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.
And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall engage in battle with an exceeding great and mighty army; but he shall not stand, for they shall plan devices against him.
Daniel 11 traces a long feud between two powers that grew out of the Greek empire. Verse 25 drops us into one campaign. A northern king marches south with a huge army. The southern king meets him with an even larger one — and still loses. Why does the stronger army collapse? And why did God write down a war of ancient kings centuries before it was fought?
The titles in this chapter are geographical. North means Syria, south means Egypt, and the ground they keep fighting over is the land of Israel lying between them.
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, and they often fought in the land of Palestine, which lay between them. The prophecies are so exact that some critics have said someone must have written them after the events. Verses 21 to 35 refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, a type of the king of the north, or Assyrian, of the last days.
The northern king in this campaign is Antiochus Epiphanes. Rome stood over him, and one writer explains how that shaped his moves. He let Egypt arm first, then called his own attack self-defence.
But "even for a time" tells of a check that was coming, and the Romans were the ones who applied it. He was afraid of offending the Romans openly. So he waited until the king of the south gathered a large army against him. Then, claiming self-defence, he gathered huge forces of his own, while he had secretly decided all along to attack first. This is foretold in verse 25. He defeated the king of the south twice and took him prisoner.
The southern king's defeat did not come from a shortage of soldiers. Plots brought him down, and they worked because the men around him were bought.
Once he had taken the glorious land, he would attack the king of the south, who would meet him with a mighty army. Even so, the king of the south would be defeated, because the king of the north would plan schemes against him and corrupt the men who depended on him.
The defeat was arranged before the armies met.
Then, like the kings before him, he set out on a campaign against the king of the south. Treachery in his enemy's court and camp helped him, and he defeated him completely.
Earlier kings in this chapter get a verse or two. This one gets a long paragraph. Writers give a reason for the change of pace: the man is a picture of an enemy still to come.
We now come to a king who is called "a vile person" (v. 21). He has been chosen as the type of the Assyrian, or the king of the north, of the last days. That is why his career is told in such detail, filling the whole paragraph in verses 21-25.
The chapter's reach may not end with ancient history. Some writers see the same alignment of powers at the close of the age.
Egypt will be under the Beast and allied with him, and so a target for attack by the king of the north — Israel's determined political enemy (Dan. 11:25, 29, 42-44).
A verse about troop numbers and secret plots may look like dry reporting. Its weight lies in its date.
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 and unanswerable evidence that God knows the future. For who but God could write down such detailed prophecies, which have come true with one exception? The one exception is still future, and it awaits a fulfilment that will surely come.
- North and south. The two kings are Syria and Egypt, and the land they keep marching through is Israel's.
- Plot. The northern king lets Egypt arm first, then attacks under the cover of self-defence.
- Betrayal. Egypt's larger army fails, not for lack of strength, but because the men closest to the king were bought and plotted against him.
- Pattern. Scripture tells this reign at length because the man pictures the king of the north of the last days.
- Proof. God named the kings, wars, defeats and plots in advance. Only He could. That is proof He knows the future.
And they that eat of his delicate food shall break him, and his army shall be dissolved; and many shall fall down slain.
Daniel 11 traces the long wars between the kings ruling north and south of Israel, and verse 26 shows one of those kings destroyed by the men who ate at his own table. Two questions follow: who are these kings, and why does God record their wars in such detail?
The titles in this part of the chapter are official, not personal. They name a line of rulers, not one man.
One of these kingdoms would lie north of the land of Israel, and the other south of it. In the prophecy that follows, the ruler of the southern kingdom is called the king of the south, or Egypt. The ruler of the northern kingdom is called the king of the north, or Syria. As the prophecy goes on, these titles do not always point to the same person. They are official titles for kings of the same line.
Reading verses 25 to 28 together, the same writer sets out the sequence the verse is part of:
After taking the glorious land for himself, he would attack the king of the south. The king of the south would meet him with a mighty army. Even so, the king of the south would be defeated, because the king of the north would scheme against him and corrupt the men who depended on him.
The striking phrase is that the men living off the king's own provision are the ones who break him. That break came through desertions in the Egyptian army. The invader won the troops over by presenting himself as their rescuer.
At this time Antiochus impressed the Egyptian troops by appearing as their deliverer, so many of them deserted Ptolemy. So verse 26 was fulfilled: "Even those who eat his [Ptolemy's] food shall break him [that is, Ptolemy's power]. His [Antiochus'] army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain."
The older translation this writer used reads "his army shall overflow" — that is, Antiochus' army swept over Egypt, rather than being destroyed itself.
The defeat came from inside as much as from the battlefield:
Then, like the rulers before him, he set out on a campaign against the king of the south. Treachery in his enemy's court and camp helped him, and he defeated him completely.
This verse is one of the places where the prophets picture an army as a flood:
This picture is well known in the prophets. It stands for the overwhelming destruction brought by invading enemy armies. See, for example, Isaiah 8:7-8; Isaiah 10:22; Isaiah 28:2, 15; Jer. 47:2; Dan. 11:22, 26. It may also point back to the flood in Noah's day, when the rising waters swept away the corrupt and the godless.
Why does the chapter dwell so long on this one king? The answer lies in who he was and what he did to Israel:
This is the man who is a picture of the last king of the north. History outside the Bible calls him Antiochus Epiphanes. He was a morally vile man, 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 says the most about, because he meddled most with Israel, the glorious land, and the sanctuary.
The precision of these verses has always drawn one objection:
What is the main objection unbelievers raise against this prophecy? That it must have been written after the events had taken place! It is certain that no historian since those times gives us as fine an 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!
The detail is not an end in itself:
It may be an exception to His general rule to dwell on the kings of the north and of the south, but He does so at times. The great thing He cares about is the souls of His people. May our hearts answer to the interest He takes in us!
- Named: king of the north and king of the south are official titles, not personal names — Syria in the north, Egypt in the south. History calls the attacker Antiochus Epiphanes.
- Corrupted: the southern king falls because the men who depend on him are won over. Those fed at his table break his power.
- Overflowed: the prophets often picture an invading army as a flood. It stands for overwhelming destruction.
- Typified: this ruler fills so much of the chapter because he meddled with Israel, the land and the sanctuary. He is a picture of the last king of the north.
- Confirmed: no later historian matches the account in these few verses. That is a reason to trust God's word about everything.
And both these kings' hearts [shall meditate] mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper; for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.
Two rival kings sit at one table to make a deal. Both plan harm, and both lie. The verse then gives the verdict: the deal will fail, because the end belongs to a time God has already fixed.
These are real rulers of two rival kingdoms, Syria and Egypt. The northern king is Antiochus Epiphanes, and the record starts with how he took his throne.
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." He invaded Egypt and was at first successful. The two kings then entered into negotiations. Neither of them was sincere in what they agreed to. Their hearts were set on doing mischief, and they "speak lies at the same table."
Sharing a table looks like friendship. Here the friendship is a mask, and the verse already says how it ends.
A treaty seems to be formed in verse 27. Both rulers wear a mask of friendship while they hide treachery in their hearts — "They shall speak lies at the same table, but to no avail, for the end is yet to be at the time appointed."
The lying went further than the rival king.
These two kings would meet and seek to deceive each other at the same table. The king of the north would return to his own land with great riches. In his own heart he had already decided not to keep any covenant, either with the king of the south or with the people of God.
The verse does not just report the lying. It says in advance that the plan will fail. Behind that verdict lies a principle: rulers who think they steer events are tools in God's hand.
God works unseen, but no less truly, in all the political changes of the day. The clever statesman, the skilful diplomat, is simply an agent in the Lord's hands. He does not know it. Self-will and motives of policy may shape his actions. But God is working towards one end — to display the heavenly and earthly glories of His Son. So kings and statesmen do not thwart God's purpose; without knowing it, they advance it. God is not indifferent, but is behind the scenes of human action.
Why does one ruler fill so much of the chapter? Not because of his own importance.
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 in describing his history. The reason is his conduct at the close, when he interfered with the Jews, their city and their sanctuary. That conduct made him a type of the last king of the north. This last king will follow the same path as those before him, except that his guilt will be far graver in the sight of God — so flagrant, indeed, that God's judgment can wait no longer.
These verses are so exact that critics claim someone wrote the chapter after the events. Commentators read the same exactness the other way.
Elsewhere prophecy may give only the general outline of events. But God can be, and sometimes is, exact in the smallest details, and nowhere more so than in this very chapter. And what is the main objection unbelievers raise against it? That someone must have written it after the events took place! Certainly, no historian since those times gives us such an admirable account as these few verses do. 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!
- The table. Two kings sit down as friends. Both plan harm, and neither means to keep the deal.
- The lie. The deceit reached past each other. The northern king had already decided to break faith with God's people too.
- The limit. God says the treaty will fail before it is made. Statesmen think they steer events; God works behind the scenes toward one end.
- The type. The chapter dwells on this ruler for one reason. His attack on the Jews, their city and their sanctuary makes him a pattern of a worse king still to come.
- The trust. Prophecy this exact, given long before the events, is why we can trust God's word in everything.
And he shall return into his land with great substance; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall practise, and return to his own land.
Daniel 11:28 follows a king home from war. He is loaded with plunder and fresh from a treaty he never meant to keep. He also carries a private hatred that will soon fall on Jerusalem. The verse raises two questions: who is this king, and what is the "holy covenant" his heart is set against?
History gives this king a name. His march home fills out what the verse only summarises.
He invaded Egypt and was at first successful: compare Daniel 11:25-26. The two kings entered into negotiations, but neither of them was sincere in what they agreed to. Their hearts were set on doing harm, and they "tell lies at one table" (Daniel 11:27). Then Antiochus returned to his land with great riches, his heart "against the holy covenant." He entered Jerusalem, and even went into the sanctuary. He took away the golden altar, the lampstand, the table of showbread, the censers of gold, and the other holy vessels, and left.
The riches and the hostility belong together. One decision in his heart produced both.
The king of the north would return to his own land with great riches. In his own heart he had decided to keep no covenant at all — neither the one made with the king of the south nor the one made with the people of God.
The phrase covers the religious life of the Jewish people, bound up with God's covenant with them. The rest of the verse shows what the king's hostility to it produced on his way home.
Having settled his affairs for the moment with the king of Egypt, he returned to his kingdom "with great riches." Now he showed in some way his enmity against the "holy covenant" — that is, against the Jewish religion, the covenant of God with His people. Then it adds, "and he shall do [exploits], and return to his own land" (v. 28). It is said that on his homeward march he attacked Jerusalem, massacred thousands of its people, and profaned the temple. He did this because the Jews had risen up on a false report of his death.
The ESV renders that phrase "he shall work his will."
One word keeps coming back in these verses. Counting it points to who is really behind the king's hatred.
Notice that these verses mention the "covenant" no less than four times. Three of those times the word "holy" goes with it. What God has covenanted and decreed is always the target of the devil's attack. This man was without a doubt an agent of Satan, working to overthrow what remained of the worship of the one true God at Jerusalem.
Antiochus was not a major figure in world history. The reason he gets such detailed treatment here is that he prefigures a later enemy.
From verse twenty-one 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 in telling 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 last king will follow the path of those before him, except that his guilt will be graver beyond comparison in the sight of God — so flagrant that His judgment can wait no longer.
Readers of this chapter often ask where the history stops and the future starts.
We read of an "abomination that makes desolate" in the prophecy about Antiochus (Daniel 11:31), and it has been commonly supposed that our Lord refers to this in Matthew 24:15. … Antiochus Epiphanes was only a type, and verse 31 does not go beyond his history, except as a foreshadowing.
The precision of these verses has always been the sticking point for those who reject prediction.
What we have seen shows this. Elsewhere God may give only the general outline of events, but in the details of a prophecy He can be, and sometimes is, exact to the smallest point. And nowhere is this more true than in this very chapter. And what is the main objection unbelievers raise against it? That it must have been written after the events had happened! Certainly no historian since those times gives us such an admirable account as we have in these few verses.
- Heart. The whole trouble starts in one place. His heart was set against the holy covenant before a single blow fell on Jerusalem.
- Lies. That heart had already shown itself at the table of talks, where neither king meant what he agreed to.
- Riches. He came home rich, having decided in himself to keep no agreement — with Egypt or with God's people.
- Sanctuary. The hatred acted. He entered Jerusalem, took the temple's golden vessels, and defiled the place of worship. What God has covenanted is always what the enemy attacks.
- Type. Scripture lingers on this king because he pictures a far worse enemy still to come. That enemy's guilt will be graver, and his judgment will not wait.
At the set time he shall return, and come towards the south; but not as the former time shall be the latter;
This verse sits inside a long prophecy about two rival powers: the king of the north and the king of the south. A ruler who had twice marched south with success now sets out again at a set time — but this march will end differently.
Commentators can name the king behind this verse. Earlier in the chapter he appears as a "vile person" — verse 21, quoted below from an older translation. He fills more space than any other king here, and for a reason:
We now come to a king — but "a vile person" (v. 21). He has been specially chosen as the type of the Assyrian, or the king of the north, of the last days. That is why his career is told in such detail... Historians know 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 shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries," and he fulfilled this description to the letter.
The phrase does not mean the king's own schedule. It points back to the deceitful alliance of verse 27, and to the limit God had already set on it. (Older translations end the verse "it shall not be as the former, or as the latter," referring to his two earlier campaigns.)
By "the time appointed" we understand what verse 27 states. It is the time God fixed for the ending of the deceitful alliance this king had made with the king of the south. The alliance was not to prosper. So Antiochus broke his treaty and returned in hostility towards his ally. But, as Daniel was told, "it shall not be as the former or as the latter." On those earlier occasions he had prospered in his plans. Now another power steps forward... and checks his victorious career.
The march south is a march into Egypt, and Rome is what stops it. History records the moment in sharp detail:
Verse 29 tells of another expedition against Egypt, and this one was a disaster. The ships of Chittim came against him — that is, the Roman power. Caius Popilius, Laenas, and other leaders of the Roman army demanded that Antiochus stop troubling the Jews and Egypt. Antiochus tried to dodge the demand. So Caius Popilius at once drew a circle round him and demanded an answer before he stepped out of the ring. Antiochus agreed to the Roman conditions against his will, polite on the outside but raging inside. On his march north he took his revenge on the Jews.
A beaten man looks for someone weaker to punish. His failure in the south turns into fury against the Jews, and that fury brings God's judgment on him.
This was a death-blow to all his policy. He went home a miserable, defeated man. His heart was vexed and furious, though he put on a humble appearance before the Romans. What should stop him from pouring out the anger of his heart on the Jews?... The Jews were poor, but they were witnesses for God on the earth. So Antiochus hurries to pour out his fury on whatever bore a testimony to God among them. This was his ruin, and brought God's vengeance on him.
Critics have long turned the precision of these verses against the book of Daniel. Their claim: no one could write this in advance, so the writer must have worked after the events.
No sober Christian doubts that these unbroken predictions from verse 5 to 32 apply to real history. Even the unbeliever has to take refuge in the hopeless theory that they must have been written after the event!... 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 on the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. 11:21-32), the last of these kings in the past. He does so because Antiochus defiled the sanctuary and sought to turn the Jews away from God. So, of all these kings, he alone stands out as the type of the enemy of the Jews at the end of the age.
The chapter's detailed history breaks off shortly after this point, and the writers take that break as deliberate. What happened on a small scale here is a picture of a larger invasion still ahead.
Without doubt some of the acts of Antiochus Epiphanes are types of the deeds of the future king of the North — referred to in other prophecies as "the Assyrian" — in respect to the Jews and Jerusalem.
- Appointed. The timing of the march is God's, not the king's. The alliance of verse 27 was never going to prosper, because God had already fixed its end.
- Checked. What God appoints, God limits. Rome — the ships of Chittim — stopped this third march cold.
- Diverted. Rage blocked in one direction finds another outlet: He cannot touch Egypt, so he turns on the Jews.
- Judged. Attacking the people who bore witness to God was his ruin and drew God's vengeance on him.
- Repeated. Scripture tells this career in such detail because it pictures, on a small scale, the king of the north, "the Assyrian," of the last days.
for ships of Chittim shall come against him; and he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant; and will practise; and he shall return and direct his attention to those that forsake the holy covenant.
This verse is the turning point of the chapter. Ships from the west stop a conquering king, and the humiliated king turns his rage on God's people instead.
Commentators identify Chittim — the ESV spells it Kittim — as Rome, the sea power in the west. Until then the king had been winning.
Now another power steps forward and checks his victorious career. It was the power that would soon take over from Greece and rule the world as the fourth prophetic kingdom. "For the ships of Chittim shall come against him" (v. 30): the ships of Italy, the country Scripture calls Chittim, in fact a fleet of the Roman republic. Forbidden by the Roman consul to pursue his aims in Egypt, and powerless against such an enemy, he had to return.
The king was not beaten in battle. A Roman order stopped him.
Caius Popilius, Laenas, and others, leaders of the Roman army, demanded that Antiochus should stop troubling the Jews and Egypt. When Antiochus tried to dodge the demand, Caius Popilius quickly drew a circle round him. He firmly demanded an answer before the king stepped out of the ring. Antiochus did not want to agree, but he accepted the Roman terms. He looked polite while he raged inside, and he took his revenge on the Jews as he marched north.
Blocked by Rome, the king looked for a victim he could reach. One commentator ties his ruined policy to what he did next.
This was a death-blow to all his policy. He went home a miserable, defeated man, with a vexed and furious heart, though putting on a humble appearance before the Romans. What was to stop him from pouring out the anger of his heart on the Jews? … Poor as the Jews were, they were witnesses for God on the earth; and Antiochus hurries to pour out his fury on whatever bore a testimony to God among them. This was his ruin, and brought God's vengeance on him.
"The holy covenant" here means God's covenant with the Jews.
The second half of the verse turns from attack outside to help from inside. He will "pay attention to those who forsake the holy covenant" — older translations render this as having "intelligence" with them.
He had an understanding ("intelligence") with the apostate Jews. We can gather an account of his doings from 1 and 2 Maccabees. They show that he set himself to work to make the Jews pagan. Like Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 3, he wanted to unify his lands by forcing all his subjects to worship the same false gods. This prophecy shows that he largely succeeded among the Jews. Apostates are specified in verses 30 and 32.
With this verse the chapter stops being a duel between two powers. Two new elements arrive: a power from the west, and Jews who had left the covenant.
A power from the west mixes itself up with these two eastern powers… But further, we also find apostates from the holy covenant. So there are, first, Jews who count as the objects of God's covenant, and Jews who are apostates from it. Second, there are those from the west, north of the Mediterranean, who enter the existing quarrel. These new elements change the whole scene.
From the middle of verse 30 the account of this man in Jerusalem grows dark. Writers treat him as a pattern of a future enemy.
From the middle of verse 30 to the end of verse 35 we have the account of what Antiochus did in Jerusalem and the glorious land. Measured by God's standard, his actions were so evil that he is chosen — as has been said more than once — as a type of the powerful enemy of Israel in the last days.
But one writer warns against reading this verse itself as a prophecy of the end:
It is a mistake to suppose that this refers to the last days. It is only a type of what will take place then.
- Checked. Ships from the west — Rome — stop the king at the height of his success and force him to return.
- Grieved. He goes home a defeated man, raging inside. Blocked abroad, he turns his anger on the Jews.
- Indignant. His fury lands on the holy covenant. Poor as they were, the Jews were witnesses for God on earth, and he could reach them.
- Assisted. He finds partners among Jews who had already left the covenant, and with their help he largely succeeded.
- Repeated. Writers take him as a type of Israel's last-days enemy. The verse records real history and shows a pattern still to come.
And forces shall stand on his part, and they shall profane the sanctuary, the fortress, and shall take away the continual [sacrifice], and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
In Daniel 11:31 a king turns armed force against worship itself. Commentators have long debated two questions here: who these forces belong to, and whether the verse is history, prophecy, or both.
Two phrases carry the weight: where the forces come from, and what they attack. One writer works from an older translation to bring out the sense:
"And arms shall stand on his part" — or, more literally, "forces [arms] shall rise from [out of] him." The phrase "shall rise from him," or "shall come from him," can be used in two senses. It can mean a king's lieutenant, the man who takes his place as commander. Or it can mean the man who succeeds him in the government. … "They [the arms] shall pollute the sanctuary of strength [or, which is the fortress]."
Rome had just blocked the king and sent him home beaten. His rage then found a softer target:
This was a death-blow to all his policy. He went home a miserable, defeated man, his heart bitter and furious, though he put on a humble face before the Romans. What was to stop him from pouring out the anger of his heart on the Jews? … Poor as the Jews were, they were witnesses for God upon the earth; and Antiochus hurries to pour out his fury on everything among them that bore witness to God. This was his ruin, and brought God's vengeance upon him.
The historical record in 1 Maccabees matches the verse point by point, and it names what took the place of the worship of God:
This is referred to in 1 Maccabees: "The king had sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, telling them to follow the strange laws of the land. They were to forbid burnt offerings, sacrifices and drink offerings in the temple. They were to profane the sabbaths and festival days, and pollute the sanctuary and the holy people. They were to set up altars, groves and chapels of idols, and sacrifice pig's flesh and unclean animals … so that they might forget the law, and change all the ordinances." … From other sources we learn that Antiochus commanded the worship of Jupiter Olympius in place of the worship of the God of heaven, Jehovah.
Stopping the offering and setting up the idol belong together, and one explains the other:
… the taking away of sacrifice is for, or goes with, the setting up of the abomination. In the ninth chapter it should be clear, then, why as soon as we hear of the one, we hear of the other: "because of the wing of abominations [there shall be] a desolator," as it reads literally: idolatrous abominations bring the desolation.
Many readers assume Jesus had this verse in mind when He spoke of "the abomination of desolation." One writer argues that He pointed to Daniel 12:11 instead, because the two expressions differ:
The expressions the Holy Spirit uses in Dan. 11:31 and in Dan. 12:11 differ. In Dan. 11:31 it means the abomination of him that desolates, or of the desolator. Whereas in Dan. 12:11 the true meaning is that which is given in our Lord's words — not the abomination of him that makes desolate, but the "abomination of desolation" … the desolation spoken of in Dan. 11 is past, and the desolation of Dan. 12, that our Lord draws attention to, is future.
Here the writers differ. One keeps verse 31 in the past, and treats Antiochus as a pattern of a worse ruler to come:
His conduct, above all at the close, in meddling with the Jews, and their city, and their sanctuary, gave the occasion for a type of the last king of the north. That king will follow in his predecessors' path, except that his guilt will be graver beyond comparison in the sight of God … Antiochus Epiphanes was only a type, and verse 31 does not go beyond his history, except as a foreshadowing.
Another looks for a future fulfilment, carried out by someone acting for a coming king of the north:
Someone will come on behalf of the man who will be the king of the north in those times. He will bring his forces — his arms — into the holy place. He will defile the sanctuary, and set up "the abomination that makes desolate."
- Force — The verse opens with armed men. The wording allows either a deputy or a successor acting for the king.
- Fury — Rome blocked the king and shamed him. He turned his anger on the one people still bearing witness to God, and that brought God's judgment on him.
- Fulfilment — 1 Maccabees records the details: offerings banned, the sanctuary defiled, and the worship of Jupiter Olympius set up in God's place.
- Formula — Removing the sacrifice and setting up the idol go together. Idolatrous abominations are what bring the desolation.
- Future — Commentators differ. Some read verse 31 as past history, with a worse ruler foreshadowed in Antiochus. Others look for a coming king of the north. One writer holds that Jesus pointed to Daniel 12:11, not to this verse.
And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he pervert by flatteries; but the people that know their God shall be strong, and shall act.
A foreign king is pressing Jerusalem, and the pressure splits God's people in two. Some he wins with smooth words; the rest know their God — and the question this verse raises is what that knowledge produces.
One word keeps coming back in the verses around this one.
Notice that these verses mention the 'covenant' no less than four times, and three of those times the word 'holy' goes with it. What God has covenanted and decreed is always the object of the devil's attack. This man was without doubt an agent of Satan, working to overturn what remained of the worship of the one true God at Jerusalem.
That king was Antiochus Epiphanes. He tried to stamp out the Jewish religion itself. He put a pagan statue in the most holy place and defiled God's sanctuary with what the law forbade (William Kelly).
The commentators quote an older translation here. Where the ESV has "seduce with flattery" and "stand firm and take action," they read "corrupt by flatteries" and "be strong and do exploits." The word translated "corrupt" is stronger than it sounds.
He will corrupt those who do wickedly as to the covenant — that is, the Jews who are not true to Jewish hopes. He will push them into giving up their faith altogether. That is the force of the word translated 'he will corrupt'. But "the people that do know their God shall be strong and do exploits." Here the Jews are divided into true and false, and good and evil each develop.
Flattery works on people who are already willing to bend. One commentator sees the same method in a later king whom Antiochus pictures in advance.
There will be a lamb-like air about him. But those God has chosen do not know the voice of strangers, and in their ears his voice is the voice of the dragon. Antiochus, who is another picture of him, worked his way in the same manner. "And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries." All this deceives the mass of the people and leads them away; but the remnant — "the people that do know their God" — are kept safe.
The Maccabees fulfilled the second half. They were Jewish fighters who resisted Antiochus, and one commentator praises their strength without idealising them.
Near the end of his history, resistance to his aim led to a famous revival among the Jews. The Jewish heroes known as the Maccabees resisted his generals... They were no models of piety or patience. But, as Daniel says, they were strong and "did exploits." No phrase could describe them more accurately.
Antiochus never had the field to himself.
In those days there were not only wicked people whom he could corrupt. There were also 'people that do know their God', and 'that understand among the people'. This is always God's way; He does not leave Himself without a witness of some kind.
The next verse adds one more group to the picture.
God preserved a faithful remnant, and these, knowing their God, were strong and did exploits. The next verse brings in a smaller group — "they that understand among the people." So there were, we think, three classes of Jews. First, the mass, whom flatteries corrupted. Second, the faithful remnant, who refused to give up keeping the law of their God. Last, some among the remnant who, being taught of God, could instruct the others in the word and encourage them in the path of faithfulness, whatever persecution they might face.
Where does such knowledge of God come from? One commentator traces it back to earlier obedience.
Their obedience not only brought reward, it prepared them for the days ahead. In trials and exercise they would learn the character of their God. "The people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits" — and so it was.
One commentator warns against applying these words directly to the Christian.
We need to look in quite another direction... for the right application of the words "the people that do know their God shall be strong and do exploits." It is the glory of the Christian to suffer. The Maccabees really did exploits... The mistake is applying all this to the present Christian period.
- Attack — these verses name the covenant four times, and what God has covenanted is always what Satan attacks.
- Flattery — his first weapon is not force but smooth words. To "corrupt" here means to push people into giving up their faith, and it works only on those already false to the covenant.
- Knowledge — knowing God is the dividing line, and that knowledge grows beforehand, through obedience and trial.
- Witness — God never leaves Himself without a witness. Beside the corrupted mass stood a remnant, and inside it teachers who taught the rest.
- Restraint — the exploits belong to the Maccabees. One commentator warns that the Christian's calling is to suffer, not to copy their heroism.
And they that are wise among the people shall instruct the many; and they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, [many] days.
Daniel's vision has just described a king who corrupts God's people by flattery. Now the angel turns to those who stand firm, and puts two things side by side: they teach the whole nation, and they suffer for it.
This verse sits inside a long account of a king who tried to destroy the faith of the Jews. The writers below follow older translations, which call the wise "they that understand among the people."
In those days there were not only wicked men whom he could corrupt. There were also "people who know their God," and those "that understand among the people." This is always God's way. He does not leave Himself without a witness of some kind. Here we have a prediction of what happened in those dark days. God raised up the Maccabees, zealous and God-fearing men. Under their leadership deliverance came at last, though not without much loss and suffering, as verse 33 shows.
The wise are not just the faithful. They are a smaller circle inside them, marked out by what they can pass on.
In the next verse a smaller class comes into view — "they that understand among the people." So we think there were three classes of Jews. First, the mass whom flatteries corrupted. Second, the faithful remnant, who refused to give up keeping the law of their God. Last, some among the remnant who, being taught of God, could instruct the others in the word and encourage them in the path of faithfulness, whatever persecution they might face. This class appears again in chapter 12:3, and its members are called "the Maschilim."
One Hebrew detail settles how wide the teaching reaches, and where the teachers got what they teach.
In Daniel 9:27, 11:33 and 12:3 the word translated "many" has the article in Hebrew. It means the mass of the people, which makes the sense of these verses much simpler. The reader will also notice, in contrast with the masses (Dan. 11:33), "the Maschilim," a word found in the titles of many of the Psalms. Those who understand, those who are taught of God, will instruct the many. In these times of trial, love for the truth will be at work.
English translations drop that article. The persecutor behind these days also has a name.
Here we have those who were persecuted by their enemy — Antiochus Epiphanes. The phrase means "the" many. It is a pity that the article is not carried over into English where it stands in the Hebrew.
Sword, flame, captivity and plunder fall on the very people who teach. There is a reason they are the target.
Satan's hatred was aimed above all at this class — those who publicly stood with God's testimony on the earth.
Their fall then tests everyone watching.
The trial of faith will come through them. As faithful Jews, one might have supposed that such men could surely count on the help of God, for they have been urging others to "trust in the Lord." Yet some of them are to fall. Then, unless faith is very strong, the others will say "Where is their God?" as in Psalms 42 and 43.
This pattern is not sealed in the past. God has given the same help to His people again and again, and will give it once more.
One striking feature is the repeated mention of those "that understand among the people." They seem to be a class raised up to help Israel in that dark day. God has always provided this resource for His people, especially in difficult times. Long ago there were men of Issachar, who "had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do" (1 Chron. 12:32). The remnant in the days of Ezra had help from "men of understanding," and it will be the same with the remnant in the future.
Commentators read this loss as sowing, not waste.
This chosen remnant of faithful souls, faithful through grace in a day of the most extreme pressure and persecution, will truly "sow" in tears… But the seed is steeped in their tears and sown in sorrow. In its own time it will sprout, spring up, and bring a rich harvest, when the sower and the reaper will rejoice together.
- Taught — the wise are "taught of God"; God gives them their understanding.
- Teaching — what they receive they pass on, instructing not a select few but the mass of the people.
- Targeted — Satan aims at those who carry God's testimony, so the teachers themselves fall by sword, flame, captivity and plunder.
- Tested — when such men fall, others are shaken and ask where their God is; the trial of faith comes through them.
- Timeless — God has always raised up men of understanding for dark days, and He will do it again. Their tears sow a harvest.
And when they fall, they shall be helped with a little help; but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
Daniel 11 has just described God's people falling under a persecuting king, and now the angel turns to the moment they stumble. Why is the help only little, and why does success bring false friends?
Who gave that little help? Commentators point to the Maccabees and their revolt against Antiochus.
But they are not left completely in the hands of the enemy. "When they stumble, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery" (v. 34). It could hardly be otherwise. This prophetic account points plainly to the uprising and brave resistance of the Maccabees against the cruelty and profanity of their oppressor. At the start of their rebellion, at least, there was real zeal for God, for His temple and for His law. The success God granted them was great. For years they held back the whole power of the king of the north. Victory after victory, they kept up their just and holy cause.
The men God used here fought back, and that sets them apart from believers at the end.
The Maccabees did "exploits." They were heroes, not martyrs, and God used them as such, for they were faithful to His word. But those of "the end" will be saints, not heroes, and will perish, as we find from Revelation. The cross comes between, and alters these things.
Why call the help little? Because God promised Israel a rescue on another scale altogether, and this was not it.
From Jeremiah's day to this, Israel and Jacob have never known such trouble together with such deliverance. The Maccabean successes over their enemies were nothing compared with this prophecy. We also have a prediction of them in Daniel 11. Josephus and the Apocrypha give a history of them, but Scripture does not stoop to record the Maccabean successes.
Why would flatterers attach themselves to a persecuted people? Because the Maccabees started winning.
All this is now a matter of history. It is recalled here only to explain the last clause of verse 34: "many shall join themselves to them with flattery." After the reign of Antiochus, faction and civil strife tore Syria apart, and the Maccabean leaders were courted as often as they were threatened.
The flattery had an end point. Kelly follows it to the man who ended up on the throne.
So it happened that Antipater, the Edomite father of Herod, got in. For the family had not a shadow of right to reign over the Jews. He simply sided with the last unworthy descendant of the Maccabees, and with Roman help he slipped into power. But God allowed such repayment in His providence, to humble His guilty people.
Who are the "many" who join them? Not the "many" of the verse before.
The wise ones too were among the people, the Jews; and "the many" in verse 33, not in 34, is a technical phrase meaning the mass of that nation.
English hides a difference the Hebrew makes.
The phrase means "the" many. It is a pity that the article is not carried over into English where it stands in the Hebrew. For there are the two forms: the word "many" sometimes with the article, and sometimes without it.
Does the verse only record old events? Dennett says no.
But remember: this is history, yet not only history. Antiochus himself, as pointed out again and again, is a pattern of someone still to come. Many of the events of his reign, above all his actions in Jerusalem, are patterns too, so many of these things will happen again at the close.
- Fall. God's people stumble under persecution. Help comes at the point of collapse, not before.
- Help. That help was the Maccabean rising: real zeal, real victory, real deliverance from the king of the north.
- Little. The verse calls it little on purpose. Next to the rescue God promised Israel, these successes count as nothing, and Scripture never records them.
- Flattery. Success drew flatterers as well as enemies. In the end an outsider with no right to the throne slipped into power, and God allowed it to humble His people.
- Again. The account is history, but not only history. Antiochus and his reign are patterns of what will happen again at the end.
And [some] of the wise shall fall, to try them, and to purge and to make them white, to the time of the end for it shall yet be for the time appointed.
This verse closes the long stretch of Daniel 11 that history has already matched. It ends with a hard fact: some of the people who understood God's mind fell. The words that follow — refined, purified, made white, "until the time of the end" — show that their fall was no accident. God set both its purpose and its limit.
In Daniel, "the wise" are not simply clever people. The word behind the title points to instruction, and it appears in the Psalms too.
The word means 'instruction,' and the Psalms that carry it in their headings convey instruction to the remnant, which they will understand. The same word in the plural (maschilim) means 'the wise, or the instructed ones.' See Dan. 11:33, 35; Dan. 12:3, 10.
You would expect God to shield these people above all others. When they fall instead, it shakes the faith of everyone watching.
The trial of faith will come through them. They are faithful Jews, and you would suppose that people like these could count on God's help, since they have been encouraging others to "trust in the Lord." Yet some of them are to fall. Then, unless faith is very strong, the others will say, "Where is their God?" — as in Psalms 42 and 43. Those Psalms express, in the language of the Spirit of Christ, the anguish of the remnant, whose enemies say, "Where is their God?" And when these understanding ones who had hope in Him fall, unbelievers will say that God does not step in to help them.
Their enemies act, but God allows it. And He allows it with an outcome in view.
In this terrible time, there will be among the Jews those who know their God. They will be strong, act for their God, and teach many His ways and His mind. As a result they will face persecution, violence and prison for many days. Yet in all their sorrows they will be helped. God will allow it all, to test and prove them, with the reward and glory of the end in view. That end will surely come, because God has appointed it.
Daniel uses this phrase again a few verses later. Readers naturally ask how much time it covers.
"The end" or "the time of the end" is a technical term in prophecy. So Daniel 11:35 tells us that some of the understanding ones would be tried, that is persecuted, and would fall, that is die as martyrs, "until the time of the end." Verse 40 then predicts war by the king of the south and by the king of the north "at the time of the end." … So "the end" is a period in which events happen. It is not the exact moment when the Son of Man comes, but the last short stretch of time.
Commentators read this verse as the seam of the chapter. They point to its own closing words as the join.
Certain disasters were to go on "until the time of the end, for it still awaits the appointed time." There is no place in the chapter where the interruption of the history so well fits in as after verse 35.
The gap it leaves is enormous:
Down to Dan. 11:35 everything has been already fulfilled. We read of plots and wars between successive kings of the North and of the South (Syria and Egypt), with the holy land as their battle ground. There is a gap of more than twenty centuries between verses 35 and 36. From the days of the Maccabees we pass to the world's last crisis.
This is real history, but it is not only history. The verse's own wording points ahead.
Antiochus caused "the abomination that makes desolate" to be set up in the temple; in Daniel 12:11 we learn that this act will be repeated in a future day. … Take verse 35, where we read that God will allow some of the wise to fall, to test faith, "to purge" the remnant, and "to make them white, until the time of the end." The very language shows that God gives what took place then as a sample of a similar thing in the last days.
- Wise — "the wise" are the instructed ones, the maschilim. They teach others God's mind, and the same word links this verse to Daniel 12.
- Fall — the ones you would expect God to spare are the ones who fall, and their fall is what tests everyone else's faith: "Where is their God?"
- Refined — God permits the suffering to prove His people, with reward and glory in view.
- Appointed — the trial runs only "to the time of the end," a fixed last period whose end God has already set.
- Sample — the verse marks where fulfilled history stops. What happened then previews the same testing in the last crisis.
And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and speak monstrous things against the God of gods; and he shall prosper until the indignation be accomplished for that which is determined shall be done.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And he will not regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women; nor regard any +god for he will magnify himself above all.
A new figure steps into Daniel's prophecy at verse 36, called simply "the king," and he dominates the closing scenes. Verse 37 lists three things he refuses to honour, and each refusal tells us who he is and where he comes from.
The chapter has tracked a king of the north and a king of the south. Daniel gives this one no country. That is how an Israelite would speak of his own king.
The second beast of Revelation 13, the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2, the king of Daniel 11:36-39, and the antichrist of 1 John 2:18, 22 are clearly the same person. This chapter deals with a king of the north and a king of the south. So some readers have thought that "the king" must be one of those two. But for an Israelite to mention his own king in this indefinite way is perfectly natural, both here and in Isaiah 30:31. When an English newspaper says that "the King" is going to Scotland, there is no need to add "the King of England"... So Daniel and Isaiah name the king of the north or the king of the south when they mean those kings. But "the king," with nothing added, means the king of Israel.
The ESV reads "the gods of his fathers"; older translations have "the God of his fathers," and the commentators work from that singular. A non-Jew would not use the phrase at all.
An Englishman who believes may speak of God as his Father, but he cannot talk of "the God of his fathers" except as imitating the phrase of a Jew. This reference is of course to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They are the true fathers whom God chose to be the holders of promise, on behalf of their descendants and their land.
One writer adds why that descent matters.
The God of his fathers is mentioned twice, which probably indicates that this person will be of the Jewish race — a strong qualification in someone presenting himself to Israel as Messiah and Messianic king.
The ESV renders this phrase "the one beloved by women"; older translations have "the desire of women." One writer reads it from the company it keeps in the sentence.
The great desire of all Hebrew women was to give birth to the Messiah. So Gabriel greeted Mary as "highly favoured among women," when the miraculous conception of the Saviour was announced. The verse names "the desire of women" between "the God of his fathers" and "any god." That connection shows something similar in nature is meant, not something entirely different. He is an Israelite. Yet he heeds neither the LORD, the God of the nation, nor the Messiah, the hope of the nation, nor even the false gods the nation so often turned to.
Others have read the phrase as the name of an idol. One writer rejects that reading.
In Daniel 11:37, "desire of women" clearly means the Messiah. Gesenius grants some deity is meant, saying the context demands an idol that Syrian women worshipped. Rationalism always cuts down and degrades.
The verse ends with the reason for the whole list: he magnifies himself above all.
This is a strong feature of the pride of man: he magnifies himself above all. He would wipe out every idea of the true God. He is indifferent whether it is real religion of the heart or the religion of his fathers. He dislikes even the name of Christ, called here "the desire of women." He is even against religious customs and religious nationality. He has no respect for any god.
The next verse gives him a god of his own, and that turn exposes something about the human heart.
The Antichrist will be an unbeliever, but not merely an unbeliever. He will have rejected the God of Israel, and the Messiah. Nor will he honour any of the gods of the Gentiles. But even this man, although he sets himself up as the true God on the earth, will still have someone to whom he bows and makes others bow with him. The human heart, even in Antichrist, cannot do without an object of idolatry.
John's letters describe the antichrist by two denials, and they match the refusals here.
On the subject of the Antichrist, the apostle adds in verse 22 that "he denies that Jesus is the Christ... he denies the Father and the Son." We see two sides of his apostasy: first, he joins with Jewish unbelief; second, he rejects Christianity.
- His name. "The king," with no nation attached, is Israel's own king — the same figure called the man of sin and the antichrist elsewhere.
- His first refusal. "The God of his fathers" points back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, marking him out as a Jew who has abandoned Israel's God.
- His second refusal. "The desire of women" is the Messiah every Hebrew mother longed to bear; he refuses the nation's hope as well as the nation's God.
- His third refusal. He will not even keep the idols his people once ran after. One motive drives all three refusals: he magnifies himself above all.
- His substitute. Verse 38 shows that even the man who claims to be God bows to something. The heart that refuses the true God does not stop worshipping; it invents.
And in his place will he honour the +god of fortresses; and a +god whom his fathers knew not will he honour with gold and silver, and with precious stones and pleasant things.
This king sets himself above every god and refuses the God of his fathers, yet he still bows to something. What is this "god of fortresses," and why does a man who claims to be above all gods pour gold and silver into an idol?
The verse puts one god in place of another. One writer explains the swap and the Hebrew word behind it (older translations read "forces"):
"But in his place he shall honour the god of forces." That is, in the place of the true God he will honour Mahuzzim as God — some form of idolatry. Mahuzzim means fortresses or fortified high places. There is probably some connection between this and the forces of war on which the king counted.
The same writer says when this new religion appears: the king brings it in only after clearing away every other god.
He would erase every idea of the true God... he has no respect for any god. But having reached this point, he needs to keep the people in check. For that he needs instruments, as well as his gods, mahuzzim (fortresses) — a kind of idolatry that he brings in once he has denied every god. This idolatry will be tied to the interests of those who govern.
Worship follows what a man wants. One writer names what is hidden under this king's bowing down:
People do not worship what they do not prize or covet. The most daring in pride knows his own nothingness and bows down to some unworthy superstition. Such a secret but enslaving power is unbelief.
Why fortresses? One writer answers from the limits of what this king has to work with:
But man cannot do without an object of some kind. So he honours the god of fortresses or forces. The resources he relies on to carry out his plans and enforce his decrees cannot, after all, go beyond human strength of arms — though Satan's power acts behind it all.
Another writer describes the motives that produce such a religion, and why it counts as new:
His god is a political idol, sought for the strength it gives — a worship made up of fear and greed. So it is indeed a god whom his fathers did not know. It is none of the old gods the world has been so full of. Yet the dark and dreadful power behind it is the same: the face is changed, but not the heart.
One writer reads this honour as the king's backing for another power:
He gives his support and influence to the first beast (Dan. 11:38): "And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed."
One writer reads the spending on gold and silver as a man covering a lack in himself:
Further, this wilful king honours the god of forces. Man is not enough in himself. Despite claiming to be God, this blasphemer must lean on something. So he invents a god to meet his need — probably the image of the first beast set up for worship in the temple.
Writers here identify this king with the antichrist. One shows why people who refuse Christ will welcome him:
Refusing Christ, they would be willing to receive antichrist, who will come in his own name... He will own, and make those he fools own, a god whom his fathers did not know (Dan. 11:38-39), but not "the only God," the God of their fathers.
One writer answers those who say idolatry among the Jews could never return:
I will add that this idolatry belongs to the last days too, however confident some are that idolatry can never be among the Jews again. But the Lord warned them of the contrary, for the last state of that Christ-rejecting generation. The prophets say the same when they speak of the end of the age (Dan. 11:38; Rev. 13:15; Rev. 18:4).
- Empty throne. He clears away the God of his fathers and every other god — then fills the empty place with a new idol.
- Empty man. The one who claims to be above all gods still bows: pride does not remove the need to worship, it only redirects it.
- Empty god. Its name is "fortresses": the worship of armed strength. It is a political idol, sought for the power it lends and made of fear and greed.
- Costly worship. He pours gold, silver, precious stones and costly gifts into a god his fathers never knew — a god he invents to fill his own lack.
- Old heart, new face. The gods of the world change their look, not their nature. Scripture warns that such idolatry will rise again at the end of the age.
And he will practise in the strongholds of fortresses with a strange +god whoso acknowledgeth him will he increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over the many, and shall divide the land [to them] for a reward.
Daniel 11 runs through the long wars of the kings of the north and the south. From verse 36 a new figure steps in — a king who belongs to neither side. Verse 39 finishes his portrait: he leans on a foreign god, and he pays his followers in land.
One writer identifies him from the clues around him: who fights him, and what he refuses to worship.
Verse 35 brings us to another break, and then "the king" abruptly comes in. Who is he? Not of either north or south, for both these come against him (v. 40). He is the king of Isaiah 30:33, and "the man of sin" of 2 Thessalonians 2 — the great antichrist. Daniel speaks of his political, Paul of his religious, character. He is a Jew, for he will not regard the God of his fathers, Jehovah, nor the desire of women, who is the Messiah, nor any god at all. Yet he is an idolater. He invents a god.
The verse has him acknowledging a foreign god. One writer explains why even this man must have one.
Even this man sets himself up as the true God on earth. Yet he will still have someone he bows to, and he makes others bow along with him. The human heart, even in Antichrist, cannot do without an object of idolatry... He makes a god, as well as setting himself up to be God. That god is entirely an invention of his own.
One writer supplies the name of this god, and the name explains the fortresses in the verse.
In the place of the true God he will honour Mahuzzim as God — that is idolatry. Mahuzzim means fortresses, or fortified high places. There is probably some connection between this and the forces of war on which the king relied.
Another writer asks what kind of worship this is.
Yet, though he exalts himself like this, he has a god of his own, the "god of forces," or "fortresses"... a political idol, sought for the strength it gives, a worship made up of fear and greed. So it is indeed a god his fathers never knew. It is none of the old gods the world has been so full of. Yet the dark and dreadful power behind it is the same. The face changes, but not the heart.
One writer names the idol he sets up for the public, and ties it to Revelation.
He himself is an unbeliever and an atheist. But people crave a religion, so he will promote the worship of an idol. That idol, we must conclude, is the image he himself will have made to the beast that had the sword wound and lived — the head of the western Roman Empire in its last revived form. Revelation speaks of the same man, for the beast there with two horns like a lamb, who spoke like a dragon, is this very king. He had power to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image could speak, and could have everyone killed who would not worship it (Rev. 13:15).
The verse ends with what his followers get out of him.
The last clause of verse 39 is not so clear... Most take it to mean that he will promote his own followers to places of honour and rule. He will hand out the land either for his own profit, or as a reward for faithful service and devotion to his interests. The term "the land" settles beyond doubt where this king rules and acts. As far as we know, it always means the land of promise.
Commentators differ on who gains. One takes them to be the king's own followers. Another renders the clause as a promise to anyone who acknowledges him — "whoever acknowledges him he will increase with glory, and cause him to rule over the multitude, and divide the land for gain" (Frederick W Grant).
One writer finds the same pattern in an older story of a man grabbing at a throne.
Adonijah is a type of the man who seeks to exalt himself to the very throne of God (Dan. 11:36); Joab and Abiathar are the men who take advantage of this (Dan. 11:39); Adonijah's followers are those who are subdued by his rise (Rev. 13:4).
- Self-will — the king answers to no one; both north and south come against him, so he is neither of them.
- Substitute — he refuses the God of his fathers, yet he cannot live without a god, so he invents one.
- Strength — that invented god is Mahuzzim, which means fortresses. He worships raw power, out of fear and greed.
- Spoils — he lifts those who acknowledge him to high rank and pays them in land, carving up the country for profit.
- Setting — "the land" always means the land of promise. That fixes where this king rules.