D. The Vision of Israel’s Future (10:1–12:13)
OVERVIEW
Daniel’s final vision begins with a date formula or a chronological notice, as is the case in 1:1; 2:1; 7:1; 8:1; and 9:1. The date formula, “the third year of Cyrus king of Persia” (10:1a), places the events of chs. 10–12 in 536 BC, or approximately three years after the vision of ch. 9. Miller, 276, has noted that each of the four visions of chs. 7–12 is dated, and they appear in two groups: the first and third year of King Belshazzar of Babylonia, and the first and third year of King Cyrus of Persia. If Daniel was conscripted into the Babylonian civil service in 606 or 605 BC, then the third year of Cyrus marks the end of the seventy years of (Babylonian) captivity predicted by Jeremiah (cf. Jer 25:11–12; 29:10).
In addition, the repatriation of Jerusalem had begun two years earlier, and a fledgling effort to rebuild the temple of Yahweh was initiated (Ezr 3:1–3; cf. 3:8). Seow, 155, remarks that even “the prophecies of Isaiah 40–55 should have been fulfilled” since Judah’s “hard service had been completed” (Isa 40:2). Yet a cursory reading of the postexilic prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi indicate that the restoration community in Jerusalem experienced at best only a partial fulfillment of earlier prophetic oracles promising God’s blessing.
The literary setting of ch. 9 is the visions or “apocalyptic” section of Daniel (ch. 7–12). The “visions” half of the book denotes a change in genre and point of view from “report” in the third-person voice to that of “diary” or “personal journal” in the first-person voice. According to Towner, 147, a number of features demonstrate the decisive importance of this panel at the end of the book of Daniel: the third-person narrative of the opening verse (10:1), the sheer size of the literary unit (the largest pericope of the book), and the extensive trials the seer must undergo in preparation to receive the vision.
The number of characters participating in the final apocalyptic narrative is difficult to ascertain. The narrator of the story delivers only one verse (10:1). Daniel (10:2) is one of two primary characters (v.2) in the account and the only one to see the vision (though other “men” were with him at the time, cf. 10:7). Much of the prologue (10:1–19) and epilogue (12:5–13) of the vision report is first-person narrative by Daniel himself. The other key figure in the story is the unnamed “man dressed in linen” (10:5), presumably an angelic interlocutor. Given the larger context of the visions section of the book, the “man dressed in linen” is likely the angel Gabriel, who appeared to Daniel and revealed the “seventy sevens” (9:21; cf. Towner, 149–50). God is mentioned as the one who has heard and responded to Daniel’s prayer (10:12). Cryptic references are made to the “prince of the kingdom of Persia” (10:13, NASB) and the prince of Greece (10:21). Lastly, another angel named Michael is mentioned as one who brought aid to the man in linen in his struggle with the “prince of the Persian kingdom” (10:13, NIV).
Collins (Daniel: with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 91) identifies the bulk of Daniel’s final vision (10:1–12:4) as a complete “historical apocalypse” in the form of an “epiphany” and an “angelic discourse.” He construes the epilogue (12:5–13) as a “revelatory dialogue” (ibid., 101). The vision has affinities with Ezekiel’s chariot vision (Eze 1; 8–10) and is echoed in Revelation 1:13–15. Goldingay, 281–82, describes the literary form of the book’s concluding section as “vision report” (10:1–19), “audition” (10:20–12:4, with the content of the revelation embedded in the audition), and “closing address” (12:5–13). Lucas, 231, designates the literary form of the entire unit as “epiphany vision” (in contrast to “symbolic vision”)—a helpful expression. He identifies a six-part form for the epiphany vision and notes that it is unique to Daniel in the OT (chs. 9; 10–12; see Overview to ch. 9). The form of the epiphany vision may be outlined as follows (see Lucas, 35):
- 1. Circumstances (10:1)
- 2. Supplication (10:2–3)
- 3. Appearance of messenger (10:4–9)
- 4. Word of Assurance (10:10–11:1)
- 5. Revelation (11:2–12:3)
- 6. Charge to seer (12:4)
Most biblical scholars recognize in the last three chapters of the book a broad, tripartite structure consisting of a prologue (10:1–19), a vision report (10:20–12:4), and an epilogue (12:5–13). Beyond this, internal markers delineate subsections of the larger literary structure. For instance, the date formula and third-person voice distinguish 10:1 as the introduction to the section. Likewise, the date formula in 10:4 identifies a new literary unit. Typically in biblical narrative, the adverb “behold” (NASB; Heb. [we]hinnēh) introduces a new scene (cf. 10:10; 12:5). The adverb “now” (Heb. [we]ʿattâ) also commonly functions as a section marker (cf. 11:2). The narrative of ch. 11 may be outlined on the basis of the kings mentioned: four kings of Persia (v.2), the mighty king (vv.3–4), a series of northern and southern kings (vv.5–19), the king of v.20, and the contemptible king (vv.21–45). Finally, the return to first-person speech by Daniel demarcates the epilogue to the vision (cf. 12:5).
Critical scholars question the literary unity of chs. 10–12, considering it “disordered” (so Porteous, 115) or “jumbled” as a result of incompetent editorial redaction (so Hartman and Di Lella, 285). Alternatively, Goldingay, 292, and Lucas, 267–68, observe both thoughtful chiastic structure and the rhetorical use of repetition in the section indicating literary design within the pericope (the “idiosyncratic Hebrew influenced by Aramaic” notwithstanding; cf. Goldingay, 288). Goldingay, 284–85, has described chs. 10–12 as “situational midrash,” or an exposition addressing a contemporary problem shaped by an appeal to earlier OT Scriptures. These precursor texts include Isaiah 10:22–23; 28:15–22; 40:1–11; Ezekiel 1–3; 7:14–27; 9–10; and Zechariah 1:9; 4:4–5, 13; 6:4 (see the discussions in Goldingay, 284–85; Lucas, 268–69).
1. Introduction (10:1)
1In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, a revelation was given to Daniel (who was called Belteshazzar). Its message was true and it concerned a great war. The understanding of the message came to him in a vision.
COMMENTARY
1 The opening verse summarizes the contents of the final vision (chs. 10–12) by introducing the section as a “revelation” (v.1a), affirming its reliability (“its message [is] true”; v.1b), summarizing its content (“a great war”; v.1c), and stating the fact that Daniel’s understanding of the message “came to him in a vision” (v.1d). The word for “revelation” (Heb. glh; GK 1655) means to “uncover” in the sense of revealing a secret (for the complete idiom, cf. NASB’s “a message [Heb. dābār, “word”] was revealed”). The expression serves to summarize the predictive information given to Daniel through the heavenly messenger and recorded in 10:20–12:4 (cf. Wood, 265). The form of Daniel’s revelation is a “vision” (Heb. mar ʾeh), in which the “auditive aspect is predominant over the visual element. It is revelation by word instead of picture” (J. A. Naudé, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:1012; cf. “vision” [Aram./Heb. ḥzh] in the Notes on 7:1–2). The third-person narration of the introduction calls attention to the importance of the revelation to follow (cf. Lucas, 265).
As noted in the Overview, the date formula places Daniel’s final vision in the third year of King Cyrus of Persia, or 536 BC. Goldingay, 14–15, has noted that the date formulae in Daniel cluster in the first three years of a king, perhaps affirming “God’s Lordship at key transition points in history (‘first’ or ‘third’ can be merely concrete ways of saying ‘at the beginning’ or ‘not long after the beginning’).” The final vision of the book occurs three years after the revelation of the “seventy weeks of years” (ch. 9). If Daniel was conscripted into the Babylonian civil service in 606 or 605 BC, then the third year of Cyrus marks the end of the seventy years of (Babylonian) captivity predicted by Jeremiah (cf. Jer 25:11–12; 29:10).
King Cyrus entered the city of Babylon in October of 539 BC, thus establishing Persian control of the former Babylonian Empire. His edict, issued in March of 538 BC, permitted people groups taken captive by the Babylonians to repatriate their homelands (including the Hebrews, although they are not mentioned on the famous clay barrel known as the Cyrus Cylinder). Within a year, Babylonian Jews returned to Jerusalem under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (Ezr 1:1–4, 11) and rebuilt the sacrificial altar (3:1–3). The foundation for the second temple was laid in April of 536 BC (3:8), but the meager rebuilding project was soon abandoned because of the opposition of “local enemies” of the Jews (4:1, 24).
Despite the hopeful beginnings, the restoration community of postexilic Jerusalem was still under Persian control, and the mood of the people was one of cynicism and despair—as the prophets Haggai and Zechariah discovered. Seow, 154, has observed, “as one learns from the preceding chapter [ch. 9], the desolation is not over. Even in the restoration period and beyond, the Jews remained a captive people, and Daniel’s name, Belteshazzar [v.1], is a reminder of that fact.” This initial disappointment associated with the early stages of Israel’s restoration from the exile is countered by the promise of complete restoration after the “time of distress” (12:1–3).
2. Prologue (10:2–19)
OVERVIEW
The vision report (10:2–19) serves as a prologue to the revelation Daniel receives from the angelic messenger (10:20–12:4). This prologue includes an account of Daniel’s fasting (and implied supplication; vv.2–3), a vision report rehearsing the angelic epiphany (vv.4–9), and an explanatory address by the angel coupled with a report of the angel’s strengthening Daniel in his weakness (vv.10–19).
2At that time I, Daniel, mourned for three weeks. 3I ate no choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips; and I used no lotions at all until the three weeks were over.
4On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris, 5I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. 6His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.
7I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; the men with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. 8So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless. 9Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground.
10A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11He said, “Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you.” And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling.
12Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. 14Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come.”
15While he was saying this to me, I bowed with my face toward the ground and was speechless. 16Then one who looked like a man touched my lips, and I opened my mouth and began to speak. I said to the one standing before me, “I am overcome with anguish because of the vision, my lord, and I am helpless. 17How can I, your servant, talk with you, my lord? My strength is gone and I can hardly breathe.”
18Again the one who looked like a man touched me and gave me strength. 19“Do not be afraid, O man highly esteemed,” he said. “Peace! Be strong now; be strong.”
When he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, “Speak, my lord, since you have given me strength.”
COMMENTARY
2–3 The expression “at that time” (v.2) connects the account of Daniel’s fasting to the third year of King Cyrus (536 BC) cited in v.1. In later apocalyptic literature fasting is a means of preparation for receiving revelation (e.g., 2 Esd 5:13; 2Ba 9:1; 12:5; 20:5–6). A strict fast entails the complete abstinence from all food and drink. Daniel abstains from “choice food” (“tasty food,” NASB; Heb. leḥem ḥamudôt), meat, and wine (v.3). The “choice food” is probably a reference to royal fare that Daniel was entitled to as a courtier. Nothing is said, however, about whether or not Daniel sustains himself during the fast with “coarse” or “simple” foods and water.
In addition to a restricted diet, Daniel also abstains from anointing himself with “lotions” (“ointment,” NASB) for the duration of the fast (v.3). The anointing with oil (Heb. swk) most likely means that Daniel “neglected the usual niceties of personal grooming, such as fragrant oil on his hair or body” (Archer, 122). The three-week duration of the fast is significant but not unusual, since in certain circumstances fasting extended over forty days (e.g., Ex 34:28; 1Ki 19:8; cf. Lacocque, 205, on the literal expression “three weeks [i.e., sevens] of days” as a way to prevent confusion with the “weeks of years” from ch. 9).
We may also assume that fervent prayer is part of this ordeal (cf. 10:12). Daniel refers to his entire experience as one of “mourning” (Heb. ʾbl, Hitpael, “to observe mourning rites”; v.2). The word is used to describe mourning for the dead (Ge 37:34), mourning over sin (Ezr 10:6), and mourning over national calamity (e.g., Babylonian exile; Eze 7:12). The participial form of the term expresses both the ongoing state of mourning and the depth of Daniel’s concern, presumably his regret over the plight of the people in Jerusalem that Nehemiah mourns some years later (Ne 1:4).
4–9 The date formula (“twenty-fourth day of the first month”; v.4) indicates that Daniel’s fast overlaps the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread (cf. Lev 23:5). Lucas, 274, notes that Daniel’s self-denial during his fast would have included the festal anointing with oil symbolizing joy and gladness, associated with Hebrew festivals (cf. Ecc 9:7–8).
Daniel is physically present along the banks of the Tigris River when the vision of the heavenly messenger overtakes him (v.4). The reason for his presence here is unclear (whether “official business” [so Archer, 123] or seeking seclusion and quiet as part of his fasting regimen [so Miller, 280]; yet there are others with Daniel [see v.7]). The Euphrates and the Tigris (the easternmost of the two great rivers of Mesopotamia) flow from the southern slopes of the Taurus mountains in Turkish Armenia to the Persian Gulf. The Tigris is also mentioned as one of the branches of the river flowing out of the garden of Eden (Ge 2:14).
The expression “looked up” (“lifted my eyes,” NASB; v.5) is used elsewhere in the OT to describe the beginning of a visionary experience (cf. Zec 1:18; 2:1; 5:1). The idiom “lifted my eyes and looked” (NASB) suggests a complex process that occurs while one is engrossed in thought, only to have that thought interrupted by something that draws attention upward, and at that very moment the experience of the vision begins. The interjection that follows, “and behold” (NASB; Heb. hinnēh; omitted from the NIV]) conveys both the unexpected nature of the experience and the excitement it generates (cf. Miller, 280).
The “man dressed in linen” whom Daniel sees in his vision (v.5) is unidentified. Linen garments were traditional dress for the Hebrew priests (e.g., Ex 28:5, 39, 42). In this case, the linen raiment is also the dress of a heavenly being, as in Ezekiel’s vision of the angelic scribe clothed in linen (Eze 9:2–3, 11; 10:2, 6–7). The NT also describes angels “as beings clothed in bright linen, a sign of holiness” (Seow, 156; e.g., Rev 15:6; cf. Mk 16:5). Numerous scholarly suggestions have been forwarded as to the identity of the radiant heavenly being of Daniel’s vision. Montgomery, 420, concludes it is simplest to equate the being with the angel Gabriel, who previously appeared to Daniel in the revelations of chs. 8 (v.16) and 9 (v.21). Lacocque, 206, rejects this identification because Daniel is not affected in the same way by Gabriel’s appearance in the encounter described in 9:21 (yet Daniel reacts in terror to the approach of Gabriel in 8:16–17). Wood, 268, prefers to view the man of Daniel’s vision as another high-ranking angel, “perhaps of parallel importance with Gabriel and Michael.”
Miller, 282, is among those interpreters who prefer to see two personages in the narrative, identifying the theophany of the man dressed in linen with God himself (vv.5–6) and the “hand” in v.10 as the interpreting angel (cf. Longman, 250). More specifically, he equates this being with some preincarnate manifestation of the second Person of the Godhead, given the similarities of the appearance of the man in Daniel’s vision to the description of Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:12–16. (But it is unlikely that God or some manifestation of Jesus Christ preincarnate would require the assistance of a mere angel.) In the end, it seems best to identify the man in the vision as an angelic being—either Gabriel or another angel of similar heavenly stature and purpose. The waterfront location of vision and the references to chrysolite, lightning, flaming torches, body parts gleaming like burnished bronze, and the voice like a multitude (v.6) all have their parallels in Ezekiel’s vision of God’s throne and his description of the living creatures attending the Lord (Eze 1:1, 7, 13–16, 24).
Seow, 157, correctly points out that the redundancy of the Hebrew texts emphatically indicates that Daniel alone sees the vision (lit., “I saw—I, Daniel”; v.7a). The solitary nature of Daniel’s experience is underscored by the report that the men with him flee the vicinity in terror although they do not actually see the vision (v.7b). It is unclear what causes Daniel’s companions to flee the scene terror-stricken, but much like those men with Saul on the Damascus road who froze dumbfounded because they heard the sounds of Saul’s vision (cf. Ac 9:1–7), Daniel’s friends also feel, sense, or hear something that causes great alarm. The “aloneness” of the individual experiencing the vision is not unusual given other revelatory experiences recorded in the OT (e.g., Ge 15:9–16; 32:24–30).
Daniel is riveted by “the great vision” (v.8a), and he is overcome to the point of immobilization by wonderment and fear (v.8b). His response is much like those to his previous revelations, where he “was deeply troubled . . . and turned pale” (7:28), and “was exhausted and lay ill for several days” (8:27). Daniel’s physical reaction to the vision is no doubt compounded by his state of weakness because of his three-week fast but is also in keeping with the reports of human responses to other OT theophanies (whether trembling with fear, like the people of Israel at Mount Sinai [Ex 20:18], or falling face down before the glory of the Lord, like Ezekiel [Eze 1:28]). At the sound of the voice of the angelic messenger Daniel falls into a trance (“deep sleep”; v.9a; on the Heb. rdm see comments on 8:18). The account echoes Daniel’s previous encounter with Gabriel, when he “was terrified and fell prostrate” (8:17). Seow, 158, comments (almost humorously) that despite his swoon, Daniel manages “to remain in a posture of worship, his ‘face to the ground’” (v.9b).
10–19 The opening verses (vv.10–11) reporting the angel’s strengthening of Daniel in his weakness after the vision (vv.10–19) share similarities with the “strengthening report” in 8:18 in that in each case the heavenly messenger touches Daniel and raises him to his feet (v.10). Unlike the revelatory event in 8:17–18, where Daniel was immediately raised to his feet, the unnamed angel here restores Daniel’s equilibrium and upright posture in stages. First, Daniel is helped to his hands and knees from his prostrate position (v.10a), and then he is enabled to stand upright in the angel’s presence (v.11a). In each case, Daniel is still “trembling” from the effects of the ordeal of his three-week fast coupled with the overpowering encounter with an angelic being.
The initial encounter between the angelic being and Daniel in the strengthening report also has affinities with the previous vision, in which he received the revelation concerning the “seventy sevens” (ch. 9). There Daniel was greeted as one “highly esteemed” (see comments on 9:23.). Here Daniel is affirmed as one “highly esteemed” (Heb. ḥamudôt). Lacocque, 208, and Goldingay, 291, miss the point in associating Daniel’s restoration by the angelic being with stages of movement from an animal-like state to that of a human being. The angel is simply fulfilling his role as “a ministering spirit” in extending the mercy and grace of God to one of his faithful servants—Daniel (cf. Heb 1:14). As a result, Daniel is now in a position to receive the heavenly messenger’s revelation concerning the troubling vision he has just seen and heard.
Once Daniel is restored to some measure of strength, the angel assures him that his tardiness in coming to Daniel is not due to any reluctance on God’s part to respond to fervent prayer (v.12). The words of assurance, “do not be afraid” (v.12a), are used elsewhere to introduce epiphanies (e.g., Ge 15:1; Jdg 6:23; Lk 1:13, 30; cf. Seow, 158). Daniel need not be alarmed, for God has already shown him favor in responding to his petition (cf. Wood, 272), and he has learned from his previous revelations that God rules history and looks after the welfare of his people Israel. Instead, Daniel learns that the heavenly messenger’s three-week delay was due to resistance from “the prince of the Persian kingdom” (v.13a).
This “prince” (Heb. śar) probably refers to a patron evil angel exercising some sort of influence over the Persian Empire on behalf of Satan (cf. Seow, 159). The exact nature of the resistance experienced by the heavenly messenger during his journey to visit Daniel is unspecified (the Heb. idiom ʿmd + ngd in v.13 simply means “to stand before” or “opposite”; cf. Wood, 273, who notes that the phrase “need not mean an antagonistic withstanding,” but in view of the angel’s further words in verse twenty . . . it clearly means that here”). Miller, 285, suggests that this demonic spirit whose activities have been assigned to Persia may have been Satan himself; hence the need for assistance from an angel of Michael’s rank and prowess.
The reality of evil angels is attested explicitly by the biblical references to angels that sinned (2Pe 2:4; Jude 6) and implicitly by the biblical acknowledgment of “elect angels” (cf. 1Ti 5:21). Elsewhere in the Bible, connections are made between idolatry and demons (cf. Dt 32:17; Ps 106:37–38; 1Co 10:20). The idea that events on earth are affected by heavenly involvement is seen in the angelic forces that come to the aid of Israel (e.g., Dt 33:1–2; Jdg 5:19–20; 2Ki 6:17; cf. Lucas, 276). The notion in the biblical world that nations are under the care of either gods or angels may be seen in the Rabshakeh’s taunt to the defenders of Jerusalem (2Ki 18:33–35; cf. Lucas, 276) and perhaps in God’s assigning of “territorial lots” to the gods or angels (Dt 32:8–9 [see NIV note]; cf. Seow, 159). No doubt, this type of angelic conflict in the heavenly spheres is one aspect of the “spiritual warfare” that Paul describes in the NT (cf. Eph 6:11–12). The heavenly messenger’s audition with Daniel (10:20–12:4) indicates that his presence marks but a temporary lull in the spiritual conflict with the demon princes of Persia and Greece (cf. v.20; see Longman, 253–56).
Michael, “one of the chief princes,” is dispatched to assist the unnamed angel who has been detained in the Persian realm with the king of Persia (v.13b). This is the first time Michael, whose name means “Who is like God?” appears in the OT. The title “one of the chief princes” (v.13a) identifies Michael as an angelic being of high rank and one of the leading “commanders” of the angelic host. Seow, 159, comments that this title is probably an equivalent for “archangel.” The NT also identifies Michael’s rank as that of archangel (i.e., “first” or “chief angel”; Jude 9). According to 1 Enoch, Michael, like Gabriel, is one of the seven archangels (1 En 20:5). He functions as the heavenly protector or guardian for the nation of Israel (cf. 12:1).
The purpose of the heavenly messenger’s appearance is finally divulged after the detailed explanation of his delay in coming to Daniel—he will “explain” (“give you an understanding,” NASB; Heb. byn, Hiphil) the meaning of the vision in fulfillment of Daniel’s desire to understand the revelation (v.12). The vision concerns “the future” (“latter days,” NASB; v.14). The expression “latter days” (Heb. beʾaḥarît hayyāmîm) refers not to the end of history but to “a decisive turning point in history” (Lucas, 277). The messenger’s emphasis on “your people” (v.14) is especially important for Daniel since throughout his long tenure as a civil servant in the courts of Mesopotamian kings, his constant concern was his people, that is, God’s people—the people of Israel (cf. 9:19).
Despite being strengthened by the heavenly messenger (vv.10–11), Daniel is still frightened (“overcome with anguish because of the vision,” v.16b) and in a severely weakened physical condition (his “strength is gone” and he “can hardly breathe,” v.17). In fact, Daniel’s first utterance after his initial recovery of speech “is an outright admission of his debility in the face of the anguish of his vision” (Seow, 162). Once again the angel touches Daniel—first his lips to enable his speech (v.16a) and then his body to restore physical strength (v.18).
Daniel’s experience of being touched on the lips calls to mind the throne vision of Isaiah, in which his lips were touched by a live coal from the altar held by an angelic being (Isa 6:6–7). Unlike Isaiah’s situation, the need here is strength, not cleansing. Lucas, 277, comments that this duplication of the earlier acts of restorative touch by the angel “emphasizes the awesomeness of the experience.” The second round of supernatural ministrations by the angelic being also speaks to the significance of Daniel’s vision and the revelation he is about to receive, as the lengthy audition with the heavenly messenger attests. Lucas, 277, and Seow, 158, 162, among others, question whether it is the same being who touches Daniel three times (vv.10, 16, 18), given the ambiguity of the language in the passage. There is reason to assume that it is the same heavenly being who is strengthening Daniel by touching him—the ambiguity of the text is simply a reflection of Daniel’s confusion and weakness during the experience. Miller, 287, reminds us that Daniel’s use of the title “my lord” (Heb. ʾadōnî; v.16b) is not an indication of deity but an address of respect carrying the force of “sir” or “master” in English.
The interpreting angel reiterates his previous admonition to Daniel not to be afraid and the affirmation that Daniel is “highly esteemed” (v.19a). The greeting of “peace” (v.19b) is not so much a salutation (see the address of the letters in 4:1 [3:31] and 6:25 [26] in the commentary) but an assuring “statement of fact . . . ‘you are safe’” (Hartman and Di Lella, 265). Daniel need not fear his present situation, for the angel’s “concern was for the prophet’s well-being” (Miller, 288). The emphatic repetition of the angel’s exhortation to Daniel to “be strong” (v.19a) echoes the Lord’s exhortation to Joshua (Jos 1:9). Seow, 162, has observed that “various forms of the verb ‘be strong’ [Heb. ḥzq] appear four times in verse 19, thus offering a powerful counterpoint to Daniel’s loss of energy and spirit in verse 17.” After hearing these words Daniel is sufficiently strengthened to receive the message from the interpreting angel (v.19b).
NOTES
6 The exact identification of the gemstone (Heb.) 
(taršîš; “chrysolite,” NIV; “beryl,” NASB) is uncertain. According to Lucas, 259, some yellowish-colored stone such as topaz is probably intended rather than beryl, which is green (cf. Eze 1:16, where the wheels of God’s chariot gleam like “chrysolite”).
8 The expression “deathly pale” (Heb. 
, lemašḥît) is derived from the same root word as 
(mišḥat) in Isaiah 52:14, where the term is used to describe the “disfigured” appearance of God’s servant.
3. The Angel’s Revelation (10:20–12:4)
OVERVIEW
The issue of vaticinium ex eventu (i.e., “prophecy after the fact”) as a feature of apocalyptic literature has already been addressed in the introduction (see “Literary Form”). The problems associated with the analysis of the genre of ex eventu prophecy are perhaps most acute in chs. 10–12 because of the detailed reporting of the “chronological unfolding of history between the fourth and second centuries [BC]” (Lacocque, 214). Goldingay, 282, understands Daniel’s final vision as a form of “quasi-prophecy” that combines “quasi-prediction” (i.e., extensive rehearsal of events before the writer’s day in the guise of prophecy) with a more limited “actual prophecy” of events still to come. Lacocque, 214, describes the literature of ch. 11 as “an enigmatic form designed to establish the fiction of a prophecy ante eventum, and also perhaps to maintain a prudently esoteric manner.”
The so-called Akkadian Prophecies (especially The Dynastic Prophecy) are often cited as examples of the genre of “prophetic surveys of history,” offering parallels from ancient Near Eastern literature to backward-looking history framed as prophecy in the apocalyptic visions of Daniel 8 and 11 (cf. Goldingay, 282; Lucas, 269–72). Literary definitions and ancient Near Eastern parallels aside, the scholars who regard chs. 10–12 as ex eventu prophecy written in the second century BC typically understand the purpose of this last section of the book as an exhortation to Jews to adopt “a certain form of behavior, namely, resistance to Seleucid/reformist pressures” (Goldingay, 285).
Baldwin, 182–85, finds the arguments for ex eventu prophecy in ch. 11 unconvincing for several reasons. First, critical scholars present the genre of prophetic survey of history as a widely accepted and readily recognized literary convention that deceived no one (cf. Porteous, 156). Yet there are no examples of this literary form in the OT outside the book of Daniel. Furthermore, the ancient Near Eastern examples of ex eventu prophecy offered as parallels assume an uncommonly sophisticated literacy among the Hebrews comprising the audience of Daniel. Second, the literary presentation of “revelation” that is in reality not revelation at all seems disingenuous on the part of a biblical author seeking to encourage an oppressed and persecuted Jewish audience. Third, the omniscience of God that enables him to reveal the future as a character trait distinguishing him from the false gods of the biblical world rings hollow if his seers can only report past history as “quasi-prediction” (cf. Isa 41:22, 26; 43:12; 44:7). All this leads Baldwin, 184–85, to conclude:
With regard to prophecy as foretelling, the church has lost its nerve. An earthbound, rationalistic humanism has so invaded Christian thinking as to tinge with faint ridicule all claims to see in the Bible anything more than the vaguest of references to future events. Human thought, enthroned, has judged a chapter such as Daniel 11 to be history written after the event, whereas God enthroned . . . may surely claim with justification to “announce of old the things to come” (Isa 44:7).
Longman, 272, concurs with Baldwin on the difficulty of ch. 11 but also treats the unit as “forward-looking prophecy”: “In order to build up the reader’s confidence that God controls history and that he is sovereign over the future, the reader must believe that the prophecy is precisely that.” This study concurs with Baldwin and Longman in acknowledging ch. 11 as predictive prophecy, humbly recognizing that each of the two views are not without their problems. Finally, we must acknowledge the difficulties in sorting out what Baldwin, 184, refers to as “the baffling historical allusions” of ch. 11, especially the possible transition from Antiochus IV to a future king—perhaps even an antichrist figure in 11:36–45.
This section of the vision containing the angel’s revelation may be broadly outlined as follows: further dialogue with the revealing angel (10:20–11:1), revelation concerning Persia (11:2), revelation concerning Greece (11:3–4), revelation concerning Egypt and Syria (11:5–20), revelation concerning Antiochus IV Epiphanes (11:21–35), and further revelation concerning “the king who exalts himself” (11:36–12:4). Unlike Daniel’s previous visions, the content of this revelation lies in the audition or discourse of the celestial messenger. In this instance, the vision is preparatory for the revelation or message of the revealing angel rather than conveying the actual content of God’s revelation to Daniel.
The English versions agree with the MT and LXX in placing the chapter division at 11:1, presumably because the date formula is similar to the headings of the previous chapters (cf. 7:1; 8:1; 9:1; 10:1; see Miller, 289). The emphatic adverbial construction “Now then” (Heb. hinnēh-ʿôd) clearly marks the beginning of a new paragraph, and certain English versions include 11:1 in the paragraph beginning at 10:20 (e.g., NIV, NLT, NRSV; contra NASB).
a. Further dialogue with the revealing angel (10:20–11:1)
20So he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; 21but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince.
1And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him.)
COMMENTARY
20 Critical scholars tend to regard 10:20–11:1 as disordered and muddled, so they reorder the verses (cf. Lacocque, 212). Others, however, have noted in the literary unit a chiastic structure that “serves to emphasize the importance of the message that is about to be delivered” (Lucas, 277; cf. Goldingay, 292). The angel’s opening question to Daniel: “Do you know why I have come to you?” (10:20a) is rhetorical in view of the statement of purpose made previously (10:14). According to Lucas, 277, the rhetorical question has two purposes: first, it reveals that the heavenly messenger is in a hurry to return to the heavenly conflict from which he came, indicating the importance of the message he delivers; and second, it foreshadows the contents of the revelation since the message addresses the time period of the Persian and Greek hegemony over Judah.
Hartman and Di Lella, 265, 285, find the Hebrew text of 10:20b–21 jumbled and confusing and so emend v.20b to read: “I must now go back to fight against the prince of Persia, and when he departs. . . .” Montgomery, 418, acknowledges that this understanding is plausible, suggesting that “the parallel vbs. [i.e., the verbs ‘go’ and ‘come’] may be best taken as expressing the exit of the angel after his success over Persia and the introit of the Prince of Greece, for whose coming the angel has prepared.” Or put more simply, as soon as the conflict with the Prince of Persia ends, another conflict with the Prince of Greece begins.
The heavenly messenger relates that he only reports what is already “written in the Book of Truth” (“the writing of truth,” NASB; 10:21a). The figurative reference to such a divine scroll “aptly conveys God’s control and knowledge of past, present and future” (Baldwin, 182). The “Book of Truth” should not be equated with the “books” mentioned previously in conjunction with Daniel’s vision of the beasts rising out of the sea (see comments on 7:9–10). Presumably this “Book of Truth” contains the course of history for the nations and the Hebrews as God’s people, a portion of which is about to be revealed to Daniel. Lucas, 278, finds parallels to the “Book of Truth” in the “heavenly tablets” revealed to Enoch (1En 93:1–2) and the Babylonian Tablets of Destiny, which recorded the events of the coming year (cf. BBCOT, 746).
21 The parenthetical statement concerning Michael’s role in cosmic conflict with the (spirit) princes of Persia and Greece (10:21b) explains the revealing angel’s hasty manner and underscores the urgency of the hour and the importance of the message Daniel is about to receive. As Goldingay, 292, observes, the effect of the statement is “to tie the delivering of the earthly message and the reality of the heavenly conflicts closely together . . . [thus indicating] its delivery [i.e., the message] was worth the turning of the messenger’s attention away from such crucial conflicts.” No doubt encouraging to Daniel is the knowledge that “even though the enemies of Israel seem to have supernatural powers on their side, the people of Israel, too, have their supernatural protectors, most notably Michael” (Seow, 168).
Collins (Daniel, 374–76) and Goldingay, 292–93, interpret the conflict between Persia or Greece and Israel as a political, not a religious one. (Yet Haman’s plot to annihilate the Jews, hatched during the reign of the Persian king Xerxes, challenges this assumption at a number of levels, including the role of “evil angels” in motivating such a conspiracy against the people of God.) Baldwin, 182, comments that “the conflict will be such as to cause doubt as to whether God’s people can survive, and the vision is intended to give unshakeable assurance that, desperate as the situation will be, God is so fully in control as to be able to disclose the sequence of events before they happen.”
11:1 Some commentators are troubled by the date formula in 11:1a, which mentions the first year of the reign of Darius or Cyrus the Mede, because Daniel’s vision is set in the third year of the Persian king Cyrus (10:1). According to Seow, 168, the reference makes sense because the problem addressed in this section of the book, namely, the ongoing experience of exile and desolation for the Hebrews, “is precisely the issue Daniel considered during the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede (9:1).” Furthermore, Lucas, 278, observes that the date formula of 11:1a functions to identify the heavenly interpreter, in all likelihood the angel Gabriel (cf. 9:1). Baldwin, 182, connects the work of the revealing angel in allying himself with the angel Michael (11:1b) during the first year of Cyrus’s reign with the downfall of the Babylonian Empire and the decree of the Persian king permitting captive Hebrews to return to Jerusalem (cf. Lucas, 278; Lacocque, 212, prefers to understand 11:1b in the durative sense that Gabriel has been standing near Michael to strengthen and support him “since the first year of Darius the Mede”).
NOTES
20 The proper name 
(yāwān, “Greece”) refers to the Greek kingdom of Alexander the Great in 10:20 and 11:2 (contra those espousing an ex eventu interpretation of chs. 10–12; e.g., Montgomery, 423, and Lucas, 260, who identify Greece with the “Seleucid Empire”). Compare Collins (Daniel, 377), who questions whether or not there was “any Jewish memory” of Xerxes’ campaign against Greece when Daniel’s final vision was composed (i.e., mid-second century BC).
b. Concerning Persia (11:2)
2“Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.
COMMENTARY
2 Quite apart from how remarkable the interpretation of the vision may seem, the celestial being indicates that his message is the “truth” (v.2a). The repetition of the word “truth” (Heb. ʾemet) no doubt authenticates the revelation by connecting it to the “Book of Truth” mentioned previously (10:21). There is some confusion among biblical interpreters as to the number of kings reckoned in the vision—either a “fourth” king (v.2b) in a series beginning with Cyrus, or a fourth king in sequence after the reign of Cyrus the Great (cf. Lucas, 278–79). The most straightforward reading is to understand that the interpreting angel refers to four Persian kings in sequence after Cyrus, during whose reign the vision is dated (10:1).
Assuming the first three Persian kings succeeding Cyrus the Great refer to Cambyses (530–522 BC), the usurper Smerdis (pseudo-Smerdis or Gaumata, 522 BC), and Darius I Hystaspes (522–486 BC), the fourth king identified is Xerxes (or Ahasuerus; 486–465 BC). The description of a king who is powerful, wealthy, and wages war against the Greeks (v.2b) fits nicely with the reign of King Xerxes, especially in the massive military campaign he launched in 481/480 BC against the Greeks in an effort to avenge the earlier defeat of his father (Darius I) by the Greeks at Marathon (490 BC). Although the Persians sacked Athens and burned the Parthenon, the Greeks defeated Xerxes and repulsed the Persians in a land battle at Thermopylae in 480 BC and naval battle at Salamis in 479 BC (see Miller, 291).
Other biblical interpreters suggest that the use of “three . . . then a fourth” (v.2) is a Hebrew idiom that telescopes the exact number of Persian kings into a stylized history simply to indicate that a totality of monarchs will rise and fall—“denoting the Achemenids as a whole” (Goldingay, 295); “but the point is made that Persian wealth will eventually invite attack from all, even the kingdom of Greece” (Baldwin, 185; cf. Seow, 169–70). The fact that two hundred years of Persian history are compressed into a single verse is due primarily to the intent of Daniel’s original query concerning the fate of the Hebrew people (cf. 10:14). The message of the revealing angel gives prominence to the kingdoms of the Ptolemies (the “kings of the south”) and the Seleucids (the “kings of the north”) because their political and military interplay directly affects the history of Israel (11:5–20).
2 Baldwin’s instruction, 184, here is helpful as she encourages the student of the Bible to have “at hand a secular history of the period to give a perspective wider than that of the chapter in question,” given the many baffling allusions to ancient history (cf. Archer, 134–35, n. 9, for a list of the principal ancient sources of historical information for this time period).
c. Concerning Greece (11:3–4)
3Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.
COMMENTARY
3–4 There is little doubt that the “mighty king” who appears (v.3a) is a reference to the Macedonian king Alexander the Great. Alexander came to power in 336 BC and subsequently embarked on an unprecedented military campaign to the east. Within a decade he marched from Turkey to India, gaining control of the largest empire the world had yet known. Yet at the height of his power Alexander died abruptly in 323 BC without a viable heir to his throne. Hence his empire was “broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven” (v.4a). The reference to the parceling out of Alexander’s empire in quarters was realized in the four “mini-empires” carved out of his kingdom by his four generals: Macedonia and Greece ruled by Cassander; Thrace and Asia Minor ruled by Lysimachus; northern Syria, Mesopotamia, and the other eastern regions ruled by Seleucus; and southern Syria, Palestine, and Egypt ruled by Ptolemy.
The revelation of Daniel’s final vision repeats elements of the earlier vision of the four great beasts that arise out of the churning sea, in this case the leopard with four heads (7:6). The uprooting of Alexander’s empire and its division into quadrants (v.4b) recalls the breaking of the single horn of the goat and its regrowth “toward the four winds of heaven” in Daniel’s vision of the ram and the goat (8:8; see comments; cf. Collins, Daniel, 377–78; Lucas, 279–80).
d. Concerning Egypt and Syria (11:5–20)
5“The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. 6After some years, they will become allies. The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father and the one who supported her.
7“One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. 8He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. 9Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country. 10His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress.
11“Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated. 12When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be filled with pride and will slaughter many thousands, yet he will not remain triumphant. 13For the king of the North will muster another army, larger than the first; and after several years, he will advance with a huge army fully equipped.
14“In those times many will rise against the king of the South. The violent men among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. 15Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. 16The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. 17He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans will not succeed or help him. 18Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back upon him. 19After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more.
20“His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.
COMMENTARY
5–6 It is generally agreed that the citations to the “king of the South” (v.5) and the “king of the North” (v.6) refer to the rulers of the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt and the Seleucid dynasty of Syria and western Mesopotamia. These were the two most powerful of the Hellenistic kingdoms emerging from Alexander’s divided empire. These two kingdoms vied for control of the land bridge connecting Africa and Asia, since it meant both economic and military advantage for that kingdom able to establish its authority over the land of Palestine. Naturally, the political and military energies expended by the Ptolemies and the Seleucids on controlling this key piece of real estate in the ancient Near East had a direct impact on the Jews living in Palestine.
The “king of the South” (v.5a) refers to the founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty, Ptolemy I Soter, who ruled from 323–285 BC. He seized rule over Egypt upon the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC. The reference to “one of his commanders” (v.5b) alludes to Seleucus I Nicator, who upon Alexander’s death initially claimed the throne of Babylonia. He was soon driven from power, however, by Antigonus, who governed Asia Minor. As a result, Seleucus fled to Egypt and became one of Ptolemy’s generals. Seleucus eventually regained control of Babylonia when he and Ptolemy I defeated Antigonus at the battle of Gaza in 312 BC, and he ruled as founder of the Seleucid dynasty from 311–280 BC. He later gained control of Asia Minor when Antigonus was defeated and killed by the Diadochi (or successors of Alexander) at the battle of Ipsus in 301 BC, thus making the Seleucid realm the largest of the four successor kingdoms of Alexander’s empire.
The marriage alliance mentioned in v.6 is probably a reference to a treaty sealed between the Ptolemies and Seleucids by means of the marriage of Berenice (daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus [285–246 BC]) and Antiochus II Theos (261–246 BC [grandson of Seleucus I]) around 250 BC (cf. Kraemer, 342–43). The agreement included the provision that only the sons of Berenice could succeed Antiochus to the throne.
After Ptolemy’s death, however, Antiochus divorced Berenice and remarried his former wife and half-sister, Laodice, whom he had previously divorced for the purpose of entering into the marriage alliance with the Ptolemies. Subsequently, Laodice murdered Antiochus, Berenice, their infant son, and several of the Egyptian attendants in the service of Berenice. This purging of the royal household ensured the succession of Laodice’s son, Seleucus II. Berenice’s father died in the same year, thus rounding out the fulfillment of the prediction that the power of the alliance created by marriage would not last (v.6b) and the Egyptian bride, her attendants, and even her father would “be handed over” (i.e., to death; v.6c).
7–9 The reference to “one from her family” (v.7a) is probably an allusion to Ptolemy III Euergetes (246–221 BC). He was the brother of Berenice and succeeded his father Ptolemy II in 246 BC. He waged a successful sea and land campaign against the Seleucid Empire, overrunning much of Syria and avenging his sister Berenice’s death by executing Laodice (v.7b). According to tradition, among the booty plundered by Ptolemy III were images of Egyptian deities carried away by the Persian King Cambyses in 525 BC (which eventually ended up in the possession of the Greeks; v.8a). According to Collins (Daniel, 378), Ptolemy III was given the name “Euergetes” (or “benefactor”) by his people because he had returned the images of the Egyptian gods to their homeland (cf. Hartman and Di Lella, 290). There was a lull in the conflict between the two kingdoms from 244–242 BC (v.8b). Seleucus II mounted a counter-invasion of Egypt in 242 BC but was eventually forced to withdraw his troops from the region (v.9).
10–13 Towner, 156, comments that the next section (vv.10–19) refers “to the extraordinarily confusing events of the reign of the greatest of all Seleucid monarchs, Antiochus III (223–187 BC).” Seleucus III Ceraunus (226–223 BC) and Antiochus III are “the sons” of Seleucus II who waged war against the Ptolemies, even to the “fortress” of Ptolemy III in southern Palestine at Raphia (v.10). The next passage (vv.11–13) distills two campaigns waged against Egypt by Antiochus III. In the first, Antiochus was defeated at Raphia by Ptolemy in 217 BC (v.11). As a result, Ptolemy was able to regain control of Palestine and southern Syria (besides inflicting heavy casualties on the Seleucids (some 17,000 of 68,000 troops; v.12a).
Yet Ptolemy would “not remain triumphant” (v.12b), for he failed to press his advantage and made peace with Antiochus and the Seleucids (cf. Lucas, 281). Fourteen years later, after extending Seleucid rule into Asia Minor and eastern central Asia, Antiochus again mustered his forces to invade Egypt (v.13). He defeated Scopas (the Aetolian mercenary commander of the army) and the Egyptians at Banias (or Panias, near one of the sources of the Jordan River) in 200 BC, and the control of Judea now passed from the Ptolemies to the Seleucids. The turn of events in the royal family of the Ptolemies at this time no doubt precipitated the actions of Antiochus against Egypt. In 204 BC, Ptolemy IV Philopator (221–204 BC) and his queen died mysteriously (following unrest in Egypt that began as early as 207 BC). Ptolemy V Epiphanes (204–181 BC) was only a boy six years of age when he succeeded his father to the throne of Egypt. Antiochus was able to exploit the political upheaval and low morale among the Egyptians to military advantage.
14–19 The military campaign of Antiochus III against Egypt was but an omen of further aggression against the Ptolemies by many who would “rise up against the king of the South” (v.14a). Collins (Daniel, 379), citing Jerome, lists the “many” who rebelled against the Ptolemies, including those outlying provinces subjected to Egyptian rule, sedition in Egypt itself, and the pact made between Philip King of Macedon and Antiochus the Great. The identification of the “violent men among your own people” who led an unsuccessful rebellion against Egyptian rule is unclear (v.14b), although the Jewish historian Josephus reports that pro-Seleucid and pro-Ptolemaic Jewish factions vied for power in Jerusalem at the time (Ant. 12.3.3–4; see the discussion in Collins, Daniel, 379–80).
According to Montgomery, 439, the siege of a “fortified city” (v.15) alluded to the siege of Gaza by Antiochus III in 201 BC. More recent commentators agree that the flow of the narrative points to Antiochus’s successful siege of Sidon; he captured the city in 198 BC (cf. Collins, Daniel, 380; Lucas, 282). Scopas, the commander of the Egyptian forces in Palestine, retreated to Sidon after the defeat at Banias, and the mention of “their best troops” (v.15b) probably refers to Scopas’s Aeolian mercenaries (cf. Lucas, 282).
This invader will do “as he pleases” (v.16a)—an expression applied previously to Alexander the Great (v.3) and subsequently to the king who exalts himself (v.36). After the surrender of Scopas and the Egyptians at Sidon in 198 BC, because of famine resulting from the lengthy siege of the city, Antiochus the Great gained control of all Palestine—including Judah and Jerusalem. Palestine is identified as the “Beautiful Land” in Daniel’s vision of the ram and the goat (see comments on 8:9; cf. 11:41). Palestine remained within the Seleucid sphere of influence until the Maccabean revolt in 165 BC.
In a move to protect himself against the growing menace of Rome, Antiochus the Great made an alliance with Ptolemy V (v.17a), sealing it with the marriage of Antiochus’s daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy V in 193 BC at Raphia (after a four-year betrothal). Antiochus apparently hoped to “overthrow the kingdom” of the Ptolemies from within by means of the marriage pact (v.17b), but “whatever hopes he had of furthering his designs against Egypt through her proved false. She became staunchly loyal to her husband, even encouraging an alliance between Egypt and Rome against her father” (Lucas, 282; Kraemer, 343–44).
Ignoring his treaty with the Ptolemies, Antiochus the Great turned “his attention to the coastlands” (v.18a). This verse alludes to Antiochus’s campaign in Asia Minor, overrunning Egyptian held territories along the coast and capturing numerous Greek islands as well. The waning power of Philip V of Macedon permitted Antiochus to threaten Greece itself, despite warnings from Rome against such a move. Antiochus invaded Greece in 192 BC but was defeated by the Romans at Thermopylae in 191 BC.
The Romans, having crushed the Seleucids at the battle of Magnesia, drove Antiochus’s army back to the east of the Taurus Mountains in 190 BC. The “commander who put an end to his insolence” (v.18b) was the Roman general Lucius Scipio. According to Lucas, 282, “Antiochus was forced to accept humiliating peace terms at the Treaty of Apamea in 189 BC. He became a vassal to Rome, and had to send twenty hostages to Rome (including his son, the future Antiochus IV) and pay a huge indemnity.” Antiochus retreated to Syria and “the fortresses of his own country” (v.19a). In 187 BC he was assassinated while attempting to sack the temple of Bel at Elymais in order to secure money to pay tribute to Rome (cf. Collins, Daniel, 381)—thus the reference that he “will stumble and fall, to be seen no more” (v.19b).
20 Towner, 157, comments that “the brief and undistinguished reign of the son of Antiochus, Seleucus IV Philopater (187–175 BC), is dismissed in verse 20.” Antiochus the Great had two sons. Seleucus IV succeeded his father on the throne; his brother Antiochus was held hostage in Rome. The reference to the “tax collector” (v.20a) is probably a reference to Heliodorus, the finance minister of Seleucus (cf. 2 Macc 3 on Heliodorus’s attempt to confiscate the monies in the treasury of the Jerusalem temple). Collins (Daniel, 381) summarizes that the reign of Seleucus IV “was dominated by financial exigency, because of the tribute to Rome.” Seleucus was assassinated in 175 BC in a plot hatched by Heliodorus (possibly in a conspiracy including Antiochus, who had been released from prison in Rome). The report that Seleucus died “not in anger or in battle” (v.20b) may indicate the king died in disgrace, since he was not killed fighting valiantly on the battlefield (cf. Montgomery, 445).
NOTE
7 The MT reads 
(konnô, “his place”); cf. NASB’s “in his place.” Archer (134, n. 7) prefers this, understanding “his place” as “in his own capital down in Egypt.”
e. Concerning Antiochus IV Epiphanes (11:21–35)
21“He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. 24When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.
25“With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. 26Those who eat from the king’s provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. 27The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. 28The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.
29“At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. 30Ships of the western coastlands will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.
31“His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. 32With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.
33“Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. 34When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. 35Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.
COMMENTARY
21–24 The revealing angel’s audition sets the stage for the summary of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Lucas, 283, notes that this has been foreshadowed in various ways in the preceding visions (e.g., 8:23–25) and that “he encapsulates a more intensive form of the bad traits and deeds of his predecessors.” The “contemptible person” who succeeds Seleucus IV Philopator is generally understood as a reference to his younger brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC). This Seleucid king was “contemptible” from the Jewish standpoint because he “severely persecuted the Jews, massacring thousands, and represented one of the greatest threats to Yahweh worship in all of Israel’s history” (Miller, 298).
Antiochus IV was not “given the honor of royalty” (v.21a) but rather usurped it, seizing the throne “through intrigue” (v.21b). Lucas, 282, summarizes that just prior to his death, Seleucus IV sent his son, Demetrius, to Rome as a “hostage replacement” for Antiochus IV. Seleucus was murdered while Antiochus was en route to Syria. Heliodorus (see comments on v.20) then seized the throne, ostensibly acting as regent for the legal heir, Demetrius. Antiochus arrived in Syria with an army conscripted with the help of Eumenes of Pergamum, forcing the flight of Heliodorus. Antiochus claimed the throne of the Seleucid Empire, nominally as regent for his older nephew Demetrius (now a political hostage in Rome), with his younger nephew (also named Antiochus) as coregent. This younger nephew Antiochus was murdered in 170 BC, and Antiochus IV usurped the throne by means of the fiction of claiming to act as regent for the exiled Demetrius.
Commentators differ on their understanding of the section that follows (vv.22–24). Some view the reference to “an overwhelming army” that will “be swept away” (v.22a) as an allusion to the invasion of Palestine by Ptolemy VI Philometor (181–146 BC) in an attempt to regain territories previously lost to the Seleucids (e.g., Miller, 299). The reference to “a prince of the covenant” (v.22b) is applied to Ptolemy VI as a betrayer of the treaty he had made with Antiochus IV, thus enabling him to regain the Egyptian throne usurped by his brother Ptolemy VII Euergetes II.
More recently, biblical commentators equate the Jewish high priest Onias III with “a prince of the covenant,” since typically the expression “the king of the South” is used to identify the Ptolemies. Onias opposed the influence of Hellenism in Judea and was murdered by Menelaus in 171 BC in league with Jason (the brother of Onias), who had bribed Antiochus with the promise of supporting a policy of Hellenization in Jerusalem if he were appointed high priest (cf. Lucas, 284). Verses 23–24 are considered a summary of either his dealings with Jason and Judea (e.g., Lucas, 284) or more generally his policy toward Egypt and Judea (e.g., Miller, 299; though Collins [Daniel, 382] considers v.23 a flashback to Antiochus’s alliance with Pergamum permitting him to seize the Seleucid throne with a small force.
25–28 These verses allude to Antiochus’s first invasion of Egypt in 169 BC and the victory of the Seleucids over Ptolemy VI, “the king of the South” (v.25a; perhaps the same event described earlier in v.22; cf. Towner, 158). According to 1 Maccabees 1:17, the “large army” of Antiochus included chariots, elephants, cavalry, and a fleet, in addition to footsoldiers. Despite amassing a large counter-force (v.25b), Ptolemy’s army was routed and the Egyptian king “fled in terror, leaving behind many casualties” (1 Macc 1:18). The “plots devised” against Ptolemy leading to his defeat (v.25c) included both sedition within Egypt itself on the part of disloyal subjects, and unwise counsel from royal advisers (cf. Miller, 300).
As a result, Antiochus “captured the fortified cities of Egypt and plundered the entire land” (1 Macc 1:19). Seow, 178, and others attribute the portrayal of Antiochus IV as the aggressor in the conflict to “the anti-Seleucid bias” of the narrator. In reality, it appears that Antiochus was responding to a military campaign launched by the Egyptians in 170 BC in an effort to regain control of Palestine (cf. Porteous, 166; Goldingay, 300–301).
The reference to “those who eat from the king’s provisions” (v.26a) probably alludes to two Egyptian courtiers, Eulaeus and Lenaeus. Royal power in Egypt passed to them after the death in 169 BC of Cleopatra, who had been acting as regent for her underaged son Ptolemy VI (cf. Lucas, 285). Presumably the attempt to “destroy him” (v.26a) refers first to their unwise advice in encouraging Ptolemy to wage war against Antiochus in a bid to regain control of Palestine, and second to their counsel to him to flee to Samothrace after the Egyptian defeat near Pelusium (leading to his subsequent capture by Antiochus). The Egyptian army was “swept away” (v.26b) in the sense that the Egyptian forces were thoroughly routed. Antiochus invaded Egypt, advancing to Memphis and even laying siege to Alexandria (cf. Seow, 178–79).
With Ptolemy VI now a prisoner of Antiochus, his brother Ptolemy VII Euergetes II Physcon was installed as king of Egypt by powerful nobles of Alexandria. At this turn of events, Antiochus shifted his efforts to “diplomacy” in an attempt to gain further control over Egypt (cf. 1 Macc 1:16–19). The “two kings” (v.27a) mentioned are the captive Ptolemy VI and Antiochus. Antiochus sought an alliance with Ptolemy VI, under the guise of uniting with him in the common cause of restoring Philometor to power, “so that he could have a puppet that he could manipulate” (Seow, 178). Both were “bent on evil” (v.27b) in that each sought the alliance for the sake of double-crossing the other in their lust for power and wealth.
Seow, 179, notes that “the diplomatic niceties at the Memphis summit are recognized as the farce that they were”—two kings sitting at the same table and lying to each other (v.27c). Hartman and Di Lella, 296–97, comment that the biblical author severely indicts both kings in this exchange of lies because in “the grossness of their treachery . . . each was guilty of violating a solemn principle of ancient Near Eastern ethics, plotting evil against a table companion (cf. Ps 41:9–10; John 13:18).” The Memphis treaty will be to “no avail” (“will not succeed,” NASB) in that neither party will be able to gain an advantage through deceitful diplomacy. That the “end will still come at the appointed time” (v.27d) indicates the demise of Antiochus lay in the future, beyond the events of his first Egyptian invasion. Furthermore, the phrase “appointed time” serves to remind Daniel and his audience that God is still in control and “that there is a deeper (divine) purpose behind the events of history” (Lucas, 285). Montgomery, 454, aptly connects the phrase “appointed time” (v.27d) with the parallel expression, “but only for a time” (v.24d), placing “ultimate doom in the counsels of God.”
Antiochus IV (“the king of the North”) returned to Syria with “great wealth” (v.28a) as a result of his victory over Ptolemy VI and the Egyptians. The phrase “his heart will be set against the holy covenant” (v.28b) describes both the venting of his anger in frustration at the setback in his failed siege of Alexandria and also some deeper hatred of the Jews—almost a demonic malignancy directed against God and his people. The expression “holy covenant” (v.28b) is an umbrella term encompassing the people of God’s holy covenant, the Jews, and their land of Judah—“all things religious in Israel” (especially the Jerusalem temple, cf. Wood, 299). Seow, 179, comments that after withdrawing his forces from the failed siege of Alexandria, Antiochus set “his heart on an easier target—the Jews.”
There is some confusion in the historical sources concerning the activity of Antiochus in Judah after his first Egyptian campaign. Lucas, 285, contends that the looting of the Jerusalem temple and the murder of many Jews (cf. 1 Macc 1:20–24) by Antiochus after his first Egyptian campaign is better associated with events connected with his attack on Jerusalem after his failed second campaign against the Egyptians two years later (cf. 1 Macc 1:29–40). He finds no motive for Antiochus’s action against the Jews on his return through Palestine in 169 BC and assumes the conflation of the account of the first attack against Jerusalem (1 Macc 1:20–28) with the second attack against Jerusalem (1 Macc 1:29–40), as understood in 2 Maccabees 5, is more in keeping with the facts of the matter (cf. Lucas, 285).
Miller, 300, and Porteous, 167, however, are convinced that Antiochus vented his rage against the Jews in the aftermath of both of his Egyptian campaigns, first in 169 BC after the failed siege of Alexandria, and then again two years later in 167 BC after his second campaign ended in defeat at the hands of the Ptolemies. Antiochus’s reputation as “the madman” meant he needed no motive for his wanton cruelty against the Jews. In keeping with Daniel’s forecast of future events, it seems likely that Antiochus “took action” (v.28c) against Jerusalem after each Egyptian campaign (cf. v.30–32). On the first occasion, Antiochus personally plundered the Jerusalem temple and butchered many among the Jewish citizenry, while on the second occasion he acted through his emissary Apollonius (cf. Goldingay, 301).
29–30 Antiochus invaded “the South again” (v.29a) two years later (167 BC), but this time his Egyptian campaign was unsuccessful (v.29b). The Ptolemy brothers Philometor and Euergetes had reconciled, undoing the results of Antiochus’s first invasion of Egypt. The “ships of the western coastlands” (“Kittim,” NASB [v.30a], the Heb. kittîm is derived from Citium on Cyprus, and the term constituting a Hebrew convention for “islands” and “maritime countries” [cf. Collins, Daniel, 384]) refer to the Roman fleet sent to Alexandria at the request of the Ptolemy brothers. The invader will “lose heart” (v.30b), a reference to Antiochus’s intimidation and humiliation by the Roman envoy Popilius Laenas, forcing the Seleucid withdrawal from Egypt (cf. Collins, Daniel, 384).
Tragically, Antiochus vented his humiliation by the Romans in Egypt in the form of “fury” or persecution against the Jews (the people of the “holy covenant,” v.30b). Some see an allusion to Numbers 24:24 (“ships will come from the shores of Kittim; they will subdue Asshur”) in the “ships of Kittim,” with Rome opposing the Seleucids as the “new Assyria” (cf. Baldwin, 194). Antiochus’s showing of “favor to those who forsake the holy covenant” probably refers to the treachery of Antiochus’s envoy Apollonius, who feigned coming to Jerusalem in peace, only to attack the Jews on the Sabbath and plunder the city (cf. 1 Macc 1:29–40; 2 Macc 5:24–26). Not only did the general Apollonius massacre the Jews, but he also rewarded those Jewish traitors who supported his policies of forced Hellenization (e.g., Menelaus, who had outbid his brother Jason for the office of high priest; cf. 2 Macc 4).
It is likely that Jason’s revolt against Menelaus, triggered by the rumor that Antiochus had been killed in Egypt, took place at this time as well. Jason returned to Jerusalem in rebellion against Menelaus and the Tobiad family (2 Macc 5:5–10; cf. Lucas, 286). Assuming the city of Jerusalem was in revolt, Antiochus exploited the situation as a pretext to attack Jerusalem and restore control on his return from defeat in Egypt in 167 BC. The repetition of the phrase “the appointed time” (v.29a; cf. vv.24, 27) is another reminder to Daniel’s audience that the sovereign God, who “sets up kings and deposes them,” is still in control of history and the destiny of Israel.
31–32 The “temple fortress” (v.31a) was either the temple complex itself, which functioned secondarily as a military citadel at this time (so Montgomery, 457), or an adjacent structure on the temple mount that served as a garrison and armory (cf. Goldingay, 302). This temple citadel was rebuilt and fortified and became the base of operations for Antiochus’s forces in quelling the “revolt” in Jerusalem (cf 1 Macc 1:29–35). The citadel was called the Akra, and “for a period of twenty-five years the Akra stood as a loathsome symbol of pagan domination” (Hartman and Di Lella, 299; cf. 1 Macc 3:45; 14:36).
Later in 167 BC Antiochus issued an edict decreeing the forced Hellenism of the Jews in Judea and outlawing all Jewish religious practices, such as circumcision, possessing the Hebrew Scriptures, observance of Sabbath and feast days, and the daily morning and evening sacrifices (all on threat of death; cf. 1 Macc 1:50, 63). The paganization of the Hebrew temple culminated in the institution of imperial cult worship in Jerusalem and the erection of an altar or idol dedicated to Zeus in the temple on 15 Chislev (December) 167 BC (cf. 1 Macc 1:54–61; 2 Macc 6:2; see also comments on 9:27). This “abomination that causes desolation,” or desecrating sacrilege, rendered the temple unfit for Hebrew worship because of the violation of Mosaic purity and tradition associated with worship at the temple (cf. Ex 20:3–4, 22–26; 1Ki 8).
Within three years the temple was an abandoned structure, overgrown with weeds like a vacant lot (cf. 1 Macc 4:36–40). In addition, pagan altars were set up across Judah on which swine and other animals judged “unclean” by Jewish food laws were offered (1 Macc 1:47). Presumably the same kinds of profane sacrifices were offered at the Jerusalem temple as well (cf. 1 Macc 1:54, 59). The desecration of the Jerusalem temple by Antiochus prefigured a later “abomination” to be erected in the Jerusalem temple, as predicted by Jesus in his Olivet discourse (cf. Mt 24:15).
The Jews of Jerusalem divided into two camps in response to Antiochus’s temple desecration and his attendant persecution of those adhering to their ancestral religious rituals and practices. One group is identified as those who have “violated the covenant” (v.32a), corrupted by Antiochus’s “flattery” (mentioned previously as “those who forsake the holy covenant,” v.30c). The “forsakers” (Heb. rš ʿ, “act culpably, make oneself guilty”; GK 8399) of the covenant are those who have already “acted wickedly” with respect to God’s law as codified in the Mosaic covenant (suggested by the participial form of the verb; cf. Wood, 301). The word typically connotes the “wicked acts” of disobedience or general unfaithfulness to the stipulations of God’s covenant with Israel enacted at Sinai, but implicit in this disloyalty is false worship in violation of the command not to worship idols (Ex 20:3–4; cf. 9:5; 1Ki 8:47; Ne 9:33; 2Ch 22:3).
The reference to “flattery” (“smooth words,” NASB; Heb. ḥālāq, “smooth, smoothness”) probably alludes to the enticing promises made by Antiochus to bestow honor and wealth on those Jews who join in the support of his pagan policies (cf. 1 Macc 2:18; 2 Macc 7:24). The book of 1 Maccabees reports that many Jews abandoned the law of Moses at this time and joined in the pagan worship and evil deeds promoted by Antiochus’s officers (1 Macc 1:51–52; 2:15).
The second group of Jews are those who “firmly resist” Antiochus because they “know their God” (v.32b). These Jews remained loyal to God by persisting in their obedience to the law of Moses and refusing to compromise the Mosaic covenant by engaging in false worship (cf. 1 Macc 2:16). Since the larger context of the Hebrew resistance to the policies of Antiochus forcing Hellenism on the Jews included martyrdom (vv.33–35), Lucas, 287, comments that the reference to those who resist “is best taken as including all forms of resistance to Antiochus’s edict, whether it took the form of passive resistance (1 Macc 1:29–38) or of armed revolt (1 Macc 1:42–48).” These faithful Jews faced persecution and the threat of death on two fronts: the military forces of the Seleucid Hellenists occupying Judah, and the turncoat Jews who forced the faithful Israelites to hide in whatever refuge they could find (1 Macc 1:53).
33–35 The final passage of the section alludes to the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV in the aftermath of his failed second Egyptian campaign (vv.33–35). As Baldwin, 195, iterates, these verses highlight the polarization between those who are seduced by “flattery” (v.32a) and those “who know their God” (v.32b), since “persecution eliminates the waverers.” The expression “those who are wise” (v.33a) refers to those Jews who remain faithful to Yahweh’s covenant despite the atrocities committed against them by their Seleucid oppressors (i.e., those with “spiritual discernment,” according to Miller, 302). These “wise” (Heb. maśkîlîm) Jews will also teach or instruct (Heb. byn) many others during the time of the Seleucid persecution (v.33a).
Goldingay, 303, describes the wise or discerning Jews as the “conservative leaders who possess the wisdom which consists in awed submission to Yahweh, that understanding which has reflected deeply on his ways in history, and that insight which perceives how his cause will ultimately triumph.” Presumably, this comprised the instruction the wise shared with others, along with their modeling of obedience to the stipulations of the Mosaic law. The fact that some “will fall” (v.33b) indicates the Jews faithful to Yahweh’s covenant risk capture, torture, and even martyrdom, whether death by the sword or by burning (v.33c; cf. Heb 11:34–35).
The revealing angel goes on to indicate that those who fall “will receive a little help” (v.34a). Seow, 181, comments that two responses to the persecution of Antiochus were available to the Jews: a more passive resistance, as reflected in the example of the “wise”; and an active resistance, exemplified among the “zealous” or “devout Jews” (Heb. ḥasîdîm) described in 1 Maccabees 2:42. The enigmatic allusion “help” may refer to the Maccabean freedom fighters, who rose up actively to resist the forced Hellenism of Seleucid rule by means of guerilla warfare (e.g., Baldwin, 196–97; cf. 1 Macc 3). The rest of the verse (“many will join them in hypocrisy,” NASB; v.34b) may allude to the harsh actions the Maccabees took against those Jews who complied with the edict of Antiochus, thus leading “some to join them out of fear rather than out of principle” (Lucas, 287; cf. 1 Macc 2:44–47; 3:5–8).
The Antiochene persecution leading to the capture, imprisonment, and even martyrdom of some of the “wise” Jews has the effect of refining and purifying them—making them “spotless” (v.35a). Their suffering is not viewed as divine judgment in punishment for sin, but rather as “a means of testing and purifying their commitment” (Lucas, 287). Hartman and Di Lella, 300–301, understand the suffering in a communal sense as the purification of the Israelite nation and the vindication of the worship of Yahweh. It seems more likely that Collins (Daniel, 386) is correct to view the test of suffering in more individualistic terms as “purification [that] bespeaks an interest in individual salvation as distinct from (though not opposed to) the deliverance of the nation.”
No doubt the Antiochene persecution also had the effect of further purging the faithful Jews by winnowing out the insincere (so Goldingay, 303). Yet “the death of the martyrs is not vicarious. They are the ones who are purified,” and they have their primary effect on the community by their instruction (Collins, Daniel, 386). For the third time in this section (v.35c; cf. vv.24–27), the revealing angel indicates that the period of suffering the Jews must endure as a result of the persecution of Antiochus is an interim one. There is an “appointed time” for its end (v.35c)—yet another reminder of God’s sovereign control of human history and Israel’s destiny (see comment on v.27d).
f. Concerning the king who exalts himself (11:36–45)
OVERVIEW
Both conservative and critical biblical scholars agree that 11:2–35 summarizes events associated with the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Granted, the two camps take differing approaches to the literature, whether predictive prophecy or ex eventu apocalyptic prophecy. Assumptions concerning the possibility of divine revelation in the form of predictive prophecy, however, cause a marked divergence in the assessment of 11:36–45 by the two interpretive schools.
Typically, critical scholarship today regards vv.36–39—a recapitulation of the offenses of Antiochus—as a summary judgment against his character and policies (e.g., Seow, 182; Lucas, 289). Goldingay, 304, considers the unit a “quasi-prophecy” based on known historical facts. Despite acknowledgment that the content of the passage is difficult to harmonize with what historical resources report concerning the life of Antiochus, scholars adhering to this interpretation tend to dismiss the discrepancies as “polemical exaggeration” on the part of the author (e.g., Collins, Daniel, 386; cf. Lucas, 290).
According to Collins (Daniel, 388), beginning with v.40, “modern scholarship marks the shift from ex eventu prophecy to real (and erroneous) prediction” (cf. Towner, 165, who quips that at the point at which the seer actually begins to look into the future, “he gets it all muddled”). Goldingay, 305, concurs, admitting that although vv.40–45 cannot be correlated to the known events of Antiochus’s life, “it is not the nature of biblical prophecy to give a literal account of events before they take place.” Many of the “modern” scholars assume vv.36–45 continue the narrative of vv.21–35, since there are no grammatical markers hinting at a transition of any sort, and they presuppose that the passage “imaginatively” looks forward to the downfall of Antiochus IV—the king of the North (e.g., Towner, 163–65; Hartman and Di Lella, 303; Goldingay, 305; Lucas, 292–93; Seow, 184–86).
Other historical figures have also been cited as the possible fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy about the king who will “exalt and magnify himself,” such as the general Pompey, who brought Roman control to Palestine in 63 BC (cf. Goldingay, 305); Herod the Great (cf. Miller, 305, n. 82); the Roman general Titus, who sacked Jerusalem in AD 70; and the Roman king Constantine the Great (cf. Anderson, 140–41). Calvin is among those commentators understanding vv.36–45 to refer to the fourth empire (or Rome) of Daniel’s vision of the beasts rising out of the sea, rather than to any particular individual (cf. Miller, 305, n. 82).
Since the time of Jerome, some Christian interpreters have seen an “antichrist” figure in vv.36–45 (cf. Lucas, 292). The interpretation is based on Daniel’s description of the “little horn” (7:8), “another horn” (8:9), and “the ruler who will come” (9:26) in his previous visions, as well as NT teaching concerning “the man of lawlessness” (2Th 2:3–12), the “antichrist” (1Jn 2:18), and the “beast” (Rev 11–20; cf. Miller, 306). The extreme difficulties inherent in understanding the text of Daniel at this point must be recognized and the need to proceed with humility and charity acknowledged (agreeing with Longman, 280; cf. Archer, 144, on the difference of opinion even among conservative interpreters on the meaning of vv.36–45).
The chief problem in assigning an eschatological meaning to the passage is that, unlike the earlier portion of the chapter (e.g., vv.2, 7, 20–21), there is no clear grammatical marker or transitional language indicating a shift of subject between v.35 and v.36 or between v.39 and v.40 (cf. Goldingay, 305; Longman, 281). Yet the tendency of biblical prophecy to “telescope” future events (or the idea that “the more distant event appears to merge with the nearer so as to become indistinguishable from it” (Baldwin, 202) has already been noted in Daniel (cf. 7:23–25). Thus Longman, 282, concludes that in vv.36–45 “we see references to Antiochus Epiphanes taking on larger than life characteristics, which we, living in the light of the New Testament, might describe as anticipatory of a figure called the Antichrist.”
Baldwin’s summary assessment, 199, moves the discussion in the proper direction when she states that “although the chapter [i.e., Da 11] finds its first fulfillment in the character and reign of Antiochus IV, the matter does not stop there.” I am inclined to agree. Quite apart from whether vv.36–45 address some historical personage beyond the reign of Antiochus or the antichrist figure of the end of the age, it seems quite clear “that the divine intention [of vv.36–45] may have been much broader” (Longman, 281). In addition to acknowledging the larger context’s teaching about resurrection from the dead (12:1–3), Longman, 281, goes on to cite several signals for assigning an “eschatological meaning” to vv.36–45, such as the “cosmic” language of the verses, the reference to “the time of the end” (v.40), and the fact that “verses 40–45 simply do not work when applied to the life and death of Antiochus Epiphanes.”
Furthermore, Wood, 304–5, observes that any further treatment of Antiochus IV is unexpected, since his story (at least with respect to the persecution of the Jews) has been completed, and the designation “the king” (v.36a) has not been applied to Antiochus at any time in the preceding narrative. Naturally, this position is not without its detractors, as Hartman and Di Lella, 303, dismiss the view as “exegetically witless and religiously worthless.” Anderson, 141, states that the view “now has minimal appeal beyond the circle of some sects.” Such polemics notwithstanding, the commentary below addresses both the historicist and futurist interpretations of vv.36–45 (and sides with Baldwin, 199–203, and Longman, 282–83, on the merits of assigning an eschatological meaning to the pericope).
36“The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. 37He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. 38Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price.
40“At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. 41He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. 42He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. 43He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. 44But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. 45He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.
36–39 The king who “will do as he pleases” (v.36a) is depicted as an autocrat with no regard for humanity or God. Seow, 182, notes that in this he is hardly a unique figure, since Daniel has characterized other rulers in the same way (cf. 8:4; 11:3). This boastful “little horn” or “other horn” was introduced earlier (in Daniel’s vision of the beasts rising out of the sea) as one who opposed God and his people (cf. 7:8, 20). The verbs “exalt” and “magnify” are normally reserved for God or those who impiously challenge God in the OT, and Lucas, 289, finds echoes of Isaiah’s oracle against the pride of the king of Assyria in the passage (cf. Isa 10:12–15).
The phrase “unheard-of things” (“monstrous things,” NASB; v.36c) has a word in common with the description of the “astounding devastation” wrought by the “stern-faced king” (cf. 8:24). The term (Heb. pl ʾ; Niphal) is found forty-three times in the OT and is used exclusively in reference to the “wonderful works” of God in creation and salvation—except in the two cases where Daniel applies the word to the boasting of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. This, coupled with the fact that the word for “God/god(s)” (Heb. ʾelôah/ʾelōhîm) occurs eight times in vv.36–39, thus emphasizing the profane character of the ruler, indicates that the “boasting” of this arrogant king is “nothing short of blasphemy” (Seow, 182).
The historicist interpreter points to the expansion of the inscriptions on the coins minted by Antiochus IV Epiphanes from the simple “of King Antiochus” to “of King Antiochus, God Manifest, Victory Bringer” as tangible evidence confirming his identification as the impious king described in vv.36–39. The futurist interpreter views the sacrilegious character and policies of Antiochus IV Epiphanes as but a pale foreshadowing of the “atheism” and “shocking blasphemy” of the antichrist figure (Miller, 306; cf. Baldwin, 197). The “time of wrath” is generally understood to refer to the wrath of God, whether a brief time of divine judgment or an “age” of divine wrath (cf. Lucas, 219–20). The historicist equates the “time of wrath” (v.36d) with the “end” of Antiochus’s reign of terror against the Jews (e.g., Collins, Daniel, 386), while the futurist understands “the time of wrath” as divine judgment poured out on the earth at the end of the age—even the “great tribulation” (e.g., Wood, 306–7; Miller, 307).
The rest of the section (vv.37–39) fills out more completely the profane character and sacrilegious policies of the boastful ruler. The impiety of the king, who exalts himself above the God of gods, includes irreverence for his own gods (v.37a). Typically this is viewed as the preference Antiochus showed for Zeus over the god Apollo, the patron deity of the Seleucids (e.g., Seow, 183). The reference to “the one desired by women” (v.37b) is usually considered an allusion to the fertility cult of Tammuz (cf. Eze 8:14), a deity with a long history in the ancient Near East (cf. Smith-Christopher, 146; Kraemer, 344). Futurist interpreters counter that there is no historical evidence indicating any opposition by Antiochus to the Tammuz cult (e.g., Archer, 144; cf. Lucas, 290, who admits problems with the historicist interpretation and appeals to the writer’s “polemical exaggeration” at this point in the narrative). Instead they see an indirect reference to the rejection of Messiah by the antichrist figure in his contempt for the desire of Jewish women to be the mother of Messiah (so Miller, 307), or more generally as the disregard of the antichrist figure for the feminine traits of grace, mercy, and kindness (so Wood, 306). The verse concludes with a reemphasis on the self-exaltation and godlessness of the king who will do as he pleases (v.37c).
The god whom this boastful king honors is a “god of fortresses” (v.38a). Several suggestions have been made identifying this “god” with one of the numerous fortresses established by Antiochus IV Epiphanes: the god Jupiter Capitolinus, to whom Antiochus erected a great statue at Antioch; the god Zeus, based on an inscription found at Scythopolis; and the Jerusalem citadel, or Akra, where Antiochus profaned the temple precinct by erecting an image of Zeus (cf. Lucas, 290). Since the term “fortresses” (Heb. māʿuzzîm) is plural, the reference may not be to one particular “fortress deity” as much as to the idea that this godless ruler worships only military might, and the “god of fortresses” simply symbolizes his own tyrannical rule over his kingdom. The homage paid to the “god of fortresses” in the form of offerings of gold, silver, and precious stones (v.38b) may be little more than a reference to booty plundered during the military campaigns of Antiochus and stockpiled in his fortress treasuries—a metaphor for the “worship” of his ill-gotten wealth.
The beginning clause of the final verse of the section (v.39a) is difficult. Literally, the text indicates that “he [i.e., the boastful king] will act for [or deal with] mighty fortresses” (cf. NRSV, “he shall deal with the strongest fortresses”). The NIV interprets the verb “act” (Heb. ʿśh) as military aggression and translates it as “attack” (cf. NASB, “take action against”). Seow, 184, is among those commentators who emend the Hebrew text and read, “and he shall act for those who fortify the fortresses, people of a foreign god.” In either case, the verse calls attention to the “crafty manipulation of religion” by the godless king (Seow, 184). Those who support the king’s rule (perhaps those apostate to their own religion; cf. Smith-Christopher, 147) are rewarded accordingly by placement in positions of authority (v.39b).
There is some question as to whether the allotments of land confiscated from the conquered peoples are given as a “reward” for loyalty to the king’s allies (so Porteous, 169) or are sold for a “price” to the highest bidder (so Seow, 184; Redditt, 187). The historicist relates this verse to the Tobiads of Jerusalem, favored by Antiochus because of their support for his polices promoting Hellenism among the Jews (e.g., Goldingay, 305). The futurist considers the verse a vague reference to the rewards of political leadership and territorial allotments the antichrist figure will grant to those in league with him (e.g., Miller, 308).
40–45 As noted above, the final section (vv.40–45), which reveals the angel’s audition with Daniel, is fraught with difficulties. The historicist interpreter must acknowledge that the details of these verses “are not in accord with historical records” (Seow, 185). The “embarrassing inaccuracy” of the “daring preview of the future” (ibid.) is excused on two counts: first, the biblical writer is assumed to engage in “polemical exaggeration” (so Collins, Daniel, 386); and second, biblical prophecy is defined in such a way as to exclude the fulfillment of predictions down to the precise details (so Goldingay, 305). Yet the futurist who views the passage as a projection to the distant future concerning the antichrist figure must admit that there are no lexical or grammatical hints of such a transition in the passage. Beyond this, “the narrator expects the difficult situation to continue for just a little while longer” (Seow, 184).
For the historicist, the “time of the end” (v.40a) coincides with the end of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and hence the end of the persecution of the Jews (Redditt, 187), already anticipated in vv.27 and 35 (see comments above). The futurist equates “the time of the end” with the eschaton and the wars waged by the antichrist figure (cf. Wood, 308; Miller, 309). The historicist assumes that the “him” of v.40a and “the king of the North” are the same person (e.g., Goldingay, 305), while some futurists identify “the king of the North” with the antichrist figure’s heading a coalition centered in central Asia (so Miller, 309), and other futurists view “him” as the antichrist figure being’s attacked on two fronts by “the king of the South” and “the king of the North” (so Wood, 308).
The passage forecasts a great battle between “the king of the South” and “the king of the North,” presumably geopolitical confederations representing the modern-day regions of “Egypt” and “Mesopotamia” respectively (v.40b). There are no historical records reporting any further battles between the Ptolemies and Seleucids during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The account also places emphasis on the wide-ranging arsenal of the king of the North, including “chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships” (v.40c). The identity of this “king of the North” aside, he is able to marshal a massive army and invade and sweep “like a flood” through many (unspecified) countries (v.40d).
The invading force of “the king of the North” will sweep over the “Beautiful Land” (v.41a), a designation for Palestine or the land of Israel—previously in Daniel, the people of God (cf. v.16). Curiously, the trans-Jordanian states of Edom, Moab, and Ammon will be delivered (“rescued,” NASB) from the attack of the invader (v.41b). Smith-Christopher, 147, speculates that these nations “once again conspire with the aggressor against the Jewish people.” The futurist interpreter assumes that Daniel alludes to some kind of confederation of modern states as occupying the territories of these archaic biblical kingdoms (cf. Miller, 311). In addition, the futurist approach associates the invasion of Israel by the Antichrist with the prophecies of Ezekiel, Joel, Zechariah, and Revelation concerning the city of Jerusalem (e.g., Archer, 148; Wood, 312–14; Miller, 312; cf. Eze 39:2–29; Joel 3:2–16; Zec 12:2–9; 13:8–9; 14:1–21; Rev 19:19–20). The “boastful king” will extend his rule into the far reaches of North Africa, including Egypt, Libya, and Nubia (vv.42–43).
Disturbing “reports” from the east and the north will cause “the king of the North” to abandon his campaign against “Egypt” and turn back to counter the threats against his “homeland” or other “special interests” (v.44a). The rumors elicit “great rage” in the king, such that his intent is “to destroy [Heb. šmd] and annihilate [Heb. ḥrm] many” (v.44b). The “boastful king” will pitch camp between the “seas” (i.e., the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea) and “the beautiful holy mountain” (i.e., the temple mount of Jerusalem; v.45a). There the “boastful king” will “come to his end,” though his specific fate is unspecified (v.45b). All the “favors” doled out to those who supported his tyrannical rule will prove to be of no avail, as the “boastful king” will meet his end with no allies “to help him” (v.45b; cf. v.39).
Lucas, 290–91, summarizes four different versions of the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, all of which report his death as occurring in Persia, not Palestine. Miller, 311–12, equates vv.44–45 with the final battle of the eschaton—Armaggedon (cf. Rev 16:16)—and he associates the forces of the North and the East that attack the army of the antichrist figure with the great armies described in Ezekiel 38–39 and Revelation 9:13–19 (cf. Wood, 312–14). Naturally, futurist interpreters continue to theorize as to the confederations of nations involved in the catastrophic end of human history, given the ever-changing geopolitical landscape of Africa and Asia. Whether “the king of the North” refers to Antiochus, the antichrist figure, or even some other intervening historical personage, Goldingay’s comment, 305, on the symbolism of the passage is appropriate: “this final battle takes place, as it must . . . at the center of the world, at the place where the Scriptures had therefore long expected the final conflict; it signifies the end of this apparently unassailable earthly power. He schemes against an unsuspecting and vulnerable people but finds himself God’s victim.”
45 The phrase “royal tents” translates the Hebrew 
(ʾāholey ʾappadnô, “tents of his pavilion”). The term 
(ʾappeden) is a Persian loanword for “palace” (cf. Collins, Daniel, 389). The context suggests a “portable palace,” that is, a cluster of tents forming a “royal pavilion” (NASB).
The preposition 
(le, “to, for”) in the phrase 
(lehar-ṣebî-qōdeš) may be translated “at” (so the NIV’s “between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain”) or as a conjunction, “and” (so the NASB’s “between the seas and the beautiful Holy Mountain”). Collins (Daniel, 389) considers “seas” (Heb. 
, yammîm) a poetic plural for the Mediterranean Sea. Goldingay, 280, prefers reading the preposition 
as “and” since the reference of “at” is unclear.
g. Concerning Michael the great prince (12:1–4)
1“At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.”
COMMENTARY
1 The phrase “at that time” (v.1a) links this section to the previous chapter, specifically, “the time of the end,” when the kings of the South and the North engage in battle (11:40). The reference to the archangel Michael also connects 12:1–4 with chs. 10–11, since he was first introduced in 10:13 and named again in 10:21. Michael is described as a “great prince” (Heb. śar gādôl) and protector (Heb. ʿmd; “the Hebrew text here suggests one who stands up ‘over’ or ‘beside’ or ‘for’ the people” [Seow, 186]), or guardian angel of the nation of Israel—“essentially a fighter” (Baldwin, 1203). Seow, 186, observes that the entire historical overview of 11:2–45 is framed by the presence of Michael and that he is “subliminally present throughout that historical recitation,” since we were told that he is involved in the fight against the supernatural patrons of the world empires of Persia and Greece (10:21). He apparently functions in the dual roles of celestial commander of the heavenly host standing as guardian over the people of Israel, as well as the chief angel who stands in the divine council and represents his people Israel before God.
The historicist interpreter understands this unparalleled “time of distress” (v.1b) as the enormity of the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV (e.g., Lucas, 294; Redditt, 190). The futurist interpreter equates this “time of distress” with the “great tribulation,” the cataclysmic wrath of God poured out against unbelieving Israel and the entire world at the end of the age just before the second coming of Jesus Christ (e.g., Miller, 314–15; cf. Rev 6–16). The revealing angel promises deliverance for “everyone whose name is found written in the book” (v.1c). This book or scroll is to be distinguished from the “Book of Truth” that the revealing angel unveils to Daniel (10:21), and from the “books” of past deeds that provide the basis for God’s judgment of individual and nations (7:10). The figurative reference to “the book” is usually equated with “the book of life,” in which all the saints are enrolled (cf. Ex 32:33; Ps 69:28; Mal 3:16; Php 4:3; Rev 3:5; 20:12).
Goldingay, 306, understands this book as “a list of those who belong to God’s people, the citizen list of the true Jerusalem” (cf. Miller, 315–16, who roots the idea of the book in the practice of village record-keeping of worthy residents who enjoyed the blessings of community membership). Baldwin, 203, comments that “though he [i.e., Michael] is great, he does not prevent them [i.e., God’s people] from enduring the suffering, rather he delivers them in the midst of it.” Most significant, no doubt for Daniel, is the revelation that God’s people Israel will indeed be delivered or escape (“be rescued,” NASB; Heb. mlṭ). Understood in the context, the term suggests some of the Jews will be kept safe through the “time of distress,” while those who perish during the intense period of persecution will be rewarded with the “deliverance” of resurrection from the dead (v.2).
2 That those “who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake” (v.2a) is generally understood to describe some sort of bodily resurrection from the dead. Even Collins (Daniel, 391–92) admits that “there is virtually unanimous agreement among modern scholars that Daniel is referring to the actual resurrection of individuals from the dead, because of the explicit language of everlasting life.” The extent to which the Hebrews had any understanding of life after death during OT times is a topic of considerable debate. The minimalist position denies any hope of afterlife among the Hebrews in OT times. The maximalist view reads a full-orbed doctrine of afterlife into the OT on the basis of the NT report that Abraham believed God could raise Isaac from the dead if necessary (Heb 11:19).
It seems best to understand the doctrine of resurrection from the dead as one of those theological concepts that develops progressively through the history of God’s revelation from the OT to the NT. Lucas, 302, identifies several strands of thought in the OT that “move toward some kind of meaningful existence beyond death.” These strands include the strong belief of the psalmist that a deep relationship with God does not end at death (Pss 16:9–11; 49:15; 73:23–26), the language of the national restoration of Israel after the judgment of God (especially in the Prophets; cf. Eze 37:12–13; Hos 6:2), and Job’s reference to the existence of a “redeemer” who will establish his innocence after his death (cf. Job 19:23–27). According to Lucas, 303, “all three strands contribute something to the belief in resurrection that finds its expression in Dan 12:1–3” (cf. Miller, 316–18, for a less cautious approach to the OT teaching concerning afterlife—an approach rooted in Lacocque’s assertion, 235–36, that “the faith ‘in resurrection, immortality, and eternal life’ is very old in Israel”).
Yet the text poses many problems for biblical interpreters. This is the first and only unambiguous reference to resurrection from the dead in the OT, although the concept is not entirely foreign to Hebrew thought, given the statement by Isaiah that “your dead will live” (Isa 26:19), and both the prophets Elijah and Elisha were miracle workers who brought individuals back to life (cf. 1Ki 17:19–23; 2Ki 4:32–35). Seow, 187, notes that the text does not speak of the resurrection of all humanity but only of “many of those who sleep” (v.2, NASB). Who then are the many, and when do they awake from their sleep? Again, according to Seow, 187, the context suggests the “time of the end” in the sense of the end of the persecution of the Jews experienced during the reign of Antiochus IV (cf. 11:40; 12:1). Furthermore, is “sleep in the dust” (v.2b) a reference to soul sleep in Sheol or the underworld, like that experienced by Samuel the prophet (cf. 1Sa 28:15)?
All these “loose ends” in the writer’s language prompt Towner, 187, to regard the passage as a divine “judgment scene in which the righteous dead receive in death the peace and the joy which were denied them in life and in which, conversely, the oppressors receive the contempt which is their due but which life never meted out to them.” Alternatively, Seow, 187, understands the verse as “a metaphor for the restoration of the people of Israel after a time of destruction . . . using the imagery of resurrection to convey hope in the revival of the Jewish people after a history of suffering and death.” Lucas, 294, however, finds this position untenable given the references to “everlasting life” and “everlasting contempt.”
Finally, futurist interpreters contend that the word “many” (Heb. rabbîm) may have the force of “all” (cf. Baldwin, 204; Lucas, 294–95), and they consider the word “sleep” (v.2b) a figure of speech for physical death (cf. Miller, 316). Hence, they argue that Daniel’s reference to resurrection from the dead to either eternal life or eternal shame is associated with the resurrection of the righteous dead after the great tribulation and before the millennial reign of Jesus Christ, and the resurrection of the wicked dead for divine judgment after the millennial rule of Jesus the Messiah (Rev 20:4–6, 11–15; cf. Wood, 318–19; Miller, 316–18).
Naturally, it is impossible to construct a complete doctrine of any theological truth based on a single verse of the Bible. Yet, following Longman, 284, “we can confidently affirm that it [i.e., Da 12:2] celebrates the vindication that will come both in reward for which the righteous are destined and in the punishment for which the wicked . . . are reserved.”
3 The righteous are described as “wise” (Heb. maśkilîm; v.3a). The parallel expression, “those who lead many to righteousness” (v.3b), further describes “those who are wise” (cf. Baldwin, 205). The “wise” were introduced previously as those who “will instruct many” (11:33). These wise or righteous Jews are similar to the “righteous servant” of Isaiah who will “justify many” by his knowledge (Isa 53:11). Collins (Daniel, 393) outlines the two different views on how the “wise” make “many” righteous: either by their propitiatory death as martyrs (cf. Lacocque, 230) or by their teaching, meaning “instruction rather than martyrdom is the means of justification.” Clearly the latter understanding is more likely given the context of chs. 10–12, but more important is Baldwin’s observation, 205, that “there is only one source of righteousness—God himself” (cf. Da 9:7, 14). No doubt Daniel and those belonging to his group (or the teachers among them) are included among “those who are wise” (cf. Longman, 284).
As in the case with “the wise” (v.3a) and “those who lead many to righteousness” (v.3b), the phrases “like the brightness of the heavens” (v.3a) and “like the stars” (v.3b) should be understood as parallel synonymous expressions (cf. Miller, 319). Collins (Daniel, 393) connects the exaltation of the wise with the exaltation of the servant who acts wisely; “he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted” (Isa 52:13). Lucas, 295, finds an allusion to the motif of the wise shining like celestial bodies in “dew of light” mentioned in connection with those who will rise from the dead in Isaiah’s “little apocalypse” (Isa 26:19).
Both Lacocque, 244–45, and Collins (Daniel, 393–94) take the promise to mean that the wise will become angels in the next life, based on the influence of Hellenistic beliefs and later intertestamental apocalyptic literature (e.g., 1En 104:2–6). Goldingay, 308, and Longman, 284, however, caution against pressing the language of an obvious metaphor too literally. Seow, 188–89, aptly calls attention to the reversal of destiny between the humiliation of those who attempt to ascend to the stars (cf. 8:10; 11:36–37) and the vindication of those who act wisely (v.3).
4 The revealing angel charges Daniel to “close up” (“conceal,” NASB; Heb. stm) the scroll—an instruction intended to ensure the safekeeping of the document more than keeping it secret (cf. Lucas, 221; see also comments on 8:26). The command to “seal the words of the scroll” has “the double sense of authenticating and of preserving intact . . . kept from general knowledge [since] they were not yet relevant” (Baldwin, 206; on “the time of the end,” see comments on 11:40; 12:9).
Verse 4b is obscure, primarily because it is unclear whether the statement indicates what will happen when the sealed scroll is opened, or the cryptic remark refers to what takes place during the interim before mystery is revealed (cf. Seow, 189). Lucas, 296, suggests that the verse alludes to the “famine of hearing the words of the LORD” (Am 8:11) and likens the sealed scroll to Isaiah’s metaphorical use of a sealed scroll to depict the spiritual blindness of those willfully in rebellion against God—thus prompting him to conclude that it may “take the Antiochene crisis to make people ready to listen to the teaching of the wise.” By contrast, Seow, 189–90, prefers to read v.4b as the aftermath of the opening of the scroll and the revelation of Daniel’s vision when the knowledge of God will indeed increase—“a dramatic reversal of the gloomy vision of Amos 8.”
NOTE
3 The expression 
(yazhirû kezōhar) is a cognate accusative construction in Hebrew from the root 
(zhr, “to shine”). Montgomery, 471, attempts to capture the idiom, translating: “And the Wise shall shine like the sheen of the sky” (cf. NASB’s “shine brightly like the brightness”).
4. Epilogue (12:5–13)
OVERVIEW
This epilogue returns to the setting of the final vision (vv.5–7) and includes a request posed by Daniel for further information concerning his vision (v.8). The interpreting angel informs Daniel, however, that no additional revelation will be given (vv.9–12) because the “words are closed up and sealed” (v.9). This section closes with a word of assurance to Daniel that he too will share in the resurrection to receive his “allotted inheritance” (v.13). Some scholars consider this final section of the book as an appendix or later gloss (esp. vv.11–12; cf. Towner, 170). Porteous, 171, counters, “These verses [vv.5–13] form an epilogue to the book rather than a late addition to it.” Longman, 285, further notes, “It is fitting, now that the message of prophecy has been delivered, to return to the scene and characters described in 10:4–21.”
5Then I, Daniel, looked, and there before me stood two others, one on this bank of the river and one on the opposite bank. 6One of them said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, “How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?”
7The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, “It will be for a time, times and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.”
8I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, “My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?”
9He replied, “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. 10Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.
11“From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.
13“As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.”
COMMENTARY
5–7 Daniel’s final vision ends where it began, along the banks of the Tigris River (v.5; cf. 10:4). The flashback to the river scene reveals that four distinct characters participate in the conclusion of the vision report: Daniel, two unnamed figures, and the man clothed in linen (vv.5–6). Gowan, 154, has noted the similarities between 12:5–8 and 8:13–14, including the riverbank setting, the portrayal of Daniel in the role of one overhearing a conversation between unnamed celestial beings raising the question of “How long?” and the report that Daniel eventually joins in the conversation. The two unnamed figures, one on each side of the river, are presumably heavenly beings, one of whom has served as Daniel’s interpreting angel (vv.5–6). Miller, 322, assumes the one angelic being accompanying Daniel is Gabriel, who is named as the interpreting angel in the previous visions (8:16; 9:21). The ambiguities associated with the identification of the third figure—that is, whether the man clothed in linen above the waters (v.7) is an angelic or divine being—remain.
The oath sworn by the man clothed in linen (v.7) attests both the truthfulness of the testimony given and the certainty of the promise that all these things will be accomplished within the specified time period of three and a half years (v.7c). The raising of the hand as part of a ritual of oath taking was a customary practice in the biblical world and acknowledged God as witness (e.g., Ge 14:22; Nu 14:30; Dt 32:40; Ne 9:15; cf. Rev 10:5–6). The lifting of both hands in swearing an oath is unusual (v.7b), since in the Bible this is typically a gesture of prayer or entreaty (cf. Ne 8:6; Ps 141:2; 1Ti 2:8). It is presumably an especially emphatic gesture (so Collins, Daniel, 399; Miller, 323) and serves “as the more complete guarantee of the truth that is about to be affirmed” (Baldwin, 207). The third-person appeal to “him who lives forever” is a reference to God himself and is reminiscent of the language of Deuteronomy 32:40, the one place where God speaks of himself in this manner (“as surely as I live forever,” v.40b).
Given the importance of “witnesses” in legal proceedings and oath taking in the Mosaic law, it is interesting to note that there are two angelic beings in the scene (e.g., Dt 17:6; 19:15; Jos 24:22; cf. Porteous, 171). Also intriguing are the possible associations of the two unnamed angelic beings with known divine council motifs in the ancient Near East, including the sending of heavenly messengers in pairs and the procession of the deity flanked by two angelic retainers (cf. ABD, 2:214–17). As Longman, 285, observes, however, the uncertainties associated with the identification of the figure in linen “make the scene a bit murky, but this ambiguity does not affect the interpretation.”
8 Although Daniel heard the exchange between the angelic being on the riverbank and the man clothed in linen above the waters of the river, he confesses a lack of understanding (v.8a). This prompts a further question from Daniel to the interpreting angel as to “the outcome” of the vision (v.8b). The import of Daniel’s question evades biblical commentators. Lucas, 297, citing Jerome, takes the question to mean: “What will come after these things?” Collins (Daniel, 400) explains that Daniel is merely asking for further information, since “the ‘end’ in Daniel is never the utter cessation of history, so something will happen even after the resurrection.”
The last word Daniel overhears in the conversation between the celestial beings is that all these things will be completed after the “power of the holy people has been finally broken” (v.7b). The likely identity of the “holy people” is the people of Israel. Throughout the book Daniel’s concern has been the plight of God’s people, Israel. Given this fact, Wood’s observation, 325, that the nature, character, and severity of the events that will bring this period of Hebrew history to an end seems more in keeping with the meaning of the seer’s question as to the “outcome” of the vision.
Finally, there is a certain irony in Daniel’s question, since the book begins with his receiving from God the ability to “understand” (Heb. byn) “visions and dreams of all kinds” (1:17). Yet the book ends with Daniel perplexed and confessing that he does not fully understand what he has seen and heard (v.8a)—perhaps an important reminder that “wisdom and power” belong to God, that he alone “knows what lies in darkness,” and that he alone dispenses this knowledge to the wise among humanity (2:20–21).
9–12 In response to his question concerning the “outcome” of the vision (v.8), Daniel learns that no more revelation will be given (vv.9–12). The instruction given by the interpreting angel to Daniel to “go your way” (v.9a) should not be construed as a rebuke; rather, Daniel is encouraged to return to his post in the administration of King Cyrus and resume his duties as a civil servant. Previously Daniel was charged to “close up and seal the words of the scroll” (12:4; see comments). Now the heavenly messenger reminds Daniel that the vision is “closed up and sealed” (v.9c). That the scroll of the vision is “closed up” (Heb. stm, “hide, keep secret”; GK 6258) signifies both that the revelation is completed and that its record is safely preserved for the future, “much as a present is kept a treasured secret until the day for presentation arrives” (Baldwin, 206). The words reporting the vision are also “sealed” (Heb. ḥtm), indicating that the document is not only preserved and authenticated but also withheld until the appropriate time (cf. Goldingay, 309). Lucas, 297, adds, “because the vision is ‘sealed,’ true understanding is available only to ‘the wise’” (cf. v.10b).
Full understanding of the vision is reserved “until the time of end” (v.9c). The phrase repeats what Daniel has already heard concerning the disclosure of the meaning of the vision (12:4). The context of the final vision (chs. 10–12) suggests that “the time of the end” refers to cessation of the distress and persecution that Israel will endure at the hands of the king “who will exalt himself above [every god]” (11:37; cf. 12:1). Historicists who interpret the visions of Daniel as ex eventu prophecy understand that “the end is not far away but imminent” (as a projected schedule is spelled out in vv.11–12; cf. Seow, 194). Specifically, the three-and-a-half-year time period (12:7, 11–12) forecast (for the end of the reign of Antiochus) is calculated from the desecration of the Jerusalem temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 BC to the swirl of events surrounding the defeat of the Seleucids, the rededication of the temple, and the death of Antiochus (164–163 BC; cf. Towner, 170–71; Seow, 195). Futurists equate the “time of the end” with the final events of human history, especially “the great tribulation” of three-and-a-half years ushered in by the antichrist figure against the people of God and the world (e.g., Archer, 156; Wood, 327–28; Miller, 324–25; cf. Da 12:7, 11–12; Rev 11:2–3).
The interpreting angel recapitulates what has been said about “the wise” (Heb. mśkl) earlier in the vision (cf. 11:33–35; see comments). Seow, 193–94, however, notes a subtle difference in the two passages in that “some of the wise will stumble so that they may be refined, purified, and made spotless” (11:35) while they are instructing others (11:33). According to the epilogue, “many will be purified, made spotless, and refined” during the period of distress and persecution endured by the Hebrews (v.10). “The implication is that the suffering of the wise will not have been futile after all, for redemption will be extended to many—the many who will be led to righteousness (see 12:3)” (Seow, 194). Miller, 325, interprets “the wicked” to represent all humanity in the end times and views the verse as a proof text refuting postmillennial theology. Seow, 194, correctly observes that in the context “the wicked” refers to “the renegade Jews who abandoned the covenant” (cf. Wood, 326–27).
The lack of spiritual discernment as a mark of distinction between the righteous and the wicked is a familiar one in the OT. The psalmist recognized that in their pride the wicked entertain no thought of God (Ps 10:4), the prophet lamented that despite the grace shown to the wicked they do not learn righteousness (Isa 26:10), and the sage observed that the wicked are destroyed by their own evil (Pr 11:5). According to Lacocque, 249, “the wicked are confirmed in their wickedness” since, like the sea tossing up mire, they persist in doing evil (cf. Isa 57:20). More disturbing, perhaps, is the biblical pattern of the intensification of evil before it is finally defeated (cf. Da 7; Eze 38–39; Mt 24; Rev 12–17).
The interpreting angel finally returns to the question posed by one of the two celestial beings along the riverbank (v.6): “How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?” Although no further revelation will be forthcoming in response to Daniel’s question about the outcome of the vision (v.8), he is privileged to hear the timetable for the fulfillment of the vision. Some critical scholars view the conclusion of Daniel (vv.11–13) as a later addition to the document, or more precisely “two successive glosses (v.11 and vv.12–13)” (Lacocque, 249; Towner, 170). Others consider the closing verses an integral part of the epilogue (vv.5–13) since they “carry the heart of the revelation of the epilogue” (Redditt, 199; cf. Porteous, 172).
As Baldwin, 209, has noted, “the answer is given in the number symbolism typical of the book.” The numbers are enigmatic, as attested by the numerous interpretive approaches to the passage. Naturally, questions arise as to whether the numbers should be understood in a literal or symbolic sense and whether they reference an immediate time frame or some distant one. The interpretive problems are only complicated by the differing calendars in use during biblical times (lunar, solar, and luni-solar; cf. Lucas, 297–98). Lucas, 297, despairs that “no-one has been able to suggest a satisfactory explanation of the two time periods given in verses 11–12.” Miller, 325, confidently asserts that the two verses provide “further details concerning history’s final events,” though he admits exact certainty as to the time of the events is impossible to determine. An overview of the essential categories for interpreting the 1290 days (v.11) and 1335 days (v.12) is presented below.
(1) For some scholars, the two time periods represent glosses in the form of “successive corrections” to the 1,150 days mentioned in Daniel’s vision of the ram and the goat (8:14). According to this view, a later writer (or writers) attempted to extend the time period for the fulfillment of the prediction of the rededication of the Jerusalem temple when that event did not occur within the time frame originally expected (e.g., Montgomery, 477; Lacocque, 250; see discussion in Baldwin, 209). Yet Porteous, 172, questions “how urgent corrections, such as these would be, could have been added to a book that had just been issued.”
(2) Those interpreting Daniel’s visions as apocalyptic ex eventu prophecy attempt to relate the two sets of “days” to different pairs of key events during the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, especially his persecution of the Jews. Typically, the two sets of “days” are understood literally as the number of days delimiting the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus. The three-and-a-half years of the Antiochene persecution (7:25; 12:7) are calculated (based on a solar calendar) from December 7, 167 BC (the desecration of the Jerusalem temple), to June 21, 163 BC (the collapse of the Antiochene dynasty), approximately 1,290 days (1,293 to be exact; v.11). The fulfillment of the second time period (the set of 1,335 days; v.12) is assigned to the anniversary of the public reading of the Torah (August 5, 163 BC), some forty-five days after the collapse of the dynasty of Antiochus (cf. Redditt, 195–197, who associates the terminus ad quem of the first set of 1,290 days with the summer solstice; Seow, 194–95).
Towner, 170, assumes that the significant pair of dates delineating the three and a half years of persecution cited in v.7 is the three-year period from Antiochus’s desecration of the temple in 167 BC (December 7) and the rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabeus and his brothers in 164 BC (December 14), and he simply concludes that the biblical writer was in error (hence the need for a second glossator to update “the true facts in the matter”).
Goldingay, 309–10, prefers to consider the two periods of days as an approximate time frame for the fulfillment of the question, “How long will the persecution last?” (v.8), which could be related to several different sets of events during the reign of Antiochus. For example, the terminus a quo might be the time of one of Antiochus’s edicts, his capture of Jerusalem, the actual desecration of the Jerusalem temple, or even the full enforcement of the ban on the temple sacrificial ritual. Likewise, the terminus ad quem might be the string of Jewish victories scored by Judas Maccabeus, the rededication of the temple, the death of Antiochus, or other events associated with the collapse of the Antiochene dynasty.
(3) The two sets of “days” refer to time periods associated with events in the distant future, related to “the great tribulation,” the rise of the antichrist figure, the persecution of God’s people, the second advent of Jesus Christ and the defeat of the antichrist figure, and the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. For example, Archer, 156, considers the three and a half years (or 1,260 days; v.7) as an approximate number for the length of the great tribulation, while the 1,290 days is the exact length of time of the persecution inflicted on the righteous by the Antichrist during the great tribulation. Wood, 327–29, prefers to ascribe the extra thirty days beyond the 1,260 days of the great tribulation to the time allotted for the time of divine judgment immediately after the second advent of Jesus Christ (cf. Mt 25:31–46; Rev 20:11–15). The additional forty-five days of the 1,335 day period (beyond the 1,290 days of the first time period) are accounted for in the time necessary for Christ to set up “the governmental machinery” necessary for carrying out his rule of an earthly millennial kingdom (Wood, 328–29; cf. Miller, 325–26).
(4) Lucas, 298, suggests that “the numbers may have some symbolic significance that is now lost to us.”
Quite apart from the alternative interpretations of the sets of days, the gist of the passage for Daniel and his audience is that God knows and controls the future (cf. 2:20–21). Furthermore, the word of revelation concerning the two sets of periods of days serves as an exhortation to Daniel and his audience to persevere because the time of persecution and suffering has definite time limits and will end soon (cf. Lucas, 298). Finally, a blessing (Heb. ʾšr) is promised to those who “wait” (Heb. ḥkh) and endure through the 1,335 days. The blessing for the righteous is manifest in experiencing the deliverance of God through the time of persecution and in the assurance of God’s faithfulness to his word as witnessed in the fulfillment of the account of Daniel’s vision. The encouragement to wait may echo God’s charge to Habakkuk to wait for the fulfillment of the revelation, even though it lingers (Hab 2:3), and implies a posture of expectant and hopeful obedience on the part of God’s people during the interim.
13 Collins (Daniel, 401) notes that the book ends “appropriately with a promise of resurrection to Daniel himself” (v.13). The language referring to Daniel’s “rest” and “rising” (v.13b) “picks up on the imagery of death and resurrection as sleep and awakening” found in 12:2. The hortatory charge to “go your way till the end” (v.13a) is not an admonition of rebuke, but rather an exhortation to the seer to persevere until his own death. Implicit in the exhortation is both the reality that at this time Daniel is an old man and not far from the end of his life, and that he has ably fulfilled his commission as God’s servant. The word used for “allotted inheritance” (Heb. gôrāl; v.13b) signifies the “lot” cast to determine a decision or “that which falls to one by lot.” Naturally, the Hebrews understood that God’s will stood behind the outcome of lot-casting (Pr 16:33). Daniel is assured that his “destiny is clearly with that of the maśkîlîm [v.3], who rise to eternal life” (Collins, Daniel, 402).
As Longman, 287, notes, “by these words, God gives Daniel and all of his heirs the confidence to persist in the light of continuing persecution and trouble.” There is a sense in which the epilogue of Daniel anticipates the later teaching of Jesus: “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (Jn 16:33). Daniel can “go his way,” knowing that God’s rule will ultimately triumph (Da 2:44; 7:27) and that God’s people will be delivered—even those who do not live to see the final outcome, since they will experience resurrection from the dead (vv.2–3)!