“Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him” (Daniel 11:1).

In this expression the angel alludes to what he had done prior to this to promote the interests of the Hebrew people, in causing the predictions of the Prophets to be fulfilled, especially those of Jeremiah, to restore the Jews to their native country. This could but have the desirable effect of encouraging and strengthening the faith and hope of the aged Prophet of God. It will be recalled that it was in this first year of Darius that Daniel sought Jehovah, through prayer and supplication, to restore His favor again to the chosen people (Chapter Nine).

Considering the words, “I stood to confirm and strengthen him,” in connection with what was transpiring in Jerusalem and at the court of Persia at this time, it will be seen that there was great need that Daniel should have special encouragement given him. Darius was being swayed by evil counselors, enemies of the Jews, from the Divine purpose of showing favor to God’s chosen people, as set forth in the decree of Cyrus (see Ezra 4:12-16). The angel, without the king’s being conscious of it, was exerting an influence toward the fulfilment of the Lord’s purposes for Daniel’s people.

It seems evident from this and other Scriptures that angels delegated by God can and do exert such influences in human affairs. There are times when it becomes necessary for God not only to make the wrath of man to praise Him, but also to restrain and direct men by influences they are not aware of. There is no class of men who desire to do right, who are more liable to be influenced by evil counselors than rulers and legislators; and in the case under consideration, in order to counteract the adverse influences being brought to bear on Darius, God employed both Gabriel and Michael to thwart the purposes of these evil men. On this occasion we learn that the angel having accomplished his part of the Divine mission at the court of Persia — Michael having relieved him — had returned to Daniel; and he informs the Prophet that he had now come to show him the truth.

The memorable future events made known to Daniel in Chapter Eight, in the symbolic vision of the ram and he goat, are in this Chapter Eleven revealed in more detail. The method employed in revealing, however, is changed. Instead of picturing these events in symbolic language, they are plainly declared in literal narrative. The prophecy embraces many important events in the history of certain nations that have come in contact with the Jewish people. It begins with Daniel’s day and reaches to the time when Michael shall “stand up,” which introduces the great time of trouble that ends the present order, or present evil world. It even goes so far as to describe certain individuals who have played important roles in human history. From this it will be seen that the prophecy calls for our particular attention, especially since in its closing utterances it gives a description of some of the important events of the time of the end — the time in which we are now living.

The prophecy begins with a record of events immediately subsequent to the reigns of the Persian kings, Cyrus and Darius. The angel’s first words, “Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia,” show that certain events of the Persian Empire begin the prophecy. The expression, “stand up,” frequently used in the Scriptures, and several times in Daniel, means to rule or reign. It is quite generally agreed that the three kings mentioned in the words of the angel are Cambyses, the son of Cyrus; Smerdes, the impostor, who pretended to be another son of Cyrus; and Darius, the son of Darius Hystaspis, a son-in-law of Cyrus the Great. The angel next mentions a fourth king of Persia; and in order that he might be recognized by the student of Divine prophecy he says of him that he shall be far richer than they all, and that by his strength and through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. There can hardly be any question that the noted Xerxes of history is the one here described. While the angel makes mention of only four kings of Persia, this does not imply that these were the only kings who ruled in Persia; but rather that in accordance with the custom of the predictions, only those who were prominent in the history of the Lord’s people are specially mentioned.

The history covered by these four kings reaches to 481 BC when Xerxes completed his preparations for his invasion of Greece. This expedition is in some of its features considered to be one of the most remarkable events of its kind in ancient history.

“According to Herodotus, the whole number of fighting men, military and naval, amounted to nearly 2,500,000, and the fleet consisted of 1207 ships of war, besides 3000 smaller vessels. These numbers were considerably increased during the march between Doriscus and Thermopylae by the Thracians, Macedonians, Magnesians, and other nations through whose territories Xerxes passed on his way to Greece. Herodotus supposes that the number of camp followers, exclusive of eunuchs and women, would amount to more than that of the fighting men; so that according to him, the number of people assembled on this occasion would be considerably over 6,000,000, a number greater than the entire population of Ireland. Grote, who discredits the immense numbers given by Herodotus, nevertheless says, ‘We may well believe that the numbers of Xerxes were greater than were ever assembled in ancient times, or perhaps in any known epoch of history.’ ”

No mention is made in this verse regarding the outcome of this particular expedition; however history records that it was disastrous to the Persian power. Thus was fulfilled the words of the prophecy, that this Persian king would “stir up all against the realm of Grecia.”

In the description of future events in the Persian Empire the angel passes by the nine kings who reigned during the period of about two centuries subsequent to Xerxes and next says that “a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.” These words doubtless have reference to Alexander the Great. Xerxes, as we have seen, lived two centuries prior to Alexander and was the chief agent more than any other of the Persian kings in causing the long wars, and also the inveterate hatred that existed between the Grecians and the Persians during that period. It would seem also that he was the last king that invaded Greece, and on this account he is the last Persian king mentioned in the prediction. After Xerxes’ failure to conquer Greece, the Grecians turned and invaded the Persian territory, and it would seem that as Xerxes’ expedition was the most noted and memorable one on the Persian side, so Alexander’s was the most noted on the part of the Grecians. The reigns of these two kings, although nearly two centuries apart, are thus not improperly connected in the history of these two powers.

The prophecy thus far brings the history down to about 334 BC. It was because the prediction concerning these two great monarchs and their exploits is so perfectly in accord with history, that Porphyry, the heathen historian in the third century AD, said that the description must have been written after the events had taken place.

Alexander was a mighty king, and his most remarkable exploits occupy a large space in ancient history. His empire was vast in extent. It fell to pieces, however, not very long after his death. Some features of Alexander’s career were considered quite extensively in our exposition of Daniel 7 and 8. In Chapter Eight it is said that the he goat, Grecia, waxed very great, and when he was strong the notable horn, the Alexandrian dynasty, was broken. In the prophecy under consideration this is described in the words, “And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.”

Alexander lived 32 years and 8 months; his reign covered a period of 12 years and 8 months. In the space of about 15 years after his death Alexander’s family and posterity were murdered, leaving none of his name to occupy the throne. History records that this was accomplished chiefly by Cassander, one of Alexander’s generals. In the course of a few years the prediction met its complete fulfilment, and the great empire over which he ruled was divided into four parts. Cassander reigned in Greece, Lysimachus in Thrace, Ptolemy in Egypt, and Seleucus in Syria.

For a considerable space the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria are alone mentioned in the prophecy of the angel. History shows that these two kingdoms were by far the greatest; and that at one time they obtained the mastery of the territory of the other two. First, it is recorded that the kingdom of Macedon was conquered by Lysimachus and annexed to Thrace; and then Lysimachus was conquered by Seleucus, and Macedon and Thrace were annexed to Syria. The two, Syria and Egypt, continued to exist as distinct kingdoms after the territories of the others were swallowed up by the Romans.

The division of Alexander’s empire brings the prophecy down to the events recorded in verse five, which reads, “And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he [one of Alexander’s generals] shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.” There can be no question that the “king of the south” refers to Egypt, which was ruled over by Ptolemy, one of Alexander’s generals; indeed, commentators in general are agreed on this application. The expression “one of his princes,” evidently has reference to one of Alexander’s princes. It is said by the angel that he “shall be strong above him,” that is, above Ptolemy of Egypt. Mr. Barnes has thus explained this Scripture:

“The meaning of this passage is that there would be ‘one of his princes,’ that is, of the princes of Alexander, who would be more mighty than the one who obtained Egypt, or the south, and that he would have a more extended dominion. The reference is, doubtless, to Seleucus Nicator, or the conqueror. In the division of the empire he obtained Syria, Babylonia, Media, Susiana, Armenia, a part of Cappadocia, and Celicia, and his kingdom stretched from the Hellespont to Indus. The proper translation of this passage probably would be, ‘And the king of the south shall be mighty. But from among his princes [the princes of Alexander] also there shall be [one] who shall be mightier than he, and he shall reign, and his dominion shall be a great dominion.’ …

“The angel here leaves the general history of the empire, and confines himself in his predictions, to two parts of it — the kingdom of the south, and the kingdom of the north; or the kingdoms to the north and south of Palestine that of Syria and that of Egypt; or that of the Seleucidae, and that of the Ptolemies. The reason why he does this is not stated, but it is doubtless because the events pertaining to these kingdoms would particularly affect the Jewish people, and be properly connected with sacred prophecy.”

Bishop Newton, quoting Butler, thus comments on these matters:

“But though the kingdom of Alexander was divided into four principal parts, yet only two of them have a place allotted in this prophecy, Egypt and Syria. These two were by far the greatest and most considerable; and these two at one time were in a manner the only remaining kingdoms of the four.”

This writer gives the same reason as Mr. Barnes for the history of these two kingdoms being so particularly mentioned. He says it is “because Judea lying between them was sometimes in the possession of the kings in Egypt, and sometimes of the kings of Syria; and it is the purpose of Holy Scripture to interweave only so much of foreign affairs, as hath some relation to the Jews; and it is in respect of their situation to Judea that the kings of Egypt and Syria are called the kings of the south and the north.” Concerning the comparison of the strength and dominion of these two powers, we learn that the king of the north, or Seleucus Nicator, was “strong above him,” for the reason that having annexed, as we have seen, the kingdoms of Macedon and Thrace to the crown of Syria, he became master of three parts out of four of Alexander’s dominions.

“All historians agree in representing him, not only as the longest liver of Alexander’s successors, but likewise as ‘conqueror of conquerors.’ Appian in particular enumerates the nations which he subdued, and the cities which he built, and affirms that after Alexander he possessed the largest part of Asia; for all was subject to him from Phrygia up to the river Indus, and beyond it; and afterwards he denominates him expressly, ‘the greatest king after Alexander.’ ”

Uriah Smith, the noted Seventh Day Advent expositor, in his work on Daniel and Revelation, follows very closely Bishop Newton on this point; likewise Deane in his work on Daniel. It is our thought that the history of those times favors the interpretation of these writers. The words of the angel concerning Syria and Egypt up to verse 14, describe so perfectly the history of these two powers, that again Porphyry affirmed that the words purported to be those of the angel were written after the events had occurred. As it is very important and indeed necessary to a correct interpretation of certain significant references to history further on in the prophecy of the angel, we will give special attention to the historical events described in the prophecy up to verse 14.

Verse 6 reads, “And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement but she shall not retain the power of the 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 these times.” It is evident from these words that in the course of time the king of the north, Syria, and the king of the south, Egypt, were to form an alliance, and the particular circumstances connected with this alliance, and the results, are minutely sketched in this verse. In order to understand this it will be necessary to relate in brief the history of these two powers up to this alliance.

“Seleucus Nicator, having reigned seven months after the death of Lysimachus, over the kingdoms of Macedon, Thrace, and Syria, was basely murdered; and to him succeeded in the throne of Syria, his son Antiochus Soter, and to Antiochus Soter succeeded his son Antiochus Theus. At the same time Ptolemy Philadelphus reigned in Egypt after his father, the first Ptolemy, the son of Lagus. There were frequent wars between the kings of Egypt and Syria. There were so, particularly between Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second king of Egypt, and Antiochus the third king of Syria.”

It is at this point in history that the words, “And in the end of years they shall join themselves together,” met their fulfilment. The following comment on these words of the revealing angel will be found in perfect agreement with the history of these two powers at this particular period:

“ ‘They shall join themselves together,’ or ‘shall associate themselves’: At length they agreed to make peace upon condition that Antiochus Theus should put away his former wife Laodice and her two sons, and should marry Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus.”

“ ‘For the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make rights’ or an ‘agreement’: And accordingly Ptolemy Philadelphus brought his daughter [Berenice] to Antiochus Theus [king of the north], and with her an immense treasure, so that he [Ptolemy Philadelphus] received the appellation of the dowry-giver.”

“But she [Berenice] shall not retain the power of the arm.” This we understand to mean that Berenice would not retain her influence and power with Antiochus; and history records that after some time, in a fit of love, he brought back his former wife Laodice, and her children to court again.

“Neither shall he stand, nor his arm [or his seed].” History records that Laodice “fearing the fickle temper of her husband, lest he should recall Berenice, caused him to be poisoned; and neither did his seed by Berenice succeed him in the kingdom; but Laodice contrived and managed matters so, as to fix her elder son Seleucus Callinicus on the throne of his ancestors.”

“But she shall be given up.” We further learn that “Laodice not content with poisoning her husband, caused also Berenice to be murdered.”

“And they that brought her”; that is, “her Egyptian women and attendants, endeavoring to defend her [Berenice], were many of them slain with her.”

“And he that begat her,” “or rather as it is in the margin ‘He whom she brought forth’; for the son [of Berenice] was murdered, as well as the mother [Berenice herself], by order of Laodice.”

“And he that strengtheneth her in these times”: “her husband, Antiochus, as Jerome conceives, or those who took her part and defended her; or rather, her father, who died a little before, and was so very fond of her that he took care continually to send her fresh supplies of the water of the Nile, thinking it better for her to drink of that than of any other river, as Polybius [the Greek historian] relates.”

Part Played by Egyptian and Syrian Wars

Verses 7-9 describe how these wicked acts of Laodice were revenged. These verses we quote with various renderings:

“But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his estate”; or as in the Latin Vulgate, “out of a branch of her root shall stand up a plant.” This branch which sprang out of the same root with Berenice was Ptolemy Euergetes, her brother. It is said by the angel that he would come with an army and enter into the fortress or fortified cities of the king of the north, that is, of Seleucus Callinicus, who with his mother Laodice reigned in Syria, and would prevail. This was fulfilled, as the historian Appian shows. Appian records the fact that “Laodice having killed Antiochus, and after him both Berenice and her child, Ptolemy the son of Philadelphus, to revenge these murders invaded Syria, slew Laodice, and proceeded as far as Babylon.” Polybius thus refers to these events:

“Ptolemy, surnamed Euergetes, being greatly incensed at the cruel treatment of his sister Berenice, marched with an army into Syria, and took the city of Seleucia, which was kept for some years afterwards by the garrisons of the kings of Egypt.”

The prophecy continues to say, that Ptolemy would carry captives into Egypt, with their gods and their princes, or as one translates it, “their gods and their molten images.” Justin informs us that “if Ptolemy had not been recalled by a domestic sedition into Egypt, he would have possessed the whole kingdom of Seleucus.” And thus was fulfilled the words, “So the king of the south returned into his own land.” The prophecy states that this king continued more years than the king of the north, which is in exact accord with the facts of history. “Seleucus Callinicus died in exile of a fall from his horse, and Ptolemy Euergetes survived him about four or five years.”

The angel continues the history (verse 10), by saying that his sons, that is, the sons of the king of the north, would be “stirred up” to avenge the cause of their father and would assemble a large army and invade the territory of the king of the south, Egypt.

“The sons of Seleucus Callinicus were Seleucus and Antiochus; the elder of whom, Seleucus, succeeded him in the throne, and to distinguish him from others of the same name, was denominated Ceraunus or the thunderer. … Seleucus Ceraunus was indeed ‘stirred up, and assembled a multitude of great forces,’ in order to recover his father’s dominions; but being destitute of money, and unable to keep his army in obedience, he was poisoned by two of his generals, after an inglorious reign of two or three years. Upon his decease his brother Antiochus Magnus was proclaimed king, who was more deserving of the title of great, than Seleucus was that of the thunderer. The Prophet’s [angel’s] expression is very remarkable, that his ‘sons should be stirred up, and assemble a multitude of great forces’; but then the number is changed, and only ‘one should certainly come, and overflow, and pass through.’ Accordingly Antiochus came with a great army, retook Seleucia, and by the means of Theodotus the Aetolian, recovered Syria, making himself master of some places by treaty, and of others by force and arms. Then after a truce, wherein both sides treated of peace, but prepared for war, Antiochus returned, and overcame in battle Nicolaus, the Egyptian general, and had thoughts of invading Egypt itself” (Polybius, cited by Newton).

The angel, in continuing the narration of these, then future conflicts between the kings of the north and south, says, “and the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north; and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand” (verse 11). The king of Egypt reigning at that time, who is represented as “moved with choler” was Ptolemy Philopator. The Historian Polybius narrates the fulfilment of this prediction. He tells us that the army of Antiochus [the king of the north] “altogether amounted to sixty-two thousand foot, six thousand horse, and one hundred and two elephants.” The great battle which ensued resulted in the utter defeat of the king of the north; the king of Egypt Ptolemy, taking many prisoners, besides slaying some ten thousand foot, and three hundred horse. “Antiochus was forced to retreat with his shattered army to Antioch, and from thence sent ambassadors to solicit a peace.”

The next verse (12) reads, “And when he [Ptolemy] hath taken away the multitude [of prisoners], his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands; but he shall not be strengthened by it.” Bishop Newton, citing the historian’s account of this event, says: “Ptolemy Philopator was more fortunate in gaining a victory, than prudent in knowing how to make a proper advantage of it. If Ptolemy had pursued the blow that he had given, it is reasonably presumed that he might have deprived Antiochus of his kingdom; but ‘his heart was lifted up’ by his success.” The historian informs us that being delivered of his fears, he gave himself up to his vices.

“And so forgetful of all the greatness of his name and majesty, he consumed his days in feasting, and his nights in lewdness; and became not only the spectator, but the master and leader of all wickedness.”

Again the historian relates that …

“… after the retreat of Antiochus, Ptolemy visited the cities of Coele-Syria and Palestine, which had submitted to him; and among others in his progress, he came to Jerusalem. He there offered sacrifices, and was desirous of entering into the Holy of Holies, contrary to the custom and religion of the place, being (as the writer of the Book of Maccabees says), ‘greatly lifted up by pride and confidence.’ His curiosity was restrained with great difficulty and he departed with heavy displeasure against the whole nation of the Jews. At his return therefore to Alexandria, he began a cruel persecution upon the Jewish inhabitants of that city, who had resided there from the time of Alexander, and enjoyed the privileges of the most favored citizens. ‘And he cast down many ten thousands’; for it appears from Eusebius that about this time forty thousand Jews were slain, or sixty thousand as they are reckoned in Jerome’s Latin interpretation. No king could be strengthened by the loss of such a number of useful subjects. The loss of so many Jews, and the rebellion of the Egyptians, added to the maladministration of the state, must certainly very much weaken, and almost totally ruin the kingdom.”

We next have described an invasion of Egypt made by the king of the north. It is stated by the revealing angel to have occurred after certain years (verse 13). The historians tell us that peace continued between the two nations for a period of fourteen years.

“In that time Ptolemy Philopator died of intemperance and debauchery; and was succeeded by his son Ptolemy Epiphanes, a child of four or five years old. Antiochus [the king of the north] too, having taken and slain the rebel Achaeus, and having also reduced and settled the eastern parts in their obedience, was at leisure to prosecute an enterprise, and could not let slip so favorable an opportunity of extending his dominions. He had acquired great riches, and collected many forces in his eastern expedition; so that he was enabled [in the language of the angel] to ‘set forth a greater multitude than the former,’ and he doubted not to have an easy victory over an infant king. Polybius expressly informs us that from the king of Bactria and from the king of India he received so many elephants as made up his number one hundred and fifty, besides provisions and riches. Jerome out of ancient authors affirms that he gathered together an incredible army out of the countries beyond Babylon; and contrary to the league [of peace] he marched with this army, Ptolemy Philopator being dead, against his son, who was then four years old, and was called Ptolemy Epiphanes, or the Illustrious. Justin also says that Ptolemy Philopator king of Egypt being dead, in contempt of the childhood of his son, who being left heir to the kingdom was a prey even to his domestics, Antiochus king of Syria resolved to take possession of Egypt; as if the thing were as easily executed as resolved.”

Those desirous of corroborating the facts of history covered up to this time (about 205 BC), which in so remarkable a manner fulfilled the predictions of the angel, may do so by consulting the Encyclopedias, under the headings of Ptolemy and Antiochus. It has seemed necessary to relate this history as we have done foregoing in order to establish the fact that the king of the north refers to the Syrian power, and not to that of Greece.

To Establish the Vision

“And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south; also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall” (Daniel 11:14).

It is at this point in the prediction that expositors again disagree. The divergence is not in the first clause of the verse, but in that which reads, “also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.” Some, particularly Adventists, apply the words, “the robbers of thy people,” to the Romans; others, the more numerous, apply the words to certain ones of Daniel’s own people, the Jewish nation.

It is very generally admitted that the Common Version translation, “the robbers of thy people,” is incorrect; but if we were to accept it as correct, we would even then find it impossible to see how this expression could any more be applicable to the Romans than to the powers already depicted — powers described by the angel in the previous verses. The Jewish land lay between the two powers of Egypt and Syria, designated in the prophecy the king of the south and the king of the north, and these two powers, as we have seen, were continually warring with each other, and continued to do so up to a later period when the Romans became aggressive. As Luther quaintly expressed it, “The Jews, therefore, placed thus between the door and the hinge, were sorely tormented on both sides. Now they fell a prey to Egypt, and anon to Syria [that is, they were robbed by these powers], as the one kingdom or the other got the better; and they had to pay dearly for their neighborhood, as is wont to be in time of war.”

The King James translation, as we have stated, is admitted to be defective; and as the proper application of the words depends to a considerable extent upon the correct rendering, it becomes necessary before we can proceed with the exposition to obtain a correct translation.

Leeser renders the passage: “Also the rebellious sons of thy people will lift themselves up to establish the vision.” Keil translates it: “The violent people of the nation (of the Jews), shall raise themselves against him.” “These,” he says, “shall raise themselves, to establish the prophecy, i.e., to bring it to an accomplishment.”

Bishop Newton says, “It is literally ‘the sons of the breakers,’ the sons of the revolters, the factious and refractory ones, ‘of thy people [that are mentioned].’ ” R. F. Weidner translates the words, “And the violent sons of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.” J. Glenwood Butler, in his work on Daniel, says: “It is literally the ‘sons of the breakers,’ the sons of the revolters, the factious and refractory ones of thy people.” Mr. Barnes thus refers to this passage:

“That part of the people who would attempt to do this is designated in the common translation as ‘the robbers of thy people.’ This, however, is scarcely a correct version, and does not properly indicate the persons that would be engaged in the plot. … Lengerke renders it, ‘the most powerful people of thy nation.’ … The Hebrew word [rendered robbers] means properly, rending, ravenous — as of wild beasts (Isaiah 35:9). The reference here seems to be to the mighty ones of the nation — the chiefs, or rulers — but a name is given them that would properly denote their character for oppression and rapacity. It would seem — what is indeed probable from the circumstances of the case— that the [Jewish] nation was not only subject to this foreign authority, but that those who were placed over it, under that foreign authority, and who were probably mainly of their own [the Jewish] people, were also themselves tyrannical and oppressive in their character. These subordinate rulers, however, preferred the authority of Antiochus to that of Ptolemy, and on the occasion of his return from the conquest of Coele-Syria and Samaria, they met him and professed submission to him.”

Josephus says,

“The Jews of their own accord went over to him, and received him into the city [Jerusalem], and gave plentiful provisions to his army, and to his elephants, and readily assisted him when he besieged the garrison which was in the citadel of Jerusalem.”

Bishop Newton says,

“The Jews were at that time ‘broken’ into factions, part adhering to the king of Egypt, and part to the king of Syria; but the majority were for ‘breaking away’ from their allegiance to Ptolemy [the Egyptian monarch]. In the Vulgate it is translated, ‘the sons of the prevaricators of thy people’; in the Septuagint, ‘the sons of the pestilent ones of thy people.’ ”

If these translations are correct, and their meaning is practically the same, then the significance of the words, they “shalt exalt themselves to establish the vision,” would mean, that the revolt of factious ones of the Jews against Ptolemy would contribute greatly, without their being aware of it, to the fulfilment of the prophecy concerning the calamities which should come upon the Jewish nation by the succeeding kings of Syria, particularly Antiochus Epiphanes. This interpretation is that of Newton, Barnes, Butler, and indeed, expositors in general. “That the Jews [at this time] revolted from Ptolemy is evident from what Jerome affirms, that ‘the provinces which before were subject to Egypt, rebelled,’ ” and the heathen authors intimate that Antiochus took possession of the cities of Coele-Syria and Palestine, without any opposition. The expression “but they shall fall,” indicates that all these that should stand up against the king of the south, should eventually fall. This met its fulfilment in the fact that Ptolemy sent a powerful army under the command of Scopas, his general, and in the absence of Antiochus on another expedition, “soon reduced the cities of Coele- Syria and Palestine to their former obedience.” Josephus’ statement concerning this event is very significant in confirming the correctness of this application of the prophecy: “The Jews submitted to Scopas by force,” but “to Antiochus they submitted willingly.” The expression in the first part of this verse, “And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south,” thus met its fulfilment.

It should be remembered that the one sitting on the throne of Egypt at this time was a mere child. The one who had charge of the young king was Agathocles. History relates that “he was so dissolute and proud in the exercise of his power, that the provinces which before were subject to Egypt rebelled [as we have seen], and Egypt itself was disturbed by seditions.” The historian, Polybius, informs us that “Philip, the king of Macedon, entered into a league with Antiochus, to divide Ptolemy’s dominions between them, and each take the parts which lay nearest and most convenient to him.”

It will be to the point here to note that those who introduce the Roman power at this verse fail to see Antiochus Epiphanes mentioned at all in the entire prophecy. This seems evidently incorrect, for the reason that of all the kings of Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes was the one that persecuted and brought the most trouble and calamity on the Jewish nation. It is equally unreasonable to apply, as some do, so much of the prophecy to the evil exploits of this wicked king. It rather seems to be the nature of the prophecy to continue the history of the kings of the north and of the south until we reach the place in the prediction where Antiochus Epiphanes and his wicked exploits begin to be described, at verse 21. The Roman power seems to come in or to be introduced later on in the prophecy.

Accepting the interpretation of verse 14 as given above, we will find that the words of the angel as recorded in verses 15-31, are perfectly descriptive of the events up to the time when the Romans begin to figure prominently in history. With Antiochus Epiphanes the Syrian kingdom, symbolized by one of the four heads of the leopard beast of Daniel 7, ceases to be mentioned. Mr. Mede says, “The reason of this is, that during the reign of Antiochus, Macedonia with all the rest of Greece came under the Roman obedience.” Egypt, however, continued its independence until about 31 BC.

Continuing to apply the prophecy to the conflicts between the two powers, Syria and Egypt, we quote verses 15 and 16:

“So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities [or the city of munitions]; and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.”

It will be recalled that it was during the absence of Antiochus on another expedition that the successes of the armies of Egypt were attained; but on his return he soon reversed the whole state of affairs. The historian relates that “Antiochus being willing to recover Judea, and the cities of Coele-Syria and Palestine, which Scopas [the general of the Egyptian kingdom] had taken, came again into those parts. Scopas was sent again to oppose him, and Antiochus fought with him near the sources of the river Jordan, destroyed a great part of his army, and pursued him to Sidon, where he shut him up with ten thousand men, and closely besieged him. Three famous generals were sent from Egypt to raise the siege; but they could not succeed, and at length Scopas was forced by famine to surrender, upon the hard conditions of having life only granted to him and his men; they were obliged to lay down their arms, and were sent away stripped and naked.” Thus was fulfilled the words of the angel, he shall “cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities,” or as translated by Weidner, “and take a strongly fortified city.” Thus says the historian: Antiochus, “after the success of this battle, and of this siege, reduced other countries, and took other fenced cities which are mentioned by Polybius, and recited by Jerome out of the Greek and Roman historians.”

As foretold by the angel, “the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his [the king of the south’s] chosen people,” or as Fenton renders it, “his choice armies will not be able to stand”; so neither could Scopas, nor the other generals of Egypt who were sent to his assistance, and who commanded the choicest of the soldiers, stand against him. For he made himself master of all Coele-Syria and Palestine. Among others, as we have already noted, the Jews submitted themselves willingly to Antiochus and went out in solemn procession to meet him, received him into the city of Jerusalem, supplied him with plenty of provisions for all his army and elephants, and assisted him in besieging the garrisons which Scopas had left in the citadel. Thus, as the angel foretold, he stood “in the glorious land,” and his power was again firmly established in Judea.

“Shall Stand in the Glorious Land”

The closing sentence of the angel’s words are variously rendered. Fenton translates it: “He will establish himself with destruction in his hand, in the glorious land.” Gesenius, Hitzig, Hirzfeld, Zochler, and Keil translate it the same as Fenton. Havernick, Lengerke, Van Ess, Fuller, Bertholdt, Dereser, and Stuart render the sentence, “it is wholly in his hand.” Mr. Newton says:

“The word is capable of another interpretation, which agrees as well with the truth of the Hebrew, and better with the truth of history. It may be translated, ‘which shall be perfected,’ or prosper, or flourish, ‘in his hand.’ The original will well admit of this sense, and the event confirms it. For Antiochus, to reward and encourage the Jews in their fidelity and obedience to him, gave order that their city should be repaired, and the dispersed Jews should return and inhabit it; that they should be supplied with cattle and other provisions for sacrifices; that they should be furnished with timber and other materials for finishing and adorning the temple; that they should live all according to the laws of their country; that the priests and elders, the scribes and Levites should be exempted from the capitation and other taxes; that those who then inhabited the city, or should return to it within a limited time, should be free from all tribute for three years, and the third part of their tribute should be remitted to them for ever after; and also that as many as had been taken and forced into servitude, should be released, and their substance and goods be restored to them. Grotius remarks that what is said about finishing and completing the temple, answers exactly to the word perfected or consummated in the Hebrew. Thus also the Seventy translate it, and thus Theodoret explains it: ‘And it shall be perfected by his hand,’ that is, it shall prosper; for so likewise Josephus hath taught us in his history, that the Jews of their own accord having received Antiochus, were greatly honored by him.’ ”

The prophetic narrative of the angel continues in verse 17 to describe the exploits of the same Antiochus, surnamed the Great. It says of him that “He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom,” or, as Newton renders it, “to enter by force the whole kingdom.” Inspired by his successes, he aspired all the more to increase his power and dominion by conquest. The meaning is that Antiochus, not content with wresting the provinces from Egypt, formed plots and schemes to seize upon the kingdom of Egypt itself.

If with Lengerke we accept the Common Version translation — “and upright ones with him,” it has a fulfilment in the fact that the Jews marched under the banners of Antiochus, and are called “upright ones,” to distinguish them from the idolatrous soldiers. However the words, “upright ones with him,” are rendered by Leeser, “having professions of peace”; by the Vulgate, “he shall set things right,” or as Newton has it, “make agreement with him,” as the phrase is used in verse 6.

As we examine the pages of history we learn that at this particular time Antiochus was planning to engage in a war with the Romans, and on this account he judged that it would be a wiser course to carry out his designs against Egypt by strategy, in the form of a treaty alliance. Concerning the words, “Thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women [of his wife — Leeser], corrupting her; but she shall not stand on his [her father’s] side,” we learn from Josephus, Jerome, and Appian, that Antiochus entered into a treaty with Ptolemy, in connection with which he “betrothed his daughter Cleopatra [not the Cleopatra of Caesar’s day] to Ptolemy in the seventh year of his reign, and married her to him in the thirteenth … and gave in dowry with her the provinces of Coele-Syria and Palestine.” This compact was made upon condition that the revenues collected in these provinces should be equally divided between the two kings. This was done in order to induce his daughter to, betray her husband’s interests to her father. His fraudulent designs, however, were not carried out; in other words, he did not succeed in “corrupting her”; thus fulfilling the words of the prediction, “she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.” Jerome says that “Ptolemy and his generals were aware of his artifices, and therefore stood upon their guard; and Cleopatra herself affected more the cause of her husband than of her father.” Livy mentions the fact that Cleopatra “joined with her husband in an embassy to the Romans to congratulate them upon the victories over her father, and to exhort them, after they had expelled him out of Greece, to prosecute the war in Asia, assuring them at the same time that the king and queen of Egypt would readily obey the commands of the senate [of Rome]” (Translated from Livy by Bishop Newton).

Antiochus, however, not foreseeing this, and thinking that his scheme would work successfully, engaged in what to him was a disastrous war with the Romans, who were at this time coming into prominence as an aggressive power. Antiochus made great preparations, and with a formidable fleet of a hundred large vessels of war, and two hundred smaller vessels “turned his face unto the isles,” in the language of the prediction, that is, the isles of the Mediterranean, and there brought into subjection nearly all the maritime ports on the coast of Asia, Thrace, and Greece; taking Samos, Euboea, and other islands. All these places had been, prior to this, united in a league with the Romans. On this account these exploits of Antiochus were looked upon by the Romans as a “reproach,” or insult, because of those in league with them being thus oppressed.

The next clause of the verse is thus rendered: “But a chieftain shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease, yea, his own reproach shall he cause to return to himself.” Livy relates that Acilius, the Roman consul, engaged Antiochus at Thermopylae, defeated him, and drove him out of Grecian territory. Bishop Newton, citing the historians, Livy, Polybius, Appian, and Justin, relates that “Livius and Aemilius beat his fleets at sea; and Scipio [a great Roman general], finally obtained a decisive victory over him in Asia near the city of Magnesia at the foot of Mount Sipylus. Antiochus lost fifty thousand foot, and four thousand horse in that day’s engagement; fourteen hundred were taken prisoners, and he himself escaped with difficulty. Upon this defeat he was necessitated to sue for peace.” It was by this great defeat that Antiochus the Great became tributary to the Romans.

Antiochus did not live long after this terrible reproach or disgrace. The prophecy reads, “Then he shall turn his face toward the fort [strongholds — Leeser] of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.” The historians, Diodorus, Siculus, Strabo, Justin, and Jerome, relate the manner and circumstances of Antiochus’ death. “He is reported [by Polybius] indeed to have borne his loss with great equanimity and temper; and said that he was much obliged to the Romans for easing him from a great deal of care and trouble, and for confining him within the bounds of a moderate empire. But whatever he might pretend, he lived in distress and poverty for a great king, being under the greatest difficulties how to raise the money which he had stipulated to pay to the Romans; and his necessity or his avarice prompted him at last to commit sacrilege. He marched into the eastern provinces, to collect there the arrears of tribute, and amass what treasure he could; and attempting to plunder the rich temple of Jupiter Belus in Elymias, he was assaulted by the inhabitants of the country, was defeated, and himself and all his attendants were slain.” Thus was fulfilled the words, “He shall stumble and fall, and not be found.”

Thus ended the reign of Antiochus the Great, whose career is so vividly yet in such brief language described by the revealing angel to Daniel, over three centuries before the great monarch began his eventful life. His successor, Seleucus Philopator succeeded him on the throne, and is described in one brief statement of the angel, in the words, as rendered by Leeser, “And there will stand up in his place one who will cause the exactor (of taxes) to pass through the glorious (land) of the kingdom; but within a few days will he be broken, but not in anger, nor in battle” (verse 20). Appian informs us that “Seleucus Philopator reigned both idly and weakly, by reason of his father’s calamity.” “The tribute of a thousand talents, which he was obliged to pay annually to the Romans, was indeed a grievous burden to him and his kingdom; and he was little more than ‘a raiser of taxes’ all his days. He was tempted even to commit sacrilege; for being informed of the money that was deposited in the temple at Jerusalem, he sent his treasurer Heliodorus to seize it. This was literally ‘causing an exactor to pass over the glory of the kingdom’ [or as Leeser translates it, “the glorious land of the kingdom”], when he sent his treasurer to plunder that temple, which ‘even kings did honor, and magnify with their best gifts,’ and where Seleucus himself, of his own revenues, bare all the costs belonging to the services of the sacrifices.”

The prophecy next describes the end of Seleucus Philopator in the words, “But within a few days [years] he shall be destroyed.” His reign was short in comparison with his father’s, which was thirty-seven years; his own being seven years. He was slain, or destroyed “neither in anger, nor in battle,” that is, neither in insurrection at home, nor war abroad.

Newton informs us on the authority of Appian that “Seleucus having sent his only son Demetrius to be an hostage at Rome instead of his [own] brother Antiochus [son of Antiochus the Great], and Antiochus being not yet returned to the Syrian Court, Heliodorus thought this a fit opportunity to dispatch his master, and in the absence of the next heirs to the throne, to usurp it to himself. But he was disappointed in his ambitious projects, and only made way for another’s usurped greatness, instead of his own.” That other was the notable Antiochus Epiphanes, whose career is next described by the revealing angel.

Mr. Elliott thus sums up the historian’s description of Seleucus Philopator, the successor of Antiochus the Great:

“As the next successor of the king of the north was described as a raiser of taxes, or one that would cause an exactor to pass over the glory of his kingdom, then perish in few days, but neither in angry brawl nor battle, so Antiochus’ son and successor Seleucus Philopator was scarcely known except as a raiser of taxes, to pay off a yearly tribute of 1000 talents imposed for 12 years by the Romans; his exactor of taxes, Heliodorus, being sent to gather them, not merely elsewhere and otherwise in the once glorious kingdom of Syria, but by plunder too of that which the revealing angel might specially mean by ‘the glory of his kingdom’ (though Seleucus did not appreciate it), namely the temple of Jerusalem: very soon after which sacrilege, and in the twelfth or last year for which the Roman tribute of 1000 talents had been imposed, having fulfilled his predicted character, he was killed; that same Heliodorus, who had been his instrument for spoiling the temple, treacherously assassinating him.”

Fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes

“And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom; but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries” (Daniel 11:21).

We are well aware of the fact that Adventists quite generally apply this verse to the Roman Emperor, Tiberius Caesar. Such application is a logical outcome of interpreting the expression of verse 14, “the robbers of thy people,” as referring to the Romans instead of to factious ones of Daniel’s own nation, as applied foregoing. By applying these words of the angel to the Romans, these expositors find no place in the entire prediction that describes the exploits of Antiochus Epiphanes, who in very many respects was a more extraordinary person than any of the Syrian kings of the north, even Antiochus the Great; and he was by far a greater enemy and oppressor of the Jews than any of the kings that preceded him, either of Syria or Egypt.

Antiochus Epiphanes lived and reigned nearly two centuries prior to the reign of Tiberius Caesar. There can be no question that Tiberius Caesar was a vile person, and that some of the other descriptions of the angel fit his career. However, as we compare the historian’s comprehensive description of the career and exploits of Antiochus Epiphanes, we find that he not only succeeded Seleucus Philopator, his brother, on the throne of Syria (that is “stood up in his estate”), but all the particulars of the angelic portrayal fit exactly the eventful career of this great persecutor and oppressor of the Jews. His character as a “vile,” or better, “despicable” person is seen in the methods pursued by him to attain the throne, and indeed, in his whole succeeding history.

The historian relates that Antiochus was at Athens, on his way to Syria, when his brother, Seleucus Philopator, died by the treachery of Heliodorus, who, through the aid of his friends, attempted to get possession of the kingdom for himself. Another faction, however, sought to give the honor of the kingdom of Syria to Ptolemy Philometor, the king of Egypt then reigning, whose mother it will be recalled was Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus the Great, and the sister of the slain king Seleucus. Antiochus Epiphanes was not the right heir to the throne, but a son of Seleucus, named Demetrius, who was then a hostage at Rome, was the rightful heir. Demetrius, therefore, was a nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes. In harmony with the prophecy, however, all historians are agreed that Antiochus “obtained the kingdom by flatteries.” Bishop Newton on the authority of the historians, says:

“He flattered Eumenes, king of Pergamus, and Attalus his brother, and by fair promises engaged their assistance, and they the more readily assisted him, as they were at that juncture jealous of the Romans, and were willing therefore to secure a friend in the king of Syria. He flattered too the Syrians, and with great show of clemency obtained their concurrence. He flattered also the Romans, and sent ambassadors to court their favor, to pay them the arrears of tribute, to present them besides with golden vessels of five hundred pound weight, and to desire that the friendship and alliance, which they had had with his father, might be renewed with him, and that they would lay their commands upon him, as upon a good and faithful confederate king; he would never be wanting in any duty. Thus he ‘came in peaceably’; and as he flattered the Syrians, the Syrians flattered him again, and bestowed upon him the title Epiphanes, or the illustrious; but the epithet of vile, or rather despicable, given him by the Prophet, agrees better with his true character.”

The same writer, on the authority of Polybius and other historians, describes some of the vile, despicable characteristics of Antiochus. He states that Antiochus …

“…  would steal out of the palace, and ramble about the streets in disguise: would mix with the lowest company, and drink and revel with them to the greatest excess; would put on the Roman gown, and go about canvassing for votes, in imitation of the candidates for offices at Rome; would sometimes scatter money in the streets among his followers, and sometimes pelt them with stones; would wash in the public baths and expose himself by all manner of ridiculous and indecent gestures; with a thousand such freaks and extravagances, as induced Polybius, who was a contemporary writer, and others after him, instead of Epiphanes or the illustrious, more rightly to call him Epimanes or the madman.”

The next words of the revealing angel as translated in the Septuagint are: “And the arms of the overflower shall be overthrown from before him and shall be broken.” These words seem clearly to refer to Antiochus Epiphanes’ over- throw of his competitors. Calmet, a learned Christian writer of the seventeenth century, is cited by Bishop Newton as describing Antiochus’ overthrow of his competitors to the throne of Syria. He says:

“Heliodorus the murderer of Seleucus and his partisans, as well as those of the king of Egypt, who had formed some designs upon Syria, were vanquished by the forces of Eumenes and Attalus, and were dissipated by the arrival of Antiochus, whose presence disconcerted all measures.”

Mr. Barnes in commenting on these words says:

“As a matter of fact, the forces of Heliodorus, the forces of the Hebrews, and the forces of the Egyptians, were alike broken and scattered before him. The eye of the Prophet, however, seems rather here to be on the invasion of Egypt, which was one of the earliest and most prominent acts of Antiochus, and into the history of which the Prophet goes most into detail.”

The next words, “Yea, also the prince of the covenant,” are seized upon by Advent expositors as having reference to Christ, and are used as an argument to sustain their deviation from the great body of expositors, by applying these verses to Tiberius Caesar. Examining carefully the recurrence in the Scriptures of this expression, “the prince of the covenant,” it will be found, as Mr. Elliott says, that the “word translated covenant, by itself, is of as general application and sense in Hebrew as in English; and therefore Michaelis’ rendering of the words rex foederatus [king of the federation], which Wintle approves,” is probably more correct. “The word translated prince, is also one of general meaning, and applied alike to chiefs royal, military, civil, and ecclesiastical; e.g. 1 Samuel 9:16, 10:1, of Saul, the ruling prince over Israel; 1 Chronicles 13:1, 2 Chronicles 32:21, of military leaders; 2 Chronicles 28:7, of a ruler over the palace; 1 Chronicles 9:11 and 2 Chronicles 31:13, of the priest that was ruler over the house or temple of God. In Daniel 9:25,26, it is used alike of the Prince Messiah, and of the Roman prince, that was to come and desolate Jerusalem.”

Mr. Barnes says, “There has been some diversity of opinion as to who is meant by ‘the prince of the covenant.’ … The reference is to the king of Egypt, with whom a covenant or compact had been made by Antiochus the Great, and who was supposed to be united, therefore, to the Syrians by a solemn treaty.” Mr. Elliott applies the prediction in the same way. Bishop Newton and others refer the expression to the high priest of the Jews, agreeing with Theodoret who says, by “the ‘prince of the covenant,’ he speaketh of the pious high priest [Onias], the brother of Jason, and foretelleth that even he should be turned out of his office.” We have a record of this act of Antiochus, which reads, “But after the death of Seleucus, when Antiochus, who was called the Illustrious, had taken possession of the kingdom, Jason the brother of Onias ambitiously sought the high priesthood; and went to the king, promising him three hundred and sixty talents of silver, and out of other revenues fourscore talents.” The record goes on to state that Antiochus accepted the bribe and removed the faithful priest, placing the wicked Jason in his stead.

It is further recorded that this Jason granted also in return for Antiochus’ favor, license to set up a Grecian gymnasium at Jerusalem, and in connection therewith to institute the idolatrous rites associated with the Grecian life and religion, and from 175-172 BC, he labored diligently to seduce the Jews to the Grecian life and religion. In due time Jason sent his younger brother Menelaus to pay the money he had promised. Menelaus and Antiochus plotted together, and Menelaus offering him more money for the priesthood, he caused the removal of Jason and gave the office to Menelaus.

The angel’s words of verse 23, last clause, are not to be understood as assigning a reason for the things that preceded them. The word “for” does not convey the thought; “and” is a better translation: “And he shall come up, and shall become strong,” etc.

According to Gesenius and Lengerke, and others, verse 24 should read: “Unexpectedly shall he come upon the rich places of the province,” or as in the margin, “He shall enter into the peaceable and fat places of the province.” It will be recalled that Antiochus Epiphanes had been some years a hostage at Rome; and coming thence with only a few supporters, his coming into the kingship was quite unexpected, and his influence was very small at first, but soon grew in power, and “became strong with a small people.” By securing the friendship and assistance of Eumenes and Attalus, he entered peaceably as well as unexpectedly into the upper provinces of the kingdom. In the same way he obtained possession of the provinces of Coele-Syria and Palestine.

The words, “He shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil and riches,” means that he should outdo his fathers, etc., in liberality. Polybius, as cited by Newton, has said that “the prey of his enemies, the spoil of temples, and the riches of his friends as well as his own revenues, were expended in public shows, and bestowed in largess among the people.” It is recorded that at one time, because of the failure of his treasury, “He feared that he should not have, as formerly, enough for charges and gifts, which he had given before with a liberal hand: for he had abounded more than the kings that had been before him.”

The Historian Polybius mentions some of his particular extravagances: “Sometimes,” he says, “meeting accidentally with people whom he had never seen before, he would enrich them with unexpected presents.” He relates that “sometimes standing in the public streets, he would throw about his money and cry aloud, ‘Let him take it to whom fortune should give it.’ ”

Fenton’s translation of the next clause is, “And his policy will be against physical force for a time,” which well accords with Antiodus’ policy for a certain period while he was seeking to strengthen his power. He first sought by his devices to further strengthen his hold on Coele-Syria and Palestine. These provinces had always been claimed by right as belonging to the king of Egypt. They had been in the possession of the Egyptian power until Antiochus the Great took them away from Ptolemy Epiphanes. Ptolemy Epiphanes, and his queen Cleopatra, were both dead; and the guardians or administrators of the young

Ptolemy Philometor, their son, at this time demanded the restoration of these provinces. It will be recalled that Antiochus the Great had agreed to surrender them as a dowry to his daughter Cleopatra, who became the queen of Ptolemy Epiphanes. The demand of these guardians of the young king was denied; and perceiving that eventually these demands would become the occasion of another war between Syria and Egypt, he visited Joppa, the seaport of Jerusalem, for the purpose of strengthening the fortifications for defense. In this visit he came to Jerusalem, where he was received with rejoicing by the Jews in general, Jason being at the time the high priest. From Jerusalem he proceeded to Phoenecia, to fortify his own strongholds there. These preparations occupied, as the angelic prophecy reads, “even for a time.”

We have next recorded that “he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south [Egypt].” The historian tells us that Antiochus, in “the fifth year of his reign, despising the youth of Ptolemy, and the inertness of his tutors, and believing the Romans to be too much employed in the Macedonian war to give him any interruption, resolved to carry hostilities into the enemy’s country, instead of waiting for them in his own, and marched with a powerful army against Egypt.”

Next we read that “the king of the south shall be stirred up to war with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand.” The two armies met and engaged between Pelusium and Mt. Causius, and Antiochus Epiphanes was the victor. In a succeeding campaign Antiochus had still greater success. History records that he routed the armies of the Egyptians, captured Pelusium, went into the country as far as Memphis, and became master of all Egypt with the exception of Alexandria. In a general way all these exploits of Antiochus are recorded by the historian, as we read:

“And the kingdom was established before Antiochus, and he had a mind to reign over the land of Egypt, that he might reign over two kingdoms. And he entered into Egypt with a great multitude with chariots and elephants, and horsemen, and a great number of ships; and he made war against Ptolemy, king of Egypt; but Ptolemy was afraid of his presence and fled, and many were wounded to death. And he took the strong cities in the land of Egypt; and he took the spoils of the land of Egypt.”

The angel’s next words are: “For they shall forecast devices against him [the king of Egypt]. Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow [Douay translation, “shall be overthrown”]; and many shall fall down slain.” In concluding our comment on the prediction of the angel, we place his utterances beside the records of the historian. “He shall stir up his power against the king of the south,” says the angel; “he entered into Egypt with a great multitude,” says the historian. The king of the south “shall not stand,” are the words of the angel; “Ptolemy was afraid and fled,” says the historian. “Many shall fall down slain,” the angel predicts, “and many were wounded to death,” the historian records in fulfilment.

The troubles and misfortunes of young Ptolemy Philometor are ascribed by the angel as coming upon him to a large extent because of the baseness and treachery of his own ministers in the government, as also the people of Egypt; for “they shall forecast devices against him; yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him,” are the angel’s words. The Historian Diodorus records that Eulaeus, who was one of Ptolemy Philometor’s ministers and guardians, was a very wicked man, and “brought up the young king in luxury and effeminacy, which was contrary to his natural inclination.”

“Ptolemy Macron too, who was governor of Cyprus, revolted from him, and delivered up that important island to Antiochus; and for the reward of his treason was admitted into the number of the king’s [Antiochus’] principal friends, and was made governor of Coele-Syria and Palestine. Nay even the Alexandrians, seeing the distress of Philometor, renounced their allegiance; and taking his younger brother Euergetes or Physcon, proclaimed him king instead of his elder brother” (Bishop Newton, citing Polybius and Porphyry).

The revealing angel continues the history of Antiochus Epiphanes and Ptolemy Philometer, the kings of the north and the south. Bishop Newton, on the authority of the Historian Hieronymus, informs us that after Antiochus was come to Memphis, and the greater part of Egypt had submitted to him, he concluded a peace with Ptolemy, feasted with him and meditated treachery. By what means Ptolemy came into the hands of Antiochus, history does not say. It states, however, that the two kings, who were near relatives, frequently ate and conversed together; but notwithstanding this appearance of peace and friendship their hearts were really bent to do mischief, and they spoke lies the one to the other. Both Livy and Polybius, according to Newton, are authority for saying that Antiochus …

“… pretended to take care of his nephew Philometor’s interest, and promised to restore him to the crown at the same time that he was plotting his ruin, and was contriving means to weaken the two brothers in a war against each other, that the conqueror, wearied and exhausted, might fall an easier prey to him. On the other side, Philometer laid the blame of the war on his governor Eulaeus, professed great obligations to his uncle [Antiochus], and seemed to hold the crown by his favor, at the same time that he was resolved to take the first opportunity of breaking the league with him, and of being reconciled to his brother; and accordingly as soon as ever Antiochus was withdrawn, he made proposals of accommodation, and by the mediation of their sister Cleopatra, a peace was made between the two brothers, who agreed to reign jointly in Egypt and Alexandria.”

How brief, yet comprehensive are the words of the revealing angel in predicting all this: “And both these kings’ hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table.” The angel, however, immediately adds: “but it shall not prosper; for yet the end shall be at the time appointed” (verse 27).

The historian informs us that Antiochus did not succeed in getting possession of Egypt. “Hoping to become absolute master of Egypt, more easily by [inciting] the civil war between the two brothers, than by the exertion of his own forces, [he] left the kingdom [of Egypt] for a while, and returned into Syria,” thus fulfilling the words of the angel, “Then shall he return into his land with great riches.”

We read that “he took the strong cities in the land of Egypt: and he took spoils of the land of Egypt.” Mr. Newton says that Polybius, describing his opulence and the great show that be made of silver, gold, jewels, and the like, “affirms that he took them partly out of Egypt, having broken the league with the young king Philometor.”

The revealing angel next predicts another remarkable and wicked exploit of Antiochus, which occurred on his journey back to Antioch. He says, “And his heart shall be against the holy covenant, and he shall succeed, and shalt return into his own land” (Douay translation). It will be recalled that Jerusalem was at this time subject to Antiochus, and that he had deposed the high priest Jason and put Menelaus in his place. While Antiochus was in Egypt, a false report reached Jerusalem that he was dead; and Jason, the deposed high priest, believing that a favorable opportunity was now his to recover the high priesthood, proceeded to Jerusalem with a thousand men, made an assault on the city and captured it. He drove Menelaus into the castle and cruelly treated the citizens. Antiochus, learning of this, supposed that the whole nation was in revolt against him; and hearing that the people were rejoicing greatly at the false report of his death, determined to punish them. Accordingly, he went up to Jerusalem with a great army bent on revenge. He besieged and captured the city, slew forty thousand of the inhabitants, and sold as many more for slaves. “He polluted the temple and altar with swine’s flesh, and profaned the Holy of Holies by breaking into it, and took away the golden vessels and other sacred treasures, to the value of eighteen hundred talents, restored Menelaus to his office and authority, and constituted one Philip, by nation a Phrygian, in manners a barbarian, governor of Judea. When he had done these exploits, he returned to his own land.” All this is recorded not only in the Books of Maccabees but also by Josephus, and by both Greek and Roman historians, as cited by Jerome.

Another, a final invasion by Antiochus of Egypt is predicted by the revealing angel, in the words, “At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.” Douay and others translate the last words, “the latter shall not be as the former.” This occurred two years after the events just related.

The angel next gives the reason of this ill-success of Antiochus in the words: “For the ships of Chittim shall come against him; therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant; so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.” Antiochus, perceiving that his scheme to get the two brothers into war with one another had failed, “was so offended,” the Historian Livy tells us, “that he prepared war much more eagerly and maliciously against both, than he had before against one of them. Early therefore in the spring he set forwards with his army, and passing through Coele-Syria came into Egypt, and the inhabitants of Memphis, and the other Egyptians, partly out of love, partly out of fear, submitting to him, he came by easy marches down to Alexandria.” However, his success ended here, “for,” as the angel, predicting the check upon his ambitious plans, says, “the ships of Chittim shall come against him.”

The question arises, Who or what is meant by the ships of Chittim? Bishop Newton in his Dissertation on the Prophecies, Series V, has discussed this matter very thoroughly. As we have now reached a very important place in this wonderful prophetic sketch of history, a place in which the Roman power seems to be introduced, it seems quite necessary to settle this matter before proceeding further. In Gen. 10:4 we learn that Kittim or “Chittim was one of the sons of Javan, who was one of the sons of Japheth, by whose posterity the ‘Isles of the Gentiles’ were divided and peopled, that is, Europe, and the countries to which the Asiatics passed by sea, for such the Hebrews called islands. Chittim is used for the descendants of Chittim, as Ashur is put for the descendants of Ashur.” Concerning what country is meant by the coasts of Chittim, “critics” according to Bishop Newton “are generally divided into two opinions: the one asserting that Macedonia, and the other that Italy was the country here intended; and each opinion is recommended and authorized by some of the first and greatest names in learning.   But,” Mr. Newton says, “there is no reason why we may not adopt both opinions; and especially as it is very well known and agreed on all hands that colonies came from Greece to Italy. … Daniel, foretelling the exploits of Antiochus Epiphanes, saith, 11:29,30, that he should ‘come towards the south,’ that is, invade Egypt, ‘but the ships of Chittim shall come against him, therefore he shall be grieved and return’; the ‘ships of Chittim’ can be none other than the ships of the Romans, whose ambassadors coming from Italy to Greece, and thence to Alexandria obliged Antiochus, to his great grief and disappointment, to depart from Egypt without accomplishing his designs.”

These Roman ambassadors were sent by the senate of Rome in response to an appeal by the two brothers Ptolemies. The Historian Hieronymus has said,

“When the two brothers Ptolemies, the sons of Cleopatra, were besieged by their uncle in Alexandria, the Roman ambassadors came; one of whom Marcus Popilius Lenas, when he had found him [Antiochus] standing on the shore, and had delivered to him the decree of the senate, by which he was commanded to depart from the friends of the Roman people [the Egyptians], and to be content with his own empire; and he would have deferred the matter to consult with his friends; Popilius is said to have made a circle in the sand with the stick that he held in his hand, and to have circumscribed the king, and to have said, The senate and people of Rome order, that in that place you answer, what is your intention. With these words, being frightened, he said, If this pleases the senate and people of Rome, we must depart.”

The Romans at this time, according to Polybius, had just completed the conquest of Macedonia. This historian says of Antiochus, “He led back his forces into Syria, grieved and groaning, but thinking it expedient to yield to the times for the present.”

It is further predicted by the angel that he had “indignation against the holy covenant.” The fulfilment of this is also recorded by the historian, as we read: “And after two full years the king sent the chief collector of his tributes [Apollonius] to the cities of Judah, and he came to Jerusalem with a great multitude. And he spake to them peaceable words in deceit; and they believed him. And he fell upon the city suddenly [on the Sabbath day], and struck it with a great slaughter, and destroyed much people in Israel.” They built, on a hill in the city of David, a strong fortress, which commanded the temple; so that they might fall on those who came to worship and slay them. On this account the whole religious service of the Jews was abandoned; the city itself was forsaken of the Jews, and it became for some time the residence of strangers.

From Antioch, Antiochus issued a decree compelling all persons on pain of death to conform to the religion of the Greeks, and so the Jewish law (covenant) was for a time done away with, the heathen worship set up in its place, and the temple itself was consecrated to Jupiter Olympus. In accomplishing all this, as stated by the angel, he had “intelligence with them that forsook the holy covenant.” These who forsook the holy covenant were Menelaus and other apostate Jews associated with him. These were employed as the king’s chief agents in abolishing the Jewish religion and worship.

These wicked acts of Antiochus took place in 165 BC, and his successes ceased at this time. His concluding acts as also the fact that he was stricken and afflicted during the latter part of his life by a terrible disease, causing intense suffering and resulting in his death in 164 BC, are recorded by the historian.

At this point in the angelic prediction, it seems proper to pause, and, as one has said,

“… reflect a little how particular and circumstantial this prophecy is concerning the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria, from the death of Alexander to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. There is not so complete and regular a series of their kings, there is not so concise and comprehensive an account of their affairs, to be found in any author of those times. The prophecy is really more perfect than any history. No one historian hath related so many circumstances, and in such exact order of time, as the Prophet [angel] hath foretold them; so that it was necessary to have recourse to several authors, Greek and Roman, Jewish and Christian; and to collect here something from one, and to collect there something from another, for the better explaining and illustrating the great variety of particulars contained in this prophecy. … This exactness was so convincing, that Porphyry [the heathen historian] could not pretend to deny it; he rather labored to confirm it, and drew this inference from it, that the prophecy was so very exact that it could not possibly have been written before, but must have been written in, or soon after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, all [the description] being true and exact to that time, and no farther. … The prophecy indeed is wonderfully exact to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, but it is equally so beyond that time, as you will evidently perceive in the sequel, which cannot all with any propriety be applied to Antiochus, but extends to remoter ages, and reaches even to the general resurrection. No one could thus declare ‘the times and the seasons’ (Acts 1:7), but He who ‘hath them in His power’ ” (Bishop Newton)

It is at this point in history that, according to the visions of Daniel 2 and 7, we should begin to look for the fourth beast, the Roman Empire, to appear on the scene. As this prediction of Daniel 11 has more to do with eastern affairs, we would expect Rome would come into the prophecy when she began her activities in the eastern territory; and this we find to be so.

“Lay down your rails, ye nations, near and far,
Yoke your full trains to steam’s triumphal car;
Link town to town, unite in iron bands
The long-estranged and oft-embattled lands.

Peace, mild-eyed seraph; knowledge, light Divine,
Shall send their messengers by every line.
Men joined in amity shall wonder long
That hate had power to lead their fathers wrong;
Or that false glory lured their hearts astray,
And made it virtuous and sublime to slay.

How grandly now these wonders of our day
Make preparation for Christ’s royal way,
And with what joyous hope our souls
Do watch the ball of progress as it rolls,
Knowing that all, completed or begun,
Is but the dawning that precedes the sun!”