And in his place shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom; but he shall come in peaceably and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
Daniel 11 has been tracking rival kings to the north and south of Israel. At verse 21 a new figure steps in: a man with no legal claim to the crown, who wins it by charm instead of by force. Commentators name him from history. They then ask a second question: why does Scripture spend so many verses on so small a king?
Older translations call him "a vile person." Newer ones read "a contemptible person." Where the ESV has "without warning," the older wording is "peaceably" — the word the writers below comment on. They give him a name and a date.
We now come to a monarch, yet "a vile person" (v. 21)... History knows this "vile person" as Antiochus Epiphanes, and he began his reign about 175 B.C. He was not given the honour of the kingdom, because he was not the rightful heir. But he came in peaceably and obtained the kingdom by flatteries, and he fulfilled this description to the letter.
The name he took for himself and the name people gave him tell their own story.
He called himself Epiphanes, which means "illustrious"; but he was such "a vile person" that people called him Epimanes, "madman."
The smooth entry described here was not the whole of his method. What came later was open cruelty, aimed at the Jews, their land and their temple.
This is the man who is a picture of the last king of the north. Secular history calls him Antiochus Epiphanes. He was morally vile, and most notorious for meddling with the Jews — first by flattery and corruption, and afterwards by violence. The Spirit of God dwells on this man most, because he meddled most with Israel, the glorious land, and the sanctuary. He was the one who enforced idolatry in the temple itself, setting up an image to be worshipped even in the Holy of Holies. That is why he becomes important. Apart from this he was little known, except for his daring wickedness.
Daniel gives him far more space than his place in world history seems to deserve. One writer explains why.
His doings, and the things that sprang out of them, occupy us until we come to the end of verse 36... His evil deeds are described at some length, we believe, because he acted with such violence against the Jews that he became a type or forecast of the king of the north, who in the last days will be their great adversary.
Where does the chapter stop describing history and start describing the last days? Commentators differ. One writer states the problem and gives his own answer.
One more observation is needed... From verse 21 to the end of verse 35 the prophet is always speaking of the same person. From verse 36 to the end of verse 39 we have the history of this extraordinary king himself. These last verses point to the Antichrist himself. My own opinion is that verses 21 to 31 describe the king of the north instead — though he too is a type of Antichrist. I mention this because many people who have studied the chapter find it hard to decide whether the history of the Antichrist begins at verse 21 or at verse 36.
One writer sets this beside an older story: Abimelech, the son of Gideon, who talked the men of Shechem into making him king.
It was by fair speeches that the son of Gideon won his way, and so with the man of Daniel 11. "His speech was smooth as butter, yet war was in his heart; his words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords" (Ps. 55:21). There will be a lamb-like air about him. But in the ears of the elect — who do not know the voice of strangers — his voice is the voice of the dragon (Rev. 13). Antiochus, who is another type of him, worked his way in the same manner... All this deceives the crowds and leads them away, as it deceived the Shechemites. But the remnant — "the people who know their God" — are kept safe.
- Contemptible. He was no rightful heir; the honour of the kingdom was never given him. He called himself Epiphanes, "illustrious"; his own people called him Epimanes, "madman."
- Flatteries. He came in peaceably and won the throne by charm. Flattery and corruption came first; violence came later.
- The sanctuary. This little-known king matters because of where his violence landed: on Israel, the glorious land, and the temple, where he enforced idolatry.
- Type. Scripture dwells on him because he forecasts the king of the north, Israel's great adversary in the last days. Commentators differ over whether verses 21–35 show the Antichrist himself, or only a picture of him.
- Preserved. Smooth words hide drawn swords. A lamb-like manner can carry a dragon's voice. The crowds are swept along; the people who know their God are kept.
And the overflowing forces shall be overflowed from before him, and shall be broken yea, also the prince of the covenant.
Daniel 11:22 sits inside a long, detailed forecast of the kings of the north and the south. Two questions drive it: who was "the prince of the covenant," and why does God spend so many verses on a king most readers have never heard of?
Verse 22 belongs to a section that opens with a "vile person" (v. 21). Writers name him from history, and note the nickname people gave him back.
He was not the rightful heir. He "obtained the kingdom by flatteries." He called himself Epiphanes, which means "illustrious." But he was such "a vile person" that people called him Epimanes, "madman." Daniel 11:21-24.
Older translations speak here of "overflowing forces" that are overflowed, which is where the flood picture comes from. That picture is not unique to this verse.
This is a figure well known in the prophets, and used to signify overwhelming destruction by invading hostile armies. See, for example, Isaiah 8:7-8; Isaiah 10:22; Isaiah 28:2, 15; Jeremiah 47:2; Daniel 11:22, 26. It may also point back to the flood of Noah's day. Then the overflowing waters swept away the corrupt and the godless, and so purified the world of that time.
Commentators differ. One names a man: the high priest pushed out of office when this king turned from bribery to violence.
He began by flatteries and corruption, and ended with violence, overthrowing their worship, deposing the High Priest, Onias II, probably referred to in verse 22 as "the prince of the covenant."
Another describes him by his office instead of naming him. The same writer follows the story on into the league and the double-dealing that come next.
He would not be the rightful heir. By flattery he would disarm opposition and take the kingdom without a fight. He would flood God's land, crushing all resistance and setting aside the leader of God's people, here called the prince of the covenant. He would make a league with the people. Then he would act deceitfully, using corruption and bribery to seize the richest parts of the provinces.
The chapter races through kings, then slows down here. The reason is that this ruler touched God's people and God's sanctuary. In doing so he became a picture of a worse enemy still to come.
This is the man who typifies the last king of the north. Outside the Bible, history calls him Antiochus Epiphanes. He was morally vile, but he is best known for the way he interfered with the Jews: first by flattery and corruption, and later by violence. This is the man the Spirit of God dwells on most, because he interfered most with Israel, the glorious land, and the sanctuary.
The pattern is not only past. These verses were fulfilled in history, and they also picture a sorrow still to come.
The final events in this prophecy, in verses 21 to 35, describe what the vile Antiochus Epiphanes did. They are given in greater detail for two reasons. They present history that touches God's people, and that history has already been fulfilled. They also picture, with great accuracy, the still greater sorrows the Jewish nation will pass through in the future day of the great tribulation.
Critics use the sheer exactness of verses like this one to claim that Daniel was composed after the events. One writer turns the objection around.
God can be, and sometimes is, remarkably exact in the details of a prophecy, and nowhere 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 had taken place! No historian since those times gives us such a fine account as these few verses do… How completely we can trust the word of God about everything!
The type has a limit. A later ruler in the prophecy is a different person entirely, not a continuation of the man in verse 22.
Later he was shown what would happen "at the time of the end." The kings of the north and of the south would take up their conflicts again. More than that, a new and alarming person would reign in the land, and both kings would attack him. He is the counterpart of Messiah in evil — the man of sin, as He is the man of righteousness. That is a state totally different from Antiochus Epiphanes, and it cannot be squared with him in any of his phases.
- Flattery — He took a throne that was not his by right. Flattery won it for him before he ever used force.
- Flood — Armies swept away is a picture of invading forces overwhelming a land. The prophets use it again and again.
- Fallen prince — Commentators differ on "the prince of the covenant." Some name the high priest Onias. Others call him the leader of God's people, set aside by this king.
- Foreshadow — God lingers on this king because he interfered with Israel, the land and the sanctuary. That makes him the pattern of the last king of the north. The ruler at the time of the end, though, is a different person.
- Foreknowledge — Critics use the precision of these verses to date the book late. That same precision shows we can trust God's word in everything.
And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully, and he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.
Daniel 11:23 belongs to a long prophecy about a king who took power with no right to it. The verse shows his method — an agreement first, betrayal after — and raises a question: why does God give so many verses to one man?
Secular history gives this king a name. He took the throne by charm, not by right.
Antiochus IV, Epiphanes. He was not the rightful heir. He "obtained the kingdom by flatteries." He called himself Epiphanes, which means "illustrious." But he was such "a contemptible person" that people called him Epimanes, which means "madman." Daniel 11:21-24.
The alliance comes first, and the deceit follows it. One writer traces the steps: how he got the crown, what he did to God's land, and what the league gained him.
He would not be the rightful heir, but by flattery would disarm opposition and obtain the kingdom peaceably. He would overflow God's land, crushing all resistance and setting aside the leader of God's people, here called the prince of the covenant. He would make a league with the people, and then work deceitfully to obtain the fattest places of the provinces by corruption and bribery.
"A small people" points to how little he started with. His rise came from arrangements and cunning, not from overwhelming force.
Through alliances and trickery he took peaceful possession of the richest part of his kingdom. He also gave gifts on a lavish scale, beyond anything the rulers before him had done. In this way he fulfilled verse 24.
His career had an order to it. The soft approach came first, and the violence came later.
He was morally disgusting. He is most notorious for the way he interfered with the Jews. He used flattery and corruption first, and violence afterwards. He was the one who forced idolatry into the temple itself, setting up an image to be worshipped even in the Holy of Holies. That is why he matters at all. Otherwise he was a man little known, except for daring wickedness.
A minor king gets more space here than whole empires do. One writer explains why: this king is a picture of a ruler still to come.
From verse 21 we have had the account of the king of the north, known in secular history as Antiochus Epiphanes. The Spirit of God has gone into much fuller detail about his history. The reason is his conduct, above all at the close, when he meddled with the Jews, their city, and their sanctuary. That conduct made him a type of the last king of the north. This later king will follow in his predecessors' steps. But his guilt will be far graver in the sight of God — so flagrant that His judgment can wait no longer.
The precision of these verses became an argument against them. Critics claimed the chapter must have been written after the events.
Certainly there is no historian since these times who gives us such an admirable account as we have in these few verses. If I want to know the history of these two rival monarchies, Syria and Egypt, I must look here. How completely we can trust the word of God about everything! It may be unusual for Him to dwell on the kings of the north and of the south, but He does so at times. The great thing He cares for is the souls of His people. May our hearts answer to the interest He takes in us!
The match between record and prediction is what faith expects.
It will be seen from the above that the records of history agree perfectly with the prophecy, as faith would expect them to do. It is only unbelief that has any difficulty with God foretelling future events. Without doubt some of the acts of Antiochus Epiphanes are types of what the future king of the North will do to the Jews and Jerusalem. Other prophecies call that future king "the Assyrian."
- Alliance. The verse begins where his power begins — with a league. He had no right to the throne and no great force behind him.
- Deceit. The agreement was the tool, not the goal. Once inside, he worked by corruption and bribery to seize the richest parts of the provinces.
- Growth. From "a small people" he became strong. Small resources plus trickery produced a kingdom, and then extravagance beyond every predecessor.
- Violence. Flattery first, force afterwards. It ended with idolatry set up in the temple itself. That is why Scripture dwells on him at all.
- Forecast. His whole career is a scale model of the last king of the north. That later king's guilt will be far graver. And the exactness of this record answers unbelief; it is not a problem for faith.
In time of peace shall he enter even into the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers he shall scatter among them prey, and spoil, and substance, and he shall plan his devices against the fortified places, even for a time.
Verse 24 shows a ruler who wins by giving, not by fighting. He enters the richest districts without warning and scatters plunder among the people. Commentators name him from history, and ask why Scripture gives one king such close attention.
Writers connect this whole paragraph to a Syrian king who took the throne he had no right to, and who gave himself a flattering title his own subjects mocked.
He was not the rightful heir. He "obtained the kingdom by flatteries." He called himself Epiphanes, which means "illustrious." But he was such "a vile person" that people called him Epimanes, which means "madman." Dan. 11:21-24.
In this verse he does not take the richest districts by force. Corruption does the work instead.
He would not be the rightful heir. By flattery he would disarm opposition and take the kingdom peacefully. He would flood over God's land, crushing all resistance and setting aside the leader of God's people, here called the prince of the covenant. He would make a treaty with the people. Then he would work by deceit to get the richest parts of the provinces through corruption and bribery. He would force idolatry on the people, something his fathers had never done.
That order — soft first, hard later — is the shape of his whole reign.
This is the man who is a type of the last king of the north. Secular history calls him Antiochus Epiphanes. He was disgusting in his morals. He was most notorious for meddling with the Jews — first by flattery and corruption, and later by violence. This is the man the Spirit of God dwells most on, because he meddled most with Israel, the glorious land, and the sanctuary.
The verse says he outdoes every ancestor. Commentators differ on which act is meant. One takes it as the forced idolatry quoted above. Another takes the scattering of plunder and goods as reckless spending.
Once he had made himself secure in the kingdom, the record tells what he did — his successes, his deceit, his growing strength, the enlargement of his territory, and his reckless overspending (vv. 22-24).
Either way, the giving is not kindness. Older translations open verse 24 with "in time of peace" instead of "without warning." Daniel 8 shows the same weapon in this king, again in that older wording.
Through his policy he will make craft prosper in his hand. He will magnify himself in his heart. By peace (or prosperity) he will corrupt many. He will also stand up against the Prince of princes. But he will be broken, and no human hand will do it (Dan. 8:19-25).
The verse sets its own limit on his schemes against strongholds: "only for a time." History shows when that time ran out. Rome, not any local resistance, ended his run.
These tireless Romans come in again. They had dealt with his father when he attacked Greece. Now the son had his hand at the throat of his prey. The Roman consul came and at once forbade him to do anything further. He even drew a circle round him, as is well known, when the crafty king wanted to gain time and escape an answer. He had to answer before he stepped out of the circle, and he gave it. This was a death-blow to all his policy.
Such close reporting of one king's tricks serves a purpose beyond history. It also answers a familiar objection.
No sober Christian doubts the application of these continuous predictions from verse 5 to 32. Even the unbeliever has to take refuge in the hopeless theory that someone wrote them after the event! They are as clear as the histories of Justin and Diodorus. One might go further and say that no history gives so exact, brief, and clear an account of that period. The Spirit of God dwells with special fullness (Dan. 11:21-32) on the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the last of these kings in the past. This is because he defiled the sanctuary and sought to make the Jews abandon their faith. Of all these kings he becomes the only remarkable type of their enemy at the end of the age.
Others put the same point more plainly: his behaviour is a preview.
His evil doings are dwelt upon at some length, we believe, because he acted with such violence against the Jews as to make him a type or forecast of the king of the north, who in the last days will be their great adversary.
- Flattery first. He took a throne that was not his by disarming opposition, not by winning it. That pattern shapes all of verse 24.
- Bribery next. Corruption and bribery win him the richest districts. Commentators read the plunder he scatters either as more bribery or as reckless spending.
- Prosperity as a weapon. The same king "by peace will corrupt many" — comfort does damage that open attack could not.
- A time limit. His plans against strongholds run "only for a time." Rome's demand was the death-blow to all his policy.
- A preview, not just a past. Scripture lingers on him because he defiled the sanctuary and pushed the Jews to abandon their faith. That makes him the forecast of Israel's last enemy.