Remember, [the] conflict is biblically significant because a very important piece of land was between Syria and Egypt. What was it? “Israel”
Quick review: Whose dynasty is reflected by the kings of the:
North – “Seleucus” South – “Ptolemy”
Now let’s read Daniel 11:10-19. According to the chart, what two Seleucid kings (of the North) are reflected in this segment of the Scripture? “Seleucus III” and “Antiochus III the Great”
List several facts that were foretold about Antiochus III the Great in verses 15-19. Be particularly careful not to overlook anything concerning Israel. “He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and have the power to destroy it (16b). He will do as he pleases, no one will be able to stand against him (16a).”
Beloved, allow these words to echo in the empty places of your soul: any alternative ‘savior’ will either disappoint us or totally devastate us. Have you learned this lesson personally? “no”
What do each of following passages tell us about substitute saviors:
Isaiah 17:10-11 – “They are useless and let you down.”
Isaiah 43:11 – “Truly, there are none – they don’t exist.”
…Daniel 11:17-19 predicts Antiochus’ failed attempts to conquer the world. One of these attempts involved a daughter.
What did verse 17 foretell his doing?
“giving her in marriage to Ptolemy V”
⚝ …I’m afraid this Cleopatra is not the one who wrapped Julius Caesar and Mark Antony around her little finger. The woman in Daniel 11 is Cleopatra I while history’s most famous Cleopatra is VII.
Fill in the blank (v. 19): ‘After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will “stumble and fall, to be seen no more.”’
When you first read today’s segment, you probably wondered what on earth the terminology described and why on earth you cared. As we conclude today’s lesson, surely you found something about Antiochus III the Great’s story interesting or intriguing. What is it?
“With the daughter-alliance strategy he was trying to recreate and manipulate the method used (unsuccessfully) by the Ptolemaic leader a couple generations earlier. Who knows why he thought it would work any better for him.”
When we return to business as usual, we may be bored for a while.
Dearest Rachel –
It’s strange to think is, but perhaps the most meaningful answer of yours in this particular section is a simple yes-or-no item, where you were asked if you were personally acquainted with the idea of putting faith in an ‘alternative’ savior. Of course, had you said ‘yes’ to this query, you would have been certain to have scribbled several lines of explanation beneath the question, or perhaps an entire paragraph in the margin.
But of course, you didn’t; you answered ‘no.’ A simple, succinct response that requires no further elaboration. You suffered no such disappointment or devastation from following a false messiah, because you never did such a thing.
And yet I wonder if you sometimes felt as I do from time to time about how you never had any grand conversion story to tell about your faith; no stunning change from ‘before’ to ‘after,’ since you came to Christ as a young girl (although not as young as me or Daniel) and, in keeping with the Proverb about the well-raised child, never strayed from the proper path. Of course, there is virtue in that consistency, but it makes it hard sometimes to determine whether you’ve grown in faith when the changes are so incremental as to be invisible within one’s own lived experience.
Granted, it’s better than the reaction of the prodigal’s elder brother, resenting the fact that his profligate sibling seemed to be welcomed into the family with a joy that appeared to dwarf the Father’s approval of him and his consistency (however grudging it may have been, considering the dialogue in the parable itself). I’d like to think that neither of us were irritated by the fact that fellow believers had more sordid pasts and still found a welcome in God’s family, only concerned that we didn’t learn the lessons that experience might have taught (although, to be fair, the tuition fees for that education can be steeper than many people can afford to pay), and we didn’t necessarily have much of a baseline to compare our lives with and without God like they did.
Having said that, it’s funny that the last notation in this particular study is an apology from the author that you might be bored with future segments; we face(d) the same thing when speaking about our lives in Christ. We don’t have lurid or exciting stories to tell, and it’s hard to make them interesting for those we would try to explain it to. At least we aren’t the only ones worried about offering a boring story.
Still, despite the potential for dullness, I’d still appreciate it if you could continue to keep an eye on me, and wish me luck. I expect I’m still going to need it.
Letters to Rachel 