Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Daniel. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Daniel 11:20-28
20 “Then shall arise in his place one who shall send an exactor of tribute for the glory of the kingdom. But within a few days he shall be broken, neither in anger nor in battle. 21 In his place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given. He shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. 22 Armies shall be utterly swept away before him and broken, even the prince of the covenant. 23 And from the time that an alliance is made with him he shall act deceitfully, and he shall become strong with a small people. 24 Without warning he shall come into the richest parts of the province, and he shall do what neither his fathers nor his fathers’ fathers have done, scattering among them plunder, spoil, and goods. He shall devise plans against strongholds, but only for a time. 25 And he shall stir up his power and his heart against the king of the south with a great army. And the king of the south shall wage war with an exceedingly great and mighty army, but he shall not stand, for plots shall be devised against him. 26 Even those who eat his food shall break him. His army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain. 27 And as for the two kings, their hearts shall be bent on doing evil. They shall speak lies at the same table, but to no avail, for the end is yet to be at the time appointed. 28 And he shall return to his land with great wealth, but his heart shall be set against the holy covenant. And he shall work his will and return to his own land.
_______________________________
As we will see in the Commentaries below, these verses have a disputed meaning. Some will argue that they describe events in the 2nd century BC, between warring Greek kingdoms with the Holy Land the site of their fighting. Others will says that this interpretation is strained, and that the verses depict later events. We’ll take a look at the commentaries and try to see both arguments. From Ellicott’s Bible Commentary:
(20) A raiser of taxes.—The marginal version is to be preferred, as it gives the meaning of the word “exactor,” or “oppressor,” which it has in Exodus 3:7, and in every passage where it occurs, except perhaps Isaiah 9:4. The new king of the north causes the “oppressor” to pass through “the majesty of the kingdom” (a phrase occurring elsewhere only in Psalms 145:12; but comp. 1 Chronicles 29:25), meaning the “richest parts of his kingdom,” and not necessarily Palestine. The effect of this policy was that the king fell a victim to a conspiracy in a few days. According to St. Jerome, the person alluded to was Seleucus Philopator.
With this verse the first part of the prophecy concludes. It is to be observed that thus far (1) notes of time are very scanty; we only meet with indefinite expressions, such as “in the end of years” (Daniel 11:6), “certain years” (Daniel 11:13), “within few days” (Daniel 11:20), and vague terms expressing sequence of time. (2) There is nothing in the text which implies any change of sovereigns, except in Daniel 11:7; Daniel 11:19. It follows from a careful study of these verses that according to their natural and literal sense they speak of only two southern kings and only one northern king. The southern king of whom we read most is apparently the offspring of the daughter of the first southern king, mentioned in Daniel 11:5, and it is he who engages in conflict with the first northern king, and with his sons (Daniel 11:10). The whole prophecy is eschatological, and refers to two opposing earthly powers which will affect the destiny of God’s people in the last times. It relates a series of wars and political intrigues between these two powers, all of which prove futile, and it concludes with the account of the death of the first northern king. Daniel 11:20 is a transition verse, in which another character is introduced, who will mark the approach of the end; while Daniel 11:21 introduces the most prominent object of the prophecy—a person who remains before the reader till the end of the chapter, while the southern king gradually disappears (Daniel 11:25; Daniel 11:27; Daniel 11:40), and what is apparently his country is mentioned without its sovereign in Daniel 11:43.
Ellicott generally seems to take the position that these verses refer to times that have not yet happened. It’s worth pointing out, though, that the vague descriptions will have to be applied to *some* real events, eventually. Further, if Daniel was written in the 6th century BC, it would still be describing, in vague terms, future events that arguably happened in the 2nd century BC.
Now we’ll look at The Pulpit Commentaries’s note for verse 12. TPC generally takes the position that these verses describe the situation in the 2nd century BC.
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. As said above, the opening clause of this verse, as it appears in the Septuagint, really belongs to the previous verse, “And there shall stand up in his place a mean person (εὐκαταφρόνητος), and the glory of a king shall not be given to him, and he shall come suddenly, and the king shall be strong in his inheritance.” Evidently the translator, has omitted the reduplication and has derived the word חֲלַקְלַקוֹת (ḥalaqlaqqoth) from חֶלְקָה (hel’qah), “a portion,” “an inheritance.” Theodotion’s rendering is not very intelligible, “On his preparation he shall be set at naught, and they shall not give to him the glory of the kingdom, he shall come in prosperously (ἐν εὐθηνίᾳ), and shall overpower the king dom by flatteries.” It is, however, more in accordance with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta is in practical agreement with the Massoretic, and the Vulgate reads as if a rendering of the Peshitta. It is assumed that this is Antiochus Epiphanes, yet there are considerable difficulties. A vile person. Certainly he was morally vile enough, though not nearly so vile as some of the kings of Egypt, his contemporaries, or some of his own ancestors. The meaning of נבזה is “rejected, despised” (see Isaiah 53:3). It may be that it was derived from the idea that the Romans rejected Epiphanes as a hostage, and demanded Demetrius the son of Seleucus instead, and so Epiphanes got the opportunity of returning to Syria. This, however, is not the aspect which the matter assumes in Appian. Seleucus appears as the party desiring the change of hostage. To whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom. That certainly is not the case; he had the kingdom as much as his brother had; he was acknowledged as king. He certainly had not the power his father had before his defeat at Magnesia, but he had as much as the semi-subject conditions of Syria permitted. He shall come in peaceably. That also is doubtful, for Eumenes of Pergamos supported his claims with an army. Obtain the kingdom by flatteries. Even that is not a prominent feature of the accession of Antiochus. The Septuagint, as will be seen, separates between the vile person who should not have the glory of the kingdom given to him, and the king who should be strong in his inheritance. If we were sure that Appian had followed Polybius, we might see in the first part of the verse Heliodorus, and in the second the coming of Epiphanes.
TPC outlines the actual history in such a way where it fits well within the narrative of Daniel. We’ll take a longer look at Ellicott in this post (the previous focused heavily on TPC) to see where an alternative view of the verses leads us.
(22) With the arms.—More correctly, and the arms in a flood; that is, the overwhelming forces of invading armies are swept away by the troops of this terrible king. But besides the enemy, the “prince of the covenant” is to be destroyed also. This expression is most readily explained by observing that it stands in contrast with the hostile armies mentioned in the first clause. It is an expression similar to “men of covenant,” “lords of covenant,” and means “those who were at peace with him,” “prince” being used as a collective noun (see Daniel 11:18). This has been supposed to refer to the murder of Onias III. (2MMalachi 4:1, &c., 2Ma. 4:33, &c.); but there is no reason for supposing that the high priest was ever called by such a title as “prince of the covenant.”
It’s worth pointing out that TPC rejects the idea that the text refers to Onias III.
“The idea supported by Hitzig, Bevan, Behrmann, that Onias III. is referred to, is founded on the utterly unhistorical narrative in 2 Macc. 4. The view of Moses Stuart is that it is some sovereign who had a league of amity with Epiphanes. The reference thus might be to Eumenes or Attalus, who supported the claims of Anthochs. Negeed bereeth may be explanatory of the prenominal suffix in milpanayo, “before him.“ As Stuart acutely remarks, had the reference in bereeth been to the Divine covenant with the Jews, we should have had habbeereth.“
It’s further worth mentioning as we study that these commentaries are Protestant commentaries. As a result, you will encounter a rejection of the Deuterocanon / Apocrypha books from the 2nd century BC time period – such as 2 Macc. I’ll add to that the fact that Catholics and Orthodox still consider these books canonical, as did the entire history of the church prior to Luther. We should probably be careful when using words like “utterly unhistorical” as TPC does.
(23) He shall work.—Apparently this verse explains more fully the means by which the king succeeds in maintaining his influence. He has already destroyed those who are at peace with him. From the time that he first becomes their confederate, he works deceitfully, coming up with hostile intent, accompanied only by a few people, and in this way throwing off their guard those whom he would destroy.
(24) Peaceably.—The subject continues to be the perfidious conduct of the king mentioned in the last two verses. While the inhabitants are expecting nothing of the sort, he enters the richest parts of the province, and while he scatters largesses with profuseness and in apparent friendship, he is really planning attacks against the fortresses of the district, endeavouring to reduce them into his power.
This has been referred to the conduct of Antiochus Epiphanes, mentioned in 1Ma. 3:27-30, after the defeat of the Syrian army by Judas Maccabæus. According to another interpretation, the meaning is that he will scatter or disperse the accumulated wealth of the different provinces “among them”—that is, to their hurt. The former explanation appears to be most in accordance with the deceit and craft which the prophecy attributes to the king.
For a time.—That is, the end of the time decreed by God. (Comp. Daniel 11:35, Daniel 8:17; Daniel 8:19; Daniel 12:4; Daniel 12:6.)
Ellicott does not provide us with a lot of specifics here, as you might expect if he is skeptical of the 2nd century BC explanation of the verses. So we’ll jump back to TPC to look at verse 25, to provide more detail regarding the verses in relation to 2nd century BC events.
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. The versions present no point of remark, save that, instead of “king of the south,” the Septuagint has, as usual, “the King of Egypt.” This is supposed to be a compendious account of the second of the wars waged by Epipbanes against Egypt; but it suits the first better. At this time the Romans had declared war against Perseus, King of Macedon, and Antiochus, finding that they did not conquer Macedon easily, regarded the opportunity a suitable one for assailing Egypt and wresting from Ptolemy Philometor Coele-Syria, which his father had given as dower with Cleopatra, his daughter. The state of Egypt presented an aspect eminently hopeful to an assailant. The court of Egypt was full of intrigue and treachery; the centre of intrigue was the brother of the king, Ptolemy, nicknamed Physeon. The king, Ptolemy, was young; his generals, however, took up the challenge, and set on the field a large army; but the army was defeated, and Antiochus advanced as far as Memphis. Ptolemy was taken prisoner by his uncle, and Physeon his brother ascended the throne. The defeat of Philometor was supposed to be largely due to treachery.
Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain. The Septuagint rendering here is different, “And his cares shall consume him and turn him away, and he shall pass by (and shall hiss, κατασυριεῖ); and many shall fall down wounded.” Paulus Tellensis renders κατασυριεῖ by, see script, (nigrooph), “shall overflow,” as if he had read καταρεύσεται, or perhaps κατασυρεῖ, though it does not exactly represent the Hebrew. Theodotion is liker the Massoretic , “And they eat his provisions, and shall break him to pieces; and he shall overflow powers, and many shall fall wounded.” The account of the invasion of Egypt by Epiphanes occurs in 1 Macc. 1:18. The Septuagint translator, appears to have read, instead of וְאֹכְלֵי פַּת־בָגוֹ (veochlay path-bago), וְאָכְלוּ דָאגְתָיו (veachloo dageothav). There would seem also to have been some confusion between הִיל (heel), “strength,” and הלד (halach), “to go.” The Peshitta rendering is, “They that eat his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall be dispersed, and many shall fall wounded.” The Vulgate is closely related to this. This refers to the treachery which was alleged to have been at work and to have caused the overthrow of Philometor in his contest with his uncle. The version of the Septuagint is more picturesque, and more in accordance with facts. Cares might well devour Ptolemy Philometor—treachery in his army and his brother occupying his throne. Certainly he was defeated, turned asae, and was compelled to accompany the victor as a prisoner, while Egypt was wasted (κατασυρεῖ)
There are a lot of names and events covered in the TPC’s comments. If you’re more of a visual learner, I will share again a video that I shared in the previous post. It focuses on Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but it explains a lot of this political intrigue:
Now we’ll jump back into the notes from Ellicott to round out this section of verses:
(27) Both these kings.—The two rival kings are here described as living upon terms of outward friendship, while each is inwardly trying to outwit the other. The context is opposed to any reference to the combination of Antiochus and Philometor against Physcon (see Livy, xlv. 11; Polyb. xxix. 8). The object of the paragraph is to show that the southern king was attempting to fight his rival with his own weapons—viz., deceit—but the plots of each king fail.
For yet . . .—i.e., the end of each will come only at the time definitely ordained by God for the consummation of His kingdom (Daniel 11:35). Man cannot hasten the events decreed by God’s providence. For an interesting commentary, read Isaiah 18:4-6.
(28) Then shall he return.—He returns, apparently bringing abundant spoils with him, and while on the journey sets his heart against the holy covenant.
Great riches.—The prophecy points distinctly to Antiochus after his return from Egypt. (See 1Ma. 1:19-28; 2Ma. 5:11-17.) This was the occasion of his first attack upon the theocracy. The typical character of Antiochus is drawn in Daniel 11:30, &c., with still greater clearness.
He shall do—i.e., prosper in his undertakings against the covenant. (See the passages from the Books of Maccabees referred to in the last Note.)
Here Ellicott ascribes events from the text to the 2nd century BC, in his comment on verse 28, but in verse 27 he says “The context is opposed to any reference to the combination of Antiochus and Philometor against Physcon (see Livy, xlv. 11; Polyb. xxix. 8).” This is understandably confusing, especially in back-to-back verses.
We’ll stop here and hope that we get a better sense of over-arching clarity as we proceed. Eschatology and prophecy are difficult.
