The interpreting angel now explained the long anticipated (since 10:1) revelation about the future that involved Daniel's people, the Jews. The first part of it concerns events preceding Messiah's first advent (vv. 2-35) and the second part events preceding Messiah's second advent (11:36-12:4).405
This revelation begins at the same place as the vision of the ram and the goat in chapter 8. It begins with the second kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar's image (ch. 2) and with the second of the four beasts (ch. 7), namely, Medo-Persia.
Daniel learned that three more Persian kings would arise after Darius (Cyrus, cf. 10:1). Historically these proved to be Cambyses, Pseudo-Smerdis (also known as Gaumata and Bardiya), and Darius I. The fourth Persian king to appear did become stronger than his predecessors and attacked Greece. He was Xerxes I (Ahasuerus).406Xerxes attacked Greece in 480 B.C. with a huge army, but he suffered defeat and never recovered.407
"After his [Xerxes'] great army (estimated by Herodotus at a million men) had subdued virtually all of Greece down to the Isthmus of Corinth and the city of Athens had been reduced to ashes, Xerxes' navy was thoroughly worsted by the united Greek fleet at the Battle of Salamis in 480 B.C. This unexpected setback prompted him to beat a hasty retreat to Asia. The one-hundred-thousand-man land army he left behind under the command of Mardonius was completely crushed in the following year by the allied forces of the Greeks at the battle of Plataea."408
11:3 The mighty king who arose and did as he pleased proved to be Alexander the Great (cf. 2:32, 39b; 7:6; 8:5-8, 21). He was, of course, Greek. His invasion of the Persian Empire was in large part retaliation for Xerxes' attacks against his people. He first attacked the Persians at the Granicus River near Constantinople in 334 B.C. and finally overthrew the Persian yoke at Gaugamela near Nineveh in 331 B.C. His conquest of the ancient world took only five years (334-330 B.C.).
11:4 After conquering most of the ancient world, even farther east than the Persian Empire had extended, Alexander died prematurely in Babylon, his imperial capital, in 323 B.C. His two sons, Hercules and Alexander, were both murdered when they were very young as was his uncle, Philip Arrhidaeus. Consequently his kingdom eventually was divided up between his four leading generals (cf. 7:6; 8:8, 22). Cassander ruled Macedonia-Greece, Lysimachus governed Thrace-Asia Minor, Seleucus took the rest of Asia except lower Syria and Palestine, and Ptolemy reigned over Egypt and Palestine. This Greek Empire following Alexander's demise did not retain the strength that it had previously under the centralized authority of Alexander.
The angel now began describing the affairs of two kingdoms whose kings he called "the king of the South"and "the king of the North."These north and south directions are in relation to Palestine, the land of Daniel and his people. The nation to the south was Egypt (v. 8), which Ptolemy I and his descendants ruled. The kingdom to the north was what later became Syria, which Seleucus I and his heirs governed. Shortly after the division of Alexander's kingdom into four parts, this Syrian kingdom included much of Asia Minor in the West, and it extended into India in the East. The Holy Land stood between these two great powers, Egypt and Syria, and it became territory that each one coveted and tried to possess.
11:5 The king described in this verse proved to be Ptolemy I, one of Alexander's most powerful generals, who proclaimed himself king of Egypt in 304 B.C. He was an ambitious monarch who sought to extend his holdings north into Cyprus, Asia Minor, and Greece. His dynasty ruled Egypt until 30 B.C.
The prince under the king of the South who would gain ascendancy over the king of the South was Seleucus I, another of Alexander's most prominent generals. He had gained authority to rule Babylon in 321 B.C. However in 316 B.C. another of Alexander's generals, Antigonus, attacked Babylon. Seleucus sought help from Ptolemy I, and with Ptolemy's sponsorship and superior power was able to retain control of Babylon. He was in this sense Ptolemy's prince; he submitted to him to gain his military support against Antigonus. Seleucus I eventually ruled all of Babylonia, Media, and Syria, a territory much larger than Ptolemy's. He assumed the title "king"in 305 B.C. and was "the king of the North"referred to in this verse. His dynasty lasted until 64 B.C.
11:6 In the South, Ptolemy I eventually died in 285 B.C. leaving his throne to his son, Ptolemy II.
In the North, Seleucus I was the victim of an assassin in 281 B.C., and his son, Antiochus I, began ruling in his place. Antiochus I died in 262 B.C. and left his son, Antiochus II, in power.
Ptolemy II of Egypt and Antiochus II of Syria were contemporaries. They were also bitter enemies. However, they finally made an alliance about 250 B.C., which they sealed with the marriage of Ptolemy II's daughter, Berenice, to Antiochus II. When Ptolemy II died in 246 B.C., Antiochus II took back his first wife, Laodice, whom Antiochus had divorced to marry Berenice.409To gain revenge, Laodice had Berenice and her infant son by Antiochus murdered. Laodice also poisoned Antiochus and ruled in his place briefly. Her son, Seleucus II, then succeeded his father, Antiochus II, and ruled Syria beginning in 246 B.C. Berenice is the woman the angel referred to in this verse.
The NASB text says, "She [Berenice] will not retain her position of power [as queen of the North], but she will be given up [by her husband, Antiochus II], along with those who brought her in [perhaps the diplomats who arranged the marriage], and the one who sired her [her father, Ptolemy II], as well as he who supported her in those times [perhaps her supporting patron]."
11:7 Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III, whose other name, "Euergetes,"means "Benefactor,"succeeded his father and determined to avenge Berenice's death. He attacked Seleucus II at Antioch in Syria and killed Laodice. He also conquered much adjacent territory and remained the foremost power in the region for the rest of his reign.
11:8 Ptolemy III returned to Egypt from Antioch with much spoil including idols and precious vessels from the temples and treasure houses of Syria. He also signed a treaty with Seleucus II in 240 B.C. that resulted in peace between their two nations.
11:9 Evidently Seleucus II invaded Egypt later unsuccessfully, though I know of no record of this in secular history.
11:10 Seleucus II's son, Seleucus III, succeeded his father upon his death in 227 B.C. However, Seleucus III himself died not many years later in 223 B.C., and his brother, Antiochus III, became king of the North. Both of these sons of Seleucus II had sought to restore Syria's glory. Seleucus III invaded Asia Minor, and later Antiochus III attacked Egypt. Though Antiochus III did not defeat Egypt, he was successful in gaining control of Israel during his campaign of 219-217 B.C. Egypt's northern border had until then been Syria, but Antiochus III drove the Egyptians, then led by Ptolemy IV, back to the southern borders of Israel. He earned the epitaph "the Great"because of his military successes.
All of this prediction did not just prove that God can anticipate history by hundreds of years, an amazing fact in itself. It also set the stage for events in the Holy Land, which was the primary concern of this revelation to Daniel.
11:11 In an attempt to recapture his lost territory to the north, Ptolemy IV attacked Antiochus III on the southern borders of Israel, specifically at Raphia in 217 B.C. Initially he was successful.
"Antiochus lost his entire army and was almost captured as he fled to the desert."410
11:12 Ptolemy IV was proud and did not pursue his advantage even though he killed many Syrians. He did acquire all of Palestine, however.
11:13 Antiochus III then proceeded to turn in other directions for conquests, specifically to his east and to his north. About 203 B.C., Antiochus III returned with a much larger army and repulsed the Egyptians who were now under the rule of the child king, Ptolemy V. Antiochus was able to retake Palestine as far south as Gaza.
11:14 The Macedonians under Philip V of Macedonia and the Jews living in Israel joined Antiochus III in opposing the Egyptians. Evidently some of the politically zealous Jews believed that they could gain more freedom if Antiochus III succeeded, but that did not happen.
11:15 The fortified city that Antiochus III besieged and took was Sidon, which he defeated about 200 B.C. There he forced the Egyptian General Scopas, whom he had recently defeated at Paneas (biblical Dan), near the headwaters of the Jordan River, to surrender. Three other Egyptian commanders tried to free Scopas from Sidon, but they were unsuccessful.
11:16 Antiochus III continued to solidify Syrian control over Palestine without successful opposition from the Egyptians.
"When Scopas finally surrendered to Antiochus III at Sidon, the Holy Land was permanently acquired by the Antioch [Syrian] government, to the exclusion of Egypt."411
When Antiochus III entered Jerusalem, the populace welcomed him as a deliverer and benefactor.
11:17 Antiochus III, under threat from Rome, then initiated peace with Egypt and offered his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy V in marriage to insure their alliance. He hoped that Cleopatra would remain pro-Syrian and that her loyalty to him would give him control over Egypt. This attempt failed, however. Cleopatra consistently sided with her husband against her father, even though Ptolemy V was then only a boy.
11:18 Antiochus III then turned his attention to the Aegean coast and sought to conquer Asia Minor and Greece. He had been contemptuous of Roman authority in Greece and had said the Roman's had no business there. Antiochus did not succeed completely because a Roman commander named Claudius Scipio repulsed him. He is the commander that fulfilled the prophecy in this verse.
11:19 Antiochus III returned to Antioch were he died a year later in 187 B.C. He had tried to reunite Alexander the Great's empire under his own authority, but he failed largely because he underestimated the power of the rising Roman Empire. Nevertheless Antiochus III, "the Great,"was a brilliant and successful military leader.
11:20 Antiochus' elder son, Seleucus IV, succeeded his father. He taxed his people, including the Jews, so heavily to pay Rome that his Jewish tax collector, Heliodorus (2 Macc. 3:7), poisoned him. Heliodorus was evidently the oppressor that Seleucus sent through "the jewel of his kingdom,"namely, Israel, collecting taxes. This assassination set the stage for the terrible persecutions of the Jews that followed. Thus Seleucus IV did not die because of mob violence, as his father had, or in battle, but from poison, as this verse predicted.
God gave more information about the following individual than He did about all the preceding ones combined. The reason is his devastating influence on the Jews. During his tenure as king Syria was in decline and Rome gained power. Antiochus IV corresponds to the little horn of chapter 8 (8:9-12, 23-25), and he foreshadows the little horn of chapter 7 (7:8).
"The earlier kings are described to provide a background for Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.), and he is given ample attention because he foreshadows Antichrist of the end times. The movement of the chapter is toward these two significant personages who dramatically affect the fate of the Jews."412
11:21 The Seleucid king who succeeded Seleucus IV was the younger son of Antiochus III, namely, Antiochus IV Epiphanes ("Illustrious One").413The throne rightly belonged to one of the sons of Seleucus IV, the former king and brother of Antiochus IV, but Antiochus IV seized it for himself and had himself proclaimed king. He persuaded the leaders of Syria to allow him to rule since Demetrius, the eldest son of Seleucus IV, was being held hostage in Rome. In this way, through intrigue, he secured the throne for himself.
11:22 Antiochus IV was successful in battle against the Egyptians initially, which this verse describes as flooding away overwhelming forces opposed to him. The Egyptian king was now Ptolemy VI, whom Antiochus deceived and then defeated.
"It was Epiphanes' policy to throw his intended victims off guard by offering them his friendship and alliance. Then he would maneuver for an advantageous position till he could catch them by surprise."414
Antiochus also swept away the Jewish high priest, Onias III, here called "the prince of the covenant,"about 172 B.C. Another view is that Ptolemy VI was "the prince of the covenant"since Antiochus later made a treaty with him. However the term "covenant"in this chapter seems to refers to the Jewish state (cf. vv. 28, 32).
11:23 This verse probably refers to the alliance that Antiochus made with Ptolemy VI in 170 B.C. This treaty was part of a plot to advance his own power in Egypt by siding with Ptolemy VI and against his rival for the Egyptian throne.
11:24 Antiochus craftily pillaged the treasures of his provinces, but not to grow rich himself as his predecessors had done. He used this wealth to bribe and influence other leaders to cooperate with his plans. In this way he enlarged his power base (cf. 1 Macc. 3:30).
11:25 After Antiochus had grown strong enough, he marched his army against Ptolemy VI in 170 B.C. He was able to get all the way to the Nile Delta before the Egyptians discovered that he was approaching. He exercised much influence over Egypt usually pretending to be an ally and then using this enemy for his own advantage. Notice how the text highlights Antiochus' deceptiveness. We can see how he was a forerunner of the future Antichrist.
11:26 Those who ate Ptolemy's choice food, those who should have supported him, plotted to destroy him. Eventually his army suffered defeat and many soldiers died.
11:27 This battle was successful in part because Antiochus claimed to be fighting for Ptolemy against a usurper within Egypt. When the battle was over, Antiochus and Ptolemy sat down together at a banquet pretending to want peace. Really each king was trying to make the most of the situation for his own advantage.
11:28 As a result of this "peace conference,"Antiochus returned home with much plunder. Then his interests turned from Egypt to Israel.
A Jew named Jason wanted to be high priest. Knowing Antiochus' reputation Jason offered the king a bribe to depose the high priest, Onias III. Antiochus cooperated. This state of affairs encouraged another pretender to the high priesthood, Menelaus, to try the same tactic against Jason. Antiochus cooperated again. Onias, whom the Jews respected, objected and lost his life for doing so. Antiochus executed certain individuals for their alleged roles in these maneuverings. However, he did not punish Jason or Menelaus but the people of Jerusalem, again in response to bribes. After Jason attempted a coup de etatthinking that Antiochus was dead, Antiochus entered Jerusalem, slew 80,000 men, and, accompanied by Menelaus, desecrated the temple. This happened in 168 B.C.
11:29 In the same year, Antiochus decided to attack Egypt. When he arrived with his army, the Roman consul, Popillius Laenas, met him at Alexandria and forbade him to invade Egypt. Consequently he was not able to do what he wanted with Egypt as he had previously.
11:30 The ships from Kittim (Cyprus) that came against him belonged to Popillius Laenas and Rome. Antiochus had to return home since to do otherwise would have meant declaring war on Rome, a foe he could not hope to defeat. He returned to Syria disappointed.
Again he took out his frustration on the Jews in Jerusalem who observed the holy covenant (i.e., the Mosaic Law; cf. v. 28). He favored the renegade Jews who had abandoned the Mosaic Law (cf. 1 Macc. 2:18; 2 Macc. 6:1). Menelaus and his henchmen, for example, willingly abandoned their religious scruples rather than oppose Antiochus who had put them in power.
11:31 Antiochus ordered his general, Apollonius, and a contingent of 22,000 soldiers into Jerusalem on what he claimed was a peaceful mission. However when they were inside the city, they attacked the Jews on a sabbath, when the Jews were reluctant to exert themselves. Apollonius killed many Jews, took many Jewish women and children captive as slaves, plundered the temple, and burned the city. Antiochus' objective was to exterminate Judaism and to Hellenize the Jews. Consequently he forbade them to follow the Mosaic Law and did away with the Jewish sacrifices, festivals, and circumcision (1 Macc. 1:44-54). He even burned copies of their law. As a culminating measure, he installed an image of Zeus, his Greek god, in the temple and erected an altar to Zeus on the altar of burnt offerings (cf. 2 Macc. 6:2).415Then he sacrificed a pig, an unclean animal to the Jews, on it. This happened on December 16, 168 B.C. The Jews referred to this act as "the abomination that caused desolation"(cf. 12:11) since it polluted their altar and made sacrifices to Yahweh on it impossible (cf. 8:23-25). Antiochus further ordered his Jewish subjects to celebrate his subsequent birthdays by offering a pig to Zeus on this altar.
Jesus Christ indicated that another similar atrocity would befall the Jews in the future (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14).416He referred to it literally as "the abomination that causes desolation,"the exact words used in the Septuagint version of this verse. Thus Antiochus' actions were a preview of similar atrocities that are yet to befall the Jews. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the Roman general Titus has seemed to some interpreters to fulfill Jesus' prediction. However, Titus did not treat the Jews as Antiochus did. Furthermore the Book of Revelation, which dates after the destruction of Jerusalem, predicts the coming of a "beast"who will behave as Antiochus did, only on a larger scale (Rev. 13).
"Antiochus thus becomes a type of the future man of sin and his activities foreshadow the ultimate blasphemous persecution of Israel and the desecration of their temple."417
"Just as the Saviour had Solomon and the other saints as types of His advent, so also we should believe that the Antichrist very properly had as a type of himself the utterly wicked king, Antiochus, who persecuted the saints and defiled the Temple."418
11:32 Antiochus deceived many Jews with his flattery and promises (cf. 1 Macc. 1:11-15). They participated in the worship of Zeus.
"This tyrant was a past master in manipulating Jewish leaders who were divided in their loyalties, winning them over to his cause by glowing promises of preferment and reward. As a matter of fact, Antiochus already had as partisans for his cause a considerable number of influential leaders in Jerusalem society and politics who were convinced of the expediency of a pro-Hellenic policy. . . .
"In some ways this defection of the would-be progressives' among the Jews themselves was an even more serious threat to the survival of Israel as a nation than the tyrannical measures of Antiochus. For it was the same kind of large-scale betrayal of their covenant obligations toward the Lord that had made inevitable the former destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity in the days of Jeremiah."419
This most repulsive of all insults to the Jews precipitated the Maccabean revolt in which thousands of Jews rebelled against Antiochus. Initiated by a priest named Mattathias from the town of Modein in Ephraim and led by three of his sons, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon (cf. 1 Macc. 2:23-28), this nationalistic movement eventually overthrew the Seleucids in Palestine.420Judas Maccabeus slew Antiochus' general, Apollonius, in battle and later he and his brothers achieved many important victories that freed the Jews.
11:33 Antiochus' persecutions gave impetus to the Chassidim ("the godly, pious, loyal ones") movement that was already underway in Israel. The Chassidim advocated strict adherence to the Mosaic Law and the traditions of Judaism.421The Maccabean revolt likewise fueled this movement since it was a political and military manifestation of the Chassidim conservative philosophy. The Chassidim movement really resulted in the spiritual survival of Israel until Jesus' time. Some of the Chassidim became the sect of the Pharisees ("separated ones"), which appears in the Gospels. Later a smaller group of Chassidim became the isolationist Essene community that lived at Qumran beside the Dead Sea. The Essenes repudiated the rationalism of the Sadducees and the materialism of the Pharisees. All these groups had their roots in "the people who know their God"(v. 32).
Antiochus retaliated with brutal force and killed tens of thousands of Israelites during the few years that followed his desecration of the temple. He died insane in Persia in 163 B.C.
11:34 The godly in Israel received little encouragement from their apostate pro-Hellenistic brethren at first. Even the Maccabean revolt started out small. As time went by and the Maccabees' effectiveness became apparent, more Jews joined their numbers, but many of them did so without abandoning their pro-Hellenistic convictions. They hypocritically joined the nationalists. Eventually the Maccabees had to purge their own ranks. They executed many of their fellow Jews.
11:35 Even though many godly Jews died, the struggle against the Syrians (Greeks) purified the Jews. John Hyrcanus, the son of Simon Maccabeus, eventually founded a strong Jewish kingdom. His son, Alexander Jannaeus, enlarged it to its fullest extent in the last part of the first century B.C.
Daniel received assurance that the predicted persecution would run its course and end. The purification of his people came eventually, though not completely, through the turmoil just described. There would be a final end later.
Mention of "the end time"(v. 35) prepares for the revelation to follow, which concerns events not yet fulfilled in history. "The appointed time"(vv. 27, 29, 35; 12:7) reminds the reader that all these predicted events would be the outworking of divine control and purpose even though they would involve suffering for the Israelites.
"The amazingly detailed prophecies of the first thirty-five verses of this chapter, containing as they do approximately one hundred and thirty-five prophetic statements, all now fulfilled, constitute an impressive introduction to the events that are yet future, beginning in verse 36. . . . The fact is that there is no supported evidence which can contradict any statement made in these thirty-five verses. . . . From the divine viewpoint, the accuracy of this prophetic word is supporting evidence that prophecy yet unfulfilled will have the same precise fulfillment in the future."422
