Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 11

Also I - I, the angel. He alludes here to what he had done on a former occasion to promote the interests of the Hebrew people and to secure those arrangements which were necessary for their welfare—particularly in the favorable disposition of Darius the Mede toward them.

In the first year of Darius the Mede - See the notes at Daniel 5:31. He does not here state the things contemplated or done by Darius in which he had confirmed or strengthened him, but there can be no reasonable doubt that it was the purpose he had conceived to restore the Jews to their own land, and to give them permission to rebuild their city and temple .

It was in that year that Daniel offered his solemn prayer, as recorded in Daniel 9; in that year that, according to the time predicted by Jeremiah , the captivity would terminate; and in that year that an influence from above led the mind of the Persian king to contemplate the restoration of the captive people.

Cyrus was, indeed, the one through whom the edict for their return was promulgated; but since he reigned under his uncle Cyaxares or Darius, and since Cyaxares was the source of authority, it is evident that his mind must have been influenced to grant this favor, and it is to this that the angel here refers.

I stood to confirm and to strengthen him - Compare the notes at Daniel 10:13. It would seem that the mind of Darius was not wholly decided; that adverse influences were bearing on it; that counselors of his realm probably advised against the proposed measures; and the angel here says that he stood by him, confirmed him in his purpose, and secured the execution of his benevolent plan.

Who can prove that an angel may not exert an influence on the heart of kings? And what class of men is there who, when they intend to do good and right, are more likely to have their purposes changed by evil counselors than kings; and who are there that more need a heavenly influence to confirm their design to do right?

And now will I show thee the truth - That is, the truth about events that are to occur in the future, and which will accord with what is written in the scripture of truth (Daniel 10:21).

Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia - The phrase "stand up" means that there would be so many kings in Persia; that is, there would be three before the fourth which he mentions. The same Hebrew word here rendered "stand up" (עמד ‛âmad) occurs in Daniel 11:3-4, Daniel 11:6–8, Daniel 11:14–16 (twice), Daniel 11:17, Daniel 11:20, Daniel 11:21, Daniel 11:25, Daniel 11:31; also in Daniel 12:1, Daniel 12:13.

In Daniel 11:8 it is rendered "continue;" in Daniel 11:15, "withstand;" in the other cases, "stand up," or simply stand. Gesenius says it is a word used particularly of a new prince, as in Daniel 8:23; Daniel 11:2–3, Daniel 11:20. He does not say that there would be none afterward, but he evidently intends to touch on the great and leading events concerning the Persian empire, so far as they would affect the Hebrew people, and so far as they would constitute prominent points in the history of the world. He does not, therefore, go into all the details concerning the history, nor does he mention all the kings that would reign.

The prominent, material points would be the reign of those three kings; then the reign of the fourth, or Xerxes, as his mad expedition to Greece would lay the real foundation for the invasion of Persia by Alexander, and the overthrow of the Persian empire; then the life and conquests of Alexander, and then the wars consequent on the division of his empire at his death. The "three kings" here referred to were Cambyses, Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspis.

As this communication was made in the third year of Cyrus (Daniel 10:1), these would be the next in order; and by the fourth is undoubtedly meant Xerxes. There were several kings of Persia after Xerxes, such as Artaxerxes Longimanus, Darius Nothus, Artaxerxes Mnemon, Ochus, and Darius Codomanus, but these are not enumerated because the real ground of the invasion of Alexander, the thing which connected him with the affairs of Persia, did not occur in their reign, but it was the invasion of Greece by Xerxes.

And the fourth shall be far richer than they all - That is, Xerxes, for he was the fourth in order, and the description here agrees entirely with him. He would of course inherit the wealth accumulated by these kings, and it is here implied that he would increase that wealth, or that, in some way, he would possess more than they all combined. The wealth of this king is mentioned here probably because the magnificence and glory of an Oriental monarch was estimated to a considerable degree by his possessions, and because his riches enabled him to accomplish his expedition into Greece. Some idea of the treasures of Xerxes may be obtained by considering:

1. That Cyrus had collected a vast amount of wealth by the conquest of Lydia, and the subjugation of Croesus, its rich king, by the conquest of Asia Minor, of Armenia, and of Babylon - for it is said concerning him, I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, (Isaiah 45:3): see the note at that passage.
2. That Cambyses increased that wealth which he inherited from Cyrus by his victories, and by his plundering the temples wherever he came. A single case occurring in his conquests may illustrate the amount of wealth which was accumulated. On his return from Thebes, in Egypt, he caused all the temples in that city to be pillaged and burned to the ground. But he saved from the flames gold to the amount of three hundred talents, and silver to the amount of two thousand and five hundred talents. He is also said to have carried away the famous circle of gold that encompassed the tomb of king Ozymandias, being three hundred and sixty-five cubits in circumference, on which were represented all the motions of the several constellations (Universal History, iv. 140).
3. This was further increased by the conquests of Darius Hystaspis, and by his heavy taxes on the people. So burdensome were these taxes, that he was called by the Persians, ὁ κάπηλος ho kapēlos - the "merchant," or "hoarder." One of the first acts of Darius was to divide his kingdom into provinces for the purpose of raising tribute. "During the reign of Cyrus, and indeed of Cambyses, there were no specific tributes; but presents were made to the sovereign. On account of these and similar innovations, the Persians call Darius a merchant, Cambyses a despot, but Cyrus a parent" (Herodotus, b. iii. lxxxix). A full account of the taxation of the kingdom, and the amount of the revenue under Darius, may be seen in Herodotus, b. iii. xc–xcvi.

The sum of the tribute under Darius, according to Herodotus, was fourteen thousand five hundred and sixty talents. Besides this sum received from regular taxation, Herodotus enumerates a great amount of gold and silver, and other valuable things, which Darius was accustomed to receive annually from the Ethiopians, from the people of Colchis, from the Arabians, and from India. All this vast wealth was inherited by Xerxes, the son and successor of Darius, and the "fourth king" here referred to.

Xerxes was fully four years in making provision for his celebrated expedition into Greece. A full account of the amount of his forces, and his preparation, may be seen in Herodotus, b. vii. Of his wealth Justin makes this remark: "Si regem spectes, divitias, non ducem, laudes: quarum tanta copia in regno ejus fuit, ut cum flumina multitudine consumerentur, opes tamen regiae superessent" (Hist. ii. 10). (Compare Diodorus Siculus x, c. 3; Pliny, Natural History xxiii. 10; Aelian xiii. 3; Herodotus iii. 96, vii. 27-29). In the city of Celaenae, Herodotus says, there lived a man named Pythius, son of Atys, a native of Lydia, who entertained Xerxes and all his army with great magnificence, and who further engaged to supply the king with money for the war. Xerxes on this was induced to inquire of his Persian attendants who this Pythius was, and what were the resources which enabled him to make these offers.

"It is the same," they replied, "who presented your father Darius with a plane-tree and a vine of gold, and who, next to yourself, is the richest of mankind" (Herodotus vii. 27).

And by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia - That is, all his kingdom. He was enabled to do this by his great wealth - collecting and equipping, probably, the largest army that was ever assembled. The expedition of Xerxes against Greece is too well known to need to be detailed here, and no one can fail to see the applicability of this description to that invasion.

Four years were spent in preparing for this expedition, and the forces that constituted the army were gathered out of all parts of the vast empire of Xerxes, embracing, as was then supposed, all the habitable world except Greece. According to Justin, the army was composed of seven hundred thousand of his own, and three hundred thousand auxiliaries. Diodorus Siculus states it to be about three hundred thousand men; Prideaux, from Herodotus and others, computes it to have amounted, putting all his forces by sea and land together, to two million, six hundred and forty-one thousand, six hundred and ten men. He adds that the servants, eunuchs, suttlers, and such persons as followed the camp, made as many more, so that the whole number that followed Xerxes could not have been less than five million (Connexions, pt. i, b. iv, vol. i, p. 410). Grotius reckons his forces at five million, two hundred and eighty-two thousand. These immense numbers justify the expression here, and show with what propriety it is applied to the hosts of Xerxes.

On the supposition that this was written after the event, and that it was history instead of prophecy, this would be the very language which would be employed.

And a mighty king shall stand up – As far as the language here is concerned, it is not stated whether this would be in Persia, as a successor of the “fourth king” (Daniel 11:2), or whether it would be in some other part of the world. The next verse, however, shows that the reference is to Alexander the Great – for it is applicable to no one else. Indeed, there were several monarchs of Persia who succeeded Xerxes before the kingdom was invaded and subdued by Alexander (see the notes at Daniel 11:2), and these are entirely passed over here without being mentioned.

It must be admitted, that one who had read this prophecy before the events occurred would have naturally inferred that this “mighty king that should stand up” would appear immediately after the “fourth,” and probably that he would be his successor in the realm; but it may be remarked:

1. that the language here is not inconsistent with the facts in the case – it being literally true that such a mighty king did stand up, who ruled with great dominion, and according to his will;

2. that there was no necessity in the prophetic history of referring to the acts of these intermediate kings of Persia, since they did not contribute at all to the result – it being well known that the reason alleged by Alexander for his invasion of the Persian empire was not anything which they had done, but the wrongs sustained by Greece because of the invasion by Xerxes and his predecessor. The real succession of events in the case was that last invasion of Greece by Xerxes, and the consequent invasion of the Persian empire by Alexander.

It was these transactions which the angel evidently meant to connect together, and therefore, all that was intermediate was omitted. Thus Alexander, in his letter to Darius, says: “Your ancestors entered into Macedonia, and the other parts of Greece, and did us damage, when they had received no affront from us as the cause of it; and now I, created general of the Grecians, provoked by you, and desirous of avenging the injury done by the Persians, have passed over into Asia.” – Arrian, Exped. Alex. i. 2.

That shall rule with great dominion – This means he shall have a wide and extended empire. The language here would apply to any of the monarchs of Persia that succeeded Xerxes, but it would be more strictly applicable to Alexander the Great than to any prince of ancient or modern times.

The whole world, except Greece, was supposed to be subject to the power of Persia; and it was one of the leading and avowed purposes of Darius and Xerxes in invading Greece, by adding that to their empire, to have the earth under their control. When, therefore, Alexander had conquered Persia, it was supposed that he had subdued the world. Nor was it an unnatural feeling that, having done this, he, whose sole principle of action was ambition, should sit down and weep because there were no more worlds to conquer.

In fact, he then swayed a scepter more extended and mighty than any before him had done, and it is with peculiar propriety that the language here is used in regard to him.

And do according to his will – He would be an arbitrary prince. This also was true of the Persian kings, and of Oriental despots generally; but it was eminently so of Alexander – who, in subduing kingdoms, conquering mighty armies, controlling the million under his sway, laying the foundations of cities, and newly arranging the boundaries of empires, seemed to consult only his own will, and felt that everything was to be subordinate to it. It is said that this passage was shown to Alexander by the high priest of the Jews, and that these prophecies did much to conciliate his favor toward the Hebrew people.

And when he shall stand up - This phrase refers to when he is in the might and power of his kingdom, when his power is fully established.

I understand this, with Rosenmuller and Havernick, to mean that when he is at the height of his authority and power, his kingdom would then be broken up.

The reference is undoubtedly to the sudden death of Alexander. The meaning is that his empire would not “gradually” diminish and decay; instead, some event would occur, the effect of which would be to tear it into four parts.

His kingdom shall be broken - Namely, by his death. This language is properly applicable to this event and indeed implies it.

This is because it is said that it would not be to his posterity—an event that might naturally be expected. In other words, the allusion to his posterity is the kind of language that would be used if the reference here is to his death.

And shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven - Meaning, into four parts. For the remarkable fulfillment of this prediction, see the notes at Daniel 8:8.

And not to his posterity - See also the notes at Daniel 8:8.

Nor according to his dominion which he ruled - This was literally true of the division of the empire. None of his successors ever obtained as wide a dominion as he himself did.

For his kingdom shall be plucked up - This means by his death.

This does not naturally mean that it would be by “conquest,” because it is said that it would be divided toward the four winds of heaven—language that is not properly expressive of conquest.

All that is implied is met by the supposition that at his decease, the kingdom he had founded, and which had been sustained by his valor and political wisdom, would fall to pieces.

Even for others beside those - That is, to others besides those to whom it would initially be divided.

Literally, it means “exclusively, or to the exclusion of”—מלבד; mîll e bad. The word “those” here refers to his posterity.

The meaning is that the process of division would not stop with them; the four portions of the empire, as thus divided, would not remain in their hands or pass to their posterity.

There would be other changes and other divisions. It was not to be expected that just four, and no more, empires would grow out of the one that had been founded, or that when that one was divided into four parts, that partition would always continue.

There would be other divisions, and other princes besides those who first obtained the empire would come in; the process of division would ultimately be carried much further.

It is unnecessary to say that this occurred in the empire founded by Alexander. Soon after his death, it was separated into four parts, but not long afterward, this arrangement was broken up, and all traces of the empire, as established by him or as divided among his four successors, wholly disappeared.

Shall be strong - This is in accordance with the well-known fact. One of the most powerful of those monarchies, if not the most powerful, was Egypt.

And one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him - The meaning of this passage is that there would be “one of his princes,” that is, of the princes of Alexander, who would be more mighty than the one who obtained Egypt, or the south, and that he would have a more extended dominion.

The reference is, doubtless, to Seleucus Nicator, or the conqueror. In the division of the empire, he obtained Syria, Babylonia, Media, Susiana, Armenia, a part of Cappadocia, and Cilicia, and his kingdom stretched from the Hellespont to the Indus. (See the notes at Daniel 8:8). Compare Arrian, “Exp. Alex.” vii. 22; Appian, p. 618; and Lengerke, on this passage.

The proper translation of this passage probably would be, “And the king of the south shall be mighty. But from among his princes (the princes of Alexander) also there shall be (one) who shall be mightier than he, and he shall reign, and his dominion shall be a great dominion.”

It was of these two dominions that the angel spoke, and hence follows, through the remainder of the chapter, the history pertaining to them and their successors. Seleucus Nicator reigned from 312 B.C. to 280 B.C.—or thirty-two years. In his time lived Berosus and Megasthenes, referred to in the Introduction to (Daniel 4:0).