Daniel 11:23 Commentary: Deceitful Treaty, Unlikely Rise

Daniel 11 narrates the conflict between the “king of the north” (the Seleucid Syrian empire) and the “king of the south” (the Ptolemaic Egyptian empire). By the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (175, 164 BC), the Seleucid kingdom had been weakened by internal strife and heavy tribute payments to Rome. Antiochus himself had been a hostage in Rome for years before seizing the throne by flattery and cunning (v. 21).

The “league made with him” in v. 23 refers to a peace agreement between Antiochus and his nephew Ptolemy Philometor, who had just been crowned king of Egypt. The treaty involved the return of Coele-Syria and Palestine to Egypt, provinces that had been promised in dowry when Antiochus’s sister Cleopatra married Ptolemy V. Antiochus, however, never intended to honor the pact. As Barnes explains, he sent Apollonius to Egypt on the pretense of congratulating Ptolemy but actually to spy out the land (2 Macc. 4:21). Once he gathered intelligence, Antiochus launched a sudden invasion with only a “small people”, a band of trusted soldiers. He captured Pelusium, then Memphis, and soon controlled all of lower Egypt.

The Hebrew terms sharpen the picture. The Qal perfect verbs וְעָלָה (ve‘alah, “and he will go up”) and וְעָצַם (ve‘atzam, “and he will become strong”) function as narrative futures with vav consecutive, highlighting decisive, unexpected action. The phrase בִּמְעַט־גּוֹי (bim‘at-goy, “with few of a nation”) underscores the contrast between his small initial force and his rapid expansion. As Gill notes, his few men were “valiant men” placed in key forts. The prophet emphasizes that Antiochus’s rise came not from overwhelming numbers but from speed, secrecy and fraud.

This historical situation also foreshadows a later figure, an end-times “king of the north” or Antichrist, who will likewise make a covenant, break it, and rise through deception. The early church, Jerome in particular, read Antiochus as a type of the coming man of lawlessness. Whatever one’s eschatological view, the verse gives a sobering picture of how power often grows through broken promises.

The consulted commentaries and lexicons note no significant textual variants for Daniel 11:23. The Hebrew text is stable across manuscripts, and the differences among English translations reflect interpretive choices (e.g., “after the league made with him” vs. “after an alliance is made with him”) rather than manuscript variation.

From the early church, Daniel 11 was read as a detailed prophecy of the Hellenistic kingdoms, with Antiochus Epiphanes as the central villain. Jerome’s commentary on Daniel identified v. 23 with Antiochus's invasion of Egypt after a deceptive treaty, and he also saw a typological reference to the Antichrist. During the Reformation, Calvin and the Geneva Bible underscored the historical fulfillment while warning that the same pattern of godless cunning would recur. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary explicitly links the “league” of v. 23 to the covenant of Daniel 9:27, drawing an antitypical line to a future ruler. In modern times, the verse is frequently cited in discussions of biblical prophecy and eschatology, both by those who see a strictly historical reference and by those who expect a final end-times figure. Alongside other passages (Daniel 8:25; 11:21, 24), this verse has been used to illustrate the character of satanic power: it advances through deception, not naked force, and often from small beginnings.

Three-point outline

1. The treaty as cover, Antiochus made a formal league with Ptolemy, but his heart was set on deceit. The Hithpael form of “alliance” implies a mutual bond, yet the same word root can also mean “binding with magic charms”, a hint of the manipulative nature of the pact.
2. The rise with few, He achieved dominance not with a massive army but with a small, loyal band. God’s sovereignty is seen in the fact that even minimal human resources can accomplish great things, for good or evil, under His permissive will.
3. The pattern of worldly power, Deceit, suddenness, and disproportionate strength characterize godless ambition. The same pattern appears in the end-times figure (Daniel 8:25; 9:27) and warns us not to trust in political savvy alone.

Five-point outline

1. Alliance: the pretense of peace (v. 23a), Antiochus enters a covenant meant to secure a fragile peace.
2. Deceit: the breaking of faith, The very agreement becomes a weapon of treachery.
3. Ascent: the unexpected advance, He “goes up” (the same verb used for offering sacrifices, but here used for invasion).
4. Strength: fewer becoming formidable, Numbers matter less than unity, timing and purpose.
5. Warning: the end of the scheme, Though Antiochus succeeded for a time, his ultimate fall is certain (vv. 40, 45).

Illustration hooks

• Corporate takeover: A small company is acquired by a larger competitor who promises to preserve its identity, then immediately strips its assets and lays off staff. The signed agreement becomes a tool of exploitation.
• Political campaign: A candidate signs a pledge to limit donations, then uses a loophole to raise unlimited funds. The promise was never meant to bind.
• Family betrayal: A relative is welcomed into a home “for a short stay,” then begins manipulating finances and relationships to gain control. Small footholds can lead to complete domination.

Questions your congregation is asking

• “Why do bad leaders succeed, even when they lie and cheat?”
• “How can we trust anyone when treaties and promises are so easily broken?”
• “Does this verse mean the Antichrist will also rise from obscurity with a small following?”

This verse shows a man who uses the veneer of diplomacy to launch a surprise attack. It forces us to ask hard questions about power, trust, and the way God’s sovereignty works through flawed human choices. The small group should first establish what the text says, then explore how it connects to the larger story of Daniel, and finally consider how it speaks to our own lives.

Discussion questions

1. Observation: What key actions does the verse describe? Who are the two parties involved? (Trace “him” back to v. 21 to identify Antiochus, and the other party to the league.)
2. Interpretation: Why does the angel highlight that Antiochus becomes strong “with a small people”? What does this tell us about his strategy, and about God’s view of human power?
3. Interpretation: How does the Hebrew word מִרְמָה (mirmah, “deceit”) connect to other Old Testament stories (e.g., Jacob’s sons in Genesis 34:13)? What does it reveal about the moral quality of Antiochus’s reign?
4. Connection: Read Daniel 8:25. How does that verse echo the pattern of deceit and rising against a “prince of princes”? What does the overlap suggest about the nature of evil in history?
5. Application: In what situations do we find ourselves trusting human agreements more than God’s faithfulness? How does this account of a broken treaty challenge our assumptions about political or personal security?
6. Application: Antiochus’s rise was sudden and unexpected. How can believers prepare for times when institutions or leaders fail? What resources does faith provide when deals go sour?
7. Hope: How does the ultimate defeat of Antiochus (vv. 40, 45) and the promise of resurrection (12:1, 3) reframe the way we view temporary tyrants and their successes?