Daniel’s Great Prayer (Daniel 9)

This sermon was preached on 26/2/2012

Two features stand out so far in our studies in the Book of Daniel. The first is the faithfulness of God’s loyal servants such as Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, each of whom was prepared to die for his convictions concerning God’s demands. The second is the total sovereignty of God whether in his gracious workings in the life of Nebuchadnezzar or in his detailed knowledge of the fate of future empires and their rulers. In a sense, we see a combination of both features in Daniel 9: Daniel shows his faithfulness by praying to God about the release of his people from captivity (vv. 1-19) and the Lord shows his sovereignty by detailing what would happen to them in the future (vv. 20-27).

This prayer is notable because of its contents, because of its answer, and because of who offered it. We will think of the contents shortly; with regard to its answer we can see from verses 20ff., that it was connected to the work of the Saviour; and with regard to the one who made the prayer, he was a prophet of God, a patriot concerned about his people, a politician in the sense that he was involved in the government of the greatest empire in the world, and a man of profound spiritual experiences during his long life of over eighty years. We know that the prayers of certain individuals are very powerful and influential. Men such as George Muller and C. H. Spurgeon can tell us a lot about prayer battles. So too can Daniel.

1. A personal prayer by Daniel

There are many prayers recorded in detail in the Bible. We can think of many of the psalms, for example. Then there are the prayers of Nehemiah and Habakkuk. In the New Testament, there are several prayers by Paul. One reason for their inclusion is to teach us how to pray and another reason is that they provide details about various matters connected to prayer, such as the reasons for different forms of answer that we can receive. We can see several aspects in Daniel’s prayer.

The first detail to note is that this of prayer of Daniel is connected to a seismic change allowed in God’s providence (v. 1). Darius had conquered Babylon and brought to an end its rule. Inevitably that change would have repercussions for Daniel and his people, so it is not surprising that he would pray. Of course, Daniel had known that Babylon would fall because God had revealed it to him. What he did not know was when Babylon would fall; indeed Daniel was only informed of the date a matter of hours before it took place. The fulfilment of that information led him to pray about a specific matter that he had known about from another source, which was that God had indicated through his servant Jeremiah how long the exile would last.

Daniel had known from prophecies by Jeremiah that the desolations of Jerusalem would last for seventy years. Jerusalem had been captured in 605 BC and it was now 538 BC when Daniel prayed, so 67 years had passed. So almost seventy years had passed since the city had been captured by the Babylonians and it would not take too much contemplation by Daniel to work out that somehow or other Darius would probably be in charge when the captivity would come to an end in an official, recognisable way. So Daniel was guided in his prayer request by a specific promise of the Word of God (v. 2).

Yet we can see that Daniel did not decide to sit back and wait for the Lord to restore the city. Instead he turned to intercessory prayer that included a variety of petitions. The one thing that does not mark his prayer is assumption, even although he seems to have biblical promises for his duty. Instead he prayed earnestly that the Lord would fulfil his promise of restoration. His response of prayer is similar to how the apostles and others waiting for the coming of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1). Although Jesus had promised to send the Spirit, the apostles prayed about his arrival. Prayer is both a response to God’s prediction and a preparation for its fulfilment.

The third feature of Daniel’s prayer to note is that he created circumstances in which it would be easier to pray. He did this by fasting and wearing sackcloth and ashes. Normally Daniel, as a prominent figure in the establishment, would have plenty food and comfortable attire. Yet he knew that he could not pray in a serious manner if he continued living his normal life. There would be too many distractions, which is why he arranged his life so that it would be more likely that he would engage in prayer.

Fourthly, Daniel’s prayer had a prominent element and that was its focus on divine mercy. He himself indicates this was the case in the way he summarises his prayer in verse 3 when he says that he sought God ‘by prayer and pleas for mercy’. We will see what is included in the concept of mercy as we analyse his prayer, but I think it is worth noting that his prayer had a predominant element. Perhaps this focus on mercy says something about Daniel’s general spiritual outlook in that it was the attribute of God that he often thought about.

Fifth, we should note how Daniel described the process of prayer. To begin with, he turned his face towards the Lord and then he sought the Lord. Turning his face may be the posture that he adopted, that he turned and faced Jerusalem as described earlier in Daniel 6. Yet his posture indicated the direction of his heart as well as of the direction of his eyes. He looked by faith towards God.

At the same time he notes that he had to seek for God. At the very least, this indicates that he had to find God in some sense. Obviously he was not referring to the possibility of God’s absence because he would have known that the Lord was omnipresent. Every time that Daniel prayed, the Lord was aware of it. Nor was Daniel’s prayer merely a mentioning to God of his promises. Instead it means that Daniel had to pursue God with spiritual energy.

Sixth, we should observe the way in which Daniel in his prayer uses the attributes of God. He mentions one or two and then contrasts them with aspects of the lives of the Israelites. For example, he mentions God’s faithfulness in verse 4 and then mentions Israel’s unfaithfulness; he mentions God’s righteousness in verse 5 which led to Israel’s captivity, and says that their behaviour was shameful and treacherous; he mentions God’s mercy and forgiveness in verse 9 and then highlights the astonishing fact that the Israelites had not asked the Lord for mercy and forgiveness. These examples show us how Daniel’s prayer is based on the character of God, and his petitions flow out from what God is like and not initially from the needs of Israel.

Seventh, we should note how comprehensive Daniel’s prayer is, both in regard to God’s dealing with his people and in regard to how his people responded. Concerning God, Daniel refers to the covenant relationship he instituted with his people at Sinai, how he had sent prophets to warn them of their sins, and how he had kept his promise to chastise them severely. His prayer takes in the big picture of God’s dealings with his people. Then, with regard to them, he mentions how all of them, from the kings downwards, had rebelled against God.

Eighth, we can see how Daniel identified himself with his people. In a personal sense, Daniel was not guilty of departing from God; nevertheless he was obviously aware that he has suffered in the corporate sufferings of Israel that God had allowed to happen as punishment for their sins. Daniel did not conclude that he was not part of the punished people. So he united himself with a backsliding, God-rejecting nation and asked the Lord for mercy.

Ninth, Daniel in his prayer made use of sacred history. It is clear from his petitions that he had grasped the history of God’s dealings with his people. So he could refer to the Exodus and to the giving of the law as well as to the backslidings and unfaithfulness of Israel over the centuries. This knowledge of God’s dealings with his people is one of the arguments Daniel uses in his prayer. He did not regard history as irrelevant; instead he used it in order to argue his case with God.

Tenth, it is obvious from Daniel’s prayer that his affections were fully involved. We can see how his mind was searching for arguments (the various details we have already mentioned), but he did not merely present a rational case to God. True, his arguments were not irrational, but neither were they impassive and unfeeling. His knowledge had not made him spiritually dry. His prayers were full of emotion as he pleaded with the Lord. Without affection, there will not be any pleading.

2. A Pattern Prayer

If all we do with Daniel’s prayer is to admire it, we will not use it beneficially as far as we ourselves are concerned. Or if we look at it and deduce that we can never pray like him, then we will fail to profit from his prayer. It is imperative that we learn to pray better from his example of prayer. After all, our prayer life will always need improving and the best way to do so is to examine the prayers recorded in the Bible. There are many lessons that we can deduce from Daniel’s prayer in order to become better prayer warriors. We have mentioned several already, but I would like to stress five of them again.

The first lesson is the importance of knowing the Bible. We saw earlier that one basic aspect of Daniel’s prayer was that he understood from the Book of Jeremiah that God was about to fulfil the promise of deliverance of his people from captivity. That knowledge compelled him to pray. The challenge comes to us regarding our knowledge of the Bible. There are many ways of approaching the Bible in a spiritual way. For example, we can read it in order to discover things about Jesus. Or we can read it to find out what God’s commandments are. A third way of reading it is to find encouragements and arguments to use when we pray to God.

A second lesson is that our prayers should be connected to our current providences. These providences may be new, but they can also be old. Daniel’s situation was both old and new. It was old in the sense that his people were in captivity; it was new in the sense that they had a new emperor. Whatever else could be said about the change in emperors, it was safe to deduce that God was at work because it is he who changes rulers and their thrones. The fact that God was at work in providence encouraged Daniel to pray. We see developments in our providences all the time: new people come our way, new opportunities and activities arise, perhaps unexpected or disappointing situations appear. Whatever they are, they are a reminder that God is at work, and we should therefore pray.

A third lesson concerns how we focus on God. We noticed that Daniel stressed God’s mercy. His mercy includes all his other attributes, but all his other attributes don’t always include mercy when they are involved. For example, mercy includes his power, but his power can be exercised without mercy. There is a sense in which God can even love someone and not show him mercy. The obvious example in this regard is the rich young ruler. It may be an interesting assessment to make, but we should watch out for petitions that are connected to God’s mercy because I suspect they are more likely to be answered.

Then a fourth lesson must be the removal of possible external distractions. We saw how Daniel arranged his daily activities so that he would have uninterrupted prayer. Most external barriers to prolonged prayer are easy to deal with. What are the barriers? The telephone is one, but we can switch it off if it is a mobile or disconnect it if it is a landline. The visit that we promised to make – if it is Monday afternoon, decide to spend Tuesday in a prolonged time of prayer, and then on Monday afternoon phone the person and arrange to see them on Wednesday. The knock on the door as we begin to pray – ignore it; if it is important the person will come back or else contact you in another way. At that time Daniel made a specific period of prayer his priority; and we too cannot pray in this manner unless we give it complete priority as well.

A fifth lesson is how to pray. We noted that Daniel turned his face towards God and sought for him. The turning of his face suggested Daniel’s expectancy that God would listen and answer the request. We know that prayer requests must be offered in faith. They cannot be turned into a mere list of items or even into possibilities. After all, if God, through precise details in his Word, has promised to give the things for which we ask, why should we doubt that he will give them?

We also noticed that Daniel prayed affectionately and intelligently. His affections were seen in his willingness to identify himself with sinful Israel. When we pray for the church or the nation, do we say ‘we’ or ‘they’? If we use ‘we’, it indicates that we feel the situation very strongly, probably a lot stronger than if we used ‘they’. And when he prayed intelligently he brought to God’s attention his great actions in the past when he had shown his mighty power in deliverance of his people. We can do the same, and in doing so we have so much more to say than Daniel. For example, we can refer to what his recorded in the New Testament and we can also speak to God about the great things he has already done in the history of the church.

Yet although Daniel had such a specific promise and was confident that the Lord would hear him, he still had to seek the Lord about the matter. Whatever else is conveyed by the image of seeking, it is clear that a form of searching was an aspect of Daniel’s prayer. What was he searching for?

One way to answer this question is to consider the outcome of Daniel’s prayer because it is reasonable to assume that God’s response is connected to Daniel’s intercession. So can we identify some possible burdens that Daniel would have which would make him eager to seek the Lord? I would suggest three.

First, we can see from verse 23ff that Daniel received further information about how the God of mercy would restore his kingdom. We should want to know more about God’s ways and that desire should be part of our prayers. We’re not dependant on visions because we have the complete Bible in which the Lord has revealed his will. But we should want to know what God will do, therefore we should pray for divine enlightenment.

Second, the Lord gave him several details that would be passed on to others, in a way similar to how Jeremiah’s message had been passed on to Daniel and others in Babylon. Daniel was now an old man of about eighty-five and he knew that his years were coming towards their end. He would not have anticipated returning personally to Jerusalem, but I’m sure he would want to help those who would. He had been told, through Jeremiah, what would happen in seventy years; now he told those who came after him what would happen in 490 years (the seventy sevens). In prayer, we are earnest for spiritual blessing to come to others.

Third, Daniel was given details about the work of the Messiah. Daniel was given spiritual entrance into God’s priorities. Perhaps for Daniel, his concern was getting back to Jerusalem. For the Lord, his main concern was not about what would happen in Jerusalem after the return from the exile but what would happen there when the Messiah would come to it. So when Daniel sought the Lord, he discovered that the Lord wanted to reveal to him details about the Saviour. And surely that is an important aspect of prayer. Intercession merges with communion and our seeking is satisfied.

Ananias Ministers to Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:10-19)

This sermon was preached on 12/2/2012

Saul of Tarsus, the great opponent of the Christian church, had encountered Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus and discovered that he was the divine Son of God and that his followers were disciples of the Messiah, united to him in a real union. Until now, however, the meeting had been kept secret from the disciples in Damascus. Perhaps they were wondering where Saul of Tarsus was because news of his intended visit there had reached their ears (v. 14), but there was no sign of him. Whatever their thoughts, they did not have a true picture of what was going on. They were still apprehensive, not realising that their Lord in heaven had reached down and removed the source of trouble in a gracious manner.

Right away we can see a powerful challenge to our own way of regular thinking. We judge current situations by the limited information we have of them, just as these disciples in Damascus did. Yet their limited information was actually dated information because events had moved on without their realisation of the change. The lesson for us is not merely to ask, ‘What could Jesus do in this situation?’ In addition, we must remind ourselves that the Saviour will have already done something about it.

Paul reminded the Ephesians that Jesus is the head over all things [which must include current circumstances] for the benefit of his body the church (Eph. 1:22). Our perspective of life has to be biblical, and one feature of a true outlook is an awareness that God is always active, working all things (including all ‘my’ circumstances) for our good (Rom. 8:28). No situation that believers face remains static because Jesus has been and will be involved in working in their situations for his glory, their good and the benefit of others.

1. The Lord of surprising requirements

Ananias seems to have been a leader among the disciples in Damascus. No information is given as to when he became a disciple. Perhaps he had heard Jesus during his years on earth (after all, Damascus was relatively close to Galilee, and Ananias could have been one of the disciples who had followed Jesus from there) or maybe he had been a visitor in Jerusalem at the Day of Pentecost and was converted during Peter’s sermon. Wherever he was converted, he was not one of the disciples who had been forced to leave Jerusalem by the persecution led by Saul. Instead he had been a resident in Damascus for a sufficiently long period to gain the respect of the Jewish community there. It is possible that he received this vision during a regular time of prayer or perhaps he was given it when he was in bed (he is told to rise in verse 11). In any case, he did not that day anticipate the task that he was about to be given, which was to bring assurance of salvation to one who shortly before had been a fierce enemy.

Ananias is an example of the vast number of unknown disciples who have performed crucial activities in the life of the church. As with many others who have engaged in such activities, Ananias may have assumed that this God-given task was perilous, but he soon discovered that his role was actually a privilege. He was instrumental in bringing Saul of Tarsus into the fellowship of the visible church in Damascus.

It is important to note that God always prepares the field in which his servants have to labour. The field on this occasion for Ananias was Saul of Tarsus and the Lord told him that Saul had also received supernatural information in a vision. Saul, in fact, was waiting for a man called Ananias to arrive. The field had been prepared, Ananias only had to walk in and fulfil his role.

This is a reminder that the Lord Jesus always has his man or men in place ready to work for him. Who in the church would have planned a strategy for dealing with the conversion of the persecutor, Saul? Whom would the apostles have designated for helping him? Perhaps they had their ideas, but it is unlikely that they had even thought of his possible conversion. The ones in Jerusalem did not know how to react to Saul. But Jesus already had his person ready for the role, living in Damascus until Saul came there.

There is another detail worth noting. Saul had been told this information before the Lord had spoken to Ananias. We can interpret the order of events as merely indicating that Jesus knows the future, so he knew that Ananias would go to Saul. I don’t think that is a biblical way of depicting divine foreknowledge. God does not know the future merely by looking ahead and noting what will occur; instead he knows what is going to happen because he has planned each detail in every situation. As our catechism tells us, he has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. So Jesus in heaven was working out all the details of God’s eternal plan concerning the conversion of Saul, which included the role that Ananias would perform.

Since God had planned this role for Ananias, it means that God had also prepared him for it. Obviously it was a surprise for Ananias when he received this divine instruction, but it was not a sudden impulse request by God. Instead he had been working in Ananias’ life to equip him for this role. The various experiences that he had gone through had been worked together by God in order to prepare him for this important mission. And while we regard his task as a most important one, it was not the climax of his life. Rather his participation in Saul’s life would equip Ananias for future tasks. We might remember him for this action in welcoming Saul into the church, but the believers in Damascus would have had a lot more to say about Ananias’ contribution afterwards.

This is how we are to regard ourselves at all times, but especially when a sudden burden is placed upon us. It is a wrong response to assume that we cannot do it or to suggest that someone else should do it. Such response indicates that we don’t believe God has prepared us for the role. It means that we don’t regard service as a privilege given to us by God.

2. The Disciple of Simple Responses

The visit of Jesus to Ananias is not a monologue but a dialogue. Jesus and his disciple engage in discussion. What features can be identified in the contribution of Ananias on this occasion?

First, we can see his alertness to the visit of Jesus. The response to the divine call was immediate because he realised that Jesus was speaking to him in the vision. I have no idea whether or not Jesus speaks in visions today, although contrary to many claims made today it is worth noting that nothing unusual is depicted of Jesus when he appeared to Ananias. In any case, I suspect that before Jesus would use an extraordinary means of contact he will use the ordinary ones. If we are not alert to his voice in his Word or in church services, it is doubtful if he will speak to us in more spectacular ways. What is important for us is to assess how alert we are to the voice of Jesus in the means of grace. For example, when we read the Bible today, did we react to it as the voice of Jesus addressing us? If not, we are not marked by alertness.

Second, we can see in Ananias the feature of availability. His response is straight-forward: ‘Here I am, Lord.’ Ananias is a soldier reporting for duty and a servant ready to perform his master’s bidding. He does not respond with an attitude of resentment because he has been interrupted. From a human point of view, the absence of this feature of availability is a reason why progress in the Lord’s kingdom is small. Availability reveals our priorities because we are always available for the things that are important to us.

Third, Ananias admitted absence of understanding. It is obvious that the request the Lord Jesus gave to him had the effect of puzzling him. We know that his bewilderment was based on lack of precise information regarding the great change in Saul’s heart. Still it is useful for us to note that Ananias freely expressed his confusion to Jesus. His ignorance did not cause him to become stoical, nor did it cause him to assume that he could not obtain further details. Therefore he freely expressed his concern to the Lord, and because he did so he received the encouragement that he needed. Jesus informed Ananias that Saul would play a very important role in the future development of the Saviour’s kingdom. The obvious lesson is that information and direction are given by Jesus to those who ask him for such details.

Fourth, Ananias displayed alacrity in his obedience. Once Jesus had given him encouragement by giving assurance of what would happen to him, Ananias rushed to where Saul of Tarsus was living. Clearly, by going immediately, Ananias brought help to Saul and joy to himself. And it may have been a very strong influence on Judas in whose house Paul was, because we don’t know if Judas was a believer – he may have been an innkeeper. Prompt obedience is always the best path to spiritual prosperity. Delay in obedience is equivalent to deprivation of blessings.

Fifth, Ananias was affectionate when he met Saul (remember Saul had left for Damascus to arrest Ananias and the other disciples). Ananias’ first action was to touch the blind Saul and his first words to Saul were ‘Brother Saul’. First impressions are very important. Ananias could have waited for Saul to confess his wrong attitudes. If he had done so and then touched Saul and spoken to him, it would have been a display of love – but it would not be as effective as what he actually did and said. Disciples of Jesus, by definition, are those who express affection for one another. After all, as the words of Ananias declare, disciples belong to the same family. Gracious gestures and loving words reveal the state of our hearts. Ananias’ heart was full of joy at the amazing grace of Jesus revealed in the conversion of Saul of Tarsus.

3. The Convert with Saving Evidences of Grace

Saul was a changed man and he very quickly revealed that he was. These evidences stand out clearly in the chapter. First, he was a man with a new faith, which he was willing to confess by baptism. From one perspective, if we had seen Saul’s behaviour in the house of Judas, we would not have noticed much difference in him. After all, Saul as a devout Pharisee had often engaged in external prayer and fasting, but these activities had not been acceptable to God despite the fact that Saul imagined that they were. But now there was a big change in him and Jesus draws the attention of Ananias to this great transformation: ‘Behold, he is praying.’ I wonder what Saul was praying about – restoration of his sight, guidance for the future, or assurance of the forgiveness of his sins.

The clearest evidence of a changed life is genuine prayer. A person can have convictions of sin merely from a guilty conscience; a person can have anticipations of God’s blessing from an optimistic frame of mind. Conviction and faith can have counterfeits. But it is hard to have a phony prayer life. Obviously one can have a hypocritical practice in which prayer is made for wrong motives. Yet if we are praying to God continually for mercy, for grace to be holy, for spiritual development, for increasing understanding of the Bible’s promises, for greater love to Jesus, then we have clear evidence of genuine conversion. Saul of Tarsus had this evidence, and Jesus was delighted with it.

Saul had a second evidence, which was a new fellowship: ‘For some days he was with the disciples at Damascus’ (v. 19). His heart was now knitted to those whom he had previously despised. Love filled his heart for the people of God whatever their age, class and background, and he immediately identified himself with them. This must have been a strong witness to the Jews in Damascus. As the apostle John was later to write, ‘We know that he had passed from death unto life because he now loved the brothers.’

The story of Ananias is a reminder that we can suddenly find ourselves called by God to engage in a surprising activity, one which we feel is beyond our capabilities, but one which he assures us he has prepared for achieving, and one which will bring great blessing to the church. Ananias did what he was asked to do. Will we?

Lessons from Antiochus Epiphanes (Daniel 8)

This sermon was preached on 5/2/2012

Lessons from Antiochus Epiphanes (Daniel 8)

Daniel received this vision during the third year of the reign of Belshazzar, when the Babylonian Empire was in seemingly total control. It is not clear if he was given the vision when he was away from Babylon in Susa, the capital of the province of Elam, or whether it was only in the vision that he found himself in Susa. The vision is interpreted for Daniel by an angel, Gabriel. It concerns the rise of two empires and focuses on an individual ruler that would come from the second empire. This is the first mention of this angel, although he appears again in Daniel 9 and also in Luke’s Gospel (1:19; 1:26) in connection with the birth of Jesus.

 The prediction explained

The first empire, depicted by a ram with two horns, is Media-Persia and it ruled for two centuries, from about 550 to 350 BC (the two horns represent Media and Persia). It was defeated by the second empire, depicted by a goat with one horn, which is Greece under the rule of Alexander the Great initially, and it was to last for about 200 years. According to Daniel’s vision, the Grecian Empire was to be divided into four (depicted by four horns), and this happened after Alexander’s death when the empire was divided into four areas, each ruled by one of his generals (about the year 312). From one of the four divisions, another ruler was to arise (a little horn), greatly increase in power, and eventually he would attack Israel and get rid of the worship taking place in the temple. This ruler would be worldly wise (v. 25) and cruel (v. 24). Although he would achieve great power, he would be overthrown suddenly (v. 25). He is not the same person as the little horn in Daniel 7 – the one in Daniel 7 is connected to the Roman Empire whereas the one in Daniel 8 is connected to the Grecian Empire.

 Although this prophecy was future to Daniel, it is no longer future as far as we are concerned because its details have been fulfilled. Further it was no longer future when the New Testament was written. We are aware of the rise and fall of the Persian Empire and of the rise and subsequent fourfold division of the Grecian Empire, both of which took place long before Jesus was born.

The ruler who would come out of one of those divisions is called Antiochus Epiphanes (born in 215 BC) and he reigned from 175 to 163 BC. We can read about him in more detail in two books found in the Apocrypha called 1 and 2 Maccabees. He is known as Epiphanes because there were thirteen kings called Antiochus in that division of the Grecian Empire – he was actually Antiochus IV. The name was chosen by himself because he believed that he was a visible manifestation of God.

The centre of his kingdom was in Antioch in Syria. Daniel’s vision says that he will move south and east (v. 9). History tells us that he moved south and in two campaigns conquered much of Egypt before being stopped by a Roman consul who warned him that Rome would interfere if he did not leave Egypt immediately. Antiochus did, which is a reminder why he was a little horn despite his claims to greatness (he was also little in that he only ruled for fourteen years). He also had various attempts towards the east (Armenia and Persia) as he tried to increase his kingdom.

The focus of the prophecy is not on what Antiochus did in Egypt or towards the east; instead it is concerned with what Antiochus did in the glorious land, which is another name for Israel. Israel was part of his empire, so he was concerned about some political changes that had happened there during his campaign in Egypt. Therefore he besieged the city of Jerusalem and killed many of the saints (about the year 168). In his own thinking he would also elevate himself above God (v. 25) and in 167 he set up an image of himself in the temple (by this time he imagined that he was the head of the gods, which is why he is called by the name Epiphanes). This was extreme sacrilege, a direct challenge to God.

The final feature of this prophecy about Antiochus is that his end will not be caused by another human (v. 25). Following on from his campaign against Jerusalem, Antiochus moved east in 165 to put down rebellions in Armenia and Persia. His two-year campaign did not go well and while he was brooding over his failures he received news that Jews in Jerusalem had removed his statue from the temple. This seemed to drive him insane and he took to his bed and died in the year 163.

 Seven important lessons

First, it is impossible not to be impressed by the accuracy of fulfilled prophecy. Here we have accurate accounts of what would happen to the empires of Persia and Greece as well as what would be done by a smaller empire. God revealed to Daniel what would happen. Yet we must remember that these prophecies are not merely the equivalent of a reporter with a long telescope who can look into the future. Such a report could be given by someone without any interest in what he was seeing. Instead the prophecies reveal God’s determination to be in control of the future.

It is important for us to know about fulfilled prophecy because it gives us increased confidence in God. Think about these words from Isaiah 46:8-10: ‘Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, “My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.”’ So while some of the details in Daniel’s vision may seem a bit confusing, once we realise that they have been fulfilled, we will become more confident about other prophecies yet to be fulfilled.

The prophecies here are concerned with human kingdoms. But we know that there are many more prophecies about Jesus and his kingdom. Some of these prophecies are connected to who he is (his person) and others are connected to what he did on the cross and what he has done since then. Further, there are many prophecies about future aspects of his kingdom in the new heavens and new earth. We should take seriously the message of these predictions.

There are several other applications from this brief reference to Antiochus Epiphanes (he is mentioned later in the prophecy of Daniel as well, in chapter 11, so this chapter is not all that God wants us to know about this ancient enemy of his kingdom).

Secondly, the story of Antiochus reminds us of the folly of earthly-minded rulers. He lived his life seeking to obtain what this world could provide. In this, he imitated more important leaders than himself. He did not appreciate the principle that Jesus stated when he asked what profit a man would obtain if he gained the world but lost his soul. Antiochus sought for prestige, pleasure and power; he discovered that those worldly things could not satisfy his inner longings, but sadly he lost his soul. He is a warning to greater and to lesser humans that none of us should live only for this world. We cannot have both: it is either Jesus and his kingdom or it is the world and its toys.

Thirdly, Antiochus speaks to us of another aspect of human life, which is the futility of fighting against God. We noted how he fought against God’s people, even setting himself up as the chief of the gods. He was a brazen opponent of God, much more than many others. Yet his strength was similar to an infant getting into a boxing match with a champion. With all his earthly resources, Antiochus was no match for God.

Strangely, Antiochus realised the futility of fighting against the Romans. We are familiar with the statement of drawing a line in the sand. That statement comes from the occasion when the Romans intervened in Antiochus’ attempt to conquer Alexandria. The Roman delegate demanded that Antiochus withdraw his troops. When Antiochus requested more time, the Roman representative took his sword and drew a circle in the sand around Antiochus and demanded that he reply before he stepped out of the circle. Antiochus knew his limits against greater earthly power and submitted to it and withdrew. Yet he persisted in fighting against God, a most futile activity.

Fourthly, in Antiochus we something more sinister yet, and that is his determination to be an enemy of the Jews. From a human point of view, the people of Israel were a small nation, already part of Antiochus’ empire. True, some of them were a troublesome lot, always trying to be free. Yet as a nation they were never to be fully free again. So why was there this determination to crush the Jews? His tactics are alluded to in verses 24 and 25; he decided to attack Jerusalem on a Sabbath without warning and massacred many thousands. There has been an ongoing attempt to destroy the Jewish people throughout history at different times. It is not hard to see behind this determination the malice of Satan as he works to prevent the Messiah being born. And the devil knows that great spiritual blessing is connected to the future conversion of the Jews, so it is not surprising that he still attempts to destroy them.

At the same time we must remember a fifth detail, which is that the sins of God’s people can cause them problems. In verse 23 the vision refers to ‘transgressors who have reached their limit’. Who are these transgressors? They could be the army of Antiochus. Yet an argument can be made that they are the Israelites in Jerusalem who did not live according to God’s Word and therefore he allowed judgement to fall on them. Divine chastisement can take many forms, but it is always a response to sin in his people.

The sixth detail to observe is that faithfulness to God may require a heavy price. In verse 24 we are told that Antiochus will destroy the people who are the saints. His policy was to get rid of the worship of God. He banned Sabbath-keeping and the practice of circumcision, and outlawed sacrifices at the temple, introducing prostitution instead. And he treated God’s people in a brutal manner. As usual, there were those who wanted to adopt Antiochus’ Hellenistic practices and there were those who refused to give up their faith. Many of the latter suffered greatly.

It is generally believed that Hebrews 11:35, which says, ‘Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life,’ refers to martyrs from this time and we can read about some of them in 2 Maccabees 7. On trial before Antiochus were a mother and her seven sons. They were asked to eat swine’s flesh but they refused. Antiochus’s response was to command that the oldest brother’s tongue would be cut out, that his head be scalped, that his hands and his legs be cut off, and his trunk thrown into a heated pan on a roasting fire – he was still alive when thrown on to the fire. The second brother was taken and the same done to him. With his dying breath he stated to Antiochus, ‘You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws.’ The third brother, when it was his turn, put out his tongue and stretched forth his hands and said, ‘I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again.’ The fourth brother, when he was near death, declared: ^‘One cannot but choose to die at the hands of mortals and to cherish the hope God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!’

What about their mother? She lost her seven sons in one day. Yet she encouraged them in these words: ‘I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of humankind and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws.’

Why were they so loyal to God? The reason is that they loved him and were not willing to break even one of his laws, but they were sustained by the hope of future resurrection. We face the same reality. It is only love for Jesus that will keep us loyal to him. And there is every reason to love him. After all, he died to save us and now he lives to help us. His grace is freely given to us in every situation of life. He has assured us that he will be with all those who trust in him, which brings us to our seventh detail, which is that faith in God is required in times of trouble.

How would such faith show itself? Daniel tells us how. First, he accepts all the passages of God’s Word, even the more difficult ones. Faith in Christ exercises itself through the promises and instructions of the Bible. Second, Daniel asks God for help in understanding the vision. Faith in Christ involves talking to him about his Word primarily. It is in his Word that we get guidance and comfort.

How did Daniel react?

Daniel preserved the Word of God. We see this detail in his response to the divine command to (v. 26) seal up the vision. Although he did not understand some of the details in the chapter, he was responsible for the Word being preserved for future generations. Obviously he had to preserve it because he was the only one who had received this particular vision. And here we are thinking about it.

Daniel became ill as he thought about what he had been told. In the vision he had seen dominant world empires in conflict and several features affected him. What did he see? He saw the incredible sovereignty of God, and it overwhelmed him. He saw the awful cruelty of war, and it distressed him. He saw further sufferings of God’s people and that caused him grief. He saw the determination of some to fight against God and that shocked him.

Finally, Daniel, after receiving this divine communication, carried on with his daily work. He did not allow his interest in divine things as a reason for becoming lazy. Instead his possession of divine revelation led him to work at his everyday employment. And that is one effect the Bible should have on us as well.

Verse 26 is a good description of those who understand the Bible’s message: ‘I rose and went about the king’s business, but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it.’ We can understand it in a measure because we read it as fulfilled prophecy. In fact, we know there are several lessons from the sad life of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Saul of Tarsus Meets the Risen Jesus (Acts 9:1-9)

This sermon was preached on 5/2/2012

Every four years a power struggle takes place between the Democrat and Republican candidates for presidency of the United States. Yet when we think about it, the process reveals that neither of them has any inherent power because the choice does not depend on their individual abilities but on the opinions of the populace. Further, whoever wins the election cannot guarantee that he will be able to control the other government departments and he certainly will not be able to control events in other countries. Yet the one who wins the election is regarded as the most powerful man on earth. But is he?

Acts 9 is the climax of a power struggle, the conclusion to a campaign waged in Jerusalem. On the one hand, there is the campaign of Saul of Tarsus to get rid of the growing movement of Christians. His tactics are described in verses one and two. We note that he had great determination, that he had friends in high places in the land, and he was ready to extend his crusade to faraway places. So far, his pursuit of victory seemed to have been successful because a leader of the Christians, Stephen, had been put to death and most of the other Christians had been forced out of Jerusalem. There seemed to be nothing that could stop him in his pursuit of victory. Yet he discovered that his campaign was overthrown in a moment by Jesus, the one whom he regarded as an enemy to destroy.

We must remind ourselves that Jesus also has been engaged in promoting his cause. Despite initial impressions, the expulsion of his followers from Jerusalem has not been a disaster. Instead, through this ejection the gospel has been blessed in Samaria and also a most powerful man from Ethiopia, the treasurer of that country, had become a follower of Jesus. Further the message of Jesus was declared in various cities on the Mediterranean coast. These successes had been brought about through the ministry of Philip, and no doubt Jesus was using other servants to bring his message to other places. Indeed the campaign of Jesus was making inroads into some of the territory that Saul of Tarsus may have regarded as his heartlands.

The conversion of Saul of Tarsus is one of the important events of world history. We know that the influence of certain people causes an observable change in the direction of nations. What would the history of Scotland have been like if John Knox had never become a Protestant? What would the development of England been like if Oliver Cromwell had never been its leader? What would have happened in Russia and China if communism had not taken hold? These different places and periods of history were profoundly affected by individual leaders. The conversion of Saul of Tarsus, under the hand of Jesus Christ, changed the development of the Christian church. It was the writings of Saul of Tarsus that enlightened Luther and resulted in the Reformation, that challenged Wilberforce and others to do something about slavery, and that are still causing great changes today wherever his letters are read. Today millions of people read the words of Saul of Tarsus and give thanks to God for him.

Often the conversion of Saul is regarded as dramatic in a similar way to how conversions of other openly sinful people are perceived. The conversion of the Philippian jailor, a role often filled by a cruel and indifferent person, is rightly regarded as dramatic and, no doubt, it was a talking-point in Philippi for a while. Obviously the conversion of Saul would have been the topic of discussion in the streets of Damascus after he was converted, and the details of how it happened would have been repeated. Yet his conversion was more than a dramatic one which stimulated local interest; it was also a strategic one as far as the growth of the Christian church was concerned. What happened to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus qualified him to become an apostle of the Christian church, an individual possessing God-given authority among his people. It was strategic because Jesus Christ did not merely wish to defeat his opponent; he also intended to use him to spread the faith.

When did Saul know that he had become a Christian? Often it is assumed that because he was confronted by Jesus on the Damascus Road, Saul realised immediately that he had been converted. Perhaps he did, although a case can be made for him realising in Damascus what had taken place outside the city. His understanding of his conversion came in stages rather than a one-off event. Before Saul could believe in Jesus, he had to be made aware of who Jesus was. It seems to be that this was what happened on the Damascus Road, which was followed by a period of a few days in which Saul reflected on what had happened to him, and which climaxed with the message for Saul from Jesus delivered by Ananias.

While it is not possible that any will have the experience of Saul (i.e., meet the risen, exalted Christ), it is the case that many Christians cannot tell when they were born again. All they know is that during a certain period, be it a matter of days, weeks or months, they became followers of Jesus. It is not really possible for an individual to tell the exact moment when he was regenerated. Regeneration is the moment when God gives spiritual life into a dead soul. This new life will show itself in a variety of ways and does not follow the same order in every Christian. The various responses of the new life are covered by the term ‘conversion’. Regeneration and conversion do not mean the same experience. Regeneration is an instantaneous and secret act of God whereas conversion is a gradual turning from sin and embracing of Christ. When I say it is gradual, the process can take a few seconds, or a few minutes, or a few days, or a few weeks, or even a few months before the person realises that God has changed him.

The Resolution of Saul (vv. 1-2)

Luke gives a graphic picture of the attitude of Saul of Tarsus: he was ‘still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord’. This was his consuming passion. Whenever he thought of the Christians, he went into a rage of fury. The thought of his heart was, ‘I must destroy them! I must destroy them!’ Why was he so vehement?

One correct answer to that question is that Saul’s resolution was a religious one; it was an expression of his faith. His religion consumed him day and night, and he could not tolerate a deviation from it, no matter how small. For Saul, his faith could only be expressed in this manner. He regarded the Christians as being guilty of blasphemy, and he knew that the penalty for it was death. And he was prepared to implement it, whatever it cost him, because he believed he was serving the God of his fathers. His heroes may have been Phinehas, who slew thousands of Israelites who engaged in idolatry, and Elijah, who massacred the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel.

Today we witness the powerful effect that religion has on people. If we walk down the streets of our cities, we will see Buddhists leaping down the road in their orange robes, we will see orthodox Jews dressed in their dark clothes, and we will followers of Islam in their attire. We also know that some of the followers of those religions are prepared to do anything to further their faith. Our society cannot understand religious zeal and calls those who have it by the name ‘fundamentalists’. They attempt to find ‘moderates’ among them, apparently not realising that once a follower of any religion becomes a moderate, their religion is meaningless. The issue is not whether a person should have religious zeal; instead it all depends on whether the person follows the right religion. Saul was very zealous in a wrong religion, but he was about to discover the right religion to be zealous about.

The Realisation by Saul (vv. 3-5a)

As he made his way to Damascus, Saul had no time to look at the scenery. But Someone was looking at him and in a moment brought him to the ground. The interruption happened almost as he reached the city. The Christian Jews in Damascus were aware that Saul was coming to arrest them (v. 14). We can imagine the great fear they would have and, perhaps, they were praying for God to stop Saul from reaching the city. Whether they were or not, the method used by Jesus here is a common one – deliverance from trouble often occurs at the last moment. The believers in Damascus were rescued from Saul’s intentions when he had almost arrived at the city.

Saul went through an experience that occasionally occurred in Old Testament times. God appeared to a person in great power and majesty, such as his appearance to the prophet in Isaiah 6. Such divine visits are called theophanies and Saul realised he had received one. We can see this realisation in his response, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ Saul understood that he was in the presence of God. This question had not risen out of curiosity; instead it was a confession by Saul that he had met God.

How did he know this was the case? There are at least two answers to the question. First, there was the brightness of the light (on another occasion when he told what happened to him [Acts 26:13], he said that the light was brighter than the noon-day sun). Often when God appears, unusual things happen to the creation. Sometimes there are earthquakes; when he appeared to Moses, it was in a burning bush that was not consumed. Saul very quickly realised that only God could produce a light brighter than the sun. In fact, the light he saw was uncreated light, similar to what the disciples of Jesus saw on the Mount of Transfiguration when his appearance was changed and his face shone brighter than the sun. Saul had no doubt that he had met with God.

Second, Saul heard this unknown voice call him by name. This must have been a surprise to Saul, to hear himself addressed personally by a Voice from within the bright light that surrounded him. Saul realised that he was face to face with one that knew all about him, not only his name, but also his struggles (kicking against the goads). Further, Saul would have known that often God, when he spoke to a person in the Old Testament, often said the name twice – he did so to Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Samuel, and it always signified a matter of great importance. Perhaps this is why Saul asked what Jesus would have him do.

In any case, one thing is evident from Saul’s experience and it is that he is now a submissive man. All his previous independency of outlook has gone. Saul had assumed that he had been serving God. He realised now that his assumption had been false, and that he had to change his way of living. This desire for change is expressed in his question, ‘Lord, what will you have me do?’ Saul realised here that submission is an essential aspect of conversion. Basically submission is the expression of an inner desire to leave sin and serve God. It is an important aspect of true repentance.

There is another feature here in Saul’s conversion which sometimes happens in the experience of others, and that is a sense of confusion. We can see Saul’s confusion in his question, ‘Lord, who are you?’ While the causes of confusion in others will not be the same, we should not be surprised when seekers for Christ experience a measure of perplexity. After all, they are now in contact with a supernatural world which they did not know existed. So much is happening to them, and it is inevitable that there will be some bewilderment at what they are experiencing.

Closing Greetings (1 Peter 5:12-14)

This sermon was preached on 2/2/2012

Peter brings his letter to a close by a short series of brief greetings in which he mentions at least three individuals who are with him. We may imagine that such verses are not important and perhaps we rush over them. Yet they are full of instruction.

Silvanus

Silvanus may be the Silas who accompanied Paul on his second missionary journey. Yet we cannot be sure about that detail. What is important about Silvanus is that Peter reveals he was a ‘faithful brother’. Perhaps he called Silvanus by this name because he carried the letter to them and if he was unknown to the readers he would need Peter’s commendation.

What is a faithful brother? Clearly the description indicates a close relationship, members of the family of God. At one time, both Peter and Silvanus were outside God’s family. We know about Peter came into it, when he met the Saviour after Andrew had spent some time with him (John 1:35-42). But we have no idea how Silvanus was converted. By enlarging the relationship with the idea of faithfulness, Peter is stressing that loyalty as well as love is part of a healthy Christian relationship. Silvanus could be depended upon, says Peter.

Silvanus acted as Peter’s writer, perhaps because Peter himself could not write. We must remember that the apostles in general were not educated persons and there was not the same emphasis on universal writing as there is today. Peter dictated the letter and Silvanus wrote it down, perhaps correcting Peter’s grammar. If that happened, we can see one way how the Holy Spirit guided the production of his inspired Word. At one level, it is an everyday activity, while at another level it is a most profound spiritual reality. Peter primarily had in mind his original readers while God had in mind his church down the centuries. So we get here some insight into how God produced his Word, and what a marvellous miracle the Word of God is. How thankful we should be for God’s overruling providence in arranging for the men to be together.

Peter then summarises the type of letter that he had dictated to Silvanus. We know that there are various types of letters and we respond differently, depending on what kind it is. Obviously the response has to be appropriate. If I treat a letter from the taxman in the same way as I treat a letter from a charity, I may end up in trouble because the first is a demand that I pay what I owe whereas the second is a voluntary donation. Peter’s letter is not merely providing doctrinal information or even news about how some Christians are doing. In addition, it is an exhortation and a declaration. These terms emphasise the authority of God’s Word and the passion with which it was delivered. Peter, as an apostle, had been given special authority to rule in God’s kingdom and here he does so. He was certainly aware that what he was writing had binding authority on his readers. Yet we are not to imagine him sitting in an easy chair dictating in a monotonous tone. Peter believed that his message was essential for his readers to hear and obey.

Peter wants his readers to be assured that his letter had described the ‘true grace of God’. No doubt he was aware that other messages were claiming to from God. One can imagine how it would be easy for a false teacher to argue that the persecution believers were facing was an indication that they were not following a message from God. Peter had written to them to remind them that their suffering for the faith was a common Christian experience and an opportunity for witnessing to their faith. They were not to be moved from it, no matter what happened to them.

She in Babylon

Peter next refers to a woman and to a place. His words can be understood in different ways. Babylon may be a reference to the city in modern day Iraq or even to a small military location in Egypt, although it is more likely to be a cryptic reference to Rome itself. The reason why he would use such an allusion helps us appreciate the estimation the apostolic church had of the great Roman Empire. For them, it was a cruel system that opposed God’s kingdom, but like the original Babylon it was doomed for destruction.

But who is the ‘she’? It is possible that Peter means his wife because we know from a statement by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:5 that Peter’s wife travelled with him. So, assuming that she was still living, she would have been with him. Yet it is more likely that Peter is referring to the church or to the group of Christians he was with when he composed the letter.

The apostle highlights something that both his readers and his current companions share, and that is that they have been chosen. While he does not say who chose them, he would have had God in mind. Nor does he indicate which feature of God’s choosing was the focus of Peter’s mind. Instead he leaves it open to take the most comprehensive view of God’s purpose for them. So they could consider it from the point of view of his electing grace when he chose them before the world was made. And they could think of it as his providential choice for them to witness in particular circumstances. Further they could look ahead and focus on God’s determination to bless his chosen ones in the eternal world. In whatever ways they would look at his words, they would be reminded of the loving sovereignty of God who had selected his people. God’s sovereignty is a most comforting doctrine, and Peter wanted his readers to derive maximum help from it.

Of course, his readers would have included among them those who had failed God to one degree or another. Such would derive great comfort from the next person mentioned by Peter. Mark had failed on a previous occasion when he had abandoned Paul and Barnabas and returned home. He then became the initial reason for a dispute between those two devoted servants of Christ that became so intense they had to separate. Mark had unhappy memories caused by his lack of dedication, yet here he now is, restored to apostolic favour (Paul, too, had changed his mind about Mark and later regarded him with great favour). Indeed it is generally recognised that Mark’s Gospel was written with guidance or input from Peter. So whenever believers heard mention of Mark, they would recall the restoring grace of God, that he pardons those who fail him. Indeed they would see that restoring work in Peter himself as well as in Mark.

We should note how affectionately Peter describes Mark. The apostle regards him as his son, in the same way as Paul regarded Timothy. This indicates that Mark had learned an important attitude, that of submission, because sons always submitted to their fathers at that time in history. So Mark becomes an example of the spiritual discipline that Peter had required of his readers earlier in the chapter – the discipline of mutual submission.

On Peter’s part, there was both affirmation and affection. His affirmation as an apostle was important in the sense that it was a public declaration that Mark was now in good standing. Of course, his affirmation could only be given because he was fulfilling the tasks required of him. It would not have been right for Peter to affirm Mark if he was still doing his own thing. It is also clear that affection had developed between Peter and Mark as they served the Lord together.

Greet with a kiss

Here Peter refers to how a cultural practice should be done in the church. The obvious danger of cultural practices is that they become formal rather than spiritual. Yet it is obvious that a kiss is a display of friendship and affection. We may not realise it but a failure to do such little things can have consequences. For example, consider the effect on one’s witness if a neighbour observed two of Peter’s readers meeting and not greeting one another with a kiss. The neighbour would assume that something was wrong between them, even if there was not. A simple failure to perform an expected practice will affect our public witness.

How was this kiss performed? After all, we can kiss a person on the lips or on the hands or on the cheeks. I suspect it was a kiss on the cheeks. This action is not limited to men kissing women or to women kissing women; it also included men kissing men. It is common for men in Mediterranean countries to kiss one another on the cheek. Jesus rebuked a Pharisee for not welcoming him with a kiss (Luke 7:45). When Paul parted from the elders of Ephesus, they all embraced him and kissed him (Acts 20:37). Justin Martyr and Origen state that mutual kissing used to follow times of prayer in early church services, although it seems to have been confined to the same gender. Augustine also says that giving one another such a kiss was part of a worship service in the early church.

It is important to note that this statement of Peter’s is a command. He requires his readers to express their love to one another through a cultural activity. Further, it is a comprehensive command because he expects them all to do it. And it should be a consistent action, one that is done whenever Christians meet. Body language often speaks louder than words.

What is the equivalent of this form of greeting in our culture? It is not a handshake, because the early church also gave one another the right hand of fellowship, and here Peter further requires them to greet one another with a kiss of love. I don’t think it would be wise in our culture for men to practice this, but the principle is that our body language should show that we love one another.

Peace to all in Christ

Peter’s desire for his Christian readers was that they would know peace. This peace is unique to Christians; no-one else can have it. Sadly, it can be undermined by Christians through their wrong actions (it is interesting that a desire for enjoyed peace follows a command to express love). Yet it should be the uniform experience of all of them, no matter their circumstances. After all, Peter’s readers faced an uncertain future, but they could have peace.

As we come to the end of our study of this letter, can we say what its overall message is to us in the twenty-first century? No doubt more than four details could be mentioned, but I will highlight the four that have convicted me. First, we should be heavenly-minded – our eyes should be on the world to come, and this them runs through the letter. Second, we should be ready for opposition to our expressions of faith in Jesus. Third, we should imitate the example of Jesus against our opponents and towards one another. Fourth, we should rejoice in Christ, our Saviour who died for us on the cross, and who is preparing glory for us in the world to come.

The Concern of Daniel (Daniel 7:15-28)

This sermon was preached on 29/1/2012

The Lord had revealed to Daniel that during the reign of the fourth beast (the Roman Empire) he would set up a kingdom over which his Son would rule. The onset of his rule is described in Daniel 7:13-14 and the event detailed there is his enthronement at God’s right hand following his ascension to heaven.

Daniel’s natural wisdom, which was very great and was also a God-given talent, could not make sense of all that was in the vision, especially the details concerning the Son of man figure and the description of the fourth empire and its successors. So, in his vision, he asked an unnamed person, probably an angel, and was informed of its meaning. The explanation included some surprising details.

What is the relevance of the explanation for us? No doubt many suggestions could be made and you may have applications in addition to the three subjects I will mention. The three topics I wish to consider are (1) the significance of the little horn, (2) the fortunes of God’s people, and (3) the effect of the explanation on Daniel himself.

The Little Horn

Daniel is horrified at the nature of the fourth empire, and in particular at the activities of the little horn that speaks great things against God and tries to destroy his people. At that moment Daniel would have realised that the troubles of his people Israel would not conclude with the imminent demise of the Babylonian empire after their seventy years of captivity under its power. Instead, in the near and distant future there would be greater troubles for them.

Who is depicted by the little horn? Four details can be noted about him. First, we are told in verse 24 that ten kingdoms will come from the fourth empire, and they will be followed by the little horn that will conquer three of them. So he is connected to the Roman Empire, which means that he will have political power. (I don’t believe we should look for ten literal kingdoms and try and identify which three are defeated by the little horn. The Roman Empire did not divide into ten kingdoms when it collapsed.)

Second, the little horn will oppose God and his people and will attempt to perform actions that only God can do (v. 25).

Third, eventually the heavenly court will sit and take his power away from him (v. 26), as it did with the fourth empire mentioned earlier in Daniel’s vision. This detail tells us that his empire will not last, that while it may last a long time, eventually God will deal with him and take his throne from him.

Fourth, it is important to note that he is a ‘little’ horn – small compared to the empires that preceded him and very small in comparison to the King to whom God has given universal authority. The littleness is also seen in his inability to conquer all of the ten kings that co-existed with him – previous emperors swept all before them.

Various suggestions have been made regarding the identity of the little horn and I will mention four: (1) because of the connection to the Roman Empire, John Calvin thought he depicted the Caesars because they fought against the church at its beginning; (2) others have regarded him as depicting the popes and certainly many of the popes have been opposed to God’s people and have caused immense suffering for them; (3) another option is that the little horn represents all subsequent human governments that have succeeded the Roman empire down to the present day and who have attempted to oppose God in one way or another; (4) a fourth view is that he is the future antichrist whom Paul says will be destroyed by Jesus at his coming (2 Thess. 2:8-10).

Whoever the little horn is, he will be defeated. For what it is worth, I take the little horn as depicting all subsequent human governments who have followed their own agenda and opposed the kingship of Jesus. Obviously such a chain would reach its closure in the final antichrist, although we know, as John says, that there are many antichrists (1 John 2:18).

What has happened in the world since Jesus became king? This question can be answered from different perspectives. But if we take the details mentioned here about the little horn, we will see how they describe what has happened.

It is the case that human governments down the centuries have opposed God’s people (v. 25). We often think of foreign countries in this regard, but the history of our own nation reveals that we too have had governments that oppressed God’s people, such as at the Reformation or at the Covenanting period. Wherever we go, we will find many examples of God’s people being opposed.

It is the case that human governments attempt to change the laws of God (v. 25). The reference to ‘times and seasons’ may refer to religious calendars because that is the way they would have been described. An obvious example of opposition to God’s laws is the attitude of governments to the Sabbath. There is a constant attempt to get rid of its religious significance. The Lord’s Day is a constant and gracious reminder that Jesus is Lord, but instead of submitting to his rule governments pass laws that attempt to remove it.

Both these features make life very difficult for Christians at times. The little horn so deals with the subjects of God’s kingdom that they often feel worn out, which is a very powerful description of what they often feel as they go from one difficulty to the next. It is actually a marvel that they keep going.

The question that arises is, ‘What is God doing about this?’ One detail of the answer to that searching question is that he is exercising patience with regard to those attacks on his kingdom. After all, where are the subjects of his kingdom going to come from? Every one of them, at one time in their lives, belonged to an earthly kingdom. The subjects of his grace at one time were his enemies, and they all can say that he has not dealt with them in the way that their sins deserved.

The reality that God is patient, waiting for his enemies to repent, reminds us that Jesus reveals his power in more than one way. He could reveal his power in a great display of crushing strength in which he dismisses into oblivion the puny rulers and kingdoms of this world. God could do that, in a moment. Yet he presently chooses to reveal his power in a gracious way, offering forgiveness and pardon to those who have rebelled against him. He works in their hearts to change them from brutal behaviour to gracious behaviour.

Further, the Lord in heaven is recording what is taking place on earth. Daniel informs us that there are books in heaven that contain the details of the behaviour of all people on earth, including all those who oppose his people. Every aspect of each thought, word and deed is recorded and eventually people will be brought to account. It is a solemn thing that everything about each of us is being recorded constantly. Yet this comprehensive divine recording should encourage us greatly because it is a reminder that there is one kingdom in which everything is done justly and righteously. With God, there are no miscarriages of justice.

Daniel’s vision also reminds us that God decides when to intervene in the affairs of humans. Daniel has been informed already that it is God who will bring the four empires to an end, and he will also bring the kingdom of the little horn to an end. How often has God intervened in the affairs of nations? He has done so many times already. We have examples of his intentions to intervene in the list of countries that are mentioned in Amos 1 and 2, and there God tells each nation the reason for his intervention in their specific case.

This then raises the question as to when the little horn will be judged. He will be removed by the same court as removed the fourth beast. There will one difference about this second trial and the previous one. The distinction is that Jesus, having been given universal authority, will be involved in the removal of the little horn. Given that his removal is followed by the saints receiving the kingdom, it is likely that the time set for this court occasion is at the close of human history, in other words at the final judgement, when all people, including rulers of kingdoms, will appear before God’s judgement seat.

The Fortunes of God’s People

Earlier we had seen two details about God’s people. The first was that they are going to experience opposition and the second was that they would, at one time, have belonged to the kingdoms that were opposed to God. Does Daniel’s vision have anything more to say about them? Verse 27 describes their future: ‘And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.’ This verse states that the downtrodden and opposed people of God are going to have a kingdom that will be universal (under the whole heaven) and eternal.

This kingdom will be given to all of them, which means that the number who will belong to God’s people will be complete by then. They will also have to be in a fit condition to receive it, and many of them will have died before then, whether as a result of persecution or of illness or of old age. What event will cover both the complete number and their fit condition? The verse in Daniel 7 does not give the answer to that question, but elsewhere the Bible does. It tells us that the event which will bring this about is the future resurrection. When it takes place, all of God’s people will be gathered together and each of them will be glorified. So they will be complete in number and in condition.

The kingdom will be given to them. They will not have obtained it by force of arms which was how the other empires achieved their kingdoms. Instead it will be a gift from God. The sovereign Lord had given the earthly empires to subsequent rulers as well, but the bestowal had been an act of judgement on each previous ruler. I would say that we find a description of the occasion of believers receiving the kingdom in Matthew 25:31-46. In that passage, there is a description of the judgement seat. Jesus, the Son of man who will be seated on the throne of his glory, will welcome them into the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world (v. 34). The Saviour mentions the various troubles his followers had known, such as persecution, imprisonment and deprivation. In other words, they had been mistreated by other powers, and this is the same message as the one in Daniel 7. They had suffered for his sake and now he compensates them with the kingdom.

In this promised kingdom, the people of God are going to have the status of kings. This is an obvious difference from the earthly kingdoms in which the subjects of the rulers did not have such a high status. The people of God are going to experience great glory. We know that the Bible gives other details elsewhere about their position in the world to come, but it is interesting how often their standing is likened to kingship. For example, Paul writes in 2 Timothy 2:12: ‘if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us.’ In Luke 12:32, Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.’ In Revelation 5:10, the angels sing about God’s people and say to God: ‘You have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.’ It has not been revealed what all this will mean, but the comparison that is used for the future status of believers is that of royalty. Paul even says that they will judge both angels and humans (1 Cor. 6:1-3). They are also going to have the new heavens and new earth as their inheritance, and they will have it as the royal children of God. And both their status and their domain are eternal.

The effect on Daniel

This was an amazing vision that Daniel had. It contained both good and bad things. How did Daniel respond? The answer is that he was greatly distressed: ‘As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly alarmed me, and my colour changed, but I kept the matter in my heart.’ What he saw affected him physically as well as emotionally. Why was he so affected? I would mention three negative reasons and one positive reason.

First, he was distressed because he had seen something of the development of human evil. Things were bad enough in Babylon, but this vision told him what Paul later declared when he said that evil people will get worse in behaviour (2 Tim. 3:12-14). Sins are practised today that our forefathers, even those who were not converted, could not have imagined. But are we as distressed about the development of evil as Daniel was? Surely, the state of society calls for sorrow on our part.

Second, Daniel was distressed because of the nature of divine judgement. He had received insight into what God was going to do when he acted in punishment. The prospect that awaited those cruel powers filled Daniel with dread. And we can ask ourselves, Does the reality of eternal punishment trouble our hearts? This calls for sobriety, to realise that we are not living in a playground.

Third, Daniel is distressed because he knows that many of God’s people are going to suffer, and he is distressed even although he does not know them personally, and that he will be in heaven long before their sufferings will begin. He had fellow-feeling with them in their pain. This calls for solidarity on our part with the many believers who today are suffering at the hands of the little horn mentioned in Daniel.

Fourth, Daniel was overwhelmed by the greatness of the blessing that God’s people were going to inherit. Daniel knew about status and promotion from his personal experience. But all the earthly glory that he had seen paled into insignificance as he contemplated what lay ahead for God’s people.