Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 11:40

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.

40. at the time of the end ] The final close of Antiochus’ reign. The expression denotes a period later than that of the persecutions described in Dan 11:35, which are to last ‘ until the time of the end.’

the king of the south ] would still be Ptolemy Philometor.

butt with him ] or, more exactly, shew himself one that butts, i.e. open a combat with him: the figure, as Dan 8:4.

and the king of the north, &c.] Antiochus will come against him like a whirlwind (for the figure, cf. Hab 3:14), with a vast armament.

and with many ships ] Antiochus possessed a navy, which in his expeditions against Egypt of b.c. 170 168, he used with good effect (cf. p. 180).

enter into the countries ] those viz. in his line of march.

overflow, and pass through ] like a flood (as Dan 11:10).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

40 45. The end of Antiochus. Antiochus, being attacked by the king of Egypt, will again conduct an expedition into Egypt, passing through Judah on the way; he will gain great successes, till interrupted by rumours from the East and North; and starting from Egypt on a fresh career of conquest and destruction will perish on the way between Jerusalem and the sea-coast. How far the events here described correspond to the reality is a very doubtful point. Our principal authorities mention no expedition into Egypt after the one of b.c. 168. What we know from other sources of the closing events of Antiochus’ life is as follows. In 167 b.c. he instituted at Daphne (near Antioch), in rivalry with those just celebrated by Aem. Paullus in Macedonia, a magnificent series of games, lasting 30 days. Soon after this, the Roman Senate, entertaining suspicions of his loyalty, sent Tiberius Gracchus to ascertain whether their suspicions were well-founded. Antiochus shewed himself quite master of the situation. He “received Tiberius so dexterously and amicably ( ) that the latter not only suspected no designs on his part, and could detect no trace of hostility on the score of what had happened at Alexandria, but even condemned those who made such allegations, on account of the extreme courtesy of his reception. For, besides other things, he gave up his palace, and almost even his crown, to the ambassadors, at least in appearance; for in reality, he was anything but prepared to make concessions to the Romans, and was, in fact, as hostile to them as possible” (Polyb. xxxi. 5). Although, however, Tiberius was satisfied of Antiochus’ sincerity, the suspicions of the Senate were not allayed: for reports reached it from other quarters that he was conspiring secretly with Eumenes of Pergamum against the Romans (Polyb. xxxi. 4 6, 9). In 166 he started on the expedition, in the course of which he met his death. Leaving Lysias to take charge of his provinces between Egypt and the Euphrates and to carry on the contest with Judas Maccabaeus, he crossed the Euphrates in this year for the East ( 1Ma 3:31-37 ), according to Dan 11:28-31, because he was in need of funds, and intended ‘to take the tributes of the countries, and to gather much money,’ according to the condensed statement in Tac. Hist. Dan 11:8 to war against the Parthians [389] . It was probably on this expedition that he subjugated Artaxias, king of Armenia, who had revolted (Diod. Sic. xxxi. 17 a, App. Syr. 45). While in Elymais (E. of Babylonia) he attempted unsuccessfully to pillage a temple; and soon afterwards died, after a short illness, at Tabae in Persia (N. of Susa), according to Polybius (xxxi. 11), ‘becoming mad ( ), as some say,’ in consequence of certain supernatural tokens of the anger of heaven on account of his attempted sacrilege, according to 1Ma 6:5-16 through disappointment and grief at hearing of the successes of the Jews against Lysias (in 2 Maccabees 9, the story of his death is told with legendary additions).

[389] ‘Rex Antiochus, demere superstitionem et mores Grcorum dare adnisus, quo minus teterrimam gentem in melius mutaret, Parthorum bello prohibitus est.’

Porphyry, however, as reported by Jerome in his notes on these verses, does speak of a fourth Egyptian expedition of Antiochus. He says that Antiochus invaded Egypt in his 11th year, passing through Judaea on the way, but not molesting Edom, Moab, and the Ammonites, lest the delay should give Ptolemy time to strengthen his forces; that while fighting in Egypt he was recalled by reports of wars in the North and East; that he accordingly returned, captured Arvad (in Phoenicia), and ravaged Phoenicia, and afterwards proceeded to the East against Artaxias, that, having defeated him, he fixed his tent at a place called Apedno, between the Tigris and the Euphrates, and finally that, after his attempted sacrilege in Persia, he died of grief at Tabae (as stated above). It is true, our accounts of Antiochus’ reign are incomplete, there being large gaps, especially in the parts of both Polybius and Livy which would naturally have contained particulars of his closing years. It is true also that, being, as Polybius tells us, unfriendly to the Romans, he might well have planned another campaign against their ally, Ptolemy [390] . But it is remarkable that no hint of any conquest ( Dan 11:43) of Egypt at this time has come down to us except through Jerome, the more so, since, as Prof. Bevan has remarked (p. 164), Egypt was now under Roman protection, so that an attack upon the country must at once have produced a war with Rome. The statement respecting the wealth of Antiochus in Dan 11:43, also conflicts with what we know independently respecting his great financial difficulties at the time. And when the account given by Porphyry is examined more closely, it is seen (except in the particulars which we know already from other sources) to be strongly open to the suspicion of being derived from these verses of Daniel. Apart from the statements that it took place in his 11th year (which, as it must have been shortly before his death, was a date easy to fix), and that Arvad was captured by him, it contains nothing which could not have been inferred from the language of Daniel, and indeed is couched largely in the expressions used by Daniel. And the mention of Apedno as the place where he pitched his tent, is based obviously upon a misunderstanding of the Hebrew word found in Dan 11:45. While, therefore, we are not in a position to deny categorically a fourth Egyptian campaign, the probabilities are certainly against it. Most likely the author draws here an imaginative picture of the end of the tyrant king, similar to the ideal one of the ruin of Sennacherib in Isa 10:28-32: he depicts him as successful where he had previously failed, viz. in Egypt; while reaping the spoils of his victories, he is called away by rumours from a distance; and then, just after he has set out on a further career of conquest and plunder, as he is approaching with sinister purpose the Holy City, he meets his doom.

[390] In Daniel, however, it is to be noted, it is the Egyptian king with whom the attack begins.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

And at the time of the end – See Dan 11:35. The time of the end must properly denote the end or consummation of the series of events under consideration, or the matter in hand, and properly and obviously means here the end or consummation of the transactions which had been referred to in the previous part of the vision. It is equivalent to what we should say by expressing it thus: at the winding up of the affair. In Dan 12:4, Dan 12:9, Dan 12:13, the word end, however, obviously refers to another close or consummation – the end or consummation of the affairs that reach far into the future – the final dispensation of things in this world. It has been held by many that this could not be understood as referring to Antiochus, because what is here stated did not occur in the close of his reign. Perhaps at first sight the most obvious interpretation of what is said in this and the subsequent verses to the end of the chapter would be, that, after the series of events referred to in the previous verses; after Antiochus had invaded Egypt, and had been driven thence by the fear of the Romans, he would, in the close of his reign, again attack that country, and bring it, and Libya, and AEthiopia into subjection Dan 11:43; and that when there, tidings out of the north should compel him to abandon the expedition and return again to his own land.

Porphyry (see Jerome, in loc.) says that this was so, and that Antiochus actually invaded Egypt in the eleventh year of his reign, which was the year before he died; and he maintains, therefore, that all this had a literal application to Antiochus, and that being so literally true, it must have been written after the events had occurred. Unfortunately the fifteen books of Porphyry are lost, and we have only the fragments of his works preserved which are to be found in the Commentary of Jerome on the book of Daniel. The statement of Porphyry, referred to by Jerome, is contrary to the otherwise universal testimony of history about the last days of Antiochus, and there are such improbabilities in the statement as to leave the general impression that Porphyry in this respect falsified history in order to make it appear that this must have been written after the events referred to. If the statement of Porphyry were correct, there would be no difficulty in applying this to Antiochus. The common belief, however, in regard to Antiochus is, that he did not invade Egypt after the series of events referred to above, and after he had been required to retire by the authority of the Roman ambassadors, as stated in the notes at Dan 11:30.

This belief accords also with all the probabilities of the case. Under these circumstances, many commentators have supposed that this portion of the chapter Dan 11:40-45 could not refer to Antiochus, and they have applied it to Anti-christ, or to the Roman power. Yet how forced and unnatural such an application must be, anyone can perceive by examining Newton on the Prophecies, pp. 308-315. The obvious, and perhaps it may be added the honest, application of the passage must be to Antiochus. This is that which would occur to any reader of the prophecy; this is what he would obviously hold to be the true application; and this is that only which would occur to anyone, unless it were deemed necessary to bend the prophecy to accommodate it to the history. Honesty and fairness, it seems to me, require that we should understand this as referring to the series of events which had been described in the previous portion of the chapter, and as designed to state the ultimate issue or close of the whole.

There will be no difficulty in this if we may regard these verses Dan 11:40-45 as containing a recapitulation, or a summing up of the series of events, with a statement of the manner in which they would close. If so interpreted all will be clear. It will then be a general statement of what would occur in regard to this remarkable transaction that would so materially affect the interests of religion in Judea, and be such an important chapter in the history of the world. This summing up, moreover, would give occasion to mention some circumstances in regard to the conquests of Antiochus which could not so well be introduced in the narrative itself, and to present, in few words, a summary of all that would occur, and to state the manner in which all would be terminated. Such a summing up, or recapitulation, is not uncommon, and in this way the impression of the whole would be more distinct.

With this view, the phrase and at the time of the end Dan 11:40 would refer, not so much to the time of the end of the reign of Antiochus, but to the time of the end of the whole series of the transactions referred to by the angel as recorded in the scripture of truth Dan 10:21, from the time of Darius the Mede Dan 11:1 to the close of the reign of Antiochus – a series of events embracing a period of some three hundred and fifty years. Viewed in reference to this long period, the whole reign of Antiochus, which was only eleven years, might be regarded as the time of the end. It was, indeed, the most disastrous portion of the whole period, and in this chapter it occupies more space than all that went before it – for it was to be the time of the peculiar and dreadful trial of the Hebrew people, but it was the end of the matter – the winding up of the series – the closing of the events on which the eye of the angel was fixed, and which were so important to be known beforehand. In these verses, therefore Dan 11:40-45, he sums up what would occur in what he here calls appropriately the time of the end – the period when the predicted termination of this series of important events should arrive – to wit, in the brief and eventful reign of Antiochus.

Shall the king of the south – The king of Egypt. See Dan 11:5-6, Dan 11:9.

Push at him – As in the wars referred to in the previous verse – in endeavoring to expel him from Coelo-Syria and Palestine, and from Egypt itself, Dan 11:25, Dan 11:29-30. See the note at those verses.

And the king of the north shall come against him – The king of Syria – Antiochus. Against the king of Egypt. He shall repeatedly invade his lands. See the notes above.

Like a whirlwind – As if he would sweep everything before him. This he did when he invaded Egypt; when he seized on Memphis, and the best portion of the land of Egypt, and when he obtained possession of the person of Ptolemy. See the notes at Dan 11:25-27.

With chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships – All this literally occurred in the successive invasions of Egypt by Antiochus. See the notes above.

And he shall enter into the countries – Into Coelo-Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and the adjacent lands.

And shall overflow and pass over – Like a flood he shall spread his armies over these countries. See the notes at Dan 11:22.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 40. At the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him] These kings are to be understood in reference to the times of which the prophet speaks. While the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria were subsisting, the king of the south and the north applied to them exclusively: but they did not exist at the time of which the prophet speaks; therefore other southern and northern powers must be sought. These we may find in the Saracens, who were of the Arabians, who came from the south, headed by the false prophet Mohammed, who pushed at him-made war on the Greek emperor Heraclius, and with amazing rapidity deprived him of Egypt, Syria, and many of his finest provinces.

And the king of the north] The Turks, who were originally Scythians, seized on the remains of the Greek empire; and in process of time rendered themselves masters of the whole. They are represented as coming like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen; their armies being chiefly composed of cavalry.

And with many ships] With these they got possession of many islands and maritime countries; and were so powerful in their fleets, that they entirely defeated the Venetians; and at last their fleets became of the utmost consequence to them in besieging, and afterwards taking, Constantinople, A.D. 1453, which they hold to the present day. So they entered into the countries, and overflowed, rendering themselves masters of all Asia Minor and Greece.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

At the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him; in the last times, towards the end of the world, for it cannot be true of Antiochus, who died the eleventh year of his reign, and these things are joined to the last resurrection Dan 12:2. Therefore some understand the Turk and Saracen, who is without the church, as antichrist before mentioned sat in the temple; he extending his dominions into Asia and Africa, will be a great stop to antichrists proceedings and encroachments.

The king of the north shall come, & c., i.e. The Turk from the north shall invade, and run down the Saracen. Mede.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

40. The difficulty ofreconciling this with Antiochus’ history is that no historian butPORPHYRY mentions anexpedition of his into Egypt towards the close of his reign.This Da 11:40, therefore, maybe a recapitulation summing up the facts of the first expedition toEgypt (171-170 B.C.), inDan 11:22; Dan 11:25;and Da 11:41, the formerinvasion of Judea, in Da 11:28;Dan 11:42; Dan 11:43,the second and third invasions of Egypt (169 and 168 B.C.)in Dan 11:23; Dan 11:24;Dan 11:29; Dan 11:30.AUBERLEN takes ratherPORPHYRY’S statement, thatAntiochus, in the eleventh year of his reign (166-165 B.C.),invaded Egypt again, and took Palestine on his way. The “tidings”(Da 11:44) as to the revolt oftributary nations then led him to the East. PORPHYRY’Sstatement that Antiochus starting from Egypt took Arad in Judah, anddevastated all Phoelignicia, agrees with Da11:45; then he turned to check Artaxias, king of Armenia. He diedin the Persian town Tabes, 164 B.C.,as both POLYBIUS andPORPHYRY agree. Doubtless,antitypically, the final Antichrist, and its predecessor Mohammed,are intended, to whom the language may be more fully applicable thanto Antiochus the type. The Saracen Arabs “of the south””pushed at” the Greek emperor Heraclius, and deprived himof Egypt and Syria. But the Turks of “the north” not merelypushed at, but destroyed the Greek empire; therefore more issaid of them than of the Saracens. Their “horsemen” arespecified, being their chief strength. Their standards still arehorse tails. Their “ships,” too, often gained thevictory over Venice, the great naval power of Europe in that day.They “overflowed” Western Asia, and then “passed over”into Europe, fixing their seat of empire at Constantinople underMohammed II [NEWTON].

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And at the time of the end,…. At the end of the time appointed of God, when antichrist is arrived to the height of his power and authority:

shall the king of the south push at him; not Philometor king of Egypt; nor is Antiochus meant in the next clause by the king of the north; for, after he was required by the Romans to quit the land of Egypt, there was no more war between him and the king of Egypt; rather therefore the Saracens are meant by the king of the south, as Mr. Mede y and Cocceius think, who came from the south, from Arabia Felix: and so Gravius interprets it of the king or caliph of the Saracens, and his successors; who, extending their empire through Asia and Africa, repressed the attempts of the Roman antichrist affecting primacy in the east; and this way goes Mr. Mede, who takes them to be the same with the locusts in Re 9:3, that distressed antichrist:

and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind; not Antiochus, as before observed; but either emperors, kings, and Christian princes, the chief of which was Godfrey of Bullain, who was crowned king of Jerusalem, as Cocceius: or the Turks, as Jacchiades, so Mr. Brightman on the place, and Mr. Mede; who were originally Tartars or Scythians, and came from the north, the same with the horsemen at Euphrates, Re 9:15, who also came against antichrist; for he seems to be the “him” they both came against; both the king of the south, and the king of the north, the two woes that came upon Christendom the Saracens are the first woe, and the Turks the second; and who chiefly afflicted the antichristian states, and came like a whirlwind upon them, suddenly, swiftly, and with great rapidity and force:

with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; which well agrees with the Turks, whose armies chiefly consist of horse:

and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow, and pass over; into the countries belonging to antichrist; particularly the Greek or eastern empire; which they overran like a flood, seized it for themselves, and set up an empire for themselves, which still continues; as well as entered into some parts of Europe, and did much damage.

y Works, B. 3. p. 674.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The last Undertakings of the Hostile King, and His End

By the words , which introduce these verses, the following events are placed in the time of the end. Proceeding from the view that the whole of the second half of this chapter (vv. 21-45) treats of Antiochus and his undertakings, most modern interpreters find in the verses the prophecy of a last expedition of this Syrian king against Egypt, and quote in support of this view the words of Jerome: Et haec Porphyrius ad Antiochum refert, quod undecimo anno regni sui rursus contra sororis filium, Ptolem. Philometorem dimicaverit, qui audiens venire Antiochum congregaverit multa populorum millia, sed Antiochus quasi tempestas valida in curribus et in equitibus et in classe magna ingressus sit terras plurimas et transeundo universa vastaverit, veneritque ad Judaeam et arcem munierit de ruinis murorum civitatis et sic perrexerit in Aegyptum . But regarding this expedition not only are historians silent, but the supposition of such a thing stands in irreconcilable contradiction to the historical facts regarding the last undertakings of Antiochus. According to 1 Macc. 3:27ff., Antiochus, on receiving tidings of the successful insurrection of the Maccabees, and of the victory which Judas had won, since he found that money was wanting to him to carry on the war, resolved to return to Persia, “there to collect the tribute of the countries” (1 Macc. 3:31); and after he had made Lysias governor, he delivered to him the one half of his army, that he might with it “destroy and root out the strength of Israel,” and with the other half departed from Antioch and crossed the Euphrates into the high countries, i.e., the high-lying countries on the farther side of the Euphrates (1 Macc. 3:33-37). There he heard of the great treasures of a rich city in Persia, and resolved to fall upon this city and to take its treasures; but as the inhabitants received notice of the king’s intention, he was driven back and compelled to return to Babylon, having accomplished nothing. On his return he heard in Persia the tidings of the overthrow of Lysias in a battle with the Maccabees, and of the re-erection of the altar of Jehovah at Jerusalem; whereupon he was so overcome with terror and dismay, that he fell sick and died (1 Macc. 6:1-16). The historical truth of this report is confirmed by Polybius, who mentions ( Fragm. xxxi. 11) that Antiochus, being in difficulty for want of money, sought to spoil the temple of Artemis and Elymas, and in consequence of the failure of his design he fell ill at Tabae in Persia, and there died. By these well-established facts the supposition of an invasion of Egypt by Antiochus in the eleventh, i.e., the last year of his reign, is excluded. The Romans also, after they had already by their intervention frustrated his design against Egypt, would certainly have prevented a new war, least of all would they have permitted an entire subjugation of Egypt and the south, which we must accept after Dan 11:42, Dan 11:43. Besides, the statement made by Porphyry shows itself to be destitute of historical validity by this, that according to it, Antiochus must have made the assault against Egypt, while on the contrary, according to the prophecy, Dan 11:40, the king of the south begins the war against the king of the north, and the latter, in consequence of this attack, passes through the lands with a powerful host and subdues Egypt.

For these reasons, therefore, v. Lengerke, Maurer, and Hitzig have abandoned the statement of Porphyry as unhistorical, and limited themselves to the supposition that the section (Dan 11:40-45) is only a comprehensive repetition of that which has already been said regarding Antiochus Epiphanes, according to which “the time of the end” (Dan 11:40) denotes not the near time of the death of Antiochus, but generally the whole period of this king. But this is, when compared with Dan 11:27, Dan 11:35, impossible. If thus, according to Dan 11:35, the tribulation with which the people of God shall be visited by the hostile king for their purification shall last till the time of the end, then the time of the end to which the prophecies of Dan 11:40-45 fall cannot designate the whole duration of the conduct of this enemy, but only the end of his reign and of his persecutions, in which he perishes (Dan 11:40). On the contrary, the reference to Dan 8:17 avails nothing, because there also has the same meaning as here, i.e., it denotes the termination of the epoch referred to, and is there only made a more general expression by means of than here, where by and the connection with Dan 11:35 the end is more sharply defined. To this is to be added, that the contents of Dan 11:40-45 are irreconcilable with the supposition that in them is repeated in a comprehensive form what has already been said of Antiochus, for here something new is announced, something of which nothing has been said before. This even Maurer and Hitzig have not been able to deny, but have sought to conceal as much as possible, – Maurer by the remark: res a scriptore iterum ac saepius pertractatas esse, extremam vero manum operi defuisse ; and Hitzig by various turnings – ”as it seems,” “but is not more precisely acknowledged,” “the fact is not elsewhere communicated” – which are obviously mere make-shifts.

Thus Dan 11:40-45 do not apply to Antiochus Epiphanes, but, with most ancient interpreters, they refer only to the final enemy of the people of God, the Antichrist. This reference has been rightly vindicated by Kliefoth. We cannot, however, agree with him in distinguishing this enemy in Dan 11:40 from the king of the south and of the north, and in understanding this verse as denoting “ that at the time of this hostile king, which shall be the time of the end, the kings of the south as well as of the north shall attack him, but that he shall penetrate into their lands and overthrow them.” Without taking into account the connection, this interpretation is not merely possible, but it is even very natural to refer the suffix in and in to one and the same person, namely, to the king who has hitherto been spoken of, and who continues in Dan 11:40-45 to be the chief subject. But the connection makes this reference impossible. It is true, indeed, that the suffix in refers without doubt to this king, but the suffix in can be referred only to the king of the south named immediately before, who pushes at him, because the king against whom the king of the south pushes, and of whom mention is made vv. 21-39, is not only distinctly designated as the king of the north (Dan 11:13-21), but also, according to Dan 11:40-43, he advances from the north against the Holy Land and against Egypt; thus also, according to Dan 11:40-43, must be identical with the king of the north. In Dan 11:40-43 we do not read of a war of the hostile king against the king of the south and the king of the north. The words in which Kliefoth finds indications of this kind are otherwise to be understood.

Dan 11:40

If we now more closely look into particulars, we find that is not the end of the hostile king, but, as in Dan 11:27, Dan 11:35, the end of the present world-period, in which also, it is true, occurs the end of this king ( , Dan 11:45). For the figurative expression ( shall push), cf. Dan 8:4. In the word there lies the idea that the king of the south commences the war, makes an aggression against the hostile king. In the second clause the subject is more precisely defined by “the king of the north” for the sake of distinctness, or to avoid ambiguity, from which it thence follows that the suffix in refers to the king of the south. If the subject were not named, then “the king of the south” might have been taken for it in this clause. The words, “with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships,” are an oratorical exemplification of the powerful war-host which the king of the north displayed; for the further statement, “he presses into the countries, overflows and passes over” ( as Dan 11:10), does not agree with the idea of a fleet, but refers to land forces. The plur. ( into the countries) does not at all agree with the expedition of a Syrian king against Egypt, since between Syria and Egypt there lay one land, Palestine; but it also does not prove that “the south-land and the north-land, the lands of the kings of the south and of the north, are meant” (Klief.), but it is to be explained from this, that the north, from which the angry king comes in his fury against the king of the south, reached far beyond Syria. The king of the north is thought of as the ruler of the distant north.

Dan 11:41

Penetrating into the countries and overflowing them with his host, he comes into the glorious land, i.e., Palestine, the land of the people of God. See at Dan 11:16 and Dan 8:9. “And many shall be overthrown.” is not neuter, but refers to , Dan 11:40. For “that the whole lands are meant, represented by their inhabitants (cf. The verb masc. [ shall be overthrown ]), proceeds from the exceptions of which the second half of the verse makes mention” (Kran.). The three peoples, Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, are represented as altogether spared, because, as Jerome has remarked, they lay in the interior, out of the way of the line of march of Antiochus to Egypt (v. Leng., Hitzig, and others). This opinion Hitzig with justice speaks of as altogether superficial, since Antiochus would not have omitted to make war against them, as e.g., his father overcame the Ammonites in war (Polyb. v. 71), if they had not given indubitable proofs of their submission to him. Besides, it is a historical fact that the Edomites and Ammonites supported Antiochus in his operations against the Jews (1 Macc. 5:3-8; 4:61); therefore Maurer remarks, under ( they shall escape): eorum enim in oppremendis Judaeis Antiochus usus est auxilio . But since the king here spoken of is not Antiochus, this historizing interpretation falls of itself to the ground. There is further with justice objected against it, that at the time of Antiochus the nation of Moab no longer existed. After the Exile the Moabites no longer appear as a nation. They are only named (Neh 13:1 and Ezr 9:1), in a passage cited from the Pentateuch, along with the Philistines and the Hittites, to characterize the relations of the present after the relations of the time of Moses. Edom, Moab, and Ammon, related with Israel by descent, are the old hereditary and chief enemies of this people, who have become by name representatives of all the hereditary and chief enemies of the people of God. These enemies escape the overthrow when the other nations sink under the power of the Antichrist. ‘ , “the firstling of the sons of Ammon,” i.e., that which was most valued or distinguished of the Ammonites as a first-fruit, by which Kranichfeld understands the chief city of the Ammonites. More simply others understand by the expression, “the flower of the people, the very kernel of the nation;” cf. Num 24:20; Amo 6:1; Jer 49:35. The expression is so far altogether suitable as in the flower of the people the character of the nation shows itself, the enmity against the people of God is most distinctly revealed; but in this enmity lies the reason for this people’s being spared by the enemy of God.

Dan 11:42

The stretching forth of his hand upon the countries is a sign expressive of his seizing them, taking possession of them, for which he falls upon them. are not other countries besides those which, according to Dan 11:40, he overflowed (Klief.), but the same. Of these lands Egypt is specially noticed in Dan 11:42 as the most powerful, which had hitherto successfully withstood the assaults of the king of the north, but which in the time of the end shall also be overthrown. Egypt, as the chief power of the south, represents the mightiest kingdoms of the earth. ( and there shall not be for an escape), expressive of complete overthrow, cf. Joe 2:3; Jer 50:29.

Dan 11:43

Along with the countries all their treasures fall into the possession of the conqueror, and also all the allies of the fallen kingdom shall be compelled to submit to him. The genitive belongs not merely to ( precious things), but to all the before-named objects. ( at his steps) = , Jdg 4:10, denotes the camp-followers, but not as mercenary soldiers (v. Leng., Hitz.). The Lybians and Cushites represent all the allies of the Egyptians (cf. Eze 30:5; Nah 3:9), the most southern nations of the earth.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

As to the time here mentioned, it is a certain or predetermined period’ the kings of the south and the north we have already shewn to refer to Egypt and Syria, such being their position with respect to Judea. The word נגח neech, confliget, is literally he shall “push with the horns,” while the word translated, “he shall rush as a whirlwind,” is deduced from שער segner, “to be stormy.” The angel here predicts the numerous victories by means of which the Romans should extend their empire far and wide, although not without great difficulties and dangers. He states, The king of the south should carry on war with the Romans for a definite period I dare not fix the precise time intended by the angel. So great was the power of Egypt, that had the kings of that country relied upon their native resources, they might have summoned courage to make war upon the Romans. Gabinius the proconsul led his army there for the sake of restoring Ptolemy. He expelled Archelaus without much trouble, and then like a mercenary he risked his life and his fame there, as well as his army. Caesar was in danger there, after vanquishing Pompey; then Antony next made war upon Augustus, assisted by the forces of Cleopatra; then Egypt put forth all her strength, and at his failure was reduced herself to a province of Rome. The angel did not propose to mark a continued series of times, but only briefly to admonish the faithful to stand firm amidst those most grievous concussions which were then at hand. Whatever be the precise meaning, the angel doubtless signified the difficult nature of the struggle between the Romans and the Egyptians. I have already stated the witness of history to the fact, that the Egyptians never made war against the Romans in their own name; sometimes events were so confused that the Egyptians coalesced with the Syrians, and then we must read the words conjointly — thus the king of the south, assisted by the king of the north, should carry on war with the Romans. The angel thus shews us how the king of Syria should furnish greater forces and supplies than the Egyptian monarch, and this really happened at the beginning of the triumvirate. He states next, The king of the south should come with chariots and horses and many ships. Nor is it necessary here to indicate the precise period, since the Romans carried on many wars in the east, during which they occupied Asia, while a part of Libya fell to them by the will of its king without arms or force of any kind.

With reference to these two kingdoms which have been so frequently mentioned, many chiefs ruled over Syria within a short period. First one of the natives was raised to the throne and then another, till the people grew tired of them, and transferred the sovereignty to strangers. Then Alexander rose gradually to power, and ultimately acquired very great fame: he was not of noble birth, for his father was of unknown origin. This man sprang from an obscure family, and at one period possessed neither authority nor resources. He was made king of Syria, because he pretended to be the son of Seleucus, and was slain immediately, while his immediate successor reigned for but a short period. Thus Syria passed over to the Romans on the death of this Seleucus. Tigranes the king of Armenia was then sent for, and he was made ruler over Syria till Lucullus conquered him, and Syria was reduced to a province. The vilest of men reigned over Egypt. Physcon, who was restrained by the Romans when attempting to wrest Syria from the power of its sovereign, was exceedingly depraved both in body and mind and hence he obtained this disgraceful appellation. For the word is a Greek one, equivalent to the French andouille; for physce means that thicker intestine into which the others are usually inserted. This deformity gave rise to his usual name, signifying “pot-bellied,” implying both bodily deformity and likeness to the brutes, while he was not endowed with either intellect or ingenuity. The last king who made the Romans his son’s guardians, received the name of Auletes, and Cicero uses this epithet of “flute-player,” because he was immoderately fond of this musical instrument In each kingdom then there was horrible deformity, since those who exercised the royal authority were more like dogs or swine than mankind. Tigranes, it is well known, gave the Romans much trouble. On the other side, Mithridates occupied their attention for a very long period, and with various and opposite success. The Romans throughout all Asia were at one period put to the sword, and when a close engagement was fought, Mithridates was often superior, and he afterwards united his forces with those of Tigranes, his father-in-law. When Tigranes held Armenia, he was a king of other kings, and afterwards added to his dominions a portion of Syria. At length when the last Antiochus was set over the kingdom of Syria by Lucullus, he was removed from his command by the orders of Pompey, and then, as we have stated, Syria became a province of Rome. Pompey crossed the sea, and subdued the whole of Judea as well as Syria’ he afterwards entered the Temple, and took away some part of its possessions, but spared the sacred treasures. Crassus succeeded him — an insatiable whirlpool, who longed for this province for no other reason than his unbounded eagerness for wealth. He despoiled the Temple at Jerusalem; and lastly, after Cleopatra was conquered, Egypt lost its royal race, and passed into a Roman province. If the Romans, had conquered a hundred other provinces, the angel would not have mentioned them here; for I have previously noticed his special regard to the chosen people. Therefore he dwells only on those slaughters which had more or less relation to the wretched Jews. First of all he predicts the great contest which should arise between the kings of Egypt and Syria, who should come on like a whirlwind, while the Romans should rush upon the lands like a deluge, and pass over them. He compares the king of Syria to a whirlwind, for at first he should rush on impetuously, filling both land and sea with his forces. Thus he should possess a well-manned fleet, and thus excite fresh terrors, and yet vanish away rapidly like a whirlwind. But the Romans are compared to a deluge. The new king of whom he had spoken should come, says he, and overflow, burying all the forces of both Egypt and Syria; implying the whole foundations of both realms should be swept away when the Romans passed over them. He shall pass over, he says; meaning, wherever they come, the way shall be open for them and nothing closed against them. He will repeat this idea in another form. He does not speak now of one region only, but says, they should come over the lands, implying a wide-spread desolation, while no one should dare to oppose them by resisting their fury.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

HOMILETICS

SECT. XLII.SARACENS AND TURKS. (Chap. Dan. 11:40-45.)

Considerable obscurity connected with the present section. According to some, it is a continuation of the prophecy regarding the vile person or Antiochus Epiphanes, here still styled the King of the North. Thus viewed, the prophecy points to a last expedition against Egypt made after those previously mentioned; an expedition, however, of which history gives no intimation, but the reverse. [330] In the opinion of many evangelical expositors, the passage foretells the rise and doings of another power, of which, however, Antiochus was also a type. That power was the Mohammedan, first under the Saracens and subsequently the Turks; a power already noticed as an antitype of Antiochus, predicted as the little horn in the vision of the Ram and He-goat, chap. 8. Historically, it was that power that in the eastern portion of the empire succeeded the Roman, and became a scourge both to the Jews and to the Christian Church. In the prophecy also the section appears to connect itself with the prediction regarding the Roman empire and its representative, the Papacy. Thus viewing it, we notice

[330] Brightman observes that this part of the prophecy cannot apply to Antiochus, as he can find no mention in any author of a third expedition by him into Egypt. He thinks that neither the authors of the books of the Maccabees nor Josephus would have been likely to omit to mention it, had there been any such; the latter, indeed, stating that nothing at all was attempted by Antiochus against that country after his expulsion by the Romans till his death in Persia. Justin relates that after the check he received from the Roman consul Popilius, he died as soon as he returned to his own kingdom. Sending Lysias, his general, into Syria, he himself went into Persia, where he died. Keil also, with V. Lengerke, Maurer, and Hitzig, considers the idea of a last expedition of Antiochus against Egypt in this passage, not only unsupported by history, but in irreconcilable contradiction to the historical facts regarding his last undertakings.

I. The time referred to. That the prophecy points to a time far beyond that of Antiochus would seem to be intimated in the words with which the section commences: In the time of the end. This probably the end already referred to as the time when the indignation against Israel is to be accomplished (Dan. 11:35), the latter period of the fourth and last empire, the time, times, and half a time of the Little Horn. It is according to the Book of Revelation the time of the three last of the seven trumpets, called the three woes; this power being the fifth and sixth, the former under the Saracens, and the latter the Turks, followed by the seventh, which announces the end or finishing of the mystery of God, when the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of the Lord and of His Christ, and when He takes to Himself His great power and reigns (Rev. 9:1-21; Rev. 10:7; Rev. 11:15-18). This time of the end might, as it has done, extend over centuries, being the duration of the last period of Israels chastisement, and at the same time the chastisement of the Christian Churches. [331]

[331] The time of the end. Bright-man thinks that, as the Romans did nothing in particular against the Jews after Adrian, the prophecy passes on to the time of the weakened and decayed empire, when the Saracens, under Mahomet, encountered them, as the king of the South, a.d. 630, when they took from the Romans, in about thirty years, Jerusalem, all Syria, Africa, and Asia; the king of the North being the Turks, whose tyranny especially lay against the Romans from the year a.d. 1300. So Joseph Mede, who is followed by most modern evangelical expositors, considers the time of the end to be the last times of the Romans, and the king of the South the Saracens under Mahomet; while the king of the North is the Turks from Scythia in the far north, another Antichristian power who should attack and overcome the Saracens.

II. The parties predicted. These are twofold, designated according to the phraseology already employed in the former part of the prophecy in relation to two other powers, namely, the kings of the North and of the South. Formerly these terms were applied to the kings of Syria and of Egypt, the most prominent parties in that part of the vision, and so called from their situation in relation to Judea. Now, in the latter part of the prophecy, in the time of the end, they appear to mark the Saracens and the Turks, the latter rising in Scythia, to the north, and the former in Arabia, to the south of Palestine, and hence with equal truth designated the kings of the North and of the South. [332] These powers appear to be represented as acting against that previously predicted, namely, the Roman empire and its representative, the Papacy or Little Horn. They are apparently introduced as the power that was to check and weaken the Wilful King. The Turkish armies, which chiefly consisted of cavalry, appear to be pointed out in the prophecy, which represents the king of the North as coming like a great whirlwind, with chariots and with horsemen. They are said also to have many ships, without which, as Bishop Newton remarks, they could not have vanquished Venice, or taken Constantinople, Rhodes, Cyprus, or Crete. The description corresponds with that of the Euphratean horsemen, generally understood to represent the Turkish power. The number of the army of the horsemen was two hundred thousand thousand (Rev. 9:14-16). This Euphratean power appearing under the sixth trumpet, or in the time of the end, is also represented as having their appointed period of rise and duration, being prepared for (or, as in the margin, at) an hour and a day, and a month and a year (R.V., for the hour and day and month and year), to slay the third part of men. The application of the king of the North to the Turkish power confirms that of the king of the South to the Saracens, their predecessors; that power being, according to general opinion, predicted in the locust army or first woe, which after five months, or a century and a half, of mischief, was to be succeeded by the second, or horsemen from the Euphrates (Rev. 9:3-10).

[332] Bishop Newton, agreeing with Mede, observes that the terms North and South are to be taken and explained according to the times of which the prophet is speaking. Dr. Cox observes: The sovereignties of Egypt and Syria, before called the king of the South and the king of the North, disappeared when they were absorbed in the Roman empire; and the new powers, or the Saracen and Turkish empires that succeeded, are now brought into view. But let it be observed that the Saracens became masters of Egypt, the original territory of the king of the South, and the Turks possessed Syria, or the kingdom of the North, and still retain it. Calvin, who considers the power previously introduced, viz., the Romans, to be still described, thinks that the king of the South or Egypt, assisted by the king of the North or Syria, was to carry on war with the Romans, who are here compared to a deluge which should come and overflow, burying all the forces both of Egypt and Syria, and should also invade Judea. Junius and Willet think that the king of the North is still Antiochus, who should come up against the king of the South or Egypt, viz., Philometor, in order to aid his brother Physcon. Bullinger, like Mede and Brightman, understands by the kings of the North and South the Turks. and Saracens. Pfaff and Osiander thought the king of the North to be Antichrist, and the king of the South to be Christ Himself. Roman Catholic writers after Jerome, as well the Futurists, refer the passage to an infidel Antichrist who is yet to arise, and to the last conflicts in the land of Judea, Antichrist being here the king of the North. Kliefoth thinks that the prophecy relates to Antichrist, whom he distinguishes from the kings of the North and South, both of whom will in the time of the end attack him. Keil considers the first him to refer to the hostile king, the chief subject of the prophecy, but the second him, against whom the king of the North comes, to be the king of the South named immediately before; the king of the North, however, being the hostile king himself, thought of as the ruler of the distant North, reaching far beyond Syria, from which in his fury he comes against the king of the South.

III. The doings of the parties. Those of the Turkish power or king of the North mainly described.

1. The king of the South shall push at him (Dan. 11:40). Mr. Birks remarks: The Saracens, however wide their other conquests, did really push, with furious vehemence, against the papal dominions, whether we interpret them in a narrower sense of St. Peters patrimony, or more widely of the nations in communion with the See of Rome. How violent their inroads on the Western nations at large, till their defeat by Charles Martel, is known to the most cursory reader of history or romance. He quotes Gibbon, who says: A fleet of Saracens from the African coast presumed to enter the mouth of the Tiber, and to approach a city which even yet, in her fallen state, was revered as the metropolis of the Christian world. The African coast marks the invaders as a power from the South.

2. The king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind with chariots, &c. History decides what the construction seems to leave uncertain, whether the attack of the king of the North was to be directed against the same power pushed at by the king of the South, or against the king of the South himself. We read of the attacks made by hordes of Turkish cavalry, first on the provinces of the Eastern empire, and then on the papal kingdoms of the West, as if following in the steps of the Saracens. Gibbon, speaking of the conquests of Togrul and Alp Arslan, says: The Asiatic provinces of Rome were irretrievably sacrificed. After overthrowing the Greek empire, by means of their horsemen and their ships, they directed their attack on the West, more particularly predicted in the words, He shall enter into the countries, and overflow, and pass over. Mr. Birks remarks: These words aptly describe the first passage of the Turks into Europe. They had already entered into the countries of Asia Minor, and established themselves there as kings of the North. But they were not restrained within these narrow bounds. The results of this first overflow of the Turks into Europe are too well known, and too legible on the map of Europe for centuries, to require further details. He observes that Sismondi describes Italy and the pope as the true objects, at that time, of the Turkish aggression; and quotes Gibbon, who says: The grief and terror of the Latins revived, or seemed to revive, the old enthusiasm of the crusades. The devastation advanced towards the West, and every year saw a new kingdom fall. These attacks of the king of the North, like those of his predecessor, were the divinely appointed chastisement of the idolatry which had already found so large a place in the Christian churches. The words of the Sultan Mahomet II., read in connection with Rev. 9:20, at once show this to have been the case, and to confirm the view of this power being identical with the second woe and the king of the North: I will not turn my face from the west to the east, till I overthrow and tread under the feet of my horses the gods of the nations; these gods of wood, of brass, of silver, and of gold, or of painting, which the disciples of Christ have made with their hands,as if he had read the passage above referred to,and the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues, yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils (demons, or departed spirits), and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood.

3. He (the king of the North) shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape out of his hand, Edom, Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon (Dan. 11:41). No question as to what is meant by the glorious land here and in Dan. 11:16. Palestine or Syria, the tract lying between the Mediterranean and the Euphrates, has been more favoured by nature, and is more richly stored with the various delights of climate, of soil, and of scenery, than any other space of equal extent on the surface of the globe. Were one asked to point to that region of the earth which is the happiest in respect of natural conditions, it is to this tract that he would turn. The glory and beauty, however, were more especially in the manifested presence and gracious goings of Him who deigned to call it peculiarly His own land. Into that land the victorious Turks entered in 1517, and left, as the trace of their presence and conquest, the present grey walls that surround Jerusalem, erected by the Sultan Suliman in 1542, the land continuing in the possession of the Turks to this day. [333] Those here said to escape out of his hand are Bedouin tribes of Arabia, who, as sons of Ishmael, still make good the prediction of Gen. 16:12; whom the Turks have never been able entirely to subdue; and to whom, ever since the time when the Sultan Selim conquered the adjoining countries, they have paid an annual pension for the safe passage of the pilgrims to Mecca. It might seem strange, as Calvin remarks, and not a little trying to the covenant people, to learn that while they and their country, which God had given to Abraham and his seed, and which He had promised to watch over, should be invaded by this hostile power, those other countries, inhabited by their hereditary enemies, should be permitted to escape, and to remain in peace and safety. But they might remember the words of the prophet, You only have I known of all the nations of the earth, therefore I will punish you for your iniquities. Egypt, however, was not to escape (Dan. 11:42-43). Selim, among his other conquests, put an end to the government of the Mamelukes, and established in its stead that of the Turks, who continue to this day, as Bishop Newton remarks, to drain immense treasures out of that rich and fertile but oppressed and wretched country. That it is held now by a Khedive or viceroy, only another evidence that the reign of the Turk is drawing to its close. With Egypt, the chief power in the south, should also fall the other nations of Africa,the Libyans and the Ethiopians or Cushites, still farther to the south, who should become the obsequious followers of his march (Jdg. 4:10), but who also now give evidence to the drying up of the great river Euphrates (Rev. 16:12).

[333] Brightman observes that the Sultan Selim, about the year 1514, on his way to Egypt, took his journey by Judea, and carried Jerusalem by assault. Edom, or in general, Arabia, the Turks did not attack, being content to open themselves a way to Egypt through Syria and Palestine, which in the following year they brought under their subjection.

4. 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; and he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain (Dan. 11:44-45). The tidings out of the east and the north which shall disturb this victorious power in the midst of his conquests in the Holy Land and the adjacent countries, are such, doubtless, as would inform him of risings among the subdued nations, or invasions from other quarters, which should endanger his acquisitions, or perhaps his own dominions. [334] These tidings should arouse his indignation and draw him from Africa, where he appears then to be, again to Palestine, where he would seem to encamp at Jerusalem, the metropolis of the country, pitching his tent on the glorious holy mountain, between the seas, the Mediterranean on the one side and the Dead Sea on the other, [335] his purpose being, like that of his Syrian type, to wreak his vengeance on the people by their utter destruction. [336] How the Turks took and retained possession of Jerusalem we have already seen. It is scarcely likely that the doings of Sultan Selim in reference to that city are here referred to; history only relating concerning him that, having been greatly annoyed by the arrows of the wild Arabs from the hills in the south, he advanced towards Gaza, and thence to Rama, where he revenged himself on the habitations, wives, and children of the Arabs, and soon after turned aside with his cavalry to visit Jerusalem. It is more than probable that, as it is there that this hostile power is to come to his end, the prophecy has not yet received its fulfilment. Probably another power is first to come upon the stage. [337]

[334] Tidings from the east and from the north. Bishop Newton thinks that Persia in the east, and Russia in the north, of the Ottoman empire, may be the quarters from which the tidings referred to may come, and that these nations may hereafter be made the instruments of divine Providence in the restoration of the Jews; quoting a current tradition among the common people in Turkey, that their empire shall at some period be destroyed by the Russians. Pfaff and Osiander, understanding the passage of the Roman Antichrist, regarded the tidings as those of the breaking out of the Reformation, and the preaching of the Gospel in Germany. Melanchthon understood it of the Turks, whose rage the Lord should stay from heaven when no human force could resist them. Bright-man, writing in the seventeenth century, observes that the things hitherto predicted are already past; those which follow, to the end of the chapter, are still to come. No tidings from the east troubled Antiochus, nor the Romans after the battle of Cann: nor did the Romans plant their tabernacles in Judea. He thinks the tidings out of the east and north that shall trouble the Turk, is the conversion of the Jews according to Rev. 16:12, which brings him in great fury to the Holy Land, where he is to perish.

[335] He shall plant the tabernacles Of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain. Mr. Birks inclines to think, with Melanchthon, that in so far as the Turkish power is viewed as the subject of the present prophecy, Constantinople is the place referred to as the glorious holy mountain, or, as he says the words might be rendered, a mountain of holy delight; the occupying of that place as the seat of empire being the main event of the history between the time of the conquest of Egypt by the Turks and their final overthrow. Regarding the king of the North, however, as the Antichrist yet to arise, he thinks Palestine and Jerusalem the places intended, whither he will lead the confederate nations of Europe, the power of Russia, and the districts held long before by the king of the North. Dr. Cox thinks the passage intimates that the Turk will plant his tabernacles, or fix his encampment, in the Holy Land at Jerusalem, between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean; and that there, having enjoyed a termporary triumph, he will experience a signal and fatal overthrow. He adds, Whether the Russian and Persian powers are destined to inflict the providential visitation, as many have supposed, must be left to the disclosures of futurity. Keil thinks that the expression (nata), plant, probably alludes to the great palace-like tent of the Oriental ruler, whose poles must be struck very deep into the earth; these tents being surrounded by a multitude of smaller ones for the guards and servants, which accounts for the use of the plural, tabernacles or tents. He renders the words (har tsebhi-qodhesh), the holy hill of the delight, i.e., of Palestine; and considers it to be the hill on which the Temple stood. He disagrees with Kliefoth and others, who think that the seas are the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea; and regards the word seas as only the poetic plural of fulness for the great Mediterranean. The term (aphadhno), his palace, as our own and Luthers version render it, has been variously understood. Theodotion and the Vulgate leave it untranslated, while the Septuagint omits it altogether. Porphyry understood it to be the name of a place, and Junius regards it as that of the country of Mesopotamia or Syria, the seas being its fens or marshes. Jerome renders it his stable, as referring to cavalry. Calvin has his palace, as indicating a permanent abode fixed by the Romans in those countries. The word is used by the Rabbins in the sense of a palace. Dr. Pusey remarks that this is one of the four Syrian words which have been singled out by the opponents of Daniel, as making against his Hebrew, but as agreeing with the situation of a Jewish writer in the time of the Maccabees. The word, he says, survived in heathen and Christian Syriac as well as in the translation of the Scriptures, and was also, in a slightly varied form, probably introduced into Arabia from the Syriac, and had certainly been known in Mesopotamia, since it became the name of a place, Apadnas, near Amida on the Tigris; but was wholly lost in Chaldea, being unintelligible to all the Greek translators, and rendered in the Syriac version, not according to the meaning of the actual Syriac word, but according to the common meaning of padan, which forms part of the name Padan-aram.

[336] To destroy and utterly make away many. (lehashmidh ulehakharim), to smite and to ban, or uproot, implying utter destruction. So Antiocbus in his wrath resolved to make Jerusalem a grave for the whole of the Jews.

[337] Mr. Birks, who interprets these last verses of the Saracen and Turkish powers, is inclined to extend their bearing to a power that should combine in himself all the forms of Antichristian hostility that had preceded, and believes there is a further accomplishment in events which will complete and close the Gentile dispensation. Keil also views the latter part of this chapter as pointing to a power, whom he designates Antichrist, the antitype of Antiochus Epiphanes, and remarks: The placing of the overthrow of this enemy with his host near the Temple-mountain agrees with other prophecies of the Old Testament, which place the decisive destruction of the hostile world-power by the appearance of the Lord for the consummation of His kingdom upon the mountains of Israel (Eze. 39:4), or in the valley of Jehoshaphat (Joe. 3:2, &c.), in or at Jerusalem (Zec. 14:2); and confirms the result of our exposition that the hostile king, the last enemy or world-power, is the Antichrist.

IV. The end of the hostile power. He shall come to his end, and none shall help him (Dan. 11:45). This being the first time we read of the end of the power whose doings are described in the preceding verses, since the introduction of the vile person in Dan. 11:21, some have been led to think that the same power is spoken of throughout. It is probable, however, that the end here foretold is that of the hostile power under its last form, which is at the same time the termination and destruction of all the world-powers that have set themselves in opposition to Gods people whether in Old or New Testament times, and which, of course, is still future. The blending, in the prophecy, of one Antichristian power, or of one form of Antichrist, into another has its parallel in the prophecy of the Saviour Himself, in which the prediction regarding Jerusalems destruction blends into that of His second appearing, when He shall take vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of His Son, and when the Man of Sin shall be destroyed with the brightness of His coming. It seems certain, from chap. Dan. 12:1, that the end of the hostile power here predicted is connected with the great tribulation, and the resurrection from the dead which is probably soon to follow it. The angel then adds: And at that timethe time referred to in the end of the preceding chaptershall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time. This time of trouble, again, is connected with the resurrection from the dead, which appears to follow it chap. Dan. 12:2), and which we know to be the result of the Lords second appearing (1Co. 15:23; 1Th. 4:15-17). The manner in which the end of this and, at the same time, of every hostile power is described, corresponds with this view of the time and circumstances in which it shall happen. It is simply said, He shall come to his end, and none shall help him. As if a breath from the Lords mouth, or a glance from His eye, brought him and all his chivalry in a moment to destruction. No word is spoken as to the means by which, or the manner in which, the end should be brought about. The scene closes in sublime and mysterious silence. For a fuller description of the solemn event we must, doubtless, look to the prophecy of Zechariah, Zec. 14:3-4, and especially to the awful and magnificent picture of the battle of the great day of God Almighty presented in Rev. 19:11-21. May both reader and writer be prepared for the terrors and solemnities of that infinitely momentous and rapidly approaching day!

HOMILETICS

SECT. XLIII.THE INFIDEL AND FINAL ANTICHRIST. (Chap. Dan. 11:45.)

He shall come to his end, and none shall help him. It has been remarked that in this last prophecy of Daniel one predicted hostile power appears to merge into and blend with another that succeeds it. This prophetic blending sometimes takes place almost insensibly; so that the same power would almost seem still to continue to be spoken of. Of these various successive powers Antiochus Epiphanes, who is introduced in Dan. 11:21, seems to be regarded as a kind of general type. The powers themselves may be regarded as so many Antichrists,for, according to the Apostle, there are many Antichrists,or Antichrist under so many different forms. The destruction of all these Antichristian powers would seem to take place together, and to be that end predicted in the closing verse of the chapter, of which the sudden and signal end of Antiochus was a type. As the papal Antichrist seemed to blend into the Mahometan in Dan. 11:40, so the Mahometan would appear to blend into the infidel and final one in the last verse of the chapter. From what is said to take place when the power thus predicted comes to his end, viz., the time of great tribulation, the deliverance of the Jewish remnant, and the resurrection from the dead, there can be little doubt that this power is the last enemy that shall appear against the people of God, till the end of the thousand years reign of righteousness and peace (Rev. 20:7-9). That last enemy is apparently still the Little Horn of Daniels Fourth Beast, and Pauls Man of Sin; but, as may be gathered from the book of Revelation, under an openly infidel form, as the scarlet-coloured beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit and goeth into perdition, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns, who with the false prophet gathers together the kings of the earth and their armies, to make war against Christ in the battle of the great day of God Almighty, and who with the same false prophet shall then be taken and cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone (Rev. 17:3; Rev. 16:14; Rev. 19:20).

Following Mr. Frere in his Combined View of the Prophecies, Mr. Irving observes that in the book of Daniel we have four main streams of prophecy, all commencing from the period at which the prophet lived, and running down to the time of the end. The fourth stream is contained in this eleventh chapter, which connects itself with the time of Daniel by the mention of certain kings immediately succeeding it, and then makes large leaps to reach the description of a third blasphemous and ungodly power, which was to arise in the form, not of an institution, but of an individual, close to the time of the end; these three powers being the Papal, Mahometan, and the Infidel; all to arise within the bounds of the four great monarchies, which may be called the prophetic earth. The prophet, he remarks, gives a most particular account of one king who should, at the time of the end, exalt himself against God, and prosper in war, till he should come to his end, and none should help him. This end of the infidel king, for whose manifestation the whole history was given, shall also be the end or accomplishment of Gods purposes in dispersing the Jews; which, he observes, was most important for Daniel, and is still most important both to the dispersed Jews and the Church of the Gentiles, whose fulness comes not in till the dispersed are gathered again; inasmuch as the prophecy makes this ingathering contemporaneous with the downfall of the great infidel king. Much to the same effect, Mr. Faber, in his View of the Prophecies regarding Israel, observes that nearly every prophecy that treats of the restoration of the Jews treats likewise of the contemporary overthrow of some great and impious combination of Gods enemies; a confederacy of which an infidel power, which should appear at the time of the end, should be so powerful as to take the lead, and which should include the ten-horned beast or Roman empire under its last head, the ecclesiastical power represented by Daniels little horn, and certain kings of the earth, apparently in a state of vassalage to that sovereign power. All these are said to come to their end, and to be destroyed by some divine interposition after the expiration of a certain period (a time, times, and half a time); and that in Palestine, a region between the seas, in the neighbourhood of the glorious holy mountain, or Mount Zion, and in the more immediate vicinity of the town of Megiddo. At the close of the same period, he observes, the prophet teaches (chap. Dan. 12:1) that the restoration of the Jews, the goal to which the angelic communication pointed, should take place. The restoration, contemporaneous with the overthrow of the infidel power, Mr. Faber regarded as prepared for by the fall of the Ottoman empire, or the drying up of the river Euphrates (Rev. 16:12), which takes place previous to the gathering together of the great confederacy. A writer on prophecy already quoted remarks that the manifestation of the last Antichristian apostasy or infidelity consists, like that of the former two, the Papal and the Mahometan, of two parts; the latter and the chief part being the account of the infidel person, his acts, and his destruction; the other part being the historical chain which connects the account with the time of the giving of the vision,a chain of persons, remarkable kings, who were to intervene. This chain, Mr. Irving observes, brings us to a new dynasty (Dan. 11:18), when the Roman arms under Scipio took the sovereignty of the parts that had constituted the Grecian monarchy; and then the prophecy at one stride brings us down to the immediate predecessor of the infidel king, who is said to be in his estate a raiser of taxes (Dan. 11:20). The chain, he thinks, thus brings us to the first manifestation of the infidel power in the vile person (Dan. 11:21), whose acts the prophet describes through the remaining part of the chapter. The countries he enters into (Dan. 11:40) he considers to be already prepared, by the dissemination of his infidel sentiments, to give him a welcome; when he will overflow and level, like a terrible inundation, ancient thrones and establishments before him. This first manifestation of the infidel power he, with many others, believed to have its realisation in the first Napoleon, to be succeeded by a second like to him. He thinks that the prophet then immediately carries the infidel prince over to another scene of action, quite out of the bounds of the ten-horned papal empire, to the Holy Land (Dan. 11:41), and gives a narrative of his conquests there, carried on probably from a motive of mad ambition: Perhaps, having subdued the western Roman empire, he is to be Gods instrument to bring the Turk to his end, and may thus pass over to the Asiatic and African states, to possess himself of Egypt and the neighbouring kingdoms, to rally the nations of the ancient empire under his banner, the time of the destruction of the fourth beast being nigh at hand. The tidings out of the east, he, with Brightman, thinks refer to the event predicted in Rev. 16:12, regarding the kings of the East, while those from the north refer to Russia. Thus troubled and moved by what natural impulse we know not, but overruled by all those prophecies that have doomed him and all his chivalry to fall upon the mountains of Israel, in the valley of Jehoshaphat, by the rock of Zion, he plants in Jerusalem the tabernacles of his palace, the insignia of his royal state, upon the glorious holy mountain between the seas, and there he comes to his end by a mighty overthrow, in a great battle of God Almighty, to which the nations have been gathered together. He characterises the infidelity or infidel apostasy, contemplated here in the light not of an institution but of a person, as that which has grown like a disease out of the body of the papacy, and been nourished by the very grossness of that superstition, and gathering every evil and corrupt humour out of the wicked mass, till we see it, as it now is, all over its kingdom, ready to burst out and destroy the very organisation of the body. This impersonation of infidelity, or infidel chief, he considers, is to conduct and guide that infidelity to its sure purpose of dissolving that constitution of evil which has so long sat as an incubus upon the spirit of the Church. This infidel Antichrist, having obtained the victory over the papal constitution in order to destroy every vestige of lingering life within it, and being then led onwards to the East where he shall find the Mahometan superstition in its last throes; and thus coming in time to take up the abandoned sceptre of the Eastern empire, and having under him that power of nations and of kingdoms, which both the apostasies of the East and West once possessed,he hath accomplished his end, and his time is come. With his destruction, which is accomplished at Armageddon, the three apostasies are all finished, and Satans last desperate throw is ended, and the kingdom of Christ in good earnest spreads with all the prosperity of the divine blessing over all the earth.

In Mr. Fabers view, which is similar, the person who forms the subject of the closing verses of the chapter is the infidel king, the leader of the great Antichristian confederacy of the last days, who will, at the time of the end, or the close of the time, times, and half a time, be opposed by a king of the North and a king of the South; yet, in spite of this opposition, will succeed in overflowing many countries, and in conquering Palestine, Egypt, Libya, and the land of Cush or Ethiopia. In the unidst of these victories, he, being in Egypt, will be disturbed by some untoward tidings out of the North and out of the East, probably of the arrival in Palestine of the navy of the great maritime power with the converted of Judah. Enraged at such ungrateful news, he will hasten to Jerusalem, which he will succeed in taking. This, however, will be his last victory. Advancing to Megiddo, a town near the shores of the Mediterranean, in the great plain of Esdraelon, where, according to St. John, the conflict is to be decided, he will come unexpectedly to his end. The triumphant Word of God shall break his confederacy, and super-naturally overthrow him with a sudden destruction. The king of the North Mr. Faber thinks to be Russia; some terrible invasion from that quarter, symbolised by the great hailstorm of the Apocalypse, being made upon the papal Roman empire during the time that the infidel king is prosecuting his conquests in Palestine and Egypt.
Keil also views the latter verses of the chapter as all pointing to such an infidel power, whom he designates the Antichrist, the antitype of Antiochus Epiphanes. He says: The undertaking of this king (Antiochus) to root out the worship of the living God, and destroy the Jewish religion, shows in type the great war which the world-power 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. The description of this war, as to its origin, character, and issue, forms the principal subject of this prophecy. From the typical relation in which Antiochus, the Old Testament enemy of God, stands to Antichrist, the New Testament enemy, is explained the connection of the end, the final salvation of the people of God, and the resurrection from the dead, with the description of this enemy, without any express mention being made of the fourth world-kingdom [the Roman empire], and of the last enemy [the little horn] arising out of italready revealed to Daniel in chap. 7. In chapter 8, the violent enemy of the people of Israel, who would arise from the Diadoch-kingdoms of the Javanic world-monarchy [the four divisions of the Grecian empire after Alexanders death], was already designated as the type of the last enemy who would arise out of the ten kingdoms of the fourth world- [or universal] monarchy. After these preceding revelations, the announcement of the great tribulation, that would come upon the people of God from these two enemies, could be presented in one comprehensive painting, wherein the assaults made by the prefigurative enemy against the covenant people should form the foreground of the picture, for a representation of the daring of the antitypical enemy, proceeding even to the extent of abolishing all divine and human ordinances, which shall bring the last and severest tribulation on the Church of God at the end of the days, for its purification and preparation for eternity.

We conclude our remarks on the infidel Antichrist, and on the whole of this deeply interesting though somewhat obscure chapter, with the words of Auberlen: It cannot be proved with absolute certainty that a personal Antichrist will stand at the head of the Antichristian kingdom; for it is possible that the eighth, like the preceding heads (of the beast in Revelation 7), designates a kingdom, a power, and not a person; and the same may be said concerning the Antichristian horn described by Daniel, when compared with the ten horns. But the type of Antiochus Epiphanes is of decisive importance; for this personal enemy of Gods kingdom is described in the eighth chapter of Daniel, as a little, gradually increasing horn, just as Antichrist is spoken of in the seventh. And this is corroborated by the Apostle Paul (2 Thessalonians 2), who describes Antichrist (Dan. 11:4) with colours evidently furnished by Daniels sketch of Antiochus, and who calls him, moreover, the Man of Sin, the Son of perdition, which, if explained naturally, must refer to an individual (Compare Joh. 17:12, where the same expression is used of Judas). In favour of the same view may be adduced, likewise, analogies in the history of the world; the previous world-kingdoms (or universal empires) had extraordinary persons as their heads, as Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander the Great. The spiritual and universal character does not exclude individual, personal representations. Every spiritual tendency has its distinguished representatives, and when it has reached its perfection, provides its representative (par excellence). Hence Antichristian tendencies produce different Antichrists; and it is a sober historical view when Christianity maintains that these separate Antichrists shall, some future day, find their consummation in an individual far excelling them in the intensity of his evil character (Lange). In conclusion, we must not omit to mention that Paul and John agree in speaking emphatically of the destruction of Antichrist. His triumph is but of short duration; judgment speedily overtakes him. The man of sin is of necessity a child of death, the son of perdition. The return of the beast (Rev. 17:11) is represented, or at least prepared, in that principle which, since 1789, has manifested itself in beast-like outbreaks, and has since then been developed both extensively and intensively. This principle has appeared in various forms, in the Revolution, in Napoleon, [338] despotism sanctioning revolution; proving, at the same time, that the beast, even in this shape, can carry the harlot in Socialism and Communism. But we may yet expect other manifestations. [339] At present, it is the endeavour of churches and governments to keep down this monster; but it has shown its teeth more than once, and given unmistakable signs that it is regaining life and strength. How long its development shall last,whether it is to grow up rapidly,through what different phases it has yet to pass,at what period the seventh kingdom shall pass over into the eighth (Revelation 17), is not known to man: God alone knows it. It is not for us to know the times or the seasons (Act. 1:7); but it is for us to take to heart the word of our Lord, Can ye not discern the signs of the times? (Mat. 16:3).

[338] Mr. Irving and others find a remarkable correspondence between the prophecy concerning the vile person and the first Napoleon. The raiser of taxes, who preceded him, is identified with Louis XVI., whose death was brought about neither in anger nor in battle, but in cold blood, by the sentence of that very power to which his raising of taxes had given birth. The rise of Napoleon is considered to be described in Dan. 11:21, with a general comprehensiveness as wonderful as in the former verse was the Bourbons fate. Dan. 11:22, Mr. Irving thinks, describes the first act of Napoleons career in Italy almost in his own words which be addressed to his troops: You have precipitated yourselves like a torrent from the summit of the Apennines. The prince of the covenant he views as the pope, who declared his submission in a league which terminated the campaign. In correspondence with Dan. 11:23, he remarks, that Napoleon, after the league just mentioned so wrought with men of science and letters as well as with the common people, to induce them to regard him as the harbinger of light, reason, and liberty, that he was able, with a small force, so to increase his power as to enter the richest provinces of Italy, and levy upon them exactions of every kind, which he scattered among his soldiers; at the same time plundering churches and repositories of art of their treasures which no conqueror had hitherto done. Dan. 11:25-27 were fulfilled in the surprising victories gained over the emperor of Austria, the king of the South, through secret intelligence had with one high in the Austrian counsels; the emperor concerting the campaign with the pope or prince of the covenant, plotting mischief together, viz., the continuance of the mystery of iniquity,but in vain, as its end was determined; the result being that Rome became a republic, the priests were banished, and the pope died in exile. Dan. 11:28 is viewed as giving the key to his future wars and animosities, viz., his indignation against the holy covenant, or that people who continued to maintain the cause of religion and righteousness against his usurpation and the confederacy to perpetuate the mischiefs of the papacy, viz., the British nation.

[339] Faber, Frere, Gauntlett, and others, expressed their conviction, previous to 1820, that a second French emperor, exactly like the first, would arise nearer to the end, and would constitute the last great Antichrist. More than twenty other writers, according to Mr. Baxter, up to 1861, considered the late emperor, Napoleon III., to be the eighth head of the apocalyptic beast or future personal Antichrist. Points of resemblance between him and the first Napoleon were not wanting; enough to show that the idea of a repetition might easily be verified, and to strike the attention of those who, according to the Lords direction, seek to discern the signs of the times. That two potentates, so closely related to each other, should arise and, after a brief interval, succeed each other, both so unlikely in themselves, and with such humble beginnings, and bearing so strong a resemblance both to each other and to the prophecy, was certainly remarkable, and fitted at least to keep men on the watch. But the end was not yet. Deus habet sus horas et moras. Notwithstanding the expressed presentiment of the first Napoleon that his nephew should be the ultimate representative of the Napoleonic dynasty, and the profound conviction of that nephew, even from early life, that he had a great mission and destiny to fulfil in relation to France; notwithstanding that, singularly, after becoming president of the French Republic in 1851, he became emperor of France in 1852, being crowned on the anniversary of the battle of Austerlitz and the coronation of Napoleon L, thus restoring the Napoleonic dynasty, when the French people inscribed on an arch erected in his honour the remarkable words, The uncle that was, the nephew that is, as if in literal fulfilment of Rev. 17:8; Rev. 17:11; notwithstanding that from 1849 to 1870 he maintained military occupation of Rome, and declared that the temporal power of the pope was incompatible with the advance of civilisation and must be put down, being termed the modern Augustus, nephew and heir of Csar; and finally, notwithstanding that he succeeded in acquiring an almost paramount influence over Spain and Italy, while he extended his power in Algeria and the northern coast of Africa, and appeared determined to possess himself of Palestine, and that, as in the case of the first Napoleon, Great Britain appeared to be the only impediment to his attainment of uncontrolled dominion over the Roman world; yet he passed away, broken apparently in the zenith of his prosperity and power, and left the prophecy still unfulfilled.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

d. PROSTRATION

TEXT: Dan. 11:40-45

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.

41

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.

42

He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries; and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

43

But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

44

But 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.

45

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.

QUERIES

a.

Why did the king of the south contend with the king of the north?

b.

How was he able to make such extensive advances into Egypt?

c.

What were the tidings which disturbed him?

PARAPHRASE

Yes, to summarize, the end of the troublous times for Gods people will be during the wars between the king of Egypt and the king of Syria. The king of Syria will be the most powerful and he will react with the strength and fury of a whirlwind; his vast army and navy will flood through many lands. He will invade and conquer many lands, including the Holy Land; however, Moab, Edom, and most of Ammon will escape his ravages. On the other hand Egypt and many other lands will be occupied by the king of Syria. In fact, he will capture great amounts of gold and silver and other treasurers of Egyptthe people of Libya and Ethiopia will also be enslaved by him. But all this will not last forever, for alarming news shall come to him from the eastern and northern reaches of his empire and he will be forced to return. This will make him very angry and as he proceeds toward the trouble in his empire he will destroy as he goes. Even though he may pitch his war-tents between the Holy City and the sea, and appear invincible, yet he will eventually come to his end and there will be no one to help him when his end comes.

COMMENT

Dan. 11:40-43 . . . AT THE TIME OF THE END . . . We believe these verses to be a general summarization of the whole war-like career of Antiochus Epiphanes especially against Egypt and Israel. There are no historical records of a fourth Syrian campaign against Egypt with details to fit this context. This, however, does not necessarily mean such a campaign did not actually take place. The careful Bible-believer has learned that the silence of history does not necessarily prove biblical prophecy contradictory. The silence of history only proves the silence of history! When more history is uncovered by the archaeologists spade, we may find more of biblical prophecy confirmed (cf. our comments on Belshazzar, chapter 5). For present purposes, however, we prefer to regard this section as a recapitulation of the life of The Contemptible One (Antiochus) who is to appear at the end-time of the Jews indignation. This is, in our opinion, preferable to The Antichrist theory which is unsound contextually and historically. The careful reader will have noted that much of what has already been said of Antiochus Epiphanes fits this summary.

This recapitulation of the overwhelming and devastating decade of Antiochus reign would also make the prophecy (Dan. 11:44-45) of his end more emphatic. It would say, in other words, Yes, even though this king of the north may do his worst, he too shall pass away.

Dan. 11:44-45 . . . TIDINGS . . . SHALL TROUBLE HIM . . . HE SHALL COME TO HIS END . . . Antiochus had his armies in the field in Judea attempting to put down the Maccabean revolt when he received alarming news from Parthia and Armenia. Insurrection was spreading in the east and north of his empire also and so Antiochus was obliged to set out upon expedition to Parthia and Armenia to quell this revolt. He left Lysias behind, as regent and guardian of his young son, Antiochus V, with orders to depopulate Judea. Lysias at once dispatched a large body of troops under the command of Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias; and with them came merchants to purchase the expected Jewish slaves. At Emmaus, Judas Maccabeaus inflicted so singular a defeat upon Gorgias that the Syrian troops fled out of the country. In 165 B.C. Lysias in person led a still larger army against Judas, but was completely defeated at Bethzur. Judas regained possession of the entire country and on the 25th of Chislev (December) entered the Temple and removed all the signs of paganism which had been installed there. The altar dedicated to Jupiter was taken down and a new altar was erected to the God of Israel. The statue of Zeus-Antiochus was ground to dust. Beginning with the 25th of Chislev they observed an eight-day Feast of Dedication, known as Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights. In this way they celebrated the end of the three-year period during which the Temple had been desecrated.

Meanwhile Antiochus had been baffled in an attempt to plunder in Elymais the temple of Nanaea. He retired to Babylon, and moved from there to Tabae in Persia, where he became mad and died 164 B.C.
The heroic Maccabean struggle lasted another 2930 years. Much blood was, shed. Eventually an uneasy peace came to the Holy Land in 134 B.C. when Hasmonean dynasty began to rule, For some 60 years, filled with hate, intrigue and murder within the Hasmonean family, the land of the Jews knew no foreign occupancy. Following the death of Alexandra, her sons Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II were fighting for the right of succession. The news of the chaos in Palestine reached Rome. Pompey, the Roman general who had been so successful in bringing Roman power to the East, determined to intervene. Palestine was then occupied by the Romans, the fourth world empire, during whose reign the kingdom of God was to be established by the coming of the anointed one (the Messiah).
So Daniel has, in fine detail, painted a panorama of predicted history from the release of the captive Jews from Persia by edict of Cyrus, through troublous times, to the end of the indignation and the death of Antiochus IV, all in preparation for the coming of the anointed one. His message in all this: God will not desert His people and His holy covenant in any of the storms and changing events of the history of the nations, but He will send deliverance in the precise moment when their need has reached its highest point.

QUIZ

1.

Why is it preferable to regard this section as a recapitulation of the career of Antiochus IV?

2.

Why does the absence of historical data regarding this section not necessarily invalidate it?

3.

What is the overall message of Daniel in this eleventh chapter?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(40) At the time of the end.These verses speak of the last expedition of the northern king, and of the disappearance of the king of the south. The portrait of Antiochus, as noticed in the Note on Dan. 11:36, was gradually fading away, and now not a line of it remains. No such invasion of Egypt as that mentioned here is mentioned in history. From the time mentioned in Dan. 11:30 he appears to have abstained from approaching too closely to the Roman authorities. The story related in 1Ma. 3:27-37 states that on hearing of the successes of the Maccabee princes he went into Persia on a plundering expedition, leaving Lysias his representative in Palestine. Lysias was defeated at Bethsur, and the news of the overthrow of his army was brought to Antiochus while he was in Persia. So appalling was the effect upon him of these tidings, that he fell sick for grief (1Ma. 6:8), and died. It is unnecessary to suppose that the revelation resumes the narrative from Dan. 11:29 after a parenthetic passage (Dan. 11:30-39), or to assume that we have a general recapitulation of the wars of Antiochus, described in Dan. 11:22-39, without distinguishing the different campaigns. (For a good account of Antiochus, see Judas Maccabus, by C. R. Conder, R. E., Daniel 3.)

Time of the end.Comp. Dan. 8:17. The words mean the end of the world, with which (Dan. 11:45) the end of this king coincides. The word push occurs also in Dan. 8:4, and from the context it may be inferred that the southern king begins the last conflict, in the course of which both kings come to an end.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

THE CLOSING VERSES OF THIS CHAPTER.

It is very difficult to explain Dan 11:40-45 historically. No writers of the period have recorded an invasion of Egypt by Antiochus after he had been brought to account so sharply by the Romans (notes Dan 11:29-30), and everything we know of the political conditions of the period is against this. One late author, however (Porphyry), affirms there was such a campaign just before the death of Antiochus and this is not absolutely impossible. It is not satisfactory to say with Kuenen, Bevan, and many others, that these verses express the expectation of the author of Daniel, but that this expectation was never realized. If indeed this passage was written and openly published only a few months before the death of Antiochus at which time these supposed glaring mistakes would have been most clearly seen it is impossible to conceive how the book could have been at once accepted as a true prophecy and a little later placed in the sacred canon. Many scholars believe that these verses arelater interpolations, or that they have dropped out of their true place in the narrative immediately after the historical sketch given in Dan 11:1-5. The versions, however, though they differ much from the received text, do not hint this, and there are other objections to the theory.

In view of the difficulties embarrassing any historic explanation of this passage, a multitude of interpreters have given their fancy full play, seeking to find here as indeed everywhere else in Daniel allusions to conflicts which have taken place in the Middle Ages, or in modern times, or which shall happen in future centuries. This is not interpretation, it is imagination. Other writers believe that with Dan 11:40 the vision of the prophet fuses two pictures: the triumphs and disastrous end of Antiochus with the victories and final defeat of the antichrist of whom he was a type. We have already defended this method of interpretation, and have no doubt that a counterpart of Antiochus may be found in the antagonists that arose against the theocracy in after ages; but we believe that every prophecy should be explained first with reference to the historic facts of the period concerning which it directly treats. A seeming discrepancy between the account and the known facts of the local period which it primarily depicts is not sufficient to relegate it wholly to a far-off future time. That is too easy a method. If its primary and local meaning is not understood, its secondary and universal teachings cannot be intelligently grasped. These verses do not have the customary tone of idealization and exaltation which usually accompanies a vision of the Messianic future. They are almost as matter-of-fact and full of detail as the accounts which have preceded, and which we have seen relate actual earthly events in the reign of this mad king, Antiochus. The “king of the north” means Antiochus, and the “king of the south” Ptolemy, as all the versions knew. We cannot therefore adopt the supposition that this passage treats of the end of the world and the battle with antichrist.

We incline to believe with many scholars of the highest rank that this passage is a general resume of all the Egyptian campaigns of Antiochus previously mentioned (Dan 11:29-30), with special emphasis on the statement that all these campaigns happened “at the time of the end;” that is, as modern commentators agree, at the end of this era of persecution which was to precede the Messianic reign. (See notes Dan 9:27; Dan 12:1.) For seventy times seven years these afflictions, captivities, and persecutions have fallen on the holy people; but now, although it seems to the Maccabean martyrs that they have only reached their fullest power, in the days of this evil conqueror, they are really just at an end. Even the most boastful years of Antiochus are in “the time of the end.” This wild beast shall suddenly be “cut off without hand” for, whatever the manner of his death, every Hebrew who believed in the divine decree would know that it was an event fixed and appointed by God himself and after this the prophet sees victory for Israel and the glorious rule of One like unto a Son of man. (See notes Dan 11:40; Dan 7:13-14; Dan 9:27.)

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

40. As we understand it (see remarks above) we have here an epitome of the history contained in Dan 11:22-27.

At the time of the end See Dan 11:4; Dan 11:27; Dan 11:35; Dan 8:17. As we have shown (Dan 11:40-45) this does not prove, as Bevan claims, that these events were subsequent to those previously described. Bevan himself would acknowledge that in the mind of the writer the “end” did not close until the end of Antiochus (Dan 11:45). The seer now sees that the entire cruel reign of Antiochus is at [rather, in] the time of the end. The seventy long weeks of years find their consummation and end here. Beyond this end of the “indignation” (Dan 8:19) comes the beginning of Messiah’s reign.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And at the time of the end the king of the south will butt at him (or gore him – the word depicts the attack of a wild animal), and the king of the north will come against him like a whirlwind with chariots, and with horsemen and with many ships, and he will enter into the countries, and will overflow and pass through. He will enter also into the glorious land, and many countries will be overthrown. But these will be delivered out of his hand, Edom and Moab and the chief of the children of Ammon.’

‘In the time of the end.’ It is quite clear that this is the end day empire of chapter 7. A greater than Antiochus is here. For him Egypt and Rome hold no fears. When Egypt attacks like a wild animal, he amasses huge forces both on land and sea with all the latest armaments. He swamps the Near East. No countries can prevent his passing, including the glorious land, Israel (this would be especially significant today).

That this could not signify Antiochus is quite clear. The Roman might had ensured once and for all that he leave Egypt alone. There is no way that the author would even in vision have depicted him as becoming so powerful in both men and ships that he could sweep Rome to one side.

But this verse does not depict this great king as facing the combined might of the kings of the south and the north. The description of the forces of the king of the north makes clear that he is that king. And today, as through the centuries, those nations north of Palestine (i.e. that come through it from the north when they invade) are the semi-tamed part of the world from which even today our threats all come. They are a maelstrom of warfare (they worship the god of fortresses). This might be pure coincidence, or it may be very significant, only the future will tell.

But why should Edom, Moab and the chief of the children of Ammon be delivered out of his hand? The answer is probably in order to indicate that parts of the widespread area in which he operates will escape his attentions. It may also be because they will be unwanted territories. East and south of the Jordan in barren wilderness they hold no interest for this mighty king. They are too small to bother with. (If we literalise it, it may even suggest that Jordan will be neutral).

Alternately the thought may be that they have in a cowardly way made peace with the tyrant, willingly submitting themselves to his yoke, thus being treated as allies and not a conquered people, benefiting from the distress of others, just as Edom did in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, something for which Israel never forgave them.

But while containing some literal significance, all this is also symbolic of the distant future. After all it represents a world that Daniel could have no conception of. Today Edom, Moab and Ammon are no longer there. The Near East is no longer the centre of the world. So this may be seen as depicting the warfare and violence that will characterise the whole of the period of the fourth empire, the apocalyptic empire, a world under the influence of Satan. Everything is subject to his control, apart from the people of God. (As with much prophecy it probably contains both literal and spiritual elements).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Dan 11:40. At theend shall the king of the south push, &c. The kings of the south, and of the north, are to be explained according to the times of which the prophet is speaking. As long as the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria were subsisting, so long the Egyptian and Syrian kings were kings of the south, and of the north: but when these kingdoms were swallowed up in the Roman empire, other powers became the kings of the south and north. At the time of the end, that is to say, in the latter days of the Roman empire, shall the king of the south push at him; that is to say, the Saracens, who were of the Arabians, and came from the south; and under the conduct of their false prophet Mahomet, and his successors, made war upon the emperor Heraclius, and with amazing rapidity deprived him of Egypt, Syria, and many of his finest provinces. They were only to push at; and sorely wound the Greek empire; they were not to subvert and destroy it.And the king of the north shall come, &c. that is, the Turks, who were originally of the Scythians, and came from the north; and, after the Saracens, seized on Syria, and assaulted the remains of the Grecian empire, and in time rendered themselves absolute masters of the whole. The Saracens dismembered and weakened the Greek empire, but the Turks totally ruined and destroyed it; and for this reason much more is said of the Turks than of the Saracens. Their chariots and their horsemen are particularly mentioned, because their armies consisted chiefly of horse, especially before the institution of the janissaries; and their standards are still horse tails. Their ships too are said to be many; and indeed without many ships they could never have got possession of so many islands and maritime countries, nor have so frequently vanquished the Venetians. What fleets, what armies, were employed in besieging and taking Constantinople, Negropont or Euboea,

Rhodes, Cyprus, and Candy, or Crete! The words, shall enter into the countries, and overflow and pass over, give us an exact idea of their passing over into Europe, and fixing the seat of their empire at Constantinople, as they did under their seventh emperor, Mahomet II. See Bishop Newton.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Dan 11:40 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.

Ver. 40. And at the time of the end. ] The year before his death.

Shall the king af the south. ] Ptolemy Philometer.

And the king of the north. ] Antiochus’s third expedition into Egypt, see Dan 11:39 in favour of Physcon.

And shall overflow, ] i.e., Victoriously overturn Egypt.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Dan 11:40-45

40At the end time the king of the South will collide with him, and the king of the North will storm against him with chariots, with horsemen and with many ships; and he will enter countries, overflow them and pass through. 41He will also enter the Beautiful Land, and many countries will fall; but these will be rescued out of his hand: Edom, Moab and the foremost of the sons of Ammon. 42Then he will stretch out his hand against other countries, and the land of Egypt will not escape. 43But he will gain control over the hidden treasures of gold and silver and over all the precious things of Egypt; and Libyans and Ethiopians will follow at his heels. 44But rumors from the East and from the North will disturb him, and he will go forth with great wrath to destroy and annihilate many. 45He will pitch the tents of his royal pavilion between the seas and the beautiful Holy Mountain; yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.

Dan 11:40 at the end time See note at Dan 8:19.

the king of the South. . .the king of the North These references imply that all of chapter 11 relates to the jealousy and rivalry between the Seleucid empire (Syria/Babylon) and the Ptolemaic empire (Egypt/Palestine). These phrases are a major problem in seeing Dan 11:36-45 or 40-45 as exclusively future. There is no hint of two geographical Mediterranean kings being involved in end-time warfare over Israel!

If we understand the genre then all the details become symbolic for an end-time conflict between believers and unbelievers, not Jews and their enemies!

Dan 11:41 Edom, Moab. . .Ammon These involve the enemies of Israel which surrounded them in a more ancient time. Even in the Macabbean period Moab had passed from the scene forever. This shows that verse 41 must be taken symbolically to refer to local enemies of God’s people.

Dan 11:43 Libyans and Ethiopians These were allies with Egypt.

Dan 11:44 the rumors from the East and from the North will disturb him Those interpreters who see this context as referring to Antiochus IV Epiphanes believe that this refers to the invasion of the Parthians or a rebellion somewhere in his realm.

annihilate This is from the Hebrew word herem (BDB 355 I). This is the term associated with that which is given to God (like Jericho in Joshua 6) and thereby must be destroyed lest it be corrupted by human use (cf. Jos 6:21).

However, the word often simply means destroy, which it probably means here (cf. Isa 37:11; Jer 50:21; Jer 50:26; Jer 51:3).

Dan 11:45 the seas This is plural and seems to refer to the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.

the beautiful Holy Mountain This must refer to the city of Jerusalem and particularly to the mountain on which the temple is build, Mount Moriah.

yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him Polybius 31.9 asserts that Antiochus IV traveled to Elymais in Elam to rob the temple of Artemis, but that the local worshipers resisted and he left. While on the way home he became ill at Tabae in Persia and died (163 B.C.). Some attributed the illness to a divine madness as a result of his sacrilege.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

This is a study guide commentary, which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.

These discussion questions are provided to help you think through the major issues of this section of the book. They are meant to be thought-provoking, not definitive.

1. What is the major purpose of the vision of Daniel 11?

2. Why do the historical events begin in 323 B.C. and end in 165 B.C.?

3. Historically, who were the two main protagonists in this section?

4. Why is such detail given into a history of empires that surround the Jewish people?

5. Why is Antiochus IV Epiphanes a good example of the Antichrist spirit current in the world (cf. 1Jn 2:18)?

6. Who is referred to in Dan 11:36-45?

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

at the time of the end: i.e. near the close of the last seven years.

he: i.e. this “wilful king”.

the countries = the countries [adjoining].

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Dan 11:40

Dan 11:40 And at the timeH6256 of the endH7093 shall the kingH4428 of the southH5045 pushH5055 atH5973 him: and the kingH4428 of the northH6828 shall come against him like a whirlwind,H8175 H5921 with chariots,H7393 and with horsemen,H6571 and with manyH7227 ships;H591 and he shall enterH935 into the countries,H776 and shall overflowH7857 and pass over.H5674

Dan 11:40

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.

Here the Ptolemies of Egypt move against Rome. Cleopatra and Mark Antony start moving against Rome under the reign of Augustus which resulted in Rome declaring war against Egypt.

“and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; “

After some initial success in the war against Rome, Cleopatra convinces Mark Antony to execute the war as a predominantly naval affair. While Mark Antony was opposed to this, he reluctantly acquiesced to Cleopatra’s demands. Augustus came at him with Rome’s significantly dominant naval fleet and gained the upper hand in the naval aspect of the war. Mark Antony’s land troops became demoralized and many of them defected to the Romans. Egypt was completely defeated and Mark Antony committed suicide.

“and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over”

Following the battle of Actium in 31 BC, Augustus invaded Egypt and the last stronghold of the Grecian kingdom fell to Roman rule. Egypt became one of the holdings of the Roman Empire.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

at the: Dan 11:35, Dan 8:17, Dan 12:4

the king of the south: The Saracens, Dan 11:5, Dan 11:6, Eze 38:14-18

the king of the north: The Turks

like: Isa 5:28, Isa 21:1, Isa 66:15, Jer 4:13, Zec 9:14

with horsemen: Eze 38:4, Eze 38:15, Rev 9:16, Rev 16:12

overflow: Dan 11:10, Dan 11:22

Reciprocal: Ecc 3:17 – for Isa 28:18 – when Eze 26:19 – bring Eze 38:6 – Togarmah Eze 38:9 – shalt ascend Eze 38:17 – whom Eze 39:2 – leave but the sixth part of thee Dan 11:27 – yet Amo 1:14 – with a Nah 1:8 – with Nah 2:4 – chariots Hab 3:14 – came out Zec 6:6 – toward Zec 9:8 – because of him that passeth by Rev 19:19 – I saw

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Dan 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.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Dan 11:40. And at the time of the end At the determined time, or when the time shall approach that God will put an end to these miseries of the Jews; shall the king of the south push at him The king of the south, through all this prophecy, appears evidently to signify the king of Egypt, and if it be so interpreted here, this must relate to some new contest between him and Antiochus. Historians, however, make no mention of this, nor of any third expedition of Antiochus into Egypt. But it is not improbable that the king of Egypt, between whom and Antiochus there was enmity in the heart, though there was outward friendship, might make some efforts, of one kind or other, to injure Antiochus, which might induce him to make a third expedition into Egypt. The want, however, of a certain knowledge of this transaction of Antiochus, has been considered by some as an additional reason for applying this, and the whole paragraph from the 36th verse, to antichrist, and the great apostacy of the middle ages of the Christian Church. Hence, by the king of the south here, Mr. Mede understands the Saracens, and by the king of the north, the Turks, who should both at different times afflict the western parts of the world, where he supposes the seat of antichrist to be. The Saracens he supposes to be called the king, or kingdom, of the south, because that people were inhabitants of Arabia Felix, which lay southward of Palestine, whereas the Turks were originally Tartars or Scythians. But the safest rule whereby to interpret the prophecies seems to be to apply them to events nearest to the times when they were uttered, unless they manifestly relate to more distant times; and there is nothing said here but what might very probably relate to Antiochus, though, through the scantiness of the history of those times, we have not a knowledge of the facts to which some particular passages or expressions in the prophecy refer. And the king of the north The king of Syria, Antiochus; shall come against him like a whirlwind In a sudden and impetuous manner. And shall overflow and pass over Shall over- spread the land, breaking in and opening himself a passage everywhere by the vast power of his forces.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Dan 11:40. At this point history ends and prophecy begins. The rest of the chapter relates to the future. As Driver says (CB, p. 197), The author draws here an imaginative picture of the end of the tyrant king, similar to the ideal one of the time of Sennacherib in Isa 10:28-32. In this verse there is a forecast of a successful campaign against the king of the south, i.e. Ptolemy Philometor.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

11:40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the {b} 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.

(b) That is, both the Egyptians and the Syrians will at length fight against the Romans, but they will be overcome.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The attack against the ruler 11:40-45

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Finally the very end time of the seventieth week will arrive (cf. Dan 11:27; Dan 11:35; Dan 12:4; Dan 12:9). Then this king will be the focus of attack by the king of the South (cf. Dan 11:42-43), a power south of Palestine, and the king of the North, a force to its north. Evidently these two rulers will attack him simultaneously. Apparently this king is neither the king of the South nor the king of the North himself. In view of Dan 9:26, he will probably be a western ruler, the little horn arising out of the Roman Empire (i.e., Antichrist; Dan 7:8; Dan 7:24). [Note: Walvoord, Daniel . . ., p. 279; Pentecost, "Daniel," p. 1372; and Leupold, p. 521.] Other interpreters believe the king of the North is the Antichrist. [Note: Archer, "Daniel," p. 148; and Young, p. 251.] Still others hold that this king was not the Antichrist but only a minor ruler. [Note: E.g., Ironside, pp. 222-23.]

The conflict will be great, but he, apparently the ruler described in Dan 11:36-39 (i.e., Antichrist), will invade many countries, overwhelm them, and pass on to conquer others. The Nazis were able to do this early in World War II.

"Presumably the warfare will be carried on by armored vehicles and missiles such as are used in modern warfare-though in order to communicate with Daniel’s generation, ancient equivalents of these are used here. Likewise, the ancient names of the countries or states occupying the region where the final conflict will be carried on are used in the prediction, though most of those political units will no longer bear these names in the last days." [Note: Archer, "Daniel," p. 147.]

Ezekiel described a great military force descending on Israel from the far north in the future (Ezekiel 38-39; Eze 38:15). Ezekiel did not mention a power from the South. Part of the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy is probably the same invasion Daniel recorded here. I believe part of what Ezekiel prophesied to take place in his description of the battle of Gog and Magog will find fulfillment at the end of the Tribulation and part of it at the end of the Millennium. This aspect of the fulfillment will probably occur in the second half of the Tribulation, when Israel is suffering intense persecution. One writer argued that this king of the North will be a ruler from the area that Assyria formerly occupied, not someone from farther north in the area of Russia. I believe "Gog" is a code name (meaning "Dark") describing two similar invaders who will descend on Israel at two different times: at the end of the Tribulation and at the end of the Millennium. The first of these invaders is called the King of the North here. [Note: Carl Armerding, "Russia and the King of the North," Bibliotheca Sacra 120:477 (January-March 1963):50-55.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)