'After the death of King Cyrus, who was reigning at the time of the vision, the next three kings of Persia were Cambyses (530-522 B.C.), a usurper called the False Smerdis or Bardiya (522) and Darius I (522-486 B.C.). The fourth king was Xerxes (486-465 B.C.), known in the Bible as Ahasuerus and the husband of Queen Esther. He spent four full years stockpiling supplies and assembling manpower for a military expedition against Greece, just as the angel had predicted. He truly stirred up "all." His army teemed with contingents from forty nations . . . Together they marched, perhaps 300,000 of them, mostly on foot, all the way from their homelands to the battles of Salamis (480) and Plataea (479) in Greece--and to complete defeat.'

This king was Alexander the Great who conquered most of the civilized world by 331 B.C. The map below demonstrates the extent of Alexander' s Empire.

Realizing he was dying after a drunken debauchery (others suggest dying from swamp fever or malaria), Alexander parceled out his kingdom to four of his generals, Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus I "Nicator" and Ptolemy I "Soter".  An examination of the map of that time as well as the following verses indicates that the Seleucid kingdom based around Syria became the King of the North, and that the Ptolemaic kingdom encompassing part of Egypt became the King of the South. These two kingdoms were constantly striving to conquer the other. Since Israel was located in the middle of the two, its territory was continually exposed to the military campaigns of the two kingdoms, Israel's land and people being at times subservient to one kingdom, then the other.

'Egypt was immensely wealthy and rather easy to protect (from the start). The "prince" who became "stronger than he" was Seleucus I Nicator, the general who originally won the eastern part of Alexander's empire. Seleucus was driven out of the east by yet another one of Alexander's generals and fled to Egypt for safety. Ptolemy gave him special status and helped him outfit a new army. Quickly successful in driving his rival out of the east, Seleucus followed through by pushing Lysimachus out of Syria and Asia Minor, thus making himself "King of the North" and the master of most of Alexander's former empire. He would have liked to control Judea too, taking it away from Egypt; but Ptolemy reminded Seleucus that without his help in the first place, he would never have staged his comeback.'

"Around 250 B.C., King Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285-246 B.C.) and King Antiochus II Theos (261-246 B.C.) of Syria attempted to guarantee peace between their countries by having King Antiochus marry King Ptolemy's daughter, Berenice.  Antiochus already had a wife, called Laodice.  It was part of the deal that he divorce her.  So the divorce was arranged, the new marriage was celebrated, and in due course a baby boy arrived who could someday be the next king.  Unfortunately, Antiochus soon found that he didn't like Berenice very well.  He kept making comparisons between her and his first wife.  And when Berenice's father, the king of Egypt, died, Antiochus divorced her and took Laodice back again.  But Laodice had become bitter.  She was afraid, too, of what her husband might do next.  So using her royal powers in a manner all too common in those days, she had Antiochus, Berenice, and Berenice's attendants and Bernice's little son all murdered.'

'By his divorce and remarriage, Antiochus lost far more than he could have hoped to gain. For the next king of Egypt, Ptolemy III (246-221), a brother of Berenice's, determined to avenge Berenice's death by invading Syria. He took his army all the way to Babylon and beyond before voluntarily pulling back! His navy occupied Seleucia, the port that served Antioch, the capital of Syria, and for some time Egyptian shipping dominated the eastern Mediterranean.'

'In the year 242, Seleucus II Callinicus (246-225) attempted to avenge himself for Egypt's deep penetration of his ancestral lands, but his army was vanquished and his navy blown away. He returned to Antioch badly bloodied and empty-handed.'

'These three verses deal principally with the battle of Raphia, June 22, 217 B.C. . . . in which over 70,000 foot soldiers and 5,000 cavalry were committed on each side. The body count the next day showed that Antiochus III had lost 10,000 killed and 4,000 taken prisoner. Ptolemy's loses were lighter but still significant . . . . Egypt won the battle, for Antiochus lacked discipline . . . Yet Ptolemy failed to follow up on his victory and Antiochus III was eager for a rematch'

After his defeat, Antiochus III sprung back and reconquered the territory to the east all the way to India and to the west to the Aegean Sea. He then prepared for a second attack on Egypt. At this time, the king of Egypt was Ptolemy V Epiphanes, a boy of six.

At this time, many of the Egyptians began rebelling against the ruling Grecian family and began rioting and defying them. Many of the more zealous Jews also began rebelling against the Ptolemaic regime, hoping to establish their own independence.

Antiochus III the Great took Palestine, the Beautiful Land, from the Ptolemies at the Battle of Panias in 197 B.C. The Ptolemaic kingdom was never able to reclaim it from the Seleucid kingdom.

Antiochus III the Great took many of the coastline territories bordering on the eastern and northeastern edges of the Mediterranean Sea away from the Ptolemaic Kingdom.

While there may be additional information regarding the intermarriage and commander referred to, I have not found it yet.

This verse most likely reflects Antiochus III's son (Seleucus IV Philopater, 187-175 B.C.) who sent Heliodorus to Jerusalem to collect the "untold sums of money" from the temple treasury. Heliodorus was prevented from accomplishing his task by the reported personal intervention of God as he sought to enter the temple. See 2 Maccabees 3. However, a plot arose against Seleucus the IV, and he was assassinated (i.e. neither in anger nor in battle).

Alternately (though not likely) this verse could reflect the following incident instigated by Antiochus III the Great's other son, Antiochus IV Epiphanes as reported in 1 Maccabees. "Two year later (after carrying away most of the temple's belongings) the king (Antiochus IV Epiphanes) sent to the cities of Judah a chief collector of tribute, and he came to Jerusalem with a large force. Deceitfully he spoke peaceable words to them, and they believed him; but he suddenly fell upon the city, dealt it a severe blow, and destroyed many people of Israel. He plundered the city, burned it with fire, and tore down its houses and its surrounding walls. And they took captive the women and children, and seized the cattle. Then they fortified the city of David with a great strong wall and strong towers, and it became their citadel. And they stationed there a sinful people, lawless men. These strengthened their position; they stored up arms and food, and collecting the spoils of Jerusalem they stored them there, and became a great snare." 1 Maccabees 1:29-35.  This interpretation, however, would be out of order.

The phrase "prince of the covenant" is a combination of two Hebrew words, beriyth (Strong #1285) and nagid (Strong #5057).

Nagid has been translated as "captain, chief, governor, leader, noble, prince, ruler" and is defined as: a commander, either civil, military or religious with generally an honorable connotation.

Beriyth has been translated as: "covenant or league", for example: a contract made by the passing between two piece of cut flesh (similar to what Abraham did in Gen. 15:9-21)

In this setting, the interpretation that the nagid beriyth is Jesus Christ is a "forced" or "make it fit" interpretation based upon usage of those two terms in Daniel 9:24-27. However, it should be noted that the term nagid is used once in Dan. 9:25 to apply to the Messiah and once in 9:26 to apply to the coming ruler which will desolate Jerusalem. Interpreting nagid beriyth as Jesus Christ doesn't fit into the sequence of events of this prophecy.

A more reasonable transliteration would be "contracting ruler" or "a ruler who had made an agreement or contract" or a "ruler of the Jewish people by their covenant with God". This would be consistent with the verses following (see verses 23 and 30).

Many interpreters consider this 'prince of the covenant" to be Onias III, a godly priest who led the Jewish nation at that time. Others suggest a ruler named Jason (which I am not knowledgeable of).

Note the consistency of this diabolic cunning plotting king, not only in his attainment of the kingdom, but his military conquests. He later turns his fury upon the Israelite worship service.

Antiochus' victory in Egypt was short-lived. When the Romans showed up with their warships, the Roman ambassador C. Popilius Laenas, informed Antiochus that the Roman Senate wanted him to leave.  The grim Roman drew a circle around Antiochus with his cane and demanded a decision before he stepped out of it.'  GC Vol. 1, p. 159.  You can imagine after this humiliating ejection from Egypt that Antiochus was looking to vent his fury.

"After subduing Egypt, Antiochus [IV Epiphanes] returned in the one hundred and forty-third year [169 B.C.]. He went up against Israel and came to Jerusalem with a strong force. He arrogantly entered the sanctuary and took the golden altar, the lampstand for the lights, and all its utensils. He took also the table for the bread of the Presence, the cups for drink offerings, the bowls, the golden censors, the curtain, the crowns and the gold decoration on the front of the temple; he stripped it all off. He took the silver and the gold, and the costly vessels; he took also the hidden treasures which he found. Taking them all, he departed to his own land." 1 Maccabees 1:20-24.

'And the king [Antiochus IV Epiphanes] sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, to forbid burnt offerings, and sacrifices and drink offering in the sanctuary, to profane Sabbaths and feasts, to defile the sanctuary and the priests, to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and unclean animals, and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane, so that they should forget the law and change all the ordinances. "And whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die." . . . Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty fifth year, they erected a desolating sacrilege upon the altar of burnt offering. They also built altars in the surrounding cities of Judah, and burned incense at the doors of the houses and in the streets. The books of the law which they found they tore to pieces and burned with fire. Where the book of the covenant was found in the possession of any one, or if any one adhered to the law, the decree of the king condemned him to death. They kept using violence against Israel, against those found month after month in the cities. And on the twenty-fifth day of the month they offered sacrifice [probably of swine] on the altar which was upon the altar of burnt offering. According to the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised, and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mother's necks. But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. They chose to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die. And very great wrath came upon Israel.' 1 Maccabees 1:41-50, 54-64

How could I write more about this prophecy’s fulfillment than what historical writings record?

There are two possible interpretations here. 1) The first and most rational continues with Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the chief player. As was common in those days, Antiochus IV considered himself a god, though he took it a bit further than many of his predecessors. Several examples of Antiochus' arrogance are found in the Maccabean books. '

"So Antiochus (IV) carried off eighteen hundred talents from the temple, and hurried away to Antioch, thinking in his arrogance that he could sail on the land and walk on the sea, because his mind was elated." 2 Maccabees 5:21, 22.

In another incident during which Antiochus was torturing a family for refusing to defile themselves, one of the family members responded to the king, ". . . But you, unholy wretch, you most defiled of all men, do not be elated in vain and puffed up by uncertain hopes, when you raise your hand against the children of heaven. You, by the judgment of God, will receive just punishment for your arrogance." 2 Maccabees 7:34.

In a letter to the Hellenistic Jews from Antiochus V, Epiphanes' son, wrote that his father had gone on to the gods." 2 Maccabees 11:23. In the footnote of The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, pg. 284, it is mentioned that "in his (Antiochus IV) lifetime, he had been worshiped."

Antiochus IV Epiphanes also honored those who followed him with wealth. "Then the king's officers who were enforcing the apostasy came to the city of Modein to make them offer sacrifice. Many from Israel came to them; and Mattathias and his sons were assembled. Then the king's officers spoke to Mattathias as follows: 'You are a leader, honored and great in this city, and supported by sons and brothers. Now be the first to come and do what the king commands, as all the Gentiles and the men of Judah and those that are left in Jerusalem have done. Then you and your sons will be numbered among the friends of the king, and you and your sons will be honored with silver and gold and many gifts.' " Mattathias and his sons (including Judas Maccabees) refused and began leading a rebellion against the vile Syrians

2) A second, though less likely interpretation, involves an unstated timing jump to the Roman period, where now the King of the North is the secular Roman Empire which conquered Palestine by coming down from the North. The Roman Empire, though having many idolatrous gods, also considered the Emperor to be a god and he was worshipped as such. In general, nations that were conquered by the Roman armies submitted and joined the empire. One notable exception was the Jewish nation with its fiercely loyal and religious people. Their refusal to be loyal subjects and eventually their refusal to provide offerings and prayers for the emperor resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Those that became subject to the Romans were honored with power and possessions.

This section has several interpretations. Here are three:

In verse 40 above, the most straightforward approach is to ask, "what does the end refer to?" I believe it refers to the end of what we've been talking about, namely, the end of the Ptolemaic Empire and the Seleucid Empire. 

At the time of the end of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires, the King of the North, now the Roman Empire (Julius Caesar and his general Pompey) swept down through Palestine, into Egypt, and into Libya and Ethiopia (Nubia). The Roman galleys (warships) struck terror in the sight of many of the countries and eventually, the Roman Empire controlled all the coastal countries around the Mediterranean Sea. However, the countries of Edom, Moab and Ammon, fell just outside the borders of the Roman Empire and remained free of their control. (see the adjacent map for the location of the kingdoms of Edom, Moab and Ammon.)

The beautiful holy mountain could refer to the hill that Jerusalem was on (Mt. Zion), Mt. Sinai (in Saudi Arabia), or Mt. Nebo (east of the Jordan).  

The location of Mt. Sinai is held by tradition to be on the Sinai Peninsula.  The peninsula has the Red Sea on the south, the Gulf of Suez on the west, the Gulf of Aqaba on the east, and the Mediterranean Sea on the north.  However, this was a location chosen by the Emperor Constantine's mother whom he sent to that area to pick a Mt. Sinai.  But 1500 years of tradition doesn't make it fact!  More accurate evidence indicates that the true Mt. Sinai is actually the mountain known as Jabel El Lawz, located in Saudi Arabia (see Galatians 4:24) and the Red Sea crossing was actually over the Gulf of Aqaba, rather than the Gulf of Suez. (See the Surprising Discoveries section of this website for photos of Mt. Sinai.)   

The argument is best made for Caesar camping in the neighborhood of Jerusalem with the Dead Sea to the east, and the Mediterranean Sea to the west.  While it is possible that Caesar may have camped near Mt. Nebo or the true Mt. Sinai, neither is really sandwiched between two seas that are fairly close by.

God has always permitted and even encouraged a sense of eminency regarding coming events, even though relative to man's short lifespan, they may be far distant. God, in His infinite knowledge knew that man would not respond just to His love, but would procrastinate in sharing the good news of salvation and of coming judgment if they knew the events were far distant. Secondly, if someone reads the "soon" style writings of the prophets and apostles, then they will be more encouraged to apply the writings to their own time.  Let's look at several interpretations that use a "last day event's" type of perspective.

This paragraph has two potential interpretations, the second being the more likely one:

At Christ's death, there was an earthquake and many righteous people were resurrected. "And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people" (Matthew 27:50-53).  Emphasis added.

It is difficult to ascertain how many holy people were resurrected. However, given that "wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.", (Matt. 7:13,14), it is possible that all the deceased righteous Israelites were resurrected at that time. However, who exactly was resurrected was not known to the disciples, because shortly thereafter, Peter in his address to the crowd on the day of Pentecost indicated that David was still in his grave. (see Acts 2:29)

When Christ went back up into heaven, He took those resurrected at his death with him. Paul in his letter to the Ephesians quoted an excerpt from Psalms, "This is why it says: 'When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.'" (Eph. 4:8). The actual quote from Psalms reads, "The chariots of God are tens of thousands and thousands of thousands; the Lord [has come] from Sinai into his sanctuary. When you ascended on high, you led captives in your train; you received gifts from men, even from the rebellious-- that you, O LORD God, might dwell there." (Ps. 68:17, 18)

Jesus quoting from Isaiah said, " 'The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.' Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, 'Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.' " (Luke 4:18-21). The full quotation says "The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, . . ." (Isaiah 61:1, 2). Note that Jesus in saying that this was fulfilled at his anointing was also talking about a time of vengeance, since the two events, release of captives and day of vengeance are interrelated.

Tied in with the ascension of the captives with Christ, would be their ministry with him in heaven. In Revelation, we see 24 elders surrounding the throne, offering the prayers of the saints to God as incense in golden bowls (see Rev. 4:4, 9 and 5:8). Christ, in the form of the ministering angel, also offers up the prayers of the saints in a golden censor. (see Rev. 8:3, 4). These elders appear to be part of the captives of death, that had been freed by Christ and joined with him in his ministry in the heavenly temple. Only Christ and the elders who had been through the sufferings and temptations that man is subjected too, could effectively minister as high priest and priests before the throne of God the Father. (see also Hebrews, esp. Hebrews 4:14)

The phrases "At that time" and "In that day" are commonly used for denoting events that take place at Jesus Christ’s Second Coming, or at the renewal of all things. We could call these phrases "time leap indicators".  For examples, see Isa. 11:10,11; 17:7; Isa. 25:7-9; Isa. 27:1-2; Isa. 29:18; Jer. 3:14-18; Jer. 25:30-33; Jer. 30:8,24; Jer. 31:1; Jer. 50:3,4; 50:19,20; Ezek. 38:18-22; Joel 2:31,32; 3:1,2,18; Zeph. 1:12-15; 3:19,20; Zech. 2:11; 3:10; Matt. 24:10,23,30; Mark 13:21,26; Luke 21:27; and John 16:23, 26.

In this interpretation, we are propelled to the end of time when Michael, also seen as Christ, stands up, ending his intercessory ministry in the heavenly temple, and the time of wrath or battle with the wicked begins. Among the events during this sequence would be the throwing down of the censor of the ministering angel (Christ) and the beginning of the seven trumpet sequence. (see Rev. 8 ff.)

At the end of the time of tribulation, Christ returns to this world. Those who are righteous will be raised to partake in life eternal. The wicked dead will remain asleep until the end of another 1,000 years commonly known as the millennium. (see Rev. 20:1-9 and 1 Thess. 4:13-18). At that time or "in that day" the wicked are to be destroyed forever.

Note that in prophetic scenarios, events that we know are separate events (as defined more clearly elsewhere in Scripture) may be shown as taking place simultaneously in other prophecies. For example, the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked are depicted as simultaneous events in this prophecy. See also Jesus' application of the prophecy of Isaiah 61 above.

Let's continue on in Chapter 12

Let’s look at three ways to interpret the time, times and half a time.

Formula 1: In prophetic time, a time, times and half a time is taken as 3 1/2 years, with a prophetic year being 360 days. Thus a time, times and half a time would be 1,260 days, which would be the same as 42 prophetic months (30 days each). Compare the following prophetic verses and observe the interchangeability of the words expressing the forgoing time periods.