|
Chapter 9
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 (#Dan. 11:36 to
end) 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 Daniel 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 Daniel 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 31:51, quoted in #Mt 2:17,18). Each one of those murdered
infants was "the desire" of his own mother; and thus Herod
fulfilled Daniel 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. 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 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 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 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, the course of the prophecy having been
diverted in verses 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 (verses 36 to 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.
Introduction |
Chapter 1
| Chapter 2 |
Chapter 3 |
Chapter 4
Chapter 5 |
Chapter 6 |
Chapter 7 |
Chapter 8 |
Chapter 9 |
Chapter 10
Chapter 11 |
Chapter 12
| Chapter 13 |
Chapter 14
| Chapter 15
Chapter 16 |
Appendix |
<<< Return to Other Works
|
