Somewhere in Alexandria, more than two centuries before Christ, a group of Jewish scholars sat down with the Hebrew Scriptures and a problem.

They had been given the task of carrying the Law of Moses into Greek. Not because they wanted to be clever, and not because anyone thought the Hebrew was deficient, but because their own people were losing the ability to read it. Greek had become the language of the street, the market, the school, and the courtroom. A generation of Jewish children was growing up in Egypt speaking the language of Alexander’s empire as their mother tongue. If those children were going to hear Moses at all, someone was going to have to hand them Moses in Greek.

So they worked. And somewhere in the thirty-seventh chapter of Genesis they came to an old man refusing to be comforted, saying he would go down to his dead son in שְׁאוֹל (Sheol).

And they had to pick a word.

That decision, made by careful and pious men doing honest work, is the reason we are starting here rather than anywhere else. Because the word they chose was the right word. It was also a word that came with furniture. And almost everything that has gone wrong in the popular Christian picture of the afterlife can be traced, in one way or another, to what later readers did with that furniture.

Let’s dig in.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The problem on the table

Put yourself at that desk for a moment.

Sheol appears in the Hebrew Scriptures around sixty-six times. It is the place the dead go. Not the individual tomb, which Hebrew calls קֶבֶר (qever), but the gathering place, the realm, the great below where everyone ends up. Jacob expects to go there. David sings about it. Job begs for it. It is where the righteous and the wicked alike descend, and the Hebrew Bible is remarkably restrained about what happens once you arrive.

Now translate that into Greek.

You have exactly two options, and both of them cost you something.

Option one is transliteration. Just carry the sound across. Write sheol in Greek letters and let the reader figure it out. This is what modern translators do with words like amen and hallelujah, and it has the great advantage of importing no foreign concept whatsoever.

It also has an enormous disadvantage.

Your reader is a fourteen-year-old in Alexandria who has never heard the word in his life. You have just handed him a meaningless syllable in the middle of the most emotionally devastating sentence in the Joseph narrative. The old man is weeping over his son and going down to... what? The reader stops. The text goes dead in his hands.

Because here’s the thing. It’s the third century B.C. The reader can’t just run to the book store and pick up a Bible dictionary or a lexicon. Especially since this is the first time the Hebrew scriptures have been translated into another language. There is no resource anywhere in Greek to help the reader understand.

That’s a real problem.

Option two is translation. Find the Greek word that means what Sheol means, the ordinary word every Greek speaker already uses for the place the dead go, and use it. Your reader understands the sentence instantly. Jacob is going down to the realm of the dead. The grief lands.

There was only one such word. ᾅδης (hadēs). It was the only Greek word that had a meaning anywhere in the same category as Sheol.

Clearly, the LXX translators went with option two. And I want to say plainly, before we look at what that cost, that I think they made the right choice.

What they actually did

Here is the scope of the decision. Across the Septuagint, Sheol is rendered as Hades in nearly every single occurrence. There are only a small handful of exceptions, where the translators reached instead for words meaning earth, or death, or pit. Otherwise it is Hades, over and over, throughout the Law and the Prophets and the Writings.

That is not a slip. That is a settled, deliberate, consistent editorial policy carried out across an entire library of books by multiple hands over multiple centuries.

They knew exactly what they were doing.

And notice what it tells us. When you see Hades in the Greek Old Testament, you are not looking at a new idea. You are looking at Sheol with a Greek coat on. Same realm. Same concept. Different alphabet.

Let’s look at a survey of six examples from the Brenton translation of the LXX.

Six windows

Genesis 37:35 (LXX/Brenton)

And all his sons and his daughters gathered themselves together, and came to comfort him; but he would not be comforted, saying, I will go down to my son mourning to Hades; and his father wept for him.

Start with the grief, because it clarifies everything.

Jacob has just been handed a bloodied coat. He believes a wild animal has torn his son to pieces. His children stand around him trying to say something useful and he will not hear any of it. What he says is that he is going to go down to his boy, still mourning, in Hades.

Now ask yourself the question that looks obvious to us, having even a passing knowledge of Greek mythology. Is Jacob expecting to meet a Greek god there?

Of course not.

The idea is absurd on its face, and no reader in Alexandria would have given this a single thought. Jacob is saying what any grieving Hebrew father would say. My son is among the dead. I will be among the dead soon enough. I will carry this grief with me the whole way down. The Greek word is Hades. The place is Sheol. They are the same place, and the sentence means exactly what the Hebrew meant.

Genesis 42:38 (LXX/Brenton)

But he said, My son shall not go down with you, because his brother is dead, and he only has been left; and suppose it shall come to pass that he is afflicted by the way by which ye go, then ye shall bring down my old age with sorrow to Hades.

Same man. Same fear. Years later.

Now they want Benjamin, and Jacob has learned exactly one thing from losing Joseph, which is that he cannot survive it twice. Take this one too, he says, and you will put my grey head in the ground with grief still on it.

I include this second one for a simple reason. One instance proves nothing. Two instances in the same book, in the same voice, in the same idiom, tell you this is settled vocabulary. The translators were not fishing around for a word each time they hit Sheol. They had made their decision and they were keeping it.

Psalm 15:10 (LXX/Brenton)

because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

This is Psalm 16:10 in your English Bible, and it is the keystone of the whole argument.

But the first thing to recognize is that “hell” here is Brenton’s linguistic choice, largely (if not entirely) because that’s how the KJV renders it. And if you didn’t know, Brenton based his LXX translation off the KJV in the same way that the translators of the NETS based their text off the NRSV and the Orthodox Study Bible used the NKJV; they start with their base translation and make changes only where the Greek says something different from the Hebrew.

In the Greek of Psalm 15:10, the word being used is ᾅδην (Hades).

Now, watch what happens to this verse. On the day of Pentecost, Peter stands up in Jerusalem and preaches the resurrection, and he reaches for this psalm as his proof text.

He quotes it in Greek.

He quotes it with this word in it. And he applies it to Jesus Christ, arguing that David was not talking about himself, because David died and was buried and his tomb is right over there. David was talking about the Messiah, whose spirit was not abandoned in the realm of the dead and whose body did not decay.

Sit with that for a second. The apostolic preaching of the resurrection, on the birthday of the church, rests on a Greek Old Testament text that uses this word. If the word were a pagan corruption, Peter picked a strange hill to stand on.

He did not think so. He thought he was quoting Scripture, because he was.

That is the ratification. The translators made a call, and the apostles preached from it.

1 Kings 2:6 (LXX/Brenton)

The Lord kills and makes alive; he brings down to the grave, and brings up.

This is Hannah’s song, 1 Samuel 2:6 in your Bible, and it does something the others do not.

Everything in the Greek myth says the underworld belongs to somebody else. Hades the god got the realm of the dead when the cosmos was divided among three brothers, and it is his, and what happens down there is his business. Hannah says something flatly incompatible with that.

The Lord brings down, and the Lord brings up. The realm of the dead is not another god’s territory. It is under the authority of the God of Israel, who kills and makes alive, and who is not finished with anyone He puts down there.

As with Psalm 15, notice the English word Brenton used. But this time we’re going to hold that thought. We’ll come back to it very soon.

Isaiah 14:9, 11 (LXX/Brenton)

Hell from beneath is provoked to meet thee: all the great ones that have ruled over the earth have risen up together against thee, they that have raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

Thy glory has come down to Hades, and thy great mirth: under thee they shall spread corruption, and the worm shall be thy covering.

Here is the taunt against the king of Babylon, and it is the most vivid picture of the realm of the dead anywhere in the prophets. The place stirs itself awake to receive a new arrival. The dead kings get up off their thrones to greet him. The conqueror comes down and finds a waiting room full of conquerors, all of them just as dead as he is, all of them delighted to see that the great man has become exactly what they are.

I should note in passing that verse 12 in Brenton reads “Lucifer,” and that this passage carries a great deal of freight about the fall of a spiritual power behind the throne of Babylon. That is a genuine and important discussion, and I have treated it at length in the Divine Council series, where it belongs. For our purposes here, keep your eye on the realm itself.

And keep your eye on the two English words in those two verses. Three verses apart. The Greek word underneath them is the same word both times, as we’ve seen in each case.

Job 14:13 (LXX/Brenton)

For oh that thou hadst kept me in the grave, and hadst hidden me until thy wrath should cease, and thou shouldest set me a time in which thou wouldest remember me!

Job is not asking to die. Read it again. He is asking to be hidden, tucked away in the realm of the dead like a man stepping into a doorway to wait out a storm, until the wrath passes and God remembers him and calls him back out.

That is a stunning thing for a man in the Hebrew Scriptures to say, and we will come back to it much later in this series, because Job keeps almost saying the thing he cannot quite say.

For now, notice only the word Brenton chose here: Grave.

One Greek word. Three English words.

Now put the six verses side by side and look at the English.

In Genesis, Brenton wrote Hades. In the Psalm, he wrote hell. In Hannah’s song and in Job, he wrote grave. In Isaiah, within three verses of each other, he wrote hell and then Hades.

Underneath every one of those, in every case, sits the same Greek word.

I want to be careful here, because it would be easy to turn this into an accusation, and an accusation would be both unkind and wrong. Sir Lancelot Brenton was a serious scholar doing serious work, and he was not being careless. He was doing precisely what the Septuagint translators had done two thousand years earlier. He came to a word that named the realm of the dead, and he reached for the ordinary word in his own language that fit the tone of the sentence in front of him. When the verse felt like a burial, he wrote grave. When the verse felt like judgment, he wrote hell. When the verse felt like a realm, he wrote Hades.

Every individual choice is defensible. But the cumulative effect is that his English reader can no longer see that each of these choices were all the same word.

That is the whole problem in miniature, and it did not stop with Brenton. Open almost any English Bible and you will find the same fracture. One realm in the original, splintered into three or four English words, each of which drags its own crowd of associations along behind it. Grave sounds like a hole in a churchyard. Hell sounds like fire and pitchforks. Hades sounds like Greek myth. A reader meeting those three words never suspects they are standing in the same place.

And here is the part that ought to make you set your coffee down. If a single careful translator working in the nineteenth century, with lexicons and concordances and centuries of scholarship at his elbow, produced three different English words for one Greek term, what do you suppose happened to the concept over two thousand years of readers who had no idea the splitting had occurred?

That is not a rhetorical flourish. That is the actual history of the doctrine.

The furniture that came with the word

So what was in the room when the translators walked in? What did an ordinary Greek speaker already picture when he heard this word?

Start with the most important thing, which is that Hades was a person before it was a place. He was a god, one of three brothers who divided the cosmos between them after the war with the Titans.

Zeus took the sky, Poseidon took the sea, and Hades drew the underworld. Greek speakers originally spoke of going down not to Hades but to the house of Hades, the way you might speak of going to your uncle’s house. Over the centuries the owner’s name migrated onto the property, until the word could mean either the god or his realm depending on the sentence. That ambiguity is baked into the word, and it is the single heaviest piece of furniture in the room.

Then there are the shades. In the eleventh book of the Odyssey, Odysseus travels to the edge of the underworld and performs a ritual to summon the dead, and what comes up to meet him is genuinely disturbing.

The dead are there, and they are recognizable, and they are also hollowed out. Strengthless. They have to drink sacrificial blood before they can even speak coherently.

In a later book they are compared to bats squeaking in a cave. When Odysseus tries to embrace his own mother, his arms pass through her three times. And most devastating of all, the great Achilles tells him he would rather be a landless hired laborer among the living than king over all the exhausted dead.

That is the Greek verdict on the afterlife. Existence continues, and it is not worth having.

Then the geography accumulated.

Rivers, most famously the Styx, along with Acheron and the wailing Cocytus and the burning Phlegethon, and eventually Lethe, whose water erases memory. A ferryman named Charon appears in the later tradition, not in Homer, who must be paid to carry the dead across, which is why coins were placed with the dead.

A monstrous dog at the gate. Judges of the dead. Regions of punishment for the notorious, where Sisyphus pushes his stone and Tantalus reaches forever for water he cannot drink, and eventually a bright quarter called Elysium for the specially favored.

There is also Persephone, and her story is worth a moment because it shows how differently the two cultures thought. She is a goddess, carried off by Hades to be his queen, and because she eats pomegranate seeds in the underworld she is bound to return there for part of every year. Her descent and return are the Greek explanation for winter and spring.

Stop and feel how foreign that is to the Hebrew Scriptures. The Greek underworld is woven into the machinery of the seasons and populated by a divine family with a domestic drama.

Sheol is a realm under the authority of the God who kills and makes alive.

Two more details, because they matter for where this series is going.

First, the living occasionally went down and came back. Odysseus reached the edge, Heracles hauled the guard dog up into daylight, Orpheus went after his wife and lost her at the last moment, and in the Roman continuation of the tradition Aeneas took the full tour.

Second, and more importantly, the dead almost never came back. There are a bare handful of exceptions, and every one is a spectacular intervention rather than a rule. The gates were understood to open in only one direction.

That is precisely the assumption Christ will overturn, and we will spend two full posts on it later in this series.

I am deliberately keeping this sketch short, and I am deliberately not describing the layout of the Greek underworld in any detail.

When we get to the actual geography of Sheol, we are going to want to look carefully at what Scripture says about its structure, and I would rather you come to that with the biblical furniture in your head instead of the Greek.

Where it actually went wrong

So the translators picked up a word with all that baggage attached to it.

Was that a mistake?

I don’t think so. Let me explain why.

Every translator in history faces this exact problem, because there are no neutral words. Every word in every language arrives already used, already colored by whoever used it last.

When missionaries carried the gospel into new languages they had to choose local words for God, for sacrifice, for spirit, for holiness, and every one of those words came pre-loaded with the local religion.

There is no clean vocabulary anywhere on earth. You either use the words people actually have, or you do not communicate.

The Alexandrian translators had one word for the realm of the dead. They used it. They then proceeded to fill it with Hebrew content, verse after verse, until anyone reading the Greek Scriptures straight through would absorb a picture of the realm of the dead that is markedly different from Homer’s.

And watch how the biblical writers handle the borrowed word once they have it.

They discipline it. Hannah puts the realm under the Lord’s authority, which strips Hades of his ownership. Isaiah fills it with dethroned kings rather than mythological machinery. The psalmist insists God will not abandon him there. And when the Lord Jesus tells us about two men who died, one comforted and one in torment, there is no ferryman in the story.

There are angels.

There is no river to be crossed for a fee. There is a fixed chasm, and its meaning is not geographic but moral, defined out loud by Abraham. We’ll spend an entire post on that account later. I don’t want to spoil it here, but notice the pattern. Every time the Greek furniture might have walked in, Scripture put something else in its place.

The word crossed the border. The mythology did not come with it.

So where did our trouble come from?

It came from what was read into the text, and it came later.

Picture a Greek-speaking convert three centuries on, raised on Homer the way we were raised on nursery rhymes, who has known since childhood exactly what happens when you die and go down to Hades.

He becomes a Christian. He opens the Scriptures. He finds a word he has known his entire life. And without ever deciding to do it, without a moment of conscious theological reasoning, he reads his childhood furniture into the text.

Not because the translators put it there. Because he brought it with him.

Multiply that by centuries. Add the medieval imagination, which we will get to in a couple of weeks, and which added far more furniture than Homer ever did. Then flatten the whole thing into a single English word that no biblical author ever wrote. A concept that no biblical author would have understood.

That is how we got the picture most of us inherited.

The translators handed us a clean window. Generations of readers painted on the glass.

Dig deeper

If you want to see the pattern for yourself rather than taking my word for it, here are more places where the Septuagint uses Hades and simply means Sheol, the realm of the dead, with no Greek mythology anywhere in sight. I

If I walk through a survey of all of these, we’ll be until until next Tuesday! So what I’m giving is only the verse references so you can look them up in your own Bible and in a Septuagint translation side by side and watch the equivalence hold.

Numbers 16:30 and 33. Deuteronomy 32:22. Job 7:9 and 17:13-16. Psalm 6:5, Psalm 30:3, Psalm 49:15, Psalm 88:3, and Psalm 139:8. Proverbs 15:11. Ecclesiastes 9:10. Isaiah 5:14 and 38:10-18. Ezekiel 31:15-17. Hosea 13:14. Jonah 2:2. Amos 9:2.

Remember the numbering offset when you go looking. Those Psalm references are given the way your English Bible numbers them, so in a Septuagint translation you will generally find them in the psalm previous.

Read a dozen of those and something settles in. This is not a Greek idea wearing Hebrew clothes. This is the Hebrew realm of the dead, spoken in Greek, exactly as the translators intended.

What this sets up

I spent a whole post on a single translation decision because the mechanism it reveals is the key to everything that follows.

Here is the mechanism. A word crosses from one language into another. The translators pour the right meaning into it. And then readers on the far side, who already knew that word from somewhere else, quietly pour their own meaning back in, until the borrowed container is holding something the original authors never put there.

Hold onto that, because it is about to happen again, and the next time it happens the stakes are considerably higher. The next borrowed word is not the name of a place. It is the word for what you are.

Next time we take up the question underneath every other question in this series. What, exactly, is a human being? Because if you believe you are a ghost temporarily driving a body around, then everything you conclude about where you go when you die will be built on a foundation the Hebrew Scriptures never poured.

Until then, may the Lord be with you.

And as always, follow Acts 17:11. Be Berean. Don’t take my word for any of this. Check the texts for yourself to prove whether or not it’s true.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the books. Completed teaching series are available as polished books under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying ebooks through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon if you’re looking for a Kindle, print, or audio edition, and elsewhere if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible.

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

Last week we opened a chapter that has bothered me for a while, and we opened it with company.

In part one, of Deeper Still and I walked into Genesis 14 together and found a war. Four kings out of the east, five kings of the plain, a rebellion one year old, and a campaign that rolled through the Transjordan putting down clan after clan whose names most of us have read past a hundred times. Rephaim. Zuzim. Emim. Horites. Then Sodom fell, Lot was taken, and a man with three hundred and eighteen members of his own household went after an empire and won.

In part two, over on Deeper Still, Lawrence asked who those clans actually were, and I went after one word. Rephaim. The Greek translators could not agree on what to do with it. In one book they called them giants. In another, Titans. In Proverbs, the earth-born. In Psalm 88 and Isaiah 26, physicians. And sometimes they gave up and just wrote the sound down without explaining it. Same word. Same Bible. Six hundred years of people arguing about it and never settling.

If you have not read those, I strongly recommend you start there. This one will make a lot more sense after you’ve caught up.

Now we come to the four verses this whole series has been walking toward.

Because Genesis 14 does not end with the battle. It ends with a man coming down a road with bread and wine, blessing the one person in the chapter who had just proved he could not be beaten, and taking a tenth of everything before disappearing out of the book entirely.

No father. No mother. No tribe.

And then refusing to stay gone. He surfaces in Psalm 110. He surfaces again in Hebrews, where an entire doctrine of the priesthood of Christ gets built on top of him.

Today Lawrence takes the scene itself, and what Genesis pointedly declines to tell us about it. Then I want to lay out every serious answer anyone has given to the question of who this man was, including two you have probably never heard, and show you something about those answers that I have not seen anyone point out.

After that we go to the Greek of Psalm 110, which is where this series has been headed since I wrote the introduction, and finally into Hebrews 7.

It is a long one. Settle in.

Now let me hand you off to Lawrence so we can dig in.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Reading Melchizedek’s entrance for what it doesn’t say

We spent the last piece establishing who the Rephaim were, why a four-king coalition thought them worth defeating before it ever reached Sodom, and why Genesis keeps circling back to the same cluster of names across the conquest narratives. That groundwork wasn’t a detour. It was the scale we needed before the second half of Genesis 14 can land with its actual weight.

Because here’s what the chapter has built so far. An empire-level coalition, methodical enough to rout the Rephaim, the Zuzim, the Emim, and the Horites in sequence, gets defeated by 318 household men and a covenant nobody in the chapter knows Abram is carrying. That’s the reversal. Power measured by conquest and stature loses to power that arrives with neither.

Genesis isn’t done making its point. Abram is riding back from the slaughter, Lot and the recovered plunder in tow, and the king of Sodom comes out to meet him in the King’s Valley. That’s the meeting you’d expect. A defeated ruler coming to collect what’s left of his city.

Then, in the middle of that scene, a second king arrives. This one doesn’t come from the east and he isn’t coming to negotiate. He doesn’t come with an army. He comes with bread and wine, and in four short verses he receives something the coalition of four kings never got close to: total, unqualified deference from the man who just proved he can’t be beaten by force.

That’s worth sitting with before we go any further. The war just taught us that Abram doesn’t lose, and he doesn’t lose here either, but this time he isn’t the one doing the defeating. He’s the one bowing. Whoever this king is, Genesis is telling us he outranks the reversal that came before him. Which means understanding him isn’t a side note to the war narrative. It’s the payoff the war narrative was building toward.

How could Abram have such a profound understanding of a power greater than his own, without the text giving us any explanation of where that understanding came from?

The name Jesus never enters the picture. Yet one of the earliest fathers of the faith knew to submit his worship to a priest of the true God.

With an act of submission like that, what exactly was the text trying to tell us?

What the Text Says

“And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. He blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
maker of heaven and earth, and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him one-tenth of everything.” (Genesis 14:18-20 NRSV)

And who exactly was this man?

Was Melchizedek a Christophany, an appearance of Christ before His incarnation? Or was there an established lineage of priests who served the true God, ministering to certain people groups in a way Scripture simply never records?

The text gives us the action. It leaves us to figure out the knowledge behind it.

Four verses. That’s the entire appearance. A king of Salem, identified as priest of God Most High, El Elyon in the Hebrew, brings out bread and wine, pronounces a blessing that credits the victory to God rather than to Abram’s 318 men, and receives a tenth of everything Abram had recovered. Then he’s gone. He doesn’t reappear in Genesis. He doesn’t reappear anywhere in the Torah.

Notice what the blessing actually does, because it’s doing more theological work than its brevity suggests. Melchizedek doesn’t congratulate Abram on a military victory. He reframes the entire war we just spent two essays inside. The coalition wasn’t defeated by tactics or by the courage of a household militia. It was delivered into Abram’s hand by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth. Melchizedek says this to Abram’s face, immediately after Abram’s greatest triumph, and Abram’s response isn’t to correct him or claim credit. It’s to hand over a tenth of everything. Whatever authority this king carries, Abram recognizes it as real, and recognizes it as outranking his own.

The tithe matters here beyond the raw generosity of the gesture. Abram doesn’t tithe to the king of Sodom, who offers him a share of the goods a few verses later and gets refused outright. He tithes, unprompted, to a king he has apparently never met before this moment. That’s not a transaction. That’s Abram acknowledging a priesthood he didn’t create and doesn’t control.

Abram Knew the Difference

My perspective, as I follow the breadcrumbs, is this: I don’t believe Melchizedek was a Christophany.

Abram had already encountered God. He knew Him. He had experienced His presence and heard His voice. So when Abram encountered Melchizedek, I don’t believe he was mistaking a man for God Himself.

We actually see something striking in Genesis 18. When Abraham encounters three mysterious visitors by the oaks of Mamre, one of them is explicitly identified as the LORD. Abraham immediately runs to meet them, bows low to the ground, and invites them to stay. Then he offers them water: [SUPPLY: Genesis 18:4, NRSVUE]. He prepares a meal for them. Sarah is told to make cakes from choice flour, Abraham selects a tender calf, and they are served meat, curds, and milk.

Abraham is not hesitant to show extraordinary honor and hospitality when he recognizes the presence of the LORD.

That makes his encounter with Melchizedek even more interesting. With Melchizedek, Abram does not treat him as though he were God appearing before him. Instead, he honors him as a priest of God Most High.

That distinction matters.

We see another fascinating example in Judges 6. Gideon encounters the Angel of the LORD, and when he wants confirmation that this is truly a divine encounter, he prepares an offering. He brings meat from a young goat and unleavened cakes and places them on a rock. Then the Angel of the LORD touches the offering with the tip of His staff.

“Then the angel of the Lord reached out the tip of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened cakes, and fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened cakes, and the angel of the Lord vanished from his sight.” (Judges 6:21 NRSV)

Again, Scripture gives us examples where God’s people encounter a divine figure and respond with offerings, worship, and acts of honor. So when Abram encounters Melchizedek, we need to pay attention to what the text actually shows us. Abram recognizes him as “priest of God Most High.” And then Abram gives him a tenth. This is the right hand washing the left, and the left hand washing the right. Both are part of the same body, serving the same purpose and pursuing the same mission, strengthening and securing one another along the way.

Which raises a much bigger question. Where did Abram learn all of this? How did he know Melchizedek was a priest? How did he know that a tenth was the appropriate offering?

The text doesn’t stop to explain it. And that is where another breadcrumb appears.

The King and the Priest

There is a pattern throughout the Old Testament that becomes especially clear once the Mosaic Law establishes Israel’s priesthood. The roles of king and priest were not meant to be casually combined. The king carried civil and military authority. The priests carried responsibility for the worship and sacrificial system. Under the Law, these offices were tied to different tribes. The royal line came through Judah, particularly the house of David, while the priesthood belonged to Levi through Aaron.

I want to be careful how I say this next part, because I’ve heard it said too strongly and I don’t want to overstate my case.

The Law never actually prints a prohibition. There’s no verse that says a king may not serve as a priest. What the Law does is assign the offices to different tribes and reserve certain specific acts to Aaron’s descendants. The separation is built into the structure rather than spelled out as a rule.

So how do we know it mattered?

Because Scripture shows us, in narrative rather than in statute, what happened when a king reached for something that wasn’t his.

King Saul is where I’d start, though I’ll admit up front that I’m reading something into this passage that the text doesn’t say outright. In 1 Samuel 13, Saul was told to wait seven days for Samuel at Gilgal. When Samuel appeared to be delayed and Saul’s army began scattering, Saul became impatient and offered the burnt offering himself. Samuel arrived immediately afterward and confronted him.

Here’s the part I want to be honest about. When Samuel explains what went wrong, he doesn’t say Saul usurped the priesthood. He says:

“Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which he commanded you.” (1 Samuel 13:13 NRSV)

The charge is disobedience to a specific instruction. And then the sentence:

“but now your kingdom will not continue” (1 Samuel 13:14 NRSV)

I still think the office matters here. Saul’s impatience took a particular shape, and it isn’t a coincidence that the thing he reached for was the altar. But the text itself puts the emphasis on the command he broke, not the role he took, and you should know that’s where I’m reading between the lines rather than reading the lines.

Uzziah is the clearer case, and here the text says the quiet part out loud.

In 2 Chronicles 26, Uzziah became powerful and successful, and his success led to pride. He entered the temple and attempted to burn incense on the altar. The priests confronted him:

“they withstood King Uzziah and said to him, “It is not for you, Uzziah, to make offering to the Lord, but for the priests the descendants of Aaron, who are consecrated to make offering. Go out of the sanctuary, for you have acted unfaithfully, and it will bring you no honor from the Lord God.” (2 Chronicles 26:18, NRSV).

Notice that the objection is stated in terms of office, explicitly, and tied to Aaron’s line. Uzziah became angry. And then leprosy broke out on his forehead. He was removed from the temple and lived the remainder of his life separated from the house of the LORD.

The message was unmistakable. Some things belonged to the sons of Aaron and to nobody else, and the crown did not change that.

I need add a minor aside here, because Lawrence has just made a distinction that is easy to get wrong in the other direction.

He is right that the line existed, and right that Uzziah is where Scripture draws it in ink. But I want to fill in what sits on the other side of that line, because the oft-repeated “the king was not the priest” is true in a narrow sense and misleading in a broad one, and the difference is where the argument actually lives.

Israelite kings were not shut out of worship. They were up to their elbows in it.

David brought the Ark into Jerusalem wearing a linen ephod, which is priestly clothing. He offered burnt offerings and offerings of well-being. When it was finished, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts. And 2 Samuel 8:18, in the Hebrew, says flatly that David’s sons were priests, a line so awkward that Chronicles later rewrites it and most English versions soften it.

Solomon is no quieter. A thousand burnt offerings at Gibeon. At the dedication of the temple he offers sacrifices in numbers the text declines to count, consecrates the middle of the court because the bronze altar cannot hold the volume, and blesses the whole assembly of Israel with his own mouth.

So if you were looking for a rule that says kings stay out of the sanctuary, it is not there, and pretending otherwise will not survive a reader who knows 2 Samuel 6.

What is there is narrower and sharper.

The reserved acts were specific. Entering the holy place. Burning incense on the incense altar. Handling the blood of the sin offering. Wearing the high priest’s vestments. Going in behind the veil, which even Aaron could only do once a year and not without blood. Those were tied by name to Aaron’s descendants, and the penalty attached to them in the Law is not a fine.

It is death.

Uzziah did not sacrifice. Kings sacrificed all the time. Uzziah walked into the temple and picked up a censer, and that is a different category of act entirely.

Which is why his story ends the way it does, and why David’s does not.

And it sharpens what Lawrence is about to do with Melchizedek. Because the point was never that kingship and worship could not touch. They touched constantly. The point is that after Sinai, the line ran through descent. You could not choose your way into the holy place. You had to be born into it, and if you were not, no amount of anointing oil made up the difference.

But Genesis 14 hands us a man who is king and priest at once, four hundred years before Sinai draws that line, and who holds both offices without anyone in the text raising an eyebrow.

Now, back to Lawrence.

David gives us another picture. David was a warrior, a king, and a man deeply involved in the worship of God. Yet he consistently recognized where the line fell. When he fled Jerusalem during Absalom’s rebellion, he told Zadok and the priests to take the Ark back into the city rather than treating it as something he personally controlled. He could be the most worshipful king Israel ever had and still know what wasn’t his to carry.

Solomon followed the same pattern. When he established his kingdom, the priesthood remained a distinct office. Zadok became high priest while Solomon remained king.

This separation is what makes something unusual, which happened long before any of these kings existed, worth noticing. Abram met Melchizedek. And Genesis 14 gives us a remarkable description:

“And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.” (Genesis 14:18 NRSV)

Read that slowly.

King. Priest. One man.

Abram had just returned from battle, the warrior who had defeated the kings and rescued Lot. Melchizedek was the king-priest who came out to meet him. He blessed Abram. Abram responded by giving him a tenth of everything.

And suddenly the picture becomes much larger. When Abram met Melchizedek, Israel didn’t exist yet. The twelve tribes didn’t exist. Moses hadn’t been born. The Levitical priesthood had not been established. The Tabernacle did not exist. The division between Judahite kingship and Levitical priesthood had not yet been established through the Mosaic covenant.

Yet Genesis already gives us a king who is also a priest of the Most High God.

And that is fascinating when we eventually arrive at Jesus.

The Breadcrumb Leads Forward

Centuries later, the Old Testament establishes a priesthood through Levi and a royal line through Judah. Then Jesus arrives from the tribe of Judah. He is the promised King. But He is also our High Priest.

So how can Jesus legitimately hold both offices?

This is exactly where Hebrews 7 takes us back to Melchizedek. The writer doesn’t point to Aaron to explain Jesus’ priesthood. He points to Melchizedek.

“The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” (Psalm 110:4, NRSVUE)

And Hebrews builds its argument from there. Melchizedek’s priesthood existed before Levi. Abram, the ancestor of Levi, gave Melchizedek a tenth. And Hebrews argues that the greater blesses the lesser.

The point isn’t simply that Melchizedek was an interesting character in Genesis. His appearance becomes part of the explanation for how Jesus can be both King and Priest. Jesus does not need to become a Levitical priest. His priesthood belongs to an older order.

The order of Melchizedek.

And now I think we can return to Abram. He was one of the foundational figures of the faith, a man who shared an extraordinary relationship with God. Yet when he encountered Melchizedek, he recognized something. He recognized the priest. He recognized the authority. And he knew what to give.

A tenth.

That’s the part that keeps pulling me deeper.

Maybe there was a priestly tradition that existed before the Mosaic priesthood, preserving the knowledge and worship of the true God through generations. Maybe Melchizedek was part of that lineage. I can’t prove every detail of that reconstruction from Genesis alone. But I don’t think we should rush past it either.

The text deliberately introduces Melchizedek as king of Salem and priest of God Most High. Then Abram honors him. Centuries later, the writer of Hebrews reaches backward to this same mysterious figure to explain the priesthood of Christ.

The mystery isn’t simply that Melchizedek appears. The mystery is that Abram already seems to know exactly who he is. And perhaps the question Hebrews wants us to ask is even bigger: what was God showing us through this mysterious priest-king, long before Jesus ever touched the scene?

What the Text Refuses to Say

Here’s what should stop you cold if you know how the rest of Genesis operates. This is a book obsessed with genealogy. It is built on a single recurring formula, “these are the generations of,” which appears about ten times and functions as the skeleton of the whole book. Every major figure who matters gets a lineage attached to them, father to son, generation to generation, often in tedious, repetitive detail that modern readers skim past but that the original audience would have read as essential information. Where you came from told you who you were, what claim you had to land, blessing, and priesthood.

Melchizedek gets none of it. No father. No mother. No tribe. No hometown beyond “Salem,” which itself is thin enough to have generated centuries of debate about where it actually was. He simply appears, king and priest at once, holding together two offices the Law would later assign to separate tribes. He blesses the covenant bearer, receives the tithe that acknowledges his authority, and exits a text that would ordinarily never let a figure this significant pass without telling us whose son he was.

I don’t think that’s an accident, and I don’t think it’s simply lost information, a genealogy that existed once and got dropped somewhere in transmission. A book this careful about lineage everywhere else doesn’t misplace one this significant by coincidence. The silence reads as deliberate. Genesis wants you to notice that this priesthood doesn’t come from anywhere the text is willing to tell you.

Which means the omission isn’t a gap waiting to be filled. It’s the argument. A priest-king shows up with no pedigree, in a book where pedigree is everything, and receives deference from the man carrying the covenant promise. Whatever Genesis wants us to understand about where legitimate priesthood and kingship ultimately come from, it’s telling us here, in the negative space, that it isn’t descent. Not fully. Not in the way the rest of the chapter, and the rest of the book, would lead you to expect.

Is there an unbroken, hidden royal priesthood being passed down from the beginning of time? Is there any merit to the continual arguments among church traditions over who holds the claim to being the “real church”?

I’m not here to settle that debate or argue over which institution can claim the title. But I do believe something bigger is happening. I believe God has preserved His divine plan throughout history, both in the physical realm and the unseen realm, and even when we cannot see the entire picture, the breadcrumbs are there. The question is whether we’re willing to follow them.

That silence is going to get picked up centuries later and turned into an argument nobody in Genesis could have anticipated, the very argument Hebrews just handed us. But my read here isn’t the only one worth hearing. Three other traditions have wrestled with who Melchizedek was, and each deserves the same fair hearing before this series moves on.

I dare you to ask.

Who was this man?

Now, Lawrence has left that second question open, and I want to answer it plainly, because it is the kind of question that fills comment sections.

My view is that all churches have a claim and also that none of them do.

Allow me to explain.

Most of them have a great deal right. I have learned from traditions I disagree with, and I expect I will keep doing it. But I have never encountered a denomination, my own included, that does not hold at least some doctrine it cannot get from Scripture. Every one of them has absorbed something along the way, from a council, a reformer, a culture, or a habit that nobody remembers starting.

So I do not believe any church now standing has perfectly preserved what Jesus and the apostles had in mind. Not one. Which means the honest posture is not to hunt for the institution that got it right, but to keep holding every institution, starting with our own, up against the text.

As I say so often, be Berean. Go back to the text. Test what your pastor, priest, or elder is telling you against the text itself.

Four Answers, and Which Bible You Are Holding

Lawrence has given you his reading, and I land close to him. But he ended by saying three other traditions deserve a fair hearing, and I want to give them one, because something happens when you set them side by side that I have never seen anyone point out:

Which answers are even available to you depends on which Bible you’re reading.

That might sound like a strange claim. So let me show you what I mean.

The first answer: he was Shem

The oldest solution on record is Jewish rather than Christian.

The Palestinian Targums, the Aramaic paraphrases read alongside the Hebrew in the synagogue, say plainly that Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah. Targum Neofiti has it. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has it. The Fragment Targums have it. The Babylonian Talmud has it at Nedarim 32b. Genesis Rabbah has it. Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer has it. Rashi repeats it on Genesis 14:18. Targum Onkelos is the notable holdout.

Jerome knew about it. In his Hebrew Questions on Genesis he records the identification and seems entirely untroubled by it.

And it solves the puzzle elegantly. Why does Genesis give Melchizedek no genealogy? Because he already has one. He is Shem, whose line the book has just finished tracing in detail. The silence is not a mystery. It is an economy. Genesis does not repeat itself.

It also answers Lawrence’s question about where a priesthood of the Most High God came from centuries before Sinai. From the flood. Shem survived it, carried the knowledge of the true God through the generations after, and by the time Abram came west there was still one man in Canaan who knew who God was and how to serve Him. The rabbis even give Shem a house of study, shared with his great-grandson Eber, where the patriarchs learned.

Now watch what the Talmud does with the blessing, because it is the exact opposite of what Hebrews does with it.

At Nedarim 32b, Abraham objects. Melchizedek blessed Abram first and God second, and Abraham asks whether a servant’s blessing should come before his master’s. And on the strength of that inversion, the priesthood is taken from Melchizedek and given to Abraham’s line.

Set that next to Hebrews 7:7, where the very same blessing proves Melchizedek was the greater man.

One verse. Two readings. In one the blessing establishes his rank. In the other it costs him everything.

Those are not compatible and I will not pretend otherwise. But both are doing serious work on the same words, and neither is careless.

The part nobody mentions

The Shem identification rests on arithmetic. It only works if Shem was still alive when Abram came through.

In the Hebrew text, he was. Genesis 11 gives Shem a son two years after the flood at the age of a hundred, then five hundred more years of life. Add the begetting ages down the line from the flood to Abram’s birth and you get roughly two hundred and ninety years. Shem outlives Abraham by decades. The identification is not only possible, it is comfortable.

The Greek text runs different numbers.

The Septuagint’s Genesis 11 adds about a century to the age of nearly every patriarch at the birth of his son, and inserts an additional generation, Kainan, between Arphaxad and Shelah. The same stretch of the same genealogy comes out roughly eight hundred years longer. The Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with the Greek from Arphaxad forward, so the Hebrew side is not even unanimous with itself.

Run the arithmetic on the Greek numbers and Shem is centuries in the grave before Abram is born.

So the oldest Jewish answer to who Melchizedek was is an answer that can only be given in Hebrew. Read Genesis 11 in Greek and the identification is not merely unlikely. It is arithmetically impossible.

This is not one tradition being wrong. It is two traditions preserving numbers that send their readers down different roads. The Hebrew road produces Shem, a priesthood carried through the flood by a named survivor. The Greek road closes that door.

And the readers who went that way had to find another answer.

They did.

The second answer: he was a heavenly figure

In 1956, in the eleventh cave at Qumran, a fragmentary Hebrew scroll turned up that nobody expected. Scholars call it 11QMelchizedek, or 11Q13. Three columns, of which the first and third are nearly unreadable and the second is preserved well enough to work with. The copy dates to roughly the middle of the first century before Christ.

I want to spend real time here, because this text almost never gets explained properly to general readers, and what it actually argues is stranger than the summaries suggest.

What kind of document it is. Not a commentary in any sense we would recognize. It is a chain of quotations welded together and read as a single prophecy. Qumran exegesis works atomistically, taking a clause at a time and assigning each one a referent in the community’s own future. It takes some getting used to.

The argument. It begins with the jubilee. Leviticus 25 commands that every fiftieth year, land returns to its original family and debts are released. Deuteronomy 15 commands a release of debts every seventh year. The scroll quotes both, and then does something audacious. It reads them as a schedule for the end of history.

The release is not about farmland. It is about captives, and it comes from Isaiah 61, the passage about proclaiming liberty to those in bondage. The scroll quotes it and says the interpretation applies to the Last Days.

And the debts being released are sins. The text speaks of freeing them from the burden of all their iniquities.

The timetable. Jubilees are stacked. Nine pass, and in the first week of the tenth the proclamation is made. The Day of Atonement at the end of that tenth jubilee is the day of reckoning. Ten jubilees of forty-nine years gives four hundred and ninety, which is Daniel’s seventy weeks of years, and the scroll quotes Daniel 9 to make the link explicit.

Somebody has done arithmetic on the end of the world.

Melchizedek’s role. He proclaims the release. He returns the captives to what is rightfully theirs. And on that Day of Atonement, the text says he atones for the Sons of Light, the people who are allotted to Melchizedek.

He also fights. He delivers the captives from the hand of Belial and from the spirits of Belial’s lot, and allied with him are what the scroll calls the righteous elim, the divine beings.

Then the exegesis that makes everyone sit up. The scroll quotes Isaiah 52:7, about the messenger whose feet are beautiful on the mountains, who announces peace and salvation and says to Zion, your God reigns. Then it decodes the verse phrase by phrase.

The mountains are the prophets.

Zion is the congregation of the sons of righteousness.

And “your God,” the elohim of that verse, is Melchizedek, who will deliver them from the hand of Belial.

It reaches for Psalm 82 as well, the psalm where God takes His stand in the assembly and judges among the elohim, and puts Melchizedek in the judging position.

Be careful about what that does and does not establish. The word elohim in the Hebrew Bible is a category of being rather than a name, as I have argued at length elsewhere. Calling Melchizedek elohim here is not the same as calling him the Almighty. But it places him inside the divine council, functioning as a heavenly judge and deliverer, and that is a very long way from a Canaanite city ruler with a loaf of bread.

What scholars make of him. No consensus, and the fragments do not permit one. Van der Woude, who first published the text, identified Melchizedek with Michael, and that reading has been influential. Richard Bauckham treats him as a principal angel, probably Michael under another name. Others argue he is a title for God Himself. Still others read him as a distinct heavenly being with no other name.

There is a further complication worth knowing. The scroll also speaks of a messenger who is the “anointed of the spirit,” identified through Daniel 9. Whether that messenger is Melchizedek or a second figure beside him is not clear from what survives, and careful scholars say so.

Why this matters. Three things.

First, the date. This scroll was copied before Hebrews was written, by a Jewish community with no conceivable interest in Christian claims. And they were already reading Melchizedek as a heavenly deliverer who atones for sin, defeats the powers, and appears at the end of days. The Christian tradition did not invent the mystery. It walked into a conversation that had been running for a long time.

Second, the shape. Look at what this text expects. A priestly figure who proclaims release, forgives debts understood as sins, makes atonement on the Day of Atonement, and destroys the power holding people captive.

If that outline feels familiar, it should. Hebrews makes the same set of claims about the same order of priesthood, and arrives at an entirely different person.

Third, and I want to say this plainly: I do not follow Qumran. The scroll has Melchizedek performing atonement and standing in the council as an elohim, and I accept neither. The line between Creator and creature does not bend, and a text outside Scripture does not get to redraw it. The community that produced this scroll was wrong about who would do these things.

They were not wrong that someone would.

If you want to read it yourself. Most translations circulating online are unattributed or come from idiosyncratic private versions. Use the García Martínez and Tigchelaar study edition. Joseph Angel’s study of the scroll is the best recent treatment I know. And bear in mind throughout that the brackets in any translation are doing enormous work. This is a damaged text, and much of what you read is reconstruction.

The third answer: he was Christ

This is the reading that I suspect most of you arrived with, and Lawrence has already told you he does not hold it.

Neither do I.

Which means it has no defender in this post, and that is exactly why I want to make its case properly before saying why I think it fails.

The case is stronger than its critics usually allow.

Hebrews says this man has no father, no mother, no genealogy, no beginning of days and no end of life, and that he remains a priest continually. Read plainly, that describes someone who does not die.

Genesis gives him bread and wine, and the church has never been able to read that pairing innocently. He is king of righteousness and king of peace by the plain sense of his name and his city, and those are not titles that sit easily on a minor Bronze Age ruler.

He appears without warning, blesses the covenant bearer, receives a tithe, and leaves without a trace. Genesis records appearances of God in Abraham’s life elsewhere without always announcing them as such. And the strongest point of all: an eternal priesthood, in the logic of Hebrews, would seem to require an eternal priest.

Against all of that, one clause.

Hebrews 7:3 does not say Melchizedek was the Son of God. It says he was made to resemble Him. The Greek is ἀφωμοιωμένος, aphōmoiōmenos, a passive participle meaning made like, made to resemble.

You do not say a man resembles himself.

And a few verses on, at 7:15, the argument turns on another priest arising in the likeness of Melchizedek. That other priest is Christ. If Melchizedek already is Christ, the sentence collapses into Christ arising in the likeness of Christ, and the whole argument eats itself.

So I think this reading has to be set down. Not because it is unworthy. Because the book that made Melchizedek famous is careful, twice, to keep the two apart.

The fourth answer, and where I land

He was a man.

A real king of a real city, serving the real God, in a world where Abram had every reason to expect he would find nobody who did.

I hold this for the reason Lawrence gave when he read the silence as deliberate. Genesis does not misplace genealogies. It is built on them. In a structure like that, a missing lineage is not an accident of transmission. It is a decision.

And the decision is the argument. Hebrews does not claim Melchizedek had no parents. It says the record gives him none, and then builds a doctrine of priesthood on that absence. Had Genesis told us whose son he was, Hebrews 7 could not have been written.

On Lawrence’s larger point. He suggested there may have been a priesthood serving the true God before Moses, and that Melchizedek belonged to it. I think that is right, and I want to add something that makes it sharper than it looks.

You might assume such knowledge came down through Abram’s family. It did not. Joshua 24:2 says so flatly: Terah and his sons lived beyond the Euphrates and served other gods. Abram’s own household was pagan. Whatever Abram knew of God, he learned when God spoke to him in Genesis 12, not at his father’s table.

Which means Melchizedek’s priesthood was not a family inheritance Abram was rejoining. It was preserved independently, in a Canaanite city, by people Abram had no connection to whatsoever.

The hints are scattered but real. Genesis 4:26 says that in the time of Enosh people began to call on the name of the Lord. Noah builds an altar without being told to. Job knows God and is not an Israelite. Jethro is a priest of Midian and Moses takes counsel from him. Balaam hears from God and is a disaster of a man. Scripture keeps acknowledging, almost in passing, that the knowledge of God was never entirely confined to the covenant line.

And Genesis 14 itself gives the strongest evidence of all. When Abram refuses the king of Sodom’s offer, he swears by El Elyon, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth. That is Melchizedek’s title for God, which Abram had heard him use minutes earlier, and Abram takes it onto his own lips as a name for his own God.

He did not correct the Canaanite priest.

He agreed with him.

I cannot prove a pre-Mosaic priesthood from that, and I will not pretend the text states it. But Abram recognizing Melchizedek’s God as his own God is in the text, and it is the closest thing to proof we are going to get.

One last thing

Notice that the argument in Hebrews survives no matter which of these four you choose. Shem, or an elohim, or Christ, or a Canaanite king who knew the Lord: the case runs identically. This priesthood predates Levi, Abraham acknowledged it, and Christ’s priesthood belongs to that older order rather than to Aaron’s.

An argument that works under every reading of its central figure is telling you something.

The figure was never the point.

Before the Morning Star

Psalm 110 is the most quoted Old Testament chapter in the New Testament, and verse four is the hinge the whole Melchizedek argument turns on.

“The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’” (Psalm 110:4 NRSV)

In the Greek Bible this psalm is numbered 109, because the two traditions divide some earlier psalms differently and the numbering slips out of step through most of the Psalter. I will give you both numbers.

Brenton renders verse four this way:

“The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec.” (Psalm 110:4 LXX/Brenton)

No divergence worth reporting. The traditions agree, and Hebrews quotes it in a form that matches both.

Verse three is another matter.

The two readings

“Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day you lead your forces on the holy mountains. From the womb of the morning, like dew, your youth will come to you.” (Psalm 110:3, NRSV)

“Your people shall be volunteers In the day of Your power; In the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning, You have the dew of Your youth.” (Psalm 110:3, NKJV)

And the Greek:

“With thee is dominion in the day of thy power, in the splendours of thy saints: I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning.” (Psalm 110:3 LXX/Brenton)

The Hebrew has a king’s people rallying to him at dawn, the vigor of youth on him like morning dew. A coronation.

The Greek has God telling this same figure that He begot him out of the womb before the morning existed.

That is not a difference of shading. One is a king crowned in time. The other is a son generated before time.

I have to be honest with you about this verse

I could stop there and let that contrast do its work. It would preach.

It would also not be the whole truth, and you deserve the whole truth.

The Hebrew of this verse is hard. Not subtle. Hard.

The NIV prints a footnote saying the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. Robert Alter, in his translation of the Psalms, says the language becomes cryptic at exactly this point and stays that way to the end of the poem. The NET Bible hangs six separate textual notes on one verse. This is not translators quibbling over nuance. Something in the transmission of this line has gone sideways, and the professionals say so in print.

There are three separate points of difficulty, and they stack.

The first is a single letter. The Masoretic Text reads behadrey qodesh, in holy array or holy garments. But a number of Hebrew manuscripts read beharrey qodesh, on the holy mountains. The difference is daleth against resh, two letters so nearly identical in Hebrew script that confusing them is the most common scribal slip there is. The RSV, the NRSV, and others follow the mountains reading.

So the Hebrew tradition is not unanimous with itself before we even reach the Greek.

The second is the dawn. The Hebrew mishchar is read as part of a construct phrase, the womb of the dawn. The Greek translator read the same letters as a preposition attached to dawn, giving before the dawn. And he rendered that dawn-word as ἑωσφόρος, heōsphoros, the dawn-bringer, the morning star.

The third is the word everything hangs on. The consonants are y-l-d-t-y-k. Vocalized as the Masoretes vocalized them, you get yaldutekha, your youth. Vocalized differently, the same letters give you “I have begotten you.”

Hebrew went without written vowels for centuries. The consonantal letters came first. And they allow both.

So what happened here

I am going to lay out the options rather than hand you a verdict, because I do not think the evidence supports one.

Option one: nothing went wrong. One consonantal text, deep enough to be heard two ways, and two communities each preserving a legitimate hearing of it. This is the tidiest answer and there is real force to it, since the letters genuinely do support both.

Option two: the Greek preserves an older reading the Hebrew lost. The translation handbook produced for the United Bible Societies reports that its committee’s majority favored a reconstruction close to the Greek, calling it the most probable interpretation on the criteria of textual analysis. That is a striking conclusion for a committee of that kind. There is also a report that some Hebrew manuscripts carry the begetting reading, though I have not examined the apparatus myself and would want to before leaning on it.

Option three: the Hebrew is damaged. Not reinterpreted. Damaged. A line knocked out of shape somewhere in transmission and never fully recovered, which would explain why the Greek, the Latin, and the modern committees all pull in a direction the Masoretic vowels will not go, and why every English version footnotes it.

Option four: it is just hard. Some poetry is compressed past the point of easy recovery, and ancient Hebrew verse is full of it. Not every difficulty is damage. Most modern translations have quietly taken this option, following the Masoretic Text and noting the trouble in the margin.

I lean toward the second and third, and I would rather say so than hedge. Looking at the Hebrew, I think something has probably gone wrong here that we cannot now undo. And I think the Greek likely preserves the original reading.

But I hold these possibilities loosely. Option four is entirely live. And I am not prepared to solve the tension for you.

Which raises the obvious question

I have spent this entire series telling you that neither tradition is the corrupt one.

Am I now taking it back?

No. And the distinction matters enough to state plainly.

Saying a verse suffered damage in transmission is not the same as saying a tradition is unreliable. Scribes were human beings copying by hand, sometimes by lamplight, in a script where two letters can differ by a tiny stroke. Of course errors entered. Both traditions have them. The Greek has them too, in places I have pointed out before and will point out again.

What I have claimed all along is something else. That God preserved both streams deliberately, and that where they genuinely diverge, the divergence usually carries something rather than destroying something. That was never a denial of scribal error. A providence that could not survive a copyist’s slip would not be worth much.

And notice what happens here even if the damage is real.

We are not left with a hole. We are left with two readings, both ancient, both intelligible, both preserved, and both saying something true about the one they describe.

Whatever went wrong in the copying, nothing essential was lost.

One warning about the English

Brenton gives you “before the morning,” not “before the morning star.” His own printed Greek has Ἑωσφόρου, capitalized, and he softened it in English the way a Victorian gentleman would.

I flag that because the exact word is about to matter enormously, and Brenton’s English hides it.

Where you have met this word before

ἑωσφόρος appears in one other place that people tend to remember.

Isaiah 14:12. The Hebrew there is הֵילֵל, helel, the shining one, and the Greek translators rendered it ἑωσφόρος. Jerome carried that into Latin as lucifer, the light-bearer, and an entire tradition grew out of the name.

So the Greek Bible uses one word for two figures.

One fell from the morning star.

The other was begotten before it.

I am not going to claim the Psalter translators were thinking of Isaiah. But the Greek Bible ended up holding both sentences, and a reader who knows both cannot hear one without the other.

And one more thing this difficulty produced

Remember the heavenly Melchizedek at Qumran, above.

James Kugel has pointed out that the ambiguity in this very verse is part of what generated those readings. A line that can be heard as a divine begetting, attached three verses later to a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, is exactly the soil in which a heavenly Melchizedek grows.

Which means the textual difficulty we have been picking at is not a footnote to the identity question.

It is one of the things that created it.

What both traditions give you together

The Hebrew gives you a king crowned at daybreak, his people streaming to him, the dew of youth on him. Real, in time, in Jerusalem.

The Greek gives you a Son begotten before the morning. Before the light. Before the day that crowning happened in.

And the next verse, in both traditions, without a hair of difference, says this figure is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

Whichever tradition you hold, the psalm hands the same man an eternal priesthood. The Hebrew tells you when he was crowned. The Greek tells you when he was begotten.

They part company for one verse, over his origin.

Then they rejoin completely on his office.

What Hebrews Actually Argues

Lawrence has given you the shape of it. Melchizedek’s priesthood predates Levi. Abraham, the ancestor of Levi, paid him a tenth. The greater blesses the lesser. And so Christ can hold both crown and priesthood without belonging to Aaron’s line.

That is the argument, and I am not going to run it again. I want three things underneath it that are easy to walk past.

A note on who is writing

Lawrence has been saying “the writer of Hebrews,” which is the standard way to put it, and I have been saying “Hebrews.” I should tell you why I avoid naming an author, because I do have a position and it is not the usual one.

I think Hebrews was composed by Paul and Luke together. Paul supplying the theological mind, Luke supplying the compositional hand. That accounts for what has always made the letter strange: the Greek is the most polished in the New Testament and does not sound like Paul, while the argument is built the way Paul builds arguments, and the closing greetings place its author inside Paul’s circle during his Roman imprisonment.

I have written an entire book making that case, so I will not compress it into a paragraph here. For today it is enough to know that when I say the composers, I mean two men, and that nothing in this section depends on you agreeing with me.

The names are doing work

Before Hebrews argues anything, it unpacks the words.

“This ‘Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him,’ and to him Abraham apportioned ‘one-tenth of everything.’ His name, in the first place, means ‘king of righteousness’; next, he is also king of Salem, that is, ‘king of peace.’” (Hebrews 7:1-2, NRSV)

King of righteousness, from melek and tsedeq. Then king of Salem, which is shalom, peace. Righteousness first, then peace, in that order.

That is not decoration. It is the order Scripture keeps putting them in. Righteousness establishes something and peace follows from it. The composers are showing you that this man’s name and his address were preaching before he opened his mouth.

“Without father or mother” is a claim about a text

This is the line that generates every wild theory about Melchizedek, and I think it is almost universally misread.

“Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.” (Hebrews 7:3, NRSV)

Read as biology, that sentence says Melchizedek had no parents, no birth, and no death. Which would make him something other than human, and off we go.

But that is not the kind of argument the composers make anywhere else in this letter, and it is not the kind of argument a first-century Jewish reader would have expected. They are reasoning from the record. Genesis, which supplies parentage for everyone who matters, supplies none for this man. It records no birth and no death. In a book built on genealogy, what the record omits is itself a statement.

So the claim is not that Melchizedek was deathless. The claim is that Scripture presents him without beginning or end, and therefore presents a priesthood that does not derive from descent and does not end in a successor.

Which is exactly Lawrence’s point about the silence. Hebrews is not filling the gap.

Hebrews is arguing from it.

And notice what that does to everything we just spent on the identity question. If the argument runs on the text’s silence rather than the man’s nature, then Melchizedek can have been Shem, or a heavenly figure, or a Canaanite king, and Hebrews still works. The composers were never telling us who he was. They were telling us what Genesis declined to say about him, and why that mattered.

The one word that settles the Christophany question

I said earlier that Hebrews keeps Melchizedek and Christ apart. This is where.

The clause is ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, aphōmoiōmenos de tō huiō tou theou. Made to resemble the Son of God.

A perfect passive participle. Something was done to him. He was made like. And the thing you are made like is by definition not yourself.

Then at 7:15 another priest arises κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα Μελχισέδεκ, according to the likeness of Melchizedek. Same root. Same logic, running the other direction.

Two figures, each said to resemble the other. If they were one figure, neither sentence means anything.

I do not think that is accidental precision. The composers were writing to people who knew Genesis intimately and who would have pressed exactly this question. They answered it in passing, with a participle.

And the psalm underneath it all

Everything in Hebrews 7 rests on one line from Psalm 110, quoted and requoted: a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

Which brings us back to where we were a few minutes ago. The traditions part company for one verse, over when this figure came into being. Then verse four arrives and they say the same thing without a seam.

Whatever the Hebrew and the Greek each preserved about his origin, they agree entirely about his office.

He is a priest forever.

Reflections: The Priesthood You Did Not Inherit

Here is what I keep coming back to.

Abram’s father served other gods. Joshua says so without flinching. Whatever Abram knew about the Most High when he walked into that valley, he did not learn it at home, and he did not learn it from a lineage, and he could not have produced a document proving his right to any of it.

Then a priest walks down out of Salem carrying bread and wine, and Abram, who has just defeated an empire, hands over a tenth of everything he owns to a man whose pedigree the text refuses to give him.

Two men. Neither one of them has a priestly genealogy that Scripture is willing to print.

And the entire Christian doctrine of the priesthood of Christ gets built on that encounter.

I think that is worth sitting with, because most of us carry around a quiet suspicion that we do not have the credentials. That the people who really belong to God inherited something we did not. A family that prayed. A church that got it right. A tradition that goes back far enough to count for something.

Genesis 14 is a chapter about exactly that anxiety, and it answers it in the negative space.

The priesthood that mattered in that valley did not come down a family line. Melchizedek’s did not come from anywhere the text will tell us. Abram’s did not exist. And Hebrews, reaching back a thousand years later, builds its whole case on the fact that neither man could have produced papers.

Which is the point.

Because the priest that chapter was pointing to did not qualify either. Not by the rules Sinai laid down. He came from the wrong tribe, held no Levitical descent, and had no standing whatsoever in the system that governed who could approach God. Hebrews says so plainly and then spends three chapters explaining why it does not matter.

He holds an older office. One that never ran through blood in the first place.

And what He does with it is bring people in who have no claim.

If you have ever wondered whether you are far enough inside, whether you came from the right place or believed the right things early enough or belong to the right church, that question died in a valley outside Jerusalem about four thousand years ago. Abram came from a house full of idols. Melchizedek came from nowhere the Bible will name. And when they met, what passed between them was bread, wine, a blessing, and a tenth.

No genealogy required.

None offered.

None, it turns out, ever needed.

-

Until next time,

Kevin

What’s Coming

Next time we’re going to take a look at the other major figure this study has been building toward, Og of Bashan. And while we’re at it we’re going to dive into the four giants who remained after Goliath. And we’re going to be talking about all this over on Deeper Still.

See you there next Wednesday.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

I want to begin with a funeral. Not a particular one. The generic one, the service that runs almost on autopilot in chapels and parlors across the Western world. Someone we love has died, and the words begin to arrive, soft and sure of themselves. She is in a better place now. He is looking down on us. She got her wings. He is finally free of that broken body, a soul released upward into the light.

We say these things because they comfort us, and there is real comfort in them, so I have no interest in being cruel about it. But I want to ask the question underneath them, the one almost nobody stops to ask, because we assume it was settled long ago and filed away.

Where did that picture come from?

The disembodied soul. The immediate flight upward. The body left behind like a husk, discarded, unimportant. The endless existence somewhere above the clouds. Ask most Christians where the dead are at this very moment, and some version of that map is what they will sketch for you.

Then ask them where they got it and watch the room go quiet.

Here is the uncomfortable claim this whole series rests on. That map is not the Bible’s map. A great deal of it was drawn by hands that never read Moses or the prophets.

Some of it is Greek. Some of it is medieval. Some of it, as we will see in a few weeks, was lifted straight from pagan poetry and handed back to us with a Christian label glued on the front.

We inherited a geography of the dead assembled from a dozen mismatched sources, laid it over the text like a sheet of tracing paper, and then read the text through it for so long that we stopped noticing the lines underneath do not match the lines on top.

This series is an attempt to peel the tracing paper off and look at what Scripture actually drew.

Let’s dig in.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Two witnesses, one country

If you have followed this publication for any length of time, you know the lens I read through, but a new series deserves a fresh statement of it. Especially with how many new readers we’ve picked up since starting the Daniel series.

I hold that both the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Septuagint are authoritative. Both were preserved, intentionally and providentially, to tell us the truth. I do not treat one as the real Bible and the other as a flawed cousin. When they say the same thing, they confirm each other. When they diverge, and on the geography of the dead they diverge in some fascinating places, I do not assume one of them slipped. I assume, until the evidence leads me somewhere else, that they are two witnesses describing the same country from two vantage points, and that the fuller truth is standing where their lines of sight cross.

That matters enormously for this subject, because the afterlife is exactly the kind of territory where the Hebrew tends to hold its cards close and the Greek tends to say the quiet part out loud. Over and over in the posts ahead you will watch the Masoretic Text leave a hope implicit, buried, waiting, and watch the Old Greek step forward and speak it plainly.

Neither is wrong.

The Hebrew guards the mystery. The Greek draws out the answer. You need both to see the whole map.

The problem is partly in the words

Before we can talk about where the dead go, we have to admit that our English Bibles handed us a broken instrument.

There is one word in particular that has done more to distort this subject than any other, and I am going to make a decision right now that will feel strange to some of you. Across this entire series, I am not going to use the word “hell.”

Not once, if I can help it.

After thinking and praying long and hard about it, I’ve decided to do this not to be provocative, but because that single English word has been made to carry the weight of at least four completely distinct things in Scripture and it’s vital that we keep them straight.

1. Sheol, the realm of the dead in Hebrew, which was translated to Hades in Greek.

2. Gehenna, which was a real, smoking valley you could walk to outside Jerusalem.

3. Tartarus, a prison connected to Sheol/Hades that was never built for humans at all.

4. The Lake of Fire, which is something else entirely.

Four different words, four different realities, flattened by translators into one blunt syllable that then got filled up with imagery no biblical writer would recognize.

When you use one word for four things, you lose the ability to think clearly about any of them. So we are going to set the blunt instrument down and pick up the precision blades. And I’m going to spend a whole post on where our modern picture of hell actually came from, because the answer isn’t Scripture.

The word “hell” is not the only casualty. There is also the word “soul.”

Most of us carry, without ever choosing it, a picture of the human person as a ghost driving a body around. The real you is the soul, invisible and immortal, temporarily housed in a shell of meat, and death is simply the moment the ghost steps out of the car and walks away intact.

That picture feels biblical, but it isn’t. It’s a product of Greek dualism, and it runs almost exactly backward to how Scripture describes you.

Look at the first time the Bible tells us what a human being is.

Genesis 2:7 (NRSVUE)

“then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”

Okay, so far so good. Now let’s look at how the KJV renders it, because it’s one of the major sources for this problem.

Genesis 2:7 (KJV)

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

Now here’s a highly instructive footnote on this verse from the NET Bible:

The Hebrew term נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh, “being”) is often translated “soul,” but the word usually refers to the whole person. The phrase נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה (nefesh khayyah, “living being”) is used of both animals and human beings (see 1:20, 24, 30; 2:19).

Now let’s slow down and really look at that last clause across these renderings, because everything downstream depends on it.

The man did not receive a soul in the modern sense of a spiritual essence. The man became a living being. The Hebrew word behind “living being” is נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh, “living being” or “self.” Sometimes also used for “life,” “appetite,” or “persons” as in a population count).

Now here’s the important bit. This word does not mean a spiritual part or essence locked inside you. Not in any use anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. It means the whole living creature, the entire animated person, dust and breath together as one. You do not have a nephesh. You are one. God took earth, and added breath, and the sum of those two things standing up and drawing air was the living being.

Which tells you something about death, too. Watch what the same picture does in reverse.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 (NKJV)

Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.

Formed from dust and breath. Unmade back into dust and breath.

The body returns to the ground it was taken from, and the spirit or breath, רוּחַ (ruach, which means “breath,” “wind,” and “spirit” all at once, just as the Greek pneuma does), returns to the God who first breathed it in.

Notice the word Scripture reaches for there. Not soul. Spirit. That distinction is going to do some major heavy lifting in this series, and I will give it a full post of its own before long, because until we are clear on what a human being actually is, every question about where a human being goes will come out crooked.

The road ahead

So here is the country we are going to map together, and roughly the order we will walk it.

We will start with a single word and the moment it crossed a language barrier, because that crossing is where most of the confusion was born.

Then we will turn to the person, since you cannot trace where someone goes until you know what they are, and clear the ground of the other borrowed word, the pagan-rooted “hell.”

We will stand in the smoking valley of Gehenna while it was still a real place with a real reputation.

Then we’ll follow the dead down into Sheol, and I will make the case that this, not heaven, is where the dead of this age have gone to wait. All of them. And we’ll explore the evidence for this view.

From there the ground begins to tilt upward. We will follow Christ Himself down into the realm of the dead, and ask what He did there, and for whom. We will reach the resurrection, the hinge on which the whole map turns, the moment the popular picture of floating souls finally collapses under the weight of raised bodies.

And we will end where Scripture ends, which is not with disembodied spirits drifting forever in a cloudy heaven, but with heaven and earth remade and joined, and a very physical, very embodied home on a renewed creation.

I want to be honest with you at the outset about how I am going to handle the hardest ground. On some of these questions I hold real convictions and I will tell you plainly what they are.

On others, and the eternal state of the lost is the sharpest of them, I am going to lay the views side by side, argue each one at full strength, and trust you to weigh them before God rather than tell you what to conclude. Where I lean, I will say I lean. Where I am genuinely unsettled, I will not pretend otherwise to give you a tidier answer than the text gives me.

If you’ve been with me for any length of time, you’ll know that this not false modesty. It is the only honest way I know to handle a subject this large with a Bible this deep and an understanding that falls far short of God.

Why any of this matters

You might be tempted to file all of this under interesting but academic.

I implore you not to.

How you picture the dead shapes how you grieve them. It shapes what you say at the graveside and whether the words are true. It shapes how you hope, and whether that hope can survive an honest look at the text or shatters the first time someone asks a hard question.

It even shapes how you evangelize, because a gospel aimed at getting disembodied souls up to heaven is a smaller and stranger thing than the gospel Scripture actually preaches, which aims at raising the dead and remaking the world.

And here is the part I most want you to hear before we begin.

The biblical map is not the grim downgrade you might fear. When you trade the floating soul for the resurrected body, when you trade the evacuation of the world for the renewal of it, you do not lose the comfort. You gain a bigger one.

The inherited picture asks you to hope that the best part of you escapes. The biblical picture promises that the whole of you, dust and breath, is going to be raised and set down in a world made new. That is not a consolation prize. That is a better and more solid hope than the one we were handed, and it has the enormous advantage of being the one actually written down.

For most of my life I carried the popular map without ever once checking it against the text. When I finally sat down and read Scripture for what it plainly says instead of for what I had been told it says, this was one of the very first places the inherited picture cracked in my hands.

I do not regret that it cracked. I only wish it had happened sooner.

So that is where we are going. Next time we start with a translation decision made more than two centuries before Christ. Jewish scholars sat down to carry their Scriptures into Greek, came to the Hebrew word for the realm of the dead, and had to choose a Greek word for it.

The word they reached for was the right one.

But it also arrived carrying a great deal of luggage that had nothing to do with Scripture. And sorting out what the translators actually did from what later readers piled on top of it turns out to be the front door to everything else in this series.

Until then, be Berean. Keep reading. Keep studying. Keep pushing back when something doesn’t sound right.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible.

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

I want to do something different today, and I want to be honest about it from the first line. I don’t have a thesis for you. I have a chapter that has bothered me for a long time and a collaborator who is bothered by the same thing.

Open Genesis 14. The first half is a war. Four kings out of the east sweep down through the Transjordan and put down one clan after another, names most of us read straight past. Rephaim. Zuzim. Emim. Horites. Then they take Sodom, and they take Lot with it, and Abram goes after them with three hundred and eighteen men and wins.

The second half is four verses.

A priest-king walks out of Salem with bread and wine, blesses Abram, receives a tenth of everything he recovered, and leaves the page. No father. No mother. No tribe. No lineage of any kind, in a book that will not let a minor son go unlisted.

And then he refuses to stay gone. He surfaces again in Psalm 110. He surfaces a third time in Hebrews, where an entire argument about the priesthood of Christ gets built on top of him.

Two things, sitting side by side in one chapter. I have never once heard them preached together.

That is where this is going. The war and the clans that were worth defeating first. Abram’s three hundred and eighteen. The blessing and the tithe. Every serious theory about who Melchizedek was, argued fairly before any of them gets chosen. Hebrews 7. Og of Bashan and that iron bed in Deuteronomy 3. And four more giants at Gath in 2 Samuel 21, generations after the conquest was supposed to be finished.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

A word about method

Now, a word about how I work, for anyone arriving here from Deeper Still or who is otherwise unfamiliar with my work.

When the Hebrew text and the Greek text of the Old Testament say different things, I generally don’t treat one as the original and the other as the damage unless the text forces that conclusion.

I believe God preserved both deliberately, and that where they diverge they are usually telling different sides of one truth rather than contradicting each other. That conviction is going to matter a great deal when we reach Psalm 110, because the Hebrew and the Greek of that psalm do not say the same thing about the figure Melchizedek prefigures. Neither one is wrong. Together they say more than either says alone.

Now. You should know that this was not my idea.

Meet my collaborator

writes Deeper Still, and he came to me with three threads he wanted to pull. Melchizedek. The Rephaim and the conquest. Og of Bashan and the giants at Gath. It took about an hour of conversation before both of us realized they were not three threads at all. They were one, and Genesis 14 was where it started.

He is carrying the narrative and the history. I am handling the manuscripts, the Greek, and the seams where the two traditions part company. We do not agree about everything, and I want to be clear about that. We don’t always come to the same conclusions. But where we don’t, we are going to say so on the page instead of sanding it smooth.

I’ve built this publication around transparency and sharing my discoveries with you, so I think it’s important that you see where Lawrence and I disagree and why. And more importantly, you will be able to tell which of us is speaking throughout this series.

Now, Lawrence, welcome to The LXX Scrolls. Tell them where this came from.

A deceptively simple question

“So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’” Acts 8:30 NRSV

“Do you understand what you are reading?”

A simple question, if you don’t look at it too closely. But everything we think we know, our worldview, our sense of who God is and what He’s doing, comes from how we interpret what we see, what we feel, and what eventually rises up to become our desires. So when the subject is the Bible, where humanity stands in it, who God is, what His plan is for us, and how we make sense of a book chosen and preserved across centuries for exactly this purpose, then “Do you understand what you are reading?” isn’t a throwaway question. It’s one of the most important questions a person can build a life on.

Does your happiness depend on the answer? Your family, your peace of mind, the way you carry yourself through a hard year? And to put the full weight on it: does a believer’s salvation hang on it?

In Acts 8:26, we’re given a story I think is essential to how every believer, and every honest seeker, should approach the Bible. Not another feel-good conversion story to nod along to. A picture of the blindness every person carries by default, apart from the Spirit. No amount of knowledge changes that. No amount of wealth changes it either. Solomon already ran that experiment and called the result vanity. Understanding doesn’t come from accumulation. It comes from God opening the eyes.

Philip is directed south by an angel of the Lord, to the road running from Jerusalem to Gaza. There he finds an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official, reading the prophet Isaiah in a moving chariot. The Spirit tells Philip to go join him. And when Philip catches up, he asks the question that gives this whole series its shape: “Do you understand what you are reading?”

Philip doesn’t just explain a passage. He hands the man a new set of eyes. The eunuch’s whole framework shifts. He starts to see the way God sees, and once that door opens, everything else, the good, the hard, the theologically uncomfortable, becomes something he can actually wrestle with instead of something he has to flatten to survive.

So as Kevin and I take on this text together, that’s the posture. Not certainty performed for an audience. A mind fixed on God, on His wisdom, on what He has for believers to know in this stretch of history we’re standing in. I’d ask you to bring the same posture. Wrestle with the text. Wrestle with God. Let Him unsettle the small, safe reading you’ve inherited, so He can hand you something truer in its place.

Ten people can read one story and walk away with ten different interpretations. The goal was never to defend your own. The goal is to wrestle until you’re holding God’s.

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight.” Proverbs 3:5 NRSV

This is the posture this series asks of you:

“Then he said, ‘Let me go, for the day is breaking.’ But Jacob said, ‘I will not let you go, unless you bless me.’” Genesis 32:26 NRSV

Holding a question with an open hand instead of grabbing for the nearest comfortable answer. This is exactly the discipline the next several thousand words are going to ask of you, because the passage we’re about to enter is one most readers skim past without ever noticing what it’s doing.

Before We Start

Kevin: Before we get into the meat of today’s post, I want to show you where Lawrence and I land in different places. Better to do that now, while we still have a chapter neither of us has started debating.

I asked him to say where he stands going in.

Lawrence: Kevin and I won’t agree on everything throughout this series. We’ll lay out our positions honestly, point to where the other’s reading is strong, and press on the places where we think it isn’t. My goal is to carry the careful reader through this ancient lineage we call Christianity, and through the findings I believe the facts actually support.

I believe the Bible is woven together with precision, telling God’s people who we are, who we are in relation to Him, and what mission has been laid on us for this particular age.

And I say age deliberately.

I believe we’re living inside what Scripture calls the Church Age, one chapter in a much longer story. Read the Bible as a whole, and it traces the history of a family, the lineage every believer has been grafted into. Picture the body of Christ as a tree that has been growing since before recorded history, and picture us, right now, as its newest branch.

Real as that growth is, faith, resilience, the knowledge of who God actually is, the Bible is doing something more than tracking it. It’s handing us a battle plan, showing us exactly where we stand inside a war most people never see.

That’s my stance for this series, and here’s where I’ll take it.

I’ll give you background on the offspring of fallen angels, the giants themselves, who weren’t simply an act of rebellion. They were an assault aimed directly at God and at His plan for heaven and earth. The flood was God’s response to that defiance. It was sent to wipe that creation out, and the uncomfortable possibility that some of what the flood was meant to end may have survived it anyway.

The elephant in the room

Kevin: That last line is where we part company, and it is the question a careful reader is already forming, because verse five of this chapter walks right past it.

Genesis 6 tells us the Nephilim were on the earth before the flood. Genesis 7 tells us that only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. Then Genesis 14 lists three giant clans still standing in the Transjordan centuries later, as though nothing happened.

So which is it?

My answer is fairly simple, and it is not without its own hiccups. Put simply: I think it happened again.

Genesis 6:4 says the Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man. That last clause does work most of us skate over. The text seems to be telling us this was not a one-time event. There were later incursions, spiritual beings coming back to do again what was done before, trying to corrupt the bloodlines ahead of the Messiah. It is the most natural reading, in my view.

I take that road partly because the alternative asks the flood narrative to mean less than it says. Scripture tells us nothing living outside the ark survived. Once I start carving exceptions into that, I am not reading the text anymore. I am negotiating with it.

Lawrence is not far from me on this. When I put it to him, he said he agreed, and made a point I have not stopped thinking about since. People watch others go to prison for a thing and then do the thing anyway. Knowing the penalty has never been the same as being stopped by it.

But he raised an objection, and it is a good one. Those first Watchers were thrown into the worst imprisonment Scripture describes. Would a second group really look at Tartarus and decide it was worth trying again?

Here is the best answer I have, and I hold it loosely.

Psalm 82 ends with God telling the rebellious sons of the Most High that they will die like men and fall like any prince. Their sentence is already written. If you are already condemned, deepening the rebellion costs you very little and might buy you something. One more run at the world you wanted, instead of the Pit you have been promised.

Not calculation. A last gamble against the promise made in Genesis 3:15.

Neither of us is pretending that settles it. He still holds open the possibility that something came through the water. I still think the text closes that door. What we both grant is everything downstream: there were giant clans in Canaan, their existence is tied to the rebellion in Genesis 6, and Israel is going to have to deal with them.

We will come back to this.

And a word about the word “giant”

Kevin: One more thing before the war, because Lawrence sets it up perfectly later in this post.

He is going to point out that Rephaim gets absorbed into English as “giants” and left there. Background detail. A note explaining why this war sounded impressive.

He is right that it happened. I want to push on where.

Roughly two centuries before Christ, Jewish translators in Egypt faced the same problem your English Bible faces. A word attached to peoples who no longer existed, for readers who no longer spoke the language it came from. They had to say something. At Genesis 14:5 they decided to interpret, and the Greek reads that Chedorlaomer struck down the giants.

So the flattening happened in Alexandria, about two thousand years before English existed.

But they did not do it consistently. Not remotely. In some books they transliterated and declined to explain the word at all. In one place they reached into Greek mythology and called them Titans, which is a startling thing for a Jewish translator in Egypt to do with a valley outside Jerusalem.

I am going to spend a full section on that next time. For today, just this. When your Bible prints “giants” here, “shades” somewhere else, and plain “Rephaim” in a third place, that is not modern translators being careless. That is a two-thousand-year-old argument still running, and your Bible is a participant in it.

Now let me turn the time over to Lawrence.

Genesis 14 and the war nobody remembers for the right reasons

Genesis 14 is one of the strangest chapters in the whole book, and most people never register the strangeness, because they never read it as one chapter. There’s a war in the first half. There’s a priest-king in the second half, a man who appears out of nowhere, blesses Abram, receives a tenth of everything, and disappears from the record almost as fast as he arrived. Two events, most readers assume, loosely filed under the same chapter number. A battle report, and then, separately, a strange interruption.

They are not two stories. They are one argument, told in two movements, and you cannot understand what the second movement is doing until you have sat with the first one long enough to feel its weight. That’s the part almost every treatment of Melchizedek skips. They want to get to the mystery. They rush the setup to reach the payoff faster. But Genesis didn’t build it that way, and if we skip ahead the way most readers do, we inherit an answer without ever understanding the question it’s answering.

So before we get anywhere near the priest-king, we have to sit in the war. Not as background. As the argument itself, half-finished, waiting for its resolution.

Here’s why that matters beyond just getting the story right. Genesis 14 is quietly establishing how this book, and eventually the whole canon, measures power, legitimacy, and who gets to stand at the top of the order.

That’s not an academic question.

It’s the question underneath every time you’ve wondered why the strong don’t always win, why the pedigreed don’t always inherit, why God keeps handing authority to people and lines that look, by every worldly measure, like the wrong choice.

Genesis 14 is where that pattern gets its first full demonstration in Scripture, laid out in numbers and geography and casualty lists before it ever gets stated as a principle. If you don’t diagnose how the chapter defines power in its first half, you will misread what the second half is claiming was defeated.

Four Kings Against Five

Genesis 14 opens with a coalition. Four kings from the east, Amraphel of Shinar, Arioch of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer of Elam, and Tidal of Goiim, allied with five kings of the plain: Bera of Sodom, Birsha of Gomorrah, Shinab of Admah, Shemeber of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which the text tells us is Zoar.

This isn’t the opening skirmish of a conflict. It’s the twelfth year of service. Verse 4 gives us the arrangement plainly: the five kings of the plain had served Chedorlaomer for twelve years, and in the thirteenth they rebelled.

In the fourteenth, Chedorlaomer came to collect.

He didn’t come alone, and he didn’t come straight at his target. Verse 5 through 7 trace a campaign that sweeps south and east before it ever turns toward Sodom, striking the Rephaim at Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim at Ham, the Emim at Shaveh-kiriathaim, and the Horites in the hill country of Seir, all the way to El-paran on the edge of the wilderness. Then the army turns back, strikes En-mishpat (which is Kadesh), moves through the country of the Amalekites, and finally reaches the Amorites at Hazazon-tamar, before the actual battle against the kings of the plain even begins in the Valley of Siddim.

That’s not incidental geography. That’s a coalition army methodically clearing every fortified people group along its flank before it ever engages its real target. Chedorlaomer isn’t marching to a battle. He’s running a campaign, and the Transjordan is the theater. This is realpolitik on the scale of empire, four eastern powers projecting force a fifteen hundred mile journey from home to keep a rebellious vassal region in line, and doing it by making an example of every clan strong enough to interfere.

Which tells you something about who those clans were. You don’t route an army through hostile territory to strike people who can’t fight back. The Rephaim, the Zuzim, the Emim, the Horites, these weren’t soft targets. They were obstacles worth the detour. Whatever else Genesis wants us to understand about them later, chapter 14 establishes it first, in the plainest way a text can establish anything: by showing us who a four-king coalition thought was worth defeating before it dared move on Sodom.

The battle itself, when it finally comes, is almost anticlimactic by comparison. Verse 10 tells us the Valley of Siddim was full of bitumen pits, and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some fell into them while the rest escaped to the hills. The coalition takes everything, the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, all their provisions, and they leave. Among what they take is Lot, Abram’s nephew, who had settled in Sodom.

That’s the setup. A regional war, fought at empire scale, over vassal loyalty and border clans, with Abram’s family caught in the debris almost as an afterthought. Nobody in verse 12 is thinking about Abram yet. He’s a footnote to somebody else’s war.

Verse 13 changes that.

Abram Wins

A survivor comes and tells Abram his nephew has been taken. Abram is described here, for the only time in Genesis, as “the Hebrew.” He’s dwelling by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite and his brothers Eschol and Aner, who were Abram’s allies. And his response is immediate. He arms 318 trained men, born in his own household, and pursues.

Sit with the number for a moment, because the text wants you to. Three hundred eighteen men. Against a coalition that had just finished a campaign methodical enough to defeat the Rephaim, the Zuzim, the Emim, and the Horites in sequence, on their own ground, before turning to crush five kings at once. This isn’t an even fight on paper. It isn’t close to one.

And Abram doesn’t just win. He wins decisively. Genesis 14:15 tells us he divided his forces by night, struck the coalition, and pursued them all the way to Hobah, north of Damascus. He recovers everything, the goods, the people, Lot, the women. A household militia routs an army that had just humbled clans strong enough to make an imperial coalition go out of its way to deal with them first.

Read the two halves of this chapter next to each other and the contrast is the whole point. Genesis has just spent twelve verses establishing a scale of power measured in stature, in fortified cities, in campaigns that sweep entire regions. Chedorlaomer’s coalition is the biggest thing on the page. And then it loses, not to a rival empire, but to a shepherd with 318 men and a covenant nobody else in the chapter knows he’s carrying.

This is not a story about Abram being a better tactician than four kings. Nothing in the text credits strategy for the outcome, though the divided night attack is real enough as a maneuver. The chapter is doing something else. It has just shown us, in careful and repeated detail, that raw power in this world gets measured by size, by conquest, by the ability to defeat the biggest clans on the map. And then it shows the covenant line winning without any of that. No standing army. No imperial reach. A household band and a rescue mission, and somehow that’s what walks away with everything.

Genesis doesn’t explain why yet. It just lets the reversal sit there, unresolved, a question with no answer attached.

That question doesn’t stay open for long. Abram is returning from the defeat of the kings, Lot and the recovered goods in tow, when the king of Sodom comes out to meet him at the valley of Shaveh (King’s Valley).

Then a second king comes out to meet him. Not from the east this time. From Salem (remember that the scholarly consensus is that this is Jerusalem). And this one doesn’t come with an army.

He comes with bread and wine and to bless Abram. And Abram responds by giving the tithe — Hebrew מעשר (maʿaser) literally “a tenth” or “tenth part” — to him, while in the same breath refusing to accept anything from the king of Sodom.

Whatever the war just proved about power measured by size, the next few verses are about to complicate it in a direction nobody in the chapter saw coming.

Lawrence

The Man Who Had No Reason to Go

Amazing work, Lawrence. I think this has given us a lot to think about.

Let’s take a minute to go back to the moment the war becomes Abram’s problem.

For twelve verses it isn’t. Four kings march, five kings rebel, cities burn, and none of it has anything to do with a herdsman camped under the oaks at Mamre. Abram is not in this story. He is not a party to the treaty, he holds no city, and nobody has come for his flocks.

Then one sentence changes everything.

“Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew.”

Somebody ran. Somebody survived the rout at the tar pits, made it across open country, found Abram’s camp, and said the words. And from the moment those words land, Abram is no longer a man who is not involved. He is a man who knows.

Look at what he could have said next, because he had three good answers ready and he used none of them.

He could have said he did not ask for this. Nobody consulted him. The news arrived uninvited, and there is no obligation in simply being told a thing.

He could have said Lot made his choice. And he would have been right. Lot looked out over the whole Jordan Valley, saw that it was well watered like the garden of the Lord, and pitched his tent toward Sodom. They had separated. That was Lot’s decision, freely made, and the consequences that followed it were the consequences of the road he picked.

He could have said he did not have enough. Genesis names his allies but never counts them. It counts only his own: three hundred eighteen men born in his household, against a coalition that had just rolled up five kings and three giant clans in a single campaign. That is not an army. That is a household with weapons.

Not one of those three held.

“When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men.”

He heard. And then he went.

Lawrence opened this post with Philip running alongside a chariot and asking a stranger whether he understood what he was reading. Notice how that story ends. Philip explains, the man understands, and his very next words are, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” He does not schedule it. He does not go home and think about it. Understanding arrives and he is out of the chariot.

That is the same shape. Abram hears and arms his house. The eunuch understands and asks for water. In neither case does the knowledge sit politely and wait.

I think that is the quiet warning underneath a chapter that looks like a war story. Understanding is not a possession. It is a summons. The moment you actually see something in Scripture, you have lost the option of being a person who does not know, and every reason you had for staying out of it has just gotten weaker.

And here is what makes me sit still with this one.

Abram went after a man who had walked away from him toward the worst city in the narrative, and he went with three hundred eighteen against four kings. I am not going to claim Genesis wrote that scene to be a picture of the gospel, because the text does not say so and I would rather leave the seam visible.

But I cannot read it without noticing the shape.

God comes after people who chose worse than Sodom. He comes without owing anything to any of us. And He comes with what looks, from the outside, like nothing at all: A carpenter turned itinerant preacher. The most horrific death the Romans could dream up. And a borrowed tomb.

Three hundred eighteen against four kings is still better odds than a cross against the grave.

So the question this chapter leaves is not whether you understand it. You will, by the time we are finished. The question is what you are going to do on the morning after somebody tells you.

What’s Coming

Next time we pick up the question of who the Rephaim really were and we’ll be doing it from Lawrence’s publication at Deeper Still. And I’ll expand on the case that the Greek translators of this passage made a decision about the Rephaim that your English Bible inherited without telling you.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

We’ve come a long way for two Hebrew words.

In Part 1 we stood in a room full of translators, every one of them serious, every one of them reaching a different conclusion about what Joseph was wearing. In Part 2 we took the Septuagint’s answer and followed it everywhere it goes: dappled fawns, embroidered curtains, Jacob’s flocks, a rescued girl clothed by God Himself, and finally a New Testament where the color drains out of the word entirely and Peter uses it for trials and for grace in the same letter.

Now we finish. And we finish somewhere I did not expect when I started.

Because there is one more Greek word for that garment, and it sits in a different book, in a story so ugly most of us skip past it. And there is one more form of the word we have been tracing, and it appears exactly once in all of Scripture, aimed at an audience you would not guess.

Let’s dig in.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The Other Word

Go back to the list from Part 1. The Hebrew phrase כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים occurs five times. Three of them are Joseph. The other two are Tamar.

2 Samuel 13:18 (NKJV): “Now she had on a robe of many colors, for the king’s virgin daughters wore such apparel.”

Same Hebrew phrase. Identical, right down to the plural.

And the Greek says something completely different.

2 Samuel 13:18 (LXX): χιτὼν καρπωτός

The noun is the same. χιτών, the tunic, as in Genesis. But the adjective has changed entirely.

καρπωτός (karpōtos). The lexicons derive it from καρπός in the sense of the wrist. A tunic with sleeves that reach the wrists.

Now, a small note that will interest anyone who has done a little Greek. There are two words in Greek spelled καρπός. One means fruit, and it is all over the New Testament, in the fruit of the Spirit and the tree that bears fruit in season. The other means wrist. They are unrelated. Our word comes from the second, and there is no fruit anywhere in it.

So here is the situation. One Hebrew phrase, five occurrences. In Genesis the Greek says ornate. In 2 Samuel the Greek says sleeved.

That is not a scribal accident. That is a different translator, working on a different book, at a different time, making a different judgment about the same two Hebrew words. And it means the split we spent Part 1 documenting between Greek translators is not just a matter of Aquila and Symmachus dissenting from the Septuagint a few centuries later.

The split runs through the Greek Bible itself.

A Complication Worth Knowing

I have to tell you something here that makes this messier. Because I would rather hand you the mess than give you a tidy version that comes apart at the seams.

The Greek of 2 Samuel is not straightforwardly “the Septuagint” in the same way the Greek of Genesis is.

In 1963, a French scholar named Dominique Barthélemy published a study of a Greek scroll of the Minor Prophets found at Naḥal Ḥever, and in doing so he identified something that reshaped the field.

He showed that portions of the Greek Old Testament had been systematically revised, at some point in the first century before Christ or thereabouts, to bring them into closer conformity with a Hebrew text very like the one that became the Masoretic Text. Scholars call this the kaige revision.

And one of the stretches affected runs from 2 Samuel 11:2 through 1 Kings 2:11.

2 Samuel 13 sits squarely inside that.

Which means the χιτὼν καρπωτός in our Greek text of 2 Samuel may not be what the original Greek translator wrote. It may be a later reviser’s word, chosen to match a Hebrew text more precisely. The older Greek reading, if there was a different one, would have to be hunted through the Antiochene tradition and the Old Latin, and that requires critical editions I do not have.

So let me be clear about what I can and cannot say.

I can say: the Greek Bible as it has come down to us renders this one Hebrew phrase two different ways in two different books.

I cannot say: with certainty that those two renderings represent two independent third-and-second-century translators rather than one translator and one later reviser.

Does that weaken the point? I do not think so, and here is why:

Either way, we are watching Greek-speaking Jews who knew the language far better than we do look at פַּסִּים and reach for different words. Whether that happened in 250 B.C. or 50 B.C. or both, the testimony is the same: the phrase was hard then too. Nobody in antiquity was sitting on a settled definition and casually declining to share it.

And I will say this as well. If the kaige reviser is the one who chose καρπωτός, then he chose it while deliberately conforming his Greek to the Hebrew. Which would mean that a man staring hard at פַּסִּים, with the explicit goal of matching the Hebrew as tightly as he could, came away with sleeves.

That should tell us something.

Tamar’s Robe

Now the story, which we do not talk about enough.

Amnon, David’s firstborn, becomes obsessed with his half-sister Tamar. He feigns illness, gets her sent to his room to cook for him, and rapes her.

Now, I don’t want to just roll through this. That’s a major statement that the text gives without commentary but I think we owe it to Tamar to slow down here.

Think about what this is really saying. Not only did Amnon develop a serious (and seriously unhealthy!) obsession with his half-sister, and not only did he force her to lie with him against her objections where she actually offered to marry him. She begs him to go to the king and ask for her hand.

But he refuses.

Let that sink in. He claims to be desperately in love with her, yet refuses to marry her.

And the kicker to all this is that following the advice of his friend and cousin Jonadab (son of Shimeah, David’s brother), he manipulates his way into getting her alone with him to facilitate this deed that Tamar begs him repeatedly not to commit.

And then, after his passion is spent, the text tells us, the hatred with which he hated her afterward was greater than the love with which he had loved her. He has her thrown out and the door bolted.

And it is precisely here, at her worst moment, that the narrator stops to tell us what she was wearing.

That is a strange place for a wardrobe note. But it’s not decoration. The narrator is telling you what has been destroyed.

2 Samuel 13:19 (NKJV): “Then Tamar put ashes on her head, and tore her robe of many colors that was on her, and laid her hand on her head and went away crying bitterly.”

She tore it herself.

Joseph’s coat was torn off him by other hands. Tamar tore her own, because that is what you do in that culture when someone has died, and what had died was her. The garment that marked her as a king’s virgin daughter was now a lie, and she would not wear a lie through the streets.

And then, as far as the narrative is concerned, David does nothing.

He’s angry. That’s all we’re told. Absalom takes his sister into his house and says nothing to Amnon, good or bad, for two years, and then has him killed at a sheepshearing.

The robe of the king’s daughters, torn by the daughter who wore it. That’s what the second half of our five occurrences is about.

Two Tamars, One Recognition

Now I have to clear something up. I’ve seen people get this tangles and it’s important that we keep it straight.

There are two Tamars in this study, and they are not the same woman.

The Tamar with the ketonet passim is David’s daughter, in 2 Samuel 13. That is the one we have just been reading about.

The other Tamar is in Genesis 38, and she is Judah’s daughter-in-law. She has no famous garment. She has a veil, a signet, a cord, and a staff.

Different women, different centuries, no connection between them except a shared name, which was a common one.

But. This one is worth the detour.

Genesis 38 is the chapter that interrupts the Joseph story. Joseph is sold into Egypt at the end of chapter 37, and then, before we find out what happens to him, the narrative stops dead and tells us about Judah and his daughter-in-law. Readers have complained about this placement for centuries. It looks like an intrusion.

But it isn’t.

Look at how chapter 37 ends. The brothers dip the coat in goat’s blood and send it to Jacob:

Genesis 37:32 (LXX): τοῦτον εὕρομεν· ἐπίγνωθι εἰ χιτὼν τοῦ υἱοῦ σού ἐστιν ἢ οὔ

“We found this. Recognize whether it is your son’s tunic or not.”

Now look at how Judah’s story turns. Tamar is being dragged out to be burned, and she sends Judah the pledge items he left with her:

Genesis 38:25 (LXX): Ἐπίγνωθι, τίνος ὁ δακτύλιος καὶ ὁ ὁρμίσκος καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος αὕτη

“Recognize whose this signet and cord and staff are.”

The same imperative. ἐπίγνωθι. And in the Hebrew it is the same too, הַכֶּר־נָא, haker-na.

Judah says it to his father, holding a bloodied garment and a lie. Then a woman says it back to Judah, holding the proof of what he has done. Judah, who proposed selling his brother. Judah, who helped stage the evidence.

And the Talmud caught this long before any modern literary critic did. In tractate Sotah, Rabbi Hama bar Rabbi Hanina reads it exactly as measure for measure: with haker-na Judah deceived his father, and with haker-na he was himself confronted.

The Greek preserves the parallel perfectly. Same verb, same form, both chapters. It did not have to. A translator working chapter by chapter could easily have varied it. This one did not.

So what is Genesis 38 doing there? It is the hinge in Judah’s life. The man who engineered the lie in chapter 37 is broken open in chapter 38, and by chapter 44 he is the one offering himself as a slave in Benjamin’s place so his father will not have to lose another son.

The chapter that looks like an interruption is the chapter where the coat’s worst consequence starts getting undone.

Three Tunics

Now let me put something in front of you and let you look at it.

There are three χιτῶνες in this study, and all three are stripped from their wearers.

Joseph’s is taken off him by his brothers, dipped in an animal’s blood, and carried to his father as evidence of a death that did not happen.

Tamar’s is torn by her own hands, as evidence of a death that did happen, though she went on breathing for years afterward in her brother’s house.

And there is a third.

John 19:23-24 (NKJV): “Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece. They said therefore among themselves, ‘Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be,’ that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: ‘They divided My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.’”

The Greek noun is χιτών. The same word that clothed Joseph and Tamar.

But John tells us something about this one that is not true of either of the others. It was ἄραφος, seamless, woven from the top throughout.

And the soldiers, of all people, say the thing out loud: let us not tear it.

The one tunic in Scripture that does not get torn is the one belonging to the Man who was.

I want to be careful not to overwork that. John says why he includes the detail. It’s Psalm 22:18, and I couldn’t improve on his stated reason even if I wanted to. But John is a deliberate writer, and he chose to record that the soldiers made a point of not tearing a garment while they were in the middle of tearing a body.

That juxtaposition is his, not mine.

The Coat That Lied

And here is where the whole series lands for me.

Go back to Jacob, holding the bloodied coat.

Genesis 37:33 (NKJV): “And he recognized it and said, ‘It is my son’s tunic. A wild beast has devoured him. Without doubt Joseph is torn to pieces.’”

He recognized it, and he drew the obvious conclusion, and he was wrong.

Because the blood on that coat was goat’s blood. Joseph was not dead. At the very hour Jacob tore his own clothes and refused to be comforted, his son was alive, walking a caravan road toward Egypt, toward a household, toward a prison, toward a throne, toward the granaries that would keep Jacob’s entire family breathing through seven years of famine.

The coat told the truth about the blood and lied about the son.

It said devoured. It said torn to pieces. It said the story is over. And every one of those statements was false, and the father who believed them spent twenty-two years grieving a living man.

Now look at the other Father, and the other Son, and the other garment.

The soldiers gambled at the foot of a cross, and the blood on that ground was not an animal’s. There was no substitution there, no goat killed in a field to stage a scene. The Son really was torn. The Father really did give Him up.

And the message that blood carries is the exact inverse of Joseph’s coat.

Joseph’s coat said “dead” about a man who was alive. The blood of Christ says “alive” over everyone who was dead.

Jacob was handed evidence of a death and told to recognize it. We are handed evidence of a death and told to recognize something else entirely: that it happened, that it was ours, and that the One it happened to did not stay torn.

ἐπίγνωθι. Recognize.

That imperative runs through this whole study. Recognize whether this is your son’s tunic. Recognize whose signet this is. And the same root shows up at the end of the New Testament story, on a road to Emmaus, where two disciples walk for miles with a stranger and finally, at a table, when He breaks the bread, their eyes are opened and they recognize Him.

Joseph’s brothers used that word to sell a lie. Tamar used it to expose one. And in the Gospel it becomes the word for what happens when a person finally sees who has been walking beside them all along.

The Manifold Wisdom

One word left.

In Part 2 we traced ποικίλος until it stopped being about cloth at all: various diseases, various trials, manifold grace. But there is an intensified form, πολυποίκιλος, much-variegated, and it appears exactly once in the entire New Testament.

Ephesians 3:10 (NKJV): “to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places”

Ephesians 3:10 (Greek): ἵνα γνωρισθῇ νῦν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ ταῖς ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ πολυποίκιλος σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ

The NRSV renders it “the wisdom of God in its rich variety,” which I think gets closer to the Greek than “manifold” does.

Outside Scripture the word is rare and lovely. It turns up in a fragment of the comic poet Eubulus describing the many hues of a garland of flowers. It is a word for something with so many facets that you cannot take them in at once.

Paul takes that word and attaches it to the wisdom of God.

And then he says who the audience is. Not the church. Through the church, to τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. The rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

If you have been with me through the Divine Council series, that vocabulary should stop you where you stand. It is the same register Paul uses in Ephesians 6:12, when he tells us our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι and κοσμοκράτορες. It is the language of the unseen government, the divine council and its rebellious members, the powers standing behind the thrones of Babylon and Tyre.

Read Ephesians 3:10 with that in view and the sentence turns inside out.

God is putting on a demonstration. The exhibit is the church, Jew and Gentile in one body, a thing that had never existed and that nobody saw coming. And the gallery He has assembled for the unveiling is the assembled powers of the unseen realm.

They are being shown something. And what they are being shown is called πολυποίκιλος.

The Coat and the Wisdom

So here, finally, is why I wanted to write these three posts.

The word that clothed Joseph is the word Paul uses for the wisdom of God.

Not the same word exactly. Paul’s is intensified, πολυποίκιλος rather than ποικίλος, much-variegated rather than variegated. But it is the same root, the same idea pushed to its limit. Intricate. Many-sided. Worked with a care you cannot take in at a glance.

Now think about what happened to Joseph while he was wearing the ordinary version of that word.

He was hated. He was stripped. He was thrown into an empty pit. He was sold to passing merchants for twenty pieces of silver by his own brothers. He was lied about, imprisoned, and forgotten by a man who promised to remember him.

If you had asked Joseph in that pit whether he could see a pattern, he would have told you there was no pattern. Just a bottom, and walls, and no water.

And he would have been describing the most intricately worked rescue in the book of Genesis, from the inside, at the one moment when none of it was visible.

That is what πολυποίκιλος means. Not that God’s plans are complicated. Complicated is what we call things that are badly made. It means they have more sides than you can see from where you are standing, and the side facing you at any given moment is not the whole shape.

Joseph said it himself, decades later, with the power to do anything he liked to the men who took his coat: you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to save many people alive.

He did not say it was not evil. He said God was working something with more sides to it than his brothers’ malice. But their malice was one of the threads.

Jacob gave his son a ποικίλος garment, and it ruined him, and the ruin was the road to Egypt.

The Father gave His Son a seamless one, and the soldiers who tore everything else left it whole. The tearing they did instead is the reason any of us are here.

And the powers of the unseen realm, who watched the whole thing and thought they had won, are now being made to look at the church, and what they are being shown is the πολυποίκιλος wisdom of God.

They did not see it coming either.

Weighed and Found Sufficient

We started three posts ago with a simple confession: nobody knows what Joseph was wearing.

I have not solved it. I am not going to. Eight readings went into Part 1 and eight came out.

But look at what came with the not-knowing.

Because the Masoretic Text refused to smooth a difficult phrase, we still have the difficulty, and the difficulty sent us looking. Because the Greek traditions committed where the Hebrew did not, we have ancient testimony about how the phrase actually sounded. Because one Greek translator chose ποικίλος, we can hear Jacob’s flocks in Joseph’s coat and Peter’s grace in Peter’s trials and the wisdom of God in a word that started out describing a dappled fawn.

None of that is available to someone holding only one tradition.

This is what I mean when I say both/and, and I want to be precise about it one last time. Despite how it has sometimes been twisted, I have never suggested that the two traditions can be averaged into a single answer. What I mean is each tradition is doing different work, faithfully, as they have for thousands of years. And the Lord preserved both because we need both.

The Hebrew kept the question open. The Greek recorded the answers. And somewhere between them sits a garment nobody has seen since the Bronze Age, still doing its work, still pulling careful readers back to the text three thousand years later.

Weighed against a definition, we came up short.

Weighed against what we found on the way, I would not trade it.

God bless.

And I’ll see you next week with something you won’t want to miss!

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

Last time we stood in a room full of translators, all of them staring at two Hebrew words and reaching for different answers. The Septuagint said ornate. Aquila said ankles. Symmachus said sleeves. Jerome said woven of many threads. The rabbis said fine wool, or silk, or striped, or embroidered, or pictured, or long to the palms, or long to the feet. Eight readings, none of them careless, and the Hebrew itself refuses to referee.

And I made you a promise at the end. I said that the Greek word the Septuagint chose does not primarily mean “many-colored,” and that I would spend this whole post proving it.

Time to pay up.

Because here is the thing about ποικίλος. It is not a small word. It is not a technical term for a dye pattern. It is one of those Greek words with a semantic range so wide it takes you from a leopard’s hide to a tabernacle curtain to a philosopher’s mind to the wisdom of God Himself, and it does that without ever once changing its meaning. It just keeps applying the same idea to bigger and bigger things.

That idea is not color.

Let’s dig in.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The Word

ποικίλος (poikilos)

Pronunciation: poy-KEE-los

Strong’s: G4164

Meaning: Variegated, intricate, elaborately wrought. Of surfaces: dappled, mottled, spotted, embroidered, inlaid. Of things: complex, many-sided, manifold, of various kinds. Of persons: subtle, versatile, artful.

Root: From an ancient Indo-European root carrying the sense of cutting or stitching, and from there marking, painting, decorating. The same root stands behind Latin pingo, to paint, and gives English picture and pigment.

LXX frequency: 21 occurrences in 20 verses.

NT frequency: 10 occurrences in 10 verses. Matthew 4:24; Mark 1:34; Luke 4:40; 2 Timothy 3:6; Titus 3:3; Hebrews 2:4; Hebrews 13:9; James 1:2; 1 Peter 1:6; 1 Peter 4:10.

Cognates worth knowing:

• ποικιλία (poikilia), the noun. Variety, intricacy, complexity.

• ποικιλτής (poikiltēs), an embroiderer. A craftsman.

• ποικιλτός (poikiltos), embroidered. The finished product.

• πολυποίκιλος (polypoikilos), the intensified form. Much-variegated, manifold in the extreme. We will meet this one in Part 3, and it is worth the wait.

Notice something in that cluster. The word family generates a worker. There is a person whose whole trade is named by this root. That is not what happens to color words. Nobody’s job title is “the reddener.” The job title here is embroiderer, because the root idea is not a hue. It is skilled elaboration.

Before the Bible: What the Greeks Meant

Long before any translator in Alexandria opened a Hebrew scroll, ποικίλος was doing hard work in Greek.

The lexicons start it where you would expect, with surfaces: many-colored, spotted, mottled, pied, dappled. Homer uses it of leopards and fawns. If you have seen a fawn in dappled shade, you already understand the base image. Not a solid field of one thing. A surface broken up into a pattern.

But watch how fast it travels.

By the classical period ποικίλος is describing cunningly worked metal, elaborate carving, intricate weaving. Then it jumps categories entirely and starts describing things that have no surface at all. An elaborate piece of music. A complicated oracle. A tangled argument.

And then it lands on people. Aelian uses it of a man who had passed through many and varied changes of fortune in his life. Herodas uses it of a character who is shifting and artful. Homer applies the family to Odysseus, the man of many turns, the one you cannot pin down.

Follow that line. Dappled fawn. Embroidered cloth. Complicated oracle. Devious man.

What holds all of that together? Not color. Multiplicity held in a single thing. A ποικίλος object or person contains more than one aspect at once, arranged with some kind of art.

That is the word. That is what it has always meant. And the English “many-colored” catches perhaps a fifth of it if we’re being generous.

Out in the Street

I want to make one stop that most word studies skip, because I think it matters for how we read Scripture.

Greek was not only a literary language. Ordinary people wrote grocery lists, contracts, and complaints in it, and thanks to the dry sands of Egypt we have thousands of those documents on papyrus. When you want to know what a Greek word meant to a person who was not a philosopher, the papyri are where you look.

ποικίλος and its family turn up there exactly where you would expect them to.

An Egyptian document from around the third century before Christ uses ποικιλία for the multitude of complicated fractional divisions of the hours of night and day. Not colors. Complexity in a calendar.

A Berlin papyrus uses ποικιλτής for a working embroiderer. A man with a trade.

And an Oxyrhynchus document from A.D. 255 uses ποικιλτός, embroidered, of actual cloth, in the ordinary commercial sense.

So the word was alive in both registers at once. In the workshop it meant embroidered. In the counting-house it meant complicated. Same word, same idea, applied to fabric in one place and to fractions in the other.

That is the linguistic air the Septuagint translators were breathing.

Jacob’s Word

Now come back to Genesis, and to the thread I asked you to hold.

Long before ποικίλος describes a coat, it describes a scheme.

Jacob is working for Laban and losing. His father-in-law has changed his wages ten times. So Jacob does something strange with fresh-cut rods, peeling white stripes into them and setting them in the watering troughs. And the Greek text says the peeled white showed on the rods ποικίλον.

The flocks bred in front of those rods, and:

Genesis 30:39 (LXX): ἔτικτον τὰ πρόβατα διάλευκα καὶ ποικίλα καὶ σποδοειδῆ ῥαντά

The flocks bore young that were streaked and ποικίλα and ash-spotted.

Then, chapter 31, Jacob explaining the whole business to Rachel and Leah:

Genesis 31:8 (LXX): ἐὰν οὕτως εἴπῃ, τὰ ποικίλα ἔσται σου μισθός, καὶ τέξεται πάντα τὰ πρόβατα ποικίλα

If he said this, the ποικίλα shall be your wages, then all the flocks bore ποικίλα.

Read that phrase again. The ποικίλα will be your wages.

Jacob’s method was ποικίλον. Jacob’s flocks were ποικίλα. Jacob’s entire fortune, every animal he drove out of Paddan-aram, the wealth that made him a man of substance instead of a runaway with a staff, was ποικίλα.

And then, six chapters later, that man takes the son he loves best and puts on him a χιτῶνα ποικίλον.

I do not think a Greek-speaking reader working straight through Genesis could miss it. Same word, four times, tracking one man’s life. His trick. His herds. His pay. His boy.

Now, I want to be careful here, and I want you to be careful with me. In the Hebrew, these are different words. The flocks in Genesis 30 and 31 are נְקֻדִּים and טְלֻאִים, speckled and spotted. Joseph’s coat is פַּסִּים.

So the point is the Hebrew does not make this connection. The Greek translators made it.

So what do we do with that?

Here is where the both/and does real work rather than just sitting there sounding agreeable. The Hebrew is doing one job: keeping the vocabulary precise, so that a speckled goat and an ornamented tunic are not confused. That precision is a genuine gift, and the Masoretic tradition guarded it for millennia.

The Greek is doing a different job. In choosing ποικίλος across both scenes, it lets a theme surface that the Hebrew leaves under the floorboards: everything Jacob has ever gained came to him variegated. The strange, the patterned, the not-plain. That was always the shape of God’s provision to him. And when he wanted to say “I love you most” to a seventeen-year-old, he reached for the only vocabulary of blessing he had ever known.

Is that reading in the Hebrew? No. Is it contradicted by the Hebrew? Also no. It is a dimension the Greek carried and the Hebrew did not, in the same way the Hebrew carried a difficulty that the Greek smoothed over.

Two traditions. Two different true things. This is why I keep saying we do not have to choose.

God Commissions the Work

Now watch where this word family goes next, because it is not where you would expect.

When the Lord gives Moses the specifications for the tabernacle, He does not ask for plain cloth. Again and again the Greek text calls for ἔργον ποικιλτοῦ, the work of an embroiderer.

The screen for the gate of the court is ἔργον ποικιλτοῦ, made of blue and purple and scarlet and fine twisted linen. The ephod the high priest wears into the presence of God is the same, woven work of an embroiderer.

Think about what that means.

God, giving instructions for the one place on earth where He will meet with His people, specifies elaboration. He calls for a craftsman whose entire job description is this root. He wants the threshold of His dwelling to be intricate.

The Lord could have asked for undyed linen. He is not, after all, impressed by decoration, and He says so often enough elsewhere. But when He designed the place of meeting, He asked for the work of a ποικιλτής.

I find that quietly stunning. The same word family that describes a dappled fawn and a complicated fraction is the word God chose for the curtain He wanted between Himself and Israel.

Ezekiel 16: Clothed, Given Away, Stripped

And now we come to the passage that, for my money, is the theological center of this whole study. I did not expect to end up here when I started, and it stopped me when I found it.

Ezekiel 16 is the Lord’s account of His relationship with Jerusalem, told as the story of an abandoned newborn girl. He finds her exposed in a field, still bloody, left to die. He rescues her. He raises her. And then, when she comes of age, He clothes her.

Ezekiel 16:10 (LXX): καὶ ἐνέδυσά σε ποικίλα

And I clothed you with ποικίλα.

Ezekiel 16:10 (NKJV): “I clothed you in embroidered cloth and gave you sandals of badger skin; I clothed you with fine linen and covered you with silk.”

Three verses later He says it again. Her coverings were fine linen and silk and ποικίλα.

So here is God, in His own voice, doing exactly what Jacob did. Taking the one He loves and dressing her in the intricate work. The elaborate. The costly. The word that clothed Joseph now clothes Jerusalem, and this time the hand doing the clothing is the Lord’s own.

And then, verse eighteen.

Ezekiel 16:18 (LXX): καὶ ἔλαβες τὸν ἱματισμὸν τὸν ποικίλον σου καὶ περιέβαλες αὐτά

“And you took your embroidered apparel and put them on, and you set my oil and my incense in front of them” (NETS)

She took the ποικίλος clothing God had put on her, and she draped it over her idols.

Sit with that for a second. The garments were a gift. They were the visible sign that she belonged to Him, that she had been found and rescued and honored. And she took them off her own back and hung them on carved wood.

Then the judgment falls, and Ezekiel uses the exact vocabulary you would dread:

Ezekiel 16:39 (NKJV): “They shall also strip you of your clothes, take your beautiful jewelry, and leave you naked and bare.”

Given the ornate garment. The garment misused. The garment stripped away, and the wearer left naked.

Do you see it?

That is Joseph’s story, told about a city.

Jacob gives the ποικίλος tunic. The brothers strip Joseph of it, of the ποικίλος tunic that was on him, and throw him in a pit, and Genesis is careful to tell us the pit was empty, with no water in it. Naked and bare.

I am not claiming Ezekiel is consciously alluding to Genesis 37. I have no evidence for that and I am not going to manufacture any. What I am saying is that the Greek Scriptures, read as a whole, use one word for a particular kind of gift, and that gift keeps having the same shape. It is given in love. It marks the wearer out. It provokes something. And it comes off.

Philo and Josephus

Two Jewish writers from the first century worth checking, and they behave very differently.

Philo of Alexandria takes the coat allegorically, as he takes nearly everything. In De Iosepho, his treatise on Joseph as the model statesman, he works through a series of details from the narrative and reads each as a feature of political life. Joseph’s name, meaning “Addition,” signals that politicians deal in what is conventional rather than what is natural. The false report of the wild beast signals the statesman’s vulnerability to vanity. And the many-colored coat signals that a statesman must be resourceful.

Resourceful. Not colorful. Many-sided. Able to meet a situation from more than one angle.

Philo, a native Greek speaker reading the Greek text, did not hear “rainbow.” He heard versatility. Which tells you a great deal about how the word landed on a first-century ear.

Josephus does something stranger. He does not describe the coat at all.

I went and read his account. He tells the Joseph story at length in Antiquities Book 2. He explains that Jacob loved Joseph for the beauty of his body and the virtues of his mind. He narrates the dreams, the brothers’ hatred, the pit, the sale. And when the brothers strip the garment, Josephus says only that they had taken away from Joseph the coat which he had on.

No adjective. No description. The most famous garment in the Hebrew Bible, and the great Jewish historian of the first century declines to tell his Roman readers what it looked like.

The Book of Jubilees likewise passes over it.

But Josephus does describe the other one. In Antiquities Book 7, retelling the assault on Tamar, he explains that the virgins of old wore coats tied at the hands and reaching down to the ankles.

Same Hebrew phrase, two books apart. Silence in Genesis, sleeves and ankles in 2 Samuel.

Which brings me to a warning worth passing along. You will regularly see writers cite “Josephus on Joseph’s coat” and then quote the Tamar description. It has been copied from source to source for a long time. It is not what Josephus wrote about Joseph, because Josephus wrote nothing about Joseph’s coat.

I mention it not to score a point but because it is a useful reminder. Check the citation. Always check the citation. I have to do it constantly, and I still get caught from time to time.

The New Testament, Where the Color Drains Out

Now here is the part that surprised me the most.

ποικίλος appears ten times in the New Testament. Not one of those ten refers to color.

Not one.

Look at them:

Matthew 4:24 (NKJV): they brought Him all who were afflicted with various diseases.

Mark 1:34 and Luke 4:40 say the same thing. Various diseases.

2 Timothy 3:6 (NKJV): gullible women “led away by various lusts.”

Titus 3:3 (NKJV): we ourselves once served “various lusts and pleasures.”

Hebrews 2:4 (NKJV): God bearing witness “with signs and wonders, with various miracles.”

Hebrews 13:9 (NKJV): “Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines.”

James 1:2 (NKJV): “count it all joy when you fall into various trials.”

Sicknesses. Sins. Miracles. Errors. Sufferings.

The word has walked completely out of the wardrobe. Not one apostle uses it of a garment. What survives, in every single case, is the abstract core: many kinds, held together under one heading.

Which is exactly what I have been arguing the word always meant. The New Testament did not change ποικίλος. The New Testament simply used the part of it that was never about color in the first place, and by doing so it shows us what the heart of the word actually was.

If ποικίλος had carried a meaning (even a secondary one) of “many-colored,” I would contend that the apostles would not have written a single one of these sentences. They would have reached for another word. Such as διάφορος (diaphoros), which directly means "various" or "different."

Peter’s Two Uses

And then Peter does something I have not been able to stop thinking about.

He uses ποικίλος twice in one letter. Once near the beginning, once near the end.

1 Peter 1:6 (NKJV): “In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials.”

ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς. Manifold trials. Trials of many kinds, coming at you from many directions, no two quite the same.

Then, three chapters later:

1 Peter 4:10 (NKJV): “As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.”

ποικίλης χάριτος θεοῦ. Manifold grace.

The same adjective.

Peter is writing to Christians scattered across Asia Minor and taking real damage for it. And he tells them their trials are ποικίλοι, and then he tells them God’s grace is ποικίλη.

That is not decoration. That is an argument, made with a single repeated word, and it says this: however many-sided your suffering is, the grace is many-sided in exactly the same measure.

Not more grace than trials, as though it were a matter of volume. Correspondingly shaped grace. Grace with as many faces as your trouble has. If the trial comes at you from six directions, the grace has six answers. There is no angle of attack for which the grace has no corresponding side.

I do not think you can get that out of any English translation, because English uses “various” in the first verse and “manifold” in the second and the connection vanishes.

But Peter’s readers heard it. Same word, same letter. The trials are ποικίλοι and the grace is ποικίλη, and the man writing it had been through a night of failure so complete he wept in a courtyard, and had been restored on a beach by the God whose grace has more sides than our sin has.

What This Means for Us

Three things.

First, “many-colored” was always too small. Not wrong. Just too small. It is one true corner of a word that covers dappled hides, embroidered curtains, complicated fractions, versatile statesmen, various diseases, and the grace of God. When we shrink ποικίλος to a color word, we do not just lose accuracy on one verse in Genesis. We lose the ability to hear Peter.

This is worth generalizing. Ancient words rarely map onto single English words, and when we let one English gloss stand in permanently for a Greek term, we quietly amputate its range. The remedy is not to distrust our translations. The remedy is to keep reading, and to notice when the same underlying word is doing work in places our English keeps apart.

Second, God is not a minimalist. He asked for embroidery at the door of His own dwelling. He clothed a rescued child in the intricate work. He gives gifts that are elaborate and costly and particular, and He does it knowing exactly what people tend to do with such gifts.

Because that is the other half of it. Every ποικίλος garment in Scripture ends up torn off somebody. Joseph’s is stripped and dipped in blood. Jerusalem’s is hung on idols and then taken away. Tamar’s is torn by her own hands.

The gift is real, but the gift is not safe. Not because God is careless with it, but because we are.

Third, and this is the one I would have you carry with you: whatever is coming at you in many forms, the grace is coming in just as many.

You already know that your troubles are not uniform. They are ποικίλοι. The financial pressure is not the same shape as the grief, and neither is the same shape as the thing you are ashamed of, and none of them respond to the same fix. That is precisely the problem with suffering, that it will not hold still long enough to be answered only once.

Peter’s answer is not “be encouraged.” Peter’s answer is a word. Your trials are ποικίλοι, and the grace of God is ποικίλη, and the second word is not smaller than the first.

The grace has as many sides as the trouble.

Coming Up Next

Next time we take the other Greek word, the one that got left behind in 2 Samuel, and we follow the torn robe from Tamar’s hands to a place nobody expects. Because there is one more form of this adjective in the New Testament, it appears exactly once, and Paul aims it straight at the unseen realm.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

We have walked all the way through.

If you missed any of the earlier posts, you can get caught up HERE

Twelve Hebrew and Aramaic chapters with two Greek counterparts each. Two additions unique to the Greek versions.

Seventeen posts, three witnesses at a time, verse by verse, from a boy refusing the king’s food to a dragon bursting in a Babylonian temple. Along the way we have watched a furnace, a wall, a den, a river, four beasts, a ram, a goat, a horn, seventy weeks, an archangel, an army of kings, and a resurrection.

And now I want to do something I have not done in any of the previous posts. I want to stop looking at the trees and describe the forest.

Because here is the thing about a series like this.

Each post asked a narrow question: what do the three traditions do with this chapter? But underneath those seventeen narrow questions, patterns kept surfacing, the same handful of phenomena appearing again and again in different clothes. I would notice one in chapter 8 and then meet it again in chapter 10 and again in chapter 11. Those patterns are what this series actually discovered, and no single post could show them to you, because you can only see them by standing back.

So this post is not a recap. I’m not going to march through the chapters again.

What I’m going to do is name the six things that kept happening, show you the sharpest example of each, and then, at the end, I am going to do the thing I have been deferring for seventeen posts:

I’m going to take up the hardest challenges to the way I read the Bible, including one from a first-rate scholar whose argument, if he is right, would require me to rebuild my entire framework.

I promised you all series that I would not straw-man anyone and would not pretend to certainty I do not have. This is where I make good on that, on the questions that cost me something. And just might force me to rethink some of my positions.

Let’s dig in.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

What We Were Actually Doing

A word first about the method, since it’s the thing being tested.

The premise of this series has been what I call the both/and. It’s my theory that the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint are both authoritative. That both were preserved by God on purpose.

That where they differ, the differences are usually not errors to be adjudicated but complementary angles on one truth, and that a fuller picture emerges when you hold them together rather than picking a winner.

That is a claim, not a mood. And claims can be tested. Seventeen posts of side-by-side reading is a fairly rigorous test, especially because Daniel is the hardest possible case. It survives in three ancient editions that diverge more sharply than almost any other book in the Bible.

If the both/and were going to break anywhere, it would break here.

So we now have to ask the question: did it hold?

The truth is that mostly it did, and beautifully so. But not everywhere, and I am going to show you exactly where it strained, because a framework that has never been pressed is not a conviction.

It’s an untested claim. It’s an assertion that hasn’t been argued. It’s little more than a slogan. So let’s have a look.

Pattern One: Different Source Text, or Different Translator?

This is the question that sat underneath every single post, and it is the one that took me the longest to learn to hold properly.

When the Old Greek says something the Hebrew does not, there are two very different explanations. Either the translator was looking at a different Hebrew or Aramaic manuscript than the one that became our Masoretic Text, or he was looking at the same text and rendering it interpretively; expanding, smoothing, or explaining.

Scholars call the underlying source text the vorlage, and the difference between these two explanations is enormous. A different vorlage means the Greek is a witness to a genuinely different ancient text. An interpretive translation means the Greek is a witness to how ancient readers understood the text we already have.

My default through this series has been vorlage-first. When the Greek diverges substantially, I have leaned toward suspecting a different source. And that default is not arbitrary. It rests on the Dead Sea Scrolls, which proved beyond argument that multiple textual forms of biblical books circulated side by side in the Second Temple period.

Before Qumran, you could believe the Hebrew Bible existed in essentially one form and every divergence was a translator’s liberty. And that was exactly how almost all scholars read the Septuagint through the early 20th century. However, the fact that must be reckoned with is that after Qumran, you simply cannot hold that view.

A default is not a doctrine, however, and I want to point to the place where I had to set mine down because the evidence didn’t support it.

At Daniel 8:10, the Masoretic Text has the little horn grow up to the host of heaven, throw stars to the ground, and trample them. The Old Greek reverses the whole scene: the horn is raised toward the stars and then thrown down and trampled by them. The horn does not win. It loses. Immediately.

My instinct said different vorlage.

The evidence said otherwise.

Michael Segal points out that you could just about revocalize the first two Hebrew verbs to read passively, but you cannot do it to the third one, the trampling. The Greek is not reading different letters. It is making a decision. And Segal suggests the translator is reading this horn through Isaiah 14, where the shining one who says “I will ascend into heaven” is brought down to Sheol. Raised toward the stars, thrown to the earth. That is Isaiah’s arc laid deliberately over Daniel’s horn.

So in Part 11, I said out loud that I was declining my own default, and I want to repeat it here because it is the most important methodological thing this series taught me.

The vorlage-first instinct has proved right far more often than not. It is still an instinct, however, and instincts have to answer to evidence. When I read the Old Greek of Daniel 8:10, I am not looking at a lost Hebrew manuscript. I am looking at an ancient believer using Scripture to interpret Scripture, just as we do today. And he was doing it well.

Hold onto that, because the final section of this post is going to ask a related question that is of vital importance.

Pattern Two: When the Greek and the Scrolls Kept the Older Reading

Here is the pattern that should change how you think about your English Bible, because it happened repeatedly. And the more books we go through, the more we see this pattern holding.

We are trained, most of us without ever being told, to treat the Hebrew as the original and the Greek as the translation. Original means earlier. Translation means derivative. So when they disagree, the Hebrew wins by default.

This series ran into case after case where that is simply not what the evidence shows.

Start with Daniel 8:4. The Hebrew has the ram charging west, north, and south, three directions. The Old Greek has four, adding east. And when I went looking for which manuscripts supported which reading, here is what I found:

The Old Greek reading is in Papyrus 967, the second-century papyrus that is the oldest witness we have to the Greek Daniel and the only one that predates Origen.

It is in the Syro-Hexaplar. It is in Codex Chisianus. There is not a Greek witness anywhere that lacks it. The bracket you see around it in your N.E.T.S. is a modern editorial judgment that the original translator could not have written what every surviving copy of his work says he wrote.

But the manuscripts are unanimous.

The bracket stands against them.

Then Daniel 10:16. The Masoretic Text says “one in human form” touched Daniel’s lips. Theodotion says “the likeness of a son of man.” The Old Greek says “a likeness of a human hand.” And that Old Greek reading has support from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it fits the passage better than the Hebrew does, because a hand touches Daniel two verses earlier and a human figure touches him two verses later.

The scene is a sequence of a hand reaching into a man’s collapse. The Greek and the oldest Hebrew scrolls agree, and the Masoretic is the reading that drifted.

Then the sharpest case, Daniel 8:9. The Hebrew calls the horn “small.” Both Greek versions call it “strong.” Everyone assumes the Hebrew is original, because “small” matches the little horn of chapter 7 and welds the two visions together.

Segal noticed the problem with that assumption, and his argument is elegant enough that it should alter our Hebrew-first assumption. The Old Greek translator is a compulsive harmonizer, and Segal proves it inside these very verses, in both directions: at 8:9 he borrows a verb from 7:8, and at 7:8 he borrows a word from 8:9. He is stitching the two visions together with both hands. So if his Hebrew had said “small,” he had every motive to keep it, because it would have completed the harmony he was building.

Instead, he wrote “strong” and wrecked his own connection. A harmonizer does not manufacture a discord. Which suggests his Hebrew did not say “small,” and that the Masoretic “small,” matching chapter 7 so tidily, is exactly what harmonizing produces.

Ian Young, working from the manuscripts rather than the translation technique, reached the same conclusion in a published study and calls the Masoretic “little horn” at 8:9 a secondary reading.

Three cases, one lesson. Sometimes the Greek is not the derivative text. Sometimes the Greek, standing alongside the oldest Hebrew scrolls we possess, kept the earlier reading, and the Masoretic Text is the one that moved.

This is the strongest evidence the series produced for the both/and, and notice why. It is not a theological preference. It is textual evidence from the manuscripts themselves.

From where I’m standing, it’s virtually indisputable.

Pattern Three: When the Greek Unmasked the Code

Different pattern, and this one is a delight every time it happens.

Sometimes the Hebrew says something in code, and the Greek, standing centuries downstream with the answer in hand, simply tells you what it meant.

The showpiece is Daniel 11:30. The Hebrew says that “ships of Kittim” will come against the king and turn him back. Kittim is an ancient, elastic word, originally for the people of Cyprus and then for the seafaring powers of the far west. Brenton’s Theodotion keeps the mystery too, calling them “the Citians.”

But the Old Greek says: “the Romans will come and will expel him.”

Rome. By name. In a prophecy about the Seleucid king Antiochus IV, describing the moment in 168 B.C. when a single Roman envoy drew a circle in the sand around him and told him to decide before stepping out of it whether he would leave Egypt or fight Rome.

He left. And then he took his humiliation out on Jerusalem.

The Hebrew preserved the riddle, spoken before anyone knew who the ships from the west would turn out to be. The Greek, translating on the far side of the event, wrote down the answer. Neither is wrong. Together you get to watch a prophecy given in code and then decoded by history, on the page, in two languages.

The same thing happens at Daniel 9:25. The Hebrew says the weeks run until “an anointed prince,” mashiach nagid.

Theodotion renders that phrase with the ordinary Greek equivalent, and the ordinary Greek word for “anointed one” is Christos. So Brenton’s Theodotion reads “until Christ the prince.”

That is not the Greek smuggling Jesus into the Old Testament. It is the Greek translating the word in front of it. But it means the Bible the early church actually carried said “Christ” in Daniel 9, on the surface of the page, in a prophecy about someone coming after a fixed count of weeks and then being cut off.

The connection the church would later draw was not something they had to argue their way into against the text. It was sitting there in plain sight.

And it happens quietly all through chapter 11, where the Hebrew keeps saying “the king of the south” and the Old Greek keeps saying “the king of Egypt.”

No mystery.

Just the answer.

Pattern Four: When the Traditions Traded Places

Now a pattern that complicates any simple story you might have been building.

If you read only the first half of this series, you might conclude that the Greek is the theologically adventurous tradition and the Hebrew is the reserved one. The Greek expands, heightens, dramatizes. The Hebrew trusts silence.

And then you hit Daniel 8:25, and the whole thing inverts.

All through chapter 8 the Greek does the heavy theological lifting. It throws the horn down from the stars. It introduces a commander in chief who delivers the captives. It reads the horn through Isaiah 14.

Then comes the climax, the moment the willful king reaches the summit of his blasphemy, and it is the Hebrew alone that dares to say it: he “shall even rise up against the Prince of princes,” and “he shall be broken, and not by human hands” (NRSVUE).

Neither Greek witness carries that collision. Theodotion turns the phrase toward the horn crushing men like eggs. The Old Greek turns it toward his thought against the holy ones.

The single most breathtaking sentence in the chapter, a mere king setting himself against the Prince of princes and being shattered by a hand that is not human, is unique to the Hebrew.

The traditions trade places. And once you see it there, you find it elsewhere. At Daniel 3:25, the Aramaic has Nebuchadnezzar say the fourth figure in the furnace looks like “a son of the gods,” which is exactly what a pagan king would say, and Theodotion sharpens it to “the Son of God,” which is what the church would hear.

At Daniel 12:13, the personal promise to Daniel himself, that he will rest and rise for his reward at the end of the days, stands firm in the Hebrew and in Theodotion, while the Old Greek’s version of that final clause sits in brackets, textually uncertain.

This is why I distrust any tidy formula about which tradition is “better.” There isn’t one. There are two witnesses with different strengths, and which one carries the freight changes from verse to verse.

That is not a weakness in the both/and. That is the entire point of it.

Pattern Five: Where the Both/And Genuinely Strained

Now the teeth.

I could have written a capstone that only celebrated the wins. It would have been easy enough to sidestep the places where my default was challenged. To straw-man the evidence and only see the places where my own view is supported.

But that would be intellectually dishonest.

And worse, it would be boring, because a framework that fits everything comfortably has usually stopped being a framework and become a habit. And, I would contend, a lazy one at that. So here are the two places where my own approach was under real pressure, described as plainly as I can.

The wreck of the Seventy Weeks.

The Old Greek of Daniel 9:24-27 is not a complementary witness.

It is damaged.

Look at the numbers. The Old Greek reads “after seven and seventy and sixty-two weeks” (N.E.T.S.). Add them: one hundred and thirty-nine. In a prophecy about seventy weeks.

That is not a variant tradition.

That is an arithmetic impossibility, produced somewhere in transmission when the seventy from the opening collided with the seven and sixty-two from the timeline and nobody sorted it out.

And in verse 27 the N.E.T.S. prints three clauses in brackets, one after another, competing versions of the same chronological statement stacked on top of each other like sediment.

Tim McLay, who translated Daniel for the N.E.T.S. and knows this text as well as anyone alive, says flatly of this passage that it is “obviously corrupt.”

I am not going to dress that up. When you want the shape of the Seventy Weeks in focus, you go to the Hebrew and to Theodotion. The Old Greek of these verses simply cannot carry the weight.

Saying “both traditions are complementary here” would be not only false but also a ridiculously dishonest statement.

So what does the both/and do with a text that is simply broken?

Here is the honest answer I arrived at, and I still find it moving. Look at where the damage fell. It fell on the arithmetic, the weeks, the counting. And now read verse 24 in the Old Greek, the purpose statement, and compare it with the Hebrew. Sin consummated. Iniquities blotted out. Everlasting righteousness given. A holy of holies gladdened.

Intact.

Every one of the six great purposes survives in the very manuscript that lost the ability to count.

The corruption reached the numbers. It could not reach the atonement.

That is not a rescue of the both/and by clever framing. The both/and cannot be honestly applied to those verses, and I said so in Part 12.

What the passage gives us instead is something arguably better: a demonstration that the message God put in this chapter proved more durable than the manuscript carrying it. Scribes did their worst right here, and the gospel walked out without a scratch. Because let’s face it, the timing and dating of the seventy weeks prophecy is one of the most hotly debated issues in all of Scripture anyway. Almost no one actually agrees on what it means. So if we stop worrying about the timing and just look at the atonement, all three traditions agree.

But let’s be clear about the cost. On this passage, my framework does not describe the evidence and I had to be honest about that.

The third destiny.

Smaller, and harder to tidy. At Daniel 12:2, the Hebrew and Theodotion give two destinies for the resurrected: everlasting life, and shame and everlasting contempt. The Old Greek gives three, adding “dispersion” as its own category between them.

I do not know what to do with that, and I said so in Part 15. It is not obviously a complementary angle on a two-fold resurrection. It looks like a third thing.

I declined to build any doctrine on it, and I decline again here. Sometimes the honest position is that a divergence is genuinely open and you file it rather than resolve it. Because here’s the thing: I don’t know of any scholar or theologian who has a convincing argument about what to do with this or how to interpret it. And the text just doesn’t give me enough to form an opinion about it.

Two strains, then. One where the framework does not apply, and one where I do not know. If you have read seventeen posts of me finding harmony, you deserve to know exactly where I could not. And why.

Pattern Six: The Two Additions, on Opposite Sides of the Same Question

And then the final two posts gave us a gift, in the form of a puzzle that cuts both ways.

Susanna and Bel and the Dragon are both Greek-only. Neither has a Hebrew or Aramaic text. So both raise the same challenge: are these real Scripture, or late Greek inventions dressed up as Daniel?

And they answer that challenge in opposite directions.

Susanna’s whole climax turns on two puns that only work in Greek. The elder says the couple was under a mastic tree, a schinos, and Daniel says the angel will schisei, split him. The second says an evergreen oak, a prinos, and Daniel says the angel will prisei, saw him.

Around A.D. 240, Julius Africanus threw exactly this at Origen as proof that Susanna was a forgery: those puns cannot survive translation from Hebrew, because they could not have existed in Hebrew, so the story was composed in Greek, so it is not part of the real Daniel.

Origen wrote back at length and could not actually rebut the linguistics. He admitted he had consulted Jewish scholars about the underlying Hebrew and come away still in doubt.

Bel and the Dragon points the other way. The scholars behind the N.E.T.S. observe that Theodotion’s version reads like a formal translation of a Semitic source, with Semitic idioms scattered through it, and that one strange phrase, the angel setting Habakkuk down “in a rush of his spirit,” is best explained as a garble out of Hebrew or Aramaic. Fingerprints of a Semitic original, in the same collection of additions.

Two texts. Same corpus. Same canonical status. One looks born in Greek and the other looks translated from a Semitic source, and the early church received both as part of Daniel.

Which should tell you that the neat frame most of us inherited, Hebrew equals authentic and Greek equals derivative, is far too blunt an instrument for the actual evidence.

And it sets up the argument I have been deferring since Part 1.

The Reckoning

Everything above is textual. Now the questions underneath the questions, the ones I kept promising to take up later.

Later is now.

Was Daniel written in the second century?

The critical consensus says Daniel was composed around 165 B.C., during the persecution under Antiochus IV, and that its stunningly accurate “prophecy” of Hellenistic history in chapter 11 is history written after the fact and disguised as prediction.

I gave that case its strongest form in Part 14 and I will not repeat all of it, but here is the spine of my answer, because it matters for how you read everything else I’ve presented here.

The argument’s load-bearing beam is not evidence. It is a premise.

The reason chapter 11’s precision “must” be history rather than prophecy is that prophecy this detailed is assumed impossible. Strip that assumption away and the precision stops being suspicious and becomes exactly what you would expect from the God who, through Isaiah, stakes His claim to deity on declaring the end from the beginning.

A biblical worldview is supernatural from the floor up. If God exists and angels exist and one of them stood by the Tigris and told Daniel what was written in the book of truth, genuine prediction is not an embarrassment to explain. It is the native language of that world.

Then the evidence, which runs awkwardly for the late date.

The Qumran copies of Daniel are dated by the paleographers to the late second century B.C., leaving almost no room for a book supposedly written around 165 to be composed, circulated, embraced as sacred, and copied by a separatist community.

In 2025, researchers combining radiocarbon dating with a new handwriting model redated one of those copies, 4QDan-c, into a range of roughly 230 to 160 B.C. That is a probability range and not a fixed year, and the method is new and will be refined. But most of that range falls before the crisis the book is supposed to be describing after the fact.

And the mismatch at the end of chapter 11 cuts against the theory rather than for it.

Antiochus died in Persia in late 164. The text has the willful king die between the seas and the holy mountain, near Jerusalem. A writer in 165 could not have known how Antiochus would die, so a wrong guess is not by itself suspicious. What is strange is that the guess was never corrected.

The war ground on for another twenty years with scribes copying these texts, everyone knowing exactly where Antiochus had died, and the ending stands uncorrected in every surviving witness.

A skeptic can answer that a book already passing as ancient could not be edited without exposing the fraud, and that is fair. But then you are left with a fresh forgery whose own first readers, the people who had just buried Antiochus, swallowed a visibly wrong ending and enshrined it as Scripture without a murmur.

I hold the accuracy and the sixth-century Daniel together, and I do not find it a strain.

Are the additions Scripture?

I laid the history out fully in Part 16, so I’ll only summarize here.

The early church, reading its Old Testament in Greek, received Susanna and Bel and the Dragon as part of Daniel. Jerome, translating from the Hebrew around A.D. 400, set them apart with a note that they are not found in the Hebrew. That fault line still runs through the church: Catholic and Orthodox Christians read them as Daniel 13 and 14, Protestants place them in the Apocrypha, which means a very large portion of the global church has always said yes they are Scripture.

Where I land:

I lean toward receiving them. I have read both closely in both Greek versions, and I find nothing in their content unworthy of Scripture. Susanna enforces the ninth commandment and applies the Mosaic law of false witness exactly as Deuteronomy prescribes. Bel and the Dragon dramatizes the idol-polemic that Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Psalms had been preaching for centuries. Neither teaches anything strange. Both look like what they claim to be.

But notice that my leaning has a price, and I want to name it rather than hide it. If Susanna was composed in Greek, and Africanus’s linguistics are probably right that it was, then receiving it as Scripture means accepting that God inspired a text directly in Greek rather than merely permitting a Hebrew text to be translated into Greek.

That is a bigger claim than most Protestants have ever had to face, and it is a bigger claim than “the Septuagint is a faithful translation.”

Africanus proved Greek composition (perhaps not definitively, but it’s strong enough to be reasonable) and then assumed Greek composition meant forgery. The second half does not follow from the first unless you have already decided God does not inspire in Greek. I do not accept that premise. But I want you to see clearly that rejecting it commits me to something substantial.

And now the hardest one: McLay

Which brings me to the challenge I have been circling since the beginning, and the reason I wanted this capstone to have teeth.

Tim McLay is not a critic of the Septuagint. He is one of its most serious modern advocates. He translated Daniel for the New English Translation of the Septuagint, the very edition I have quoted in every post of this series. He wrote his doctoral work on the translation technique of the two Greek versions of Daniel. If you have read this series, you have been reading his labor on nearly every page.

And his mature position, if correct, would knock the legs out from under my vorlage-first default.

Let me give it to you at full strength, because it deserves that.

McLay ran the numbers on the two Greek versions where they overlap. What he found is genuinely strange. The Old Greek and Theodotion share readings less than 20 percent of the time overall. They mostly tell the stories differently. But when they do agree, roughly 83 percent of those agreements are verbatim, word for word.

Sit with how odd that is. Two independent translators working from similar Semitic sources would produce moderate, scattered resemblance spread throughout. What you would not get is two mostly different texts punctuated by patches that match exactly.

That is not the signature of translation. That is the signature of contamination, of one text being corrected toward the other by later scribes. In his introduction to Daniel in the N.E.T.S., McLay concludes that the only reasonable explanation for this pattern is “textual corruption of the OG with TH readings.”

Then he found the fingerprints. In multiple places the Old Greek manuscripts carry both their own rendering and Theodotion’s, sitting side by side as doublets. You can see the splice.

And here is the move that matters. Strip all of those Theodotion-ward corrections out of the Old Greek of chapters 4 through 6, and what remains is a coherent, entirely distinct telling of the same stories. McLay says that residue shows no evidence of being Semitic at all.

His conclusion is that these were “composed in Greek in Alexandria,” not translated from anything.

His retrospective account of how he got there is the part that should give us pause. He says the belief and assumption of a Hebrew vorlage was interfering with how the text could properly be understood. He is not claiming the evidence disproved a Semitic source.

He is saying he had been importing the vorlage as a premise and reading the data through it, and that once he set the premise down, the text looked different.

Read that again and notice what it does to me. My vorlage-first default is exactly the assumption he is describing. If he is right, I have spent seventeen posts asking “which Hebrew text was the translator looking at?” about passages where the honest answer is that there was no Hebrew text, because the Greek Daniel of those chapters is not a translation at all. It is its own composition.

So let me answer, and let me do it without flinching and without pretending this costs nothing.

First, on the state of the field. McLay knows he is in the minority and says so. The majority position remains that Theodotion is a revision of the Old Greek.

Alexander Di Lella states it about as strongly as scholarship states anything: OG Daniel is prior to Theodotion, “for the latter presupposes the former.”

John Collins holds a version of the same. And the newest sustained work runs against McLay too: a 2023 Brill monograph, developed from a Hebrew University dissertation supervised by Emanuel Tov and Michael Segal, argues in detail that Theodotion is a recension with a genuine Semitic source, on the strength of rare words and unique equivalents shared with the Old Greek.

Being in the minority does not make McLay wrong. Minorities in textual criticism have been right before, and spectacularly. But you should know that the field has not gone his way, and that the disagreement is live rather than settled.

Second, and sharper: the two best scholars on this question disagree at the same verse. Daniel 8:11, which we worked through in Part 11. Segal argues that Theodotion at that verse depends on the Old Greek, and specifically on an Old Greek that already had its glosses in it, and he shows Theodotion combining a word from the original translation with a word from the glosses.

McLay looks at the same extensive verbatim agreement in that same passage and argues the opposite, that it indicates Theodotion corruption of the Old Greek.

Same verse, same data, opposite conclusions from two first-rate specialists. That is worth knowing before anyone tells you this question is closed.

Third, on scope, and this one matters most for our series. McLay’s hard evidence is chapters 4 through 6. That is where the two versions diverge most wildly, where the doublets are thickest, where his stripping exercise produces a distinct Greek narrative.

He extends the argument outward, and he is candid that the later chapters look different: correspondence between the versions is closer in chapters 7 through 12, with more verbatim agreement and closer formal equivalence to the Hebrew, and he allows that the sources for the Greek versions may simply have been more similar in those chapters.

Segal makes the same observation from the other direction, noting that in the apocalyptic section all three versions reflect the same literary edition with much less textual variation.

Which means the challenge is weakest precisely where this series did its heaviest lifting. The four directions, the strong horn, the hand at the lips, Rome for Kittim, Christ the prince, the Prince of princes: every one of those is in chapters 8 through 12, in the section where even McLay grants that the texts likely go back to similar Semitic sources.

His argument does not touch them.

Fourth, and here is where I concede something real. For chapters 4 through 6, I think McLay may well be right, and I said as much in Part 7 without fully realizing I was agreeing with him.

Anyone who reads the Old Greek of chapter 4 next to the Aramaic can feel that something more than translation is happening. The Old Greek of that chapter has a first-person account of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness that exists in no other tradition and a doxology expanded into a theological manifesto.

I have been calling that a different source text. McLay would call it a different composition. And I have to admit that his account explains the phenomena at least as well as mine does, and possibly better. I’m not conceding that he’s right, but it is something that I have to consider.

So what happens to the both/and if he is right?

It does not break. It grows, and I want to be precise about how, because the growth is not free.

If the Old Greek of chapters 4 through 6 is an original Greek composition rather than a translation, then for those chapters my framework can no longer be described as “two witnesses to one original.”

It has to become something larger: that God preserved two distinct compositions telling the same divinely superintended stories, and that both were received as Scripture by the people of God.

That is a bigger claim.

It is also, I notice, exactly the claim I was already forced to make about Susanna two posts ago. If I can say that a Greek composition can be Scripture when the church received it as Scripture, I have already crossed the bridge McLay is asking me to cross. I just crossed it in a different chapter.

And there is something almost funny in the shape of this. McLay’s critique of the field is that scholars assume a Hebrew original and then read every divergence as deviation from a Hebrew norm.

That critique, aimed at the academy, is aimed at exactly the reflex this publication exists to fight: the reflex that treats Hebrew as real Scripture and Greek as its echo.

He is arguing, from the manuscripts, that the Greek Daniel of those chapters is not a degraded copy of something Hebrew but a text in its own right. I have been arguing, from theology, that the Greek is not a second-class witness. We arrived at neighboring conclusions from opposite directions, and his happens to dissolve one of my working assumptions along the way.

I would rather have a framework that can absorb that than one that has to duck it.

So here is where I actually land, and it is a change from where I started.

My default going forward is not vorlage-first. It is evidence-first, with vorlage as the most common answer rather than the presumed one.

Sometimes the divergence points to a different Semitic source, and Qumran proves that happened.

Sometimes it points to an interpretive translator reading Scripture by Scripture, as at Daniel 8:10.

And sometimes, particularly in chapters 4 through 6, it may point to a distinct composition in Greek.

Three explanations, decided case by case, with the manuscripts getting a vote before my instinct does.

That is a smaller claim than I started with.

But I also think it is a truer one. A more honest one. A more intellectually defensible one.

My Take

Seventeen posts. Here is what I actually believe now that I did not believe as firmly when we began.

The Septuagint is not a translation of the Bible. In places, it is a witness to a Bible we would otherwise have lost, and occasionally the better witness. Papyrus 967 at Daniel 8:4 and the Scrolls at Daniel 10:16 are not curiosities. They are evidence that the Greek preserved readings the Hebrew tradition let go of, and that any account of “the original text” that starts by assuming the Masoretic Text is the standard has smuggled in its conclusion.

The both/and held up better than I expected under a harder test than I anticipated, and it failed exactly where an honest framework should fail: on a passage that is genuinely damaged. I would rather tell you that the Old Greek of the Seventy Weeks is a wreck than pretend a corruption is a complementary perspective. A method that cannot say “this one is broken” cannot be trusted when it says “these two are complementary.”

I have less certainty about the mechanics than I did, and more confidence in the practice. I no longer think I can always tell you why the Greek differs. But I am more sure than ever that you should read it.

And I want to say one more thing about scholarship, because this series has been an education in it. Every single sharp insight in this capstone came from someone who spent a career on a problem I have spent a year on.

Segal on the harmonizing translator. Young on the secondary reading. McLay on the verbatim agreements. Africanus on the puns.

I have disagreed with several of them in these posts, and I hope I have disagreed the way you would want to be disagreed with: by stating their case at its strongest first, and then saying plainly where I part company and why.

If you found a place in this series where I did not do that, you would be doing me a kindness to tell me.

Why This Matters for Your Walk With God

Let me finish where the whole series was always heading.

You might reasonably ask what any of this is for. You are not going to consult Papyrus 967 this week. So what changes on Monday morning when you open your Bible?

Three things.

1. You have more Bible than you thought. Most of us read one English translation of one textual tradition and quietly assume we have seen the text. You have seen a text, faithfully rendered, and it is trustworthy. But there is a second ancient witness sitting right there, the Bible the apostles quoted, the Bible the early church read, the Bible in which Daniel 9 says “Christ the prince” out loud. Reading it will not undermine your confidence. It will widen your view. The ram charging in four directions instead of three does not threaten anything. It shows you a fuller picture.

2. Differences are not a threat. Some of you were taught, implicitly, that if two manuscripts differ, one of them must be an attack on Scripture and somebody must be lying. Seventeen posts should have cured that. The differences are mostly the texture of how God actually preserved His word through human hands across centuries, and the overwhelming majority of them enrich rather than endanger. Even the genuinely damaged passage, the Seventy Weeks in the Old Greek, turned out to prove the point in reverse: the numbers were scrambled and yet the atonement stood. If a corrupted manuscript cannot lose the gospel, your faith does not need to be protected from a footnote.

3. And the God in all three voices is the same God. This is the thing I keep coming back to. Across three ancient editions, in two languages, through centuries of scribes and translators and editors, the portrait never wavers. The God who shuts the mouths of lions. The God who walks in the furnace. The God who numbers, weighs, and divides the kingdoms of proud men. The God who sends an archangel into a twenty-one day war because one old man was praying. The God who tells a tired prophet at the end of everything to go his way and rest, and rise for his reward at the end of the days.

   
   The manuscripts vary. He does not.

That is what walking with Daniel in three voices finally taught me, and it is the last thing I want to leave with you. Not a theory about textual transmission. A conviction about the One the texts are pointing at, who was faithful to Daniel in Babylon and is faithful to you now, and who has never once been lost in translation.

Rest, and rise.

And do not fear.

A Final Note

Earlier this week I started the first LXX Scrolls chat!

If Substack didn’t notify you, consider this your official invitation to come and chat with me and the community! You can find the chat HERE.

I decided to start with something simple. It’s just an invitation to ask questions about anything you feel I ought to have addressed in this study of Daniel as well as talking a bit about what the next series is going to be and an invitation to suggest any topics you’d like me to cover before that series starts.

And do remember than any subscriber can start a new chat thread, so if you’ve been sitting on something that you’d like to chat with me or the community about, now’s your chance. Get into the chat. Let’s talk!

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible.

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

Everybody knows the coat.

You knew it before you could read. It was on the felt board in Sunday school, it was in the picture Bible your grandmother gave you, and if you grew up anywhere near a community theater you have probably sat through a musical about it.

The coat of many colors. Rainbow stripes, patchwork panels, the whole thing loud enough to make eleven brothers murderous.

But there’s a problem.

Nobody actually knows what Joseph was wearing.

I don’t mean that as a tease. I mean it as a plain statement of the philological situation. The Hebrew phrase behind that famous coat occurs five times in the entire Bible, all of them in two stories, and scholars have been arguing about what it means for the better part of three thousand years without landing anywhere.

The rabbis disagree with each other. The Greek translators disagree with each other. The Latin disagrees with the Greek. Your NKJV and your NRSV disagree with each other, on the same verse, in your own hands.

Look:

Genesis 37:3 (NKJV): “Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age. Also he made him a tunic of many colors.”

Genesis 37:3 (NRSV): “Now Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his children, because he was the son of his old age; and he had made him a long robe with sleeves.”

Read those again. One says the coat was colorful. The other says nothing whatsoever about color and instead tells you about its length and its sleeves. These are not two ways of saying the same thing. These are two different garments.

And here is why I find this so worth our time. This is not a case where one tradition got it right and the other got it wrong. This is a case where a genuinely obscure Hebrew phrase produced a whole family of ancient readings, each one catching a real facet of a garment nobody living has ever seen, and the Greek tradition preserved something the Hebrew alone would never have told us.

This is the first of three parts. In this one we are going to sit inside the problem: the Hebrew, the rabbis, and the room full of ancient Greek translators all staring at the same two words and reaching for different answers. Part 2 will take the Greek word itself and trace it through the whole of Scripture and beyond. Part 3 will follow it into the New Testament, where it turns up in a place that will make the whole study worth it.

Let’s dig in.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The Two Words

Here is the phrase at the heart of everything:

כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים (ketonet passim)

The first word is not the problem. כְּתֹנֶת (ketonet) means tunic, coat, or shirt. It is a common enough word. It shows up for the garments the Lord made for Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:21, and for the priestly tunics in Exodus 28. It is an ordinary piece of clothing worn against the body. The Greeks borrowed the word, or something very close to it, and got χιτών (chitōn). English eventually got “cotton” out of the same family.

The problem is פַּסִּים (passim).

It occurs in the Hebrew Bible only in this phrase, and the phrase occurs only five times:

• Genesis 37:3, when Jacob gives the coat to Joseph

• Genesis 37:23, when the brothers strip it off him

• Genesis 37:32, when they send it back to Jacob soaked in goat’s blood

• 2 Samuel 13:18, describing what Tamar was wearing

• 2 Samuel 13:19, when Tamar tears it

That is the complete evidence. Five occurrences, two narratives, and both narratives end with the wearer stripped, ruined, and thrown away. There is no third story that gives us a control. There is no legal text that defines it. There is no prophet who uses it in a way that clarifies the sense. It appears, and it appears only here, and then it is gone.

When a word occurs this rarely, translators do what translators have always done. They reason from the root, they reason from cognates in nearby languages, and they reason from what would make sense in the scene. And then, inevitably, they disagree.

The singular form is פַּס (pas). In later Aramaic and in rabbinic Hebrew, pas means the flat of the hand or the sole of the foot. That is the strongest lead anyone has. If pas means palm and sole, then a ketonet passim would be a tunic that reaches to the palms and the soles. A long robe. With sleeves.

Which is exactly where your NRSV got its rendering.

But that is a lead, not a proof. The Aramaic evidence is later than Genesis, and building a translation on a later cognate is a legitimate move that can also go badly wrong.

Which is why not everybody made it.

The Rabbis Could Not Agree Either

I want to spend real time here, because I think Christians often assume that Jewish tradition simply knows what the Hebrew means and we are the ones who lost the thread.

On this phrase, that assumption is not correct. The Jewish interpretive tradition is every bit as divided as ours, and watching them work is genuinely instructive.

Rashi (eleventh century, France) says the word describes the material, not the pattern. His comment on Genesis 37:3 reads:

פסים. לְשׁוֹן כְּלִי מֵילָת, כְּמוֹ כַּרְפַּס וּתְכֵלֶת, וּכְמוֹ כְּתֹנֶת הַפַּסִּים דְּתָמָר וְאַמְנוֹן

Passim: a term for an article of fine wool, like karpas and blue in Esther 1:6, and like the ketonet passim of Tamar and Amnon in 2 Samuel 13:18.

So for Rashi the coat was not necessarily long, and it was not necessarily patterned. It was expensive. Made of costly fine wool, the sort of fabric hanging in a Persian king’s palace. A luxury item, given to a seventeen-year-old shepherd boy who did not need one.

Rashi then does something I love, and offers a second reading from the Midrash Aggadah alongside the first without pretending the two must be reconciled. In that reading, the letters of פסים are taken as the initials of Joseph’s coming troubles: פוֹטִיפַר (Potiphar), סוֹחֲרִים (the merchants), ישְׁמְעֵאלִים (the Ishmaelites), מדְיָנִים (the Midianites). The very name of the garment spells out the chain of hands he will pass through.

Now, that is midrash and not Scripture. Also, remember that midrash is doing something other than lexicography. But notice what it senses. The coat is not just a gift. The coat is the beginning of the descent. The rabbis felt that in their bones, and they wrote it into the letters.

The others spread out from there.

Bereshit Rabbah 84 takes the palm-and-sole route: a tunic whose sleeves reach the wrist. Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, and the Baalei Tosafot go the same direction, a long garment coming down to the palms of the hands. Lekach Tov extends it to the feet.

Radak (David Kimchi) reads passim as striped, and notes the plural form, which some later commentators took as pointing toward panels or patchwork. Ibn Janach also lands on striped, and elsewhere suggests silk. Rav Saadiah Gaon likewise reads it as silk, a material claim rather than a pattern claim.

Ibn Ezra (who, notice, appears on two different lists), Bachya, and Ramban in his comment on Exodus 28:2 read it as embroidered.

And the Aramaic translations split as well. Targum Onkelos essentially declines to solve it, carrying the Aramaic cognate פסי straight across and leaving the reader exactly where the Hebrew left him. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan commits, using מְצוּיָר (metzuyar), which carries the sense of pictured, figured, or decorated. Something with images worked into it.

Count the options. Fine wool. Silk. Striped. Embroidered. Pictured. Long to the wrists. Long to the ankles. Patchwork.

Eight readings. Not one of them foolish. Every one of them from a serious reader working carefully with the same two words.

I want you to hold onto that, because when we get to the Greek in a moment, somebody is going to want to say that the Septuagint translators simply guessed. They did guess, in a sense. So did everyone. Guessing responsibly is what you do when the evidence is genuinely thin, and the honest thing is to admit that this is what is happening rather than to pretend the Hebrew was ever obvious.

The Room Full of Greek Translators

Now we come to our home ground.

Sometime in the early to mid third century before Christ, in Alexandria, a Jewish translator sat down with the Hebrew of Genesis 37 and had to decide what Joseph was wearing. He could not punt. Onkelos could carry the word over into Aramaic because Aramaic and Hebrew are cousins and the transliteration would at least look like something. Greek offers no such escape. He had to pick a Greek word.

He picked this one:

ποικίλος (poikilos), and in Genesis 37:3 the accusative form ποικίλον agreeing with χιτῶνα (chitōna: tunic).

Genesis 37:3 (LXX): ἐποίησεν δὲ αὐτῷ χιτῶνα ποικίλον.

Genesis 37:3 (LXX, Brenton): “And Jacob loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was to him the son of old age; and he made for him a coat of many colours.”

He used it again at 37:23, when the brothers strip him, and again at 37:32, when the bloodied garment comes back to Jacob. Three times, consistently. τὸν χιτῶνα τὸν ποικίλον. The coat is named by that adjective every time it appears in the story.

Now, I am going to say something here that I will spend all of Part 2 unpacking, so take it for now as a promise rather than an argument. ποικίλος does not primarily mean “many-colored.”

It can mean that. Color is inside the range. But the root sense of the word is closer to intricate, variegated, or elaborately worked. It comes from an ancient root meaning to cut, to stitch, to embroider, and by extension to mark or to paint. The same root gives Latin pingo and pictus, and eventually English picture and pigment. In classical Greek the word describes cunningly wrought metalwork, elaborate songs, complicated oracles, and clever many-sided people. Homer uses it of Odysseus.

So when the translator reached for ποικίλος, he was not necessarily saying “this coat was red and green and yellow.” He was saying “this coat was elaborate. Intricate. Worked.” Which sits remarkably close to Ramban’s embroidered, and to Pseudo-Jonathan’s figured, and honestly not that far from Rashi’s fine wool either.

The English “coat of many colours” is a narrowing that happened downstream, in Latin and then in English, of a Greek word that was always broader than color. We will get into how that narrowing happened.

But he was not the only Greek translator to weigh in.

Aquila and Symmachus Disagree With the Septuagint, and With Each Other

In the second century after Christ, two Jewish translators produced fresh Greek versions of the Hebrew Scriptures. Aquila, working around 130 A.D., was a fierce literalist who tried to reproduce Hebrew structure in Greek almost word for word.

Symmachus, working later in the same century, was the stylist of the group, prized for elegant idiomatic Greek. Both of their versions were later set alongside the Septuagint by Origen in his great six-column comparison, the Hexapla.

Both of them looked at ketonet passim and declined the Septuagint’s answer.

Aquila went with the palm-and-sole logic and produced a word built on ἀστράγαλος (astragalos), the ankle bone. A tunic reaching to the ankles.

Symmachus went with χειριδωτός (cheiridōtos), from χειρίς, a sleeve. A tunic furnished with sleeves.

Neither of them says one word about color or ornament. Both of them are describing the shape of the garment, not its surface.

And here is something worth knowing about how we know any of this. Aquila’s and Symmachus’s versions are lost. What survives comes to us in fragments: quotations in the church fathers, notes scribbled in the margins of manuscripts, and secondary translations. In this particular case, our witness is Jerome, in his Hebrew Questions on Genesis, where he pauses over this very verse and reports what the other Greek translators did:

Pro varia tunica, Aquila interpretatus est tunicam ἀστραγάλειον, id est, tunicam talarem. Symmachus, tunicam manicatam.

“For a many-colored tunic, Aquila rendered it a tunic ἀστραγάλειον, that is, an ankle-length tunic. Symmachus, a sleeved tunic.”

I want to be straight with you about a limit here. The exact Greek form Aquila used is not fully settled. Jerome’s text transmits ἀστραγάλειον. Other scholarly sources cite ἀστράγαλον or ἀστραγάλων. Sorting that out requires Field’s collection of the Hexaplaric fragments or the Göttingen critical apparatus, and I do not have access to either. So I will tell you what everyone agrees on, which is the sense: Aquila was describing a garment that reached the ankles. The precise form of the word he used is a genuine open question, and I would rather flag it than quietly pick one and sound more certain than I am.

What I find remarkable is that we have this at all. A fourth-century Latin scholar, working in Bethlehem, jotted down what two second-century Jewish translators did with two Hebrew words, and because he did, we can still hear their voices seventeen centuries later. That is not nothing.

It’s a chain of careful people refusing to let a detail drop.

And Jerome himself, when he came to translate the Vulgate, went a third direction: tunicam polymitam, a tunic woven of many threads. Then at 2 Samuel 13:18 he used talaris, ankle-length.

Even Jerome, one man, did not use the same solution in both books.

A Word About Manuscripts

I want to add a caution here, because this is the kind of study where a certain sort of claim tends to float around, and I would rather you be equipped than impressed.

You will sometimes see it said online that a particular ancient codex reads something different at Genesis 37:3. Before you accept any claim of that shape, on this verse or any other, it is worth asking a simple question: is that manuscript actually extant at that verse?

This is something I misspoke on when I first looked into it, so I think it’s important to state this plainly.

Codex Vaticanus, for example, is one of the great fourth-century witnesses to the Greek Bible. It is a magnificent manuscript. It is also missing its opening leaves. Everything from Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28 was lost, and the gap was filled in by a fifteenth-century hand many centuries later.

Which means Vaticanus has no fourth-century testimony about Joseph’s coat at all. Not a variant reading. Not a different word. Nothing. The pages are gone.

That is not a knock on Vaticanus. It’s a manuscript that has been incredible valuable to Septuagint scholarship. But manuscripts are physical objects, and physical objects get damaged. And this matters enormously for how we argue. “This codex reads X” and “this codex is silent here” are completely different claims, and the difference is invisible unless somebody checks.

The checking is most of the work of this type of scholarship.

The Both/And

So where does all of this leave us?

Here is where I land, and I would genuinely welcome you disagreeing with me and going to look for yourself.

I do not think we have to choose.

But I want to be careful about how I say that, because there’s a tidy version of this argument that I think is false, and I nearly made it myself.

The tidy version goes like this: the Hebrew tells you the coat’s shape and the Greek tells you its texture, so put them together and you have the whole garment. Long, sleeved, and ornate. Problem solved.

It’s a satisfying sentence. But it’s a statement that simply does not survive an honest reading of the text.

Because we just spent a full section watching careful readers pull פַּסִּים in four different directions at once. Fine wool. Silk. Striped. Embroidered. Reaching to the wrists. Reaching to the feet. The palm-and-sole cognate is the single strongest lead anybody has, and I think it is a good one.

But a strong lead is not a definition.

If I turn around now and announce that the Hebrew “means” extent, I have quietly thrown away every reading that says otherwise, including Rashi’s, in order to make my two traditions fit together neatly.

That is not the both/and. That is arithmetic dressed up as theology.

So let me say what I actually think the two traditions preserved.

The Hebrew preserved the question. It kept the phrase exactly as it stood, opaque and unresolved, refusing to smooth it into something a reader could take at a glance. Every one of those eight readings is still live in the Masoretic Text because the Masoretic Text has not chosen between them. That looks like a loss until you consider the alternative. A tradition that had “helpfully” clarified the phrase somewhere along the way would have handed us one answer and destroyed seven. Instead the strangeness of the words was guarded, letter by letter, for three thousand years by people who could easily have fixed it and did not.

The Greek preserved answers. Three of them, and they are not guesses in the way ours would be. These are decisions made by native speakers of the receiving language, working centuries closer to the world that produced the garment, who had to commit because their language gave them no way to hedge. The Septuagint says elaborately worked. Aquila says ankle-length. Symmachus says sleeved. That is not noise. It’s a testimony about how the phrase was actually heard by people who were more than two thousand years closer to Genesis than we are.

Now hold those two together.

If we had only the Greek, we would never know there was a puzzle here at all. We would read ποικίλος and picture something ornate and move on, never suspecting that the underlying Hebrew was one of the strangest phrases in the Torah. The Greek is clear precisely because it is a translation, and translations trade ambiguity for clarity. That trade always costs something.

And if we had only the Hebrew, we would have the puzzle and nothing else. An opaque word, a shelf of medieval commentators arguing, and no witness at all from antiquity telling us what the phrase sounded like to someone who lived nearer to it.

Neither tradition is deficient. They are doing different jobs. One guarded the difficulty. The other recorded the readings. And I would not surrender either, because losing the first would make us overconfident and losing the second would leave us with nothing but our own speculation.

Here is the thing worth noticing, though. For all that uncertainty about the fabric, the story itself is not remotely unclear about what the coat did. Genesis does not need us to solve passim in order to make its point, because it tells us the effect directly: the brothers saw that their father loved him more, and they hated him and could not speak peaceably to him. Whatever that garment was, they read it instantly, and they read it correctly.

The meaning of the coat comes from the narrative. Only the appearance of it comes from the lexicon. And we have far more of the first than we do of the second.

I believe the survival of both traditions, side by side, is not an accident of transmission. I believe it is providence. One holding the question open, the other holding what the ancients answered, and neither one able to do the other’s work.

One Thread to Hold

Before we close, I want to leave you with something that will not pay off until Part 2, because I think you will enjoy watching for it.

Go back seven chapters, to Genesis 30. Jacob is still working for Laban. He is peeling white stripes into fresh rods and setting them in the watering troughs, working out his wages from a father-in-law who has cheated him ten times over.

The Greek of that chapter uses ποικίλος. It uses it of the peeled rods. It uses it of the flocks that were born. And in Genesis 31:8, when Jacob recounts the terms Laban kept changing, the Greek reads: τὰ ποικίλα ἔσται σου μισθός. The poikila will be your wages.

Jacob’s wages. Jacob’s fortune. The entire basis of the wealth he carried out of Paddan-aram.

And then, seven chapters later, that same man takes his favorite son and dresses him in a χιτῶνα ποικίλον.

A Greek-speaking reader working straight through Genesis would hear it. Same word, four times, across one man’s life. His method. His flocks. His wages. His son.

Hold that. We will come back to it.

Weighing What We Cannot See

I said at the top that nobody knows what Joseph was wearing, and I meant it. But I want to end somewhere other than uncertainty, because uncertainty is not actually the point of this.

Here is what strikes me.

The Bible tells us, in extraordinary detail, about a garment. It tells us in Hebrew and in Greek and in Aramaic and in Latin. Generations of the most careful readers who ever lived bent over two words and gave their lives to getting it right. And after all of that, we still cannot say with confidence whether it was striped or embroidered, silk or fine wool, ankle-length or wrist-length.

But here’s the point that I want you to take to heart: it really doesn’t matter. Not for the story.

Because what the coat did is perfectly clear in every language it has ever been written in. It marked a boy out. It told eleven brothers, without a word being spoken, that their father’s heart was not evenly divided. And it went into a pit with him and came out of it covered in the blood of an animal that never touched him.

The rabbis caught that. That is what the acronym reading is reaching for. The garment that announced Joseph’s favor is the same garment that carried him into slavery, and its name spells out the hands he would pass through on the way down.

There is a hard mercy in that, and I think it is worth sitting with. The gift that Jacob gave in love was the instrument of Joseph’s ruin. And the ruin was the road to Egypt, and Egypt was the road to the granaries, and the granaries were how the covenant family survived a famine that should have ended them.

Joseph said it himself at the end, when he had the power to do anything he wanted to the men who stripped that coat off his back: “But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive” (Genesis 50:20, NKJV).

The coat is a small thing. Two words we cannot fully translate. A garment nobody has seen in thirty-five centuries.

And the Lord wove the whole rescue of a family through it.

We do not always get to know what the fabric was. But we do get to know Who was working the loom.

Next time we take ποικίλος itself and follow it everywhere it goes. Through the tabernacle. Through Ezekiel. Through Jacob’s flocks. And out the other side into a New Testament where the color drains out of the word entirely and something far stranger takes its place.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

Last time we watched a young Daniel save a woman’s life in a courtroom. This time he is a demolition crew.

If you missed any of the earlier posts, you can get caught up HERE

Bel and the Dragon is the last text of the Greek Daniel, and it is unlike anything else we have read. It is three short, fast, almost comic stories strung together, and in every one of them Daniel goes to war against an idol.

He exposes a fraudulent god with a handful of ashes and a floor full of footprints. He kills a living dragon by feeding it a bomb. And then, for his trouble, he takes one more trip to a lions’ den, where a prophet gets airlifted in from Judea by an angel holding him by the hair to bring him dinner.

It is playful and pointed at the same time, and underneath the fun it is doing something serious. This is the Bible’s most devastating attack on the great god of Babylon, and it is the narrative payoff of a theme the prophets had been hammering for centuries: that the idols of the nations are dead, fraudulent, powerless things, and that there is only one living God. What Isaiah and Jeremiah declared in poetry, Daniel proves here on a stage, in front of a king.

This is also our last stop in the text itself. After this, one more post, a capstone, to gather up everything the whole journey has taught us.

But first, the idols have to fall.

A Word on the Text

Like Susanna, Bel and the Dragon exists only in Greek, in two versions, the Old Greek and Theodotion. So this is again a two-voice post. I will run Theodotion in Brenton’s rendering as our main text, quoting all of it, and bring in the Old Greek from the N.E.T.S. wherever the two diverge.

On the old question of whether this is Scripture, I laid out the full history last week, so I won’t repeat it here. But in this case, one thing runs opposite to Susanna, and it is worth your knowing.

Susanna’s Greek puns argued that it was composed in Greek. Bel and the Dragon argues the other way. The scholars who prepared the N.E.T.S. note that Theodotion here reads like a formal translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic original, full of Semitic turns of phrase, and that one odd line, the angel setting Habakkuk down “in a rush of his spirit,” is best explained as a garble from an underlying Semitic text.

So if Susanna looked born in Greek, Bel and the Dragon looks translated from a Semitic source, and the “it is only Greek” objection is actually weaker here than anywhere. So we now have two additions on opposite sides of that question.

Hold that thought for the capstone.

But for now, let’s dig in to Bel and the Dragon.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Who Is Bel?

Before Daniel swings a hammer, you need to know what he is swinging it at, because the target is not some minor local trinket. It is the chief god of the Babylonian Empire.

Bel is Marduk. “Bel” is a title, from the same Semitic root as “Baal,” and it simply means “lord.” It’s a title that belonged to Marduk, the patron god of the city of Babylon. He was the king of the Babylonian pantheon, the deity in whose honor the great temple Esagila stood and in whose name every Babylonian king ruled.

To take on Bel was to take on the religious heart of the empire itself. This is not Daniel debunking a superstition. This is Daniel walking into the national cathedral and proving the national god is a con.

And in doing it, he is finishing an argument the prophets had been making for two hundred years. The Old Testament mocks idols relentlessly, and it mocks Bel by name. Isaiah watched a man cut down a tree, burn half of it to cook his dinner, and bow down to the other half and pray, “Deliver me, for you are my god” (Isaiah 44:17), and he could barely contain his contempt.

Isaiah saw the day coming when “Bel bows down, Nebo stoops,” the great gods of Babylon hauled off on the backs of pack animals, unable even to save themselves (Isaiah 46:1).

Jeremiah said idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, that “they cannot speak; they have to be carried, for they cannot walk” (Jeremiah 10:5). Jeremiah promised that God would “punish Bel in Babylon, and make him disgorge what he has swallowed” (Jeremiah 51:44), which, when you have read this chapter, is almost funny, because making Bel disgorge what he never really swallowed is the entire plot.

The Psalms said it plainest of all: idols “have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see,” and, the killer line, “those who make them become like them” (Psalm 115:5-8).

And a whole deuterocanonical letter, the Letter of Jeremiah, is nothing but a sustained mockery of exactly these Babylonian idols, dead things dressed in gold that cannot save themselves from rust or thieves.

Bel and the Dragon is where all of that stops being poetry and becomes theater. Every claim the prophets made about idols, that they cannot eat, cannot move, cannot act, cannot save, Daniel is about to demonstrate in the flesh, in public, on the biggest idol in the world.

Let’s have a look.

The Fraud of Bel

Bel and the Dragon 1-5 (Theodotion/Brenton)

And king Astyages was gathered to his fathers, and Cyrus of Persia received his kingdom. And Daniel conversed with the king, and was honoured above all his friends. Now the Babylonians had an idol, called Bel, and there were spent upon him every day twelve great measures of fine flour, and forty sheep, and six vessels of wine. And the king worshipped it and went daily to adore it: but Daniel worshipped his own God. And the king said unto him, Why dost not thou worship Bel? Who answered and said, Because I may not worship idols made with hands, but the living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all flesh.

The Old Greek opens completely differently, and the difference tells you something. It has no King Astyages, no Cyrus. Instead it heads the whole thing as a prophecy of Habakkuk, and it makes Daniel a priest.

Bel and the Dragon 1-5 (OG/NETS)

From a prophecy of Hambakoum the son of Iesous of the tribe of Leui. There was a certain person, a priest, whose name was Daniel son of Habal, a companion of the king of Babylon. And there was an idol, Bel, which the Babylonians would revere. Now, every day they were squandering on it twelve bushels of choice flour and four sheep and six measures of oil. And the king would revere him, and the king would go every day and would do obeisance to him. But Daniel would pray to the Lord. And the king said to Daniel, “Why do you not do obeisance to Bel?” And Daniel said to the king, “I revere no one except the Lord God, who created heaven and earth.”

Notice the divergences, because they are the kind we have learned to read. The Old Greek attaches the story to the prophet Habakkuk, whom we will meet again in a moment, and even gives him a Levite pedigree.

It calls Daniel a priest, son of Habal, where Theodotion just calls him the king’s honored companion. And the daily menu for Bel differs: forty sheep and wine in Theodotion, four sheep and oil in the Old Greek. These are exactly the sort of small, unbothered differences that come from two traditions telling the same story from slightly different sources, and by now they should feel familiar rather than alarming.

But hear what both versions put in Daniel’s mouth, because it is the thesis of the entire chapter. He will not worship “idols made with hands.” He worships “the living God, who created heaven and earth.” That contrast, made by hands versus living, is the hinge everything turns on. An idol is a thing people make. The true God is the one who made the people. Everything Daniel is about to do is a demonstration of that one distinction.

The king pushes back with the obvious question. If Bel is not alive, why does he eat so much?

Bel and the Dragon 6-9 (Theodotion/Brenton)

Then said the king unto him, Thinkest thou not that Bel is a living God? seest thou not how much he eateth and drinketh every day? Then Daniel smiled, and said, O king, be not deceived: for this is but clay within, and brass without, and did never eat or drink any thing. So the king was wroth, and called for his priests, and said unto them, If ye tell me not who this is that devoureth these expenses, ye shall die. But if ye can certify me that Bel devoureth them, then Daniel shall die: for he hath spoken blasphemy against Bel. And Daniel said unto the king, Let it be according to thy word.

I love that Daniel smiles here. I imagine it being a kind of smirk we give when we know someone is making a wager they have no chance of winning.

In the Old Greek he goes further and puts his own life fully on the table:

Bel and the Dragon 7-9 (OG/NETS)

And Daniel said to him, “Not at all! Do not let anyone mislead you, for this one is only of clay inside and bronze outside. Moreover, I swear to you by the Lord God of the gods that this one has never eaten anything.” And angered, the king called the leaders of the temple and said to them, “Produce the one who eats the things prepared for Bel. But if not, you shall die, or Daniel, who says they are not being eaten by him.” But they said, “It is Bel himself who eats them.” Then Daniel said to the king, “Let it be so. Unless I prove that Bel is not eating them, I shall die, and all those with me.”

The stakes are set. If Bel really eats, Daniel dies for blasphemy. If Bel does not, the seventy priests do. And Daniel has a plan.

Bel and the Dragon 10-15 (Theodotion/Brenton)

Now the priests of Bel were threescore and ten, beside their wives and children. And the king went with Daniel into the temple of Bel. So Bel’s priests said, Lo, we go out: but thou, O king, set on the meat, and make ready the wine, and shut the door fast and seal it with thine own signet; And to morrow when thou comest in, if thou findest not that Bel hath eaten up all, we will suffer death: or else Daniel, that speaketh falsely against us. And they little regarded it: for under the table they had made a privy entrance, whereby they entered in continually, and consumed those things. So when they were gone forth, the king set meats before Bel. Now Daniel had commanded his servants to bring ashes, and those they strewed throughout all the temple in the presence of the king alone: then went they out, and shut the door, and sealed it with the king’s signet, and so departed. Now in the night came the priests with their wives and children, as they were wont to do, and did eat and drink up all.

There is the trap, and it is beautiful in its simplicity. The priests are so confident in their secret door that they barely bother to argue. They do not know that after they leave, Daniel has quietly had the whole floor of the temple dusted with ashes. The doors are sealed with the king’s own signet. And in the night, the priests and their families creep in through their hidden entrance and eat the god’s dinner, exactly as they have every night for years, never looking down.

Bel and the Dragon 16-22 (Theodotion/Brenton)

In the morning betime the king arose, and Daniel with him. And the king said, Daniel, are the seals whole? And he said, Yea, O king, they be whole. And as soon as he had opened the door, the king looked upon the table, and cried with a loud voice, Great art thou, O Bel, and with thee is no deceit at all. Then laughed Daniel, and held the king that he should not go in, and said, Behold now the pavement, and mark well whose footsteps are these. And the king said, I see the footsteps of men, women, and children. And then the king was angry, and took the priests with their wives and children, who shewed him the privy doors, where they came in, and consumed such things as were upon the table. Therefore the king slew them, and delivered Bel into Daniel’s power, who destroyed him and his temple.

The king walks in, sees the empty table, and cries out in triumph, “Great art thou, O Bel!” And Daniel, who by now has laughed and smiled his way through the whole affair, physically grabs the king before he can step forward and says, in effect, look down. Look at the floor. And there in the ashes is the evidence: the footprints of men, and women, and children.

A god does not leave footprints. Con artists do. The seals were unbroken, so no one came through the door. But the floor is covered in tracks, so someone came another way. The fraud is exposed with nothing more than physics and a little gray dust, and the priests who staged it are destroyed by the very evidence of their own feet.

Jeremiah said God would make Bel disgorge what he had swallowed. Daniel just proved Bel never swallowed anything at all. The god of Babylon turns out to be a feeding tube for a syndicate of crooked priests, and the moment the light comes on, he is nothing. Clay within, bronze without, and a floor full of footprints.

One down.

The Death of the Dragon

Bel and the Dragon 23-27 (Theodotion/Brenton)

And in that same place there was a great dragon, which they of Babylon worshipped. And the king said unto Daniel, Wilt thou also say that this is of brass? lo, he liveth, he eateth and drinketh; thou canst not say that he is no living god: therefore worship him. Then said Daniel unto the king, I will worship the Lord my God: for he is the living God. But give me leave, O king, and I shall slay this dragon without sword or staff. The king said, I give thee leave. Then Daniel took pitch, and fat, and hair, and did seethe them together, and made lumps thereof: this he put in the dragon’s mouth, and so the dragon burst in sunder: and Daniel said, Lo, these are the gods ye worship.

The king thinks he has found a loophole. Fine, Bel was a statue. But this dragon is alive. It moves, it eats, it drinks. Surely a living thing that the whole city worships is a god you cannot debunk. And the king has a point, of a kind, because this time the object of worship is not clay and bronze. It is a real, breathing creature.

The Old Greek tells it much the same, with Daniel specifying the recipe by weight:

Bel and the Dragon 23-27 (OG/NETS)

And there was a dragon in that same place, and the Babylonians would revere it. And the king said to Daniel, “Surely you shall not also say about this one, that he is bronze! Look, he lives and eats and drinks! Do obeisance to him.” And Daniel said, “O king, give me permission, and I will slay the dragon without iron or club.” And the king agreed with him and said, “I have given it to you.” And taking thirty minas of pitch and fat and hair, Daniel boiled them together, and having made a cake, he threw it into the mouth of the dragon. And after eating, it burst open. And he showed it to the king, saying, “Aren’t these the things you revere, O king?”

Daniel does not deny the dragon is alive. That is precisely his point. He kills it. He boils together pitch and fat and hair into cakes and feeds them to the beast, and the thing bloats and bursts. And his one-line sermon over the carcass is devastating: these are the gods you worship. Because a god that a boy can kill with a lump of tar and hair is no god at all. The dragon was alive, yes, which is exactly why it could die. And a thing that dies is a creature, not the Creator. Daniel’s whole theology is in that burst carcass: the living God is the one who cannot be killed, and everything that can be killed is, by definition, not Him.

There is a delicious historical irony buried in this, if you know Babylon’s own mythology. Babylon’s origin story, the Enuma Elish recited every New Year in Bel’s own temple, was a dragon-slaying. Marduk, Bel himself, became king of the gods by killing the great chaos-dragon Tiamat and building the world from her corpse. Babylon’s chief god was worshiped as the god who slew the dragon. And the very image of a dragon, the mushhushshu, decorated the walls of the Ishtar Gate as Marduk’s own sacred beast. So here comes Daniel, a captive foreigner, and slays a Babylonian dragon of his own, not to become a god, but to prove that Babylon’s gods are frauds. The empire told a story about a dragon-slayer who became divine. Daniel becomes the real dragon-slayer, and uses it to unmask the divinity as a lie.

Two down. But now Daniel has torn down the two great objects of Babylonian devotion in a single day, and a city does not take that quietly.

One More Den of Lions

Bel and the Dragon 28-32 (Theodotion/Brenton)

When they of Babylon heard that, they took great indignation, and conspired against the king, saying, The king is become a Jew, and he hath destroyed Bel, he hath slain the dragon, and put the priests to death. So they came to the king, and said, Deliver us Daniel, or else we will destroy thee and thine house. Now when the king saw that they pressed him sore, being constrained, he delivered Daniel unto them: Who cast him into the lions’ den: where he was six days. And in the den there were seven lions, and they had given them every day two carcases, and two sheep: which then were not given to them, to the intent they might devour Daniel.

And here we arrive at something you have every right to find strange, because it feels like a story we have already read. Daniel, condemned by a hostile crowd, handed over by a reluctant king, thrown into a den of lions, and coming out alive. That is Daniel chapter 6.

But this is not chapter 6. This is a different den, with different details. Seven lions, not an unspecified number. Six days, not a single night. Starved lions, deliberately unfed so they would be hungry for Daniel. And a rescue that comes by a means chapter 6 never dreamed of.

So what is the relationship between this lions’ den and the famous one? Here are the views, and let you sit with them, because I don’t think the honest answer is to pretend it’s obvious.

One reading is that this is simply a second, separate episode. Daniel lived a long life across the reigns of several kings, and there is no rule that a man can only be thrown to lions once. On this view, the faithful Daniel made powerful enemies more than once, and God delivered him more than once, and the two dens are two real events in one long career.

Another reading is that this is a parallel tradition of the same great deliverance, the story of Daniel and the lions as it was told and retold in the Greek-speaking Jewish world, preserved here in a fuller, more folkloric form, with Habakkuk and the seven lions and the six days. On this view we are not looking at a second event but at a second telling, a variant of the tradition that lies behind chapter 6.

I won’t tell you which is right, because the text does not, and I would rather leave the question open honestly than force it shut with a tidy answered that’s not supported by the text.

What I will say is that either way, the theological point is identical to chapter 6, and it is the point this whole chapter has been building toward: the idols cannot save anyone, but the living God saves His servant, even from starved lions, even on the sixth day, even when a whole city wants him dead.

And the way He does it is one of the most charming miracles in all of Scripture.

Bel and the Dragon 33-39 (Theodotion/Brenton)

Now there was in Jewry a prophet, called Habbacuc, who had made pottage, and had broken bread in a bowl, and was going into the field, for to bring it to the reapers. But the angel of the Lord said unto Habbacuc, Go, carry the dinner that thou hast into Babylon unto Daniel, who is in the lions’ den. And Habbacuc said, Lord, I never saw Babylon; neither do I know where the den is. Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown, and bare him by the hair of his head, and through the vehemency of his spirit set him in Babylon over the den. And Habbacuc cried, saying, O Daniel, Daniel, take the dinner which God hath sent thee. And Daniel said, Thou hast remembered me, O God: neither hast thou forsaken them that seek thee and love thee. So Daniel arose, and did eat: and the angel of the Lord set Habbacuc in his own place again immediately.

The prophet Habakkuk, the same Habakkuk whose short book sits in our Bibles, is at home in Judea, hundreds of miles away, making stew and carrying lunch out to farmhands in a field. And an angel tells him to take that lunch to Daniel in Babylon.

Habakkuk quite reasonably objects that he has never even seen Babylon and has no idea where the den is. So the angel solves the logistics by grabbing him by the hair of his head and carrying him, stew and all, across the whole distance in “the vehemency of his spirit,” setting him down over the lions’ pit.

Habakkuk shouts down into the den, Daniel eats his miraculously delivered dinner, and the angel whisks the bewildered prophet straight back to his field.

It is a wonderful, almost comic scene, and it would be easy to laugh past the point. But listen to what Daniel says when the food arrives: “Thou hast remembered me, O God, neither hast thou forsaken them that seek thee and love thee.”

That is the heart of it. Down in the dark, six days into what should have been his death, surrounded by starving lions, Daniel discovers that God has not forgotten him.

The God who created heaven and earth, the God the idols could only counterfeit, reaches across six hundred miles and reroutes a prophet’s lunch to feed one faithful man in a pit.

The idols of Babylon could not so much as eat their own dinner. The living God delivers His servant’s.

Bel and the Dragon 40-42 (Theodotion/Brenton)

Upon the seventh day the king went to bewail Daniel: and when he came to the den, he looked in, and behold, Daniel was sitting. Then cried the king with a loud voice, saying, Great art Lord God of Daniel, and there is none other beside thee. And he drew him out, and cast those that were the cause of his destruction into the den: and they were devoured in a moment before his face.

On the seventh day the king comes, expecting to mourn, and finds Daniel sitting there alive among the lions. And the cry that breaks out of him is the confession the whole book of Daniel keeps pulling out of pagan kings, from Nebuchadnezzar to Darius to this one: “Great is the Lord God of Daniel, and there is none other beside him.”

The Old Greek makes the king’s confession slightly broader, referring to Him as ‘The Lord God’ rather than ‘God of Daniel’:

“The Lord God is great, and there is no other besides him.”

In both tellings, the idols are finished. The king who began the chapter bowing to Bel ends it confessing the God of a Jewish captive. And the men who engineered Daniel’s death are thrown to the very lions that would not touch him, and devoured in a moment, because the den was never the danger.

The danger was ever and only being on the wrong side of the living God.

What the Fathers Saw

The early church received Bel and the Dragon as part of Daniel and read it warmly, and it is not hard to see why.

In an age when Christians were surrounded by the idols of Rome and often dragged before magistrates for refusing to worship them, a story about a man who would not bow to the empire’s gods, who exposed them as frauds, and whom God delivered from the beasts, was not an ancient curiosity.

It was a mirror.

Hippolytus, whose commentary on Daniel is the oldest we possess, treated these stories as part of the whole. Jerome, as we saw, flagged that they were not in the Hebrew and set them apart, and the debate he represented is the one that still divides the church over whether these belong in the canon.

I pointed you to that full history last week when we talked about Susanna, so I won’t relitigate it here, except to repeat the one new wrinkle: the Semitic fingerprints in this particular text make it, if anything, a poorer candidate than Susanna for the charge of being a mere Greek invention.

Not that it being composed in Greek is the slam dunk some believe it to be.

My Take

Here is where I land on Bel and the Dragon.

I find it delightful, and I find it serious, and I do not think those are in tension. It is genuinely funny: the smiling prophet, the footprints in the ashes, the exploding dragon, and the airlifted lunch

And it is genuinely profound, because underneath the comedy it is making the single most important claim any human being can make: that there is a living God and everything else is at best a fallen spirit and at worst a man-made thing.

The prophets argued that idols are dead. Daniel proves it with ashes and tar. What Isaiah and Jeremiah and the Psalms declared, this story dramatizes: the gods of the nations cannot eat, cannot move, cannot save, and can be killed by a boy with a lump of pitch, but the Lord who made heaven and earth remembers His own and delivers them.

On the two lions’ dens, I have given you the real options and declined to force one, because I think the honest state of the evidence is genuinely open, and either way the meaning holds.

On the canon, I stand where I stood in Part 16, leaning toward receiving these as Scripture, finding nothing in them unworthy of the God they proclaim, while respecting that faithful Christians land in different places.

And on the origin question, I want you to notice the pattern one last time before we close, because it matters: Susanna looks to have been composed in Greek, and Bel and the Dragon appears to be a translation from a Semitic original.

And both were received as Scripture by the church that read the Greek Daniel. Whatever else that tells us, it tells us the “Greek versus Hebrew” question is more tangled and more interesting than either the confident Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) or the confident Protestant usually admits.

As always, do not take my word for it. Refer to Acts 17:11 and be like the Bereans. Read the two versions alongside the whole of Scripture, watch Daniel smile, and ask yourself two questions: First is how does this match up with accepted Scripture? And the second is the question this whole chapter is asking you: which of the things you serve could survive a handful of ashes on the floor?

Why This Matters for Your Walk With God

We do not keep idols of clay and bronze anymore, so it is tempting to read this as a museum piece, a quaint story about ancient superstition. That would be a mistake, and here is why.

Every one of us is spending our twelve bushels of flour and our forty sheep and our six vessels of wine on something. We are all pouring the resources of our lives, our time, our attention, our worship, our trust, onto some altar, hoping the thing on it will feed us back, protect us, save us, make us secure.

And the question this chapter puts to you is brutally simple: can it eat? Does the thing you are feeding your life to actually live, or is it clay within and bronze without, a made thing that will one day be exposed by a handful of ashes on the floor?

Money cannot eat. Status cannot eat. The approval of the crowd that wanted Daniel dead cannot eat. They take and take and give nothing back, and in the end they leave you devoured, like the priests, by the very thing you served.

There is only one God in this story who actually acts. He creates heaven and earth. He remembers a man in a pit. He reroutes a prophet’s lunch across six hundred miles because one of His own is hungry and alone in the dark.

The idols could not feed themselves. The living God feeds His children. And the whole point of Daniel’s smiling, fearless war on the gods of Babylon is to get you to stop bowing to what cannot save and turn to the One who can.

The idols cannot eat.

The living God remembers you.

Do not fear.

Coming Up Next

Next time, I’ll show you the grand finale.

Not another chapter, but a capstone. This is where we’ll gather up the whole journey: Twelve chapters and two Greek additions across 17 parts, and ask what it has taught us about reading the Hebrew and the Greek together, where the both/and has held and where it has strained, and why any of it matters for how you read your Bible tomorrow morning.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible.

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

Last time we reached the end of the Hebrew book of Daniel, and I told you Jerome had marked the seam. Up to chapter 12, he said, we read Daniel in the Hebrew. What follows comes from the Greek. Today we cross that seam.

If you missed any of the earlier posts, you can get caught up HERE

And on the other side of it is a story most of you have never read in your own Bibles, because most Protestant Bibles do not contain it. It is the story of Susanna, and it is unlike anything in the Daniel we have walked through so far. No beasts, no kings, no visions of the end. Instead, a garden, a bath, two dirty old men, a woman condemned to die for a crime she did not commit, and a teenage Daniel, decades before the lions, who stops an execution with two questions.

It is a beautiful story. It is also the storm center of one of the most important arguments in the history of the Bible, an argument about whether this story is Scripture at all, and it turns, of all things, on two little Greek puns. A first-rate Christian scholar threw those puns at one of the greatest minds of the early church as proof that Susanna was a forgery. And the argument they had about it goes to the very heart of what this whole publication is about.

So this one is different, and I want to be honest with you about how before we start.

A Word on What Makes This Different

For fifteen posts we have compared three witnesses: the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the Old Greek, and Theodotion. That is not possible here, because Susanna has no Hebrew text.

None.

It survives only in Greek, in two versions, the Old Greek and Theodotion, and those two differ from each other more than almost anything we have set side by side all series. So this is a two-voice post, Greek against Greek, and I will use Theodotion in Brenton’s rendering as our main narrative, since that is the fuller version and the one that stands behind the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, and bring in the Old Greek from the N.E.T.S. where it diverges.

In one crucial spot I will also bring in the N.E.T.S. rendering of Theodotion, because Brenton flattens something there that matters enormously.

And there is a question hanging over the whole thing that we’ve only had to ask once before, all the way back in part 5 from inside the furnace: Is this Scripture?

I am going to lay that question out fairly, give you the history, tell you where I lean, and let you decide for yourself.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Is Susanna Scripture? A Fair Accounting

Let me give you the lay of the land honestly, because good and serious Christians disagree about this, and you deserve the real picture rather than a tidy one.

Susanna is one of the “additions to Daniel,” a handful of passages that appear in the Greek Daniel but not in the Hebrew and Aramaic one. The early church, which read its Old Testament overwhelmingly in Greek, received these as part of Daniel. When manuscripts placed Susanna, they often set it at the very beginning, before chapter 1, precisely because it shows Daniel as a youth.

Jerome, translating the Latin Vulgate around A.D. 400, moved it to the end and attached a note that it is not found in the Hebrew, and he regarded it with suspicion.

That is the fault line that still runs through the church today. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions consider Susanna fully canonical Scripture, the thirteenth chapter of Daniel, and it has been read that way in the majority of the world’s churches for most of Christian history.

That fact is something worth considering. Our canon of 66 books is not nearly as old as most of us grew up believing. For nearly fifteen centuries, the entirety of the Body of Christ considered this (and a lot else besides) to be Scripture.

The Protestant Reformers, following the shorter Hebrew canon and Jerome’s “Hebrew verity,” placed it among the Apocrypha, valuable and edifying but not finally authoritative for doctrine. So whether you consider Susanna Scripture probably depends, in large part, on which stream of Christianity you are standing in.

I think it should give us pause that a huge part of the global church has always said yes.

Here is where I come down, and I want to be careful and honest about it.

I have read this story closely in both Greek versions, and I will tell you plainly: I find nothing in its content that should keep it out. It enforces the ninth commandment. It applies the Mosaic law of false witness exactly as Deuteronomy prescribes. It vindicates the innocent, it honors the law of Moses by name, and it shows a young Daniel stirred by the Spirit of God to defend a condemned woman.

There is no strange doctrine here, nothing that contradicts the rest of Scripture, nothing unworthy of the God who inspired the prophets. It reads like what it claims to be, an episode from the life of the same Daniel we have followed all series, only younger. So I lean toward receiving it as Scripture, and I think it fits the character of a young Daniel beautifully.

The arguments against it, and they are real, are almost entirely about where it came from, not what it says. And the sharpest of them is the one this whole post is going to build toward.

So let’s hear the story first, and then we’ll engage with the fight.

The Story: A Garden and a Trap

Theodotion opens with a setup the Old Greek lacks entirely.

Susanna 1-4 (Theodotion/Brenton)

There dwelt a man in Babylon, called Joacim: and he took a wife, whose name was Susanna, the daughter of Chelcias, a very fair woman, and one that feared the Lord. Her parents also were righteous, and taught their daughter according to the law of Moses. Now Joacim was a great rich man, and had a fair garden joining unto his house: and to him resorted the Jews, because he was more honourable than all others.

There she is. Susanna, beautiful, wealthy by marriage, and, the detail that matters most, raised by righteous parents in the law of Moses. That upbringing is not decoration. It is the hinge the whole story turns on, because in a moment Susanna is going to be offered her life in exchange for her integrity, and the reason she can make the choice she makes is that she was taught, from childhood, to fear the Lord more than she fears death.

Susanna 5-9 (Theodotion/Brenton)

The same year were appointed two of the ancients of the people to be judges, such as the Lord spake of, that wickedness came from Babylon from ancient judges, who seemed to govern the people. These kept much at Joacim’s house: and all that had any suits in law came unto them. Now when the people departed away at noon, Susanna went into her husband’s garden to walk. And the two elders saw her going in every day, and walking; so that their lust was inflamed toward her. And they perverted their own mind, and turned away their eyes, that they might not look unto heaven, nor remember just judgments.

Two elders are appointed judges that year, and the text drops a chilling line about them, quoting God Himself: “wickedness came from Babylon from ancient judges, who seemed to govern the people.” These are not petty men. They hold the community’s judicial power. And they both, secretly, conceive a lust for Susanna as they watch her walk in her husband’s garden. The Old Greek is blunt about what that lust did to them:

Susanna 9 (OG/NETS)

they diverted their mind and turned away their eyes in order not to look to heaven nor to remember to make right decisions.

That is the anatomy of the whole crime in one sentence. Before they ever touched Susanna, they turned their eyes away from heaven. Sin in the heart is first a refusal to look up. And men who have stopped looking up, but who still hold the power to judge, are the most dangerous men alive.

Susanna 10-21 (Theodotion/Brenton)

albeit they both were wounded with her love, yet durst not one shew another his grief. For they were ashamed to declare their lust, that they desired to have to do with her. Yet they watched diligently from day to day to see her. And the one said to the other, Let us now go home: for it is dinner time. So when they were gone out, they parted the one from the other, and turning back again they came to the same place; and after that they had asked one another the cause, they acknowledged their lust: then appointed they a time both together, when they might find her alone. And it fell out, as they watched a fit time, she went in as before with two maids only, and she was desirous to wash herself in the garden: for it was hot. And there was no body there save the two elders, that had hid themselves, and watched her. Then she said to her maids, Bring me oil and washing balls, and shut the garden doors, that I may wash me. And they did as she bade them, and shut the garden doors, and went out themselves at privy doors to fetch the things that she had commanded them: but they saw not the elders, because they were hid. Now when the maids were gone forth, the two elders rose up, and ran unto her, saying, Behold, the garden doors are shut, that no man can see us, and we are in love with thee; therefore consent unto us, and lie with us. If thou wilt not, we will bear witness against thee, that a young man was with thee: and therefore thou didst send away thy maids from thee.

They discover each other’s lust, they conspire, and they wait. And on a hot day, when Susanna sends her maids to fetch oil so she can bathe in the sealed garden, they spring the trap. Consent, they tell her, or we will testify that we caught you here with a young man. It is the oldest and ugliest kind of coercion, backed by the unbeatable advantage that they are the judges. Their word is the law.

And here is Susanna’s answer, the moral summit of the whole book, and both versions preserve it almost identically.

Susanna 22-24 (Theodotion/Brenton)

Then Susanna sighed, and said, I am straitened on every side: for if I do this thing, it is death unto me: and if I do it not I cannot escape your hands. It is better for me to fall into your hands, and not do it, than to sin in the sight of the Lord. With that Susanna cried with a loud voice: and the two elders cried out against her.

Read that slowly, because it is one of the great statements of integrity in all of Scripture, canonical or not. Susanna does the math perfectly. She knows there is no escape. If she refuses, they will destroy her, and she has no defense against two judges.

She chooses destruction.

She would rather die innocent than live guilty. It is the same choice the three young men made at the furnace, our God is able to deliver us, but if not, we still will not bow, and it is the same choice an old man named Daniel will one day make in front of a den of lions. This is the family Susanna belongs to. She is a Daniel-shaped character, facing a Daniel-shaped test, before Daniel himself has done any of it.

Susanna 25-40 (Theodotion/Brenton)

Then ran the one, and opened the garden door. So when the servants of the house heard the cry in the garden, they rushed in at the privy door, to see what was done unto her. But when the elders had declared their matter, the servants were greatly ashamed: for there was never such a report made of Susanna. And it came to pass the next day, when the people were assembled to her husband Joacim, the two elders came also full of mischievous imagination against Susanna to put her to death; And said before the people, Send for Susanna, the daughter of Chelcias, Joacim’s wife. And so they sent. So she came with her father and mother, her children, and all her kindred. Now Susanna was a very delicate woman, and beauteous to behold. And these wicked men commanded to uncover her face, (for she was covered) that they might be filled with her beauty. Therefore her friends and all that saw her wept. Then the two elders stood up in the midst of the people, and laid their hands upon her head. And she weeping looked up toward heaven: for her heart trusted in the Lord. And the elders said, As we walked in the garden alone, this woman came in with two maids, and shut the garden doors, and sent the maids away. Then a young man, who there was hid, came unto her, and lay with her. Then we that stood in a corner of the garden, seeing this wickedness, ran unto them. And when we saw them together, the man we could not hold: for he was stronger than we, and opened the door, and leaped out. But having taken this woman, we asked who the young man was, but she would not tell us: these things do we testify.

She screams. The elders scream back, the counter-accusation already rolling.

And this is the part that’s truly chilling. By the next day they’ve hauled her before the assembled people and told their lie: a young man, they say, was with her in the garden, and he overpowered them and fled. Susanna, veiled and weeping, is stripped of her covering so the crowd can look at her, one final humiliation for the apparent titillation of the elders.

And then the assembly does the thing that should make every reader’s blood run cold.

Susanna 41 (Theodotion/Brenton)

Then the assembly believed them as those that were the elders and judges of the people: so they condemned her to death.

They believed them because they were the judges. Not because the evidence was good. Because of who was speaking. The office lent its authority to the lie, and an innocent woman was sentenced to die on the word of the very men who had assaulted her.

Whether you view this story as canonical or not, this rings true just as much today as it ever did in ancient times. It’s a terrifying reality than many people in many places have to live with.

And now Susanna does the only thing she has left. She prays.

Susanna 42-43 (Theodotion/Brenton)

Then Susanna cried out with a loud voice, and said, O everlasting God, that knowest the secrets, and knowest all things before they be: Thou knowest that they have borne false witness against me, and, behold, I must die, whereas I never did such things as these men have maliciously invented against me.

And what a prayer it is. She cries out in her anguish, knowing she has no hope but trusting in the Lord that He will see her heart. That He will see the truth of these things.

And then comes the line that should make every believer sit up straight. Will probably bring us close to tears if we’ve really been invested in the story:

Susanna 44 (Theodotion/Brenton)

And the Lord heard her voice.

Isn’t that they very thing we all wish to hear when we’re facing circumstances completely out of our control that couldn’t be more unfair?

And what’s more is in Susanna’s case, God doesn’t just hear. He does something about it.

The Young Prophet and the Two Questions

Heaven’s answer is not a lightning bolt. It is a boy.

Susanna 45-46 (Theodotion/Brenton)

Therefore when she was led to be put to death, the Lord raised up the holy spirit of a young youth whose name was Daniel: who cried with a loud voice, I am clear from the blood of this woman.

The Old Greek tells it with an angel:

Susanna 44-45 (OG/NETS)

And lo, there was an angel of the Lord as she was being taken off to be executed. And the angel, just as he was ordered, gave a spirit of understanding to a youth, being Daniel.

This is our Daniel, years before Babylon’s court, before the dreams and the beasts and the lions, a boy in the crowd whom the Spirit of God seizes and stands on his feet.

And notice what he does with that Spirit. He does not perform a miracle. He does not call down fire. He demands due process.

Susanna 48-51 (OG/NETS)

Then Daniel parted the crowd, and after he stood among them, he said, “Are you such fools, O sons of Israel? Without examining or learning the plain truth, do you kill a daughter of Israel? And now, separate them far from one another for me so that I can test them.” So, when they were separated, Daniel said to the assembly, “Now, have no regard that they are elders, saying, ‘They would never lie!’ But I will examine them according to what occurs to me.”

The Spirit-filled boy’s first act is to insist that the court actually do its job, that testimony be tested before a life is taken. There is a whole theology of justice packed into that.

And then Daniel does the thing that has echoed through courtrooms for over two thousand years. He separates the witnesses. He will not let them coordinate their story. He examines them one at a time.

Susanna 52-54 (Theodotion/Brenton)

So when they were put asunder one from another, he called one of them, and said unto him, O thou that art waxen old in wickedness, now thy sins which thou hast committed aforetime are come to light. For thou hast pronounced false judgment and hast condemned the innocent and hast let the guilty go free; albeit the Lord saith, The innocent and righteous shalt thou not slay. Now then, if thou hast seen her, tell me, Under what tree sawest thou them companying together? Who answered, Under a mastick tree.

So after rebuking their wickedness, he puts a single, devastating question to each: under what tree did you see it happen?

The first elder answers. And Daniel springs the trap.

Susanna 54-55 (OG/NETS)

And the impious one said, “Under a mastich.” Then the youth said, “Truly you have lied to the detriment of your own soul, for this very day the angel of the Lord will split your soul.”

Daniel is clearly confident of his verdict here, and I lowkey kinda love it. Next he brings in the other elder.

Susanna 56-59 (OG/NETS)

And after he had this one removed, he told them to bring the other to him. Then he also said to that one, “Why is your seed twisted, like that of Sidon, and not like that of Iouda? Beauty has deceived you. And thus you used to treat the daughters of Israel, and they, being afraid, would have intercourse with you, but a daughter of Iouda did not tolerate bearing your sickness in lawlessness. Now, therefore, tell me: Under what tree and in what place of the garden did you catch them having intercourse together?” Then, he said, “Under an evergreen oak.” And Daniel said, “Sinner! Now, the angel of the Lord stands with the sword until the people destroy you so that he may saw you in pieces.”

One said mastic. The other said oak. Two men who claimed to witness the same event, in the same garden, at the same moment, cannot agree on the tree they were standing under. The lie collapses out of their own mouths, and the whole assembly sees it.

Susanna 60-62 (Theodotion/Brenton)

With that all the assembly cried out with a loud voice, and praised God, who saveth them that trust in him. And they arose against the two elders, for Daniel had convicted them of false witness by their own mouth: And according to the law of Moses they did unto them in such sort as they maliciously intended to do to their neighbour: and they put them to death. Thus the innocent blood was saved the same day.

They rise up, and by the law of Moses, the law of false witness in Deuteronomy that says you shall do to the false witness as he intended to do to his brother, they put the two elders to death. Susanna is vindicated.

I’m not sure if this is poetic justice or just justice, but either way I love the reversal that happens here.

But interestingly, the Old Greek adds a lovely closing flourish that Theodotion lacks, a little moral about why God loves to use the young:

Susanna 62a-62b (OG/NETS)

For this reason youths are beloved by Iakob, because of their simplicity. And as for us, let us watch out for young able sons. For youths will be pious, and a spirit of knowledge and understanding shall be with them forever and ever.

It is a wisdom-tale ending, and it tips the story’s hand about what it thinks it is doing: showing that God can put His Spirit of discernment on the young and the overlooked, and use a boy to shame a bench of corrupt elders.

Susanna 63-64 (Theodotion/Brenton)

Therefore Chelcias and his wife praised God for their daughter Susanna, with Joacim her husband, and all the kindred, because there was no dishonesty found in her. From that day forth was Daniel had in great reputation in the sight of the people.

And here we have the Theodotion closing that the Old Greek lacks. It makes for a nice, tidy closing to the preceding story that sets up Daniel for his future career under Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon.

But here’s the important part I promised you we’d dive into. Look again at those two trees and those two threats, because we have arrived at the fight.

The Two Words That Shook a Canon

Here is what you cannot see in English, and it is the whole thing.

In Greek, the first elder says the couple was under a mastic tree, a σχῖνος, schinos. And Daniel says the angel will σχίσει, schisei, split him. Schinos, schisei. The tree and the punishment rhyme.

The second elder says an evergreen oak, a πρῖνος, prinos. And Daniel says the angel will πρίσει, prisei, saw him. Prinos, prisei. Again, the tree and the punishment rhyme.

The whole climax is built on two puns. The name of the tree each liar invents becomes, by a hair’s breadth of sound, the manner of his execution. It is gorgeous wordplay.

Notice, by the way, that you have to read the N.E.T.S. to see the second one at all, because Brenton renders both threats as “cut thee in two” and the saw pun vanishes. The Greek keeps them distinct, split and saw, schisei and prisei, matched to schinos and prinos. The puns are the point.

And now the storm.

Around A.D. 240, a brilliant Christian scholar named Julius Africanus, one of the finest historical minds of the early church, the man who essentially invented Christian chronology and shaped Eusebius after him, wrote a letter to the great Origen. And in it he argued, with real force, that Susanna could not be genuine Scripture.

His central proof was these very puns. Here is his reasoning, and it is genuinely sharp:

Those wordplays, schinos and schisei, prinos and prisei, only work in Greek. In Hebrew, the words for those trees and those punishments sound nothing alike. But, Africanus argued, every authentic book of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and only later translated into Greek.

A pun that exists only in Greek cannot have survived translation from a Hebrew original, because it could not have existed in the Hebrew to begin with. Therefore Susanna was never Hebrew. Therefore it was composed in Greek. Therefore it is not part of the real Daniel. It is, in his blunt word, a forgery, however elegantly written. He even sneered that not even a comic playwright would stoop to such puns in a serious story.

That is a formidable argument, and I want you to feel its weight, because I am not going to wave it away. Africanus was largely right about the linguistics. The puns really do work in Greek and really do not work in the Hebrew we know.

When Origen wrote back to defend Susanna, and he did, at length, he could not actually rebut this part. He admitted he had gone and asked Jewish scholars for the Hebrew words behind the puns and come away, in his own words, still in doubt.

His best move was to suggest that a translator might have found clever Greek words to approximate a lost Hebrew wordplay. But even he seems to have known it was thin.

On the narrow, technical question, Africanus won. The puns really do point to a Greek composition.

So does that settle it? Is Susanna disqualified?

Only if you accept the hidden premise buried in Africanus’s argument. And that premise is the exact thing this entire publication exists to question.

Look at the load-bearing step again: “every authentic book of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew.” That is not a finding. It is an assumption, the assumption that Hebrew is the only language in which God inspires Old Testament Scripture, and that Greek can only ever be a translation, a secondhand echo of a Hebrew original.

Grant that premise, and yes, a Greek composition is automatically a fake. But that premise is precisely what the early Greek-speaking church did not hold, and it is precisely what I have been pushing back on for sixteen posts (and the whole breadth of my work in general).

If God can breathe out Scripture in Greek, and not merely permit its translation into Greek, then a book composed in Greek is not thereby disqualified. It is simply Scripture that God chose to give in Greek.

And here is the delicious irony at the center of it. Africanus’s proof, the thing he offered as the nail in Susanna’s coffin, is actually one of the cleanest demonstrations in all of ancient literature that this text was born in Greek.

He proved Greek composition. He just assumed, without arguing for it, that Greek composition means lesser, means false, means not-Scripture.

Strip that assumption away, and his airtight case for forgery becomes an airtight case for something else entirely: that here, in Susanna, we may be looking at a piece of Scripture that God inspired directly in the language of the Septuagint. Africanus handed us the evidence and drew the wrong conclusion from it, because he was reading through a Hebrew-only lens.

I should be fair in every direction here, so let me add the one thing that complicates even Africanus’s linguistics.

Not every scholar is sure the puns prove Greek origin. Some have pointed out that a Hebrew or Aramaic original could have used its own similar-sounding tree-and-cutting word pairs, the way the Anchor Bible reproduces the effect in English with “yew” and “hew,” “clove” and “cleave.”

Others think a Greek translator added the puns to a story that already existed in a Semitic form. So the honest state of the question is this: the puns strongly suggest Greek composition, and they may prove it, but even that is not beyond dispute.

What is beyond dispute is that Africanus’s leap from “Greek” to “not Scripture” was a theological assumption, not a linguistic fact. And it is the assumption I would ask you to examine.

Origen, for all that he lost the technical argument, understood the deeper stakes. His real defense of Susanna was not linguistic at all. It was that the churches of God had received these Scriptures and read them and been fed by them, and that it was a fearful thing to stand over the church’s own Bible and start striking out the parts that did not appear in the synagogue’s.

The church, reading in Greek, had long since said yes to Susanna. Origen thought that mattered more than a philologist’s puzzle.

You may weigh that as your conscience and the Holy Spirit dictate.

But one thing you should see at this point is why this small exchange, over two little puns in a story about a garden, is as close as anything to a founding document for everything The LXX Scrolls is trying to say.

What the Story Is For

Set the canon fight down for a moment, because whatever you conclude about Susanna’s status, the story itself is doing serious spiritual and theological work, and it would be a shame to argue about the frame and never look at the picture.

It is, first and foremost, a story about false witness, and it takes that sin with a deadly seriousness we have largely lost. The ninth commandment is not a rule against fibbing. It is a wall standing between the innocent and the grave, because a society that will believe a lie told by the powerful is a society that will kill the innocent on command.

Susanna shows you exactly how it happens, step by step: the abuse of office, the coordinated lie, the crowd that believes the accusation because of the accuser’s rank. And it shows you the only thing that stops it, which is the stubborn insistence that testimony be tested, that witnesses be separated, that the truth be examined before a life is taken. Daniel’s Spirit-given wisdom does not bypass justice. It demands justice actually be done.

Second, it is a story about integrity that costs everything. Susanna is offered a clean, secret escape, no one will ever know. And she refuses it because God will know, and God’s knowing is more real to her than her own life.

That is the fear of the Lord in its purest form, and it was planted in her by parents who taught her the law of Moses when she was small. Her whole character, in the crisis, is the harvest of an ordinary godly upbringing. Never think the quiet work of teaching a child to fear God is small. It is the thing that stands up, decades later, in front of two judges and says, “It’s better to die than to forget God.”

And third, it is a story about how God defends the defenseless. Susanna has no advocate, no evidence, no standing, nothing but her innocence and her prayer.

The Lord hears her voice, and He does not send an army. He sends a boy with the Spirit of God on him and two good questions.

God’s rescues so often look like that: not the overwhelming force we imagined, but the right person, stirred at the right moment, willing to stand up in a hostile crowd and say, “This is wrong, we need to examine it again.”

The Thread Into the Gospels

There is a connection here the early church could hardly miss, and I think it is worth naming.

An innocent person stands condemned before a hostile assembly. False witnesses have been produced. The verdict is death. And the case against them falls apart for one specific reason: the witnesses cannot get their story straight. Their testimonies do not agree.

That is Susanna.

It is also the trial of Jesus.

Mark tells us that at His trial:

“many bore false witness against him, but their testimonies did not agree”
(Mark 14:56)

And again:

“Then some rose up and bore false witness against Him, saying, ^“We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.’” But not even then did their testimony agree.”
’(Mark 14:57-59).

The exact flaw that saved Susanna, contradicting false witnesses, appears at the trial of Christ. The difference, and it is the whole difference, is that Susanna had a Daniel in the crowd to expose the contradiction and stop the execution, and Jesus had no one.

The innocent woman was delivered. The innocent Son of God was not, because His death was the point. Susanna is rescued from an unjust death so that, in the fullness of time, the truly innocent One could go to the cross, willingly, for her and for us.

Read that way, Susanna is not a detour from the gospel. It is a rehearsal for it, and a foil to it. The pattern of the innocent condemned by lying witnesses runs straight from this Babylonian garden to a Roman cross.

My Take

Here is where I land on Susanna.

On the story, I love it without reservation. It is morally serious, spiritually rich, and it deepens rather than contradicts everything we know about Daniel. The young man who will not defile himself with the king’s food, who will not stop praying though it costs him the lions, is entirely recognizable in the boy who stands up in a murderous crowd and demands that the witnesses be examined.

It fits.

On the canon, I have shown you the real history and the real arguments, and I have told you where I lean, toward receiving it, because I find nothing in its content unworthy of Scripture and much in it that bears the marks of the God of justice.

But I have also tried to be honest that faithful Christians land differently, and that a very large portion of the global church has always read this as the thirteenth chapter of Daniel while much of the Protestant world has not.

On the great debate, this is the one I care about most, because it is the hinge of everything I write. Africanus proved (with some modern scholarly debate) that Susanna was composed in Greek, and then assumed that this made it a forgery.

I would ask you to see clearly what he could not: that the second half of that sentence does not follow from the first unless you have already decided that God does not inspire in Greek.

Take away that assumption, the very assumption this publication was created to challenge, and the puns stop being an accusation and become a window. They may be showing us Scripture that was born in Greek.

And if that unsettles you, I would encourage you to question the reason for that. Don’t just explain it away. Sit with it. Really consider it.

If I were a betting man, I would wager that it probably unsettles you for exactly the reason it unsettled Africanus, because somewhere deep down we have all been taught to hear “Greek” and think, at best, “Translation. Secondary. Not authoritative.”

Susanna asks us to unlearn that.

As always, do not take my word for any of this. Read the two versions for yourself. Find the puns. And then ask yourself Africanus’s question honestly, and then ask whether his answer was really the only one available.

Why This Matters for Your Walk With God

Two things to carry out of the garden.

The first is Susanna’s arithmetic, because you will face a version of it. Somewhere, sometime, you will be offered a secret, a compromise no one would ever know about, with real consequences for refusing.

And in that moment the only thing that will hold is the thing that held Susanna: the conviction that God’s knowing is more real than the cost. She would rather fall into the hands of wicked men, innocent, than stand free before God, guilty.

If you build that conviction now, in the small choices, it will be there for the large one. And if you are raising children, understand what the story is telling you: the law of God taught to a little girl became the courage of a grown woman at the edge of death. That work is never wasted.

The second is the part where I’m going to get really real and vulnerable with you. Because this story is for anyone who has been lied about, falsely accused, condemned by people who would not examine the truth.

Susanna is our story, and its center is four words: the Lord heard her voice. She had no advocate and no evidence and no way out, and heaven was not deaf. God sees the false witness. God knows the secret you are accused of and did not do. And God has a long history of raising up, at the last possible moment, the one person willing to stand in the crowd and say, examine this again.

He may be slower than you want. He was not slow for Susanna. But the God who defended a powerless woman in a Babylonian garden is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and He has never once been fooled by a lie, however many judges swore to it.

The Lord heard her voice.

And He hears yours. Just as He hears mine.

Do not fear.

Coming Up Next

Next time we’ll be in the Greek Daniel again for the finale of the text, and it could not be more different from this quiet courtroom drama.

It is a story of Daniel against the idols, a rigged temple, a pile of secret footprints in the ashes, a dragon that bursts, and one more trip to the lions’ den.

Bel and the Dragon is next.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible.

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

We have come to the end.

Not the end of our series, because there is one more stop to make, and I will tell you about it before we finish. But the end of the great vision that began by the Tigris in chapter 10, and the end of the Hebrew and Aramaic book of Daniel itself. After this chapter, in the Bibles of the Jewish people and in the Hebrew text behind most of our English ones, Daniel simply stops.

If you missed any of the earlier posts, you can get caught up HERE

And look at how it stops. Not with a whimper. Not trailing off. It stops with the single loudest note the Old Testament ever sounds about what lies on the far side of the grave.

“Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.”

Resurrection. The book that opened with four young men who would rather starve than defile themselves, who walked into a furnace rather than bow, who faced a den of lions rather than stop praying, closes by telling those same faithful ones the secret that made all of it worth it.

Death is not the end. The dust is not the end. There is an awakening coming, and a book with your name in it, and a reward waiting at the end of the days. Daniel gets told, in the last verse of his book, that he himself will rise.

There is grief in this chapter, and terror, and a good deal of arithmetic that has kept people arguing for two thousand years. But underneath all of it runs the deepest comfort in the Hebrew Scriptures.

A Word on Our Three Voices

Like in chapter 11, here I’ll quote the Old Greek in full, in order, with the Masoretic Text and Theodotion brought in where they diverge, and the smaller differences noted in my commentary.

This short chapter is unusually full of divergence, and the differences are not decorative. The Old Greek has Michael doing something different at the start, splits the fate of the dead three ways instead of two, and reads the end of days as a flood of evil where the Hebrew reads a flood of knowledge. Watch the Greek closely. It is arguing theology on nearly every line.

Let’s dig in.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Michael Stands (verse 1)

Daniel 12:1 (OG/NETS)

And at that hour Michael, the great angel who stands over the sons of your people, will pass by. That is a day of affliction, which will be such as has not occurred since they were born until that day. And on that day the whole people will be exalted, whoever is found inscribed in the book.

Daniel 12:1 (NRSVUE)

At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book.

The vision closes the way the great crisis passages of Scripture always seem to, with Michael on his feet. In chapter 10 he came to help the messenger against the prince of Persia. Here, at the time of the end, he “arises,” or in the Old Greek he “passes by,” standing over the sons of Daniel’s people as their appointed guardian. This is the same Michael, Israel’s prince, whom we met in the war behind the throne, and whom John will see leading the armies of heaven against the dragon in Revelation 12. When the last and worst tribulation breaks, the archangel is not absent.

He rises.

And it will be the worst. “A time of anguish such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence.” Jesus takes this exact phrase and carries it forward to the great tribulation still ahead of His hearers, “great suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now” (Matthew 24:21). This is the Old Testament seed of what the New Testament calls the tribulation, the concentrated distress at the end of the age.

But notice where the sentence lands. Not on the anguish. On the deliverance. “At that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book.” There is a book, and the ones written in it come through. The Old Greek says they will be “exalted.” The Hebrew says “delivered.” Both are true, and both point at the same registry of grace that Revelation calls the book of life, the one Moses once begged to be removed from to save his people, the one whose names were written before the foundation of the world.

The tribulation is real. The book even more so.

The Awakening (verse 2)

Now the summit of the whole book, and I am going to slow down, because there is nothing else quite like this verse anywhere in the Old Testament.

Daniel 12:2 (OG/NETS)

And many of those who sleep in the flat of the earth will arise, some to everlasting life but others to shame and others to dispersion and contempt everlasting.

Daniel 12:2 (NRSVUE)

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Daniel 12:2 (Theodotion/Brenton)

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproach and everlasting shame.

This is perhaps the clearest statement of bodily resurrection in the entire Old Testament, though the resurrection promise in the LXX of Job 42 might match it (“And it is written that he will rise again with those the Lord raises up.” (Job 42:17aα NETS)).

This is not a hint, not a poetic maybe, not the national metaphor of Ezekiel’s dry bones, but the flat declaration that individual human beings who have died and returned to dust will one day wake up. The Hebrew Old Testament reaches for resurrection here and there, Isaiah’s “your dead shall live,” Job’s “in my flesh I shall see God,” but nowhere else does it say it this plainly, this personally, with this much on the line.

Look first at the image. They “sleep in the dust,” and they “awake.” Scripture’s gentlest word for death, sleep, and its most defiant word for what follows, waking. The grave is not a destination in this verse. It is a bed. And the God who put His people to sleep in the dust intends to wake them up.

Then look at the two destinies, because the verse refuses to let resurrection be uniformly comforting. Some awake “to everlasting life.” And some awake “to shame and everlasting contempt.”

Everyone rises.

Not everyone rises to the same thing.

This is the Old Testament root of what Jesus makes explicit in John 5, in words that are almost a direct quotation of this verse: “all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28-29).

Paul says the same in a single breath before Felix, that there will be “a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous” (Acts 24:15). The two-fold resurrection of Daniel 12 becomes the settled teaching of the New Testament.

There is a small mystery in that word “many.” Daniel says many awake, not all. Some read it as pointing to a limited or staged resurrection. But the ancient interpreters, Jerome and Theodoret among them, took “many” here to mean the great multitude, effectively all, the many as opposed to the mere handful still alive at the end. John seems to read it that way too, since he changes Daniel’s “many” to “all.” I lean with the fathers here. “Many” is the vast number of the dead, not a restriction on who rises.

Now that word “contempt,” because it is doing more than you would guess. The Hebrew is deraon, and it is one of the rarest words in the entire Hebrew Bible. It appears in exactly one other place, and the place is unforgettable: the very last verse of Isaiah, where the redeemed go out and look on the corpses of the rebels, “and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isaiah 66:24).

Same word.

And that verse is the one Jesus reaches for when He describes Gehenna (often flattened to “Hell” in English, which is rather misleading as this is neither Hades/Sheol, nor the Lake of Fire of Revelation), the place where “their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched” (Mark 9:48).

So a thread runs straight from Daniel’s “everlasting contempt” through the last line of Isaiah into the lips of Jesus describing final judgment. Three passages, one rare and terrible word, binding the resurrection of the wicked in Daniel to the ruin of the rebels in Isaiah to the warnings of Christ Himself.

And here I have to be careful and honest, because that same rare word opens a genuine question the church has never fully closed.

In Isaiah, the deraon, the contempt or abhorrence, is not something the dead are consciously feeling. It is how the living look upon the dead. The redeemed regard the corpses of the rebels with revulsion. If Daniel is using the word the same way, and the parallel is hard to ignore, then “everlasting contempt” may describe the everlasting shame and abhorrence that clings to the lost rather than an ongoing conscious experience of torment.

That reading sits at the heart of the long debate between the traditional view of eternal conscious punishment and the conditionalist view that the lost finally perish. Scripture doesn’t give us an easy answer, so I’m not going to settle that debate here.

It deserves its own careful treatment, and it will get one in an upcoming series, where the destination of the human dead is the whole subject.

But for today I only want you to see that the word itself is richer and more sobering than the English lets on, and that faithful believers who love this text have read its final clause in more than one way.

One more thing, and it is the Old Greek quietly complicating the picture. Where the Hebrew and Theodotion give two destinies, life and shame, the Old Greek gives three: “some to everlasting life, but others to shame, and others to dispersion and contempt everlasting.” Dispersion. A scattering, set as its own category between glory and disgrace. I will not pretend to know exactly what the Old Greek translator intended by it, and I will not build a doctrine on a single divergent word. But it is the kind of detail that rewards a slow reader, a hint that the ancient tradition felt the fate of the dead was not quite as simple as a clean fork in the road, and it is one more thread that future series will have to pick up.

The Wise Shall Shine (verse 3)

Daniel 12:3 (OG/NETS)

And those who are intelligent will light up like the luminaries of heaven, and those who strengthen my words will be as the stars of heaven forever and ever.

Daniel 12:3 (NRSVUE)

Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

After the terror of the two destinies comes one of the loveliest promises in the book. The wise, the maskilim, the ones who kept understanding and kept teaching through the fire of chapter 11, “shall shine like the brightness of the sky.” And those who turned many toward righteousness will shine “like the stars forever and ever.” The faithful who looked so small and so defeated during the persecution, cut down by the sword, worn out by captivity, will blaze in the resurrection like the lights of heaven. Jesus makes the same promise: “the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matthew 13:43).

Notice the beautiful shift in the Old Greek. Where the Hebrew honors “those who lead the many to righteousness,” the Old Greek honors “those who strengthen my words.” The teachers and the witnesses, the ones who held the line on the truth and helped others hold it, become stars. If you have ever quietly kept the faith when it cost you, or steadied someone else who was wavering, this is your verse, and this is your future. Small and unnoticed now. Blazing in eternity.

Seal the Book (verse 4)

Daniel 12:4 (OG/NETS)

And you, Daniel, hide the ordinances, and seal the book until the time of consummation, until the many rage violently and the earth is filled with injustice.

Daniel 12:4 (NRSVUE)

But you, Daniel, keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end. Many shall be running back and forth, and evil shall increase.

Daniel 12:4 (NKJV)

“But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”

Daniel is told to seal the book until the time of the end, and here we hit one of the most interesting textual forks in the whole chapter, and it is a place where our usual Masoretic voice does something surprising.

The Hebrew says that at the end “knowledge shall increase.” Theodotion keeps that reading faithfully: “many are taught, and knowledge is increased.” But the Old Greek reads something quite different, that “the earth is filled with injustice.” Evil, not knowledge.

And here is the surprise: the NRSVUE, which we have leaned on all series as our window into the Hebrew, actually sided with the Greek here. Its main text reads “evil shall increase,” and it drops the Hebrew “knowledge” down into a footnote.

Our usually faithful translation from the Masoretic tradition quietly crossed the aisle and printed the Old Greek’s reading.

So which is it? At the time of the end, does knowledge increase, or does evil?

And the answer, I think, is that this is one of those places where the both/and is not a strain at all but simply the truth about the last days seen from two angles. The Hebrew looks at the end and sees knowledge multiplying, understanding of these very prophecies unsealing as the time approaches, the wise growing wiser.

The Greek looks at the same end and sees wickedness multiplying, the earth filling up with injustice as the crisis peaks. Both happen at once. That is exactly the shape the New Testament gives the end, a time when knowledge and lawlessness both run ahead together, when the gospel goes to all nations and the love of many grows cold in the same generation. You do not have to choose. Both traditions are telling the truth, and between them they describe the age we seem to be living in.

I will add only a caution, because this verse has been badly abused. “Many shall run back and forth, and knowledge shall increase” has been paraded for a century as a coded prediction of cars and airplanes and the internet.

It is not.

The running to and fro is the searching of the book, people moving through the sealed words seeking understanding, and the knowledge that increases is knowledge of God’s revelation as the end draws near.

Read it that way and it is rich.

Read it as a prophecy of modern travel and it is embarrassingly narrow.

The Man in Linen, and “How Long?” (verses 5-7)

Daniel 12:5-7 (OG/NETS)

And I, Daniel, saw, and lo, two others stood, one on this side of the stream and one on the other. And they said to the one wearing linen, “O, O Sir, when then will you do the consummation of the wonders and the purification of these things which you have told?” And I heard the one wearing linen, who was above the water of the stream: “Until the time of the consummation.” And he raised the right hand and left hand toward heaven, and he swore by God, who lives forever, “The consummation of the power for the release of the holy people will be at a time and times and half a time, and all these things will be accomplished.”

Daniel 12:7 (NRSVUE)

The man clothed in linen, who was upstream, raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven. And I heard him swear by the one who lives forever that it would be for a time, two times, and half a time and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be accomplished.

Here the man clothed in linen returns, the glorious figure from chapter 10, and I want you to notice how the scene positions him, because it bears on a question we deliberately left open back in Part 13.

There are now three figures at the river: two others on the banks, and the man in linen standing above the waters. And the two on the banks put their question to him. He is plainly the exalted one here, set apart, elevated over the stream, the one who holds the answer and swears the oath.

That is exactly the picture that supports reading the man in linen as a figure distinct from and greater than the interpreting angels, the reading I found most compelling in chapter 10 without settling it. I still will not settle it. But chapter 12 tips the scene further in that direction, and it is worth seeing.

Then the oath, and it is stunning in its solemnity. He lifts not one hand but both toward heaven, a doubled oath, and swears “by the one who lives forever.” When a man swears, he swears by something greater than himself. The living God has nothing greater to swear by, so the figure swears by the Eternal One, staking the very life of God on the promise.

And the promise is that the crisis will last “a time, times, and half a time,” the broken seven, three and a half, the same measure that will echo through Revelation. Whatever the number means, the point of the oath is that it has a limit, sworn to on the life of God Himself. The suffering is bounded. Heaven has put a term on it.

And look at how the traditions describe what happens when that term runs out. The Hebrew says it ends when “the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end.” The Old Greek says it comes “for the release of the holy people.” Theodotion says “when the dispersion is ended.”

Three angles on one moment: the shattering, the release, the end of the scattering. The Hebrew feels the breaking. The Greek sees the liberation on the far side of it.

Held together, they tell the whole story of the end of the tribulation: the power of God’s people is broken all the way down, and precisely there, at the bottom, comes their release.

Sealed Until the End (verses 8-10)

Daniel 12:8-10 (OG/NETS)

And I heard and did not comprehend regarding the time itself, and I said, “Sir, what is the interpretation of this word and what are these illustrations?” And he said to me, “Run along, Daniel, for the ordinances have been hidden and sealed until many are tested and sanctified, and the sinners sin. And no sinners will ever comprehend, and those who understand will pay heed.”

Daniel 12:10 (NRSVUE)

Many shall be purified, cleansed, and refined, but the wicked shall continue to act wickedly. None of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand.

Daniel does what we all do at the end of this book. He says, in effect, I heard it and I still do not understand it. There is something deeply reassuring about that. The prophet himself, the man who received the vision, does not fully grasp the timeline. If Daniel did not understand the numbers, we can hold our own interpretations with a little humility.

And the answer he gets is not a decoding. It is a sealing. The words stay closed “until the time of the end.” But then comes a line that quietly reframes the whole question. “Many shall be purified, cleansed, and refined, but the wicked shall continue to act wickedly. None of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand.” Theodotion’s version is even sharper, the faithful “tested, and thoroughly whitened, and tried with fire.”

Do you see what that does? It tells you that understanding this book was never mainly a matter of intelligence. It is a matter of the heart. The wicked will not understand, not because the code is too hard, but because understanding is reserved for the refined, the purified, the ones being tried in the fire and coming out white. The book yields itself to the faithful, not the clever. Which means the way to understand Daniel is not finally to be smarter. It is to be sanctified.

The Numbers (verses 11-12)

Daniel 12:11-12 (OG/NETS)

From the time that the perpetual sacrifice was taken away and the abomination of desolation was prepared to be given, there are one thousand two hundred ninety days. Happy is the one who continues, because he will gather one thousand three hundred thirty-five days.

Daniel 12:11-12 (NRSVUE)

From the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the desolating sacrilege is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred ninety days. Happy are those who persevere and attain the thousand three hundred thirty-five days.

Let’s start with the math, because it’s genuinely interesting.

The oath in verse 7 gave us “a time, times, and half a time,” which is three and a half (the “times” is a dual, something that doesn’t really exist in English except in specific usages, such as “both.” So the “times” is two, plus a time makes three, and the half a time, bringing to total to three and a half).

On the ancient reckoning of a three-hundred-and-sixty-day year, three and a half years is twelve hundred and sixty days, the same figure that appears over and over in Revelation as 1,260 days and 42 months. Then verse 11 gives us 1,290 days, which is 1,260 plus thirty. And verse 12 gives us 1,335 days, which is 1,290 plus another forty-five, or seventy-five days beyond the 1,260. So there is a deliberate ladder here: 1,260, then thirty more, then forty-five more. Something is being added at each step, and the one who waits all the way to the top of the ladder, to day 1,335, is called blessed.

What do the added days mean? There are three main ways serious readers have answered, and I will give you each fairly.

The first is the historical reading, which ties the numbers to Antiochus. The desecration of the temple lasted roughly three years, and these figures are read as measuring that period, or the interval from the desecration to the cleansing and beyond, with the extra days marking the time until things were fully set right.

The honest difficulty is that the numbers do not map cleanly onto the known dates of Antiochus, which is part of why even the strongest defenders of an Antiochus reading, like Keil and E. J. Young, treat the figures as broadly symbolic of a suffering that was long, seemed finished, was extended, and was then cut short.

And I will be candid with you: excellent, believing commentators have simply confessed they do not know exactly what the added days count. Stuart Olyott says so plainly. That kind of honesty is worth more than a confident chart.

The second is the futurist reading, which takes the numbers as literal days in the tribulation still to come. On this view the 1,260 days are the second half of the final seven-year period, the great tribulation itself, and the extra thirty and forty-five days measure events that happen after the tribulation ends but before the millennial kingdom fully begins, the judgment of the nations, the setting up of the kingdom, the things that must happen in the interval between Christ’s return and the start of His reign. This is the reading most at home in the premillennial and pretribulational framework, and it is where I am most comfortable, though I hold it with the humility this chapter demands.

The third is the symbolic reading, which says the precise arithmetic is not the point at all. “A time, times, and half a time” is the broken seven, the perfect number of completion snapped in half, the sign of a judgment that is severe but deliberately incomplete, limited, cut short for the sake of the elect. On this view the 1,290 and 1,335 exist to make one overwhelming point: the suffering is measured. Not vague, not open-ended, but counted out by God to the very day, with a blessing pronounced on the one who endures to the end of the count.

Here is where I land, and it will not surprise you if you have followed the series. I read the numbers, like the willful king of chapter 11, as having a real near fulfillment in the days of Antiochus and an ultimate fulfillment in the tribulation still ahead, with Antiochus as the type and the final crisis as the reality. For the fuller eschatological framework, the seven-year structure and how it all fits, I will point you as always to the my Seventy Weeks post rather than rebuild it here.

But do not miss the thing the numbers are actually for, because it is not a chart. It is a beatitude. “Happy is the one who waits and reaches the 1,335 days.”

The whole point of measuring the suffering is to promise its end and to bless the one who holds on all the way to that end. God did not give Daniel these numbers so that we could calculate a date. He gave them so that the person in the middle of the worst of it would know, to the day, that it is counted, it is limited, it is almost over, and that there is a blessing waiting for the one who does not quit before the last morning. The numbers are a hand on the shoulder of the sufferer, saying: hold on. It is measured. You are almost there.

Rest, and Rise (verse 13)

And now the last verse of the Hebrew book of Daniel, and it is unbearably tender.

Daniel 12:13 (OG/NETS)

And you, go! Be off! For there are yet days and hours until the fulfillment of the consummation. And you will rest and will rise upon your glory at the consummation of days.

Daniel 12:13 (NRSVUE)

But you, go your way, and rest; you shall rise for your reward at the end of the days.

Daniel 12:13 (Theodotion/Brenton)

But go thou, and rest; for there are yet days and seasons to the fulfillment of the end; and thou shalt stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

The book does not end with the numbers. It ends with a word to one old man.

Daniel has spent his whole life in exile, in the courts of kings who came and went, faithful through furnace and lions and vision after vision that broke his body and left him sick for days. He is past eighty now. And the last thing God says to him is not another prophecy. It is a blessing, and a promise, and a goodbye.

“Go your way, and rest.” Rest. After a lifetime of standing before kings and wrestling with angels, Daniel is told he may lay it down. The Hebrew word is death, but the tone is not grim. It is the tone you use with a faithful servant at the end of a long day. Go on now. Rest.

“And you shall rise for your reward at the end of the days.” There it is, the promise of the whole chapter, brought down from the many and given to the one. The resurrection Daniel announced in verse 2 is now spoken directly to him. You, Daniel, personally, will rise. You will sleep in the dust like everyone else, and you will wake like the wise who shine, and you will stand in your allotted place at the end of the days to receive what has been kept for you.

Notice that the Old Greek carries this promise too, and the Hebrew and Theodotion state it plainly. The book of Daniel closes with a man being told he will die, and in nearly the same breath being told that death is not the end of him. Rest, and rise. That is the last word of the Hebrew Daniel, and it is the gospel five centuries early: for those written in the book, the grave is a bed, and morning is coming.

What the Fathers Saw

The early church read this chapter’s resurrection exactly as it stands. Jerome, in the great commentary that shaped how the church read Daniel for over a thousand years, took the “many” who awake in verse 2 to mean the whole number of the dead, “all shall rise again.” The bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust was not a doctrine the fathers had to argue their way toward from this verse. They simply found it here, plainly stated, and built on it.

Hippolytus, whose commentary is the oldest we have, read the chapter’s tribulation and its numbers within a premillennial frame, the Antichrist prefigured by Antiochus, the suffering bounded and then broken by the return of Christ. The instinct to read Antiochus as a type of a final enemy, and the numbers as measuring a real but limited crisis, is very old.

And Jerome noticed something else at the end of this chapter that matters for us more than he could have known. Right here, at the close of Daniel 12, he drew a line. Up to this point, he observed, we have been reading Daniel in the Hebrew. What follows comes from Theodotion’s Greek. Jerome was marking the exact seam we are standing on. The Hebrew book of Daniel ends at chapter 12. But the Greek book of Daniel, the Daniel the early church actually read, does not end here at all. It keeps going.

My Take

Chapter 12 is where the whole book has been heading, and I do not think that is an accident of arrangement. Everything before it, the furnace, the wall, the lions, the beasts, the kings of north and south, has been building toward this one promise: that the God who rules the rise and fall of every empire also rules the grave, and that the faithful who lose everything, even their lives, lose nothing that matters, because they will rise.

On the resurrection, I hold what the church has always held, that verse 2 means what it says, a real, bodily, universal resurrection to two eternal destinies.

On the precise nature of the second destiny, the everlasting contempt, I have shown you honestly that the key word points in a direction the traditional view and the conditionalist view read differently, and I have left that door open on purpose, because it deserves the full treatment the afterlife series will give it.

On the numbers, I hold the dual fulfillment, Antiochus and then the final tribulation, and I hold it with the same humility Daniel himself models when he admits he did not understand.

And on the both/and divergences all through this chapter, the knowledge and the injustice, the two destinies and the three, the shattering and the release, I find them not as contradictions to resolve but as a fuller picture than either tradition could give alone, which is the whole reason we’ve been reading them side by side.

And as always, do not take my word for any of this. Read the chapter yourself from all three traditions. Sit with verse 2 until it stops being a doctrine and starts being a promise with your name in it. And then read the last verse slowly, and hear it spoken to you: go your way, and rest, and you shall rise.

Why This Matters for Your Walk With God

Here is what I want you to carry out of the end of this book.

You are going to sleep in the dust. So am I. Every person you love will. That is the one appointment none of us (save those who remain when Christ returns) will miss, and Daniel does not pretend otherwise. He calls it what it is:

Sleep, in the dust of the earth.

Note that word: sleep. Because you don’t use that word for something final. You use it for something you wake up from.

For everyone written in the book, the grave is not a full stop. It is a comma. It is a bed at the end of a long day, and there is a morning coming when the wise will shine like the brightness of the sky and the ones who held the line will blaze like stars forever.

The tribulation is measured to the day. The suffering is bounded by an oath sworn on the life of God. And on the far side of all of it stands the same promise God gave to a tired old man in exile who had given his whole life to faithfulness: rest now, and rise later, and stand in your place to receive your reward at the end of the days.

That is the last word of the Hebrew Daniel. Rest, and rise.

But it is not the last word of the Septuagint’s Daniel, and it is not the last of our journey. Because the Greek Bible the early church carried did not close the book here. After chapter 12 it keeps going, into stories the Hebrew text does not contain: a falsely accused woman named Susanna and the young Daniel who saves her, and a contest between Daniel and the priests of a Babylonian idol called Bel, and a dragon. Jerome himself marked the seam. Next time, we cross it.

Rest, and rise.

And do not fear.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible.

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

Last time, the angel told Daniel he had come to reveal “what is inscribed in the book of truth.” Chapter 11 is that book, unrolled.

If you missed any of the earlier posts, you can get caught up HERE

And it is staggering. What follows is the most detailed sustained prophecy in the entire Bible, roughly three hundred and sixty-five years of history laid out in advance, king by king, marriage by marriage, betrayal by betrayal, war by war. It is so precise, so exact in its matching of events that had not yet happened when Daniel lived, that for two centuries skeptics have looked at it and concluded there is no way it could be prophecy. It has to be history, they say, written after the fact and disguised as prediction. We are going to face that challenge head on, because it is the single most important objection ever raised against the book of Daniel, and this is the chapter that raises it.

But before the skeptics, the wonders. Because this chapter does two things that will take your breath away if you slow down enough to see them. First, at one pivotal moment, the Greek Bible looks at an ancient Hebrew place-name and tells you plainly what it means: Rome. The Septuagint names the empire outright, centuries before it mattered. And second, near the end, the prophecy does something strange. It climbs up out of the history it has been tracking so faithfully and reaches toward a figure who is larger than any Seleucid king, a willful king at the time of the end, and the interpreters have argued ever since about who he is.

Remember as we go that chapters 10, 11, and 12 are one single vision. The terrifying encounter of chapter 10 was the doorway. This is the revelation itself. And chapter 12, next time, will be the door closing.

A Word on Our Method

For this chapter I am going to do something a little different, and there is a good reason for it. Forty-five verses in three full versions would bury us. So I am going to let the Greek carry the chapter. I will quote the Old Greek in full, in order, and bring the Masoretic Text and Theodotion in at the points where they genuinely diverge, and I will tell you in plain prose about the smaller differences even where I do not stop to quote them, so you never have to wonder whether we skipped something. I am leading with the Greek on purpose, because the Greek of Daniel 11 does things the Hebrew does not, and this whole publication exists to let the Septuagint speak.

One more thing. The historical detail in this chapter is dense. On account of that, I’m not going to try to identify every single king here. I’ll provide the major beats and spend the real weight on Antiochus and on the text and theology. For an exhaustive, verse-by-verse identification of every Ptolemy and Seleucid, the best resource I know of is John Oakes’s book Daniel: Prophet to the Nations. He has also put the chapter-eleven material online for free, in an article titled "North vs. South: Prophecies in Daniel Chapter Eleven" at evidenceforchristianity.org, and it walks the whole timeline with names and dates. His work is superb. I will lean on it, and I will also, later, tell you exactly where he and I part ways.

Let’s dig in.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The First Words: Darius, or Cyrus?

Daniel 11:1 (OG/NETS)

In the first year of King Cyrus, he told me to be strong and be courageous.

We begin with a divergence, right in the first breath. The Old Greek and Theodotion both say the angel stood up to strengthen someone in the first year of Cyrus. But the Masoretic Text reads it differently.

Daniel 11:1 (NRSVUE)

As for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to support and strengthen him.

Since this is one continuous vision that opened in the reign of Cyrus back in chapter 10, the Greek keeps the seam smooth, staying with Cyrus. The Hebrew reaches back a step further, to Darius the Mede, the ruler we puzzled over in chapters 5 and 6. I will not reopen that puzzle here. I only want you to see that the two traditions are anchoring this moment to two different kings, and that the difference is there from the very first word.

The Persian Kings and the Greek Conqueror

Daniel 11:2-4 (OG/NETS)

And now I have come to explain the truth to you. Lo, three kings have risen in opposition in Persia. And the fourth will be rich with great riches beyond all, and when he is empowered by his riches, he will rise up against every king of the Greeks. And a mighty king will arise, and he will be lord over a great dominion and will act just as he wishes. And when he rises, his kingdom will be broken and distributed toward the four winds of heaven, not according to his strength nor according to his dominion which he dominated, for his kingdom will be removed and he will teach others these things.

The map begins. Three more kings in Persia, then a fourth who is fabulously rich and hurls everything he has against Greece. That fourth king is Xerxes, whose vast, gold-drenched invasion of Greece in 480 B.C. ended at Salamis and passed into legend.

Then “a mighty king” who rules a great dominion and does exactly as he pleases, whose empire, at the height of its power, is shattered and scattered “toward the four winds” and handed not to his own children but to others. That is Alexander the Great, dead at thirty-two, his empire carved up among his generals, his heirs murdered. We have met this before, in the goat of chapter 8. The vision keeps circling the same history from new angles.

From here the prophecy narrows to the two of Alexander’s four successor kingdoms that mattered most for the Jewish people, because Judea sat right between them. To the south, in Egypt, the Ptolemies. To the north, in Syria, the Seleucids. And for the next fifteen verses, the angel traces more than a century of their wars.

The Kings of the South and the North

Daniel 11:5-9 (OG/NETS)

And the king of Egypt will grow strong, and one of the sovereigns will overpower him and will dominate a large domain. And at the completion of the years he will lead them, and the king of Egypt will enter the northern kingdom to ratify an agreement. And he will never prevail, because his arm will not establish strength. And the arm of him and of those associating with him will grow numb, and he will continue for a season. And a plant from his root will arise against himself. And the king of the north will come upon his idleness with his strength, and he will cause turmoil and will prevail. And he will overthrow their gods with their cast images and their crowds with their precious vessels. They will carry off the silver and gold to Egypt in captivity, and the king of the north will have a year. And he will enter into the kingdom of Egypt for days, and he will return to his own land.

Here is the first place to notice something the Old Greek does all through this chapter. Where the Hebrew and Theodotion say “the king of the south,” the Old Greek simply says “the king of Egypt.” It is not being cryptic. It is telling you outright who the south is. Egypt. The Greek keeps unmasking the players the Hebrew leaves veiled, and it is going to do it far more dramatically before we are through.

As for the history: this stretch covers the marriage alliance of Berenice, daughter of the king of Egypt, sent north around 252 B.C. to seal a treaty, and then discarded and murdered when it collapsed. It covers the vengeance of her brother, “a plant from her root,” who marched north and hauled the gods and treasures of the enemy back to Egypt. Every clause has a name and a date attached, and Oakes lays them all out. If you’re interested in all the details, I can’t recommend his book highly enough.

But for our purposes, the point is the accuracy, and we are coming to what that accuracy means.

Daniel 11:10-19 (OG/NETS)

And his son will both be irritated and will gather a gathering of a great crowd. And he will march against it, ravaging. He will pass through and will return and will be greatly provoked. And the king of Egypt will be inflamed and will do battle against the king of the north, and the gathering will be given into his hands. And he will carry off the gathering, and his heart will be exalted, and he will trouble many, and he will never be afraid. And the king of the north will return and will gather a gathering, greater than the previous, according to the completion of the time of the year. And he will advance into it with a large crowd and many goods. And in those times thoughts will rise against the king of Egypt. And he will rebuild the fallen of your nation, and he will rise in order to restore prophecy, and they will take offense. And the king of the north will attack and will turn his spears and will take the fortified city. And the arms of the king of Egypt will not stand with his mighty ones, and he will not have the strength to oppose him. And he who comes upon him will act according to his will, and no one will oppose him. And he will stand in the land of desires, and everything will be completed by his hands. And he will give his face to attack all of his work with force, and he will make an agreement with him. And in order to corrupt him, he will give him a daughter of man, and she will not stand and will not be. And he will give his face to the sea and will take many. And he will return wrath for their insult, with an oath, according to his insult. He will turn his face in order to strengthen his country, and he will stumble and will fall and will not be found.

This is the age of Antiochus the Great, the Seleucid king who fought Egypt up and down the coast, lost at the battle of Raphia and won at Panium, and finally wrested Judea, “the land of desires,” away from Egyptian control around 200 B.C. It includes the marriage he arranged, a daughter given “in order to corrupt,” a bride he hoped would undermine Egypt from within, who instead sided with her husband and foiled him. And it ends with him turning to the coastlands, overreaching, and being broken. That breaking, in the Hebrew, is the work of “a commander,” and behind that word stands Rome, which crushed Antiochus the Great at Magnesia in 190 B.C. and ended Seleucid ambitions in the west. Rome is already in the story, just offstage. Hold that, because Rome is about to walk on by name.

Daniel 11:20 (OG/NETS)

And a royal plant will arise from his root for rising up, a man striking the honor of the king. And in the last days he will be broken, and not in anger or in battle.

A brief, forgettable successor, gone quickly, “not in anger or in battle.” In the Hebrew this is the tax collector, the king who sends out an official to squeeze the kingdom for money, and who dies not gloriously in war but quietly, suddenly, off the page. History knows him as Seleucus the Fourth, whose reign is remembered mostly for his attempt to plunder the Jerusalem temple treasury and for his unremarkable death.

And then the vision arrives at the man it has been walking toward for twenty verses.

The Contemptible One: Antiochus IV

Daniel 11:21-28 (OG/NETS)

And a contemptible person will arise in his place, and the royal honor will not be granted to him, and he will come without warning, and the king will prevail by his lot. And he will break the broken arms before his face. And he will perpetrate a lie with the covenant and the people drawn up with him and come against a strong nation with a very small nation. Without warning he will desolate a city and will do what none of his ancestors nor his ancestors’ ancestors had ever done; he will give plunder and spoil and money to them. And he will take thought against the strong city, and his deliberations will be in vain. And his power and his heart will be roused against the king of Egypt with a great crowd, and the king of Egypt will be provoked into battle with an exceedingly strong crowd. And he will not succeed, because a plot will be devised against him. And his worries will consume him and will bring him back. And he will depart and will carry off, and many casualties will fall. And the two kings will dine alone at one table and will speak falsely. And they will not prosper, for there is yet a consummation at the appointed time. And he will return to his country with much money, and his heart will be against the covenant of the holy one. He will act and will return to his country at a set time.

Here he is. The contemptible one, the man to whom “the royal honor was not granted,” who seized a throne that was not rightfully his by intrigue and flattery rather than by lawful succession. This is Antiochus the Fourth, the Epiphanes, the self-styled “God Manifest” whom we met in chapter 8, the horn that grew great and trampled the sanctuary. Verses 21 through 35 are his portrait, and it is exact. His usurpation. His two invasions of Egypt. His deceit, two kings lying to each other over a single table. His growing hatred of “the covenant of the holy one,” the people and faith of the Jews. This is the stretch where Oakes says the description “matches the career and misdeeds of Antiochus Epiphanes perfectly,” and he’s absolutely right.

And then comes the passage that is the jewel of the whole chapter.

Daniel 11:29-35 (OG/NETS)

And he will enter into Egypt, and as the first so the last will not be. And the Romans will come and will expel him and rebuke him. And he will turn back against the covenant of the holy one. And he will take action and will turn back and will be minded against them, because they abandoned the covenant of the holy one. And arms from him will rise and will defile the sanctuary of fear. And they will remove the sacrifice and will give an abomination of desolation. And with sins against the covenant they will defile by means of a distributed portion, and the common people who know these things will stand firm and will take action. And thoughtful ones of the nation will understand for many, and they will stumble by sword and will become old by it and by captivity, and they will be soiled by pillaging for days. And when they are broken, they will gather a little strength. And many will be gathered to them as by an allotment. And some of the intelligent will be minded to purify themselves and be chosen and be purified until the time of consummation, for there is yet a time.

Read that second line again. “And the Romans will come and will expel him and rebuke him.”

The Romans. By name.

Now look at what the Hebrew says at the very same spot.

Daniel 11:30 (NRSVUE)

For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall lose heart and withdraw.

And Theodotion, keeping the ancient term as well:

Daniel 11:30 (Theodotion/Brenton)

For the Citians issuing forth shall come against him, and he shall be brought low, and shall return.

Kittim. The Citians. An old, old word, originally for the people of Cyprus and then, by extension, for the seafaring powers of the far west. The Hebrew preserves the mystery. And the Old Greek unpacks it, because by the time the Septuagint translators reached this verse, the answer was no longer a mystery. Everyone knew who the ships from the west had turned out to be. They were the Romans.

And the Greek is historically perfect. This is the very event we met back in chapter 8, in 168 B.C., when Antiochus was on the verge of swallowing Egypt and a single Roman envoy, Popillius Laenas, walked up to him, drew a circle in the sand around his feet, and told him to decide before he stepped out of it whether he would withdraw or make war on Rome. Antiochus withdrew. Humiliated, he turned his fury on Jerusalem, and the desecration of the temple followed. The Old Greek watched all of that happen and simply wrote down the name the Hebrew had left as a riddle.

This is our both/and at its most beautiful, and it costs nothing to hold both hands open. The Hebrew keeps the prophetic mystery intact, the ancient name Kittim, spoken before anyone knew who Kittim would be. The Greek, standing on the far side of the event, tells you the answer. Neither is wrong. Together they let you watch a prophecy given in code and then decoded by history, right there on the page, in two languages God preserved side by side.

The rest of this passage is the horror we already know from chapter 8, told again: the removal of the daily sacrifice, the abomination of desolation set up in the temple, and the faithful “who know their God” standing firm and being cut down, some of them falling precisely so that they may be “purified” and refined until the appointed time. That last note matters. The suffering of the faithful is not an accident the prophecy failed to prevent. It is inside the plan, refining a people for the end. Chapter 12 will pick that thread up and carry it all the way to resurrection.

The Willful King: Where Antiochus Ends

Now we reach the hardest and most debated passage in the chapter, and I promised you I would not straw-man anyone here, so I am going to lay the options out as fairly as I can before I tell you where I land.

Daniel 11:36-39 (OG/NETS)

In that hour the king will act according to his will. And he will be enraged and will be exalted over every god and will speak strange things against the God of gods. And he will succeed until the wrath is completed, for completion pertaining to him is coming. And he will in no way have regard for the gods of his ancestors, and he will give no thought to the desire of a woman. He will be exalted in everything. And he will honor a strong god in his place; even a god whom his ancestors did not know he will honor with gold and silver and valuable stone. And with desirable things he will act and will come into a strong fortress. With a foreign god whom he acknowledges he will increase honor, and he will rule over it far and wide, and he will divide the area freely.

Daniel 11:40-45 (OG/NETS)

And according to the time of consummation the king of Egypt will lock horns with him. And the king of the north will be angry with him with chariots and with many horses and with many ships. And he will advance into the country of Egypt. And there will be no one that is delivered in it. And he will seize the place of gold and the place of silver and all the desire of Egypt, and Libyans and Ethiopians will be in his crowd. And a rumor from the east and north will alarm him, and he will go out with mighty fury both to annihilate by sword and to kill many. And he will set up his tent then between the seas and the mountain of the will of the holy one. And the hour of his consummation will come, and there will be no one who helps him.

Here is the difficulty. For thirty-five verses the prophecy has tracked history like a documentary. And then, somewhere around verse 36 or verse 40, the perfect match with Antiochus starts to slip. The willful king “exalts himself above every god” in a way that outstrips even Antiochus’s arrogance.

And the final campaign of verses 40 through 45, the great last war, the sweep into Egypt, the reports from the east and north, and above all the king pitching his royal tent “between the seas and the holy mountain,” near Jerusalem, and coming to his end there with no one to help him, does not fit what actually happened to Antiochus.

Antiochus the Fourth did not die near Jerusalem. He died far away to the east, in Persia, in 164 B.C., of disease, after a failed attempt to loot a temple. The text and the tombstone do not match.

So what do we do with that? There are, honestly, four serious answers, and they are worth knowing.

The first says it is still Antiochus all the way through, and the final verses are simply a summary or an idealized description that does not require literal precision. The trouble is that the mismatch at the end is real and specific, and this reading has to work hard to explain it away.

The second is the reading John Oakes holds, and I want to represent it exactly. His view is a serious one and it deserves precision.

Oakes is a preterist. He argues that the prophecy shifts at this point away from Antiochus and onto Rome. He reads the great sea-and-land war of the closing verses as the Roman civil wars that culminated in the naval battle of Actium in 31 B.C., and elsewhere he reads the little horn of chapter 7 as the emperor Domitian.

On his view the entire book of Daniel was fulfilled in antiquity, by roughly the end of the first century, with no future Antichrist at all. And he makes a genuinely sharp point out of it: if these verses describe real events after 164 B.C., then no Maccabean forger writing in 165 could have produced them, which is a hard blow to the late-date theory.

While I don’t share his final conclusion, it is a serious, evidence-driven reading and it deserves to be respected as such.

The third is the reading I hold. I believe verses 36 through 45 do what Hebrew prophecy so often does. They stand on the historical figure of Antiochus and then see through him and past him to a greater figure at “the time of the end.”

This is the figure the New Testament calls the man of lawlessness and the Beast. Popularly referred to as the “Antichrist” (though, while accurate to the original meaning of the compound, is not quite accurate in colloquial usage). Antiochus is the type. The Antichrist is the fulfillment.

This is why the description fits Antiochus for a while and then swells beyond him, because it was always looking through him at someone worse. The full case for this, the whole eschatology, I have made elsewhere, so I won’t rebuild it here.

And the fourth is the reading of the critical scholars, and it deserves a fair hearing too, because it is the engine of the whole late-date theory.

On this view, the author wrote around 165 B.C., in the thick of the Maccabean crisis. Everything up through verse 35 is accurate because it is history dressed as prophecy, written after the events. And then, at verse 40, the author stopped recording the past and made a real attempt to predict the future, guessing that Antiochus would fall in a final campaign near Jerusalem.

And that guess failed, because Antiochus died in Persia instead. So the very seam where the prophecy stops matching, they say, is the seam where the forgery stops looking backward and starts, badly, looking forward. That is the strongest form of the argument, and it is the reason this chapter is ground zero for the debate about when Daniel was written.

Which brings us to the debate itself, because we cannot leave it unanswered.

Prophecy So Exact They Called It History

I want to give the skeptic’s case its full weight, because a case answered honestly is answered far more powerfully than a case knocked down as a straw man.

Here it is at its strongest. Daniel 11, through verse 35, is so accurate, so specific about marriages and battles and betrayals across three and a half centuries, that it does not read like any other prophecy in Scripture. It reads like a chronicle. And in the ancient world there was a known literary form, ex eventu prophecy, prophecy after the fact, in which a writer would compose in the name of a revered ancient figure and present recent history as if it had been foretold long ago.

Several apocalyptic works do exactly this.

The third book of the Sibylline Oracles, from the second century B.C., dresses up the wars of the Hellenistic kingdoms and the rise of Rome, the very history Daniel 11 traces, as the ecstatic oracles of an ancient pagan prophetess.

And the Assumption of Moses frames Israel's story, running all the way down to the age of Herod, as the deathbed prophecy of Moses, spoken centuries before the events it describes.

Both are transparently cast backward into the mouth of a revered figure from the distant past.

So the critical scholar says the simplest explanation for a “prophecy” this precise is that it was written after the events, around 165 B.C., and that the tell is right there at verse 40, where the accuracy finally breaks down and the author’s real, failed prediction begins. And, to be scrupulously fair, some sincere Christian scholars have argued that this genre was not considered dishonest in its time and that it need not trouble us.

That is the argument. Now here is why I do not find it persuasive, and notice that not one of my reasons requires me to deny the accuracy. The accuracy is real. I embrace it.

Start with the thing hiding inside the argument. The reason the precision “must” be history rather than prophecy is that prophecy this detailed is assumed to be impossible.

That is the load-bearing beam, and it is not a discovery. It is a premise, carried in before the first verse is read.

If you begin by ruling out that God can declare the end from the beginning, then of course an accurate prophecy has to be a fraud, because you have defined it as one in advance. But that is not a finding about Daniel. It is a decision about God, made beforehand, and then applied to Daniel.

Strip the premise away, and the accuracy stops being evidence of fraud and becomes exactly what you would expect from a God who says, again and again through the prophets, that foretelling the future is precisely how you know He is the true God and the idols are powerless.

And this is the heart of it for me. A biblical worldview is supernatural from the ground up. It is not naturalism with a few miracles sprinkled on top. If there is a God, and if there are angels, and one of them stood by the Tigris and told Daniel what was written in the book of truth, then genuine prediction is not an embarrassment to be explained away. It is the native language of that world.

The person who cannot allow real prophecy has not weighed Daniel and found it wanting. They have refused Daniel’s world before opening the book.

Then add the evidence, which runs the wrong way for the late date. The oldest copies of Daniel found at Qumran are dated by the paleographers to the late second century B.C., which leaves almost no room for a book supposedly written around 165 to be composed, circulated, embraced as sacred, and copied by a separatist community, all within a few decades.

Communities do not canonize brand-new books that fast.

And the ground under the late date shifted again just recently. In 2025, researchers paired radiocarbon dating with a new handwriting-analysis model and reexamined one of the Qumran copies of Daniel, the scroll called 4QDan-c, which happens to preserve pieces of this very chapter.

Paleographers had long placed it in the late second century B.C. But the radiocarbon result pushed it earlier, into a range of roughly 230 to 160 B.C., with a midpoint near 195.

Now, we need to recognize that this is a probability range and not a fixed year, and the method is new enough that it will be tested and refined in the years ahead. But even taken cautiously it is an awkward result for the theory of a Maccabean forgery, because most of that range falls well before the crisis the book is supposed to be describing after the fact.

If the dating holds even roughly, a copy of Daniel 11 was already lying in a cave at or before the very moment the book was supposedly being invented, and that is not something an after-the-fact theory can easily absorb.

And even worse for the theory is that those same Jewish communities who circulated this prophecy knew the test of Deuteronomy 18, that a prophet whose word fails is a false prophet. Yet they received Daniel as Scripture even though, on the critical reading, its central prediction, the fall of Antiochus and the dawn of the messianic age, had visibly failed within living memory.

People do not enshrine a prophecy they just watched collapse.

And then there is the mismatch itself, the very seam the critics lean on, which turns out to be stranger than it looks. Grant the obvious first. A writer in 165 could not have known how Antiochus would die, because it had not happened yet, so a wrong guess about his end is not by itself suspicious.

Fair enough.

The strange part is what happened to that guess afterward, which is nothing. Antiochus died in late 164, in Persia, of disease, and word of it spread fast. The war he had set off ground on for another twenty years, scribes and communities copying these texts the whole time with the real story in hand, and the ending was never touched.

Every surviving witness that carries these verses, the Hebrew Masoretic Text and both Greek traditions alike, across every manuscript we have, keeps the same reading, still sending him to die near the holy mountain rather than in the east where he actually fell.

A skeptic can answer that a book already passing as ancient prophecy could not be quietly corrected without exposing the fraud, and that is fair as far as it goes. But then you are left with a freshly minted forgery that its own first readers, the very people who had just buried Antiochus, swallowed whole and enshrined, error and all, without a murmur.

That is very strange behavior for a book whose ink was barely dry. It is very natural behavior for words that were never a guess about Antiochus in the first place.

Oakes presses this to argue the closing verses point to Rome. I press it to argue they point past Antiochus to the Antichrist. Either way, the mismatch is not the fingerprint of a failed forgery. It is the signal that the prophecy was reaching for something the second century could not contain.

So I hold the accuracy and the authorship together without strain. The prophecy is stunningly precise because God gave it. And it stops matching Antiochus not because a forger’s guesses failed, but because it was always, from the beginning, looking through him.

What the Fathers Saw

This is the one chapter where the church’s oldest argument on the subject is not a side note but the main event, because the ex-eventu theory is older than you might think.

The first person we know of to argue that Daniel was written after the fact was not a modern critic at all. It was the pagan philosopher Porphyry, around the end of the third century, who looked at exactly this chapter, saw how perfectly it matched Antiochus, and concluded it must have been composed during the Maccabean period and merely dressed as prophecy.

His argument and the modern one are, at bottom, the same argument. And it was answered, at length, by Jerome, who around A.D. 407 wrote his commentary on Daniel in direct combat with Porphyry, defending the book as genuine prophecy of Rome and of the Antichrist to come.

Before Jerome, Hippolytus of Rome had already read the willful king of the later verses not as Antiochus at all but as the Antichrist still ahead. So the dual reading, Antiochus now and Antichrist later, and the rebuttal to the late-date theory, are both as old as serious Christian engagement with this book.

When you stand where I am standing on this chapter, you are standing on very old ground, and the objection you are answering is almost as old.

My Take

Here is where I land on chapter 11.

I take the whole thing as genuine prophecy, given to a real sixth-century Daniel, and I am not troubled in the slightest by how accurate it is. The accuracy is the point. A God who cannot tell you what is coming is not worth the name, and the God of Israel staked His entire claim to be the true God on His ability to declare the end from the beginning.

Chapter 11 is that claim made good in almost unbearable detail.

On the willful king, I hold the typological reading. Antiochus is real, and he fulfills the bulk of this chapter so exactly that even a preterist like Oakes calls the match perfect. But the prophecy sees past him. It always did. And so I read verses 36 through 45 as reaching through the Seleucid tyrant to the final one, with the eschatology handed off, as it should be, to the Seventy Weeks material rather than crammed in here.

And on Oakes, let me be exactly as fair as I promised. His timeline for the historical verses is the best I have read, and I commend his book to you without reservation for that. I simply do not follow him into full preterism. Where he sees the closing verses fulfilled at Actium and the whole book closed by the end of the first century, I see a type still waiting for its fulfillment. We are looking at the same magnificent, accurate prophecy and disagreeing about how far it reaches. That is a good and honest disagreement to have, and I would rather have it in the open than pretend it away.

As always, do not take my word for any of it. Read the chapter with a history book open beside it and feel the precision for yourself. Find the word “Romans” sitting in the Greek where your English says “Kittim.” And then ask yourself the only question that really matters here: is a prophecy this exact evidence that God was not in it, or evidence that He was?

Why This Matters for Your Walk With God

I want to leave you with the phrase that started all of this, back in chapter 10. The book of truth.

Everything you just read, the whole exhausting parade of kings and wars and betrayals, was already written. Before Xerxes gathered his gold, before Alexander drew a sword, before Antiochus was born, before Rome sent its ships, it was inscribed in a book in heaven. The nations raged and schemed and thought they were writing history with their own hands, and the whole time the outcome was already recorded, already true, already finished in the mind of God.

That is either the most frightening thing in the world or the most comforting, depending entirely on whose side of the book you are on.

For the willful kings, it is terror. They exalt themselves, they blaspheme, they trample the holy, and they “succeed until the wrath is completed,” and then, every one of them, they come to their end with no one to help them. That is the recurring last line of every tyrant in this chapter. No one to help him. The powers that look invincible are, in the book of truth, already spent.

But for the people who know their God, it is the deepest comfort there is. Because the same book that dooms the tyrant also promises this: the faithful will stand firm. Some will suffer. Some will fall by sword and flame. But they fall in order to be refined and purified for the end, and their story does not stop at the grave. Chapter 12 is going to say the word out loud, the word this whole vision has been building toward: resurrection.

The wars are already written. The tyrants already end. And your name, if you belong to Him, is written in a better book than this one.

The book of truth is already finished.

Do not fear.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible.

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

We’ve come to the end of a road. Over the last three studies we’ve taken 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 apart word by word, and today we finish the job and then step back to see the whole machine assembled.

Here’s where we’ve been. σιγάω (sigaō), the verb for “be silent,” never means permanent muting in the New Testament. Only situational restraint. λαλέω (laleō), the verb for “speak,” saturates this chapter in reference to specific worship activities, and a blanket reading pits Paul against his own words in chapter 11. ἐπερωτάω (eperōtaō), the verb for “ask,” paired with μανθάνω (manthanō), “to learn,” pointed us straight at the real problem: disruptive, elementary questions fired into the middle of the assembly.

One word remains. It’s the word that anchors the traditional reading, the word that people reach for when they want to argue that this passage lays down a permanent chain of command. Verse 34 says the women are to “be in submission, as the law also says.”

The word is ὑποτάσσω. And it does not mean what most people assume it means.

After we’ve dug into it, I’m going to do something I’ve been holding off on for three studies. I’m going to lay all the pieces on the table at once and make the full case for what I believe these two verses are saying. And I’m going to bring in one more piece of evidence that changes the entire conversation: the very real possibility that Paul didn’t write these verses at all.

Let’s dig in.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The Word

ὑποτάσσω (hypotassō)

Pronunciation: hoop-oh-TAHS-oh

Strong’s: G5293

Meaning: To arrange under, to subordinate, to place in order beneath. In the middle and passive voices, to submit oneself, to yield, to cooperate with, to defer to.

Root: A compound of ὑπό (hypo, G5259, “under”) + τάσσω (tassō, G5021, “to arrange, to order, to appoint”). The picture underneath the word is one of ordered arrangement, of things placed in a deliberate structure.

NT frequency: Roughly 38 to 40 occurrences, depending on the manuscript tradition being counted.

Origin: Here’s a detail that matters more than you’d expect. ὑποτάσσω began its life as a military term. In the army of the ancient world, it described the arrangement of troops in ordered ranks beneath a commander. Soldiers in formation. Divisions slotted into their proper place in the battle line.

But, and this is critical, the word did not stay locked in the barracks. Outside of military usage, ὑποτάσσω softened into something quite different. The lexicons describe its non-military sense as a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden alongside others. Not a boot on a neck. A shoulder under a load.

That range, from rigid military rank on one end to voluntary, cooperative yielding on the other, is the whole ballgame. Because the question that has divided the church for centuries is exactly this: which end of the range did Paul have in mind?

The Voice Changes Everything

If you’ve studied any Greek, you know that Greek verbs have voice, and voice tells you who is doing what to whom. Active voice: the subject acts on something else. Passive voice: the subject is acted upon. And middle voice, which English barely has, means the subject acts on or for itself.

ὑποτάσσω is a shape-shifter depending on its voice.

In the active voice, ὑποτάσσω means to subordinate someone else, to place them under. This is God subjecting all things under Christ’s feet (1 Corinthians 15:27). It’s forceful. Hierarchical. One party ranks another beneath them.

But that is almost never how the New Testament uses the word for relationships inside the body of Christ. When Paul and Peter tell believers to “submit,” they overwhelmingly reach for the middle or passive form, which carries the sense of submitting yourself. Voluntarily. From the inside. It is not something done to you. It is something you choose to do.

This distinction is not a technicality. It is the difference between a slave being forced into rank and a free person choosing to serve. The New Testament’s vocabulary of Christian submission is, overwhelmingly, the vocabulary of voluntary self-giving, not imposed hierarchy.

Hold that, because it’s about to detonate a very common assumption.

The Verse Everyone Forgets: Ephesians 5:21

Here is the single most important thing you need to know about ὑποτάσσω, and it’s the thing most sermons on “submission” skate right past.

Paul uses this word to command mutual submission. Everyone, to everyone.

Ephesians 5:21 (NRSV):

“Be subject to one another (ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις, hypotassomenoi allēlois) out of reverence for Christ.”

Look at that little word ἀλλήλοις (allēlois). It’s a reciprocal pronoun. It means “to one another,” mutually, back and forth. And it sits right next to ὑποτάσσω. Paul is not describing a one-way street where some people rank and others yield. He’s describing a community where every member submits to every other member.

This single verse dismantles the claim that ὑποτάσσω “always” means one-directional submission to an authority. Some very prominent teachers have insisted exactly that, that this word, by its nature, always points from an inferior up to a superior. Ephesians 5:21 says otherwise in seven Greek words. Christians submit to one another. The husband submits to the wife inside the same passage where the wife submits to the husband, because verse 21 governs everything that follows it. Mutual submission is the headwater. Everything downstream flows from it.

So when we arrive at 1 Corinthians 14:34 and read that women should “be in submission,” we cannot simply assume this means “rank yourselves under male authority and stay there.” The word itself doesn’t demand that. The word is at home in a sentence about mutual yielding. The meaning has to come from the context, not from a mistaken assumption that ὑποτάσσω always points one way.

And the context, as we’ve seen across these studies, is the ordering of worship.

Submission to What?

Here’s a question that should stop you cold. In 1 Corinthians 14:34, the women are told to submit. But submit to what?

Read the verse carefully. It does not say “let the women be in submission to their husbands.” It does not say “to men.” It does not say “to the elders.” The object is simply left open: “they are to be in submission, as the law also says.”

This is easy to miss in English, because centuries of interpretation have trained us to mentally insert “to men” or “to their husbands.” But the Greek doesn’t say that. And that absence is a clue.

Submission to what, then? The most natural answer, given everything Paul has been arguing for forty verses, is submission to the good order of worship itself. The whole chapter is about order. Tongues-speakers submit to the rule about interpreters. Prophets submit to the rule about taking turns. And the women who were disrupting the assembly with questions are called to submit to the same principle of order that governs everyone else in the room.

Look at what Paul says just two verses earlier, in the same breath:

1 Corinthians 14:32 (NRSV):

“And the spirits of prophets are subject to (ὑποτάσσεται, hypotassetai) the prophets.”

Same word. Same chapter. And here it describes prophets submitting their spiritual gifts to orderly control. Nobody reads verse 32 as establishing a permanent cosmic hierarchy of prophets over spirits. Everybody reads it, correctly, as being about self-control in the service of order. The prophet governs his own gift so the assembly isn’t thrown into chaos.

Why would ὑποτάσσω mean “orderly self-control for the sake of the assembly” in verse 32 and then suddenly mean “permanent gender hierarchy” two verses later? The burden of proof is on anyone who wants to read the same word two radically different ways in the space of two verses.

“As the Law Also Says”

Now we hit one of the strangest problems in the whole passage. Verse 34 grounds its instruction in “the law”: women should be in submission “as the law also says.”

Which law?

Go looking for it. You will not find a single command anywhere in the Torah, anywhere in the entire Old Testament, that says women must be silent in the assembly. It isn’t there. The Law of Moses regulates an enormous range of human life in exhaustive detail, and nowhere does it command women’s silence in worship.

This is a genuine puzzle, and it cuts in a surprising direction.

Some interpreters point to Genesis 3:16, “he shall rule over you,” as the “law” in view. But that’s a stretch. Genesis 3:16 is not a command; it’s a description of the curse, of the broken state sin introduced into the marriage relationship. Reading it as a divine law to be enforced would mean treating the consequences of the fall as God’s blueprint for how things ought to be. That runs against the entire trajectory of redemption, which is God undoing the curse, not codifying it.

There’s a more provocative possibility, and it connects to something we’ll develop in a moment. Throughout 1 Corinthians, Paul has a habit of quoting the Corinthians’ own slogans and then answering them. “All things are lawful for me” (6:12, 10:23). “It is well for a man not to touch a woman” (7:1). “All of us possess knowledge” (8:1). Again and again, Paul lifts a phrase the Corinthians were throwing around and then pushes back against it.

What if “as the law also says” is another one of these? What if the appeal to a “law” that doesn’t actually exist in the Torah is a tell, a signal that Paul is quoting a restrictive position held by some in Corinth, only to challenge it in the verse that follows?

Because look at what comes immediately after:

1 Corinthians 14:36 (NRSV):

“Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?”

That is not the tone of a man laying down a rule. That is the tone of a man pushing back. The Greek even opens verse 36 with a particle (ἤ, ē, “or”) that often signals disagreement with what came just before. Some scholars read verses 34-35 as a Corinthian position that Paul quotes and then demolishes in verse 36. “Women should be silent, as the law says”? Paul’s response: “Or did the word of God come from you alone?”

I find that reading compelling, though I hold it with humility, because there’s yet another possibility that would settle the matter even more decisively. And it’s time to talk about it.

The Verses That Might Not Be Paul’s

Here is something most Christians have never been told, and it deserves to be told plainly and fairly.

There is a serious, credentialed scholarly case that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was not written by Paul at all. That it was added to the letter by a later hand.

I want to be scrupulously honest about the evidence on both sides here, because this is exactly the kind of claim that gets abused in both directions. So let me lay it out straight.

What supports the case that these verses were added later:

The verses move around. In the manuscripts of the “Western” text tradition (including the important codices D, F, and G), verses 34-35 do not sit after verse 33 where we normally read them. They appear after verse 40, at the end of the chapter. When a block of text floats to different locations in different manuscript families, textual critics take notice, because that kind of dislocation is one of the classic fingerprints of material that was originally a margin note before it got absorbed into the body of the text.

The scholar Gordon Fee, one of the most respected New Testament textual critics of the last century and himself a Pentecostal committed to Scripture’s authority, became convinced these verses were an interpolation. Philip Payne has spent decades building the case in painstaking detail, pointing to a correction in the sixth-century Codex Fuldensis (where Bishop Victor appears to have ordered the passage rewritten without verses 34-35), to the Greek manuscript 88, and to a scribal mark in Codex Vaticanus (the distigme-obelos) that appears to flag an awareness of a textual variant right at this spot.

And there’s the internal evidence we’ve already touched. The verses sit awkwardly in their context. Paul is mid-argument about prophecy and order, and these two verses interrupt the flow. Remove them, and verse 36 follows verse 33 smoothly. The appeal to a “law” that doesn’t exist in the Torah raises further suspicion. And of course, the flat contradiction with 1 Corinthians 11:5, where Paul assumes women are praying and prophesying publicly, is exactly what you’d expect if a later hand inserted a restriction Paul himself never wrote.

What supports the case that these verses are authentic:

Now the other side, and it’s not weak. Every known manuscript of 1 Corinthians contains these verses. Not one surviving copy omits them entirely. That is a heavy fact. The verses are simply relocated in the Western tradition, not absent. And the Western text is notorious among scholars for exactly this kind of sloppiness and rearrangement, which means the dislocation might reflect nothing more than an early copyist’s error rather than a smoking gun for interpolation.

The oldest manuscript we have of this section, Papyrus 46 (dated to roughly 175-225 A.D.), contains verses 34-35 right where we normally read them, after verse 33. Codex Sinaiticus and Papyrus 123 attest the same placement. A textual-critical principle called lectio difficilior, “the harder reading is preferable,” also cuts against interpolation, since scribes tended to smooth out difficulties rather than introduce them, and these verses are nothing if not difficult.

So where does that leave us?

Honestly, in a place of genuine scholarly disagreement. The interpolation theory is serious and is held by serious people. It is not a fringe position invented to make an inconvenient text disappear. But it is also not proven, and thoughtful scholars land on both sides.

I want to be careful here. I am not going to tell you these verses definitely aren’t Scripture. I don’t think the evidence supports that level of certainty, and I have too much reverence for the text to wave away verses that appear in every manuscript we possess.

But I will say this: when the manuscript tradition itself shows this much turbulence around a passage, when ancient scribes were already marking it and moving it and possibly removing it, that turbulence should make us humble. It should make us slow to build a towering doctrine of permanent female silence on top of two verses that the early church itself seems to have handled with visible uncertainty.

The ground under the traditional reading is not nearly as solid as most people have been led to believe.

Putting It All Together

So let’s assemble the machine. Four studies, four words, one picture.

σιγάω told us the silence was situational, temporary, purposeful. The same word Paul used two other times in this very chapter to regulate tongues-speakers and prophets in specific circumstances. Never once, anywhere in the New Testament, a permanent or even locational muting.

λαλέω told us the speech being restricted was the specific, regulated speech of the worship gathering, not any vocal participation. And it reminded us that three chapters earlier, in 1 Corinthians 11:5, Paul took for granted that women pray and prophesy aloud in the assembly. He could not have meant a total prohibition without contradicting himself.

ἐπερωτάω, paired with μανθάνω, told us what the actual problem was: disruptive, elementary questions thrown into the middle of the service by women who were eager to learn but, in that culture, largely untrained. Paul’s solution was not to silence their learning but to redirect it. Ask at home, where the questions can be answered without disturbing the assembly.

And now ὑποτάσσω tells us that the “submission” called for was submission to the good order of worship, the same self-governing order every prophet and tongues-speaker in the room was called to. Not a permanent gender hierarchy. The word itself lives most comfortably in Paul’s command that we all submit to one another.

Add to that the “law” that appears nowhere in the Law, the pushback of verse 36, and the real possibility that these verses weren’t even part of Paul’s original letter, and the traditional interpretation starts to look less like the plain meaning of the text and more like a heavy structure built on a cracked foundation.

Here is what I believe this passage is actually doing. In a specific church, in a specific cultural moment, some women were disrupting worship with questions in a way that created disorder and, in that honor-shame society, brought shame on the gathering.

Paul (or, if the interpolation theorists are right, a later editor speaking into a similar situation) addressed that specific disruption. Be silent, in this situation, the way tongues-speakers and prophets also have to be silent in their situations. Submit to the order of the assembly, the way everyone does. Take your questions home so learning can happen without chaos.

That is worlds away from “women may never speak, teach, or lead in the church.”

The Witnesses the Traditional Reading Has to Explain Away

And here’s the thing. If the traditional reading were correct, if Paul really meant to bar women from vocal ministry and leadership for all time, then Paul spent his entire ministry breaking his own rule.

Consider the women standing in the pages of the New Testament.

Priscilla taught Apollos, an educated and eloquent man, “the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26). Luke names her before her husband Aquila in most references, an unusual move in that culture that many scholars take as a mark of her prominence in ministry. Paul calls her his “co-worker” (Romans 16:3). She taught a man. Doctrine. And Scripture records it with approval.

Phoebe is called a διάκονος (diakonos), a “deacon” or “minister,” of the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1). It’s the same word used for male ministers throughout the New Testament. Paul entrusted her with carrying and quite possibly reading and explaining the letter to the Romans, the most theologically dense document he ever wrote.

Junia is named by Paul as “prominent among the apostles” (Romans 16:7). For the first twelve hundred years of church history, virtually everyone understood Junia to be a woman and an apostle. It was only much later that some tried to turn her into a man named “Junias,” a name that, as it turns out, is otherwise unattested in the ancient world. The evidence points to a female apostle, honored by Paul himself.

And back in Corinth, the very church we’ve been studying, women were praying and prophesying in the assembly with Paul’s full knowledge and regulation (1 Corinthians 11:5). Prophecy, in Paul’s own ranking in chapter 14, is the highest of the vocal gifts exercised in gathered worship. Higher than tongues. Aimed at the whole congregation for its edification. And women were doing it.

The traditional reading has to explain all of this away. It has to turn Priscilla’s teaching into something less than teaching, Phoebe’s diaconate into something less than ministry, Junia’s apostleship into a man, and the prophesying women of Corinth into an exception it can’t quite account for.

The reading I’ve laid out doesn’t have to explain any of it away. It just lets the evidence stand. Paul worked alongside women in ministry his entire life, and in 1 Corinthians 14 he addressed a specific disruption in a specific church. Those two facts have never actually been in conflict. They only look like a conflict when you stretch two situational verses into a timeless universal law stripped on context.

What This Means for Us

Three things, and then I’ll encourage you to go to your own study and your own conscience before God.

First: The whole Bible has to agree with itself, and it does. The deepest problem with the traditional reading was never a single Greek word. It was that it forced Scripture into contradiction with itself, Paul against Paul, chapter 14 against chapter 11, one verse against the living witness of Priscilla and Phoebe and Junia. When an interpretation makes the Bible fight itself, that’s not a sign you’ve found the hard truth. It’s a sign you’ve misread something. The reading that lets all the evidence stand together, without anyone having to be explained away, has a strong claim to being the right one.

Second: Handle contested texts with humility, and hold people who disagree with grace. I’ve made my case as honestly as I can, but I know sincere, godly believers read these verses differently, and I am not their judge. What I’d ask is simply this. If you’ve been taught the traditional reading as though it were obvious and settled, sit with the evidence we’ve walked through. The situational silence. The self-contradiction a universal reading creates. The missing “law.” The turbulence in the manuscripts. The women Paul himself commissioned. At minimum, the matter is not nearly as closed as it’s often presented. And a doctrine that silences half the church deserves a far more solid foundation than these two turbulent verses can bear.

Third: God has always used the voices of women to carry His word. From Miriam to Deborah to Huldah to Anna to the women who were the first witnesses of the resurrection, God has never been reluctant to speak through daughters as well as sons. Priscilla explained the gospel to Apollos. Phoebe carried Romans. The prophesying women of Corinth spoke God’s word to the gathered church. If God was willing to entrust His truth to their voices, we should be slow, very slow, to build a theology that silences them on the strength of two disputed verses read against the grain of everything else Paul did.

That’s the case. I’ve laid the pieces out as fairly and as fully as I know how. Now go study it for yourself, weigh it before the Lord, and follow the truth wherever the text and the Holy Spirit lead you.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

Every chapter of Daniel has pulled back a curtain. We’ve encountered a lot of surprises from these texts.

If you missed any of the earlier posts, you can get caught up HERE

Chapter 10 pulls back the last one, and it is the biggest of them all.

Before we start, you need to know that chapter 10 does not stand alone. Chapters 10, 11, and 12 are a single unbroken vision, the last and longest in the book. Chapter 10 is the doorway, the terrifying encounter that sets it up. Chapter 11 is the astonishingly detailed prophecy that follows. Chapter 12 is the epilogue. So what we are walking into today is the front porch of Daniel’s final revelation, and the porch alone is enough to knock a grown prophet flat on his face.

And here is why this chapter matters more than almost any other in the Old Testament. Every other passage that hints at the unseen realm gives you a glimpse, a flash, a single frame. Daniel 10 sits you down and shows you the machinery. A glorious man by a river. A messenger delayed three weeks. A “prince” of Persia strong enough to hold up an angel. Michael the archangel arriving as reinforcement. A war being fought in the heavens over the fate of nations, right behind the politics you can see with your eyes.

And a prayer. A prayer that was answered on the very first day Daniel prayed it, and did not arrive for twenty-one days, because there was a battle in the way.

If you have ever prayed and heard nothing and wondered whether heaven was listening, this is your chapter.

A Word on Our Three Voices

The Old Greek is especially lively here, and it does three things worth watching for. It disagrees about what year this happened. It reads Daniel’s collapse in a stranger and darker way than the Hebrew. And at one key moment it preserves a reading that the Dead Sea Scrolls back up against the Masoretic Text. So keep an eye on the Greek. It is not just translating this chapter. In places it is arguing with it.

Let’s dig in.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Three Weeks of Mourning (the setting)

Daniel 10:1-4 (NRSVUE):

In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar. The word was true, and it concerned a great conflict. He understood the word, having received understanding in the vision. At that time I, Daniel, had been mourning for three weeks. I had eaten no rich food, no meat or wine had entered my mouth, and I had not anointed myself at all, for the full three weeks. On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river (that is, the Tigris),

Daniel 10:1-4 (OG/NETS):

In the first year of King Cyrus of the Persians a decree was shown to Daniel, whose name was called Baltasar. And the decree was true. And the forceful multitude will understand the decree, and I understood it by means of a vision. In those days I, Daniel, was in mourning. I had not eaten food of desire, and no meat or wine had entered my mouth. I had not anointed myself with oil until I completed three weeks of days. And it happened on the twenty-fourth day of the first month, and as I was on the bank of the great river, which is the Tigris,

Daniel 10:1-4 (Theodotion/Brenton):

In the third year of Cyrus king of the Persians a thing was revealed to Daniel, whose name was called Baltasar; and the thing was true, and great power and understanding in the vision was given to him. In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks. I ate no pleasant bread, and no flesh or wine entered into my mouth, neither did I anoint myself with oil, until three whole weeks were accomplished. On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, I was near the great river, which is Tigris Eddekel.

Right away the Greek and the Hebrew part ways on the calendar. The Masoretic and Theodotion set this in the third year of Cyrus, around 536 B.C. The Old Greek says the first year. I am not going to build a doctrine on it, but I will note the small echo, because the very last verse of Daniel chapter 1 told us Daniel lasted “until the first year of King Cyrus.” The Old Greek’s “first year” quietly rhymes with the bookend of the whole story.

Make of it what you will.

What matters more is what Daniel is doing. He is grieving. Three full weeks, no rich food, no meat, no wine, no oil on his skin, which was the ancient world’s way of saying he had stopped taking any comfort at all. And the timing is poignant. The twenty-fourth day of the first month means this fast ran straight through Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. While his people, at least the ones who had gone home, were meant to be feasting, Daniel was in Babylon in sackcloth, unable to celebrate a deliverance that still felt unfinished.

Why the grief? The text does not say outright, but the timing tells the story. The first wave of exiles had gone back under Cyrus, and the return was going badly. The work was small, the opposition was fierce, and the glorious restoration the prophets had promised looked, on the ground, like a disappointment. Daniel, now well past eighty, had lived long enough to see the promise begin and to watch it struggle. So he mourns, and he fasts, and he prays. And heaven, as we are about to learn, had already answered him on day one.

The Man by the River

Daniel 10:5-6 (NRSVUE):

I looked up and saw a man clothed in linen, with a belt of gold from Uphaz around his waist. His body was like beryl, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the roar of a multitude.

Daniel 10:5-6 (OG/NETS):

and I raised my eyes and saw, and lo, there was one person clothed in linen and girded with gold around the waist and a phasa from his middle. And his body was like tharsis, and his face like an appearance of lightning, and his eyes like torches of fire, and his arms and feet like dazzling bronze, and the sound of his talking like the sound of a throng.

Daniel 10:5-6 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a man clothed in linen, and his loins were girt with gold of Ophaz: and his body was as Tharsis, and his face was as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his legs as the appearance of shining brass, and the voice of his words as the voice of a multitude.

Now stop, because we have arrived at one of the genuine puzzles of the book, and I am not going to pretend it has a settled answer.

Who is this?

Read the description slowly. Clothed in linen. A belt of gold. A body gleaming like precious stone. A face like lightning. Eyes like flaming torches. Arms and legs like burnished bronze. A voice like the roar of a multitude. If that description rings a bell, it should, because it is almost word for word the way the apostle John describes the glorified Christ in Revelation 1: eyes “like a flame of fire,” feet “like burnished bronze,” a voice “like the sound of many waters,” a face “like the sun shining in full strength.” And it echoes the glory of God that Ezekiel saw by another river, the Chebar, in Ezekiel 1.

So there is a serious and old reading that says this figure is no ordinary angel. It is a theophany, an appearance of God, and specifically the preincarnate Christ, the Angel of the Lord, the second Yahweh figure who shows up all through the Old Testament. The white linen is the dress of the high priest on the Day of Atonement, and who is our great High Priest?

Careful interpreters like E. J. Young and Keil held exactly this, and Matthew Henry called it a settled matter, “one Man Christ Jesus.”

But there is a real problem with that reading, and honest interpreters have always felt it. Because in a few verses, this figure, or the one speaking right after him, is going to say he was delayed for three weeks by the prince of Persia and needed Michael the archangel to come help him. And that is a very strange thing to say about God. God does not get delayed. God does not need reinforcements.

So a second reading says the man is simply a high-ranking angel, glorious but created, and points out that Ezekiel saw angelic figures dressed in linen too (Ezekiel 9). The dazzling description, on this view, is just what a powerful angel looks like when a human being sees one and nearly dies of it.

And there is a third reading, which I find genuinely compelling, that says we have been assuming something the text never says. It says there are actually two figures here. The glorious man in linen of these verses is the exalted one, possibly the divine figure, but the one who reaches down and touches Daniel and starts speaking in the next paragraph is a different, lesser messenger, the angel who was actually delayed. Look closely and the text cooperates. It does not say “his hand touched me.” It says “a hand touched me.” And when we get to chapter 12, we will find the man in linen standing above the waters of the river while other figures ask him questions, plainly in charge, plainly distinct from the angel doing the talking.

I’m not going to settle this for you, because I don’t think I can do so honestly. But I will tell you where my instinct leans.

I don’t read the “delay” as the messenger being too weak or “needing” help, as though heaven were losing. I interpret this passage as the messenger waiting, holding back, letting Michael handle the prince of Persia rather than overwhelming him directly.

This interpretation keeps the glory of the figure intact without pretending the difficulty away, and it fits the two-figure view comfortably. But I want to be honest that I am reading a motive into a text that does not state one. So it’s important to note that I hold this loosely. In fact, I hold the whole question loosely. Some things in Daniel are meant to be stood in front of with your face on the ground, not filed neatly into a category.

One small textual delight before we move on. Where the Masoretic says the man’s body was like “beryl,” both Greek traditions do not translate the word at all. They just carry the Hebrew over: his body was like tharsis. That is the gem the Hebrew calls tarshish, and the Greek translators, unsure exactly which stone it was, simply kept the original word rather than guess.

We have watched them do this before, with Phelmouni back in chapter 8. When the ancient translators hit a word they could not pin down, they often preserved the mystery instead of flattening it, and I love them for that.

The Prophet on the Ground

Daniel 10:7-9 (NRSVUE):

I, Daniel, alone saw the vision; the people who were with me did not see the vision, though a great trembling fell upon them, and they fled and hid themselves. So I was left alone to see this great vision. My strength left me, and my complexion grew deathly pale, and I retained no strength. When I heard the sound of his words, I fell into a trance, face to the ground.

Daniel 10:7-9 (OG/NETS):

And I, Daniel, saw this great vision, and the persons who were with me saw this vision, and a mighty fear fell on them, and they ran away in haste. And I remained alone, and I saw this great vision. And no strength remained in me, and I saw a spirit turned toward me in order to corrupt, and I did not prevail. And as I heard the sound of his talking, I fell on my face to the ground.

Daniel 10:7-9 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And I Daniel only saw the vision: and the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great amazement fell upon them, and they fled in fear. So I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there was no strength left in me, and my glory was turned into corruption, and I retained no strength. Yet I heard the voice of his words: and when I heard him I was pricked in the heart, and I fell with my face to the earth.

Here is a scene the New Testament will echo centuries later. Daniel alone sees the vision. The men with him see nothing, but they feel something, a terror they cannot name, and they run and hide. That is almost exactly what happens on the Damascus road in Acts 9, where Paul alone sees the risen Christ and the men with him stand speechless, sensing a presence they cannot see. The unseen realm has a way of leaking into the visible one. The companions could not see the man in linen, but they felt the change in the atmosphere and it sent them running.

Our traditions diverge here in ways worth naming, however. First, a small one: the Old Greek clearly says the men with Daniel did see the vision, where the Masoretic and Theodotion say they did not. That may be a slip in the Old Greek’s transmission, or it could be an older reading.

I’m not going to lean on it either way, but it is there.

Second, and more interesting, is what happened to Daniel’s own body. You can see that all three traditions describe it differently, and those differences are a beautiful window into how translation works.

The Hebrew says his “splendor,” his hod, was turned to mashchit. Now that Hebrew word mashchit is a chameleon. It can mean “corruption” or “ruin,” an abstract state, and it can mean “a destroyer,” an actual agent, the very same word used for “the destroyer” who passed over Egypt at Passover.

And watch the three traditions split right along that fault line. The NRSVUE reads it as a state affecting his appearance: his “complexion grew deathly pale.”

Theodotion reads it as his glory decaying: “my glory was turned into corruption.”

And the Old Greek reads mashchit as an agent, a corrupting spirit: “I saw a spirit turned toward me in order to corrupt, and I did not prevail.”

One word, three faithful readings, because the word itself holds all three. The NRSV hears ruin. Theodotion hears decay. The Old Greek hears a destroyer in the room. None of them is wrong. They are standing at different angles to the same terrifying Hebrew noun.

But whatever angle you view it from, the point is the same. A glimpse of the unseen realm does not energize Daniel. It empties him. He loses his color, his strength, his composure, and finally consciousness, and he ends the way every human being ends in the presence of real glory.

Face down.

The Hand That Raised Him

Daniel 10:10-11 (NRSVUE)

But then a hand touched me and roused me to my hands and knees. He said to me, “Daniel, greatly beloved, pay attention to the words that I am going to speak to you. Stand on your feet, for I have now been sent to you.” So while he was speaking this word to me, I stood up trembling.

Daniel 10:10-11 (OG/NETS):

And lo, he reached out a hand to me and roused me on my knees to the soles of my feet. And he said to me, “Daniel, you are a person shown mercy. Ponder the ordinances that I am going to speak to you. And stand in your place, for I have just been sent to you.” And while he spoke this decree to me, I stood trembling.

Daniel 10:10-11 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And, behold, a hand touched me, and it raised me on my knees. And he said to me, O Daniel, man greatly beloved, understand the words which I speak to thee, and stand upright: for I am now sent to thee. And when he had spoken to me this word, I stood trembling.

“A hand touched me.” Not, notice again, “his hand.” Just a hand, reaching into Daniel’s collapse and lifting him up by stages, first to his hands and knees, then to his feet. Whoever this messenger is, the first thing he does is not speak. It is touch. He gets down to where the broken prophet is lying and physically raises him before he says a word.

However, I’m sure you noticed the slight wrinkle there. The Old Greek says, “he reached out a hand.” Now, it’s important to note that it still isn’t described as his hand, but rather that he reached out a hand. So let’s explore what the Greek actually says for a minute. Because there are structural indicators regarding whether this hand is distinct from the primary heavenly figure:

• The Verb of Extension (προσήγαγε): Unlike the Theodotion text which uses a passive/intransitive construction (χεὶρ ἁπτομένη μου / “a hand touching me”), the Old Greek uses an active, transitive, third-person singular verb: προσήγαγε (”he brought near” / “he extended”). This means the grammar explicitly ties the action to a singular “he”—the overarching celestial figure Daniel has been looking at. Syntactically, the hand is the direct object being manipulated by that subject.

• The Accusative Form (χεῖρα): Because the word for hand is in the accusative case (χεῖρα) rather than the nominative (χεὶρ), it functions strictly as the instrument or object. The grammar forcefully states that “He [the figure] brought a hand to me,” signaling he was in direct control without explicitly stating that it was part of his own physical anatomy.

• Lack of Possessive Pronoun: The text still lacks a possessive pronoun (it does not say “his” hand). However, because it is grammatically governed by the active verb of the primary figure, the omission is standard Greek economy of language, implying it is the subject’s own hand being extended.

Of course, this is still not a rock-solid argument against the two figure interpretation. While the features of the text and grammar do tend to imply a single figure, it is still slightly open since, if we interpret this figure as being the pre-incarnate Messiah, there’s no reason he couldn’t be the active force drivin the action of the angelic hand.

And then the word, and it is the same word Daniel has heard before: “greatly beloved.” The Masoretic and Theodotion both use it. The Old Greek, as it did back in chapter 9, says something slightly different and just as sweet: “a person shown mercy.” Put the two together and you have the whole truth about Daniel, and about you. Why is he beloved? Because he was shown mercy. The love came first as mercy, and the mercy made him beloved.

Heaven’s own vocabulary for this trembling old man is the vocabulary of grace.

The War Behind the Throne

Now we reach the heart of it, and this is the passage that has no real parallel anywhere else in Scripture.

Daniel 10:12-14 (NRSVUE):

He said to me, “Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-one days. So Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia and have come to help you understand what is to happen to your people at the end of days. For there is a further vision for those days.”

Daniel 10:12-14 (OG/NETS):

And he said to me, “Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you gave your mind to gain knowledge and to be humble before your Lord, your word has been heeded, and I have come because of your word. And the general of the king of the Persians opposed me twenty and one day. Lo, one of the holy angels approached to help me, and I left him there with the general of the king of the Persians.” And he said to me, “I have come to explain to you that it will come upon your people at the end of days, for a vision is yet for days.”

Daniel 10:12-14 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And he said to me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to afflict thyself before the Lord thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come because of thy words. But the prince of the kingdom of the Persians withstood me twenty-one days: and behold, Michael, one of the princes, came to help me; and I left him there with the chief of the kingdom of the Persians: and I have come to inform thee of all that shall befall thy people in the last days: for the vision is yet for many days. (Brenton)

Read the first sentence again and let it land. “From the first day that you set your mind to understand and to humble yourself, your words have been heard.”

The first day. Not the twenty-first. Daniel had been fasting and praying for three weeks, twenty-one days of sackcloth and hunger, almost certainly wondering somewhere in his heart whether any of it was reaching the ceiling. And the answer is that the response left heaven the moment he began.

Day one.

His prayer was heard, answered, and dispatched before he had missed his second meal.

So why did the answer take three weeks to arrive?

Here is the sentence that changes how you read your own prayer life: “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-one days.”

There was a war in the way.

Let me lay out plainly what this chapter is telling us, because it is the fullest picture Scripture gives of the unseen government of the world. Behind the earthly kingdom of Persia stands a spiritual “prince,” and he is no human being. No human king could physically block an angel of God for three weeks. This is a spiritual power, a hostile one, exercising real authority over a nation. And he is not alone. In a moment the messenger will mention the “prince of Greece” too, the spiritual power behind the next empire on the horizon. And standing against them, on behalf of God’s people, is Michael, called here “one of the chief princes,” and later, in chapter 12, “the great prince who protects your people.” Three princes, three peoples: the prince of Persia, the prince of Greece, and Michael, the prince of Israel.

This is what I have been calling the Divine Council all throughout this series, and Daniel 10 is its clearest single window.

In case you missed any of my recently completed “The Divine Council” series on this topic, the basic framework is this:

Back in Deuteronomy 32, at the dividing of the nations, God “fixed the borders of the peoples” according to a number. The Masoretic Text says “according to the number of the sons of Israel.” But the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint read “according to the number of the sons of God,” the angels of God. And here, as so often, I don’t think we have to choose.

The Hebrew gives us the covenant architecture, God arranging the world around His people. The Greek and the DSS give us the cosmic architecture, God assigning heavenly beings over the nations. Both are true, and Daniel 10 is where the cosmic architecture becomes visible. The nations were placed under spiritual princes. Many of those princes went bad, corrupting the very peoples they were meant to govern. And the result is exactly what Daniel is being shown: a world where the politics you can see are the shadow cast by a war you cannot.

Paul knew this framework cold. When he told the Ephesians that “our struggle is not against blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12), he was not inventing a metaphor. He was describing the world of Daniel 10. And when John saw “Michael and his angels” waging war against the dragon in Revelation 12, he was watching the same conflict reach its climax.

Now, in fairness, not everyone reads it this way. A minority of interpreters take the “prince of Persia” to be a stubborn human official, and I understand the caution behind that. But the reading collapses under the weight of the text.

No human obstructs an angel for three weeks. No human is opposed by Michael the archangel. And no human stands in the same category as the “prince/commander of Greece” who has not even risen to power yet. Not to mention that Greece was not unified to have such an individual until Alexander. The princes here operate in the same sphere as Michael, and Michael is not a man.

Not to mention that for those who interpret this figure as being the Son of God, while I can stretch my mind enough to accept that an angelic figure could perhaps get in the way (and keep Him from progressing if He was holding back, not wanting to destroy the angel), the same cannot be said of a mere human. He could simply bypass such a human without the man so much as noticing Him.

Watch the Old Greek do its quiet, familiar thing in this passage. Where the Hebrew and Theodotion name Michael outright at his first appearance, the Old Greek holds the name back and calls him only “one of the holy angels.” It is the very same veiling we watched it perform with Gabriel back in chapter 8, sharpening the sense of awe by refusing to hand you the name too soon. And notice the Old Greek calls the spiritual powers “generals” and “commanders” where the Hebrew calls them “princes.” The Hebrew hears the unseen realm as a government. The Greek hears it as an army at war.

Given what is actually happening in this chapter, both are exactly right.

Strengthened, Again and Again

Daniel 10:15-19 (NRSVUE):

While he was speaking these words to me, I turned my face toward the ground and was speechless. Then one in human form touched my lips, and I opened my mouth to speak and said to the one who stood before me, “My lord, because of the vision such pains have come upon me that I retain no strength. How can my lord’s servant talk with my lord? For I am exhausted; no strength remains in me, and no breath is left in me.” Again one in human form touched me and strengthened me. He said, “Do not fear, greatly beloved; you are safe. Be strong and courageous!” When he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, “Let my lord speak, for you have strengthened me.”

Daniel 10:15-19 (OG/NETS):

And as he spoke with me these decrees, I gave my face toward the ground and was silent. And lo, as it were a likeness of a human hand touched my lips, and I opened my mouth, and I spoke and said to the one who stood in front of me, “Sir, as the vision turned to me, to my flank, there was not even strength in me. And how will the servant be able to talk with his lord?” And as for me, I became weak, and no strength stayed in me, and no breath remained in me. And a specter of a human continued and touched me and gave me strength. And he said to me, “You are a person shown mercy. Do not fear; be well. Be courageous and strong!” And when he spoke with me, I was strengthened and said, “Let my lord speak, for he has strengthened me.”

Daniel 10:15-19 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And when he had spoken with me according to these words, I turned my face to the ground, and was pricked in the heart. And, behold, as it were the likeness of a son of man touched my lips; and I opened my mouth, and spoke, and said to him that stood before me, O my lord, at the sight of thee my bowels were turned within me, and I had no strength. And how shall thy servant be able, O my lord, to speak with this my lord? and as for me, from henceforth strength will not remain in me, and there is no breath left in me. And there touched me again as it were the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me, and said to me, Fear not, man greatly beloved: peace be to thee, quit thyself like a man, and be strong. And when he had spoken with me, I received strength, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me.

Daniel cannot even hold himself up under the weight of this encounter. He is touched, he stands, he crumples, he is touched again, he is strengthened again. Three times something reaches down and props this old man back up so he can bear to hear the rest. There is real tenderness in it. Heaven is not annoyed with his weakness. It keeps stooping to strengthen him, the way you would keep steadying someone who is about to faint.

And given the agreement of the verbiage here, the way all three traditions align on Daniel referring to this figure as “my lord” with fear and trembling that mirrors the ways that Isaiah, John, and others show when coming into the divine presence, I don’t think we can have any doubt of whose presence Daniel is in right now.

And also, right here, in the middle of that tenderness, sits one of the most interesting textual moments in the whole chapter. What touched Daniel’s lips?

The Masoretic Text says “one in human form.” Theodotion says “the likeness of a son of man.” But the Old Greek says something more specific: “a likeness of a human hand touched my lips.”

A hand. And here is why that matters. That Old Greek “hand” reading is not a loose paraphrase or a random variant. It has support from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Hebrew manuscripts from Qumran, and it fits the flow of the scene better than the Masoretic does.

Because look at what surrounds it.

A few verses earlier, “a hand touched me and roused me.” A few verses later, “one in human form touched me and strengthened me.” The whole passage is a sequence of a hand reaching out to a fallen man. So when the Old Greek and the Scrolls agree that it was a “hand” that touched his lips too, they are almost certainly preserving the original picture, and the Masoretic “human form” is the reading that drifted.

This is the same kind of moment we hit back in chapter 8 with the four directions, and it is worth saying clearly, because it is the whole reason this series exists. Sometimes the Greek is not the corrupted text. Sometimes the Greek, standing alongside the oldest Hebrew scrolls we possess, is the one that kept the earlier reading, and the Masoretic is the one that moved. Neither tradition owns the truth by itself. You need them both on the table, and Qumran keeps proving it.

But I also want to be just as clear about the other side to that. The both/and is real. “one in human form,” “the likeness of a son of man,” and “the likeness of a human hand” are each saying fundamentally different things, but think about what happens when you hold them together. One in the likeness of a son of man (aka the pre-incarnate Son), who is in human form, reaches out an appendage that looks like a human hand. Not only does this imply that Daniel is aware that what touches him is so much more than human, adding Theodotion and the Masoretic gives us a deeper understanding not only of what’s really in view here, but also of what Daniel understood himself to be witnessing.

The Book of Truth and the Wars to Come

Daniel 10:20-21 (NRSVUE):

Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Now I must return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I am through with him, the prince of Greece will come. But I am to tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth. There is no one with me who contends against these princes except Michael, your prince.”

Daniel 10:20-21 (OG/NETS):

And he said to me, “Do you understand why I have come to you? And now I will return to contend with the general of the king of the Persians. And I was leaving, and lo, the commander of the Greeks was entering. And the more I will explain to you the chief things that are in the register of truth. And there was no one with me who helped concerning these things except Michael, the mighty angel.”

Daniel 10:20-21 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And he said, Knowest thou, wherefore I am come to thee? and now I will return to fight with the prince of the Persians: and I was going in, and the prince of the Greeks came. But I will tell thee that which is ordained in the scripture of truth: and there is no one that holds with me in these matters but Michael your prince.

The messenger has come down to deliver a word, and he is going right back into the fight. He has not won yet. He is going to return to the conflict with the prince of Persia, and behind that door another is already opening: “the prince of Greece will come.” The Old Greek makes it feel even more immediate, “the commander of the Greeks was entering,” as if the next war were already walking into the room while this one still rages.

And there it is again, the pattern the whole book has been drawing for us. Persia gives way to Greece. We have watched this succession twice now, in the ram overrun by the goat in chapter 8, in the silver giving way to the bronze back in chapter 2. But here we are shown the same succession from the other side, from behind the curtain, where it is not empires trading places but spiritual princes contending, one power behind Persia yielding to another power behind Greece, while heaven’s own prince holds the line for Israel.

Notice the last, almost lonely line. “There is no one with me who contends against these princes except Michael, your prince.”

One ally. In the whole struggle against the massed spiritual powers behind the world’s empires, the messenger names exactly one who stands with him: Michael. The Old Greek calls him “the mighty angel.” It is not that heaven is undermanned. It is that this is the specific assignment of the one being God has set over His people. When the princes of the nations move against Israel, Michael is the one who answers.

And what is the messenger carrying out of all this? Not a weapon. A book. “What is inscribed in the book of truth.” The Old Greek calls it “the register of truth.” Behind the war behind the throne, there is a book, already written, already true, recording what will surely come to pass. The powers rage, the princes contend, and the outcome is already inscribed. That is what chapter 11 is about to read to us, straight off the page of that book.

What the Fathers Saw

I always want to know how the earliest readers of a passage understood it, and here the church’s memory speaks to both of the hard questions this chapter raises.

On the man in linen, the reading that connects him to Christ is not a modern hunch. It is as old as Christian commentary gets. Hippolytus of Rome, writing around A.D. 236 in the earliest surviving commentary on any book of Scripture, took the man clothed in linen of Daniel 10 to be Christ Himself. So the instinct that ties this glorious figure to the Jesus of Revelation 1 was already alive in the third-century church, centuries before anyone opened a study Bible. It does not settle the question, and Hippolytus pressed his allegories a good deal further than the text can bear. But when you feel the pull toward Christ in these verses, you are feeling something the early church felt first.

On the prince of Persia, the fathers hand us something even more useful, because the whole framework we have been building today turns out to be ancient. The idea that nations stand under angelic “princes” was, in the words of one old summary, the common view of the fathers. And it found its most developed voice in Origen, who in the early third century worked out a genuine doctrine of the angels of the nations. He read Daniel 10 exactly this way, with the prince of Persia as the spiritual power set over that kingdom. He grounded it precisely where we grounded it, in the Septuagint of Deuteronomy 32, which divides the nations “according to the number of the angels of God.”

Sit with that, because it changes how you should receive everything I have said. The Divine Council framework, the angels over the nations, the spiritual princes behind earthly empires, is sometimes waved off as a recent novelty, a modern fascination dressed up as exegesis. It is nothing of the kind. It is one of the oldest readings the church has, and it rests on the very same verse of the Greek Old Testament this series keeps returning to. The early church did not need the Dead Sea Scrolls to read Deuteronomy 32 this way. They had the Septuagint, and the Septuagint told them plainly.

There is one honest tension the fathers wrestled with, and it is worth naming. If every nation has an angel, and the prince of Persia is Persia’s angel, is he a good angel doing his appointed work, or a fallen one gone to war against heaven?

They did not all answer alike.

But Daniel 10 itself presses toward an answer, because whatever this prince is, he stands against the messenger of God and has to be held off by Michael. An angel who opposes God’s own errand is an angel who has gone wrong. Which is exactly the picture Scripture gives of these princes everywhere else: appointed over the nations, and then corrupting the very peoples they were set to govern.

The fathers handed us the framework.

The text hands us the tragedy inside it.

The Line You Must Not Cross

Before we close, I have to stop and say the hard, necessary thing. A chapter like this one is dangerous in the wrong hands, as I have written about at length in the Divine Council series.

Daniel 10 shows you that territorial spirits are real. That earthly powers have spiritual powers behind them. That there is a genuine war in the heavenly places. And the moment people grasp that, some of them go straight to a fatal conclusion: that we, believers, are supposed to jump into that war and start fighting those princes ourselves. To “bind the corrupted prince” over our family. Or our city. Or our nation. To rebuke and command territorial spirits or even Satan himself by name. Doing it in our own authority, not calling on the holy name of Jesus.

Read this chapter again and notice who fights the prince of Persia. It is not Daniel. Daniel prays. Daniel fasts. Daniel mourns for three weeks with his face toward the ground. And while Daniel prays, the archangel Michael fights. The human intercedes; the mighty angel wages the war. Daniel never once addresses the prince of Persia, never commands him, never rebukes him. He would not have dared, and he was the most righteous man of his generation. Arguably one of the most righteous in the entire Bible.

If a prophet like Daniel keeps his face on the ground and leaves the fighting to Michael, we have no business swaggering into the heavenly places to trade blows with principalities in our own name.

Even Michael, when he contended with the devil over the body of Moses, “did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you’” (Jude 9).

If the archangel would not rebuke a fallen power in his own authority, but appealed to the Lord to do it, then neither can we. Our posture toward the unseen war is Daniel’s posture: prayer, humility, dependence, and trust that the Lord commands His own armies.

We pray.

Michael fights.

The Lord rebukes.

Stay in your lane, and it is a good lane, because the One who assigns Michael his orders is your Father.

What This Means for Your Walk With God

I want to leave you with the thing that has kept me up at night in the best way while working on this chapter.

Your prayers are heard on the first day.

Daniel’s were. From the first day he set his heart to seek God, the answer was already moving. And it still took twenty-one days to reach him, not because God was slow, not because God was weighing whether Daniel deserved it, not because heaven was silent, but because there was a war in the way that Daniel could not see.

Sit with what that does to the way you have understood your own unanswered prayers.

That prayer you have prayed for weeks, for months, and heard nothing back from. It may not be that God has not heard. It may be that God heard on the first day, and the answer is even now making its way to you through a conflict you will never see this side of the New Creation.

Delay is not denial. Silence is not absence. The stillness you feel may be the stillness of a battlefield you are not equipped to see, where your prayers have set something in motion in the heavenly places that has nothing to do with whether God loves you and everything to do with a war that is already, in the book of truth, decided.

So do what Daniel did. Keep praying through the twenty-one days. Do not stop on day three because nothing has come. Do not conclude on day twelve that heaven is not listening. Keep your face toward the ground and keep asking, because the answer left the throne room the moment you began, and it is coming, and there is a prince named Michael who fights for the people of God, and behind him stands the Lord of hosts Himself, whose book is already written and already true.

The answer is already on its way.

Do not fear.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible.

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

Over the first seven posts in this series, we’ve traveled a long way together. We’ve defined elohim as a category term for divine power and authority (Part 1), watched God judge His corrupt council in Psalm 82 (Part 2), traced how the nations were divided among divine beings in Deuteronomy 32 (Part 3), witnessed the council present at creation (Part 4), confronted the rebellion of the Watchers in Genesis 6 (Part 5), unmasked the spiritual powers behind earthly thrones in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 (Part 6), and mapped the taxonomy of the unseen realm, distinguishing fallen angels from the disembodied demons (Part 7). If you haven’t read those yet, I’d encourage you to start there before continuing.

Get caught up on the Divine Council Series HERE.

Now we come to the end. And everything we’ve explored has been building toward this.

The divine council. The corrupt governors. The fallen Watchers. The imprisoned rebels. The disembodied demons. The nations in darkness under spiritual powers that abandoned their charge. All of it was building toward one moment. The Son of God entering the world He made, taking on flesh, and doing what no angel, no principality, no spiritual power could ever do.

This is the resolution. This is where the story has been going all along.

Let’s dig in.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The Council and the Incarnation

We need to begin where the New Testament itself begins its argument for Christ’s supremacy: with His superiority over the angelic beings. And it turns out that the author of Hebrews makes that argument using a text that survives, in its full form, only in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

This is one of the most remarkable examples of the both/and principle in the entire Bible, so I want to walk through it carefully.

In Hebrews 1:6, the author writes:

“But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: ‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’” (NKJV)

The author is quoting the Old Testament to prove that the Son is worshiped by angels and is therefore superior to them. But where is he quoting from? This exact line, “Let all the angels of God worship Him,” does not appear in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. Not in the Psalms. Not anywhere.

So where did the author of Hebrews get it?

He got it from Deuteronomy 32:43. And here is where the textual situation becomes fascinating.

Three Texts, Three Endings

Just as we saw with Deuteronomy 32:8 back in Part 3, the ending of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32:43 comes down to us in significantly different forms across the manuscript traditions.

The Masoretic Text gives us a short version, just two poetic lines:

“Rejoice, O nations, with His people; for He will avenge the blood of His servants, and render vengeance to His adversaries, and will provide atonement for His land and His people.” (Deuteronomy 32:43, MT/NKJV)

The Septuagint gives us a substantially longer version:

“Rejoice, O heavens, with Him, and let all the sons of God worship Him. Rejoice, O nations, with His people, and let all the angels of God be strengthened in Him. For He will avenge the blood of His sons, and He will take vengeance and repay the enemies with a sentence, and He will repay those who hate; and the Lord will cleanse the land of His people.” (Deuteronomy 32:43, LXX/N.E.T.S.)

The Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeut^q) preserve a Hebrew text that, while not identical to the LXX, contains the crucial lines the MT lacks:

“Rejoice, O heavens, together with Him, and bow down to Him, all you gods (אלהים, elohim), for He will avenge the blood of His sons...” (Deuteronomy 32:43, 4QDeut^q)

Look at what’s happening. The MT has two lines. The LXX has roughly four. And the Dead Sea Scrolls, in Hebrew, preserve the opening call for the heavens and the divine beings to worship God, exactly the material the MT is missing.

Why the Longer Version Is Original

Here’s the case for the priority of the longer reading, and it follows the same logic we applied in Part 3.

Hebrew poetry is built on parallelism. Lines come in balanced pairs, echoing and reinforcing each other. When you examine the Masoretic version of Deuteronomy 32:43, the poetic structure is truncated and unbalanced. Lines that should have parallel partners stand alone. The rhythm the rest of the Song establishes suddenly breaks.

The longer version, preserved in the LXX and confirmed in Hebrew by the Dead Sea Scrolls, restores the parallelism. The call to the heavens balances the call to the nations. The command for the divine beings to worship balances the command for the angels to be strengthened.

The poetry works.

This is the kind of evidence that textual scholars find compelling. It’s much easier to explain how lines dropped out of the MT (whether by scribal accident or by discomfort with the summons to “all you gods” to worship) than to explain why anyone would invent and insert perfectly balanced Hebrew poetic lines that happen to match the LXX. The longer reading is almost certainly original, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in the twentieth century, dramatically confirmed a reading that for centuries was known only from the Greek.

And notice the substance of what the longer ending says. At the climax of the Song of Moses, God summons the entire divine council, “all you gods,” “all the angels of God,” to bow down and worship. The very beings we’ve been studying throughout this series, the members of the heavenly assembly, are commanded to worship.

What the Author of Hebrews Saw

Now return to Hebrews 1:6. The author quotes “Let all the angels of God worship Him” and applies it to Christ. He is building his entire argument for the Son’s superiority over the angels on a line of Scripture that survives in full only in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Sit with the implications of that.

An inspired author of the New Testament, writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, reached for the Septuagint’s reading of Deuteronomy 32:43 because it contained exactly what the Masoretic tradition had lost. The Spirit who inspired Hebrews evidently regarded that longer reading as the authoritative word of God. And the Dead Sea Scrolls have since vindicated it as ancient Hebrew Scripture, not a late Greek invention.

This is the both/and hermeneutic at its most powerful. It is not that the Septuagint is right and the Masoretic Text is wrong in some global sense. It is that on this verse, the Septuagint preserved something the Masoretic tradition lost, and the New Testament itself confirms which reading carries the weight of inspiration here. The two traditions together give us the fuller picture. Neither alone would have preserved everything.

And the theological payoff is glorious. The command that the divine council once received, “worship God,” is now applied directly to the Son. The Son is not a member of the council who worships. The Son is the one whom the council worships. He stands on the divine side of the line, receiving the adoration that belongs to God alone.

Every Knee: The Three-Tier Cosmos

Paul makes the same point from a different angle in one of the most exalted passages in all his letters:

“Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:9-11, NKJV)

Every knee. In heaven, on earth, and under the earth.

This is the three-tier cosmos of the biblical worldview, and every tier is populated by beings we’ve encountered in this series. “Those in heaven” are the faithful divine council, the angels and the heavenly host. “Those on earth” are humanity, along with any spiritual powers still operating in the earthly realm. “Those under the earth” are the imprisoned rebels, the fallen Watchers held in the deep places, and the dead in Sheol.

Every category of being in the entire cosmos bends the knee to Jesus. The faithful council worships willingly. The rebellious powers are forced to acknowledge what they fought against. The imprisoned Watchers, chained in darkness, confess from their prison that Jesus Christ is Lord. There is not a single being in any tier of creation that stands outside the scope of Christ’s supremacy.

The council that God assembled in the beginning, the council that witnessed creation, the council whose corrupt members He judged in Psalm 82, now bows in its entirety before the incarnate Son.

And there’s a detail here that ties back to the very heart of this series. The name that Paul says was given to Jesus, “the name which is above every name,” is almost certainly the divine name itself, the name of the Lord. When Paul writes that every knee bows and every tongue confesses “that Jesus Christ is Lord,” he is echoing Isaiah 45:23, where the Lord declares: “To Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath.” Paul takes a passage where God speaks of universal worship due to Himself alone, and he applies it to Jesus. The Son receives the worship that the God of Israel said belonged to Him alone. This is not a lesser being exalted to a high rank. This is the Son revealed as sharing the very identity and glory of God, before whom the entire council, faithful and fallen alike, must bow.

The Cross as Cosmic Victory

But how did the Son bring the rebellious powers to their knees? Not by force of arms. By the cross.

This is the great paradox at the heart of the Christian faith. The moment that looked like the ultimate defeat of God’s purposes, the Son of God executed as a criminal, was in fact the decisive victory over every corrupt power in the cosmos.

Paul states it with stunning clarity:

“Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.” (Colossians 2:15, NKJV)

The Greek here is worth examining closely. The word translated “disarmed” is ἀπεκδυσάμενος (apekdysamenos), from a verb meaning to strip off, to disrobe, to divest. Christ stripped the principalities and powers of their weapons and their authority, the way a defeated soldier is stripped of his armor. The corrupt spiritual rulers who held the nations in bondage were divested of their power at the cross.

And then Paul uses a word loaded with imperial imagery: θριαμβεύω (thriambeuō), “triumphing over them.” This word refers specifically to the Roman triumph, the victory parade in which a conquering general marched through the streets of Rome displaying his defeated enemies in chains before a cheering crowd. Paul is saying that at the cross, Christ led the defeated powers in a triumphal procession. What looked like His humiliation was actually their humiliation. The cross was His victory parade.

And here is the exquisite irony at the center of it all. The powers marched themselves into that procession. They put themselves in chains. Because they had no idea what they were doing.

Listen to what Paul says just a few chapters earlier in the same body of correspondence:

“But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Corinthians 2:7-8, NKJV)

“The rulers of this age” (τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, tōn archontōn tou aiōnos toutou). Now, some read this as a reference to the human authorities, Pilate, Herod, Caiaphas, the Sanhedrin. And they were certainly involved. But the word Paul uses, ἄρχοντες (archontes), “rulers,” is the same root family he uses throughout his letters for the spiritual powers, the ἀρχαί (archai, “principalities”) of Ephesians 6:12 and Colossians 2:15. And the phrase “of this age” points to the spiritual governance of the present world order, the corrupt powers we’ve traced through this entire series.

I’m convinced Paul has the spiritual rulers primarily in view here, working through their human instruments. The powers behind the thrones engineered the crucifixion.

And they had no idea it was a trap.

Regular readers of this Substack will remember that we touched this very passage back in Part 4, when we discussed progressive revelation. Paul speaks of a “hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages,” a wisdom that the original audience of Genesis 1:26 couldn’t fully see because it hadn’t yet been revealed. But look at who else was blind to it: the rulers of this age. The same hidden wisdom that was veiled from Moses’ first hearers was veiled from the spiritual powers. And their blindness was their undoing.

Think about what this means.

The corrupt divine beings who had governed the nations since Babel, who had held humanity in the darkness of idolatry, who had every reason to want the Son of God dead, saw their opportunity when Christ came in weakness and humility. They moved their pieces. They stirred up the crowds. They hardened the hearts of the authorities. They drove the whole machinery of the crucifixion forward, certain they were destroying the one who threatened their dominion.

And in doing so, they accomplished the exact thing that would destroy them.

Had they understood that the cross was not Christ’s defeat but the instrument of their own, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” But the wisdom was hidden. God had ordained it before the ages. And the powers walked straight into the trap, disarming themselves in the very act by which they thought they were winning. The public spectacle of Colossians 2:15 was staged, unwittingly, by the very beings who became its exhibits.

There is no deeper irony in all of Scripture. The rulers of this age put the Lord of glory on a cross to secure their reign, and by that cross their reign was broken forever.

Think about what this means in light of everything we’ve studied. The divine beings who rebelled against God’s order, who governed the nations corruptly, who held humanity in the darkness of idolatry and fear, were defeated not by superior cosmic firepower but by the self-giving death of the Son of God. The blood of the Lamb accomplished what no angelic army could. The cross disarmed the powers. And it did so through their own blind hands.

And this connects directly back to Psalm 82, where we began this journey into the council’s corruption. That psalm ends with a prayer: “Arise, O God, judge the earth; for You shall inherit all the nations” (Psalm 82:8). The psalmist cried out for God to take back the nations from their corrupt overseers. The cross is the answer to that prayer. At Calvary, God arose. He judged the powers. And He began to inherit the nations.

Pentecost and the Reclamation of the Nations

Which brings us to how that inheritance is being claimed.

In Part 3, we saw that at the division of the nations (Deuteronomy 32:8-9), humanity was scattered and the peoples were allotted to divine beings, while God kept Israel for Himself. The nations were disinherited, handed over to spiritual powers who then largely corrupted their charge.

At Pentecost, that begins to reverse.

“And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven... And they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, ‘Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?’” (Acts 2:5-8, NKJV)

At Babel, the languages were confused and the nations were divided. At Pentecost, the Spirit descends and the disciples proclaim the mighty works of God, and people from every nation hear it in their own tongue. This is not an accident of narration. It is the deliberate reversal of the division. The nations that were scattered and disinherited are beginning to be gathered and reclaimed.

And the mechanism of that reclamation is the Great Commission:

“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations.” (Matthew 28:18-19, NKJV)

We looked at this passage back in Part 3, but now its full weight can land. “All authority in heaven and on earth” means that the authority once exercised by the corrupt divine governors has been transferred to the risen Christ. The princes of Persia and Greece, the spiritual powers behind the thrones, have been overruled. And the nations they held are now to be discipled, brought back under the direct authority of the God who made them.

Every time the Gospel crosses a cultural threshold, every time a church is planted among a people who have never heard the name of Jesus, the reclamation of Deuteronomy 32 advances. The disinherited nations are coming home. This is the cosmic significance of missions. It is not merely the saving of individual souls, precious as each soul is. It is the retaking of territory that was lost at Babel, the restoration of the nations to their rightful King.

What We Are, and What We Are Not

I’ve saved the most important clarification of this entire series for last, because it’s where I diverge most sharply from Michael Heiser, whose work opened this whole conversation for so many of us.

Throughout his writing, Heiser argues that the destiny of believers is to join the divine council, to become elohim ourselves. He speaks of glorified humanity being incorporated into the council as divine beings, of believers “becoming what the sons of God are.” He draws on the language of deification found in some strands of the early church, particularly the Eastern Orthodox concept of theosis, and on texts like Psalm 82:6 (”You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High”) and 2 Peter 1:4 (”partakers of the divine nature”).

I want to steelman his position fairly, because it is not foolish and it is not made in bad faith.

Heiser’s argument runs like this. Humanity was created to image God and to rule creation under Him. The divine council members were likewise God’s agents in governing the cosmos. In the biblical vision of the end, redeemed humanity is promised that we will reign with Christ, judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3), and share in the glory of the Son. If glorified believers will judge angels and reign over creation, then, Heiser reasons, we are being elevated into the very role the divine council was created to fill. We become members of God’s family-council, sharing in the divine life.

On this reading, theosis is not arrogant overreach but the fulfillment of what humanity was always meant to be. And he can point to genuine biblical language: we are called “children of God,” we “partake of the divine nature,” we are conformed to the image of the Son.

It’s a serious argument, built from real texts, by a serious scholar.

And I reject it.

Here is why. The entire Bible is built on a distinction that never, at any point, collapses: the distinction between the Creator and the creature. God alone is uncreated. God alone is self-existent. God alone possesses divine nature in Himself. Everything else that exists, angels, humans, the entire council, was made. And the gap between the Maker and the made is not a gap that can be crossed by elevation, glorification, or any process of refinement. It is absolute. It is permanent. It is the most fundamental fact about reality.

When Scripture says we become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4), it does not mean we acquire the divine nature or become divine beings. It means we are brought into fellowship with God, indwelt by His Spirit, made to share in His holiness and His life through union with Christ. We participate in the divine life the way a branch participates in the life of the vine (John 15). The branch never becomes the vine. It draws its life from the vine while remaining, always, a branch.

And when Scripture promises that we will reign with Christ and even judge angels, it does not promise that we become elohim. It promises that redeemed humans, precisely as humans, are exalted to share in Christ’s rule. We are told we will “reign with Him” (2 Timothy 2:12) and that He has made us “kings and priests to our God, and we shall reign on the earth” (Revelation 5:10). The dignity is staggering. But notice the grammar of grace in these promises: we reign with Him, we are made kings by Him. The authority is always derivative, always granted, always held in union with the One who possesses it in Himself. It is the dignity of the creature raised up by grace, not the creature transformed into deity.

Let me offer an image that has helped me hold this rightly.

There’s an old picture of sanctification drawn from the silversmith’s craft. The silversmith holds the silver in the hottest part of the fire, watching it carefully, because if it stays too long it will be destroyed, and if it comes out too soon it will remain impure. When asked how he knows the silver is fully refined, the silversmith answers: I know it is finished when I can see my own reflection in it.

That is what God is doing with us. He is refining us in the fire until He can see the reflection of His Son in us. But notice what the metaphor tells us. The refined silver reflects the silversmith. It does not become the silversmith. When the work is complete, the silver bears his image with perfect clarity, but it is still silver. It has been purified, transformed, made to shine, but it has not changed its essential nature into something it was never meant to be.

We are being conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29). We will reflect Him perfectly one day, every trace of corruption burned away, His likeness shining out of us without distortion. But we reflect Him. We do not become Him. We do not become elohim. The Creator/creature distinction holds forever, and that is not a limitation to mourn. It is the very ground of worship. For all eternity, we will be creatures gazing upon and reflecting the glory of our Creator, and that is a joy that could never exist if the distinction were erased.

I hold Heiser in genuine respect. But on this point, I believe the whole testimony of Scripture stands against him. We are the redeemed. We are beloved children. We are heirs with Christ. And we are, and always will be, creatures who worship the God who made us.

The God Who Rules the Nations

Let me bring this series full circle, back to where the architecture was laid out, in Deuteronomy 32:8-9.

The Masoretic Text told us that God structured the world around Israel, His covenant people. The Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls told us that He assigned divine beings to oversee the nations while keeping Israel for Himself. Both are true. Both operate at the same time. The covenantal architecture and the cosmic architecture are two dimensions of a single design.

But the story didn’t end at the division. Through Christ, the nations are being reclaimed. Through the church, the Gospel is going to every corner of the earth. The corrupt divine governors who held the peoples in darkness are being displaced by the authority of the risen King, one heart, one family, one people group at a time.

That is the story this series has been telling. It began with a word, elohim, and a council most of us never knew was there. It moved through rebellion and corruption, through Watchers and Nephilim, through the powers behind the thrones and the demons in the dry places. And it arrives here, at the feet of the One before whom every knee in every tier of the cosmos will bow.

The divine council is real. The corruption was real. The cosmic conflict is real. But the victory is more real than all of it. Christ has disarmed the powers. Christ has begun to inherit the nations. Christ is worshiped by the very council that once stood in rebellion. And Christ is refining a people who will reflect His glory forever, not as gods, but as redeemed and beloved creatures with whom God will dwell in the New Creation for all eternity.

The Most High divided the nations. And through His Son, He is gathering them back.

Do not fear. God rules the nations. He always has. And the day is coming when every corrupt power will be a footnote in the story of the King who conquered them at a cross.

Thank you for walking through this series with me. It has been one of the great joys of my writing to explore these things alongside you. Keep studying. Keep comparing the texts. And keep your eyes fixed on the One whom the whole council worships.

May the Lord grant you His peace.

Kevin

What’s Ahead

This series answered where the corrupt powers came from and how Christ conquered them. But it raised a question it never quite finished: what happens to us when we die?

Most of us have been told the answer is simple. You go to heaven, or you go to hell.

But I've come to believe both of those words hide more than they reveal. The Bible's picture of the unseen destinations of the dead is stranger, richer, and far more hopeful than the one we inherited from medieval poets and the duality of Greek Platonism.

In my next series, we'll dig into Sheol and Paradise, the true meaning of Hades and Gehenna, the fire that only Revelation mentions, and why I no longer believe the dead in Christ go straight to heaven.

Bring your Bible. Bring your questions. And prepare to have a few assumptions dismantled.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and it always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible.

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

For two chapters now, Daniel has been a man who sees. Beasts out of the sea, a ram, a goat, a little horn, an Ancient of Days. He watches, and he trembles, and he writes it down. But he does not, in chapters 7 and 8, do the one thing you would most expect a godly man to do when heaven tears open in front of him.

He does not pray.

But that’s about to change.

If you missed any of the earlier posts, you can get caught up HERE

Chapter 9 is where he prays. And it did not start with a vision at all. It started with a man reading his Bible.

Daniel, an old man now, past eighty, is reading the scroll of Jeremiah. He counts the years. Seventy, Jeremiah said, seventy years of desolation for Jerusalem, and Daniel does the math and realizes the seventy are almost up. And that reading drives him to his knees in one of the great prayers of Scripture, a prayer of confession so complete that the man widely called blameless includes himself in every sin he names.

And while he is still praying, heaven interrupts him. Gabriel comes, and he brings the single most debated prophecy in the entire Bible: the Seventy Weeks. Seventy sevens, decreed to finish transgression, to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness. The gospel, compressed into one sentence, handed to a praying old man in exile.

There are two things about this chapter you need to know before we start:

The first is that I am not going to try to settle the Seventy Weeks for you here. I have already done that work at some length in one of my earliest deep dive posts, “The Seventy Weeks: How One Prophecy Became Three Interpretations.” One prophecy, three very different readings, and I am not going to relitigate all of that here. What we’re going to do here is what this series has been doing from the start: put the three texts side by side and watch what happens.

The second is a warning. The Old Greek of the prophecy itself, verses 24 through 27, is the single most damaged stretch of text in the whole book of Daniel. Maybe in the whole Greek tradition. It’s not merely different, the way chapter 8 was different. It’s damaged. The numbers are scrambled. Doublets are stacked on top of doublets. And yet, and this is the thing I cannot get over, even in the wreckage, the heart of it survives.

Hold that thought. We’ll earn it.

A Word on Our Three Voices

Same method as always. NRSVUE for the Masoretic Text. N.E.T.S. for the Old Greek. Brenton for Theodotion.

One note for this chapter. The two Greek traditions diverge so sharply here that keeping them straight matters more than usual. When you see the Greek do something strange in verses 24 through 27, I will always tell you which Greek is doing it.

Let’s dig in!

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

A Man Reading His Bible

Daniel 9:1-2 (NRSVUE):

In the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the Lord to the prophet Jeremiah, must be fulfilled for the devastation of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.

Daniel 9:1-2 (OG/NETS):

During the first year of Darius son of Xerxes, of Median lineage, who were reigning over the kingdom of the Chaldeans, in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, pondered in the books the number of the days when the ordinance of the Lord came to the prophet Ieremias to arise for the fulfillment of the reproach of Ierousalem, seventy years.

Daniel 9:1-2 (Theodotion/Brenton):

In the first year of Darius the son of Assuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who reigned over the kingdom of the Chaldeans, I Daniel understood by books the number of the years which was the word of the Lord to the prophet Jeremias, even seventy years for the accomplishment of the desolation of Jerusalem.

We are back in the days of Darius the Mede, right at the hinge between the fall of Babylon and the rise of Persia, around 538 B.C. This is the same Darius we wrestled with back in chapters 5 and 6, and I will not reopen that puzzle here.

What I want you to see is the thing that starts the whole chapter. Daniel is reading. “I perceived in the books.” He has the scroll of Jeremiah in front of him, and he finds the promise: seventy years, and then the desolation of Jerusalem ends (Jeremiah 25:11-12, 29:10).

This is a prophet reading a prophet.

And notice what reading Scripture does to him. It does not make him passive. It does not make him sit back and wait for God to keep His own promise on His own schedule. It drives him to pray as though the promise depended on it.

There is a small divergence worth catching even here, in the very first sentence. The Masoretic Text and Theodotion both say Daniel was counting toward the end of the “desolation” of Jerusalem. The Old Greek says he was counting toward the end of her “reproach,” her shame. That is a different wound.

Desolation is what the city looks like from the outside, rubble and emptiness. Reproach is what it feels like from the inside, the disgrace of a people whose God appears to have abandoned them. Both are true, and Daniel’s prayer, as we will see, is soaked in exactly that second word.

He feels the shame.

The Great Confession

Daniel 9:3-6 (NRSVUE):

Then I turned to the Lord God to seek an answer by prayer and supplication with fasting and sackcloth and ashes. I prayed to the Lord my God and made confession, saying, “Ah, Lord, great and awesome God, keeping covenant and steadfast love with those who love you and keep your commandments, we have sinned and done wrong, acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and ordinances. We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes, and our ancestors, and to all the people of the land.”

Daniel 9:3-6 (OG/NETS):

And I gave my face to the Lord God, to find prayer and compassion with fasting and with ashes and sackcloth. And I prayed to the Lord God and acknowledged him and said, “O Lord, lo, you are the great and powerful God and the fear-inspiring one in maintaining the covenant and mercy with those who love you and keep your ordinance, we have sinned, acted wickedly, done wrong and rebelled and passed over your commandments and your ordinances. And we have not obeyed your servants the prophets, what they spoke in your name to our kings and sovereigns and our ancestors and to every nation on the earth.”

Daniel 9:3-6 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And I set my face toward the Lord God, to seek him diligently by prayer and supplications, with fastings and sackcloth. And I prayed to the Lord my God, and confessed, and said, O Lord, the great and wonderful God, keeping thy covenant and thy mercy to them that love thee, and to them that keep thy commandments; we have sinned, we have done iniquity, we have transgressed, and we have departed and turned aside from thy commandments and from thy judgments: and we have not hearkened to thy servants the prophets, who spoke in thy name to our kings, and our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.

Stop on the pronoun. We.

This is Daniel. The man who would not defile himself with the king’s food in chapter 1. The man thrown to the lions in chapter 6 precisely because his enemies could find no fault in him. The man an angel will call “greatly beloved” before this chapter is out. And what does he say?

“We have sinned.”

Not “they.” Not “my fathers, back then.” We. He wraps himself inside the guilt of his whole people and does not exempt himself for a second. This is what real intercession looks like. It does not stand over the sinner and pray down at them. It kneels beside the sinner and confesses as one of them.

If you have ever wondered how to pray for a church, a family, or a nation that has gone wrong, here is your model, and it is not comfortable. You do not get to pray “fix them.” You have to pray “forgive us.”

And look at how the confession is grounded. Before Daniel names a single sin, he names God’s character: great, awesome, covenant-keeping, merciful. He confesses to a God he already knows to be faithful. That is the only soil confession can grow in. You cannot truly repent before a God you suspect is looking for a reason to destroy you. You can only repent before a God you trust to keep covenant.

The three voices track closely through the confession. But the Old Greek slips in one phrase worth noticing. Where the Masoretic and Theodotion say the prophets spoke “to all the people of the land,” the Old Greek widens it to “every nation on the earth.” A small thing. But the Old Greek keeps doing this in Daniel, quietly pushing the frame outward from Israel toward the nations, and it is worth filing away.

Righteousness Is Yours, Shame Is Ours

Daniel 9:7-14 (NRSVUE):

“Righteousness is on your side, O Lord, but open shame, as at this day, falls on us, the people of Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away, in all the lands to which you have driven them because of the treachery that they have committed against you. Open shame, O Lord, falls on us, our kings, our princes, and our ancestors because we have sinned against you. To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness, but we have rebelled against him and have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God by following his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. All Israel has transgressed your law and turned aside, refusing to obey your voice. So the curse and the oath written in the law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out upon us because we have sinned against you. He has confirmed his words that he spoke against us and against our rulers by bringing upon us a calamity so great that what has been done against Jerusalem has never before been done under the whole heaven. Just as it is written in the law of Moses, all this calamity has come upon us. We did not entreat the favor of the Lord our God, turning from our iniquities and reflecting on his fidelity. So the Lord kept watch over this calamity until he brought it upon us. Indeed, the Lord our God is right in all that he has done, for we have disobeyed his voice.”

Daniel 9:7-14 (OG/NETS):

“Righteousness belongs to you, O Lord, and the shame of our face belongs to us, on this day, to the people of Iouda and the settlers in Ierousalem and to all the people of Israel, those who are near and those who are farther off, in all the regions into which you have dispersed them there, because of the trespasses that they have perpetrated before you. O Master, the shame of our face belongs to us and to our kings and sovereigns and to our ancestors, because we have sinned against you. To the Lord belongs justice and mercy, for we have rebelled against you and have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God by following your law, which you gave before Moyses and us through your servants the prophets. And all Israel has forsaken your law and turned away in order not to hear your voice. And the curse and the oath written in the law of Moyses, the servant of God, have come upon us, because we have sinned against him. And he has established his ordinances for us, what he spoke against us and against our judges who judged, by bringing great evils upon us such as have not happened under heaven as they have happened in Ierousalem. According to what is written in the covenant of Moyses, all the evils have come upon us. And we did not seek the face of the Lord our God, to turn away from our sins and to consider your righteousness, O Lord. And the Lord God kept watch over the evils and brought them upon us, for the Lord God is right in everything that he does, and we have not obeyed his voice.”

Daniel 9:7-14 (Theodotion/Brenton):

To thee, O Lord, belongs righteousness, and to us confusion of face, as at this day; to the men of Juda, and to the dwellers in Jerusalem, and to all Israel, to them that are near, and to them that are far off in all the earth, wherever thou hast scattered them, for the sin which they committed. In thee, O Lord, is our righteousness, and to us belongs confusion of face, and to our kings, and to our princes, and to our fathers, forasmuch as we have sinned. To thee, the Lord our God, belong compassions and forgivenesses, whereas we have departed from thee; neither have we hearkened to the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by the hands of his servants the prophets. Moreover all Israel have transgressed thy law, and have refused to hearken to thy voice; so the curse has come upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him. And he has confirmed his words, which he spoke against us, and against our judges who judged us, by bringing upon us great evils, such as have not happened under the whole heaven, according to what has happened in Jerusalem. As it is written in the law of Moses, all these evils have come upon us: yet we have not besought the Lord our God, that we might turn away from our iniquities, and have understanding in all thy truth. The Lord also has watched, and brought the evils upon us: for the Lord our God is righteous in all his work which he has executed, but we have not hearkened to his voice.

Here is the theological spine of the whole prayer, and it fits in a single sentence: “Righteousness is on your side, O Lord, but open shame falls on us.”

That is the posture. Daniel does not argue that God has been unfair. He does the opposite. He agrees with the verdict. He says, in effect, You were right, and we were wrong, and everything that has fallen on us is just. The exile is not evidence that God broke His promises. It is evidence that God kept them, because the covenant itself, back in the law of Moses, promised these very curses for exactly this disobedience. Daniel is not accusing God of abandoning the covenant. He is confessing that the covenant worked precisely as written.

That is a hard word for a suffering person to pray, but it’s a healthy one. There is a kind of grief that heals and a kind that curdles into blame. Daniel’s grief does not curdle. It confesses.

Two small textual notes. The Old Greek, in that line about the law being given “through your servants the prophets,” adds a phrase the others lack: the law was given “before Moyses and us.” It reaches back and names Moses explicitly, as if to underline that this is not new information, that Israel was warned from the very beginning. And where the Masoretic and Theodotion address God as “Lord” throughout, the Old Greek keeps reaching for a different word, “Master,” despotēs, the word for an owner, the one who holds absolute authority over a household. It is the language of a servant who knows exactly where he stands. Daniel is not negotiating. He is a slave appealing to a Master who owes him nothing and to whom he owes everything.

On the Ground of Your Mercy (the prayer, part three)

Daniel 9:15-19 (NRSVUE):

“And now, O Lord our God, who brought your people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand and made your name renowned even to this day, we have sinned, we have done wickedly. O Lord, in view of all your righteous acts, let your anger and wrath, we pray, turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy mountain; because of our sins and the iniquities of our ancestors, Jerusalem and your people have become a disgrace among all our neighbors. Now therefore, O our God, listen to the prayer of your servant and to his supplication, and for your own sake, Lord, let your face shine upon your desolated sanctuary. Incline your ear, O my God, and hear. Open your eyes and look at our desolation and the city that bears your name. We do not present our supplication before you on the ground of our righteousness but on the ground of your great mercies. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, listen and act and do not delay! For your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people bear your name!”

Daniel 9:15-19 (OG/NETS):

“And now, O Master, our God, that brought your people out of Egypt by your uplifted arm and you made a name for yourself at this day, we have sinned; we have failed to understand. O Master, according to your righteousness, let your anger turn away from us, and your wrath from your city Ierousalem, the holy mountain. Because by our sins and by the ignorance of our ancestors, Ierousalem and your common people, O Lord, became a disgrace among all our neighbors. And now, O Master, heed the prayer of your servant even for my supplications; for the sake of your slaves, O Master, let your face look upon your desolated holy mountain. Give your ear attention, O Lord, and heed me. Open your eyes, and see the desolation of us and of your city where your name has been called upon it, for we do not make requests in our prayers before you on the ground of our righteous acts, but because of your mercy, O Lord. O Master, heed your people; O Lord, do be gracious. O Lord, do heed, and act, and do not delay for your own sake, O Master, because your name is called upon your city, Sion, and upon your people, Israel!”

Daniel 9:15-19 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And now, O Lord our God, who broughtest thy people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and madest to thyself a name, as at this day; we have sinned, we have transgressed. O Lord, thy mercy is over all: let, I pray thee, thy wrath turn away, and thine anger from thy city Jerusalem, even thy holy mountain: for we have sinned, and because of our iniquities, and those of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach among all that are round about us. And now, O Lord our God, hearken to the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine on thy desolate sanctuary, for thine own sake, O Lord. Incline thine ear, O my God, and hear; open thine eyes and behold our desolation, and that of thy city on which thy name is called: for we do not bring our pitiful case before thee on the ground of our righteousness, but on the ground of thy manifold compassions, O Lord. Hearken, O Lord; be propitious, O Lord; attend, O Lord; delay not, O my God, for thine own sake: for thy name is called upon thy city and upon thy people.

And now the prayer reaches for the only ground it has left.

“We do not present our supplication before you on the ground of our righteousness but on the ground of your great mercies.”

Read that again, because it’s the whole gospel more than five hundred years early. Daniel has spent this entire prayer establishing that they have no righteousness to stand on. None. So when he finally asks, he asks on the only ground that will hold: God’s mercy, and God’s name. Not “answer us because we deserve it.” But, “Answer us for your own sake, because your name is on this city, because your reputation is bound up with this people.”

That is the boldest and humblest thing a person can pray at the same time. It throws away every claim of merit and clings entirely to the character of God. And notice how it ends, in the Masoretic, in a burst of five short imperatives with the pretense stripped off: hear, forgive, listen, act, do not delay. No more careful theology. Just a broken man hammering on the door of heaven with the last strength he has.

He will not have to knock long. In fact, he does not even finish.

Gabriel, Before the Prayer Is Done

Daniel 9:20-23 (NRSVUE):

While I was speaking and was praying and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God on behalf of the holy mountain of my God, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen before in a vision, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. He came and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding. At the beginning of your supplications a word went out, and I have come to declare it, for you are greatly beloved. So consider the word and understand the vision.”

Daniel 9:20-23 (OG/NETS):

And as I kept speaking, praying and acknowledging my sins and the sins of my people Israel and entreating with prayers before the Lord, my God, and on behalf of the holy mountain of our God and while I was still speaking in my prayer, and lo, the man whom I had seen at first in my sleep, Gabriel, being carried swiftly approached me at the time of the evening sacrifice. And he came and spoke with me and said, “Daniel, I have just come out to show you intelligence. At the beginning of your supplication an ordinance went out from the Lord, and I have come to explain to you, for you are shown mercy. And think about the ordinance.”

Daniel 9:20-23 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And while I was yet speaking, and praying, and confessing my sins and the sins of my people Israel, and bringing my pitiful case before the Lord my God concerning the holy mountain; yea, while I was yet speaking in prayer, behold the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, came flying, and he touched me about the hour of the evening sacrifice. And he instructed me, and spoke with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to impart to thee understanding. At the beginning of thy supplication the word came forth, and I am come to tell thee; for thou art a man much beloved: therefore consider the matter, understand the vision.

He is still praying. The words are still in his mouth. And Gabriel is already there.

Look at the timing that all three traditions carefully preserve: “at the beginning of your supplication a word went out.” Before Daniel finished. Before he even got to the hammering imperatives at the end. The answer was dispatched the moment he started. Heaven was not waiting to see if he would pray well enough or long enough. The word left the throne room at the first syllable.

This is the same Gabriel we met in chapter 8, the first angel ever named in Scripture, and it is worth remembering where we will meet him next. Centuries from now, this same Gabriel will stand in a room in Nazareth and tell a young woman she is going to bear the very One this whole prophecy is about (Luke 1:26). The angel who explains the seventy weeks is the angel who announces their fulfillment.

And notice the hour. “The time of the evening sacrifice.” Around three in the afternoon, when the lamb was offered in the temple. Except there was no temple. It lay in rubble, which is the whole reason Daniel is on his knees. So he is keeping the rhythm of a sacrifice that cannot be offered, praying at the hour of an altar that has been thrown down. Hold that image too. It is going to matter enormously in a moment, because the prophecy Gabriel is about to give ends with a sacrifice that ceases, and points, if you have eyes to see it, to the one sacrifice that would make all the others unnecessary forevermore.

There is a lovely divergence in how the three name Daniel here. The Masoretic and Theodotion call him “greatly beloved,” a “man much beloved.” The Old Greek says he is one who is “shown mercy.” Both are true, and together they are the whole story of every believer. Why is Daniel beloved? Not because he earned it. Because he was shown mercy. The prayer said it: not our righteousness, but your mercy. And heaven’s own description of him agrees.

The Seventy Weeks

Now we come to it. The most analyzed, most disputed, most chart-covered passage in the Old Testament. I am going to show you all three texts in full, and then I am going to do three things: point you to the deep interpretive work rather than repeat it, show you the one place where the Greek Bible says something in plain sight that will stop your heart, and then be honest with you about the state of the Old Greek text, which is a wreck, and about the astonishing thing that survives inside the wreck anyway.

Daniel 9:24-27 (NRSVUE):

“Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks, and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease, and in their place shall be a desolating sacrilege until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.”

Daniel 9:24-27 (Theodotion/Brenton):

Seventy weeks have been determined upon thy people, and upon the holy city, for sin to be ended, and to seal up transgressions, and to blot out the iniquities, and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy. And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted. And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations. And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation. (Brenton)

Daniel 9:24-27 (OG/NETS):

Seventy weeks have been decided for your people and for the city, Sion: for sin to be consummated and to make iniquities scarce and to blot out iniquities and to comprehend the vision and for everlasting righteousness to be given and for the vision to be consummated and to gladden a holy of holies. And you shall understand and will rejoice and will discover ordinances to respond, and you will build Ierousalem as a city for the Lord. And after seven and seventy and sixty-two weeks, an anointing will be removed and will not be. And a king of nations will demolish the city and the sanctuary along with the anointed one, and his consummation will come with wrath even until the time of consummation. He will be attacked through war. And the covenant will prevail for many, and it will return again and be rebuilt broad and long. And at the consummation of times [even after seven years and seventy times and sixty-two times] [until the time of the consummation of the war even desolation will be removed] [when the covenant prevails for many weeks]. And in half of the week the sacrifice and the libation will cease, and in the temple there will be an abomination of desolations until the consummation of a season, and a consummation will be given for the desolation.

First, what I am not going to do

I am not going to calculate the seventy weeks here. I am not going to discuss which decree starts the clock, whether the sevens are years, where the seventieth week lands, or whether there is a gap between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth. Those are exactly the questions that split this prophecy into three distinct interpretations, and I have walked through all of them, carefully and at length, in my deep dive into the Seventy Weeks. If this section leaves you wanting the arithmetic and the argument, that’s where you’ll find it.

This post is about the text, not the timeline or interpretation.

Now, the thing that might stop your heart

Read the Masoretic and Theodotion versions of that second sentence again, side by side.

The Masoretic says the clock runs “until the time of an anointed prince.”

Theodotion says it runs “until Christ the prince.”

Christ.

Now, before anyone gets carried away, let me tell you exactly what happened, because the truth is better than the hype. Theodotion did not sneak Jesus into the Old Testament. The Hebrew behind “an anointed prince” is מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד (mashiach nagid), “anointed one, ruler.” And the ordinary, dictionary Greek word for “anointed one” is Χριστός (Christos). Theodotion rendered mashiach nagid as Χριστοῦ ἡγουμένου, (Christou hēgoumenou), which is simply the exact Greek equivalent of the Hebrew. “Christ” is not an addition, it’s just a translation.

But sit with what that means. The Greek Old Testament that the early church carried, read, and preached from said the word “Christ” right there in Daniel 9, in a prophecy about someone coming after a fixed number of weeks and then being cut off. The connection the church would later make between this passage and Jesus was not something they had to argue their way into against the text. It was sitting on the surface of the page they were already holding.

The NRSVUE, reaching honestly for the Hebrew sense, gives you “an anointed prince,” and that is a fair translation. But it quietly buries what the ancient Greek reader saw the instant he looked down: Christ, the prince.

This is the same thing that happened back in chapter 7, where the NRSVUE gave us “a human being” and the tradition heard “the Son of Man.” The Hebrew and Greek are not in conflict. They are two windows onto the same figure, and sometimes the Greek window is the one that gives us a clearer view.

You will notice a second difference in that same sentence: the way the weeks are divided. The Masoretic separates them, seven weeks, then sixty-two. Theodotion runs them together, seven and sixty-two. That difference is not decoration. It changes where the “anointed prince” lands in the timeline, and it is one of the hinges the three interpretations turn on. Which is exactly why you should read my original post on the Seventy Weeks for it. It’s a genuinely thorny issue that deserves to be wrestled with rather than pretending to settle it in a paragraph.

Now the hard part, honestly

Look at the Old Greek again, and this time do not look for theology. Just look at the numbers.

“After seven and seventy and sixty-two weeks.”

Seven, and seventy, and sixty-two. Add them. You get one hundred and thirty-nine. In a prophecy about seventy weeks. The number does not work. It cannot work. Somewhere in the transmission of this text, a scribe or a series of scribes let the “seventy” from the opening sentence collide with the “seven and sixty-two” from the timeline, and the two fused into an impossible total that no one ever went back and fixed.

And it gets worse. Look at verse 27 in the Old Greek, at those three clauses I have left in their brackets:

[even after seven years and seventy times and sixty-two times] [until the time of the consummation of the war even desolation will be removed] [when the covenant prevails for many weeks].

Those brackets are not mine. That is how the N.E.T.S. prints it, and the brackets are the editors telling you something specific. These are doublets. Competing versions of the same clause, variant attempts at the chronology, that got copied into the manuscript one after another and stacked up like sediment, never sorted out, never chosen between. You are not reading a translation there. You are reading a pile of a translator’s and several scribes’ competing guesses, preserved side by side because no one dared throw any of them away.

I am not going to pretend this is a beautiful complementary witness the way the “commander in chief delivers the captives” was back in chapter 8. It is not. This is a damaged text. Honesty is part of the both/and, or the both/and is worthless. And the honest thing to say is that when you want the shape of this prophecy in clear focus, you go to the Masoretic and to Theodotion. Because the Old Greek of verses 25 through 27 is too mangled to carry the weight.

And now the thing I cannot get over

But do not close the Old Greek yet. Because look at where the damage falls, and look at where it does not.

The damage falls on the timeline. The numbers, the weeks, the arithmetic, the chronology. That is what got scrambled and doubled and lost.

Now read the Old Greek of the very first sentence, verse 24, the purpose of the whole thing, and compare it word for word with the Masoretic:

Seventy weeks decided. Sin consummated. Iniquities blotted out. The vision comprehended. Everlasting righteousness given. A holy of holies gladdened.

It is intact. Every single one of the six great purposes survives in the Old Greek, right alongside the Masoretic and Theodotion, unscrambled and whole. And even down in the wreckage of verses 26 and 27, the beats are still there if you look: an anointing removed, the city and sanctuary demolished, a covenant that prevails for many, the sacrifice ceasing in the half of the week, the abomination of desolations, a decreed consummation poured out at the end.

Do you see what that means?

The corruption hit the arithmetic. It did not hit the atonement.

Scribes lost the numbers. They could not lose the gospel. You can scramble the weeks of Daniel 9 into an impossible sum, you can stack three broken clauses on top of each other and never sort them out, and the thing still stands there and says: sin will be finished, iniquity will be atoned, everlasting righteousness will be brought in. The message God put in this chapter turns out to be more durable than the manuscript that carried it. The damage went as deep as it could go, and it could not reach the center.

That is not me rescuing the Old Greek with a pious spin. That is just what the page says when you read it carefully. The heart of the prophecy is the one part the corruption could not touch.

The Threads That Run to the Gospels

Three lines run straight from this chapter into the New Testament, and I want to name them without pretending to resolve the timeline questions that belong in a post on interpretation.

The first is that phrase all three traditions preserve at the very end: the abomination of desolations. Years later, standing in the temple courts, Jesus would point His disciples back to this exact chapter, telling them that when they saw “the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel” (Matthew 24:15), they would know the hour had come. Whatever you make of the timeline, Jesus Himself read Daniel 9 as pointing forward, past its nearest fulfillment, to something still ahead of Him.

The second is the anointed one who is “cut off and shall have nothing.” Set that beside Isaiah 53, the servant “cut off from the land of the living,” who “had done no violence.” The Masoretic says the anointed one is cut off and has nothing, stripped, destitute, left with empty hands. Theodotion, at the very same spot, says of him “there is no judgment in him,” which has been read as a declaration of his innocence, no fault, no guilt to be found. An innocent one, cut off, left with nothing. The church did not have to strain to hear the cross in that.

The third is quieter and it is aimed right at the heart of what I have argued elsewhere. Theodotion’s verse 27 says that in the midst of the week “my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away.” My sacrifice. And all three traditions agree that the sacrifice ceases. Now hold that against the book of Hebrews, which is my other great love, the argument that Christ, by the one offering of Himself, brought the entire sacrificial system to its intended end, so that “there is no longer any offering for sin” (Hebrews 10:18). Daniel prayed at the hour of a sacrifice that had no altar. The prophecy he received ends with a sacrifice that ceases. And the New Testament tells us why it would cease: because the real one had finally been made.

What the Fathers Saw

The early church went to work on this chapter early and never really stopped.

The first to attempt a full chronological calculation was Julius Africanus, writing after A.D. 232. He counted from a decree of Artaxerxes down to Christ, and though his arithmetic was rough and he had to bend the calendar to make it land, he reached the conclusion that mattered: the seventy weeks pointed to Jesus. Origen, in the same era, said flatly that Daniel’s weeks had been “fulfilled” in the coming of Christ.

But my favorite patristic witness here is Jerome, because of what he refused to do. When Jerome wrote his commentary on Daniel around A.D. 407 and reached the seventy weeks, he laid out the competing interpretations of the great teachers before him, Africanus, Eusebius, Hippolytus, Apollinaris, and more, and then he declined to choose. It was not safe, he said, to set one great teacher of the church above another, so he would simply report each view and leave the judgment to the reader.

I find that deeply reassuring, and a little bit funny. Sixteen hundred years before I sat down to write a post called “How One Prophecy Became Three Interpretations,” Jerome looked at the very same passage, counted up the views of the fathers, threw up his hands, and told his readers to weigh it for themselves.

Some things about this chapter have never changed. The prophecy has always been clear about what it accomplishes and famously difficult about when.

Jerome knew it. So do we.

My Take

Here is where I land on chapter 9.

The prayer is the part I do not want you to rush past on your way to the prophecy, because the prayer is where you actually live. Most of us will never have to work out the terminus of the sixty-ninth week.

All of us have to learn how to confess. And Daniel shows you: you confess as “we,” not “they.” You ground it in the character of a covenant-keeping God, not in the hope that He might be in a good mood. You throw away every claim of your own righteousness and stand entirely on His mercy. And you can start praying like that today, in a language you already speak, without resolving a single textual question.

On the prophecy, I hold what I have argued at length in the Seventy Weeks post, which I won’t compress here into something that would only mislead you by its brevity.

What I will say plainly is that the Greek Bible said “Christ” in this chapter in plain sight, that the “anointed one cut off and having nothing” is the kind of sentence that only ever found its true weight at a Roman cross, and that the sacrifice which the prophecy says would cease is the sacrifice the book of Hebrews says has now been made once for all.

And on the text, I have said the hard thing on purpose. The Old Greek of the Seventy Weeks is damaged. I am not going to dress that up. But I hope you will carry out of this post the thing that stunned me while I was writing it: the damage could not reach the center. The numbers scrambled. The purposes held. Sin finished, iniquity atoned, everlasting righteousness brought in, and a holy of holies gladdened, standing there intact in the very manuscript that lost the ability to count. If you have ever worried that the Bible is too fragile a thing to have survived all these hands, let this chapter be your answer. The scribes did their worst right here, and the gospel walked out of it without a scratch.

As always, do not take my word for any of this. Read the three side by side. Find the word “Christ” sitting in Theodotion where your English says “anointed.” Add up the Old Greek’s weeks yourself and watch them fail to reach seventy. And then read verse 24 in all three and notice the one thing none of the damage could touch.

Why This Matters for Your Walk With God

Daniel opened a scroll, found a promise, and it broke his heart open into prayer. That is where this chapter starts, and it is worth asking whether your Bible reading has ever once done that to you. Not informed you. Not impressed you. Broken you open. Daniel read that the seventy years were almost done, and instead of celebrating, he went and put on sackcloth and confessed the sin that had cost his people those years in the first place. He let the promise drive him to his knees.

And heaven answered before he was finished.

That is the pattern I want you to take with you. Not a timeline. A pattern. You pray on the ground of God’s mercy and not your record, and the word goes out at the first syllable, before you have prayed well enough, because it was never about praying well enough. It was always about the mercy.

The seventy weeks were decreed to finish transgression and to atone for iniquity and to bring in an everlasting righteousness that no confession of ours could ever manufacture. Daniel prayed “not on the ground of our righteousness.” The prophecy answered him with a righteousness that would be brought in from the outside, everlasting, given, gladdening the holy of holies. He asked for mercy. He was handed the gospel.

The anointed one was cut off and had nothing, so that you, who also had nothing to stand on, might be given everything. The sacrifice ceased because the true one had come. And not even a wrecked manuscript full of scrambled numbers could keep that news from reaching you.

Everlasting righteousness has been brought in.

Do not fear.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible.

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

We’ve been taking 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 back to basics, one Greek word at a time. First came σιγάω (sigaō), the verb for “be silent,” which turned out never to mean permanent silence anywhere in the New Testament. Only situational restraint. Then came λαλέω (laleō), the verb for “speak,” which Paul pours through this chapter in reference to specific worship activities, and which cannot mean “any vocal participation” unless Paul flatly contradicts what he wrote three chapters earlier.

We’ve been circling. We know the kind of silence Paul wants. We know the kind of speech he’s regulating. What we still don’t know is the thing that actually matters: what were the women doing?

Today Paul tells us. He doesn’t hint. He doesn’t leave a gap for two thousand years of guessing. In verse 35 he names the problem outright.

“If they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home.”

The word for “ask” is ἐπερωτάω (eperōtaō). It arrives holding hands with a second word, μανθάνω (manthanō), “to learn.” Put those two together and the fog starts to lift. They point, like a finger on a map, straight at the behavior Paul was trying to correct.

Let’s dig in.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The Word

ἐπερωτάω (eperōtaō)

Pronunciation: ep-er-oh-TAH-oh

Strong’s: G1905

Meaning: To put a question to someone, to inquire of, to interrogate, to ask. Often carries the sense of a direct, pointed question aimed at a specific person.

Root: A compound of ἐπί (epi, G1909, “upon, toward”) + ἐρωτάω (erōtaō, G2065, “to ask, to inquire”). The prefix ἐπί sharpens the verb and gives it direction. This isn’t asking in the abstract. It’s asking at someone. A question fired toward a specific target.

NT frequency: 56 occurrences (in the standard critical text)

LXX usage: Translates the Hebrew שָׁאַל (sha’al, “to ask, inquire”) and sometimes דָּרַשׁ (darash, “to seek, inquire of”).

Where This Word Lives in the New Testament

Trace ἐπερωτάω through the New Testament and one thing hits you immediately. It lives in the Gospels. And nearly everywhere it appears, someone is putting a pointed question to someone else, often to test them, trap them, or pin them down.

Watch the pattern.

Questioning to test or challenge:

• Matthew 22:35: A lawyer questioned (ἐπερωτάω) Jesus, “testing Him.”

• Matthew 22:46: After Jesus silenced them, no one dared ask (ἐπερωτάω) Him any more questions.

• Mark 12:18: The Sadducees came and asked (ἐπερωτάω) Him a question built to trap Him.

• Luke 20:27: The Sadducees again, questioning Him about the resurrection.

Formal interrogation:

• Mark 14:60-61: The high priest questioned (ἐπερωτάω) Jesus at His trial.

• Mark 15:2, 4: Pilate questioned (ἐπερωτάω) Jesus.

• Matthew 27:11: The governor asked (ἐπερωτάω) Him.

Genuine inquiry to learn:

• Mark 9:32: The disciples were afraid to ask (ἐπερωτάω) Him what He meant.

• Mark 10:10: Back in the house, the disciples asked (ἐπερωτάω) Him again about divorce.

• Luke 2:46: The boy Jesus, in the temple, sitting among the teachers, “listening to them and asking them questions“ (ἐπερωτῶντα).

Stop on that last one. Twelve years old, in the temple, and what is Jesus doing? Sitting. Listening. Asking questions. This is the ancient portrait of a learner doing it right: seated in the proper place, at the proper time, putting questions to the proper teacher. The posture matters as much as the questions.

Hold that image. We’ll need it before we’re done.

So here’s the shape of the word. ἐπερωτάω is about aiming a question at a person. Sometimes the aim is hostile, as when the Pharisees came loaded for a fight. Sometimes it’s honest, as when the disciples wanted to understand. But the act is always the same: a question, directed, public, pointed.

And in 1 Corinthians 14:35, Paul takes this very word and tells the women to do it at home instead of in the assembly.

Why would he do that?

The Partner Word: μανθάνω (manthanō)

Verse 35 doesn’t hand us ἐπερωτάω alone. It chains it to a second word, and the pairing is everything.

“If they want to learn (μανθάνω) something, let them ask (ἐπερωτάω) their own husbands at home.”

μανθάνω (manthanō, G3129) is not a throwaway verb. It’s the root behind μαθητής (mathētēs), “disciple.” To μανθάνω is to enter the long apprenticeship of discipleship, to take in knowledge, wrestle it down, own it, and live it. Not information poured into a passive vessel. The active, costly formation of a student under a master.

Now watch what Paul does. He has already used this exact verb, a few breaths earlier, in a command that lands on everyone in the room:

1 Corinthians 14:31 (NRSV):

“For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn (μανθάνω) and all be encouraged.”

Read it again. Four verses before he tells the women to take their questions home, Paul says the entire purpose of orderly prophecy is that “all may learn.” All. Men and women, no exceptions carved out. Learning is not the problem. Learning is the point.

So when verse 35 addresses women who “want to learn,” it cannot be scolding them for wanting to learn. Paul just declared that desire holy. He built the whole chapter around it. The thing he’s correcting was never the learning, and never the hunger to learn.

It was the how. It was the when. The learning was arriving as disruptive ἐπερωτάω, questions hurled into the middle of the assembly, tearing at the very order Paul spends forty verses trying to hold together.

What Were the Women Actually Doing?

Three Possibilities

So picture Corinth on the ground. What was actually happening in that room? Scholars have offered several reconstructions. I’ll lay out the three strongest, and I’ll tell you plainly which one I think fits, but you deserve to see the field before I show my hand.

Possibility One: Idle Chatter

The oldest reading runs back to John Chrysostom in the fourth century: the women were chattering, socializing, filling the assembly with casual talk. Chrysostom, a native Greek speaker, took the disruption to be idle conversation breeding confusion.

It’s an ancient view, and it isn’t crazy. But it stumbles on the word itself. ἐπερωτάω is not the verb you reach for to describe gossip over the back fence. It means to ask a question, to direct an inquiry at someone. If Paul had mindless chatter in view, Greek gave him better words for it. The pairing of ἐπερωτάω with μανθάνω pulls us away from chitchat and toward something far more specific: questions tied to learning.

Possibility Two: Disruptive Evaluation of Prophecy

A second view links verse 35 back to verse 29, where Paul tells the congregation to “weigh” what the prophets say. On this reading, the women were throwing themselves into the public evaluation of prophecy, perhaps interrogating the prophets, possibly their own husbands, in a way that spilled into disorder.

This one has teeth. It takes ἐπερωτάω seriously as pointed questioning. But it leans on a connection to verse 29 that the text never quite draws for us, and it doesn’t fully explain the “want to learn, so ask at home” logic that drives verse 35.

Possibility Three: Disruptive Questions from Untrained Learners

The third view, argued most forcefully by Craig Keener, treats the ἐπερωτάω and μανθάνω pairing as the master key. The women were interrupting the teaching with questions, and those questions tended to be elementary, because most women in that world had been handed far less education than the men beside them.

This is where I land. And to show you why it clicks, I need to walk you into a classroom that looked nothing like ours.

The First-Century Culture of Learning

You cannot feel the force of Paul’s instruction until you understand how teaching worked in the ancient Mediterranean. It ran on rules we’ve almost entirely forgotten.

Think about how we do it. The preacher preaches. The congregation sits in silence. Questions, if they come at all, wait for the lobby or a study group. To interrupt a sermon mid-sentence would strike us as rude, even bizarre.

The ancient world flipped that on its head. Public lectures, teaching sessions, rabbinic instruction, all of it was interactive. Listeners interrupted. Students pushed back. The volley of question and answer was the machinery of learning itself.

But, and here is the hinge of the whole matter, there were rules about who got to interrupt and how.

Craig Keener puts the cultural expectation like this: across the first-century Mediterranean, novices were expected to learn quietly, while the advanced students were the ones licensed to break into a lecture with questions. Your right to interrupt tracked your level of training. Beginners kept still. The seasoned did the questioning.

Plutarch, writing in the same era, sharpened the point. Students, he warned, must not “trouble the lecturers with questions” they should already have known the answers to, and must stop firing off elementary interruptions. It was bad form. Worse than bad form. It was shameful, a public advertisement that you did not know your place as a learner.

Now set one more stone in place. In first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman society, formal education was largely a male inheritance. Most women had never been trained in the Scriptures or in the disciplines of formal study. Not because anyone doubted they could learn. Because the culture, by and large, simply refused to teach them.

Put those pieces together and the scene assembles itself. The church gathers. Prophecy and teaching are underway. And some of the Corinthian women, newly set free in Christ, hungry to understand, and largely untrained in the Scriptures, start interrupting with questions. Because the schooling that shaped the men had passed them by, their questions often land at a basic level. The exact kind of elementary interruption that, by every social rule of the day, a novice was expected to swallow and save for later.

Two problems detonate at once. The first: it shattered the order of worship, the very thing Paul labors through all of chapter 14 to protect. The second: in an honor-shame culture, women publicly interrogating male teachers looked scandalous, and the scandal didn’t stay inside the walls. It clung to the whole church in the eyes of watching outsiders.

That is why verse 35 calls it “shameful” (αἰσχρός, aischros) for a woman to speak this way in the assembly. Not because a woman’s voice offends God. Because this particular behavior, in this particular culture, tripped every wire of learning and honor, and the gospel took the reputational damage.

Paul’s Pro-Learning Solution

Here’s the detail that settles it for me. Look hard at the remedy Paul actually prescribes.

He does not say, “Women shouldn’t learn.” He does not say, “Women shouldn’t ask questions.” He says: “If they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home.”

Sit with that. Paul is not slamming a door on the women’s hunger to learn. He’s rerouting it toward the place it will actually be fed. Your questions are legitimate, he says. Your desire to learn is good. But the middle of the assembly, mid-prophecy, mid-teaching, is not the room for elementary questions. Carry them home. Ask your husbands. Learn there, where the basics can be handled without blowing up the gathered worship.

Read in its world, this is not a muzzle. It’s an act of pastoral care aimed squarely at the women’s growth. Paul assumes the husbands know enough to answer, which, given the lopsided education of the day, they usually did. And he assumes the women should be learning, growing, getting their questions answered. He simply wants it to happen without tearing the assembly apart or dragging shame onto the church.

Set it beside 1 Timothy 2:11: “Let a woman learn (μανθάνω) in quietness and full submission.” That line gets quoted as a leash. But look at the actual command buried in it. “Let a woman learn.” In a culture that often couldn’t be bothered to educate women at all, Paul’s insistence that women must learn was quietly radical. The “quietness” describes a student’s posture, the same posture demanded of any new learner, male or female. It is not a gag.

The same current runs through 1 Corinthians 14:35. Paul wants these women to learn. He is only insisting they do it in a way that honors the order of the assembly and the hard social realities pressing in from every side.

What This Word Adds to Our Picture

Step back and count the ground we’ve covered across these three studies.

σιγάω showed us the silence was situational, never permanent.

λαλέω showed us the speech under restriction was the specific, regulated speech of the worship assembly, not any vocal participation, and that a blanket prohibition would set Paul at war with his own words in chapter 11.

And now ἐπερωτάω, locked together with μανθάνω, names the actual offense: disruptive, learning-driven questioning that was breaking the order of the assembly. Not women teaching. Not women prophesying. Not women praying. Questioning. At the wrong moment, in the wrong way, generating disorder and, in that culture, shame.

Every piece locks into the next. The silence is situational because the problem was situational. The speech under restriction is a specific kind of speech because the problem was a specific behavior. And the behavior, we can now say with confidence, was elementary questions fired into the flow of worship.

This is not a timeless gag order on half the church. It is a pastoral fix for a specific breakdown in a specific room, engineered to protect two things at once: the order of worship and the good name of the gospel. And it protects them without ever retreating from the women’s right, and their responsibility, to learn.

One word remains. Verse 34 grounds its instruction in the women being “in submission” (ὑποτάσσω, hypotassō), “as the law also says.” That word carries surprises of its own, and it’s where we go next. After that, the synthesis, where we assemble the whole picture, including the live and startling question of whether these two verses stood in Paul’s original letter at all.

For now, carry this out with you. Paul wanted these women to learn. He said it in plain Greek. The question was never whether they should learn but how and where. And “let them ask at home” was not a door swinging shut on women. It was a better classroom swinging open.

What This Means for Us

Three things.

First: Context is not decoration. It’s the difference between two opposite meanings. The sentence “let them ask their husbands at home” reads like a chain if you walk in assuming Paul despised women. It reads like a kindness the moment you understand a first-century classroom. Not a syllable of the text changed. Only our grasp of the world it was born into. That gap is exactly why careful study is not optional. The harsh reading and the gracious one usually part ways not in the words themselves but in how well we know the world behind them.

Second: The whole point of gathering is that everyone learns. Paul says it without flinching in verse 31: we prophesy so that “all may learn.” Whatever else 1 Corinthians 14 is doing, it is obsessed with building a room where God’s people grow in understanding. Not performance. Not spectacle. Not even private spiritual highs. The mutual building-up of a learning community. Hold your own gatherings against that standard and see how they measure.

Third: Order exists to serve love, never the reverse. Paul is no rule-hoarding tyrant. Every restriction in this chapter bends toward one goal: edification, building people up in love, which is the exact theme of chapter 13, sitting right on the doorstep of all of this. The women’s questions weren’t wrong because questions are wrong. They were breeding disorder that starved everyone’s growth. When Paul sends those questions home, he serves the women, who will learn better there, and he serves the assembly, which can finally worship without the floor collapsing. For Paul, order is always love wearing work clothes.

Next time: ὑποτάσσω, and the genuinely surprising truth about what “submission” meant in Paul’s vocabulary.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

Last time, we stood at the summit of the book. The Son of Man came on the clouds, the Ancient of Days took His throne, and the whole vision shimmered with mystery. Four beasts, but which kingdoms? A little horn, but which king? Chapter 7 gives you the cosmic picture and lets you wonder.

Chapter 8 refuses to let you wonder.

If you missed any of the earlier posts, you can get caught up HERE

Where chapter 7 showed us beasts rising from a chaotic sea, chapter 8 shows us a ram and a goat, and then the interpreting angel leans in and says, in effect, “Let me remove all doubt.” The ram is the kings of Media and Persia. The goat is the king of Greece. The great horn is the first king. This is the most historically specific vision in the entire book. So specific that skeptics have insisted for centuries it could only have been written after the events it describes. We’ll come back to that.

There is also a quieter shift here, one your English Bible cannot show you. Chapter 8 returns to Hebrew. From chapter 2, verse 4 through the end of chapter 7, Daniel was written in Aramaic, the international language of empire. Now, as the focus narrows from world kingdoms down to the fate of the Jewish people and their sanctuary, the book slips back into the sacred tongue of Israel. The language itself follows the camera as it zooms in.

And zoom in it does. All the way down to one man. A “little horn” who grows great, tramples the host of heaven, stops the daily sacrifice, and desecrates the temple. The text never speaks his name, but history does: Antiochus IV Epiphanes. And he is the clearest preview the Old Testament ever gives us of the Antichrist.

A Word on Our Three Voices

Same method as always. For the Masoretic Text (MT), the Hebrew behind most English Bibles, I quote the NRSVUE. For the Old Greek (OG), the earliest Greek translation, I quote the New English Translation of the Septuagint (N.E.T.S.). For Theodotion, the later Greek revision the church adopted for Daniel, I quote Brenton.

One flag before we start, because chapter 8 is where it matters most. The Old Greek of Daniel 8 is one of the most divergent chapters in the entire Greek Old Testament. It does not merely translate the Hebrew differently. In places it tells a noticeably different story. And that difference turns out to be one of the most beautiful both/and moments we have encountered in this whole series. So read the Greek closely here. It is doing more than you think.

Let’s dig in.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The Setting: A Vision in Susa (verses 1–2)

Daniel 8:1-2 (NRSVUE):

In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after the one that had appeared to me at first. In the vision I saw myself in Susa the capital, in the province of Elam, and I was by the Ulai Gate.

Daniel 8:1-2 (OG/NETS):

During the third year, when Baltasar was king, there was a vision, which I, Daniel, saw after I saw the first one. And I saw in the vision of my dream. When I was in Sousa the city, which is in the region of Elymais, while I was still by the gate of Olam.

Daniel 8:1-2 (Theodotion/Brenton):

In the third year of the reign of king Baltasar a vision appeared to me, even to me Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first. And I was in Susa the palace, which is in the land of Ælam, and I was on the bank of Ubal.

Two years have passed since the vision of chapter 7 (that one came in Belshazzar’s first year; this one in his third). Babylon is still standing, but its days are numbered. And notice where Daniel finds himself in this vision: Susa, in the province of Elam, by the waters of the Ulai.

Susa was not a Babylonian city. It would become one of the great capitals of the Persian Empire, the very empire about to swallow Babylon whole. Daniel, sitting in a doomed kingdom, is carried in vision to the seat of the kingdom that will replace it. The geography is prophecy. Before a single horn appears, the setting itself is whispering that power is about to change hands.

The Ram and the Goat (verses 3–8)

Daniel 8:3-8 (NRSVUE):

I looked up and saw a ram standing beside the gate. It had two horns. Both horns were long, but one was longer than the other, and the longer one came up second. I saw the ram charging westward and northward and southward. All beasts were powerless to withstand it, and no one could rescue from its power; it did as it pleased and became strong. As I was watching, a male goat appeared from the west, coming across the face of the whole earth without touching the ground. The goat had a horn between its eyes. It came toward the ram with the two horns that I had seen standing beside the gate, and it ran at it with savage force. I saw it approaching the ram. It was enraged against it and struck the ram, breaking its two horns. The ram did not have power to withstand it; it threw the ram down to the ground and trampled upon it, and there was no one who could rescue the ram from its power. Then the male goat grew exceedingly great, but at the height of its power the great horn was broken, and in its place there came up four prominent horns toward the four winds of heaven.

Daniel 8:3-8 (OG/NETS):

when I looked up, I saw one large ram standing in front of the gate, and it had stately horns. And the one was more stately, and the stately one came up. But after this I saw the ram charging to the east and to the north and to the west and to the south. And no beasts stood before it, and no one could rescue from its hands. And it was doing as it wanted and became exalted. And I was pondering, and lo, a male goat of goats was coming from the west, over the face of the earth, and it did not touch the ground. And one horn of the male goat was between its eyes. And it came at the ram, which had the horns, which I had seen standing by the gate, and it ran against it in a furious rage. And I saw it approaching toward the ram. And it was inflamed against it, and it struck and crushed its two horns. And there was no longer power in the ram to stand against the male goat, and it rent it asunder on the ground and crushed it, and there was no one who could rescue the ram from the male goat. And the male goat of the goats prevailed exceedingly, and when it prevailed, its great horn was crushed, and another four horns came up behind it toward the four winds of heaven.

Daniel 8:3-8 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, a ram standing in front of the Ubal; and he had high horns; and one was higher than the other, and the high one came up last. And I saw the ram butting westward, and northward, and southward; and no beast could stand before him, and there was none that could deliver out of his hand; and he did according to his will, and became great. And I was considering, and, behold, a he-goat came from the south-west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the earth: and the goat had a horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram that had the horns, which I had seen standing in front of the Ubal, and he ran at him with the violence of his strength. And I saw him coming up close to the ram, and he was furiously enraged against him, and he smote the ram, and broke both his horns: and there was no strength in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him on the ground, and trampled on him; and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. And the he-goat grew exceedingly great: and when he was strong, his great horn was broken; and four other horns rose up in its place toward the four winds of heaven.

We do not have to guess at the meaning here, because later in the chapter the angel spells it out. But let us read it the way Daniel first saw it.

A ram with two horns, one longer than the other, and the longer one coming up second. The ram charges, unstoppable. Then from the west comes a goat, moving so fast it does not touch the ground, with a single conspicuous horn between its eyes. The goat smashes the ram, breaks both its horns, and tramples it. But at the height of its power, the goat’s great horn snaps, and four horns rise in its place.

If you know your ancient history, the picture is unmistakable. The ram is the Medo-Persian empire, its two horns the Medes and the Persians, with the Persians (the later, longer horn) rising to dominate.

The goat is Greece, and its speed is the speed of Alexander the Great, who conquered the known world in a handful of years, moving so fast he seemed never to touch the ground. The single great horn is Alexander himself. And its breaking “at the height of its power” is Alexander’s sudden death in Babylon in 323 B.C., at just thirty-two, with no heir to hold the empire together.

The four horns that rise in its place are the four generals who carved up his kingdom among themselves.

Which Way Does the Ram Charge?

Now look at verse 4 again, closely, because the traditions do not agree on something you probably read straight past.

The Hebrew sends the ram in three directions: west, north, south.

Theodotion agrees. Three.

The Old Greek gives four: east, north, west, south.

Three directions, or four. And the difference is the east.

Here is why the Hebrew’s three are worth stopping over. Remember where Daniel is standing. He is in Susa, in the province of Elam, and Elam is east. The ram is not standing in the middle of a blank map. It is standing in the Persian homeland, and it charges away from home in every direction that matters: west toward Babylon and Asia Minor and eventually Greece, north toward the peoples of the mountains, south toward Egypt. It does not charge east, because east is where it came from.

That is not a gap in the Hebrew. That is a vantage point. It is the same kind of quiet, incidental precision we ran into back in chapter 5, where Belshazzar could only offer Daniel the third place in the kingdom because the second was already his own. Somebody knew exactly where he was standing.

And the Old Greek gives you the whole compass. Not a vantage point. A verdict. This ram went everywhere and nothing stood in front of it.

Now, I want to show you something about how the Septuagint reaches you in English, because this one word is a perfect window into it, and most Christians have no idea it is happening.

If you read this verse in the Lexham English Septuagint, you get all four directions, printed plainly, no footnote, nothing unusual. If you read it in the New English Translation of the Septuagint, “[to the east and]”. Notice the brackets, which flag it as a probable scribal doubling.

Why the difference? Because they are translating two different kinds of Greek text. The LES translates Swete’s edition, which is a diplomatic text: it prints what an actual manuscript actually says. The N.E.T.S. translates the Göttingen critical edition, which is a scholarly reconstruction of what the original translator is thought to have written. One shows you the Bible the church actually held in its hands. The other shows you a hypothesis about an original that no ancient Christian ever read.

Both are legitimate projects. They are not the same project. And when they diverge, you are not looking at a manuscript problem. You are looking at an editorial judgment.

So what do the manuscripts say?

They say east. All of them, as far as we know. It is in Papyrus 967, the second-century papyrus that is the oldest witness we have to the Old Greek of Daniel and the only one that predates Origen. It is in the Syro-Hexaplar. It is in Codex Chisianus, the manuscript that carries the Old Greek of Daniel and stands behind Swete and therefore behind the LES. There is not a Greek witness anywhere that lacks it.

Which means the bracket in your N.E.T.S. is not reporting an absence. It is a modern editor’s opinion, rendered against the unanimous evidence, that the ancient translator could not have written what every surviving copy of his work says he wrote.

I want to be fair here. That judgment is not arbitrary; critical editors bracket doublets because the Old Greek of Daniel demonstrably accumulated them over centuries, and they are trying to answer a real question. But it is not my question. I am not trying to excavate a lost original. I am trying to read what God preserved. And on that question the manuscripts are not divided at all.

So take both. The Hebrew shows you where the ram was standing. The Greek shows you that nothing on the map was safe. Neither is wrong, and the ram is just as unstoppable either way.

A Small Horn, or a Strong One? (8:9)

Now the vision narrows to its true target, and immediately the three traditions part company over a single adjective that is carrying far more freight than you would ever guess.

The Masoretic Text says the horn is little:

Out of one of them came another horn, a little one, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the beautiful land. (NRSVUE)

The Old Greek says the horn is strong:

And out of one of them sprang one strong horn, and it prevailed, and it struck against the south and against the east and against the north. (N.E.T.S.)

And Theodotion agrees with the Old Greek:

And out of one of them came forth one strong horn, and it grew very great toward the south, and toward the host. (Brenton)

The Hebrew word is מִצְּעִירָה (mitse’irah), “small.” The Greek word in both versions is ἰσχυρόν (ischyron), “strong.”

That is not a shade of meaning. That is the opposite end of the scale.

Now, I’m sure you’ll also notice the three traditions list the horn’s directions differently, and that the Hebrew alone names “the beautiful land,” which is to say Israel, as its target. That is a separate tangle, and an honest one. But I’m going to leave this one alone rather than pretend to more certainty than I have. This one is a genuinely thorny issue.

Why One Adjective Matters This Much

Think back to Daniel 7. A horn came up among the ten, and the Aramaic called it זְעֵירָה (ze’erah), “little.” Both Greek versions rendered it μικρόν (mikron), “little.” No disagreement anywhere.

Now the Hebrew of chapter 8 calls its horn “small” too. Different language, same idea. And that shared description is the single most quoted piece of evidence that these two visions are talking about the same figure. It is the weld. Say “the little horn” to almost any Christian who has read Daniel and they will assume, without thinking about it, that chapter 7 and chapter 8 are describing one man.

But in the Greek, that weld does not exist. Chapter 7 has a little horn. Chapter 8 has a strong horn. The two visions are not verbally the same figure at all.

The Argument That Surprised Me

The scholar Michael Segal has made a case here that I find genuinely difficult to shake, and I want to walk you through it, because it is a beautiful piece of reasoning and you can judge it for yourself.

The obvious move is to say the Greek translator took liberties. He wanted a mightier villain, so he wrote “strong.” Case closed, the Hebrew is original.

Except look at what that translator is doing everywhere else in these two verses.

He is a harmonizer. Compulsively. In 8:9 the Hebrew verb is יָצָא (yatsa), “emerged,” and the Old Greek renders it ἀνεφύη (anephyē), “sprang up,” which is the exact verb it had already used back in 7:8. He is reaching across the chapters to make them match. And he does it in the other direction too. Over in 7:8 the Old Greek adds the word “one,” which we can presume was borrowed forward from 8:9. He is stitching these two visions together with both hands.

Now put the question to him.

If this translator had a Hebrew text in front of him that said “small,” he had every motive in the world to keep it. It would have completed the harmony he was building. The words would have matched. Instead he writes “strong,” and in doing so he wrecks the very connection he is knitting together everywhere else in the verse.

A harmonizer does not manufacture a discord.

Which makes it far more likely that his Hebrew text simply did not say “small.” And if harmonizing is the live instinct in this pair of verses, then the Masoretic “small,” sitting there matching chapter 7 so tidily, starts to look like exactly what harmonizing produces.

There is more. The divergence is old, and it runs deeper than Greek. Before Jerome, there was an Old Latin Bible translated from the Greek, and at this verse it reads cornum in virtute, a horn in strength. Then Jerome came along and translated from the Hebrew, and his Vulgate reads cornu unum modicum, a little horn. The Latin tradition splits precisely along its source. Translate from the Greek, you get strong. Translate from the Hebrew, you get little. Three languages, one fault line, running all the way down.

I want to be straight with you about the state of this. Segal’s piece is an unpublished lecture and he hedges it himself; he says this is where he landed only while writing it. But he is not alone. Ian Young, working from the manuscripts rather than the translation technique, arrives at the same place from a different direction and says outright, in a published study, that the Masoretic “little horn” at Daniel 8:9 is a secondary reading. Two scholars, two routes, one destination. It also runs against most critical commentators, who assume the Hebrew is original here.

Weigh it accordingly, and go look for yourself.

What This Does Not Touch

Take a breath, because less is at stake than it first appears.

The horn is still Antiochus. That identification never rested on the adjective. It rests on this verse placing him among the four horns of the Greek goat, and on verses 20 through 25 naming Greece outright and then describing the man to the life. Segal himself says the horn “almost certainly” represents Antiochus IV. Nobody is arguing about that.

And the substantive links between the two visions are all still standing. A horn rising up among others. War against the holy ones. A mouth, or a mind, set against the Most High. An end that comes by no human hand. Those are not one word. Those are the architecture.

What does shift is a small piece of scaffolding on the other side of the argument. One common route to reading Daniel’s fourth kingdom as Greece runs through this word: chapter 8’s horn is certainly Antiochus, chapter 7’s horn shares the description, so chapter 7’s horn is Antiochus, so the fourth beast must be Greece.

If that shared description is a later harmonization, the middle step gets thinner. I will not oversell it, because Segal reads both horns as Antiochus anyway on other grounds. But a plank the other side leans on turns out to be less solid than it looks.

Both, and It Is Better This Way

Now here is why I think we have been given both.

Look at the Hebrew again, the whole clause and not just the adjective. A little horn, which grew exceedingly great. The Hebrew is not saying the horn stayed small. It is telling you where the thing started.

And the Greek tells you where it ended. Strong. It prevailed.

The Hebrew watches the horn come up out of nothing. The Greek watches what it became.

And that is Antiochus, exactly. He was not the heir to the Seleucid throne. He was a usurper, a younger son with no real claim, a man who came from nowhere. Small. And he ended as the most feared name in a century of Jewish history, the man who put a pagan altar on the altar of God.

Strong.

Neither witness is wrong. They are two photographs of the same thing, taken at different moments, and if you only had one of them you would only have half the truth.

Because this is how evil works, and I think the Lord made certain we would have both frames so we could not miss it.

It starts small.

It always starts small. A little horn among the others, hardly worth noticing, easy to explain away. Nobody sounds an alarm over a little horn. And then it grows exceedingly great, and by the time it is a strong horn trampling the sanctuary, the moment to see it clearly is long gone.

The Hebrew shows you the seed. The Greek shows you the tree. Watch the seed.

The Horn Against Heaven (verses 10–12)

Now the horn reaches up, and here the Old Greek does not merely differ from the Hebrew. It turns the whole scene inside out.

Daniel 8:10-12 (NRSVUE):

It grew as high as the host of heaven. It threw down to earth some of the host and some of the stars and trampled on them. Even against the prince of the host it acted arrogantly; it took the regular burnt offering away from him and overthrew the place of his sanctuary. Because of wickedness, the host was given over to it together with the regular burnt offering; it cast truth to the ground and kept prospering in what it did.

Daniel 8:10-12 (OG/NETS):

And it was raised unto the stars of the sky. And it was thrown down upon the earth from the stars and was trodden upon by them until the commander in chief delivers the captives. And the mountains, which were from eternity, were overthrown on account of it, and their place and sacrifice were taken away. And he put it to the ground, and it prospered, and it emerged, and the sanctuary will be desolated. And sins were on the offering, and justice was thrown to the ground, and it acted, and it prospered.

Daniel 8:10-12 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And it magnified itself to the host of heaven; and there fell to the earth some of the host of heaven and of the stars, and they trampled on them. And this shall be until the chief captain shall have delivered the captivity: and by reason of him the sacrifice was disturbed, and he prospered; and the holy place shall be made desolate. And a sin-offering was given for the sacrifice, and righteousness was cast down to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

Read verse 10 in the Hebrew, then read it in the Old Greek, and watch who ends up on the ground.

In the Hebrew, the horn wins. It grows up to the host of heaven, it throws stars down, and it tramples them. It reaches שַׂר־הַצָּבָא (sar ha-tsava), the prince of the host, the commander of the armies of heaven, and it acts arrogantly against Him. It strips away the תָּמִיד (tamid), the perpetual daily offering. It overthrows the sanctuary. And then the most chilling line in the chapter: it cast truth to the ground, and it kept prospering.

That is a picture of evil that succeeds. Truth in the dust. The altar silent. Heaven, apparently, doing nothing.

Now the Old Greek. The horn is raised toward the stars, and then it is thrown down to the earth, and it is trampled by them. The roles are exactly reversed. The horn never lays a finger on heaven. Heaven throws it down and walks on it.

And the prince of the host is not a victim in the Greek at all. He is the rescuer.

Michael Segal argues, and I think he is right, that this is not a case of the translator working from a different Hebrew text. That is usually where I land when the Old Greek diverges, and you have watched me argue it through this whole series. But the evidence here does not support it, and I would rather follow evidence than a habit. You could just about repoint the first two Hebrew verbs to read passively. You cannot do it to the last one, “and it trampled them.” The Greek is not reading different letters. The Greek is making a decision.

And I think I know what decision. Segal suggests, and this is where it becomes electric for anyone following the Divine Council series, that the Old Greek is reading this horn through Isaiah 14, the taunt against הֵילֵל בֶּן שָׁחַר, Helel ben Shachar, the shining one, son of the dawn, who said in his heart I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, and who was brought down to Sheol for it.

Look at the Old Greek again with that in your ear. Raised toward the stars. Thrown down to the earth. That is Isaiah 14’s arc, laid over Daniel 8’s horn, deliberately.

So the Old Greek translator is not being sloppy. He is being a theologian. He is telling you that whatever this horn appears to accomplish against heaven, the thing has already lost, because he has seen this story before and he knows how it ends.

Is that a corruption of the text? I do not believe it for a second. I believe it is a faithful reader of Scripture reading Scripture by Scripture, and I believe the Spirit who preserved his work for us knew exactly what He was doing.

But do not let go of the Hebrew, because the Hebrew is telling a truth that the Greek is not telling.

The Hebrew is honest about how it feels while it is happening. Sometimes the horn does win. Sometimes it does throw down the stars and trample them, and it does cast truth to the ground, and it does keep prospering, and heaven is silent for years while it happens. The Jewish people who lived through Antiochus did not experience a horn being trampled by the stars. They experienced a horn on the altar of God, and it lasted three years.

You need both. You need the Hebrew’s honesty about the darkness and the Greek’s certainty about the outcome. Read only the Hebrew and you may despair. Read only the Greek and you may not recognize your own suffering when it comes.

Three Times “No One Could Rescue”

And now let me show you the most beautiful thing in this chapter, and it took me reading through a scholar’s eye to see it.

Go back through the Old Greek of these verses and count a single word.

Verse 4, the ram: “no one could rescue from its hands.”

Verse 7, the goat and the ram: “there was no one who could rescue the ram from the male goat.”

Verse 11: “until the commander in chief delivers the captives.”

It is the same Greek verb all three times: ῥύομαι (rhyomai), to rescue, to deliver, to snatch out of danger.

Do you see what has been built?

Twice the vision tells you that when the empires come, there is no deliverer. Not for the nations under Persia. Not for Persia under Greece. The world watches the beasts trade the map back and forth and nobody can rescue anybody. That is the ache the vision opens with.

And the third time, at the moment when the horn is at the very height of its blasphemy, somebody rescues.

The word is ἀρχιστράτηγος (archistratēgos), commander in chief, commander of the army. It is the same title the Septuagint uses at Joshua 5:14 for the commander of the army of the Lord, the figure Joshua fell on his face and worshiped. Both Greek witnesses carry it.

No deliverer. No deliverer. Then the Deliverer.

And here is the thing that stopped me. The Hebrew starts this pattern. It has the very same “there was none to rescue” in verse 4 and verse 7, using מַצִּיל (matsil), one who delivers. But the Hebrew never closes it. The Hebrew leaves the ache open. It asks the question twice and does not answer it.

The Greek answers it.

That is the both/and at its most beautiful, and I do not think it is an accident. One tradition opens a wound and leaves it open, so you feel it. The other tradition names the One who closes it. Together they preach the whole gospel of this chapter, and neither of them could do it alone.

“How Long?” The 2,300 Evenings and Mornings (verses 13–14)

Daniel 8:13-14 (NRSVUE):

Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, “For how long is this vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled?” And he answered him, “For two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.”

Daniel 8:13-14 (OG/NETS):

And I kept hearing another holy one speaking, and the other one said to the Phelmouni who was speaking, “How long will this vision continue: even the sacrifice, which has been taken away, and the sin of desolation that has been given and the sanctuaries will be desolated unto trampling?” And he said to him, “Two thousand three hundred days, evenings and mornings, and the sanctuary will be purified.”

Daniel 8:13-14 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And I heard one saint speaking, and a saint said to a certain one speaking, How long shall the vision continue, even the removal of the sacrifice, and the bringing in of the sin of desolation; and how long shall the sanctuary and host be trampled? And he said to him, Evening and morning there shall be two thousand and four hundred days; and then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.

Two of the holy ones, the angels of the heavenly court, speak to each other, and one asks the question every suffering believer eventually asks: how long? How long will the sacrifice be gone, the desolation stand, the sanctuary be trampled?

There is a lovely small detail buried in the Old Greek here. Where the Masoretic Text simply calls the speaker “the one who spoke,” the Hebrew actually uses a strange, enigmatic word, פַּלְמוֹנִי (palmoni), something like “a certain unnamed one,” a placeholder for a name too holy or too mysterious to give. The Old Greek does not even try to translate it. It just carries the Hebrew sound straight across into Greek as “the Phelmouni.” It is a tiny window into how the ancient translators worked: when they hit a word they could not unlock, sometimes they simply preserved the mystery rather than flattening it.

Then comes the answer, and with it a number that has launched a thousand prophecy charts: two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings.

You will notice Brenton reads “two thousand and four hundred” here. I checked this carefully, and it is worth telling you what I found, because it is a good lesson in how texts travel. That “2,400” is not a genuine ancient variant. It crept into some of the older printed editions of the Septuagint, the tradition that Brenton’s underlying text followed, which carried 2,400 in the body and 2,300 in the margin. The actual manuscripts, and every modern critical edition, read 2,300 in both the Old Greek and Theodotion, in full agreement with the Hebrew. So all three of our traditions actually say the same thing here. The “2,400” is a printer’s ghost, not a witness. I mention it only so that when you see it in Brenton, you know what you are looking at.

What does “two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings” mean? There are two honest ways to count it. If you take each “evening and morning” as a full day, you get 2,300 days, roughly six years and four months. If you take it the way the daily offering worked, one sacrifice in the evening and one in the morning, then 2,300 of them is 1,150 days, roughly three years and two months.

And here is the striking thing: that second figure lands almost exactly on the span of time the temple actually lay desecrated under Antiochus, from the setting up of the pagan altar to its cleansing. Either way you count, the vision is measuring the same thing, a fixed and limited span of horror with a guaranteed end. “Then the sanctuary shall be restored.” The Old Greek says “purified”; Theodotion says “cleansed.” The desolation is real, but it is on a timer, and God set the timer.

Which brings us to the man himself.

The Man Behind the Horn: Antiochus IV Epiphanes

You have waited patiently, so let me now give you the history in full, because this is the chapter where it belongs.

After Alexander died in 323 B.C. and his empire fractured into the four horns, two of those horns mattered most for the Jewish people: the Ptolemies who ruled Egypt to the south, and the Seleucids who ruled Syria and the East to the north. Little Judea sat right between them, and for over a century it was passed back and forth like a coin between these two Greek dynasties. By the early second century B.C., the Seleucids had won control.

Out of that Seleucid line rose our horn. His name was Antiochus, and he took for himself the title Epiphanes, “God Manifest,” as though divinity had appeared on earth in his person. His enemies, with a bitter pun, called him Epimanes instead, “the madman.” He reigned from 175 to 164 B.C.

He did not begin as a monster to the Jews. But the high priesthood in Jerusalem had already rotted into a political prize. The legitimate high priest, Onias III, was pushed aside. His own brother, taking the Greek name Jason, bought the office from Antiochus with a bribe. Then a man named Menelaus outbid Jason and seized it for himself. Onias III, the last legitimate high priest, was murdered around 171 B.C. The sacred office had become a thing for sale, and the sanctuary was already being hollowed out from within before Antiochus ever raised a hand against it.

The explosion came in 168 and 167 B.C. Antiochus had marched on Egypt and very nearly conquered it, only to be turned back by a single Roman ambassador who drew a circle in the sand around him and told him to decide before he stepped out of it. Humiliated, he vented his rage on Jerusalem.

He stormed the city, plundered the temple treasury, and slaughtered its people. Then, on the twenty-fifth of the month of Kislev in 167 B.C., he committed the act that Daniel had foreseen: he had an altar to Zeus Olympios erected on top of the altar of burnt offering in the temple of God, and swine flesh sacrificed upon it. He outlawed the Sabbath, circumcision, and the dietary laws on pain of death. He ordered the scrolls of Scripture burned and executed anyone found possessing them.

This is the event that First Maccabees calls “the abomination of desolation” (1 Maccabees 1:54), and it is the precise event Daniel 8 describes: the daily sacrifice taken away, the sanctuary trampled, truth cast to the ground.

But the horn was on a timer.

A priestly family from the village of Modein refused to comply, and under Judas Maccabeus (”the Hammer”) they launched a guerrilla war against the might of the Seleucid empire.

Against every expectation, they won. In December of 164 B.C., on the twenty-fifth of Kislev, exactly three years to the day after the desecration, Judas and his men recaptured the temple mount, tore down the altar of Zeus, and rededicated the sanctuary with songs and harps and cymbals. That rededication is the festival the Jewish people still keep every winter as Hanukkah, the Feast of Dedication, the Festival of Lights.

It is the very feast John tells us Jesus Himself walked through in Solomon’s portico (John 10:22). And Antiochus, the man who thought himself “God Manifest,” died that same year, 164 B.C., far from Jerusalem, of disease, not by any human hand raised against him in battle. Hold that detail. Daniel foretold it: “he shall be broken, and not by human hands.”

The precision of all this is so exact that many critical scholars conclude the book of Daniel simply must have been written after these events, around 165 B.C., dressed up as prophecy.

I understand the instinct, but I do not share the conclusion, and I have said why in earlier posts and in my post (and book) on the Seventy Weeks prophecy.

If you grant that God knows the future and can reveal it, then precise prophecy is exactly what you would expect to find. The skeptic’s certainty here rests entirely on a prior assumption that such prophecy is impossible.

That is a philosophical commitment, not a textual discovery.

Gabriel Interprets the Vision (verses 15–27)

Daniel, shaken, tries to understand. And then Scripture does something it has never done before.

Daniel 8:15-17 (NRSVUE):

When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I tried to understand it. Then someone appeared standing before me, having the appearance of a man, and I heard a human voice by the Ulai, calling, “Gabriel, help this man understand the vision.” So he came near where I stood, and when he came, I became frightened and fell prostrate. But he said to me, “Understand, O mortal, that the vision is for the time of the end.”

Daniel 8:15-17 (OG/NETS):

And it happened that when I, Daniel, was seeing, I was seeking to comprehend the vision. And lo, one having the appearance of a human stood in front of me, and I heard a human voice in the midst of the Olam, and after the human cried out he said, “The vision is for this ordinance.” And he came and stood near where I stood, and when he came, I became bewildered and fell on my face. And he said to me, “Consider, O son of man, for this vision is yet for an appropriate time.”

Daniel 8:15-17 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And it came to pass, as I, even I Daniel, saw the vision, and sought to understand it, that, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of the Ubal; and he called, and said, Gabriel, cause that man to understand the vision. And he came and stood near where I stood: and when he came, I was struck with awe, and fell upon my face: but he said to me, Understand, son of man: for yet the vision is for an appointed time.

Here is the first thing to notice, and it is another of those quiet Old Greek divergences. In the Hebrew and in Theodotion, the interpreting voice calls out a name: Gabriel. This is the first time in all of Scripture that an angel is given a personal name. Up to this point, angels come and go anonymously, “the angel of the Lord,” “a man,” “one of the holy ones.”

Now, suddenly, one of them has a name, and it means “God is my strength” or “mighty one of God.” Michael will be named a couple of chapters later, but Gabriel is first. And it is fitting that the angel who unveils the future here is the same Gabriel who, centuries later, will stand before a young woman in Nazareth and announce the birth of the One all these visions were pointing toward (Luke 1:26).

But look at the Old Greek. As we have it, the Old Greek does not name Gabriel here at all. The messenger simply speaks and remains unnamed. It is the same pattern we saw with the horn and the commander of the host: right where the Hebrew sharpens the focus and hands us a name, the Old Greek keeps the figure veiled.

I do not think one is right and the other wrong. I think we are being given two different gifts. The Hebrew gives us intimacy, a named heavenly servant we will meet again. The Greek preserves the awe of an unnamed voice from the midst of the light.

And notice how the angel addresses Daniel: “O son of man.” We just spent all of chapter 7 on that phrase, the glorious Son of Man coming on the clouds. But here the words are different underneath. Chapter 7 was Aramaic, and its Son of Man was בַּר אֱנָשׁ (bar enash), an exalted heavenly figure.

Chapter 8 is Hebrew, and here the phrase is בֶּן־אָדָם (ben adam), which simply means “mortal,” “son of dust.” The same two English words carry opposite weight. In chapter 7, the Son of Man receives an everlasting kingdom. In chapter 8, the son of man is a trembling old prophet flat on his face in the dirt.

And there is something beautiful in that pairing, because the One who is the exalted Son of Man of chapter 7 would one day become the lowly son of man of chapter 8, taking on our dust so that He might lift us to His throne.

The angel goes on to interpret:

Daniel 8:18-22 (NRSVUE):

As he was speaking to me, I fell into a trance, face to the ground; then he touched me and set me on my feet. He said, “Listen, and I will tell you what will take place later in the period of wrath, for it refers to the appointed time of the end. As for the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia. The male goat is the king of Greece, and the great horn between its eyes is the first king. As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his nation but not with his power.”

Daniel 8:18-22 (OG/NETS):

And while he spoke with me, I slept facedown on the ground, and as he touched me, he roused me on the spot. And he said to me, “Lo, I am telling you what will take place at the end of the wrath against the sons of the people, for yet will remain the appropriate time of consummation. The ram that you saw, which had the horns, is the king of the Medes and Persians. And the male goat of the goats is the king of the Greeks, and the great horn that is between its eyes, this one is the first king. And as for the four horns that were crushed and came up after it: four kings will arise from his nation, not in accordance with their power.”

Daniel 8:18-22 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And while he spoke with me, I fell upon my face to the earth: and he touched me, and set me on my feet. And he said, Behold, I make thee know the things that shall come to pass at the end of the wrath: for the vision is yet for an appointed time. The ram which thou sawest that had the horns is the king of the Medes and Persians. The he-goat is the King of the Greeks: and the great horn which was between his eyes, he is the first king. And as for the one that was broken, in whose place there stood up four horns, four kings shall arise out of his nation, but not in their own strength.

There it is in black and white. Media and Persia. Greece. The first king. The four kingdoms that lack his unified power. And notice that all three traditions agree completely here. Whatever they do with adjectives and directions, when the angel names the empires, the witnesses speak with one voice.

This is why chapter 8 is the interpreter’s gift to the whole book. Whatever you decide the beasts of chapter 7 mean, chapter 8 hands you a fixed reference point: the second and third kingdoms of Daniel’s visions are named outright as Media-Persia and Greece. And that, incidentally, is a strong anchor for reading the fourth kingdom of chapter 7 as Rome rather than as a divided Greece, but I will not relitigate that here, since we walked through it last time.

Then the angel turns to the horn itself:

Daniel 8:23-26 (NRSVUE):

At the end of their rule, when the transgressions have reached their full measure, a king of bold countenance shall arise, skilled in intrigue. He shall grow strong in power, shall cause fearful destruction, and shall succeed in what he does. He shall destroy the powerful and the people of the holy ones. By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind he shall be great. Without warning he shall destroy many and shall even rise up against the Prince of princes. But he shall be broken, and not by human hands. “The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true. As for you, seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.”

Daniel 8:23-26 (OG/NETS):

And at the last of their reign, when their sins are full, a king shameless of countenance will arise who understands obscure sayings. And his power will be established, and he will destroy terribly. And he will prosper and will accomplish, and he will destroy the powerful and the common people of the holy ones. And his thought will be against the holy ones. And the lie will prosper by his hands, and his heart will be exalted. And by deceit he will annihilate many, and he will rise by the destruction of men. And he will make a gathering by hand and will repay. The evening and morning vision was told truthfully. And now, the vision is closed, for it is yet for many days.

Daniel 8:23-26 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And at the latter time of their kingdom, when their sins are coming to the full, there shall arise a king bold in countenance, and understanding riddles. And his power shall be great, and he shall destroy wonderfully, and prosper, and practise, and shall destroy mighty men, and the holy people. And the yoke of his chain shall prosper: there is craft in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by craft shall destroy many, and he shall stand up for the destruction of many, and shall crush them as eggs in his hand. And the vision of the evening and morning that was mentioned is true: and do thou seal the vision; for it is for many days.

This is Antiochus to the life. “A king of bold countenance, skilled in intrigue.” He destroys the mighty and “the people of the holy ones,” God’s own people. He exalts himself in his own heart. He prospers by deceit. Every phrase matches the historical tyrant we just met.

And here in verse 25 we reach a divergence that runs the opposite way from everything else in this chapter, which is exactly why I want you to see it.

The Masoretic Text alone gives us this: “he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes. But he shall be broken, and not by human hands.” The Hebrew names the ultimate victim of the horn’s arrogance, שַׂר־שָׂרִים (sar sarim), the Prince of princes, and it names the manner of the horn’s downfall, an end that comes not from any human army but from God Himself. Antiochus did not fall in battle. He died of disease in the East, exactly as this said he would.

Now look at the two Greek witnesses. Neither of them carries “the Prince of princes.” Theodotion turns the phrase toward the horn crushing men “as eggs in his hand.” The Old Greek turns it toward the horn’s “thought against the holy ones.” That explicit, breathtaking collision, a mere king daring to rise against the Prince of princes, is unique to the Hebrew.

Sit with how strange that is. All through this chapter it has been the Greek that heightened the theology, that threw the horn down from the stars, that named a Commander who rescues the captives. And now, at the climax, it is the Hebrew that is bold enough to say out loud that this tyrant set himself against the Prince of princes and was shattered by a hand not his own.

The traditions trade places.

And who is the Prince of princes? I’m going to leave that where the text leaves it. But read verse 11 and verse 25 together, the commander of the host whose sanctuary is attacked, and the Prince of princes whom the horn dares to challenge and by whom the horn is broken, and ask yourself who in all of Scripture is both the wronged Prince and the unstoppable Judge.

I think you already know.

And finally, we get to Daniel’s reaction:

Daniel 8:27 (NRSVUE):

So I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days; then I arose and went about the king’s business. But I was dismayed by the vision and did not understand it.

Daniel 8:27 (OG/NETS):

I, Daniel, having been weak many days and having risen, again was conducting the royal affairs. And I was continually upset by the vision, and there was no one who comprehended it.

Daniel 8:27 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And I Daniel fell asleep, and was sick: then I arose, and did the king’s business; and I wondered at the vision, and there was none that understood it.

The vision breaks him. He is physically sick for days. And then, and I love this, he gets up and goes back to work, back to “the king’s business,” carrying a mystery he cannot solve. Sometimes faithfulness is not resolving the vision. Sometimes it is doing your job with a troubled heart while you wait for God to make it plain in His time.

A Type of the One Still to Come

I have leaned hard into Antiochus as the fulfillment of this chapter, because he genuinely is. But if you have followed this series or the Seventy Weeks material, you know I do not think the story stops there. Hebrew prophecy tends to work in patterns that recur, and Antiochus is the great pattern of the enemy of God’s people: the ruler who exalts himself, desecrates the holy, forbids true worship, and persecutes the faithful, only to be broken by a hand not his own.

That pattern did not exhaust itself in 164 B.C. Jesus, standing in the temple courts long after Antiochus was dust, took Daniel’s “abomination of desolation” and spoke of it as still future (Matthew 24:15).

Paul described a coming “man of lawlessness” who “takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4), which is Antiochus’s self-deifying arrogance stretched to its final form.

And John saw a beast granted authority to make war on the saints (Revelation 13:7), in language that reaches straight back through Daniel. Antiochus is the near fulfillment and the template. The Antichrist is the ultimate expression. I hold this as a genuine dual fulfillment, and for the fuller eschatological case I will point you, as before, to the Seventy Weeks post rather than rebuilding it here.

What the Fathers Saw

The early church read this chapter much as we have. Jerome, in his great commentary on Daniel written around A.D. 407, identified the horn of chapter 8 squarely with Antiochus, and he did so in direct combat with the pagan philosopher Porphyry, who had used the very precision of Daniel to argue the book was a forgery written after the fact. Jerome’s answer was essentially the one I gave above: precise prophecy is only a problem if you have already decided prophecy is impossible. Jerome also, along with Hippolytus before him, saw in Antiochus a foreshadowing of the Antichrist still to come, the near tyrant as a portrait of the final one. So the dual reading, Antiochus now and Antichrist later, is not a modern novelty. It is very old.

My Take

Here is where I land on chapter 8.

The vision is about Antiochus. I do not think that is seriously in doubt, and the fit is so exact that it ought to strengthen your confidence in Scripture rather than shake it. God told Daniel, two and a half centuries in advance, the shape of a crisis down to the desecration of the altar and the death of the tyrant by no human hand, and history obliged in precise detail. And the vision is also, in the Hebrew way, about more than Antiochus, reaching forward to the final enemy and, underneath it all, to the Prince of princes who cannot ultimately be overthrown.

On the small horn and the strong horn, I hold both, and I am not troubled by the possibility that the Greek is the older reading. The Hebrew shows me where the thing began and the Greek shows me what it became, and I need both to recognize the pattern when it comes around again.

On verse 10, I have done something in this post that I have not often done in this series: I have declined to argue for a different Hebrew source text. You know that is my usual instinct, and I still think it is right far more often than not. But a default is not a doctrine. When the evidence points somewhere else, I would rather follow it than defend a habit, and here I think the Old Greek translator was reading Daniel through Isaiah 14 on purpose. That is not corruption. That is a man who knew his Bible.

And the thing I cannot stop thinking about is that verb. Three times, ῥύομαι. No one could rescue. No one could rescue. Until the Commander delivers the captives.

The Hebrew asked that question twice and let it hang in the air. The Greek answered it. And I do not believe for one moment that we ended up with both by accident.

As always, do not take my word for any of this. Sit with these three texts yourself. Read verse 11 in your Hebrew-based Bible and then read it in an English Septuagint and feel the floor move. And let the Spirit show you the Prince of the host who is standing behind both of them.

Why This Matters for Your Walk With God

Daniel 8 is a chapter for anyone who has ever watched evil prosper and wondered where God was.

Because the honest truth, the Masoretic truth, is that sometimes the horn wins. Sometimes it grows great, tramples the holy, silences true worship, and casts truth to the ground, and it keeps right on prospering while heaven looks silent. Daniel saw it. It made him physically sick. If you have felt that way watching the world, you are in good and prophetic company.

But that is not the whole vision, and it was never meant to be.

There is a number stamped on the desolation. Two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings, and then the sanctuary shall be restored. Evil is on a timer, and God set it.

There is a Prince of princes against whom every arrogant horn finally shatters, broken not by human hands but by the hand of God.

And there is that verb, running underneath the whole chapter like a river under stone. No one could rescue. No one could rescue. Until the Commander delivers the captives.

Twice this vision tells you that when the powers of the world come for you, there is no deliverer. And it is telling the truth. There is not one. Not in the empires, not in the armies, not in the horns, not in yourself.

And then there is One.

Antiochus called himself God Manifest. He lasted eleven years and died of a disease in a foreign land. The sanctuary he defiled was cleansed, and the Jewish people still light candles about it every winter. That is what happens to every horn that lifts itself against the Prince of princes.

So when you look at the world and the horn seems to be winning, remember the timer. Remember the empty span between the desecration and the cleansing. And remember that the vision that says twice there is no deliverer says a third time that there is.

The sanctuary shall be restored. Do not fear.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible.

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

Over the first six posts in this series, we’ve built a framework for understanding God’s cosmic government. We’ve defined elohim as a category term for divine power and authority (Part 1), watched God judge His corrupt council in Psalm 82 (Part 2), traced how the nations were divided among divine beings in Deuteronomy 32 (Part 3), explored the council’s presence at creation (Part 4), confronted the rebellion of the Watchers in Genesis 6 (Part 5), and unmasked the spiritual powers operating behind earthly thrones in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 (Part 6). If you haven’t read those yet, I’d encourage you to start there before continuing.

Get caught up on the Divine Council Series HERE.

Now I want to tackle a question that’s been simmering beneath the surface of this entire series. It’s a question most Christians have never thought to ask, because they assume the answer is obvious.

What’s the difference between a fallen angel and a demon?

For a great many believers, the answer is: nothing. They’re the same thing. “Fallen angel” and “demon” are just two labels for the same rebellious spiritual beings, the ones who followed Satan in his rebellion and now roam the earth causing trouble. That’s the version I absorbed from culture, from sermons, from movies, and from the general religious atmosphere permeating the places where I grew up.

But when I started digging into the text seriously, that answer fell apart in my hands. And what replaced it changed the way I read the Gospels entirely.

Let me tell you how I got there.

I need to be very clear about something first, though, because this is a post where I’ll be leaning on sources outside the canon of Scripture. So let me draw that line carefully before we go any further.

A Word About Sources

Much of what I’m going to say in this post does not come directly from the pages of Scripture. It comes from Second Temple Jewish literature, particularly 1 Enoch, and from inferences I draw when I read the New Testament in light of that literature.

I want to be explicit about that, because I take the authority of Scripture seriously, and I don’t want anyone walking away thinking I’m presenting 1 Enoch as though it carries the same weight as Genesis or the Gospel of John.

It doesn’t. And I won’t pretend it does.

But I also want to explain why I give 1 Enoch more weight than most other extrabiblical sources, because I don’t think it belongs in the same category as, say, the Book of Jubilees or the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, valuable as those are for historical context.

Here’s my reasoning.

First, 1 Enoch is the only extrabiblical book that not one but two New Testament writers directly engage with. Jude quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 explicitly and attributes it to “Enoch, the seventh from Adam” as prophecy (Jude 14-15). And both Jude and 2 Peter draw on the Enochic Watchers tradition when they describe the angels who sinned and are now imprisoned (Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4). When inspired apostles reach for a source to make their argument, that source deserves our attention.

Second, 1 Enoch was treated as authoritative by significant portions of the early church. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria all engaged with it. Tertullian defended it directly. And to this day, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes it in their biblical canon.

Third, and this is the point I will develop in this post, the Enochic explanation solves a genuine biblical problem that no other explanation solves nearly as well. When I read the New Testament’s descriptions of demons, they simply don’t fit the “fallen angel” framework. But they fit the Enochic framework perfectly.

So here’s how I’ll proceed.

I’ll present the framework, I’ll show you where it comes from Scripture and where it comes from 1 Enoch, and I’ll be honest at every step about which is which. You can weigh the evidence for yourself. As always, I invite you to study these things and come to your own conclusions. Acts 17:11 is important here. Be like the Bereans. The Holy Spirit will guide you.

With that said, let’s dig in.

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The Biblical Taxonomy

First, let me lay out the full framework as I understand it. Then we’ll examine the pieces.

At the top is God. Sovereign, uncreated, incomparable. The Elohim above all elohim, as we established in Part 1. There is no one like Him, and the distinction between the Creator and everything He has made is absolute and immutable.

Below God are the faithful angels. These are divine beings who serve God, carry out His will, and possess significant power. They can take on physical form (we’ll come back to this). They are assigned to nations and tasks. Michael and Gabriel are named examples. The Bible calls them by various terms: angels (messengers), the host of heaven, the sons of God, watchers, and more.

Now, before you bring up cherubim, seraphim, and maybe even the living creatures of revelation, let me just say that one thing. While there are places between Judaism and certain forms of Christianity where you can find detailed hierarchies showing what angels are what, which are more powerful than others, etc., none of that is Scriptural.

There is no list anywhere in Scripture that says the living creatures are second only to God, that seraphim come after, then cherubim, then common angels. Or that the living creatures are the cherubim. Or that there are 3 spheres with 9 choirs of angels, or that there are 10 ranks of angels. Or whatever other hierarchy might exist.

I don’t claim to know the answers to any of these questions because Scripture doesn’t tell us and there is no extrabiblical source that I would consider authoritative that does. So I lump them in with angels, since as far as I can tell they seem to be of the same (or very similar) order of beings to one another.

Then there are the fallen angels, the rebellious members of the divine council. These retain significant power and governmental authority. Some of them are imprisoned (2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6, and the “spirits in prison” of 1 Peter 3:19). Others remain active as the powers behind earthly kingdoms, the “principalities and powers” that Paul says we wrestle against (Ephesians 6:12). These are beings of real, substantial authority. The prince of Persia and the prince of Greece from Daniel 10 belong here.

Then, distinct from all of these, are the demons. And here is my central claim: demons are a different category of being from fallen angels. They are lesser. They are the disembodied spirits of the dead Nephilim, the hybrid offspring of the Watchers and human women whom we discussed in Part 5.

And finally there are humans. Made in God’s image, but not elohim. We’ll deal with the significance of that in Part 8.

Now let me defend the part of this taxonomy that many Christians might find surprising: the sharp distinction between fallen angels and demons.

Why Angels and Demons Cannot Be the Same

Here’s the puzzle that started my whole investigation.

The New Testament shows us demons behaving in a very specific way. And that behavior makes no sense if demons are fallen angels.

Consider how angels operate in Scripture. When angels appear, they can take on physical form at will. In Genesis 18-19, three visitors come to Abraham, and two of them (angels) go on to Sodom. They eat food. They’re grabbed by the mob. Lot washes their feet. They physically take Lot and his family by the hand and pull them out of the city. These are angelic beings interacting with the physical world in physical bodies, and there’s no indication that this is difficult or unusual for them. They don’t need to possess anyone. They simply manifest.

Now consider how demons operate in the Gospels. They don’t manifest their own bodies. They seek out human bodies to inhabit. And when they can’t find a body, they’re distressed.

Look at what Jesus says in Matthew 12:43-45:

“When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first.” (NKJV)

The unclean spirit wanders through “dry places” (waterless places) seeking rest and finding none. It’s restless, homeless, desperate for a “house” to inhabit. That house is a human body.

In Mark 5, the Gerasene demoniac is possessed by a legion of demons. When Jesus casts them out, they beg not to be sent “out of the country” (Mark 5:10) and plead to be sent into a nearby herd of pigs instead (Mark 5:12). They would rather inhabit pigs than be disembodied.

Take a minute and think about that. Really think about it. These beings are so desperate for embodiment that they beg to enter swine rather than exist without a physical host.

This is the behavior that broke the “fallen angel” theory for me.

If demons are fallen angels, and angels can manifest physical form whenever they wish (as we see throughout Scripture), then why would a demon ever be desperate for a body? Why would it wander through waterless places seeking rest? Why would it beg to be allowed to inhabit pigs rather than remain disembodied? A fallen angel wouldn’t need a host at all. It could simply take a form, the way the angels at Sodom did.

The hunger doesn’t fit. And it was that hunger, specifically, that convinced me something was wrong with the standard explanation. Because the very fact that demons hunger for embodiment tells you two things.

First, they don’t have bodies of their own and can’t simply manifest them.

And second, and this is the part that struck me most, that hunger speaks of loss. You don’t desperately crave something you’ve never had. The demons behave like beings that were once embodied and now find themselves cut off from a state of existence they were meant to have. They’re not spiritual beings frustrated at being confined to the spiritual realm. They’re beings whose natural embodied existence was taken from them, and they claw to get it back.

I sat with this problem for a long time. I could see clearly that the cultural answer didn’t work, but I didn’t have a replacement. The pieces were scattered on the table and I couldn’t assemble them. It was frustrating, honestly. I knew the “demons are just fallen angels” explanation was inadequate, but I had nothing to put in its place other than a vague sense that demons are just a different order of spiritual being.

And then I read 1 Enoch chapter 15.

The Enochic Explanation

Everything clicked into place when I encountered this passage. In 1 Enoch 15, God is speaking to Enoch, giving him a message to deliver to the Watchers, the angels who left heaven and took human wives. God explains what will become of the Nephilim, the giant offspring of those unions, after they die:

“And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men, and from the holy Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; they shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called... And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, but nevertheless hunger and thirst, and cause offences.” (1 Enoch 15:8-11)

Read that last line again. “They take no food, but nevertheless hunger and thirst.”

There it was. The hunger. The exact quality I had identified in the Gospel demons, sitting right there in a text written centuries before Christ.

The Enochic explanation is this. The Nephilim were hybrids, part divine (from the Watchers) and part human (from their mothers). When they died, their bodies perished, but their spirits did not. And because they belonged to neither realm fully, they had nowhere to go. They were not fully divine, so heaven was not their home. They were not fully human, so they didn’t descend to Sheol like the human dead. They were caught in between, disembodied spirits with no proper dwelling place, condemned to roam the earth, hungry for the embodied existence they had lost.

These are the demons of the New Testament.

Suddenly everything fit. The demons seek embodiment because they were once embodied and lost it. They wander through waterless places because they have no proper home in either the heavenly or the earthly realm. They hunger and thirst without being able to satisfy those cravings because they are spirits without the bodies that hunger and thirst were made for. They beg to enter pigs because any embodiment is better than none.

The 1 Enoch framework doesn’t just explain the demons’ behavior. It explains it precisely, down to the specific detail of hunger without the ability to eat. When a proposed explanation accounts for the evidence that thoroughly, and no competing explanation comes close, I take it seriously. Not as Scripture, but as the best available answer to a real biblical puzzle.

And I want to underscore why I lean on this so heavily. It’s not that I started with 1 Enoch and imposed it on the Bible. It’s the opposite. I started with the biblical text, identified a genuine problem in it that the standard reading couldn’t solve, and only afterward found that this ancient book provided the missing piece. The problem was biblical. The evidence was biblical. 1 Enoch simply supplied a framework that made sense of the biblical data better than anything else I had encountered. To this day, I have never heard a better explanation for where demons come from and why they behave as they do.

Where Scripture Supports This

Now, is any of this actually in the Bible, or is it all just 1 Enoch? Let me show you the canonical threads, because they’re there, even if they’re subtle.

First, the behavior of the demons themselves. Everything I described above (the seeking of bodies, the wandering in dry places, the desperation for a host) comes straight from the Gospels, from the mouth of Jesus and the accounts of the evangelists. That’s canonical. The Enochic framework explains the biblical data; it doesn’t invent it.

Second, there’s the curious language of the Rephaim in the Old Testament. The Rephaim are, on one hand, a name for the giant clans descended from the Nephilim (Deuteronomy 2:11, 20-21). But the same word is also used to describe the “shades,” the dead spirits in Sheol. Isaiah 14:9 uses rephaim for the departed spirits that stir to greet the fallen king of Babylon. Isaiah 26:14 says of certain dead, “they are deceased, they will not rise” (again using the rephaim concept), stating that these particular shades will not be resurrected. There’s a shadowy connection in the Hebrew Bible between the giants and a category of restless dead, which fits the Enochic picture remarkably well.

Third, there’s Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 10:20 that pagan sacrifices are offered to demons (δαιμόνια, daimonia), connecting idolatry to these disembodied spirits rather than to the governmental fallen angels. This distinction (idol-demons versus territorial powers) is one we’ll return to shortly.

None of these canonical threads, by itself, proves the Enochic explanation. But together they form a pattern that the Enochic framework ties together into a coherent whole. And I’ll be honest with you once more: the framework itself, the specific claim that demons are the disembodied spirits of dead Nephilim, is not stated explicitly anywhere in the canon of Scripture. It’s an inference. A strong inference, in my view, and one held by serious interpreters, but an inference nonetheless.

I want you to hold it as such.

The Early Church and the Nephilim Spirits

I mentioned that portions of the early church took 1 Enoch seriously. It’s worth noting that this specific explanation for the origin of demons was not fringe in the early centuries.

Justin Martyr, writing around 155 A.D. in his Second Apology, explicitly identified demons as the offspring of the fallen angels and human women, roaming the earth and afflicting humanity. Tertullian followed the same line. For these early Christian writers, the connection between the Watchers, the Nephilim, and the demons was not speculative; it was the received understanding, inherited from Second Temple Judaism and confirmed, in their view, by the behavior of the demons the apostles encountered.

The Sethite reinterpretation of Genesis 6 that we discussed in Part 5, popularized by Augustine, is part of what eventually eclipsed this understanding in the Western church. Once the “sons of God” were reduced to the godly line of Seth, the Nephilim became merely wicked humans, and the framework connecting them to the origin of demons collapsed. What had been a coherent explanation was gradually forgotten.

I would contend that recovering it clarifies a great deal.

Principalities, Powers, and the Question of Hierarchy

Let me turn now to the fallen angels proper, the governmental spiritual powers, and address a question that naturally arises: is there a hierarchy among them?

Paul uses a rich and varied vocabulary for spiritual powers. He speaks of ἀρχαί (archai, “principalities” or “rulers”), ἐξουσίαι (exousiai, “authorities” or “powers”), δυνάμεις (dynameis, “powers” or “forces”), κυριότητες (kyriotētes, “dominions” or “lordships”), and θρόνοι (thronoi, “thrones”). These terms appear across Romans 8:38, Ephesians 1:21, Ephesians 3:10, Ephesians 6:12, Colossians 1:16, and Colossians 2:15.

The variety of terms strongly suggests that Paul recognized different orders or ranks of spiritual beings. He’s not just using synonyms for stylistic variety. Terms like “thrones,” “dominions,” “rulers,” and “authorities” carry connotations of graded governmental structure. There does seem to be some kind of order to the spiritual realm.

But here is where I want to exercise restraint, and where I part ways with a long tradition of Christian speculation.

Paul never spells out a rigid hierarchy. He varies the order and grouping of these terms from letter to letter. In Colossians 1:16 he writes “thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.” In Ephesians 1:21 he writes “principality and power and might and dominion.” The sequence changes. He’s not giving us an organizational chart. He’s using an accumulation of terms to convey the vast, structured, but ultimately subordinate reality of the spiritual powers that Christ rules over.

This didn’t stop later theologians from building elaborate systems.

The most influential was Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, an anonymous author writing around the 5th or 6th century A.D. who was long mistaken for the Dionysius converted by Paul in Acts 17:34. In his work On the Celestial Hierarchy, Pseudo-Dionysius organized the angelic beings into nine orders, grouped into three triads. The first triad: Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones. The second: Dominions, Virtues, and Powers. The third: Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. Each triad, in his scheme, represented a different degree of proximity to God and a different mode of divine illumination.

Thomas Aquinas, writing in the 13th century, adopted and elaborated this scheme in his Summa Theologica (First Part, Question 108). Drawing on Ephesians 1:21 and Colossians 1:16, along with other scriptural references, Aquinas systematized the nine orders and reasoned carefully about the nature and function of each.

I want to be fair to these men. Pseudo-Dionysius and Aquinas were brilliant, serious thinkers, and their work has shaped Christian imagination for over a thousand years. Aquinas in particular is one of the towering intellects in the history of the church.

But I don’t think their nine-order hierarchy is biblical teaching. It’s a systematic construct, built by taking the scattered vocabulary of Scripture and imposing an ordered architecture on it that the biblical authors never actually laid out. The names of the orders come from the Bible. The system that arranges them into three triads of three does not. It comes from a synthesis of scriptural terms with Neoplatonic philosophy, and however beautiful and internally coherent it may be, it goes well beyond what the text warrants.

Here’s my conviction: when Scripture is reticent about something, we should be reticent too. The Bible tells us that spiritual powers exist, that they are structured and varied, that some are faithful and many are fallen, and that all of them are subject to Christ. What it does not give us is a detailed org chart of the heavenly realm. And I think there’s a kind of humility in accepting that limit. Pretending we have the divine bureaucracy mapped out to nine precise ranks claims a knowledge we simply haven’t been given.

I’d rather tell you what the text says, acknowledge the mystery where the text is silent, and leave it there. There are different orders of spiritual beings. Beyond that, I hold my speculations loosely, and I’d encourage you to do the same.

Territorial Spirits and Idol Worship

There’s one more piece of the taxonomy to address, and it connects back to the framework we built in Part 3.

We established, from Daniel 10, that spiritual beings are assigned to specific nations. The prince of Persia and the prince of Greece are territorial powers, divine beings with governmental authority over geographic and political entities. This holds for the modern world. Behind the nations and their systems stand spiritual realities, and most of these, as Psalm 82 showed us, are fallen.

But here’s a wrinkle worth noticing. Territorial spirits don’t fully explain the way idolatry seems to travel.

If spiritual powers were purely territorial, tied to fixed geographic boundaries, then you’d expect the worship of a particular god to stay put in its assigned territory. But that’s not what we see. When a people migrated, their idols went with them, and the perceived power of those idols traveled too. The gods of the nations weren’t confined to national borders in the way a purely territorial model would predict.

I suspect this is because we’re actually dealing with two different levels of spiritual reality that we’ve been examining in this post. On one level, there are the territorial rulers, the fallen angels with genuine governmental authority over nations, the “princes” of Daniel 10. These are powerful, governmental beings tied to political entities. On another level, there are the demons, the disembodied spirits attached to idolatrous practice, which Paul says are the real recipients of pagan sacrifice (1 Corinthians 10:20). These lesser spirits could attach themselves to specific idols, cults, and practices, and travel with them wherever their worshipers went.

The territorial fallen angels govern the nations from above. The idol-demons infest the specific practices of false worship from below. Both are real. Both are corrupt. But they operate on different levels, and conflating them (as the flat “fallen angel equals demon” model does) obscures how the spiritual realm actually functions in Scripture.

I’ll say again that I’m reasoning here, drawing inferences from the biblical data rather than citing chapter and verse for every claim. But the distinction between governmental powers and idol-demons makes better sense of the biblical evidence than treating all evil spirits as a single undifferentiated mass.

Why This Matters for You

You might reasonably ask: does any of this taxonomy actually matter for my daily walk with Jesus? Isn’t it enough to know that evil spiritual beings exist and that Christ has defeated them?

In one sense, yes. The most important thing is exactly that: Christ has triumphed over every spiritual power, and no force of darkness can withstand His authority. If you never sorted out the difference between a fallen angel and a demon, if you’ve never given an instant of thought to the ordering of the spiritual realm, your salvation would still be perfectly secure.

But I think understanding this framework matters for two reasons.

First, it helps you read the Gospels with new eyes. When you understand that the demons Jesus cast out were desperate, homeless spirits craving embodiment, you understand the nature of the conflict differently. Jesus wasn’t just performing generic supernatural feats. He was confronting a specific category of ancient evil, the lingering consequence of the Watchers’ rebellion, and demonstrating His absolute authority over it. Every exorcism was a declaration that the corruption introduced before the Flood had met its master. When the demons cried out, “Have You come here to torment us before the time?” (Matthew 8:29), they were acknowledging that Jesus held their final judgment in His hands.

Second, it guards you against error. As I discussed at length in Part 6, we have no authority to bind or rebuke spiritual beings in our own name. That principle from Jude 9 applies to every category of spiritual being we’ve discussed in this post, the governmental fallen angels and the idol-demons alike. Understanding what these beings are, and are not, keeps us from both underestimating them and overestimating our own authority over them. Our confidence is never in our knowledge of the spiritual hierarchy or our techniques for confronting it. Our confidence is in Christ alone, in whose name every knee will bow.

What’s Ahead

In Part 8, we come at last to the resolution of everything this series has been building toward. Christ above all. We’ll see how the incarnation, the cross, and the resurrection represent the cosmic victory over every corrupt power we’ve examined: the fallen council members, the imprisoned Watchers, the disembodied demons, the territorial princes of the nations. We’ll return to Deuteronomy 32 and discover how the disinherited nations are being reclaimed. We’ll look at the astonishing reading of Deuteronomy 32:43 preserved in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, a reading the author of Hebrews builds on to prove Christ’s superiority over the angels. And we’ll close by confronting, directly and charitably, the question of what we become in Christ, and what we do not become. It’s the culmination of the whole journey, and I can’t wait to share it with you.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and it always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible.

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.

We have reached the hinge of the whole book.

For six chapters we have followed Daniel through the courts of Babylon and Persia: the fiery furnace, the writing on the wall, the lions’ den. Those were stories, narratives of faithful men in a pagan empire. But now the book turns. From here to the end, Daniel is no longer mainly a character in the story. He is a seer, and what he sees will shake him to his core.

If you missed any of the earlier posts, you can get caught up HERE

Chapter 7 is also a boundary in a way your English Bible cannot show you. Daniel is a bilingual book. From chapter 2, verse 4 all the way through chapter 7, the text is written not in Hebrew but in Aramaic, the common language of the ancient Near East. Chapter 7 is the last Aramaic chapter. After this, Daniel returns to Hebrew. So this vision sits right on the seam of the book, looking backward to the four kingdoms of chapter 2 and forward to the visions still to come.

And it contains the single most important image in the entire book. A figure comes on (or with) the clouds of heaven, receives an everlasting kingdom, and is worshiped by all peoples. Centuries later, standing on trial for His life, Jesus of Nazareth would quote this exact passage to tell the high priest who He was.

The high priest tore his robes and called it blasphemy.

This is the summit. And this is where our three voices, diverge in ways that do not flatten the picture but deepen it.

A Word on Our Three Voices

As always in this series, we are reading three witnesses side by side. For the Masoretic Text (MT), the Hebrew and Aramaic tradition behind most English Bibles, I will quote the NRSVUE. For the Old Greek (OG), the earliest Greek translation, I will quote the New English Translation of the Septuagint (N.E.T.S., published in 2007). For Theodotion, the later Greek revision that the early church adopted for Daniel, I will quote the Brenton translation of the Septuagint.

One thing to notice before we even begin. Because chapter 7 is in Aramaic, the famous titles in this chapter come to us first in Aramaic, not Hebrew. “Son of man” is the Aramaic בַּר אֱנָשׁ (bar enash), and in verse 13 it appears as כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ (kevar enash), “like a son of man.” “Ancient of Days” is the Aramaic עַתִּיק יוֹמִין (Attiq Yomin).

Keep those phrases in mind. Everything in this chapter builds toward the moment they meet.

Now, with that established, let’s dig in!

If you’re reading this in email, be aware that the text is likely to cut off without warning. For a smoother reading experience and all the features Substack has to offer (including audio voiceovers of my posts), you can go HERE or download the app.

Get more from Kevin Potter in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The Four Winds and the Four Beasts (verses 1–8)

Here is the vision as it opens.

Daniel 7:1-8 (NRSVUE):

In the first year of King Belshazzar of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and visions of his head as he lay in bed. Then he wrote down the dream: I, Daniel, saw in my vision by night the four winds of heaven stirring up the great sea, and four great beasts came up out of the sea, different from one another. The first was like a lion and had eagles’ wings. Then, as I watched, its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a human being, and a human mind was given to it. Another beast appeared, a second one, that looked like a bear. It was raised up on one side, had three tusks in its mouth among its teeth, and was told, “Arise, devour many bodies!” After this, as I watched, another appeared, like a leopard. The beast had four wings of a bird on its back and four heads, and dominion was given to it. After this I saw in the visions by night a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth and was devouring, breaking in pieces, and stamping what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that preceded it, and it had ten horns. I was considering the horns when another horn appeared, a little one that came up among them. Three of the original horns were plucked up from before it. There were eyes like human eyes in this horn and a mouth speaking arrogantly.

Daniel 7:1-8 (Old Greek/NETS):

During the first year of Baltasar’s reign over the land of Babylonia, Daniel saw a vision from his head upon his bed. Then Daniel wrote down the vision that he saw. He wrote as a summary of the account: On my bed I was watching in my sleep during the night, and lo, the four winds of heaven fell upon a great sea, and four beasts were coming up out of the sea, each one differing from the other. The first was like a lioness, having as though wings of an eagle. I kept watching until its wings were plucked out, and it was lifted from the ground and was set upon human feet, and a human heart was given to it. And lo, another beast was after it, having the likeness of a bear. And it was placed on one side, and three ribs were in its mouth. And thus it said, “Rise, devour much flesh!” And after this, I was watching another beast like a leopard. And four wings of a bird were on it, and the beast had four heads, and language was given to it. But after this, I was watching in a vision by night a terrifying fourth beast, and the fear of it was surpassing in strength. It had great iron teeth, devouring and pounding; it was trampling with its feet round about, and it behaved differently from all the beasts before it, and it had ten horns. And many designs were in its horns, and lo, one horn grew up among them, a little one among its horns, and three of the earlier horns were removed by it. And lo, eyes like human eyes were in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things. And it made war against the holy ones.

Daniel 7:1-8 (Theodotion/Brenton):

In the first year of Baltasar, king of the Chaldeans, Daniel had a dream, and visions of his head upon his bed: and he wrote his dream. I Daniel beheld, and, lo, the four winds of heaven blew violently upon the great sea. And there came up four great beasts out of the sea, differing from one another. The first was as a lioness, and her wings as an eagle’s; I beheld until her wings were plucked, and she was lifted off from the earth, and she stood on human feet, and a man’s heart was given to her. And, behold, a second beast like a bear, and it supported itself on one side, and there were three ribs in its mouth, between its teeth: and thus they said to it, Arise, devour much flesh. After this one I looked, and behold another wild beast as a leopard, and it had four wings of a bird upon it: and the wild beast had four heads, and power was given to it. After this one I looked, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and exceedingly strong, and its teeth were of iron; devouring and crushing to atoms, and it trampled the remainder with its feet: and it was altogether different from the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I noticed his horns, and behold, another little horn came up in the midst of them, and before it three of the former horns were rooted out: and, behold, there were eyes as the eyes of a man in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things.

The imagery is ancient, and it is meant to frighten you. The "great sea" is not a body of water. In the Bible's symbolic grammar it is chaos itself, the roiling mass of the nations, the deep that never stops churning. And out of that sea, four monsters climb.

The traditional reading, held by Jewish and Christian interpreters alike for over two thousand years, sees four successive empires rising from the waves. The lion (or lioness) is Babylon. The bear, raised up on one side because Persia came to dominate the Medes, is Medo-Persia. The leopard is Greece, its four heads the four generals who carved up Alexander's empire after his death. And the fourth beast, the one the text refuses to compare to any animal at all, is Rome. We will come back to that fourth beast and its little horn. Daniel himself demands a fuller explanation later in the chapter, and we will stand beside him when he gets it.

But before we go anywhere, look closely. Because even here, in the opening description, our three voices are not singing in unison.

The Old Greek begins with a small editorial note the others lack: Daniel “wrote as a summary of the account.” A glimpse of the prophet at his desk, deciding what to record. Then at verse 6, where the MT and Theodotion say “dominion” or “power” was given to the leopard, the Old Greek says “language was given to it.” Sit with that for a moment. Not power. Language. That is not a rounding error in translation.

And then the Old Greek does something remarkable. At the end of verse 8 it adds an entire clause that appears nowhere in the Masoretic Text or Theodotion: “And it made war against the holy ones.”

The other two traditions introduce the little horn, let it speak its arrogant words, and hold its violence back until later in the chapter. The Old Greek refuses to wait. The moment the horn appears, the Old Greek tells you exactly what it is: a power at war with the people of God.

No suspense. No slow reveal. The verdict is stamped right on the introduction.

Now, this is one of those places where I want to exercise some care and give you the intellectual honesty you deserve.

When the Old Greek diverges like this, scholars generally offer one of two broad explanations for it. One says the translator worked loosely, adding interpretive touches and softening things he was uncomfortable with as he went.

The other, which I find more persuasive as a general rule, says the Old Greek often preserves a genuinely different underlying Semitic text than the one that became the Masoretic Text.

The Dead Sea Scrolls taught us that much of the Hebrew Old Testament was more fluid in antiquity than we once assumed. And the Old Greek of Daniel in particular frequently reads like a witness to a different edition rather than an interpretive paraphrase (or correction) of ours.

I lean that way here.

But I will say plainly that scholars genuinely disagree, and some, like Emanuel Tov, describe the Old Greek of Daniel as more interpretive in character.

Here is the good news though: you do not have to settle that debate to feel the effect. These traditions were preserved. They were intended. And each one shows you a slightly different angle on the same vision.

The Ancient of Days and the Heavenly Court (verses 9–10)

Then the scene changes, and it changes hard. The beasts are still raging below, still tearing at the nations, and without warning we are lifted out of the churning sea and set down in a throne room. This is one of the grandest scenes in all of Scripture.

Daniel 7:9-10 (NRSVUE):

As I watched, thrones were set in place, and an Ancient One took his throne; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and flowed out from his presence. A thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood attending him. The court sat in judgment, and the books were opened.

Daniel 7:9-10 (OG/NETS):

I kept watching until thrones were set, and an ancient of days sat, having a cloak like snow, and the tuft of hair on his head was like pure wool. The throne was like a flame of fire shooting out, and a stream of fire went out from before him. A thousand thousands were waiting on him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood attending him. And books were opened, and a court sat in judgment.

Daniel 7:9-10 (Theodotion/Brenton):

I beheld until the thrones were set, and the Ancient of days sat; and his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head, as pure wool: his throne was a flame of fire, and his wheels burning fire. A stream of fire rushed forth before him: thousand thousands ministered to him, and ten thousands of myriads, attended upon him: the judgment sat, and the books were opened.

Read that slowly. Then read it again. This is a courtroom, and it’s a cosmic one.

Now I want to draw out something we have been tracing through this whole series, the reality known as the Divine Council Worldview or DCW. Look at the very first line: "thrones were set in place." Thrones. Plural.

The Ancient of Days takes His throne, but the text will not let you imagine His seat is the only one in the room. Around Him stand "a thousand thousands" and "ten thousand times ten thousand," a host beyond counting, and a court that sits in judgment.

We have met this assembly before. Micaiah saw the LORD enthroned with all the host of heaven standing beside Him (1 Kings 22:19). Asaph saw God take His place in the divine assembly (Psalm 82). The sons of God presented themselves before the Lord in Job 1 and 2.

Daniel is being shown the throne room of God. And it is not empty. It’s populated.

Notice, too, that the NRSVUE renders the divine title as “an Ancient One” where the older tradition reads “the (or an) Ancient of Days.” That is a translation choice, and I understand the reasoning behind it, but something is lost. The Aramaic Attiq Yomin (”Ancient of Days”) carries a weight the flatter phrase cannot hold. This is the Eternal One. The One whose existence stretches back before there were days to be ancient of.

The three voices agree on the essentials, but each adds its own brushstroke. The Old Greek gives us a “cloak like snow” and a “tuft of hair,” language almost tender in its concreteness. And watch the order of the final two lines. The MT and Theodotion say the judgement sat and the books were opened; the Old Greek reverses it: “books were opened, and a court sat in judgment.” Small differences. But together they paint a deliberate, unhurried, heavenly tribunal.

No rushing. No mob justice. The books are opened, and every deed of every beast is on record. If you’ve read Revelation, you should recognize this scene. John saw it too: “books were opened... and the dead were judged... according to their works” (Revelation 20:12).

The empires think they are writing history. Daniel is shown who keeps the records.

The Beast Slain, the Others Spared (verses 11–12)

The judgment falls. And here the traditions preserve a small divergence with large implications.

Daniel 7:11-12 (NRSVUE):

I watched then because of the noise of the arrogant words that the horn was speaking. And as I watched, the beast was put to death and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.

Daniel 7:11-12 (OG/NETS):

I was then watching the noise of the great words, which the horn kept speaking, and the beast was beaten to death, and its body perished and was given over to burning with fire. And he removed those around him from their authority, and time of life was granted to them for a season and a time.

Daniel 7:11-12 (Theodotion/Brenton):

I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which that horn spoke, until the wild beast was slain and destroyed, and his body given to be burnt with fire. And the dominion of the rest of the wild beasts was taken away; but a prolonging of life was given them for certain times.

Here is the difference. The MT and Theodotion describe verse 12 in the passive voice: the dominion of the remaining beasts “was taken away.” The action simply happens to them. No agent is named, and that silence is its own kind of statement; the unnamed hand points quietly back to the heavenly court.

The Old Greek will have none of that quiet. It is active and personal: “he removed those around him from their authority.” Someone acts. Someone reaches down and strips the defeated powers of their offices, one by one, like a king dismissing faithless governors. It reads less like a description and more like a royal decree.

This is the same pattern we have watched again and again in the Old Greek of Daniel: a preference for concrete, active verbs where the MT keeps things veiled in the passive.

Whether that reflects a different source text or the translator’s instinct, the effect is unmistakable. In the Old Greek, the judgment is not merely an event. It is a governing act. A change of administration in the heavenly realm.

But here’s the important part: both are true. The MT gives you the mystery, dominion dissolving before the throne with no hand visible. The Old Greek gives you the King, actively unseating every rival power. The dominion is stripped away, and there is One who strips it.

But I need you to notice something here, and it’s something we’ve been tracing for months now. There are two very different ways of reading verse 12, and both are consistent across traditions. We can read this as being a statement about the fate of the nations represented by the beasts (the fourth nation, Rome, is killed and destroyed by fire, but the others continue to exist), though this presents some interpretive challenges regarding Babylon. Or, we can read this from the viewpoint of the DCW and see it as taking away the dominion of the spiritual powers behind Persia and Greece (while preserving their existence) after destroying and burning the power behind Rome.

But here’s what makes this genuinely intriguing. The only tradition that explicitly connects this action to God (“And he removed…”) is the Old Greek, which also explicitly states that He’s removing “those around Him,” which strongly suggests that what’s really in view here is the dominion of the spiritual powers behind the nations rather than the nations themselves.

And this brings us, of course, to the figure who receives that stripped dominion.

One Like a Son of Man (verses 13–14)

This is the passage. If you remember nothing else from this chapter, remember these two verses. Read all three voices slowly, because the entire difference between them hangs on one small preposition. One word. And that one word changes everything and nothing at the same time.

Daniel 7:13-14 (NRSVUE):

As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed.

Daniel 7:13-14 (OG/NETS):

I was watching in the night visions, and lo, as it were a son of man was coming upon the clouds of heaven. And he came as far as the ancient of days, and the attendants were present with him. And royal authority was given to him, and all the nations of the earth according to posterity, and all honor was serving him. And his authority is an everlasting authority, which shall never be removed—and his kingship, which will never perish.

Daniel 7:13-14 (Theodotion):

I beheld in the night vision, and, lo, one coming with the clouds of heaven as the Son of man, and he came on to the Ancient of days, and was brought near to him. And to him was given the dominion, and the honour, and the kingdom; and all nations, tribes, and languages, shall serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed. (Brenton)

Before anything else, a note on the English. The NRSVUE renders the Aramaic kevar enash as “one like a human being.” That is defensible. It is also a flattening. Behind “human being” stands בַּר אֱנָשׁ (bar enash), Son of Man, the title the tradition and the New Testament heard here, the title the NKJV preserves as “One like the Son of Man” and Brenton as “as the Son of man.” Note that Theodotion is the only tradition using the definite article the for “The Son of Man.” And again, that behind “Ancient One” stands Attiq Yomin, the Ancient of Days.

That’s two different titles that point to one throne room. And you need to hold onto both.

Now the preposition.

The Masoretic Text and Theodotion both say the Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven. The Aramaic is עִם (im), “with,” and Theodotion’s Greek matches it exactly: μετά (meta), “with.” The Old Greek stands apart. It says He comes upon the clouds, ἐπί (epi), “upon.”

With the clouds, or upon the clouds. It looks like a trivial shift, but it’s not.

Coming with the clouds is accompaniment. The clouds are His entourage, the theophany, the same glory-cloud that filled the tabernacle and led Israel through the wilderness. To come with the clouds is to arrive wrapped in the visible glory of God, attended by the hosts of heaven, the divine warrior descending to judge.

Coming upon the clouds is something else entirely. In the Hebrew Bible, riding upon the clouds is not something a man does. It is not something an angel does. It is a divine prerogative, reserved for God alone. The LORD “makes the clouds his chariot” and “rides on the wings of the wind” (Psalm 104:3). “The LORD is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt” (Isaiah 19:1). He is the one “who rides through the heavens” to help His people (Deuteronomy 33:26), the one whose “way is in whirlwind and storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet” (Nahum 1:3).

Everywhere else in the Old Testament, the cloud-rider is God. No exceptions. Not one.

So when the Old Greek says this Son of Man comes riding upon the clouds, it is not smoothing out a phrase. It is making the boldest possible claim about His identity that the language allows. It is seating Him where only God sits.

And here is where my both/and framework becomes almost unbearably beautiful. These two traditions are not fighting over this verse; they are harmonizing from different vocal ranges.

The MT and Theodotion show you a figure who arrives with the glory-cloud, attended by heaven’s host, presented before the Ancient of Days like a royal son brought into his father’s throne room.

The Old Greek shows you a figure who does what only God does, riding the clouds as their master. Set them side by side and you get a portrait neither could paint alone: a Son of Man who is brought before God and who wields the prerogative of God. Distinct from the Ancient of Days. Approaching Him, receiving from Him. And sharing His glory all the while.

Now, unlike some of the divergences we saw earlier in this chapter, I do not think the Old Greek’s “upon” is best explained by a different source text. The Aramaic “with” is secure. What I hear instead is a translator who understood the scene, felt where it was pointing, and drew out its deepest implication: this cloud-coming figure belongs on the divine side of the ledger. That is not a translator corrupting the text. That is a translator, and I would say the Spirit who preserved his work, showing us what was there all along.

And what is given to Him? Dominion, glory, and kingship. An everlasting dominion that shall never pass away. The worship of all peoples, nations, and languages. Look hard at that last phrase, because in this book it is the vocabulary of worship.

All through Daniel, “all peoples, nations, and languages” describes the whole world bowing before a king; think of Nebuchadnezzar’s decrees. Here the whole world serves the Son of Man forever. That is not a promotion. That is an enthronement, and the One enthroned is receiving the devotion that belongs only to God.

The Son of Man in Three Voices Beyond Daniel

Now I want to widen the lens, because the figure we just watched ride the clouds does not stay in Daniel 7. He echoes. I hear Him in three distinct places, and hearing all three together is one of the most thrilling exercises in all of biblical study. There is the Son of Man of Daniel 7. There is the Son of Man of the Parables of Enoch section of 1 Enoch. And there is the Son of Man on the lips of Jesus.

Daniel 7 we have just read. A heavenly figure, coming with the clouds, receiving an everlasting kingdom and the service of every people, nation, and language.

The second voice demands some care. So let’s give it some.

The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch

The Parables of Enoch (also called the Similitudes) are chapters 37 through 71 of 1 Enoch. And I want to be careful and measured here, because this is exactly the sort of extrabiblical territory where confident claims get made that the evidence cannot support. So let me tell you what scholars can and cannot say.

Here is the puzzle. Every major section of 1 Enoch turned up among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Every section except this one. The Parables alone are missing from Qumran, and that silence led J.T. Milik to argue they were a late composition, possibly even a Christian one.

But the scholarly consensus, associated with names like Charlesworth, Nickelsburg, and VanderKam, has since moved decisively the other way: the Parables are a Jewish work, not a Christian one, most likely composed shortly before the birth of Christ (roughly 40-4 B.C. by most estimates). I will note honestly, however, that the dating is still debated, and the Qumran absence keeps a minority cautious.

I think that caution is healthy. But the consensus has shifted dramatically.

Why does the date matter so much? Because of what the Parables contain.

Listen to what Enoch sees:

“And there I saw One who had a head of days, and His head was white like wool, and with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of a man, and his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, and why he went with the Head of Days. And he answered and said unto me: ‘This is the Son of Man who hath righteousness. With whom dwelleth righteousness, and who reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden. Because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him, and whose lot hath preeminence before the Lord of Spirits in uprightness for ever.’” (1 Enoch 46:1-3)

The Head of Days. His head white like wool. This is not a subtle allusion. I see only two possibilities.

Either 1 Enoch really does come from an older text and the minority view that it is authentically copied/translated from a text predating the Flood, and this is literally what Enoch himself saw.

Or the person who composed the Parables had Daniel 7 open in front of him, took the Ancient of Days, and gave Him a new name built from the same image. And standing beside the white-haired Enthroned One is a second figure, “one like a son of man,” just as in Daniel’s night vision.

The very next verse tells us this Son of Man “shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their seats and shall loosen the reins of the strong” (1 Enoch 46:4). If your ear catches a faint pre-echo of Mary’s song, “he has brought down the powerful from their thrones” (Luke 1:52), you are not alone. I won’t press that connection as proof of anything. I simply note that the music was already playing.

Then the Parables say something Daniel never says out loud. They tell us where this Son of Man came from:

“And at that hour that Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, and His name before the Head of Days. Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.” (1 Enoch 48:2-3)

Named before the sun. Named before the stars. And a few verses later: “For this reason hath He been chosen and hidden before Him, before the creation of the world and for evermore” (1 Enoch 48:6). This is a pre-existent, heavenly figure, hidden with God from before creation and revealed to the elect at the end. The same chapter says of Him: “He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall and he shall be the light of the Gentiles” (1 Enoch 48:4). And then, “All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before Him” (1 Enoch 48:5).

Worship. Directed at the Son of Man. In a thoroughly Jewish, fiercely monotheistic text.

And the throne language goes further than you might expect. In 1 Enoch 51:3, the Lord of Spirits declares:

“And the Elect One shall in those days sit on My throne and His mouth shall pour forth all the secrets of wisdom and counsel.”

Not a throne beside God’s throne. Not a lesser seat in the divine court. My throne. The Son of Man sits where only God sits.

The judgment scene of chapter 62 gathers all of it into one terrifying tableau. The kings and the mighty of the earth stand before the enthroned figure, and “pain shall seize them when they see that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory” (1 Enoch 62:5).

Then the secret is announced: “For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden and the Most High preserved Him in the presence of His might, and revealed Him to the elect” (1 Enoch 62:7). The kings “shall fall down before Him on their faces and worship and set their hope upon that Son of Man, and petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands” (1 Enoch 62:9). And for the righteous, the scene ends not in terror but at a table: “with that Son of Man shall they eat and lie down and rise up for ever and ever” (1 Enoch 62:14).

A shared meal with the Messiah as the reward of the redeemed. If that makes you think of a certain supper, and of a certain promise about eating and drinking at His table in His kingdom (Luke 22:29-30), I understand completely.

He carries other titles throughout the Parables, too. He is “the Righteous One” (1 Enoch 38:2). He is “the Elect One,” again and again. And twice he is called by the title that matters most: those who fall under judgment “have denied the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed One” (1 Enoch 48:10; see also 52:4). His Anointed. His Mashiach. His Christos.

The Messiah.

Now, honesty requires me to show you the wrinkle, because there is one. And it’s not small.

At the very end of the Parables, the Head of Days Himself comes out to greet Enoch, and the greeting is startling: “This is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness, and righteousness abides over Him, and the righteousness of the Head of Days forsakes Him not” (1 Enoch 71:14).

In several translations that sentence reads as though it is addressed to Enoch, about Enoch. As though the seer is being identified with the very figure he has spent thirty chapters watching. Scholars handle this a few different ways: some see chapters 70-71 as a later appendix, some read it as an exaltation scene, some as a deliberate paradox the author never resolved.

I refuse to flatten this with a tidy answer. I don’t explain the difficulty away. And if you dig into the Parables you will run into it yourself.

But notice what this wrinkle does not do. It does not erase chapters 46 through 62. However you resolve the ending, the portrait stands: a Son of Man who is heavenly, pre-existent, enthroned on God’s own throne, worshiped by the nations, and named the Anointed One.

So here is where the second voice leaves us. If the consensus dating is right, then a Jewish text from a little before the time of Jesus had already concluded and/or corroborated that Daniel 7’s Son of Man was a heavenly, pre-existent, messianic being.

And notice one more thing before we move on, because it matters enormously for the third voice. “Elect One” is not a title the Parables invented. It comes from Isaiah: “my chosen, in whom my soul delights” (Isaiah 42:1). “Light of the Gentiles” is Isaiah too (Isaiah 42:6; 49:6). Which means either the Parables are ancient and had a profound influence on Scripture, or they had already begun braiding Daniel’s cloud figure together with Isaiah’s Servant.

But they only took the Servant’s glory. His election, his light, his vindication. Never his wounds.

The Enochic Son of Man judges. He does not bleed.

The Son of Man on the Lips of Jesus

And then there is Jesus. “Son of Man” was His favorite way of referring to Himself, appearing on His lips dozens of times in the Gospels. And He did something the Parables never dared.

Where they braided Daniel 7 with Isaiah’s Servant and stopped at the Servant’s glory, Jesus pulled the braid all the way through Isaiah 53. He was the Son of Man who “has nowhere to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20), and also the Son of Man who would come “on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matthew 24:30). Homeless and enthroned. Pierced and worshiped. The category existed. The crucified version of it did not, until He filled it.

There may even be a fingerprint of this whole expectation at the Transfiguration. In the earliest manuscripts of Luke 9:35, the voice from the cloud does not say “beloved” as in Matthew and Mark. It says ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος (ho eklelegmenos, “the Chosen One”):

“This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!” (NRSVUE)

Later manuscripts harmonized Luke to the other evangelists, which is why the KJV and NKJV read “beloved” here; that is a manuscript variant, not a translator’s whim. Now, I am not claiming the Father was quoting Enoch. The title is Isaiah’s before it is anyone else’s. But the Parables show us that “Chosen One” was live messianic currency in first-century Judaism, the standing title of the heavenly Son of Man. And out of a cloud, of all places, the Father applied it to His Son.

The moment all three voices converge is the trial. Standing before the high priest, under oath, asked directly whether He is the Messiah, Jesus answers by quoting Daniel 7 and Psalm 110 in a single breath:

“you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power”

and

“coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62)

The high priest does not need a theology lecture to understand what has just happened. He tears his robes and cries blasphemy.

Why?

Because he heard exactly what the Old Greek translator heard. He heard a man claiming to be the cloud-rider, claiming the seat and the prerogative of God. That is the whole case against Jesus in a single sentence, and it rests on Daniel 7:13.

Whether or not the men in that room had read the Parables of Enoch, the expectation of a heavenly Son of Man was in the air of first-century Judaism. Jesus did not invent the category. He stepped into it, claimed it, and carried it somewhere no one expected it to go: a cross.

And the apostle John, writing Revelation, completes the circle. He sees “one like the Son of Man,” and then describes Him with the very features Daniel and Enoch reserved for the Enthroned One: “His head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow” (Revelation 1:13-14).

Follow the progression. In Daniel, the Son of Man approaches the Ancient of Days. In the Parables, the Son of Man stands beside the Head of Days and sits on His throne. In Revelation, the Son of Man wears the Ancient of Days’ own appearance.

The distinction between the figures remains, and yet the identity is shared. I believe that is as close as Scripture comes to drawing the doctrine of the Trinity out of Daniel 7. Not imposed on the text from outside, but embedded there by the divine Author from the beginning, and made visible, voice by voice, through progressive revelation.

The Interpretation: Four Kingdoms and the Holy Ones (verses 15–18)

Daniel, understandably, is undone. He asks one of the heavenly attendants what it all means.

Daniel 7:15-18 (NRSVUE):

As for me, Daniel, my spirit was troubled within me, and the visions of my head terrified me. I approached one of the attendants to ask him the truth concerning all this. So he said that he would disclose to me the interpretation of the matter: “As for these four great beasts, four kings shall arise out of the earth. But the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever—forever and ever.”

Daniel 7:15-18 (OG/NETS):

And as for me, Daniel, since I was exhausted by these things, by the night vision, I approached one of those standing and was seeking the truth from him about all these things. So answering, he spoke to me and disclosed to me the meaning of the words: “These great beasts are four kingdoms, which shall perish from the earth. And holy ones of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever—forever and ever.”

Daniel 7:15-18 (Theodotion/Brenton):

As for me Daniel, my spirit in my body trembled, and the visions of my head troubled me. And I drew near to one of them that stood by, and I sought to learn of him the truth of all these things: and he told me the truth, and made known to me the interpretation of the things. These four beasts are four kingdoms that shall rise up on the earth: which shall be taken away; and the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess it for ever and ever.

The interpretation is compressed and stunning. Four beasts. Four kingdoms. And then the kingdom is handed not to a fifth empire but to “the holy ones of the Most High.” Watch what just happened there: the Son of Man’s kingdom and the holy ones’ kingdom are the same kingdom. What is given to Him in verse 14 is given to them in verse 18. The King and His people share the reign.

Who are these “holy ones,” the Aramaic קַדִּישִׁין (qaddishin)? This is a genuine and old debate. Across much of the Old Testament, “holy ones” means the angelic host, the members of the heavenly court we just watched assemble around the throne.

But it can also mean the faithful people of God. In Daniel 7, I believe the both/and serves us well once more: the earthly saints and their heavenly counterparts receive the kingdom together, the whole company of the redeemed and the holy angels sharing in the Son of Man’s everlasting reign.

That reading fits the divine council picture this chapter has been painting since verse 9. The kingdom the beasts fought over is given, in the end, to the assembly of heaven and the people of God.

Together.

A small grammatical curiosity worth a footnote: in verses 18, 22, 25, and 27, the Aramaic word behind “Most High” (עֶלְיוֹנִין, elyonin) is plural in form. Most scholars take it as an intensive or majestic plural, “the Most High” as the highest of all.

I wouldn’t build doctrine on it, but it is the kind of texture that rewards slow reading.

The Fourth Beast and the Little Horn (verses 19–25)

Daniel is still fixated on the fourth beast, the terrible one, and its arrogant little horn. He asks again. This time he gets a fuller answer.

Daniel 7:19-22 (NRSVUE)

Then I desired to know the truth concerning the fourth beast, which was different from all the rest, exceedingly terrifying, with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze, and which devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet; and concerning the ten horns that were on its head, and concerning the other horn that came up and before which three others had fallen—the horn that had eyes and a mouth that spoke arrogantly and that seemed greater than the others. As I looked, that horn made war with the holy ones and was prevailing over them, until the Ancient One came; then judgment was given for the holy ones of the Most High, and the time arrived when the holy ones gained possession of the kingdom.

Daniel 7:19-22 (OG/NETS):

Then I wanted to learn accurately concerning the fourth beast, which was different from all others and extremely terrible. And lo, its teeth were iron, and its claws were bronze, consuming all round about and trampling with the feet. And concerning its ten horns that were upon its head, and the one, which was growing, and three fell out because of it—and that horn had eyes and a mouth speaking great things, and its looks surpassed the others, And I was observing that horn preparing for war against the holy ones and routing them until the ancient of days came, and he gave the verdict for the holy ones of the Most High, and the time was given, and the holy ones gained possession of the seat of empire.

Daniel 7:19-22 (Theodotion/Brenton):

Then I enquired carefully concerning the fourth beast; for it differed from every other beast, exceeding dreadful: its teeth were of iron, and its claws of brass, devouring, and utterly breaking to pieces, and it trampled the remainder with its feet: and concerning it ten horns that were in its head, and the other that came up, and rooted up some of the former, which had eyes, and a mouth speaking great things, and his look was bolder than the rest. I beheld, and that horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and he gave judgment to the saints of the Most High; and the time came on, and the saints possessed the kingdom.

And then the interpretation of the fourth kingdom itself:

Daniel 7:23-25 (NRSVUE):

This is what he said: “As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth that shall be different from all the other kingdoms; it shall devour the whole earth and trample it down and break it to pieces. As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them. This one shall be different from the former ones and shall put down three kings. He shall speak words against the Most High, shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High, and shall attempt to change the ritual calendar and the law, and they shall be given into his power for a time, two times, and half a time.

Daniel 7:23-25 (OG/NETS):

And it was said to me concerning the fourth beast: “There shall be a fourth kingdom upon the earth, which shall excel over the whole earth and disturb it and grind it down. And as for the ten horns of the kingdom, ten kings shall rise, and another king shall rise after these. And he shall excel more than the former ones in evil, and he shall humble three kings. And he shall speak words against the Most High and shall wear down the holy ones of the Most High and shall expect to change seasons and law, and everything shall be delivered into his hands for a time and times and until half a time.

Daniel 7:23-25 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom on the earth, which shall excel all other kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and trample and destroy it. And his ten horns are ten kings that shall arise: and after them shall arise another, who shall exceed all the former ones in wickedness, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change times and law: and power shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time.

We have to talk about this fourth kingdom and this little horn, because they sit at the center of one of the most contested questions in the entire book.

I am going to keep this comparatively brief, and here is why. The little horn of Daniel 7 is the same figure I have already treated at length in my deep dive post on the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9, where I laid out the three great interpretive frameworks (the Antiochene, the messianic, and the futurist) and landed on a dual, even multiple, fulfillment with Rome as the fourth kingdom.

I am not going to rebuild that whole argument here. If this section leaves you hungry for the full case, that post is where it lives.

But here is the anchor, and I want it driven deep. I hold, with the mainstream of Christian interpretation going back to the earliest commentators, that the fourth kingdom is Rome. Everything hinges on that identification; it is the pivot on which both the messianic and futurist readings turn.

The main scholarly alternative, popular among critical scholars, splits the Medo-Persian empire into two, Media and then Persia, so that the four kingdoms become Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece.

Do that, and the little horn shrinks to Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the whole prophecy gets locked inside the second century B.C. I do not find it persuasive. Daniel consistently treats the Medes and Persians as a single entity (the famous “law of the Medes and Persians”), and Jesus Himself, as we saw, spoke of Daniel’s climactic desolation as still future in His own day. Rome as the fourth kingdom keeps the prophecy open. Open toward Christ, and open beyond Him.

However, if you’re interested in reading a fantastic historical analysis that gives, times, dates, and all the reasons to take seriously an at least partial fulfillment of Daniel 7 in the Selucid empire, I recommend the book Daniel: Prophet to the Nations by John Oakes

The little horn, then. He speaks against the Most High. He wears out (or down) the holy ones. He “shall attempt to change the ritual calendar and the law,” which is nothing less than an assault on the very rhythms of God’s covenant. And he is given power “for a time, two times, and half a time,” the famous three-and-a-half, the Aramaic עִדָּן (iddan) counted out one, two, half.

Three and a half is the broken seven. The number of covenant and completion, snapped in the middle. And that same three-and-a-half surfaces again in Revelation as forty-two months and 1,260 days (Revelation 11–13), where the beast makes war on the saints in language lifted straight from Daniel 7:21.

Consistent with the dual-fulfillment reading, I take Antiochus as a real, historical foreshadowing of this horn, a type. With a still-future world leader (I hesitate to use the culturally common “antichrist” title these days, as the deeper I dig into Scripture the less convincing I find that title) as its ultimate expression, with Rome as the imperial frame that binds them together.

A Note on the Manuscripts: The Vanishing Little Horn

Here is a textual detail made for this series, and I want to hand it to you carefully, because it is exactly the kind of manuscript-specific claim that is easy to state with more confidence than the evidence will bear.

In the Masoretic Text, the little horn appears twice in Daniel: once here in chapter 7, and again in chapter 8. The Old Greek manuscripts do not agree with that count, or with each other. In the Old Greek manuscript known as 88 (the Codex Chisianus, or Chigi codex), the little horn appears only once. And in the earliest and most important Old Greek witness of all, Papyrus 967, the little horn is absent from Daniel 7 altogether.

Twice in the Hebrew. Once in manuscript 88. Not at all in Papyrus 967’s chapter 7. That pattern is documented in a 2023 study by the scholar Ian Young titled “The Joy of Secondary Texts: The ‘Little Horn’ in Masoretic Text and Old Greek Daniel 7–8.”

And I want to give you two cautions on how we hold it.

First, the scholarship treats the absence in Papyrus 967 as a secondary reading, not as proof that the little horn was a late addition. So this is a fascinating window into how fluid the text once was, not a smoking gun about what Daniel “originally” wrote.

Second, it connects to things we noticed in earlier posts: Papyrus 967 also arranges the chapters in a different order (chapters 7 and 8 before 5 and 6) and changes the dimensions of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue in chapter 3.

The same manuscript that reshuffles the book is the one missing the little horn here. Which shows that the witnesses to Daniel were doing more editorial work than most modern readers ever imagine.

The Everlasting Kingdom (verses 26–27)

The vision does not end with the horn. It ends with the court.

Daniel 7:26-27 (NRSVUE):

Then the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and totally destroyed. The kingship and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.

Daniel 7:26-27 (OG/NETS):

And the trial shall sit, and they shall destroy authority, and they shall resolve to defile and destroy completely. And he shall give the authority and the kingdom and the magnitude of all the kingdoms, which are under heaven, to the holy people of the Most High, to reign over an everlasting kingdom, and all authorities will be subjected to him and obey him until the conclusion of the word.

Daniel 7:26-27 (Theodotion/Brenton):

And the judgment has sat, and they shall remove his dominion to abolish it, and to destroy it utterly. And the kingdom and the power and the greatness of the kings that are under the whole heaven were given to the saints of the Most High; and his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all powers shall serve and obey him.

The court sits a second time. The same tribunal that opened the books in verse 10 now hands down its verdict, and the horn’s dominion is stripped away and destroyed. And everything the beasts spent the whole vision clawing at, all the kingship and dominion and greatness under the whole heaven, is given to the people of the holy ones.

Notice the lovely ambiguity the two Greek traditions preserve in verse 27, an ambiguity the MT resolves. The MT says the dominion is given to the people, and “all dominions shall serve and obey them,” the people. The Old Greek and Theodotion shift to the singular: “all authorities will be subjected to him and obey him.”

So which is it? Is the object the people, or the Son of Man who reigns over them? Hold both traditions together and the question dissolves, because the King and His people share one kingdom. To serve Him is to be joined to them. To belong to them is to serve Him. The everlasting kingdom is His, and by grace it is theirs, and there is no seam between the two.

That is the answer to the whole vision. Empires climb out of the churning sea, each more terrible than the last. They rage, they blaspheme, they make war on the holy ones. And then the court sits, and it is over. “His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all powers shall serve and obey him.”

Daniel’s Reaction (verse 28)

Daniel does not respond with a theology of triumph. He responds like a man who has seen too much.

Daniel 7:28 (NRSVUE):

Here the account ends. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly terrified me, and my face turned pale, but I kept the matter in my mind.

Daniel 7:28 (OG/NETS):

As for me, Daniel, I was seized with great dismay, and my condition spread within me, and I fixed the matter in my heart.

Daniel 7:28 (Theodotion/Brenton):

Hitherto is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my thoughts greatly troubled me, and my countenance was changed: but I kept the matter in my heart.

His face turns pale. He is dismayed. And yet he "kept the matter in his heart." That phrase should sound familiar. It is the same posture Mary takes when she treasures up the mysteries of her Son (Luke 2:19). Daniel does not understand everything he has seen. Neither will we. But he holds it. He ponders it. He keeps it. Sometimes faithfulness looks like sitting with a vision you cannot fully explain.

What the Fathers Saw

I always want to know what the earliest readers heard in a passage, and Daniel 7 has a rich early history.

The oldest surviving Christian commentary on any book of the Bible is Hippolytus of Rome’s commentary on Daniel, written around A.D. 204. Hippolytus read the fourth beast as Rome and the little horn as a coming Antichrist, and he expected Christ to return from heaven in the future.

Irenaeus, writing even earlier in the second century, likewise identified the fourth kingdom as Rome, breaking apart into ten kingdoms.

And Jerome, in his great commentary on Daniel around A.D. 407, defended the Roman identification against the pagan critic Porphyry, who insisted the whole prophecy had already been spent on Antiochus. In other words, Rome as the fourth kingdom and the little horn as Antichrist are not modern inventions. They are not dispensational novelties. They are as old as Christian commentary on Daniel gets.

I do not say that to end the debate by appeal to authority. I say it because you should know that when you read this chapter the way we have read it here, you are standing in very old company.

My Take

You know by now that I am not going to hand you a tidy, dogmatic system. I do not think the text gives us one. But let me tell you where I land.

On the clouds, I hold both readings, and I hold them gladly. I believe the Masoretic and Theodotion “with the clouds” and the Old Greek “upon the clouds” are both true and both inspired, and that together they say more than either could say alone.

The Son of Man comes wrapped in the glory-cloud, presented before the Ancient of Days as a distinct person. And He comes riding the clouds as their sovereign master, wielding a prerogative that belongs to God alone. That is not a contradiction to be solved. That is a mystery to be worshiped. And it is, I think, the closest the Old Testament ever comes to showing us the Son and the Father in a single frame.

On the four kingdoms, I believe the fourth is Rome, and I believe the little horn carries the same layered fulfillment I argued for in the Seventy Weeks post: a real historical foreshadowing in Antiochus, and an ultimate expression still ahead of us, held together by the imperial thread that runs from Daniel’s day into ours.

And on the Son of Man, it genuinely moves me that the writer of a Jewish text from shortly before the time of Jesus (if not older), the Parables of Enoch, had read Daniel 7 and concluded that its Son of Man was heavenly, pre-existent, and messianic.

If the consensus is right (or if the book is a lot older than we think), then the expectation Jesus stepped into was not something He conjured. It was already there. In the air. Waiting. And He walked into the high priest’s courtroom and claimed it under oath.

As always, I would rather you study this for yourself than take my word for anything. Read the three versions side by side. Sit with the preposition. Ask the Holy Spirit to show you the One these texts are pointing to.

I’m certain He will.

Why This Matters for Your Walk With God

Here is the thing about Daniel 7. It was given to a man in exile, living under the boot of an empire, watching beasts rise and rage and blaspheme. And it is being read by you, in a world that still feels, most days, like a churning sea throwing up one terrible power after another.

The vision does not pretend the beasts are unreal. They are real. They have iron teeth. They make war on the holy ones, and sometimes, for a time and times and half a time, they appear to be winning.

But the vision shows you what the beasts cannot see. It shows you the throne room behind the headlines. It shows you the court in session, the books lying open, the record kept by One whose hair is white as wool and whose throne is a river of fire.

And it shows you that when the gavel falls, the everlasting kingdom is not handed to the strongest beast. It is handed to a Son of Man who comes on the clouds, and to the holy ones who belong to Him.

Whatever beast is roaring in your life or your headlines this week, that is the ending. The dominion is His. The kingdom is His. And because you belong to Him, it is, astonishingly, yours.

Do not fear. The court has already sat.

Do not fear. God is in control.

The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:

Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.

Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.

Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.

Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible.

© 2026 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.