Daniel 11:2–12:3

11:2 Saying “Now I will show you the truth,” the heavenly figure alluded to the “book of truth” (cf. 10:21) soon to be partially disclosed to Daniel. Daniel learned that “three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them” (11:2). After Cyrus, who was ruling Medo-Persia at the time of this prophecy (cf. 10:1), the next three kings were Cambyses (530–522 BC), Gaumata (522), and Darius I Hystaspes (522–486). The “fourth” after Cyrus was Xerxes I (486–465), known as Ahasuerus in the book of Esther. An established and wealthy king, Xerxes battled against “the kingdom of Greece” (11:2) but could not conquer it because the Greek city-states mounted strong resistance under Philip of Macedon (359–336).

11:3–4 After the death of his father, Philip, Alexander the Great (“a mighty king”) rose to power, ruling “with great dominion” and acting “as he wills.” (v. 3). According to the vision of 8:7 and the interpretation in 8:20–21, this mighty Greek king would defeat the Medo-Persians. Coming to power in 336 BC, Alexander had conquered Persia by 331.

After Alexander’s death in 323 BC at age 32, “His kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the authority with which he ruled, for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others besides these” (11:4). Alexander’s kingdom was divided posthumously among four of his generals (cf. 7:6; 8:8, 22): Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus, and Cassander. These generals were not Alexander’s descendants, and because of the empire’s divisions, the rule of the respective generals was not as vast or great as Alexander’s had been.

The mention of a division “toward the four winds of heaven” (11:4) prepares the reader for the kings of “north” and “south” who will dominate much of chapter 11. Seleucus I Nicator ruled Syria and Mesopotamia (“the north”), and Ptolemy I Soter ruled Egypt and Palestine (“the south”). The kings of the north would be the Seleucids, while the kings of the south would be the Ptolemies. In the decades ahead, these dynasties would battle each other, with the territory of Judah caught in the middle.

11:5 Beginning in this verse, only two of the four parts of the Greek kingdom will be in view. The heavenly figure spoke of “the king of the south” who would be strong but not as strong as one of his princes, who would rule with great authority. In history, this first king of the south was Ptolemy I. One of his generals (or “princes”) was Seleucus I, who helped him in battle before becoming king himself. Seleucus acquired territory by defeating and killing Antigonus (in 301 BC) and became the first “king of the north.” Seleucus’s kingdom became even greater than Ptolemy’s.

11:6 Years passed before the kings of the north and south finally made an alliance. Seleucus and Ptolemy were no longer ruling, but their dynasties continued with two of their successors, Antiochus II and Ptolemy II, respectively. The alliance in 250 BC between the two kings involved “the daughter of the king of south.” Ptolemy II’s daughter was Berenice, and the agreement was that she would marry the king of the north, Antiochus II, and bear the next Seleucid ruler for the north. But the plan for an alliance fell apart when, in 246 BC, Antiochus II took back his former wife, Laodice (whom he had left for Berenice), who allegedly poisoned him. Laodice also arranged the murder of Berenice and Berenice’s son. Berenice’s father (Ptolemy II) died that year as well. In the words of this verse, “She [Berenice] shall not retain the strength of her arm, and he [Antiochus II] and his arm shall not endure, but she [Berenice] shall be given up, and her attendants [who brought her from Egypt], he who fathered her [Ptolemy II], and he [either Antiochus II or Ptolemy II] who supported her [Berenice] in those times.”

11:7–9 Though Berenice’s father, Antiochus II, was dead, someone in her family (“from a branch from her roots”) would rule in his place (v. 7). Her brother, Ptolemy III, rose to power in 246 BC. He waged war against Laodice’s son, Seleucus II Callinicus, who had become king of the north (v. 7). Ptolemy III came against the north out of retaliation for the death of his sister Berenice. He prevailed over the Syrian capital, Antioch, and in his campaign captured and killed Laodice.

Ptolemy III, the “king of the south,” also took spoils of war from the north: “their gods with their metal images and their precious vessels of silver and gold” (v. 8). He returned to Egypt to handle a rebellion, so “for some years” he refrained from attacking “the king of the north.” As a result of Ptolemy III’s return to Egypt, Seleucus II was able to regain territory, and in 242 BC he tried to invade Egypt (“shall come into the realm of the king of the south”) but was not successful (“shall return to his own land”; v. 9).

11:10 When Seleucus II died, two of his sons ruled after him: first, Seleucus III (227–223 BC), and second, Antiochus III (223–187). Seleucus III had a short reign and was assassinated during a military campaign by members of his own army. But, like his murdered brother, Antiochus III worked to “wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall keep coming and overflow and pass through.” The language denoted successful military campaigns. Antiochus III became known as “the Great.”

In the south, in 221 BC, the king was no longer Ptolemy III but now Ptolemy IV. Antiochus III, the king of the north, decided to come against Ptolemy IV and “again shall carry the war as far as his fortress.” Antiochus III’s campaign in Palestine during this time fulfilled the prophecy that he would carry the war as far as the fortress of the king of the south (Ptolemy III).

11:11–13 In response to the provocations of the northern king, “the king of the south, moved with rage, shall come out and fight” (v. 11). Ptolemy IV (“the king of the south”) launched such a counterattack in 217 BC. Though Antiochus III (“the king of the north”) had a “great multitude,” his army was given into the hands of Ptolemy IV (v. 11). The passive “it shall be given” reminds us that God was sovereign over the skirmishes between the Greek kings. Ptolemy IV prevailed over the king of the north.

After Ptolemy IV’s victory, his heart became exalted (v. 12). According to Polybius, Ptolemy suffered rebellions in Egypt, which may have fulfilled the prophecy that “he shall cast down tens of thousands” (v. 12). But his reign would not last. In 204 BC, under mysterious circumstances, Ptolemy IV died at the age of 35. This was the opportunity that the king of the north, Antiochus III, was looking for. According to the heavenly figure’s words, “The king of the north shall again raise a multitude, greater than the first. And after some years he shall come on with a great army and abundant supplies” (v. 13). Antiochus III was more than ready to invade and conquer, and his new nemesis, Ptolemy V, was only five years old. As a result of a decisive battle in 200, Antiochus III seized control of southern Syria and Palestine. That territory would thereafter be under Seleucid power.

11:14 The angel of Yahweh explained to Daniel that things would not go well for the king of the south. With the victory of the king of the north imminent (cf. v. 13), the last years of the king of the south would be plagued with rebellion: “In those times many shall rise against the king of the south, and the violent among your own people shall lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision, but they shall fail” (v. 14). Rebellions began in Egypt before Ptolemy IV had died, and they continued into the reign of young Ptolemy V. Even violent Jews (“among your own people”) would be involved in siding against the king of the south.

11:15 The exploits of the king of the north became more specified: he “shall come and throw up siegeworks and take a well-fortified city.” As events unfolded in the career of Antiochus III, the “well-fortified city” was probably Sidon. He besieged the city and forced it to surrender in 198 BC. As the heavenly figure predicted, “The forces of the south shall not stand, or even his best troops, for there shall be no strength to stand.” The siege resulted in a famine, leaving the Sidonians without strength to combat the onslaught of Antiochus and his forces.

11:16–17 The heavenly figure described the king of the north in terms reminiscent of Alexander the Great: “He who comes against him shall do as he wills, and none shall stand before him” (v. 16; cf. v. 3). The king of the south would go against him, but none could resist the king of the north. Antiochus III would enter Israel and be victorious: “He shall stand in the glorious land, with destruction in his hand” (v. 16; cf. 8:9 for the language of “glorious land” and Ezek. 20:6, 15 for similar language). Now the Jews were under Seleucid, not Ptolemaic, rule. This change of power would mean terrible things for their future, because a descendant of Antiochus III would arise and commit atrocities in the land, a man named Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Antiochus III would need a strategy for dealing with opposition in Egypt. According to the angel of Yahweh, “He shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and he shall bring terms of an agreement and perform them” (Dan. 11:17). Rather than invading Egypt, Antiochus III offered his daughter, Cleopatra, to Ptolemy V as a wife. He gave her to Ptolemy V “to destroy the kingdom, but it shall not stand or be to his advantage.” Antiochus’s plan did not succeed, for Cleopatra was loyal to Ptolemy V, her husband. When Ptolemy died in 182 BC, Cleopatra became the leading power in Egypt.

11:18–19 Antiochus III refused to be stopped, despite the failure of his plan for Cleopatra. “Afterward he shall turn his face to the coastlands and shall capture many of them” (v. 18)—in 196 BC he went toward Thrace (a peninsula in modern-day Turkey, Greece, and Bulgaria). This activity caught the attention of Rome, who sent warnings not to attack Greece itself. Ignoring the Roman warnings, Antiochus III maintained his course. In response, Rome sent a consul named Lucius Cornelius Scipio, “a commander” who “shall put an end to his insolence” (v. 18). Antiochus III was defeated at Thermopylae in 191 and at Magnesia in 190 and was made a vassal of Rome in 188 according to the Treaty of Apamea. According to the arrangement, he was to send twenty hostages to Rome, one of which was his son Antiochus IV. Antiochus III turned back toward his own land, just as the heavenly figure had predicted (v. 19). In 187 he attempted to pillage a temple of Zeus at Elymais (in modern-day Iraq) in order to pay his tribute to Rome, but the local populace defended the sanctuary and killed Antiochus (v. 19).

11:20 Two of Antiochus III’s sons would eventually rule his kingdom: Antiochus IV and Seleucus IV. The former was a hostage in Rome, so Seleucus IV became king (187–175 BC) when Antiochus III died. According to the prophecy of the angel of Yahweh, Antiochus III’s successor “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.” Because he inherited his father’s debt, Seleucus IV sought to pay it. He sent his finance minister, Heliodorus, to Jerusalem to seize wealth from its treasury. Heliodorus was unsuccessful, supposedly thwarted by angelic intervention (cf. 2 Macc. 3:14–40). Seleucus’s reign ended “neither in anger nor in battle” in 175, when Heliodorus poisoned him. These events set up the rise of the terrible king, whom the heavenly figure would prophesy about next.

11:21 In place of Seleucus “shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given.” This person was Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who ruled from 175 to 164 BC. “He shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries,” a prophecy fulfilled when people who should have ruled after Seleucus were removed. At first Antiochus was coregent with another son of Seleucus, but the latter was murdered in 170, leaving Antiochus solely in power.

11:22–24 The picture of “armies” being “utterly swept away before him and broken” depicted the seemingly unstoppable spread of Antiochus IV’s power. And “even the prince of the covenant” would be broken, probably referring to the Jewish high priest. Under the previous reign of Antiochus III, Jews had been granted the right of self-government according to Jewish law. The particular “prince of the covenant” of verse 22 was probably Onias III, whom Antiochus IV despised for resisting the influence of Hellenism in the land. When Onias’s brother Jason professed support for Hellenization and offered Antiochus IV a bribe, Antiochus deposed Onias and installed Jason in his place (2 Macc. 4:7–10). Then, in 172 BC, Menelaus, who was not from a high priestly family, presented an even larger bribe to Antiochus, and as a result he replaced Jason as high priest (2 Macc. 4:23–26).

This contemptible king (Antiochus IV) would make “an alliance” and then “act deceitfully,” becoming “strong with a small people” (Dan. 11:23). From what can be discerned historically, it is not certain which alliance is meant, for Antiochus both made and broke many. But perhaps his deals for the high priesthood (with either Jason or Menelaus) fulfilled this prophecy. The “small people” may refer to Jews in Jerusalem who apostatized and sided with him.

Antiochus raided treasuries (“He shall come into the richest parts of the province”; v. 24), acting more greedily than his forebears (“He shall do what neither his fathers nor his fathers’ fathers have done”). He also spread spoils around, “scattering among them plunder, spoil, and goods” (v. 24; cf. 1 Macc. 3:30). The campaigns of Antiochus’s forces would involve “plans against strongholds, but only for a time” (Dan. 11:24), probably referring to the region of Egypt that would be dealt with in subsequent verses. “Only for a time” denoted God’s sovereignty over the horrific career of Antiochus, a reign that, despite its terrors, would not exceed what had been divinely decreed.

11:25–28 Antiochus IV “shall stir up his power and his heart against the king of the south with a great army” (v. 25); he would set his sights on Egypt in 170–169 BC. Though the “king of the south” (Ptolemy VI, son of Cleopatra) would battle against Antiochus with a great army, his efforts would not be successful; Ptolemy’s plans were leaked to the opponents, and he was captured while attempting to flee (v. 25). Due to poor counsel and disloyal subjects, Ptolemy VI was no match for the aggression and assaults of Antiochus IV. The prophecy that “Even those who eat his food shall break him” (v. 26) was probably fulfilled when two of Ptolemy’s counselors, Eulaeus and Lenaeus, advised him to seize Palestine back from Seleucid control. Ptolemy’s army would be swept away in this attempt, with many slain (v. 26).

Though Antiochus IV controlled most of Egypt, he did not control Alexandria, where the people declared Ptolemy VII (the younger brother of Ptolemy VI) king. In a plan to expand his Egyptian control, Antiochus decided to collude with the defeated Ptolemy VI. The “two kings” planned “on doing evil,” sitting at the same table and speaking lies to each other regarding agreements they had no intention of keeping (v. 27). Antiochus IV’s plans fell through when Ptolemy VI and Ptolemy VII were unexpectedly reconciled and became coregents in Egypt. The heavenly figure told Daniel that Antiochus IV’s plan would be “to no avail, for the end is yet to be at the time appointed” (v. 27).

Nevertheless, Antiochus IV plundered Egypt, concluding his first successful campaign there in 169 BC without capturing Alexandria. As he went to Syria, he passed through Jerusalem and sensed an insurrection; in response, he stole treasure from the temple (1 Macc. 1:20–24). He would return to his land with great wealth indeed (Dan. 11:28). But his heart was set against the Jewish people because the insurrection apparently involved Jason’s trying to reinstitute himself as high priest, having heard a rumor that Antiochus was killed in Egypt. Antiochus stopped the rebellion, massacring eighty thousand people (cf. 2 Macc. 5:12–14). He worked his will before returning to his own land (Dan. 11:28)—invading, plundering, and massacring.

11:29–30 Antiochus IV invaded Egypt again in 168 BC, just as the prophecy had predicted hundreds of years earlier: “At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south” (v. 29), but this time the campaign would not be successful. In Egypt, the united coregent brothers (Ptolemy VI and Ptolemy VII) were against him, and “the ships of Kittim” came against him as well (v. 30), referring to Rome, which arrived at Egypt’s request.¹ The Roman proconsul Gaius Popillius Laenas confronted Antiochus IV and told him to leave Egypt alone. Antiochus left humiliated and “enraged” and decided to strengthen his grip on Palestine by taking action against the Jews (v. 30). Specifically, he would “pay attention to those who forsake the holy covenant”: apostate Jews. He used dissension to his advantage (cf. 1 Macc. 1:29–35), bringing severe persecution to the Jewish people from 167 to 164 BC.

Only one other place in the OT had connected “ships” with “Kittim” (Dan. 11:30): Balaam’s oracle (Num. 24:24). Most likely the heavenly figure in Daniel 11 deliberately alluded to that oracle. In the historical events involving Antiochus, the prophesied “ships of Kittim” turned out to be Rome, as noted above. The Roman Empire would be significant as the one during which the Messiah lived and died. And the very oracle that mentioned “ships of Kittim” earlier in the OT (Num. 24:24) prophesied a star coming out of Jacob and a scepter rising out of Israel (v. 17). Jesus was that rising star and scepter.

11:31 During the Jewish persecution of 167–164 BC, Antiochus IV’s forces profaned the temple fortress, ending the daily sacrifices and setting up “the abomination that makes desolate” (cf. 8:13). He sought the thorough Hellenization of Jerusalem and Judea. He forbade the Scriptures, circumcision, Jewish festivals, and sacrifices, all upon penalty of death (cf. 1 Macc. 1:41–51, 56–67). On December 6, 167, the “abomination” was set up in the temple (1 Macc. 1:54). This was probably an idol of Zeus (cf. 2 Macc. 6:1–2). Ten days later, on December 16, sacrifices—including pigs—were offered on the altar (1 Macc. 1:47, 59; 2 Macc. 6:4).

In Matthew 24, Jesus spoke about the coming destruction of the temple in AD 70 (Matt. 24:1–3). In this Olivet Discourse he alluded to “the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel” (Matt. 24:15). His language reflected passages such as Daniel 9:27 and 11:31. The important point is that while 11:31 was fulfilled when Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the temple in 167 BC, Jesus saw that desolation as typological of what would happen under the Roman Empire in AD 70. Jesus had biblical precedent in the book of Daniel to view the two temple desecrations in that way, for, as we have seen, Daniel 8 spoke of a “little horn” in the Greek Empire, while Daniel 7 spoke of a “little horn” in the Roman Empire; and, as we have seen, the former “little horn” was a type of the latter. The language in 9:27 spoke of abomination and desolation, and we concluded there that the fulfillment of those words occurred in AD 70. Jesus knew that the coming destruction of Jerusalem was the fulfillment of the type laid out in chapters 8 and 11.

11:32–33 The ruler (Antiochus IV) “shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant” (v. 32), as Jewish apostates would side with him even as he forbade Jewish practices. But not every Jew would capitulate: “The people who know their God shall stand firm and take action” (v. 32). Such faithful people preferred death to violating God’s law (cf. 1 Macc. 1:61–63). The actions of the faithful would include instructing the people, making them understand the abominable ways and impositions of Antiochus and encouraging them to remain faithful (Dan. 11:33). But this resistance would not be easy, for many would die (“stumble”) by sword and fire, while others would be taken captive. Key resistance came from the priest Mattathias and his five sons: John, Simon, Judas (sometimes called Maccabeus, which may mean “the hammer”), Eleazar, and Jonathan. They headed the Maccabean rebellion (166–164 BC), which resulted in Jerusalem’s recapture by the Jews and the temple’s reestablishment. The recaptured temple was cleansed and then rededicated on December 14, 164—an event that became known as Hanukkah.

11:34–35 During the Maccabean rebellion, the faithful who died were not the only ones holding to God’s law; the movement was helped by others who were steadfast in obedience. However, those who joined the rebellion may have done so for reasons other than biblical faithfulness. The Maccabees began to kill those who had aligned themselves with the Seleucids (cf. 1 Macc. 2:42–48).

The heavenly figure revealed to Daniel one of God’s purposes in decreeing persecution: those who led by example and were obedient (“the wise”) died “so that they may be refined, purified, and made white, until the time of the end, for it still awaits the appointed time” (Dan. 11:35). The persecution would purify the people as the unbelievers forsook Yahweh while the believers held fast to him. The persecution by Antiochus IV became a threshing floor separating wheat from chaff. And, on the last day, all believers will be dressed in white, depicting faithfulness and allegiance to God (Rev. 3:5; cf. 4:4).

Table 1.14 shows the Greek kings discussed so far, divided into the kings of the south (the Ptolemies) and of the north (the Seleucids):