“A vile person” (ch. 11:21).
WE come now to the second of the three paragraphs (vers. 21-36) into which our chapter is divided.
The Spirit of God, though entering into considerable detail, had passed with comparative rapidity over the previous history of the kings of the north and the south. A period of 130 years had been described from verse 5 to 21, but here we cannot but be struck with a change, for in the section now before us, ten years only (B.C. 175 to B.C.165) are under review. In the former division, many successive kings are referred to, whereas here one king only occupies the prophet’s vision. This is the notorious Antiochus Epiphanes, most appropriately named “a vile person.”
The question naturally arises, Why should so much more notice be taken of the king whose reign did not exceed ten years? The answer is that Antiochus Epiphanes was to be a type of another king who has not yet arisen; and bad as Antiochus was, this other will be infinitely worse. Both the one and the other were to come into close contact with the affairs of Palestine and the Jews, and this it is that gives them importance in the sight of God, for God’s heart and interest is with His people, however unworthy they may prove themselves to be.
The accuracy of the description here given, is as remarkable as what we have already noticed in the previous part of the chapter, leaving no possible doubt that the Spirit of God had Antiochus Epiphanes in view when he inspired Daniel to give this wonderful forecast of the future.
According to profane history, Antiochus, who was the brother of Seleucus, the previous king of the north, was on his return from Rome when the news of the death of his brother reached him, and also of the attempts being made by the murderer of his brother, to usurp the throne for himself. Ptolemy, King of Egypt, was likewise plotting to keep him out, and so were fulfilled the prophet’s words, “to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom” (vs. 21), that is to say, he succeeded to the throne in spite of the attempts being made to deprive him of the honor of the kingdom. But for all that he came in peaceably, for when in Greece, on his way back from Rome, he obtained the assistance of two powerful kings, by whose means the usurper was suppressed, and Antiochus himself placed on the throne. It was then that he took the name of Epiphanes, or the illustrious, but owing to his vile and despicable character, he was commonly nicknamed Epimanes, or the madman.
The character given of Antiochus by Josephus and other historians shows how well he earned the title here given anticipatively by the Spirit of God, “a vile person,” for this he was in truth, but what was of more importance still, and what in the eyes of the God of Israel was greater guilt on his part, he was a wicked persecutor of the Israel of God. True, that people had rendered themselves liable to chastisement by their own unfaithfulness, but God will not allow those to go unpunished who, for selfish motives, injure and persecute His people.
In order to retain Palestine in his possession, and utilize the Jewish nation in one of his expeditions into Egypt, Antiochus entered into a league with the brother of the high priest, in order to supplant him in the office, and scattered honors and money amongst certain Jews, who turned their backs upon the holy covenant. All this is alluded to in verse 23 and 24. At first all went well, and the Egyptians were defeated. Ptolemy fell into his hands, but instead of killing him, Antiochus received him at his table, though this appearance of friendship was a mere pretense, as is here said, “they shall speak lies at one table” (vs. 27).
But the designs of Antiochus did not prosper, so he returned to his own land, carrying thither the riches he had amassed during his expedition. A rumor had reached Jerusalem that he was dead, and this created such rejoicing there, that Antiochus was stirred with rage against the Jews— “his heart shall be against the holy covenant” (vs. 28). On his way back to Syria, he stopped at Jerusalem, and by means of the traitors amongst the Jews, he took possession of the city. It was on this occasion that he penetrated into the temple, and there in mockery offered up a sow on the altar, and caused the broth to be scattered over the sanctuary, thus defiling the holy places, and causing the sacrifices to cease. This is alluded to in chapter 8. in the parenthetic clause of verses if, 12. We have already noticed the change from “it” to “he” in that clause. The “it” of verse 10, and the latter half of verse 12, is the little horn, or the last king of the north; the “he” is the one who typified this last king, in other words, Antiochus Epiphanes. The cleansing of the sanctuary (chs. 8:13, 14), we believe, refers to what took place some four years after this awful desecration, when Judas Maecabæus recovered Jerusalem out of the hands of the heathen.
Now comes the inspired account of the last expedition made by Antiochus into Egypt (chs. 11:29-35). “But it shall not be as the former,” that is, it would be unattended by the partial successes of former times; but neither shall it be “as the latter,” that is, humiliating as this defeat was to be, it would be as nothing compared to the disaster that should overwhelm, in days that are yet future, the king of the north, of whom Antiochus was the type.
In verse 30, we are told what was the real cause of his defeat, “the ships of Chittim shall come against him” (vs. 30). Here, then, we have the intervention of a western power. It is the Romans that we are to understand by “the ships of Chittim,” and this is the first allusion in our chapter in a direct manner to this now rapidly rising people. The circumstances under which Antiochus met the Roman Consul at Alexandria are well known, and were especially humbling to his pride. The Egyptian monarch, fearing the worst if his opponent were allowed to continue his conquests unchecked, had sent to the Roman Senate an abject appeal for assistance. In answer to this, they at once dispatched their representative, who met Antiochus just as he was about to lay siege to Alexandria. Antiochus, recognizing in the Roman envoy one with whom he had been on terms of great friendship while on a visit to Rome, approached him with extended hand ready to greet him as of old. This the Roman refused, saying, that before he could treat him as a friend, he must know how he stood toward those whose representative he was. He then told him that the Roman Senate bade him leave Egypt forthwith. The artful Antiochus requested time to confer with his friends, but the Roman envoy drawing a circle around him with his wand on the sand, required an answer before he stepped out of the circle.
Antiochus was forced to yield, and he returned to his own land a humbled man. “Therefore he shall be grieved, and return” (vs. 30). This, however, did not prevent him wreaking his vengeance upon the Jewish people. But the Spirit of God is careful to distinguish between the faithful ones amongst them and the apostates. It was by means of these latter, “them that forsake the holy covenant,” that the wicked king manifested his hatred against God and His people.
Nevertheless on this occasion, Antiochus himself did not visit Jerusalem, but sent one of his generals, and this, we suppose, is the meaning of the expression, “arms shall rise from him” (vs. 31), for his general it was who polluted the sanctuary of strength, that is the temple, abolishing the daily sacrifice, and placing an idol in the holy place.
We are not to suppose that this is what is alluded to by our Lord in Matthew 24. It is a very similar expression, but there is a difference. The abomination of desolation referred to in this chapter (Dan. 11:3131And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. (Daniel 11:31)), was what took place in the days of Antiochus, the antitype of the last king of the north; it was a foreshadowing, no doubt, of that to which our Lord referred as immediately preceding His appearance in judgment, but the verse in Daniel that our Lord quoted, is found in the next chapter (12:11). In brief, Daniel 11:3131And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. (Daniel 11:31) has been already accomplished, whereas Daniel 12:1111And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. (Daniel 12:11) awaits its fulfillment.
But the state of things during these days of Antiochus Epiphanes bore a striking analogy to what is yet to take place, only that bad as has been the past, the future will be incomparably worse. Whilst Antiochus did all in his power by flattery and other means to incite the Jews to apostatize from God and His holy covenant, the Spirit of God energized a band of faithful men, “the people that do know their God” (vs. 32). These were the Maccabees and others, who by their words and actions set an example of devotedness before the rest, which God used to keep the people from completely yielding to the terrible pressure of the times.
That there will be a remnant in the future is clear, but their testimony will not be accompanied by deeds of prowess and exploits in the field, as it was in the days of the Maccabees; when persecuted in one city they are exhorted to flee unto another, and not to take the sword. In short, while the points of similarity between these days of Antiochus in the past, and of the future under Antichrist, are sufficiently clear to make it evident that the Spirit of God was applying the one in an antitypical manner to the other, yet the differences are sufficient to prove that the same period is not described.
The point of chief importance for the intelligent understanding of the chapter is this, that the break between the past and the future occurs just here (vs. 35.) Even if there were no other reason, it is suggested by the verse itself, “it is yet for a time appointed” (vs. 35).
From verse 5 right on to this point we have been able to follow step by step the details of past history. No one reading the profane history of those times can fail to perceive the exactness of the description given by the prophet up to this point. But from verse 36, all is vague. Blind unbelief—for what else is the so-called higher criticism? — has argued from this that there was no Daniel living at the time of Cyrus, King of Persia (ch. 10:1), for it would have been too great a miracle that any one should have been able to describe so accurately the events of history before they happened! The writer of the book of Daniel, say they, must have lived during the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, for he was able to record with perfect exactitude the whole history up to that reign, whereas he could only guess as to what followed! How sad to find such men as Dean Farrar joined with the heathen writer of the second century, Porphyry, in this glaring infidelity. “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matt. 22:2929Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)).
When Daniel wrote, all that is in this chapter was Suture, it was prophecy pure and simple. But up to the end of verse 35 has now passed into history; from verse 36 all is yet distinct prophecy.