Daniel The Man who Feared God 2016

Subdued (40-43)

1. 
   Who challenged the king (Herod)?
   
   1. 
      There are two common views of how to interpret this passage:
      

1. 
   Historical – This view claims that this passage is speaking of an historical personage (e.g., Antiochus IV Epiphanes⁵³⁷). This particular view is held mostly by liberal commentators who give a late date for the book of Daniel and do not accept that it was written in the 6^th century BC. Some conservative scholars do take the view that it is speaking of Antiochus or another historical figure. Very few take the view that it is speaking of Herod the Great.
   
2. 
   Eschatological – This view is held by the vast majority of conservative, evangelical scholars.
   
   1. 
      This view is held primarily by premillennialists and dispensationalists. However, many amillennialists also hold this view. Both Young and Leupold view this passage in an eschatological context.
      
   2. 
      They claim that attempts to have this section refer to an historical person are unsatisfactory—and they are right when the attempt is made to fit this section to Antiochus.
      
   3. 
      One of the reasons that commentators hold to the eschatological view is the mention of ‘time of the end’. They conclude that that expression must mean the end of all things. We will examine the expression’s meaning shortly.
      
   4. 
      This view can be divided into two sub-views:
      
      1. 
         This passage deals with a single, specific, antichrist who will appear on earth sometime in the future. Often included in this view is the idea that this passage is speaking of the battle of Armageddon, with reference to Gog and Magog.
         
      2. 
         This passage deals with a future, symbolic, antichrist which is represented by individuals, false religions, and political systems, which are anti-Christ.
         
3. 
   The position I take, following Philip Mauro⁵³⁸, is that this passage is historical and is speaking of Herod and his interactions with the Romans. In verses 40-43, we find a parenthesis as Herod interacts with the last remnants of the Greek Empire and with the Roman Empire.
   
4. 
   We will not review the pros and cons of the various views, and will dismiss, without any consideration, the speculations of the premillennialists and dispensationalists. Rather we will note a few reasons for why this passage should be interpreted as historical, and then we will consider how it speaks of Herod and his interactions with Rome.
   
   1. 
      Chapter 11 is a literary unit.⁵³⁹ The bulk of the chapter, thorough verse 35, is understood by most commentators to apply to historical personages. We have shown that verses 36-39 can also be applied to an historical person—i.e., Herod. Therefore, it is consistent to understand the latter part of chapter 11 to be dealing with history from the same era as the former part. There is nothing in the chapter that gives a ‘signpost’ indicating the change in perspective—other than, possibly, the reference to the ‘time of the end’, which we will deal with shortly.
      
   2. 
      Chapter 11deals with the interaction of the Jews with the dominant international powers around them, until the time of the Messiah. It is not explicitly dealing with times of the Gentiles, some of which are even in our future. This chapter is written as a preview of history that a Jew before, or at, the time of Christ would expect to see fulfilled contemporaneously.
      
   3. 
      While this passage is dealing with historical events leading up to the coming of the Messiah, it certainly provides an historical context for eschatological events. Therefore, while not its primary focus, the passage can be applied eschatologically and can provide insight into the NT concept of the antichrist.
      
1. 
   When was the ‘time of the end’?
   
   1. 
      The majority of interpreters conclude that the ‘time of the end’ (as used here) refers to some event in our future, such as the rapture or the end of history when Christ will return to earth to renovate the universe and usher in the Day of Judgement.
      
   2. 
      However, the ‘time of the end’ is not speaking of the end of time but of the end of the first of two ages in God’s redemptive plan.
      
      1. 
         There are three key events in history: Creation, Christ, Consummation and only two ages of eternal importance; the former age of the OT economy—the era of types and symbols—and the latter days of the NT economy—the era of the reality in Christ (Acts 17.30).
         
      2. 
         We live in the ‘last/latter days’. God has established his kingdom under the Messianic king, time is wrapping up, and the world is quickly moving toward the Day of Judgment.
         
      3. 
         Calvin said in commenting on the phrase ‘latter days’ (10.14), “The Scriptures in using the phrase, the last days, or times, always point to the manifestation of Christ, by which the face of the world was renewed.”⁵⁴⁰
         
   3. 
      From the perspective of the Jews in the 6^th century BC, the ‘time of the end’ was when the Messianic kingdom would be established. From our perspective, it is the end of the OT Jewish era and the establishment of the NT era.
      
   4. 
      Thus, the events being spoken of in this section are the events that were coincident with the end of Jewish history, the days of the Herods.
      
2. 
   Who was the king of the south?
   
   1. 
      The first part of verse 40 appears to be speaking of the tenuous alliance which was made between Cleopatra VII and Antony (in Egypt) and Herod. Cleopatra became pharaoh (’king’, as in ‘monarch’; without implying a gender) of Egypt in 51 BC at the age of 18 or 19 and was the last monarch in Egypt and ruled until 30 BC when she committed suicide.⁵⁴¹
      
   2. 
      Notice that the ESV has the word ‘thrust’ in the footnote as an alternative to ‘attack’. The lexicons give a possible alternate meaning for the Hebrew word, as ‘wage war with’.
      
   3. 
      Listen to what Josephus says: “Now when the war about Actium was begun, Herod prepared to come to the assistance of Antony, as being already freed from his troubles in Judea, and having gained Hyrcania, which was a place that was held by Antigonus's sister. However, he was cunningly hindered from partaking of the hazards that Antony went through by Cleopatra; for since, as we have already noted, she had laid a plot against the kings [of Judea and Arabia], she prevailed with Antony to commit the war against the Arabians to Herod; that so, if he got the better, she might become mistress of Arabia, or, if he were worsted, of Judea; and that she might destroy one of those kings by the other.”⁵⁴²
      
   4. 
      Cleopatra wanted Judea and her ‘alliance’ with Herod was also a plot against him. This fits very well with the meaning of the Hebrew word used here, that is translated ‘attack’ or ‘thrust’ or ‘waged war with’. It is a good example of a double entendre, and displays Cleopatra’s duplicity.
      

2. 
   Who is the king of the north?
   
   1. 
      Notice that this king of the north would come with a great fleet of ships. This is different from the forces assembled by other kings of the north (i.e., Syria) that we have previously encountered in this chapter.
      
   2. 
      The king of the north in this instance was likely Octavian from Rome. The ‘king’ of the south was Cleopatra with a tenuous alliance with Antony—Herod and Judea were caught between them.
      
   3. 
      Verse 40 appears to be a prophesy about one of the battles associated with the Roman civil wars that occurred between 43 BC and 30 BC after the assassination of Julius Caesar. It is likely that the particular incident referred to is the Battle of Actium which occurred in September, 31 BC, and its aftermath. ⁵⁴³
      
   4. 
      Prior to this battle, Antony deserted the Octavian party and, infatuated with Cleopatra, had left Octavian’s sister and moved to Alexandria to be with Cleopatra. Octavian took this as a threat. The forces of Octavian met the combined forces of Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium (in Greece). This battle consisted of two phases: a naval encounter which Octavian won; followed by desertion and surrender of Antony’s cavalry before Octavian’s forces. Notice the reference to ships as well as horses and chariots (40), confirming the historical reference to the battle.
      
   5. 
      Following the Battle of Actium, Antony was a fugitive and his army was deserting him. Cleopatra appears to have deserted him also and connived with Octavian. In early August, 30 BC, Antony engaged Octavian again, this time in Egypt. Antony’s forces were defeated and Antony fled. He had been misinformed that Cleopatra had been captured and had committed suicide, so he stabbed himself. However, he did not die at once and was carried to the mausoleum where Cleopatra was held captive. He died in her arms. Cleopatra tried to appeal for mercy from Octavian. She eluded her guard and committed suicide on August 12^th. Egypt's surrender after Cleopatra's death was the end of the Hellenistic Age and the Ptolemaic Kingdom.
      
   6. 
      Octavian had Caesarion, the son of Julius Caesar, killed and became the uncontested ruler of the Roman Empire as “Augustus Caesar” (Lk 2.1).
      

3. 
   Where did the king of the north consolidate the territory of his Empire?
   
   1. 
      He took possessions of the provinces throughout North Africa, the Middle East and Asia Minor—sweeping through them like a flood (40-43).
      
      1. 
         Special note should be made of the mention of Libya and Ethiopia (Cushites or Nubians) following in submission to Augustus.
         
      2. 
         Augustus appointed Cornelius Balbus as praetor in the north. In 19 BC Balbus defeated the Garamantes (Libyans⁵⁴⁴), and then received the honour of a triumph, which was the first one ever granted to a person who was not a Roman citizen by birth, and the last time a private individual, had a triumph until 534 AD.⁵⁴⁵
         
   2. 
      During this campaign Augustus entered Palestine, and specifically Judea (the glorious/beautiful land; 41), on his way to face off against Antony in Egypt. According to Josephus, “After this 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 the army what was necessary to feast them withal.” ⁵⁴⁶
      
   3. 
      Josephus, in the same paragraph, tells us that while Caesar was in Judea he confirmed Herod as king of Judea. Herod in turn gave him gifts. Then, after defeating Antony and Cleopatra, he extended the territory of Herod, giving him Gadara, Hippos, Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Strato's Tower (i.e., Tyre). He also gave him four hundred Galls [Galatians] as a guard for his body, which had belonged to Cleopatra.
      

4. 
   What territories were not delivered into Augustus’ hand? (41)
   
   1. 
      Edom, Moab, and the main part of the territory of the Ammonites.
      
   2. 
      History records the remarkable escape of these countries from the Romans. Augustus sent an expedition into these countries under Aelius Gallus, apparently accompanied by five hundred of Herod's guards.⁵⁴⁷ Humphrey Prideaux, citing Josephus, Pliny, Strabo, and Dio Cassius, refers to this expedition’s failure.⁵⁴⁸
      
   3. 
      Philip Mauro says that ‘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).’⁵⁴⁹ Since he did not provide an author’s name, I was unable to verify this quotation. Volume 13 of the only version of Universal History I could find searching the Internet, was by William Fordyce Mavor and deals with the dispersion of the Jews and a history of the African nations.
      

5. 
   What happened to the treasures of Egypt? (43)
   
   1. 
      They were plundered by Augustus.
      
   2. 
      The fact that the prophecy mentions these treasures indicates that the fulfillment was to take place in ancient times. Egypt has been a poor country since the time of Christ, so the impoverished the Egypt of the Middle Ages or of today is not the subject of this prophecy.
      
   3. 
      Plutarch speaks of Cleopatra’s wealth as follows: “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, together with a large quantity of flax, and a number of torches. 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 gentle and honourable treatment, while in the meantime he hastened to the city with his army.”⁵⁵⁰
      
   4. 
      This account is reinforced by two stories of the vastness of her wealth:
      
      1. 
         When news reached Rome about the successful capture of Cleopatra VII and of her treasures, the interest rates in Rome fell from about 12 percent to 4 percent.⁵⁵¹
         
      2. 
         Pliny reported in his Natural History, that to show her wealth and power she made a bet with her lover, Marc Antony, that she could spend 10 million sesterces on one meal. The first course was nothing special. She ordered as her second course a vessel containing vinegar. She took an expensive pearl and dropped it in the vinegar. When it had dissolved, she drank it.⁵⁵²
         
   5. 
      Thus, according to Scripture prophecy and its fulfillment in history, the wealth of Egypt became the possession of the king of the north—the Roman Caesar.
      

6. 
   What are some lessons that we can derive from this section?
   
   1. 
      Research – This section teaches how important it is to do proper research before interpreting the Scriptures.
      
      1. 
         Careful historical research will never embarrass the Bible scholar. Since the Bible is entirely accurate and trustworthy, extra-Biblical facts can only vindicate it.
         
      2. 
         Sadly, many modern interpreters jump to conclusions and follow popular paths. They are unwilling to conduct the necessary research into ancient history to see how to apply the OT’s prophecies accurately.
         
   2. 
      Restraint – Most modern commentators have been influenced by a faulty eschatology, which interprets Daniel in the wrong way and applies it to the wrong era.
      
      1. 
         As we have unfolded the historical fulfillment of the prophecy in this section, it has reinforced the fact that we need to apply great restraint and not extrapolate this book into speculations about our future.
         
      2. 
         Not even Jesus, in his human nature, knew the day or hour of his second coming, so it is utter foolishness to think that anyone can predict the day and hour when Jesus will come again to wrap up history, open the graves, execute eternal judgement, and renovate the created order (Mt 11.22; Jn 5.28, 29; 2 Thes 1.10).
         
      3. 
         Therefore, we should shun the teachings of the false prophets who try to make predictions about end times, when Jesus tells them not to do it. We should reject their attempts to inject mysteries about our future into OT passages of Scripture, which are in fact speaking of events in our past.
         
   3. 
      Reality – We, again, must bow in awe at the reality of a God who controls the events of this world to such an extent that he can predict human affairs in such specific detail, over five-hundred years before they happened.
      
      1. 
         The predictions in this section are not general and imprecise but specific and precise. The way they were fulfilled by the various leaders in the late 1^st century BC indicates confirms the single historical fulfillment and precludes their application (other than as principles) to a future series of events.
         
      2. 
         In this account we see more of the to-and-fro of the nations— they arise and they retreat—but in the end, God controls them all.
         
      3. 
         In this account, God sweeps over the ancient history that fills volumes from secular historians, as time marches to his drumbeat. The great, powerful, and honoured of this world get only a brief mention in a few verses, as events progress toward the appearance of God’s man—the Messiah. So it is today, the nations of this world, for all their pretentions, are but a footnote in God’s records as he fills his books with the names of his saints and wraps up history, waiting for the second appearance of his man—the Christ.