Chapter 11

1 The overthrow of Persia by the king of Grecia. 5 Leagues and conflicts between the kings of the south and of the north. 30 The invasion and tyranny of the Romans.

1. Also I. This verse is a continuation of the angel’s statement in ch. 10:21. The chapter division at this point is unfortunate. It gives the false impression that a new part of the book begins here, when the narrative is clearly continuous. Gabriel informs Daniel that Darius the Mede had been honored of Heaven (see PK 556). The vision was given in the third year of Cyrus (ch. 10:1). The angel is telling Daniel of an event that took place in the first year of Darius. In that year Darius the Mede had been honored of Heaven by a visit of the angel Gabriel “to confirm and to strengthen him” (PK 556).

2. The truth. The substance of the fourth great revelation in Daniel begins with this verse. All that precedes, from chs. 10:1 to 11:1, is background and introduction.

Three kings in Persia. Inasmuch as this vision was given to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus (ch. 10:1), the reference is doubtless to the three kings who followed Cyrus on the throne of Persia. These were: Cambyses (530–522 b.c.), the False Smerdis (Gaumata, whose Babylonian name was Bardiya; see Vol. III, pp. 348, 349), a usurper (522 b.c.), Darius I (522–486 b.c.).

The fourth. Commentators generally agree that the context points to Xerxes as “the fourth” king, but differ as to the enumeration of the various kings referred to in this verse. Some hold that “the fourth” king, thus designated, was actually the last of the three who were yet to “stand up.” They reckon Cyrus as the first of the four, and omit the False Smerdis, because he was not of the legitimate line and held the throne but a few months. Others omit Cyrus as the first of the four and include the False Smerdis as one of the three that were to follow him. Either way, Xerxes is “the fourth.” However, the second of the two views seems to represent more nearly the natural sense of the text.

Far richer. Xerxes is to be identified with the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther (see Vol. III, p. 459; see also on Esther 1:1). Of him it is recorded that he was particularly proud of “the riches of his glorious kingdom” (see Esther 1:4, 6, 7). Herodotus, who wrote at length of Xerxes, leaves a vivid, detailed account of his military might (vii. 20, 21, 40, 41, 61–80).

Stir up all. This passage may be translated in two different ways. It has usually been taken, as in the KJV, to mean that Xerxes would stir up the nations of the world against Greece. That this occurred is a well-known fact of history. By the time of Xerxes, the Greek peninsula remained the only important area in the eastern Mediterranean not under Persian domination. In 490 b.c., Darius the Great, predecessor of Xerxes, while attempting to subdue the Greeks, had been stopped at Marathon. With the accession of Xerxes, new plans on a lavish scale were laid for the conquest of Greece. Herodotus (vii. 61–80) enumerates over 40 nations that furnished troops for Xerxes’ army. Included in the vast army were soldiers from such widely separated lands as India, Ethiopia, Arabia, and Armenia. Even the Carthaginians seem to have been induced to join in the assault by attacking the Greek colony of Syracuse in Sicily.

By 480 b.c., the Greeks had the vast Persian Empire in arms against them. The Greek city-states, so often at war with one another, rallied to save their freedom. At first they suffered a series of setbacks. They were defeated at Thermopylae, and Athens was taken and partially burned by the Persians. Then the tide turned. The Greek navy, under Themistocles, found itself bottled up by superior Persian squadrons in the Bay of Salamis, on the coast of Attica not far from Athens. Soon after battle was joined it became evident that the Persian ships were in too tight formation for effective maneuvering. Under persistent Greek onslaughts many were sunk, and only a fraction of the navy escaped. With this Greek victory the Persian sea forces were eliminated from the struggle for Greece. The following year, 479 b.c., the Greeks decisively defeated the troops of Persia at Plataea and drove them forever from Greek soil.

The reading of this text as it appears in the KJV strikingly fits the fact that Xerxes did “stir up all against the realm of Grecia.” But it is possible to translate the somewhat obscure Hebrew of this passage differently. The problem is whether the Heb. Хeth, here translated “against,” is to be understood as a preposition meaning “against,” or as a sign of the direct object of the verb. It is a fact that with certain other verbs denoting strife and warfare Хeth is sometimes so used (see Gen. 14:2). But it is also a fact that the verb here translated “stir up” occurs 12 other times in the OT followed by Хeth, in every one of which passages the context clearly indicates that Хeth is to be taken as the sign of the direct object. If Хeth is so taken here, the passage reads: “He shall rouse all the realm of Greece.”

If this latter translation of the passage be preferred, the following interpretation is reasonable: From the long-range viewpoint of world history, the war between Persia and the Greeks constitutes one of the great historical epochs. The subsequent history of Europe, and of the world, might well have been much different had the decision at Salamis and Plataea been otherwise. Western civilization, then confined almost entirely to its homeland of Greece, succeeded in saving itself from being engulfed by Oriental despotism. The Greek states came to feel a sense of unity they had not previously known. The victory at Salamis proved to Athens the importance of sea power, and soon the city established itself as the head of a maritime empire. Viewed in this light, the last sentence of Dan. 11:2 forms an appropriate setting for ch. 11:3.

Grecia. Heb. Yawan, transliterated “Javan” in Gen. 10:2 (see comments there). The Greeks, or Ionians, were descendants of Javan. See on Dan. 2:39.

3. A mighty king. Heb. melek gibbor, “a valiant [warrior] king.” This clearly refers to Alexander the Great (336–323 b.c.).

Great dominion. Alexander’s dominion extended from Macedonia and Greece to northwestern India, from Egypt to the Jaxartes River east of the Caspian Sea—the largest empire the world had yet known (see on ch. 2:39; 7:6).

4. When he shall stand up. Alexander had scarcely reached the pinnacle of his power when he was cut down. In 323 b.c. this king who ruled from the Adriatic to the Indus suddenly fell ill, and 11 days later was dead (see on ch. 7:6).

Shall be broken. Alexander left no one in his immediate family who could be expected to hold together the territories he had won. Some of the leading generals tried, for a number of years, to hold the empire intact in the name of Alexander’s half brother and his posthumous son (both under regents), but in less than 25 years after Alexander’s death, a coalition of four generals had defeated Antigonus, the last aspirant to the control of the whole empire, and Alexander’s territory was divided into four kingdoms (later reduced to three). For this division, see on chs. 7:7; 8:22; see also maps on pp. 824, 825.

The four winds. Representing the four quarters of the compass. The same division is represented by the four heads of the leopard (see on ch. 7:6) and by the four horns of the goat (see on ch. 8:8, 22).

Not to his posterity. Alexander’s posthumous son was called king, but he was killed while still a child, in the struggle between the generals over the actual rule of the empire. Thus there was no descendant of Alexander who ruled.

5. The king of the south. From this point on through much of the chapter, the prophecy focuses on the two kingdoms emerging from Alexander’s empire with which God’s people, the Jews, had most to do. These were Syria, ruled by the Seleucids, and Egypt, ruled by the Ptolemies. From the geographical standpoint of Palestine, the former was north, and the latter, south. The original Greek translation, in fact, has “king of Egypt” for “king of the south”; also v. 8 points to Egypt as king of the south. A similar designation can be demonstrated from historical sources. One of the best known south Arabian inscriptions (Glaser No. 1155) refers to a war between Persia and Egypt and calls the respective kings the Lord of the North and the Lord of the South.

At the point in history referred to in this verse, the king of Egypt was Ptolemy I Soter (also called son of Lagus, 305–283 b.c.), one of Alexander’s best generals, who established the most enduring of all the Hellenistic monarchies.

One of his princes. This evidently applies to Seleucus I Nicator (305–281 b.c.), another of Alexander’s generals, who made himself ruler of most of the Asiatic part of the empire. That he should here be spoken of as “one of his [Ptolemy’s] princes” (Heb. sЊarim, “generals”; see on ch. 10:13) is probably to be understood in the light of his relations with Ptolemy. In 316 b.c., Seleucus was driven from Babylonia, which he had held since 321, by his rival Antigonus (see on ch. 7:6). Thereupon Seleucus placed himself under the command of Ptolemy, whom he assisted in defeating Demetrius, son of Antigonus, at Gaza in 312 b.c. Shortly after this, Seleucus succeeded in regaining his territories in Mesopotamia.

Strong above him. That is, Seleucus, who at one time could be considered one of Ptolemy’s “princes,” later became stronger than the Egyptian king. When Seleucus died in 281 b.c., his realm extended from the Hellespont to northern India. Arrian, the leading ancient historian for this period, states that Seleucus was “the greatest king of those who succeeded Alexander, and the most royal mind, and ruled over the greatest extent of territory, next to Alexander” (Anabasis of Alexander vii. 22).

6. End of years. The prophetic view next focuses on a crisis about 35 years after the death of Seleucus I.

Join themselves. To solidify peace between the two kingdoms after a long and costly war, Antiochus II Theos (261–246 b.c.), grandson of Seleucus I, married Berenice, a daughter of the Egyptian king, Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Antiochus also deposed his former wife and sister, Laodice, from her position of priority and debarred her children from succession to the throne.

King of the north. This term is used here for the first time in this prophecy. In the present context it refers to the Seleucids, whose territories were north of Palestine. The then “king of the north” was Seleucus II Callinicus (246–226 b.c.), son of Antiochus II and Laodice. On the expressions “king of the north” and “king of the south” see on v. 5 and on Isa. 41:25.

Shall not retain the power. After a son had been born to the new marriage, a reconciliation was effected between Antiochus and Laodice.

Neither shall he stand. Antiochus died suddenly, poisoned, according to popular opinion, by Laodice.

His arm. This is also the reading of the LXX. By a simple change in Hebrew vowels several ancient versions (Theodotion, Symmachus, Vulgate) read “his seed.” This would then refer to Antiochus’ son by Berenice, whom Laodice killed.

Given up. That is, Berenice, who along with her infant son was killed by the henchmen of Laodice.

They that brought her. Many of Berenice’s Egyptian ladies in waiting perished with her.

He that begat her. Heb. yoledah, correctly, according to Masoretic tradition, “her begetter.” This would of course apply to Berenice’s father, Ptolemy II, who had died shortly before in Egypt. It is not clear, however, why his death should be mentioned here, as it was entirely apart from the vengeance wreaked by Laodice. Several ancient translations read yaldah, “maid,” doubtless having in mind Berenice’s entourage. A simple change in vowel pointing permits us to read “her child” (see RSV). This would, of course, refer to her son, who was killed by command of Laodice.

He that strengthened her. Probably Antiochus, Berenice’s husband.

7. A branch of her roots. Ptolemy III Euergetes, son of Ptolemy II and brother of Berenice, succeeded his father in 246 b.c., and invaded Syria in revenge for his sister’s murder.

Shall prevail. Ptolemy III seems to have been entirely victorious in his campaign against Seleucus II. He pressed his conquests inland at least as far as Mesopotamia—though he boasted of having penetrated to Bactria—and he established Egyptian sea power on the Mediterranean.

8. Egypt. This sole occurrence (until v. 42) of the actual name of the country of “the king of the south” establishes beyond doubt the identity of that land.

Their gods. The Decree of Canopus (239/238 b.c.) states in praise of Ptolemy III: “‘And the sacred images carried off from the land by the Persians, the king having made a foreign campaign, recovered into Egypt, and restored to the temples from which each of them had been carried away’” (translation in J. P. Mahaffy, A History of Egypt Under the Ptolemaic Dynasty [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899], p. 113). Jerome (Commentariorum in Danielem Liber, ch. XI, in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 25, col. 561) states that Ptolemy III brought back immense booty to Egypt.

He shall continue. Literally, “he shall stand,” that is, “he shall refrain from attacking the king of the north” (RSV). Although it is possible to translate the Hebrew as does the KJV, the fact that Ptolemy III died in 222 b.c., not two years after Seleucus III, would seem to make such a rendering not very meaningful. On the other hand, since in his latter years Ptolemy was not engaged in warfare of any importance, the alternative translation of the Hebrew seems more reasonable.

9. King of the south. The Hebrew here may be understood either as in the KJV, where “king of the south” is taken as the subject of the sentence (so also Vulgate, Syriac), or as in the LXX, Theodotion, ASV, and RSV, where “king of the south” is attached to “kingdom.” The latter versions support the reading, “He will come into the kingdom of the king of the south.” This translation seems preferable because it follows more naturally the Hebrew word order; it does not necessitate the insertion of the word “his” before kingdom, and it makes the verse more meaningful and less redundant. If this translation is accepted, the verse is doubtless to be interpreted as a reference to the fact that after Ptolemy III had returned to Egypt, Seleucus re-established his authority and marched against that country, hoping to retrieve his riches and regain his prestige.

Return into his own land. Seleucus was defeated and forced to return to Syria empty-handed (about 240 b.c.).

10. His sons. That is, the two sons of Seleucus II, Seleucus III Ceraunus Soter (226/225–223/222 b.c.), who was murdered after a short reign, and Antiochus III, the Great (223/222–188/187 b.c.).

Overflow, and pass through. In 219 b.c., Antiochus III initiated his campaign for southern Syria and Palestine by retaking Seleucia, the port of Antioch. Thereafter he set out upon a systematic campaign to conquer Palestine from his rival, Ptolemy IV Philopator (222–204 b.c.), during which he penetrated Transjordan.

11. Moved with choler. For the meaning of the expression see on ch. 8:7. In 217 b.c., Ptolemy IV met Antiochus at Raphia near the Palestine-Egyptian border.

He. The antecedents of the various pronouns in this verse become clearer when it is recognized that the passage is in the form of a Hebrew inverted parallelism in which the first and fourth elements, and the second and third, are in parallel. Thus in this verse the references are as follows: King of the south, king of the north, he (king of the north), his (king of the south). See Vol. III, p. 27.

A great multitude. Polybius, the leading ancient historian for this period, states that Antiochus’ army numbered 62,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry, and 102 elephants (Histories v. 79). Ptolemy’s troops seem to have been of about the same number. Compare the reference to “ten thousands” in v. 12.

Given into his hand. The Battle of Raphia (217 b.c.), between Antiochus III and Ptolemy IV, resulted in a stinging defeat for the former, who is reported to have lost 10,000 infantry and 300 cavalry, plus 4,000 prisoners.

12. He. That is, Ptolemy IV.

Not be strengthened. Indolent and dissolute, Ptolemy failed to make the best of his victory at Raphia. In the meantime, during the years 212–204 b.c. Antiochus III turned his energies to recovering his eastern territories, and campaigned successfully as far as the border of India. Ptolemy IV’s death (205? b.c.) was concealed for some time; then a son, aged four or five, succeeded him as Ptolemy V Epiphanes (204–180 b.c.).

13. Shall return. The accession of the child Ptolemy V presented Antiochus III with the opportunity of avenging himself upon the Egyptians. In 201 b.c. he invaded Palestine again.

After certain years. Literally, “at the end of times, years.” The reference is probably to the period of some 16 years (217–201 b.c.) between the Battle of Raphia (see on v. 11) and Antiochus’ second campaign against the south.

14. In those times. Beginning with this verse, interpretations of the remainder of the chapter differ widely. One group of commentators considers that vs. 14–45 continue to narrate the subsequent history of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kings. Others hold the view that with v. 14 the next great world empire, Rome, enters the scene, and that vs. 14–35 sketch the course of that empire and of the Christian church.

Here or at some point later in the chapter many commentators find reference to Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), who ruled from 175 to 164/163 b.c., and to the national crisis that his policy of Hellenization brought upon the Jews. It is, of course, an undeniable historical fact that the attempt of Antiochus to force the Jews to give up their national religion and culture, and to adopt in its place the religion, culture, and language of the Greeks, is the most significant event in Jewish history during the entire intertestament period.

The threat posed by Antiochus Epiphanes confronted the Jews with a crisis comparable to the crises precipitated by Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Haman, and Titus. During his brief reign of 12 years Antiochus very nearly exterminated the religion and culture of the Jews. He stripped the sanctuary of all its treasures, plundered Jerusalem, left the city and its walls in ruins, slew thousands of Jews, and carried others into exile as slaves. A royal edict commanded them to abandon all rites of their own religion and to live as heathen. They were forced to erect pagan altars in every Judean town, to offer swine’s flesh upon them, and to surrender every copy of their Scriptures to be torn up and burned. Antiochus offered swine before a pagan idol set up in the Jewish Temple. His suspension of the Jewish sacrifices (either 168–165 or 167–164 b.c., by two methods of reckoning the Seleucid Era; see Vol. V. p. 25n) endangered the survival of the Jewish religion and the identity of the Jews as a people.

Eventually the Jews rose in revolt and drove the forces of Antiochus from Judea. They even succeeded in repelling an army sent by Antiochus for the specific purpose of exterminating them as a nation. Free once more from his oppressive hand, they restored the Temple, set up a new altar, and again offered sacrifice (1 Macc. 4:36–54). Entering into an alliance with Rome a few years later (161 b.c.), the Jews enjoyed nearly a century of comparative independence and prosperity under Roman protection, until Judea became a Roman ethnarchy in 63 b.c. Those who hold that Antiochus Epiphanes is mentioned in vs. 14, 15 see the “robbers” as those Jews who turned traitors to their own countrymen and assisted Antiochus in the execution of his cruel and blasphemous decrees and policies. For a detailed account of the bitter experiences of the Jews during this evil time, see 1 Macc. 1 and 2; Josephus Antiquities xii. 6, 7; Wars i. 1.

It is possible that the crisis occasioned by the policies of Antiochus Epiphanes is referred to in ch. 11, though there is considerable difference of opinion as to which part of the prophecy takes notice of him. To recognize that the activities of Antiochus Epiphanes are referred to in ch. 11 does not require that he be considered the subject of prophecy in chs. 7 or 8, any more than the mention of other Seleucid kings requires that they be considered the subject of prophecy in those chapters.

The robbers of thy people. Literally, “the sons of the breakers of thy people.” This expression may be understood subjectively, “the children of the violent among thy people” (ASV; cf. RSV). Thus understood, it probably applies to those among the Jews who saw in the international strife of their times an opportunity to further their own national interests, and were willing to go beyond the bounds of law to accomplish them. On the other hand, if understood objectively, the passage would mean, “those who act violently against thy people.” In this sense it has been taken as referring to the Romans, who eventually (63 b.c.) robbed the Jews of their independence, and later (in a.d. 70 and 135) destroyed the Temple and the city of Jerusalem. It was, in fact, during the reign of Antiochus III (see on vs. 10–13) that the Romans, interfering to protect the interests of their allies, Pergamum, Rhodes, Athens, and Egypt, first made themselves felt in the affairs of Syria and Egypt.

15. King of the north. Following the parenthetical remarks of v. 14, this verse continues the narrative begun in v. 13 concerning Antiochus’ second campaign in Palestine.

Mount. Heb. solelah, “a mound,” that is, “siegeworks.”

The most fenced cities. Heb. Фir mibs\aroth, literally, “a city of fortifications.” The reference is possibly to Gaza, which fell to Antiochus III in 201 b.c., after a considerable siege. Some commentators understand this passage to refer to Sidon, where Antiochus cornered an Egyptian army in this same war, and after a siege forced the Egyptians to surrender.

Arms. A symbol of strength (see vs. 22, 31).

16. Glorious land. That is, Palestine (see on ch. 8:9). According to the view that the Romans are introduced in v. 14, the conquest of Palestine here described is believed to be that of Pompey, who, in 63 b.c., intervened in a dispute between the two brothers, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, rivals to the throne of Judea. The defenders shut themselves behind the Temple defenses and for three months held out against the Romans. It was on this occasion that, according to Josephus (Antiquities xiv. 4. 4), Pompey lifted the veil and gazed upon the holy of holies, now empty, of course, for the ark had been hidden since the Exile (see on Jer. 37:10).

17. Upright ones. Heb. yesharim. The meaning of the Hebrew of this passage is obscure. The phrase reads literally, “and upright [ones] with him and he shall make.” One attempt at the meaning is that which appears in the KJV. Other versions take yesharim as equivalent to mesharim, “uprightnesses,” or “equities.” Mesharim is used in v. 6 of an equitable agreement between the king of the north and the king of the south. If mesharim is the correct reading there may be a possible reference to the fact that when Ptolemy XI Auletes died in 51 b.c., he placed his two children, Cleopatra and Ptolemy XII, under the guardianship of Rome.

The daughter of women. An unusual expression, possibly emphasizing the femininity of the woman referred to. Some have applied this expression to Cleopatra, the daughter of Ptolemy XI. She was placed under Roman guardianship in 51 b.c., and three years later became the mistress of Julius Caesar, who had invaded Egypt. After Julius Caesar was assassinated, Cleopatra turned her affections to Mark Antony, the rival of Caesar’s heir, Octavian. Octavian (later Augustus) defeated the combined forces of Cleopatra and Antony at Actium (31 b.c.). The next year Antony’s suicide (said by some to have been engineered by Cleopatra) opened the way for the new victor. Then Cleopatra, finding that she could not ingratiate herself with Octavian, committed suicide.

With Cleopatra the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt ended, and from 30 b.c. onward Egypt was a province of the Roman Empire. Cleopatra’s devious career fits well the specifications of the final clause of this verse, for Cleopatra did not stand for Caesar, but for her own political interests.

18. The isles. Heb. Хiyyim, “sea lands,” or “sea coasts.” War in other parts of the empire drew Julius Caesar from Egypt. The party of Pompey was soon defeated on the coastlands of Africa. In Syria and Asia Minor, Caesar was successful against Pharnaces, king of the Cimmerian Bosporus.

A prince. Heb. qas\in, a man in authority generally, as in Isa. 1:10, or more specifically a military commander, as in Joshua 10:24.

Without. The Hebrew of the last sentence of this verse is obscure. The following translation probably reflects the sense of this passage: “Indeed he shall turn his insolence back upon him” (RSV).

19. Stumble and fall. In 44 b.c., Julius Caesar was assassinated in Rome.

20. A raiser of taxes. Heb. maФabir nogesЊ, literally, “one who causes an oppressor to pass through.” The participle nogesЊ, from the verb nagas\, “to oppress,” “to exact,” is used of Israel’s taskmasters in Egypt (Ex. 3:7) and of foreign oppressors (Isa. 9:4). The passage thus refers to a king who would send oppressors, or exactors, throughout his realm. Most commentators have understood the reference here to be to a taxgatherer, who to the average man in ancient times was the very embodiment of royal oppression. Luke 2:1 records that “it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed [literally, “enrolled,” or “registered,” see on Luke 2:1].” Augustus, who succeeded Julius Caesar, is regarded as having established the Roman Empire, and after a reign of more than 40 years died peacefully in his bed in a.d. 14.

21. A vile person. That is, one lightly esteemed or despised. Augustus was succeeded by Tiberius (a.d. 14–37). Certain historians maintain that there was a deliberate attempt by Suetonius, Seneca, and Tacitus to blacken the character of Tiberius. Doubtless the picture was overdrawn. Nevertheless sufficient factual evidence remains to show that Tiberius was an eccentric, misunderstood, and unloved person.

They shall not give. Literally, “they did not give.” The Hebrew is better translated in the past tense. The reference is probably to the fact that Tiberius was not originally in line for succession to the throne, but became the son of Augustus by adoption, and was appointed heir to the empire only when he had reached middle life.

Peaceably. When Augustus died, Tiberius ascended the throne peacefully. He was only the stepson of his predecessor, and his accession to the imperial dignity was to a considerable extent due to the maneuverings of his mother, Livia.

22. Arms of a flood. “Arms” denotes power, and here, particularly, military power (see vs. 6, 15). The picture is evidently that of floodlike armies of soldiers (see ch. 9:26). Tiberius was eminently successful in leading several military campaigns, both in Germany and in the East on the frontiers of Armenia and Parthia.

Prince of the covenant. Identical with the Prince who confirms the covenant in ch. 9:25–27 (see ch. 8:11). That this was the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is clear from the prophecy of ch. 9. It was when Tiberius reigned (a.d. 14–37), and upon the order of his procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate, that Jesus was crucified, in the year a.d. 31.

23. After the league. Some commentators have suggested that here Daniel goes back in point of time to the league of assistance and friendship arranged between the Jews and the Romans in 161 b.c. (see Josephus Antiquities xii. 10. 6). This view assumes that the Hebrew expression translated “time” in v. 24 designates a prophetic “time” of 360 years (see on chs. 7:25; 11:24). Others, who hold to the chronological continuity of the prophetic narrative of ch. 11, find a reference here to the Roman policy of arranging what today would be called mutual assistance pacts, as, for example, the league of assistance and friendship with the Jews. In these treaties the Romans recognized the participants as “allies,” and the treaties were intended, presumably, to protect and promote mutual interests. Rome thus appeared in the role of friend and protector, only to “work deceitfully” by turning these agreements to her own advantage. She often imposed the burdens of conquest on her “allies,” but usually reserved the rewards of conquest for herself. Eventually these “allies” were absorbed into the Roman Empire.

24. For a time. Heb. ФadРФeth, “until a time.” This expression points to a [point of] time when the devices of the power here set forth were brought to an end. The word Фeth, “time,” is here probably not to be taken as a specific period of time, nor as a period of prophetic time. The word translated “times” in chs. 4:16; 7:25 is the Aramaic Фiddanin, and in ch. 12:7 the Heb. moФadim. ФAdРФeth seems to point to a time at an undetermined distance from the speaker. The evil power was to work until that God-ordained limit was reached (see ch. 11:27; cf. ch. 12:1).

Those who believe that prophetic time is here indicated see in the events narrated a reference to the period of time that the city of Rome would continue as the seat of the empire. The beginning date is considered to be 31 b.c., the year of the Battle of Actium, when Augustus waged a successful campaign against Mark Antony and Cleopatra. From 31 b.c., 360 years reach to a.d. 330, the year that the seat of the empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople.

Some see in the statement of this verse a prediction of Roman policy toward the conquered regions of the empire. History records that the plunder of conquest was distributed generously among the nobility and army commanders, and that it was common practice for even the ordinary soldier to receive a grant of land in conquered regions. “For a time”—a considerable period of time, in fact—no “strong holds” were able to withstand the determined pressure of the invincible legions of Rome.

25. Stir up his power. According to one exposition referred to previously (see on v. 24), this verse refers to the struggle between Augustus and Antony, which culminated in the Battle of Actium, and the defeat of Antony.

26. They that feed. Some see a reference in this phrase to royal favorites. From the days of the early Caesars, palace intrigue marks the rise and fall of the emperors of Rome. In later years, particularly, when one army officer after another succeeded to the throne of the Caesars, often each at the price of the head of his predecessor, the prediction that royal favorites would rise and “destroy” those who had befriended them and that “many” would “fall down slain” as a result, met a singularly apt fulfillment. In the ancient Orient those who ate food provided by another person were expected to remain loyal to him.

Overflow. The Syriac and the Vulgate read, “be washed,” or “be swept away” (see RSV). According to the exposition referred to above (v. 24), this verse describes the fate of Antony. When Cleopatra, frightened by the din of battle, withdrew from Actium, taking with her the 60 ships supplied by the Egyptian navy, Antony followed her and thereby conceded the victory to Augustus. Antony’s supporters went over to Augustus. Finally Antony committed suicide. According to those who emphasize the chronological continuity of the chapter (see on v. 23), the unstable political situation that plagued the empire between the reigns of Nero and Diocletian is here foretold.

27. To do mischief. Some see in this phrase a reference to the intrigues of Octavian (later Augustus) and Antony, both of them aspirants to universal control. Others see a reference to the struggle for power during the closing years of the reign of Diocletian (284–305) and during the years between the death of Diocletian and the time that Constantine the Great (306–337) succeeded in reuniting the empire (323 or 324).

Time appointed. Evil men and their machinations can last only as long as God suffers them to continue. The true philosophy of history is demonstrated throughout the book of Daniel. God “doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand” (ch. 4:35).

28. Then shall he return. Some expositors see in this prediction a reference to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in a.d. 70. Others, who hold to the chronological continuity of the prophetic narrative (see on v. 23), see a further description of the work of Constantine the Great.

Against the holy covenant. Christ is spoken of as “prince of the covenant” (v. 22), and it is He who was to “confirm the covenant with many for one week” (ch. 9:27). That covenant is the plan of salvation, laid in eternity and confirmed by the historic act of Christ’s death. It seems reasonable, then, to understand the power here referred to as one which at heart would be in opposition to that plan, and to its outworking in the souls and lives of men. Some see specific reference here to the invasion of Judea by the Romans and to the capture and destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. Others suggest that Constantine is the subject of the prediction. They observe that although Constantine professed conversion to the Christian faith, he was actually “against the holy covenant,” his objective being to make use of Christianity as an instrument for uniting the empire and solidifying his control over it. He extended great favors to the church, but in return expected the church to support his political policies.

29. It shall not be. According to the interpretation that the career of Constantine is here delineated, the following is suggested: In spite of all Constantine’s attempts to revive the former glory and power of the Roman Empire, his efforts at best met with only partial success.

The former. The passage may be translated, “it shall not be as the former [time], so the latter.” Some believe the reference here is to the removal of the seat of the empire to Constantinople. This removal has been designated the signal of the downfall of the empire.

30. Chittim. The name Chittim, or Kittim, appears several times in the OT and later ancient Jewish writings, and is used in an interesting variety of ways. In Gen. 10:4 (see comments there; cf. 1 Chron. 1:7), Kittim is listed as a son of Javan and grandson of Japheth. The area occupied by Kittim’s descendants was probably Cyprus. The principal Phoenician city of Cyprus, on the southeast coast, was known in Phoenician as Kt, in Greek as Kition, and in Latin as Citium. Balaam makes the statement in his prophecy (Num. 24:24) that “ships shall come from the coast [direction] of Chittim, and shall afflict Asshur.” Some have applied this prediction to the overthrow of Persia in Mesopotamia by Alexander the Great, who came from the coastlands of the Mediterranean (see on Num. 24:24). The “isles of Chittim” of Jer. 2:10 and Eze. 27:6 apparently refer also to the Mediterranean coastlands.

In Jewish literature outside the Bible the term appears in 1 Macc. 1:1 as descriptive of Macedonia. In addition, two of the Dead Sea scrolls contain the name. The forms ktyy Хshwr, “Kittim of Ashur” (Assyria), and hktyym bms\rym, “the Kittim in Egypt,” appear in The War Between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. The designations may, perhaps, refer to the Seleucids and the Ptolemies—the kings of the north and south. The geographical association of the term Kittim with the Mediterranean coastlands appears to be entirely lost, and Kittim becomes a generalized term for the enemies of the Jews. The Habakkuk Commentary among the Dead Sea scrolls also mentions the Kittim. The author of this work believed that the prophecies of Habakkuk referred to the troubles of the Jews in his own day (probably about the middle of the 1st century b.c.). He interpreted Hab. 1:6–11, where the prophet describes the Chaldeans, as referring to the Kittim, who were despoiling the Jews in his time. In the historical context of that work the term probably means the Romans. See Vol. I, pp. 31–34.

It is interesting in this connection to note that the LXX of Dan. 11:30, translated perhaps in the 2d century b.c., reads “Romans” rather than “Chittim.” It seems clear, therefore, that although the word Kittim originally referred to Cyprus and its inhabitants, it later was extended to include the Mediterranean coastlands to the west of Palestine, and still later it came to apply in general to foreign oppressors, whether they came from the south (Egypt), the north (Syria), or the west (Macedonia and Rome).

In point of time of authorship the book of Daniel lies much nearer to the references in Jeremiah and Ezekiel than to those of post-Biblical origin, which, indeed, probably arose as an extension of Biblical usage. The phraseology of the present verse, however, is clearly reminiscent of Num. 24:24, where the reference is to conquerors from the west (see comments there). Although students of the Bible do not all agree as to the exact historical reference of the “Chittim” in this verse, it seems clear that in interpreting this passage, two thoughts should be kept in mind: first, that in Daniel’s day the word referred, geographically, to the lands and peoples to the west; and second, that the emphasis may already have been in process of shifting from the geographical meaning of the word to the thought of the Chittim as invaders and destroyers from any quarter.

Some see in the “ships of Chittim” a reference to the barbarian hordes who invaded and broke up the Western Roman Empire.

Covenant. See on v. 28. Some see in the indignation here described a reference to Rome’s efforts to destroy the holy covenant by the suppression of the Holy Scriptures and the oppression of those who believed in them.

31. Stand. That is, “stand up.”

On his part. Heb. mimmennu, “from him.” This word modifies the subject rather than the verb of the clause: “Arms [forces] from him shall stand up”; that is, forces belonging to this power (see under “sanctuary of strength”) would rise up to carry out the work of profanation here described.

Pollute. Heb. chalal, “to profane.” Although the translation “pollute” has the implication of uncleanness, the Hebrew word indicates, rather, that something sacred has been made common. Thus the word is used of profaning a stone altar by using a tool upon it (Ex. 20:25), and of desecrating the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14). It also describes the deeds of those who profaned God’s name by sacrificing children to a heathen god (Lev. 20:3). For comment on this revolting practice, see on Lev. 18:21.

Sanctuary of strength. Literally, “the holy place, the refuge.” The words are in apposition. Some understand them to apply to the city of Rome, the seat of power in the ancient world, and thus “the sanctuary of strength.” Accordingly, the destructive attacks of barbarian powers are foretold.

Others believe that the heavenly sanctuary is the subject under consideration here. The Heb. maФoz, translated “strength,” is from the verb Фazaz, “to be strong,” and is used repeatedly in this chapter (vs. 7, 10, 19, 38, 39), though not uniformly translated.

The earthly sanctuary in Jerusalem was surrounded by fortifications. The heavenly sanctuary, where Christ pleads His blood on behalf of sinners, is the pre-eminent place of refuge. Accordingly, this passage has been understood to describe the action of the great apostate power in Christian history that substituted a false sacrifice and ministration for the true sacrifice of Christ and His ministration as high priest in the heavenly sanctuary.

Daily. See on ch. 8:11.

Abomination that maketh desolate. The work of the papacy is here delineated. This is the first time this expression occurs in the book of Daniel, although similar words appear in the clause “for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate” (ch. 9:27). In the LXX this clause is rendered, “upon the temple abomination of desolations.” Christ’s words concerning the “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15) may be considered as applying particularly to this earlier reference in Dan. 9:27 rather than to Dan. 11:31. Speaking of the impending destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in a.d. 70, Jesus identified the Roman armies surrounding the city as “the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet” (Matt. 24:15; cf. Luke 21:20).

In view of the fact that Dan. 9:27 is part of the angel’s explanation of Dan. 8:11–13, the natural conclusion is that Dan. 8:11–13 is a blended prophecy (similar to that of Matt. 24; see DA 628) that applies both to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by the Romans and to the work of the papacy in the Christian centuries.

It should further be noted that Jesus’ explicit reference to the work of the “abomination of desolation” as yet future in His time makes it certain that Antiochus Epiphanes did not meet the specifications of the prophecy. See further on Dan. 8:25.

32. Covenant. See on v. 28.

He. That is, the papacy.

Flatteries. Heb. chalaqqoth, “smooth, slippery things” (see ch. 8:25). It has ever been Satan’s method to make his way appear easier than God’s. Throughout Christian history God’s own people have clung to the road described by Christ when He said, “Narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life” (Matt. 7:14).

Do exploits. Heb. ФasЊah, “to do,” “to make,” “take action” (RSV). As in v. 28, “exploits” is a supplied word. This passage doubtless refers to those who, within lands under the jurisdiction of Rome and beyond, resisted the papal encroachments and maintained a bright faith as, for example, the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and others.

The true church is distinguished not only in that God’s people react against sin by withstanding temptation, but even more in that they carry forward a positive program of action for Him. Christianity cannot be passive. Every child of God has a commission to perform.

33. Shall instruct many. Christ’s commission, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations” (Matt. 28:19) is as imperative in times of persecution as it is in periods of peace, and often proves more effective at such times.

Fall. During the centuries in which God’s true people were most bitterly persecuted, those fearless enough to stand forth and bear witness to their convictions were made the particular objects of destruction.

Many days. The Hebrew text, the LXX, and Theodotion’s version read simply “days.” There are some Hebrew manuscripts, however, that do contain the word rabbim, “many.” The period referred to is apparently the same as the 1260 days of Dan. 7:25; 12:7 and Rev. 12:6, 14; 13:5; the time during which the power of apostasy most blatantly blasphemed God, exercised its usurped authority, and persecuted those who dissented from its authority (see on Dan. 7:25).

34. A little help. Although in His wisdom God has not always seen fit to deliver His saints from death, every martyr for Him has had the opportunity to know that his life was “hid with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3).

Throughout the bitter days of apostasy and persecution described in Dan. 11:33, God repeatedly sent His sorely pressed people “a little help” in the person of leaders who spoke forth in the darkness, calling for a return to the principles of Scripture. Among such were the Waldensian ministers of the 12th century onward, John Wyclif of England in the 14th century, and John Huss and Jerome of Prague in the 15th century. In the 16th century the tremendous upheaval in the political, economic, social, and religious life of Europe, which in its spiritual phase made possible the Protestant Reformation, opened the way for many more voices to be added to the faithful ones heard during previous generations.

35. Make them white. At times God allows His children to suffer, even to the point of death, that their characters may be purified and made fit for heaven. Even Christ “learned … obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb. 5:8). Compare Rev. 6:11.

Time of the end. Heb. Фeth qes\. This expression occurs elsewhere in chs. 8:17; 11:40; 12:4, 9. In the context of ch. 11:35 Фeth qes\ seems to be definitely related to the 1260 years, as marking the end of that period. When these Scripture passages are compared with DA 234; 5T 9, 10; GC 356, it becomes clear that the year a.d. 1798 marked the beginning of the “time of the end.”

A time appointed. Heb. moФed, from the verb yaФad, “to appoint,” MoФed, a common Hebrew word, was applied to Israel’s appointed meetings with God (Ex. 23:15; see on Lev. 23:2). The word was used both for the time of meeting (Hosea 12:9) and for the place of meeting (Ps. 74:8). In Dan. 11:35 the idea of time is intended. Even more important is the fact that it is an appointed time. “The time of the end” is an appointed time in God’s program of events.

36. The king. Among Adventist expositors two views concerning the interpretation of vs. 36–39 have generally been held. One interpretation identifies the power described here as revolutionary France in the year 1789 and following. The other interpretation holds that the power delineated here is the same apostate, persecuting power described in the preceding verses.

Those who understand “the king” to refer to the power of France during the Revolution emphasize that it must be a new power that is introduced here, because it appears immediately after the mention of the “time of the end” and because, presumably, it must fulfill certain specifications that have not been stated concerning the power depicted in the previous verses, particularly that its willfulness will be manifested in the direction of atheism. It is, of course, a fact of common historical knowledge that the guiding philosophy of the French Revolution was not only anticlerical but atheistic as well, and that this philosophy had far-reaching effects on 19th- and even 20th-century thought. Furthermore, that revolution and its aftermath mark the close of the 1260-year period of prophecy.

Those who believe that “the king” of this verse is the power depicted in v. 32, point to the fact that in the Hebrew the definite article precedes the word “king.” This would seem to imply that the ruler here brought to view has already been referred to. They contend that the reference to “the time of the end” in v. 35 may point forward and does not necessarily indicate that vs. 36–39 are to be put exclusively after the beginning of that time in 1798 (see on v. 35), especially inasmuch as not until v. 40 is an event specifically said to occur “at the time of the end.” They understand the description of the power in vs. 36–39 to indicate, not atheism, but rather an attempt to supplant all other religious power. Those who hold this view also call attention to the parallelism of chs. 2; 7; 8–9. They conclude that ch. 11 may be expected to carry out the same parallel, and that it is concerned with the culmination of the same apostate power depicted in the other prophecies of the book of Daniel.

Magnify himself. According to the view that France is here described, these words are understood to describe the excesses of atheism indulged in by some of the more radical leaders of the Revolution. As an example of this, on Nov. 26, 1793, the Commune, or governing body, of the city of Paris took official action abolishing all religion in the capital of France. Although this action was reversed by the National Assembly a few days later, it nevertheless illustrates the influence to which atheism attained during that period.

Those who understand these verses to apply to the great apostate power of Christian history, consider this passage parallel to Dan. 8:11, 25; 2 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 13:2, 6; 18:7. They see the prediction of the present verse fulfilled in the papal claim that the pope is the vicegerent of Christ on earth, in the power claimed for the priesthood, and in “the power of the keys”—the claimed authority to open and close heaven to men.

Speak marvellous things. According to the view that France is the subject under consideration, this clause refers to the boastful words of the revolutionists who abolished all religion and set up the worship of the Goddess of Reason. When later the worship of the Supreme Being was introduced the reactionaries made clear that he was not to be identified with the God of the Christian religion.

On the fulfillment of this passage according to the view that the papacy is here under consideration see on ch. 7:11, 25; cf. 2 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 13:5, 6.

37. Desire of women. Those who believe that France is the power here described see a fulfillment of this passage in the declaration of the revolutionists that marriage was a mere civil contract, that without further formality it could be broken at will by the parties concerned.

Those who believe that the papacy is here described see a possible reference to the regard paid to celibacy and virginity by that power.

Nor regard any god. According to one position the words apply to the atheistic power in revolutionary France that attempted to abolish all religion in that country (see on v. 36). According to the other position the words are to be understood in a comparative sense; that is, the power here portrayed is not atheistic, but considers itself to be a spokesman for God and does not regard God as He should be regarded. It blasphemously seeks to put itself in His place (see 2 Thess. 2:4).

38. In his estate. Heb. ФalРkanno, “in his place,” that is, in place of the true God.

God of forces. Heb. Хeloah maФuzzim. Commentators have varied considerably in their interpretation of this expression. Some regard it as a proper name, “the god Mauzzim.” However, a god by such a name is unknown elsewhere. Inasmuch as maФuzzim seems quite plainly to be the plural of the Heb. maФoz, “refuge,” “fortress,” which appears repeatedly in this chapter (vs. 7, 10, 19, 31), it seems best to understand these words as meaning “the god of fortresses,” or “god of refuges.”

Some interpret this verse as referring to the worship of Reason instituted at Paris in 1793. Realizing the necessity of religion if France was to remain strong to accomplish her aim of spreading the Revolution throughout Europe, some of the leaders in Paris attempted to establish a new religion, with reason personified as a goddess. This was later followed by the worship of a “Supreme Being”—nature deified—who might appropriately be considered as a “god of forces.”

Others understand a reference here to the prayers directed to the saints and to the Virgin Mary; still others, to Rome’s alliance with civil powers and her studied efforts to get the nations to do her bidding.

Pleasant things. Heb. chamudoth, “desirable, precious things.” A similar word from the same root is employed in Isa. 44:9 to describe the costly ornaments with which the heathen decked their images. Some see the fulfillment of this passage in the priceless gifts that have been bestowed upon images of the Virgin and of the saints (see Rev. 17:4; 18:16).

39. Do in the most strong holds. This passage is obscure and has been translated in various ways. The verb here translated “do,” ФasЊah, meaning “to make,” “to do,” “to work,” is without a direct object, but it is followed by two prepositions, le, “to,” or “for,” and Фim, “with.” In Gen. 30:30; 1 Sam. 14:6; and Eze. 29:20 ФasЊah, without an object and followed by le, as here, has the sense, “to work for [someone].” ФAsЊah followed by Фim occurs in 1 Sam. 14:45, with the meaning “work with.” In view of these usages it would seem reasonable to translate the present passage, “And he will work for the strongest refuges (maФuzzim) with a foreign god.” Inasmuch as the Хeloah maФuzzim (v. 38) appears to be parallel with “a god whom his fathers knew not,” it is to be expected that here they are to be closely identified with the “foreign god.”

Some see in this passage a reference to the strategic place atheistic and rationalistic ideas occupied among the leaders of France during the Revolution. Others see here a description of the support the Roman Church has given to the worship of “protectors”—the saints—and to festivals held in various cities around the world in honor of the sacrifice of the mass and the virgin Mary.

Divide the land. Some understand these words to describe the breakup of the great estates of the nobility of France, and to the selling of these estates by the government to small landholders. It has been estimated that two thirds of the landed property of France was confiscated by the government during the Revolution.

Others believe these words met their fulfillment in papal domination over temporal rulers and in frequent receipts of revenue from them. It has been suggested that the division of the New World between Spain and Portugal by Pope Alexander VI, in 1493, may be considered one example of the fulfillment of this passage.

For a historical review of Adventist interpretation of Dan 11:36–39 and an evaluation of present positions see Ministry, March, 1954, pp. 22–27.

40. Time of the end. Here the king of the north and the king of the south are mentioned as such for the first time since vs. 14, 15. Seventh-day Adventist expositors who find the career of France during the Revolution the subject of vs. 36–39 hold that Turkey is the king of the north of vs. 40–45. Those who apply vs. 36–39 to the papacy here find a prophetic picture of the climax of its career. Some of the latter group identify the papacy as the king of the north, while others distinguish between the two. A few consider that vs. 40–45 met their fulfillment in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1922. See on v. 45.

45. Come to his end. Compare similar predictions in the parallel prophecies of ch. 2 vs. (34, 35, 44, 45), ch. 7 vs. (11, 26), chs. 8 and 9 chs. (8:19, 25; 9:27), and elsewhere in Scripture Isa 14:6; 47:11–15; Jer. 50:32; 1 Thess. 5:3; Rev. 18:6–8, 19, 21).

In general, Seventh-day Adventists have held that the fulfillment of v. 45 is yet future. The prudent words spoken by the Advent pioneer James White in 1877 regarding caution in the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy are still good counsel today:

“In exposition of unfulfilled prophecy, where the history is not written, the student should put forth his propositions with not too much positiveness, lest he find himself straying in the field of fancy.

“There are those who think more of future truth than of present truth. They see but little light in the path in which they walk, but think they see great light ahead of them.

“Positions taken upon the Eastern question are based upon prophecies which have not yet met their fulfillment. Here we should tread lightly, and take positions carefully, lest we be found removing the landmarks fully established in the advent movement. It may be said that there is a general agreement upon this subject, and that all eyes are turned toward the war now in progress between Turkey and Russia as the fulfillment of that portion of prophecy which will give great confirmation of faith in the soon loud cry and close of our message. But what will be the result of this positiveness in unfulfilled prophecies should things not come out as very confidently expected, is an anxious question”

(James White, RH Nov. 29, 1877).

Ellen G. White comments

1–459T 14

1 PK 556

35, 40 GC 356