26/03/2023 – Daniel 11:1-9
Daniel 11:1 – Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, [even] I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.
This verse is clearly continuing on from Daniel 9:1-2 (1In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; 2In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.) where Daniel’s prayer is answered by Gabriel (Daniel 9:20-22), thus suggesting that the angel of Daniel 10 may have been Gabriel.
I – the angel who said, “I will shew thee” to Daniel (Daniel 10:21). Thus this verse above does appear as if it just follows on from Daniel 10:21.
the first year of Darius the Mede – In 539 BC Darius the Mede commenced ruling when Babylon was defeated (Daniel 5:30-31), probably as king under the authority of Cyrus the Great.
stood – possibly with the idea of standing up in order to confront an issue.
to confirm – chazaq (make strong; restore to strength; sustain; encourage; make firm; make rigid) Similar to the usage of skleruno (hardeneth) in Romans 9:18.
Romans 9:17-18 – 17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.
Note also the similar idea in the following where it’s the whole armour of God that effectively reinforces the Christian’s ability to stand and not fall in spiritual warfare.
Ephesians 6:13 – Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
to strengthen – a place or means of safety, protection, refuge, stronghold.
Translated “fortress”
in Vs 7 below. It has the idea of the angel giving strong support for
(reinforcing) a particular course of action to be carried out by Darius.
The angel is noting that, in the first year of Darius the Mede, he stood (in order to take action) to confront Darius to encourage him to carry out certain actions, and to give support for him in doing so. We do not know what this action might have been but it must have had something to do with God’s guidance in setting up pathways according to His will (vision) for His people Israel, including the 70 weeks of years as noted in Daniel 9:24-27. That is, this angel was actively influencing Darius in order to ensure that Israel was looked after according to God’s promises. Note for us the promise in Romans 8:28 – And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose. God actively ensures that nothing happens to His people unless He has already ensured that it will work together for good. That is, God (via His angels – see Hebrews 1:13-14) confirms and strengthens the world around His people so that His promises to them will never fail.
Daniel 11:2 – And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than [they] all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.
shew thee – declare to you; tell you
the truth – That which is faithful, sure, reliable. Note “But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth” (Daniel 10:21).
stand up – shall arise
far richer – literally richly enriched. “far” is derived from the word for “richer”.
than (they) all – greater than (the other kings already mentioned)
strength – chezqah (strength;
strong; being strong; force)
It is derived from chazak which is
translated “to confirm” in Vs 1 above, “shall be strong” x2 in Vs 5
below, “strengthened” in Vs 6 below, and “shall
prevail”
in Vs 7 below.
by his strength through his riches – Through the strength paid for with his wealth. Effectively, he used his riches to fully equip his country for war.
“And now I will tell you what is true: Behold there will be yet three more kings that will arise in Persia, with (plus) a fourth one who will be far richer than the others (than the other three put together), and with this strength (supported by seemingly almost unlimited resources to equip his warfare), he shall stir up (arouse) all (everything at his disposal) against the kingdom (realm, or possibly realms) of Greece (Yavan = Ionia; Greece).” (Or, stirring up all the realm of Grecia against himself as one commentary suggests?)
These four kings were rulers of the Persian empire. “The Persian Empire, also known as the Achaemenid Empire, lasted from approximately 559 B.C.E. to 331 B.C.E. At its height, it encompassed the areas of modern-day Iran, Egypt, Turkey, and parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. …. The Persian Empire began to decline under the reign of Darius’s son, Xerxes. Xerxes depleted the royal treasury with an unsuccessful campaign to invade Greece and continued with irresponsible spending upon returning home.” (nationalgeographic.org) It is probable that heavy taxing of Persian citizens following that war played a major part in Persia’s decline. So it wasn’t really all his money that he was playing at war with!
These four kings were probably:
Cyrus the Great (560-530 BC); Cambyses II (530-522 BC); Darius I, known as Darius the Great (522-486 BC) and Xerxes I, known as Xerxes the Great (486-465 BC).
Some say that Bardiya/Smerdis (522 BC) who ruled for less than a year is included (if you don’t count Cyrus as the first one) but he was generally considered to be an impostor.
Xerxes was considered to be the same as Ahasuerus (Book of Esther) who sent out a proclamation that all Jews be destroyed by Haman’s request. He had great wealth at his disposal, something the Book of Esther depicts clearly. His father Darius had been preparing an army to invade Greece, but died before he completed preparations. So, in 483 BC Xerxes commenced preparations and in 480 BC he attacked Greece, and lost. Persia did not declare war on Greece again after that. It would be Alexander the Great who would declare war on Persia in 334 BC in retaliation for Xerxes’ attack on Greece in 480 BC.
Xerxes of Persia is probably notable here because of his opposition (as Ahasuerus) via Haman to the Jewish people of Shushan (Susa), and then, skipping 8 minor kings of Persia, the next notable ruler is Alexander the Great (Vs 3 below) because it was Antiochus IV Epiphanes (as ruler of part of that Greek empire) who would be the most serious enemy of Israel (as written about by Daniel in Daniel Ch.8). After Xerxes (and his humiliating defeat by Greece), the Achaemenid Persian Empire went into gradual decline and had nothing to do with Jerusalem or Israel, which may be why Daniel’s account doesn’t mention the final 8 kings of the Persian empire.
Daniel 11:3 – And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.
After the defeat of the Persian empire, a mighty leader (Alexander the Great) will arise. He will rule with great dominion (his empire will extend far and wide) and he will do whatsoever he wants to do, and no-one will be able to stop him.
Daniel 7:6 – After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
His empire included most countries bordering the Mediterranean, and stretched eastward as far as India. It also included Judaea, in between his conquests of Syria and Egypt, but it appears that he just marched into Jerusalem and took it without much argument.
He is reputed to have never lost a single battle.
We have jumped from Xerxes I to Alexander who was taking on Persia (in 334 BC) in retaliation for its attempt to take Greece 146 years before (in 480 BC). Vs 3 therefore naturally follows on from Vs 2 above. Persia finally fell to the Greeks in 331 or early 330 BC.
Daniel 11:4 – And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.
shall be broken – or maimed; crippled
the four winds of heaven – effectively the four points of the compass
not to his posterity – His kingdom did not go to his descendants
nor according to his dominion which he ruled – After Alexander’s death, his kingdom did not remain as he had left it, but was broken up and divided.
his kingdom shall be plucked up – It shall be pulled out by the roots like a tree is, thus signifying that it will be grabbed by force (by four of his generals after the assassination of any possible rightful heirs).
even for others beside those – It will be taken by those other than the rightful heirs, not by his posterity.
And just 11 years after Alexander the Great has arisen, his kingdom will be broken (via his death in 323 BC), being divided among his four generals who each took a part of the empire, thus scattering it to the four points of the compass (the four winds of heaven). He had a son (Alexander IV) who was born after his death; the son was never seriously considered to be a legitimate heir. For a few years his mentally-deficient half-brother (Philip III) and his son (Alexander IV) were declared joint rulers, but this was an unworkable situation. So, after some years of infighting (during which both Philip III and Alexander IV were assassinated) the empire settled into 4 separate kingdoms, ruled by four of Alexander’s generals.
Two of these four kingdoms would be involved with Israel, the Seleucids (Syria and eastward, capital Antioch) and the Ptolemies (Egyptian empire, capital Alexandria) with Judaea caught between these two warring kingdoms. Daniel 11 deals with this feud between the kings of the north and south with Israel caught in between the two.
When Alexander the Great died, his total dominion died with him, being divided up among four generals after his death. Instead of going to his descendants by inheritance, it was instead grabbed by others by force.
Daniel 11:5 – And the king of the south shall be strong, and [one] of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion [shall be] a great dominion.
princes – sar
(prince;
ruler; leader; chief; chieftain; official; captain; general; military commander) Thus could be
commander or general of an army, as we shall see below.
We are now introduced to the king of the south (Egypt) and (in Vs 6 below) the king of the north (Syria). Judaea lay directly between these two kingdoms.
Ptolemy I (367-282 BC), a Greek Macedonian, claimed the Egyptian kingdom after Alexander died. He took control of Judaea in 320 BC by trickery; he came into Jerusalem on a sabbath day pretending to offer a sacrifice, and then seized it on that day because the Jews did not fight on the sabbath. He was reported to have seized many captives from Jerusalem and Judaea, settling them in Egypt. Josephus reported that many other Jews voluntarily went to live in Egypt because Ptolemy I treated them well.
The prince in Vs 5 above is Seleucus (358-281 BC). He was the general of Alexander who was to eventually control the Syrian (or Seleucid) kingdom (the eastern portion of Alexander’s empire). Seleucus had initially been appointed satrap of Babylonia in 321 BC, but was immediately ousted by Antigonus (who became the ruler of the Macedonian part of Alexander’s empire). Ptolemy I then made Seleucus one of his generals and assisted him with a small force to recover Babylon. He was successful and became the first ruler of the Seleucid line of rulers around 312 BC. From this time on, Seleucus aggressively expanded his kingdom, eventually ruling the whole eastern part of Alexander’s empire, a kingdom much larger than Ptolemy’s Egyptian kingdom. This became the Seleucid empire, “a great dominion”, from which Antiochus IV Epiphanes (a type of the future antichrist) would later arise (see Daniel 8:9-25).
Thus the prince (Seleucus I Nicator) of the king of the south (Ptolemy I) would eventually become stronger than Ptolemy with a larger empire (dominion). Seleucus established Antioch as his capital and would become the king of the north.
Daniel 11:6 – And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in [these] times.
in the end of years – Probably means after (many) years have passed. The kings of the north and south are the next generation after that in Vs 5 above.
shall join themselves together – to join oneself to; make an alliance with; be in league together
– as in an arranged marriage between
the two kingdoms.
shall not retain the power of the arm
– Ptolemy II’s daughter (Berenice) shall not gain the advantage that this
marriage was supposed to give her and her children. She was murdered to prevent
her and her children from retaining any power.
neither shall he stand, nor his arm
– Antiochus II, who married Berenice, was also seemingly poisoned to stop him
standing in the way of Laodice and her son!
she shall be given up – It appears that Antiochus II had actually already divorced Berenice to return to Laodice, maybe after the death of her father, Ptolemy II.
they that brought her – This may refer to Berenice’s attendants who would have come with her at her marriage to Antiochus. Laodice would have had them murdered as well just to keep things tidy!
he that begat her – Berenice’s father, Ptolemy II, died in 246 BC. Thus there remained no more reason to keep the agreement with Berenice. However, some say that this should be read as “he whom she begat”, that is, her son who was murdered when she was murdered.
he that strengthened her in (these) times – Some say that this was her husband, Antiochus II, and other say it was her father, Ptolemy II. Others say that it was a personal adviser or counsellor who had to be disposed of to keep things tidy!
This refers to the kings of the north and the south using a marriage of convenience to come together in league with each other, probably for military reasons, with history recording that they were probably warring with each other before that (and after as well). They are not the same kings as mentioned in the notes for Vs 5 above, for many years have passed since then. In this case, Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II (285-246 BC), king of the south, who was the son of Ptolemy I, was married off (in about 252 BC) to Antiochus II (261-246 BC), king of the north, grandson of Seleucus I.
It was hoped that this marriage would settle the differences between the two kingdoms, but in fact it did little to change anything. Ptolemy II hoped for more control of the Seleucid kingdom through the influence of Berenice but he died in 246 BC before he could follow this up. Antiochus II had divorced his first wife Laodice in order to marry Berenice, transferring kingly succession to her children, but after Ptolemy II died, Antiochus also died in 246 BC. It was suspected that Laodice, hoping to be queen again, poisoned him. Soon after, Laodice had Berenice and her son murdered and then placed her own son, Seleucus II (246-225 BC) on the throne.
Daniel 11:7 – But out of a
branch of her roots shall [one] stand up in his estate, which shall come
with an army, and shall enter into the fortress of the
king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail:
out of a branch of her roots – out of a shoot of her roots, thus one of Berenice’s family (a shoot from the same roots that she came from). Her brother, now king Ptolemy III, has risen up to avenge his sister.
shall (one) stand up in his estate – there shall be one who shall arise in his office or position of authority. That is, Ptolemy III (246-221 BC) will take the office of his father Ptolemy II as king of Egypt and will use that office to avenge his sister.
the fortress – or stronghold. The term is translated “strengthen” in Vs 1 above. It would refer in general to the fortified cities of the Seleucid kingdom.
shall prevail – chazaq (to strengthen; to reinforce) Ptolemy III is set upon avenging his sister and therefore cannot be turned away from battle; he is so determined upon vengeance that he will prevail.
When Berenice and her son were murdered, her brother (Ptolemy III) declared war on Syria (the Third Syrian War – 246-241 BC) which was disastrous for the Seleucid kingdom. The army of Ptolemy III marched from Egypt to the Seleucid kingdom of Seleucus II (246-225 BC) and took his main fortified cities. It is said that he could have taken the whole Seleucid empire if he had persevered for longer but had to return to Egypt in 245 BC because of an uprising there.
Cambridge says: “Ptolemy, Berenice’s brother, an enterprising and energetic king, in revenge for his sister’s murder, invaded the empire of Seleucus, seized Seleukeia, the fortified port of Antioch (Acts 13:4), and overran the greater part of Seleucus’ Asiatic dominions as far as Babylon. The murder of Berenice had made Seleucus unpopular with his subjects; and had Ptolemy not been called home by an insurrection in Egypt, he would in all probability have made himself master of Seleucus’ entire empire.”
Daniel 11:8 – And shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, [and] with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and he shall continue [more] years than the king of the north.
Ptolemy III took captives home to Egypt as spoils of war, plus their gods (probably made of precious metals including many of which Cambyses had carried off from Egypt 280 years before), plus their precious metal vessels of silver and gold. This was standard practice for those who won wars.
He also carried off their ruling men (“princes”, men of authority) probably to ensure that the country was left without effective leadership and therefore less of a threat in the future. He didn’t go as far as Alexander the Great who, when he defeated Syria, massacred all men of military age and sold all women and children into slavery.
Note that Daniel was carried away to Babylon for probably the same reason. Daniel 1:3 – And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring [certain] of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes;
he shall continue (more) years than the king of the north – The best interpretation here is that he would outlive the king of the north. And he did, by 4 years.
Daniel 11:9 – So the king of
the south shall come into [his] kingdom, and shall return into his own
land.
This does appear to be a clear summary of the previous two verses.
“In this way the king of the south (Egypt) shall come into the kingdom of the king of the north, and then shall return back to his own land (Egypt).”
Effectively it is a statement of the ease with which the king of the south is able to come and go as he pleases, seemingly without any serious opposition from the king of the north. It depicts the great superiority of the Egyptian king in arms and warfare at this time.
However, some read it as the king of the north entering the kingdom of the south but returning to the north without achieving much if anything at all. Cambridge says: “And he (the king of the north) shall come into the kingdom of the king of the south ….. After two years Seleucus Callinicus (Seleucus II) succeeded in re-establishing his power in Asia (b.c. 242); but proceeding to march against Ptolemy he was defeated, and obliged to retreat, accompanied by only a few attendants, to Antioch.”
Ellicott says: “In this case the meaning is, “The king of the north shall come into the kingdom of the southern king,” and then shall return to his own land—i.e., the north—apparently without gaining any advantage.”
Some translations also support this. The NKJV says “Also the king of the North shall come to the kingdom of the king of the South, but shall return to his own land.”
The Berean Standard Bible says (Vss 8-9): “8He will take even their gods captive to Egypt, with their metal images and their precious vessels of silver and gold. For some years he will stay away from the king of the North, 9who will invade the realm of the king of the South and then return to his own land.”
This Third Syrian War occurred in 246-241 BC during the 5 years following the deaths of Antiochus II and Berenice, sister of Ptolemy III. History records Ptolemy III returning to Egypt in 245 BC, after which Seleucus II fought to regain his possessions. He regained Antioch in 244 BC along with other major cities in that area. By 242 BC he had regained northern Syria and he then attacked Ptolemy-controlled southern Syria including Damascus. It appears that he was not able to take it all back again, with Ptolemy III and Seleucus II agreeing in 241 BC to a boundary between the two empires being the northern boundary of Lebanon. Thus Ptolemy III would have still kept control of Judaea.
So while Vs 9 here could mean that the king of Egypt attacked the Seleucid kingdom and returned victorious, it could also mean that after Ptolemy III returned home, Seleucus II then fought to regain most of his empire again, but returned to his capital (Antioch) effectively without actually gaining any ground off the king of Egypt. It would then have to read, “So the king of the north came into the land taken by the king of the south, including his capital Antioch, thus effectively returning to his own kingdom which he had previously lost.”
However, this does sound a bit awkward to me, as it seems more logical to interpret it as the king of Egypt attacking the king of the Seleucid empire and then returning home with his spoils. On the other hand, Daniel 11:10 does seem to be talking about the sons of the king who returns “into his own land” (Vs 9 above). “But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces:” Daniel 11:10, and Daniel 11:11 also says that “the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him”, which also suggests that it is sons of the king of the north who “shall be stirred up” and therefore those sons do seem to belong to the king who returns “into his own land”.
The narrative in Daniel 11 does seem to jump from one event to another, missing other events in between. However, it is clear that only those events that deal directly with Israel are focussed on. After all, it is prophecy on the future of God’s people, Israel, and therefore it would be pointless to list all non-relevant facts of history.
To Messages and Teachings page
List of all my posts on this site