The Greatest of the Prophets - 61

 The Greatest Of The Prophets  - by George McCready Price (1955) 61

11. A DETAILED HISTORY

All commentators acknowledge that this chapter is extremely difficult to understand or to interpret. But there are many evidences that this line of prophecy must be of profound importance to the people living in our day, so near the close of human probation. Hence we should take up its study with more than usual interest; but also with extreme caution, knowing that, amid the great diversity of interpretations, many must be wrong. 

The first few verses are so plain and unequivocal that they resemble a simple chronicle of historical events. So plain and accurate indeed is this first port that Porphyry and many others since his day have denied that they were written as predictive prophecy centuries before the events took place. They tell us that it is never the custom (they do not bluntly say that it is impossible) for prophecy to give such minute and accurate predictions in advance. This is their real reason for wanting to have this entire book of Daniel written in the times of the Maccabees, or after these events had become history. 

The many long-range predictions about Rome, both imperial and papal, as given in chapters 2, 7, and 8, have been as strikingly and accurately fulfilled; and they cannot be brushed aside, even if the book was written in the times of the Maccabees. Hence the strange efforts of the “critic” to apply these

prophecies to the career of Epiphanes.

If the prophecies of chapters 2, 7, and 8 run down to the end of human history, and in their latter portions give many predictions about Rome and its warfare against the people of God and the truths which they hold dear, it is highly reasonable to expect that this eleventh chapter will also cover the some ground and give additional details. We also have a right to expect that some mention will be mode in it of the crucifixion, that pivotal event of all history. Since the book of the Revelation is rightly regarded as a further

expansion of these prophecies of Daniel, especially of their latter portions, which deal more specifically with our own days, is the period just preceding the resurrection and the Second Coming of Christ, with the revived or rejuvenated papacy as the final persecutor of the people of God, we surely have a right to expect in this chapter some mention of this final, deadly conflict of the church with the powers of darkness. This statement of some outstanding events which we may reasonably expect to find mentioned in this prophecy gives us a method for seeking the right interpretation of this chapter. For by pinning down a few of the outstanding historical events, such as the crucifixion, the papal persecutions, the nearly fatal collapse of the papacy near the close of the eighteenth century (French Revolution), with its astonishing revival to the prospect of a second world dominion in our own day, we can feel confident of our general correctness of interpretation, even though some details here and there along the line are confessedly obscure and hard to be understood.

Since the terms -king of the north” and “king of the south” figure so prominently in this chapter, some geographical and historical facts need to be, kept in mind. From the geographical Position of Palestine it is readily seen that the north and the south were the only two directions from which any

formidable invasions could occur. On the west was the Great Sea; and no maritime enemy existed to invade the country from that direction. On the east the country was similarly protected by the impassable desert.

Hence Israel could be attacked or invaded only from the north or from the south. Furthermore, in almost innumerable passages in Jeremiah and other Old Testament prophets the Israelites were warned against the king of Babylon as the king of the north, who would invade and subdue the land. Consequently, when the king of Syria, Seleucus, become also the king of Babylon in the breakup of Alexander’s empire, it was only natural for this enemy of Israel to be described as “the king of the north.” Later, as the rising power of Rome look over the empire of Babylon and Syria, it in turn become the king of the north.

The “critics” all declare that the first third or more of the chapter is so plain and so accurate in its history of the Syrian wars that the book cannot be a prophecy; it must be a document posing as prophecy, but really written after the events. They say that with the twenty-first verse we begin the history of Antiochus Epiphanes, and that all the rest of the chapter deals with him and his doings. I shall not here attempt to show the many, many places in the chapter where this interpretation does not fit the text, and the many other places where they admit that they have no historical records to cover the statements in the text. 

Uriah Smith carried the Syrian wars down through verse 14, where he  introduced the Roman power. He continued a straightforward course with imperial Rome down through verse 22, from which point he went backward to the Jewish league of 161 BC, and again carried forward the Roman history down through the barbarian invasions, as spoken of in verse 30, from which point he depicted a transition from pagan to papal Rome.

One of the certain mileposts in this difficult portion of the chapter is the reference to the breaking of “the Prince of the covenant” in verse 22, which cannot possibly be mistaken as meaning the death of the promised Messiah, which occurred under the reign of Tiberius. The next six or seven verses are difficult to understand on any method of interpretation. However, I suspect that Dr. Edward Heppenstall, of La Sierra College, may he right in his suggestion that the two kings mentioned in verse 27 must somehow refer to the

pope and the emperor, their speaking lies at one table having reference to the union of church and state thus established. Verse 31, in its mention of the taking away of the daily mediation and the placing of the abomination of desolation, must positively refer to the papal establishment of a false system of mediation, shown in a multitude of ways but culminating in the idolatrous “sacrifice of the mass.” The exact date for this is difficult to determine, for the transition seems to have been a gradual one; but the date AD 508, when Clovis established the Romish priesthood for the first time, would seem to be the date for the beginning of the 1290 days (years) mentioned in chapter 12:11.

From this point onward everything in the chapter seems to be plain and clear.

Daniel 11: 1. And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him.

The identity of Darius the Mede is not positively known. For many years it was thought that Gubaru, or Gobryas, might be the same as Darius. He was the companion of Cyrus in the final capture of Babylon, he personally slew Belshazzar in the palace, and was appointed governor of the captured city. On

the other hand, Cyaxares II, the uncle and father-in-law of Cyrus, seems to have been honored by Cyrus as the supreme ruler, while Cyrus after the death of Cyaxares assumed sole ruler ship within two years after Babylon’s conquest.

All historians now agree that there never was a separate or independent Median kingdom following the Babylonian. This imaginary Median kingdom was simply an invention of the “critics” to enable them to have four world empires before Rome. 

The Septuagint here reads: “In the first year of Cyrus the king,” which would make its date coincide with the royal Persian proclamation for the return of the Jews to their own land. If we had more facts we would be in a better position to clear up the historical situation.

Daniel 11:2. And now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall he far richer than they all: and when he is waxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece.

The most authoritative work on the chronology of this period, R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein’s Babylonian Chronology 626 BC - AD 45 (Chicago, second edition, 1946), provides the following dates for kings dealt with in this period of Median and Persian history.

539-530 Cyrus

530-522 Cambyses

522 Smerdis

522-486 Darius the Great

486-465 Xerxes I

A usurper, the false Smerdis, held command for some seven months during 522. At the time the usurper came to power Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, was away in Egypt. Cambyses, thinking the situation desperate, committed suicide. Because of these circumstances this usurper can be inserted in this list. The first of the four kings spoken of by the angel would have to be Cyrus himself; for the one who stirred up all against the realm of Greece is certainly Xerxes. If Smerdis is to be included, then the first of the four would be Cambyses. On either method of reckoning, the one here referred to as invading Greece must be Xerxes, who was so overwhelmingly defeated at Salamis, 480 BC. 

According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the Persian army amounted to some five and a quarter millions of men-if any such disorganized, tatterdemalion

collection of human beings ought to be called an army. The tradition that Xerxes, when he looked over this sea of humanity, wept at the thought that in a hundred years not one of them would be alive, gives more credit for humanity to this king than he deserves. The useless and uncalled-for sacrifice of so many poor, helpless beings indicates a callousness and a colossal egotism and selfishness which is seldom found except in the commanders of armies, but which seems to have been pre-eminently  characteristic of the Assyrian and Persian kings.

Daniel 11:3. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. 

Daniel 11:4. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion wherewith he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others besides these.

One of the peculiarities of this prophecy is the abrupt and unannounced way in which a wholly new power is introduced from time to time, making it difficult to follow. Here we pass without any clear explanation from Persia to Greece under Alexander. There can be no possible doubt about the meaning of this text; every specification fits the case of Alexander, and it fits no one else. But in order to make this application, we must ignore the nine or ten Persian kings who succeeded Xerxes, and have to ignore the fact that the mighty king here introduced is not given any definite location either of place or of time. But the passage must mean Alexander; for every single statement fits his case completely. Hence when we find further on in the prophecy that some other power is similarly introduced without any apparent antecedents, we may expect to have to ignore some intervening rulers, perhaps pass over a long period of time, and also perhaps pass to an entirely different land, in order to find the power that is being introduced. This is a fundamental principle in seeking to understand this chapter. But we are enabled to understand this prophecy by comparing it with the ones preceding, especially with the terms used in chapter 8:8. The specifications are so nearly identical in both cases that the one might almost be termed a quotation from the other.

Daniel 11:5. And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.

This text seems ambiguous, even equivocal; hence commentators have, perhaps rightly, appealed to the facts of history to determine the meaning of the text. In this case we know that, when Alexander’s empire was divided among his four leading successors--Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy--it was not long before these four were reduced to two, Seleucus in the north--that is, north of Palestine, and Ptolemy in the south. As Seleucus had nearly

three fourths of the old Alexandrian empire, and Ptolemy one fourth, it is not at all difficult to determine which must be the power here spoken of as being strong above him. Evidently it must be Seleucus, who was one of his [Alexander’s] princes; and perhaps this is the original meaning of the text, though the margin reads: “shall be strong; but one of his princes shall be,” etc. Various emendations of the text have been suggested, and the text as we have it may ‘need some correction; but the evident meaning is to point out the king of the north, or Seleucus, as the one whose dominion shall be a great dominion.

Daniel 11:6. And at the end of years they shall join themselves together; and the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the strength of her arm. Neither shall he stand, nor his arm; but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in those times.

A brief sketch of the history here involved will clear up these specifications. We come to the second generation of these two dynasties, of Syria and of Egypt. Almost perpetual wars, termed by historians the “Syrian wars,” prevailed between these two powers, the Jewish people being in the midst and suffering from both sides. At the close of his reign, 248 BC, the king of Egypt, Ptolemy Philadelphus--son and successor of Ptolemy I, surnamed Soter,-tired of the perpetual struggle, gave his daughter Berenice in marriage to Antiochus Theos, and accompanied her with a rich dowry, hoping thereby to establish a lasting friendship between the two nations. By the marriage agreement Antiochus was to divorce his wife Laodice, declare her children illegitimate, and establish the offspring of his new wife as

heirs. Presently the father of Berenice died; then Antiochus divorced her and took back his former wife, Laodice. When opportunity offered, Laodice poisoned her husband the king, and had her son, Seleucus Callinicus, put on the throne in his place. Not long afterward she had her rival, Berenice, assassinated, together with her infant son and many of her Egyptian friends, they that brought her. Such deeds could not fail to undo all the planned agreement between the two nations; hence wars were renewed with all the

former savagery.

It might help the reader to understand the sordid and petty history of these times if he remembered that the ruling families of both Egypt and Syria were Greeks, descendants of Alexander’s officers. They were all Greeks by descent, and the court language of all these countries was always Greek, so that the wars between these kings were much of the character of family rows. The people never had anything to say about their government. The common people were considered as only so many inferior beings who existed for the purpose of paying taxes and to furnish the soldiers with which the rulers might carry out their own selfish and cruel designs. 

Thus far all is plain and straightforward. We are now down some seventy-five or eighty years this side of Alexander, and well on toward three hundred years after the time of the prophet Daniel. The details of these petty wars are still given by the prophecy, not because of their being of any world importance, but because, when they were seen to have been fulfilled literally and accurately, everyone might acquire confidence in the similar fulfillment of the rest of the prophecy. The Jewish nation was the center of all this

conflict; they were the losers no matter which of the two sides won the day. They were placed in a strategic position to check up on the prophecy and its verification as no others could. As all these events were still more than two centuries before the coming of Christ, there was still much to observe in the way of the fulfillment of the vision. The Jews of that-time must have watched these events with absorbed interest. 

Daniel 11: 7. But out of a shoot from her roots shall one stand up in his place, who shall come unto the army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail.

This is applied to a war of revenge which was carried on by the brother of Berenice, Ptolemy Euergetes. Some have objected to the expression here used, out of a shoot from her roots shall one stand up. These persons think that such an expression ought to indicate rather a son than a brother. Bevan and other critics would have the passage read, “an offshoot of the roots from whence Berenice had sprung,” making “her roots” mean “her parents.” This may not be the usual meaning of the term, though it may be the meaning here. At any rate, when Euergetes succeeded to the throne, he raised a large army and invaded the countries of his sister’s slayers. He succeeded so well that when he finally felt obliged to return to Egypt on account of an insurrection he brought a large amount of booty, as is specified in the next verse. By this

expedition he conquered Syria and a large part of the upper Euphrates Valley, and also Seleucia, on the coast of the Mediterranean, which is the fortress here mentioned. This city remained for a long time in the hands of the Egyptians. In all these various ways he fulfilled the prediction that thus he would prevail.

Daniel 11:8. And also their gods, with their molten images, and with their goodly vessels of silver and of gold, shall he carry captive into Egypt; and he shall refrain some years from the king of the north.

Daniel 11:9. And he shall come into the realm of the king of the south, but he shall return into his own land.

Among the booty brought into Egypt by Ptolemy from this expedition was about forty thousand talents of silver and costly vessels, besides many images of various gods, including a large number of Egyptian deities which Cambyses had carried away into Syria some 280 years before. Because of the latter feat, the people of Egypt bestowed upon him the title of “Euergetes,” or  Benefactor. Thereafter he did refrain some years from the king of the north. But the ninth verse would seem to shift the subject back to the king of the north, for when Seleucus Callinicus had re-established his power in Asia (242 BC), he made an expedition into Egypt, but was unable to accomplish anything, and was obliged to return into his own land.

Up to a few years ago we were dependent upon scattered references in the classical historians for our knowledge of these events; but an inscription has been discovered which gives in considerable detail the large areas of Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Media, and Persia which were overrun by Ptolemy Euergetes.

Also at Tanis in the delta of Egypt has been discovered a decree of the Egyptian priests issued in 239 BC in honor of Euergetes, and mentioning the fact that he had brought back home large numbers of the sacred images which had been carried off by Cambyses. Thus the facts spoken of in this verse have now been confirmed by these recent archaeological discoveries.

Daniel 11:10. And his sons shall war, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come on, and overflow, and pass through; and they shall return and war, even to his fortress.

We are still on ground where all commentators are agreed. This and the verses immediately following refer to the times of Antiochus III, surnamed Magnus, or the Great, who became the father of the notorious Antiochus Epiphanes. He gained the throne in 223 BC, having been preceded by an older brother who had a short and insignificant reign. This, it will be noted, is exactly one century after the death of Alexander. Antiochus III became king of Syria when only fifteen years of age. At this time the king of Egypt, Ptolemy Euergetes, died, and was succeeded by a worthless fellow, Ptolemy IV, who gave himself

largely to dissipation. In the fifth year of his reign, or in 218, Antiochus declared war against Egypt, and in a brilliant campaign took possession of Seleucia, on the Orontes, following which the Syrian armies swept, like an

overwhelming flood, over Phoenicia and Judea, taking Tyre and other chief cities. After an armistice which lasted only until the next spring, the two countries were again at war; but this time the king of Egypt defeated Antiochus at the battle of Raphia, 217 BC, and Judea and Coele-Syria again changed hands, falling back into the hands of Egypt. This campaign is probably what is described in the next verse.

Daniel 11:11. And the king of the south shall be moved with anger, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north; and he shall set forth a great multitude, and the multitude shall he given into his hand.

As remarked above, this undoubtedly refers to the campaign of 217, ending with the battle of Raphia, where Antiochus lost some 10,000 on the battlefield, besides 4,000 who were taken prisoners.

Daniel 11:12. And the multitude shall be lifted up [margin, “he carried away”], and his heart shall be exalted; and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail. 

This is merely a continuation of the events already spoken of. Ptolemy was more desirous of getting back to his debaucheries in Egypt than of following up his victories. So he made peace with Syria; and after entering Jerusalem in triumph, where he was angered by being forbidden to enter the holy of

holies in the temple, he returned to Egypt, where after some twelve years more of dissipation he died, though not until he had carried on a severe persecution of the many thousands of Jews then residing in Alexandria. 

In the meantime, or during these twelve years of a breathing space, Antiochus had greatly strengthened himself by successful wars against the Parthians and other nations to the north and east. He even marched clear to India, where he secured another supply of elephants for another war against Egypt, as is described in the next verse.

Daniel 11:13. And the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former; and he shall come on at the end of the times, even of years, with a great army and with much substance.

The ruler of Egypt was but a child, and Antiochus thought he should have an easy victory. He was also joined by the powerful Philip V of Macedon and by influential parties among the Jews. Thus we can see the appropriateness of the first clause of the next verse. 

Daniel 11:14. And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the children of the violent among thy people shall lift themselves up to establish the vision; but they shall fall.

As was stated above, many of the surrounding peoples thought it a good time to combine against Egypt, for the king was a mere child. The guardian of the young king was inefficient and unpopular, which gave rise to seditions and dangerous revolts.

For the first time in this chapter we meet with a statement regarding which commentators are not agreed, and concerning which they differ widely in their application. The phrase here rendered the children of the violent among thy people is by some applied to a set of unprincipled Jews who became known as

“the sons of Tobias,” and who took the side of Antiochus in the wrangle between the rival interests of Syria and Egypt, while most of the men of Jerusalem took the other side, or wished to retain a position of neutrality. The latter position was clearly impossible, while leaving either side for the other was only a change of masters, and whichever side gained in these perpetual wars, the poor Jews were sure to lose.

Some of the Jewish commentators of the period just before the time of Christ, also some of the early church fathers, applied this passage to this faction of the Jews mentioned. They also sought to apply all the rest of this chapter to those times of distress to the Jewish nation, culminating in the savagery and persecutions of the years following under Antiochus Epiphanes.

Other students of prophecy, especially some in modern times, think that we are here being pointed to the rising power of the Romans, who about this time certainly did come into connection with the Jewish nation. The Roman power certainly is brought to view in the twenty-second verse, for Rome and no other was the power which overwhelmed and broke “the Prince of the covenant,” an expression which can mean only Christ. But if the children of the violent among thy people refers to the Romans, the statements in this verse about them must be regarded as a mere introductory summary of their career, for the larger part of the remainder of the chapter deals with the Roman power in its two phases.

After taking all things into consideration, it seems better to apply this expression to some faction among the Jewish people, who were seeking to do evil that good might come, a form of action which has been all too common among the nominal people of God all down the ages. At a much later period we have an outstanding example of a fanatical party who lifted themselves

up to establish the vision. From about AD 6 down until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, the political party known to history as the Zealots were in almost continual revolt against the Romans, seeking to establish a Jewish theocracy over the entire world, and appealing to a twisted interpretation of the prophecies of the Old Testament, those of Daniel among the rest, to justify all they did. Josephus assigns them as among the chief causes of the complete destruction of the city of Jerusalem under the Romans. Quite likely-although our historical data are scanty-some similar fanatical faction is referred to in the verse here under consideration.

To be continued - God Willing :)