This article is a verse by verse explanation of the fulfillment of prophecy
in Chapter 11 of Daniel. Daniel Chapter 11 clearly demonstrates the accuracy
and completeness of prophecy in God's word. The scripture verse, KJV, is quoted
in the left column while the explanation verse by verse is in the right column.
Enjoy!
|
1. Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I,
stood to confirm and to strengthen him.
533 B.C.
|
In verse 1, the angel of the Lord reminding Daniel that "...Darius
the Mede...I stood to confirm and to strengthen him." Not to do his
purpose, or his plan, or his will for himself, but to effect the purpose of
God in all the ages, God stood to strengthen Darius the Mede. Darius is the
king who destroyed the Babylonian empire. You remember on the night of the
feast of Belshazzar, it was Darius who brought his armies under the walls of
ancient Babylon to destroy the
nation and to break the power of the great Babylonian empire. On the same
night, Belshazzar died in the judgment of the Lord, and then Darius moves
upon the scene as the great monarch and following Darius, is Cyrus the
Persian. Then, you have the Media-Persian empire which is the second world great
monarchy in the course of the Gentile age beginning with Nebuchadnezzar in
600 B.C. So, Darius is directed and strengthened and confirmed in the plan of
God, and the Word of God to do the thing that God plans he do.
|
|
2. And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall
stand up yet three kings in Persia;
and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through
his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.
|
"And now will I shew thee the truth." The prophecy set forth
here is not clothed in symbols or figures, as were previous visions given to
Daniel. We have here the literal language concerning the historical events of
the Jews and the Holy Land, and we have literal
language describing historical events having to do with the Jews and the Holy
Land. The three kings who were to "stand up yet"
(after Cyrus) were Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, and Darius (Ezra 4:1-24).
The first king, Ahasuerus, is known in history as Cambyses, who reigned
from 529 to 522 B.C. The second king, Pseudo-Smerdis, reigned from 522 to 521
B.C.; and the third king, known in secular history as Darius Hystaspes,
reigned from 521 to 485 B.C.
The fourth king was Xerxes, the son of Darius Hystaspes, and he reigned
from 485 to 465 B.C. (known in the Book of Esther as Ahasuerus). He was very
rich, and his unusual wealth enabled him to build up vast armies and put them
into the field, well equipped for his day. He stirred up the Persians against
Greece, and
in 480 B.C. he invaded Greece
with a huge army and navy, but was ignominiously defeated by land and sea,
thus preparing the way for the downfall of the Persian empire.
|
|
3. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with
great dominion, and do according to his will.
|
After his overthrow at Salamis, Persia
is viewed as politically dead, though it had an existence. Therefore, Daniel
11:3, without noticing Xerxes' successors, proceeds at once to Alexander,
under whom, the third world kingdom, Grecia, reached its culmination, and
assumed an importance as to the people of God. Alexander the Great, who
reigned from 336 B.C. to 323 B.C., a short reign of only 13 years. "..according to his will." as an answer to the he-goat's
"notable horn" (Daniel 8:6-7, 21). Alexander invaded Persia
to avenge the wrongs of Greece
on Persia for
Xerxes' past invasion.
|
|
4. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be
broken, and shall be divided toward 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 beside those.
|
His kingdom, however, was to be broken and divided into four parts, but
not to his own posterity. This was literally accomplished in the career of
Alexander the Great, who, after his conquest of Persia
and of the world, died without children, and whose vast dominions were
divided between his four generals. These did not rule "according to his
dominion," for their kingdom was again and again "plucked up, even
for others beside themselves."
A few years after Alexander’s death, his kingdom was divided among his
four generals (cf. 8:22): Seleucus
(over Syria
and Mesopotamia), Ptolemy (over Egypt),
Lysimacus (over Thrace
and portions of Asia Minor), and Cassander (over Macedonia
and Greece).
This division was anticipated through the four heads of the leopard (7:6) and
the four prominent horns on the goat (8:8). Alexander founded no dynasty of
rulers; since he had no heirs, his kingdom was divided and the empire was
marked by division and weakness.
|
|
5. And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of
his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his
dominion shall be a great dominion.
|
After the partition of Alexander’s dominions, the Jewish people came into
contact with only two of the four kingdoms which succeeded him—the Seleucids,
the kings of Syria
("the king of the north") and the Ptolemies, rulers of Egypt
("the king of the south"). These waged incessant warfare against
each other, and the Jews suffered in turn from each, thus the prophecy of
Daniel turns specifically to the items of interest to the Jews.
At first the kings of Egypt
prevailed. The prophecy foretold this; for it says, "And the king of the
south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above
him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion". The
strong king of the South was Ptolemy I Soter, a general who served under
Alexander. He was given authority over Egypt
in 323 B.C. and proclaimed king of Egypt
in 304.
The commander referred to in verse 5 was Seleucus I Nicator, also a
general under Alexander, who was given authority to rule in Babylon
in 321. But in 316 when Babylon
came under attack by Antigonus, another general, Seleucus sought help from
Ptolemy I Soter in Egypt.
After Antigonus’ defeat in 312, Seleucus returned to Babylon
greatly strengthened. He ruled over Babylonia, Media,
and Syria,
and assumed the title of king in 305. Thus Seleucus I Nicator’s rule was over
far more territory than Ptolemy I and was king of the largest empire after
that of Alexander.
|
|
6. And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the
king's daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an
agreement: but she shall not retain the power of the 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 these times.
|
Verse 6 says: "And in the end of years they shall join themselves
together"—that is, the king of the north and king of the south shall
form a league—"for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the
king of the north to make an agreement; but she shall not retain the power of
the 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
these times."
Ptolemy I Soter died in 285 B.C. and Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Ptolemy’s
son, ruled in Egypt
(285-246). Meanwhile Seleucus was murdered in 281 and his son Antiochus I
Soter ruled till 262. Then Seleucus’ grandson Antiochus II Theos ruled in Syria
(262-246). Ptolemy II and Antiochus II were bitter enemies but finally (after
some years) they entered into an alliance in about 250.
Answering to this very definite prophecy we have historical records of an
alliance between the two rival kingdoms, when Ptolemy Philadelphus gave his
daughter Berenice in marriage to Antiochus Theos of Syria,
upon condition that he should put away his wife, Laodice. But, as foretold in
the prophecy, this league did not last; for Ptolemy died soon after, and then
Antiochus put away Berenice, and took back his former wife, who subsequently
requited him by procuring his murder, and also the murder of Berenice (she
was handed over). Laodice poisoned Antiochus II and made her son, Seleucus II
Callinicus, king (246-227).
|
|
7. But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in
his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress
of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail:
|
The brother of Berenice, Ptolemy III Euergetes, 246-221, (referred to in
the prophecy as "one out of her roots"), undertook to avenge her
death by an invasion of Syria,
in which he was successful. This appears to be what is foretold in verses 7,
8 and 9, which tell of one who should "enter into the fortress of the
king of the north," and who should "prevail", "...deal
against them" -- He shall deal with the Syrians at his own pleasure. He
slew Laodice.
|
|
8. And shall also carry captives into Egypt
their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and
of gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the north.
|
Ptolemy, on hearing of a sedition in Egypt,
returned with forty thousand talents of silver, precious vessels, and
twenty-four hundred images, including Egyptian idols, which Cambyses had
carried from Egypt
into Persia.
The idolatrous Egyptians were so gratified, that they named him Euergetes, or
"benefactor." Ptolemy survived Seleucus four years, reigning in all
forty-six years. MAURER translates, "Then he for several years shall
desist from (contending with) the king of the north"
|
|
9. So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom,
and shall return into his own land.
|
After this humiliating defeat, Seleucus II Callinicus (the king of the
North) sought to invade Egypt
but was unsuccessful. After his death (by a fall from his horse) he was
succeeded by his son, Seleucus II Soter (227-223 B.C.), who was killed by
conspirators while on a military campaign in Asia Minor.
Seleucus III’s brother, Antiochus III the Great, became the ruler in 223 at
18 years of age and reigned for 36 years (untill 187). The two sons (Seleucus
III and Antiochus III) had sought to restore Syria’s
lost prestige by military conquest, the older son by invading Asia
Minor and the younger son by attacking Egypt.
Egypt had
controlled all the territory north to the borders of Syria
which included the land of Israel.
Antiochus III succeeded in driving the Egyptians back to the southern borders
of Israel in
his campaign in 219-217.
|
|
10. But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a
multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and
pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress.
|
Antiochus alone prosecuted the war with Ptolemy Philopater, Euergetes'
son, until he had recovered all the parts of Syria
subjugated by Euergetes. "pass
through"—like an "overflowing" torrent (Daniel 11:22, 26, 40; Isaiah 8:8). Antiochus
penetrated to Dura (near Cæsarea), where he gave Ptolemy a four months'
truce. After the truce he returned to the war (see Daniel 11:13). "...even to his fortress"—
Ptolemy's; Raphia was a border-fortress of Egypt
to protect against incursions by way of Edom
and Arabia-Petræa, near Gaza;
here Antiochus was vanquished as foretold in the next verse.
|
|
11. And the king of the south shall be moved with choler,
and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and
he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into
his hand.
|
But, as verse 11 foretold, the king of Egypt
was moved with fury against him, and defeated him with great loss. The king
of the South in this verse was Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-204 B.C.). He was
the one driven back by Antiochus III the Great (cf. comments on v. 10).
Ptolemy IV came to meet Antiochus III at the southern borders of Israel.
Ptolemy IV was initially successful in delaying the invasion of Antiochus
(Ptolemy slaughtered 10 thousand and 4 thousand more made captive).
|
|
12. And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart
shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall
not be strengthened by it.
|
Instead of following up his victory by making himself master of the whole
of Syria, as he might, he made peace with Antiochus, and gave himself up to
licentiousness [POLYBIUS, 87; JUSTIN, 30.4], and profaned the temple of God
by entering the holy place [GROTIUS]. not be
strengthened by it—He shall lose the power gained by his victory through his
luxurious indolence.
Yet, though he "cast down many ten thousands" he was not
permanently "strengthened thereby"
|
|
13. For the king of the north shall return, and shall set
forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after
certain years with a great army and with much
riches.
|
About fourteen years later, Antiochus renewed the war with an even larger
force, fulfilling the words: "For the king of the north shall return,
and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former." Antiochus,
after successful campaigns against Persia
and India,
made war with Ptolemy Epiphanes, son of Philopater, a mere child.
|
|
14. And in those times there shall many stand up against
the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves
to establish the vision; but they shall fall.
|
"...many stand up against the king of the south"—Syria
was not Egypt’s
only enemy, for Philip V of Macedonia
joined with Antiochus III against Egypt.
Many Jews (your own people, i.e., Daniel’s people, the Jews; cf. “your
people” in 9:24; 10:14) also joined Antiochus against Egypt.
In the expedition he was aided by reprobate Jews, spoken of in the prophecy
as "robbers of thy people", so as to revolt from Ptolemy, and join
themselves to Antiochus; the Jews helped Antiochus army with provisions, when
on his return from Egypt he besieged the Egyptian garrison left in Jerusalem
[JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, 12.3.3]. to establish the
vision—Those turbulent Jews unconsciously shall help to fulfill the purpose
of God, as to the trials which await Judea, according
to this vision. but they shall fall—Though helping
to fulfill the vision, they shall fail in their aim, of making Judea
independent. For this aid rendered by the Jews Antiochus was, for a time,
very favourable to them, but they did not obtain independence.
|
|
15. So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a
mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not
withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to
withstand.
|
The fortified city seems to refer to Sidon
which Antiochus captured in 203 B.C. The Egyptian general, met Antiochus at
Paneas, near the sources of the Jordan,
and was defeated, and fled to Sidon,
a strongly "fenced city," where he was forced to surrender.
"...chosen people"—Egypt's
choicest army was sent under Eropus, Menocles, and Damoxenus, to deliver
Scopas, but in vain [JEROME].
|
|
16. 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, which by his hand shall be consumed.
|
Antiochus III continued his occupation and by 199 had established himself
in the Beautiful Land (cf. 8:9; 11:41;
Ezekiel 20:6, 15). Antiochus sought to bring peace between Egypt
and Syria by
giving his daughter to marry Ptolemy V Epiphanes of Egypt. But this attempt
to bring a peaceful alliance between the two nations did not succeed (v. 17).
When he entered Palestine he
was received by them with great demonstrations of joy; and so as foretold,
"he stood in the glorious land"; but in the end this proved to be a
calamity for the Jews, for he fulfilled the words, "And he shall stand
in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed."
"... by his hand shall be consumed"—literally,
"perfected," that is, completely brought under his sway. JOSEPHUS
[Antiquities, 12.3.3] shows that the meaning is not, that the Jews should be
utterly consumed: for Antiochus favored them for taking his part against
Ptolemy, but that their land should be subjected to him [LENGKERKE]. GROTIUS
translates, "shall be perfected by him," that is, shall flourish
under him. English Version gives a good sense; namely, that Judea
was much "consumed" or "desolated" by being the arena of
conflict between the combatants, Syria
and Egypt.
TREGELLES refers (Daniel 11:14),
"robbers of thy people," to the Gentiles, once oppressors,
attempting to restore the Jews to their land by mere human effort, whereas
this is to be effected only by divine interposition: their attempt is
frustrated (Daniel 11:16) by the
wilful king, who makes Judea the scene of his military
operations.
|
|
17. He shall also set his face to enter with the strength
of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he
shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand
on his side, neither be for him.
|
Antiochus purpose was, however, turned from open assault to wile, by his
war with the Romans in his endeavor to extend his kingdom to the limits it
had under Seleucus Nicator. The term "upright one"—Jasher, or
Jeshurun (Deut. 32:15; Isaiah 44:2); the epithet applied by the Hebrews to
their nation. It is here used not in praise; for in Daniel 11:14 they are called "robbers,"
or "men of violence, factious": it is the general designation of Israel,
as having God for their God. Probably it is used to rebuke those who ought to
have been God's "upright ones" for confederating with godless
heathen in acts of violence (the contrast to the term in Daniel 11:14 favors this).
Instead of at once invading Ptolemy's country with his "whole
strength," he prepares his way for doing so by the following plan: he
gives to Ptolemy Epiphanes his daughter Cleopatra in marriage, promising
Clo-Syria and Judea as a dowry, thus securing his neutrality in the war with
Rome: he hoped through his daughter to obtain Syria, Cilicia, and Lycia, and
even Egypt itself at last; but Cleopatra favored her husband rather than her
father, and so defeated his scheme [JEROME]. "She shall not stand on his
side."
|
|
18. After this shall he turn his
face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf
shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he
shall cause it to turn upon him.
|
Antiochus III then turned his attention to Asia Minor
in 197 B.C. and Greece
in 192. However, Antiochus did not succeed because Cornelius Scipio (a
commander) was dispatched from Rome
to turn Antiochus back. Antiochus returned to his own country in 188 and died
a year later. Antiochus III the Great had carried on the most vigorous
military campaigns of any of Alexander’s successors, but his dream of
reuniting Alexander’s empire under his authority was never realized.
He "took many" of the isles in the Ægean in his war with the
Romans, and crossed the Hellespont. "a prince for
his own behalf shall cause the reproach . . . to cease"—Lucius Scipio
Asiaticus, the Roman general, by routing Antiochus at Magnesia (190 B.C.),
caused the reproach which he offered Rome by inflicting injuries on Rome's
allies, to cease. He did it for his own glory (without his own reproach—with
untarnished reputation).
|
|
19. Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own
land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.
|
Then he turned to make war against the Romans, but was defeated by Scipio
Africanus; after which he returned to his own land, and was slain by his
people, who were aroused to fury by the burdensome taxes exacted by him to
defray the expenses of his unsuccessful war and the tribute laid upon him by
the Romans. It is easily seen that these incidents, which brought the career
of Antiochus the Great to a close, respond to the predictions of verse 19
|
|
20. Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in
the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither
in anger, nor in battle.
|
"in his estate:—in Antiochus' stead: his
successor, Seleucus IV Philopater (187-176 B.C.), his son "in the glory
of the kingdom"—that is, inheriting it by hereditary right. MAURER
translates, "one who shall cause the tax gatherer (Heliodorus) to pass
through the glory of the kingdom," that is, Judea,
"the glorious land" (Daniel 11:16,
41; Daniel 8:9). Simon, a Benjamite, in spite against Onias III, the high
priest, gave information of the treasures in the Jewish temple; and Seleucus
having reunited to Syria Clo-Syria and Palestine, the dowry formerly given by
Antiochus the Great to Cleopatra, Ptolemy's wife, sent Heliodorus to
Jerusalem to plunder the temple. This is narrated in 2 Macc. 3:4, etc.
Contrast Zech. 9:8, "No oppressor shall pass through . . . any
more."
"within few days . . . destroyed"—after
a reign of twelve years, which were "few" compared with the
thirty-seven years of Antiochus' reign. Heliodorus, the instrument of
Seleucus' sacrilege, was made by God the instrument of his punishment.
Seeking the crown, in the absence at Rome of Seleucus' only son and heir,
Demetrius, he poisoned Seleucus. But Antiochus Epiphanes, Seleucus' brother,
by the help of Eumenes, king of Pergamos, succeeded to the throne, 175 B.C.
"neither in anger, nor in battle"—not in a popular outbreak, nor in
open battle was fulfilled by the asassin.
|
|
21. And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to
whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in
peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
|
Verse 21 foretells the rising up of a "vile person." Nearly all
expositors of repute are agreed that this "vile person" (an
expression signifying one greatly abhorred and detested) was Antiochus
Epiphanes successor to Antiochus the Great as king of Syria.
This odious person occupies a very large place in the prophecy; for verses 21
to 35 (2Ma 4:21-35) are taken up
with the foretelling of his "a abominable
actions toward the Jews." In I Maccabees 1:10
he is described as "wicked root." His deeds of cruelty and
sacrilege far surpassed anything the Jews had suffered under previous rulers.
Many pages in Maccabees and Josephus are devoted to the history of this
tyrannical king, and his ill treatment of the Jews.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes was a son of Antiochus III the Great and the
Seleucid who ruled from 175-163 B.C. In prophecy he is given as much
attention as all the others before him combined. He is the little horn of
Daniel 8:9-12, 23-25. A long section (11:21-35) is devoted to him not only
because of the effects of his invasion on the land of Israel, but more so
because he foreshadows the little horn (king) of 7:8 who in a future day will
desecrate and destroy the land of Israel. Antiochus IV is introduced as a
contemptible person. He took to himself the name Epiphanes which means “the
Illustrious One.” But he was considered so untrustworthy that he was
nicknamed Epimanes, by play of the sound, which means “the Madman.” The
throne rightly belonged to Demetrius Soter, a son of Seleucus IV Philopator,
but Antiochus IV Epiphanes seized the throne and had himself proclaimed king.
Thus he did not come to the throne by rightful succession; he seized it
through intrigue. Hence, for his crafty supplanting of Demetrius, the rightful
heir, from the throne, he is termed "vile." "... they shall
not give . . . kingdom: but . . . by flatteries"—The nation shall not,
by a public act, confer the kingdom on him, but he shall obtain it by
artifice, "flattering" Eumenes and Attalus of Pergamos to help him,
and, as he had seen candidates at Rome doing, canvassing the Syrian people
high and low, one by one, with embraces [LIVY, 41.20]. He was accepted as
ruler because he was able to turn aside an invading army, perhaps the
Egyptians. He also deposed Onias III, the high priest, called here a prince
of the covenant.
|
|
22. And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown
from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.
|
shall they be overflown . . .
before him—Antiochus Epiphanes shall invade Egypt
with overwhelming forces.
The "prince of the covenant"—could be Onias III, the high
priest, but in this context he is more likely to be Ptolemy Philometer, the
son of Cleopatra, Antiochus' sister, who was joined in covenant with him.
Ptolemy's guardians, while he was a boy, sought to recover from Epiphanes
Clo-Syria and Palestine, which
had been promised by Antiochus the Great as Cleopatra's dowry in marrying
Ptolemy Epiphanes. Hence arose the war. Philometer's
generals were vanquished, and Pelusium, the key of Egypt,
taken by Antiochus, 171 B.C.
|
|
23. 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 the prophecy it was foretold that, "he shall come in peaceably,
and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.., and after the league made with him he
shall work deceitfully." This was fulfilled quite literally, for
Josephus relates that the king (Antiochus), having determined to make war on
the king of Egypt, "came up to Jerusalem, and, pretending peace, got
possession of the city by treachery" (Bk. II, 5, 4). The Cambridge
edition of the Bible cites II Maccabees 4:7, 10, 23-31 in connection with the
foregoing verses.
TREGELLES notes three divisions in the history of the "vile
person," which is continued to the end of the chapter: (1) His rise
(Daniel 11:21-22). (2) The time
from his making the covenant to the taking away of the daily sacrifice and
setting up of the abomination of desolation (Daniel 11:23-31). (3) His career of blasphemy, to his
destruction (Daniel 11:32-45); the
latter two periods answering to the "week" of years of his
"covenant with many" (namely, in Israel)
(Daniel 9:27), and the last being
the closing half week of the ninth chapter. But the context so accurately
agrees with the relations of Antiochus to Ptolemy that the primary reference
seems to be to the "league" between them. Antitypically,
Antichrist's relations towards Israel
are probably delineated. Compare Daniel 8:11, 25, with Daniel 11:22 here,
"prince of the covenant." work deceitfully—Feigning friendship to
young Ptolemy, as if he wished to order his kingdom for him, he took
possession of Memphis and all Egypt ("the fattest places," Daniel
11:34) as far as Alexandria. with a small people—At
first, to throw off suspicion, his forces were small.
|
|
24. He shall enter peaceably 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 the prey, and spoil, and
riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices
against the strong holds, even for a time.
|
Again, according to the prophecy, this "vile person," after
entering peaceably upon the fattest (i.e., the richest) places of the
province, would do "that which his fathers had not done, nor his
fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and
riches," etc. In agreement with this is the fact that none of the
predecessors of Antiochus had ever interfered in the slightest degree with
the worship, laws, or religious observances of the Jews; nor had they ever
violated the temple in any way. Thus, in plundering and profaning the temple,
and in his acts of cruelty and sacrilege (to which we will refer below),
Antiochus Epiphanes did "that which his fathers had not done, nor his
fathers’ fathers."
|
|
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 be
stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not
stand: for they shall forecast devices against him.
|
Verse 25 of the prophecy foretells this ruler’s military expedition
against Egypt
(2Ma 5:1). The histories give a full account of this campaign. In fact the Cambridge
edition of the Bible, and some others, have in the margin a note on this
verse which reads, "Fulfilled B.C. 170."
|
|
26. Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall
destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain.
|
"they that feed of . . . his
meat"—those from whom he might naturally have looked for help, his
intimates and dependents (Psalm 41:9; John 13:18);
his ministers and guardians. "his army shall overflow"—Philometer's
army shall be dissipated as water. The phrase is used of overflowing numbers,
usually in a victorious sense, but here in the sense of defeat, the very
numbers which ordinarily ensure victory, hastening the defeat through mismanagement.
"many shall fall down slain"—(1 Macc. 1:18, "many fell wounded to
death"). Antiochus, when he might have slain all in the battle near
Pelusium, rode around and ordered the enemy to be taken alive, the fruit of
which policy was, he soon gained Pelusium and all Egypt
[DIODORUS SICULUS, 26.77].
|
|
27. And both these kings' 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 time appointed.
|
"both . . . to do mischief"—each to the
other. "speak lies at one table"—They
shall, under the semblance of intimacy, at Memphis
try to deceive one another (see on Daniel 11:3; Daniel 11:25). "it shall not
prosper"—Neither of them shall carry his point at this time. "yet the end shall be"—"the end" of the
contest between them is reserved for "the time appointed" (Daniel 11:29-30).
After Antiochus consolidated his kingdom, he moved against Egypt,
the king of the South, in 170. Antiochus was able to move his army from his
homeland to the very border of Egypt
before he was met by the Egyptian army at Pelusium near the Nile Delta. In
this battle the Egyptians had a large army but were defeated and Antiochus
professed friendship with Egypt.
The victor and the vanquished sat at a table together as though friendship
had been established, but the goal of both to establish peace was never
realized for they both were deceptive.
|
|
28. Then shall he return into his land with great riches;
and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits,
and return to his own land.
|
Verses 28-30 tell of his return in a second expedition against Egypt,
and of its failure: "For the ships of Chittim shall come against him.
Therefore he shall be grieved (disappointed or made despondent) and return and
have indignation against the holy covenant," etc. The record of this
unsuccessful expedition against Egypt,
and of the fury of Antiochus which he proceeded to vent upon the Jews, is
given in Maccabees and Josephus. Anstey thus condenses their account.
“B.C. 168. Popillius met Antiochus Epiphanes four miles from Alexandria,
drew a circle round him in the sand, and forced him to cease his war in Egypt.
Whereupon Antiochus began his savage persecution of the Jews, which led to
the rise of Mattathias and the Maccabees.”
In the Cambridge Bible verse 28 has a note, "Fulfilled B.C. 169; " and verse 30 a note, "Fulfilled B.C.
168."
Antiochus carried great wealth back to his homeland from his conquest. On
his return he passed through the land
of Israel. After his
disappointment in Egypt
(he had hoped to take all of Egypt
but failed) he took out his frustrations on the Jews by desecrating the
temple in Jerusalem. Evidently he
opposed (set his heart against) the entire Mosaic system (the holy covenant).
After desecrating the temple, he returned to his own country.
|
|
29. At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward
the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.
|
"At the time appointed"—"the time" spoken of in Daniel
11:27. "return" refers to his second open
invasion of Egypt
two year later in 168. Ptolemy Philometer, suspecting Antiochus' designs with
Physcon, hired mercenaries from Greece.
Whereupon Antiochus advanced with a fleet and an army, demanding the cession
to him of Cyprus,
Pelusium, and the country adjoining the Pelusiac mouth of the Nile.
"it shall not be as the former"—not
successful as the former expedition. Popilius Loenas, the Roman ambassador,
met him at Eleusis, four miles
from Alexandria, and presented
him the decree of the senate; on Antiochus replying that he would consider
what he was to do, Popilius drew a line round him
with a rod and said, "I must have a reply to give to the senate before
you leave this circle." Antiochus submitted, and retired from Egypt;
and his fleets withdrew from Cyprus.
This was a humiliating defeat for Antiochus Epiphanes (he will lose heart)
but he had no alternative but to return to his own land.
|
|
30. For the ships of Chittim shall come against him:
therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the
holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence
with them that forsake the holy covenant.
|
As he moved into Egypt,
he was opposed by the Romans who had come to Egypt
in ships from the western coastlands (lit., “ships of Kittim”; cf. NIV marg.,
i.e., Cyprus).
From the Roman senate Popillius Laenas took to Antiochus a letter forbidding
him to engage in war with Egypt.
When Antiochus asked for time to consider, the emissary drew a circle in the
sand around Antiochus and demanded that he give his answer before he stepped
out of the circle. Antiochus submitted to Rome’s
demands for to resist would be to declare war on Rome.
This brings us to the climax of the wicked deeds of Antiochus, which the
prophecy foretells distinctly, and which the histories record with great
detail. We refer to his gross impiety and sacrilege in respect to the temple,
the sacrifices, and the religious customs of the Jews. Verse 30 speaks of his
coming to an understanding "with them that forsake the holy
covenant." For many of the Jews apostatised at that time, forsaking God,
and turning against all their religious customs. Thus in Maccabees we read:
“Moreover, King Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom, that all should be
one people, and everyone should leave his laws. So all the heathen agreed
according to the commandment of the king. Yea, many also of the Israelites
consented to his religion, and sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the
Sabbath. * * * Then many of the people were gathered unto them, to wit, every
one that forsook the law; and so they committed evils in the land.”(1Ma 1:41-43,52)
For a second time (cf. v. 28) Antiochus took out his frustration on the
Jews, the city of Jerusalem, and
their temple. He vented his fury against the holy covenant, the entire Mosaic
system (cf. v. 28), favoring any renegade Jews who turned to help him (cf. v.
32). He desecrated the temple and abolished the daily sacrifice. Antiochus
sent his general Apollonius with 22,000 soldiers into Jerusalem
on what was purported to be a peace mission. But they attacked Jerusalem
on the Sabbath, killed many people, took many women and children as slaves,
and plundered and burned the city.
In seeking to exterminate Judaism and to Hellenize the Jews, he forbade
the Jews to follow their religious practices (including their festivals and
circumcision), and commanded that copies of the Law be burned. Then he set up
the abomination that causes desolation. In this culminating act he erected on
December 16, 167 B.C. an
altar to Zeus on the altar of burnt offering outside the temple, and had a
pig offered on the altar. The Jews were compelled to offer a pig on the 25th
of each month to celebrate Antiochus Epiphanes’ birthday. Antiochus promised
apostate Jews (those who violated the covenant; cf. v. 30) great reward if
they would set aside the God of Israel and worship Zeus, the god of Greece.
Many in Israel
were persuaded by his promises (flattery) and worshiped the false god.
However, a small remnant remained faithful to God, refusing to engage in
those abominable practices. Antiochus IV died insane in Persia
in 163 B.C. (Cf. comments on this Antiochus in 8:23-25.)
|
|
31. And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall
pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice,
and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
|
The fulfillment again is most exact. Verse 31 of Daniel 11 foretold that
"Arms shall stand on his part," or more literally, "arms from
him shall stand." This was fulfilled by Antiochus’ sending an army into Judea
(1Ma 1:29; et seq.).
They also "polluted" at this time the sanctuary of strength and
caused the daily sacrifice to be taken away; for it is recorded in I
Maccabees 1:44 et seq. that Antiochus sent letters commanding them to follow
strange laws, and forbidding "burnt offering and sacrifice, and drink
offerings in the temple; and that they should profane the Sabbath and
festival days; and pollute the sanctuary of the holy people."
We quote here from Dr. Taylor’s well written account of the deeds of this
atrocious character:
"When he was informed of the satisfaction with which the news of his
reported death was received by the Jews, and especially of the attempt made by
the rightful high priest to regain his position, he chose to believe that the
entire Jewish nation had revolted; and, marching with all haste, he laid
siege to Jerusalem and took it, slaying in three days more than forty
thousand persons, and taking as many more captives to be sold as slaves. Not
content with this, he forced his way into the Temple,
entered the very Holy of Holies itself, and caused a great sow to be offered
in sacrifice upon the altar of burnt offering, while broth, made from the
same unclean flesh, was sprinkled by his order over the sacred precincts for
the purpose of defiling them. On his departure he took with him the altar of
incense, the golden candlestick, the table of shew bread, and other sacred
vessels, to the value of eighteen hundred talents of gold
..... Two years after the commission of these enormities, returning
from another invasion of Egypt,
where he had been checkmated by the Romans, he vented his disappointment upon
the Jews, and detailed his army, twenty two thousand men, under Apollonius,
with orders to destroy Jerusalem.
On his arrival at the holy city Apollonius conducted himself peaceably,
concealing his purpose till the Sabbath; but on that day, when the people
were assembled in their synagogues, he let loose his soldiers upon them, and
commanded them to slay all the men, but to take captive all the women and
children. These orders were only too faithfully obeyed, so that the streets
were filled with blood ..... Thus the sad
description in the seventy ninth Psalm was verified, ‘O God, the heathen are
come into Thine inheritance; Thy holy temple have they defiled; they have
laid Jerusalem on heaps. The dead
bodies of Thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of heaven,
the flesh of Thy saints unto the beasts of the earth. Their blood have they
shed like water round about Jerusalem;
and there was none to bury them. We are become a reproach to our neighbours,
a scorn and derision to them that are round about us.’"
The words "and shall place the abomination which maketh
desolate" call for special examination, because of their recurrence in
Da 12:11, and of their use by the
Lord Jesus Christ, in Matthew 24 and Mark 13). We have already shown, and
expect to refer to the matter again, that the expression "the abomination
which maketh desolate" means an armed heathen force. Such a force was
placed by Antiochus in the city of David
(1Ma 1:34,35).
|
|
32. And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he
corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
|
Verse 32 of the prophecy speaks of two classes of Jews, (1) "such as
do wickedly against the covenant;" and (2) those "that do know
their God." Of the former it is said that they shall be corrupted
"by flatteries;" and of the latter that they "shall be strong,
and do exploits."
Concerning the first class it is recorded in I Mac. 1:11 et seq. that "In those days there went out of Israel
wicked men who persuaded many, saying: Let us go and make a covenant with the
heathen, that are round about us .... Then certain
of the people were so forward herein that they went to the king, who gave
them license to do after the ordinances of the heathen." Many Jews,
including even Jason, the brother of Onias the high priest, were corrupted
and won over to Antiochus by flattery and self-interest (2Ma 4:7-14).
THE UPRISING OF THE MACCABEES
The second class of persons spoken of in verse 32 of Daniel 11,
"those that do know their God," is easily and completely identified
in Mattathias, the godly and patriotic priest, and his five sons, who led a
successful revolt against Antiochus, and in those of his family who ruled
Israel as governors and priests for 130 years. These were indeed made
"strong" through "knowing their God," and performed
"exploits" of greatest valour particularly Judas, who was surnamed
Maccabeus, that is the Hammer of God. This nickname of Judas has been applied
to the whole family, but they are properly the Asmonean Princes.
There is no need to speak of the heroic "exploits" of Judas and
his brothers, Jonathan and Simon, who succeeded him, for they are well known.
But the terms of verses 33, 34 and 35 call for some explanation.
|
|
33. And they that understand among the people shall
instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity,
and by spoil, many days.
|
Verse 33 reads: "And they that understand among the people shall
instruct many." Upon good authority we can say that the tense of the
Hebrew verb used calls for the rendering "they that cause to
understand." Likewise in chapter 12:3 the literal rendering would be
"they that cause to be wise." These terms aptly designate those who
have the Word of God and who teach others therein those who impart to others
the knowledge of the ways of God, and who cause them to be "wise unto
salvation."
This description, therefore, applies particularly to Mattathias and his
family, who not only were priests by their birthright, and thus the divinely
ordained teachers of Israel,
but were true priests, faithfully performing their duty to God and to His
people.
Further verse 33 says: "Yet they shall fall by the sword, and by
flame, by captivity and by spoil (many) days." This was most literally
fulfilled in the history of the Asmoneans. Judas himself, and a great part of
his army, were slain by the sword (1Ma 9:17,18). Jonathan also was slain with a thousand men (1Ma 12:48). The chief tax collector set Jerusalem
on fire (1Ma 1:31; see also 2Ma
7). Forty thousand captives were carried away by Antiochus (2Ma 5:14).
The Jews who refused to submit to Antiochus’ false religious system were
persecuted and martyred for their faith. The word fall (vv. 33-34), literally
“stumble” (), refers to severe suffering on the part of many and death for
others. This has in view the rise of the Maccabean revolt. Mattathias, a
priest, was the father of five sons. (One of them, Judas, became well known
for refurbishing and restoring the temple in late 164 B.C. He was called
Judas Maccabeus, “the Hammerer.”) In 166, Mattathias refused to submit to
this false religious system. He and his sons fled from Jerusalem
to the mountains and began the Maccabean revolt. At first only a few Jews
joined them. But as their movement became popular, many joined them, some out
of sincere motives and some from false motives. The suffering that the
faithful endured served to refine and purify them. This time of persecution
was of short duration. It had previously been revealed to Daniel that the
temple would be desecrated for 1,150 days (8:14;
8:23-25). Here Daniel was assured
that this persecution would run its course and then be lifted, for its end
will still come at the appointed time.
|
|
34. Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a
little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
|
To be "helped" in Scripture means to be helped effectually; and
what is here pointed out is that the Maccabees should accomplish their great
victories with the "help" of a small number; and this was wonderfully
fulfilled in that Judas, time and again, defeated, with very small forces,
large armies of Syrians, Idumeans, and others (1Ma 2:28; 3:9-11) etc. But
later on, many did cleave to them by flatteries, professing friendship to
them, etc. (1Ma 10). Thus Alexander Bala, successor to Antiochus Epiphanes,
made with Jonathan a league of mutual assistance and friendship (1Ma 10:65).
|
|
35. And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try
them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end:
because it is yet for a time appointed.
|
Verse 35 of Daniel 11 foretells that some of them of understanding, or
that cause to be wise—that is to say the teachers of God’s people—shall fall,
to try them, and to purge them, and to make them white, unto the time of the
end. The family of Mattathias continued for several generations to serve the
people of Israel
in the capacity of priests and teachers (1Ma 10:21;
14:35; 16:24); and (Josephus Ant. XIII 8, 1). Of these
"some" fell by violent deaths and by captivity (1Ma 6:46; 9:18;
9:36, 42; 12:41-48); (Ant. XIV.4, 5; XIV 13, 10; XV 6, 2). And
this continued to the very "end" of the Asmonean era; for the last
of the family, Aristobulus, who held for a short time the high priesthood,
was murdered at the command of Herod (Ant. XV 3, 3).
The words "unto the end" would most naturally be taken to mean
the end of the Asmonean era, which had a very definite beginning and an
equally definite end; for it is in connection with the history of that family
that the term is used. But if it be taken that verse 35 describes a state of
things which was to continue to the time of the end (the final era) of this
period of Jewish national existence, it would be true in that sense also. For
to this final era verse 35 brings us.
|
|
36. And the king shall do according to his will; and he
shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every
god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall
prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined
shall be done.
|
We come now to a remarkable personality, one who fills a large and
prominent place in the prophecy, and who is introduced in the words of verse
36.
"HEROD THE KING"
—that remarkable character who was a usurper upon the throne of David when
Christ, the true King, was born. The proof which enables us to identify
"the king" of Daniel 11:36-39 with Herod the Great and his dynasty, is so convincing that we feel warranted in saying
that the prophecy could not possibly mean anyone else.
It would be strange indeed if, in an outline which gives prominence to
Xerxes, Alexander, the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, Antiochus Epiphanes, and the
Maccabees, there were no mention of that remarkable personage who exerted
upon Jewish affairs and destinies an influence greater than they all, and who
sat upon the throne of Israel
when Christ was born.
The words, "the king," should suffice, in the light of the
context, without further description, to identify Herod to those who
thoughtfully read their Bibles; for Herod alone is called by that title in
the Gospels, and he alone had the rank and authority of "king" in
Israel in the days after the captivity, "the latter days." The text
does not speak of a king, but of the king, the emphatic Hebrew article being
used. This is in marked contrast with the terms of v. 40, where the original
speaks of "a king of the north," and "a king of the
south."
A glance at the context is enough to show that "the king" of v.
36 cannot mean either of the kings of v. 27. Moreover, these are never spoken
of as "the king," but always, both before and after v. 36, as
"the king of the north," or "the king of the south," as
the case may be. Nor does the Scripture speak of any "king" who is
to arise at the time of the end of this present age, and who answers at all
to the description of the prophecy. The "man of sin," described in
2Th 2:3-10, is supposed by some to be "the king" of Daniel 11:36.
But he is not called a king, nor described as having kingly rank, but rather as
one claiming divine worship in the temple
of God, and backing up his
pretensions by means of miracles and lying wonders. The "king" of
Da 11:36 is a very different
personage, and achieves his ends in a very different way, as will be clearly
seen by all who diligently compare the two passages.
What has caused able commentators to go astray at this point, and in some
instances to seek far afield for the interpretation of this passage, is the
fact that they were unable to find anyone among the successors of Antiochus
who answers at all to the description of "the king." But they have
overlooked two things which, had they heeded them, would have kept them from
being so misled. Those things are, first, that the prophecy has not for its
subject the kingdoms of Syria or Egypt, but the people of Israel, and hence
the expression, "the king," without other qualification, would mean
one who was king over Daniel's people; and second, that the verses
immediately preceding (31-35) relate wholly to the affairs of the Jews under
the Asmonean princes, and hence the terms of the prophecy itself lead us to
look at this point for the beginning of a new order of things in Israel. And
that is just what history certifies to us; for, precisely at this juncture of
affairs, the Asmonean dynasty was brought to an end by violence and
bloodshed, and it was replaced by that of a "king," who answers
perfectly to the description of the last part of the prophecy.
Moreover, and to this we would specially invite attention, it is said of
this king that "he shall prosper until the indignation be
accomplished" (or until wrath be completed), in fulfillment of which is
the fact that the dynasty of Herod retained, through all the political
upheavals of the times, its favour with Rome, and flourished in authority in
Palestine, until the destruction of Jerusalem, which is the
"wrath," or "indignation," or "tribulation," to
which these prophecies of Daniel so frequently refer as "the end"
of Jewish nationality. For it was "Herod the king" who sought to
compass the death of Christ soon after His birth, and whose successors of his
own family put to death John the Baptist (this was done by Herod Antipas) and
James the brother of John (by Herod Agrippa I, who also imprisoned Peter,
intending to deliver him to the Jews) and finally sent Paul in chains to Rome
(which was done by Herod Agrippa II, the last of the dynasty, the man who is
best known to the world as he who was "almost persuaded").
"ACCORDING TO HIS WILL"
The first thing said of this king is that he should "do according to
his will." This is usually taken to mean that he would be of an
exceptionally self-willed disposition, one of the sort
who act without restraint, and without regard to the rights or the feelings
of others. This may indeed be in part the meaning of the words; but much more
than this is implied. Self-willed people are so very numerous that, if that
were all that were meant, the words could not serve for purposes of
identification. But not many are so placed, and have such power in their
hands that they are able to "do," that is, to achieve or accomplish
what they "will" or plan to do; and this is what is meant. For the
expression is used in this same prophecy of two other notable personages. The
first of these is Alexander the Great, of whom it is said that he "shall
rule with great dominion, and do according to his will" (Da 11:3). The
other (Da 11:16) has been
identified as Antiochus the Great. Of him also it is said, "he shall do
according to his own will;" and history shows that this monarch, too,
was very successful, during the first part of his reign, in carrying out his
various designs.
This is what distinguished Herod the Great in a remarkable degree. For
history records nothing of this nature more notable than Herod’s success in
rising up from a lowly origin to the rank and authority of king, in securing
for himself despotic power and retaining it through all the political changes
of the times, and in the way he used that power for the accomplishment of all
his designs, however stupendous in magnitude (as the rebuilding of the
temple) or atrocious in character (as condemning to death his own wife and
children). For Herod contrived to secure the favour and confidence, first of
Julius Caesar, then of Mark Antony, and then of Octavius Caesar, though he
had assisted Antony and Cleopatra
against him. All things considered, there is nothing more wonderful in the
career of Herod than his extraordinary success in doing "according to
his will."
But, taking the expression in the other sense, we may say that it would be
difficult to find in history one who so ruthlessly executed the designs of
his own tyrannical and cruel heart, even upon those of his own flesh and
blood, as Herod the king. His murder of his best loved wife, the beautiful
Mariamne, who was a princess of the Asmonean family, is, in its special
circumstances, without parallel in history. He put to death also three of his
own sons (two of them by this favourite wife) because he suspected them of
aspiring to his throne; and similar deeds of wilfulness characterized his
entire reign. Josephus gives many instances of this (see for example Ant. XII
9, 4).
EXALTING AND MAGNIFYING HIMSELF
Further it is said of this king that "he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall
speak marvellous things against the God of gods." These words are
descriptive of Herod. The words "above every god" may be taken to
mean every ruler and authority in Israel,
just as "God of gods" means the Supreme Authority above all authorities.
Herod did successfully aspire to the lordship over every authority in the
land, whether priests or rulers. He assumed to appoint whom he would to the
office of high priest. He put his own brother-in-law, Aristobulus, Mariamne’s
brother, in that office, and shortly after had him murdered (Ant. XV 3, 5).
Herod also uttered great things against the God of gods. This, we believe,
refers specially (though not exclusively) to his decree for the slaughter of
the babes of Bethlehem, the express purpose of which was to get rid of
Immanuel, God come in the flesh to be the Ruler of His people, and to be
"Prince of the kings of the earth" (Re 1:5). Herod’s way of making
himself secure upon the throne was to put to death every suspected rival. For
Herod, in common with the Jewish teachers in his day (and with some teachers
in our own day who ought to know better) mistakenly supposed that the Christ
of God was coming at that time to occupy the earthly throne upon which Herod
was then seated. We shall have occasion to refer again to this prominent act
in the career of Herod.
|
|
37. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor
the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above
all.
|
Because of the reference to the gods (or God,) of his fathers, some have
concluded that this ruler will be a Jew, since the Old Testament frequently
uses the phrase “the God of your fathers” to refer to the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob (e.g., Ex. 3:15). Herod the Great was born about the year 73
B.C. (ruled from 37 - 4 B.C.) and was a son of the Antipater from Edom.
Thus he was not a full blooded Jew but met the requirement of this verse.
The first clause manifestly could not apply to any heathen king like
Antiochus. For whether or not a heathen king should change his national gods
is a matter of no importance whatever. But with a king of Israel
it is a matter of supreme importance. Now Herod, though supposedly of Idumean
(i.e. Edomite) origin, was virtually a Jew; for all the remaining Idumeans,
who had come into Judea several centuries previous,
had been amalgamated with the Jews. In addressing the people Herod habitually
used the expression "our fathers" (Ant. Bk. XV Ch. 11, See. 1). So
fully was Herod regarded as a Jew, that the Herodians even held him to be the
Messiah. Therefore, in introducing the worship of
Caesar, Herod conspicuously failed to "regard the God of his
fathers." Moreover, in this connection, it should not be forgotten that
Esau was Jacob’s twin brother, and hence that the
God of the fathers of the Edomites was the same as the God of the fathers of
the Jews.
THE DESIRE OF WOMEN
The words, "nor the desire of women," are very significant.
There can scarcely be any doubt that they refer to Christ, and that Daniel
would so understand them. For, of course, the "women" must be
understood to be women of Israel;
and the ardent "desire" of every one of them was that she might be
the mother of Christ. The same word is found in Hag 2:7: "And the Desire
of all nations shall come." Evidently then it is Christ who is referred
to as "the desire of women"; and if so, then we have a striking
fulfillment of these words in Herod’s attempt to murder the infant Messiah.
For the record given in Matthew 2:1-16 makes it quite clear that Herod’s deliberate
purpose was to put to death the promised Messiah of Israel. It was for the
accomplishment of that purpose that he inquired of the chief priests and
scribes as to where Christ should be born. The slaughter of the babes of Bethlehem
was an act of atrocity almost without parallel in history. It was, moreover,
an event that had been foretold by Jeremiah in the words, "A voice was
heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her
children," etc. (Jer 31:15, quoted in Mt 2:17,18). Each one of those
murdered infants was "the desire" of his own mother; and thus Herod
fulfilled Da 11:37 in another sense.
|
|
38. But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces:
and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver,
and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
|
THE GOD OF FORCES
Verse 38 "And in his estate," or for his establishment,
"shall he honour the god of forces," or god of fortresses (ASV);
"and (or even) a god whom his fathers knew not shall be honour, with
gold and silver, and precious (or costly) stones, and with pleasant (or
valuable) things."
Herod’s career affords a most striking fulfillment of this verse. The
expression, "god of forces, or fortresses," is so unusual that it
furnishes a most satisfactory means of identification; for it applies to the
Caesars as to none others in history, seeing that the Roman emperors claimed
for themselves divine honours, and that it was by "forces," or
"fortifications," that they extended and maintained their power,
and enforced the worship they demanded. This honour Herod paid to them, and
after the most extravagant fashion; and he did it, of course, in order to
make himself secure, that is to say, "for his own establishment,"
as the text of v. 38 may be rendered. This honour paid by Herod, first to
Julius Caesar, then to Antony,
and then to Antony’s conqueror,
Augustus, was one of the most conspicuous features of Herod’s policy.
Josephus records how he sent delegations to Rome, and also to Antony and
Cleopatra in Egypt, bearing the most costly presents; also how he converted
the ancient Strato’s Tower into a magnificent seaport, and named it Caesarea,
in honour of Caesar, and how later he rebuilt Samaria, and renamed it Sebaste
(Sebastos being the equivalent of Augustus). He built many other fortified
cities and named them in honour of Caesar.
|
|
39. Thus shall he do in the most strong
holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory:
and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for
gain.
|
Here we have a reference to one of the most prominent acts of Herod’s long
reign, namely, his rebuilding of the temple, and his making the temple area a
stronghold for Caesar. He made the temple the most famous building in the
world for its dimensions, its magnificence, and particularly for the size of
the stones whereof it was built, to which the disciples specially directed
the Lord’s attention (Mark 13:1), and which Josephus says were 25 cubits
long, 12 broad, and 8 thick (Ant. XV II, 3). But, in rebuilding it, Herod
took care to convert it into a fortress for his own purposes, this being the
"most stronghold" of the land. As a part of this plan he
constructed on the north side of the temple, and overlooking it, a strong
citadel which he named the Tower of
Antonia, after Mark Antony.
Josephus says:
“But for the Tower itself, when Herod the king of the Jews had fortified
it more firmly than before, in order to secure and guard the temple, he
gratified Antonius who was his friend and the Roman ruler by calling it the
Tower of Antonia”(Ant. XV. 11:4-7).
Further this historian says that the fortified places
“were two, the one belonging to the city itself, the other belonging to
the temple; and those that could get them into their hands had the whole
nation under their power, for without the command of them it was not possible
to offer their sacrifices”(Ant. XV. 11:7-8).
It was from the stairs leading to this famous Tower, up which the apostle
Paul was being taken by the soldiers to save him from the violence of the
people, that he stilled them by a gesture of his hand, and gained their
attention by addressing them in the Hebrew tongue (Ac 21:34-40).
Again Josephus says of Herod that,
“When Caesar had further bestowed upon him another additional
country, he built there also a temple of white marble, hard by the fountains
of Jordan;” and also “to say all at once, there was not any place in his
kingdom fit for the purpose, that was permitted to be without somewhat that
was for Caesar’s honour; and when he had filled his own country with temples,
he poured out like plentiful marks of his esteem into his province, and built
many cities which he called Caesareas” (Wars I, 21:2).
In connection with the prediction of what this king would
do in the chief strongholds—"with a strange god," mention should be
made of the many images, statues of Caesar, which Herod set up to be
worshipped in various fortified places. He even went so far in his sacrilege
as to place a huge golden eagle (the adored emblem of imperial Rome)
at the very gate of the temple, thus giving rise to a tumult and insurrection
among the people. In this way did he, in his estate (office), "honour
the god of forces" (Caesar) whose statues he everywhere introduced as
objects of worship. He fulfilled with literal exactness the words, "Thus
shall he do in the most strongholds," (which expression would apply to
the citadel of the temple, where he erected the Tower
of Antonia) "with a strange
god, whom he shall acknowledge, and increase with glory". The last
clause finds a striking fulfillment in Herod’s extravagant pains to glorify
Caesar, which, as we have shown, went beyond all bounds.
The words "dividing the land for gain" (or parcelling it out for
hire) were fulfilled in the practice adopted by Herod of parcelling out among
persons favourable to himself, the land adjacent to places which it was
important for him to control in case of emergency. Josephus speaks of this
(Ant. XV 8, 5).
We thus find that every item foretold of "the king" was completely
fulfilled in the career of Herod, and that the record of this fulfillment has
come down to us in an authentic contemporary history, which is on all hands
acknowledged to be trustworthy in an unusually high degree.
|
|
40. And at the time of the end shall the king of the south
push at 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 over.
|
THE TIME OF THE END
In order to avoid confusion it is needful to observe that "the time
of the end" may mean one period in one place, and a very different
period in another. The meaning is controlled, and is also revealed, by the
context. But this is quite frequently overlooked; and we have observed that
even careful writers on prophecy have a disposition to take the words
"the time of the end" as meaning the end of the gospel
dispensation, even when the passage in which they occur does not relate to
the present dispensation at all.
Particularly should it be noted that in the Book of Daniel there are two
distinct sets of prophecies. The first set, found in chapters II, VII and
VIII, relate to the great Gentile world powers, and the prophecies of
chapters II and VII carry us on to the end of the times of the Gentiles
(chapter VIII gives details of the Greek empire, thus filling in the outline
given in the vision of chapter VII). But the second series (chapters IX-XII
inclusive) have to do with the history of Daniel’s own people and his holy
city. Hence the expression "time of the end," where it occurs in
these later prophecies, means the last stage of the national existence of
Daniel’s people, that is to say, the era of the Herods.
The period of Jewish history occupied by Herod and his dynasty was
therefore "the time of the end" in the sense required by the
context; so we have a strong confirmation of the view we have been presenting
in the fact that, just at this point in the prophecy, there is given us an
outline of those great events (which occurred during the reign of Herod)
whereby political supremacy in the world was given to the Caesars, and all
was made ready for the coming of the Redeemer. This outline is found in
Daniel 11:40-43, and brings us to the subjugation of Egypt
(the last of the great independent monarchies to fall under the spreading
power of Rome) with the Libyans
and Ethiopians. The records of history correspond so exactly to the
predictions of this prophecy (as we shall presently point out) that there can
be no question at all as to its fulfillment.
In reading this chapter it is to be remembered that the prophecy is not
primarily concerned with Syria, Egypt, Rome or any other alien power, but
that it refers to them only insofar as they come in contact with, and affect
the destinies of, the Jews.
CAESAR AUGUSTUS
Hence these verses Daniel 11:40-43 have a parenthetical character.
As to the manner in which that war began, we have a very clear account in
Plutarch’s "Life of Mark Antony," by which it appears that the
fulfillment of the prophecy was marvellously exact, not only as regards the
manner in which the war began, but also in respect to the sides on which the
different parties were at first engaged in it, in regard also to the outcome,
to the peculiar arms, "chariots and horsemen and many ships"—by
means of which the victories of Augustus were achieved, and finally, in
regard also to the rapidity of his conquest, which was effected within the
space of a single year.
PLUTARCH’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIAN WAR
The first move in the Actian war was made by Antony
(at the urgency of Cleopatra), in which he was assisted by Herod. Says
Plutarch:
“Antony, being
informed of these things” (that is of certain disputes between Augustus and
others in the Senate at Rome)
“immediately sent Canidus to the seacoast with sixteen legions. In the
meantime he went to Ephesus
attended by Cleopatra. There he assembled his fleet, which consisted of 800
ships of burden, whereof Cleopatra furnished 200 besides 20,000 talents, and
provisions for the army.”
Antony
advanced to Athens, with
constantly increasing forces, Augustus being wholly unprepared to meet him;
for says the historian:
“When Caesar was informed of the celerity and magnificence
of Antony’s preparations, he was
afraid of being forced into war that summer. This would have been most
inconvenient for him, for he was in want of almost everything. . . . . The
auxiliary kings who fought under his (Antony’s) banner were Bocchus of
Africa," etc. a list being given—"Those who did not attend in
person, but sent supplies were Polemo of Pontus, Malchus of Arabia, Herod of
Judea, and Amyntas of Lycaonia and Galatia.”
Thus a king of the south was the first to make a push in
this war, and he pushed with Herod. As showing the accuracy of the prophecy
it should be noted that, as Plutarch records, the Senate of Rome declared war
with Cleopatra alone, ignoring Antony,
so that it was strictly between a king of the north, and a king of the south.
Mr. Farquharson points out that the predictions of the prophet were
strictly fulfilled also in respect to the character of the forces engaged in
the war. For, notwithstanding that each side assembled large numbers of
infantry, and notwithstanding that such are the arms usually relied upon to
decide a war, yet in this case the infantry were not engaged at all, the
issue being decided (as the prophecy indicates) by chariots and horsemen, and
many ships.
A strange feature of the affair is that, although Antony’s
footmen outnumbered those of Augustus, and although his generals urged him to
bring the matter to an issue in a land battle, nevertheless (to quote again
from Plutarch)—
“Such a slave was he to the will of a woman that, to
gratify her, though much superior on land, he put his whole confidence in the
navy; notwithstanding that the ships had not half their complement of men.”
This brought on the great naval fight of Actium,
which ended in a complete victory for Augustus; and thus did a king of the
north come upon a king of the south, with the effect of a whirlwind, with
many ships. A more literal and exact fulfillment of prophecy could not be
found.
But that is not all. For Plutarch records that, after the disaster at Actium,
Antony’s infantry deserted him,
so that the infantry were not engaged during the entire war.
“But," says Farquharson, "when Antony
arrived in Egypt,
and endeavoured to defend it, to fulfil the prediction of the Prophet that
the king of the north would come with chariots and horsemen, as well as with
many ships—there were actions with cavalry." For Plutarch says,
"When Caesar arrived he encamped near the hippodrome (at Alexandria);
whereupon Antony made a brisk sally, routed the cavalry, drove them back into
their trenches, and returned to the city with the complacency of a
conqueror." It was the conduct of their fleets and cavalry that sealed
the fate of Antony and Cleopatra,
and left them without resource in their last retreat.”
|
|
41. He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many
countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom,
and Moab, and
the chief of the children of Ammon.
|
"THE COUNTRIES AND THE GLORIOUS LAND"
The course pursued by Augustus after his triumph over Antony
and Cleopatra follows most literally the predictions of the prophecy. For he
entered into the countries, and overflowed, and passed over them, possessing
himself of regions of Africa, Upper Cilicia, Paphlagonia, Thrace, Pontus,
Galatia, and other provinces from Illyria to Armenia. Moreover "he
entered also into the glorious land," that is to say the land
of Judea, which has already been
designated (Da 11:16) "the
glorious land." For Augustus chose to invade Egypt by way of Palestine,
at which time Herod (who had already with great prudence and foresight made
his submission to Augustus, and with such skilful diplomacy that it was
accepted), rendered him much assistance. Josephus says:
“Caesar went for Egypt through Syria when Herod received
him with royal and rich entertainments; and then did he first of all ride
along with Caesar, as he was reviewing his army about Ptolemais, and feasted
him with all his friends, and then distributed among the rest of his army
what was necessary to feast then withal” (Wars I, 20, 3).
EDOM, MOAB
AND AMMON
The reference in verse 41 to the countries of Edom,
Moab and
Ammon should be enough, without anything further, to show that we must seek
the fulfillment of this part of the prophecy in Bible times. Those names had
a geographical significance to Daniel, and to others of his day, who would
understand by them the mingled peoples of the lands adjacent to Judea
on the east and south. Now it is recorded in history that those countries did
escape, in a remarkable manner, out of the hand of Augustus.
Augustus sent an expedition into the countries referred to under Aelius
Gallus, in which he was joined by five hundred of Herod’s guards (Josephus,
Ant. XV 9, 3). Dean Prideaux, the well known commentator, refers to this
expedition and its failure, citing Pliny, Strabo, and Dio Cassius (Prideaux’
Connections. Vol. II, pp. 605 et seq.). The Universal History, in a note
added to their account of the expedition, says: "The bad success that
attended Aelius in this expedition deterred both him and others from any
further attempts on that country" (Ancient Universal History. Vol. XIII,
p. 498).
|
|
42. He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the
countries: and the land of Egypt
shall not escape.
|
This verse indicates the strong contrast with the
countries that did escape as outlined in the previous verse.
|
|
43. 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 TREASURES OF EGYPT
The prophecy makes special reference to the vast treasures of Egypt.
Here again are words which make it perfectly clear that the fulfillment of
this prophecy must be sought in the days of Egypt’s greatness and wealth, and
is not to be found in the squalid and poverty stricken Egypt of later times,
which, according to the sure word of prophecy, was to become "the basest
of the kingdoms," and not to exalt itself any more (Eze 29:15).
But in the days of Herod and Mark Antony the treasures of Egypt
were of fabulous value; and here again history furnishes us with such a
marvellous fulfillment of this item of the prophecy that we can but think the
records have been providentially cared for. Speaking of Cleopatra’s vast and
famous treasures of gold, silver and precious stones, and other rare and
costly objects, Farquharson says that "the history of the fate of her
treasures is very singular, and is worthy of a more detailed reference to
it."
So he shows how this great treasure had been accumulated during the
centuries of the Macedonian rulers of Egypt (the Ptolemies), being drawn from
the great grain trade of the country, and from the very lucrative commerce of
Alexandria "through which passed the gems, pearls, spices, and other
rich produce and merchandise of India, which from earliest ages have been in
high request in the western part of the world."
Continuing his account Farquharson says:
“Augustus Caesar was very desirous of securing the treasures
of the sovereign of this wealthy city; but there was, on two occasions, the
utmost hazard that they should elude his grasp. For after Cleopatra fled from
the battle of Actium Plutarch says, ‘she formed the
design of drawing her galleys over the isthmus into the Red Sea,
and purposed, with all her wealth and forces, to seek some remote country.”
That design was abandoned; but—
“When Caesar afterwards, approaching from Judea,
took Pelusium and entered Egypt,
the same author says, ‘Cleopatra had erected near the temple
of Isis some monuments of
extraordinary size and magnificence. To these she removed her treasure, her
gold, silver, emeralds pearls, ebony, ivory, and cinnamon. . . . . Caesar was
under some apprehensions about this immense wealth, lest, upon some sudden
emergency, she should set fire to the whole. For this reason he was
continually sending messengers to her with assurances of generous and
honourable treatment, while in the meantime he hastened to the city with his
army.’ . . . . Her person and the treasures in the monument were afterwards
secured by a stratagem, as related by Plutarch; and thus a king of the north
had power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious
things of Egypt.”
THE LIBYANS AND ETHIOPIANS
The prophecy also says concerning this victorious king, "and the
Libyans and Ethiopians shall be at his steps. Commenting on these words
Farquharson says:
“The conquest of Egypt
and maritime Libya
laid inner Libya
and Ethiopia
open to the steps, that is, as we may interpret the term, to the inroads of
Augustus Caesar, and his officers, of which advantage was soon after taken by
them.”
And this author proceeds to show the conquest of the
countries named in the prophecy, by Cornelius Balbus, which was considered so
great an achievement that Balbus, though not a native Roman, was, contrary to
all precedent, allowed a triumph. Thus, while Augustus did not himself subdue
those countries, they were "at his steps," as the prophecy says, at
the time he left Africa and returned to Rome.
Thus ancient history, which has been preserved to our day, shows to us a
series of events of the highest importance in shaping the course of human
affairs, which events correspond with marvellous exactitude, and in just the
right sequence, to the several details of the prophecy, the entire series
having taken place at precisely the era we should look for them to occur, if
we take the prophecy to be what it appears to be, namely, a continuous
prophetic narrative. If then this be not a fulfillment, there is nothing that
can be with certainty recognized as a fulfillment of inspired prophecy.
|
|
44. But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall
trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.
|
TIDINGS FROM EAST AND NORTH
It is not at first glance apparent who is the antecedent of the pronoun
"he" in these verses. But upon close attention to the text it will
be seen that we have here a return to the main subject of this part of the
prophecy, "the king" of verse 36, the course of the prophecy having
been diverted in verses 40-43 to the subject of the conquests of Augustus
Caesar. Very often, in reading the Hebrew prophets, we have to look a
considerable distance backwards to find the antecedent of a pronoun. As an
instance of this, Farquharson cites Bishop Horsley as saying, in commenting
upon Isaiah 18, "To those to whom the prophetic style in the original is
not familiar, but to those only, I think, it will appear strange that a pronoun
should refer to an antecedent at so great a distance." And Farquharson
adds: "And the correctness of this view of the whole passage is
confirmed by the literal manner in which the predictions in this 44th verse,
and in the remaining verse of the chapter, were fulfilled by Herod."
Indeed we do not see how any fulfillment could be more complete and
literal than that which is given us in Matthew’s Gospel of the words
"But tidings out of the east shall trouble him." For it is written
that "When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod
the king, behold there came wise men FROM THE EAST to Jerusalem,
saying, Where is He that is born king of the Jews? for
we have seen His star IN THE EAST, and are come to worship Him. When Herod
heard these things he was TROUBLED, and all Jerusalem
with him" (Mt 2:1-3). So here we have the exact thing prophesied,
namely, "tidings out of the east" which "troubled him."
Nothing was so well calculated to "trouble" Herod as reports
that some one was aspiring to his throne. In this case it is among the most
familiar of all facts that Herod, being set at nought by the wise men, from
whom he sought to learn the identity of the new born babe, "was
EXCEEDING WROTH, and SENT FORTH, and slew all the children that were in
Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under"
(Mt 2:16). Thus we have almost verbal agreement with the words of the
prophecy, "he shall Go FORTH, with GREAT FURY, to destroy and utterly to
make away MANY."
At about the same time, that is, in the last years of Herod’s life,
"tidings out of the north" also came to "trouble" that
self-tormenting monarch. For Antipater, his oldest son (a despicable
character), then at Rome (which had now become the center of what is
indefinitely called in this prophecy "the north") conspired to have
letters written to his father giving information that two other of his sons,
whom he purposed to make his successors, had calumniated their father to
Caesar. This caused Herod again to break forth with intense "fury"
against his own sons, and their supposed abettors, as related by Josephus at
great length (Ant. XVII 4-7; Wars 1:30-33).
In regard to these extraordinary events, Farquharson quotes a passage
(which we give below) from the Universal Ancient History, saying he does so
the more readily because the authors of the passage had no thought at all of
recording a fulfillment of prophecy. They say:
“The reader may remember that we left Herod in the most
distracted state that can well be imagined; his conscience stung with the
most lively grief for the murder of his beloved and virtuous Mariamne and of
her two worthy sons; his life and crown in imminent danger from the
rebellious Antipater, and ungrateful Pheroras; his reign stained with rivers
of innocent blood; his latter days embittered by the treacherous intrigues of
a sister; his person and family hated by the whole Jewish nation; and last of
all, his crown and all his glories on the eve of being obscured by the birth
of a miraculous Child, who is proclaimed by heaven and earth to be the
promised and long expected Messiah and Saviour of the world. To all these
plagues we must add some fresh intelligences which came tumbling in upon that
wretched monarch and which by assuring him still more, not only of the
treasonable designs of the unnatural Antipater, but also of the bitter
complaints which his other two sons, then at the Roman court, vented against
them both, rendered him more than ever completely miserable” (Universal
History, Vol. X. pp. 492, 493).
Herod’s "great fury" (to use the words of the
prophecy) was not confined to the babes of Bethlehem,
and to members of his own family. For, says Josephus, "it was also
during paroxysms of fury, that, nearly about the same time, he burned alive
Matthias and forty young men with him, who had pulled down the golden image
of the Roman eagle, which he had placed over the gate of the temple"
(Ant. XVII 7). Furthermore Josephus relates the following characteristic
action of Herod:
“He came again to Jericho,
where he became so choleric, that it brought him to do all things like a
madman; and though he was near death, yet he contrived the following wicked
designs: He commanded that all the principal men of the entire Jewish nation
be called to him. Accordingly there were a great number that came, because *
* * death was the penalty of such that should despise the epistles that were
sent to call them. And now the king was in a wild rage against them all; . .
. . and when they were come, he ordered them all to be shut up in the
hippodrome, and sent for his sister Salome and her husband Alexas, and spake
thus to them: ‘I shall die in a little time, so great are my pains; . . . . but what principally troubles me is this, that I shall die
without being lamented, and without such a mourning as men usually expect at
a king’s death.’ ”
Therefore, in order to insure that the nation should be
plunged into mourning, he left an order that, immediately upon his own death,
all those leaders of the Jews, whom he had confined in the hippodrome, should
be slain. That order, however, was not carried out.
|
|
45. And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace
between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end,
and none shall help him.
|
HIS PALACE AND HIS END
We have already pointed out that Herod placed his royal dwelling places
"in the glorious holy mountain," he having two palaces in Jerusalem,
one in the temple area, and the other in the upper city. So they were
"between the seas," that is, the Mediterranean
and the Dead Seas.
The last word of the prophecy concerning him is: "Yet he shall come
to his end, and none shall help him." As to this we cannot do better
than to quote Farquharson’s comment:
“This part of the prediction obviously implies that, in
his last hours, the king would apply for deliverance or remedy, from some
affliction or disease, but would receive none. And how literally was this
fulfilled in the end of Herod the Great! History has preserved to us few such
circumstantial accounts of the last days of remarkable men, as that which
Josephus has transmitted to us of his; but we deem it too long for insertion
here. It exhibits the most fearful picture to be found anywhere of the end of
an impenitent sinner, who, having cast out of his heart all fear of God and
all feeling of responsibility to Him, had equally lost all sense of duty to
man; and after committing innumerable crimes and cruelties—in which he spared
not those connected with him by the dearest and tenderest ties, any more than
others—was at last seized in his old age with a painful and loathsome
disease; and suffering alike from that, and from the pangs of guilty fear,
yet continued in a course of extreme wickedness to his last hour, seeking no
remedy for his evil passions, but exhausting all the resources of the
physician’s skill to mitigate his bodily distemper and lengthen out his
wretched life. We refer to Josephus for an account of the remedies and
expedients to which he had recourse by the advice of his physicians; all of
which failed to relieve or arrest the disease which cut him off while he was
meditating new crimes of matchless cruelty.”
Thus he came to his end, and none helped him. He died a
prey to horrible diseases, and to horrible remorse, just five days after he
had ordered the execution of his oldest son. We have deemed the matter of
sufficient importance to give to the explanation of this part of the chapter
(Da 11:36-45) a minute and
detailed examination. For we are convinced that the theory of a "break"
after verse 34 (or 35), involving the transference bodily of all the rest of
the prophecy (including the part contained in chapter 12) to a future day,
deranges all that part of the prophetic Word which it is important for us to
"understand" at the present time. Conversely, our belief is that,
with this important passage correctly settled, other things, which have been
involved in the general obscurity occasioned by the "break" theory,
will be cleared up. Indeed we shall not have to go very far to find practical
proof of this.
And now that we have reviewed the evidences which point to Herod the Great
as the "king" foretold in this passage, our wonder is that any
careful students of prophecy could have missed so plain a mark. For the
passage foretells that, at a definite point in Jewish history, namely, just
at the close of the Asmonean era, there should arise (what had not been in
Israel for nearly five hundred years) a "king"; and the character
and doings of this king (which are of a most unusual sort) are predicted in
strong and clear words. In perfect agreement with this, as fully recorded in
the Bible and in profane history, is the fact that, precisely at the point
indicated, there did arise one who became "king" over Daniel’s
people, which king had precisely the character, and did precisely the things
which the prophecy had foretold of him.
|
Let it be noted that at verse 35 we reach the end of the Asmonean era, as nearly
all commentators have clearly perceived. But the history of the renewed Jewish
nation did not end there, and neither does the prophecy end there. What was
next? In the history of the Jewish people the next and last stage was occupied
by a king, whose character was one of the most detestable, and whose doings
were among the most atrocious, of any that have been recorded in the annals of
the human race, he being, moreover, the only "king" over the Jewish
nation in all this long period of more than 500 years. In perfect agreement
with this we find that the next section of the prophecy, which also is the
last, is occupied with a description of the character and doings of one who is
simply designated as "the king." Furthermore, upon comparing the
records of history with the detailed statements of the prophecy, we find an
answer in each and every particular. We would not know where to look for a more
complete and literal fulfillment of prophecy.
Again we would point out that, considering the nature and purpose of this
prophecy, as divinely announced in chapter 10:14, and as manifested in verses 1
to 35 of chapter 11, it is simply impossible that "Herod the king"
should not have a place, and a prominent place, in it. And even so in fact we
find him there, just at the right place, and described with such detail and
accuracy as to make it an easier matter to identify him, when we have the facts
of history before us, than to identify any of the other notable characters to
whom the prophecy refers.
It would seem that, in regard to this exceedingly plain matter, some sound
and able teachers have been misled through having accepted the idea of a
"break" in the preceding prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, to which (as
we have pointed out) that of chapter 11 and 12 is a supplement. That made it
easy to surmise a similar "break" in chapter 11 when they came to a
personage whom, through their not having in mind the records of sacred and
profane history, they failed to identify. We are confident, however, that no unbiased
persons, after considering what we have presented above, will doubt that
"the king" whose portrait is given in this passage is Herod the
Great.