And now will I declare unto thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall enrich himself with great riches more than all; and when he hath become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece.
A heavenly messenger opens his final message to Daniel with a promise to show him the truth. What looks like a dry list of Persian rulers is the start of the most detailed stretch of predicted history in the Bible.
The message is a rapid survey of what lies ahead for Israel. The three kings go unnamed here, yet Scripture names them.
We have a rapid survey of what was about to befall Israel in the latter days. It is the same speaker here as in Daniel 10... There we have the succession of Persian monarchs from Cyrus. Scripture does show us who these were, although their names are not mentioned here. I would refer you to Ezra 4, where these very three kings are mentioned.
The count starts from Cyrus. Commentators match the three to the kings named in Ezra 4.
First we have Ahasuerus, the unworthy son of a great father, here (Ezra 4:6) called Ahasuerus, or Cambyses as he is named in ordinary history... Darius Hystaspes became king through the revolt that set aside the false Smerdis; and he is the king of Persia who confirmed the decree of Cyrus... This Darius Hystaspes is the third in Daniel 11:2 — that is, the third after Cyrus the Great.
Money marks out the fourth king. Commentators read the wording closely: his treasury raised the army, not his skill in war.
This famously rich king of Persia was Xerxes, who tried to follow his father's hostility to Athens... How exact and terse is the prophet's sketch! "When he has become strong through his riches." It was not skill or force of arms, but wealth that gathered his vast armies of foreign troops. But his enormous armies, far greater than those of his father Darius, were useless... While they pushed their territory through Western Asia, God in His providence was with them. But when they reached for the sea and Europe by rushing into Greece, they laid the foundation of the hostility that later broke out in Alexander the Great.
Kelly ties the fury of the goat in Daniel's earlier vision to this attack.
This confirms a point made earlier: the goat rushed against Persia with such fury in return for the Persian attack on Greece. Xerxes was the man who made that great attempt. His riches are famous, and no event made so deep an impression on the world of that day as that expedition against Greece and its consequences.
Prophecy is not history in miniature. It selects, and it leaves out two of the most famous events of the ancient world.
Four kings of Persia were still to arise, and "a fourth shall be far richer than all of them." Ezra 4 mentions the first three: Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, and Darius. The fourth was the famous Xerxes, who became "strong through his riches" and stirred up "all against the kingdom of Greece." The prophecy passes over the overwhelming defeat of his mixed army, and the later invasion and conquest of his kingdom by Alexander. These are facts well known to every reader of history, and Daniel 8:7 alludes to them.
The chapter reads more like a record than a forecast. Commentators take that accuracy as the point.
Daniel 11 gives us the most extraordinary and detailed prophecy in the whole Word of God. When we remember that it prophesies the reigns of kings, royal marriages, wars, victories, defeats, plots, treaties and assassinations, it gives striking and unanswerable evidence of divine foreknowledge. For who but God could write down such detailed prophecies, which have come true with one exception? The one exception is still future, and awaits a fulfilment that will surely come to pass.
Even a hostile historian admitted the match. He then turned it into his argument against the book:
Even the sceptical Gibbon says: "The four empires are clearly outlined: the expedition of Xerxes into Greece, the rapid conquest of Persia by Alexander, his early death without descendants, the division of his vast monarchy into four kingdoms... Daniel's prophecies describe all this as plainly as the histories of Justin and Diodorus. From such a perfect resemblance the clever unbeliever would infer that both were alike composed after the event." In a word, he was too exact for a prophet, and too fabulous for a contemporary historian.
- Truth — The angel's aim is to show Daniel the truth. The empires he lists matter because Israel's future runs through them.
- Three — Three more Persian kings follow Cyrus. Ezra 4 names them Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes and Darius. History knows them as Cambyses, the false Smerdis and Darius Hystaspes.
- Riches — The fourth king, Xerxes, moves an empire by wealth, not by skill. He overreaches the moment he pushes from Asia into Europe.
- Recoil — His attack on Greece plants the hostility that returns with Alexander. His own ambition prepares his kingdom's fall.
- Proof — The detail is so exact that unbelief can only claim the writer worked after the events. Only God could have written it before them.
And a mighty king shall stand up that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.
The chapter has been tracing the kings of Persia. Now one man steps forward whose rule answers to nobody. Who is he, why is a Hebrew prophet following Greek politics, and where does a will with no limits end?
Kelly links the king of this verse to a figure Daniel had already seen in an earlier vision.
In verse 3, Persia, the ram of Daniel 8, drops out, and we find the he-goat of that chapter, or more exactly its horn… This is Alexander.
The verse also skips a great deal of history.
Every reader of history knows the crushing defeat of Xerxes' mixed army, and Alexander's later invasion and conquest of his kingdom. Daniel 8:7 refers to it. Verse 3 passes it over, and Alexander, as a "mighty king," is brought in at once.
"Great dominion" came quickly. Dennett shows how quickly, and who stood behind it.
His campaigns moved at striking speed, and the vision describes it well: "a male goat came from the west across the face of the whole earth, without touching the ground." In about ten years he conquered almost all the kingdoms of the then known world… By God's appointment the Persian empire had reached its end, and the kingdom He had destined to follow it was now to gain the supremacy. The battles of Issus and Arbela were decisive because God was using Alexander "the Great" to carry out His purposes for the government of the earth.
Why does the Bible track Greek kings at all? Kelly points to God's fixed reference point on earth.
When God speaks of things upon the earth, He always measures from Israel, because Israel is His earthly centre.
When his empire split up, Judea was caught in the middle.
Daniel had described, in few words, the character of the "mighty king" and the break-up of his kingdom, "divided toward the four winds of heaven" (Dan. 11:3). This was an event of great political importance to Judea. The land found itself fought over by the king of the South, Egypt, and the king of the North, Syria — and it will be so again in a later day.
Kelly puts this chapter in a class of its own.
Our chapter is historical — the only really and truly historical prophecy in the word of God. Though there are breaks in the history, the main features are given here more clearly than by any human historian writing later.
Critics have used that accuracy against the book: no prophecy, they say, could be this exact. Even a historian who did not believe it admitted how much the chapter gets right.
The four empires stand out clearly: the expedition of Xerxes into Greece; the rapid conquest of Persia by Alexander; his early death without descendants; the division of his monarchy into four kingdoms, one of which, Egypt, is named… All of it is as clear as the histories of Justin and Diodorus. From so perfect a likeness the crafty unbeliever would conclude that both alike were written after the event.
William Kelly, quoting Gibbon
The same words come back later in the chapter, about the king of verses 36-39. Hole draws out what a will with no limits amounts to.
Verses 36-39 predict what this "king" will do, and the leading feature is this: he "shall do as he wills." Now sin is lawlessness. It is the creature breaking loose from the control of the Creator, to assert and carry out its own will.
Yet the first man to hold such power did not keep it long. Darby names who stopped him.
Alexander crossed most of Asia and pushed as far as India. He proved his ability not only as a general but as the founder of a solid empire. But God laid His hand upon him.
- Named. The mighty king here is Alexander. Daniel had already seen him as the horn of the goat that overthrew Persia.
- Granted. His "great dominion" was real and swift — most of the known world in about ten years. God used it to carry out His purposes for the earth.
- Measured. God records these Greek affairs because He measures earth's events from Israel. Judea was soon caught between the kingdoms his empire left behind.
- Verified. This chapter is history written in advance. It is so exact that unbelievers argue it must have been written afterwards.
- Warned. Doing as one wills is lawlessness, and it marks the king of verses 36-39. The first man to hold that power was stopped by God's hand.
And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of the heavens; but not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion wherewith he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside these.
Verse 3 names a "mighty king" at the height of his power. This verse tells what happens the moment he stands up: his empire breaks apart, splits four ways, and passes to strangers instead of to his children.
Commentators identify the king as Alexander the Great. The break came at full strength, not in decline.
Alexander did indeed come from the west like one whose feet never touched the ground. In the fury of his power he ran at the Persian empire, which until then had been mighty and had pushed west, north, and south. Yet in the strangest and saddest way Alexander's course was cut short. He died as a young man of thirty-two, in the middle of plans that reached far beyond those of all who went before him. And his generals began, as they often do, to fight one another over which of them should have the largest share of the broken Macedonian or Greek empire, since one man could not inherit it all.
The scattering "toward the four winds of heaven" settled into four kingdoms. One writer ties this to the four-headed leopard of Daniel's earlier vision and names the four men.
Daniel tells us also that the leopard had four heads. These, as Daniel 8:8-22 and 11:4 tell us, are the four military leaders — not Alexander's descendants — who divided his dominions among themselves after his death. Their names were Seleucus, Ptolemy, Cassander, and Lysimachus.
The verse closes off the family line. Strangers take over instead.
Then we learn, as earlier visions already showed, that Alexander's dominion would be split into four distinct kingdoms. These would not descend to his posterity; strangers would rule them. We know all this came true when four of Alexander's generals divided his dominion between them.
Another writer adds how short the whole thing lasted. He quotes the verse's phrase about Alexander's authority in an older wording:
History records how brief Alexander's dominion was. He died when still young, and four of his generals divided his kingdom between them, just as verse 4 clearly foretells. Their powers, however, were far more limited and "not according to his dominion."
One writer draws out what the wording rules out. He then explains why the chapter follows only two of the four parts.
It was not to be a single head getting rid of the family of Alexander and taking possession of all. His kingdom was to be divided into several parts, four in particular; and out of these four divisions two acquire an immense importance. But what makes them so important here? When God speaks of things on the earth, He always measures from Israel, because Israel is His earthly centre.
Those two lay on either side of the land of Israel:
From verse 5 onward we follow the doings of two of these four: the king of the south and the king of the north. If we ask why the prophecy concentrates on these two only, the answer surely is that only these two meddled with and oppressed the Jews back in the land. Their kingdoms were north and south of Palestine — what we should now call Syria and Egypt — and the first kings were Seleucus and Ptolemy.
The exactness of the verse has become an argument against it. One historian, no friend of the Bible, listed the details and drew his own conclusion:
Gibbon, the sceptical historian, says in his sneering way that Daniel "is too exact for a prophet." "The four empires are clearly outlined ... Alexander's untimely death without descendants; the division of his monarchy into four kingdoms, one of which, Egypt, is mentioned by name... From such a perfect resemblance the clever unbeliever would infer that both alike were composed after the event."
Another writer answers that argument directly, and points out the cost of it:
The devout believer in the inspired word of God will not need to be told that this is an accurate description in every detail of what took place at the death of Alexander. It is so accurate, indeed, that the unbeliever can only account for it by claiming it was written after the event! ... And who is the loser? Surely the man who, in the pride of his imagined self-sufficiency, shuts his eyes against the light.
- Broken at the peak. The king is cut off at thirty-two, in the middle of plans larger than any before him. Strength guarantees nothing.
- Broken into four. The empire scatters toward the four winds and settles as four kingdoms. Seleucus, Ptolemy, Cassander, and Lysimachus take them — the leopard's four heads.
- Broken from his heirs. Nothing goes to his family. Strangers rule instead, and their power is far more limited than his.
- Narrowed to two. Of the four, the prophecy follows only the kings of the north and south. Those two touched Israel, and God measures history on earth from Israel, His centre.
- Exact on purpose. Sceptics date the book late because it is so exact. That exactness shows the future lies open before God.
And the king of the south, who is one of his princes, shall be strong; but [another] shall be stronger than he, and have dominion his dominion shall be a great dominion.
Verse 5 turns from Alexander's divided empire to the men who took pieces of it. Scripture marks them by direction — south and north of one small strip of land — and their rival dynasties fill the next thirty verses.
Scripture leaves both men unnamed. One writer goes through the verse clause by clause, quoting an older translation, and supplies the names from history.
Now we are told that "the king of the south shall be strong." He is the person well known as one of the Ptolemies, or Lagidae. Then comes "one of his princes" — that is, one of Alexander's chiefs — "and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion." This is another person: the first king of the north, who rises in strength above Ptolemy. Secular history calls him Seleucus.
Translators handle the phrase "one of his princes" differently. Another writer sets that question aside, because it does not change who the verse means:
There is no need to discuss the translation. It is enough to say that most take this sentence to apply to the king of the north. Here we have the founders of the two dynasties: Ptolemy and Seleucus, two of the four who succeeded to Alexander's kingdom.
The directions are not neutral. Scripture measures them from one fixed point, and that point shows what God has His eye on.
We must remember, if we want to understand this prophecy, that even the geography of Scripture is always measured from the position of the Holy Land. A king of the south is a king to the south of Palestine. Palestine is the centre of all God's thoughts about the government of this world. Jerusalem is His chosen city.
From this verse onward the two titles repeat many times. They do not stay attached to the two men who first wore them.
The prophecy that follows calls the rulers of these kingdoms the king of the south, or Egypt, and the king of the north, or Syria. These titles do not always refer to the same person. They serve as official titles for kings of the same line.
Long lists of foreign kings can look like wasted space in a book about God's people. One writer explains why they are here: Israel's land lay between the two armies.
Scripture gives them in such detail because of what they meant for the Jews and the glorious land… As the two hostile countries invaded each other, their armies marched again and again through the land. Judea belonged to whichever king had won at the moment… God could not be indifferent to this, for it touched the welfare of His poor people who had returned from Babylon. That is why the Spirit of God has had the account of all these wars written down. It shows us the intensity of God's love for His people, whatever their state.
This accuracy is what has drawn attacks on the book of Daniel for centuries.
In the third century the pagan Porphyry made a bitter attack on the belief that Daniel wrote these predictions. He made it in his book "Treatise against Christians." He argued that someone wrote it all after the events had taken place. The critics use the same arguments… The prophecies given here came true in exact detail during the years 301 B.C. to 168 B.C. History verifies everything.
The line that starts in verse 5 does not just fade out. It leads to a man who becomes a picture of a later enemy.
Daniel 11:1-35 is a history of the wars between the king of the north (Syria) and the king of the south (Egypt). Both were branches of the Greek empire. The fighting often took place in Palestine, which lay between them… Daniel 11:21 to 35 refer to Antiochus Epiphanes. He is a type of the king of the north, the Assyrian of the last days.
- Named — The strong southern king is Ptolemy of Egypt. The prince who outgrows him is Seleucus, the first king of the north. Both followed Alexander, and each founded a dynasty.
- Measured — "South" and "north" count from Israel's land, the centre of all God's thoughts about the government of this world.
- Repeated — The two titles are offices, not people. Later verses pass them on to the next kings in each line.
- Recorded — These wars fill the page because the armies crossed God's land and touched God's people. The detail is a measure of His love for them.
- Verified — History matched the prophecy between 301 and 168 B.C. Critics could only answer that someone wrote it later.
And after the course of years they shall join affinity; and the king's daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make equitable conditions but she shall not retain the strength of her arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm; and she shall be given up, she and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in [those] times.
Verse 5 set two rival kingdoms side by side. Verse 6 shows them trying for peace through a royal marriage — and names how the plan collapsed and who died with it.
The chapter ignores most of the ancient world and follows only two powers: one north, one south. North and south of what?
The other kingdoms are not noticed, only those of the north and of the south. Why are they so described? Palestine is the place from which God reckons. The king of the north means north of the land that His eyes were upon. The southern power means south of that same land. These are the countries commonly called Syria and Egypt.
The same two labels run through the whole chapter. But they do not always mean the same two men. Verse 6 is the first place this becomes clear.
In this chapter we do not have the same king of the north all the way through, nor the same king of the south. We have a great many who follow one another. The same official title runs throughout. As people say in law, the king, or the queen, never dies. That is how we are to look at it here. This sixth verse is an instance… These are not the same kings of the north and south as in verse 5. They are their descendants.
The opening phrase points to a gap of time before the alliance. And the wedding itself demanded an act of cruelty.
The expression in verse 6, "in the end of years," shows that time passes. And in fact Seleucus's grandson, Antiochus II, carried out a treaty of peace with Ptolemy Philadelphus. Antiochus confirmed it by marrying Ptolemy's daughter, Bernice. In order to do this he repudiated his lawful wife, Laodike.
Note: older translations read "in the end of years" where the ESV has "after some years."
The verse says the bride will not keep the strength of her arm. She, her attendants, her father and her supporter will all be given up. The history turns on a discarded wife.
Antiochus II was at war with Ptolemy. Peace came on one condition: he must put away his wife Laodice and marry Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy. He did this. But when Philadelphus died, he took Laodice back. She feared another divorce, so she poisoned her husband. Then she caused the death of Berenice and her son.
The plan did not just fail. It became the cause of the next round of bloodshed, in verses 7–9.
This queen, Berenice, was murdered, and so were her husband (the king of the north), her son, and her attendants. In this way the plan meant to bring friendship became the ground of future quarrels and conflicts. The next three verses (7-9) describe how the murder of Berenice was avenged. One out of a branch of her "roots" — another king of the south — invaded Syria, entered "into the fortress of the king of the north," and prevailed.
Kelly sees God's own hand behind the failure of these alliances.
But God never allowed rest to those who took His land. They might intermarry and make alliances, but it only proved the prelude to worse outbreaks — brothers, sons and grandsons taking up the quarrels of their family.
A murdered queen in a foreign court seems far from Scripture's usual concerns. The answer lies in the land caught between the two powers.
These wars are told in such detail because of what they meant for the Jews and the glorious land… It lay between them, and so formed the highway of approach from either country. So the armies of the two hostile countries kept marching through the land as they invaded each other… God could not be indifferent to this, for it affected the welfare of His poor people who had returned from Babylon. That is why the Spirit of God had the account of all these wars written down. It shows us the intensity of God's love for His people, whatever their state. It also teaches us that He sees the movements of nations as affecting His people's interests.
Verse 6 is one small item in a chapter full of such predictions.
Daniel 11 gives us the most extraordinary and detailed prophecy in the whole Word of God. It foretells the reigns of kings, royal marriages, wars, victories, defeats, plots, treaties and assassinations. Remember that, and you have striking and unanswerable evidence of divine foreknowledge. For who but God could write down such detailed prophecies? They have all come true except one. That one is still future, and it waits for a fulfilment that will surely come.
- Location — north and south count from one fixed point: the land God was watching. Everything in the chapter takes its bearings from it.
- Office — the two titles pass down through ruler after ruler, like a crown that never dies. Verse 6 already speaks of descendants, not the men of verse 5.
- Alliance — the kings bought peace by setting aside a wife and sending a daughter. The plan carried its own destruction inside it.
- Outcome — murder took the bride, her husband, her son and her attendants. The peace treaty became the seed of the next war.
- Purpose — God recorded these palace crimes because His people lived on the road between the armies. The detail shows His care. Its accuracy shows His foreknowledge.
But out of a shoot from her roots shall one stand up in his place, who shall come to the army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shew himself mighty.
Daniel 11 traces a long chain of predictions about the kings north and south of Israel. Verse 7 raises two questions: who is this "branch from her roots," and why does God record the feuds of foreign kings?
The avenger in verse 7 only makes sense against the failed marriage alliance of verse 6.
In verse 6, after a gap of time, we hear of an effort to patch up an old jealousy. From the earliest days these powers had quarrelled over the land that lay between them. Ptolemy Philadelphus gave his daughter Berenice to Antiochus Theus. But Laodice, the wronged first wife, brought it all to nothing and made things worse than ever. She won back the northern king's favour, and then she poisoned those from the south, along with her husband and Berenice's son.
The phrase points to a family line, not a plant.
Then we read that a branch out of her roots shall come with an army against the King of the North and prevail. This came true when Bernice's brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes, marched north to avenge the murder of his sister.
The image of branch and root fixes exactly how the two were related.
It was not her child, but her brother — out of the same parental stock. She was one branch, and he another.
The verse says he enters the stronghold and prevails. One writer traces how far that success reached.
The next three verses (7-9) describe the avenging of Berenice's murder. The avenger came out of a branch of her "roots" — another king of the south. He invaded Syria, entered "into the fortress of the king of the north," and prevailed (v. 7). In fact his victory was complete. He carried his conquests as far as Antioch, and eastward to Babylon, and returned to Egypt in triumph with great spoil of gods and treasures.
The same two royal names keep reappearing across centuries of history.
In this chapter the king of the north is not one man all the way through, and neither is the king of the south. Many kings follow one after another. The same official title runs throughout. As people say in law, the king, or the queen, never dies. That is just the way we are to look at it here.
God reckons both directions from one point on the map.
The king of the north means the king north of the land that His eyes were upon. The southern power means south of that same land. These are the countries we usually call Syria and Egypt.
An Egyptian king avenging his sister seems far removed from the people of God. The reason lies in geography.
These conflicts are given in such detail because of their bearing on the Jews and the glorious land... The land lay between them, and so formed the highway of approach from either country. When the two hostile countries invaded each other, their armies marched again and again through it... God could not be indifferent to this, since it touched the welfare of His poor people who had returned from Babylon. That is why the Spirit of God has had the account of all these wars written down. It shows us the intensity of God's love for His people, whatever their state.
The detail is exact. That makes this chapter a test case: can God foretell the future?
Daniel 11 gives us the most extraordinary and detailed prophecy in the whole Word of God. It foretells the reigns of kings, royal marriages, wars, victories, defeats, plots, treaties and assassinations. Remember that, and you have striking and unanswerable evidence that God knows the future. For who but God could write down such detailed prophecies, and all have come true but one? That one is still future, and it awaits a fulfilment that is certain to come.
- Murder — The treaty marriage of verse 6 ended in poison. That crime is the cause of everything in verse 7.
- Roots — "A branch from her roots" is family language. The avenger is the dead queen's own brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes, from the same stock she came from.
- Prevailing — He entered the northern stronghold and won. His conquests reached Antioch and Babylon, and he came home loaded with spoil.
- Titles — "King of the north" and "king of the south" pass from ruler to ruler like a crown. Each title marks a direction from one fixed point: the land God was watching.
- Reason — God recorded these wars because their armies crossed Israel's soil. He watches every world event that touches His people, and He can write history before it happens.
He shall also carry captive into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and he shall subsist for more years than the king of the north;
Daniel 11 drops the symbols and reads almost like plain history. Two royal houses, one north of Israel and one south, fight back and forth across the land between them. Verse 8 is the high point of one southern king's revenge. He carries idols and treasure home to Egypt, and then leaves the king of the north alone for some years. Why would God record such details at all?
The verse closes a short sequence that began with a murder. One writer sums up verses 7-9:
The next three verses (7-9) tell how another king of the south avenged the murder of Berenice. He came out of a branch of her "roots." He invaded Syria, entered "into the fortress of the king of the north," and prevailed (v. 7). In fact his victory was complete. He pushed his conquests as far as Antioch, and eastward to Babylon, and returned to Egypt in triumph with great spoil of gods and treasures, as verse 8 recounts.
The verse lists the loot: gods, metal images, and precious vessels of silver and gold. One writer gives the figures, and adds what became of the idols:
Reports say the booty consisted of 40,000 talents of silver and 2,500 precious vessels of gold and silver. The images of the gods that Cambyses had captured earlier were also recovered and put back with great ceremony in the pagan temples.
Older translations read "their gods with their princes" here. The ESV has "their gods with their metal images."
The naming of Egypt here is not incidental. It anchors an identification the rest of the chapter depends on:
This reference to Egypt is interesting as a fresh proof of the geographical position of the Kingdom of the South.
It is easy to read the chapter as if one man did all of this. He did not:
In this chapter we do not have the same king of the north, or the same king of the south, all the way through. There are a great many of them, and each one follows the last. The same official title runs right through. As people say in law, the king, or the queen, never dies. That is just how we are to look at it here.
Alexander's empire split into four kingdoms. The chapter follows only two of them, and one writer says why:
From verse 5 onward the chapter turns to two of these four kings: the king of the south and the king of the north. Why does the prophecy focus on these two alone? Because only these two interfered with the Jews back in the land and oppressed them. Their kingdoms lay north and south of Palestine — what we would now call Syria and Egypt — and the first kings were Seleucus and Ptolemy.
Another writer states the rule behind this. The Gentile world means the nations outside Israel:
It becomes clear that when God records events in the Gentile world, He does so only so far as those events concern His people and "the glorious land."
One writer points to the country caught in the middle:
The land of Israel lay between them. It was a heavy burden to these kings, who made it their battlefield, and it always went to the winner. If the king of the north won, the land fell under Syria; and it was the same when the king of Egypt came out on top. But God never allowed rest to those who took His land.
The verse ends with a note about time. Older translations read that the king of the south would live on longer than the king of the north. The ESV reads that "for some years he shall refrain from attacking the king of the north." One writer follows the older wording:
We read that the King of the South would continue more years than the King of the North. He lived four or five years longer than his rival, Seleucus Kallinicus.
That kind of precision leaves sceptics in an awkward spot. One writer quotes the historian Gibbon, who sneered that Daniel "is too exact for a prophet." Gibbon then listed the fulfilments:
The four empires are clearly marked out: the expedition of Xerxes into Greece; the rapid conquest of Persia by Alexander; his early death without children; the division of his monarchy into four kingdoms, one of which, Egypt, is named outright; then various wars and marriages between the families ... all described as clearly as in the histories of Justin and Diodorus. From such a perfect likeness the crafty unbeliever would conclude that both were written after the event.
- Provoked. Verse 8 ends a revenge campaign. A king of the south avenged the murder of Berenice, took the northern stronghold, and came home in triumph.
- Plunder. The haul was huge: 40,000 talents of silver, 2,500 precious vessels, and idol images seized long before by Cambyses, now set up again with great ceremony.
- Pattern. "King of the south" and "king of the north" are official titles, not one man each. The title carries on while the men change.
- Purpose. The chapter follows only two of Alexander's four kingdoms, because only these two troubled the Jews. God records world events only as far as they touch His people and His land.
- Proof. On the older reading of the verse, even the small clause about outliving his rival came true. Such exactness has driven critics to claim the chapter was written after the events.
and [the same] shall come into the realm of the king of the south, but shall return into his own land.
Daniel 11:9 ends a short episode that began in verse 7: one king invades, then goes home again. The verse names nobody and gives no reason, so two questions decide how we read it — who is the "he" who returns, and why record one border campaign centuries in advance?
This chapter never names the two rival powers. It gives only directions. One writer explains where those directions start from:
You must read the terms "king of the north" and "king of the south" in relation to the land of Palestine. Egypt lay to the south. Greco-Syria (modern Asian Turkey) lay to the north. The kings named here belong to two lines, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids.
Because verse 9 says only "he," readers look back for the last king named. But these titles cover a whole line of rulers:
In this chapter we do not have the same king of the north all the way through, nor the same king of the south. There are a great many kings who follow one another. The same official title runs throughout. As people say in law, The king, or the queen never dies. That is just the way we are to look at it here.
Verses 7–9 form one story, and it starts with a murder. A princess of the south had been married to the northern king to secure peace; she, her husband, her son and her household were killed. Her family answered:
The next three verses (7-9) describe how another king of the south avenged the murder of Berenice. He came out of a branch of her "roots." He invaded Syria, entered "into the fortress of the king of the north," and prevailed (v. 7). In fact his victory was complete. He carried his conquests as far as Antioch, and eastwards to Babylon, and returned to Egypt in triumph with great spoil of gods and treasures, as verse 8 recounts.
Commentators differ here, and the difference follows the translation. Dennett used an older wording, where the southern king comes into his kingdom and returns to his own land. The ESV has the northern king entering the realm of the south and then going back. One writer's summary of the chapter follows that reading:
Here we see Ptolemy Euergetes and his victories over Seleucus Callinicus, who later came against the kingdom of the south (Egypt).
Either way the outcome is the same. An army crosses the border, and nothing lasting comes of it.
A failed march by a forgotten king looks like padding in a book of prophecy. The reason it is here lies on the road between the two capitals:
Scripture gives them in such detail because of what they meant for the Jews and the glorious land... The land lay between the two powers, so it became the road by which each could reach the other. As the two hostile countries invaded each other, their armies marched through it again and again... God could not be indifferent to this, because it touched the welfare of His poor people who had come back from Babylon. That is why the Spirit of God had the account of all these wars written down. It shows us how deep God's love for His people is, whatever their state. It also teaches us that He watches the movements of nations as they affect His people's interests.
Kings who seized that land never held it in peace:
These kings made the land of Israel their battlefield, and it always went to the winner. But God never allowed rest to those who took His land.
The exactness of these verses raises an old objection. Critics say no one could write this in advance, so someone must have written it afterwards.
In his "Treatise against Christians" the pagan Porphyry, in the third century, fiercely attacked the belief that Daniel wrote these predictions. He argued that someone wrote it all after the events had happened. The critics use the same arguments... These prophecies came true in exact detail in the years 301 B.C. to 168 B.C. History verifies everything.
- Land. North and south point away from one small country. Daniel 11 puts Israel's land at the centre of the compass.
- Title. "The king of the south" is an office, not one man. Verse 9 belongs to a line of successors, so read the "he" from the story, not from a name.
- Record. In verses 7–9 a southern king avenges his murdered sister. He storms the northern stronghold, takes its treasure, and goes home.
- Care. God had these wars written down because the armies marched across His people's land. He watches how nations move, for their sake.
- Confidence. Critics call this chapter history written backwards. That same exact detail shows God announcing events long before they happened.
And his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces; and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through; and he shall return and carry the war even to his fortress.
Daniel 11 traces a long feud between two royal lines: the king of the north and the king of the south. Verse 10 is the moment the northern side rearms and drives the war back to its rival's fortress — but whose sons are these, and why does God record the details?
The word "his" points back to the northern king who had just been beaten. One writer traces the line and its results:
The context makes it plain that the term "his sons," in verse 10, applies to the successors of the king of the north who had been overcome by Ptolemy III. And in fact the next two kings of the north did attack Egypt with large forces, but they failed. The second of the two suffered a crushing defeat.
Another writer names the men involved:
This was fulfilled when Seleucus's two sons, Alexander and Antiochus, succeeded their father. Antiochus was later called the Great, and he was the third of the line to bear that name. Alexander died, it is said, by poison. That left the field to Antiochus, who defeated the King of the South several times.
Sons appear here because the chapter follows titles, not single men. This is the key to reading the whole chapter:
In this chapter the king of the north is not one man all the way through, and neither is the king of the south. There are a great many of them, one after another. The same official title runs throughout. As people say in law, the king, or the queen never dies. That is just the way we are to look at it here.
The verse describes a flood of troops rolling south. But neither the attack nor the counterattack settles anything:
In due time the sons of the king of the north would seek to avenge their defeat. They would assemble a great army and pass through the holy land to attack the king of the south. Moved with rage, the king of the south would come forth to meet this attack and seek to crush his opponents. Yet even his crushing victory would not make him safe, and it would not end these conflicts.
The route matters. These armies do not march around the holy land. They march across it, and that is why Scripture records their campaigns:
They are given in such detail because of what they meant for the Jews and the glorious land... The land lay between Syria and Egypt, so it formed the road of approach from either country. As the two enemy countries invaded each other, their armies marched through it again and again... God could not be indifferent to this, for it affected the welfare of His poor people who had returned from Babylon. That is why the Spirit of God has had the account of all these wars written down. It shows us the intensity of God's love for His people, whatever their state.
William Kelly adds what happened to the land itself:
The land of Israel lay between them, and these kings made it their battlefield. It always went to the conqueror... But God never allowed rest to those who took His land.
The chapter's early campaigns are not filler. They rehearse something bigger, and the accuracy of the record is itself an argument:
Antiochus did on a small scale what the great northern king of the last days will do on a larger one... What we have seen shows us something. Elsewhere God may give only the general outline of events. But in the details of a prophecy He can be, and sometimes is, remarkably exact. Nowhere is He more so than in this very chapter. And what is the main objection unbelievers raise against it? That it must have been written after the events happened! One thing is certain: no historian since those times gives us as fine an account as we have in these few verses.
- Sons. "His sons" are the successors of the beaten northern king: the two sons of Seleucus. Alexander died, and Antiochus the Great went on to beat the south several times.
- Succession. "King of the north" and "king of the south" are titles, not single men. Each new generation inherits the quarrel, so the war starts again here.
- Sweep. The army gathers, floods forward, and drives to the enemy's fortress. The victory that answers it brings neither safety nor an end to the wars.
- Soil. Every campaign runs through the holy land, which lies between the two powers. God records these marches because His people live on the road the armies use.
- Shadow. What Antiochus did on a small scale, the northern king of the last days will do on a large one. The exact detail of this record answers anyone who claims it was written after the events.
And the king of the south shall be enraged, and shall come forth and fight with him, with the king of the north, who shall set forth a great multitude, but the multitude shall be given into his hand.
Daniel 11 tracks a long war between two kingdoms: one north of Israel, one south of it. Here the southern king strikes back in fury, which raises three questions — who are these kings, whose army is handed over, and why does God record such pagan quarrels?
One point comes first. The same two labels cover a whole line of rulers.
In this chapter it is not the same king of the north, nor the same king of the south, that we have all the way through, but a great many that succeed each other. The same official title runs throughout. As people say in law, the king, or the queen never dies. That is just the way we are to look at it here.
replaces unsupported claim with material actually in the source; adds identity and future angle; removes passive
The prophecy names no one, but the events matched real men. One summary of the chapter sets this verse between the northern advance of verse 10 and the rout of verse 12.
In verse 10 we have the attempts of Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus the Great against the south. Only the second of them, Antiochus, recovered Seleucia. So even Ptolemy Philopator, sluggish as he was, grew enraged (verse 11). Then Antiochus, after some successes, suffered a total rout at Raphia (verse 12).
The detail is striking: the Egyptian king was a lazy, passive man, and even he was stirred to fury. That the plural "sons" of verse 10 belongs to the north is confirmed by this very verse:
"But his sons shall be stirred up" clearly refers to the sons of the King of the North, as the reference in verse 11 to the King of the South fighting the King of the North proves.
The closing clause is easy to misread. The great army raised is the northern king's, and it is the southern king who receives it.
the next two kings of the north did attack Egypt with large forces, but they failed. The second of them suffered a disastrous defeat, just as verse 11 predicted: "the multitude [the army of the king of the north] shall be given into his hand" — that is, into the hand of the king of the south, Egypt.
Dennett quoted an older translation. It reads "the multitude shall be given into his hand." The ESV has "it shall be given into his hand."
The verse ends in victory — but the chapter refuses to let victory look like security.
Moved with rage, the king of the south would come out to meet this attack and try to crush his opponents. Still, his overwhelming victory would not make him safe, and it would not end these conflicts.
What followed proved it. The winner wasted what he had gained:
The Egyptian King fulfilled verse 11 of our chapter by finally defeating Antiochus decisively, but he was not strengthened by it, as verse 12 states, for he gave himself up to excesses and debauchery, and eventually made peace with Antiochus.
Why would heaven track the campaigns of two pagan courts? The answer lies in the strip of land between them.
Scripture gives these wars in such detail because of what they meant for the Jews and for the glorious land… The land lay between the two kingdoms, so it became the road of approach from either country… God could not be indifferent to this, for it touched the welfare of His poor people who had returned from Babylon. That is why the Spirit of God has had the account of all these wars recorded. It shows us how strong God's love for His people is, whatever their state. It also teaches us that He watches the movements of nations as they affect His people's interests.
Details this fine, written centuries in advance, carry their own weight of evidence.
Daniel 11 gives us the most extraordinary and detailed prophecy in the whole Word of God. It foretells the reigns of kings, royal marriages, wars, victories, defeats, plots, treaties, and assassinations. Remember that, and it is very striking, unanswerable evidence that God knows the future.
- Titles — "King of the north" and "king of the south" are offices, not one man. A whole line of rulers wears each name in turn, down to the Assyrian still to come.
- Rage — The southern king was a sluggish man. Even he flew into a rage when pushed far enough.
- Handed over — The huge army belongs to the north. The prophecy hands it to the southern king before the battle is fought.
- Hollow — The victory neither made him safe nor ended the wars.
- Love — These wars crossed His people's land. So God had them recorded, weighing the movements of nations by how they touch those He loves.
And when the multitude shall have been taken away, his heart shall be exalted; and he shall cast down myriads; but he shall not prevail.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former; and shall certainly come at the end of the times of years with a great army and with much substance.
Daniel 11 tracks a long war between the king of the north (Syria) and the king of the south (Egypt), fought again and again across the land of the Jews. Verse 13 marks the turn in that struggle, and it raises two questions: why God recorded such military detail, and what "after some years" means.
Verse 13 explains something left hanging in verse 12. One writer traces the link:
As we read in verse 12, the king of Egypt gained nothing from his victory, because his heart was proud. Although he struck down tens of thousands, that did not make him strong. Verse 13 gives the reason.
Another writer traces the same stretch of history — the defeat, the wait, and the moment Antiochus struck:
Antiochus had various successes, then suffered a crushing defeat at Raphia (Dan. 11:12). But no lasting gain came to the Egyptian king, especially as he oppressed the Jews. Meanwhile Antiochus waited until he could fall on his infant nephew when the Jews revolted (Dan. 11:13-14).
One writer names the king, the gap of years, and who joined him:
Antiochus, thirteen years later, returned with an army greater than ever, so fulfilling verse 13. He also gained allies, in particular Macedonia and Jews who had turned away from God.
Older translations use the word "times" here, with a margin note reading, "at the end of times, even years." One writer uses that note to fix what "times" means in prophecy:
I believe "times" always means literal years. Daniel 4:32 says, "seven times shall pass over you," and the margin of Daniel 11:13 says, "at the end of times, even years." In these cases the term certainly means literal years, not "prophetic" years… So the period of antichrist's full power will be very short, and it will fall at the time of the final crisis.
Another writer reaches the same verdict and carries it into the last chapter of Daniel:
Not even in Daniel 11:13 can anyone draw out such a prophetic sense. The word "years" explains "at the end of times," and "years" in the ordinary sense. This surely confirms that we take Daniel 12:7-12 in the same sense.
Scripture tracks these armies because of the strip of ground they crossed:
These wars are told in such detail because of what they meant for the Jews and the glorious land… Palestine lay between Syria and Egypt, so it formed the highway of approach from either country… God could not be indifferent to this, because it touched the welfare of His poor people who had returned from Babylon. That is why the Spirit of God has caused the account of all these wars to be recorded. It shows us how intense God's love is for His people, whatever their state. It also teaches us that He watches the movements of nations as they affect His people's interests.
The exact detail of verses like this one troubles the sceptic and comforts the believer:
What is the main objection raised by unbelievers against it? That it must have been written after the events had taken place! It is certain that no historian since those times gives us such a fine account as we have in these few verses. If I want to know the history of these two rival kingdoms, Syria and Egypt, I must look here. How completely we can trust the word of God about everything!
This past history points forward. The northern king of the chapter stands for a later one:
Daniel 11:1-35 are a history of the contests between the king of the north (Syria) and the king of the south (Egypt) — branches of the Greek empire… Daniel 11:21-35 refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, a picture of the king of the north, or Assyrian of the last days.
- Rout — Egypt's great win in verse 12 brought no lasting strength. That failure opens the door to the northern king's comeback.
- Return — the beaten king comes back with a bigger army and with allies. Writers name him as Antiochus, returning thirteen years later.
- Real years — "after some years" means ordinary years. Writers use this verse to show that "times" in prophecy means literal years, not "prophetic" ones.
- Reason — God recorded these marches because His people's land lay between the two armies. His love holds whatever their state, and He watches how the moves of nations touch them.
- Rehearsal — critics can only explain such accuracy by denying that the prophecy is real. And this northern king stands as the pattern of a final one.
And in those times shall many stand up against the king of the south; and the violent of thy people will exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.
Daniel 11 traces the long tug-of-war between the king of the north (Syria) and the king of the south (Egypt). At verse 14 a new group steps in: men from Daniel's own nation who lift themselves up "in order to fulfill the vision" — and fail.
The verse follows a fresh advance by the northern king, and it adds a new party to the conflict:
Again the king of the north would return to the attack with a yet greater army. Moreover, many others would join in this attack on the king of the south. Further, Daniel learns that rebels among his own people — the Jews, here called the "violent" — would seek to exalt themselves. They would do it by joining this alliance against the king of the south.
Where the ESV says "the violent among your own people," other translations read "the robbers of your people." Commentators lean on that word. It settles a question that runs through the whole book: are Daniel's people a picture of God's people in general?
Allow me to call attention to these words. It at once settles the question that might be asked — How do you know that Daniel's people do not mean God's people in a spiritual sense? The answer is given here — "the robbers of your people." This at once puts aside the plea for a spiritual sense. We could hardly talk about "robbers" in that case. This confirms what ought not to have needed further evidence — that Daniel's people mean the Jewish people, and nothing else.
There is also weight in the word your. Through this part of the book God speaks of the nation as Daniel's, not as His own:
From the first, one solemn fact stands out. The Jews are for the present Lo-ammi (not My people). God no longer addresses them through the prophet. They are called Daniel's people in Dan. 9:24, Dan. 10:14, Dan. 11:14, Dan. 12:1; and God bears the distinct title "the God of the heavens."
This part of the prophecy has a known history behind it:
All this, it hardly needs saying, happened just so. Antiochus the Great and Philip III of Macedonia formed a league with others against Egypt. At the same time many of the Jewish rebels and self-declared patriots, "the robbers of your people," threw off their loyalty to Egypt.
The phrase in the middle of the verse describes what these men thought they were doing. They acted to make God's own word come true. Where the ESV ends "they shall fail," other translations read "they shall fall."
Another group is named: "the robbers of your people" — that is, of Daniel's people. They "exalt themselves to establish the vision," to prove God's word true, "but they shall fall."
Kelly names what the Syrian king hoped for, and why the whole plan failed:
These are called "the robbers of your people." They take the part of Antiochus, the king of the north, against Ptolemy Philopator, or rather his son; but it all came to nothing. The Syrian king might hope that, by bringing in this new element, by winning the support of the Jews, perhaps God would be with him. But no. They were the robbers of the people — unfaithful to God, and not holding fast their separation from the nations. They too might think to establish the vision, "but they shall fall."
The failure here is not only political. It is a picture of what happens whenever people try to produce by their own energy what God has promised to give:
The old nature can become religious and adapt itself outwardly to the ways of God. What we see far off suits our own inclinations. So we set up religious activity to establish the vision (Dan. 11:14) or to bring about the blessing. But the effect is only to delay and obstruct real blessing; for God will not use it. Discipline is painful and humiliating at the time. Yet it is God's way of preserving and preparing the soul for the future blessing.
- Setting. The northern king returns with a bigger army. Many powers join against the south, and men from Daniel's own nation join in.
- Your people. The word "robbers" fixes the meaning. This is the Jewish nation itself, not a spiritual picture. God calls them Daniel's people, not His own, because they stood as Lo-ammi, "not My people."
- Alliance. Jewish rebels and self-styled patriots dropped their loyalty to Egypt. They sided with Antiochus the Great and his allies.
- Motive. They lifted themselves up "to establish the vision" — to verify God's word by their own action.
- Fall. The verse's last words answer their whole project. Human energy set up to establish the vision only delays the blessing, because God will not use it.
And the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mound, and take the well-fenced city; and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, for there shall be no strength to withstand.
A long war between two rival powers runs through this chapter, and at verse 15 it tips. Who are these kings, did any of this really happen, and why does God spend so many words on them?
The chapter names only a northern and a southern power, and ignores the rest of the world. One commentator explains why.
When God speaks of things on the earth, He always measures from Israel, because Israel is His earthly centre. The powers that interfere with Israel are the ones that matter in God's view. This is why the other kingdoms are not mentioned — only those of the north and of the south. And why are they described this way? Palestine is the place from which God reckons. The king of the north means north of the land that His eyes were upon. The southern power means south of that same land. These are the countries commonly called Syria and Egypt.
"The king of the north" here is not the same man as in the earlier verses.
In this chapter the king of the north is not one man all the way through, and neither is the king of the south. A great many rulers succeed each other. The same official title runs throughout. As people say in law, the king, or the queen, never dies. That is just how we are to look at it here.
Commentators match this verse to the campaign of Antiochus the Great against Egypt.
All this, it hardly needs saying, happened exactly. Antiochus the Great and Philip III of Macedonia formed a league with others against Egypt. At the same time many of the Jewish rebels and self-proclaimed patriots, "the robbers of your people," threw off their allegiance to Egypt. The next verse (15) states the result of this combination against the king of the south. Antiochus and his allies conquered "the most fortified cities." They took possession of the whole of Judea, and they crushed the Egyptian army.
Commentators differ on which stronghold the verse means:
He took Sidon (Dan. 11:15), despite everything Egypt could do to stop him — Egypt was defeated at Panium.
Another applies it more widely, to "the taking of Jerusalem and other cities" (A. J. Pollock).
Egypt's defeat had a direct result for the land of Israel itself.
In the course of this conflict the king of the north would take the fortified cities in the land of Israel, and the glorious land would come under his power. The forces of the king of the south would be unable to stop the conquest of the glorious land.
The land caught between the two powers paid for every victory.
The land of Israel lay between them, and it was a kind of heavy burden to these kings who made it their battlefield. It always went to the conqueror. But God never allowed rest to those who took His land.
Foreign armies trample the land, yet God's name for it never changes.
Another remarkable thing we see here is that the Spirit of God still holds to the importance of that little strip of land — the territory of Palestine. It was God's gift to God's people. However ruined its condition may be, it is the glorious land still. God does not change His purposes: "He will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land." He holds to His earthly purposes despite every hindrance. What then will He not do for His heavenly people?
Prophecy this precise has always drawn one particular charge from critics.
Elsewhere God may give only the general outline of events. But what we have seen shows that He can be, and sometimes is, exact in the smallest details of a prophecy. Nowhere is He more so than in this very chapter. And what is the main objection raised by unbelievers against it? That it must have been written after the events took place! Certainly no historian since those times gives us such an admirable account as we have in these few verses. If I want to know the history of these two rival monarchies, Syria and Egypt, I must look here. How completely we can trust the word of God about everything!
- Measured from the land. God measures north and south from Israel. He watches the powers that touch His people and passes over the rest.
- A title, not a man. "The king of the north" is an office that passes from ruler to ruler, so the chapter spans generations, not one lifetime.
- The land taken. Siege ramps go up, the fortified cities fall, and Egypt's best troops cannot keep the land.
- The land still glorious. Overrun and wasted, it keeps God's own title for it, because He does not change His purposes.
- The word to trust. Details this exact, written in advance, give solid ground for confidence. If God is this accurate about Syria and Egypt, we can trust Him about everything.
And he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the land of beauty, and destruction shall be in his hand.
This verse sits in a long, exact prophecy about the wars between the king of the north and the king of the south. They fought back and forth across the small strip of land that lay between them. Here the conqueror meets no resistance at all. Yet the land he tramples is still called "the glorious land." Two questions follow: who is he, and why does God care so much about that ground?
Commentators read the victor here as the king of the north. One writer sets out the history, quoting an older translation of the verse:
Antiochus and his allies captured "the most fortified cities," took possession of the whole of Judea, and crushed the Egyptian army. So he did according to his own will, and no one was able to stand before him (v. 16). Then it is said, "He shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed."
One writer points to the precision of the record:
There was good reason in God's eyes to give at this point an account of the kings north and south of Palestine, and of their struggles and alliances with each other... We have these movements traced with precision. Nothing in history can be more exact. Name, if you can, any great writer of that time who gives facts with as much accuracy, simplicity, and clearness as this chapter.
That older wording stands behind the ESV's "destruction in his hand." One study traces the rare Hebrew word:
The Hebrew word "kahlah" occurs 22 times, and English translations render it in various ways. Isaiah uses it twice only (Isa. 10:23; Isa. 28:22, "consumption"), and so also Daniel (Dan. 9:27, "consummation"; Dan. 11:16, "which... shall be consumed," literally "and destruction" in his hand).
Commentators differ over the sense. Others read the word another way:
Some hold that the word "consumed" should be "perfected." It does seem settled that the king of the north acted on this occasion as a friend to the Jews, and helped with the completion or beautifying of the temple.
God's name for the country does not change with its fortunes:
Here is another remarkable thing. The Spirit of God still holds to the importance of that little strip of land — the territory of Palestine. It was God's gift to God's people. However bad its condition may be, it is the glorious land still. God does not change His mind about His purposes: "He will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land." If He holds like this to His purposes for the earth, despite every hindrance, what will He not do for His heavenly people?
Scripture gives the land a whole family of such names:
"The glorious land" (Dan. 11:16, 41); "the pleasant land" (Dan. 8:9); "the glory of all lands" (Ezek. 20:6, 15); "a land flowing with milk and honey" (Ex. 3:8); "a plentiful land" (Jer. 2:7); "a land that the LORD your God cares for. The eyes of the LORD your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year" (Deut. 11:12). We need not be surprised at such language, for when God chooses for His people, He always chooses the best.
A chapter full of troop movements can look like dry history. One writer explains why God had it recorded:
They are given in such detail because of their bearing upon the Jews and the glorious land. This is clear once you recall where Palestine lay in relation to Syria and Egypt. It lay between them, so it formed the highway of approach from either country. In their invasions of each other, the armies of both hostile countries kept marching through the land, and whichever king was winning at the moment held Judea... God could not be indifferent to this, for it touched the welfare of His poor people who had returned from Babylon. So the Spirit of God had the account of all these wars recorded. It shows us the intensity of God's love for His people, whatever their state. It also teaches us that He takes account of the movements of nations as they affect His people's interests.
The words "he shall do as he wills" describe more than military success. Commentators read this king as the picture of another:
The Assyrian is seen through his type, Antiochus Epiphanes, the king of the north in his day. The Assyrian does "according to his will" (Dan. 11:16)... Self-will is the common mark of all who oppose Christ.
That forward look is why the chapter is read on two levels — the past conqueror standing for a future one:
Dan. 11:21 to 35 refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, type of the king of the north, or Assyrian of the last days.
- The battlefield. The chapter records these wars "because of their bearing upon the Jews and the glorious land." The land lay on the highway between the two powers.
- The gift. The land was "God's gift to God's people," and Scripture piles up names for it: the pleasant land, the glory of all lands, a plentiful land.
- The name. Overrun and ruined, it is "the glorious land still," because God does not change His mind about His purposes.
- The love. That He records these marches at all "shows us the intensity of God's love for His people, whatever their state."
- The promise. If God holds like this to His purposes for the earth, "what will He not do for His heavenly people?"
And he shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; and he shall practise; and he shall give him the daughter of women, to corrupt her; but she shall not stand, neither shall she be for him.
Daniel 11:17 sits inside a long stretch of foretold history in which the king of the north and the king of the south — the rulers of Syria and Egypt — fight, scheme, and make alliances over the strip of land between them. Here the weapon is not an army but a wedding: a king hands over his own daughter to gain a throne, and the plan collapses.
Earlier in the chapter the king of the south sent his daughter north to seal a treaty. Here the same move runs in reverse. The writers quoted on this page use an older translation, which reads "corrupting her" where the ESV has "to destroy the kingdom." One of them explains why that word fits.
This is another try at marriage, only the other way round. This time it is not the daughter of the king of the south going to the king of the north. The king of the north gives his daughter Cleopatra to the king of the south, hoping she will keep Syrian influence strong at the court of Egypt. That is what the verse calls "corrupting her," because it clearly went against the very heart of marriage: he was using her to serve his political aims.
Some have read "the daughter of women" as a picture of the Jewish nation. One writer rejects that and names a real person instead.
I see no reason to apply "the daughter of women" to the Jewish nation. I am satisfied that the usual interpretation is quite sound: the phrase is said of Cleopatra, the young daughter of Antiochus the Great, whom her father offered to Ptolemy Epiphanes.
The same writer says the title is used of the Syrian princess, pointing to her "youth or beauty, or rank."
The history behind the verse is small in scale: two children, an engagement, and the calculation of Antiochus the Great.
He judged that a marriage alliance with Egypt would strengthen his hold on that country. So he arranged to marry his daughter, Cleopatra, then a very young child, to the little seven-year-old King of Egypt. He did this hoping her influence would be on his side — corrupting her by asking her to back his schemes and betray her husband and his country, over which she became queen. But our verse (17) says, "She shall not stand on his side [that is, her father's], neither be for him," She turned out to be a faithful wife and did not support her father.
The father's whole design turned on one thing he could not control — her loyalty. She gave it to her husband.
One phrase in this verse is unusually hard to translate. The ESV reads "terms of an agreement," where older versions read "and upright ones with him."
The greatest difficulty in the verse lies in the true force of the phrase which our version translates "and upright ones with him," and the margin note, "much uprightness, or equal conditions." … De Wette supposes that a peace is meant. Gesenius explains the word in Daniel 11:17 of the Jews. Diodati applies it to terms of peace, Martin and Ostervald to success, Luther to reconciliation. Tremellius and Junius understand it as a sham fairness, used to get around the king of Egypt.
This chapter foretells more than the rise and fall of empires. One writer draws the conclusion.
Daniel 11 gives us the most extraordinary and detailed prophecy in the whole Word of God. It foretells the reigns of kings, royal marriages, wars, victories, defeats, plots, treaties and assassinations. Remember that, and it stands as striking, unanswerable evidence that God knows the future.
The chapter uncovers motives as well as events. One commentator notes that the reasons of state and "the innermost secrets of their hearts" both come out here.
Readers often ask how far this chapter is past. One commentator places the turning point well after verse 17.
For my own part, I am convinced that verse 20 and those after it give us the history of Antiochus Epiphanes, though his history is no doubt a picture of the Antichrist. The proper account of the Antichrist begins at verse 36, in his political dealings with the land of Judea. This is clearly at "the time of the end."
- Plot. A king of the north offers his daughter to the king of the south to keep Syrian influence inside Egypt's court.
- Corruption. The word marks the motive: using a daughter for political ends runs against the very nature of marriage.
- Person. "The daughter of women" is taken as Cleopatra, daughter of Antiochus the Great, not as a figure for the Jewish nation.
- Failure. She stood with her husband, not her father, and the scheme failed.
- Foreknowledge. God knew these marriages, treaties and murders before they happened. The chapter's last section, from verse 36, still lies ahead.