CHAPTER IX
THE KING
We come now to a remarkable personality, one who fills a large and prominent
place in the prophecy, and who is introduced in these words:—
“And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt
himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous
things against the God of gods and shall prosper until the indignation
be accomplished”(#Da 11:36).
Here we reach that part of the prophecy in regard to which there is the
greatest difference of opinion among expositors; and yet, if we be not
greatly mistaken (as to which our readers must judge) it is an easy matter,
in the light of history, both sacred and profane, to identify that "king"
whose character and doings are set forth in such striking words in our
prophecy. Because, however, of the disagreement referred to, it behooves
us, at this point, to exercise special diligence and care in examining
and applying the proofs; and we ask the reader, on his part, to give close
attention to the exposition of these verses; for one’s understanding
of the word of prophecy as a whole will depend very largely upon the view
he may take of them.
We will first point out some of the current explanations of this part
of the prophetic narrative of Daniel 11.
According to one view (that presented by Smith’s Bible Dictionary
and other reputable authorities such as Taylor) this portion of the prophecy
(#Da 11:36-45) has still to do with Antiochus Epiphanes, and that tyrant
is "the king" of verse 36. That view of the passage is necessitated
by the general scheme of interpretation adopted in the work referred to,
which makes the first coming of Christ and the Kingdom He then established,
to be the "stone, " which strikes the great image of Gentile
dominion upon its feet (#Da 2:34,35). Now, inasmuch as it is a matter
of Bible fact, as well as of familiar history, that Christ did not come
into destructive collision with the Roman empire, but rather strengthened
it, this scheme of interpretation is compelled to ignore the Roman empire,
and to make up the four world powers by counting Media as one and Persia
as another. This makes Greece the fourth, instead of the third, and compels
the idea that the entire 11th chapter has to do with the Greek era.
But this whole scheme is shattered by contact with the undisputed facts.
For first, Scripture declares plainly that Media and Persia formed one
kingdom, not two. Even during the short time that "Darius the Mede"
(#Da 11:1) was on the throne it speaks expressly of "the laws of
the Medes and Persians" (#Da 5:26; 6:8), which shows that, from the
very first, the two constituted one government. The Scripture also says
plainly, "The ram which thou sawest, having two horns, are the kings
of Media and Persia, and the rough goat is the king of Grecia" (#Da
8:20,21). The meaning of this is unmistakable. It shows that the two "horns"
(or powers) were united to form one kingdom; and that it was this united
kingdom (and not that of Persia alone) which was overthrown by Alexander
the Great.
Secondly, it was the power of Rome, not that of Christ’s Kingdom,
which brought the Greek dominion to an end. This happened at the battle
of Actium, a quarter of a century before Christ was born. Therefore, the
view stated above must be dismissed as directly contrary, to the plainest
facts. It may be added, moreover, that there are certain definite statements
made concerning this "king" which cannot possibly be made to
apply to Antiochus, as for instance that he should "prosper until
the indignation be accomplished." We therefore concur with the large
number of expositors who hold that this part of the prophecy cannot be
taken as applying to Antiochus Epiphanes.
THE "BREAK" THEORY
According to another view (one that is widely held at the present day)
there is a complete break in the prophecy at the end of verse 34 (or as
some say at the end of verse 35), all the rest of the chapter being assigned
to the days of antichrist, which were then in the far distant future.
The supposition, however, that an abrupt break occurs at this point, and
an unmentioned interval of many years, where the text has the form of
a continuous historical narrative, is a very radical one; and it certainly
ought not to be accepted without convincing proof. The strongest magnifying
glass would fail to reveal the slightest indication of any such "break,
" but on the contrary every item of the subject matter of verses
34, 35 and 36 is connected with the one which precedes it by the conjunction
"and." On the other hand we find strong reasons for the view
that the prophecy is just what it appears to be, namely, an outline, in
continuous historical form, of the main events of "the latter days,
" that is to say, the second term of Jewish national existence. The
view we hold requires that the last three of the four prophesied world
powers should come into view within the period of this chapter. At the
time it begins the Babylonian empire was already a thing of the past.
Hence the continuance of the prophecy should bring us successively to
the eras of Persia, Greece, and Rome. That it conducts us to the era of
Persia and then to that of Greece is agreed to by all. Why then imagine
that, when we come to the Roman era, which is far the most important of
all, the prophecy (without giving the faintest intimation of such a thing)
takes a sudden leap of many centuries into the future? The only reason
why that strange idea has been entertained by any is that they have not
known of any historical personage who answers to what is stated in these
verses. Yet there is such a personage, and he stands forth very conspicuously
in both Bible history and secular history, as we shall now proceed to
show. But first we ask our readers to bear in mind that the presumption
is strongly against there being any "break" in the prophecy,
as is assumed by those who hold the theory we are now considering. This
presumption stands upon the following grounds:—
First. The form in which the prophecy is given, that of a straightforward
narrative, in continuous historical order, omitting no happening of any
importance, precludes the idea of there being any break, such as is supposed.
Second. The prophecy has expressly for its subject the events of "the
latter days" of Jewish history, and the text itself shows this to
be the designation of the second term of national life for Israel, which
began under Cyrus. This forbids the cutting off of the last (and most
important) part of the prophecy and the application of it to a remote
age.
Third. After verses 36, 37, 38 and 39, which speak of the character and
doings of "the king, " we find the words, "And at the time
of the end shall the king of the south push at (or with) him; and the
king of the north shall come, " etc. (#Da 11:40). This and succeeding
verses (where mention is made of Edom, Moab, and the children of Ammon
peoples which have now long ago ceased to exist) afford clear proof that
the prophecy is still occupied with the era of the wars between Syria
and Egypt, which continued till the battle of Actium, B.C. 30.
Fourth. Finally a conclusive reason for the view we are now presenting
is found in the words of the angel recorded in (#Da 12:7). It will be
observed that the prophecy continues without interruption to verse 4 of
chapter 12, where it reaches its end. But then Daniel asked a question
concerning "the end of these wonders" which the angel had been
foretelling. To this question the angel gives a reply which makes it perfectly
certain that the prophecy extends to the dispersion of the Jews at the
time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and no further. For he
said, "And when He (God) shall have accomplished to scatter the power
of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." We do not
see how it can be contended, in the face of these clear words, that the
prophecy has to do with events subsequent to the scattering of the national
power of the Jewish people; and it is not open to dispute that that took
place in A.D. 70. We shall refer to this at greater length later on.
We have seen that verses 32-35 have to do (as is generally agreed) with
the Asmoneans or Maccabees, verse 35 telling what was to befall them to
the time of the end. What, therefore, we would be led to expect next is
a reference to that order of things in Israel which followed immediately
after the era of the Asmonean princes. And that is exactly what we do
find. For there is no need (and no ground) either for the attempt to make
the next succeeding verses apply to Antiochus Epiphanes, or to make a
sudden and gigantic leap into the far distant future, in order to find
a person whose career might conceivably answer to this part of the prophecy.
For history, both sacred and profane, sets before us a most notable character,
one who appears upon the scene and occupies the centre of the stage in
Israel just at "the end" of the Asmonean era, and one who answers
to every item of the prophetic description. We have reference to that
strange, despotic, ungovernable and unspeakably cruel personage, whom
the evangelists designate emphatically as—
"HEROD THE KING"
—that remarkable character who was a usurper upon the throne of David
when Christ, the true King, was born. The proof which enables us to identify
"the king" of (#Da 11:36-39) with Herod the Great and his dynasty,
is so convincing that we feel warranted in saying that the prophecy could
not possibly mean anyone else.
It would be strange indeed if, in an outline which gives prominence to
Xerxes, Alexander, the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, Antiochus Epiphanes,
and the Maccabees, there were no mention of that remarkable personage
who exerted upon Jewish affairs and destinies an influence greater than
they all, and who sat upon the throne of Israel when Christ was born.
The words, "the king, " should suffice, in the light of the
context, without further description, to identify Herod to those who thoughtfully
read their Bibles; for Herod alone is called by that title in the Gospels,
and he alone had the rank and authority of "king" in Israel
in the days after the captivity, "the latter days." The text
does not speak of a king, but of the king, the emphatic Hebrew article
being used. This is in marked contrast with the terms of v. 40, where
the original speaks of "a king of the north, " and "a king
of the south."
A glance at the context is enough to show that "the king" of
v. 36 cannot mean either of the kings of v. 27. Moreover, these are never
spoken of as "the king, " but always, both before and after
v. 36, as "the king of the north, " or "the king of the
south, " as the case may be. Nor does the Scripture speak of any
"king" who is to arise at the time of the end of this present
age, and who answers at all to the description of the prophecy. The "man
of sin, " described in (#2Th 2:3-10), is supposed by some to be "the
king" of Daniel 11:36. But he is not called a king, nor described
as having kingly rank, but rather as one claiming divine worship in the
temple of God, and backing up his pretensions by means of miracles and
lying wonders. The "king" of (#Da 11:36) is a very different
personage, and achieves his ends in a very different way, as will be clearly
seen by all who diligently compare the two passages.
What has caused able commentators to go astray at this point, and in some
instances to seek far afield for the interpretation of this passage, is
the fact that they were unable to find anyone among the successors of
Antiochus who answers at all to the description of "the king."
But they have overlooked two things which, had they heeded them, would
have kept them from being so misled. Those things are, first, that the
prophecy has not for its subject the kingdoms of Syria or Egypt, but the
people of Israel, and hence the expression, "the king, " without
other qualification, would mean one who was king over Daniel’s people;
and second, that the verses immediately preceding (31-35) relate wholly
to the affairs of the Jews under the Asmonean princes, and hence the terms
of the prophecy itself lead us to look at this point for the beginning
of a new order of things in Israel. And that is just what history certifies
to us; for, precisely at this juncture of affairs, the Asmonean dynasty
was brought to an end by violence and bloodshed, and it was replaced by
that of a "king, " who answers perfectly to the description
of the last part of the prophecy.
Moreover, and to this we would specially invite attention, it is said
of this king that "he shall prosper until the indignation be accomplished"
(or until wrath be completed), in fulfilment of which is the fact that
the dynasty of Herod retained, through all the political upheavals of
the times, its favour with Rome, and flourished in authority in Palestine,
until the destruction of Jerusalem, which is the "wrath, " or
"indignation, " or "tribulation, " to which these
prophecies of Daniel so frequently refer as "the end" of Jewish
nationality. For it was "Herod the king" who sought to compass
the death of Christ soon after His birth, and whose successors of his
own family put to death John the Baptist (this was done by Herod Antipas)
and James the brother of John (by Herod Agrippa I, who also imprisoned
Peter, intending to deliver him to the Jews) and finally sent Paul in
chains to Rome (which was done by Herod Agrippa II, the last of the dynasty,
the man who is best known to the world as he who was "almost persuaded").
"ACCORDING TO HIS WILL"
The first thing said of this king is that he should "do according
to his will." This is usually taken to mean that he would be of an
exceptionally self-willed disposition, one of the sort who act without
restraint, and without regard to the rights or the feelings of others.
This may indeed be in part the meaning of the words; but much more than
this is implied. Self-willed people are so very numerous that, if that
were all that were meant, the words could not serve for purposes of identification.
But not many are so placed, and have such power in their hands that they
are able to "do, " that is, to achieve or accomplish what they
"will" or plan to do; and this is what is meant. For the expression
is used in this same prophecy of two other notable personages. The first
of these is Alexander the Great, of whom it is said that he "shall
rule with great dominion, and do according to his will" (#Da 11:3).
The other (#Da 11:16) has been identified as Antiochus the Great. Of him
also it is said, "he shall do according to his own will; " and
history shows that this monarch, too, was very successful, during the
first part of his reign, in carrying out his various designs.
This is what distinguished Herod the Great in a remarkable degree. For
history records nothing of this nature more notable than Herod’s
success in rising up from a lowly origin to the rank and authority of
king, in securing for himself despotic power and retaining it through
all the political changes of the times, and in the way he used that power
for the accomplishment of all his designs, however stupendous in magnitude
(as the rebuilding of the temple) or atrocious in character (as condemning
to death his own wife and children). For Herod contrived to secure the
favour and confidence, first of Julius Caesar, then of Mark Antony, and
then of Octavius Caesar, though he had assisted Antony and Cleopatra against
him. All things considered, there is nothing more wonderful in the career
of Herod than his extraordinary success in doing "according to his
will."
But, taking the expression in the other sense, we may say that it would
be difficult to find in history one who so ruthlessly executed the designs
of his own tyrannical and cruel heart, even upon those of his own flesh
and blood, as Herod the king. His murder of his best loved wife, the beautiful
Mariamne, who was a princess of the Asmonean family, is, in its special
circumstances, without parallel in history. He put to death also three
of his own sons (two of them by this favourite wife) because he suspected
them of aspiring to his throne; and similar deeds of wilfulness characterized
his entire reign. Josephus gives many instances of this (see for example
Ant. XII 9, 4).
EXALTING AND MAGNIFYING HIMSELF
Further it is said of this king that "he shall exalt himself and
magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against
the God of gods." These words are descriptive of Herod. The words
"above every god" may be taken to mean every ruler and authority
in Israel, just as "God of gods" means the Supreme Authority
above all authorities. Herod did successfully aspire to the lordship over
every authority in the land, whether priests or rulers. He assumed to
appoint whom he would to the office of high priest. He put his own brother-in-law,
Aristobulus, Mariamne’s brother, in that office, and shortly after
had him murdered (Ant. XV 3, 5).
Herod also uttered great things against the God of gods. This, we believe,
refers specially (though not exclusively) to his decree for the slaughter
of the babes of Bethlehem, the express purpose of which was to get rid
of Immanuel, God come in the flesh to be the Ruler of His people, and
to be "Prince of the kings of the earth" (#Re 1:5). Herod’s
way of making himself secure upon the throne was to put to death every
suspected rival. For Herod, in common with the Jewish teachers in his
day (and with some teachers in our own day who ought to know better) mistakenly
supposed that the Christ of God was coming at that time to occupy the
earthly throne upon which Herod was then seated. We shall have occasion
to refer again to this prominent act in the career of Herod.
THE DESIRE OF WOMEN
Verse 37 reads: "Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers,
nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself
above all."
These words call for special comment. The first clause manifestly could
not apply to any heathen king like Antiochus. For whether or not a heathen
king should change his national gods is a matter of no importance whatever.
But with a king of Israel it is a matter of supreme importance. Now Herod,
though supposedly of Idumean (i.e. Edomite) origin, was virtually a Jew;
for all the remaining Idumeans, who had come into Judea several centuries
previous, had been amalgamated with the Jews. In addressing the people
Herod habitually used the expression "our fathers" (Ant. Bk.
XV Ch. 11, See. 1). So fully was Herod regarded as a Jew, that the Herodians
even held him to be the Messiah. Therefore, in introducing the worship
of Caesar, Herod conspicuously failed to "regard the God of his fathers."
Moreover, in this connection, it should not be forgotten that Esau was
Jacob’s twin brother, and hence that the God of the fathers of the
Edomites was the same as the God of the fathers of the Jews.
The words, "nor the desire of women, " are very significant.
There can scarcely be any doubt that they refer to Christ, and that Daniel
would so understand them. For, of course, the "women" must be
understood to be women of Israel; and the ardent "desire" of
every one of them was that she might be the mother of Christ. The same
word is found in (#Hag 2:7): "And the Desire of all nations shall
come." Evidently then it is Christ who is referred to as "the
desire of women"; and if so, then we have a striking fulfilment of
these words in Herod’s attempt to murder the infant Messiah. For
the record given in (#Mt 2:1-16) makes it quite clear that Herod’s
deliberate purpose was to put to death the promised Messiah of Israel.
It was for the accomplishment of that purpose that he inquired of the
chief priests and scribes as to where Christ should be born. The slaughter
of the babes of Bethlehem was an act of atrocity almost without parallel
in history. It was, moreover, an event that had been foretold by Jeremiah
in the words, "A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter
weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, " etc. (#Jer 31:15, quoted
in #Mt 2:17,18). Each one of those murdered infants was "the desire"
of his own mother; and thus Herod fulfilled (#Da 11:37) in another sense.
THE GOD OF FORCES
Verse 38 (#Da 11:38) reads: "And in his estate, " or for his
establishment, "shall he honour the god of forces, " or god
of fortresses; "and (or even) a god whom his fathers knew not shall
be honour, with gold and silver, and precious (or costly) stones, and
with pleasant (or valuable) things."
Herod’s career affords a most striking fulfilment of this verse.
The expression, "god of forces, or fortresses, " is so unusual
that it furnishes a most satisfactory means of identification; for it
applies to the Caesars as to none others in history, seeing that the Roman
emperors claimed for themselves divine honours, and that it was by "forces,
" or "fortifications, " that they extended and maintained
their power, and enforced the worship they demanded. This honour Herod
paid to them, and after the most extravagant fashion; and he did it, of
course, in order to make himself secure, that is to say, "for his
own establishment, " as the text of v. 38 may be rendered. This honour
paid by Herod, first to Julius Caesar, then to Antony, and then to Antony’s
conqueror, Augustus, was one of the most conspicuous features of Herod’s
policy. Josephus records how he sent delegations to Rome, and also to
Antony and Cleopatra in Egypt, bearing the most costly presents; also
how he converted the ancient Strato’s Tower into a magnificent seaport,
and named it Caesarea, in honour of Caesar, and how later he rebuilt Samaria,
and renamed it Sebaste (Sebastos being the equivalent of Augustus). He
built many other fortified cities and named them in honour of Caesar.
The same subject is continued in verse 39, (#Da 11:39) which reads: "Thus
shall he do in the most strongholds with a strange god whom he shall acknowledge
and increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and
shall divide the land for gain, " or "parcel out the land for
hire."
Here we have a reference to one of the most prominent acts of Herod’s
long reign, namely, his rebuilding of the temple, and his making the temple
area a stronghold for Caesar. He made the temple the most famous building
in the world for its dimensions, its magnificence, and particularly for
the size of the stones whereof it was built, to which the disciples specially
directed the Lord’s attention (#Mr 13:1), and which Josephus says
were 25 cubits long, 12 broad, and 8 thick (Ant. XV II, 3). But, in rebuilding
it, Herod took care to convert it into a fortress for his own purposes,
this being the "most stronghold" of the land. As a part of this
plan he constructed on the north side of the temple, and overlooking it,
a strong citadel which he named the Tower of Antonia, after Mark Antony.
Josephus says:
“But for the Tower itself, when Herod the king of the Jews had fortified
it more firmly than before, in order to secure and guard the temple, he
gratified Antonius who was his friend and the Roman ruler by calling it
the Tower of Antonia”(Ant. XV. 11:4-7).
Further this historian says that the fortified places
“were two, the one belonging to the city itself, the other belonging
to the temple; and those that could get them into their hands had the
whole nation under their power, for without the command of them it was
not possible to offer their sacrifices”(Ant. XV. 11:7-8).
It was from the stairs leading to this famous Tower, up which the apostle
Paul was being taken by the soldiers to save him from the violence of
the people, that he stilled them by a gesture of his hand, and gained
their attention by addressing them in the Hebrew tongue (#Ac 21:34-40).
Again Josephus says of Herod that,
“When Caesar had further bestowed upon him another additional country,
he built there also a temple of white marble, hard by the fountains of
Jordan; " and also "to say all at once, there was not any place
in his kingdom fit for the purpose, that was permitted to be without somewhat
that was for Caesar’s honour; and when he had filled his own country
with temples, he poured out like plentiful marks of his esteem into his
province, and built many cities which he called Caesareas”(Wars I,
21:2).
In connection with the prediction of what this king would do in the chief
strongholds—"with a strange god, " mention should be made
of the many images, statues of Caesar, which Herod set up to be worshipped
in various fortified places. He even went so far in his sacrilege as to
place a huge golden eagle (the adored emblem of imperial Rome) at the
very gate of the temple, thus giving rise to a tumult and insurrection
among the people. In this way did he, in his estate (office), "honour
the god of forces" (Caesar) whose statues he everywhere introduced
as objects of worship. He fulfilled with literal exactness the words,
"Thus shall he do in the most strongholds, "( which expression
would apply to the citadel of the temple, where he erected the Tower of
Antonia) "with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge, and increase
with glory" (#Da 11:39). The last clause finds a striking fulfilment
in Herod’s extravagant pains to glorify Caesar, which, as we have
shown, went beyond all bounds.
The words "dividing the land for gain" (or parcelling it out
for hire) were fulfilled in the practice adopted by Herod of parcelling
out among persons favourable to himself, the land adjacent to places which
it was important for him to control in case of emergency. Josephus speaks
of this (Ant. XV 8, 5).
We thus find that every item foretold of "the king" was completely
fulfilled in the career of Herod, and that the record of this fulfilment
has come down to us in an authentic contemporary history, which is on
all hands acknowledged to be trustworthy in an unusually high degree.
Other predictions concerning this "king" are given in verses
44, 45 (#Da 11:44,45). These also were fulfilled with literal exactness,
as will be shown when we come to the exposition of those verses.
THE TIME OF THE END
In order to avoid confusion it is needful to observe that "the time
of the end" may mean one period in one place, and a very different
period in another. The meaning is controlled, and is also revealed, by
the context. But this is quite frequently overlooked; and we have observed
that even careful writers on prophecy have a disposition to take the words
"the time of the end" as meaning the end of the gospel dispensation,
even when the passage in which they occur does not relate to the present
dispensation at all.
Particularly should it be noted that in the Book of Daniel there are two
distinct sets of prophecies. The first set, found in chapters II, VII
and VIII, relate to the great Gentile world powers, and the prophecies
of chapters II and VII carry us on to the end of the times of the Gentiles
(chapter VIII gives details of the Greek empire, thus filling in the outline
given in the vision of chapter VII). But the second series (chapters IX-XII
inclusive) have to do with the history of Daniel’s own people and
his holy city. Hence the expression "time of the end, " where
it occurs in these later prophecies, means the last stage of the national
existence of Daniel’s people, that is to say, the era of the Herods.
The period of Jewish history occupied by Herod and his dynasty was therefore
"the time of the end" in the sense required by the context;
so we have a strong confirmation of the view we have been presenting in
the fact that, just at this point in the prophecy, there is given us an
outline of those great events (which occurred during the reign of Herod)
whereby political supremacy in the world was given to the Caesars, and
all was made ready for the coming of the Redeemer. This outline is found
in (#Da 11:40-43), and brings us to the subjugation of Egypt (the last
of the great independent monarchies to fall under the spreading power
of Rome) with the Libyans and Ethiopians. The records of history correspond
so exactly to the predictions of this prophecy (as we shall presently
point out) that there can be no question at all as to its fulfilment.
In reading this chapter it is to be remembered that the prophecy is not
primarily concerned with Syria, Egypt, Rome or any other alien power,
but that it refers to them only insofar as they come in contact with,
and affect the destinies of, the Jews.
CAESAR AUGUSTUS
Hence these verses (#Da 11:40-43) have a parenthetical character. They
read as follows:
“And at the time of the end shall a king of the south push at him
(or with him); and a king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind
with chariots and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter
into the countries, and shall overflow, and pass over. He shall enter
also into the glorious land; and many countries shall be overthrown; but
these shall escape out of his hand, Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the
children of Ammon. He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries,
and the land of Egypt shall not escape, but he shall have power over the
treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt;
and the Libyans and Ethiopians shall be at his steps.”
The events foretold in this part of the prophecy took place "at the
time of the end; " that is to say they were coincident with the last
era of Jewish history, the era of the Herods. At that time a king of the
south (Cleopatra, the last to occupy the throne of Egypt, aided by Mark
Antony) made a push with Herod, who was in league with them, against Syria,
which had meanwhile become a Roman province. This was the beginning of
the great Actian war.
As to the manner in which that war began, we have a very clear account
in Plutarch’s "Life of Mark Antony, " by which it appears
that the fulfilment of the prophecy was marvellously exact, not only as
regards the manner in which the war began, but also in respect to the
sides on which the different parties were at first engaged in it, in regard
also to the outcome, to the peculiar arms, "chariots and horsemen
and many ships"—by means of which the victories of Augustus
were achieved, and finally, in regard also to the rapidity of his conquest,
which was effected within the space of a single year.
"DANIEL’S LAST VISION"
Our papers on the eleventh chapter of Daniel, in which we identified Herod
as "the king" of verse 36, and showed that verses (#Da 11:40-43)
were fulfilled in the events whereby Egypt fell under the all conquering
arms of Augustus Caesar, were completed ready for the printer in the early
part of 1922. Prior to August of that year we were not aware that anyone
had previously pointed out that the predictions concerning "the king"
were fulfilled by Herod, or that the fulfilment of the last verses of
the chapter was to be found in the stirring and world changing events
of his reign.
But in August of 1922 there came into our hands in a strange way (which
seemed providential) an old book, now long out of print, in which, to
our great surprise and gratification, we found our conclusions as to the
above matters set forth, and supported by proofs more ample than we ourselves
had collected. The book was written by James Farquharson, and was printed
in Aberdeen, Scotland, in 1838. It bears the following quaint and lengthy
title: Daniel’s Last Vision and Prophecy, respecting which Commentators
have greatly differed from each other, showing its Fulfilment in events
recorded in authentic history.
In our comments, which here follow, on verses (#Da 11:40-43), we are indebted
to this volume for the quotations from Plutarch’s Life of Mark Antony,
which set the fulfilment of those verses in such a clear light.
PLUTARCH’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIAN WAR
The first move in the Actian war was made by Antony (at the urgency of
Cleopatra), in which he was assisted by Herod. Says Plutarch:
“Antony, being informed of these things" (that is of certain
disputes between Augustus and others in the Senate at Rome) "immediately
sent Canidus to the seacoast with sixteen legions. In the meantime he
went to Ephesus attended by Cleopatra. There he assembled his fleet, which
consisted of 800 ships of burden, whereof Cleopatra furnished 200 besides
20,000 talents, and provisions for the army.”
Antony advanced to Athens, with constantly increasing forces, Augustus
being wholly unprepared to meet him; for says the historian:
“When Caesar was informed of the celerity and magnificence of Antony’s
preparations, he was afraid of being forced into war that summer. This
would have been most inconvenient for him, for he was in want of almost
everything. *** The auxiliary kings who fought under his (Antony’s)
banner were Bocchus of Africa, " &c. a list being given—"Those
who did not attend in person, but sent supplies were Polemo of Pontus,
Malchus of Arabia, Herod of Judea, and Amyntas of Lycaonia and Galatia.”
Thus a king of the south was the first to make a push in this war, and
he pushed with Herod. As showing the accuracy of the prophecy it should
be noted that, as Plutarch records, the Senate of Rome declared war with
Cleopatra alone, ignoring Antony, so that it was strictly between a king
of the north, and a king of the south.
Mr. Farquharson points out that the predictions of the prophet were strictly
fulfilled also in respect to the character of the forces engaged in the
war. For, notwithstanding that each side assembled large numbers of infantry,
and notwithstanding that such are the arms usually relied upon to decide
a war, yet in this case the infantry were not engaged at all, the issue
being decided (as the prophecy indicates) by chariots and horsemen, and
many ships.
A strange feature of the affair is that, although Antony’s footmen
outnumbered those of Augustus, and although his generals urged him to
bring the matter to an issue in a land battle, nevertheless (to quote
again from Plutarch)—
“Such a slave was he to the will of a woman that, to gratify her,
though much superior on land, he put his whole confidence in the navy;
notwithstanding that the ships had not half their complement of men.”
This brought on the great naval fight of Actium, which ended in a complete
victory for Augustus; and thus did a king of the north come upon a king
of the south, with the effect of a whirlwind, with many ships. A more
literal and exact fulfilment of prophecy could not be found.
But that is not all. For Plutarch records that, after the disaster at
Actium, Antony’s infantry deserted him, so that the infantry were
not engaged during the entire war.
“But, " says Farquharson, "when Antony arrived in Egypt,
and endeavoured to defend it, to fulfil the prediction of the Prophet
that the king of the north would come with chariots and horsemen, as well
as with many ships—there were actions with cavalry." For Plutarch
says, "When Caesar arrived he encamped near the hippodrome (at Alexandria);
whereupon Antony made a brisk sally, routed the cavalry, drove them back
into their trenches, and returned to the city with the complacency of
a conqueror." It was the conduct of their fleets and cavalry that
sealed the fate of Antony and Cleopatra, and left them without resource
in their last retreat.”
"THE COUNTRIES AND THE GLORIOUS LAND"
The course pursued by Augustus after his triumph over Antony and Cleopatra
follows most literally the predictions of the prophecy. For he entered
into the countries, and overflowed, and passed over them, possessing himself
of regions of Africa, Upper Cilicia, Paphlagonia, Thrace, Pontus, Galatia,
and other provinces from Illyria to Armenia. Moreover "he entered
also into the glorious land, " that is to say the land of Judea,
which has already been designated (#Da 11:16) "the glorious land."
For Augustus chose to invade Egypt by way of Palestine, at which time
Herod (who had already with great prudence and foresight made his submission
to Augustus, and with such skilful diplomacy that it was accepted), rendered
him much assistance. Josephus says:
“Caesar went for Egypt through Syria when Herod received him with
royal and rich entertainments; and then did he first of all ride along
with Caesar, as he was reviewing his army about Ptolemais, and feasted
him with all his friends, and then distributed among the rest of his army
what was necessary to feast then withal” (Wars I, 20, 3).
EDOM, MOAB AND AMMON
The reference in verse 41 (#Da 11:41) to the countries of Edom, Moab and
Ammon should be enough, without anything further, to show that we must
seek the fulfilment of this part of the prophecy in Bible times. Those
names had a geographical significance to Daniel, and to others of his
day, who would understand by them the mingled peoples of the lands adjacent
to Judea on the east and south. Now it is recorded in history that those
countries did escape, in a remarkable manner, out of the hand of Augustus,
in strong contrast with what the next verse says concerning Egypt, "And
the land of Egypt shall not escape" (#Da 11:42).
Augustus sent an expedition into the countries referred to under Aelius
Gallus, in which he was joined by five hundred of Herod’s guards
(Josephus, Ant. XV 9, 3). Dean Prideaux, the well known commentator, refers
to this expedition and its failure, citing Pliny, Strabo, and Dio Cassius
(Prideaux’ Connections. Vol. II, pp. 605 et seq.). The Universal
History, in a note added to their account of the expedition, says: "The
bad success that attended Aelius in this expedition deterred both him
and others from any further attempts on that country" (Ancient Universal
History. Vol. XIII, p. 498).
THE TREASURES OF EGYPT
The prophecy makes special reference to the vast treasures of Egypt, saying:
"But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver,
and over all the precious things of Egypt" (#Da 11:43).
Here again are words which make it perfectly clear that the fulfilment
of this prophecy must be sought in the days of Egypt’s greatness
and wealth, and is not to be found in the squalid and poverty stricken
Egypt of later times, which, according to the sure word of prophecy, was
to become "the basest of the kingdoms, " and not to exalt itself
any more (#Eze 29:15).
But in the days of Herod and Mark Antony the treasures of Egypt were of
fabulous value; and here again history furnishes us with such a marvellous
fulfilment of this item of the prophecy that we can but think the records
have been providentially cared for. Speaking of Cleopatra’s vast
and famous treasures of gold, silver and precious stones, and other rare
and costly objects, Farquharson says that "the history of the fate
of her treasures is very singular, and is worthy of a more detailed reference
to it."
So he shows how this great treasure had been accumulated during the centuries
of the Macedonian rulers of Egypt (the Ptolemies), being drawn from the
great grain trade of the country, and from the very lucrative commerce
of Alexandria "through which passed the gems, pearls, spices, and
other rich produce and merchandise of India, which from earliest ages
have been in high request in the western part of the world."
Continuing his account Farquharson says:
“Augustus Caesar was very desirous of securing the treasures of the
sovereign of this wealthy city; but there was, on two occasions, the utmost
hazard that they should elude his grasp. For after Cleopatra fled from
the battle of Actium Plutarch says, ’she formed the design of drawing
her galleys over the isthmus into the Red Sea, and purposed, with all
her wealth and forces, to seek some remote country.”
That design was abandoned; but—
“When Caesar afterwards, approaching from Judea, took Pelusium and
entered Egypt, the same author says, ’Cleopatra had erected near
the temple of Isis some monuments of extraordinary size and magnificence.
To these she removed her treasure, her gold, silver, emeralds pearls,
ebony, ivory, and cinnamon. *** Caesar was under some apprehensions about
this immense wealth, lest, upon some sudden emergency, she should set
fire to the whole. For this reason he was continually sending messengers
to her with assurances of generous and honourable treatment, while in
the meantime he hastened to the city with his army.’ *** Her person
and the treasures in the monument were afterwards secured by a stratagem,
as related by Plutarch; and thus a king of the north had power over the
treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt.”
THE LIBYANS AND ETHIOPIANS
The prophecy also says concerning this victorious king, "and the
Libyans and Ethiopians shall be at his steps" (#Da 11:43). Commenting
on these words Farquharson says:
“The conquest of Egypt and maritime Libya laid inner Libya and Ethiopia
open to the steps, that is, as we may interpret the term, to the inroads
of Augustus Caesar, and his officers, of which advantage was soon after
taken by them.”
And this author proceeds to show the conquest of the countries named in
the prophecy, by Cornelius Balbus, which was considered so great an achievement
that Balbus, though not a native Roman, was, contrary to all precedent,
allowed a triumph. Thus, while Augustus did not himself subdue those countries,
they were "at his steps, " as the prophecy says, at the time
he left Africa and returned to Rome.
Thus ancient history, which has been preserved to our day, shows to us
a series of events of the highest importance in shaping the course of
human affairs, which events correspond with marvellous exactitude, and
in just the right sequence, to the several details of the prophecy, the
entire series having taken place at precisely the era we should look for
them to occur, if we take the prophecy to be what it appears to be, namely,
a continuous prophetic narrative. If then this be not a fulfilment, there
is nothing that can be with certainty recognized as a fulfilment of inspired
prophecy.
TIDINGS FROM EAST AND NORTH
We come now to the last two verses of chapter 11, which read thus:
“But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him;
therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to
make away many. And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between
the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end and
none shall help him”(#Da 11:44,45).
It is not at first glance apparent who is the antecedent of the pronoun
"he" in these verses. But upon close attention to the text it
will be seen that we have here a return to the main subject of this part
of the prophecy, "the king" of verse 36 (#Da 11:36), the course
of the prophecy having been diverted in verses 40-43 (#Da 11:40-43) to
the subject of the conquests of Augustus Caesar. Very often, in reading
the Hebrew prophets, we have to look a considerable distance backwards
to find the antecedent of a pronoun. As an instance of this, Farquharson
cites Bishop Horsley as saying, in commenting upon Isaiah 18, "To
those to whom the prophetic style in the original is not familiar, but
to those only, I think, it will appear strange that a pronoun should refer
to an antecedent at so great a distance." And Farquharson adds: "And
the correctness of this view of the whole passage is confirmed by the
literal manner in which the predictions in this 44th verse, and in the
remaining verse of the chapter, were fulfilled by Herod."
Indeed we do not see how any fulfilment could be more complete and literal
than that which is given us in Matthew’s Gospel of the words "But
tidings out of the east shall trouble him." For it is written that
"When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod
the king, behold there came wise men FROM THE EAST to Jerusalem, saying,
Where is He that is born king of the Jews? for we have seen His star IN
THE EAST, and are come to worship Him. When Herod heard these things he
was TROUBLED, and all Jerusalem with him" (#Mt 2:1-3). So here we
have the exact thing prophesied, namely, "tidings out of the east"
which "troubled him."
Nothing was so well calculated to "trouble" Herod as reports
that some one was aspiring to his throne. In this case it is among the
most familiar of all facts that Herod, being set at nought by the wise
men, from whom he sought to learn the identity of the new born babe, "was
EXCEEDING WROTH, and SENT FORTH, and slew all the children that were in
Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under"
(#Mt 2:16). Thus we have almost verbal agreement with the words of the
prophecy, "he shall Go FORTH, with GREAT FURY, to destroy and utterly
to make away MANY."
At about the same time, that is, in the last years of Herod’s life,
"tidings out of the north" also came to "trouble"
that self-tormenting monarch. For Antipater, his oldest son (a despicable
character), then at Rome (which had now become the centre of what is indefinitely
called in this prophecy "the north") conspired to have letters
written to his father giving information that two other of his sons, whom
he purposed to make his successors, had calumniated their father to Caesar.
This caused Herod again to break forth with intense "fury" against
his own sons, and their supposed abettors, as related by Josephus at great
length (Ant. XVII 4-7; Wars 1:30-33).
In regard to these extraordinary events, Farquharson quotes a passage
(which we give below) from the Universal Ancient History, saying he does
so the more readily because the authors of the passage had no thought
at all of recording a fulfilment of prophecy. They say:
“The reader may remember that we left Herod in the most distracted
state that can well be imagined; his conscience stung with the most lively
grief for the murder of his beloved and virtuous Mariamne and of her two
worthy sons; his life and crown in imminent danger from the rebellious
Antipater, and ungrateful Pheroras; his reign stained with rivers of innocent
blood; his latter days embittered by the treacherous intrigues of a sister;
his person and family hated by the whole Jewish nation; and last of all,
his crown and all his glories on the eve of being obscured by the birth
of a miraculous Child, who is proclaimed by heaven and earth to be the
promised and long expected Messiah and Saviour of the world. To all these
plagues we must add some fresh intelligences which came tumbling in upon
that wretched monarch and which by assuring him still more, not only of
the treasonable designs of the unnatural Antipater, but also of the bitter
complaints which his other two sons, then at the Roman court, vented against
them both, rendered him more than ever completely miserable”(Universal
History, Vol. X. pp. 492, 493).
Herod’s "great fury" (to use the words of the prophecy)
was not confined to the babes of Bethlehem, and to members of his own
family. For, says Josephus, "it was also during paroxysms of fury,
that, nearly about the same time, he burned alive Matthias and forty young
men with him, who had pulled down the golden image of the Roman eagle,
which he had placed over the gate of the temple" (Ant. XVII 7). Furthermore
Josephus relates the following characteristic action of Herod:
“He came again to Jericho, where he became so choleric, that it brought
him to do all things like a madman; and though he was near death, yet
he contrived the following wicked designs: He commanded that all the principal
men of the entire Jewish nation be called to him. Accordingly there were
a great number that came, because *** death was the penalty of such that
should despise the epistles that were sent to call them. And now the king
was in a wild rage against them all; *** and when they were come, he ordered
them all to be shut up in the hippodrome, and sent for his sister Salome
and her husband Alexas, and spake thus to them: ’I shall die in a
little time, so great are my pains; *** but what principally troubles
me is this, that I shall die without being lamented, and without such
a mourning as men usually expect at a king’s death.’ ”
Therefore, in order to insure that the nation should be plunged into mourning,
he left an order that, immediately upon his own death, all those leaders
of the Jews, whom he had confined in the hippodrome, should be slain.
That order, however, was not carried out.
HIS PALACE AND HIS END
We have already pointed out that Herod placed his royal dwelling places
"in the glorious holy mountain, " he having two palaces in Jerusalem,
one in the temple area, and the other in the upper city. So they were
"between the seas, " that is, the Mediterranean and the Dead
Seas.
The last word of the prophecy concerning him is: "Yet he shall come
to his end, and none shall help him." As to this we cannot do better
than to quote Farquharson’s comment:
“This part of the prediction obviously implies that, in his last
hours, the king would apply for deliverance or remedy, from some affliction
or disease, but would receive none. And how literally was this fulfilled
in the end of Herod the Great! History has preserved to us few such circumstantial
accounts of the last days of remarkable men, as that which Josephus has
transmitted to us of his; but we deem it too long for insertion here.
It exhibits the most fearful picture to be found anywhere of the end of
an impenitent sinner, who, having cast out of his heart all fear of God
and all feeling of responsibility to Him, had equally lost all sense of
duty to man; and after committing innumerable crimes and cruelties—in
which he spared not those connected with him by the dearest and tenderest
ties, any more than others—was at last seized in his old age with
a painful and loathsome disease; and suffering alike from that, and from
the pangs of guilty fear, yet continued in a course of extreme wickedness
to his last hour, seeking no remedy for his evil passions, but exhausting
all the resources of the physician’s skill to mitigate his bodily
distemper and lengthen out his wretched life. We refer to Josephus for
an account of the remedies and expedients to which he had recourse by
the advice of his physicians; all of which failed to relieve or arrest
the disease which cut him off while he was meditating new crimes of matchless
cruelty.”
Thus he came to his end, and none helped him. He died a prey to horrible
diseases, and to horrible remorse, just five days after he had ordered
the execution of his oldest son. We have deemed the matter
of sufficient importance to give to the explanation of this part of the
chapter (#Da 11:36-45) a minute and detailed examination. For we are convinced
that the theory of a "break" after verse 34 (or 35), involving
the transference bodily of all the rest of the prophecy (including the
part contained in chapter 12) to a future day, deranges all that part
of the prophetic Word which it is important for us to "understand"
at the present time. Conversely, our belief is that, with this important
passage correctly settled, other things, which have been involved in the
general obscurity occasioned by the "break" theory, will be
cleared up. Indeed we shall not have to go very far to find practical
proof of this.
And now that we have reviewed the evidences which point to Herod the Great
as the "king" foretold in this passage, our wonder is that any
careful students of prophecy could have missed so plain a mark. For the
passage foretells that, at a definite point in Jewish history, namely,
just at the close of the Asmonean era, there should arise (what had not
been in Israel for nearly five hundred years) a "king; " and
the character and doings of this king (which are of a most unusual sort)
are predicted in strong and clear words. In perfect agreement with this,
as fully recorded in the Bible and in profane history, is the fact that,
precisely at the point indicated, there did arise one who became "king"
over Daniel’s people, which king had precisely the character, and
did precisely the things which the prophecy had foretold of him.
Let it be noted that at verse 35 we reach the end of the Asmonean era,
as nearly all commentators have clearly perceived. But the history of
the renewed Jewish nation did not end there, and neither does the prophecy
end there. What was next? In the history of the Jewish people the next
and last stage was occupied by a king, whose character was one of the
most detestable, and whose doings were among the most atrocious, of any
that have been recorded in the annals of the human race, he being, moreover,
the only "king" over the Jewish nation in all this long period
of more than 500 years. In perfect agreement with this we find that the
next section of the prophecy, which also is the last, is occupied with
a description of the character and doings of one who is simply designated
as "the king." Furthermore, upon comparing the records of history
with the detailed statements of the prophecy, we find an answer in each
and every particular. We would not know where to look for a more complete
and literal fulfilment of prophecy.
Again we would point out that, considering the nature and purpose of this
prophecy, as divinely announced in chapter 10:14, (#Da 10:14) and as manifested
in verses 1 to 35 of chapter 11, (#Da 11:1-35) it is simply impossible
that "Herod the king" should not have a place, and a prominent
place, in it. And even so in fact we find him there, just at the right
place, and described with such detail and accuracy as to make it an easier
matter to identify him, when we have the facts of history before us, than
to identify any of the other notable characters to whom the prophecy refers.
It would seem that, in regard to this exceedingly plain matter, some sound
and able teachers have been misled through having accepted the idea of
a "break" in the preceding prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, to
which (as we have pointed out) that of chapter 11 and 12 is a supplement.
That made it easy to surmise a similar "break" in chapter 11
when they came to a personage whom, through their not having in mind the
records of sacred and profane history, they failed to identify. We are
confident, however, that no unbiased persons, after considering what we
have presented above, will doubt that "the king" whose portrait
is given in this passage is Herod the Great.
Index - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - Appendix
