“In his estate shall stand up a vile person” (Dan. 11:21).
WE come now to the account which the Spirit of God has given of the two kings who, proceeding from the Grecian Empire, came into very close contact with Palestine and the Jewish people.
We have observed that on the death of Alexander the Great, his vast kingdom was divided and broken into four parts, two of which are passed over in silence in God’s Word. The remaining two, here called the king of the north and the king of the south, are described with striking detail. It may be well to remark that throughout this chapter (Dan. 11) they are not the same kings of the north and south, but a series of them; a period of about 130 years elapsing between verse 5 and 20, namely, from about the date of the death of Alexander the Great down to the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes, the “vile person” of verse 21.
Another remark it may be well to make before proceeding, for the sake of those who have not yet given much attention to this profoundly interesting portion of the prophetic scriptures, is this, that the titles borne by these kings have reference to their position with regard to the land of Palestine, God’s center so far as the affairs of nations are concerned. The God who inspired Daniel to write in brief terms such an accurate description of vast campaigns, political alliances, and intrigues for reasons of State, and that, be it remembered, before the actors had yet come upon the stage, could with just as great ease have given the names of these various men and women had He so seen fit. Had He not already done so in the case of Cyrus (Isa. 44:28) already alluded to? But He would emphasize the importance in His eyes of that narrow little strip of land, the land of Palestine, hence the land of Egypt, being south of Palestine, its king is called the king of the south, whereas, for a like reason, the king of Syria and the surrounding country is called the king of the north. The fact of their position in reference to the land of God’s choice was of greater importance than the names of the various kings who were to hold sway over those countries. So accurate, however, is the description here given by the Spirit of God, that by comparing each statement, brief as these statements may be, with the facts recorded in profane history, the names may be filled in in almost, if not in every instance.
The portion of the chapter which remains to be expounded (Dan. 11:5-45) may be divided into three paragraphs.
The first (vers. 5-21), as we have observed, covers a period of about 130 years. “The king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes” (vs. 5)— this was Ptolemy Soter, one of Alexander’s generals— “and he shall be strong above him.” The “he” in this clause was Seleucus Nicator, the first king of the north. Of him it is said that “his dominion shall be a great dominion,” and this is important to observe, for sometimes it is supposed that the king of the north was more or less confined to what is called Syria; whereas, in point of fact, Seleucus Nicator held sway over a vast stretch of territory extending from Macedonia to the borders of India. We may refer to this later on. Ptolemy Soter died in B.100:284, and was succeeded by his son, Ptolemy Philadelphus, who is alluded to in the next verse (vs. 6).
Philadelphus reigned a long time, especially when we remember the turbulent state of affairs in those days, hence it is said, “In the end of years” (vs. 6)— for Ptolemy had been on the throne of Egypt thirty-six years when the alliance took place which is here alluded to― “they (i.e., the kings of the north and south) shall join themselves together.”
The king of the north who was now reigning was named Antiochus Theus. He was weary of the incessant strife in which he was involved, and in order to put an end to this, so far as the king of the south was concerned, he entered into a marriage alliance. “The king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement;” this was Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who in B.100:249 was brought by her father with great pomp and ceremony to Syria, and there married to Antiochus, who divorced his wife Laodice in order to ratify the alliance more firmly. But all this intriguing came to nothing, as is well known from the history here so marvelously epitomized, for Berenice, upon the death of her father, was imprisoned by Antiochus, thus fulfilling the prophecy, “She shall not retain the power of the arm;” and Antiochus in his turn was poisoned by Laodice, his former wife, and so was fulfilled what is here said, “Neither shall he stand, nor his arm.”
By this time Philadelphus Euergetes was on the throne of Egypt, and made strenuous efforts to liberate his sister Berenice and her son from their prison. It is he who is referred to in verse 7, “Out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his estate,” that ifs, in the estate of “him that strengthened her in these times” (vs. 6), i.e., her father. The accuracy of the description is here remarkable. All that is so briefly narrated in verse 6 and 7 was fulfilled to the very letter. Not only was Berenice slain, but her son likewise; and here it may be well to draw attention to the marginal reading in verse 6, which is the correct one, “She shall be given up (i.e., Berenice) ... and he whom she brought forth (i.e., her son), and he that strengthened her in these times (i.e., her father).”
Now Ptolemy Euergetes came to the throne on the death of his father Philadelphus, who being likewise the father of Berenice, it is said, “Out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up,” &c. Profane history tells us of the inroad into Syria that is here mentioned. Euergetes gathered an army together in order to rescue his sister from the fortress of the king of the north where she was imprisoned, but reaching there too late, for she and her son had both been slain, he vented his wrath upon her murderers by making himself master of a large portion of Syria as far as Babylon, as it is said in Daniel’s prophecy, “He shall come with an army... and shall deal against them and prevail” (vs. 7). But not only so, profane history tells us that he brought back to his own land vast treasures of 29:2 gold and silver, “forty thousand talents of silver, a vast number of precious vessels of silver and gold, and images also to the number of two thousand five hundred, amongst which were many of the Egyptian idols which Cambyses on his conquering Egypt carried thence into Persia,” &c.
All this is here briefly and accurately described by the Spirit of God before the events took place: he “shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and gold” (vs. 8.) In passing we may observe that this verse places beyond doubt the signification of the terms north and south in this chapter, for Egypt is here given as the land of the king of the south; so true is it that Scripture is amply sufficient for its own explanation. A knowledge of the histories written by men may be of great interest for comparing with what is given in Scripture, but it is not by any means a necessity for the understanding of the latter. It is added, “He shall continue more years than the king of the north” (vs. 8). This likewise was fulfilled, inasmuch as Seleucus Callinicius, who was the king of Syria at that time, died four years before Euergetes, in B.C. 225.
The king of the south of verse 11. Was Ptolemy Philopator, the son of Euergetes, and what is recorded in this verse was accurately fulfilled in the war that was waged by him against Antiochus the Great, the then king of the north. According to profane history, Ptolemy vanquished him at the battle of Raphia, in spite of the great multitude he had gathered together. Many thousands were slain, and a great multitude were taken captive, and yet, we are told, “he (i.e., the king of the south) shall not be strengthened by it” (vs. 12), and so it turned out, for all that Ptolemy gained by his victory, he squandered in his voluptuous living.
It is the same king of the north that is described from verse 13. to the end of verse 19. Some years after the conflict alluded to in verse 12, Antiochus renewed the war with Ptolemy Epiphanes, the son of Philopator. Thirteen or fourteen years had intervened. He “shall certainly come after certain years with a great army” (vs. 13) the prophet had before announced, and so it came to pass.
“In those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south” (vs. 14), and so indeed they did, for the kings of Macedonia and Syria combined against him, and conspiracies arose in many quarters. But not only so, “The robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision.” These were apostates from amongst Daniel’s own people, the Jews, who sided with Ptolemy, forsaking the law of their God, and turning their backs upon Jehovah to do so. “But they shall fall,” for Antiochus gained the mastery, and all who helped him, these very apostates included, were cut off.
Every detail of these verses, if compared with profane history, will be found to have had a perfect and accurate fulfillment. To enter into all the details would occupy too much space, but we must draw attention to the expression in verse 16, “He (i.e., the king of the north) shall stand in the glorious land.” This is an additional proof that we are here in the midst of scenes and circumstances that have to do, not with Christians, but with Jews. The glorious land is Palestine. However dark the days may have been in the past, however dark and infinitely darker they will yet be, faith can reckon on God amidst it all, and call that land which He will yet choose as the scene of the display of Messiah’s glory, the glorious land.
Verse. 17 refers to the attempt of the king of the north to do by stratagem what he failed to accomplish by force. Once again a marriage alliance takes place between these kings, only this time it is the daughter of the king of the north, Cleopatra (not the Cleopatra of the Roman period), that was joined in matrimony to the king of the south. The object of this, in the mind of Antiochus, was that Cleopatra should betray her husband into his hands, which is what the Scripture means by the expression “corrupting her” (vs. 17). But this did not succeed, as history relates, and as prophecy had foretold.
Antiochus then turns his arms towards the isles, that is, the Grecian Isles. There for a time he succeeded until he finds himself confronted by a prince whose people had been reproached by this invasion. These were the Romans, under whose protection these isles had placed themselves. Lucius Scipio, the Roman consul, defeated Antiochus in battle, and thus caused the reproach to turn upon Antiochus himself; who returned to his own land, and soon after came to his end.
The next verse (vs. 20) describes the brief reign of Seleucus Philopator, the son of Antiochus the Great, the chief part of whose time was occupied in collecting the taxes imposed upon him by the Romans. There was nothing of any particular note during his time. His life was cut short through the treachery of one of his personal friends, and not in battle or through any sedition amongst his people.
It may seem to some a strange and unnecessary thing to spend so much time over this portion of the Scripture. But everything that God has seen fit to reveal we may well study with attention. Furthermore, no serious student of these verses can fail to be deeply impressed with the overwhelming evidence that they contain of the verbal inspiration of Holy Writ. Remembering that Daniel wrote before the events took place which we have now been describing, it would be impossible to conceive that he could forecast the future so accurately by mere guesswork. Nothing but divine inspiration can account for this stupendous marvel. “The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21).