What does "the prince of the covenant" refer to in Daniel 11:22? I. Text and Immediate Context “Then a flood of forces will be swept away before him and destroyed, along with the prince of the covenant.” The verse sits in the portion of Daniel’s fourth vision (11:2-35) that traces—step by step—the transition from the Persian Empire through Alexander the Great to the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Verse 22 continues the description of Antiochus IV’s rapid ascension (vv. 21-24). II. Hebrew Expression Hebrew: שַׂר־בְּרִית (“śar berîṯ”) • śar = “prince, ruler, commander.” • berîṯ = “covenant, treaty, alliance.” The phrase denotes a covenant-representing leader—one who embodies or safeguards a formally binding agreement. III. Historical Fulfillment in the Second-Century BC Events 1. Antiochus IV entered Palestine (ca. 171–170 BC), forcibly deposing the legitimate Jewish high priest Onias III, the recognized covenant head of Israel. 2. Josephus (Ant. 12.5.1) and 2 Maccabees 4:23-35 record that Onias III was murdered at Daphne near Antioch. 3. Onias, as high priest, was literally the earthly “prince” (representative) of the Mosaic covenant; his death punctuated Antiochus’ contempt for that covenant. Hence, in its primary historical layer, “the prince of the covenant” is Onias III—the lawful high priest removed and slain by Antiochus IV. IV. Confirming Data Points • The Heliodorus Inscription (year 170 BC) confirms Seleucid meddling in Temple finances, matching Daniel’s “flood of forces.” • Numismatic evidence: Antiochus IV’s early coinage displays aggressive titulature (“Theos Epiphanes”) beginning the same year Onias was killed. • The Dead Sea Daniel scrolls (4QDana) read identically here, underscoring textual stability. V. Typological and Prophetic Trajectory While Antiochus IV and Onias III satisfy the immediate sense, the pattern foreshadows a future eschatological antagonist who likewise violates covenantal leaders: 1. Daniel 9:26-27 and 12:11 project a later ruler who ends sacrifice. 2. Jesus applies Daniel’s “abomination” language to a yet-future event (Matthew 24:15). 3. Paul echoes the same pattern (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4). Thus the historical “prince of the covenant” (Onias III) functions as a type pointing forward to the Messiah’s people under threat and ultimately to the Antichrist’s persecution of covenant believers. VI. Covenant Theology Connection • Exodus 19:5-6 appoints Israel as a “kingdom of priests,” with the high priest as covenant guardian. • Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7 present Christ as the final, indestructible High Priest, guaranteeing a covenant that cannot be broken (Jeremiah 31:31-34). The violent removal of the earthly high priest in Daniel 11 prefigures the necessity of an eternal priest—fulfilled in the resurrected Christ. VII. Manuscript and Linguistic Reliability • All major Masoretic manuscripts (L, A, B) and the LXX一致 preserve the phrase without variant. • The consistency across Qumran, Masoretic, and early Greek witnesses reinforces the accuracy of the wording. VIII. Objections Answered 1. “Could ‘prince of the covenant’ be Antiochus himself?” Antiochus is the aggressor “before whom” armies are swept away; linguistically he cannot be simultaneously the victim. 2. “Could it refer to the coming Messiah?” Messiah is indeed the ultimate covenant Prince (Isaiah 55:4, Acts 3:15), but the temporal markers in vv. 21-24 match second-century BC events, distinguishing the two referents while allowing typology. IX. Practical and Devotional Implications The episode illustrates: • God’s foreknowledge: Specific prophecy fulfilled centuries later validates Scripture’s divine origin. • The vulnerability of mere human mediators, compelling trust in the immortal High Priest, Jesus Christ. • Encouragement under persecution; as God preserved a faithful remnant then, He will do so now. X. Summary “The prince of the covenant” in Daniel 11:22 is historically Onias III, the legitimate Jewish high priest assassinated by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. His removal fulfilled Daniel’s prophecy, underscored the Seleucid assault on God’s covenant, and foreshadowed the ultimate High-Priest-in-Christ who secures an everlasting covenant immune to hostile rulers. |
    |