged the city and forced them to surrender. This effectively transferred all of Palestine from Ptolemaic to Seleucid rule, thus making Antiochus the de facto ruler of “the Glorious Land.” Antiochus III then betrothed his daughter Cleopatra I to Ptolemy V as part of a peace treaty, intending for her to undermine the Ptolemaic Kingdom from the inside, but she ended up siding with her new husband instead.

“Afterward he shall turn his face to the coastland and shall capture many, but a ruler will bring an end to his insolence, and will turn his insolence back upon him. And he shall turn his face back toward the fortress of his own land, but he will stumble and fall and not be found.”

    Antiochus III next attempted to invade Greece, and succeeded in 192 BC, but was soundly defeated by the Romans in 191 BC, forcing him back to Asia Minor. The next year, the Romans invaded Asia Minor as well, and in 188 BC, they signed a peace treaty which forced Antiochus to abandon most of his lands in Anatolia. This led to several revolts throughout the Seleucid Kingdom, and Antiochus III died in 187 BC while trying to put down a revolt in Persia.

“There shall arise in his place one who imposes taxes for the glory of the kingdom, but within some days he will be destroyed, though not in anger nor in battle.”

    Antiochus III was succeeded by his son Seleucus IV, who sent his official Heliodorus to Jerusalem to pillage the Jewish treasury, in order to fund Seleucid campaigns (2 Macc. 3). However, Seleucus IV was assassinated in 175 BC, possibly by Heliodorus himself, who took over as regent for Seleucus IV’s infant son Antiochus.

    The reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes

    Some argue that there is a break between vv. 20 and 21, so that the verses after this describe a future end-times ruler. However, verse 21 begins with “There shall arise in his place,” which is the same phrase used in verse 20 to describe the succession of Antiochus III by Seleucus IV. Therefore, it seems more likely that verse 21 continues the history of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Kingdoms. This is confirmed by the match between historical events of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the prophecy of vv. 21-39.

“There shall arise in his place a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty, but he shall come in suddenly and seize the kingdom by intrigue.”

    Seleucus IV was succeeded in 175 BC by his infant son Antiochus and his minister Heliodorus, who acted as regent for the young Antiochus. However, within just a few months, Seleucus IV’s brother Antiochus IV returned and proclaimed himself coregent, seizing the throne. Eventually, he murdered Heliodorus and the young Antiochus, just as his father was deposed earlier. (Recall that this was also prophesied in Daniel 7:24.)

“And with the force of a flood, armies will be swept away and be broken before him, even the prince of the covenant.”

    This is essentially a summary of Antiochus IV’s reign. He was a militarily powerful leader who repeatedly defeated internal revolts, most notably, the revolt of the Jews as described in 1 and 2 Maccabees. He even orchestrated the murder of the Jewish high priest Onias III in 171/0 BC (2 Macc. 4:30-38).

“And after an alliance is made with him, he shall act deceitfully and become strong with a small number of people. Suddenly he will come into the richest places of the province and do what none of his forefathers had done, lavishing them with plunder and spoil and riches.”

    Antiochus IV came to power with the help of Eumenes II, the king of the relatively smaller kingdom of Pergamum, which was itself an ally of Rome. This made it possible for him to sign a peace treaty with the Roman Empire in 173 BC. Unlike his predecessors, he spent lavish amounts of money on his troops, even giving them a year’s salary in advance (1 Macc. 3:27-30). He also lavished gifts upon the people of Syria in an attempt to win them over.

“And he shall devise plans against strongholds, but only for a time. He will stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a large army, but the king of the south will be stirred up to battle with an even greater army. Yet he will not succeed, for plots will be devised against him. Those who eat of the royal rations shall destroy him, his army shall be swept away, and many shall be slain. And the two kings, their hearts bent on evil, shall sit at one table and speak lies. But it shall not prosper, for the end will be at the appointed time.”

    Antiochus IV attacked the Ptolemaic Kingdom in 169 BC. Although this prophecy indicates that Ptolemy VI had a larger army than Antiochus IV, he was defeated, and the Seleucids captured the border fortress of Pelusium. Before Ptolemy VI could flee to safety, his own generals Comanus and Cineas launched a coup and took control of the Egyptian government. At the end of the year, Antiochus IV and Ptolemy VI met to work out an agreement, by which Ptolemy VI would act as Antiochus’ puppet king in Memphis.

“He shall return to his land with great riches, and his heart shall be moved against the holy covenant, so he shall do damage and return to his own land.”

    As Antiochus IV returned from his victory in Egypt, he took all of the treasures out of the temple at Jerusalem, which caused much sorrow among the people of Israel (1 Macc. 1:20-28).

“At the appointed time, he will return and go to the south, but this time will not be like before. For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he will be grieved and return.”

    The very next year (168 BC), Ptolemy VI repudiated his agreement with Antiochus IV, which led Antiochus to attempt to invade Egypt again. However, he was stopped by a Roman ambassador, Gaius Popillius Laenas, who forced him to withdraw. Note that “ships of Kittim” are a reference to the Romans, as confirmed by the use of this phrase in the Dead Sea Scrolls. [1] Antiochus IV was reportedly humiliated by this event, and he took it out upon the Jews.

“In rage, he will do damage against the holy covenant and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant. His forces will occupy and defile the temple and fortress, and they shall take away the daily sacrifice and set up the abomination of desolation. He will flatter with smooth words those who forsake the covenant”

    In the summer of 167 BC, Antiochus IV sent a contingency of Syrian troops to Jerusalem, where they plundered the city and slaughtered many of the people, even preventing them from offering the daily tamid sacrifices (1 Macc. 1:29-40). Antiochus IV also wrote to the people of Israel forcing them to Hellenize and forsake the Mosaic Law under threat of death (1 Macc. 1:41-53). Six months later, the Syrian troops in Jerusalem also set up a pagan altar on top of the Jewish altar, which the Maccabees referred to as “the abomination of desolation” (1 Macc. 1:54).

“...but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action. The wise among the people will give understanding to many, and yet they shall fall by sword, by flame, by captivity and plundering, for many days. Now when they fall, they will be aided with a little help, but many shall join them insincerely. And some of the wise will fall, so that they may be refined, purified, and cleansed, until the time of the end, for there is still an interval until the appointed time.”

    This is a summary of the Maccabean revolt which took place between 167 and 164 BC. According to the book of 1 Maccabees, during this persecution, many of the people in Israel “chose to die rather than be defiled by food or profane the holy covenant, and they did die” (1 Macc. 1:63).

“But the king shall do according to his will, and shall exalt and magnify himself above any god, and speak blasphemies against the God of gods. He shall prosper until the period of wrath is completed, for what has been determined shall be done. He will not respect the god of his ancestors, nor the one beloved by women, nor any god, for he shall exalt himself above them all. He will honor the god of fortresses instead of these, a god which his ancestors did not know, and will honor him with gold, and silver, and precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god. Those who acknowledge him, he will make them wealthy and appoint them as rulers over many and distribute the land for a price.”

    Some commentators believe that this section applies to the final end-times ruler rather than Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but there is no clear break in the text between vv. 35 and 36, and this description still applies accurately to Antiochus IV. This Seleucid king was the first king to refer to himself as “god” (theos) and “god manifest” (theou epiphanous) on coinage, which led to his epithet “Epiphanes.” Notably, he did not honor the patron god of his ancestors, Apollo, but instead worshipped Zeus Olympias and even set up an altar to him in the Jerusalem Temple (the abomination of desolation). Those who supported him and his cause were lavished with gifts (1 Macc. 2:17-18).

    The end of the Seleucid Kingdom

    Although vv. 21 through 39 are an extremely accurate description of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the following verses do not align with the history of his reign. For this reason, many modern commentators have thought that the book of Daniel was written during the Maccabean revolt (ca. 164 BC) and wrongly predicted its outcome. More conservative commentators argue instead that these verses refer to the final end-times ruler and have not been fulfilled yet. Both of these options would make this prophecy utterly useless to Daniel’s intended readership, the Jews of the Maccabean revolt. Is there another possibility for interpreting these last few verses?

    First, this prophecy is said to take place at “the time of the end” (v. 40). This could refer to the end of the age and Jesus’ second coming, but again, that would make this prophecy utterly useless for Daniel’s intended readership. Rather, we should look back to v. 27, which states that the alliance between Ptolemy VI and Antiochus IV failed because “the end will be at the appointed time.” This end must have something to do with the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Kingdoms, not an undefined future time. Elsewhere in the book of Daniel, the “end” refers specifically to the end of the Macedonian kingdoms (Dan. 8:19), which began around the time of Antiochus IV and continued until 27 BC.

    Did anything like the prophecy in vv. 40-45 happen at the end of the Macedonian kingdoms? As it happens, this prophecy seems to be fulfilled by the events surrounding the end of the Seleucid Kingdom:

“At the time of the end, the king of the south will contend with him, and the king of the north will come against him like a whirlwind with chariots, and horsemen, and many ships. He shall advance against countries and overwhelm them and pass through.”

    Although there were only two main characters (the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kings) earlier in the prophecy, now there are three: the king of the south, the king of the north, and an undefined “him” who they both attack. Since vv. 36-39 describe the Seleucid king (Antiochus IV), the most likely option is that “him” also refers to the Seleucid king. This means that we are now dealing with the Ptolemaic king (the king of the south), the Seleucid king (the king of the north), and another “king of the north.”

    The details of this prophecy find a match at the end of the Seleucid Kingdom. Throughout this period, there were dynastic squabbles between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. This ended in 64 BC when the Roman army under the command of Pompey defeated the last Seleucid king, Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, in a whirlwind campaign in which he annexed all the major cities of Syria.

“And he will enter the Glorious Land, and many countries will be overthrown, but these shall escape from his hand: Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon. He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and Egypt will not escape. He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver and all the precious things of Egypt, and the Libyans and Kushites will be at his heels.”

    In 63 BC, after he annexed Syria, Pompey went south and conquered the Hasmonean Kingdom (Israel), incorporating it into the Roman Empire as the province of Judaea. He attacked the Nabateans, who controlled the land east of the Jordan including ancient Edom, Moab, and Ammon, but the siege of Petra failed in 62 BC and the Romans were unable to conquer their land. In 58 BC, the Romans took control of Egypt and exiled their king Ptolemy X, although they allowed him to return as a puppet king in 55 BC.

“But news from the east and the north will trouble him, and he will go out with great fury to conquer and annihilate many. And he shall plant the tents of his pavilion between the sea and the glorious holy mountain, but he shall come to his end, and no one shall help him.”

    Despite the great success of the Roman Empire on the Mediterranean coast, they were constantly antagonized by the Parthian Empire to the northeast, which controlled the territory of modern-day Iraq and Iran (ancient Mesopotamia and Persia). In 54 BC, the Roman ruler Crassus, who was part of the First Triumvirate along with Pompey and Caesar, crossed the Euphrates river to invade Parthia. Before the campaign was over, he returned to Judaea and pillaged the land and the temple, undoubtedly pitching his tent between the Mediterranean and Mount Zion at some point (Josephus, Antiquities XIV.7.1-3). Crassus continued his campaign against the Parthian Empire in 53 BC, but faced a mutiny and was killed by the Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae.

    In summary, the prophecy in Daniel 11:40-45 is not meant to describe the end of the Maccabean revolt, nor the end of the age at Jesus’ second coming, but the end of the Seleucid Kingdom at the hands of the Roman Empire. Whereas the other interpretations make this prophecy completely useless for Daniel’s intended readership — the Jews of the Maccabean revolt — this interpretation of the prophecy would give them hope that their Seleucid oppressors would not last forever, but would themselves be destroyed in the end. The remarkable agreement between this prophecy and the Roman conquests of 64-53 BC makes any other interpretation unlikely.

    The Day of Yahweh

    After describing the end of the Seleucid Kingdom, the prophecy goes on to state the following:

“At that time, Michael, the great prince who stands watch over your people, shall stand up. And there shall be a troublesome time such as there never was, since the first nation until that time.”

    This passage is traditionally understood to refer to the tribulation at the end of the age. However, if Dan. 11:40-45 refers to the Roman annexation of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, which seems certain based on the remarkable match of events, then “at that time” cannot refer to the end of the age. Rather, it must refer to the time of Roman domination of Palestine. With this in mind, the “troublesome time” can only refer to the catastrophic events of the First Roman-Jewish War (AD 66-73), which involved the destruction of the Second Temple and unspeakable atrocities against the Jewish people. [2]

“But at that time your people shall be delivered, every one who is found written in the book.”

    Although numerous Jews were killed during the First Roman-Jewish War, the true Israel, the remnant of Jewish believers in Jesus (cf. Rom. 11:1-5), was saved from the catastrophic events. According to the ancient historians Eusebius and Epiphanius, the Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem fled the city prior to the outbreak of war, thus staying safe from its onslaught. [3]

“Many of those who sleep in the dust shall awake; some to perpetual life, and others to shame and perpetual contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars perpetually.”

    This is where exegesis of Daniel’s prophecy becomes difficult. All of the previous prophecies find a clear historical fulfillment, but no resurrection of people took place during the First Roman-Jewish War, not even a ‘spiritual' resurrection to heaven — that is, not if one takes seriously the biblical testimony about the state of the dead. There are two possibilities here. First, it may be that Daniel is indeed referring to the resurrection at the end of the age; it was common for Old Testament prophets to switch from historical judgments to the eschatological Day of Yahweh, often without warning of any transition. [4]

    Second, another (perhaps more likely) possibility is that Daniel is referring to the corporate resurrection of the believing Israelite remnant. An interesting parallel is Ezekiel 37, which speaks of bones arising and becoming living people, but the interpretation of the prophecy shows that it refers to Israel as a whole returning from exile (vv. 18-23). Compare this to Jesus’ words in John 5:24-25:

“Truly, truly I say to you that the one who hears my words and believes the One who sent me has perpetual life and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Truly, truly I say to you, the time is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”

    Some might argue that this is referring proleptically to the resurrection at the end of the age. However, “now” (nun) always refers to the present time, and is never used in prolepsis. (Note that in John 5:28-29, where Jesus is indisputably referring to the end of the age, he says only that “the time is coming” — not that it “now is.”) Therefore, it is quite possible that Daniel is saying that true Israel will be vindicated (and corporately ‘resurrected’ as in Ezek. 37) by the events of the First Roman-Jewish War, while the unbelieving Israelites will be ashamed. Admittedly, however, this is speculative.

    After this excursus, Daniel states that he saw a vision of several men who were discussing the “end of these wonders” (Dan. 12:6). One of the men said that the end would come in “a time, times, and half a time... when the shattering of the holy people comes to an end” (v. 7). This refers back to Daniel 7:25, which states that the period of Antiochus IV’s persecution would last for three and a half years (cf. Dan. 8:13-14).

    Next, the messenger tells Daniel that from the time that the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days (v. 11), which is also three and a half years, plus an intercalary month. Again this refers to the period from the beginning of persecution in Summer 167 BC to the re-dedication of the temple in Chislev 164 BC. The messenger also tells Daniel that those who persevere until 1,335 days will be happy (v. 12); although the meaning of this is not certain, it could refer to the Maccabean fortification of Jerusalem, which took place shortly after the re-dedication of the Temple (1 Macc. 4:60-61). Finally, he comforts Daniel with the knowledge that he will be raised in the Day of Yahweh (v. 13). [5]

    In summary, the entire prophecy of Daniel 11 should be understood to refer to the historical events from the beginning of the Persian Empire (539 BC) to the First Roman-Jewish War (AD 66-73). None of this prophecy is yet to be fulfilled, except for the resurrection in Daniel 12:13 (and possibly Dan. 12:2-3). The purpose of this prophecy is to provide comfort to the righteous Jews during the Maccabean revolt, so that they know that their oppression will eventually end, their oppressor will be destroyed, and they will ultimately be rewarded in the resurrection at the end of the age.

Part 3: https://thechristianuniversalist.blogspot.com/2023/05/daniels-prophecies-historical_28.html

______________________________

[1] 1QpHab 2.12, 14; 3.4, 9; 4.5, 10; 4Q161 frgs. 8-10 3.5-8; 4Q169 1.3.

[2] If you have a strong stomach, see Josephus’ account of the war in his Wars of the Jews books 5-7.

[3] Eusebius, Church History 3.5.3; Epiphanius, Panarion 29.7.8.

[4] For example, see Isaiah 7, Isaiah 22, and Amos 5, which prophesy the Day of Yahweh in relation to the Assyrian conquest of Israel; see also Jeremiah 31, the book of Joel, and the book of Zephaniah, which prophesy the Day of Yahweh in relation to the Babylonian conquest of Judah; see especially Isaiah 61:1-2, cf. Luke 4:16-21, which shows that such prophecies can switch referents even in the same sentence.

[5] Although “the end of days” in Dan. 12:13 is sometimes interpreted to refer to the end of the aforementioned 1,335 days, no resurrection took place in 163 BC, so this must not be the case. Instead, it is probably a general term for the Day of Yahweh, like "the last day" in the New Testament (e.g., John 11:24).

Daniel’s Prophecies: A Historical Interpretation (Part 1)

    The prophecies in the book of Daniel are some of the most debated in the entire Old Testament. There are several different interpretive schools, each of which has a very different perspective. Within the traditional Christian interpretation, some of the prophecies in this book (Dan. 8 and 11) relate to the Seleucid king Antiochus IV’s persecution of the Jews, while others (Dan. 7 and 9) relate to the first coming of Jesus Christ. The dispensationalist interpretation agrees that Dan. 8 and 11 relate to Antiochus IV, but Dan. 7 and 9 are instead moved to the second coming of Jesus and the end of the age. The ‘Concordant’ teacher A. E. Knoch, on the other hand, argues that all of these prophecies relate to the end of the age. Finally, the perspective adhered to by most modern critical scholars is that all of the prophecies relate to the persecution of Antiochus IV. In this series of posts, we’ll examine the prophecies in their biblical and historical context to try to determine which, if any, of these interpretive schools are correct.

    The Ram, the Male Goat, and the Little Horn

    The least ambiguous prophecy in the book of Daniel is that of Daniel 8, which describes a vision about a ram, a male goat, and a ‘little horn.’ This is the only prophecy for which all interpretive schools are agreed on the meaning, since the text explicitly identifies the ram as the kingdoms of Media and Persia and the male goat as the kingdom of Greece (vv. 20-22). Therefore, this is a good place to start elucidating the meaning of Daniel’s prophecies. Regarding the ram which represents Media and Persia, it states:

And I lifted my eyes, and saw, and there was a ram with two horns standing beside the river. It had two horns, and the two horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward, so that no animal could withstand him, and no one could deliver from his hand. He did according to his will and became great. (Dan. 8:3-4)

    This is a very accurate description of the kingdoms of Media and Persia. Both of these kingdoms were allied, but although Media was the senior partner in the alliance, Persia rapidly overtook it in importance, and Media was subsumed into the Persian Empire during the reign of Cyrus the Great (559-530 BC). Next, Daniel describes how he saw a male goat (Greece or Macedonia) overtake the ram:

And as I was considering, suddenly a male goat came from the west across the surface of all the earth without touching the ground, and the goat had a great horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram with two horns which I had seen standing beside the river, and ran at him with furious power. And I saw him confronting the ram, and he was moved with rage and attacked the ram, and broke the two horns, and the ram had no power to withstand him. He cast him down to the ground and trampled him, and there was no one to save the ram from his hand. Therefore the male goat grew very great, but when he became strong, his great horn was broken, and in place of it came up four great horns toward the four winds. (Dan. 8:5-8)

    Again, this is a very accurate description of the Macedonian Empire. Under Alexander the Great, this kingdom underwent massive expansion during a series of whirlwind campaigns to the east (336-325 BC). In 333 BC, Persia was defeated and annexed by Macedonia, but Alexander continued campaigning for the next eight years; not a single battle was lost. However, Alexander died in 323 BC, and eventually the empire was divided between his four generals Ptolemy, Seleucus, Antigonus, and Cassander.

    Next, Daniel describes how he saw a ‘little horn’ come up from the Macedonian Empire(s) and become hostile toward Israel:

And out of one of [the four horns] came a little horn which became very great toward the south, and the east, and the Glorious Land. And it grew up to the host of heaven, and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars, and trampled them. He exalted himself even as high as the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. And an army was given over to him to oppose the daily sacrifices because of transgression, and he cast down truth to the ground. He did all of this and prospered... [The daily sacrifices will be stopped] for 2,300 evenings and mornings, and the sanctuary shall be cleansed. (Dan. 8:9-12, 14)

    This is where the ‘Concordant’ (A. E. Knoch) interpretation diverges from the other interpretive schools. Knoch argues that this ‘little horn’ is the final end-times ruler, the Antichrist, who will arise before the second coming of Christ, whereas other interpretations argue that this is the Macedonian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC) who persecuted the Jews. Which is the more likely interpretation?

    First, it’s important to note that the text says that the ‘little horn’ arose out of one of the four horns (Macedonian kingdoms). The last Macedonian kingdom, that of Ptolemaic Egypt, fell to Rome in 27 BC. Therefore, it seems that the ‘little horn’ must be identified with a king before that time, which rules out an end-times ruler. This is confirmed by Daniel’s interpretation of the vision, which states that this king would arise “in the latter time of their [the Macedonian kingdoms’] rule” (v. 23).

    Furthermore, we are told that this king would stop the daily offerings for “2,300 evenings and mornings,” which refers to the evening and morning tamid sacrifices (Exod. 29:38-39). Keeping in mind that the tamid sacrifices were not offered on sabbaths and feast days (Num. 28-29), this period of 2,300 tamid offerings corresponds to exactly three and a half years. [1] Not coincidentally, the sacrifices were stopped for three and a half years in the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, until the temple was re-dedicated in Chislev 164 BC. [2] In the same year that the temple was re-dedicated, Antiochus IV died, allegedly due to a divinely-inflicted disease [3], which agrees with Daniel that “he shall be broken, but not by human hands” (Dan. 8:25). [4]

    In summary, the prophecy in Daniel 8 is a very accurate description of history from the fall of Babylonia to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the mid-2nd century BC. The ram in this vision represents the kingdoms of Media and Persia, while the male goat represents Macedonia, as explicitly stated by Daniel. Contrary to A. E. Knoch, the ‘little horn’ is said to arise in the latter days of the four Macedonian kingdoms, which cannot be any time later than 27 BC. The description of this ‘little horn’ accurately describes the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, even predicting the precise amount of time that the tamid offerings were stopped.

    The Four Kingdoms of Daniel 2

    The next prophecy that we will cover is that of Daniel 2, which describes a statue of gold, silver, bronze, and iron, each metal representing a different kingdom (vv. 37-40). The identification of the first kingdom (gold) is easy, because Daniel explicitly tells us that it is Neo-Babylonia, or more specifically, Nebuchadnezzar himself (vv. 37, 38). However, the next three kingdoms have been interpreted differently. The traditional view is that these three kingdoms are Media/Persia, Macedonia, and Rome; however, the accepted view among most modern scholars is that they are Media, Persia, and Macedonia. Which interpretation better fits the prophecy and its historical setting?

    Fortunately, the book of Daniel isn’t the only text to use a four-kingdom scheme. As the historical events described in this book unfolded, other ancient texts began to use the same motif, so we can turn to these to gain some insight. Before the Greeks even conquered Persia, the ancient historians Herodotus and Ktesias referred to a model of three empires succeeding each other: Assyria, Media, and Persia. [5] The deuterocanonical book of Tobit (14:4) also describes the succession of Assyria by Media, and the canonical prophets Isaiah (13:17-19; 21:2) and Jeremiah (51:11, 27-29) report that Babylonia was succeeded by Media. Dating to the Macedonian period, the Jewish Sibylline Oracles state that four kingdoms succeeded each other: Assyria, Media, Persia, and Greece. [6] This scheme continued to be used by many Roman historians, some of whom added Rome as a fifth kingdom. [7]

    All these texts suggest that the four kingdoms are Assyria/Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece. But does this agree with the book of Daniel itself? Let’s examine the prophecy of Daniel 2 in more detail:

“You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom... are the head of gold. After you shall arise a second kingdom inferior to yours”

Very little description of the second kingdom is given, other than that it is inferior to Nebuchadnezzar himself. Does this better fit with Media or Media/Persia?

    First of all, it should be noted that there was no ‘Medo-Persian Empire’, contrary to popular belief. Media was a separate kingdom from Persia until it was subsumed into the Persian Empire, after which it ceased to be a kingdom at all. This is supported by all the texts cited earlier, including the biblical prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, all of which state that Assyria/Babylonia was followed by Media, then Persia (not ‘Medo-Persia’). The book of Daniel is in agreement with this, as it states that the last king of Babylon was succeeded directly by “Darius the Mede” (Dan. 5:30, 31). [8] Furthermore, the description of the second kingdom as “inferior” to Babylon is fitting for Media, but not for the Persian Empire, which at its height covered more than twice the territory as Babylonia. This decidedly favors the interpretation that the second kingdom is Media and not Media/Persia.

    The third kingdom is described by Daniel as follows:

“...and a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over the whole earth.”

This could conceivably describe either Persia or Macedonia, so it doesn’t help us decide between the two interpretations. The next description is much more helpful:

“And there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron; for just as iron crushes and smashes everything, it shall crush and shatter all these [i.e., the former kingdoms]. As you saw the feet and toes partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it will be a divided kingdom, but some of the strength of iron shall be in it, as you saw the iron mixed with the clay. As you saw the iron mixed with clay, so will they mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.” (Dan. 2:40-43)

    Does this description better fit Greece or Rome? First, the text states that the fourth kingdom conquered all the previous kingdoms. This was not true of Rome, because the Roman Empire never conquered the Parthian Empire, which controlled the former heartland of Babylon, Media, and Persia. However, the Macedonians did conquer all the territory of the former kingdoms. Second, we see that the fourth kingdom would be divided. This better fits Macedonia, which was divided into four kingdoms on the death of Alexander the Great, than Rome, which wasn’t divided until well after the time of Jesus. Finally, Daniel says that this last kingdom would be characterized by a number of failed intermarriages, which simply did not happen to Rome, but did happen in Macedonia, as highlighted later in the book (Dan. 11:6, 17). All of these details about the fourth kingdom fit Greece much better than Rome.

    In summary, the biblical and historical data imply that the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 are Babylonia (Nebuchadnezzar), Media, Persia, and Macedonia. But if that’s the case, then what is the “stone not cut out with hands” that came “during the days of those kings” which represents the kingdom of God (Dan. 2:44, 45)? The description of this kingdom clearly shows that it is the Messianic kingdom, which did not come before the fall of the last Macedonian province in 27 BC. Unfortunately, this problem exists in all interpretive schools, as the Messianic kingdom did not come before the fall of the Roman Empire either. One possibility is that the final kingdom described in John's Apocalypse will originate in Macedonia. Alternatively, the coming of the kingdom of God at that time may have been contingent on a favorable response from the Jews, just like Micah’s prophecy that the kingdom would come in the days of Assyrian domination (Mic. 5:5-9). [9]

    The Four Beasts of Daniel 7

    So far, both of the prophecies that we have examined describe ancient history up to the Macedonian Empire, circa 2nd century BC. Based on this, and the similarities between Daniel 2 and 7, one might be justified in assuming that the four beasts in the vision of Daniel 7 represent the same four kingdoms as the statue in Daniel 2. Nonetheless, let’s examine the actual prophecy in this chapter to see if this view stands up to scrutiny.

    First, what do the beasts in Daniel 7 actually represent? Virtually all commentators agree that they are kingdoms, but A. E. Knoch argues that they are religions instead. However, the interpretation given by Daniel does not fit with this view:

“As for these four great beasts, four kings shall arise out of the earth. But the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess it permanently... As for the fourth beast, there will be a fourth kingdom that will be different from the other kingdoms.” (Dan. 7:17-18, 23)

    The four beasts are described as “kingdoms” (Aram: malku) in the same terms as the statue in Daniel 2. Furthermore, the conception of kingdoms as beasts was quite common in ancient Jewish apocalyptic texts like Daniel. [10] So without a very good reason to believe otherwise, we should interpret them as kingdoms like the text says. Knoch’s only reason for believing that these are not kingdoms is that the first three beasts have their lives prolonged after the fourth is destroyed. However, as we will see below, this perfectly describes the history of the kingdoms of this time.

    So if the beasts are kingdoms, which kingdoms should they be identified with? Again, there are two schools of thought: traditionally these kingdoms are thought to be Babylonia, Media/Persia, Greece, and Rome, while modern scholars identify them with Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece. Let’s go through the prophecy and see which view best fits the text:

The first [beast] was like a lion and had eagles’ wings. Then, as I watched, its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a human, and a human mind was given to it.

    Simply based on the identification of the first kingdom in Daniel 2, we might expect this beast to represent Neo-Babylonia. This is seemingly confirmed by the fact that Nebuchadnezzar is described as a lion by Jeremiah (4:7; 50:17). The lion being given a human mind refers to the fact that Nebuchadnezzar was given knowledge of the God of Israel (Dan. 4:34-37).

    The next beast is described as follows:

Another beast appeared, a second one, that looked like a bear. It was raised up on one side, had three ribs in its mouth among its teeth, and was told, “Arise, devour much flesh!”

    Does this better describe Media, or Media/Persia? Again, there was no ‘Medo-Persian Empire’, so it would be strange for Daniel to combine these two kingdoms into one. The fact that this bear is propped up on one side suggests a lack of major achievements despite its ferocity. This doesn’t fit Persia very well, but it does fit Media, which did not make any major gains against Babylon despite going to war with them. The three ribs in the mouth of the bear are sometimes interpreted as the conquests of Persia against Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt; however, it could equally refer to the kingdoms of Urartu, Mannaea, and Scythia, which are said to be allied with Media against Babylon in Jeremiah 51:27-29.

    If the second beast represents Media, then we would expect that the third beast represents Persia. Does this fit the description given by Daniel?

Then, as I watched, another beast like a leopard appeared. It had four wings of a bird on its back and four heads, and dominion was given to it.

The fact that this beast has four wings and heads is often understood to refer to the four kingdoms that arose from Macedonia. However, it could just as easily refer to the four Persian emperors that are singled out in Daniel 11:2. The wings on this leopard symbolize speed, which fits with the description of Persia as a swift conqueror in Isa. 41:3, but could also fit the rapid conquests of Macedonia in the 4th century BC (cf. Dan. 8:5). Therefore, the description of the third beast could fit either Persia or Greece.

    Fortunately, we are told in much more detail about the fourth beast, which will allow us to identify it with either Greece or Rome:

Then I saw in the visions by night a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and very strong. It had large iron teeth and was devouring, breaking in pieces, and stamping what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that preceded it, and it had ten horns. I was considering the horns when another horn appeared, a little one that came up among them. Three of the horns were plucked up before it. There were eyes like human eyes in this horn and a mouth speaking arrogantly... As I looked, that horn made war with the holy ones and was prevailing over them (Dan. 7:7-8, 21)

    According to the interpretation given later in the chapter, the ten horns represent ten kings, and the ‘little horn’ represents an eleventh king before whom three of the ten kings would be deposed. Based on the vision in Daniel 8, the ‘little horn’ should be identified with Macedonian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who was indeed the eleventh king in his line. [11] Shortly before he came to the throne, his father Seleucus IV was deposed, as was his younger brother Antiochus and his brother’s regent Heliodorus. This matches Daniel’s vision remarkably well. [12]

    Regarding the ‘little horn’, we are told the following:

“He shall speak words against the Most High, shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High, and shall attempt to change the calendar and the law, and they shall be given into his power for a time, times, and half a time. Then the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away to be consumed and utterly destroyed.” (Dan. 7:25-26)

    This matches the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes against the Jews. The cessation of sacrifices during his reign lasted three years and six months — in other words, “a time, times, and half a time.” Furthermore, he was the one who attempted to “change the calendar [of religious feasts] and the law,” according to several ancient Jewish sources. [13] His death, as noted above, was alleged to be the result of a divinely-inflicted disease, rather than by human agency (2 Macc. 9:5-9).

    Following the time of the ‘little horn’, we are told the following:

And as I watched, the [fourth] beast was given over to be burned with fire. But as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. (Dan. 7:11-12)

    This is an accurate description of what happened to Macedonia after the time of Antiochus IV. Although all of the Macedonian kingdoms fell to Rome and were incorporated into its empire by 27 BC, the heartlands of Babylon, Media, and Persia remained under the control of the Parthian Empire, which did not fall until 224 AD. Therefore, it’s quite true that the fourth kingdom (Macedonia) was destroyed (by Rome) while the former three kingdoms (Babylon, Media, and Persia) lost their dominion, but remained ‘alive’ (independent of Rome).

    In summary, the four beasts of Daniel 7 represent the same kingdoms as the statue of Daniel 2: Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Macedonia. This prophecy quite accurately describes the history of the ancient Near East from the sixth century BC until the defeat of Macedonia by Rome. Contrary to futurist speculations about the book of Daniel, the ‘little horn’ of Daniel 7 does not represent the end-times ruler described in the New Testament, but the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes who persecuted the Jews for three years and six months (167-164 BC).

    In the next post, we will look at the longest prophecy in the book of Daniel — Dan. 11:2-12:3 — to see how it fits with these other prophecies.

The view of Daniel 2, 7, and 8 adopted here. Adapted

from this figure.

Part 2: https://thechristianuniversalist.blogspot.com/2023/05/daniels-prophecies-historical_21.html

______________________________

[1] Michael Segal, “The Four Kingdoms and Other Chronological Conceptions in the Book of Daniel,” in Four Kingdom Motifs before and beyond the Book of Daniel, eds. Andrew B. Perrin et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 33-34.

[2] Josephus, Wars I.1.1; 1 Macc. 4:52-54; 2 Macc. 10:5.

[3] 2 Macc. 9:5-9.

[4] In contrast, according to Apoc. 19:19-21, the final end-times ruler will be killed by human hands — specifically, the hands of Jesus Christ. This is another strike against Knoch’s interpretation.

[5] Herodotus, Histories I.95; Ktesias, Persian Matters.

[6] Sib. Or. 4.49-101.

[7] Amelius Sura, De annis populi Romani; Polybius, Histories 38.22; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 1.2.2-4; Tacitus, Histories 5.8; Appian, Roman History, preface 9.

[8] The existence of “Darius the Mede,” who allegedly ruled over 120 satrapies (Dan. 6:2; cf. Est. 1:1) and preceded Cyrus of Persia (Dan. 6:29; cf. 6:28 OG) seems contradicted by the historical record, which tells us that Cyrus was the one who conquered Babylon and succeeded the last Babylonian king; see the Babylonian Chronicles and the Cyrus Cylinder, as well as the histories of Herodotus and Xenophon. “Darius the Mede” is not mentioned in any administrative or business texts dating to this period. However, whether or not “Darius the Mede” existed, the point is that the author of Daniel intended us to understand that Babylon was succeeded by Media (which may have been the purpose of adding “Darius the Mede” in the first place).

[9] Note that in this prophecy, Micah gives two possibilities for the Judahites, that the kingdom will come (vv. 5-9) or that God will destroy them (vv. 10-14). Although no contingencies are explicitly mentioned here, we can safely conclude that the coming of the kingdom was contingent on a favorable response from Judah, since the kingdom did not come and Judah was destroyed by Babylonia. The same may be true of Daniel’s prophecy. For a discussion of unstated contingencies in Old Testament prophecy, see Robert Chisholm, “When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneutic,” JETS 53 (2010).

[10] Alexandria Frisch, “The Four (Animal) Kingdoms: Understanding Empires as Beastly Bodies,” in Four Kingdom Motifs before and beyond the Book of Daniel, 62-75.

[11] Alexander the Great; Seleucus I; Antiochus I; Antiochus II; Seleucus II; Seleucus III; Antiochus III; Seleucus IV; Heliodorus (regent); Antiochus (child); Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

[12] Another possibility is that the three “uprooted” kings were the joint rulers of Ptolemaic Egypt, Ptolemy VI, Ptolemy VIII, and Cleopatra II, whom Antiochus IV defeated in 169 BC, and the other seven kings were his Seleucid predecessors (Seleucus I; Antiochus I; Antiochus II; Seleucus II; Seleucus III; Antiochus III; Seleucus IV); see Andreas Blasius, “Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Ptolemaic Triad: The Three Uprooted Horns in Dan 7:8, 20, and 24 Reconsidered,” JSJ 37 (2006). However, this would ignore the infant Antiochus who ruled briefly between Seleucus IV and Antiochus IV, as well as Alexander the Great, which seems odd if the fourth ‘beast’ (kingdom) is to be identified with Macedonia (as a whole) and not just the Seleucid Kingdom.

[13] Josephus, Antiquities 10.275-276; 1 Macc. 1:41-50; 2 Macc. 6:3-6.

Body, Spirit, and Soul

    The Bible is clear that there are three different ‘parts’ that somehow make up who we are as humans: the body, the spirit, and the soul (Gen. 2:7; 1 Thess. 5:23; Heb. 4:12). But most Christians are less clear on the issue of how these three parts relate to each other, and especially on the difference between the soul and the spirit. In this post, we’ll take a look at the body, spirit, and soul and examine the biblical definitions of each, as well as how they interact before and after death.

    The Body

The definition of a “body” should be fairly obvious: it is our physical, material structure which corporeally interacts with the world around us. However, the biblical definition is a bit more nuanced. Many Christians are wont to think of the body as a temporary vehicle in which our “immortal soul” lives for a brief period of time, before moving on to live eternally in either heaven or hell. One common quote (misattributed to C.S. Lewis) reflects the sentiment of most Christians well: “You do not have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.”

    Unfortunately, this belief is entirely unbiblical and goes directly against what scripture has to say about our bodies. One need look no further than Genesis 2 to discover that, yes, in fact, you are a body:

And Yahweh God formed the human from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the human became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)

According to this passage, God did not merely form the body of the human from the dust of the ground, but He actually created the human. The human (ha-adam) existed before he became a soul, even before he came to life. Adam, and by extension all humanity, is a body. This is confirmed in the very next chapter, when God declares to Adam,

“By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken, for you are dust, and you shall return to dust.” (Gen. 3:19)

God does not say that Adam’s body was taken out of the ground, but that Adam himself was taken out of the ground and made from dust. Now we know, of course, that it was Adam’s body that was made from the dust of the ground, not his spirit (which was given from God) and not his soul (which was a composite of his body and spirit, according to Gen. 2:7). Thus, the fact that Adam himself was made from the dust of the ground allows us to make the equation “Adam = Adam’s body,” and by extension, all humans are our bodies.

    But if we are our bodies, a more pressing question is, what happens to us when our bodies die? After all, our bodies and spirits separate at death (Ecc. 12:7), and according to James (2:26), the body apart from the spirit is dead. Do we remain bodies at death, or do we become incorporeal “souls” in some spiritual realm, as most Christians believe? Unfortunately, the fact is that we remain bodies after death just as we are before death. If in life you are a living body, in death you are a corpse.

    This can be seen in the passage quoted above, Genesis 3:19, where Adam is told that he would one day return to the ground, not merely his body. Of course, it is the body which is made from the ground and returns to the ground in death, but because Adam - the human - is a body, it can also be said that he himself returns to the ground in death (cf. Job 10:9; Ps. 90:3). This is confirmed again and again throughout the Bible, as every time that a person’s body is buried, the person themself is said to have been buried; that is, the person’s remains are fully constituted by their body. Consider the following passages:

Then Abraham breathed his last and died in a good old age, an old man and full of years, and was gathered to his people [1]. And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, the field which Abraham purchased from the sons of Heth. There Abraham was buried, and Sarah his wife. (Gen. 25:8-10)

Then he [Israel] charged them and said to them: “I am to be gathered to my people; bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite... There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife, there they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife, and there I buried Leah.” (Gen. 49:29, 31)

So Moses the servant of Yahweh died there in the land of Moab, in accordance with the word of Yahweh. And he was buried in the valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows his burial place to this day. (Deut. 34:5-6)

So when Jesus came, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days. (Jn. 11:17)

When they had carried out everything that was written concerning him [Jesus], they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb. (Acts 13:29 cf. Matt. 12:40, 28:6, 1 Cor. 15:4)

I could continue with many more examples, like David and Solomon (1 Kings 2:10; 2 Chron. 9:31 cf. Acts 2:29) and many people who are said by Daniel (12:2) to “sleep in the dust of the earth.” Burial is said to be the way that “all the earth” goes at death (Josh. 23:14 cf. 24:29-30). Even when the soul and/or spirit are mentioned alongside the body, a person’s remains are said to be constituted by their body and not their soul or spirit:

And it came about, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin. So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath. (Gen. 35:18-19)

You hide Your face, they are troubled; You take away their spirit, they die, and to dust they return. You send forth Your spirit, they are created, and You renew the face of the earth. (Ps. 104:29-30)

Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help. His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. (Ps. 146:3-4)

And [as] they had stoned Stephen, he was calling and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” Now having fallen on [his] knees, he cried out in a great voice, “Lord, may you not place to them this sin.” And having said this, he fell asleep... Now devout men buried Stephen, and made great mourning over him. (Acts 7:59-60; 8:2)

So then, we can clearly see that after death, a person’s remains are fully constituted by their dead body, which returns to the dust of the earth, rather than an incorporeal “soul” or “spirit.” Even our Lord Jesus was considered to be equivalent to His corpse, buried in the heart of the earth, during the three days for which He was dead (Matt. 12:40; 28:6; Acts 13:29). Indeed, in order to be saved according to Paul’s gospel, one must believe that Jesus Himself both died and was buried (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

    Therefore, the biblical definition of the “body” is our physical, material structure which interacts with the world around us, and which constitutes our entire personhood both before and after death. Rather than being merely a transient structure which houses our “immortal soul,” our bodies are completely necessary for our existence, and when our bodies die apart from the spirit (Jas. 2:26), so do we. But if our entire personhood comprises our bodies, what are the spirit and soul? We now turn to the biblical definition of the spirit to determine exactly what this enigmatic entity is.

    The Spirit

The word “spirit” (ruach in Hebrew and pneuma in Greek) literally means “wind” or “breath.” The spirit is the animating force which gives life to a body (Ps. 104:30; Ecc. 11:5; Lk. 8:55; Jas. 2:26), and which departs at death and returns to God (Job 34:14-15; Ps. 78:39; 104:29; 146:4; Ecc. 8:8; 12:7). The “spirit” or “spirit of life” is interchangeable with “breath” or “breath of life” (Gen. 6:17 cf. 7:22; Job 4:9; 32:8; 33:4; Isa. 42:5; 57:16). By extension, one’s spirit is actually considered to be the same as the breath within one’s nostrils (Gen. 2:7; 7:22; Job 27:3-4).

    Using this particular definition of “spirit,” the spirit is not in itself a living being, but (along with a body) is a necessary component of a conscious being. This animating force comes from God (Gen. 2:7, Ps. 104:29-30, Ecc. 12:7, Zech. 12:1) and is even called the “spirit of God” (Job 27:4, 33:4, 34:14); every organism’s spirit, whether human or animal, is merely a small part of this single spirit (Ecc. 3:19-21 cf. Acts 17:25, 28). Thus, contrary to some Christians’ beliefs, it is not true that our spirit which returns to God is conscious in “heaven.”

    However, there is another biblical definition of “spirit” which is related to our consciousness. When scripture speaks of the “spirit” in this way, it is referring to one’s mental disposition. Here are a list of verses which use the word “spirit” (ruach or pneuma) in this way: Gen. 41:8; Ex. 28:3; 35:21; Num 5:14, 30; Deut. 2:30; 34:9; Josh. 2:11; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Ezra 1:1, 5; Job 7:11; Psalm 51:17; Prov. 15:13; 16:2; 18-19; 29:11; Eccl. 7:8-9; Isa 11:2; 19:14; 26:9; 54:6; 57:15; 61:3; 66:2; Ezek. 11:19; 18:31; 36:26; Dan. 2:3; 7:15; Hos. 5:4; Hag. 1:14; Mal. 2:16; Matt. 5:3; 26:41; Mark 2:8; Luke 1:47; John 11:33; 13:21; Acts 17:16; Rom 11:8; 1 Cor. 4:21; 5:5; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 6:1; Eph. 4:23; Phil. 1:27; 4:23; Col. 2:5; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Pet 3:4. [2]

    Now that we have seen what the biblical definitions of “spirit” are - both the animating force common to all living beings which comes from God, and one’s mental disposition - let’s examine what the “soul” is according to the Bible.

    The Soul

The word “soul” (nephesh in Hebrew and ψυχη/psuche in Greek) has a wide and nuanced range of meaning in the Bible. I already dealt with the many different meanings of this word in another post, so I’ll reproduce much of what I wrote here. “Soul” can simply mean any living being, whether animal or human (Gen. 1:20-24; 46:26; Lev. 11:46; Josh. 10:37; 1 Kings 19:4; Prov. 12:40; Acts 2:41; Rom. 13:1; 1 Pet. 3:20; Rev. 8:9; 16:3; 18:13; etc.). It can mean someone’s life; for example, when someone is killed, it is often said that their soul has been taken (Gen. 19:20; Exod. 4:19; Deut. 19:21; Judg. 18:25; 2 Sam. 4:8; 1 Kings 19:10; Prov. 7:23; Matt. 2:20; 20:28; Mk. 10:45; Jn. 10:11; 15:13; Acts 15:26; Jas. 5:20; 1 Jn. 3:16; etc.) However, “life” is not the inherent meaning of either nephesh or psuche, otherwise the phrase nephesh chayyah would mean “a living life” (clearly redundant), and Job 10:1 would say “my life loathes my life” (another meaningless statement).

    Another clue to the true meaning of “soul” is the fact that it is often used to describe one’s desires and wishes. For example, Abraham says, “If it is your soul that I bury my dead from before me, hear me and meet for me with Ephron son of Zoar” (Gen. 23:8). Further examples of this meaning of “soul” as the seat of emotions and desires can be found in Exod. 15:9; 23:9; Lev. 26:16; Deut. 12:15; 20; Judg. 10:16; 1 Sam. 23:20; Job 23:13; Prov. 31:6; Lk. 2:35; Jn. 10:24; 12:24; Php. 1:27; Acts 15:24; 2 Pet. 2:8; etc.

    Finally, the last meaning of the word “soul” (and more rarely used, although it still appears throughout scripture) is referring to desirable or pleasurable experiences, for example, in Matt. 6:25 where “soul” is glossed by “what you may eat and what you may drink”. Further examples from the New Testament are Matt. 10:28 (where it is used to describe the blissful experience of the Messianic kingdom); 11:29; 16:25; Lk. 12:19; Acts 20:24; Php. 2:30; Heb. 12:3; 3 Jn. 2; and Rev. 12:11. Interestingly, the adjective form of “soul” in Greek (psuchikos) describes those who are swayed by physical sensation (Jas. 3:19; Jude 19).

    Although this list of definitions is hardly comprehensive (indeed, there are nearly a thousand instances of “soul” in the combined Old and New Testaments), these four definitions cover virtually every instance of nephesh or psuche in scripture. From these examples, it can be seen that the word “soul” (nephesh and psuche) is simply used in scripture as a figure of speech for the idea of “consciousness” (both sensation and sentience), especially when connected to life itself. In one sense, you are a body, but in another sense, you are a soul — everything that makes you you is contained in your consciousness, your “soul.”

    Your soul, or consciousness, is essentially an emergent property which results from the combination of a body and a spirit (Gen. 2:7). But this raises the important question, what happens to the soul when the body and spirit separate at death (Ecc. 12:7; Jas. 2:26)? We know that the soul somehow “departs” at death (Gen. 35:18), but does this entail one’s consciousness becoming disembodied and going to a spiritual realm of “heaven,” as most Christians believe?

    Unfortunately, the idea of an “immortal soul” is based in Platonic philosophy and cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. On the contrary, according to scripture, it is possible to kill one’s soul (Num. 31:19; 35:11, 15, 30; Josh. 20:3, 9; Matt. 10:28; Mk. 3:4), a soul can be dead (Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6; 19:11, 13; Josh. 2:13; Jas. 5:20; Rev. 16:3), and “the soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:4, 20). The only one who is inherently immortal is God (1 Tim. 6:16), and immortality is only bestowed upon humans at the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:51-54; 2 Cor. 5:4). The fact is, at death, the soul simply ceases to exist, only to be restored at the resurrection when the animating force of the spirit is recombined with our newly immortal bodies (Ezek 37:8-10; Rom. 8:11).

    But if the soul, or consciousness, simply ceases to exist at death, how can it be said that our souls are said to exist in Sheol or Hades after we die (Ps. 16:10; 30:3; 49:15; 86:13; 88:3; 89:48; Prov. 23:14; Acts 2:27, 31)? As a matter of fact, the word sheol in Hebrew simply means “unseen” (derived from sha’al, “to ask”), as does the word hades in Greek. So when one’s soul ceases to exist at death, it becomes “unseen,” thus figuratively going to “the Unseen.” This can be seen most clearly in Psalm 9:17, where it is said that

The wicked will return [rashaim] to Sheol, all the nations that forget God.

Just as the body returns to the ground and the spirit returns to God at death (Ecc. 12:7), death is also a return for the soul. But the soul, unlike the body and spirit, did not come from anywhere; rather, it was created from the combination of the body and spirit (Gen. 2:7). So when the souls of the wicked (and the righteous as well; Ecc. 3:20) “return” to the Unseen, they are simply returning to the state of nonexistence from which they originally came.

    The fact that “going to the Unseen” is simply a figurative way of describing something that ceases to exist is confirmed by Matt. 11:21-23 and Lk. 10:13-15. Here, Jesus declares that the cities of Capernaum, Chorazin, and Bethsaida will be brought down to the Unseen because the people within did not believe the miracles that He had done. These cities did not descend to the underworld, whatever that would mean, but they were completely abandoned and largely ruined; that is, they ceased to exist as cities. Thus, the fact that souls are said to go down to the Unseen in the Old and New Testaments simply means that they cease to exist at death.

    Conclusion

In this post, we took a look at the biblical definitions of the body, the spirit, and the soul. According to scripture, the body is our physical, material structure, and our entire personhood is contained within our bodies both before and after death. The spirit is that which animates the body and gives it life, which is itself given by God and returns again to Him at death. The soul is an emergent property, consciousness, which appears when the body and spirit are combined, and ceases to exist at death.

    According to the Bible, death is a separation (of body and spirit) and a return, in which the body returns to the dust of the ground, the spirit returns to God who gave it, and the soul returns to nonexistence. This is extremely different from what most Christians believe, which is that death is merely a transition in which the “immortal soul” either goes to heaven or hell. The lie that death does not really exist has existed since the beginning, when the serpent told Eve, “you shall not surely die” (Gen. 3:4). But in reality, death is the greatest enemy (1 Cor. 15:26), not merely a transition to a better place. Fortunately, we have the hope of the resurrection, in which this mortal will finally be swallowed up in life and immortality! (1 Cor. 15:51-54; 2 Cor. 5:4)

______________________________

[1] To be “gathered to one’s people” or “go to one’s fathers” simply means to be buried with one’s ancestors (see Gen. 15:15 and 49:29).

[2] This list of verses is from Aaron Welch’s article, “The spirit that returns to God.”

Universalism: the only possible theodicy

    The greatest problem for theism (belief in God), as traditionally conceived, is thought to be the problem of evil or suffering. According to this argument, it is impossible for God, who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent [1], to create a world which contains evil, and because our world contains evil, it cannot have been created by God. This argument is traditionally formulated as follows:

Premise 1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Premise 2. A being who is omnibenevolent would desire to create a world with no evil.

Premise 3. A being who is omniscient would know how to create a world with no evil.

Premise 4. A being who is omnipotent would be able to create a world with no evil.

Premise 5. God will always create a world with no evil [P1-P4].

Premise 6. Our world contains evil.

Conclusion. Our world was not created by God [P5-P6].

Solutions to the problem of evil - called “theodicies” - fall into two main categories. The first is called “Irenaean theodicy,” argues that the development of conscience requires the existence of evil, and that the good which results from this development is greater than the evil which causes it. This has since been developed further into what is now called “soul-making theodicy,” which argues that the formation and development of souls requires the existence of evil.

    The second category is called “Augustinian theodicy,” which argues that the existence of free will requires the potential of evil, and that the existence of free will is a greater good than the evil which can potentially be caused by it. The modern form of this theodicy is Platinga’s free-will defense, which is probably the theodicy most commonly appealed to by theologians.

    All of these theodicies essentially boil down to one basic premise: the idea that a world with evil ultimately results in a greater net good than a world without evil, because the resulting good is greater than the temporary evil, and therefore it is not inconsistent with an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God (if “omnibenevolence” is defined as “desiring the greatest possible good”). In this post, I will demonstrate that the only way for this to work is if all people will be saved and experience bliss in the afterlife. If our world was indeed created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, universalism cannot but be true.

    Abbreviations used

This post is going to get somewhat philosophical, so please try to bear with me. I’ll be using several abbreviations here as shorthand, so that the premises of my argument don’t become too long or confusing:

W_ECT: the set of all possible worlds in which eternal conscious torment is true; that is, in which (1) all of those who die in unbelief experience conscious suffering without end in the afterlife, and (2) at least one person dies in unbelief.

W_Ani: the set of all possible worlds in which annihilationism is true; that is, in which (1) all of those who die in unbelief are annihilated with no further conscious experience, and (2) at least one person dies in unbelief.

W_NA: the set of all possible worlds in which there is no afterlife; that is, in which all people are annihilated with no further conscious experience at death.

W_Uni: the set of all possible worlds in which universalism is true; that is, in which either (1) all people experience bliss without end in the afterlife regardless of whether they died in unbelief, or (2) no person dies in unbelief.

Furthermore (although this probably goes without saying), I will also be using “God” as shorthand for a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Although there are many conceptions of God around the world which lack one or more of these factors, all three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) believe in this view of God, and this is how the problem of evil is traditionally formulated. Now, let’s get into the actual argument.

    What kind of world would God create?

The argument for atheism from the problem of evil usually begins like this (as also described above):

P1 [2]. A being who is omnibenevolent would desire to create a world with no evil.

P2. A being who is omniscient would know how to create a world with no evil.

P3. A being who is omnipotent would be able to create a world with no evil.

C1. God will always create a world with no evil [P1-P3].

It is then argued that, because our world does indeed contain evil, it cannot have been created by God. Theodicies (solutions to the problem of evil) usually attack Premise 1, arguing that an omnibenevolent being would not necessarily desire to create a world with no evil, because a world which contains evil may ultimately result in a greater net good for every individual (either due to the “soul-making” process, or due to the existence of free will). Based on this, we can reformulate this argument like so:

P1. A being who is omnibenevolent would desire to create a world with the greatest possible net good for every individual.

P2. A being who is omniscient would know how to create a world with the greatest possible net good for every individual.

P3. A being who is omnipotent would be able to create a world with the greatest possible net good for every individual.

C1. God will always create a world with the greatest possible net good for every individual [P1-P3].

But what, exactly, would be “the greatest possible net good for every individual”? Because it is possible for God to create no world, in which case there would be net zero good for every individual (since they would not exist), the worst-case scenario is that the good and evil experienced by an individual perfectly balances out such that the net good experienced is zero. If, in a world, any single individual experiences more evil than good (net negative good), then God would simply not create that world, since a better world is possible for that individual (namely, no world) and God, being omnibenevolent, must always desire the greatest possible net good for every individual.

    This can be summed up in the following logical argument:

P1. It is possible for God to create no world.

P2. If no world is created, the net good experienced by every individual is zero (because they would not exist).

P3. God will always create a world with the greatest possible net good for every individual [C1].

C2. In any world created by God, every individual will experience a net good of zero or greater.

Thus, from these arguments, we can see that - because of His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence - it is not possible for God to create any world in which even one individual experiences more evil/suffering than good. If any individual in this world ultimately experiences more evil than good over the period of their existence, then this world cannot have been created by God, simply because it would not be among the set of worlds possible to be created by God.

    Comparing infernalism, annihilationism, and universalism

Now that we have determined what a world created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God would look like, we can compare the set of worlds possible to be created by God with the three different theological positions (infernalism, annihilation, and universalism).

    First of all, in the set of all possible worlds in which eternal conscious torment holds true (W_ECT), at least one person experiences suffering without end in the afterlife. The evil/suffering experienced by this individual (and any others who die in unbelief) would be infinite, and any good that this individual experienced during their lifetime would be negligible in comparison. Essentially, this person would experience a net good of negative infinity over the period of their existence.

P1. In W_ECT, at least one person’s experience of evil/suffering is infinite.

P2. In W_ECT, at least one person experiences net negative good (in fact, infinitely negative).

However, this conflicts with [C2]:

P3. In any world created by God, every individual will experience a net good of zero or greater [C2].

Because in all worlds within the set W_ECT, at least one individual experiences net negative good, it is impossible for God to create such a world. Creating no world at all would be more favorable to an omnibenevolent God, because in that case such an individual would experience net zero good. Thus, it is impossible for God to create a world in which eternal conscious torment occurs to one or more individuals. Or in other words:

C3. W_ECT is not within the set of worlds possible to be created by God.

The second position to be considered is annihilationism, the view that all of those who die in unbelief are annihilated with no further conscious existence. In the set of all possible worlds in which annihilationism holds true (W_Ani), at least one person is annihilated after dying, with no afterlife. Thus, in any world in which annihilationism holds true, the net good which at least one individual experiences is the same as the net good experienced during their lifetime, because they have no conscious experience afterward. This is the first premise of our next argument.

P1. In W_Ani, the net good which at least one individual experiences within this life is the extent of the net good which they experience fully (because they are annihilated afterward).

In such a world, it is only possible for every individual to experience net positive good over the period of their existence if all of those who are annihilated experience more good than evil during their lifetime.

P2. In W_Ani, every individual only experiences net positive good if all of those who are annihilated experience net positive good during their life.

Let us call the subset of worlds within W_Ani in which this occurs WAni-NPG, meaning “Annihilationism-Net Positive Good”). But because of [C2],

P3. In any world created by God, every individual will experience a net good of zero or greater [C2].

no worlds within the set W_Ani are possible to be created by God unless they are also within the subset WAni-NPG.

C4. Only the subset of worlds within W_Ani in which all of those who are annihilated experience net positive good within this life (WAni-NPG) is within the set of worlds possible to be created by God.

Although a world within WAni-NPG is theoretically possible, our world is clearly not within this set. In this subset of worlds, every person who dies in unbelief must also experience net positive good over their lifetime. However, this is clearly incompatible with our own observations of this world. For example, consider the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust; few would doubt that the suffering which at least some of them experienced outweighed the good which they experienced throughout their life, and yet they died as non-Christians, and so would be annihilated if Christian annihilationism is true. This is a fairly extreme example, but there are certainly many other people who experienced more suffering than good throughout their lives and still died in unbelief. Thus, our world is not within the subset WAni-NPG. 

    Now, just for the sake of argument, let’s consider the set of all possible worlds in which there is no afterlife (W_NA), i.e., in which the conscious experience of all individuals ends at death. This set of worlds can be described much the same as WAni, except for the fact that in W_NA, all individuals are annihilated, rather than just some.

P1. In W_NA, the net good which every individual experiences within this life is the extent of the net good which they experience fully (because they are annihilated afterward).

P2. In W_NA, every individual only experiences net positive good if they also experience net positive good during their life.

Let us call the subset of worlds within W_NA in which this occurs WNA-NPG, meaning “No Afterlife-Net Positive Good”).

P3. In any world created by God, every individual will experience a net good of zero or greater [C2].

C5. Only the subset of worlds within W_NA in which every individual experiences net positive good within this life (WNA-NPG) is within the set of worlds possible to be created by God.

This suffers from the same problem as WAni-NPG; although such a world in which every individual experiences net positive good in this lifetime is technically possible, this does not occur in our world. No one would doubt that, sadly, there are at least some people in this world who experience greater evil/suffering than good throughout their life. Thus, although WNA-NPG is within the set of worlds possible to be created by God, our world is not within this set.

    Finally, we can consider the set of all possible worlds in which universalism holds true (W_Uni). In W_Uni, every person experiences bliss in the afterlife without end. The infinite good which they ultimately experience outweighs any possible evil/suffering that they experienced during their lifetime, and so in any world in which universalism holds true, every individual will experience net positive good over the course of their existence. Thus, based on [C2], we can conclude that W_Uni is within the set of worlds possible to be created by God. This is summed up in the following logical argument:

P1. In W_Uni, every individual experiences net positive good.

P2. In any world created by God, every individual will experience a net good of zero or greater [C2].

C6. W_Uni is within the set of worlds possible to be created by God.

In summary, out of all of the theological options which we have considered (infernalism, annihilationism, universalism, and no afterlife), only three scenarios could have been created by a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. These are WAni-NPG, WNA-NPG, and W_Uni. And since observation indicates that our world is not WAni-NPG or WNA-NPG - sadly, many of those who die (whether in unbelief or not) experience more suffering than good throughout their life - the only possible option is that our world is within the set W_Uni (that is, universalism holds true in our world).

P1. The only sets of worlds possible to be created by God, among the options considered, are WAni-NPG, WNA-NPG, and W_Uni [C3, C4, C5, C6].

P2. Our world is not within the subset WAni-NPG, nor WNA-NPG, based on simple observation.

C7. Our world is either within the set of worlds W_Uni, or is not created by God.

Or, in other words, the only way to solve the problem of evil in our world is if universalism is true. Our world can only have been created by a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent if every individual will be saved and experience bliss in the afterlife. Otherwise, at least one individual would be ultimately experience more suffering than good over the course of their existence, and creating no world at all would be more desirable to an omnibenevolent God than such a world.

    Possible objections

As far as I can tell, there are only two possible philosophical objections to this argument:

First Objection. Perhaps the nature of God’s omnibenevolence is such that He does not desire the greatest good for every single individual, but the greatest net good overall.

This is possible, but would entail reframing the debate around the problem of evil, which has traditionally been about individual suffering. Furthermore, although such a definition of God’s omnibenevolence is possible in theory, it does not match up with God’s nature according to the Bible. Scripture tells us that God wills the best outcome (salvation) for every individual (1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9), and that He loves every individual, even His own enemies (Matt. 5:43-48). Love works toward the greatest possible good of the individual, even if it includes temporary suffering (Lam. 3:31-33, Rom. 13:10, Heb. 12:5-11). Therefore, if we accept the Bible as a valid source of theological truth, we must conclude that God’s omnibenevolence extends to every individual person, rather than being some sort of cosmic karmic force, and so the above argument still holds true.

    Moreover, even if it is true that God’s omnibenevolence only desires the greatest good overall, rather than the greatest good for every individual, this is still incompatible with the traditional Christian doctrine of eternal conscious torment. Based on statements like that of Matt. 7:13-14, Christians have traditionally believed that the majority of people will undergo “eternal conscious torment.” But if more than fifty percent of individuals undergo suffering without end, then the net good experienced throughout the universe as a whole must be negative - the good can never overtake the evil. An omnibenevolent God, even according to the modified definition of omnibenevolence, would never create such a world, because creating no world at all (in which the net good is zero) would be more desirable than such a world.

Second Objection. Perhaps the suffering experienced under eternal conscious torment is neutral or even desirable to an omnibenevolent God, because such suffering is primarily justice-oriented. In this case, it would still be possible for God to create a world in which eternal conscious torment holds true.

Again, this would require a fundamental re-framing of the problem of evil and of the definition of omnibenevolence. The “all-goodness” of a deity who desires the eternal, conscious suffering of any individual must be called into question. And furthermore, just as with the other objection, this ignores what the Bible itself says about God’s omnibenevolence; according to scripture, God “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezek. 33:11 cf. 18:23). The suffering of “the wicked”, then, is not of the sort which would be neutral or desirable to an omnibenevolent God.

    But that’s a heresy/the Bible doesn’t teach it/universalism would make people want to sin!

While I don’t believe that any of these typical reactions to universalism are actually valid arguments anyway [3], the beauty of this argument is that it renders these other debates pointless. As far as I can see, it is only possible to solve the problem of evil if universalism is true. In order to deny universalism, one must also deny at least one of the three characteristic traits of God - omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence - or deny that God created this world altogether. Thus, if the Bible teaches against the salvation of all, as most Christians believe it does, then it does not present a self-consistent set of claims and should be rejected as a source of truth. There is no possible middle ground on this issue that I can see.

______________________________

[1] These terms are usually defined like so:

Omnipotence: being able to do everything which is logically possible

Omniscience: knowing every possible truth and falsehood

Omnibenevolence: desiring the greatest possible good in every circumstance

[2] For those who are unfamiliar with this philosophical shorthand, “P1” simply means “Premise 1,” and “C1” means “Conclusion 1.”

[3] See my other articles on this blog, many of which argue that the Bible actually does teach universalism.