The Bible Says
Daniel 11:14-19 Meaning

In Daniel 11:14-19, as Daniel’s angelic messenger continues to unveil future events, the prophecy focuses on the ongoing power struggles between the northern Seleucid kingdom (Syria) and the southern Ptolemaic kingdom (Egypt). These verses describe further clashes, uprisings, and shifting alliances that again confirm how earthly empires, although formidable, operate within God’s sovereign purposes. This section especially highlights the involvement of violent men among Daniel’s own people, showing that some within Israel attempted to capitalize on foreign strife-but ultimately failed. Despite the turbulence, God’s overarching plan would still move forward (Daniel 11:36).

Daniel hears that in those times many will rise up against the king of the South; the violent ones among your people will also lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision, but they will fall down (v. 14). There was a great revolt in Egypt toward the end of Ptolemy IV’s reign. The many who will rise up against the king of the South would cause Ptolemy IV’s authority to crumble, leading also to his death. There was rebellion in the north and south of Egypt. One rebel leader conquered the city of Thebes and declared himself Pharaoh, giving himself the name Hugronaphor.

Afterward, the king of the South would then be Ptolemy V of Egypt (who reigned 205-180 BC), son of Ptolemy IV, who ascended to the throne as a mere child. Various factions saw this youth as an opportunity, including internal Egyptian dissidents and rival kingdoms who hoped to break Ptolemaic control. As the verse says, many will rise up, signifying the widespread dissatisfaction and power plays during this vulnerable period.

When the text refers to the violent ones among your people (v. 14), it highlights a faction of Jewish inhabitants in Judea who attempted rebellion, likely thinking that Seleucid or other foreign support could help them gain advantage over local Ptolemaic administrators. These turbulent times were rife with schemes-betrayals occurred on all sides, and local populations often aligned with whichever empire promised them greater freedoms or power. Here, however, Scripture forecasts that such violent rebels would fall down, revealing the tragic futility of trying to bring about the “vision” (or destiny) by force.

The prophecy continues that the king of the North will come, cast up a siege ramp and capture a well-fortified city; and the forces of the South will not stand their ground (v. 15). This king of the North is Antiochus III (the Great), who, after consolidating his power, advanced against Ptolemaic territories. Casting up a siege ramp alludes to ancient warfare tactics-massive ramps constructed to breach city walls. By employing such measures, Antiochus III successfully overcame key fortresses.

Secular history correlates this with Antiochus III’s invasion of Phoenicia and Judea (modern-day Lebanon and Israel). One notable event was the siege of Sidon, a strategic coastal city. Located in the region that is now part of Lebanon, Sidon stood as a major port of the ancient Phoenician civilization. It boasted strong walls, extensive sea trade networks, and a longstanding cultural heritage. Yet as the king of the North besieged it, the forces of the South were not able to stand their ground (v.15). Ptolemaic attempts to relieve Sidon failed, leading to the city’s eventual capitulation.

Next, Daniel’s vision reveals that he who comes against him will do as he pleases, and no one will be able to withstand him; he will also stay for a time in the Beautiful Land, with destruction in his hand (v. 16). He who comes against him refers again to Antiochus III, who, emboldened by previous victories, confronted Ptolemaic forces wherever he wished. The phrase no one will be able to withstand him points to a season of military success for the Seleucids.

The text then notes that Antiochus III would stay for a time in the Beautiful Land (v. 16)-a reference to the land of Israel (also called the “Glorious Land” in Daniel 11:41). Because Israel lay between Syria and Egypt, whichever empire dominated the region effectively controlled trade routes and strategic military positions. Sadly, the verse warns that Antiochus III arrived with destruction in his hand. Historical accounts confirm that although some Jews initially allied with the Seleucids against Egyptian rule, subsequent actions by the Seleucids could be harsh, including high taxation and garrisoning of troops.

From a spiritual standpoint, the Beautiful Land is precious to God’s covenant people. Yet this prophecy underscores that sin and strife lead to continuous foreign occupation. As seen in the broader arc of Daniel, no oppressive empire endures indefinitely. Though Antiochus III did as he pleased, his power was still until the time God allotted (Daniel 11:36). Eventually, even this formidable king would face his own downfall.

The angelic messenger adds, He will set his face to come with the power of his whole kingdom, bringing with him a proposal of peace which he will put into effect; he will also give him the daughter of women to ruin it. But she will not take a stand for him or be on his side (v. 17). Having bested the Ptolemies in several battles, Antiochus III sought a more cunning approach: a proposal of peace. This came in the form of a political marriage aimed at binding the Seleucids and Ptolemies.

Historically, Antiochus III gave his daughter, Cleopatra I (not to be confused with the later, more famous Cleopatra VII), in marriage to the young Ptolemy V around 194 BC. The expectation was that the daughter of women (v. 17) would influence Ptolemy V on behalf of her father and effectively secure Seleucid dominance over Egypt. However, she will not take a stand for him indicates that Cleopatra I ultimately sided with her husband, preserving Egyptian interests rather than fulfilling her father’s plan. This upset Antiochus III’s strategy and prevented him from controlling Egypt through familial ties.

Throughout Scripture and history, political marriages often prove precarious tools. Such alliances reflect how royal families sought to expand influence, but as verse 17 highlights, they can backfire when personal loyalties contradict expected outcomes.

The prophecy continues: Then he will turn his face to the coastlands and capture many. But a commander will put a stop to his scorn against him; moreover, he will repay him for his scorn (v. 18). Embittered by failed attempts to subjugate Egypt through marriage, Antiochus III shifted his ambitions toward the coastlands. In this context, the coastlands generally point to the regions of Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) and potentially the Greek isles-expanding the Seleucid realm westward.

Yet the text explains that a commander will put a stop to his scorn (v. 18). Historically, this points to Antiochus III’s eventual confrontation with emerging Roman power. By 190 BC, Rome intervened in Greek affairs, and the Roman general Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus defeated Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia (189 BC). The phrase moreover, he will repay him for his scorn underscores how Antiochus III’s once-unchecked aggression was checked by a superior force-Rome-whose empire was on a steady rise to dominate the Mediterranean world.

This clash highlights a crucial truth echoed in Daniel: any ruler, however mighty, finds limits set by God. Rome, the “fourth beast” foreshadowed in another of Daniel’s visions (Daniel 7:7), was poised to reshape the ancient world. Antiochus III’s expansions abruptly ended when confronted by the unstoppable tide of Roman power.

Finally, the prophecy states: So he will turn his face toward the fortresses of his own land, but he will stumble and fall and be found no more (v. 19). After his humiliating defeat by Rome, Antiochus III was forced to retreat toward the fortresses of his own land, meaning he had to consolidate and recover within the Seleucid heartland. The once-unstoppable king now faced enormous reparations imposed by Rome. We know from historical sources that he plundered various temples in an attempt to pay these debts, provoking local revolts.

Ultimately, he stumbled and fell (v. 19) in 187 BC when, during one such temple raid, he was killed-reportedly by outraged citizens defending their sacred site. True to the angel’s warning, the once-mighty Antiochus III, known as “the Great,” was found no more. His demise testifies to the fleeting nature of worldly power. Scripture repeatedly shows that proud and violent rulers inevitably meet an end orchestrated by God (Proverbs 16:18).

From a theological perspective, Antiochus III’s downfall echoes the biblical pattern that exalts humility and condemns arrogance. Daniel’s broader message assures us that, while kingdoms rise and recede, the purposes of the Most High stand firm. Even the mightiest of human dynasties becomes a footnote in history when they stumble and fall.