Daniel 11

Daniel Chapter ElevenVerse 1 The remarkably accurate prophecies of this chapter are so true, so astounding, and so wonderfully accurate that the whole critical world for centuries have never questioned a single one of them. The only allegation that Bible enemies have ever been able to bring against this chapter is that it is so exactly accurate that it had to be written after the events prophesied had already occurred. This slander against the Book of Daniel has existed a long time. It was first advanced by Malchus Porphyrius a follower of Plotinus who was bitterly opposed to Christianity. Porphyry is the Anglicized form of his name; and he lived 233-304(?) A.D.[1] Since the great burden of these prophecies concerns the time following 250 B.C. (all of the prophecies dealing with Antiochus and the Maccabean rebellion), the undeniable refutation of the critical position is inherent in the fact that every single line of Daniel existed centuries prior to those events! The Septuagint (LXX) (translated into Greek in 250 B.C.) has every line of Daniel, centuries prior to the events which are admittedly prophesied in Daniel! It is a comment on the sterility and impotence of criticism that not a single new argument has been invented against Daniel in the last 1600 years!. The present-day student of the Bible is not overly concerned about the details of the pre-Christian history of Israel during the inter-testamental period and with the details of the depraved struggles of the pagan world powers and their ultimate efforts to exterminate the true worship of God. The undisputed point to remember about all of this is that Daniel’s prophecy has an accurate, detailed account of what was to happen, and of what did actually occur. As Millard stated it, “It is this vision (the eleventh chapter) above all that leads many to the second century dating of the book (Daniel)."[2]First, we shall take a look at the sacred text. Daniel 11:1-21 a “And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him.” (Actually the conclusion of Daniel 10). “And now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and when he is waxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion wherewith he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others besides these.And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; and his dominion shall be a great dominion. And at the end of years they shall join themselves together; and the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the strength of her arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm; but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in those times. But out of a shoot from her roots shall one stand up in his place, who shall come unto the army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail. And also their gods, with their molten images, and with their goodly vessels of silver and of gold, shall he carry captive into Egypt; and he shall refrain some years from the king of the north. And he shall come into the realm of the king of the south, but he shall return into his own land. And his sons shall war, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come on, and overflow, and pass through; and they shall return and war, even to his fortress. And the kings of the south shall be moved with anger, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north; and he shall set forth a great multitude, and the multitude shall be given into his hand. And the multitude shall be lifted up, and his heart shall be exalted; and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail. And the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former; and he shall come on at the end of the times, even of years, with a great army, and with much substance. And in those times shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the children of the violent among thy people shall lift themselves up to establish the vision; but they shall fall. So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mound, and take a well-fortified city: and the forces of the south shall not stand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to stand.

But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, and in his hand shall be destruction. And he shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and with him equitable conditions; and he shall perform them; and he shall give him the daughter of women, to corrupt her; but she shall not stand neither be for him. After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; yea, he shall cause his reproach to turn upon him. Then he shall turn his face toward the fortresses of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found. Then shall stand up in his place one that shall cause an exactor to pass through the glory of the kingdom; but within few days shall he be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle. And in his place shall stand up a contemptible person, to whom they had not given the honor of the kingdom.” There is no way that this prophecy actually qualifies as some kind of a historical survey passed off as a pretended prophecy. The critical proposition that some forger in the second century wrote this is obviously ridiculous. What “historical survey” could possibly have passed over the tremendous military campaign of Xerxes against Greece with its tremendous battles which are still the talk of all mankind? Later on in Daniel 11:34, the great campaigns of the Maccabees were practically ignored, being called in that verse “a little help!” It is simply impossible to suppose that any person whatever could have written such a thing after those stirring events of the Maccabean rebellion. The whole proposition that this chapter is a prophecy “post eventum” (after the event) is false, contrived, unsupported by anything whatever except the unbelieving slanders of the Bible by evil men. Keil has summarized some of the reasons why it is impossible intellectually to allow the allegations against the chapter which are advanced by unbelievers. His conclusion was that, “The contents and form of this prophecy contain much which a supposed Maccabean origin makes in the highest degree improbable, and directly contradicts."[3]Moreover, all of the exact dates and many other particulars which are alleged to be in the prophecy are simply not in it. For example, take a look at Dummelow’s analysis of what he alleges to be prophesied here: “Yet three kings …” (Daniel 11:2) “These are Cambyses, Darius I (Hystaspes), and Xerxes I (Ahasuerus). The fourth including Cyrus I is Xerxes I, a king of vast wealth. He prepared a great army and navy, invaded Greece, encountered total failure, suffered great losses at Thermopylae, Salamis (480 B.C.) and at Plataea and Mycale."[4] Note that hardly any of this is actually in the prophecy! “A mighty king …” (Daniel 11:3) Alexander the Great (333:322 B.C.).” “The partition of Alexander’s empire is described."[5] (Daniel 11:4) “The king of the south …” (Daniel 11:5) “This is Ptolemy I (Sorer), the first Egyptian king.” “One of his princes …” is Seleucus I (Nicator), the first Syrian king. “The king’s daughter of the south …” (Daniel 11:6) is a reference to Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II (Philadelphus). She was given in Marriage to Antiochus II. On the death of Ptolemy II, Antiochus divorced Berenice and took Laodice back. Laodice poisoned Antiochus, and their son Seleucus (afterward Callinicus) murdered Berenice and her child. “He that begat here, etc…” refers to Ptolemy II. Ptolemy III (Euergetes), brother of Berenice, to avenge his sister’s death invaded Syria, then ruled by Callinicus, captured Seleucia and returned to Egypt with much spoil. “A branch of her (Berenice’s) roots …” was her brother Ptolemy III. (Daniel 11:7-8) (Daniel 11:9) Seleucus II (Callinicus) invaded Egypt in 242 B.C. but had to retreat. Daniel 11:10; “His sons …” The sons of Seleucus II were Saleucus III and Antiochus III (called the Great). Daniel 11:11 is an allusion to the battle of Raphia. Daniel 11:12 refers to Ptolemy the IV. Daniel 11:13-14. Twelve years later Antiochus joined with Philip of Macedon in an attack upon Ptolemy V (Epiphanes), son of Ptolemy IV. Daniel 11:15-16. Antiochus III shut up Ptolemy V in Sidon, where Ptolemy surrendered in 198 B.C. Antiochus then overran Palestine and threatened Egypt. “The glorious land” (in Daniel 11:16) is Palestine.” “A well fortified city …”; Daniel 11:15 is a reference to Sidon. “He that cometh …” (Daniel 11:16) is Antiochus III. “Against him …” against Ptolemy V. (Daniel 11:17) Antiochus III gave his daughter Cleopatra in marriage to Ptolemy V. “…The isles …” (Daniel 11:18) is a reference to the coastlands on the shores of the Aegean Sea. “A prince on his own behalf …” is the Roman general Scipio. “Fortresses of his own land …”; Daniel 11:19 is a reference to his withdrawal to Syria. “Then shall stand up in his place one … and in his place shall stand up a contemptible person …”(Daniel 11:20-21) Antiochus III was succeeded by Seleucus IV (Philopater) who sent his chief minister to take charge of the Temple treasures in Jerusalem. That chief minister (Heliodorus) murdered Seleucus IV and tried to usurp the kingdom, but he was dispossessed by Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the brother of Seleucus. Antiochus Eipihanes was the contemptible one. The next major paragraph of the prophecy is devoted to the career of Antiochus Epiphanes (176-164 B.C.). We leave it to any fair minded person to judge whether or not a// of this is spelled out in the prophecy. The purpose of such detail is to show how it would have been impossible for a prophecy written before the event could possibly have contained so many details. However, critics need to remember that the sacred prophecies contain all kinds of the most detailed information. Examples: (1) The exact amount, kind, and disposition of the 30 pieces of silver weighed out for Jesus’ betrayal by Judas was prophesied (Zechariah 11:12). (2) There were two Bethlehems in ancient Israel; but the prophet declared that Christ would be born in Bethlehem Judah (Micah 5:2). (3) More than 20 of the most particular details of the crucifixion of Christ were foretold in Psalms 22, including even the fact of the soldiers gambling for the seamless robe of Christ! This list could be extended for many pages; but it is obvious to all Christians that true prophecy did indeed predict the most exact and circumstantial details; and the very fact of the critics finding all the details noted above in this prophecy of Daniel is merely what they should have expected to find. Remember, there is no doubt whatever that Daniel existed for centuries before these events happened. As old H. A. Ironside put it, “Don’t ever forget that history is His Story!"[6] In this amazing prophecy, God wrote it down (through Daniel) before it happened! Verse 21 “But he shall come in time of security, and shall obtain the kingdom by flatteries. And the overwhelming forces shall be overwhelmed from before him, also the prince of the covenant. And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully; for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. In time of security shall he come even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them prey, and spoil, and substance: yea, he shall devise his devices against the strongholds, even for a time. And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall war in battle with an exceeding great and mighty army; but he shall not stand; for they shall devise devices against him. Yea, they that eat of his dainties shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain. And as for both these kings, their hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper; for yet the end shall be at the appointed time.” (176-164 B.C.) “The prince of the covenant …” is thought to be the Jewish high priest Onias III, who was deposed by Antiochus in favor of Onias’ brother Jason who became a full-fledged ally of the corrupt Antiochus. The real feature of this great prophecy is not the exact historical events foretold, but the development of the pagan world powers in their opposition to God and to his holy worship. The mighty features of the prophecy are therefore these: lust, murder, greed, avarice, cunning deceit, falsehood, treachery, violation of trust, breaking of treaties, mass extermination of whole populations, self-glorification, disregard of all sacred things, hatred of both God and man. Brother, there is your prophetic picture of the pagan world governments that rose up to destroy the worship of God and to remove his holy name from the face of the earth, culminating in +the outrages of Antiochus Epiphanes. Now, all of this happened unto God’s FIRST ISRAEL; and in this prophecy Daniel offers it as a prophecy of what shall at last happen to THE SECOND ISRAEL in that culmination of world events leading up to the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment. It is most distressing to see unfolding in the present-day history of world powers the very same ugly characteristics which led up to the disasters that befell the first Israel. The focal point of all the events prophesied here is noted in Daniel 11:15, where we have these lines, “The forces of the south shall not stand, NEITHER HIS CHOSEN PEOPLE.” This refers to God’s chosen people. It was the overwhelming of Israel itself by the pagan world powers that formed the focal center of the holy prophet’s attention in this chapter. To miss this is to miss the whole point of the prophecy. Again, from Keil: “This war arose under the Seleucidan Antiochus Epiphanes to such a height, that it formed a prelude of the war of the time of the end. The undertaking of this king to root out the worship of the living God and to destroy the Hebrew religion, shows in type the great war which the world power in the last phase of its development shall undertake against the kingdom of God, by exalting itself above every god, to hasten on its own destruction and the consummation of the kingdom of God."[7]Verse 28 “Then shall he return into his land with great substance; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do his pleasure, and return to his own land. At the time appointed he shall return, and come into the south; but it shall not be in the latter time as it was in the former. For ships of Kittim shall come over against him; therefore he shall be grieved, and shall return, and have indignation against the holy covenant, and shall do his pleasure: he shall even return, and have regard unto them that forsake the holy covenant. And forces shall stand on his part, and they shall profane the sanctuary, even the fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt-offering, and they shall set up the abomination that maketh desolate. And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he pervert by flatteries; but the people that know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. And they that are wise among the people shall instruct many; yet they shall fall by sword and by flame, many days.

Now when they shall fall, they shall be helped with a little help; but many shall join themselves unto them with flatteries. And some of them that are wise shall fall, to refine them, and to purify, and to make them white, even to the time of the end; because it is yet for the time appointed.“This paragraph stresses the outrages of Anitochus Epiphanes, stressing his destructive attacks upon God’s worship, the Temple, and the Law of Moses. Such an all-out attack upon the very soul and continuity of the Israel of God was truly an event of the greatest magnitude. (See under Daniel 8:14, above, for a discussion of Antiochus Epiphanes’ attack upon God’s worship.) We have already noted the almost negligent reference to the “little help” that the Maccabees would give to God’s cause in that emergency (Daniel 11:34). This absolutely forbids any notion that anyone in the second century B.C. era could have authored this chapter. “The abomination that maketh desolate …” It is the use which Jesus Christ himself made of this passage that must take priority in our efforts to understand it. In the first instance of that “abomination,” it was without question the desecration of the Temple, the pollution of the altar by the offering of a sow upon it, the erection of an image of Zeus Olympus in the Temple itself, and other outrages of Antiochus. However Christ inMatthew 24:15,16 (and related passages) mentioned another “abomination of desolation” that would come into the “Holy Place,” making that a signal for the Christians living at that time to flee from the City of Jerusalem, which they did, saving their lives by their flight to Pella, during the final destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Thus this “abomination of desolation” was associated with “the end of the first Israel” in the destruction of their nation, their worship, and their status as “God’s chosen people.” But there is something which goes far beyond even that. Christ himself by his detailed prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction mingled it with prophecies of the Final Judgment and of the end of the world, the prophecies themselves having double meanings applicable to both events! From this, the conclusion is irresistible that the destruction of Jerusalem is to be understood as a type of the destruction of the whole world, or “the end of the world,” to use Jesus’ own words. Therefore, since the abomination of desolation was featured dramatically in the fall of Jerusalem, it follows that the antitypical fulfillment of this will occur a second time in"the time of the end.” All of the ancient students of the Bible have understood this perfectly. What is that antitypical fulfillment. The world powers shall become increasingly hostile to the worship of God, any god. The final result will be an all-out effort to exterminate the name and knowledge of God from the face of the earth. There will arise an Antichrist, the antitype of Antiochus Epiphanes, “Whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth and bring to naught by the manifestation of his coming” (2 Thessalonians 2:8). This evil person is called the Lawless One (2 Thessalonians 2:8). It is incorrect to identify this person with the Man of Sin. (See Excursus on the Man of Sin (Vol. 9 in our New Testament Series of Commentaries), pp. 106-117.) These are but a few of the very weighty considerations that require an eschatological interpretation of some of the following passages in this prophecy. Therefore with Daniel 11:36 we pass into a prophetic presentation of the kind of world governments that shall precede the end of the world. Verse 36 “And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods; and he shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that which is determined shall be done.“It is not possible to apply these words to Antiochus Epiphanes. His attack was not against “all gods,” for he erected an image of Zeus in the Temple itself. Antiochus directed his attack against the true God, not against the pagan deities which he evidently still honored. The evil person in view here is that Lawless One mentioned by Paul, the Antichrist. “Till the indignation be accomplished …” What is this? It is the indignation of God. Why should God be indignant with Adam’s rebellious race? Simply because of their continued rebellion against God, the stubborn and persistent refusal of practically all the human race to honor God in any way whatever, their insistence on walking in drunken and immoral ways contrary to all of God’s laws and without showing any remorse or repentance whatever. To all such wicked men, there is an important word here designed especially for them. It is the word “accomplished.” God’s righteous indignation against Adam’s race will yet have a climax.

What is it? Satan shall be loosed a little while (Revelation 20:3). Brother, that will accomplish the indignation! If we should inquire as to the purpose of this, it would appear to be that God, at last, his patience exhausted and his forbearance and longsuffering toward Adam’s posterity having at last reached its inevitable end, God will finally (in the loosing of Satan) permit Adam (in the person of his total remaining posterity) to receive an object lesson in what serving the Devil really means. That will be the time when the horrors of the “time of the end” shall unfold. This is that period of which Jesus inquired, “When the Son of Man cometh shall he find faith on the earth (Luke 18:8)? As Keil stated regarding this passage, “This revelation of the Lord to Daniel did not concern what was going to happen from the third year of Cyrus to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes; but according to the express declaration of Dan 10:14, what shall happen to God’s people in Messianic times."[8]Verse 37 “Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all.“None of this can be applied to Antiochus Epiphanes, these characteristics being applicable to the Antichrist who will appear at the end of the age. Verse 38 “But in his place shall he honor the god of fortresses; and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and precious stones and pleasant things. 39 And he shall deal with the strongest fortress by the help of a foreign god; whosoever acknowledgeth him he will increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for a price.““These words in no sense agree with Antiochus, nor do they permit us to think of any heathen deity in this connection."[9] The “god of fortresses” is perhaps only another way of saying the “god of force.” “Might makes right” is the policy of such a character. Keil’s view was that: “The god of fortresses is a personification of war; … he will regard no other god, but only war. The taking of fortresses will be his god; and he will worship this god above all as the means of his gaining world power."[10]Daniel 11:39 means that this Lawless One, this Antichrist, shall reward with glory, riches, and honor all who acknowledge him and do his will. Verse 40 “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south contend with him; and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass through. He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. And he shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries; and the land of Egypt shall not escape. But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.“THE LAST DOINGS OF THE HOSTILE KING; AND HIS ENDAny application of these words to Antiochus Epiphanes “stands in irreconcilable contradiction to the historical facts regarding the last undertakings of Antiochus."[11] Furthermore, the final paragraph of this chapter “is irreconcilable that in them we have a comprehensive repetition of what has already been written of Antiochus.[12] As a matter of simple fact, it is impossible to apply the words of this chapter beginning withDaniel 11:36 to Antiochus or to any other ruler of the inter-testamental period. Here we are dealing with a prophecy of the final developments of the Adamic probation on earth. “These words refer only to the final enemy of the people of God, the Antichrist."[13]The mention of the sparing of Edom, Moab and Ammon is somewhat misleading until it is remembered that these peoples are the old, hereditary, and chief enemies of God’s people. Therefore they would appear again finally as allies and helpers of the anti-God “king” who appears in these lines. The enmity of those ancient peoples against the people of God accounts for their being spared by God’s enemy. Verse 44 “But the tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him; and he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to sweep away many. And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the sea and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.“THE END OF THE HOSTILE KING (Daniel 11:44-45) We are not given any details about the “end” of this evil king, except what may be inferred from the fact that his success continued right on up to the very end itself. The planting of his tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain indicates that at the very last he shall stand near the “holy place” itself as a contradiction of everything true and faithful. Apparently also, his end would come at the very zenith of his presumptuous and arrogant power. This harmonizes with what Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2:8. The Second Advent of Jesus Christ would be the occasion of his utter destruction. Thus, right down to the end of this passage, it is obvious that no reference whatever is found here that can be applied to Antiochus Epiphanes. Despite this, many have tried to harmonize this with the end of Antiochus, including that Master Infidel Porphyry who is the father of all the critical denials encountered even today regarding this chapter. “The glorious holy mountain …” In the days of Daniel and later this would have indicated the city of Jerusalem; but in the frame of reference in which the Antichrist will appear, such an expression has reference to the Church. In some disastrous manner not revealed to us the Antichrist will in large measure checkmate and destroy the witness of the Church during those final days. Now, none of this can apply to Antiochus. He met his destruction, not near the city of Jerusalem at all, but far away in the Persian city of Tabae on his return from Persia to Babylon. Again, for those interested in the further pursuit of this subject, please see our Excursus cited above.

Commentary On Daniel Eleven by Eric HallDaniel 11 God does not view history as we do. What we see as important, God sometimes just skips over. He includes what he views as important and omits the rest. We should strive to see history as God sees it and not strive to force our view of what is important on God. The focus of this vision is the history of the Jews in the latter days, where the latter days refers to the end of the Jewish age which occurred in the first century. The focus is not the end of the world and the focus is not the many other nations that are mentioned. These other nations are only important with regard to how they are involved with the Jews. Finally, as we will see, the prophecies in this chapter are some of the most detailed found anywhere in the Bible. Further, they were given to Daniel hundreds of years before they came to pass. (The extreme level of detail is what has caused the liberals to conclude that it must have been written after the fact.) Such extreme precision raises many philosophical questions about the foreknowledge of God and the free will of man. We will not consider these questions now, but anyone who does should definitely take a long look at Daniel 11. Very few sections of scripture give us a better demonstration of God’ s knowledge and control of the future. Daniel 11:1 1 And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him. This verse really belongs at the end of Chapter 10. The angel, still speaking, tells Daniel that he stood up and helped Michael in his struggle with Persia. As we have already mentioned, Satan was actively seeking to destroy the Jews so that God’ s plan could not proceed. About 50 years after this vision, during the reign of Xerxes, Haman received consent to kill all of the Jews. As we recall, his plans were thwarted by Queen Esther. Much later, Antiochus IV Epiphanes tried to exterminate the Jewish culture and religion. We recall the outcome of that attempt. In each case, we can only speculate about the spiritual battles that were occurring. Daniel 11:2 2 “ And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia; and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them; and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece. The three kings that followed Cyrus were Cambyses (Cyrus’ elder son), Gaumata (the impostor who passed himself off as Cyrus’ younger son Smerdis), and Darius the Persian (son of Hystaspes and cousin of Cyrus who killed the impostor and took the throne). The fourth king after Cyrus was Xerxes (Darius’ son) who reigned from 485 to 464. This king is called Ahasuerus in the book of Esther. Esther 1:4 talks about the “ riches of his glorious kingdom.” Xerxes invaded Greece with a huge army and was very successful until his navy was defeated by a united Greek fleet at the Battle of Salamis in 480. He retreated to Asia and his forces that remained in Greece were completely defeated the next year at the Battle of Plataea. Daniel 11:3 3 Then a mighty king shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion and do according to his will. In moving from verse 2 to verse 3, we skip over 6 Persian kings and 134 years. Note that this skip occurred without any warning. We will need to be very alert so that we will notice such jumps should they occur again. Notice also that the country of interest has changed from Persia to Greece. The mighty king is Alexander the Great who defeated the Persians in 331. He died in 323 at the age of 33. The Hebrew for “ shall arise” is literally “ shall stand up,” which emphasizes how brief his reign was. Daniel 11:4 4 And when he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others besides these. Alexander’ s kingdom did not go to his posterity, which included his Persian princess wife Roxana and their son, Alexander IV (who was murdered in 310). Alexander IV’ s illegitimate brother had already been killed in 317. Thus, there were no blood descendants of Alexander, as the book of Daniel predicted. Instead, it was divided into four pieces among Lysimachus, Antipater (and his son Cassander), Seleucus I Nicator, and Ptolemy I Soter. Daniel 11:5 5 “ Then the king of the south shall be strong, but one of his princes shall be stronger than he and his dominion shall be a great dominion. The king of the South is Ptolemy I Soter whose ambitions extended far beyond Egypt to include Palestine and the rest of Asia. For most of their history, however, the domain of the Ptolemies was restricted to Egypt and Cyprus. The prince who would be stronger than the king was Seleucus Nicator of the Seleucid Empire, who defected to Ptolemy after the Battle of Antigonus. He later returned to Babylon and became king under Ptolemy’ s sponsorship. His empire and authority stretched from India to Phoenicia, and thus was much greater than that of Ptolemy. Daniel 11:6 6 After some years they shall make an alliance, and the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to make peace; but she shall not retain the strength of her arm, and he and his offspring shall not endure; but she shall be given up, and her attendants, her child, and he who got possession of her. After the death of Ptolemy I in 285, his son Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) continued the contest with the Seleucids until 252 when a peace treaty was made with Antiochus II Theos. Under this treaty, Antiochus II was to marry Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II. One slight problem with the plan was that Antiochus II was already married to a very influential woman named Laodice. She was divorced and banished. She arranged the assassination of the king, Berenice, and their infant son. Afterward, she took control as queen regent for her young son, Seleucus II (Callinicus). Daniel 11:7-8 7 “ In those times a branch from her roots shall arise in his place; he shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north, and he shall deal with them and shall prevail. 8 He shall also carry off to Egypt their gods with their molten images and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and for some years he shall refrain from attacking the king of the north. Ptolemy II died soon after his daughter Berenice was murdered. His son, Ptolemy III (Euergetes) came to power and marched off to avenge his sister’ s death. He is the “ branch from her [Berenice’ s] roots” in verse 7. The king of the north is Seleucus II Callinicus, the son of Laodice. Ptolemy captured the capital city of Antioch and returned to Egypt laden with spoil. This spoil included long-lost idols that had been taken by Cambyses in 524 BC. Their return made Ptolemy III very popular with the native Egyptian populace, who named him Euergetes which means benefactor. Ptolemy III made a peace treaty with Seleucus II in 240 BC. Daniel 11:9 9 Then the latter shall come into the realm of the king of the south but shall return into his own land. The “ latter” is Seleucus II and the “ king of the south” is Ptolemy III. While their is no record that Seleucus II ever invaded Egypt, he did invade the territory of the Ptolemies in the 230s when he regained control of northern Syria and Phoenicia. Daniel 11:10-12 10 “ His sons shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come on and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress. 11 Then the king of the south, moved with anger, shall come out and fight with the king of the north; and he shall raise a great multitude, but it shall be given into his hand. 12 And when the multitude is taken, his heart shall be exalted, and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail. Seleucus II Callinicus died in 226 and was succeeded by his son Seleucus III Soter, who reigned for only three years and was succeeded by his brother Antiochus III (the Great). The king of the south in verse 11 is Ptolemy IV Philopater and the king of the north is Antiochus III. Ptolemy IV defeated the much larger army of Antiochus III at the Battle of Raphia in 217. Ptolemy IV got back all of the territory of Phoenicia and Palestine, but his success did not last very long. After he died, his four year old son Ptolemy V (Epiphanes) came to power and Antiochus saw his chance to invade Egypt. The Rosetta Stone, which finally allowed modern scholars to understand Egyptian hieroglyphics, was found in 1799 built into an old wall that was being demolished by the French near a village they called Rosetta. Located now in the British Museum, it contains a decree given by Ptolemy V written in three languages: Greek, Egyptian Demotic, and Egyptian hieroglyphics. Daniel 11:13 13 For the king of the north shall again raise a multitude, greater than the former; and after some years he shall come on with a great army and abundant supplies. In 202, Antiochus III (the king of the north) invaded Phoenicia and Palestine and marched all the way to Gaza, which fell in 201. Daniel 11:14 14 “ In those times many shall rise against the king of the south; and the men of violence among your own people shall lift themselves up in order to fulfil the vision; but they shall fail. The king of the south here is Ptolemy V. The “ men of violence among your own people” are the pro-Seleucid Jews who rebelled against the Ptolemies. The vision they were fulfilling by doing this was the very vision that Daniel was now receiving! But they failed. The Egyptians, led by General Scopas, punished the Jewish rebels severely until his defeat at the Battle of Panium in 200 BC. He then retreated to Sidon off the Phoenician coast. Daniel 11:15-16 15 Then the king of the north shall come and throw up siegeworks, and take a well-fortified city. And the forces of the south shall not stand, or even his picked troops, for there shall be no strength to stand. 16 But he who comes against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, and all of it shall be in his power. The king of the north (Antiochus III) moved against Sidon, and Scopas finally surrendered. At this time, Palestine (the glorious land) became a permanent part of the Antioch government. Antiochus did not destroy Jerusalem, but only extracted reprisals from the pro-Egyptian leaders that he captured. When he entered Jerusalem in 198 he was welcomed as a deliverer and benefactor. Daniel 11:17 17 He shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and he shall bring terms of peace and perform them. He shall give him the daughter of women to destroy the kingdom; but it shall not stand or be to his advantage. Antiochus’ plan at this point in the story was to place the 10 year old king Ptolemy V under the influence of his daughter Cleopatra I. [The Cleopatra from the movie was Cleopatra VII. We will meet her in verse 40. He knew that their son would be legal heir to both thrones, and would give him a good excuse to interfere in Egypt. The phrase “ destroy the kingdom” in verse 17 is better translated “ corrupt the kingdom.” When the marriage finally did take place a few years later, Cleopatra became completely sympathetic to Ptolemy V and his kingdom, which greatly disappointed her father. Thus, their son, Ptolemy VI, gave no advantage to Antiochus III. When Ptolemy V died, Cleopatra I became queen of Egypt. Her death years later put an end to any possibility of Seleucid influence in Egyptian affairs. Daniel 11:18 18 Afterward he shall turn his face to the coastlands, and shall take many of them; but a commander shall put an end to his insolence; indeed he shall turn his insolence back upon him. Soon after his victory over Scopas at Sidon, Antiochus III moved against a new front, Pergamum and the Aegean coastline island of Rhodes. The Rhodians appealed to Rome for help. Meanwhile, Hannibal (who had been exiled by the Romans) joined forces with Antiochus III as a military advisor. The Romans were not happy that he had given asylum to their enemy. The Roman commander Lucius Cornelius Scipio defeated Antiochus III in 190 at Magnesium. (This same general had defeated Hannibal in 202.) Antiochus was humiliated by the Romans. He lost most of his land and his army. His son Antiochus IV Epiphanes was taken back to Rome as a hostage. Daniel 11:19 19 Then he shall turn his face back toward the fortresses of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found. Antiochus III died the next year while pillaging a temple of Bel in Elymais in an attempt to raise money to pay the Romans. The local inhabitants stormed his forces and managed to kill him and defend their temple. Daniel 11:20 20 “ Then shall arise in his place one who shall send an exactor of tribute through the glory of the kingdom; but within a few days he shall be broken, neither in anger nor in battle. Antiochus III was succeeded by his oldest son, Seleucus IV (Philopator). The exactor of tribute that he sent out was Heliodorus. Heliodorus was sent to rob the temple at Jerusalem, which a Jewish spy had said contained enough treasure to meet all of the Roman demands. Heliodorus decided not to rob the temple, but instead went back and eventually poisoned the king, who thus did not die due to battle or mob action as his father had. Daniel 11:21 21 In his place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given; he shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. Verses 21– 35 are devoted to the activities of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who we first met in Chapter 8. As we recall, he did his best to completely wipe out the Jewish religion and culture by persecuting the Jews and introducing Greek culture. He is the “ contemptible person” in verse 21 to whom “ royal majesty has not been given.” In fact, Demetrius I Soter, the son of Seleucus IV, was next in line for the crown. He, however, was being held hostage in Rome, so the crown went to his uncle, Antiochus IV Epiphanes instead. (Antiochus was later able to set aside Demetrius’ claims to the throne, but Demetrius later led a Roman army against Antiochus’ son, Antiochus V Eupator.) “ Epiphanes” mean illustrious, very evident, or manifest. On coins, he linked the name with “ theos,” thus taking the title “ God Manifest.” Many of his enemies referred to him instead as “ Epinanes” which means “ madman.” Daniel 11:22-24 22 Armies shall be utterly swept away before him and broken, and the prince of the covenant also. 23 And from the time that an alliance is made with him he shall act deceitfully; and he shall become strong with a small people. 24 Without warning he shall come into the richest parts of the province; and he shall do what neither his fathers nor his fathers’ fathers have done, scattering among them plunder, spoil, and goods. He shall devise plans against strongholds, but only for a time. Verses 22– 24 bring us back to the continuing struggle between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. It was Epiphanes’ policy to first offer friendship and then wait for an opportunity to launch a surprise attack. Ptolemy VI launched an invasion against Antiochus, which at first was successful but eventually led to his capture. The Egyptians gave up on him and placed his brother Ptolemy Physcon on the throne. Antiochus placed Ptolemy back on the throne by force, this time as his ally backed up by a treaty of friendship and alliance. Ptolemy Physcon is also known as Ptolemy VIII or Euergetes II. His nickname Physcon means ‘ fat paunch.’ I am not sure which is worse: being deposed from the throne of Egypt by your brother or going through history with the nickname ‘ fat paunch.’ Both of these things happened to Ptolemy VIII. Eventually, Ptolemy VI made an alliance with his banished brother Physcon to get rid of Antiochus. Antiochus then marched against Egypt, but this time Rome intervened and told him to leave Egypt or face war with Rome. Popilius drew a circle around him in the sand and told him to make up his mind before he left it. He left in humiliation. The “ prince of the covenant” in verse 22 is probably Onias III, the high priest. Antiochus had him replaced by his brother, Joshua (who went by his Greek name Jason), in exchange for a large bribe. Jason was later replaced by Menelaus who offered a larger bribe. Menelaus had Onias III, the legitimate high priest, killed. The “ small people” in verse 23 refer to the small invasion force Antiochus used in his initial invasion of Egypt. The “ richest parts of the province” refers not only to Egypt but also to the eastern provinces he invaded. Daniel 11:25-26 25 And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall wage war with an exceedingly great and mighty army; but he shall not stand, for plots shall be devised against him. 26 Even those who eat his rich food shall be his undoing; his army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain. Verse 25 describes the attack by Antiochus against Ptolemy Physcon (the king of the south in verse 25) in the attempt to put Ptolemy VI back on the throne. Those Egyptians still loyal to Ptolemy VI plotted against Physcon. Daniel 11:27 27 And as for the two kings, their minds shall be bent on mischief; they shall speak lies at the same table, but to no avail; for the end is yet to be at the time appointed. The two kings, after the defeat of Ptolemy Physcon, were Antiochus IV and Ptolemy VI. As this verse suggests, they sat down and made a treaty after the defeat of Physcon, but already they were plotting against each other. Daniel 11:28 28 And he shall return to his land with great substance, but his heart shall be set against the holy covenant. And he shall work his will, and return to his own land. Antiochus returned to his capital city of Antioch with a great deal of plundered wealth from Egypt. It is at this point that he set his mind against the “ holy covenant” ; that is, he began to persecute the Jews. The deposed illegitimate high priest Jason had heard a rumor that Antiochus had died in Egypt. He thus took the city of Jerusalem and locked up the other illegitimate high priest Menelaus. Antiochus decided to get rid of the Jewish religion altogether. He took the city back, released Menelaus, killed 80,000 people, and robbed and desecrated the temple. (This occurred in 168 BC.) Daniel 11:29-30 29 “ At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south; but it shall not be this time as it was before. 30 For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and give heed to those who forsake the holy covenant. These verses predict Antiochus’ humiliation by Rome and his subsequent return to desecrate the temple in Jerusalem. Those “ who forsake the holy covenant” in verse 30 are the allies of Menelaus who did not protest as Antiochus pillaged the temple. The ships of Kittim are Roman ships. Kittim refers to Cyprus, which was under Roman dominion. Daniel 11:31 31 Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate. This verse gives more details about the desecration of the temple that occurred in December 168 BC. The “ abomination that makes desolate” may refer to a statue of Jupiter that was set up in the inner sanctuary. In fact, the temple was renamed the temple of Zeus Olympius. It may also refer to the desecration of the altar that occurred when a pig was sacrificed and the temple was sprinkled with pig broth. In Matthew 24:15, Jesus speaks of the abomination of desolation that Daniel the prophet spoke of. However, Jesus made it very clear that the event he was referring to had not yet occurred, but would occur soon. (See Matthew 24:34.) Thus, Matthew 24:15 cannot be referring to Daniel 11:31 since the event predicted by Daniel 11:31 came to pass before the birth of Christ. What was Jesus referring to then? Stay tuned… Daniel 11:32 32 He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant; but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action. Antiochus was a master at winning over people with flattery and empty promises. He convinced many of the influential Jews to adopt his pro-Hellenic policies. These are the ones who “ violate the covenant” ; that is, they violated their covenant with God by compromising with the world. One commentator notes: In some ways this defection of the would-be “ progressives” among the Jews themselves was an even more serious threat to the survival of Israel as a nation than the tyrannical measures of Antiochus. For it was the same kind of large-scale betrayal of their covenant obligations toward the Lord that had made inevitable the former destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity in the days of Jeremiah. Those who “ stand firm and take action” are the Maccabees who stood up to Antiochus and started the revolt that eventually led to the first independent Jewish nation since before the Babylonian captivity. Again, one commentator notes: Their uncompromising commitment to faithful adherence to the Mosaic covenant and law resulted in the spiritual survival of the nation till the first coming of the Lord Jesus. Daniel 11:33 33 And those among the people who are wise shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder, for some days. The Maccabean leaders went throughout the countryside and preached a message of repentance and a return to the law of Moses. These are the “ wise” that “ make many understand.” The patriots, however, suffered great hardship. Many lost their lives as Antiochus pursued them and burned their fields and cities. Daniel 11:34 34 When they fall, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery; Many of the initial leaders, including Mattathias himself, died early during the struggle. Those who were left received a “ little help” from early supporters of their cause. When it began to look like they were going to win, many more joined their cause. Many of these latter converts were insincere and only switched over to save their own necks. Daniel 11:35 35 and some of those who are wise shall fall, to refine and to cleanse them and to make them white, until the time of the end, for it is yet for the time appointed. Many of the Jewish patriots faced death early in the struggle rather than retreat to save their lives. This verse stresses the spiritual meaning of the struggle. Those who fell lost their lives but saved their souls. Then as today, those who seek to save their life will lose it. The context suggests that the time of the end in this verse is the end of the Jewish struggle with the Seleucids, which came in 142 when Judea became politically independent 25 years after the start of the rebellion. The Seleucids lasted a little longer but their power had been permanently broken. Again, we discover here that their end was a part of God’ s plan for the Jews. Daniel 11:36 36 “ And the king shall do according to his will; he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is determined shall be done. Who is the king mentioned in verse 36? Verses 28– 35 have been discussing the “ king of the north” so it would seem that verse 36 is also discussing the “ king of the north.” But who is this king of the north? (We have seen four different kings of the north so far.) (1) Some say that the king of the north is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who we have been reading about since verse 21. Although a cursory reading seems to make this choice the most likely, a more in-depth study leaves no doubt that verse 36 is no longer talking about Antiochus IV. Antiochus IV never fought a war against Egypt after 168 BC. Thus, verses 40– 43 cannot apply to him. Antiochus IV never conquered Libya and Ethiopia as verse 43 suggests the king in verse 36 did. Antiochus IV never had all the riches mentioned in verse 43. In fact, he robbed temples in his spare time to pay the Roman taxes. (2) The premillennialists says that the king in verse 36 is the antichrist, who will show up just before Christ shows up to reign on earth for 1000 years. As we have said, this view cannot possibly be correct since the vision is explicitly said to deal with the history of the Jews in the latter days, where we know from Acts 2 that the latter days occurred in the first century. As we will see, this vision ends in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans. Contextually there is no valid reason to insert a gap of at least several thousand years into this vision as the premillennialists try to do. In short, this view has all of the problems associated with premillennialism, which as we have seen are legion. (3) Who then is this king? Well, let’ s look at the problem in reverse. We have said that this vision deals with Jewish history up to AD 70. Further, we have seen the Persians and the Greeks so far. Who haven’ t we seen? Rome! How could we possibly have a history of the Jews in the latter days that did not mention Rome? Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. Rome fits in perfectly with the declared scope of this vision. Also, as we will see, the description in verses 36– 45 fits very well with what we know about Rome and the Roman rulers. (This will be made clear as we continue through the text.) Which Roman king does verse 36 refer to? My own view is that the description in verses 36– 40 does not refer to any single Roman ruler, but instead is a composite description of many Roman rulers, and in fact is a description of Rome itself.I think verse 36 summarizes the Roman mindset from its emergence as a world power until its fall. This king does whatever he wants, he magnifies himself above every god, and sets himself against the true God. As we know, this fits very well with what we might call the “ typical” Roman emperor. Consider the following passage from 2 Thessalonians in which I think Paul is discussing the Roman emperor Domitian: 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. And what is the indignation? I think it is the final outpouring of God’ s wrath on Rome. Although this occurred long after AD 70, it is mentioned in this vision as a side comment. In fact, each time Rome is referred to, we are given a side comment to the effect that “ they are getting it too one of these days!” I think we see the same thing in Luke 21:24. There, Jesus is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of Rome, and he makes the following comment: Luke 21:24 they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. In Luke, Jesus says “ Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” Here in Daniel 11:36, the angel says “ he shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished.” I think that both of these verses are saying that “ Yes, Jerusalem will be destroyed by the Romans, but the Romans are going to be destroyed as well.” This is just a side comment, however. The fall of Rome is not part of the vision. Indeed, the vision ends at a time when Rome is still very much in power. One objection to the identification of this king in verse 36 with Rome is that it causes a very abrupt change from verse 35. But we saw another abrupt change back in verse 3 when we switched from Persia to Greece. Back in Chapter 5, the narrative jumped from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to the very end of the Babylonian empire. Abrupt changes are not uncommon at all in Daniel. Indeed, they seem to be the rule rather than the exception. Daniel 11:37 37 He shall give no heed to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women; he shall not give heed to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all. Here we see even further the arrogance of Rome and of the Roman rulers. As the Roman emperors began to deify themselves, all other ‘ gods’ were pushed aside. The Roman rulers magnified themselves above all else. The phrase “ one beloved by women” is difficult to interpret. It may simply be the counterpart to the gods of their fathers; that is, they would pay no heed to the gods of their fathers or of their mothers. Or, perhaps there is a particular god the angel has in mind; one that was worshipped primarily by women. A literal translation of the passage points to another possibility. Literally, the phrase is “ the love of women” ; that is, these rulers would pay no heed to the love of women. As we know, homosexuality was rampant in Rome, and it is possible that this verse is referring to the moral collapse of Rome, which we know from secular historians contributed to Rome’ s fall. Daniel 11:38 38 He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these; a god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. Rome only had one real god throughout its history. Rome worshipped power. Rome worshipped war. Rome’ s god was the “ god of fortresses.” Rome did not care what type of religion you practiced just so long as you recognized their ultimate authority and you paid your taxes. Rome was not religiously zealous in the sense that they sought to convert those they conquered for religious reasons. Everything Rome did was for pragmatic reasons. They worshipped at the altar of perpetual power, and all of their resources were devoted to that god. Daniel 11:39 39 He shall deal with the strongest fortresses by the help of a foreign god; those who acknowledge him he shall magnify with honor. He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price. Rome used other nations and their “ foreign gods” to accomplish its goals. In fact, Rome used anything and everything necessary to accomplish its goals. This verse suggests that Rome would magnify with honor those who helped it and would divide the land for a price. Did Rome do this? Yes. Rome set up a system of client kingdoms around its border. Consider the following description found in the History of Rome by Michael Grant: The client kings were tied to the service of Rome in order to defend its frontiers and serve as listening posts to the outside world. In return, they were supported by the Romans against internal subversive movements and allowed a free hand inside their own countries. Thus Rome was spared the trouble and expense of administering these territories; and the formula worked well. In Chapter 2, Rome was pictured as being composed of iron mixed with clay. That is Rome was both strong and weak. The weakness came from these client kingdoms, which history tells us contributed to their downfall. This is also referred to in Revelation 17:12– 17. Daniel 11:40 40 “ At the time of the end the king of the south shall attack him; but the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through. The time of the end, as it did earlier, points to the time appointed by God for the events in the vision to have all come to pass. All it means here is that we are nearing the end of the vision. The “king of the south” here is the Ptolemies of Egypt under Cleopatra VII aided by Marc Antony. Their push against Rome (the king of the north) led to Octavian’ s declaration of war against Egypt. Rome is pictured as rushing in like a whirlwind with ships and chariots. This began at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, which ended the Ptolemy kingdom, which itself was the last vestige of the Grecian kingdom. Egypt itself fell to Octavian in 30 BC. Cleopatra and Marc Antony committed suicide at Alexandria when the country fell to the Romans. Verse 40 very clearly indicates that the kingdom of the north under consideration here is Rome. Who else was attacked by Egypt during this time period? Who else so thoroughly conquered Egypt during this time period? Daniel 11:41 41 He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites. The glorious land is Palestine, and of course as we know, Rome took control of the holy land in 63 BC when Pompey marched into Jerusalem. Herod’ s patron was Marc Antony. When Antony was defeated, Herod as you might suspect switched sides. Octavian realized the importance of Herod as a client king and thus confirmed his royal status. The ‘ tens of thousands’ who fell are those who were on the losing end of Rome’ s continued expansion. As this verse points out, however, Rome had its share of failures. Aelius Gallus’ expedition into Arabia for Augustus, for example, was not successful. Instead, he was betrayed by Obodas, chief minister of the king of the Nabathean Arabs, who forced Gallus to travel along a dangerous sea route by falsely telling him that there was no safe land route. This failed Arabian campaign may be what the angel has in mind here in verse 41. Daniel 11:42-43 42 He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall follow in his train. After the defeat of Cleopatra, Octavian confiscated the royal treasures of Egypt, just as verse 43 suggests. Michael Grant says that Octavian’ s “ seizure of the Cleopatra’ s treasure made him wealthier than the Roman state itself.” As for the Libyans and the Ethiopians, they were also part of the triumphal procession into the city of the Rome. (Antony and Cleopatra killed themselves to avoid appearing in just such a procession.) Libya and Ethiopia, like Egypt, were conquered by Rome. Ethiopia fell in 22 BC. Libya had long been under Roman domination, but was claimed by Cleopatra when she marched against Rome. Rome, of course, retained control. Daniel 11:44 44 But tidings from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go forth with great fury to exterminate and utterly destroy many. Again, we are reminded that all was not well with Rome. Rome’ s biggest threats came from the east and the north, just as this verse suggests. The Germanic hordes and the Gauls were north of Rome and the Parthians were east of Rome. Parthia was an Iranian feudal empire beyond the Euphrates that had broken away from the Seleucids in the third century BC. In the first century BC, they were only the substantial foreign power confronting Rome anywhere in the world. Later in Rome’ s history, the threat shifted to the north. In fact, the city of Rome itself was sacked in AD 410 by Alaric, a (Germanic) Visigoth from the north. That event marked the first time in 800 years that the city had been taken by a foreign invader. Daniel 11:45 45 And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him. This verse shows that Rome would be firmly in control of Palestine, as in fact it was. The “ sea” in Hebrew is plural and refers most probably to the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. Again, we are given a side comment to the effect that Rome is not going to be around forever. The fall of Rome is not a part of this vision because it takes place far outside the clearly stated time frame and it has nothing at all to do with the Jews. Even so, the angel makes it clear to Daniel that Rome would not be around forever. They also would come to an end as a part of God’ s plan. Notice the time frame of this verse. Rome is in control of Palestine and Egypt has been defeated. What happens next? Jesus is born! The very next verse begins with the phrase “ at that time.” Which time? During the time of Roman rule. This time frame will be crucial to understanding Chapter 12. (It will also help us avoid a very common pitfall in Chapter 12.)

“THE BOOK OF DANIEL”

The Vision Of The Time Of The End - II (Daniel 11:2-35)

1. In the tenth chapter, we saw the beginning of the final vision recorded by Daniel… a. A vision that pertains to what will affect Daniel’s people (i.e., Israel) - Daniel 10:14b. Describing what will occur “in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come” - Daniel 10:14c. Its words were to be closed and sealed “till the time of the end”

• Daniel 12:9– For such reasons this vision has been called “The Vision Of The Time Of The End”

2. In the introductory remarks of the vision, we were given a glimpse of the spiritual warfare that was going on “behind the scenes”… a. With angelic forces withstanding each other - Daniel 10:13a,Daniel 10:20b. With angelic forces helping each other - Daniel 10:13b; Daniel 10:21; Daniel 11:1 [Beginning with Daniel 11:2, “The Vision Of The Time Of The End” begins in earnest. The “glorious man” proceeds to tell Daniel what will happen “in the latter days” (Daniel 10:14), beginning with…]

I. THE PERSIAN-GREEK A. FOUR PERSIAN KINGS WILL ARISE…1. Three more kings will arise in Persia, and then a fourth - Daniel 11:2a. The fourth shall be far richer than them all b. By his strength and riches, the fourth shall stir up all against Greece 2. As confirmed by history, these kings who followed Cyrus (Daniel 10:1) were: a. Cambyses b. Smerdis c. Darius Hystaspis (Darius the Great) d. Xerxes (called Ahasuerus in the book of Esther - Ezra 1:1)

B. A MIGHTY GREEK KING SHALL RISE AND FALL…1. A mighty king shall arise - Daniel 11:3a. He shall rule with great dominion b. He shall do according to his will – This was Alexander the Great 2. His kingdom shall be broken and divided into four pieces - Daniel 11:4a. This was also prophesied in Daniel 8:21-22b. The kingdom will not be given to his posterity, nor will the dominion be as great c. As confirmed by history, Alexander’s empire was eventually divided between his four generals after he died in 323 B.C.

1. Seleucus I - who began the Seleucid (Syrian) empire, from Turkey to India
2. Cassander - who took over Macedonia (Greece)
3. Lysimachus - who took Thracia (between Greece and Turkey)
4. Ptolemy I - who ruled over Egypt

[At this point, the “glorious man” begins to describe an extended conflict between “the kings of the North” and “the kings of the South” which will have a big impact upon the people of Daniel (Israel)…]

II. THE -SYRIAN A. THE WILL BEGIN…1. The “king of the South” will gain in strength - Daniel 11:5 aa. This king is Ptolemy I b. Who ruled Egypt (306-284 B.C.) 2. As well as “one of his princes”, who will gain power over the other - Daniel 11:5 ba. This is thought to refer to one of Alexander’s princes (generals) b. In which case it is Seleucus I, who ruled Syria (312-280 B.C.) – Caught in the middle between Syria and Egypt, Israel will bear the brunt of much of the conflict between these two empires

B. THERE WILL BE A FAILED …1. The “daughter of the South” will go to the “king of the North”

• Daniel 11:6 aa. The event occurred in the reigns of Ptolemy Philadelphus (284-246 B.C.) and Antiochus Theus (261-246 B.C.) b. Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus was given to Antiochus, upon the condition that Antiochus divorce his wife Laodice c. Hoping to make peace between Egypt and Syria

2. But the “daughter of the South” will not retain her authority

• Daniel 11:6 ba. Two years after the marriage, Berenice’s father (Ptolemy Philadelphus) died b. Antiochus put her away and restored his first wife Laodice c. Laodice killed Antiochus, and Berenice fled, but was later put to death along with her children and attendants

C. THE SOUTH WILL RISE IN ANGER…1. A “branch of her roots” will come with an army - Daniel 11:7a. This was Berenice’s brother, Ptolemy Euregetes (246-221 B.C.) b. Who failing to save his sister, attacked Syria to avenge her death 2. The avenger (Ptolemy Euregetes) will succeed - Daniel 11:8a. Euregetes took their gods, princes, and precious articles to Egypt b. Euregetes ruled longer than the next Seleucid king, Seleucid Callinicus (246-226 B.C.)

D. THE WILL …1. The “king of the North” (Seleucid Callinicus) will try to invade the kingdom of the South - Daniel 11:9-10a. He does not succeed, though his sons (Seleucid Ceraunus and Antiochus the Great) shall stir up strife b. One son in particular, Antiochus the Great (225-187 B.C.), does succeed in overwhelming Egypt (actually, regain Syrian land taken by Egypt) 2. The “king of the South” will respond in rage - Daniel 11:11-13a. This king of Egypt is Ptolemy Philopator (221-204 B.C.) b. Angry that Antiochus the Great regained control of Syrian territory, he gathered a great army and defeated Antiochus at Raphia c. His victory was short-lived, for Antiochus returned with a better-equipped army in 203 B.C. 3. Others will contribute to the war against the South - Daniel 11:14a. This included Philip, king of Macedon, who aligned with Antiochus b. Also some violent Jews, prompted by what they perceived as the fulfillment of the vision, but they shall fall 4. The “king of the North” shall prevail against the South, but then fall - Daniel 11:15-19a. Again, this is Antiochus the Great

1. The forces of the South were not able to resist him
2. He stood in the “Glorious Land” (Israel) with destruction in his power b. He tried to strengthen his kingdom by giving his daughter in marriage
3. His daughter Cleopatra, given to Ptolemy Epiphanes (204- 180 B.C.)
4. But she came to favor the purposes of her husband rather than her father c. Antiochus then turned his attention to the coastlands (Mediterranean)
5. Making war with the Romans 2) But was defeated by Scipio Asiaticus, a Roman military leader d. Defeated by the Romans, Antiochus the Great returned home and died soon after

[At this point our attention is focused on one leader of the Seleucid (Syrian) empire, who would have a powerful impact upon the people of Daniel, Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.)…]

III. THE RISE OF A. BY A TAX …1. One who will impose taxes on the “glorious kingdom” (Israel?)

• Daniel 11:20a. This is Seleucus Philopator (187-175 B.C.) b. Oldest son of Antiochus, and his immediate successor

2. Whose reign will be short-lived a. Compared to his father, who reigned thirty-seven years b. Who died, not in battle, but was poisoned

B. THEN WILL COME A VILE MAN WITH NO HONOR…1. Held in contempt, the people will not give him honor - Daniel 11:21a. His official name was Antiochus “Epiphanes” (the Illustrious) b. His people refereed to him as Antiochus “Epimanes” (the Insane) 2. He shall take the kingdom peaceably, but with intrigue

• Daniel 11:21-24a. This may refer to his dealings with the Egyptians (or perhaps Israel) b. After making a league with them, he will act deceitfully and become strong with a small number of people c. Through peaceful means he will plunder the riches places of the province

3. He will provoke the “king of the South” - Daniel 11:25-28a. Two times Antiochus invaded Egypt b. The Egyptian king, Ptolemy Physcon, sought to oppose him, but was betrayed by his own people c. Both kings were deceitful liars, but their plotting was subject to the times and manner appointed by God d. On his return home, Antiochus passed through Israel, and was moved against the holy covenant (the institutions of the Law of Moses)

C. HE WILL BRING AGAINST ISRAEL…1. Once again Antiochus Epiphanes will head toward the South

• Daniel 11:29-30 aa. This was his third invasion b. But he was not as successful as before c. For Roman ships from Cyprus (Kittim) threatened reprisal

2. Frustrated, he will take out his rage against “the holy covenant” - Daniel 11:30-32 aa. By showing regard for those who forsake the holy covenant b. By defiling the sanctuary fortress (i.e., the temple) c. By taking away the daily sacrifices d. By placing there “the abomination of desolation” e. By flattering those who do wickedly against the covenant
3. In the years 169-167 B.C., Antiochus Epiphanes: a. Took the city of Jerusalem and plundered the temple b. Commanded the Jews to worship the Greek idol which he set up in the temple c. Put an end to daily sacrifices and polluted the altar by offering swine flesh on it d. Forbid circumcision, the observance of the Sabbath, and possession of a copy of the law

D. THOSE WHO KNOW GOD WILL RESIST …1. They shall be strong - Daniel 11:32-33 aa. Carrying out great exploits b. Instructing many 2. When they fall, they shall receive aid - Daniel 11:33-34a. For many days they shall fall by sword, flame, captivity and plunder b. They will receive a little help, even from many through intrigue 4. When those of understanding fall, it will be to refine them

• Daniel 11:35a. To purge them, and make them white b. Until “the time of the end; because it is still for the appointed time.” – The events described here were fulfilled during the Maccabean period, which began in 168 B.C. with the revolt of Mattathias (an elderly priest) and his five sons

1. Up to this point, there is little controversy over the content of the vision… a. It describes the conflict between the Persians and the Greeks, followed by the conflict between the Syrians and the Egyptians b. The latter described in detail, because Israel was caught in the middle c. Israel in particular would suffer the blasphemies of one Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes

2. From Daniel 11:36 on, there is quite a diversity of opinions… a. Some believe Antiochus Epiphanes is still the subject b. Others suggest that a Roman emperor is being described c. Still others believe it refers to someone yet to come

We shall examine the remaining portion of this chapter and the final chapter in our next study…

Note: The historical information in this lesson was taken from Albert Barnes’ commentary on Daniel.

Chapter Eleven After introductory comments in chapter ten, “The Vision Of The Time Of The End” begins in earnest. A brief prophecy of a Persian-Greek conflict (Daniel 11:2-4) is followed by the description of a lengthy Egyptian-Syrian conflict (Daniel 11:5-19), with focus on a vile king from the North who will bring blasphemies against Daniel’s people, but who will ultimately be defeated (Daniel 11:20-45).

POINTS TO PONDER

• The prophetic detail of the Persian-Greek and Egyptian-Syrian conflicts

• The identity of the vile king from the North

REVIEW

1. What are the main points of this chapter?- The Persian-Greek conflict - Daniel 11:1-4- The Egyptian-Syrian conflict - Daniel 11:5-19- The rise and fall of a vile king from the North - Daniel 11:20-45

2. In the Persian-Greek conflict, who was the mighty king that would rise? (Daniel 11:3-4)- Alexander the Great, whose kingdom was divided among his four generals

3. Who were the warring kings of the North and South? (Daniel 11:5-20)- The kings of the South were the Ptolemies, based in Egypt

• The kings of the North were the Seleucids, based in Syria

4. Based on history, who was likely the vile person introduced in Daniel 11:21?- Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who reigned 175-164 B.C.

• The “little horn” of Daniel 8:9-12; Daniel 8:23-25

5. How would he bring blasphemies against Israel? (Daniel 11:30-32)- Show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant

• Defile the sanctuary fortress (i.e., the temple)
• Take away the daily sacrifices
• Place there “the abomination of desolation”
• Flatter those who do wickedly against the covenant

6. What is said of those who resist valiantly? (Daniel 11:32-35)- They shall be strong, carrying out great exploits, instructing many

• When they fall, they shall receive aid
• Some who fall will be refined and purified, made white

7. In Daniel 11:36-45, what three opinions are given about the identity of the king?- It is still about Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.)

• The prophecy skips forward to the time of a Roman emperor in the first century A.D.
• The prophecy refers to someone yet to come (e.g., the “Anti-christ”)

Daniel 11:1

Daniel 11:1. The pronoun I means the person described in Daniel 10:18 and other verses in that chapter. The reader should “keep his hearings” as to the chronological place we have reached in this most wonderful prophecy. In chapter 10: 20 it was shown that Persia was to be contacted by the king of Grecia. But that was a long jump into the future and other events were to happen first. This angel is still in the presence of Daniel, and even before returning to fight with the king of Persia, he is going to reveal to the prophet the things that are to happen to Persia and Greece and the Jews who will be Involved in the whole affair.

Remember, this conversation or visit of the angel with Daniel is taking place in the third year of Cyrus (chapter 10: 1). but in this meeting the angel inserts the present verse to tell the prophet of his work in the first year of that reign, that it consisted in confirming and strengthening the kingdom of the Medes and Persians. That confirmation was done because the change from the Babylonian Empire to the MedoPersian was according to God’ s decree. And now after two or three years have gone by, this angel is in the presence of Daniel and ready to reveal to him the events referred to in the forepart of this paragraph.

Daniel 11:2

Daniel 11:2. We now come to the grand drama of the nations that was referred to by the angel after he had made the necessary preliminary’ explanations to Daniel, and while he was stiil in the presence of the prophet on the bank of the Tigris River. The truth refers to that mentioned as “scripture of truth” in the last verse Of the preceding chapter. No other scripture goes into as many details as does the present chapter, but the prophecy as a whole was seen by inspired eyes, and made known by the prophets in various places and under diverse figures. Stand up yet three kings in Persia. At the time this speech by the angel was made, Cyrus and Darius were the joint rulers of the empire.

The three to follow were unimportant and are passed over with the brief numerical statement italicized, to bring the prophecy down to the fourth king in this enumeration, who was to be a very important king. The pronoun fftee refers to Daniel Lo whom the angel was delivering this prophecy.

The prediction is that this fourth king was to be rich and strong and finally would cause such a stir among the nations of the world that he would bring the powerful kingdom of Greece (destined to be the third world power) into a hostile attitude because of the encroachments of Persia upon that realm. In this chapter there are no less than 20 characters referred to, either directly or otherwise, and it will be helpful if not necessay for the understanding of the great passage to have the history that confirms the predictions. Hence I shall make numerous quotations from time to lime from authentic sources for the information of the reader. The fourth king Of this verse was XERXES I. and history has this to say of him: “ For eight years alt Asia was astir with the work of preparation [for the expedition against Greece]. Levies were made upon all the provinces that acknowledged the authority of the Great King [Xerxes I], from India to Macedonia, from the regions of the Oxus to those of the Upper Nile, From alt the maritime states upon the Mediterranean were demanded vast contingents of war galleys, transport ships, and naval stores. While these land and sea forces were being gathered and equipped, gigantic works were in progress on the Thracian coast and on the Hellespont to insure the safety and facilitate the march of the coming hosts.’’— MYERS’ Ancient History, page 191.

“Xerxes thus levied his army searching out every region of the continent. For from the reduction of Egypt, he was employed four whole years in as sembing his forces, and providing things necessary for the expedition. In the course of the fifth year be began his march with a vast multitude of men. For of the expeditions with which we are acquainted, this was by far the greatest, so that that of Darius against the Scythians appears nothing in comparison with this,” — , Book 7, Sections 19. 20, “Xerxes, in the four years which followed on the reduction of Egypt, continued incessantly to make the most gigantic preparations for his intended attack upon Greece, and among them included all the precautions which a wise foresight could devise in order to ward off every conceivable peril). A general order was issued to all satraps throughout the Empire, calling on them to levy the utmost force of their province tor the new war; while, as the equipment of Oriental troops depends greatly on the purchase and distribution of arms by their commander, a rich reward was promised to the satrap whose contingent should appear at tbe appointed place in the most gallant array. , . . His army Is said to have accompanied him; but more probably it joined him in the spring, flocking in, contingent after contingent, from the various provinces of his vast Empire. Fortynine nations, according to Herodotus, served under his standard.”— Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies, Volume 3, Chapter 7, pages 448, 452,

“All these expeditions, and any others, if there have been any besides them, are not to be compared with this one. For what nation did not Xerxes lead out of Asia against Greece? What stream, being drunk, did not fail him, except that of great rivers. Some supplied ships; others were ordered to furnish men for the infantry, from others cavalry were required, from others transports for horses, together with men to serve in the army; others to furnish long shipB for the bridges, and others provisions and vessels.”— Herodotus, Book 7, Section 21.

“The Decline and Fall of the Persian Empire.— The power and supremacy of the Persian monarchy passed away with the reign of Xerxes. The last one hundred and forty years of the existence of the empire was a time of weakness and anarchy, and presents nothing that needs claim our attention in this place. In the year 334 B.C., Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia, led a small army of Greeks and Macedonians across the Hellespont intent upon the conquest of Asia. His succeeding movements and the estab ishment of the shortlived Macedonian monarchy upon the ruins of the Persian Empire are matters that properly belong to Grecian history, and will be related at a later stage of our story.” — MYERS’ Ancient History, page 94.

“ From Xerxes we have to date at once the decline of the Empire in respect to territorial greatness and military strength, and likewise its deterioration in regard to administrative vigor and national spirit."— Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies, Volume 3, Chapter 7, Page 471. There were some other rulers in Persia, but they were Inferior to the one just seen in these quotations and will not claim our attention at this time.

Daniel 11:3

Daniel 11:3. This mighty king was Alexander the Great of Macedonia, the same who was referred to in chapter 8: 5. The angel passes immediately from Xerxes to Alexander, thus Ignoring all the intervening history. This was evidently because of its unimportance; also because Alexander’s work was the next important event for prophecy after Xerxes. I shall quote some more history in confirmation of the predictions of this verse: “Alexander was now free to carry out his father’s scheme in regard to the Asiatic expedition. In the spring of 334 B.C., with all his plans matured, he set out at the head of an army numbering about 35,000 men for the conquest of the Persian Empire.

Crossing the Hellespont, Alexander first proceeded to the plain of ancient Troy, in order to place a garland upon the supposed tomb at that place of his mythical ancestor Achilles. Proceeding on his march, Alexander met a Persian army on the banks of the Granieus. over which he gained a decisive victory. Three hundred suits of armor, selected from the spoils of the field, were sent as a votive offering to the temple of Athena at Athens. The victory at the Granieus laid all Asia Minor open to the invader, and soon practically all of its cities and tribes were brought to acknowledge the authority of the Macedonian."— Myers, Ancient History, pages 274, 275.

Daniel 11:4

Daniel 11:4. When he shall stand up means that just as Alexander reaches the height of his glory lie will come to his end, and his conquests will be divided into four parts. See the comments and quotation from history at chapter 8: 8. Not to his posterity refers. to the fact that Alexander died without any descendants to receive his kingdom, as may be seen in the historical quotation referred to. Nor according to his dominion means that no man lived in Greece who was strong enough to handle the dominion left by Alexander, since no one was as strong as he. I shall quote again from history as follows: “And when he [Alexander] shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided towards the four winds of heaven and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others namely, besides the four greater princes.

We have already seen the vast empire of Alexander parcelled out into four great Kingdoms; without including those foreign princes who founded other kingdoms in Cappadocia, Armenia, Bithynta, Heraclea. and on the Bosphorus. AH this was present to Daniel.”— Boltin, Ancient History, Volume 3, Page 597. From the various citations to history that have been offered the reader, he may understand that the pronoun those with which the verse closes, refers to the four winds or the four divisions into which Alexander’ s conquests fell at his death. Others besides means the forces in the world that finally swallowed up the realms of the four princes of Alexander, since they were not strong enough to retain them. As the statement has already been made by the historian elsewhere, “ No one was strong enough to handle the sword that fell from the hand of Alexander.”

Daniel 11:5

Daniel 11:5. We have seen that when Alexander died his dominions were divided into four parts and taken over by his generals. Two of these divisions were shortlived and were absorbed by the other forces about them. The two that remained were ruled by Seleueus Nicator, and Ptolemy. The dominions of the former are referred to in this chapter as king of the north, the latter as king of the south. They may occasionally be referred to simply by a pronoun, in which case an explanation will be given.

These two divisions of Alexander’s conquests were ruled at first by the two men named, but their realms were ruled successively by different persons as long as they existed as governments, until all was finally absorbed by the Roman Empire. This northern, and southern kingdom were constantly hostile toward each other, in spite of a few occasions of pretended friendliness, and the entire chapter from here on is a series of predictions of their dealings with their respective conditions. I shall now take up the comments on the verses in their order. The king of the south was Ptolemy Soter who ruled over Egypt. One of his (Alexander’ s) princes was Seleueus Nicator who ruled over Syria. Stronjr above him means the king of the north was stronger or had more extensive dominions than those possessed by the king of the south.

The history and geography of the times will verify this prediction. Syria embraced “Syria and the countries eastward to the Indus,” while “Ptolemy held sway over Egypt,” according to the history of Myers, it can thus be seen why the prediction is that the king of the north was to be strong above him (the king of the south).

Daniel 11:6

Daniel 11:6. The rulers of these two dominions were succeeded by others as the years went by, but the scripture does not make mention of the new kings by name. The two governments are merely referred to as the north and the south, and if a change in kings iti either has taken place, we will have to learn It and find the name of the king by history. For this reason it will be necessary to make quotations from the historical sources. In order that the reader may the more readily detect the particular word or words concerned in the prediction, I shall add my own emphasis to them. It will be the rule to make the quotation first, then interpret the verse or verses in the light oi the history, hence it is very important lliat the reader give carefui attention lo the quotations.

The history to be used for the present verse is as follows: “ The commotions and revolts which happened in the east, making Antiochus (Theos) weary of his war with King Ptolemy (Phil adelpints), peace was made between them on the terms, that Antiochus, divorcing Laodice, his former wife, should marry Bernice, daughter of Ptolemy, and make her bis queen instead of the other, and entail his crown upon the male issue of that marriage. And this agreement being ratified by ooth sides, for the full performance of it, Antiochus put away Laodice, though she were his sister by the same father, and he had two sons born to him by her; and Ptolemy carrying his daughter to Pelusium, there put her on board his fleet, and sailed with her to Selucia, a seaport town near the mouth of the River Orontes in Syria; where having met Antiochus, he delivered his daughter to him, and the marriage was celebrated with great solemnity, And thus ‘ the king’s daughter of the south came, and was married to the king of the north’ ; and, by virtue of that marriage, ‘an agreement was made between those two kings,’ according to the prophecy of the prophet Daniel 11:5-6.

For in that place, by the king of the south, is meant the king of Egypt, and by the king of the north, the king of Syria; and both are there so called in respect of Judea, which lying between these two countries, hath Egypt on the south, and Syria on the north. For the fuller understanding of this prophecy, It is to be observed, that the holy prophet, after having spoken of Alexander the Great (verse 3) and of the four kings among whom hia empire was divided (verse 4) confines the rest of his prophecy in that chapter to two of them only, that is to the king of Egypt, and the king of Syria, and first be begins with that king of Egypt who first reigned in that country after Alexander, that is, Ptolemy Soter, whom he calls the king of the south, and saith of him that he should be strong. And that he was so, all that write of him do sufficiently testify: for he had under him Egypt, Libya Cyrene, Arabia, Palestine, Coele Syria, most of the maritime provinces of Lesser Asia, the island of Cyprus, several of the isles of the Aegean Sea, now called the Archipelago, and some cities also in Greece, as Sicyon, Corinth. and others. And then the Prophet proceedeth to speak of the four successors (or princes, as he calls them) of Alexander, and he was Seleucus Nicator king of the north; of whom he sail.h ‘should be strong above the king of the, south, and have great dominion’; that is, greater than the king of the south. And that he had so. appears from the large territories be was possessed of; for he had under him all the countries of the east, from Mount Taurus to the river Indus, and several of the provinces of Lesser Asia, also from Mount Taurus to the Aegean Sea; and he had moreover added to them, before his death, Thrace and Macedon, And then, in the next place (verse 6) he tells us ‘ the coming of the king’s daughter of the south, after (he end of several years, to the king of the north, and the agreement, or treaty of peace, which should thereon be made between these two kings.’ Which plainly points out unto us this marriage of Bernice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus king of Egypt, with Antiochus Theos king of Syria, and the peace which was thereon made between them; for ail this was exactly transacted according to what was predicted by the holy prophet in his prophecy. After this the holy prophet proceeds, through the rest of the chapter, to foreshadow ail the other most remarkable events that were brought to pass In the transactions of the succeeding times of those two races of kings, till the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, the great persecutor of the Jewish nation; all which I shall take notice of in the following series of this history, and apply them to the prophecy for the explication of it, as they come in my way.— ’ S , year 249.

“Details of this reign. [That of Antiochus Theos]— Marriage of Antiochus with Laodice, daughter of Aehae us. Her influence, and that of his sister Apame, wife of Matas, engaged him in war with Ptolemy Philadelphue, B.C. 260, which is terminated, B.C. 252, by marriage between Antiochus and Berenice, Ptolemy’ s daughter. Soon after the close of this war, B.C. 255, Partliia and Bactria revolt and establish their independence. On the death of Phlladeiphus, B.C. 247, Antiochus repudiates Berenice and takes back his former wife Laodice, who however, doubtful of his constancy, murders him to secure the throne for her son, Seleucus, B.C. 246.” — Rawlinson, Ancient History, page 25L

“As soon as Antiochus Theos had received intelligence of the death of Ptolemy Phlladeiphus, his fatherinlaw, he divorced Berenice, and recalled Laodice and her children. This lady, who knew the variable disposition and inconstancy of Antiochus, and was apprehensive that the same levity of mind would induce him to supplant her, by receiving Berenice again, resolved to improve the present opportunity to secure the crown for her son. Her own children were disinherited by the treaty made with Ptolemy; by which it was also stipulated that the issue Berenice might have by Antiochus should succeed to tire throne, and she then had a son, Laodice, therefore, caused Antiochus to be poisoned.. . . Laodice, not believing herself safe as long as Berenice and her son lived, concerted measures with Seleucus to destroy them also; hut that princess, being informed of their design, escaped the danger for some time by retiring, with her son, to Daphne, where she shut herself up in the asylum built by Seleucus Nicator; but being at last betrayed by the perfidy [treachery] of those who besieged her there, by the order of Laodice. first her son, and then herself, with all the Egyptians who had accompanied her to that retreat were murdered in the basest and most inhuman manner."— Rollin, Ancient History, Volume 3, Book 16, Chapter 3, Section 1.

In view of the foregoing information from history we may be able to comment, briefly, on the leading terms of this verse. The first pronoun they means the kingdoms of the north and the south. King’ s daughter is Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus, whom her father gave In marriage to the king of the north in hopes of bringing about a peace. But the plan did not have the effect that was expected, which is the meaning of the words not retain the power of the arm. Shall he given up, etc. All who were involved in this “love triangle” were brought to disappointment

Daniel 11:7

Daniel 11:7. The preceding paragraph informs us that the ones involved in the affair of Berenice were disappointed and that she was slain. But her death did not end the matter, for at the time she was being held there were certain forces at work to avenge her misfortune. I shall quote from history again as follows: “While Berenice [daughter of Philadelphus and former wife of Antiochus Theos] continued shut up and besieged in Daphne, the cities of Lesser Asia [or Asia Minor], hearing of her distress, commiserated [sympathized] her case, and immediately, by a joint association, sent an army toward Antioch for her relief; and Ptolemy Euergetes, her brother, hastened thither with a greater force out of Egypt for the same purpose. But both Berenice and her son were cut off before either of them could arrive for their help; whereupon both armies turning their desire of saving the queen and her son into a rage for the revenging of their death, the Asian forces joined the Egyptians for the effecting of it, and Ptolemy, at the head of both, carried all before him; for he not only slew Laodice, but also made himself master of oil Syria and Cilicia, and then passing the Euphrates, brought all under him as far as Babylon, and the River Tigris, and would have subjugated to him all the other provinces of the Syrian Empire, but that a sedition arising in Egypt during his absence called him back to suppress it.”— Prideaux’s Connexion, year 246.

Daniel 11:8

Daniel 11:8. The very things predicted in this verse took place, therefore the best and only comments necessary will be offered in another historical quotation which is as follows: “Ptolemy III, Euergetes, , B.C. 247-222; alluded to in Daniel 11:7-9; invaded Syria in 246 BC, to avenge the repudiation and murder of his sister, Berenice (See Antiochus II, page 95), and had conquered it as far north as Antioch, and was moving eastward towards Babylon, when he was recalled by troubles at. home. His policy towards the Jews in Egypt was generous; while, in token of his victories, he sacrificed in the temple at Jerusalem ‘ after the custom of the law’ (Josephus: C. Ap., 11: 5). He brought hack to Memphis the gods taken from Egypt by Cambyses. It was for this he received the epithet, ‘ welldoer.’ ’’— SchaffHerzog, Article, Ptolemy III.

“And therefore, having appointed Antiochus and Xantippus, two of his generals, the former of them to command the provinces he had taken on the west side of Mount Taurus, and the other to command the provinces he had taken on the east side of it, he marched back into Egypt, carrying with him vast treasures, which he had gotten together, in the plunder of the conquered provinces; for he brought from thence with him forty thousand talents of silver, a vast number of precious vessels of silver and gold, and images also to the number of two thousand five hundred, among which were many of the Egyptian idols. which Cambyses, on his conquering Egypt, had carried thence into Persia. These Ptolemy (son of Philadelphus and brother of Berenice) having restored to their former temples, on his return from this expedition, he thereby much endeared himself to his people,"— Prideaux’ s Connexion, year 246.

Daniel 11:9

Daniel 11:9. King of the south was Ptolemy Euergetes of whom we read in the preceding verse and historical comments, The reader should see that paragraph for the explanation of this verse. We note that in verse 8 the statement is made that the king of the south was to continue more years than the king of the north.

Daniel 11:10

Daniel 11:10. This is one of the verses where we have only the pronouns for the kings, and their names must be learned from history. Since the events of the preceding verse another king has arisen over the north by the name of Seleucus Callinicus, and the pronoun his, second word of this verse, refers to him. But he was to be opposed by another man in his kingdom referred to in the words one shall certainly come; that “one” was Antiochus the Great, sometimes titled Antiochus HI. He not only opposed Callinicus, but carried his operations even to the border of Egypt. The last his refers to the Egyptian king Ptolemy Philo pator who had succeeded Ptolemy Philadelphus.

That is what is meant by the words he stirred up even to his (Philopator’ s) fortress. In confirmation of the predictions of this verse I shall quote some more history: “The weakness of Philopator, and the mismanagement of the State by Sosibius, who was at once incapable and wicked, laid the empire open to attack; and it was not long before the young king of Syria, Antiochus HI, took advantage of the condition of affairs to advance his own pretensions to the possessions of the longdisputed traet between Syria Proper and Egypt. . . . Details of the war. Antiochus commenced B.C. 219. by besieging Seleuceta, the port of Antioch, which had remained in the hands of the Egyptian governor of CoeleSyria. He invaded that country, took Tyre and Ptolemais (Acre), and advanced to the frontiers of Egypt.” — Rawlinson, Ancient History, Page 275.

Daniel 11:11

Daniel 11:11. It may be a surprise and yet a help to the reader to know that, beginning with the second verse of this chapter and Including the rest of the chapter, a space of over 300 years is covered. It is natural to think that since the rulers and other outstanding characters in the chapter, about 20 in all, belonged to the two governments, there would be both long and short reigns among them. In some instances the ruler in one of the kingdoms would reign as long as two or more kings in the other. Hence we may pass from one verse to another without a change of kings in one or the other. Before making further comments on this verse 1 shall quote from history:

“Ptolemy Philopator, was an indolent, effeminate prince. It was necessary to excite and drag him, in a manner, out of his lethargy, in order to prevail with him to take up arms, and repulse the enemy, who were preparing to march into his country. At last he put himself at the head of Ills troops; by the valor and good conduct of his generals, obtained a signal victory over Antiochus (the Great) at Raphia,’*— Rollin’ s Ancient History, Volume 4, Page 143.

“ It might have been expected that, under the circumstances, he (Antiochus the Great) would have been successful. But the Egyptian forces, relaxed though their discipline had been by Sosibius, were still superior to the Syrians; the battle of Raphia (B.C. 217) was a repetition of the lessons taught at Pelusium and Gaza. The Invader was once more deEeated upon the borders, and by the peace which followed, the losses of the two preceding years were, with one exception, recovered (by Phiiopator). … In the third year of the war. B.C. 217, Phiiopator marched out from Alexandria in person, with 70,000 foot, 5,000 horse and 73 elephants. Antiochus advanced to give him battle, and the two armies met at Raphia, on the eastern edge of the desert.

After a vain attempt on the part of Theodotus to assassinate Phiiopator in his camp, an engagement took place, and AntiochUB was completely defeated. He then made peace, relinquishing all hla conquests but Seleu ceia.”— Rawlinson, Ancient History, Page 275.

The king of the south Is Ptolemy Philopator who was a weakling in character, but others insisted and agitated him until he finally bestirred himself. He gathered a large army and came with choler (bitterness) against him, king of the north who is the Antiochus the Great of verse 10. Multitude shall be given into his (Philopator’ s) hand.

Daniel 11:12

Daniel 11:12. He is Ptolemy Philopator, king of Egypt. His success against Antiochus the Great filled him with pride and his heart shall be lifted up. Shall not be strengthened by it means that his kingdom did not profit by the success against Antiochus, although he personally had the arrogant satisfaction of looking upon his victory. We shall learn in the next verse that defeat finally came to his kingdom from the very man whom he had beaten. But for the present verse, let the reader keep the foregoing comments in mind as he reads the following quotations from history:

“ Antiochus III lost upwards of ten thousand foot and three hundred horse, and four thousand of his men were taken prisoners. Phiiopator, having marched, after his victory, to Jerusalem, was so audacious as to attempt to enter the sanctuary, ; and being returned to his kingdom, he behaved with the utmost pride toward the Jews, and treated them very cruelly. He might have dispossessed Antiochus of his dominions had he taken a proper advantage of his glorious victory; but he contented himself with recovering CoeleSyria and Phoenicia, and again plunged into his former excesses; ‘ but he shall not be strengthened by it.’"— Rollin’s Ancient History, Volume 4, Page 143.

“Ptolemy (Philopator) having thus regained these provinces, made a progress through them; and, among other cities which he visited in his perambulation, Jerusalem was one that had this favor from him. On his arrival thither, he took a view of the temple and there offered up many sacrifices to the God of Israel, and made many oblations to the temple, and gave several valuable donatives to it. But, not being content to view it only from the outer court, beyond w’hich it was not lawful for any gentile to pass, he would have pressed into the sanctuary itself, and into the holy of holies in the temple, where none but the high priest only, once a year, on the great day of expiation, was to enter. This made a great uproar all over the city. The higbpriest. informed him of the sacredness of the place, and the law of God which forbade his entrance thither. And the priests and Levites gathered together to hinder it, and all the people to deprecate it; and great lamentation was made everywhere among them on the apprehension of the great profanation which would hereby be offered to their holy temple, and all hands were lifted up unto God in prayer to avert it. But the king, the more he was opposed, growing the more intent to have his will in this matter, pressed into the inner court; but, as he was passing farther to go into the temple itself, he was smitten from God with such a terror and confusion of mind, that he was carried out of the place in a manner half dead, On this he departed from Jerusalem, filled with great wrath against the whole nation of the Jews, for that which happened to him in that place, and venting many threatenings against them for it.”— Prideaux, year 217.

“Ptolemy IV, Philopator , B.C. 222-205; alluded to in Daniel 11:10-12, defeated Antiochus the Great at Raphia. near Gaza (B.C. 217); sacrificed ia the temple, and attempted to enter the sacred precincts, when a shock of paralysis stopped him. He was indolent, effeminate, and licentious, but capable, on occasion, of splendid and vigorous deeds."— Schaff Herzog, Arlicle, Ptolemy IV.

Daniel 11:13

Daniel 11:13. This verse begins with the word for which indicates a continuation of some of the thoughts in the preceding verse. Those thoughts were regarding the success of Ptolemy Philopator against Antiochus the Great. It Is stated as verse 12 concludes, that (hose thousands of nun would not strengthen the kingdom of Phiiopator, and the present verse proceeds to tell us why It would not. And since that subject consists in the further activities and success of Antiochus (he great, my comments on the verse further will be some historical quotations:

“Antiochus, after he had ended the war beyond the Euphrates, raised a great, army in those provinces. Finding, fourteen years after the conclusion of the first war, that Ptolemy Epiph anes. who was then but five or six years of age, had succeeded Philopator his father, he united with Philip of Macedon, in order to deprive the infant king of his throne. Having defeated Scopas [a general conducting the war on behalf of the infant king] at Pallium, near the source of the river Jordan, he subjected the whole country which Philopator had conquered, by the victory he gained at Raphia.” — Robin’s Ancient History, Volume 4, page 144.

“He (Antiochus III) then turned towards the eastern frontiers of his realm, against Parthia and Eaetria; penetrated into Northern India and organized a formidable army, including a hundred and fifty Indian elephants. In 204 Philopator died; and the Egyptian crown devolved on his son, Ptolemy V, (Epiphanes) a boy of five years. This circumstance Antiochus meant to utilize. He conquered CoeleSyria, Phoenicia, and Palestine, and gained a decisive victory in 198 at Paneas in CoeleSyria. Peace was then concluded.” — SchaffHerzog. Article, Antioehus III.

“Antiochus, king of Syria, and Philip, king of Macedon. thinking to serve themselves of the advantage they bad by the death of Philopator, and the succession of an infant king after him, entered into a league to divide his dominion between them, agreeing that Philip should have Carla, Libya, Oyrene. and Egypt, and Antiochus all the rest. And accordingly Antiochus forthwith marched into CoeleSyria and Palestine, and partly this year, and partly in the next, made himself master of these provinces, and all the several districts and cities in them.”— Prideaux’ s Connexion, year 203.

“Return of Antiochus from the East, B.C. 205 and resumption of his Egyptian projects, A treaty is made with Philip of Macedon for the partition of the kingdom of Ptolemies between the two powers. War in CoeleSyria, Phoenicia, and Palestine with varied success, terminated by a great victory over Scopas near Panias, B.C. 198. Marriage of Cleopatra, daughter of Antiochus, with Ptolemy V. CoeleSyria and Palestine promised as a dowery, but not delivered.”— Rawlinson, Ancient History, page 254.

Daniel 11:14

Daniel 11:14. The first half of this verse is virtually a repetition of the prediction in the foregoing, but I shall Insert a brief quotation again from history as an explanation: “Antiochus, king of Syria, and Philip, king of Macedon, thinking to serve themselves of the advantage they had by the death of Philopator, and the succession of an infant king alter him, metrerf into a league to divide his dominions between them.” Prideaux’s Connexion, year 203.

The second half of this verse introduces a new item into the prediction. They is a pronoun referring to Daniel, against whose people the robbers were to emit themselves. But the prediction is that they were to fail which the history shows did happen. I have departed somewhat from the rule suggested a short while ago to quote the history for each verse first and then make my own comments upon It. Whichever may seem to be the better plan in given cases will he followed. I now shall insert the history that confirms the prediction favorable to the Jews In the last of this verse.

“At this time [reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes] Antiochus having passed into Lesser Asia, and there engaged himself in a war with Attalus, king of Pergamus, the minister Of Alexandria took advantage hereof to send Scopas with an army into Palestine and Coele Syria, for the recovery of those provinces; where he managed the war with such success that he took several cities, and reduced all Judea by force, and put a garrison into the castle at Jerusalem; and. on the approach of winter, returned to Alexandria with full honor for the victories he had obtained, and with as great riches, which he had gathered from the plunder of the country. . , , The Jews were at this time very much alienated in their affections from the Egyptian king: whether it were by reason of the former ill treatment of their nation by bis lather, or for some fresher ill treatment they had received, is not said. It is most likely it was because of the ravages and robberies of Scopas, in his taking Jerusalem the former year; for he was a very Covetous and rapacious man. laying his hands everywhere on all that he could get; and therefore, on Antiochus’ marching that way, they willingly rendered all places unto him., and on his coining to Jerusalem, the priests and elders went out in a solemn procession to meet him. and received him with gladness, and entertained him and all his army in their city, provided for his horses and elephants, and assisted him with their arms for the reduc’ntj of the castle where Scopas had left a garrison.”— Prideaux’s Connexion, year 193.

“Now it happened that in the reign of Antiochus the Great, who ruled over ail Asia, that the Jews, as well as the inhabitants of CoeleSyria. suffered greatly, and their land was sorely harassed; for while he was at war with Ptolemy Philopator, and with liis son, who was called Epiphanes, it fell out that these nations were equally sufferers, both when he was beaten and when he beat the others; so that they were very like a ship in a storm, which is tossed by the waves on both sides; and just thus were they in their situation in the middle between Antiochus’ prosperity and its change to adversity. But at length, when Antiochus had beaten Ptolemy, he seized upon Judea; and when Philopator was dead, his son sent out a great army under Scopas the general of his forces, against the inhabitants of CoeleSyria, who took many of their cities and In particular our nation; which, when he fell upon them, went over to him. Yet was it not long afterward when Antiochus overcame Scopas, In a battle fought at the fountains of Jordan, and destroyed a great part of his army.” — Josephus, 12-3-3,

Daniel 11:15-17

Daniel 11:15-17. The persons and facts of this series of verses are so interwoven that I think it will the better be explained by grouping them into one paragraph. I shall quote some lines from history, then explain the events in their relation to the persons involved in the light of the history. Let the reader give close attention to the following:

“Antiochus, besieged and took, first Sidon, then Gaza, and afterwards all the cities of those provinces, notwithstanding the opposition made by the chosen troops which the king of Egypt had sent against him. ‘ He did according to his own will,’ in CoeleSyria and Palestine, and nothing was able to make the least resistance against him. Pursuing his conquests in Palestine, he entered Judea, ‘ the glorious,’ or, according to the Hebrew, ‘ that desirable land,’ He there established his authority and strengthened it, by repulsing from the eastle of Jerusalem, the garrison which Scopas had thrown into it. This garrison being so well defended that Antiochus was obliged to send for all the troops in order to force it, and the siege continuing a long time, the country was ruined and consumed by the stay the army was obliged to make in it. . . , Antiochus, seeing that the Romans undertook the defence of young Ptolemy Epiphanes, thought it would best suit his interest to lull the king asleep, by giving him his daughter in marriage, in order to ‘corrupt her,’ and excite her to betray her husband; but he was not successful in his design; for as soon as she was married to Ptolemy, she renounced her father’ s interests, and embraced those of her husband. It was on this account that we see her join with him in the embassy which was sent from Egypt to Rome, to Congratulate the Romans on the victory which Acilius had gained over her father at Thermopylae.”— Rollin’s Ancient History, Volume 4, pages 144, 145.

It should be remembered that a reference to the north always means Syria in this chapter, and the king who is ruling there at the time, and the south means Egypt. Cast up a mount means that Antiochus III would prepare to attack the cities of the south, which would not be able to withstand the attack. He that cometh against him means that Antiochus was to come against Ptolemy Epiphanes and the latter would not succeed. To make bis gains further sure, the king of the north was to give his daughter (whose name was Cleopatra as supplied by history) in marriage to the king of the south, thinking that she would place her love for her father above that for her husband, and thus really act as a spy for her father in the household of her husband. But she was true to her husband; not stand on his (her father’ s) side, neither be for him.

Daniel 11:18

Daniel 11:18. Antiochus III was a noted man and accomplished many exploits among the nations. However, we have just seen that he had some reverses, and we shall see some more of the same in the present verse. Before making further comments on it, I shall make some historical Quotations:

“Antiochus, having put an end to the war of CoeleSyria and Palestine, sent his two sons, at the end of the land army, to Sardis, while he embarked on board the fleet, and sailed to the Aegean Sea, where he took several islands, and extended his empire exceedingly on that side. However, the prince of the people, whom he had insulted by making this Invasion, that is I>. Scipio, the Roman consul, caused the reproach to turn upon him, by defeating him at Mount Sipilus, and repuls ing him from every part of Asia Minor.”— Rollin, Volume 4, page 145.

“He (Antiochus III) then invaded Asia Minor, and in 195 he crossed the Hellespont, and advanced into Europe. Here he encountered the Romans; but in 190 he was totally defeated at Magnesia by Scipio Asiaticus, and he obtained peace from Rome only on very severe conditions."— SchaffHerzog. Article, Antiochus III,

“The conquests of Antiochus in Asia Minor and Europe, B.C, 197 to 196, bring him into contact with the Romans, who require him to evacuate the Chersonese and restore the Greek cities in Asia Minor to freedom. He indignantly rejects their demands, and prepares for war. Flight of Hannibal to his court. B.C. 195. Antiochus makes alliance with the Aetoliana. and in B.C. 192 crosses into Greece, lands at Demetrius, takes Chalcis. Great battle at Thermopylae between the Romans, under Acilius Glabrio, and the allied forces of Antiochus and the Aetolians.

Antiochus, completely defeated, quits Europe and returns to Asia B.C. 191. His fleet lias orders to protect the shores and prevent the Romans from Sanding. But the battle of Corycus ruins these hopes. The Romans obtain the mastery of the sea; and their army, having crossed the Hellespont without opposition, gains under the two Scipios the great victory of Magnesia, which places Antiochus at their mercy, B.C. 190. He purchases peace by ceding all Asia Minor except Cilicia, and by consenting to pay a contribution of 12,000 talents. The ceded provinces are added by the Romans to the kingdom of Pergamus, which is thus raised Into a rival to Syria.”— Rawlin son.

Ancient History, page 254,

With the tacts of history before us, we can understand the present verse and properly assign the pronouns. Isles means inhabited spots, and that is the meaning of the places where he (Antiochus III) turned his face. That called the Romans into action and they sent their military leader, Scipio, into the field. When Antiochus invaded the territories in which the Romans were interested it was considered a reproach upon them. But Scipio was successful in repulsing Antiochus, so that he caused it to rebound upon him (Antiochus) without having any reproach of his (Scipio’s) own.

Daniel 11:19

Daniel 11:19. Antiochus, completely defeated, turned his steps towards his own country. Stumble, and fall refers to his failure in another matter of his obligations, and tbe explanation of the predictions is best shown in the his torlal quotations which will be quoted before making further comments.

“Antiochus, after his defeat, returned to Antioch, the capital of his kingdom, and the strongest fortress in it. He went soon after into the provinces of the east, in order to levy money to pay the Romans; but having plundered the temple of Elymais, he there lost his life in a miserable manner."— Rollin’ s Ancient History, Volume 4, page 146.

“ The defeat of Magnesia is followed by the revolt of Armenia, B.C. 189, which henceforth becomes independent, It leads also to the death of Antiochus. who, in order to pay the war contribution imposed upon him by the Romans, is driven to the plunder of the Oriental temples. Hence a tumult In Elymais, wherein the king Is killed, B.C. 187.”— Rawlinson, Ancient History, page 254.

“Retiring to his eastern provinces in order to raise money for the tribute he [Antiochus III) owed Rome, he was slain in 187. while plundering the temples of Belus in Elymais.”— Schaff Herzog, Article, Antiochus III.

Daniel 11:20

Daniel 11:20. His estate means In the place of Antiochus III whose death was predicted in the preceding verse. The prediction raiser of taxes means he will be an extortioner and will lay heavy tax burdens on the people. He was to be destroyed, neither in anger nor in battle denotes he would not die in open warfare nor by voluntary bodily contest with another, hut will die unresistingly by the hand of another. I shall give the reader the history which confirms the predictions of this verse.

“These few words (Daniel 11:20) denote, evidently, the short and obscure reign of Seleucus, and the kind of death he was to die. The Hebrew text points him out still more clearly. ‘ There shall arise up in his place, (of Antiochus) a man who, aB an extortioner, a collector of taxes, shall cause to pass away, and shall destroy, the glory of the kingdom,’ And. indeed, this was the sole employment of his reign. He was obliged to furnish the Romans, by the articles of peace concluded between them, a thousand talents annually; and the twelve years of this tribute exactly ended with his life. He reigned but eleven years.”— RolIIn’s Ancient History, Volume 4, page 203.

“ Antiochus was succeeded by his son, Seleucus IV, who took the name of Philopator, and reigned eleven years, B.C. 187 to 176, This period was wholly uneventful. The fear of Rome, and the weakness produced by exhaustion, forced SeleucuB to remain quiet, even when Eumenes of Pergamus seemed about to absorb Pontus. . . . Seleucus was murdered by Heiiodorus, his treasurer (B.C. 176), who hoped to succeed to his dominions."— Rawlinson, Ancient History, page 255.

“ After the death of Antiochus the Great, Seleucus Philopator, his eldest son, whom he left at Antioch on bis departure thence into the east, succeeded him in the kingdom, but made a very poor figure of it, by reason of the low estate which the Romans had reduced the Syrian Empire to. and the heavy tribute of one thousand talents a year, which, through the whole time of his reign he was obliged to pay them; by the treaty of peace lately granted by them to his father. The whole of this king’ s reign is expressed by Daniel 11:20. For in that text it Is foretold, that after Antiochus the Great, who is spoken of in the foregoing verses, ’there should stand up In his estate a raiser of taxes.’ And Seleucus was no more than such all the time, for the whole business of his reign was to raise the thousand talents every year, which, by the treaty of peace that bis father had made with the Romans, he was obliged for twelve years together, annually to pay that people; and the last of these years was the last of his life. For, as the text saith, ‘ within a few years after be should be destroyed, and that neither in anger, nor in battle’ ; so accordingly R happened. For he reigned only eleven years, and his death was neither in battle nor in anger; that is, neither in war abroad, nor In sedition or rebellion at home, but by the secret treachery of one of his own friends. His successor was Antiochus Epiph anes his brother, of whom we shall treat in the next book.”— Prldeaux’ s Connexion, years 186, 176.

Daniel 11:21

Daniel 11:21. The pronoun his refers to Seleucus IV, also called Philopator, and is referred to in the preceding verse as a “ raiser of taxes.” Shall stand up means he shall get the place occupied by the preceding king. The man who was to take this place is named Antiochus Epiphanes, brother of the murdered Philopator. The predictions Indicate that he was to obtain the throne in an irregular manner, not in an honorable way. The details of that event, are described in the following historical Quotation:

“ On the death of Seleucus Philopa tor, Heliodorus, who had been the treacherous author of his death, endeavored to seize the crown of Syria. Antiochus, the brother of Seleucus, was then on his return from Rome. While at Athens in his journey, he there heard of the death of his brother, and the attempt of Heliodorus to usurp the throne; and finding that the usurper had a great party with him to support him in his pretensions, and that there was another party also forming for Ptolemy, (who made some claim to the succession in right of his mother, she being sister to the deceased king) and that both of them were agreed ‘ not to give unto him (though the next heir in the absence of Demetrius) the honor of the kingdom,’ as the holy prophet Daniel foretold, he applied himself to Eumenes, king of Perbannis, and Attains hia brother, and (by flattering speeches and great promisee of friendship) prevailed with them to help him against Heliodorus, And by their means that usurper being suppressed, he was quietly placed on the throne, and all submitted to him, and permitted him. without any further opposition, peaceably to obtain the kingdom, as had been predicted of him in the same prophecy. Eumenes and Attalus, at this time having some suspicions of the Romans, were desirous of having the king of Syria on their side, in ease a war should break out between them, and Antiochus’ promises to stick by them, whenever such a war should happen, were the inducements that prevailed with them to do him this kindness.” — Prideaux’ s Connexion, year 175. See also, Rawlinson, Ancient History, page 255.

This Antiochus Epiphanes is described here as a vile person, which refers to his character as a man as well as to his conduct in public affairs. In view of his prominence in the prophecies and history of things pertaining to God’ s people, I believe it will be helpful to quote at length from the historical sources. As this quotation may be referred to again, the reader is urged to give it carefull attention, particularly the parts .licit 1 shall emphasize.

“ On his being thus settled on the throne, he took the name of Epiphanes, that is, The Illustrious; but nothing could be more alien fo his true character than this title. The prophet Daniel foretold of him that he would be ‘ a vile person,’ so our English version has it; but the word NIBZEH In the original rather signified despicable than vile. He was truly both in all that both these words can express, which will fully appear from the character given him by Polybius, II, Philarchus, 12, Livy, 13, and Diodorus, 14, who were all heathen writers, and the two first of them his contemporaries. For they tell us, that he would get often out. of the palace and ramble about the streets of Antioeh, with two or three servants only accompanying him; that he would be often conversing with those that graved in silver, and cast vessels of gold, and be frequently found with them in their shops, talking and nicely arguing with th em about the mysteries of their trades, that he would very commonly debase himself to the meanest company, and on his going abroad would join in with such as he happened to find them met together, although of the lowest of the people, and enter into discourse with any of them whom he should first light on; that he would, in his rambles, frequently drink with strangers and foreigners, and even with the meanest and vilest of them; that, when he heard of any young company met together to feast, drink, or any otherwise to make merry together, he would, without giving any notice of his own coming, Intrude himself among them, and revel away the time with them in their cups and songs, and other frolics, without any regard to common decency, or his own royal character, so that several, being surprised with the strangeness of the thing, would, on his coming, get up and run away out of the company. And he would sometimes, as the freak took him, lay aside his royal habit, and putting on a Roman gown, go round the city, as he had seen done 1n the election of the magistrates of Rome, and ask the votes of the citizens, in the same manner as used to be there practiced, now taking one man by the hand, and, then embracing another, and would thus set himself up. sometimes for the office of aedile, and sometimes for that of tribune; and, having thus voted into office he sued for, he would take the chair, and sitting down in it, hear petty causes of contracts, bargains, and sales, made in the market, and give judgment in them with that serious attention and earnestness, as if they had been matters of the highest concern and importance. It is said also of him, that lie was much given to drunkenness! and that he spent a great part of his revenues in revelling and drunken carousals; and would often go out into the streets while in these frolics, and there scatter his money by handfuls among the rabble, crying out, ‘ Let him Lake to whom fortune give it.’ Sometimes he would go abroad with a crown of roses upon his head, and wearing a Roman gown, would walk the streets alone, and carrying stones under his arms, would throw them at those who followed after him.

And he would often wash himself in the public baths among the common people, and there expose himself by many absurd and ridiculous actions. Which odd and extravagant sort of conduct made many doubt how the matter stood with him; some thinking him a fool, and some a madman; the latter of these, most thought to be his truest character; and therefore, instead of Epiphanes, or the Illustrious. they called him Epimanes. the Madman. Jerome tells us also of him that he was exceedingly given to laciv ousness, and often by the vilest acts of it debased the honor of his royal dignity; that he was frequently found in the company of mimics [clowns], pathics [boys kept for unnatural purposes], and common prostitutes, and that with the latter he would commit acts of lasciviousness, and gratify his lust on them publicly in sight of the people. And it is further related of him, that having for his catamites [same as pathics] two vile persons, called Timarchus and Heraclides, who were brothers, he made the first of them governor of Babylonia, and the other his treasurer in that province, and gave himself up to be governed and conducted by them in most that he did. And having, on a very whimsical occasion, exhibited games and shows at Daphne, near Antioch, with vast expense, and called thither a great multitude of people of foreign parts, as well as from his own dominion, to be present at the solemnity; he there behaved himself to that degree of folly and absurdity, as to become the ridicule and scorn of all that were present; which actions of his are sufficiently abundant to demonstrate him both despicable and vile, though he had not added to them that most unreasonably and wicked persecution of God’ s people in Judea and Jerusalem which will be hereafter related."— Prideaux, year 175.

Daniel 11:22

Daniel 11:22. This is still making predictions about Epiphanes; in fact, this wicked character will figure in most of the affairs throughout the rest of this chapter. Arms of a flood refers to the military forces that Epiphanes brought against the Egyptian king. The pronoun him, refers to Epiphanes, and the prince is Heliodorus who had seized the throne. The fulfillment of this verse will be seen in the following history.

“Heliodorus, the murderer of Se leueus, and his adherents, as also those of the Egyptian king, who had formed designs against Syria, were defeated by the forces of Attains and Eumenes, dispersed by the arrival of Epiphanes, whose presence disconcerted all their projects. By (he ‘ prince of the covenant,’ we may suppose to be meant, either Heliodorus, the chief of the conspirators, who had killed Seleucus; or rather Ptolemy Epiphanes king of Egypt, who lost his life by a conspiracy of his own subjects, when he was mediating a war against Syria. Thus Providence removed this powerful adversary, to make way for Antiochus Epiphanes, and raised him to the throne.” — Roilin’ s Ancient History, Volume 4, page 236.

“ On the death of Seleucus, the throne was seized by Heliodorus; but it was not long before Antiochus Epiphanes, the brother of the late king, with the help of Pergamene monarch, Eumenes, recovered it. This prince, who is known in history as Antiochus IV, or (more commonly) as Antiochus Epiphanes, was a man of courage and energy.” — Rawlinson’s Ancient History, page 255.

Daniel 11:23

Daniel 11:23. Another king is in power in Egypt by the name of Ptolemy Philometor, and the pronoun him stands for this man. The pronoun he is Epiphanes who is to come against this new king in Egypt. He will have a small people which means he will have a smaller army than usual, but yet by certain tactics he will win the contest. The fulfillment of the verse may be seen in the following history.

“Antiochus Epiphanes, though he was already determined on the war, ‘ yet shall he assume a specious [deceptive] appearance of friendship for the king ot Egypt’ He even sent Apollonius to Memphis, to be present at the banquet given on occasion of that prince’ s coronation, as a proof that it was agreeable to him. But soon after, on pretence of defending his nephew, he marched into Egypt, with a smalt army, in comparison of those which he levied afterwards. The battle was fought near Pelusium. Antiochus was strongest, that is, victorious, and afterwards returned to Tyre. Such was the end of bis first expedition,"— Rollin, Volume 4, pages 236, 237.

“Antiochus, having, ever since the return of Apollonius from the Egyptian court, been preparing for the war which he found he must necessarily have with Ptolemy about the provinces of CoeleSyria and Palestine, and being now ready for it, resolved to defer it no longer — and then forthwith marched his army toward the frontiers of Egypt, where, being met by the forces of Ptolemy (Philometor) between Mount Caslus and Pelusium, it there came to battle between them, in which Antioehus having gotten the victory . . . without attempting anything further this year, returned to Tyre; and there, and in the neighboring cities, put his army into winter quarters.”— Prideaux, year 171.

Daniel 11:24-26

Daniel 11:24-26. We have another series of verses that can better he considered as a group. The predictions are still about Epiphanes and his dealings with the king of the south which means Egypt. Epiphanes is still pictured as an insincere person, making plausible offers of friendship that he did not mean. Another expedition is here predicted and the history showing his fulfillment will now be quoted:

“In these three verses (Daniel 11:24-26) appear the principal characters of the second expedition of Antiochus into Egypt. His mighty armies, his rapid conquests, the rich spoils he carried from 1,hence, and the dissimulation [hypocrisy] and treachery he began to practice with regard to Ptolemy. Antioehus, after employing the whole winter in making preparations for a second expedition into Egypt, invaded it both by sea and land, as soon as the season would permit. ‘ Wherefore, he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy. And made war against Ptolemy king of Egypt; but Ptolemy was afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death. Thus they got the strong cities in the land of Egypt, and he took the spoils thereof. I Maccabees, 1; 17, 18, 19,’ Diodorus relates, that Antioehus. after this victory, conquered all Egypt, or at least the greatest part of it; for all the cities, Alexandria excepted, opened their gates to the conqueror.

He subdued Egypt with an astonishing rapidity, and did that ‘ which his forefathers had not1 done, nor his father’ s fathers.’ Ptolemy either surrendered himself, or fell into the hands of Anti ochus, who at first treated him with kindness; bad but one table with him; seemed to be greatly concerned for his welfare, and left him the peaceable possession of his kingdom, reserving fo himself Pelusium, which was the key to it. For Antioehus assumed this appearance of friendship, with no other view than to have the better opportunity of ruining him, ‘ They that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy,’ Antioehus did not make a long stay in Egypt at that time, the news which was brought of the general revolt of the Jews obliging him to march against them. In the mean time, the inhabitants of Alexandria, offended at Philometor for having concluded an alliance with Antioehus, raised Euergetes, his youngest brother, to the throne in his stead. Antioehus, who had advice of what had passed in Alexandria, took the opportunity to return into Egypt, upon pretext of restoring the dethroned monarch, but in reality to make himself absolute master of the kingdom/’— Roilin, Volume 4, pages 237, 238.

“Antiochus, having been making preparations during all the winter for a second expedition into Egypt, as soon as the season of the year would permit, again invaded that country both by sea nnd land. . . . While Anti oebus carried on his vast invasion, Philometor came into his hands; whether he were taken prisoner by him, or else voluntarily came in unto him, is not said; the latter seems most likely. For Antioehus took not from him his library, but they did eat at the same table, and conversed together as friends; and for some time Antioch us pretended to take care of the interest, of this young king his nephew, and to manage the affairs of the kingdom as tutor and guardian to him. But when he had, under this pretence, made himself master of the country, he seized all to himself; and, having miserably pillaged all parts where he came, vastly enriched himself and his army with the spoils of them,”— Pri deaux’ s Connexion, year 171.

Daniel 11:27

Daniel 11:27. The first sentence of verse 28 should be included in this paragraph, for the historical quotation that will be made includes it. Both these kings means Philometor and Epiphanes. They both put on a show of friendliness, even eating at the same table which was one of the strongest indications of friendship in ancient times. But all the time they were chatting In a goodnatured manner at the table, Epiphanes was plotting the ruin of Phiiometor, The latter actually suspected the treachery of Epiphanes, but pretended not to see anything wrong; thus they did speak lies at one table. Nothing decisive was accomplished and Epiphanes returned to his own land, having only the consolation of obtaining some great possessions of personal property, 1 shall give the reader some history, showing the fulfillment of this prophecy.

“ The third expedition of Antiochus could scarcely be pointed out more clearly (in Daniel 11:27-28). That prince, hearing that the Alexandrians had raised Euergetes to the throne, returned to Egypt upon the specious Pretence of restoring Phiiometor, After having overcome the Alexandrians in a sea fight at Pelusium, he laid siege to Alexandria, But. finding the inhabitants made a strong opposition, he was contented with making himself master of Egypt again, in the name of his nephew, in whose defence he pretended to have drawn the sword. They were then at Memphis, ate at the same table, and behaved towards one another with all the outward marks of a sincere friendship. The uncle seemed to have the nephew’ s interest at heart, and the nephew to repose the highest confidence in his uncle; but all this was mere show, both dissembling (acting hypocritically] their real sentiments. The uncle endeavored to crush his nephew, and the nephew, who saw through his design, strove immediately to be reconciled to his brother. Thus neither succeeded in deceiving the other; nothing was yet determined, and Antiochus returned into Syria."— Rollin, Volume 4, page 239.

“Antiochus, on hearing of this [the raising of Euergetes to the throne of Egypt] laid hold of the occasion for his making a third expedition into Egypt, under pretence of restoring the deposed king, but in reality to subject the whole kingdom to himself. Ptolemy Euergetes and Cleopatra his sister, who were then shut up in the town, being hereby much distressed, Bent ambassadors to the Romans to represent their case, and pray relief. And, a little after there came ambassadors from the Rhodians, to endeavor to make peace between the two kings. But while they were proceeding in long harangues on these topics, Antiochus interrupted them, and in a few words told them that there was no need of long orations as to this matter; that the kingdom belonged to

Phiiometor the elder brother, with whom he had some time since made peace, and was now in perfect friendship vnth Mm; that, if they would recall him from banishmeut, and again restore him to his crown, the war would be at an end. This said he, not that he intended any such thing, but only out of craft farther to embroil the kingdom, for the better obtaining of his own ends upon It, .. , And, with this view having withdrawn from Alexandria, he marched to Memphis, and there seemingly again restored the whole kingdom to Phiiometor, excepting only Pelusium, which he retained in his hands, that, having the key of Egypt still in his keeping, he might thereby again enter Egypt, when matters should there, according to the scheme which he had laid, be ripe for it, and so seise the whole kingdom; and, having thus disposed matters, he returned again to Antioch."— Frideaux, 169.

Daniel 11:28

Daniel 11:28. The latter part of this verse predicts the wicked conduct of Epiphanes toward the Lord’ s institutions in Jerusalem. That subject comes up again in this chapter, and I shall defer any further comments together with historical quotations till later.

Daniel 11:29

Daniel 11:29. This paragraph must include half of verse 39 to get the predictions. It is a prophecy of the fourth expedition of Epiphanes into Egypt. Vot be as the former or as the latter. Some indeflniteness is seen in the historians as to which expeditions are meant since he had made three of them before. But it is clear that the fourth one would not be as successful as the others had been. The reason for it is given in the statement about the ships of Chittim that were to come against him. I shall quote the history for this paragraph:

“Fourth expedition of Antiochus into Egypt— Advice being brought to Antiochus, that the two brothers were reconciled, he threw off the mask, and declared publicly that he intended to conquer Egypt for himself. And, to support his pretensions, ‘he returned toward the south,’ that is, into Egypt, but. was not so successful in this expedition as before. As he was advancing to besiege Alexandria, Popilius and the other Roman ambassadors, who were on board a fleet composed of Macedonian or Greek ships, for this the Hebrew word Chittim signifies, which they found at Delos, obliged him to lay down his arms, and leave Egypt. He obeyed, but ‘ with the utmost reluctance, and made the city and temple of Jerusalem feel the dire effects of his indignation,’ as will be presently seen."— Roliin’ s Ancient History, Volume 4, pages 239, 240

Daniel 11:30

Daniel 11:30. The conduct of Epiphanes as It pertained to the Jews was so vicious. and it occupies so much of the prophecy and in so many places, that 1 think it will be proper to copy at length from history before making any more of my own comments on that subject. After doing this shall resume my interpretation of the various statements in the verses, relying on the history quoted for the basis of my comments, and adding other historical quotations from time to time as the subject matter may require. I again insist that the reader give the most possible attention to these quotations as they will be needed in the understanding of the predictions.

“At the same time that Antioehus, who is called Epiphanes, bad a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemy about his righL to the whole country of Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judea, and they had a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those that were of dignity could not endure to be subject to their equals. However, Onias, one of the highpriests, got the better, and cast the sons of Tobias out of the city; ‘who fled to Antioehus, and besought him to make an expedition into Judea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them, without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, an4 put a stop to the constant practice of offering a flail)/ sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months. . . . Now Anti ochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking the city, or with its pillage, or with the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of their country, and to keep their infants uncircumcised. and to sacrifice swines flesh upon, the altar; against which they all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death,”— Josephus, Wars, Book 1, Chapter 1, Sections I, 2.

“And when the king [Epiphanes] had built an idol altar upon God’ s altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the Jewish religious worship in that country. He also, compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods; and made them build temples, and raise idol altars in every city and village, and offer swine upon them every day. He also commanded them not to circumcise their sons, and threatened to punish any that should he found to have transgressed his injunction. He also appointed overseers, who should compel them to do what he commanded. And indeed many Jews there were who complied with the king’ s commands, either voluntarily. or out of fear of the penalty that was denounced; but the best men, and those of the noblest souls, did not regard him, but did pay a greater respect to the customs of their country than concern as to the punishment which he threatened to Lhe disobedient; on which account they every day underwent great miseries and bitter torments; for they were whipped with rods and their bodies were torn to pieces, and they were crucified while they were still alive and breathed; they also strangled those women and their sons whom they had circumcised, as the king had appointed, hanging their sons about their necks as they were upon the crosses. And if there were any sacred book of the law found, it was destroyed; and those with whom they were found, miserably perished also,” Josephus, Antiquities, Book 12, Chapter 5, Section 4.

“After this, having spoiled the city of all its riches, they [forces of Epiphanes] set it on fire in several places, demolished the houses, and pulled down the walls round about it; and then, with the ruins of the demolished city, built a strong fortress on the top of an eminence in the city of David, which was over against the temple; and overlooked and commanded the same, and there placed a strong garrison; and making it a place of arms against the whole nation of the Jews, stored it with ail manner Of prolusions of war, and there also they laid up the spoils which they had taken in the sacking of the city. And this fortress, by the advantage of its situation, being thus higher than the mountain of the temple, and commanding the same, from thence the garrison soldiers fell on all those that went up thither to worship, and shed blood on every side of the sanctuary, and defiled it with all manner of pollutions; so that from this time the temple became deserted, and the daily sacrifices omitted; and none of the true servants of God durst any more go up thither to worship, till Judas, after three years and a half, having recovered it out of the hands of the heathens, purged the place of its pollutions, and, by a new dedication, restored it again to its pristine use."— Prideaux’s Connexion, year 168.

Before leaving this verse I shall make a few comments. This indignation was caused by the trouble the Jews gave Epiphanes by not all submitting to him. But some of them did submit and furnished him with “inside” information concerning the confidential interests of the holy service. We notice this information or intelligence was furnished by them that forsake the holy covenant. It is true that the worst enemies the work of the Lord has are those In the ranks of His professed servants who turn spies.

Daniel 11:31

Daniel 11:31. The arms were seen in the historical quotation, which Epiphanes used to further his opposition to the Jews. Abomination that maketh desolate is a descriptive phrase that might be used at different limes. In general it meanB any condition where some abominable character or group of characters threaten the decency and dignity of the service of God. That is why Jesus applies the saying to the presence of the Roman army near the holy city of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:15). In the present ease it means the corrupt condition created by Epiphanes about the temple and altar of sacrifice.

Daniel 11:32

Daniel 11:32. Shall he corrupt by flatteries refers to the persons who gave Epiphanes “ intelligence” in verse 30, who were the real enemies of the Jewish nation although they professed to love it. The people that do Know their God shall be strong, and do exploits refers to a family known in history as the Maccabees. This family performed the service of rescuing the altar from the corrupt servants of Epiphanes and restoring it to its lawful use. I shall quote some history on this subject.

“ Mattathias and Judas Maccabeus supported the distressed nation, and the almost universally abandoned religion, with so small a number of forces, that we can consider the success which the Almighty gave their arms no otherwise than a miracle. The troops grew more numerous by degrees, and afterwards formed a very considerable body.” — Rollln’s Ancient History, Volume 4, page 242.

“ At this time Judas Maccabeus, with some others that accompanied him, fled into the wilderness, and there lived in great hardship, subsisting themselves upon herbs, and what else the mountains and woods could afford them, till they gained an opportunity of taking up arms for themselves and their country, in a manner as will be hereafter related.” — Prideaux’s Connexion, year 168.

“ These measures [of Epiphanes] induced an open revolt, whose leader was the priest and patriot Mattathias of Modin, His bold deed of the public murder of a royal official was the sign for the beginning of the revolt. Fleeing to the mountains, he, with the cooperation of five heroic sons, organized war on a small scale. He died in 166 B.C.”— ScbafEHersog. Article, Maccabees.

Daniel 11:33

Daniel 11:33. “Judas, one of the younger sons, who had taken the moat prominent part in the plans of his father, was appointed his successor. For six years he led the party with almost superhuman effort and varrying success. Decisive battles he had to avoid. But in innumerable skirmishes he defeated the hated foreigners: and his enthusiastic followers called him ‘Mae cabi,’ or the ‘Hammerer,’ from which his family has received the appellation ‘ Maccabees.’ It is apparent that this conflict had more of a religious than of a national character.”— SchaffHer zog, Article, Maccabees.

This verse predicts the hardships endured by the Maccabees in their struggles against the vicious Epiphanes. They had an army finally that fought, under them, and Its men suffered the hard treatment here named, including the sword, Are and prison.

Daniel 11:34

Daniel 11:34. The chief item predicted in this verse is the fact that the forces with which the conflict for the altar was waged were a tittle help, which means that the number was small, as we have seen in the history quoted.

Daniel 11:35

Daniel 11:35. There is not much new in this verse as it 1b still speaking of the hardships that the Maccabees endured in their struggles for the restoration of the worship In Jerusalem. Make them white refers to the purification that results to the righteous when they are “persecuted for righteousness’ sake.”

Daniel 11:36

Daniel 11:36. This king is still Epiphanes whose wicked doings we have been observing through many of the verses. Bo according to Ms will. This king was selfish and headstrong and acted according as his own will dictated, regardless of others’ rights and whether the thing he wished to do was right or wrong. The predictions of the verse are general but the main thought is the same as that in verse 31. Till the indignation he accomplished.

This means the indignation of God against his own people because of their sins at this time. Epiphanes was suffered to oppress the Jews in order to punish them, and as soon as the wrath of the Lord was satisfied, the wicked king was to be brought to his own punishment. This prediction is the same as that made in Daniel 8:12. There is an extended comment with a quotation from history at that place and the reader is asked to see it again.

Daniel 11:37

Daniel 11:37. Nor the desire of women. Epiphanes was a very immoral man, and most of his immoral actions were unnatural. The prediction does not mean he never was intimate with women for he was. but that was not the chief object of his carnal desires. Another lengthy paragraph is devoted to the vile character of this king at verse 21 which the reader should see. The rest of the items of this verse have been explained.

Daniel 11:38-39

Daniel 11:38-39. Epiphanes had no regard for the true God, neither for the rights of good men. The only god he served was that of military and financial forces. Such Is the gist of this paragraph, and the many historical quotations that have been given clearly prove the predictions to be true.

Daniel 11:40-43

Daniel 11:40-43. No advantage would be gained by separating these verses into paragraphs for each, for all of them are on the same subject and have been virtually explained previously. The paragraph is a summing up of the activities of Epiphanes in his mad hostilities against Egypt and other peoples.

Daniel 11:44-45

Daniel 11:44-45. The historical quotation that belongs with this paragraph is quoted at Daniel 8:24-25. Briefly summing up, Epiphanes was madly pursuing liis attacks in the south when he learned of the disturbances going on in another part of his dominions. In his fury he started thither, determined to wreak severe vengeance upon the Jews whom he blamed for most of the disturbances. But he was not suffered to carry out his wicked designs. In the midst of his mad performances he was smitten by the Lord and finally died in a most shameful and loathsome manner. In this way he fulfilled the prediction, yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.