The Futurist Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse in Luke 21
Samuel Whitefield
The Fourth Kingdom in Daniel
http://samuelwhitefield.com/742/understanding-the-fourth-kingdom-of-daniel-2-and-daniel-7-part-1
Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 both place their emphasis on a fourth kingdom that will challenge God’s purposes like no other kingdom in history. While most commentators agree on the identity of the first three kingdoms in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, the identity of the fourth kingdom in these two chapters has been the subject of much debate. However, when we consider both chapters in context to each other and examine what the Scripture plainly says, the identity of the fourth kingdom becomes more clear. Given how much emphasis Daniel places on this kingdom and the significant events he associates with it, it is important that we understand this kingdom. In this session we develop an overview of the kingdom by looking at what Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 specifically says about the timing and the nature of this kingdom.
A Futurist Interpretation of Daniel 8 and 11
Recently, I have been disenchanted with the standard preterist (and virtually only) interpretation of Daniel 8 and 11, that it has already been fulfilled in Antiochus, or as some argue that it is “already-not yet.”
Instead, I think a futurist interpretation of these chapters is beginning to make a whole lot of sense. In my reflection on the book of Daniel the past twenty years, I will be writing a book on Daniel addressing these issues. It will not be a verse-by-verse commentary, but an issue-by-issue commentary addressing questions that are relevant to biblical prophecy and prewrath eschatology.
Samuel Clough has written a helpful article showing the deficiency of the preterist interpretation on Daniel 8 and 11. The title of his article is a bit misleading since it sounds like the absence of the name “Antiochus” is his main argument. Incidentally, I would not use that point as an argument in the first place because it is not a good argument. Just because the name “Antiochus” is not mentioned does not support the argument that it does not apply to Antiochus. Only the obverse would be true: The mention of his name argues for its fulfillment in him. It is very similar to the word-concept fallacy.
Nevertheless, do not allow that to distract you from his other sound points in his article. He only gives an outline of his points on Daniel 8 and 11. He does not give a linguistic analysis, as I will do based on the Hebrew, but it is still very helpful and challenges the traditional interpretation on these two chapters.
Here is his thought-provoking article:
http://samuelwhitefield.com/870/why-antiochus-is-not-mentioned-in-the-book-of-daniel
Here is an excerpt from his conclusion:
Like Daniel we are called to tremble before the record of what is recorded for us. The fact that Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 describe a fully future reign of a wicked man should cause our hearts to tremble. The wickedness of this man has not been enacted in ancient history – it remains for the church in the future. It is our portion to understand this, prepare the church for it, and warn the nations of it.