Part
Two:
‘The King’ of Daniel 11
Philip Mauro thought that Daniel 11:36-45 pertained to Herod the Great,
rather than to Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’, a distinction that may not be
necessary, however, if Herod were Antiochus.
Philip Mauro’s account of Daniel 11 is given here, with some
comments of mine added:
The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation
by Philip Mauro (1923)
"The
King"
Chapter IX
"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" (Dan 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 (Dan 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.
Mackey’s comment: Which
might actually be the correct scenario after all.
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" (11:1) was on the
throne it speaks expressly of "the laws of the Medes and Persians"
(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" (Dan 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.
Mackey’s comment: This is
mixing different chapters of the Book of Daniel.
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.
Mackey’s comment: So,
according to the conventional view of history, which I, however, am
challenging.
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.
Mackey’s comment: I would
agree with this observation.
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."
Mackey’s comment: Despite
this sensible reading of the text, Mauro will then proceed to break the
narrative by introducing a new “king”.
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 prophetic
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 36-39, 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. (v 40). This and succeeding verses (where mention is made of
Edom, Moab, and the children of Ammon--people which have not 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,
BC 30.
Fourth. Finally
a conclusive reason for the view we are now presenting is found in the words of
the angel recorded in chapter 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 AD 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 [H]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 center
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."
Mackey’s comment: But
Antiochus IV Epiphanes is referred to as “the king” in I Maccabees 1:44 (which
is in my Bible). Thus: “The king
also sent messengers with a decree to Jerusalem and all the towns of Judea,
ordering the people to follow customs that were foreign to the country”.
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 2
Thessalonians 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
field for the interpretation of this passage, is the fact that they were unable
to find anyone among the successors of Antiochus [Mackey: sic] 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 fulfillment of which is the fact that the dynasty of
Herod retained, through all the political upheavals of the times, its favor
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
"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"
(v. 3). The other (v. 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.
Mackey’s comment: So I
would connect v. 3 (Antiochus IV Epiphanes), with v. 36 (Herod).
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 … or atrocious in character (as condemning to
death his own wife and children). …. 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
favorite wife) because he suspected them of aspiring to his throne; and similar
deeds of willfulness 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 marvelous 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 …
Mackey’s comment:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his men “… murdered everyone—men and women,
boys and girls; even babies were butchered” (2 Maccabees 5:13).
He ‘slaughtered
innocent children’ (8:4): “They also asked the Lord to show his hatred of evil
by taking revenge on those who were murdering his people, mercilessly
slaughtering innocent children, and saying evil things against the Lord”.
… 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" (Rev 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, Sec. 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 Haggai 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 fulfillment of these words in Herod's attempt to murder the infant
Messiah. For the record given in Matthew 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 Matt 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.
Mackey’s comment: This is
a nice pious thought and it may well be true.
Some, though, think
that it refers to Tammuz-Adonis (e.g. Ezekiel 8:14): “He brought me to the
north gate of the LORD's Temple, and some women were sitting there, weeping for
the god Tammuz”.
The God of Forces
Verse 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 he honour, with gold and silver, and precious (or
costly) stones, and with pleasant (or valuable) things."
Herod's career affords
a most striking fulfillment 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 honors, and that
it was by "forces," or "fortifications," that they extended
and maintained their power, and enforced the worship they demanded.
.... he converted the
ancient Strato's Tower into a magnificent seaport, and named it Caesarea … and … later he rebuilt Samaria, and
renamed it Sebaste (Sebastos being the equivalent of Augustus).
He built many other fortified cities ….
The same subject is
continued in verse 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 …. 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 (Mark 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 …. 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 …" (Ant. XV 11:4-7).
Mackey’s comment: But see
this article:
Massive Challenge to
Standard Geography of Jerusalem-Temple.
….
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
favorable to himself, the land adjacent to places which it was important for
him to control in case of emergency. Josephus speak 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.
….
