Bookshelf/ Vol.I / Vol. IV. Part VI. Contents. Chapter I. 1. 2. 3. II. 1. 2. 3. III. 1. 2. 3. IV. 1. 2. V. 1. 2. Appendix I. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. II. 1a. 1b. 2a. 2b. 2c. 3. 4. III 1. 2a. 2b.




THE date of the vision that I am about to notice, - I mean Daniel’s last vision, given in chapters x., xi., and xii. of his prophetic Book, - is stated by the Prophet to have been the third year of the reign of Cyrus; [1] its local scene by the banks of the Hiddekel or Tigris. [2] Now it appears from Ezra that it was in the first year of his reign that Cyrus issued his memorable edict for the Jews’ emanicipation from Babylon, and that Zerubbabel and other Jews, acting on it, returned to Jerusalem: [3] also that it was in the seventh Jewish month (or October) that they set up an altar there, [4] and in the second month of the second year of their coming that they laid the foundation of the new Temple: [5] - after which there began from the people of the land a system of harassing and interruption, - in part by personal opposition, in part through the agency of accusers sent to vilify them at the Persian Court, - which at once put a stop to the work; and suspended it through what remained of the reign of Cyrus, and for some years after, till the accession of Darius son of Hystaspes. [6] Such then had already begun to be the state of things at Jerusalem in the April [7] of that 3rd year of Cyrus, in which Daniel (now like St. John in Patmos, an old man of eighty or ninety) [8] saw the vision we are about to consider. It seems important to bear this in mind in examining the prophecy before us. - We can scarce but suppose that his fasting and prayer, which preceded and was answered by the present vision, had reference, like that which preceded a former revelation, [9] to the then state of trial and disappointment attending the returned remnant of his people. The Angel’s words, on occasion of a former vision, about the street being built in troublous times, [10] seemed already beginning to have fulfillment. When were better times to come, - the times of the Messiah promised? His heart was set to understand the things predicted. [11] Of the quadruple series of Gentile dominant empires which, it had been 70 years before foreshown to him, were to precede the full and final establishment of Messiah’s kingdom, [12] the second, of Persia, had already come, a guarantee for all the rest. But the third, - that of Greece, as expressly foreshown to him, [13] - had as yet not come forward. When was that next step in the great chain of events to take place? When the fourth empire to appear, under which apparently Messiah was to be manifested in humiliation, and cut off; [14] and which was to introduce into the Temple, that had now been just founded anew, the abomination that would make desolate? [15] When again the consummation of judgment to be poured out on the desolator; [16] and so and then, apparently, that glorious restoration of Israel and of the Temple to take place, under the King Messiah, that had been prefigured to another holy prophet, the associate of Daniel’s youth and captivity, I mean Ezekiel? [17]

The vision accorded to Daniel at the expiration of these three weeks of fasting and humiliation, and which was avowedly intended to enlighten him on the subjects of his anxious searching, [18] opened with the view of some glorious Being of surpassing splendour, standing on the waters of the Tigris. [19] Was it an Angel, or the Lord of Angels? Doubtless the latter: forasmuch as not in respect of his glory only, but of the priestly garb that he wore, [20] the position he stood in, and the solemn oath that he uttered, the parallel was most close between what is here said of him, and what is in the Apocalypse said of the Covenant-Angel that long afterwards appeared to St. John in the visions of Patmos. [21] Moreover the attendant Angels, who were also seen by Daniel in the vision, referred to him their questions as to a superior. [22] Thus it seemed, I say, to be the LORD, the MESSIAH, Himself. His priestly garb marked him out in that character of the priest, the offering priest of the great propitiatory sacrifice, which it needed that he should fulfill ere he took the kingdom. [23] His silence, all the while that an attendant Angel detailed to the prophet the prediction we are about considering, might seem to have been the silence of one meditating on the mighty work before him. Again his position, with the feet planted on the waters of the Hiddekel, now the great characteristic river of the dominant Persian Empire, symbolized apparently his claim to that domination and empire as his own: [24] - on the realization of which claim those times of Eden that the river Hiddekel might suggest to the prophet’s mind [25] would return; and its waters flow again through a Paradise restored.

It is generally supposed by commentators that the Angel who touched and strengthened the prophet, when struck down by the glory of the vision, and then in a predictive narrative informed him respecting the coming future, was the Angel Gabriel. And, as Gabriel is specifically mentioned twice before as the appointed communicator with the prophet, [26] this seems very probable. He tells him that on the first day that he chastened himself before God his prayer was heard: and, after a mysterious intimation or two on what for awhile hindered him from coming, [27] and what he was afterwards about to do, in regard both of the Prince of Persia and then the Prince of Greece. [28] - intimations indicating the fact of angelic ministration in influencing men’s minds, and so bringing about the appointed issues and changes in human affairs, [29] - he proceeds, in the notable prophecy of chap. xi. and xii., to unfold the then coming future, first under Persia, and then under Greek supremacy, - the second and third in the great tetrarchical succession of prophecy: with the addition of a sketch of the sequel of events, specially with reference to the future fortunes of Daniel’s own people, [30] (whether that meant, the literal Israel, and Jews only, or in part too the later-formed Christian Israel and Church,) even until the consummation. For “the time appointed was long.” [31]

The prophecy thus naturally divides itself into two parts: 1st that from xi. 1 to xi. 31, sketching the times of the Persians and Greeks; 2ndly that from xi. 31 to the end of chap. xii., sketching the sequel. Now it is not my intention to enter fully into the details of the earlier half of the prophecy. For these I refer to Jerome, or Bishop Newton. [32] My object is only to give such a general view of this part, in respect of its literal meaning, and its historic fulfilment, as may serve fitly to introduce that second and more difficult part which has a direct bearing on the time and events of the final crisis; questions which we have hitherto been considering simply by the light of the Apocalyptic prophecy. It may be well to consider the two divisions of the prophecy each in a separate Section: and I now proceed accordingly, without further delay, to the discussion of that which belongs to the present Section; viz.


The Angel’s prophetic narrative begins from the time then present. [33] Three Persain kings, he says, were to rise after Cyrus, (these were Cambyses, Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes,) before any mutation needing notice in the world’s affairs: [1] then a fourth, (Xerxes,) pre-eminent for his riches and power; who, by stirring up the whole empire against Greece, was to bring Greece directly into contact with Persia; an aspirant thenceforward for the supremacy. And then “a mighty king” was to stand up, [2] evidently the famous Greek king Alexander the Great: (here is the first grand transition in the prophecy; and one to be well marked as a precedent for comparison, in regard alike of what is unexpressed in it and of what is expressed, and as being a passage, relating to another and later age, as well as to another country:) [3] - I say this king was evidently the famous Greek ruler Alexander the Great: no other king having risen up in the 150 years between him and Xerxes, of whom it could be predicated that “he ruled with a great dominion, and did according to his will;” besides that what is said of the quadri-partition of his kingdom after his death “to others, and not to his own posterity,” agrees very exactly, and so as it can be shown to do in the case probably of no other conqueror of antiquity, both with what is historically recorded of the division of Alexander’s kingdom, and also with what was clearly foreshown

[1]. The prophecy, Dan. xi. 2 begins thus.

xi. 2. “And now will I show thee the truth. Behold there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength, through his riches [34] he shall stir up all [35] against [36] the realm of Grecian.” [37]

[2] 3. “And a mighty king shall stand up, [38] that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. 4. And when he shall stand up [39] his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided towards the four winds of heaven: and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside [40] those.”

[3] Viz. to that of Javan, or Greece; mentioned in the preceding clause.

about it in another and earlier of Daniel’s prophecies. [41] - It is the subsequent history of two distinctively, out of these four divisions of the Greek conqueror’s empire, that the revealing Angel proceeded to sketch; viz. of what he called “the King of the South,” and “the king of the North.” Now, from this simple designation alone, we might à priori [that is, reasoning from causes to effects] pretty confidently have conjectured that the Ægypto-Macedonian and Syro-Macedonian dynasties were intended, of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidæ; the seats of government of these princes being respectively South and North of Judea. But, in effect, conjecture is not needed on the point; the country of the King of the South being expressly in an early passage of the prophecy called Egypt. [42] - And the considerate reader can scarce fail of seeing good reason for their selection, as special subjects of prophetic description to Daniel: not merely from the circumstance of their continuing longer, and making a much greater figure in history, than the other two post-Alexandrine Macedonian kingdoms; [43] but yet more on account of the Holy Land of Judea being involved more or less in their quarrels and wars; [44] and the Jewish government being a dependency for the most part of one or other of them, until its occupation and subjugation by the Romans. [45]

And in regard to the earlier part of the prophecy concerning them, - i.e. from verse 6 to verse 31, where the question arises whether there may not then be made a transition to the Roman subjugation of Judea, - there has been exhibited, I think, such satisfactory evidence of a continuous parallelism between the predictive description of the two kings here given, and the international history of the Ptolemies and Seleucidæ, as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the meaning so far of the prophecy; and thus to offer us the immense advantage of a sufficiently clear introduction, at the outset, to that which is more obscure.

After this fourteen more Syrian kings reigned, in reigns of short and uncertain power, till Syria was occupied and made a Roman province, B.C. 65, by Pompey: (at which time the Æra of the Seleucidæ properly ends, though sometimes used much later; see my Vol. i. p. 31:) also six more Egyptian princes, to the death of Ptolemy Auletes: who dying, B.C. 51, left his kingdom and children to Roman guardianship; one of them the Cleopatra famous in the histories of Caesar and Antony.

[Editor: The asterith explainatory of Ptolemy Philadelphus is given below: [46] ]

1. Whereas the King of the South was to be strong, [1] and the King of the North, (another of the great Greek King’s princes or governors,) though later apparently in assuming the royal title, to become stronger than the King of the South, then contentions (as it is implied) to arise and continue between them, until composed by the expedient of a family alliance through the marriage of a daughter of the King of the South to the King of the North, - so

[1] - 5. “And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes: [47] and he shall be strong above him, [48] and have dominion: his dominion shall be a great dominion. 6. And in the end of the years [49] they shall join themselves together: [50] for the king’s daughter of the south shall come [51] to the king of the north to make an agreement.” [52]

Ptolemy the First, became strong as King of Egypt, and Seleucus, the Macedonian governor of Babylon, on subsequently, assuming the title of King, much greater and stronger: [1] and, a quarrel having soon arisen between the immediate successors of these two kings, war ensued; [2] and continued until composed by the second Ptolemy giving his daughter Berenice in marriage to the third of the Seleucidean dynasty. - 2. Whereas this scheme of family alliance was prophesied of as to fail, [3] and both the South Kings’ married daughter, and the King her husband, and her son by the marriage, [1a] and her attendants to fall, - so both Bernice, and her husband Antiochus, and her son too by him, and her attendants, were actually murdered by the arts of Antiochus’ original but repudiated wife, Laodice; [2a] and the originally devised means of alliance and amity between the two kingdoms turned into an occasion of the wars that followed. [3a] - For, 3rdly, whereas “out of a branch of her roots,” [4a] one was

[1]. So Appian, and Bishop Newton. In fact Seleucus’ empire extended from the Indus to the Ægean. - At this time lived Megasthenes and Berosus.

[2]. So Newton, and also Vernema, pp. 10, 11, from Jerome and Pausanias.

[3]. 6. “But she shall not retain [53] the power of the arm; [54] neither shall he stand, nor his arm:” [55] but she shall be given up; and they that brought her, and he that begat her: [56] and he that strengthened her [57] in these [58] times. [59]

stand up to avenge the ill-treatment of the daughter of the King of the South, then this Southern King to invade the

[1a]. Taking the Septuagint reading [r"z; seed.

[2a] See the authorities in Newton, Venema, or the Univ. Hist. ix. 197 et seq.

[3a] Venema, p. 16, insists on this point: - whence the obvious propriety of its being noticed in the forefront of the prophecy.

[4a]. “7. But out of a branch of her roots [60] shall one stand up in his estate, [61] which shall come with an army [62] and shall enter into the fortress [63] of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail; 8 and shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, [64] and with their

the Northern King’s territories, take his fortresses, capture his treasures and princes, and (as it is singularly added) their gods, and return triumphantly with them into his own country and kingdom, Egypt, - so the third Ptolemy, forthwith on coming to the kingdom, invaded Syria, (then under the rule of the fourth Seleucidean king, Seleucus Callinicus, son of Laodice,) overran the whole kingdom to the Euphrates, and indeed beyond almost to the Indus, plundered it of 40,000 talents of silver and of 2500 images of gods; and with these, and numerous captives, returned triumphantly back into Egypt. 1 - 4. Whereas the sons of the King of the North (sons in the plural) were to be stirred up, 2 and assemble great forces, as if with a view to the recovery of

precious vessels [65] of silver and gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the north. 9. So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land.” [66]

1.So Wintle from Jerome. An inscription on an ancient marble, which he notes from Calmet, thus records this exploit of Euergetes;

“Sacris quæ ab Egypto Persæ abstulerant receptis, ac cum reliquâ congestà gazà in Egyptum relatis.”

The inscription was published by Allatius at Rome in 1631. Hence it wou’d seem that Euergetes brought back among these idol-gods those that Cambyses the Persian king had carried away two centuries a half before out of Egypt. But, as Venema observes, they could not be meant specifically here; the gods spoken of being said to be made captive.

2 “10. But his sons [67] shall be stirred up, [68] and shall assemble a multitude of great forces; and one shall certainly come, [69] and overflow, and pass through, then shall he return, [70] and be stirred up, [71] even to his fortress. [72] 11. and the king of the south shall be moved with choler [or anger], and shall set forth [73]   a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his [74] hand.”

their losses and to revenge, and one out of them (one only) to overflow, (whether over his own recaptured territory, or over that of his enemy the King of the South,) and the King of the South to meet him in battle, and utterly overthrow him, - so did Seleucus Ceraunus, and, on his speedy death a year or two after, his brother and successor Antiochus, called the Great, 1b assemble great forces to recover their father’s dominions, and the latter achieve the object, recover Seleucia and Syria, and proceed to invade Egypt with a mighty army; 2b whereupon ensued the (to him) disastrous battle of Raphia, on the Egyptian frontier , in which he suffered a total defeat from Philopator, the then reigning Ptolemy. - 5. Whereas 3b the King of the South was not eventually to be strengthened by this great victoy, his

1b. So Justin xxx. 1; “Antiochus rex Syriæ, veteri inter se regnorum odio stimulante, repentino belle multas urbes ejus (Ptolemæ) oppressit, ipsamque Ægyptum aggreditur.”

The following dates will be useful towards the illustration of his prophetic sketch of Antiochus the Great’s history.

| B.C.|

| 223 | Antiochus succeeds to the Syrian throne.

| 217 | Is defeated in the battle of Raphia.

| 198 | Defeats Scopas in the battle of Panias, on returning from his Eastern conquests; and recovers Judæ and Jerusalem.

| 192 | War with the Romans begins, and lasts three years.

| 190 | Battle and defeat of Magnesia.

| 187 | Antiochus killed.

2b. Polybius describes the army and its amount; 62,000 foot, 6000 horses, and 102 elephants.” Newton and Wintle.

3b. 12. And when he hath taken away [75] the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up and [76] and he shall cast down many ten thousands; but he shall not be strengthened by it. 13. For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former; and shall certainly come after certain years, [77] with a great army, [78] and with much riches. 14. And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people [79] shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; [80] but they shall fall. [81] 15. So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: [82] and the arms [83] of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people; [84] neither shall there be any strength to withstand. [85] 16. But he he cometh against [86] him shall do according to his own will; and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land: [87] which by his hand shall be consumed.” [88] (Marg. perfected.).

heart being lifted up (perhaps, as in Sennaecherib’s 1 or Uzziah’s case, 2 against God himself) with that vanity which often precedes a fall, and after certain years the King of the North, was to return, with great riches and a greater army than before, and in confederacy moreover with various other states and persons,including among them certain revolters or violent men of Daniel’s people, - and, there being no power in the arms of the South to withstand him, would both take the city of munitions, and also stand in the glorious land, or land of the glory and beauty, that is, of Jerusalem and its sacred temple, which by his hand, whether in respect of its buildings or otherwise, should be perfected and made complete, - so Ptolemy Philopator, the victor of Raphia, instead of aggrandizement by his victory, abandoning himself thenceforth to his lusts and passions, made peace with Antiochus that he might the better indulge them; showed how his heart was lifted up by attempting, on a visit to Jerusalem now again subjected to him, to force his way into the Holy of Holies; and then in a few years died of his debauchery: 3 whereupon (his infant son having succeeded him) Antiochus, who had meanwhile been indefatigably reconquering the eastern provinces of his ancestral dominion, returned after some fifteen years, as to an easy prey, against the Egyptian rival kingdom, with great riches and a mightier army than before, - the King of Macedon having confederated with him, the Jewish insurrectionists and profest patriots thrown off their

1. Isa. xxxvii. 23, “Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high?  even against the Holy One of Israel.”.

2. 2 Chron. xxvi. 16, “But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed against the LORD his God, and went into the temple of the LORD to burn incense upon the altar of incense”.

3. So the Univ. Hist. ix. 220, referred to by Wintle.

allegiance to Egypt, and many of the Egyptians themselves rebelled, - defeated Scopas utterly who was sent against him, besieged and took Sidon, the “city of munitions,” where Scopas had taken refuge, together with other fenced cities, 1  and then recovered Judea: where, as the Jews welcomed him as a deliverer, he acted like a deliverer and friend towards them; and, by repairing the city walls, gathering together to their own land more out of the Jewish dispersion, assisting the completion of the temple, 2  and other ways, did not a little contribute to the perfecting of the national restoration. - 6. Whereas 3 the King of the North was, nowwithstanding this success,and just when setting his face to enter with all his strength the southern kingdom, to

1. Venema thinks Gaza especially referred to in the designated city of munitions.

2. “Josephus informs us that Antiochus made a decree that the Jews should enjoy many immunities, and should live according to their own rites and laws, and that the work of the temple should be finished.” Wintle. So too Bishop Newton.

3. “17. “He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, [89] and upright ones with him: thus shall he do; [90] and he shall give him the daughter of women [91] corrupting her: [92] but she shall not stand on his side, [93] neither be for him. 18. After this he shall turn his face into the isles [94] and break off the apparently mediated design, make an agreement and reconciliation with the King of the South, (a plan of agreement involving the giving him his daughter in marriage,) and, as if with new and other views of aggrandizement, to turn his face to the isles, (the Grecian Isles,) and take many, till some prince or general, as one whose honor was shammed by the act, should repulse him, and make him return ignominiously to his own land, where he would stumble, and fall, and not be found, - so Antiochus the Great, when prepared to enter Egypt, changed his plan, made peace with the young Ptolemy, betrothed his daughter to him, and after a while conducted her to the marriage; then, as considering all secure in that quarter, turned his face toward the Grecian Isles, and with a great fleet and army took many, thereby offending the majesty of the Roman Republic, whose confederates they were: whereupon the Roman commanders caused the reproach to turn on him, attacked and defeated him utterly both at Thermopylæ and in the decisive battle of Magnesia, and so forced him to return to his own land a disgraced fugitive, the western half of his empire being surrendered, and an immense tribute imposed on him; 1 to obtain help towards the payment of which, when he had entered and sought to plunder some rich temple in Elymais, he was attacked, killed, and found no more. - 7. As the next successor 2 of the King of the North was described as a raiser of taxes, or one that would cause an exactor to pass over the glory of his kingdom, then perish in a few days, but neither in angry brawl nor battle, - so Antiochus’ son and successor Seleucus Philopator was scarcely known except as a raiser of taxes, to pay

shall take many: [95] but a prince, [96] for his own behalf, [97] shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease: without [98] his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him. 19. Then shall he turn his face toward the fort [99] of his own land: and he shall stumble, and fall, and not be found.”

1. The Article of the Treaty are given in full in the Univ. Hist. ix. 268.

2. 20. “There shall stand up in his estate [100] a raiser of taxes in the glory of his kingdom: [101] but in few days [102] he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, [103] nor in battle.”

off a yearly tribute of 1000 talents imposed for 12 years by the Romans; his exactor of taxes, Heliodorus, being sent to gather them, not merely elsewhere and otherwise in the once glorious kindom of Dyria, but by plunder too of that which the revealing Angel might specially mean by “the glory of his kingdom,” (though Seleucus did not so appreciate it,) viz. the temple of Jerusalem: very soon after which sacrilege, and in the twelfth of last year for which the Roman tribute of 1000 talens had been imposed, 1 having fulfilled his predicted character, he was killed; that same Heliodorus, who had been his instrument for spoiling the temple, treacherously assassinating him. 2 - 8. Whereas the next king of the North was to be a man every way contemptible, and yet, contrary to all probabilities attendant on such a character, to obtain successes eventually against his rival such as none before, to succeed in the first instance

1. So Wintle. Bishop Newton has not remarked this characteristic fact.

2. 21. “And in his estate [104] shall stand up a vile person, [105] to whom they shall not give [106] the honor of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, [107] and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. [108] 22. And [with] the arms of a flood shall they be overflowed [109] from before him, and shall be broken; yea also the prince of the covenant. [110]

to the northern kingdom by flatteries, (the arms of the overflower, its previous usurping occupant, being overflowed from before him,) 1 to become strong

23. And after [111] the league made with him [112] he shall work deceitfully. For [113] he shall come up, [114] and shall become strong with a small people. 24. He shall enter peacefully [115] even unto the fattest places of the province: [116] and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his father’s fathers: he shall scatter among them [117] the prey and spoil and riches. And he shall forecast his devices [118] against the strongholds, [119] even for a time. [120] 25. And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south, with a great army: and the king of the south shall be stirred

with contrated means and a small people, to attack the King of the South, albeit united by treaty with him, (apparently by his father’s treaty noted before in the prophecy,) to defeat him and his armies, (adding thereby to his ancestral riches, and profusely scattering the acquired plunder and treasure,) then, aided by treachery in the Southern King’s court, to overflow into Egypt, scheme mischief against its king under the same roof, while making profession of friendship, and return (as if to give time for his policy to work) into his own land, there manifesting in some way or other a heart set against “the holy covenant,” or covenant and religion of the Jews, God’s holy people, - so Antiochus Epiphanes, brother to the late King, and not the lawful heir to the throne, escaping from Rome, where he had been long time a hostage, did by flattering alike the Romans, the Princes Eumenes and Attalus, and the Syrian people, obtain the Syrian kingdom, overwhelming the adverse power of the usurper

up to battle, [121] with a very great and mighty army: but he shall not stand. For [122] they shall forecast devices [123] against him: 26. yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat [124] shall destroy him; [125] and his army shall overflow, [126] and many fall down slain. 27. And both these kings’ hearts shall be to do mischief; [127] and they shall speak lies at one table: but it shall not prosper: [128] for yet the end shall be at the time appointed. [129] 28. Then [130] shall he return into his land with great riches: and his heart shall be against the holy covenant: [131] and he shall do exploits: [132] and return to his own land.”

[1] So on Grotius’ and Newton’s view of “the arms of the flood” in verse 22, as meant of the usurper Heliodorus. If Venema’s Eyptian reference be preferred, it is a view covered in my running historic commentary by what is afterwards said of the overflowing into Egypt.

Heliodorus, become strong, though with a kingdom now reduced and disgraced, attack the Egyptian Prince Philometor his nephew, albeit allied by treaty [1] as well as blood, defeat him signally in a famous expedition, and enter and spoil Egypt of its riches; by the squandering of which, as well as of his ancestral treasures, in shows, gifts, and pageantry, he sought and gained the title of Illustrious, his true one being the Vile:[2] until, at length, having got Philometor into his hands, [3] and the Alexandrians having set up his brother Physcon in his room, he planned at the same table with Philometor a scheme of discord and division between the two brothers, whereby it seemed he might best prepare Egypt to be a little after his prey; then returning, while the scheme might work, to his own land, did in the way attack Jerusalem, massacring 40,000 of its inhabitants, and despoiling and profaning its temple, because of the Jews having broken into insurrection on a false report of his death. It was thus that he fulfilled the first part of the prophecy concerning him. - 9. As, yet again, at “the time appointed” (a phrase designative apparently of some notable epoch) this same Northern King was to invade the kingdom of the South a second time, but with a result quite different from that of his former successful expedition, [4] “ships from Chittim” coming against him, (the

[1]. The treaty made by his father Antiochus the Great with Egypt, just before his turning his face to the isles of Chittim, was still unconcealed.

[2]. An example of allusive contrast. See my Vol. i. pp. 113, 272, &c.

[3]. This was when at Memphis. Alexandria had not yet submitted to Antiochus Epiphanes. For a brief sketch of the history, see 1 Mac. i. 17-23.

[4]. 29. At the time appointed [133] he shall return, and come toward [134] the south: but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter. [135] 30. For the ships of Chittim [136] shall

expression is most remarkable,) and coming his precipitate return to his own land, in indignation which would vent itself against “the holy covenant,” or Jews’ religion and law, and evil alliance with certain that forsook it, - so, Antiochus Epiphanes returned the next year in a second expedition into Egypt, now prostate before him; but, when expecting to reduce it finally under his sway, was stopt on a sudden by the unlooked-for intervention of Roman ambassadors, just arrived in ships from Italy, the scriptural Chittim: and being forced to resign the prey, groaning and grieving, as Polybius describes it, vented his indignation against the Jews and their holy covenant; attacked Jerusalem a second time with a detachment of his returning army, - a second time massacring its inhabitants, - a second time defiling its temple; and, building a garrison-fortress in the city of David, in conjunction with Menelaus the high priest and other apostate Jews of his party, issued a proclamation abrogating the Jewish religion and ritual, and enjoining the heathen worship of Jupiter Olympius in its stead. 1.

Thus we come to the close of the first Part of this prophecy. And, on the whole , I think the evidence has been such as to show

come against him: therefore shall he be grieved, [137] and return [138] and have indignation [139] against the holy covenant: so shall he do: [140] he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.” [141]

1. See 1 Macc. i. 41-50.

The following chronological tabular view of the chief events of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, referred to in the prophecy, may be useful:-

that we can scarcely have been wrong in the historical application that we have founded on it. There are, no doubt, many obscurities of words and of construction,[1] more especially in regard of some of the pronouns personal; [2] with a view to the solution of which obscurities we have consulted the history supposed to be referred to, and affixed a meaning accordingly. In such particulars the parallelism exhibited between the prophecy and the history can have but little weight towards establishing the truth of our general explanation. But there is so much of the prophecy that seems in its grammatical sense clear, and in the particulars thus clearly predicted characteristic and distinctive,[3] and on these points, or rather this series of points, the agreement with it of the Ptolemaean and Seleucidean history is so striking, that I conceive we may rest in the persuasion of its having been certainly thus far fulfilled, so as explained, with full and well-grounded satisfaction.

[1] One very notable verbal example of these ambiguities is that of the Hebrew word hl;K; in verse 16: a word rendered in our English translation consumed; in other versions, we have seen, perfected: - a sense almost the reverse. Another example is connected with the word tB" of verse 6: which the English translation explains as her father; Wintle and Boothreyd as her son; the Septuagint as the young woman; Aben Ezra as her mother. But here the different meanings arise out of differences of reading or punctuation. Other exemplifications have been given as we have gone on.

[2]. Viz. verse 6. “Neither shall he stand;” a pronoun grammatically applicable either to the King of the North or King of the South: - verse 11, “And he shall set forth a great multitude, and the multitude shall be given into his hand;” where the sense requires different persons to be understood by the he and his: but who the one, and who the other, is only to be inferred from the history: [The word “For,” beginning verse 13 in our translation, does not help to determine the ambiguity: its original Hebrew being simply usually rendered and.] verse 24, “Scatter among them,” or Scatter what is belonging to them;” where the pronoun them may be referred either to Syrians or Egyptians: - verse 25, “But he shall stand.”

[3]. Such is the series of particulars following; - the reconcilement of the primary difference between the two kingdoms by the marriage of the King of the South’s daughter to the King of the North; - the failure of this expedient from the circumstance of her abandonment in the new country of her adoption, and apparently her murder; the avenging of her wrongs by her brother, the next King of the South, his triumphant invasion of the Northern King’s territory, and deportation into Egypt not only of other spoil, but of sundry gods also of the people of the land; - the attempts of the next King of the North, and the next but one, at the recovery of their territory

[1] Dan. x. 1.

[2] Dan. x. 4.

[3] Ezra i. 1, 5; ii. 2.

[4] Ibid. iii. 1-6.

[5] Ezra iii. 8, &c.

[6] Ibid. iv. 1, 11, 24.

[7] The vision was seen on the 24th day of the Jewish first month, or month Abib: which was part March , part April. Dan. x. 4.

[8] Daniel was carried away from Jerusalem, on the first deportation of captive Jews, in the third year of Jehoiakim and first of Nebuchadnezzar. At this time he must have been nearly grown up; as we find him in Nebuchadnezzar’s second year expounding to him his dream of the great quadripartite image: after which there had now elapsed the seventy years and more of the captivity. Dan. 1. 1, 6; ii. 1.

[9] Dan. ix. 3, &c.

[10] Dan. ix. 25. Compare Hagg. i. 9.

[11] Dan. x. 12; “From the first day that thou didst set thy heart to understand,” &c.

[12] Both in the symbol of the quadripartite image, and that of the four wild beasts, Dan. ii., vii.

[13] Dan. viii. 5, 6, 21.

[14] Dan. ix. 25, 26.

[15] Ibid. verse 27.

[16] So the Margin. - This is allowed to be a perfectly admissible translation; as much so as that of the English Version, “on the desolate.” So Professor Lee in his Introduction to Eusebius’ Theophania, p. cxiv.

[17] Ezek. xl., &c. Whether the temple figuratively, or in the sense of a literal building, is not here a question.

[18] Dan. x. 12, 14; “From the first day that thou didst set thy heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.” - “I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days.”

[19] “Then I lifted up my eyes, and looked; and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz. His body also was like the beryl; and his face as the appearance of lightning; and his eyes as lamps of fire; and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass; and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.” Dan. x. 5, &.

[20] Compare on the high priest’s dress, Exod. xxxix. 5, 22.

[21] See Apoc. i. 13-15, and x. 1, 6.

[22] Dan. xii. 5-7. - I have drawn out this evidence because neither his appearance in splendour, nor his likeness to man, would of itself distinguish him from a created angel; created angels having sometimes so appeared to men: but only other more peculiar characteristics; whether as regarded the acts, words, or functions ascribed to him. See, for example, In Matt. xxviii. 3, 4, the description of the created angels that attended Christ’s resurrection. - Similarly in Apoc. xiv. 14 he that appeared on the white cloud, like to a son of man, could only be judged from the adjuncts of the vision of Christ. See pp. 8 supra. And so too in Apoc. i. 13.

[23] Compare Dan. ix. 26: a prophecy of Messiah given Daniel about four or five years before; it being dated in the first year of Darius the Mede, or two years before the first of Cyrus.

[24] Compare Apoc. x. 1, and my remarks on it Vol. ii. pp. 42, 43, 61, 87.

[25] Gen. ii. 14. - Wintle places the scene near its confluence with the Euphrates.

[26] Dan. viii. 16, ix. 21. - It is observable that in the former of these two passages, it was “a man’s voice from between the banks of the Ulai” that directed Gabriel to make Daniel understand the vision then given: just as here the Covenant-Angel stood on the waters of the Hiddekel; while the Angelic attendants were on its banks.

[27] Dan. x. 13; “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me 21 days; &c.”

[28] Dan. x. 20; “And now will I return to fight with the Prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the Prince of Grecia shall come.”

[29] The Jew’s supposed angels to have their distinctive appointments over nations. See Dr. M`Caul’s Kimchi on Zachar. ii. 3. - So too Jerome on Isaiah xv.: “Angeli qui singulis præsunt gentibus.”

[30] “I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days.” Dan. x. 14.

[31] Dan. x. 1.

[32] In this Chapter of my Book I have referred continually to Wintle on Daniel for the Hebrew, as well as to Bishop Newton and Prideaux for the history. They both give copious authorities. - In revising for my 4th Edition I have also compared my explanations throughout with Venema’s; who down to verse 31, takes the same general historic view of the prophecy as Newton, Wintle, and myself.

[33] I purpose to subjoin the prophetic text in detached passages; and, beneath, the comment that illustrates them; making such critical remarks on each as may seem to me useful for readers unskilled like myself in Hebrew. I must trust to the courtesy of Hebrew scholars to excuse it, if of these Notes some appear to them to be needlessly particular, or relative to points clear in themselves.

[34] Wintle; “When he is grown strong through his wealth.”

[35] On the peculiar suitableness of this phrase to depict the preparations for Xerxes’ expedition into Greece, see my Vol. iii. p. 445, Note 2.

[36] The sense of against, here given, attaches to the word in 1 Chron. xx. 5; “There was war with the Philistines.” [Editor: We must advert to Albert Barnes’ description of Xerxes’ riches and influence: He goes on to say in part; “He was enabled to do this by his great wealth — collecting and equipping, probably, the largest army that was ever assembled. The expedition of Xerxes against Greece is too well known to need to be detailed here, and no one can fail to see the applicability of this description to that invasion. Four years were spent in preparing for this expedition, and the forces that constituted the army were gathered out of all parts of the vast empire of Xerxes, embracing, as was then supposed, all the habitable world except Greece.”

[37] öˆw;y; <h3120>. Javan; the usual word for Greece. So in Dan. x. 20, just before: also in Dan. viii. 21, observed on in my Vol. iii. p. 426.

[38] rm"[; .The same Hebrew verb occurs in the verses 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, (twice,) 17, 20, 21, 25, 31; also xii. 1, 13. In verse 8 it is rendered continue, in verse 15 withstand; in the other cases stand up, as here, or simply stand. Gesenius says it is a word used particularly of a new prince; instancing Dan. viii. 23, as well as xi. 2, 3, 20. - Besides which cases it occurs in verses 11, 13, 14 in the Hiphil form; in verse 14 in the sense of to make to stand, establish, confirm; in verses 11, 13 in that of to stir up, to excite.

[39] Or, when he shall have stood up.[Editor: Heb.: {5975} `rm"[;]]

[40] [Editor: We are unable to read the Hebrew print used here; exclusively, or to exclusion of; very much as in Ezod. xii. 37, or Ezra ii. 65: - the word “those” meaning his posterity; the Hebrew rendered posterity, being used as a concrete [a specific].

[41] Dan. viii. 8; “When he (the Grecian he-goat) was strong the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones,” &c. See my Vol. iii. p. 428. - I observe that Dr. Arnold heads the chapter 36 of his Roman History, a chapter relative to the kingdoms of Alexander’s successors, with this verse of Dan. viii. 8.

[42] So verse 8; “He [viz. the King of the South] shall carry captive their gods into Egypt;” compared with the notice of the same event in the verse following, “The King of the South shall come into his own kingdom, and return to his own land.”

[43] The Thrace-Macedonian kingdom of Lysimachus was early overthrown by the first Seleucus, B.C. 281, about twenty years after the battle of Ipsus: and again the Græco-Macedonian kingdom of Cassander was finally overthrown by the Romans, as the result of the battle of Pydna, B.C. 168: whereas Syria was not made a Roman province till B.C. 65; Egypt not till B.C. 30.

[44] So Jerome, ap. Venema, p. 2.

[45] The following comprehensive tabular view may be useful of the dates of the successive kings of the Ptolemaic and Seleucidean dynasties, through the century and a half comprehended (as I suppose) in this prophetic sketch. I premise that the date of Alexander the Great’s death in B.C. 323; of that of his half-brother Philip Aridæus, 316; of that of his son Alexander Ægus, by Roxana, 309; a short time after which (the date is generally given 306) the chief Macedonian governors and princes assumed the royal title; - Ptolemy, however, a little before the rest.

[46] For it was not completed at once, but made at intervals: the Pentateuch first, under Philadelphia; the prophets, it has been thought by learned men, not till perhaps 100 years, or more, after. Hence we can only partially argue from it against the objection first made by Porphyry, and which has been revived of late years by sundry rationalistic writers; as if this prophecy of Daniel was written after the times of the Antiochi and Ptolemies to whose history we refer it.

Nor indeed is it needed. As regards Daniel’s earlier nine Chapters, there is, 1st, the internal evidence of the language used; in part Chaldee, as by one in Babylonia, and during Babylon’s supremacy; viz. from ch. ii. 4 to the end of ch. vii.; in part Hebrew, of a character most like to that of Daniel’s contemporaries, Ezekiel and Ezra: 2ndly, the evidence of prophecies, the fulfillment of which is demonstrable, reaching far beyond the times of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees; alike those in Dan. ii., vii., which prefigure the history of the Roman empire down to its resolution into ten kingdoms, and subsequent final supersession by the empire of Messiah; and that in Dan. ix. respecting Messiah’s manifestation in humiliation and death, after the 70 hebdomads, or 490 years, from some Persian king’s decree for the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

Then, as regards chaps. x., xi., xii., now specially our subject, we have the evidence, 1st, of the Hebrew language used, still of the same character as before; not that of Greek, as in the post-Malachine Apocryphal books: - 2ndly, that of the all but impossibility of these three chapters being fraudulently inserted into Daniel’s canonical books in the Maccabean, or post-Maccabean times: - 3rdly, that of the absurdity of the idea of a Jew’s forging them, with a view to its appearing a prophecy of Maccabean times; and yet, by its mention of the 1335 days’ period (as well as the 1260 days’), and of Daniel’s standing at the end of them in his lot, and, together with the other just, shining as the sun and stars for ever and ever, furnishing its own refutation, if so applied. All this besides Christ’s own testimony to the genuineness of the whole book of Daniel, as then in the Jewish Old Testament Canon.

[47]   Wintle translates: “The King of the South, that is, one of his (Alexander’s) princes, shall be strong;” observing that two manuscripts omit the conjunction and, before one of; and that, if retained, it must be taken as only explanatory. Then in the next clause he translates, “Yet shall another exceed him in strength:” instead of “he shall.” - On the other hand the Septuagint translates, “And one of his princes shall be strong above him;” omitting the second connecting and. And Newton thinks that there is manifestly either this redundance, by error of transcription, in the Hebrew text; or an omission of “the king of the north,” after this second and.

But no alteration of the received text seems to me necessary. It only needs that we understand “shall be strong,” from the clause preceding, after “one of his (Alexander’s princes.” And so indeed, I now observe, Venema, p. 3, explains it. It is to be remembered that Ptolemy became King of the South ere Seleucus assumed the royal title; and consequently while he was yet professedly only a governor, governor of Babylon. - We have in this clause an early example of Daniel’s use of pronouns, in reference not to the next immediately preceding noun, but the one before.

[Editor: Albert Barnes writing on this passage; “And one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him The meaning of this passage is, that there would be “one of his princes,” that is, of the princes of Alexander, who would be more mighty than the one who obtained Egypt, or the south, and that he would have a more extended dominion. The reference is, doubtless, to Seleucus Nicator, or the conqueror. In the division of the empire he obtained Syria, Babylonia, Media, Susiana, Armenia, a part of Cappadocia, and Cilicia, and his kingdom stretched from the Hellespont to the Indus. See the notes at <270808> Daniel 8:8. Compare Arrian, “Exp. Alex.” vii. 22; Appian, p. 618; and Lengerke, “in loc.” The proper translation of this passage probably would be, “And the king of the south shall be mighty. But from among his princes (the princes of Alexander) also there shall be (one) who shall be mightier than he, and he shall reign,

[48] Mark, the he and him, in the sense of, “the latter above the former.”

[49] Sept. meta ta eth autou’ - i.e. after Selecus’ death. [Editor; Barnes writes on this passage; “And in the end of years In the future periods of the history of these two kingdoms. The event here referred to did not occur during the lives of these two kings, Seleucus Nicator and Ptolemy Soter, but in the reign of their successors, Ptolemy Philadelphus and Antiochus Theos or Theus. The phrase “the end of years” would well denote such a future period. The Vulgate renders it, “after the end of years;” that is, after many years have elapsed. The meaning is “after a certain course or lapse of years.” The word “end” in Daniel xqe <h7093> often seems to refer to a time when a predicted event would be fulfilled, whether near or remote; whether it would be really the “end” or “termination” of an empire or of the world, or whether it would be succeeded by other events. It would be the end of that matter — of the thing predicted; and in this sense the word seems to be employed here. Compare <270817> Daniel 8:17; 11:13 (margin), and <271213> Daniel 12:13. “They shall join themselves together.” Margin, “associate.” The meaning is, that there would be an alliance formed, or an attempt made, to unite the two kingdoms more closely by a marriage between different persons of the royal families. The word “they” refers to the two sovereigns of Egypt and Syria — the south and the north.”]

[50] The Hebrew word (the Hithpael form of rb"j; to join) is used also 2 Chron. xx. 35, 37; “Jehoshaphat did join himself with Ahaziah:” i.e. in the partnership and alliance of a joint undertaking.

[51] “Propriè intrasse in domum ejus et thalamum, tanquam sponsa ad sponsum. Verbum enim saepe introeundi potestatem exserit, oppositè ad foras seu exire; et de intimo sumitur ae familiarissimo commercio (e. g. Judg. xii. 9, Cant. i. 4) quale est inter conjuges.” Venema, p. 14.

[52] Hebr. rv;yme. Literally, “To do or make rectitudes:” so Venema: Lee, to make things straight; Gesenius, to make peace. The latter compares verse 17, where the root rv;yme occurs; and where the Septuagint renders it (more correctly probably then our English translation) euqeia panta met´ autou poihsei: very much as Prof. Lee here. The Greek rendering here is, tou poihsai suvqheav met autou.

Let me suggest the passage 2 Kings x. 15, “Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thy heart,” where the same Hebrew word bb;le occurs; in proof that it is used to express friendliness, as well as moral rectitude. So Aben Ezra explains the present passage, “to make peace between them;” as also the Rabbi Saadiah.

[53] The same Hebrew word occurs in Dan. x. 8; “I retained no strength.”

[54] ["wOrz] braciwn, is a word frequent in the Old Testament, both in the singular and plural, to signify, power, whether of an individual, or sometimes of a military head. So ["wOrz,] Job xxii. 8, “a man of arm, or strength;” and Gen. xlix. 24, “The arms (i.e. power) of his hands were made strong by the God of Jacob.” - In Isa. li. 9, and lxii. 8, the double phrase “strength of the arm” (iscuv bracionov, Sept.) is used conjointly, as here. - In subsequent verses of this chapter it is used with verbs thus; (I quote from the Septuagint to avoid the ambiguity of the word arm in English: - ) xi. 15; Kai oi bracionev tou basilewv tou notou ou sthiontai (so the Alexandrine Sept., the Vatican copy omits the ou; ) xi. 22, bpaciovev tou katakluzontov kataklusqhsontai. - Compare Ezek. xxx. 25; Kai eniscuow touv bracioniv basilewv Babulwnov, oi de braciniv Faraw pesountai. - Wintle makes this word the nominative; “The arm shall not retain strength.”

[55] The Septuagint translates, Kai ou sthetai to sperma autou; reading, with the omission of (the Hebrew ‘and’) and a different punctuation from that of the text of our translators, ["roze, his seed, or children: which I conceive to be the better reading; since otherwise in the phrase “Neither shall he stand, nor his arm,” or power, the last clause is tautologous. So too Wintle. _Boothroyd translates, “Neither shall she stand, nor her seed.” But does the gender admit of this? Venema reads and translates as our English version.

[Editor: Barnes reads: -

But she shall not retain the power of the arm The word “retain” here is the same as in <271008> Daniel 10:8, “I retained no strength.” The word “arm” is a word of frequent use in the Old Testament, both in the singular and plural, to denote “strength, power,” whether of an individual or an army. So <182208> Job 22:8, “A man of arm,” that is, “strength;” <014924>Genesis 49:24, “The arms (power) of his hands were made strong by the God of Jacob.” Compare <235109> Isaiah 51:9; 62:8. It is frequently used in this chapter in the sense of “strength,” or “power.” See <271115> Daniel 11:15, 22, 31. This alliance was formed with the hope that the succession might be in her. She was, however, as stated above, with her children, put to death. While queen of Syria, she, of course, had power, and had the prospect of succeeding to the supreme authority. Neither shall he stand The king of the south; to wit, Egypt. That is, he would not prosper in his ambitious purpose of bringing Syria, by this marriage alliance, under his control. Nor his arm What he regarded as his strength, and in which he placed reliance, as one does on his arm in accomplishing any design. The word “arm” here is used in the sense of “help,” or “alliance;” that is, that on which he depended for the stability of his empire.]

[56] Bishop Newton and Wintle translate, “he whom she brought forth;” therein as Wintle says, “following the marginal reading and the versions:” and so Venema (p. 20)q. v. “Her son.” - The Sept. omits the Mappik; translating h neaniv, the  young woman. Aben Ezra follows a still somewhat different reading; which signifies her mother.

[Editor - Barnes writes: “And they that brought her That is, those who conducted her to Daphne; or these who came with her into Syria, and who were her attendants and friends. Of course they would be surrendered or delivered up when she was put to death.”]

[57] Venema, 22, translates this, “munimentum ejus, firmiter eam tenens, in temporibus:” explaining it of a strong fortress at Daphne where Berenice took refuge, and which she was by treachery induced to surrender

[Editor: Barnes writes: And he that begat her Margin, “or, whom she brought forth.” The margin expresses the sense more correctly. The Latin Vulgate is, “adolescentes ejus.” The Greek, hJ <3588> neaniv <3494> . So the Syriac. The Hebrew Hd;l]wOhæw] will admit of this construction. The article in the word has the force of a relative, and is connected with the suffix, giving it a relative signification. See Ewald, as quoted by Lengerke, “in loc.” According to the present pointing, indeed, the literal meaning would be, “and he who begat her;” but this pointing is not authoritative. Dathe, Bertholdt, Dereser, DeWette, and Rosenmuller suppose that the reading should be hD;l]yæ <h3207> . Then the sense would be, “her child,” or “her offspring.” Lengerke and Ewald, however, suppose that this idea is implied in the present reading of the text, and that no change is necessary. The obvious meaning is, that she and her child, or her offspring, would be thus surrendered. The matter of fact was, that her little son was slain with her. See Prideaux’s “Connexions,” iii. 120.]

[58] Wintle, “at the times.”

[59] Aben Ezra explains this to mean astrologers; an explanation curious and worth observing; if the phrase may bear that sense, in the absence of a word denoting knowledge. In Esther 1. 13 and 1 Chron. xii. 32, they who understand times, hn;yBi [d"y; `t[e, is a periphrases for astrologers: compare Deut. xviii. 10, 14, “one that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter:”) “times” meaning in some places men’s destinies. So Psalm xxxi. 15, “My times are in thy hand: “also 1 Chron. xxix. 30, Job xxiv. 1. - Else he that strengthened her must be taken (one for many) to mean the party that supported Berenice against Laodice, at the time of her being in Syria, including especially her husband. So Wintle.

[Editor: Barnes comments: “And he that stregnthened her in these times It is not known who is here referred to. Doubtless, on such an occasion, she would have some one who would be a confidential counselor or adviser, and, whoever that was, he would be likely to be cut off with her.

[60] Historically applied this seems a remarkable and distinctive phrase. Compare Isa. xi. 1; “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.” Her roots means her parentage or ancestry: so a person is indicated who should be of a common stock with her; i.e. a brother, if taken most strictly. Thus Saadiah makes the person meant to be the brother of the king’s daughter before spoken of. - Venema renders the clause; “Stabit ex surculo radicum ejus strips ejus obumbrans:” the Vulgate: “Stabit de germine radicum ejus plantatio:” the Cod. Chris. mentioned by Wintle Futon ek thv pezhv autou as if reading rx, ne vr, v,, with a slight change in the Hebrew.

[Barnes comments on Dan. 11:7. But out of a branch of her roots Compare the notes at <231101> Isaiah 11:1. The meaning is, that as a branch or shoot springs up from a tree that is decayed and fallen, so there would spring up some one of her family who would come to avenge her. That is, a person is indicated who would be of a common stock with her; or, in other words, if taken strictly, a brother. The phrase “branch of her roots” is somewhat peculiar. The words “her roots” must refer to her family; that from which she sprang. We speak thus of the root or “stem” of a family or house; and the meaning here is, not that one of her “descendants,” or one that should “spring from her,” would thus come, but a branch of the same family; a branch springing from the same root or stem. The fact in the case — a fact to which there is undoubted reference here — is, that her revenge was undertaken by Ptolemy Euergetes, her brother. As soon as he heard of the calamities that had come upon her, he hastened with a great force out of Egypt to defend and rescue her. But it was in vain. She and her son were cut off before he could arrive for her help, but, in connection with an army which had come from Asia Minor for the same purpose, he undertook to avenge her death. He made himself master not only of Syria and Cilicia, but passed over the Euphrates, and brought all under subjection to him as far as the river Tigris. Having done this, he marched back to Egypt, taking with him vast treasures. See Prideaux, “Con.” iii. 120, 121.]

[61] ˆKe <h 3651>without the preposition, for `rm"[; öKe in his place, or stead. So Gesenius. With ˆKee a place, is used Gen. xl. 13, “In three days Pharaoh shall restore thee to thy place;” and again Gen. xli. 13, “to my office.” - Wintle renders it “on its base.”

[Barnes writes: “In his estate Margin, “place,” or “office.” The word ˆKe <h3651> means, properly, stand, station, place; then base, pedestal. Compare <271120> Daniel 11:20, 21, 38. See also <014013> Genesis 40:13: “Within three days shall Pharaoh restore thee to thy p1ace.” And again, <014113> Genesis 41:13, “to my office.” Here it means, in his place or stead. That is, he would take the place which his father would naturally occupy — the place of protector, or defender, or avenger. Ptolemy Philadelphus, her father, in fact died before she was put 772 to death; and his death was the cause of the calamities that came upon her, for as long as he lived his power would be dreaded. But when he was dead, Ptolemy Euergetes stood up in his place as her defender and avenger.”]

[62]  lyij" usually to. So the Sept. hxei prov thn dunamin. The sense of with is however adopted by Wintle. - If this be not warranted, then the meaning may be, “shall come to the power,” i.e. to the power of the kingdom; for lyij" means power, as well as a host or army. - And so, I now see, Venema takes it: “Veniet ad potentiam;” or “imperium.” pp. 33-36.

[63] lyij": a word which occurs also in verse 10, “stirred up to his fortress;” and is the same that by its use in verse 38 in the plural has given rise to Mede’s famous criticism on the Mahuzzim. - Venema, p. 37, thinks that it may be here taken collectively of all the defenses of the Northern kingdom, including the tutelar [or guardian] gods.”

[64] µyhila èysin] The Septuagint has it, meta twn cwneutwn autwn with their molten images: meaning very different from our English rendering, princes, but which attaches also to the Hebres word. ès,n, to pour out: and it thus applies alike to images melted in fusion, (as the cognate words in Isa. xli. 29,) and to princes poured upon with the anointing oil, as in Josh. xiii. 21, Psalm lxxxiii. 12, &c.

Probaly the Septuagint rendering , molten images, is the correct: as it so well carries on the idea of their gods in the clause preceding; and was also so striking a point in the historical fulfillment. And so, I see, Gensenius ad verb. explains it, as well as Wintle. Venema thinks either rendering good, and suitable to the history. pp. 47, 48.

[65] hD;m]j, yliK] ‰s,K, bh;z;, vessels of their desire: -a phrase used also of the sacred Jewish vessels carried off to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10. Compare my remarks on somewhat similar phrases in verses 15, 37, infrà

[66] This verse seems recapitulatory. - It is to be observed that there is no his prefixed to kingdom in the Hebrew. So that the natural translation would be; “And he (viz. the King of the North) shall enter into the kingdom of the King of the South, and return to his own land;” i.e. without effecting anything. Compare Isa. xxxvii. 34. And so, I see, Venema translates and expounds it, pp. 51-55; with an extract from Justin in illustration: - “Lætus malis suis . . . Seleucus, veluti par viribus, bellum Ptolemæo infert: sed quasi ad ludibrium tautùm fortunæ natus esset, nec propter aliud regni opes recepisset quàm ut amitterest victus praelio . . trepidus Antiochiam confugit.”

[67] That is the sons of the King of the North, the last mentioned, according to the explanation above given of the verse preceding. The King of the North, spoken of in the next verse as the southern King’s antagonist, was apparently one of these two sons. So Aben Ezra and Saadiah.

We should observe that wherever, as here, there is the pronouminal suffix, there is no distinction in Hebrew between the plural and the dual. So that we cannot argue for a duality of sons as here expressly defined.

[68] The Hebrew is hr;G; , the same verb that occurs again, and in the same Hithpahel form, near the end of this verse, and also in verse 25; and quite a different one from that in verse 2. Its root is dr"G; : is a verb not used in Kal; but which in Piel signifies to stir up contention, as Prov. xv. 18, “A wrathful man, stirreth up strife:” hr;G; and in its Hithpahel form (as here) is used, 1st, says, Gesenius, in the sense to be excited, as to anger, 2nd, to contend, to engage in war. So Deut. ii. 5, 19, “Meddle [hr;G;]not with them in war;” also Jer. l. 24.

[69] The change from plural to singular is as marked in the Hebrew as the English. - The clause is literally, “And he shall come, coming.”

[70] The Hebrew verb hr;G; is the same that is used in verses 18 and 19 subsequently with ‰s"y; in the sense of to turn one’s face towards a place. It often means, when joined with another verb, to do a thing again. So Venema, p. 58, “Phrasis iterationem continent.” So here it may perhaps mean, that after his first acting out of his anger, and overflowing, he should be again excited to urge the war.

[71] Gesenius supplies “and march” even to his fortress; i.e. the fortress of the Southern King.

[72] “Usque ad munitissimum locum.” So Venema, p. 68; explaining the effect of the paragogic at the end of the word mahoc, as giving it the force of which the battle of Raphia was fought near it.

[73] Or, make to stand. So verse 13. See p. 60 - note 311.

[74] The he and his in the two successive clauses refer evidently to different persons.

[75] ac;n; ; a word used not unfrequently of taking away with violence. So 1 Sam. xvii. 34, Job xxvii. 21, xxxii. 22, &c. But in these examples the verb is in Kal; in the text in Piel: to which latter form of the verb however Gesenius also gives the sense, to take away; adducing Amos iv. 2, as an example of it. - Or the verb may be here taken as in the Niphal, passively.

[76] Wintle, “Wherefore though.”

[77] Margin, Hebr. at the end of times, even years.

[78] Venema, p. 85, renders the clause come to, instead of come with: “Veniendo veniet ad robur magnum et possessionem multam.” Such, he says, is the usual use of the verb in this Chapter.

[79] Marg. the children of robbers; used as sons of Belial, &c., for men of that character. - The word , öBe Åyrip rendered robbers], is often used of violent and lawless men. So Psalm xvii. 4, “The ways of the violent;” Ezek. xviii. 10, If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood;” Jer. vii. 11, “Is this house become a den of robbers in your eyes?” Again in Isa. xxxv. 9, of ravenous beasts. Lee expounds it here as violent lawless men, of (or belonging to ) thy people. The Sept. translates it oi uioi twn loimwn, tou laou sou. Compare 2 Chron. xii. 7 suvhcqnsan prov auton andrev loimoi uioi paranomoi also Mac. x. 61. - Venema, on the other hand, explains it in a sense less opprobrious of high-spirited revolters against the yoke of slavery: “impetuosi ad libertatem grassatores, sese superbiâ et temerariâ spe efferentes, jugumque excutientos.” p. 102.

[80] Lit. “To make to stand a vision;” the definite article not being in the original Hebrew. So the Sept. tou sthsai drasin. - So, for example, in case of a vision being pretended by false prophets among the revolters, in order to stir up the more violent to take up arms in favour of Antiochus, as an appointed deliverer, and to attack the castle of Jerusalem, then garrisoned by a strong Egyptian force; like as by Ahab’s false prophets, when urging the expedition against Ramoth Gilead. Compare too Isa. xxviii. 7, Jer. v. 31, xiv. 14, &c.

Such occurred to me as a not unlikely solution before consulting Venema. I find that he, not very dissimilarly, supposes a vision urged in order to this purpose: only not such a pretended vision as I have suggested; but the vision of Jewish restoration and final prosperity that is the burden of so much of the Old Testament prophecy. p. 103. He compares Isa. xxvi. 17, 18, speaking of Israel’s previous disappointed hopes on this head; “We have been with child, we have brought forth wind, &c.”

[81] Or fail: literally, totter, stumble.

[82] Or, city of munitions.

[83] bracionev

[84] Literally, the people of his choices. Marg.

[85] Or, “stand,” as before.

[86] “Against,” `hc;[; a word meaning more generally to; but also used in the sense of against, as Gen. iv. 8, “Cain rose against Abel;” Ezek. xiii. 8, 9, “Behold I am upon or against you:” &c. - Venema however prefers the usual meaning; and renders the clause, that whoever comes to him (the king of the North) will conform to his will. p. 114.

[87] ybix] År,a, ; i.e. literally, “in a land of the beauty, ornament, honour.” In Dan. viii. 9 the same word ybix] is used, perhaps of Judea,and with the definite article, “waxed great toward the pleasant land;” the word land, however, not being there expressed. So again Dan. xi. 41, 45, “the land of glory, the glorious  holy mount;” Jer. iii. 19, “goodly heritage, or heritage of beauty;” and in Ezek. xx. 6, 15, “the glory of all lands;” also 2 Sam. i. 19. - In Isa. xiii. 19, “the glory of kingdoms” is an appellative used of Babylon.

N. B. In Psalm cvi. 24, “They despised the pleasant land, hD;m]j,Jer. iii. 19, “Give thee a pleasant land,” hD;m]j, and Zech. viii. 14, “They laid the pleasant land hM;j"desolate,” the Hebrew phrase is different; being the glorious ybix]

[88] “It shall be consumed, or perfected, in or by, his hand. Here, 1st, as the verb is in the masculine form, we might naturally deem that it masculine also: in which case, we should suppose, it would not answer to the ybix] År,a, “the land,” which is feminine; but either to the word beauty, or the He, viz. the King of the North. But where the subject is in a state of construction with another noun, I am told that the predicate may agree in gender and number with the latter, not the former. So e.g. Gen. iv. 10, 1 Sam. ii. 4, Lev. xiii. 9. In the last of which cases the literal reading is thus: “When the plague (masc. noun) of leprosy is (fem, verb) in a man.” It is to be observed too that the Hebrew language is, as Gesenius says, sparing in the use of the feminine forms. Thus Isa. xxxiii. 9, literally; “The land (fem.) mourneth (masc.) and languisheth (fem.).” - 2. The Septuagint, agreeably with the Margin, gives the sense telesqhsetai, “shall be perfected,” or completed. And so Wintle and Bishop Newton. The verb is used Exod. xxxix. 32, 1 Kings vi. 38, of the completion of the tabernacle and temple. And here too it may refer to the temple, as the beauty of holiness; though without the [in the glorious ybix]<6643> holy vd,qo<6944> mountain rh"<2022>] “land of desire.

[89] Or, “to enter with strength his whole kingdom.” i.e. the whole kingdom of the King of the South. So Venema and Wintle prefer to construe the clause; meaning Egypt proper, the center and strength of Ptolemy’s kingdom. The verb awOB,, enter, is used thus transitively Ps. c. 4, Gen. xxiii. 10, 18: also 1 Sam. xii. 8, Amos v. 19.

Perhaps the passage may be thus rendered and understood. “And he (the King of the North) shall set his face to enter with strength all his kingdom; . . . and shall give him . . . in order to destroy it:” the it thus referring to the kingdom of the South.

[90] The Greek renders these two clauses, Kai euqeia panta met auntu poihsei and so the Vulgate, “Et recta faciet cum co;” reading `hc;[;. [Editor: In our Authorized Version, after checking all of Elliott’s comments where he thinks that different Hebrew words are used, I cannot agree. In every instance, that is, verse 7; and practice, viii. 24, the Hebrew `hc;[;, {6213} is used.] Elliott goes on to say: that Wintle and Bishop Newton approve that only one MS shows some differences. The whole clause will thus be literally rendered; “And he shall make rectitudes, or things straight, with him;” that is, as in verse 6, alliances, or an agreement; or, as Eben Ezra, peace µl"v;;, is as often to make, as to do. It is rendered deal, in verse 7; practice, viii. 24

[Editor: Barnes writes: “The Jews might hope at least that if Egypt were subjected to the Syrian scepter, their own country, lying between the two, would be at peace, and that they would no more be harassed by its being made the seat of wars — the battlefield of two great contending powers. It was not without reason, therefore, that Antiochus anticipated that in his invasion of Egypt he would be accompanied and assisted by not a few of the Hebrew people. As this is the natural and obvious meaning of the passage, and accords entirely with the sense of the Hebrew word, it is unnecessary to attempt to prove that the marginal reading is not correct. “Thus shall he do.” That is, in the manner which is immediately specified. He shall adopt the policy there stated — by giving his daughter in marriage with an Egyptian prince — to accomplish the ends which he has in view. The reference here is to another stroke of policy, made necessary by his new wars with the Romans, and by the diversion of his forces, in consequence, in a new direction. The “natural” step after the defeat of the Egyptian armies in Palestine, would have been to carry his conquests at once into Egypt, and this he appears to.783 have contemplated. But, in the meantime, he became engaged in wars in another quarter — with the Romans; and, as Ptolemy in such circumstances would be likely to unite with the Romans against Antiochus, in order to bind the Egyptians to himself, and to neutralize them in these wars, this alliance was proposed and formed by which he connected his own family with the royal family in Egypt by marriage. And he shall give him Give to Ptolemy. Antiochus would seek to form a matrimonial alliance that would, for the time at least, secure the neutrality or the friendship of the Egyptians.”]

[91] Some one so call kat exochn, for rank or beauty. So Houbigant. History explains it of the northern king’s own daughter.

[92] Lit. “to corrupt or destroy her, or it:” the verb tj"v; being used (like the Greek fqeirw ) both of corrupting, as Gen. vi. 12, “All flesh corrupted its way:” and of destroying, (a yet more common meaning,) as Dan. viii. 24, “He shall destroy the mighty ones,” Isa. xiv. 20, 2 Sam. i. 14 &c. - Perhaps the rendering here should be “to destroy it;” the feminine noun kingdom, mentioned before, being understood; not her. For the historical sense well agrees thereto; but very ill to the rendering of “to corrupt her.” Besides which, is there any example to justify the sense being attached to this word of getting her treacherously to act for him (viz. her father) in her new marriage alliance; so as Wintle, Newton, &c., would have it?

So, I now see, Venema takes the clause; “ad corrumpendum regnum.” -p. 129

[Barnes writes: “Corrupting her Margin, as in Hebrew, “to corrupt.” There has been some doubt, however, in regard to the word “her,” in this place, whether it refers.784 to Cleopatra or to the kingdom of Egypt. Rosenmuller, Prideaux, J.D. Michaelis, Bertholdt, Dereser, and others, refer it to Cleopatra, and suppose that it means that Antiochus had instilled into her mind evil principles, in order that she might betray her husband, and that thus, by the aid of her arts, he might obtain possession of Egypt. On the other hand, Lengerke, Maurer, DeWette, Havernick, Elliott (“Apocalypse,” iv. 13), and others, suppose that the reference is to Egypt, and that the meaning is, that Antiochus was disposed to enter into this alliance with a view of influencing the Egyptian government not to unite with the Romans and oppose him; that is, that it was on his part an artful device to turn away the Egyptian government from its true interest, and to accomplish his own purposes. The latter agrees best with the connection, though the Hebrew will admit of either construction. As a matter of fact, “both” these objects seem to have been aimed at — for it was equally true that in this way he sought to turn away the Egyptian government and kingdom from its true interests, and that in making use of his daughter to carry out this project, it was expected that she would employ artifice to influence her future husband. This arrangement was the more necessary, as, in consequence of the fame which the Romans had acquired in overcoming Hannibal, the Egyptians had applied to them for protection and aid in their wars with Antiochus, and offered them, as a consideration, the guardianship of young Ptolemy. This offer the Romans accepted with joy, and sent M. AEmilius Lepidus to Alexandria as guardian of the young king of Egypt. — Polybius, xv. 20; Appian, “Syriac.” i. 1; Livy, xxxi. 14; xxx. 19; Justin, xxx. 2, 3. xxxi. 1. The whole was, on the part of Antiochus, a stroke of policy; and it could not be accomplished without that which has been found necessary in political devices — the employment of bribery or corruption. It accords well with the character of Antiochus to suppose that he would not hesitate to instill into the mind of his daughter all his own views of policy.”]

[93] “On his side,” or “for him,” is supplied from the clause following. It is not expressed in the original.

[However Barnes writes:

But she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him That is, she would become attached to her husband, and would favor his interests rather than the crafty designs of her father. On this passage, Jerome remarks:

“Antiochus, desirous not only of possessing Syria, Cilicia, and Lycia, and the other provinces which belonged to Ptolemy, but of extending also his own scepter over Egypt itself, betrothed his own daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy, and promised to give as a dowry Coelo-Syria and Judea. But he could not obtain possession of.785 Egypt in this way, because Ptolemy Epiphanes, perceiving his design, acted with caution, and because Cleopatra favored the purposes of her husband rather than those of her father.”

So Jahn (“Hebrews Commonwealth,” p. 246) says:

“He indulged the hope that when his daughter became queen of Egypt, she would bring the kingdom under his influence; but she proved more faithful to her husband than to her father.”]

[94] After this he turn µWc bWv his face µynip; unto the isles yai. Lit. to islands, or maritime coasts. The word is the same as that used for the isles of Chittim, and the isles of Elishah, or Greece, in Ezek. xxvii. 6, 7, as ‘Bashan.’

i.e. many islands: both substantive and adjective being masculine.

[Editor: Barnes writes: “After this shall he turn his face unto the isles The islands of the Mediterranean, particularly those in the neighborhood of and constituting a part of Greece. This he did in his wars with the Romans, for the Roman power then comprehended that part of the world, and it was the design of Antiochus, as already remarked, to extend the limits of his empire as far as it was at the time of Seleucus Nicator. This occurred after the defeat of Scopas, for, having given his daughter in marriage to Ptolemy, he supposed that he had guarded himself from any interference in his wars with the Romans from the Egyptians, and sent two of his sons with an army by land to Sardis, and he himself with a great fleet sailed at the same time into the AEgean Sea, and took many of the islands in that sea. The war which was waged between Antiochus and the Romans lasted for three years, and ended in the defeat of Antiochus, and in the subjugation of the Syrian kingdom to the Roman power, though, when it became a Roman province, it continued to be governed by its own kings. In this war, Hannibal, general of the Carthaginians, was desirous that Antiochus should unite with him in carrying his arms into Italy, with the hope that together they would be able to overcome the Romans; but Antiochus preferred to confine his operations to Asia Minor and the maritime parts of Greece; and the consequence of this, and of the luxury and indolence into which he sank, was his ultimate overthrow. Compare Jahn’s “Hebrews Commonwealth,” pp. 246-249.”]

[95] i.e. many islands: both substantive and adjective being masculine.

[Editor: Barnes writes: “After this shall he turn his face unto the isles The islands of the Mediterranean, particularly those in the neighborhood of and constituting a part of Greece. This he did in his wars with the Romans, for the Roman power then comprehended that part of the world, and it was the design of Antiochus, as already remarked, to extend the limits of his empire as far as it was at the time of Seleucus Nicator. This occurred after the defeat of Scopas, for, having given his daughter in marriage to Ptolemy, he supposed that he had guarded himself from any interference in his wars with the Romans from the Egyptians, and sent two of his sons with an army by land to Sardis, and he himself with a great fleet sailed at the same time into the AEgean Sea, and took many of the islands in that sea. The war which was waged between Antiochus and the Romans lasted for three years, and ended in the defeat of Antiochus, and in the subjugation of the Syrian kingdom to the Roman power, though, when it became a Roman province, it continued to be governed by its own kings. In this war, Hannibal, general of the Carthaginians, was desirous that Antiochus should unite with him in carrying his arms into Italy, with the hope that together they would be able to overcome the Romans; but Antiochus preferred to confine his operations to Asia Minor and the maritime parts of Greece; and the consequence of this, and of the luxury and indolence into which he sank, was his ultimate overthrow. Compare Jahn’s “Hebrews Commonwealth,” pp. 246-249.”]

[96] öyxiq; a word used both of civil magistrates and military commanders: of the first, Micah iii. 9, “Princes or judges, that pervert equity:” of the second, Josh x. 24, “the captains of the men of war.” So too Judges xi. 6, &c.

[97] hP;r]j, “as to him:” i.e. as regards this general himself

[98] Rather, “Besides, he shall make.” &c. So Wintle. - He shall not only avert reproach from himself, but turn it on his assailant. So too Venema, p. 144; who compares Hos. xii. 14.

[99] Lit. fortresses.

[100] Literally on his base; i.e. on the base, or in the place, of the former kings. So in verse 7. See p. 34 note 327.

[101] Literally, one who makes an exactor to pass over the glory of his kingdom. The Hebrew word for exactor, cg"n;;, so reading the word with the Lexicographers, instead of  cg"n; [Editor: In all these instances the KJV uses the same Greek word - [cg"n;;, exactor ,] and its cognates, are used of money exactions. So Deut. xv. 2, 3; “Every creditor, that lendeth aught unto his neighbor, shall . . . not exact it of his neighbor, or of his brother: . . . of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again:” and 2 Kings xxiii. 35; Jehoiakim taxed the land “to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh: he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land.” In Zech. ix. 8, “And no oppressor shall pass through them any more,” the same word is used. - “The glory” may means simply the Northern king’s (once) glorious kingdom: or perhaps as Wintle explains it, the Jewish temple. See my Note p. 39, note 353, on verse 16.

Venema explains the clause otherwise thus. “There shall stand up an exactor against his offshoot: and shall make the glory of the kingdom, or glory of reigning, to pass over him.” And so, he says, Heliodorus murdered Seleucus, and usurped the crown. But on the point of translation the almost uniform judgment of expositors is against him. And historically we may object the omission in this case of all notice of Seleucus from the prophecy.

[102] Within a year. Wintle.

[103] ‰a". a contracted verbal, (root  to breathe,) which 1st signifies the breathing organ, i.e. the nose, or nostrils; and 2ndly, because the breaking of the nostrils often expresses anger, means anger also. In this sense the word is often used: e. g. Gen. xxvii. 45, of the anger of Esau against Jacob, which made him seek to kill him; Judges xiv. 19, of that of Samson against the Philistines, which issued in a murderous attack upon them; and 1 Sam. xx. 30, &c., of that of Saul against Jonathan, under the influences of which he cast a javelin at him to slay him. So that this phrase in the text may very well mean, that the king should neither be slain in any private angry brawl or quarrel, nor in public war. Hence Wintle’s recourse to the Coptic version for the different reading of qv,n , signifying arms, or weapons of war, seems quite unnecessary.e

Compare Venema; p. 168, who explains the word of the ebullition or exuberance of anger in a popular tumult, very much as I have suggested.

[104] öKe So verses 7, 20, before. And, as before, Venema prefers to render it, against his offshoot. His historical explanation, which refers to the same Heliodorus, a man of contemptible rank, standing up against Seleucus’ son, and usurping the kingdom, but being rejected by the people, is independent and seems admissible, if we construe the next clause, “And one shall come in,” of Antiochus Epiphanes.

[105] hz;B; one despised: the same word that is used in Isaiah’s memorable prophecy of Christ, liii. 3, “He is despised,” &c.; and the Niphil particip. of hz;B; - to esteem lightly , to despise. So 2 Sam. vi. 16, 2 Kings xix. 21, &c.

[106] i. e. “on whom they (the people) shall not confer the honor,” &c.

[107] hw;l]v",, in quietness. The word is used Prov. xvii. 1, “Better is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith;” as also Psalm cxxii. 7; and again Dan. viii. 25, “In peace (Gesen. in the midst of peace) he shall destroy many.” So too verse 24 infrà

[108] hQ;l"q]l"j}, Lubricitates, blanditiæ; Trommius. Thus the word has a double sense; being applied both to the slipperiness of a path, and the slipperiness or flattering and deceit of the tongue. In the former sense it occurs Psalm xxxv. 6, “Let their way be dark and slippery:” in the latter its originating verb, ql"j;, Prov. ii. 16, vii. 5, “A man that flattereth, or dissembleth, with her words:” and Prov. xix. 5, “A man that flattereth or dissembleth to his neighbor.” In this latter sense the verbal seems to be used both here and in the verses 32, 34, below. - “Arts of dissimulation.” Gesenius.

[109] The with is not in the Hebrew. Therefore rather, “The arms of the overflowing shall,” &c. So the Greek; kai bracionev tou katakluzontov kataklusqhsontai apo proswpou autou. The article is before flood in the Hebrew. Grotius, Newton, and Wintle, explain this of Heliodorus’ power, the usuper of the Syrian kingdom, which was broken before a general of Antiochus Epiphanes, and such Egyptian forces, as gathered to support Heliodorus: Venema, of Egypt’s power, as having previously under Euergetes overflowed into Syria. He suggests the Nile-flood on the symbol; and observes that the arms of the Nile was quite a common figurative expression. The overflowing of Syria’s power into Egypt here spoken of, he considers to be a general and in a manner anticipatory statement: because it was not till Epiphanes’ final expedition against Egypt that this could be said to be fulfilled. - The word ["wOrz] covenant, by itself, is of as general application and sense in Hebrew as in English; and therefore Michaelis’ rendering, rex fædevatus, quite sufficient to satisfy it: a rendering which Wintle approves. - The word dygin; translated prince, is also one of general meaning, and applied alike to chiefs royal, military, civil, and ecclesiastical; e.g. 1 Sam. ix. 16, x. 1, of Saul, the ruling prince over Israel; 1 Chron. xiii. 1, 2 Chron. xxxii. 21, of military leaders; 2 Chron. xxviii. 7, of a ruler over the palace; 1 Cnron. ix. 11, and 2 Chron. xxxi. 13, of the priest that was ruler over the house or temple of God. - Dan. ix. 25, 26, it is used alike of the Prince Messiah, and of the Roman Prince that was to come and desolate Jerusalem. [Editor: Many of our Christian friends misrepresent the 70 weeks prophecy by using the word ‘Prince’  -- referring him to some future general, whereas we bible-students realize that it refers to our Savior, Jesus Christ, the Messiah.]

Such being the whole requirement of the two Hebrew words, Wintle explains them historically of the then king of Egypt; on the rex fæderatus, confederated by league with Antiochus Epiphanes, soon after the latter’s establishment in the kingdom. In which application however of the clause, I think it would be better t refer rather to the previous treaty with the Egyptian king made by Epiphanes’ father Antiochus the Great: as history records no new treaty made with him by Epiphanes himself. This is the view that I adopt in my text.

On the other hand Bishop Newton and others explain the words, chief of the covenant of the Jewish High Priest Onias, against whom Antiochus Epiphanes practiced: and Venema (p. 208) of the supreme heavenly head of the Jewish covenant, viz. the Messiah; against whom Antiochus acted effectively in these his attacks on the Jewish religion, even as Sennacherib against God, when attacking Judah and Hezekiah. If holy had been added, as in verse 30, this view of the covenant meant would have been clear. But it is a word sometimes omitted; e.g. Ps. lxxiv. 20

[110] ‰f"v;, Or, as Prof. Lee, shall be swept along, or, away.

[111] from , out of the (league rb"j); and sometimes after or by reason of. Compare the Hebrew word in the important verse 31, and my Note on it p. 78 infrà

[Editor: Barnes writes; And after the league made with him A treaty of peace and concord. The great subject of contention between the kings of Syria and Egypt was the possession of Coelo-Syria and Palestine. This they often endeavored to settle by conquest as each of them claimed that in the original partition of the empire of Alexander this portion of the empire fell to himself; and often they endeavored to settle it by treaty. Consequently this region was constantly passing from one to the other, and was also the seat of frequent wars. The “league” here referred to seems to have been that respecting this country — file successive promises which had been made to the king of Egypt that Coelo-Syria and Palestine should be made over to him. These provinces had been secured to Ptolemy Lagus by the treaty made 301 B.C., and they had been again pledged by Antiochus the Great, in dowry, when his daughter Cleopatra should be made queen of Egypt. — Jahn, “Hebrews Commonwealth,” p. 260. Antiochus Epiphanes, however, was by no means disposed to confirm this grant, and hence, the wars in which he was involved with the Egyptians.]

[112] Lit. “And after the (i.e. their or his) being associated with him he shall practice deceit: “Sept. kai apo twn sunamixewn prov auton poihsei dolon. It is the Hithpael Syriac infinitive form (to join oneself), used as a noun, derived from the Hebrew - to be joined or confederated; a word so used Gen. xiv. 3.

[113] The Hebrew and is found here.

[114] Or, go up.

[115] hw;l]v", as in verse 21; where see Note 373, pg. 40. Wintle would prefer to construe this word with the last clause of the verse preceding; “shall become strong by quiet measures:” an idea with which (the in the Hebr.) of the next word well agrees.

[116] Pinguetudines provinciæ; - The word hn;ydim] is thus used figuratively in Isaac’s blessings on Jacob and Esau, Gen. xxvii. 28, 39; “God give thee of the fulness of the earth.” - hn;ydim], like the English province, is a word used of some smaller division of a country or kingdom. So in Ezra and Daniel (e.g. Dan. ii. 48, iii. 2, 3) of the provinces of the Persian empire very frequently. In one case Ezra. v. 8 Judea  is thus specified, “the province of Judea.” And, as there is no specification of any particular province of either the Syrian or the Egyptian kingdom, and Judea was in a Jewish mind the  province par excellence, I conceive that this is the one here intended; and not, as Wintle, the Delta of Egypt. This view best suits history, on Wentle’s own report of it: “When Antiochus went to examine the southern parts of his dominion (2 Macc. iv. 21) he sent Apollonius with his retinue into Egypt; but it does not appear that he made an excursion thither himself.”

And so, I now see, Venema explains it: observing, p. 229, that Epiphanes reduced Judea to the subject state very much of  a province.

[117] Among whom? Newton supposes among his own Syrian people; citing Polybius and 1 Mac. iii. 30 in proof of his munificence in gifts and public shows, on which the spoil and riches he acquired were spent: Wintle, that it refers to the large donations and bribes, from out of the plunder, with which he courted the Egyptians, which is also noticed in the 1st Maccabees, i. 16. - But may not the rz#B; rather mean belonging to them, viz, to his father’s fathers: that is, as stored up by them? So 1 Sam xiv. 16, “the watchman of Saul, shl ; signifies of or belonging to Saul. This is a common sense of l

And so precisely, I now find, Venema explains it, p. 234: “Possessio corum, sc patrum et majorum, sensu facillimo, qui tamen fugit interpretes; qui pronomen lwa[l ipsis vertunt, &c.”

[118] Or, devise his devices. The 25th verse should have begun, I conceive, with this clause.

[119] The Septuagint, for rx;b]mi, strong holds, seems to have read µyir"x]mi, Egypt: its translation being ep Aigupton logismouv logismonv. - Venema thinks that the arces here referred to were the sacras arces of certain temple-treasures which Antiochus Epiphanes attacked, specially those of Jerusalem and of Diana in the Elymais; the latter resulting in his death. Thus Venema makes this verse run on in a general sketch to the end of Epiphanes’ career; and then return to a description of his expeditions into Egypt, more in detail.

[120] {6256} `t[e"e ewv kairou. Sept. Compare this with the “at the time appointed” of verses 27 and 29: also with the notices of time in verses 13, 14, The word t[, time, will be observed on in a subsequent note on verse 40.

[121] Or, stir himself up for the war.

[122] iyb,, for, because

[123] As in verse 24. They shall devise devices, or plots. So Wintle.

[124] gB"t]p", costly food and delicacies from the royal table. Gesen. So Dan. i. 5, 8, 13, 15.

[125] Wintle observes: “Instead of {7665} rb"v; shall bruise or break him, one manuscript reads shall sell or betray him:” which last reading he adopts. And certainly, if the word bear this sense, (which seems however doubtful, for, according to the Lexicographers ryjim];; means hire, bribe, not sell,) it well suits the context.

[126] “Shall be overflowed.” So Vul. and Syr. passively, says Wintle; 26 MSS. dripping the y in År"qy.

[127] [r"me[r", Sept. eiv pongrian, Wintle, to act maliciously.

[128] That is, the policy shall not succeed, jl"x; a word so used in Isa. liii. 10, “The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper, in his hand;” and Isa. liv. 17, “No weapon formed against thee shall prosper.”

[129] Sept. oti ete perav eiv kairov. So Wintle; as also the authorized English translation.

[130] Or, and.

[131] tyriB] vd,qo, literally, covenant of holiness. The phrase is also used in verses 30, 32; and in all of the holy Jewish religion.

[132] Or prosper; or perhaps, do the thing his heart was bent on; i.e. the oppression of the holy covenant, or Jewish religion.

[133] See on verses 24, 27, p. 41, note 386, and p. 41 note 398, suprà.

[134] b, perhaps rather into. So Wintle. “He shall advance again into the south.”

[135] Or, as (at) the first time, or as (at) the latter time. - Wintle observes that the Hebrew may be rendered, “But the latter shall not be like the former:” and Grotius and Venema so translate it: not without reason. Compare Josh. xiv. 11 and 1 Sam. xxx. 24. Antiochus Epiphanes made indeed a primary demonstration against Egypt, and occupied the Province of Palestine, which more properly belonged to Egypt, before his grand campaign and success against it foretold in verses 25, 26. But it was not an expedition into Egypt; though many have so represented it, and hence reckoned three as the number of Antiochus Epiphanes’ anti-Egyptian expeditions. See Venema, pp. 273-276. - Some Hebrew noun signifying an expedition may be understood.

[136] yxi Kittiy; ships from or of Chittim. One manuscript, Wintle says, reads Kittiy dy yxi as in the famous parallel passage, Numb. xxiv. 24; of which, says Prof. Lee (Euseb. Theoph. p. cviii.) this is manifestly an echo. (See Bochart, Phaleg. iii. 5.)

In Gen. x. 4, Isa. xxiii. 1, and Ezek. xxvii. 6, the word yn"a} is spelt with one y, as here; in Jer. ii. 10 with two. - Gesenius says, “What particular part of the West it may mean is doubtful.” The writer of the 1st Book of Maccabees, i. 1, understands it of Greece; Vitringa, (on Isa. xxiii. 1,) distinctively of Italy. For “of the four sons of Javan he thinks Elisha means the Peloponnesians. Tharsis the Spaniards, Dedanim, or Rhodanum, the Gauls as distinct from the Celts, and Cethiim the people of Italy.” Wintle. So too Venema, p. 278. - Jerome says ad loc., “Siim quippe, et Chittim, quos nos trieres et Romanos interpretati sumus, Hebræi Italos violunt intelligi atque Romanos.” And so Aben, Ezra and Saadias Gaon.

[137] “Shall be grievously humbled.” So Wintle. Sept. tapeinwqhsetai. Venenia, p. 295, compares the tiqhpewmenov tg Yucg, said in 2 Macc. v. 11 of Antiochus Epiphanes on occasion of his attack on Jerusalem.

[138] Or, “shall again have:” a not unfrequent sense of this verb, where conjoined with another; as observed already Note 336 p. 35.

[139] µ["z;, “shall have indignation:” whence the verbal noun of the same radicals, used in verse 36 in the same sense of indignation, which will be there observed on.

[140] It might be, “And he shall prosper, and he shall return.”

[141] The existence of such forsakers of the holy covenant is an important characteristic of the time intended. On which point, as well as others, the history is well illustrated by 1 Macc. i. 52, &c., and Josephus. See Wintle, Newton, Venema, or the Universal History.