Daniel 11 and the great North/Israel/Gentiles vs South/Judah War

[LittleLambofJesus]

Daniel 10:1
In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed to Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, even a great warfare<6635>
and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.

Daniel 11 is a great chapter in the Bible and it appears to be talking about the "great warfare" in Daniel 10:1 involving a type of "Civil War" between the North and South.

1‘And I, in the first year of Darius the Mede, my standing [is] for a strengthener, and for a stronghold to him;
2and, now, truth I declare to thee, Lo, yet three kings are standing for Persia, and the fourth doth become far richer than all, and according to his strength by his riches he stirreth up the whole, with the kingdom of Javan. 3And a mighty king hath stood, and he hath ruled a great dominion, and hath done according to his will; 4and according to his standing is his kingdom broken, and divided to the four winds of the heavens, and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion that he ruled, for his kingdom is plucked up — and for others apart from these.

First, let's show the verses where King of the North and King of the South are used.

The phrase "King of the North" and "King of the South" are used only in Daniel 11 of the OT. Both of those are sometimes used in the same verses

Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

NKJV]
Dan 11:5
5 “Also the king of the South shall become strong, as well as one of his princes; and he shall gain power over him and have dominion. His dominion shall be a great dominion.

6 “And at the end of some years they shall join forces, for the daughter of the king of the South shall go to the king of the North to make an agreement; but she shall not retain the power of her authority,[fn] and neither he nor his authority[fn] shall stand; but she shall be given up, with those who brought her, and with him who begot her, and with him who strengthened her in those times.

7 “But from a branch of her roots one shall arise in his place, who shall come with an army, enter the fortress of the king of the North, and deal with them and prevail.

8 “And he shall also carry their gods captive to Egypt, with their princes[fn] and their precious articles of silver and gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the North.

9 “Also the king of the North shall come to the kingdom of the king of the South, but shall return to his own land.

11 “And the king of the South shall be moved with rage, and go out and fight with him, with the king of the North, who shall muster a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into the hand of his enemy.

13 “For the king of the North will return and muster a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come at the end of some years with a great army and much equipment.

14 “Now in those times many shall rise up against the king of the South. Also, violent men[fn] of your people shall exalt themselves in fulfillment of the vision, but they shall fall.

15 “So the king of the North shall come and build a siege mound, and take a fortified city; and the forces[fn] of the South shall not withstand him. Even his choice troops shall have no strength to resist.

25 “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 devise plans against him.

40 “At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them, and pass through.
======================

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Daniel 11:

1‘And I, in the first year of Darius the Mede, my standing [is] for a strengthener, and for a stronghold to him;
2and, now, truth I declare to thee, Lo, yet three kings are standing for Persia, and the fourth doth become far richer than all, and according to his strength by his riches he stirreth up the whole, with the kingdom of Javan.
3And a mighty king hath stood, and he hath ruled a great dominion, and hath done according to his will;
4and according to his standing is his kingdom broken, and divided to the four winds of the heavens, and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion that he ruled, for his kingdom is plucked up — and for others apart from these.

Genesis 1:1 (NKJV)

"darius"
occurs 25 times in 25 verses

Dan 5:31
And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.
Dan 6:1
It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred and twenty satraps, to be over the whole kingdom;
Dan 6:6
So these governors and satraps thronged before the king, and said thus to him: “King Darius, live forever!
Dan 6:9
Therefore King Darius signed the written decree.
Dan 6:25
Then King Darius wrote:
To all peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth:
Peace be multiplied to you.
Dan 6:28
So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
Dan 9:1
In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the lineage of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans—

Dan 11:1
“Also in the first year of Darius the Mede, I, even I, stood up to confirm and strengthen him.)
=============================
Mentioned by these 2 Prophets:
Hag 1:1
In the second year of King Darius, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, saying,
Hag 1:15
on the twenty-fourth day of the sixth month, in the second year of King Darius.
Hag 2:10
On the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet, saying,
Zec 1:1
In the eighth month of the second year of Darius, the word of the LORD came to Zechariah the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet, saying,
Zec 1:7
On the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month, which is the month Shebat, in the second year of Darius, the word of the LORD came to Zechariah the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet:
Zec 7:1
Now in the fourth year of King Darius it came to pass that the word of the LORD came to Zechariah, on the fourth day of the ninth month, Chislev,
==============================
Before we continue on with the great North South War, here are a few historical facts concerning Darius the Mede.

Belshazzar and Darius the Mede

According to historical records a man named Gubaru, a Mede, was appointed by King Cyrus to be ruler in Babylon at this time. Gubaru was born in 601 B.C. which would make him 62 years old when he invaded Babylon. Exactly the age found Daniel 5:31.
The Babylonian record of Darius the Mede's conquest of Babylon is given below:
"In the month of Tashritu, at the time when Cyrus battled the forces of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris river, the citizens of Akkad revolted against him, but Nabonidus scattered his opposition with a great slaughter.
On the 14th day, Sippar was taken without a fight. Nabonidus then fled for his life.
On the 16th day, Gubaru (Darius the Mede) the leader of Gutium along with the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without any opposition. Later they arrested Nabonidus when he returned to Babylon.
On the third day of the month of Arahshamnu, Cyrus marched into Babylon, and they laid down green branches in front of him. The city was no longer at war, Peace being restored. Cyrus then sent his best wishes to the residents living there. His governor, Gubaru, then installed leaders to govern over all Babylon." BM35382
This account says that Darius the Mede installed sub-governors in Babylon. The Bible says the same thing, and the prophet Daniel was one of them:
"It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred and twenty satraps, to be over the whole kingdom; and over these, three governors, of whom Daniel was one, that the satraps might give account to them, so that the king would suffer no loss.
Then this Daniel distinguished himself above the governors and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king gave thought to setting him over the whole realm. So the governors and satraps sought to find some charge against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find no charge or fault, because he was faithful; nor was there any error or fault found in him." Daniel 6:1-4

(Dan. 5:31) Who is Darius the Mede? | Evidence Unseen

(Dan. 5:31) Who is Darius the Mede?

CLAIM: Critics argue that Daniel made a gross historical error here. On their view, Daniel believed that Darius was the one to conquer Babylon, rather than the Persian king Cyrus. Of course, Darius I ruled the Medo-Persian Empire from 522-486 BC, so he could not be the man mentioned here in 539 BC.

RESPONSE: Before we respond to this difficulty, we should note that Daniel’s historical accuracy has been attested elsewhere throughout the book (see “Authorship of Daniel”). Furthermore, critics formerly held Daniel to be guilty of historical error, only to find him accurate (see “Belshazzar,” 5:1).

In this instance, Daniel gives more information about this ruler than any of the others—including his age (5:31), his father (9:1), and his nationality.[1] Daniel didn’t believe that this was “Darius the Persian” from 522 BC. He specifically calls him “Darius the Mede.” In other words, he distinguishes between the two. Daniel acknowledges that both the Medes and Persians conquered Babylon (Dan. 5:28). He also knew that Cyrus was the king of Persia (Dan. 1:21; 6:28). In other words, Daniel is far from ignorant regarding the historical details surrounding Darius.

How then do we understand this historical difficulty? There are two plausible ways of answering this objection:

OPTION #1: Darius is a title that describes Gubaru
This view was held by scholars like Robert Dick Wilson, Gleason Archer, and William F. Albright, Friedrich Delitzsch, and John C. Whitcomb. Under this view, Daniel was giving the title “Darius” (i.e. “the Royal One”) to a temporary ruler named Gubaru, who ruled Babylon immediately after the invasion. There are a number of reasons for this view:

First, Cyrus gave temporary leadership authority to Gubaru immediately after the invasion. Stephen Miller writes, “Ancient records reveal that Gubaru did, in fact, govern Babylon during the period in question. For example, the Nabonidus Chronicle relates that Cyrus appointed Gubaru [Gobryas] as the governor of Babylon immediately after the city was conquered.”[2]

A man named Gubaru existed during this time. Archer writes, “A Gubaru appears as the governor of Babylonia and of Ebir-nari (the western domains under Chaldean sovereignty) in tablets dated from the fourth to the eighth year of Cyrus (535–532 b.c.) and even as late as the fifth year of Cambyses (525 b.c.). It seems altogether probable that during the transitional period of 539-538 he was appointed as viceroy over Babylonia, for the purpose of bringing it into full submission and cooperation with the Medo-Persian Empire, of which it had now become a part.”[3] Baldwin writes that Gubaru “ruled almost as an independent monarch.”[4] The Nabonidus Chronicle (3.20) states that Gubaru operated as a governor and appointed officials in Babylon.[5]

Such a historical detail is not out of character with King Cyrus. History tells us that Cyrus was friendly with leaders whom he had conquered. Herodotus (1.127) records that a Median general named Harpagus encouraged Cyrus to revolt against his grandfather Astyages (the king of Media). Yet even after the revolt, Cyrus still installed Astyages as a satrap over in his kingdom.[6]

Critics of this view argue that Gubaru may have ruled in Babylon, but he was never called a “king.” However, critical commentator John Collins writes that “Cambyses held the title ‘king of Babylon’ in the first year of Cyrus,”[7] so such a suggestion is not without warrant.

Second, it’s possible that Darius is not a NAME, but a TITLE. Archer argues, “This viceroy was given the title of Dār eyāwēš, which apparently meant ‘The Royal One,’ from dara (which is attested in Avestan Persian as a term for ‘king’).”[8] Josephus records that “Cyrus, the king of Persia” conquered Belshazzar (Antiquities, 10.247). Yet, Josephus also writes that “[Cyrus] was the son of Astyages, and had another name among the Greeks” (Antiquities, 10.248).

After all, it was common for ancient kings to receive new names. For instance, Eliakim became Jehoiakim (2 Kin. 23:34) and Mattaniah became Zedekiah when he took the throne (2 Kin. 24:17). Archer adds, “Even the later Darius, son of Hystaspes (Wistaspa), bore the personal name of Spantadata.”[9] Even the casual reader of Daniel quickly discovers that Daniel and his three friends had dual names (Dan. 1:7).

Third, the language implies that Darius passively received the kingdom from someone of higher authority (Cyrus?). Daniel says that Darius “received the kingdom” (5:31) and he was “made king over the kingdom” (9:1). This language is in the passive voice, which is an odd way to describe Cyrus actively conquering Babylon. This may imply that Darius (Gubaru) received authority from King Cyrus.

Fourth, Gubaru installed satraps like Darius (Dan. 6:1-3). Miller writes, “The Nabonidus Chronicle reveals that Gubaru installed subgovernors in Babylon, and Dan 6:1–2 relates that Darius the Mede appointed subordinates to rule the kingdom.”[10] This, too, would fit with Daniel’s description of this historical person.

OPTION #2: Darius is another name for Cyrus
D.J. Wiseman, Joyce Baldwin, and Stephen Miller hold to this second view. The benefit of this second view is its simplicity: namely, Daniel used an unknown name (“Darius”) to describe King Cyrus.

The main benefit of this view is that the historical data given for Darius by Daniel perfectly fits with Cyrus. Miller writes, “Cyrus’s age would conform to known historical data. Bulman points out that Cicero reported Cyrus’s age as seventy when he died and that the cuneiform texts relate that Cyrus reigned nine years after he conquered Babylon. Thus in 539 B.C. Cyrus would have been about sixty-two years of age, the figure given by the writer of Daniel (cf. 5:31).”[11] Baldwin adds, “Whereas there is no evidence that Gubaru was a Mede, called king, named Darius, a son of Ahasuerus, or aged about sixty, Cyrus is known to have been related to the Medes, to have been called ‘king of the Medes’ and to have been about sixty years old on becoming king of Babylon.”[12]

Furthermore, the Septuagint and Theodotian translations render Daniel 11:1 with Cyrus’ name—not Darius’ name. Baldwin comments, “This suggests that the Greek translator knew of the double name, and preferred to use the one that was better known to avoid confusing his readers.”[13] Moreover, the apocryphal work Bel and the Dragon records Cyrus as the one who threw Daniel into the lion’s den.

Critics of this view raise a couple of objections, however:

How could Cyrus be called a “Mede,” rather than a Persian? Yet Stephen Miller notes that “Cyrus’s father was a Persian, but his mother was the daughter of Astyages, the king of Media; thus Cyrus was half Median.”[14] Furthermore, Herodotus called Cyrus “king of the Medes.”[15] Archer notes that Herodotus and Xenophon used the terms “Medes” and “Persians” interchangeably.[16]

Since Isaiah (13:17) and Jeremiah (51:11, 28) both predicted the fall of Babylon by the Medes, Daniel used this title to reinforce the fulfillment of this prophecy.

Why does Daniel refer to Darius and Cyrus as separate persons (6:28)? In order to harmonize this, we would need to translate Daniel 6:28 in this way: “Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, that is, in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” Baldwin notes that this is “frequently the sense of the Hebrew particle which is usually the conjunction ‘and’, and indeed examples of it can be found elsewhere in this book” citing Daniel 1:3; 6:9; 7:1.[17] A similar waw conjunction is used of Tiglath-Pileser in 1 Chronicles 5:26.

Conclusion
While both options are plausible, we favor the second view for its explanatory power and its simplicity. That is, it is the simplest explanation that harmonizes both the biblical and extra-biblical data. Only time will tell if a historical source will fill in this argument from silence from the critics, connecting Cyrus with the alternate name Darius.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Jer 3:11
Then the LORD said to me, “Backsliding Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah.
Jer 3:18
“In those days the house of Judah/Southern Kingdom shall walk with the house of Israel/Northern Kingdom, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given as an inheritance to your fathers.
====================

YLT)Daniel 11:
35And some of the teachers do stumble for refining by them, and for purifying, and for making white — till the end of the time, for [it is] yet for a time appointed.

36‘And the king hath done according to his will, and exalteth himself, and magnifieth himself against every god, and against the God of gods he speaketh wonderful things, and hath prospered till the indignation hath been completed, for that which is determined hath been done. 37And unto the God of his fathers he doth not attend, nor to the desire of women, yea, to any god he doth not attend, for against all he magnifieth himself. 38And to the god of strongholds, on his station, he giveth honour; yea, to a god whom his fathers knew not he giveth honour, with gold, and with silver, and with precious stone, and with desirable things. 39And he hath dealt in the fortresses of the strongholds with a strange god whom he hath acknowledged; he multiplieth honour, and hath caused them to rule over many, and the ground he apportioneth at a price.

40‘And at the time of the end, push himself forward with him doth a king of the south, and storm against him doth a king of the north, with chariot, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he hath come in to the lands, and hath overflowed, and passed over, 41and hath come into the desirable land, and many do stumble, and these escape from his hand: Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the sons of Ammon. 42‘And he sendeth forth his hand upon the lands, and the land of Egypt is not for an escape; 43and he hath ruled over treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the desirable things of Egypt, and Lubim and Cushim [are] at his steps. 44‘And reports trouble him out of the east and out of the north, and he hath gone forth in great fury to destroy, and to devote many to destruction; 45and he planteth the tents of his palace between the seas and the holy desirable mountain, and hath come unto his end, and there is no helper to him.
==========================================
Preterist view of Daniel 11 and 1st century fulfillment...

Daniel Chapter 11:35-45 Commentary: Every Prophecy Miraculously Fulfilled! - Revelation Revolution

Who was the Willful King, and Who was the King of the North?

Many historians try to explain away the prophetic accuracy of the Book of Daniel by theorizing that this book must have been written during the second century B.C., a time in which most of Daniel’s prophecies had been fulfilled. Daniel 11:2-35 lists a chronological sequence of events spanning 360 years from the sixth to the second century B.C.–without having made a single mistake. In these verses, Daniel describes the rise of the Greek Empire, its subsequent partition into four parts, followed by a mysteriously accurate description of the foreign relations between two of its divisions: the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires of Syria and Egypt respectively. In Daniel 11, the king of the Seleucids is labeled the king of the north, and the king of the Ptolemies is called the king of the south.
In this chapter, Daniel describes a chronological series of wars, treaties and marriages between these two warring empires. Highlighting significant aspects of the reign of each king, the prophet proceeds with his chronology often without specifying the death of one king and the rise of another. Each king and his successor are simply called the king of the north or the king of the south. This lack of specificity has led to the notion that the willful king of vs. 36-43 is Antiochus Epiphanies, the king of the north, the same king described earlier in v. 32.



Every Prophecy Fulfilled! Preterism and Daniel Chapter 11: Is the Willful King Antiochus Epiphanes, the King of the North?

From vs. 21-32, Daniel’s description of Antiochus Epiphanes, the king of the north, is accurate by all accounts. However, from v. 36 to the end of the chapter, the king known as the willful king mentioned here does not fit what is known of the king of the north. This fact has led some historians to suggest that the Book of Daniel may have been written by an editor just prior to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. According to this theory, the author of the Book of Daniel recorded a history from vs. 1-35 accounting for the accuracy of this portion of the text. Then from v. 36 to the end of the chapter, the editor of the book attempted to accurately predict the fate of Antiochus Epiphanes and, as expected, failed.

However, this theory that the Book of Daniel recorded history up to v. 35 and then tried to accurately predict the immediate future is a theory that is completely untenable. Up to this point in this commentary we have shown how accurately Daniel predicted many things concerning the future as far as the first century A.D. However, even if all this evidence were ignored, this secular theory is completely invalidated by v. 37.

Daniel’s description of the willful king in v. 37 indicates that he will not regard any god. If the editor of Daniel intended to predict that the willful king was Antiochus Epiphanes, why would he make such an egregious error regarding Antiochus’ religious beliefs? One might assume that perhaps the editor of Daniel did not know Antiochus Epiphanes religious affiliation? However, this would be impossible since Antiochus Epiphanes tried to compel the Jews to worship Zeus which was one of the major causes of the Maccabean Wars. If the author of Daniel intended to predict the future after having accurately recorded the past, why would he include an inaccurate description of Antiochus Epiphanes’ most well-known attribute from the perspective a second century Jewish perspective?
Essentially every adult living in Israel in the second century B.C. would have known that Antiochus Epiphanies was strongly devoted to Zeus. They would have all known this because Antiochus Epiphanies forced this belief on the Jews which was one of the primary causes of Israel’s war with Greece!
How could someone who knew without making a single historical error the obscure historical details concerning the foreign relations between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies fail to know arguably the most well-known attribute of the Seleucid king who was currently at war with his people especially when it was the unavoidably obvious trigger of the “current” war with Greece?1


Thus the Book of Daniel could not have been written in the second century B.C. during the Maccabean Wars. And the willful king cannot be Antiochus Epiphanies. If the willful king is not Antiochus Epiphanies, then who was he? In v. 35 the prophet writes:


35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.