Daniel in Exile Part 11

Let's pray and then we'll get started. Lord Jesus, again, as we open up your word, we ask that your Holy Spirit to rightly understand what you have revealed there, especially this complicated text. We ask that through your Holy Spirit we may then praise you for the great miracle of prophesying ahead of time the things that were to come in the time of Daniel and that remainder bit as it relates to the Antichrist and the abomination of desolation.

We pray for proper understanding so that we may do and believe according to your word. We ask in Jesus' name, amen. Now, if you remember last week, we ended the Sunday school lesson by basically taking a look at the big burrito and the big burrito is, it was complicated, okay?

When you read Daniel chapter 11 in context, you end up at the end of it going, what did I just read? Mute your microphone. You want me to mute my microphone? Mute your, on your laptop. Oh, on my laptop, okay, hang on a second here.

Muting my laptop, there we go, is that better? Okay, so what we did then is that we took a look at the big burrito as it was and now we're gonna go back through and see if we can figure out what on earth we just read.

Now, here on my screen, this is like one of the few chapters in the scripture where I feel like I need a map because this one's so complicated and the other thing is is that we Americans, I'll point this out about Americans, we Americans are not good when it comes to history in other countries, okay?

I love American history, American Revolution, American Civil War, all of that stuff is really amazing to me and of course, when I read about World War II, of course, everything is, I understand, is from the point of view of America's participation in World War II but when I was in the university and I had to, as part of my minor, because I have a minor in history, I had to learn history from other countries, I legitimately felt like I was lost at sea, okay?

In one particular class, I was required to take the history of England, of the United Kingdom, from about the time of Charlemagne up until the early 1600s, okay? This king and that king and this clan and that clan and this, and then you got the War of the Roses and then you got the conflict with the Scots and the Welsh and you sit there and go, I don't have any concept of where this is taking place, who these people are, it was, well, foreign and you're gonna note that this portion of scripture is relating to events during the intertestamental period with one remainder and the remainder then is the bit that relates to the Antichrist.

So as a result of this, we aren't familiar with this history. If you want to become more familiar with this history, you're going to have to read the Apocrypha, okay? You're gonna need to have to read first and second Maccabees to at least give you some semblance of what on earth is going on in this text.

So I don't normally, I do not normally use a commentary when I'm teaching, like straight out, from time to time I will use one, but in this particular case, we're gonna have to use the Concordia Commentary and you're gonna note here that what we're seeing, let me see if I can make this bigger, hang on a second here, I'm gonna pull this over.

So this is the roadmap of Daniel chapter 11 and who it is relating to. So Daniel chapter 11, five is dealing to Ptolemy I. Chapter five is also pointing to Seleucus and you're sitting there going, who is Ptolemy and who is Seleucus?

All right, if you've heard of the Ptolemaic Empire, that was in Egypt, that was the portion that was divvied up. Alexander the Great's conquerings were divided up and as a result of that, there were four different generals that got their bits and so we see that here we've got Seleucus and Ptolemy, they're gonna be kind of our primary characters that were at least the northern and the southern kingdoms as they're called.

Then you got Antiochus I and then down here, verse six, you got Antiochus II and then he's married to a woman by the name of Laodicea and then they come together, Cleopatra's in verse 17. This is all super complicated stuff and so we're gonna take it apart but we're going to have to use the commentary to really kind of break it up so we can see where the cuts are and then you'll see then that this being prophesied ahead of time, Christ is the one who's revealing this to Daniel and there's important stuff for us to consider as it relates to the fact that God is in control of human history.

You'll remember we read in chapter 10 that he was revealing what was in the book of truth and the book of truth is a different book altogether that basically gives us the flow of human history and you can see that God is in control.

He's in charge of everything and then the last bit then after you kind of see that he's prophesying how all this will happen, it then took place exactly as prophesied. Then towards the end of chapter 11, there is a notable change in the grammar and that notable change in the grammar is going to result in the complete changing of the subject and a fast forwarding, a fast forwarding all the way to the end of time in the days immediately before the return of Christ and you're going to see details as it relates then to the character that we call the Antichrist or the man of lawlessness and the transition then is from a fellow by the name of Antiochus Epiphanes to the Antichrist.

So Antiochus Epiphanes is like a foreshadowing of the real one that's gonna be the one that causes all kinds of trouble and we're gonna need help interpreting it and let me just put it this way, in kind of studying it out, I thought after studying it out and studying it out, I think it's best if we just let the Concordia Commentary kind of walk us through what is going on.

So here's then what we're gonna do. I'm gonna go to chapter 11 and we're gonna read the verses and then we'll kind of take a look at what the Concordia Commentary says, relating it so that we can figure out, we can kind of keep the two parallel and pull the burrito apart piece by piece and see if we can consume this thing properly.

Alexander the Great and the Division of His Empire

So here's what it says. I'll back up to chapter 11, verse two. And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece.

Then a mighty king shall arise who shall rule with great dominion and do as he wills. And as soon as he is arisen, his kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the authority with which he ruled, for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others beside these.

So here, we already noted last week that this is a reference clearly to Alexander the Great, whose untimely death led to his amassed empire that he had conquered to be broken up into four pieces, given to four different generals.

And so the Concordia Commentary notes, there is no dispute about the application of these verses. The mighty warrior king is Alexander the Great. He will do as he pleases, a description also used of the Persian ram in chapter eight, verse four.

This signifies that he will conquer a large amount of territory quickly and easily. Yet the demise of Alexander's kingdom was also swift. He began his conquest in 334 BC, died in 323 BC at the age of 32.

The fourfold division of his kingdom matches the description of it in chapter seven, verse six, chapter eight, verse eight, and 22, the four winds of heaven, chapter 11, verse four, signify the four cardinal compass points, although the four parts into which the Greek empire was divided did not exactly correspond to the compass points.

That is not the intent of the text here. Instead, it emphasizes the breakup of the kingdom into four parts. However, the use of the four winds will enable two of the kingdoms resulting from the split to be referred to as North and South.

These two were, in fact, geographically Northern and Southern. In Syria, Mesopotamia, and in Egypt, respectively, in relation to each other. So a good way to think about it, then, is that where Judea was, where Israel was, was put under the control of the Seleucids, and then Egypt was run by the Ptolemies.

This is part of the Ptolemaic empire. So the last part, 11 .4, makes two points. First, the kingdoms that succeed Alexander's will not be as vast as his. Second, his descendants will not rule. Alexander's deranged half-brother, Philip, I can't even pronounce his name, are a hideous, and Alexander's infant son, Alexander IV, were nominal rulers of his kingdom after his death, but they wielded no real power.

Both were eventually murdered. By the way, being a politician back in the day could get you dead, all right? And that's how they usually got rid of politicians they didn't like. Alexander's generals fought over the kingdom, eventually split it into four parts, Greece and Macedonia, ruled by antagonists, and later by Cassander.

Now, a little bit of a note here. If you were to read the Jewish histories put out by Josephus, Josephus goes into great pain in trying to give a little bit of the history of the Jewish people that goes all the way back, specifically through the Maccabean period and the time of Alexander the Great.

And it's a very fascinating account that Josephus writes about, that when Alexander the Great, and you'll note, when he conquered, he conquered, okay? He raised and leveled many, many cities and towns and villages and anybody who fought against him, they were toast.

And you'll note that Jerusalem, notably, was not attacked by Alexander the Great. Jerusalem was not sieged and was not destroyed or looted or pillaged or plundered or fired up or anything like that by Alexander the Great.

And there's a reason for that. Josephus tells us that when the armies of Alexander the Great showed up outside of Jerusalem, they sent the high priest with his ephod on. So he comes out in full priestly garb as the high priest and he brought with him the prophecies of Daniel.

And Roseborough's paraphrase goes something like this, is that we've been expecting you. And he legitimately opened up Daniel and told them that we knew that you were coming because our God told us you were coming and so we have no fight with you.

And as a result of that, he did not destroy Jerusalem at all. Now, there's a little more to the story if you want to read Josephus' Jewish histories, that there's more to the story, but it's quite miraculous when you think about it.

And for those who would say that this portion of Daniel had to be written after the fact, you have to get around that thorny issue that the high priest at the time of Alexander the Great pulled out the prophet Daniel and told them we were expecting you.

So how do you account for that? And what some liberal scholars have basically tried to do is say that chapters 10 and 11 were written in about 135 BC, long after the fact. This is their claim. They kind of, how does the saying go?

They move the goalposts, right? They're constantly moving the goalposts, so. Right, yeah, the Bible can't be the word of God. No, it can't be that, okay? So now we're going to get into like legitimately foreign territory.

And if this sounds like your old history classes when you were in high school, my apologies. I won't quiz you on the dates and the names. So this isn't going to be on the final, so you guys can relax.

The Kings of the North and South in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Wars

But so it is then, note here what he says. It is universally agreed that chapter 11 .5 through 35, 36 is where the transition takes place, is a description of various Greek kingdoms that were successors to Alexander's empire.

The king of the north is used to designate various kings who ruled the Seleucid kingdom of Syria and Mesopotamia, while the king of the south designates various kings who ruled the Ptolemaic Egypt. Figure 15 shows the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kings mentioned in Daniel chapter 11.

And again, we're going to walk our way through this, but you can kind of see how this goes. And so shortly after the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, Ptolemy I was made the satrap of Egypt and later took the title king.

In 11 .5, he is called the king of the south. So let's take a look at verse five. Then the king of the south shall be strong, but one of his princes shall be stronger than he and shall rule and his territory shall be a great authority.

Okay, so we kind of take it sentence by sentence. So we note then that that is first reference to the first Ptolemy, Ptolemy I, okay? And then that's the king of the south. Let's see, he's called the king of the south.

Seleucus I was designated the satrap of Babylon, but when attacked by Antagonus in 316 BC, Seleucus fled to Egypt where Ptolemy made him one of his generals. In 312, Ptolemy and Seleucus defeated Antagonus at Gaza.

Seleucus returned to Babylon and then later took the title king. After Antagonus was killed in battle at Ipsus, in 301, Seleucus gradually took control of Antagonus' territory, which he expanded into a greater kingdom than Ptolemy's.

And they're going, how come I don't know anything about this? He goes, we Americans, we just don't study this stuff. And I'll be blunt, I don't really study this stuff either. All right, so now we're going to get a marriage mentioned.

After some years, they shall make an alliance. The daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement, but she shall not retain the strength of her arm, and he and his arm shall not endure, but she shall be given up in her attendance, he who fathered her and he who supported her in those times.

Now, I mistakenly mentioned that this was probably talking about Cleopatra. She's later in the text, but this is not Cleopatra. This is the marriage of a woman by the name of Bernice, all right? So succeeding Ptolemy, the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kings fought each other in attempts to expand and defend their kingdoms, and about 250 BC, Ptolemy II agreed to a peace treaty with Antiochus II.

Part of the treaty involved a marriage alliance. Bernice, Ptolemy's daughter, married Antiochus, who thereby was forced to leave his first wife, Laodicea. Bernice's offspring was to become the next Seleucid ruler.

However, in 246 BC, Antiochus took back Laodicea, but died shortly thereafter, allegedly poisoned by Laodicea. Well, okay, I'll have you back, honey. Well, that's great. I kill you. Okay, so he's gone.

She also arranged for the murder of Bernice and her child to ensure her son's succession to the throne as Seleucus II. Many of Bernice's attendants who came from Egypt also perished, and her father died that same year.

This is all accurately then depicted by chapter 11, verse 6. She, Bernice, will be given up. She, those who brought her, her attendants, the one who fathered her, Ptolemy II, and the one who strengthened slash supported her during the times of Antiochus II, since the hyphal, we won't even get into how the Hebrew grammar here talks about it, but you get the idea.

So that's what that is referring to. That's bite number two. You guys still with me? Okay, I apologize. This is one of the most complicated portions of Scripture. On a scale of one to 10, one being the easiest, 10 being the hardest, this is a good 9 1⁄2, right?

Second part, so let's read it seven to nine. And from a branch from her roots, one shall arise in his place. He shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north, and he shall deal with them and shall prevail.

He shall also carry off to Egypt their gods with their metal images and their precious vessels of silver and gold, and for some years, he shall refrain from attacking the king of the north. Then the latter shall come into the realm of the king of the south, but shall return to his own land.

Okay, so you'll note seven through nine is its own unit. And here's what it talks about then, according to the Concordia Commentary, which I think is stellar here. Bernice's brother Ptolemy III succeeded their father, Ptolemy II, to retaliate for the murder of his sister Bernice.

Ptolemy III invaded Syria, captured the Syrian capital of Antioch, and campaigned far to the east. He captured Laodicea and executed her. Ptolemy captured many spoils of war, including the idols that the Persian king Cambyses had carried off from Egypt to Persia in 525 B .C.

Thus, he took captive to Egypt their gods, just as it was prophesied. The mention of Egypt as the destination of the spoils identifies the king of the south as a Ptolemaic king. The Egyptians gave Ptolemy the name Urgetus, a benefactor, because he returned their idols.

However, Ptolemy was unable to solidify his control over Seleucid territory, because he had to return to Egypt to deal with a rebellion. Therefore, Seleucus II was able to reestablish his authority two years later.

In 242 B .C., Seleucus attempted to invade Egypt, but was unsuccessful, just as it is prophesied in verse nine. The latter shall come into the realm of the king of the south, but shall return to his own land.

When you start to overlay the history here of what happened, it's startling, okay? It's actually quite amazing. Do the comparison work here between the stuff we cover on Prophecy Bingo, okay? The Lord told me that we're entering a season of suddenlies and that there's going to be an outbreak of breakthroughs and just nonsense like this.

It's all word salad, right? Whereas Christ legitimately prophesied the future and the details match the history exactly, okay? Verse 10, military campaign now of Seleucus III and Antiochus III. So let's read verse 10.

His sons then shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall keep coming and overflow and pass through and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress. So verse 10 is our focus now.

And so we're now to Seleucus II, was succeeded by his son Seleucus III, who reigned only three years before being murdered during a military campaign in 223 BC. He was succeeded by his brother Antiochus III.

Pay attention to that name. Antiochus IV is the one we're gonna really be paying attention to. But Antiochus III, who became known as the great because of his military success. At first, he had to suppress rebellions in Media and Asia Minor.

When the weak Ptolemy IV became the Southern King in 221, Antiochus saw an opportunity to regain territory in Syria that his father had lost to the Southern Kingdom. In 219 to 218, notice the numbers are going backwards because we're still in BC, Antiochus campaigned in Syria and Palestine.

Palestine had been under the control of Egypt until this time. This is probably what has meant that Antiochus was stirred up as far as his, the King of the South's fortress. So we can see that that was fulfilled as well.

The Southern Counterattack and the Battle of Raphia

Next section, 11 through 12. The King of the South, moved with rage, shall come out and fight against the King of the North. And he shall raise a great multitude, but it shall be given into his hand. And when the multitude is taken away, his heart shall be exalted and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail.

Okay, so we're gonna focus on verses 11 and 12 now. In 217 BC, in response to Antiochus' military actions, Ptolemy launched a counter-attack. The decisive battle was fought at Raphia in Palestine. Polybius reports that the Egyptian forces numbered 70 ,000 infantry, 5 ,000 cavalry, 73 elephants.

Okay, while the Syrians had 62 ,000 infantry, 6 ,000 cavalry, 102 elephants. Very specific, okay? All right. Kind of glad we don't use elephants anymore in war. Just, you know, they're a little hard to camouflage, okay?

It was the tank of the day. You're not wrong, I think that's right. They were the tanks of the day. So despite the great army raised by Antiochus, he was soundly defeated, losing 17 ,000 troop as opposed to Ptolemy's loss of 2 ,200 troops.

Thus he, the King of the North, will raise a great army, but the army will be given into his, the King of the South's hand, just as God prophesied. Ptolemy regained Palestine and southern Syria, but did not press his advantage.

Ptolemy returned to Egypt, where he abandoned all noble pursuits and gave himself up to the life of debauchery, fulfilling the prophecy that his heart will become arrogant. How he will, now, how he will cause Myriads to fall is described by Polybius when Ptolemy suppressed rebellion in Egypt.

So here's what it says. This is written by an ancient historian, Polybius. Ptolemy, however, immediately after these events became involved in a war with his Egyptian subjects. For in arming them for his campaign against Antiochus, he had taken a step which, while it served his immediate purpose sufficiently well, proved eventually disastrous.

Elated with their victory at Raphia, they refused any longer to receive orders from the king, but looked out for a leader to represent them on the ground that they were quite able to maintain their independence, and this they succeeded in doing before very long.

So, okay, he shall be cast out tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail. Verse 13 through 19, let's read this out. For the king of the north shall again raise a multitude greater than the first, and after some years he shall come on with a great army and abundant supplies.

In those times, many shall rise against the king of the south, and the violent among your own people shall lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision, but they shall fail. Then the king of the north shall come and throw up siege works and take a well-fortified city, and the forces of the south shall not stand, or even his best troops, for there shall be no strength to stand.

But he who comes against him shall do as he wills, and none shall stand before him, and he shall stand in the glorious land with destruction in his hand. He shall set his face to come with strength of his whole kingdom, and he shall bring terms of an agreement and perform them.

He shall give him the daughter of woman to destroy the kingdom. Here, that is actually a reference to Cleopatra, and you'll see that in a minute. But it shall not stand or be to his advantage. Afterwards, he shall turn his face to the coastlands and shall capture many of them, but a commander shall put an end to his insolence.

Indeed, he shall turn his insolence back on him. Then he shall turn his face back toward the fortresses of his own land, but he shall stumble and fall and shall not be found. Now, that's a lot to take in, but let's take a look at what this is all referring to.

So you can kinda see how the intrigue going back and forth, the constant little battles that are taking place, they're not little, in some cases huge, between the Ptolemaic Empire and the Seleucid Empire.

And who's in the middle of all of this, by the way? You got the Seleucids on the north, you got the Ptolemies on the south. Who's in the middle? Israel. This is all kinda taking place in their backyard.

Okay, the back and forth. Mr. Miyagi say, you either karate do it or karate don't, because if you karate maybe you get squished, right? Okay, in this particular case, Israel's kind of in the middle and they're getting squished.

Miyagi is quite, quite the important wise person to be quoting here. All right, so next part. So let's see how this is then explained in history. So Antiochus campaigned in the eastern part of his empire from 212 to 205 BC.

Then in 204, Ptolemy IV and his queen died under mysterious circumstances. Mysterious circumstances, right? Okay, the Clintons were back then. Okay, all right. They were suicided. Okay, all right. Sensing an opportunity to wrest territory away from the young Ptolemy V, who was only five years old.

I would note a five-year-old is probably not gonna be a good general, right? Antiochus attacked Egypt and took back southern Syria. The Egyptian general, Scopus, managed to drive Antiochus back for a while, however, in a decisive battle at Penaeus called Caesarea Philippi in the New Testament.

Okay, Caesarea Philippi is right. We know where this is. Okay, so this is where this takes place. In 200, Antiochus gained control of southern Syria and Palestine. Note they're calling it Palestine, okay?

Neither would again come under Ptolemaic control. During the last years of Ptolemy IV and the early years of Ptolemy V, many provinces of the Egyptian kingdom rebelled or otherwise asserted a measure of independence.

However, commentators disagree about which exact circumstances are described by the, quote, violent men who lift themselves up to fulfill this vision. It is known that during this time, there were pro-Ptolemaic and pro-Seleucid parties among the elite Jews in Jerusalem.

Of course, they're stuck in the middle of this, okay? Who is Israel going to be faithful to? Whoever wins, exactly. It's in their best interest to be on the side of the stronger group, right? And that's going back and forth.

So as these two football teams keep playing football in their territory, right? You'll note that the Jews are divided, pro-Ptolemy, pro-Seleucid, okay? Perhaps the violent men are one or both of these parties as they vied for power during this time of transition.

They will stumble, may refer either to the conquest of Jerusalem by Antiochus, which would have brought punishment against the pro-Ptolemaic party of Jews, or to the previous subduing of the Jewish nation by Scopus, who may have punished the pro-Seleucid party, okay?

Again, Israel's stuck right in the middle between these two warring giants. The vision to which 11 .14 refers is this part of the last vision of Daniel, okay? In 10 through 12, okay? So after being defeated by Penaeus, Scopus retreated to the city of Sidon, where Antiochus besieged him and forced his surrender in 198 BC.

The phrase his best troops probably refers to Scopus's alien mercenaries. There will be no strength to stand, may refer to the famine caused by the siege, the famine forced Scopus to surrender. So Antiochus, like Alexander, will do as he pleases since he is now in complete control, having bested his enemies, this arrogance would lead to his downfall.

His victory over Scopus led to permanent Seleucid control of all Palestine, the beautiful land that's mentioned there. He also seized coastal areas in Asia Minor and some of the Greek islands. Since Rome's power was beginning to assert itself from the West, Antiochus did not invade Egypt.

Instead, he entered into a marriage alliance by giving his daughter, Cleopatra, to Ptolemy V as his wife. Apparently, he hoped he would undermine Ptolemy's realm from within, thus he will give him a daughter of men to destroy it, the southern kingdom.

However, Cleopatra became steadfastly loyal to her husband so that Antiochus' scheme was thwarted, thus it, his plan, will not stand or be to his advantage. And so you'll note, this fits perfectly in the history of the time.

So Cleopatra, her first husband is Ptolemy and then she kind of has it for Roman general. You kind of get the idea, right? So, but this is all during the intrigue of that time. So Antiochus then turned to campaign in the West, taking islands in the Aegean and campaigning in Thrace in 196 BC, fulfilling chapter 11, verse 18.

Afterwards, he will turn his face to the coastlands and shall capture many of them, but a commander shall put an end to his insolence. So he's turning his face to the coastlands, talking about portions of Greece, but Antiochus did not listen and did as he pleased, invading Greece in 192 BC.

The Romans and their Greek allies defeated him at Thermopylae in 191 BC. The Romans then drove him eastward and defeated him soundly at the Battle of Magnesia in 190. By this act, the Roman commander, Lucius Cornelius Scipio, fulfilled a commander will put an end to his insolence.

Moreover, he will repay him for his insolence. So you'll note the armies of Rome, Scipio's army particularly, was the one that put an end to his insolence. In 188 BC, Antiochus was forced to accept the Treaty of Appomia in which he became a Roman vassal and was forced to send 20 hostages, including his son Antiochus IV to Rome.

Having no options to campaign in the West, he turned eastward to Syria, Mesopotamia, and beyond. In 187, desperate for funds to pay his tribute to Rome, he attempted to pillage the Temple of Zeus slash Bel in the Lamias and the local population rose up in indignation to defend the sanctuary, killing Antiochus and many of his followers.

It's fascinating stuff, okay? It's like, this is like legitimately a roadmap for the intertestamental history long before it ever occurred and it just shows you that, again, God knows the end from the beginning and he can explain it.

And so, again, it's stunning. Verse 20, then shall arise in his place one who shall send an exactor of tribute for the glory of the kingdom, but within a few years he shall be broken, neither in anger nor in battle, okay?

By the way, Nostradamus has got nothing on Daniel. Like, nothing. Okay, you're right. Oh, I just, okay. I remember at the beginning of this year, I was scrolling through the prophecies for 2023 and I saw a video on YouTube of the apparent Nostradamus prophecies for the year 2023.

We're doomed. We're not gonna make it through 2023. I just wanna let you all know that. Okay, but, because Nostradamus said so. But, yeah, you'll note, I don't put a lot of stock in Nostradamus. But here's verse 20, what it means.

So Antiochus III was followed on the throne by his son Seleucus IV. In order to secure more funds to pay obligations to Rome inherited from his father, Seleucus IV sent his finance minister Heliodorus to Jerusalem in order to seize the wealth of the temple treasury.

Thus, Heliodorus is the exactor of tribute. From verse 20. In 2 Maccabees chapter three, which is again in the Apocrypha, it reports that Heliodorus was turned back by an attack of God's angelic forces.

Seleucus IV's inconsequential reign ended in 175. He did not die in an angry attack of the populace as his father, nor in battle. Instead, he was poisoned by Heliodorus, who may have been in league with Seleucus IV's brother, Antiochus IV, Antiochus IV was returning to Syria from Rome when his brother was killed.

Okay, the intrigue is just stunning here. Yeah, uh-huh, uh-huh. Now, we are going to start taking a turn towards the type and shadow of the Antichrist, okay? Verses 21 through 24. In his place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given.

He shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. Armies shall be utterly swept away before him and broken, even the prince of the covenant. And from the time that an alliance is made with him, he shall act deceitfully and he shall become strong with a small people.

Without warning, he shall come into the richest parts of the province and he shall do what neither his father nor his father's fathers have done, scattering among them plunder, spoil, and goods. He shall devise plans against strongholds, but only for a time, okay?

Now, this is the next bite of the burrito, okay? The contemptible person who took the place of Seleucus IV was his brother Antiochus IV, otherwise known as Epiphanes, okay? Epiphany, God manifest, okay?

This guy legitimately called himself the manifestation of God, okay? So you can see how he's like a type and shadow then of the Antichrist, but there is an abrupt change in the language once we get to verse 36, so you have to watch that transition, okay?

So this part is dealing with him specifically, and then once we get to 36, we're then into the future, are still our future to come, okay? So the contemptible person is Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus had been a prisoner in Rome as required by the terms of the Treaty of Apamea.

However, in late 176 or early 175, he was released in exchange for Seleucus IV's elder son, Demetrius. Antiochus IV was in Athens when his brother was murdered. With the assistance of Eumenes II of Pergamum, he acquired an army and marched eastward to Babylon.

After the death of Seleucus IV, Heliodorus had briefly seized the throne even though Demetrius was the rightful heir. So he's the exactor of tribute, if you remember, he's the finance minister. Antiochus took the throne ostensibly as regent in place of his nephew, Demetrius, and with his younger nephew Antiochus, an infant, as co-regent.

The younger nephew was murdered in 170. Of course he was, okay, right? Kid can't defend himself. Thus, the majesty of the kingdom was not rightfully conferred on Antiochus IV. Instead, he seized the throne through intrigue, just as it's prophesied in verse 21.

So the portrait of Antiochus IV that follows in 22 through 24 is a general description of his reign. Some interpreters take the overwhelming force that will be overwhelmed and broken to be a reference to the Egyptian forces defeated by Antiochus IV as described in verses 25 and 26.

However, the text does not mention the king of the south, making this unlikely. It is most probably a description of the forces Antiochus defeated at his ascent to the throne. A leader of a covenant, verse 22, refers to the Jewish high priest, the liturgical leader of God's covenant people.

However, the text leaves ambiguous which high priest is being described. The one who is broken in 1122 is usually understood to be the high priest, Oneus III. Antiochus III had confirmed the Jewish right to internal self-government according to traditional Jewish laws.

This meant that the high priest was a local ruler in Jerusalem. Antiochus IV, however, was at odds with Oneus III because this high priest was opposed to the growing influence of Hellenism in Palestine.

Soon after Antiochus IV took the throne, Oneus's brother, Jason, offered to Antiochus IV a large bribe along with the promise that he would pursue the Hellenization of Jerusalem. Now, you gotta understand what we're talking about by Hellenization.

We are not merely talking about learning the Greek language. And you'll note that that Greek language became the basis, the lingua franca of what would become the Roman Empire, right? You can go anywhere in the Roman Empire if you spoke Koine Greek, you could be understood everywhere.

It's like if you were an aviator today, every aviator, regardless of where you are, they have to learn English, okay? And so the Hellenization did result in Koine Greek becoming a language that makes it possible for the gospel to spread.