Daniel 11:21 Commentary and Bible Study

Barnes gives an account of events that followed. Before Seleucus IV was poisoned, he had sent his son Demetrius to Rome as a hostage, and released his brother, Antiochus Epiphanes, who had been held there for about twelve years. Demetrius was the proper heir to the throne, but Seleucus did not expect to die when he did. Seeing Demetrius out of the way, a man named Heliodorus saw an opportunity to take the throne and poisoned Seleucus. Antiochus Epiphanes who was in Antioch on his way back from Rome, heard of these events, and with the help of the king of Pergamos overcame Heliodorus, and began himself to reign in the year 175 BC. He is the ‘vile person’, who would stand up ‘in his estate’, in the place of Seleucus. He supposedly took the throne as the guardian of the rightful heir, his nephew, Demetrius, but he evidently intended to take it for himself – ‘he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.’ Gill and Barnes justify the naming of him as ‘a vile person’ by referring to Jahn’s history, which describes his conduct in Antioch: ‘He often lounged like a mere idler about the streets of Antioch, attended by two or three servants, and not deigning to look at the nobles, would talk with goldsmiths and other mechanics in their workshops, engage in trifling and idle conversation with the lowest of the people, and mingle in the society of foreigners and men of the vilest character. He was not ashamed to go into the dissipated circles of the young, to drink and carouse with them, and to assist their merriment by singing songs and playing on his flute. He often appeared in the public baths among the common people, engaging in every kind of foolish jest without the least regard to the dignity of his station and character. Not unfrequently he was seen drunk in the streets, when he would throw his money about and practise various other fooleries equally extravagant.’ For this behaviour he was given the nickname ‘Epimanes’ (the Insane), in contrast to the name he chose for himself, ‘Epiphanes’ (the Illustrious).‘And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken.’ This metaphor describes the military campaigns of Antiochus by which he invaded Egypt – although Barnes says the description could also apply to the attack on the forces of Heliodorus and the forces of the Hebrews which were also broken and scattered before him. ‘Yea, also the prince of the covenant.’ The prince of the covenant is understood by some to be the high priest in Jerusalem, Onias III, who was deposed by Antiochus in his first year, and replaced by Jason, his brother, who paid 400 talents of silver for the position. Unlike his brother, Jason was a Hellenist, sympathetic to Greek rule and influence. Others think that the ‘prince of the covenant’ is the king of Egypt with whom Antiochus the Great had made a covenant. ‘And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully.’ Barnes says, ‘the subject of the contention between the kings of Syria and Egypt was the possession of Coelo-Syria and Palestine.’ Both thought that in the original partition of the empire of Alexander this portion fell to them. This territory had been promised to the king of the south, and again handed over as part of the dowry of Cleopatra on her marriage to Ptolemy V. But resisting this agreement Antiochus waged a series of campaigns against Egypt from 175 to 168 BC (Whitcomb). At first he acted cunningly towards Ptolemy VI Philometer, the young king of Egypt (reigning at the same time as his mother, Cleopatra), and feigned friendship, while plundering Egypt (Jahn, Hebrew Commonwealth). ‘For he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.’ This seems to refer to his initial small force, which avoided suspicion of hostility, but was used to take one town after another until the king of Egypt was in his power (Barnes). By cunning he so increased his holdings, and his satellites, and his wealth, that he could afford a very much larger army.‘He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches.’ We are talking now about a subtle campaign against Egypt. The king of the north is very crafty; he doesn't attack Egypt head on. But Syria is up to its old ways, and instead they move into the most fertile areas with a pretence of peace, and in some way or other do deals with the local lords and warlords. Whenever he takes over a region and plunders it, instead of keeping all the plunder for himself, he will buy off the local lords in the fertile provincial regions of Egypt. They have never had this kind of treatment from the king of Egypt, and now here is a foreign king, flattering them, and paying them richly, and diverting his spoils of conquest to them. This is the way to take Egypt almost without a fight, and there will be tremendous cunning. ‘Yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time’, which seems to mean that he will particularly make treaties with the regions of Egypt, and then they are under his sway. ‘Now Antiochus, upon the agreeable situation of the affairs of his kingdom, resolved to make an expedition against Egypt, both because he had a desire to gain it, and because he contemned the son of Ptolemy, as now weak, and not yet of abilities to manage affairs of such consequence; so he came with great forces to Pelusium, and circumvented Ptolemy Philometer by treachery, and seized upon Egypt. He then came to the places about Memphis; and when he had taken them, he made haste to Alexandria, in hopes of taking it by siege and of subduing Ptolemy, who reigned there’ (Josephus).