Andrew Lightner

Daniel 11:2-45 A Guide to the Prophesied History

Andrew Lighter

In Daniel 11:2-45, an angel reveals to Daniel “the truth” concerning the future for God’s people back in the land of Judea. When Daniel receives this vision post-exile, his Jewish compatriots had only been settled 2-3 years in Judea when opposition began to emerge. Unfortunately, this manifestation of opposition is only the inauguration of their ‘troubled time’ back in the land (Dan. 9:25). In Daniel 11, the angel prophecies, with a dizzying pace, events and rulers, wars and rumors of wars, that will characterize life in the land during the next ‘sixty-two weeks’ (Dan. 9:25) until the advent of the Messiah. These prophesied events also overlap with the period of time covered in the vision of Daniel 8. Yet even though trouble will mount from the north and the south during this epoch of time, we learn in Daniel 11 it is also appointed time (v.27, 29, 35). Kings and kingdoms will arise as twisted beastly figures to make war on God’s people and God’s purposes (Dan. 7:1-8), but ultimately, they are restrained and limited by God’s sovereignty and providence. God’s people will face trouble that may even cost them their lives, but the Lord will preserve his church through it, and the kingdom of God will endure forever. When the angel approaches Daniel in the vision of Daniel 10-12, he prophecies about events that lie several centuries in the future. Yet while all of these characters and events lie in the future from Daniel’s perspective, we look back upon the fulfillment of many of these details in history (with the exception of 11:36-12:3). Thus, the goal of this guide is to detail some of that history that Daniel hears prophesied in the future. Daniel 11:2-4 - Persia & Greece In the opening verses of Daniel 10, we learned that this final vision in the book of Daniel is set “In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia” (Dan. 10:1). King Cyrus was responsible for the overthrow of Babylon in 539 BC, and along with his victory over Babylon, God’s people were incorporated as a Persian satrapy. Shortly after Cyrus’ reign was established over former Babylonian territory and peoples, including the exiled Jews, an edict was issued that permitted the exiled Jews to return to the land of promise. Cyrus’ edict is also recorded in Ezra 1:1-4:

In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing: 2 “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 3 Whoever is among you of all his people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the LORD, the God of Israel—he is the God who is in Jerusalem. 4 And let each survivor, in whatever place he sojourns, be assisted by the men of his place with silver and gold, with goods and with beasts, besides freewill offerings for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.”

Andrew Lightner

2

Daniel learns in Dan. 11:2 that after Cyrus, three more kings would arise, and a fourth would eventually wage war on Greece. Many commentators see in this a reference to Xerxes, the Ahasuerus from the book of Esther.1 Xerxes was not the final ruler of Persia, but he was ‘the fourth’ following Cyrus and did wage war on Greece. In fact, he suffered a great defeat in the battle of Salamis in 480 BC. However, some see in this reference not Xerxes, but the final king of Persia, Darius III, and thus take the four-fold scheme in a figurative sense.2 Nonetheless, by v.3 the angel has already moved past Persia to prophecy the rise of a mighty ruler from Greece. Virtually all commentators are agreed that this is a reference to Alexander the Great (336-323 BC). Yet for all that Alexander accomplished during his short reign, his great influence is only allotted one verse. In v.4 we read that Alexander’s reign would suddenly evaporate and his kingdom would be “broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven” (Dan. 11:4). We learn from history that following Alexander’s death, a power struggle ensured, and the kingdom was eventually parceled into four territories, each of which was ruled by a former general of Alexander. Once the geo-political landscape was settled, Cassander ruled over Macedonia, Lysimachus ruled over Thrace, Seleucus ruled over Syria and Mesopotamia, and Ptolemy ruled Egypt and northern Africa.

1 Dale Ralph Davis, The Message of Daniel, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 148. 2 Paul R. House, Daniel, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2018), 171.

Andrew Lightner

3

Daniel 11:5-20 – The Ptolemaic & Seleucid Kingdoms While Daniel’s angelic herald devotes only three verses to Persia, Alexander the Great, and the dynastic succession following Alexander’s death, he allocates the next sixteen verses to the two kingdoms that stood to the north (Seleucid kingdom) and the south (Ptolemaic kingdom) of Judea for the next 150 years. The South (Ptolemies – Egypt)3 The North (Seleucids – Syria)4

Daniel 11:5 When Alexander died in 323 BC, Ptolemaic control in Egypt was secured with relative ease. But it took somewhat longer for Seleucus to gain a similarly secure foothold in the north. After Alexander’s death, the first king of the Seleucid kingdom (Seleucus I) suffered a setback when his kingdom was attacked from the west by Antigonus in 316 BC.5 Unprepared and ill-equipped to mount a defense, Seleucus I fled to Egypt and took up the position of a general in the army of Ptolemy I while he regained his composure. But four years later, both Ptolemy I and Seleucus I, now allied together, marched north and defeated Antiognus at the Battle of Gaza. Shortly afterward, Seleucus I secured his kingdom against any further threats from Antigonus and eventually established Seleucid hegemony over a territory larger than any of the other three

3 Sinclair Ferguson, Daniel, The Preacher’s Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1988), 212. 4 Ibid. 5 Ernest C. Lucas, Daniel, Apollos Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 280.

Ptolemy 1 (Soter) 323-285

Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) 285-246

Ptolemy III (Euergetes) 246-221

Ptolemy IV (Philopator) 221-204

Ptolemy V (Epiphanes) 204-181

Ptolemy VI (Philometer) 181-145

Seleucus I (Nicator) 312-280

Antiochus I (Soter) 280-261

Antiochus II (Theos) 261-246

Seleucus II (Callinicus) 246-226

Seleucus III (Ceraunus) 226-223

Antiochus III (the Great) 223-187

Seleucus IV (Philopator) 187-175

Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) 175-163

Andrew Lightner

4

Greek kingdoms.6 The establishment of Seleucid control in the ‘north’ with the help of the Ptolemaic kingdom in the ‘south’ may be what Daniel 11:5 foreshadows. Once the geo-political landscape was finally established, Judea initially fell into the hands of the Ptolemaic kingdom and remained firmly under the authority of Ptolemaic kings from 311 BC to 198 BC. It seems that Daniel 11:5-12 focuses primarily on Ptolemaic endeavors (i.e. “king of the south”) during this period of time. Daniel 11:6 Following the establishment of both kingdoms, Daniel’s prophecy accelerates approximately sixty years forward to circa 250 BC. According to Daniel 11:6, “After some years” a marriage alliance was forged between the king of the south and the king of the north. The Ptolemaic king (Ptolemy II) gave his daughter, Berenice, in marriage to the Seleucid king (Antiochus II). But because Antiochus II was already married, he divorced his wife (Laodice) and put away their two sons in order to secure the marriage to Berenice for the sake of the alliance. However, two years after the marriage alliance, Ptolemy II, the king who initiated the marriage alliance between his daughter and the king of the north, died. Seeing little reason to perpetuate the marriage any longer, Antiochus II divorced Berenice and reconciled with Laodice. But Laodice did not forget her ignominious treatment two years prior, so she purportedly poisoned her husband (Antiochus II), had Berenice and Berenice’s son murdered, and created a clear path for one of her sons (Seleucus II) to assume the throne. Thus, “[Berenice] shall not retain the strength of her arm, and he and his arm shall not endure…” (Dan. 11:6b). Most commentators are in agreement that this marriage alliance gone wrong is the historical fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel 11:6.7 Daniel 11:7-9 When the new Ptolemaic king (Ptolemy III) discovered the ill-treatment and murder of his sister (Berenice) by the mother (Laodice) of the new Seleucid king (Seleucus II), he took his vengeance upon the Seleucid kingdom. He drove his army north into Seleucid territory and prevailed. He had Laodice executed and plundered the Seleucid kingdom. Two years later Seleucus II attempted a reciprocal invasion of the Ptolemaic kingdom to the south, but his quest quickly failed. Most commentators are in agreement that these historical events are the fulfillment to the prophetic details in Daniel 11:7-9. Daniel 11:10-12 In the ensuing years, the sons of Seleucus II (Seleucus III and Antiochus III) carried out their late father’s ambitions and continued to wage war on the Ptolemaic kingdom. After Seleucus II’s death, and then Seleucus III’s subsequent murder while waging a military campaign in Asia Minor,8 Antiochus III assumed the Seleucid throne and quickly drove his army south, hoping to take advantage of the perceived weaknesses in the recently crowned Ptolemaic king (Ptolemy IV). It is reported that even though Antiochus III marshalled a vastly superior army, he was humiliated in defeat by Ptolemy IV in the battle of Raphia in 217 BC. Most commentators are in

6 Ibid. 7 Dale Ralph Davis, The Message of Daniel, 148-9. 8 Ernest C. Lucas, Daniel, 280.

Andrew Lightner

5

agreement that these historical events are the fulfillment to the prophetic details in Daniel 11:10-12 Daniel 11:13-17a Eventually, however, Antiochus III would win a great victory over the Ptolemaic kingdom. Thirteen years after his victory at Raphia, Ptolemy IV died a mysterious death, and his four-year old son (Ptolemy V) assumed the throne. But while Ptolemy V grew into his crown, the temporary regent (Agathocles) stirred up unrest and dissatisfaction throughout the Ptolemaic kingdom. Buoyed by the instability in the leadership of the Ptolemaic kingdom and the general disillusionment toward it by the subjects of Ptolemy V, Antiochus III seized upon the volatility to his south and attacked the Ptolemaic kingdom once again. This time Antiochus III’s military campaign was a great success. His forces swept southward through the land of Judea and eventually accepted the surrender of the Ptolemaic general Scopas in 198 BC. At this point, the territory of Judea came under Seleucid control for the first time, perhaps even aided by a pro-Seleucid faction in Jerusalem (Dan. 11:14b).9 It appears that these historical events are the prophetic fulfillment of Daniel 11:13-17a. Daniel 11:17b-19 In order to promulgate further Seleucid influence, Antiochus III gave his daughter, Cleopatra, to Ptolemy V in a marriage alliance between the two kingdoms. However, while Antiochus III thought this would further cement Seleucid influence among the Ptolemaic kingdom, his plan backfired. Cleopatra embraced her new home and culture and became much more sympathetic to Ptolemaic pursuits than to those of the Seleucid kingdom. Thus, the marriage alliance was ultimately not to the advantage of Antiochus III (v.17). Despite the alliance, Antiochus III set his sights on territorial expansion among other Ptolemaic-held territory in the Mediterranean Sea, and although he experienced some success, he soon went too far. In view of his expansionist desires, he was forewarned by Rome to stay out of Greece. Yet in 192 BC he ignored these warnings and invaded Greece anyway. This led to a war with Rome. Over the next 2-3 years Antiochus III was soundly defeated in a series of battles and driven to eventual surrender (v.18). As a result, while Antiochus III could keep the crown, he and his kingdom became a vassal of Rome. They were forced to send hostages to Rome (including one of his sons, Antiochus IV), and were also required to pay a large, ongoing tax to Rome.10 Unfortunately for Antiochus III, the wars in which he had engaged over the previous decade had left him short of funds. Thus, in order to pay the required sum to Rome, Antiochus looted a pagan temple in Elymas in 187 BC. But this action incited a local zealous temple following, who rose up and assassinated Antiochus III (v.19).11 These events seem to be the prophetic fulfillment of Daniel 11:17b-19. Daniel 11:20 When Antiochus III was killed, his son, Seleucus IV, assumed the throne. But in order to sustain the heavy payments required by Rome that his father had incurred, Seleucus IV needed to procure additional funds. This he attempted to do by sending his chief tax collector, Heliodorus,

9 Ibid., 281. 10 Ibid., 282. 11 Dale Ralph Davis, The Message of Daniel, 150.

Andrew Lightner

6

to Jerusalem to plunder the Jerusalem temple (v.20). However, Heliodorus’ efforts were mysteriously foiled, and shortly afterward Heliodorus had Seleucus IV assassinated. Thus, Seleucus IV was “…broken, neither in anger nor in battle” (Dan. 11:20). These events seem to be the prophetic fulfillment of Daniel 11:20. Daniel 11:21-35 – Antiochus IV (Epiphanes)12 When Seleucus IV was killed, his brother Antiochus IV was already on his way home from Rome. He had been a hostage in Rome as a result of his father’s (Antiochus III) surrender and forced indemnity to Rome thirty years earlier. But just before Seleucus IV was killed, Seleucus IV had sent his son Demetrius (the next in line to the throne) to Rome in exchange for Antiochus IV.13 When Seleucus IV was killed, Antiochus IV was in Athens, midway through his journey home, and Demetrius was already in Rome. With a power vacuum in Syria, Heliodorus (the chief tax collector responsible for Seleucus IV’s assassination) stepped in to fill the gap.14 But Antiochus IV was prepared. When he came into the capital with an army behind him, Heliodorus fled the city. The only threat left to fulfilling Antiochus IV’s royal ambitions was his younger nephew (also named Antiochus). Soon after claiming the throne for himself, Antiochus IV had his younger nephew murdered. This cemented his rise to power and fits what we read in Daniel 11:21. But these verses (11:21-35) are not simply concerned with narrating every detail of Antiochus IV’s reign. The focus throughout these verses falls particularly on Antiochus IV’s exploits among God’s people. When Antiochus came to power, he continued a standing policy of allowing the Jews in Judea the right to self-govern. But Antiochus also began pushing Hellenization policies which were opposed by the Jewish high priest, Onias III. Seeing an opportunity in the tension between Onias III and Antiochus, the brother of Onias III, Jason, bribed Antiochus with a large sum of money to depose Onias III and name Jason the new high priest. Antiochus obliged, and Jason became the new high priest. But if this wasn’t bad enough, some time later, a Benjaminite named Menelaus, who came from a rival family, bribed Antiochus with more money to depose Jason and name him as the new high priest. Once again, Antiochus obliged, and Menelaus was made high priest in Jason’s stead.15 The disposal of the rightful high priest, Onias III, may explain the reference in v.22 to ‘the prince of the covenant’,16 and the bribery-schemes embraced by Antiochus may be part of what is in view in v.23. Beyond his meddling in the religious affairs and self-governance of Israel, Antiochus later assumed a much more despotic strategy toward God’s people. In around 169 BC, Antiochus marched his army southward into Ptolemaic territory for a preemptive attack after hearing

12 Antiochus IV’s nickname ‘Epiphanes’ means ‘manifest’, in the sense of ‘god manifest’. However, the historian Polybius notes that some who were less favorably inclined toward Antiochus referred to him as Antiochus Epimanes, meaning ‘madman’. Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, 2nd Edition. (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2009), 16. 13 Ernest C. Lucas, Daniel, 283. 14 John E. Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 299. 15 Ernest C. Lucas, Daniel, 284. 16 This enigmatic reference has also been understood as a reference, not to Onias III, but to how Antiochus circumvented the rightful line to the throne by disposing of the rightful heir, his nephew. In this sense, ‘covenant’ may take on a more generic meaning such as ‘alliance’ or ‘treaty’. Sinclair Ferguson, Daniel, 213.

Andrew Lightner

7

rumors the Ptolemaic kingdom was hatching a plan to retake Judea by force.17 Antiochus’s military campaign in Egypt was largely successful, though he was unable to secure the foothold he had hoped. On his way home from Egypt, apparently because financial strains were mounting, he made a pitstop in Jerusalem. He plundered the temple, carrying off masses of revenue to support his ambitions, and he also massacred many Jews in the process who stood in the way. Antiochus’ first military campaign into Egypt and subsequent pitstop in Jerusalem may be what vv.25-28 foreshadows.18 About a year later, Antiochus embarked on a second military campaign in Egypt. But when Antiochus attempted to take the city of Alexandria, a prize that alluded him during his first campaign, he was met by a Roman delegation that the Ptolemaic king had appealed to for help (v.30). This delegation demanded that Antiochus return home, or else! Humiliated and embarrassed, Antiochus turned back and made his way home. At this time, a rumor began spreading in Jerusalem that Antiochus had been killed in Egypt.19 Hearing the rumor as reliable, the since-deposed high priest Jason decided to take advantage of Antiochus’ death and retake the priesthood he had earlier bribed his way into but later lost years before. Jason attacked Jerusalem with these ambitions in mind, but was unable to capture Menelaus or the priesthood. Hearing of trouble swirling in Jerusalem, Antiochus set out to stamp out what he interpreted as a revolt. Antiochus sent the commander of his army, Apollonius, ahead of him. Apollonius first arrived with a pretense of peace, but after enlisting Jewish support for Antiochus (v.30 – ‘those who forsake the holy covenant’), he attacked. The forces of Antiochus massacred many and tore down the city walls.20 In the wake of Antiochus’ show of force, an edict was then issued demanding the cessation of circumcision, offerings (‘and shall take away the regular burnt offering’), and Torah observance. Moreover, swine were offered on the altar in the Jerusalem temple (‘the abomination that makes desolate’) and the temple was rededicated to Zeus. After these new realities set in, some among God’s people were seduced with flattery and complied with Antiochus’ edict (v.32), whereas others (‘the wise’) stood firm, refused to compromise, but paid a heavy price (v.33). But when things looked bleak for the faithful, they received ‘a little help’ (v.34). It is uncertain whether this reference foreshadow the Maccabean uprising (that is, a Jewish revolt that ensued against Antiochus in the wake of his persecutions), or if it functions simply as a general reference to the fact that some were persuaded by the wise

17 Ernest C. Lucas, Daniel, 285. 18 The references in vv.25-27 to wheeling and dealing and scheming at the same table may be a reference to behind the scene events in the Ptolemaic kingdom. When Antiochus IV invaded Egypt, he captured the Ptolemaic king, Ptolemy VI, who was still in his youth and was being fed bad advice by two of his advisors, which led to Antiochus IV’s invasion in the first place. Once Ptolemy VI was captured, other advisers persuaded Ptolemy VI’s even younger brother, Ptolemy VII, to claim the throne, which he did. Antiochus IV countered this move by throwing his support behind Ptolemy VI, the king he had captured, setting him up as puppet king to counter his younger brother. Ptolemy VI and VII may be the two kings in v.27. However, history tells us that both brothers were eventually reconciled together by their mother, Cleopatra (who was also Antiochus IV’s sister!). Antiochus IV’s plans to drive a wedge between two brothers and thus divide the Ptolemaic kingdom, while initially successful, ultimately failed. Ernest C, Lucas, Daniel, 285. 19 There is some debate about whether this rumor was spread during Antiochus’ first conquest in Egypt or his second conquest in Egypt, and thus whether it was a catalyst to his actions in Jerusalem the first time or the second time. Either way, both campaigns in Egypt ended with a pitstop in Jerusalem. See Ernest C. Lucas, Daniel, 285-6. 20 Ibid, 286.

Andrew Lightner

8

and joined the stand against Antiochus’ edict (though, some did for unsavory reasons). Either way, Antiochus’ reign of terror is said to be a purifying of God’s people until his scourge comes to an end. Daniel 11:36-45 By 164 BC Antiochus IV was dead, and although his successor, Antiochus V, committed to revert back to the favorable policies toward the Jews that were once in place before Antiochus IV, this assurance wasn’t nearly enough for the Jews in Judea. They continued their military revolt against the Seleucid kingdom until they had completely driven them out of the land in 142 BC.21 However, once we hit v.36 in our passage, nothing more about Antiochus IV nor about the subsequent history in the land is prophesied. Although some scholars see in vv.36-45 a further summary of Antiochus IV’s reign of terror22, there are reasons to believe the angel prophesying these things to Daniel has advanced the prophecy forward to a figure and events that still lie in our future.23 In short, vv.36-45 look forward into the future to the ‘antichrist’ (cf. 1 John 2:18; 2 Thess. 2), who is cast in the mold of Antiochus, but also goes beyond Antiochus. However, although this antichrist figure inflicts terrors that go beyond Antiochus, like Antiochus his reign also comes to an end: “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” (Dan. 11:45). Dale Ralph Davis comments, “Fascinating treatment for a deity-clone who conquers nations and oppresses saints: he is wiped off the stage of history in a mere six Hebrew words.”24 Kingdoms and kings will rise and fall, and along the way they will inflict horrors upon God’s people. But in the end, their reign of terror will come to an end, and the kingdom of God will endure forever. This is true of Antiochus IV, and this is also true of the greater Antiochus, the antichrist.

21 Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, 17–18. 22 Ernest C. Lucas, Daniel, 289-93; John E. Goldingay, Daniel, 304-6; Paul R. House, Daniel, 177-80. 23 Dale Ralph Davis, The Message of Daniel, 156-60; Sinclair Ferguson, Daniel, 218-22; James M. Hamilton Jr., With the Clouds of Heaven: The Book of Daniel in Biblical Theology, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 98-104; Iain M. Duguid, Daniel, Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008), 203-4. 24 Dale Ralph Davis, The Message of Daniel, 160.