Verse 2

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. 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].

Verse 3

mighty king . . . do according to his will--answering to the he-goat's "notable horn" (Dan 8:6-7, Dan 8:21). Alexander invaded Persia 334 B.C., to avenge the wrongs of Greece on Persia for Xerxes' past invasion (as Alexander said in a letter to Darius Codomanus, ARRIAN, Alexander. 2.14.7).

Verse 4

kingdom . . . divided toward . . . four winds--the fourfold division of Alexander's kingdom at his death (Dan 8:8, Dan 8:22), after the battle of Ipsus, 301 B.C. not to his posterity--(See on Dan 8:8; Dan 8:22). nor according to his dominion--None of his successors had so wide a dominion as Alexander himself. others besides those--besides Alexander's sons, Hercules by Barsine, Darius daughter, and Alexander by Roxana, who were both slain [MAURER]. Rather, besides the four successors to the four chief divisions of the empire, there will be other lesser chiefs who shall appropriate smaller fragments of the Macedonian empire [JEROME].

Verse 5

Here the prophet leaves Asia and Greece and takes up Egypt and Syria, these being in continual conflict under Alexander's successors, entailing misery on Judea, which lay between the two. Holy Scripture handles external history only so far as it is connected with God's people, Israel [JEROME]. TREGELLES puts a chasm between the fourth and fifth verses, making the transition to the final Antichrist here, answering to the chasm (in his view) at Dan 8:22-23. king of . . . south--literally, "of midday": Egypt (Dan 11:8, Dan 11:42), PTOLEMY Soter, son of Lagus. He took the title "king," whereas Lagus was but "governor." one of his princes--Seleucus, at first a satrap of PTOLEMY Lagus, but from 312 B.C. king of the largest empire after that of Alexander (Syria, Babylon, Media, &c.), and called therefore Nicator, that is, "conqueror." Connect the words thus, "And one of his (PTOLEMY'S) princes, even he (Seleucus) shall be strong above him" (above PTOLEMY, his former master).

Verse 6

in . . . end of years--when the predicted time shall be consummated (Dan 11:13, Margin; Dan 8:17; Dan 12:13). king's daughter of the south--Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt. The latter, in order to end his war with Antiochus Theus, "king of the north" (literally, "midnight": the prophetical phrase for the region whence came affliction to Israel, Jer 1:13-15; Joe 2:20), that is, Syria, gave Berenice to Antiochus, who thereupon divorced his former wife, Laodice, and disinherited her son, Seleucus Callinicus. The designation, "king of the north" and "of the south," is given in relation to Judea, as the standpoint. Egypt is mentioned by name (Dan 11:8, Dan 11:42), though Syria is not; because the former was in Daniel's time a flourishing kingdom, whereas Syria was then a mere dependency of Assyria and Babylon: an undesigned proof of the genuineness of the Book of Daniel. agreement--literally, "rights," that is, to put things to rights between the belligerents. she shall not retain the power of the arm--She shall not be able to effect the purpose of the alliance, namely, that she should be the mainstay of peace. Ptolemy having died, Antiochus took back Laodice, who then poisoned him, and caused Berenice and her son to be put to death, and raised her own son, Seleucus Nicator, to the throne. neither shall he stand--The king of Egypt shall not gain his point of setting his line on the throne of Syria. his arm--that on which he relied. Berenice and her offspring. they that brought her--her attendants from Egypt. he that begat her--rather as Margin, "the child whom she brought forth" [EWALD]. If English Version (which MAURER approves) be retained, as Ptolemy died a natural death, "given up" is not in his case, as in Berenice's, to be understood of giving up to death, but in a general sense, of his plan proving abortive. he that strengthened her in these times--Antiochus Theus, who is to attach himself to her (having divorced Laodice) at the times predicted [GEJER].

Verse 7

a branch of her roots . . . in his estate--Ptolemy Euergetes, brother of Berenice, succeeding in the place (Margin) of Philadelphus, avenged her death by overrunning Syria, even to the Euphrates. deal against them--He shall deal with the Syrians at his own pleasure. He slew Laodice.

Verse 8

carry . . . into Egypt their gods, &c.--Ptolemy, on hearing of a sedition in Egypt, returned with forty thousand talents of silver, precious vessels, and twenty-four hundred images, including Egyptian idols, which Cambyses had carried from Egypt into Persia. The idolatrous Egyptians were so gratified, that they named him Euergetes, or "benefactor." continue more years--Ptolemy survived Seleucus four years, reigning in all forty-six years. MAURER translates, "Then he for several years shall desist from (contending with) the king of the north" (compare Dan 11:9).

Verse 9

come into his kingdom--Egypt: not only with impunity, but with great spoil.

Verse 10

his sons--the two sons of the king of the north, Seleucus Callinicus, upon his death by a fall from his horse, namely, Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus the Great. one shall . . . come--Ceraunus having died, Antiochus alone prosecuted the war with Ptolemy Philopater, Euergetes' son, until he had recovered all the parts of Syria subjugated by Euergetes. pass through--like an "overflowing" torrent (Dan 11:22, Dan 11:26, Dan 11:40; Isa 8:8). Antiochus penetrated to Dura (near CÃ&brvbrsarea), where he gave Ptolemy a four months' truce. return--renew the war at the expiration of the truce (so Dan 11:13). even to his fortress--Ptolemy's; Raphia, a border-fortress of Egypt against incursions by way of Edom and Arabia-PetrÃ&brvbra, near Gaza; here Antiochus was vanquished.

Verse 11

the king of the south . . . moved with choler--at so great losses, Syria having been wrested from him, and his own kingdom imperilled, though otherwise an indolent man, to which his disasters were owing, as also to the odium of his subjects against him for having murdered his father, mother, and brother, whence in irony they called him Philopater, "father-lover." he shall set forth a great multitude--Antiochus, king of Syria, whose force was seventy thousand infantry and five thousand cavalry. but . . . multitude . . . given into his hand--into Ptolemy's hands; ten thousand of Antiochus' army were slain, and four thousand made captives.

Verse 12

when he hath taken away--that is, subdued "the multitude" of Antiochus. heart . . . lifted up--instead of following up his victory by making himself master of the whole of Syria, as he might, he made peace with Antiochus, and gave himself up to licentiousness [POLYBIUS, 87; JUSTIN, 30.4], and profaned the temple of God by entering the holy place [GROTIUS]. not be strengthened by it--He shall lose the power gained by his victory through his luxurious indolence.

Verse 13

return--renew the war. after certain years--fourteen years after his defeat at Raphia. Antiochus, after successful campaigns against Persia and India, made war with Ptolemy Epiphanes, son of Philopater, a mere child.

Verse 14

many stand up against the king of the south--Philip, king of Macedon, and rebels in Egypt itself, combined with Antiochus against Ptolemy. robbers of thy people--that is, factious men of the Jews shall exalt themselves, so as to revolt from Ptolemy, and join themselves to Antiochus; the Jews helped Antiochus army with provisions, when on his return from Egypt he besieged the Egyptian garrison left in Jerusalem [JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, 12:3.3]. to establish the vision--Those turbulent Jews unconsciously shall help to fulfil the purpose of God, as to the trials which await Judea, according to this vision. but they shall fall--Though helping to fulfil the vision, they shall fail in their aim, of making Judea independent.

Verse 15

king of . . . north--Antiochus the Great. take . . . fenced cities--Scopas, the Egyptian general, met Antiochus at Paneas, near the sources of the Jordan, and was defeated, and fled to Sidon, a strongly "fenced city," where he was forced to surrender. chosen people--Egypt's choicest army was sent under Eropus, Menocles, and Damoxenus, to deliver Scopas, but in vain [JEROME].

Verse 16

he that cometh against him--Antiochus coming against Ptolemy Epiphanes. glorious land--Judea (Dan 11:41, Dan 11:45; Dan 8:9; Eze 20:6, Eze 20:15). by his hand shall be consumed--literally, "perfected," that is, completely brought under his sway. JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 12:3.3] shows that the meaning is not, that the Jews should be utterly consumed: for Antiochus favored them for taking his part against Ptolemy, but that their land should be subjected to him [LENGKERKE]. GROTIUS translates, "shall be perfected by him," that is, shall flourish under him. English Version gives a good sense; namely, that Judea was much "consumed" or "desolated" by being the arena of conflict between the combatants, Syria and Egypt. TREGELLES refers (Dan 11:14), "robbers of thy people," to the Gentiles, once oppressors, attempting to restore the Jews to their land by mere human effort, whereas this is to be effected only by divine interposition: their attempt is frustrated (Dan 11:16) by the wilful king, who makes Judea the scene of his military operations.

Verse 17

set his face--purpose steadfastly. Antiochus purpose was, however, turned from open assault to wile, by his war with the Romans in his endeavor to extend his kingdom to the limits it had under Seleucus Nicator. upright one--Jasher, or Jeshurun (Deu 32:15; Isa 44:2); the epithet applied by the Hebrews to their nation. It is here used not in praise; for in Dan 11:14 (see on Dan 11:14) they are called "robbers," or "men of violence, factious": it is the general designation of Israel, as having God for their God. Probably it is used to rebuke those who ought to have been God's "upright ones" for confederating with godless heathen in acts of violence (the contrast to the term in Dan 11:14 favors this). thus shall he do--Instead of at once invading Ptolemy's country with his "whole strength," he prepares his way for doing so by the following plan: he gives to Ptolemy Epiphanes his daughter Cleopatra in marriage, promising CÅ“lo-Syria and Judea as a dowry, thus securing his neutrality in the war with Rome: he hoped through his daughter to obtain Syria, Cilicia, and Lycia, and even Egypt itself at last; but Cleopatra favored her husband rather than her father, and so defeated his scheme [JEROME]. "She shall not stand on his side."

Verse 18

isles--He "took many" of the isles in the Ægean in his war with the Romans, and crossed the Hellespont. prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach . . . to cease--Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, the Roman general, by routing Antiochus at Magnesia (190 B.C.), caused the reproach which he offered Rome by inflicting injuries on Rome's allies, to cease. He did it for his own glory. without his own reproach--with untarnished reputation.

Verse 19

Then he shall turn . . . toward . . . his own land--Compelled by Rome to relinquish all his territory west of the Taurus, and defray the expenses of the war, he garrisoned the cities left to him. stumble . . . not be found--Attempting to plunder the temple of Jupiter at Elymais by night, whether through avarice, or the want of money to pay the tribute imposed by Rome (a thousand talents), he was slain with his soldiers in an insurrection of the inhabitants [JUSTIN, 32.2].

Verse 20

in his estate--in Antiochus' stead: his successor, Seleucus Philopater, his son. in the glory of the kingdom--that is, inheriting it by hereditary right. MAURER translates, "one who shall cause the tax gatherer (Heliodorus) to pass through the glory of the kingdom," that is, Judea, "the glorious land" (Dan 11:16, Dan 11:41; Dan 8:9). Simon, a Benjamite, in spite against Onias III, the high priest, gave information of the treasures in the Jewish temple; and Seleucus having reunited to Syria CÅ“lo-Syria and Palestine, the dowry formerly given by Antiochus the Great to Cleopatra, Ptolemy's wife, sent Heliodorus to Jerusalem to plunder the temple. This is narrated in 2 Maccabees 3:4, &c. Contrast Zac 9:8, "No oppressor shall pass through . . . any more." within few days . . . destroyed--after a reign of twelve years, which were "few" compared with the thirty-seven years of Antiochus' reign. Heliodorus, the instrument of Seleucus' sacrilege, was made by God the instrument of his punishment. Seeking the crown, in the absence at Rome of Seleucus' only son and heir, Demetrius, he poisoned Seleucus. But Antiochus Epiphanes, Seleucus' brother, by the help of Eumenes, king of Pergamos, succeeded to the throne, 175 B.C. neither in anger, nor in battle--not in a popular outbreak, nor in open battle.

Verse 21

vile--Antiochus called Epiphanes, that is, "the illustrious," for vindicating the claims of the royal line against Heliodorus, was nicknamed, by a play of sounds, Epimanes, that is, "the madman," for his mad freaks beneath the dignity of a king. He would carouse with the lowest of the people, bathe with them in the public baths, and foolishly jest and throw stones at passers-by [POLYBIUS, 26.10]. Hence, as also for his crafty supplanting of Demetrius, the rightful heir, from the throne, he is termed "vile." they shall not give . . . kingdom: but . . . by flatteries--The nation shall not, by a public act, confer the kingdom on him, but he shall obtain it by artifice, "flattering" Eumenes and Attalus of Pergamos to help him, and, as he had seen candidates at Rome doing, canvassing the Syrian people high and low, one by one, with embraces [LIVY, 41.20].

Verse 22

shall they be overflown . . . before him--Antiochus Epiphanes shall invade Egypt with overwhelming forces. prince of the covenant--Ptolemy Philometer, the son of Cleopatra, Antiochus' sister, who was joined in covenant with him. Ptolemy's guardians, while he was a boy, sought to recover from Epiphanes CÅ“lo-Syria and Palestine, which had been promised by Antiochus the Great as Cleopatra's dowry in marrying Ptolemy Epiphanes. Hence arose the war. Philometer's generals were vanquished, and Pelusium, the key of Egypt, taken by Antiochus, 171 B.C.

Verse 23

TREGELLES notes three divisions in the history of the "vile person," which is continued to the end of the chapter: (1) His rise (Dan 11:21-22). (2) The time from his making the covenant to the taking away of the daily sacrifice and setting up of the abomination of desolation (Dan 11:23-31). (3) His career of blasphemy, to his destruction (Dan 11:32-45); the latter two periods answering to the "week" of years of his "covenant with many" (namely, in Israel) (Dan 9:27), and the last being the closing half week of the ninth chapter. But the context so accurately agrees with the relations of Antiochus to Ptolemy that the primary reference seems to be to the "league" between them. Antitypically, Antichrist's relations towards Israel are probably delineated. Compare Dan 8:11, Dan 8:25, with Dan 11:22 here, "prince of the covenant." work deceitfully--Feigning friendship to young Ptolemy, as if he wished to order his kingdom for him, he took possession of Memphis and all Egypt ("the fattest places," Dan 11:34) as far as Alexandria. with a small people--At first, to throw off suspicion, his forces were small.

Verse 24

peaceably--literally, "unexpectedly"; under the guise of friendship he seized Ptolemy Philometer. he shall do that which his fathers have not done--His predecessors, kings of Syria, had always coveted Egypt, but in vain: he alone made himself master of it. scatter among them . . . prey--among his followers (1 Maccabees 1:19). forecast his devices against . . . strongholds--He shall form a studied scheme for making himself master of the Egyptian fortresses. He gained them all except Alexandria, which successfully resisted him. Retaining to himself Pelusium, he retired to Judea, where, in revenge for the joy shown by the Jews at the report of his death, which led them to a revolt, he subdued Jerusalem by storm or stratagem. for a time--His rage shall not be for ever; it is but for a time limited by God. CALVIN makes "for a time" in antithesis to "unexpectedly," in the beginning of the verse. He suddenly mastered the weaker cities: he had to "forecast his plans" more gradually ("for a time") as to how to gain the stronger fortresses.

Verse 25

A fuller detail of what was summarily stated (Dan 11:22-24). This is the first of Antiochus' three (Dan 11:29) open invasions of Egypt. against the king of the south--against Ptolemy Philometer. Subsequently, Ptolemy Physcon (the Gross), or Euergetes II, was made king by the Egyptians, as Ptolemy Philometer was in Antiochus hands. great army--as distinguished from the "small people" (Dan 11:23) with which he first came. This was his first open expedition; he was emboldened by success to it. Antiochus "entered Egypt with an overwhelming multitude, with chariots, elephants, and cavalry" (1 Maccabees 1:17). stirred up--by the necessity, though naturally indolent. not stand--Philometer was defeated. they shall forecast, &c.--His own nobles shall frame treacherous "devices" against him (see Dan 11:26). Euloeus and Lenoeus maladministered his affairs. Antiochus, when checked at last at Alexandria, left Ptolemy Philometer at Memphis as king, pretending that his whole object was to support Philometer's claims against the usurper Physcon.

Verse 26

they that feed of . . . his meat--those from whom he might naturally have looked for help, his intimates and dependents (Psa 41:9; Joh 13:18); his ministers and guardians. his army shall overflow--Philometer's army shall be dissipated as water. The phrase is used of overflowing numbers, usually in a victorious sense, but here in the sense of defeat, the very numbers which ordinarily ensure victory, hastening the defeat through mismanagement. many shall fall down slain--(1 Maccabees 1:18, "many fell wounded to death"). Antiochus, when he might have slain all in the battle near Pelusium, rode around and ordered the enemy to be taken alive, the fruit of which policy was, he soon gained Pelusium and all Egypt [DIODORUS SICULUS, 26.77].

Verse 27

both . . . to do mischief--each to the other. speak lies at one table--They shall, under the semblance of intimacy, at Memphis try to deceive one another (see on Dan 11:3; Dan 11:25). it shall not prosper--Neither of them shall carry his point at this time. yet the end shall be--"the end" of the contest between them is reserved for "the time appointed" (Dan 11:29-30).

Verse 28

(1 Maccabees 1:19, 20, &c.). against the holy covenant--On his way back to Syria, he attacked Jerusalem, the metropolis of Jehovah's covenant-people, slew eighty thousand, took forty thousand prisoners, and sold forty thousand as slaves (2 Maccabees 5:5-14). he shall do exploits--He shall effect his purpose. Guided by Menelaus, the high priest, he entered the sanctuary with blasphemies, took away the gold and silver vessels, sacrificed swine on the altar, and sprinkled broth of the flesh through the temple (2 Maccabees 5:15-21).

Verse 29

At the time appointed--"the time" spoken of in Dan 11:27. return--his second open invasion of Egypt. Ptolemy Philometer, suspecting Antiochus' designs with Physcon, hired mercenaries from Greece. Whereupon Antiochus advanced with a fleet and an army, demanding the cession to him of Cyprus, Pelusium, and the country adjoining the Pelusiac mouth of the Nile. it shall not be as the former--not successful as the former expedition. Popilius Loenas, the Roman ambassador, met him at Eleusis, four miles from Alexandria, and presented him the decree of the senate; on Antiochus replying that he would consider what he was to do, Popilius drew a line round him with a rod and said, "I must have a reply to give to the senate before you leave this circle." Antiochus submitted, and retired from Egypt; and his fleets withdrew from Cyprus. or as the latter--that mentioned in Dan 11:42-43 [TREGELLES]. Or, making this the third expedition, the sense is "not as the first or as the second" expeditions [PISCATOR]. Rather "not as the former, so shall be this latter" expedition [GROTIUS].

Verse 30

ships of Chittim--the Roman ambassadors arriving in Macedonian Grecian vessels (see on Jer 2:10). Chittim, properly Cyprian, so called from a Phœnician colony in Cyprus; then the islands and coasts of the Mediterranean in general. grieved--humbled and dispirited through fear of Rome. indignation against the holy covenant--Indignant that meantime God's worship had been restored at Jerusalem, he gives vent to his wrath at the check given him by Rome, on the Jews. intelligence with them that forsake the . . . covenant--namely, with the apostates in the nation (1 Maccabees 1:11-15). Menelaus and other Jews instigated the king against their religion and country, learning from Greek philosophy that all religions are good enough to keep the masses in check. These had cast off circumcision and the religion of Jehovah for Greek customs. Antiochus, on his way home, sent Apollonius (167 B.C.) with twenty-two thousand to destroy Jerusalem, two years after its capture by himself. Apollonius slew multitudes, dismantled and pillaged the city. They then, from a fortress which they built commanding the temple, fell on and slew the worshippers; so that the temple service was discontinued. Also, Antiochus decreed that all, on pain of death, should conform to the Greek religion, and the temple was consecrated to Jupiter Olympius. Identifying himself with that god, with fanatical haughtiness he wished to make his own worship universal (1 Maccabees 1:41; 2 Maccabees 6:7). This was the gravest peril which ever heretofore threatened revealed religion, the holy people, and the theocracy on earth, for none of the previous world rulers had interfered with the religious worship of the covenant-people, when subject to them (Dan 4:31-34; Dan 6:27-28; Ezr 1:2, Ezr 1:4; Ezr 7:12; Neh 2:18). Hence arose the need of such a forewarning of the covenant-people as to him--so accurate, that PORPHYRY, the adversary of revelation, saw it was hopeless to deny its correspondence with history, but argued from its accuracy that it must have been written subsequent to the event. But as Messianic events are foretold in Daniel, the Jews, the adversaries of Jesus, would never have forged the prophecies which confirm His claims. The ninth chapter was to comfort the faithful Jews, in the midst of the "abominations" against "the covenant," with the prospect of Messiah who would "confirm the covenant." He would show by bringing salvation, and yet abolishing sacrifices, that the temple service which they so grieved after, was not absolutely necessary; thus the correspondence of phraseology would suggest comfort (compare Dan 9:27 with Dan 11:30-31).

Verse 31

arms--namely, of the human body; not weapons; human forces. they--Antiochus' hosts confederate with the apostate Israelites; these latter attain the climax of guilt, when they not only, as before, "forsake the covenant" (Dan 11:30), but "do wickedly against" it (Dan 11:32), turning complete heathens. Here Antiochus' actings are described in language which reach beyond him the type to Antichrist the antitype [JEROME] (just as in Psa. 72:1-20 many things are said of Solomon the type, which are only applicable to Christ the Antitype); including perhaps Rome, Mohammed, and the final personal Antichrist. SIR ISAAC NEWTON refers the rest of the chapter from this verse to the Romans, translating, "after him arms (that is, the Romans) shall stand up"; at the very time that Antiochus left Egypt, the Romans conquered Macedon, thus finishing the reign of Daniel's third beast; so here the prophet naturally proceeds to the fourth beast. JEROME'S view is simpler; for the narrative seems to continue the history of Antiochus, though with features only in type applicable to him, fully to Antichrist. sanctuary of strength--not only naturally a place of strength, whence it held out to the last against the besiegers, but chiefly the spiritual stronghold of the covenant-people (Psa 48:1-3, Psa 48:12-14). Apollonius "polluted" it with altars to idols and sacrifices of swine's flesh, after having "taken away the daily sacrifice" (see on Dan 8:11). place . . . abomination that maketh desolate--that is, that pollutes the temple (Dan 8:12-13). Or rather, "the abomination of the desolater," Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 1:29, 37-49). Compare Dan 9:27, wherein the antitypical desolating abomination of Rome (the eagle standard, the bird of Jupiter, sacrificed to by Titus' soldiers within the sacred precincts, at the destruction of Jerusalem), of Mohammed and of the final Antichrist, is foretold. 1 Maccabees 1:54, uses the very phrase, "the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty-fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation on the altar"; namely, an idol-altar and image of Jupiter Olympius, erected upon Jehovah's altar of burnt offerings. "Abomination" is the common name for an idol in the Old Testament. The Roman emperor Adrian's erection of a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus where the temple of God had stood, A.D. 132; also the erection of the Mohammedan mosque of Omar in the same place (it is striking, Mohammedanism began to prevail in A.D. 610, only about three years of the time when Popery assumed the temporal power); and the idolatry of the Church of Rome in the spiritual temple, and the final blasphemy of the personal Antichrist in the literal temple (Th2 2:4) may all be antitypically referred to here under Antiochus the type, and the Old Testament Antichrist.

Verse 32

(1 Maccabees 1:52). corrupt--seduce to apostasy. by flatteries--promises of favor. people that . . . know their God--the Maccabees and their followers (1 Maccabees 1:62, 63).

Verse 33

they that understand--who know and keep the truth of God (Isa 11:2). instruct many--in their duty to God and the law, not to apostatize. yet they shall fall--as Eleazar (2 Maccabees 6:18, &c.). They shall be sorely persecuted, even to death (Heb 11:35-37; 2 Maccabees 6, 7). Their enemies took advantage of the Sabbath to slay them on the day when they would not fight. TREGELLES thinks, from comparison with Dan 11:35, it is the people who "fall," not those of understanding. But Dan 11:35 makes the latter "fall," not an unmeaning repetition; in Dan 11:33 they fall (die) by persecution; in Dan 11:35 they fall (spiritually) for a time by their own weakness. flame--in caves, whither they had retired to keep the Sabbath. Antiochus caused some to be roasted alive (2 Maccabees 7:3-5). many days--rather, "certain days," as in Dan 8:27. JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 12:7.6,7] tells us the persecution lasted for three years (1 Maccabees 1:59; 4:54; 2 Maccabees 10:1-7).

Verse 34

a little help--The liberty obtained by the Maccabean heroes for the Jews was of but short duration. They soon fell under the Romans and Herodians, and ever since every attempt to free them from Gentile rule has only aggravated their sad lot. The period of the world times (Gentile rule) is the period of depression of the theocracy, extending from the exile to the millennium [ROOS]. The more immediate reference seems to be, the forces of Mattathias and his five sons were originally few (1 Maccabees 2:1-5). many shall cleave to them--as was the case under Judas Maccabeus, who was thus able successfully to resist Antiochus. with flatteries--Those who had deserted the Jewish cause in persecution, now, when success attended the Jewish arms, joined the Maccabean standard, for example, Joseph, the son of Zecharias, Azarias, &c. (1 Maccabees 5:55-57; 2 Maccabees 12:40; 13:21). MAURER explains it, of those who through fear of the Maccabees' severity against apostates joined them, though ready, if it suited their purpose, to desert them (1 Maccabees 2:44; 3:58).

Verse 35

to try them--the design of affliction. Image from metals tried with fire. to purge--Even in the elect there are dregs which need to be purged out (Pe1 1:7). Hence they are allowed to fall for a time; not finally (Ch2 32:31; Luk 22:31). Image from wheat cleared of its chaff by the wind. make . . . white--image from cloth (Rev 7:9). to . . . time of . . . end--God will not suffer His people to be persecuted without limitation (Co1 10:13). The godly are to wait patiently for "the end" of "the time" of trial; "for it is (to last) yet for a time appointed" by God.

Verse 36

The wilful king here, though primarily Antiochus, is antitypically and mainly Antichrist, the seventh head of the seven-headed and ten-horned beast of Rev. 13:1-18, and the "beast" of Armageddon (Rev 16:13, Rev 16:16; Rev 19:19). Some identify him with the revived French emperorship, the eighth head of the beast (Rev 17:11), who is to usurp the kingly, as the Pope has the priestly, dignity of Christ--the false Messiah of the Jews, who will "plant his tabernacle between the seas in the holy mountain," "exalting himself above every god" (Th2 2:4; Rev 13:5-6). This last clause only in part holds good of Antiochus; for though he assumed divine honors, identifying himself with Jupiter Olympius, yet it was for that god he claimed them; still it applies to him as the type. speak marvellous things against . . . God of gods--so Dan 7:25, as to the "little horn," which seemingly identifies the two (compare Dan 8:25). Antiochus forbade the worship of Jehovah by a decree "marvellous" for its wickedness: thus he was a type of Antichrist. Compare Dan 7:8, "a mouth speaking great things." indignation . . . accomplished--God's visitation of wrath on the Jews for their sins (Dan 8:19). that . . . determined-- (Dan 9:26-27; Dan 10:21).

Verse 37

Neither . . . regard . . . the desire of women--(Compare Eze 24:16, Eze 24:18). The wife, as the desire of man's eyes, is the symbol of the tenderest relations (Sa2 1:26). Antiochus would set at naught even their entreaties that he should cease from his attack on Jehovah's worship [POLANUS]. MAURER refers it to Antiochus' attack on the temple of the Syrian Venus, worshipped by women (1 Maccabees 6:1, &c.; 2 Maccabees 1:13). NEWTON refers it to Rome's "forbidding to marry." ELLIOTT rightly makes the antitypical reference be to Messiah. Jewish women desired to be mothers with a view to Him, the promised seed of the woman (Gen 30:23; Luk 1:25, Luk 1:28). nor regard any god-- (Th2 2:4).

Verse 38

God of forces--probably Jupiter Capitolinus, to whom Antiochus began to erect a temple at Antioch [LIVY, 41.20]. Translate, "He shall honor the god of fortresses on his basis," that is, the base of the statue. NEWTON translates, "And the god 'Mahuzzim' (guardians, that is, saints adored as 'protectors' in the Greek and Roman churches) shall he honor." honour with gold, &c.--Compare Rev 17:4 as to Antiochus' antitype, Antichrist.

Verse 39

NEWTON translates, "to be defenders of Mahuzzim (the monks and priests who uphold saint worship), together with the strange god whom he shall acknowledge, he shall multiply honor." English Version is better: He shall do (exploits) in the most strongholds (that is, shall succeed against them) with a strange god (under the auspices of a god which he worshipped not before, namely, Jupiter Capitolinus, whose Worship he imported into his empire from Rome). Antiochus succeeded against Jerusalem, Sidon, Pelusium, Memphis. cause them--Antiochus "caused" his followers and the apostates "to rule over many" Jews, having "divided their land" (Judea), "for gain" (that is, as a reward for their compliance).

Verse 40

The difficulty of reconciling this with Antiochus' history is that no historian but PORPHYRY mentions an expedition of his into Egypt towards the close of his reign. This Dan 11:40, therefore, may be a recapitulation summing up the facts of the first expedition to Egypt (171-170 B.C.), in Dan 11:22, Dan 11:25; and Dan 11:41, the former invasion of Judea, in Dan 11:28; Dan 11:42-43, the second and third invasions of Egypt (169 and 168 B.C.) in Dan 11:23-24, Dan 11:29-30. AUBERLEN takes rather PORPHYRY'S statement, that Antiochus, in the eleventh year of his reign (166-165 B.C.), invaded Egypt again, and took Palestine on his way. The "tidings" (Dan 11:44) as to the revolt of tributary nations then led him to the East. PORPHYRY'S statement that Antiochus starting from Egypt took Arad in Judah, and devastated all Phœnicia, agrees with Dan 11:45; then he turned to check Artaxias, king of Armenia. He died in the Persian town Tabes, 164 B.C., as both POLYBIUS and PORPHYRY agree. Doubtless, antitypically, the final Antichrist, and its predecessor Mohammed, are intended, to whom the language may be more fully applicable than to Antiochus the type. The Saracen Arabs "of the south" "pushed at" the Greek emperor Heraclius, and deprived him of Egypt and Syria. But the Turks of "the north" not merely pushed at, but destroyed the Greek empire; therefore more is said of them than of the Saracens. Their "horsemen" are specified, being their chief strength. Their standards still are horse tails. Their "ships," too, often gained the victory over Venice, the great naval power of Europe in that day. They "overflowed" Western Asia, and then "passed over" into Europe, fixing their seat of empire at Constantinople under Mohammed II [NEWTON].

Verse 41

Antiochus, according to PORPHYRY, marching against Ptolemy, though he turned from his course to wreak his wrath on the Jews, did not meddle with Edom, Moab, and Ammon on the side of Judea. In 1 Maccabees 4:61; 5:3; &c., it is stated that he used their help in crushing the Jews, of whom they were the ancient enemies. Compare Isa 11:14, as to Israel's future retribution, just as the Maccabees made war on them as the friends of Antiochus (1 Maccabees 5:1-68). Antitypically, the Turks under Selim entered Jerusalem on their way to Egypt, and retain "the glorious land" of Palestine to this day. But they never could conquer the Arabs, who are akin to Edom, Moab, and Ammon (Gen 16:12). So in the case of the final Antichrist.

Verse 42

Egypt . . . Libyans . . . Ethiopians--The latter two, being the allies of the first, served under Antiochus when he conquered Egypt. Antitypically, Egypt, though it held out long under the Mamelukes, in A.D. 1517 fell under the Turks. Algiers, Tunis, and other parts of Africa, are still under them. at his steps--following him (Exo 11:8, Margin; Jdg 4:10).

Verse 44

tidings out of the east and out of the north--Artaxias, king of Armenia, his vassal, had revolted in the north, and Arsaces, leader of the Parthians, in the east (1 Maccabees 3:10, &c., 1 Maccabees 3:37; TACITUS, Histories, 5.8). In 147 B.C. Antiochus went on the expedition against them, on the return from which he died. great fury--at the Jews, on account of their successes under Judas Maccabeus, whence he desired to replenish his treasury with means to prosecute the war with them; also at Artaxias and Arsaces, and their respective followers. DE BURGH makes the "tidings" which rouse his fury, to be concerning the Jews' restoration; such may be the antitypical reference.

Verse 45

plant . . . between the seas--the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. tabernacles of . . . palace--his palace-like military tents, such as Oriental princes travel with. See on Dan 11:40, as to the time of Antiochus' attack on Judea, and his subsequent "end" at Tabes, which was caused by chagrin both at hearing that his forces under Lysias were overcome by the Jews, and at the failure of his expedition against the temple of Elymais (2 Maccabees 9:5). holy mountain--Jerusalem and Mount Zion. The desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus, and also the desecration of the consecrated ground round Jerusalem by the idolatrous Roman ensigns, as also by the Mohammedan mosque, and, finally, by the last Antichrist, are referred to. So the last Antichrist is to sit upon "the mount of the congregation" (Isa 14:13), but "shall be brought down to hell" (compare Note, see on Dan 7:26; Th2 2:8). Compare Dan 12:4, Dan 12:13; as Dan 12:6-7 refer to Dan 7:25, that is, to the time of Antichrist, so the subsequent Dan 12:8-12 treat of the time of Antiochus (compare Dan 12:11 with Dan 11:31), thus putting together in one summary view the two great periods of distress. The political resurrection of the Jews under the Maccabees is the starting-point of transition to the literal resurrection about to follow the destruction of Antichrist by Christ's coming in glory. The language passes here from the nearer to the more remote event, to which alone it is fully applicable. Next: Daniel Chapter 12

Verse 1

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.

Verse 2

And now will I show thee the truth,.... And nothing but the truth; what will most certainly come to pass, and may be depended on, even what is written in the book of God's decrees, "the Scripture of truth", and which would appear in Providence in later times; and this he proposed to deliver to him, not in figurative, dark, and obscure expressions, but clearly and plainly, in language easy to be understood: behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; which were Cyrus, who reigned alone after the death of Darius the Mede, his uncle; Cambyses, the son of Cyrus; and Darius Hystaspes. There was another between Cambyses and Darius, called Smerdis the magician, who reigned but seven months, and being an impostor is left out, as he is in Ptolemy's canon; not that these were all the kings of Persia after Darius the Mede; for, according to the above canon, there reigned six more after them; but because these kings had a connection with the Jews, and under them their affairs had different turns and changes, respecting their restoration and settlement, and the building of their city and temple; as also because these kings "stood", and the monarchy under them was strong and flourishing, whereas afterwards it began to decline; and chiefly it is for the sake of the fourth king that these are observed, who laid the foundation of the destruction of the Persian monarchy by the Grecians. And the fourth shall be far richer than they all: this is Xerxes, who exceeded his predecessors in wealth and riches; enjoying what they by their conquests, or otherwise, had amassed together, to which he greatly added; Cyrus had collected a vast deal of riches from various nations, especially from Babylon: God gave him "the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places", Isa 14:3, Cambyses increased the store by his victories, and the plunder of temples wherever he came; out of the flames of which were saved three hundred talents of gold, and 2300 talents of silver, which he carried away, together with the famous circle of gold that encompassed the tomb of King Ozymandias (d): and Darius, the father of Xerxes, laid heavy taxes upon the people, and hoarded up his money; hence he was called by the Persians (e), the huckster or hoarder: and Xerxes came into it all, and so became richer than them all; of whom Justin says (f). "si regem species; divitias, non ducem laudes: quarum tanta copia in regno ejus fuit, ut cum flumina multitudine consumerentur, opes tamen regiae superessent.'' And by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia; through his vast riches, which are the sinews of war, he collected a prodigious army out of all provinces, which he raised to make war against the Grecians; being moved to it by Mardonius, a relation of his, who was very ambitious of being at the head of a large army (g); three years were spent in preparing for this expedition, and forces were gathered out of all parts of the then known habitable world; out of all the west, under Hamilcar, general of the Carthaginians, with whom he made a league; and out of all the east, under his own command: his army, according to Justin (h), consisted of 700,000 of his own, and 300,000 auxiliaries; Diodorus Siculus (i) makes it much less, to be about 300,000 men; but Dr. Prideaux (k), from Herodotus and others, computes, that putting all his forces together by sea and land, by the time he came to the straits of Thermopylae the number of them were 2,641,610 men; and Grotius, from the same writer reckons them 5,283,000, to which others add two hundred and twenty (l) with these he marched into Greece, where, after having done much mischief, he was shamefully defeated and obliged to retire, and was murdered by Artabanus the captain of his guards. The words may be rendered (m), "he shall stir up all, even the realm of Grecia"; by the preparation he made, and the vast army he brought into the field, he raised all the cities and states of Greece to combine together to withstand him; and this step of his is what irritated the Grecians, and put them upon later attempts to avenge themselves on the Persians for this attack upon them; and which they never desisted from, till they had ruined the Persian empire, which they did under Alexander; and so he, in his letter to Darius, says (n), "your ancestors entered into Macedonia, and the other parts of Greece, and did us damage, when they had received no affront from us as the cause of it; and now I, created general of the Grecians, provoked by you, and desirous of avenging the injury done by the Persians, have passed over into Asia.'' And it is for the sake of this, the destruction of the Persian empire by Alexander, that this expedition of Xerxes is here hinted at; and to pave the way for the account of Alexander and his successors, in the following part of this prophecy. (d) See the Universal History, vol. 5. p. 194. (e) Herodot. l. 3. sive Thalia, c. 89. (f) E Trogo, l. 2. c. 10. (g) Diodor. Sicul. Bibliothec. l. 11. par. 2. p. 3. Ed. Rhodoman. (h) E Trogo, l. 2. c. 10. (i) Ut supra, ( Diodor. Sicul. Bibliothec. l. 11.) par. 2. p. 2. (k) Connexion, &c. part 1. B. 4. p. 233, 234. (l) See the Universal History, vol. 5. p. 233. (m) "excitabit universos, nempe regnum" Graciae, Michaelis. (n) Apud Arrian. Exped. Alexand. l. 2.

Verse 3

And a mighty king shall stand up,.... Not in Persia, but in Greece; Alexander the great, who rose up a hundred years after the above expedition of Xerxes, and "stood" and flourished, and conquered all he attacked, none being able to resist him; and is rightly called a "mighty king", a very powerful one: this is the notable horn in the he goat, which being exasperated by the ram, the Persians, and their invasion of Greece, pushed at them, and destroyed them, Dan 8:5, that shall rule with great dominion; not in Greece only but in the whole world, at least as he thought, and really did over a very great part of it; for, as Jerome says, having conquered the Illyrians, Thracians, Greece, and Thebes, he passed into Asia; and, having put to flight the generals of Darius, he took the city of Sardis, and afterwards India. And do according to his will; not only in his own army, sacrificing his best friends at his pleasure; but with his enemies, conquering whom he would, none being able to withstand him; all things succeeded to his wish; whatever he attempted he performed. His historian (o) says of him, "that it must be owned he owed much to virtue, but more to fortune, which alone of all mortals he had in his power;'' since, by the benefit of it, he seemed to do with nations whatever he pleased; he was sovereign in all things, and set himself to be worshipped as a deity. (o) Curtius, l. 10. c. 5.

Verse 4

And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken,.... When Alexander was risen up to his highest pitch of grandeur, was sole monarch of the world, in the height of his ambition, in the prime of his days, he was cut off by death; his kingdom remained no more one, but became many, was seized by different persons, his generals, and so broke to pieces: and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; which seem to have respect to the four horns or kings, which came up in his place, Dan 8:8, and among whom his kingdom was parted; Ptolemy reigned in Egypt to the south; Antigonus in Asia to the north; Seleucus in Babylon and Syria to the east; and Cassander in Macedonia to the west: and not to his posterity; for though he had two sons, one by Barsine, whose name was Hercules, who was living at his death; and another by Roxane, born after his death, whose name was Alexander; yet they were both destroyed by Cassander, or his means, that he might enjoy Macedonia (p): nor according to his dominion which he ruled; their dominion was not so large and powerful as Alexander's was, being divided into several parts; see Dan 8:22, for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others besides those; either besides his posterity, who had no share in it, and so, with respect to his family, was like a tree plucked up by the roots, and, as to their concern in it, withered away at once; or, besides the four governors before mentioned, there were others that had, at least for a while, some lesser shares in the kingdom, as Eumenes, Philotas, Leonnatus, and others; but, at length, all were reduced to the kings of Egypt and Syria, the Lagidae and Seleucidae, which the following part of the prophecy chiefly concerns; and, besides these, for the Romans also, to whom this kingdom came. (p) Diodor. Sicul. Bibliothec. l. 19. p. 739. & l. 20. p. 761.

Verse 5

And the king of the south shall be strong,.... That is, the king of Egypt, which lay south to Syria, as Syria lay north to Egypt; and therefore the king of the one is called the king of the south, and the other the king of the north, throughout this prophecy; and by the king of the south, or Egypt, is here meant Ptolemy Lagus, one of Alexander's generals, who had Egypt for his share; and a very powerful king he was; for he reigned over Egypt, Lybia, Cyrene, Ethiopia, Arabia, Phoenicia, Coelesyria, Cyprus, and several isles in the Aegean sea, and many cities in Greece: and one of his princes; not of Ptolemy king of Egypt, but of Alexander the great; and this is Seleucus Nicator, afterwards called king of the north, having Syria for his part, which lay to the north of Egypt, as before observed: and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; that is, be a greater and more powerful prince than Ptolemy king of Egypt: his dominion shall be a great dominion; even greater than the others; for he reigned over Macedonia, Greece, Thrace, Asia, Syria, Babylonia, Media, and all the eastern countries as far as India; even from Taurus to the river Indus, and so likewise from Taurus to the Aegean sea: these two are only mentioned, who shared the Persian monarchy, because the Jews were only affected by them, for the sake of whom this prophecy is delivered.

Verse 6

And in the end of years they shall join themselves together,.... The two kings of Egypt and Syria; not the two former kings, but their successors: the king of Egypt was Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second king of Egypt, the son of Ptolemy Lagus; this is the king of Egypt who collected such a vast number of books into his library at Alexandria, and got the law of Moses translated into Greek: the king of Syria was Antiochus, surnamed Theos; this name was first given him by the Milesians, upon his delivering them from the tyranny of Timarchus governor of Caria; he was the third king of Syria; Seleucus Nicator the first, Antiochus Soter the second, and this the third: there had been very great wars between these kings for many years; and now, being weary of them, they entered into confederacies and alliances with each other, and which were designed to be strengthened by a marriage next mentioned; this is thought to be about seventy years after the death of Alexander: (q). for the king's daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement; this was Bernice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus king of Egypt, who carried her to Pelusium, and from thence sailed with her to Seleucia in Syria; where he met with Antiochus king of Syria, to whom he gave her in marriage, with a vast dowry of gold and silver; hence she was called and the marriage was celebrated with great solemnity (r): and this was "to make agreement", or "to make things right or straight" (s); that were wrong and crooked before; to put an end to wars and discords; to make peace and cultivate friendship; to strengthen alliances, and confirm each other in their kingdoms: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; unite the two kingdoms, and secure the peace of them, which was the thing in view; nor retain her interest in her husband, nor her power at court; for, as soon as her father was dead, Antiochus dismissed Bernice from his bed, and took Laodice his former wife again, by whom he had had two sons, Seleucus Callinicus, and Antiochus Hierax (t): neither shall he stand, nor his arm; neither Antiochus; for Laodice, knowing that by the late treaty the crown was settled upon the children of Bernice, who already had a son by him, and sensible of his fickleness, and fearing he might divorce her again, and take to Bernice, got him poisoned by his servants: nor Bernice his queen, called "his arm"; who fleeing to Daphne for shelter, on hearing what was done, was there slain; or it may be his son he had by her, so it follows: but she shall be given up; into the hands of Seleucus Callinicus, the son of Laodice; whom she placed on the throne after the death of his father; and who sent to Daphne to slay Bernice, which was accordingly done (u): and they that brought her; into Syria; that attended her from Egypt at her marriage, and continued with her in the court of Syria, and fled with her to Daphne: and he that begat her: or, "whom she brought forth"; as in the margin; her little son, who was murdered at the same time with her; for her father died before: and he that strengthened her in these times; either her husband, or her father, who were both dead before, and so stood not, and could not help her; unless this is to be understood of her brother, and the cities of the lesser Asia, who, hearing of her distress at Daphne, set out for her relief, but came too late; she and her son were both slain first (w). (q) See the Universal History, vol. 9. p. 384. (r) Ibid. p. 196. & Jerom. in loc. (s) "ad faciendum reetitudines", Pagninus, Michaelis; "ut faciat rectitudines", Montanus; "recta", Calvin. (t) Universal History, vol. 9, p. 196, 197. (u) Ibid. (w) Justin, l. 27. c. 1.

Verse 7

But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his estate,.... Or, "out of a branch of her roots a shoot thereof shall stand or rise up" (x); by "her roots" are meant her ancestors, particularly Ptolemy Lagus; by "a branch" from thence, Ptolemy Philadelphus her father; and by the "shoot" out of that, or its plantation, as the Vulgate Latin version, is designed her brother, Ptolemy Euergetes; who succeeded her father in the kingdom, and stood firm in it; "upon his basis" (y), as some render it: which shall come with an army; or, "to an army" (z) as soon as he heard of his sister's case, he put himself at the head of an army, and marched to her relief; but coming too late, he, and the forces of the lesser Asia, which came for the same purpose, joining him, resolved to revenge the death of his sister and her son, went with his army into Syria, as next foretold: and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north; the king of Syria, Seleucus Callinicus: Ptolemy entered into Syria itself, as Polybius (a) says, into the fortified cities of it, and took them, the singular being put for the plural; unless Seleucia itself is particularly designed, which Ptolemy seized, and put a garrison of Egyptians in it, which held it twenty seven years (b): and shall deal against them; besiege and take them at his pleasure; the king of Syria not being able to stand against him and defend them: and shall prevail; over the king of Syria, and conquer great part of his dominions, as he did: he took Syria and Cilicia, and the superior parts beyond Euphrates, and almost all Asia, as Jerome relates; and had it not been for a sedition in his own kingdom, which called him home, he had made himself master of the whole kingdom of Seleucus, as Justin (c) says. (x) "plantatio ejus", V. L. (y) "Super basi sua", Pagninus, Gejerus. (z) "ad exercitum", Pagninus, Montanus, Cocceius, Michaelis. (a) Hist. l. 5. (b) See Prideaux, Connexion, part 2. B. 2. p. 100. (c) Ut supra. (Justin, l. 27. c. 1.)

Verse 8

And shall also carry captive into Egypt their gods, with their princes,.... Jerom relates, from the historians he conversed with, that Ptolemy carried captive with him into Egypt two thousand five hundred images; among which were many of the idols which Cambyses, when he conquered Egypt, carried from thence; and Ptolemy replacing them in their proper temples, gained him the affection of his people the Egyptians, who were much addicted to idolatry; hence they gave him the name of Euergetes, that is, "the benefactor": and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; the same writer reports, that he brought with him out of Syria, and the places he conquered, forty thousand talents of silver, and precious vessels; vessels of gold and silver, a prodigious number: and he shall continue more years than the king of the north; according to the canon of Ptolemy, this king of Egypt reigned twenty five years; and, as Dr. Prideaux (d) observes, outlived Seleucus king of Syria four years. (d) Connexion, part 2. B. 2. p. 81.

Verse 9

So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom,.... Into his own kingdom, the kingdom of Egypt; or into the kingdom of Syria, the kingdom of Seleucus, and conquer great part of it, and ravage and spoil it: and shall return into his own land; the land of Egypt; he shall go and come with ease, and as he pleases, none to hinder him; and come back with a great spoil, as before related: Cocceius renders it, and something "shall come in the kingdom of the king of the south, and he shall return to his own land"; and thinks this refers to the sedition raised there, before mentioned, which obliged him to return sooner than he intended. The Septuagint and Arabic versions render it, "and he shall enter into the kingdom of the king of the south, and he shall return to his own land": that is, Seleucus should attempt to enter into the kingdom of Ptolemy king of Egypt, in revenge of his having entered into his country and spoiled it; but shall be obliged to return to his own land without any success: and so Justin (e) says, that he fitted out a great fleet, which was destroyed by a violent storm; and after this he raised a great army to recover his dominion, but was defeated by Ptolemy, and fled in great terror and trembling to Antioch; and this suits well with what follows. (e) Ut supra, (Justin, l. 27.) c. 2.

Verse 10

But his sons shall be stirred up,.... Not of the king of the south, or Egypt, but of the king of the north, or Syria; the sons of Seleucus Callinicus, who died, as Justin (f) says, by a fall from his horse; these were Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus, who was afterwards called the great: these being irritated and provoked by what Ptolemy Euergetes had done in revenge of his sister, taking part of their father's kingdom from him, and carrying off so rich a booty, joined together, and exerted themselves to recover their dominions from him: and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: or, "a multitude of men, even large armies" (g); which they put themselves at the head of, in order to make war with the king of Egypt: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through; this is to be understood of Antiochus; for Seleucus dying in the third year of his reign, being slain in Phrygia, through the treachery of Nicator and Apaturius, as Jerom relates; or, as others, poisoned; Antiochus succeeded him, and alone headed the armies they had collected; and with which, like an inundation of water, to which armies are sometimes compared, he attacked Seleucia, and took it; and entered into Coelesyria, and overran it, being delivered into his hands by the treachery of Theodotus, who governed there for Ptolemy, whom he had offended: after this he came to Berytus, entered the province by a place which the countrymen called "the face of God"; and which Grotius, not improbably, takes to be Phanuel: took the town of Botris, and set fire to Trieres and Calamus, or Calene: he next invaded Palestine, and took several places in it; went as far as Rabata Massane, or Rabatamana, a city in Arabia, the same with Rabbathammon, which surrendered to him (h): then shall he return, and be stirred up even to his fortress: the spring following he returned with a numerous army, and came to Raphia, a fortified city in Egypt, which lay between that and Palestine; where, as Strabo (i) says, Ptolemy the fourth (i.e. Philopator) fought with Antiochus the great. (f) Ibid. (Justin, l. 27.) c. 3. (g) "multitudinem, copias amplas", Junius & Tremellius. (h) Vid. Polybium, l. 5. p. 256, 260, 261, 262. and Universal History, vol. 9. p. 216, 218, 219. (i) Geograph. l. 16. p. 522.

Verse 11

And the king of the south shall be moved with choler,.... This is Ptolemy Philopator, who succeeded Ptolemy Euergetes in the kingdom of Egypt; so called ironically, because of his murder of his father and mother, as Justin (k) relates; the same, though naturally sluggish and slothful, was provoked and exasperated at the proceedings of Antiochus, retaking Coelesyria, invading Palestine, and coming up to the borders of his kingdom: and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: he assembled an army, and marched with them, from the interior part of his kingdom, to the border of it, to Raphia, a city between Rhinocorura and Gaza; where he met with Antiochus, and a battle was fought, as before observed: and he shall set forth a great multitude; this is true of both kings, their armies were very large; that of Ptolemy king of Egypt consisted, according to Polybius (l), of seventy thousand foot, five thousand horse, and seventy three elephants and that of Antiochus king of Syria consisted of sixty two (some say seventy two) thousand foot, six thousand horse, and a hundred and two elephants: the former army, that of the king of Egypt, seems rather designed, if the preceding clause is consulted; though the latter, that of Antiochus, best agrees with what follows: but the multitude shall be given into his hand: that is, the multitude of the army of Antiochus should be delivered into the hands of Ptolemy Philopator, and so it was; for Antiochus lost ten thousand footmen, and three hundred horsemen; four thousand footmen were taken, three elephants slain, and two wounded, which afterwards died, and most of the rest were taken (m): this victory is ascribed to Arsinoe, the sister and wife of Ptolemy, who ran about the army with her hair dishevelled, and by entreaties and promises greatly encouraged the soldiers to fight; of which see third Maccabees chapter one and with which Polybius (n) agrees. (k) E Trogo, l. 29. c. 1. (l) L. 5. p. 266. (m) Polybius, l. 5. p. 269. (n) Ibid. p. 268.

Verse 12

That is, when Ptolemy king of Egypt had defeated the large army of Antiochus, killed great numbers of them, and taken many: his heart shall be lifted up; with pride, through the victory he obtained; and so he gave himself up to sensuality and luxury, judging himself now safe and secure in the possession of his kingdom: or, this may refer to his insolence, when he entered into Judea, went to Jerusalem, and forced his way into the holiest of all to offer sacrifice upon his victory; of which see third Maccabees chapter one: and he shall cast down many ten thousands; or "many thousands", as the Vulgate Latin version; or rather "ten thousand" (m), either of the Jews, when he went into their country; or of the army of Antiochus the king of the north, as Jacchiades: and it may be rendered, "though he shall cast down many thousands" (n); that is, cast them down to the earth, slay them, as he did, even ten thousand of them, the number here mentioned: yet he shall not be strengthened by it; for Antiochus escaped out of his hands, nor did he pursue his victory, and take all the advantages of it, as he might have done; for, as the historian (o) says, had he added valour to his fortune, he might have spoiled Antiochus of his kingdom; but, content with the recovery of the cities he lost, made peace, and greedily took the advantage of ease, and rolled himself in luxury, uncleanness, and intemperance. (m) "decem millia", Pagninus, Montanus, so Ben Melech. (n) "etiamsi dejiciet", Gejerus; "quamvis prostraverit", Michaelis. (o) Justin, l. 30. c. 1.

Verse 13

For the king of the north shall return,.... As Antiochus king of Syria did, upon the death of Ptolemy Philopator, who was succeeded by his son Ptolemy Epiphanes, a minor of five years of age: Antiochus took the advantage of this minority, and entered into a league with Philip king of Macedon, to divide the kingdom of Egypt between them; and marched an army into Coelesyria and Palestine, and made himself master of those countries: and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former; bring a larger army into the field than he had done before, which Jerom says he brought out of the upper parts of Babylon; some say it consisted of three hundred thousand footmen, besides horsemen and elephants: and shall certainly come (after certain years) with a great army, and with much riches; with all manner of provisions to supply his numerous army, and all proper accommodations for it; money to pay his soldiers, and beasts of burden to carry their baggage from place to place: this was about fourteen years after the former battle, as Dr. Prideaux (p) observes; and, according to Bishop Usher's annals, thirteen years. (p) Connexion, par. 2. B. 2. p. 140.

Verse 14

And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south,.... The king of Egypt, Ptolemy Epiphanes being a minor; and while he was such, Antiochus king of Syria, and Philip king of Macedon, joined in alliance together, as before observed, to seize upon his kingdom, and divide it between them; and accordingly Antiochus began the war in Coelesyria and Phoenicia, and Philip went against Egypt and Samos, or Caria, according to Polybius (q). Agathocles and Agathoclea, favourites of the former king of Egypt, laid a scheme of taking the regency into their hands during the minority of the young king; and these, being persons of dissolute lives, were hated by the Egyptians, which caused insurrections and seditions among themselves; and Scopas, a principal general in the army of the king of Egypt, formed a design of taking the government to himself: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision: this is directed to the Prophet Daniel, and respects the Jews his countrymen, at least some of them, refractory persons that broke through all laws of God and men; seditious men, disturbers of the public peace, and who lived upon the spoil and plunder of others; these either took the advantage of the disturbances in Egypt, and went thither, and plundered what they could, in a bold and audacious manner, and so helped to fulfil this prophecy; or during the troubles in their own land, through the kings of Egypt and Syria, took the opportunity of committing thefts and robberies in a very daring manner, whereby they brought upon them those evils threatened in the law to such persons; and particularly when the Egyptians prevailed, they sided with them against Antiochus, especially such who apostatized from their religion to please the king of Egypt; but were afterwards punished by Antiochus, as it follows: but they shall fall: be cut off and destroyed, as those apostates that were of Ptolemy's party were by Antiochus, when he invaded Judea, and became master of Jerusalem; see third Maccabees chapter one. Some understand this of the apostate Jews, who fled with Onias the high priest to Egypt, and were there honourably received by Ptolemy, and obtained leave to build a temple there, under pretence of fulfilling the vision or prophecy in Isa 19:19, which continued many years to the times of the Romans, by whom it was destroyed; but this does not agree with the reign of this king of Egypt; for it was in the times of Ptolemy Philometor that this affair happened, as Josephus (r) relates. Sir Isaac Newton interprets it of the Samaritans (s). (q) Hist. l. 3. in initio. (r) Antiqu. l. 13. c. 3. sect. 1. (s) Vid. Joseph. Antiqu. l. 12. c. 4. sect. 1.

Verse 15

So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities,.... That is, Antiochus the great, king of Syria, should come into Coelesyria and Phoenicia, which was the part of the kingdom of Egypt he was to have by the league with Philip king of Macedon; and this is a prophecy of his expedition into those parts, and the success of it. Scopas, a general of Ptolemy, being sent by him into Coelesyria, had took many of the cities of it, and the land of Judea; but Antiochus, coming into those parts with his army, beat Scopas at the fountains of Jordan, and destroyed great part of his forces, and retook the cities of Coelesyria that Scopas had made himself master of, and subdued Samaria; upon which the Jews voluntarily submitted to him, and received him into their city, as Josephus (t) relates; and Polybius (u), as quoted by him, says, that Scopas being conquered by Antiochus, he took Batanea, Samaria, Abila, and Godara, and that the Jews in a little time surrendered to him; and so Livy says (w), that Antiochus reduced all the cities that Ptolemy had in Coelesyria into subjection to him; and these are the most fenced cities pointed at in this prophecy, against which the king of Syria cast up mounts, in order to take them; or placed battering engines before them, as the word also signifies, as Kimchi observes (x), by which stones were cast into the besieged cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand; all the forces of the king of Egypt mustered together would not be able to withstand the power of Antiochus, who would, as he did, carry all before him; not their most powerful armies, nor most courageous generals, nor valiant soldiers, the choicest of them, nor any auxiliaries called in to their assistance; for when Scopas was beaten by Antiochus at Jordan, he fled to Sidon with ten thousand soldiers, where he was shut up in a close siege; and though Ptolemy sent his famous and choicest commanders to his relief, Eropus, Menocles, and Damoxenus, as Jerome relates; yet they were not able to raise the siege, but by famine were forced to surrender; and he and his men were dismissed naked. (t) Antiqu. l. 12. c. 3. sect. 3. (u) Histor. l. 16. apud Joseph. ib. (w) Hist. l. 33. (x) Sepher Shorash. rad.

Verse 16

But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him,.... Antiochus the great, who came against Ptolemy king of Egypt, would do in those parts where he came as he pleased; take cities, and dispose of them at his pleasure; the army of the king of Egypt not being able to oppose him, and stop his conquests in Coelesyria and Phoenicia; nor should they hinder his entrance into Judea: and he shall stand in the glorious land; Judea, so called, not only because of its fertility, but chiefly because of the worship of God in it; here Antiochus stood as a victorious conqueror; the Jews readily submitting to him, and received him into their city, and assisted him in reducing the castle where Scopas had placed a garrison of soldiers: which by his hand shall be consumed; by his numerous army, and the foraging of his soldiers, eating up and destroying the fruits of the earth wherever they came; otherwise the land of Judea, and the inhabitants of it, were not consumed and destroyed by him at this time; but rather brought into more flourishing circumstances, having many favours and privileges bestowed on them by him, on account of the respect they showed him; for, on his coming to Jerusalem, the priests and elders went out to meet him, and gladly received him and his army, and furnished him with horses and elephants, and helped him in reducing the garrison Scopas had left (y), as before observed: hence some render the words, "which by his hand was perfected" (z); restored to perfect peace and prosperity, which had been for some years harassed and distressed by the Egyptians and Syrians, in their turns being masters of it; the elders, priests, and Levites, he freed from tribute, gave them leave to live according to their own laws, granted them cattle and other things for sacrifice, and wood for the repairing and perfecting of their temple. The letters he wrote on this account are to be seen in Josephus (a). (y) Josephus, ut supra. (Antiqu. l. 12. c. 3. sect. 3.) (z) "et perficietur per eum", Grotius. (a) Josephus, ut supra. (Antiqu. l. 12. c. 3. sect. 3.)

Verse 17

He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom,.... Antiochus, having conquered Coelesyria, Phoenicia, and Judea, should set his face towards the land of Egypt, having a greedy desire after it, and bend his mind and forces that way; form a design of invading it, and for that purpose determine to bring all the forces he could master together throughout his dominions. So Justin (b) says, that upon the death of Ptolemy Philopator, Antiochus king of Syria determined to seize on Egypt. The Vulgate Latin version is, "that he might come to lay hold on his whole kingdom"; to seize the whole kingdom of the king of Egypt: and upright ones with him: meaning, as many think, the Jews, so called to distinguish them from the Heathens, and even from those Jews who had took on the side of Ptolemy, and had changed their religion; but these persevered in it, which Antiochus approved of; and had now a great opinion of them, and had bestowed many favours upon them, as before observed; wherefore he might take some of them, and they might choose to go with him on this expedition, and especially to assist in his intended agreement with the king of Egypt, and the marriage of his daughter to him; in bringing about which they were to have a concern, as being reckoned men of probity and uprightness: or rather the sense is, according to the Vulgate Latin version, and he shall do right things; in show and appearance: or "he shall make agreement", or peace, as Aben Ezra; enter into covenants of alliance and marriage, upon seeming just conditions, with a great show of sincerity and uprightness: thus shall he do; in the following manner: or, "and he shall do" (c); that is, succeed in his proposals: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her; this was the stratagem he used; finding he could not obtain the kingdom of Egypt by force of arms, for fear of the Romans, who were the guardians of the king of Egypt, he proposed to give his daughter Cleopatra to him in marriage, a beautiful virgin; and therefore called the "daughter of women"; or rather because she was as yet under the care of the women she was first committed to, as Gussetius (d) observes; and so he did marry her, and gave for her dowry Coelesyria, Samaria, Judea, and Phoenicia (e): this was done at Raphia (f), a fortified city of Egypt, where the famous battle had been fought between him and Ptolemy Philopator; see Dan 11:10 and if the former clause is rendered, as I think it may, "he shall also set his face to enter into the fortress of the whole kingdom"; this is the place intended, where he was desirous of going to meet the king of Egypt, and execute this scheme of his; which, though done under a plausible pretence of peace, and of putting ahead to their quarrels, was with a view to get his kingdom into his hands; "corrupting" his daughter to betray the counsels of her husband; or to put him to death by poison, or otherwise, that he might seize the kingdom on her behalf; or it may be rendered, to "corrupt" or "destroy it" (g), the kingdom; he married his daughter to the king of Egypt with this view, to obtain the kingdom from him: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him; being married, she forgot her own people, and her father's house, and cleaved to her husband; took his part, and not her father's, yea, took part with her husband against her father; for ambassadors were sent out of Egypt by both her husband and herself, congratulating the Romans on the victory Acilius gained over Antiochus her father, and that he had drove him out of Greece, exhorting them to carry their army into Asia (h); and thus he was disappointed of his design in this marriage: and this may be the meaning of the expression here; for it may be rendered, "it shall not stand" (i); his counsel shall not stand, his scheme shall not take place, but fall to the ground, and come to nothing: and it shall not be for him; the kingdom shall not be his, he shall never possess it, as he did not. (b) E Trogo, I. 31. c. 1. (c) "et faciet", Pagninus, Montanus, Munster, Gejerus; "efficietque", Junius & Tremellius. (d) Ebr. Comment. p. 540. (e) Joseph. Antiqu. l. 12. c. 4. sect. 1. (f) Liv. Hist. l. 35. c. 13. p. 597. (g) "ad corrumpendum illam", Montanus, Gejerus. (h) Liv. ibid. l. 37. c. 3. p. 633. (i) "et non succedet hoc", Grotius

Verse 18

After this he shall turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many,.... Finding himself disappointed in his design on the kingdom of Egypt, he turned his face, and steered his course another way, and with a large fleet sailed into the Aegean sea; and, as Jerom relates, took Rhodes, Samos, Colophon, and Phocea, and many other islands; and also several cities of Greece and Asia, which lay on the sea coasts; it being usual with the Jews to call such maritime places islands: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; the reproach that Antiochus cast upon the Romans, by seizing on their provinces, taking their cities, doing injuries to their allies, and treating their ambassadors with contempt: this the Romans wiped off by taking up arms against him, and gaining victories over him both by sea and land. The "prince" here may design the Romans in general, who, on their own behalf, or for their own honour, sent out armies and fleets against him, to put a stop to his insults over them; or some particular leader and commander of theirs, not a king, but a general or admiral, as Marcus Acilius, who beat him at the straits of Thermopylae; also Livius Salinator, who got the victory over his fleet about Phocea, where he sunk ten of his ships, and took thirteen; likewise Aemilius Regillus, who got the better of his fleet at Myonnesus, near Ephesus; and especially Lucius Scipio, who, in a land fight, beat him at Mount Siphylus, with an army of thirty thousand against seventy thousand, killed fifty thousand footmen of Antiochus's army, and four thousand horsemen, and took fourteen hundred prisoners, with fifteen elephants and their commanders (k), and so drove him out of lesser Asia: without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him; without any reproach to the Roman general; the reproach which Antiochus cast upon the Roman nation was turned upon his own head, by the many victories obtained over him by sea and land, and especially by the last and total defeat of him; for no other terms of peace could he obtain, but to pay all the expenses of the war, quit all Asia on that side Taurus, and give hostages, and his own son was one, in the Apocrypha: "10 And there came out of them a wicked root Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been an hostage at Rome, and he reigned in the hundred and thirty and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks.'' (1 Maccabees 1:10) (k) See Liv. Hist. l. 36. & 37.

Verse 19

Then he shall turn his face towards the fort of his own land,.... After his defeat he fled with a few to Sardis, and from thence to Apamea, so Livy; and to Susa, and to the further parts of his dominions, as Jerom; or rather he betook himself to Antioch his capital city, called here "the fort of his own land", where he was obliged to continue: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found; the expenses of the war which Antiochus agreed to pay being reckoned at fifteen thousand Euboean talents, five hundred talents were to be paid down; two thousand five hundred at the ratification of the treaty by the senate of Rome; and the other twelve thousand to be paid yearly, at a thousand talents each year: now, being either in want of money, or through covetousness, he attempted to rob the temple of Jupiter Elymaeus, and went by night thither with his army for that purpose; but the thing being betrayed, the inhabitants got together, and slew him, with all his soldiers, as Justin (l) relates. Strabo (m) says, that Antiochus the great endeavouring to rob the temple of Bel, the barbarians near to (Elymais) rose of themselves, and slew him; and so never returned to Syria any more, but died in the province of Elymais, being slain by the Persians there, as related, and was never found more, or was buried; and this was the end of this great man, of whom so many things are said in this prophecy, and others follow concerning his successors. He died in the thirty seventh year of his reign, and the fifty second of his age (n). (l) E Trogo, l. 32. c. 2. (m) Geograph. l. 16. p. 512. (n) See the Universal History, vol. 9. p. 270.

Verse 20

Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom,.... This was not Antiochus Epiphanes, as Theodoret, he is designed in the next verse; nor Ptolemy Epiphanes; as Porphyry, for he did not succeed Antiochus the great; nor Tryphon, tutor to Antiochus, as some Jewish writers; but Seleucus Philopator, the eldest son of Antiochus the great; who succeeded him, and was settled in his kingdom in his father's room, and stood upon his basis; and might well be called a raiser of taxes, being not only a covetous man, and a lover of money above all things; and therefore laid heavy taxes on his subjects, to gratify his avarice; but was indeed obliged to it, to raise the thousand talents yearly to pay the Romans, which his father had laid himself under obligation to do; and this took up the whole life of this his successor; for as there were twelve thousand talents to pay, a thousand each year, and Seleucus reigned in all but twelve years at most, he did nothing but raise taxes yearly to pay this tribute. It may be rendered, "then shall stand upon his basis": or, "in his room", as the Vulgate Latin version, in the room of Antiochus the great, "one that causes the exactors to pass through the glory of the kingdom" (o); that causes tax gatherers to go through the kingdom, and collect the tax of the people, who are the glory of the kingdom, especially the rich, the nobility, and gentry; or money, which is the glory of a nation: or, "shall cause the exactors to pass over to the glory of the kingdom"; that is, cause a tax gatherer to go over from Syria to the glorious land, or the glorious part of his dominion, the land of Judea; and so may have respect particularly to Heliodorus his treasurer, whom he sent to Jerusalem to demand the treasure of money he heard was laid up in the temple there; in the Apocrypha: "Now when Apollonius came to the king, and had shewed him of the money whereof he was told, the king chose out Heliodorus his treasurer, and sent him with a commandment to bring him the foresaid money.'' (2 Maccabees 3:7) but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle; or, within a few years, as Grotius and Prideaux render it; "days" being often put for years. Seleucus reigned but twelve years at most, which were but few in comparison of the long reign of his father, which was a reign of thirty seven years; and he died not through the rage of the populace, or through the sedition and rebellion of his subjects, nor in war, with a foreign enemy; but through the treachery of Heliodorus his treasurer, by whom he was poisoned, as is supposed; either for the sake of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was at that very time returning from Rome, where he had been an hostage ever since the defeat of his father, the money being now paid, which was stipulated; or rather on his own account, having a design to seize the kingdom for himself. (o) "stabit autem super basillius, qui transire faciet exactorem per decus regni", Michaelis.

Verse 21

And in his estate shall stand up a vile person,.... Upon his basis or stand, in the same place where Seleucus Philopator stood, succeeded Antiochus Epiphanes his brother, called "vile", being a very immoral man, given to drunkenness, lasciviousness, uncleanness, and unnatural lusts, and a violent persecutor of the church of God. The word signifies "despicable" (p); he was a vile person, and justly condemned for his vices, and also for that mean and ignoble life he had lived at Rome, having been an hostage there for eleven or twelve years; and though the other hostages were changed at three years' end, yet he remained; which shows what little account he was of even with his father; and was in no esteem with the people, among whom, by his freaks and frolics, he made himself very ridiculous; by rambling about streets with a servant or two; conversing with tradesmen about their trades; drinking with strangers, and people of low life; revelling at merry bouts with young people; putting on strange habits; throwing away his money among the rabble, and stones at those that followed him; washing at public baths among the common people; all which, and many others, are reported (q) of him by historians; hence he was called by some Epimanes the madman; though he took to himself the title of Epiphanes the "illustrious", the reverse of his character. This is the little horn in Dan 8:9 and who was an eminent type of antichrist, with whom his character agrees, as well as other things: to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom; neither his father, nor his brother, nor the peers and people of the land of the kingdom of Syria; they never once thought of making him king; they neither chose him, nor called him, nor crowned him: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries; pretending to take it, not for himself, but for his nephew Demetrius, the son of his brother Seleucus, now an hostage at Rome, in his stead; so that the states opposed him not, but quietly admitted him, thinking all was safe for the rightful heir and successor; and when he had got possession for his nephew, he obtained it for himself by his flattering speeches to the nobles, and his gifts among the citizens, and his great pretensions to clemency and humanity; or these "flatteries" may refer to the artifices he used to gain Eumenes king of Pergamus, and Attalus his brother, to assist him against Heliodorus the usurper; and the promises of friendship and assistance against the Romans he made to them, and by whose help he came peaceably to the kingdom. (p) "despectus", Pagninus, Montanus; "contemptus", Vatablus, Piscator, Tigurine version. (q) See Prideaux's Connexion, par. 2. B. 3. p. 153, 154, Out of Athenaeus, Diodorus, &c. and the Universal History, vol. 9. p. 276, 277, 289, 290.

Verse 22

And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken,.... That is, by the help of the forces of Eumenes and Attalus, which were like an inundation of water, the party that were on the side of Heliodorus the usurper were bore down, crushed, and destroyed; and thereby Antiochus had a peaceable settlement in the kingdom: or, "the arms of a flood shall be overflowed from before him, and be broken" (r); either the arms of Heliodorus, the forces he had got together; or the armies of the Egyptians, which, like an overflowing flood, had used to run over Judea, Coelesyria, Phoenicia, and other places, and carry all before them, now should be overflowed, and bore down themselves; of which see more on Dan 11:25, yea, also the prince of the covenant; which some understand of Judas Maccabaeus, as Jerome and Jacchiades; others more probably of Onias the high priest, whom Antiochus deposed in the first year of his reign, and sold the priesthood to Jason his younger brother for four hundred and forty talents of silver; and who also promised to give him one hundred and fifty more for a license to erect a place of exercise for the training up of youth, according to the fashion of the Greeks; which Antiochus greedily embraced, the public treasury being empty through the large tribute paid to the Romans the last twelve years; in the Apocrypha: "7 But after the death of Seleucus, when Antiochus, called Epiphanes, took the kingdom, Jason the brother of Onias laboured underhand to be high priest, 8 Promising unto the king by intercession three hundred and threescore talents of silver, and of another revenue eighty talents: 9 Beside this, he promised to assign an hundred and fifty more, if he might have licence to set him up a place for exercise, and for the training up of youth in the fashions of the heathen, and to write them of Jerusalem by the name of Antiochians. 34 Wherefore Menelaus, taking Andronicus apart, prayed, him to get Onias into his hands; who being persuaded thereunto, and coming to Onias in deceit, gave him his right hand with oaths; and though he were suspected by him, yet persuaded he him to come forth of the sanctuary: whom forthwith he shut up without regard of justice. 35 For the which cause not only the Jews, but many also of other nations, took great indignation, and were much grieved for the unjust murder of the man.'' (2 Maccabees 4) Others think Seleucus Philopator his brother is meant, which is not probable, his death being before described; rather Demetrius his nephew, with whom he covenanted to hold the kingdom for him, or through whom the covenant and peace with the Romans was continued so long, he being an hostage at Rome; though others are of opinion that Trypho, a peer of the realm of Egypt, is designed, who was the principal person concerned in a covenant made between Antiochus and Ptolemy Philometor king of Egypt; though it is more likely that Ptolemy himself is the person intended. (r) "et brachia inundationis inundabantur", Cocceius, Michaelis "brachia inundantia", Piscator.

Verse 23

And after the league made with him,.... The prince of the covenant; either Demetrius his nephew, or Ptolemy Philometor king of Egypt, with whom a league was made in the lifetime of Cleopatra, the sister of Antiochus, and mother of Ptolemy: he shall work deceitfully; either with the princes and people of Syria, by good words and fair speeches, and by gifts and presents, to get the kingdom for himself, though he had covenanted with his nephew to hold it for him, and resign it to him at his return; and with the Romans, and among his friends in the senate, he artfully worked to detain him at Rome: or else with the king of Egypt, pretending great friendship to him, and to take the care and tuition of him during his minority; and at his coronation he sent one Apollonius to be present at it, and to congratulate him upon it; in the Apocrypha: "Now when Apollonius the son of Menestheus was sent into Egypt for the coronation of king Ptolemeus Philometor, Antiochus, understanding him not to be well affected to his affairs, provided for his own safety: whereupon he came to Joppa, and from thence to Jerusalem:'' (2 Maccabees 4:21) for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people; either he went into the heart of Syria with a small number of men at first, and gathered together a large army; or into Phoenicia with a handful of men, where he ingratiated himself into the affections of the people by words and gifts, and became strong; or he went up into Egypt accompanied only with a few, lest, the Egyptians should be suspicious of him; but these it is said were valiant men, whom he placed in the forts of Egypt, and so became master of it, which is an instance of his deceitful working; and Sutorius, an ancient historian, as quoted by Jerom, says that he subdued Egypt to himself with a very small number of people.

Verse 24

He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province,.... Or, "into tranquillity, and the fattest places of the province" (s); that is, into such places as were in great tranquillity, and men thought themselves safe and secure, and had no suspicion of his designs upon them, and which abounded in wealth and riches: these were either the principal cities in the kingdom of Syria, which he visited in order to establish himself in their good opinion of him; or the chief places of the province of Phoenicia, where he endeavoured to make himself acceptable by his munificence; or it may be the best parts of the kingdom of Egypt are meant, the richest of them, such as Memphis, and the places about it; where, as Sutorius in Jerome says, he went; and which places being fat, producing a large increase, and abounding in wealth, invited him thither; and which wealth he took, and scattered among his friends and soldiers, as in a following clause: and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; none of his ancestors, more near or more remote; not Antiochus the great, nor Seleucus Ceraunus, nor Seleucus Callinicus, nor Antiochus Theos, nor Antiochus Soter, nor Seleucus Nicator, the founder of the Syrian empire; for, however greater these might be in power or riches, they were inferior to him in success; though they all, or most of them, however, had their eye upon Egypt, and would gladly have been masters of it; yet none of the kings of Syria prevailed over it, as Antiochus did; and this may also refer to what follows: he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches; which he took from the places or rich cities he entered into; and these he plentifully and liberally dispersed among his followers, his soldiers, "the small people" he became strong with, Dan 11:23, whereby he gained their affections, and attached them to his interest; and in this his liberality and munificence he is said to abound above all the kings that were before him, in the Apocrypha: "He feared that he should not be able to bear the charges any longer, nor to have such gifts to give so liberally as he did before: for he had abounded above the kings that were before him.'' (1 Maccabees 3:30) and the character Josephus (t) gives of him is, that he was a man of a large and liberal heart: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds; the fortresses of Egypt; as he got into the fat and richest parts of it, and distributed the wealth of them among his favourites and followers, which answered a good purpose; so he had his eye upon the fortified places of the kingdom, and contrived ways and means to get them into his possession, as Pelusium, and other places; and how to keep them when he had got them, which he did: even for a time; till Ptolemy Philometor was at age, and freed himself from him; or till the Romans (u) put a stop to his power. (s) "in quietem et in pinguia", Montanus; "in tranquillitatem et opima", Cocceius; "in tranquillitatem et in pinguissima", Michaelis. (t) Antiqu. l. 12. c. 7. sect. 2. (u) Vid. Joseph. Antiqu. l. 19. c. 5. sect. 2.

Verse 25

And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army,.... That is, Antiochus shall arouse himself, and exert his courage, and gather a large and powerful army, and set out with them to fight with Ptolemy Philometor, king of Egypt; this is his second expedition into Egypt, as is observed in the Apocrypha: "About the same time Antiochus prepared his second voyage into Egypt:'' (2 Maccabees 5:1) before he went into Egypt more privately, with a few men, under a pretence of friendship; but now more openly as an enemy, with a large army; so it is said in the Apocrypha: "17 Wherefore he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy, 18 And made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt: but Ptolemee was afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death.'' (1 Maccabees 1) and he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and with elephants, and with horses, and with a great fleet; which account exactly agrees with this prophecy, and serves to illustrate it: and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; this is Ptolemy Philometor, king of Egypt, who, hearing of the preparations of Antiochus, and of his design to enter his kingdom, gathered a large army together to give him battle: but he shall not stand; the king of Egypt could not stand against Antiochus; the two armies met between Mount Casius and Pelusium, where they came, to a battle, and Antiochus got the victory: upon his second victory over the forces of Ptolemy, he took Pelusium, and led his army into the very heart of the kingdom, and had it in his power to have cut off all the Egyptians, to a man; he made himself master of Memphis, and all the rest of Egypt, except Alexandria, which held out against him (w): for they shall forecast devices against him; Antiochus, and those that assisted him with their counsels, formed schemes against Ptolemy, which succeeded: the loss of the battle was not owing to want of the necessary preparations for it; or to an insufficient number of men; or to a defect of military skill and courage; but to the treachery of his own courtiers and commanders, particularly Eulaeus and Lennaeeus to whom the blame was laid, and to the desertion of Ptolemy Macron; which is more clearly expressed in the following verse. (w) See the Universal History, vol. 9. p. 280, 281.

Verse 26

Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him,.... Those of his own household, his familiar friends, his courtiers and counsellors, and the generals of his army; his destruction, or the loss of the battle, was owing either to the bad counsels they gave him, or to their desertion of him, being corrupted by Antiochus: and his army shall overflow: that is, the army of Antiochus, like a mighty inundation of water, which carries all before it, should overflow, or bear down and destroy, the army of Ptolemy, and overrun all Egypt, as it did, as before related; no more resistance being to be made to it than to a rapid flood of water: and many shall fall down slain: of the army of the king of Egypt. The account given of this affair in the Apocrypha: "18 And made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt: but Ptolemee was afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death. 19 Thus they got the strong cities in the land of Egypt and he took the spoils thereof.'' (1 Maccabees 1) Josephus says (x), that Antiochus, "being with a great army at Pelusium, and circumventing Ptolemy Philometor by fraud, seized on Egypt; and being in the parts near to Memphis, and taking it, he hastened to Alexandria to besiege it, and got Ptolemy, reigning there, into his hands.'' (x) Antiqu. l. 12. c. 5, sect. 2.

Verse 27

And both these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief,.... Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, and Ptolemy Philometor, king of Egypt, the latter being now in the hands of the former; whether he was taken by him, or voluntarily came to him, is not certain; but though they seemed to carry it very friendly to one another, yet at the same time they were contriving in their minds to do as much mischief to each other as they could: and they shall speak lies at one table: at an entertainment at Memphis, where they met to eat food together, which shows great familiarity; or at the council table, where they pretended to consult each other's good, and to secure the peace of both kingdoms, but imposed on each other with lies. Antiochus pretended a great respect for Ptolemy, and that he had nothing more at heart than to take care of his affairs, and defend him against his brother Euergetes, whom the Alexandrians had set up for king; when his design was no other than to seize the kingdom of Egypt for himself: on the other hand, Ptolemy seemed greatly satisfied with his uncle's protection, and to place great confidence in him; when his view was to disappoint his scheme, and come to an agreement with his brother; neither of them meant what they said: but it shall not prosper; the consultations they held, the schemes they laid, succeeded not; the peace made between them did not last: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed; by the Lord, by whom all events are predetermined; whose counsel shall stand, notwithstanding all the devices in the hearts of men, and of kings themselves: the end of this peace between these two kings, and the end of the wars between them, yea, the end of the two kingdoms, when they should cease, and come into other hands; all was fixed to a time appointed of God, and should surely come to pass, as he had decreed.

Verse 28

Then shall he return into his land with great riches,.... That is, Antiochus, with the spoils of Egypt, and the gifts and presents he had received there; so the author of the first book of Maccabees says, "20 And after that Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he returned again in the hundred forty and third year, and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude, 21 And entered proudly into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof,'' (1 Maccabees 1) that is, of the era of the Selucidae, and the fifth or sixth year of his reign: and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; not the covenant he had made with Ptolemy, which was a fraudulent one; but the covenant between God and the Jews; whereby they became a distinct and peculiar people, having a religion, laws, and ordinances, different from all others; for which reason they were hated by other nations, and particularly by Antiochus; and his heart was the more enraged against them at this time, for the following reason; a false rumour being spread in Judea that Antiochus was dead, Jason took the opportunity to recover the office of high priest from his brother Menelaus; and, with a thousand men, took the city of Jerusalem, drove his brother into the castle, and slew many he took for his enemies. Antiochus, hearing of this, concluded the whole nation of the Jews had revolted from him; and therefore took Judea in his way from Egypt, in order to suppress this rebellion; in the Apocrypha: "5 Now when there was gone forth a false rumour, as though Antiochus had been dead, Jason took at the least a thousand men, and suddenly made an assault upon the city; and they that were upon the walls being put back, and the city at length taken, Menelaus fled into the castle: 6 But Jason slew his own citizens without mercy, not considering that to get the day of them of his own nation would be a most unhappy day for him; but thinking they had been his enemies, and not his countrymen, whom he conquered. 11 Now when this that was done came to the king's ear, he thought that Judea had revolted: whereupon removing out of Egypt in a furious mind, he took the city by force of arms,'' (2 Maccabees 5) and he shall do exploits; in Jerusalem, very wicked ones indeed! he ordered his soldiers to slay all they met, without mercy, old and young, women and children, virgins and young men; and in three days' time eighty thousand were slain, forty thousand bound, and no less sold: he went into the temple, and took all the vessels in it, and all the gold and silver, and hidden treasures of it, to the value of a thousand and eight hundred talents, in the Apocrypha: "12 And commanded his men of war not to spare such as they met, and to slay such as went up upon the houses. 13 Thus there was killing of young and old, making away of men, women, and children, slaying of virgins and infants. 14 And there were destroyed within the space of three whole days fourscore thousand, whereof forty thousand were slain in the conflict; and no fewer sold than slain. 15 Yet was he not content with this, but presumed to go into the most holy temple of all the world; Menelaus, that traitor to the laws, and to his own country, being his guide: 16 And taking the holy vessels with polluted hands, and with profane hands pulling down the things that were dedicated by other kings to the augmentation and glory and honour of the place, he gave them away. 21 So when Antiochus had carried out of the temple a thousand and eight hundred talents, he departed in all haste unto Antiochia, weening in his pride to make the land navigable, and the sea passable by foot: such was the haughtiness of his mind.'' (2 Maccabees 5) "23 He took also the silver and the gold, and the precious vessels: also he took the hidden treasures which he found. 24 And when he had taken all away, he went into his own land, having made a great massacre, and spoken very proudly. 25 Therefore there was a great mourning in Israel, in every place where they were;'' (1 Maccabees 1) and return to his own land; having done these exploits, he made what haste he could to Antioch, with the spoils of Egypt, and the plunder of the temple at Jerusalem, in the Apocrypha: "And when he had taken all away, he went into his own land, having made a great massacre, and spoken very proudly.'' (1 Maccabees 1:24) "So when Antiochus had carried out of the temple a thousand and eight hundred talents, he departed in all haste unto Antiochia, weening in his pride to make the land navigable, and the sea passable by foot: such was the haughtiness of his mind.'' (2 Maccabees 5:21)

Verse 29

At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south,.... At the time appointed of God, he should return from Syria again to Egypt; which was his third expedition thither, and was occasioned by the Alexandrians setting up the brother of Ptolemy Philometor for king; wherefore he hastened to Egypt with a large army, under a pretence of restoring the deposed king; but in reality to seize the kingdom for himself (y): but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter; this expedition should not succeed so well as the two former, as it did not; he could not carry his point, neither subdue Egypt, nor get any of the two brothers into his hands, as he had done before; the reason of which follows: (y) See the Universal History, vol. 9. p. 282, 409.

Verse 30

For the ships of Chittim shall come against him,.... Ptolemy king of Egypt, and his brother, being come to an agreement, sent an embassy to the senate of Rome, to implore their help and assistance against Antiochus, who was preparing to besiege them in Alexandria; upon which they sent their ambassadors Caius Popilius Laenas, Caius Decimus, and Caius Hostilius, in ships from Macedonia (z), or Greece, to Antiochus, to require him to desist from making war upon Ptolemy, and that he quit the land of Egypt; see Num 24:24. Macedonia is called the land of Cittim, in the Apocrypha: "And it happened, after that Alexander son of Philip, the Macedonian, who came out of the land of Chettiim, had smitten Darius king of the Persians and Medes, that he reigned in his stead, the first over Greece,'' (1 Maccabees 1:1) "Beside this, how they had discomfited in battle Philip, and Perseus, king of the Citims, with others that lifted up themselves against them, and had overcome them:'' (1 Maccabees 8:5) Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Saadiah, and Jacchiades, interpret it of the Romans; and, according to Gorionides (a), Cittim are the Romans; and Jerom here interprets them of them; and Bochart has proved at large (b) that they are meant. The word seems to be used both of Grecians and Romans, and here of Romans in Grecian ships: therefore he shall be grieved, and return; being obliged to it, sore against his will: as soon as he saw Popilius, with whom he had contracted a friendship while he was an hostage at Rome, he offered his hand to kiss; but Popilius refused it, and observed that private friendship should give way to public interest; and then produced the decree of the senate, and delivered it to him, and required his answer; but Antiochus delaying, telling him he would consult his friends, Popilius, with a rod in his hand, drew a circle round him, and bid him consult his friends directly; adding that he should not stir from that circle till he had given a positive answer; which roughness struck him, and, hesitating a little, he replied he would obey the senate, as Justin (c), Livy (d), Velleius Paterculus (e), and other historians, relate; and upon which he at once departed with his army, though fretted and vexed to the last degree: and have indignation against the holy covenant; the Jews, God's covenant people; on whom he gratified his revenge, sending Apollonius, with an army of twenty two thousand men, to whom he gave orders to slay the men, and sell the women and children; and who committed many outrages in the city and temple: now it was the daily sacrifice was made to cease, and the abomination of desolation set up, as in the following verse, and all that done predicted in Dan 8:10, this was two years after his former expedition into Egypt, and the havoc he made upon his return from thence, and in the eighth year of his reign, and one hundred and forty fifth of the Seleucidae; in the Apocrypha: "And spake peaceable words unto them, but all was deceit: for when they had given him credence, he fell suddenly upon the city, and smote it very sore, and destroyed much people of Israel.'' (1 Maccabees 1:30) "He sent also that detestable ringleader Apollonius with an army of two and twenty thousand, commanding him to slay all those that were in their best age, and to sell the women and the younger sort:'' (2 Maccabees 5:24) so shall he do; such wicked deeds as before declared, in his wrath and fury against the Jews, being provoked at his disappointment in Egypt: he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant: apostate Jews, who had renounced their religion, forsook the law of God, and the ordinances of his worship, and turned Heathens; of whom it is said, agreeably to the language of this prophecy, and seemingly with a view to it, that they made themselves uncircumcised, and departed from the holy covenant, in the Apocrypha: "And made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathen, and were sold to do mischief.'' (1 Maccabees 1:15) with these Antiochus kept an intelligence, and held a correspondence, in order not only to know the affairs of the Jews from time to time, but to draw them off from their religion, and propagate Heathenism among them; such as Jason, Menelaus, and others; in the Apocrypha: "12 So this device pleased them well. 13 Then certain of the people were so forward herein, that they went to the king, who gave them licence to do after the ordinances of the heathen: 14 Whereupon they built a place of exercise at Jerusalem according to the customs of the heathen: 15 And made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathen, and were sold to do mischief. 43 Yea, many also of the Israelites consented to his religion, and sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the sabbath. 44 For the king had sent letters by messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of Juda that they should follow the strange laws of the land, 45 And forbid burnt offerings, and sacrifice, and drink offerings, in the temple; and that they should profane the sabbaths and festival days:'' (1 Maccabees 1) (z) Vid. Liv. Hist. l. 45. c. 10. (a) Heb. Hist. l. 1. c. 1. p. 7. (b) Phaleg. l. 3. c. 5. (c) E Trogo, l. 34. c. 2, 3. (d) Hist. l. 45. c. 12. (e) Roman. Histor. l. 1.

Verse 31

And arms shall stand on his part,.... Powerful armies sent by him into Judea; garrisons of soldiers placed in Jerusalem; mighty generals and commanders who fought for him, as Lysias, Philip the Phrygian, Andronicus, Apollonius, Bacchides, and others: and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength; the temple, which stood in Jerusalem, a fortified city, and was itself a building strong and stable; and especially it was so called, because here the mighty God had his residence, the symbol of which was the ark of his strength, and here he gave strength unto his people: this holy place, sacred to his worship and service, the commanders and soldiers of Antiochus defiled by entering into it, who were men unholy and unclean; by making it a place of luxury and rioting, of whoredom, and all manner of uncleanness; by bringing things into it which were not lawful, and filling the altar with what was abominable, in the Apocrypha: "4 For the temple was filled with riot and revelling by the Gentiles, who dallied with harlots, and had to do with women within the circuit of the holy places, and besides that brought in things that were not lawful. 5 The altar also was filled with profane things, which the law forbiddeth.'' (2 Maccabees 6) particularly by erecting a high place upon the altar, and sacrificing swine upon it, as Josephus (f) relates; with which agrees what is said of Antiochus, in the Apocrypha in is written that he ordered: "46 And pollute the sanctuary and holy people: 47 Set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and sacrifice swine's flesh, and unclean beasts:'' (1 Maccabees 1) and shall take away the daily sacrifice; the sacrifice of the lamb in the morning, and in the evening, which the priests were hindered from offering, by the crowds of Heathens in the temple; or prohibited by the order of Antiochus; for he forbad burnt offerings, sacrifice, and libation, to be made in the temple, in the Apocrypha: "Set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and sacrifice swine's flesh, and unclean beasts:'' (1 Maccabees 1:47) and Josephus (g) expressly says, that he forbad the daily sacrifices to be offered, which were used to be offered to God, according to the law: and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate; either a garrison of Heathen soldiers in the temple, which drove the priests and people from it, and made it desolate; or rather an idol in it, it being usual in Scripture to call idols abominations, as they are to God and all good men; the image of Jupiter Olympius, as is thought, which was placed upon the altar of God by Antiochus, on the fifteenth day of the month Cisieu, in the hundred and forty fifth year of the Seleucidae, and is called the abomination of desolations, in the Apocrypha: "And whosoever was found with any the book of the testament, or if any committed to the law, the king's commandment was, that they should put him to death.'' (1 Maccabees 1:57) and the temple itself was ordered to be called the temple of Jupiter Olympius, in the Apocrypha: "And to pollute also the temple in Jerusalem, and to call it the temple of Jupiter Olympius; and that in Garizim, of Jupiter the Defender of strangers, as they did desire that dwelt in the place.'' (2 Maccabees 6:2) and what with this and other things that were done, the temple and city were left desolate; for it is said in the Apocrypha: "Now Jerusalem lay void as a wilderness, there was none of her children that went in or out: the sanctuary also was trodden down, and aliens kept the strong hold; the heathen had their habitation in that place; and joy was taken from Jacob, and the pipe with the harp ceased.'' (1 Maccabees 3:45) It may be rendered, "the abomination that maketh astonished" (h); for it struck the people of the Jews with astonishment; it amazed and stupefied them, when they saw such an idol placed in their temple. The Karaite Jews, who by the others are called Sadducees, give a very foreign interpretation of this passage, which Aben Ezra observes: "it is marvellous (says he) that the wise men of the Sadducees should explain this of future time, and say that this sanctuary is Mecca, where the Ishmaelites or Turks keep a feast; "the daily sacrifice", to be removed, their five prayers; and the "abomination" set up is their idolatrous worship.'' Sir Isaac Newton understands all this of the Romans, and their building a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus, where the temple in Jerusalem had stood. (f) Antiqu. l. 12. c. 5. sect. 4. (g) lbid. (h) "abominationem obstupefacientem", Montanus; "quae obstupefaciet", Calvin.

Verse 32

And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall be corrupted by flatteries,.... That forsook the law of God, the book of the covenant, and did things contrary to it; and particularly violated the covenant of circumcision, drawing on the foreskin, and becoming uncircumcised; as well as rejected other ordinances of religious worship the Jews by covenant were obliged to observe: these apostates Antiochus corrupted by good words and fair speeches, by gifts and presents; and they became his tools, to do his pleasure, and were his instruments to seduce the Jews to renounce their religion, and give in to his idolatry; such as Jason, Menelaus, and others; in the Apocrypha: "Now when the kingdom was established before Antiochus, he thought to reign over Egypt that he might have the dominion of two realms.'' (1 Maccabees 1:16) "Now such was the height of Greek fashions, and increase of heathenish manners, through the exceeding profaneness of Jason, that ungodly wretch, and no high priest;'' (2 Maccabees 4:13) "Yet was he not content with this, but presumed to go into the most holy temple of all the world; Menelaus, that traitor to the laws, and to his own country, being his guide:'' (2 Maccabees 5:15) "But they that had the charge of that wicked feast, for the old acquaintance they had with the man, taking him aside, besought him to bring flesh of his own provision, such as was lawful for him to use, and make as if he did eat of the flesh taken from the sacrifice commanded by the king;'' (2 Maccabees 6:21) but the people that do know their God shall be strong and do exploits; such who knew the Lord God of Israel to be the true God, and owned and acknowledged him as such; and not only professed him, but served and worshipped him, having a spiritual knowledge of him, and communion with him; and therefore could not be drawn off from him and his worship by flatteries or frowns, by promises or menaces: these were strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might; they held fast their religion, and the profession of it, and were proof against all allurements or threatenings, and endured racks and tortures, all sorts of punishment, and death in every shape, with the greatest constancy and courage; such as Eleazar, the mother and her seven sons, and others; as well as others did many valiant actions in the defence of themselves and country, as Mattathias, Judas Maccabaeus, and his brethren; to which heroic actions the apostle refers in Heb 11:34, so Josephus (i) says, "that many of the Jews indeed, some willingly, and others through fear of punishment, obeyed the king's commands; but the more approved, and those of generous minds, had a greater regard to the customs of their country than to the punishment threatened to the disobedient; and for this being continually harassed, and enduring grievous punishments, died; some were scourged, and their bodies mutilated, and being yet alive and breathing, were crucified; women and their children, whom they crucified, were by the king's orders strangled, and hanged about the necks of their parents that were crucified;'' In the Apocrypha: "60 At which time according to the commandment they put to death certain women, that had caused their children to be circumcised. 61 And they hanged the infants about their necks, and rifled their houses, and slew them that had circumcised them. 62 Howbeit many in Israel were fully resolved and confirmed in themselves not to eat any unclean thing. 63 Wherefore the rather to die, that they might not be defiled with meats, and that they might not profane the holy covenant: so then they died. 64 And there was very great wrath upon Israel.'' (1 Maccabees 1) (i) Antiqu. l. 12. c. 5. sect. 4.

Verse 33

And they that understand among the people shall instruct many,.... Such as had a better understanding of divine things than others, had more light and knowledge in the sacred Scriptures, in the law of God, and in his mind and will, and were capable of teaching others; and such as these the Lord raises up among his people in the worst of times, in the times of the greatest apostasy and declension; and these are enabled to perform their duty, to instruct the people in theirs, teach them what they should do, and how they should behave; exhort them to retain the doctrines and ordinances of their holy religion, and not embrace the doctrines and inventions of men, will worship, superstition, and idolatry; and so they instructed the ignorant, strengthened the weak, and established the wavering; such were Mattathias the priest of Modin, and Eleazar, one of the chief scribes, in the Apocrypha: "In those days arose Mattathias the son of John, the son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib, from Jerusalem, and dwelt in Modin.'' (1 Maccabees 2:1) "Eleazar, one of the principal scribes, an aged man, and of a well favoured countenance, was constrained to open his mouth, and to eat swine's flesh.'' (2 Maccabees 6:18) Auk applies this to the times of the apostles, who he thinks are here meant; so Sir Isaac Newton: yet they shall fall by the sword; by the sword of Antiochus and his soldiers; as multitudes of the Jews did, even both the instructors and the instructed, who would not comply with his orders: and by flame; some were burnt alive in caves, where they fled for shelter; and others as the mother and her seven sons, were cast into heated caldrons of brass; in the Apocrypha: "And others, that had run together into caves near by, to keep the sabbath day secretly, being discovered by Philip, were all burnt together, because they made a conscience to help themselves for the honour of the most sacred day.'' (2 Maccabees 6:11) "3 Then the king, being in a rage, commanded pans and caldrons to be made hot: 4 Which forthwith being heated, he commanded to cut out the tongue of him that spake first, and to cut off the utmost parts of his body, the rest of his brethren and his mother looking on. 5 Now when he was thus maimed in all his members, he commanded him being yet alive to be brought to the fire, and to be fried in the pan: and as the vapour of the pan was for a good space dispersed, they exhorted one another with the mother to die manfully, saying thus,'' (2 Maccabees 7) by captivity; so it is expressly said of Antiochus, that he carried captive women and children and at another time ordered the women and children to be sold for slaves, in the Apocrypha: "Insomuch that the inhabitants of Jerusalem fled because of them: whereupon the city was made an habitation of strangers, and became strange to those that were born in her; and her own children left her.'' (1 Maccabees 1:38) "He sent also that detestable ringleader Apollonius with an army of two and twenty thousand, commanding him to slay all those that were in their best age, and to sell the women and the younger sort:'' (2 Maccabees 5:24) and by spoil many days; being plundered of their substance, their houses rifled, and their goods carried away; and this distress lasted "days", a short time only; Josephus (k) reckons it at three years and a half. All this Cocceius interprets of the persecutions of the Christians by the Romans; and likewise Sir Isaac Newton. (k) De Bello Jud. l. 1. c. 1. sect. 7.

Verse 34

Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help,.... When the Jews shall be thus harassed and distressed by Antiochus and his armies, to the ruin of many, by the several sorts of punishments inflicted on them; they should be helped and eased a little by Mattathias, a priest of Modin, and his five sons, commonly called the Maccabees; Porphyry himself interprets this of Mattathias: the help and assistance which he and his sons gave to the Jews was but "little"; if we consider they were persons of a small figure, began with a handful of men, and could do but little, especially at first; and though great exploits were done by them, considering their number and strength, yet they were not able to restore the land to its former glory and liberty; nor did this help of theirs last long, but the enemy returned with great fierceness and cruelty, and sadly afflicted the people of the Jews. Cocceius understands this of the help the Christians had under Constantius Chlorus, and Constantine the great; and so does Sir Isaac Newton, who agrees with him in interpreting this and the preceding verse: he interprets "arms", in Dan 11:31, of the Romans, and so Jacchiades; and makes this to be the beginning of the fourth kingdom that should "stand", "after him"; that is, after Antiochus; so the particle, he observes, is used in Dan 11:8, and it must be owned this is the sense in which it is sometimes used, of which Noldius (l) has given instances: and this seems to agree with the thread of history, and introduces the Romans, who must have a place in this prophecy, in a very proper manner; and carries on the account of things, through the times of Christ, his apostles, the first ages of Christianity under persecution, until the rise of antichrist, Dan 11:36 and throws light upon the text in Mat 24:15, the language of which seems best to agree with Dan 11:31, and, if so, must respect something to be done, not in the times of Antiochus, but after the times of Christ. But many shall cleave to them with flatteries; seeing Mattathias and his sons succeed, some of those, who had been apostates from their religion, or not heartily friends to it, joined them, but not sincerely; pretended to be on their side, and commended their bravery and courage; and being ambitious of honour and fame, took with them, in order to share the glory of their actions; such were Joseph the son of Zachariah, and Azarias, in the Apocrypha: "56 Joseph the son of Zacharias, and Azarias, captains of the garrisons, heard of the valiant acts and warlike deeds which they had done. 57 Wherefore they said, Let us also get us a name, and go fight against the heathen that are round about us.'' (1 Maccabees 5) and those under whose clothes were found idols, or what belonged to them, at Jamnia, when they were slain, in the Apocrypha: "Now under the coats of everyone that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.'' (2 Maccabees 12:40) and Rhodocus, a soldier of the Jewish army, who betrayed their secrets, in the Apocrypha: "But Rhodocus, who was in the Jews' host, disclosed the secrets to the enemies; therefore he was sought out, and when they had gotten him, they put him in prison.'' (2 Maccabees 13:21) Cocceius applies this to antichrist and his followers pretending to be for Christ and his church, but were not. (l) Concord. Part. Ebr. p. 557.

Verse 35

And some of them of understanding shall fall,.... Not into sin, or from the religion they profess; and the doctrines they have an understanding of, and have instructed others in; but into distresses and calamities for their steadfast adherence to the word, worship, and ordinances of God: to try them, and purge and make them white; to try their faith, patience, and other graces, and whether they would hold fast their profession, and persevere in the good ways of God; and to purge and separate them from others, that were like chaff, hypocrites, that so they might be manifest, both the one and the other; and these good men appear to be sincere and upright: moreover, the best of men have their dross, and chaff, and spots, to be removed from them; and this is one way of doing it, even by afflictions: the allusion, in the first word, is to the melting, purifying, and refining of metals, gold and silver; the second to the winnowing of a grain floor, and separating the chaff from the wheat; and the third to the cleansing and whitening of cloths, and taking the spots out of them by the fuller. Afflictions are the furnace in which the Lord refines and purifies his people; the fan with which he purges his floor; and the fuller's soap with which he makes his people white; by all this the iniquity of Jacob is purged, and the fruit of it is to take away sin, Isa 27:9, so that afflictions are not hurtful, but beneficial to the saints, even those more violent ones, severe persecutions. Even to the time of the end; because it is yet for a time appointed; these distresses, calamities, and persecutions, would have an end, and the time for it was appointed of God; as yet it was not come, but quickly would, and then an end would be put to the third or Grecian monarchy; a hint of the Roman power over that being given, Dan 11:30, hence we have no further account of Antiochus or his sons. Very remarkable are the words of Aemilius Sara (m), "the Assyrians first were possessors of monarchy; then the Medes; afterwards the Persians; then the Macedonians; from that time the kings, Philip and Antiochus, who sprung from the Macedonians, being conquered, not long after Carthage was subdued, the supreme power of empire came to the Roman people;'' of whom, under one character or another, the following part of the prophecy is chiefly to be understood. So another historian says (n), Antiochus being drove out of Asia, the Romans first set footing there; and another (o) observes, that Antiochus being defeated by L. Cornelius Scipio, he took the name of Asiaticus, because he had conquered Asia; as his brother was called Africanus, from his subduing Africa: wherefore Asia and Africa being now in the hands of the Romans, the supreme power might well be said to be with them; and therefore, henceforward, are only spoken of, and particularly the Roman antichrist. (m) De annis populi Romani apud Velleii Paterculi Hist. Roman. l. 1. c. 6. (n) "Festi Breviarium, prope initium". (o) Eutropii Hist. Rom. l. 4. So Plutarch. in Vita Scipionis Africani.

Verse 36

And the king shall do according to his will,.... Not Antiochus, for he could not do as he would, being curbed by the Romans, as has been observed; and there are many things which follow that cannot be applied to him; rather the Roman people, under the name of a king or kingdom, rising up to universal monarchy, upon the decline of the Grecian empire, are meant; and who did what they would, subdued kingdoms at pleasure, and gave laws to the whole world; and particularly in the little horn, or Rome Papal, antichrist, Dan 7:8, of which Antiochus was a type, and is called by the same name, Dan 8:9 and the transition is easy from the type to the antitype, with whom everything said agrees: for the pope of Rome, claiming infallibility, does, or has done, whatsoever he pleases; regarding neither the laws of God nor man, but dispensing with both at his pleasure; coining new doctrines; appointing new ordinances; setting himself up above councils and princes; taking upon him a power to depose kings and set them up as he pleases; with many other things done by him in an arbitrary and despotic way, both civil and religious; and with none does the character agree as with him, as well as what follows: and magnify himself above every god; that is so called, whether angels whom he commands, or the kings of the earth he claims an authority over, those gods in heaven, and gods on earth; which is the exact description of antichrist, as given by the apostle, who has manifestly a reference to this passage; see Gill on Th2 2:4, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods; the true God, to whom angels and civil magistrates are subject, being his creatures, and acting under him; but such is the arrogance of the man of sin, that he takes upon him to speak against God, and such things as are astonishing; and it may be extremely wondered at that he should dare to speak them, as to call himself God on earth; to take such things to himself, which only belong to God, as by claiming all power in heaven, earth, and hell; power to bind the consciences of men, and impose what he pleases on them; to make new articles of faith; to pardon the sins of men; to open and shut the gates of heaven when he pleases; with other blasphemies against God, his mouth, given him to speak, utters; see Rev 13:5, and shall prosper until the indignation be accomplished; the wrath of God upon the Jewish nation for their rejection of the Messiah; until the time of their conversion is come; and then antichrist shall be destroyed, to make way for it; till that time he shall prosper and flourish, more or less, until the 1260 days or years are ended, the date of his reign, Rev 11:2, for that that is determined shall be done; all the decrees and purposes of God shall be accomplished; all respecting the state and condition of the people of God under antichrist, particularly the people of the Jews, and concerning the reign and ruin of antichrist.

Verse 37

Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers,.... Of the apostles of Christ, from whom he pretends to descend, and whose successor he would be thought to be: now their God was the Lord Jesus Christ, whom they worshipped and adored, believed in, embraced, professed, and preached; but whom antichrist disregards, though he would be thought to be his vicar on earth; yet slights him, yea, opposes and acts contrary to him, in his offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, and therefore is rightly called antichrist: nor the desire of women; or "wives" (p); not desirous of having wives, or enjoying women in lawful marriage; but forbidding his priests to marry, as is notoriously a tenet of antichrist, and foretold by the apostle, in agreement to this prophecy, Ti1 4:3, otherwise, none more lustful or desirous of women in an unlawful way than the Romish priests: nor regard any god; either the true God, and his laws, or any god in a metaphorical sense, any king or potentate on earth; showing no respect to any authority, or to any laws, divine or human: for he shall magnify himself above all; above all gods, real or nominal, as in Th2 2:4. (p) "conjuges", Gejerus.

Verse 38

But in his estate shall he honour the god of forces,.... Or god Mahuzzim (q); departed saints and their images, whom the Papists make their protectors, defenders, and guardians: the word signifies towers, strong holds, fortresses; and by these titles the martyrs, saints departed, are called by the ancient fathers, who first introduced the worship of them: So Basil (r), speaking of the forty martyrs, says, "these are they, who obtaining our country, like certain towers, afford us a refuge against the incursion of enemies:'' and a little after thus addresses them, "O ye common keepers of mankind, the best companions of our cares, the suffragans of our prayers and wishes, "most powerful" ambassadors with God, &c.:'' and elsewhere (s) he prays, "that God would keep the church unmoved, and fortified with the great towers of the martyrs;'' so Chrysostom (t) calls them patrons and protectors. Or, "with God he shall honour" (u); these along with him, or besides him; these shall be the objects of religious worship and honour, as they are: and that "in his estate"; or in his room and stead, that is, of the true God, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man; and yet angels and departed saints are set up as mediators in his stead: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour; the host, the wafer, the breaden god, made a god by the words of a muttering priest; this is such a god as the apostles, and Peter particularly, from whom the popes of Rome pretend to, derive their succession, never knew, nor once dreamed of; and yet this is received as a god, bowed unto, and worshipped, and honoured: with gold, silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things; with rich and costly ornaments, with which the pyxis or box, in which it is carried in procession, is adorned. (q) "deum Mahuzim", V. L. Pagninus, Montanus. (r) Homil. in 40. Martyr. p. 151. (s) Homil. de Martyr. Mamant. p. 167. (t) Sermo in Berenice, Homil. l. in 1 Thess. See Mede's Works, B. 3. p. 673, 674. (u) "Ad, vel juxta deum Mahuzzimos in sede ejus honorabit", Medus, p. 667, 671.

Verse 39

Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god,.... Or, "in the strong holds of Mahuzzim" (w) that is, in the temples, churches, and chapels, dedicated to angels and departed saints; deck and adorn their images with gold, silver, precious stones, and with desirable things, which is notorious; as well as commit the grossest idolatries with this strange breaden god; which they hold up in such places, cringe and bow to, and pay all religious worship and adoration to it: whom he shall acknowledge, and increase with glory; as really God; the wafer being transubstantiated into the very body and blood of Christ, as is said; and own it as such, as very God, and heap religious honour and glory upon it, which is due to Christ: he shall cause them to rule over many; that is, the Mahuzzim, the departed saints; one shall rule over England, and be the patron and defender of it, as St. George; another over Scotland, as St. Andrew; another over Ireland, as St. Patrick; another over France, as St. Dennis; another over Spain, as St. James: and shall divide the land for gain; or "price" (x); the whole Romish jurisdiction, all antichristian states, which are divided among those tutelar saints; each of them have their proper country assigned them they are to defend; but this is not done without gain arising to the pope of Rome from those countries, as by firstfruits, annates, Peter's pence, &c. (w) "munitionibus Mahuzim", Pagninus, Montanus. (x) "pro pretio", Vatablus, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator.

Verse 40

And at the time of the end,.... At the end of the time appointed of God, when antichrist is arrived to the height of his power and authority: shall the king of the south push at him; not Philometor king of Egypt; nor is Antiochus meant in the next clause by the king of the north; for, after he was required by the Romans to quit the land of Egypt, there was no more war between him and the king of Egypt; rather therefore the Saracens are meant by the king of the south, as Mr. Mede (y) and Cocceius think, who came from the south, from Arabia Felix: and so Gravius interprets it of the king or caliph of the Saracens, and his successors; who, extending their empire through Asia and Africa, repressed the attempts of the Roman antichrist affecting primacy in the east; and this way goes Mr. Mede, who takes them to be the same with the locusts in Rev 9:3, that distressed antichrist: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind; not Antiochus, as before observed; but either emperors, kings, and Christian princes, the chief of which was Godfrey of Bullain, who was crowned king of Jerusalem, as Cocceius: or the Turks, as Jacchiades, so Mr. Brightman on the place, and Mr. Mede; who were originally Tartars or Scythians, and came from the north, the same with the horsemen at Euphrates, Rev 9:15, who also came against antichrist; for he seems to be the "him" they both came against; both the king of the south, and the king of the north, the two woes that came upon Christendom the Saracens are the first woe, and the Turks the second; and who chiefly afflicted the antichristian states, and came like a whirlwind upon them, suddenly, swiftly, and with great rapidity and force: with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; which well agrees with the Turks, whose armies chiefly consist of horse: and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow, and pass over; into the countries belonging to antichrist; particularly the Greek or eastern empire; which they overran like a flood, seized it for themselves, and set up an empire for themselves, which still continues; as well as entered into some parts of Europe, and did much damage. (y) Works, B. 3. p. 674.

Verse 41

He shall enter also into the glorious land,.... The land of Israel, as the Syriac version expresses it; or the land of Judea, which the Turk entered into, and got possession of, and still retains, notwithstanding all the attempts made by the European princes to get it out of his hand: and many countries shall be overthrown; of which the eastern empire listed as Bithynia, Mysia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, and Carlo, and to the Hellesport and the Euxine sea, conquered by Ottoman and his son Urchenes; Callipolis, Hadrianople, by Amurath; Thessalia, Macedonia, Phocis, Mysia, and Bulgaria, by Bajazet; and at last Constantinople itself by Mahomet the second, which put an end to the eastern empire: though perhaps those countries and places may be here more especially meant which lay near Judea, and fell into the hands of the Turk when that did; as Comagene of Syria, Antioch, Damascus, Tripolis, Berytus, Sidon, and all Palestine, and all the sea coast to Egypt: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon; by which according to Jerom is meant Arabia, left untouched by him; so Mr. Mede interprets them of Arabia and Petraea, which some of the above people formerly inhabited, as Jacchiades observes; and which Arabians were never subdued by the Turks, but are independent of them to this day; yea, the Turks pay a yearly tribute to them for the passage of their pilgrims to Mecca, as well as pay for the canyons that pass through their country, as is affirmed (z) by modern travellers; and yet it may be observed that these countries did not escape Antiochus, who particularly took Rabbath, the metropolis of Ammon. (z) See Dr. Newton's Dissertations on the Prophecies. p. 53, 54, &c.

Verse 42

He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries,.... Before mentioned, and take possession of them and rule over them, as the Turk does to this day: and the land of Egypt shall not escape; the hands of the Turk by whom it was taken from the Mamalucs; and is now a province of the Turkish empire, and governed by a Turkish basha, with twenty four princes under him (a). This was not true of Antiochus, who, after he had been checked by the Romans, never entered into Egypt, and much less became master of it, as the Turk now is. (a) Ibid. (See Dr. Newton's Dissertations on the Prophecies) p. 394.

Verse 43

But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt,.... The land of Egypt, as it is a very large, so a very rich country, abounding with gold, silver, and precious things; all which came into the hands of the Turk along with it; for when Selim, the ninth emperor of the Turks, conquered the Mamalucs he caused five hundred of the chiefest Egyptian families to be transported to Constantinople; as likewise a great number of Mamalucs' wives and children, besides the sultan's treasure, and other immense riches (b). And the Lybians and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps; at his command and pleasure; shall follow him, being taken captive, or go where he orders them; that is, in all things shall be obedient to him. So we find that these very people will be in the army of Gog or the Turk, when he shall march against the land of Judea, to recover it from the Jews, when possessed of it, Eze 38:5. These people, the Africans and Ethiopians, are near to Egypt, and therefore mentioned with it, and never were under the power of Antiochus, as Jerome observes; but are now subject to the Ottoman empire, and make a part of it; which is a very strong evidence of the Turk being the king of the north here spoken of. (b) See Dr. Newton's Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 393.

Verse 44

But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him,.... This and the following verse respect times and things yet to come, and the interpretation of them is not so certain: perhaps this clause may have a regard to the news brought to the Turk, of the Jews, upon their conversion, being about to return to their own land, from the eastern and northern parts of the world, where they chiefly are at this day; which will greatly alarm him, since their land is part of his dominions: or it may be, out of the east may come tidings of some commotions and disturbances in the eastern part of the world, as Tartary, &c. which he may fear would be of bad consequence to the Ottoman empire; and news out of the north, of the northern Christian princes preparing to assist the Jews in the repossession of their country; all which may give him great uneasiness. Therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many; hearing the Jews are preparing to return to their own country, or that they have got possession of it, he will be provoked to the last degree, and raise a prodigious army, and march out of his own land with them to Judea; and will come like a storm, with the utmost rage and fury, and like a cloud for number, and threaten utter ruin and destruction to the nation of the Jews; this will be his end in view in coming out, but he will not be able to accomplish it; of all which see Eze 38:2, where the Turk, and this expedition of his, are prophesied of, and where he goes by the name of Gog.

Verse 45

And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace,.... Or "pavilion" (c); the tents for his princes and generals that come with him; which shall be placed about his own, and where he will think himself safe and secure, and sure of victory. Symmachus renders the words, "the tents of his cavalry" (d); or the stables of his horses; which agrees well enough with the Turks, whole cavalry is usually very large, their armies chiefly consisting of horsemen; such he shall bring into the land of Judea, and place them as after mentioned, as if he had got the day, and had obtained a settlement. The word used has the signification of covering and clothing; hence some translate it, "the tents of his curtain" (e); tents covered with curtains or veils, such as the tents of kings, generals, and principal officers, were covered with, distinguished from others by the splendour and magnificence of them. It seems to be derived from the same root as the ephod, a curious garment wore by the high priest among the Jews; hence Saadiah interprets it here a covering figured and wrought very artificially; and it is by some rendered "the tents or tabernacles of his tunic or clothing" (f). And it is an ingenious conjecture of a learned man of our own country (g), that it may refer to an ancient custom of the Roman emperors, who used before a battle to have a scarlet coat spread over their tents, or hung up upon a spear, to give notice of it, as appears from Plutarch, Isidore, and others; and so this furious enemy of the church of God is here represented as setting up his bloody flag or ensign, and preparing for battle, threatening with utter desolation and destruction. And this will be between the seas, in the glorious holy mountain; in the mountain or mountains of the land of Israel, upon which it is certain Gog or the Turk shall come, and there he shall fall, Eze 39:2, particularly the mountains about Jerusalem, and more especially Mount Zion, or Moriah, as Jacchiades; on which the temple was built formerly, and was glorious and holy on that account, and for which reason the epithets may be retained; though it will now be glorious and holy, through a glorious and holy people, the Jews, become Christian, residing and worshipping in Jerusalem; whose situation is between two seas, the Mediterranean sea to the west, and the sea of Sodom, or the Syrian or Persian sea, to the east, called the hinder and the former seas in Zac 14:8. Some take the word "Apadno", translated "palace", for the proper name of a place, Theodoret takes it to be a place near Jerusalem; and Jerom says it was near Nicopolis, which was formerly called Emmaus; where the mountainous parts of Judea begin to rise, and lay between the Dead sea on the east, and the great sea on the west, where he supposes antichrist will pitch his tent: and Porphyry, as he relates, who interprets the whole of Antiochus, places it between the two rivers Tigris and Euphrates; he says that Antiochus went on an expedition against Artaxis, king of Armenia, and, having slain many of his army, pitched his tent in the place Apadno, which is situated between two large rivers, Tigris and Euphrates; and that he afterwards went to the top of a mountain, in the province of Elymais, the further part of Persia to the east, with a design to rob the temple of Diana; but being discovered by the people was obliged to flee, and that he died with grief in Tabes, a town in Persia: and Father Calmet is of opinion that a place between those two rivers before mentioned is meant, and translates the words thus, "he shall pitch his tents in Apadno of the two seas;'' or in Padan of two rivers, Mesopotamia, situated between the Euphrates and the Tigris, two large rivers, and justly compared with the sea, particularly for their inundations. Dr. Goodwin (h) expresses his fears that our British isles are here invaded, which so eminently stand between the seas, and which God has made the eminent seat of the church in these latter days; and his fears would seem to be too well grounded, were the Romish or western antichrist here designed; but the Turk, or the eastern antichrist, is manifestly spoken of, as appears by the context: and the reason why he is so much observed, and so many things said of him, is, because the Jews have, and will have, the greatest concern with him, their country being in his hands; and it is for their sakes chiefly that the whole of this prophecy is delivered out; however, both antichrists, the one and the other, shall come to utter destruction, as follows: "yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him"; he shall fall upon the mountains of Israel, he and his princes, his generals, and captains, and mighty men; the whole Ottoman empire shall be destroyed, signified by the drying up of the river Euphrates, which is in his dominions, Rev 16:12, and of the vast multitudes that shall come with him, Persia, Ethiopia, Lybia, Gomer, and Togarmah, Eze 38:5 and the numerous provinces he is master of; none shall be able to help him, or save him from ruin: of the destruction of the Turk, under the name of Gog, see Eze 39:1. (c) "praetorii sui", Vatablus. So Aquila in Drusius. (d) , Symm.; "papiliones equitatus sui", interpr. Hieronymo; "vel potius tentoria equilis sui, seu stabuli equorum suorum", Fuller. (e) "Tentoria aulaei sui", Schindler, col. 108. (f) "Tentoria tunicae suae", Fuller; "tentoria hujus amietus", Cocceius, Lex. col. 57. (g) Fuller. Miscell. Sacr. l. 5. c. 18. So Lydius, De Re Miliari, l. 4. c. 2. p. 155, 156. (h) Exposition of the Revelation, part 2. p. 166. Next: Daniel Chapter 12

Verse 1

The first verse of the eleventh chapter belongs to Dan 10:21; the ואני (also I) is emphatically placed over against the mention of Michael, whereby the connection of this verse with Dan 10:21 is placed beyond a doubt, and at the same time the reference of לו (Dan 11:1) to מיכאל (Daniel 10:21b) is decided. Hengstenberg indeed thinks (Christol. iii. 2, p. 53) that the reference of the לו to Michael is "against all that is already spoken in relation to Michael, and particularly against that which immediately goes before," under a reference to Hitzig. But Hitzig only says that in Dan 10:21 Michael is of one lineage with the speaker; but, on the contrary, the expressions למחזיק (to confirm) and למעוז (to strengthen) are so strong, that in לו we must think on one inferior, a man. Moreover, Hitzig can think of nothing done by Michael under Darius, since the transference of the kingdom to the Medes changed nothing in the fortune of the Jews. This was first effected by Cyrus. But Hengstenberg himself does not recognise this last reason, but remarks that Dan 11:1 relates to the transference of the sovereignty from the Chaldeans to the Persians, whereby a way was opened for the return of Israel, and rightly, with Hv., thus determines the meaning of the verse in general: "As at that time the Lord made the change of the monarchy a cause of blessing to the covenant people, so in all the troubles that may arise to them in the heathen monarchies He will show Himself to be the same true and gracious God." The other reason, namely, that the strong expressions, "to confirm and strengthen," necessitate us to think of one inferior as referred to in לו, affects only the view already refuted above, that the speaker is either Gabriel or another inferior angel. If, on the contrary, the speaker is one person with him who is clothed in linen, i.e., with the Angel of the Lord, who is like unto God, then this person can also say of himself that he was a help and protection to the angel-prince Michael, because he stands higher than Michael; and the reference of the לו to Michael, which the "also I" in contrast to "Michael your prince" demands, corresponds wholly with that which is said of Michael. Besides, the reference of לו to Darius (Hv., Hengstb.) is excluded by this, that the name of Darius the Mede is not at all the object of the statements of the verse to which לו could refer, but occurs only in a subordinate or secondary determination of time. The thought of the verse is accordingly the following: "In the first year of Darius the Mede, Michael effected this, that Babylon, which was hostile to the people of God, was overthrown by the power of Medo-Persia, in doing which the Angel of the Lord rendered to him powerful help." To this follows in order in Dan 11:2 the announcement of the future, which is introduced by the formula 'וגו ועתּה resumed from Dan 10:21.

Verse 2

The events of the nearest future - Daniel 11:2-20 The revelation passes quickly from Persia (Dan 11:2) and the kingdom of Alexander (Dan 11:3, Dan 11:4), to the description of the wars of the kingdoms of the south and the north, arising out of the latter, in which wars the Holy Land, lying between the two, was implicated. Regarding Persia it is only said that yet three kings shall arise, and that the fourth, having reached to great power by his riches, shall stir up all against the kingdom of Javan. Since this prophecy originates in the third year of the Persian king Cyrus (Dan 10:1), then the three kings who shall yet (עוד) arise are the three successors of Cyrus, viz., Cambyses, the pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes; the fourth is then Xerxes, with whom all that is said regarding the fourth perfectly agrees. Thus Hvernick, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Auberlen, and Kliefoth interpret; on the contrary, v. Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, and Kranichfeld will make the fourth the third, so as thereby to justify the erroneous interpretation of the four wings and the four heads of the leopard (Dan 7:6) of the first four kings of the Persian monarchy, because, as they say, the article in הרביעי necessarily requires that the fourth is already mentioned in the immediately preceding statements. But the validity of this conclusion is not to be conceived; and the assertion that the O.T. knows only of four kings of Persia (Hitzig) cannot be established from Ezr 4:5-7, nor from any other passage. From the naming of only four kings of Persia in the book of Ezra, since from the end of the Exile to Ezra and Nehemiah four kings had reigned, it in no way follows that the book of Daniel and the O.T. generally know of only four. Moreover, this assertion 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 Maccabees there was well known, according to 1 Macc. 1:1, also the name of the last Persian king, Darius, who was put to death by Alexander. If the last named, the king who by great riches (Dan 11:2) reached to a higher power, is included among the three previously named, then he should have been here designated "the third." The verb עמד, to place oneself, then to stand, is used here and frequently in the following passages, as in Dan 8:23, in the sense of to stand up (= קוּם), with reference to the coming of a new ruler. The gathering together of greater riches than all (his predecessors), agrees specially with Xerxes; cf. Herodot. iii. 96, vi. 27-29, and Justini Histor. ii. 2. The latter says of him: "Divitias, non ducem laudes, quarum tanta copia in regno ejus fuit, ut, cum flumina multitudine consumerentur, opes tamen regiae superessent." חזקתו is the infinit. or nomen actionis, the becoming strong; cf. Ch2 12:1 with Kg2 14:5 and Isa 8:11. בּעשׁרו is not in apposition to it, "according to his riches" (Hv.); but it gives the means by which he became strong. "Xerxes expended his treasures for the raising and arming of an immense host, so as by such חזק (cf. Amo 6:13) to conquer Greece" (Hitzig). יון מלכוּת את is not in apposition to הכּל, all, namely, the kingdom of Javan (Maurer, Kranichfeld). This does not furnish a suitable sense; for the thought that הכּל, "they all," designates the divided states of Greece, and the apposition, "the kingdom of Javan," denotes that they were brought by the war with Xerxes to form themselves into the unity of the Macedonian kingdom, could not possibly be so expressed. Moreover, the reference to the circumstances of the Grecian states is quite foreign to the context. מ יון את is much rather a second, more remote object, and את is to be interpreted, with Hvernick, either as the preposition with, so far as יעיר involves the idea of war, conflict, or simply, with Hitzig, as the accusative of the object of the movement (cf. Exo 9:29, Exo 9:33), to stir up, to rouse, after the kingdom of Javan, properly to make, to cause, that all (הכּל = every one, cf. Psa 14:3) set out towards. Daniel calls Greece מלכוּת, after the analogy of the Oriental states, as a united historical power, without respect to the political constitution of the Grecian states, not suitable to prophecy (Kliefoth). From the conflict of Persia with Greece, the angel (Dan 11:3) passes immediately over to the founder of the Grecian (Macedonian) world-kingdom; for the prophecy proceeds not to the prediction of historical details, but mentions only the elements and 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. The reply of Alexander to Darius Codomannus (Arrian, Exped Alex. ii. 14. 4) supplies a historical document, in which Alexander justifies his expedition against Persia by saying that Macedonia and the rest of Hellas were assailed in war by the Persians without any cause (οὐδὲν προηδικημένοι), and that therefore he had resolved to punish the Persians. A deeper reason for this lies in this, that the prophecy closes the list of Persian kings with Xerxes, but not in this, that under Xerxes the Persian monarchy reached its climax, and partly already under him, and yet more after his reign, the fall of the kingdom had begun (Hvernick, Auberlen); still less in the opinion, proved to be erroneous, that the Maccabean Jew knew no other Persian kings, and confounded Xerxes with Darius Codomannus (v. Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig).

Verse 3

But only brief notices, characterizing its nature, were given regarding the Macedonian kingdom, which agree with the prophecies Dan 7:6 and Dan 8:5-8, Dan 8:21-22, without adding new elements. The founder of the kingdom is called גּבּור מלך, "brave king," "hero-king," and his kingdom "a great dominion." Of his government it is said כּרצונו עשׂה, he does, rules, according to his will (cf. Dan 8:4), so that his power might be characterized as irresistible and boundless self-will. Similarly Curtius writes of him (x. 5. 35): Fatendum est, cum plurimum virtuti debuerit, plus debuisse fortunae, quam solus omnium mortalium in potestate habuit. Hujus siquidem beneficio agere videbatur gentibus quidquid placebat. By the כ in כּעמדו the coming of the king and the destruction of his kingdom are stated as synchronous, so as to express with great force the shortness of its duration. עמדו is not to be otherwise interpreted than עמד in Dan 11:3, and is thus not to be translated: "when he thus stands up," sc. in the regal power described in Dan 11:3 (Kran.), or: "on the pinnacle of his might" (Hv.), but: "when (or as) he has made his appearance, his kingdom shall be broken." In the words, also, there does not lie the idea "that he himself in his life-time is deprived of this throne and his kingdom by a violent catastrophe" (Kran.); for the destruction of the kingdom does not necessarily include in it the putting to death of the ruler. The thought is only this: "when he has appeared and founded a great dominion, his kingdom shall be immediately broken." תּשּׁבר (shall be broken) is chosen with reference to Dan 8:8, "toward the four winds of heaven." We may neither supply תחץ (shall be divided) to לאחריתו ולא (and not to his posterity), nor is this latter expression "connected with תחץ in pregnant construction;" for תחץ, from חצה, signifies to divide, from which we are not to assume the idea of to allot, assign. We have simply to supply היא in the sense of the verb. subst., shall be, as well here as in the following clause, כמשׁלו ולא. The אחרית e signifies here as little as in Amo 4:2; Amo 9:1, posterity = זרע, but remnant, that which is left behind, the survivors of the king, by which we are to understand not merely his sons, but all the members of his family. כמשׁלו ולא, "and it shall not be according to the dominion which he ruled." This thought, corresponding to בכחו ולא in Dan 8:22, is the natural conclusion from the idea of division to all the four winds, which the falling asunder into several or many small kingdoms involves. הנּתשׁ, "shall be plucked up" (of plants from the earth), denotes the rooting up of that which is table, the destroying and dissolving of the kingdom into portions. In this division it shall pass to others מלּבד־אלּה, "with the exclusion of those" (the אחרית), the surviving members of the family of Alexander. To ולאחרים (and for others) supply תּהיה (shall be). In Dan 11:4, accordingly, the prophetic thought is expressed, that the Javanic kingdom, as soon as the brave king has founded a great dominion, shall be broken to pieces and divided toward the four winds of heaven, so that its separate parts, without reaching to the might of the broken kingdom, shall be given not to the survivors of the family of the founder, but to strangers. This was historically fulfilled in the fact, that after the sudden death of Alexander his son Hercules was not recognised by his generals as successor on the throne, but was afterwards murdered by Polysperchon; his son also born by Roxana, along with his guardian Philip Arideus, met the same fate; but the generals, after they had at first divided the kingdom into more than thirty parts, soon began to war with each other, the result of which was, that at last four larger kingdoms were firmly established. Cf. Diod. Sic. xx. 28, xix. 105; Pausan. ix. 7; Justini hist. xv. 2, and Appiani Syr. c. 51.

Verse 5

From the 5th verse the prophecy passes to the wars of the kings of the south and the north for the supremacy and for the dominion over the Holy Land, which lay between the two. Dan 11:5 describes the growing strength of these two kings, and Dan 11:6 an attempt made by them to join themselves together. חזק, to become strong. The king of the south is the ruler of Egypt; this appears from the context, and is confirmed by Dan 11:8. שׂריו וּמן is differently interpreted; מן, however, is unanimously regarded as a partitive: "one of his princes," as e.g., Neh 13:28; Gen 28:11; Exo 6:25. The suffix to שׂריו (his princes) does not (with C. B. Michaelis, Bertholdt, Rosenmller, and Kranichfeld) refer to גּבּור מלך, Dan 11:3, because this noun is too far removed, and then also עליו must be referred to it; but thereby the statement in Dan 11:5, that one of the princes of the king of Javan would gain greater power and dominion than the valiant king had, would contradict the statement in Dan 11:4, that no one of the Diadochs would attain to the dominion of Alexander. (Note: This contradiction is not set aside, but only strengthened, by translating עליו יחזק "he overcame him" (Kran.), according to which the king of Javan must be thought of as overcome by one of his princes, the king of the south. For the thought that the king of Javan survived the destruction of his kingdom, and that, after one of his princes had become the king of the south and had founded a great dominion, he was overcome by him, contradicts too strongly the statement of Dan 11:5, that the kingdom of the valiant king of Javan would be destroyed, and that it would not fall to his survivors, but to others with the exception of those, for one to be able to interpret the words in this sense.) The suffix to שׂריו can only be referred to the immediately preceding הנגב מלך: "one of the princes of the king of the south." But then וin וּמן cannot be explicative, but is only the simple copula. This interpretation also is not opposed by the Atnach under שׂריו, for this accent is added to the subject because it stands before separately, and is again resumed in ויחזק by the copula ,ו as e.g., Eze 34:19. The thought is this: one of the princes of the king of the south shall attain to greater power than this king, and shall found a great dominion. That this prince is the king of the north, or founds a dominion in the north, is not expressly said, but is gathered from Dan 11:6, where the king of the south enters into a league with the king of the north.

Verse 6

שׁנים לקץ, "in the end of years," i.e., after the expiry of a course of years; cf. Ch2 18:2. The subject to יתחבּרוּ (join themselves, Ch2 20:35) cannot, it is evident, be אהרים, Dan 11:4 (Kran.), but only the king of the south and his prince who founded a great dominion, since the covenant, according to the following clause, is brought about by the daughter of the king of the south being given in marriage (אל בּוא, to come to, as Jos 15:18; Jdg 1:14) to the king of the north, to make מישׁרים, to effect an agreement. מישׁרים, rectitudes, synonymous with righteousness and right, Pro 1:3, here designates the rectitude of the relation of the two rulers to each other in regard to the intrigues and deceits they had previously practised toward each other; thus not union, but sincerity in keeping the covenant that had been concluded. "But she shall not retain the power of the arm." כּוח עשׂר as Dan 10:8, Dan 10:16, and הזּרוע, the arm as a figure of help, assistance. The meaning is: she will not retain the power to render the help which her marriage should secure; she shall not be able to bring about and to preserve the sincerity of the covenant; and thus the king of the south shall not be preserved with this his help, but shall become subject to the more powerful king of the north. The following passages state this. The subject to יעמד לא is the נגב מלך; and his, i.e., this king's, help is his own daughter, who should establish מישׁרים by her marriage with the king of the north. וּזרעו 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. The "not standing" is further positively defined by ותּנּתן, to be delivered up, to perish. The plur. מביאיה is the plur. of the category: who brought her, i.e., who brought her into the marriage (מביא to be explained after בּוא), without reference to the number of those who were engaged in doing so; cf. The similar plur. in particip. Lev 19:8; Num 24:9, and in the noun, Gen 21:7. היּלדהּ, particip. with the suffix, wherein the article represents the relative אשׁר. מחזיק, in the same meaning as Dan 11:1, the support, the helper. The sense is: not only she, but all who brought about the establishment of this marriage, and the object aimed at by it. בּעתּים has the article: in the times determined for each of these persons.

Verse 7

A violent war shall then break out, in which the king of the north shall be overcome. One of the offspring of her roots shall appear. מן in מנּצר is partitive, as Dan 11:5, and נצר is used collectively. The figure reminds us of Isa 11:1. The suffix to שׁרשׁיה refers to the king's daughter, Dan 11:6. Her roots are her parents, and the offspring of her roots a brother of the king's daughter, but not a descendant of his daughter, as Kranichfeld by losing sight of נצר supposes. כּנּו is the accusative of direction, for which, in Dan 11:20, Dan 11:21, Dan 11:38, כּנּו על stands more distinctly; the suffix refers to the king of the south, who was also the subject in יעמד, Dan 11:6. אל־החיל יבא does not mean: he will go to the (to his) army (Michaelis, Berth., v. Leng., Hitz., Klief.); this would be a very heavy remark within the very characteristic, significant description here given (Kran., Hv.); nor does it mean: he attained to might (Hv.); but: he shall come to the army, i.e., against the host of the enemy, i.e., the king of the north (Kran.). אל בּוא, as Gen 32:9; Isa 37:33, is used of a hostile approach against a camp, a city, so as to take it, in contradistinction to the following בּמעוז יבא: to penetrate into the fortress. מעוז has a collective signification, as בּהם referring to it shows. ב עשׂה, to act against or with any one, cf. Jer 18:23 ("deal with them"), ad libidinem agere (Maurer), essentially corresponding to כּרצונו in Dan 11:33, Dan 11:36. החזיק, to show power, i.e., to demonstrate his superior power.

Verse 8

To bring the subjugated kingdom wholly under his power, he shall carry away its gods along with all the precious treasures into Egypt. The carrying away of the images of the gods was a usual custom with conquerors; cf. Isa 46:1., Jer 48:7; Jer 49:3. In the images the gods themselves were carried away; therefore they are called "their gods." נסכיהם signifies here not drink-offerings, but molten images; the form is analogous to the plur. פּסילים, formed from פּסל; on the contrary, נסיכם libationes, Deu 32:38, stands for נסכּיהם, Isa 41:29. The suffix is not to be referred to אלהים, but, like the suffix in חמדּתם, to the inhabitants of the conquered country. וזהב כּסף are in apposition to חמדּתם כּלי, not the genitive of the subject (Kran.), because an attributive genitive cannot follow a noun determined by a suffix. Hv., v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, and Klief. translate 'וגו יעמד שׁנים והוּא: he shall during (some) years stand off from the king of the north. Literally this translation may perhaps be justified, for עמד, c. מן, Gen 29:35, has the meaning of "to leave off," and the expression "to stand off from war" may be used concisely for "to desist from making war" upon one. But this interpretation does not accord with the connection. First, it is opposed by the expressive והוּא, which cannot be understood, if nothing further should be said than that the king of the south, after he had overthrown the fortresses of the enemies' country, and had carried away their gods and their treasures, abstained from war for some years. The והוּא much rather leads us to this, that the passage introduced by it states some new important matter which does not of itself appear from the subjugation of the enemy and his kingdom. To this is to be added, that the contents of Dan 11:9, where the subject to בּא can only be the king of the north, do not accord with the abstaining of the king of the south from warring against the king of the north. By Ewald's remark, "With such miserable marchings to and fro they mutually weaken themselves," the matter is not made intelligible. For the penetrating of the king of the south into the fortresses of his enemy, and the carrying away of his gods and his treasures, was not a miserable, useless expedition; but then we do not understand how the completely humbled king of the north, after his conqueror abstained from war, was in the condition to penetrate into his kingdom and then to return to his own land. Would his conqueror have suffered him to do this? We must, therefore, with Kranichfeld, Gesenius, de Wette, and Winer, after the example of the Syriac and Vulgate, take מן יעמד in the sense of: to stand out before, מן in the sense of מפּני, contra, as in Psa 43:1 it is construed with ריב, which is supported by the circumstance that עמד in Dan 11:6, Dan 11:15, Dan 11:17, and Dan 11:25, has this meaning. By this not only is והוּא rightly translated: and he, the same who penetrated into the fortresses of his adversary and carried away his gods, shall also take his stand against him, assert his supremacy for years; but also Dan 11:9 contains a suitable addition, for it shows how he kept his ground. The king of the north shall after some time invade the kingdom of the king of the south, but shall return to his own land, namely, because he can effect nothing. Kran. takes the king of the south as the subject to וּבא, Dan 11:9; but this is impossible, for then the word must be בּמלכוּתו, particularly in parallelism with אדמתו. As the words stand, הנגב מלך, can only be the genitive to בּמלכוּת; thus the supposition that "the king of the south is the subject" is excluded, because the expression, "the king of the south comes into the kingdom of the south and returns to his own land," has no meaning when, according to the context, the south denotes Egypt. With the וּבא there also begins a change of the subject, which, though it appears contrary to the idiom of the German [and English] language, is frequently found in Hebrew; e.g., in Dan 11:11 and Dan 11:9. By the mention of an expedition of the king of the north into the kingdom of the king of the south, from which he again returned without having effected anything, the way is opened for passing to the following description of the supremacy of the king of the north over the king of the south.

Verse 10

The decisive wars - Dan 11:10-12 Here the suffix in בּנו refers to the king of the north, who in Dan 11:9 was the person acting. Thus all interpreters with the exception of Kranichfeld, who understand בנו of the son of the Egyptian prince, according to which this verse ought to speak of the hostilities sought, in the wantonness of his own mind, of the king of the south against the king of the north. But this interpretation of Kranichfeld is shattered, not to speak of other verbal reasons which oppose it, against the contents of Dan 11:11. The rage of the king of the south, and his going to war against the king of the north, supposes that the latter had given rise to this rage by an assault. Besides, the description given in Dan 11:10 is much too grand to be capable of being referred to hostility exercised in mere wantonness. For such conflicts we do not assemble a multitude of powerful armies, and, when these powerful hosts penetrate into the fortresses of the enemy's country, then find that for the victorious invaders there is wanting the occasion of becoming exasperated for new warfare. The Kethiv בנו is rightly interpreted by the Masoretes as plur., which the following verbs demand, while the singulars ועבר ושׁטף וּבא (shall come, and overflow, and pass through) are explained from the circumstance that the hosts are viewed unitedly in המון (multitude). בּוא בּא expresses the unrestrained coming or pressing forward, while the verbs ועבר שׁטף, reminding us of Isa 8:8, describe pictorially the overflowing of the land by the masses of the hostile army. וישׁב (jussive, denoting the divine guidance), and shall return, expresses the repetition of the deluge of the land by the hosts marching back out of it after the עבּר, the march through the land, - not the new arming for war (Hv.), but renewed entrance into the region of the enemy, whereby they carry on the war מעזּה עד, to the fortress of the king of the south, corresponding with the הצּפון מלך בּמעוז in Dan 11:7 (to the fortress of the king of the north). יתגּרוּ signifies properly to stir up to war, i.e., to arm, then to engage in war. In the first member of the verse it has the former, and in the last the latter meaning. The violent pressing forward of the adversary will greatly embitter the king of the south, fill him with the greatest anger, so that he will go out to make war with him. The adversary marshals a great multitude of combatants; but these shall be given into his hand, into the hand of the king of the south. רב המון העמיד (he raised up a great multitude) the context requires us to refer to the king of the north. בּידו נתּן, v. Leng., Maurer, and Hitzig understand of the acceptance of the command over the army - contrary to the usage of the words, which mean, to give into the hand = to deliver up, cf. Kg1 20:28; Dan 1:2; Dan 8:12-13, and is contrary also to the context. The marshalling of the host supposes certainly the power to direct it, so that it needs not then for the first time to be given into the power of him who marshalled it. The expression also, "to give into his hand," as meaning "to place under his command," is not found in Scripture. To this is to be added, that the article in ההמון refers back to רב המון. But if ההמון is the host assembled by the king of the north, then it can only be given up into the hand of the enemy, i.e., the king of the south, and thus the suffix in בּידו can only refer to him. The statements in Dan 11:12 are in harmony with this, so far as they confessedly speak of the king of the south.

Verse 12

This verse illustrates the last clause of Dan 11:11, i.e., explains more fully how the great multitude of the enemy are given into his hand. The first two clauses of Dan 11:12 stand in correlation to each other, as the change of the time and the absence of the copula before ירוּם show (the Keri ורם proceeds from a misunderstanding). The meaning is this: "As the multitude rises up, so his heart is lifted up." ההמון, with the article, can only be the host of the king of the north mentioned in Dan 11:12. The supposition that the Egyptian army is meant, is the result of the difficulty arising out of the misapprehension of the right relation in which the perfect ונשּׂא (hath lifted up raised) stands to the imperfect ירוּם. נשּׂא as in Isa 33:10 : they raise themselves to the conflict. לבב רוּם, the lifting up of the heart, commonly in the sense of pride; here the increase of courage, but so that pride is not altogether to be excluded. The subject to ירוּם is the king of the south, to whom the suffix to בּידו, Dan 11:11, points. With excited courage he overthrows myriads, namely, the powerful multitude of the enemies, but he yet does not reach to power, he does not attain to the supremacy over the king of the north and over his kingdom which he is striving after. The Vulgate, without however fully expressing the meaning, has rendered יעוז ולא by sed non praevalebit.

Verse 13

This thought is expanded and proved in these verses. - Dan 11:13. The king of the north returns to his own land, gathers a host together more numerous than before, and shall then, at the end of the times of years, come again with a more powerful army and with a great train. רכוּשׁ, that which is acquired, the goods, is the train necessary for the suitable equipment of the army-"the condition to a successful warlike expedition" (Kran.). The definition of time corresponding to the בּעתּים in Dan 11:6 is specially to be observed: שׁנים העתּים לקץ הע (at the end of times, years), in which שׁנים is to be interpreted (as ימים with שׁבעים, Dan 10:3-4, and other designations of time) as denoting that the `itiym stretch over years, are times lasting during years. העתּים, with the definite article, are in prophetic discourse the times determined by God. Dan 11:14 In those times shall many rise up against the king of the south (על עמד as Dan 8:20); also עמך פריצי בּני, the violent people of the nation (of the Jews), shall raise themselves against him. פריצים .mih ts בּני are such as belong to the classes of violent men who break through the barriers of the divine law (Eze 18:10). These shall raise themselves חזון להעמיד, to establish the prophecy, i.e., to bring it to an accomplishment. ha`amiyd = qayeem, Eze 13:6, as עמד = קוּם in Daniel, and generally in the later Hebrew. Almost all interpreters since Jerome have referred this to Daniel's vision of the oppression under Antiochus Epiphanes, Dan 8:9-14, Dan 11:23. This is so far right, as 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; but the limiting of the חזון to those definite prophecies is too narrow. חזון without the article is prophecy in undefined generality, and is to be extended to all the prophecies which threatened the people of Israel with severe chastisements and sufferings on account of their falling away from the law and their apostasy from their God. ונכשׁלוּ, they shall stumble, fall. "The falling away shall bring to them no gain, but only the sufferings and tribulation prophesied of" (Kliefoth). Dan 11:15 In this verse, with ויבא the בּוא eht וי יבוא, Dan 11:13, is again assumed, and the consequence of the war announced. סוללה שׁפך, to heap up an entrenchment; cf. Eze 4:2; Kg2 19:32. מבצרות עיר, city of fortifications, without the article, also collectively of the fortresses of the kingdom of the south generally. Before such power the army, i.e., the war-strength, of the south shall not maintain its ground; even his chosen people shall not possess strength necessary for this.

Verse 16

The Further Undertakings of the King of the North - Dan 11:16-19 Having penetrated into the kingdom of the south, he shall act there according to his own pleasure, without any one being able to withstand him; just as before this the king of the south did in the kingdom of the north (Dan 11:7). With ויעשׂ the jussive appears instead of the future - cf. וישׂם, יתּן (Dan 11:17), ישׁב (Dan 11:18 and Dan 11:19) - to show that the further actions and undertakings of the king of the north are carried on under the divine decree. אליו הבּא is he that comes into the land of the south, the king of the north (Dan 11:14, Dan 11:15). Having reached the height of victory, he falls under the dominion of pride and haughtiness, by which he hastens on his ruin and overthrow. After he has subdued the kingdom of the southern king, he will go into the land of beauty, i.e., into the Holy Land (with reference to הצּבי ארץ, Dan 8:9). בּידו וכלה, and destruction is in his hand (an explanatory clause), כלה being here not a verb, but a substantive. Only this meaning of כלה is verbally established, see under Dan 9:27, but not the meaning attributed to the word, from the unsuitable introduction of historical events, accomplishing, perfection, according to which Hv., v. Leng., Maur., and Kliefoth translate the clause: and it (the Holy Land) is wholly given into his hand. כלה means finishing, conclusion, only in the sense of destruction, also in Ch2 12:2 and Eze 13:13. For the use of בּידו of spiritual things which one intends or aims at, cf. Job 11:14, Isa. 54:20. The destruction, however, refers not to the Egyptians (Hitzig), but to the Holy Land, in which violent (rapacious) people (Dan 11:14) make common cause with the heathen king, and thereby put arms into his hands by which he may destroy the land.

Verse 17

This verse has been very differently expounded. According to the example of Jerome, who translates it: et ponet faciem suam ut veniat ad tenendum universum regnum ejus, and adds to this the explanatory remark: ut evertat illum h. e. Ptolemaeum, sive illud, h. e. regnum ejus, many translate the words וגו בּתקף לבוא by to come in or against the strength of his whole (Egyptian) kingdom (C. B. Michaelis, Venema, Hvernick, v. Lengerke, Maurer), i.e., to obtain the superiority over the Egyptian kingdom (Kliefoth). But this last interpretation is decidedly opposed by the circumstance that תּקף means strength not in the active sense = power over something, but only in the intransitive or passive sense, strength as the property of any one. Moreover, both of these explanations are opposed by the verbal use of בּוא c. ב rei, which does not signify: to come in or against a matter, but: to come with - cf. בּחיל בּוא, to come with power, Dan 11:13, also Isa 40:10; Psa 71:16 - as well as by the context, for of the completely subjugated south (according to Dan 11:15, Dan 11:16) it cannot yet be said מלכוּתו תּקף. Correctly, Theodot. translates: εἰσελθεῖν ἐν ἰσχύι" πάσης τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ; Luther: "to come with the strength of his whole kingdom." Similarly M. Geier, Hitzig, and Kran. The king of the north intends thus to come with the force of his whole kingdom to obtain full possession of the kingdom of the south. עמּו וישׁרים is an explanatory clause defining the manner in which he seeks to gain his object. ישׁרים, plur. of the adjective ישׁר, in a substantive signification, that which is straight, recta, as Pro 16:13, proba (Ewald's Gram. 172; while in his commentary he translates the word by agreement). עמּו, with him, i.e., having in intention. The sense of the passage is determined according to מישׁרים לעשׂות, Dan 11:6 : with the intention of establishing a direct, right relation, namely, by means of a political marriage to bring to himself the kingdom of the south. ועשׂה forms a clause by itself: he shall do it, carry it out; there is therefore no need for Hitzig's arbitrary change of the text into יעשׂה. The second half of this verse (Dan 11:17) describes how he carries out this intention, but yet does not reach his end. "He shall give him the daughter of women." הנּשׁים, of women, the plur. of the class, as אריות כּפיר, Jdg 14:5, a young lion (of lionesses); בּן אתנות, Zac 9:9, the foal of an ass (of she-asses). The suffix to להשׁחיתהּ (corrupting her, E.V.) is referred by many to מלכוּתו (his kingdom); but this reference fails along with the incorrect interpretation of the בּתקף as the end of the coming. Since in the first half of the verse the object of his undertaking is not named, but in Dan 11:16 is denoted by אליו, the suffix in question can only be referred to הנּשׁים בּת. Thus J. D. Michaelis, Bertholdt, Rosenmller; the former, however, gives to the word להשׁחיתהּ the verbally untenable meaning: "to seduce her into a morally corrupt course of conduct;" but Hitzig changes the text, strikes out the suffix, and translates: "to accomplish vileness." השׁחית means only to destroy, to ruin, hence "to destroy her" (Kran.). This, 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 not: "it shall neither stand, nor succeed to him" (v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig), but: "she (the daughter) shall not stand," not be able to carry out the plan contemplated by her father. The words תּהיה ולא־לו do not stand for לו (<) תּהיה ולא: "she shall not be to him" or "for him." In this case לא must be connected with the verb. According to the text, לא־לו forms one idea, as כּוח לא, impotent (cf. Ewald, 270): "she shall be a not for him" (ein Nichtihm), i.e., he shall have nothing at all from her.

Verse 18

His fate further drives him to make an assault on the islands and maritime coasts of the west (איּים), many of which he takes. וישׁב is not, after the Keri, to be changed into וישׂם; for turning himself from Egypt to the islands, he turns back his face toward his own land in the north. The two following clauses are explained by most interpreters thus: "but a captain shall stop his scorn (bring it to silence), and moreover shall give back (recompense) scorn to him in return." This is then, according to the example of Jerome, referred to the expedition of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Grecian islands which were under the protection of Rome, for which he was assailed and overcome by the consul Lucius Scipio (Asiaticus) in a battle fought at Magnesia ad Sipylum in Lydia. But the translation in question affords a tolerable sense only when we take בּלתּי in the meaning moreover, in addition to; a meaning which it has not, and cannot have according to its etymology. 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; according to which, לא must here stand before השׁבּית if we would translate it by besides that or only. בּלתּי has the idea of exception, and can only be rendered after an affirmative statement by however, for the passage introduced by its limits the statement going before. Thus Theodot. rightly: καταπαύσει ἄρχοντας ὀνειδισμοῦ αὐτῶν, πλὴν ὁ ὀνειδισμὸς αὐτοῦ ἐπιστρέψει αὐτῷ; and in close connection with this, Jerome has: et cessare faciet principem opprobrii sui et opprobrium ejus convertetur in eum. In like manner the Peshito. This rendering we must, with Kranichfeld, accede to, and accordingly understand וגו והשׁבּית of the king of the north, and interpret the indefinite קצין (leader, chief) in undefined generality or collectively, and חרפּתו (his reproach) as the second object subordinated to קצין, and refer לו as the dative to קצין. Thus the second חרפּתו gains expressiveness corresponding to its place before the verb as the contrast to לו (<) חרפּתו: "however his reproach," i.e., the dishonour he did to the chiefs, "shall they recompense to him." The subject to ישׁיב is the collective קצין. The statement of the last clause introduces us to the announcement, mentioned in Dan 11:19, of the overthrow of the king of the north, who wished to spread his power also over the west. Since the chiefs (princes) of the islands rendered back to him his reproach, i.e., required to him his attack against them, he was under the necessity of returning to the fortresses of his own land. With that begins his fall, which ends with his complete destruction.

Verse 20

Another stands up in his place, who causeth נוגשׂ to pass over, through his eagerness for riches. נוגשׂ most understand as a collector of tribute, referring for this to Kg2 23:35, and מלכוּת הדר מלכוּת as the Holy Land, and then think on Heliodorus, whom Seleucus Nicator sent to Jerusalem to seize the temple treasure. But this interpretation of the words is too limited. נגשׂ denotes, no doubt (Kg2 23:35), to collect gold and silver; but it does not thence follow that נוגשׂ, 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 labour, afflicts and oppresses them as cattle. מלכוּת הדר is not synonymous with הצּבי ארץ, Dan 11:16, but stands much nearer to מלכוּת הוד, Dan 11:21, and designates the glory of the kingdom. The glory of the kingdom was brought down by נוגשׂ, and העביר 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. אחדים ימים (days few), as in Gen 27:44; Gen 29:20, the designation of a very short time. 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 ב in בּימים does not mean post. מאפּים ולא, in contradistinction and contrast to במלחמה ולא, can only denote private enmity or private revenge. "Neither by anger (i.e., private revenge) nor by war" points to an immediate divine judgment. If we now, before proceeding further in our exposition, attentively consider the contents of the revelation of vv. 5-20, so as to have a clear view of its relation to the historical fulfilment, we shall find the following to be the course of the thoughts exhibited: - After the fall of the Javanic world-kingdom (Dan 11:4) the king of the south shall attain to great power, and one of his princes shall found (Dan 11:5) a yet greater dominion in the north. After the course of years they shall enter into an agreement, for the king of the south shall give his daughter in marriage to the king of the north so as to establish a right relationship between them; but this agreement shall bring about the destruction of the daughter, as well as of her father and all who co-operated for the effecting of this marriage (Dan 11:6). Hereupon a descendant of that king of the south shall undertake a war against the king of the north, victoriously invade the country of the adversary, gather together great spoil and carry it away to Egypt, and for years hold the supremacy. The king of the north shall, it is true, penetrate into his kingdom, but he shall again return home without effecting anything (Dan 11:7-9). His sons also shall pass over the kingdom of the south with a multitude of hosts, but the multitude shall be given into the hand of the king, who shall not come to power by casting down myriads. The king of the north shall return with a host yet more numerous; against the king of the south many, also faithless members of the Jewish nation, shall rise up, and the king of the north shall take the fortified cities, without the king of the south having the power to offer him resistance (Dan 11:10-15). The conqueror shall now rule in the conquered lands after his own pleasure, and set his foot on the Holy Land with the intention of destroying it. Thereupon he shall come with the whole might of his kingdom against the king of the south, and by the marriage of his daughter seek to establish a right relationship with him, but he shall only thereby bring about the destruction of his daughter. Finally, he shall make an assault against the islands and the maritime countries of the west; but he shall be smitten by his chiefs, and be compelled to return to the fortresses of his own land, and shall fall (Dan 11:16-19). But his successor, who shall send taskmasters through the most glorious regions of the kingdom, shall be destroyed in a short time (Dan 11:20). Thus the revelation depicts how, in the war of the kings of the south and of the north, first the king of the south subdued the north, but when at the summit of his conquest he sank under the power of his adversary through the insurrections and the revolt of an apostate party of the Jews; whereupon, by an assault upon the west in his endeavour, after a firmer establishment and a wider extension of his power, he brings about his own overthrow, and his successor, in consequence of the oppression of his kingdom, comes to his end in a few days. Now, since the king who comes into his place (Dan 11:21.) after he has become strong raises himself up against the holy covenant, takes away the daily worship in the temple of the Lord, etc., is, according to the historical evidence found in the books of the Maccabees, the Seleucidan Antiochus Epiphanes, so the prophetic announcement, vv. 5-20, stretches itself over the period from the division of the monarchy of Alexander among his generals to the commencement of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes in the year 175 b.c., during which there reigned seven Syrian and six Egyptian kings, viz. - Syrian Kings (from b.c.) Egyptian Kings (from b.c.) Seleucus Nicator 310-280 Ptolemy Lagus 323-284 Antiochus Sidetes 280-260 Ptolemy Philadelphus 284 Antiochus Theus 260-245 Ptolemy Euergetes 246-221 Seleucus Callinicus 245-225 Ptolemy Philopator 221-204 Seleucis Ceraunus 225-223 Ptolemy Epiphanes 204-180 Antiochus the Great 223-186 Ptolemy Philometor 180 But in the prophetic revelation there is mention made of only four kings of the north (one in Dan 11:5-9; his sons, Dan 11:10-12; a third, Dan 11:13-19; and the fourth, Dan 11:20) and three kings of the south (the first, Dan 11:5 and Dan 11:6; the "branch," Dan 11:7-9; and the king, Dan 11:10-15), distinctly different, whereby of the former, the relation of the sons (Dan 11:10) to the king indefinitely mentioned in Dan 11:11, is admitted, and of the latter the kings of the south, it remains doubtful whether he who is spoken of in Dan 11:9-15 is different from or is identical with "the branch of her roots" (Dan 11:7). This circumstance shows that the prophecy does not treat of individual historical personages, but only places in view the king of the south and the king of the north as representatives of the power of these two kingdoms. Of these kings special deeds and undertakings are indeed mentioned, which point to definite persons; e.g., of the king of the north, that he was one of the princes of the king of the south, and founded a greater dominion than his (Dan 11:5); the marriage of the daughter of the king of the south to the king of the north (Dan 11:6); afterwards the marriage also of the daughter of the king of the north (Dan 11:17), and other special circumstances in the wars between the two, which are to be regarded not merely as individualizing portraitures, but denote concrete facts which have verified themselves in history. But yet all these specialities do not establish the view that the prophecy consists of a series of predictions of historical facta, because even these features of the prophecy which find their actual fulfilments in history do not coincide with the historical reality. Thus all interpreters regard the king of the south, Dan 11:5, as Ptolemy Lagus, and that one of his princes (מן־שׂריו) who founded a greater dominion as Seleucus Nicator, or the "Conqueror," who, in the division of the countries which the conquerors made after the overthrow and death of Antiochus, obtained, according to Appian, Syr. c. 55, Syria from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean Sea and Phrygia; then by using every opportunity of enlarging his kingdom, he obtained also Mesopotamia, Armenia, and a part of Cappadocia, and besides subjugated the Persians, Parthians, Bactrains, Arabians, and other nations as far as the Indus, which Alexander had conquered; so that, after Alexander, no one had more nations of Asia under his sway than Seleucus, for from the borders of Phyrgia to the Indus all owned his sway. While this extension of his kingdom quite harmonizes with the prophecy of the greatness of his sovereignty, yet the designation "one of his princes" does not accord with the position of Ptolemy Lagus. Both of these were certainly at the beginning generals of Alexander. Seleucus, afterwards vicegerent of the Babylonians, found himself, however, from fear of Antigonus, who sought to put him to death, under the necessity of fleeing to Egypt to Ptolemy, by whom he was hospitably received, and with whom and other vicegerents he entered into a league against Antigonus, and when war arose, led an Egyptian fleet against Antigonus (Diod. Sic. xix. 55-62). He was accordingly not one of Ptolemy's generals. Moreover, the marriage of the king's daughter, Dan 11:6, is thus explained by Jerome, and all interpreters who follow him: - Ptolemy Philadelphus made peace with Antiochus Theus, after many years' war, on the condition that Antiochus should put away his own wife Laodice, who was at the same time his half-sister, and disinherit her son, and should marry Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy, and should appoint her first-born son as his successor on the throne of the kingdom (Appian, Syr. c. 65, and Jerome). This factum can be regarded as a fulfilling of the prophecy, Dan 11:6; but the consequences which resulted from this political marriage do not correspond with the consequences prophesied of. According to the testimony of history, Ptolemy died two years after this marriage, whereupon Antiochus set aside Berenice, and took to himself again his former wife Laodice, along with her children. But she effected the death of her husband by poison, as she feared his fickleness, and then her son Seleucus Callinicus ascended the throne. Berenice fled with her son to the asylum of Daphne, but she was there murdered along with him. The prophecy, according to this, 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 respect connected with that marriage, and not till after his death did the consequences fatal to his daughter and her child develop themselves. Further, as to the contents of Dan 11:7-9, history furnishes the following confirmations: - In order to save his sister, who was put aside by Antiochus Theus, her brother, Ptolemy Euergetes, invaded the Syrian kingdom, in which Seleucus Callinicus had succeeded his father on the throne, in alliance with the armies of the Asiatic cities, and put to death his mother Laodice, since he had come too late to save his sister, in revenge for her murder, overthrew all the Syrian fortresses from Cilicia to the Tigris and Babylonia, and would have conquered the whole of the Syrian kingdom, if an insurrection which had broken out in Egypt had not caused him to return thither, carrying with him many images of the gods, and immense treasure, which he had taken from the vanquished cities. Then, while engaged in Egypt, Callinicus recovered the cities of Asia Minor, but failed to conquer the maritime countries, because his fleet was wrecked in a storm; and when he thereupon undertook a land expedition against Egypt, he was totally defeated, so that he returned to Antioch with only a few followers: cf. Justin, Hist. xxvii. 1, 2; Polyb. v. 58; and Appian, Syr. c. 65. On the other hand, the announcement of the war of his sons with many hosts overflowing the land, Dan 11:10, is not confirmed by history. After the death of Callinicus in captivity, his son Seleucus Ceraunus succeeded to the government, a very incompetent man, who after tow years was poisoned by his generals in the war with Attalus, without having undertaken anything against Egypt. His brother Antiochus, surnamed the Great, succeeded him, who, in order to recover Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, renewed the war against the king of Egypt (not till about two years after he ascended the throne, however, did Ptolemy Philopator begin to reign), in which he penetrated twice to Dura, two (German) miles north from Caesarea (Polyb. x. 49), then concluded a four months' truce, and led his host back to the Orontes (Polyb. v. 66; Justin, xxx. 1). After the renewal of hostilities he drove the Egyptian army back to Sidon, conquered Gilead and Samaria, and took up his winter-quarters in Ptolemais (Polyb. v. 63-71). In the beginning of the following year, however, he was defeated by the Egyptians at Raphia, not far from Gaza, and was compelled, with great loss in dead and prisoners, to return as quickly as possible to Antioch, and to leave Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine to the Egyptians (Polyb. v. 79, 80, 82-86). Dan 11:11 and Dan 11:12 refer to this war. Thirteen our fourteen years after this, Antiochus, in league with Philip III of Macedon, renewed the war against the Egyptians, when, after Philopator's death, Ptolemy Epiphanes, being five years old, had ascended the throne, retook the three above-named countries (Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine), vanquished the Egyptian host led by Scopas near Paneas, and compelled the fortress of Sidon, into which the Egyptians had fled, to surrender after a lengthened siege, and then concluded a peace with Ptolemy on the condition that he took to wife the daughter of Antiochus, Cleopatra, who should bring with her, as her dowry, Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine (Polyb. xv. 20, xxviii. 17; App. Syr. c. i.; Liv. xxxiii. 19; and Joseph. Antt. xii. 4. 1). Since the time of Jerome, the prophecy Dan 11:13-17 has been referred to this last war. But also here the historical events fall far behind the contents of the prophecy. The prophecy points to the complete subjugation of the king of the south, while this war was carried on only for the possession of the Asiatic provinces of the Egyptian kingdom. Also the rising up of many (רבּים, Dan 11:14) against the king of the south is not historically verified; and even the relation spoken of by Josephus (Antt. 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 פריצים בּני, 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 כּלה interpreted of conduct of Antiochus the Great toward the Jews; for according to Josephus, Antt. l.c., he treated the Jews round about Jerusalem favourably, because of their own accord they had submitted to him and had supported his army, and granted to them not only indulgence in regard to the observance of their religious ordinances, but also afforded them protection. Moreover, Dan 11:18, containing the 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; but Dan 11:19, that which is said regarding his return to the fortresses of his own land and his overthrow, does not so correspond with the historical issues of the reign of this king that one would be able to recognise therein a prediction of it. Finally, of his successor, Seleucus Philopator, 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 Syriae opes accepisset, post otiosum nullisque admodum rebus gestis nobilitatum annorum duodecim regnum, was put to death through the treachery of Heliodorus, unius ex purpuratis (Liv. xli. 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 2 Macc. 3:4ff. The ישּׁבר (shall be destroyed) of this king אחדים בּימים (within few days) does not harmonize with the fact of his twelve years' reign. From this comparison this much follows, that the prophecy does not furnish a prediction of the historical wars of the Seleucidae 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, diverse special elements of the prophetical announcement have historically been fulfilled, but the historical reality does not correspond with the contents of the prophecy in anything like an exhaustive manner. This ideal character of the prophecy comes yet more prominently forward to view in the following prophetic description.

Verse 21

The further Unveiling of the Future In this section we have (Dan 11:21) first the description of the prince who, in striving after supremacy, sues all the means that cunning and power can contrive, and in his enmity against the holy covenant knows no bounds. This description is divided into two parts - (1) Dan 11:21-25, and (2) vv. 36-12:3-which designate the two stadia of his proceedings. In the first part are described, (1) his gradual rising to power, Dan 11:21-24; (2) his war with the king of the south for the supremacy, Dan 11:25-27; (3) his rising up against the covenant people, even to the desecration of the sanctuary by the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the setting up of the abomination of desolation, Dan 11:28-32; (4) the effect and consequence of this for the people of God, Dan 11:32-35. This prince is the enemy of the holy God who is prophesied of in Dan 8:9-13, Dan 8:23-25, under the figure of the little horn, and is typically represented in the rising up of the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes against the covenant people and their worship of God. The prince's advancement to power. - He appears as נבזה, one despised, i.e., not such an one as by reason of birth has any just claim to the throne, and therefore as an intruder, also one who finds no recognition (Kranichfeld); which Hitzig has more definitely explained by mentioning that not Antiochus Epiphanes, but his nephew Demetrius, the son of the murdered Seleucus Philopator, was the true heir, but was of such a character that he was not esteemed worthy of the throne. נבזה, is despised, not = bad, unworthy, but yet supposes unworthiness. There was not laid on him the honour or majesty of the kingdom. The dignity of the kingdom requires הוד, splendour, majesty, such as God lays upon the king of Israel, Psa 21:6 (5), Ch1 29:25. But here the subject spoken of is the honour which men give to the king, and which was denied to the "despised one" on account of his character. He comes בּשׁלוה, in security, i.e., unexpectedly (cf. Dan 8:25), and takes possession of the kingdom. החזיק, to grasp, here to draw violently to himself. בּחלקלקּות, properly, by smoothnesses, intrigues and cunning, not merely flatteries or smooth words, but generally hypocritical behaviour in word and deed; cf. Dan 11:34. Dan 11:22 The kingdom he seized he also knew how to hold fast with great power. השׁטף זרעות, arms (i.e., warlike strength) of an inundation, i.e., armies overflowing the land are swept away before him, destroyed by yet stronger military forces. It is not merely the enemy, but also the "prince of the covenant," whom he destroys. בּרית נגיד is analogous to בּרית בּעלי, Gen 14:13, and בּרית אנשׁי, Oba 1:7, cf. Mal 2:14, and, as the absence of the article shows, is to be taken in a general sense. The interpretation of בּרית נגיד of the high priest Onias III, who at the commencement of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes was driven from his office by his brother, and afterwards, at the instigation of Menelaus, was murdered by the Syrian governor Andronicus at Daphne near Antioch, 2 Macc. 4:1ff., 33ff. (Rosenmller, Hitzig, etc.) - this interpretation is not warranted by the facts of history. This 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 (2 Macc. 4:36-38). Thus also it stands in no connection with the war of Antiochus against Egypt. The words cannot also (with Hvernick, v. Leng., Maurer, Ebrard, Kliefoth) be referred to the Egyptian king Ptolemy Philometor, because history knows nothing of a covenant entered into between this king and Antiochus Epiphanes, but only that soon after the commencement of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes the guardians of the young Philometor demanded Coele-Syria from Antiochus, which Antiochus the Great had promised as a dowry to his daughter Cleopatra, who was betrothed to Ptolemy Philometor, but Antiochus did not deliver it up, and hence a war arose between them. To this is to be added, that, as Dereser, v. Lengerke, Maurer, and Kranichfeld have rightly remarked, the description in Dan 11:22-24 bears an altogether general character, so that v. Leng. and Maurer find therein references to all the three expeditions of Antiochus, and in Dan 11:25-27 find more fully foretold what is only briefly hinted at in Dan 11:22-24. The undertaking of the king against Egypt is first described in Dan 11:24. We must therefore, with Kranichfeld, understand בּרית נגיד in undefined generality of covenant princes in general, in the sense already given. Dan 11:23-24 In these verses there is a fuller statement of the manner in which he treats the princes of the covenant and takes possession of their territory. The וat the beginning of Dan 11:23 is explicative, and the suffix in אליו, pointing back to נגיד ב, is also to be interpreted collectively. אליו מן־התחבּרוּת, literally, "from the confederating himself with them" (התחבּרוּת is infin. formed in the Syriac manner), i.e., from the time when he had made a covenant with them, he practised deceit. This was done by his coming (עלה of a warlike coming) and gaining strength with a few people, namely (Dan 11:24), by his coming unexpectedly into the fattest and richest places of the province, and there doing unheard-of things - things which no previous king, no one of his predecessors, had ever done, scattering among them (his followers) spoil and prey and riches. Thus rightly, after the Syriac and the Vulgate (dissipabit), Rosenmller, Kranichfeld, and Ewald; while, on the contrary, v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig, and Kliefoth interpret בּזר in the sense of to distribute, and refer the words to the circumstance that Antiochus Epiphanes squandered money lavishly, and made presents to his inferiors often without any occasion. But to distribute money and spoil is nothing unheard of, and in no way does it agree with the "fattest provinces." The contest 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 (להם [to them], dativ. incommodi). An historical confirmation is found in 1 Macc. 3:29-31. To bring the provinces wholly under his power, he devises plans against the fortresses that he might subdue them. ועד־עת, and indeed (he did this) even for a time. We cannot, with Klief., refer this merely to the last preceding passage, that his assaults against the fortresses succeeded only partly and for a time. The addition ("and that for a time") denotes a period determined by a higher power (cf. Dan 11:24 and Dan 12:4, Dan 12:6), and relates to the whole proceedings of this prince hitherto described; as C. B. Michaelis has already rightly explained: nec enim semper et in perpetuum dolus ei succedet et terminus suus ei tandem erit.

Verse 25

These verses describe the victorious war of the king who had come to power against the king of the south, the war of Antiochus Epiphanes against king Ptolemy Philometor, which is described in 1 Macc. 1:16-19, with manifest reference to this prophecy. ויער (he shall stir up) is potentialis in the sense of divine decree: "he shall stir up his power and his heart." כּח is not warlike power, which is mentioned in בּחיל־גּדול (Dan 11:25), but the power which consists in the bringing of a great army under his command; לבב, the mental energy for the carrying out of his plans. For יעמד לא, cf. Dan 8:4. The subject is the last-named king of the south, who, notwithstanding his very great and powerful army, shall not stand in battle, but shall give way, because devices are contrived against him. The subject to יחשׁבוּ is not the enemy, the king of the north, with his army, but, according to Dan 11:26, his table-companions. Dan 11:26 Here it is more definitely stated why he cannot stand. פתבּגו אכּלי, who eat his food (פּתבּג, see under Dan 1:5), i.e., his table-companions (cf. Psa 41:10[9]), persons about him. ישׁבּרוּהוּ, shall break him, i.e., cast him to the ground. His army shall therefore overflow, but shall execute nothing, only many shall fall down slain. The first member of the verse points to treachery, whereby the battle was lost and the war was fruitless. Hitzig incorrectly interprets ישׁטוף rushes away, i.e., is disorganized and takes to flight. But שׁטף cannot have this meaning. Dan 11:27 Here then is described how the two kings seek through feigned friendship to destroy one another. The two kings are of course the two kings of the north and the south previously named. Of a third, namely, of two kings of Egypt, Philometor and Physkon, Daniel knows nothing. The third, Physkon, is introduced from history; and hence Hitzig, v. Lengerke, and others understand by the "two kings," the two kings Antiochus and Philometor confederated against the king of the south, but Kliefoth, on the contrary, thinks of Antiochus and Physkon, the latter of whom he regards as the king of the south, Dan 11:25. All this is arbitrary. Jerome has already rejected the historical evidence for this, and remarks: verum ex eo, quia scriptura nunc dicit: duos fuisse reges, quorum cor fuerit fraudulentum ... hoc secundum historiam demonstrari non potest. למרע לבבם Hitzig translates: "their heart belongs to wickedness," contrary to the context. ל denotes also here only the direction: "their heart goes toward wicked deeds," is directed thereto. מרע (from רעע), formed after מצר (cf. Ewald, 160a), 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. All interpretations of these words which are determined by historical facta are arbitrary. The history of Antiochus Epiphanes furnishes no illustrations for this. In the sense of the prophecy תצלח לא has only this meaning: the design of the king of the north to destroy the king of the south, and to make himself master both of the north and the south, shall not succeed, and the king of the south will not fulfil what he promises to his deceitful adversary. For yet the end shall be at the time appointed. These words state the reason why the מרע shall not succeed. Hitzig incorrectly translates: "but the end holds onwards to the appointed time;" for כּי cannot in this connection be rendered by but, and ל cannot express the idea of holding to anything. ל denotes here, as generally, the direction toward the end, as Dan 11:35, and Dan 8:17, Dan 8:19. The end goes yet on to the time appointed by God. That this מועד (appointment of time) does not lie in the present, but in the future, is denoted by עוד, although we do not, with Hvernick, interpret עוד by "for the end lies yet further out," nor, with v. Lengerke and Maurer, may we supply the verb "withdraws itself, is reserved." עוד stands before קץ because on it the emphasis lies. קץ is, however, not the end of the war between Antiochus and Egypt (v. Leng., Maur., Hitzig), but cannot be otherwise taken than קץ עת, Dan 11:35, Dan 11:40, and Dan 12:4. But in the latter passage קץ עת is the time of the resurrection of the dead, thus the end of the present course of the world, with which all the oppression of the people of God ceases. Accordingly קץ in the verse before us, as in Dan 11:35, Dan 11:40, is the time in which the conduct of the kings previously described, in their rising up and in their hostility against the people of God, reaches its end (Dan 11:45); and with the overthrow of these enemies the period of oppression also comes to an end. This end comes only למועד, at the time which God has determined for the purifying of His people (Dan 11:35). So long may the kings of the north and the south prosecute their aims; so long shall they strive for the possession of the kingdom without succeeding in their plans. למועד has here and in Dan 11:35 the definite article, because in both verses the language refers not to any definite time, but to the time determined by God for the consummation of His kingdom. The placing of the article in this word in the verse before us is not, with Kliefoth, to be explained from a reference to Dan 8:17, Dan 8:19. The two revelations are separated from each other by too long a space of time for this one to refer back to that earlier one by the mere use of the article, although both treat of the same subject. The למועד occurs besides in Dan 11:29, where it is natural to suppose that it has the same meaning as here; but the contents of the verse oppose such a conclusion. Dan 11:29 treats, it is true, of a renewed warlike expedition against the south, which, however, brings neither the final deciding of the war with the south (cf. Dan 11:40), nor yet the end of the oppression of the people of God; המועד is thus only the time determined for the second aggression against the south, not the time of the end.

Verse 28

The success gained by the crafty king of the north in his war against the king of the south (Dan 11:25.) increases his endeavours after the enlarging of his dominions. Returning from Egypt with great riches, i.e., with rich spoil, he raises his heart against the holy covenant. By the potentialis ישׁב (he shall return) this new undertaking is placed in the point of view of a divine decree, to denote that he thereby brings about his own destruction. קדשׁ בּרית signifies not the holy people in covenant with God (v. Lengerke, Maurer, and many older interpreters), but the divine institution of the Old Covenant, the Jewish Theocracy. The Jews are only members of this covenant, cf. Dan 11:30. Calvin is right when he says: Mihi simplicior sensus probatur, quod scilicet bellum gerat adversus Deum. The holy covenant is named instead of the covenant people to represent the undertaking as an outrage against the kingdom of God, which was founded in Israel. ועשׂה, and he shall do, perform, that which his heart thinks, or that which he has in his mind against the holy covenant. The historical fulfilment is narrated in 1 Macc. 1:22-29. לארצו ושׁב resumes ארצו וישׁב, and teaches us that Antiochus undertook the first assault against the holy covenant on his return from Egypt into his kingdom (to Antioch), as is expressly stated in 1 Macc. 1:20.

Verse 29

In order that he might bring Egypt wholly under his power, he undertook a new expedition thither (וּבא ישׁוּב, he comes again). But this expedition, like the first, was not successful (כ־כ, as-so, cf. Jos 14:11; Eze 18:4). For the ships of Chittim come against him. כּתּים ציּים, ships the Chittaei, for כּתּים מיד צים, Num 24:24, whence the expression is derived כּתּים is Cyprus with its chief city Κίττιον (now Chieti or Chitti); see under Gen 10:4. Ships coming from Cyprus are ships which come from the west, from the islands and coasts of the Mediterranean. In 1 Macc. 1:1 and 8:5 כּתּים is interpreted of Macedonia, according to which Bertholdt and Dereser think of the Macedonian fleet with which the Roman embassy sailed to Alexandria. This much is historically verified, that the Roman embassy, led by Popillius, appeared with a fleet in Alexandria, and imperiously commanded Antiochus to desist from his undertaking against Egypt and to return to his own land (Liv. xlv. 10-12). The lxx have therefore translated these words by: καὶ ἥξουσι ̔Ρηωμαῖοι καὶ ἐχώσουσιν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐμβριμήσονται αὐτῷ, and correctly, so far as the prophecy has received the first historical accomplishment in that factum. ונכאה, he shall lose courage, is rightly explained by Jerome: non quod interierit, sed quod omnem arrogantiae perdiderit magnitudinem. (Note: The historical facts have been briefly and conclusively brought together by Hitzig thus: "On the complaint of the Alexandrians the Roman senate sent an embassage, at the head of which was C. Popillius Laenas (Polyb. xxix. 1; Liv. xliv. 19). After being detained at Delos (Liv. xliv. 29), they set sail to Egypt after the battle at Pydna (Liv. xlv. 10). Here he met Antiochus four Roman miles from Alexandria, and presented to him the message of the senate. When Antiochus explained that he wished to lay the matter before his counsellors, Popillius described with the staff he carried on his hand a circle round the king, and commanded him to give his answer before he left this circle. Antiochus, confounded by the circumstance, submitted and withdrew from Egypt (Liv. xlv. 12; Polyb. xxix. 11; Appian, Syr. c. 66; Justin. xxxiv. 3).") וזעם ושׁב, not: he was again enraged, for nothing is said of a previous זעם. ושׁב, and he turned round (back) from his expedition against Egypt. Since he was not able to accomplish anything against the נגב (the south), he turns his indignation against Judah to destroy the covenant people (cf. Dan 11:28). The ושׁב in Dan 11:30 resumes the ושׁב in Dan 11:30, so as further to express how he gave vent to his anger. Hitzig's interpretation of the first ושׁב of the return to Palestine, of the second, of the return from Palestine to Antiochus, is not justified. ויבן, he shall observe, direct his attention to the Jews who forsook the holy covenant, i.e., the apostate Jews, that he might by their help execute his plans against the Mosaic religion - partim ornando illos honoribus, partim illorum studiis ad patriam religionem obliterandam comparatis obsecundando, as C. B. Michaelis excellently remarks; cf. 1 Macc. 1:11-16 with 2:18.

Verse 31

Here is stated what he accomplished by the help of the apostate Jews. זרעים, arms, figuratively for help (Dan 11:5), are warlike forces, as Dan 11:15, Dan 11:22. That the plur. has here the masculine form, while in those verses it has the fem. form, furnishes no reason for a difference of meaning, since זרוע in its proper sense of arm occurs promiscue with both endings in the plur.; cf. for זרעים Gen 49:24; Isa 51:5; Kg2 9:24. מן in ממּנּוּ is not partitive, a part of him, i.e., the host as a part of the king (Hitzig), but out from him, or by his command. יעמדוּ, to stand up, not to stand still, as Hitzig, on the ground of the supposition that Antiochus on his return from Egypt placed a standing army-corps in Jerusalem, would interpret it, contrary to the usage of the word, since עמד does not signify to stand still in the sense of to remain behind, though it means to endure, to keep the ground (Dan 11:6, Dan 11:15). It is disputed whether these זרעים denote military forces, troops of the hostile king (Hvernick, v. Leng., Maur., Hitz., Klief.), or his accomplices of the apostate party of the Jews, and thus essentially identical with בּרית עזבי, Dan 11:30 (Calvin, Hengstb. Christol. iii. 1, p. 110, Kran., and others). In favour of the latter view, Kranichfeld argues that the בּרית עזבי (those that forsake the covenant), according to Dan 11:30, come under consideration as a support to the king, and the ממּנּוּ of this verse before us evidently refers to the king's own army, and therefore would be superfluous. But these two reasons prove nothing. The ממּנּוּ is not superfluous, even though it were used of the king's own army. Since in Dan 11:30, Dan 11:32 the king of the north is the subject of the clause, it was necessary in זרעים to define in what relation they stood to the king. But the other remark, that the בּרית עזבי come into view as a support to the king, does not prove that these are the same who desecrate the sanctuary and set up the abomination of desolation. On the contrary, if ממּנּוּ denotes the causal exit, the זרעים cannot be the apostate Jews, but only warlike forces which the king leads forth. If we refer זרעים to the apostate Jews, then we must, with Hengstenberg and Gesenius, take ממּנּוּ in the sense of eo jubente. Moreover, the זרעים manifestly stand in contrast to the בּרית מרשׁיעי of Dan 11:32. By his troops (military forces) the king lays waste the sanctuary, and he makes by means of smooth words those who sin against the covenant heathen. Kranichfeld himself recognises this contrast, and therefore will understand as the subject to וחלּלוּ not merely "those that forsake the covenant" (Dan 11:30), but these along with and including the warlike power of the hostile king. An expedient which the difficulty suggested. המקדּשׁ is the temple, and המעוז (the strength) is in apposition. This apposition, however, does not say that the temple was fortified (v. Leng., Hitzig, Ewald), but it points out the temple as the spiritual fortress of Israel. The temple is the "Feste Burg" (firm tower) of the holy covenant (Dan 11:28), as the dwelling-place of Jehovah, which is a firm fortress to His people; cf. Psa 31:4-5, (3, 4); Isa 25:4; Psa 18:3 (2). חלּלוּ is essentially identical with מקדּשׁו מכון השׁלך, Dan 8:11. The two following clauses state what the desecration consists in: in the taking away, the removal of the stated worship of Jehovah, and in the placing, setting up of the abomination of desolation, i.e., of the idol-altar on Jehovah's altar of burnt-offering; see under Dan 8:11. משׁמם is not the genitive, but an adjective to השּׁקּוּץ (without the article after the definite noun, as e.g., Dan 8:13): the desolating abomination, i.e., the abomination which effects the desolation. With reference to the fulfilment, cf. 1 Macc. 1:37, 45, 54.

Verse 32

The consequences to the people of Israel which result from this sin against the holy covenant. - The ungodly shall become heathen, i.e., shall wholly apostatize from the true God; but, on the other hand, the pious shall be strengthened in their confidence in the Lord. This is in general the import of Dan 11:32, the first half of which, however, has been very differently interpreted. בּרית מרשׁיעי signifies neither "those who sinfully make a covenant" (Hvernick), nor "sinners among the covenant people" (v. Lengerke), nor "those who condemn the covenant," i.e., those who reject the sign of the covenant, circumcision (Hitzig). The latter meaning is altogether arbitrary. Against the second is the fact that רשׁעים is in use for sinners; against the first, that בּרית הרשׁיע could only mean: "to declare the covenant punishable." הרשׁיע means to act wickedly, to sin, and בּרית can only be the accusative of reference, which is subordinated to the participle for the purpose of limitation (Ewald, 288); literally, "the acting wickedly with reference to the covenant." The absence of the article in בּרית is no proof against he reference of the word to the holy covenant. The article is wanting in Daniel where otherwise the determination is found from the connection, e.g., Dan 8:13. Sinning against the covenant is, it is true, a stronger expression than בּרית עזב (to forsake the covenant), but it does not include the idea of the entire apostasy from God, but only insolent violation of the covenant law, so that of בּרית מרשׁיעי it can very well be predicated יחניף. החניף does not mean to pollute (Kran.), but to desecrate, to make profane; and spoken of persons, to make them as heathen, as frequently in the Syriac. חלקּות, flatteries, here deceitful promises of earthly advantage; cf. under Dan 11:21. For the subject spoken of here, see 1 Macc. 2:18. אלהיו ידעי are the true confessors of the Lord. The suffix to אלהיו is neither to be interpreted distributively nor to be referred to עם. To יחזיקוּ we are to supply בּבּרית from the context: "to hold fast to the covenant." ועשׂוּ, as Dan 11:17, Dan 11:28, Dan 11:30, to carry out the design. In what way this is done is explained in Dan 11:33 and Dan 11:34. Dan 11:33 משׂכּילי is not the teachers, but intelligentes, those who have insight or understanding. The pious are meant by the word, those who know their God (Dan 11:32). This is seen from the contrast רשׁעים, Dan 12:10. According to the O.T. view, wisdom, insight, are correlative ideas with the fear of God, piety, Psa 14:1; Job 28:28; and לרבּים with the article, the many, the great multitude of the people who bring themselves forward to view by the judicious appearance of the pious, are moved to hold fast by the law of the Lord. Yet they who understand shall for a time fall by the sword, etc. The subject to נכשׁלוּ is not the רבּים, or those with the teachers (Hitzig), but the עם משׂכּילי, but not all, but, according to Dan 11:35, a number of them; for in Dan 11:35 falling is not first specially predicated of the teachers, as Hitzig thinks, but only the effect which that would have on the whole people. The words point to a warlike rising up of the faithful members of the covenant people against the hostile king, and have had their first historical fulfilment in the insurrection of the Maccabees against Antiochus Epiphanes; cf. 1 Macc. 2ff. In 1 Macc. 1:57; 2:38; 3:41; 5:13, 2 Macc. 6:11, there are examples of this falling by the sword. The רבּים after ימים in several Codd. is a worthless gloss. Dan 11:34 Through the fall of the pious in war little help shall come to the people of God. מעט (little) is not "spoken contemptuously" (Hitzig), but the help is so named in comparison with the great deliverance which shall come to the people of God in the time of the end by the complete destruction of the oppressor. We may not therefore, with Hitzig and others, limit this expression to the circumstance that with the victories of Judas Maccabaeus (1 Macc. 3:11ff., 23ff., 4:14, etc.) they were far from gaining all, for they also met with a defeat (1 Macc. 5:60f.). For with the overthrow of Antiochus and the liberation of the Jews from the Syrian yoke, full help was not yet rendered to the people of God. The "little help" consists in this, that by the rising up and the wars of those that had understanding among the people the theocracy was preserved, the destruction of the service of Jehovah and of the church of God, which was aimed at by the hostile king, was prevented, and, as the following clauses express, the purifying of the people of God is brought about. This purifying is the design and the fruit of the oppression which God brings upon His people by means of the hostile king. The attaining of this end is a "little help" in comparison with the complete victory over the arch-enemy of the time of the end. Many shall connect themselves with the משׂכּילים (intelligentes, Dan 11:33) with flatteries (as Dan 11:21). "The successes of Judas, and the severity with which he and Mattathias treated the apostates (1 Macc. 2:44; 3:5, 8), had the result of causing many to join them only through hypocrisy (1 Macc. 7:6; 2 Macc. 14:6), who again forsook them as soon as opportunity offered; 1 Macc. 6:21ff., 9:23" (Hitzig, Kliefoth). Dan 11:35 Such has been the experience in all periods of the church's history. Therefore does the church need to pass through the purifying process of affliction, in which not only the lukewarm fall away in the time of conflict, but also many even מן־המּשׂכּילים. מן is here partitive. יכּשׁלוּ (they shall fall) is to be understood (cf. Dan 11:33, בח נכשׁלוּ) not merely of death in battle, but of other calamities, such as being imprisoned, plundered, etc. בּהם לצרוף to melt, i.e., to purify by them, not as to them; for ב rof ;meht does not represent the accusative, as Kranichfeld thinks, referring in confirmation to Ewald, 282. The use of ב there spoken of is of a different nature. The suffix in בּהם refers neither to "those that understand" alone (Hv.), nor to the "many," Dan 11:33 (v. Leng.), still less to the flatterers in Dan 11:34 (Maurer), but to all of these together, or to the whole company of the people of God in the sum of their individuals. The verbs וללבּן לברר serve to strengthen the expression (ללבּן for ללבּין on account of the assonance). קץ עד־עת (to the time of the end) is connected with יכּשׁלוּ, the chief idea of the passage. The stumbling and falling of "those who understand" (the pious) shall continue to the time of the end, to bring about the purification of the people for their glorification in the time of the end. For the end stretches itself out yet to the time appointed (cf. Dan 11:27); i.e., it does not come in with the "little help" which Israel received by the rising up of "those who understand" against the hostile king, thus not with the afflictions that came upon them by Antiochus, but it shall come afterwards at the time appointed by God. The assertion that "the end is connected with the death of king Antiochus Epiphanes" (Hitzig, Bleek, and others) is founded on a misunderstanding of the following section, Dan 11:36-45. On the contrary, Kranichfeld has rightly remarked, that "the statements made in Dan 11:36-39 incl. regarding the king of the north, now fall, in accordance with the context, into the period which shall expire at that time of the end are then to be prophesied.

Verse 36

The Hostile King Exalting Himself above All Divine and Human Ordinances at the Time of the End - Dan 11:36-39 This exaltation of the king is here introduced by the formula כרצנו ועשׂה, which expresses the self-will and the irresistible might of his proceeding; cf. Dan 3:16 and Dan 8:4 - "a feature common to Antiochus and Antichrist" (Klief.). He shall raise himself above every god, not merely "subjectively in his lofty imagination" (Hitzig), but also by his actions. כּל־אל, every god, not merely the God of Israel, but also the gods of the heathen. This does not agree with Antiochus. The ἰσόθεα φρονεῖν ὑπερηφανῶς which is said of him, 2 Macc. 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" (Klief.). Of Antiochus much rather, as is said by Livy (41:20), in duabus tamen magnis honestisque rebus fere regius erat animus, in urbium donis et deorum cultu. On the contrary, these words before us are expressly referred to Antichrist, Th2 2:4. Yet further, in his arrogance he shall speak נפּלאות, wonderful, i.e., impious and astonishing things, against the God of gods, i.e., the true God. This clause expounds and strengthens the מלּל רברבן (speaking great things), which is said of the enemy at the time of the end, Dan 7:8, Dan 7:11, Dan 7:20. In this he will prosper, but only till the anger of God against His people (זעם as Dan 8:19) shall be accomplished. Regarding כלה see at Dan 9:27. This anger of God is irrevocably determined (נחרצה), that His people may be wholly purified for the consummation of His kingdom in glory. The perf. נעשׂתה does not stand for the imperf. because it is decreed, but in its proper meaning, according to which it represents the matter as finished, settled. Here it accordingly means: "for that which is irrevocably decreed is accomplished, is not to be recalled, but must be done."

Verse 37

The exalting of himself above all on the part of the king is further described. "He shall not regard the gods of his fathers," i.e., shall cast aside the worship of the gods transmitted to him from his fathers. This again does not accord with Antiochus Epiphanes, regarding whom it is true that history records that he wished to suppress the worship practised by the Jews, but it knows nothing (Note: The statement in 1 Macc. 1:41ff., "Moreover king Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, and every one should have his laws: so all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king," does not amount to a proof of this. "For," as Grimm rightly remarks, "the account of such a decree of Antiochus to all (not Hellenic) peoples of his kingdom is very doubtful. No profane historian records anything about it, neither does Josephus, nor the author of the second book of the Maccabees in the parallel passages. It is true that Antiochus, according to Livy, xli. 20, put great honour upon Jupiter by building a splendid temple to Tages, and according to Polybius, xxvi. 10, 11, he excelled all kings who preceded him in expensive sacrifices and gifts in honour of the gods; but this is no proof of a proselytizing fanaticism." The contrary rather appears from Josephus, Antt. xii. 5. 5, where the Samaritans, in a letter to Antiochus, declare, contrary to the opinion entertained regarding them by their governor, that by descent and custom they were not Jews. Their letter rests on the supposition that the royal decree was directed only against the Jews. Cf. Falthe, Gesch. Macedoniens, ii. p. 596. Diodorus also (xxxiv. 1), to whom Hitzig refers, only states that Antiochus wished to dissolve τὰ νόμιμα of the Jewish people, and to compel the Jews to abandon their manner of life (τὰς ἀγωγὰς μεταθέσθαι). of attempts made by him to destroy the gods and the worship of other nations. The words which follow, נשׁים על־חמדּת, the old interpreters understood of the love of women, or of conjugal love; the modern, after the example of J. D. Michaelis and Gesenius, on the contrary, understand them of the goddess Anatis or Mylitta, the Assyrian Venus, and refer them specially to the spoiling of the temple of this goddess in Elymas (1 Macc. 6:1, cf. 2 Macc. 1:13). Ewald finally would understand by the expression "the desire of women," the Syrian deity Tammuz-Adonis. The connection requires us to think on a deity, because these words are placed between two expressions which refer to the gods. But the connection is not altogether decisive; rather the כּל על in the clause at the end of the verse denotes that the subject spoken of is not merely the king's raising himself above the gods, but also above other objects of pious veneration. A verbal proof that נשׁים חמדּת denotes the Anatis or Adonis as the favourite 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 Sa1 9:20. But it is impossible that this can be Anatis 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 נשׁים אהבת, the love of women, Sa2 1:26. The thought: "he shall not regard the desire of women, or the love of women," agrees perfectly with the connection. After it has been said in the first clause: he shall set himself free from all religious reverence transmitted from his fathers, from all piety toward the gods in which he had been trained, it is then added in the second clause: not merely so, but generally from all piety toward men and God, from all the tender affections of the love of men and of God. The "love of women" is named as an example selected from the sphere of human piety, as that affection of human love and attachment for which even the most selfish and most savage of men feel some sensibility. Along with this he shall set himself free from כּל־אלוהּ, from all piety or reverence toward God or toward that which is divine (Klief.). This thought is then established by the last clause: "for he shall magnify himself above all." To כּל על we may not supply אלוהּ; for this clause not only presents the reason for the foregoing clause, וגו כּל־אלוהּ על, but for both of the foregoing clauses. Hitzig and Kliefoth are right in their interpretation: "above everything, or all, gods and men," he shall magnify himself, raise himself up in arrogance.

Verse 38

On the other hand, he will honour the god of fortresses. That מעזּים is not, with Theodotion, the Vulgate, Luther, and others, to be regarded as the proper name of a god, is now generally acknowledge. But as to which god is to be understood by the "god of fortresses," there is very great diversity of opinion. Grotius, C. B. Michaelis, Gesenius, and others think on Mars, the god of war, as the one intended; Hvernick, v. Lengerke, Maurer, and Ewald regard Jupiter Capitolinus, to whom Antiochus purposed to erect a temple in Antioch (Livy, xli. 20); others, Jupiter Olympius; while Hitzig, by changing מעזּים into ים מעז, fortress of the sea, thinks that Melkart, or the Phoenician Hercules, is referred to. But according to the following passage, this god was not known to his fathers. That could not be said either of Mars, or Jupiter, or Melkart. Add to this, "that if the statement here refers to the honouring 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" (Klief.). The words thus in no respect agree with Antiochus, and do not permit us to think on any definite heathen deity. כּנּו על does not signify on his foundation, pedestal (Hv., v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald), because the remark that he honoured God on his pedestal would be quite inappropriate, unless it had been also said that he had erected a statue to him. כּנּו על has here the same meaning as in Dan 11:7, Dan 11:20, Dan 11:21 : "in his place or stead" (Gesenius, de Wette, Kliefoth, and others). But the suffix is not, with Klief., to be referred to כּל על: in the place of all that, which he did not regard, but it refers to כּל־אלוהּ: in the place of every god; which is not overthrown by the objection that in that case the suffix should have been plur., because the suffix is connected with the singular אלוה. 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 god, war 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.

Verse 39

With the help of this god, who was unknown to his fathers, he will so proceed against the strong fortresses that he rewards with honour, might, and wealth those who acknowledge him. This is the meaning of the verse, which has been very differently rendered. The majority of modern interpreters separate the two parts of the verse from each other, for they refer the first hemistich to the preceding, and in the second they find a new thought expressed. Hvernick and v. Lengerke supply a demonstrative כּה, thus: - thus shall he do to the armed fortresses together with the strange gods, i.e., fill the fortified temples with treasures, and promote their worship. But the supplement כּה is here just as arbitrary as is the interpreting of the armed fortresses of temples. Hitzig misses the object to עשׂה, and seeks it by changing עם into עם: he prepares for the armed fortresses a people of a strange god; but apart from the fact that the change of the text is arbitrary, the use of the expression "people of a strange god" for colonists is most singular. Ewald translates the expression thus: "he proceeds with the strong fortresses as with the strange god," and explains: "he loves the fortresses only just as a god;" but he has given no proof that ל עשׂה means to love. The missing object to ועשׂה follows in the second hemistich, just as in Deu 31:4; Jos 8:2; Isa 10:11. עשׂה means simply to do anything to one (Kran., Klief.). נכר אלוהּ עם, with the help of the strange god (עם of assistance, as in Sa1 14:45), not: in the mind of the strange god (Kliefoth). מעזּים מבצרי, fortified, i.e., strong fortresses, are not the fortified walls and houses, but the inhabitants of the fortified cities. With these he does according to his will with the help of his god, i.e., of war, namely in this, that he rewards with honour and power only those who acknowledge him. הכּיר אשׁר, who acknowledges, sc. him, the king who made war his god. Hitzig has incorrectly interpreted: whom he acknowledges. The Keri יכּיר for the Kethiv הכּיר is an unnecessary emendation here, as in Isa 28:15 with עבּר. The verb הכּיר is chosen to reflect upon the word נכר. It means to recognise, properly to acknowledge him as what he is or wishes to be; cf. Deu 21:17. Such an one he shall increase with honour, confer upon him sovereignty over many, and divide the land. בּמחיר is not for payment, for recompense, as the contrast to חנּם (gratuitously) (Kran.). That is not a suitable rendering here. The word rather means pro praemio, as a reward (Maur., Klief.), as a reward for the recognition accorded to him. The Vulgate renders it rightly according to the sense, gratuito. In this most modern interpreters find a reference to the circumstance that Antiochus occupied the Jewish fortresses with heathen garrisons, and rewarded his adherents with places of honour and with possessions of land (2 Macc. 4:10, 24; 5:15). But this is what all conquerors do, and it was not peculiar to Antiochus, so that it could be mentioned as characteristic of him. The words contain the altogether common thought that the king will bestow honour, power, and possessions on those who acknowledge him and conduct themselves according to his will, and they accord with the character of Antichrist in a yet higher degree than with that of Antiochus.

Verse 40

The last Undertakings of the Hostile King, and His End By the words קץ בּעת, which introduce these verses, the following events are placed in the time of the end. Proceeding from the view that the whole of the second half of this chapter (vv. 21-45) treats of Antiochus and his undertakings, most modern interpreters find in the verses the prophecy of a last expedition of this Syrian king against Egypt, and quote in support of this view the words of Jerome: Et haec Porphyrius ad Antiochum refert, quod undecimo anno regni sui rursus contra sororis filium, Ptolem. 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 universa vastaverit, veneritque ad Judaeam et arcem munierit de ruinis murorum civitatis et sic perrexerit in Aegyptum. But regarding this expedition not only are historians silent, but the supposition of such a thing stands in irreconcilable contradiction to the historical facts regarding the last undertakings of Antiochus. According to 1 Macc. 3:27ff., Antiochus, on receiving tidings of the successful insurrection of the Maccabees, and of the victory which Judas had won, since he found that money was wanting to him to carry on the war, resolved to return to Persia, "there to collect the tribute of the countries" (1 Macc. 3:31); and after he had made Lysias governor, he delivered to him the one half of his army, that he might with it "destroy and root out the strength of Israel," and with the other half departed from Antioch and crossed the Euphrates into the high countries, i.e., the high-lying countries on the farther side of the Euphrates (1 Macc. 3:33-37). There he heard of the great treasures of a rich city in Persia, and resolved to fall upon this city and to take its treasures; but as the inhabitants received notice of the king's intention, he was driven back and compelled to return to Babylon, having accomplished nothing. On his return he heard in Persia the tidings of the overthrow of Lysias in a battle with the Maccabees, and of the re-erection of the altar of Jehovah at Jerusalem; whereupon he was so overcome with terror and dismay, that he fell sick and died (1 Macc. 6:1-16). The historical truth of this report is confirmed by Polybius, who mentions (Fragm. xxxi. 11) that Antiochus, being in difficulty for want of money, sought to spoil the temple of Artemis and Elymas, and in consequence of the failure of his design he fell ill at Tabae in Persia, and there died. By these well-established facts the supposition of an invasion of Egypt by Antiochus in the eleventh, i.e., the last year of his reign, is excluded. The Romans also, after they had already by their intervention frustrated his design against Egypt, would certainly have prevented a new war, least of all would they have permitted an entire subjugation of Egypt and the south, which we must accept after Dan 11:42, Dan 11:43. Besides, the statement made by Porphyry shows itself to be destitute of historical validity by this, that according to it, Antiochus must have made the assault against Egypt, while on the contrary, according to the prophecy, Dan 11:40, the king of the south begins the war against the king of the north, and the latter, in consequence of this attack, passes through the lands with a powerful host and subdues Egypt. For these reasons, therefore, v. Lengerke, Maurer, and Hitzig have abandoned the statement of Porphyry as unhistorical, and limited themselves to the supposition that the section (Dan 11:40-45) is only a comprehensive repetition of that which has already been said regarding Antiochus Epiphanes, according to which "the time of the end" (Dan 11:40) denotes not the near time of the death of Antiochus, but generally the whole period of this king. But this is, when compared with Dan 11:27, Dan 11:35, impossible. 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 perishes (Dan 11:40). On the contrary, the reference to Dan 8:17 avails nothing, because there also קץ עת 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 לעת than here, where by בּעת 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 saepius pertractatas esse, extremam vero manum operi defuisse; and Hitzig by various turnings - "as it seems," "but is not more precisely acknowledged," "the fact is not elsewhere communicated" - which are obviously mere make-shifts. Thus Dan 11:40-45 do not apply to Antiochus Epiphanes, but, with most ancient interpreters, they refer only to the final enemy of the people of God, the Antichrist. This reference has been rightly vindicated by Kliefoth. We cannot, however, agree with him in distinguishing this enemy in Dan 11:40 from the king of the south and of the north, and in understanding this verse as denoting "that at the time of this hostile king, which shall be the time of the end, the kings of the south as well as of the north shall attack him, but that he shall penetrate into their lands and overthrow them." Without taking into account the connection, this interpretation is not merely possible, but it is even very natural to refer the suffix in עליו and in עמּו to one and the same person, namely, to the king who has hitherto been spoken of, and who continues in Dan 11:40-45 to be the chief subject. But the connection makes this reference impossible. It is true, indeed, that the suffix in עמּו refers without doubt to this king, but the suffix in עליו can be referred only to the king of the south named immediately before, who pushes at him, because the king against whom the king of the south pushes, and of whom mention is made vv. 21-39, is not only distinctly designated as the king of the north (Dan 11:13-21), but also, according to Dan 11:40-43, he advances from the north against the Holy Land and against Egypt; thus also, according to Dan 11:40-43, must be identical with the king of the north. In Dan 11:40-43 we do not read of a war of the hostile king against the king of the south and the king of the north. The words in which Kliefoth finds indications of this kind are otherwise to be understood. Dan 11:40 If we now more closely look into particulars, we find that קץ עת is not the end of the hostile king, but, as in Dan 11:27, Dan 11:35, the end of the present world-period, in which also, it is true, occurs the end of this king (קצּו, Dan 11:45). For the figurative expression יתנגּח (shall push), cf. Dan 8:4. In the word there lies the idea that the king of the south commences the war, makes an aggression against the hostile king. In the second clause the subject is more precisely defined by "the king of the north" for the sake of distinctness, or to avoid ambiguity, from which it thence follows that the suffix in עליו refers to the king of the south. If the subject were not named, then "the king of the south" might have been taken for it in this clause. The words, "with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships," are an oratorical exemplification of the powerful war-host which the king of the north displayed; for the further statement, "he presses into the countries, overflows and passes over" (ועבר שׁטף as Dan 11:10), does not agree with the idea of a fleet, but refers to land forces. The plur. בּארצות (into the countries) does not at all agree with the expedition of a Syrian king against Egypt, since between Syria and Egypt there lay one land, Palestine; but it also does not prove that "the south-land and the north-land, the lands of the kings of the south and of the north, are meant" (Klief.), but it is to be explained from this, that the north, from which the angry king comes in his fury against the king of the south, reached far beyond Syria. The king of the north is thought of as the ruler of the distant north. Dan 11:41 Penetrating into the countries and overflowing them with his host, he comes into the glorious land, i.e., Palestine, the land of the people of God. See at Dan 11:16 and Dan 8:9. "And many shall be overthrown." רבּות is not neuter, but refers to ארצות, Dan 11:40. For "that the whole lands are meant, represented by their inhabitants (cf. The verb masc. יכּשׁלוּ [shall be overthrown]), proceeds from the exceptions of which the second half of the verse makes mention" (Kran.). The three peoples, Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, are represented as altogether spared, because, as Jerome has remarked, they lay in the interior, out of the way of the line of march of Antiochus to Egypt (v. Leng., Hitzig, and others). This opinion Hitzig with justice speaks of as altogether superficial, since Antiochus would not have omitted to make war against them, as e.g., his father overcame the Ammonites in war (Polyb. v. 71), if they had not given indubitable proofs of their submission to him. Besides, it is a historical fact that the Edomites and Ammonites supported Antiochus in his operations against the Jews (1 Macc. 5:3-8; 4:61); therefore Maurer remarks, under ימּלטוּ (they shall escape): eorum enim in oppremendis Judaeis Antiochus usus est auxilio. But since the king here spoken of is not Antiochus, this historizing interpretation falls of itself to the ground. There is further with justice objected against it, that at the time of Antiochus the nation of Moab no longer existed. After the Exile the Moabites no longer appear as a nation. They are only named (Neh 13:1 and Ezr 9:1), in a passage cited from the Pentateuch, along with the Philistines and the Hittites, to characterize the relations of the present after the relations of the time of Moses. Edom, Moab, and Ammon, related with Israel by descent, are the old hereditary and chief enemies of this people, who have become by name representatives of all the hereditary and chief enemies of the people of God. These enemies escape the overthrow when the other nations sink under the power of the Antichrist. עמּון בּני 'ראשׁית, "the firstling of the sons of Ammon," i.e., that which was most valued or distinguished of the Ammonites as a first-fruit, by which Kranichfeld understands the chief city of the Ammonites. More simply others understand by the expression, "the flower of the people, the very kernel of the nation;" cf. Num 24:20; Amo 6:1; Jer 49:35. The expression is so far altogether suitable as in the flower of the people the character of the nation shows itself, the enmity against the people of God is most distinctly revealed; but in this enmity lies the reason for this people's being spared by the enemy of God. Dan 11:42 The stretching forth of his hand upon the countries is a sign expressive of his seizing them, taking possession of them, for which he falls upon them. בּארצות are not other countries besides those which, according to Dan 11:40, he overflowed (Klief.), but the same. Of these lands Egypt is specially noticed in Dan 11:42 as the most powerful, which had hitherto successfully withstood the assaults of the king of the north, but which in the time of the end shall also be overthrown. Egypt, as the chief power of the south, represents the mightiest kingdoms of the earth. לפּליטה תּהיה לא (and there shall not be for an escape), expressive of complete overthrow, cf. Joe 2:3; Jer 50:29. Dan 11:43 Along with the countries all their treasures fall into the possession of the conqueror, and also all the allies of the fallen kingdom shall be compelled to submit to him. The genitive מצרים belongs not merely to חמות (precious things), but to all the before-named objects. בּמצעדיו (at his steps) = בּרגליו, Jdg 4:10, denotes the camp-followers, but not as mercenary soldiers (v. Leng., Hitz.). The Lybians and Cushites represent all the allies of the Egyptians (cf. Eze 30:5; Nah 3:9), the most southern nations of the earth.

Verse 44

The End of the Hostile King As has been already seen, the expressions in Dan 11:40-43 regarding this king do not agree with Antiochus Epiphanes, so also the statements regarding his end are in contradiction to the historical facts regarding the end of the Syrian king. When the hostile king took possession of Egypt and its treasures, and made the Lybians and Cushites subject to him, tidings from the east and the north overwhelm him with terror. The masc. יבהלהוּ stands ad sensum related to the persons who occasion the reports. The reports excited his anger, so that he goes forth to destroy many. We have to think thus on the reports of revolt and insurrections in the east and the north of his kingdom, which came to his ears in Egypt. On this ground Hitzig, with other interpreters, refuses to refer the statement in Dan 11:44 to the expedition of Antiochus against the Parthians and Armenians (Tacit. hist. Dan 11:8, and App. Syr. c. 45, 46; 1 Macc. 3:37), because Antiochus did not undertake this expedition from Egypt; and rather, in regard to the east, thinks on the tidings from Jerusalem of the rebellion of Judea (2 Macc. 5:11ff.; 1 Macc. 1:24), and in regard to the north, on the very problematical expedition against the Aradiaei, without observing, however, that no Scripture writer designates Jerusalem as lying in the east of Egypt, But besides, Antiochus, since he has occupied for some years beyond the Euphrates, and there met with his death, could not shortly before his end lead an expedition out of Egypt against Aradus. What Porphyry says (Note: The words are: Pugnans contra Aegyptios et Lybias, Aethiopiasque pertransiens, audiet sibi ab aquilone et oriente praelia concitari, unde et regrediens capit Aradios resistentes et omnem in littore Phoenicis vastavit provinciam; confestimque pergit ad Artaxiam regem Armeniae, qui de orientis partibus movebatur.) (in Jerome under Dan 11:44) regarding an expedition of Antiochus undertaken from Egypt and Lybia against the Aradiaei and the Armenian king Artaxias, he has gathered only from this verse and from notices regarding the wars of Antiochus against the Aradiaei and king Artaxias (after whose imprisonment, according to App. Syr. c. 46, he died), without having any historical evidence for it. But even though the statement of Porphyry were better established, yet it would not agree with Dan 11:45; for when the king goes forth, in consequence of the report brought to him, to destroy many, he plants, according to Dan 11:45, his palace-tent near to the holy mount, and here comes to his end; thus meeting with his destruction in the Holy Land not far from Jerusalem, while Antiochus, according to Polybius and Porphyry, died in the Persian city of Tabae on his return from Persia to Babylon. Dan 11:45 נטע of planting a tent, only here instead of the usual word נטה, 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 Polyaen. Strateg. iv. 3. 24, and of the tent of Nadir-Schah in Rosenmller, A. u. N. Morgl. 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 plur. אהלי is incorrectly taken by Theodotion, Porphyry, Jerome, and others for a nomen propr., meaning in Syria, palace or tower. להר בּין = וּבּין בּין, Gen 1:6; Joe 2:17, of a space between two other places or objects. צבי-קדשׁ-צב הר, the holy hill of the delight, i.e., of Palestine (cf. Dan 8:9), is without doubt the mountain on which stood the temple of Jerusalem, as v. Leng., Maur., Hitzig, and Ewald acknowledge. The interpretation of the mountain of the temple of Anatis in Elymas (Dereser, Hvernick) needs no refutation. According to this, ימּים cannot designate the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea, as Kliefoth supposes, but it is only the poetic plur. of fulness, as a sign of the great Mediterranean Sea. Since now this scene where the great enemy of the people of God comes to his end, i.e., perishes, in no respect agrees with the place where Antiochus died, then according to Hitzig the pseudo-Daniel does not here accurately distinguish the separate expeditions from one another, and must have omitted between the first and the second half of the verse the interval between the return of Antiochus from Egypt and his death, because Antiochus never again trod the soil of Palestine. Such expedients condemn themselves. With "he shall come to his end," cf. Dan 8:25, where the end of this enemy of God is described as a being "broken without the hand of man." Here the expression "and none shall help him" is added to designate the hopelessness of his overthrow. The placing of the overthrow of this enemy with his host near the temple-mountain agrees with the other prophecies of the O.T., which place the decisive destruction of the hostile world-power by the appearance of the Lord for the consummation of His kingdom upon the mountains of Israel (Eze 39:4), or in the valley of Jehoshaphat at Jerusalem, or at Jerusalem (Joe 3:2, Joe 3:12.; Zac 14:2), and confirms the result of our exposition, that the hostile king, the last enemy of the world-power, is the Antichrist. With this also the conclusion, Dan 12:1-3, is in harmony.

Verse 1

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.

Verse 5

Here are foretold, I. The rise and power of two great kingdoms out of the remains of Alexander's conquests, Dan 11:5. 1. The kingdom of Egypt, which was made considerable by Ptolemaeus Lagus, one of Alexander's captains, whose successors were, from him, called the Lagidae. He is called the king of the south, that is, Egypt, named here, Dan 11:8, Dan 11:42, Dan 11:43. The countries that at first belonged to Ptolemy are reckoned to be Egypt, Phoenicia, Arabia, Libya, Ethiopia, etc. Theocr. Idyl. 17. 2. The kingdom of Syria, which was set up by Seleucus Nicanor, or the conqueror; he was one of Alexander's princes, and became stronger than the other, and had the greatest dominion of all, was the most powerful of all Alexander's successors. It was said that he had no fewer than seventy-two kingdoms under him. Both these were strong against Judah (the affairs of which are particularly eyed in this prediction); Ptolemy, soon after he gained Egypt, invaded Judea, and took Jerusalem on a sabbath, pretending a friendly visit. Seleucus also gave disturbance to Judea. II. The fruitless attempt to unite these two kingdoms as iron and clay in Nebuchadnezzar's image (Dan 11:6): "At the end of certain years, about seventy after Alexander's death, the Lagidae and the Seleucidae shall associate, but not in sincerity. Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, shall marry his daughter Berenice to Antiochus Theos, king of Syria," who had already a wife called Laodice. "Berenice shall come to the king of the north, to make an agreement, but it shall not hold: She shall not retain the power of the arm; neither she nor her posterity shall establish themselves in the kingdom of the north, neither shall Ptolemy her father, nor Antiochus her husband (between whom there was to be a great alliance), stand, nor their arm, but she shall be given up and those that brought her," all that projected that unhappy marriage between her and Antiochus, which occasioned so much mischief, instead of producing a coalition between the northern and southern crowns, as was hoped. Antiochus divorced Berenice, took his former wife Laodice again, who soon after poisoned him, procured Berenice and her son to be murdered, and set up her own son by Antiochus to be king, who was called Seleucus Callinicus. III. A war between the two kingdoms, Dan 11:7, Dan 11:8. A branch from the same root with Berenice shall stand up in his estate. Ptolemaeus Euergetes, the son and successor of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus, shall come with an army against Seleucus Callinicus, king of Syria, to avenge his sister's quarrel, and shall prevail; and he shall carry away a rich booty both of persons and goods into Egypt, and shall continue more years than the king of the north. This Ptolemy reigned forty-six years; and Justin says that if his own affairs had not called him home he would, in this war, have made himself master of the whole kingdom of Syria. But (Dan 11:9) he shall be forced to come into his kingdom and return into his own land, to keep peace there, so that he can no longer carry on the war abroad. Note, It is very common for a treacherous peace to end in a bloody war. IV. The long and busy reign of Antiochus the Great, king of Syria. Seleucus Callinicus, that king of the north that was overcome (Dan 11:7) and died miserably, left two sons, Seleucus and Antiochus; these are his sons, the sons of the king of the north, that shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces, to recover what their father had lost, Dan 11:10. But Seleucus the elder, being weak, and unable to rule his army, was poisoned by his friends, and reigned only two years; and his brother Antiochus succeeded him, who reigned thirty-seven years, and was called the Great. And therefore the angel, though he speaks of sons at first, goes on with the account of one only, who was but fifteen years old when he began to reign, and he shall certainly come, and overflow, and over-run, and shall be restored at length to what his father lost. 1. The king of the south, in this war, shall at first have very great success. Ptolemaeus Philopater, moved with indignation at the indignities done by Antiochus the Great, shall (though otherwise a slothful prince) come forth, and fight with him, and shall bring a vast army into the field of 70,000 foot, and 5000 horse, and seventy-three elephants. And the other multitude (the army of Antiochus, consisting of 62,000 foot, and 6000 horse, and 102 elephants) shall be given into his hand. Polybius, who lived with Scipio, has given a particular account of this battle of Raphia. Ptolemaeus Philopater, having gained this victory, grew very insolent; his heart was lifted up; then he went into the temple of God at Jerusalem, and, in defiance of the law, entered the most holy place, for which God has a controversy with him, so that, though he shall cast down many myriads, yet he shall not be strengthened by it, so as to secure his interest. For, 2. The king of the north, Antiochus the Great, shall return with a greater army than the former; and, at the end of times (that is, years) he shall come with a mighty army, and great riches, against the king of the south, that is, Ptolemaeus Epiphanes, who succeeded Ptolemaeus Philopater his father, when he was a child, which gave advantage to Antiochus the Great. In this expedition he had some powerful allies (Dan 11:14): Many shall stand up against the king of the south. Philip of Macedon was confederate with Antiochus against the king of Egypt, and Scopas his general, whom he sent into Syria; Antiochus routed him, destroyed a great part of his army; whereupon the Jews willingly yielded to Antiochus, joined with him, helped him to besiege Ptolemaeus's garrisons. They the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision, to help forward the accomplishment of this prophecy; but they shall fall, and shall come to nothing, Dan 11:14. Hereupon (Dan 11:15) the king of the north, this same Antiochus Magnus, shall carry on his design against the king of the south another way. (1.) He shall surprise his strong-holds; all that he has got in Syria and Samaria, and the arms of the south, all the power of the king of Egypt, shall not be able to withstand him. See how dubious and variable the turns of the scale of war are; like buying and selling, it is winning and losing; sometimes one side gets the better and sometimes the other; yet neither by chance; it is not, as they call it, the fortune of war, but according to the will and counsel of God, who brings some low and raises others up. (2.) He shall make himself master of the land of Judea (Dan 11:16): He that comes against him (that is, the king of the north) shall carry all before him and do what he pleases, and he shall stand and get footing in the glorious land; so the land of Israel was, and by his hand it was wasted and consumed, for with the spoil of that good land he victualled his vast army. The land of Judea lay between these two potent kingdoms of Egypt and Syria, so that in all the struggles between them that was sure to suffer, for to it they both bore ill will. Yet some read this, By his hand it shall be perfected; as if it intimated that the land of Judea, being taken under the protection of this Antiochus, shall flourish, and be in better condition than it had been. (3.) He shall still push on his war against the king of Egypt, and set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, taking advantage of the infancy of Ptolemy Epiphanes, and the upright ones, many of the pious Israelites, siding with him, Dan 11:17. In prosecution of his design, he shall give him his daughter Cleopatra to wife, designing, as Saul in giving his daughter Cleopatra to David, that she should be a snare to him, and do him a mischief; but she shall not stand on her father's side, nor be for him, but for her husband, and so that plot failed him. (4.) His war with the Romans is here foretold (Dan 11:18): He shall turn his face to the isles (Dan 11:18), the isles of the Gentiles (Gen 10:5), Greece and Italy. He took many of the isles about the Hellespont-Rhodes, Samos, Delos, etc., which by war or treaty he made himself master of; but a prince, or state (so some), even the Roman senate, or a leader, even the Roman general, shall return his reproach with which he abused the Romans upon himself, or shall make his shame rest on himself, and without his own shame, or any disgrace to himself, shall pay him again. This was fulfilled when the two Scipios were sent with an army against Antiochus. Hannibal was then with him, and advised him to invade Italy and waste it as he had done; but he did not take hid advice; and Scipio joined battle with him, and gave him a total defeat, though Antiochus had 70,000 men and the Romans but 30,000. Thus he caused the reproach offered by him to cease. (5.) His fall. When he was totally routed by the Romans, and was forced to abandon to them all he had in Europe, and had a very heavy tribute exacted from him, he turned to his own land, and, not knowing which way to raise money to pay his tribute, he plundered a temple of Jupiter, which so incensed his own subjects against him that they set upon him, and killed him; so he was overthrown, and fell, and was no more found, Dan 11:19. (6.) His next successor, Dan 11:20. There rose up one in his place, a raiser of taxes, a sender forth of the extortioner, or extorter. This character was remarkably answered in Seleucus Philopater, the elder son of Antiochus the Great, who was a great oppressor of his own subjects, and exacted abundance of money from them; and, when he was told he would thereby lose his friends, he said he knew no better friend he had then money. He likewise attempted to rob the temple at Jerusalem, which this seems especially to refer to. But within a few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger nor in battle, but poisoned by Heliodorus, one of his own servants, when he had reigned but twelve years, and done nothing remarkable. V. From all this let us learn, 1. That God in his providence sets up one, and pulls down another, as he pleases, advances some from low beginnings and depresses others that were very high. Some have called great men the foot-balls of fortune; or, rather, they are the tools of Providence. 2. This world is full of wars and fightings, which come from men's lusts, and make it a theatre of sin and misery. 3. All the changes and revolutions of states and kingdoms, and every event, even the most minute and contingent, were plainly and perfectly foreseen by the God of heaven, and to him nothing is new. 4. No word of God shall fall to the ground; but what he has designed, what he has declared, shall infallibly come to pass; and even the sins of men shall be made to serve his purpose, and contribute to the b ringing of his counsels to birth in their season; and yet God is not the author of sin. 5. That, for the right understanding of some parts of scripture, it is necessary that heathen authors be consulted, which give light to the scripture, and show the accomplishment of what is there foretold; we have therefore reason to bless God for the human learning with which many have done great service to divine truths.

Verse 21

All this is a prophecy of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn spoken of before (Dan 8:9) a sworn enemy to the Jewish religion, and a bitter persecutor of those that adhered to it. What troubles the Jews met with in the reigns of the Persian kings were not so particularly foretold to Daniel as these, because then they had living prophets with them, Haggai and Zechariah, to encourage them; but these troubles in the days of Antiochus were foretold, because, before that time, prophecy would cease, and they would find it necessary to have recourse to the written word. Some things in this prediction concerning Antiochus are alluded to in the New Testament predictions of the antichrist, especially Dan 11:36, Dan 11:37. And as it is usual with the prophets, when they foretel the prosperity of the Jewish church, to make use of such expressions as were applicable to the kingdom of Christ, and insensibly to slide into a prophecy of that, so, when they foretel the troubles of the church, they make use of such expressions as have a further reference to the kingdom of the antichrist, the rise and ruin of that. Now concerning Antiochus, the angel foretels here, I. His character: He shall be a vile person. He called himself Epiphanes - the illustrious, but his character was the reverse of his surname. The heathen writers describe him to be an odd-humoured man, rude and boisterous, base and sordid. He would sometimes steal out of the court into the city, and herd with any infamous company incognito - in disguise he made himself a companion of the common sort, and of the basest strangers that came to town. He had the most unaccountable whims, so that some took him to be silly, others to be mad. Hence he was called Epimanes - the madman. He is called a vile person, for he had been a long time a hostage at Rome for the fidelity of his father when the Romans had subdued him; and it was agreed that, when the other hostages were exchanged, he should continue a prisoner at large. II. His accession to the crown. By a trick he got his elder brother's son, Demetrius, to be sent a hostage to Rome, in exchange for him, contrary to the cartel; and, his elder brother being made away with by Heliodorus (Dan 11:20), he took the kingdom. The states of Syria did not give it to him (Dan 11:21), because they knew it belonged to his elder brother's son, nor did he get it by the sword, but came in peaceably, pretending to reign for his brother's son, Demetrius, then a hostage at Rome. But with the help of Eumenes and Attalus, neighbouring princes, he gained an interest in the people, and by flatteries obtained the kingdom, established himself in it, and crushed Heliodorus, who made head against him with the arms of a flood; those that opposed him were overflown and broken before him, even the prince of the covenant, his nephew, the rightful heir, whom he pretended to covenant with that he would resign to him whenever he should return, Dan 11:22. But (Dan 11:23) after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully, as one whose avowed maxim it is that princes ought not to be bound by their word any longer than it is for their interest. And with a small people, that at first cleave to him, he shall become strong, and (Dan 11:24) he shall enter peaceably upon the fattest places of the kingdom of Syria, and, very unlike his predecessors, shall scatter among the people the prey, and the spoil, and riches, to insinuate himself into their affections; but, at the same time, he shall forecast his devices against the strong-holds, to make himself master of them, so that his generosity shall last but for a time; when he has got the garrisons into his hands he will scatter his spoil no more, but rule by force, as those commonly do that come in by fraud. He that comes in like a fox reigns like a lion. Some understand these verses of his first expedition into Egypt, when he came not as an enemy, but as a friend and guardian to the young king Ptolemaeus Philometer, and therefore brought with him but few followers, yet those stout men, and faithful to his interest, whom he placed in divers of the strong-holds in Egypt, thereby making himself master of them. III. His war with Egypt, which was his second expedition thither. This is described, Dan 11:25, Dan 11:27. Antiochus shall stir up his power and courage against Ptolemaeus Philometer king of Egypt. Ptolemy, thereupon, shall be stirred up to battle against him, shall come against him with a very great and mighty army; but Ptolemy, though he has such a vast army, shall not be able to stand before him; for Antiochus's army shall overthrow his, and overpower it, and great multitudes of the Egyptian army shall fall down slain. And no marvel, for the king of Egypt shall be betrayed by his own counsellors; those that feed of the portion of his meat, that eat of his bread and live upon him, being bribed by Antiochus, shall forecast devices against him, and even they shall destroy him; and what fence is there against such treachery? After the battle, a treaty of peace shall be set on foot, and these two kings shall meet at one council-board, to adjust the articles of peace between them; but they shall neither of them be sincere in it, for they shall, in their pretences and promises of amity and friendship, lie to one another, for their hearts shall be at the same time to do one another all the mischief they can. And then no marvel that it shall not prosper. The peace shall not last; but the end of it shall be at the time appointed in the divine Providence, and then the war shall break out again, as a sore that is only skinned over. IV. Another expedition against Egypt. From the former he returned with great riches (Dan 11:28), and therefore took the first occasion to invade Egypt again, at the time appointed by the divine Providence, two years after, in the eighth year of his reign, Dan 11:29. He shall come towards the south. But this attempt shall not succeed, as the two former did, nor shall he gain his point, as he had done before once and again; for (Dan 11:30) the ships of Chittim shall come against him, that is, the navy of the Romans, or only ambassadors from the Roman senate, who came in ships. Ptolemaeus Philometer, king of Egypt, being now in a strict alliance with the Romans, craved their aid against Antiochus, who had besieged him and his mother Cleopatra in the city of Alexandria. The Roman senate thereupon sent an embassy to Antiochus, to command him to raise the siege, and, when he desired some time to consider of it and consult with his friends about it, Popilius, one of the ambassadors, with his staff drew a circle about him, and told him, as one having authority, he should give a positive answer before he came out of that circle; whereupon, fearing the Roman power, he was forced immediately to give orders for the raising of the siege and the retreat of his army out of Egypt. So Livy and others relate the story which this prophecy refers to. He shall be grieved, and return; for it was a great vexation to him to be forced to yield thus. V. His rage and cruel practices against the Jews. This is that part of his government, or mis-government rather, which is most enlarged upon in this prediction. In his return from his expedition into Egypt (which is prophesied of, Dan 11:28) he did exploits against the Jews, in the sixth year of his reign; then he spoiled the city and temple. But the most terrible storm was in his return from Egypt, two years after, prophesied of Dan 11:30. Then he took Judea in his way home; and, because he could not gain his point in Egypt by reason of the Romans interposing, he wreaked his revenge upon the poor Jews, who gave him no provocation, but had greatly provoked God to permit him to do it, Dan 8:23. 1. He had a rooted antipathy to the Jews' religion: His heart was against the holy covenant, Dan 11:28. And (Dan 11:30) he had indignation against the holy covenant, that covenant of peculiarity by which the Jews were incorporated a people distinct from all other nations, and dignified above them. He hated the law of Moses and the worship of the true God, and was vexed at the privileges of the Jewish nation and the promises made to them. Note, That which is the hope and joy of the people of God is the envy of their neighbours, and that is the holy covenant. Esau hated Jacob because he had got the blessing. Those that are strangers to the covenant are often enemies to it. 2. He carried on his malicious designs against the Jews by the assistance of some perfidious apostate Jews. He kept up intelligence with those that forsook the holy covenant (Dan 11:30), some of the Jews that were false to their religion, and introduced the customs of the heathen, with whom they made a covenant. See the fulfilling of this, 1 Macc. 1:11-15, where it is expressly said, concerning those renegado Jews, that they made themselves uncircumcised and forsook the holy covenant. We read (2 Macc. 4:9) of Jason, the brother of Onias the high priest, who by the appointment of Antiochus set up a school at Jerusalem, for the training up of youth in the fashions of the heathen; and (2 Macc. 4:23, etc.) of Menelaus, who fell in with the interests of Antiochus, and was the man that helped him into Jerusalem, now in his last return from Egypt. We read much in the book of the Maccabees of the mischief done to the Jews by these treacherous men of their own nation, Jason and Menelaus, and their party. These upon all occasions he made use of. "Such as do wickedly against the covenant, such as throw up their religion, and comply with the heathen, he shall corrupt with flatteries, to harden them in their apostasy, and to make use of them as decoys to draw in others," Dan 11:32. Note, It is not strange if those who do not live up to their religion, but in their conversations do wickedly against the covenant, are easily corrupted by flatteries to quit their religion. Those that make shipwreck of a good conscience will soon make shipwreck of the faith. 3. He profaned the temple. Arms stand on his part (Dan 11:31), not only his own army which he now brought from Egypt, but a great party of deserters from the Jewish religion that joined with them; and they polluted the sanctuary of strength, not only the holy city, but the temple. The story of this we have, 1 Macc. 1:21, etc. He entered proudly into the sanctuary, took away the golden altar, and the candlestick, etc. And therefore (v. 25) there was a great mourning in Israel; the princes and elders mourned, etc. And (2 Macc. 5:15, etc.) Antiochus went into the most holy temple, Menelaus, that traitor to the laws and to his own country, being his guide. Antiochus, having resolved to bring all about him to be of his religion, took away the daily sacrifice, Dan 11:31. Some observe that the word Tammidh, which signifies no more than daily, is only here, and in the parallel place, used for the daily sacrifice, as if there were a designed liberty left to supply it either with sacrifice, which was suppressed by Antiochus, or with gospel-worship, which was suppressed by the Antichrist. Then he set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar (1 Macc. 1:54), even an idol altar (v. 59), and called the temple the temple of Jupiter Olympius, 2 Macc. 6:2. 4. He persecuted those who retained their integrity. Though there are many who forsake the covenant and do wickedly against it, yet there is a people who do know their God and retain the knowledge of him, and they shall be strong and do exploits, Dan 11:32. When others yield to the tyrant's demands, and surrender their consciences to his impositions, they bravely keep their ground, resist the temptation, and make the tyrant himself ashamed of his attempt upon them. Good old Eleazar, one of the principal scribes, when he had swine's flesh thrust into his mouth, did bravely spit it out again, though he knew he must be tormented to death for so doing, and was so, 2 Macc. 6:19. The mother and her seven sons were put to death for adhering to their religion, 2 Macc. 7. This might well be called doing exploits; for to choose suffering rather than sin is a great exploit. And it was by faith, by being strong in faith, that they did those exploits, that they were tortured, not accepting deliverance, as the apostle speaks, probably with reference to that story, Heb 11:35. Or it may refer to the military courage and achievements of Judas Maccabaeus and others in opposition to Antiochus. Note, The right knowledge of God is, and will be, the strength of the soul, and, in the strength of that, gracious souls do exploits. Those that know his name will put their trust in him, and by that trust will do great things. Now, concerning this people that knew their God, we are here told, (1.) That they shall instruct many, Dan 11:33. They shall make it their business to show others what they have learned themselves of the difference between truth and falsehood, good and evil. Note, Those that have the knowledge of God themselves should communicate their knowledge to those about them, and this spiritual charity must be extensive: they must instruct many. Some understand this of a society newly erected for the propagating of divine knowledge, called Assideans, godly men, pietists (so the name signifies), that were both knowing and zealous in the law; these instructed many. Note, In times of persecution and apostasy, which are trying times, those that have knowledge ought to make use of it for the strengthening and establishing of others. Those that understand aright themselves ought to do what they can to bring others to understand; for knowledge is a talent that must be traded with. Or, They shall instruct many by their perseverance in their duty and their patient suffering for it. Good examples instruct many, and with many are the most powerful instructions. (2.) They shall fall by the cruelty of Antiochus, shall be put to the torture, and put to death, by his rage. Though they are so excellent and intelligent themselves, and so useful and serviceable to others, yet Antiochus shall show them no mercy, but they shall fall for some days; so it may be read, Rev 2:10, Thou shalt have tribulation ten days. We read much, in the books of the Maccabees, of Antiochus's barbarous usage of the pious Jews, how many he slew in wars and how many he murdered in cold blood. Women were put to death for having their children circumcised, and their infants were hanged about their necks, 1 Macc. 1:60, 61. But why did God suffer this? How can this be reconciled with the justice and goodness of God? I answer, Very well, if we consider what it was that God aimed at in this (Dan 11:35): Some of those of understanding shall fall, but it shall be for the good of the church and for their own spiritual benefit. It shall be to try them, and to purge, and to make them white. They needed these afflictions themselves. The best have their spots, which must be washed off, their dross, which must be purged out; and their troubles, particularly their share in the public troubles, help to do this; being sanctified to them by the grace of God, they are means of mortifying their corruptions, weaning them from the world, and awakening them to greater seriousness and diligence in religion. They try them, as silver in the furnace is refined from its dross; they purge them, as wheat in the barn is winnowed from the chaff; and they make them white, as cloth by the fuller is cleared from its spots. See Pe1 1:7. Their sufferings for righteousness' sake would try and purge the nation of the Jews, would convince them of the truth, excellency, and power of that holy religion which these understanding men died for their adherence to. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church; it is precious blood, and not a drop of it should be shed but upon such a valuable consideration. (3.) The cause of religion, though it be thus run upon, shall not be run down. When they shall fall they shall not be utterly cast down, but they shall be holpen with a little help, Dan 11:34. Judas Maccabaeus, and his brethren, and a few with them, shall make head against the tyrant, and assert the injured cause of their religion; they pulled down the idolatrous altars, circumcised the children that they found uncircumcised, recovered the law out of the hand of the Gentiles, and the work prospered in their hands, 1 Macc. 2:45, etc. Note, Those that stand by the cause of religion when it is threatened and struck at, though they may not immediately be delivered and made victorious, shall yet have present help. And a little help must not be despised; but, when times are very bad, we must be thankful for some reviving. It is likewise foretold that many shall cleave to them with flatteries; when they see the Maccabees prosper some Jews shall join with them that are no true friends to religion, but will only pretend friendship either with design to betray them or in hope to rise with them; but the fiery trial (Dan 11:35) will separate between the precious and the vile, and by it those that are perfect will be made manifest and those that are not. (4.) Though these troubles may continue long, yet they will have an end. They are for a time appointed, a limited time, fixed in the divine counsels. This warfare shall be accomplished. Hitherto the power of the enemy shall come, and no further; here shall its proud waves be stayed. 5. He grew very proud, insolent, and profane, and, being puffed up with his conquests, bade defiance to Heaven, and trampled upon every thing that was sacred, Dan 11:36, etc. And here some think begins a prophecy of the antichrist, the papal kingdom. It is plain that St. Paul, in his prophecy of the rise and reign of the man of sin, alludes to this (Th2 2:4), which shows that Antiochus was a type and figure of that enemy, as Babylon also was; but, this being joined in a continued discourse with the foregoing prophecies concerning Antiochus, to me it seems probably that it principally refers to him, and in him had its primary accomplishment, and has reference to the other only by way of accommodation. (1.) He shall impiously dishonour the God of Israel, the only living and true God, called here the God of gods. He shall, in defiance of him and his authority, do according to his will against his people and his holy religion; he shall exalt himself above him, as Sennacherib did, and shall speak marvellous things against him and against his laws and institutions. This was fulfilled when Antiochus forbade sacrifices to be offered in God's temple, and ordered the sabbaths to be profaned, the sanctuary and the holy people to be polluted, etc., to the end that they might forget the law and change all the ordinances, and this upon pain of death, 1 Macc. 1:45. (2.) He shall proudly put contempt upon all other gods, shall magnify himself above every god, even the gods of the nations. Antiochus wrote to his own kingdom that every one should leave the gods he had worshipped, and worship such as he ordered, contrary to the practice of all the conquerors that went before him, 1 Macc. 1:41, 42. And all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king; fond as they were of their gods, they did not think them worth suffering for, but, their gods being idols, it was all alike to them what gods they worshipped. Antiochus did not regard any god, but magnified himself above all, Dan 11:37. He was so proud that he thought himself above the condition of a mortal man, that he could command the waves of the sea, and reach to the stars of heaven, as his insolence and haughtiness are expressed, 2 Macc. 9:8, 10. Thus he carried all before him, till the indignation was accomplished (Dan 11:36), till he had run his length, and filled up the measure of his iniquity; for that which is determined shall be done, and nothing more, nothing short. (3.) He shall, contrary to the way of the heathen, disregard the god of his fathers, Dan 11:37. Though an affection to the religion of their ancestors was, among the heathen, almost as natural to them as the desire of women (for, if you search through the isles of Chittim, you will not find an instance of a nation that has changed its gods, Jer 2:10, Jer 2:11), yet Antiochus shall not regard the god of his fathers; he made laws to abolish the religion of his country, and to bring in the idols of the Greeks. And though his predecessors had honoured the God of Israel, and given great gifts to the temple at Jerusalem (2 Macc. 3:2, 3), he offered the greatest indignities to God and his temple. His not regarding the desire of women may denote his barbarous cruelty (he shall spare no age or sex, no, not the tender ones) or his unnatural lusts, or, in general, his contempt of every thing which men of honour have a concern for, or it might be accomplished in something we meet not with in history. Its being joined to his not regarding the god of his fathers intimates that the idolatries of his country had in them more of the gratifications of the flesh than those of other countries (Lucian has written of the Syrian goddesses), and yet that would not prevail to keep him to them. (4.) He shall set up an unknown god, a new god, Dan 11:38. In his estate, in the room of the god of his fathers (Apollo and Diana, deities of pleasure), he shall honour the god of forces, a supposed deity of power, a god whom his fathers knew not, nor worshipped; because he will be thought in wisdom and strength to excel his fathers, he shall honour this god with gold, and silver, and precious stones, thinking nothing too good for the god he has taken a fancy to. This seems to be Jupiter Olympius, known among the Phoenicians by the name of Baal-Semen, the lord of heaven, but never introduced among the Syrians till Antiochus introduced it. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds, in the temple of Jerusalem, which is called the sanctuary of strength (Dan 11:31), and here the fortresses of munitions; there he shall set up the image of this strange god. Some read it, He shall commit the munitions of strength, or of the most strong God (that is, the city Jerusalem), to a strange god; he put it under the protection and government of Jupiter Olympius. This god he shall not only acknowledge, but shall increase with glory, by setting his image even upon God's altar. And he shall cause those that minister to this idol to rule over many, shall put them into places of power and trust, and they shall divide the land for gain, shall be maintained richly out of the profits of the country. Some by the Mahuzzim, or god of forces, that Antiochus shall worship, understand money, which is said to answer all things, and which is the great idol of worldly people. Now here is very much that is applicable to the man of sin; he exalts himself above all that is called god or that is worshipped; magnifies himself above all; his flatterers call him our lord god the pope. By forbidding marriage, and magnifying the single life, he pretends not to regard the desire of women; and honours the god of forces, the god Mahuzzim, or strong holds, saints and angels, whom his followers take for their protectors, as the heathen did of old their demons; these they make presidents of several countries, etc. These they honour with vast treasures dedicated to them, and therein the learned Mr. Mede thinks that this prophecy was fulfilled, and that it is referred to Ti1 4:1, Ti1 4:2. VI. Here seems to be another expedition into Egypt, or, at least, a struggle with Egypt. The Romans had tied him up from invading Ptolemy, but now that king of the south pushes at him (Dan 11:40), makes an attempt upon some of his territories, whereupon Antiochus, the king of the north, comes against him like a whirlwind, with incredible swiftness and fury, with chariots, and horses, and many ships, a great force. He shall come trough countries, and shall overflow and pass over. In this flying march many countries shall be overthrown by him; and he shall enter into the glorious land, the land of Israel; it is the same word that is translated the pleasant land, Dan 8:9. He shall make dreadful work among the nations thereabout; yet some shall escape his fury, particularly Edom and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon, Dan 11:41. He did not put these countries under contribution, because they had joined with him against the Jews. But especially the land of Egypt shall not escape, but he will quite beggar that, so bare will he strip it. This some reckon his fourth and last expedition against Egypt, in the tenth or eleventh year of his reign, under pretence of assisting the younger brother of Ptolemaeus Philometer against him. We read not of any great slaughter made in this expedition, but great plunder; for, it should seem, that was what he came for: He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and all the precious things of Egypt, Dan 11:43. Polybius, in Athenaeus, relates that Antiochus, having got together abundance of wealth, by spoiling young Philometer, and breaking league with him, and by the contributions of his friends, bestowed a vast deal upon a triumph, in imitation of Paulus Aemilius, and describes the extravagance of it; here we are told how he got that money which he spent so profusely. Notice is here taken likewise of the use he made of the Lybians and Ethiopians, who bordered upon Egypt; they were at his steps; he had them at his foot, had them at his beck, and they made inroads upon Egypt to serve him. VII. Here is a prediction of the fall and ruin of Antiochus, as before (Dan 8:25), when he is in the height of his honour, flushed with victory, and laden with spoils, tidings out of the east and out of the north (out of the north-east) shall trouble him, Dan 11:44. Or, He shall have intelligence, both from the eastern and northern parts, that the king of Parthia is invading his kingdom. This obliged him to drop the enterprises he had in hand, and to go against the Persians and Parthians that were revolting from him; and this vexed him, for now he thought utterly to ruin and extirpate the Jewish nation, when that expedition called him off, in which he perished. This is explained by a passage in Tacitus (though an impious one) where he commends Antiochus for his attempt to take away the superstition of the Jews, and bring in the manners of the Greeks, among them (ut teterrimam gentem in melius mutaret - to meliorate an odious nation), and laments that he was hindered from accomplishing it by the Parthian war. Now here is, 1. The last effort of his rage against the Jews. When he finds himself perplexed and embarrassed in his affairs he shall go forth with great fury to destroy and utterly to make away many, Dan 11:44. The story of this we have 1 Macc. 3:27, etc., what a rage Antiochus was in when he heard of the successes of Judas Maccabaeus, and the orders he gave to Lysias to destroy Jerusalem. Then he planted the tabernacles of his palace, or tents of his court, between the seas, between the Great Sea and the Dead Sea. He set up his royal pavilion at Emmaus near Jerusalem, in token that, though he could not be present himself, yet he gave full power to his captains to prosecute the war against the Jews with the utmost rigour. He placed his tent there, as if he had taken possession of the glorious holy mountain and called it his own. Note, When impiety grows very impudent we may see its ruin near. 2. His exit: He shall come to his end and none shall help him; God shall cut him off in the midst of his days and none shall be able to prevent his fall. This is the same with that which was foretold Dan 8:25 (He shall be broken without hand), where we took a view of his miserable end. Note, When God's time shall come to bring proud oppressors to their end none shall be able to help them, nor perhaps inclined to help them; for those that covet to be feared by all when they are in their grandeur, when they come to be in distress will find themselves loved by none; none will lend them so much as a hand or a prayer to help them; and, if the Lord do not help, who shall? Of the kings that came after Antiochus nothing is here prophesied, for that was the most malicious mischievous enemy to the church, that was a type of the son of perdition, whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of his mouth and destroy with the brightness of his coming, and none shall help him.

Verse 1

11:1 Darius the Mede: See study note on 5:31; the first year was probably 539 BC.

Verse 2

11:2–12:7 The messenger provided a grand sweep of history, from the time of Persia, through the break-up of Greece, the rise and defeat of a wicked king or series of kings (11:21-45), and the final resurrection and triumph of God’s people.

11:2 Three more Persian kings: These Persian kings who followed Cyrus II were most likely Cambyses (530–522 BC), Gaumata (522 BC, a usurper), and Darius I (521–486 BC). The fourth was probably Xerxes I (486–465 BC; see study note on Esth 1:1), whose riches were legendary, as were his army of 1,700,000 soldiers and his huge navy (see Herodotus, Histories 7.6), which he used to fight against the kingdom of Greece. He was unsuccessful, as the Persians failed to defeat the growing power of Greece. God’s sovereign hand was at work behind the historical events of this chapter.

Verse 3

11:3 The mighty king was Alexander the Great (see study note on 8:21, 336–323 BC), who conquered much of the known world in thirteen years, from Greece to India and from far into the north to Egypt in the south.

Verse 4

11:4 Alexander died on June 10, 323 BC, in Babylon at the age of thirty-three. He was at the height of his power and willing to be worshiped as a god. • Alexander’s descendants were not capable of governing, and his brother Philip was incompetent. • For his empire will be . . . given to others: Several of Alexander’s generals divided his empire; by 301 BC, their conflicts had resulted in four parts (see 7:4-7; 8:8-12 and corresponding study notes). God orchestrates history, and its end belongs to him.

Verse 5

11:5-45 Throughout this passage, the king of the south describes Alexander’s general Ptolemy and his descendants, who ruled Egypt; the king of the north describes Alexander’s general Seleucus and his descendants, who ruled Syria and Mesopotamia. In the period following Alexander’s death, the kings of Egypt and Syria vied for control of the strategically located land of Palestine. The holy city and the holy people lay between these two powers. These battles continued until their appointed end (11:27, 35, 40, 45; 12:1, 7). These events are described historically in 1, 2, and 3 Maccabees and by Herodotus, Livy, Polybius, Porphyry, and Josephus.

11:5 The first king of the south was Ptolemy I Soter (323–285 BC). One of his own officials was Seleucus I Nicator (321–281 BC), who took over the rule of Syria. Both men were military commanders under Alexander the Great. Initially (320–198 BC), Palestine was under the control of the Ptolemies.

Verse 6

11:6 An alliance was formed between Antiochus II Theos, the king of the north (261–246 BC), and Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the king of the south (284–246 BC). Antiochus married Ptolemy’s daughter Berenice Syra in 250 BC, then abandoned her in 246 BC. She and Antiochus were then murdered.

Verse 7

11:7-8 one of her relatives: Berenice’s brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes, became king of the south (246–221 BC), invaded Syria with his army, defeated the king of the north (Seleucus II Callinicus, 246–226 BC), occupied the fortress cities of Antioch and Seleucia, and built the Ptolemaic kingdom to its greatest extent. When he returned to Egypt, he took their idols with him, but left Seleucus II on the throne.

Verse 9

11:9 Seleucus II, still the king of the north, tried to invade Egypt in 242 BC but was defeated by Ptolemy III.

Verse 10

11:10-12 The sons of Seleucus II were Seleucus III Ceraunus (226–223 BC) and Antiochus III the Great (223–187 BC). • a mighty army that will advance like a flood: Antiochus III aggressively sought to regain lost territory, including Palestine. • as far as the enemy’s fortress: Antiochus III advanced to Raphia on the border of Egypt in 217 BC. In the ensuing battle, the king of the south—Ptolemy IV Philopater (221–203 BC)—defeated Antiochus III and retained control of Palestine.

Verse 12

11:12-13 Ptolemy IV’s success was short lived. In 198 BC, the king of the north—Antiochus III—returned. • Antiochus III had been conquering lands to the north and east, from which he raised a fully equipped army far greater than before (cp. 3 Maccabees 1:1-5).

Verse 14

11:14 A general uprising of Jews and rebel Egyptians who favored Antiochus III arose. The king of the south was Ptolemy V Epiphanes (203–181 BC). • they will not succeed: The Egyptian commander, Scopas, quelled the rebellion (200 BC).

Verse 15

11:15 At Paneas in 198 BC, the king of the north (Antiochus III) defeated the Egyptian general Scopas, besieged and captured Sidon, a fortified city, and took control of Palestine.

Verse 16

11:16 intent on destroying it: Antiochus III sought to hellenize the Jews and destroy their ancient customs, but he was flattered by Jews who received him well, and he granted them special privileges. They were allowed to live according to their own laws. His son Antiochus IV was not so accommodating (11:21-39).

Verse 17

11:17 Antiochus III formed an alliance with Ptolemy V by giving his daughter, Cleopatra I, to Ptolemy V in marriage. Antiochus hoped to overthrow Egypt from within, but his plan failed when his daughter became loyal to Egypt, and Egypt formed an alliance with Rome.

Verse 18

11:18 Antiochus III extended his holdings into the coastland—including Anatolia, Macedonia, and Greece—but he was defeated by the Romans in 191 and 190 BC. The prince was the famous Roman general Scipio, who put a stop to Antiochus III’s expansionist policies and caused him to retreat in shame from his western acquisitions.

Verse 19

11:19 Antiochus III thereafter remained within his own fortresses, where he was assassinated in 187 BC.

Verse 20

11:20 Antiochus III’s successor was his son Seleucus IV Philopater (187–175 BC), who was known for his infamous act of sending Heliodorus, a tax collector, to exact large sums of money to maintain the royal splendor (but also to pay the ruinous tribute imposed on the Seleucids by Rome). Heliodorus attempted to plunder the Temple in Jerusalem but was divinely thwarted (see 2 Maccabees 3:1-40). Seleucus was murdered by Heliodorus after a very brief reign of seven years.

Verse 21

11:21-39 The next to come to power was Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–163 BC). He is also the “small horn” of Dan 8:9-14, 23-26. He is described vividly in 1 Maccabees 1:7–6:16; 2 Maccabees 1:1–10:5; 4 Maccabees 4:15–18:5. Antiochus was despicable both because he had usurped the kingship and for his deeds as king. He was not in line for royal succession but usurped the throne from his brother’s son.

Verse 22

11:22 The covenant prince was Onias III, the high priest (cp. study notes on 9:25-26). He was removed by Antiochus IV in 175 BC and replaced by his brother Jason (2 Maccabees 4:7-10). In 171 BC, Onias was murdered by Menelaus, who then became high priest (171–162 BC). Menelaus supported Antiochus IV’s program of hellenization (see study note on 9:27).

Verse 23

11:23 deceitful promises: Antiochus IV introduced Greek religion into Judea, helped by lawless followers who supported his policies (see 1 Maccabees 1:11-15).

Verse 24

11:24 richest areas of the land: Antiochus IV seized the riches of the Temple, took large tributes from Jerusalem, and stationed troops there (1 Maccabees 1:29-40).

Verse 25

11:25-27 The king of the south was Ptolemy VI Philometor (181–146 BC). Antiochus IV attacked Egypt twice between 170 and 168 BC (1 Maccabees 1:17-19).

Verse 28

11:28 Antiochus IV plundered Jerusalem and the Temple in 170 BC, killing thousands and enslaving others (1 Maccabees 1:20-42; 2 Maccabees 5:1-23). His arrogance was unbounded (1 Maccabees 1:24-25; cp. Dan 7:28; 8:9).

Verse 29

11:29-35 Antiochus IV invaded the south [Egypt] . . . once again (see Polybius, Histories 29.1). • The warships from western coastlands refers to the Romans. The Roman general Popilius Laenas drew a circle in the sand, forced Antiochus to stand inside it, and made him decide whether to return home or prepare for war with Rome before exiting the circle. Fearing the Roman fleet, Antiochus chose to withdraw and return home. He then vented his anger and humiliation against the Jews, the people of the holy covenant. He took Jerusalem in 167 BC and rewarded those who would come over to him. He polluted the altar (see Dan 8:9-14, 23-26), stopped the sacrifices, set up a statue of the Greek god Zeus in the Temple, and harassed and killed whoever refused to forsake the covenant (see 1 Maccabees 1:62-64; cp. Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15).

Verse 31

11:31 the sacrilegious object that causes desecration: See study note on 9:27.

Verse 32

11:32-35 The wise are those who know their God and his laws and follow them, even in a hostile and deceptive environment. Many were martyred for their faithfulness to God and his laws during this time (1 Maccabees 1:11; 7:19; 2 Maccabees 6–7).

Verse 34

11:34 A little help came when the family of Mattathias and those around them, who were called Maccabees, instigated a national revolt which Antiochus, occupied elsewhere, could not put down. In 164 BC, three years after the Temple had been desecrated, the Maccabees recaptured Jerusalem, removed the sacrilegious object (the statue of Zeus), cleansed the altar, and restored the daily sacrifices (8:11-14, 26; 1 Maccabees 1:59). This event is commemorated at Hanukkah (see John 10:22).

Verse 36

11:36-40 Some interpreters see these verses as a transition from the earthly Antiochus IV to a character larger than history (7:8).

11:36 Antiochus IV thought himself equal to God (2 Maccabees 9:1–10:12), but God would hem him in until the time of wrath was completed. • what has been determined will surely take place: Antiochus suddenly contracted a painful disease and died in 163 BC in the mountains of Persia (see 8:25; 1 Maccabees 4:52-53; 6:16; 2 Maccabees 9:4, 28; 10:5).

Verse 37

11:37-38 no respect for the gods of his ancestors: Antiochus IV forsook the Syrian gods in order to worship Greek gods. • The god loved by women might be one of the Canaanite or Egyptian fertility deities. • No god of fortresses is known from history, but this description might be fulfilled by the lavish gifts that Antiochus gave to cities and to Greek temples, perhaps to increase his reputation and power (see Livy, History 41.20).

Verse 40

11:40-45 Most commentators believe these verses describe the time of the end of history (cp. Mark 13:14; 2 Thes 2:3-12; Rev 19:19-21). These verses echo the career of Antiochus IV, but we have no historical record of the events described here. Antiochus was a paradigm for future rulers who set themselves against the God of gods.

11:40 No known king of the south or king of the north did these things.

Verse 41

11:41 the glorious land of Israel: Israel (cp. 8:9; 11:16) is again the center of attack by an evil king. • Moab, Edom, and Ammon were nations surrounding ancient Israel and Judah.

Verse 45

11:45 The glorious holy mountain includes Zion, Jerusalem, and the Temple—the place God chose for his name to dwell. • The sea probably refers to the Mediterranean Sea.