1“As for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him.
2“Now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings will stand up in Persia; and the fourth will be far richer than all of them. When he has grown strong through his riches, he will stir up all against the realm of Greece.3A mighty king will stand up, who will rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.4When he stands up, his kingdom will be broken, and will be divided toward the four winds of the sky, but not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom will be plucked up, even for others besides these.
1 “As for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him.
2 “Now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings will stand up in Persia; and the fourth will be far richer than all of them. When he has grown strong through his riches, he will stir up all against the realm of Greece.
3 A mighty king will stand up, who will rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.
4 When he stands up, his kingdom will be broken, and will be divided toward the four winds of the sky, but not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom will be plucked up, even for others besides these.
KJVKing James Version
1 Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.
2 And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.
3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.
4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.
Show all 3 translations
JPSJPS Tanakh (1917)
1 And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to be a supporter and a stronghold unto him.
2 And now will I declare unto thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all; and when he is waxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece.
3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.
4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; but not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion wherewith he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.
Daniel 8:8(v4)The male goat magnified himself exceedingly. When he was strong, the great horn was broken; and instead of it there came up four notable…
Daniel 8:22(v4)As for that which was broken, in the place where four stood up, four kingdoms will stand up out of the nation, but not with his power.
Daniel 11:16(v3)But he who comes against him will do according to his own will, and no one will stand before him. He will stand in the glorious land, and…
Daniel 11:36(v3)“The king will do according to his will. He will exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and will speak marvelous things…
Ezra 4:5-6(v2)They hired counselors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king…
Show all 45 cross-references
Jeremiah 12:17(v4)But if they will not hear, then I will pluck up that nation, plucking up and destroying it,” says Yahweh.
Daniel 8:21(v3)The rough male goat is the king of Greece. The great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
Daniel 9:1(v1)In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the offspring of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans,
Daniel 5:31(v1)Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.
Daniel 7:6(vv3–4)“After this I saw, and behold, another, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird. The animal also had four heads; and…
Jeremiah 12:15(v4)It will happen that after I have plucked them up, I will return and have compassion on them. I will bring them again, every man to his…
Jeremiah 18:7(v4)At the instant I speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it;
Daniel 5:19(v3)Because of the greatness that he gave him, all the peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. He killed whom he wanted…
Daniel 7:2(v4)Daniel spoke and said, “I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the sky broke out on the great sea.
Daniel 7:8(v4)“I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were…
Daniel 8:26(v2)“The vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but seal up the vision, for it belongs to many days to come.”
Daniel 11:25(v2)“He will stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south will wage war in…
Amos 3:7(v2)Surely the Lord Yahweh will do nothing, unless he reveals his secret to his servants the prophets.
Revelation 21:5(v2)He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” He said, “Write, for these words of God are faithful and true.”
Job 20:5-7(v4)that the triumphing of the wicked is short, the joy of the godless but for a moment? Though his height mount up to the heavens, and his…
Psalms 37:35-36(v4)I have seen the wicked in great power, spreading himself like a green tree in its native soil. But he passed away, and behold, he was not.…
Psalms 39:6(v4)“Surely every man walks like a shadow. Surely they busy themselves in vain. He heaps up, and doesn’t know who shall gather.
Psalms 49:6-12(v4)Those who trust in their wealth, and boast in the multitude of their riches— none of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give God…
Psalms 73:6-7(v2)Therefore pride is like a chain around their neck. Violence covers them like a garment. Their eyes bulge with fat. Their minds pass the…
Psalms 73:17-20(v4)until I entered God’s sanctuary, and considered their latter end. Surely you set them in slippery places. You throw them down to…
Proverbs 22:21(v2)To teach you truth, reliable words, to give sound answers to the ones who sent you?
Ecclesiastes 2:18-19(v4)I hated all my labor in which I labored under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who comes after me. Who knows whether he will be…
Ecclesiastes 4:8(v4)There is one who is alone, and he has neither son nor brother. There is no end to all of his labor, neither are his eyes satisfied with…
Jeremiah 31:40(v4)The whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields to the brook Kidron, to the corner of the horse gate toward the…
Jeremiah 45:4(v4)“You shall tell him, Yahweh says: ‘Behold, that which I have built, I will break down, and that which I have planted I will pluck up; and…
Daniel 4:35(v3)All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and he does according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants…
Daniel 7:5(v2)“Behold, there was another animal, a second, like a bear. It was raised up on one side, and three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth.…
Daniel 8:4(v2)I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward. No animals could stand before him. There wasn’t any who could deliver out of his…
Daniel 8:4-14(v3)I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward. No animals could stand before him. There wasn’t any who could deliver out of his…
Daniel 10:18(v1)Then one like the appearance of a man touched me again, and he strengthened me.
Daniel 10:20-21(v2)Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Now I will return to fight with the prince of Persia. When I go out, behold, the prince…
Matthew 12:25(v4)Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided…
Luke 12:20(v4)“But God said to him, ‘You foolish one, tonight your soul is required of you. The things which you have prepared—whose will they be?’
John 10:35(v2)If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can’t be broken),
John 18:37-38(v2)Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for…
Acts 14:22(v1)strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that through many afflictions we must enter into…
Ephesians 1:11(v3)We were also assigned an inheritance in him, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who does all things after the counsel…
Hebrews 2:4(v3)God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders, by various works of power and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own…
James 1:18(v3)Of his own will he gave birth to us by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.
Daniel 10:1(v2)In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed to Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, even…
45 distinct cross-references across this passage (46 total citations).
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this passage (25 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
John Calvin1540 · Public DomainOn vv1–4Interpreters explain this verse in various ways. Some think…
Interpreters explain this verse in various ways. Some think the angel fought for the Persian king, and follow up their opinion, because he did not for the first time begin now to defend that monarchy in favor of the chosen people, but had done so from the very beginning. Others refer this to Michael, as the angel declares that he introduced the assistance of Michael. But that is forced and cold. I do not hesitate to state the argument to be from the greater to the less, and we have an instance of this in a tragedy of Ovid’s. I have been able to preserve you; do you ask whether I can destroy you? Thus the angel says, I have erected the Persian monarchy; I have not the slightest doubt of my present power to restrain these kings, lest they should pour forth their fury upon the people. The full meaning is this, the king of the Persians is nothing, and can do nothing except through me. I was God’s servant in transferring the monarchy of the Medes and Chaldeans to the Persians, as well as that of the Babylonians to the Medes. God, says he, entrusted me with that office, and so I placed Darius upon the throne. You now see how completely I have him in my power, and how I can prevent him from injuring my people should he be so inclined. When the angel boasts of his standing forward to help Darius, he claims nothing to himself, but speaks as it were in the person of God. For angels have no power distinct from God’s when he uses their agency and assistance. There is no reason for any inquiry whether the angel ought to use this boastful language and claim anything for himself. For he does not claim anything as really his own, but he skews himself to have been an agent in the change of dynasty when Babylon was subdued by the Medes, and the empire transferred to Darius. For although, as we have previously shewn, Cyrus obtained the victory, yet he transferred the honors of government to his uncle Cyaxares. The Hebrews are accustomed to consider him as king for the first two years; Cyrus began to reign after this period; and now, when the angel appears to Daniel, the third year had arrived, as we saw at the beginning of the chapter.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators1599 · Public DomainOn vv1–4The Angel assureth Daniel that God hath given him…
The Angel assureth Daniel that God hath given him power to perform these things, seeing he appointed him to assist Darius when he overcame the Chaldeans.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp1656 · Public DomainOn vv1–4Dan 11:1 Also I in the first year of…
Dan 11:1 Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, [even] I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.
Ver. 1. Also I,] i.e., I, Gabriel the angel, glad of such an office, for the good of God’s people, whereunto also I was sent by Christ. {Dan 10:9-10}
Read full note →
In the first year of Darius the Mede.] Who now began to think of sending home the captive Jews, but had some hesitations and fluctuations of mind about it.
I stood to confirm and to strengthen him.] Angels cannot enlighten the mind, or powerfully incline the will of man, for so the Holy Ghost only doth; but, as instruments of the Holy Ghost, they can stir up phantasms of the Word read or heard. They can also propose truth and right to the mind, advise and persuade to it as counsellors, and inwardly instigate as it were by speaking and doing after a spiritual manner, suggesting good thoughts, as devils do evil; yea, they can strangely wind themselves into men’s imaginations, so as to appear to them in their dreams. {Mat 1:20}
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole1685 · Public DomainOn vv1–4This first verse should have been the last verse…
This first verse should have been the last verse of the tenth chapter, for it pertains to it; and the second verse of this chapter should have been the first; which neglect those who divided the Scripture into chapters have been found guilty of more than once.
Thus speaks the angel to Daniel; because Darius had the rule of Babylon by the consent of Cyrus, he settled the monarchy of the Medes and Persians upon the ruins of the Babylonian, for the verifying of prophecies, and for protection and preservation of the church.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry1710 · Public DomainOn v1Here, 1. The angel Gabriel lets Daniel know the…
Here, 1. The angel Gabriel lets Daniel know the good service he has done to the Jewish nation (Dan 11:1): "In the first year of Darius the Mede, who destroyed Babylon and released the Jews out of that house of bondage, I stood a strength and fortress to him, that is, I was instrumental to protect him, and give him success in his ward, and, after he had conquered Babylon, to confirm him in his resolution to release the Jews," which, it is likely, met with much opposition. Thus by the angel, and at the request of the watcher, the golden head was broken, and the axe laid to the root of the tree. Note, We must acknowledge the hand of God in the strengthening of those that are friends to the church for the service they are to do it, and confirming them in their good resolutions; herein he uses the ministry of angels more than we are aware of. And the many instances we have known of God's care of his church formerly encourage us to depend upon him in further straits and difficulties. 2. He foretels the reign of four Persian kings (Dan 11:2): Now I will tell thee the truth, that is, the true meaning of the visions of the great image, and of the four beasts, and expound in plain terms what was before represented by dark types. (1.) There shall stand up three kings in Persia, besides Darius, in whose reign this prophecy is dated, Dan 9:1. Mr. Broughton makes these three to be Cyrus, Artaxasta or Artaxerxes, called by the Greeks Cambyses, and Ahasuerus that married Esther, called Darius son of Hystaspes. To these three the Persians gave these attributes - Cyrus was a father, Cambyses a master, and Darius a hoarder up. So Herodotus. (2.) There shall be a fourth, far richer than they all, that is, Xerxes, of whose wealth the Greek authors take notice. By his strength (his vast army, consisting of 800,000 men at least) and his riches, with which he maintained and paid that vast army, he stirred up all against the realm of Greece. Xerxes's expedition against Greece is famous in history, and the shameful defeat that he met with. He who when he went out was the terror of Greece in his return was the scorn of Greece. Daniel needed not to be told what disappointment he would meet with, for he was a hinderer of the building of the temple; but soon after, about thirty years after the first return from captivity, Darius, a young king, revived the building of the temple, owning the hand of God against his predecessors for hindering it, Ezr 6:7. 3. He foretels Alexander's conquests and the partition of his kingdom, Dan 11:3. He is that mighty king that shall stand up against the kings of Persia, and he shall rule with great dominion, over many kingdoms, and with a despotic power, for he shall do according to his will, and undo likewise, which, by the law of the Medes and Persians, their kings could not. When Alexander, after he had conquered Asia, would be worshipped as a god, then this was fulfilled, that he shall do according to his will. That is God's prerogative, but was his pretension. But (Dan 11:4) his kingdom shall soon be broken, and divided into four parts, but not to his posterity, nor shall any of his successors reign according to his dominion; none of them shall have such large territories nor such an absolute power. His kingdom was plucked up for others besides those of his own family. 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. See what decaying perishing things worldly pomp and possessions are, and the powers by which they are got. Never was the vanity of the world and its greatest things shown more evidently than in the story of Alexander. All is vanity and vexation of spirit.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill1763 · Public DomainOn vv1–4Also I, in the first year of Darius the…
Also I, in the first year of Darius the Mede,.... These words more properly belong to the preceding chapter, and should have concluded that, and the "eleventh" chapter should have begun in the next verse; and they are not the words of Daniel, as Jerom and others; but of the angel telling Daniel, not only what he had been lately doing, and would do in the court of Persia for his people; but what he had done in the beginning of that monarchy, the very first year that Darius the Mede became king of Babylon, and head of the whole monarchy; see Dan 5:30, the Septuagint and Arabic versions render it, "in the first year of Cyrus"; which was the same time; for Darius and Cyrus reigned together.
Even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him; not Michael your Prince, as Jarchi; for he being no other than the Son of God, an uncreated Angel, needed not the help and assistance of a created one, nor could receive any strength and confirmation from such an one; unless this is to be understood, not with respect to Michael himself abstractly considered, but as in relation to the people of the Jews, on whose side Michael was; and so this angel took part with him and them, and as his minister served them both, in defending them, and taking care of their affairs at this time; so Jacchiades paraphrases it, to confirm and strengthen Israel: but it seems rather to design Darius, and the sense to be, that this angel strengthened Darius and Cyrus in their good intentions to let the people of Israel go free and give them full liberty and encouragement to go into their own land, and rebuild their city and temple; about which some doubts and hesitations might arise in their minds, and objections be made by some of their nobles and courtiers to it, being moved and influenced by an evil spirit, the adversary of this good angel; but he attended them so closely, and so strongly suggested to them what they should do in this case, that he carried his point on behalf of the Jews; for this respects not so much the destruction of the Chaldean monarchy, and the establishing the Persian monarchy on the ruins of it, and settling Darius on the throne, and strengthening his kingdom and interest, as the confirmation of him and Cyrus in their designs in favour of the Jews. The Syriac version is, "from the first year of Darius the Mede, he rose up to help me, and assist me"; as if the angel was still speaking of Michael, who came to his help against the prince of Persia, and was the only one that held with him, and had done so from the beginning of the Persian empire; but the Hebrew text will not admit of such a translation.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley1765 · Public DomainOn vv1–4A prediction of the setting up of the Grecian…
A prediction of the setting up of the Grecian monarchy, ver. 1- 4. Of the affairs of Egypt and Syria, ver. 5-20. The rise and success of Antiochus Epiphanes, ver. 21-29. The mischief he would do to the Jews, ver. 30-43. His fall, ver. 44, 45.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke1810 · Public DomainOn vv1–4This chapter gives a more particular explanation of those
CHAPTER XI
This chapter gives a more particular explanation of those
Read full note →
events which were predicted in the eighth chapter. The prophet
had foretold the partition of Alexander's kingdom into four
parts. Two of these, in which were included Egypt and Syria,
the one to the north, the other to the south, in respect of
Judea, appear to take up the chief attention of the prophet,
as his people were particularly concerned in their fate; these
being the countries in which by far the greatest number of the
Jews were, and still are, dispersed. Of these countries he
treats (according to the views of the most enlightened
expositors) down to the conquest of Macedon, A.M. 3836, B.C.
168, when he begins to speak of the Romans, 1-30;
and then of the Church under that power, 31-35.
This leads him to speak of Antichrist, who was to spring up in
that quarter, 36-39;
and of those powers which at the TIME of the end, or the
latter days of the Roman monarchy, (as this term is generally
understood,) were to push at it, and overthrow many countries,
40-43.
By the king of the SOUTH, in the fortieth verse, the dominion
of the Saracens, or Arabs, is supposed to be intended, which
was an exceeding great plague to the Roman empire in the east,
and also to several papistical countries, for the space of one
hundred and fifty years, i.e. from A.D. 612, when Mohammed and
his followers first began their depredations, to A.D. 762, when
Bagdad was built, and made the capital of the caliphs of the
house of Abbas, from which epoch the Saracens became a more
settled people. By the king of the NORTH in the same verse the
prophet is supposed by some to design that great scourge of
eastern Christendom, the Ottoman or Othman empire, by which,
after about a hundred and fifty years of almost uninterrupted
hostilities, the Roman empire in the east was completely
overturned, A.D. 1453. The chapter concludes with a prediction
of the final overthrow of this northern power, and of the
manner in which this great event shall be accomplished, 44, 45.
But it should be observed that, notwithstanding the very
learned observations of Bishop Newton and others upon this
chapter, their scheme of interpretation presents very great and
insurmountable difficulties; among which the very lengthy
detail of events in the Syrian and Egyptian histories,
comprising a period of less than two hundred years, and the
rather uncouth transition to the incomparably greater
transactions in Antichristian times, and of much longer
duration, which are passed over with unaccountable brevity,
are not the least. On all these subjects, however, the reader
must judge for himself. See the notes.
NOTES ON CHAP. XI
Verse 1. In the first year of Darius the Mede] This is a continuation of the preceding discourse. Bp. Newton, who is ever judicious and instructing, remarks: It is the usual method of the Holy Spirit to make the latter prophecies explanatory of the former; and thus revelation "is a shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." The four great empires shown to Nebuchadnezzar, under the symbol of a great image, were again more particularly represented to Daniel under the forms of four great wild beasts. In like manner, the memorable events that were revealed to Daniel in the vision of the ram and he-goat, are here more clearly revealed in this last vision by an angel; so that this latter prophecy may not improperly be said to be a comment on the former. It comprehends many signal events. The types, figures, and symbols of the things are not exhibited in this, as in most other visions, and then expounded by the angel; but the angel relates the whole: and, not by way of vision, but by narration, informs Daniel of that which is noted in the Scripture of truth, Da 10:21.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson1811 · Public DomainOn vv1–3Dan 11:1. Also I, in the first year of…
Dan 11:1. Also I, in the first year of Darius, &c. — This verse should have been joined to the last chapter. The meaning of what the angel here says is, that from the time that Daniel addressed those ardent prayers to God about the affairs of his people, mentioned chap. 9., which was in the first year of Darius, from that very time HE (namely, the angel Gabriel) had strenuously co-operated with Michael, in working the deliverance of the Jewish nation. See here again the vast efficacy and power of prayer; it engages God and angels to our assistance.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes1834 · Public DomainOn vv1–4Also I - I the angel. He alludes here…
Also I - I the angel. He alludes here to what he had done on a former occasion to promote the interests of the Hebrew people, and to secure those arrangements which were necessary for their welfare - particularly in the favorable disposition of Darius the Mede toward them.
In the first year of Darius the Mede - See the notes at Dan 5:31. He does not here state the things contemplated or done by Darius in which he had confirmed or strengthened him, but there can be no reasonable doubt that it was the purpose which he had conceived to restore the Jews to their own land, and to give them permission to rebuild their city and temple. Compare Dan 9:1. It was in that year that Daniel offered his solemn prayer, as recorded in Dan. 9; in that year that, according to the time predicted by Jeremiah (see Dan 9:2), the captivity would terminate; and in that year that an influence from above led the mind of the Persian king to contemplate the restoration of the captive people. Cyrus was, indeed, the one through whom the edict for their return was promulgated; but as he reigned under his uncle Cyaxares or Darius, and as Cyaxares was the source of authority, it is evident that his mind must have been influenced to grant this favor, and it is to this that the angel here refers.
Read full note →
I stood to confirm and to strengthen him - Compare the notes at Dan 10:13. It would seem that the mind of Darius was not wholly decided; that there were adverse influences bearing on it: that there were probably counselors of his realm who advised against the proposed measures, and the angel here says that he stood by him, and confirmed him in his purpose, and secured the execution of his benevolent plan. Who can prove that an angel may not exert an influence on the heart of kings? And what class of men is there who, when they intend to do good and right, are more likely to have their purposes changed by evil counselors than kings; and who are there that more need a heavenly influence to confirm their design to do right?
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary1859 · Public DomainOn vv1–4Confirmed. Gabriel assisted Michael to comply with God’s orders.…
Confirmed. Gabriel assisted Michael to comply with God’s orders. (Chap. x. 21.) (Calmet) --- The angel continues his speech, and informs us that he had prayed for Darius after the fall of Babylon, seeing that he was well-inclined towards the Jews, as his successor Cyrus (who liberated them) was also. (Worthington)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures1864 · Public DomainOn v1b. Detailed prophetic description of the Persian and Græcian…
b. Detailed prophetic description of the Persian and Græcian world-kingdoms, and also of the kingdoms which should arise from the latter, together with their conflicts.
Dan_11:2-45.
Read full note →
2And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in [to] Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by [according to] his strength through [by] his riches he shall stir up all [the whole] against [with] the realm of Græcia [kingdom of Javan].
3And a mighty king [a king, a hero] shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion [rule], and do according to his will. 4And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided [partitioned] toward the four winds of heaven [the heavens]; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion [rule] which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for [and given to] others besides those [these]
5 And the king of the south shall be strong, and [become] one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion [rule]; his dominion 6 [rule] shall be a great dominion [rule]. And in [to] the end of years they shall join [associate] themselves together; for [and] the king’s daughter [daughter of the king] of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement;1 but [and] she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor [and] his arm; but [and] she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these [the] times.
7 But [And] out of a branch [shoot] of her roots shall one stand up in his estate [basis, i.e., stead], which [and he] shall come with an army [to the force], and shall enter into [come in] the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against [do with] them, and shall prevail [strengthen himself]; 8and shall also carry captives [cause to go in the captivity] into Egypt their gods, with their princes [anointed ones], and with their precious [prized] vessels of silver and of 9 gold; and he2 shall continue [stand] more years than the king of the north. So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom [And he shall come into the kingdom of the king of the south], and shall return into his own land [ground].
10But his sons shall be stirred up [strengthen themselves], and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through; then [and] shall he return, and be stirred up [or, they shall 11 strengthen themselves], even to his [or, their] fortress. And the king of the south shall be moved with choler [become very bitter], and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth [cause to stand] a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand. 12 And when he hath taken away the multitude [or, the multitude shall be taken away], his heart shall be lifted up [or, raised up]; and he shall cast down [cause to fall] many ten thousands: but [and] he shall not be strengthened by it.
13 For [And] the king of the north shall return and shall set forth [cause to stand] a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain [at the end of the times the] years with a great army [force] and with much riches. 14And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also [and] the robbers [sons of tyrants] of thy people shall exalt themselves [be lifted up] to establish [cause to stand] the vision; but [and] they shall fall [be stumbled].
15 So [And] the king of the north shall come, and cast up [pour out] a mount [mound], and take [catch] the most fenced cities [city of defences]; and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither [and, i.e., or] his chosen people16 [the people of his choice], neither shall there be any strength to withstand. But [And] he that cometh against [to] him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land [land of comeliness], which [and] by his hand [he] shall be consumed. 17He shall also [And he shall] set his face to enter [come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones3 with him; thus [and] shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of [the] women, corrupting [to corrupt, or, destroy] her; but 18 [and] she shall not stand on his side, neither [nor] be for him. After this [And] shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take [ catch] many; but a prince [general] for his own behalf [his reproach] shall cause the reproach offered by him [for him] to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon 19 [to] him. Then [And] he shall turn his face toward the fort [fortresses] of his own land; but [and] he shall stumble [be stumbled] and fall, and not be found.
20 Then [And] shall stand up in his estate [on his basis, i.e., stead] a raiser of taxes in [one causing the exactor to pass through] the glory of the kingdom: but within few days [and in single days] he shall be destroyed [broken], neither [and not] in anger nor in battle.
21And in his estate [on his basis, i.e., stead] shall stand up a vile [despised] person, to whom [and on him] they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but [and] he shall come in peaceably [with tranquillity], and obtain [or, 22 strengthen] the kingdom by flatteries. And with the arms of a [the] flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea [and], also the prince of the covenant. 23And after the league made with [from the covenanting to] him he shall work deceitfully: for [and] he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. 24He shall enter [come] peaceably [with tranquillity] even upon [and with] the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor [and] his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among [to] them the prey, and spoil, and riches; yea, and he shall forecast [devise] his devices against the strong holds, even [and that] for [till] a time.
25And he shall stir up his power and his courage [heart] against the king of the south with a great army [force]; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to [the] battle with a very great and mighty army [force]; but [and] he shall not 26 stand: for they shall forecast [devise] devices against him. Yea [And], they that feed [eat] of the portion of his meat [dainty food] shall destroy [break] him, and his army [force] shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain. 27And both these kings’ hearts [the kings, their heart] shall be to do mischief [wrong], and they shall speak lies [falsehood] at [over] one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at [to] the time appointed.
28 Then [And] shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits and return to his 29 own land. At [To] the time appointed he shall return, and come toward [in] 30 the south: but [and] it shall not be as the former, or [and] as the latter. For [And] the ships of Chittim shall come against [in] him; therefore [and] he shall be grieved [dejected], and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant; so [and] shall he do; he shall even [and he shall] return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.
31And arms shall stand on his part [from him], and they shall pollute the sanctuary of trength [the stronghold], and shall take [cause to turn] away the daily [continual] sacrifice, and they shall place [give] the abomination that 32 maketh desolate. And such as do wickedly against [the wicked doers of] the covenant shall he corrupt [pollute] by flatteries: but [and] the people that do 33 know their [its] God shall be strong, and do exploits. And they that understand among [the prudent of] the people shall instruct [understand for the] many; yet [and] they shall fall [be stumbled] by the sword, and by flame, 34 by captivity, and by spoil, many days. Now [And] when they shall fall [be stumbled], they shall be holpen [helped] with a little help: but [and] many 35 shall cleave [be joined] to them with flatteries. And some of them of understanding [the prudent] shall fall [be stumbled], to try [lit., smelt in] them, and to purge [purify], and to make them white, even to [till] the time of the end: because it is yet for a [to the] time appointed. 36And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous [distinguished] things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished [fail]: for that that is determined shall be done.
37Neither shall he regard [And he will not have understanding upon] the God of his fathers, nor [and upon] the desire of women, nor regard [and he will not have understanding upon] any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. 38But in His estate [And on his base, i.e., stead] shall he honour [give glory to] the god of forces [strongholds]; and [to] a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour [give glory] with gold, and [with] silver, and with precious stones [stone], and pleasant 39 things. Thus [And] shall he do in the most [fortresses of] strongholds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase [increase to acknowledge] with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over [the] many, and shall divide the land for gain [distribute ground with a price].
40 And at [in] the time of the end shall the king of the south push at [wage war with] him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind [will storm upon him], with chariots [chariot], and with horsemen [horses], and with many ships [boats]; and he shall enter [come] into the countries [lands], and shall overflow and pass oDaniel Dan_11:41 He shall enter also [And he will come] into the glorious land [land of comeliness], and many countries shall be overthrown [stumbled]: but [and] these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief [first] of the children of Ammon. 42He shall stretch forth his hand also [And he shall send his hand] upon [in] the countries [lands]; and the land 43 of Egypt shall not escape [be for an escaped one, i.e., exempt]. But [And] he shall have power [rule] over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious [pleasant] things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall 44 be at [in] his steps. But [And] tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore [and] he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away [devote to extermination] many. 45And he shall plant the tabernacles [tents] of his palace [pavilion] between the seas in [at] the glorious holy mountain [holy mountain of comeliness]; yet [and] he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
EXEGETICAL REMARKS
Dan_11:2. Touching upon the last kings of Persia in a hasty and summary review. And now will I show thee the truth. אֱמֶת, see Dan_10:21.—Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; i. e., doubtless, after the present king, hence after Cyrus (see Dan_10:1), there shall be three more kings of Persia,—the Persian state shall have three more kings. The author therefore assigns altogether four kings to Persia, from which, however, it by no means follows that he “knew” only that number; nor can it be shown from Ezr_4:5; Ezr_4:7 that the writer of that book knew of four Persian kings (Hitzig, Ewald).[4] The number four is rather to be regarded as a symbolic number, exactly like that of the wings and heads of the leopard in Dan_7:6 (see on that passage), which indicates that the development of the kingdom in question is completed, and is, to that extent, parallel with the number of the world-monarchies and with other significant quadruples; cf. Eth.-fund principles, etc., on chap. 2 No. 3.5—And the fourth shall be far richer than they all; rather, “shall acquire greater riches,” etc. This fourth one does not denote the last of all the Persian kings, Darius Codomannus, but the fourth from the beginning (or, in other words, the third of the three just mentioned),6 and therefore Xerxes, as pseudo-Smerdis, is probably not included, and Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius Hystaspis are considered the first three. The characteristic noticed in this place applies well to Xerxes, as he became especially famous because of his immense riches (Herodotus, III. 96; IV. 27–29), and as his expedition into Greece obscured those of his father by the excessive greatness of his armament. The significance of this fourth member of the old Persian dynasty (whose identity with Xerxes was naturally not yet apprehended by the prophet [?], especially as the angel did not see fit to state his name) is that he represents, on the one hand, the acme of the development in power of the kingdom in question, and, on the other, the beginning of its dissolution.—And by his strength through his riches, or, “when he has become strong through his riches. וּכְחֶזְקָתוֹ, an infinitive (cf. 2Ch_12:1; also infra, Dan_11:4, and Dan_8:8; Dan_8:23), is not co-ordinated with the following בְּעָשְׁרוֹ, but is placed above it.—He shall stir up all against the realm of Græcia, i.e., “stake all.” הַכֹּל, properly, “the all,” i.e., all that has been mentioned, all the immense treasures and forces referred to. יָעִיר, properly, “shall excite, stir up,” does not allude so much to inanimate treasures as to the subjects of this king as being the objects of his exciting activity; cf. Dan_11:25; Job_12:2; Jer_1:9.—אֵת מַלְכוּת יָוָן is not properly “against the realm of Javan,” but “to the realm,” etc.; אֵת serves to introduce the accusative denoting the direction of the movement.—It accords fully with the position of the seer prior to Xerxes, that Greece (with regard to Javan, cf. on Dan_8:21) should be represented as a kingdom. A Maccabæan writer, who might aim to sketch the history of that king, and of his expedition against the Greeks, would assuredly have known, and indicated, that at that time Javan was not yet a מַלְכוּת.
Dan_11:3-4. Alexander the Great and his immediate successors.[7] And a mighty king shall stand up. מֶלֶך גִּבּוֹר, a herioc, warlike king; cf. אֵל גִּבּוֹר, Isa_9:5, and also the symbolic description of Alexander’s martial greatness in Dan_8:5 et seq., 21. עָמַד, “he stands up,” i.e., comes up and presents a warlike and threatening appearance; cf. Dan_11:4; Dan_11:14, and also Dan_11:1.—And do according to his will. Cf. Dan_8:4 and infra, Dan_11:16. The sovereign arbitrariness with which Alexander ruled all the persons of his time is likewise attested by Curtius, Dan_10:5, Dan 35: “Fortunam solus omnium mortalium in potestate habuit.”
Dan_11:4. And when he shall stand up (rather, “when he has stood up”), his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven. וּכְעָמְדוֹ is probably to be closely connected with the idea presented by עָמַד in the preceding verse: “and when,” or, “and as soon as he shall have stood up” (Von Lengerke, Füller, etc.); so that the brief duration of Alexander’s reign is here indicated. Others, e.g., Hävernick, Kranichfeld, Ewald, etc., render it, “and when he shall stand in his power, when his power has reached its highest point” (Luther); but this view is questionable, because of the entirely too pregnant meaning which is thus attributed to עמד. Hitzig’s assertion that עמד in this place is synonymous with the Syr. עכד, “to depart in death, to die,” and that the following תִּשָּׁבֵר (with which cf. Dan_8:8) is not passive in its signification, and therefore does not denote “to be broken,” but “to break apart,” must certainly be rejected.—On the phrase, “be divided toward the four winds of heaven,” cf. the analogous symbolic description in Dan_8:8.—And not to his posterity, namely, “shall it be divided;” they shall not be benefited by the division, but shall be entirely deprived of their patrimony, thus realizing a feature that was common in the early experience of the theocracy, 1Sa_15:28; 2Sa_3:10; 1Ki_11:11; 1Ki_14:7-10; 1Ki_15:29; 1Ki_16:3 et seq.; 1Ki_21:21. It is well known that this actually was the case with Alexander’s sons, Hercules (whose mother was Barsina, and who was murdered by Polysperchon) and Alexander (a filius posthumus. born of Roxana, and likewise murdered). Cf. Diodorus, 19:105; 20:28; Pausan., 9:7; Justin., 15:2; Appian, Syr., C. 51.—Nor according to his dominion which he ruled, “shall the divided kingdom be;” on the contrary, it shall present a painful picture of impotence; cf. וְלאׄ בְכחוֹ in the parallel, Dan_8:22.—For his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others besides those, מִלְבַּד אֶלֶּא, to the exclusion of those, i.e., of the natural heirs and rightful successors of this ruler. Concerning the phrase, “to be torn out, uprooted,” cf. on Dan_4:12; Dan_4:12; also Job_14:7 et seq.; Isa_6:10, etc.
Dan_11:5-6. The first Seleucidœ and Lagidœ. While the prophetic description, upon the whole, has hitherto confined itself to general outlines, and has not materially deviated from the ordinary methods of prophecy, it begins at this point to assume a suspiciously specific character, which arouses the thought that later hands may have improved on the prophecy by interpolating various features of detail. The fact that only the two states, emanating from the great Græcian world-empire, which bordered immediately on the “pleasant land,” are more carefully followed in their further development, is not, indeed, enough to arouse this suspicion, for the other kingdoms of the Diadochi might have been passed over as too unimportant in their relations with the theocracy. It was, moreover, to be expected that Israel should be alternately oppressed by a southern and a northern neighbor, in view of the similar parts taken in earlier prophecies by the Assyrio-Babylonian north on the one hand, and by Egypt in the south, on the other (cf., e.g., Isa_30:6; Isa_43:6; Jer_3:12; Jer_3:18; Jer_6:22; Jer_46:20; Jer_46:24; Zep_2:13; Zec_10:10-11). But the manner in which the transactions between the two kingdoms, whether peaceful or hostile in their character, are described with regard to their changeful course, is too exact, and covers too extended a succession of reigns and events, to find even a remote parallel in any other part of the prophetic literature of the Old-Test, canon.[8] The unique character of the section in this respect was recognized at an early period, and has been made use of by the opponents of the authenticity and genuine prophetic dignity of the book (e.g., early by Porphyry), in order to attack its character, and has also been employed for apologetic purposes, in order to demonstrate the inspired character of the prophecy, and the astonishing exactness with which its predictions corresponded with the actual development of the dominion of the Seleucidæ and the Lagidæ. With this view it is employed by Luther in his preface to Daniel and in his exposition of chap. 12 (which begins, according to his opinion, with Dan_11:36;—see vol. 41, pp. 252 et seq., 294 et seq.); by Venema, Commentarius ad Danielis cap. XI. 5–XII. 3 (Leovard., 1752); by Hengstenberg, Beitr., p. 173 et seq.; and, generally, by a majority of orthodox expositors in ancient and modern times. Cf. especially Ebrard, Die Offenb. Joh., p. 81 et seq., where a thorough illustration of the harmony between the contents of this section and the facts of history precedes the remark: “For that very reason—this is the internal design of the specializing prophecy, chap. 11—the coming of the Macedonian tyrant is connected with the age of Daniel by an unbroken chain of the most particular events, that it might be thoroughly apparent that no interval for the coming of the Messiah and his rejection should intervene between the time of Daniel and that tyrant.” But Ebrard himself does not seem to have remained permanently satisfied with this mode of justifying the remarkably specific character of the prophecy on the supposition of a higher plane of revelation; for, in his review of Füller’s commentary, he confesses that he “has not yet found any exposition of chap. 11. that was entirely satisfactory” (p. 207).—We shall attend specially to Kranichfeld’s view in the following exposition of the several passages. He likewise contends for the genuine character of the section throughout, but on the frequently forced assumption that the modern exegesis applies what was indefinite and merely ideal in the mind of the prophet to the facts of history in the corresponding period in far too pointed a manner.—And the king of the south shall be (or “become”) strong, i.e., the ruler to whom the south, or Egypt, has fallen; cf. Dan_11:8, where the south is expressly designated as מִצְרַיִם; also the Sept. on this passage, and Zec_6:6.—And one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him; rather, “but one of his princes—he shall be strong above him.” With regard to the partitive מִן in וּמִן שָׂרָיו, cf. Gen_28:11; Exo_6:26; Neh_13:28. The subject, “one of his princes,” occupies a detached position at the beginning (cf. Eze_34:19); the copula, however, restores the connection: “(so far as he is concerned) he shall still be stronger.”—Others (Luther, etc., Bertholdt, Rosenm., Kranichfeld, Füller, etc.) regard the ו in שָׂרָיו וּמִן as the definite “and indeed, namely,” and refer the suffix to the subject of the preceding verse: “and the king of the south, namely one of his (Alexander’s) princes, shall become strong.” This, however, is opposed by the lack of a definite subject of וְיֶחֱזַק in that case, and by the unanimous authority of the ancient versions, which regard this second ויחזק as the predicate of ומן שריו, despite the Athnach. Consequently, the event to which the passage alludes is the founding of the dynasty of the Seleucidæ in the year B. C. 312. by Seleucus Nicator. the general of Ptolemy Lagus (Diodorus, 19:55, 58; Appian, Syr., C. 52),9 who extended his dominion from Phrygia to the Indus, and thus greatly exceeded his former lord in power, approaching to the position of power and greatness occupied by Alexander himself more nearly than any other of the Diadochi (Appian, Syr., 55; Arrian, Anab., VII. 22. 9).—And (shall) have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion. מִמְשָׁל רָכ is the predicate, followed by the subject in regular order. The whole clause, however, is logically subordinated to וּמָשָׁל; cf. Gen_12:8.
Dan_11:6. And in the end of years they shall join themselves together. וּלְקֵץ שָׁכִים, “and after the lapse of several years,” cf. 2Ch_18:2; also infra, Dan_11:8; Dan_11:13. The subjects of the sentence are the kings of the northern and of the southern kingdoms, and the alliance referred to is the marriage of Antiochus II. Theos (the son and successor of Antiochus I. Soter, who had followed Seleucus Nicator upon the throne of the Seleucidæ as its second possessor, B. C. 281–261, but who is wholly unnoticed in this prophecy) with Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus (280–247), the second of the line of Ptolemies. Antiochus was obliged, on that occasion, to banish Loadice, his former wife and half-sister, and to disinherit the children she had borne to him (Appian, Syr., C. 55; cf. Jerome on this passage). It is impossible to doubt that this event is referred to in this place, in view of what follows, and Kranichfeld therefore wastes his labor when he observes, with reference to מֶלְך חַצָּפוֹן, and with an apologetic aim, that “it is an interpolation to assume that Daniel here intended precisely a king of Syria.”—To make an agreement; properly, “to make a straightening, to establish a just and peaceful condition.” Cf. יְשָׁרִים, Dan_11:17, and the corresponding Sikata, 1Ma_7:12.—But she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm; i.e., probably, neither her arm nor his, which had strengthened themselves by that union, shall be able to retain the power thus acquired;[10] their union shall again be dissolved, and the political alliance, with its strengthening influence upon both kingdoms, shall thus be set aside. It seems unnecessary, upon this view, to adopt Hitzig’s emendation, וְלאׄ יַעַמְדוּ זְרֹעָו (“his [i.e., the arm of Berenice] arms shall not stand,” which is held to be equivalent to “her father as well as her consort, who were hitherto her protectors, shall forsake her), and also Kranichfeld’s rendering of חַזְּרועַ in the sense of host, in support of which Dan_11:15; Dan_11:22; Dan_11:31 may indeed be adduced, but this is decidedly opposed by the context, which treats solely of an intermarriage and its immediate consequences, and not at all of warlike events. It is likewise arbitrary to take זְרוֹעַ in the sense of “support, protector,” with Hävernick, Von Lengerke, etc., and accordingly to find the assistance to be derived by Berenice from Egypt referred to in the former half of the sentence, and in the latter half the aid rendered to her husband by Berenice herself. “Arm” is intended in each case to simply denote the physical or political power of the respective royal personages, and consequently, in the first instance, that of the Egyptian princess, and in the next that of her consort.—But she shall be given up and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times; or, “he that begat her and he that led her away in the times.” מְבִיאֶיהָ, “they that brought her,” denotes either the “begetter” who is mentioned immediately afterward, and the one that “led her home,” hence her father and her husband (Hävernick, Füller, etc.), or the company of her followers, her train when she left Egypt (Ewald), [or “who brought her into the marriage” (Keil)]. The word is hardly to be taken, with Hitzig, as a categorical plural, and thus to be limited to the husband. מַחֲזִקָהּ properly signifies “he that holds her, that obtains possession of her,” i.e., her consort (thus correctly Von Lengerke and Hävernick, while Hitzig, Kranichfeld, [Keil], etc., contend for the rendering of הֶחֱזִיק by “maintaining or supporting,” which is too artificial).—בַּעִתִּיּם, “in the times,” is an idiom signifying “at that time,” i.e., when his critical situation obliged him to marry her. תִּנָּתֵן, “she shall be given up, be given over to ruin, overthrown (in perniciem traditur),” is a very general expression that does not necessarily imply death by violence; cf. Isa_5:12; also infra, Dan_11:11.—The historical commentary on the latter half of this verse is as follows: As soon as Ptolemy Philadelphus had died in B. C. 247, Antiochus Theos expelled Berenice, and recalled the formerly rejected Laodice. The latter, however, aimed at farther revenge, and to achieve it she poisoned the king, had her son by him, Seleucus II. Callinicus, declared his successor, and sent assassins against Berenice, who had fled to the sanctuary of Daphne. The latter queen was slain, together with her little son, and the hope of the Ptolemies to behold one of their lineage on the throne of the Seleucidæ was thus wholly destroyed. Cf. Polyæn., viii. 50; Justin., xxvii. 1; Appian, 1. c.—Kranichfeld vainly attempts to shake the evident correspondence of this series of facts with the language of the passage by regarding תִּכָּתֵן as denoting a violent death, and consequently as not harmonizing with the natural death of Ptolemy Philadelphus.[11] He farther translates זְרוֹעַ in the sense of “host,” and attributes to מְבִיאֶיחָ the questionable meaning, “the promoters of her marriage” (the “furtherers of the whole Delilah-like match”), by all of which he obviously becomes liable to the charge of arbitrary “interpolation,” to a far greater degree than the opponents whom he accuses of that crime because they frankly recognize the reference to those events.
Dan_11:7-9. Ptolemy Evergetes and Seleucus Callinicus. But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his place (marg.). The partitive מִן as in Dan_11:5. כֵעֶר ש׳, “the sprouting of her roots” (cf. Isa_11:1) signifies the lineage, the immediate ancestry of Berenice; the person referred to was consequently the son of her parents and her own brother, viz.: Ptolemy III. Evergetes, the successor of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 247–221. כִּכּוֹ, an accusative of the direction (cf. Dan_11:2, at the end); in Dan_11:20-21, it is replaced by a definite עַל כַּכּוֹ.—Which (or “and he”) shall come with an (rather, “against the”) army, and shall enter into the fortress of the ting of the north אֶל־הַחַיִל וְיָבאֹ signifies neither, “he shall come to his host” (Hitzig), nor “he shall come to power” (Hävernick); the former rendering is as forced as the latter is contrary to the language (owing to the missing article). על is rather equivalent to against, and the “host” is that of the northern king. The “coming into his fortress” which follows, designates the result of the expedition as a whole, the taking of the northern king’s fortress by the king of the south. It must, however, remain undecided whether this “fortress” denotes specially the strongly fortified maritime city of Seleucia (as Hitzig thinks). It is more probable that מָעוֹז is used collectively (cf. Dan_11:19), and that therefore בּוֹא בְ does not denote the entering into the fortresses, but only the arrival before them.—And shall deal (or “execute it”) against them and prevail. “Against them” refers to the subjects of the northern kingdom, not to the fortresses. With regard to עָשָׂה בְ, “to do to, or against one,” namely, according to pleasure, cf. Jer_18:23; also the more definite עָשָׂח, כִרְצוֹכוֹ Dan_11:3; Dan_11:36; Dan_8:4. Concerning the magnificent success achieved by Ptolemy Evergetes during his expedition against Syria (the conquest of almost the entire Syrian realm from Cilicia to beyond the Tigris, the taking of numerous fortresses, and the slaying of Laodice, the rival and murderess of his sister Berenice) cf. Appian, Syr., C. 65; Justin., XXVII. 1; Jerome on the passage.
Dan_11:8. And shall also carry captive into Egypt their gods, with their princes (rather “molten images”), etc. The suffix in אֱלחֵֹיהֶם and also in נְסִכֵיהֶם refers to the inhabitants of Syria, the same to whom בָּהֶם in the preceding verse referred. כְסִכִים does not signify “princes” in this passage (as it does, e.g., in Jos_13:21; Eze_32:30), but “molten images, cast images, brazen statues;” and consequently כָסִיךְ is employed in the sense which is more generally denoted by נֶסֶךְ (Isa_41:29; Isa_48:5) or מַסֵּכָה (Exo_32:4; Exo_32:8; Exo_34:17, etc.). The express mention of the molten images besides the gods arises from the fact that the existence of the latter is made wholly dependent on the former. The transportation of the idols in itself is the significant evidence of the total subjugation of an opposing kingdom (cf. Isa_46:1-2 : Jer_48:7; Jer_49:3; Hos_10:5 et seq.); and likewise the removal of the “precious vessels of silver and gold” which is afterward noticed (כֶּסֶף וְזָהָכ, genit. materiæ, depending on the immediately preceding gen. qualitatis, כְּלֵי חֶמְדָּתָם, cf. Nah_2:10; Jer_27:18 et seq.; Eze_7:19 et seq.; Zep_1:18; Dan_1:2.—The historical event which corresponds to this was the return of Ptolemy Evergetes to Egypt, occasioned by a revolt, when he carried away from Syria a booty of 4,000 talents of gold, numerous jewels, and 2,500 idol-statues, the latter including among their number those which Cambyses had formerly transported to Persia. It was the restoration of these that secured to this third Ptolemy the name of Εὐεργέτης. Cf. Jerome on the passage, and the Marmor Adulitanum, the monument erected by the victor in commemoration of his deeds, which boasts that he had united Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Persia, Susiana, Media, and all the countries as far as Bactria, under his sceptre. In view of this exact correspondence of our passage to the facts of history, which, it is alleged, occurred subsequently to the composition of the prophecy, the suspicion that the oracle was conformed to the history appears to be only too well founded, especially as Egypt (מִצְרַיִם) is expressly mentioned as the goal of the magnificent triumphal march.12 The predictions by other prophets relating to expeditions that secured great booty and that captured immense numbers of idol-images, e.g., those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Nahum, Ezekiel, etc., in the passages cited above, are always associated with very different surroundings, and present fewer circumstances of detail to be particularly fulfilled.13 For this reason it cannot be admitted that the neglect to mention the death of Laodice forms a proof of the undimmed originality of the prophecy (against Kranichfeld).14—And he shall continue more years than the king of the north; rather, “and shall abstain from the king of the north (several) years,” i.e., shall refrain from waging war against him, shall leave him in peace. Thus Hävernick, Von Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, etc., correctly render the sense. On the other hand, Syr., Vulg., Luther, Kranichfeld, Füller, etc., render: “and for years he shall maintain himself before the king of the north,” i.e., preserve his superiority over him, prævalebit adversus regem Aquilonis (Vulg.). This interpretation is opposed by the usage of עָמַד מִן in the sense of “to cease, abstain from something,” which occurs elsewhere also; cf. Gen_29:35; Gen_30:9; 2Ki_4:6; 2Ki_13:18.15
Dan_11:9. So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom; rather, “and he shall (now) come into the kingdom of the king of the south.” The subject obviously is the northern king, who was mentioned at the close of the preceding verse, for מֶלֶן הַנֶּגֶב is clearly a genitive depending on מַלְכוּת (against Kranichfeld).—And shall return unto his own land, i.e., to the northern kingdom, to Syria. The reference to the expedition against Egypt by sea (with a fleet that was soon destroyed in a storm) and also by land, which Seleucus Callinicus undertook about B. C. 240, or two years after the departure of Ptolemy Evergetes from Syria, but which resulted in his total defeat and hasty flight, is sufficiently obvious; cf. Euseb., Chron., I. 346; Justin., xxvii. 2.
Dan_11:10-12. Seleucus Cerauhus and Antiochus the Great against Ptolemy IV. Philopater. But his sons shall be stirred up (or “prepare for war”) and shall assemble a multitude of great forces. If the Keri וּבָכָיו is to be followed, it is unquestionable that the suffix of this plural refers back to the last named Syrian king Seleucus 2. Callinicus, and that his two sons, Seleucus III. Ceraunus (B. C. 227–224) and Antiochus III. the Great (224–187), are intended. It is reported concerning the latter, although only by the somewhat credulous and hasty Jerome (on the passage), that, in connection with his younger brother, Antiochus, he made war on Egypt; but it is hardly possible that he should have attempted a war against Ptolemy Evergetes, who lived and reigned until B. C. 221, three years beyond the reign of Ceraunus. But the writer does not probably intend to assert by יִתְגָּרוּ that the warlike expedition undertaken by the brothers was primarily and directly aimed against Egypt. The verb is rather used in a comprehensive sense, so as to cover the campaign of Seleucus Ceraunus (in which he met his death, B. C. 224) against Attalus of Pergamus, and also that commenced several years afterward by Antiochus Magnus, which was directed against the indolent Ptolemy IV. Philopater of Egypt; cf. Polyb., IV. 48; Appian, Syr., C. 06 (Hävernick, Von Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, Füller, etc., are substantially correct). This counteracts the attempt of venema, Bertholdt, and Kranichfeld to read וּבְכוֹ with the Kethib, and to understand Ptolemy Philopater, the son of Evergetes, by this “son,” by proving it to be superfluous, and, moreover, to be conflicting with the plural יִתְגִּרוּ וְאָסְפוּ.*—And (one) shall certainly come, overflow, and pass through (or “inundate”) וּבָא בוֹא, a strong description of the protracted but irresistible advance, followed by a portrayal of the overflowing masses of warriors that recalls the similar description in Isa_8:8. Beginning with this point, the subject is singular, denoting Antiochus the Great alone, who became king of Syria after the death of his brother Seleucus III., and after that of Ptolemy Evergetes became the terrible and victorious foe of Egypt, whose luxurious and cowardly king, Ptolemy philopater, quietly permitted him to take the fortress of Seleucia on the Orontes, to capture Tyre and Ptolemais through the treachery of Theodotus, and finally to besiege the fortress of Dora during a protracted period, while entering into a four months’ truce with him in connection with that siege (Polyb., V. 45–66).—Then shall he return, and be stirred up (or, “and they wage war”), even to his fortress. וְיָשֹׁב can in no case designate the return of Antiochus to Seleucia on the Orontes, after concluding the truce above referred to, in order to go into winter quarters at that place (Polyb., 11:66), but rather, as appears from the verb. bellicum וְיִתְגָּרוּ (as it must be read with the Kethib, instead of יִתְגָּרֶה, as the Keri prefers) which immediately follows, it denotes a renewal of his operations against the Egyptians in the spring of 218, in the course of which he surrounded the Egyptians in the strong city of Sidon, to which they had advanced, conquered all Phœnicia and Palestine, and finally established himself in Gaza (Polyb., 11:68–80). מָעֻזּחֹ (as it should be read, or even מָעֻזּוֹ, with the Keri, but not מָעֻזָּהּ, as Kranichfeld desires),” his fortress,” doubtless refers to the great and exceedingly strong city of Gaza, so that its suffix points back to the king of the north, the subject of יָשֹׁב. It is arbitrary, however, to assume a designed assimilation in sound between מעזה and עַזָּה, as do Venema and Hitzig.
Dan_11:11. And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, etc. On וְיִתְמַרְמַר cf. Dan_8:7. The king of the south who is “moved with choler” is Ptolemy Philopater, and his “coming forth,” as here described, denotes his moving to attack Antiochus the Great in the year 217, with 70,000 foot, 5,000 horse, and 73 elephants (Polyb., 11:79).—And he shall set forth a great multitude; but (rather, “and”) the multitude shall be given into his hand. The southern king is the subject here likewise, whose success, as based on the support of a great army, is described in this and the following verse (not the king of the north, as Kranichfeld supposes). הָמוֹן רָכ designates the great host before described, at whose head the aroused Egyptian king goes forth, and הֶחָמוֹן the host, of nearly equal strength (62,000 foot, 6,000 horse, and 102 elephants) with which the Syrian opposed him. Hitzig arbitrarily assumes that instead of וְכִתָּן we should read וְנָמַן; so that the sense would be, “and he (Ptolemy Philopater) gave the great multitude into his own hand.”
Dan_11:12. And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; rather, “and the multitude shall rise up (or “lift itself up”), and his courage (or “heart”) increase.” The “multitude” denotes the powerful host of the Egyptians (=הָמוֹן רָב Dan_11:11) which is now advancing;16 “his courage” (לְבָבוֹ) is the courage of the hitherto cowardly, dissipated, and lustful Ptolemy Philopater (cf. 2Ki_14:10). The Kethib יָרוּם is probably to be retained, instead of replacing it by the Keri וְרָם, which is simply an easier reading. וְכִשָּׂא is spoken of a warlike “rising up” to battle, as in Isa_33:10.—And he shall cast down ten thousands (“myriads”). This occurred near Raphia (southwest of Gaza), where Ptolemy Philopater inflicted a heavy defeat on Antiochus the Great, in which the Syrians lost in killed 10,000 foot, 300 horse, and five elephants, and more than 4,000 prisoners (Polyb., 11:86).—But he shall not be strengthened by it; or, “but yet he shall not become strong,” i.e., inasmuch as he followed up his victory very negligently (see Justin., XXX. Daniel 1 : “Spoliasset regem Antiochum, si fortunam virtute juvisset;” cf. Polyb., V. 87), and immediately returned to Egypt after garrisoning the cities that had formerly been lost, in order to resume his former dissipated life. The Vulgate, “sed non prævalebit,” is incorrect.
Dan_11:13-14. Farther description of the warlike deeds of Antiochus Magnus. For the king of the north shall return, and set forth (rather “shall again set forth”) a multitude, greater than the former. This new adventure falls fully thirteen years after the defeat of Antiochus near Raphia. Not until he had carried on fortunate wars during an extended period against the Parthians, the Bactrians, and even to the borders of India, and until he had likewise conquered Asia Minor and the Thracian Chersonnesus, did he turn his arms against Egypt in B. C. 203, where Ptolemy Philopater had recently died and left the throne to his son Epiphanes, a child of five years, who was placed under the guardianship of the voluptuous and cruel Agathocles. In league with Philip of Macedon, who concluded a formal treaty for the division of the Egyptian empire with him, he advanced toward Egypt at the head of the immense army which he had formed while engaged in his protracted eastern wars, and which he had especially strengthened by the addition of a great number of Indian elephants, and succeeded in depriving it again of Phoenicia and southern Syria; see Justin., XXX. 2; XXXI. 1; Polyb., XV. 20; Jerome, on this passage.—And shall certainly come after certain years; rather, “and toward the end of times he shall come (repeatedly) during a period of years.” The “times” at whose end his annually repeated coming shall begin (שָׁכִים, during several years, as in Dan_11:8 b) are the thirteen years bet ween the battle near Raphia and the death of Ptolemy Philopater (B. C. 217–204).—With a great army and with much riches (rather, “equipment”). In connection with this equipment we are probably to conceive of the rich treasures secured in past wars, in addition to the Indian elephants.—And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south. Insurrections occurred in upper Egypt as early as the first year of the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes, occasioned by the bad administration and the cruelty of his guardian Agathocles; and these were followed in subsequent years by renewed insurrections, the revolt of subjugated countries, etc. Before his eighth year had expired, the king was obliged to conquer Lycopolis, a stronghold of the rebels (see Corp. inscr., III. Dan 339: Inscr. of Rosetta, 20, 26, 28; Jerome, on the passage).—Also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves; rather, “and criminal sons of thy people shall revolt.” The literal reading is, “and sons of the ravenous ones, of the oppressors of thy people.” פָּרִיצִים denotes persons who overturn the law and justice (cf. Psa_17:4; Eze_7:22; Eze_18:10; Isa_35:9), hence violent persons, robbers. With regard to the occurrence of two stat. constr. in immediate succession (בכי פריצי), which must not be strained so as to denote robbers’ sons, robbers by birth (Füller), cf. the examples collected by Ewald (Lehrb., § 289 c.). The oracle refers to the league against Egypt, into which a large number of Jews entered with Antiochus the Great, and to their participation in his warlike operations against that country, e.g., in his attacks on the garrison which the Egyptian general Scopas had left in the citadel of Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant., XII. 3, 3). The theocratic writer sternly condemns this partial revolt to the Syrians as a criminal course or as common robbery, because of the many benefits conferred on the Jewish nation by the earlier Ptolemies.—To establish the vision (rather, “visions”), namely, the visions respecting the afflictions of the Jews under Ant. Epiphanes already recorded in chap. 8 and 9, which could appropriately be regarded as a consequence or punishment of the revolt from the Egyptians as here described. חָזוֹן is used collectively in this passage, in the sense of “what there is of prophecy, such visions as exist.”—But they shall fall. נִכְשָׁלוּ does not probably denote stumbling or falling in a moral point of view (Hävernick, etc.), but to be unfortunate in war, to be oppressed politically and religiously, etc. The special event referred to, whether a punishment imposed by Scopas, in the shape of taking away various nobles as hostages (cf. Polyb., XVI. 39; Josephus, Ant., XII. 3, 4), or otherwise, must remain undetermined. It is not to be denied that at any rate this particular passage presents a somewhat considerable discrepancy between the prophetic text of the section and the corresponding historical events; cf. Kranichfeld on the passage, p. 368.[17]
Dan_11:15-19. Last wars and death of Antiochus Magnus. So (rather, “and”) the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities; rather, “a strongly fortified city.” The reference is probably to the siege and ultimate capture of Sidon, into which “city of fortifications” (עִיר מִכְצַרוֹם, cf. Ewald, § 177 c) the Egyptian leader Scopas had thrown himself after suffering a severe defeat at the hands of Antiochus at Paneas, near the sources of the Jordan, which reduced his army to 10,000 men (B. C. 198). While Antiochus was carrying on a war in Asia Minor against Attalus in the preceding year, Scopas had again brought Cœle-Syria under the dominion of Egypt; but in consequence of that terrible defeat he was deprived not only of that province, but also of the whole of Palestine as far as Gaza by the Syrian king. After enduring a protracted siege in Sidon, in the course of which an Egyptian army under Eropus, Menocles, and Damoxenus had vainly attempted to extricate him, he was compelled by hunger to surrender himself into the victor’s hands (Polyb., XXVIII. 1; Livy, XXXIII. 19; Josephus and Jerome, 1. c). The text, consequently, does not expressly notice the repeated advance of the Egyptians and the great battle near Paneas, but contents itself with referring to the final results of this new war, viz.: the capitulation of the remaining Egyptian troops in Sidon. The idea that עִיר מִבְעַ׳ is used collectively (Theodot., Syr., Vulg., Kranichfeld) must be rejected, because this event is so obviously referred to as appears especially from the second half of the verse.—And the arms of the south shall not withstand, etc.; an allusion to the unsuccessful nature of the attempt made by the three Egyptian leaders to come to the assistance of the besieged Scopas. זְרֹעוֹת is evidently used in the sense of military forces (arms=army), hence not as in Dan_11:6; on the other hand, cf. Dan_11:22; Dan_11:31.
Dan_11:16. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will; i.e., Antiochus, the victor of Paneas and conqueror of Sidon, who now subjugated the whole of Palestine (the “pleasant land” or “land of beauty,”—cf. on Dan_8:9)—Which by his hand shall be consumed; rather, “and destruction is in his hand.” כָּלָח בְיָדוֹ, as in Isa_10:32; cf. Isa_44:20; Job_11:14. If there were no other reason, these parallels would be sufficient to show that כָּלָה cannot here denote “to consummate” (Luther), nor yet “completeness or totality,” which would result in the meaning, “and it is wholly in his hand,” i.e., the glorious land (Hävern., Von Leng., van Ess, Füller, etc.; also Bertholdt and Dereser, who prefer, however, to read כֻּלָּהּ).[18]
Dan_11:17. He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom. “To set his face” is equivalent to “fixing his aim” upon something; cf. 2Ki_12:18, and for the rest of the sentence, cf. Psa_71:16; Isa_40:10. Livy, XXXIII. 19, plainly asserts that Antiochus was temporarily inclined to follow up his victories in Cœle-Syria and Phœnicia by a powerful attack on Egypt: “Omnibus regni viribus connixus, cum ingentes copias terrestres maritimeasque comparasset,” etc. The same author records also an attack on the cities on the coast of Cilicia and Caria belonging to Ptolemy, as being an introductory step toward the execution of that plan. The reference of the text to this fact is so unequivocal, that all explanations which do not accord with it must be rejected, e.g., that of Hävernick, Von Lengerke, etc.: “to come against the strength of his (the Egyptian monarch’s) whole kingdom;” and of Füller, “to come in the power of his (Antiochus’) whole kingdom,” which is interpreted to mean, that he should secure the complete possession of the royal power throughout Syria, and re-establish its former limits.—And upright ones with him; rather, “and an agreement shall he make with him.” This rendering of וִישָׁרִים עִמּוֹ וְעָשָׂה was adopted by the Sept. (καὶ συνήκας μετʼ αὐτοῦ ποιήσεται), Vulg., Luther, Berth., Dereser, Von Leng., and Hitzig, although the two last-named writers attempt emendations of the text (Von Leng., וּמֵישָׁרִים instead of וִישָׁרִים; Hitzig יַעֲשֶׂה instead of וְעָשָׂח) which are entirely uncalled for. It is certainly obvious that the words refer to the treaty concluded in the year 198 between Antiochus and the defeated Ptolemy Epiphanes, by which Cœle-Syria was left in the hands of the victor, and in connection with which the marriage of Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus, with Ptol. Epiphanes was agreed upon, although not consummated until five years afterward (Polyb., XXVIII. 17; Josephus, Ant., XII. 4, 1); see what follows. Such explanations as the following must therefore be rejected. “and upright ones shall be with him,”—i.e., the Jews (!)—“and he shall succeed in it” (Gesenius, Winer, etc.); “and strong ones come with him, and he conducts it successfully” (Füller); or, “and uprightness with him, and he shall accomplish it” (Hävernick, Kranichf.), etc.—And he shall give him the daughter of women, i.e., his daughter Cleopatra, who is here designated as “a daughter of the women” (i.e., of her mother, grandmother, etc., who were still employed with her education), probably on account of her youth; cf. Zec_9:9, where בֶּן־אֲתֹנוֹת in like manner denotes a young ass-colt.19 As Ptolemy himself was but seven years old when this treaty was made, the agreement primarily involves a betrothal only, the marriage being postponed during five years to B. C. 193.—Corrupting her; rather, “to destroy it,” i.e., his league with Egypt; his purpose was to ruin his former opponent and present ally. לְחַשְׁחִיתָהּ is probably to be taken in this sense, without substituting לְחַשְׁחִית for it with Hitzig, or, with others, referring the suffix to the daughter. If the latter interpretation (“to destroy her”) were adopted, the לְ would certainly lose its telic signification, and become consecutive: “so that he destroys her, so that he ruins her in this way” (Kranichf.), but the following clause does not accord with this view.—But she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him; rather, “but it shall not succeed, nor result to his advantage,” i.e., Antiochus shall not realize the expected benefits from the agreement. Others, less appropriately, conceive of Cleopatra as the subject, “she shall not stand on his side (?), neither be for him (?), but rather take sides with her husband, the king of Egypt” (cf. Jerome on the passage). The rendering preferred by us is supported by the exactly similar expressions in Isa_7:7; Isa_14:24.[20]
Verse. 18. And he shall turn his face unto the isles (or coast-lands), and shall take many (of them). The Kethib וְיָשֵׁב is to be retained in opposition to the Keri וְיָשֵׁם, which is transferred to this place from Dan_11:17 for the sake of analogy. אִיִּים, i.e., “the isles and coast-lands” probably denotes the coasts of Asia Minor, which Antiochus subjected to his power through the aid of his fleet and army in the summer of 197, and also Macedon and Hellas, which were attacked and conquered by him in the following year, after having spent the intervening winter at Ephesus and crossed the Hellespont in the spring (Livy, XXXIII. 19, 38, 40; Polyb., XVIII. 34).21—But a prince …. shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; or, “but a general (military leader) shall stifle his scorn,” i.e., his scornful and contemptuous declaration to the Roman ambassadors at a meeting in Lysimachia, that “Asia did not concern them, the Romans, and he was not subject to their orders” (Polyb. and Livy, 1. c.). The leader (קָעִין, as in Jos_10:24; Jdg_11:6; Jdg_11:11) who stifled the scornfulness of the Syrian king (הִשְׁבִּית literally, “to cause to cease” [to teach it to cease, Luther]), was Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, whose brilliant victory near Magnesia on the Sipylus in Lydia, B. C. 190, enabled him to force Antiochus to conclude an immediate peace on very severe and humiliating terms (Polyb., XXI. 14; Livy, XXXVIII. 38; Appian, Syr., 38, 39, etc.).—Without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him; rather, “he shall assuredly give him back his reproach;” he shall retaliate by inflicting a more bitter reproach on his part. בִּלְתִּי in this place is synonymous with אַךְ or כִּי־אִם and does not signify “except that” (Hävernick).22—Kranichfeld attempts in vain to obviate and obscure the manifest reference of this representation to the defeat of Antiochus near Magnesia, as being an artful “fabrication of history” on the part of the “positivists in prophetic interpretation.”
Dan_11:19. And he shall turn his face toward the fort (“forts”) of his own land. These words are probably ironical; instead of advancing against the fortresses of foreign lands, he is thenceforward to be employed only with those of his own realm, perhaps in the direction of placing them in good condition for defence. Füller’s remark, that here and in Dan_11:24; Dan_11:31; Dan_11:39, מָעוּזִים denotes temples, which Antiochus was eventually obliged to plunder, because of the distracting state of his finances, is entirely too artificial and without adequate support from the customary usage of the term. History is acquainted with but a single instance in which Antiochus pillaged the temples, viz.: that of the temple of the Elymaic Zeus, or Bel, in connection with which he was slain, together with his warriors, in a rising of the people; and it is arbitrary to argue a number of similar acts from this single fact.23—But he shall stumble and fall, and not (or, “no more”) be found. Cf. what has just been remarked, and see Strabo, XVI. 1, 18; Justin., XXXII. 2; Diodorus, Fragm., 26, 39. 40.[24]
Dan_11:20. seleucus Philopater, the son and successor of Antiochus Magnus, B. C. 187–176. Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes (in) the glory of the kingdom; rather, “one that causeth an exacter of taxes to pass over” (marg.), or “one that sendeth out a driver,” to the ornament of the kingdom. The driver was obviously a collector of money, or of tribute, and the person intended was the treasurer Heliodorus, who was sent out by Seleueus Philopater (according to 2Ma_3:7 et seq.) to Jerusalem to confiscate the treasure in the Jewish temple. חֶדֶר מַלְכוּם, “the splendor or ornament of the kingdom,” doubtless designates Jerusalem (as does also the צְבִי of Judæa, Dan_8:9); cf. the similar laudatory terms applied to that city in Psa_48:3; Psa_1:2; Lam_2:15.25 The accusative חֶרֶ מ׳ accordingly indicates the direction rather than the measure (“who causes to pass through the extent (?) of the land,” Füller et al.), and cannot in any case be regarded as a nominative in apposition with the subject מַעֲכִיר נוֹגֵשׁ, as Kranichfeld proposes, who consequently translates: “(one) who shall lead drivers thither, the ornament of dominion.”—But in few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle. Soon after Heliodorus was despatched to plunder the temple of Jehovah, B. C. 176 or 175, Seleueus Philopater was suddenly and mysteriously removed, possibly by poison which had been administered to him by the same Heliodorus (Appian, Syr., C. 45). The words “after some (or ‘a few’) days” doubtless refer to the brief interval between the departure of that officer and the king’s death, rather than to the brief duration of his reign of only twelve years, as they are generally applied.26 On the statement that he was to be destroyed “neither in anger, nor in battle,” the remarks of Appian respecting the mode of Philopater’s death (ἐξ ἐπιβουλῆς) should be compared.[27]
Dan_11:21-24. The rise of Antiochus Epiphanes; his first Egyptian campaign. And in his estate shall stand up a vile person. כִכְזֶה does not probably denote “a despised one, whose birth deprived him of every right to the throne” (Kranichfeld), but rather one who is deservedly despised, who is despicable, morally contemptible, thus corresponding to כִמְאָס Jer_6:30, and contrasting with מֵיטָכ 1Sa_15:9 (cf. Hitzig on the passage). The symbolic description of the person here introduced, as a “little horn,” Dan_7:8; Dan_8:9, is in any case appropriate. A contrast with the cognomen ’Επιφανής was probably not intended, since the term appears to be one of the original constituents of the section, rather than an interpolation; for a Maccabæan interpolator would hardly have avoided the temptation to avail himself of the suggestion afforded by the familiar perversion of Ἐπιφανής into Ἐπιμανής to make use of a term like מְשֻׁגָּע for instance (cf. 1 Sam. 21:16; Jer_29:26; Hos_9:7).—To whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom; rather, “to whom was not given,” etc.—who has seized the royal dignity instead, in opposition to the will of his nation. Cf. the Eth.-fund, principles, etc., on chap. 7, No. 3; and with reference to the expression חוֹד מַלְכוּת cf. 1Ch_29:25; Psa_21:6.—He shall come in peaceably (or “unexpectedly”—בְּשַׁלְוָח as in Dan_11:24 and Dan_8:25) and obtain the kingdom by flatteries; rather, by “dissimulations.” חְַלַקְלַקּוֹת does not denote smooth speeches or flattering words merely, but dissimulating words and actions, a hypocritical and deceitful bearing in both word and deed. It occurs in the same sense in Dan_11:34. The historical tradition, indeed, speaks only of the application of military force by Antiochus, when seeking to obtain the Syrian throne for himself, and of the assistance which Eumenes and Attalus rendered him to that end, by expelling the usurper Heliodorus. But this assuredly did not exclude the employment of all manner of canning arts and secret manœuverings, which probably were the only means by which he could secure the countenance of those kings of Pergamos. The difference between the language of the passage and the historical fact is at any rate inconsiderable; and it is not necessary to assume that to obviate that difficulty the Sept. substituted the more appropriate בַּחְַלָקוֹת or בְּחֶלְקָח for כחלקלקות, and translated it by κατισχύσει βασιλεὺς ἐν κληροδοσίᾳ αὐτοῦ on the ground that they “could find no historical equivalent for the former term” (against Kranichfeld).
Dan_11:22. And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him; rather, “and the overflowing power of the host shall be swept away and broken before him;” literally, “and the arms of the overflowing—before his face they shall be swept away,” etc. On זְרֹעוֹת, cf. Dan_11:15; Dan_11:31; on שֶׁטֶף cf. Dan_9:26. The tropical expression זרְעֹּוֹת חַשֶּׁטֶף, when taken as a whole, involves a metaphor that is not entirely unmixed, similar to שׁוףט שׁוֹטֵף, “the overflowing scourge,” in Isa_28:15. The “overflowing hosts” probably represent in part the troops of Heliodorus, whom Antiochus routed with the assistance of his Pergamenian allies, and in part the Egyptian forces which sought to deprive him of Cœle-Syria soon after his accession to the throne. “For after the death of Cleopatra (Dan_11:17), Eulaus and Lenæus, the guardians of her son, Ptolemy Philometor, demanded the cession of Cœle-Syria, the dowry which had hitherto been refused (Polyb., 28:1; Diodor., Leg. 18, p. 624 Wess.; Livy, XLII. 49). Antiochus, on the other hand, would not acknowledge that his father had promised such a dowry (Polyb., XXVIII. 17), and therefore refused to grant it. Finding that the Egyptians were preparing for war, he took the initiative, and succeeded in defeating the generals of Ptolemy between the Casian mountains and Pelusium. On every calculation, that event transpired in B. C. 171” (Hitzig).—Yea, also the (rather, “a”) prince of the covenant; supply יִשָּׁבֵר “shall be broken.” The person referred to was probably the high priest Onias III., who was put to death by command of Antiochus Epiphanes in the year 172, and hence about the time of the war between that king and Ptol. Philometor. He was denominated a מָשִׁיחַ in Dan_9:26 (see on that passage),[28] and here bears the title of נְגִיד בְּרִית “prince of the covenant,” because he was the actual head of the theocracy at that time; cf. the repeated designation of the theocracy by the term בְּרִית in the following verses, e.g., Dan_11:28; Dan_11:32 (thus correctly Theodoret, Rosenm., Hitzig, Hofm., Füller). A majority of recent writers refer this expression to Ptol. Philometor; but this is opposed (1) by the fact that at the time which is here indicated, that prince was by no means in league with Antiochus; (2) that if it were really intended to represent him as having entered into such an alliance, it would have been necessary to employ the words נְגִיד־בְּרִיתוֹ or rather בַּעַל בְּרִיתוֹ (cf. Gen_14:13); (3) that the Egyptian is always designated as מֶלֶך חַנֶּגֶב in this chapter, while, on the other hand, בְּרִית always refers to the theocracy.29
Dan_11:23. And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully, i.e., as soon as he shall have established friendly relations, and allied himself with his defeated opponent, which his victory near Pelusium enabled him to accomplish. Even while the battle was raging, Antiochus displayed great kindness toward the Egyptians, everywhere interfering to check the slaughter by his soldiers, and thus won the hearts of his foes (see Diodorus, Exc. in Wess., p. 579). This conduct seems to have subsequently been of material value to him in the capture of Pelusium, Memphis, and generally of all lower and central Egypt (cf. Diodor., l. c.; Polyb., XXVIII. 16 et seq.; Jerome, on this passage).—And shall come up, and shall become strong (or “prevail”) with a small people, unexpectedly. Cf. Jerome: “Ascendit Memphin et ibi ex more Ægypti regnum accipiens puerique (i.e., Ptolemœi Philometoris) rebus se providere dicens, cum modico populo omnem Ægyptum subjugavit sibi, et abundantes atque uberrimas ingressus est civitates.” Several expositors propose to refer וְעָלָה to the king’s invasion of Cœle-Syria and Palestine only, instead of understanding his victorious march up the Nile as far as Memphis (e.g., Kranichfeld, Hofmann, Ewald, and especially Füller, who had already interpreted the preceding וּמִן־הִתְחַבְּרוּת as referring to the league of Antiochus with the Pergamenian kings Eumenes and Attalus); but this interrupts the regular progress of the narrative by transposing an event from the beginning of the war to the history of its close. בְּשַׁלְוָח, “unexpedly,” is probably to be included in this verse, as Von Lengerke, Hitzig, etc., propose. It states that the victor had penetrated into the heart of their country before the Egyptians were fully aware of the fact, or had made arrangements to resist his progress. Hitzig’s explanation, “with confidence (=בּוֹטֵחַ) as if he were not in an enemy’s country,” is unnecessary; and also that offered by others, “with a peaceful object” (“in the midst of peace,” Füller).
Dan_11:24. Concerning בְּשַׁלְוָה, see what immediately precedes.—And he shall enter even upon the fattest places of the province. The extraordinary fertility of lower Egypt is well known; cf. Plin., H. N., XXI. Dan 15: “Ægyptus frugum fertilissima,” etc. With regard to the genitive combination מִשְׁמַנֵּי מְדִינָח, cf., e.g., אֶבְיוֹנֵי אדם, Isa_29:19. Concerning מְדִינָח, a “territorial jurisdiction or province,” see on Dan_2:48; Dan_3:2.—He shall scatter among them the prey (rather “prey”—without the article), and spoil, and riches. This defines “that which his fathers had not done, nor his fathers’ fathers.” It consisted of an immoderate squandering, by which he not only divided among his soldiers the money provided for carrying on the war, but also the spoil of Pelusium and all other booty that had been acquired. Even the Egyptians (to whom לָהֶם is perhaps to be specially referred) were not excluded from his liberality. Thus he bestowed on each Greek a piece of gold at that time, while at Naucratis, according to Polyb., XXVIII. 17. His unusual liberality during this campaign in Egypt is also attested by 1Ma_3:30.30—He shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time. מִבְצָרִים unquestionably denotes fortresses in the proper sense, or strong cities, rather than temples, as Füller supposes (cf. on Dan_11:19).—It refers, e.g., to the taking of Pelusium, and to the siege of the fortified cities of Naucratis and Alexandria, etc. (Polyb., XXVIII. 17–19).—וְעַד־עֵת, “and that until a time,” i.e., until a time that has been determined by a higher power—for a time. Cf. שָׁנִים in Dan_11:8, and the similar terms in Dan_11:6; Dan_11:13.
Dan_11:25-27. The second Egyptian campaign of Antiochus Epiphanes. And he shall stir up his power and his courage. Concerning וְיָעֵר, cf. יָעִיר הַכֹּל in Dan_11:2; also Psa_78:38; 1Ma_2:24.—Against the king of the south. This was not probably Ptolemy Philometor, but his younger brother Ptolemy Physcon, who had thrown himself, together with his sister Cleopatra, into the strong city of Alexandria, at the time when Antiochus was conquering Egypt, and had there been declared king in the stead of his brother, who had fallen into the hands of the Syrians. After the departure of Antiochus (occasioned by a revolt of the Tarsians and the Mallotes in Cilicia), this usurper had probably brought the entire kingdom into his power, as seems to be implied in Livy, XLIV. Dan 19: “Antiochus, Syriœ rex—per honestam speciem majoris Ptolemœi reducendi in regnum, bellum cum minore fratre ejus, qui turn Alexandream tenebat, gerens,” etc.—But he shall not stand; for they shall forecast devices against him; i.e., despite the magnitude of his army, this Ptolemy shall offer no resistance to the Syrian king לֹא יַעֲמֹד, cf. Dan_8:4; Dan_8:7; 2Ki_10:4), because treason in his own camp (cf. what immediately follows), of which his opponent is able to make skilful use, shall cause his defeat.
Dan_11:26. Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him. With regard to פַּתְבָּג, cf. on Dan_1:8. The אֹבְלֵי פַתְבָּגוֹ were of course members of the royal household and servants of the king, therefore serpents whom he had cherished in his own bosom, like the traitorous אֹכֵל לַחְמִי in Psa_41:10 (Joh_13:18); cf. Dan_11:27 and 2Sa_9:11 et seq.; 2Sa_19:29; 1Ki_2:7; 1Ki_18:19, etc.—And his army shall overflow (or “flow away, dissolve”); and many shall fall down slain. Concerning the “flowing away,” which is here equivalent to “dissolving, turning away to flee,” cf. Dan_11:22; also 1Sa_14:16, where יִמּוֹג expresses about the same idea. On the second member of the sentence, cf. Jdg_9:40; 1Ch_5:22; 1Ma_1:18.—The decisive victory of this second Egyptian war (the δευτέρα έφοδος, 2Ma_5:1), which Antiochus achieved over Physcon and Cleopatra, was not gained on land, so far as we know, but in a great and fortunate naval action near Pelusium; and וְחֵילוֹ יִשְׁטוֹף seems to be applicable only to a battle of the former kind, not to the scattering or destruction of a fleet. Nor is there any definite record of treason committed against Ptol. Physcon by the Egyptians.31 But, after making due allowance for this discrepancy [?], the whole description seems more appropriate when applied to the second Egyptian campaign of Epiphanes than when it is altogether referred to the events of the former war, as Ewald, Füller, etc., attempt to do.
Dan_11:27. And both those kings’ hearts shall be to do mischief. This does not allude, probably, to their evil designs against their enemy Physcon, but to those entertained against each other; cf. Pro_27:19; and on the term לְמֵרַע (i.e., literally, “belonging to do evil”), cf. Isa_1:5; Jdg_5:9. The two kings themselves are certainly not Physcon and his victorious opponent Epiphanes, nor yet the two brothers Philometor and Physcon, but Antiochus and Philometor, who were leagued against Physcon, and concerning whom Livy (XLV. 11) and Polyb. (29:8) expressly state, that at that time they had taken the field in company against the latter king.—And they shall speak lies at one table. Probably an allusion to a particular incident which is no longer known.32 Their “speaking of lies” was naturally a hypocritical profession of disinterestedness on the part of Antiochus, as if his only concern were to reconquer the kingdom for his nephew Philometor (cui regnum quœri suis viribus simulabat, Livy, l. c.), while the latter pretended reverence and gratitude toward his uncle, but in his heart was anxious to have him removed from his path.—But it shall not prosper, i.e., their joint endeavor to overthrow Physcon; the latter, on the contrary, retained possession of Alexandria and of his usurped crown.—For yet the end shall be at the time appointed; rather, “for yet the end is (reserved) to the appointed time.” “The end,” namely of the Syrio-Egyptian wars, and consequently of the sufferings of Judæa, which was intermediate between the contending kingdoms. The time indicated by לַמּוֹעֵד in Dan_11:29 is not identical with this קֵץ, or “end of the appointed time,” but rather that denoted by וּבְעֵת קֵץ in Dan_11:40, and by עִת קֵץ in Dan_11:35.
Dan_11:28-30. The third Egyptian campaign of Antiochus. Then shall he return into his land with great riches, i.e., with much booty, which he partly secured in Egypt, and partly on his homeward march through Judæa, which was now in a state of insurrection. Cf. 1Ma_1:19-20; 2Ma_5:11 with Livy, l. c.—His heart (shall be) against the holy covenant. Cf. the detailed descriptions of the rapine and other atrocities committed by Antiochus while marching through Judæa; 1Ma_1:20-29; 2Ma_5:11-17. בְּרִית קֹדֶשׁ denotes the theocracy with reference to its territory and its adherents.—And he shall do exploits; rather, “accomplish it,” i.e., his malicious intention, the design of his לֵבָב.
Dan_11:29. At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south. לַמּוֹעֵד, “at the appointed time,” i.e., the time appointed by God. The reference is to the spring of the year B.C. 168, in which Antiochus began his third campaign against Egypt, this time against the two Ptolemies, Philometor and Physcon. The brothers had become reconciled to each other in the preceding year, through the influence of their sister Cleopatra, and had made common cause against the Syrian, whose conduct in leaving behind him a strong garrison in Pelusium had indicated his purpose to secure a permanent influence over Egypt. Incensed by the course of the Ptolemies, Antiochus led a large army through Cœle-Syria and Palestine to Egypt in the spring of 168 (primovere, Livy, XLV. 11), and would have inflicted heavy penalties on the brothers had not the Romans interfered (cf. Livy. l. c.; Polyb., XXIX. 8; Justin., XXXIV. 2).—But it shall not be as the former, or as the latter, i.e., a success similar to the triumphs of the first and second expeditions shall not be realized; cf. for instance, Dan_11:12.—כְּ־וּכְ׳׳, “as—so also;” cf. Eze_18:4; Jos_14:11 (Ewald, Lehrb., p. 851). The two substantives are in the cas. adverbialis.
Dan_11:30. For ships of Chittim (צִיִּים כִּתִּים) shall come against him. The expression is derived from Num_24:24, where Balaam predicted the humiliation of Assyria through the agency of ships of Chittim. In that place Græcian ships were probably intended, but the reference here is certainly to ships belonging to the Romans, namely, the fleet of C. Popilius Lænas, which sailed to Egypt after the victory over Perseus near Pydna (June 22d, B.C. 168), in order to prevent the Syrian king from subjugating that country, as he designed to do (Livy, XLV. 10; Polyb., XXIX. 1). It is not necessary to assume, with Bertholdt and Dereser, that the “ships of Chittim” denote the Macedonian fleet which fell into the hands of the Romans at the victory of Pydna, and was afterward employed by Lænas for his voyage to Egypt. Aside from the fact that Polybius and Livy do not mention this fact, to designate ships that had been taken by the Romans as Macedonian vessels would obviously be inappropriate; and, moreover, the customary usage throughout this book would lead us to expect יָוָנִים instead. The term כִּתִּים is very broad and indefinite in its application, as appears already from Gen_10:4. It denotes all the islands and coast-lands along the northern shores of the Mediterranean sea, beginning with Cyprus (which is referred to under that name in Isa_23:1; Isa_23:12; Eze_27:6), and extending as far as Spain, and therefore might appropriately be employed to designate Rome or Italy in particular (cf. Knobel, Völkertafel, p. 95 et seq.). The Sept. is correct (Ῥωμαὶοι), and also Jerome; but the latter overlooked the adjective nature of כִּתִּים (plur. of כִּתִּי), and therefore inserted a copula between the two nouns: “venient super eum trieres et Romani.”—Therefore shall he be grieved (rather, “discouraged”) and return. It is known that Popilius Lænas, on meeting with Antiochus four miles from Alexandria, did not grasp the hand extended by the latter in greeting, but at once presented the message entrusted by the senate to his care, and that when the king requested time to consider its contents, the Roman drew a circle about him, and did not permit him to pass beyond it before he had given the desired answer (Livy, XLV. 12; Polyb., XXIX. 11; Appian, Syr., 66; Justin., XXXIV. 3).—And have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; or, “and shall accomplish it.” Füller says well, “The rage which he was unable to vent on Egypt is now turned against the holy covenant; in his displeasure he turns against Israel, without being hindered” (וְעָשָׂה, as in Dan_11:28). Several writers, among whom are Rosenm. and Kranichfeld (the latter being guided by his desire to render the prophecy as dissimilar to the history as possible), take the preceding וְשָׁב adverbially, and regard it as qualifying וְזָעַם: “and again he shall have indignation,” etc. שׁוּב, however, is not used as a mere auxiliary in any other part of this section; and the return of the northern king from Egypt could not be passed over without notice in this place, since not to have mentioned it would have made Egypt the scene of the subsequent warlike operations in Dan_11:31 a, which would thus conflict with Dan_11:31 b (cf. Hitzig on the passage).—He shall even return and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant; rather, “and he shall return, and fix his attention on them,” etc. The second “and he returns” denotes his journey to Antioch from Palestine, where he had halted by the way. His “fixing attention” (הבין על, as in Dan_11:37; Job_31:1; Jer_39:12) on the apostates from the covenant (עֹזְבֵי בְרִית= פָּרִיצִים, Dan_11:14) is to be understood in the sense of affiliating with them, who became his favorites and protegés, and for whom he endeavored to erect a new and idolatrous system of worship; cf. 1Ma_2:18; 2Ma_6:1. Also infra, on Dan_11:39.
Dan_11:31-36. Attacks on the sacred institutions of the theocracy, and the persecution of its faithful adherents by Antiochus. And arms shall stand on his part; rather, “and armed hosts of his shall remain,” namely, in the holy land. Consequently זְרעִים יַעַמְדוּ is used substantially as in Dan_11:15, to denote the standing still of an armed host (cf. the leaving of a Syrian garrison in the citadel of Zion, which is mentioned in 1Ma_1:34). The usual rendering is, “and armed bands shall arise from him”—which, however, seems more appropriate and conformable to the context than Kranichfeld’s strange interpretation, “and accomplices (i.e., traitorous Israelites) shall stand up through his influence” (!). מִמֶּנּוּ probably does not signify “at his bidding” (cf. 2Sa_3:37), but is a partitive, or rather expresses dependence on the possessor.—And pollute the sanctuary of strength; rather, “the sanctuary, the stronghold.” The sanctuary is probably termed the stronghold (הַמָּעוֹז, an apposition) in a spiritual sense, as being the refuge and support of Israel; cf. Psa_18:3; Psa_31:3-5; Isa_25:4, etc., where Jehovah himself is termed Israel’s strong tower (Von Leng., Kranichfeld, Füller). The reference of the expression to the fortifications with which the second temple was certainly provided (1Ma_6:7; 1Ma_5:60) is less probable. However, cf. 1Ma_1:37; 2Ma_6:4.—And shall take away the daily sacrifice. Cf. the parallels, Dan_8:11-13; Dan_9:27; Dan_12:11; and with regard to the historical fulfilment, cf. 1Ma_1:45; 1Ma_1:54.
Dan_11:32. And such as do wickedly against (or “by”) the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries; Hitzig: “the condemners of the covenant, its accusers.” The מַרְשִׁיעֵי בְרִית, however, are evidently the same as the עֹזְבֵי בְרִית in Dan_11:30; בְּרִית is simply an accusative of specification; cf. Ewald, Lehrb., § 288, 2 et seq.—החניף, properly, “to desecrate,” here signifies “to cause to revolt,” utterly to sever their union with the theocracy, against which they had already sinned. Consequently, the expression does not involve a tautology, as if a successful effort to lead such as had already cast off their allegiance to apostatize were asserted. Kranichfeld interprets very harshly and arbitrarily, “and so far as the sinner against the covenant is concerned, he shall pollute it (the covenant) by his insinuating deportment.” בַּחֲלַקּוֹת, “with smoothnesses,” i.e., with smooth words and dissimulating arts (doubtless including deceitful promises, cf. 1Ma_2:17 et seq.) probably differs merely in form from בַּחֲלַקְלַקּוֹת in Dan_11:21; cf. Dan_11:34.—But people that do know their God shall be (or “prove themselves”) strong (i.e., to resist his seductive efforts), and do exploits; rather, “do it.” Cf. Dan_11:17; Dan_11:28; Dan_11:30, and for the historical fulfilment, see 1Ma_1:62 et seq.; Dan_2:3 et seq.
Dan_11:33. And they that understand among the people shall instruct (the) many. מַשְׂכִּילֵי עַם does not denote “teachers of the people” (Dereser, Hitzig), and the analogy of לְחַשְׂכִּילְךָ in Dan_9:22 is not sufficient to establish that rendering. מַשְׂכִּיל is rather to be taken as equivalent to intelligens (cf. Sept., Theodot.: οἱ συνετοὶ λαοῦ; Vulg., docti), in harmony with the usual intransitive sense חשׂכיל (see Dan_1:4; Dan_1:17; Dan_9:13; Dan_9:25). This rendering finds a special support in the contrasting of the מַשְׂכִּילִים and the רְשָׁעִים in Dan_12:10. These understanding ones, i.e., these genuine theocrats, e.g., a Mattathias (1Ma_2:1 et seq.), an Eleazar (2Ma_6:18), etc., shall “impart understanding” (יָבִינוּ, cf. Job_6:24) to the many, i.e., the not inconsiderable number of the “people that do know their God,” Dan_11:32, who were faithful to the covenant and capable of being saved, and of whom 1 Macc. 1:65 et seq. testifies that they were somewhat numerous.—Yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, etc. “They,” viz.: the many who hearken to the voice of the understanding ones, not the latter in person; see Dan_11:35. For the narrative of the fulfilment, see 1Ma_1:57; 1Ma_2:38; 1Ma_3:41; 1Ma_5:13; 2Ma_6:11.
Dan_11:34. Now when they fall they shall be holpen with a little help, or, “they shall obtain but little help” (עֵזֶר מְעָט), referring to the efforts of Judas Maccabæus (1Ma_3:11 et seq.; Dan_4:14 et seq.), which were not sufficient to put an end to all the suffering and persecution at a single stroke; cf., e.g., 1Ma_5:60 et seq.—But many shall cleave to them with flatteries, or “hypocrisies;” i.e., in addition to the limited aid received by them, the party of faithful adherents shall absorb many impure elements, which associate themselves hypocritically (בחלקלקות, cf. on Dan_11:32) with the “many.” It appears from passages like 1Ma_6:21 et seq.; Dan_9:23, that this was actually the case in the Maccabæan age, principally as a consequence of the bloody severity with which Judas Maccabæus treated all apostates (1Ma_2:44; 1Ma_3:5; 1Ma_3:8).
Dan_11:35. And some of them of understanding (see Dan_11:33) shall fall, e.g., certain priests, 1Ma_5:67; Eleazar, 2Ma_6:18, etc., and Judas Maccabæus himself, etc. נכשל can have no other meaning in this place than that in which it occurs in Dan_11:33-34.—To try (“smelt”) them, and to purge and to make them white (or, “cleanse them”), even to the time of the end; literally, “among them.” This is a statement of the Divine purpose in imposing the specified sufferings. “Among them” (בָּהֶם), i.e., not merely among the “understanding ones,” but also among their followers, among the theocratic party as a whole, which, according to Dan_11:34, stood in some need of being sifted and purified. לְבָרֵר alludes to the separation or removal of the dross that was expelled by the צרוף, and לַלְבֵּן to the polishing and brightening of the metal that was thus freed from its impure elements. “The three-fold description is also probably designed to indicate that the purifying should be effected by various processes. Not only are the pretended adherents to Jehovah’s party to separate themselves from His sincere followers, but the latter themselves, incited thereto by the example of steadfastness and self-denial furnished by their martyrs, shall cast out from themselves everything that is impure; and they shall succeed in gaining over all those who share their convictions in their hearts, but have been hindered by fear and timidity from avowing an open connection with them. In like manner a Nicodemus and a Joseph of Arimathæa were induced by the very death of Christ on the cross to confess their allegiance to him.—Thus Antiochus attempts to annihilate the party among the Jews that is devoted to its God, but succeeds only in contributing to its purifying” (Füller).—The “time of the end” (עֵת־קֵץ) down to which the painful process of purifying is to be continued, denotes, in the sense of the prophecy, the end of the pre-Messianic period as a whole, as appears from Dan_8:17; Dan_9:27; but it coincides essentially with the end of Antiochus himself.—Because it is yet for a time appointed; i.e., the period of tribulation shall be protracted until then; cf. Dan_11:27.
Dan_11:36. And the king shall do according to his will. The מֶלֶךְ can be no other than the one hitherto represented, the antitheistic persecutor of Israel, the king of the north, Antiochus Epiphanes. It is therefore not Constantine the Great (Ibn-Ezra, Jacchiad., Abarbanel, etc.), or the Roman state as a whole (Rashi, Calvin, etc.), or the New-Test, antichrist (Jerome, Theodor., Luther, Œcolamp., Geier, Calov, Kliefoth)—all of which interpretations contradict the context, and arbitrarily interpose a hiatus of centuries between Dan_11:35 and the closing verses of the chapter.33—And magnify himself above every god, i.e., subjectively, in his proud imagination; cf. 2Ma_9:12; 2Th_2:4; also Dan_8:25. Jerome, Luther, Füller, etc., render the words, “against every god;” but this interpretation עַל is antagonized by its use in Dan_11:37 b, where it is likewise connected with יִתְגַּדֵּל, but notedly in the sense of “above.”—And shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods. Cf. Dan_7:8; Dan_7:25; and concerning אֵל אֵלִים, see Dan_2:47.—And shall prosper, i.e., in his undertakings generally; cf. Dan_8:12; Dan_8:24 et seq.—Till the indignation be accomplished; namely, God’s anger against His people, in whose execution He employed Antiochus as a scourge or “saw” (Isa_10:15). Cf. Dan_8:19; Dan_9:27; and on the whole expression, see Isa_10:23; Isa_10:25.
Dan_11:37-39. Description of the general godlessness of Antiochus Epiphanes, without confining it to its relations to the theocracy. Neither (or, “and not”) shall he regard the god (“gods”) of his fathers, hence, shall manifest his impiety even with reference to the requirements of the religious sense of the heathen. This will include his robbery of temples (Polyb., XXXI. 4), and his efforts to destroy national bounds by tearing down their several religious systems (Diodor., XXXI. 1; 1Ma_1:43).34—Nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; rather, “nor the desire of women nor any god shall he regard.” In view of the connection חֶמְדַּת נָשִׁים cannot possibly signify anything else than a god, and does not, therefore, denote chaste conjugal love (Luther, J. Gerhard, etc., who support their view by a reference to κωλύειν γαμεὶν, 1Ti_4:3), or a love for women, susceptibility to amorous emotions generally (Grotius), nor yet “the supplications of women” (Dathe, Stäudlin), or “the favorites of women,” i.e., children (cf. Hos_9:16; Mic_1:16, etc.—thus Bertholdt). We are to conceive, rather, of the goddess of nature among the Asiatics, the Baaltis, Astarte, or Mylitta of the Babylonians, the Persian Artemis. and the Nanæa of the Syrians. This is the more certain, as it is expressly reported of Antiochus that he had inflicted a gross indignity on the worship of this goddess (who is identical with the “queen of heaven,” Jer_7:18; Jer_44:17 et seq.), by attempting to plunder a temple of Artemis or Aphrodite in Elymais (Polyb., XXXI. 11; Appian, Syr., c. 66; 1Ma_6:1-4; 2Ma_9:2). For this reason modern expositors since J. D. Michaelis, Gesenius, Dereser, and Hävernick are, with few exceptions, agreed in applying the words to this divinity. Concerning the designation as “the desire of women,” cf. Isa_44:9, where the heathen gods in general are characterized as הֲמוּדִים, “favorites.”35—He shall magnify himself above all; above everything, whether Divine or human (the addition of אֱלוֹהַּ merely to כֹּל would be one-sided). Cf. 2Th_2:4 : ἐπὶπάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἤ σέβασμα.
Dan_11:38. But in his estate shall he honour the god of forces; rather, “but he shall honor the god of fortresses in his place.” אֱלֹהַּ מָעֻזִּים is not properly a nom. propr.: the god “Mauzzim” or “Mæusim” (Luther, following the Sept., Theodot., and the Vulg., which have Μαωξειμ, Maozim), but rather, as appears from the repeated mention in this chapter of מָעֻזּים (Dan_11:7; Dan_11:10; Dan_11:19; Dan_11:31) or מִבְצָרוֹת (Dan_11:15) or מִבְצָרִים, it denotes a martial god to whom the Syrian king paid special reverence—a “god of fortresses or castles,” who must be regarded as being Jupiter Capitolinus, because he is subsequently described as formerly unknown to the Asiatics. There is no question respecting the character of this divinity, as being pre-eminently warlike, nor yet respecting the special reverence which Epiphanes entertained for him. “To him, the Capitoline Jupiter, were devoted the spolia opima; he was called Jupiter Stator, because he brought the Romans to a stand in answer to the prayer of Romulus, when they fled before the Sabines. But the surname Capitolinus accords fully with the god of fortresses; for the capitol was, so to speak, the seat of the Roman empire, the arx omnium nationum (Cicero, Verr., VII. 72), as being the citadel of Home, beside which stood its temple. There the generals sacrificed and paid their vows; and when they returned from their victories, they were taken thither in triumph.—It is readily conceivable that Antiochus should honor this foreign god; he had learned to know him and his worship while at Rome.” Antiochus did not, probably, regard the principal god of the Romans as distinct from the Olympic Zeus of the Greeks, whom he adored with a special zeal, according to Livy, xli. 20; Polyb. XXVI. 10; 2Ma_6:2, and for whom he caused a splendid temple to be erected at Athens; as a genuine Oriental syncretist he rather identified the two. Probably the magnificent temple which, according to Livy, XLI. 20, he began to build at his capital, Antiochia, but which did not arrive at its completion, was dedicated indifferently to both the Capitoline and the Olympic Zeus, the principal god of the Romans and the Greeks. The interpretations which deviate from this are accordingly to be rejected, e.g., that of several rabbins, Grotius, Bertholdt, Stäudlin, etc., who think of Mars (who was evidently not a god of fortresses, but rather a god of battles), and that of Hitzig, who proposes to read אֱלוֹהַּ מִעֹז יָם, not to render “god of the sea fortress,” and that it should be referred to Melcarth or the Tyrian Heracles, making only the latter sentence of the verse to apply to Jupiter Capitolinus. The correct view is advocated by Gesenius, Dereser, Von Lengerke, Hävernick, Maurer, Ewald, and, generally, by a majority of recent writers, among them Vaihinger, Art. Meussim in Herzog’s Real-Encyklop.36—עַל־כַּנּוֹ, “upon his basis,” probably indicates that Antiochus should honor the specified divinity “on its pedestal,” hence in the form of a statue or an idol-image (Bertholdt, Hävernick, Von Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, etc.). A less probable opinion is that the words refer to the temple of Jupiter at Rome, as being the headquarters or seat of that god, to which Antiochus forwarded gifts (Kamphausen); and finally, the rendering “in his stead,” which was formerly current (Luther, Gesenius, de Wette, and more recently Kranichfeld and Füller), conflicts with the general usage and with the context, because the preceding verse did not confine its statements to a single Oriental deity, in the stead of which this new god was to arise, while the sing, suffix in כַּנּוֹ can hardly be held to possess a “distributive and illustrative” force (cf. Dan_11:20-21).37—And (the) god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold and silver, etc. This god with whom the ancestors of Antiochus were not acquainted was the god of fortresses just mentioned, not a different god (Hitzig), and still less qualiscunque Deus alius (Venema). Livy, XLII. 6, expressly mentions an embassy which Antiochus sent to Rome with a votive offering of golden vessels valued at 500 pounds (a portion of which would naturally be placed in the temple of the principal god).—הֲמֻדוֹת, “jewels, precious articles of small size,” is here equivalent to כְּלֵי חֲמֻדוֹת, 2Ch_20:25–Dan_11:39. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god; rather, “and he shall pursue the same course with the fortifications of the fortresses as with the strange god;” i.e., he shall recognize and honor them only, shall fix his attention on nothing else, the fortresses are his idols. The words are significant merely as an introduction to what is to follow; עִם in this place is merely a stronger form of כְּ, cf. Job_40:15; Job_9:26; Psa_120:4; Psa_143:7; Ecc_2:16. By approving of this explanation, which originated with Ewald, and which we are compelled to consider the only one that accords with the context, and that is adequately supported by the general usage of the language, we reject the numerous renderings which deviate from it, that have been imposed on the passage from of old, e.g., Vulg., “Et faciet, ut muniat Maozim cum Deo alieno, quem cognovit;” Luther, “And shall greatly honor those who aid him to strengthen Maeusim, with the strange god whom he has selected;” Bertholdt and Dereser, “And shall store them (the jewels) in the temples of the god of war; all who hold with the strange god,” etc.; Rosenmüller, Von Lengerke, Hävernick, “And in the manner which has been described he shall proceed with regard to the true feasts together with the strange gods,” etc.; Maurer, “Et sic ille versabitur in obtrudendo urbibus munitis Jove Capitolino, qui agnoverit illum” etc.; Kranichfeld (and similarly de Wette), “And he shall do it to the defensive fortresses with the aid of the strange god;” Füller, “And he is active for the fortifying of the strong holds with the strange god; whoso shall acknowledge,” etc.; Kliefoth, “And he shall act with the defensive fortress according to the mind of the strange god; whoso shall acknowledge,” etc.; Hitzig and Kamphausen, “And he shall provide for the defensive fortresses the people of a strange god, i.e., heathen colonists” (the two latter consequently transform עִם into עַם); [Keil, “With the help of this god, who was unknown to his fathers, he will so proceed against the strong fortresses that he will reward with honor, might, and wealth those who acknowledge him.”]—Whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory; rather, “To him who shall acknowledge (them), he shall make the honor great;” i.e., he shall confer great honor on those who, like himself, adore the god of fortresses, and consequently make an idol of fortifications and war in general. The persons in view are probably not the heathen subjects and military officers of the king, who naturally were already devoted to this martial god and the worship of fortresses, but primarily the Jews who apostatized to that religion, such as, e.g., a Jason, Menelaus, and others (2Ma_4:10; 2Ma_4:25; 2Ma_5:15).—And shall cause them to rule (or “be lords”) among (the) many; i.e., among the great mass of their nation. Füller, who identifies the הָרַבִּים with those noticed in Dan_11:33, i.e., with the theocratic Jews, probably goes too far in this; but he is doubtless correct in distinguishing the phrase “set them to be lords among many” from “to make them lords over many.”—And shall divide the land for gain, or “in reward,” i.e., in recompense for their apostasy. Nothing definite is stated with reference to a division of lands among the apostates by Antiochus in the passages that report his briberies and promises, 1Ma_2:18; 1Ma_3:30 et seq.; but it can scarcely be doubted that he employed this means also, and that especially such property as had been confiscated from obstinate Jews was conferred on the apostates.
Dan_11:40-45. Recapitulation of the warlike career of Antiochus Epiphanes, not distinguishing between his several campaigns against Egypt, as was the case in Dan_11:22 et seq., but merely noticing the general character of his attacks on that country, and their unfortunate results upon Judæa. The rather general character of this paragraph, which is analogous in this respect to the descriptions of the future drawn by earlier prophets, raises the expectation that these verses will prove to be especially original and free from interpolating additions—an expectation that will be verified by the exegesis of the several verses. Influenced by the words וּבְעֵת קֵץ, “and at the time of the end,” which appeared to relate to the final stages of the reign of Epiphanes, although the prophet probably employed it in the same general sense as in Dan_8:17 (with reference to the closing period of the pre-Messianic history in general); and led astray to a no less extent by the example of Porphyry, who, according to Jerome on this place, discovered the description of a fourth and last Egyptian campaign in this paragraph, which he supposed to belong to the year before that in which the reign of Antiochus closed (B.C. 165),38 a majority of modern expositors have also regarded these verses as a continuation of the historical narrative, whose special object was to describe the last warlike operations of Epiphanes against Egypt, Phoenicia, and Armenia. The Maccabæan books make no mention of these final wars of Antiochus, but report that he marched toward the east only, namely, to Babylonia, Elymais, and Persia, and that he died in the latter country (see 1Ma_3:37; 1Ma_6:1 et seq.); but this circumstance is explained, either by assuming that the writer of those books designedly ignored the wars in question, especially the fourth Egyptian and the Armenian campaigns (Hofmann, De bellis ab Antiocho gestis), or by declaring that his representations as a whole are not worthy of credit, and for that reason giving the preference to Porphyry’s statements as reported by Jerome (so especially Füller on this passage, p. 328 et seq.). The report of Porphyry, however, appears rather to have originated in a misapprehension of the paragraph under consideration; for the remaining historians of the time, and particularly Livy, Polybius, and Appian, are entirely ignorant of a fourth Egyptian campaign of Epiphanes, and the credibility of the Maecabæan books, especially of the first, cannot be assailed upon the ground of their statements respecting the final actions and the death of Epiphanes, nor in any other respect; see Wernsdorf, De fide Maccab., p. 58 ss, and Wieseler, Art. Antiochus Epiphanes in Herzog’s Real-Encyklop., I., 386 et seq. We therefore agree with Dereser, Von Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, and Kamphausen, in regarding Dan_11:40-45 as being in fact a kind of abbreviating and generalizing résumé of the contents of Dan_11:22-39; but we explain this peculiar feature by regarding that detailed narrative of the military career of Epiphanes, as the product of the interpolating activity of a pious Jew in the Maccabæan period, while we consider Dan_11:40-45 as being a portion of Daniel’s original prophecies uttered during the æra of the Captivity, which was left untouched upon the whole by the interpolator.39—And at the time of the end the king of the south shall push at him. On וּבְעֵת קֵץ see immediately above. יִתְנַגַּח, “shall push at,” accords fully with the genuine prophetic description of Dan_8:4. The Egyptian king clearly appears as the beginner of this conflict, for he is mentioned before the northern king. Consequently, on the assumption that a fourth Egyptian war is here spoken of, it will be necessary to hold that Ptol. Physcon and Philometor, encouraged by their alliance with the Romans, had ventured to attack the Syrian. It is hardly to be credited that the Roman historians, and especially Livy, should have been uninformed with regard to such a war, waged by one ally against another.40—And he shall enter into the countries, i.e., into the countries adjoining to Egypt through which his march against the latter kingdom would lead him, hence, into Cœle-Syria, Phœnicia, and Palestine.—And shall overflow (or “flow along”) and pass (or “surge”) over. The phrase employed in Dan_11:10, with reference to the war of Antiochus Epiphanes against Ptolemy Philopater, is entirely similar.
Dan_11:41. He shall enter also—rather, “and he shall enter”—into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown; rather, “and many shall be caused to fall.” The description is scarcely as concrete as the parallel in Dan_8:9-11, and may therefore be an original prophecy with equal probability. The case differs in Dan_11:28; Dan_11:31 et seq. The “many” who shall be caused to fall by the northern king are probably countries or nations, as appears clearly from b, and as the fem. רַבּוֹת likewise indicates (namely, אֲרָצוֹת). That plural is consequently not to be pointed רִבּוֹת, “ten thousands” (Psa_91:7), nor to be translated, with Ewald, by “rabbins, teachers of high grade,” and that interpretation to be taken as an evidence of the later composition of the book.—But these shall escape out of his hand, (even) Edom and Moab and the chief (or “kernel”) of the children of Ammon. רֵאשִׁ־ת בְּנֵי עַמּרֹן, properly, the principal power, the “firstlings of the power” of the children of Ammon (cf. Num_24:20; Jer_49:35; Amo_6:1), which probably relates to Rabbah, their chief city, and the principal seat of their power. The entire prophecy before us relative to the neighbors of Israel does not bear the look of a vatic. ex eventu; for although the Maccabæan book (1Ma_4:61; 1Ma_5:3-8) notices the assistance rendered to Epiphanes by the Edomites and Ammonites against the Jews, the mention of the Moabites in this place is so much the more remarkable, as that nation is never mentioned after the captivity as maintaining an independent existence (Ezr_9:1 and Neh_13:1 afford no proof to contradict this statement, since the Moabites are not referred to in those passages from a historical point of view, but dogmatically, with reference to the passage in the law, Deu_23:3), and since the name of the Moabites had already been lost in the more comprehensive one of Arabians in the Maccabæan age. It is not strange, on the other hand, that a prophet of the time immediately subsequent to the Captivity should adduce the nations of Edom, Moab, and Ammon as leading representatives of tribal hostility to the theocracy,—not remarkable in the least; cf. the older prophetic parallels, Psa_10:10; Isa_11:14; Isa 25:10, 15, 16; Zep_2:8; Jeremiah 43; Jer_49:1-6; Eze_25:1-14; Eze_21:20; Eze_21:28, etc. Kranichfeld remarks correctly: “The Edomites, like the Moabites and Ammonites, showed themselves the most persistent allies of the oppressors of Israel among all its neighboring relatives; and when the Chaldæan catastrophe broke in upon Judah, they proved themselves her most bitter enemies. From that period, the complaint against this treacherous nation, so regardless of fraternal ties, is poured out more persistently, and the cry for revenge upon it is repeated more urgently, than against Babylon itself; cf. Obadiah; Jer_49:7-22; Lam_4:21-22; Eze_25:12-14; Ezekiel 35; Eze_36:5; Psa_137:7 et seq.; Mal_1:1-8. Although Edom, Moab, and Ammon, of all others, were connected with Israel by ties of relationship, and therefore were bound to maintain cordial relations with it in the very nature of their connection, it is precisely these nations, the unnatural oppressors of Israel, that enter into the conception of every theocrat, and especially of the prophets, as the historical representatives of all hostility against the theocracy; and as their subjugation revives the Messianic hopes (Psa_40:10; Isa_11:14; Isa_25:10), so the picture of the bloody humiliation of Edom is occasionally introduced to represent the Messianic universal triumph in Isa_43:1-6,” etc.
Dan_11:42. He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries, i.e., upon the aggregate of the southern countries generally; cf. Dan_11:41 a, to which the words before us are related as a generalizing repetition. [?]—And the land of Egypt shall not escape.41 לֹא תִחְיֶה לִפְלֵיטָה, properly, “shall not be among the escaped ones;” cf. Joe_2:3; Jer_50:29; 2Ch_20:24; Ezr_9:14.
Dan_11:43. And he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt. cf. supra, Dan_11:28, where the great booty was mentioned which Antiochus carried away on his return from the second Egyptian campaign, while the statement here is very general in its character, and notices the confiscation of treasures in Egypt once for all.—And the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps, as enforced auxiliaries, who were compelled to follow the victorious king of the north, as was Egypt in former times (cf. Eze_30:5; Jer_46:9). The fact that this feature is recorded in no other authorities is an additional evidence for the genuine character of this prophecy (against Hitzig).42 Concerning בְּמִצְעָדָיו, “in his following or train,” cf. the analogous בְּרַגְלָיו, in Jdg_4:10; Jdg_5:15; also Exo_11:8.
Dan_11:44. But tidings (“rumors”) out of the east and out of the north shall trouble (or “alarm”) him; therefore he shall go forth with great fury, to destroy and utterly to make away many. The masculine plural יְבַהֲלוּהןּ is employed here, “in view of the omission from the general idea of the statement, of the subject which originates the rumors.” cf. the analogous case in Dan_2:33. The “alarming rumors out of, the east and north” may, in fact, be referred to the expedition which Antiochus undertook shortly before he died (B.C. 166, or 147 ær. Sel.—see 1Ma_3:37), against the Parthians under Arsaces and against the Armenians under Artaxias, and which resulted in at least the subjugation and capture of the Armenian king (see Tacitus, Hist., Dan_11:8; Appian, Syr. 45, 46). This thought is at any rate less forced than that which refers the words to the brutal treatment accorded to Jerusalem, which was mentioned in Dan_11:30 et seq, and also to the alleged rebellion of the Aradians in Phœnicia, which is mentioned only by Porphyry in the passage cited by Jerome (see note above; against Hitzig). It is, however, by no means necessary to regard this passage as a vatic. ex eventu; on the contrary, it is exceedingly possible that the remarkable correspondence between its statements and the historical fact that Antiochus Epiphanes was recalled from his warlike operations in the south by those insurrections in the north and east, became the very occasion which led the Maccabæan interpolator to introduce into the preceding verses (22–39) allusions, still more specific in character, to the history of the wars of the antitheistic tyrant, with a view to represent his entire career as having been foretold by Daniel in all its successive stages.43
Dan_11:45. And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace44 between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; rather, “between seas and the mountain of the holy ornament.” צְבִי־קֹדֶשׁ הַר, the “mount of the holy ornament,” certainly denotes Mount Zion, the mount on which the temple at Jerusalem was erected (cf. צבי, Dan_8:9, and ארץ הצבי, Dan_11:16; Dan_11:41, as designations of the holy land); and the plural יַמִּים must be regarded, with Hitzig, Kranichfeld, etc., and with equal certainty, either as a poetical designation of the Mediterranean Sea (cf. Job_6:3; Sir_1:2), or, with Venema, Füller, and others, as denoting the two seas between which mount Zion is situated—the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. The latter view, on which the plural is employed for the dual, is the best recommended, on account of the absence of the article from יַמִּים. There is certainly no reference to any locality outside of the holy land, as Porphyry, l. c., held, referring the two “seas” to the rivers Euphrates and Tigris, and misunderstanding the choice poetical expression אָהְָלֵי אַפַּדְנוֹ, “tents of his palace” (cf. the corresponding Syr. word for אַפֶּדֶן, “palace,” and also Jer_43:10, Targ.), to the extent of assuming a place between those rivers, and bearing the name of Apedno, as the resting-place of Antiochus while contending against the Armenians and Parthians; or, as Dereser and Hävernick have interpreted it in modern times, rendering אַפַּדְנוֹ correctly, but making the “mount of the holy ornament” to designate the “mount of the sanctuary of Nanæa,” which lies between the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, and near which they believe Antiochus to have died,—a view which Hitzig justly characterizes as “a monstrosity,” and which is equally unfortunate in interpreting either הַר צְבִי־קֹדֶש or יַמִּים.—But he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. The death of Antiochus did not take place in Judæa itself, nor did it occur immediately after his final sojourn in that country, when his camp was in the vicinity of Jerusalem (having returned from the third Egyptian war in B.C. 168.—On the location of his camp, cf. 2Ma_5:24 with 1Ma_1:29 et seq.), but rather from two to three years later, in connection with the campaign against the Parthians and Armenians, and in the Persian town of Tabæ (Τάβαι). which Polyb., XXXI. 11, and. Porphyry, in Jerome on this passage, agree in representing as the place of his decease; cf. in addition 1Ma_6:4; 1Ma_6:8.45 So sudden a transition from the scene of the over-confident oppressor’s sojourn in the holy land to that of his irretrievable destruction, which did not take place until after a considerable interval, is a decided proof of the genuine prophetic character of this passage.46 A testimony of no less weight is found in the analogy of the peculiar expression קִצּוֹ וּבָא עַד to the former descriptions in Dan_8:25; Dan_9:26, and in the poetic coloring of the entire representation. As a characteristic feature in the latter regard, we notice the words וְאֵ־ן עֹזֵר לוֹ (cf. the shorter וְאֵין לוֹ, Dan_9:26), which serve as a transition to Dan_12:1-3, and form an expression that refers in very general terms to the irretrievable and irrevocable character of his destruction. It would be useless to look for an indication of insanity (Polyb., l. c.) or of painful disease (2Ma_9:5; 2Ma_9:9; 2Ma_9:28), as having preceded the death of Epiphanes, in these words.
ethico-fundamental principles related to the history of salvation, apologetical remarks, and homiletical suggestions.
1. Our exegetical examination has resulted in leading us to regard the opening and closing verses of the section as having originated with Daniel, or more particularly, those portions of the prophecy which relate to the development of the Persian empire and to the first beginnings of the Javanic world-power (Dan_11:2-4), together with those that refer to the Old-Test, antichrist as the last representative of the Græcian world-kingdom (Dan_11:40-45); while we saw cause to regard the portion intervening between the two just indicated (Dan_11:5-39) as being composed of both genuine and interpolated elements. It is impossible to assert that the intermediate section is spurious throughout, because it affords many traces of original prophecy, which may be recognized by the comparative discrepancy of their statements with the corresponding facts in the history of the Seleucidæ and the Lagidæ (see, e.g., Dan_11:14; Dan_11:19; Dan_11:26; Dan_11:34; Dan_11:39). By far the larger portion, however, seems to have been inserted by a later hand, since the parallels found in former descriptions of the future, viz.: Dan_7:24; Dan_8:9,—passages which likewise refer to the period intervening between Alexander the Great and Antiochus Epiphanes,—are exceeded by it to an almost incredible degree in regard to the specific character of its predicted details.47 It follows the succession of the Seleucid monarchs and their conflicts with the Ptolemies with such conscientious accuracy, that it may almost be considered an attempt to demonstrate the ideal tenfold number of the horns of the fourth beast in Dan_7:24, in the particulars of history. This, however, becomes improbable from the circumstance that the number of the Syrian kings who are mentioned is by no means exactly ten, but that, on the contrary, their succession is followed in a decidedly imperfect manner, as appears from the overlooking of Antiochus Soter (see on Dan_11:6), and from the confused interchange of the earliest kings in general (see on Dan_11:5-9). We observed in a former paragraph (Eth. -fund, principles on chap. 7 No. 3, a) that it could not be proven that the writer of this book assigns exactly ten kings to the period from Alexander the Great to Antiochus Epiphanes, or that he was acquainted with precisely four kings of Persia, and no more (see on Dan_11:2). The arrangement of the series of Seleucid kings according to a numerically symbolic plan, can in nowise be asserted, whether the chapter before us be regarded as the genuine production of Daniel throughout, or as enriched [?] by later additions of the Maccabæan age. On the other hand, there can be no question that it was the design of the originator of this exact description of the history of the Seleucidæ and the Lagidæ, whether Daniel himself or an inspired [?] reader of his book in the Maccabæan period were that writer, to demonstrate that the Maccabæan period, and it alone, formed the point in which the entire series of prophecies in the book are centred, and consequently that it constituted the immediate preparation for the Messianic period of salvation. It became necessary, “on the beginning of the predicted unexampled trial, to enable the Jewish nation to trace, step by step, that it was by the counsel of God that it should begin under precisely those circumstances, and in precisely that juncture of the progress of history” (Delitzsch). It was necessary “to connect the advent of the post Macedonian tyrant with the time of Daniel by so continuous a chain of the most particular events, that it would be evident that no hiatus could intervene between the time of Daniel and that tyrant, in which the Messiah might appear” (Ebrard; see supra on Dan_11:5). cf. also Füller, pp. 362, et. seq., 368.
2. The fundamental ethical and Messianic principle of the section coincides substantially with its aim, as it was pointed out in the preceding paragraph, and as we are compelled to formulate it in common with nearly all the orthodox expositors of recent times, despite our doubts concerning its unimpaired genuineness. God will not desert his people in the changing fortunes of the world, or amid the tempestuous thronging of the nations and the tumults of the wars incited by the monarchs of the earth. Even though they be pressed during centuries between mighty contending empires as between two millstones, and be unable in their own power to prevent the raging of such foes, God will not permit them to be either ground or crushed. He does not permit the chosen people of His heritage to be overwhelmed, even though the oppressor’s power should reach its highest stage, and though to his violent attempts to suppress that people by force should be added the most flattering arts of dissimulation and the most dangerous spiritual trials (cf. Dan_11:31 et seq.). Indeed, it is precisely when the need is highest, that He comes nighest with His aid and deliverance; precisely when to human wisdom every prospect of rescue has been lost, does the judgment of God break in on the oppressor and snatch him away to irretrievable ruin—“and there is none to help him” (Dan_11:45). The particularizing description of the tedious conflicts between the kingdoms of the north and south is evidently designed to illustrate these truths, which are closely connected with the fundamental thought of chap. 8. These truths would still constitute the ethical kernel of this section, even if the portion that is probably interpolated, Dan_11:5-39 (where the prophecy becomes transformed into actual history), were conceived of as being wholly expunged; but they form its leading thought in a more obvious sense, when it is remembered that that portion is at least largely composed of genuine prophecies relating to the time between Alexander and Antiochus Epiphanes. It must accordingly be admitted, even on the assumption of the partially interpolated character of the section which we have adopted, that the prophecy enters upon the course of history from the Persian æra to the Asmonæan period with an unusual fulness of detail, and does this because it accorded with the Divine purpose to afford the suffering confessors of the latter epoch a strong certainty that their afflictions constituted the woes, the immediate precursors of the Messianic æra of deliverance. To the extraordinary trials of the Maccabæan age, the wise providence of God designed to oppose a means of comfort and strength possessing extraordinary power, in this unusually specific portion of Daniel’s prophecies. “If that affliction was unique in its kind, is it wonderful that the people was armed against it, and strengthened to endure it, by means that are likewise unique in their kind? … The war which Antiochus waged against Israel was not like other wars. He aimed to destroy its religion; and therefore this war is represented as a contest against God and His service. In such a war Israel stood alone and without allies, in the resistance it opposed to the powerful king and his armies. In proportion as it was deprived of ordinary means of power and resistance, and was confined to the exercise of confidence in the aid of its God, in that proportion it was necessary to strengthen its trust; and this was accomplished by means of this unique detailed prophetic description of the tribulation and the history which should precede it” (Füller, p. 363; cf. Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf., I:313).—We have assumed that a pious [!] theocratic investigator of the Scriptures in that period of trial, affected and surprised by the marvellously exact correspondence between the prophecy and the history of his time, sought to give a still more direct form to that correspondence, and to remove the last remains of apparent discrepancy between the prediction and the recent historical past, by inserting into the prophetic text a series of vaticinia ex eventu; but this can no more destroy the incomparable value and the inspired character of the prophecy before us, than, for instance, the interpolations perpetrated on the somewhat analogous predictions of the abbot Joachim of Floris († 1202) by later mystical observers of the history of the Middle Ages, for the purpose of adapting them as accurately as possible to the facts in which they were realized, can throw doubt upon the high prophetic endowment of that personage [?], or can bring into question the occurrence of really genuine prophecies in his writings (cf. Neander, Kirchengesch., vol. II, p. 451 et seq.; Gieseler, II. 2, p. 354, No. 8; 356, No. 9). The interpolating activity of his later admirers did not destroy the fame as a genuine prophet of that celebrated apocalyptist of the twelfth century, who, as is well known, foretold the rise of two new orders, a preaching order and a contemplative order, during the period immediately subsequent to his own, and by that very means gave occasion to the more strict (or spiritual) party among the Franciscans in the thirteenth century to construct as perfect a concordance as was possible between his predictions and the history of the origin of their own order and that of the Dominicans; nor was his contemporary, S. Hildegard († 1197), who predicted the Reformation and the order of the Jesuits (Epist., p. 160; cf. Neander, ibid., p. 448 et seq.) deprived of her fame as a richly endowed prophetess [?], by the interpolated additions which were doubtless; made to her prophecies at a later period.48 With equal, and still greater truthfulness, it may be asserted that the prophetic and inspired character of this book is not materially injured, in any way whatever, by the opinion that the present section has received certain adaptations and particularizing additions from a later hand, and that by this opinion, e.g., its accurate references to the expedition of Ptol. Evergetes for conquest (Dan_11:7-8), to the warlike operations of Antiochus Magnus (Dan_11:11-19), and to the three Egyptian campaigns of Epiphanes (Dan_11:22-30) are most readily explained.49
3. This chapter apparently presents but few points, or none at all, for practical or homiletical treatment, as it is composed almost exclusively of prophetic descriptions of special historical events. Even the thought just presented, that the wonderful adaptation of the prediction to particular events, was conditioned upon the extraordinary severity of the Maccabæan sufferings and oppressions, seems to afford but little opportunity for practical and edifying application. Instead of emphasizing that idea in a one sided manner, it will be better to seize on the ethical centre of the entire prophetic historical picture, or, in other words, on the truth that God will not desert His people and His holy covenant in any of the storms and changing events of the history of the nations, but that He will send deliverance in the precise moment when their need has reached its highest point—and to make this the starting point and principal object of study. The practical fundamental thought of the section is consequently the same in substance as that contained in Psa_46:2-6 : “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore will we not fear though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Still the city of God shall be glad with its fountain [so Luther], where are the holy tabernacles of the Most High. God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved; God shall help her, and that right early.”—The fundamental thought, reduced to a briefer form, may also be expressed as follows: The Lord causes the mighty millstones (the northern and southern kingdoms) between which the people of his heritage is placed like an insignificant and impotent grain of corn, to crush each other rather than that object of their bitter oppression; or, Where the need is highest, there is God’s aid nighest; or, “For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee” (Isa_54:7; cf. Lam_5:20; Psa_37:25; Heb_13:5, etc.).
Homiletic suggestions on particular passages.
On Dan_11:2, Melancthon, “Est hœc prœdictio testimonium illustre, quod a Deo traditam esse Prophetarum doctrinam ostendit. Et quia pollicetur liberationem, significat Deo curœ esse hunc populum, qui doctrinam propheticam amplectitur. Confirmantur ergo pii, ne a Deo deficiant, ne abjiciant hujus doctrinœ professionem. Pertinet autem postrema pars hujus longœ concionis etiam ad hanc ultimam mundi œtatem et ad Ecclesiœ œrumnas, quas tulit jam multis sœculis; dum alibi Mahometica rabies conatur prorsus delere nomen Filii Dei, alibi regnant Episcopi ethnico more et studia, ecclesiastica negligunt, sinunt extingui lucem Evangelii, proponunt idola et libidines, injuste occidunt homines innocentes propter verœ; doctrinœ professionem (therefore the supplanting of Christianity by the Pope and the Turks—a New Test, counterpart to the advance of the northern and southern kingdoms against Israel). Hœc mala pii considerent, ut primum a Deo petant, ut ipse Ecclesiam suam servet, regat, foveat et augeat; deinde si qui possunt aliquibus vulneribus mederi, annitantur prosua vocatione” etc.
On Dan_11:33, Calvin: “Hœc circumstantia magnum pondus in se continet, quia videmus multos ad tempus satis virili esse et intrepido animo, postea languescere et tandem evanescere, ut fiant prorsus sui dissimiles. Angelus autem hic promittit fore insuperabilem constantiam eorum, qui sustinebuntur Dei spiritu, ita ut non uno tanturn die vel mense vel anno certent, sed subinde colligant animos et nova certamina, neque unquam deficiant.”—Cramer: “God supports his own even in the most violent persecutions, and preserves them from apostasy.”—Starke: “A real Christian must venture his body, life, and all that he has, for the glory of God.”
On Dan_11:35, Calvin: “Sequitur, nullos pollere tanta sanctimonia et puritate, quin adhuc resideant in ipsis aliquœ sordes, quœ purgationem exigunt, ita ut ipsis necesse sit transire per fornacem, et mundari instar auri et argenti. Hoc ad omnes Dei martyres extenditur. Unde etiam videmus, quam insulse Papistœ imaginentur merita Sanctorum ad nos redumdare, quoniam plus quam necesse erat prœstiterint.”—Osiander: “God has set a limit to every persecution, beyond which it cannot pass.”—Starke: “The trial is succeeded by the time of refreshing, and the suffering by the time of rejoicing; Tob. 3:31.”
On Dan_11:39 et seq.: “Upon the surface the worshippers of the beast seem to prosper, but they are eventually compelled to realize that their honors and possessions are not eternal in their duration, while the followers of the Lamb shall enjoy everlasting glory.… (On Dan_11:44 et seq.): Although God permits many an evil purpose to be executed, His forbearance toward the godless is always merely for a time; Psa_50:21.”
Footnotes:
[1][מֵישָׁרִים, literally equities, hence a compact as to what is agreed upon as right between the parties. It here seems to refer especially to the terms or provisos of the alliance, the marriage being one of the main conditions or considerations.
[2]The pronoun is emphatic.
[3]יְשָׁרִים probably, like מֵישָׁרִים above, contains an allusion to the rights of a contract, and may therefore signify allies.]
[4][“Moreover, this assertion (that the O. T. only knows of four Persian kings) is not at all correct; for in Neh_12:22, besides those four, there is mention made also of a Darius, and to the Jews, in the age of the Maccabbees there was well known, according to 1Ma_1:1, also the name of the last Persian king, Darius, who was put to death (defeated) by Alexander.”—Keil.]
[5][This interpretation is altogether vague and unnecessary. The meaning obviously is not that there should thereafter be only four more Persian kings in all, but merely that the next three should bring down the history as far as the prophetic vision extended in this regard, i.e., down to the breaking out of the conflict between Persia and Greece. Thus “the three kings who shall yet (עֹרד) arise are the three successors of Cyrus, viz. Cambyses, the pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspis: the fourth is then Xerxes, with whom all that is said regarding the fourth perfectly agrees. Thus Hävernick, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Auberlen, and Kliefoth interpret.”—Keil.]
[6][This computation is manifestly inconsistent, for it confounds the “fourth” with the one just said to be the third.]
[7][“From the conflict of Persia with Greece, the angel (Dan_11:3) passes immediately over to the founder of the Græcian (Macedonian) world-kingdom: for the prophecy proceeds not to the prediction of historical details, but mentions only the elements or factors which constitute the historical development. The expedition of Xerxes against Greece brings to the foreground the world-historical conflict between Persia and Greece, which led to the destruction of the Persian kingdom by Alexander the Great.”—Keil.]
[8][As we have already remarked, this peculiarity of detail does not argue a want of genuineness here. It is impossible to sever this portion from the preceding and following predictions, which present no such “suspicious” features, without making an irreparable hiatus in the prophecy as a whole. Indeed this very part constitutes the gist of the entire disclosure, for it is this alone that immediately and intimately concerns the theocracy. The unprecedented and unparalleled character of the Antiochian persecution, as a chapter in Jewish history, justifies the minuteness and earnestness of the portraiture. The rest of this prophecy is but introduction and sequel to this central delineation. The careful reader will note that Daniel does not give a syllabus of secular history, but only sketches the course of those collisions which should affect the religious status and relations of Israel. The character and conduct of the Antiochian antichrist could not be fully appreciated without a setting forth of these connections.]
[9][Keil lays great stress upon the objection that Seleucus was not one of Ptolemy’s generals, as the text requires; but his own account of the history makes him out to have been so at least for a time.]
[10][This substantially agrees with the rendering of Keil, who, however, is rather refined in his view of the construction: “The subject to לאׄ יְַעַמד is the מֶלֶךְ נֶכֶד; and his, i.e., this king’s, help is his own daughter, who should establish מֵישָׁרִים by her marriage with the king of the north. וּזְרֹעוֹ is a second subject subordinated or co-ordinated to the subject lying in the verb: he together with his help. We may not explain the passage: neither he nor his help, because in this case הוּא could not be wanting, particularly in comparison with the following היא.”]
[11][Keil somewhat extends this objection: “The prophecy differs from the historical facts, not merely in regard to the consequences of the events, but also in regard to the matter itself; for it speaks not only of the daughter but also of her father, being given up to death, while the natural death of her father is in no way connected with that marriage, and not till after his death did the consequences fatal to his daughter and her child develop themselves.” Such niceties of verification in a prophecy so concise and incidental we may safely leave to the candor of the reader.]
[12][Surely the exact agreement of prophecy with history ought not to be an objection with any except those who deny the possibility of prediction at all. At other times the lack of this agreement is made by the author the ground of the same objection.]
[13][This argument resolves itself simply into the conceded fact that the prophecy in question is unusually specific. But what of that? Was not the Spirit of revelation competent to impart particulars, if need be? The author’s reasoning is purely of a piece with the presumptions of rationalism.]
[14][The author’s remarks sufficiently meet the objection of Keil that “the announcement of the war of his (Callinicus) sons with many hosts overflowing the land is not confirmed by history;” but to make all clear we add the following from Stuart: “The sons of Seleucus Callinicus were Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus Magnus. The former of these two began the war against Egypt, in Asia Minor, where Egypt had tributary or allied provinces. He perished in the contest there. Antiochus Magnus then led on his army toward Egypt; and hence וּכָא בוֹא in the singular. The infin. being after the definite verb denotes the continued advance of the army under Antiochus.”]
[15][Keil likewise, though he admits that יַעֲמֹד מִן might well bear the sense of abstaining from, yet adduces plausible reasons from the context in favor of the sense to stand before. It is difficult, however, to see how this signification can be legitimately extracted from the words.]
[16][Keil. however, somewhat arbitrarily declares that “הֶחָמוֹן, with the article, can only be the host of the king of the north.” He contends that “the meaning is this: ‘As the multitude rises up, so his heart is lifted up.’ ”]
[17][It certainly may with justice “be denied that there is here such a discrepancy.” There is, indeed, some indistinctness, owing chiefly to our inability to determine the exact application of the term “fall” here. It is clear, however, that it indicates a failure of their expectations; and of this, in the case of the apostate Jews referred to, history affords sufficient confirmation. “The apostasy of one party among the Jews from the law of their fathers, and their adoption of heathen customs contributed to bring about that oppression with which the theocracy was visited by Antiochus Epiphanes” (Keil). On the author’s view, that these specifications were interpolated into the prophecy by a later hand, it is impossible to account for any such vagueness, much less “discrepancy;” for the forger would certainly have taken pains to conform his language to the well-known facts.]
[18][Keil again objects: “Here also the historical events fall far behind the contents of the prophecy, which points to the complete subjugation of the king of the south, whereas this war was carried on solely for the possession of the Asiatic provinces of the Egyptian kingdom. Also the rising up of many (רַבִּים, Dan_11:14) against the king of the south is not historically verified; and even the relation spoken of by Josephus (Ant., XII. 3, 3) in which the Jews stood to Antiochus the Great was not of such a kind as to be capable of being regarded as a fulfilling of the ‘exalting themselves’ of the בְּחֵי פָרִיצִים, Dan_11:14. Still less does the statement of Dan_11:16, that the king of the north would stand in the glorious land, agree with the כָּלָה interpreted of the conduct of Antiochus the Great against the Jews; for, according to Josephus (Ant., l. c), he treated the Jews about Jerusalem favorably, because of their own accord they had submitted to him, and had supported his army; and he granted to them not only indulgence in regard to the observance of their religious ordinances, but also afforded them protection.” These minute points of apparent variation are sufficiently met by the explanations given above. We cannot refrain, however, from observing here how completely these seeming discrepancies with the facts of history disprove our author’s theory of an interpolation of this part of the prophecy by a later writer; for such a person would surely have been careful to conform his writing scrupulously to the known historical data.]
[19][“הָנָּשִׁים, of women, the plural of the class, as in Jdg_14:5” ’ (Keil). The plur. gives a kind of superlative force, indicating her choiceness, beauty, etc.]
[20][Still the construction proposed is harsh, for the subject of the verb is naturally כַּת חַנָּשִׁים. Her destruction, “it is true, was not the object of the marriage, but only its consequence; but the consequence is set forth as had in view, so as forcibly to express the thought that the marriage could lead, according to a higher direction, only to the destruction of the daughter. The last clauses of the verse express the failure of the measure adopted. The verbs are fem., not neut.; thus the meaning is: … ‘she (the daughter) shall not stand.’ not be able to carry out the plan contemplated by her father. The words וְלאׄ־לוֹ תִחְיֶה do not stand for וְלאׄ תִהְוֶה לוֹ, ‘she shall not be to him,’ or ‘for him.’ In that case, לאׄ must be connected with the verb. According to the text, לאׄ־לוֹ forms one idea, as לאׄ כוֹחַ impotent, (cf. Ewald, § 270); ‘she shall be a not for him,’ i.e., he shall have nothing at all from her.”—Keil.]
[21][Yet Keil insists that “this prophecy of the undertaking of the king of the north against the islands has not its historical fulfilment in the expedition of Antiochus the Great against the coasts and islands of Asia Minor and the Hellespont.”]
[22][Keil objects to the signification moreover, assigned to בִּלְתִּי, that “in all places where it is so rendered a negative sentence goes before it, cf. Gen_43:3; Gen_47:18; Jdg_7:14, or a sentence asking a question with a negative sense, as Amo_3:3-4. Hence בִּלְתִּי here has the idea of exception, and can only be rendered after an affirmative statement by however, for the passage introduced by it limits the statement going before.”]
[23][Nevertheless, the plur. here is not to be strained to exactness, and the temple referred to may very well be taken as a representative of the native fortifications, especially as it was so vigorously defended as to cause the death of the assailant.]
[24][Keil still insists that “what is said regarding his return to the fortresses of his own land and his own throne, does not so correspond with the historical issue of the reign of this king, that one would be able to recognize therein a prediction of it.” Yet such a prediction has actually been recognized by interpreters of all ages.]
[25][Keil, however, objects to “this interpretation of the words as too limited. נָגַשׁ denotes, no doubt (2Ki_23:35), to collect gold and silver; but it does not thence follow that נוֹגֶשׁ, when silver and gold are not spoken of, means to collect tribute. The word in general designates the taskmaster who urges on the people to severe labor, afflicts and oppresses them as cattle. הֶדֶר מַלְכוּת is not synonymous with אֶרֶץ הַצְּבִי, Dan_11:16, but stands much nearer to הוֹד מַלְכוּת, Dan_11:21, and designates the glory of the kingdom. The glory of the kingdom was brought down by נוֹגֵשׁ and הֶעֱכִיר refers to the whole kingdom of the king spoken of, not merely to the Holy Land, which formed but a part of his kingdom. By these oppressions of his kingdom he prepared himself in a short time for destruction.”]
[26][Keil’s objection: “The reference of these words, ‘in days few,’ to the time after the pillage of the temple of Jerusalem by Heliodorus is not only an arbitrary proceeding, but is also contrary to the import of the words, since בְּ in בְּיָמִימ does not mean past,” has little force, even if we accept his interpretation of נוִגֵשׁ preceding; for that term evidently constitutes a fresh date or starting-point.]
[27][Keil once more urges that “of Seleucus Philopater, to whom Dan_11:20 must refer, if the foregoing verses treat of Antiochus the Great, nothing further is communicated than that he, ‘quum paternis cladibus fractas admodum Syriœ opes accepisset, post otiosum nullisque admodum, rebus gestis nobilitatum annorum duodecim regnum, was put to death through the treachery of Heliodorus, unius ex puratis (Livy, LXI. Dan 19: cf. App., Syr., C. 45), and the mission of Heliodorus to Jerusalem to seize the treasures of the temple, which is fabulously described in 2Ma_3:4 ff. The יִשָּׁחֵר (shall be destroyed) of this king בְּיָמִים אְַחָדִים (within a few days) does not harmonize with the fact of his twelve years’ reign.”]
[28][The fact that he is not here styled מָשִׁיח serves to distinguish him from the personage so designated there.]
[29][Keil objects that the interpretation of this cutting off of the “prince of the covenant.” as referring to the murder of Onias III., “is not warranted by the facts of history. That murder does not at all relate to the matter before us, not only because the Jewish high-priest at Antioch did not sustain the relation of a ‘prince of the covenant,’ but also because the murder was perpetrated without the previous knowledge of Antiochus, and when the matter was reported to him, the murderer was put to death by his command (2Ma_4:36-38).” Still the fact remains that Onias was slain by his agents, however much he disavowed or even regretted the occurrence. To deny the propriety of the epithet “prince of the covenant” as a title of the high-priest is arbitrary, as also the interpretation: “We must, therefore, with Kranichfeld, understand נְגִיד בְּרִית, in undefined generality, of covenant princes in general,” There is little force in Stuart’s comment that the latter phrase is “not the high-priest Onias, the prince of the Jewish covenant, as Rosenmuller maintains, for then הַבְּרִית would of course be employed. בְּרִית is designed for a mere adjective of quality or condition here, and the article is omitted, as it is more generally in such cases.…. If Rosenmüller be in the right, the order of time would be inverted, and a ὕστερον πρότερον must consequently be admitted in the course of the narrative, which is improbable.” “The absence of the article in בְּרִית is no proof against the reference of the word to the holy covenant. The article is wanting where otherwise the determination is found from the connection, e. g., Dan_8:13” (Keil).]
[30][“But to distribute money and spoil is nothing unheard of, and in no way does it agree with the ‘fattest provinces.’ The context decidedly refers to conduct which injured the fat provinces. This can only consist in squandering and dissipating the wealth of this province which he had plundered to its injury (לִהֶם [to them], dativ. incommodi). A historical confirmation is found in 1Ma_3:29-31. To bring the provinces wholly under his power he devised plans against the fortresses that he might subdue them.”—Keil]
[31][The expression, “those who eat of his choice food probably means Lennæus and Eulæus, the guardians and state ministers of the young Ptolemy,” the same persons alluded to in the preceding verse as the members of his own court corrupted by the bribes of the Syrians.—Stuart.]
[32][The phrase is sufficiently justified by the hypocritical alliance. “At one table designates the dissembled amity and intimacy of the parties, who said and did all they could to mislead each other” (Stuart). Keil, after interpreting: “The evil doing consists in this, that the one seeks to overthrow and destroy the other under the cloak of feigned friendship; for they eat as friends at one table, and ‘speak lies’—the one tells lies to the other, professing friendship. But their design shall not succeed;” yet captiously adds: “All interpretations of these words which are determined by historical facta are arbitrary. The history of Antiochus Epiphanes furnishes no illustrations for this.” The above league affords abundant presumption of these facts, even if strictly understood.]
[33][Keil contends for the last of the above views, in accordance with his adopted theory of the final Antichristian “little horn;” but his arguments have little weight, in the face of the admitted identity of the persecuting “king” throughout this passage. His chief point is this: “If the contents of Dan_11:36-45 lie beyond the end of the enemy who has hitherto been spoken of, then ought his destruction to have been mentioned, especially since with the words, ‘to the time of the end, because yet for a time appointed,’ Dan_11:35, the words of Dan_11:27, ‘for yet the end of the time appointed, are resumed. All attempts to give to the former of these expressions, Dan_11:35, a different meaning from that contained in the latter, Dan_11:27 (Calovius, Geier, Kliefoth), amount to verbally impossible interpretations.” But surely this phrase might be understood to refer to different points of time, if the change in the connection required it. Even this, however, is not necessary. It is sufficient to apply it to the general issue of these troubles of the theocracy, and thus room is still left to introduce the sequel of Antiochus’s career, which in fact did not take place till the controversy about the Jewish worship was pretty well decided at Jerusalem by the first successes of the Maccabees.]
[34][Keil objects. “This does not agree with Antiochus. The ίσόθεα φρονεῖς ὺ̀περηφανῶς which is said of him, 2Ma_9:12, is not an exalting of himself above every god. ‘Antiochus was not an ἄθεος; he even wished to render the worship of Zeus universal; and that he once spoiled the temple does not imply his raising himself above every god’ (Kliefoth). Of Antiochus much rather, as is said by Livy (XIV. 20), ‘in duobus tamen honestisque rebus fere regius erat animus, in urbium donis et deorum cuitu,’ ” But this misses the main point of the portraiture of this persecuting tyrant throughout the entire series of these prophecies, which is not so much his utter godlessness and violence as the direction of these traits against the hitherto established usages of his own subjects; intolerance now first made religion a crime, and foreign deities were now for the first time forcibly imposed upon them. “The next verse shows that he had no regard for his country’s gods; and his whole course of life, his plundering the temple at Jerusalem, and finally in Elymais, shows the reckless and impious character of the tyrant. … The intimation here given, of disregarding the gods of his fathers, shows that the previous Græcian kings of Syria had adopted the gods of the Syrian nation; while Antiochus, who had lived some years at Rome, had learned to despise the Syrian gods, and to prefer the Jupiter Olympius and Xenias of the Greeks and Romans, The establishment of the worship of the former at Jerusalem, and of the latter at Samaria, shows that Antiochus was ambitious at times of imitating the Greeks and Romans” (Stuart). For this he was naturally applauded by Pagan historians, but the sacred seer penetrates the motives of policy that led to these occasional freaks of so-called piety, and paints his secret contempt for ail religion. That the person here described, however, was not wholly or externally irreligious is proved by Dan_11:38-39, which bring out the precise point of his impiety, namely, its foreign character.]
[35][Keil’s defence of the abstract interpretation is signally weak: “A verbal proof that חֶמְדַּת נָשִׁים denotes Anaïtis or Adonis as the favorite deity of women has not been adduced. For these words, desiderium mulierum, denote not that which women desire, but that which women possess which is desirable; cf. under 1Sa_9:20. But it is impossible that this can be Anaïtis or Adonis, but it is a possession or precious treasure of women. This desirable possession of women is without doubt love; so that, as C. B. Michaelis has remarked, the expression is not materially different from אַחֲבַת נָשִׁים, the love of women, 2Sa_1:26.” On the contrary, all the associated terms compel us to understand a concrete object of regard. As Keil himself admits, “The connection requires us to think of a deity, because these words are placed between two expressions which refer to the gods.”]
[36][Keil still objects; (1) “But according to the following passage, this god (worshipped by the person in question) was not known to his fathers. That could not be said either of Mars, Jupiter, or Melkart.” Keil has overlooked the description of this deity, which is not his ancestral god (although even then it would doubtless mean, as in Dan_11:37, the deity commonly worshipped in the country, i.e., Asiatic or Syrian), but “a strange god” (אֱלוהַּ נֵכָר, Dan_11:39). (2) “Add to this, ‘that if the statement here refers to the honoring of Hercules, or Mars, or Zeus, or Jupiter, then therewith all would be denied that was previously said of the king’s being destitute of all religion’ (Kliefoth).” We cannot see that this last discrepancy would be at all improved by the identification with any other deity whatever. It simply shows that the latter passage must not be so strictly interpreted. (3) “The words thus in no respect (?) agree with Antiochus, and do not permit us to think of any definite heathen deity.” Strange then that the descriptive epithet מָעֻזִּים should have been added by the sacred writer if he had so indefinite a worship in view, and stranger still that he should go on to characterize that reverence by the particulars given in this and the following verse.]
[37][On this Keil’s criticism seems in the main to be just: “עַל כַּנּוֹ does not signify on his foundation, pedestal, because the remark that he honored the god on his pedestal would be quite inappropriate, unless it had also been said that he had erected a statue to him. עַל כַּנּוֹ has here the same meaning as in Dan_11:20-21; Dan_11:7, ‘in his place or stead.’ But the suffix is not, with Kliefoth, to be referred to עַל כֹּל ‘in the place of all that which he did not regard,’ but it refers to כּל אֱלֹוהַּ, ‘in the peace of every god;’ which is not overthrown by the objection that in that case the suffix should have been in the plur., because the suffix is connected with the sing. אלזה The ‘god of fortresses’ is the personification of war, and the thought is this: He will regard no other god, but only war; the taking of fortresses he will make his god; and he will worship this god above all as the means of his gaining the world-power. Of this war god as the object of deification, it might be said that his fathers knew nothing, because no other king had made war his religion, his god, to whom he offered up in sacrifice all, gold, silver, precious stones, jewels.” We must take exception, however, to the incongruous idea of this last sentence respecting the deification of an abstract passion; nor can we see that in any reasonable or conceivable sense this could be said to characterize the king in question—be as who he may—above all his forefathers.]
[38]Jerome, T. V., p. 2, p. Dan 720: “Et hæc Porphyrius ad Antiochum refert, quod undecimo anno regni sui rursus contra sororis filium, Ptolemœum Philometorem dimicaverit. Qui audiens venire Antiochum congregaverit multa populorum millia: sed Antiochus quasi tempestas valida in curribus et in equitibus et in classe magna ingressus sit terras plurimas et transeundo uviversa vestaverit; veneritque ad terram inclytam, i.e., Judœam.… et arcem munierit de ruinis murorum civitatis et sic perrexerit in Ægyptum.”—Cf. farther the statements respecting the result of this expedition to Egypt, and respecting the connected expeditions toward the north and east, p. Dan 721:. “…Pugnans contra Ægyptios et Libyas Æthiopiasque pertransiens audiet sibi ab Aquilone et Oriente prœlia concitari, unde et regrediens capit Aradios resistentes et omnem in litore Phœnicis vastavit provinciam; confestimque pergit ad Artaxiam regem Armeniœ, qui de Orientis partibus movebitur; et interfectis plurimis de ejus exercitu, ponet tabernaculum suum in loco Apedno, qui inter duo latissima situs est flumina, Tigrim et Euphratem (Dan_11:45).”
[39][The author’s views here have evidently been biassed by his favorite theory of an interpolation of part of this prophecy. But the whole prediction is consecutive and naturally connected, without any repetition or redundancy. Keil, admitting a primary reference of this passage to Antiochus, argues against this supposition of a recapitulation or summary here. “If thus, according to Dan_11:35, the tribulation with which the people of God shall be visited by the hostile king for their purification shall last till the time of the end, then the time of the end to which the prophecies of Dan_11:40-45 fall cannot designate the whole duration of the conduct of this enemy, but only the end of his reign and of his persecutions, in which he perished (Dan_11:40). On the contrary, the reference to Dan_8:17 avails nothing, because there also עֵת קֵץ has the same meaning as here, i.e., it denotes the termination of the epoch referred to, and is there only made a more general expression by means of לְעֵת than here, where by בְּעֵת and the connection with Dan_11:35 the end is more sharply defined. To this is to be added that the contents of Dan_11:40-45 are irreconcilable with the supposition that in them is repeated in a comprehensive form what has already been said of Antiochus, for here (something new is announced, something of which nothing has been said before. This even Maurer and Hitzig have not been able to deny, but have sought to conceal as much as possible,—Maurer by the remark: ‘Res a scriptore iterum ac sœpius pertractatas esse, extremam vero manum operi defuisse;’ and Hitzig by various turnings—‘as it seems,’ ‘but is not precisely acknowledged,’ ‘the fact is nowhere else communicated’—which are obviously mere makeshifts.” Stuart thus defends the belief in another and final campaign of Antiochus: “Lengerke asserts the entire improbability of another and fourth invasion of Egypt and Palestine, on the ground that Antiochus was too weak and too poor to collect forces enough to carry on such a war with success. But 1Ma_1:27 seq. shows us that after Antiochus had heard of the notable defeat by Judas of his general Seron, ‘he was enraged, and gathered together all the forces of his kingdom, παρεβολὴν ἰσχυρὸν σψόδρα, an exceedingly great encampment.’ These he paid profusely, while in an attitude of preparation for active service, and thus exhausted his treasury, 1Ma_1:28-29. To Lysias, his general, he left one-half of his troops (1Ma_1:34), which amounted to 47,000 (Dan_11:39), with orders to subdue and partition out Palestine (Dan_11:35-36). Weak, then, Antiochus was not, at that time. It is indeed true that neither Appian, nor Polybius, nor Justin, nor Livy, nor Josephus have given us any particulars about this latest war of Antiochus; but who that has read their Syrian histories does not know that mere summaries, scraps, and fragments are all that remain of these writers in respect to Antiochus? Josephus depends on 1 Macc.; and this is mainly confined to the exploits of Judas and his brethren, Rosenmüller very appositely remarks: “Caremus omnino integra aliqua et continua de rebus Antiochi narratione, quœ a suœ œtatis scriptore aliquo fide digno literis sit mandate.’ The argumentum a silentio, specially in respect to ancient history, is far from being cogent and satisfactory. On the other hand, the accuracy of the statements in the book of Daniel, respecting the domain of Alexander’s successors, is on all hands admitted in other cases. Here it has narrated the events of an expedition, in Dan_11:40-43. with its usual minuteness, and apparently in good order. Why should this testimony be rejected? Nor does it stand alone. Jerome refers to Porphyry, who wrote against the book of Daniel, as saying with respect to Dan_11:40-43, that they relate to the last war of Antiochus. near the close of his lift?. … Let it be remembered that Jerome does not say a word to contradict this statement, although it made for his favorite object to do so it he could, inasmuch as he might then refer the passage to his favorite Antichrist. I do not see why the testimony of the book before us, the full confirmation of it by Porphyry, and the apparent consenting attitude of Jerome, do not place the matter before us fairly out of the reach of destructive criticism.”]
[40][The inconclusiveness of this reasoning is evident, for as the Romans themselves were not directly involved in this last campaign, a Roman historian may well have been ignorant or indifferent respecting it.]
[41][No one can fail to see how inept and trivial this statement would be if a mere recapitulation of what had been before declared so much more fully and explicitly.]
[42][But a later interpolator would not have failed to seize upon so remarkable a point, and would surely have incorporated it into his part, and even enlarged upon it from the history at his command.]
[43][On the contrary, had these clauses been introduced by such an interpolator, he would surely have been more definite in his allusions.]
[44][“נָטַע of planting a tent, only here used instead of the usual נָטָה, to spread out, to set up, probably with reference to the great palace-like tent of the Oriental ruler, whose poles must be struck very deep into the earth. cf. the description of the tent of Alexander the Great, which was erected after the Oriental type, in Polyæn., Strateg., IV. 3, 24, and of the tent of Nadir-Shah, in Rosenmüller, A. u. N. Morgenl., IV. p. 364f. These tents were surrounded by a multitude of smaller tents for the guards and servants, a circumstance which explains the use of the plural.”—Keil.]
[45][Stuart thus explains this seeming discrepancy: “But why is the mention of Antiochus’s encampment between the Mediterranean and Jerusalem here brought again to view, after the speaker had already followed him to the East? For the purpose of impression, I should say, rather than from any necessity of the case. ‘Look at the contrast’ (the speaker would seem to say); ‘now Antiochus encamps in his lofty tent like a palace, meditating the overthrow of the holy city and temple: next we see him in disgrace, and even in the agonies of death, stricken by an invisible and irresistible hand.’ The interest with which a Hebrew would survey this picture may be imagined, but cannot well be described.”]
[46][This remark of the author is doubtless by way of contrast with the more definite and historically correct utterances of the presumed interpolation preceding; as if an inexact—not to say untrue—prediction were a sure mark of authenticity in a prophet!]
[47][We dismiss this theory of the author by once more calling attention to the fact that these so-called interpolations are so intimately blended as component parts with the rest of the prophecy in which they are imbedded, that our author does not attempt to eliminate them, or even distinctly designate them. To do so would result in enervating and dislocating the whole. The authenticity of the entire passage must stand or fall together.]
[48]The Revelationes of S. Bridget (†1373) might also be adduced as an example in point: likewise the Quatrains of Nostradamus (1566), etc. [The Rationalistic tone of these comparisons of a book of Holy Writ with pseudo-apocryphal pretenders of modern times, is palpable.]
[49][This apology of the author for the wrecks of this passage after the expurgation from spurious additions—to an ill defined extent—is a vain plea. Once admit the fact of such interpolations, in any considerable degree at least, and the credit of the prophecy is irretrievably destroyed. Every one will be at liberty to expunge ad libilum what he fancies to be a vaticinium ex eventu.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown1871 · Public DomainOn vv2–4three kings in Persia--Cambyses, Pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes. (Ahasuerus,…
three kings in Persia--Cambyses, Pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes. (Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, and Darius, in Ezr 4:6-7, Ezr 4:24). The Ahasuerus of Esther (see on Dan 9:1) is identified with Xerxes, both in Greek history and in Scripture, appearing proud, self-willed, careless of contravening Persian customs, amorous, facile, and changeable (Dan 11:2).
fourth . . . riches . . . against . . . Grecia--Xerxes, whose riches were proverbial. Persia reached its climax and showed its greatest power in his invasion of Greece, 480 B.C. After his overthrow at Salamis, Persia is viewed as politically dead, though it had an existence. Therefore, Dan 11:3, without noticing Xerxes' successors, proceeds at once to Alexander, under whom, first, the third world kingdom, Grecia, reached its culmination, and assumed an importance as to the people of God.
Read full note →
stir up all--Four years were spent in gathering his army out of all parts of his vast empire, amounting to two millions six hundred and forty-one thousand men. [PRIDEAUX, Connexion, 1.4, 1.410].
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon1874 · Public DomainOn vv1–41. R.V. reads,”And as for me, in the first…
1. R.V. reads,”And as for me, in the first year,” etc. This is a continuation of Gabriel’s speech which should not have been interrupted by a chapter heading. For Darius the Mede see our Introduction, III, 3, (5). It is hard to be certain of the meaning of this verse. The various versions show that this uncertainty extended back to the earliest times. The words as they stand in the Hebrew may mean either that Gabriel had strengthened Michael in a former combat some years previously, in return for which he now gives him help against the prince of Persia (Dan_10:13; Dan_10:21), or they may mean that this divine messenger had been on the side of Darius the Mede in his conflict with Belshazzar (Dan_5:30-31), thus emphasizing the fact once more that human kings get their thrones by heavenly help. The Greek version reads “Cyrus” here instead of Darius. This gives a new and important meaning to the statement of the angel, since it was in the first year of Cyrus that the edict for the return of the Jews to their own land was proclaimed. It would then mean that only by such supernatural agency could this victory for the Jews have been wrought, and that the same help was pledged to them in all their future history.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges1878 · Public DomainOn vv1–4Dan_11:1. And as for me, in … I stood…
Dan_11:1. And as for me, in … I stood up to be a supporter and a stronghold unto him] I myself, also, in the first year of Darius, came forward to support Michael. As soon as ‘Darius the Mede’ (Dan_5:31, Dan_9:1) ‘received the kingdom,’ there was need for the defenders of Israel to co-operate on its behalf; and (it seems to be implied) it was through this angelic intervention that the natural hostility of Persia to Israel was turned to friendliness.
I stood up] The Heb. is peculiar, lit. my standing (was). One or two parallels can be quoted (as Jdg_19:9; Job_9:27); but the addition of a letter would give the normal Hebrew for I stood up (עמדתי for עמדי).
Read full note →
a supporter] prop. one holding strongly or firmly: see Isa_41:9; Isa_41:13; Eze_30:25.
stronghold] Dan_11:7; Dan_11:10; Dan_11:19; Dan_11:31; Dan_11:38-39; Isa_23:4; Isa_23:11 : here in a figurative sense, as often of Jehovah (e.g. Psa_27:1; Psa_28:1).
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers1878 · Public DomainOn vv1–4(1) In the first year of Darius.—These words must…
XI.
(1) In the first year of Darius.—These words must be closely connected with the last verse of Daniel 10. The allusion is, most probably, to the fall of Babylon and the return from the Exile, at which time, as at the Exodus, the angel of the Lord went before His people. There is also a reference to Dan_6:22.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary1880 · Public DomainOn vv1–4Vers. 1-45. THE KINGS OF THE NORTH AND THE…
Vers. 1-45. THE KINGS OF THE NORTH AND THE KINGS OF THE SOUTH.
Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. The versions show signs of great disturbance having happened here. The rendering of the LXX is, "In the first year of Cyrus the king, he told me to be strong and to play the man." Theodotion"s rendering is yet briefer, "And I, in the first year of Cyrus, stood in strength and might." The Peshitta rendering, "In the first year of Darius the Mede (he) arose to confirm and strengthen me." The Vulgate is close to the Massoretic and the English versions, "I likewise, from the first year of Darius the Mede, was standing that he might be confirmed and strengthened." The Revised Version does not differ seriously from the Authorized, "And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him." The Septuagint must have read rma (amar), "he said," instead of yna (anee), "I" When we have the Septuagint and Theodotion supporting each other against the Massoretic text, the evidence against the received text is strong. In this case both these versions have, as will be seen, not "Darius," but "Cyrus." The two names would have in the old Egyptian Hebrew script, a striking resemblance to each other; the fact that the last letter of both names is the same, and also the second letter, made the likeness considerable in any script; but the first letter of "Darius" is certainly very like the first letter of" Cyrus." The vav would possibly be omitted, then the first two letters of either name would resemble closely the first two letters of the other, and the final letters are the same. Mistake, then, was easy. The first letter of ydm and dlm is the same, and the words would be liable to be read in accordance with that given to the proper name. Further, all the versions but the Vulgate make the speaker the recipient of the aid. Theodotion may be taken as doubtful The difference is slight, ydm becomes dk, and wl becomes yli. The Septuagint seems to have read yM instead of dm. The first two letters are thus the same, the daleth may have been an intrusion. Bevan and Behrmann would omit the date as spurious, and hold it to have been introduced because the previous four chapters begin each with a date. This reason, to have weight, must assume the division into chapters to be of ancient date, more ancient than the Septuagint Version. The fact that all the versions have it compels us to admit a date here, but, as we have said above, it is to be reckoned by the year, not of Darius, but of Cyrus. (Also I) in the first year of Cyrus the king. The first year of Cyrus was the year when he decided to set the Jews free, and permit them to return to their own land; but the first year in this case was reckoned from his assumption of the throne of Babylon. We saw reason to doubt whether the reference in the beginning of ch. 10. was to the Babylonian reign of Cyrus, or to his reign as King of the Persians. His first year as King of the Persians might be when he first began to turn his arms against Babylon. We do not know enough of the history of the first years of Cyrus"s monarchy to know what critical events befell in that rear. Stood to confirm and strengthen him (me). According to the Massoretic text, the angel Gabriel stood to confirm either the archangel Michael or King Darius. Certainly, as Darius (Cyrus) is the nearer substantive, the grammatical preference would be to take it, as do Havernick, Hitzig, and Calvin. The majority of commentators who hold by the Massoretic text take "him" to refer to Michael and much can be said for this. Although Darius (Cyrus) is the nearest substantive, yet he is not the subject of the main sentence, but merely denotes a time, therefore a previous substantive must be chosen. In the opening of Cyrus"s career, the intimate connection his prosperity had with the prosperity of the people of Israel might well make Michael interested. As Cyrus had been prophesied of, he was under the rule of the angel of prophecy, hence Gabriel strengthened and confirmed the efforts of Michael. Certainly "strengthening" and "confirming" are strong terms to apply to the archangel Michael, yet we know so little of angelic natures and their limitations that the phrase may be quite natural. The meaning is not materially altered if we read, "He stood to strengthen and confirm me.
Read full note →
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES Vers. 1-4.
Revolutions in earthly empires.
In answer to prayer, Daniel obtains the consolation that other persons other orders of being were actively engaged in the same cause as himself.
I UNSEEN AND UNOSTENTATIOUS SERVICE IS OFTEN THE MOST EFFECTIVE. It is not probable that Gabriel appeared in visible form in the Persian court. His presence was unknown; his influence on men unobserved. He was content to exert his power over the feelings, dispositions, motives, of men; in this way he could best direct the affairs of nations, and serve the cause of righteousness. We may be content to retire into obscurity; be unseen and unknown, so long as we use talent and influence on the side of God and truth. The forces of life are unseen; they are made; visible only in their effects.
II WHEN THE SEASON IS OPPORTUNE, THE TRUTH SHALL BE REVEALED. Now" (said Gabriel to Daniel) "will I show thee the truth." It is evident that the unsinning angels are not in possession oall knowledge. They are ever learning. They "learn from the Church the manifold wisdom of God." Into many things" the angels desire to look." In the ratio of their knowledge is the service they render. Now Gabriel is at the Babylonian court, strengthening the purpose of Darius, and now he is at the river Hiddekel, revealing to Daniel the events of the future. For a season it is better for us to remain in ignorance. There are other possessions to be gained beside knowledge. When we have reduced to practice all we know, then we may expect further revelation. A spirit of generous benevolence towards men fills the angels. They delight to relieve our anxieties and to increase our knowledge. We may conclude that they would gladly proclaim the tidings of the gospel to the nations, if God had seen it to be good.
III MATERIAL RICHES ARE NOT ESSENTIALLY BLESSINGS. The Mugs of Persia, seized with an ambition to subdue the world, extorted from their subjects the largest measure of taxation, and hoarded their revenues year by year, only to carry sword and fire into the continent of Europe. To expend riches in invading other kingdoms, in devastating lands and cities, is a criminal waste of God"s treasure. Not for such purposes did God create gold and silver, brass and iron. Fallen man perverts and degrades many of God"s possessions. Mental and material gifts are but talents entrusted to our keeping, and a day of reckoning comes on apace, when, as stewards, we must render an account to our Lord. A sad and woeful day will that be to kings and statesmen who have squandered a nation"s wealth in war and bloodshed. In the case of Xerxes, great riches were a snare a trap which involved him and his empire in ruin. Had he been a poor monarch, or only moderately rich, he and his people might have dwelt in safety; Iris name might have escaped reproach. His wealth fed the appetite of ambition. His ponderous army was a source of weakness. His ostentatious display invited the invasion of the Greeks. Riches are not real strength.
IV EMPIRE, BUILT ON DESPOTIC POWER, IS EPHEMERAL. A king, however mighty, becomes utter weakness in the presence of disease, age, or death. Either of these forces is mightier than he. God permits, for hidden reasons, unscrupulous men to rise to the very summit of imperial power; but he does not guarantee their continuance; and if he does not uphold their power, it soon wanes and disappears. Nor can man secure that his authority and rank shall descend to his posterity, through the channels of ordinary law and custom. God is above all law, and often disappoints our fondest expectations. Despotic power is not a human virtue. It is a quality of doubtful character, and usually becomes dangerous to the public weal. Rapid as is the rise of some men to fame and power, their fall is usually more rapid still. At the moment of their greatest glory they are on the brink of ruin. When richest ripeness is on the fruit, rottenness is not far distant. Alexander"s victorious march was unprecedented; he speedily reached the highest pinnacle of empire; yet the king of terrors struck him down at a blow, and sudden collapse of his vast empire followed. As he had not honoured God, neither did God honour him. Had Alexander been pious and devout, how great a blessing might his power have been to the world! How efficient and useful he might have been in advancing the principles of truth and godliness! But his vast kingdom, not being founded in righteousness, was soon plucked up by the roots. D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator1887 · Public DomainOn v1Also I in the first year of Darius.
Dan_11:1-2
Also I in the first year of Darius.
Read full note →
The Vision by the Hiddekel
The prophet here tells of a long and devout season of fasting and prayer to which ha had given himself. It lasted three full weeks. At the end of this time, he was by the side of the great river Hiddekel, now known as the Tigris, far away from the scenes of court life. Lifting up his eyes, he was greeted with an overpowering vision. Before him stood a being in mans form, clothed in linen and girded with gold. His body was like the beryl--like the bluish-green, prismatic light, His face was as the appearance of lightning, insufferably bright. His ayes were as burning flame. His arms and his feet were like burnished brass, and the voice of his words had the volume and majesty of the shoutings of a multitude. Compare the vision in Revelation, ch. 1. Daniel was completely overwhelmed by the suddenness and transcendent glory of the vision. This shows how merciful it is in God to veil over the spiritual world from our fleshly sight. Were he to lift that veil, it would be impossible for flesh and blood to sustain itself under the weight of glory. The object of this vision was to reveal to Daniel a still fuller account of the fortunes of his people in the latter days; that is, in the mysterious future, extending down to the end of this present world. To this revelation the whole remaining portion of this book is devoted. It was in answer to Daniels anxieties concerning the Jewish people that this glorious apparition came. It is ever true that the histories of this world always have a background of spiritual agencies. Scripture everywhere represents the angels as largely participating in the divine government of the world, and in the whole ongoing of earthly affairs. Among the active unseen potencies there are both good and bad, often in conflict with each other. We are wont to speak in a spiritualizing way of a struggle between the good and evil principles in man, but Holy Scripture teaches us to regard the matter as a substantial reality. The glorious angel who appeared to Daniel had a struggle of three weeks with the evil angel at the head of the Persian monarchy, and only by Michaels help overcame him, and gained superior influence over the Persian king. After that he was to encounter the prince-angel of Grecia, in which no great success, even with Michaels help, was to be gained. The angel then proceeds (in Dan_11:2-4) to state the course of things in its outward manifestations . . . But with all the tribulations thus to come upon the prophets people in those evil times, God was to be at the helm, neither suffering them to be overwhelmed, nor allowing their afflictions to be without profit. For their sins, apostasies, and infidelities the hand of judgment was to be lifted up against them. When God lets the wicked have their way, it is that he may destroy them utterly; but when he chastises his people, it is to purify and redeem them. Nor are Gods chosen ones alone in their conflicts with the ills and trials of time. The Eternal Father makes angels his ministers to the heirs of salvation. (Joseph A. Seiss, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible1887 · Public DomainOn v2Events from the rise of Alexander the Great (B.C.…
FIRST SECTION
{Dan_11:2-9}
Read full note →
Events from the rise of Alexander the Great (B.C. 336) to the death of Seleucus Nicator (B.C. 280). There are to be three kings of Persia after Cyrus (who is then reigning), of whom the third is to be the richest; and "when he is waxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up the all against the realm of Javan."
There were of course many more than four kings of Persia: viz.-
Cyrus-536
Cambyses-529
Pseudo-Smerdis-522
Darius Hystaspis-521
Xerxes I-485
Artaxerxes I (Longimanus)-464
Xerxes II-425
Sogdianus-425
Darius Nothus-424
Artaxerxes II (Mnemon)-405
Artaxerxes III-359
Darius Codomannus-336
But probably the writer had no historic sources to which to refer, and only four Persian kings are prominent in Scripture-Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes. Darius Codomannus is indeed mentioned in Neh_12:22, but might have easily been overlooked, and even confounded with another Darius in uncritical and unhistorical times. The rich fourth king who "stirs up the all against the realm of Grecia" might be meant for Artaxerxes I, but more probably refers to Xerxes (Achashverosh, or Ahaseurus), and his immense and ostentatious invasion of Greece (B.C. 480). His enormous wealth is dwelt upon by Herodotus.
Dan_11:3 (B.C. 336-323).-Then shall rise a mighty king (Alexander the Great). and shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.
"Fortunam solus omnium mortalium in potestate habuit," says his historian, Quintus Curtius.
Dan_11:4 (B.C. 323).-But when he is at the apparent zenith of his strength his kingdom shall be broken, and shall not descend to any of his posterity, but (B.C. 323-301) shall be for others, and shall ultimately (after the Battle of Ipsus, B.C. 301) be divided towards the four winds of heaven, into the kingdoms of Cassander (Greece and Macedonia), Ptolemy (Egypt, Coele-Syria, and Palestine), Lysimachus (Asia Minor), and Seleucus (Upper Asia).
Dan_11:5 -Of these four kingdoms and their kings the vision is only concerned with two-the kings of the South (i.e., the Lagidae, or Egyptian Ptolemies, who sprang from Ptolemy Lagos), and the kings of the North (i.e., the Antiochian Seleucidae). They alone are singled out because the Holy Land became a sphere of contentions between these rival dynasties. B.C. 306.-The King of the South (Ptolemy Soter, son of Lagos) shall bestrong, and shall ultimately assume the title of Ptolemy I, King of Egypt. But one of his princes or generals (Seleucus Nicator) shall be stronger and, asserting his independence, shall establish a great dominion over Northern Syria and Babylonia.
Dan_11:6 (B.C. 250).-The vision then passes over the reign of Antiochus II (Soter), and proceeds to say that "at the end of years" (i.e., some half-century later, B.C. 250) the kings of the North and South should form a matrimonial alliance. The daughter of the King of the South-the Egyptian Princess Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II (Philadelphus), should come to the King of the North (Antiochus Theos) to make an agreement. This agreement (marg., "equitable conditions") was that Aniochus Theos should divorce his wife and half-sister Laodice, and disinherit her children, and bequeath the throne to any future child of Berenice, who would thus unite the empires of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae. Berenice took with her so vast a dowry that she was called "the dowry-bringer." Antiochus himself accompanied her as far as Pelusium (B.C. 247). But the compact ended in nothing but calamity. For, two years after, Ptolemy II died, leaving an infant child by Berenice. But Berenice did " not retain the strength of her arm ," since the military force which accompanied her proved powerless for her protection; nor did Ptolemy II abide, nor any support which he could render. On the contrary, there was overwhelming disaster. Berenices escort, her father, her husband, all perished, and she herself and her infant child were murdered by her rival Laodice (B.C. 246), in the sanctuary of Daphne, whither she had fled for refuge.
Dan_11:7 (B.C. 285-247).-But the murder of Berenice shall be well avenged. For "out of a shoot from her roots" stood up one in his office, even her brother Ptolemy III (Euergetes), who, unlike the effeminate Ptolemy II, did not entrust his wars to his generals, but came himself to his armies. He shall completely conquer the King of the North (Seleucus II, Kallinikos, son of Antiochus Theos and Laodice), shall seize his fortress (Seleucia, the port of Antioch).
Dan_11:8 (B.C. 247).-In this campaign Ptolemy Euergetes, who earned the title of "Benefactor" by this vigorous invasion, shall not only win immense booty-four thousand talents of gold and many jewels, and forty thousand talents of silver-but shall also carry back with him to Egypt the two thousand five hundred molten images, and idolatrous vessels, which, two hundred and eighty years before (B.C. 527), Cambyses had carried away from Egypt. After this success he will, for some years, refrain from attacking the Seleucid kings.
Dan 11:9 (B.C. 240).-Seleucus Kallinikos makes an attempt to avenge the shame and loss of the invasion of Syria by invading Egypt, but he returns to his own land totally foiled and defeated, for his fleet was destroyed by a storm.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary1892 · Public DomainOn v1SECT. XXXVIII.—THE KINGS OF THE NORTH AND OF THE…
HOMILETICS
SECT. XXXVIII.—THE KINGS OF THE NORTH AND OF THE SOUTH. (Chap. Dan_11:1-20.)
Read full note →
We come to the things which the angel was commissioned to communicate to the prophet, and through him to the Church. They are spoken of as the things which should befall his people “in the latter days,” [301] being the things noted in “the scripture of truth.” The chapter is a continuation of the angel’s discourse, the first verse being more properly connected with the preceding chapter, as the communication only commences with the second. The prophecy is the most extensive and minute one which the prophet had hitherto received, including a period stretching from Daniel’s own time to the resurrection of the dead. [302] It contains a further filling up of the outline of the four great empires already given in the visions of the Great Image and the Four Beasts (chap. 2 and 7), as well as that of the Third Monarchy and the Little Horn in the vision of the Ram and the He-goat (chap, 8.) The prediction “was given,” says Auberlen, “to be a light to the people of Israel in one of the darkest periods of their chequered history, and, indeed, in the darkest centuries of their abandonment by God—centuries that have not yet run their course.” The angelic communication commences with a glance at the kings of Persia, who were yet to arise, and at the founder of the Third or Grecian Empire who was to succeed them. The angel then passes to the contendings that took place between the kings of two of the divisions of Alexander’s partitioned empire, Syria and Egypt, in order to introduce the power who had already formed a sadly conspicuous object in the visions of Daniel, as the great antagonist and persecutor of the Jews and of the religion of Jehovah, Antiochus Epiphanes, one of the kings of Syria. These Syrian kings are spoken of in the vision as the kings of the North, as distinguished from the kings of Egypt or of the South, to whom, after Alexander’s death, the Jews were subject. From Antiochus the vision appeals to pass to others of whom he appears as the type.
[301] “In the latter days” (chap. Dan_10:14). Dr. Cox remarks that, by this expression in the preceding chapter, “our views are naturally conducted through the perspective of revolving ages; all the events of which, till the great consummation, must be contemplated with reference to the Jewish nation or Daniel’s people, whose affairs form the centre of the chief transactions of this lower world.”
[302] “Of all the predictions contained in the holy Scriptures,” observes Auberlen, “this is doubtless the most special and minute.… Its special minuteness, however, is by no means of such a kind as to lift the veil which, in the wise counsels of the Almighty, has been drawn across the future, nor of such a kind as to unfold the future to the gaze of a profane curiosity.” Mr. Birks gives the following summary of it:—“This enlarged prophecy of the ‘Scripture of Truth’ resumes the message of the earlier visions, and unfolds more clearly the idol-worship set up by the Little Horn or Wilful King, in the ‘three times and a half, of his permitted power, with the warfare of the Saracens and Turks, and their dominion in the East. A further extension of the predicted times is at length revealed. In this latest portion of the prophetic calendar, the Wilful King enters on the last form of his apostate power; and assuming to himself the features of personal malignity and an open rejection of Christ, which belong to Antiochus, his type and predecessor, and the king of the North, his temporary rival, gathers at length under his banner all the apostate nations; and in the height of his power and pride is broken and overthrown by the hand of God in the mountains of Israel.” Keil observes: “It is true that the Church interpretation, given by Jerome, is so far valid, in that it interprets the prophecy partially considered under the point of view of the very special predictions of historical persons and events, and from this view concludes that Dan_11:21-35 treat of Antiochus Epiphanes, and Dan_11:36-45 of Antichrist; according to which there would be in Dan_11:36 an immediate passing from Antiochus to the Antichrist, or, in chap. Dan_12:1, a sudden transition from the death of Antiochus to the time of the end and the resurrection of the dead. But the prophecy does not at all correspond to this representation. The angel of the Lord will reveal to Daniel, not what shall happen from the third year of Cyrus to the time of Antiochus, and further to the resurrection of the dead; but, according to the express declaration of chap. Dan_10:14, what shall happen to his people, בְּאַֽהֲרִית הַיָּמִים (beakharith haiyamim), “in the end of the days,” i.e., in the Messianic future, because the prophecy relates to His time. In the אַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים (akharith haiyamim), the latter days or end of the days, there takes place the destruction of the world-powers, and the setting up of the Messianic kingdom at the end of the present world æon. All that the angel says respecting the Persian and the Javanic (or Grecian) world-kingdoms, and the wars of the kings of the North and the South, has its aim to the end-time, and serves only briefly to indicate the chief elements of the development of the world-kingdoms, till the time that brings on the end shall burst forth; and to show how, after the overthrow of the Javanic world-kingdom, neither the kings of the North nor those of the South shall gain the possession of the dominion of the world. Neither by the violence of war, nor by the covenants which they will ratify by political marriages, shall they succeed in establishing a lasting power. They shall not prosper, because (chap. Dan_11:27) the end goes yet “to the time appointed” by God. A new attempt of the king of the North to subjugate the kingdom of the South will be defeated by the intervention of the “ships of Chittim;” and the anger awakened in him by this frustration of his plans shall break forth against the holy covenant, only for the purifying of the people of God for the time of the end, because the end goes yet to the appointed time (Dan_11:35). At the time of the end, his power will greatly increase, because that which was determined by God shall prosper till the end of the indignation (Dan_11:36); but in the time of the end he shall suddenly fall from the summit of his power, and come to his end (Dan_11:45); but the people of God shall be saved, and the wise shall shine in heavenly glory (chap Dan_12:1-3).”
I. The Persians and Alexander the Great (Dan_11:2-4). Cyrus, the founder of the Second or Persian Empire, was now, as is stated in the previous chapter (chap. Dan_10:1), in the third year of his reign, after succeeding his uncle, Darius the Mede, otherwise called Cyaxares II., who on the fall of Babylon had “taken” or received the kingdom, which he ruled for two years. To this second empire the Jews were in subjection, as they had been to the first or Babylonian, Judea being still only a tributary province. It was through the favour of its monarchs that the Jews were for two centuries to enjoy peace and prosperity in their own land and elsewhere. At the head of this empire there were yet to be three kings, who should be followed by a fourth, far richer than any of his predecessors (Dan_11:2). These three kings are known in history as Cambyses, a son of Cyrus; Smerdis, who pretended to be another son; and Darius Hystaspis. The fourth is the well-known Xerxes, [303] thought to be the same with Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther, whose riches were proverbial, and in whose reign the empire reached its highest magnificence. “By his strength, through his riches,” he was to “stir up all against the realm of Grecia.” He is known as the king who, in his war with Greece, covered the shores of the Hellespont with his immense host. The disasters that attended his expedition, and the entire overthrow of the empire under one of his successors, Darius Codomannus, are well known in history.
[303] “The fourth.” The Xerxes of the Book of Esther, according to Keil, Hävernick, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Auberlen, and Kliefoth. On the contrary, Hitzig and some others would make the fourth king to be the third, to justify their interpretation of the four wings and four heads of the leopard (chap. Dan_7:6) of the first four kings of the Persian monarchy.
After mentioning Xerxes, the angel passes to the power by which the Persian empire was to be overthrown: “A mighty king shall stand up, which shall rule with great dominion, and shall do according to his will” (Dan_11:3). Alexander the Great, thus referred to, with his rapid and extensive conquests, has been already before us in former visions as the founder of the Third or Grecian Empire. When in the height of his prosperity, however, he was to be cut off and his kingdom to be “broken, and divided toward the four winds of heaven,” his successors being none of his own posterity (Dan_11:4). This also we have seen fulfilled in the untimely and unexpected death of Alexander, and in the division of his empire, not between his two sons, Alexander and Hercules, who were both murdered soon after their father’s death, but among his four generals, Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus. See further under chap. Dan_7:6, and Dan_8:5-8; Dan_8:21-22. Although the condition of the Jews was considerably affected by Alexander, it is more as a link in the historical chain that he is here introduced.
II. The kings of Syria and Egypt, or of the North and South (Dan_11:5-20). These, the most powerful of Alexander’s successors, are made, with their mutual contendings, to occupy a considerable part of the prophecy, from the circumstance that Judea lay between them, and was often the bone of contention to the rival parties. “The Jews,” says Luther, “placed thus between the door and the hinges, were sorely tormented on both sides. Now they fell a prey to Egypt, and anon to Syria, as the one kingdom or the other got the better; and they had to pay dearly for their neighbourhood, as is wont to be in time of war.”
The prophecy regarding these kings commences with the statement that the king of the South or of Egypt should “be strong, and one of his princes,” that is, of the princes of Alexander, namely, the king of Syria, who should “be strong above him, and have dominion,” which should be “a great dominion” (Dan_11:5). [304] This we find verified in the kings of Egypt and Syria, or, as they are sometimes called, the Lagidæ and the Seleucidæ, from the names of their respective founders, Ptolemy Lagus, and Seleucus; the latter becoming the sovereign of not less than three fourths of all the Asiatic dominions conquered by Alexander the Great. It was under Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second of the kings of Egypt, that, in consequence of the number of Jews residing in that country [305] and speaking Greek, the Greek or Septuagint version of the Old Testament was made, about the year 273 B.C. Of these kings, the angel says, “in the end of years,” or after several years, “they shall join themselves together,” in friendly alliance; “for the king’s daughter of the South shall come to the king of the North to make an agreement;” an alliance, however, which was to effect nothing; the angel adding, “but she shall not retain the power of the arm,” or be able to render any permanent help to her father in relation to Syria. “Neither shall he stand, nor his arm; but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her (marg., ‘he whom she brought forth’), and he (or they) that strengthened her in these times” (Dan_11:6). Jerome, from various ancient authors, gives the following account in verification of the prophecy:—After many years, Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, wishing to bring this troublesome contention to an end, gave his daughter Berenice in marriage to Antiochus, king of Syria (surnamed Theos or the god); Antiochus having two sons, Callinicus and Antiochus, by Laodicea, his first wife, who was still living. Philadelphus himself took his daughter to Pelusium, carrying with him as her dowry many thousands of gold and silver, whence he obtained the name of the Dowry-bearer. But Antiochus, though at first professing to take Berenice for his consort in the kingdom, and to retain Laodicea as his concubine, after a length of time was overcome by the love of his first wife, and took Laodicea and her children back to the palace. Landicea, fearing that Berenice would win back the heart of her fickle husband, employed her servants to take away his life by poison, and then delivered up Berenice and the child she had borne to Antiochus to two princes of Antioch to be murdered, while she made Callinicus, her eldest son, king in the room of his father. The angel foretells the sequel of this tragedy. “But out of a branch of her roots,” sprung from the same parents, “shall one stand up in his estate (or stead), which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress (or strong city) of the king of the North, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail: and shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the North. So the king of the South shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land” (Dan_11:7-9). Jerome relates: After the murder of Berenice and the death of her father Ptolemy Phila-delphus, her own brother, Ptolemy Euergetes, came with a great army and entered into the provinces of Callinicus, then reigning in Syria with his mother Laodicea; and after revenging himself upon them, took possession of Syria, Cilicia, the parts beyond the Euphrates, and almost all Asia. Afterwards, on receiving intelligence from Egypt that a sedition had arisen, he seized on the kingdom of Callinicus, took forty thousand talents of silver, precious vessels, and images of gods to the number of two thousand and five hundred, including those which Cambyses had carried out of Egypt into Persia. In reference to the clause, “he shall continue more years than the king of the North,” it has been remarked that the average length of a reign in Egypt was about twenty-seven years and four months, while that in Syria was just one-half; and that “the atrocious cruelty of the Syrians, and especially their oppression of the Jews, is enough to account for the shortness of their lives, to any one who takes into consideration the retributive providence of God, who scourges unjust kings by their discontented subjects.”
[304] “Shall be strong, and one of his princes” (Dan_11:5). C. B. Michaelis, Rosenmüller, and others understand his princes as those of the “mighty king” (Dan_11:3), or Alexander; while Keil refers the pronoun to the king of the South, the prince being the king of the North. Bishop Newton, who observes that the Hebrew text appears here a little confused, and perhaps defective, thinks that possibly the words מֶלֶךְ הַצָּפוֹן (melech hattsaphon), “king of the North,” may have fallen out. The rendering of the Septuagint is clearer: “And one of these princes shall be stronger than he.” It is here where Mr. Bosanquet thinks the marginal comment began, which ultimately became incorporated with the text. He thinks the prophet gives no particulars concerning the four successors of Alexander, but proceeds at once to the object of the vision, the king of the latter days, according to chap. Dan_10:14, after amplifying in Dan_11:2-4 what is said in chap. Dan_8:20-22 concerning the kingdoms of Persia and Greece, and thus leading back the mind of the reader to the words of chap. Dan_7:17, “at the time of the end shall be the vision,” i.e., the vision of the king of fierce countenance (Dan_8:23), who shall appear at “the last end of the indignation “(Dan_8:19), and who “shall stand up in the latter time of those kingdoms” which were to be formed on the platform of Alexander’s empire in the East, that is, in “the latter days.” He thinks the interpreter, passing over Ptolemy Soter, Lysimachus, Cassander, and Seleucus Nicator, selects, out of more than twenty, ten kings, beginning with Ptolemy Philadelphus, and ending with Antiochus Epiphanes and Philometor, who all lived nearly in his own days, being the ten kings or horns for whose succession the kingdom of Alexander was to be “plucked up,” according to Dan_11:4. In this supposition Mr. B. appears to stand alone.
[305] “Robbers of thy people “(Dan_11:14). פָּרִיצֵי עַמְּךָ (varitse ’ammecha), according to Dr. Rule, are the separatists who left Judea for Egypt, and there attached themselves to Onias, who built a temple at Heliopolis like that at Jerusalem, and established a kind of rival worship. Sir Isaac Newton considers them to be the Samaritans and such like. The Septuagint has “pestilent ones;” the Vulgate, “prevaricators.” Bishop Newton renders the term “revolters,” the factious and refractory ones, the majority of the Jews at that time being for breaking away from allegiance to Ptolemy, king of Egypt. Keil understands those violent men who break through the barriers of the divine law (Eze_18:10).
The angel proceeds. “But his sons (those of the king of Syria) shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces; and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress. And the king of the South shall be moved to choler, and shall come forth, and fight with him, even with the king of the North, and he shall set forth a great multitude, but the multitude shall be given into his hand. And when he shall take away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands; but he shall not be strengthened by it. For the king of the North shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after many years with a great army and with much riches” (Dan_11:10-13). The following are the facts of history that verify this part of the prophecy:—The two sons of Callinicus, namely, Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus, surnamed the Great, stirred themselves up to recover their father’s dominions. The former, though surnamed the Thunderer, was equally weak in body and mind, and after a reign of three years was poisoned by his generals, having done little more than assemble a large force, which, for want of money, he was unable to keep together. After his death, his brother Antiochus came with a great army, retook Seleucia, his fortress, and recovered Syria; and after a time he returned, overcame the Egyptian general, and had thoughts of invading Egypt itself. Ptolemy Philopator, having succeeded his father Euergetes, whom he had murdered, enraged at his losses, roused himself from his sensual indulgences, and marched with a numerous army us far us Raphia, between Rinocolura and Gaza, where he met Antiochus with a still more powerful host. The latter was defeated, and his numerous armament given into Ptolemy’s hand, ten thousand of his troops having been slain, and four thousand made prisoners. The weak heart of Ptolemy was lifted up by his success, and on making a visit to Jerusalem, among other cities which sent their ambassadors to do him homage, he demanded to be allowed to enter the interior of the temple. When Simon the high priest remonstrated, alleging that not even ordinary priests were admitted into the inner sanctuary, the king haughtily answered that although they were forbidden, he ought not to be so, and then pressed forward. The Jewish historian relates that in passing through the inner court for that purpose, he was seized with a panic and fell speechless to the ground. He was carried out half dead; and soon after his recovery he departed, full of anger against the Jewish people. The result was that on returning to Alexandria, he commenced a bitter persecution of the numerous Jews residing there, so that “many ten thousands were cast down” by it; only three hundred retaining their civil rights at the expense of their religion, while, according to Eusebius, forty thousand, or, according to Jerome, half as many more, preferred death rather than obey the royal decree that commanded them to worship idols. Ptolemy, giving himself up to his pleasures instead of pursuing his victory over Antiochus, was “not strengthened by it.” He died about a dozen years after, and Antiochus, raising an incredibly large army among the upper provinces of Babylonia and Media, came down upon his son, Ptolemy Epiphanes, an infant four years old.
The prophecy continues: “And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the South: also the robbers of thy people, [306] or “breakers,” that is, of the divine law, shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall. So the king of the North shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities; and the arms of the South shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed” (Dan_11:14-16.) [307] History relates that Philip of Macedon entered into a league with Antiochus to divide Ptolemy’s dominions between them, each taking the part that lay nearest to him; in consequence of which, as Judea lay nearest to Antiochus, that country was seized by him and the generals of Ptolemy by turns. The Jews themselves were divided into factions, part favouring the cause of Ptolemy, to whom they were already under allegiance, while others gave their aid to Antiochus, by which they only prepared the way for the fulfilment of the prophecy regarding the sufferings which the Jews were to endure under one of his successors. The help, however, which was rendered to Antiochus by the Syrian faction at Jerusalem, was of little avail. Scopas, the Egyptian general, recovered Phenicia and Cœle-Syria; and after subduing the Jews, placed a garrison in Jerusalem. This, however, only continued for a time. Antiochus, coming to Judea, encountered Scopas at the sources of the Jordan, destroyed a great part of his army, and pursued him to Sidon, where he shut him up, with ten thousand of his men, till famine obliged him to surrender. Antiochus soon retook Phenicia, Cœle-Syria, and Palestine, nothing being able to withstand his victorious arms. He stood “in the glorious land.” The party that revolted from Ptolemy cordially received him into Jerusalem, and even assisted him in besieging the garrison which Scopas had left in the citadel, so that his power was established in Judea. The land, however, was wasted by his troops, as well as in other ways.
[306] “Robbers of thy people “(Dan_11:14). פָּרִיצֵי עַמְּךָ (varitse ’ammecha), according to Dr. Rule, are the separatists who left Judea for Egypt, and there attached themselves to Onias, who built a temple at Heliopolis like that at Jerusalem, and established a kind of rival worship. Sir Isaac Newton considers them to be the Samaritans and such like. The Septuagint has “pestilent ones;” the Vulgate, “prevaricators.” Bishop Newton renders the term “revolters,” the factious and refractory ones, the majority of the Jews at that time being for breaking away from allegiance to Ptolemy, king of Egypt. Keil understands those violent men who break through the barriers of the divine law (Eze_18:10).
[307] “Shall be consumed” (Dan_11:16). כָּלָה (calah) may also denote, “shall be perfected,” prosper, and flourish. The Septuagint has “shall be finished.” Bishop Newton remarks that Antiochus, in order to reward and encourage the Jews in their fidelity and obedience to him, gave orders that their city should be repaired, and the temple should be finished and adorned. Keil regards the word not as a verb but a substantive, and reads (as an explanatory clause), “and destruction is in his hand;” the destruction referring to the Holy Land, in which violent (or rapacious) people (Dan_11:14) make common cause with the heathen king, and so put arms into his hands to destroy the land. Hävernick and others, also regarding כָּלָה (calah) as a noun, render the clause, “and it (the land) is wholly given into his hand.”
The angel proceeds: “He shall also set his face to enter with (or against) the strength of his whole kingdom (or, ‘to enter by force into the whole kingdom,’ i.e., of Egypt), and upright ones (or, according to the margin, ‘equal conditions,’—an agreement by a marriage alliance) with him: thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her; but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him. And after this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him. Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble, and fall, and not be found” (Dan_11:17-19). History gives the fulfilment. Antiochus, having been so far successful against Egypt, formed schemes to seize upon the whole kingdom. His aim was to accomplish this by means of a marriage alliance, giving Ptolemy his beautiful daughter Cleopatra in marriage, thinking, through her affection for himself, to obtain the kingdom of her husband. In this, however, he was disappointed. The marriage took place, but Cleopatra was too true a wife for his ambitious schemes, and sided with her husband against her father. Antiochus then, collecting a large fleet, turned his face “to the isles” of the Mediterranean, including the Greek cities of the coast, many of which he took. As these, however, were in alliance with the Romans, the latter, under the consul Acilius, uniting with their allies, after gaining repeated victories over Antiochus, compelled him to return with his army into Asia. After his defeat at Magnesia, he fled to Sardis, and the next day reached Antioch, “the fort of his own land.” Two years after he was slain by the Persians while plundering the temple of Jupiter Belus at Elymais, or, according to another account, by his companions while carousing at a banquet.
The prophecy regarding the kings of the North and the South, introductory to the main one relating to Antiochus Epiphanes, closes with the brief notice of Seleucus Philopator. “There shall stand up in his estate (or stead) a raiser of taxes (Marg., ‘one that causeth an exactor to pass over’), [308] in the glory of the kingdom; but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle” (Dan_11:20). This “raiser of taxes” was Seleucus Philopator, who succeeded his father Antiochus the Great, and did nothing memorable in his twelve years’ reign. Of a sluggish disposition, he was intent on nothing but raising money to pay the tax levied upon him by the Romans. He was murdered by his treasurer or chief collector, Heliodorus, whom he had sent to plunder the Temple at Jerusalem.
[308] “A raiser of taxes “(Dan_11:20). נוֹגֵשׂ (noghes), according to most, a collector of tribute, as in 2Ki_23:35; the person understood being Heliodorus, whom Seleucus Philopator sent to Jerusalem to seize the temple treasure. Keil prefers “taskmaster;” and understands the oppressions not only of the Holy Land, but of his kingdom in general. He observes here that, from a comparison of the prophecy with the history, this much follows, that the prophecy does net furnish a prediction of the historical wars of the Seleucidæ and the Ptolemies, but an ideal description of the war of the kings of the North and the South in its general outlines; whereby, it is true, divers special elements of the prophetical announcement have been historically fulfilled, but the historical reality does not correspond with the contents of the prophecy in anything like an exhaustive manner.
From this part of the prophecy we may note—
1. The foreknowledge and providence of God. The Apostle only declared what reason itself may teach us, when he said, “Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world.” The architect knows beforehand what he will do in the erection of the building when he prepares the plan. The weaver knows beforehand what he will do with his web when he has fixed upon the pattern. God’s works embrace those of providence as well as of creation. “My Father worketh hitherto,” said Jesus, “and I work.” His almighty power and boundless wisdom are continually occupied in relation to all that His creating hand has produced, upholding and governing all His creatures and all their actions, so that without Him not even a sparrow falls to the ground. “In Him we live and move,” as well as “have our being.” The details predicted in this section, now matters of history, were all included within the divine foreknowledge and Providence, like every other event that takes place. Being foreknown by God, it was easy to communicate the knowledge of them beforehand, as far as divine wisdom saw meet. It is our comfort to know that “the Lord reigneth;” and that not only matters connected with rulers and empires, but all events, whether great or small, are not only known by God beforehand, but are ordered and controlled in His all-wise providence, so that the ends He designs shall be accomplished; making even the wrath of man to praise Him, while the remainder of that wrath He restrains; and causing all things to “work together for good to them that love God, and who are called according to His purpose” (Psa_76:10; Rom_8:28). This gracious purpose continually kept in view in all His doings. The thing that is determined shall be done (Dan_11:36).
2. The character and condition of human nature apart from divine grace. The section valuable as confirming the view given of the kingdoms of the world in Daniel’s vision of the Four Beasts, of which the third is here partially exhibited. It affords an epitome of secular history extending over three centuries, and a specimen of that history in all ages of the world. It is especially valuable inasmuch as the period brought before us in the section is that in which Greek culture had reached its highest perfection. It exhibits sin and misery as the characteristics of fallen humanity with all the advantages that worldly art and science could afford it. It shows the works of the flesh, or of man’s fallen nature unrenewed by divine grace, to be what the Bible represents them,—“enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions; unrighteousness, covetousness, envy, murder, deceit, malignity (Gal_4:20; Rom_1:29). Fifty thousand unoffending Jews cruelly massacred by a Ptolemy in and around his own metropolis, because he was refused a profane entrance into the Holy of Holies at Jerusalem! God’s long-suffering patience and fatherly pity exercised on such a world. The world was shown to need a Saviour, and a Saviour was provided. Into such a world Christ came. “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him might not perish but have everlasting life.” The view here given of the kingdoms of the world, such as to awaken the longing for the setting up and universal extension of the promised kingdom, which is “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield1917 · Public DomainOn vv2–3The spirit of prophecy here returns to that which…
The spirit of prophecy here returns to that which more immediately concerned Daniel and his royal masters--the near future of the empire in which he was so great a personage. Four kings were yet to follow in Media-Persia. Then will come Alexander the "mighty king" of Grecia (Dan 11:3). The division of Alexander’s empire into four parts (Dan 11:4) as already predicted Dan 8:22 is foretold. The troublous course of affairs in two parts of the disintegrated Alexandrian empire, Syria and Egypt, is then traced down to Dan 11:20. Here Antiochus Epiphanes, the "little horn" of Daniel 8, occupies the vision down to Dan 11:36. His pollution of the sanctuary is again mentioned. (Cf) (See Scofield "Dan 8:9"). From Dan 11:36 the interpretation is of the final "little horn" Dan 7:8; Dan 7:24-26 See Scofield "Dan 11:35".
three kings Ahasuerus, Ezr 4:6, Artaxerxes, Ezr 4:7, and Darius called "Hystaspes" Ezr 4:24.
Read full note →
fourth Xerxes, who invaded Greece BC 483-480.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein1922 · Public DomainOn v1CHAPTER 11 The Wars of the Ptolemies and Seleucidae…
CHAPTER 11 The Wars of the Ptolemies and Seleucidae Predicted The Coming Events of the End
1. The wars of the Ptolemies and Seleucidae (Dan 11:1-35)
Read full note →
2. The time of the end and the man of sin (Dan 11:36-45)
Dan 11:1-35. Here we have history pre-written and the greater part of this chapter (Dan 11:2-35) is fulfilled historically. So accurate are these predictions and their subsequent fulfillment that the enemies of “the Scripture of truth” have declared that it could never have been written by Daniel several hundred years before these persons came into existence and fought their battles. The pagan Porphyry in the third century in his “Treatise against Christians” bitterly attacked the belief that Daniel wrote these predictions. He argued that all was written after the events had taken place. The same arguments are used by the critics. Such is this most subtle infidelity that it can make use of the statements of a poor heathen in opposition to the divine revelation.
The prophecies given here were minutely fulfilled during the years 301 B.C., to 168 B.C. History verifies everything. The history covers a good part of the Persian and Graeco-Macedonian Empires, but mostly the wars of the Ptolemies and Seleucidae. Artaxerxes, Darius, Alexander the Great, Ptolemy Lagris, the King of the South, Ptolemy Euergetes, Seleucus Calinicus, Ptolemy Philopater, Antiochus Epiphanes, even the Roman fleet (the ships of Chittim), all enter into this prophecy. A detailed exposition of the prophecy and its fulfillment would fill many pages.
Before we pass on we desire to say again that all in these verses we have briefly followed has been historically fulfilled. We point out a mistake in which some have fallen. In Dan 11:31 we read of “the abomination that maketh desolate.” Our Lord in His Olivet discourse Mat 24:15 said: “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth let him understand).” Some believe that when our Lord spoke these words he referred to Dan 11:31, and that this is the abomination of desolation. This is not quite correct. The abomination that maketh desolate of verse 31 is past and happened in the days of the atrocities committed by Antiochus Epiphanes. The abomination of desolation to which our Lord refers is mentioned in Dan 12:11, and it points, as we shall find later, to the abomination set up by the Antichrist, the second beast, in the middle of the week. The typical meaning of Antiochus Epiphanes and his crimes in the land of Judea and against Jerusalem we have already learned in connection with chapter 8.
Dan 11:36-45. The time of the end is mentioned in verse 35. What is to befall Daniel’s people in the latter days as Daniel was told in Dan 10:14 is now revealed. Between Dan 11:35 and Dan 11:36 we must put a long and unreckoned period of time. Antiochus Epiphanes and the victorious Maccabees end the historical fulfillment of the predictions of the great prophecies in the first part of this chapter, and since then over 2,000 years have come and gone and the fulfillment of Dan 11:36-45 have not yet been. First we read of a wilful king. Who is this king so fully pictured in Dan 11:36-45?
Many expositors of Daniel apply this passage to Antiochus Epiphanes because they see not the important interval which exists between Dan 11:35 and Dan 11:36. However, a closer examination of the description of this king shows that he cannot be Antiochus. He is another person altogether, and as we shall see later, will be a Jew and assume kingly honors in the midst of the Jewish people. Antiochus was a Gentile. Others again identify this King with the first beast in Rev 13:1-18, and say that the head of the revived Roman Empire, one like Napoleon the First is meant, while others see here a reference to the pope in Rome. And whether the head of the Roman power, or the pope, or perhaps Mohammed, the term “Antichrist” is freely applied to each. Those who see the papacy here and the Romish corruption make some startling applications which are extremely fanciful.
The wilful king is the Antichrist. The Jewish people rejected their King, the Messiah, who came to His own, the Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord told the Jews: “I am come in My Father’s name, and ye receive Me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive” Joh 5:43. This other one has not yet come. We have his photograph here. He appears in Israel’s land in the time of the end as a counterfeit Messiah and takes also the place of king in their midst. This wilful king, the personal Antichrist who deceives the apostate mass of the Jewish people, is repeatedly mentioned in the Old Testament prophetic Word. Isaiah speaks of him and his end Isa 30:33; Isa 57:9. Zechariah calls him “the idol shepherd” Zec 11:15-17. He is repeatedly mentioned in the Psalms as “the wicked man”--”the man of the earth”-- “the bloody and deceitful man.” In the book of Revelation he appears as the second beast out of the land (Palestine) Rev 13:11-18. The two horns like a lamb as he is described there show clearly that he imitates Christ. He has the spirit of the dragon and appears as a religious leader, for this reason he is also called “the false prophet” in the book of Revelation (Rev 16:13; Rev 19:20; Rev 20:10).
In the New Testament he is called in the writings of John “the Antichrist”. (See 1Jn 2:18-25; 1Jn 4:3;2Jn 1:7.)Another great prophecy of the same person is found in 2Th 2:1-17, where he is called “the man of sin, the son of perdition.” The early Church believed that this evil person will be a real man, a Jew, and be energized by Satan. That he is the papal system or something else was invented later.
In Dan 11:40-45 we have a prophecy of the wars and conflicts during the time of the end. The false king, Israel’s false Messiah, the Antichrist, plays an important part in these conflicts. Then there are the kings of the south and of the north. The king of the south comes out of Egypt. His antagonist is the king of the north. The king of the south will be overthrown by the powerful king of the North, the same who is typified by the Antiochus Epiphanes. (Read about this invasion in Joe 2:1-32 and Zec 14:1-21)
While the king of the north and his proud hosts are thus overthrown by the army of the Lord, what becomes of the wilful king, the Antichrist in the city? The king of the north cannot touch him. But the Lord Himself will deal with that wicked one. “Whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming” 2Th 2:8. Thus ends the great conflict of the time of the end. The eternal abode of the satanic instruments of the time of the end, the beast, that coming prince, the Antichrist and the king of the north will be the lake of fire.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann1924 · Public DomainOn v1Dan 11:1. Also I, in the first year of…
Dan 11:1. Also I, in the first year of Darius, the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him, or, "even as I stood by to strengthen him," the inference being that the various angelic spirits come to the support of one another when special efforts in behalf of the people or nations in their care are required. The gist of the verse is evidently this, that Michael had been active in overthrowing the power of Babylonia by the armies of Medo-Persia, and that the Angel of the Lord had given him mighty assistance in this labor. In the great crises of history, in the change of monarchies, and in the midst of every tribulation we may rely upon the faithfulness and mercy of our God.
Happenings of the Near Future
Read full note →
v. 2. And now I will show thee the truth. Cf. Dan 10:21. Behold, there shall stand up yet, namely, after Cyrus, who was then king, three kings in Persia, whose names are commonly given as Cambyses, Pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all, literally, "shall acquire far greater riches than they all"; and by his strength through his riches, as he applied his immense wealth in order to fit out a mighty army, he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecis, Xerxes staking his all on the invasion of the rival kingdom beyond the Dardanelies.
v. 3. And a mighty king shall stand up, a heroic, warlike king, namely, Alexander of Macedonia and Greece, that shall rule with great dominion and do according to his will, with tyrannical authority.
v. 4. And when he shall stand up, just as soon as his power is fairly established, his kingdom shall be broken, the brief duration of Alexander’s rule being here indicated, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven, in a fourfold division of his kingdom after the battle of Ipsus, 301 B. C. ; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those, so that the natural heirs and rightful successors of Alexander were eliminated. Both of Alexander’s sons were put to death, and after the generals of Alexander had first broken up his empire into small divisions, the result finally was a fourfold monarchy, but still Greek in character.
v. 5. And the king of the South shall be strong, the ruler of Egypt, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, the reference most likely being to Seleucus Nicator, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion, which, as a matter of fact, extended from Phrygia on the west to the Indus on the east.
v. 6. And in the end of years, that is, after several years have elapsed, they shall join themselves together, the king of the South and the king of the North forming a confederacy, when Antiochus II Theos, the second successor of Seleucus Nicator, married Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemeus Philadelphus; for the king’s daughter of the South shall come to the king of the North to make an agreement, to establish just and peaceful relations by virtue of this marriage; but she shall not retain the power of the arm, neither shall he stand nor his arm, neither of them retaining the power acquired through their marriage and the joining of their forces; but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times, when the critical position in which he found himself suggested the marriage to him. Secular accounts set forth the situation as follows: "As soon as Ptolemy Philadelphus died in B. C. 247, Antiochus Theos expelled Berenice, and recalled the formerly rejected Laodice. The latter, however, aimed at further revenge, and to achieve it, she poisoned the king, had her son by him, Seleucus II Callinicus, declared his successor, and sent assassins against Berenice, who had fled to the sanctuary of Daphne. The latter queen was slain, together with her little son, and the hope of the Ptolemies to behold one of their lineage on the throne of the Seleucidae was thus wholly destroyed. "
v. 7. But out of a branch of her roots, a shoot out of the apparently dead stock, shall one stand up in his estate, to take her place in this controversy, her own brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes, which shall come with an army and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the North, against all the strongholds of the Northern power, and shall deal against them and shall prevail, this being done to the extent that the entire Syrian country from Cilicia to beyond the Tigris was conquered, numerous fortresses taken, and Laodice, the rival and murderess of Berenice, slain;
v. 8. and shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods with their princes, their molten or cast images, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold, all this being welcome booty; and he shall continue more years than the king of the North, holding out against him with his superior strength.
v. 9. So the king of the South shall come into his kingdom, rather, "and he," the last-named king of the North, "shall come into the kingdom of the king of the South," and shall return into his own land, to Syria. This was fulfilled in the expedition of Seleucus Callinicus, in which he sent a fleet against Egypt, which, however, was destroyed in a storm, while his army was defeated and overthrown.
v. 10. But his sons, again those of the Northern king, shall be stirred up, preparing for war, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces, in waging war upon the Southern kingdom; and one shall certainly come and overflow and pass through, the activities of Antiochus the Great in his victorious advance upon Egypt being described here; then shall he return and be stirred up, renewing his campaign against the Egyptians in the following spring, even to his fortress, very likely the fortified city of Gaza.
v. 11. And the king of the South shall be moved with choler, with a fierce and sudden anger, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the North; and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand. This undoubtedly describes the attack made by Ptolemy Philopator by which he tried to break the power of Antiochus.
v. 12. And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up, literally, "and shall rise up the multitude and shall lift up his heart," as he took up the campaign with great courage; and he shall cast down many ten thousands, killing myriads in the battle of Raphia, near Gaza; but he shall not be strengthened by it, because he did not follow up his victory with any degree of energy.
v. 13. For the king of the North shall return and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches. This was approximately thirteen years later when Antiochus the Great had strengthened himself by successful campaigns against the kingdoms toward the east, so that his army was composed of veterans and his equipment of the very best.
v. 14. And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the South, particularly in insurrections which were caused by bad administration of affairs at home; also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision, literally, "violent persons of thy [Daniel’s] people will revolt against him," namely, when a number of Jews entered into a league with Antiochus the Great against Egypt; but they shall fall, the Lord sending tribulations and afflictions upon them for their rebellion against the authorized government, the reference probably being to the oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes.
v. 15. So the king of the North shall come, advancing to the attack once more, and cast up a mount and take the most fenced cities, literally, "city of fortifications," a term used of the fortresses of the South in general; and the arms of the South shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, their armies being unable to ward off the threatened blow, neither shall there be any strength to withstand, all the resources of the Southern kingdom availing them nothing in this emergency.
v. 16. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, for Antiochus, the victor of Paneas, near the sources of the Jordan, now overran the entire country, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, literally, "in the land of ornament," the Holy Land, especially when considered from the standpoint of its spiritual blessings, which by his hand shall be consumed, literally, "and annihilation is in his hand. "
v. 17. He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, intending to follow up his successes with a further attack on the country now almost subjugated, and upright ones with him, rather, with the purpose of restoring a proper political relationship, the agreement consisting in this, that the marriage of Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus, with Ptolemy Epiphanes was agreed upon, Antiochus receiving Coelesyria in return; thus shall he do, and he shall give him the daughter of women, namely, Cleopatra, who was then but a girl and in the care of her mother and others, who educated her, corrupting her, rather, "bringing destruction upon her"; for the marriage,. which took place five years later, resulted in the ruin of the land which she represented; but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him, that is, she was unable to carry out the plans of her father.
v. 18. After this shall he, the king of the North, turn his face unto the isles, including the coast-lands of the Mediterranean, and shall take many; but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease, or, "yet his scorn which he heaped upon the generals they will revenge upon him," that is, the men in command of the islands and coast-lands promptly repulsed his attacks, so that he was obliged to retire to the fortresses formerly in his power; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him.
v. 19. Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land, withdrawing to them on account of the force of the attack against him; but he shall stumble and fall and not be found, for this reversal was the beginning of his end, for history records that he was slain in an insurrection of the inhabitants of Elymais.
v. 20. Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom, literally, "then shall arise in his stead one who causes exactors (or oppressors) to pass through the ornament of the kingdom," so that his subjects were oppressed with various afflictions and burdens; but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger nor in battle, this being the end of Seleucus Philopator, who was poisoned by Heliodorus, his former favorite, who sought the crown for himself. Thus the Lord directs the fortunes of individuals and nations and punishes such as oppose His plans for the benefit of His people.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0On vv1, 3General Information:
General Information:
In Daniel 11:1 through Dan 12:4, the one who was speaking to Daniel in chapter 10 tells him what is written in the book of truth. This is as he said he would do in Daniel 10:21.
Read full note →
In the first year of Darius
Darius was the King of the Medes. "The first year" refers to the first year that he was king. AT: "In the first year of the reign of Darius" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
Three kings will arise in Persia
"Three kings will rule over Persia"
a fourth will be far richer than all the others
"after them a fourth king will come into power who will have more money than the three before him" (See: Ordinal Numbers)
power
Possible meanings are 1) authority or 2) military power.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv1–4 Interpreters explain this verse in various ways. Some think…
Interpreters explain this verse in various ways. Some think the angel fought for the Persian king, and follow up their opinion, because he did not for the first time begin now to defend that monarchy in favor of the chosen people, but had done so from the very beginning. Others refer this to Michael, as the angel declares that he introduced the assistance of Michael. But that is forced and cold. I do not hesitate to state the argument to be from the greater to the less, and we have an instance of this in a tragedy of Ovid’s. I have been able to preserve you; do you ask whether I can destroy you? Thus the angel says, I have erected the Persian monarchy; I have not the slightest doubt of my present power to restrain these kings, lest they should pour forth their fury upon the people. The full meaning is this, the king of the Persians is nothing, and can do nothing except through me. I was God’s servant in transferring the monarchy of the Medes and Chaldeans to the Persians, as well as that of the Babylonians to the Medes. God, says he, entrusted me with that office, and so I placed Darius upon the throne. You now see how completely I have him in my power, and how I can prevent him from injuring my people should he be so inclined. When the angel boasts of his standing forward to help Darius, he claims nothing to himself, but speaks as it were in the person of God. For angels have no power distinct from God’s when he uses their agency and assistance. There is no reason for any inquiry whether the angel ought to use this boastful language and claim anything for himself. For he does not claim anything as really his own, but he skews himself to have been an agent in the change of dynasty when Babylon was subdued by the Medes, and the empire transferred to Darius. For although, as we have previously shewn, Cyrus obtained the victory, yet he transferred the honors of government to his uncle Cyaxares. The Hebrews are accustomed to consider him as king for the first two years; Cyrus began to reign after this period; and now, when the angel appears to Daniel, the third year had arrived, as we saw at the beginning of the chapter.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1–4 The Angel assureth Daniel that God hath given him…
The Angel assureth Daniel that God hath given him power to perform these things, seeing he appointed him to assist Darius when he overcame the Chaldeans.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–4 Dan 11:1 Also I in the first year of…
Dan 11:1 Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, [even] I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.
Ver. 1. Also I,] i.e., I, Gabriel the angel, glad of such an office, for the good of God’s people, whereunto also I was sent by Christ. {Dan 10:9-10}
Read full note →
In the first year of Darius the Mede.] Who now began to think of sending home the captive Jews, but had some hesitations and fluctuations of mind about it.
I stood to confirm and to strengthen him.] Angels cannot enlighten the mind, or powerfully incline the will of man, for so the Holy Ghost only doth; but, as instruments of the Holy Ghost, they can stir up phantasms of the Word read or heard. They can also propose truth and right to the mind, advise and persuade to it as counsellors, and inwardly instigate as it were by speaking and doing after a spiritual manner, suggesting good thoughts, as devils do evil; yea, they can strangely wind themselves into men’s imaginations, so as to appear to them in their dreams. {Mat 1:20}
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1–4 This first verse should have been the last verse…
This first verse should have been the last verse of the tenth chapter, for it pertains to it; and the second verse of this chapter should have been the first; which neglect those who divided the Scripture into chapters have been found guilty of more than once.
Thus speaks the angel to Daniel; because Darius had the rule of Babylon by the consent of Cyrus, he settled the monarchy of the Medes and Persians upon the ruins of the Babylonian, for the verifying of prophecies, and for protection and preservation of the church.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v1 Here, 1. The angel Gabriel lets Daniel know the…
Here, 1. The angel Gabriel lets Daniel know the good service he has done to the Jewish nation (Dan 11:1): "In the first year of Darius the Mede, who destroyed Babylon and released the Jews out of that house of bondage, I stood a strength and fortress to him, that is, I was instrumental to protect him, and give him success in his ward, and, after he had conquered Babylon, to confirm him in his resolution to release the Jews," which, it is likely, met with much opposition. Thus by the angel, and at the request of the watcher, the golden head was broken, and the axe laid to the root of the tree. Note, We must acknowledge the hand of God in the strengthening of those that are friends to the church for the service they are to do it, and confirming them in their good resolutions; herein he uses the ministry of angels more than we are aware of. And the many instances we have known of God's care of his church formerly encourage us to depend upon him in further straits and difficulties. 2. He foretels the reign of four Persian kings (Dan 11:2): Now I will tell thee the truth, that is, the true meaning of the visions of the great image, and of the four beasts, and expound in plain terms what was before represented by dark types. (1.) There shall stand up three kings in Persia, besides Darius, in whose reign this prophecy is dated, Dan 9:1. Mr. Broughton makes these three to be Cyrus, Artaxasta or Artaxerxes, called by the Greeks Cambyses, and Ahasuerus that married Esther, called Darius son of Hystaspes. To these three the Persians gave these attributes - Cyrus was a father, Cambyses a master, and Darius a hoarder up. So Herodotus. (2.) There shall be a fourth, far richer than they all, that is, Xerxes, of whose wealth the Greek authors take notice. By his strength (his vast army, consisting of 800,000 men at least) and his riches, with which he maintained and paid that vast army, he stirred up all against the realm of Greece. Xerxes's expedition against Greece is famous in history, and the shameful defeat that he met with. He who when he went out was the terror of Greece in his return was the scorn of Greece. Daniel needed not to be told what disappointment he would meet with, for he was a hinderer of the building of the temple; but soon after, about thirty years after the first return from captivity, Darius, a young king, revived the building of the temple, owning the hand of God against his predecessors for hindering it, Ezr 6:7. 3. He foretels Alexander's conquests and the partition of his kingdom, Dan 11:3. He is that mighty king that shall stand up against the kings of Persia, and he shall rule with great dominion, over many kingdoms, and with a despotic power, for he shall do according to his will, and undo likewise, which, by the law of the Medes and Persians, their kings could not. When Alexander, after he had conquered Asia, would be worshipped as a god, then this was fulfilled, that he shall do according to his will. That is God's prerogative, but was his pretension. But (Dan 11:4) his kingdom shall soon be broken, and divided into four parts, but not to his posterity, nor shall any of his successors reign according to his dominion; none of them shall have such large territories nor such an absolute power. His kingdom was plucked up for others besides those of his own family. 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. See what decaying perishing things worldly pomp and possessions are, and the powers by which they are got. Never was the vanity of the world and its greatest things shown more evidently than in the story of Alexander. All is vanity and vexation of spirit.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–4 Also I, in the first year of Darius the…
Also I, in the first year of Darius the Mede,.... These words more properly belong to the preceding chapter, and should have concluded that, and the "eleventh" chapter should have begun in the next verse; and they are not the words of Daniel, as Jerom and others; but of the angel telling Daniel, not only what he had been lately doing, and would do in the court of Persia for his people; but what he had done in the beginning of that monarchy, the very first year that Darius the Mede became king of Babylon, and head of the whole monarchy; see Dan 5:30, the Septuagint and Arabic versions render it, "in the first year of Cyrus"; which was the same time; for Darius and Cyrus reigned together.
Even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him; not Michael your Prince, as Jarchi; for he being no other than the Son of God, an uncreated Angel, needed not the help and assistance of a created one, nor could receive any strength and confirmation from such an one; unless this is to be understood, not with respect to Michael himself abstractly considered, but as in relation to the people of the Jews, on whose side Michael was; and so this angel took part with him and them, and as his minister served them both, in defending them, and taking care of their affairs at this time; so Jacchiades paraphrases it, to confirm and strengthen Israel: but it seems rather to design Darius, and the sense to be, that this angel strengthened Darius and Cyrus in their good intentions to let the people of Israel go free and give them full liberty and encouragement to go into their own land, and rebuild their city and temple; about which some doubts and hesitations might arise in their minds, and objections be made by some of their nobles and courtiers to it, being moved and influenced by an evil spirit, the adversary of this good angel; but he attended them so closely, and so strongly suggested to them what they should do in this case, that he carried his point on behalf of the Jews; for this respects not so much the destruction of the Chaldean monarchy, and the establishing the Persian monarchy on the ruins of it, and settling Darius on the throne, and strengthening his kingdom and interest, as the confirmation of him and Cyrus in their designs in favour of the Jews. The Syriac version is, "from the first year of Darius the Mede, he rose up to help me, and assist me"; as if the angel was still speaking of Michael, who came to his help against the prince of Persia, and was the only one that held with him, and had done so from the beginning of the Persian empire; but the Hebrew text will not admit of such a translation.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1–4 A prediction of the setting up of the Grecian…
A prediction of the setting up of the Grecian monarchy, ver. 1- 4. Of the affairs of Egypt and Syria, ver. 5-20. The rise and success of Antiochus Epiphanes, ver. 21-29. The mischief he would do to the Jews, ver. 30-43. His fall, ver. 44, 45.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1–4 This chapter gives a more particular explanation of those
CHAPTER XI
This chapter gives a more particular explanation of those
Read full note →
events which were predicted in the eighth chapter. The prophet
had foretold the partition of Alexander's kingdom into four
parts. Two of these, in which were included Egypt and Syria,
the one to the north, the other to the south, in respect of
Judea, appear to take up the chief attention of the prophet,
as his people were particularly concerned in their fate; these
being the countries in which by far the greatest number of the
Jews were, and still are, dispersed. Of these countries he
treats (according to the views of the most enlightened
expositors) down to the conquest of Macedon, A.M. 3836, B.C.
168, when he begins to speak of the Romans, 1-30;
and then of the Church under that power, 31-35.
This leads him to speak of Antichrist, who was to spring up in
that quarter, 36-39;
and of those powers which at the TIME of the end, or the
latter days of the Roman monarchy, (as this term is generally
understood,) were to push at it, and overthrow many countries,
40-43.
By the king of the SOUTH, in the fortieth verse, the dominion
of the Saracens, or Arabs, is supposed to be intended, which
was an exceeding great plague to the Roman empire in the east,
and also to several papistical countries, for the space of one
hundred and fifty years, i.e. from A.D. 612, when Mohammed and
his followers first began their depredations, to A.D. 762, when
Bagdad was built, and made the capital of the caliphs of the
house of Abbas, from which epoch the Saracens became a more
settled people. By the king of the NORTH in the same verse the
prophet is supposed by some to design that great scourge of
eastern Christendom, the Ottoman or Othman empire, by which,
after about a hundred and fifty years of almost uninterrupted
hostilities, the Roman empire in the east was completely
overturned, A.D. 1453. The chapter concludes with a prediction
of the final overthrow of this northern power, and of the
manner in which this great event shall be accomplished, 44, 45.
But it should be observed that, notwithstanding the very
learned observations of Bishop Newton and others upon this
chapter, their scheme of interpretation presents very great and
insurmountable difficulties; among which the very lengthy
detail of events in the Syrian and Egyptian histories,
comprising a period of less than two hundred years, and the
rather uncouth transition to the incomparably greater
transactions in Antichristian times, and of much longer
duration, which are passed over with unaccountable brevity,
are not the least. On all these subjects, however, the reader
must judge for himself. See the notes.
NOTES ON CHAP. XI
Verse 1. In the first year of Darius the Mede] This is a continuation of the preceding discourse. Bp. Newton, who is ever judicious and instructing, remarks: It is the usual method of the Holy Spirit to make the latter prophecies explanatory of the former; and thus revelation "is a shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." The four great empires shown to Nebuchadnezzar, under the symbol of a great image, were again more particularly represented to Daniel under the forms of four great wild beasts. In like manner, the memorable events that were revealed to Daniel in the vision of the ram and he-goat, are here more clearly revealed in this last vision by an angel; so that this latter prophecy may not improperly be said to be a comment on the former. It comprehends many signal events. The types, figures, and symbols of the things are not exhibited in this, as in most other visions, and then expounded by the angel; but the angel relates the whole: and, not by way of vision, but by narration, informs Daniel of that which is noted in the Scripture of truth, Da 10:21.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1–3 Dan 11:1. Also I, in the first year of…
Dan 11:1. Also I, in the first year of Darius, &c. — This verse should have been joined to the last chapter. The meaning of what the angel here says is, that from the time that Daniel addressed those ardent prayers to God about the affairs of his people, mentioned chap. 9., which was in the first year of Darius, from that very time HE (namely, the angel Gabriel) had strenuously co-operated with Michael, in working the deliverance of the Jewish nation. See here again the vast efficacy and power of prayer; it engages God and angels to our assistance.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1–4 Also I - I the angel. He alludes here…
Also I - I the angel. He alludes here to what he had done on a former occasion to promote the interests of the Hebrew people, and to secure those arrangements which were necessary for their welfare - particularly in the favorable disposition of Darius the Mede toward them.
In the first year of Darius the Mede - See the notes at Dan 5:31. He does not here state the things contemplated or done by Darius in which he had confirmed or strengthened him, but there can be no reasonable doubt that it was the purpose which he had conceived to restore the Jews to their own land, and to give them permission to rebuild their city and temple. Compare Dan 9:1. It was in that year that Daniel offered his solemn prayer, as recorded in Dan. 9; in that year that, according to the time predicted by Jeremiah (see Dan 9:2), the captivity would terminate; and in that year that an influence from above led the mind of the Persian king to contemplate the restoration of the captive people. Cyrus was, indeed, the one through whom the edict for their return was promulgated; but as he reigned under his uncle Cyaxares or Darius, and as Cyaxares was the source of authority, it is evident that his mind must have been influenced to grant this favor, and it is to this that the angel here refers.
Read full note →
I stood to confirm and to strengthen him - Compare the notes at Dan 10:13. It would seem that the mind of Darius was not wholly decided; that there were adverse influences bearing on it: that there were probably counselors of his realm who advised against the proposed measures, and the angel here says that he stood by him, and confirmed him in his purpose, and secured the execution of his benevolent plan. Who can prove that an angel may not exert an influence on the heart of kings? And what class of men is there who, when they intend to do good and right, are more likely to have their purposes changed by evil counselors than kings; and who are there that more need a heavenly influence to confirm their design to do right?
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1–4 Confirmed. Gabriel assisted Michael to comply with God’s orders.…
Confirmed. Gabriel assisted Michael to comply with God’s orders. (Chap. x. 21.) (Calmet) --- The angel continues his speech, and informs us that he had prayed for Darius after the fall of Babylon, seeing that he was well-inclined towards the Jews, as his successor Cyrus (who liberated them) was also. (Worthington)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 b. Detailed prophetic description of the Persian and Græcian…
b. Detailed prophetic description of the Persian and Græcian world-kingdoms, and also of the kingdoms which should arise from the latter, together with their conflicts.
Dan_11:2-45.
Read full note →
2And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in [to] Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by [according to] his strength through [by] his riches he shall stir up all [the whole] against [with] the realm of Græcia [kingdom of Javan].
3And a mighty king [a king, a hero] shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion [rule], and do according to his will. 4And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided [partitioned] toward the four winds of heaven [the heavens]; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion [rule] which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for [and given to] others besides those [these]
5 And the king of the south shall be strong, and [become] one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion [rule]; his dominion 6 [rule] shall be a great dominion [rule]. And in [to] the end of years they shall join [associate] themselves together; for [and] the king’s daughter [daughter of the king] of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement;1 but [and] she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor [and] his arm; but [and] she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these [the] times.
7 But [And] out of a branch [shoot] of her roots shall one stand up in his estate [basis, i.e., stead], which [and he] shall come with an army [to the force], and shall enter into [come in] the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against [do with] them, and shall prevail [strengthen himself]; 8and shall also carry captives [cause to go in the captivity] into Egypt their gods, with their princes [anointed ones], and with their precious [prized] vessels of silver and of 9 gold; and he2 shall continue [stand] more years than the king of the north. So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom [And he shall come into the kingdom of the king of the south], and shall return into his own land [ground].
10But his sons shall be stirred up [strengthen themselves], and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through; then [and] shall he return, and be stirred up [or, they shall 11 strengthen themselves], even to his [or, their] fortress. And the king of the south shall be moved with choler [become very bitter], and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth [cause to stand] a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand. 12 And when he hath taken away the multitude [or, the multitude shall be taken away], his heart shall be lifted up [or, raised up]; and he shall cast down [cause to fall] many ten thousands: but [and] he shall not be strengthened by it.
13 For [And] the king of the north shall return and shall set forth [cause to stand] a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain [at the end of the times the] years with a great army [force] and with much riches. 14And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also [and] the robbers [sons of tyrants] of thy people shall exalt themselves [be lifted up] to establish [cause to stand] the vision; but [and] they shall fall [be stumbled].
15 So [And] the king of the north shall come, and cast up [pour out] a mount [mound], and take [catch] the most fenced cities [city of defences]; and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither [and, i.e., or] his chosen people16 [the people of his choice], neither shall there be any strength to withstand. But [And] he that cometh against [to] him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land [land of comeliness], which [and] by his hand [he] shall be consumed. 17He shall also [And he shall] set his face to enter [come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones3 with him; thus [and] shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of [the] women, corrupting [to corrupt, or, destroy] her; but 18 [and] she shall not stand on his side, neither [nor] be for him. After this [And] shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take [ catch] many; but a prince [general] for his own behalf [his reproach] shall cause the reproach offered by him [for him] to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon 19 [to] him. Then [And] he shall turn his face toward the fort [fortresses] of his own land; but [and] he shall stumble [be stumbled] and fall, and not be found.
20 Then [And] shall stand up in his estate [on his basis, i.e., stead] a raiser of taxes in [one causing the exactor to pass through] the glory of the kingdom: but within few days [and in single days] he shall be destroyed [broken], neither [and not] in anger nor in battle.
21And in his estate [on his basis, i.e., stead] shall stand up a vile [despised] person, to whom [and on him] they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but [and] he shall come in peaceably [with tranquillity], and obtain [or, 22 strengthen] the kingdom by flatteries. And with the arms of a [the] flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea [and], also the prince of the covenant. 23And after the league made with [from the covenanting to] him he shall work deceitfully: for [and] he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. 24He shall enter [come] peaceably [with tranquillity] even upon [and with] the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor [and] his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among [to] them the prey, and spoil, and riches; yea, and he shall forecast [devise] his devices against the strong holds, even [and that] for [till] a time.
25And he shall stir up his power and his courage [heart] against the king of the south with a great army [force]; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to [the] battle with a very great and mighty army [force]; but [and] he shall not 26 stand: for they shall forecast [devise] devices against him. Yea [And], they that feed [eat] of the portion of his meat [dainty food] shall destroy [break] him, and his army [force] shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain. 27And both these kings’ hearts [the kings, their heart] shall be to do mischief [wrong], and they shall speak lies [falsehood] at [over] one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at [to] the time appointed.
28 Then [And] shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits and return to his 29 own land. At [To] the time appointed he shall return, and come toward [in] 30 the south: but [and] it shall not be as the former, or [and] as the latter. For [And] the ships of Chittim shall come against [in] him; therefore [and] he shall be grieved [dejected], and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant; so [and] shall he do; he shall even [and he shall] return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.
31And arms shall stand on his part [from him], and they shall pollute the sanctuary of trength [the stronghold], and shall take [cause to turn] away the daily [continual] sacrifice, and they shall place [give] the abomination that 32 maketh desolate. And such as do wickedly against [the wicked doers of] the covenant shall he corrupt [pollute] by flatteries: but [and] the people that do 33 know their [its] God shall be strong, and do exploits. And they that understand among [the prudent of] the people shall instruct [understand for the] many; yet [and] they shall fall [be stumbled] by the sword, and by flame, 34 by captivity, and by spoil, many days. Now [And] when they shall fall [be stumbled], they shall be holpen [helped] with a little help: but [and] many 35 shall cleave [be joined] to them with flatteries. And some of them of understanding [the prudent] shall fall [be stumbled], to try [lit., smelt in] them, and to purge [purify], and to make them white, even to [till] the time of the end: because it is yet for a [to the] time appointed. 36And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous [distinguished] things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished [fail]: for that that is determined shall be done.
37Neither shall he regard [And he will not have understanding upon] the God of his fathers, nor [and upon] the desire of women, nor regard [and he will not have understanding upon] any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. 38But in His estate [And on his base, i.e., stead] shall he honour [give glory to] the god of forces [strongholds]; and [to] a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour [give glory] with gold, and [with] silver, and with precious stones [stone], and pleasant 39 things. Thus [And] shall he do in the most [fortresses of] strongholds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase [increase to acknowledge] with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over [the] many, and shall divide the land for gain [distribute ground with a price].
40 And at [in] the time of the end shall the king of the south push at [wage war with] him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind [will storm upon him], with chariots [chariot], and with horsemen [horses], and with many ships [boats]; and he shall enter [come] into the countries [lands], and shall overflow and pass oDaniel Dan_11:41 He shall enter also [And he will come] into the glorious land [land of comeliness], and many countries shall be overthrown [stumbled]: but [and] these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief [first] of the children of Ammon. 42He shall stretch forth his hand also [And he shall send his hand] upon [in] the countries [lands]; and the land 43 of Egypt shall not escape [be for an escaped one, i.e., exempt]. But [And] he shall have power [rule] over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious [pleasant] things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall 44 be at [in] his steps. But [And] tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore [and] he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away [devote to extermination] many. 45And he shall plant the tabernacles [tents] of his palace [pavilion] between the seas in [at] the glorious holy mountain [holy mountain of comeliness]; yet [and] he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
EXEGETICAL REMARKS
Dan_11:2. Touching upon the last kings of Persia in a hasty and summary review. And now will I show thee the truth. אֱמֶת, see Dan_10:21.—Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; i. e., doubtless, after the present king, hence after Cyrus (see Dan_10:1), there shall be three more kings of Persia,—the Persian state shall have three more kings. The author therefore assigns altogether four kings to Persia, from which, however, it by no means follows that he “knew” only that number; nor can it be shown from Ezr_4:5; Ezr_4:7 that the writer of that book knew of four Persian kings (Hitzig, Ewald).[4] The number four is rather to be regarded as a symbolic number, exactly like that of the wings and heads of the leopard in Dan_7:6 (see on that passage), which indicates that the development of the kingdom in question is completed, and is, to that extent, parallel with the number of the world-monarchies and with other significant quadruples; cf. Eth.-fund principles, etc., on chap. 2 No. 3.5—And the fourth shall be far richer than they all; rather, “shall acquire greater riches,” etc. This fourth one does not denote the last of all the Persian kings, Darius Codomannus, but the fourth from the beginning (or, in other words, the third of the three just mentioned),6 and therefore Xerxes, as pseudo-Smerdis, is probably not included, and Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius Hystaspis are considered the first three. The characteristic noticed in this place applies well to Xerxes, as he became especially famous because of his immense riches (Herodotus, III. 96; IV. 27–29), and as his expedition into Greece obscured those of his father by the excessive greatness of his armament. The significance of this fourth member of the old Persian dynasty (whose identity with Xerxes was naturally not yet apprehended by the prophet [?], especially as the angel did not see fit to state his name) is that he represents, on the one hand, the acme of the development in power of the kingdom in question, and, on the other, the beginning of its dissolution.—And by his strength through his riches, or, “when he has become strong through his riches. וּכְחֶזְקָתוֹ, an infinitive (cf. 2Ch_12:1; also infra, Dan_11:4, and Dan_8:8; Dan_8:23), is not co-ordinated with the following בְּעָשְׁרוֹ, but is placed above it.—He shall stir up all against the realm of Græcia, i.e., “stake all.” הַכֹּל, properly, “the all,” i.e., all that has been mentioned, all the immense treasures and forces referred to. יָעִיר, properly, “shall excite, stir up,” does not allude so much to inanimate treasures as to the subjects of this king as being the objects of his exciting activity; cf. Dan_11:25; Job_12:2; Jer_1:9.—אֵת מַלְכוּת יָוָן is not properly “against the realm of Javan,” but “to the realm,” etc.; אֵת serves to introduce the accusative denoting the direction of the movement.—It accords fully with the position of the seer prior to Xerxes, that Greece (with regard to Javan, cf. on Dan_8:21) should be represented as a kingdom. A Maccabæan writer, who might aim to sketch the history of that king, and of his expedition against the Greeks, would assuredly have known, and indicated, that at that time Javan was not yet a מַלְכוּת.
Dan_11:3-4. Alexander the Great and his immediate successors.[7] And a mighty king shall stand up. מֶלֶך גִּבּוֹר, a herioc, warlike king; cf. אֵל גִּבּוֹר, Isa_9:5, and also the symbolic description of Alexander’s martial greatness in Dan_8:5 et seq., 21. עָמַד, “he stands up,” i.e., comes up and presents a warlike and threatening appearance; cf. Dan_11:4; Dan_11:14, and also Dan_11:1.—And do according to his will. Cf. Dan_8:4 and infra, Dan_11:16. The sovereign arbitrariness with which Alexander ruled all the persons of his time is likewise attested by Curtius, Dan_10:5, Dan 35: “Fortunam solus omnium mortalium in potestate habuit.”
Dan_11:4. And when he shall stand up (rather, “when he has stood up”), his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven. וּכְעָמְדוֹ is probably to be closely connected with the idea presented by עָמַד in the preceding verse: “and when,” or, “and as soon as he shall have stood up” (Von Lengerke, Füller, etc.); so that the brief duration of Alexander’s reign is here indicated. Others, e.g., Hävernick, Kranichfeld, Ewald, etc., render it, “and when he shall stand in his power, when his power has reached its highest point” (Luther); but this view is questionable, because of the entirely too pregnant meaning which is thus attributed to עמד. Hitzig’s assertion that עמד in this place is synonymous with the Syr. עכד, “to depart in death, to die,” and that the following תִּשָּׁבֵר (with which cf. Dan_8:8) is not passive in its signification, and therefore does not denote “to be broken,” but “to break apart,” must certainly be rejected.—On the phrase, “be divided toward the four winds of heaven,” cf. the analogous symbolic description in Dan_8:8.—And not to his posterity, namely, “shall it be divided;” they shall not be benefited by the division, but shall be entirely deprived of their patrimony, thus realizing a feature that was common in the early experience of the theocracy, 1Sa_15:28; 2Sa_3:10; 1Ki_11:11; 1Ki_14:7-10; 1Ki_15:29; 1Ki_16:3 et seq.; 1Ki_21:21. It is well known that this actually was the case with Alexander’s sons, Hercules (whose mother was Barsina, and who was murdered by Polysperchon) and Alexander (a filius posthumus. born of Roxana, and likewise murdered). Cf. Diodorus, 19:105; 20:28; Pausan., 9:7; Justin., 15:2; Appian, Syr., C. 51.—Nor according to his dominion which he ruled, “shall the divided kingdom be;” on the contrary, it shall present a painful picture of impotence; cf. וְלאׄ בְכחוֹ in the parallel, Dan_8:22.—For his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others besides those, מִלְבַּד אֶלֶּא, to the exclusion of those, i.e., of the natural heirs and rightful successors of this ruler. Concerning the phrase, “to be torn out, uprooted,” cf. on Dan_4:12; Dan_4:12; also Job_14:7 et seq.; Isa_6:10, etc.
Dan_11:5-6. The first Seleucidœ and Lagidœ. While the prophetic description, upon the whole, has hitherto confined itself to general outlines, and has not materially deviated from the ordinary methods of prophecy, it begins at this point to assume a suspiciously specific character, which arouses the thought that later hands may have improved on the prophecy by interpolating various features of detail. The fact that only the two states, emanating from the great Græcian world-empire, which bordered immediately on the “pleasant land,” are more carefully followed in their further development, is not, indeed, enough to arouse this suspicion, for the other kingdoms of the Diadochi might have been passed over as too unimportant in their relations with the theocracy. It was, moreover, to be expected that Israel should be alternately oppressed by a southern and a northern neighbor, in view of the similar parts taken in earlier prophecies by the Assyrio-Babylonian north on the one hand, and by Egypt in the south, on the other (cf., e.g., Isa_30:6; Isa_43:6; Jer_3:12; Jer_3:18; Jer_6:22; Jer_46:20; Jer_46:24; Zep_2:13; Zec_10:10-11). But the manner in which the transactions between the two kingdoms, whether peaceful or hostile in their character, are described with regard to their changeful course, is too exact, and covers too extended a succession of reigns and events, to find even a remote parallel in any other part of the prophetic literature of the Old-Test, canon.[8] The unique character of the section in this respect was recognized at an early period, and has been made use of by the opponents of the authenticity and genuine prophetic dignity of the book (e.g., early by Porphyry), in order to attack its character, and has also been employed for apologetic purposes, in order to demonstrate the inspired character of the prophecy, and the astonishing exactness with which its predictions corresponded with the actual development of the dominion of the Seleucidæ and the Lagidæ. With this view it is employed by Luther in his preface to Daniel and in his exposition of chap. 12 (which begins, according to his opinion, with Dan_11:36;—see vol. 41, pp. 252 et seq., 294 et seq.); by Venema, Commentarius ad Danielis cap. XI. 5–XII. 3 (Leovard., 1752); by Hengstenberg, Beitr., p. 173 et seq.; and, generally, by a majority of orthodox expositors in ancient and modern times. Cf. especially Ebrard, Die Offenb. Joh., p. 81 et seq., where a thorough illustration of the harmony between the contents of this section and the facts of history precedes the remark: “For that very reason—this is the internal design of the specializing prophecy, chap. 11—the coming of the Macedonian tyrant is connected with the age of Daniel by an unbroken chain of the most particular events, that it might be thoroughly apparent that no interval for the coming of the Messiah and his rejection should intervene between the time of Daniel and that tyrant.” But Ebrard himself does not seem to have remained permanently satisfied with this mode of justifying the remarkably specific character of the prophecy on the supposition of a higher plane of revelation; for, in his review of Füller’s commentary, he confesses that he “has not yet found any exposition of chap. 11. that was entirely satisfactory” (p. 207).—We shall attend specially to Kranichfeld’s view in the following exposition of the several passages. He likewise contends for the genuine character of the section throughout, but on the frequently forced assumption that the modern exegesis applies what was indefinite and merely ideal in the mind of the prophet to the facts of history in the corresponding period in far too pointed a manner.—And the king of the south shall be (or “become”) strong, i.e., the ruler to whom the south, or Egypt, has fallen; cf. Dan_11:8, where the south is expressly designated as מִצְרַיִם; also the Sept. on this passage, and Zec_6:6.—And one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him; rather, “but one of his princes—he shall be strong above him.” With regard to the partitive מִן in וּמִן שָׂרָיו, cf. Gen_28:11; Exo_6:26; Neh_13:28. The subject, “one of his princes,” occupies a detached position at the beginning (cf. Eze_34:19); the copula, however, restores the connection: “(so far as he is concerned) he shall still be stronger.”—Others (Luther, etc., Bertholdt, Rosenm., Kranichfeld, Füller, etc.) regard the ו in שָׂרָיו וּמִן as the definite “and indeed, namely,” and refer the suffix to the subject of the preceding verse: “and the king of the south, namely one of his (Alexander’s) princes, shall become strong.” This, however, is opposed by the lack of a definite subject of וְיֶחֱזַק in that case, and by the unanimous authority of the ancient versions, which regard this second ויחזק as the predicate of ומן שריו, despite the Athnach. Consequently, the event to which the passage alludes is the founding of the dynasty of the Seleucidæ in the year B. C. 312. by Seleucus Nicator. the general of Ptolemy Lagus (Diodorus, 19:55, 58; Appian, Syr., C. 52),9 who extended his dominion from Phrygia to the Indus, and thus greatly exceeded his former lord in power, approaching to the position of power and greatness occupied by Alexander himself more nearly than any other of the Diadochi (Appian, Syr., 55; Arrian, Anab., VII. 22. 9).—And (shall) have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion. מִמְשָׁל רָכ is the predicate, followed by the subject in regular order. The whole clause, however, is logically subordinated to וּמָשָׁל; cf. Gen_12:8.
Dan_11:6. And in the end of years they shall join themselves together. וּלְקֵץ שָׁכִים, “and after the lapse of several years,” cf. 2Ch_18:2; also infra, Dan_11:8; Dan_11:13. The subjects of the sentence are the kings of the northern and of the southern kingdoms, and the alliance referred to is the marriage of Antiochus II. Theos (the son and successor of Antiochus I. Soter, who had followed Seleucus Nicator upon the throne of the Seleucidæ as its second possessor, B. C. 281–261, but who is wholly unnoticed in this prophecy) with Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus (280–247), the second of the line of Ptolemies. Antiochus was obliged, on that occasion, to banish Loadice, his former wife and half-sister, and to disinherit the children she had borne to him (Appian, Syr., C. 55; cf. Jerome on this passage). It is impossible to doubt that this event is referred to in this place, in view of what follows, and Kranichfeld therefore wastes his labor when he observes, with reference to מֶלְך חַצָּפוֹן, and with an apologetic aim, that “it is an interpolation to assume that Daniel here intended precisely a king of Syria.”—To make an agreement; properly, “to make a straightening, to establish a just and peaceful condition.” Cf. יְשָׁרִים, Dan_11:17, and the corresponding Sikata, 1Ma_7:12.—But she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm; i.e., probably, neither her arm nor his, which had strengthened themselves by that union, shall be able to retain the power thus acquired;[10] their union shall again be dissolved, and the political alliance, with its strengthening influence upon both kingdoms, shall thus be set aside. It seems unnecessary, upon this view, to adopt Hitzig’s emendation, וְלאׄ יַעַמְדוּ זְרֹעָו (“his [i.e., the arm of Berenice] arms shall not stand,” which is held to be equivalent to “her father as well as her consort, who were hitherto her protectors, shall forsake her), and also Kranichfeld’s rendering of חַזְּרועַ in the sense of host, in support of which Dan_11:15; Dan_11:22; Dan_11:31 may indeed be adduced, but this is decidedly opposed by the context, which treats solely of an intermarriage and its immediate consequences, and not at all of warlike events. It is likewise arbitrary to take זְרוֹעַ in the sense of “support, protector,” with Hävernick, Von Lengerke, etc., and accordingly to find the assistance to be derived by Berenice from Egypt referred to in the former half of the sentence, and in the latter half the aid rendered to her husband by Berenice herself. “Arm” is intended in each case to simply denote the physical or political power of the respective royal personages, and consequently, in the first instance, that of the Egyptian princess, and in the next that of her consort.—But she shall be given up and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times; or, “he that begat her and he that led her away in the times.” מְבִיאֶיהָ, “they that brought her,” denotes either the “begetter” who is mentioned immediately afterward, and the one that “led her home,” hence her father and her husband (Hävernick, Füller, etc.), or the company of her followers, her train when she left Egypt (Ewald), [or “who brought her into the marriage” (Keil)]. The word is hardly to be taken, with Hitzig, as a categorical plural, and thus to be limited to the husband. מַחֲזִקָהּ properly signifies “he that holds her, that obtains possession of her,” i.e., her consort (thus correctly Von Lengerke and Hävernick, while Hitzig, Kranichfeld, [Keil], etc., contend for the rendering of הֶחֱזִיק by “maintaining or supporting,” which is too artificial).—בַּעִתִּיּם, “in the times,” is an idiom signifying “at that time,” i.e., when his critical situation obliged him to marry her. תִּנָּתֵן, “she shall be given up, be given over to ruin, overthrown (in perniciem traditur),” is a very general expression that does not necessarily imply death by violence; cf. Isa_5:12; also infra, Dan_11:11.—The historical commentary on the latter half of this verse is as follows: As soon as Ptolemy Philadelphus had died in B. C. 247, Antiochus Theos expelled Berenice, and recalled the formerly rejected Laodice. The latter, however, aimed at farther revenge, and to achieve it she poisoned the king, had her son by him, Seleucus II. Callinicus, declared his successor, and sent assassins against Berenice, who had fled to the sanctuary of Daphne. The latter queen was slain, together with her little son, and the hope of the Ptolemies to behold one of their lineage on the throne of the Seleucidæ was thus wholly destroyed. Cf. Polyæn., viii. 50; Justin., xxvii. 1; Appian, 1. c.—Kranichfeld vainly attempts to shake the evident correspondence of this series of facts with the language of the passage by regarding תִּכָּתֵן as denoting a violent death, and consequently as not harmonizing with the natural death of Ptolemy Philadelphus.[11] He farther translates זְרוֹעַ in the sense of “host,” and attributes to מְבִיאֶיחָ the questionable meaning, “the promoters of her marriage” (the “furtherers of the whole Delilah-like match”), by all of which he obviously becomes liable to the charge of arbitrary “interpolation,” to a far greater degree than the opponents whom he accuses of that crime because they frankly recognize the reference to those events.
Dan_11:7-9. Ptolemy Evergetes and Seleucus Callinicus. But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his place (marg.). The partitive מִן as in Dan_11:5. כֵעֶר ש׳, “the sprouting of her roots” (cf. Isa_11:1) signifies the lineage, the immediate ancestry of Berenice; the person referred to was consequently the son of her parents and her own brother, viz.: Ptolemy III. Evergetes, the successor of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 247–221. כִּכּוֹ, an accusative of the direction (cf. Dan_11:2, at the end); in Dan_11:20-21, it is replaced by a definite עַל כַּכּוֹ.—Which (or “and he”) shall come with an (rather, “against the”) army, and shall enter into the fortress of the ting of the north אֶל־הַחַיִל וְיָבאֹ signifies neither, “he shall come to his host” (Hitzig), nor “he shall come to power” (Hävernick); the former rendering is as forced as the latter is contrary to the language (owing to the missing article). על is rather equivalent to against, and the “host” is that of the northern king. The “coming into his fortress” which follows, designates the result of the expedition as a whole, the taking of the northern king’s fortress by the king of the south. It must, however, remain undecided whether this “fortress” denotes specially the strongly fortified maritime city of Seleucia (as Hitzig thinks). It is more probable that מָעוֹז is used collectively (cf. Dan_11:19), and that therefore בּוֹא בְ does not denote the entering into the fortresses, but only the arrival before them.—And shall deal (or “execute it”) against them and prevail. “Against them” refers to the subjects of the northern kingdom, not to the fortresses. With regard to עָשָׂה בְ, “to do to, or against one,” namely, according to pleasure, cf. Jer_18:23; also the more definite עָשָׂח, כִרְצוֹכוֹ Dan_11:3; Dan_11:36; Dan_8:4. Concerning the magnificent success achieved by Ptolemy Evergetes during his expedition against Syria (the conquest of almost the entire Syrian realm from Cilicia to beyond the Tigris, the taking of numerous fortresses, and the slaying of Laodice, the rival and murderess of his sister Berenice) cf. Appian, Syr., C. 65; Justin., XXVII. 1; Jerome on the passage.
Dan_11:8. And shall also carry captive into Egypt their gods, with their princes (rather “molten images”), etc. The suffix in אֱלחֵֹיהֶם and also in נְסִכֵיהֶם refers to the inhabitants of Syria, the same to whom בָּהֶם in the preceding verse referred. כְסִכִים does not signify “princes” in this passage (as it does, e.g., in Jos_13:21; Eze_32:30), but “molten images, cast images, brazen statues;” and consequently כָסִיךְ is employed in the sense which is more generally denoted by נֶסֶךְ (Isa_41:29; Isa_48:5) or מַסֵּכָה (Exo_32:4; Exo_32:8; Exo_34:17, etc.). The express mention of the molten images besides the gods arises from the fact that the existence of the latter is made wholly dependent on the former. The transportation of the idols in itself is the significant evidence of the total subjugation of an opposing kingdom (cf. Isa_46:1-2 : Jer_48:7; Jer_49:3; Hos_10:5 et seq.); and likewise the removal of the “precious vessels of silver and gold” which is afterward noticed (כֶּסֶף וְזָהָכ, genit. materiæ, depending on the immediately preceding gen. qualitatis, כְּלֵי חֶמְדָּתָם, cf. Nah_2:10; Jer_27:18 et seq.; Eze_7:19 et seq.; Zep_1:18; Dan_1:2.—The historical event which corresponds to this was the return of Ptolemy Evergetes to Egypt, occasioned by a revolt, when he carried away from Syria a booty of 4,000 talents of gold, numerous jewels, and 2,500 idol-statues, the latter including among their number those which Cambyses had formerly transported to Persia. It was the restoration of these that secured to this third Ptolemy the name of Εὐεργέτης. Cf. Jerome on the passage, and the Marmor Adulitanum, the monument erected by the victor in commemoration of his deeds, which boasts that he had united Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Persia, Susiana, Media, and all the countries as far as Bactria, under his sceptre. In view of this exact correspondence of our passage to the facts of history, which, it is alleged, occurred subsequently to the composition of the prophecy, the suspicion that the oracle was conformed to the history appears to be only too well founded, especially as Egypt (מִצְרַיִם) is expressly mentioned as the goal of the magnificent triumphal march.12 The predictions by other prophets relating to expeditions that secured great booty and that captured immense numbers of idol-images, e.g., those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Nahum, Ezekiel, etc., in the passages cited above, are always associated with very different surroundings, and present fewer circumstances of detail to be particularly fulfilled.13 For this reason it cannot be admitted that the neglect to mention the death of Laodice forms a proof of the undimmed originality of the prophecy (against Kranichfeld).14—And he shall continue more years than the king of the north; rather, “and shall abstain from the king of the north (several) years,” i.e., shall refrain from waging war against him, shall leave him in peace. Thus Hävernick, Von Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, etc., correctly render the sense. On the other hand, Syr., Vulg., Luther, Kranichfeld, Füller, etc., render: “and for years he shall maintain himself before the king of the north,” i.e., preserve his superiority over him, prævalebit adversus regem Aquilonis (Vulg.). This interpretation is opposed by the usage of עָמַד מִן in the sense of “to cease, abstain from something,” which occurs elsewhere also; cf. Gen_29:35; Gen_30:9; 2Ki_4:6; 2Ki_13:18.15
Dan_11:9. So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom; rather, “and he shall (now) come into the kingdom of the king of the south.” The subject obviously is the northern king, who was mentioned at the close of the preceding verse, for מֶלֶן הַנֶּגֶב is clearly a genitive depending on מַלְכוּת (against Kranichfeld).—And shall return unto his own land, i.e., to the northern kingdom, to Syria. The reference to the expedition against Egypt by sea (with a fleet that was soon destroyed in a storm) and also by land, which Seleucus Callinicus undertook about B. C. 240, or two years after the departure of Ptolemy Evergetes from Syria, but which resulted in his total defeat and hasty flight, is sufficiently obvious; cf. Euseb., Chron., I. 346; Justin., xxvii. 2.
Dan_11:10-12. Seleucus Cerauhus and Antiochus the Great against Ptolemy IV. Philopater. But his sons shall be stirred up (or “prepare for war”) and shall assemble a multitude of great forces. If the Keri וּבָכָיו is to be followed, it is unquestionable that the suffix of this plural refers back to the last named Syrian king Seleucus 2. Callinicus, and that his two sons, Seleucus III. Ceraunus (B. C. 227–224) and Antiochus III. the Great (224–187), are intended. It is reported concerning the latter, although only by the somewhat credulous and hasty Jerome (on the passage), that, in connection with his younger brother, Antiochus, he made war on Egypt; but it is hardly possible that he should have attempted a war against Ptolemy Evergetes, who lived and reigned until B. C. 221, three years beyond the reign of Ceraunus. But the writer does not probably intend to assert by יִתְגָּרוּ that the warlike expedition undertaken by the brothers was primarily and directly aimed against Egypt. The verb is rather used in a comprehensive sense, so as to cover the campaign of Seleucus Ceraunus (in which he met his death, B. C. 224) against Attalus of Pergamus, and also that commenced several years afterward by Antiochus Magnus, which was directed against the indolent Ptolemy IV. Philopater of Egypt; cf. Polyb., IV. 48; Appian, Syr., C. 06 (Hävernick, Von Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, Füller, etc., are substantially correct). This counteracts the attempt of venema, Bertholdt, and Kranichfeld to read וּבְכוֹ with the Kethib, and to understand Ptolemy Philopater, the son of Evergetes, by this “son,” by proving it to be superfluous, and, moreover, to be conflicting with the plural יִתְגִּרוּ וְאָסְפוּ.*—And (one) shall certainly come, overflow, and pass through (or “inundate”) וּבָא בוֹא, a strong description of the protracted but irresistible advance, followed by a portrayal of the overflowing masses of warriors that recalls the similar description in Isa_8:8. Beginning with this point, the subject is singular, denoting Antiochus the Great alone, who became king of Syria after the death of his brother Seleucus III., and after that of Ptolemy Evergetes became the terrible and victorious foe of Egypt, whose luxurious and cowardly king, Ptolemy philopater, quietly permitted him to take the fortress of Seleucia on the Orontes, to capture Tyre and Ptolemais through the treachery of Theodotus, and finally to besiege the fortress of Dora during a protracted period, while entering into a four months’ truce with him in connection with that siege (Polyb., V. 45–66).—Then shall he return, and be stirred up (or, “and they wage war”), even to his fortress. וְיָשֹׁב can in no case designate the return of Antiochus to Seleucia on the Orontes, after concluding the truce above referred to, in order to go into winter quarters at that place (Polyb., 11:66), but rather, as appears from the verb. bellicum וְיִתְגָּרוּ (as it must be read with the Kethib, instead of יִתְגָּרֶה, as the Keri prefers) which immediately follows, it denotes a renewal of his operations against the Egyptians in the spring of 218, in the course of which he surrounded the Egyptians in the strong city of Sidon, to which they had advanced, conquered all Phœnicia and Palestine, and finally established himself in Gaza (Polyb., 11:68–80). מָעֻזּחֹ (as it should be read, or even מָעֻזּוֹ, with the Keri, but not מָעֻזָּהּ, as Kranichfeld desires),” his fortress,” doubtless refers to the great and exceedingly strong city of Gaza, so that its suffix points back to the king of the north, the subject of יָשֹׁב. It is arbitrary, however, to assume a designed assimilation in sound between מעזה and עַזָּה, as do Venema and Hitzig.
Dan_11:11. And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, etc. On וְיִתְמַרְמַר cf. Dan_8:7. The king of the south who is “moved with choler” is Ptolemy Philopater, and his “coming forth,” as here described, denotes his moving to attack Antiochus the Great in the year 217, with 70,000 foot, 5,000 horse, and 73 elephants (Polyb., 11:79).—And he shall set forth a great multitude; but (rather, “and”) the multitude shall be given into his hand. The southern king is the subject here likewise, whose success, as based on the support of a great army, is described in this and the following verse (not the king of the north, as Kranichfeld supposes). הָמוֹן רָכ designates the great host before described, at whose head the aroused Egyptian king goes forth, and הֶחָמוֹן the host, of nearly equal strength (62,000 foot, 6,000 horse, and 102 elephants) with which the Syrian opposed him. Hitzig arbitrarily assumes that instead of וְכִתָּן we should read וְנָמַן; so that the sense would be, “and he (Ptolemy Philopater) gave the great multitude into his own hand.”
Dan_11:12. And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; rather, “and the multitude shall rise up (or “lift itself up”), and his courage (or “heart”) increase.” The “multitude” denotes the powerful host of the Egyptians (=הָמוֹן רָב Dan_11:11) which is now advancing;16 “his courage” (לְבָבוֹ) is the courage of the hitherto cowardly, dissipated, and lustful Ptolemy Philopater (cf. 2Ki_14:10). The Kethib יָרוּם is probably to be retained, instead of replacing it by the Keri וְרָם, which is simply an easier reading. וְכִשָּׂא is spoken of a warlike “rising up” to battle, as in Isa_33:10.—And he shall cast down ten thousands (“myriads”). This occurred near Raphia (southwest of Gaza), where Ptolemy Philopater inflicted a heavy defeat on Antiochus the Great, in which the Syrians lost in killed 10,000 foot, 300 horse, and five elephants, and more than 4,000 prisoners (Polyb., 11:86).—But he shall not be strengthened by it; or, “but yet he shall not become strong,” i.e., inasmuch as he followed up his victory very negligently (see Justin., XXX. Daniel 1 : “Spoliasset regem Antiochum, si fortunam virtute juvisset;” cf. Polyb., V. 87), and immediately returned to Egypt after garrisoning the cities that had formerly been lost, in order to resume his former dissipated life. The Vulgate, “sed non prævalebit,” is incorrect.
Dan_11:13-14. Farther description of the warlike deeds of Antiochus Magnus. For the king of the north shall return, and set forth (rather “shall again set forth”) a multitude, greater than the former. This new adventure falls fully thirteen years after the defeat of Antiochus near Raphia. Not until he had carried on fortunate wars during an extended period against the Parthians, the Bactrians, and even to the borders of India, and until he had likewise conquered Asia Minor and the Thracian Chersonnesus, did he turn his arms against Egypt in B. C. 203, where Ptolemy Philopater had recently died and left the throne to his son Epiphanes, a child of five years, who was placed under the guardianship of the voluptuous and cruel Agathocles. In league with Philip of Macedon, who concluded a formal treaty for the division of the Egyptian empire with him, he advanced toward Egypt at the head of the immense army which he had formed while engaged in his protracted eastern wars, and which he had especially strengthened by the addition of a great number of Indian elephants, and succeeded in depriving it again of Phoenicia and southern Syria; see Justin., XXX. 2; XXXI. 1; Polyb., XV. 20; Jerome, on this passage.—And shall certainly come after certain years; rather, “and toward the end of times he shall come (repeatedly) during a period of years.” The “times” at whose end his annually repeated coming shall begin (שָׁכִים, during several years, as in Dan_11:8 b) are the thirteen years bet ween the battle near Raphia and the death of Ptolemy Philopater (B. C. 217–204).—With a great army and with much riches (rather, “equipment”). In connection with this equipment we are probably to conceive of the rich treasures secured in past wars, in addition to the Indian elephants.—And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south. Insurrections occurred in upper Egypt as early as the first year of the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes, occasioned by the bad administration and the cruelty of his guardian Agathocles; and these were followed in subsequent years by renewed insurrections, the revolt of subjugated countries, etc. Before his eighth year had expired, the king was obliged to conquer Lycopolis, a stronghold of the rebels (see Corp. inscr., III. Dan 339: Inscr. of Rosetta, 20, 26, 28; Jerome, on the passage).—Also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves; rather, “and criminal sons of thy people shall revolt.” The literal reading is, “and sons of the ravenous ones, of the oppressors of thy people.” פָּרִיצִים denotes persons who overturn the law and justice (cf. Psa_17:4; Eze_7:22; Eze_18:10; Isa_35:9), hence violent persons, robbers. With regard to the occurrence of two stat. constr. in immediate succession (בכי פריצי), which must not be strained so as to denote robbers’ sons, robbers by birth (Füller), cf. the examples collected by Ewald (Lehrb., § 289 c.). The oracle refers to the league against Egypt, into which a large number of Jews entered with Antiochus the Great, and to their participation in his warlike operations against that country, e.g., in his attacks on the garrison which the Egyptian general Scopas had left in the citadel of Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant., XII. 3, 3). The theocratic writer sternly condemns this partial revolt to the Syrians as a criminal course or as common robbery, because of the many benefits conferred on the Jewish nation by the earlier Ptolemies.—To establish the vision (rather, “visions”), namely, the visions respecting the afflictions of the Jews under Ant. Epiphanes already recorded in chap. 8 and 9, which could appropriately be regarded as a consequence or punishment of the revolt from the Egyptians as here described. חָזוֹן is used collectively in this passage, in the sense of “what there is of prophecy, such visions as exist.”—But they shall fall. נִכְשָׁלוּ does not probably denote stumbling or falling in a moral point of view (Hävernick, etc.), but to be unfortunate in war, to be oppressed politically and religiously, etc. The special event referred to, whether a punishment imposed by Scopas, in the shape of taking away various nobles as hostages (cf. Polyb., XVI. 39; Josephus, Ant., XII. 3, 4), or otherwise, must remain undetermined. It is not to be denied that at any rate this particular passage presents a somewhat considerable discrepancy between the prophetic text of the section and the corresponding historical events; cf. Kranichfeld on the passage, p. 368.[17]
Dan_11:15-19. Last wars and death of Antiochus Magnus. So (rather, “and”) the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities; rather, “a strongly fortified city.” The reference is probably to the siege and ultimate capture of Sidon, into which “city of fortifications” (עִיר מִכְצַרוֹם, cf. Ewald, § 177 c) the Egyptian leader Scopas had thrown himself after suffering a severe defeat at the hands of Antiochus at Paneas, near the sources of the Jordan, which reduced his army to 10,000 men (B. C. 198). While Antiochus was carrying on a war in Asia Minor against Attalus in the preceding year, Scopas had again brought Cœle-Syria under the dominion of Egypt; but in consequence of that terrible defeat he was deprived not only of that province, but also of the whole of Palestine as far as Gaza by the Syrian king. After enduring a protracted siege in Sidon, in the course of which an Egyptian army under Eropus, Menocles, and Damoxenus had vainly attempted to extricate him, he was compelled by hunger to surrender himself into the victor’s hands (Polyb., XXVIII. 1; Livy, XXXIII. 19; Josephus and Jerome, 1. c). The text, consequently, does not expressly notice the repeated advance of the Egyptians and the great battle near Paneas, but contents itself with referring to the final results of this new war, viz.: the capitulation of the remaining Egyptian troops in Sidon. The idea that עִיר מִבְעַ׳ is used collectively (Theodot., Syr., Vulg., Kranichfeld) must be rejected, because this event is so obviously referred to as appears especially from the second half of the verse.—And the arms of the south shall not withstand, etc.; an allusion to the unsuccessful nature of the attempt made by the three Egyptian leaders to come to the assistance of the besieged Scopas. זְרֹעוֹת is evidently used in the sense of military forces (arms=army), hence not as in Dan_11:6; on the other hand, cf. Dan_11:22; Dan_11:31.
Dan_11:16. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will; i.e., Antiochus, the victor of Paneas and conqueror of Sidon, who now subjugated the whole of Palestine (the “pleasant land” or “land of beauty,”—cf. on Dan_8:9)—Which by his hand shall be consumed; rather, “and destruction is in his hand.” כָּלָח בְיָדוֹ, as in Isa_10:32; cf. Isa_44:20; Job_11:14. If there were no other reason, these parallels would be sufficient to show that כָּלָה cannot here denote “to consummate” (Luther), nor yet “completeness or totality,” which would result in the meaning, “and it is wholly in his hand,” i.e., the glorious land (Hävern., Von Leng., van Ess, Füller, etc.; also Bertholdt and Dereser, who prefer, however, to read כֻּלָּהּ).[18]
Dan_11:17. He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom. “To set his face” is equivalent to “fixing his aim” upon something; cf. 2Ki_12:18, and for the rest of the sentence, cf. Psa_71:16; Isa_40:10. Livy, XXXIII. 19, plainly asserts that Antiochus was temporarily inclined to follow up his victories in Cœle-Syria and Phœnicia by a powerful attack on Egypt: “Omnibus regni viribus connixus, cum ingentes copias terrestres maritimeasque comparasset,” etc. The same author records also an attack on the cities on the coast of Cilicia and Caria belonging to Ptolemy, as being an introductory step toward the execution of that plan. The reference of the text to this fact is so unequivocal, that all explanations which do not accord with it must be rejected, e.g., that of Hävernick, Von Lengerke, etc.: “to come against the strength of his (the Egyptian monarch’s) whole kingdom;” and of Füller, “to come in the power of his (Antiochus’) whole kingdom,” which is interpreted to mean, that he should secure the complete possession of the royal power throughout Syria, and re-establish its former limits.—And upright ones with him; rather, “and an agreement shall he make with him.” This rendering of וִישָׁרִים עִמּוֹ וְעָשָׂה was adopted by the Sept. (καὶ συνήκας μετʼ αὐτοῦ ποιήσεται), Vulg., Luther, Berth., Dereser, Von Leng., and Hitzig, although the two last-named writers attempt emendations of the text (Von Leng., וּמֵישָׁרִים instead of וִישָׁרִים; Hitzig יַעֲשֶׂה instead of וְעָשָׂח) which are entirely uncalled for. It is certainly obvious that the words refer to the treaty concluded in the year 198 between Antiochus and the defeated Ptolemy Epiphanes, by which Cœle-Syria was left in the hands of the victor, and in connection with which the marriage of Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus, with Ptol. Epiphanes was agreed upon, although not consummated until five years afterward (Polyb., XXVIII. 17; Josephus, Ant., XII. 4, 1); see what follows. Such explanations as the following must therefore be rejected. “and upright ones shall be with him,”—i.e., the Jews (!)—“and he shall succeed in it” (Gesenius, Winer, etc.); “and strong ones come with him, and he conducts it successfully” (Füller); or, “and uprightness with him, and he shall accomplish it” (Hävernick, Kranichf.), etc.—And he shall give him the daughter of women, i.e., his daughter Cleopatra, who is here designated as “a daughter of the women” (i.e., of her mother, grandmother, etc., who were still employed with her education), probably on account of her youth; cf. Zec_9:9, where בֶּן־אֲתֹנוֹת in like manner denotes a young ass-colt.19 As Ptolemy himself was but seven years old when this treaty was made, the agreement primarily involves a betrothal only, the marriage being postponed during five years to B. C. 193.—Corrupting her; rather, “to destroy it,” i.e., his league with Egypt; his purpose was to ruin his former opponent and present ally. לְחַשְׁחִיתָהּ is probably to be taken in this sense, without substituting לְחַשְׁחִית for it with Hitzig, or, with others, referring the suffix to the daughter. If the latter interpretation (“to destroy her”) were adopted, the לְ would certainly lose its telic signification, and become consecutive: “so that he destroys her, so that he ruins her in this way” (Kranichf.), but the following clause does not accord with this view.—But she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him; rather, “but it shall not succeed, nor result to his advantage,” i.e., Antiochus shall not realize the expected benefits from the agreement. Others, less appropriately, conceive of Cleopatra as the subject, “she shall not stand on his side (?), neither be for him (?), but rather take sides with her husband, the king of Egypt” (cf. Jerome on the passage). The rendering preferred by us is supported by the exactly similar expressions in Isa_7:7; Isa_14:24.[20]
Verse. 18. And he shall turn his face unto the isles (or coast-lands), and shall take many (of them). The Kethib וְיָשֵׁב is to be retained in opposition to the Keri וְיָשֵׁם, which is transferred to this place from Dan_11:17 for the sake of analogy. אִיִּים, i.e., “the isles and coast-lands” probably denotes the coasts of Asia Minor, which Antiochus subjected to his power through the aid of his fleet and army in the summer of 197, and also Macedon and Hellas, which were attacked and conquered by him in the following year, after having spent the intervening winter at Ephesus and crossed the Hellespont in the spring (Livy, XXXIII. 19, 38, 40; Polyb., XVIII. 34).21—But a prince …. shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; or, “but a general (military leader) shall stifle his scorn,” i.e., his scornful and contemptuous declaration to the Roman ambassadors at a meeting in Lysimachia, that “Asia did not concern them, the Romans, and he was not subject to their orders” (Polyb. and Livy, 1. c.). The leader (קָעִין, as in Jos_10:24; Jdg_11:6; Jdg_11:11) who stifled the scornfulness of the Syrian king (הִשְׁבִּית literally, “to cause to cease” [to teach it to cease, Luther]), was Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, whose brilliant victory near Magnesia on the Sipylus in Lydia, B. C. 190, enabled him to force Antiochus to conclude an immediate peace on very severe and humiliating terms (Polyb., XXI. 14; Livy, XXXVIII. 38; Appian, Syr., 38, 39, etc.).—Without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him; rather, “he shall assuredly give him back his reproach;” he shall retaliate by inflicting a more bitter reproach on his part. בִּלְתִּי in this place is synonymous with אַךְ or כִּי־אִם and does not signify “except that” (Hävernick).22—Kranichfeld attempts in vain to obviate and obscure the manifest reference of this representation to the defeat of Antiochus near Magnesia, as being an artful “fabrication of history” on the part of the “positivists in prophetic interpretation.”
Dan_11:19. And he shall turn his face toward the fort (“forts”) of his own land. These words are probably ironical; instead of advancing against the fortresses of foreign lands, he is thenceforward to be employed only with those of his own realm, perhaps in the direction of placing them in good condition for defence. Füller’s remark, that here and in Dan_11:24; Dan_11:31; Dan_11:39, מָעוּזִים denotes temples, which Antiochus was eventually obliged to plunder, because of the distracting state of his finances, is entirely too artificial and without adequate support from the customary usage of the term. History is acquainted with but a single instance in which Antiochus pillaged the temples, viz.: that of the temple of the Elymaic Zeus, or Bel, in connection with which he was slain, together with his warriors, in a rising of the people; and it is arbitrary to argue a number of similar acts from this single fact.23—But he shall stumble and fall, and not (or, “no more”) be found. Cf. what has just been remarked, and see Strabo, XVI. 1, 18; Justin., XXXII. 2; Diodorus, Fragm., 26, 39. 40.[24]
Dan_11:20. seleucus Philopater, the son and successor of Antiochus Magnus, B. C. 187–176. Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes (in) the glory of the kingdom; rather, “one that causeth an exacter of taxes to pass over” (marg.), or “one that sendeth out a driver,” to the ornament of the kingdom. The driver was obviously a collector of money, or of tribute, and the person intended was the treasurer Heliodorus, who was sent out by Seleueus Philopater (according to 2Ma_3:7 et seq.) to Jerusalem to confiscate the treasure in the Jewish temple. חֶדֶר מַלְכוּם, “the splendor or ornament of the kingdom,” doubtless designates Jerusalem (as does also the צְבִי of Judæa, Dan_8:9); cf. the similar laudatory terms applied to that city in Psa_48:3; Psa_1:2; Lam_2:15.25 The accusative חֶרֶ מ׳ accordingly indicates the direction rather than the measure (“who causes to pass through the extent (?) of the land,” Füller et al.), and cannot in any case be regarded as a nominative in apposition with the subject מַעֲכִיר נוֹגֵשׁ, as Kranichfeld proposes, who consequently translates: “(one) who shall lead drivers thither, the ornament of dominion.”—But in few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle. Soon after Heliodorus was despatched to plunder the temple of Jehovah, B. C. 176 or 175, Seleueus Philopater was suddenly and mysteriously removed, possibly by poison which had been administered to him by the same Heliodorus (Appian, Syr., C. 45). The words “after some (or ‘a few’) days” doubtless refer to the brief interval between the departure of that officer and the king’s death, rather than to the brief duration of his reign of only twelve years, as they are generally applied.26 On the statement that he was to be destroyed “neither in anger, nor in battle,” the remarks of Appian respecting the mode of Philopater’s death (ἐξ ἐπιβουλῆς) should be compared.[27]
Dan_11:21-24. The rise of Antiochus Epiphanes; his first Egyptian campaign. And in his estate shall stand up a vile person. כִכְזֶה does not probably denote “a despised one, whose birth deprived him of every right to the throne” (Kranichfeld), but rather one who is deservedly despised, who is despicable, morally contemptible, thus corresponding to כִמְאָס Jer_6:30, and contrasting with מֵיטָכ 1Sa_15:9 (cf. Hitzig on the passage). The symbolic description of the person here introduced, as a “little horn,” Dan_7:8; Dan_8:9, is in any case appropriate. A contrast with the cognomen ’Επιφανής was probably not intended, since the term appears to be one of the original constituents of the section, rather than an interpolation; for a Maccabæan interpolator would hardly have avoided the temptation to avail himself of the suggestion afforded by the familiar perversion of Ἐπιφανής into Ἐπιμανής to make use of a term like מְשֻׁגָּע for instance (cf. 1 Sam. 21:16; Jer_29:26; Hos_9:7).—To whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom; rather, “to whom was not given,” etc.—who has seized the royal dignity instead, in opposition to the will of his nation. Cf. the Eth.-fund, principles, etc., on chap. 7, No. 3; and with reference to the expression חוֹד מַלְכוּת cf. 1Ch_29:25; Psa_21:6.—He shall come in peaceably (or “unexpectedly”—בְּשַׁלְוָח as in Dan_11:24 and Dan_8:25) and obtain the kingdom by flatteries; rather, by “dissimulations.” חְַלַקְלַקּוֹת does not denote smooth speeches or flattering words merely, but dissimulating words and actions, a hypocritical and deceitful bearing in both word and deed. It occurs in the same sense in Dan_11:34. The historical tradition, indeed, speaks only of the application of military force by Antiochus, when seeking to obtain the Syrian throne for himself, and of the assistance which Eumenes and Attalus rendered him to that end, by expelling the usurper Heliodorus. But this assuredly did not exclude the employment of all manner of canning arts and secret manœuverings, which probably were the only means by which he could secure the countenance of those kings of Pergamos. The difference between the language of the passage and the historical fact is at any rate inconsiderable; and it is not necessary to assume that to obviate that difficulty the Sept. substituted the more appropriate בַּחְַלָקוֹת or בְּחֶלְקָח for כחלקלקות, and translated it by κατισχύσει βασιλεὺς ἐν κληροδοσίᾳ αὐτοῦ on the ground that they “could find no historical equivalent for the former term” (against Kranichfeld).
Dan_11:22. And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him; rather, “and the overflowing power of the host shall be swept away and broken before him;” literally, “and the arms of the overflowing—before his face they shall be swept away,” etc. On זְרֹעוֹת, cf. Dan_11:15; Dan_11:31; on שֶׁטֶף cf. Dan_9:26. The tropical expression זרְעֹּוֹת חַשֶּׁטֶף, when taken as a whole, involves a metaphor that is not entirely unmixed, similar to שׁוףט שׁוֹטֵף, “the overflowing scourge,” in Isa_28:15. The “overflowing hosts” probably represent in part the troops of Heliodorus, whom Antiochus routed with the assistance of his Pergamenian allies, and in part the Egyptian forces which sought to deprive him of Cœle-Syria soon after his accession to the throne. “For after the death of Cleopatra (Dan_11:17), Eulaus and Lenæus, the guardians of her son, Ptolemy Philometor, demanded the cession of Cœle-Syria, the dowry which had hitherto been refused (Polyb., 28:1; Diodor., Leg. 18, p. 624 Wess.; Livy, XLII. 49). Antiochus, on the other hand, would not acknowledge that his father had promised such a dowry (Polyb., XXVIII. 17), and therefore refused to grant it. Finding that the Egyptians were preparing for war, he took the initiative, and succeeded in defeating the generals of Ptolemy between the Casian mountains and Pelusium. On every calculation, that event transpired in B. C. 171” (Hitzig).—Yea, also the (rather, “a”) prince of the covenant; supply יִשָּׁבֵר “shall be broken.” The person referred to was probably the high priest Onias III., who was put to death by command of Antiochus Epiphanes in the year 172, and hence about the time of the war between that king and Ptol. Philometor. He was denominated a מָשִׁיחַ in Dan_9:26 (see on that passage),[28] and here bears the title of נְגִיד בְּרִית “prince of the covenant,” because he was the actual head of the theocracy at that time; cf. the repeated designation of the theocracy by the term בְּרִית in the following verses, e.g., Dan_11:28; Dan_11:32 (thus correctly Theodoret, Rosenm., Hitzig, Hofm., Füller). A majority of recent writers refer this expression to Ptol. Philometor; but this is opposed (1) by the fact that at the time which is here indicated, that prince was by no means in league with Antiochus; (2) that if it were really intended to represent him as having entered into such an alliance, it would have been necessary to employ the words נְגִיד־בְּרִיתוֹ or rather בַּעַל בְּרִיתוֹ (cf. Gen_14:13); (3) that the Egyptian is always designated as מֶלֶך חַנֶּגֶב in this chapter, while, on the other hand, בְּרִית always refers to the theocracy.29
Dan_11:23. And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully, i.e., as soon as he shall have established friendly relations, and allied himself with his defeated opponent, which his victory near Pelusium enabled him to accomplish. Even while the battle was raging, Antiochus displayed great kindness toward the Egyptians, everywhere interfering to check the slaughter by his soldiers, and thus won the hearts of his foes (see Diodorus, Exc. in Wess., p. 579). This conduct seems to have subsequently been of material value to him in the capture of Pelusium, Memphis, and generally of all lower and central Egypt (cf. Diodor., l. c.; Polyb., XXVIII. 16 et seq.; Jerome, on this passage).—And shall come up, and shall become strong (or “prevail”) with a small people, unexpectedly. Cf. Jerome: “Ascendit Memphin et ibi ex more Ægypti regnum accipiens puerique (i.e., Ptolemœi Philometoris) rebus se providere dicens, cum modico populo omnem Ægyptum subjugavit sibi, et abundantes atque uberrimas ingressus est civitates.” Several expositors propose to refer וְעָלָה to the king’s invasion of Cœle-Syria and Palestine only, instead of understanding his victorious march up the Nile as far as Memphis (e.g., Kranichfeld, Hofmann, Ewald, and especially Füller, who had already interpreted the preceding וּמִן־הִתְחַבְּרוּת as referring to the league of Antiochus with the Pergamenian kings Eumenes and Attalus); but this interrupts the regular progress of the narrative by transposing an event from the beginning of the war to the history of its close. בְּשַׁלְוָח, “unexpedly,” is probably to be included in this verse, as Von Lengerke, Hitzig, etc., propose. It states that the victor had penetrated into the heart of their country before the Egyptians were fully aware of the fact, or had made arrangements to resist his progress. Hitzig’s explanation, “with confidence (=בּוֹטֵחַ) as if he were not in an enemy’s country,” is unnecessary; and also that offered by others, “with a peaceful object” (“in the midst of peace,” Füller).
Dan_11:24. Concerning בְּשַׁלְוָה, see what immediately precedes.—And he shall enter even upon the fattest places of the province. The extraordinary fertility of lower Egypt is well known; cf. Plin., H. N., XXI. Dan 15: “Ægyptus frugum fertilissima,” etc. With regard to the genitive combination מִשְׁמַנֵּי מְדִינָח, cf., e.g., אֶבְיוֹנֵי אדם, Isa_29:19. Concerning מְדִינָח, a “territorial jurisdiction or province,” see on Dan_2:48; Dan_3:2.—He shall scatter among them the prey (rather “prey”—without the article), and spoil, and riches. This defines “that which his fathers had not done, nor his fathers’ fathers.” It consisted of an immoderate squandering, by which he not only divided among his soldiers the money provided for carrying on the war, but also the spoil of Pelusium and all other booty that had been acquired. Even the Egyptians (to whom לָהֶם is perhaps to be specially referred) were not excluded from his liberality. Thus he bestowed on each Greek a piece of gold at that time, while at Naucratis, according to Polyb., XXVIII. 17. His unusual liberality during this campaign in Egypt is also attested by 1Ma_3:30.30—He shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time. מִבְצָרִים unquestionably denotes fortresses in the proper sense, or strong cities, rather than temples, as Füller supposes (cf. on Dan_11:19).—It refers, e.g., to the taking of Pelusium, and to the siege of the fortified cities of Naucratis and Alexandria, etc. (Polyb., XXVIII. 17–19).—וְעַד־עֵת, “and that until a time,” i.e., until a time that has been determined by a higher power—for a time. Cf. שָׁנִים in Dan_11:8, and the similar terms in Dan_11:6; Dan_11:13.
Dan_11:25-27. The second Egyptian campaign of Antiochus Epiphanes. And he shall stir up his power and his courage. Concerning וְיָעֵר, cf. יָעִיר הַכֹּל in Dan_11:2; also Psa_78:38; 1Ma_2:24.—Against the king of the south. This was not probably Ptolemy Philometor, but his younger brother Ptolemy Physcon, who had thrown himself, together with his sister Cleopatra, into the strong city of Alexandria, at the time when Antiochus was conquering Egypt, and had there been declared king in the stead of his brother, who had fallen into the hands of the Syrians. After the departure of Antiochus (occasioned by a revolt of the Tarsians and the Mallotes in Cilicia), this usurper had probably brought the entire kingdom into his power, as seems to be implied in Livy, XLIV. Dan 19: “Antiochus, Syriœ rex—per honestam speciem majoris Ptolemœi reducendi in regnum, bellum cum minore fratre ejus, qui turn Alexandream tenebat, gerens,” etc.—But he shall not stand; for they shall forecast devices against him; i.e., despite the magnitude of his army, this Ptolemy shall offer no resistance to the Syrian king לֹא יַעֲמֹד, cf. Dan_8:4; Dan_8:7; 2Ki_10:4), because treason in his own camp (cf. what immediately follows), of which his opponent is able to make skilful use, shall cause his defeat.
Dan_11:26. Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him. With regard to פַּתְבָּג, cf. on Dan_1:8. The אֹבְלֵי פַתְבָּגוֹ were of course members of the royal household and servants of the king, therefore serpents whom he had cherished in his own bosom, like the traitorous אֹכֵל לַחְמִי in Psa_41:10 (Joh_13:18); cf. Dan_11:27 and 2Sa_9:11 et seq.; 2Sa_19:29; 1Ki_2:7; 1Ki_18:19, etc.—And his army shall overflow (or “flow away, dissolve”); and many shall fall down slain. Concerning the “flowing away,” which is here equivalent to “dissolving, turning away to flee,” cf. Dan_11:22; also 1Sa_14:16, where יִמּוֹג expresses about the same idea. On the second member of the sentence, cf. Jdg_9:40; 1Ch_5:22; 1Ma_1:18.—The decisive victory of this second Egyptian war (the δευτέρα έφοδος, 2Ma_5:1), which Antiochus achieved over Physcon and Cleopatra, was not gained on land, so far as we know, but in a great and fortunate naval action near Pelusium; and וְחֵילוֹ יִשְׁטוֹף seems to be applicable only to a battle of the former kind, not to the scattering or destruction of a fleet. Nor is there any definite record of treason committed against Ptol. Physcon by the Egyptians.31 But, after making due allowance for this discrepancy [?], the whole description seems more appropriate when applied to the second Egyptian campaign of Epiphanes than when it is altogether referred to the events of the former war, as Ewald, Füller, etc., attempt to do.
Dan_11:27. And both those kings’ hearts shall be to do mischief. This does not allude, probably, to their evil designs against their enemy Physcon, but to those entertained against each other; cf. Pro_27:19; and on the term לְמֵרַע (i.e., literally, “belonging to do evil”), cf. Isa_1:5; Jdg_5:9. The two kings themselves are certainly not Physcon and his victorious opponent Epiphanes, nor yet the two brothers Philometor and Physcon, but Antiochus and Philometor, who were leagued against Physcon, and concerning whom Livy (XLV. 11) and Polyb. (29:8) expressly state, that at that time they had taken the field in company against the latter king.—And they shall speak lies at one table. Probably an allusion to a particular incident which is no longer known.32 Their “speaking of lies” was naturally a hypocritical profession of disinterestedness on the part of Antiochus, as if his only concern were to reconquer the kingdom for his nephew Philometor (cui regnum quœri suis viribus simulabat, Livy, l. c.), while the latter pretended reverence and gratitude toward his uncle, but in his heart was anxious to have him removed from his path.—But it shall not prosper, i.e., their joint endeavor to overthrow Physcon; the latter, on the contrary, retained possession of Alexandria and of his usurped crown.—For yet the end shall be at the time appointed; rather, “for yet the end is (reserved) to the appointed time.” “The end,” namely of the Syrio-Egyptian wars, and consequently of the sufferings of Judæa, which was intermediate between the contending kingdoms. The time indicated by לַמּוֹעֵד in Dan_11:29 is not identical with this קֵץ, or “end of the appointed time,” but rather that denoted by וּבְעֵת קֵץ in Dan_11:40, and by עִת קֵץ in Dan_11:35.
Dan_11:28-30. The third Egyptian campaign of Antiochus. Then shall he return into his land with great riches, i.e., with much booty, which he partly secured in Egypt, and partly on his homeward march through Judæa, which was now in a state of insurrection. Cf. 1Ma_1:19-20; 2Ma_5:11 with Livy, l. c.—His heart (shall be) against the holy covenant. Cf. the detailed descriptions of the rapine and other atrocities committed by Antiochus while marching through Judæa; 1Ma_1:20-29; 2Ma_5:11-17. בְּרִית קֹדֶשׁ denotes the theocracy with reference to its territory and its adherents.—And he shall do exploits; rather, “accomplish it,” i.e., his malicious intention, the design of his לֵבָב.
Dan_11:29. At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south. לַמּוֹעֵד, “at the appointed time,” i.e., the time appointed by God. The reference is to the spring of the year B.C. 168, in which Antiochus began his third campaign against Egypt, this time against the two Ptolemies, Philometor and Physcon. The brothers had become reconciled to each other in the preceding year, through the influence of their sister Cleopatra, and had made common cause against the Syrian, whose conduct in leaving behind him a strong garrison in Pelusium had indicated his purpose to secure a permanent influence over Egypt. Incensed by the course of the Ptolemies, Antiochus led a large army through Cœle-Syria and Palestine to Egypt in the spring of 168 (primovere, Livy, XLV. 11), and would have inflicted heavy penalties on the brothers had not the Romans interfered (cf. Livy. l. c.; Polyb., XXIX. 8; Justin., XXXIV. 2).—But it shall not be as the former, or as the latter, i.e., a success similar to the triumphs of the first and second expeditions shall not be realized; cf. for instance, Dan_11:12.—כְּ־וּכְ׳׳, “as—so also;” cf. Eze_18:4; Jos_14:11 (Ewald, Lehrb., p. 851). The two substantives are in the cas. adverbialis.
Dan_11:30. For ships of Chittim (צִיִּים כִּתִּים) shall come against him. The expression is derived from Num_24:24, where Balaam predicted the humiliation of Assyria through the agency of ships of Chittim. In that place Græcian ships were probably intended, but the reference here is certainly to ships belonging to the Romans, namely, the fleet of C. Popilius Lænas, which sailed to Egypt after the victory over Perseus near Pydna (June 22d, B.C. 168), in order to prevent the Syrian king from subjugating that country, as he designed to do (Livy, XLV. 10; Polyb., XXIX. 1). It is not necessary to assume, with Bertholdt and Dereser, that the “ships of Chittim” denote the Macedonian fleet which fell into the hands of the Romans at the victory of Pydna, and was afterward employed by Lænas for his voyage to Egypt. Aside from the fact that Polybius and Livy do not mention this fact, to designate ships that had been taken by the Romans as Macedonian vessels would obviously be inappropriate; and, moreover, the customary usage throughout this book would lead us to expect יָוָנִים instead. The term כִּתִּים is very broad and indefinite in its application, as appears already from Gen_10:4. It denotes all the islands and coast-lands along the northern shores of the Mediterranean sea, beginning with Cyprus (which is referred to under that name in Isa_23:1; Isa_23:12; Eze_27:6), and extending as far as Spain, and therefore might appropriately be employed to designate Rome or Italy in particular (cf. Knobel, Völkertafel, p. 95 et seq.). The Sept. is correct (Ῥωμαὶοι), and also Jerome; but the latter overlooked the adjective nature of כִּתִּים (plur. of כִּתִּי), and therefore inserted a copula between the two nouns: “venient super eum trieres et Romani.”—Therefore shall he be grieved (rather, “discouraged”) and return. It is known that Popilius Lænas, on meeting with Antiochus four miles from Alexandria, did not grasp the hand extended by the latter in greeting, but at once presented the message entrusted by the senate to his care, and that when the king requested time to consider its contents, the Roman drew a circle about him, and did not permit him to pass beyond it before he had given the desired answer (Livy, XLV. 12; Polyb., XXIX. 11; Appian, Syr., 66; Justin., XXXIV. 3).—And have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; or, “and shall accomplish it.” Füller says well, “The rage which he was unable to vent on Egypt is now turned against the holy covenant; in his displeasure he turns against Israel, without being hindered” (וְעָשָׂה, as in Dan_11:28). Several writers, among whom are Rosenm. and Kranichfeld (the latter being guided by his desire to render the prophecy as dissimilar to the history as possible), take the preceding וְשָׁב adverbially, and regard it as qualifying וְזָעַם: “and again he shall have indignation,” etc. שׁוּב, however, is not used as a mere auxiliary in any other part of this section; and the return of the northern king from Egypt could not be passed over without notice in this place, since not to have mentioned it would have made Egypt the scene of the subsequent warlike operations in Dan_11:31 a, which would thus conflict with Dan_11:31 b (cf. Hitzig on the passage).—He shall even return and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant; rather, “and he shall return, and fix his attention on them,” etc. The second “and he returns” denotes his journey to Antioch from Palestine, where he had halted by the way. His “fixing attention” (הבין על, as in Dan_11:37; Job_31:1; Jer_39:12) on the apostates from the covenant (עֹזְבֵי בְרִית= פָּרִיצִים, Dan_11:14) is to be understood in the sense of affiliating with them, who became his favorites and protegés, and for whom he endeavored to erect a new and idolatrous system of worship; cf. 1Ma_2:18; 2Ma_6:1. Also infra, on Dan_11:39.
Dan_11:31-36. Attacks on the sacred institutions of the theocracy, and the persecution of its faithful adherents by Antiochus. And arms shall stand on his part; rather, “and armed hosts of his shall remain,” namely, in the holy land. Consequently זְרעִים יַעַמְדוּ is used substantially as in Dan_11:15, to denote the standing still of an armed host (cf. the leaving of a Syrian garrison in the citadel of Zion, which is mentioned in 1Ma_1:34). The usual rendering is, “and armed bands shall arise from him”—which, however, seems more appropriate and conformable to the context than Kranichfeld’s strange interpretation, “and accomplices (i.e., traitorous Israelites) shall stand up through his influence” (!). מִמֶּנּוּ probably does not signify “at his bidding” (cf. 2Sa_3:37), but is a partitive, or rather expresses dependence on the possessor.—And pollute the sanctuary of strength; rather, “the sanctuary, the stronghold.” The sanctuary is probably termed the stronghold (הַמָּעוֹז, an apposition) in a spiritual sense, as being the refuge and support of Israel; cf. Psa_18:3; Psa_31:3-5; Isa_25:4, etc., where Jehovah himself is termed Israel’s strong tower (Von Leng., Kranichfeld, Füller). The reference of the expression to the fortifications with which the second temple was certainly provided (1Ma_6:7; 1Ma_5:60) is less probable. However, cf. 1Ma_1:37; 2Ma_6:4.—And shall take away the daily sacrifice. Cf. the parallels, Dan_8:11-13; Dan_9:27; Dan_12:11; and with regard to the historical fulfilment, cf. 1Ma_1:45; 1Ma_1:54.
Dan_11:32. And such as do wickedly against (or “by”) the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries; Hitzig: “the condemners of the covenant, its accusers.” The מַרְשִׁיעֵי בְרִית, however, are evidently the same as the עֹזְבֵי בְרִית in Dan_11:30; בְּרִית is simply an accusative of specification; cf. Ewald, Lehrb., § 288, 2 et seq.—החניף, properly, “to desecrate,” here signifies “to cause to revolt,” utterly to sever their union with the theocracy, against which they had already sinned. Consequently, the expression does not involve a tautology, as if a successful effort to lead such as had already cast off their allegiance to apostatize were asserted. Kranichfeld interprets very harshly and arbitrarily, “and so far as the sinner against the covenant is concerned, he shall pollute it (the covenant) by his insinuating deportment.” בַּחֲלַקּוֹת, “with smoothnesses,” i.e., with smooth words and dissimulating arts (doubtless including deceitful promises, cf. 1Ma_2:17 et seq.) probably differs merely in form from בַּחֲלַקְלַקּוֹת in Dan_11:21; cf. Dan_11:34.—But people that do know their God shall be (or “prove themselves”) strong (i.e., to resist his seductive efforts), and do exploits; rather, “do it.” Cf. Dan_11:17; Dan_11:28; Dan_11:30, and for the historical fulfilment, see 1Ma_1:62 et seq.; Dan_2:3 et seq.
Dan_11:33. And they that understand among the people shall instruct (the) many. מַשְׂכִּילֵי עַם does not denote “teachers of the people” (Dereser, Hitzig), and the analogy of לְחַשְׂכִּילְךָ in Dan_9:22 is not sufficient to establish that rendering. מַשְׂכִּיל is rather to be taken as equivalent to intelligens (cf. Sept., Theodot.: οἱ συνετοὶ λαοῦ; Vulg., docti), in harmony with the usual intransitive sense חשׂכיל (see Dan_1:4; Dan_1:17; Dan_9:13; Dan_9:25). This rendering finds a special support in the contrasting of the מַשְׂכִּילִים and the רְשָׁעִים in Dan_12:10. These understanding ones, i.e., these genuine theocrats, e.g., a Mattathias (1Ma_2:1 et seq.), an Eleazar (2Ma_6:18), etc., shall “impart understanding” (יָבִינוּ, cf. Job_6:24) to the many, i.e., the not inconsiderable number of the “people that do know their God,” Dan_11:32, who were faithful to the covenant and capable of being saved, and of whom 1 Macc. 1:65 et seq. testifies that they were somewhat numerous.—Yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, etc. “They,” viz.: the many who hearken to the voice of the understanding ones, not the latter in person; see Dan_11:35. For the narrative of the fulfilment, see 1Ma_1:57; 1Ma_2:38; 1Ma_3:41; 1Ma_5:13; 2Ma_6:11.
Dan_11:34. Now when they fall they shall be holpen with a little help, or, “they shall obtain but little help” (עֵזֶר מְעָט), referring to the efforts of Judas Maccabæus (1Ma_3:11 et seq.; Dan_4:14 et seq.), which were not sufficient to put an end to all the suffering and persecution at a single stroke; cf., e.g., 1Ma_5:60 et seq.—But many shall cleave to them with flatteries, or “hypocrisies;” i.e., in addition to the limited aid received by them, the party of faithful adherents shall absorb many impure elements, which associate themselves hypocritically (בחלקלקות, cf. on Dan_11:32) with the “many.” It appears from passages like 1Ma_6:21 et seq.; Dan_9:23, that this was actually the case in the Maccabæan age, principally as a consequence of the bloody severity with which Judas Maccabæus treated all apostates (1Ma_2:44; 1Ma_3:5; 1Ma_3:8).
Dan_11:35. And some of them of understanding (see Dan_11:33) shall fall, e.g., certain priests, 1Ma_5:67; Eleazar, 2Ma_6:18, etc., and Judas Maccabæus himself, etc. נכשל can have no other meaning in this place than that in which it occurs in Dan_11:33-34.—To try (“smelt”) them, and to purge and to make them white (or, “cleanse them”), even to the time of the end; literally, “among them.” This is a statement of the Divine purpose in imposing the specified sufferings. “Among them” (בָּהֶם), i.e., not merely among the “understanding ones,” but also among their followers, among the theocratic party as a whole, which, according to Dan_11:34, stood in some need of being sifted and purified. לְבָרֵר alludes to the separation or removal of the dross that was expelled by the צרוף, and לַלְבֵּן to the polishing and brightening of the metal that was thus freed from its impure elements. “The three-fold description is also probably designed to indicate that the purifying should be effected by various processes. Not only are the pretended adherents to Jehovah’s party to separate themselves from His sincere followers, but the latter themselves, incited thereto by the example of steadfastness and self-denial furnished by their martyrs, shall cast out from themselves everything that is impure; and they shall succeed in gaining over all those who share their convictions in their hearts, but have been hindered by fear and timidity from avowing an open connection with them. In like manner a Nicodemus and a Joseph of Arimathæa were induced by the very death of Christ on the cross to confess their allegiance to him.—Thus Antiochus attempts to annihilate the party among the Jews that is devoted to its God, but succeeds only in contributing to its purifying” (Füller).—The “time of the end” (עֵת־קֵץ) down to which the painful process of purifying is to be continued, denotes, in the sense of the prophecy, the end of the pre-Messianic period as a whole, as appears from Dan_8:17; Dan_9:27; but it coincides essentially with the end of Antiochus himself.—Because it is yet for a time appointed; i.e., the period of tribulation shall be protracted until then; cf. Dan_11:27.
Dan_11:36. And the king shall do according to his will. The מֶלֶךְ can be no other than the one hitherto represented, the antitheistic persecutor of Israel, the king of the north, Antiochus Epiphanes. It is therefore not Constantine the Great (Ibn-Ezra, Jacchiad., Abarbanel, etc.), or the Roman state as a whole (Rashi, Calvin, etc.), or the New-Test, antichrist (Jerome, Theodor., Luther, Œcolamp., Geier, Calov, Kliefoth)—all of which interpretations contradict the context, and arbitrarily interpose a hiatus of centuries between Dan_11:35 and the closing verses of the chapter.33—And magnify himself above every god, i.e., subjectively, in his proud imagination; cf. 2Ma_9:12; 2Th_2:4; also Dan_8:25. Jerome, Luther, Füller, etc., render the words, “against every god;” but this interpretation עַל is antagonized by its use in Dan_11:37 b, where it is likewise connected with יִתְגַּדֵּל, but notedly in the sense of “above.”—And shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods. Cf. Dan_7:8; Dan_7:25; and concerning אֵל אֵלִים, see Dan_2:47.—And shall prosper, i.e., in his undertakings generally; cf. Dan_8:12; Dan_8:24 et seq.—Till the indignation be accomplished; namely, God’s anger against His people, in whose execution He employed Antiochus as a scourge or “saw” (Isa_10:15). Cf. Dan_8:19; Dan_9:27; and on the whole expression, see Isa_10:23; Isa_10:25.
Dan_11:37-39. Description of the general godlessness of Antiochus Epiphanes, without confining it to its relations to the theocracy. Neither (or, “and not”) shall he regard the god (“gods”) of his fathers, hence, shall manifest his impiety even with reference to the requirements of the religious sense of the heathen. This will include his robbery of temples (Polyb., XXXI. 4), and his efforts to destroy national bounds by tearing down their several religious systems (Diodor., XXXI. 1; 1Ma_1:43).34—Nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; rather, “nor the desire of women nor any god shall he regard.” In view of the connection חֶמְדַּת נָשִׁים cannot possibly signify anything else than a god, and does not, therefore, denote chaste conjugal love (Luther, J. Gerhard, etc., who support their view by a reference to κωλύειν γαμεὶν, 1Ti_4:3), or a love for women, susceptibility to amorous emotions generally (Grotius), nor yet “the supplications of women” (Dathe, Stäudlin), or “the favorites of women,” i.e., children (cf. Hos_9:16; Mic_1:16, etc.—thus Bertholdt). We are to conceive, rather, of the goddess of nature among the Asiatics, the Baaltis, Astarte, or Mylitta of the Babylonians, the Persian Artemis. and the Nanæa of the Syrians. This is the more certain, as it is expressly reported of Antiochus that he had inflicted a gross indignity on the worship of this goddess (who is identical with the “queen of heaven,” Jer_7:18; Jer_44:17 et seq.), by attempting to plunder a temple of Artemis or Aphrodite in Elymais (Polyb., XXXI. 11; Appian, Syr., c. 66; 1Ma_6:1-4; 2Ma_9:2). For this reason modern expositors since J. D. Michaelis, Gesenius, Dereser, and Hävernick are, with few exceptions, agreed in applying the words to this divinity. Concerning the designation as “the desire of women,” cf. Isa_44:9, where the heathen gods in general are characterized as הֲמוּדִים, “favorites.”35—He shall magnify himself above all; above everything, whether Divine or human (the addition of אֱלוֹהַּ merely to כֹּל would be one-sided). Cf. 2Th_2:4 : ἐπὶπάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἤ σέβασμα.
Dan_11:38. But in his estate shall he honour the god of forces; rather, “but he shall honor the god of fortresses in his place.” אֱלֹהַּ מָעֻזִּים is not properly a nom. propr.: the god “Mauzzim” or “Mæusim” (Luther, following the Sept., Theodot., and the Vulg., which have Μαωξειμ, Maozim), but rather, as appears from the repeated mention in this chapter of מָעֻזּים (Dan_11:7; Dan_11:10; Dan_11:19; Dan_11:31) or מִבְצָרוֹת (Dan_11:15) or מִבְצָרִים, it denotes a martial god to whom the Syrian king paid special reverence—a “god of fortresses or castles,” who must be regarded as being Jupiter Capitolinus, because he is subsequently described as formerly unknown to the Asiatics. There is no question respecting the character of this divinity, as being pre-eminently warlike, nor yet respecting the special reverence which Epiphanes entertained for him. “To him, the Capitoline Jupiter, were devoted the spolia opima; he was called Jupiter Stator, because he brought the Romans to a stand in answer to the prayer of Romulus, when they fled before the Sabines. But the surname Capitolinus accords fully with the god of fortresses; for the capitol was, so to speak, the seat of the Roman empire, the arx omnium nationum (Cicero, Verr., VII. 72), as being the citadel of Home, beside which stood its temple. There the generals sacrificed and paid their vows; and when they returned from their victories, they were taken thither in triumph.—It is readily conceivable that Antiochus should honor this foreign god; he had learned to know him and his worship while at Rome.” Antiochus did not, probably, regard the principal god of the Romans as distinct from the Olympic Zeus of the Greeks, whom he adored with a special zeal, according to Livy, xli. 20; Polyb. XXVI. 10; 2Ma_6:2, and for whom he caused a splendid temple to be erected at Athens; as a genuine Oriental syncretist he rather identified the two. Probably the magnificent temple which, according to Livy, XLI. 20, he began to build at his capital, Antiochia, but which did not arrive at its completion, was dedicated indifferently to both the Capitoline and the Olympic Zeus, the principal god of the Romans and the Greeks. The interpretations which deviate from this are accordingly to be rejected, e.g., that of several rabbins, Grotius, Bertholdt, Stäudlin, etc., who think of Mars (who was evidently not a god of fortresses, but rather a god of battles), and that of Hitzig, who proposes to read אֱלוֹהַּ מִעֹז יָם, not to render “god of the sea fortress,” and that it should be referred to Melcarth or the Tyrian Heracles, making only the latter sentence of the verse to apply to Jupiter Capitolinus. The correct view is advocated by Gesenius, Dereser, Von Lengerke, Hävernick, Maurer, Ewald, and, generally, by a majority of recent writers, among them Vaihinger, Art. Meussim in Herzog’s Real-Encyklop.36—עַל־כַּנּוֹ, “upon his basis,” probably indicates that Antiochus should honor the specified divinity “on its pedestal,” hence in the form of a statue or an idol-image (Bertholdt, Hävernick, Von Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, etc.). A less probable opinion is that the words refer to the temple of Jupiter at Rome, as being the headquarters or seat of that god, to which Antiochus forwarded gifts (Kamphausen); and finally, the rendering “in his stead,” which was formerly current (Luther, Gesenius, de Wette, and more recently Kranichfeld and Füller), conflicts with the general usage and with the context, because the preceding verse did not confine its statements to a single Oriental deity, in the stead of which this new god was to arise, while the sing, suffix in כַּנּוֹ can hardly be held to possess a “distributive and illustrative” force (cf. Dan_11:20-21).37—And (the) god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold and silver, etc. This god with whom the ancestors of Antiochus were not acquainted was the god of fortresses just mentioned, not a different god (Hitzig), and still less qualiscunque Deus alius (Venema). Livy, XLII. 6, expressly mentions an embassy which Antiochus sent to Rome with a votive offering of golden vessels valued at 500 pounds (a portion of which would naturally be placed in the temple of the principal god).—הֲמֻדוֹת, “jewels, precious articles of small size,” is here equivalent to כְּלֵי חֲמֻדוֹת, 2Ch_20:25–Dan_11:39. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god; rather, “and he shall pursue the same course with the fortifications of the fortresses as with the strange god;” i.e., he shall recognize and honor them only, shall fix his attention on nothing else, the fortresses are his idols. The words are significant merely as an introduction to what is to follow; עִם in this place is merely a stronger form of כְּ, cf. Job_40:15; Job_9:26; Psa_120:4; Psa_143:7; Ecc_2:16. By approving of this explanation, which originated with Ewald, and which we are compelled to consider the only one that accords with the context, and that is adequately supported by the general usage of the language, we reject the numerous renderings which deviate from it, that have been imposed on the passage from of old, e.g., Vulg., “Et faciet, ut muniat Maozim cum Deo alieno, quem cognovit;” Luther, “And shall greatly honor those who aid him to strengthen Maeusim, with the strange god whom he has selected;” Bertholdt and Dereser, “And shall store them (the jewels) in the temples of the god of war; all who hold with the strange god,” etc.; Rosenmüller, Von Lengerke, Hävernick, “And in the manner which has been described he shall proceed with regard to the true feasts together with the strange gods,” etc.; Maurer, “Et sic ille versabitur in obtrudendo urbibus munitis Jove Capitolino, qui agnoverit illum” etc.; Kranichfeld (and similarly de Wette), “And he shall do it to the defensive fortresses with the aid of the strange god;” Füller, “And he is active for the fortifying of the strong holds with the strange god; whoso shall acknowledge,” etc.; Kliefoth, “And he shall act with the defensive fortress according to the mind of the strange god; whoso shall acknowledge,” etc.; Hitzig and Kamphausen, “And he shall provide for the defensive fortresses the people of a strange god, i.e., heathen colonists” (the two latter consequently transform עִם into עַם); [Keil, “With the help of this god, who was unknown to his fathers, he will so proceed against the strong fortresses that he will reward with honor, might, and wealth those who acknowledge him.”]—Whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory; rather, “To him who shall acknowledge (them), he shall make the honor great;” i.e., he shall confer great honor on those who, like himself, adore the god of fortresses, and consequently make an idol of fortifications and war in general. The persons in view are probably not the heathen subjects and military officers of the king, who naturally were already devoted to this martial god and the worship of fortresses, but primarily the Jews who apostatized to that religion, such as, e.g., a Jason, Menelaus, and others (2Ma_4:10; 2Ma_4:25; 2Ma_5:15).—And shall cause them to rule (or “be lords”) among (the) many; i.e., among the great mass of their nation. Füller, who identifies the הָרַבִּים with those noticed in Dan_11:33, i.e., with the theocratic Jews, probably goes too far in this; but he is doubtless correct in distinguishing the phrase “set them to be lords among many” from “to make them lords over many.”—And shall divide the land for gain, or “in reward,” i.e., in recompense for their apostasy. Nothing definite is stated with reference to a division of lands among the apostates by Antiochus in the passages that report his briberies and promises, 1Ma_2:18; 1Ma_3:30 et seq.; but it can scarcely be doubted that he employed this means also, and that especially such property as had been confiscated from obstinate Jews was conferred on the apostates.
Dan_11:40-45. Recapitulation of the warlike career of Antiochus Epiphanes, not distinguishing between his several campaigns against Egypt, as was the case in Dan_11:22 et seq., but merely noticing the general character of his attacks on that country, and their unfortunate results upon Judæa. The rather general character of this paragraph, which is analogous in this respect to the descriptions of the future drawn by earlier prophets, raises the expectation that these verses will prove to be especially original and free from interpolating additions—an expectation that will be verified by the exegesis of the several verses. Influenced by the words וּבְעֵת קֵץ, “and at the time of the end,” which appeared to relate to the final stages of the reign of Epiphanes, although the prophet probably employed it in the same general sense as in Dan_8:17 (with reference to the closing period of the pre-Messianic history in general); and led astray to a no less extent by the example of Porphyry, who, according to Jerome on this place, discovered the description of a fourth and last Egyptian campaign in this paragraph, which he supposed to belong to the year before that in which the reign of Antiochus closed (B.C. 165),38 a majority of modern expositors have also regarded these verses as a continuation of the historical narrative, whose special object was to describe the last warlike operations of Epiphanes against Egypt, Phoenicia, and Armenia. The Maccabæan books make no mention of these final wars of Antiochus, but report that he marched toward the east only, namely, to Babylonia, Elymais, and Persia, and that he died in the latter country (see 1Ma_3:37; 1Ma_6:1 et seq.); but this circumstance is explained, either by assuming that the writer of those books designedly ignored the wars in question, especially the fourth Egyptian and the Armenian campaigns (Hofmann, De bellis ab Antiocho gestis), or by declaring that his representations as a whole are not worthy of credit, and for that reason giving the preference to Porphyry’s statements as reported by Jerome (so especially Füller on this passage, p. 328 et seq.). The report of Porphyry, however, appears rather to have originated in a misapprehension of the paragraph under consideration; for the remaining historians of the time, and particularly Livy, Polybius, and Appian, are entirely ignorant of a fourth Egyptian campaign of Epiphanes, and the credibility of the Maecabæan books, especially of the first, cannot be assailed upon the ground of their statements respecting the final actions and the death of Epiphanes, nor in any other respect; see Wernsdorf, De fide Maccab., p. 58 ss, and Wieseler, Art. Antiochus Epiphanes in Herzog’s Real-Encyklop., I., 386 et seq. We therefore agree with Dereser, Von Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, and Kamphausen, in regarding Dan_11:40-45 as being in fact a kind of abbreviating and generalizing résumé of the contents of Dan_11:22-39; but we explain this peculiar feature by regarding that detailed narrative of the military career of Epiphanes, as the product of the interpolating activity of a pious Jew in the Maccabæan period, while we consider Dan_11:40-45 as being a portion of Daniel’s original prophecies uttered during the æra of the Captivity, which was left untouched upon the whole by the interpolator.39—And at the time of the end the king of the south shall push at him. On וּבְעֵת קֵץ see immediately above. יִתְנַגַּח, “shall push at,” accords fully with the genuine prophetic description of Dan_8:4. The Egyptian king clearly appears as the beginner of this conflict, for he is mentioned before the northern king. Consequently, on the assumption that a fourth Egyptian war is here spoken of, it will be necessary to hold that Ptol. Physcon and Philometor, encouraged by their alliance with the Romans, had ventured to attack the Syrian. It is hardly to be credited that the Roman historians, and especially Livy, should have been uninformed with regard to such a war, waged by one ally against another.40—And he shall enter into the countries, i.e., into the countries adjoining to Egypt through which his march against the latter kingdom would lead him, hence, into Cœle-Syria, Phœnicia, and Palestine.—And shall overflow (or “flow along”) and pass (or “surge”) over. The phrase employed in Dan_11:10, with reference to the war of Antiochus Epiphanes against Ptolemy Philopater, is entirely similar.
Dan_11:41. He shall enter also—rather, “and he shall enter”—into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown; rather, “and many shall be caused to fall.” The description is scarcely as concrete as the parallel in Dan_8:9-11, and may therefore be an original prophecy with equal probability. The case differs in Dan_11:28; Dan_11:31 et seq. The “many” who shall be caused to fall by the northern king are probably countries or nations, as appears clearly from b, and as the fem. רַבּוֹת likewise indicates (namely, אֲרָצוֹת). That plural is consequently not to be pointed רִבּוֹת, “ten thousands” (Psa_91:7), nor to be translated, with Ewald, by “rabbins, teachers of high grade,” and that interpretation to be taken as an evidence of the later composition of the book.—But these shall escape out of his hand, (even) Edom and Moab and the chief (or “kernel”) of the children of Ammon. רֵאשִׁ־ת בְּנֵי עַמּרֹן, properly, the principal power, the “firstlings of the power” of the children of Ammon (cf. Num_24:20; Jer_49:35; Amo_6:1), which probably relates to Rabbah, their chief city, and the principal seat of their power. The entire prophecy before us relative to the neighbors of Israel does not bear the look of a vatic. ex eventu; for although the Maccabæan book (1Ma_4:61; 1Ma_5:3-8) notices the assistance rendered to Epiphanes by the Edomites and Ammonites against the Jews, the mention of the Moabites in this place is so much the more remarkable, as that nation is never mentioned after the captivity as maintaining an independent existence (Ezr_9:1 and Neh_13:1 afford no proof to contradict this statement, since the Moabites are not referred to in those passages from a historical point of view, but dogmatically, with reference to the passage in the law, Deu_23:3), and since the name of the Moabites had already been lost in the more comprehensive one of Arabians in the Maccabæan age. It is not strange, on the other hand, that a prophet of the time immediately subsequent to the Captivity should adduce the nations of Edom, Moab, and Ammon as leading representatives of tribal hostility to the theocracy,—not remarkable in the least; cf. the older prophetic parallels, Psa_10:10; Isa_11:14; Isa 25:10, 15, 16; Zep_2:8; Jeremiah 43; Jer_49:1-6; Eze_25:1-14; Eze_21:20; Eze_21:28, etc. Kranichfeld remarks correctly: “The Edomites, like the Moabites and Ammonites, showed themselves the most persistent allies of the oppressors of Israel among all its neighboring relatives; and when the Chaldæan catastrophe broke in upon Judah, they proved themselves her most bitter enemies. From that period, the complaint against this treacherous nation, so regardless of fraternal ties, is poured out more persistently, and the cry for revenge upon it is repeated more urgently, than against Babylon itself; cf. Obadiah; Jer_49:7-22; Lam_4:21-22; Eze_25:12-14; Ezekiel 35; Eze_36:5; Psa_137:7 et seq.; Mal_1:1-8. Although Edom, Moab, and Ammon, of all others, were connected with Israel by ties of relationship, and therefore were bound to maintain cordial relations with it in the very nature of their connection, it is precisely these nations, the unnatural oppressors of Israel, that enter into the conception of every theocrat, and especially of the prophets, as the historical representatives of all hostility against the theocracy; and as their subjugation revives the Messianic hopes (Psa_40:10; Isa_11:14; Isa_25:10), so the picture of the bloody humiliation of Edom is occasionally introduced to represent the Messianic universal triumph in Isa_43:1-6,” etc.
Dan_11:42. He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries, i.e., upon the aggregate of the southern countries generally; cf. Dan_11:41 a, to which the words before us are related as a generalizing repetition. [?]—And the land of Egypt shall not escape.41 לֹא תִחְיֶה לִפְלֵיטָה, properly, “shall not be among the escaped ones;” cf. Joe_2:3; Jer_50:29; 2Ch_20:24; Ezr_9:14.
Dan_11:43. And he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt. cf. supra, Dan_11:28, where the great booty was mentioned which Antiochus carried away on his return from the second Egyptian campaign, while the statement here is very general in its character, and notices the confiscation of treasures in Egypt once for all.—And the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps, as enforced auxiliaries, who were compelled to follow the victorious king of the north, as was Egypt in former times (cf. Eze_30:5; Jer_46:9). The fact that this feature is recorded in no other authorities is an additional evidence for the genuine character of this prophecy (against Hitzig).42 Concerning בְּמִצְעָדָיו, “in his following or train,” cf. the analogous בְּרַגְלָיו, in Jdg_4:10; Jdg_5:15; also Exo_11:8.
Dan_11:44. But tidings (“rumors”) out of the east and out of the north shall trouble (or “alarm”) him; therefore he shall go forth with great fury, to destroy and utterly to make away many. The masculine plural יְבַהֲלוּהןּ is employed here, “in view of the omission from the general idea of the statement, of the subject which originates the rumors.” cf. the analogous case in Dan_2:33. The “alarming rumors out of, the east and north” may, in fact, be referred to the expedition which Antiochus undertook shortly before he died (B.C. 166, or 147 ær. Sel.—see 1Ma_3:37), against the Parthians under Arsaces and against the Armenians under Artaxias, and which resulted in at least the subjugation and capture of the Armenian king (see Tacitus, Hist., Dan_11:8; Appian, Syr. 45, 46). This thought is at any rate less forced than that which refers the words to the brutal treatment accorded to Jerusalem, which was mentioned in Dan_11:30 et seq, and also to the alleged rebellion of the Aradians in Phœnicia, which is mentioned only by Porphyry in the passage cited by Jerome (see note above; against Hitzig). It is, however, by no means necessary to regard this passage as a vatic. ex eventu; on the contrary, it is exceedingly possible that the remarkable correspondence between its statements and the historical fact that Antiochus Epiphanes was recalled from his warlike operations in the south by those insurrections in the north and east, became the very occasion which led the Maccabæan interpolator to introduce into the preceding verses (22–39) allusions, still more specific in character, to the history of the wars of the antitheistic tyrant, with a view to represent his entire career as having been foretold by Daniel in all its successive stages.43
Dan_11:45. And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace44 between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; rather, “between seas and the mountain of the holy ornament.” צְבִי־קֹדֶשׁ הַר, the “mount of the holy ornament,” certainly denotes Mount Zion, the mount on which the temple at Jerusalem was erected (cf. צבי, Dan_8:9, and ארץ הצבי, Dan_11:16; Dan_11:41, as designations of the holy land); and the plural יַמִּים must be regarded, with Hitzig, Kranichfeld, etc., and with equal certainty, either as a poetical designation of the Mediterranean Sea (cf. Job_6:3; Sir_1:2), or, with Venema, Füller, and others, as denoting the two seas between which mount Zion is situated—the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. The latter view, on which the plural is employed for the dual, is the best recommended, on account of the absence of the article from יַמִּים. There is certainly no reference to any locality outside of the holy land, as Porphyry, l. c., held, referring the two “seas” to the rivers Euphrates and Tigris, and misunderstanding the choice poetical expression אָהְָלֵי אַפַּדְנוֹ, “tents of his palace” (cf. the corresponding Syr. word for אַפֶּדֶן, “palace,” and also Jer_43:10, Targ.), to the extent of assuming a place between those rivers, and bearing the name of Apedno, as the resting-place of Antiochus while contending against the Armenians and Parthians; or, as Dereser and Hävernick have interpreted it in modern times, rendering אַפַּדְנוֹ correctly, but making the “mount of the holy ornament” to designate the “mount of the sanctuary of Nanæa,” which lies between the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, and near which they believe Antiochus to have died,—a view which Hitzig justly characterizes as “a monstrosity,” and which is equally unfortunate in interpreting either הַר צְבִי־קֹדֶש or יַמִּים.—But he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. The death of Antiochus did not take place in Judæa itself, nor did it occur immediately after his final sojourn in that country, when his camp was in the vicinity of Jerusalem (having returned from the third Egyptian war in B.C. 168.—On the location of his camp, cf. 2Ma_5:24 with 1Ma_1:29 et seq.), but rather from two to three years later, in connection with the campaign against the Parthians and Armenians, and in the Persian town of Tabæ (Τάβαι). which Polyb., XXXI. 11, and. Porphyry, in Jerome on this passage, agree in representing as the place of his decease; cf. in addition 1Ma_6:4; 1Ma_6:8.45 So sudden a transition from the scene of the over-confident oppressor’s sojourn in the holy land to that of his irretrievable destruction, which did not take place until after a considerable interval, is a decided proof of the genuine prophetic character of this passage.46 A testimony of no less weight is found in the analogy of the peculiar expression קִצּוֹ וּבָא עַד to the former descriptions in Dan_8:25; Dan_9:26, and in the poetic coloring of the entire representation. As a characteristic feature in the latter regard, we notice the words וְאֵ־ן עֹזֵר לוֹ (cf. the shorter וְאֵין לוֹ, Dan_9:26), which serve as a transition to Dan_12:1-3, and form an expression that refers in very general terms to the irretrievable and irrevocable character of his destruction. It would be useless to look for an indication of insanity (Polyb., l. c.) or of painful disease (2Ma_9:5; 2Ma_9:9; 2Ma_9:28), as having preceded the death of Epiphanes, in these words.
ethico-fundamental principles related to the history of salvation, apologetical remarks, and homiletical suggestions.
1. Our exegetical examination has resulted in leading us to regard the opening and closing verses of the section as having originated with Daniel, or more particularly, those portions of the prophecy which relate to the development of the Persian empire and to the first beginnings of the Javanic world-power (Dan_11:2-4), together with those that refer to the Old-Test, antichrist as the last representative of the Græcian world-kingdom (Dan_11:40-45); while we saw cause to regard the portion intervening between the two just indicated (Dan_11:5-39) as being composed of both genuine and interpolated elements. It is impossible to assert that the intermediate section is spurious throughout, because it affords many traces of original prophecy, which may be recognized by the comparative discrepancy of their statements with the corresponding facts in the history of the Seleucidæ and the Lagidæ (see, e.g., Dan_11:14; Dan_11:19; Dan_11:26; Dan_11:34; Dan_11:39). By far the larger portion, however, seems to have been inserted by a later hand, since the parallels found in former descriptions of the future, viz.: Dan_7:24; Dan_8:9,—passages which likewise refer to the period intervening between Alexander the Great and Antiochus Epiphanes,—are exceeded by it to an almost incredible degree in regard to the specific character of its predicted details.47 It follows the succession of the Seleucid monarchs and their conflicts with the Ptolemies with such conscientious accuracy, that it may almost be considered an attempt to demonstrate the ideal tenfold number of the horns of the fourth beast in Dan_7:24, in the particulars of history. This, however, becomes improbable from the circumstance that the number of the Syrian kings who are mentioned is by no means exactly ten, but that, on the contrary, their succession is followed in a decidedly imperfect manner, as appears from the overlooking of Antiochus Soter (see on Dan_11:6), and from the confused interchange of the earliest kings in general (see on Dan_11:5-9). We observed in a former paragraph (Eth. -fund, principles on chap. 7 No. 3, a) that it could not be proven that the writer of this book assigns exactly ten kings to the period from Alexander the Great to Antiochus Epiphanes, or that he was acquainted with precisely four kings of Persia, and no more (see on Dan_11:2). The arrangement of the series of Seleucid kings according to a numerically symbolic plan, can in nowise be asserted, whether the chapter before us be regarded as the genuine production of Daniel throughout, or as enriched [?] by later additions of the Maccabæan age. On the other hand, there can be no question that it was the design of the originator of this exact description of the history of the Seleucidæ and the Lagidæ, whether Daniel himself or an inspired [?] reader of his book in the Maccabæan period were that writer, to demonstrate that the Maccabæan period, and it alone, formed the point in which the entire series of prophecies in the book are centred, and consequently that it constituted the immediate preparation for the Messianic period of salvation. It became necessary, “on the beginning of the predicted unexampled trial, to enable the Jewish nation to trace, step by step, that it was by the counsel of God that it should begin under precisely those circumstances, and in precisely that juncture of the progress of history” (Delitzsch). It was necessary “to connect the advent of the post Macedonian tyrant with the time of Daniel by so continuous a chain of the most particular events, that it would be evident that no hiatus could intervene between the time of Daniel and that tyrant, in which the Messiah might appear” (Ebrard; see supra on Dan_11:5). cf. also Füller, pp. 362, et. seq., 368.
2. The fundamental ethical and Messianic principle of the section coincides substantially with its aim, as it was pointed out in the preceding paragraph, and as we are compelled to formulate it in common with nearly all the orthodox expositors of recent times, despite our doubts concerning its unimpaired genuineness. God will not desert his people in the changing fortunes of the world, or amid the tempestuous thronging of the nations and the tumults of the wars incited by the monarchs of the earth. Even though they be pressed during centuries between mighty contending empires as between two millstones, and be unable in their own power to prevent the raging of such foes, God will not permit them to be either ground or crushed. He does not permit the chosen people of His heritage to be overwhelmed, even though the oppressor’s power should reach its highest stage, and though to his violent attempts to suppress that people by force should be added the most flattering arts of dissimulation and the most dangerous spiritual trials (cf. Dan_11:31 et seq.). Indeed, it is precisely when the need is highest, that He comes nighest with His aid and deliverance; precisely when to human wisdom every prospect of rescue has been lost, does the judgment of God break in on the oppressor and snatch him away to irretrievable ruin—“and there is none to help him” (Dan_11:45). The particularizing description of the tedious conflicts between the kingdoms of the north and south is evidently designed to illustrate these truths, which are closely connected with the fundamental thought of chap. 8. These truths would still constitute the ethical kernel of this section, even if the portion that is probably interpolated, Dan_11:5-39 (where the prophecy becomes transformed into actual history), were conceived of as being wholly expunged; but they form its leading thought in a more obvious sense, when it is remembered that that portion is at least largely composed of genuine prophecies relating to the time between Alexander and Antiochus Epiphanes. It must accordingly be admitted, even on the assumption of the partially interpolated character of the section which we have adopted, that the prophecy enters upon the course of history from the Persian æra to the Asmonæan period with an unusual fulness of detail, and does this because it accorded with the Divine purpose to afford the suffering confessors of the latter epoch a strong certainty that their afflictions constituted the woes, the immediate precursors of the Messianic æra of deliverance. To the extraordinary trials of the Maccabæan age, the wise providence of God designed to oppose a means of comfort and strength possessing extraordinary power, in this unusually specific portion of Daniel’s prophecies. “If that affliction was unique in its kind, is it wonderful that the people was armed against it, and strengthened to endure it, by means that are likewise unique in their kind? … The war which Antiochus waged against Israel was not like other wars. He aimed to destroy its religion; and therefore this war is represented as a contest against God and His service. In such a war Israel stood alone and without allies, in the resistance it opposed to the powerful king and his armies. In proportion as it was deprived of ordinary means of power and resistance, and was confined to the exercise of confidence in the aid of its God, in that proportion it was necessary to strengthen its trust; and this was accomplished by means of this unique detailed prophetic description of the tribulation and the history which should precede it” (Füller, p. 363; cf. Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf., I:313).—We have assumed that a pious [!] theocratic investigator of the Scriptures in that period of trial, affected and surprised by the marvellously exact correspondence between the prophecy and the history of his time, sought to give a still more direct form to that correspondence, and to remove the last remains of apparent discrepancy between the prediction and the recent historical past, by inserting into the prophetic text a series of vaticinia ex eventu; but this can no more destroy the incomparable value and the inspired character of the prophecy before us, than, for instance, the interpolations perpetrated on the somewhat analogous predictions of the abbot Joachim of Floris († 1202) by later mystical observers of the history of the Middle Ages, for the purpose of adapting them as accurately as possible to the facts in which they were realized, can throw doubt upon the high prophetic endowment of that personage [?], or can bring into question the occurrence of really genuine prophecies in his writings (cf. Neander, Kirchengesch., vol. II, p. 451 et seq.; Gieseler, II. 2, p. 354, No. 8; 356, No. 9). The interpolating activity of his later admirers did not destroy the fame as a genuine prophet of that celebrated apocalyptist of the twelfth century, who, as is well known, foretold the rise of two new orders, a preaching order and a contemplative order, during the period immediately subsequent to his own, and by that very means gave occasion to the more strict (or spiritual) party among the Franciscans in the thirteenth century to construct as perfect a concordance as was possible between his predictions and the history of the origin of their own order and that of the Dominicans; nor was his contemporary, S. Hildegard († 1197), who predicted the Reformation and the order of the Jesuits (Epist., p. 160; cf. Neander, ibid., p. 448 et seq.) deprived of her fame as a richly endowed prophetess [?], by the interpolated additions which were doubtless; made to her prophecies at a later period.48 With equal, and still greater truthfulness, it may be asserted that the prophetic and inspired character of this book is not materially injured, in any way whatever, by the opinion that the present section has received certain adaptations and particularizing additions from a later hand, and that by this opinion, e.g., its accurate references to the expedition of Ptol. Evergetes for conquest (Dan_11:7-8), to the warlike operations of Antiochus Magnus (Dan_11:11-19), and to the three Egyptian campaigns of Epiphanes (Dan_11:22-30) are most readily explained.49
3. This chapter apparently presents but few points, or none at all, for practical or homiletical treatment, as it is composed almost exclusively of prophetic descriptions of special historical events. Even the thought just presented, that the wonderful adaptation of the prediction to particular events, was conditioned upon the extraordinary severity of the Maccabæan sufferings and oppressions, seems to afford but little opportunity for practical and edifying application. Instead of emphasizing that idea in a one sided manner, it will be better to seize on the ethical centre of the entire prophetic historical picture, or, in other words, on the truth that God will not desert His people and His holy covenant in any of the storms and changing events of the history of the nations, but that He will send deliverance in the precise moment when their need has reached its highest point—and to make this the starting point and principal object of study. The practical fundamental thought of the section is consequently the same in substance as that contained in Psa_46:2-6 : “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore will we not fear though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Still the city of God shall be glad with its fountain [so Luther], where are the holy tabernacles of the Most High. God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved; God shall help her, and that right early.”—The fundamental thought, reduced to a briefer form, may also be expressed as follows: The Lord causes the mighty millstones (the northern and southern kingdoms) between which the people of his heritage is placed like an insignificant and impotent grain of corn, to crush each other rather than that object of their bitter oppression; or, Where the need is highest, there is God’s aid nighest; or, “For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee” (Isa_54:7; cf. Lam_5:20; Psa_37:25; Heb_13:5, etc.).
Homiletic suggestions on particular passages.
On Dan_11:2, Melancthon, “Est hœc prœdictio testimonium illustre, quod a Deo traditam esse Prophetarum doctrinam ostendit. Et quia pollicetur liberationem, significat Deo curœ esse hunc populum, qui doctrinam propheticam amplectitur. Confirmantur ergo pii, ne a Deo deficiant, ne abjiciant hujus doctrinœ professionem. Pertinet autem postrema pars hujus longœ concionis etiam ad hanc ultimam mundi œtatem et ad Ecclesiœ œrumnas, quas tulit jam multis sœculis; dum alibi Mahometica rabies conatur prorsus delere nomen Filii Dei, alibi regnant Episcopi ethnico more et studia, ecclesiastica negligunt, sinunt extingui lucem Evangelii, proponunt idola et libidines, injuste occidunt homines innocentes propter verœ; doctrinœ professionem (therefore the supplanting of Christianity by the Pope and the Turks—a New Test, counterpart to the advance of the northern and southern kingdoms against Israel). Hœc mala pii considerent, ut primum a Deo petant, ut ipse Ecclesiam suam servet, regat, foveat et augeat; deinde si qui possunt aliquibus vulneribus mederi, annitantur prosua vocatione” etc.
On Dan_11:33, Calvin: “Hœc circumstantia magnum pondus in se continet, quia videmus multos ad tempus satis virili esse et intrepido animo, postea languescere et tandem evanescere, ut fiant prorsus sui dissimiles. Angelus autem hic promittit fore insuperabilem constantiam eorum, qui sustinebuntur Dei spiritu, ita ut non uno tanturn die vel mense vel anno certent, sed subinde colligant animos et nova certamina, neque unquam deficiant.”—Cramer: “God supports his own even in the most violent persecutions, and preserves them from apostasy.”—Starke: “A real Christian must venture his body, life, and all that he has, for the glory of God.”
On Dan_11:35, Calvin: “Sequitur, nullos pollere tanta sanctimonia et puritate, quin adhuc resideant in ipsis aliquœ sordes, quœ purgationem exigunt, ita ut ipsis necesse sit transire per fornacem, et mundari instar auri et argenti. Hoc ad omnes Dei martyres extenditur. Unde etiam videmus, quam insulse Papistœ imaginentur merita Sanctorum ad nos redumdare, quoniam plus quam necesse erat prœstiterint.”—Osiander: “God has set a limit to every persecution, beyond which it cannot pass.”—Starke: “The trial is succeeded by the time of refreshing, and the suffering by the time of rejoicing; Tob. 3:31.”
On Dan_11:39 et seq.: “Upon the surface the worshippers of the beast seem to prosper, but they are eventually compelled to realize that their honors and possessions are not eternal in their duration, while the followers of the Lamb shall enjoy everlasting glory.… (On Dan_11:44 et seq.): Although God permits many an evil purpose to be executed, His forbearance toward the godless is always merely for a time; Psa_50:21.”
Footnotes:
[1][מֵישָׁרִים, literally equities, hence a compact as to what is agreed upon as right between the parties. It here seems to refer especially to the terms or provisos of the alliance, the marriage being one of the main conditions or considerations.
[2]The pronoun is emphatic.
[3]יְשָׁרִים probably, like מֵישָׁרִים above, contains an allusion to the rights of a contract, and may therefore signify allies.]
[4][“Moreover, this assertion (that the O. T. only knows of four Persian kings) is not at all correct; for in Neh_12:22, besides those four, there is mention made also of a Darius, and to the Jews, in the age of the Maccabbees there was well known, according to 1Ma_1:1, also the name of the last Persian king, Darius, who was put to death (defeated) by Alexander.”—Keil.]
[5][This interpretation is altogether vague and unnecessary. The meaning obviously is not that there should thereafter be only four more Persian kings in all, but merely that the next three should bring down the history as far as the prophetic vision extended in this regard, i.e., down to the breaking out of the conflict between Persia and Greece. Thus “the three kings who shall yet (עֹרד) arise are the three successors of Cyrus, viz. Cambyses, the pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspis: the fourth is then Xerxes, with whom all that is said regarding the fourth perfectly agrees. Thus Hävernick, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Auberlen, and Kliefoth interpret.”—Keil.]
[6][This computation is manifestly inconsistent, for it confounds the “fourth” with the one just said to be the third.]
[7][“From the conflict of Persia with Greece, the angel (Dan_11:3) passes immediately over to the founder of the Græcian (Macedonian) world-kingdom: for the prophecy proceeds not to the prediction of historical details, but mentions only the elements or factors which constitute the historical development. The expedition of Xerxes against Greece brings to the foreground the world-historical conflict between Persia and Greece, which led to the destruction of the Persian kingdom by Alexander the Great.”—Keil.]
[8][As we have already remarked, this peculiarity of detail does not argue a want of genuineness here. It is impossible to sever this portion from the preceding and following predictions, which present no such “suspicious” features, without making an irreparable hiatus in the prophecy as a whole. Indeed this very part constitutes the gist of the entire disclosure, for it is this alone that immediately and intimately concerns the theocracy. The unprecedented and unparalleled character of the Antiochian persecution, as a chapter in Jewish history, justifies the minuteness and earnestness of the portraiture. The rest of this prophecy is but introduction and sequel to this central delineation. The careful reader will note that Daniel does not give a syllabus of secular history, but only sketches the course of those collisions which should affect the religious status and relations of Israel. The character and conduct of the Antiochian antichrist could not be fully appreciated without a setting forth of these connections.]
[9][Keil lays great stress upon the objection that Seleucus was not one of Ptolemy’s generals, as the text requires; but his own account of the history makes him out to have been so at least for a time.]
[10][This substantially agrees with the rendering of Keil, who, however, is rather refined in his view of the construction: “The subject to לאׄ יְַעַמד is the מֶלֶךְ נֶכֶד; and his, i.e., this king’s, help is his own daughter, who should establish מֵישָׁרִים by her marriage with the king of the north. וּזְרֹעוֹ is a second subject subordinated or co-ordinated to the subject lying in the verb: he together with his help. We may not explain the passage: neither he nor his help, because in this case הוּא could not be wanting, particularly in comparison with the following היא.”]
[11][Keil somewhat extends this objection: “The prophecy differs from the historical facts, not merely in regard to the consequences of the events, but also in regard to the matter itself; for it speaks not only of the daughter but also of her father, being given up to death, while the natural death of her father is in no way connected with that marriage, and not till after his death did the consequences fatal to his daughter and her child develop themselves.” Such niceties of verification in a prophecy so concise and incidental we may safely leave to the candor of the reader.]
[12][Surely the exact agreement of prophecy with history ought not to be an objection with any except those who deny the possibility of prediction at all. At other times the lack of this agreement is made by the author the ground of the same objection.]
[13][This argument resolves itself simply into the conceded fact that the prophecy in question is unusually specific. But what of that? Was not the Spirit of revelation competent to impart particulars, if need be? The author’s reasoning is purely of a piece with the presumptions of rationalism.]
[14][The author’s remarks sufficiently meet the objection of Keil that “the announcement of the war of his (Callinicus) sons with many hosts overflowing the land is not confirmed by history;” but to make all clear we add the following from Stuart: “The sons of Seleucus Callinicus were Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus Magnus. The former of these two began the war against Egypt, in Asia Minor, where Egypt had tributary or allied provinces. He perished in the contest there. Antiochus Magnus then led on his army toward Egypt; and hence וּכָא בוֹא in the singular. The infin. being after the definite verb denotes the continued advance of the army under Antiochus.”]
[15][Keil likewise, though he admits that יַעֲמֹד מִן might well bear the sense of abstaining from, yet adduces plausible reasons from the context in favor of the sense to stand before. It is difficult, however, to see how this signification can be legitimately extracted from the words.]
[16][Keil. however, somewhat arbitrarily declares that “הֶחָמוֹן, with the article, can only be the host of the king of the north.” He contends that “the meaning is this: ‘As the multitude rises up, so his heart is lifted up.’ ”]
[17][It certainly may with justice “be denied that there is here such a discrepancy.” There is, indeed, some indistinctness, owing chiefly to our inability to determine the exact application of the term “fall” here. It is clear, however, that it indicates a failure of their expectations; and of this, in the case of the apostate Jews referred to, history affords sufficient confirmation. “The apostasy of one party among the Jews from the law of their fathers, and their adoption of heathen customs contributed to bring about that oppression with which the theocracy was visited by Antiochus Epiphanes” (Keil). On the author’s view, that these specifications were interpolated into the prophecy by a later hand, it is impossible to account for any such vagueness, much less “discrepancy;” for the forger would certainly have taken pains to conform his language to the well-known facts.]
[18][Keil again objects: “Here also the historical events fall far behind the contents of the prophecy, which points to the complete subjugation of the king of the south, whereas this war was carried on solely for the possession of the Asiatic provinces of the Egyptian kingdom. Also the rising up of many (רַבִּים, Dan_11:14) against the king of the south is not historically verified; and even the relation spoken of by Josephus (Ant., XII. 3, 3) in which the Jews stood to Antiochus the Great was not of such a kind as to be capable of being regarded as a fulfilling of the ‘exalting themselves’ of the בְּחֵי פָרִיצִים, Dan_11:14. Still less does the statement of Dan_11:16, that the king of the north would stand in the glorious land, agree with the כָּלָה interpreted of the conduct of Antiochus the Great against the Jews; for, according to Josephus (Ant., l. c), he treated the Jews about Jerusalem favorably, because of their own accord they had submitted to him, and had supported his army; and he granted to them not only indulgence in regard to the observance of their religious ordinances, but also afforded them protection.” These minute points of apparent variation are sufficiently met by the explanations given above. We cannot refrain, however, from observing here how completely these seeming discrepancies with the facts of history disprove our author’s theory of an interpolation of this part of the prophecy by a later writer; for such a person would surely have been careful to conform his writing scrupulously to the known historical data.]
[19][“הָנָּשִׁים, of women, the plural of the class, as in Jdg_14:5” ’ (Keil). The plur. gives a kind of superlative force, indicating her choiceness, beauty, etc.]
[20][Still the construction proposed is harsh, for the subject of the verb is naturally כַּת חַנָּשִׁים. Her destruction, “it is true, was not the object of the marriage, but only its consequence; but the consequence is set forth as had in view, so as forcibly to express the thought that the marriage could lead, according to a higher direction, only to the destruction of the daughter. The last clauses of the verse express the failure of the measure adopted. The verbs are fem., not neut.; thus the meaning is: … ‘she (the daughter) shall not stand.’ not be able to carry out the plan contemplated by her father. The words וְלאׄ־לוֹ תִחְיֶה do not stand for וְלאׄ תִהְוֶה לוֹ, ‘she shall not be to him,’ or ‘for him.’ In that case, לאׄ must be connected with the verb. According to the text, לאׄ־לוֹ forms one idea, as לאׄ כוֹחַ impotent, (cf. Ewald, § 270); ‘she shall be a not for him,’ i.e., he shall have nothing at all from her.”—Keil.]
[21][Yet Keil insists that “this prophecy of the undertaking of the king of the north against the islands has not its historical fulfilment in the expedition of Antiochus the Great against the coasts and islands of Asia Minor and the Hellespont.”]
[22][Keil objects to the signification moreover, assigned to בִּלְתִּי, that “in all places where it is so rendered a negative sentence goes before it, cf. Gen_43:3; Gen_47:18; Jdg_7:14, or a sentence asking a question with a negative sense, as Amo_3:3-4. Hence בִּלְתִּי here has the idea of exception, and can only be rendered after an affirmative statement by however, for the passage introduced by it limits the statement going before.”]
[23][Nevertheless, the plur. here is not to be strained to exactness, and the temple referred to may very well be taken as a representative of the native fortifications, especially as it was so vigorously defended as to cause the death of the assailant.]
[24][Keil still insists that “what is said regarding his return to the fortresses of his own land and his own throne, does not so correspond with the historical issue of the reign of this king, that one would be able to recognize therein a prediction of it.” Yet such a prediction has actually been recognized by interpreters of all ages.]
[25][Keil, however, objects to “this interpretation of the words as too limited. נָגַשׁ denotes, no doubt (2Ki_23:35), to collect gold and silver; but it does not thence follow that נוֹגֶשׁ, when silver and gold are not spoken of, means to collect tribute. The word in general designates the taskmaster who urges on the people to severe labor, afflicts and oppresses them as cattle. הֶדֶר מַלְכוּת is not synonymous with אֶרֶץ הַצְּבִי, Dan_11:16, but stands much nearer to הוֹד מַלְכוּת, Dan_11:21, and designates the glory of the kingdom. The glory of the kingdom was brought down by נוֹגֵשׁ and הֶעֱכִיר refers to the whole kingdom of the king spoken of, not merely to the Holy Land, which formed but a part of his kingdom. By these oppressions of his kingdom he prepared himself in a short time for destruction.”]
[26][Keil’s objection: “The reference of these words, ‘in days few,’ to the time after the pillage of the temple of Jerusalem by Heliodorus is not only an arbitrary proceeding, but is also contrary to the import of the words, since בְּ in בְּיָמִימ does not mean past,” has little force, even if we accept his interpretation of נוִגֵשׁ preceding; for that term evidently constitutes a fresh date or starting-point.]
[27][Keil once more urges that “of Seleucus Philopater, to whom Dan_11:20 must refer, if the foregoing verses treat of Antiochus the Great, nothing further is communicated than that he, ‘quum paternis cladibus fractas admodum Syriœ opes accepisset, post otiosum nullisque admodum, rebus gestis nobilitatum annorum duodecim regnum, was put to death through the treachery of Heliodorus, unius ex puratis (Livy, LXI. Dan 19: cf. App., Syr., C. 45), and the mission of Heliodorus to Jerusalem to seize the treasures of the temple, which is fabulously described in 2Ma_3:4 ff. The יִשָּׁחֵר (shall be destroyed) of this king בְּיָמִים אְַחָדִים (within a few days) does not harmonize with the fact of his twelve years’ reign.”]
[28][The fact that he is not here styled מָשִׁיח serves to distinguish him from the personage so designated there.]
[29][Keil objects that the interpretation of this cutting off of the “prince of the covenant.” as referring to the murder of Onias III., “is not warranted by the facts of history. That murder does not at all relate to the matter before us, not only because the Jewish high-priest at Antioch did not sustain the relation of a ‘prince of the covenant,’ but also because the murder was perpetrated without the previous knowledge of Antiochus, and when the matter was reported to him, the murderer was put to death by his command (2Ma_4:36-38).” Still the fact remains that Onias was slain by his agents, however much he disavowed or even regretted the occurrence. To deny the propriety of the epithet “prince of the covenant” as a title of the high-priest is arbitrary, as also the interpretation: “We must, therefore, with Kranichfeld, understand נְגִיד בְּרִית, in undefined generality, of covenant princes in general,” There is little force in Stuart’s comment that the latter phrase is “not the high-priest Onias, the prince of the Jewish covenant, as Rosenmuller maintains, for then הַבְּרִית would of course be employed. בְּרִית is designed for a mere adjective of quality or condition here, and the article is omitted, as it is more generally in such cases.…. If Rosenmüller be in the right, the order of time would be inverted, and a ὕστερον πρότερον must consequently be admitted in the course of the narrative, which is improbable.” “The absence of the article in בְּרִית is no proof against the reference of the word to the holy covenant. The article is wanting where otherwise the determination is found from the connection, e. g., Dan_8:13” (Keil).]
[30][“But to distribute money and spoil is nothing unheard of, and in no way does it agree with the ‘fattest provinces.’ The context decidedly refers to conduct which injured the fat provinces. This can only consist in squandering and dissipating the wealth of this province which he had plundered to its injury (לִהֶם [to them], dativ. incommodi). A historical confirmation is found in 1Ma_3:29-31. To bring the provinces wholly under his power he devised plans against the fortresses that he might subdue them.”—Keil]
[31][The expression, “those who eat of his choice food probably means Lennæus and Eulæus, the guardians and state ministers of the young Ptolemy,” the same persons alluded to in the preceding verse as the members of his own court corrupted by the bribes of the Syrians.—Stuart.]
[32][The phrase is sufficiently justified by the hypocritical alliance. “At one table designates the dissembled amity and intimacy of the parties, who said and did all they could to mislead each other” (Stuart). Keil, after interpreting: “The evil doing consists in this, that the one seeks to overthrow and destroy the other under the cloak of feigned friendship; for they eat as friends at one table, and ‘speak lies’—the one tells lies to the other, professing friendship. But their design shall not succeed;” yet captiously adds: “All interpretations of these words which are determined by historical facta are arbitrary. The history of Antiochus Epiphanes furnishes no illustrations for this.” The above league affords abundant presumption of these facts, even if strictly understood.]
[33][Keil contends for the last of the above views, in accordance with his adopted theory of the final Antichristian “little horn;” but his arguments have little weight, in the face of the admitted identity of the persecuting “king” throughout this passage. His chief point is this: “If the contents of Dan_11:36-45 lie beyond the end of the enemy who has hitherto been spoken of, then ought his destruction to have been mentioned, especially since with the words, ‘to the time of the end, because yet for a time appointed,’ Dan_11:35, the words of Dan_11:27, ‘for yet the end of the time appointed, are resumed. All attempts to give to the former of these expressions, Dan_11:35, a different meaning from that contained in the latter, Dan_11:27 (Calovius, Geier, Kliefoth), amount to verbally impossible interpretations.” But surely this phrase might be understood to refer to different points of time, if the change in the connection required it. Even this, however, is not necessary. It is sufficient to apply it to the general issue of these troubles of the theocracy, and thus room is still left to introduce the sequel of Antiochus’s career, which in fact did not take place till the controversy about the Jewish worship was pretty well decided at Jerusalem by the first successes of the Maccabees.]
[34][Keil objects. “This does not agree with Antiochus. The ίσόθεα φρονεῖς ὺ̀περηφανῶς which is said of him, 2Ma_9:12, is not an exalting of himself above every god. ‘Antiochus was not an ἄθεος; he even wished to render the worship of Zeus universal; and that he once spoiled the temple does not imply his raising himself above every god’ (Kliefoth). Of Antiochus much rather, as is said by Livy (XIV. 20), ‘in duobus tamen honestisque rebus fere regius erat animus, in urbium donis et deorum cuitu,’ ” But this misses the main point of the portraiture of this persecuting tyrant throughout the entire series of these prophecies, which is not so much his utter godlessness and violence as the direction of these traits against the hitherto established usages of his own subjects; intolerance now first made religion a crime, and foreign deities were now for the first time forcibly imposed upon them. “The next verse shows that he had no regard for his country’s gods; and his whole course of life, his plundering the temple at Jerusalem, and finally in Elymais, shows the reckless and impious character of the tyrant. … The intimation here given, of disregarding the gods of his fathers, shows that the previous Græcian kings of Syria had adopted the gods of the Syrian nation; while Antiochus, who had lived some years at Rome, had learned to despise the Syrian gods, and to prefer the Jupiter Olympius and Xenias of the Greeks and Romans, The establishment of the worship of the former at Jerusalem, and of the latter at Samaria, shows that Antiochus was ambitious at times of imitating the Greeks and Romans” (Stuart). For this he was naturally applauded by Pagan historians, but the sacred seer penetrates the motives of policy that led to these occasional freaks of so-called piety, and paints his secret contempt for ail religion. That the person here described, however, was not wholly or externally irreligious is proved by Dan_11:38-39, which bring out the precise point of his impiety, namely, its foreign character.]
[35][Keil’s defence of the abstract interpretation is signally weak: “A verbal proof that חֶמְדַּת נָשִׁים denotes Anaïtis or Adonis as the favorite deity of women has not been adduced. For these words, desiderium mulierum, denote not that which women desire, but that which women possess which is desirable; cf. under 1Sa_9:20. But it is impossible that this can be Anaïtis or Adonis, but it is a possession or precious treasure of women. This desirable possession of women is without doubt love; so that, as C. B. Michaelis has remarked, the expression is not materially different from אַחֲבַת נָשִׁים, the love of women, 2Sa_1:26.” On the contrary, all the associated terms compel us to understand a concrete object of regard. As Keil himself admits, “The connection requires us to think of a deity, because these words are placed between two expressions which refer to the gods.”]
[36][Keil still objects; (1) “But according to the following passage, this god (worshipped by the person in question) was not known to his fathers. That could not be said either of Mars, Jupiter, or Melkart.” Keil has overlooked the description of this deity, which is not his ancestral god (although even then it would doubtless mean, as in Dan_11:37, the deity commonly worshipped in the country, i.e., Asiatic or Syrian), but “a strange god” (אֱלוהַּ נֵכָר, Dan_11:39). (2) “Add to this, ‘that if the statement here refers to the honoring of Hercules, or Mars, or Zeus, or Jupiter, then therewith all would be denied that was previously said of the king’s being destitute of all religion’ (Kliefoth).” We cannot see that this last discrepancy would be at all improved by the identification with any other deity whatever. It simply shows that the latter passage must not be so strictly interpreted. (3) “The words thus in no respect (?) agree with Antiochus, and do not permit us to think of any definite heathen deity.” Strange then that the descriptive epithet מָעֻזִּים should have been added by the sacred writer if he had so indefinite a worship in view, and stranger still that he should go on to characterize that reverence by the particulars given in this and the following verse.]
[37][On this Keil’s criticism seems in the main to be just: “עַל כַּנּוֹ does not signify on his foundation, pedestal, because the remark that he honored the god on his pedestal would be quite inappropriate, unless it had also been said that he had erected a statue to him. עַל כַּנּוֹ has here the same meaning as in Dan_11:20-21; Dan_11:7, ‘in his place or stead.’ But the suffix is not, with Kliefoth, to be referred to עַל כֹּל ‘in the place of all that which he did not regard,’ but it refers to כּל אֱלֹוהַּ, ‘in the peace of every god;’ which is not overthrown by the objection that in that case the suffix should have been in the plur., because the suffix is connected with the sing. אלזה The ‘god of fortresses’ is the personification of war, and the thought is this: He will regard no other god, but only war; the taking of fortresses he will make his god; and he will worship this god above all as the means of his gaining the world-power. Of this war god as the object of deification, it might be said that his fathers knew nothing, because no other king had made war his religion, his god, to whom he offered up in sacrifice all, gold, silver, precious stones, jewels.” We must take exception, however, to the incongruous idea of this last sentence respecting the deification of an abstract passion; nor can we see that in any reasonable or conceivable sense this could be said to characterize the king in question—be as who he may—above all his forefathers.]
[38]Jerome, T. V., p. 2, p. Dan 720: “Et hæc Porphyrius ad Antiochum refert, quod undecimo anno regni sui rursus contra sororis filium, Ptolemœum Philometorem dimicaverit. Qui audiens venire Antiochum congregaverit multa populorum millia: sed Antiochus quasi tempestas valida in curribus et in equitibus et in classe magna ingressus sit terras plurimas et transeundo uviversa vestaverit; veneritque ad terram inclytam, i.e., Judœam.… et arcem munierit de ruinis murorum civitatis et sic perrexerit in Ægyptum.”—Cf. farther the statements respecting the result of this expedition to Egypt, and respecting the connected expeditions toward the north and east, p. Dan 721:. “…Pugnans contra Ægyptios et Libyas Æthiopiasque pertransiens audiet sibi ab Aquilone et Oriente prœlia concitari, unde et regrediens capit Aradios resistentes et omnem in litore Phœnicis vastavit provinciam; confestimque pergit ad Artaxiam regem Armeniœ, qui de Orientis partibus movebitur; et interfectis plurimis de ejus exercitu, ponet tabernaculum suum in loco Apedno, qui inter duo latissima situs est flumina, Tigrim et Euphratem (Dan_11:45).”
[39][The author’s views here have evidently been biassed by his favorite theory of an interpolation of part of this prophecy. But the whole prediction is consecutive and naturally connected, without any repetition or redundancy. Keil, admitting a primary reference of this passage to Antiochus, argues against this supposition of a recapitulation or summary here. “If thus, according to Dan_11:35, the tribulation with which the people of God shall be visited by the hostile king for their purification shall last till the time of the end, then the time of the end to which the prophecies of Dan_11:40-45 fall cannot designate the whole duration of the conduct of this enemy, but only the end of his reign and of his persecutions, in which he perished (Dan_11:40). On the contrary, the reference to Dan_8:17 avails nothing, because there also עֵת קֵץ has the same meaning as here, i.e., it denotes the termination of the epoch referred to, and is there only made a more general expression by means of לְעֵת than here, where by בְּעֵת and the connection with Dan_11:35 the end is more sharply defined. To this is to be added that the contents of Dan_11:40-45 are irreconcilable with the supposition that in them is repeated in a comprehensive form what has already been said of Antiochus, for here (something new is announced, something of which nothing has been said before. This even Maurer and Hitzig have not been able to deny, but have sought to conceal as much as possible,—Maurer by the remark: ‘Res a scriptore iterum ac sœpius pertractatas esse, extremam vero manum operi defuisse;’ and Hitzig by various turnings—‘as it seems,’ ‘but is not precisely acknowledged,’ ‘the fact is nowhere else communicated’—which are obviously mere makeshifts.” Stuart thus defends the belief in another and final campaign of Antiochus: “Lengerke asserts the entire improbability of another and fourth invasion of Egypt and Palestine, on the ground that Antiochus was too weak and too poor to collect forces enough to carry on such a war with success. But 1Ma_1:27 seq. shows us that after Antiochus had heard of the notable defeat by Judas of his general Seron, ‘he was enraged, and gathered together all the forces of his kingdom, παρεβολὴν ἰσχυρὸν σψόδρα, an exceedingly great encampment.’ These he paid profusely, while in an attitude of preparation for active service, and thus exhausted his treasury, 1Ma_1:28-29. To Lysias, his general, he left one-half of his troops (1Ma_1:34), which amounted to 47,000 (Dan_11:39), with orders to subdue and partition out Palestine (Dan_11:35-36). Weak, then, Antiochus was not, at that time. It is indeed true that neither Appian, nor Polybius, nor Justin, nor Livy, nor Josephus have given us any particulars about this latest war of Antiochus; but who that has read their Syrian histories does not know that mere summaries, scraps, and fragments are all that remain of these writers in respect to Antiochus? Josephus depends on 1 Macc.; and this is mainly confined to the exploits of Judas and his brethren, Rosenmüller very appositely remarks: “Caremus omnino integra aliqua et continua de rebus Antiochi narratione, quœ a suœ œtatis scriptore aliquo fide digno literis sit mandate.’ The argumentum a silentio, specially in respect to ancient history, is far from being cogent and satisfactory. On the other hand, the accuracy of the statements in the book of Daniel, respecting the domain of Alexander’s successors, is on all hands admitted in other cases. Here it has narrated the events of an expedition, in Dan_11:40-43. with its usual minuteness, and apparently in good order. Why should this testimony be rejected? Nor does it stand alone. Jerome refers to Porphyry, who wrote against the book of Daniel, as saying with respect to Dan_11:40-43, that they relate to the last war of Antiochus. near the close of his lift?. … Let it be remembered that Jerome does not say a word to contradict this statement, although it made for his favorite object to do so it he could, inasmuch as he might then refer the passage to his favorite Antichrist. I do not see why the testimony of the book before us, the full confirmation of it by Porphyry, and the apparent consenting attitude of Jerome, do not place the matter before us fairly out of the reach of destructive criticism.”]
[40][The inconclusiveness of this reasoning is evident, for as the Romans themselves were not directly involved in this last campaign, a Roman historian may well have been ignorant or indifferent respecting it.]
[41][No one can fail to see how inept and trivial this statement would be if a mere recapitulation of what had been before declared so much more fully and explicitly.]
[42][But a later interpolator would not have failed to seize upon so remarkable a point, and would surely have incorporated it into his part, and even enlarged upon it from the history at his command.]
[43][On the contrary, had these clauses been introduced by such an interpolator, he would surely have been more definite in his allusions.]
[44][“נָטַע of planting a tent, only here used instead of the usual נָטָה, to spread out, to set up, probably with reference to the great palace-like tent of the Oriental ruler, whose poles must be struck very deep into the earth. cf. the description of the tent of Alexander the Great, which was erected after the Oriental type, in Polyæn., Strateg., IV. 3, 24, and of the tent of Nadir-Shah, in Rosenmüller, A. u. N. Morgenl., IV. p. 364f. These tents were surrounded by a multitude of smaller tents for the guards and servants, a circumstance which explains the use of the plural.”—Keil.]
[45][Stuart thus explains this seeming discrepancy: “But why is the mention of Antiochus’s encampment between the Mediterranean and Jerusalem here brought again to view, after the speaker had already followed him to the East? For the purpose of impression, I should say, rather than from any necessity of the case. ‘Look at the contrast’ (the speaker would seem to say); ‘now Antiochus encamps in his lofty tent like a palace, meditating the overthrow of the holy city and temple: next we see him in disgrace, and even in the agonies of death, stricken by an invisible and irresistible hand.’ The interest with which a Hebrew would survey this picture may be imagined, but cannot well be described.”]
[46][This remark of the author is doubtless by way of contrast with the more definite and historically correct utterances of the presumed interpolation preceding; as if an inexact—not to say untrue—prediction were a sure mark of authenticity in a prophet!]
[47][We dismiss this theory of the author by once more calling attention to the fact that these so-called interpolations are so intimately blended as component parts with the rest of the prophecy in which they are imbedded, that our author does not attempt to eliminate them, or even distinctly designate them. To do so would result in enervating and dislocating the whole. The authenticity of the entire passage must stand or fall together.]
[48]The Revelationes of S. Bridget (†1373) might also be adduced as an example in point: likewise the Quatrains of Nostradamus (1566), etc. [The Rationalistic tone of these comparisons of a book of Holy Writ with pseudo-apocryphal pretenders of modern times, is palpable.]
[49][This apology of the author for the wrecks of this passage after the expurgation from spurious additions—to an ill defined extent—is a vain plea. Once admit the fact of such interpolations, in any considerable degree at least, and the credit of the prophecy is irretrievably destroyed. Every one will be at liberty to expunge ad libilum what he fancies to be a vaticinium ex eventu.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2–4 three kings in Persia--Cambyses, Pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes. (Ahasuerus,…
three kings in Persia--Cambyses, Pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes. (Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, and Darius, in Ezr 4:6-7, Ezr 4:24). The Ahasuerus of Esther (see on Dan 9:1) is identified with Xerxes, both in Greek history and in Scripture, appearing proud, self-willed, careless of contravening Persian customs, amorous, facile, and changeable (Dan 11:2).
fourth . . . riches . . . against . . . Grecia--Xerxes, whose riches were proverbial. Persia reached its climax and showed its greatest power in his invasion of Greece, 480 B.C. After his overthrow at Salamis, Persia is viewed as politically dead, though it had an existence. Therefore, Dan 11:3, without noticing Xerxes' successors, proceeds at once to Alexander, under whom, first, the third world kingdom, Grecia, reached its culmination, and assumed an importance as to the people of God.
Read full note →
stir up all--Four years were spent in gathering his army out of all parts of his vast empire, amounting to two millions six hundred and forty-one thousand men. [PRIDEAUX, Connexion, 1.4, 1.410].
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1–4 1. R.V. reads,”And as for me, in the first…
1. R.V. reads,”And as for me, in the first year,” etc. This is a continuation of Gabriel’s speech which should not have been interrupted by a chapter heading. For Darius the Mede see our Introduction, III, 3, (5). It is hard to be certain of the meaning of this verse. The various versions show that this uncertainty extended back to the earliest times. The words as they stand in the Hebrew may mean either that Gabriel had strengthened Michael in a former combat some years previously, in return for which he now gives him help against the prince of Persia (Dan_10:13; Dan_10:21), or they may mean that this divine messenger had been on the side of Darius the Mede in his conflict with Belshazzar (Dan_5:30-31), thus emphasizing the fact once more that human kings get their thrones by heavenly help. The Greek version reads “Cyrus” here instead of Darius. This gives a new and important meaning to the statement of the angel, since it was in the first year of Cyrus that the edict for the return of the Jews to their own land was proclaimed. It would then mean that only by such supernatural agency could this victory for the Jews have been wrought, and that the same help was pledged to them in all their future history.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1–4 Dan_11:1. And as for me, in … I stood…
Dan_11:1. And as for me, in … I stood up to be a supporter and a stronghold unto him] I myself, also, in the first year of Darius, came forward to support Michael. As soon as ‘Darius the Mede’ (Dan_5:31, Dan_9:1) ‘received the kingdom,’ there was need for the defenders of Israel to co-operate on its behalf; and (it seems to be implied) it was through this angelic intervention that the natural hostility of Persia to Israel was turned to friendliness.
I stood up] The Heb. is peculiar, lit. my standing (was). One or two parallels can be quoted (as Jdg_19:9; Job_9:27); but the addition of a letter would give the normal Hebrew for I stood up (עמדתי for עמדי).
Read full note →
a supporter] prop. one holding strongly or firmly: see Isa_41:9; Isa_41:13; Eze_30:25.
stronghold] Dan_11:7; Dan_11:10; Dan_11:19; Dan_11:31; Dan_11:38-39; Isa_23:4; Isa_23:11 : here in a figurative sense, as often of Jehovah (e.g. Psa_27:1; Psa_28:1).
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1–4 (1) In the first year of Darius.—These words must…
XI.
(1) In the first year of Darius.—These words must be closely connected with the last verse of Daniel 10. The allusion is, most probably, to the fall of Babylon and the return from the Exile, at which time, as at the Exodus, the angel of the Lord went before His people. There is also a reference to Dan_6:22.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1–4 Vers. 1-45. THE KINGS OF THE NORTH AND THE…
Vers. 1-45. THE KINGS OF THE NORTH AND THE KINGS OF THE SOUTH.
Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. The versions show signs of great disturbance having happened here. The rendering of the LXX is, "In the first year of Cyrus the king, he told me to be strong and to play the man." Theodotion"s rendering is yet briefer, "And I, in the first year of Cyrus, stood in strength and might." The Peshitta rendering, "In the first year of Darius the Mede (he) arose to confirm and strengthen me." The Vulgate is close to the Massoretic and the English versions, "I likewise, from the first year of Darius the Mede, was standing that he might be confirmed and strengthened." The Revised Version does not differ seriously from the Authorized, "And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him." The Septuagint must have read rma (amar), "he said," instead of yna (anee), "I" When we have the Septuagint and Theodotion supporting each other against the Massoretic text, the evidence against the received text is strong. In this case both these versions have, as will be seen, not "Darius," but "Cyrus." The two names would have in the old Egyptian Hebrew script, a striking resemblance to each other; the fact that the last letter of both names is the same, and also the second letter, made the likeness considerable in any script; but the first letter of "Darius" is certainly very like the first letter of" Cyrus." The vav would possibly be omitted, then the first two letters of either name would resemble closely the first two letters of the other, and the final letters are the same. Mistake, then, was easy. The first letter of ydm and dlm is the same, and the words would be liable to be read in accordance with that given to the proper name. Further, all the versions but the Vulgate make the speaker the recipient of the aid. Theodotion may be taken as doubtful The difference is slight, ydm becomes dk, and wl becomes yli. The Septuagint seems to have read yM instead of dm. The first two letters are thus the same, the daleth may have been an intrusion. Bevan and Behrmann would omit the date as spurious, and hold it to have been introduced because the previous four chapters begin each with a date. This reason, to have weight, must assume the division into chapters to be of ancient date, more ancient than the Septuagint Version. The fact that all the versions have it compels us to admit a date here, but, as we have said above, it is to be reckoned by the year, not of Darius, but of Cyrus. (Also I) in the first year of Cyrus the king. The first year of Cyrus was the year when he decided to set the Jews free, and permit them to return to their own land; but the first year in this case was reckoned from his assumption of the throne of Babylon. We saw reason to doubt whether the reference in the beginning of ch. 10. was to the Babylonian reign of Cyrus, or to his reign as King of the Persians. His first year as King of the Persians might be when he first began to turn his arms against Babylon. We do not know enough of the history of the first years of Cyrus"s monarchy to know what critical events befell in that rear. Stood to confirm and strengthen him (me). According to the Massoretic text, the angel Gabriel stood to confirm either the archangel Michael or King Darius. Certainly, as Darius (Cyrus) is the nearer substantive, the grammatical preference would be to take it, as do Havernick, Hitzig, and Calvin. The majority of commentators who hold by the Massoretic text take "him" to refer to Michael and much can be said for this. Although Darius (Cyrus) is the nearest substantive, yet he is not the subject of the main sentence, but merely denotes a time, therefore a previous substantive must be chosen. In the opening of Cyrus"s career, the intimate connection his prosperity had with the prosperity of the people of Israel might well make Michael interested. As Cyrus had been prophesied of, he was under the rule of the angel of prophecy, hence Gabriel strengthened and confirmed the efforts of Michael. Certainly "strengthening" and "confirming" are strong terms to apply to the archangel Michael, yet we know so little of angelic natures and their limitations that the phrase may be quite natural. The meaning is not materially altered if we read, "He stood to strengthen and confirm me.
Read full note →
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES Vers. 1-4.
Revolutions in earthly empires.
In answer to prayer, Daniel obtains the consolation that other persons other orders of being were actively engaged in the same cause as himself.
I UNSEEN AND UNOSTENTATIOUS SERVICE IS OFTEN THE MOST EFFECTIVE. It is not probable that Gabriel appeared in visible form in the Persian court. His presence was unknown; his influence on men unobserved. He was content to exert his power over the feelings, dispositions, motives, of men; in this way he could best direct the affairs of nations, and serve the cause of righteousness. We may be content to retire into obscurity; be unseen and unknown, so long as we use talent and influence on the side of God and truth. The forces of life are unseen; they are made; visible only in their effects.
II WHEN THE SEASON IS OPPORTUNE, THE TRUTH SHALL BE REVEALED. Now" (said Gabriel to Daniel) "will I show thee the truth." It is evident that the unsinning angels are not in possession oall knowledge. They are ever learning. They "learn from the Church the manifold wisdom of God." Into many things" the angels desire to look." In the ratio of their knowledge is the service they render. Now Gabriel is at the Babylonian court, strengthening the purpose of Darius, and now he is at the river Hiddekel, revealing to Daniel the events of the future. For a season it is better for us to remain in ignorance. There are other possessions to be gained beside knowledge. When we have reduced to practice all we know, then we may expect further revelation. A spirit of generous benevolence towards men fills the angels. They delight to relieve our anxieties and to increase our knowledge. We may conclude that they would gladly proclaim the tidings of the gospel to the nations, if God had seen it to be good.
III MATERIAL RICHES ARE NOT ESSENTIALLY BLESSINGS. The Mugs of Persia, seized with an ambition to subdue the world, extorted from their subjects the largest measure of taxation, and hoarded their revenues year by year, only to carry sword and fire into the continent of Europe. To expend riches in invading other kingdoms, in devastating lands and cities, is a criminal waste of God"s treasure. Not for such purposes did God create gold and silver, brass and iron. Fallen man perverts and degrades many of God"s possessions. Mental and material gifts are but talents entrusted to our keeping, and a day of reckoning comes on apace, when, as stewards, we must render an account to our Lord. A sad and woeful day will that be to kings and statesmen who have squandered a nation"s wealth in war and bloodshed. In the case of Xerxes, great riches were a snare a trap which involved him and his empire in ruin. Had he been a poor monarch, or only moderately rich, he and his people might have dwelt in safety; Iris name might have escaped reproach. His wealth fed the appetite of ambition. His ponderous army was a source of weakness. His ostentatious display invited the invasion of the Greeks. Riches are not real strength.
IV EMPIRE, BUILT ON DESPOTIC POWER, IS EPHEMERAL. A king, however mighty, becomes utter weakness in the presence of disease, age, or death. Either of these forces is mightier than he. God permits, for hidden reasons, unscrupulous men to rise to the very summit of imperial power; but he does not guarantee their continuance; and if he does not uphold their power, it soon wanes and disappears. Nor can man secure that his authority and rank shall descend to his posterity, through the channels of ordinary law and custom. God is above all law, and often disappoints our fondest expectations. Despotic power is not a human virtue. It is a quality of doubtful character, and usually becomes dangerous to the public weal. Rapid as is the rise of some men to fame and power, their fall is usually more rapid still. At the moment of their greatest glory they are on the brink of ruin. When richest ripeness is on the fruit, rottenness is not far distant. Alexander"s victorious march was unprecedented; he speedily reached the highest pinnacle of empire; yet the king of terrors struck him down at a blow, and sudden collapse of his vast empire followed. As he had not honoured God, neither did God honour him. Had Alexander been pious and devout, how great a blessing might his power have been to the world! How efficient and useful he might have been in advancing the principles of truth and godliness! But his vast kingdom, not being founded in righteousness, was soon plucked up by the roots. D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v1 Also I in the first year of Darius.
Dan_11:1-2
Also I in the first year of Darius.
Read full note →
The Vision by the Hiddekel
The prophet here tells of a long and devout season of fasting and prayer to which ha had given himself. It lasted three full weeks. At the end of this time, he was by the side of the great river Hiddekel, now known as the Tigris, far away from the scenes of court life. Lifting up his eyes, he was greeted with an overpowering vision. Before him stood a being in mans form, clothed in linen and girded with gold. His body was like the beryl--like the bluish-green, prismatic light, His face was as the appearance of lightning, insufferably bright. His ayes were as burning flame. His arms and his feet were like burnished brass, and the voice of his words had the volume and majesty of the shoutings of a multitude. Compare the vision in Revelation, ch. 1. Daniel was completely overwhelmed by the suddenness and transcendent glory of the vision. This shows how merciful it is in God to veil over the spiritual world from our fleshly sight. Were he to lift that veil, it would be impossible for flesh and blood to sustain itself under the weight of glory. The object of this vision was to reveal to Daniel a still fuller account of the fortunes of his people in the latter days; that is, in the mysterious future, extending down to the end of this present world. To this revelation the whole remaining portion of this book is devoted. It was in answer to Daniels anxieties concerning the Jewish people that this glorious apparition came. It is ever true that the histories of this world always have a background of spiritual agencies. Scripture everywhere represents the angels as largely participating in the divine government of the world, and in the whole ongoing of earthly affairs. Among the active unseen potencies there are both good and bad, often in conflict with each other. We are wont to speak in a spiritualizing way of a struggle between the good and evil principles in man, but Holy Scripture teaches us to regard the matter as a substantial reality. The glorious angel who appeared to Daniel had a struggle of three weeks with the evil angel at the head of the Persian monarchy, and only by Michaels help overcame him, and gained superior influence over the Persian king. After that he was to encounter the prince-angel of Grecia, in which no great success, even with Michaels help, was to be gained. The angel then proceeds (in Dan_11:2-4) to state the course of things in its outward manifestations . . . But with all the tribulations thus to come upon the prophets people in those evil times, God was to be at the helm, neither suffering them to be overwhelmed, nor allowing their afflictions to be without profit. For their sins, apostasies, and infidelities the hand of judgment was to be lifted up against them. When God lets the wicked have their way, it is that he may destroy them utterly; but when he chastises his people, it is to purify and redeem them. Nor are Gods chosen ones alone in their conflicts with the ills and trials of time. The Eternal Father makes angels his ministers to the heirs of salvation. (Joseph A. Seiss, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v2 Events from the rise of Alexander the Great (B.C.…
FIRST SECTION
{Dan_11:2-9}
Read full note →
Events from the rise of Alexander the Great (B.C. 336) to the death of Seleucus Nicator (B.C. 280). There are to be three kings of Persia after Cyrus (who is then reigning), of whom the third is to be the richest; and "when he is waxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up the all against the realm of Javan."
There were of course many more than four kings of Persia: viz.-
Cyrus-536
Cambyses-529
Pseudo-Smerdis-522
Darius Hystaspis-521
Xerxes I-485
Artaxerxes I (Longimanus)-464
Xerxes II-425
Sogdianus-425
Darius Nothus-424
Artaxerxes II (Mnemon)-405
Artaxerxes III-359
Darius Codomannus-336
But probably the writer had no historic sources to which to refer, and only four Persian kings are prominent in Scripture-Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes. Darius Codomannus is indeed mentioned in Neh_12:22, but might have easily been overlooked, and even confounded with another Darius in uncritical and unhistorical times. The rich fourth king who "stirs up the all against the realm of Grecia" might be meant for Artaxerxes I, but more probably refers to Xerxes (Achashverosh, or Ahaseurus), and his immense and ostentatious invasion of Greece (B.C. 480). His enormous wealth is dwelt upon by Herodotus.
Dan_11:3 (B.C. 336-323).-Then shall rise a mighty king (Alexander the Great). and shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.
"Fortunam solus omnium mortalium in potestate habuit," says his historian, Quintus Curtius.
Dan_11:4 (B.C. 323).-But when he is at the apparent zenith of his strength his kingdom shall be broken, and shall not descend to any of his posterity, but (B.C. 323-301) shall be for others, and shall ultimately (after the Battle of Ipsus, B.C. 301) be divided towards the four winds of heaven, into the kingdoms of Cassander (Greece and Macedonia), Ptolemy (Egypt, Coele-Syria, and Palestine), Lysimachus (Asia Minor), and Seleucus (Upper Asia).
Dan_11:5 -Of these four kingdoms and their kings the vision is only concerned with two-the kings of the South (i.e., the Lagidae, or Egyptian Ptolemies, who sprang from Ptolemy Lagos), and the kings of the North (i.e., the Antiochian Seleucidae). They alone are singled out because the Holy Land became a sphere of contentions between these rival dynasties. B.C. 306.-The King of the South (Ptolemy Soter, son of Lagos) shall bestrong, and shall ultimately assume the title of Ptolemy I, King of Egypt. But one of his princes or generals (Seleucus Nicator) shall be stronger and, asserting his independence, shall establish a great dominion over Northern Syria and Babylonia.
Dan_11:6 (B.C. 250).-The vision then passes over the reign of Antiochus II (Soter), and proceeds to say that "at the end of years" (i.e., some half-century later, B.C. 250) the kings of the North and South should form a matrimonial alliance. The daughter of the King of the South-the Egyptian Princess Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II (Philadelphus), should come to the King of the North (Antiochus Theos) to make an agreement. This agreement (marg., "equitable conditions") was that Aniochus Theos should divorce his wife and half-sister Laodice, and disinherit her children, and bequeath the throne to any future child of Berenice, who would thus unite the empires of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae. Berenice took with her so vast a dowry that she was called "the dowry-bringer." Antiochus himself accompanied her as far as Pelusium (B.C. 247). But the compact ended in nothing but calamity. For, two years after, Ptolemy II died, leaving an infant child by Berenice. But Berenice did " not retain the strength of her arm ," since the military force which accompanied her proved powerless for her protection; nor did Ptolemy II abide, nor any support which he could render. On the contrary, there was overwhelming disaster. Berenices escort, her father, her husband, all perished, and she herself and her infant child were murdered by her rival Laodice (B.C. 246), in the sanctuary of Daphne, whither she had fled for refuge.
Dan_11:7 (B.C. 285-247).-But the murder of Berenice shall be well avenged. For "out of a shoot from her roots" stood up one in his office, even her brother Ptolemy III (Euergetes), who, unlike the effeminate Ptolemy II, did not entrust his wars to his generals, but came himself to his armies. He shall completely conquer the King of the North (Seleucus II, Kallinikos, son of Antiochus Theos and Laodice), shall seize his fortress (Seleucia, the port of Antioch).
Dan_11:8 (B.C. 247).-In this campaign Ptolemy Euergetes, who earned the title of "Benefactor" by this vigorous invasion, shall not only win immense booty-four thousand talents of gold and many jewels, and forty thousand talents of silver-but shall also carry back with him to Egypt the two thousand five hundred molten images, and idolatrous vessels, which, two hundred and eighty years before (B.C. 527), Cambyses had carried away from Egypt. After this success he will, for some years, refrain from attacking the Seleucid kings.
Dan 11:9 (B.C. 240).-Seleucus Kallinikos makes an attempt to avenge the shame and loss of the invasion of Syria by invading Egypt, but he returns to his own land totally foiled and defeated, for his fleet was destroyed by a storm.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 SECT. XXXVIII.—THE KINGS OF THE NORTH AND OF THE…
HOMILETICS
SECT. XXXVIII.—THE KINGS OF THE NORTH AND OF THE SOUTH. (Chap. Dan_11:1-20.)
Read full note →
We come to the things which the angel was commissioned to communicate to the prophet, and through him to the Church. They are spoken of as the things which should befall his people “in the latter days,” [301] being the things noted in “the scripture of truth.” The chapter is a continuation of the angel’s discourse, the first verse being more properly connected with the preceding chapter, as the communication only commences with the second. The prophecy is the most extensive and minute one which the prophet had hitherto received, including a period stretching from Daniel’s own time to the resurrection of the dead. [302] It contains a further filling up of the outline of the four great empires already given in the visions of the Great Image and the Four Beasts (chap. 2 and 7), as well as that of the Third Monarchy and the Little Horn in the vision of the Ram and the He-goat (chap, 8.) The prediction “was given,” says Auberlen, “to be a light to the people of Israel in one of the darkest periods of their chequered history, and, indeed, in the darkest centuries of their abandonment by God—centuries that have not yet run their course.” The angelic communication commences with a glance at the kings of Persia, who were yet to arise, and at the founder of the Third or Grecian Empire who was to succeed them. The angel then passes to the contendings that took place between the kings of two of the divisions of Alexander’s partitioned empire, Syria and Egypt, in order to introduce the power who had already formed a sadly conspicuous object in the visions of Daniel, as the great antagonist and persecutor of the Jews and of the religion of Jehovah, Antiochus Epiphanes, one of the kings of Syria. These Syrian kings are spoken of in the vision as the kings of the North, as distinguished from the kings of Egypt or of the South, to whom, after Alexander’s death, the Jews were subject. From Antiochus the vision appeals to pass to others of whom he appears as the type.
[301] “In the latter days” (chap. Dan_10:14). Dr. Cox remarks that, by this expression in the preceding chapter, “our views are naturally conducted through the perspective of revolving ages; all the events of which, till the great consummation, must be contemplated with reference to the Jewish nation or Daniel’s people, whose affairs form the centre of the chief transactions of this lower world.”
[302] “Of all the predictions contained in the holy Scriptures,” observes Auberlen, “this is doubtless the most special and minute.… Its special minuteness, however, is by no means of such a kind as to lift the veil which, in the wise counsels of the Almighty, has been drawn across the future, nor of such a kind as to unfold the future to the gaze of a profane curiosity.” Mr. Birks gives the following summary of it:—“This enlarged prophecy of the ‘Scripture of Truth’ resumes the message of the earlier visions, and unfolds more clearly the idol-worship set up by the Little Horn or Wilful King, in the ‘three times and a half, of his permitted power, with the warfare of the Saracens and Turks, and their dominion in the East. A further extension of the predicted times is at length revealed. In this latest portion of the prophetic calendar, the Wilful King enters on the last form of his apostate power; and assuming to himself the features of personal malignity and an open rejection of Christ, which belong to Antiochus, his type and predecessor, and the king of the North, his temporary rival, gathers at length under his banner all the apostate nations; and in the height of his power and pride is broken and overthrown by the hand of God in the mountains of Israel.” Keil observes: “It is true that the Church interpretation, given by Jerome, is so far valid, in that it interprets the prophecy partially considered under the point of view of the very special predictions of historical persons and events, and from this view concludes that Dan_11:21-35 treat of Antiochus Epiphanes, and Dan_11:36-45 of Antichrist; according to which there would be in Dan_11:36 an immediate passing from Antiochus to the Antichrist, or, in chap. Dan_12:1, a sudden transition from the death of Antiochus to the time of the end and the resurrection of the dead. But the prophecy does not at all correspond to this representation. The angel of the Lord will reveal to Daniel, not what shall happen from the third year of Cyrus to the time of Antiochus, and further to the resurrection of the dead; but, according to the express declaration of chap. Dan_10:14, what shall happen to his people, בְּאַֽהֲרִית הַיָּמִים (beakharith haiyamim), “in the end of the days,” i.e., in the Messianic future, because the prophecy relates to His time. In the אַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים (akharith haiyamim), the latter days or end of the days, there takes place the destruction of the world-powers, and the setting up of the Messianic kingdom at the end of the present world æon. All that the angel says respecting the Persian and the Javanic (or Grecian) world-kingdoms, and the wars of the kings of the North and the South, has its aim to the end-time, and serves only briefly to indicate the chief elements of the development of the world-kingdoms, till the time that brings on the end shall burst forth; and to show how, after the overthrow of the Javanic world-kingdom, neither the kings of the North nor those of the South shall gain the possession of the dominion of the world. Neither by the violence of war, nor by the covenants which they will ratify by political marriages, shall they succeed in establishing a lasting power. They shall not prosper, because (chap. Dan_11:27) the end goes yet “to the time appointed” by God. A new attempt of the king of the North to subjugate the kingdom of the South will be defeated by the intervention of the “ships of Chittim;” and the anger awakened in him by this frustration of his plans shall break forth against the holy covenant, only for the purifying of the people of God for the time of the end, because the end goes yet to the appointed time (Dan_11:35). At the time of the end, his power will greatly increase, because that which was determined by God shall prosper till the end of the indignation (Dan_11:36); but in the time of the end he shall suddenly fall from the summit of his power, and come to his end (Dan_11:45); but the people of God shall be saved, and the wise shall shine in heavenly glory (chap Dan_12:1-3).”
I. The Persians and Alexander the Great (Dan_11:2-4). Cyrus, the founder of the Second or Persian Empire, was now, as is stated in the previous chapter (chap. Dan_10:1), in the third year of his reign, after succeeding his uncle, Darius the Mede, otherwise called Cyaxares II., who on the fall of Babylon had “taken” or received the kingdom, which he ruled for two years. To this second empire the Jews were in subjection, as they had been to the first or Babylonian, Judea being still only a tributary province. It was through the favour of its monarchs that the Jews were for two centuries to enjoy peace and prosperity in their own land and elsewhere. At the head of this empire there were yet to be three kings, who should be followed by a fourth, far richer than any of his predecessors (Dan_11:2). These three kings are known in history as Cambyses, a son of Cyrus; Smerdis, who pretended to be another son; and Darius Hystaspis. The fourth is the well-known Xerxes, [303] thought to be the same with Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther, whose riches were proverbial, and in whose reign the empire reached its highest magnificence. “By his strength, through his riches,” he was to “stir up all against the realm of Grecia.” He is known as the king who, in his war with Greece, covered the shores of the Hellespont with his immense host. The disasters that attended his expedition, and the entire overthrow of the empire under one of his successors, Darius Codomannus, are well known in history.
[303] “The fourth.” The Xerxes of the Book of Esther, according to Keil, Hävernick, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Auberlen, and Kliefoth. On the contrary, Hitzig and some others would make the fourth king to be the third, to justify their interpretation of the four wings and four heads of the leopard (chap. Dan_7:6) of the first four kings of the Persian monarchy.
After mentioning Xerxes, the angel passes to the power by which the Persian empire was to be overthrown: “A mighty king shall stand up, which shall rule with great dominion, and shall do according to his will” (Dan_11:3). Alexander the Great, thus referred to, with his rapid and extensive conquests, has been already before us in former visions as the founder of the Third or Grecian Empire. When in the height of his prosperity, however, he was to be cut off and his kingdom to be “broken, and divided toward the four winds of heaven,” his successors being none of his own posterity (Dan_11:4). This also we have seen fulfilled in the untimely and unexpected death of Alexander, and in the division of his empire, not between his two sons, Alexander and Hercules, who were both murdered soon after their father’s death, but among his four generals, Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus. See further under chap. Dan_7:6, and Dan_8:5-8; Dan_8:21-22. Although the condition of the Jews was considerably affected by Alexander, it is more as a link in the historical chain that he is here introduced.
II. The kings of Syria and Egypt, or of the North and South (Dan_11:5-20). These, the most powerful of Alexander’s successors, are made, with their mutual contendings, to occupy a considerable part of the prophecy, from the circumstance that Judea lay between them, and was often the bone of contention to the rival parties. “The Jews,” says Luther, “placed thus between the door and the hinges, were sorely tormented on both sides. Now they fell a prey to Egypt, and anon to Syria, as the one kingdom or the other got the better; and they had to pay dearly for their neighbourhood, as is wont to be in time of war.”
The prophecy regarding these kings commences with the statement that the king of the South or of Egypt should “be strong, and one of his princes,” that is, of the princes of Alexander, namely, the king of Syria, who should “be strong above him, and have dominion,” which should be “a great dominion” (Dan_11:5). [304] This we find verified in the kings of Egypt and Syria, or, as they are sometimes called, the Lagidæ and the Seleucidæ, from the names of their respective founders, Ptolemy Lagus, and Seleucus; the latter becoming the sovereign of not less than three fourths of all the Asiatic dominions conquered by Alexander the Great. It was under Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second of the kings of Egypt, that, in consequence of the number of Jews residing in that country [305] and speaking Greek, the Greek or Septuagint version of the Old Testament was made, about the year 273 B.C. Of these kings, the angel says, “in the end of years,” or after several years, “they shall join themselves together,” in friendly alliance; “for the king’s daughter of the South shall come to the king of the North to make an agreement;” an alliance, however, which was to effect nothing; the angel adding, “but she shall not retain the power of the arm,” or be able to render any permanent help to her father in relation to Syria. “Neither shall he stand, nor his arm; but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her (marg., ‘he whom she brought forth’), and he (or they) that strengthened her in these times” (Dan_11:6). Jerome, from various ancient authors, gives the following account in verification of the prophecy:—After many years, Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, wishing to bring this troublesome contention to an end, gave his daughter Berenice in marriage to Antiochus, king of Syria (surnamed Theos or the god); Antiochus having two sons, Callinicus and Antiochus, by Laodicea, his first wife, who was still living. Philadelphus himself took his daughter to Pelusium, carrying with him as her dowry many thousands of gold and silver, whence he obtained the name of the Dowry-bearer. But Antiochus, though at first professing to take Berenice for his consort in the kingdom, and to retain Laodicea as his concubine, after a length of time was overcome by the love of his first wife, and took Laodicea and her children back to the palace. Landicea, fearing that Berenice would win back the heart of her fickle husband, employed her servants to take away his life by poison, and then delivered up Berenice and the child she had borne to Antiochus to two princes of Antioch to be murdered, while she made Callinicus, her eldest son, king in the room of his father. The angel foretells the sequel of this tragedy. “But out of a branch of her roots,” sprung from the same parents, “shall one stand up in his estate (or stead), which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress (or strong city) of the king of the North, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail: and shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the North. So the king of the South shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land” (Dan_11:7-9). Jerome relates: After the murder of Berenice and the death of her father Ptolemy Phila-delphus, her own brother, Ptolemy Euergetes, came with a great army and entered into the provinces of Callinicus, then reigning in Syria with his mother Laodicea; and after revenging himself upon them, took possession of Syria, Cilicia, the parts beyond the Euphrates, and almost all Asia. Afterwards, on receiving intelligence from Egypt that a sedition had arisen, he seized on the kingdom of Callinicus, took forty thousand talents of silver, precious vessels, and images of gods to the number of two thousand and five hundred, including those which Cambyses had carried out of Egypt into Persia. In reference to the clause, “he shall continue more years than the king of the North,” it has been remarked that the average length of a reign in Egypt was about twenty-seven years and four months, while that in Syria was just one-half; and that “the atrocious cruelty of the Syrians, and especially their oppression of the Jews, is enough to account for the shortness of their lives, to any one who takes into consideration the retributive providence of God, who scourges unjust kings by their discontented subjects.”
[304] “Shall be strong, and one of his princes” (Dan_11:5). C. B. Michaelis, Rosenmüller, and others understand his princes as those of the “mighty king” (Dan_11:3), or Alexander; while Keil refers the pronoun to the king of the South, the prince being the king of the North. Bishop Newton, who observes that the Hebrew text appears here a little confused, and perhaps defective, thinks that possibly the words מֶלֶךְ הַצָּפוֹן (melech hattsaphon), “king of the North,” may have fallen out. The rendering of the Septuagint is clearer: “And one of these princes shall be stronger than he.” It is here where Mr. Bosanquet thinks the marginal comment began, which ultimately became incorporated with the text. He thinks the prophet gives no particulars concerning the four successors of Alexander, but proceeds at once to the object of the vision, the king of the latter days, according to chap. Dan_10:14, after amplifying in Dan_11:2-4 what is said in chap. Dan_8:20-22 concerning the kingdoms of Persia and Greece, and thus leading back the mind of the reader to the words of chap. Dan_7:17, “at the time of the end shall be the vision,” i.e., the vision of the king of fierce countenance (Dan_8:23), who shall appear at “the last end of the indignation “(Dan_8:19), and who “shall stand up in the latter time of those kingdoms” which were to be formed on the platform of Alexander’s empire in the East, that is, in “the latter days.” He thinks the interpreter, passing over Ptolemy Soter, Lysimachus, Cassander, and Seleucus Nicator, selects, out of more than twenty, ten kings, beginning with Ptolemy Philadelphus, and ending with Antiochus Epiphanes and Philometor, who all lived nearly in his own days, being the ten kings or horns for whose succession the kingdom of Alexander was to be “plucked up,” according to Dan_11:4. In this supposition Mr. B. appears to stand alone.
[305] “Robbers of thy people “(Dan_11:14). פָּרִיצֵי עַמְּךָ (varitse ’ammecha), according to Dr. Rule, are the separatists who left Judea for Egypt, and there attached themselves to Onias, who built a temple at Heliopolis like that at Jerusalem, and established a kind of rival worship. Sir Isaac Newton considers them to be the Samaritans and such like. The Septuagint has “pestilent ones;” the Vulgate, “prevaricators.” Bishop Newton renders the term “revolters,” the factious and refractory ones, the majority of the Jews at that time being for breaking away from allegiance to Ptolemy, king of Egypt. Keil understands those violent men who break through the barriers of the divine law (Eze_18:10).
The angel proceeds. “But his sons (those of the king of Syria) shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces; and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress. And the king of the South shall be moved to choler, and shall come forth, and fight with him, even with the king of the North, and he shall set forth a great multitude, but the multitude shall be given into his hand. And when he shall take away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands; but he shall not be strengthened by it. For the king of the North shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after many years with a great army and with much riches” (Dan_11:10-13). The following are the facts of history that verify this part of the prophecy:—The two sons of Callinicus, namely, Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus, surnamed the Great, stirred themselves up to recover their father’s dominions. The former, though surnamed the Thunderer, was equally weak in body and mind, and after a reign of three years was poisoned by his generals, having done little more than assemble a large force, which, for want of money, he was unable to keep together. After his death, his brother Antiochus came with a great army, retook Seleucia, his fortress, and recovered Syria; and after a time he returned, overcame the Egyptian general, and had thoughts of invading Egypt itself. Ptolemy Philopator, having succeeded his father Euergetes, whom he had murdered, enraged at his losses, roused himself from his sensual indulgences, and marched with a numerous army us far us Raphia, between Rinocolura and Gaza, where he met Antiochus with a still more powerful host. The latter was defeated, and his numerous armament given into Ptolemy’s hand, ten thousand of his troops having been slain, and four thousand made prisoners. The weak heart of Ptolemy was lifted up by his success, and on making a visit to Jerusalem, among other cities which sent their ambassadors to do him homage, he demanded to be allowed to enter the interior of the temple. When Simon the high priest remonstrated, alleging that not even ordinary priests were admitted into the inner sanctuary, the king haughtily answered that although they were forbidden, he ought not to be so, and then pressed forward. The Jewish historian relates that in passing through the inner court for that purpose, he was seized with a panic and fell speechless to the ground. He was carried out half dead; and soon after his recovery he departed, full of anger against the Jewish people. The result was that on returning to Alexandria, he commenced a bitter persecution of the numerous Jews residing there, so that “many ten thousands were cast down” by it; only three hundred retaining their civil rights at the expense of their religion, while, according to Eusebius, forty thousand, or, according to Jerome, half as many more, preferred death rather than obey the royal decree that commanded them to worship idols. Ptolemy, giving himself up to his pleasures instead of pursuing his victory over Antiochus, was “not strengthened by it.” He died about a dozen years after, and Antiochus, raising an incredibly large army among the upper provinces of Babylonia and Media, came down upon his son, Ptolemy Epiphanes, an infant four years old.
The prophecy continues: “And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the South: also the robbers of thy people, [306] or “breakers,” that is, of the divine law, shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall. So the king of the North shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities; and the arms of the South shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed” (Dan_11:14-16.) [307] History relates that Philip of Macedon entered into a league with Antiochus to divide Ptolemy’s dominions between them, each taking the part that lay nearest to him; in consequence of which, as Judea lay nearest to Antiochus, that country was seized by him and the generals of Ptolemy by turns. The Jews themselves were divided into factions, part favouring the cause of Ptolemy, to whom they were already under allegiance, while others gave their aid to Antiochus, by which they only prepared the way for the fulfilment of the prophecy regarding the sufferings which the Jews were to endure under one of his successors. The help, however, which was rendered to Antiochus by the Syrian faction at Jerusalem, was of little avail. Scopas, the Egyptian general, recovered Phenicia and Cœle-Syria; and after subduing the Jews, placed a garrison in Jerusalem. This, however, only continued for a time. Antiochus, coming to Judea, encountered Scopas at the sources of the Jordan, destroyed a great part of his army, and pursued him to Sidon, where he shut him up, with ten thousand of his men, till famine obliged him to surrender. Antiochus soon retook Phenicia, Cœle-Syria, and Palestine, nothing being able to withstand his victorious arms. He stood “in the glorious land.” The party that revolted from Ptolemy cordially received him into Jerusalem, and even assisted him in besieging the garrison which Scopas had left in the citadel, so that his power was established in Judea. The land, however, was wasted by his troops, as well as in other ways.
[306] “Robbers of thy people “(Dan_11:14). פָּרִיצֵי עַמְּךָ (varitse ’ammecha), according to Dr. Rule, are the separatists who left Judea for Egypt, and there attached themselves to Onias, who built a temple at Heliopolis like that at Jerusalem, and established a kind of rival worship. Sir Isaac Newton considers them to be the Samaritans and such like. The Septuagint has “pestilent ones;” the Vulgate, “prevaricators.” Bishop Newton renders the term “revolters,” the factious and refractory ones, the majority of the Jews at that time being for breaking away from allegiance to Ptolemy, king of Egypt. Keil understands those violent men who break through the barriers of the divine law (Eze_18:10).
[307] “Shall be consumed” (Dan_11:16). כָּלָה (calah) may also denote, “shall be perfected,” prosper, and flourish. The Septuagint has “shall be finished.” Bishop Newton remarks that Antiochus, in order to reward and encourage the Jews in their fidelity and obedience to him, gave orders that their city should be repaired, and the temple should be finished and adorned. Keil regards the word not as a verb but a substantive, and reads (as an explanatory clause), “and destruction is in his hand;” the destruction referring to the Holy Land, in which violent (or rapacious) people (Dan_11:14) make common cause with the heathen king, and so put arms into his hands to destroy the land. Hävernick and others, also regarding כָּלָה (calah) as a noun, render the clause, “and it (the land) is wholly given into his hand.”
The angel proceeds: “He shall also set his face to enter with (or against) the strength of his whole kingdom (or, ‘to enter by force into the whole kingdom,’ i.e., of Egypt), and upright ones (or, according to the margin, ‘equal conditions,’—an agreement by a marriage alliance) with him: thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her; but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him. And after this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him. Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble, and fall, and not be found” (Dan_11:17-19). History gives the fulfilment. Antiochus, having been so far successful against Egypt, formed schemes to seize upon the whole kingdom. His aim was to accomplish this by means of a marriage alliance, giving Ptolemy his beautiful daughter Cleopatra in marriage, thinking, through her affection for himself, to obtain the kingdom of her husband. In this, however, he was disappointed. The marriage took place, but Cleopatra was too true a wife for his ambitious schemes, and sided with her husband against her father. Antiochus then, collecting a large fleet, turned his face “to the isles” of the Mediterranean, including the Greek cities of the coast, many of which he took. As these, however, were in alliance with the Romans, the latter, under the consul Acilius, uniting with their allies, after gaining repeated victories over Antiochus, compelled him to return with his army into Asia. After his defeat at Magnesia, he fled to Sardis, and the next day reached Antioch, “the fort of his own land.” Two years after he was slain by the Persians while plundering the temple of Jupiter Belus at Elymais, or, according to another account, by his companions while carousing at a banquet.
The prophecy regarding the kings of the North and the South, introductory to the main one relating to Antiochus Epiphanes, closes with the brief notice of Seleucus Philopator. “There shall stand up in his estate (or stead) a raiser of taxes (Marg., ‘one that causeth an exactor to pass over’), [308] in the glory of the kingdom; but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle” (Dan_11:20). This “raiser of taxes” was Seleucus Philopator, who succeeded his father Antiochus the Great, and did nothing memorable in his twelve years’ reign. Of a sluggish disposition, he was intent on nothing but raising money to pay the tax levied upon him by the Romans. He was murdered by his treasurer or chief collector, Heliodorus, whom he had sent to plunder the Temple at Jerusalem.
[308] “A raiser of taxes “(Dan_11:20). נוֹגֵשׂ (noghes), according to most, a collector of tribute, as in 2Ki_23:35; the person understood being Heliodorus, whom Seleucus Philopator sent to Jerusalem to seize the temple treasure. Keil prefers “taskmaster;” and understands the oppressions not only of the Holy Land, but of his kingdom in general. He observes here that, from a comparison of the prophecy with the history, this much follows, that the prophecy does net furnish a prediction of the historical wars of the Seleucidæ and the Ptolemies, but an ideal description of the war of the kings of the North and the South in its general outlines; whereby, it is true, divers special elements of the prophetical announcement have been historically fulfilled, but the historical reality does not correspond with the contents of the prophecy in anything like an exhaustive manner.
From this part of the prophecy we may note—
1. The foreknowledge and providence of God. The Apostle only declared what reason itself may teach us, when he said, “Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world.” The architect knows beforehand what he will do in the erection of the building when he prepares the plan. The weaver knows beforehand what he will do with his web when he has fixed upon the pattern. God’s works embrace those of providence as well as of creation. “My Father worketh hitherto,” said Jesus, “and I work.” His almighty power and boundless wisdom are continually occupied in relation to all that His creating hand has produced, upholding and governing all His creatures and all their actions, so that without Him not even a sparrow falls to the ground. “In Him we live and move,” as well as “have our being.” The details predicted in this section, now matters of history, were all included within the divine foreknowledge and Providence, like every other event that takes place. Being foreknown by God, it was easy to communicate the knowledge of them beforehand, as far as divine wisdom saw meet. It is our comfort to know that “the Lord reigneth;” and that not only matters connected with rulers and empires, but all events, whether great or small, are not only known by God beforehand, but are ordered and controlled in His all-wise providence, so that the ends He designs shall be accomplished; making even the wrath of man to praise Him, while the remainder of that wrath He restrains; and causing all things to “work together for good to them that love God, and who are called according to His purpose” (Psa_76:10; Rom_8:28). This gracious purpose continually kept in view in all His doings. The thing that is determined shall be done (Dan_11:36).
2. The character and condition of human nature apart from divine grace. The section valuable as confirming the view given of the kingdoms of the world in Daniel’s vision of the Four Beasts, of which the third is here partially exhibited. It affords an epitome of secular history extending over three centuries, and a specimen of that history in all ages of the world. It is especially valuable inasmuch as the period brought before us in the section is that in which Greek culture had reached its highest perfection. It exhibits sin and misery as the characteristics of fallen humanity with all the advantages that worldly art and science could afford it. It shows the works of the flesh, or of man’s fallen nature unrenewed by divine grace, to be what the Bible represents them,—“enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions; unrighteousness, covetousness, envy, murder, deceit, malignity (Gal_4:20; Rom_1:29). Fifty thousand unoffending Jews cruelly massacred by a Ptolemy in and around his own metropolis, because he was refused a profane entrance into the Holy of Holies at Jerusalem! God’s long-suffering patience and fatherly pity exercised on such a world. The world was shown to need a Saviour, and a Saviour was provided. Into such a world Christ came. “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him might not perish but have everlasting life.” The view here given of the kingdoms of the world, such as to awaken the longing for the setting up and universal extension of the promised kingdom, which is “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv2–3 The spirit of prophecy here returns to that which…
The spirit of prophecy here returns to that which more immediately concerned Daniel and his royal masters--the near future of the empire in which he was so great a personage. Four kings were yet to follow in Media-Persia. Then will come Alexander the "mighty king" of Grecia (Dan 11:3). The division of Alexander’s empire into four parts (Dan 11:4) as already predicted Dan 8:22 is foretold. The troublous course of affairs in two parts of the disintegrated Alexandrian empire, Syria and Egypt, is then traced down to Dan 11:20. Here Antiochus Epiphanes, the "little horn" of Daniel 8, occupies the vision down to Dan 11:36. His pollution of the sanctuary is again mentioned. (Cf) (See Scofield "Dan 8:9"). From Dan 11:36 the interpretation is of the final "little horn" Dan 7:8; Dan 7:24-26 See Scofield "Dan 11:35".
three kings Ahasuerus, Ezr 4:6, Artaxerxes, Ezr 4:7, and Darius called "Hystaspes" Ezr 4:24.
Read full note →
fourth Xerxes, who invaded Greece BC 483-480.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 CHAPTER 11 The Wars of the Ptolemies and Seleucidae…
CHAPTER 11 The Wars of the Ptolemies and Seleucidae Predicted The Coming Events of the End
1. The wars of the Ptolemies and Seleucidae (Dan 11:1-35)
Read full note →
2. The time of the end and the man of sin (Dan 11:36-45)
Dan 11:1-35. Here we have history pre-written and the greater part of this chapter (Dan 11:2-35) is fulfilled historically. So accurate are these predictions and their subsequent fulfillment that the enemies of “the Scripture of truth” have declared that it could never have been written by Daniel several hundred years before these persons came into existence and fought their battles. The pagan Porphyry in the third century in his “Treatise against Christians” bitterly attacked the belief that Daniel wrote these predictions. He argued that all was written after the events had taken place. The same arguments are used by the critics. Such is this most subtle infidelity that it can make use of the statements of a poor heathen in opposition to the divine revelation.
The prophecies given here were minutely fulfilled during the years 301 B.C., to 168 B.C. History verifies everything. The history covers a good part of the Persian and Graeco-Macedonian Empires, but mostly the wars of the Ptolemies and Seleucidae. Artaxerxes, Darius, Alexander the Great, Ptolemy Lagris, the King of the South, Ptolemy Euergetes, Seleucus Calinicus, Ptolemy Philopater, Antiochus Epiphanes, even the Roman fleet (the ships of Chittim), all enter into this prophecy. A detailed exposition of the prophecy and its fulfillment would fill many pages.
Before we pass on we desire to say again that all in these verses we have briefly followed has been historically fulfilled. We point out a mistake in which some have fallen. In Dan 11:31 we read of “the abomination that maketh desolate.” Our Lord in His Olivet discourse Mat 24:15 said: “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth let him understand).” Some believe that when our Lord spoke these words he referred to Dan 11:31, and that this is the abomination of desolation. This is not quite correct. The abomination that maketh desolate of verse 31 is past and happened in the days of the atrocities committed by Antiochus Epiphanes. The abomination of desolation to which our Lord refers is mentioned in Dan 12:11, and it points, as we shall find later, to the abomination set up by the Antichrist, the second beast, in the middle of the week. The typical meaning of Antiochus Epiphanes and his crimes in the land of Judea and against Jerusalem we have already learned in connection with chapter 8.
Dan 11:36-45. The time of the end is mentioned in verse 35. What is to befall Daniel’s people in the latter days as Daniel was told in Dan 10:14 is now revealed. Between Dan 11:35 and Dan 11:36 we must put a long and unreckoned period of time. Antiochus Epiphanes and the victorious Maccabees end the historical fulfillment of the predictions of the great prophecies in the first part of this chapter, and since then over 2,000 years have come and gone and the fulfillment of Dan 11:36-45 have not yet been. First we read of a wilful king. Who is this king so fully pictured in Dan 11:36-45?
Many expositors of Daniel apply this passage to Antiochus Epiphanes because they see not the important interval which exists between Dan 11:35 and Dan 11:36. However, a closer examination of the description of this king shows that he cannot be Antiochus. He is another person altogether, and as we shall see later, will be a Jew and assume kingly honors in the midst of the Jewish people. Antiochus was a Gentile. Others again identify this King with the first beast in Rev 13:1-18, and say that the head of the revived Roman Empire, one like Napoleon the First is meant, while others see here a reference to the pope in Rome. And whether the head of the Roman power, or the pope, or perhaps Mohammed, the term “Antichrist” is freely applied to each. Those who see the papacy here and the Romish corruption make some startling applications which are extremely fanciful.
The wilful king is the Antichrist. The Jewish people rejected their King, the Messiah, who came to His own, the Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord told the Jews: “I am come in My Father’s name, and ye receive Me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive” Joh 5:43. This other one has not yet come. We have his photograph here. He appears in Israel’s land in the time of the end as a counterfeit Messiah and takes also the place of king in their midst. This wilful king, the personal Antichrist who deceives the apostate mass of the Jewish people, is repeatedly mentioned in the Old Testament prophetic Word. Isaiah speaks of him and his end Isa 30:33; Isa 57:9. Zechariah calls him “the idol shepherd” Zec 11:15-17. He is repeatedly mentioned in the Psalms as “the wicked man”--”the man of the earth”-- “the bloody and deceitful man.” In the book of Revelation he appears as the second beast out of the land (Palestine) Rev 13:11-18. The two horns like a lamb as he is described there show clearly that he imitates Christ. He has the spirit of the dragon and appears as a religious leader, for this reason he is also called “the false prophet” in the book of Revelation (Rev 16:13; Rev 19:20; Rev 20:10).
In the New Testament he is called in the writings of John “the Antichrist”. (See 1Jn 2:18-25; 1Jn 4:3;2Jn 1:7.)Another great prophecy of the same person is found in 2Th 2:1-17, where he is called “the man of sin, the son of perdition.” The early Church believed that this evil person will be a real man, a Jew, and be energized by Satan. That he is the papal system or something else was invented later.
In Dan 11:40-45 we have a prophecy of the wars and conflicts during the time of the end. The false king, Israel’s false Messiah, the Antichrist, plays an important part in these conflicts. Then there are the kings of the south and of the north. The king of the south comes out of Egypt. His antagonist is the king of the north. The king of the south will be overthrown by the powerful king of the North, the same who is typified by the Antiochus Epiphanes. (Read about this invasion in Joe 2:1-32 and Zec 14:1-21)
While the king of the north and his proud hosts are thus overthrown by the army of the Lord, what becomes of the wilful king, the Antichrist in the city? The king of the north cannot touch him. But the Lord Himself will deal with that wicked one. “Whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming” 2Th 2:8. Thus ends the great conflict of the time of the end. The eternal abode of the satanic instruments of the time of the end, the beast, that coming prince, the Antichrist and the king of the north will be the lake of fire.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v1 Dan 11:1. Also I, in the first year of…
Dan 11:1. Also I, in the first year of Darius, the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him, or, "even as I stood by to strengthen him," the inference being that the various angelic spirits come to the support of one another when special efforts in behalf of the people or nations in their care are required. The gist of the verse is evidently this, that Michael had been active in overthrowing the power of Babylonia by the armies of Medo-Persia, and that the Angel of the Lord had given him mighty assistance in this labor. In the great crises of history, in the change of monarchies, and in the midst of every tribulation we may rely upon the faithfulness and mercy of our God.
Happenings of the Near Future
Read full note →
v. 2. And now I will show thee the truth. Cf. Dan 10:21. Behold, there shall stand up yet, namely, after Cyrus, who was then king, three kings in Persia, whose names are commonly given as Cambyses, Pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all, literally, "shall acquire far greater riches than they all"; and by his strength through his riches, as he applied his immense wealth in order to fit out a mighty army, he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecis, Xerxes staking his all on the invasion of the rival kingdom beyond the Dardanelies.
v. 3. And a mighty king shall stand up, a heroic, warlike king, namely, Alexander of Macedonia and Greece, that shall rule with great dominion and do according to his will, with tyrannical authority.
v. 4. And when he shall stand up, just as soon as his power is fairly established, his kingdom shall be broken, the brief duration of Alexander’s rule being here indicated, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven, in a fourfold division of his kingdom after the battle of Ipsus, 301 B. C. ; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those, so that the natural heirs and rightful successors of Alexander were eliminated. Both of Alexander’s sons were put to death, and after the generals of Alexander had first broken up his empire into small divisions, the result finally was a fourfold monarchy, but still Greek in character.
v. 5. And the king of the South shall be strong, the ruler of Egypt, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, the reference most likely being to Seleucus Nicator, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion, which, as a matter of fact, extended from Phrygia on the west to the Indus on the east.
v. 6. And in the end of years, that is, after several years have elapsed, they shall join themselves together, the king of the South and the king of the North forming a confederacy, when Antiochus II Theos, the second successor of Seleucus Nicator, married Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemeus Philadelphus; for the king’s daughter of the South shall come to the king of the North to make an agreement, to establish just and peaceful relations by virtue of this marriage; but she shall not retain the power of the arm, neither shall he stand nor his arm, neither of them retaining the power acquired through their marriage and the joining of their forces; but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times, when the critical position in which he found himself suggested the marriage to him. Secular accounts set forth the situation as follows: "As soon as Ptolemy Philadelphus died in B. C. 247, Antiochus Theos expelled Berenice, and recalled the formerly rejected Laodice. The latter, however, aimed at further revenge, and to achieve it, she poisoned the king, had her son by him, Seleucus II Callinicus, declared his successor, and sent assassins against Berenice, who had fled to the sanctuary of Daphne. The latter queen was slain, together with her little son, and the hope of the Ptolemies to behold one of their lineage on the throne of the Seleucidae was thus wholly destroyed. "
v. 7. But out of a branch of her roots, a shoot out of the apparently dead stock, shall one stand up in his estate, to take her place in this controversy, her own brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes, which shall come with an army and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the North, against all the strongholds of the Northern power, and shall deal against them and shall prevail, this being done to the extent that the entire Syrian country from Cilicia to beyond the Tigris was conquered, numerous fortresses taken, and Laodice, the rival and murderess of Berenice, slain;
v. 8. and shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods with their princes, their molten or cast images, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold, all this being welcome booty; and he shall continue more years than the king of the North, holding out against him with his superior strength.
v. 9. So the king of the South shall come into his kingdom, rather, "and he," the last-named king of the North, "shall come into the kingdom of the king of the South," and shall return into his own land, to Syria. This was fulfilled in the expedition of Seleucus Callinicus, in which he sent a fleet against Egypt, which, however, was destroyed in a storm, while his army was defeated and overthrown.
v. 10. But his sons, again those of the Northern king, shall be stirred up, preparing for war, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces, in waging war upon the Southern kingdom; and one shall certainly come and overflow and pass through, the activities of Antiochus the Great in his victorious advance upon Egypt being described here; then shall he return and be stirred up, renewing his campaign against the Egyptians in the following spring, even to his fortress, very likely the fortified city of Gaza.
v. 11. And the king of the South shall be moved with choler, with a fierce and sudden anger, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the North; and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand. This undoubtedly describes the attack made by Ptolemy Philopator by which he tried to break the power of Antiochus.
v. 12. And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up, literally, "and shall rise up the multitude and shall lift up his heart," as he took up the campaign with great courage; and he shall cast down many ten thousands, killing myriads in the battle of Raphia, near Gaza; but he shall not be strengthened by it, because he did not follow up his victory with any degree of energy.
v. 13. For the king of the North shall return and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches. This was approximately thirteen years later when Antiochus the Great had strengthened himself by successful campaigns against the kingdoms toward the east, so that his army was composed of veterans and his equipment of the very best.
v. 14. And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the South, particularly in insurrections which were caused by bad administration of affairs at home; also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision, literally, "violent persons of thy [Daniel’s] people will revolt against him," namely, when a number of Jews entered into a league with Antiochus the Great against Egypt; but they shall fall, the Lord sending tribulations and afflictions upon them for their rebellion against the authorized government, the reference probably being to the oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes.
v. 15. So the king of the North shall come, advancing to the attack once more, and cast up a mount and take the most fenced cities, literally, "city of fortifications," a term used of the fortresses of the South in general; and the arms of the South shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, their armies being unable to ward off the threatened blow, neither shall there be any strength to withstand, all the resources of the Southern kingdom availing them nothing in this emergency.
v. 16. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, for Antiochus, the victor of Paneas, near the sources of the Jordan, now overran the entire country, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, literally, "in the land of ornament," the Holy Land, especially when considered from the standpoint of its spiritual blessings, which by his hand shall be consumed, literally, "and annihilation is in his hand. "
v. 17. He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, intending to follow up his successes with a further attack on the country now almost subjugated, and upright ones with him, rather, with the purpose of restoring a proper political relationship, the agreement consisting in this, that the marriage of Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus, with Ptolemy Epiphanes was agreed upon, Antiochus receiving Coelesyria in return; thus shall he do, and he shall give him the daughter of women, namely, Cleopatra, who was then but a girl and in the care of her mother and others, who educated her, corrupting her, rather, "bringing destruction upon her"; for the marriage,. which took place five years later, resulted in the ruin of the land which she represented; but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him, that is, she was unable to carry out the plans of her father.
v. 18. After this shall he, the king of the North, turn his face unto the isles, including the coast-lands of the Mediterranean, and shall take many; but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease, or, "yet his scorn which he heaped upon the generals they will revenge upon him," that is, the men in command of the islands and coast-lands promptly repulsed his attacks, so that he was obliged to retire to the fortresses formerly in his power; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him.
v. 19. Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land, withdrawing to them on account of the force of the attack against him; but he shall stumble and fall and not be found, for this reversal was the beginning of his end, for history records that he was slain in an insurrection of the inhabitants of Elymais.
v. 20. Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom, literally, "then shall arise in his stead one who causes exactors (or oppressors) to pass through the ornament of the kingdom," so that his subjects were oppressed with various afflictions and burdens; but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger nor in battle, this being the end of Seleucus Philopator, who was poisoned by Heliodorus, his former favorite, who sought the crown for himself. Thus the Lord directs the fortunes of individuals and nations and punishes such as oppose His plans for the benefit of His people.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3 General Information:
General Information:
In Daniel 11:1 through Dan 12:4, the one who was speaking to Daniel in chapter 10 tells him what is written in the book of truth. This is as he said he would do in Daniel 10:21.
Read full note →
In the first year of Darius
Darius was the King of the Medes. "The first year" refers to the first year that he was king. AT: "In the first year of the reign of Darius" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
Three kings will arise in Persia
"Three kings will rule over Persia"
a fourth will be far richer than all the others
"after them a fourth king will come into power who will have more money than the three before him" (See: Ordinal Numbers)
power
Possible meanings are 1) authority or 2) military power.
he will stir up everyone
"he will cause everyone to want to fight"
translationWords
Darius
Medes
angel
reveal
true
king
Persia
power
kingdom
Greece
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1–4 11:1 Darius the Mede: See study note on 5:31;…
11:1 Darius the Mede: See study note on 5:31; the first year was probably 539 BC.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.