- Home
- Bible
- Daniel
- Chapter 11
- Verse 11
Daniel 11:25
Verse
Context
Kings of the South and North
24In a time of peace, he will invade the richest provinces and do what his fathers and forefathers never did. He will lavish plunder, loot, and wealth on his followers, and he will plot against the strongholds—but only for a time.25And with a large army he will stir up his power and his courage against the king of the South, who will mobilize a very large and powerful army but will not withstand the plots devised against him.26Those who eat from his provisions will seek to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall slain.
Summary
Commentary
- Adam Clarke
- Keil-Delitzsch
- Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
- John Gill
- Tyndale
Adam Clarke Bible Commentary
He shall stir up his power - Antiochus marched against Ptolemy, the king of the south, (Egypt), with a great army; and the Egyptian generals had raised a mighty force. Stirred up to battle - The two armies met between Pelusium and Mount Casius; but he (the king of the south) could not stand - the Egyptian army was defeated. The next campaign he had greater success; he routed the Egyptian army, took Memphis, and made himself master of all Egypt, except Alexandria, see 1 Maccabees 1:16-19. And all these advantages he gained by forecasting devices; probably by corrupting his ministers and captains. Ptolemy Macron gave up Cyprus to Antiochus; and the Alexandrians were led to renounce their allegiance to Ptolemy Philometer, and took Euergetes, or Physcon his younger brother, and made him king in his stead. All this was doubtless by the corruptions of Antiochus. See below.
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary
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.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
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.
John Gill Bible Commentary
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.
Tyndale Open Study Notes
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).
Daniel 11:25
Kings of the South and North
24In a time of peace, he will invade the richest provinces and do what his fathers and forefathers never did. He will lavish plunder, loot, and wealth on his followers, and he will plot against the strongholds—but only for a time.25And with a large army he will stir up his power and his courage against the king of the South, who will mobilize a very large and powerful army but will not withstand the plots devised against him.26Those who eat from his provisions will seek to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall slain.
- Scripture
- Sermons
- Commentary
- Adam Clarke
- Keil-Delitzsch
- Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
- John Gill
- Tyndale
Adam Clarke Bible Commentary
He shall stir up his power - Antiochus marched against Ptolemy, the king of the south, (Egypt), with a great army; and the Egyptian generals had raised a mighty force. Stirred up to battle - The two armies met between Pelusium and Mount Casius; but he (the king of the south) could not stand - the Egyptian army was defeated. The next campaign he had greater success; he routed the Egyptian army, took Memphis, and made himself master of all Egypt, except Alexandria, see 1 Maccabees 1:16-19. And all these advantages he gained by forecasting devices; probably by corrupting his ministers and captains. Ptolemy Macron gave up Cyprus to Antiochus; and the Alexandrians were led to renounce their allegiance to Ptolemy Philometer, and took Euergetes, or Physcon his younger brother, and made him king in his stead. All this was doubtless by the corruptions of Antiochus. See below.
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary
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.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
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.
John Gill Bible Commentary
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.
Tyndale Open Study Notes
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).