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