Chapter 11

• In the first year of Darius the Mede, I was there to help and support him.
  
• Now I will make known the truth: Behold, there shall arise yet three more kings in Persia, and the fourth shall accumulate more wealth than all the others; and when he has grown strong through his wealth, he will stir up everything against the kingdom of Greece.

In Daniel 11:2, the angel prophesies about the future of the Persian Empire, mentioning that "there will be three more kings in Persia," and the fourth will be extraordinarily wealthy and will provoke a major conflict with Greece. This prophecy corresponds to well-documented historical events that occurred after the reign of Cyrus the Great and during the Persian Empire's dominance.

Although not directly mentioned in this verse, the prophecy starts after the reign of Cyrus the Great, who was the founder of the Persian Empire. He ruled between 559 and 530 B.C. and issued the decree allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple (538 B.C.). After Cyrus, the prophecy describes three kings and a fourth who will gather great wealth and confront Greece.

1. Cambyses II (530–522 B.C.)

• Cambyses II, the son of Cyrus, was the first of these three kings. He ruled from 530 to 522 B.C. and is known for the conquest of Egypt in 525 B.C., thereby expanding the Persian Empire.
  
• Although his reign was relatively short, Cambyses consolidated the empire through conquests, but he was not known for extraordinary wealth or conflicts with Greece.

2. Darius I (Darius the Great) (522–486 B.C.)

• The next king was Darius I, who ruled from 522 to 486 B.C. and is considered one of Persia's most significant rulers.
  
• Darius I reorganized the empire, promoted trade, and consolidated control over various territories. He rebuilt the capital Persepolisand issued edicts supporting the Jews in continuing the reconstruction of the Temple.
  
• Darius is also known for initiating conflicts with Greece, including his campaign that led to the Battle of Marathonin 490 B.C., where the Persian army was defeated by the Athenians.

3. Xerxes I (486–465 B.C.)

• Xerxes I, also known as Ahasuerusin the Bible (in the Book of Esther), was the third king in this prophecy and ruled from 486 to 465 B.C.
  
• Xerxes is famous for his campaign against Greece, which culminated in the legendary Battles of Thermopylae and Salamisin 480 B.C. These clashes were part of the Greco-Persian Wars. Although Xerxes initially succeeded in capturing Athens, his fleet was ultimately destroyed at Salamis, forcing him to withdraw.

The Fourth King and Conflict with Greece

Xerxes I (486–465 B.C.):

• Xerxes I is most likely the fourth king mentioned in the prophecy, described as the one who "shall gather more wealth than all the others" and "stir up all against the kingdom of Greece."
  

• Xerxes amassed a massive army and used Persia's wealth to organize a major campaign against Greece. He inherited from Darius the ambition to conquer Greece and attempted to fulfill this goal through a grand-scale invasion. However, his campaign ended in failure, with his fleet being destroyed at Salamisand his land army defeated at Plataeain 479 B.C.

Consequences of the Conflict with Greece

Xerxes I provoked a major conflict with Greece that set off a series of events leading to the gradual decline of Persian power. In the following decades, the Greeks began to gain ground, and this Persian-Greek conflict paved the way for the rise of Alexander the Great, who would ultimately conquer the Persian Empire in the 4th century B.C.

• But a mighty king will arise, who shall rule with great power and do as he pleases.
  
• And as soon as he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not among his descendants, nor will it have the same power as under him, for it shall be uprooted and passed on to others besides these.

This verse from Daniel 11:3-4refers to a king who will arise after the conflict between Persia and Greece, wielding great power and doing "as he pleases." This mighty king is undoubtedly Alexander the Great, and the verse describes both his rise and the fragmentation of his empire after his death.

Alexander the Great (356–323 B.C.)

• Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia, was the conqueror of the vast Persian Empire, extending Greek power to an unprecedented scale. He is regarded as one of the greatest military commanders in history, with the ambition to create a universal empire.
  

• Alexander defeated Persia under Darius IIIin several decisive battles (notably at Issusand Gaugamela), and the Persian Empire fell before his powerful army.

The Fragmentation of Alexander’s Empire

• The verse prophesies that after Alexander becomes strong and does "as he pleases," his empire will be broken and divided into the "four winds of heaven." This refers to the division of Alexander's empire among his generals, known as the Diadochi, after his sudden death in 323 B.C. at the age of 32.

• According to the prophecy, his empire was not left "to his descendants," which is precisely what happened. Although Alexander had a son (born posthumously, Alexander IV) and a brother (Philip III Arrhidaeus), neither took control of the empire. His son was assassinated at a young age, and Philip III was deemed weak and was swiftly eliminated.

The four kingdoms resulting from the death of Alexander the Great (Diadochi):

After Alexander's death in 323 B.C., his empire was divided into four parts among his generals, known as the Diadochi:

Cassander:

• Kingdom: Macedonia and Greece.
• Capital: Pella (Macedonia).
  
• Cassander took control of Macedonia and Greece after the succession struggles among Alexander's generals. He ruled Macedonia until his death in 297 B.C.

Lysimachus:

• Kingdom: Thrace and parts of Asia Minor.
• Capital: Lysimachia (Thrace).
  
• Lysimachus controlled Thrace and parts of Asia Minor. He died in 281 B.C. at the Battle of Corupedium, defeated by Seleucus, which led to the disappearance of his kingdom.

Ptolemy I Soter:

• Kingdom: Egypt.
• Capital: Alexandria.
  
• Ptolemy founded the Ptolemaic dynasty, which ruled Egypt for about 300 years, until the Roman conquest.

Seleucus I Nicator:

• Kingdom: Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, and parts of Asia Minor.
• Capital: Antioch (Syria).
  
• Seleucus founded the Seleucid dynasty, which controlled a vast territory including Syria and Mesopotamia. This dynasty extended into Central Asia.

The Disappearance of Two of the Four Kingdoms:

Cassander and the Kingdom of Macedonia:

• After Cassander's death in 297 B.C., the kingdom of Macedonia was affected by internal conflicts and succession struggles.
  
• In 168 B.C., Macedonia was defeated by the Romans at the Battle of Pydna and eventually became a Roman province.
• Year of disappearance: 168 B.C.

Lysimachus and the Kingdom of Thrace and Asia Minor:

• Lysimachus was defeated and killed at the Battle of Corupedium in 281 B.C. by Seleucus I, and his kingdom was absorbed into the Seleucid Empire.
  
• After this defeat, Lysimachus' territories were divided between the Seleucids and Macedonians.
• Year of disappearance: 281 B.C.

The Last Two Kingdoms and Their Disappearance:

Ptolemaic Kingdom (Egypt):

• The Ptolemaic dynasty lasted longer than the other kingdoms. The Ptolemies ruled Egypt until 30 B.C., when the last queen, Cleopatra VII, was defeated by the Romans.
  
• Egypt became a Roman province after the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C. and Cleopatra's death in 30 B.C.
• Year of disappearance: 30 B.C.

Seleucid Kingdom (Syria and the eastern empire):

• The Seleucid dynasty was gradually weakened by internal struggles and external pressures, including the Parthian Empire and Rome.
  
• In 64 B.C., the Seleucid kingdom was conquered by Pompey, the Roman general, and became part of the Roman Empire.
• Year of disappearance: 64 B.C.

In Short:

• Lysimachus' Kingdom (Thrace and Asia Minor) disappeared in 281 B.C. when Lysimachus was defeated by Seleucus.
• The Kingdom of Macedonia (Cassander) disappeared in 168 B.C., after being defeated by the Romans.
• The Seleucid Kingdom disappeared in 64 B.C., being annexed by the Roman Empire.
• The Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt disappeared in 30 B.C., after Cleopatra’s defeat by the Romans.

The King of the South and the King of the North

• The king of the south will grow strong. But one of his princes will become even stronger than him and will rule, establishing a great kingdom.
  
• After some years, they will make an alliance, and the daughter of the king of the south will come to the king of the north to make an agreement. But these means of support will have no power, and neither will her efforts withstand, for she will be given up to death along with her attendants, her father, and the one who supported her.

These verses from Daniel 11:5-6refer to the historical conflicts between the Ptolemaic Kingdom (Egypt)in the south and the Seleucid Kingdom (Syria)in the north, following the division of Alexander the Great’s empire. In this passage, a political alliance is described through a marriage between the two kingdoms, but it will fail and lead to a series of conflicts. Let's analyze in detail the historical events that this passage foretells.

1. The King of the South:

• The "King of the South" refers to the ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt.
  
• In this context, the king of the south is Ptolemy I Soter, founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty and one of Alexander the Great’s generals. Under his rule, Egypt became one of the most powerful kingdoms during the era of the Diadochi.

2. The King of the North:

• The "King of the North" refers to the ruler of the Seleucid Kingdom, which dominated Syria, Mesopotamia, parts of Asia Minor, and Persia.
  
• In this case, the king of the north is Seleucus I Nicator, founder of the Seleucid dynasty. His kingdom extended from Syria to Central Asia, making it one of the largest of the four Diadochi kingdoms.

3. "One of his princes" who becomes stronger:

• The prophecy states that "one of his princes" will become even stronger than the king of the south. Here, the text refers to Seleucus I Nicator, who, although he started as one of the subordinate generals in the struggle for power, managed to establish a far larger and stronger empire than that of the Ptolemies in Egypt.
  
• Seleucus I founded a great kingdom that extended far beyond the territory controlled by the Ptolemies.

4. The Marriage Alliance and Its Tragic End:

• In Daniel 11:6, a political alliance between the two kings through marriage is described. This alliance is represented by the marriage between Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus(the king of the south), and Antiochus II Theos, the Seleucid king (the king of the north).
  

Historical details about the alliance and its failure:

Berenice and Antiochus II:

• Berenice was the daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (283-246 B.C.), king of Egypt, and her marriage to Antiochus II Theos, king of the Seleucid kingdom (north), took place around 252 B.C.
  
• This marriage was arranged to establish a political alliance between the two rival kingdoms, hoping to bring peace between Egypt and Syria.
  
• To marry Berenice, Antiochus II had to divorce his first wife, Laodice. However, this political arrangement did not succeed in bringing stability.

The tragedy and the end of the alliance:

• After the death of Ptolemy II (Berenice's father) in 246 B.C., Antiochus II remarried his former wife, Laodice. In an act of revenge, Laodice orchestrated the killing of Berenice, her son, and her attendants.
  
• Thus, the alliance established through Berenice's marriage was unsuccessful, as she, her retinue, and those who tried to support her were eliminated and killed.
  
• This tragic event is described in verse 6: "She shall be given up to death along with her attendants, her father, and the one who supported her."

A problem arises from the expression "one of his princes." At first glance, it might seem strange to describe Seleucus I Nicator as "one of his princes" of Ptolemy I Soter, considering that both were high-ranking generals of Alexander the Great, without a direct subordinate relationship between them. They were, in fact, "colleagues," and each took a part of Alexander's empire after his death. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify this phrase and examine the historical context.

Context of the phrase "one of his princes":

• The complete verse from Daniel 11:5 says: "The king of the south shall grow strong. But one of his princes shall become even stronger than him and shall rule, establishing a great kingdom."

• What is implied in this verse is that Ptolemy I Soter, founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt, would become a powerful king in the south ("south").

• "One of his princes" refers to a person who, at some point, was associated with Ptolemy I or had connections with him but would become more powerful. In this case, this is Seleucus I Nicator, founder of the Seleucid kingdom.

The history of the relationship between Ptolemy I and Seleucus I:

Although Seleucus I Nicator and Ptolemy I Soter were "colleague" generals under Alexander, after Alexander's death, Seleucus was helped by Ptolemy I to restore his position of power.

• Context: After Alexander's death, his empire was divided among his generals (Diadochi). Seleucus I initially received control over Babylon but was forced to flee from Mesopotamia due to conflicts with Antigonus Monophthalmus (another general trying to conquer his territory).
  
• Seleucus I fled to Ptolemy I in Egypt, where he received military support. With Ptolemy's help, Seleucus regained his territories in Babylon and eventually founded the Seleucid kingdom.

Meaning of the phrase "one of his princes":

Although Seleucus I and Ptolemy I were "colleagues" as generals under Alexander, at one point, Seleucus was under the protection and support of Ptolemy. In this sense, Seleucus was considered "one of his princes," meaning someone who was helped or had an important connection with Ptolemy. However, Seleucus I eventually became "stronger" than Ptolemy, establishing a much larger and more extensive kingdom.

• In those days, however, a branch from the same root as hers shall arise in her place and come against the army of Syria. Yes, he will enter the fortress of the king of the north, do as he pleases with it, and be victorious.
• He will seize and carry off to Egypt their gods and their cast images, together with their precious vessels of silver and gold. Then he will leave the king of the north alone for some years.

The prophecy from Daniel 11:7-8 describes a continuation of the conflicts between the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egyptand the Seleucid dynasty of Syria, as part of the Syrian Wars, which took place in the 3rd century B.C. after the division of Alexander the Great's empire.
The events described in these verses involve a return of Egypt against the Seleucids, and the descriptions are historically precise.

General context and confirmation of references to Egypt and Syria:

• Egypt and Syria are the dominant kingdoms in the south (Egypt) and the north (Syria) in the context described. The prophecy reflects real events that took place between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties, so the references to Egypt and Syria are correct and match the description from Daniel 11.
• In the original Hebrew texts, explicit terms for "Egypt" and "Syria" are not used, but the locations described clearly correspond to these kingdoms. The text refers to the "king of the south" and the "king of the north," which can be interpreted in this context as Egypt (south)and Syria (north).

Historical explanations for Daniel 11:7-8:

1. "A branch from the same root shall arise":

This "branch from the same root" refers to a successor from the same family line as Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus and wife of Antiochus II Theos (Seleucid dynasty). After Berenice's assassination, her brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes, became the pharaoh of Egypt and launched a revenge campaign against the Seleucid kingdom for the death of his sister.

• Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-222 B.C.) is the "branch from the same root" as Berenice. After the death of his father, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, and the assassination of his sister Berenice, Ptolemy III came to power and launched a military campaign against the Seleucid kingdom, especially against the successor of Antiochus II, namely Seleucus II Callinicus.

2. Ptolemy III's campaign against the Seleucid kingdom:

• Ptolemy III led a military expedition with the goal of avenging the death of his sister Berenice and her son. He entered Syria and advanced as far as Mesopotamia (Syria and Babylon), defeating the Seleucid army and capturing many Seleucid strongholds. This is the moment described in the verse: "He shall come against the army of Syria, enter the fortress of the king of the north, and be victorious."

• During this campaign, Ptolemy III managed to capture important cities in Syria and weaken the Seleucid kingdom. It was a successful campaign, and Ptolemy III took many spoils of war.

3. Spoils of war: gods, images, and valuable silver and gold vessels:

• Verse 8 mentions that Ptolemy III "shall also carry off to Egypt their gods and their cast images, together with their precious vessels of silver and gold."

• This detail refers to the war spoils that Ptolemy III took from Syria. He brought back to Egypt not only valuable goods but also religious statues and other cult objects from the Seleucid kingdom, including gods and sacred images that were captured.

• It is known from historical sources that Ptolemy III transported back to Egypt a large amount of war spoils, including religious objects and sacred statues that had been stolen by the Persians from Egypt centuries earlier. Ptolemy III became very popular in Egypt because of this success, being known as "Euergetes" (the benefactor) due to his action of bringing these religious treasures back to the country.

4. "He shall leave the king of the north alone for some years":

After this successful campaign against the Seleucid kingdom, Ptolemy III ended the campaign and established a temporary peace with Seleucus II Callinicus (the king of the north). The campaign did not continue with the complete destruction of the Seleucid kingdom, and Ptolemy III returned to Egypt.

This temporary peace lasted a few years, during which both kingdoms restored their forces. However, the peace did not last long, and later other conflicts occurred between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties.

• 9. He shall come against the kingdom of the king of the south, but he shall return to his own land.
• 10. However, his sons shall wage war again and shall gather a multitude of forces, which will advance and overflow like a river that bursts its banks, and they shall push back again as far as the fortress.
• 11. The king of the south, enraged by this, will go out and fight with the king of the north; he will raise a great army, but the armies of the king of the north will be given into his hands and destroyed.
• 12. Then the heart of the king will become proud; he will strike down ten thousand, but he will not prevail.

Major events in the context of Daniel 11:

Verse 10:

Historians identify this verse with the wars that took place between the sons of Seleucus II Callinicus (Seleucid king, 246–225 B.C.), namely Seleucus III Ceraunus and his younger brother, Antiochus III the Great.

After the death of Seleucus III, Antiochus III ascended the throne in 223 B.C. and continued to fight against the Ptolemies to regain control over Syria and Palestine, which were held by the Ptolemies.

Antiochus III led a highly successful military campaign against Ptolemaic Egypt, recapturing lost territories and extending Seleucid control as far as the fortress of Raphia (at the border between Egypt and Palestine).

Verse 11:

This verse refers to the war between Ptolemy IV Philopator (Ptolemaic king from 221–203 B.C.) and Antiochus III the Great.

The specific event appears to be the Battle of Raphia (217 B.C.), a major confrontation between Ptolemy IV and Antiochus III. Ptolemy IV managed to defeat Antiochus in this battle, securing Egyptian control over Palestine for a time.

Although the Seleucid army was numerous, it was defeated, and Antiochus III lost much of his influence over the southern region.

Verse 12:

After his victory at Raphia, Ptolemy IV became arrogant and lived in luxury, but this victory did not definitively consolidate Ptolemaic dominance. Although he succeeded in defeating the Seleucids in this battle, the victory was not enough to ensure long-term political stability.

The Ptolemaic kingdom began to decline in the following years, partly due to inefficient leadership and internal corruption.

Antiochus III, although temporarily defeated, reorganized and returned stronger in later conflicts, especially in the Battle of Panium (200 B.C.), where he regained control over Palestine.

• 13. For the king of the north will return and muster a greater army than the first; and after some time, after several years, he will advance with a great and well-armed army.
• 14. In those times, many will rise against the king of the south, and a band of troublemakers from your people will rise up to fulfill the vision; but they will fall.
• 15. The king of the north will advance, will build fortifications, and will capture fortified cities. The armies of the south, not even the best of the king’s men, will be able to withstand, nor will they have the power to oppose.
• 16. The one who comes against him will do as he pleases, and no one will stand against him; he will stop in the glorious land, completely destroying whatever falls into his hands.
• 17. He will set his mind on taking control of his entire kingdom, and by pretending to have pure intentions with him, he will give his daughter as a wife, with the intention of ruining him; but this will not happen and will not succeed.

Verse 13:

After Antiochus III's defeat at the Battle of Raphia (217 B.C.), he spent several years consolidating his power and organizing military campaigns in the eastern part of his empire, including against kingdoms in Iran and India.

After several years of fighting and conquests in the east, Antiochus gathered an even larger army, and in 202 B.C., he resumed wars against the Ptolemaic dynasty. This marks the beginning of the Fifth Syrian War.

Antiochus's army was now much better equipped and experienced, supported by forces and resources gathered from the regions he had previously conquered.

Verse 14:

During this time, the Ptolemaic kingdom was going through a period of political weakness and internal revolts. Ptolemy V Epiphanes was very young, and the kingdom was ruled by regents and corrupt officials.

"A group of troublemakers from your people will rebel" is interpreted as a reference to a group of Jews from Judea, who probably joined Antiochus III, hoping that he would bring them more freedom or a more favorable status under Seleucid rule. However, this rebellion was unsuccessful, and many of these Jewish conspirators fell.

The "vision" mentioned here could refer to the messianic hope or the fulfillment of a prophetic destiny that some Jews associated with the arrival of a liberator. However, this expectation was disappointed in this context.

Verse 15:

Antiochus III resumed the offensive against the Ptolemies, and the climax was the Battle of Panium (200 B.C.), a decisive clash between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies.

In this battle, Antiochus defeated the Ptolemaic army and regained control over Palestine and the "fortified cities," which likely refers to fortified towns such as Gaza, Sidon, and other strongholds in the region.

The Ptolemaic army, including the "flower of the king's men" (the best soldiers), could not withstand Antiochus's forces, resulting in a major defeat.

Verse 16:

Antiochus III became the dominant force in the region after his victory at Panium. He practically had a free hand to impose his will in the "Glorious Land" (Eretz Israel, or Palestine), which was a strategic territory disputed between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies.

The "Glorious Land" (Palestine/Judea) was conquered by Antiochus, who consolidated Seleucid control over this region and established a much firmer regime. The phrase "destroying utterly whatever comes into his hand" may suggest a policy of repression against any opposition.

Verse 17:

Antiochus III tried to strengthen Seleucid influence over the Ptolemaic kingdom through a diplomatic alliance. In 195 B.C., Antiochus gave his daughter, Cleopatra I, as a wife to the young Ptolemy V Epiphanes of Egypt.

Antiochus's intention was to gain control over Egypt through his daughter Cleopatra, hoping that she would exert influence over her husband in favor of the Seleucids.

However, the plan did not work as Antiochus hoped. Cleopatra I remained loyal to her husband and Egyptian interests, so Antiochus's attempt to "ruin" the kingdom of Egypt through this marital alliance was unsuccessful. Hence the phrase, "this will not happen and will not succeed."

• 18. Then 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 reproach back upon him.
• 19. After this, he will turn his attention back to the fortresses of his own land; but he will stumble and fall, and will not be found.
• 20. His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor; but within a few days he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.

Verse 18:

After consolidating his power in the Levant region and extending his influence into Egypt through his daughter's marriage, Antiochus III began to turn his attention westward towards the Mediterranean, especially towards the islands of the Aegean Sea and the coast of Asia Minor.

Antiochus came into conflict with the emerging power of Rome, which was beginning to extend its influence in the eastern Mediterranean region. During his expansion, Antiochus conquered several islands and coastal regions from Asia Minor and Greece.

"A commander will put an end to the disgrace he sought to bring upon him and will turn it upon himself." This "commander" refers to the Roman general Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, who commanded the Roman forces against Antiochus III during the Roman-Syrian War (192–188 B.C.).

Antiochus was decisively defeated by the Romans at the Battle of Magnesia (190 B.C.). His defeat put an end to his westward expansion, and the disgrace he tried to bring upon Rome was turned back upon him. This defeat imposed severe restrictions on the Seleucid Empire and forced Antiochus to pay huge reparations to Rome.

Verse 19:

After his humiliating defeat by the Romans, Antiochus III returned to his homeland, Syria. He tried to restore control and stabilize the Seleucid kingdom after this devastating defeat.

Antiochus urgently needed resources to pay the enormous debts imposed by the Romans. For this reason, he engaged in campaigns of plundering and extortion of his own subjects to gather the necessary funds.

"He will stumble and fall, and will not be found": Antiochus died in 187 B.C. while trying to plunder a temple in Elam (present-day southwestern Iran), probably at Susa or nearby. He was killed either by local inhabitants or by his own soldiers while attempting to obtain money to pay his debts to Rome.

Verse 20:

Antiochus III was succeeded on the throne by his son, Seleucus IV Philopator (reigned between 187–175 B.C.). Seleucus IV inherited a weakened and heavily indebted kingdom, largely due to the war reparations imposed by Rome.

"An oppressor in the most beautiful part of the kingdom" refers to the imposition of heavy taxes and economic exploitation measures that Seleucus IV implemented to gather funds. The most beautiful part of the kingdom is often interpreted as being Judea (Palestine), a strategic and wealthy territory. A notable example of these exploitation policies is the appointment of Heliodorus as chief financial administrator, who was sent to collect funds from the temple in Jerusalem, stirring up revolts and discontent among the Jews.

"But within a few days he will be destroyed, but not in anger or in battle":
In 175 B.C., Seleucus IV was assassinated by his own minister, Heliodorus, without any direct military conflict being involved. Heliodorus attempted to take the throne, but his plot ultimately failed. This episode marked a period of political instability within the Seleucid dynasty.

• 21. In his place shall arise a contemptible person, to whom royal majesty has not been given; but he shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by intrigue.
• 22. Armies shall be swept away before him and shall be broken, including a prince of the covenant.
• 23. And after the alliance is made with him, he shall act deceitfully; he shall become strong with a small number of people.
• 24. Without warning he shall come into the richest parts of the province, and he shall do what neither his fathers nor his forefathers have done: scattering among them plunder, spoil, and wealth; he shall devise plans against fortified cities, but only for a time.

Verse 21:

Antiochus IV Epiphanes took the throne in an unusual and cunning way. After the death of his brother, Seleucus IV Philopator, who was assassinated by his minister Heliodorus, Antiochus was not the next in the line of succession. The rightful heir was Seleucus IV’s son, Demetrius I Soter, who was held hostage in Rome.

Antiochus took advantage of this situation of instability and, with the help of alliances and court intrigues, proclaimed himself regent and then took power, even though he had no clear legal rights to the throne. For this reason, he was considered a "contemptible person" or lacking prestige.

Verse 22:

Antiochus managed to consolidate his power and defeat his rivals. "Armies shall be swept away" refers to the military forces that rose against him, but which he defeated.

"The prince of the covenant" is interpreted by many scholars as referring to a Jewish high priest, most likely Onias III, the high priest of Jerusalem. Onias III was killed around 171 B.C. after Antiochus intervened in the internal affairs of Judea, removing him and appointing his more corrupt brother, Jason, who was more loyal to Seleucid interests.

Verse 23:

Antiochus managed to establish alliances and secure the support of influential groups within the kingdom, especially among the Hellenistic nobles in the regions he controlled. However, he acted cunningly and used his alliances to strengthen his own position.

He employed subtle methods to confront his rivals and maintained control of the kingdom with a relatively small but very efficient army.

Verse 24:

Antiochus continued to expand his power through surprise and cunning. He organized raids into the wealthiest regions of his empire and distributed the resulting wealth in an unusual manner.

"He shall do what neither his fathers nor his forefathers have done": Antiochus IV took a unique approach to his rule, distributing the spoils and wealth he obtained among his supporters, which was different from the policy of previous kings, who tended to keep the wealth to support the army and the state apparatus.

Antiochus tried to gain the support and loyalty of various factions by generously distributing wealth, sometimes even plundering temples to obtain the necessary funds.

"He shall devise plans against fortified cities": Antiochus used siege strategies and effective military tactics against fortified cities that resisted him. His military actions were characterized by surprise and speed, consolidating his control over the region.

• 25. Then he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army. And the king of the south shall wage war with an exceedingly great and mighty army; but he shall not stand, for plots shall be devised against him.
• 26. Those who eat from his table shall destroy him; his army shall be swept away, and many shall fall slain.

Verse 25:

Antiochus IV Epiphanes set out on a campaign against Ptolemy VI Philometor, the young king of Egypt, in the year 170 B.C., in the context of the tensions between the two kingdoms. This marks the Second Syrian War between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies.

Antiochus raised a great army and invaded Egypt with the determination to subdue it to his own kingdom. This campaign was carried out with great force and a strong desire for revenge and domination over Egypt.

The "king of the south" (Ptolemy VI Philometor) managed to gather an impressive army, but even though the Egyptian army was numerous and well-organized, it failed to withstand the attacks of Antiochus.

Verse 26:

A key factor in Ptolemy VI’s military failure was caused by betrayal within his own court. The expression "those who eat from his table" refers to his advisers and close associates who betrayed him. Within the Ptolemaic court, there were internal tensions, and a faction of the Egyptian nobility, especially Ptolemy’s younger brothers, conspired against him. They betrayed the interests of Egypt and contributed to his military failure.

"His army shall be swept away like a river, and many shall fall slain": As a result of the betrayal, Ptolemy’s army was gravely destabilized. The defeat was catastrophic, and the Egyptian troops scattered, unable to withstand the Seleucid force. Antiochus succeeded in achieving a decisive victory in Egypt, causing heavy losses among the Ptolemaic army.

• 27. The two kings, bent on harming each other, will sit at the same table and speak lies; but their plans will not succeed, for the end will come at the appointed time.
• 28. He will return to his land 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 land.
• 29. At the appointed time, he will once again march against the king of the south; but this time things will not be as before.

Verse 27:

This verse refers to a period of false negotiations and diplomacy between Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Ptolemy VI Philometor. After Antiochus occupied a large part of Egypt and captured Ptolemy VI, the two tried to present themselves as allies to secure their own interests.

"They will sit at the same table and speak lies": After Ptolemy VI was captured, Antiochus tried to manipulate him to use his legitimacy and govern Egypt through him. However, Ptolemy was not sincere in his relationship with Antiochus and aimed to reclaim his throne with the help of other forces, including his brother, Ptolemy VIII.

"But their plans will not succeed, for the end will come at the appointed time": Although these two leaders tried to manipulate each other and use deception to achieve their goals, these intrigues did not lead to a decisive outcome. In the end, wars and conflicts would continue, and their fate was predetermined for a later moment, according to the divine plan.

Verse 28:

After his successful campaign in Egypt, Antiochus IV returned to Syria with great wealth and plunder obtained from Egypt. However, during his reign, Antiochus became increasingly hostile towards Judea and the holy covenant, which refers to the Jewish people and their religion.

Antiochus began to take drastic measures against the Jews and their religion, initiating a forced Hellenization policy in Judea, which led to the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the banning of Jewish religious practices. This act was a turning point in the conflict between Antiochus and the Jewish people and triggered the Maccabean Revolt.

"He will take action against it (the holy covenant)": Antiochus implemented an aggressive policy of religious persecution against the Jews, including pagan sacrifices in the Temple of Jerusalem and the prohibition of circumcision and other Jewish practices. These actions caused major discontent and led to growing opposition from the Jewish people.

Verse 29:

Antiochus launched another military campaign against Egypt at a later date, in 168 B.C., in a renewed attempt to completely conquer the Ptolemaic kingdom. This was another phase of his rivalry with the Ptolemies.

"But this time things will not be as before": This time, things did not go as Antiochus had hoped. During this invasion, Antiochus was confronted not only by the Ptolemaic army but also by the intervention of the emerging power of the Roman Empire.

• 30. But ships of Kittim will come against him; and he will lose heart and turn back. He will vent his fury against the holy covenant and take action. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.
• 31. Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.
• 32. He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant; but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action.
• 33. And the wise among the people shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder, for some days.
• 34. When they fall, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery.
• 35. And some of the wise shall fall, to refine them, to purify and make them white, until the time of the end, for it still awaits the appointed time.

Verse 30:

"Ships of Kittim" refers to the Roman fleet. The term "Kittim" was used in the Old Testament to designate Cyprus and other regions of the Mediterranean, but in this context it refers to Roman forces that intervened in the conflict between Antiochus IV and Egypt.

This verse refers to the incident in 168 B.C. at Pelusium, when Antiochus IV was stopped by the Roman envoy Gaius Popillius Laenas. Rome, which had become a dominant power in the Mediterranean, demanded that Antiochus withdraw his troops from Egypt. Humiliated and pressured by Rome, Antiochus was forced to abandon his conquest plans and retreated to Syria.

Frustrated by the diplomatic defeat and humiliation suffered at the hands of Rome, Antiochus turned his fury against the Jews and their religion. The "holy covenant" refers to the Jewish people's covenant with God and their religious practices, which Antiochus sought to abolish.

Upon his return to Syria, Antiochus intensified the persecutions against the Jews and the religious institutions of Judea.
The decree of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 B.C., which imposed Greek philosophy, perfectly supports the interpretation of this text from Daniel 11. This was not a fight between religions, but an attempt to replace religion with reason and philosophy as a way of governing and organizing society. Antiochus imposed philosophy as a tool to undermine the authority of revelation and to consolidate his political and cultural control.

Verse 31:

Antiochus sent troops to occupy Jerusalem and desecrate the Temple. This was a key moment in his persecutions, also known as the desecration of the Temple. Antiochus banned the daily sacrifices from the Temple in Jerusalem, which were essential to Jewish religious practices.

"They shall set up the abomination that makes desolate": This refers to a specific event — Antiochus placed a pagan altar dedicated to the Greek god Zeus inside the Temple and sacrificed impure animals, such as pigs, on that altar. This act was seen as an absolute abomination by the Jews and led to a religious revolt.

In light of the 167 B.C. decree of forced Hellenization, the "desecration" of the Temple and the cessation of the daily sacrifice not only signifies a religious profanation but also reflects the struggle to completely replace a system of revealed beliefs with one based on reason. Antiochus not only placed an altar dedicated to Zeus in the Jerusalem Temple but also tried to force the people to abandon their religious rituals in favor of reason and the Hellenistic philosophical mindset.

Verse 32:

Antiochus tried to win over part of the Jewish population through flattery and promises of material and political advantages. Hellenization had support among some more Hellenistic Jews, who adopted Greek culture and abandoned their religious traditions.

Those who "violate the covenant" are those who gave up their religious tradition and embraced the Greek philosophy imposed by Antiochus' decree. They were lured with promises of intellectual and cultural advantages offered by Greek gymnasiums and the new education system based on philosophy, which was now forced upon conquered peoples.

On the other hand, the faithful Jews, those who remained loyal to the God of Israel, refused to submit to Antiochus’ persecutions. These were the leaders of the Maccabean Revolt, who opposed forced Hellenization and the profanation of the Temple.

Verse 33:

"The wise" refers to the religious and moral leaders of the Jews, who continued to teach and guide their people while enduring persecution. They kept the faith alive and fought for the restoration of Jewish religious traditions.

"Some will fall by the sword and by flame, by captivity and by plunder": Many of these leaders and believers were martyred or severely persecuted by Seleucid forces. Many Jews were killed, tortured, or sold into slavery.

Verse 34:

Although the Jewish people were severely persecuted, there were times when they received some help, either from other Jews or through small military victories.

The Maccabean Revolt began to gain support, but initially, success was limited. Gradually, however, the revolt gained momentum and led to the recapture of the Temple in 164 B.C.

After the resistance movement started to succeed, some joined it, but not out of genuine religious convictions, rather from opportunism or to avoid persecution.

Verse 35:

"Even some of the wise will fall, to be tested, purified, and made white..."

Persecutions continued to be a test of faith and endurance for the Jews. Many of the wisest leaders and teachers of the people fell victim to the persecutions, but these trials served as a spiritual purification for the Jewish people.

"... until the time of the end, for it still awaits the appointed time": The text sees these events as part of a divine plan that will lead to the fulfillment of a "final end" determined by God, and the persecutions and suffering will continue until that moment arrives.

• 36. The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He will prosper until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined will be done.
• 37. He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.
• 38. Instead, he will honor a god of fortresses, a god unknown to his ancestors; he will honor him with gold, silver, precious stones, and costly gifts.
• 39. He will attack the strongest 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.

Verse 36:

This verse reflects the essence of the philosophy that Antiochus sought to impose: human reason becomes supreme, rising above all gods, whether they were the gods of the Jews or the Greeks. In this context, his decree of Hellenization was not just about forcing worship of Zeus, but about promoting rational autonomy and exalting reason itself, which could "replace" the gods.

Verse 37:

This verse supports the idea that Antiochus, through his forced Hellenization decree in 167 B.C., did not aim to impose traditional Greek gods but rather promoted a way of life and thought that did not recognize traditional deities, not even Greek ones. Instead of faith, reason and philosophy were promoted as the new way to understand the world.

Verse 38:

This "god" whom Antiochus' ancestors did not know is, in fact, the philosophical and political system of the Greek city-states. It represents philosophy and rational governance based on philosophical principles, which had become the new standard during the Hellenistic period. Antiochus did not honor traditional gods but honored this new "god" of reason and secular governance. His decree imposing philosophy clearly shows this intention, attempting to replace old beliefs with this new structure based on reason.

Verse 39:

The "foreign god" is a symbol of Greek philosophy and the rational mindset that was imposed by force. With the help of this new ideology, Antiochus consolidated political power and used it to govern and control cities and fortresses.

"He will greatly honor those who acknowledge him": Antiochus rewarded those who accepted philosophy and supported forced Hellenization. He distributed wealth and power to those who became loyal to philosophical ideas, thereby consolidating his political and military support.

Greek Philosophy versus Religion

• Greek Philosophy and Religion: In ancient Greece, philosophers did not agree with popular or traditional religion. For example, Socrates was accused of undermining belief in the gods and was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth. Philosophers like Xenophanes openly criticized anthropomorphic conceptions of the gods, stating that people project their own image onto the gods. This clearly shows a conflict between reason and superstitions or myths.

• Plato and Aristotle: Plato and Aristotle, although they did not completely reject the existence of divine forces, viewed popular interpretations of religion with skepticism and emphasized reason as the primary source of knowledge. Plato, for instance, conceived the idea of the "World of Ideas," which is closer to a philosophical than a religious approach. Aristotle, in turn, focused on rational explanations and the observation of nature, rather than on traditional mythology.

• Epicureans and Stoics: The Epicureans went further and claimed that if gods existed, they had no interest in human life, thus eliminating the notion of divine intervention altogether. The Stoics also emphasized reason and virtue, asserting that every person should live in accordance with nature and reason, which reduced the importance of formal religious cults.

The Conflict between Philosophy and Revelation

There is a fundamental separation between Reason and Revelation. Revelation is based on faith and what is considered to be the direct communication of divine will to man, while philosophy seeks to discover truth through reason and observation.

• Judaism and, later, Christianity relied on Divine Revelation, especially concerning moral laws and spiritual life. Jews rejected Greek philosophy during the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes because it represented a way of life and thinking that directly conflicted with Mosaic Law and belief in God.
  

• Hellenization did not mean "conversion" to Greek religion but rather the imposition of Greek culture and philosophy. Antiochus IV Epiphanes did not aim to make conquered peoples worship Greek gods but to adopt the Hellenistic way of life, which was deeply connected to philosophy and rational values.

Greek philosophy was perceived by many Jews as an enemy of revealed religion because reason and revelation could not coexist harmoniously in this context. Antiochus tried to impose Greek gymnasiums and philosophical education, and the Jews saw this as a threat to divine law and their religious identity.

Greek philosophy was in direct conflict with religion, and in the context of Hellenization promoted by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Jews opposed it precisely because Greek philosophy rejected divine revelation as a source of knowledge. There was no connection between reason and revelation, but rather a clear opposition.

What Spread: Greek Religion or Philosophy?

After the defeat and withdrawal of the Seleucids from Judea and, in general, with the decline of Hellenism, Greek cultural influences did not disappear but transformed. In particular, Greek philosophy became one of the most influential factors in Mediterranean thought and culture, far more than Greek religion (polytheism). Here are some aspects that support this idea:

• Greek religion (polytheism) did not have a significant and long-lasting impact outside the Hellenic world. Greek gods (Zeus, Hera, Apollo, etc.) were not widely adopted by other peoples, nor did they become the foundation for other major civilizations.

• Greek philosophy, on the other hand, survived and expanded within the Roman Empire and later throughout Europe and the Middle East. Stoic philosophy, Platonism, and Aristotelianism profoundly influenced the thinking of the Romans, Jews, and later Christians.

What Do We See in the Gospels During the Time of Jesus?

In the Gospels, we do not find direct evidence of Greek religion (the cult of Olympian gods), but we do see a significant influence of Greek philosophy:

Sadducees and Pharisees:

• Sadducees:They were influenced by more rational and secular ideas. They did not believe in resurrection, angels, or other spiritual concepts, reflecting a closer alignment with a Hellenistic philosophical view. In particular, Greek Stoicism and Epicureanism supported similar ideas — for example, Epicureans believed that the gods did not interfere in human life and that there was no afterlife.
• Pharisees:Although more traditional in their beliefs, the Pharisees were influenced by the Hellenistic environment, including debates about law and ethics, which reflect a dialectic spirit consistent with philosophical thinking.

The teachings of Jesus and theological discourses took place in a context where Greek philosophy was present through Roman influence and education that promoted reason and logical discourse. In many of His conflicts, Jesus confronted rational mentalities and secular thinking that had been adopted from Greek culture.

What influences remain to this day?

In later evolution, Greek philosophy played a much more lasting role than Greek religion:

• Stoicism and Platonismprofoundly influenced early Christian thought, especially in the works of Church Fathers such as Saint Augustine and Origen, who sought to merge Christian theology with Greek philosophy.

• Essentially, reason and philosophy became the basis of many currents of thought in Western civilization. In the Middle Ages, scholars like Thomas Aquinas combined Aristotelianism with theology, and the Renaissance and Enlightenment reignited interest in Greek philosophy, leading to the development of modern science and rational thinking.

Verses 40-45 (Daniel 11):

• 40. At the time of the end, the king of the south shall push at him; and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen and many ships. He shall enter the countries, overflow and pass through.
• 41. He shall also enter the glorious land, and tens of thousands shall fall; but these shall escape from his hand: Edom, Moab, and the chief of the sons of Ammon.
• 42. He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
• 43. He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and Ethiopians shall follow at his heels.
• 44. But news from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go out with great fury to destroy and utterly annihilate many.
• 45. He shall pitch his palatial tents between the seas and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him.

These verses from Daniel 11:40-45 describe a major conflict that will take place at the "time of the end," in which the "king of the south" (south) will confront the "king of the north" (north). This section seems to depict a series of invasions and territorial conflicts involving several nations, but it can also be interpreted from a symbolic and prophetic perspective.

Starting from verse 40, the focus shifts away from Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and the text in Daniel 11 becomes prophetic, describing events from a later period involving powers that will confront each other at the "time of the end."

The Kings in the Modern Context: The King of the North

In the modern context, the king of the north would be identified with the power bloc represented by the United States and the West (Western Europe, North America, Australia), as these states promote and spread Greek philosophy, rationalism, democracy, and secularism globally.

• The USA and its allies play an active role in promoting these values and shaping the international order based on rational principles and individual rights.

• This bloc represents the Hellenistic heritagein its most powerful form, continuing to impose philosophical values that oppose revelation and fundamental religious traditions in many parts of the world.

The King of the South:

China and Russia, in opposition, could represent the king of the south. These nations resist the influence of Western rationalist philosophy and promote alternative governance models, more authoritarian, where national traditions and cultural identity play a central role. These states oppose, either ideologically or strategically, the dominant influence of the West.

• China, while embracing modern technology and economy, maintains a strong centralized control and an ideology based on the principles of the Communist Party, which does not promote the same liberal philosophical values as the West.

• Russia, with its Orthodox heritage and inclination toward authoritarianism, resists the influence of Greek philosophy, being more traditionalist and having a complex relationship with Western values.

In the prophetic interpretation, these verses indicate that in the time of the end, global conflicts will arise between ideological and cultural blocs that reflect the clash between Greek rationalism and traditionalist resistance. The struggle between rationality and revelation continues to manifest through modern geopolitics and cultural ideologies.

Interpretation of Verses 44-45 in This Context:

Verse 44: "But reports from the east and the north will alarm him"

• In a modern context, this verse could suggest global tensions between these great power blocs. Reports from the east (which might include China or other emerging powers from Asia) and the north (possibly Russia or other regional forces) will frighten the "king of the north" (the USA and the West).
  
• This fear might reflect current geopolitical challenges, such as the USA-China rivalry, military conflicts, cyber warfare, and other forms of hybrid war or ideological conflict.

Verse 45: "He will pitch his royal tents between the seas and the glorious holy mountain"

• This image suggests that the king of the north (possibly the USA/West) will attempt to consolidate his power in a symbolic place — which could be identified with the Middle East (sacred places such as Jerusalem) or even in other strategic points important for global influence.
  
• The end without help indicates a possible fall of this dominant power. It can be seen as a warning that, despite its global expansion, this power will reach a moment of crisis and will remain without support in the face of global challenges or opposition.

In the modern context, these verses from Daniel 11 can be interpreted as describing the tensions and conflicts between the major power blocs of the world. The USA and the West, as representatives of the "king of the north," are those who try to impose the values of Greek philosophy (reason, democracy, liberalism), while China and Russia represent the "king of the south," opposing these values through authoritarian and nationalist political models. The conflict between these blocs reflects a global struggle for influence, and the text suggests that the end of the king of the north will come as a result of these tensions.

Yes, we are currently living in a global context that reflects many of the tensions and conflicts described in Daniel 11:40-45.
Today, we observe a geopolitical and ideological struggle between the great power blocs, which can be interpreted as a confrontation between the "king of the north" (the USA and the West) and the "king of the south" (China and Russia).
This contemporary situation is marked by ideological, economic, and strategic conflicts, and the resonances with biblical prophecy are strong.

How does this tension manifest today?

Rivalry between the USA/West and China/Russia:

• The USA and the West continue to promote a system based on democracy, human rights, liberalism, and a form of globalization centered on rationalist values and Greek philosophy. These values are seen as a universal standard and are promoted through international organizations, economic alliances, and military coalitions like NATO and the EU.
• On the other hand, China and Russia have positioned themselves as opponents of this model, promoting authoritarian and nationalist political regimes, where Western values are perceived as threats to their sovereignty and traditions. Both China and Russia consolidate their influence through political and economic alliances such as BRICS and other platforms aimed at challenging Western dominance.

Regional Conflicts and Geopolitical Tensions:

• The Middle East, in particular, continues to be a major point of tension, just as the verses in Daniel suggest that the king of the north will extend his influence "between the seas and the glorious holy mountain."
• We see here multiple conflicts, from the wars in Syria and Iraq to the tensions in Jerusalem, a place of immense symbolic and spiritual importance.
• China and Russia also challenge Western influence in areas such as Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America, all being theaters of major economic and geopolitical conflicts.

Economic and Technological Tensions:

• There is an economic and technological battle between the USA and China, where China becomes a formidable economic rival, while Russia uses means such as cyber warfare and energy influence to destabilize the international order led by the West.
• Economic and technological wars are intensifying, including through trade tariffs and technological restrictions, such as those imposed by the USA on Chinese technology companies like Huawei.

Social and Political Crises:

• Internally, many Western countries face social crises and political tensions that reflect a struggle between rationalist values and various movements promoting traditionalism or resistance to globalization. This adds complexity to the global confrontation.

Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia:

• Has there ever been a period in history when Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia were simultaneously dominated or controlled, without exceptions, by the same power as the USA and the West have clear influence over them today? The answer is no. There has never been a period in history when Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia were all simultaneously and clearly dominated by a single power without exceptions. The present situation, where a Western coalition (led by the USA) exerts geopolitical, economic, and cultural influence over all these countries, is unique.

Yes, we can say that we live in a world that reflects the tensions described in Daniel 11. The conflict between the USA and the West (representing the "king of the north" by promoting philosophy and reason) and China and Russia (representing the "king of the south" by opposing these values) is visible on the international stage. Current economic, political, and military tensions confirm a world in full transformation, where the values of Greek philosophy and rationalism face authoritarian models and national resistances, just as the biblical text suggests would occur at the time of the "end."

According to Daniel's prophecy, the conflict between the king of the north and the king of the south will end dramatically and abruptly, suggesting that the king of the north will meet his end without any help.
Let us analyze in detail the end of this conflict, according to Daniel 11:44-45, in a prophetic context.

The End of the King of the North:

Rumors from the East and the North:

• In verse 44, it is mentioned that the king of the north will be troubled by "rumors from the east and from the north." These rumors can be interpreted as new external threats, whether military or geopolitical. They will cause a violent reaction from the king, who will set out with great fury to destroy and annihilate many. This reaction shows that, despite his efforts to dominate and impose his own philosophical and political values, the king feels that his authority is fragile and challenged.

The End of the King between the Sea and the Holy Mountain:

• In verse 45, it is stated that the king will "pitch his royal tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain," a place of great symbolic importance, often associated with Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. This indicates a final attempt to consolidate power in a sacred or strategic location, but it will lead to his downfall. This could mean a collapse of his power, either through military defeat or political and moral implosion.

"No one will help him":

• The expression "no one will help him" suggests that the king of the north will be left isolated and without support, which could indicate a total collapse of his regime and the order he tried to impose. His aggressive power will come to an end, likely due to external and internal factors accumulating against him.

Interpretation in Our Current Context:

If we apply this prophecy to the modern conflict between major power blocs, the end of the king of the north could symbolize the collapse of Western influence (USA and Europe), which currently exerts power by promoting Greek philosophy, rationalism, and liberal democracy. The prophecy indicates that this power will be challenged from multiple directions and will encounter resistance that will ultimately lead to the collapse of the system it represents.

• Rumors from the east (possibly China and other emerging Asian powers) and from the north (possibly Russia) indicate the geopolitical tensions that the West is already experiencing. The conflict may reach a climax, where the influence of rationalist philosophy will meet an unassailable opposition, whether military, economic, or ideological.

• The end without help may suggest a final crisis of Western influence, where its economic, political, and ideological structures will collapse without external or internal support. This could mean a reconfiguration of the global order, where the power of rationalist philosophy, which has dominated for centuries, will lose ground to new models and ideologies.

The Prophecy of Daniel Indicates That at the "Time of the End" the philosophical and political power of the "king of the north" will collapse in a dramatic and final way. In our modern context, this could symbolize the decline of Western influence, which promotes Greek philosophy and rationalism. Although we do not know exactly how and when this will happen, the prophecy suggests that there will be major tensions and an inevitable collapse of a power that has dominated globally, with an imminent result that will change the global order.

The prophecy is not given just to understand things after they happen but to help us anticipate and be prepared. Indeed, Daniel 11 was given to show future events, and those who study this text use it to understand and have a clear perspective on the future, not just retrospectively.

Why Was the Prophecy Given?

The prophet Daniel, through the angel who conveyed the vision, aimed to provide people of all times with a perspective on future events, including those of the "time of the end." God, through His prophets, intended for His people to be prepared and to understand before these things happen. As stated in Amos 3:7, "Surely the Lord God does nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets."

How to Read the Prophecy Correctly:

• Accuracy in the Past:The events that have taken place so far have been fulfilled with 100% accuracy, so it is reasonable to believe that the entire chapter will be fulfilled similarly, down to the last detail.

• Preparation for the Future:What is presented in the prophecy is meant to prepare us for future events, so that we may recognize the signs and know how to respond to them when they happen. The prophecy from Daniel shows that although philosophical and rationalist powers will have a great impact on the world, at their end, there will be an inevitable collapse, without divine or human support.

We have every reason to believe that everything that remains of the prophecy in Daniel 11 will be fulfilled exactly as written. The events described so far give us the assurance that what is described in the final verses will also be fulfilled with certainty. The confidence that this prophecy will come to pass should be 100%, as the text tells us exactly what will happen, and the past fulfillment is a testimony to its veracity.

Being a Biblical Prophecy, It Is Meant to Offer Clarity Before the Events Happen, Not Just After.