230416 – Daniel 11:21-28
These dates may be uncertain. And Antiochus IV, like many rulers of those days, married his sister. This was usually done to limit the number of claimants to the throne.
Daniel 11:21 – And in his estate 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.
estate – office or position of authority. That is, he will become the new king.
a vile person – He is despicable; vile; contemptible.
peaceably – or quietly, sneaking in unawares. It has the idea of the people having a feeling of security, not suspecting foul play at all, when he comes in.
flatteries – smooth talk;
slipperiness. Translated
“slippery” in Psalm 35:6 – Let their way be
dark and slippery: and let the angel of the Lord persecute them.
“And a contemptible (vile; despicable) person
(Antiochus IV Epiphanes = “God manifest” or possible “the Illustrious”) will
take the office of king in place of Seleucus IV. He will not be given
the honour (splendour; majesty) of his kingship by right of royal succession. Instead he shall come in unexpectedly (or suddenly) and obtain
the kingdom by slipperiness and smooth-talking.”
Antiochus IV did not inherit the throne as heir, but (in 175 BC) took the place of the rightful heir (Demetrius, also known as Antiochus) who was held as a hostage in Rome as part of the terms of peace agreed upon by Antiochus III. (Rome required that the son of the reigning king be hostage.) Demetrius could have been about 5 years old in 175 BC, but may have been older, as his birth date is uncertain.
At first, Heliodoris (who probably killed Seleucus IV) attempted to take over the running of the kingdom as regent for the young king. Antiochus IV then declared himself co-ruler of the kingdom, quickly got rid of Heliodoris, and kept the true king Demetrius hostage in Rome. Demetrius died in 170 BC (supposedly at about ten years of age) allegedly the result of Antiochus IV having him killed. Antiochus IV was a son of Antiochus III and brother of Seleucus IV who died in 175 BC. He was eccentric and unpredictable, earning the nickname of Antiochus Epimanes (Antiochus the insane).
Antiochus IV was held hostage at Rome until after the death of his father (Antiochus III) in 187 BC. Some time after his brother Seleucus IV became king in 187 BC, Antiochus IV was replaced by Demetrius I as Rome’s hostage. (It is not known exactly when this exchange occurred, but it was most likely before 178 BC).
Clarke commentary says: “Antiochus came in peaceably, for he obtained the kingdom by flatteries. He flattered Eumenes, king of Pergamus, and Attalus his brother, and got their assistance. He flattered the Romans, and sent ambassadors to court their favor, and pay them the arrears of the tribute. He flattered the Syrians, and gained their concurrence; and as he flattered the Syrians, so they flattered him, giving him the epithet of Epiphanes - the Illustrious. But that he was what the prophet here calls him, a vile person, is fully evident from what Polybius says of him, from Athenians, lib. v.: "He was every man's companion: he resorted to the common shops, and prattled with the workmen: he frequented the common taverns, and ate and drank with the meanest fellows, singing debauched songs," etc., etc. On this account a contemporary writer, and others after him, instead of Epiphanes, called him Epimanes - the Madman.”
Daniel 11:22 – And with the
arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken;
yea, also the prince of the covenant.
the arms of a flood – Like the strength or force of a flood that will come in a rush and happen all at once. It is suggested that this could refer to the addition of extra armies (such as Pergamon). In any case, it was like an overflowing flood.
be overflown – to be swept away; be
rinsed out
shall be broken – broken in pieces; maimed; crippled; be wrecked; be crushed.
prince – leader; ruler;
captain; prince
the prince of the covenant
– It could represent the temple high priest Onias
whom Antiochus IV removed from office in 175 BC. The high priest was
responsible for administering the covenant requirements between God and the
people. Onias’ brother Jason (who was more supportive
of Greek culture and beliefs) replaced him (from 175-171 BC). It is said that
Antiochus IV only let Jason replace Onias upon the
promise of at least 440 talents of silver personally payable to Antiochus IV. It is clear that Judaea was a prime target for Antiochus IV
to take control of.
Some say that this “prince of the
covenant” is actually Ptolemy VI
the king of Egypt, allegedly referring to a previous agreement between
Antiochus III and the Egyptian king (while some suggest an agreement between
Antiochus IV and the current king of Egypt, Ptolemy VI). But why, then, isn’t
the “prince” here called the king of the
south? And, if this vision is about Israel, then the removal of Onias from office and subsequent death seems more logical.
On the other hand, Vs 23 below could suggest a covenant made with another king
such as Ptolemy VI. And history does say that while Onias
was removed from office by Antiochus IV, he was actually
killed by his brother Jason without the knowledge of Antiochus IV. It is
possible for Vs 23 below to be quite easily be talking about a different
situation than that in Vs 22 above, but if they are talking about the same
situation, then the removal of Onias and consequent
events are more likely here.
Note that Antiochus’ war against Egypt really
commenced with the battle of Pelusium and Vss 25-27 below clearly discuss this; thus Vss 22-24 are more likely to deal with another situation,
such as the taking control of Judaea, both via politics and the ransacking of
the richer areas of Judaea.
While Antiochus IV obtained the Seleucid throne unexpectedly by flatteries, he seems to have then made use of force to consolidate his position once he was on the throne (as co-ruler at first). Once established as the Seleucid king, he then used great force to sweep away every possible opposition to his rule. All in his kingdom who stood in his way in competition for the throne were obstacles to be removed. These included Demetrius I, Heliodoris (the former treasurer), Hebrew leaders (such as Onias) and probably Egyptian sympathisers who opposed his desire to finally take control of Egypt.
Antiochus IV assembled a huge army and literally flooded his land, including especially Judaea, with his dictatorial authority sweeping away everyone and everything that opposed him. Those that stood in his way he would break or remove including even “the prince of the covenant” (probably Onias the high priest). And extra monies paid to Antiochus IV such as bribery from Jason would go a long way to assisting with his war expenses.
Daniel 11:23 – And after the league [made] with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.
the league (made) – to join
oneself to; make an alliance; be in league together
deceitfully – or treacherously
shall become strong
– to be vast; be numerous; be mighty; be increased.
a small people – mᵉ‘at goy (a small or few
in number nation or people). goy is usually used for non-Jewish people
and is often translated heathen or Gentiles. It is likely that this refers to few-in-number
supporters assisting him to gain power and become strong. It could even refer
to those Jews who would rather have Greek culture and beliefs than adhering to
the covenant that Israel had with God.
It is not clear what this verse means and there are
many opinions. Who is “him”?
Is it the Egyptian king? (Antiochus IV did very much desire to take Egypt.) Or
other peoples with whom he has covenanted to use to gain power? The Hebrew word
used is 3rd person masculine singular so the translation of “him” is correct. Thus it
could quite easily refer to Jason, with whom Antiochus IV made an agreement
with, only to deceive him, replacing him with another (Menelaus) who offered to
pay even more than Jason to be made high priest. (Menelaus’ first act was to
seize the sacred vessels of the temple to pay the bribe to Antiochus IV. When Onias heard of this, he was about to go to Antiochus IV to
tell him, but it seems that Menelaus had him killed before he could do so.)
Disregarding who “him”
is, it means that Antiochus IV makes a league with another party but is really
planning treachery. He shall come up or shall enter into
somewhere (or it may mean that he rises up) in order to become strong using
only a small number of people. The whole idea of this verse appears to be that
he pretends to be friendly (and not a threat) to whoever “him” is, using only a few people to give the idea
of agreeability, yet is planning to overcome and become strong via this
treachery. The context could suggest Egypt as “him”, yet the term “province”
in Vs 24 below never applies to a country; rather it means a district or
geographical area of a country or nation. Keep in mind, also, that Antiochus IV
is obsessed with control of Judaea, particularly with respect to their
religion.
Note that he appears to come into the kingdom peaceably (they are not expecting him to make trouble), using smooth-talking slippery flatteries to sweet-talk himself into favour before striking like a snake to destroy. Antiochus IV is a snake in the grass; you cannot trust such people and must always anticipate them to be planning trouble even when they seem to be totally friendly. Then, just when everyone thinks it is safe to trust him, he pounces with great force destroying all possible enemies.
Ezekiel 38:11 – And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates
Daniel 11:24 – He shall enter peaceably even upon 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 the prey, and spoil, and riches: [yea], and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.
prey – spoil; booty; prey
spoil – prey; plunder;
spoil; booty
riches – property; goods; possessions; substance
forecast – to think upon; consider; be
mindful of; devise plans
devices – thought; device; invention;
purpose.
That is, he devised plans of his own invention against the fortified places
(cities; temple etc).
even for a time – This has the idea of a limit
being placed on how much time he will have to do these things. The NKJV makes
sense with “but only for a time”.
enter peaceably – Again this term has the idea that when he enters, the people (initially at least) feel secure with what he is doing, unaware of his true intentions.
the fattest places – fatness; fertile (spots or places); richly-prepared food; oil.
province – province;
district. It is never translated “country” (yet ‘erets is translated “country” 140 times). This term does suggest a
district of Judaea rather than the country of Egypt. And Antiochus IV has a
fetish about control over Israel, too.
the strong holds – fortification; fortress; fortified
city; stronghold. It is translated “the most
fenced” (cities) in Daniel 11:15. It would seem here to mean those
places which had significant protection (fortified) on account of their riches
there.
There is much dispute over this verse as well. Cambridge says: “Again, the allusion is uncertain: it may be to Antiochus’ acquisition of power over Syria; it may be to his attacks upon Judah, or to his invasions of Egypt.”
It is true that Egypt (in 170 BC) demanded the return of Coele-Syria. And that Antiochus IV prepared his own army and went out to meet the Egyptians as they left Pelusium (a city on the east of the Nile Delta) and soundly defeated them. The Seleucids then advanced into Egypt taking all except its capital, Alexandria. They also captured Ptolemy VI. Rome was otherwise distracted during this war, fighting the Third Macedonian War, and was unable to assist Egypt at the same time.
However, it is more likely that at this time Antiochus IV took control of the richest areas of Judaea, especially noting his control of the temple with the high priests being his servants, and the temple being one of the richest sources of wealth in Judaea. It may even refer to the fact that in order to be made high priest, Menelaus bribed Antiochus IV using the riches of the temple itself. Even Antiochus’ ancestors hadn’t been able to even enter the temple, let alone take its riches, yet now, with his control of the high priest, Antiochus IV was able to plunder the temple and other places which his ancestors hadn’t been able to touch. (Nor had Ptolemy IV when he had tried to enter the temple after the battle of Raphia in 217 BC.) With the high priest on his side, Antiochus IV could literally rob the nation blind!
he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches – Antiochus IV would often throw his money around like scattering confetti at a wedding. He used his riches (most of it ill-gained) to buy favours, while at the same time robbing others of everything, including their lives, to pay for much of it. He used his prey (sharing around spoils of war taken from those he defeated) to buy favours among his sycophants; he used plunder from rich temples and other rich places to pay for his warfare and other expenses; and he granted the riches and property of those he got rid of to give to those around him. Much of this was largely unpredictable, as no-one really knew who was to be plundered and who was to be rewarded.
“Antiochus IV cultivated a reputation as an extravagant and generous ruler. He scattered money to common people in the streets of Antioch; gave unexpected gifts to people he did not know; contributed money to the Temple of Zeus at Athens and the altar at Delos; put all his Western military forces on a massive parade at Daphne, a suburb of Antioch; and held opulent banquets with the aristocracy using the best spices, clothing, and food. He also supplemented the Seleucid army with mercenaries. All of this cost the Seleucid treasury, but the Empire was apparently able to raise enough taxes to pay for all this. (Clearly greatly supplemented with bribes and plundering such as the temple.) His eccentric behavior and unexpected interactions with taking common people such as appearing in the public bath houses and applying for municipal offices led his detractors to call him Epimanes (Ἐπιμανής, Epimanḗs, "The Mad"), a word play on his title Epiphanes ("God Manifest").” (Wikipedia)
he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds – He will devise plans to use against the fortifications or defences put in place to protect against being plundered (but only for a set amount of time as ordained by God, no longer).
Egypt now came after him because he dared to take over so fully what they had considered theirs (that is, Judaea). For many years (since the battle of Panium in 198 BC) the Seleucids had had control of Coele-Syria (Lebanon and southern Syria) and also Judaea/Palestine. In 170 BC Egypt had considered how easy it would be to take on the Seleucids and assembled a huge army, planning to regain control of Palestine and Coele-Syria. See vs 25 below for more details.
Daniel 11:25 – 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 be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him.
shall forecast devices – similar to the phrase in Vs 24 above which uses the same terms: “shall forecast his devices”. That is, the Seleucids will devise plans (of treachery) to use against him (Ptolemy VI).
Antiochus IV got to hear about the Egyptian army preparing for war and their mobilising to come against him in battle, so while Egypt was still getting prepared, Antiochus IV assembled a large army. He marched toward Egypt, apparently taking the Egyptian army by surprise as they were moving out of Pelusium (an important city on the eastern edge of the Nile Delta, and a gateway to the rest of Egypt). Antiochus IV defeated the Egyptian army with little loss of life to his army, and took Ptolemy VI hostage. (Ptolemy VI was actually Antiochus IV’s nephew, via the arranged marriage between his sister (Cleopatra) and Ptolemy V. It seems that Antiochus IV was able to influence Ptolemy VI as his guardian, placing him as a rival king of Egypt (on the throne at the previous capital of Memphis) in opposition to his brother Ptolemy VIII (who the Egyptians had then put on the throne in the capital Alexandria).
“He shall stir up (in order to engage in war) his power (might) and his courage (determination) against the king of the south (Ptolemy VI, king of Egypt) with a great (large) army. and the king of Egypt (via his generals – he’s still a teenager at this stage) shall be stirred up (in order to engage in war) with a very (exceedingly) great (large) army. However, he (Ptolemy VI) shall not stand (his army shall lose the battle) because the Seleucids will devise plans (of treachery) to use against Ptolemy VI.” This was the beginning of the Sixth Syrian War (170-168 BC).
While the Egyptian army was much larger than the Seleucid army, and clearly quite able to win a seemingly one-sided battle, it appears that Antiochus IV may have used deceit and treachery to undermine the Egyptian power. He possibly used his relationship with Ptolemy VI (as his uncle) to claim guardianship over him, to influence him to make decisions that undermined Egypt. In fact, when Antiochus IV captured Ptolemy VI, the Egyptians then placed his brother Ptolemy VIII on the throne at the capital Alexandria. Antiochus IV was now master of all Egypt except for its capital, Alexandria. Ptolemy VI took the throne back in 168 BC at the end of the Sixth Syrian War.
“The Egyptians suffered internal unrest over the poor progress of the war: Eulaeus and Lenaeus (regents) were overthrown and replaced by two new regents, Comanus and Cineas. Envoys were sent to negotiate a peace treaty. Antiochus took Ptolemy VI (who was his nephew) under his guardianship, perhaps with the intent of making Egypt a client state subordinate to Seleucid power. Archaeological records show that even Thebes in the southern part of Egypt were occupied by a foreign army (surely the Seleucids) in October 169 BC. However, this occupation was unacceptable to the people of Alexandria who responded by proclaiming Ptolemy Physcon as sole king. Antiochus besieged Alexandria but he was unable to cut communications to the city so, in late autumn of 169, he withdrew his army, leaving Ptolemy VI as a rival king in Memphis.” (Wikipedia)
It is said that Antiochus IV also used deceit and treachery to influence certain Egyptians to undermine the rule there, causing rebellion.
Daniel 11:26 – Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain.
This continues to refer to Ptolemy VI. Those who share (partake of) the king’s portion of the delicacies at his table (that is, they who are his closest companions and advisors) will destroy (break) him. These could be his own family, or his closest advisors (such as his regents, Eulaeus and Lenaeus), or his closest companions whom he trusted.
Note king David’s response to treachery.
Psalm 41:9 – Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up [his] heel against me.
Psalm 55:12-13 – 12For [it was] not an enemy [that] reproached me; then I could have borne [it]: neither [was it] he that hated me [that] did magnify [himself] against me; then I would have hid myself from him: 13But [it was] thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance.
Note the same terms in Daniel 1:8 – But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank
Cambridge says: “The allusion may be to Eulaeus and Lenaeus, at whose ill-advised suggestion it was that Philometor was first led to think of reconquering Syria, and the former of whom, after the battle of Pelusium, persuaded the king to abandon his country.”
his army shall overflow – It does read as if it is Ptolemy VI’s army which will overflow (and therefore sweep others before it), but it was really Antiochus IV’s army which overflowed, causing many of the Egyptian army to fall down slain. Thus it could read “Antiochus IV’s army shall overflow” or even, as suggested by some commentaries, “Ptolemy VI’s army shall be overflown”, that is, it is the Egyptian army which will be swept away by the Seleucid army, and many Egyptians shall fall down slain.
Daniel 11:27 – And both these kings’ hearts [shall be] to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end [shall be] at the time appointed.
shall not prosper – shall not succeed or be profitable. It shall not be profitable for Antiochus IV who would have been hoping to be able to deceive Ptolemy VI into supporting him.
This would refer to Antiochus IV and his nephew, Ptolemy VI, king of Egypt. While they may have appeared to have been in agreement with each other regarding action to be taken, their words were insincere, even treacherous. Eating at the one table speaks of a unity of fellowship which was undermined by lies (deceptions) spoken to sound like truth. It is clear from history that Antiochus IV wanted to take all Egypt with Ptolemy VI as his obedient servant who would assist him to do so. However, Ptolemy VI was soon reconciled again with his brother Ptolemy VIII, preventing Antiochus IV from manipulating him as king of Egypt.
“Within two months (after Antiochus had withdrawn from Egypt), Ptolemy VI had reconciled with Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra II and returned to Alexandria. The restored government repudiated the agreement that Ptolemy VI had made with Antiochus IV” (Wikipedia)
for yet the end [shall be] at the time appointed – The end of Antiochus’ plans there will not yet be settled because that will occur sometime still yet in the future. That is, the time and result will be determined as appointed by God sometime yet future. It will happen when God says so, and it will end also when God says so!
Daniel 11:28 – Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart [shall be] against the holy covenant; and he shall do [exploits], and return to his own land.
the holy covenant – As Israel was the covenant people of God, “the holy covenant” would then refer to God’s presence with them in their country, particularly the temple.
Cambridge says that this alluded “to Antiochus’ hostile visit to Jerusalem, in which he ‘entered presumptuously into the sanctuary,’ and carried away the golden vessels, and other treasures, belonging to the Temple, besides massacring many of the Jews.”
The temple represented God’s presence with His people, Israel. 1 Kings 8:13 – I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever.
“Then, after this campaign into Egypt, Antiochus IV will return to his land bringing with him great riches” which, no doubt, he has plundered from temples etc throughout Egypt (excepting Alexandria, of course). Like a serial bank robber, Antiochus IV appears to be continually fixated on money and riches as the main (or only) source of provision for all his selfish and arrogant needs.
“His heart (will; thinking) will be particularly opposed to God’s covenant people, Israel”, because it was probably while he was taking control of most of Egypt (and plundering their riches) that a rumour was spread in Judaea that he had died in Egypt. In 169 BC, Jason, who had been able to buy the office of high priest until Menelaus paid more for that same office, now saw his opportunity to regain the office of high priest. With 1,000 men, Jason took control of Jerusalem, driving Menelaus into hiding in a stronghold, and treating any that opposed them with cruelty. When he heard of this, Antiochus IV thought it was a full-scale revolt of Jerusalem against him. When he heard that the people rejoiced at the news of his death, he was enraged. He gathered a large force of soldiers and, after besieging the city, took it by force. He killed 40,000 people and sent that and more into slavery. It is said that he polluted the temple with pig flesh (not the main pollution event, though – see Daniel 11:31), stole the sacred vessels, restored Menelaus to the office of high priest, and made Philip, a Phrygian, governor of Judaea. Jason was then forced into exile. It is said that it was Jason who tried to pervert the office of high priest with bribery that caused the authority of the priesthood in Jerusalem to be weakened in the face of foreign leadership in Judaea.
While Antiochus IV was king of the Syrian empire, it was the small nation of Judaea that he tried so hard to control. He certainly desired Egypt also, but his first battle with Egypt seems to have been when Egypt declared war on him for invading Judaea.
To Messages and Teachings page
List of all my posts on this site