The Fulfilled Prophecies of Daniel 11

The prophecies of the Book of Daniel are some of the strongest arguments for the truth of Christianity. Daniel 9:24-27 even gives us the year when the Messiah would die.

Here is a chart which summarizes the prophecies of Daniel 11:

Verse	Description	Identity
2	Three more kings	Cambyses, Smerdis, and Darius I Hystaspes
2	A fourth king	Xerxes
3	A mighty king	Alexander the Great
4	The four winds of heaven	Alexander’s generals: Antipater, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus
5	The king of the south	Ptolemy I Soter
5	One of his princes	Seleucus I
6	The king of the south	Ptolemy II Philadelphus
6	His daughter	Berenice
6	The king of the north	Antiochus II Theos
7	One shall arise in his place	Ptolemy III Euergetes
8	The king of the north	Seleucus II Callinicus
10	His sons	Seleucus III and Antiochus III
11	The king of the south	Ptolemy IV Philopater
13	The king of the north	Antiochus III
14	The king of the south	Ptolemy V Epiphanes
17	The daughter of women	Cleopatra (not the famous one)
18	A commander	Scipio Asiaticus
20	One who shall send an exactor of tribute	Seleucus IV Philopater
20	An exactor of tribute	Heliodorus
21	A contemptible person	Antiochus IV Epiphanes
22	The prince of the covenant	Ptolemy VI
25	The king of the south	Ptolemy VI
27	The two kings	Antiochus IV and Ptolemy VI

Because of its many fulfilled prophecies, critics of the Bible must believe that Daniel 11 was written during the second century BC because it describes events that occurred then, including the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

But Daniel 11 could not have been written in the second century BC for the following reasons:

1. Daniel 8-12 was written in Hebrew while chapters 2-7 were written in Aramaic. Hebrew was the spoken language of the Jews before the Babylonian exile, but after the exile, Aramaic became the predominant language of the Jewish people. After Alexander the Great conquered the middle east in the fourth century BC, Greek became the universal language of the known world while the Jews continued to use Aramaic in their daily life.

Therefore, it would be highly unusual for Daniel 11 to be written in Hebrew if it was written during the second century BC. Jewish writings from this time are almost always written in Aramaic or Greek, not Hebrew. The Jewish apocryphal books that were written between the Old and New Testaments were written in Greek. The Pseudepigrapha was written in Greek and Aramaic.

2. Portions of every chapter in Daniel, except for chapter 12, have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The verses of Daniel 11:1-2, 11-17, and 25-39 are preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls were copied from the third to the first century BC. So, if Daniel 11 was originally written during this time, it is amazing that we have copies of Daniel that are only a few decades removed from its original writing.

And when we look at the Hebrew text of Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see many copyist errors in the text. This points to a long transmission history of the text, not one that is only a few decades old.

3. The events of the Book of Daniel are referred to in other Jewish literature. 1 Maccabees 2:60 says: “Daniel because of his innocence was delivered from the mouth of the lions.” 1 Maccabees was written around 100 BC so Daniel must have been written long before then. Ezekiel 28:3 refers to the wisdom of Daniel: “You are indeed wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you.” The book of 1 Enoch was written around 300 to 100 BC and it alludes to many of the verses in Daniel so Daniel must have been written before 1 Enoch. 1 Enoch is also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

4. Daniel 5 mentions “King Belshazzar” and critics have long argued that this is a historical error because this figure is never mentioned by Greek historians. But archeology has confirmed his existence from ancient tablets. This is significant because if Daniel was a work of fiction written during the second century BC, the author would not have known about his existence because the writings of that time never mention him.

5. The Jewish historian Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews (11.337) tells us that Alexander the Great was shown the Book of Daniel and the prophecies concerning him when he visited Jerusalem:

“He [Alexander the Great] gave his hand to the high priest and, with the Jews running beside him, entered the city. Then he went up to the temple, where he sacrificed to God under the direction of the high priest, and showed due honour to the priests and to the high priest himself. And, when the book of Daniel was shown to him, in which he had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated; and in his joy he dismissed the multitude for the time being, but on the following day he summoned them again and told them to ask for any gifts which they might desire.”

The Mistranslation of the Words of the Lord in Joshua 5:14

Joshua 5:14 is a verse that used to puzzle me. The English Standard Version translates the verse this way:

“And he said, ‘No; but I am the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come.’ And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, ‘What does my lord say to his servant?’”

The commander of Lord’s army is the angel of the Lord who appears throughout the Old Testament. I believe that the angel of the Lord is not a created angel, but the pre-incarnate Christ who speaks on behalf of his Father. The Hebrew word for “angel” simply means “messenger.” This is the messenger of the Lord who identifies himself as the Lord and receives worship. When the Apostle John bowed down before an angel in Revelation 19:10 and 22:9, he was rebuked by the angel and told to worship God alone. But the angel of the Lord never does that here to Joshua.

What is puzzling about his response to Joshua’s question, “Are you for us, or for our adversaries?” is that he answers the question by saying “no” or “neither.” But how could the commander of the Lord’s army not be on the side of God’s people Israel? He would give victory to Israel by causing the walls of Jericho to fall down in the very next chapter. So, his response that he was not on the side of Israel or her enemies did not make a lot of sense to me.

And that’s because it doesn’t make sense. My childhood instincts were right that there was something wrong with the way the verse was translated in my Bible. What I did not know back then is that there is a textual variant here. The Masoretic Hebrew text that is used as the basis for our English Old Testament may have him saying “no,” but that is not what the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible says.

The New English Translation of the Septuagint translates the verse this way:

“Then he said to him, ‘As commander-in-chief of the force of the Lord I have now come.”

The reason why there is a difference between the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint (LXX) is because a Hebrew scribe made a copyist error when he mistook the Hebrew preposition lamed which means “to” that is attached to a third masculine singular suffix waw meaning “him” for the word “no” which is lamed followed by aleph which is silent.

The New English Translation of the Bible in its commentary says this about the verse:

“Heb ‘He said, ‘Neither.’ An alternative reading is (lo, ‘[He said] to him’; cf. NEB). This reading is supported by many Hebrew MSS, as well as the LXX and Syriac versions. The traditional reading of the MT (lo‘, ‘no, neither’) is probably the product of aural confusion (the two variant readings sound the same in Hebrew). Although followed by a number of modern translations (cf. NIV, NRSV), this reading is problematic, for the commander of the LORD’s army would hardly have declared himself neutral.”

That is why the New English Translation translates the verse this way:

“He answered, ‘Truly I am the commander of the LORD’s army.’”

I would translate the verse this way:

“He said to him, ‘I am the commander of the Lord’s army.’”

This translation makes sense of the role of the angel of the Lord and the prepositional phrase “to him” indicates who he is speaking to rather than saying “no.”

The Historical Accuracy of the Gospels

How do you know that the events described in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John really did happen and that these books are not works of fiction like Greek mythology? My study of history has only deepened my belief that Christianity is a faith rooted in real historical events.

But if a person does not believe in the existence of God, then by definition, these four Gospels cannot be accurate because they are filled with references to Jesus performing miracles. But if God does exist, then miracles are possible and the claims of Christianity cannot be dismissed but must be investigated:

1. There is a great deal of evidence for the life of Jesus from outside the Bible from Roman historians like Tacitus and the Jewish historian Josephus. Only the most radical skeptics of history would deny that Jesus existed.

2. The Book of Acts must have been written before 70 AD because the book ends with Paul’s arrival in Rome in 59 AD and never mentions the martyrdoms of Peter, Paul, or James the brother of Jesus which all took place before 70 AD. But Luke does mention the death of James the brother of John in Acts 12. Why would he omit the deaths of the apostles that he has spent so much time focusing on while including the death of James the brother of John who never speaks once in the entire book?

Luke also never mentions the Jewish revolt against Rome or the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. And Luke never talks about the persecution of Christians by Nero in Rome in 64 AD while even Tacitus does mention it.

Luke refers to his Gospel of Luke as his “first book.” He says in Acts 1:1: “In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach.” Since Acts was completed before 70 AD, the Gospel of Luke must have been finished before then as well. And Paul quotes from Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18 showing that Paul had access to Luke’s Gospel.

A date of the Gospel of Luke in the 50s or 60s would be too early for legends to enter into the story of Jesus, especially when eyewitnesses to Jesus would have still been alive to correct such myths.

3. In the prologue to the Gospel of Luke, Luke claims that his narrative about Jesus comes from those who were eyewitnesses to what Jesus said and did:

Luke 1:1-4: “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.”

4. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, around 130 AD wrote that Mark received the information for his Gospel from the Apostle Peter:

“This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely” (Fragments of Papias, Fragment 6, as cited by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15).

Irenaeus said that Papias was a “hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp” (Against Heresies, 5.33.3).

5. The testimony of the early church fathers was that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses to Jesus or by those who had access to eyewitnesses.

Justin Martyr, in the middle of the second century, said that the Gospels are the memoirs of the Apostles:

“For [Christ] called one of His disciples — previously known by the name of Simon — Peter; since he recognized Him to be Christ the Son of God, by the revelation of His Father: and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 100).

Irenaeus, around 185 AD, claimed that Mark received his information from Peter:

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia” (Against Heresies, 3.1.1).

Tertullian in 212 AD said the same thing:

“The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage — I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew — while that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul” (Against Marcion, 4.5).

6. The Gospel of John must have been written before 70 AD according to John 5:2:

“Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades.”

John uses the present tense form of the verb “there is” to describe the pool of Bethesda as if the people living at the time of his writing could still visit it. But Jerusalem and the pool of Bethesda were destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.

7. The names that are mentioned in the Gospels and Acts fit the geography and time period of first-century Israel for the names that were most commonly used. This is why names that are common are followed by something that differentiates them from other people who had the same name. This is called disambiguation. On the other hand, uncommon names are not given such disambiguation. The historian Richard Bauckham goes into great detail on this point in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

8. The geography and cities mentioned in the Gospels match what we know about first-century Israel. The Gospels mention the towns of Aenon, Arimathea, Bethany, Bethlehem, Bethpage, Bethsaida, Caesarea Philippi, Cana, Capernaum, Chorazin, Dalmanutha, Emmaus, Ephraim, Gennesaret, Jericho, Jerusalem, Magadan, Nain, Nazareth, Rama, Salim, Sidon, Sychar, Tiberias, Tyre, and Zarephath. The Gospels also mention the regions of Abilene, Decapolis, Egypt, Galilee, Idumaea, Ituraea, Judaea, Naphtali, Samaria, Sidonia, Syria, Trachonitis, and Zebulun. They mention several bodies of water: Bethesda, Kidron, Jordan, Galilee, and Siloam. They reference many specific places like Akeldama, Gabbatha, Gethsemane, Golgotha, the Mount of Olives, the Sheep Gate, and Solomon’s Colonnade.

As Peter J. Williams observes, “The information in the lists, however, would be extremely surprising if we were to think of the Gospel writers having lived in other countries, such as Egypt, Italy, Greece, or Turkey, and having made up stories about Jesus” (Can We Trust the Gospels?, p. 54).

9. Archeology and literary sources have confirmed the existence of the historical figures who are mentioned in the Gospels and Acts such as Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas, Sergius Paulus, Lysanias, Gallio, Erastus, Quirinius, and Felix. Archeology has also confirmed the existence of places mentioned in the Gospels such as Bethlehem, Nazareth, Capernaum, Bethsaida, Bethany, the Pool of Bethesda, and the Pool of Siloam.

10. There are many undesigned coincidences between the four Gospels which offer unintentional support for their accuracy. Here is a short article that describes some of them.

11. The Gospels contain statements that are critical of the disciples of Jesus. Jesus called Peter “Satan” after Peter tried to rebuke Jesus (Matt 16:23). Jesus rebuked his disciples multiple times for their lack of faith (Matt 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; 17:20). He rebuked them for their desire to call fire down from heaven on the Samaritans (Luke 9:55). The disciples argued about which one of them was the greatest (Luke 9:46). They did not understand Jesus’ teaching about his death and resurrection until after he was raised from the dead (Mark 9:32; Luke 9:45). They often did not understand Jesus’ teachings as Mark 6:52 says: “for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.”

The first witnesses to the risen Jesus were women. But according to Jewish tradition, women were not allowed to serve as witnesses in a court of law. The Jewish historian Josephus said this about the laws of the Jews: “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex” (Antiquities of the Jews, 4.219).

And the disciples did not believe the testimony of these women. Luke 24:11 tells us that after the women who saw the angels at the tomb ran back to tell their story, the disciples responded to them with disbelief: “But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them.”

The disciples of Jesus were the original skeptics of the resurrection. And even after Thomas was told about the resurrection by the other disciples, he still doubted. He said, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe” (John 20:25).

Why would the authors of the Gospels make up such stories?

12. Paul gives us an early creed of the Christian church in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 that reflects the beliefs of the earliest Christians. Paul claims that this creed was given to him by others who were Christians before he was:

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”

1 Corinthians was written around 54 AD which is only 21 years after the death of Jesus. Many of the people who knew Jesus before he ascended into heaven were still alive when Paul wrote these words. If Paul’s message about Jesus was inaccurate, he would have been corrected by eyewitnesses to Jesus.

13. There are certain facts about the death of Jesus that even non-Christian scholars must admit are true. These are called the minimal facts about the Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

2. Jesus’ tomb was empty and no body could be found.

3. The original disciples of Jesus claimed that he appeared to them after being raised from the dead.

4. The skeptic James came to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

5. The persecutor Paul came to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

6. The Christian faith spread in the midst of persecution.

7. The original disciples of Jesus were willing to die for what they knew was either the truth or a lie.

What explanation best accounts for all of these facts?

14. If the four Gospels are not historically accurate, then Christianity is a conspiracy and the founders of this religion conspired together to intentionally deceive people and fabricate stories about Jesus that never happened. But what incentive would they have to do this? Almost all conspiracies are driven by a desire for money, power, or sex.

But the disciples were not driven by a desire for money. They were not rich men as Peter said in Acts 3:6: “I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!” Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4:11: “To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless.” He described his life in this way in 2 Corinthians 6:9-10: “As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything.” Paul said in Acts 20:33 that, “I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel.”

They were not driven by a desire for power. In fact, the early Christian leaders were persecuted relentlessly because of their faith in Jesus. Paul described his suffering for Christ in great detail in 2 Corinthians 11:24-28. And why would he give up his position of power as a Pharisee in order to become a follower of Jesus unless he really believed in what he preached? Whatever gain he had, he counted as loss for the sake of Christ (Phil 3:7-9).

And they were not driven by a desire for sex. Many of the original disciples of Jesus were already married as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:5: “Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” Paul himself was unmarried and chose to remain single for the purpose of carrying out the mission God had given him (1 Cor 7:8). The Gospels and Paul condemn sexual activity outside of marriage and the early church practiced discipline against those who lived in sexual immorality (Matt 15:19; 1 Cor 5:1-13; 6:9).

As J. Warner Wallace has said, the conspiracy theory explanation for the rise of Christianity cannot work because there are “too many unrelated conspirators, over an unreasonable timespan, without sufficient communication, and under severe pressure” (Cold-Case Christianity: Updated and Expanded Edition, p. 46). And yet none of them ever denied the truth of the Christian faith and their belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

15. The original disciples of Jesus died for what they knew was either the truth or a lie. The apostolic church father Clement in 96 AD said this about Peter’s death:

“Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors, and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him” (1 Clement 5:4).

He said that Paul likewise suffered martyrdom:

“Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience” (1 Clement 5:5-7).

In the early second century, Ignatius of Antioch said that the original disciples of Jesus despised death and became its conquerors through martyrdom:

“When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, ‘Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.’ And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors” (Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 3:2).

Like Clement, he said that Paul too died as a martyr:

“Ye are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found, when I shall attain to God; who in all his Epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus” (Ignatius to the Ephesians 12:2).

Tertullian, in the early third century, wrote about the deaths of Peter, James, and Paul:

“That Peter is struck, that Stephen is overwhelmed by stones, that James is slain as is a victim at the altar, that Paul is beheaded has been written in their own blood. And if a heretic wishes his confidence to rest upon a public record, the archives of the empire will speak, as would the stones of Jerusalem. We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross. Then does Paul obtain a birth suited to Roman citizenship, when in Rome he springs to life again ennobled by martyrdom” (Scorpiace, Chapter 15).

He says that Peter was crucified in Rome as Jesus said he would be in John 21:18:

“How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s! where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!” (Prescriptions Against Heretics, Chapter 36).

Josephus records the death of James the brother of Jesus:

“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified” (Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9).

For more information on the deaths of the apostles, see Sean McDowell’s dissertation on the subject.

What Do the 1,290 and 1,335 Days of Daniel 12:11-12 Mean?

Daniel 12:11-12 is one of the most difficult passages in the Bible to interpret. The text says:

“And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days. Blessed is he who waits and arrives at the 1,335 days.”

The reason why these verses are so hard to interpret is because there is a similar passage to this one in Daniel 8:13-14 which uses different numbers to describe this time:

“Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, ‘For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?’ And he said to me, ‘For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.’”

Daniel 8:13-14 describes the period of time from when the sacrifices at the temple were taken away by Antiochus IV Epiphanes until the temple was restored. The 2,300 evenings and mornings refer to 2,300 evening and morning sacrifices at the temple. Since there were two sacrifices a day, that gives us 1,150 days (a little over three years) which is half of 2,300. This fits in with what we know from history when Antiochus took away the sacrifices at the Jewish temple in 167 B.C. until the temple was rededicated in 164 B.C. after the Maccabees reconquered Jerusalem.

So, how is this period of 1,150 days in chapter 8 different from the 1,290 days in chapter 12?

And what is the relationship between the 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11 and the 1,335 days mentioned in the next verse?

And how is 1,290 days different from three and a half years or 1,260 days mentioned in Revelation 11:3?

I believe that these two numbers in Daniel 12:11-12 are meant to be interpreted symbolically and allude to the story of Israel’s exodus from Egypt.

Remember that Israel was in captivity in Egypt for 430 years. Exodus 12:40 says, “The time that the people of Israel lived in Egypt was 430 years.”

And 430 times 3 is 1,290.

This means that 1,290 is a symbolic way of saying that the suffering of the Jews under Antiochus will be three times as great as the suffering of the Jews under Pharaoh while they were in Egypt.

And just as the Jewish captivity in Egypt would one day come to an end, so too would the suffering of the Jews under Antiochus through God’s work of deliverance.

But then what does 1,335 days mean?

There is a difference of 45 days between 1,335 and 1,290. What does this period of 45 days represent?

I believe the number 45 is an allusion to the story of Caleb in the Book of Joshua.

Caleb says in Joshua 14:10: “And now, behold, the LORD has kept me alive, just as he said, these forty-five years since the time that the LORD spoke this word to Moses, while Israel walked in the wilderness. And now, behold, I am this day eighty-five years old.”

Caleb and Joshua alone were faithful to God while the other spies who were sent to spy out the land of Israel doubted God’s command and discouraged the people of Israel from fighting against the inhabitants of the land.

It would be 45 years until Caleb entered the promised land and took possession of his inheritance after Israel rejected God’s command.

If this is an allusion to the story of Caleb, then this number is drawing a parallel between Caleb’s period of waiting in the wilderness and that of Israel under Antiochus.

But just as Caleb would one day inherit the promised land after a period of waiting, Israel too would one day be able to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Those who persevered under trial would be blessed as Caleb was blessed.

The passage continues in Joshua 14:13-15: “Then Joshua blessed him, and he gave Hebron to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for an inheritance. Therefore Hebron became the inheritance of Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite to this day, because he wholly followed the LORD, the God of Israel. Now the name of Hebron formerly was Kiriath-arba. (Arba was the greatest man among the Anakim.) And the land had rest from war.”

After the time of Antiochus, Israel would experience a hundred years of rest until they were conquered by the Romans in 63 B.C. setting the stage for the events of the life of Jesus.

Jewish Miracles that Prove Christianity

I have been preaching through the Book of Acts and Luke’s account of the early church is filled with miracles that bear witness to the truth of Christianity. But did you know that there are miracles from non-Christian Jewish writings that also bear witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus?

There are two different sources for these miracles: the Jerusalem Talmud which was completed around 350 A.D., and the Babylonian Talmud which was completed around 500 A.D. Both Talmuds contain the Mishnah or Jewish oral law which was completed around 200 A.D.

The Jerusalem Talmud says this about the years before the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. and the miracles that took place before then:

“Forty years before the destruction of the Temple the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open. Said [to the Temple] Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, ‘O Temple, why do you frighten us? We know that you will end up destroyed. For it has been said, ‘Open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars!’” (Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Yoma 6.3.6).

The Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner translates the text of the Jerusalem Talmud this way:

“Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open” (Jacob Neusner, The Yerushalmi, p. 156-157).

The second source comes from the Babylonian Talmud:

“Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the westernmost light shine; and the doors of the Hekal [temple] would open by themselves, until R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Hekal, Hekal, why wilt thou be the alarmer thyself? I know about thee that thou wilt be destroyed, for Zechariah ben Ido has already prophesied concerning thee: Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars” (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yoma 39b).

The Jewish scholar Rashi also alludes to this tradition about the doors of the temple opening by themselves in his writings on Zechariah:

“Our Sages (Yoma 39b) explained ‘Open your doors, O Lebanon,’ as the prophet prophesying about the destruction of the Second Temple; that forty years prior to the destruction, the doors of the Temple proper would open by themselves. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai rebuked them. He said, ‘Temple, how long will you terrify yourself? I know that you will eventually be destroyed.’”

There are four different miracles that are described here: the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand, and the gates of the Temple would open by themselves overnight.

And when did these miracles take place? They started happening forty years before the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. by the Roman army. And what happened forty years earlier? Seventy minus forty is thirty. Jesus died by crucifixion around 30 A.D. – April 3, 33 A.D. to be precise which would make the beginning of his ministry 30 A.D. since his public ministry lasted for three and a half years.

Christians believe that the death of Jesus is the fulfillment of the Jewish sacrificial system. Jesus is the true temple of God and now that he has died for our sins, the old covenant sacrificial system, priesthood, and temple have found their fulfillment in him. Because of the death of Jesus, God no longer accepts animal sacrifices and these miracles from God were designed to prove that to the Jewish people.

The western light going out describes the far western light of the Menorah lampstand in the temple. It was to be kept burning perpetually and the light from it was used to re-light the other lights on the lampstand. But every night for forty years straight, it would go out by itself.

The crimson thread remaining crimson describes the red cord that would be attached to the horns of the scapegoat that was sent out into the wilderness. In the past, God did a miracle by turning the cord white to symbolize his acceptance of this sacrifice and the forgiveness of sins (Isaiah 1:18). This miracle stopped happening forty years before the destruction of the temple.

The lot for the Lord always coming up in the left hand describes the casting of lots on the day of atonement to select which goat would be sacrificed on the altar and which one would be sent into the wilderness as the scapegoat (Leviticus 16:8-10). For forty years straight, the lot landed on the goat on the priest’s left hand.

The gates of the Temple would open by themselves during the night which was interpreted by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai as a miracle pointing to the future destruction of the temple based on Zechariah 11:1: “Open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars!”

Of course, the greatest miracle of all is the resurrection of Jesus for which I believe the evidence is overwhelming.

The Historicity of Esther

Many liberal scholars argue that the Book of Esther is a work of fiction like the apocryphal books of Judith and Tobit. Their main argument against the historicity of Esther is that the events recorded in it are not explicitly recorded in any other ancient source. If it is historical, then why don’t ancient historians like Herodotus or Plutarch ever describe them? As a Protestant, I am in agreement that the apocryphal books of Judith and Tobit are fictional and non-canonical, but there is good evidence to believe that the events described in Esther are historical.

1. The deliverance of the Jews as described in Esther is celebrated by the Jewish people every year in the festival of Purim. If Esther is a work of fiction, then where did the celebration of Purim come from? This festival is a historical relic pointing back to a real event that the Jewish people have always believed really happened. Just as the Jews celebrate Hanukah because it is the celebration of their deliverance from the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes in 165 BC, they celebrate their deliverance from those who wanted to destroy them when they lived among the Persians. In contrast, the Jews have never celebrated the fictional events described in the apocryphal books of Judith or Tobit.

2. The events of the Book of Esther fit in well with the life of King Ahasuerus or Xerxes as described by Herodotus. After Ahasuerus was defeated by the Greeks, Herodotus writes that he “sought consolation in his harem.” This piece of corroborating evidence gives us another reason why he took Esther into his palace. In addition, the book’s description of the government and customs of Persia fit in with what we know from other sources.

3. The argument that the events described in Esther cannot be historical because they are never explicitly repeated in any other ancient writing is an example of the multiple attestation fallacy. This historical fallacy commits the error of thinking that historical events cannot be proven to be true unless they are recorded by multiple ancient sources. But if this method of doing history were to be consistently applied, then a large portion of ancient history would be unknown to us because there are many historical events which are only recorded once. Our knowledge of the ancient world is fragmentary and we are fortunate to have as much information as we do. This argument also reflects an anti-supernatural bias against the Bible since these critics do not want to believe in the God who rescued the Jewish people through Esther. This is ironic given that Esther is the only book in the Bible which does not use God’s name.

How Do You Know Hebrews Is Canonical?

When Catholic apologists are up against the wall and don’t know how to respond to objections against their beliefs raised by Protestants, one of their favorite questions to ask is, “How do you know the Book of Hebrews belongs in the canon of Scripture?” Catholics believe this is an unanswerable question for Protestants because they don’t believe in an infallible papacy that defines what books Catholics consider to be God-breathed Scripture. Catholics argue that only an infallible church can produce an infallible list of inspired books. But since Protestants don’t believe in the infallibility of the church, they can’t know for certain what books of the Bible belong in the canon. But not only is this argument impossible to defend historically based on church history and the many errors in the Apocrypha, but there are good reasons to believe Hebrews is canonical without appealing to the opinion of a man who doesn’t even believe people need to believe in Jesus to be saved:

1. Hebrews was written before the close of the canon of Scripture during the first century when Timothy was still alive and before the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. The author refers to “our brother Timothy” being recently released from prison confirming the first century date of his letter (Heb 13:23). Hebrews was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. because the author is completely silent about the destruction of the temple. If Hebrews was written after the temple was destroyed, the author surely would have used its destruction as a reason not to return to Judaism since there is no longer any animal sacrificial system to go back to. He refers to the Old Covenant as “becoming obsolete” in Hebrews 8:13 because there were still animal sacrifices going on which had not yet vanished away but would soon with the destruction of the temple. The author speaks as if the animal sacrificial system and priesthood in Jerusalem was still going on (Heb 10:11). He describes himself as a second-generation Christian who heard from those who heard from the Lord (Heb 2:3). The date of Hebrews is in contrast to the writings of the apostolic church fathers which were written after the Book of Revelation was completed. 1 Clement, regarded as the earliest writing of the apostolic church fathers written around 95 AD, quotes from Hebrews 1:3-5 in 1 Clement 36:2-5 proving the early date of Hebrews.

2. Hebrews was regarded by Christians living at the end of the first century to be canonical. They received Hebrews as canonical Scripture and the Holy Spirit testified to the genuineness of the letter as coming from himself. 1 Clement quotes from Hebrews 1:3-5 in 1 Clement 36:2-5 as Scripture. If the elders of the church in Rome at the end of the first century who wrote 1 Clement quoted from Hebrews as Scripture, that is strong evidence that the rest of the church did as well. In addition, every major canon list of the early church fathers includes Hebrews as Scripture.

3. The earliest manuscript tradition of the New Testament includes Hebrews in it. P46, also known as the Chester Beatty papyrus written around 200 AD, includes the letter with other New Testament letters. Hebrews is included in every complete copy of the Greek New Testament that we have prior to the invention of the printing press.

4. The letter is self-attesting to its own inspiration. No Christian can read the letter without being amazed at the glory of Christ in it. It is in a different category than the writings of the apostolic church fathers. The Holy Spirit testifies to the inspiration of the letter in the hearts of those who believe in Christ as they read it. The entire church testifies together to its inspiration because they all share the same Holy Spirit who authored the letter.

Based on the early date of the letter before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. and the closing of the canon, the testimony of 1 Clement at the end of the first century to its canonicity, God’s providence in preserving the letter for us today, its inclusion in the Greek manuscript tradition of the New Testament, and the universal testimony of the church to the canonicity of the letter based on the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit to the church, there is every reason to accept Hebrews as canonical and no good reason to reject it.

How Do You Know Matthew Wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

There was once a debate between two Catholic apologists and two Protestant pastors over the topic of sola Scriptura. During the cross-examination, one of the Catholic apologists asked, “How do you know Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew?” The pastor opened his Bible and pointed to the title “Matthew” in it and claimed that was the reason why he knew Matthew wrote Matthew. But how do we know that the English titles in our modern Bibles are accurate? While that might be an acceptable answer for the average Christian, it doesn’t go over very well in a debate. But there is a reason why our English Bibles have Matthew as the title:

1. There are no Greek manuscripts of Matthew which assign authorship to anyone else besides Matthew. This is strong evidence that Matthew’s Gospel originally had Matthew’s name in its title. If the Gospel had been anonymous, then it is likely that we would see at least some manuscripts with different titles or no title at all. Based on the textual evidence, there are no other candidates for its authorship.

2. The testimony of the church fathers is unanimous that Matthew was the original author of the Gospel. Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea all claim that Matthew was the original author of the Gospel which bears his name. I am not aware of any ancient writer who argues otherwise. Based on the testimony of the church fathers, there are no other candidates for its authorship.

3. An internal study of the Gospel itself is consistent with Matthean authorship. Matthew alone uses the more precise term nomisma (state coin) in Matthew 22:19 whereas Mark and Luke use the more common term dēnarion. This could show that the author of Matthew had a financial background since Matthew was a tax collector (Matt 9:9).

In light of the unanimity of the title of Matthew in the Greek manuscript tradition and the universal testimony of the church fathers, there is no reason to think that anyone else wrote Matthew besides Matthew.

Does Numbers 5 Sanction Abortion?

A newer argument by atheists against the Christian pro-life position is that Numbers 5 gives approval to the practice of abortion since the passage describes the death of an unborn child after his mother is intentionally given a mixture of bitter water that causes her to miscarry. This is known as the “water ordeal” where a woman accused of adultery would drink a special mixture of water, ink, and dust and she would miscarry her child if she was guilty of adultery.

While there is some debate as to whether the passage is even describing a miscarriage, I believe the Hebrew terminology the passage uses is a euphemism to describe a miscarriage. This is also the interpretation of the majority of biblical commentators. The answer to the atheist’s argument is not to deny that the passage is describing a miscarriage, but, just as with God commanding the killing of women and children, we have to remember that what is allowable for God is often not allowable for us. The shedding of innocent blood is an abomination in God’s sight and therefore the intentional killing of an unborn child is forbidden to us (Prov 6:16-17). But God, who is the creator of all life, has the authority to give and take life as he sees fit (1 Sam 2:6). God’s causing of adulterous women to miscarry their unborn children is a punishment for their sins, not the willful choice of the woman to have an abortion. It is God who causes the miscarriage, not the bitter water since nothing happened in the case of women who were innocent.

If Numbers 5 gives approval to the practice of abortion, then 2 Samuel 12 gives approval to the practice of infanticide because God struck dead David’s child for his adultery. It would have been murder if David had killed his own child. But it is not murder when God takes the life of David’s child. God’s killing of people does not sanction our killing of people because we are not God. These passages teach us that our sins have consequences for our entire family, including our children. God ordained these events to teach his people the great evil of sin because it cost them the life of their innocent children. Other people had to die for their sins foreshadowing the death of Jesus for our sins.

Why Did God Command the Killing of Women and Children?

One of the most common objections to the Bible is God’s command to Israel to kill all of the men, women, and children of the nations who lived in the land of Canaan. How could a God of love and justice command the killing of innocent children? How can the picture of God in the Old Testament who commanded such things be reconciled with the picture of Jesus we see in the New Testament?

The answer to this question is twofold: the pagans who lived in Canaan were guilty of crimes worthy of death and because God has the freedom to do with his creation as he sees fit. This is not a popular answer, but it is the reason Scripture gives for why these pagan nations had to be entirely wiped out by Israel. As a God of justice, he cannot allow sin to go unpunished.

God was patient with these nations and gave them hundreds of years to repent. God said to Abraham more than 400 years before the exodus from Egypt: “And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Gen 15:16:). The Bible teaches that God’s kindness is meant to lead us to repentance (Rom 2:4). But the opportunity for salvation is limited. We only have so long to repent and each day that we live is a gift from him and another opportunity to get right with God.

The Canaanites and other people groups who lived in the promised land practiced child sacrifice where they would burn their children to false gods like Molech. Deuteronomy 18:9-12 tells us this is the reason why they must be annihilated:

“When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a wizard or a necromancer, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you.”

Their entire civilization had to be destroyed (including the women and children) because it had become so corrupted and polluted by sin that the only solution was to destroy it. To use an analogy, if part of your body becomes badly infected, then the doctors may have no other option but to amputate it to save your life. If you have cancer, the only solution may be to cut it out of your body entirely. The pagan nations in Canaan had become a cancer and the only solution was to kill all of them so that they would not infect Israel with their idolatry. And it is exactly because Israel disobeyed God and did not wipe all of them out that their descendants turned to idols and were brought under judgment for their sin (Josh 23:13). Therefore, we believe by faith that God had a good reason for ordering the killing of women and children to prevent the spread of idolatry and sin.

God can justly order the killing of women and children because he is the sovereign Lord of the universe who can do whatever he pleases (Job 23:13; Ps 115:3; Dan 4:35). God is the giver and taker of life (1 Sam 2:6). Every death is ordained by God since our days are determined by him (Job 14:5). Because God is the creator of all life, he has the authority to take any living creature out of this world anytime he pleases. There is no injustice on God’s part when he takes life because he is the creator of life and therefore has the right to end it for whatever reason he chooses.

Many things which are not allowable for us are allowable for God. It is wrong for us to commit the sin of murder because we are not the creators of life and therefore have no right to take it except in special circumstances. But God cannot commit the sin of murder because he is the creator of all things and by definition has the right to do with his creation as he sees fit. The objection to the Bible based on God’s ordering women and children to be killed is really just an objection to the concept of the sovereignty of God as if God doesn’t have the right to do with his creation as he sees fit. Hence, the objection is nothing more than the angry ravings of sinful man against God’s sovereign power over all things. Because they do not want such a God to exist, they deny his existence because God’s sovereignty is offensive to their concept of human autonomy.