Daniel 11 - First Century
Darius the Mede of Persia
3 kings arise after him in regards to Persia and the 4th will be wealthy and "stir up all against the realm of Greece".
1. Cyrus the Great - already ruling
2. Darius the Great
3. Xerxes II
4. Darius III
People assume verse 3 is talking about the 4th Persian king; but the text does not assume that. The text starting in verse 3 does not state that this king is Persian.
Short explanation of Herod the Great:
A might king rules a great area. His kingdom is divided to the "four winds" but not to "his end".
The description of the dividing of the kingdom to the four winds is in the "aorist infinitive" usually meaning this is something that happens in time. If used with "perfect' verb tenses, is often translated as "future tense"; but unlike some Greek verbs, is not tied to the time it's being spoken of.
King of the south (Nageb - a description of a geographic area in southern Judea such as we'd say "mid west" or "north east" in reference to American geography) and one prince shall stand against king of the north. ("north" comes from a root word meaning "to hide" or "treasure up").
Short explanation of the Herodian dynasty post temple destruction?
In the end years king of the south and a prince shall join together. King's daughter will attempt a pact with king of the North. She will fail, but one of her posterity will conquer the north's fortress in a military conquest. Than carry captives into Egypt along with treasures and will 'continue more years' than the king of the north.
The "posterity" of this king's daughter is probably Josephus; seeing how he is the only major Jewish figure that stands out at the end of the siege of Jerusalem who "continues more years than the king of the north".
The "fortress" is probably Masada; as this was the only major remaining fortress which didn't belong to the Romans that had been built by Herod the Great and was still in Jewish hands by the siege of Jerusalem. (Antonia was built for and always belonged to Rome.) Although Masada is technically south of Jerusalem, it was still "of the north's kingdom" as the Romans occupied all of Judea south and west of it, as well as Jerusalem and much of the immediate north and west. Masada is south east of Jerusalem about 3/4 of the way south of "center" of the Dead Sea. The southern most portion of Agrippa II kingdom was on the other side of the Dead Sea.
Josephus was a descendent of the Hasmonean high priest Jonathan/Apphus (151 BC) Josephus was 5 generations later and a direct descendent of Matthias who was a priest in the temple. Which daughter of which king is his ancestor, can only be hypothesized because none of Josephus's female ancestors are named. This may not have been an "accidental oversight" on Josephus's part.
As far as the Herodian side of the family tree; there are a couple of possibilities for this king's daughter. Herod the Great's 2nd wife was a Hasmonean princess and through her line, several female descendants are possible relatives to Josephus. There are 5 known possibilities of "king's daughter attempt a pact with king of the north" as there are 5 recorded incidence of female descendants out of this Hasmonean line who intermarried with Herodian kings; all of which carried portions of a kingdom at one point or another. Which of course, because Daniel 11 covers the reigns of multiple "kings of the north" and "kings of the south"; (some of whom also overlap with each other) it may not possible to determine which king's daughter this is.
One possibility though that we get out of the New Testament is Herodias. She was Herod Antipas's (Philip) wife. Now when Herod had John arrested, on account of Herodias's request; John told Herod that it's unlawful for you to have her. So is this the king's daughter this passage in Daniel is prophesying about? I don't know for sure. I will guess "yes"; simply because she and this incident are named in the Scripture and that is not accidental.
For the vast majority of the time though, the Roman governors politically ruled the Judean province. Much of who made up the Sadducees of the Sanhedrin though, came from the Hasmonean line and they held "kingship" of power to the nation on account of their membership as part of the Sanhedrin. This is how the Hasmoneans remained part of the picture. The Sadducees were the more politically (as they related to Rome) moderate arm of the Sanhedrin; but also theologically more liberal.
Explanation of the operation of Herod the Great and his dealings with the Hasmonean Dynasty:
The king of the south goes into the king of the north's land and then returns to his own.
His sons (north) assemble an army, pass through the land, return to their own and are "stirred up".
South attacks the north and looses his people to the north.
North becomes proud, casts down many people, but is not made stronger by his actions.
Years pass and the king of the north mounts a counter attack.
Antigonus II Mattathias (Ruler of Judea until 37 BC when Herod the Great turns him over to Roman authorities for execution.)
In those times many stand up against the king of the south. The robbers of the (Jewish) people (Pharisees) also stand against the king of the south (Hasmonean Sadducees); to exalt themselves and "establish the vision" but they fail.
This is probably a reference to Scripture / i.e. this vision in Daniel. This vision is often used trying to fit events and kings from the Maccabean revolt into this prophecy. Because the Sadducees disappeared after the destruction of Jerusalem, we only get bits and pieces of their side of the story. Most of the history of the 1st century Jewish laws, traditions and the history itself, we have today; have been filtered through Rabbinic Judaism, which is an offshoot of the Pharisees.
Now because the Pharisees (and later Rabbinic Judaism) did/do not want to acknowledge the Scripture verses that talk about the Messiah here in Daniel 11; the interpretation that this is fulfilled by events related to the Maccabean revolt comes from them.
If we read the language carefully though, we see that these verses give us some clues in "a ruler who removes the reproach against the inhabitance of the city; but not the king", "the prince of the covenant", "the people of the covenant". It also talks about "the abomination that makes desolate", "taking away the daily sacrifice and polluting the sanctuary". Several other passage in Daniel help us understand what some of these mean and that they are not related to post Babylonian / Maccabean lore.
The king of the north shall build a siege mound and take a fortified city. (This term is sometimes used in reference to Jerusalem.) The armies of the south or their chosen soldiers will not withstand.
Herod the Great begins his building projects.
King of the north stands in the "glorious land" and consumes it. With the strength of his whole kingdom and "ones who are strait / upright" with him, he takes the city. He shall give the "daughter" of the "wife" to destroy it (the city) but she will not go along with the plan.
King of the north shall turn his face to the coast land; but "shall bring to an end, (comes) a ruler who will remove the reproach against them (inhabitance of the city), yet leave the reproach of him" (the king of the north).
Birth of Christ. (7 BC)
Then the king of the north shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land. He will stumble and fall and not be found.
Herod the Great's death: (4 BC)
In his place shall come a "raiser of taxes"; but he only lasts a "few days" and then "shall be destroyed neither in anger or battle".
Herod Archelaus king of Judea: (4 BC to 6 AD)
In his place comes a "vile person"; one who is not respected by the people but he comes in peaceably and takes the kingdom by flatteries.
Herod Antipus (4 BC to 39 AD)
And by arms as a flood shall they be overflowed from before him (this vile person) and shall be broken yes - also the prince of the covenant.
Christ's crucifixion (33 AD)
After the league made with him (king of the south) he (king of the north) will work deceitfully and become strong with a small people.
The "king of the south" here in verse 23 I think is Caiaphas the high priest as the "Hasmonean ruler". Yet because the following verses talk about the king of the south stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; we know that at least "the king" in verse 25, is probably Pilate. Also, Pilate was not in on any scheme against Jesus.
24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.
Now here's where things get kind of weird. Just as the beast in Revelation 13 has these crowns attached to it, which are kingdoms. The imputes behind the actions of these evil kings is also Satan. Here in this verse, we know this implies a span of rulers, (although directly addressing the one in this here and now passage); because it mentions "his fathers" and his "father's fathers". He (the evil "king") the prey (people), the spoil(er) - (i.e. - those who've taken the prey) and the riches (physical possessions of). These he will scatter against fortified cities. And he shall devise his plan (plan is singular but the action is imperfect tense - i.e. - a continued action) up until completion of (one) time.
Now what does this mean? (The next topic of this study will cover "time, times and 1/2 time" likely being increments of 500, 1000 and 2000 years.) So what is this "king" (or rather series of kings) directed by Satan, who scatters "prey", "predator" and "riches" for 1000 years? Here enters another "interesting coincidence".
From the point of the return from the Babylonian captivity; the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and their mixed ancestry "cousins" the Samaritans existed of all that was left of the Israelite descendants of Abraham.
By the end of the 1st century; who was left of Judah and Benjamin, either converted to Christianity and left the area or were destroyed by the Roman army. What happened to the Samaritans though? Well 484 AD concluded the destruction of the Samaritans by the Byzantine empire in a series of conflicts known to history as "the Samaritan Revolts". This is exactly 1000 years between the year the temple built in Nehemiah's time was likely dedicated and the end of the Samaritan nation. The fact that this is a literal 1000 years; or a "time" can not be a coincidence.
25 And 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 be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him.
There were insurrections that occurred within the area during the 1st century time frame. (Thus the reason Barabbas was in jail. He was likely the son of a rabbi (possibly Hasmonean) who was the organizer of these guerrilla groups.)
In the year prior to Jesus's crucifixion, there was an incident where Pilate sent his soldiers into the temple and killed a bunch of Galileans. This was probably Passover. This is recorded in Luke 13. The reason for Pilate's intervention can be surmised by the context of the passage. He mixed these Galileans' blood with their own sacrifice. This was probably a blood libel case and they were caught in the act. It seems an "insurrection" occurred following this incident, seeing how Barabbas was in jail for insurrection and murder! Pilate was on "probation" at the point of Jesus's crucifixion. So thus it seems, according to this verse in Daniel; they set Pilate up.
26 Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain.
Pilate was called back to Rome in 36 AD to answer to the the emperor over a riot in Samaria. Pilate disappears from history by 38 AD; yet there are no Roman records as to what happened to him. One "theory" is he was banished to some island and the other is that he committed suicide. "They that feed on the portion of his meat shall destroy him, his army shall overflow and many shall fall down slain." It fits.
27 And both of these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.
Again, this looks like it applies more to Herod and Caiaphas than it would apply to Herod and Pilate, now that Pilate as taken out of the way. The "they shall speak lies at one table" also points us in the Herod / Caiaphas direction because again, Pilate had no dealings in the scheming against Jesus. The strongest argument though, that this is a present reference to an event in the past; (hearkening back to verse 23) is that this is imperfect tense. It's a reflection on what was done before verse 25 and 26 that lead to the outcome of this other "king of the south" in those verses.
29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.
We appear to have a reference to a "time gap" between the "former" and the "latter" eluded, to be in the works.