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 11:40-45
40 “At the time of the end, the king of the south shall attack him, but the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships. And he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through. 41 He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites. 42 He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt, and the Libyans and the Cushites shall follow in his train. 44 But news from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go out with great fury to destroy and devote many to destruction. 45 And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him.
________________________________
This takes us to the end of the chapter 11 vision. However, as chapter 10 through 12 are all of one piece, we won’t be able to totally do a review of the vision and interpretation just yet. Instead, we’ll try to see what the commentaries tell us about the verses, and the prevailing scholarship for what they mean. We’ll start by looking at The Pulpit Commentaries‘ note for verse 40:
And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. The Septuagint Version is somewhat shorter, “And at the time of the end the King of Egypt shall push at him: and the king of the north shall be enraged at him, with chariots and many horses and many ships, and shall enter into the land of Egypt.” Probably the Massoretic has been amplified. Still it is a possible thing that, as Egypt was the natural objective of all the military preparations of Syria, the shorter summary might be inserted instead of the longer paraphrase of the Massoretic. Throughout in the Septuagint Version, as may be noted, “Egypt” stands in place of “the south.” Theodotion is much closer to the Massoretic, but omits “the whirlwind,” and has. instead of “countries,” γῆν, “the land.” The Peshitta differs in some respects more from the Massoretic than either of the Greek texts, “And at the end of time the king of the south shall strive with him: and the king of the north shall be moved against him, with chariots and horsemen and with many ships; and he shall act impiously in the land.” The Vulgate agrees with the Massoretic text. At the time of the end. This refers to the same “time of the end” as that in Daniel 11:35; that is to say, not the end of the world, but the end of this distress. It is possible that to the writer the entrance of the new era—the Messianic time—would coincide with the fall of Antiochus, and that this era might be regarded as the end of the world. The king of the south shall push at him. This suggests war begun by the King of Egypt against Syria. It is difficult to see how this could take place after the fourth expedition of Antiochus into Egypt. The two brothers, Philometor and Euergetes (Physcon), were at war with each ether shortly after this, and though Philometor gained the mastery, he was not in a position to threaten Syria. Certainly, had Ptolemy Philometor been in a position to take vengeance on his uncle, the successful rebellion of the Jews afforded an opportunity. We have no record in Polybius, Livy, 1 Maccabees, or Josephus of any expedition of Egypt against Epiphanes, either planned or attempted. Polybius is certainly fragmentary, and so to a greater extent is Livy; yet what has come down bears on events so near chronologically to this alleged expedition planned against Syria that it would scarcely fail to be noticed. And the king of the north shall dome against him like a whirlwind, with chariot, and with horsemen, and with many ships. This purports to be an account of an expedition undertaken by Epiphanes against Ptolemy, presumably Philometor. Of this there is not a trace; Antiochus is in so great need of money that he must use one half his army to collect money by robbing temples in Elymais, while the other, under Lysias, is occupied in attempting to put down the rebellion of the Jews. Again the historians of the period are silent, and what they tell us is inconsistent with this fifth expedition. Jerome, in his commentary on Daniel, quotes Porphyry, who gives an account of an expedition against Egypt in the eleventh year of his reign. That, however, was the year of his death—the year, therefore, of his expedition against Elymais. It is impossible that in the beginning of that year he should undertake such an expedition into Egypt as that described by Porphyry, and at the end have time to march into Elymais. It cannot be the expedition of Lysias which is referred to, for he is represented (1 Macc. 3:32) as having the oversight of all the territory of the king from the river Euphrates, but there is no notice of ships And he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. This might refer to the expedition which Antiochus undertook to Elymais, but in the following verse we learn the direction was toward Egypt. No such expedition occurred after the fourth. What explanation is to be given of this? The explanation favoured by Keil of this whole chapter, that the king of the north is antichrist, is applied here; but so much of the earlier portion of this chapter can be interpreted as history, that we, for our part, are loth to give an eschatological interpretation to this. The view favoured by most is that here the author narrated his expectations, but these expectations were contrary to facts. This is Professor Bevan’s view. If this view had been correct, the expectations of the author would be falsified almost as soon as they were recorded; this would certainly seem to render it impossible for the book to get the vogue it did. We, for our part, favour a modification of the view maintained by Hitzig, that this section is a repetition of what has been previously mentioned. Against this is the chronological statement at the beginning. Regarding, as we do, this chapter as an interpolation and the work of a later hand, our idea is that the section before us is one attempt to interpolate, and the preceding section is another, and that both have been incorporated in the narrative.
As the note makes clear, from TPC’s point of view, fitting the text into the known events of the 2nd century BC is difficult. Ellicott’s Bible Commentary for verse 40 is more clear and more confident on this point:
(40) At the time of the end.—These verses speak of the last expedition of the northern king, and of the disappearance of the king of the south. The portrait of Antiochus, as noticed in the Note on Daniel 11:36, was gradually fading away, and now not a line of it remains. No such invasion of Egypt as that mentioned here is mentioned in history. From the time mentioned in Daniel 11:30 he appears to have abstained from approaching too closely to the Roman authorities. The story related in 1Ma. 3:27-37 states that on hearing of the successes of the Maccabee princes he went into Persia on a plundering expedition, leaving Lysias his representative in Palestine. Lysias was defeated at Bethsur, and the news of the overthrow of his army was brought to Antiochus while he was in Persia. So appalling was the effect upon him of these tidings, that “he fell sick for grief” (1Ma. 6:8), and died. It is unnecessary to suppose that the revelation resumes the narrative from Daniel 11:29 after a parenthetic passage (Daniel 11:30-39), or to assume that we have a general recapitulation of the wars of Antiochus, described in Daniel 11:22-39, without distinguishing the different campaigns. (For a good account of Antiochus, see Judas Maccabœus, by C. R. Conder, R. E., Daniel 3:0.)
Time of the end.—Comp. Daniel 8:17. The words mean the end of the world, with which (Daniel 11:45) the end of this king coincides. The word “push” occurs also in Daniel 8:4, and from the context it may be inferred that the southern king begins the last conflict, in the course of which both kings come to an end.
The note here implies that this text began as a retelling of events in the 2nd century BC, but gradually jumped forward in time, to events at the end of time. Continuing then in Ellicott:
(41) The glorious land.—See Daniel 11:16. On the occasion of his hasty march against Egypt, while passing through Palestine, the king takes the shortest route, avoiding the three tribes which had been distinguished by their hostility towards the people of Israel. It is remarkable that these nations (two of which appear as figures of Antichrist, Isaiah 25:10; Isaiah 63:1) should escape, while other nations fell before Antichrist. It is also noteworthy that these three tribes are called nations, for after the return from the exile it appears that they ceased to have any distinct national existence. As tribes they had some considerable power, taking the part of Antiochus in the Maccabee wars. (See 1MMalachi 3:10; 1Ma. 5:1-8.) Judas also fortified Zion against the Idumæans.
The chief of—i.e., the best of them. (Comp. Numbers 24:20.)
(42) He shall stretch forth.—He seizes various countries through which he passes, and among them Egypt is especially selected for mention, representing, as it does, the most powerful of them. The king has at last attained his object. He has frequently been partially successful in his attempts (see Daniel 11:12-13; Daniel 11:15; Daniel 11:29), but now Egypt is completely overthrown.
The note here for verse 42 implies an overthrow of Egypt. However, TPC has some nuance on that point:
He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. The Septuagint rendering is, “And he shall send forth his hand upon the countries, and in the land of Egypt there shall not be a saviour in it.” The first part of this verse is marked with an asterisk. Evidently the text before the translators had לָה פְלֵטָה (lah pelaytah), “to her deliverance,” and “deliverance” in the abstract became “deliverer” in the concrete. Theodotion renders in a different sense, “And he shall stretch his hand upon the land, and the land of Egypt shall not be for salvation.” The idea here is that for the land of Palestine, Egypt shall not be a deliverer. This, probably, is the true reading. The Peshitta agrees with the Massoretic pretty closely, “He shall stretch his hand over the countries, and the land of Egypt shall escape from his hands.” The Vulgate has nothing to justify remark. Probably this verse, in the way it is rendered by Theodotion, is a portion of the lost vision of Daniel. The vagueness of “countries” stands in contrast to the definiteness of Edom, Moab, and Ammon, and is thus suspicious. Help was always expected from Egypt in the time when Assyria and Babylonia successively claimed the subjection of the Holy Land.
Rather than viewing Egypt as overthrown, we might view it as a place from whence no deliverance came. Both views exist, as it relates to the interpretation of the verse. The verses that follow also provide some additional clarity. Continuing to verse 43, again in TPC:
But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. The rendering of the LXX. is somewhat fuller, “He shall have power over the place of gold and the place of silver, and over all the desire of Egypt, and Libyans and Ethiopians shall be in his multitude.” The word translated “treasures” is a late one, but evidently the Septuagint translator had מקם (maqom) instead of מִכְמַנֵי. (michemanay). Theodotion renders, “And he shall have power over the secret hoards of gold and silver, and over all the desirable things of Egypt, and of Libyans, and of AEthiopians in their fortresses.” Theodotion has read מצוריו (metzorayo) instead of מִצְעָדָיו (mitz’adoyo). The Peshitta rendering is, “And he shall have power over the house of the treasures of gold and silver, and of the pleasant things of Egypt, and the Libyans, and the Cushites (Ethiopians) are his allies.” The Vulgate follows a slightly different rendering, “And he shall rule the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; through Libya and AEthiopia, too, shall he pass.” Having a different reading in the last clause from the Massoretic, the natural Hebrew equivalent for transibit is יַעְבֹר (ya‛bor)—a word that could scarcelv arise by mistake from that in the text. He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silcer, and over all the precious things of Egypt. Strictly speaking, this never was the case, as Antiochus never wholly conquered Egypt, although in that expedition, in which he had laid siege to Alexandria, he came very near completing his conquest. And the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall beat his steps. This certainly is not true in the sense in which Jerome takes it, “he shall pass through Libya and Ethiopia.” Though Antiochus more than once invaded Egypt, he never passed further into Africa. These nationalities are associated with each other; e.g. in Jeremiah 46:8, Jeremiah 46:9, we have, “The Ethiopians and the Libyans that handle the shield.” So in Ezekiel 30:5 we have the countries spoken of together. It may merely mean that individuals belonging to these nationalities had joined his armies. This is altogether a more ornate and poetical passage than the rest of this chapter, and gives the feeling of a different hand; therefore, probably, it belongs to a time nearer that of Daniel, and contains more of the original prophecy. Professor Fuller remarks on a reference being made to the help Ptolemy received from Cyprus. Cyprus, or Chittim, is referred to in the earlier part of this chapter, hut not here. The Lubim and Cushim are contemporary with Edom, Moab, and the sons of Ammon.
One interesting point of consideration, when assuming an older dating of Daniel, is how contemporary events might have influenced the books translations and interpretation into Greek – and also into its other translations. If you are clearly convinced that you are in the middle of a prophecy as it is being fulfilled, do you add too much clarity to the writing as you interpret it for translation? I don’t know how to view that, but it merits consideration. However, that’s why it’s a good idea to seek out early source materials and to compare them against each other. We’ll look at Ellicott again at verse 44:
(44) He shall go forth.—The end of the northern king. While in Egypt he has bad news brought to him from the north and from the east, which stirs up feelings of revenge. Once again he halts in Palestine, where he comes to an end. That this cannot apply to Antiochus is evident from the following facts—(1) Antiochus was in Persia when the news of the defeat of Lysias reached him; (2) Judæa and Jerusalem cannot in any sense be regarded as either east or north of Persia; (3) Antiochus died in Persia, and not near Jerusalem.
This is maybe the most compelling verse to argue against the identity of The King of the North being Epiphanes. However, as we see in TPC, there remains another view to suggest it does refer to him:
But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him; there. fore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. The version of the Septuagint is very like this, “A rumour out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him, and he shall come out in great rage to lay waste with the sword, and to slay many.” The version of Theodotion is somewhat briefer, “Rumours and disturbances out of the east and from the north shall trouble him, and he shall come in much wrath to destroy many.” The Syriac is closer than any other version to the Massoretic text. The Vulgate renders, “A rumour out of the east and north shall trouble him, and he shall come with a great multitude that he may beat down and slay many.” The word חֵמָא (ḥayma) may mean either “wrath” or “multitude.” It is difficult to identify the rumours that recalled Antiochus from his conquests. The account given by Porphyry (quoted by Jerome) of his receiving news that led him to ravage the coasts of Phoenicia and march against Armenia are unsupported by other historians. A phrase in Tacitus (‘Hist.,’ Daniel 5:8) seems to throw light on this, “After the Macedonians held the supremacy, King Antiochus, when he was endeavouring to change the superstition of this people, i.e. the Jews, into the manners of the Greeks, was hindered by a Parthian war.” There is, however, no record of such a Parthian war; but such a war may have arisen, and not be recorded, as the histories for the period before us are very incomplete. Should we regard these verses as giving another account of the war between Epiphanes and Ptolemy, the tidings out of the north might mean the arrival of the Roman envoys, headed by Popilius Lsenas. If there were also a threat of a Parthian invasion, we should then have, “tidings put of the east and north.” Therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. Certainly Antiochus did return furious from the expedition in which he was stayed by the Romans; and certainly also he set himself thereafter to compel the Jews to become Greeks in religion, punishing with death refusal to yield to his demands (1 Macc. 1:24-28; Josephus, ‘Ant.,’ 12.5. 3).
The note here does not address directly Ellicott’s objections to the identity of the King of the North being Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but it makes a good case for the identification.
We’ll finish the chapter with a note from Ellicott at verse 45:
(45) He shall plant . . .—For a similar prophecy, comp. Jeremiah 43:10 (where see the Targum). The king is here represented as halting while a palatial tent is being erected for him. The word “palace” is omitted by the LXX., and simply transliterated “Apedno” by St. Jerome and Theodotion, as if it were a proper name.
Between the seas—i.e., between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea.
The glorious holy mountain.—Literally, The mountain of the holy ornament, generally explained to be Mount Zion. (Comp. Psalms 48:2.) This he threatens, as once did the Assyrian (comp. Isaiah 10:32-34), but without success.
He shall come to his end.—It is to be remarked that the end of this king is placed in the same locality which is elsewhere predicted by the prophets as the scene of the overthrow of Antichrist (Ezekiel 39:4; Joel 3:2; Joel 3:12; Zechariah 14:2).
Ellicott again links the vision with the Antichrist, at least here at the end, moreso than with Antiochus IV Epiphanes. TPC make more of a case for Epiphanes:
And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. The rendering of the LXX. is, “Then shall he set up his tent between the seas and the mountains of the choice of the sanctuary, and the hour of his end shall come, and he shall have no helper.” Theodotion’s rendering is, “He shall pitch his tent Epha-dane between the seas at the holy mountain of Sabacin; he shall come to his lot, and there will not be a deliverer to him.” It is to be observed that the word אַפַדְניֹ (appadno), “royal tent,” a late word in Hebrew, was not present in the text before the translator of the Septuagint. Further, Theodotion did not know the meaning of the word, although his recension was prepared under Jewish supervision. The Peshitta renders, “And he shall place his tout on the plain space between the sea and the mountain, and shall assail its sanctuary, and he shall come to his end; there shall not be to him a helper.” The Vulgate renders, “And he shall place his tabernacle, aphadno, between the two seas upon the glorious and holy mountain; he shall come even to its (his) highest point, and no one shall help him.” He shall plant the tabernacle of his palace. The word here used (appadno) does not occur elsewhere, and seems to denote the royal tent. The fact that it does not appear in the Septuagint or Peshitta renders its right to be in the text somewhat doubtful. Theodotion and Jerome transliterate it, as if it had not got a place in Hebrew even in their day. It does occur in the Targum and the Peshitta. At the same time, a purely technical word like this might really be of ancient usage, yet the occasion for its use might not have previously occurred; the literature of ancient Hebrew is exceedingly limited. Between the seas in the glorious holy mountain. Havernick maintains that the glorious and holy mountain here is the mountain on which the temple of Nanaia was placed, and that the seas in question were the Caspian and the Persian Gulf. It is difficult to imagine a Jew calling the mountain on which a heathen temple was placed, “glorious holy,” even were we sure that the temple in question was on a mountain, for which we have no evidence. The Jews probably knew of the sea into which the Euphrates discharged its waters; but it is not prominent in their writings, and the Caspian may be looked upon as unknown. The distance between these two seas is so great that no one would locate such a small thing as a city by saying that it was between them. The natural interpretation is that the seas in question are the Mediterranean—the great sea—and the Dead Sea—the Salt Sea. But the Hebrew leads rather to the idea that the plural is one of excellence. בֵין (bayn), “between,” is not infrequently construed with לְ (le), “to,” as here; hence the translation would be between the seas, i.e. the great sea and the holy mountain. There can be no doubt that “the glorious and holy mountain” is Mount Zion. Yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. The death of Antiochus, baffled in his attempt to rifle the temple of Nanaia, humiliated not only by his own disaster, but by the news received from Jerusalem, is full of disappointment and misery, even when we get rid of the rhetoric with which the events are clothed in Polybius and 1 and 2 Maccabees. One-half of his army under Lysias had been baffled and defeated by Judas Maccabaeus; he himself had been repulsed in his attempt to replenish his coffers; the, re is therefore for him no helper, so he dies of disappointment at Tabes.
Are these verses about a historical figure? A future figure? Or both?
We will hopefully get some additional clarity on this as we get through chapter 12.
