DANIEL – CHAPTER 11

FROM DARIUS TO THE MAN OF SIN

Verses 1-10:

Verse 1 continues the testimony of the (theophany) heavenly angel Gabriel appearing in the form of a man, Dan 10:18. He reminded Daniel it was he who stood up in the first year of Darius, king of the Medes, to confirm and strengthen him, Dan 9:1; Dan 5:31. That was the year of the Medo conquest of Babylon; Cyrus wielded the real power in the conquest though subordinate to Darius. In that year Darius issued the decree for the restoration of the Jews, for which Daniel was at the time earnestly praying. This angel stood to assist and help, to confirm and strength king Darius in the decision, in behalf of Israel, even as Michael had done, Dan 10:21; Psa 94:16.

Verse 2 recounts the angelic direct address to Daniel, in which after having established the fact that he had helped Darius, he was certainly ready to show Daniel “the truth” of Israel’s future. He certified first that three kings should arise in Persia, then a fourth, far richer by his strength than all three of the other Persian kings combined. It is foretold that by his armed power of strength, through his riches, he would stir up all the provinces of Persia against Greece, to incite them to war. This rich king was Zeres, who spent four years marching his army and invading Greece, 483-480 B.C., at which time Persia reached its finest hour. But he was overthrown at Salamis after which Persia is viewed as politically dead, Dan 2:39; Dan 7:5. These 3 kings who arose were 1) Ahasuerus, Ezr 4:6; Ezra 2) Artaxeres, Ezr 4:7; Ezra , 3) Darius, called Hystespes, Ezr 4:24.

Verse 3 foretells that following this a “mighty king,” a king of great power should “stand up” or arise. He was to establish a rule or jurisdiction of great (extended) dominion, even worldwide. And he would do according to his will, in an extremely forceful manner. This alludes to Alexander the Great who arose to establish the Grecian or third Gentile World Empire, B.C. 332; Dan 2:39; Dan 7:6; Dan 8:5-8; Dan 8:20-22. See also Dan 4:35; Dan 8:4; Eph 1:11; Heb 2:4; Jas 1:18.

Verse 4 relates that when this mighty king shall arise, doing after his own will, his own mighty dominion or Empire will break apart, come unglued, and be divided into four provincial parts, Ecc 4:8; Dan 7:8; Dan 8:8; Mat 12:25. This foretold the four part division of the Grecian Empire upon the death of Alexander the Great, as recounted Dan 8:8; Dan 8:22. The phrase “and not to his posterity” means it would not be left to his family to rule. Nor would it continue to exist as a one world empire dominion, as he had conquered and ruled it, Dan 8:22. It is added that would be plucked up, (uprooted) fragmented, even for smaller and other lesser rulers besides the four primary provinces, a thing secular history verifies.

Verse 5 states the “king of the south” (of Egypt), south of Palestine, shall be strong and “one of his princes,” (Syria). But the “king of the south,” Egypt shall be stronger than his prince (cohort) Syria, and shall have dominion over him, a great dominion, between which Israel resided and suffered.

Verse 6 certifies with the passing of time they (Egypt and Syria) or their rulers should join themselves together (by material ties). For the king’s daughter of the south (of Egypt) should approach the king of the north for an agreement. But she would not therefore by (material ties) retain ruling power, neither should he or Syria to whom she gave herself up; neither could her father, or those who brought her up for marital union with the king’s house of Syria, retain their arm of ruling power in these times of the cruel Antiochus Epiphanes, 285-247 B.C.

Verse 7 states that out of the branch (offspring) of the woman from Egypt, who made marriage with the king of Syria, one would stand up in his own estate and with armed might attack the king of the north, entering into and destroying his fortress, and prevail in subduing him, the king of Syria to the north of Palestine.

Verse 8 adds that he shall also take captives from the north (Syria) and carry them with their princes or rulers, their gods, precious vessels of silver and gold, and march into Egypt with them as loot of battle. He was also said to continue for more years (reign longer) then the king of Syria had reigned. The reign of this Egyptian king Ptolmey lasted for 46 years. Upon his return to put down a sedition in Egypt it is said that he brought back from Syria 40,000 talents of silver, precious vessels, and 2,400 images that had been carried from Egypt into Persia. It is further stated that he should desist for many years from contending with the king of the north, v. 9.

Verse 9 concludes that this “king of the south,” of Egypt, who had gone up and engaged, conquered the king of the north, of Syria, should return to his own country of Egypt with wealth, gotten of great spoil, and with impunity.

Verse 10 states however that his sons (sons of the king of the north) shall be stirred up, “make war,” and assemble a multitude of “great forces,” armed bands. And one (of them) Antiochus did come and pass through all Israel, headed for conflict with Egypt, like an overflow, a mighty flood through the land. Then he was stirred up and returned to his fortress or defense line, v. 13, a border near Gaza, where Antiochus was vanquished, v. 22, 26, 40; Isa 8:8.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

Interpreters explain this verse in various ways. Some think the angel fought for the Persian king, and follow up their opinion, because he did not for the first time begin now to defend that monarchy in favor of the chosen people, but had done so from the very beginning. Others refer this to Michael, as the angel declares that he introduced the assistance of Michael. But that is forced and cold. I do not hesitate to state the argument to be from the greater to the less, and we have an instance of this in a tragedy of Ovid’s. I have been able to preserve you; do you ask whether I can destroy you? Thus the angel says, I have erected the Persian monarchy; I have not the slightest doubt of my present power to restrain these kings, lest they should pour forth their fury upon the people. The full meaning is this, the king of the Persians is nothing, and can do nothing except through me. I was God’s servant in transferring the monarchy of the Medes and Chaldeans to the Persians, as well as that of the Babylonians to the Medes. God, says he, entrusted me with that office, and so I placed Darius upon the throne. You now see how completely I have him in my power, and how I can prevent him from injuring my people should he be so inclined. When the angel boasts of his standing forward to help Darius, he claims nothing to himself, but speaks as it were in the person of God. For angels have no power distinct from God’s when he uses their agency and assistance. There is no reason for any inquiry whether the angel ought to use this boastful language and claim anything for himself. For he does not claim anything as really his own, but he skews himself to have been an agent in the change of dynasty when Babylon was subdued by the Medes, and the empire transferred to Darius. For although, as we have previously shewn, Cyrus obtained the victory, yet he transferred the honors of government to his uncle Cyaxares. The Hebrews are accustomed to consider him as king for the first two years; Cyrus began to reign after this period; and now, when the angel appears to Daniel, the third year had arrived, as we saw at the beginning of the chapter.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

THE APPROACHING END

Dan 11:1-45.

AS we come nearer to the conclusion of this Bookthe prophecy of Danielwe approach also the end of the age, as the Prophet visualized the same! The prophetic view is often the long view; and it is a very great space of time that sweeps in between Darius the Mede and the antichrist whose brief reign closes the age to which the Church of God belongs; and yet, lengthy as is the time, the Prophet with inspired vision sees the whole and sets it down in main outline, while at points he descends even to particulars.

Such only is possible to the true prophet of God. The prophet-test is at the point of truth. It was voiced long ago by no less an authority than Moses himself when he said, When a prophet speaketh in the Name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the Prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him (Deu 18:22).

The positive side of this subject is also presented by Jeremiah who says, The Prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the Prophet shall come to pass, then shall the Prophet be known, that the Lord hath truly sent him (Jer 28:9).

In other words, there is a crucial test for every fore-seer and forth-speaker. Time is that test; and it never fails to inform men whether the spokesmen are true or false.

Daniel is one of the men to whom time has paid increasing tribute; for his prophetic delineations have seen such measure of historic fulfilment as to leave no doubt concerning his inspiration. For proof of this, I will ask you to follow the text of chapter 11 through, under the themes, The International Conflicts, Antiochus Epiphanes, and The Person of the Antichrist.

THE INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS

Dan 11:1-21.

We have here presented, first, The power and passing of Persia. Darius ruled over the Media-Persian empire and in the first year of his reign the Heavenly visitor communicated to Daniel this fact,

Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia, (Dan 11:2).

In the previous discussion we have touched upon this matter, but as we return to it now let it be said that the better Bible students are commonly agreed on the fact that these three were: the son of Cyrus, Cambyses; Smerdis, an impostor, who, because of his striking likeness to the son of Cambyses, claimed and secured the throne; and Darius who succeeded him.

The text, however, clearly affirms a fourth who shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.

Here the unanimity of opinion among Bible students is stronger still, for Xerxes fully meets the prophetic description. His riches were of renown, and. he stirred up Asia against Greece, and with the largest army ancient history ever saw or knew, involving two million and more of men, he sought to crush the Grecian rebellion and render forever impotent its political aspirations.

In verses three and four another world-figure is introduced, namely, Alexander, whose rapid rise was one of the amazements of an amazing age. To this hour he is known as Alexander the Great. His supremacy began with Greece at his feet and the whole Medo-Persian realm as the object of his conquest. In a brief space of time his dominion was well nigh absolute; but alas for the weakness of even the mightiest man! His immorality contributed to the fulfilment of the further prophecy,

When he shall stand up, his kingdom shall he broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those (Dan 11:4),

He died in the prime of his days, the victim of egotism and immorality combined. His heirs were slain; his kingdom went to pieces literally.

Thus far then, Daniel has proven a true Prophet of God, for the thing which he spake came to pass.

Perhaps in all human history no nation has ever made so brilliant a record as did Greece. In spite of her comparatively short life she brought forth warriors, statesmen, philosophers and historians of an incomparable quantity and quality.

Prof. Conklin of Princeton University, in his volume The Direction of Human Evolution says, It is the opinion of those who have studied the subject most that no modern race of men is the equal intellectually of the ancient Greek race.

In the two centuries between 500 and 300 B.C. the small and relatively barren country of Attica, with an area and total population about equal to that of the present State of Rhode Island, but with less than one-fifth as many free persons, produced at least 25 illustrious men. Among statesmen and commanders there were: Miltiades, Themistocles, Aristides, Cimon, Pericles, Phocion; among poets, Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes; among philosophers and men of science, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Demetrius, Theophrastus; among architects and artists, Ictinus, Phidias, Praxiteles, Polygnotus; among historians, Thucydides and Xenophon; among orators, Aeschines, Demosthenes, Isocrates, Lysias.

In this small country in the space of two centuries there appeared such a galaxy of illustrious men as has never been found on the whole earth in any two centuries since that time. Galton concludes that the average ability of the Athenian race of that period was, on the lowest estimate, as much greater than that of the English race of the present day as the latter is above that of the African negro.

And yet, while this conquest of Greece was notable in its supremacy, as a world empire, and still more so in the point of mental superiority, the strange thing is that The Grecian disintegration prophesied by Daniel, found literal fulfilment. In Dan 11:5 we are told,

And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.

And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the kings daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not detain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they that brought her; and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times.

But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail:

And shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the north.

So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land.

But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress.

And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand.

And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it.

For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches.

And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.

So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand.

But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.

He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his ivhole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a Prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him.

Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.

Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle (Dan 11:5-20).

It is commonly conceded that these verses prophesy the wars of the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies, as those wars raged for 200 years or more.

As Jerusalem is central in Gods affection, so directions take their cue therefrom.

The king of the north was king of the land north of Jerusalem, and the king of the south was king of the land south of Jerusalem, or Palestine.

Dr. A. C. Gaebelein in his volume on the Prophet Daniel, publishes parallel columns to show the literal fulfilment of this prediction. In verse 6 he finds the prophecy of the marriage of the Egyptian Princess Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy the IInd to Antiochus, king of the north; and he traces the agreement between prophecy and history in the circumstance of Ptolemeys death and Berenices disloyalty to promise, and her final poisoning.

In the 7th verse he discovers reference to Ptolemy Euergetes, her own brother who avenged her death, conquered Syria, and fought against Seleucus the 2nd, king of the north. He it was who carried away captives into Egypt with precious vessels of silver and gold. Running this parallelism through history, Dr. Gaebelein winds it up with the appearance of the noble Maccabees whom he finds pictured in Dan 11:32-35.

We are not enamored of the custom of finding the last minutiae of prophecy written into the bold outlines of history. But such is the parallelism between these prophetic writings and this Grecian disintegration, that we are compelled to say we see no straining of Scripture or of history to see in one the prophetic photograph of the other; and when one has reached the 21st verse of this chapter, there is even less doubt, for it comes to deal with

ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES

There are several forms of work in which women engage where a mere pencil pattern on one side of a piece of cloth becomes the guide in producing attractive figures on the other side. There are certain forms of embroidery, certain forms of hooking, and certain forms of applique that so proceed that when the stitching is finished, the penciled pattern disappears, and the embossing holds all attention to itself.

However, every needle-woman knows the relation of that shadowy outline to the completed task. To us, such is the relation of Divine prophecy to human history. The prophetic Scriptures not only provide that outline, but it is only after mans work is accomplished that we see how history answers to that prophecy point by point.

There is a strange philosophy current with scholars of this day to the effect that the Bible is made up largely oi mythical incidents or interesting traditions or personal philosophies, and is therefore not subject to any scientific tests, while the features of nature and the experiences of life can be reduced to factual basis,; and, consequently, can be scientifically illustrated and proven.

Almost the exact opposite is true. Never in human history has any book been subjected to such scientific investigation, and tested by such scientific straight lines as the Book called The Scriptures and at every point it has proven that it is trustworthy.

This great outstanding character, Antiochus Epiphanes, is an illustration. Here we have him outlined in prophecy; but history, when it comes to tell its story, departs from that outline at no point.

In fact, it more and more seems to the thoughtful man that the definite objectives of history are the fulfilment of prophecy! Those objectives may be lost sight of as one weaves his way through geneological tables, but the God that is over all never forgets them, nor does He fail to arrive when the hour strikes.

Christ was to be the descendant of David according to prophecy, and according to history, such he was. According to prophecy, Christ was to have among His disciples a deceiver and betrayer, and according to history, He did.

The shuttle that weaves the tapestry of history is for the most part out of sight, but its work is all the more effective on that account, and its objectives are best seen after the shuttle itself has ceased flying back and forth.

So it is in the relation of prophecy to history. We have here, however, an interesting form of truth presentation, namely, that of the proto-type. The character of one man of one time is taken to depict and prophesy that of another who shall come upon the scene of action later. Such was Antiochus Epiphanes. He was a great proto-type of the antichrist.

It is needless here to rehearse his history or to remake the application to prophecy. We have done that to some degree of fullness in the former chapters. Suffice it to say that we hold with some excellent Bible students that the antichrist has the dual proto-type.

Antiochus Epiphanes was in the Old Testament a picture of this final embodiment of world power, philosophy, and wickedness; while Judas Iscariot was the New Testament type of the same individual. They were alikereligious in profession; they were alike in hypocritical pretense; they were alike, demon possessed, and diabolical in their endeavors; and the chief object of each was self-promotion, the first persecuting Gods people and desecrating the Divine Sanctuary in his endeavor, and the second, betraying Gods Son, and so attempting to throttle Christianity at its birth. Both of them were born in view of the day that many students of the Scripture believe to be rapidly approaching, when the antichrist shall make the final endeavor against God and His own.

A careful investigation of Dan 11:35-45 reveals

THE PERSON OF THE ANTICHRIST

He will come as the King of this world.

And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done (Dan 11:36).

The King as employed here is a phrase which marks this person as apart from all others. The phrase involves a number of Scripture implications.

First of all, his universal supremacy is suggestive in the statement, The king shall do according to his will. That he will appear as king of the Jews necessitates the suggestion that he will himself be an apostate Jew. The argument of some that this is not in accordance with the fact that he is to rise out of Rome, is to us illogical! The Jews are in every nation now, and of every nation. He can be, at once, a Roman and a Jew; nor does the argument from 1Jn 2:18-19 establish the fact that this final apostate is an apostate from Christianity, for the antichrists there referred to are merely forerunners of this final and consummate figure.

Personally, we have long believed that the spirit of Judas may be clothed in the flesh afresh, and that his birth, his former experience with the Christ, as well as his demonic possession may peculiarly fit him to fill this office of Christs final foe. It will be understood, however, that I throw this out as a mere suggestion, not as a dogmatic deliverance.

We have watched with interest the varied pulpit deliverances on this subject. Some saw in Lenin the antichrist; some see in Stalin the antichrist; some see in Mussolini the antichrist; and now, doubtless, Hitler will be next in ascendant.

There is a sense in which each of them participates. It is the sense, however, of Johns deliverance, Even now are there many antichrists (1Jn 2:18).

But there is also a plain prophecy to the effect that all will finally head up in one colossal figure who will come to supremacy in Daniels seventieth week, and whose character and accomplishments are alike divinely delineated.

There is at present such combinations of circumstances as to create him. The Socialist movement of the last one hundred years is beyond all question the supremely important movement of later centuries. Since the days of Carl Marx it has been increasingly accentuated, and more and more disputes with capitalism all world control. It stands stolidly for the solidarity of human kind, and reckons society itself not as an aggregation of individuals, but rather as the one and only God of the universe.

W. E. P. French, in The Creed of Collectivism quotes, The will of man is the Supreme Law; and its Voice the Mandate of God.

At our university centers there are an increasing number of professors who have shifted from the worship of God to the worship of man. To use the language of one, Man is slowly being revealed to himself. The word the world waits for will come from those who disclose to humanity that the perfections it has been attributing to its gods are sparks struck out of the goodness it feels stirring within itself.

Humanism, which is only another name for this new religion, is a literal fulfilment of the sentence, He * * shall magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods (Dan 11:36).

Combine this growing sentiment of the supposedly scholarly with the increasing disposition to disregard all Divine Law and make ones volition the only law to which he may be subjected, and you approach more and more the time when this text finds complete fulfilment.

Mr. Frenchs book states it, Socialism is the second coming of the elder brother.

But take a step further and

Face the fact that force is the God of this faith.

But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain (Dan 11:38-39).

More than a quarter of a century ago, Sir Robert Anderson called attention to this prophecy and to the then rising tendency, to exalt FORCE as the only god known to the universe, but the past twenty-five years have emphasized that tendency a hundredfold. Since that time, whole schools of scientists have declared themselves converts to this new faith. They glorify FORCE, and now the substratum of society is accepting their philosophy and proposing to put the same into practice.

That is why Stalin relies upon force; that is why Mussolini recognizes no other God; that is why Hitler increases his brown shirt crowd; and all of that is in absolute line with the great popular philosophy of the day, EVOLUTION! It seeks to exert its propaganda that only the strong have a right to survive.

When I consider the philosophy of Socialism, when I think on the hypothesis of evolution, when I observe the madness of nations, when I regard the international maelstrom, allabsolutely moving now in the direction of a final unification of the rise of a world ruler,when I see how the corporation idea has already conquered in business, has already throttled all independence in lines of education, and how it seems absolutely determined to take over religion, and deteriorate it, I join with those who believe that the day of the end of this age draws near. And yet I face that fact with calmness; yea, even with content, because I believe what Daniel has further to say on these subjects,

He shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

If we have a prophetic outline of the person, character, and career of the antichrist we have also a sure promise from God that that person shall pass. His character shall finally be revealed in the white light of eternal truth, his career shall close with a kindred catastrophe to that which ended all his types and symbols.

John, in his vision saw

Heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and He that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He doth judge and make war.

His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns; and He had a name written, that no man knew, but He Himself.

And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and His Name is called The Word of God.

And the armies which were in Heaven followed Him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

And out of His mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it He should smite the nations: and He shall rule them with a rod of iron: and He treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

And He hath on His vesture and on His thigh a Name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him that sat on the horse, and against His army.

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone (Rev 19:11-20).

That is the end of the antichrist! That is the victory of the coming Lord! That will be the time when all angels of Heaven and all saints, whether in the clouds or on the earth, shall unite their voices in singing,

Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God!

He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. EVEN SO, COME, LORD JESUS.

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

HOMILETICS

SECT. XXXVIII.THE KINGS OF THE NORTH AND OF THE SOUTH. (Chap. Dan. 11:1-20.)

We come to the things which the angel was commissioned to communicate to the prophet, and through him to the Church. They are spoken of as the things which should befall his people in the latter days, [301] being the things noted in the scripture of truth. The chapter is a continuation of the angels discourse, the first verse being more properly connected with the preceding chapter, as the communication only commences with the second. The prophecy is the most extensive and minute one which the prophet had hitherto received, including a period stretching from Daniels own time to the resurrection of the dead. [302] It contains a further filling up of the outline of the four great empires already given in the visions of the Great Image and the Four Beasts (chap. 2 and 7), as well as that of the Third Monarchy and the Little Horn in the vision of the Ram and the He-goat (chap, 8.) The prediction was given, says Auberlen, to be a light to the people of Israel in one of the darkest periods of their chequered history, and, indeed, in the darkest centuries of their abandonment by Godcenturies that have not yet run their course. The angelic communication commences with a glance at the kings of Persia, who were yet to arise, and at the founder of the Third or Grecian Empire who was to succeed them. The angel then passes to the contendings that took place between the kings of two of the divisions of Alexanders partitioned empire, Syria and Egypt, in order to introduce the power who had already formed a sadly conspicuous object in the visions of Daniel, as the great antagonist and persecutor of the Jews and of the religion of Jehovah, Antiochus Epiphanes, one of the kings of Syria. These Syrian kings are spoken of in the vision as the kings of the North, as distinguished from the kings of Egypt or of the South, to whom, after Alexanders death, the Jews were subject. From Antiochus the vision appeals to pass to others of whom he appears as the type.

[301] In the latter days (chap. Dan. 10:14). Dr. Cox remarks that, by this expression in the preceding chapter, our views are naturally conducted through the perspective of revolving ages; all the events of which, till the great consummation, must be contemplated with reference to the Jewish nation or Daniels people, whose affairs form the centre of the chief transactions of this lower world.

[302] Of all the predictions contained in the holy Scriptures, observes Auberlen, this is doubtless the most special and minute. Its special minuteness, however, is by no means of such a kind as to lift the veil which, in the wise counsels of the Almighty, has been drawn across the future, nor of such a kind as to unfold the future to the gaze of a profane curiosity. Mr. Birks gives the following summary of it:This enlarged prophecy of the Scripture of Truth resumes the message of the earlier visions, and unfolds more clearly the idol-worship set up by the Little Horn or Wilful King, in the three times and a half, of his permitted power, with the warfare of the Saracens and Turks, and their dominion in the East. A further extension of the predicted times is at length revealed. In this latest portion of the prophetic calendar, the Wilful King enters on the last form of his apostate power; and assuming to himself the features of personal malignity and an open rejection of Christ, which belong to Antiochus, his type and predecessor, and the king of the North, his temporary rival, gathers at length under his banner all the apostate nations; and in the height of his power and pride is broken and overthrown by the hand of God in the mountains of Israel. Keil observes: It is true that the Church interpretation, given by Jerome, is so far valid, in that it interprets the prophecy partially considered under the point of view of the very special predictions of historical persons and events, and from this view concludes that Dan. 11:21-35 treat of Antiochus Epiphanes, and Dan. 11:36-45 of Antichrist; according to which there would be in Dan. 11:36 an immediate passing from Antiochus to the Antichrist, or, in chap. Dan. 12:1, a sudden transition from the death of Antiochus to the time of the end and the resurrection of the dead. But the prophecy does not at all correspond to this representation. The angel of the Lord will reveal to Daniel, not what shall happen from the third year of Cyrus to the time of Antiochus, and further to the resurrection of the dead; but, according to the express declaration of chap. Dan. 10:14, what shall happen to his people, (beakharith haiyamim), in the end of the days, i.e., in the Messianic future, because the prophecy relates to His time. In the (akharith haiyamim), the latter days or end of the days, there takes place the destruction of the world-powers, and the setting up of the Messianic kingdom at the end of the present world on. All that the angel says respecting the Persian and the Javanic (or Grecian) world-kingdoms, and the wars of the kings of the North and the South, has its aim to the end-time, and serves only briefly to indicate the chief elements of the development of the world-kingdoms, till the time that brings on the end shall burst forth; and to show how, after the overthrow of the Javanic world-kingdom, neither the kings of the North nor those of the South shall gain the possession of the dominion of the world. Neither by the violence of war, nor by the covenants which they will ratify by political marriages, shall they succeed in establishing a lasting power. They shall not prosper, because (chap. Dan. 11:27) the end goes yet to the time appointed by God. A new attempt of the king of the North to subjugate the kingdom of the South will be defeated by the intervention of the ships of Chittim; and the anger awakened in him by this frustration of his plans shall break forth against the holy covenant, only for the purifying of the people of God for the time of the end, because the end goes yet to the appointed time (Dan. 11:35). At the time of the end, his power will greatly increase, because that which was determined by God shall prosper till the end of the indignation (Dan. 11:36); but in the time of the end he shall suddenly fall from the summit of his power, and come to his end (Dan. 11:45); but the people of God shall be saved, and the wise shall shine in heavenly glory (chap Dan. 12:1-3).

I. The Persians and Alexander the Great (Dan. 11:2-4). Cyrus, the founder of the Second or Persian Empire, was now, as is stated in the previous chapter (chap. Dan. 10:1), in the third year of his reign, after succeeding his uncle, Darius the Mede, otherwise called Cyaxares II., who on the fall of Babylon had taken or received the kingdom, which he ruled for two years. To this second empire the Jews were in subjection, as they had been to the first or Babylonian, Judea being still only a tributary province. It was through the favour of its monarchs that the Jews were for two centuries to enjoy peace and prosperity in their own land and elsewhere. At the head of this empire there were yet to be three kings, who should be followed by a fourth, far richer than any of his predecessors (Dan. 11:2). These three kings are known in history as Cambyses, a son of Cyrus; Smerdis, who pretended to be another son; and Darius Hystaspis. The fourth is the well-known Xerxes, [303] thought to be the same with Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther, whose riches were proverbial, and in whose reign the empire reached its highest magnificence. By his strength, through his riches, he was to stir up all against the realm of Grecia. He is known as the king who, in his war with Greece, covered the shores of the Hellespont with his immense host. The disasters that attended his expedition, and the entire overthrow of the empire under one of his successors, Darius Codomannus, are well known in history.

[303] The fourth. The Xerxes of the Book of Esther, according to Keil, Hvernick, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Auberlen, and Kliefoth. On the contrary, Hitzig and some others would make the fourth king to be the third, to justify their interpretation of the four wings and four heads of the leopard (chap. Dan. 7:6) of the first four kings of the Persian monarchy.

After mentioning Xerxes, the angel passes to the power by which the Persian empire was to be overthrown: A mighty king shall stand up, which shall rule with great dominion, and shall do according to his will (Dan. 11:3). Alexander the Great, thus referred to, with his rapid and extensive conquests, has been already before us in former visions as the founder of the Third or Grecian Empire. When in the height of his prosperity, however, he was to be cut off and his kingdom to be broken, and divided toward the four winds of heaven, his successors being none of his own posterity (Dan. 11:4). This also we have seen fulfilled in the untimely and unexpected death of Alexander, and in the division of his empire, not between his two sons, Alexander and Hercules, who were both murdered soon after their fathers death, but among his four generals, Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus. See further under chap. Dan. 7:6, and Dan. 8:5-8; Dan. 8:21-22. Although the condition of the Jews was considerably affected by Alexander, it is more as a link in the historical chain that he is here introduced.

II. The kings of Syria and Egypt, or of the North and South (Dan. 11:5-20). These, the most powerful of Alexanders successors, are made, with their mutual contendings, to occupy a considerable part of the prophecy, from the circumstance that Judea lay between them, and was often the bone of contention to the rival parties. The Jews, says Luther, placed thus between the door and the hinges, were sorely tormented on both sides. Now they fell a prey to Egypt, and anon to Syria, as the one kingdom or the other got the better; and they had to pay dearly for their neighbourhood, as is wont to be in time of war.

The prophecy regarding these kings commences with the statement that the king of the South or of Egypt should be strong, and one of his princes, that is, of the princes of Alexander, namely, the king of Syria, who should be strong above him, and have dominion, which should be a great dominion (Dan. 11:5). [304] This we find verified in the kings of Egypt and Syria, or, as they are sometimes called, the Lagid and the Seleucid, from the names of their respective founders, Ptolemy Lagus, and Seleucus; the latter becoming the sovereign of not less than three fourths of all the Asiatic dominions conquered by Alexander the Great. It was under Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second of the kings of Egypt, that, in consequence of the number of Jews residing in that country [305] and speaking Greek, the Greek or Septuagint version of the Old Testament was made, about the year 273 B.C. Of these kings, the angel says, in the end of years, or after several years, they shall join themselves together, in friendly alliance; for the kings daughter of the South shall come to the king of the North to make an agreement; an alliance, however, which was to effect nothing; the angel adding, but she shall not retain the power of the arm, or be able to render any permanent help to her father in relation to Syria. Neither shall he stand, nor his arm; but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her (marg., he whom she brought forth), and he (or they) that strengthened her in these times (Dan. 11:6). Jerome, from various ancient authors, gives the following account in verification of the prophecy:After many years, Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, wishing to bring this troublesome contention to an end, gave his daughter Berenice in marriage to Antiochus, king of Syria (surnamed Theos or the god); Antiochus having two sons, Callinicus and Antiochus, by Laodicea, his first wife, who was still living. Philadelphus himself took his daughter to Pelusium, carrying with him as her dowry many thousands of gold and silver, whence he obtained the name of the Dowry-bearer. But Antiochus, though at first professing to take Berenice for his consort in the kingdom, and to retain Laodicea as his concubine, after a length of time was overcome by the love of his first wife, and took Laodicea and her children back to the palace. Landicea, fearing that Berenice would win back the heart of her fickle husband, employed her servants to take away his life by poison, and then delivered up Berenice and the child she had borne to Antiochus to two princes of Antioch to be murdered, while she made Callinicus, her eldest son, king in the room of his father. The angel foretells the sequel of this tragedy. But out of a branch of her roots, sprung from the same parents, shall one stand up in his estate (or stead), which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress (or strong city) of the king of the North, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail: and shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the North. So the king of the South shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land (Dan. 11:7-9). Jerome relates: After the murder of Berenice and the death of her father Ptolemy Phila-delphus, her own brother, Ptolemy Euergetes, came with a great army and entered into the provinces of Callinicus, then reigning in Syria with his mother Laodicea; and after revenging himself upon them, took possession of Syria, Cilicia, the parts beyond the Euphrates, and almost all Asia. Afterwards, on receiving intelligence from Egypt that a sedition had arisen, he seized on the kingdom of Callinicus, took forty thousand talents of silver, precious vessels, and images of gods to the number of two thousand and five hundred, including those which Cambyses had carried out of Egypt into Persia. In reference to the clause, he shall continue more years than the king of the North, it has been remarked that the average length of a reign in Egypt was about twenty-seven years and four months, while that in Syria was just one-half; and that the atrocious cruelty of the Syrians, and especially their oppression of the Jews, is enough to account for the shortness of their lives, to any one who takes into consideration the retributive providence of God, who scourges unjust kings by their discontented subjects.

[304] Shall be strong, and one of his princes (Dan. 11:5). C. B. Michaelis, Rosenmller, and others understand his princes as those of the mighty king (Dan. 11:3), or Alexander; while Keil refers the pronoun to the king of the South, the prince being the king of the North. Bishop Newton, who observes that the Hebrew text appears here a little confused, and perhaps defective, thinks that possibly the words (melech hattsaphon), king of the North, may have fallen out. The rendering of the Septuagint is clearer: And one of these princes shall be stronger than he. It is here where Mr. Bosanquet thinks the marginal comment began, which ultimately became incorporated with the text. He thinks the prophet gives no particulars concerning the four successors of Alexander, but proceeds at once to the object of the vision, the king of the latter days, according to chap. Dan. 10:14, after amplifying in Dan. 11:2-4 what is said in chap. Dan. 8:20-22 concerning the kingdoms of Persia and Greece, and thus leading back the mind of the reader to the words of chap. Dan. 7:17, at the time of the end shall be the vision, i.e., the vision of the king of fierce countenance (Dan. 8:23), who shall appear at the last end of the indignation (Dan. 8:19), and who shall stand up in the latter time of those kingdoms which were to be formed on the platform of Alexanders empire in the East, that is, in the latter days. He thinks the interpreter, passing over Ptolemy Soter, Lysimachus, Cassander, and Seleucus Nicator, selects, out of more than twenty, ten kings, beginning with Ptolemy Philadelphus, and ending with Antiochus Epiphanes and Philometor, who all lived nearly in his own days, being the ten kings or horns for whose succession the kingdom of Alexander was to be plucked up, according to Dan. 11:4. In this supposition Mr. B. appears to stand alone.

[305] Robbers of thy people (Dan. 11:14). (varitse ammecha), according to Dr. Rule, are the separatists who left Judea for Egypt, and there attached themselves to Onias, who built a temple at Heliopolis like that at Jerusalem, and established a kind of rival worship. Sir Isaac Newton considers them to be the Samaritans and such like. The Septuagint has pestilent ones; the Vulgate, prevaricators. Bishop Newton renders the term revolters, the factious and refractory ones, the majority of the Jews at that time being for breaking away from allegiance to Ptolemy, king of Egypt. Keil understands those violent men who break through the barriers of the divine law (Eze. 18:10).

The angel proceeds. But his sons (those of the king of Syria) shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces; and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress. And the king of the South shall be moved to choler, and shall come forth, and fight with him, even with the king of the North, and he shall set forth a great multitude, but the multitude shall be given into his hand. And when he shall take away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands; but he shall not be strengthened by it. For the king of the North shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after many years with a great army and with much riches (Dan. 11:10-13). The following are the facts of history that verify this part of the prophecy:The two sons of Callinicus, namely, Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus, surnamed the Great, stirred themselves up to recover their fathers dominions. The former, though surnamed the Thunderer, was equally weak in body and mind, and after a reign of three years was poisoned by his generals, having done little more than assemble a large force, which, for want of money, he was unable to keep together. After his death, his brother Antiochus came with a great army, retook Seleucia, his fortress, and recovered Syria; and after a time he returned, overcame the Egyptian general, and had thoughts of invading Egypt itself. Ptolemy Philopator, having succeeded his father Euergetes, whom he had murdered, enraged at his losses, roused himself from his sensual indulgences, and marched with a numerous army us far us Raphia, between Rinocolura and Gaza, where he met Antiochus with a still more powerful host. The latter was defeated, and his numerous armament given into Ptolemys hand, ten thousand of his troops having been slain, and four thousand made prisoners. The weak heart of Ptolemy was lifted up by his success, and on making a visit to Jerusalem, among other cities which sent their ambassadors to do him homage, he demanded to be allowed to enter the interior of the temple. When Simon the high priest remonstrated, alleging that not even ordinary priests were admitted into the inner sanctuary, the king haughtily answered that although they were forbidden, he ought not to be so, and then pressed forward. The Jewish historian relates that in passing through the inner court for that purpose, he was seized with a panic and fell speechless to the ground. He was carried out half dead; and soon after his recovery he departed, full of anger against the Jewish people. The result was that on returning to Alexandria, he commenced a bitter persecution of the numerous Jews residing there, so that many ten thousands were cast down by it; only three hundred retaining their civil rights at the expense of their religion, while, according to Eusebius, forty thousand, or, according to Jerome, half as many more, preferred death rather than obey the royal decree that commanded them to worship idols. Ptolemy, giving himself up to his pleasures instead of pursuing his victory over Antiochus, was not strengthened by it. He died about a dozen years after, and Antiochus, raising an incredibly large army among the upper provinces of Babylonia and Media, came down upon his son, Ptolemy Epiphanes, an infant four years old.

The prophecy continues: And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the South: also the robbers of thy people, [306] or breakers, that is, of the divine law, shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall. So the king of the North shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities; and the arms of the South shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed (Dan. 11:14-16.) [307] History relates that Philip of Macedon entered into a league with Antiochus to divide Ptolemys dominions between them, each taking the part that lay nearest to him; in consequence of which, as Judea lay nearest to Antiochus, that country was seized by him and the generals of Ptolemy by turns. The Jews themselves were divided into factions, part favouring the cause of Ptolemy, to whom they were already under allegiance, while others gave their aid to Antiochus, by which they only prepared the way for the fulfilment of the prophecy regarding the sufferings which the Jews were to endure under one of his successors. The help, however, which was rendered to Antiochus by the Syrian faction at Jerusalem, was of little avail. Scopas, the Egyptian general, recovered Phenicia and Cle-Syria; and after subduing the Jews, placed a garrison in Jerusalem. This, however, only continued for a time. Antiochus, coming to Judea, encountered Scopas at the sources of the Jordan, destroyed a great part of his army, and pursued him to Sidon, where he shut him up, with ten thousand of his men, till famine obliged him to surrender. Antiochus soon retook Phenicia, Cle-Syria, and Palestine, nothing being able to withstand his victorious arms. He stood in the glorious land. The party that revolted from Ptolemy cordially received him into Jerusalem, and even assisted him in besieging the garrison which Scopas had left in the citadel, so that his power was established in Judea. The land, however, was wasted by his troops, as well as in other ways.

[306] Robbers of thy people (Dan. 11:14). (varitse ammecha), according to Dr. Rule, are the separatists who left Judea for Egypt, and there attached themselves to Onias, who built a temple at Heliopolis like that at Jerusalem, and established a kind of rival worship. Sir Isaac Newton considers them to be the Samaritans and such like. The Septuagint has pestilent ones; the Vulgate, prevaricators. Bishop Newton renders the term revolters, the factious and refractory ones, the majority of the Jews at that time being for breaking away from allegiance to Ptolemy, king of Egypt. Keil understands those violent men who break through the barriers of the divine law (Eze. 18:10).

[307] Shall be consumed (Dan. 11:16). (calah) may also denote, shall be perfected, prosper, and flourish. The Septuagint has shall be finished. Bishop Newton remarks that Antiochus, in order to reward and encourage the Jews in their fidelity and obedience to him, gave orders that their city should be repaired, and the temple should be finished and adorned. Keil regards the word not as a verb but a substantive, and reads (as an explanatory clause), and destruction is in his hand; the destruction referring to the Holy Land, in which violent (or rapacious) people (Dan. 11:14) make common cause with the heathen king, and so put arms into his hands to destroy the land. Hvernick and others, also regarding (calah) as a noun, render the clause, and it (the land) is wholly given into his hand.

The angel proceeds: He shall also set his face to enter with (or against) the strength of his whole kingdom (or, to enter by force into the whole kingdom, i.e., of Egypt), and upright ones (or, according to the margin, equal conditions,an agreement by a marriage alliance) with him: thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her; but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him. And after this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him. Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble, and fall, and not be found (Dan. 11:17-19). History gives the fulfilment. Antiochus, having been so far successful against Egypt, formed schemes to seize upon the whole kingdom. His aim was to accomplish this by means of a marriage alliance, giving Ptolemy his beautiful daughter Cleopatra in marriage, thinking, through her affection for himself, to obtain the kingdom of her husband. In this, however, he was disappointed. The marriage took place, but Cleopatra was too true a wife for his ambitious schemes, and sided with her husband against her father. Antiochus then, collecting a large fleet, turned his face to the isles of the Mediterranean, including the Greek cities of the coast, many of which he took. As these, however, were in alliance with the Romans, the latter, under the consul Acilius, uniting with their allies, after gaining repeated victories over Antiochus, compelled him to return with his army into Asia. After his defeat at Magnesia, he fled to Sardis, and the next day reached Antioch, the fort of his own land. Two years after he was slain by the Persians while plundering the temple of Jupiter Belus at Elymais, or, according to another account, by his companions while carousing at a banquet.

The prophecy regarding the kings of the North and the South, introductory to the main one relating to Antiochus Epiphanes, closes with the brief notice of Seleucus Philopator. There shall stand up in his estate (or stead) a raiser of taxes (Marg., one that causeth an exactor to pass over), [308] in the glory of the kingdom; but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle (Dan. 11:20). This raiser of taxes was Seleucus Philopator, who succeeded his father Antiochus the Great, and did nothing memorable in his twelve years reign. Of a sluggish disposition, he was intent on nothing but raising money to pay the tax levied upon him by the Romans. He was murdered by his treasurer or chief collector, Heliodorus, whom he had sent to plunder the Temple at Jerusalem.

[308] A raiser of taxes (Dan. 11:20). (noghes), according to most, a collector of tribute, as in 2Ki. 23:35; the person understood being Heliodorus, whom Seleucus Philopator sent to Jerusalem to seize the temple treasure. Keil prefers taskmaster; and understands the oppressions not only of the Holy Land, but of his kingdom in general. He observes here that, from a comparison of the prophecy with the history, this much follows, that the prophecy does net furnish a prediction of the historical wars of the Seleucid and the Ptolemies, but an ideal description of the war of the kings of the North and the South in its general outlines; whereby, it is true, divers special elements of the prophetical announcement have been historically fulfilled, but the historical reality does not correspond with the contents of the prophecy in anything like an exhaustive manner.

From this part of the prophecy we may note

1. The foreknowledge and providence of God. The Apostle only declared what reason itself may teach us, when he said, Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world. The architect knows beforehand what he will do in the erection of the building when he prepares the plan. The weaver knows beforehand what he will do with his web when he has fixed upon the pattern. Gods works embrace those of providence as well as of creation. My Father worketh hitherto, said Jesus, and I work. His almighty power and boundless wisdom are continually occupied in relation to all that His creating hand has produced, upholding and governing all His creatures and all their actions, so that without Him not even a sparrow falls to the ground. In Him we live and move, as well as have our being. The details predicted in this section, now matters of history, were all included within the divine foreknowledge and Providence, like every other event that takes place. Being foreknown by God, it was easy to communicate the knowledge of them beforehand, as far as divine wisdom saw meet. It is our comfort to know that the Lord reigneth; and that not only matters connected with rulers and empires, but all events, whether great or small, are not only known by God beforehand, but are ordered and controlled in His all-wise providence, so that the ends He designs shall be accomplished; making even the wrath of man to praise Him, while the remainder of that wrath He restrains; and causing all things to work together for good to them that love God, and who are called according to His purpose (Psa. 76:10; Rom. 8:28). This gracious purpose continually kept in view in all His doings. The thing that is determined shall be done (Dan. 11:36).

2. The character and condition of human nature apart from divine grace. The section valuable as confirming the view given of the kingdoms of the world in Daniels vision of the Four Beasts, of which the third is here partially exhibited. It affords an epitome of secular history extending over three centuries, and a specimen of that history in all ages of the world. It is especially valuable inasmuch as the period brought before us in the section is that in which Greek culture had reached its highest perfection. It exhibits sin and misery as the characteristics of fallen humanity with all the advantages that worldly art and science could afford it. It shows the works of the flesh, or of mans fallen nature unrenewed by divine grace, to be what the Bible represents them,enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions; unrighteousness, covetousness, envy, murder, deceit, malignity (Gal. 4:20; Rom. 1:29). Fifty thousand unoffending Jews cruelly massacred by a Ptolemy in and around his own metropolis, because he was refused a profane entrance into the Holy of Holies at Jerusalem! Gods long-suffering patience and fatherly pity exercised on such a world. The world was shown to need a Saviour, and a Saviour was provided. Into such a world Christ came. God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him might not perish but have everlasting life. The view here given of the kingdoms of the world, such as to awaken the longing for the setting up and universal extension of the promised kingdom, which is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

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

CHAPTER ELEVEN

V. THE CONTEMPTIBLE ONE Dan. 11:1-45

a. PROGENITORS
(1) PERSIA AND GREECE

TEXT: Dan. 11:1-4

1

And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to conform and strengthen him.

2

And now I show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all; and when he is waxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece.

3

And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.

4

And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion wherewith he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others besides these.

QUERIES

a.

Who are the three kings of Persia yet to stand?

b.

Who is the mighty king to rule with great dominion?

c.

What are the four divisions of his kingdom?

PARAPHRASE

And I, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to be a supporter and a stronghold unto Michael. And now I will show you the truth as to what the future holds for Gods people. Three more Persian kings will reign after the present one. These three will be succeeded by a fourth, far richer than the others. Using his wealth for political advantage, he will plan total war against Greece. Then a mighty king will rise in Greece, a king who will rule a vast kingdom and accomplish everything he sets out to do. But at the zenith of his power, his kingdom will fall to pieces and be divided into four kingdoms, which will be much weaker than his former powerful one. Not one of these four kingdoms will be ruled over by this great kings children. His empire will be torn apart and given to those not of his family.

COMMENT

Dan. 11:1 AND AS FOR ME . . . This verse really belongs to chapter 10 and should be the closing sentence of Dan. 10:20. The angelic speaker is relating how he had previously helped Michael, the archangel, as Michael had to overcome great obstacles at the Persian court in the first year of Gubaru (Darius). See our comments on 10:30 and Dan. 10:20.

Dan. 11:2 . . . YET THREE KINGS IN PERSIA; AND THE FOURTH . . . We take this to mean there would be three kings of Persia to follow Cyrus. And after the three following Cyrus there would be a fourth, richer by far than any of the others. Edward J. Young tabulates the prophecy thus:

1.

Cyrus

2.

1

YET

Cambyses

3.

2

TO

Smerdis

4.

3

STAND

Darius Hystaspis

5.

The 4th

Xerxes

For an excellently detailed account of the history of these Persian monarchs, see Between The Testaments, by Charles F. Pfeiffer, pub. by Baker, pages 1143. Cambyses, son of Cyrus, while returning home from a protracted campaign in Egypt and Ethiopia, died of a wound accidently self-inflicted when mounting his horse. The Persian record of his death suggests suicide. We know that he suffered from epileptic fits. Cyrus had at least two sons, Cambyses and his brother, Bardiya. Cambyses is reported to have murdered Bardiya. Before his death, a revolt in the homeland had been initiated by one Gaumata. The news of this revolt was what precipitated Cambyses hasty return from Egypt. Gaumata claimed to be Bardiya, the brother of Cambyses, and heir to the throne. After Cambyses died, the army remained loyal to the government which he represented. Two months later the pretender (known as Pseudo-Smerdis) Gaumata was taken prisoner and executed.

Legend states that, after the death of Cambyses, seven Persian nobles, under the leadership of Darius, conspired against the false Bardiya. They agreed to choose as king the one whose horse neighed first after sunrise. Through the ruse of his groom, the throne was won for Darius. Darius claimed to be the legitimate successor of Cambyses. In the eyes of many of his contemporaries he was a usurper. The Behistun inscription shows the pains which Darius Hystaspis took to prove that he was the scion of the house of Achemenes.

Darius Hystaspis is the emperor who protected the Jews from their Samaritan enemies, who were trying to thwart the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem and the temple. Darius found in the royal archives at Ecbatana the decree of Cyrus that the Jews be permitted to re-occupy and rebuild their commonwealth. Darius determined that the decree must be honored. His royal order is found in Ezr. 6:7-8.

Darius attempted to conquer the Scythians (originating in the vast plains of western Russia and settling north of the Black Sea, and west and south as far as the Danube) but they only retreated. Their scorched earth policy compelled Darius to give up pursuing them. He conquered Asia Minor and its coastal cities of commerce. He conquered large portions of India and Egypt and turned his attention to Greece. When Darius landed at Marathon, he was met by the Athenian army. Before reinforcements could arrive from Sparta, the Athenians met the Persians and won a resounding victory. Seven Persian ships were captured by the Greeks, and the remainder withdrew. Troubles in Egypt demanded the attention of Darius, and he gave up his plans for resuming his operations against Greece.
Shortly after Marathon, Egypt was in open revolt against Darius. The heavily garrisoned troops living off the land, and the heavy tribute and taxes demanded by Darius, proved too much for the Egyptians. The Greeks had probably encouraged revolting in Egypt and other trouble spots in the Persian Empire.
Before the Egyptian revolt was ended, Darius had died. As an organizer of the civil government, he has seldom been equaled. The royal palace which he built at Persepolis was one of the great structures of antiquity. Darius could be cruel. He ruled as an absolute monarch. Organizationally, the Persian Empire reached its peak of efficiency under Darius, but decay had already begun to set in.

Xerxes was the son of Darius by Atossa, a daughter of Cyrus. For twelve years he served under his father as viceroy of Babylon before succeeding to the throne at the death of Darius. The Persian form of the name Xerxes is Khshayarsha, which, in Hebrew, is rendered Ahasuerus (cf. Ezr. 4:6 and the Book of Esther). Under Xerxes the Persians were soundly defeated by the Greeks at Salamis, 480 B.C. He lived 14 years after the loss of Greece, but little is known about him in that time. He was murdered by a usurper, Artabanus, who is said to have reigned seven months before being killed by Artaxerxes, the third son and legitimate heir of Xerxes. Xerxes was about 55 years old when he was assassinated. He was reported to be very rich and indulgent and to act habitually like a spoilt child. The Esther episode agrees well with this description. He was given to ostentation and loved display, and appears to have been susceptible to the flattery and intrigue of fawning courtiers.

From this time on the strength of the Persian empire began to wane and it was finally overwhelmed by Alexander the Great (whose history we have recorded in connection with chapters 7 and 8.

Dan. 11:3-4 AND A MIGHTY KING SHALL STAND UP . . . HIS KINGDOM SHALL BE BROKEN, AND SHALL BE DIVIDED TOWARD THE FOUR WINDS OF HEAVEN, BUT NOT TO HIS POSTERITY . . . When Alexander died in 323 B.C., he left no heir. A son was posthumously born to Roxana, Alexanders Bactrian wife, but the diadochoi, or successors of Alexander, seized power before he could reach maturity. One of the diadochoi, Cassander, murdered Roxana and her son.

Alexander had had many able generals, but there was not one that arose as his logical successor. By 315 B.C., after seven years of struggle, four outstanding leaders appeared: Antigonus who occupied the country from the Mediterranean to central Asia; Cassander, who ruled Macedonia; Ptolemy Lagi who ruled Egypt and Southern Syria; and Lysimachus, ruler of Thrace. Ptolemys foremost general was Seleucus who occupied an important role in the subsequent history of Palestine.
In 315 B.C., Ptolemy, Cassander, and Lysimachus formed an alliance to check Antigonus, who aspired in his own right to be a second Alexander. After much fighting within the alliance it came to a head in 301 B.C. when Lysimachus, Seleucus (now almost independent of Ptolemy) and Cassander with their combined forces met and overcome the forces of the empire-conscious Antigonus at Ipsus, in Phrygia. Antigonus died on the battlefield, and his Asiatic empire came to an end. Ptolemy had remained on the sidelines during the fighting at Ipsus. It had been agreed that Syria and Palestine would be assigned to Ptolemy in the event of victory over Antigonus. Since Ptolemy had not taken an active part in the fighting the other three allies decided that the territories of Syria and Palestine should be assigned to Seleucus.

It is nothing short of supernatural and miraculous to observe how the actual history of this period and this part of the world and these people confirms in minute detail the prophecies here made by Daniel some 300 years before it transpired! The minuteness and detail of this eleventh chapter, and its actual fulfillment to the letter is the one factor motivating the destructive critics of the Bible to place the Book of Daniel as late as the 2nd century B.C. For if the Book of Daniel was written near 600500 B.C. his prediction of these details of history which can only have happened to the Ptolemies and Seleucids is proof-positive of supernatural revelation! The history unfolds in even more detail in the succeeding verses of this eleventh chapter.

QUIZ

1.

Where does Dan. 11:1 belong in the text?

2.

Who is the angelic being strengthening?

3.

Name the four kings to succeed Cyrus in Persia and tell of their exploits.

4.

Who is the mighty king?

5.

Why was his kingdom not given to his posterity?

6.

Who did obtain rule of his kingdom after his death and how?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

XI.

(1) In the first year of Darius.These words must be closely connected with the last verse of Daniel 10. The allusion is, most probably, to the fall of Babylon and the return from the Exile, at which time, as at the Exodus, the angel of the Lord went before His people. There is also a reference to Dan. 6:22.

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

1. R.V. reads,”And as for me, in the first year,” etc. This is a continuation of Gabriel’s speech which should not have been interrupted by a chapter heading. For Darius the Mede see our Introduction, III, 3, (5). It is hard to be certain of the meaning of this verse. The various versions show that this uncertainty extended back to the earliest times. The words as they stand in the Hebrew may mean either that Gabriel had strengthened Michael in a former combat some years previously, in return for which he now gives him help against the prince of Persia (Dan 10:13; Dan 10:21), or they may mean that this divine messenger had been on the side of Darius the Mede in his conflict with Belshazzar (Dan 5:30-31), thus emphasizing the fact once more that human kings get their thrones by heavenly help. The Greek version reads “Cyrus” here instead of Darius. This gives a new and important meaning to the statement of the angel, since it was in the first year of Cyrus that the edict for the return of the Jews to their own land was proclaimed. It would then mean that only by such supernatural agency could this victory for the Jews have been wrought, and that the same help was pledged to them in all their future history.

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

Dan 11:1  Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.

Dan 11:1 Comments – Note that an angel also strengthened Jesus in Luk 22:43, “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.”

Dan 11:2-4 Alexander the Great’s Rise to Power Dan 11:2-4 describes Alexander the Great’s rise to power.

Dan 11:2 And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.

Dan 11:2 “And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia” Comments John Gill, Adam Clarke, and Albert Barnes name the three kings of Persia spoken of in Dan 11:2 who followed Darius the Mede. [126]

[126] John Gill, Daniel, in John Gill’s Expositor, in OnLine Bible, v. 2.0 [CD-ROM] (Nederland: Online Bible Foundation, 1992-2005), notes on Daniel 11:2; Adam Clarke, Daniel, in Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1996), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), notes on Daniel 11:2; Albert Barnes, Daniel, in Barnes’ Notes, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1997), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), notes on Daniel 11:2.

(1) Cyrus the Great (559-530 B.C), nephew to Darius This is the Cyrus who founded the Persian Empire and made the edict for the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. Cyrus ruled 29 years over Persia, 11 years over Media, and 9 years over Babylon and Assyria.

or, (2) Cambyses (529-522 B.C.) Cambyses was the son of Cyrus. He is the Ahasuerus that we read about in the book of Ezra.

(3) Smerdis the Magician (522 B.C.) – After the rule of Cambyses, Smerdis the Magician usurped the throne for seven months, but he was overthrown and the throne given to Darius Hystaspes. He was the Artaxerxes of Exra Dan 4:7. Some scholars do not reckon his reign in Daniel’s prophecy. However, others count the three kings as Cambyses, Smerdis and Darius Hystaspes, calling them Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, and Darius.

or, (3) Darius Hystaspes (521-486 B.C.) Darius was called Hystaspes because he was the son of a Persian king named Hystaspis. This is the King Darius that is referred to in Ezr 4:5, Hag 1:1, and Zec 1:1. He is the king who enabled Jeshua and Zerubbabel to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem.

There were other kings who reigned over Persia until the empire was overthrown by Alexander the Great in 334 B.C., but none benefited the Jews as did these three kings. John Goldingay lists the Achaemenid kings who ruled the Persian Empire from 560-330 B.C.

“[T]he Achaemenid kings were Cyrus (560/59 530 b.c.), Cambyses (530 522), Smerdis (522), Darius I (522 486), Xerxes I (486 465), Artaxerxes I (465 424), Xerxes II (424), Sogdianos (424 423), Darius II (423 405/4), Artaxerxes II (405/4 359/58), Artaxerxes III (359/58 338/37), Artaxerxes IV (338/37 336), Darius III (336 330) (Cook, Persian Empire, 266).” [127]

[127] John E. Goldingay, Daniel, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 30, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comments on Daniel 11:2 b. See also John Manuel Cook, The Persian Empire (London: Dent, 1983), 266.

Dan 11:2 “ and the fourth shall be far richer than they all” – Comments – The fourth king that arose over the Persian Empire was Xerxes (485-465 B.C.), the son of Darius Hystaspes. He exceeded his predecessors in wealth because of the riches that had been hoarded up by them. Cyrus had collected much wealth from the nations he had conquered, especially Babylon. Cambyses increases these riches. Darius, the father of Xerxes, was known by the Persians as “the Hoarder” because of the heavy taxes he placed upon the people while hoarding it up. [128]

[128] Albert Barnes, Daniel, in Barnes’ Notes, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1997), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), notes on Daniel 11:2.

Dan 11:2 “and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia” Comments John Gill says having this great wealth at his disposal, Xerxes I marked the first three or four years of his reign by preparing to march into Greece, having been moved to do so by a Mardonius, a relative of his who wanted to be commander of his army. Having hired forces from all of the known world, Xerxes I embarked on a military campaign into Greece beginning in 483 B.C. Justin says that his army consisted of 700,000 of his own, and 300,000 auxiliaries. Others count around 2,641,000 men. [129]

[129] John Gill, Daniel, in John Gill’s Expositor, in OnLine Bible, v. 2.0 [CD-ROM] (Nederland: Online Bible Foundation, 1992-2005), notes on Daniel 11:2.

Having marched into Greece and performed much damage, the people of this region rose up together against him and defeated him at Salamis in 480 B.C. Xerxes I immediately withdrew himself from this campaign and returned to Persia. This campaign was called off a year later. Xerxes I seems to have spent the rest of his reign in Persia in a simple lifestyle, which in which he is known to have been a cruel monarch. He was finally murdered by his own officer in 465 B.C. [130]

[130] Burton Scott Easton, “Xerxes,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1915, 1939), in The Sword Project, v. 1.5.11 [CD-ROM] (Temple, AZ: CrossWire Bible Society, 1990-2008).

John Gill says the phrase may read, “he shall stir up all, even the realm of Grecia,” referring to the fact that the Grecians came together to defeat Xerxes I, and to the fact that they never forgot his evil deeds against them, until Alexander the Great is raised up and destroys the Persian Empire. In his Letter to Darius, Alexander writes, “Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did us much harm, though we had done none to them; I have been duly appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Greeks, and invaded Asia desiring to take vengeance on Persia; but it was you who began the mischief.” (Arrian, Anabasis 2.14.4) [131]

[131] Arrian, Arrian With an English Translation, vol. 1, trans. E. Iliff Robson, in The Loeb Classical Library, eds. T. E. Page, E. Capps, W. H. D. Rouse, L. A. Post, and E. H. Warmington (London: William Heinemann Ltd, c1929, 1967), 177.

Dan 11:2 Comments The prevailing view is that Dan 11:2 refers to the first four individuals who ruled the Persian Empire (Cyrus, Cambyses, Smerdis, and Darius). However, John Goldingay offers an alternative view, explains how this verse may refer to the Achaemedid kings collectively and to their accumulated riches. [132] If the statement “three kingsand the fourth” is interpreted as a numerical collection, as found in (Job 5:19; Job 33:14, Pro 6:16; Pro 30:1-33, Ecc 11:2, Amos 1-2), then Dan 11:2 may refer collectively to the thirteen kings who rule Persia from 560 to 330 B.C.

[132] John E. Goldingay, Daniel, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 30, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comments on Daniel 11:2.

Dan 11:3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.

Dan 11:3 Comments – The “mighty king” referred to in Dan 11:3 was Alexander the Great, who came to power in 336 B.C. No one was able to stand up to him in battle. John Gill says Jerome describes his rule of great dominion by saying “having conquered the Illyrians, Thracians, Greece, and Thebes, he passed into Asia; and, having put to flight the generals of Darius, he took the city of Sardis, and afterwards India. ” [133] Alexander the Great dominated much of the known world of his day. Thus, he did according to his own will.

[133] John Gill, Daniel, in John Gill’s Expositor, in OnLine Bible, v. 2.0 [CD-ROM] (Nederland: Online Bible Foundation, 1992-2005), notes on Daniel 11:3.

Dan 11:4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.

Dan 11:4 “And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken” – Comments – At the peak of his power Alexander the Great dies of sickness, leaving a kingdom that was seized by his military generals.

Dan 11:4 “and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven” Comments – Four generals divided up the kingdom. Ptolemy reigned in Egypt to the south; Antigonus in Asia to the north; Seleucus in Babylon and Syria to the east; and Cassander in Macedonia to the west.

Dan 11:4 “and not to his posterity” Comments – Alexander the Great bore two sons. At his death he had one son named Hercules by Barsine, the daughter of Darius. After his death, there was born to him a son named Alexander by Roxane, but neither son was destined for their father’s throne.

Dan 11:4 “nor according to his dominion which he ruled” Comments – None of these four generals ruled an empire as big as Alexander the Great had ruled, for it was now divided into parts.

Dan 11:4 “for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those” Comments – Alexander the Great’s two sons were slain and his kingdom given to others. There were later lesser kings who took dominion over parts of his domain.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Glorification: The Coming of Christ (Daniel’s Private Visions) – There are two main divisions to the book of Daniel. Daniel 1-6 is primarily narrative material and emphasizes Daniel’s ministry to the kings of Babylon and Media. In these passages he interprets two dreams and the writing on the wall for two kings. This division as well contains three stories of the captivity and persecution of Daniel and his three friends. However, the visions recorded in Daniel 7-12 were not for the kings. Rather, they are a collection of private visions of apocalyptic in nature that Daniel received from the Lord regarding the Time of the Gentiles and the Last Days. They were not delivered to the kings under whom he served, but were initially private in nature. Their emphasis is not on the nation of Israel; but rather, upon the fulfillment of the Times of the Gentiles. The fact that the first section was written in Aramaic and the second section in Hebrew suggests that there were initially two different intended recipients. The Babylonian Jews would have found comfort in both divisions as they saw the sovereign power of God at work in their midst and as they understood by prophecy that God had not forsaken the nation of Israel. Note that this second section has been arranged in chronological order independently of the first section’s chronological arrangement.

Daniel 7-12 is a collection of private visions given to Daniel concerning the future glorification of Jesus Christ and His children and the Great White Throne Judgment of the nations. The redemptive role of Jesus Christ is clearly predicted as the Son of Man comes upon the clouds and approaches the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:13) and He establishes the everlasting Kingdom of Heaven (Dan 7:14).

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Vision of Future Wars Up Until Christ’s Second Return (535-534 B.C.) Dan 10:1 to Dan 12:13 records Daniel’s most lengthy vision about the future wars between the kings of the North and the South. The traditional interpretation of this lengthy vision is that it represents a conflict, first between Persia and Greece, and then between two kingdoms that rise up out of the Grecian Empire, the Seleucid Empire of Syria and the Ptolemaic Empire of Egypt (Dan 11:4-20). History records the many battles that took place. The continual wars that took place between these two powers deeply affected the Jewish people since they were situated between them. Their land would be taken and retaken in these ongoing conflicts and battles, causing many problems for them. These conflicts are believed to carry on until the time of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, a great enemy of the Hebrew people. In Dan 11:21-35 we are given the description of Antiochus Epiphanes and his violent acts against the Jews.

Many scholars suggest that Dan 11:36-45 refers to the antichrist figure that will arise during the Tribulation Period, whom Paul calls the Son of Perdition. Within this context, the king of the North would refer to Gog and his army that surrounds Jerusalem during the Battle of Armageddon, as described in Ezekiel 38-39.

At this point the vision comes to a close with a few brief remarks about the last times and the coming of the Lord and the final Day of Judgment. Thus, the first few verses of Daniel 12 tell us that this is a time of trouble, which we now call the Tribulation Period. It makes a brief refer to the Rapture of the Church and the Great White Throne Judgment.

This lengthy vision that Daniel is given takes biblical prophecy up to the Second Coming of the Messiah when the “Times of the Gentiles” will come to an end. Thus, we see how the book of Daniel deals with prophecies limited to the Times of the Gentiles.

Outline – Note the proposed outline by William MacDonald regarding this interpretation: [123]

[123] William MacDonald, Daniel, in Believer’s Bible Commentary, ed. Arthur Farstad (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Pub., 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Introduction.”

1. Introduction of the Vision Dan 10:1-9

2. Prophecies of the Immediate Future Dan 10:10 to Dan 11:35

a) Greece’s Conquest of Medo-Persia Dan 10:10 to Dan 11:3

b) The Decay of the Grecian Empire Dan 11:4-35

i) The Wars between Egypt and Syria Dan 11:4-20

ii) The Reign of Antiochus Epiphanes Dan 11:21-35

3. Prophecies of the Distant Future Dan 11:36 to Dan 12:13

a) The Antichrist Dan 11:36-45

b) The Great Tribulation Dan 12:1-13

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Dan 11:1 . Also I, in the first year of Darius, the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him, or, “even as I stood by to strengthen him,” the inference being that the various angelic spirits come to the support of one another when special efforts in behalf of the people or nations in their care are required. The gist of the verse is evidently this, that Michael had been active in overthrowing the power of Babylonia by the armies of Medo-Persia, and that the Angel of the Lord had given him mighty assistance in this labor. In the great crises of history, in the change of monarchies, and in the midst of every tribulation we may rely upon the faithfulness and mercy of our God.

Happenings of the Near Future

v. 2. And now I will show thee the truth. Cf. Dan 10:21. Behold, there shall stand up yet, namely, after Cyrus, who was then king, three kings in Persia, whose names are commonly given as Cambyses, Pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all, literally, “shall acquire far greater riches than they all”; and by his strength through his riches, as he applied his immense wealth in order to fit out a mighty army, he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecis, Xerxes staking his all on the invasion of the rival kingdom beyond the Dardanelies.

v. 3. And a mighty king shall stand up, a heroic, warlike king, namely, Alexander of Macedonia and Greece, that shall rule with great dominion and do according to his will, with tyrannical authority.

v. 4. And when he shall stand up, just as soon as his power is fairly established, his kingdom shall be broken, the brief duration of Alexander’s rule being here indicated, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven, in a fourfold division of his kingdom after the battle of Ipsus, 301 B. C. ; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those, so that the natural heirs and rightful successors of Alexander were eliminated. Both of Alexander’s sons were put to death, and after the generals of Alexander had first broken up his empire into small divisions, the result finally was a fourfold monarchy, but still Greek in character.

v. 5. And the king of the South shall be strong, the ruler of Egypt, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, the reference most likely being to Seleucus Nicator, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion, which, as a matter of fact, extended from Phrygia on the west to the Indus on the east.

v. 6. And in the end of years, that is, after several years have elapsed, they shall join themselves together, the king of the South and the king of the North forming a confederacy, when Antiochus II Theos, the second successor of Seleucus Nicator, married Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemeus Philadelphus; for the king’s daughter of the South shall come to the king of the North to make an agreement, to establish just and peaceful relations by virtue of this marriage; but she shall not retain the power of the arm, neither shall he stand nor his arm, neither of them retaining the power acquired through their marriage and the joining of their forces; but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times, when the critical position in which he found himself suggested the marriage to him. Secular accounts set forth the situation as follows: “As soon as Ptolemy Philadelphus died in B. C. 247, Antiochus Theos expelled Berenice, and recalled the formerly rejected Laodice. The latter, however, aimed at further revenge, and to achieve it, she poisoned the king, had her son by him, Seleucus II Callinicus, declared his successor, and sent assassins against Berenice, who had fled to the sanctuary of Daphne. The latter queen was slain, together with her little son, and the hope of the Ptolemies to behold one of their lineage on the throne of the Seleucidae was thus wholly destroyed. ”

v. 7. But out of a branch of her roots, a shoot out of the apparently dead stock, shall one stand up in his estate, to take her place in this controversy, her own brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes, which shall come with an army and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the North, against all the strongholds of the Northern power, and shall deal against them and shall prevai l, this being done to the extent that the entire Syrian country from Cilicia to beyond the Tigris was conquered, numerous fortresses taken, and Laodice, the rival and murderess of Berenice, slain;

v. 8. and shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods with their princes, their molten or cast images, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold, all this being welcome booty; and he shall continue more years than the king of the North, holding out against him with his superior strength.

v. 9. So the king of the South shall come into his kingdom, rather, “and he,” the last-named king of the North, “shall come into the kingdom of the king of the South,” and shall return into his own land, to Syria. This was fulfilled in the expedition of Seleucus Callinicus, in which he sent a fleet against Egypt, which, however, was destroyed in a storm, while his army was defeated and overthrown.

v. 10. But his sons, again those of the Northern king, shall be stirred up, preparing for war, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces, in waging war upon the Southern kingdom; and one shall certainly come and overflow and pass through, the activities of Antiochus the Great in his victorious advance upon Egypt being described here; then shall he return and be stirred up, renewing his campaign against the Egyptians in the following spring, even to his fortress, very likely the fortified city of Gaza.

v. 11. And the king of the South shall be moved with choler, with a fierce and sudden anger, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the North; and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand. This undoubtedly describes the attack made by Ptolemy Philopator by which he tried to break the power of Antiochus.

v. 12. And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up, literally, “and shall rise up the multitude and shall lift up his heart,” as he took up the campaign with great courage; and he shall cast down many ten thousands, killing myriads in the battle of Raphia, near Gaza; but he shall not be strengthened by it, because he did not follow up his victory with any degree of energy.

v. 13. For the king of the North shall return and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches. This was approximately thirteen years later when Antiochus the Great had strengthened himself by successful campaigns against the kingdoms toward the east, so that his army was composed of veterans and his equipment of the very best.

v. 14. And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the South, particularly in insurrections which were caused by bad administration of affairs at home; also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision, literally, “violent persons of thy [Daniel’s] people will revolt against him,” namely, when a number of Jews entered into a league with Antiochus the Great against Egypt; but they shall fall, the Lord sending tribulations and afflictions upon them for their rebellion against the authorized government, the reference probably being to the oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes.

v. 15. So the king of the North shall come, advancing to the attack once more, and cast up a mount and take the most fenced cities, literally, “city of fortifications,” a term used of the fortresses of the South in general; and the arms of the South shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, their armies being unable to ward off the threatened blow, neither shall there be any strength to withstand, all the resources of the Southern kingdom availing them nothing in this emergency.

v. 16. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, for Antiochus, the victor of Paneas, near the sources of the Jordan, now overran the entire country, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, literally, “in the land of ornament,” the Holy Land, especially when considered from the standpoint of its spiritual blessings, which by his hand shall be consumed, literally, “and annihilation is in his hand. ”

v. 17. He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, intending to follow up his successes with a further attack on the country now almost subjugated, and upright ones with him, rather, with the purpose of restoring a proper political relationship, the agreement consisting in this, that the marriage of Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus, with Ptolemy Epiphanes was agreed upon, Antiochus receiving Coelesyria in return; thus shall he do, and he shall give him the daughter of women, namely, Cleopatra, who was then but a girl and in the care of her mother and others, who educated her, corrupting her, rather, “bringing destruction upon her”; for the marriage,. which took place five years later, resulted in the ruin of the land which she represented; but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him, that is, she was unable to carry out the plans of her father.

v. 18. After this shall he, the king of the North, turn his face unto the isles, including the coast-lands of the Mediterranean, and shall take many; but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease, or, “yet his scorn which he heaped upon the generals they will revenge upon him,” that is, the men in command of the islands and coast-lands promptly repulsed his attacks, so that he was obliged to retire to the fortresses formerly in his power; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him.

v. 19. Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land, withdrawing to them on account of the force of the attack against him; but he shall stumble and fall and not be found, for this reversal was the beginning of his end, for history records that he was slain in an insurrection of the inhabitants of Elymais.

v. 20. Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom, literally, “then shall arise in his stead one who causes exactors (or oppressors) to pass through the ornament of the kingdom,” so that his subjects were oppressed with various afflictions and burdens; but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger nor in battle, this being the end of Seleucus Philopator, who was poisoned by Heliodorus, his former favorite, who sought the crown for himself. Thus the Lord directs the fortunes of individuals and nations and punishes such as oppose His plans for the benefit of His people.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

Dan 11:1-45

THE KINGS OF THE NORTH AND THE KINGS OF THE SOUTH.

Dan 11:1

Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. The versions show signs of great disturbance having happened here. The rendering of the LXX. is, “In the first year of Cyrus the king, he told me to be strong and to play the man.” Theodotion’s rendering is yet briefer, “And I, in the first year of Cyrus, stood in strength and might.” The Peshitta rendering, “In the first year of Darius the Mede (he) arose to confirm and strengthen me.” The Vulgate is close to the Massoretic and the English versions, “I likewise, from the first year of Darius the Mede, was standing that he might be confirmed and strengthened.” The Revised Version does not differ seriously from the Authorized, “And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him.” The Septuagint must have read (amar), “he said,” instead of (anee), “I.” When we have the Septuagint and Theodotion supporting each other against the Massoretic text, the evidence against the received text is strong. In this case both these versions have, as will be seen, not “Darius,” but “Cyrus.” The two names would have in the old Egyptian Hebrew script, a striking resemblance to each other; the fact that the last letter of both names is the same, and also the second letter, made the likeness considerable in any script; but (see Egyptian Hebrew character) the first letter of “Darius” is certainly very like (see Egyptian Hebrew character) the first letter of” Cyrus.” The vav would possibly be omitted, then the first two letters of either name would resemble closely the first two letters of the other, and the final letters are the same. Mistake, then, was easy. The first letter of and is the same, and the words would be liable to be read in accordance with that given to the proper name. Further, all the versions but the Vulgate make the speaker the recipient of the aid. Theodotion may be taken as doubtful The difference is slight, becomes , and becomes . The Septuagint seems to have read instead of . The first two letters are thus the same, the daleth may have been an intrusion. Bevan and Behrmann would omit the date as spurious, and hold it to have been introduced because the previous four chapters begin each with a date. This reason, to have weight, must assume the division into chapters to be of ancient date, more ancient than the Septuagint Version. The fact that all the versions have it compels us to admit a date here, but, as we have said above, it is to be reckoned by the year, not of Darius, but of Cyrus. (Also I) in the first year of Cyrus the king. The first year of Cyrus was the year when he decided to set the Jews free, and permit them to return to their own land; but the first year in this case was reckoned from his assumption of the throne of Babylon. We saw reason to doubt whether the reference in the beginning of Dan 10:1-21. was to the Babylonian reign of Cyrus, or to his reign as King of the Persians. His first year as King of the Persians might be when he first began to turn his arms against Babylon. We do not know enough of the history of the first years of Cyrus’s monarchy to know what critical events befell in that rear. Stood to confirm and strengthen him (me). According to the Massoretic text, the angel Gabriel stood to confirm either the archangel Michael or King Darius. Certainly, as Darius (Cyrus) is the nearer substantive, the grammatical preference would be to take it, as do Havernick, Hitzig, and Calvin. The majority of commentators who hold by the Massoretic text take “him” to refer to Michaeland much can be said for this. Although Darius (Cyrus) is the nearest substantive, yet he is not the subject of the main sentence, but merely denotes a time, therefore a previous substantive must be chosen. In the opening of Cyrus’s career, the intimate connection his prosperity had with the prosperity of the people of Israel might well make Michael interested. As Cyrus had been prophesied of, he was under the rule of the angel of prophecy, hence Gabriel strengthened and confirmed the efforts of Michael. Certainly “strengthening” and “confirming” are strong terms to apply to the archangel Michael, yet we know so little of angelic natures and their limitations that the phrase may be quite natural. The meaning is not materially altered if we read, “He stood to strengthen and confirm me.”

Dan 11:2

And now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. The rendering of the LXX. is, “And now I came to show thee the truth. Behold, three kings have risen, and the fourth shall be rich with great riches above all, and when he shall strengthen himself in his riches, he shall stir himself up against every king of the Greeks.” Theodotion is very like this, only the last words of the verse are, “all the realms of the Greeks.” The Peshitta is very like Theodotion, having “kingdoms” instead of “realm.” The Vulgate is in nearly exact agreement with the Massoretic text. When we turn to the Massoretic text and compare it with the versions, we find that the LXX. must have read, , as it has . Theodotion reads, ; the Peshitta, ma; the Vulgate, cum. This is the beginning of the revelation referred to in Da 10:21a. The doubtful authenticity of that clause throws a shadow on this verse. It is to be noted that we are no longer in the region of symbol, but of distinct narration. There may have been something in the nature of a vision, and that here we have, enlarged, an interpretation of it. The fourth king is certainly Xerxes. If we regard him as one of the three successors to Cyrus, then Cambyses and Darius Hystaspis are the other two. So Hitzig and Delitzsch. Keil would more naturally make the fourth not the fourth King of Persia, but the fourth successor of Cyrus. (For the Hebrew usage, see Exo 22:30.) Professor Bevan, assuming in his superior way the ignorance of the writer before us, here determines that he drew “most of his information” from the Bible, and, as there are only four names of Persian kings given in Ezra and Nehemiah, that he, this careful student of Scripture, came to the conclusion that there were only four kings. In the first place, if this portion was written, as it not impossibly was, in the Maceabean period, the writer must have got his information of the invasion of Greece by Xerxes from classical sources; he could not fail to know of Cambyses and the pseudo-Smerdis. Further, scarcely even the most casual reader of Ezra could fail to distinguish between the Artaxerxes who before Darius Hystaspis hindered the work of the Jews, and the Artaxerxes after Darius who fostered it. We have followed Herodotus in calling the brother of Cambysos, whose name the usurper assumed, “Smerdis;” but Ctesias calls him “Tanyoxarces;” Xenophon, “Tanaoxares;” and AEschylus, “Marries.” We know that Artaxerxes was probably not a personal name, but rather a title, as was also Aehsverosh Xerxes. Some, as Behramnn, assume the fourth monarch here to be Darius Codomannus, but there seems no reason for this assump tion, save that critics are superior persons; and the writer, albeit many of them admit him to be inspired, would be more likely to be wrong in his facts than that their theories should be defective. As the writer here gives no names, it is certainly singular to assert that, though, if we take his Hebrew as grammatical, he gives a correct enumera tion of the Persian kings, he has defied Hebrew usage, and been wrong in his enumeration. He shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. All the versions except the Vulgate imply a plural here- instead of . This reading is preferable to the Massoretic, which would arise easily from the next verse. If we may take this as the true reading, then the diversities of the states in Greece is indicated in the way most natural to an Oriental.

Dan 11:3

And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with groat dominion, and do according to his will. None of the versions imply any difference of reading. The Hebrew implies that the king was a mighty warrior. All critics are agreed that here the reference is to Alexander the Great. This does not mean that Alexander immediately followed Xerxes, but that his expedition was the revenge for that of Xerxes. Alexander, in his answer to Darius Codomannus, justified his invasion of Persia by referring back to Xerxes’ invasion of Greece. The two expeditions, that which Xerxes made into Greece, and that of Alexander into Persia, might be regarded as causally connected.

Dan 11:4

And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those. The LXX. rendering is, “And when he is risen up, his kingdom shall be broken, and divided to the four winds of heaven; not according to his might, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: because his kingdom shall be taken away, and he shall teach these things to others.” It is difficult to see what reading the LXX. translator had when he rendered, “his might,” for no word meaning “might” is at all like ahareetho, “his posterity.” In the last clause he must have read, not milbad, but melamayd. Theodotion resembles the Massoretic more closely; he renders, “But when his kingdom stood (shall stand), it shall be broken, and shall be scattered to the four winds of heaven; and to his latter end (), nor according to his rule which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be rooted out, and (let) for others besides these.” The Peshitta agrees generally with this, only that when in the English we have, “not to his posterity,” it has, “not to his sword (siphoh)” The last clause is somewhat paraphrastic, “And his kingdom shall be rooted, and shall not be to others save these.” The Vulgate agrees with the Massoretic. The description here given of the empire of Alexander the Great is strictly accurate; his empire did not go to his posterity, nor did any of his successors possess a dominion as extensive as his. For others beside those. This has been thought to refer to the successors of those who first divided the empire among them. It seems more natural to regard “those” as referring to the posterity of Alexander, as the nearest antecedent.

Dan 11:5

And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes: and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion. The LXX. rendering differs from this,” And he shall strengthen the kingdom of Egypt; and one of the rulers shall overcome him () and rule; and his power shall be a great power.” Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic in sense. The Peshitta agrees verbally with the Massoretic, but, as it omits the preposition rain, the meaning the translator attached to the verse is difficult to ascertain. The Vulgate agrees with the Massoretic. The verse abruptly introduces the conflict between the Lagid and Seleucid princes. There is no indication in the preceding verses that the four winds of heaven are to be taken so rigidly as is implied by this verse. It is no answer to say that Egypt and Syria alone came into intimate relations with the Jews; it is not a question of fact, but a question of the necessities of composition. The appearance presented is that of a fragment existing separately, and inserted here. The intruded references to the truth which is to be shown have the took of being awkward attempts to prepare for the subjoined narrative. Whatever its origin, it is very difficult to explain to what it refers. The king of the south is certainly one of the Ptolemies, most probably Ptolemy Lagi. And one of his princes shall be strong above him. This is usually understood to mean Seleucus Nicator, who, when driven from Babylon, his original satrapy, by Anti-genus, took refuge with Ptolemy Lagi, and became a commander under him in his war against Antigonus. Ptolemy also gave him the few troops with which, after the battle of Gaza, he recovered possession of Babylonia. He certainly became by far the most powerful of the successors of Alexander. Indeed, he may be said to have had all the dominions of Alexander save Egypt and Syria on the south, and Macedonia and Greece on the west; for he had overthrown Lysimachus, and absorbed his dominion. His dominion shall be a great dominion states accurately the extent of the dominions of Scleucus. Rosenmiiller would refer the prenominal suffix , “his,” to Alexander, and understand Ptolemy as the prince in question; but this is improbable. It is impossible not to observe the abrupt introduction of this prince. Gratz would suggest that a clause has dropped out here, which declared that one of his (Alexander’s) princes stood up in the north. Had this any manuscript authority, it would be plausible. More, however, would seem to be wanting.

Dan 11:6

And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times. The LXX. differs in a remarkable way from this, “And at the end of years he shall lead them, and the King of Egypt shall enter into the kingdom of the north to make covenants: but he shall not prevail, because his arm shall not establish strength ( ); and his arm shall become stiff, and that of those accompanying him, and he shall remain for a season ( ).” It is certainly difficult to see the reading from which this rendering came. It is noticeable that there is no reference to “the king’s daughter of the south.” History confirms the statement in the Massoretic text, but there is no expedition related in the history of Philadelphus undertaken against the kingdom of Syria. It is trite our records of the reign of Philadelphus are somewhat scanty. Theodotion is nearer the Massoretic text, though not quite in accordance with it, “And after his Jays they shall mingle with one another (); and the daughter of the king of the south shall enter unto the king of the north to make treaties with him: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; and his seed shall not stand: and she shall be betrayed, and those that brought her, both the damsel and he that did violence to her.” The last words are separated from this verse and conjoined to the following verse. The text behind this seems, in many ways, superior to the Massoretic. The Peshitta agrees in the opening clauses with the Massoretic; at the end of the verse the difference is considerable, “But power shall not be in her, from the fear which she feared: and she shall be betrayed, and her youths, and those accompanying her, and those supporting her in this time.” The Vulgate agrees pretty closely with this. The reference here is generally understood to be to the affinity made by the Lagids with the Seleucids, when Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphns, married Antiochus II. (Theos), who repudiated his first wife, Laodike, in order to do so. The leap over a space of approximately sixty years is not so trying as Professor Fuller imagines; but the uncertainty as to the text is great, and the meaning of even the Massoretic is by no means fixed. Still, the agreement with the course of events is so marked according to the common interpretation, that one feels inclined to adopt it. After the death of her father Philadelphus, Antiochus Theos took back Laodike, who, in order to escape the risk of being again dismissed, unceremoniously poisoned her rival Berenice and her son, and then her husband Antiochus. Yet this transaction seems somewhat dubiously set forth in the Massoretic text. Theodotion is closer to facts, though it is possible that the text has been altered to suit what were known to be facts.

Dan 11:7

But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail. The version of the LXX. is very different here also, “And a plant shall arise out of his root against himself, and the king of the north shall come against his power in his might, and shall cause disturbance, and[ prevail.” The Hebrew text would bear the translation here given of the last clause, save “cause disturbance.” The nominative may be the “king of the north.” History confirms the ordinary interpretation. Theodotion, as usual, is in closer agreement with the Massoretic. Yet even he differs considerably: he connects the last words of the preceding verse, “In those times, one shall arise out of the flower of her root of his preparation, and shall enter into the strongholds of the king of the north, and shall do in them (according to his will), and prevail.” The Peshitta is somewhat like this, “And there spring from the stem of her seed against his place, and he shall come in might, and he shall come in strength against the king of the north, and he shall pass over against them, and prevail.” The Vulgate rendering seems to have a relation to that just given, “And a plant shall stand from the seed of his roots, and he shall come with an army, and shall enter into the province of the king of the north, and shall abuse them, and take possession.” There must have been very different manuscript readings to explain these widely different renderings. The Massoretic text scarcely quite bears out the rendering of the Authorized Version. Yet it is difficult to make any other consistent sense. Certainly Euergetes, brother of the murdered Berenice, advanced into Syria, and overran the whole country, captured Seleucia, the port of Antioch, then mastered Antioch itself, and advanced even beyond the Tigris, while Seleucus retired behind the Taurus Mountains. The statements in the LXX. suit better a later period in history, when Physcon rebelled against his brother Philometor. Epiphanes invaded Egypt, nominally in the interest of Philometor, and laid siege to Alexandria. This, however, does not suit with the next verse.

Dan 11:8

And shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the north. The version of the LXX. is again very different from that of the Massoretic text, “And their gods, with them that moulded them, he shall subdue (), and their multitudes with the vessels of their desirable things, the silver and the gold, shall go into captivity in Egypt, and the year shall be to the king of the north.” Theodotion. as so frequently is the case, takes a place intermediate between the Massoretic and the version of the LXX. His rendering is, “And their gods, with those that moulded them, all their desirable vessels of gold and silver, he shall carry with the captivity into Egypt, and he shall prevail over the king of the north.” Both the Greek versions take (nesikhayhem) as derived from nasak, “to pour out,” hence “to mould,” “to form a molten image,” reading the word noskeem. The Syriac differs from both the Greek renderings and also from the Massoretic, “And even he shall terrify them, and their desirable vessels of silver and gold and the captives he shall carry down to Egypt, and twice (literally, ‘one, two’) shall rise against the king of the north.” The Vulgate differs in meaning from all the preceding, but the text it is drawn from does not differ consonantly from that of the Massoretes, “And besides their gods. and their graven images, precious vessels too of silver and gold, he shall lead captive into Egypt, he shall prevail against the king of the north.” The word nesikhayeem is rendered, in the Revised Version, ‘molten images’a meaning given to the word by Furst, Gesenius, and Winer, with reference to this verse. The meaning assigned to the word in the Authorized is drawn from Rashi, and is in accordance with the usage of Ezekiel (Eze 32:30). And shall also carry caprices into Egypt their gods, with their princes. As we have said, Ptolemy Euergetes conquered all Syria and Mesopotamia to beyond the Tigris. From this we learn he carried off immense booty, and among the articles taken were images of their gods. And not only the gods of Syria, but the images of the Egyptian gods, which had been carried into Syria from Egypt by Cambyses, nearly three centuries before. If this doubtful word, nasakeem, is taken to mean “images,” it is difficult to see the reference of the prenominal suffix. Does it mean that the gods themselves, and the images of these gods, were taken? That is to say, does it mean that gods of the Syrians were taken, and also their images, as if the images and the gods were different? From this, notwithstanding the general consensus of interpreters, we feel ourselves necessitated to differ, and to make the word mean “princes,” although there is no prominence, in the few accounts we have of this expedition, to any captives of such rank as to be called princes. And with their precious vessels of silver and of gold. This rendering, although retained in the Revised, is scarcely grammatically accurate, as the noun for “vessels” is already defined by the prenominal suffix. On the other hand, this word cannot readily be in apposition, as the article would be needed. Professor Bevan would make it “in silver and gold.” We feel inclined to regard this as a somewhat irregular construction, as if a ray had dropped out before , “silver,” though most of the versions regard these nouns as in the genitive after “vessels.” And he shall continue more years than the king of the north It is a matter of fact that Euergetes survived Seleueus Callinicus, his sister’s stepson, about four years. Hitzig and Ewald would render,” He shall refrain for some years from attacking the king of the north.” This rendering has the advantage that it escapes from the purely unimportant personal statement that Ptolemy should survive Callinicus. That the king of the north was allotted to regain the greater part of the dominions which had been wrested from him, without any counter effort on the part of Ptolemy, is more important. Keil objects to this that the emphatic position of is against this, and would support the rendering of the Vulgate, Ipse prevalebit adversus regem Aquilouis. Both versions are so far grammatically defensible; yet both are a little strained: both are in accordance with history.

Dan 11:9

So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land. The Septuagint Version differs less than usual from the Massoretic, “The King of Egypt shall enter into (his) kingdom certain days and return to his land.” Theodotion renders, “And he shall enter into the kingdom of the king of the south, and return into his land.” The Peshitta differs more, “The king of the south shall enter in strength, and turn to his own land.” The Vulgate does not differ from the others. This verse, assuming the king of the south, Ptolemy Euergetes, to be the subject of the verb, merely completes the statements of the previous verse, and seems to describe the triumphant return of Euergetes into Egypt. If we takewhich, however, is not so naturalthe king of the north as the subject, then the reference may be to the unsuccessful attempts made by Seleucus Callinicus to invade Egypt.

Dan 11:10

But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress. The version of the Septuagint differs from this, “And his son shall both be stirred up, and shall assemble ( ) a great multitude, and, ravaging with it (), he shall enter, and pass by and return.” The K’thib here supports this to the extent at least that it has “his son,” not “his sons;” but the verbs are plural. The last clause of this verse in the Massoretic text is transferred by the Septuagint to the next; Theodotion, while, as usual, more closely in agreement with the Massoretic text, is not quite identical with it, “And his sons shall assemble a multitude moderately numerous ( ), and he that cometh and overfloweth shall come and shall pass by, and shall enter, and shall struggle hard (), even to his fortress ().” The Peshitta and the Vulgate are in close agreement with the Massoretic text. But his sons shall be stirred up. The natural inference is that it is the sons of the king of the south who thus are stirred up, but, historically, it can only refer to the sons of Seleucus Callinicus, who, one after the other, succeeded him on the throne: Seleucus Ceraunus, who died after a short reign of rather more than two years; and Antiochus III; Magnus. Certainly Seleucus did little in this conflict, although he undertook a campaign to Asia Minor, in the course of which he was assassinated. It may be that this campaign was intended as a preparation for a great campaign against Egypt. On the death of Ceraunus, he was succeeded by Aatiochtus Magnus. This prince was very warlike. He began to assail Syria, which was in the possession of Philopotor, but was interrupted by news of war in the far East. After a successful campaign in Media and Persia, he wrested first Seleucia from the hands of Ptolemy Philopator; and then proceeded on his invasion of Coele-Syria and Palestine. And one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through. This describes in a compendious way the campaigns of Antiochus Magnus. And be stirred up, even to his .fortress. This is supposed to refer to the recovery of Seleucia. Some think that this rather states that he pierced nearly to Pelusium, the frontier fortress of Egypt.

Dan 11:11

And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth, and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand. The LXX. differs a little from the Massoretic, “And the King of Egypt shall be much embittered and enraged, and shall come forth and fight with the king of the north; and he shall set forth () a great multitude, and the multitude shall be betrayed into his hands.” Theodotion, like this, differs from the Massoretic by inserting, “the king of the north,” without the pronoun, as do all the other versions. Ptolemy. usually slothful and lethargic, was at length roused, and placed an army of seventy-five thousand men in the field. Against this Antiochus opposed the slightly superior army of seventy-eight thousand The two armies engaged at Raphia, and Antiochus sustained a severe defeat, losing no less than ten thousand men. The multitude commanded by Antiochus was given into the hands of Ptolemy Pifilopator. This seems the only interpretation which is consistent with facts.

Dan 11:12

And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands; but he shall not be strengthened by it. The rendering of the LXX. is, “And he shall take the levy (), and his heart shall be lifted up, and he shall trouble many, and shall not be afraid.” There seems to have been some difference of reading in the last clause, but it is not clear what. Theodotion renders the first clause as does the Septuagint; but the latter clause is more in accordance with the English version of the Massoretic text. The Peshitta from the same text differs in its interpretation, “And he shall destroy them mightily, and his heart shall be lifted up, and he shall cast down many, and shall not be strengthened.” The Vulgate presents no occasion of remark. And he shall cast down many ten thousands. This, most probably, refers to the complete victory at Raphia, where Antiochus was reported to have lost ten thousand men. There is thus a repetition here of what has already been narrated. But he shall not be strengthened by it. It is very noticeable that Ptolemy did not even attempt to strengthen his position by vigorously following up his victory.

Dan 11:13

For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches. The LXX. does not differ essentially from this, only comes in unnecessarily by a blunderthe less to be understood, as there seems no word which can have occasioned the misreading, unless it is simply a blunder of hearing for ; but against this is the fact that Paulus Tellensis has medeenatha. There is also the limitation of the period after which the king of the north will return to “one year” ( ), “a period of a year.” Theodotion is closer to the Massoretic . The Peshitta is closer than either of the Greek versions, as neither of them attempts to give, “coming he shall come,” which it does. The Vulgate is like Theodotion. The reference here is to the second expedition against Egypt, undertaken by Antiochus after the death of Philopator. After his victory at Raphia, Ptolemy resumed his life of self-indulgence. Antiochus endeavoured to build up his empire by curbing the Parthians; then, after an interval of fourteen years, he once more invaded the territories of the Egyptian monarch. This second invasion resulted in Antiochus gaining possession of all Palestine.

Dan 11:14

And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall. The versions here differ from this, which represents the Massoretic with fair accuracy. The LXX. renders, “And in those times thoughts () shall rise against the King of Egypt, and he shall build again that which has fallen down of thy people “reading (oobanah), “and he shall build,” instead of (oobenee), “and sons of;” he has read also peratzee, “breaches,” instead of peritzee, “robbers,””and he shall raise himself up”reading singular instead of plural”to fulfil the prophecy, and they shall stumble.” This confusion indicates that the reading of the LXX. is mistaken. Theodotion is as much removed from the Massoretic as is the above, “And in those times many shall rise against the king of the south, and the sons of the plagues () of thy people shall be exalted to establish the vision, and they shall become weak.” If there were any trace of uncertainty in the reading at this point, we might be tempted to read instead of , written for . The reading of Nestle () is no improvement. The Peshitta renders, “And many shall rise against the king of the north, and the sons of the perversity of thy people shall be raised up to fulfil the vision, and shall be cast down.” The change from “king of the south” to “the king of the north” must be noted, probably simply the result of blunder. The Vulgate renders prevarieatorum, And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south. Ptolemy Epiphanes was not only exposed to the assault of the confederates Antiochus and Philip of Macedon; but there were intrigues and conspiracies in the palace. Also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves; literally, the sons of the oppressors. Commentators of all varieties have assumed that these are Jews. Hitzig maintains that they were the Jews that sided with Antiochus’s rule (‘Historical Exposition of Daniel’); that they were the separatists, those who had gone down to Egypt (Calvin; Behrmann, ‘Die Stiirmische Jugend’); Keil, “violent men who break through Divine law.” So Kranichfeld and Wordsworth. Stuart, “the violent of thy people;” Ewald, “young high-handed men.” Fuller thinks the word prizzeem is used as “rulers.” Griitz would render, “to establish the vision, to make the law to totter “an attempt to get, by addition to the text, an explanation. The Hebrew text does not bear out this meaning. Gratz here implies (hazion), “vision,” to be equivalent to (torah), “law;” but this is never the case. But the oppressors of the people do not necessarily belong to it. To establish the vision (comp. Act 4:28). It may be that here there is a portion of the original vision of Daniel, which has been overlaid with what we have before us. It is a summary of the whole history of the Jews under the Greek domination. But they shall fall. A general statement true of all the oppressors of Israel.

Dan 11:15

So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand. The version of the LXX. is, “And the king of the north shall attack and turn his spears, and shall take the fortified city, and the arms of the King of Egypt shall stand with his rulers, and there shall not be strength in them to resist them.” It is difficult to imagine what Hebrew text was before the translator when he rendered, “turn his spears.” Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic in the first portion, and with the LXX. in the latter. The Peshitta rendering is not unlike the Massoretic, “And the king of the north shall come and shall lay ambuscades, and shall conquer strong fastnesses; and the arms of the south shall not stand, because there is not in them might to stand; and his chosen people shall not stand, because there is not might in them to stand.” The Vulgate, as usual, is closest to the Massoretic. The reference here is most probably to the capture of Sidon, into which Scopas, the general of Ptolemy, had thrown himself after his defeat at Paneas. Other strongholds and fortified cities were of necessity taken at the same time. The arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people. Ptolemy sent several successive armies to relieve Sidon, but was unable to compel Antiochus to give up the siege. Finally Scopas had to surrender. Neither shall there be any strength to withstand. Egypt was to all appearance helpless; there was neither wisdom in their counsels nor valour in their arms.

Dan 11:16

But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed. The rendering of the Septuagint is quite different, “And he who entereth in shall do to him according to his will, and there shall be none to resist before him, and he shall stand in the province in the place of his will, and all things shall be fulfilled in his hands.” Some of the variations may be understood by a slightly different vocalization, but others resist this explanation. Theodotion renders in a way that suggests a text between that used by the Septuagint translator and the Massoretic, “And he who entereth in shall do to him according to his will, and there shall not be one that standeth before him, and he shall stand in the land of Sabei, and it shall be perfected () by his hand.” The Peshitta has, “cometh against him,” as in the Massoretic, “the glorious land” is put down directly as “the laud of Israel.” The Vulgate renders exactly as our Authorized Version does. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him.. This is a fair description of the advance of Antiochus the Great through Coele-Syria and Palestine. Fortress after fortress fell before his arms. And he shall stand in the glorious land; “the land of delight.” Ewald would render, “land of the ornament.” It is certainly the land of Judea. Which by his hand shall be consumed. This certainly contradicts history as we have it elsewhere. The Revised is little better, “And in his hand shall be destruction,” which is the rendering of Behrmann, Keil, Hitzig, and Bevan. The rendering of von Lengcrke, Ewald, Stuart, and Fuller seems better to take (kalah) as meaning “completely.” The answer to the historical objection that Antiochus did not destroy Palestine, is that this distinction refers to Egypt; but as little did he destroy Egypt.

Dan 11:17

He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him: thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him. The LXX. renders, “And he shall set (give, ) his face to enter upon () his work with violence, and he shall make covenants with him, and shall give him a daughter of man to corrupt her, but she shall not obey, neither shall it be.” The translator seems to have had before him , “work,” instead of , “kingdom”a reading not equal to the Massoretic, and instead of , in which case the LXX. reading is preferable. Theodotion is like the Massoretic, “And he shall set () his face to enter with the strength of all his kingdom, and he shall make all things straight with him, and shall give him a daughter of the women to corrupt her, but she shall not continue on his side, neither be for him.” The Peshitta renders, “And he shall set his face to enter with the force of all his kingdom, and all his people shall pass over, and the daughter of men shall be given to him to corrupt her, but she shall not stand, neither be for him.” The Vulgate rendering is independent of the other versions, “And he shall set his face that he may come to lay hold of his whole kingdom, and he shall do right things with him, and he shall give to him the daughter of women that he may overturn it, but she shall not stand, neither be for him.” The events portrayed here are well known. Antiochus collected all his forces with a view to the conquest of Egypt, then, alarmed by the progress of Rome and the overthrow of Philip of Macedon, he changed his plan. He now endeavoured to get Ptolemy to be his ally, and gave him his daughter Cleopatra to wife, with Coele-Syria as a dowry. His idea was that she would remain always on his side, would be his spy in the court of her husband, and would always lead the policy of Egypt in the lines he wished. His hopes were frustrated. She was not corrupted so as to be false to her husband. In proof of this, when her father’s armies were defeated by the Romans, she joined with her husband in sending congratulations to the Senate of Rome.

Dan 11:18

After this he shall turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him. The rendering of the LXX. is nearly unintelligible, “And he shall set () his face against the sea, and shall take many (), and shall turn the wrath of their reproach in an oath against his reproach.” The translator had read instead of . Professor Bevan would ingeniously supply some words to the Greek. With all it seems nearly impossible to explain the relation between the Massoretic text and that used by the Septuagint. Theodotion is much briefer, “He shall turn his face to the islands, and shall take many, and shall cause rulers to cease from their reproach; but his reproach shall return upon him.” The Peshitta renders, “And he shall turn his face to the islands of the sea, and shall conquer many, and a ruler of reproach shall cause it to cease in regard to him, and his reproach shall return to him.” The Vulgate is closely related to the Peshitta. We would render the last clause, with Behrmann, “Yea, his reproach will he repay to him.” The events referred to are clear and obvious enough. Antiochus the Great took advantage of the disastrous defeat inflicted on Philip of Macedon by the Romans, to seize many of the islands of the archipelago. He not only took possession of all the Asiatic dominions of Philip, but crossed into Europe and seized Thrace. The Romans demanded that he should retire from all the former dominions of Philip. He refused, and war ensued, in which, after being driven out of Europe, he was totally defeated at Magnesia by Lucius Scipio, and compelled to surrender all his dominions west of the Taurus.

Dan 11:19

Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found. The versions do not present any occasion for remark. After his defeat, Antiochus was not only compelled to submit to the loss of much of his empire, but was adjudged to pay all the expenses of the war, estimated at eighteen thousand Euboeic talents. Justin relates thus the death of Antiochus: “Meanwhile in Syria King Antiochus, being loaded with heavy tribute after his defeat by the Romans, whether urged by want of money or impelled by avarice, flattering himself that, under the plea of necessity, he might with fair excuse commit sacrilege, assaulted with an armed force by night the temple of Jove (Bel) in Elymais But the attempt having been discovered, there was a concourse of the inhabitants, and he was slain with all his forces.” The resemblance here between the fate of Antiochus the Great and that of his son Epiphanes is so striking as to throw suspicion on one or other of them.

Dan 11:20

Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom; but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle. The rendering of the LXX. differs very much from this, “Then shall a plant arise out of his root to the restoration () of the kingdom, a man striking the glory of a king.” It is impossible to find any connection between the opening clause of this and the corresponding clause in the Massoretic. Some of tile other clauses contain echoes of the Massoretic, or vice versa. The first clause of Dan 11:21 in the LXX. really belongs to this verse, “In the last days he shall be broken, not in wrath nor in war,” reading thus, (‘aharoneem) instead of (‘ahadeem). Theodotion agrees in the first clause with the Septuagint, but is equally unintelligible, “There shall arise out of his root one removing a plant of the kingdom; on his preparation he shall act (), the glory of the kingdom: yet in those days he shall be broken, and not openly () nor in war shall he stand.” The Peshitta renders, “In his stead shall one stand up who shall cause a ruler to pass through even the glory of your kings; and in a few days he shall be destroyed, not in tumult, nor in battle.” The Vulgate renders, “In his stead shall stand a vile person (vilissimus), and unworthy of royal dignity; and in a few days he shall be broken, not in fury, nor in battle.” Difficult as is the interpretation of the words, just as difficult is it to find out the reference. Seleucus Philopator, who succeeded Antiochus, might be called a “raiser of taxes,” as he had to meet as best he could the heavy demands of the Roman treasury. The rendering of the Revised suits also, “causing the exactor to pass through the glory of the kingdom.” The reference might be to Heliodorus, were there any probability that he ever made an expedition to rob the temple. Certainly the story in 2 Maccabees makes it doubtful. It is not likely that Palestine would be exempt from taxation. To a Jew resident in Palestinethe land the possession of which had been the occasion or’ so many warsit might well seem the glory of the Syrian kingdom. But within few days he shall be destroyed. It is difficult to understand how the writer could reckon the reign of Seleucus Philopator as only a few days. His reign of twelve years was certainly much shorter than that of his father Antiochus, but longer than that of Epiphanes his brother, or of Seleucus III his uncle. The Greek versions do not give this clause. If we do not resort to the somewhat desperate remedy of altering the reading, we are compelled to measure the days from the taxing of Judaea. A good deal might be said for the reading of the LXX. He shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle. If we may assume as correct the unsupported account of Appian, that Seleucus IV. was assassinated by Heliodorus, we can see that he was destroyed “not in batlle.” It conveys an idea of the facts of the case different from that given in Appian, when we say he was “not destroyed in anger.” Moreover, the fact that Josephus refers to the death of Seleucus Philopator in terms that imply that be knew nothing of his violent death, makes his alleged assassination by Helio-dorus at least doubtful.

Dan 11:21

And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. As said above, the opening clause of this verse, as it appears in the Septuagint, really belongs to the previous verse, “And there shall stand up in his place a mean person (), and the glory of a king shall not be given to him, and he shall come suddenly, and the king shall be strong in his inheritance.” Evidently the translator, has omitted the reduplication and has derived the word (halaqlaqqoth) from (hel’qah), “a portion,” “an inheritance.” Theodotion’s rendering is not very intelligible, “On his preparation he shall be set at naught, and they shall not give to him the glory of the kingdom, he shall come in prosperously ( ), and shall overpower the king dom by flatteries.” It is, however, more in accordance with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta is in practical agreement with the Massoretic, and the Vulgate reads as if a rendering of the Peshitta. It is assumed that this is Antiochus Epiphanes, yet there are considerable difficulties. A vile person. Certainly he was morally vile enough, though not nearly so vile as some of the kings of Egypt, his contemporaries, or some of his own ancestors. The meaning of is “rejected, despised” (see Isa 53:3). It may be that it was derived from the idea that the Romans rejected Epiphanes as a hostage, and demanded Demetrius the son of Seleucus instead, and so Epiphanes got the opportunity of returning to Syria. This, however, is not the aspect which the matter assumes in Appian. Seleucus appears as the party desiring the change of hostage. To whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom. That certainly is not the case; he had the kingdom as much as his brother had; he was acknowledged as king. He certainly had not the power his father had before his defeat at Magnesia, but he had as much as the semi-subject conditions of Syria permitted. He shall come in peaceably. That also is doubtful, for Eumenes of Pergamos supported his claims with an army. Obtain the kingdom by flatteries. Even that is not a prominent feature of the accession of Antiochus. The Septuagint, as will be seen, separates between the vile person who should not have the glory of the kingdom given to him, and the king who should be strong in his inheritance. If we were sure that Appian had followed Polybius, we might see in the first part of the verse Heliodorus, and in the second the coming of Epiphanes.

Dan 11:22

And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant. The rendering of the LXX. is very wide of this, “And the broken arms he shall break from before him.” Although this is much shorter than the Massoretic text, yet the contradictory assertion that arms already broken are broken before him is conclusive against accepting the evidence of the Septuagint absolutely. Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic, not with the English versinns, “And the arms of the overflowing shall be overflowed from before him, and be broken, even the leader of the covenant.” The Peshitta is widely different, alike from the Massoretic text and that of the Septuagint, “And their mighty ones of the city he shall carry away, and they shall be broken from before him, even the leader of the covenant.” The Vulgate stands in a closer relation with the above than with the Massoretic text or the Greek versions, “The arms (brachia) of one fighting shall be driven out (expugnabuntur) from his face, and shall be broken besides, and (insuper et) the leader of the covenant.” The reference here seems to be to the campaign’if there was a campaignby which Epiphanes secured possession of the throne of Syria. The prince of the covenant. Who this can be it is impossible to say. The idea supported by Hitzig, Bevan, Behrmann, that Onias III. is referred to, is founded on the utterly unhistorical narrative in 2 Macc. 4. The view of Moses Stuart is that it is some sovereign who had a league of amity with Epiphanes. The reference thus might be to Eumenes or Attalus, who supported the claims of Anthochs. Negeed bereeth may be explanatory of the prenominal suffix in milpanayo, “before him.“ As Stuart acutely remarks, had the reference in bereeth been to the Divine covenant with the Jews, we should have had habbeereth.

Dan 11:23

And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. The rendering of the LXX. is, “And with the covenant and a people set in array he shall fabricate a lie, even against a strong nation with () a small people.” The rendering of Theodotion is somewhat difficult to comprehend, “By reason of leagues against him, he shall make a device, and shall ascend and master them with few people.” The Peshitta is very like Theodotion, only the last clause of this verse is regarded as the first of the next. The Vulgate is closer to the Massoretic than are any of the other ancient versions, “And after friendships with him, he shall work fraud, and shall go up and conquer with a small number.” The reference here is to the obscure events which attended the contestif there was a con-testthat resulted in Epiphanes securing the throne. The alliance may refer to his league with Eumenes. Appian assigns as a reason for the help given to Epiphanes by Eumenes, that it was to gain his friendship. Only Appian mentions “Attains and Eumenes,” as if they were separate sovereigns; but Attains was brother of Eumenes, and, at the time of the arrival of Epiphanes, his brother’s envoy at Rome. There may be some foundation of fact, and this would explain the statement in the text. The hopes of Eumenes, if he wished to strengthen himself by an alliance with Epiphanes, were probably soon frustrated, as Epiphanes involved himself in conflict with Egypt.

Dan 11:24

He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time. The rendering of the LXX. is,” Suddenly he shall desolate the city, and he shall do such things as his fathers have not done, nor his father’s fathers, and he shall give captives (, Deu 21:1-23.)and spoils and riches to them; and against the strong city a device shall be forecast (), and his reasonings are in vain.” In the first clause, seems to have been read instead of . Medeena is taken in its Syriac meaning. It is difficult to see what reading could produce both the Massoretic and the Septuagint renderings. Theodotion differs alike from this and from the Massoretic, “And in plenty, and in the fat places he shall corn and he shall do what his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers; and he shall disperse among them captives (), and spoil and possessions, and against ( ) Egypt he shall devise devices, even for a season.” The Peshitta is like the Massoretic. It joins what is reckoned the last clause of Dan 11:23 to the present verse, and omits “peaceably;” the last words of this verse are transferred to the next. The Vulgate is more related to Theodotion than to the Massoretic text, “And he shall enter plenteous (abundantes) and rich cities.“ The remaining part of the verse agrees with the Massoretic text The events here indicated are somewhat difficult to identify. The histories of this period are scanty, and, with the exception of Polybius, whose work has come to us in a fragmentary condition, not very trustworthy. Moreover, the readings are uncertain in a portion of the verse. It is generally held to describe the first entrance of Epiphanes into Palestine or Egyptmore generally the latteran opinion shared by Theodotion. The English versions do not bring out the probable meaning, although their rendering agrees with the Massoretic pointing, “That which his fathers have not done,” etc. The repeated triumphant invasions of Egypt are probably referred to. Forecast devices against the strong holds. This may refer to the siege of Alexandria, which he was on the eve of commencing when he was compelled by the Roman envoy, Popilius Lena, to desist; but this is evidently the subject of the later verse. We can most easily understand this verse if we regard it as a summary of the whole reign of Antiochus.

Dan 11:25

And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him. The versions present no point of remark, save that, instead of “king of the south,” the Septuagint has, as usual, “the King of Egypt.” This is supposed to be a compendious account of the second of the wars waged by Epipbanes against Egypt; but it suits the first better. At this time the Romans had declared war against Perseus, King of Macedon, and Antiochus, finding that they did not conquer Macedon easily, regarded the opportunity a suitable one for assailing Egypt and wresting from Ptolemy Philometor Coele-Syria, which his father had given as dower with Cleopatra, his daughter. The state of Egypt presented an aspect eminently hopeful to an assailant. The court of Egypt was full of intrigue and treachery; the centre of intrigue was the brother of the king, Ptolemy, nicknamed Physeon. The king, Ptolemy, was young; his generals, however, took up the challenge, and set on the field a large army; but the army was defeated, and Antiochus advanced as far as Memphis. Ptolemy was taken prisoner by his uncle, and Physeon his brother ascended the throne. The defeat of Philometor was supposed to be largely due to treachery.

Dan 11:26

Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain. The Septuagint rendering here is different, “And his cares shall consume him and turn him away, and he shall pass by (and shall hiss, ); and many shall fall down wounded.” Paulus Tellensis renders by, see script, (nigrooph), “shall overflow,” as if he had read , or perhaps , though it does not exactly represent the Hebrew. Theodotion is liker the Massoretic , “And they eat his provisions, and shall break him to pieces; and he shall overflow powers, and many shall fall wounded.” The account of the invasion of Egypt by Epiphanes occurs in 1 Macc. 1:18. The Septuagint translator, appears to have read, instead of (veochlay path-bago), (veachloo dageothav). There would seem also to have been some confusion between (heel), “strength,” and (halach), “to go.” The Peshitta rendering is, “They that eat his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall be dispersed, and many shall fall wounded.” The Vulgate is closely related to this. This refers to the treachery which was alleged to have been at work and to have caused the overthrow of Philometor in his contest with his uncle. The version of the Septuagint is more picturesque, and more in accordance with facts. Cares might well devour Ptolemy Philometortreachery in his army and his brother occupying his throne. Certainly he was defeated, turned asae, and was compelled to accompany the victor as a prisoner, while Egypt was wasted ()

Dan 11:27

And both these kings’ hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed. The Septuagint Version is, “And two kings shall dine alone at the same time, and eat at one table, and they shall speak lies, and they shall not prosper.” The translator has read instead of . Theodotion is closer to the Massoretic, agreeing in this with the Peshitta and Vulgate. The probable reference is to Ptolemy Philometor, conveyed practically a prisoner with his uncle’s army, while Epiphanes carried on his invasion of Egypt. They dined at one table, and probably deceived each the other. The purpose of Ptolemy was to get his usurping brother Physcon dethroned; the object of Antiochus was to possess Egypt for himself. Rashi sees in this a reference to the quarrels and reconciliations which diversified the conflict between John Hyrcanus II. and his brother Aristobulns. Jephet-ibn-Alimakes the two kings mean Arabia and Rome, since, according to him, these are respectively the kings of the south and of the north. Yet the end shall be at the time appointed. The progress of Antiochus was interrupted by the Romans.

Dan 11:28

Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land. The Greek versions and the Vulgate are in close agreement with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta differs only by omitting the last clause, which certainly seems a redundance. On his return from his Egyptian campaign, Epiphanes, we learn from 1 Macc. 1:20-23, plundered the temple of all its treasures. On the somewhat suspicious authority of 2 Macc. 4. some have referred to the report spread that Antiochus was dead, and that, taking advantage of this, Jason seized the city and drove Menelaus into the citadel; and that, bearing of this uproar, Antiochus, imagining that Judaea had revolted, retired from Egypt, and wreaked vengeance on Jerusalem, taking it by assault. The slaughter inflicted is confirmed by other authorities; but the resistance implied in the assertion that he took the city by force of arms () is contradicted by Josephus and 1 Maccabees.

Dan 11:29

At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter. The LXX. does not differ from this materially, save that it has Egypt, as usual, for south, and asserts that the king of the north entered Egypt. Theodotion is also in practical agreement with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta is much shorter, and differs very much from the above, as well as from all the other versions, “And he shall do in the former and in the latter.” There seems to have been something omitted, The Vulgate gives a different rendering of the last clause, “The last shall not be like the former.” The reference is to the second expedition of Antiochus into Egypt. His two nephews, whose quarrels and rivalries he had hoped to utilize for his own purposes, were now to appearance reconciled; they agreed to a joint occupation of the throne. It is supposed this second expedition was intended, if possible, to break up this agreement.

Dan 11:30

For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant. As the LXX. do not obscure the reference to Egypt, so they here call the ships of Chittim . The rendering is, “And the Romans shall come, and shall drive him out, and shall make him wroth, and he shall return and be enraged against the covenant of the holy, and shall do and return and plot against those on account of whom they left the covenant of the holy.” Theodotion renders in a slightly different way, “Those who come from Chittim shall assail, and he shall be humiliated, and he shall return and be enraged against the covenants of the holy. And he shall do and return, and have understanding against those who have been left to the holy covenant.” The Peshitta renders more in harmony with the Massoretic text, “Those who come against them from the lines of Chittim, even they shall break him, and he shall turn and be enraged against the holy covenant, and shall have understanding with them that forsake the holy covenant.” The rendering of the Vulgate is singular, “And there shall come against him trieres (ships of war, ) and Romans, and he shall be, beaten, and shall return, and shall be enraged against the testament (testamentum, covenant) of the holy place and shall do, he shall even return and shall devise against those who have left the testament (testamebtum) of the holy place.” The ships of Chittim are the Roman ships, bearing the envoys of the Senate with C. Popilius Laenas at their head. He delivered to Anti,bus the tablets on which were inscribed the wishes of the Senate. Antiochus was then on the eve of commencing the siege of Alexandria, and completing the conquest of Egypt. Having read that the Senate of Rome desired him to refrain from attacking the allies of the Republic, Antiochus said he would answer after con-suiting with his friends. Lsenas drew a circle round him with his staff on the sand, and demanded that he should give his answer before he left the circle. Antiochus had to submit. Shall have indignation against the holy covenant. It is not certain whether Antiochus was present personally at the plunder of Jerusalem or superintended the massacre of the Jews; but it is practically certain that at this time began the systematic attempt to put down Judaism. And have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant. It is not improbable that Antiochus was encouraged to make the attempt he did, by the fact that so many persons high in position were Hellenizers (1 Macc. 1:11-15, in which there is reference to those that forsook the holy covenant). The desire of Antiochus was probably to make his empire more homogeneous. The Jews, he would see by the fact that they had a national unity apart from his empire, might at times be thorns in his sidemight become allies of Rome if he were compelled to engage in war with the Republic. It was their religion that was the bond which united the nation; let that be broken, then there would be a chance of the Jews blending harmoniously with the other races that made up the Syrian Empire. Those that forsook the holy covenant made him think it an easy task.

Dan 11:31

And arms shall stand on hie part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. The render* ing of the LXX. is close to the above, “And arms shall stand by him, and shall pollute the sanctuary of fear “probably the LXX. read (magor), “fear,” instead of (maoz), “fortress,” a change probably due to the fact that sounded in Greek ears like hard, for and they shall take away the sacrifice and place ( give) the abomination of desolation.” Theodotion, from a mistaken vocalization, renders, “And seeds “reading instead of “shall spring up from him and shall pollute the sanctuary of power, and shall change the continual (sacrifice), and shall place () the abomination of things that have disappeared ().” The Peshitta is quite different in the firs; clause, “And their strong ones shall arise from them, and they pollute the sanctuary of strength, and they cause the sacrifice (qorban) to pass away, and they shall hang up the abomination in the temple.” The Vulgate rendering is in accordance generally with the Massoretic, “And arms shall stand from him. and shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall remove the continual (juge) sacrifice, and shall place the abomination of desolation.” Arms shall stand on his part. This word “arms” here is not to be understood as weaponsa misunderstanding possible in English. “Arms” here stands as the symbol of physical power generally. “On his part” is represented by the preposition , which means “with” or “from;” hence we find the Septuagint translating by , and Theodotion by . Probably the most natural view is to take the preposition as equivalent to “by,” that is, he shall set physical forces in motion. And they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength. That the temple in Jerusalem had all the characteristics that fitted it to become a fortress, was proved in every one of the numerous sieges it has endured. It becomes still more a fortress, of course, when the Tower Antonia was erected overlooking the temple area. There may, however, have been a reference to the fact that the collectors of tribute sent by Antiochus fortified the city of David, and used it as a basis of operations from which to assail the temple and defile its courts with blood (1 Macc. 1:35-36). And take away the daily sacrifice. The Hebrew word here used means “continual,” and the substantive “sacrifice” is supplied. In Dan 11:45 of the same chapter of 1 Macc. we are told that Antiochus forbade “burnt offerings, and sacrifices, and drink offerings in the temple.” And they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. One must note here the source of which we find in both Greek versions, and dabit, which we find in the Vulgate. The Hebrew has (venath’noo), “and they shall give or set.” It seems to refer to an altar to Jupiter, which was erected on the brazen altar (1 Macc. 1:59). This altar is spoken of in verse 54 as the “abomination of desolation ( ).” The Hebrew phrase has been borrowed from Dan 9:27; hence the suggestion of Professor Bevan, to read here “, is not necessary

Dan 11:32

And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. The LXX. translates, “And by sins of the covenant shall they defile themselves with a hard people, and the people knowing these things shall have the mastery and do (exploits).” The , the preformative of the participle hiphil, has been taken for the preposition . written defectively, and probably for . Theodotion does not require special notice, as his version here agrees closely with the Massoretic. The Peshitta is somewhat shorter and having a different significance, “And those who transgress against the covenant he shall condemn them. And the people who know the fear shall be strong.” The Vulgate rendering is, “And the impious against the covenant shall feign falsely (simulabunt fraudulenter), but the people knowing their God shall possess and do (exploits).” Men like Alcimus, the high priest after Menelaus, were transgressors of the sacred covenant, and were corrupted by the flatteries of Epiphanes. He used them to gain the people over to his views. But the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. Even when Epiphanes seemed most nearly successful, there was a deep-seated opposition to this Hellenizing process. Especially prominent were those who were zealous for the Law, the Hasidim, or, to give them the name they have in the Book of Maccabees, the Assidseans. These religionists, headed by Mattathias and his sons, especially by the heroic Judas Maccabaeus, certainly knew their God, and as certainly did exploits.

Dan 11:33

And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet, they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days. The LXX. rendering is, “The prudent of the people shall understand in multitudes ( ), and they shall push against them with the sword, and shall grow old with it ( ).“ We should feel inclined to read , had Paulus Tellensis not read as the text, “And by bondage and by plunder of days they shall be disgraced.” The mysterious clause, “shall grow old with it,” is due to the translation of (shevee), “captivity,” as if it had been (seebah), “old age.” Theodotion is obscure also, “The understanding of the people shall understand in regard to many things, and they shall suffer () by the sword, and with fire, and by captivity, and in plunder of days.” The Peshitta renders, “The dispersed of the people shall instruct many, and they shall fall by the sword, and by fire, by captivity, and by spoil, a thousand days.” The Vulgate does not supply any point worthy of remark. And they that understand among the people shall instruct many. In 1 Macc. 2:27 we have an account of a multitude instructed in the Law and determined to keep it, who, with their wives, children, and cattle, retired into the desert. Yet they shall fall by the sword, etc. After the multitude pursued the army of King Antiochus, which was at Jerusalem, and overtook them, the fugitives would not submit to sacrifice to idols. The army assailed them on the sabbath day; from a superstitious reverence for the clay of rest, they did not even defend themselves, and therefore fell an easy prey to their enemies (1 Macc. 2:38, “They slew them with their wives, and children, and their cattle to the number of a thousand people”). While we would not be held as regarding as literally historical the sufferings of Eleazar and the seven brethren and their mother, as related in 2 Marc. 6. and 7; and more fully in 4 Maccabees, yet it can only have been an exaggeration of what must have actually occurred.

Dan 11:34

Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. The Septuagint rendering is, “And when they are crushed many shall be gathered to them in () the city, even many as in distribution by lot ().“ This phrase is rendered by Paulus Tellensis, see Arabic word, (poolog pesa), “the division of the lots;” wrongly rendered by Bugati, in hereditate. The reading here is due to dropping of the reduplication in heltqluqoth. The Peshitta generally agrees with the Massoretic, only it renders the last clause, “Many shall add themselves to them in division, see Arabic word, (palgootha),” which, however, Castelli renders in this one case as simulatio. When success crowned the arms of Judas and his brethren, many of the Sadducean party joined themselves to them, although formerly they belonged to the Hellenizers. This association rendered the Assidaeans dissatisfied, and resulted in disaster. Probably the reference is to nothing so far down history. When Judas began to be successful, many would join him, hoping, by a limited amount of treachery to Judas, to secure safety if the king ultimately prevailed, while at the same time, their presence with the Maccabees would save them from the vengeance of their own countrymen if Judas were successful and the Syrian yoke thrown off.

Dan 11:35

And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end; because it is yet for a time appointed. The rendering of the LXX. is, “And some of those of understanding shall consider to purify themselves beth to be chosen and to be purified to the time of the end, for the season is for hours.” The translator must have read , instead of . The reading of the Massoretes is to be preferred. Theodotion’s, while closer to the Massoretic text,’ is not identical with the sense as represented by the Authorized and Revised Versions, “And some of those of understanding shall be weak to try them, that they may be chosen out and revealed at the end of time, for it yet is for a season.” Both Greek versions, as will be seen, render barar, “choose”a meaning it has in the pualand both omit one of the clauses. In this the Greek versions have the support of the Peshitta, which renders, “And (some) of the wise shall be overthrown to choose among them, and that they may understand to the end, because it is again protracted for a season.” Here, too, the last of the clauses descriptive of the effect of the fall of the wise is omitted. Although the Vulgate supports the Massoretic in this, we feel it suspicious. And some of them of understanding shall fall. Though marvellously successful, yet Judas and his comrades suffered some reverses; the reference may be to those that fell in battle. The rendering in Theodotion would seem to point to some apostatizing. We have no record of any such cases, yet it is not impossible that some would fall away. This would be a greater trial than defeat and the death in battle of such heroes as Eleazar, surnamed Avaran, or even of Judas Maccabaeus himself. To try them, and to purge, and to make them white. The death of teachers and of military leaders would be a severe test of the zeal and enthusiasm of the faithful. All the fearful and insincere would fall off from the ranks of the faithful. Those zealous for the Law of God would be at once tried and purified by these untoward events. This has been the experience of the Christian Church in every age. Because more a trial, therefore more purifying would be the failure of some to maintain the faith under trial. Even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed. It is in perfect accordance with the view that the purpose of the death of teachers and leaders, even their failure, is the purification of the saints, that the time of the trial should be fixed and definite. This view is frequent in the Apocalypse.

Dan 11:36

And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that that is determined shall be done. The LXX. does not differ greatly from this, “And the king shall do according to his will, and shall be enraged, and be exalted above every god, and against the God of gods shall he speak marvellous things () and shall prosper until the wrath be accomplished; for on him ( ) there is an end.” The difference in the last clause is considerable between the LXX, and not easily explicable. Theodotion differs somewhat more, “And he shall do according to his will; and the king shall be exalted, and be magnified, and he shall speak marvellous things, and he shall prosper until the wrath is ended; for it is to a determined end ().” The Peshitta is closely related to the Massoretic, even in the last clause, where a difference is manifested in the others. The Vulgate affords no occasion of remark. The question that has to be settled here isWho is the king who shall do according to his pleasure? Aben Ezra maintained the reference was to Constantine the Great. Rashi, followed by Calvin, would make it the Roman Empire personified. He notices the Rabbins’ referring this to Titus and Vespasian. As above mentioned, his own view is that the ‘Monarchia Romana’ is here intended. Jephet-ibn-Ali sees in this a prophecy of Mohammed; others, Wordsworth and Rule, following Jerome and Luther, think the reference here is to the antichrist of the New Testament. For our own part, we see no necessity for supposing any other monarch than Epiphanes is referred to. While Livy and Polybius remark on the piety of Epiphanes, it may seem strange to refer what is said here to him; but his ruthless plundering of temples proved that his piety was merely a political expedient. Speak marvellous things against the God of gods. We have no record of any proclamations of Antiochus which exactly suit this; but then we must bear in mind that we have only compendious accounts of what he did proclaim. To the heathen, moreover, as to Polybius and Livy, words of contempt against Jehovah would seem nothing worse than impolitic; but to the Jew, blasphemous words would be so horrible that they would not be recorded, as being a contamination: hence it is not extraordinary that we hear nothing of blasphemy in the history of Antiochus. The forbidding of sacrifices and of circumcision, while clearly enough dishonouring to God and to the Jewish nation, do not contain enough to justify the statement. Shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished. If by the indignation (, zaam) is meant the sufferings endured by the Jewish people, then the prosperity of Epiphaneshis life, indeeddid not last so long as the sufferings inflicted on the Jews; for these continued for some time after his death. There is probably here an indication that the writer’s horizon did not reach to the death of Antiochus. Certain, by his faith in God, that Antiochus would perish, he thinks that until that time he may prosper. For that that is determined shall be done. There is considerable difficulty as to the text here, but all the various forms convey the same meaninga definite limit to oppression.

Dan 11:37

Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. The Septuagint rendering is, “And to the gods of his fathers he will not have respect, and to the desire of women he will not have respect, because in everything he shall be exalted, and by him strong nations shall be subdued.” The last clause belongs really to the next verse, of the first clause of which it is a variant reading. Theodotion is nearly identical in sense with this, “And no god of his fathers will he regard () and a desire of women.” “This clause stands thus incomplete, as if the translator would have finished it with () “to him””he regards no god, because over all he is exalted.” The Peshitta rendering is, “And to the god of his fathers he shall not have regard; nor to the desire of women, nor any god, will he have respect; but over all he shall exalt himself.” It is to be noted that the Peshitta renders as does the English Version, and has the singular, “the God of his fathers,” not as the Greek versions, “the gods of his.” The Hebrew might be either. The Vulgate agrees here with the Syriac. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers. Antiochus is looked upon, not as a man of Macedonian or Greek descent, but as a Syrian, and certainly he had no reverence for the ancient gods of Syria. His opposition to the theocracy and to the worship of Jehovah was but a portion of a wide policy, the object of which was the abolition of all local cults. The desire of women. It might mean that he was not lustful; but there is no evidence that, like Charles XII; he was abstinent. On the ether hand, he never neglected war for luxury, as did some of the Hellenic kings. Moreover, it is almost imperative that it be an object of worship that is here referred to. Taking “the desire of women” as an object of worship, there is an interpretation which has come down to us from Ephrem Syrus and Jerome, that Beltis or Nanaea is here referred to; and the fact that in an attempt to plunder the temple of this goddess, in Elymais, Antiochus lost his life, supports this view. The worship is said to have been very lascivious. On the other hand, it was a worship that would not naturally be prominent to a Palestinian Jew. The suggestion of Ewald, that it was the worship of Adonis or Tammuz which Antiochus despised, is more likely to be meant here. For he shall magnify himself above all. Claiming the right of annulling worship, and taking the sacred utensils from the temple treasures, he allowed himself to be addressed by the Samaritans as a god. Antiochus was probably utterly without faith in the Divine; worship was merely policy.

Dan 11:38

But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stores, and pleasant things. As we have said above, the last clause of the preceding verse according to the LXX. really belongs to this, “Strong nations shall be subject to him,” reading instead of . There is in the Massoretic, where has been in the reading followed by the Septuagint. After this clause the Septuagint proceeds, “And to his place he shall move, and a god whom his fathers knew not he shall honour with gold, and silver, and precious stones.” It is possible that (nadad),” to flee or move,” was read instead of (kabad),” to honour;” for though is usually active and transitive, there is no object here. Theodotion has, “And the God of Maozeim he shall honour in his place, and a god whom his father knew not he shall honour with gold, silver, and precious stones, and with offerings.” The Peshitta rendering is freer, “The mighty god he shall honour in his possession, and a god whom his fathers have not known shall he honour with gold and with silver, with precious gems and desirable things.” The Vulgate adopts the transliteration Maozim. In his estate shall he honour the god of forces. There are a number of questions here. To whom does the prenominal suffix refer? The English translators have arranged the words so that we cannot escape the view that “the estate” is the king’s, but the natural meaning of the Hebrew order is that it is “on the place” or “pedestal” of the god. The word translated “estate” is used in Gen 40:13 for “office.” It is used of the “base” of the “laver.” It may mean “place.” The next pointWhat Deity is meant by “the god of strong holds”? There is absolutely nothing to guide us in the matter. Some have supposed that the reference is to Jupiter Olympius, whose statue Antiochus is reported to have set np in the temple. Others, that the reference is to Jupiter Capitolinus. Were there any evidences that Antiochus worshipped the genius of Rome, something might be urged for this; but we have no evidence of this. In the absence of anything to fix a definite meaning on this word, we feel inclined to suggest that Jehovah is meant by the slosh mauzzeem. Repeatedly in the Psalms is God declared to be the Strength of the saint; e.g. Psa 27:1; Psa 43:2 Of Jehovah it might be said that the ancestors of AntiochusGreek and Syrianknew him not. Honour with gold, etc. The repeated defeats of the armies of Antiochus and the spoiling of their camps by the followers of Jehovah, was giving honour to Jehovah, however unwittingly and unwillingly it was done. God “gat him honour upon Pharaoh,” and so now he was honoured upon Epiphanes.

Dan 11:39

Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain. The version of the LXX. is somewhat difficult to render intelligibly, “By desires of cities he shall act, and to a strong fortress shall he come with a strange god whom he will acknowledge; he will increase his glory, and shall master him much, and shall divide his territory freely.” The first words of this belong to the previous verse, and at the same time there has been some confusion with the opening words of the present verse according to the Massoretic division. Theodotion is not much closer to the received text, “And he shall act in strongholds of refuge with a strange god, and shall increase glory, and subject many to them, and shall divide the land in gifts.” The sense of this last, as given in the Greek versions, is illustrated by Psa 16:4. The Peshitta renders, “He shall pass over to the strong cities, on account of (al) the strange gods which he shall see, and he shall rule over many, and the land he shall divide for gain” The Vulgate renders more in accordance with Theodotion than with the Massoretic yet independently, “And he shall do (faciet) that he may fortify Maozim with a foreign god, whom he knew not, and shall multiply glory, and shall give to them power in many (things), and shall divide the land gratuitously” This verse as it stands is nearly unintelligible. The suggestion of Hitzig and yon Lengerke, followed by Bevan, that we should read (am), “people,” instead of (eem), “with,” is very plausible. The only objection is that none of the versions have it. As, however, it seems to us the only way out of the difficulty, we shall take this reading, and render, with Professor Bevan, “He shall procure for the strong fortresses the people of a strange god.” For this use of Professor Bevan refers to 2Sa 15:1, “Absalom procured for himself chariot and horses;” 1Ki 1:5, so of Adonijah. Whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory. This we should render, “who have acknowledged him,” making the antecedent to the relative, not the king, but “the people of the strange god;” the reference being to the mercenaries of the Syrian army, who were the people of a god strange to the Israelites, and not impossibly made less difficulty in giving up their national gods, and recognizing the gods of Greece as their gods. The K’thib here is the preterite instead of the imperfect, which occurs in the following clause, the reading which we accept here. He shall increase with glory; or rather, he shall multiply in glory. These mercenaries of his he would increase, and give ever more honour to them. And he shall cause them to rule over many. These mercenaries placed in fenced cities were formed into Hellenic communities, and received many of the natives as subjects. The reference is not merely to garrisons being placed in fortresses, but to a chain of Hellenic cities, which, in imitation of the Romans, Antiochus placed in Palestine. And shall divide the land for gain. As will be seen, the Greek versions and the Vulgate reverse the idea here, and renderthe LXX; , “gratuitously;” Theodotion, , “in gifts;” the Vulgate, gratuito, which is due to reading (meheer) instead of (meheer). The word may mean, as it is taken by the English versions and the Peshitta to mean, “for a price;” as in 2Sa 24:24, David purchased the threshing-floor of Araunah bimeheer, “at a price;” but it also means “wages,” as in Mic 3:11, “Her priests teach for hire wages (bimeheer).” The reference, then, is to the fact that in the deplenished state of his treasury, Antiochus divided the land of Palestine to his mercenaries, in lieu of the wages he could not pay.

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. The Septuagint Version is somewhat shorter, “And at the time of the end the King of Egypt shall push at him: and the king of the north shall be enraged at him, with chariots and many horses and many ships, and shall enter into the land of Egypt.” Probably the Massoretic has been amplified. Still it is a possible thing that, as Egypt was the natural objective of all the military preparations of Syria, the shorter summary might be inserted instead of the longer paraphrase of the Massoretic. Throughout in the Septuagint Version, as may be noted, “Egypt” stands in place of “the south.” Theodotion is much closer to the Massoretic, but omits “the whirlwind,” and has. instead of “countries,” , “the land.” The Peshitta differs in some respects more from the Massoretic than either of the Greek texts, “And at the end of time the king of the south shall strive with him: and the king of the north shall be moved against him, with chariots and horsemen and with many ships; and he shall act impiously in the land.” The Vulgate agrees with the Massoretic text. At the time of the end. This refers to the same “time of the end” as that in Dan 11:35; that is to say, not the end of the world, but the end of this distress. It is possible that to the writer the entrance of the new erathe Messianic timewould coincide with the fall of Antiochus, and that this era might be regarded as the end of the world. The king of the south shall push at him. This suggests war begun by the King of Egypt against Syria. It is difficult to see how this could take place after the fourth expedition of Antiochus into Egypt. The two brothers, Philometor and Euergetes (Physcon), were at war with each ether shortly after this, and though Philometor gained the mastery, he was not in a position to threaten Syria. Certainly, had Ptolemy Philometor been in a position to take vengeance on his uncle, the successful rebellion of the Jews afforded an opportunity. We have no record in Polybius, Livy, 1 Maccabees, or Josephus of any expedition of Egypt against Epiphanes, either planned or attempted. Polybius is certainly fragmentary, and so to a greater extent is Livy; yet what has come down bears on events so near chronologically to this alleged expedition planned against Syria that it would scarcely fail to be noticed. And the king of the north shall dome against him like a whirlwind, with chariot, and with horsemen, and with many ships. This purports to be an account of an expedition undertaken by Epiphanes against Ptolemy, presumably Philometor. Of this there is not a trace; Antiochus is in so great need of money that he must use one half his army to collect money by robbing temples in Elymais, while the other, under Lysias, is occupied in attempting to put down the rebellion of the Jews. Again the historians of the period are silent, and what they tell us is inconsistent with this fifth expedition. Jerome, in his commentary on Daniel, quotes Porphyry, who gives an account of an expedition against Egypt in the eleventh year of his reign. That, however, was the year of his deaththe year, therefore, of his expedition against Elymais. It is impossible that in the beginning of that year he should undertake such an expedition into Egypt as that described by Porphyry, and at the end have time to march into Elymais. It cannot be the expedition of Lysias which is referred to, for he is represented (1 Macc. 3:32) as having the oversight of all the territory of the king from the river Euphrates, but there is no notice of ships And he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. This might refer to the expedition which Antiochus undertook to Elymais, but in the following verse we learn the direction was toward Egypt. No such expedition occurred after the fourth. What explanation is to be given of this? The explanation favoured by Keil of this whole chapter, that the king of the north is antichrist, is applied here; but so much of the earlier portion of this chapter can be interpreted as history, that we, for our part, are loth to give an eschatological interpretation to this. The view favoured by most is that here the author narrated his expectations, but these expectations were contrary to facts. This is Professor Bevan’s view. If this view had been correct, the expectations of the author would be falsified almost as soon as they were recorded; this would certainly seem to render it impossible for the book to get the vogue it did. We, for our part, favour a modification of the view maintained by Hitzig, that this section is a repetition of what has been previously mentioned. Against this is the chronological statement at the beginning. Regarding, as we do, this chapter as an interpolation and the work of a later hand, our idea is that the section before us is one attempt to interpolate, and the preceding section is another, and that both have been incorporated in the narrative.

Dan 11:41

He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. The Septuagint rendering is slightly of the nature of a paraphrase, “And he shall pass into my land, and many (feminine) shall be offended, and these shall be saved from his hand, Edom, and Moab, and the head of the sons of Ammon.” It is possible that the word tzebee was omitted, and the pronominal suffix attached to ‘aretz. Theodotion renders, “And he shall enter into the land of the Sabaeem, and many shall be made weak; but these shall be delivered out of his hand, Edom, and Moab, and chief of the sons of Ammon.” The transliteration here might suggest instead of , and a mistake of the former for is in the square letters not impossible; but and are, in the older scripts, very unlike. The Peshitta, while agreeing with the Massoretic generally, renders, “the glorious land,” “the land of Israel”an evident paraphrase. The Vulgate introduces solae before Edom and Moab, otherwise agreeing with the received text. The expedition of Antiochus reaches Palestine, on which the full force of the tempest is represented as being directed. The countries adjacent escape. Edom, Moab, and Ammon are mentioned, but Moab had by this time disappeared as a national name. It may have been insertedas suggested by Professor Bevanin consequence of the frequent conjunction of the three names, “Moab, Ammon, and Mount Seir.” It is, however, singular that these nations should be named as “escaping,” since they were the allies of Antiochus, or more properly, as they would be regarded by him as subjects, his instruments in the oppression of Israel. It may be that this version of the vision of Daniel has been less modified from the original than what has preceded. In the original document, Edom, Moab, and Ammon might have some symbolic reference. The glorious land can scarcely be other than Palestine. It is rendered by Ewald, “the land of the ornament” It might be rendered, “the land of the gazelle.” Out of the thirty passages in which this word occurs in Scripture, fourteen times it must have this meaning, in some of the other cases it may have it. So far, then, as the name goes, it might apply to any country fitted for the habitation of the gazelle; but the mention of “Edom, Mesh, and Ammon” renders it nearly a necessity that the reference here be to Palestine. Many countries shall be overthrown. The verb used is kashal, which means, in the niphal, “to totter,” “to fall,” “to be weak.” It is assumed by Hitzig and Fuller, as by the English versions, that “countries” is to be understood. Ewald, however, and many other commentators, following the older versions, would refer to men, and translate, “myriads shall fall.” In the version from which Origen has supplemented the Septuagint it is rendered, “Many women or countries shall be offended (),” the feminine rendering being due to the feminine termination -oth in rabboth, but the verb is masculine.

Dan 11:42

He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. The Septuagint rendering is, “And he shall send forth his hand upon the countries, and in the land of Egypt there shall not be a saviour in it.” The first part of this verse is marked with an asterisk. Evidently the text before the translators had (lah pelaytah), “to her deliverance,” and “deliverance” in the abstract became “deliverer” in the concrete. Theodotion renders in a different sense, “And he shall stretch his hand upon the land, and the land of Egypt shall not be for salvation.” The idea here is that for the land of Palestine, Egypt shall not be a deliverer. This, probably, is the true reading. The Peshitta agrees with the Massoretic pretty closely, “He shall stretch his hand over the countries, and the land of Egypt shall escape from his hands.” The Vulgate has nothing to justify remark. Probably this verse, in the way it is rendered by Theodotion, is a portion of the lost vision of Daniel. The vagueness of “countries” stands in contrast to the definiteness of Edom, Moab, and Ammon, and is thus suspicious. Help was always expected from Egypt in the time when Assyria and Babylonia successively claimed the subjection of the Holy Land.

Dan 11:43

But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. The rendering of the LXX. is somewhat fuller, “He shall have power over the place of gold and the place of silver, and over all the desire of Egypt, and Libyans and Ethiopians shall be in his multitude.” The word translated “treasures” is a late one, but evidently the Septuagint translator had (maqom) instead of . (michemanay). Theodotion renders, “And he shall have power over the secret hoards of gold and silver, and over all the desirable things of Egypt, and of Libyans, and of AEthiopians in their fortresses.” Theodotion has read (metzorayo) instead of (mitz’adoyo). The Peshitta rendering is, “And he shall have power over the house of the treasures of gold and silver, and of the pleasant things of Egypt, and the Libyans, and the Cushites (Ethiopians) are his allies.” The Vulgate follows a slightly different rendering, “And he shall rule the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; through Libya and AEthiopia, too, shall he pass.” Having a different reading in the last clause from the Massoretic, the natural Hebrew equivalent for transibit is (yabor)a word that could scarcelv arise by mistake from that in the text. He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silcer, and over all the precious things of Egypt. Strictly speaking, this never was the case, as Antiochus never wholly conquered Egypt, although in that expedition, in which he had laid siege to Alexandria, he came very near completing his conquest. And the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall beat his steps. This certainly is not true in the sense in which Jerome takes it, “he shall pass through Libya and Ethiopia.” Though Antiochus more than once invaded Egypt, he never passed further into Africa. These nationalities are associated with each other; e.g. in Jer 46:8, Jer 46:9, we have, “The Ethiopians and the Libyans that handle the shield.” So in Eze 30:5 we have the countries spoken of together. It may merely mean that individuals belonging to these nationalities had joined his armies. This is altogether a more ornate and poetical passage than the rest of this chapter, and gives the feeling of a different hand; therefore, probably, it belongs to a time nearer that of Daniel, and contains more of the original prophecy. Professor Fuller remarks on a reference being made to the help Ptolemy received from Cyprus. Cyprus, or Chittim, is referred to in the earlier part of this chapter, hut not here. The Lubim and Cushim are contemporary with Edom, Moab, and the sons of Ammon.

Dan 11:44

But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him; there. fore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. The version of the Septuagint is very like this, “A rumour out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him, and he shall come out in great rage to lay waste with the sword, and to slay many.” The version of Theodotion is somewhat briefer, “Rumours and disturbances out of the east and from the north shall trouble him, and he shall come in much wrath to destroy many.” The Syriac is closer than any other version to the Massoretic text. The Vulgate renders, “A rumour out of the east and north shall trouble him, and he shall come with a great multitude that he may beat down and slay many.” The word (hayma) may mean either “wrath” or “multitude.” It is difficult to identify the rumours that recalled Antiochus from his conquests. The account given by Porphyry (quoted by Jerome) of his receiving news that led him to ravage the coasts of Phoenicia and march against Armenia are unsupported by other historians. A phrase in Tacitus (‘Hist.,’ Dan 5:8) seems to throw light on this, “After the Macedonians held the supremacy, King Antiochus, when he was endeavouring to change the superstition of this people, i.e. the Jews, into the manners of the Greeks, was hindered by a Parthian war.” There is, however, no record of such a Parthian war; but such a war may have arisen, and not be recorded, as the histories for the period before us are very incomplete. Should we regard these verses as giving another account of the war between Epiphanes and Ptolemy, the tidings out of the north might mean the arrival of the Roman envoys, headed by Popilius Lsenas. If there were also a threat of a Parthian invasion, we should then have, “tidings put of the east and north.” Therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. Certainly Antiochus did return furious from the expedition in which he was stayed by the Romans; and certainly also he set himself thereafter to compel the Jews to become Greeks in religion, punishing with death refusal to yield to his demands (1 Macc. 1:24-28; Josephus, ‘Ant.,’ 12.5. 3).

Dan 11:45

And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. The rendering of the LXX. is, “Then shall he set up his tent between the seas and the mountains of the choice of the sanctuary, and the hour of his end shall come, and he shall have no helper.” Theodotion’s rendering is, “He shall pitch his tent Epha-dane between the seas at the holy mountain of Sabacin; he shall come to his lot, and there will not be a deliverer to him.” It is to be observed that the word (appadno), “royal tent,” a late word in Hebrew, was not present in the text before the translator of the Septuagint. Further, Theodotion did not know the meaning of the word, although his recension was prepared under Jewish supervision. The Peshitta renders, “And he shall place his tout on the plain space between the sea and the mountain, and shall assail its sanctuary, and he shall come to his end; there shall not be to him a helper.” The Vulgate renders, “And he shall place his tabernacle, aphadno, between the two seas upon the glorious and holy mountain; he shall come even to its (his) highest point, and no one shall help him.” He shall plant the tabernacle of his palace. The word here used (appadno) does not occur elsewhere, and seems to denote the royal tent. The fact that it does not appear in the Septuagint or Peshitta renders its right to be in the text somewhat doubtful. Theodotion and Jerome transliterate it, as if it had not got a place in Hebrew even in their day. It does occur in the Targum and the Peshitta. At the same time, a purely technical word like this might really be of ancient usage, yet the occasion for its use might not have previously occurred; the literature of ancient Hebrew is exceedingly limited. Between the seas in the glorious holy mountain. Havernick maintains that the glorious and holy mountain here is the mountain on which the temple of Nanaia was placed, and that the seas in question were the Caspian and the Persian Gulf. It is difficult to imagine a Jew calling the mountain on which a heathen temple was placed, “glorious holy,” even were we sure that the temple in question was on a mountain, for which we have no evidence. The Jews probably knew of the sea into which the Euphrates discharged its waters; but it is not prominent in their writings, and the Caspian may be looked upon as unknown. The distance between these two seas is so great that no one would locate such a small thing as a city by saying that it was between them. The natural interpretation is that the seas in question are the Mediterraneanthe great seaand the Dead Seathe Salt Sea. But the Hebrew leads rather to the idea that the plural is one of excellence. (bayn), “between,” is not infrequently construed with (le), “to,” as here; hence the translation would be between the seas, i.e. the great sea and the holy mountain. There can be no doubt that “the glorious and holy mountain” is Mount Zion. Yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. The death of Antiochus, baffled in his attempt to rifle the temple of Nanaia, humiliated not only by his own disaster, but by the news received from Jerusalem, is full of disappointment and misery, even when we get rid of the rhetoric with which the events are clothed in Polybius and 1 and 2 Maccabees. One-half of his army under Lysias had been baffled and defeated by Judas Maccabaeus; he himself had been repulsed in his attempt to replenish his coffers; the, re is therefore for him no helper, so he dies of disappointment at Tabes.

HOMILETICS

Dan 11:21

Successful dissimulation.

I. DISSIMULATION IS OFTEN MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN VIOLENCE. The successful usurper is known to be a “vile person;” the people do not willingly bestow upon him the honours of royalty,he grasps them for himself; yet he perpetrates no violence to obtain them. He wins power by dissimulation.

1. But dissimulation is most common in an age of advanced civilization. Violence belongs to simpler times. As life becomes more complex, evil becomes more subtle.

2. It has most power at a time of moral corruption. When morality is corrupted, the discerning faculty of conscience is blinded. Deceit succeeds most with those who have lost the clear judgment which results from the direct insight of purity.

3. It is most successful under circumstances of material prosperity. Then we are off our guard, and are tempted to a false feeling of security based on the mere enjoyment of present ease.

II. THE SUCCESS OF DISSIMULATION IS MORE INJURIOUS TO THE WORLD THAN THE SUCCESS OF VIOLENCE. The greatest enemies to a state are its traitors. The worst foes to a religion are its hypocritical adherents. The most dangerous enemies a man can have are his flattering friends. In such cases

(1) the evil is more slowly recognized;

(2) it is less energetically hated; and

(3) it is resisted with more difficulty.

III. THOUGH DISSIMULATION MAY SUCCEED FOR A TIME, TRUTH WILL ULTIMATELY TRIUMPH. There is “an end” at “the time appointed” (Dan 11:27; Dan 12:1, Dan 12:2).

1. By its own nature evil ultimately declares its true character. If it always remained concealed, it would effect little. By dissimulation power is won, which in being used casts off the mask.

2. When evil is declared, it is seen to be hateful and weak. Once fairly known, it loses its attraction and becomes a despicable thing.

3. God will finally interfere to destroy all false appearances, and judge the world in truth according to real character and conduct. Some forms of deceit may linger till that great judgment-day; but none can outlive it. Then all actions will appear in the white light of truth.

4. It is wise and prudent (as well as right) to seek truth and to live truly, because the true only can live in the great future of eternity (Rev 21:27).

Dan 11:28

Evil prosperity.

I. TEMPORAL PROSPERITY MAY BE ATTAINED APART FROM MORAL GOODNESS. It is not found in experience that the old Jewish ideal is realizable in which the righteous all prosper, and the wicked are all in adversity (Job 36:11, Job 36:12). Bad men often grow rich and flourish in external success (Psa 73:3).

1. This is no proof of the weakness of moral and spiritual forces in the economy of life,

(1) because physical prosperity is made to depend largely on physical causes;

(2) because energy of will and intellectual ability may exist apart from moral worth, and may secure temporal success;

(3) because adversity is not regarded by God as a supreme evil, nor prosperity as a supreme goodboth are subservient to higher aims;

(4) because justice and right have not scope in this world to effect their ultimate triumph.

2. This should warn us from the erroneous conclusions

(1) that our prosperity is a proof of our goodness; and

(2) that it is an evidence of God‘s favour.

II. WHEN TEMPORAL PROSPERITY IS ENJOYED WITHOUT MORAL GOODNESS, IT IS LIKELY TO BE A CURSE TO THE OWNER OF IT.

1. All the higher uses of prosperity will be neglected. These are to lift up our hearts to God and his love; to give leisure from care for the service of God; and to bestow talents for the good of mankind. If the higher uses of prosperity are neglected, the prosperity can only degrade us.

2. We are likely to become unduly satisfied with ourselves. Dust glitters like gold in the sunlight; and worthless people are tempted to think themselves of great value when the sun of prosperity shines upon them. Hence groundless pride, vanity and blindness, poverty of soul, guilt of sin, and danger of ruin.

3. We are inclined to set our heart on temporal comforts. This danger always follows prosperity. It may be mitigated by right spiritual thoughts of the wants of the soul which no earthly possessions can satisfy, and by the infinitely more precious heavenly treasures. Where such thoughts are not cherished the danger is great.

4. We are inclined to over-estimate the capacities of earthly riches, to suppose that they can secure the future from harm.

5. If we have begun to walk in evil ways we shall be hardened and hastened in them by the absence of needful checks, and under the influence of foolish feelings of triumphant success.

Dan 11:32 (last clause)

Strength in the knowledge of God.

I. SPIRITUAL STRENGTH.

1. Spiritual strength must be distinguished

(1) from physical power, as in the case of Samson, who had very little strength of soul;

(2) from intellectual energy which can solve mysteries of thought, and construct lofty arguments, but cannot resist temptation and accomplish spiritual work; and

(3) from strength of human willsuch as is manifested by a Napoleonwhich may exist apart from moral self-control and capacity for the higher efforts of life.

2. Spiritual strength is strength of the inner and higher nature. It is capacity of the character and will, raised to spiritual energy, to resist evil and to do good. It implies

(1) self-control (1Co 9:27);

(2) power to resist external influences of fashion and of tyranny, of seduction and of terror (Neh 6:9);

(3) capacity and energy for doing spiritual work, i.e. for overcoming the evil in the world and extending the good, as in reaching the conscience of men, convincing of sin, and persuading them to be reconciled to God (2Co 5:20). It is seen in moral courage, patience, zeal and persevering activity in God’s service.

II. THE SOURCE OF SPIRITUAL STRENGTH.

1. It is derived from God. It is not innate, nor acquired by our own efforts, nor attained by any worldly means. It is given to us in our natural weakness (Isa 40:29), when we are most conscious of this and distrustful of ourselves (2Co 12:10), and in response to prayer (Psa 138:3).

2. The knowledge of God is a condition for the receiving of spiritual strength.

(1) This is necessary that we may have understanding and faith to ask strength of God.

(2) It is necessary as a means for attaining the strength; because ideas of the greatness, goodness, and might of God are bracing and invigorating.

(3) It is necessary as a moral condition. If we seek to know God, he will give us strength, but if we are neglectful of this duty, it is not right that God should honour us with such favour.

3. Union with God in living sympathy is the direct means for receiving this strength. The people referred to in the text know God as their God. This appropriation of God secures to us his strength.

III. THE USE OF SPIRITUAL STRENGTH. It is the Divine aid for the needs of life. We often pray for relief of the burden and release from the task. God leaves the burden and task undiminished, but gives strength by which to do and bear. This method of help involves less disarrangement of the order of the outside world, and is for us a nobler and more fruitful blessing. Thus when we seek peace through relaxation and ease, God gives it in inspiration and energy (2Co 12:8, 2Co 12:9).

1. It is needed for the resistance of temptation. Temptation is too strong for our unaided powers. In God’s strength we are conquerors (1Co 10:13).

2. It is useful for the endurance of trouble. The necessary trouble must be gone through in any case. But spiritual strength is essential to patient, calm, unmurmuring endurance (Php 4:13).

3. It is helpful for active service. We often fail in work for want of energy of soul. Divine strength brings zeal, capacity, and successful activity (2Ch 15:7).

4. It is needful for growth of the spiritual nature. As we are strong in soul we can know more of Divine truth, and enlarge and elevate the life of the inner man. This growth is the result of the working out of indwelling spiritual energy (Luk 1:80).

Dan 11:35

Purged by trial.

I. THE CHURCH NEEDS PURIFICATION. The people “of understanding” are to be purged and made white. These are clearly the people who are “wise unto salvation”the true Church.

1. The ends of the gospel are not attained until the Church is completely purified. The first aim is to gather men into the Church by penitence and faith. The second is to perfect them when they are in the Church. The forgiving grace of God does not dispense with the necessity of holiness. It passes over the sin of the past, that it may secure a better life for the future. The ends of Christ’s work are not satisfied in releasing us from the penalties of our sins, and securing present peace and future blessedness. They seek the complete renewal and purification of our lives.

2. These ends are only attained by a lifelong process of purification. The act of conversion does not satisfy them. Though the life may be turned from sin to God, evil still lingers, old sins rise up again, and new temptations often prove too strong. Hence the need of the Christian’s daily prayer for forgiveness, and the need of a continual discipline in holiness.

II. THE CHURCH IS PURIFIED BY HER TRIALS. Some of them fall to try, and thus to purge. Trial purges:

(1) by making us think humbly of ourselves, and suggesting the question whether we have not brought it on ourselves by our sin;

(2) by making us dissatisfied with this world, and therefore anxious to be right in relation to the spiritual world;

(3) by leading us to feel the need of God, and so to seek to be conformed to his mind. These, however, are only secondary means, and need right using. Trouble may harden in sin or result in complaints against Providence. We need the Spirit of God to enable us to profit by the holy influences of trial. This conception of the end of trial should lead us

(1) to accept it with patient submission, since it is sent, not as vindictive punishment, but as purifying chastisement; and

(2) to seek grace to use it profitably.

III. WHEN THE PURIFICATION OF THE CHURCH IS ACCOMPLISHED, HER TRIALS WILL CEASE.

1. This will be complete. The battle with sin will not last for ever. The dross will be all purged away, and the people of God will be free from all taint of sin and all indwelling love and power of it. This is the final issue of the discipline of this life which will be accomplished in the next.

2. Then trial will cease. The present life of probation, education, and discipline is only temporary (2Co 4:17). It will be followed by a life of perfect peace (Rev 21:4).

Dan 11:36-38

Self.

The undue prominence of self is a leading characteristic of all sin, just as all goodness implies self-denial. Where this is allowed, it is shown in every sphere of life.

I. IN ACTION, SELF APPEARS AS SELF–WILL. “The king shall do according to his will.” This implies the neglect of law and right, of the will of others and of the will of God. It is seen in tyranny, in rebellion against lawful authority, and in the denial of our duty as servants of God.

II. IN THOUGHT, SELF IS SEEN AS SELF–WORSHIP. “He shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god.” The shadow of self is thrown over everything. All things are viewed in their relation to self, and valued according as they please or inconvenience self. Self is the ideal standard to which nothing is equal, and by comparison with which all merit is measured.

III. IN RELIGIOUS MATTERS, SELF IS MANIFESTED BY THE CHOICE OF WORSHIP ACCORDING TO PRIVATE CONVENIENCE. The king rejects the God of his fathers, and blasphemes the u God of gods” because the will of the great God is against his evil conduct. He selects for worship a “god of forces” as more suited to his lawless violence. Thus where self dominates, the truth of religion counts for nothing, no reverence is felt for the awful holiness and majesty of God, but convenience settles the creed, and that religion is adopted which involves the least self-denial. Thus degraded, religion is no longer the master, it is the slave of man. But surely religion should be accepted because it is true, whether it suits our convenience or not, and must then be felt to guide and overawe our lives.

IV. IN SOCIAL RELATIONS, SELF APPEARS AS SELF–ASSERTION AND NEEDLESS BREACH OF CUSTOM. The king disregards the habits of his age, apparently out of contempt and pure indifference. The bondage of custom is degrading. But indifference to the habits of others is insulting and sometimes cruel. It is a proof of cold selfishness. Where it is necessary to be independent, we should let our conduct be conciliatory rather than irritating, if we would practise humility and generosity.

V. IN PRACTICAL RESULTS, THE PROMINENCE OF SELF IS EVIDENCED BY DESTRUCTIVE VIOLENCE. The god chosen is the “god of forces.” Might takes the place of right. The will and welfare of others are often crossed. How many wars have no better origin!

Finally note: THOUGH THE UNDUE ASSERTION OF SELF MAY SUCCEED FOR A SEASON, IT IS DOOMED TO ULTIMATE FAILURE. The king prospers, but only “till the indignation be accomplished.” In the final issue self-seeking brings ruin. Selfishness prospers for a time, and unselfishness means temporary loss, but ultimately the suppression of self would lead to our lasting welfare (Mat 16:25).

HOMILIES BY H.T. ROBJOHNS

Verse 1-Da 12:1

The roll of the universal Church.

“Thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book” (Dan 12:1). Two remarks here seem necessary on the part of the writer of this set of homilies.

1. That, deeply interesting as may be the eleventh chapter considered as prophecy, and so demanding minute historical exposition, there does not seem to be much admitting of strictly homiletical treatment. The impression of others may be different; but that is our view; and we act upon it by advancing to the twelfth chapter.

2. That the homilies immediately following are founded upon the view expressed by Keil, that the closing verses of the eleventh chapter refer to “the end of the present world-period,” not to Antiochus Epiphanes, but to the final enemy of the people of God, the antichrist; and further, that the first three verses of the twelfth chapter treat of “the final deliverance of Israel from the last tribulation.” In other words, that the prophecies of Daniel close by projecting themselves on into the closing scenes of the history of our world. The first verse declares that the close, of earth’s history shall be a time of unparalleled trouble; that the activity of Michael, the guardian angel of Israel, shall then be prominent; that there shall be deliverance for all the true Israel of God, viz. of those whose names are written in “the book.“ Of that book we treat; but seeking light upon it from the later revelations of God. By “the book” we understand the register of the redeemed of the Lordthe heavenly Church bookthe roll of the one universal Church.

I. THE BOOK. The language is symbolic. There is in heaven something which may well be represented by a book. Books play no mean part in Scripture symbolism. To understand the passages we must remember that ancient books were, for the most part, written on parchment, rolled on cylinders, and usually the writing was on one side only. In Rev 5:1 the book is the crowded roll of the providential counsels. A book sealed is one whose contents are secret. To eat a book is spiritually to assimilate its contents (Rev 10:9, Rev 10:10; Jer 15:16). A book “folded up“ stands for law repealed, or teaching of no further use. To “receive“ a book is to enter on new dignity (Rev 5:7). Christ enters on the functions of mediatorial providential King.

II. THE TITLE. “The book of life” (Rev 21:27).

1. What it is not. Not what is called “the volume of the Divine decrees.” Rev 3:5 settles that.

2. What it is. One of the two to be produced at the last judgment (see Rev 20:11-13). Look at them separately.

(1) The books of the deeds of men. The judgment of the great day will be “according to the deeds,” etc. (2Co 5:10). But how does this comport with the evangelical doctrine that believers are saved and unbelievers lost (Joh 3:14-19)?

(a) As to the unbeliever. His deeds are the evidence of unbelief.

(b) The believer.

() Deeds, again, are evidence of faith.

() Deeds determine place in glory.

(2) The book of life. A book of names only, of the livingspiritually; i.e. of the saved. Alford says, “Those books and the book of life bear independent witness to the fact of men being or not being among the saved; the one by inference from the works recorded, the other by inscription or non-inscription in the list.”

3. The origin of the figure. Whence? Various answers, but all suggestive. The carefully kept list of priests? of citizens? of wrestlers in the great Greek agony? the monster roll of soldiers in the Roman army? Believers ought to be all therepriests, etc. Think, then: In the book every believer’s name, not in the world’s order, but in the order of coming into the Church universal. It is the family register of our Father in heaven. What if we could read it? The names clearly written! No mistake! What disclosures l Names there; names not there! No impeachment of the record. No doubtful name. Are our names there?

III. THE OWNER. “The Lamb’s book of life.” Why?

1. The book is the register of his property. His “own.“ Blood-bought. His ransomed, servants, subjects, soldiers, friends, younger brethren.

2. He enters the names. How do we know? None beside has the ability or qualification. The writer must be everywhere, see all, know all. What wise discrimination needed too! tender sympathy! instant delicate recognition of the trust of a soul going out to him!

3. As Guardian, he keeps the book. The book, ever open, lies in the shadow of the protection of Christ’s throne (Joh 10:28).

IV. THE NAMES.

1. The names ever there. Of those “who go out no more for ever.”

2. The blotted names. (Rev 22:19; Rev 3:5.) Surely no idle threats these (Heb 10:29)!

V. Tile BLANK SPACES. There are places for coming names. Millions of names have been filled in; and “yet there is room.” The blank space for your name waits your decision. ,Some names never will be there. (Joh 5:40.) What then? Rev 20:15 : figurative language? Yes. But figure must be less ever than the reality.R.

HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES

Dan 11:1-4

Revolutions in earthly empires.

In answer to prayer, Daniel obtains the consolation that other personsother orders of beingwere actively engaged in the same cause as himself.

I. UNSEEN AND UNOSTENTATIOUS SERVICE IS OFTEN THE MOST EFFECTIVE. It is not probable that Gabriel appeared in visible form in the Persian court. His presence was unknown; his influence on men unobserved. He was content to exert his power over the feelings, dispositions, motives, of men; in this way he could best direct the affairs of nations, and serve the cause of righteousness. We may be content to retire into obscurity; be unseen and unknown, so long as we use talent and influence on the side of God and truth. The forces of life are unseen; they are made; visible only in their effects.

II. WHEN THE SEASON IS OPPORTUNE, THE TRUTH SHALL BE REVEALED. “Now“ (said Gabriel to Daniel) “will I show thee the truth.” It is evident that the unsinning angels are not in possession o[all knowledge. They are ever learning. They “learn from the Church the manifold wisdom of God.” Into many things” the angels desire to look.” In the ratio of their knowledge is the service they render. Now Gabriel is at the Babylonian court, strengthening the purpose of Darius, and now he is at the river Hiddekel, revealing to Daniel the events of the future. For a season it is better for us to remain in ignorance. There are other possessions to be gained beside knowledge. When we have reduced to practice all we know, then we may expect further revelation. A spirit of generous benevolence towards men fills the angels. They delight to relieve our anxieties and to increase our knowledge. We may conclude that they would gladly proclaim the tidings of the gospel to the nations, if God had seen it to be good.

III. MATERIAL RICHES ARE NOT ESSENTIALLY BLESSINGS. The Mugs of Persia, seized with an ambition to subdue the world, extorted from their subjects the largest measure of taxation, and hoarded their revenues year by year, only to carry sword and fire into the continent of Europe. To expend riches in invading other kingdoms, in devastating lands and cities, is a criminal waste of God’s treasure. Not for such purposes did God create gold and silver, brass and iron. Fallen man perverts and degrades many of God’s possessions. Mental and material gifts are but talents entrusted to our keeping, and a day of reckoning comes on apace, when, as stewards, we must render an account to our Lord. A sad and woeful day will that be to kings and statesmen who have squandered a nation’s wealth in war and bloodshed. In the case of Xerxes, great riches were a snarea trap which involved him and his empire in ruin. Had he been a poor monarch, or only moderately rich, he and his people might have dwelt in safety; Iris name might have escaped reproach. His wealth fed the appetite of ambition. His ponderous army was a source of weakness. His ostentatious display invited the invasion of the Greeks. Riches are not real strength.

IV. EMPIRE, BUILT ON DESPOTIC POWER, IS EPHEMERAL. A king, however mighty, becomes utter weakness in the presence of disease, age, or death. Either of these forces is mightier than he. God permits, for hidden reasons, unscrupulous men to rise to the very summit of imperial power; but he does not guarantee their continuance; and if he does not uphold their power, it soon wanes and disappears. Nor can man secure that his authority and rank shall descend to his posterity, through the channels of ordinary law and custom. God is above all law, and often disappoints our fondest expectations. Despotic power is not a human virtue. It is a quality of doubtful character, and usually becomes dangerous to the public weal. Rapid as is the rise of some men to fame and power, their fall is usually more rapid still. At the moment of their greatest glory they are on the brink of ruin. When richest ripeness is on the fruit, rottenness is not far distant. Alexander’s victorious march was unprecedented; he speedily reached the highest pinnacle of empire; yet the king of terrors struck him down at a blow, and sudden collapse of his vast empire followed. As he had not honoured God, neither did God honour him. Had Alexander been pious and devout, how great a blessing might his power have been to the world! How efficient and useful he might have been in advancing the principles of truth and godliness! But his vast kingdom, not being founded in righteousness, was soon plucked up by the roots.D.

Dan 11:5-20

The chequered fortunes of earthly empire.

There is but one condition of permanence in any kingdom, viz. righteousness. Success, founded on military power, collapses as quickly as it rose. As night succeeds to day, so misfortune succeeds to fortune. If God be not recognized, the one element of durability is a-wanting.

I. GOD GOVERNS OUR WORLD BY IMPERFECT HUMAN AGENCIES. If men express their astonishment at this, our reply is that it is the best on the whole, and if he did not use imperfect instruments, he must not employ men at all. This allowance of evil men to be monarchs brings to light the evil that is in men; tends to impress the world with the unprofitableness of sin; and prepares the way for the advent of the real King of men. It is best, on the whole, that men should live in communities and nations; best, on the whole, that some should be rulers and some should be subjects; best that God’s hand should not appear in the selection of earthly rulers. “His way is in the sea.”

II. WAR IS THE MOST PROMINENT FEATURE OF SECULAR HISTORY. Read what chapters in secular history we choose, we find the uniform tale to be ambition, war, disaster, suffering. Man, when left alone by God, becomes his own deadly enemy, and the enemy of the human race. No greater proof can we have of the turpitude and malignancy of sin, than that furnished by the course of human history. Where-ever scope and opportunity have been afforded for the exercise of human inclination, the outcome has been strife and mutual destruction. To rule the world has been the arrogant desire of many, and heedless have they been of the miseries of the human race, so long as one vain man may ride upon the wave of fortune. As a rule, kings have been the curse of our globe. If successful in war, the appetite is whetted for further enterprise; if defeated, the spirit of revenge leaps up, at the first opportunity, to regain its loss.

III. IMPERIAL AMBITION CRUSHES OUT THE BEST AFFECTIONS OF THE HUMAN SOUL. The noblest affection that has survived man’s fall is the parentalthe love of a father for his children. Yet even this has been persistently trampled onoften trampled outby the diabolic lust of power. The King of Egypt gives his daughter in marriage to his hereditary foe, not because there was any tie of mutual affection, but solely to promote his ambitious policy. This was nothing less than the sacrifice of his own child to an evil spiritto the baser lusts of his own depraved nature. On the altar of vain-glory, kings are wont to sacrifice natural affection, domestic peace, the Divine institution of marriage, connubial bliss, the welfare of children, yea, the lives of their own flesh and blood. No blacker biographies can be written than those of successful kings. One bad man has been an active spring of mischief for centuries after his decease. One unworthy king has been a fount of misery and wretchedness for a myriad families of men. If every private individual needs the restraining grace of God, tenfold more does a king.

IV. ISRAEL IS THE CENTRAL OBJECT OF GOD‘S REGARD. It is a very unusual thing for God to make known to men what is about to transpire in the world. As a rule, this course would be full of hazard. It would tend to remove human responsibility. By such a plan, God might defeat his own ends. But God designed to show special favour unto Daniel. He generously conceded, in answer to prayer, what otherwise he would have withheld. Daniel was concerned about Israel’s welfare. God was concerned about it also. One mind prevailed with God and with his servant; hence it was in accordance with God’s plan to make known, in such a case, his will. The revelation which was vouchsafed respected Israel; for Israel’s home lay midway between these kings of Egypt and Syria. Daniel was moved, not by a spirit of curiosity to learn what should happen elsewhere, but by a pure regard for his country’s weal. As a fact, well-certified in later history, this prophecy, being shown to Alexander the Great at Jerusalem, secured his favour and protection. In every age, Israelthe true Israelis God’s especial care. He that “toucheth Israel, toucheth the apple of his eye.” The arms of Jehovah encircle the righteous. Saith he, “i will never leave thee; I will never forsake thee.”

V. SACRED PROPHECY AND SECULAR HISTORY CONFIRM EACH OTHER. All that is true in history, though written by the pen of sceptical men, is from God. He is the sole Author of truth. Hence we may not despise human learning, nor throw contempt upon honest researches into past history. Whatever in the world is true will prove, in the end, a confirmation of the ancient oracles. It is impossible that God can, in any way, contradict himself. If, for a moment, there should seem any discrepancy, we may rest in the tranquil assurance that further light will resolve all difficulty, and that apparent discord will only lead to richer harmony. Every item of prophecy in this chapter has found exact fulfilment. If, in some respects, the predictions of the angel seem obscure, they were as clear as it was proper to make them. The measure of obscurity is an additional proof of Divine wisdom; and, read in the light of later events, every unprejudiced mind feels that such pre-announcements of national events could proceed from none other than the living God. If we are forced to believe that a faithful record of history has proceeded from the hands of an intelligent man, we are also compelled to conclude that accurate predictions of distinct events can only result from supernatural agencya revelation made from heaven.D.

Dan 11:21-45

The specious success of a bad monarch.

There is mystery in the fact that, under the administration of a righteous God, bad men should be elevated to highest rank. Yet, evil though it is, it would probably be a greater evil to employ mere force to prevent it. It is evident that God rules among men by moral agencies. This is one circumstance among the “all things” that “work together for the good” of God’s elect.

I. BAD MEN ARE PERMITTED BY GOD TO CLIMB INTO IMPERIAL THRONES. There is a sense in which it is true that “God setteth up one, and putteth down another” Yet it is not true that God acts apart from men, nor is he responsible for any unrighteous act. Without his permission it could not be; but if power should interfere to prevent wrong-doing, this would be to make virtuous by compulsionthis would be to destroy virtue’s essential nature. The people of Israel, in Samuel’s day, clamoured for a king. God did not approve; yet, in anger, he permitted them to have a king. Nor would it have then availed for God to have furnished Israel with a king” after his own heart.” The people would not at that time have tolerated such a prince. Very clear is it that God sets no high value on the highest earthly distinctions. The wealth and dignities and sceptres of earth are not deemed worthy to be rewards for his friends. Riches and sovereignties often fall to the lot of the vilest of mankindclear proof this how God values such possessions. “That which is highly esteemed anong men is often an abomination in the sight of God.” The wise men in God’s kingdom will not envy any of fortune’s favourites.

II. THE BOLD ARTS OF FRAUD AND DECEIT OFTEN FIND A PASSING SUCCESS. From the hour when Antiochus was liberated from Rome, until the hour of his death, he was studying the shrewdest arts of duplicity and treachery. If men wish to make a lie succeed, they must make it big enough and utter it boldly, and it will travel far and wide. So too any act of wickedness will best succeed if it is carried out with brazen effrontery. No consideration of truth, or duty, or feeling, or self-consistency, was allowed by Antiochus to stand in the way of vile success. To be rightly or wrongly a monarch over a large areathis was his one ambition, and to this evil deity everything was sacrificed. If lying, or reserve, or deceit, or tergiversation, would serve his turn, all were resorted to. No covenant, or treaty, or promise, issuing from him, was worth a groat. He was more a demon than a man; for all manly qualities had been parted with. To the eye of his courtiers and generals it would seem as if this course of life secured success; yet it was a very doubtful success and very ephemeral. Granted that it continued, more or less, through his lifetime; this was merely a period of eleven years. To estimate justly the success of a man’s life, we must measure it, not by years, but by centuriesnot by the fleeting hour’s of time, but by its continuance through eternity. Posterity has long since reversed the judgment of this Syrian king’s contemporaries. Scorn and detestation are his inheritance.

III. SUCCESSFUL WICKEDNESS ATTRACTS BAD MEN TO ITS SIDE. The majority of men are more fitted to follow than to lead. If only a bold and self-assertive leader appear, crowds of weaker men will attach themselves to his person; and if only something can be gained, be it earthly spoil or glory, the appetite of avarice will be sharply whetted. The public and faithful testimony of a good man will strengthen the confidence of feebler saints, and make the pulse of piety beat stronger. This has an effect in drawing righteous spirits more closely together, and, as a consequence, increasing their severance from the wicked. So it is also a fact that the public success of a bad man (especially if he be an opponent and persecutor of the Church) will serve to detach hypocrites and self-deceivers from the cause of truth and righteousness. The successful violence and blatant profanity of Antiochus separated the impious Jews from the pious. Then it was discovered that many who observed the sacred rites of Judaism were atheists at heart, and were more eager to share in the spoils of sacrilege than to defend their temple and their God. In days of prosperity and peace, multitudes are content with a superficial faith. But persecution is a sterling test, and well brings out the genuine and the spurious in character.

IV. SUCCESSFUL WICKEDNESS SERVES TO FORTIFY THE COURAGE AND FAITH OF THE RIGHTEOUS. The tyrannic violence of Antiochus drove good men nearer to God; it led them to examine the foundations of their hope; it brought them to the fount of Divine strength; it disposed them to inflame each other’s zeal. Though the pious in Jerusalem were a little band, they resisted with heroic fortitude the profane invader; and if they were not at once successful, their devotion to the Jewish cause soon developed sufficient martial skill to defeat and drive out the foe. Out of evil came good. Had it not beer for the violence and sacrilege of Antiochus, the Jews would have borne the yoke of the Syrian monarchs. But now a Jewish heroJudas Maccabaeusis brought to the front, who resolves on the bold enterprise of Jewish independence. If vice can he bold and fearless, much more ought virtue to be.

V. ATHEISM AND SUPERSTITION GO HAND–IN–HAND. It is instructive to observe how the mind of this usurping king vacillates on the matter of religion. He who sought to dethrone the true God from his seat in Jerusalem, and to overturn his altars, sought also to enthrone the mythical idol Jupiter, and to erect an altar for this imaginary deity. Man must worship somewhat. His religious faculty cries out for some exercise. If the true God be rejected, some counterfeit god must be invented. Well did the leaders of the French Revolution affirm, “If there be no God, we must make one” But, in truth, Antiochus believed in nothing save himself. The world existed for him. Armies existed for him. Men’s lives, or family happiness, or national weal, or religion’s temples, were counted as nothing, if seemingly opposed to his advantage. He was simply a monster of egotistic selfishness. He might have said truly, “Syria? it is I! The world? ’tis only for me!” If it seems to serve a passing caprice, a temple is erected for some Roman deity. If money is wanted for war, he will strip every temple of its treasures. The only deity his soul worshipped was forcevulgar power.

VI. WICKEDNESS AND TYRANNY HAVE AT LENGTH TO YIELD TO A DIVINE RULE. Even good men are sometimes impatient to see the progress and the success of villainy. In their anguish they often cry out, “How long? O Lord, how long?” But God does not move, in his administration of the world, with premature haste. “The time is appointed’ when iniquity shall cease to be successful, and when complete retribution shall overtake the unrighteous man. A royal tyrant may as well knock his head against a granite walland betterthan to work against God, or to fling himself on the bosses of the Almighty’s shield. In the midst of apparent success, such a man feels ofttimes that fate (as he calls it) is against him. Strangely are his ends defeated, as were Napoleon’s by a snowstorm. The mightiest warrior is working, with his blustering noise, within a very tiny circle; and all imperial and martial events are embraced within the supreme purpose and administration of God. Let appearances be as they may, “God has prepared his throne in the heavens;” “His kingdom ruleth over all.” At last, reward and retribution shall be distributed by royal and impartial hands. Every one shall “receive the due reward of his deeds.” God’s end may be far off, humanly speaking, yet it shall “surely come.” Though it tarry, childlike faith will wait for it.D.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Dan 11:1. Also I, in the first year It is the usual method of the Holy Spirit, to make the later prophesies explanatory of the former; and revelation is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. The four great empires shewn to Nebuchadnezzar under the symbol of a great image, were again more particularly represented to Daniel under the forms of four great wild beasts. In like manner, the memorable events which were revealed to Daniel in the vision of the ram and he-goat, are here more clearly revealed in this last vision by the angel: so that this latter prophesy may not improperly be said to be a comment upon the former. It comprehends many signal events; but the types, symbols, and figures of the things, are not exhibited in this, as in most other visions, and then expounded by the angel; but the angel relates the whole; and not by way of vision, but only by a narration informs Daniel of that which is noted in the Scripture of truth, chap. Dan 10:21 as if future events were noted in a book by God; and the prophesy therefore, being taken from the Scripture of truth, deserves our strictest attention. See Bishop Newton, vol. 2: p. 63. 65.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

b. Detailed prophetic description of the Persian and Grcian world-kingdoms, and also of the kingdoms which should arise from the latter, together with their conflicts.

Dan 11:2-45.

2And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in [to] Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by [according to] his strength through [by] his riches he shall stir up all [the whole] against [with] the realm of Grcia [kingdom of Javan].

3And a mighty king [a king, a hero] shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion [rule], and do according to his will. 4And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided [partitioned] toward the four winds of heaven [the heavens]; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion [rule] which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for [and given to] others besides those [these]

5 And the king of the south shall be strong, and [become] one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion [rule]; his dominion 6 [rule] shall be a great dominion [rule]. And in [to] the end of years they shall join [associate] themselves together; for [and] the kings daughter [daughter of the king] of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement;1 but [and] she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor [and] his arm; but [and] she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these [the] times.

7 But [And] out of a branch [shoot] of her roots shall one stand up in his estate [basis, i.e., stead], which [and he] shall come with an army [to the force], and shall enter into [come in] the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against [do with] them, and shall prevail [strengthen himself]; 8and shall also carry captives [cause to go in the captivity] into Egypt their gods, with their princes [anointed ones], and with their precious [prized] vessels of silver and of 9 gold; and he2 shall continue [stand] more years than the king of the north. So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom [And he shall come into the kingdom of the king of the south], and shall return into his own land [ground].

10But his sons shall be stirred up [strengthen themselves], and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through; then [and] shall he return, and be stirred up [or, they shall 11 strengthen themselves], even to his [or, their] fortress. And the king of the south shall be moved with choler [become very bitter], and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth [cause to stand] a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand. 12 And when he hath taken away the multitude [or, the multitude shall be taken away], his heart shall be lifted up [or, raised up]; and he shall cast down [cause to fall] many ten thousands: but [and] he shall not be strengthened by it.

13 For [And] the king of the north shall return and shall set forth [cause to stand] a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain [at the end of the times the] years with a great army [force] and with much riches. 14And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also [and] the robbers [sons of tyrants] of thy people shall exalt themselves [be lifted up] to establish [cause to stand] the vision; but [and] they shall fall [be stumbled].

15 So [And] the king of the north shall come, and cast up [pour out] a mount [mound], and take [catch] the most fenced cities [city of defences]; and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither [and, i.e., or] his chosen people16 [the people of his choice], neither shall there be any strength to withstand. But [And] he that cometh against [to] him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land [land of comeliness], which [and] by his hand [he] shall be consumed. 17He shall also [And he shall] set his face to enter [come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones3 with him; thus [and] shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of [the] women, corrupting [to corrupt, or, destroy] her; but 18 [and] she shall not stand on his side, neither [nor] be for him. After this [And] shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take [ catch] many; but a prince [general] for his own behalf [his reproach] shall cause the reproach offered by him [for him] to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon 19 [to] him. Then [And] he shall turn his face toward the fort [fortresses] of his own land; but [and] he shall stumble [be stumbled] and fall, and not be found.

20 Then [And] shall stand up in his estate [on his basis, i.e., stead] a raiser of taxes in [one causing the exactor to pass through] the glory of the kingdom: but within few days [and in single days] he shall be destroyed [broken], neither [and not] in anger nor in battle.

21And in his estate [on his basis, i.e., stead] shall stand up a vile [despised] person, to whom [and on him] they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but [and] he shall come in peaceably [with tranquillity], and obtain [or, 22 strengthen] the kingdom by flatteries. And with the arms of a [the] flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea [and], also the prince of the covenant. 23And after the league made with [from the covenanting to] him he shall work deceitfully: for [and] he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. 24He shall enter [come] peaceably [with tranquillity] even upon [and with] the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor [and] his fathers fathers; he shall scatter among [to] them the prey, and spoil, and riches; yea, and he shall forecast [devise] his devices against the strong holds, even [and that] for [till] a time.

25And he shall stir up his power and his courage [heart] against the king of the south with a great army [force]; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to [the] battle with a very great and mighty army [force]; but [and] he shall not 26 stand: for they shall forecast [devise] devices against him. Yea [And], they that feed [eat] of the portion of his meat [dainty food] shall destroy [break] him, and his army [force] shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain. 27And both these kings hearts [the kings, their heart] shall be to do mischief [wrong], and they shall speak lies [falsehood] at [over] one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at [to] the time appointed.

28 Then [And] shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits and return to his 29 own land. At [To] the time appointed he shall return, and come toward [in] 30 the south: but [and] it shall not be as the former, or [and] as the latter. For [And] the ships of Chittim shall come against [in] him; therefore [and] he shall be grieved [dejected], and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant; so [and] shall he do; he shall even [and he shall] return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

31And arms shall stand on his part [from him], and they shall pollute the sanctuary of trength [the stronghold], and shall take [cause to turn] away the daily [continual] sacrifice, and they shall place [give] the abomination that 32 maketh desolate. And such as do wickedly against [the wicked doers of] the covenant shall he corrupt [pollute] by flatteries: but [and] the people that do 33 know their [its] God shall be strong, and do exploits. And they that understand among [the prudent of] the people shall instruct [understand for the] many; yet [and] they shall fall [be stumbled] by the sword, and by flame, 34 by captivity, and by spoil, many days. Now [And] when they shall fall [be stumbled], they shall be holpen [helped] with a little help: but [and] many 35 shall cleave [be joined] to them with flatteries. And some of them of understanding [the prudent] shall fall [be stumbled], to try [lit., smelt in] them, and to purge [purify], and to make them white, even to [till] the time of the end: because it is yet for a [to the] time appointed. 36And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous [distinguished] things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished [fail]: for that that is determined shall be done.

37Neither shall he regard [And he will not have understanding upon] the God of his fathers, nor [and upon] the desire of women, nor regard [and he will not have understanding upon] any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. 38But in His estate [And on his base, i.e., stead] shall he honour [give glory to] the god of forces [strongholds]; and [to] a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour [give glory] with gold, and [with] silver, and with precious stones [stone], and pleasant 39 things. Thus [And] shall he do in the most [fortresses of] strongholds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase [increase to acknowledge] with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over [the] many, and shall divide the land for gain [distribute ground with a price].

40 And at [in] the time of the end shall the king of the south push at [wage war with] him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind [will storm upon him], with chariots [chariot], and with horsemen [horses], and with many ships [boats]; and he shall enter [come] into the countries [lands], and shall overflow and pass oDaniel Dan 11:41 He shall enter also [And he will come] into the glorious land [land of comeliness], and many countries shall be overthrown [stumbled]: but [and] these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief [first] of the children of Ammon. 42He shall stretch forth his hand also [And he shall send his hand] upon [in] the countries [lands]; and the land 43 of Egypt shall not escape [be for an escaped one, i.e., exempt]. But [And] he shall have power [rule] over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious [pleasant] things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall 44 be at [in] his steps. But [And] tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore [and] he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away [devote to extermination] many. 45And he shall plant the tabernacles [tents] of his palace [pavilion] between the seas in [at] the glorious holy mountain [holy mountain of comeliness]; yet [and] he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS

Dan 11:2. Touching upon the last kings of Persia in a hasty and summary review. And now will I show thee the truth. , see Dan 10:21.Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; i. e., doubtless, after the present king, hence after Cyrus (see Dan 10:1), there shall be three more kings of Persia,the Persian state shall have three more kings. The author therefore assigns altogether four kings to Persia, from which, however, it by no means follows that he knew only that number; nor can it be shown from Ezr 4:5; Ezr 4:7 that the writer of that book knew of four Persian kings (Hitzig, Ewald).[4] The number four is rather to be regarded as a symbolic number, exactly like that of the wings and heads of the leopard in Dan 7:6 (see on that passage), which indicates that the development of the kingdom in question is completed, and is, to that extent, parallel with the number of the world-monarchies and with other significant quadruples; cf. Eth.-fund principles, etc., on chap. 2 No. 3.5And the fourth shall be far richer than they all; rather, shall acquire greater riches, etc. This fourth one does not denote the last of all the Persian kings, Darius Codomannus, but the fourth from the beginning (or, in other words, the third of the three just mentioned),6 and therefore Xerxes, as pseudo-Smerdis, is probably not included, and Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius Hystaspis are considered the first three. The characteristic noticed in this place applies well to Xerxes, as he became especially famous because of his immense riches (Herodotus, III. 96; IV. 2729), and as his expedition into Greece obscured those of his father by the excessive greatness of his armament. The significance of this fourth member of the old Persian dynasty (whose identity with Xerxes was naturally not yet apprehended by the prophet [?], especially as the angel did not see fit to state his name) is that he represents, on the one hand, the acme of the development in power of the kingdom in question, and, on the other, the beginning of its dissolution.And by his strength through his riches, or, when he has become strong through his riches. , an infinitive (cf. 2Ch 12:1; also infra, Dan 11:4, and Dan 8:8; Dan 8:23), is not co-ordinated with the following , but is placed above it.He shall stir up all against the realm of Grcia, i.e., stake all. , properly, the all, i.e., all that has been mentioned, all the immense treasures and forces referred to. , properly, shall excite, stir up, does not allude so much to inanimate treasures as to the subjects of this king as being the objects of his exciting activity; cf. Dan 11:25; Job 12:2; Jer 1:9. is not properly against the realm of Javan, but to the realm, etc.; serves to introduce the accusative denoting the direction of the movement.It accords fully with the position of the seer prior to Xerxes, that Greece (with regard to Javan, cf. on Dan 8:21) should be represented as a kingdom. A Maccaban writer, who might aim to sketch the history of that king, and of his expedition against the Greeks, would assuredly have known, and indicated, that at that time Javan was not yet a .

Dan 11:3-4. Alexander the Great and his immediate successors.[7] And a mighty king shall stand up. , a herioc, warlike king; cf. , Isa 9:5, and also the symbolic description of Alexanders martial greatness in Dan 8:5 et seq., 21. , he stands up, i.e., comes up and presents a warlike and threatening appearance; cf. Dan 11:4; Dan 11:14, and also Dan 11:1.And do according to his will. Cf. Dan 8:4 and infra, Dan 11:16. The sovereign arbitrariness with which Alexander ruled all the persons of his time is likewise attested by Curtius, Dan 10:5, Dan 35: Fortunam solus omnium mortalium in potestate habuit.

Dan 11:4. And when he shall stand up (rather, when he has stood up), his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven. is probably to be closely connected with the idea presented by in the preceding verse: and when, or, and as soon as he shall have stood up (Von Lengerke, Fller, etc.); so that the brief duration of Alexanders reign is here indicated. Others, e.g., Hvernick, Kranichfeld, Ewald, etc., render it, and when he shall stand in his power, when his power has reached its highest point (Luther); but this view is questionable, because of the entirely too pregnant meaning which is thus attributed to . Hitzigs assertion that in this place is synonymous with the Syr. , to depart in death, to die, and that the following (with which cf. Dan 8:8) is not passive in its signification, and therefore does not denote to be broken, but to break apart, must certainly be rejected.On the phrase, be divided toward the four winds of heaven, cf. the analogous symbolic description in Dan 8:8.And not to his posterity, namely, shall it be divided; they shall not be benefited by the division, but shall be entirely deprived of their patrimony, thus realizing a feature that was common in the early experience of the theocracy, 1Sa 15:28; 2Sa 3:10; 1Ki 11:11; 1Ki 14:7-10; 1Ki 15:29; 1Ki 16:3 et seq.; 1Ki 21:21. It is well known that this actually was the case with Alexanders sons, Hercules (whose mother was Barsina, and who was murdered by Polysperchon) and Alexander (a filius posthumus. born of Roxana, and likewise murdered). Cf. Diodorus, 19:105; 20:28; Pausan., 9:7; Justin., 15:2; Appian, Syr., C. 51.Nor according to his dominion which he ruled, shall the divided kingdom be; on the contrary, it shall present a painful picture of impotence; cf. in the parallel, Dan 8:22.For his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others besides those, , to the exclusion of those, i.e., of the natural heirs and rightful successors of this ruler. Concerning the phrase, to be torn out, uprooted, cf. on Dan 4:12; Dan 4:12; also Job 14:7 et seq.; Isa 6:10, etc.

Dan 11:5-6. The first Seleucid and Lagid. While the prophetic description, upon the whole, has hitherto confined itself to general outlines, and has not materially deviated from the ordinary methods of prophecy, it begins at this point to assume a suspiciously specific character, which arouses the thought that later hands may have improved on the prophecy by interpolating various features of detail. The fact that only the two states, emanating from the great Grcian world-empire, which bordered immediately on the pleasant land, are more carefully followed in their further development, is not, indeed, enough to arouse this suspicion, for the other kingdoms of the Diadochi might have been passed over as too unimportant in their relations with the theocracy. It was, moreover, to be expected that Israel should be alternately oppressed by a southern and a northern neighbor, in view of the similar parts taken in earlier prophecies by the Assyrio-Babylonian north on the one hand, and by Egypt in the south, on the other (cf., e.g., Isa 30:6; Isa 43:6; Jer 3:12; Jer 3:18; Jer 6:22; Jer 46:20; Jer 46:24; Zep 2:13; Zec 10:10-11). But the manner in which the transactions between the two kingdoms, whether peaceful or hostile in their character, are described with regard to their changeful course, is too exact, and covers too extended a succession of reigns and events, to find even a remote parallel in any other part of the prophetic literature of the Old-Test, canon.[8] The unique character of the section in this respect was recognized at an early period, and has been made use of by the opponents of the authenticity and genuine prophetic dignity of the book (e.g., early by Porphyry), in order to attack its character, and has also been employed for apologetic purposes, in order to demonstrate the inspired character of the prophecy, and the astonishing exactness with which its predictions corresponded with the actual development of the dominion of the Seleucid and the Lagid. With this view it is employed by Luther in his preface to Daniel and in his exposition of chap. 12 (which begins, according to his opinion, with Dan 11:36;see vol. 41, pp. 252 et seq., 294 et seq.); by Venema, Commentarius ad Danielis cap. XI. 5XII. 3 (Leovard., 1752); by Hengstenberg, Beitr., p. 173 et seq.; and, generally, by a majority of orthodox expositors in ancient and modern times. Cf. especially Ebrard, Die Offenb. Joh., p. 81 et seq., where a thorough illustration of the harmony between the contents of this section and the facts of history precedes the remark: For that very reasonthis is the internal design of the specializing prophecy, chap. 11the coming of the Macedonian tyrant is connected with the age of Daniel by an unbroken chain of the most particular events, that it might be thoroughly apparent that no interval for the coming of the Messiah and his rejection should intervene between the time of Daniel and that tyrant. But Ebrard himself does not seem to have remained permanently satisfied with this mode of justifying the remarkably specific character of the prophecy on the supposition of a higher plane of revelation; for, in his review of Fllers commentary, he confesses that he has not yet found any exposition of chap. 11. that was entirely satisfactory (p. 207).We shall attend specially to Kranichfelds view in the following exposition of the several passages. He likewise contends for the genuine character of the section throughout, but on the frequently forced assumption that the modern exegesis applies what was indefinite and merely ideal in the mind of the prophet to the facts of history in the corresponding period in far too pointed a manner.And the king of the south shall be (or become) strong, i.e., the ruler to whom the south, or Egypt, has fallen; cf. Dan 11:8, where the south is expressly designated as ; also the Sept. on this passage, and Zec 6:6.And one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him; rather, but one of his princeshe shall be strong above him. With regard to the partitive in , cf. Gen 28:11; Exo 6:26; Neh 13:28. The subject, one of his princes, occupies a detached position at the beginning (cf. Eze 34:19); the copula, however, restores the connection: (so far as he is concerned) he shall still be stronger.Others (Luther, etc., Bertholdt, Rosenm., Kranichfeld, Fller, etc.) regard the in as the definite and indeed, namely, and refer the suffix to the subject of the preceding verse: and the king of the south, namely one of his (Alexanders) princes, shall become strong. This, however, is opposed by the lack of a definite subject of in that case, and by the unanimous authority of the ancient versions, which regard this second as the predicate of , despite the Athnach. Consequently, the event to which the passage alludes is the founding of the dynasty of the Seleucid in the year B. C. 312. by Seleucus Nicator. the general of Ptolemy Lagus (Diodorus, 19:55, 58; Appian, Syr., C. 52),9 who extended his dominion from Phrygia to the Indus, and thus greatly exceeded his former lord in power, approaching to the position of power and greatness occupied by Alexander himself more nearly than any other of the Diadochi (Appian, Syr., 55; Arrian, Anab., VII. 22. 9).And (shall) have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion. is the predicate, followed by the subject in regular order. The whole clause, however, is logically subordinated to ; cf. Gen 12:8.

Dan 11:6. And in the end of years they shall join themselves together. , and after the lapse of several years, cf. 2Ch 18:2; also infra, Dan 11:8; Dan 11:13. The subjects of the sentence are the kings of the northern and of the southern kingdoms, and the alliance referred to is the marriage of Antiochus II. Theos (the son and successor of Antiochus I. Soter, who had followed Seleucus Nicator upon the throne of the Seleucid as its second possessor, B. C. 281261, but who is wholly unnoticed in this prophecy) with Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus (280247), the second of the line of Ptolemies. Antiochus was obliged, on that occasion, to banish Loadice, his former wife and half-sister, and to disinherit the children she had borne to him (Appian, Syr., C. 55; cf. Jerome on this passage). It is impossible to doubt that this event is referred to in this place, in view of what follows, and Kranichfeld therefore wastes his labor when he observes, with reference to , and with an apologetic aim, that it is an interpolation to assume that Daniel here intended precisely a king of Syria.To make an agreement; properly, to make a straightening, to establish a just and peaceful condition. Cf. , Dan 11:17, and the corresponding Sikata, 1Ma 7:12.But she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm; i.e., probably, neither her arm nor his, which had strengthened themselves by that union, shall be able to retain the power thus acquired;[10] their union shall again be dissolved, and the political alliance, with its strengthening influence upon both kingdoms, shall thus be set aside. It seems unnecessary, upon this view, to adopt Hitzigs emendation, (his [i.e., the arm of Berenice] arms shall not stand, which is held to be equivalent to her father as well as her consort, who were hitherto her protectors, shall forsake her), and also Kranichfelds rendering of in the sense of host, in support of which Dan 11:15; Dan 11:22; Dan 11:31 may indeed be adduced, but this is decidedly opposed by the context, which treats solely of an intermarriage and its immediate consequences, and not at all of warlike events. It is likewise arbitrary to take in the sense of support, protector, with Hvernick, Von Lengerke, etc., and accordingly to find the assistance to be derived by Berenice from Egypt referred to in the former half of the sentence, and in the latter half the aid rendered to her husband by Berenice herself. Arm is intended in each case to simply denote the physical or political power of the respective royal personages, and consequently, in the first instance, that of the Egyptian princess, and in the next that of her consort.But she shall be given up and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times; or, he that begat her and he that led her away in the times. , they that brought her, denotes either the begetter who is mentioned immediately afterward, and the one that led her home, hence her father and her husband (Hvernick, Fller, etc.), or the company of her followers, her train when she left Egypt (Ewald), [or who brought her into the marriage (Keil)]. The word is hardly to be taken, with Hitzig, as a categorical plural, and thus to be limited to the husband. properly signifies he that holds her, that obtains possession of her, i.e., her consort (thus correctly Von Lengerke and Hvernick, while Hitzig, Kranichfeld, [Keil], etc., contend for the rendering of by maintaining or supporting, which is too artificial)., in the times, is an idiom signifying at that time, i.e., when his critical situation obliged him to marry her. , she shall be given up, be given over to ruin, overthrown (in perniciem traditur), is a very general expression that does not necessarily imply death by violence; cf. Isa 5:12; also infra, Dan 11:11.The historical commentary on the latter half of this verse is as follows: As soon as Ptolemy Philadelphus had died in B. C. 247, Antiochus Theos expelled Berenice, and recalled the formerly rejected Laodice. The latter, however, aimed at farther revenge, and to achieve it she poisoned the king, had her son by him, Seleucus II. Callinicus, declared his successor, and sent assassins against Berenice, who had fled to the sanctuary of Daphne. The latter queen was slain, together with her little son, and the hope of the Ptolemies to behold one of their lineage on the throne of the Seleucid was thus wholly destroyed. Cf. Polyn., viii. 50; Justin., xxvii. 1; Appian, 1. c.Kranichfeld vainly attempts to shake the evident correspondence of this series of facts with the language of the passage by regarding as denoting a violent death, and consequently as not harmonizing with the natural death of Ptolemy Philadelphus.[11] He farther translates in the sense of host, and attributes to the questionable meaning, the promoters of her marriage (the furtherers of the whole Delilah-like match), by all of which he obviously becomes liable to the charge of arbitrary interpolation, to a far greater degree than the opponents whom he accuses of that crime because they frankly recognize the reference to those events.

Dan 11:7-9. Ptolemy Evergetes and Seleucus Callinicus. But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his place (marg.). The partitive as in Dan 11:5. , the sprouting of her roots (cf. Isa 11:1) signifies the lineage, the immediate ancestry of Berenice; the person referred to was consequently the son of her parents and her own brother, viz.: Ptolemy III. Evergetes, the successor of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 247221. , an accusative of the direction (cf. Dan 11:2, at the end); in Dan 11:20-21, it is replaced by a definite .Which (or and he) shall come with an (rather, against the) army, and shall enter into the fortress of the ting of the north signifies neither, he shall come to his host (Hitzig), nor he shall come to power (Hvernick); the former rendering is as forced as the latter is contrary to the language (owing to the missing article). is rather equivalent to against, and the host is that of the northern king. The coming into his fortress which follows, designates the result of the expedition as a whole, the taking of the northern kings fortress by the king of the south. It must, however, remain undecided whether this fortress denotes specially the strongly fortified maritime city of Seleucia (as Hitzig thinks). It is more probable that is used collectively (cf. Dan 11:19), and that therefore does not denote the entering into the fortresses, but only the arrival before them.And shall deal (or execute it) against them and prevail. Against them refers to the subjects of the northern kingdom, not to the fortresses. With regard to , to do to, or against one, namely, according to pleasure, cf. Jer 18:23; also the more definite , Dan 11:3; Dan 11:36; Dan 8:4. Concerning the magnificent success achieved by Ptolemy Evergetes during his expedition against Syria (the conquest of almost the entire Syrian realm from Cilicia to beyond the Tigris, the taking of numerous fortresses, and the slaying of Laodice, the rival and murderess of his sister Berenice) cf. Appian, Syr., C. 65; Justin., XXVII. 1; Jerome on the passage.

Dan 11:8. And shall also carry captive into Egypt their gods, with their princes (rather molten images), etc. The suffix in and also in refers to the inhabitants of Syria, the same to whom in the preceding verse referred. does not signify princes in this passage (as it does, e.g., in Jos 13:21; Eze 32:30), but molten images, cast images, brazen statues; and consequently is employed in the sense which is more generally denoted by (Isa 41:29; Isa 48:5) or (Exo 32:4; Exo 32:8; Exo 34:17, etc.). The express mention of the molten images besides the gods arises from the fact that the existence of the latter is made wholly dependent on the former. The transportation of the idols in itself is the significant evidence of the total subjugation of an opposing kingdom (cf. Isa 46:1-2 : Jer 48:7; Jer 49:3; Hos 10:5 et seq.); and likewise the removal of the precious vessels of silver and gold which is afterward noticed ( , genit. materi, depending on the immediately preceding gen. qualitatis, , cf. Nah 2:10; Jer 27:18 et seq.; Eze 7:19 et seq.; Zep 1:18; Dan 1:2.The historical event which corresponds to this was the return of Ptolemy Evergetes to Egypt, occasioned by a revolt, when he carried away from Syria a booty of 4,000 talents of gold, numerous jewels, and 2,500 idol-statues, the latter including among their number those which Cambyses had formerly transported to Persia. It was the restoration of these that secured to this third Ptolemy the name of . Cf. Jerome on the passage, and the Marmor Adulitanum, the monument erected by the victor in commemoration of his deeds, which boasts that he had united Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Persia, Susiana, Media, and all the countries as far as Bactria, under his sceptre. In view of this exact correspondence of our passage to the facts of history, which, it is alleged, occurred subsequently to the composition of the prophecy, the suspicion that the oracle was conformed to the history appears to be only too well founded, especially as Egypt () is expressly mentioned as the goal of the magnificent triumphal march.12 The predictions by other prophets relating to expeditions that secured great booty and that captured immense numbers of idol-images, e.g., those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Nahum, Ezekiel, etc., in the passages cited above, are always associated with very different surroundings, and present fewer circumstances of detail to be particularly fulfilled.13 For this reason it cannot be admitted that the neglect to mention the death of Laodice forms a proof of the undimmed originality of the prophecy (against Kranichfeld).14And he shall continue more years than the king of the north; rather, and shall abstain from the king of the north (several) years, i.e., shall refrain from waging war against him, shall leave him in peace. Thus Hvernick, Von Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, etc., correctly render the sense. On the other hand, Syr., Vulg., Luther, Kranichfeld, Fller, etc., render: and for years he shall maintain himself before the king of the north, i.e., preserve his superiority over him, prvalebit adversus regem Aquilonis (Vulg.). This interpretation is opposed by the usage of in the sense of to cease, abstain from something, which occurs elsewhere also; cf. Gen 29:35; Gen 30:9; 2Ki 4:6; 2Ki 13:18.15

Dan 11:9. So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom; rather, and he shall (now) come into the kingdom of the king of the south. The subject obviously is the northern king, who was mentioned at the close of the preceding verse, for is clearly a genitive depending on (against Kranichfeld).And shall return unto his own land, i.e., to the northern kingdom, to Syria. The reference to the expedition against Egypt by sea (with a fleet that was soon destroyed in a storm) and also by land, which Seleucus Callinicus undertook about B. C. 240, or two years after the departure of Ptolemy Evergetes from Syria, but which resulted in his total defeat and hasty flight, is sufficiently obvious; cf. Euseb., Chron., I. 346; Justin., xxvii. 2.

Dan 11:10-12. Seleucus Cerauhus and Antiochus the Great against Ptolemy IV. Philopater. But his sons shall be stirred up (or prepare for war) and shall assemble a multitude of great forces. If the Keri is to be followed, it is unquestionable that the suffix of this plural refers back to the last named Syrian king Seleucus 2. Callinicus, and that his two sons, Seleucus III. Ceraunus (B. C. 227224) and Antiochus III. the Great (224187), are intended. It is reported concerning the latter, although only by the somewhat credulous and hasty Jerome (on the passage), that, in connection with his younger brother, Antiochus, he made war on Egypt; but it is hardly possible that he should have attempted a war against Ptolemy Evergetes, who lived and reigned until B. C. 221, three years beyond the reign of Ceraunus. But the writer does not probably intend to assert by that the warlike expedition undertaken by the brothers was primarily and directly aimed against Egypt. The verb is rather used in a comprehensive sense, so as to cover the campaign of Seleucus Ceraunus (in which he met his death, B. C. 224) against Attalus of Pergamus, and also that commenced several years afterward by Antiochus Magnus, which was directed against the indolent Ptolemy IV. Philopater of Egypt; cf. Polyb., IV. 48; Appian, Syr., C. 06 (Hvernick, Von Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, Fller, etc., are substantially correct). This counteracts the attempt of venema, Bertholdt, and Kranichfeld to read with the Kethib, and to understand Ptolemy Philopater, the son of Evergetes, by this son, by proving it to be superfluous, and, moreover, to be conflicting with the plural .*And (one) shall certainly come, overflow, and pass through (or inundate) , a strong description of the protracted but irresistible advance, followed by a portrayal of the overflowing masses of warriors that recalls the similar description in Isa 8:8. Beginning with this point, the subject is singular, denoting Antiochus the Great alone, who became king of Syria after the death of his brother Seleucus III., and after that of Ptolemy Evergetes became the terrible and victorious foe of Egypt, whose luxurious and cowardly king, Ptolemy philopater, quietly permitted him to take the fortress of Seleucia on the Orontes, to capture Tyre and Ptolemais through the treachery of Theodotus, and finally to besiege the fortress of Dora during a protracted period, while entering into a four months truce with him in connection with that siege (Polyb., V. 4566).Then shall he return, and be stirred up (or, and they wage war), even to his fortress. can in no case designate the return of Antiochus to Seleucia on the Orontes, after concluding the truce above referred to, in order to go into winter quarters at that place (Polyb., 11:66), but rather, as appears from the verb. bellicum (as it must be read with the Kethib, instead of , as the Keri prefers) which immediately follows, it denotes a renewal of his operations against the Egyptians in the spring of 218, in the course of which he surrounded the Egyptians in the strong city of Sidon, to which they had advanced, conquered all Phnicia and Palestine, and finally established himself in Gaza (Polyb., 11:6880). (as it should be read, or even , with the Keri, but not , as Kranichfeld desires), his fortress, doubtless refers to the great and exceedingly strong city of Gaza, so that its suffix points back to the king of the north, the subject of . It is arbitrary, however, to assume a designed assimilation in sound between and , as do Venema and Hitzig.

Dan 11:11. And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, etc. On cf. Dan 8:7. The king of the south who is moved with choler is Ptolemy Philopater, and his coming forth, as here described, denotes his moving to attack Antiochus the Great in the year 217, with 70,000 foot, 5,000 horse, and 73 elephants (Polyb., 11:79).And he shall set forth a great multitude; but (rather, and) the multitude shall be given into his hand. The southern king is the subject here likewise, whose success, as based on the support of a great army, is described in this and the following verse (not the king of the north, as Kranichfeld supposes). designates the great host before described, at whose head the aroused Egyptian king goes forth, and the host, of nearly equal strength (62,000 foot, 6,000 horse, and 102 elephants) with which the Syrian opposed him. Hitzig arbitrarily assumes that instead of we should read ; so that the sense would be, and he (Ptolemy Philopater) gave the great multitude into his own hand.

Dan 11:12. And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; rather, and the multitude shall rise up (or lift itself up), and his courage (or heart) increase. The multitude denotes the powerful host of the Egyptians (= Dan 11:11) which is now advancing;16 his courage () is the courage of the hitherto cowardly, dissipated, and lustful Ptolemy Philopater (cf. 2Ki 14:10). The Kethib is probably to be retained, instead of replacing it by the Keri , which is simply an easier reading. is spoken of a warlike rising up to battle, as in Isa 33:10.And he shall cast down ten thousands (myriads). This occurred near Raphia (southwest of Gaza), where Ptolemy Philopater inflicted a heavy defeat on Antiochus the Great, in which the Syrians lost in killed 10,000 foot, 300 horse, and five elephants, and more than 4,000 prisoners (Polyb., 11:86).But he shall not be strengthened by it; or, but yet he shall not become strong, i.e., inasmuch as he followed up his victory very negligently (see Justin., XXX. Daniel 1 : Spoliasset regem Antiochum, si fortunam virtute juvisset; cf. Polyb., V. 87), and immediately returned to Egypt after garrisoning the cities that had formerly been lost, in order to resume his former dissipated life. The Vulgate, sed non prvalebit, is incorrect.

Dan 11:13-14. Farther description of the warlike deeds of Antiochus Magnus. For the king of the north shall return, and set forth (rather shall again set forth) a multitude, greater than the former. This new adventure falls fully thirteen years after the defeat of Antiochus near Raphia. Not until he had carried on fortunate wars during an extended period against the Parthians, the Bactrians, and even to the borders of India, and until he had likewise conquered Asia Minor and the Thracian Chersonnesus, did he turn his arms against Egypt in B. C. 203, where Ptolemy Philopater had recently died and left the throne to his son Epiphanes, a child of five years, who was placed under the guardianship of the voluptuous and cruel Agathocles. In league with Philip of Macedon, who concluded a formal treaty for the division of the Egyptian empire with him, he advanced toward Egypt at the head of the immense army which he had formed while engaged in his protracted eastern wars, and which he had especially strengthened by the addition of a great number of Indian elephants, and succeeded in depriving it again of Phoenicia and southern Syria; see Justin., XXX. 2; XXXI. 1; Polyb., XV. 20; Jerome, on this passage.And shall certainly come after certain years; rather, and toward the end of times he shall come (repeatedly) during a period of years. The times at whose end his annually repeated coming shall begin (, during several years, as in Dan 11:8 b) are the thirteen years bet ween the battle near Raphia and the death of Ptolemy Philopater (B. C. 217204).With a great army and with much riches (rather, equipment). In connection with this equipment we are probably to conceive of the rich treasures secured in past wars, in addition to the Indian elephants.And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south. Insurrections occurred in upper Egypt as early as the first year of the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes, occasioned by the bad administration and the cruelty of his guardian Agathocles; and these were followed in subsequent years by renewed insurrections, the revolt of subjugated countries, etc. Before his eighth year had expired, the king was obliged to conquer Lycopolis, a stronghold of the rebels (see Corp. inscr., III. Dan 339: Inscr. of Rosetta, 20, 26, 28; Jerome, on the passage).Also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves; rather, and criminal sons of thy people shall revolt. The literal reading is, and sons of the ravenous ones, of the oppressors of thy people. denotes persons who overturn the law and justice (cf. Psa 17:4; Eze 7:22; Eze 18:10; Isa 35:9), hence violent persons, robbers. With regard to the occurrence of two stat. constr. in immediate succession ( ), which must not be strained so as to denote robbers sons, robbers by birth (Fller), cf. the examples collected by Ewald (Lehrb., 289 c.). The oracle refers to the league against Egypt, into which a large number of Jews entered with Antiochus the Great, and to their participation in his warlike operations against that country, e.g., in his attacks on the garrison which the Egyptian general Scopas had left in the citadel of Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant., XII. 3, 3). The theocratic writer sternly condemns this partial revolt to the Syrians as a criminal course or as common robbery, because of the many benefits conferred on the Jewish nation by the earlier Ptolemies.To establish the vision (rather, visions), namely, the visions respecting the afflictions of the Jews under Ant. Epiphanes already recorded in chap. 8 and 9, which could appropriately be regarded as a consequence or punishment of the revolt from the Egyptians as here described. is used collectively in this passage, in the sense of what there is of prophecy, such visions as exist.But they shall fall. does not probably denote stumbling or falling in a moral point of view (Hvernick, etc.), but to be unfortunate in war, to be oppressed politically and religiously, etc. The special event referred to, whether a punishment imposed by Scopas, in the shape of taking away various nobles as hostages (cf. Polyb., XVI. 39; Josephus, Ant., XII. 3, 4), or otherwise, must remain undetermined. It is not to be denied that at any rate this particular passage presents a somewhat considerable discrepancy between the prophetic text of the section and the corresponding historical events; cf. Kranichfeld on the passage, p. 368.[17]

Dan 11:15-19. Last wars and death of Antiochus Magnus. So (rather, and) the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities; rather, a strongly fortified city. The reference is probably to the siege and ultimate capture of Sidon, into which city of fortifications ( , cf. Ewald, 177 c) the Egyptian leader Scopas had thrown himself after suffering a severe defeat at the hands of Antiochus at Paneas, near the sources of the Jordan, which reduced his army to 10,000 men (B. C. 198). While Antiochus was carrying on a war in Asia Minor against Attalus in the preceding year, Scopas had again brought Cle-Syria under the dominion of Egypt; but in consequence of that terrible defeat he was deprived not only of that province, but also of the whole of Palestine as far as Gaza by the Syrian king. After enduring a protracted siege in Sidon, in the course of which an Egyptian army under Eropus, Menocles, and Damoxenus had vainly attempted to extricate him, he was compelled by hunger to surrender himself into the victors hands (Polyb., XXVIII. 1; Livy, XXXIII. 19; Josephus and Jerome, 1. c). The text, consequently, does not expressly notice the repeated advance of the Egyptians and the great battle near Paneas, but contents itself with referring to the final results of this new war, viz.: the capitulation of the remaining Egyptian troops in Sidon. The idea that is used collectively (Theodot., Syr., Vulg., Kranichfeld) must be rejected, because this event is so obviously referred to as appears especially from the second half of the verse.And the arms of the south shall not withstand, etc.; an allusion to the unsuccessful nature of the attempt made by the three Egyptian leaders to come to the assistance of the besieged Scopas. is evidently used in the sense of military forces (arms=army), hence not as in Dan 11:6; on the other hand, cf. Dan 11:22; Dan 11:31.

Dan 11:16. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will; i.e., Antiochus, the victor of Paneas and conqueror of Sidon, who now subjugated the whole of Palestine (the pleasant land or land of beauty,cf. on Dan 8:9)Which by his hand shall be consumed; rather, and destruction is in his hand. , as in Isa 10:32; cf. Isa 44:20; Job 11:14. If there were no other reason, these parallels would be sufficient to show that cannot here denote to consummate (Luther), nor yet completeness or totality, which would result in the meaning, and it is wholly in his hand, i.e., the glorious land (Hvern., Von Leng., van Ess, Fller, etc.; also Bertholdt and Dereser, who prefer, however, to read ).[18]

Dan 11:17. He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom. To set his face is equivalent to fixing his aim upon something; cf. 2Ki 12:18, and for the rest of the sentence, cf. Psa 71:16; Isa 40:10. Livy, XXXIII. 19, plainly asserts that Antiochus was temporarily inclined to follow up his victories in Cle-Syria and Phnicia by a powerful attack on Egypt: Omnibus regni viribus connixus, cum ingentes copias terrestres maritimeasque comparasset, etc. The same author records also an attack on the cities on the coast of Cilicia and Caria belonging to Ptolemy, as being an introductory step toward the execution of that plan. The reference of the text to this fact is so unequivocal, that all explanations which do not accord with it must be rejected, e.g., that of Hvernick, Von Lengerke, etc.: to come against the strength of his (the Egyptian monarchs) whole kingdom; and of Fller, to come in the power of his (Antiochus) whole kingdom, which is interpreted to mean, that he should secure the complete possession of the royal power throughout Syria, and re-establish its former limits.And upright ones with him; rather, and an agreement shall he make with him. This rendering of was adopted by the Sept. ( ), Vulg., Luther, Berth., Dereser, Von Leng., and Hitzig, although the two last-named writers attempt emendations of the text (Von Leng., instead of ; Hitzig instead of ) which are entirely uncalled for. It is certainly obvious that the words refer to the treaty concluded in the year 198 between Antiochus and the defeated Ptolemy Epiphanes, by which Cle-Syria was left in the hands of the victor, and in connection with which the marriage of Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus, with Ptol. Epiphanes was agreed upon, although not consummated until five years afterward (Polyb., XXVIII. 17; Josephus, Ant., XII. 4, 1); see what follows. Such explanations as the following must therefore be rejected. and upright ones shall be with him,i.e., the Jews (!)and he shall succeed in it (Gesenius, Winer, etc.); and strong ones come with him, and he conducts it successfully (Fller); or, and uprightness with him, and he shall accomplish it (Hvernick, Kranichf.), etc.And he shall give him the daughter of women, i.e., his daughter Cleopatra, who is here designated as a daughter of the women (i.e., of her mother, grandmother, etc., who were still employed with her education), probably on account of her youth; cf. Zec 9:9, where in like manner denotes a young ass-colt.19 As Ptolemy himself was but seven years old when this treaty was made, the agreement primarily involves a betrothal only, the marriage being postponed during five years to B. C. 193.Corrupting her; rather, to destroy it, i.e., his league with Egypt; his purpose was to ruin his former opponent and present ally. is probably to be taken in this sense, without substituting for it with Hitzig, or, with others, referring the suffix to the daughter. If the latter interpretation (to destroy her) were adopted, the would certainly lose its telic signification, and become consecutive: so that he destroys her, so that he ruins her in this way (Kranichf.), but the following clause does not accord with this view.But she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him; rather, but it shall not succeed, nor result to his advantage, i.e., Antiochus shall not realize the expected benefits from the agreement. Others, less appropriately, conceive of Cleopatra as the subject, she shall not stand on his side (?), neither be for him (?), but rather take sides with her husband, the king of Egypt (cf. Jerome on the passage). The rendering preferred by us is supported by the exactly similar expressions in Isa 7:7; Isa 14:24.[20]

Verse. 18. And he shall turn his face unto the isles (or coast-lands), and shall take many (of them). The Kethib is to be retained in opposition to the Keri , which is transferred to this place from Dan 11:17 for the sake of analogy. , i.e., the isles and coast-lands probably denotes the coasts of Asia Minor, which Antiochus subjected to his power through the aid of his fleet and army in the summer of 197, and also Macedon and Hellas, which were attacked and conquered by him in the following year, after having spent the intervening winter at Ephesus and crossed the Hellespont in the spring (Livy, XXXIII. 19, 38, 40; Polyb., XVIII. 34).21But a prince . shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; or, but a general (military leader) shall stifle his scorn, i.e., his scornful and contemptuous declaration to the Roman ambassadors at a meeting in Lysimachia, that Asia did not concern them, the Romans, and he was not subject to their orders (Polyb. and Livy, 1. c.). The leader (, as in Jos 10:24; Jdg 11:6; Jdg 11:11) who stifled the scornfulness of the Syrian king ( literally, to cause to cease [to teach it to cease, Luther]), was Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, whose brilliant victory near Magnesia on the Sipylus in Lydia, B. C. 190, enabled him to force Antiochus to conclude an immediate peace on very severe and humiliating terms (Polyb., XXI. 14; Livy, XXXVIII. 38; Appian, Syr., 38, 39, etc.).Without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him; rather, he shall assuredly give him back his reproach; he shall retaliate by inflicting a more bitter reproach on his part. in this place is synonymous with or and does not signify except that (Hvernick).22Kranichfeld attempts in vain to obviate and obscure the manifest reference of this representation to the defeat of Antiochus near Magnesia, as being an artful fabrication of history on the part of the positivists in prophetic interpretation.

Dan 11:19. And he shall turn his face toward the fort (forts) of his own land. These words are probably ironical; instead of advancing against the fortresses of foreign lands, he is thenceforward to be employed only with those of his own realm, perhaps in the direction of placing them in good condition for defence. Fllers remark, that here and in Dan 11:24; Dan 11:31; Dan 11:39, denotes temples, which Antiochus was eventually obliged to plunder, because of the distracting state of his finances, is entirely too artificial and without adequate support from the customary usage of the term. History is acquainted with but a single instance in which Antiochus pillaged the temples, viz.: that of the temple of the Elymaic Zeus, or Bel, in connection with which he was slain, together with his warriors, in a rising of the people; and it is arbitrary to argue a number of similar acts from this single fact.23But he shall stumble and fall, and not (or, no more) be found. Cf. what has just been remarked, and see Strabo, XVI. 1, 18; Justin., XXXII. 2; Diodorus, Fragm., 26, 39. 40.[24]

Dan 11:20. seleucus Philopater, the son and successor of Antiochus Magnus, B. C. 187176. Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes (in) the glory of the kingdom; rather, one that causeth an exacter of taxes to pass over (marg.), or one that sendeth out a driver, to the ornament of the kingdom. The driver was obviously a collector of money, or of tribute, and the person intended was the treasurer Heliodorus, who was sent out by Seleueus Philopater (according to 2Ma 3:7 et seq.) to Jerusalem to confiscate the treasure in the Jewish temple. , the splendor or ornament of the kingdom, doubtless designates Jerusalem (as does also the of Juda, Dan 8:9); cf. the similar laudatory terms applied to that city in Psa 48:3; Psa 1:2; Lam 2:15.25 The accusative accordingly indicates the direction rather than the measure (who causes to pass through the extent (?) of the land, Fller et al.), and cannot in any case be regarded as a nominative in apposition with the subject , as Kranichfeld proposes, who consequently translates: (one) who shall lead drivers thither, the ornament of dominion.But in few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle. Soon after Heliodorus was despatched to plunder the temple of Jehovah, B. C. 176 or 175, Seleueus Philopater was suddenly and mysteriously removed, possibly by poison which had been administered to him by the same Heliodorus (Appian, Syr., C. 45). The words after some (or a few) days doubtless refer to the brief interval between the departure of that officer and the kings death, rather than to the brief duration of his reign of only twelve years, as they are generally applied.26 On the statement that he was to be destroyed neither in anger, nor in battle, the remarks of Appian respecting the mode of Philopaters death ( ) should be compared.[27]

Dan 11:21-24. The rise of Antiochus Epiphanes; his first Egyptian campaign. And in his estate shall stand up a vile person. does not probably denote a despised one, whose birth deprived him of every right to the throne (Kranichfeld), but rather one who is deservedly despised, who is despicable, morally contemptible, thus corresponding to Jer 6:30, and contrasting with 1Sa 15:9 (cf. Hitzig on the passage). The symbolic description of the person here introduced, as a little horn, Dan 7:8; Dan 8:9, is in any case appropriate. A contrast with the cognomen was probably not intended, since the term appears to be one of the original constituents of the section, rather than an interpolation; for a Maccaban interpolator would hardly have avoided the temptation to avail himself of the suggestion afforded by the familiar perversion of into to make use of a term like for instance (cf. 1 Sam. 21:16; Jer 29:26; Hos 9:7).To whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom; rather, to whom was not given, etc.who has seized the royal dignity instead, in opposition to the will of his nation. Cf. the Eth.-fund, principles, etc., on chap. 7, No. 3; and with reference to the expression cf. 1Ch 29:25; Psa 21:6.He shall come in peaceably (or unexpectedly as in Dan 11:24 and Dan 8:25) and obtain the kingdom by flatteries; rather, by dissimulations. does not denote smooth speeches or flattering words merely, but dissimulating words and actions, a hypocritical and deceitful bearing in both word and deed. It occurs in the same sense in Dan 11:34. The historical tradition, indeed, speaks only of the application of military force by Antiochus, when seeking to obtain the Syrian throne for himself, and of the assistance which Eumenes and Attalus rendered him to that end, by expelling the usurper Heliodorus. But this assuredly did not exclude the employment of all manner of canning arts and secret manuverings, which probably were the only means by which he could secure the countenance of those kings of Pergamos. The difference between the language of the passage and the historical fact is at any rate inconsiderable; and it is not necessary to assume that to obviate that difficulty the Sept. substituted the more appropriate or for , and translated it by on the ground that they could find no historical equivalent for the former term (against Kranichfeld).

Dan 11:22. And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him; rather, and the overflowing power of the host shall be swept away and broken before him; literally, and the arms of the overflowingbefore his face they shall be swept away, etc. On , cf. Dan 11:15; Dan 11:31; on cf. Dan 9:26. The tropical expression , when taken as a whole, involves a metaphor that is not entirely unmixed, similar to , the overflowing scourge, in Isa 28:15. The overflowing hosts probably represent in part the troops of Heliodorus, whom Antiochus routed with the assistance of his Pergamenian allies, and in part the Egyptian forces which sought to deprive him of Cle-Syria soon after his accession to the throne. For after the death of Cleopatra (Dan 11:17), Eulaus and Lenus, the guardians of her son, Ptolemy Philometor, demanded the cession of Cle-Syria, the dowry which had hitherto been refused (Polyb., 28:1; Diodor., Leg. 18, p. 624 Wess.; Livy, XLII. 49). Antiochus, on the other hand, would not acknowledge that his father had promised such a dowry (Polyb., XXVIII. 17), and therefore refused to grant it. Finding that the Egyptians were preparing for war, he took the initiative, and succeeded in defeating the generals of Ptolemy between the Casian mountains and Pelusium. On every calculation, that event transpired in B. C. 171 (Hitzig).Yea, also the (rather, a) prince of the covenant; supply shall be broken. The person referred to was probably the high priest Onias III., who was put to death by command of Antiochus Epiphanes in the year 172, and hence about the time of the war between that king and Ptol. Philometor. He was denominated a in Dan 9:26 (see on that passage),[28] and here bears the title of prince of the covenant, because he was the actual head of the theocracy at that time; cf. the repeated designation of the theocracy by the term in the following verses, e.g., Dan 11:28; Dan 11:32 (thus correctly Theodoret, Rosenm., Hitzig, Hofm., Fller). A majority of recent writers refer this expression to Ptol. Philometor; but this is opposed (1) by the fact that at the time which is here indicated, that prince was by no means in league with Antiochus; (2) that if it were really intended to represent him as having entered into such an alliance, it would have been necessary to employ the words or rather (cf. Gen 14:13); (3) that the Egyptian is always designated as in this chapter, while, on the other hand, always refers to the theocracy.29

Dan 11:23. And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully, i.e., as soon as he shall have established friendly relations, and allied himself with his defeated opponent, which his victory near Pelusium enabled him to accomplish. Even while the battle was raging, Antiochus displayed great kindness toward the Egyptians, everywhere interfering to check the slaughter by his soldiers, and thus won the hearts of his foes (see Diodorus, Exc. in Wess., p. 579). This conduct seems to have subsequently been of material value to him in the capture of Pelusium, Memphis, and generally of all lower and central Egypt (cf. Diodor., l. c.; Polyb., XXVIII. 16 et seq.; Jerome, on this passage).And shall come up, and shall become strong (or prevail) with a small people, unexpectedly. Cf. Jerome: Ascendit Memphin et ibi ex more gypti regnum accipiens puerique (i.e., Ptolemi Philometoris) rebus se providere dicens, cum modico populo omnem gyptum subjugavit sibi, et abundantes atque uberrimas ingressus est civitates. Several expositors propose to refer to the kings invasion of Cle-Syria and Palestine only, instead of understanding his victorious march up the Nile as far as Memphis (e.g., Kranichfeld, Hofmann, Ewald, and especially Fller, who had already interpreted the preceding as referring to the league of Antiochus with the Pergamenian kings Eumenes and Attalus); but this interrupts the regular progress of the narrative by transposing an event from the beginning of the war to the history of its close. , unexpedly, is probably to be included in this verse, as Von Lengerke, Hitzig, etc., propose. It states that the victor had penetrated into the heart of their country before the Egyptians were fully aware of the fact, or had made arrangements to resist his progress. Hitzigs explanation, with confidence (=) as if he were not in an enemys country, is unnecessary; and also that offered by others, with a peaceful object (in the midst of peace, Fller).

Dan 11:24. Concerning , see what immediately precedes.And he shall enter even upon the fattest places of the province. The extraordinary fertility of lower Egypt is well known; cf. Plin., H. N., XXI. Dan 15: gyptus frugum fertilissima, etc. With regard to the genitive combination , cf., e.g., , Isa 29:19. Concerning , a territorial jurisdiction or province, see on Dan 2:48; Dan 3:2.He shall scatter among them the prey (rather preywithout the article), and spoil, and riches. This defines that which his fathers had not done, nor his fathers fathers. It consisted of an immoderate squandering, by which he not only divided among his soldiers the money provided for carrying on the war, but also the spoil of Pelusium and all other booty that had been acquired. Even the Egyptians (to whom is perhaps to be specially referred) were not excluded from his liberality. Thus he bestowed on each Greek a piece of gold at that time, while at Naucratis, according to Polyb., XXVIII. 17. His unusual liberality during this campaign in Egypt is also attested by 1Ma 3:30.30He shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time. unquestionably denotes fortresses in the proper sense, or strong cities, rather than temples, as Fller supposes (cf. on Dan 11:19).It refers, e.g., to the taking of Pelusium, and to the siege of the fortified cities of Naucratis and Alexandria, etc. (Polyb., XXVIII. 1719)., and that until a time, i.e., until a time that has been determined by a higher powerfor a time. Cf. in Dan 11:8, and the similar terms in Dan 11:6; Dan 11:13.

Dan 11:25-27. The second Egyptian campaign of Antiochus Epiphanes. And he shall stir up his power and his courage. Concerning , cf. in Dan 11:2; also Psa 78:38; 1Ma 2:24.Against the king of the south. This was not probably Ptolemy Philometor, but his younger brother Ptolemy Physcon, who had thrown himself, together with his sister Cleopatra, into the strong city of Alexandria, at the time when Antiochus was conquering Egypt, and had there been declared king in the stead of his brother, who had fallen into the hands of the Syrians. After the departure of Antiochus (occasioned by a revolt of the Tarsians and the Mallotes in Cilicia), this usurper had probably brought the entire kingdom into his power, as seems to be implied in Livy, XLIV. Dan 19: Antiochus, Syri rexper honestam speciem majoris Ptolemi reducendi in regnum, bellum cum minore fratre ejus, qui turn Alexandream tenebat, gerens, etc.But he shall not stand; for they shall forecast devices against him; i.e., despite the magnitude of his army, this Ptolemy shall offer no resistance to the Syrian king , cf. Dan 8:4; Dan 8:7; 2Ki 10:4), because treason in his own camp (cf. what immediately follows), of which his opponent is able to make skilful use, shall cause his defeat.

Dan 11:26. Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him. With regard to , cf. on Dan 1:8. The were of course members of the royal household and servants of the king, therefore serpents whom he had cherished in his own bosom, like the traitorous in Psa 41:10 (Joh 13:18); cf. Dan 11:27 and 2Sa 9:11 et seq.; 2Sa 19:29; 1Ki 2:7; 1Ki 18:19, etc.And his army shall overflow (or flow away, dissolve); and many shall fall down slain. Concerning the flowing away, which is here equivalent to dissolving, turning away to flee, cf. Dan 11:22; also 1Sa 14:16, where expresses about the same idea. On the second member of the sentence, cf. Jdg 9:40; 1Ch 5:22; 1Ma 1:18.The decisive victory of this second Egyptian war (the , 2Ma 5:1), which Antiochus achieved over Physcon and Cleopatra, was not gained on land, so far as we know, but in a great and fortunate naval action near Pelusium; and seems to be applicable only to a battle of the former kind, not to the scattering or destruction of a fleet. Nor is there any definite record of treason committed against Ptol. Physcon by the Egyptians.31 But, after making due allowance for this discrepancy [?], the whole description seems more appropriate when applied to the second Egyptian campaign of Epiphanes than when it is altogether referred to the events of the former war, as Ewald, Fller, etc., attempt to do.

Dan 11:27. And both those kings hearts shall be to do mischief. This does not allude, probably, to their evil designs against their enemy Physcon, but to those entertained against each other; cf. Pro 27:19; and on the term (i.e., literally, belonging to do evil), cf. Isa 1:5; Jdg 5:9. The two kings themselves are certainly not Physcon and his victorious opponent Epiphanes, nor yet the two brothers Philometor and Physcon, but Antiochus and Philometor, who were leagued against Physcon, and concerning whom Livy (XLV. 11) and Polyb. (29:8) expressly state, that at that time they had taken the field in company against the latter king.And they shall speak lies at one table. Probably an allusion to a particular incident which is no longer known.32 Their speaking of lies was naturally a hypocritical profession of disinterestedness on the part of Antiochus, as if his only concern were to reconquer the kingdom for his nephew Philometor (cui regnum quri suis viribus simulabat, Livy, l. c.), while the latter pretended reverence and gratitude toward his uncle, but in his heart was anxious to have him removed from his path.But it shall not prosper, i.e., their joint endeavor to overthrow Physcon; the latter, on the contrary, retained possession of Alexandria and of his usurped crown.For yet the end shall be at the time appointed; rather, for yet the end is (reserved) to the appointed time. The end, namely of the Syrio-Egyptian wars, and consequently of the sufferings of Juda, which was intermediate between the contending kingdoms. The time indicated by in Dan 11:29 is not identical with this , or end of the appointed time, but rather that denoted by in Dan 11:40, and by in Dan 11:35.

Dan 11:28-30. The third Egyptian campaign of Antiochus. Then shall he return into his land with great riches, i.e., with much booty, which he partly secured in Egypt, and partly on his homeward march through Juda, which was now in a state of insurrection. Cf. 1Ma 1:19-20; 2Ma 5:11 with Livy, l. c.His heart (shall be) against the holy covenant. Cf. the detailed descriptions of the rapine and other atrocities committed by Antiochus while marching through Juda; 1Ma 1:20-29; 2Ma 5:11-17. denotes the theocracy with reference to its territory and its adherents.And he shall do exploits; rather, accomplish it, i.e., his malicious intention, the design of his .

Dan 11:29. At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south. , at the appointed time, i.e., the time appointed by God. The reference is to the spring of the year B.C. 168, in which Antiochus began his third campaign against Egypt, this time against the two Ptolemies, Philometor and Physcon. The brothers had become reconciled to each other in the preceding year, through the influence of their sister Cleopatra, and had made common cause against the Syrian, whose conduct in leaving behind him a strong garrison in Pelusium had indicated his purpose to secure a permanent influence over Egypt. Incensed by the course of the Ptolemies, Antiochus led a large army through Cle-Syria and Palestine to Egypt in the spring of 168 (primovere, Livy, XLV. 11), and would have inflicted heavy penalties on the brothers had not the Romans interfered (cf. Livy. l. c.; Polyb., XXIX. 8; Justin., XXXIV. 2).But it shall not be as the former, or as the latter, i.e., a success similar to the triumphs of the first and second expeditions shall not be realized; cf. for instance, Dan 11:12., asso also; cf. Eze 18:4; Jos 14:11 (Ewald, Lehrb., p. 851). The two substantives are in the cas. adverbialis.

Dan 11:30. For ships of Chittim ( ) shall come against him. The expression is derived from Num 24:24, where Balaam predicted the humiliation of Assyria through the agency of ships of Chittim. In that place Grcian ships were probably intended, but the reference here is certainly to ships belonging to the Romans, namely, the fleet of C. Popilius Lnas, which sailed to Egypt after the victory over Perseus near Pydna (June 22d, B.C. 168), in order to prevent the Syrian king from subjugating that country, as he designed to do (Livy, XLV. 10; Polyb., XXIX. 1). It is not necessary to assume, with Bertholdt and Dereser, that the ships of Chittim denote the Macedonian fleet which fell into the hands of the Romans at the victory of Pydna, and was afterward employed by Lnas for his voyage to Egypt. Aside from the fact that Polybius and Livy do not mention this fact, to designate ships that had been taken by the Romans as Macedonian vessels would obviously be inappropriate; and, moreover, the customary usage throughout this book would lead us to expect instead. The term is very broad and indefinite in its application, as appears already from Gen 10:4. It denotes all the islands and coast-lands along the northern shores of the Mediterranean sea, beginning with Cyprus (which is referred to under that name in Isa 23:1; Isa 23:12; Eze 27:6), and extending as far as Spain, and therefore might appropriately be employed to designate Rome or Italy in particular (cf. Knobel, Vlkertafel, p. 95 et seq.). The Sept. is correct (), and also Jerome; but the latter overlooked the adjective nature of (plur. of ), and therefore inserted a copula between the two nouns: venient super eum trieres et Romani.Therefore shall he be grieved (rather, discouraged) and return. It is known that Popilius Lnas, on meeting with Antiochus four miles from Alexandria, did not grasp the hand extended by the latter in greeting, but at once presented the message entrusted by the senate to his care, and that when the king requested time to consider its contents, the Roman drew a circle about him, and did not permit him to pass beyond it before he had given the desired answer (Livy, XLV. 12; Polyb., XXIX. 11; Appian, Syr., 66; Justin., XXXIV. 3).And have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; or, and shall accomplish it. Fller says well, The rage which he was unable to vent on Egypt is now turned against the holy covenant; in his displeasure he turns against Israel, without being hindered (, as in Dan 11:28). Several writers, among whom are Rosenm. and Kranichfeld (the latter being guided by his desire to render the prophecy as dissimilar to the history as possible), take the preceding adverbially, and regard it as qualifying : and again he shall have indignation, etc. , however, is not used as a mere auxiliary in any other part of this section; and the return of the northern king from Egypt could not be passed over without notice in this place, since not to have mentioned it would have made Egypt the scene of the subsequent warlike operations in Dan 11:31 a, which would thus conflict with Dan 11:31 b (cf. Hitzig on the passage).He shall even return and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant; rather, and he shall return, and fix his attention on them, etc. The second and he returns denotes his journey to Antioch from Palestine, where he had halted by the way. His fixing attention ( , as in Dan 11:37; Job 31:1; Jer 39:12) on the apostates from the covenant ( = , Dan 11:14) is to be understood in the sense of affiliating with them, who became his favorites and protegs, and for whom he endeavored to erect a new and idolatrous system of worship; cf. 1Ma 2:18; 2Ma 6:1. Also infra, on Dan 11:39.

Dan 11:31-36. Attacks on the sacred institutions of the theocracy, and the persecution of its faithful adherents by Antiochus. And arms shall stand on his part; rather, and armed hosts of his shall remain, namely, in the holy land. Consequently is used substantially as in Dan 11:15, to denote the standing still of an armed host (cf. the leaving of a Syrian garrison in the citadel of Zion, which is mentioned in 1Ma 1:34). The usual rendering is, and armed bands shall arise from himwhich, however, seems more appropriate and conformable to the context than Kranichfelds strange interpretation, and accomplices (i.e., traitorous Israelites) shall stand up through his influence (!). probably does not signify at his bidding (cf. 2Sa 3:37), but is a partitive, or rather expresses dependence on the possessor.And pollute the sanctuary of strength; rather, the sanctuary, the stronghold. The sanctuary is probably termed the stronghold (, an apposition) in a spiritual sense, as being the refuge and support of Israel; cf. Psa 18:3; Psa 31:3-5; Isa 25:4, etc., where Jehovah himself is termed Israels strong tower (Von Leng., Kranichfeld, Fller). The reference of the expression to the fortifications with which the second temple was certainly provided (1Ma 6:7; 1Ma 5:60) is less probable. However, cf. 1Ma 1:37; 2Ma 6:4.And shall take away the daily sacrifice. Cf. the parallels, Dan 8:11-13; Dan 9:27; Dan 12:11; and with regard to the historical fulfilment, cf. 1Ma 1:45; 1Ma 1:54.

Dan 11:32. And such as do wickedly against (or by) the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries; Hitzig: the condemners of the covenant, its accusers. The , however, are evidently the same as the in Dan 11:30; is simply an accusative of specification; cf. Ewald, Lehrb., 288, 2 et seq., properly, to desecrate, here signifies to cause to revolt, utterly to sever their union with the theocracy, against which they had already sinned. Consequently, the expression does not involve a tautology, as if a successful effort to lead such as had already cast off their allegiance to apostatize were asserted. Kranichfeld interprets very harshly and arbitrarily, and so far as the sinner against the covenant is concerned, he shall pollute it (the covenant) by his insinuating deportment. , with smoothnesses, i.e., with smooth words and dissimulating arts (doubtless including deceitful promises, cf. 1Ma 2:17 et seq.) probably differs merely in form from in Dan 11:21; cf. Dan 11:34.But people that do know their God shall be (or prove themselves) strong (i.e., to resist his seductive efforts), and do exploits; rather, do it. Cf. Dan 11:17; Dan 11:28; Dan 11:30, and for the historical fulfilment, see 1Ma 1:62 et seq.; Dan 2:3 et seq.

Dan 11:33. And they that understand among the people shall instruct (the) many. does not denote teachers of the people (Dereser, Hitzig), and the analogy of in Dan 9:22 is not sufficient to establish that rendering. is rather to be taken as equivalent to intelligens (cf. Sept., Theodot.: ; Vulg., docti), in harmony with the usual intransitive sense (see Dan 1:4; Dan 1:17; Dan 9:13; Dan 9:25). This rendering finds a special support in the contrasting of the and the in Dan 12:10. These understanding ones, i.e., these genuine theocrats, e.g., a Mattathias (1Ma 2:1 et seq.), an Eleazar (2Ma 6:18), etc., shall impart understanding (, cf. Job 6:24) to the many, i.e., the not inconsiderable number of the people that do know their God, Dan 11:32, who were faithful to the covenant and capable of being saved, and of whom 1 Macc. 1:65 et seq. testifies that they were somewhat numerous.Yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, etc. They, viz.: the many who hearken to the voice of the understanding ones, not the latter in person; see Dan 11:35. For the narrative of the fulfilment, see 1Ma 1:57; 1Ma 2:38; 1Ma 3:41; 1Ma 5:13; 2Ma 6:11.

Dan 11:34. Now when they fall they shall be holpen with a little help, or, they shall obtain but little help ( ), referring to the efforts of Judas Maccabus (1Ma 3:11 et seq.; Dan 4:14 et seq.), which were not sufficient to put an end to all the suffering and persecution at a single stroke; cf., e.g., 1Ma 5:60 et seq.But many shall cleave to them with flatteries, or hypocrisies; i.e., in addition to the limited aid received by them, the party of faithful adherents shall absorb many impure elements, which associate themselves hypocritically (, cf. on Dan 11:32) with the many. It appears from passages like 1Ma 6:21 et seq.; Dan 9:23, that this was actually the case in the Maccaban age, principally as a consequence of the bloody severity with which Judas Maccabus treated all apostates (1Ma 2:44; 1Ma 3:5; 1Ma 3:8).

Dan 11:35. And some of them of understanding (see Dan 11:33) shall fall, e.g., certain priests, 1Ma 5:67; Eleazar, 2Ma 6:18, etc., and Judas Maccabus himself, etc. can have no other meaning in this place than that in which it occurs in Dan 11:33-34.To try (smelt) them, and to purge and to make them white (or, cleanse them), even to the time of the end; literally, among them. This is a statement of the Divine purpose in imposing the specified sufferings. Among them (), i.e., not merely among the understanding ones, but also among their followers, among the theocratic party as a whole, which, according to Dan 11:34, stood in some need of being sifted and purified. alludes to the separation or removal of the dross that was expelled by the , and to the polishing and brightening of the metal that was thus freed from its impure elements. The three-fold description is also probably designed to indicate that the purifying should be effected by various processes. Not only are the pretended adherents to Jehovahs party to separate themselves from His sincere followers, but the latter themselves, incited thereto by the example of steadfastness and self-denial furnished by their martyrs, shall cast out from themselves everything that is impure; and they shall succeed in gaining over all those who share their convictions in their hearts, but have been hindered by fear and timidity from avowing an open connection with them. In like manner a Nicodemus and a Joseph of Arimatha were induced by the very death of Christ on the cross to confess their allegiance to him.Thus Antiochus attempts to annihilate the party among the Jews that is devoted to its God, but succeeds only in contributing to its purifying (Fller).The time of the end () down to which the painful process of purifying is to be continued, denotes, in the sense of the prophecy, the end of the pre-Messianic period as a whole, as appears from Dan 8:17; Dan 9:27; but it coincides essentially with the end of Antiochus himself.Because it is yet for a time appointed; i.e., the period of tribulation shall be protracted until then; cf. Dan 11:27.

Dan 11:36. And the king shall do according to his will. The can be no other than the one hitherto represented, the antitheistic persecutor of Israel, the king of the north, Antiochus Epiphanes. It is therefore not Constantine the Great (Ibn-Ezra, Jacchiad., Abarbanel, etc.), or the Roman state as a whole (Rashi, Calvin, etc.), or the New-Test, antichrist (Jerome, Theodor., Luther, colamp., Geier, Calov, Kliefoth)all of which interpretations contradict the context, and arbitrarily interpose a hiatus of centuries between Dan 11:35 and the closing verses of the chapter.33And magnify himself above every god, i.e., subjectively, in his proud imagination; cf. 2Ma 9:12; 2Th 2:4; also Dan 8:25. Jerome, Luther, Fller, etc., render the words, against every god; but this interpretation is antagonized by its use in Dan 11:37 b, where it is likewise connected with , but notedly in the sense of above.And shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods. Cf. Dan 7:8; Dan 7:25; and concerning , see Dan 2:47.And shall prosper, i.e., in his undertakings generally; cf. Dan 8:12; Dan 8:24 et seq.Till the indignation be accomplished; namely, Gods anger against His people, in whose execution He employed Antiochus as a scourge or saw (Isa 10:15). Cf. Dan 8:19; Dan 9:27; and on the whole expression, see Isa 10:23; Isa 10:25.

Dan 11:37-39. Description of the general godlessness of Antiochus Epiphanes, without confining it to its relations to the theocracy. Neither (or, and not) shall he regard the god (gods) of his fathers, hence, shall manifest his impiety even with reference to the requirements of the religious sense of the heathen. This will include his robbery of temples (Polyb., XXXI. 4), and his efforts to destroy national bounds by tearing down their several religious systems (Diodor., XXXI. 1; 1Ma 1:43).34Nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; rather, nor the desire of women nor any god shall he regard. In view of the connection cannot possibly signify anything else than a god, and does not, therefore, denote chaste conjugal love (Luther, J. Gerhard, etc., who support their view by a reference to , 1Ti 4:3), or a love for women, susceptibility to amorous emotions generally (Grotius), nor yet the supplications of women (Dathe, Studlin), or the favorites of women, i.e., children (cf. Hos 9:16; Mic 1:16, etc.thus Bertholdt). We are to conceive, rather, of the goddess of nature among the Asiatics, the Baaltis, Astarte, or Mylitta of the Babylonians, the Persian Artemis. and the Nana of the Syrians. This is the more certain, as it is expressly reported of Antiochus that he had inflicted a gross indignity on the worship of this goddess (who is identical with the queen of heaven, Jer 7:18; Jer 44:17 et seq.), by attempting to plunder a temple of Artemis or Aphrodite in Elymais (Polyb., XXXI. 11; Appian, Syr., c. 66; 1Ma 6:1-4; 2Ma 9:2). For this reason modern expositors since J. D. Michaelis, Gesenius, Dereser, and Hvernick are, with few exceptions, agreed in applying the words to this divinity. Concerning the designation as the desire of women, cf. Isa 44:9, where the heathen gods in general are characterized as , favorites.35He shall magnify himself above all; above everything, whether Divine or human (the addition of merely to would be one-sided). Cf. 2Th 2:4 : .

Dan 11:38. But in his estate shall he honour the god of forces; rather, but he shall honor the god of fortresses in his place. is not properly a nom. propr.: the god Mauzzim or Musim (Luther, following the Sept., Theodot., and the Vulg., which have , Maozim), but rather, as appears from the repeated mention in this chapter of (Dan 11:7; Dan 11:10; Dan 11:19; Dan 11:31) or (Dan 11:15) or , it denotes a martial god to whom the Syrian king paid special reverencea god of fortresses or castles, who must be regarded as being Jupiter Capitolinus, because he is subsequently described as formerly unknown to the Asiatics. There is no question respecting the character of this divinity, as being pre-eminently warlike, nor yet respecting the special reverence which Epiphanes entertained for him. To him, the Capitoline Jupiter, were devoted the spolia opima; he was called Jupiter Stator, because he brought the Romans to a stand in answer to the prayer of Romulus, when they fled before the Sabines. But the surname Capitolinus accords fully with the god of fortresses; for the capitol was, so to speak, the seat of the Roman empire, the arx omnium nationum (Cicero, Verr., VII. 72), as being the citadel of Home, beside which stood its temple. There the generals sacrificed and paid their vows; and when they returned from their victories, they were taken thither in triumph.It is readily conceivable that Antiochus should honor this foreign god; he had learned to know him and his worship while at Rome. Antiochus did not, probably, regard the principal god of the Romans as distinct from the Olympic Zeus of the Greeks, whom he adored with a special zeal, according to Livy, xli. 20; Polyb. XXVI. 10; 2Ma 6:2, and for whom he caused a splendid temple to be erected at Athens; as a genuine Oriental syncretist he rather identified the two. Probably the magnificent temple which, according to Livy, XLI. 20, he began to build at his capital, Antiochia, but which did not arrive at its completion, was dedicated indifferently to both the Capitoline and the Olympic Zeus, the principal god of the Romans and the Greeks. The interpretations which deviate from this are accordingly to be rejected, e.g., that of several rabbins, Grotius, Bertholdt, Studlin, etc., who think of Mars (who was evidently not a god of fortresses, but rather a god of battles), and that of Hitzig, who proposes to read , not to render god of the sea fortress, and that it should be referred to Melcarth or the Tyrian Heracles, making only the latter sentence of the verse to apply to Jupiter Capitolinus. The correct view is advocated by Gesenius, Dereser, Von Lengerke, Hvernick, Maurer, Ewald, and, generally, by a majority of recent writers, among them Vaihinger, Art. Meussim in Herzogs Real-Encyklop.36, upon his basis, probably indicates that Antiochus should honor the specified divinity on its pedestal, hence in the form of a statue or an idol-image (Bertholdt, Hvernick, Von Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, etc.). A less probable opinion is that the words refer to the temple of Jupiter at Rome, as being the headquarters or seat of that god, to which Antiochus forwarded gifts (Kamphausen); and finally, the rendering in his stead, which was formerly current (Luther, Gesenius, de Wette, and more recently Kranichfeld and Fller), conflicts with the general usage and with the context, because the preceding verse did not confine its statements to a single Oriental deity, in the stead of which this new god was to arise, while the sing, suffix in can hardly be held to possess a distributive and illustrative force (cf. Dan 11:20-21).37And (the) god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold and silver, etc. This god with whom the ancestors of Antiochus were not acquainted was the god of fortresses just mentioned, not a different god (Hitzig), and still less qualiscunque Deus alius (Venema). Livy, XLII. 6, expressly mentions an embassy which Antiochus sent to Rome with a votive offering of golden vessels valued at 500 pounds (a portion of which would naturally be placed in the temple of the principal god)., jewels, precious articles of small size, is here equivalent to , 2Ch 20:25Dan 11:39. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god; rather, and he shall pursue the same course with the fortifications of the fortresses as with the strange god; i.e., he shall recognize and honor them only, shall fix his attention on nothing else, the fortresses are his idols. The words are significant merely as an introduction to what is to follow; in this place is merely a stronger form of , cf. Job 40:15; Job 9:26; Psa 120:4; Psa 143:7; Ecc 2:16. By approving of this explanation, which originated with Ewald, and which we are compelled to consider the only one that accords with the context, and that is adequately supported by the general usage of the language, we reject the numerous renderings which deviate from it, that have been imposed on the passage from of old, e.g., Vulg., Et faciet, ut muniat Maozim cum Deo alieno, quem cognovit; Luther, And shall greatly honor those who aid him to strengthen Maeusim, with the strange god whom he has selected; Bertholdt and Dereser, And shall store them (the jewels) in the temples of the god of war; all who hold with the strange god, etc.; Rosenmller, Von Lengerke, Hvernick, And in the manner which has been described he shall proceed with regard to the true feasts together with the strange gods, etc.; Maurer, Et sic ille versabitur in obtrudendo urbibus munitis Jove Capitolino, qui agnoverit illum etc.; Kranichfeld (and similarly de Wette), And he shall do it to the defensive fortresses with the aid of the strange god; Fller, And he is active for the fortifying of the strong holds with the strange god; whoso shall acknowledge, etc.; Kliefoth, And he shall act with the defensive fortress according to the mind of the strange god; whoso shall acknowledge, etc.; Hitzig and Kamphausen, And he shall provide for the defensive fortresses the people of a strange god, i.e., heathen colonists (the two latter consequently transform into ); [Keil, With the help of this god, who was unknown to his fathers, he will so proceed against the strong fortresses that he will reward with honor, might, and wealth those who acknowledge him.]Whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory; rather, To him who shall acknowledge (them), he shall make the honor great; i.e., he shall confer great honor on those who, like himself, adore the god of fortresses, and consequently make an idol of fortifications and war in general. The persons in view are probably not the heathen subjects and military officers of the king, who naturally were already devoted to this martial god and the worship of fortresses, but primarily the Jews who apostatized to that religion, such as, e.g., a Jason, Menelaus, and others (2Ma 4:10; 2Ma 4:25; 2Ma 5:15).And shall cause them to rule (or be lords) among (the) many; i.e., among the great mass of their nation. Fller, who identifies the with those noticed in Dan 11:33, i.e., with the theocratic Jews, probably goes too far in this; but he is doubtless correct in distinguishing the phrase set them to be lords among many from to make them lords over many.And shall divide the land for gain, or in reward, i.e., in recompense for their apostasy. Nothing definite is stated with reference to a division of lands among the apostates by Antiochus in the passages that report his briberies and promises, 1Ma 2:18; 1Ma 3:30 et seq.; but it can scarcely be doubted that he employed this means also, and that especially such property as had been confiscated from obstinate Jews was conferred on the apostates.

Dan 11:40-45. Recapitulation of the warlike career of Antiochus Epiphanes, not distinguishing between his several campaigns against Egypt, as was the case in Dan 11:22 et seq., but merely noticing the general character of his attacks on that country, and their unfortunate results upon Juda. The rather general character of this paragraph, which is analogous in this respect to the descriptions of the future drawn by earlier prophets, raises the expectation that these verses will prove to be especially original and free from interpolating additionsan expectation that will be verified by the exegesis of the several verses. Influenced by the words , and at the time of the end, which appeared to relate to the final stages of the reign of Epiphanes, although the prophet probably employed it in the same general sense as in Dan 8:17 (with reference to the closing period of the pre-Messianic history in general); and led astray to a no less extent by the example of Porphyry, who, according to Jerome on this place, discovered the description of a fourth and last Egyptian campaign in this paragraph, which he supposed to belong to the year before that in which the reign of Antiochus closed (B.C. 165),38 a majority of modern expositors have also regarded these verses as a continuation of the historical narrative, whose special object was to describe the last warlike operations of Epiphanes against Egypt, Phoenicia, and Armenia. The Maccaban books make no mention of these final wars of Antiochus, but report that he marched toward the east only, namely, to Babylonia, Elymais, and Persia, and that he died in the latter country (see 1Ma 3:37; 1Ma 6:1 et seq.); but this circumstance is explained, either by assuming that the writer of those books designedly ignored the wars in question, especially the fourth Egyptian and the Armenian campaigns (Hofmann, De bellis ab Antiocho gestis), or by declaring that his representations as a whole are not worthy of credit, and for that reason giving the preference to Porphyrys statements as reported by Jerome (so especially Fller on this passage, p. 328 et seq.). The report of Porphyry, however, appears rather to have originated in a misapprehension of the paragraph under consideration; for the remaining historians of the time, and particularly Livy, Polybius, and Appian, are entirely ignorant of a fourth Egyptian campaign of Epiphanes, and the credibility of the Maecaban books, especially of the first, cannot be assailed upon the ground of their statements respecting the final actions and the death of Epiphanes, nor in any other respect; see Wernsdorf, De fide Maccab., p. 58 ss, and Wieseler, Art. Antiochus Epiphanes in Herzogs Real-Encyklop., I., 386 et seq. We therefore agree with Dereser, Von Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, and Kamphausen, in regarding Dan 11:40-45 as being in fact a kind of abbreviating and generalizing rsum of the contents of Dan 11:22-39; but we explain this peculiar feature by regarding that detailed narrative of the military career of Epiphanes, as the product of the interpolating activity of a pious Jew in the Maccaban period, while we consider Dan 11:40-45 as being a portion of Daniels original prophecies uttered during the ra of the Captivity, which was left untouched upon the whole by the interpolator.39And at the time of the end the king of the south shall push at him. On see immediately above. , shall push at, accords fully with the genuine prophetic description of Dan 8:4. The Egyptian king clearly appears as the beginner of this conflict, for he is mentioned before the northern king. Consequently, on the assumption that a fourth Egyptian war is here spoken of, it will be necessary to hold that Ptol. Physcon and Philometor, encouraged by their alliance with the Romans, had ventured to attack the Syrian. It is hardly to be credited that the Roman historians, and especially Livy, should have been uninformed with regard to such a war, waged by one ally against another.40And he shall enter into the countries, i.e., into the countries adjoining to Egypt through which his march against the latter kingdom would lead him, hence, into Cle-Syria, Phnicia, and Palestine.And shall overflow (or flow along) and pass (or surge) over. The phrase employed in Dan 11:10, with reference to the war of Antiochus Epiphanes against Ptolemy Philopater, is entirely similar.

Dan 11:41. He shall enter alsorather, and he shall enterinto the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown; rather, and many shall be caused to fall. The description is scarcely as concrete as the parallel in Dan 8:9-11, and may therefore be an original prophecy with equal probability. The case differs in Dan 11:28; Dan 11:31 et seq. The many who shall be caused to fall by the northern king are probably countries or nations, as appears clearly from b, and as the fem. likewise indicates (namely, ). That plural is consequently not to be pointed , ten thousands (Psa 91:7), nor to be translated, with Ewald, by rabbins, teachers of high grade, and that interpretation to be taken as an evidence of the later composition of the book.But these shall escape out of his hand, (even) Edom and Moab and the chief (or kernel) of the children of Ammon. , properly, the principal power, the firstlings of the power of the children of Ammon (cf. Num 24:20; Jer 49:35; Amo 6:1), which probably relates to Rabbah, their chief city, and the principal seat of their power. The entire prophecy before us relative to the neighbors of Israel does not bear the look of a vatic. ex eventu; for although the Maccaban book (1Ma 4:61; 1Ma 5:3-8) notices the assistance rendered to Epiphanes by the Edomites and Ammonites against the Jews, the mention of the Moabites in this place is so much the more remarkable, as that nation is never mentioned after the captivity as maintaining an independent existence (Ezr 9:1 and Neh 13:1 afford no proof to contradict this statement, since the Moabites are not referred to in those passages from a historical point of view, but dogmatically, with reference to the passage in the law, Deu 23:3), and since the name of the Moabites had already been lost in the more comprehensive one of Arabians in the Maccaban age. It is not strange, on the other hand, that a prophet of the time immediately subsequent to the Captivity should adduce the nations of Edom, Moab, and Ammon as leading representatives of tribal hostility to the theocracy,not remarkable in the least; cf. the older prophetic parallels, Psa 10:10; Isa 11:14; Isa 25:10, 15, 16; Zep 2:8; Jeremiah 43; Jer 49:1-6; Eze 25:1-14; Eze 21:20; Eze 21:28, etc. Kranichfeld remarks correctly: The Edomites, like the Moabites and Ammonites, showed themselves the most persistent allies of the oppressors of Israel among all its neighboring relatives; and when the Chaldan catastrophe broke in upon Judah, they proved themselves her most bitter enemies. From that period, the complaint against this treacherous nation, so regardless of fraternal ties, is poured out more persistently, and the cry for revenge upon it is repeated more urgently, than against Babylon itself; cf. Obadiah; Jer 49:7-22; Lam 4:21-22; Eze 25:12-14; Ezekiel 35; Eze 36:5; Psa 137:7 et seq.; Mal 1:1-8. Although Edom, Moab, and Ammon, of all others, were connected with Israel by ties of relationship, and therefore were bound to maintain cordial relations with it in the very nature of their connection, it is precisely these nations, the unnatural oppressors of Israel, that enter into the conception of every theocrat, and especially of the prophets, as the historical representatives of all hostility against the theocracy; and as their subjugation revives the Messianic hopes (Psa 40:10; Isa 11:14; Isa 25:10), so the picture of the bloody humiliation of Edom is occasionally introduced to represent the Messianic universal triumph in Isa 43:1-6, etc.

Dan 11:42. He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries, i.e., upon the aggregate of the southern countries generally; cf. Dan 11:41 a, to which the words before us are related as a generalizing repetition. [?]And the land of Egypt shall not escape.41 , properly, shall not be among the escaped ones; cf. Joe 2:3; Jer 50:29; 2Ch 20:24; Ezr 9:14.

Dan 11:43. And he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt. cf. supra, Dan 11:28, where the great booty was mentioned which Antiochus carried away on his return from the second Egyptian campaign, while the statement here is very general in its character, and notices the confiscation of treasures in Egypt once for all.And the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps, as enforced auxiliaries, who were compelled to follow the victorious king of the north, as was Egypt in former times (cf. Eze 30:5; Jer 46:9). The fact that this feature is recorded in no other authorities is an additional evidence for the genuine character of this prophecy (against Hitzig).42 Concerning , in his following or train, cf. the analogous , in Jdg 4:10; Jdg 5:15; also Exo 11:8.

Dan 11:44. But tidings (rumors) out of the east and out of the north shall trouble (or alarm) him; therefore he shall go forth with great fury, to destroy and utterly to make away many. The masculine plural is employed here, in view of the omission from the general idea of the statement, of the subject which originates the rumors. cf. the analogous case in Dan 2:33. The alarming rumors out of, the east and north may, in fact, be referred to the expedition which Antiochus undertook shortly before he died (B.C. 166, or 147 r. Sel.see 1Ma 3:37), against the Parthians under Arsaces and against the Armenians under Artaxias, and which resulted in at least the subjugation and capture of the Armenian king (see Tacitus, Hist., Dan 11:8; Appian, Syr. 45, 46). This thought is at any rate less forced than that which refers the words to the brutal treatment accorded to Jerusalem, which was mentioned in Dan 11:30 et seq, and also to the alleged rebellion of the Aradians in Phnicia, which is mentioned only by Porphyry in the passage cited by Jerome (see note above; against Hitzig). It is, however, by no means necessary to regard this passage as a vatic. ex eventu; on the contrary, it is exceedingly possible that the remarkable correspondence between its statements and the historical fact that Antiochus Epiphanes was recalled from his warlike operations in the south by those insurrections in the north and east, became the very occasion which led the Maccaban interpolator to introduce into the preceding verses (2239) allusions, still more specific in character, to the history of the wars of the antitheistic tyrant, with a view to represent his entire career as having been foretold by Daniel in all its successive stages.43

Dan 11:45. And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace44 between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; rather, between seas and the mountain of the holy ornament. , the mount of the holy ornament, certainly denotes Mount Zion, the mount on which the temple at Jerusalem was erected (cf. , Dan 8:9, and , Dan 11:16; Dan 11:41, as designations of the holy land); and the plural must be regarded, with Hitzig, Kranichfeld, etc., and with equal certainty, either as a poetical designation of the Mediterranean Sea (cf. Job 6:3; Sir 1:2), or, with Venema, Fller, and others, as denoting the two seas between which mount Zion is situatedthe Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. The latter view, on which the plural is employed for the dual, is the best recommended, on account of the absence of the article from . There is certainly no reference to any locality outside of the holy land, as Porphyry, l. c., held, referring the two seas to the rivers Euphrates and Tigris, and misunderstanding the choice poetical expression , tents of his palace (cf. the corresponding Syr. word for , palace, and also Jer 43:10, Targ.), to the extent of assuming a place between those rivers, and bearing the name of Apedno, as the resting-place of Antiochus while contending against the Armenians and Parthians; or, as Dereser and Hvernick have interpreted it in modern times, rendering correctly, but making the mount of the holy ornament to designate the mount of the sanctuary of Nana, which lies between the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, and near which they believe Antiochus to have died,a view which Hitzig justly characterizes as a monstrosity, and which is equally unfortunate in interpreting either or .But he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. The death of Antiochus did not take place in Juda itself, nor did it occur immediately after his final sojourn in that country, when his camp was in the vicinity of Jerusalem (having returned from the third Egyptian war in B.C. 168.On the location of his camp, cf. 2Ma 5:24 with 1Ma 1:29 et seq.), but rather from two to three years later, in connection with the campaign against the Parthians and Armenians, and in the Persian town of Tab (). which Polyb., XXXI. 11, and. Porphyry, in Jerome on this passage, agree in representing as the place of his decease; cf. in addition 1Ma 6:4; 1Ma 6:8.45 So sudden a transition from the scene of the over-confident oppressors sojourn in the holy land to that of his irretrievable destruction, which did not take place until after a considerable interval, is a decided proof of the genuine prophetic character of this passage.46 A testimony of no less weight is found in the analogy of the peculiar expression to the former descriptions in Dan 8:25; Dan 9:26, and in the poetic coloring of the entire representation. As a characteristic feature in the latter regard, we notice the words (cf. the shorter , Dan 9:26), which serve as a transition to Dan 12:1-3, and form an expression that refers in very general terms to the irretrievable and irrevocable character of his destruction. It would be useless to look for an indication of insanity (Polyb., l. c.) or of painful disease (2Ma 9:5; 2Ma 9:9; 2Ma 9:28), as having preceded the death of Epiphanes, in these words.

ethico-fundamental principles related to the history of salvation, apologetical remarks, and homiletical suggestions.

1. Our exegetical examination has resulted in leading us to regard the opening and closing verses of the section as having originated with Daniel, or more particularly, those portions of the prophecy which relate to the development of the Persian empire and to the first beginnings of the Javanic world-power (Dan 11:2-4), together with those that refer to the Old-Test, antichrist as the last representative of the Grcian world-kingdom (Dan 11:40-45); while we saw cause to regard the portion intervening between the two just indicated (Dan 11:5-39) as being composed of both genuine and interpolated elements. It is impossible to assert that the intermediate section is spurious throughout, because it affords many traces of original prophecy, which may be recognized by the comparative discrepancy of their statements with the corresponding facts in the history of the Seleucid and the Lagid (see, e.g., Dan 11:14; Dan 11:19; Dan 11:26; Dan 11:34; Dan 11:39). By far the larger portion, however, seems to have been inserted by a later hand, since the parallels found in former descriptions of the future, viz.: Dan 7:24; Dan 8:9,passages which likewise refer to the period intervening between Alexander the Great and Antiochus Epiphanes,are exceeded by it to an almost incredible degree in regard to the specific character of its predicted details.47 It follows the succession of the Seleucid monarchs and their conflicts with the Ptolemies with such conscientious accuracy, that it may almost be considered an attempt to demonstrate the ideal tenfold number of the horns of the fourth beast in Dan 7:24, in the particulars of history. This, however, becomes improbable from the circumstance that the number of the Syrian kings who are mentioned is by no means exactly ten, but that, on the contrary, their succession is followed in a decidedly imperfect manner, as appears from the overlooking of Antiochus Soter (see on Dan 11:6), and from the confused interchange of the earliest kings in general (see on Dan 11:5-9). We observed in a former paragraph (Eth. -fund, principles on chap. 7 No. 3, a) that it could not be proven that the writer of this book assigns exactly ten kings to the period from Alexander the Great to Antiochus Epiphanes, or that he was acquainted with precisely four kings of Persia, and no more (see on Dan 11:2). The arrangement of the series of Seleucid kings according to a numerically symbolic plan, can in nowise be asserted, whether the chapter before us be regarded as the genuine production of Daniel throughout, or as enriched [?] by later additions of the Maccaban age. On the other hand, there can be no question that it was the design of the originator of this exact description of the history of the Seleucid and the Lagid, whether Daniel himself or an inspired [?] reader of his book in the Maccaban period were that writer, to demonstrate that the Maccaban period, and it alone, formed the point in which the entire series of prophecies in the book are centred, and consequently that it constituted the immediate preparation for the Messianic period of salvation. It became necessary, on the beginning of the predicted unexampled trial, to enable the Jewish nation to trace, step by step, that it was by the counsel of God that it should begin under precisely those circumstances, and in precisely that juncture of the progress of history (Delitzsch). It was necessary to connect the advent of the post Macedonian tyrant with the time of Daniel by so continuous a chain of the most particular events, that it would be evident that no hiatus could intervene between the time of Daniel and that tyrant, in which the Messiah might appear (Ebrard; see supra on Dan 11:5). cf. also Fller, pp. 362, et. seq., 368.

2. The fundamental ethical and Messianic principle of the section coincides substantially with its aim, as it was pointed out in the preceding paragraph, and as we are compelled to formulate it in common with nearly all the orthodox expositors of recent times, despite our doubts concerning its unimpaired genuineness. God will not desert his people in the changing fortunes of the world, or amid the tempestuous thronging of the nations and the tumults of the wars incited by the monarchs of the earth. Even though they be pressed during centuries between mighty contending empires as between two millstones, and be unable in their own power to prevent the raging of such foes, God will not permit them to be either ground or crushed. He does not permit the chosen people of His heritage to be overwhelmed, even though the oppressors power should reach its highest stage, and though to his violent attempts to suppress that people by force should be added the most flattering arts of dissimulation and the most dangerous spiritual trials (cf. Dan 11:31 et seq.). Indeed, it is precisely when the need is highest, that He comes nighest with His aid and deliverance; precisely when to human wisdom every prospect of rescue has been lost, does the judgment of God break in on the oppressor and snatch him away to irretrievable ruinand there is none to help him (Dan 11:45). The particularizing description of the tedious conflicts between the kingdoms of the north and south is evidently designed to illustrate these truths, which are closely connected with the fundamental thought of chap. 8. These truths would still constitute the ethical kernel of this section, even if the portion that is probably interpolated, Dan 11:5-39 (where the prophecy becomes transformed into actual history), were conceived of as being wholly expunged; but they form its leading thought in a more obvious sense, when it is remembered that that portion is at least largely composed of genuine prophecies relating to the time between Alexander and Antiochus Epiphanes. It must accordingly be admitted, even on the assumption of the partially interpolated character of the section which we have adopted, that the prophecy enters upon the course of history from the Persian ra to the Asmonan period with an unusual fulness of detail, and does this because it accorded with the Divine purpose to afford the suffering confessors of the latter epoch a strong certainty that their afflictions constituted the woes, the immediate precursors of the Messianic ra of deliverance. To the extraordinary trials of the Maccaban age, the wise providence of God designed to oppose a means of comfort and strength possessing extraordinary power, in this unusually specific portion of Daniels prophecies. If that affliction was unique in its kind, is it wonderful that the people was armed against it, and strengthened to endure it, by means that are likewise unique in their kind? The war which Antiochus waged against Israel was not like other wars. He aimed to destroy its religion; and therefore this war is represented as a contest against God and His service. In such a war Israel stood alone and without allies, in the resistance it opposed to the powerful king and his armies. In proportion as it was deprived of ordinary means of power and resistance, and was confined to the exercise of confidence in the aid of its God, in that proportion it was necessary to strengthen its trust; and this was accomplished by means of this unique detailed prophetic description of the tribulation and the history which should precede it (Fller, p. 363; cf. Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf., I:313).We have assumed that a pious [!] theocratic investigator of the Scriptures in that period of trial, affected and surprised by the marvellously exact correspondence between the prophecy and the history of his time, sought to give a still more direct form to that correspondence, and to remove the last remains of apparent discrepancy between the prediction and the recent historical past, by inserting into the prophetic text a series of vaticinia ex eventu; but this can no more destroy the incomparable value and the inspired character of the prophecy before us, than, for instance, the interpolations perpetrated on the somewhat analogous predictions of the abbot Joachim of Floris ( 1202) by later mystical observers of the history of the Middle Ages, for the purpose of adapting them as accurately as possible to the facts in which they were realized, can throw doubt upon the high prophetic endowment of that personage [?], or can bring into question the occurrence of really genuine prophecies in his writings (cf. Neander, Kirchengesch., vol. II, p. 451 et seq.; Gieseler, II. 2, p. 354, No. 8; 356, No. 9). The interpolating activity of his later admirers did not destroy the fame as a genuine prophet of that celebrated apocalyptist of the twelfth century, who, as is well known, foretold the rise of two new orders, a preaching order and a contemplative order, during the period immediately subsequent to his own, and by that very means gave occasion to the more strict (or spiritual) party among the Franciscans in the thirteenth century to construct as perfect a concordance as was possible between his predictions and the history of the origin of their own order and that of the Dominicans; nor was his contemporary, S. Hildegard ( 1197), who predicted the Reformation and the order of the Jesuits (Epist., p. 160; cf. Neander, ibid., p. 448 et seq.) deprived of her fame as a richly endowed prophetess [?], by the interpolated additions which were doubtless; made to her prophecies at a later period.48 With equal, and still greater truthfulness, it may be asserted that the prophetic and inspired character of this book is not materially injured, in any way whatever, by the opinion that the present section has received certain adaptations and particularizing additions from a later hand, and that by this opinion, e.g., its accurate references to the expedition of Ptol. Evergetes for conquest (Dan 11:7-8), to the warlike operations of Antiochus Magnus (Dan 11:11-19), and to the three Egyptian campaigns of Epiphanes (Dan 11:22-30) are most readily explained.49

3. This chapter apparently presents but few points, or none at all, for practical or homiletical treatment, as it is composed almost exclusively of prophetic descriptions of special historical events. Even the thought just presented, that the wonderful adaptation of the prediction to particular events, was conditioned upon the extraordinary severity of the Maccaban sufferings and oppressions, seems to afford but little opportunity for practical and edifying application. Instead of emphasizing that idea in a one sided manner, it will be better to seize on the ethical centre of the entire prophetic historical picture, or, in other words, on the truth that 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 that He will send deliverance in the precise moment when their need has reached its highest pointand to make this the starting point and principal object of study. The practical fundamental thought of the section is consequently the same in substance as that contained in Psa 46:2-6 : God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore will we not fear though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Still the city of God shall be glad with its fountain [so Luther], where are the holy tabernacles of the Most High. God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved; God shall help her, and that right early.The fundamental thought, reduced to a briefer form, may also be expressed as follows: The Lord causes the mighty millstones (the northern and southern kingdoms) between which the people of his heritage is placed like an insignificant and impotent grain of corn, to crush each other rather than that object of their bitter oppression; or, Where the need is highest, there is Gods aid nighest; or, For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee (Isa 54:7; cf. Lam 5:20; Psa 37:25; Heb 13:5, etc.).

Homiletic suggestions on particular passages.

On Dan 11:2, Melancthon, Est hc prdictio testimonium illustre, quod a Deo traditam esse Prophetarum doctrinam ostendit. Et quia pollicetur liberationem, significat Deo cur esse hunc populum, qui doctrinam propheticam amplectitur. Confirmantur ergo pii, ne a Deo deficiant, ne abjiciant hujus doctrin professionem. Pertinet autem postrema pars hujus long concionis etiam ad hanc ultimam mundi tatem et ad Ecclesi rumnas, quas tulit jam multis sculis; dum alibi Mahometica rabies conatur prorsus delere nomen Filii Dei, alibi regnant Episcopi ethnico more et studia, ecclesiastica negligunt, sinunt extingui lucem Evangelii, proponunt idola et libidines, injuste occidunt homines innocentes propter ver; doctrin professionem (therefore the supplanting of Christianity by the Pope and the Turksa New Test, counterpart to the advance of the northern and southern kingdoms against Israel). Hc mala pii considerent, ut primum a Deo petant, ut ipse Ecclesiam suam servet, regat, foveat et augeat; deinde si qui possunt aliquibus vulneribus mederi, annitantur prosua vocatione etc.

On Dan 11:33, Calvin: Hc circumstantia magnum pondus in se continet, quia videmus multos ad tempus satis virili esse et intrepido animo, postea languescere et tandem evanescere, ut fiant prorsus sui dissimiles. Angelus autem hic promittit fore insuperabilem constantiam eorum, qui sustinebuntur Dei spiritu, ita ut non uno tanturn die vel mense vel anno certent, sed subinde colligant animos et nova certamina, neque unquam deficiant.Cramer: God supports his own even in the most violent persecutions, and preserves them from apostasy.Starke: A real Christian must venture his body, life, and all that he has, for the glory of God.

On Dan 11:35, Calvin: Sequitur, nullos pollere tanta sanctimonia et puritate, quin adhuc resideant in ipsis aliqu sordes, qu purgationem exigunt, ita ut ipsis necesse sit transire per fornacem, et mundari instar auri et argenti. Hoc ad omnes Dei martyres extenditur. Unde etiam videmus, quam insulse Papist imaginentur merita Sanctorum ad nos redumdare, quoniam plus quam necesse erat prstiterint.Osiander: God has set a limit to every persecution, beyond which it cannot pass.Starke: The trial is succeeded by the time of refreshing, and the suffering by the time of rejoicing; Tob. 3:31.

On Dan 11:39 et seq.: Upon the surface the worshippers of the beast seem to prosper, but they are eventually compelled to realize that their honors and possessions are not eternal in their duration, while the followers of the Lamb shall enjoy everlasting glory. (On Dan 11:44 et seq.): Although God permits many an evil purpose to be executed, His forbearance toward the godless is always merely for a time; Psa 50:21.

Footnotes:

[1][, literally equities, hence a compact as to what is agreed upon as right between the parties. It here seems to refer especially to the terms or provisos of the alliance, the marriage being one of the main conditions or considerations.

[2]The pronoun is emphatic.

[3] probably, like above, contains an allusion to the rights of a contract, and may therefore signify allies.]

[4][Moreover, this assertion (that the O. T. only knows of four Persian kings) is not at all correct; for in Neh 12:22, besides those four, there is mention made also of a Darius, and to the Jews, in the age of the Maccabbees there was well known, according to 1Ma 1:1, also the name of the last Persian king, Darius, who was put to death (defeated) by Alexander.Keil.]

[5][This interpretation is altogether vague and unnecessary. The meaning obviously is not that there should thereafter be only four more Persian kings in all, but merely that the next three should bring down the history as far as the prophetic vision extended in this regard, i.e., down to the breaking out of the conflict between Persia and Greece. Thus the three kings who shall yet () arise are the three successors of Cyrus, viz. Cambyses, the pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspis: the fourth is then Xerxes, with whom all that is said regarding the fourth perfectly agrees. Thus Hvernick, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Auberlen, and Kliefoth interpret.Keil.]

[6][This computation is manifestly inconsistent, for it confounds the fourth with the one just said to be the third.]

[7][From the conflict of Persia with Greece, the angel (Dan 11:3) passes immediately over to the founder of the Grcian (Macedonian) world-kingdom: for the prophecy proceeds not to the prediction of historical details, but mentions only the elements or factors which constitute the historical development. The expedition of Xerxes against Greece brings to the foreground the world-historical conflict between Persia and Greece, which led to the destruction of the Persian kingdom by Alexander the Great.Keil.]

[8][As we have already remarked, this peculiarity of detail does not argue a want of genuineness here. It is impossible to sever this portion from the preceding and following predictions, which present no such suspicious features, without making an irreparable hiatus in the prophecy as a whole. Indeed this very part constitutes the gist of the entire disclosure, for it is this alone that immediately and intimately concerns the theocracy. The unprecedented and unparalleled character of the Antiochian persecution, as a chapter in Jewish history, justifies the minuteness and earnestness of the portraiture. The rest of this prophecy is but introduction and sequel to this central delineation. The careful reader will note that Daniel does not give a syllabus of secular history, but only sketches the course of those collisions which should affect the religious status and relations of Israel. The character and conduct of the Antiochian antichrist could not be fully appreciated without a setting forth of these connections.]

[9][Keil lays great stress upon the objection that Seleucus was not one of Ptolemys generals, as the text requires; but his own account of the history makes him out to have been so at least for a time.]

[10][This substantially agrees with the rendering of Keil, who, however, is rather refined in his view of the construction: The subject to is the ; and his, i.e., this kings, help is his own daughter, who should establish by her marriage with the king of the north. is a second subject subordinated or co-ordinated to the subject lying in the verb: he together with his help. We may not explain the passage: neither he nor his help, because in this case could not be wanting, particularly in comparison with the following .]

[11][Keil somewhat extends this objection: The prophecy differs from the historical facts, not merely in regard to the consequences of the events, but also in regard to the matter itself; for it speaks not only of the daughter but also of her father, being given up to death, while the natural death of her father is in no way connected with that marriage, and not till after his death did the consequences fatal to his daughter and her child develop themselves. Such niceties of verification in a prophecy so concise and incidental we may safely leave to the candor of the reader.]

[12][Surely the exact agreement of prophecy with history ought not to be an objection with any except those who deny the possibility of prediction at all. At other times the lack of this agreement is made by the author the ground of the same objection.]

[13][This argument resolves itself simply into the conceded fact that the prophecy in question is unusually specific. But what of that? Was not the Spirit of revelation competent to impart particulars, if need be? The authors reasoning is purely of a piece with the presumptions of rationalism.]

[14][The authors remarks sufficiently meet the objection of Keil that the announcement of the war of his (Callinicus) sons with many hosts overflowing the land is not confirmed by history; but to make all clear we add the following from Stuart: The sons of Seleucus Callinicus were Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus Magnus. The former of these two began the war against Egypt, in Asia Minor, where Egypt had tributary or allied provinces. He perished in the contest there. Antiochus Magnus then led on his army toward Egypt; and hence in the singular. The infin. being after the definite verb denotes the continued advance of the army under Antiochus.]

[15][Keil likewise, though he admits that might well bear the sense of abstaining from, yet adduces plausible reasons from the context in favor of the sense to stand before. It is difficult, however, to see how this signification can be legitimately extracted from the words.]

[16][Keil. however, somewhat arbitrarily declares that , with the article, can only be the host of the king of the north. He contends that the meaning is this: As the multitude rises up, so his heart is lifted up.]

[17][It certainly may with justice be denied that there is here such a discrepancy. There is, indeed, some indistinctness, owing chiefly to our inability to determine the exact application of the term fall here. It is clear, however, that it indicates a failure of their expectations; and of this, in the case of the apostate Jews referred to, history affords sufficient confirmation. The apostasy of one party among the Jews from the law of their fathers, and their adoption of heathen customs contributed to bring about that oppression with which the theocracy was visited by Antiochus Epiphanes (Keil). On the authors view, that these specifications were interpolated into the prophecy by a later hand, it is impossible to account for any such vagueness, much less discrepancy; for the forger would certainly have taken pains to conform his language to the well-known facts.]

[18][Keil again objects: Here also the historical events fall far behind the contents of the prophecy, which points to the complete subjugation of the king of the south, whereas this war was carried on solely for the possession of the Asiatic provinces of the Egyptian kingdom. Also the rising up of many (, Dan 11:14) against the king of the south is not historically verified; and even the relation spoken of by Josephus (Ant., XII. 3, 3) in which the Jews stood to Antiochus the Great was not of such a kind as to be capable of being regarded as a fulfilling of the exalting themselves of the , Dan 11:14. Still less does the statement of Dan 11:16, that the king of the north would stand in the glorious land, agree with the interpreted of the conduct of Antiochus the Great against the Jews; for, according to Josephus (Ant., l. c), he treated the Jews about Jerusalem favorably, because of their own accord they had submitted to him, and had supported his army; and he granted to them not only indulgence in regard to the observance of their religious ordinances, but also afforded them protection. These minute points of apparent variation are sufficiently met by the explanations given above. We cannot refrain, however, from observing here how completely these seeming discrepancies with the facts of history disprove our authors theory of an interpolation of this part of the prophecy by a later writer; for such a person would surely have been careful to conform his writing scrupulously to the known historical data.]

[19][, of women, the plural of the class, as in Jdg 14:5 (Keil). The plur. gives a kind of superlative force, indicating her choiceness, beauty, etc.]

[20][Still the construction proposed is harsh, for the subject of the verb is naturally . Her destruction, it is true, was not the object of the marriage, but only its consequence; but the consequence is set forth as had in view, so as forcibly to express the thought that the marriage could lead, according to a higher direction, only to the destruction of the daughter. The last clauses of the verse express the failure of the measure adopted. The verbs are fem., not neut.; thus the meaning is: she (the daughter) shall not stand. not be able to carry out the plan contemplated by her father. The words do not stand for , she shall not be to him, or for him. In that case, must be connected with the verb. According to the text, forms one idea, as impotent, (cf. Ewald, 270); she shall be a not for him, i.e., he shall have nothing at all from her.Keil.]

[21][Yet Keil insists that this prophecy of the undertaking of the king of the north against the islands has not its historical fulfilment in the expedition of Antiochus the Great against the coasts and islands of Asia Minor and the Hellespont.]

[22][Keil objects to the signification moreover, assigned to , that in all places where it is so rendered a negative sentence goes before it, cf. Gen 43:3; Gen 47:18; Jdg 7:14, or a sentence asking a question with a negative sense, as Amo 3:3-4. Hence here has the idea of exception, and can only be rendered after an affirmative statement by however, for the passage introduced by it limits the statement going before.]

[23][Nevertheless, the plur. here is not to be strained to exactness, and the temple referred to may very well be taken as a representative of the native fortifications, especially as it was so vigorously defended as to cause the death of the assailant.]

[24][Keil still insists that what is said regarding his return to the fortresses of his own land and his own throne, does not so correspond with the historical issue of the reign of this king, that one would be able to recognize therein a prediction of it. Yet such a prediction has actually been recognized by interpreters of all ages.]

[25][Keil, however, objects to this interpretation of the words as too limited. denotes, no doubt (2Ki 23:35), to collect gold and silver; but it does not thence follow that , when silver and gold are not spoken of, means to collect tribute. The word in general designates the taskmaster who urges on the people to severe labor, afflicts and oppresses them as cattle. is not synonymous with , Dan 11:16, but stands much nearer to , Dan 11:21, and designates the glory of the kingdom. The glory of the kingdom was brought down by and refers to the whole kingdom of the king spoken of, not merely to the Holy Land, which formed but a part of his kingdom. By these oppressions of his kingdom he prepared himself in a short time for destruction.]

[26][Keils objection: The reference of these words, in days few, to the time after the pillage of the temple of Jerusalem by Heliodorus is not only an arbitrary proceeding, but is also contrary to the import of the words, since in does not mean past, has little force, even if we accept his interpretation of preceding; for that term evidently constitutes a fresh date or starting-point.]

[27][Keil once more urges that of Seleucus Philopater, to whom Dan 11:20 must refer, if the foregoing verses treat of Antiochus the Great, nothing further is communicated than that he, quum paternis cladibus fractas admodum Syri opes accepisset, post otiosum nullisque admodum, rebus gestis nobilitatum annorum duodecim regnum, was put to death through the treachery of Heliodorus, unius ex puratis (Livy, LXI. Dan 19: cf. App., Syr., C. 45), and the mission of Heliodorus to Jerusalem to seize the treasures of the temple, which is fabulously described in 2Ma 3:4 ff. The (shall be destroyed) of this king (within a few days) does not harmonize with the fact of his twelve years reign.]

[28][The fact that he is not here styled serves to distinguish him from the personage so designated there.]

[29][Keil objects that the interpretation of this cutting off of the prince of the covenant. as referring to the murder of Onias III., is not warranted by the facts of history. That murder does not at all relate to the matter before us, not only because the Jewish high-priest at Antioch did not sustain the relation of a prince of the covenant, but also because the murder was perpetrated without the previous knowledge of Antiochus, and when the matter was reported to him, the murderer was put to death by his command (2Ma 4:36-38). Still the fact remains that Onias was slain by his agents, however much he disavowed or even regretted the occurrence. To deny the propriety of the epithet prince of the covenant as a title of the high-priest is arbitrary, as also the interpretation: We must, therefore, with Kranichfeld, understand , in undefined generality, of covenant princes in general, There is little force in Stuarts comment that the latter phrase is not the high-priest Onias, the prince of the Jewish covenant, as Rosenmuller maintains, for then would of course be employed. is designed for a mere adjective of quality or condition here, and the article is omitted, as it is more generally in such cases.. If Rosenmller be in the right, the order of time would be inverted, and a must consequently be admitted in the course of the narrative, which is improbable. The absence of the article in is no proof against the reference of the word to the holy covenant. The article is wanting where otherwise the determination is found from the connection, e. g., Dan 8:13 (Keil).]

[30][But to distribute money and spoil is nothing unheard of, and in no way does it agree with the fattest provinces. The context decidedly refers to conduct which injured the fat provinces. This can only consist in squandering and dissipating the wealth of this province which he had plundered to its injury ( [to them], dativ. incommodi). A historical confirmation is found in 1Ma 3:29-31. To bring the provinces wholly under his power he devised plans against the fortresses that he might subdue them.Keil]

[31][The expression, those who eat of his choice food probably means Lennus and Eulus, the guardians and state ministers of the young Ptolemy, the same persons alluded to in the preceding verse as the members of his own court corrupted by the bribes of the Syrians.Stuart.]

[32][The phrase is sufficiently justified by the hypocritical alliance. At one table designates the dissembled amity and intimacy of the parties, who said and did all they could to mislead each other (Stuart). Keil, after interpreting: The evil doing consists in this, that the one seeks to overthrow and destroy the other under the cloak of feigned friendship; for they eat as friends at one table, and speak liesthe one tells lies to the other, professing friendship. But their design shall not succeed; yet captiously adds: All interpretations of these words which are determined by historical facta are arbitrary. The history of Antiochus Epiphanes furnishes no illustrations for this. The above league affords abundant presumption of these facts, even if strictly understood.]

[33][Keil contends for the last of the above views, in accordance with his adopted theory of the final Antichristian little horn; but his arguments have little weight, in the face of the admitted identity of the persecuting king throughout this passage. His chief point is this: If the contents of Dan 11:36-45 lie beyond the end of the enemy who has hitherto been spoken of, then ought his destruction to have been mentioned, especially since with the words, to the time of the end, because yet for a time appointed, Dan 11:35, the words of Dan 11:27, for yet the end of the time appointed, are resumed. All attempts to give to the former of these expressions, Dan 11:35, a different meaning from that contained in the latter, Dan 11:27 (Calovius, Geier, Kliefoth), amount to verbally impossible interpretations. But surely this phrase might be understood to refer to different points of time, if the change in the connection required it. Even this, however, is not necessary. It is sufficient to apply it to the general issue of these troubles of the theocracy, and thus room is still left to introduce the sequel of Antiochuss career, which in fact did not take place till the controversy about the Jewish worship was pretty well decided at Jerusalem by the first successes of the Maccabees.]

[34][Keil objects. This does not agree with Antiochus. The which is said of him, 2Ma 9:12, is not an exalting of himself above every god. Antiochus was not an ; he even wished to render the worship of Zeus universal; and that he once spoiled the temple does not imply his raising himself above every god (Kliefoth). Of Antiochus much rather, as is said by Livy (XIV. 20), in duobus tamen honestisque rebus fere regius erat animus, in urbium donis et deorum cuitu, But this misses the main point of the portraiture of this persecuting tyrant throughout the entire series of these prophecies, which is not so much his utter godlessness and violence as the direction of these traits against the hitherto established usages of his own subjects; intolerance now first made religion a crime, and foreign deities were now for the first time forcibly imposed upon them. The next verse shows that he had no regard for his countrys gods; and his whole course of life, his plundering the temple at Jerusalem, and finally in Elymais, shows the reckless and impious character of the tyrant. The intimation here given, of disregarding the gods of his fathers, shows that the previous Grcian kings of Syria had adopted the gods of the Syrian nation; while Antiochus, who had lived some years at Rome, had learned to despise the Syrian gods, and to prefer the Jupiter Olympius and Xenias of the Greeks and Romans, The establishment of the worship of the former at Jerusalem, and of the latter at Samaria, shows that Antiochus was ambitious at times of imitating the Greeks and Romans (Stuart). For this he was naturally applauded by Pagan historians, but the sacred seer penetrates the motives of policy that led to these occasional freaks of so-called piety, and paints his secret contempt for ail religion. That the person here described, however, was not wholly or externally irreligious is proved by Dan 11:38-39, which bring out the precise point of his impiety, namely, its foreign character.]

[35][Keils defence of the abstract interpretation is signally weak: A verbal proof that denotes Anatis or Adonis as the favorite deity of women has not been adduced. For these words, desiderium mulierum, denote not that which women desire, but that which women possess which is desirable; cf. under 1Sa 9:20. But it is impossible that this can be Anatis or Adonis, but it is a possession or precious treasure of women. This desirable possession of women is without doubt love; so that, as C. B. Michaelis has remarked, the expression is not materially different from , the love of women, 2Sa 1:26. On the contrary, all the associated terms compel us to understand a concrete object of regard. As Keil himself admits, The connection requires us to think of a deity, because these words are placed between two expressions which refer to the gods.]

[36][Keil still objects; (1) But according to the following passage, this god (worshipped by the person in question) was not known to his fathers. That could not be said either of Mars, Jupiter, or Melkart. Keil has overlooked the description of this deity, which is not his ancestral god (although even then it would doubtless mean, as in Dan 11:37, the deity commonly worshipped in the country, i.e., Asiatic or Syrian), but a strange god ( , Dan 11:39). (2) Add to this, that if the statement here refers to the honoring of Hercules, or Mars, or Zeus, or Jupiter, then therewith all would be denied that was previously said of the kings being destitute of all religion (Kliefoth). We cannot see that this last discrepancy would be at all improved by the identification with any other deity whatever. It simply shows that the latter passage must not be so strictly interpreted. (3) The words thus in no respect (?) agree with Antiochus, and do not permit us to think of any definite heathen deity. Strange then that the descriptive epithet should have been added by the sacred writer if he had so indefinite a worship in view, and stranger still that he should go on to characterize that reverence by the particulars given in this and the following verse.]

[37][On this Keils criticism seems in the main to be just: does not signify on his foundation, pedestal, because the remark that he honored the god on his pedestal would be quite inappropriate, unless it had also been said that he had erected a statue to him. has here the same meaning as in Dan 11:20-21; Dan 11:7, in his place or stead. But the suffix is not, with Kliefoth, to be referred to in the place of all that which he did not regard, but it refers to , in the peace of every god; which is not overthrown by the objection that in that case the suffix should have been in the plur., because the suffix is connected with the sing. The god of fortresses is the personification of war, and the thought is this: He will regard no other god, but only war; the taking of fortresses he will make his god; and he will worship this god above all as the means of his gaining the world-power. Of this war god as the object of deification, it might be said that his fathers knew nothing, because no other king had made war his religion, his god, to whom he offered up in sacrifice all, gold, silver, precious stones, jewels. We must take exception, however, to the incongruous idea of this last sentence respecting the deification of an abstract passion; nor can we see that in any reasonable or conceivable sense this could be said to characterize the king in questionbe as who he mayabove all his forefathers.]

[38]Jerome, T. V., p. 2, p. Dan 720: Et hc Porphyrius ad Antiochum refert, quod undecimo anno regni sui rursus contra sororis filium, Ptolemum 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 uviversa vestaverit; veneritque ad terram inclytam, i.e., Judam. et arcem munierit de ruinis murorum civitatis et sic perrexerit in gyptum.Cf. farther the statements respecting the result of this expedition to Egypt, and respecting the connected expeditions toward the north and east, p. Dan 721:. Pugnans contra gyptios et Libyas thiopiasque pertransiens audiet sibi ab Aquilone et Oriente prlia concitari, unde et regrediens capit Aradios resistentes et omnem in litore Phnicis vastavit provinciam; confestimque pergit ad Artaxiam regem Armeni, qui de Orientis partibus movebitur; et interfectis plurimis de ejus exercitu, ponet tabernaculum suum in loco Apedno, qui inter duo latissima situs est flumina, Tigrim et Euphratem (Dan 11:45).

[39][The authors views here have evidently been biassed by his favorite theory of an interpolation of part of this prophecy. But the whole prediction is consecutive and naturally connected, without any repetition or redundancy. Keil, admitting a primary reference of this passage to Antiochus, argues against this supposition of a recapitulation or summary here. 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 perished (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 spius pertractatas esse, extremam vero manum operi defuisse; and Hitzig by various turningsas it seems, but is not precisely acknowledged, the fact is nowhere else communicatedwhich are obviously mere makeshifts. Stuart thus defends the belief in another and final campaign of Antiochus: Lengerke asserts the entire improbability of another and fourth invasion of Egypt and Palestine, on the ground that Antiochus was too weak and too poor to collect forces enough to carry on such a war with success. But 1Ma 1:27 seq. shows us that after Antiochus had heard of the notable defeat by Judas of his general Seron, he was enraged, and gathered together all the forces of his kingdom, , an exceedingly great encampment. These he paid profusely, while in an attitude of preparation for active service, and thus exhausted his treasury, 1Ma 1:28-29. To Lysias, his general, he left one-half of his troops (1Ma 1:34), which amounted to 47,000 (Dan 11:39), with orders to subdue and partition out Palestine (Dan 11:35-36). Weak, then, Antiochus was not, at that time. It is indeed true that neither Appian, nor Polybius, nor Justin, nor Livy, nor Josephus have given us any particulars about this latest war of Antiochus; but who that has read their Syrian histories does not know that mere summaries, scraps, and fragments are all that remain of these writers in respect to Antiochus? Josephus depends on 1 Macc.; and this is mainly confined to the exploits of Judas and his brethren, Rosenmller very appositely remarks: Caremus omnino integra aliqua et continua de rebus Antiochi narratione, qu a su tatis scriptore aliquo fide digno literis sit mandate. The argumentum a silentio, specially in respect to ancient history, is far from being cogent and satisfactory. On the other hand, the accuracy of the statements in the book of Daniel, respecting the domain of Alexanders successors, is on all hands admitted in other cases. Here it has narrated the events of an expedition, in Dan 11:40-43. with its usual minuteness, and apparently in good order. Why should this testimony be rejected? Nor does it stand alone. Jerome refers to Porphyry, who wrote against the book of Daniel, as saying with respect to Dan 11:40-43, that they relate to the last war of Antiochus. near the close of his lift?. Let it be remembered that Jerome does not say a word to contradict this statement, although it made for his favorite object to do so it he could, inasmuch as he might then refer the passage to his favorite Antichrist. I do not see why the testimony of the book before us, the full confirmation of it by Porphyry, and the apparent consenting attitude of Jerome, do not place the matter before us fairly out of the reach of destructive criticism.]

[40][The inconclusiveness of this reasoning is evident, for as the Romans themselves were not directly involved in this last campaign, a Roman historian may well have been ignorant or indifferent respecting it.]

[41][No one can fail to see how inept and trivial this statement would be if a mere recapitulation of what had been before declared so much more fully and explicitly.]

[42][But a later interpolator would not have failed to seize upon so remarkable a point, and would surely have incorporated it into his part, and even enlarged upon it from the history at his command.]

[43][On the contrary, had these clauses been introduced by such an interpolator, he would surely have been more definite in his allusions.]

[44][ of planting a tent, only here used instead of the usual , to spread out, to set up, probably with reference to the great palace-like tent of the Oriental ruler, whose poles must be struck very deep into the earth. cf. the description of the tent of Alexander the Great, which was erected after the Oriental type, in Polyn., Strateg., IV. 3, 24, and of the tent of Nadir-Shah, in Rosenmller, A. u. N. Morgenl., IV. p. 364f. These tents were surrounded by a multitude of smaller tents for the guards and servants, a circumstance which explains the use of the plural.Keil.]

[45][Stuart thus explains this seeming discrepancy: But why is the mention of Antiochuss encampment between the Mediterranean and Jerusalem here brought again to view, after the speaker had already followed him to the East? For the purpose of impression, I should say, rather than from any necessity of the case. Look at the contrast (the speaker would seem to say); now Antiochus encamps in his lofty tent like a palace, meditating the overthrow of the holy city and temple: next we see him in disgrace, and even in the agonies of death, stricken by an invisible and irresistible hand. The interest with which a Hebrew would survey this picture may be imagined, but cannot well be described.]

[46][This remark of the author is doubtless by way of contrast with the more definite and historically correct utterances of the presumed interpolation preceding; as if an inexactnot to say untrueprediction were a sure mark of authenticity in a prophet!]

[47][We dismiss this theory of the author by once more calling attention to the fact that these so-called interpolations are so intimately blended as component parts with the rest of the prophecy in which they are imbedded, that our author does not attempt to eliminate them, or even distinctly designate them. To do so would result in enervating and dislocating the whole. The authenticity of the entire passage must stand or fall together.]

[48]The Revelationes of S. Bridget (1373) might also be adduced as an example in point: likewise the Quatrains of Nostradamus (1566), etc. [The Rationalistic tone of these comparisons of a book of Holy Writ with pseudo-apocryphal pretenders of modern times, is palpable.]

[49][This apology of the author for the wrecks of this passage after the expurgation from spurious additionsto an ill defined extentis a vain plea. Once admit the fact of such interpolations, in any considerable degree at least, and the credit of the prophecy is irretrievably destroyed. Every one will be at liberty to expunge ad libilum what he fancies to be a vaticinium ex eventu.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

We have here a long and particular account of Kings in Persia, and of the realm of Greece. Daniel receives the relation from the same person as in the foregoing Chapter. In the close, a short, but striking account is given, of some formidable foe to the Church, which shall plant his palace between the seas, in the glorious holy mountain.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Here is a plain and evident inference to the kings and kingdom of Persia, which arose out of the Chaldean; and from the connection which the Church was obliged to have with this kingdom, after Cyrus had made proclamation for the Jews to return to their own land; it became to Daniel and to his fellows a very blessed scripture. But to the Church in the present hour it ceases to be prophetical, though thus far we may regard it as a precious monument, in proof of the Lord Jehovah’s faithfulness. See Ezr 1:1-11 , etc.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Dan 11:2

While philosophy had for the Jews no meaning, history had a deeper significance than it had for any other people. It was the chief factor in their national unity, the source from which they drew ethical and spiritual enlightenment. Thither they turned as to living oracles inscribed with the finger of the Almighty. To history they appealed as the supreme tribunal of God’s justice. The great monarchies, Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, pass across the scene. Their fortunes cross and interlock into those of the chosen race. Israel is the pivot on which their destiny turns. History, in a word, is the drama in which God Himself is the protagonist, vindicating his justice and moral government on the stage of the visible world.

Butcher, Harvard Lectures on Greek Subjects, pp. 29-31.

Dan 11:32

Crows pick out the eyes of the dead, when the dead no longer need their eyes. But flatterers destroy the souls of the living, and blind their eyes.

Epic-tetus.

Cf. the Flatterer in the first part of the Pilgrim’s Progress.

Dan 11:32

The course of this man’s life had been very simple, and yet crowded with events, and with manifold activity. The element of his energy was an indestructible faith in God, and in an assistance flowing immediately from Him.

Goethe upon Jung Stilling.

Reference. XI. 32, 33. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xi. No. 609.

Dan 11:33

It is sometimes argued that religious convictions are not as strong as they were in old times. But ‘that the fervour for truth is not diminished may be seen in regions outside theology…. At this moment hundreds of educated men are defying the whole power of the Russian Empire in the struggle for constitutional liberty. Every month sees a score or more of them consigned to a hopeless dungeon or sent to Siberia, and the ranks close up again firmer after every fresh gap. Some of us cannot have forgotten how a crowd of Poles, men and women, knelt down in 1861 in the great square of Warsaw, praying and singing hymns, as fifteen volleys of grape-shot tore through their ranks. The sacrifice was unavailing; but it is by sacrifice of this sort that national character is regenerated, and as long as the spirit of martyrdom lives, there seems no need to despair of the future of humanity.

C. H. Pearson.

Dan 11:35

See Browning’s poem, ‘A Lost Leader’.

Dan 11:35

In Greek authors of classical times there is no trace of the thought that the human race as a whole, or any single people, is advancing towards a Divinely appointed goal; there is nothing of what the moderns mean by the ‘Education of the World,’ ‘the Progress of the Race,’ the ‘Divine guidance of Nations’. The first germ of the thought is in Polybius ( circa 204-122 b.c), whose work illustrates the idea of a providential destiny presiding over the march of Roman history, and building up the imperial power of Rome for the good of mankind.

Butcher’s Aspects of the Greek Genius, pp. 155, 156.

Dan 11:36

Others may occupy themselves, if they will, in seeking a nostrum to destroy the phylloxera; be it mine to find one that shall destroy the Christian religion.

M. Paul Bert.

Can there be a more dreadful delusion than to see God where He is not, or to imagine ourselves more enlightened than Jesus Christ?

Dr. William Barry.

Dan 11:43-45

I can never forget the inexpressible luxury and prophanenesse, gaming and all dissoluteness, and as it were total forgetfullnesse of God (it being Sunday evening) which this day se’nnight I was witness of, the king sitting and toying with his concubines, a French boy singing love songs in that glorious gallery, whilst about twenty of the greate courtiers and other dissolute persons were at Basset round a large table, a bank of at least 2000 in gold before them, upon which two gentlemen who were with me made reflexions with astonishment. Six days after was all in the dust!

Evelyn’s Diary, Feb. 1685.

Dan 11:45

Our physical organism was devised for existence in the atmosphere of our globe and so is our moral organism devised for existence in justice. Every faculty craves for it, is more intimately bound up with it than with the laws of gravitation, light, or heat; and to plunge into injustice is to fling ourselves head foremost into what is hostile and unknown.

Maeterlinck, The Buried Temple.

References. XI. J. G. Murphy, The Book of Daniel, p. 166. XII. 2, 3. J. C. M. Bellew, Sermons, vol. ii. p. 166.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

VI

THE RELATED PROPHETIC SECTIONS OF DANIEL

Having completed the historical sections of this book, we now consider the related prophetic sections. It is here we find the crux of the opposition of the atheistic critics. Their presupposition is: There can be no prophecy in any supernatural sense. Therefore they refuse to see any reference in the book to matters beyond the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. He to them is the culmination of the book. The unknown writer, as they claimed, lived after his times, and cast well-known history into the form of prophecy, attributing its authorship, through a license accorded to writers of novels, to a fictitious Daniel supposed to be living in the period between Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.

A complete answer to both their premise and conclusion would be the proof of even one real prediction in the book, fulfilled after their own assigned date for the author. Any one who really believes the New Testament will find that proof in the words of our Lord: “When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the Holy Place (let him that readeth understand) then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

But as our purpose it to expound the prophetic sections of this book, and not merely to reply to the contentions of atheists, we now take up our work. These are the prophetic sections:

1. Nebuchadnezzar’s first dream of the great and luminous image, or the five world empires (Dan 2:31-45 ).

2. Nebuchadnezzar’s second dream of the great tree, or what befell the great king of the first world empire (Dan 4:10-27 ).

3. The handwriting on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast, or what befell the last king of the first world empire and how the second empire comes to the front (Dan 5:25-28 ).

4. The vision of the four great beasts arising from the sea, representing in another form the four secular world empires and the enthronement of the King of the fifth world empire (Dan 7:1-28 ).

5. The vision of the ram and the he-goat, or the fortunes of the second and third world empires (Dan 8:1-27 ).

6. The seventy weeks, or the coming and sacrifice of the Messiah, the King of the fifth world empire (Dan 9:24-27 ).

7. The vision of the Son of man (Dan 10 ).

8. Revelation of the conflicts between two of the divisions of the third world empire) and the transition to the final advent of the Messiah, the King of the fifth world empire (Daniel 11-12).

On these eight prophetic sections let us give careful attention to the following observations:

OBSERVATIONS ON THE EIGHT PROPHECIES TAKEN TOGETHER

1. The most casual glance at this grouping of the several prophetic sections reveals both the unity of the book and the relation of its prophetic parts and the design of all.

2. Any man who looks carefully at this group and finds its culmination in Antiochus Epiphanes, a ruler of a fourth fragment of the third world empire, either is devoid of common sense and should receive the charity accorded to those unfortunates afflicted with mental aberration, or is so blinded with prejudice he cannot see. In the case of the latter alternative this much of Paul’s words apply: “If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them whom the god of this world has blinded lest they should see,” or our Lord’s words, “Having eyes they see not.” An unbiased child can see that the culmination of the book as to a person is in the King of the fifth world empire, and the culmination as to a fact is in the Messiah’s final advent for resurrection and judgment.

3. Following the characteristic Bible method and plan, secular governments in this book are considered only as they relate to the supremacy of the divine government and to the kingdom of God. All the rest concerning them is left in silence.

4. The relation between the parts of the prophecy is manifest throughout: The first prophecy is the basis of all the following sections. They only elaborate some detail concerning one or the other of the five world empires set forth in the first dream of Nebuchadnezzar, the four-pointed image and the conquering stone. For example, the first prophecy tells in general terms of four successive world empires to be followed by a fifth and spiritual world empire. The second and third sections of prophecy elaborate some details of the first great secular monarchy, telling us what befell its first and last king and the transition to the second monarchy. The fourth prophecy presents under different imagery the same five world empires, but gives some detail of every one not stated in the general terms of the first prophecy.

The fifth prophecy confines itself to details not before given of the second and third monarchies, how sovereignty passes from one to the other, how the third is dismembered, to prepare the way for the fourth, and how both are related to the kingdom of God. The sixth prophecy speaks only of the King of the fifth monarchy in his humiliation and sacrifice, as the third had spoken of his glory and exaltation, and the seventh is the vision of the Son of man.

The eighth deals only at first with the strifes between two of the parts of the dismembered third monarchy, incidentally alluding to the coming power of the fourth monarchy, glides, by easy transition, from the first antichrist, Antiochus, to a second antichrist in the far distant future, an antichrist already foreshown in the little horn of the fourth beast, and concludes with the final advent of the king of the fifth monarchy. No other book in all literature, sacred or profane, more clearly evidences greater unity, one consistent plan, more order in treatment, or a more glorious climax.

Of very great interest to us and to all who love God and his cause is the development of the messianic thought as the hope of the world. It concerns us much to fix in our minds this development.

The first prophecy tells of the divine origin and ultimate prevalence of Messiah’s kingdom.

The sixth tells of Messiah’s first advent in his humiliation and sacrifice.

The fourth tells of his exaltation and enthronement after the humiliation.

The eighth tells of his final advent for resurrection and judgment.

And so we need to note the coming of the first antichrist. Antiochus, in the little horn of the third beast (Dan 8:9 ) and the second antichrist in the little horn of the fourth beast (Dan 7:8 ) identical with John’s antichrist, (Rev 13:1-8 ) with its papal head (Rev 13:11-18 ). And so we find reference to the third antichrist in Dan 11:34-45 who is not the same as Paul’s man of sin. (2Th 2:8 and Rev 20:11 ), but this third antichrist comes at the beginning of the millennium and wages a conflict against the Jews, at which time they will be converted and the millennium will be ushered in. Daniel does not see Paul’s man of sin.

How clearly and with what precious comfort do all these prophecies reveal the supreme government of God over nations and men, the universal sweep of his providence, both general and special!

5. Finally how well we can understand, in the light of these great prophecies, the influence of the man and his book on all subsequent ages. His apocalyptic style and symbolism reappear in Zechariah’s visions, and form the greater part of the basis of John’s New Testament apocalypse. His Son of man creates a messianic title which our Lord adopts. His unique prophecy of the exact time of Messiah’s first advent creates a preparation in the hearts of the pious to expect him just then. We could not understand old Simeon at all if Daniel hadn’t fixed the time. Other prophets had foretold his lineage, the place of his birth, his great expiation and consequent enthronement, but no other showed just when he would come. His stress on “the kingdom of God and its certain coming and prevalence” put the titles of this divine government in the mouths of John the Baptist, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. His sublime character as evidenced in his temperance, wisdom, incorruptible integrity, audacity of faith, indomitable courage, and inflexible devotion to God, has fired the hearts of a thousand orators and created a million heroes. His words have become the themes of a thousand pulpits. His righteous administration of public affairs has created a thousand reformers in politics and supplied the hope of all subsequent civic righteousness. “Dare to be a Daniel” has become the slogan of the ages.

His distinction between duty to the human government and duty to the divine government prepared the way for the reception of our Lord’s great dictum, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” He laid the foundation of the doctrine that the state cannot intrude into the realm of conscience, and so was the pioneer, piloting a burdened world to its present great heritage of religious liberty. This man was not a reed shaken by the wind. He was no Reuben, unstable as water. We can’t even think about him without wanting to sing:

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,

is laid for your faith in his excellent word. Born in the reign of good Josiah, thy childhood remembering the finding of the lost book of Moses, thy youth passed in the great reformation and thy heart warmed in the mighty revival that followed, student of Jeremiah, prime minister of two world empires and beloved of God thou art a granite mountain, O Daniel, higher than Chimborazo, Mount Blanc or Dwa Walla Giri! Snarling little critics, like coyotes, may grabble their holes in the foot-hills that lean for support against thy solidity, but their yelping can never disturb thy calm serenity nor the dust they paw up can ever dim the eternal sunshine of the smiles of God that halo thy summit. SELECTED.

Having now considered these eight prophetic sections in group, let us give attention to their exposition in severalty.

NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S FIRST DREAM God’s sovereignty extends to men asleep as well as to men awake. Often his spirit has made revelation through dreams. Dreams of indigestion are chaotic, without form, plan, or coherence. But dreams sent by the Spirit awaken after-thought, appeal to the intelligence and vividly impress the dreamer. So Jacob’s dream at Bethel of the ladder reaching from earth to heaven, on which the angels of God ascended and descended, or Pharaoh’s dreams interpreted by Joseph, and the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar. No human system of psychology has ever explained the subtle and direct impact of Spirit on spirit. It is quite possible that there may have been some connection between Nebuchadnezzar’s waking thoughts and the dream which follows. We can at least conceive of previous reflections on his part full of questionings to which this dream would be a pertinent answer.

He may well have meditated upon the worldwide empire he had established and wondered if it would last, and if not what other government would succeed, and would it last. He may have pondered the causes of stability in human government, or the elements of decay and disintegration, and have wondered if human history would always be a record of the successive rising and falling of nations, or would the time ever come when the earth would know a universal and everlasting kingdom, and if so, who would be its author and what the principles of its perpetuity. Nebuchadnezzar was a truly great man, a thinker and organizer, and he was a pious man according to the requirements of his religion. So he may have been the waking subject of thoughts and questionings to which God sends an answer in a dream by night. Anyhow, he had the dream, and this was the dream: He saw a great and terrible image, a silent and luminous colossus in human form, standing upon the level Babylonian plain. Its several parts were strangely incongruous. The head was gold, the chest and arms were silver, the lower body and thighs were brass, the legs were iron, ending in feet with ten toes whose iron was mingled with clay.

Did this image reveal the highest attainment of human government and prophecy, its inevitable deterioration from gold to silver, from silver to brass, from brass to iron, from iron to crumbling clay? Or did it suggest a succession of governments, the first with the greatest unity and the greatest excellency, one head and that gold? The second dual in composition with its two arms, third commencing one, but dividing into two thighs, the fourth standing dual in it he saw a little stone cut out of a mountain without human hands, falling to the plain and intelligently rolling toward the image, and rolling gathering bulk and momentum until it smites the image on its feet of mixed iron and clay, overthrows it, crushes it, pulverizes it, and rolling on in resistless power, ever growing as it rolls, until it becomes a mountain in bulk and fills the whole earth. Such the dream.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DREAM The dream foretells five great world empires:

The first is identified as the Babylonian.

The second is identified in the prophecy as the Medo-Persian.

The third is identified in the prophecy as the Grecian.

The fourth by a suggestion in the eighth prophecy as the Roman.

The fifth is the kingdom of God set up by the God of heaven and without hands in the days of the fourth empire.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE EMPIRES This is the characteristic of the first: Thou, O king, art king of kings unto whom the God of heaven hath given the kingdom, the power, and the strength and the glory, and wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven hath he given into thine hands and hath made thee to rule over them all, and thou art that head of gold.

The characteristic of the second one is, so far as this chapter tells us, that it is inferior to the first. This chapter, in identifying the second world monarchy, simply tells us that it succeeds the Babylonian, the first, but in the later prophetic sections when this vision is elaborated it is expressly said to be a kingdom of the Modes and of the Persians. I say that the book of Daniel identifies the second world government as the Medo-Persian Empire just as plainly and explicitly and exactly as it identifies the first with the Babylonian.

Now when we come to the third, “another third kingdom of brass which shall bear rule over all the earth,” is all this chapter says about this one, but when we take up the subsequent prophetic section it is explicitly said to be the Grecian Empire, the thighs indicating subsequent division of the empire. One man said to me, “If the third empire is unquestionably the Greek Empire, how can it be represented as the lower body and two thighs divided into four parts?” My answer is that this book tells us that it did divide into four parts, but deals only with the two parts which touched God’s people. This book has nothing in detail to say about the divisions of Alexander’s empire beyond the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, one of them getting Syria and the other getting Egypt.

When he comes to speak of the fourth this is what he says: And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things, and as iron that crusheth, all these shall it break in pieces and crush. Whereas, thou sawest the feet and the toes, a part of potter’s clay and part of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom. But there shall be in it of the strength of the iron forasmuch as thou sawest iron mixed with the miry clay, and as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so shall the kingdom be partly strong and partly broken; and whereas, thou sawest the iron mingled with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave one to another even as iron does not mingle with clay.

This book in this chapter does not name that fourth government, but when we come to consider the visions of the four beasts which is the same as this vision in another form, but with other details, we get a still clearer idea of the characteristics of this government; and when we come to chapter 2, when we are considering the last prophetic revelation, we have a suggestion where this fourth government comes in and holds Antiochus Epiphanes at bay, that place where the representative of Rome made a little circle in the sand around Antiochus and said, “You must answer before you step outside of that circle.” We know it also to be Rome because Rome with two legs divided into the Eastern and Western Empires, Constantine establishing Eastern Rome at Byzantium on the Bosporus while the Western Empire continues at Rome. We also know it by its divisions into ten kingdoms as its imperial supremacy passed away.

Here is what he says about the last kingdom:

1. He gives its origin: “I saw a little stone cut out without hands.” Those other four stood in the form of a man because man was the author of them all. This fifth one is divine, this fifth kingdom is set up by the God of heaven, and we should never lose sight of that fact.

2. The second thought that he presents is as to the time when the God of heaven would set up this kingdom; that it would be in the days of the fourth monarchy the Roman monarchy: “In the days of these kings will the God of heaven set up a kingdom.” So when a man asks when was the kingdom of heaven set up, and that, of course, means in its visible form, as the Babylonian kingdom was visible, the Medo-Persian kingdom was visible, the Greek kingdom was visible, the Roman kingdom was visible, and as God all the time had a spiritual kingdom, but now he is to set up a visible kingdom and it is to be just as visible as any of these others then, as a Baptist, I answer: Jesus set up the kingdom in his lifetime, as the Gospels abundantly show.

3. The third thought in this description of this kingdom is its beginning, its gradual progress, its prevalence over the whole earth, Just a pebble falling, and as it falls getting bigger, rolling, and as it rolls getting bigger, smiting these other governments, becoming a mountain, becoming as big as the world. And when we get to thinking about that progress of this kingdom, we should remember what our Lord said, that in its eternal working it is like leaven which a woman puts in three measures of meal and ultimately it leavens the whole lump; and when we think about its external development, it is like a grain of mustard seed which a man planted and it grew and grew and grew until it became a tree.

Whenever we hear a pessimist preaching an idea of a kingdom like a tadpole, that commences big at first and tapers to a very fine tail, getting smaller and smaller and worse and worse, then that is not the kingdom Daniel spoke of.

His kingdom commences small and gets bigger and bigger, and mightier and mightier, and I thank God that I don’t have to preach concerning a kingdom that is continually “petering out.” I am glad that I can preach a gospel that is growing in power and extending in domain and that has the promise of God that it shall fill the whole world and be everlasting. It always did give me the creeps to hear one of those pessimists. They get their ideas from an inexcusable misinterpretation of certain passages of the Scriptures.

I heard one of them say, “Doesn’t our Lord say in answer to the direct question, ‘Are there few that will be saved?’ that ‘Straight is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find if ?” I said, “Yes, but to whom did he say that?” To the Jews of his day, and then to prevent a misconstruction, while only a few Jews of his day would be saved, he says, “But I say unto you that many shall come from the east and the west and the north and the south and shall recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.” The thought reappears in Revelation where John sees the host of the redeemed. He introduces us first to 144,000 Jews and then he shows us a line that no man can see the end of: “I saw a great multitude that no man could number out of every nation and tribe and tongue and kindred.” So if the kingdom which Jesus Christ in the days of his flesh set up on this earth is narrowing, that is cause for sadness, but if it is spreading out, growing bigger and bigger, and has perpetuity, that is a cause for gladness.

This visible kingdom of Jesus Christ will be perpetual. Perpetuity is its heritage.

We need not be afraid to preach its perpetuity and its visibility, with visible subjects, with visible ordinances, with a visible church charged with its administration. It will not be sponged off the board, any of it, neither the kingdom nor its gospel nor its church nor its ordinances. They will stand until the rivers shall be emptied into the sea. As Dr. Burleson used to say: “It will be standing when grass quits growing, and we should not be afraid to preach perpetuity.” Let us not be too sure that we can take a surveying chain and trace that perpetuity through human agencies and human history, but we may certainly stand on the declaration of God’s Word that this kingdom is everlasting: Forasmuch as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.

Over and over again in this book, Daniel holds out, as he explains the thought of this first dream as a light that gets bigger and bigger and brighter and brighter, that the saints shall possess the kingdoms of the world.

I expect to see (in the flesh or out of the flesh it matters not ) every mountain of this earth or mountain range and every valley between and every plain, whether rich red land like the Panhandle or dry sand like the Sahara Desert; and every zone, Arctic, Temperate, or Torrid: every iceberg shivering in the Aurora Borealis around the North Pole or South Pole, have floating over it the great white conquering banner of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

We are to have every bit of it, and the time will come when no fallen angel will flap his wing and make a shadow on any part of it and when no wicked man shall crush beneath his feet any of its beautiful or sweet flowers, but when the meek shall inherit the earth, and throughout the whole earth, after its regeneration, there shall dwell eternal righteousness.

QUESTIONS

1. Give, in order, the prophetic sections of the book of Daniel.

2. Show the unity of the book from these sections.

3. Show the culmination of the book in person and fact.

4. In what respect only are secular governments considered in this book and throughout the Bible?

5. Show the relations of the prophetic sections to each other and how all the rest are developments of the first.

6. Give, in order, all the developments of the messianic thought.

7. Give the several antichrists, citing passages for each.

8. What great doctrine of special comfort do all these prophecies show?

9. Give particulars to show the influence of the man and the book on later ages.

10. Name the five world empires of Dan 2 .

11. What are the characteristics of the fifth, who its author and when set up?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

XIII

THE FINAL PROPHECIES OF THE BOOK

Dan 11:1-12:13

We now come to the last discussion on the book of Daniel and there are difficulties in interpreting the last two chapters of this book, as follows:

1. The difficulty in determining the text is unusually great. While the Hebrew text is authoritative, yet the several Greek versions, particularly Septuagint and Theodotion, the Syriac Peshito, and the Vulgate (Latin) are relied on in aiding to determine the true text. These versions, however, on these chapters do in some instances complicate rather than relieve the difficulties.

2. The section of Dan 2 treating of the “king of the south and the king of the north,” (Dan 2:5-45 ), introduces, by far, the most serious difficulty in this, that most commentators find it easy to refer Dan 2:5-32 to the conflicts between the Syrian and Egyptian divisions of Alexander’s empire, culminating in Antiochus Epiphanes. But no commentator is able to apply Dan 2:36-45 to that conflict without doing great violence to both the text and to history. There appears to be in Dan 2:33-35 , if not at Dan 2:21 , a transition to events more remote, and to a person more important than Antiochus Epiphanes, and directly connected with the final resurrection in the beginning of Dan 12 . So that in general terms we have three theories of interpretation:

(1) The higher critics, plausibly agreeing from the apparent continuity of the references to the kings of the north and south from Dan 2:5 to the end, apply the whole section to the wars between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. Their only escape from the obvious misfit of the latter part is that Daniel was himself mistaken in that part, and also our Lord and his apostles.

(2) Some pre-millennialists, particularly Tregelles, seeing plainly the misfit of the latter part to anything verifiable in the history of the Seleucids and Ptolemies, ignore the obvious verification in the first part arid deny any reference to them at all in the chapter.

(3) Other interpreters (e.g., Luther, Calvin, and a host of other Protestants) accept the reference of the first part to the Seleucids and Ptolemies, but find a transition about Dan 2:33-35 to more remote events and persons connected with the last things of time. This theory is by far the best of the three in harmonizing all the facts, and is in line with the perspective of prophecy, which, like a view of distant mountains, one peak behind another, but higher, from the viewpoint of the beholder, gives a blended view as of but one peak. Only nearer approach, or a side view from another point of observation, reveals the distinction in the peaks. They cite many scriptural illustrations for example, Psa 72 , which gives a blended view of Solomon and the remote Messiah in which it is hard to distinguish just what parts to limit to Solomon and what parts to the Messiah. This is not, strictly speaking, giving a double sense to the meaning of words. There has never been but one objection, worth counting, to this theory to wit, verse 40, evidently in the latter part, names the king of the south and the king of the north, as if plainly a continuation of the first part.

3. The third difficulty in the interpretation is to understandingly apply the time numbers 1290 and 1335 in Dan 12:11-12 .

Now let us take up the interpretation of Dan 11:2-4 . The meaning there is obvious: It is not in the author’s plan to enumerate all the kings of Persia, but the number up to the great provocation, which led to a union of the many independent Greek states into one empire, and to their counterinvasion of Persia. We may count it two ways:

1. The three kings to arise are Cambyses, the son of Cyrus was not so friendly to the Jews as his father.

2. The Artaxerxes of Ezr 4:7 , who was the impostor, Guamata, the pseudo Smerdis, reigning only seven months, but in that time revoking the Cyrus decree; Darius Hystaspea, who renewed the Cyrus decree (Ezr 6 ), and Xerxes the Great, the Ahasuerus who divorced Vashti and married Esther (see book of Esther).

Or we may omit the impostor and make Xerxes the fourth, including Cyrus. But the part played by the impostor in Jewish affairs (Ezr 4 ) favors the retention of him as one of the three, and thus making Xerxes the fourth after the three and the fifth, including Cyrus. Evidently the prophecy lays special stress on Xerxes because of his great riches and because of his stirring up all the world against the realms of Greece. The word “realm” is plural in the versions, referring to the many Greek states. Every schoolboy is familiar with the history of Xerxes the Great, whose wealth was incalculable, who stirred up the world to invade the Grecian states, whose army by some was reckoned 5,000,000, who crossed the Hellespont, killed Leonidas of Sparta at the pass of Thermopylae, captured Athens, when its citizens had embarked on their fleet, who was disastrously defeated in the naval battle of Salamis by Themistocles, and whose bridge of boats on the Hellespont was destroyed by a storm, provoking his impotent wrath against the sea, and his having the sea flogged with chains, and his disgraceful return to his own land. (See schoolboy and legislative oratory on Thermopylae, and Byron’s matchless poem, “The Isles of Greece,” in Childe Harold. See also Herodotus VII: 20-99; and Rollin’s Ancient History , for his immense armament.)

We are not to understand that Xerxes, except under the instigation of Haman, was unfriendly to the Jews, but he is made prominent here, because it was his invasion that led largely afterward to the unification of the Greek states under Philip of Macedon, with a view to invade Persia in return, as was done under Philip’s son, Alexander the Great. We know that Alexander justified his invasion as a retaliation for the Xerxes invasion of Greece, and so this prophecy drops all reference to later Persian kings in order to pass to the rise of the third great monarchy. The great king of Dan 11:3 is Alexander, and in Dan 11:4 we have a prophecy of the fourfold division of his kingdom under Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy, discussed in the exposition of Dan 8 , only here it is shown that his heirs did not succeed him, nor any of the divisions equaled his dominion. Diodorus Siculus tells us that Cassander murdered his legitimate son by his queen Roxana, named Alexander after himself, and caused to be murdered his illegitimate son, Hercules.

Antiochus had about whipped out the eastern kings, had conquered all Judea and Egypt and was besieging Alexandria when some ships from Chittim came into the port, and history tells us that from those ships came the Roman officer, Popilius, and said to Antiochus, “Stop this siege and go home.” Antiochus replied that he would take time to think about it. The Roman general drew a circle around him in the sand with a stick, and said, “You answer before you get out of that ring,” and he answered. That is a new detail.

It has been shown in previous discussions that all the prophetic sections in the book after the first are but elaborations of the first, and that each succeeding one gives some details of some one of the five empires not previously given. In Dan 8 , we have an expansion of the third empire, giving an account of its fourfold division, just related, and particularly showing the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn, in the latter days of the third empire, so now let us consider the new details of this empire, given in Dan 11:5-32 , as follows:

1. We have here (Dan 11:5-20 ) and not elsewhere in the book, the details of the long series of conflicts between the kings of the Syrian and Egyptian divisions of Alexander’s empire. As Judea lies directly between Syria and Egypt, it became the battleground and prey of the contending armies, passing in subjection first to one, then to the other, as the fortunes of war favored one or the other. The historical verification of these verses can be found in any commentary. Driver, in “Cambridge Bible,” is as good as any on these verses, if not the best. It is brief and clear.

2.Dan 11:21 reads as follows: “And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.” Now that vile or contemptible person is where we commence to learn about the last antichrist of the Bible. In Dan 11:21-32 , if they refer at all to Antiochus Epiphanes (which may be questioned), these are details not given in Dan 8:9-14 ) Dan 11:23-25 (which unquestionably refer to him). Among these details are (1) the reference to his prodigal gifts (Dan 11:24 ), (2) his check by the Romans (Dan 11:30 ), (3) the varying tides of his war with Egypt.

It may be questioned that this chapter refers at all to Antiochus Epiphanes, because

1.Dan 8 has already given details of his relations to the third empire and to Israel, and is therefore less necessary here. We find nowhere else in the book a repetition of minute details. The details of the war between the Seleucids and Ptolemies are given in this chapter because not elsewhere given.

2. As he, the little horn of the third beast, was the first antichrist, and as the little horn of the fourth beast was the second antichrist, harmonizing with Rev 13 , so this chapter, from Dan 11:21 to the end, may be explained to refer to the third antichrist, not harmonizing with Paul’s man of sin (2Th 2:3-12 ) who lasts to the final advent here (Dan 12:2 ). It is certain that Dan 11:36-45 cannot apply to Antiochus, and if Dan 11:21-32 are concerning the same person, then the transition to the last things commences at Dan 11:21 and not at Dan 11:33-35 , according to the third theory hereinbefore set forth. Daniel never saw Paul’s man of sin.

3. The fact that there is an abomination of desolation here (Dan 11:31 and Dan 12:11 . as well as in Dan 8:11 ; Dan 8:13-14 ) does not prove identity, but is squarely against any reference here to Antiochus for the following reasons:

(1) The abomination of desolation in Dan 9:26-27 is different from the one in Dan 8:11 ; Dan 8:13-14 , as our Lord in his great prophecy clearly shows (Mat 24:15 ; Mar 13:14 ).

(2) The abomination of desolation here (Dan 11:31 ; Dan 12:11 ) is not the same as Dan 8:11 ; Dan 8:13-14 , because the time number, 2,300 days of chapter 8 is different from the time numbers here, 1,290 and 1,335.

(3) Because this deliverance connects with the resurrection and judgment (Dan 12:2 ).

(4) Because John in Revelation refers Daniel’s “time, times and a half time” as well as the great oath of God (Dan 12:7 ) to a point of time yet future in A.D. 95.

(5) Because some things foretold (even in Dan 11:21-32 ) cannot be verified in the history of Antiochus, and none of the great things foretold in Dan 11:36-45 and in Dan 12 .

The true point of the transition, therefore, to the third antichrist commences with the “vile person” (Dan 11:21 ) and not at Dan 11:33-35 , as set forth in the third theory.

THE RESURRECTION IN Dan 12:2

1. All commentators, radicals, and conservatives, pre-and postmillennialists agree that Daniel here refers to a real and final resurrection of the bodies of the just and the unjust.

2. The radical critics are mistaken in using this to prove a late origin for the book of Daniel, in order to account for the development of the doctrine. As our Lord says on this very point to the Sadducees, who were the higher critics of his day, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures,” and then proves that the Pentateuch taught the resurrection. So also teaches Isaiah before Daniel’s time, and so the Psalms, as Peter proved at Pentecost. And so Ezekiel (37) uses the resurrection of the body to illustrate the spiritual resurrection of the Jews.

3. The interpretation of Dan 12:2 by Tregelles, the pre-millennialist, separating by a long interval the resurrection of the just from that of the unjust, finds no support in any text or version, and so far as I know in any great commentary. The curious mind wants the explanation of the time numbers 1,290 and 1,335 in Dan 12 . Here the Son of God himself, who interprets this vision to Daniel, declines to answer the question, bidding Daniel go his way and wait for the fulfilment to demonstrate its meaning. So we pass on. But more important are the great pulpit themes in this book as suggested by it. Let us consider a few of them:

The supremacy of the divine government over individuals and nations:

And at the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me; and I blessed the Most High; and I praised and honoured him that liveth forever, whose domination is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation; and all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: as he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? Dan 4:34-35 .

Now that is a great text on the supremacy of God’s government of individuals and nations.

The second great text is found in the same chapter: “Take away from him the heart of a man and give him the heart of a beast.” And that is the theme for the agnostic, the one who can’t know that there is a God and that he ruleth in heaven. He classes himself with the beast, and he might as well be a brute and go out and eat grass like an ox. Another great subject is the distinction between duty to God and to the state, based on Dan 3:16-18 : Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God, whom we serve is able to deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

Couple that with what is said of Daniel when he knew the decree was signed that no man should pray to any god but the king for thirty days (Dan 6 ). He went to his room and prayed as his custom was and he prayed three times a day just as he had done before. Now in discussing that as a preacher it is important to show that when human government clashes with divine government we must make the law of God paramount: “Render unto Caesar whatsoever is due Caesar, but render unto God what is due to God.” Then Nebuchadnezzar, the king, was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king. True, O king. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Dan 3:24-25 .

Now the great theme there is the presence of God with his people in their afflictions.

Another theme is the patriotism of Daniel or his love for his people as set forth in his prayer in Dan 9 and in his three weeks’ prayer in Dan 10 . Another great theme is the Messiah in the book of Daniel, (1) in the coming of his kingdom (Dan 12:2 ); (2) his great expiation (Dan 9:25 ); (3) the pre-manifestation (Dan 12:10 ); (4) the presence of the Lord with his people in their afflictions, (the text I have just given); (5) in his exaltation after his expiation (Dan 12:7 ) ; and (6) in his final advent for resurrection and judgment (Dan 12:12 ).

A great theme for the preacher is, “The Messiah as Presented in the Book of Daniel.” Another great theme is the several antichrists and the several abominations of desolation. First, Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn of the third beast, and the abomination is the setting up of the statue of Jupiter and the sacrificing of a hog on the altar. Then the abomination in Dan 9 fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in the effigy of the Roman Emperor on the standards of the soldiers. The second antichrist is the little horn of the fourth beast and the abomination of desolation that he sets up in claiming to be God and demanding worship of men. The third antichrist, the atheistic, world ruler who comes just before the millennium, and then the last antichrist, the same as Paul’s man of sin who will be destroyed at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and his abomination will be that he himself will claim to be the returned Messiah, the king, in his final advent and demand to be worshiped. Several other themes are found in the book, viz.: The Influence of a Great Man, and of his Book on After Ages; The Wisdom and the Righteousness of Daniel as Seen by Ezekiel; Keep Thy Window Open Toward Jerusalem When You Pray; and “They That Be Wise Shall Shine as the Firmament, and They That Turn Many to Righteousness as the Stars Forever.”

QUESTIONS

1. What is the first difficulty in interpreting the last two chapters of Daniel, and what aids to its solution?

2. What is the second difficulty, and what the three theories of interpretation in this connection?

3. What is the third difficulty?

4. On Dan 11:2-4 answer: (1) Who were the four kings of Persia here mentioned? (2) How does Xerxes fill the description of the fourth? (3) Who the mighty king that should stand up and rule, and how does history prove that he fulfils the conditions here stated relative to his kingdom?

5. Relate the incident of Popilius and Antiochus Epiphanes.

6. What are the new details of this empire given in Dan 11:5-32 ?

7. Show the historical fulfilment of Dan 11:5-20 .

8. What question is raised with reference to Dan 11:21-32 ?

9. If this passage refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, what the details?

10. Why may it be questioned that this chapter refers at all to Antiochus Epiphanes?

11. What of the resurrection in Dan 12:2 ?

12. What is the explanation of the time numbers 1290 and 1335 in Dan 12 ?

13. What are the great pulpit themes of this book as suggested by it?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

Dan 11:1 Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, [even] I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.

Ver. 1. Also I, ] i.e., I, Gabriel the angel, glad of such an office, for the good of God’s people, whereunto also I was sent by Christ. Dan 10:9-10

In the first year of Darius the Mede. ] Who now began to think of sending home the captive Jews, but had some hesitations and fluctuations of mind about it.

I stood to confirm and to strengthen him. ] Angels cannot enlighten the mind, or powerfully incline the will of man, for so the Holy Ghost only doth; but, as instruments of the Holy Ghost, they can stir up phantasms of the Word read or heard. They can also propose truth and right to the mind, advise and persuade to it as counsellors, and inwardly instigate as it were by speaking and doing after a spiritual manner, suggesting good thoughts, as devils do evil; yea, they can strangely wind themselves into men’s imaginations, so as to appear to them in their dreams. Mat 1:20

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

Daniel Chapters 10 and 11

It is plain that chapters 10, 11, 12 are one continuous subject, and show us the circumstances in which Daniel received this last, and in some respects most remarkable of all his prophecies. For, in the whole compass of divine writ, there is no such circumstantial and minute statement of historical facts, and that, too, running down from the Persian monarchy, under which Daniel saw the vision, till the time when all the powers of this world shall be obliged to bow to the name of the Lord. Not that the prophecy runs on from the time of the Persian Empire to the reign of Christ without a single break: that would indeed be contrary to the analogy of all the rest of God’s word. But we have, first of all, a concise, and, at the same time, clear, statement of the facts, until we come to a remarkable personage, who was the type of the great and notorious leader of the opposition to God’s people at the close of the present age. Having brought us up to this, the prophecy breaks off, and then at once spans over the interval, and gives us “the time of the end”; so that we can understand how it is that there is that gap. For the present I must close where the break comes in. Upon a future occasion, I hope, the Lord willing, to take up the antitypical crisis at the close, which begins with Dan 11:36 . We shall find that it is not confined to any particular evil one; but that in the end of the chapter we have the conflicts of the leaders of that day in and round the Holy Land. And then Dan 12 shows us the dealings of God with His own people, until they and Daniel himself shall stand in their lot at the end of the days: this last – that is to say, the blessing of God’s people, or at least of the godly remnant – being the great object of the close.

“In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar,” etc. Daniel, we find, had not taken advantage of the decree of Cyrus, which went out two years before, leaving the Israelites at liberty to return to their own land, according to prophecy. Daniel was still in the scene of the captivity of the Jews. But more than that, the Spirit of God draws attention to the state of the prophet’s soul. He was not enjoying himself in a stranger-land, but mourning and fasting; and this, in circumstances where he had all, of course, at his command. He was found, as it is said, eating no pleasant bread, “neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.” Now surely it is not for nothing that the Spirit of God has shown us Daniel, not only before the decree of Cyrus was issued, but afterwards, in such an attitude before the Lord. We can all understand, when the moment approached for the little remnant to leave Babylon and return to the land of their fathers, that he should be found chastening his own soul before God, and passing in review the sin that had occasioned so fearful a chastening upon the people from the Lord – although he was even then doing exactly the contrary of what the flesh would have sought under these circumstances. For when some great outward mercy is vouchsafed, then is the time when man naturally is apt to give rather a loose rein to his enjoyment. In Daniel we see the contrary of this. He took the place of confession; and of confessing the sins, not merely of Israel, but his own. All was before him. None but a holy man could have so deep a sense of sin. But the same energy of the Holy Spirit, which gives real self-abasement, enables one also in love to take in the sad and abject condition of God’s people. Such thoughts as these seem to have filled the soul of Daniel when he found out, by the prophecy of Jeremiah, that deliverance was just at hand for Israel. There was no kind of exultation over a fallen enemy – no shouts of triumph because the people were to go free; although Cyrus himself considered it a high honour that God had made him to be the instrument of both. Well might a man of God ponder over what sin had wrought, when the Lord could not even speak of Israel as His people, although faith in Daniel only the more led him to plead that they were.

Here the decree had gone forth according to his expectation. The Persian conqueror had opened the door for the prisoners of hope to leave Babylon, and those who pleased had gone back to their own land. Daniel was not among these. Instead of now anticipating nothing but bright visions of immediate glory, he is still found, and found more than ever, in a posture of humiliation before God. When the reason of this prolonged term of fasting comes out, we are let into the connection of the world that is seen with that which is unseen. The veil is not merely raised from the future, for all prophecy does this; but the statement of the vision here given us discloses, in an interesting light, what is around us now, but unseen. Daniel was permitted to hear it, in order that we might know it, and might also have the consciousness for ourselves, that, beside the things that are seen, there are things invisible, far more important to the people of God than all man looks upon.

If there are conflicts upon earth, they flow from higher conflicts – the angels contending with these evil beings, the instruments of Satan, who constantly seek to thwart the counsels of God with regard to the earth. This comes out remarkably here. We know that angels have to do with the saints of God; but we may not have discerned so clearly, that they have to do also with the outward events of this world. The light of God here shines upon the subject, so that we are enabled to understand, that there is not a movement of the world but what is connected with the providential dealings of God. And angels are the instruments of executing His will; they are expressly said to do His pleasure. On the other hand, there are those that oppose God constantly: evil angels are not found wanting. Those who are not alive to this certainly lose something, because it gives us a far stronger view of the necessity of having God as our strength. Were it a mere question between man and man, we could understand that one person, in the consciousness of his strength or his wisdom, or other resources, might not fear another. But if it is a fact, that we have to contend with powers that are immensely superior to us in everything of outward intelligence and might (for angels “excel in strength,” as we are told), it is clear that we are thrown, if we are to be conquerors, upon the support of Another, who is mightier than all that can be against us. The faith that thus counts on God is a deliverance from anxiety about all that is taking place in the world. For although there are wicked spirits, and men are only as the pieces that are moved by them in the game of this life, yet, in fact, there is a supreme hand and mind that leads to the moves, behind the scene and unknown to the persons acting. This gives a much more solemn character to our thoughts of all that occurs here below.

Besides these angels, another appears on the scene: “a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz.” He, of whom we have so magnificent a description in verse 6, and whom Daniel alone sees, does not appear to have been a mere angel. He may have been seen in some features of angelic glory; but I conceive this is One, who often appears both in New and Old Testament history – the Lord of glory Himself. He appears now as a man – as One, who had the deepest sympathy with His servant upon the earth. All others had fled to hide themselves, Daniel abode: nevertheless, there remained no strength in him his comeliness was turned into corruption. Even a beloved man and faithful saint of God must prove that all his past wisdom was unavailing; for he was now a very aged man, and had been singularly faithful to the Lord. At this very time he was the one who best realized the true condition of Israel. For he saw well that a long time must elapse before the Messiah must come, and the revealing angel had announced that the Messiah should be cut off and have nothing. No wonder, then, that he was mourning. Others might be full of their bright hopes, that the Messiah would soon appear and exalt them as a nation in the world. But Daniel was found mourning and fasting; and now the vision passes before him, and this blessed Person reveals Himself to him. Yet, spite of all the love that rested upon him – spite of his familiar knowledge of God’s ways, and the favour that had been shown him in previous visions, Daniel is made thoroughly conscious of his own utter weakness. All his strength crumbled into dust before the Lord of glory. And this has a moral for us of no little moment. However much may be the value of what a saint has learnt, the past alone does not enable us to understand the new lesson of God. God Himself is necessary for this – not merely what we have learnt already. I think that this is a weighty truth, and most practical. We all know the tendency in prudent men to lay up a store for the time to come. I do not deny the value of spiritual knowledge in various ways – whether in helping others, or in ourselves forming a right and holy opinion of circumstances that are passing round. But where the Lord brings out something not previously learnt, then Daniel, spite of all that he had known before, is utterly powerless. He is most of all prostrated in this last vision, and realizes more than ever the nothingness of everything within him. He is thrown entirely upon God for power to stand up, and enter into what the Lord was about to make known to him. The same thing appears as to John, who had lain in the Saviour’s bosom while on earth, and of all the disciples had most entered into His thoughts. Yet, let that Saviour stand before him in His glory, to make known to him His mind about the future, and what was even the apostle John? The Lord has to lay His hand upon him, bidding him fear not. He has to encourage him by what He was himself – the Living One, who had died but was alive again, and had the keys of death and hades. Therefore it was that he was to listen with the most perfect confidence, because this was what Christ is. There was no power but must fail before Him.

Here Daniel, in his measure, enters into this. The death of the flesh must always be realized before the life of God can be enjoyed. This is important, practically. In the grace that brings salvation, it is not that death must be learnt first, and life afterwards. Life in Christ comes to me as a sinner, and that life exposes the death in which I lay. If I must realize my death in order for that life to come to me, it would be evidently man set into his true place, as a preparation for his blessing from God. This is not grace. “That which was from the beginning . . . which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.” That is to say, it is the person of Christ Himself, who comes and brings the blessing. After that, the soul learns that “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.” It learns that if we say we have light, or fellowship with Him who is light, and yet walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. All the practical learning of what God is, and what we are, follows the manifestation of life to us in the person of Christ. If you speak of the order as to a sinner, it is sovereign grace which gives life in Another; but if of the order of progress in the believer, it is not so. The believer, having already got life, must mortify all that pertains to him merely in nature, in order that the life should be manifested and strengthened. This is all-important for the saint, as the other is for the sinner. Man in his natural state does not believe that he is dead, but he is labouring to get life. He wants life; he has none. It is Another alone that brings and gives it to him in perfect grace – seeing only evil in him, but coming with nothing but good, and bringing it in love. This is Christ. But in the believer’s case, having already found life in Him, there must be the judgment of the evil, in order that the new and divine life should be developed and grow. So that, while to the one it is life, exposing the death, and meeting the man in death, and delivering him from it, to the other it is the practical putting to death everything that has already existence naturally in him. All this must have the sentence of death put upon it, in order that the life be unhindered in its growth and manifestation.

Daniel was proving this, as the practical means of entering into, and being made the suited witness of, the wonders that the Spirit of God was about to bring before him. Hence, whatever might have been the favour in which he stood – and he was “a man greatly beloved” – nevertheless, death must be realized by his soul. “And when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling. Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.” And then we have an intimation conveyed to him how it was that there had been such a delay. “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one-and-twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.” Here, I apprehend, we have another person speaking. Not the first and glorious One that Daniel had seen, but one used as a servant – an angel, in fact, that the other employed. The last chapter will prove clearly that there was more than one person sent: and it is plain, from the language of the speaker, that he is subordinate. Daniel is encouraged by learning that, from the first day that he had set his heart to understand and to chasten himself before God, his words were heard. He did not receive the answer the first day nor the second. Not until one-and-twenty days after did the answer arrive, and yet it was sent from God the very first day. Of course, He could at once have given it. But what then? First of all, the terrible struggle, that is always raging between the instruments of God and the emissaries of Satan, would not have been so clearly understood. Then, again, faith and patience would not have had their perfect work.

I am not forgetting, that the Holy Ghost is sent down now to dwell in the hearts of believers in a way not known then. For, although the Spirit of God was always at work in the holy prophets and in holy men, yet the abiding indwelling of the Holy Ghost was that which was not, and could not be, till Jesus was glorified, and the great work of redemption was wrought, in virtue of which the Holy Ghost was sent down from heaven to take His abode in the hearts of those that believe, the seal of the blessing which is theirs in Christ. So that, besides the outward providential care of God, so beautifully brought out here, we have that blessed Divine Person constituting our bodies the temple of God. Yet the outward struggles go on. The same thing, that hindered Daniel from having the manifest answer to his prayer, may hinder us from having the answer of circumstances. The answer of faith we ought always to reckon on at once; the answer of circumstances, governed of God, so as to bring out a manifest answer, we may have to wait for. Daniel had to wait, and the reason is given us. From verse 13 we learn, that although God had sent the answer from the very first day, the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood for twenty-one days – exactly the time that Daniel was kept in mourning and fasting before God. “But, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.” Plainly it is an angel that speaks. It would be derogatory to the Lord to suppose, that He was the One who needed help from one of His own angels. But Michael was mentioned here, because he was well known to be the archangel, who took a special guardian care over the nation of Israel. So that, however people may make a mock at the truth of the interposition and guardianship of angels, yet Scripture is quite clear about it. Romanism, as we know, has made them objects of adoration. But the truth itself is of special interest.

That angels are employed of God in particular services is plain from the word of God. Nor was this merely a new truth. We find that Jude mentions, as a well-known circumstance, the contention of Michael the archangel with the devil about the body of Moses. The same truth comes out again in this. It was Michael’s care over the Jewish people. He knew their tendency to idolatry, and that the man, whom they had rebelled against during life, they would make an idol of after his death. And thus, Michael, as the instrument of blessing on God’s part to Israel, contends with Satan, so that the body of Moses was not found; the Lord is said to have buried it, though the instrument that the Lord employed was Michael. Now here we have this interesting ray of light cast upon earthly circumstances. The powers of this world may be governing, but angels have not given up their functions. There are the devil and his angels, and Michael and the holy angels with him, brought forward again in the last book of the Bible. The facts of Christ having come, and of the Holy Ghost having been given, do not supersede this. On the contrary, we know that there will be one most tremendous conflict at the close between the holy angels and the wicked ones, when the heavens shall be for ever cleared of those evil powers, which had for so long defiled them. This is most interesting, as showing the perfect patience of God. Because we know, that with a word He could put down the devil and all his host. But he does not. He allows Satan even to venture into the lower heavens – nay, still to have possession of them. Therefore it is that he is called “the prince of the power of the air,” as he is called elsewhere “the prince” and “the god of this world.” But I believe it is only there that he is prince. We never read of such a thing as Satan being prince in hell. It is a favourite dream of great poets, and of small ones too; but we never read of it in Scripture. The Bible shows us, that his real power now is either in the heavens or on the earth; but that when he is broken, both in his heavenly usurpation first, and then in his earthly power, he is cast down to hell; and that, instead of being a king in hell, he will be the most miserable object of the vengeance of God. The solemn thing is, that he is reigning here now, and people do not feel it. His worst reign is that which he acquired – not that which he had before. The death of Christ, although it is the ground on which he will eventually lose all his power, was, nevertheless, the means by which he became the great usurping power, opposing God in all His thoughts about this world. But here is a thought that is of importance for us. If God permits such a thing as this – if He allows the presence of this evil one, the enemy of His Son in heaven itself – if, instead of the crucifixion of Christ leading God to deprive Satan of all his power, we find him after this displaying His greatest long-suffering, what a lesson it all is for us not to trouble ourselves about circumstances! No man has ever trodden these unknown regions; there has been none to tell us about them except the word of God, which lays it bare before us. We do not know all, of course; but we know enough to see that there is this tremendous power of evil opposed to God, and that the power of God is always and infinitely mightier than the power of evil. Evil is but an accident, which has got into the world through the rebellion of the creature against God. By “accident,” I mean that it was only the creature’s interrupting for a time the purposes of God; while in truth it but served to bring them out with brighter lustre. To bless heaven and earth was the plan of God, and this will stand. Evil will be banished from the scene, and evil men will suffer the awful consequences of having rejected the only good and blessed One in Christ, the Lord.

But while the certainty of all has been made known to faith before the execution of the thoughts of God, we have the view opened to us of the grave conflict meanwhile that is unseen. This puts faith to the test. Daniel had to go on waiting, mourning, praying, spreading out all before God. We see in him the perseverance of faith – praying always. And how was not his faith rewarded! For when the angel does come, he makes known this at the bidding of the glorious One, who had first appeared to Daniel. It was the prince of the kingdom of Persia who had withstood him one-and-twenty days; but Michael had come to his help.

I may also observe, that we have an important hint, in the next verse, of the main objects to which God had an eye in this prophecy. Only persons who have read much know the torture the chapter has suffered through men bringing their own thoughts to explain it by. The pope, of course, has been very prominently introduced into it. And then the daring soldier of the early days of this century was found in it too: I allude, of course, to Napoleon. In short, whatever has been going on in the world of extraordinary interest persons have tried to find in Dan 11 .Dan 10:14 puts to the rout all such thoughts. “I am come,” says the angel, “to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days. for yet the vision is for many days.” Nothing can be plainer. It is put as a sort of frontispiece to the prophecy to show, that the great thought of God for the earth is the Jewish people, and the main design of this prophecy is what must befall them in the latter days. We have the series of the history almost from the day in which Daniel lived, but the latter days are the point of it. Prophecy in general may afford to give a little earnest close at hand, but we never see the full drift of it, save in the latter day; and then the thoughts and plans of God always have, as their earthly centre, the Jews and their Messiah. I do not mean to deny that the Church is a far higher thing than the Jews, and the relations of Christ to the Church nearer and deeper than His relations to the Jews. But you do not lose Christ and the Church, because you believe in His link with Israel Nay, if you believe not this, you confound them with your own relations to Christ; and both are lost, as far as definite knowledge and full enjoyment go. This is for want of looking at Scripture as a whole. If Dan 10 had been read as an introduction to Dan 11 , such a mistake might not have been made. But some read Scripture very much as others preach it. A few words are taken, and are made the motto of a discourse, which perhaps has no real connection with the scope of that passage – perhaps not with any other in the Bible. The thoughts may be true enough abstractedly, but what we want is a help to understand the word of God as a whole, as well as the details. If you were to take a letter from a friend, and were merely to fasten upon a sentence or a part of one, in the middle of it, and dislocate it from the rest, how could you understand it? And yet Scripture has infinitely larger connections than anything that could be written on our part; and therefore there ought to he far stronger reasons for taking Scripture in its connection than the little effusions of our own mind. This is a great key to the mistakes which many estimable people make in the interpretation of Scripture. They may be men of faith too; but still it is difficult to rise above their ordinary habits. The prophecy before us shows the importance of the principle I have been insisting on. Take the ordinary books on this prophecy – no matter when, where, or by whom written, and you will find that the great effort is to make a centre of their own days, etc. Here is the answer to all. Neither Rome, nor the papacy, nor Napoleon, is the object of the prophecy, but “what shall befall my people [Daniel’s people, the Jews] in the latter days.”

We then find Daniel expressing in humbleness of mind his unfitness for receiving such communications. First, one like the similitude of the sons of men touches his lips, and he is instructed to speak unto the Lord. He confesses his weakness – that there was no strength left in him. But “there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me, and said, O man, greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be strong.” Men, until they are thoroughly established in peace, until their hearts know the real source of strength, are not capable of profiting by prophecy. Here we find Daniel set upon his feet, his mouth opened, his fears hushed, before the Lord can open out the future to him. His heart must be in perfect peace in the strength of the Lord, and in the presence of his God. Anxiety of spirit, the want of settled peace, has more to do than people think with the little progress that they make in understanding many parts of God’s word. It is not enough that a man have life and the Spirit of God; but there must be the breaking down of the flesh and the simple, peaceful resting in the Lord. Daniel must go through this scene, in order to fit him for what he is to learn; and so must we in our measure. We must realize that same peace and strength in the Lord. If I am in terror of the Lord’s coming, because I am not sure how I shall stand before Him, how can I honestly rejoice that it is so near? There will be a hindrance in my spirit to the clear understanding of the mind of God on that subject. The reason of this lack of competence is not want of learning, but of being thoroughly established in grace – the want of knowing what we are in Christ Jesus. No matter what other things there may be – nothing will repair this sad deficiency. I speak now of Christian men. As for mere scholars dabbling in these things, it is as completely out of their sphere as a horse would be in being set to judge of the mechanism of a watch. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: . . . neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” It is only a scribe of this age meddling with what belongs to another world, of which he knows nothing.

We have a rapid survey of what was about to befall Israel in the latter days. It is the same speaker here as in Dan 10 . “Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. And now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia.” There we have the succession of Persian monarchs from Cyrus. Scripture does show us who these were, although their names are not mentioned here. I would refer you to Ezr 4 , where will be found these very three kings mentioned. In Ezr 4 the occasion arose out of the attempt of the enemies of Israel to stop the building of the temple; and these hired “counsellors against them to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus, king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius, king of Persia.” Now in order to understand that chapter, you must bear in mind that, from the sixth verse down to the end of verse 23, is a parenthesis. The beginning and end of the chapter refer to events during the reign of Darius. But the Spirit of God goes back to show that these adversaries had been working from the days of Cyrus till the days of Darius. Consequently, in the parenthesis, from verse 6-23 inclusively, you have the various monarchs that had come between Cyrus and Darius, whose minds the adversaries had been trying to work upon. “In the reign of Ahasuerus” ( i.e. the successor of Cyrus, called in profane history Cambyses), “in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.” Then we have the next king. “And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam,” etc. This is a different person from the Artaxerxes mentioned in Nehemiah, who lived at a later epoch, and is called in profane history Smerdis the magician, who by wicked means acquired the crown for a time, and lent an ear to the accusations against the Jews. This usurper was put to death through a conspiracy headed by Darius, not the Mede of Daniel, but the Persian spoken of in the Book of Ezra. Darius Hystaspes was his historical name. He follows immediately. Hence we have these three kings enumerated in Ezr 4 , exactly answering to the three in Dan 11:2 . Thus we find one part of Scripture throwing light upon another, without the need of going into the territories of man at all. “Behold there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia.” These came after Cyrus, and were called in Scripture, as we have seen, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, and Darius; and in profane history Cambyses, Smerdis the magician, and Darius Hystaspes. “And the fourth shall be far richer than they all; and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.” It is the celebrated Xerxes, who stirred up all against Greece. This confirms an idea thrown out on a former occasion, that the reason why the he-goat rushed with such fury against Persia was in return for the Persian assault upon Greece. Xerxes was the man who made that great attempt. His riches are proverbially known, and no event made so profound an impression on the world then as that expedition against Greece and its consequences.

In verse 3, Persia, the ram of Dan 8 , is dropped, and we find the he-goat of that chapter, or rather its horn. “A mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.” This is Alexander. “And when be shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven.” That was true at his death: the Greek Empire was then shivered into fragments. “And not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others besides those.” It was not to be a single head getting rid of the family of Alexander, and taking possession of all. His kingdom was to be divided into a number of parts, four more particularly; and out of these four divisions two acquire an immense importance. But what constitutes their chief importance here? When God speaks of things upon the earth, He always measures from Israel; because Israel is His earthly centre.

Hence it is, that the powers which meddle with Israel are those that in God’s view are important. This is the reason why the other kingdoms are not noticed; only those of the north and of the south. And why are they so described? Palestine is the place from which God reckons. The king of the north means north of the land that His eyes were upon: and the southern power means south of that same land. These are the countries commonly called Syria and Egypt. They are the two referred to throughout the chapter, the other divisions of Alexander’s empire being put aside. Only those are looked at which had to do with Israel. Now we are told that “the king of the south shall be strong” – he is the person well known as one of the Ptolemies or Lagidae – “and one of his princes” ( i.e. of the chiefs of Alexander); “and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.” This is another person, the first king of the north, who rises in strength above Ptolemy. In profane history he is called Seleucus. The descendants of both these and their strife are often spoken of in the history of the Maccabees. There minute accounts are given of the transactions predicted in this chapter; and of the two, what God says in few words is infinitely more to the point that man’s elaborate detail.

Put let us look a little at some of these events. “And in the end of years they [i .e. the kings of the north and of the south] shall join themselves together; for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement.” One remark before going further. In this chapter it is not the same king of the north, nor the same king of the south, that we have all the way through, but a great many that succeed each other. The same official title runs throughout. As people say in law, The king, or the queen never dies. That is just the way we are to fool; at it here. This sixth verse is an instance. “In the end of years they shall join themselves together.” They are not the same kings of the north and south, who had been spoken of in verse 5, but their descendants. “In the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement.” They made, not only an alliance, but a marriage between their families. “But she shall not retain the power of the arm.” The attempt to make a cordial understanding between Syria and Egypt, by marriage, would be a failure. Of course, this was exactly verified in history. There was such a marriage, and the king of the north even got rid of his former wife in order to marry the daughter of the king of the south. But it only made matters a great deal worse They had hoped to terminate their bloody wars, but it really laid the foundation of an incomparably deeper grudge between them. As it is said here, “Neither shall he stand, nor his arm; but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times. But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and prevail.” It was not her seed, but her brother – out of the same parental stock. She was one branch, and he another. The brother of this Bernice, daughter of the Egyptian king, comes up to avenge the murder of his sister, and prevails against the king of the north. Here we have the explanation confirmed of what the kingdom of the south is. “He shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the north. So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land.” There we see Egypt triumphant for a time; but the tide was soon to turn. “His sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come [the other disappeared], and overflow and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress. And the king of the south shall he moved with choler.” Now comes another war al a subsequent date; and this time it is the south returning the blow of the north. “The king of the south. . . shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand.” There the Spirit of God refers to several notable facts. The two principal actors are the kings of Syria and Egypt. The land of Israel, that lay between them, was a sort of burdensome stone to these kings who made it their battle-field, which ever went to the conqueror. If the king of the north was victorious, Palestine fell under Syria; and in the same way if the king of Egypt got the better. But God never allowed rest to those who took His land. They might intermarry and contract alliances; but it only proved the prelude to graver outbreaks – brothers, sons, grandsons, etc., taking up the quarrels of their kindred. “The Scripture cannot be broken.” All was distinctly laid down beforehand.

“And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it.” Then we find that the king of the north returns and “sets forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches. And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision.” Allow me to call attention to these words. It at once settles the question that might be asked – How do you know that Daniel’s people do not mean God’s people in a spiritual sense? The answer is given here – “the robbers of thy people.” This at once puts aside the plea for a spiritual sense. We could hardly talk about “robbers” in that case. This confirms what ought not to have needed further evidence – that Daniel’s people mean the Jewish people, and nothing else. Here we find that some of the Jews form a connection with one of these contending monarchs of the north. These are called here “the robbers of thy people,” and take the part of Antiochus, the king of the north, against Ptolemy Philopater, or rather his son; but all came to nought. The Syrian king might hope that, by bringing in this new element, by getting the countenance of the Jews, perhaps God would be with him. But no. They were the robbers of the people – unfaithful to God, and not holding fast their separation from the Gentiles. They, too, might think to establish the vision, “but they shall fall.”

“So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will [that is, the king of the north], and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.” Another remarkable thing that we see here is, that the Spirit of God still holds to the importance of that little strip of land – the territory of Palestine. It was God’s gift to God’s people. Whatever might be its deplorable condition, it is the glorious land still. God repents not of His purposes: “He will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land.” And if, when it is a question of God’s earthly purposes, He thus holds to them, spite of every hindrance, what will He not do for His heavenly people? Who can doubt that He will bring them to heavenly glory with Christ?

“He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.” This is another attempt at marriage; only it is the converse. It is not now the king’s daughter of the south coming to the king of the north; but the king of the north gives his daughter Cleopatra to the king of the south, hoping that she will maintain Syrian influence at the court of Egypt That is what is called here “corrupting her”; because it was plainly contrary to the very essence of the marriage-tie: it was an attempt to use her in order to serve his political purposes “But she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.” The reasons of state – the innermost secrets of their hearts, alike come out here.

There is another disgrace, which is not only known to God, but is made known to His servants. “After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him.” That is, Antiochus meddles with Greece, and takes many of the isles; but this other prince, for his own behalf, takes up the contest against the king of the north. Here we have the entrance upon the scene of a new power – the first allusion to the Romans. A Roman consul is meant by the prince that comes on his own behalf against the king of the north. He will not allow Greece to be touched. It was one of the Scipios who interfered. “Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, – and not be found.” He is obliged to return to Syria, but he shall stumble and fall.

”’Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom. The Romans, who defeated the father, obliged his son to raise a heavy annual tribute. That was all that the. poor man did during his life. “Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes…. but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.” He was killed by one of his own sons. “And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant. And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.” This is the man who typifies the last king of the north. Called in profane history Antiochus Epiphanes, he was morally abominable, but most notorious for his interference with the Jews; first by flattery and corruption, and afterwards by violence. This is the man the Spirit of God dwells most on, because he most meddled with Israel, the glorious land, and the sanctuary. He it was who enforced idolatry in the temple itself, setting up an image to be worshipped even in the Holy of Holies. Therefore it is that he acquires importance. Otherwise he was a man little known, except for daring wickedness. Nothing can be more simple. His history consists of intrigues, first against the king of the south, and shell against the Jews; and of various expeditions, in some of which he was successful at first but afterwards entirely defeated. “He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers…. And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand.” These kings meet and plan against each other, but all is vain. “Both these kings’ hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed. Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land [ie. in the north]. At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.” Then we have further details.

“For the ships of Chittim shall come against him.” There are these indefatigable Romans that come in again. They had dealt with his father when he had made an attack upon Greece; and now that the son had his hand over the throat of his prey, the Roman consul came, and at once forbade his doing anything further. He even drew a circle round him, as is well known, when the artful king wished to gain time to evade. The answer was demanded before he stepped out of the circle, and he was obliged to give it. This was a death-blow to all his policy. He went home a miserable, defeated man, with a heart vexed and infuriate, though putting on a humble appearance before the Romans. What should hinder him from wreaking out the anger of his heart upon the Jews? As it is said here, “Therefore shall he be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.” Poor as the Jews were, they were witnesses for God upon the earth; and Antiochus hastens to pour out his fury upon whatever bore a testimony to God among them. This was his ruin, and brought God’s vengeance upon him. “He shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant,” i.e. with the apostates of the Jews. “And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.” He will put an end to the Jewish service, and will set up an idol, “the abomination that maketh desolate,” in the temple of Jerusalem. It is a mistake to suppose that this refers to the last days. It is only a type of what will take place then. The latter part of the chapter, and the next chapter, do refer to the latter day in the full sense of the word. But here is the step of transition from what is past to the future.

We come down in regular historical order to Antiochus Epiphanes, and then meet with a great break. Scripture itself intimates as much. But Antiochus did on a small scale what the great northern king of the latter day will do on a larger one. It is said (verse 35)…. “even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.” There God stops. He says, as it were, I have come to the man that shows you in type what is to befall you in the latter days; and so He dwells emphatically upon this king, laying before them the extreme wickedness of his heart and conduct. The Spirit then cuts short the course of the history, and plunges at once into the last scene. This, however, must be reserved for another occasion. What we have seen shows us that whatever may be the general outline of events elsewhere, God can be, and sometimes is, singularly minute in the details of a prophecy, and nowhere more so than in this very chapter. And what is the main objection raised by infidels against it? That it must have been written after the events had taken place! Certain it is, that there is no historian since these times who gives us such an admirable account as we have in these few verses. If I want to know the history of these two contending monarchies, Syria and Egypt, I must look here. How entirely we can confide in the word of God about everything! It may be an exception to His general rule to dwell upon the kings of the north and of. the south, but He does so at times. The great thing on which He bestows care is the souls of His people. May our hearts answer to the interest He takes in us!

From the twenty-first verse we have had the account of the king of the north, known in profane history as Antiochus Epiphanes. The Spirit of God has entered into much fuller detail in speaking of his history, because his conduct, specially at the close, in meddling with the Jews, and their city, and their sanctuary, furnished the occasion for a type of the last king of the north, who will be found following in his predecessors’ wake, save that his guilt will be incomparably graver in the sight of God – so flagrant indeed, that His judgment can tarry no longer. This accounts for a circumstance that has often perplexed the students of Daniel’s prophecy. We read of an ”abomination that maketh desolate” in the predicted account of Antiochus (Dan 11:31 ); and it has been commonly supposed that our Lord refers to this in Mat 24:15 . Those who looked for the future fulfilment of this abomination have sought to reconcile it with the facts by the assumption that the Spirit of God must have branched off to the future personage that Antiochus represented. But in my judgment there is no need for anything so unnatural. Antiochus Epiphanes was only a type, and verse 31 does not go beyond his history, save as a foreshadowing.

In other words, to the end of verse 31 all is strictly historical – typical, of course, of the future, but nothing more. And therefore the answer to the difficulty that some find in our Lord’s quoting, as they suppose, Dan 11:31 , is really as plain as possible. He does not quote this verse. The passage He refers to is in Dan 12 . In Dan 12:11 , you will find an expression similar to this. “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety Jays.” There we. have a defined date, which connects this last setting up of the desolating abomination with the deliverance our Lord predicts in Mat 24 ; for Jacob’s most fiery trial is that which just precedes his deliverance.

Now there are more reasons than one for believing this passage in Dan 12 to be what our Lord cites. Some of them depend upon considerations more fit for the study than for public ministry. But the sum of the matter is, that the expressions the Holy Ghost employs, in Dan 11:31 and in Dan 12:11 , differ. In Dan 11:31 it means the abomination of him that desolates, or of the desolator. Whereas, in Dan 12:11 , the true meaning is that which is given in our Lord’s words – not the abomination of him that maketh desolate, but the “abomination of desolation”; which is, I suppose, what is meant in the English version by the words, “that maketh desolate.” Thus the two phrases are distinct. Although there is a resemblance between them, there is also a difference; and that difference is enough to show that our Lord spoke not of the abomination set up by Antiochus, but of that mentioned in Dan 12 . Consequently, there is, in fact, no difficulty to be removed; because the desolation spoken of in Dan 11 is past, and the desolation of Dan 12 , that our Lord draws attention to, is future.

That this is so, will appear from other considerations also. Thus, in the verses that follow, we have a state of things distinct from what will be in the future tribulation of Israel. “Such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.” Now we find from the Revelation, and other parts of Scripture which speak about the future of Israel, that the godly remnant could hardly be said to do exploits. They will suffer; but I do not think that deeds of power thus characterize the blessed ones who are to pass through the dreadful crisis of the future. In the days of Antiochus, it was not so much suffering, but being “strong,” and doing “exploits” – exactly what was true of the Maccabees and others, who undoubtedly were not so much a band of martyrs as a set of men who roused the spirit of Israel, and resisted the cruel and profane scourge of that day. Again, we read, “And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.” There is a long period, observe, of sorrow and trouble, that follows the outbursts of courage and prowess against the desolator, and this is still continued in the following verses. “Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.” Clearly, then, these trials are before the time of the end. The Spirit of God is here referring to what has already taken place. Accordingly we have a picture of terrible disaster that goes on, as it is said, “to the time of the end.”

From all this, I infer, then, that the Spirit of God singles out the desolation which then befell the people of Israel, and the defiling of the sanctuary under Antiochus or his generals. This brought vividly out the circumstances of the last days; but, along with them, certain other circumstances were added, which ought not to be expected in those days. In other words, we arrive at what may be called the long and dreary blank that severs the past history of Israel, and the struggles in their land against neighbouring aggressors, from the great crisis of the last days. This is where the true break occurs. Certain disasters were to go on “to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.” There is no place in the chapter where the interruption of the history so well fits in as after verse 35.

But now, in verse 36, we have another person abruptly introduced into the scene. We are not told who he was, or whence he came; but the character that is given of him, the scene that he occupies, the history that the Spirit of God enters into in connection with him – all declare, too plainly, that it is the terrible king who will set himself up in the land of Israel in personal antagonism to the Messiah of Israel, the Lord Jesus. He it was of whom our Lord spoke, when He said that, if they refused Him who had come in His Father’s name, they would receive another coming in his own name. Nor is this the only passage of Scripture, where this same false Christ, or rather Antichrist (for there is a difference between the terms), is described as “the king.” Not only are there different references to him under other epithets, but in the greatest and most comprehensive prophecy of Scripture, Isaiah, like Daniel, introduces “the king,” as if he must be known at once. In Isa 30 we have an enemy of Israel, called the Assyrian. Doubtless, looking at past history, Sennacherib was their great head in that day. But he only furnished the opportunity to the Spirit of God to bring out the future and final adversary of Israel. His fall is here brought before us. “For through the voice of the Lord, shall the Assyrian he beaten down, which smote with a rod. And in every place where the grounded star shall pass, which the Lord shall lay upon him, it shall he with tabrets and harps: and in battles of shaking will He fight with it.” After the end of that victory there will be exceeding joy for Israel; instead of the train of sorrow, which most victories bring, there follows unfeigned gladness before the Lord. “It shall be with tabrets and harps.” For the enemy there will be proportionate misery. Something still more awful and unending than temporal destruction falls upon the proud foe. “For Tophet is ordained of old: yea, for the king it is prepared; He hath made it deep and large: the pile therefore is fire and much wood; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.” In our version there is a singular obscurity’ remarked by another, in this verse At first sight it might appear that the Assyrian and “the king” were the same person. The true rendering is, “For the king also it is prepared” – that is, Tophet is prepared for the Assyrian, but besides, for THE KING also. Just as in our passage in Daniel, we have the Assyrian or king of the north on the one hand, and “the king” on the other. The same frightful end awaits them both. But I only refer to this now for the purpose of showing, that the expression, “the king,” is not unprecedented in Scripture, and that it applies to a notorious personage the Jews were taught in prophecy to expect. God, in judicial retribution for their rejection of the true Christ, would give them up to receive the Antichrist. This is “the king.” He would arrogate to himself the royal rights of the true King, the Anointed of God. Tophet was prepared for the king of the north, and also for “the king.”

But this is not all. In Isa 57 we have him introduced quite as unexpectedly. In Isa 55 are shown the moral qualities that God will produce in His people. In Isa 57 He shows us the fearfully iniquitous state then also found in Israel. And in that day God will no longer endure anything but reality. Forms of piety, covering uncleanness and ungodliness, will have passed away. There “the king” is suddenly introduced to us. (v. 9) “Thou wentest to the king with ointment, and didst increase thy perfumes, and didst send thy messengers far off; and didst debase thyself even unto hell.” To have to do with him was to debase oneself unto hell. No wonder that for “the king also” Tophet was prepared. This shows that, before the mind of Israel from the first, there was one that the Spirit of God led them to expect to reign over the land in the last days, who is called “the king.”

Thus at once is furnished a most important clue to Dan 11 . We are come to the time of the end. The blank is closed – the long dark night of Israel’s dispersion is well-nigh over. The Jews are in the land. In what condition” Are they under Christ? Alas! there is another and a terrible scene that must first be enacted there. “The king” that we have read of is there, and the course he pursues is just what we might expect from the landmarks of the Holy Ghost. “The king shall do according to his will.” Ah! are any of us sufficiently aware what a fearful thing it is to be the doers of our own will? Here is the end of it. It was the first great characteristic of sin from the beginning. It is what Adam did, and the fall of the world was the immediate result. Here is one who at that day may seem to be the loftiest and most influential of Adam’s sons. But he does “according to his will.” And nothing worse. Are we to read such a history as this without moral profit to our own souls? To forget what an evil thing it is ever to be the doers of our own will? Let none suppose that, because they may be in a position to rule, they are therefore outside the danger. Alas! it is not so: no one thing so unfits a person for righteous rule as the inability to obey. It is good first to know what it is to be subject. Oh! may it strike deep into all our hearts, that “the king,” the Antichrist, is first stamped as one doing his own will. May it test us how far we are seeking ours! – how far, under any circumstances, we are doing, or allowing anything, that we would not wish every soul in this world to see – perhaps even those that are nearest to us. Alas! one knows, from experience and observation, the difficulty and danger in these things from one’s own heart. Yet there is no one thing more contrary to that Christ whom we have learnt. We are sanctified “unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” It is not only to the blessing, in the sprinkling of the blood, but to the obedience of Jesus Christ – to the same spirit and principle of obedience; for that is the meaning of the expression. We are not like the Jews who were put under the law, and whose obedience had the character of obligation to do such and such things under penalty of death. We are already alive unto God, conscious of the blessedness in which we stand, and awakened to see the beauty of the will of God; for His will it is which has saved and sanctified us. This is our calling, and our practical work here below. Christians have no other business, properly speaking, than to do the will of Another. We have to do God’s will according to the character of the obedience of Christ – as sons delighting in the will of the Father. It does not matter what we may have to do. It may be one’s natural daily occupation. But do not make two individuals of yourselves – with one principle in your business or family, and another for the Church and worship of God. Never allow such a thought. We have Christ for everything and every day. Christ is not a blessing for us merely when we meet together or are called to die; but if we have Christ, we have Him for ever, and from the first moment we are emancipated from doing our own will. This we learn is death; but it is gone now in Christ’s death. We are delivered, for we are alive in Him risen. But what are we delivered for? To do the will of God. We are sanctified unto the obedience of Jesus Christ.

As for “the king,” you have in him the awful principle of sin which has always been at work, but which here exceeds all bounds. The moment has come when God will remove the providential checks which, up to that time, He will have put upon men, when Satan will be allowed to bring about all his plans; and that, too, in the very land whereon the eyes of God rest continually.

“The king shall do according to his will, and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself” – not only above every man, but “above every god.” And it is not only that he takes his place above these so-called gods, but “he shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods.” And strange to say (if one did not know the perfect wisdom of God, and could not wait for His counsels to be matured), in spite of his fearful profanity, “he shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that that is determined shall be done.” This clause contains a word that gives us the key to the passage. For some have found immense difficulties in this portion of the word of God. Many have transported into this verse the Pope of Rome, others Mahomet, or Buonaparte. But here we find that “the king” is to prosper till the indignation be accomplished. What, or about whom? Has God indignation against His Church? Never. This is the time, too, of God’s patience with man – not of His indignation. With whom, then, is it connected? The word of God is perfectly plain. It is when dealing with Israel that God speaks of indignation: I have already shown this fully from Isa 5:10 , Isa 5:14 , and other passages, as it is entirely confirmed by the whole nature of the revelation here. For we read of one that would be the king of Israel – not in Constantinople or Rome, but in Palestine. And the time is a future outburst of indignation against Israel in the promised land. He (the false king) shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished. “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women.” The expression, “the desire of women,” clearly, to my mind, refers to Christ – the One to whom all Jews were looking forward, and whose birth must have been above all things desired by Jewish women. It is plain from the connection that such is the true meaning. For it occurs between “the God of his fathers” (Jehovah) and “any god.” Nothing is less likely than, if it had merely referred to natural relationships, that it would have been thus placed. It was, probably, from the wish to apply this to the pope that such an interpretation has found currency. But let us only understand that the prophecy concerns Israel and their land, and all is plain. He shall not “regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women.” Christ is distinguished from “the God of his fathers,” perhaps, because the Son was to become incarnate. But Christ is regarded no more than the God of his fathers – an expression, by the way, which implies that he himself is a Jew. It is “the God of his fathers.” “For he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honour the god of forces.” It is not that he goes forward as Antiochus did, trying to force Jupiter Olympus upon the Jews; but he adopts a new superstition. This also disproves the reference to the Syrian king, who was a Gentile. Here it is a Jew, who will take the place of the Christ, and who, of course, regards neither the true Christ nor Jehovah. It is a self-exalting personage who opposes the true God, i.e. who equally sets aside the superstitions of men and the faith of God’s people. Self-exaltation is his marked feature.

But this is not all. The Antichrist will be infidel, but not merely infidel. He will have rejected the God of Israel, and the Messiah. Nor will he honour any of the gods of the Gentiles. But even this man, although he sets himself up as the true God upon the earth, will, for all that, have some one to whom he bows and causes others to bow along with himself. The human heart, even in Antichrist, cannot do without an object of idolatry. So, in ver. 38, there is this apparent inconsistency that comes out in the Antichrist. “But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces.” He makes a god, as well as setting himself up to be God. “A god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.” It is entirely an invention of his own. More than that. He will divide the land among his adherents. “He shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.” Such, then, is God’s account of the king that will be found in Palestine in the last days. And it is plain that this last verse is a most conclusive proof that he is in Palestine reigning. It is “the land.” The Spirit of God never so speaks of any other country. It was that land which was nearest to God – a sort of centre for all others.

Then we have a change in the history. “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him.” This confirms what was said before – that “the king” is found “at the time of the end.” Then “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.” The Spirit of God had long before spoken about the kings of the north and of the south. It was important to show, that at the time of the end these powers will have successors, who will make their push at “the king” in the Holy Land. “The king of the south” – that is, Egypt – and the “king of the north” – that is, the holder of the present Syrian possessions of the Sultan – these two persons shall make a movement against “the king” Not that they have a common policy: on the contrary, they seem bitter enemies one of another. But “the king” so exalts himself, arrogating to himself such pretensions in the Holy Land, that God permits the final catastrophe to arrive. The king of the south comes first, and then the king of the north, who it appears will be the great military and naval leader of the east in those days. “The king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. He shall enter also into the glorious land.” This can be no other land than that of Israel. The king is there. The northern king is a totally different person, an antagonist of “the king,” as well as the king of the south. The Spirit of God having introduced “the king,” without telling us whence he came, now drops that personage without telling us what became of him. His frightful destiny is shown us fully in other scriptures. But it was important to introduce him as an episode in Dan 11 , for the purpose of showing the last great conflict between the kings of the north and of the south. Accordingly he drops “the king,” and the rest of the chapter is occupied with the king of the north. He not only enters the glorious land, but he goes on with conquests elsewhere. “Many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.” We find from Isa 11 that this is a very notable fact. These borderers lived on the outskirts of the Holy Land. God so orders that, if they escape the king of the north, they are to be ravaged by the triumphant Israelites. God will not permit that the early and bitter enemies of Israel should meet with their righteous retribution from the hands of any but the people whom they had so sought to oppose and injure. Accordingly, it would appear from Isaiah, that, a very little after, the Israelites execute God’s judgment on them.

“He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.” From this we learn, that the king of the north is not acting as a colleague with the king of the south. He proceeds down to the south, where, it would appear (ver. 43), there will be a great development of material prosperity, whether from the resources of the land itself, or more probably from its becoming the great emporium of western and eastern commerce in that part of the world. “But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him” It is when he is down in the south, beyond Palestine, that he hears these rumours of perplexity in the north and east. He had come himself from the north, and was the conqueror over the east also; and now he has tidings from these quarters which agitate him. He hastens back from the land of Egypt and reaches Palestine. “And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas [that is between the Mediterranean and the Dead seas] in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” This is the doom of the once victorious king of the north – not of “the king” who was introduced by the way to show us the occasion of the final struggle between the north and south.

I would now desire to inquire whether there be not other scriptures of interest to connect with what we have just been looking at. In the close of Zechariah, we shall find information of great interest. Just a word or two first on Zec 11:16 . The Spirit of God there says, “Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock!” This I conceive is clearly the Antichrist – “the king.” For, looking at verse 16, we learn that this idol shepherd is in the land. “Lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit them that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.” This utter selfishness, and self-exaltation, and spoiling the flock, instead of feeding it and carrying the lambs in his bosom, is in frightful contrast with Christ, the Good Shepherd. Thus the false shepherd, Antichrist, is to be raised up in the land of Israel, and there he does not spare the flock of God.

But in Zec 12 we have another power. It is said, in verse 2, “Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.” There are nations gathering against Jerusalem: just as in Dan 11 , the king of the north comes down, and the king of the south. Nations assemble against Jerusalem while this idol shepherd is there. Jerusalem and the Jews are the object of attack. “And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” Victory seems to incline to the assailants of Israel. But none can then harden themselves against them and prosper, because the Lord will have identified Himself with them in that day. “In that day, saith the Lord, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah”; and then we have the way in which the Lord will defend His people in that day. But what may make it still plainer is that which we read in Zec 14:2 , “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.” Here we have additional disclosures that you would not have gathered from Zec 12 . Thus we learn that “the city shall be taken …. and half of the city shall go forth into captivity”; evidently distinguishing this future siege from the past. When the Chaldeans took the city, they carried all away captive. When the Romans took it, all they spared were made prisoners. Here we have another siege, in which half will be taken and the other half not. And if anything can more clearly mark off the future from the past, it is that the nations, having taken half of the city, will not pursue their victory farther. Why? “Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when He fought in the day of battle. And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the cast.” Who can pretend that this has ever been accomplished? Who can say that the Lord has thus come and stood upon the Mount of Olives? How can you reconcile the past with such a statement as this? The Lord has never been on Jerusalem’s soil as a conqueror since that day. Was it thus when Titus besieged it? Do you try to explain it away as merely a providential deliverance? But, I ask, Were they delivered then? They were taken captive. Jerusalem’ to this day, remains trodden down of the Gentiles, and must, till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. But the passage indicates the times of the Gentiles closing in, the end of Gentile oppression. When this day is verified, and the Lord goes forth to fight against those nations, His feet shall stand upon the Mount of Olives. And, as a mark that this is not to be allegorized, we find that the Spirit adds, that the Mount of Olives is to split in twain – an outward physical proof that the Lord God has planted His feet there. “The Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.” “Ye shall flee to the valley of the mountain,” – that is, it will form a valley between the two – “for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal …. and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with Thee.” There, again, we find a most clear proof that there is a future siege of Jerusalem, and that this siege will be characterized by two attacks. The first attack will be successful against Israel: half the city will be taken, and all the miseries of a frightful siege will follow, as far as half the city is concerned; but the other half is reserved for the Lord, who will bring the third part through the fire. He will put Himself at their head, and crush all the nations of the earth that come together against Jerusalem. Thus the second attack will be to the ruin of those that make it. If we connect this with Daniel, how plain is the additional light that we get! The king of the north first comes down when the king of the south is pushing at “the king” in the Holy Land. There is a simultaneous assault made upon Israel, to destroy the people in the land, who, alas! deserve it. But in the midst of evil there will be a godly seed. God will employ these assailants to do the work of the executioner. The wicked will be taken away; and, when God has purged those that remain, there will come another scene. The king of the north, having been successful in his first attack, pursues his way towards Egypt, against the king of the south. He comes there, but tidings from the north and east trouble him, and he returns to his own destruction.

Meanwhile, we may ask, what is become of “the king”? Has he been destroyed in the collision between the kings of the north and of the south, that had taken place in the land? No. What then is become of him? How does he fall? “By the brightness of the appearing” of the Lord from heaven. He is reserved for the hand of God Himself. He will be cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. “For the king also it is prepared.” Thus we have the Old Testament and the New giving us one concurrent testimony. It will be by no ordinary doom of ruined man that he will perish. It is God departing from all His ordinary ways of dealing with the wicked. Men have been from time to time taken up in the grace of God from this world without passing through death; and there are men for whom it is destined of God to be sent down alive into hell – the terrible contrast of those, who are alive when Christ comes, waiting to be taken up to heaven. It will be so with that wicked one, the idol shepherd – “the king” – and not with him only. The king of the north is a bolder enemy still. “The king” has set himself up in the land, corrupting and apostatizing the people of Israel. He has met with his doom. If only the slightest word of the judgment that had been executed in the land were to reach the king of the north, we can understand how he would be troubled. Whether that is the cause of his hasty return to Palestine, or because the ten tribes were in movement, I do not pretend to say. We are not told. But he comes up to the Holy Land again; and, this time, it is to fall under the immediate hand of God – not with the sword of a mighty man, nor with the sword of a mean man. Not man, but God, will execute the vengeance upon him. Here we find the reason why there were two attacks. After his first assault on Jerusalem, he has gone down into the south, and has pursued certain conquests there. Excited by the tidings referred to, he hastens to return, hoping now to have it all his own way. “Then shall the Lord go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fought in the day of battle.”

But I must also ask you to look, before closing, at one or two other passages. Take Isa 28 and 29, where you will find abundant confirmation of all that I have touched upon in this closing scene. In Isa 28 you will observe that there are two great powers of evil connected with the land of that day – one “the king,” who is in relation with the people, and in the land; the other the king of the north, who comes down as an antagonistic power.* We shall find both these in this chapter. First, Ephraim is mentioned, and the Lord pronounces woe upon “the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower…. Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand.” There, I apprehend, you have the inroad of the Assyrian as the dreadful storm from the north, that would break forth upon Ephraim. If we look at the middle of the chapter, we shall find another thing. We have seen what was the condition of Ephraim, who dwelt in the outskirts of the country. But what was the destiny of Jerusalem, the capital? “Because ye have said” (ver. 15), “We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement.” There we have evidently what is connected with “the king” who will be in Jerusalem, and who will form a compact with “the beast,” the great imperial power of that day, to whom Satan will have given his throne. There is full harmony between what we have in Isaiah and Revelation and Daniel. “We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us.” Mark that. The overflowing scourge is the king of the north, the outside power that is coming down upon them. They of Jerusalem have made a covenant with death and with hell (that is, with instruments of Satan) in that day: and they hope by this means to escape the king of the north. I have already shown that “the beast,” the great power of the west, will be in connection with “the king” at Jerusalem – that the western parts will be the great seat of the beast – that he will command all Europe that properly belonged to the Roman Empire. When that empire is reorganized, he will be the main instrument of using its strength. “The king” will have made a covenant with him; or, as it is said in Dan 9 , he, that is, the Roman prince, will make a covenant with the mass of the Jews. At the close, both are found in Jerusalem, fighting against the Lord and His saints coming from heaven. They will find their supposed strength in this covenant, but it will not stand. The overflowing scourge (the Assyrian) sweeps on, and half the city of Jerusalem is taken. How marvelously does Scripture hang together! Then (Isa 28:16 ) comes in the reference to the Lord’s laying a foundation stone in Zion, which is evidently a word for the faithful remnant of that day, however true for us who believe now.

* Mr. Elliott ( Horae Apoc., 5th ed., vol. iv., p. 735, note 4, ) makes it to be an essential part(!) of the futurist theory that the Antichrist is, during part of the last three and a half years to be occupied in besieging Jerusalem from without. That some writers, ancient and modern, have fallen into this stupendous mistake, is plain enough. but Mr. E’s assertion is totally unfounded. The truth is (and Mr E. ought to know it well), that very many authors, both historical and futurist, have been guilty of confounding “the king” with “the king of the north,” at the close of Dan 11 , and elsewhere, but it is false that the error is essential to futurism more than to the Protestant school. Not a few beside myself had seen and avoided this confusion before Mr. E’s book was written.

Isa 29 is the last portion to which I wish to refer. There we have the closing desolation of the city. “Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! . . . Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow: and it shall be unto me as Ariel. And I will camp against thee round about and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.” This is the siege spoken of in Zechariah. “And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground,” etc. That is their condition when they are desolated. But mark, in verse 5: “Moreover the multitude of thy strangers shall be like small dust…. Thou shalt be visited of the Lord of Hosts with thunder, and with earthquake …. And the multitude of all the nations that fight against Ariel …. and that distress her, shall be as a dream of a night vision.” The Lord has gone forth and fought with those nations as when He fought in the day of battle. Sufficient evidence is thus brought from various parts of the word of God, which entirely falls in with, and throws light upon, the very interesting portion of Daniel now before us. All concur in showing most clearly that there is a terrible future for the apostate Jews and their western associates; and no less terrible for their confederate eastern adversaries. The covenant with hell will not stand. When the great powers of the world will have, apparently, swept all before them, and have gathered for the last great struggle before Jerusalem, God will take that opportunity for dealing with them after His long term of patience. It will be the closing scene. They will think that universal monarchy is to be in their hands; but it will be God’s day for summoning them to judgment. Here I speak of a judgment of nations and of kings – not of the dead before the great white throne. (Rev 20:11-15 )

God is about to deal with the earth – with men in the midst of all their plans. The regeneration of the world will be the great day when the Lord, having weeded out of Israel the transgressors, and used “the king” himself, and the judgment that fell upon him, to separate the true ones of Judah from the wicked, will cause the hour to chime when the account must be settled with the nations. This appears to me to be the simple, straightforward statement of the truth of God that we have here. We are not to suppose it is merely a question of one great power only. There will be different principles at work. And it is an awful thing to think that these lands, where we enjoy such privileges, are to be then overspread with the deepest darkness. The covenant with death and with hell will be because of an alliance made with the highly civilized western world. What a humbling thing for the pride of man! Civilization in a day that is past did not keep the mightiest minds from degrading idolatry and filthiness. Alas! we shall have a still worse scene at the close. Christendom will end in restored idolatry, in novel false gods, in man himself worshipped as God. Such, I believe, is the predicted future of this age. But love can keep the heart the same from being entangled with all that leads to it – Christ Himself. May we be occupied with Him, not building upon men’s foundations, not hoping their hope, not trusting to progress, or even to religion, so called! If Christ is my object in everything, safety is found there, and nowhere else.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

This verse is parenthetical, to tell us what the angelic speaker had done two years previously (426 B.C.)

Darius the Mede is the same king as in Dan 9:1, i.e. Cyrus.

stood = was at my station.

him: i.e. Michael.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Now He begins to reveal unto Daniel these things are going to transpire, as far as the future is concerned. And here Daniel gets into such interesting details that many of the Bible critics have a difficult time with the eleventh chapter of the book of Daniel. And they say that it was actually written in the year 166 B.C., after all of these events took place, because it was impossible that he could have written of these events until they had happened. However, that’s of course quite a miracle in itself, because the Septuagint version was made in about 220 or so B.C., and in the Septuagint the book of Daniel is included. They accepted it as written by Daniel and as authentic. At least sixty years before these critics say the book of Daniel was written. So it’s interesting that they could have had the copies sixty years before it was written and translated it into Greek. They say that figures don’t lie but liars can sure figure.

Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. And now I will show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia ( Dan 11:1-2 );

Darius was the king at this time. The three kings that would follow would be Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, and another Darius. These are in secular history known as Cambyses, pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius or Darius Hystaspes. So there will be three kings that will rise up.

and the fourth will be richer [this is Xerxes] than they all: and by his strength and through his riches he will stir up all against the realm of Grecia ( Dan 11:2 ).

Xerxes was very wealthy, very powerful. And he made an expedition against Greece and was able to defeat, but yet, not conquer Greece. And so that particular part was fulfilled; there were the three kings, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, Darius, and then Xerxes the fourth richer than the others made the expedition against Greece.

But then Greece will arise.

And a mighty king [Alexander the Great] shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom will be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; but not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those ( Dan 11:3-4 ).

So Alexander the Great will rise up, but when he falls the kingdom will not go to his family, to his posterity, nor will they receive the full extent of his dominion.

For the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above, and have dominion; and his dominion shall be a great dominion ( Dan 11:5 ).

The king of the south, and was, of course, the General Ptolemy, who took over in Egypt. General Seleucus took over in Syria. And there also was another general who took over in Greece, and another one who took over in Thracia. So Greece was divided into the four dominions. But he speaks now and he doesn’t bring up the Grecian or the Thracian kingdom, but only the Syrian and Egyptian, because they are the ones that relate to Israel. For in their wars, Israel was the middle ground between Syria and Egypt, and so in their fighting each other they had to pass through the land of Israel.

Now he begins to give some interesting details that were all fulfilled in history. “The king of the south will be strong, have a dominion. His dominion shall be a great dominion.”

And in the end of the years they shall join themselves together; for the king’s daughter ( Dan 11:6 )

The king of the north and the king of the south were fighting, but in the end they’ll join themselves together.

for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times ( Dan 11:6 ).

Now, what happened is that the king of Egypt gave his daughter, Berenice, to the king of the north, who divorced his wife in order to marry Berenice. But when Ptolemy died, then he got rid of Berenice and took his wife back again, who in turn poisoned him. And she killed also Berenice and her son. Now when Berenice had a son, the former queen, her sons were X’ed out according to the agreement. But when she poisoned her husband and killed Berenice and her sons, then of course her sons were in line again for the throne. And here Daniel tells all of this intrigue and everything else is going to take place. And then the brother of Berenice gathered together an army in Egypt and came up and destroyed this wife, who had poisoned her husband and had killed his sister. So, “and he that is begotten of her,” actually is referring to a family member which was her brother. And he strengthened her in these times.

And a branch of her roots [that is, her brother] shall one stand up in his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and prevail ( Dan 11:7 ):

Who was Ptolemy Euergetes, the brother of Berenice, who invaded Syria just as it’s described here.

He shall also carry away captives into Egypt with their gods, and their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the north. So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return to his own land. But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through ( Dan 11:8-10 ):

That is, his sons, the king of the north, who was defeated by Euergetes. And he will assemble… they will assemble a multitude of great forces. One shall certainly come and overflow and pass through.

then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress. And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand. And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it ( Dan 11:10-12 ).

This is Philopater, who is the Ptolemy Philopater who was the king of the south at this time. He gathered together a great army. Came against the king of the north, however, though he defeated him and took a lot of loot, the guy did not take full advantage and subjugate the people. He was too interested in the licentious life that he was living in Egypt. And so where it says here, “He will cast down many ten thousands,” he did destroy a lot of the army, “but he will not be strengthened by it.” He didn’t take advantage of it. He just went back and lived a life of luxury and licentiousness in Egypt.

For the king of the north then shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches. And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south ( Dan 11:13-14 ):

So the king of the north came back again, which was Antiochus Megas, known as Antiochus the Great. “But many shall stand up.” Philip of Macedon joined with him against Egypt at this point, plus some rebels in Egypt, plus some of the Jews who were called

the robbers of thy people will exalt themselves to establish the vision; and they shall fall. So the king of the north [Antiochus the Great] shall come, and cast up a mount, and take most of the fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand. But he that comes against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed. He shall also set his face to enter with strength of his whole kingdom and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him ( Dan 11:14-17 ).

Now, Euergetes is the king of the south in Egypt. When he took over he was just seven years old. So, he was just at that point a figurehead. But Antiochus the Great took his daughter Cleopatra, and she… he made a deal that she should marry Euergetes. Figuring that when she got there in the kingdom of Egypt she would be for her old man. But when the marriage some years later was made and Cleopatra became the wife of Euergetes, rather than siding with her father, Antiochus the Great, she sided with her own husband against her father. So his little plan backfired. Now Daniel tells about the plan and how it will backfire. If he had only read the Bible, he would have known better than to send his daughter down there. “He shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her, but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.” She won’t be for him and if he had only read that he would have known better than to send her down.

Now after this shall he turn his face unto the isles ( Dan 11:18 ),

So not being able to conquer into Egypt, he then turned and began… he gathered a navy of 300 ships and he began to travel in the Mediterranean, beginning to fight actually against Rome, which at this point was beginning to be a power in the ancient world. So he turned his face unto the isles,

and shall take away many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him. And then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found. Then ( Dan 11:18-20 )

Now what happened, of course, is he was defeated by the Romans and they determined then that they would charge him for all of these wars. And so he was given a sum that he was to pay every year. Well, he and his men went into a temple to take away the treasures and the people of the city were so incensed they killed him. And so he fell; he stumbled and fell, was not, you know, he was lost in the place of history.

And there shall stand up in his place [his son, Seleucus Philopater], who would be a raiser of taxes ( Dan 11:20 )

He tried to raise the taxes to pay this Roman tribute.

in the glory of the kingdom: but within a few days he will be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle ( Dan 11:20 ).

He was poisoned and killed. And after just a very short reign, because the people didn’t like the taxes he was trying to exact from them.

And in his estate shall stand up a vile person [Antiochus Epiphanes], to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom: and he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries ( Dan 11:21 ).

Now this, Antiochus Epiphanes was a real treacherous person.

And with the arms with a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant. And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. And he shall enter peaceably even on the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and the spoil, and the riches ( Dan 11:22-24 ):

He began to conquer and he did what his fathers did not do, in that they amassed the wealth for themselves, but he began to give away all of the money to all of his generals and those that were with him. So his practice of distributing the loot among the men is here predicted by Daniel. “He shall scatter among them the prey and the spoil and the riches.”

yes, and he shall forecast his devices against the strongholds, even for a time. And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him ( Dan 11:24-25 ).

So he came against Egypt with a tremendous army and Egypt met him, but he began to defeat the Egyptians.

Yea, they the feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain. And both these kings’ heart shall be to do mischief ( Dan 11:26-27 ),

Now, they were stopped by the Roman government and yet both of them sought to do mischief. And, of course, you read the history and it’s interesting–the king of Egypt, his brother was in Alexandria and both of them were doing a lot of lying and cunning and all, and so the kings’ heart shall be in them to do mischief.

and they shall speak lies at one table; and shall not prosper ( Dan 11:27 ):

They were just lying to each other making treaties and everything else, which neither of them intended to honor.

for yet at the end shall be the time appointed. Then shall he return unto his land with great riches; his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land. And at the time appointed he shall return, and come towards the south ( Dan 11:27-29 );

So he sought again to invade. Antiochus Epiphanes sought again to invade Egypt.

but it shall not be as the former, or the latter. For the ships of Chittim ( Dan 11:29-30 )

Actually, when he came this time to Alexandria, the Roman ships were there in the port. And so the Roman general, Popillius Laenas, came to him, and he said, “The Roman senate has ordered you to go home with your troops.” And he said, “I will consult with my men and we will send an answer to Rome.” And Popillius, the Roman general took his cane and he drew a circle in the sand around him and he said, “Make your decision before you leave that circle.” And he was intimidated by the Roman general, and so he said, “I’ve decided to go home, tell the Roman senate.” And so here, this is all predicted here. The Roman navy met him. They were waiting in port at Alexandria when he came. All predicted in advance. Amazing that God would speak in such detail of these things that had not yet transpired.

Now he was angry because he was rebuffed by Rome. And so he was determined to take it out upon the nation of Israel. And on his way back to Syria, he came to Jerusalem and really sought to desecrate the place.

he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant. And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate ( Dan 11:30-31 ).

He came back to Jerusalem and polluted the temple. He built an altar, a pagan altar above the altar of God and he offered a pig upon this altar to an idol that they had set up there in the temple of God.

And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits ( Dan 11:32 ).

His desecration of the temple so incensed the people that Judas Maccabaeus gathered together a group of zealots and they began to attack the Syrians in guerrilla type warfare, and they defeated every Syrian contingency that was sent against them. And they finally retook the temple and purified the temple, which period we’ve just gone through the Feast of Dedication or Hanukkah in the Jewish calendar to celebrate Judas Maccabaeus retaking and rededicating the temple unto God.

So the people that do know their God, Judas Maccabaeus and those Maccabean brothers will be strong and do exploits.

And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and the flame, and by captivity, and by spoil, many days ( Dan 11:33 ).

Both Judas and his brothers were all slain by the sword.

Now when they shall fall, they shall be helped with little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. And some of them shall understand and shall fall, and try to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed ( Dan 11:34-35 ).

Now at this point Daniel’s prophecy goes out to the end and he sees now the man who is commonly called the antichrist. But in scripture is called the son of perdition or is called the man of sin or is called the beast.

And the king shall do according to his will; [the antichrist] he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god; and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper until the indignation ( Dan 11:36 )

Which is the Old Testament word for the Great Tribulation

shall be accomplished ( Dan 11:36 ):

He will prosper until the Tribulation be accomplished.

for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers ( Dan 11:36-37 ),

And so he will obviously be a Jew.

nor the desire of women ( Dan 11:37 ),

Now this “not regarding the desire of women” can have one of two meanings. It was the desire of every Jewish girl to be privileged to bear the Messiah. And Christ was called the desire of nations. But the desire, really, of every young girl–to be chosen to be the mother of the Messiah. Mary was the one that God chose. But the desire of women. That is why so many of the Jewish mothers name their child Joshua. Hoping that God would use him for the salvation of Israel.

Now it is interesting today, there is an off-branch of the Moslems known as the Druze. It’s a very secretive kind of a religion. In fact, the people do not know what it’s about. Only the priests know what they believe. They don’t teach the people. It’s a secret religion. And the priests are the ones that do all of the worship and they’re the ones that know the secrets and no one else knows but them. And, of course, they’re sworn not to reveal the secrets to anybody. Now you go into the Druze’ villages and you see the priest and they have a special little headband by which you know that they are priests, but not only that, they have these baggy pants with a big sack, sort of a contraption here in the front. And the reason why they have this big sack contraption in the front is that among the Druze’ religion they believe that the Messiah will be born of a man. And thus, they have this big sack in the front in case they get pregnant. It’s true. I’ve got pictures of them and you can go to the Druze’ villages today and it’s very amusing and interesting to see these men walking with these big sacks hanging down the front of their pants there in the front and all of them in hopes that they’ll be chosen to bear the Messiah and to become pregnant with the Messiah.

So, “the desire of women” would in that sense be a reference to Jesus Christ. So he does not regard the God of his fathers nor Jesus Christ. He is a man who speaks blasphemously,

not regarding any god: for he’ll magnify himself above all ( Dan 11:37 ).

So that is, no doubt, the correct interpretation. There are some that says he’ll be a homosexual, not regarding the desire of women. But more apt looking at the context of the Hebrew people, rather than referring to a homosexual, it is probably referring to the fact that he does not regard Jesus Christ.

But his god is the god of forces: a god whom his father knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and precious stones, and pleasant things ( Dan 11:38 ).

Look how today men are honoring the god of forces with gold and silver. Do you realize that one trillion dollars was spent this year for weapons? One trillion dollars was spent this year in order to build tanks and guns and equip the military and all. One trillion dollars, what a tragic misuse of the resources of the world. But it’s all preparing for this man who honors the god of force.

Thus shall he do in the most strongholds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause him to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain ( Dan 11:39 ).

So the land of Israel, he will divide it for gain.

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 horsemen, many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and overflow and pass over. And he shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these will escape out of his hand, Edom, and Moab, [which is Jordan] and the chief of the children of Ammon ( Dan 11:40-41 ).

So Jordan will not be taken by the antichrist, though Israel will. Interesting, because the Jews will actually flee for protection to Jordan at this point, to the rock city of Petra, where they will be preserved by God for three and half years, during the time of the great indignation or the wrath of God which is to be poured out upon the earth.

So Edom or Jordan escapes. However, he moves towards Egypt.

He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape ( Dan 11:42 ).

He will take the land of Egypt.

And he shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be [at his doorsteps or] at his steps. But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with his great fury to destroy, and utterly make away many. And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain; he shall come to his end, and none shall help him ( Dan 11:43-45 ).

Now this is a reference to the antichrist who will be the leader of the united nations of Europe. He shall be moving towards Africa in the conquest of Africa. Taking Egypt, passing through Israel, taking Egypt moving towards Libya and Ethiopia, at which time he will hear of the troops from China and Russia coming against him. So he will turn from his proposed conquest of Africa and come back and they will meet in the Valley of Megiddo there in Israel. The tremendous force of the Chinese for whom the river Euphrates will be dried up in order that they might cross, according to the book of Revelation. Those forces that are remaining in Russia, gathering against the combined forces of Europe, and the United States will no doubt be in league with those forces of Europe at this point. And this final great world war, the major scene of battle, will be the Valley of Megiddo there in Israel. This is what is commonly called the Battle of Armageddon of which you have read and heard so much about. And this, of course, is what will perpetrate this battle, as he is moving against Africa, getting news that Chinese and the Russians have confederated together to come against him. He turns in great anger and the place of the their meeting is the Valley of Megiddo. And it is at that time where the blood will flow to the horses’ bridle throughout the whole Valley of Megiddo as the slain of the earth. Millions destroyed in that great carnage and bloodshed.

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Dan 11:1

Jewish Destiny in their Latter Days (Daniel 11)

Chapters 10 through 12 all consist of Daniel’s vision of Jewish latter days. Chapter 10 was an account of the events and circumstances leading up to the vision. Chapter 11 begins with the actual vision of prophecy which deals with the Destiny of the Jewish people as the commonwealth of God. Upon the fulfillment of this prophecy, all people, from all nations, from all across the earth will have the power to become the chosen people of God. The temple in Jerusalem, which at the reception of this vision, had previously lain in ruins for several decades, was in a laborious process of being rebuilt in the face of great opposition from without. Daniel’s distress over this resistance is most likely what compelled him into a period of fasting and mourning which culminated in the reception of this vision. Daniel wanted to know what lay in store for his people in the immediate future. He received a prophetic vision of what would befall his people until they were no longer a chosen people of God.

Chapter 11 starts with the actual vision of the Jewish latter days from the overthrow of Babylon and continues on until a few years preceding the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

Dan 11:1 Also IH589 in the firstH259 yearH8141 of DariusH1867 the Mede,H4075 even I, stoodH5975 to confirmH2388 and to strengthenH4581 him.

Dan 11:1

Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.

The individual speaking here is the heavenly visitor who came to give Daniel this vision. The identity of this visitor is uncertain and was discussed throughout the study on the preceding chapter. The first year of Darius the Mede coincides with the overthrow of Babylon and the rise of the Medo-Persian Empire which was dominated by the Persians upon the death of Darius the Mede. The initial overthrow of the Babylonian Empire was a cooperative effort between the Persians and the Medes. Interestingly, the Medians played a large role in the Babylonian overthrow of Assyria. Recall that Nebuchadnezzar’s wife was a Median princess.

The Medians were ancient Iranians who entered the region in the second millennium BC. By the 6th century BC, after having together with the Babylonians defeated the Neo-Assyrian Empire, the Medes were able to establish their own empire, the largest of its day, lasting for about sixty years, from the defeat of Nineveh in 612 BC until 549 BC when Cyrus the Great established the Achaemenid Empire by defeating his overlord and grandfather, Astyages, king of Media. Astyages is commonly regarded as the last king of the Medes.

Darius was the name of several kings of Media and Persia. At least three and possibly four kings bearing this name are mentioned in the writings of the Old Testament. The exact identity of this king named Darius is not certain. This is most likely the same Darius who loved Daniel and was coerced into throwing him into the Lion’s Den. An exhaustive treatment of this individual’s identity is contained in the study of chapter 9. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia has this to say about the word “Darius”:

DARIUS

In the original Persian it is spelled “Darayavaush”; in Babylonian, usually “Dariamush”; in Susian (?), “Tariyamaush”; in Egyptian “Antaryuash”; on Aramaic inscriptions, d-r-y-h-w-sh or d-r-y-w-h-w-sh; in Hebrew, dareyawesh; in Greek, Dareios; in Latin, “Darius.” In meaning it is probably connected with the new Persian word Dara, “king.” Herodotus says it means in Greek, Erxeies, coercitor, “restrainer,” “compeller,” “commander.”

Thus the name Darius is as much a designation as it is a proper name. Calling a man “Darius” at the time was the equivalent of referring to him as “Governor”.

“even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.”

Daniel’s heavenly visitor declared that he supported Michael, the prince of Israel. This verse goes with chapter 10 much better than chapter 11. Starting the chapter with this verse makes it appear as if this heavenly visitor was confirming and strengthening Darius. Such is not the case. Upon going back to review the context of chapter 10 it is obvious that Michael was the one referred to in this verse as “him”.

Daniel would have known who this Darius was in reference to, especially when he was identified as a Median. Obviously the agenda of Darius the Mede worked in favor of the overall plan of God for the accomplishment of His purpose through the Israelites. God made a promise with Abraham and with king David that together assured the arrival of the Messiah through their bloodlines. This of course had to be accomplished by preserving the Israelite bloodline throughout the process. We learn from the declarations of this heavenly visitor in the preceding chapter that there are affairs being handled beyond our perception. It is obvious that God did not make these promises with the Patriarchs and then leave the affairs of the world to happenstance, rather, God had a system of support and guidance for world affairs in place that operated to sustain His overall plan and purpose and to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. It is obvious that Michael, the arch angel, played a significant leadership role in the execution of this plan and had been active in it at least from the time of Darius the Mede.

There is more said about this in the preceding study and for those who may be picking this study up at this point, I recommend going back to the study of chapter 10 and reviewing the information there in regards to the spiritual warfare being carried out beyond the perception of man.

Before we get into the details of this prophecy, we need to be aware of the fact that without recorded history, it would be impossible to compare all of the elements of this vision with actual facts. Let’s keep in mind that this is an overall history lesson by prophecy. It’s not going to be exact in every detail but the overall picture we draw as we compare it to historical facts undoubtedly ties it to the history of the Israelite nation. There can be no reasonable doubt raised against this fact. As with all apocalyptic language, it is vitally important to keep our eyes on the big picture and try not to get bogged down in the minute details.

Before we launch into the daunting task of trying to accurately pinpoint every single verse of scripture with a known historical fact, lets take the time to consider this vision from the perspective of Daniel and those who would be reading it and living through the events as they unfolded. The vision is unquestionably a prophetic vision about Jewish destiny. The Jews who read it and were familiar with it throughout the centuries would be able to make the connections as they unfolded. They would see the events unfolding around them and upon reflection, make associations from this vision to their general circumstances wherever they fit. Key elements such as events associated with Antiochus, Egypt and Alexander the Great would be obvious to those living at the time who were familiar with Daniel’s writings and were perceptive enough to recognize them and make the connection.

This is the same as those living during the time of the Revelation. They could have looked at the elements of John’s vision and made the connections with the events going on around them. They would make associations from the vision that directly applied to their circumstances. This is going on even today. People who believe the Revelation is yet to be fulfilled make all kinds of wild comparisons with catastrophes and events of today with elements of the Revelation. It’s human nature so we have to believe the people living in Daniel’s time would do the same. They would look at the atrocities perpetrated by Antiochus IV and associate him with the king in Daniel that best fit the model.

Let’s keep in mind as we study through and consider this vision, that it was written to them. Our task is to understand it in light of what it represented to them. We must keep in mind that what we know of history is all that we know. We are limited in our comparison of this vision to what we have available to compare it to. We have no way of knowing how complete our knowledge of history is. What cannot know what we do not know. What is important to keep in mind is that we know enough of history that we can confidently assert that it is accurate to a degree that is nothing short of astounding. Where there are blanks and uncertainties, we can be assured that the events unfolded as they were foretold whether we know about them or not. The historical accuracy we do have is sufficient enough to validate that which we can not know.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this prophecy is written in apocalyptic language. Apocalyptic language is designed to reveal things to the readers through signs and symbols which have a specific meaning to them. Those who are unfamiliar with the symbolism would be at a loss to understand the message. Apocalyptic language is rarely chronological and rarely exhaustive, meaning it covers all the details. Generally, only enough about something is revealed in order for those who are familiar with it to be able to understand the message. In short, apocalyptic language is hard to understand by design. It is meant to communicate a message to an intended audience while leaving the unintended readers out of the loop.

Daniel’s intended readers are going to be the Israelites from that point until the destruction of Jerusalem. This vision covers centuries of what is now Jewish history in their latter days. They had a lot of enemies to contend with throughout this period of time. Many nations and many kings were going to come and go and the faithful Israelites were going to have to cope with all the circumstances that would arise as a consequence of the things yet to come. For them to be found with a vision which foretold the death of Alexander, and the splitting up of his empire, and the rise and fall of numerous nasty kings such as Antiochus would incriminate them and bring additional suffering and hardship to the faithful if their enemies could understand the language. Stop and think for a moment just how devastating such a piece of literature would be in the wrong hands. What if Antiochus knew before he set out on certain conquests whether they would be successes or failure? What if Alexander knew his empire would be split up four ways? What if Antiochus knew the Maccabeans were going to be such a thorn in the flesh for him? What would these leaders do if they had possession of such a document that accurately foretold their future? The language is designed to be hard to understand. In fact, it is so hard to understand that unless one has an accurate understanding of history and is familiar with the symbolism and structure of the language, it can’t be understood at all. To someone unfamiliar with the imagery, it looks like nonsensical text. It’s supposed to be that way. This explanation of apocalyptic language is meant to serve as a broad application. This vision does not contain the elements of imagery one finds in Revelation 9, but it is veiled and difficult to understand, especially for those living before there were any historical events to match them up with.

This prophecy is one of the most remarkable evidences of the divine inspiration of scripture that we have available. The evidence of the divine foreknowledge of God is overwhelming to the degree that it cannot be reasonably denied by anyone who is willing to look at it honestly and accept it for what it is. Critics of the Bible who try and use this prophecy as a means of discrediting the authenticity of scripture need to take a long hard look at what they are willing to accept or deny within themselves in order to believe what they want to believe.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

The foretelling of the glorious One is contained in this chapter. It covered a period to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and finally referred to the Messianic kingdom.

There would be yet three kings in Persia, and also a fourth, “richer than they all.” The fourth would “stir up all against the realm of Greece.” This undoubtedly would refer to Xerxes. Following the fourth there would be another, whose kingdom would be broken and scattered. Here the reference was to Alexander. Beyond that, there would be long conflict between the kings of the North and those of the South, until the coming of One who would cause an exactor to pass through the glory of the Kingdom, whose regime would be brief, and would end neither in anger nor in battle.

The reign of one contemptible in person, but gaining the kingdom by flatteries, is described at greatest length. There can be no doubt that the one referred to was Antiochus Epiphanes. His character and his methods were described. He would be unscrupulous, deceitful, and cruel, but the phrase, “even for a time,” indicated that this man also would be within the government of God, and unable to proceed beyond the limit marked for him.

His campaigns against Egypt were foretold, together with his ultimate withdrawal, and his methods of deceit and corruption against the people of God. During the period of his oppression there would be a period of “a little help,” the reference being to the rising under the Maccabees. Ultimately the king of the South would contend with him, but would be overwhelmed by him. As a result, Antiochus Epiphanes would set forth on a new campaign of conquest, and finally perish on his way to Jerusalem.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

the Rise and Fall of Empires

Dan 11:1-14

This chapter foretells the histories of Xerxes, of Alexander the Great, the division of his kingdom on his death, and the long conflicts between the kings of Syria and Egypt. During those years of turmoil and war the eyes of Gods faithful servants must often have turned to this page for guidance and comfort. The voice of the prophets was hushed between Mal 4:1-6 and Mat 1:1-25, and therefore the written word would be more than ordinarily precious. It must have comforted them to be assured that God knew the way they had to travel and would supply all needed help. What a weary monotony of strife, war, and misery is the history of world kingdoms! The heathen rage; the people are moved. Earth and sky are wrapped in clouds and darkness. We are reminded of the chaos of the primal condition of our earth, when it was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep. But as in creation, so in history: in the darkest hours the divine Spirit is brooding in the heart of the night, and will presently re-establish order and beauty.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Chapter Eleven A Warning To God’s People

Part One: The Wars Of The Ptolemies And The Seleucids

In taking up the first part of Daniel 11 (verses 1-35), I want to emphasize again the words of the apostle Paul that all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable (2Ti 3:16, italics added). For in seeking to expand this particular portion I will need to deal almost entirely with a period in history covering about 200 years in connection with the wars that desolated the land of Palestine after the death of Alexander the Great. This may seem very dry and unspiritual to some, but the subject demands this kind of treatment to be made clear. I feel sure if this history is carefully noted it will help many see as never before the absolute unerring precision of Gods holy Word.

We have been given a record that was first made in Heaven; God intended us to study it and to understand it, or He would not have included it in the volume of Scripture. In order to understand it we must take some pains, for it is a portion of the Word that we cannot clearly comprehend unless we take the trouble to investigate and see how it has been fulfilled. For those who decry the study of historical and other subjects in connection with the Word of God, I would mention again the pregnant sentence that All history is His story. Surely the man of God can gain much by observing how remarkably history confirms prophecy and sets its seal on the divine inspiration of the Bible. The Holy Spirit never condemns our acquiring the knowledge of this world. It is the wisdom of this world that is set aside as untrustworthy and causing strife and speculation. We are warned against human philosophy, against the reasoning of the human mind uninstructed by divine illumination. But we are not warned against the acquisition of true knowledge if we couple it with the fear of God and the love of the Spirit.

God does not put a premium on ignorance. Some Christians are most short-sighted, narrow-minded, and bigoted; they are intolerant of the opinions of others or of anything outside their own range of vision. Undoubtedly the best cure for this very unchristlike spirit is to spend more time with the blessed Lord Himself. But to this may well be added a helpful, broadening knowledge of facts and events, especially in connection with Scripture.

The angel who had appeared to Daniel told him that in the first year of Darius the Mede, after Babylons overthrow, he had stood to strengthen him. In the second verse of Daniel 11, he began, as it were, to unroll the scroll of the Scripture of truth: Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. We saw in chapter ten that this vision was given to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus. The first of the three kings who were to follow was his son Cambyses; he was succeeded, not by his own son Smerdis, but by a wretched impostor generally called Pseudo-Smerdis. He looked very much like the son of Cambyses, and by trickery he had himself proclaimed emperor and reigned in the name of Smerdis. Darius Hystaspes succeeded him, and he in turn was succeeded by Xerxes the Great.

This Xerxes was not the last king of Persia, nor is that stated here, though at first sight it might seem to be implied. But he was the fourth and as prophesied, far richer than they all. He stirred up Asia against the realm of Greece, and with an immense army of over two and a half million (if we can trust the computation of the historians of those days), he crossed the Hellespont and invaded Greece. But the very size of his army defeated his own purpose, and his soldiers were driven back into Asia. The Grecians never forgave this insult to their race. They nursed the desire for vengeance until the days of Alexander the Great, who is the mighty king referred to in verse 3.

There is quite an interval between verses 4 and 5; it is passed over in silence in order to connect the invasion of Alexander with the effort of Xerxes to conquer Greece. After Alexander had established his authority over all Greece, he determined to continue into Asia with the special object of wiping out the former disgrace. He met the forces of Darius Codomanus, utterly defeated them, and laid hold of all the Persian dominion. But he passed away very shortly afterwards in a drunken revel. He died in the very prime of his life, a wretched victim of ill living. This fulfilled the word, And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken.

Verse 4 goes on to tell us that it shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those. Now all this was fulfilled to the letter. Alexander had two sons, Hercules and Alexander, but one was killed before and the other after their fathers death. His kingdom was then divided, as God had said it would be. Thus the great world empire that Alexander had established at such a tremendous cost was broken into warring fragments; none of them ever attained the splendor or power of his kingdom. After the battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C., his dominions were parceled out among four of his generals, as we saw in chapters 7-8. From this point on, our chapter only deals with two of them and their successors: namely Ptolemy Lagus, ruler of Egypt and Seleucas, Satrap of Syria. The angel had told Daniel he was going to show him what would happen to his people (10:14). The other two kingdoms had no place in connection with Israel or their land.

Verses 5-35 describe the wars of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies for about two centuries. These rulers are called respectively the king of the North and the king of the South-the directions are relative to the land of Palestine, which in Gods eye is the center of the earth. When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lords portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance (Deu 32:8-9).

It will almost be necessary to take up Dan 11:5-35 verse by verse. I pray that it may impress every heart with the absolute perfection of the Holy Scriptures and their correctness down to the smallest detail. The king of the South mentioned in verse 5 was Ptolemy Lagus. The expression one of his princes may refer to the fact that Ptolemy was one of Alexanders princes; or, as others judge more likely, it means that Seleucas Nicator, governor of Syria, at first was subject to Ptolemy, who was stronger and had the greatest dominion of the four into which the empire had been divided. But on the death of Lagus, when Ptolemy Soter succeeded him, conditions were reversed.

The dominion of Seleucas was enlarged by the annexation of Babylon, Media, and the surrounding nations. He threw off his allegiance to Egypt and ruled independently. Naturally, this brought about a state of warfare and enmity between the two kingdoms but as we read in verse 6, in the end of years they shall join themselves together. This was in the reign of Nicators grandson Antiochus Theos who arranged a treaty of peace with Ptolemy Philadelphus. The treaty was confirmed by the king of the Souths daughter, Berenice being given in marriage to Antiochus, who divorced his own wife Laodice for this purpose. But God had declared that she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times (6). All this was fulfilled as predicted. Laodice managed to stir up her friends against the king; as a result Berenice and all her attendants were put to death. Antiochus then reinstated his divorced queen, who shortly afterwards poisoned him and had her son Seleucas Callinicus crowned in his place.

Out of a branch of her roots-that is, from Berenices family, one was to stand up in his place for office; he would come with an army into the fortress of the king of the North and prevail against him (verse 7). This refers to her brother Ptolemy Euergetes, who forced his way across the land of Palestine with a mighty army, spreading desolation everywhere. He was actuated by the desire to avenge the murder of his sister and to wipe out the dishonor inflicted on Egypt. He was completely successful, utterly defeating Callinicus and reaping an immense spoil. But news of a sedition in Egypt caused him to hurry back, carrying with him an immense number of captives with their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold (8). He did not return to Syria, and Callinicus himself died shortly afterwards by a fall from his horse. Ptolemy reigned four years longer, thus continuing more years than the king of the north (8).

In the tenth verse the sons of Callinicus are contemplated. These are known in history as Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus the Great. They assembled a great force to inflict retribution on the Egyptians. But Ceraunus died in less than two years, leaving his brother sole ruler. He was one of the most notable kings of those days and lost no time in pressing an Egyptian invasion. He led an army of seventy-five thousand against the hereditary foes of his house. But he proved no match for the indolent and despised king of the South, Ptolemy Philopator, who could barely be dragged away from his pleasures and follies to lead an army against the invaders. At the battle of Raphia, he defeated Antiochus with great slaughter and reconquered all the land that had previously been wrested from him. He put Antiochus under tribute and returned to Egypt crowned with military glory. But like another Alexander, he then gave himself up to wickedness and licentiousness. Upon a revolt occurring soon after in Syria, Ptolemy Philopator concluded an ignoble peace with Antiochus, because he was too depraved and indolent to follow up his victories. After his death, Egypt sank lower than it had been for years. All this is briefly sketched in verses 11-12.

With the succession to the throne of Philopators son Ptolemy Epiphanes, a mere child, Antiochus the Great formed an alliance with Philip the Third of Macedon. He also sought to rally the Jews to his standard. The faithful among them refused to serve in his army; but the apostates, the robbers of thy people, (14) readily entered into covenant with him and proved a very great help on a number of occasions. With his united armies he besieged the Egyptian garrison left in Jerusalem and put it to the sword. He defeated Scopias the Egyptian general at Paneas, who fled to the fenced city of Sidon but was there destroyed. The Egyptian armies, sent to deliver Paneas, were likewise routed, and Antiochus found himself completely supreme. On his return from the Egyptian wars, he entered into the glorious land-that is Palestine. There, because of the help rendered by his Jewish troops, he bestowed on the people many evidences of his favor. The last clause of verse 16 should read, which by his hand shall be perfected. It refers undoubtedly to the fact that in his time Palestine became a more peaceful and fruitful country than it had been for half a century.

Verse 17 was fulfilled in Antiochus effort to undermine the remaining influence and power of Ptolemy Epiphanes by giving him his daughter Cleopatra in marriage. He had previously charged her that she should, after her marriage, act for her fathers interests in everything. But it was written, she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him (17). Cleopatra proved a faithful wife to Epiphanes, supporting him against her father, who was naturally disappointed that his well-laid plans had completely miscarried.

Antiochus determined now to extend the glory of his dominions by conquering Greece. First the isles of the Aegean sea were subjugated to his sway, and then he crossed over with his armies into Greece. At that point a most unexpected event took place. The iron kingdom (the Roman empire) was at this time just beginning to make its presence felt. It was destined to be the fourth and last on earth, before the establishment of the kingdom of the Son of man. The Grecians had entered into an alliance with the Romans, so they at once notified their powerful allies of the danger to which they were exposed. The Roman senate commissioned Lucius Scipio Asiaticus to go to their relief with an army of tried warriors. He met Antiochus in battle and utterly defeated him, and on the most ignominious terms sent him back to his home. Scipio is undoubtedly the prince or as some versions render it, commander, referred to in verse 18. Thus Antiochus, humbled and in deep distress, turned his face toward the fort of his own land, but according to the Scripture of truth, he was to stumble and fall and not be found (19). This was fulfilled when, in his need and desperation, he attempted with a band of soldiers to plunder the temple of Jupiter at Elymais. He and his warriors were slain by the infuriated populace, incensed at what they considered a grave act of sacrilege.

In verse 20 we read, Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes, in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle. This was the son of Antiochus, Seleucus Philopator. In desperate need of money owing to the wretched condition in which his father had left the kingdom, he sent Heliodorus to plunder the temple of Jehovah at Jerusalem. Upon his return with the booty, Heliodorus treacherously assassinated his master after he had reigned twelve years; this was only a few days as compared with the long reign of Antiochus which extended to nearly forty years.

In verses 21-35, we read a profile of the fearful monster who has well been called the antichrist of the Old Testament, because of his unfailing hatred of the people and worship of Jehovah. He is the one described in chapter 8 as the infamous and blasphemous little horn that sprang out of one of the four horns on the head of the Grecian goat. His name is cursed to this day by all Jews in every land. He was called by his fawning courtiers Antiochus Epiphanes- that is, the splendid or magnificent. But someone of his day changed one letter of his name and called him Antiochus Epimanes, meaning the mad man, because of his wild pranks and almost insane follies and brutalities. He was stirred with such hatred against the Jews and their religion that there was no atrocity too great for this wretched king to perpetrate. He is well described as a vile person who came in peaceably and obtained the kingdom by flatteries. At the beginning he made a league both with the Jews and with Ptolemy Philometer, but he proved false to each as God had declared he would (22-24). I assume that the prince of the covenant in Israel was a title given here to the high priest. It is a notorious fact that Epiphanes degraded the office by selling the high priesthood to the vilest man to be found among the apostate part of the Jewish people.

In accordance with verse 25, he stirred up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army. The king of the South, Philometer, came against him to battle with a very great and mighty army, but was unable to stand because of the treachery of his own sons and household servants who betrayed him to Antiochus. This fulfilled verse 26: Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain. Professing great magnanimity, Antiochus proposed a truce, and the two kings met at one table. There they made promises which they never intended to keep, thus speaking lies (27).

Angered by the exultation of the Jews who had heard that he had been slain in Egypt, Antiochus marched his armies against Jerusalem. He inflicted on them all the horrors of a siege and sack, sparing neither age, sex, nor condition. In their desperation the Jews appealed to the Romans, who had intervened before on behalf of the Grecians; they requested their assistance in what was to them a life and death struggle for their religion and their liberty. Marching against the Maccabees, Antiochus was met by Popilius Loenus and the other Roman envoys at the head of an army. Popilius demanded that Antiochus at once cease his interference with the Jews, bind himself to accept the decree of the Roman senate, keep the peace, and acknowledge Romes authority. Epiphanes asked for time to consider the terms proposed for his acceptance. But Popilius drew a circle around Antiochus with his sword or staff and demanded that he decide before he stepped out of the ring. Having no alternative, he submitted, evidently with no intention of keeping the pledges he made. The ships of Chittim (30), refer to the Roman galleys sent in response to the pitiful plea of the Jews.

After the Romans had gone, Antiochus perjured his allegiance and turned once more on the devoted sons of Israel, having indignation against the holy covenant. Certain traitorous Jews, described as them that forsake the holy covenant, (30) formed a league with him and betrayed their own compatriots to the tyrant who hated them. He set up a statue of Jupiter Olympus, whom he identified with himself, in the temple at Jerusalem. He sacrificed a sow on the altar and put a stop to the oblations to Jehovah, declaring that he alone should be an object of worship. The faithful of Judah, horrified beyond measure at his unspeakable sacrilege, took up arms against him, led by the heroic family of the Maccabees and were slaughtered by thousands.

This was the placing of the abomination that maketh desolate, predicted in verse 31, in connection with the pollution of the sanctuary and the taking away of the daily sacrifice. The 2300 days of Daniel 8 commenced with this act of desecration by Antiochus. At the end of that period, the sanctuary was cleansed and sacrifices to Jehovah reinstituted.

Verses 32-35 describe the conditions prevailing among the Jews in that awful time of suffering, never to be paralleled until the great tribulation of the last days. In fact they picture the whole history of the people of Judah from the time when they were joined to the Roman empire right on to the time of the end, or the seventieth week of which we have already spoken.

The last chapter of Daniel reveals another abomination of desolation. This was also spoken of by our Lord Jesus Christ, when He was on earth, as still to come in the future (Matthew 24). We will read of that abomination in the last chapter.

In concluding this historical outline of the wars of the kings of the North and the South, I would emphasize that prophecy is only history prewritten. In this instance, even in the most minute details, history is seen to be prophecy fulfilled. It is terrible presumption to refuse to heed the solemn lessons of such a record and deliberately reject the testimony of the inspired Word of God. Even the natural mind, if at all unbiased and unwilling to learn, must be impressed by this remarkable correspondence between history and prophecy; it should lead any truly honest soul to exclaim, God spake all these words!

Remember that He who spoke these words is the God who has inspired all Scripture. He will hold all men responsible to accept the testimony He gives them, or be eternally banished from His holy presence if they persist in rebelling against His authority and refusing His Word. That Word is given to you now to warn you of your danger and point the way to salvation. That Word will be opened on the day of judgment; if you appear there unsaved, you must be judged according to what is written there. In the ages to come, when the redeemed look back over their pathway here on earth, they will exclaim like Israel in the land of Canaan, There hath not failed one word of all his good promise (1Ki 8:56); so each lost soul will cry out in bitter anguish, Not one word has failed of all that God declared in regard to the doom of the impenitent and the Christ rejecter!

It is important to deal with God on the basis of the atoning work of His blessed Son, in order to know Him as your own personal Savior. May those of you who have no hope and are without God in the world, be aroused by the study of the book of Daniel to see the danger in which you stand. You need to turn to Him, who once in infinite grace gave Himself for our sins on Calvarys cross of shame.

The Maccabees, in the days of Antiochus, were called the hammers of God, and God has asked, Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? (Jer 23:29) Preaching the gospel is just like hammering away at hard hearts. Sadly there is little response! I heard of a traveling man who used to go to a town where there were many factories and foundries. In that town scores of immense steel hammers were pounding away continuously. The noise was deafening and this gentleman found it impossible to sleep in that town, for the noise sounded day and night. The people of the town were so thoroughly used to it that they could sleep through it all. But one night something went wrong with the power plant, and all the hammers stopped. At once the whole town woke up. What awakened them? It was the unusual quiet and stillness after years of deafening sound.

Beloved friends, the day is drawing near when Gods hammers will all cease their pounding. Soon gospel days will have ended and the message of love and grace, which you have refused so long, will have ceased. Then there will indeed be a great awakening-an awakening when it is too late to be saved.

The kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man [will] hide themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And [say] to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? (Rev 6:16-17)

But no hiding place will avail in that day. God will no longer be dealing in grace, but in stern intrinsic justice with those who have not received the love of the truth that they might be saved. Their heart-rending cry will be, The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved (Jer 8:20).

0 dear unsaved one, weigh these things well and trifle no longer with the question of the eternal destiny of your precious soul still unsettled. If you continue to reject the Spirit of grace, what wilt thou say when he shall punish thee? (Jer 13:21)

Part Two: The Antichrist

Between Dan 11:35 and 36 there is an interval of many centuries. The history of the kings of the North and South is now closed. Another dreadful character, of whom Antiochus Epiphanes was merely a forerunner, or type, is at once introduced-the willful king, the great personal antichrist of the last days.

Ye have heard, said the apostle John, that antichrist shall come (1Jn 2:18). He at once goes on to say that already there are many antichrists. But he distinguishes clearly between these lesser forerunners of the final apostasy and the future impious personage. He is so frequently mentioned in prophecy as the very incarnation of lawlessness and blasphemy, but only in 1 John is he distinctly called by name.

I suppose there are very few prophetic teachers, of any Scriptural discernment, who question the application of the present passage to antichrist. The only question would be as to his identity; a great many different solutions of the problem have been proposed. According to many, Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled in himself all that is here predicted of the willful king. Others, recognizing the interval between verses 35 and 36, consider this passage parallel to Revelation 13 and apply it to the emperor Nero, the first Roman persecutor of the Christians. To many, Simon Magus, the impostor of Acts 8, was the antichrist. Some Romanist doctors applied the passage to Mohammed, the false prophet of Arabia; while many Protestant interpreters from Luthers day to the present, have found in these words a description of the papacy. There are others-and their judgment seems to me to be the correct one-who hold that none of these characters fully meet the requirements of the case; consequently the antichrist is still to arise in the future and will only come upon the scene in the time of the end.

In this section I hope to make clear my reasons for rejecting the hypothesis that the papacy, while evidently anti-christian in character, is the antichrist. For now I will simply endeavor to bring out what seems to me to be the clear teaching of the passage.

First, in order to understand the part to be played by antichrist in the worlds great crisis, I will attempt to point out the various leaders who are to occupy prominent positions in the coming day. We have already seen that in the latter times, when the transgressors are come to the height of their power, the Roman empire is to be revived in a ten-kingdomed condition (Daniel 7). Ten European powers are to be united in one federation. To bring this about there will be a union of socialistic and imperialistic policies. One of these ten kings will become arbiter of Europe. This chief ruler is the one in Rev 13:1-8 and other portions, emphatically called the beast. In the seventh chapter of Daniel he is seen as the little horn of the West. In the time of the end this little horn, the beast, will have his seat in Rome. He will be utterly infidel, throwing off all pretension to the fear of God, and will set himself up as the only god worthy of adoration. Apostate Christendom will pay universal homage to him after the destruction of the great anti-church, Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth (Rev 17:5). This worship will evidently not only be the acknowledgment that deity dwells in this man, it also will be the recognition of the blasphemous tenet that God and man are one (a tenet presently accepted by Christian Science, and the New Age). The beast will be the embodiment of intellectual force and brilliancy, the peerless coming man for whom the nations have been waiting so long. Like Napoleon Bonaparte, he will dazzle the nations by his almost superhuman abilities and unparalleled success. To him men will gladly grant the title Napoleon arrogated to himself, The Man of Destiny.

In the east, as we saw in chapter 8, another power will for a time dispute the preeminence of the beast. This will be the little horn of Asia. The last Gentile ruler of the lands now dominated by Turkey will be the one in whom this prophecy is fulfilled. He is in no sense to be confused with the little horn of the seventh chapter who arises out of the Roman empire. The little horn of the eighth chapter will arise from one of the divisions of the empire of Alexander the Great. He is identified, I believe, with the Assyrian of Isa 10:24-25 and will be the special enemy of the Jews in the time of the end. In Isaiah we read, after the prophecy of the return of the remnant to their land:

Therefore thus saith the Lord God of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt. For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in their destruction.

We get the manner of this destruction in Isa 14:24-25:

The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand: That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders.

It is not to any past destruction of Assyria that these words refer; for this defeat is to take place after the restoration of Israel to Palestine in the last days. It will be Gods settlement of the so-called Eastern question.

We learned that this little horn will stand up in great wrath against the Jews, but not in his own power. He is evidently to have the backing of some more powerful nation, who for selfish purposes will aid him in his nefarious effort to destroy the people of God in that day. In Ezekiel 38-39 we find, I have no doubt, a full account of the power referred to. There we read of Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. Scholars generally are agreed that in place of chief prince, we should read, prince of Rosh; and there can hardly be any question that Rosh means Russia. Gog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, will evidently be the last czar of all the Russias. Some suppose Meshech and Tubal to be identical with Moscow and Tobolsk, the ancient European and Asiatic capitals of the Slav empire. It would seem that this ruler will join with the Turkish sultan in opposing the pretensions of the beast. We can already see events in Europe tending to this. There will be a western and an eastern confederation, and Palestine will be the bone of contention between them.

A fourth figure, destined to attract considerable attention in the crisis will be the king of the South, a future ruler of an apparently independent Egypt. Though he will oppose the antichrist, he will act in conjunction with the beast in opposition to his hereditary enemies the Turks.

In the book of the Revelation the apostle speaks of the drying up of the Euphrates, that the way of the kings of the east [or, from the sunrising] might be prepared (Rev 16:12). The drying up of the Euphrates would seem to imply the breaking up of the Turkish power; for as the Nile stands for Egypt, so does the Euphrates for the Ottoman empire. The kings of the sunrising may very well be a descriptive term referring to the nations of the Far East.

If we are thus far correct in our effort to forecast from Scripture the principals in the last great drama of Gentile dominion, we have located an emperor-king of the West, a king of the North, a king of the South, and an alliance of kings of the East, all of whose armies will be marching down upon Palestine at about the same time. Jehovahs land will be the battle-ground for the fearful Armageddon conflict. Thus Palestine will be exposed to all the horrors and ravages incident to the last premillennial war. It is for this time of horror, little as they realize it, that the Jews from eastern and southern Europe are now returning in large numbers to their ancient home. They are going back that their forefathers awful prayer may be fully answered, His blood be on us, and on our children (Mat 27:25). Poor misguided people-the nation of the wandering foot-they fancy that at last a refuge is being provided for them where they will be safe from persecution and secure from danger; but they are really preparing unwittingly for the wine-press of the wrath of God, from which blood shall flow to the horses bridles for one thousand six hundred furlongs-the whole actual length of Palestine (Rev 14:18-20).

After the church has been called away to Heaven, there will arise in the city of Jerusalem a man who will present himself to the Jews as the messiah long promised through the prophets. The apostate part of the nation will at once acknowledge his claims; they will say of him, This is indeed the messiah for whom we have waited so long; this is the one of whom our Scriptures speak. I judge he will be largely instrumental, in the beginning, in securing them concessions from the Turkish government, that they may be established in their land. Afterwards he will form a league with the Roman beast, establishing a covenant between him and the nation for seven years, guaranteeing his protection and the integrity of the new Jewish state. Such was the program outlined by the great Zionist leader Zangwill. The Jewish agitator, Max Nordau, said some time ago, We are ready to own any man as our messiah who will establish us again in the land of our fathers.

This will be, I doubt not, exactly what will take place in the coming day. Some great Jew-perhaps he is living now-is going to come to the front who will have much to do in bringing about this restoration. He will be acknowledged by the western powers as political head of Palestine. He is the king of Dan 11:36-39:

The king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

I now desire to show why the antichrist will be a Jew living in the land of Palestine; his seat will be in Jerusalem, and he will be acknowledged by the nation of Israel as their messiah. In doing so I wish to show why the Roman Catholic pope cannot be the one prophesied of here; no pope has ever fulfilled these necessary qualifications, nor is it likely that one ever will. In the first place, it is important to notice that the name antichrist means simply the false messiah; he is the one to whom our Lord Jesus Christ referred when He said, I am come in my Fathers name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive (Joh 5:43). The antichrist then is to be received by the Jews. Has this ever been the case with the popes? Is there any apparent possibility that the Jewish people will ever acknowledge the papacy (which has existed for long centuries) as their messiah, the hope of their nation? Messiah was promised to the Jews. To them He came in grace, only to be rejected. When the false messiah comes they will accept his claims and hail his advent with joy.

You should not imply from this that only Israel will be deceived by him. From the second chapter of 2 Thessalonians (a passage we shall be considering later on), it is plain that apostate Christendom will also fall into his snare. The Roman beast will be the civil ruler of the West, while antichrist will be the religious ruler. The power behind both will be that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan (Rev 20:2). This will be the anti-trinity-Satan, the beast, and the false prophet (20:10). All the nations of the earth will be deceived by them.

The Jews have never owned the pope as messiah. No pope has made a seven-years covenant with them. Nor has any pope had his throne in Jerusalem or dwelt in the land of Palestine. So it seems clear that there is practically nothing in Scripture to identify the papacy with the antichrist. Do not misunderstand and think that I am defending the papacy. I believe it to be an evil thing, but it is not the antichrist.

When antichrist comes he is to do according to his will and to exalt himself and magnify himself above every god. These gods are undoubtedly the idols of the heathen. But he is also to speak marvellous things against the God of gods.. .neither shall he regard the God of his fathers (Dan 11:36-37). Now I submit that only in the wildest hyperbole can such words be applied to the worst of the popes. It is true that some have permitted themselves to be addressed most blasphemously. It is true that a Jesuit writer even dared to speak of our Lord God the pope. It is likewise true that the pope has been said to have an intimacy with the Father in which even the Lord Jesus Christ does not share. This is based on the Lords words to Peter concerning his confession: Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven (Mat 16:17). From this, the Jesuits argue that the first pope (Peter) had special illuminations and secrets with the Father in which the Son did not share. They have declared that the same privilege belongs to his successors; so they believe it is safer in some cases to go to the pope than to Christ!

All these things are blasphemous and must make every truly devout soul shrink from such teaching. But when the last great antichrist arises it will be even worse than this. The pope, at least, has never claimed to be above every god. His very title disproves this. He is called the vicegerent of Christ; he takes the place of being, in a very special sense, Gods representative on the earth. It will be otherwise with the antichrist. He refuses to own any God. He comes in his own name and utterly denies the God of his fathers. What are we to understand by this last expression? It must mean that he is a Jew and that his fathers after the flesh were Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Such is the invariable use of the expression in the Old Testament. I take it as evidence that the antichrist is by birth a Jew, but a Jew who has apostatized from the God of his fathers. How could any but a Jew impose on his nation as being the messiah? It is clearly predicted in their Scriptures that the hope of Israel is to spring from the favored nation.

We are also told, in verse 37, that he will not regard the desire of women, nor any god; he will magnify himself above all. Now it seems evident that the desire of women refers to the fact that every Jewish woman hoped that it might be the will of God that through her the Messiah would be born into the world. He was emphatically the desire of women. Antichrist utterly disregards Him, pretending to be himself the predicted one.

But there is a god whom he acknowledges, though evidently a merely natural and human personage. He will honour the god of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things (38). This god can be none other than the little horn, the Roman beast. As we have seen, antichrist will turn to him for assistance and support. On his part, the beast will acknowledge and increase the glory of this civil head of the empire, causing him to rule over many who might not otherwise have accepted his authority. He and the antichrist will divide the land of Palestine for gain. I maintain that it is utterly incongruous to attempt to apply all this to the pope; but taken in its natural meaning, all is plain and simple.

From verse 40 to the end of the chapter we have a graphic account of the beginning of the conflict of the last days. The king of the South marches against Jerusalem, and the king of the North comes down like a whirlwind with a vast army and navy. He will enter the glorious land and adjacent countries, except the lands anciently occupied by Edom, Moab, and Ammon. He is triumphant everywhere at first. Egypt is unable to stand against his victorious armies, and he asserts his sway over the land of the Pharaohs, and Libya, and Ethiopia. But alarmed by news from the East and the North, he turns back with great fury to meet the powers-doubtless of the beast and the kings from the sunrising. But on the mountains of Israel between the seas he comes to his end, and none can help him. Thus the last king of the North, the eastern little horn, is finally destroyed. We do not read here of antichrists destruction. That is given to us in Rev 19:20.

Before closing, I wish to note several other Scriptures that add to our knowledge of the false messiah. In Zechariah 11, after the prophet, personifying the Lord Jesus as the Good Shepherd, is priced at thirty pieces of silver, Zechariah is told to take the instruments of a foolish shepherd.

For, lo, [says God] I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces. Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened (16-17, italics added).

This idol shepherd is clearly the same as the willful king of Daniel 11. He is to be raised up in the land-an expression that can refer only to the land of Palestine. He is, beyond a doubt, the one to whom the Lord Jesus was referring in Joh 5:43. The true Shepherd, who came in the name of the Father, had been rejected, but the Jews would receive the false shepherd who comes in his own name.

Let us now turn our attention to Revelation 13. In the first half of the chapter we have the description of the Roman beast. But, beginning with verse 11, we read of another beast coming up out of the earth, or land; he had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon. That is, he looks like and presents himself as the Lamb of God, but his speech is that of the great deceiver of souls. He exercises all the power of the first beast before him, demanding that all worship the first beast. He even does great wonders in order that men may acknowledge the claims of the beast; he makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, to deceive them. He sets up the abomination of desolation, causing men to make an image to the beast, which all must worship on pain of death. All this is in perfect harmony with what we have learned as to the mutual relationship of the beast and antichrist in the book of Daniel. The lamb-like beast comes up from the earth. He is in the land, and his placing the abomination that causes desolation is the signal given by the Lord Jesus for the faithful remnant to flee from Jerusalem.

The signs and wonders with which he deceives the world are also mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2. When laboring in Thessalonica, the apostle told the Thessalonian Christians that before the day of the Lord would come, Christ Himself would descend into the air, and all His saints would be caught up to meet Him (1Th 4:16-17). But it would seem that a report had been spread among them that the day of the Lord had already come, and Paul wrote a second letter to correct this error. He encouraged them not to be shaken in their minds, nor fearful in regard to this. He told them that day could not come until the apostasy had first taken place and the man of sin been revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God (2Th 2:3-4).

He goes on to speak of a hinderer, who at the present time is holding back the floodtide of evil (2:6-7). That hinderer is the presence of the Holy Ghost in the church on earth. At the rapture of the saints, when all the redeemed are caught up to meet the Lord in the air, the Holy Spirit will have returned to Heaven.

Then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness (8-12).

How perfectly this fits in with the testimony we have been examining in other parts of the Word of God! While the church is on earth the mystery of lawlessness is already working, but the full revelation of evil cannot take place while Christians are in this world. When that time comes we will be above it all, having been caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

The mystery of lawlessness and the many antichrists of 1Jn 2:18 are intimately connected. So here we have a point of agreement with persons who think that the papacy is the antichrist. We disagree with them only as to the use of the article. The papal system is an antichrist; this is true of every system that turns souls away from the truth concerning Christ and His work as the only ground of salvation. Christian Science is an antichrist; Mormonism is another; and so with Spiritism and a host of other ancient and modern cults and fads. The crowning evil of them all is perhaps what is now known as liberal theology, heralded from a thousand pulpits by men who glory in their freedom from subjection to the Word of God. They do not hesitate to brand the Scriptures as a collection of myths and fables, untrustworthy, and less to be relied on than their own vapid utterances. Every little while some one who has been supposed to be an orthodox Christian preacher comes out with the declaration that he has discovered the unreliability of this or that book of the Bible. His reckless assertions are received with delight by congregations of Christless, unconverted professors, who are glad to be absolved from allegiance to a book whose teachings prick their consciences while they live for themselves in this world.

If the day ever came that a man who had actually known the Lord Jesus as his own Savior and had enjoyed communion with Him was forced by irresistible evidence to believe that the Bible was not true and the precious gospel story an unreliable tradition of men, do you know what would happen to that man? His heart would be broken. He would never be found among the shallow, empty religionists of the day, who can complacently acquiesce to the teachings of the so-called higher critics and liberal preachers. He would be found weeping with Mary and exclaiming in deepest grief, They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him (Joh 20:13).

But it is very different for false professors who drink in so greedily the infidelity that Christless preachers proclaim. What has the rejection of the truth of Scripture done for these men? When they thought the Bible true, it served as a check on their lawless desires and appetites. They chafed under its restraints. But when they threw the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture out the window, they were never so happy in all their lives!

I assure you beloved, people who really know Christ would feel very differently about having to give up the precious Word of God through which He was revealed to their souls. They are acquainted with the divine Person, the Son of the living God. The others had but a theory, which they are thankful enough to be rid of.

Those who preach these false gospels are the many antichrists of the present dispensation. When the lawless one himself is revealed, they will be the first to acknowledge his impious claims. They will be deceived by the strong delusion sent from God so that all who did not receive the love of the truth might be judged.

Already it would seem as though that strong delusion were beginning. I know nothing sadder than the awful power of these evil things that are spreading through Christendom, eating out the very life of the church like a moral or religious cancer. How seldom you see a soul brought back from the awful abyss of cults! The reason is plain: there is a Satanic power working in them all that gains absolute control over those who have heard the gospel of God only to refuse and reject it. But, thank God, there are those to whom the words of the apostle apply: But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth (2Th 2:13).

God grant that each one that reads these words may be found as a child of God, born of the Holy Spirit and of the Word, filled with joy in the knowledge of peace made and redemption accomplished through the glorious work of Christ on the cross.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

CHAPTER 11 The Wars of the Ptolemies and Seleucidae Predicted The Coming Events of the End

1. The wars of the Ptolemies and Seleucidae (Dan 11:1-35)

2. The time of the end and the man of sin (Dan 11:36-45)

Dan 11:1-35. Here we have history pre-written and the greater part of this chapter (Dan 11:2-35) is fulfilled historically. So accurate are these predictions and their subsequent fulfillment that the enemies of the Scripture of truth have declared that it could never have been written by Daniel several hundred years before these persons came into existence and fought their battles. The pagan Porphyry in the third century in his Treatise against Christians bitterly attacked the belief that Daniel wrote these predictions. He argued that all was written after the events had taken place. The same arguments are used by the critics. Such is this most subtle infidelity that it can make use of the statements of a poor heathen in opposition to the divine revelation.

The prophecies given here were minutely fulfilled during the years 301 B.C., to 168 B.C. History verifies everything. The history covers a good part of the Persian and Graeco-Macedonian Empires, but mostly the wars of the Ptolemies and Seleucidae. Artaxerxes, Darius, Alexander the Great, Ptolemy Lagris, the King of the South, Ptolemy Euergetes, Seleucus Calinicus, Ptolemy Philopater, Antiochus Epiphanes, even the Roman fleet (the ships of Chittim), all enter into this prophecy. A detailed exposition of the prophecy and its fulfillment would fill many pages.

Before we pass on we desire to say again that all in these verses we have briefly followed has been historically fulfilled. We point out a mistake in which some have fallen. In Dan 11:31 we read of the abomination that maketh desolate. Our Lord in His Olivet discourse Mat 24:15 said: When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth let him understand). Some believe that when our Lord spoke these words he referred to Dan 11:31, and that this is the abomination of desolation. This is not quite correct. The abomination that maketh desolate of verse 31 is past and happened in the days of the atrocities committed by Antiochus Epiphanes. The abomination of desolation to which our Lord refers is mentioned in Dan 12:11, and it points, as we shall find later, to the abomination set up by the Antichrist, the second beast, in the middle of the week. The typical meaning of Antiochus Epiphanes and his crimes in the land of Judea and against Jerusalem we have already learned in connection with chapter 8.

Dan 11:36-45. The time of the end is mentioned in verse 35. What is to befall Daniels people in the latter days as Daniel was told in Dan 10:14 is now revealed. Between Dan 11:35 and Dan 11:36 we must put a long and unreckoned period of time. Antiochus Epiphanes and the victorious Maccabees end the historical fulfillment of the predictions of the great prophecies in the first part of this chapter, and since then over 2,000 years have come and gone and the fulfillment of Dan 11:36-45 have not yet been. First we read of a wilful king. Who is this king so fully pictured in Dan 11:36-45?

Many expositors of Daniel apply this passage to Antiochus Epiphanes because they see not the important interval which exists between Dan 11:35 and Dan 11:36. However, a closer examination of the description of this king shows that he cannot be Antiochus. He is another person altogether, and as we shall see later, will be a Jew and assume kingly honors in the midst of the Jewish people. Antiochus was a Gentile. Others again identify this King with the first beast in Rev 13:1-18, and say that the head of the revived Roman Empire, one like Napoleon the First is meant, while others see here a reference to the pope in Rome. And whether the head of the Roman power, or the pope, or perhaps Mohammed, the term Antichrist is freely applied to each. Those who see the papacy here and the Romish corruption make some startling applications which are extremely fanciful.

The wilful king is the Antichrist. The Jewish people rejected their King, the Messiah, who came to His own, the Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord told the Jews: I am come in My Fathers name, and ye receive Me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive Joh 5:43. This other one has not yet come. We have his photograph here. He appears in Israels land in the time of the end as a counterfeit Messiah and takes also the place of king in their midst. This wilful king, the personal Antichrist who deceives the apostate mass of the Jewish people, is repeatedly mentioned in the Old Testament prophetic Word. Isaiah speaks of him and his end Isa 30:33; Isa 57:9. Zechariah calls him the idol shepherd Zec 11:15-17. He is repeatedly mentioned in the Psalms as the wicked man–the man of the earth– the bloody and deceitful man. In the book of Revelation he appears as the second beast out of the land (Palestine) Rev 13:11-18. The two horns like a lamb as he is described there show clearly that he imitates Christ. He has the spirit of the dragon and appears as a religious leader, for this reason he is also called the false prophet in the book of Revelation (Rev 16:13; Rev 19:20; Rev 20:10).

In the New Testament he is called in the writings of John the Antichrist. (See 1Jn 2:18-25; 1Jn 4:3;2Jn 1:7.)Another great prophecy of the same person is found in 2Th 2:1-17, where he is called the man of sin, the son of perdition. The early Church believed that this evil person will be a real man, a Jew, and be energized by Satan. That he is the papal system or something else was invented later.

In Dan 11:40-45 we have a prophecy of the wars and conflicts during the time of the end. The false king, Israels false Messiah, the Antichrist, plays an important part in these conflicts. Then there are the kings of the south and of the north. The king of the south comes out of Egypt. His antagonist is the king of the north. The king of the south will be overthrown by the powerful king of the North, the same who is typified by the Antiochus Epiphanes. (Read about this invasion in Joe 2:1-32 and Zec 14:1-21)

While the king of the north and his proud hosts are thus overthrown by the army of the Lord, what becomes of the wilful king, the Antichrist in the city? The king of the north cannot touch him. But the Lord Himself will deal with that wicked one. Whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming 2Th 2:8. Thus ends the great conflict of the time of the end. The eternal abode of the satanic instruments of the time of the end, the beast, that coming prince, the Antichrist and the king of the north will be the lake of fire.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

in the: Dan 5:31, Dan 9:1

to confirm: Dan 10:18, Act 14:22

Reciprocal: Dan 8:20 – General Dan 10:21 – I will Mat 24:6 – ye shall hear Luk 22:43 – strengthening Act 15:32 – confirmed Act 18:23 – strengthening

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

WE NOW COME to the last of the prophetic revelations, received and recorded by Daniel. The opening verses of chapter 11, indeed the larger part of the chapter, give us predictions that very evidently have long since been fulfilled. If our readers will glance at the close of verse Dan 11:35, they will see the words, ‘to the time of the end, because it is yet for a time appointed’. Then turning back to Dan 9:26, they will see the words, ‘unto the end’; and at that point came the undisclosed gap in the prophecy of the seventy weeks – as we now know, lasting over nineteen centuries – before the seventieth week arrives. So it is, we believe, here, and only when we reach verse Dan 11:36 of our chapter does the prophecy suddenly move on to the time of the end, and to the last days.

The three Persian kings who were to ‘stand up’, according to verse Dan 11:2, are evidently the three mentioned in Ezr 4:5.Ezr 4:7, known in history as Cambyses, Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes. The fourth, ‘richer than they all’, would be Xerxes, who was so intoxicated by his own greatness that he attacked Greece, and stirred up the ‘mighty king’ of verse Dan 11:3 – Alexander the Great – to humble his pride and shatter his kingdom; gaining for himself ‘great dominion’, according to his own will.

History records how brief was Alexander’s dominion, for he died when still young, and his kingdom was divided between four of his generals, as is clearly foretold in verse Dan 11:4. Their powers, however, were far more limited and ‘not according to his dominion’. From verse Dan 11:5 onward, our attention is directed to the doings of two out of these four; the king of the south and the king of the north respectively. If we enquire why the prophecy concentrates on these two only, the answer surely is that only these two meddled with and oppressed the Jews back in the land. Their kingdoms were north and south of Palestine; what we should now call Syria and Egypt, and the first kings were Seleucus and Ptolemy.

The New Translation renders verse Dan 11:5 as, ‘The king of the south, who is one of his princes, shall be strong; but [another] shall be stronger than he’. Both of these princes of Alexander would be strong, but the northern one the stronger of the two. This exactly came to pass.

Verse Dan 11:6 begins, ‘And in the end of years’, and we at once travel on some distance into history, for the prophecy does not concern itself here with individual kings. It is just ‘the king of the north’, or ‘of the south’, though different individuals may be indicated. What is plainly foretold is the state of friction and warfare that continued for many years between these two opposing powers, to the trouble and discomfort of the Palestinian Jews, who were located between them. We may say therefore that verses Dan 11:6-20 forecast their evil schemings and fightings up to a point when the power of Rome became manifest, before which the then king of the north should ‘stumble and fall, and not be found’. His successor had to be a mere ‘raiser of taxes’, to meet the demands of Rome. Infidels have insisted this chapter must have been written after the events, so accurately does it foretell what actually took place.

Reaching verse Dan 11:21, we read that after this ‘raiser of taxes’ there would ‘stand up a vile person’, marked equally by cunning flattery and by warlike violence, and his doings and the things that sprang out of his doings occupy us until we come to the end of verse 36. We have here again, we believe, the man presented to us in Dan 8:9, as the ‘little horn’ rising out of one of the four kingdoms into which the Grecian dominion was divided – the man known to history as Antiochus Epiphanes. His evil doings are dwelt upon at some length, we believe, because he acted with such violence against the Jews as to make him a type or forecast of the king of the north, who in the last days will be their great adversary.

This is seen especially in verses Dan 11:28-32. In the first of these verses, ‘his heart shall be against the holy covenant’. Then for a time his plans are spoiled by ‘the ships of Chittim’; that is, an expedition from Rome. This was the occasion that some of us may remember hearing about in our school days, when tired with his falsity the Roman leader drew a circle about him where he stood, and demanded an answer before he stepped out of it. This it was that angered him, and as he dared not attack the Romans, he vented his spleen on the Jews, and had ‘indignation against the holy covenant’.

Amongst the Jews of his days were found some ‘that forsake the holy covenant’, as verse Dan 11:30 indicates, and establishing contact with these, he proceeded to pollute the sanctuary in a violent way, as verse Dan 11:31 predicts. He overturned the whole order of things in the temple at Jerusalem, stopping the sacrifices to Jehovah in the endeavour to make all venerate a false image, which is described here as ‘the abomination that maketh desolate’. Then he corrupted and gained to his side by flatteries ‘such as do wickedly against the covenant’.

Let us notice that no less than four times the ‘covenant’ is mentioned in these verses, and on three of these occasions the word ‘holy’ is connected with it. What God has covenanted and decreed is always the object of the devil’s attack, and this man was without a doubt an agent of Satan in his efforts to subvert what remained of the worship of the one true God at Jerusalem.

But in those days there were to be found not only those who were wicked and whom he could corrupt but also ‘people that do know their God’, and, ‘that understand among the people’. This is ever God’s way; He does not leave Himself without a witness of some kind, and here we have a prediction of what actually happened in those dark days. The Maccabees were raised up, zealous and God-fearing men, and under their leadership there was ultimately a deliverance, though not without much loss and suffering, as is indicated in verse 33.

In the closing verses of Heb 11:1-40, particularly in Heb 11:36-38, we find allusions to the sufferings of saints of a bygone age which we can hardly identify from Old Testament history, and it may be that the reference is to saints who suffered in this period of trial, after the days of Malachi. Their testings were intensified by the failure and apostasy of some who were men of understanding, as verse Dan 11:35 of our chapter predicted; but this would have a purging effect upon those who did really stand firmly for God.

This mixed state of things is to persist, ‘to the time of the end’. Thus it is stated, and thus it has been – particularly as regards the Jew, who is before us in the prophecy here. There is to be in this master ‘e time appointed’, but no indication is given of how long the time is to be. We turn to such New Testament passages as Eph 3:4, Eph 3:5, and Col 1:25, Col 1:26, to find that in our epoch of Gospel grace going out to the Gentiles, God is working out designs that He had from eternity, but which were not revealed in Old Testament times. In the wisdom of God, however, the prophecies were so worded as to leave room for the things subsequently to be made known without any collision of fact. An illustration of this, often referred to, is in Isa 61:2, where both Advents are alluded to in one verse. The same thing may be said of Dan 9:26, and of the verse before us here.

In verse Dan 11:36, ‘the king’ is suddenly introduced to us, and glancing at verse Dan 11:40 we discover that his dominion will be ‘at the time of the end’, and also that his kingdom will be found in a land lying between the kings of the south and the north. We conclude therefore that he is a king who will dominate Palestine in the last days, and of whom we read further in the New Testament. He is to be identified, we believe, with the second beast of Rev 13:1-18, and with that false Messiah, coming ‘in his own name’, whom the Lord Jesus predicted in Joh 5:43.

The doings of this ‘king’ are predicted in verses Dan 11:36-39, and the leading feature is this: – he ‘shall do according to his will’. Now sin is lawlessness – the creature breaking loose from the control of the Creator, in order to assert and accomplish its own will. In 2Th 2:3, we read of ‘that man of sin’, who is to be revealed when He who restrains is removed, and if that passage be compared with this, we at once see some striking resemblances, for in both the leading features of this coming great one are selfwill and self-exaltation.

Let us each remember for our own soul’s good that there is nothing more destructive of true Christian life than self will. We are called to do, not our own wills but the will of God. We are called to a life of obedience, for we are to have in us the mind that was in Christ, which led Him even to death. His was the life of self-humiliation, the exact opposite to the self-exalting mind which was in Adam, and which characterizes the flesh in each one of us.

Two expressions in verse Dan 11:37 indicate that this king will be a Jew, for he disregards ‘the God of his fathers’, and also ‘the desire of women’, for every typical Jewish woman desired to be the mother of the Messiah. He will speak ‘marvellous things’ against the true God, assuming a God-like position for himself. Yet he will honour ‘the god of forces’, or ‘of fortresses’; an allusion we think, to what is plainly seen in Rev 13:1-18, where the second beast is the leader in religious apostasy but is dependent upon the first beast for worldly power and military might.

Support he will need, for the kings of both south and north will be antagonistic, more particularly the king of the north, as we see in the closing verses of the chapter. In Isaiah he is spoken of as the Assyrian, and ‘the overflowing scourge’ (Isa 28:15), and Zec 14:1-3 appears to refer to the end of this northern adversary, as predicted in the two verses that close our chapter. At the outset he will have great success, overflowing many lands, save Edom, Moab and Ammon, who are reserved to be dealt with more directly by a restored Israel. He will even overpower Egypt, and then tidings from the north-east will lead him to Palestine, and he will ‘plant the tents of his palace between the sea and the mountain of holy beauty’, (New Trans.). And then, when his achievements seem to reach their climax, ‘he shall come to his end, and none shall help him’. In this terse yet graphic way was revealed to Daniel what is stated in Zec 14:3. Jehovah goes forth to the conflict, in the person of the Lord Jesus. The adverse northern king is crushed, and comes to his end.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

Dan 11:1. The pronoun I means the person described in Dan 10:18 and other verses in that chapter. The reader should “keep his hearings as to the chronological place we have reached in this most wonderful prophecy. In chapter 10: 20 it was shown that Persia was to be contacted by the king of Grecia. But that was a long jump into the future and other events were to happen first. This angel is still in the presence of Daniel, and even before returning to fight with the king of Persia, he is going to reveal to the prophet the things that are to happen to Persia and Greece and the Jews who will be Involved in the whole affair. Remember, this conversation or visit of the angel with Daniel is taking place in the third year of Cyrus (chapter 10: 1). but in this meeting the angel inserts the present verse to tell the prophet of his work in the first year of that reign, that it consisted in confirming and strengthening the kingdom of the Medes and Persians. That confirmation was done because the change from the Babylonian Empire to the MedoPersian was according to Gods decree. And now after two or three years have gone by, this angel is in the presence of Daniel and ready to reveal to him the events referred to in the forepart of this paragraph.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Dan 11:1. Also I, in the first year of Darius, &c. This verse should have been joined to the last chapter. The meaning of what the angel here says is, that from the time that Daniel addressed those ardent prayers to God about the affairs of his people, mentioned chap. 9., which was in the first year of Darius, from that very time HE (namely, the angel Gabriel) had strenuously co-operated with Michael, in working the deliverance of the Jewish nation. See here again the vast efficacy and power of prayer; it engages God and angels to our assistance.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Dan 11:2. There shall stand up yet three kings in Persia. Daniel, a minister of state for most of his long life, was here shewn the succession of kingdoms in so clear a light as to command all men to believe in the truth of revelation. He describes the conflicts of the kings of Egypt and Asia, as the flux and reflux of the sea. The first of those three kings was Cambyses, son of Cyrus. The second Smerdis the great. The third Darius Hystaspes, the husband of queen Esther. The fourth was Xerxes, son of Darius, who invaded Greece with ten thousand ships, and more than five millions of men, as Herodotus reports. Having crossed the Bosphorus sea into Europe, his army was defeated by a handful of Greeks at the pass of Thermopyl, and utter ruin followed.

Dan 11:3. A mighty king shall stand up. Alexander the great, who sailed from Greece with only thirty two thousand infantry, and four thousand horse, and subdued all the provinces of Asia with a sort of march, rather than war, and planted his standard on the walls of Babylon. Having landed his troops in Asia, he allowed them no hope of retreat, but sent away his ships, that his soldiers might fight for their lives. Alexander died in Babylon, by poison or by fever, in the thirty second year of his age, the twelfth of his reign, and in the year of the world 3791.

Dan 11:4. His kingdomshall be divided toward the four winds of heaven, as stated in Dan 7:6; Dan 8:8; Dan 8:22.

Dan 11:5. The king of the south shall be strong. Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt; others say, Ptolemy Lagus. The king of Egypt made a victorious campaign in Syria, and returned loaded with spoils. He became strong, having all Egypt under his power. One of his princes, Seleucus Nicator, to whom a fourth part of Alexanders empire fell, also became strong above Egypt by conquering four kings; viz. Demetrius king of Macedon, Lysimachus king of Thrace, Antigonus in Phrygia, &c.; and was therefore surnamed Nicator, the conqueror.

Dan 11:6. The kings daughter of the south. Berenice, daughter of the king of Egypt, was given in marriage to Antiochus, king of Syria. But she did not obtain the power over Asia, for in the course of the wars, as the LXX read, She shall be slain, and her son which she had by Theus. The history of the divorce and murder which followed is very tragic.

Dan 11:7. But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand upand shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north. Ptolemy Evergetus vanquished Seleucus Callinicus in one campaign, and returned to Egypt loaded with the spoils of war, as in Dan 11:8. This is recorded by Justin the Roman historian.

Dan 11:10. But his sonsshall assemble a multitude of great forces. The sons of Callinicus, Antiochus the great, and his brother Ceraunius, reconquered Syria, including Judea. And though Seleucus himself perished in the war, Antiochus conducted it with success. Here the poor jews suffered again, the wars being partly conducted in their country.

Dan 11:11-12. The king of the south, Ptolemy Philopater, king of Egypt, shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with Antiochus, the first king of Syria. Polybius records the victory which the Egyptians obtained over Antiochus at Paphia; and the author of the third book of the Maccabees ascribes it to Arsinoe, sister of Ptolemy, who ran through the ranks with tears and promises, exhorting the soldiers to valour. The two armies were little short of eighty thousand each. Jerome says that Paphia was near the frontiers of Egypt. By this victory Ptolemys heart was lifted up, and he entered Jerusalem with great pomp; but made no use of the victory for future defence, else he might have conquered all Syria. He returned to his country loaded with spoils, and lost his glory in effeminacy.

Dan 11:13. The king of the north shall return after certain years. Antiochus the great, and father of the cruel Antiochus Epiphanes, being made king while very young, returned after fourteen years, and accomplished all these things, as recorded down to the twentieth verse. Justin, lib. 29.

Dan 11:14. The robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision. Theodotian reads , pests of the public. Montanus has, dissipated men. These were restless jews who established themselves in Egypt, and built a sort of temple of vision there, like that at Jerusalem, as stated in the notes on Isaiah 30. In these sore wars, which continued from the time of Alexander till the Romans entered Asia, Josephus remarks, that though Antiochus Magnus was a friend rather than an enemy of the jews, nevertheless in the wars between him and the Egyptians, which power soever gained the victory, Judea always suffered from the invading armies.

Dan 11:18. After this he shall turn his face to the isles of Chetim. Antiochus conquered the principal isles of Greece, and made war on the coasts of Greece, a people who were then the allies of the Romans. These aggressions brought upon him Lucius Scipio, the Roman consul, who defeated his army at mount Siphylus, and drove him back to Asia, loaded with reproach.

Dan 11:21. And in his estate shall stand up a vile person. Seleucus Philopater being dead, his brother Antiochus Epiphanes took the kingdom, and afflicted the jews above all other kings. He rashly embroiled himself with the concerns of religion, desecrated the temple of Jerusalem, slew forty thousand jews in the city, sold multitudes for slaves, and committed massacres of unparalleled cruelty. Judas Maccabeus, in his opposition to this bloody tyrant, signalised himself with unexampled bravery.

Dan 11:30. The ships of Chittim shall come against him. Chittim, the old name of Cyprus, is put here for the Greek Islands, and for Italy. The jews, unable to bear the tyranny of their oppressors, sent ambassadors to Rome, and obtained an army which overthrew their enemies with dreadful slaughter.

Dan 11:36. He shall exalt himselfagainst the God of gods. St. Paul, by quoting these words in substance, makes this Antiochus a type of the antichristian empire of Rome. 2Th 2:4. On storming Jerusalem he did what he pleased in the temple of God, and spake as though he were a god.

Dan 11:37. Neither shall he regardthe desire of women. By consequence, Daniel, under the figure of this profane man, glanced on popery, which has filled the world with superstitious solitaries. Millions of monks and nuns have lived and died in a state of celibacy, construing the breach of the divine law into an argument of superior sanctity.

Dan 11:38. He shall honour the God of forces. ve-le-Alohe Mahuzzim, the god Mahuzzim. The word occurs in Psa 43:2. The God of my strength. Also in Pro 18:10. The Lord is a strong tower. Antiochus Epiphanes set up the idol Jupiter Olympius on the walls of the temple in Jerusalem. This the most wicked of men, whom all critics make a figure of antichrist, worshipped this god of armies, that he might give him success against his enemies. The Greeks surnamed him Epimanes, that is, the furious. He reigned eleven years, being the eighth king of Syria.

Dan 11:45. Yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. After his defeat at Elymais, his allies forsook him. He then marched to rob the temple of Diana; and on his return, having heard that the worship of the Lord at Jerusalem was restored, he fell sick of a dreadful malady and perished, forsaken and hated of all men. His cruelties are related at large in 1 Maccab. chap. 1, 6., and 2 Maccab. chap. 1, 10.

REFLECTIONS.

What a chapter of wars and woes for the space of two hundred and fifty years from the invasion of Asia by Alexander till the time of the Romans, who came to aid the Jews, but kept possession of the countries, as the rewards of service. What a new and luminous vision was this which opened on the prophets mind; a vision most accurately confirmed in all its parts by profane historians, who had no understanding of Daniels vision. What can infidels object to these demonstrations of revelation. To say with Porphyry, that the book of Daniel was written after the event, is as futile as to say, that the present age of men had no ancestors. All judaism rises up in refutation.

But the tragic and various deaths of the tragedians are not less impressive. Alexander perishes in Babylon; and in a few years all his relatives perished by poison, or by the hand of justice, or by monarchical jealousies. It was the same with many of the bloody houses that followed. Happy the cottager, dwelling on mount Caucasus, milking his goats, and living for a hundred years.

Above all, we see that the true use of prophecy is to demonstrate the superintending care of providence over the church, and over the world; to teach men wisdom, to inculcate mercy, judgment, righteousness and truth. The oracle leaves the radiance of glory and hope shining on the church. After the wicked are scourged, the angels of God spread their wings over the saints.

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

Dan 11:1. This verse really belongs to Daniel 10, and should be taken as the final clause of the preceding paragraph.first year of Darius: the mention of Darius is exceedingly difficult, as Dan 10:1 dates the prophecy in the third year of Cyrus. The LXX reads Cyrus instead of Darius.confirm and strengthen him: i.e. Michael, not Darius. If the translation is right, Daniel is represented as coming to the assistance of Michael in his contest with the other angels. But the LXX reads, confirms and strengthens me. Charles emends Dan 10:20 b Dan 11:1 f. thus: When I go forth, lo, the prince of Greece shall come, and there is none that holdeth with me against these, but Michael your prince, who standeth up to confirm and strengthen me. But I will tell thee that which is inscribed in the writing of truth. Behold, there shall stand up, etc.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

THE ANTICHRIST

Dan 11:2-15

Before receiving these fresh revelations, Daniel is assured that what he is about to hear is “the truth.” For our knowledge of the history of God’s earthly people during the times of the Gentiles we have the certainty of divine revelations in place of human speculations.

In the course of these revelations we have:-

First, the forecast of events that lead up to the time of the end (Vv. 2-35):

Secondly, the prophecy that takes us on to the time of the end foretelling the reign of Antichrist, as an apostate, in the midst of the apostate nation of the Jews (Vv. 36-39):

Thirdly, the northern enemy of the Jews, who, in the last days, will overflow their land during the reign of Antichrist (Vv. 40-45).

(a) The prophetic history of events in connection with the land of Israel, leading up to the time of the end.

The angel presents before Daniel a brief outline of the activities of Gentile powers in connection with God’s land. It becomes manifest that if God records events in the Gentile world, it is only so far as these events concern His people and “the glorious land” (verse 16).

(V. 2). At the time of these communications the first great world empire had fallen. The second or Persian Empire was taking the lead in the government of the world. Daniel is first told in few words how the Persian Empire would come to its end. Four kings of Persia were yet to arise, the fourth being far greater than his predecessors. From Ezra 4 we know that the first three kings were Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes and Darius (Ezr 4:5-7; Ezr 4:23-24). The fourth king was, we know from history, the famous Xerxes who led the Persians against the ruler of Greece.

(V. 3). Then the angel tells Daniel that a mighty king would arise who would rule over a great dominion, and do according to his will. Again history tells us that this was Alexander the Great who defeated Xerxes, crushed the Persian Empire and established the dominion of Greece – the third world Empire.

(V. 4). Then we learn, as already described in former visions, that Alexander’s dominion would be divided into four distinct kingdoms which would not descend to his posterity but be ruled by strangers. All this we know was fulfilled when Alexander’s dominion was divided among four of his generals.

(Vv. 5, 6). One of these kingdoms would be located at the north of the land of Israel and another at the south. In the prophecy that follows, the rulers of these kingdoms are respectively referred to as the king of the south, or Egypt, and as the king of the north, or Syria. In the course of the prophecy these titles do not always refer to the same person, but are used as official titles to designate kings of the same line. The revelations that follow are mainly occupied with the activities of these two divisions of Alexander’s empire, as they specially come into contact with God’s earthly people and God’s land.

Daniel is informed that the king of the south, one of the Ptolemies, a famous prince under Alexander, would be strong, but one would arise who would “be stronger than he” (N. Tn.). This was doubtless the first king of the north. Profane history gives in great detail the conflict between these two powers. God gives the outstanding facts, as in the course of these conflicts one or the other took possession of the land of Israel.

After years of conflict these two powers would seek to come together by agreement, strengthened by a marriage alliance. The daughter of the king of the south would be given to the king of the north. Nevertheless, this marriage would fail to end the conflict. The daughter of the king of the south, though coming to the king of the north, would carry no power. She, her husband and attendants would be “given up” to their enemies. History tells us they were all murdered.

(V. 7-9). The brother of the murdered queen, having come into his estate as king of the south, would attack the king of the north to avenge the murder of his sister. He would prevail over the king of the north, and, having taken many captives and a rich booty, would return to his own land.

(Vv. 10-12). In due time the sons of the king of the north would seek to avenge their defeat. They would assemble a great army and pass through the holy land to attack the king of the south. Moved with rage, the king of the south would come forth to meet this attack and seek to crush his opponents. Nevertheless, his overwhelming victory would not establish his own safety nor end these conflicts.

(Vv. 13, 14). Again the king of the north would return to the attack with a yet greater army. Moreover, many others would join in this attack on the king of the south. Further, Daniel is told that insurrectionists among his own people – the Jews, here called the “violent” (N. Tn.) – would seek to exalt themselves by joining in this alliance against the king of the south.

(Vv. 15, 16). In the course of this conflict the king of the north would take the fenced cities in the land of Israel, and the glorious land would come under his power. The forces of the king of the south would be unable to stop the conquest of the glorious land.

(V. 17). Having possessed himself of the land, the king of the north would prepare to enter the land of the king of the south with all the strength of his kingdom. Apparently, however, he would change his mind and give his daughter to the king of the south, hoping through her to attain his ends by corruption. She, however, would refuse to act for her father against her husband.

(Vv. 18, 19). Trusting that by this marriage his ends on Egypt would be secured, the king of the north would attack the isles of Greece, and for a time be victorious, but a prince would arise in the west that would utterly defeat him, causing him to turn back to his own country a crushed and broken prince.

(V. 20). Consequent upon his defeat, the king of the north would have to pay tribute (as we know from history) to the Romans: therefore his successor would be known as “a raiser of taxes,” or exactor. His exactions from the people of the land would lead to his assassination.

(Vv. 21-24). He would be succeeded by a vile person, known in history as Antiochus Epiphanes. He would not be the rightful heir, but by flattery would disarm opposition and obtain the kingdom peaceably. He would overflow God’s land, crushing all resistance and setting aside the leader of God’s people, here called the prince of the covenant. He would make a league with the people, and then work deceitfully to obtain the fattest places of the provinces by corruption and bribery. He would enforce idolatry upon the people, a thing which his fathers had not done.

(Vv. 25-28). Having possessed himself of the glorious land, he would attack the king of the south, by whom he would be met with a mighty army. Nevertheless, the king of the south would suffer defeat, as the king of the north would plan devices against him, corrupting his dependants. These two kings would meet and seek to deceive each other at the same table. The king of the north would return to his own land with great riches, having decided in his own heart not to keep any covenant made either with the king of the south or with the people of God.

(Vv. 29-35). Finally, the king of the north would again attack the king of the south. In this attack he would be opposed by a power from the west. The ships of Chittim come against him – a fleet of the Roman Empire. Thwarted in all his plans by this new enemy, he would be forced with indignation to return from the south. His indignation would apparently be vented upon the Jews. From the middle of verse 30 to the end of verse 35 we have in great detail the actions of this vile man in relation to the Jews and their land. It is to these events that these historical details have been leading, as setting forth the enmity of man to God and His people – an enmity that the Jew will have to meet in all its culminating horror in the last days.

In the day of this vile king, as in the latter days, apostates will be found among the Jews – those “that forsake the holy covenant.” To these men he will “direct his attention” (N. Tn.), and “corrupt by flatteries.” Succeeding for a time by his corruption, he will have power on his side, which he will use to pollute the sanctuary, take away the daily sacrifice, and set up an idol in the temple.

Nevertheless, in this terrible time, there will be among the Jews those “that do know their God.” They will be strong and act for their God and instruct many in the ways and mind of God. In result, they will have to face persecution, violence and imprisonment for many days. Nevertheless, in all their sorrows they will be helped. All will be allowed of God to try and prove them in view of the reward and glory that will come in the end, for the end, being appointed of God, will surely come.

The leading events foretold in this prophecy are given with such precision that it is easy to see, from profane history, their exact fulfilment, and even to give the names to the different actors, and the dates and places of their victories and defeats. Moreover, the final events in this prophecy, presented in verses 21 to 35, describing the activities of the vile Antiochus Epiphanes, are given in greater detail, as they not only present history in relation to God’s people, which has already been fulfilled, but they very accurately typify the yet greater sorrows that the Jewish nation will pass through in the future day of the great tribulation.

(b) The Antichrist (Vv. 36-39).

To the end of verse 35 we have the prophecy of events which, though future in Daniel’s day, have long since been fulfilled. From verse 36 the angel speaks of events, the fulfilment of which is yet future. This becomes clear from the angel’s words which speak of these things continuing till the indignation be accomplished (verse 36); and again by the reference to the time of the end (verse 40). Already the angel has used this expression “the time of the end” to show that the persecutions the faithful remnant pass through have an end in view (verse 35); now, in verse 40, it is used to describe events that will immediately precede the time of the end. Further, it is important to notice that, in verse 36, the angel introduces into his prophecy an entirely new personage under the designation of “the king.” From verse 40 we learn that both the king of the south and the king of the north will come against this fresh person. Evidently, then, the angel is no longer speaking of either the king of Egypt or Assyria, but of a king that reigns in the land.

The characteristics of this man, as given by the angel, so entirely correspond with the description of the man of sin, or Antichrist, as set forth in the New Testament (2 Thess. 2), that it can only be concluded that both passages refer to the same person. The difference is that, in Daniel the Antichrist is presented in connection with the Jewish apostacy, whereas in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians he is presented as the outcome of the apostacy of Christendom. It is the prophetic delineation of this terrible man that gives such deep importance to this final section of the prophecy.

First, we learn that he will do “according to his will.” He will act in entire independence of God, recognising no will but his own.

Secondly, he will exalt and magnify himself above every god. These two things marked the fall of man. Adam acted independently of God under the temptation of exalting himself to be as God. In the Antichrist, these two things will be seen in their final manifestation, the culmination of all the evil that has ruined Adam’s race.

Thirdly, he will not only profess to be superior to every god, but he will speak blasphemous things against the God of gods.

Fourthly, in spite of the wickedness of this fearful man, he will be allowed to “prosper till the indignation be accomplished.” The prophet Isaiah clearly shows that the expression “indignation” is used to refer to the time of God’s dealing in governmental judgment with the nation of Israel (See Isa. 5 to 10 and Isa. 14).

Fifthly, we learn that this man will not “regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.” Evidently, then, he will be an apostate Jew, that rejects, not only Jehovah, but the Messiah, whose birth was the desire of Jewish women.

Sixthly, having magnified himself above all and set himself up as God, he will press upon man a new god, “the god of forces.” Apparently, he sets up the rule of might over right.

Seventhly, under this new god of might, he will organise the whole land of Israel, dividing it up for gain and as a reward to those who carry out his will.

Such are the fearful characteristics of the coming Antichrist in connection with the Jew and the land. It is manifest he will be the exact contrast to all that is so blessedly seen in Christ, who ever did the will of God, never exalted Himself, and sought only the honour of the Father and the blessing of man.

Thus, in a few brief words, we have set before us the Antichrist, himself an apostate Jew reigning over an apostate nation. In this passage we learn nothing of his overwhelming judgment. This is given in the Revelation.

(c) The King of the North (Vv. 40-45).

(Vv. 40-43). In the Antichrist there is brought before us the great enemy of God and His people that, in the last days, will be found in the midst of the Jewish people. The closing verses of the chapter prophetically announce that, at the same time the Jewish nation will be opposed by an enemy without.

In “the time of the end,” when the Jews are back in their land under the reign of Antichrist, they will be attacked by the king of the south and the king of the north. Evidently the king of the north will be their great and serious opponent, for we read he will come like a whirlwind and overflow and pass through the land. For a time he will pursue his victorious career, for “many countries shall be overthrown.” Edom Moab and the children of Ammon will escape; but the land of Egypt will fall under his power.

We may gather from this Scripture that when the Jews are reinstated in their land, these ancient nations that formerly surrounded the land will re-appear, according to the bounds of their lands originally allotted to them by God. We know from Isaiah that the judgment of God upon these three nations will be exercised by Israel (Isa 11:14); therefore it may be that the king of the north is not allowed to touch them. Nevertheless, he is permitted to overthrow the Egyptians and despoil them of their riches. The Libyans and Ethiopians will apparently do his bidding.

(Vv. 44, 45). In the midst of his successes, he will receive news of approaching enemies from the east and the north which will compel him to turn upon these fresh foes “with great fury.” On his homeward march he seeks to establish his palace in the glorious holy mountain.

In this passage no details are given of the circumstances that close his career. This only are we told that he shall come to his end, and there will be none to help him, an expression that would seem to indicate that God will deal directly with this foe apart from human agency (See Eze 39:1-7).

Connecting the different statements of verses 36 to 45, we see a vivid picture of the Jews at the time of the end, when they will be gathered back in their own land in unbelief, rejecting Christ as their Messiah. They will have rebuilt their temple and resumed their sacrifices. Having rejected their king, they will, according to the Lord’s own words, receive another that “shall come in his own name” (Joh 5:43); thus they will accept Antichrist as their king. On the north of the land, Syria will be established under a powerful king. On the south, Egypt will prosper under its own king, having “treasures of gold and silver.” Ethiopia and Libya will exist as distinct nations. On the east, Edom, Moab and Ammon will be re-established. In these circumstances, the Jews, having accepted the rule of Antichrist, will become apostate and their land will fall a prey to their northern enemies

Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible

11:1 Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, [even] I, {a} stood to confirm and to strengthen him.

(a) The angel assures Daniel that God has given him power to perform these things, seeing that he appointed him to assist Darius when he overcame the Chaldeans.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

This verse actually concludes the tenth chapter. The NASB, NIV, and NKJV translators have sought to clarify this fact by making this verse the last part of the parenthetical statement begun in Dan 10:21. Without observing this, we might conclude that another reference to a king introduces a different incident from the one already introduced in Dan 10:1 (cf. Dan 1:1; Dan 2:1; Dan 3:1; Dan 4:1; Dan 5:1; Dan 6:1; Dan 7:1; Dan 8:1; Dan 9:1).

The angel concluded his encouragement of Daniel, by adding that he had been responsible for encouraging and protecting Darius the Mede during the beginning of his reign over Babylon. Another, less likely interpretation, is that the antecedent of "him" is Michael rather than Darius. I think it is less likely in view of the apparent point of this verse explained below.

As mentioned previously (see my comment on Dan 5:31), "Darius" was probably another name for Cyrus. The angel may have used it here because it was a title that Daniel preferred (cf. Dan 5:31; Dan 6:1; Dan 6:6; Dan 6:9; Dan 6:25; Dan 6:28; Dan 9:1). The first year of Darius in view was the first year of his reign as king of Babylon, namely, 539 B.C. Almost immediately, in 538 B.C., Darius (Cyrus) had issued his decree allowing the Jews to return from exile. Obviously this angel’s ministry had been effective and had resulted in blessing for the Jews. This king had also issued a decree commanding everyone in his kingdom to honor Yahweh (Dan 6:26-27), assuming that incident happened before the events of chapters 10-12. Thus, the point of this verse, is that the good fortune that the Israelites now experienced under Darius, had been the result of successful angelic warfare in the heavenly realms. This change for the better would encourage Daniel as he pondered the future revelation of Israel’s fortunes that he was about to receive. Three antagonists of Israel would seek to implement the plan of Satan and his angels to eliminate the Jews: Haman, Antiochus, and Antichrist. Nevertheless holy angels, though invisible, would resist them effectively.

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