SERMON: “God’s Sovereignty Over Prophesied Empires, Part 1” (Dan. 11:1–9)
“God’s Sovereignty Over
Prophesied Empires,
Part 1” (Dan. 11:1–9)
Series: “Daniel:
God’s Sovereign Plans” #28 Text: Daniel
11:1–9
By: Shaun
Marksbury Date: June 7, 2026
Venue: Living Water Baptist Church Occasion: PM Service
Introduction
Many people didn’t enjoy history in school. Some teachers taught it as a dry recitation
of facts and dates to memorize for a test.
The subject seemed boring because it often lacked the story of the human
condition behind the events of history.
And, for you public school alumni, it also lacked how God was constantly
framing history for His glory! History
is filled with wonderful accounts of God’s providence.
History also supports the claims of Scripture. For instance, for a while in modern
archeology, there was doubt that there was ever such a thing as a Hittite, with
some assuming the Bible made up an entire culture; today, archeologists have
not only confirmed the existence of such a people, but have also helped to
craft an entire field of study known as Hittitology.
History also confirms the Bible’s supernatural claims. As one study notes:
Fulfilled prophecy is one of the
proofs of the inspiration of the Bible, for only an omniscient God can know
future events accurately and direct His servants to write them down. “He reveals deep and secret things; He knows
what is in the darkness, and light dwells with Him” (Dan. 2:22, nkjv). It is no surprise, then, that the radical
critics have attacked the Book of Daniel, and especially these chapters,
because they claim that nobody could write in advance so many accurate details
about so many people and events. Their
“scientific conclusion” is that the Book of Daniel is a fraud; it was written
centuries after these events, and therefore is not a book of prophecy at all. These critics can’t deny the historicity of
the events, because the records are in the annals of ancient history for all to
read and cannot be denied. Therefore, to
maintain their “scientific theories,” they must deny the reality of prophecy. Those of us who believe in a great God have no
problem accepting “the word of prophecy” (2 Peter 1:19–21).[1]
This chapter predicts the history preceding Antiochus
Epiphanes with wonderful detail. That
not only proves its divine origin, but also that it was a comfort to those Jews
alive during that time. It also tells us
that what we sometimes call the 400 “silent years,” the period between the
testaments, were anything but silent of God’s sovereign control. As a result, the Jews living during this
period would have complete confidence that they could make it through the
conflicts of this chapter and that the prophesied Messiah would come — indeed,
we find Messianic expectations high in the first century during the time of
Jesus.
Now, because this is a very specific chapter, though, modern
readers can find it a difficult one to navigate. This is especially so for those without a
solid grasp of ancient Near Eastern history.
It covers the waning of the Persian Empire and the Hellenization of the
Middle East, starting with Alexander the Great and ending with Greek power
waning before the growing Roman Empire. It
also will talk more about the Antichrist at the end. As one commentator notes, “This chapter might
be treated in Bible classes. We do not
see how it could be used for a sermon or for sermons.”[2] Yet here we are!
We begin at the end of the Babylonian Captivity in the sixth
century B.C. Remember in the past
chapter, continuing here, Daniel is in the third year of Cyrus’s reign (10:1),
the king predicted by name 100 years earlier in Isaiah. Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539–538 B.C.
In Daniel 10, both the prince of Persia and the prince of
Greece are mentioned; their history unfolds in this chapter. Cyrus allowed the Jews to return and rebuild
the temple (Ezra 1–4), though only about 42,000 returned home. The Jewish people still needed purification
in preparation for the Messiah’s coming some 500 years later, and Daniel
receives this prophecy amid that context.
Verses 1–20 cover the end of Persian dominance, the rise of
Alexander the Great, and the fracturing of his empire. The Syrian Wars (six in
total, with this section focusing on the first five) were driven by control of the
region including Israel, which is why Judea often became a battleground or
pawn.
We will walk through this chapter carefully, verse by verse,
trying to note how God fulfilled His word.
Our focus this evening is on the first nine verses, which take us from
the end of the Babylonian Captivity, through the rise of Alexander the Great,
and into the early conflicts between the fractured kingdoms he left behind him. So, tonight, we’ll see His sovereign hand
over Persia (vv. 1–2), Greece (vv. 3–4), and over North and South (vv.
5–9).
First, Consider God’s Hand Over Persia (vv. 1–2)
In the first year
of Darius the Mede, I arose to be an encouragement and a protection for
him. And now I will tell you the truth.
Behold, three more kings are going to arise in Persia. Then a fourth will gain
far more riches than all of them; as soon as he becomes strong through his
riches, he will arouse the whole empire against the realm of Greece.
The first verse connects us back to the previous chapter. Although many translations place it with
chapter 11, it clearly belongs with the statement in 10:21. It concerns the reciprocal aid between
Michael and Gabriel. It’s likely the
statement “in the first year of Darius” led to the chapter division,[3] but
contextually, it continues the angelic conversation.
Now, this means that the angel is backing up
about two years to start his account, the same year as the revelation of the
seventy weeks (539 B.C.; cf. 9:1). The
angel (Gabriel) relates that he had supported and protected Michael. Why? The
occasion likely involved Cyrus’s decision to allow the Jews to return, as Satan
sought to “thwart the renewal of Israel” and the eventual coming of the
Messiah.[4]
This means that the angels are fighting to
ensure that the good desires of the Lord comes to pass. In other words, “The angel Gabriel lets Daniel know the good service he has done to the
Jewish nation.”[5] As another study explains, “This suggests that though the kingdoms of the
world are under demonic control, their human rulers can be delivered from that
control and used for a higher purpose by God as He sees fit.”[6] The Persians probably didn’t know that they
were being manipulated for evil, and the Lord sends His angels to intervene.[7] Good angels can be entrusted with influence
over national affairs to counteract evil and help the good.[8]
In v. 2, Gabriel promises to share “the truth.”
It’s not as though he’s been deceptive before; he’s restating his reference to
the “Book of Truth” (10:21).[9] Gabriel now reveals the secret will of God for
the nations in the intertestamental period.
He notes that three kings will arise after
Cyrus, meaning these three kings have nothing to do with Christmas! Scholars generally identify them as Cambyses
(529–523 B.C.), Pseudo-Smerdis (523–522 B.C.), and Darius I (522–486 B.C.).[10]
These are each important, but for the
sake of time, let’s continue on the next one in this verse.
Gabriel reveals that the fourth king will be
far richer. This can only be Xerxes I
(Ahasuerus in Esther, 486–465 B.C.). His
wealth funded a massive invasion of Greece (480–479 B.C.), famous for defeats
at Salamis and Plataea. He is the Xerxes
who faced King Leonidas at Thermopylae (depicted with a great deal of license
in “300” — and no, he didn’t look like that!). He was eventually defeated; as one study
notes, “All of
this occurred between chapters 1 and 2 of the Book of Esther. He came home a bitter and angry man and sought
to find relief for his wounded pride by enjoying his harem. It was at this time that Esther entered the
picture.”[11] Artaxerxes I (in Ezra/Nehemiah) was his son,
but he isn’t mentioned here.
Now, that leads to a question: Why not list
everyone, and all the surrounding history, for that matter? First, kings after Xerxes are omitted because
they were not germane to the prophecy;[12]
the passage remains focused on the history that affects God’s people. For instance, Xerxes’s failed campaign marked
the beginning of Persia’s decline, culminating in Alexander’s conquest around
331 B.C.
This chapter’s astonishing predictions — over
130 details in the first 35 verses validated by history — displays God’s omniscience
and sovereignty over history. The Bible
records history up to Nehemiah’s time (c. 445–444 B.C.). The following 400 “silent years” were filled
with the very events prophesied here, meaning they were anything but
silent! Let’s consider that next.
Second, Consider God’s Hand Over Greece (vv. 3–4)
And
a mighty king will arise, and he will rule with great authority and do as he
pleases. But as soon as he has arisen,
his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four points of the
compass, though not to his own descendants, nor according to his authority
which he wielded, for his sovereignty will be uprooted and given to others
besides them.
The Greco-Persian Wars during this time
caused Greece to unite under a Phillip the Macedonian. He had his son tutored by Aristotle, and when
Phillip was assassinated, his son took over at age sixteen.
Who was this lad? This mighty king is someone we know well from
both history and our study in the Book of Daniel (8:5–8). Alexander the Great is the perfect candidate
for the phrase “mighty king” or “warrior king,”[13]
for he would not only turn back the invasion of Greece, but in 334 BC, he
invaded the Persian Empire. Between 334
and 330 B.C., he conquered Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, and the Medo-Persian
Empire, extending his rule as far as India.
We can see why the text says he did “as he
pleases,” like it does of Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus, and the future Antichrist
(cf. Dan. 5:16; 8:4; 11:16, 36) — he an “unstoppable power.”[14] Yet, Alexander’s
conquests were part of God’s sovereign plan — the spread of Koine Greek unified
the known world linguistically, aiding the later spread of the Gospel. Moreover, his “melting pot” empire also
facilitated cultural exchange which made the gospel proclamation easier even a
few centuries later.[15]
He certainly thought he was unstoppable —
after he conquered Asia, he even wanted to be worshipped as a god himself.[16] Yet, as v. 4 says, “But as soon as he has
arisen, his kingdom will be broken up.” He
died at thirty-two years of age in Babylon from malaria complicated by his alcoholism.[17]
Sometimes, a text uses the passive voice as a
subtle nod to God’s authority and power.
Verse 4 says Alexander’s kingdom will be “broken up and parceled out
toward the four points of the compass.”
Four generals eventually take control, the Lord previously predicted (cf.
8:8, 22) — Seleucus (to the north in Syria/Mesopotamia), Ptolemy (to the south
in Egypt), Lysimachus (to the east in Thrace/Asia Minor), and Cassander (to the
west in Macedonia/Greece).[18]
This is all according to God’s sovereign
plan, and this chapter will focus on the two divisions to the north and south.
Alexander’s empire fragmented into smaller,
weaker kingdoms marked by division. In
fact, note that none of Alexander’s posterity inherited his kingdom. His family was eliminated — as one study
notes, “Arideus, his brother, was made king in Macedonia; Olympias, Alexander’s
mother, killed him, and poisoned Alexander’s two sons, Hercules and
Alexander. Thus was his family rooted
out by its own hands.”[19] Yet,
the passive verbs underscore God’s sovereignty — He uproots and did
the giving of the kingdom, as Jeremiah 18:7–8 reminds us. Alexander was no deity.
This tells us that all worldly pomp is
perishing. Alexander’s story shows the
vanity of earthly power: “All is vanity and vexation of spirit.”[20]
Yet God used even this for His purposes,
and He protected Jerusalem from destruction in Alexander’s sweeping wave. He promises to continue to protect His people
who remain faithful, as the next section confirms.
Third, Consider God’s Hand Over North and South (vv.
5–9)
Then the king of
the South will grow strong, along with one of his princes who will gain
ascendancy over him and obtain dominion; his domain will be a great dominion
indeed. After some years they will form
an alliance, and the daughter of the king of the South will come to the king of
the North to carry out a peaceful arrangement. But she will not retain her
position of power, nor will he remain with his power, but she will be given up,
along with those who brought her in and the one who sired her as well as he who
supported her in those times. But one of
the descendants of her line will arise in his place, and he will come against
their army and enter the fortress of the king of the North, and he will deal
with them and display great strength.
Also their gods with their metal images and their precious vessels of
silver and gold he will take into captivity to Egypt, and he on his part will
refrain from attacking the king of the North for some years. Then the latter will enter the realm of the
king of the South, but will return to his own land.
The next section really extends down to v. 20, and it deals
with the nearly 200 years of history from Alexander the Great to Antiochus
IV. Now, we’ve talked about Antiochus
IV before, sometimes called “Epiphanies.” [21] It so happens he was preceded by three other
kings named Antiochus! We won’t be able
to get through all of that today, so we’ll just work our way to his father,
Antiochus III.
The king of the South in v. 5 is Ptolemy I Soter
(323/304–285 B.C.). He was a general
under Alexander who was stationed in Egypt and later established the Ptolemaic
dynasty there.[22] He became strong, controlling Egypt, Phoenicia,
and more.[23] This kingdom lasted until Rome conquered it in
30 BC.[24]
One of his princes, Seleucus I Nicator (312–280 B.C.),
another general, initially served under him but later gained a far larger
dominion (Babylonia, Media, Syria). Seleucus’s
kingdom was the largest division of Alexander’s empire.[25]
Originally, the two were to be allied — Ptolemy
would have control of Palestine, but (surprise!) Seleucus reneged. He established his independence, setting up
ongoing rivalry, with the First Syrian War (274–271 B.C.) and struggles over the
promised land.
Now, if this is confusing, remember that we
are only concerned with two kingdoms, those north and south of Jerusalem. The southern kingdom is known as the
Ptolemaic Kingdom, and each of its kings will bear the name or title Ptolemy,
making it easy for us. The northern
kingdom will be the Seleucid Kingdom because of Seleucus, and its kings will be
named either Seleucus or Antiochus. That
means, for instance, when we get to Antiochus IV, he will be ruling the
northern Seleucid kingdom.
V. 6 begins, “After some years” — about
thirty-five to be exact. This moves us past
these men to their progeny, Ptolemy II (285–246 B.C.) and Antiochus II (261–246
B.C.). (Antiochus I, son of Seleucus I,
is an interesting historical figure but not relevant to this prophecy.) These two
kingdoms tried to end the conflict between them through an alliance sealed with
a political marriage. So, the king of
the south, Ptolemy II, had his daughter Berenice marry Antiochus II and sire an
heir to the throne through her. The goal
was political stability and influence.
Such
political marriages were not unique. The
only problem here was that Antiochus II was already married with an heir! So, the negotiations required Antiochus II to
first divorce his wife Laodice and then to exile her and her son. After that, Antiochus married Berenice.
However, things didn’t go as planned. The text says “she shall not retain her
position of power” or “strength of arm.” Two years into their marriage, her father, Ptolemy
II, died. Perhaps Antiochus II was
unhappy with her, or he simply pragmatically decided that the diplomatic need to
be married to Berenice had ended with death of his father-in-law. Whatever the reason, Antiochus left Berenice and
began to seek reconciliation with his first wife, Laodice. She lost her power.
This is starting to sound like daytime
television — these are the Days of Our Lives.
That’s especially the case with what happened next. Laodice
knew her husband. Fearing her fickle husband
might again prefer Berenice, she ensured her son was in a position for
succession to the throne again, and then she poisoned her husband. Perhaps this was the fury of a woman scorned,
and maybe she didn’t see Antiochus II as a man of attachments or genuine
affection for either wife. Whatever the
case, his betrayal provoked Laodice’s lethal retaliation, and he also lost his
power with his life.
Laodice didn’t stop there. To ensure that her son would be heir, she
also had Berenice and her son killed for good measure. Laodice then took her position next to her
son as the queen regent of the Seleucid Kingdom.[26] Political marriages and treachery reveal the
brokenness of the human condition and our need for God.
Now, as you might imagine, this action had
consequences. In v. 7, we read that one
of Berenice’s kin — her brother Ptolemy III — found himself stirred up much
like Simeon and Levi in Genesis 34 over their sister! He craves vengeance on the Seleucids for her
death, the expected result for the murder of a political bride in a foreign
kingdom. Laodice may have had the
satisfaction of her husband’s and Berenice’s deaths, but she guaranteed war for
her people and her son. Our sins always
bring unintended consequences, some of which are grave for those close to us.
So, Ptolemy III invaded Syria, executed
Laodice (per some accounts), and returned with vast booty. This including gods and treasures previously
taken by Cambyses. This raid brought
prosperity to Egypt for a time, so he refrained from further attack for years
due to a domestic revolt.[27]
In summary, instead of there being an
alliance between these great Grecian kingdoms, there is the Third Syrian War
(246–241 BC).
That brings us to v. 9. The Seleucids under Seleucus II attempt a
return attack, but they can’t quite cut it.
Their retreat marked the end of the Third Syrian War in 241 BC, and the
height of the Ptolemaic power. The South
retains control of the “Beautiful Land,” but not for long.
It’s worth noting one other historical
point. The Ptolemies had taken Jews
captive in the past and placed them in Alexandria. Under Ptolemy III, they completed a
translation project of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek. This includes the Book of Daniel. That means that those who want to push a
later date for Daniel to explain the stunning detail of this prophecy cannot —
Daniel existed much earlier than they would like!
Conclusion
There’s no reason to doubt that this is true. The prophecy is confirmed to precede these
events, and it perfectly predicts what is coming next. Critical scholars may want to think of this
prophecy as some late-date invention of fiction, but they operate with
assumptions that prophecy can’t exist.
Even so, the facts support that the Book of Daniel was penned in the
sixth century B.C.[28]
And we’ve just scratched the surface to this wonderous
prophecy! Remember, though, that this
text would have been a comfort for God’s people. Though they would face warfare, they could
know that God predicted it ahead of time and that they could survive, if they
trust in Him. Sadly, not everyone would,
and that will lead to trouble for some of them.
It’s vital that we trust what God says.
To Him be all glory.
[1] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be
Resolute, “Be” Commentary Series, (Colorado Springs, CO: Victor, 2000),
130–131.
[2] Dale Ralph Davis, The
Message of Daniel: His Kingdom Cannot Fail, eds. Alec Motyer and Derek
Tidball, The Bible Speaks Today, (Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press,
2013), 147.
[3] Stephen R. Miller, Daniel,
The New American Commentary, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers,
1994), 18:289.
[4] Ibid., 18:289–290.
[5] Matthew Henry, Matthew
Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume,
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 1457.
[6] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne
House, The Nelson Study Bible: New King
James Version, (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1997), Da 11:1.
[7] Wiersbe, 132.
[8] Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology, (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication
Society, 1907), 451.
[9] Miller, 18:291.
[10] John MacArthur Jr., Ed., The MacArthur Study Bible, electronic ed., (Nashville, TN: Word
Pub., 1997), 1246.
[11] Wiersbe, 132–133.
[12] Miller.
[13] John D. Barry, Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Michael
S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Elliot Ritzema, Matthew M. Whitehead, Michael R.
Grigoni, and David Bomar, Faithlife Study
Bible, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), Da 11:3.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Wiersbe, 133–134.
[16] Henry.
[17] J. Dwight Pentecost, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures,
1985, 1, 1367–1368.
[18] Ibid., 1368.
[19] Henry.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Miller, 18:293.
[22] Pentecost.
[23] Henry.
[24] Wendy Widder, The
Lexham Bible Dictionary, 2016.
[25] Miller.
[26] Ibid., 18:293–294.
[27] Widder.
[28] Ted Cabal, Chad Owen Brand, E. Ray Clendenen, Paul
Copan, J. P. Moreland, and Doug Powell, The
Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith,
(Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 1289.