Daniel 11
THE KINGS OF THE NORTH AND THE KINGS OF THE SOUTH
(vs. 1-45)
In answer to prayer, Daniel obtains the consolation that other persons —
other orders of being — were actively engaged in the same cause
as
himself. (vs. 1-4)
1 “Also I in the first
year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to
confirm and to strengthen him.” The versions show signs of great
disturbance having happened here. The rendering of the Septuagint is,
“In the
first year of Cyrus the king, he told me to be strong and to
play the man.”
Theodotion’s rendering is yet briefer, “And I, in the first
year of Cyrus,
stood in strength and might.” The Peshitta rendering, “In the
first year of
Darius the Mede (he) arose to confirm and strengthen me.”
The Vulgate is
close to the Massoretic and the English versions, “I likewise,
from the first
year of Darius the Mede, was standing that he might be confirmed and
strengthened.” The Revised Version does not differ seriously from the
Authorized, “And as for me, in the first year of Darius the
Mede, I stood
up
to confirm and strengthen him.” The Septuagint must have read rma
(amar), “he said,” instead
of yna (anee), “I.” When we have the Septuagint
and
Theodotion supporting each other against the Massoretic text, the
evidence against the received text is strong. In this case both
these versions
have, as will be seen, not “Darius,” but “Cyrus.” The two names would
have in the old Egyptian Hebrew script, a striking resemblance to each
other; the fact that the last letter of both names is the same,
and also the
second letter, made the likeness considerable in any script; but
<ARAMAIC> the first letter of “Darius” is certainly
very like
<ARAMAIC> the first letter of”
Cyrus.” The vav would possibly
be
omitted, then the first two letters of either name would resemble
closely
the
first two letters of the other, and the final letters are the same. Mistake,
then, was easy. The first letter of ydm and dlm is
the same, and the words
would be liable to be read in accordance with that given to the
proper
name. Further, all the versions but the Vulgate make the speaker the
recipient of the aid. Theodotion may be taken as doubtful The difference is
slight, ydm[
becomes dk[, and wl becomes
yli. The Septuagint seems to
have read yM"["
instead of dm[. The first two
letters are thus the same, the
daleth may have been an
intrusion. Bevan and Behrmann would omit the
date as spurious, and hold it to have been introduced because the previous
four chapters begin each with a date. This reason, to have weight, must
assume the division into chapters to be of ancient date, more
ancient than
the
Septuagint Version. The fact that all the versions have it compels us to
admit a date here, but, as we have said above, it is to be reckoned
by the
year, not of Darius, but of Cyrus. (Also I) in the first year of
Cyrus the
king. The first year of
Cyrus was the year when he decided to set the Jews
free, and permit them to return to their own land; but the first year in
this
case was reckoned from his assumption of the throne of
reason to doubt whether the reference in the beginning of
ch. 10. was to
the Babylonian reign of Cyrus, or to his reign as King of
the Persians. His
first year as King of the Persians might be when he first
began to turn his
arms against
years of Cyrus’s monarchy to know what critical events
befell in that year.
Stood to
confirm and strengthen him (me).
According to the Massoretic
text, the angel Gabriel stood to confirm either the
archangel Michael or
King Darius. Certainly, as Darius (Cyrus) is the nearer
substantive, the
grammatical preference would be to take it, as do
Havernick, Hitzig, and
Calvin. The majority of commentators who hold by the
Massoretic text
take “him” to refer to Michael — and much can be said for
this. Although
Darius (Cyrus) is the nearest substantive, yet he is not
the subject of the
main sentence, but merely denotes a time, therefore a
previous substantive
must be chosen. In the opening of Cyrus’s career, the
intimate connection
his prosperity had with the prosperity of the people of
make Michael interested. As
Cyrus had been prophesied of (Isaiah 4:1-8),
he was under the rule of the angel of prophecy, hence Gabriel strengthened
and confirmed the efforts of Michael. Certainly “strengthening” and
“confirming” are strong terms to apply to the archangel Michael, yet we
know so little of angelic natures and their limitations
that the phrase may
be quite natural. The meaning is not materially altered if
we read, “He
stood to strengthen and confirm me.”
2 “And now will I show
thee the truth. Behold, there shall
stand up yet three kings in
than they all: and by his strength through his riches he
shall stir up all
against the realm of Grecia.” The rendering of the Septuagint is, “And now I
came to show thee the truth. Behold, three kings have
risen, and the fourth
shall be rich with great riches above all, and when he
shall strengthen
himself in his riches, he shall stir himself up against
every king of the
Greeks.” Theodotion is very like this, only the last words
of the verse are,
“all the realms of the Greeks.” The Peshitta is very like
Theodotion, having
“kingdoms” instead of “realm.” The Vulgate is in nearly
exact agreement
with the Massoretic text. When we turn to the Massoretic
text and
compare it with the versions, we find that the Septuagint
must have read,
wOtq;z]j,b]W, as it has ἐν – en - in . Theodotion
reads, μετὰ
- meta - amid;
the Peshitta, ma; the Vulgate, cum. This is
the beginning of the revelation
referred to in ch. 10:21a. The doubtful authenticity
of that clause throws a
shadow on this verse. It is to be noted that we are no
longer in the region
of symbol, but of distinct narration. There may have been
something in the
nature of a vision, and that here we have, enlarged, an
interpretation of it.
The fourth king is certainly Xerxes. If we regard him as
one of the three
successors to Cyrus, then Cambyses and Darius Hystaspis are
the other
two. So Hitzig and Delitzsch. Keil would more naturally
make the fourth
not the fourth King of Persia, but the fourth successor of
Cyrus. (For the
Hebrew usage, see Exodus 22:30.) The most casual reader of
Ezra could fail to
distinguish between the Artaxerxes who before Darius
Hystaspis hindered the
work of the Jews, and the Artaxerxes after Darius who
fostered it. We have
followed Herodotus in calling the brother of Cambysos,
whose name the usurper
assumed, “Smerdis;” but Ctesias calls him “Tanyoxarces;”
Xenophon,
“Tanaoxares;”and AEschylus, “Marries.” We know that
Artaxerxes was probably
not a personal name, but rather a title, as was also Aehsverosh
Xerxes.
As the writer here gives no names, it is certainly singular
to assert that,
though, if we take his Hebrew as grammatical, he gives a
correct enumeration
of the Persian kings, he has defied Hebrew usage, and been
wrong in his
enumeration. He
shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. All the
versions
except the Vulgate imply a plural heretwOykul]m" instead of tWkl]m". This reading
is preferable to the Massoretic, which would arise easily from the next verse. If we
may take this as the
true reading, then the diversities of the states in
indicated in the way
most natural to an Oriental.
3 “And a mighty king shall
stand up, that shall rule with groat
dominion, and do according to his will.” None of the versions imply any
difference of reading. The Hebrew implies that the king was
a mighty
warrior. All critics are
agreed that here the reference is to Alexander the
Great. This does
not mean that Alexander immediately followed Xerxes,
but that his expedition was the revenge for that of Xerxes.
Alexander, in
his answer to Darius Codomannus, justified his invasion of
referring back to Xerxes’ invasion of
which Xerxes made into
be regarded as causally connected.
4 “And when he shall stand
up, his kingdom shall be broken,
and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and
not to his
posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled:
for his
kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.”
The
Septuagint
rendering is, “And when he is risen up, his kingdom shall
be broken, and
divided to the four winds of heaven; not according to his
might, nor
according to his dominion which he ruled: because his
kingdom shall be
taken away, and he shall teach these things to others.” It
is difficult to see
what reading the translator had when he rendered, “his
might,” for
no word meaning “might” is at all like ahareetho,
“his posterity.” In the
last clause he must have read, not milbad, but melamayd.
Theodotion
resembles the Massoretic more closely; he renders, “But
when his kingdom
stood (shall stand), it shall be broken, and shall be
scattered to the four
winds of heaven; and to his latter end (ἔσχατα – eschata – latter end; from
where
we get the word eschatology, the study of the end times – CY – 2014),
nor according to his rule which he ruled: for his kingdom
shall be rooted out,
and (let) for others besides these.” The Peshitta agrees
generally with this,
only that when in the English we have, “not to his posterity,”
it has, “not to
his sword (siphoh)” The last clause is somewhat
paraphrastic, “And his kingdom
shall be rooted, and shall not be to others save these.”
The Vulgate agrees with
the Massoretic. The
description here given of the empire of Alexander the
Great is strictly accurate; his empire did not go to his
posterity, nor did any
of his successors possess a dominion as extensive as his. For others
beside
those. This has been thought
to refer to the successors of those who first
divided the empire among them. It seems more natural to
regard “those” as
referring to the posterity of Alexander, as the nearest
antecedent.
5 “And the king of the south
shall be strong, and one of his
princes: and he shall be strong above him, and have
dominion; his
dominion shall be a great dominion.” The Septuagint rendering differs from
this,” And he shall strengthen the
shall overcome him (κατισχύσει
- katischusei – overpower; prevail
against)
and rule; and his power shall be a great power.” Theodotion
agrees with the
Massoretic in sense. The Peshitta agrees verbally with the
Massoretic, but,
as it omits the preposition min, the meaning the translator attached to the verse
is difficult to ascertain. The Vulgate agrees with the
Massoretic. The verse
abruptly introduces the conflict between the Lagid and
Seleucid princes. There
is no indication in the preceding verses that the four
winds of heaven are to be
taken so rigidly as is implied by this verse. It is no
answer to say that
of fact, but a question of the necessities of composition.
The appearance
presented is that of a fragment existing separately, and
inserted here. The
intruded references to the truth which is to be shown have
the look of
being awkward attempts to prepare for the subjoined
narrative. Whatever
its origin, it is very difficult to explain to what it
refers. The king of the
south is certainly one of the Ptolemies, most probably
Ptolemy Lagi. And
one of his
princes shall be strong above him. This
is usually understood to
mean Seleucus Nicator, who, when driven from
satrapy, by Antigonus, took refuge with Ptolemy Lagi, and
became a
commander under him in his war against Antigonus. Ptolemy
also gave him
the few troops with which, after the battle of
possession of
the successors of Alexander. Indeed, he may be said to have
had all the
dominions of Alexander save
and
his dominion. His dominion shall be a great dominion states
accurately the
extent of the dominions of Scleucus. It is impossible not
to observe
the abrupt introduction of this prince.
6 “And in the end of years
they shall join themselves together;
for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king
of the
north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the
power of the
arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be
given up,
and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he
that
strengthened her in these times. The Septuagint differs in a remarkable way
from this, “And at the end of years he shall lead them, and
the King of
shall not prevail, because his arm shall not establish strength (οὐ στήσει ἰσχύν -
ou staesei ischun
– shall not retain the strength); and his
arm shall become stiff,
and that of those accompanying him, and he shall remain for a season (εἰς ὥρας -
eis horas – in
these times).” It is certainly difficult to see the reading from which
this rendering came. It is noticeable that there is no reference to “the king’s
daughter of the south.” History confirms the statement in the Massoretic text,
but there is no expedition related in the history of Philadelphus undertaken
against the
are somewhat scanty. Theodotion is
nearer the Massoretic text, though not quite
in accordance with it, “And after
his Jays they shall mingle with one another
(συμμειγήσονται
- sunmmigaesontai – join themselves
together); and 7
the daughter of the king of the south shall enter unto the
king of the north
to make treaties with him: but she shall not retain the
power of the arm;
and his seed shall not stand: and she shall be betrayed,
and those that
brought her, both the damsel and he that did violence to
her.” The last
words are separated from this verse and conjoined to the following
verse.
The text behind this seems, in many ways, superior to the
Massoretic. The
Peshitta agrees in the opening clauses with the Massoretic;
at the end of
the verse the difference is considerable, “But power shall
not be in her,
from the fear which she feared: and she shall be betrayed,
and her youths,
and those accompanying her, and those supporting her in
this time.” The
Vulgate agrees pretty closely with this. The reference here
is generally
understood to be to the affinity made by the Lagids with
the Seleucids,
when Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphns,
married Antiochus
II. (Theos), who repudiated his first wife, Laodike, in
order to do so. The
leap over a space of approximately sixty years is not so
trying as Professor
Fuller imagines; but the uncertainty as to the text is
great, and the meaning
of even the Massoretic is by no means fixed. Still, the
agreement with the
course of events is so marked according to the common
interpretation, that
one feels inclined to adopt it. After the death of her
father Philadelphus,
Antiochus Theos took back Laodike, who, in order to escape
the risk of
being again dismissed, unceremoniously poisoned her rival
Berenice and
her son, and then her husband Antiochus. Yet this
transaction seems
somewhat dubiously set forth in the Massoretic text.
Theodotion is closer
to facts, though it is possible that the text has been
altered to suit what
were known to be facts.
7 “But out of a branch of
her roots shall one stand up in his
estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into
the
fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against
them, and shall
prevail.” The Septuagint is very different here also,
“And a plant
shall arise out of his root against himself, and the king
of the north shall
come against his power in his might, and shall cause
disturbance, and
prevail.” The Hebrew text would bear the translation here
given of the last
clause, save “cause disturbance.” The nominative may be the
“king of the
north.” History confirms the ordinary interpretation.
Theodotion, as usual,
is in closer agreement with the Massoretic. Yet even he
differs
considerably: he connects the last words of the preceding
verse, “In those
times, one shall arise out of the flower of her root of his
preparation, and
shall enter into the strongholds of the king of the north,
and shall do in
them (according to his will), and prevail.” The Peshitta is
somewhat like
this, “And there spring from the stem of her seed against
his place, and he
shall come in might, and he shall come in strength against
the king of the
north, and he shall pass over against them, and prevail.”
The Vulgate
rendering seems to have a relation to that just given, “And
a plant shall
stand from the seed of his roots, and he shall come with an
army, and shall
enter into the province of the king of the north, and shall
abuse them, and
take possession.” There must have been very different
manuscript readings
to explain these widely different renderings. The
Massoretic text scarcely
quite bears out the rendering of the Authorized Version.
Yet it is difficult
to make any other consistent sense. Certainly Euergetes,
brother of the
murdered Berenice, advanced into
captured
advanced even beyond the
Mountains. The statements in the Septuagint suit better a
later period in history,
when Physcon rebelled against his Septuagint brother
Philometor. Epiphanes
invaded
8 “And shall also carry
captives into
their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver
and of gold; and
he shall continue more years than the king of the north.” The Septuagint
is again very different from that of the Massoretic text,
“And their gods, with
them that molded them, he shall subdue (καταστρέψει – katastrepsei – he
shall overthrow),
and their multitudes with the vessels of their desirable things,
the silver and the gold, shall go into captivity in
the king of the north.” Theodotion. as so frequently is the
case, takes a place
intermediate between the Massoretic and the version of the
Septuagint. His
rendering is, “And their gods, with those that molded them,
all their
desirable vessels of gold and silver, he shall carry with
the captivity into
versions take μh,kesin] (nesikhayhem)
as derived from nasak, “to pour out,”
hence “to mold,” “to form a molten image,” reading the word
noskeem.
The Syriac differs from both the Greek renderings and also from
the
Massoretic, “And even he shall terrify them, and their
desirable vessels of
silver and gold and the captives he shall carry down to
(literally, ‘one, two’) shall rise against the king of the
north.” The Vulgate
differs in meaning from all the preceding, but the text it
is drawn from does
not differ consonantly from that of the Massoretes, “And
besides their
gods. and their graven images, precious vessels too of
silver and gold, he
shall lead captive into
The word n’sikhayeem is rendered, in the
Revised Version, ‘molten
images’ — a meaning given to the word by Furst, Gesenius,
and Winer,
with reference to this verse. The meaning assigned to the
word in the
Authorized is drawn from Rashi, and is in accordance with
the usage of
Ezekiel (32:30). And
shall also carry captives into
their princes.
As we have said, Ptolemy Euergetes
conquered all
Mesopotamia to beyond the
immense booty, and among the articles taken were images of
their gods.
And not only the gods of
had been carried into
before. If this doubtful word, nasakeem, is taken to
mean “images,” it is
difficult to see the reference of the prenominal suffix.
Does it mean that the
gods themselves, and the images of these gods, were taken?
That is to say,
does it mean that gods of the Syrians were taken, and also
their images, as
if the images and the gods were different? From this,
notwithstanding the
general consensus of interpreters, we feel ourselves
necessitated to differ,
and to make the word mean “princes,” although there is no
prominence, in
the few accounts we have of this expedition, to any
captives of such rank
as to be called princes. And with their precious vessels of silver and of
gold. This rendering, although retained in the Revised, is
scarcely
grammatically accurate, as the noun for “vessels” is already defined by the
prenominal suffix. On the other hand, this word cannot
readily be in
apposition, as the article would be needed. Professor Bevan
would make it
“in silver and gold.” We feel inclined to regard this as a
somewhat irregular
construction, as if a ray had dropped out before psik,,
“silver,” though
most of the versions regard these nouns as in the genitive
after “vessels.”
And he shall
continue more years than the king of the north. It is a matter
of fact that Euergetes survived Seleueus Callinicus, his
sister’s stepson,
about four years. Hitzig and Ewald would render,” He shall
refrain for
some years from attacking the king of the north.” This
rendering has the
advantage that it escapes from the purely unimportant
personal statement
that Ptolemy should survive Callinicus. That the king of
the north was
allotted to regain the greater part of the dominions which
had been wrested
from him, without any counter effort on the part of
Ptolemy, is more
important. Keil objects to this that the emphatic position
of aWhw] is against
this, and would support the rendering of the Vulgate, Ipse
prevalebit
adversus regem Aquilouis. Both versions are so far grammatically
defensible; yet both are a little strained: both are in accordance
with
history.
10 “So the king of the
south shall come into his kingdom, and
shall return into his own land.” The Septuagint Version differs less than
usual from the Massoretic, “The King of Egypt shall enter
into (his)
kingdom certain days and return to his land.” Theodotion
renders, “And he
shall enter into the kingdom of the king of the south, and
return into his
land.” The Peshitta differs more, “The king of the south
shall enter in
strength, and turn to his own land.” The Vulgate does not
differ from the
others. This verse, assuming the king of the south, Ptolemy
Euergetes, to
be the subject of the verb, merely completes the statements
of the previous
verse, and seems to describe the triumphant return of
Euergetes into
north as the subject, then the reference may be to the
unsuccessful attempts
made by Seleucus Callinicus to invade
10 “But his sons shall be
stirred up, and shall assemble a
multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come,
and overflow,
and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up,
even to his
fortress.” The
Septuagint differs from this, “And his son shall both be stirred
up, and shall assemble (συνάξει
συναγωγὴν - sunaxei sunagogaen) a
great
multitude, and, ravaging with it (κατασύρων – katasuron - plundering), he
shall enter, and pass by and return.” The K’thib here
supports this to the
extent at least that it has “his son,” not “his sons;” but
the verbs are plural.
The last clause of this verse in the Massoretic text is
transferred by the
Septuagint to the next; Theodotion, while, as usual, more
closely in
agreement with the Massoretic text, is not quite identical
with it, “And his
sons shall assemble a multitude moderately numerous (δυνάμεων πολλῶν –
dunameon pollon), and he that cometh and overfloweth shall come and
shall pass by, and shall enter, and shall struggle hard (συμπροσπλακήσεται –
sumprosplakaesetai – war; struggle hard), even to his fortress (ἰσχύος –
ischuos -
fortress).” The Peshitta and the Vulgate are in
close agreement with
the Massoretic text. But
his sons shall be stirred up. The natural inference is
that it is the sons of the king of the south who thus are
stirred up, but,
historically, it can only refer to the sons of Seleucus
Callinicus, who, one
after the other, succeeded him on the throne: Seleucus
Ceraunus, who died
after a short reign of rather more than two years; and
Antiochus III., Magnus.
Certainly Seleucus did little in this conflict, although he
undertook a campaign
to
campaign was intended as a preparation for a great campaign
against
On the death of Ceraunus, he was succeeded by Antiochtus
Magnus. This prince
Was very warlike. He began to assail
Philopotor, but was interrupted by news of war in the far
East. After a
successful campaign in Media and
the hands of Ptolemy Philopator; and then proceeded on his
invasion of
Coele-Syria and
and pass
through. This describes in a
compendious way the campaigns of
Antiochus Magnus. And
be stirred up, even to his .fortress. This is
supposed to refer to the recovery of
states that he pierced nearly to Pelusium, the frontier
fortress of
11 “And the king of the
south shall be moved with choler, and
shall come forth, and fight with him, even with the king of
the north:
and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude
shall be
given into his hand.” The
Septuagint differs a little from the Massoretic, “And
the King of Egypt shall be much embittered and enraged, and
shall come
forth and fight with the king of the north; and he shall (στήσει – staestei –
set forth) a great multitude, and the multitude shall be betrayed
into his hands.”
Theodotion, like this, differs from the Massoretic by
inserting, “the king of
the north,” without the pronoun, as do all the other
versions. Ptolemy.
usually slothful and lethargic, was at length roused, and
placed an army of
seventy-five thousand men in the field. Against this
Antiochus opposed the
slightly superior army of seventy-eight thousand The two
armies engaged
at Raphia, and Antiochus sustained a severe defeat, losing
no less than ten
thousand men. The multitude commanded by Antiochus was
given into the
hands of Ptolemy Philopator. This seems the only
interpretation which is
consistent with facts.
12 “And when he hath taken
away the multitude, his heart
shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten
thousands; but he
shall not be strengthened by it.” The rendering of the Septuagint is, “And he
shall take the levy (συναγωγήν
– sunagogaen –
multitude; assembly), and his heart
shall be lifted up, and he shall trouble many, and shall
not be afraid.” There seems
to have been some difference of reading in the last clause,
but it is not clear what.
Theodotion renders the first clause as does the Septuagint;
but the latter
clause is more in accordance with the English version of
the Massoretic
text. The Peshitta from the same text differs in its
interpretation, “And he
shall destroy them mightily, and his heart shall be lifted
up, and he shall
cast down many, and shall not be strengthened.” The Vulgate
presents no
occasion of remark. And
he shall cast down many ten thousands. This,
most probably, refers to the complete victory at Raphia,
where Antiochus
was reported to have lost ten thousand men. There is thus a
repetition here
of what has already been narrated. But he shall not be strengthened by it.
It is very noticeable that Ptolemy did not even attempt to
strengthen his
position by vigorously following up his victory.
13 “For the king of the
north shall return, and shall set forth a
multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come
after
certain years with a great army and with much riches.” The Septuagint does
not differ essentially from this, only πόλεως - poleos – greatert
- comes in
unnecessarily by a blunder — the less to be understood, as
there seems no word
which can have occasioned the misreading, unless it is
simply a blunder of
hearing for πόλλήν
- pollaen but against this is the fact that Paulus Tellensis has
medeenatha. There is also the limitation of the period after which the
king of the
north will return to “one year” (καιροῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ
- kairou
eniauton – times,
even of years),
“a period of a year.” Theodotion is closer to the Massoretic .
The Peshitta is closer than either of the Greek versions,
as neither of them
attempts to give, “coming he shall come,” which it does.
The Vulgate is like
Theodotion. The reference here is to the second expedition
against
undertaken by Antiochus after the death of Philopator.
After his victory at
Raphia, Ptolemy resumed his life of self-indulgence.
Antiochus endeavored to
build up his empire by curbing the Parthians; then, after
an interval of fourteen years,
he once more invaded the territories of the Egyptian
monarch. This second invasion
resulted in Antiochus gaining possession of all
14 “And in those times
there shall many stand up against the
king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall
exalt themselves
to establish the vision; but they shall fall.” The versions here
differ from
this, which represents the Massoretic with fair accuracy.
The Septuagint
renders, “And in those times διάνοιαι – dianoiai – thoughts - shall rise against
the King of Egypt, and he shall build again that which has
fallen down of thy
people “ — reading hn;b;W (oobanah), “and
he shall build,” instead of yneb]W
(oobenee), “and sons of;” he has read also peratzee,
“breaches,” instead of
peritzee, “robbers,” —
“and he shall raise himself up” — reading singular
instead of plural — “to fulfil the prophecy, and they shall
stumble.” This
confusion indicates that the reading of the Septuagint is
mistaken. Theodotion is
as much removed from the Massoretic as is the above, “And
in those times
many shall rise against the king of the south, and the sons
of the plagues
(λοιμῶν – loimon – pestilent
fellows) of thy people shall be exalted to
establish
the vision, and they shall become weak.” If there were any trace
of uncertainty
in the reading at this point, we might be tempted to read ληστῶν – laeston –
robbers - instead
of λοιμῶν, written LHICTWN for LOIMWN. The Peshitta
renders, “And many shall rise against the king of the
north, and the sons of the
perversity of thy people shall be raised up to fulfill the
vision, and shall be cast
down.” The change from “king of the south” to “the king of
the north” must
be noted, probably simply the result of blunder. The
Vulgate renders yxrp
pre-varieatorum, And
in those times there shall many stand up against the king
of the south. Ptolemy Epiphanes was not only exposed to the assault of
the
confederates Antiochus and Philip of Macedon; but there
were intrigues and
conspiracies in the palace. Also the robbers of thy people shall exalt
themselves; literally, the
sons of the oppressors. Commentators of all
varieties have assumed that these are Jews. Hitzig
maintains that they were
the Jews that sided with Antiochus’s rule (‘Historical
Exposition of
Daniel’); that they were the separatists, those who had
gone down to
who break through Divine law.” So Kranichfeld and
Wordsworth. Stuart,
“the violent of thy people;” Ewald, “young high-handed men.”
Fuller thinks
the word prizzeem is used as “rulers.” Griitz would
render, “to establish
the vision, to make the law to totter “ — an attempt to
get, by addition to
the text, an explanation. The Hebrew text does not bear out
this meaning.
Gratz here implies ˆwyzh (hazion),
“vision,” to be equivalent to hrwt
(torah), “law;” but this is never the case. But the
oppressors of the people
do not necessarily belong to it. To establish the vision (compare Acts 4:28).
It may be that here there is a portion of the original
vision of Daniel,
which has been overlaid with what we have before us. It is
a summary of
the whole history of the Jews under the Greek domination. But they shall
fall. A general statement
true of all the oppressors of
15 “So the king of the
north shall come, and cast up a mount,
and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south
shall not
withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there
be any
strength to withstand.”
The Septuagint has, “And the king of the
north shall attack and turn his spears, and shall take the
fortified city, and
the arms of the King of Egypt shall stand with his rulers,
and there shall not
be strength in them to resist them.” It is difficult to
imagine what Hebrew
text was before the translator when he rendered, “turn his
spears.”
Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic in the first portion,
and with the
Septuagint in the latter. The Peshitta rendering is not
unlike the Massoretic,
“And the king of the north shall come and shall lay ambuscades,
and shall
conquer strong fastnesses; and the arms of the south shall
not stand,
because there is not in them might to stand; and his chosen people shall not
stand, because there is not might in them to stand.” The Vulgate, as usual,
is closest to the Massoretic. The reference here is most
probably to the
capture of
himself after his defeat at Paneas. Other strongholds and
fortified cities
were of necessity taken at the same time. The arms of the south shall not
withstand, neither his chosen people. Ptolemy sent several
successive
armies to relieve
siege. Finally Scopas had to surrender. Neither shall there be any strength
to withstand.
wisdom in their counsels nor valor in their arms.
16 “But he that cometh
against him shall do according to his
own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall
stand in the
glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.” The rendering of
the Septuagint is quite different, “And he who entereth in
shall do to him
according to his will, and there shall be none to resist
before him, and he
shall stand in the province in the place of his will, and
all things shall be
fulfilled in his hands.” Some of the variations may be
understood by a
slightly different vocalization, but others resist this
explanation.
Theodotion renders in a way that suggests a text between
that used by the
Septuagint translator and the Massoretic, “And he who
entereth in shall do
to him according to his will, and there shall not be one
that standeth before
him, and he shall stand in the
(τελεσθήσεται – telesthaesetai – shall come forth) by his hand.” The Peshitta
has, “cometh against him,” as in the Massoretic, “the glorious land” is put
down directly as “the
Authorized Version does. But he that cometh against him shall do according
to his own
will, and none shall stand
before him.. This is a fair description
of the advance of Antiochus
the Great through Coele-Syria and
Fortress after fortress
fell before his arms. And he shall
stand in the glorious
land; “the land of delight.” Ewald would render,
“land of the ornament.” It is
certainly the
certainly contradicts history as we have it elsewhere. The
Revised is little
better, “And in his hand shall be destruction,” which is
the rendering of
Behrmann, Keil, Hitzig, and Bevan. The rendering of von
Lengcrke,
Ewald, Stuart, and Fuller seems better to take hl;k; (kalah)
as meaning
“completely.” The answer to the historical objection that
Antiochus did not
destroy
destroy
17 “He shall also set his
face to enter with the strength of his
whole kingdom, and upright ones with him: thus shall he do:
and he
shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but
she shall
not stand on his side, neither be for him.” The Septuagint renders, “And he
shall set (δώσει - dosei - give) his face to
enter upon (ἐπελθεῖν
– epelthein) his
work with violence, and he
shall make covenants with him, and shall give him
a daughter of man to
corrupt her, but she shall not obey, neither shall it be.”
The translator seems to have had before him wTkalm,
“work,” instead of
wtwklm,
“kingdom” — a reading not equal to the Massoretic, and
μyriv;yme instead of μyrivywi, in which case
the Septuagint reading is preferable.
Theodotion is like the Massoretic, “And he shall set (τάξει – taxei –
set; order)
his face to enter with the strength of all his kingdom, and
he shall make all things
straight with him, and shall give him a daughter of the
women to corrupt
her, but she shall not continue on his side, neither be for
him.” The Peshitta
renders, “And he shall set his face to enter with the force
of all his
kingdom, and all his people shall pass over, and the
daughter of men shall
be given to him to corrupt her, but she shall not stand,
neither be for him.”
The Vulgate rendering is independent of the other versions,
“And he shall
set his face that he may come to lay hold of his whole
kingdom, and he
shall do right things with him, and he shall give to him
the daughter of
women that he may overturn it, but she shall not stand,
neither be for him.”
The events portrayed here are well known. Antiochus
collected all his
forces with a view to the conquest of
of
now endeavored to get Ptolemy to be his ally, and gave him his daughter
Cleopatra to
wife, with Coele-Syria as a dowry. His idea was that she
would remain always on his side, would be his spy in the
court of her
husband, and would always lead the policy of
His hopes were frustrated. She was not corrupted so as to
be false to her
husband. In proof of this, when her father’s armies were
defeated by the
Romans, she joined with her husband in sending
congratulations to the
Senate of
18 “After this he shall
turn his face unto the isles, and shall
take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the
reproach
offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall
cause it to
turn upon him. The rendering of the Septuagint is nearly
unintelligible, “And
he shall set (δώσει
- as in the previous verse) his face against the sea, and shall
take (πολλοὺς
–
pollous - many
), and shall turn the wrath of their
reproach in an
oath against his reproach.” The translator had read μyl instead of μyyal. With all
it seems nearly impossible to explain the relation between
the Massoretic text
and that used by the Septuagint. Theodotion is much
briefer, “He shall turn his
face to the islands, and shall take many, and shall cause
rulers to cease
from their reproach; but his reproach shall return upon
him.” The Peshitta
renders, “And he shall turn his face to the islands of the
sea, and shall
conquer many, and a ruler of reproach shall cause it to
cease in regard to
him, and his reproach shall return to him.” The Vulgate is
closely related to
the Peshitta. We would render the last clause, with“Yea,
his
reproach will he repay to him.” The events referred to are
clear and
obvious enough. Antiochus the Great took advantage of the
disastrous
defeat inflicted on Philip of Macedon by the Romans, to
seize many of the
islands of the archipelago. He not only took possession of
all the Asiatic
dominions of Philip, but crossed into Europe and seized
Romans demanded that he should retire from all the former
dominions of
Philip. He refused, and war ensued, in which, after being
driven out of
compeled to surrender all his dominions west of the Taurus.
19 “Then he shall turn his
face toward the fort of his own land;
but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.” The versions do not
present any occasion for remark. After his defeat,
Antiochus was not only
compeled to submit to the loss of much of his empire, but
was adjudged to
pay all the expenses of the war, estimated at eighteen
thousand Euboeic
talents. Justin relates thus the death of Antiochus:
“Meanwhile in
King Antiochus, being loaded with heavy tribute after his
defeat by the
Romans, whether urged by want of money or impelled by
avarice,
flattering himself that, under the plea of necessity, he
might with fair
excuse commit sacrilege, assaulted with an armed force by
night the temple
of Jove (Bel) in Elymais.
But the attempt having been discovered, there was
a concourse of the inhabitants, and he was slain with all
his forces.” The
resemblance here between the fate of Antiochus the Great
and that of his
son Epiphanes is so striking as to throw suspicion on one
or other of them.
20 “Then shall stand up in
his estate a raiser of taxes in the
glory of the kingdom; but within few days he shall be
destroyed,
neither in anger, nor in battle.” The Septuagint differs very
much from this, “Then shall a plant arise out of his root
to the restoration
(ἀναστήσεται
–
anastaesetai – one shall rise up) of the
kingdom, a man
striking the glory of a king.” It is impossible to find any
connection between
the opening clause of this and the corresponding clause in
the Massoretic.
Some of the other clauses contain echoes of the Massoretic,
or vice versa.
The first clause of v 21 in the Septuagint really belongs
to this verse, “In
the last days he shall be broken, not in wrath nor in war,”
reading thus,
μyniroh"a} (‘aharoneem) instead of μydih;a} (‘ahadeem). Theodotion agrees
in the first clause with the Septuagint, but is equally
unintelligible, “There
shall arise out of his root one removing a plant of the
kingdom; on his
preparation (πράσσων
– prasson
- he shall act; act), the glory of the kingdom:
yet in those days he shall be broken, and not openly (ἐν προσώποις
- en
prosopois) nor in war shall he stand.” The Peshitta renders, “In his
stead
shall one stand up who shall cause a ruler to pass through
even the glory
of your kings; and in a few days he shall be destroyed, not
in tumult, nor
in battle.” The Vulgate renders, “In his stead shall stand
a vile person
(vilis-simus), and unworthy of royal dignity; and in
a few days he shall
be broken, not in fury, nor in battle.” Difficult as is the
interpretation
of the words, just as difficult is it to find out the
reference.
Seleucus Philopator, who succeeded Antiochus, might be
called a
“raiser of taxes,” as he had to meet as best he could the
heavy demands of
The Roman treasury. The rendering of the Revised suits
also, “causing the
exactor to pass through the glory of the kingdom.” The
reference might be
to Heliodorus, were there any probability that he ever made
an expedition
to rob the temple. Certainly the story in II Maccabees
makes it doubtful. It
is not likely that
resident in
occasion of so many wars — it might well seem the glory of
the Syrian
kingdom. But
within few days he shall be destroyed. It is difficult to
understand how the writer could reckon the reign of
Seleucus Philopator
as only a few days. His reign of twelve years was certainly
much shorter
than that of his father Antiochus, but longer than that of
Epiphanes his
brother, or of Seleucus III his uncle. The Greek versions
do not give this
clause. If we do not resort to the somewhat desperate
remedy of altering
the reading, we are compelled to measure the days from the
taxing of
He shall be
destroyed, neither in anger, nor
in battle. If we may assume as
correct the unsupported account of Appian, that
Seleucus IV. was assassinated
by Heliodorus, we can see that he was destroyed “not
in batlle.” It conveys an
idea of the facts of the case different from that given in
Appian, when we
say he was “not destroyed in anger.” Moreover, the fact
that Josephus
refers to the death of Seleucus Philopator in terms that
imply that be knew
nothing of his violent death, makes his alleged
assassination by Heliodorus
at least doubtful.
The Checkered Fortunes of Earthly Empire
(vs. 5-20)
There is but one condition of permanence in any kingdom,
viz. righteousness.
Success, founded on military power, collapses as quickly as
it rose. As night
succeeds to day, so misfortune
succeeds to fortune. If God be not
recognized,
the one element
of durability is lacking.
AGENCIES. If men
express their astonishment at this, our reply is that it is
the best on the whole, and if He
did not use imperfect instruments, He must
not employ men at all. This
allowance of evil men to be monarchs:
Ø
brings to light the evil that is in men;
Ø
tends to impress the
world with the unprofitableness of sin; and
Ø
prepares the way for the
advent of THE REAL KING OF MEN!
It is best, on the whole,
that men should live in communities
and nations; best, on the whole,
that some should be rulers and some
should be subjects; best that
God’s hand should not appear in the
selection of earthly rulers. “His
way is in the sea.” (Psalm
77:19)
HISTORY. Read what
chapters in secular history we choose, we find the
uniform tale to be ambition, war, disaster, suffering. Man, when left alone
by God, becomes his own deadly
enemy, and the enemy of the human race.
No greater proof can we have of
the turpitude and malignancy of sin, than
that furnished by the course of
human history. Whereever scope and
opportunity have been afforded
for the exercise of human inclination, the
outcome has been strife and mutual
destruction. To rule the world has been
the arrogant desire of many, and
heedless have they been of the miseries of
the human race, so long as one
vain man may ride upon the wave of
fortune. As a rule, kings have
been the curse of our globe. If successful in
war, the appetite is whetted for
further enterprise; if defeated, the spirit of
revenge leaps up, at the first
opportunity, to regain its loss.
AFFECTIONS OF THE HUMAN SOUL. The noblest affection that has
survived man’s fall is the
parental — the love of a father for his children.
Yet even this has been
persistently trampled on — often trampled out —
by the diabolic lust of power.
The King of Egypt gives his daughter in
marriage to his hereditary foe,
not because there was any tie of mutual
affection, but solely to promote
his ambitious policy. This was nothing less
than the sacrifice
of his own child to an evil spirit — to the baser lusts of
his own depraved nature. (Like it or not, the seven justices, the people
who brought Roe v. Wade to the courts, the millions of mothers who
have aborted their child, and “those who love to have it so” – Jeremiah
5:31, have basically concurred and fulfilled the above statement! – CY –
2014). On the altar of vain-glory, kings are wont to sacrifice:
Ø
natural affection,
Ø
domestic peace,
Ø
the Divine institution
of marriage (a la – recent court decisions
overturning the votes of
states that have validated marriage as
between a man and a woman –
CY – 2014),
Ø
connubial bliss,
Ø
the welfare of
children, yea, the lives of their own flesh and blood.
No blacker biographies can be
written than those of successful kings. One bad
man has been an active spring of mischief for centuries after his decease.
One unworthy king has been a fount of misery and wretchedness for a myriad
families of men. If every private individual needs the restraining grace of God,
tenfold more does a king.
very unusual thing for God to
make known to men what is about to
transpire in the world. As a
rule, this course would be full of hazard. It
would tend to remove human responsibility.
By such a plan, God might
defeat His own ends. But God
designed to show special favor unto Daniel.
He generously conceded, in
answer to prayer, what otherwise He would
have withheld. Daniel was
concerned about
concerned about it also. One
mind prevailed with God and with His servant;
hence it was in accordance with
God’s plan to make known, in such a case,
His will. The revelation which
was vouchsafed respected
home lay midway between these
kings of
moved, not by a spirit of
curiosity to learn what should happen elsewhere,
but by a pure regard for his country’s weal. As a fact, well-certified in later
history, this prophecy, being
shown to Alexander the Great at
secured his favor and
protection. In every age,
is God’s especial care. He that “toucheth
eye” (Zechariah
2:8). The arms of Jehovah encircle the
righteous. Saith he,
“I will never leave thee; I will never forsake thee.” (Hebrews 13:5)
EACH OTHER. All that
is true in history, though written by the pen of
skeptical men, is from God. He is the sole Author of truth. Hence we may
not despise human learning, nor
throw contempt upon honest researches
into past history. Whatever in the world is true will prove, in the
end,
a
confirmation of
the ancient oracles. It is impossible
that God can, in any
way, contradict Himself. If, for
a moment, there should seem any
discrepancy, we may rest in the
tranquil assurance that further light will
resolve all difficulty, and that
apparent discord will only lead to richer
harmony. Every item of prophecy
in this chapter has found exact fulfillment.
If, in some respects, the
predictions of the angel seem obscure, they were
as clear as it was proper to
make them. The measure of obscurity is an
additional proof of Divine
wisdom; and, read in the light of later events,
every unprejudiced mind feels that
such pre-announcements of national
events could proceed from none
other than THE LIVING GOD! If we are
forced to believe that a
faithful record of history has proceeded from the
hands of an intelligent man, we
are also compelled to conclude that accurate
predictions of distinct events
can only result from supernatural agency — a
revelation made from heaven.
21 “And in his estate
shall stand up a vile person, to whom
they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall
come in
peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.” As said above, the
opening clause of this verse, as it appears in the
Septuagint, really belongs
to the previous verse, “And there shall stand up in his
place a mean person
(εὐκαταφρόνητος
– eukataphronaetos
– contemptible; despicable), and
the glory of a king shall not be given to him, and he shall
come suddenly,
and the king shall be strong in his inheritance.” Evidently the translator,
has omitted the reduplication and has derived the word twOql"q]l"j}
(halaqlaqqoth) from hq;l]j, (hel’ qah),
“a portion,” “an
inheritance.” Theodotion’s rendering is not very
intelligible, “On his
preparation he shall be set at naught, and they shall not
give to him the
glory of the kingdom, he shall come in prosperously (ἐν εὐθηνίᾳ - en
euthaenia – a
time of security), and shall overpower the
kingdom by
flatteries.” It is, however, more in accordance with the
Massoretic text.
The Peshitta is in practical agreement with the Massoretic,
and the
Vulgate reads as if a rendering of the Peshitta. It is assumed that this is
Antiochus Epiphanes, yet there are considerable
difficulties. A vile person.
Certainly he was morally vile enough, though not nearly so
vile as some of
the kings of
meaning of hzbn is “rejected, despised”
(see Isaiah 53:3). It may be that it
was derived from the idea that the Romans rejected
Epiphanes as a hostage,
and demanded Demetrius the son of Seleucus instead, and so
Epiphanes got
the opportunity of returning to
the matter assumes in Appian. Seleucus appears as the party
desiring the change
of hostage. To
whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom. That certainly
is not the case; he had the kingdom as much as his brother
had; he was
acknowledged as king. He certainly had not the power his
father had
before his defeat at Magnesia, but he had as much as the
semi-subject
conditions of
doubtful, for Eumenes of Pergamos supported his claims with
an army.
Obtain the
kingdom by flatteries. Even that is not a prominent feature of
the accession of Antiochus. The Septuagint, as will be
seen, separates
between the vile person who should not have the glory of
the kingdom
given to him, and the king who should be strong in his
inheritance. If we
were sure that Appian had followed Polybius, we might see
in the first part
of the verse Heliodorus, and in the second the coming of
Epiphanes.
Successful Dissimulation* (v. 21)
*(Dissimulation is a form of deception in which one conceals the truth. It
consists
of concealing the
truth, or in the case of half-truths,
concealing parts of the truth,
like inconvenient
or secret information.
Dissimulation differs from simulation,
in which one
exhibits false information. Dissimulation commonly takes the form
of concealing
one's ability in order to gain the element of surprise over an
opponent. –
Wikipedia ) (This sounds much like the
secular press with which
I am familiar
and will no doubt be a tool of the “anti-christ!” - CY – 2014)
VIOLENCE. The
successful usurper is known to be a “vile person;” the
people do not willingly bestow
upon him the honors of royalty, — he
grasps them for himself; yet he
perpetrates no violence to obtain them. He
wins power by dissimulation.
Ø But dissimulation is most common in an age of advanced
civilization.
Violence belongs to simpler
times. As life becomes more complex,
evil becomes more
subtle.
Ø
It has most power at a
time of moral corruption. When morality is
corrupted, the
discerning faculty of conscience is blinded. Deceit
succeeds most with those who
have lost the clear judgment which
results from the direct insight
of purity.
Ø
It is most
successful under circumstances of material
prosperity. Then
we are off our guard, and are
tempted to a false feeling of security
based on the mere enjoyment of
present ease.
THE WORLD THAN THE SUCCESS OF VIOLENCE. The greatest
enemies to a state are its traitors. The worst
foes to a religion are its
hypocritical adherents. The most
dangerous enemies a man can have are his
flattering friends. In such
cases
Ø
the evil is more
slowly recognized;
Ø
it is less
energetically hated; and
Ø
it is resisted with
more difficulty.
·
THOUGH DISSIMULATION MAY SUCCEED FOR A TIME,
TRUTH WILL ULTIMATELY TRIUMPH. There is “an end” at
“the time appointed” (v.
27; ch.12:1-2).
Ø
By its own nature evil
ultimately declares its true
character. If it
always remained concealed,
it would effect little. By dissimulation
power is won, which in
being used casts off the mask.
Ø
When evil is declared,
it is seen to be hateful and weak.
Once fairly
known, it loses its
attraction and becomes a despicable thing.
Ø
God will finally interfere to destroy all false appearances, and judge the
world in truth according to real
character and conduct. Some forms of
deceit may linger till that
great judgment-day; but none can outlive it.
Then all actions
will appear in the white light of truth.
Ø
It is wise and
prudent (as well as right) to seek truth and to live
truly, because the true
only can live in the great future of eternity
(Revelation 21:27).
22 “And with the arms of a
flood shall they be overflown from
before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of
the covenant.”
The rendering of the Septuagint is very wide of this, “And
the broken arms he
shall break from before him.” Although this is much shorter
than the
Massoretic text, yet the contradictory assertion that arms
already broken
are broken before him is conclusive against accepting the
evidence of the
Septuagint absolutely. Theodotion agrees with the
Massoretic, not with the
English versions, “And the arms of the overflowing shall be
overflowed
from before him, and be broken, even the leader of the
covenant.” The
Peshitta is widely different, alike from the Massoretic
text and that of the
Septuagint, “;And their mighty ones of the city he shall
carry away, and
they shall be broken from before him, even the leader of
the covenant.”
The Vulgate stands in a closer relation with the above than
with the
Massoretic text or the Greek versions, “The arms (brachia)
of one fighting
shall be driven out (expugnabuntur) from his face,
and shall be broken
besides, and (insuper et) the leader of the
covenant.” The reference here
seems to be to the campaign’ — if there was a campaign — by
which
Epiphanes secured possession of the throne of Syria. The prince of the
covenant. Who this can be it is
impossible to say. The idea supported by
Hitzig, Bevan, Behrmann, that Onias III. is referred to, is
founded on the
utterly unhistorical narrative in II Maccabees 4. The view
of Moses Stuart is
that it is some sovereign who had a league of amity with
Epiphanes. The
reference thus might be to Eumenes or Attalus, who
supported the claims
of Anthoclus. Negeed bereeth may be explanatory of
the prenominal suffix
in milpanayo, “before him.” As Stuart acutely
remarks, had the reference
in bereeth been to the Divine covenant with the
Jews, we should have had
habbeereth.
23 “And after the league
made with him he shall work deceitfully:
for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small
people.”
The rendering of the Septuagint is, “And with the covenant
and a
people set in array he shall fabricate a lie, even against
a strong nation with
(ἐν – en -
with) a small people.” The rendering of Theodotion is
somewhat
difficult to comprehend, “By reason of leagues against him,
he shall make a
device, and shall ascend and master them with few people.”
The Peshitta is
very like Theodotion, only the last clause of this verse is
regarded as the first
of the next. The Vulgate is closer to the Massoretic than
are any of the other
ancient versions, “And after friendships with him, he shall
work fraud, and
shall go up and conquer with a small number.” The reference
here is to the
obscure events which attended the contest — if there was a
contest —
that resulted in Epiphanes securing the throne. The
alliance may refer to his
league with Eumenes. Appian assigns as a reason for the
help given to
Epiphanes by Eumenes, that it was to gain his friendship.
Only Appian
mentions “Attalus and Eumenes,” as if they were separate
sovereigns; but
Attalus was brother of Eumenes, and, at the time of the
arrival of
Epiphanes, his brother’s envoy at
fact, and this would explain the statement in the text. The
hopes of
Eumenes, if he wished to strengthen himself by an alliance
with Epiphanes,
were probably soon frustrated, as Epiphanes involved
himself in conflict
with
24 “He shall enter
peaceably even upon the fattest places of the
province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not
done, nor
his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey,
and spoil,
and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against
the strong
holds, even for a time.” The rendering of the Septuagint is,” Suddenly he shall
desolate the city, and he shall do such things as his
fathers have not done,
nor his father’s fathers, and he shall give captives (προνομὴν – pronomaen –
provide; care for, Deuteronomy 21.)and spoils and riches to them; and
against
the strong city a device shall be forecast (διανοηθήσεται
–
dianomaethaesetai –
he shall devise),
and his reasonings are in vain.” In the first
clause, μm"v;w]
seems to have been read instead of yNemivim]W. Medeena is
taken in its Syriac meaning. It is difficult to see what
reading could
produce both the Massoretic and the Septuagint renderings.
Theodotion
differs alike from this and from the Massoretic, “And in
plenty, and in the
fat places he shall corn and he shall do what his fathers
have not done, nor
his fathers’ fathers; and he shall disperse among them
captives
((προνομὴν
– pronomaen
– provide; care for), and spoil and possessions,
and (ἐπ’ – ep’ - against )
The Peshitta is like the Massoretic. It joins what is reckoned the last clause
of v. 23 to the present verse, and omits “peaceably;” the last words of this
verse are transferred to the next. The
Vulgate is more related to Theodotion than
to the Massoretic text, “And he shall enter plenteous (abundantes) and rich cities.”
The remaining part of the verse
agrees with the Massoretic text The events here
Indicated are somewhat
difficult to identify. The histories of this period are
scanty, and, with the
exception of Polybius, whose work has come to us in a
fragmentary condition, not very trustworthy. Moreover, the
readings are
uncertain in a portion of the verse. It is generally held
to describe the first
entrance of Epiphanes into
— an opinion shared by Theodotion. The English versions do
not bring out
the probable meaning, although their rendering agrees with
the Massoretic
pointing, “That which his fathers have not done,” etc. The
repeated
triumphant invasions of
against the
strong holds. This may refer to the siege of Alexandria, which
he was on the eve of commencing when he was compelled by
the Roman
envoy, Popilius Lena, to desist; but this is evidently the
subject of the later
verse. We can most easily understand this verse if we
regard it as a
summary of the whole reign of Antiochus.
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 up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but
he shall
not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him.” The versions
present no point of remark, save that, instead of “king of
the south,” the
Septuagint has, as usual, “the King of Egypt.” This is
supposed to be a
compendious account of the second of the wars waged by
Epipbanes
against
declared war against Perseus, King of Macedon, and
Antiochus, finding
that they did not conquer Macedon easily, regarded the
opportunity a
suitable one for assailing
Coele-Syria, which his father had given as dower with
Cleopatra, his
daughter. The state of Egypt presented an aspect eminently
hopeful to an
assailant. The court of Egypt was full of intrigue and
treachery; the center
of intrigue was the brother of the king, Ptolemy, nicknamed
Physcon. The
king, Ptolemy, was young; his generals, however, took up
the challenge,
and set on the field a large army; but the army was
defeated, and Antiochus
advanced as far as
Physcon his brother ascended the throne. The defeat of
Philometor was
supposed to be largely due to treachery.
26 “Yea, they that feed of
the portion of his meat shall destroy
him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down
slain.” The
Septuagint rendering here is different, “And his cares
shall consume him
and turn him away, and he shall pass by (and shall hiss, κατασυριεῖ
-
katasuriei – arrest
judicially); and many shall fall down wounded.”
Paulus Tellensis renders κατασυριεῖ
by <ARAMAIC> (nigrooph),
“shall overflow,” as if he had read καταρεὐσεται, or perhaps κατασυριεῖ,
though it does not exactly represent the Hebrew. Theodotion
is like the
Massoretic , “And they eat his provisions, and shall break him
to pieces;
and he shall overflow powers, and many shall fall wounded.”
The account
of the invasion of
Septuagint translator, appears to have read, instead of wOgb;AtP" ylek]aOw]
(veochlay path-bago), wyt;g]ad; Wlk]a;w](veachloo
dageothav). There would
seem also to have been some confusion between lyhi (heel),
“strength,” and dlh
(halach), “to go.” The Peshitta rendering is, “They
that eat his meat shall destroy
him, and his army shall be dispersed, and many shall fall
wounded.” The Vulgate
is closely related to this. This refers to the treachery
which was alleged to
have been at work and to have caused the overthrow of
Philometor in his
contest with his uncle. The version of the Septuagint is more
picturesque,
and more in accordance with facts. Cares might well devour
Ptolemy
Philometor — treachery in his army and his brother
occupying his throne.
Certainly he was defeated, turned aside, and was compelled
to accompany
the victor as a prisoner, while
27 “And both these kings’
hearts shall be to do mischief, and
they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not
prosper: for yet the
end shall be at the time appointed.” The Septuagint Version is, “And two
kings shall dine alone at the same time, and eat at one
table, and they shall
speak lies, and they shall not prosper.” The translator has
read μdbl
instead of μbbl. Theodotion is closer
to the Massoretic, agreeing in this
with the Peshitta and Vulgate. The probable reference is to
Ptolemy
Philometor, conveyed practically a prisoner with his
uncle’s army, while
Epiphanes carried on his invasion of Egypt. They dined at
one table, and
probably deceived each the other. The purpose of Ptolemy
was to get his
usurping brother Physcon dethroned; the object of Antiochus
was to
possess
reconciliations which diversified the conflict between John
Hyrcanus II.
and his brother Aristobulns. Jephet-ibn-Alimakes the two
kings mean
Arabia and Rome, since, according to him, these are
respectively the kings
of the south and of the north. Yet the end shall be at the time appointed.
The progress of Antiochus was
interrupted by the Romans.
28 “Then shall he return
into his land with great riches; and
his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall
do exploits,
and return to his own land.” The Greek versions and the Vulgate are in
close agreement with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta
differs only by
omitting the last clause, which certainly seems a
redundance. On his return
from his Egyptian campaign, Epiphanes, we learn from I
Maccabees 1:20-23,
plundered the temple of all its treasures. On the somewhat
suspicious
authority of II Maccabees 4 some have referred to the
report spread that
Antiochus was dead, and that, taking advantage of this,
Jason seized the
city and drove Menelaus into the citadel; and that, bearing
of this uproar,
Antiochus, imagining that Judaea had revolted, retired from
wreaked vengeance on
inflicted is confirmed by other authorities; but the
resistance implied in the
assertion that he took the city by force of arms is
contradicted by Josephus
and I Maccabees.
Evil Prosperity (v. 28)
MORAL GOODNESS. It
is not found in experience that the old Jewish
ideal is realizable in which the
righteous all prosper, and the wicked are all
in adversity (Job 36:11-12). Bad
men often grow rich and flourish in
external success (Psalm 73:3).
Ø
This is no proof of
the weakness of moral and spiritual forces in the
economy of life,
o
because physical
prosperity is made to depend largely on
physical causes;
o
because energy of will
and intellectual ability may exist apart
from moral worth, and may
secure temporal success;
o
because adversity is
not regarded by God as a supreme evil, nor
prosperity as a supreme
good — both are subservient to higher
aims;
o
because justice and
right have not scope in this world to effect
their ultimate triumph.
Ø
This should warn us from
the erroneous conclusions:
o
that our prosperity is a proof of our goodness;
and
o that it is an evidence
of God’s favor.
MORAL GOODNESS, IT IS
LIKELY TO BE A CURSE TO THE
OWNER OF IT.
Ø
All the higher uses
of prosperity will be neglected. These are to lift up
our hearts to God and His love;
to give leisure from care for the service
of God; and to bestow talents for
the good of mankind. If the higher
uses of
prosperity are neglected, the prosperity can
only degrade us.
Ø
We are likely to
become unduly satisfied with ourselves. Dust glitters
like gold in the sunlight; and
worthless people are tempted to think
themselves of great value when
the sun of prosperity shines upon them.
Hence:
o
groundless pride,
o
vanity and blindness,
o
poverty of soul,
o
guilt of sin, and
o
danger of ruin.
o
Ø
We are inclined to set our heart on temporal comforts. This danger
always follows prosperity. It may be mitigated by right spiritual
thoughts of the wants of the soul which
no earthly possessions can
satisfy (a Divine design – CY – 2014), and by the infinitely more
precious heavenly treasures. Where such thoughts are not
cherished THE DANGER
IS GREAT!
Ø
We are inclined to over-estimate the capacities of earthly
riches, to
suppose that they can
secure the future from harm.
Ø If we have begun to walk in evil ways we shall be hardened and
hastened in them by the absence of NEEDFUL
CHECKS;
(thus the
foolishness of those who loudly voice support of
“separation
of church and state” to the neutering of all needful
checks on such evil
behaviors! – CY – 2014) and under
the influence of foolish
feelings of triumphant success.
29 “At the time appointed
he shall return, and come toward the south;
but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.” The Septuagint
does not differ from this materially, save that it has
south, and asserts that the king of the north entered
also in practical agreement with the Massoretie text. The
Peshitta is much
shorter, and differs very much from the above, as well as
from all the other
versions, “And he shall do in the former and in the
latter.” There seems to
have been something omitted, The Vulgate gives a different
rendering of
the last clause, “The last shall not be like the former.”
The reference is to
the second expedition of Antiochus into
quarrels and rivalries he had hoped to utilize for his own
purposes, were
now to appearance reconciled; they agreed to a joint
occupation of the
throne. It is supposed this second expedition was intended,
if possible, to
break up this agreement.
30 “For the ships of Chittim
shall come against him: therefore
he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation
against the holy
covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have
intelligence
with them that forsake the holy covenant.” As the Septuagint do not obscure
the reference to
Romans. The rendering is, “And the
Romans shall come, and shall drive him out,
And shall make him wroth, and he shall return and be
enraged against the
covenant of the holy, and shall do and return and plot
against those on
account of whom they left the covenant of the holy.”
Theodotion renders
in a slightly different way, “Those who come from Chittim
shall assail, and
he shall be humiliated, and he shall return and be enraged
against the
covenants of the holy. And he shall do and return, and have
understanding
against those who have been left to the holy covenant.” The
Peshitta
renders more in harmony with the Massoretic text, “Those
who come
against them from the lines of Chittim, even they shall
break him, and he
shall turn and be enraged against the holy covenant, and
shall have
understanding with them that forsake the holy covenant.”
The rendering of
the Vulgate is singular, “And there shall come against him
trieres (τριηρεἰς
–
triaereis - ships of war) and
Romans, and he shall be, beaten, and shall return,
and shall be enraged against the testament (testamentum,
covenant) of the holy
place and shall do, he shall even return and shall devise
against those who
have left the testament (testamebtum) of the holy
place.” The ships of
Chittim are the Roman ships, bearing the envoys of the
Senate with C.
Popilius Laenas at their head. He delivered to Antiochus
the tablets on which
were inscribed the wishes of the Senate. Antiochus was then
on the eve of
commencing the siege of
attacking the allies of the Republic, Antiochus said he
would answer after
consulting with his friends. Laenas drew a circle round him
with his staff
on the sand, and demanded that he should give his answer
before he left the
circle. Antiochus had to submit. Shall have indignation against the holy
covenant. It is not certain
whether Antiochus was present personally at the
plunder of
practically certain that at this time began the systematic
attempt to put
down Judaism. And have intelligence with them that
forsake the holy
covenant. It is not improbable
that Antiochus was encouraged to make the
attempt he did, by the fact that so many persons high in
position were
Hellenizers (I Maccabees 1:11-15, in which there is
reference to those that
forsook the holy covenant). The desire of Antiochus was
probably to make
his empire more homogeneous. The Jews, he would see by the
fact that
they had a national unity apart from his empire, might at
times be thorns in
his side — might become allies of
war with the Republic. It
was their religion that was the bond which united
the nation; let that
be broken, then there would be a chance of the Jews
blending harmoniously with the other races that made up
the Syrian
Empire. Those
that forsook the holy covenant made him think it an easy
task.
31 “And arms shall stand
on his part, and they shall pollute
the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily
sacrifice, and
they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.” The Septuagint is
close to the above, “And arms shall stand by him, and shall
pollute the sanctuary of fear “ — probably the Septuagint
read rwOgm;
(magor), “fear,” instead of zw[m (ma’oz),
“fortress,” a change probably due to
The fact that [ sounded in Greek ears like W hard,
Γάζa –
they shall take away the sacrifice and place (δώσουσι - dosouai – set up; place)
the abomination of
desolation.” Theodotion, from a mistaken vocalization,
renders, “And seeds “ — reading μy[ir;z] instead of μy[iroz] — “shall spring
up
from him and shall pollute the sanctuary of power, and
shall change the continual
(sacrifice), and shall place (δώσουσι) the abomination of things that have
disappeared (ἠφανισμένον
–
aephanismenon – which makes desolate).”
The
Peshitta is quite different in the first clause, “And their
strong ones shall arise
from them, and they pollute the sanctuary of strength, and
they cause the
sacrifice (qorban) to pass away, and they
shall hang up the abomination in
the temple.” The Vulgate rendering is in accordance
generally with the
Massoretic, “And arms shall stand from him and shall
pollute the sanctuary of
strength, and shall remove the continual (juge)
sacrifice, and shall place the
abomination of desolation.” Arms shall stand on his part. This word “arms”
here is not to be understood as weapons — a
misunderstanding possible in
English. “Arms” here stands
as the symbol of physical power generally. “On
his part” is represented by the preposition ˆmi,
which means “with” or “from;”
hence we find the Septuagint translating by παρ’ – par’ – with; from, and
Theodotion by ἐξ
– ex – with;
from. Probably
the most natural view is to take
the preposition as equivalent to “by,” that is, he
shall set physical forces in
motion. And they
shall pollute the sanctuary of strength. That the temple in
proved in every one of the numerous sieges it has endured. It becomes still
more a fortress, of course, when the Tower Antonia was erected overlooking
the temple area. There
may, however, have been a reference to the fact that the
collectors of tribute sent by Antiochus fortified the city of
as a basis of operations from which to assail the temple and
defile its courts
with blood (I Maccabees 1:35-36). And take away the daily sacrifice. The
Hebrew word here used means “continual,” and the substantive “sacrifice”
is supplied. In v. 45 of the same chapter of I
Maccabees we are told that
Antiochus forbade “burnt offerings, and sacrifices, and
drink offerings in
the temple.” And
they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
One must note here the source of δώσουσι which we find in both Greek
versions, and dabit, which we find in the Vulgate. The
Hebrew has Wnt]n;w]
(venath’noo), “and they shall give or
set.” It seems to refer to an altar to
Jupiter, which was erected on the brazen altar (I Maccabees
1:59). This altar is
spoken of in v. 54 as the (βδέλυγμα
ἐρημώσεως
– bdelugma
eraemoseos –
abomination of
desolation).” The Hebrew phrase has been
borrowed from
ch.9:27.
32 “And such as do
wickedly against the covenant shall he
corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their
God shall be
strong, and do exploits.’
The Septuagint translates, “And by
sins of the
covenant shall they defile themselves with a hard people,
and the people
knowing these things shall have the mastery and do
(exploits).” The m, the
preformative of the participle hiphil, has been taken for
the preposition ˆmi.
written defectively, and probably hveq; μaO l]Bi for tqol"j}B". Theodotion
does not require special notice, as his version here agrees
closely with the
Massoretic. The Peshitta is somewhat shorter and having a
different
significance, “And those who transgress against the
covenant he shall
condemn them. And the people who know the fear shall be
strong.” The
Vulgate rendering is, “And the impious against the covenant
shall feign
falsely (simulabunt fraudu-lenter), but the people
knowing their God shall
possess and do (exploits).” Men like Alcimus, the high
priest after
Menelaus, were transgressors of the sacred covenant, and
were corrupted
by the flatteries of Epiphanes. He used them to gain the
people over to his
views. But the
people that do know their God shall be strong, and do
exploits. Even when Epiphanes
seemed most nearly successful, there was a
deep-seated opposition to this Hellenizing process. Especially prominent
were those who were zealous for the Law, the Hasidim,
or, to give them
the name they have in the Book of Maccabees, the
Assidaeans. These
religionists, headed by Mattathias and his sons,
especially by the heroic
Judas Maccabaeus,
certainly
KNEW THEIR GOD, and as certainly
DID EXPLOITS!
Strength in the Knowledge of God (v.32b)
Ø Spiritual strength
must be distinguished
o
from physical
power, as in the case of
Samson, who had
very little strength of
soul;
o
from intellectual
energy which can solve mysteries of thought,
and construct lofty
arguments, but cannot resist temptation and
accomplish spiritual work;
and
o
from strength of
human will — such as is manifested by a
Napoleon — which may exist
apart from moral self-control
and capacity for the higher
efforts of life.
Ø
Spiritual
strength is strength of
the inner and higher nature. It is
capacity of the character and
will, raised to spiritual energy, to resist
evil and to do good. It implies
o
self-control (I Corinthians 9:27);
o
power to resist
external influences of fashion and of tyranny,
of seduction and of
terror (Nehemiah 6:9);
o
capacity and energy
for doing spiritual work, i.e. for overcoming
the evil in the world and
extending the good, as in reaching the
conscience of men,
convincing of sin, and persuading them to be
reconciled to God (II Corinthians 5:20). It
is seen in moral
courage, patience, zeal and persevering activity in God’s
service.
Ø
It is derived from God. It is not innate, nor
acquired by our own efforts,
nor attained by any worldly
means. It is given to us in our natural
weakness (Isaiah 40:29), when we
are most conscious of this and
distrustful of ourselves (II
Corinthians 12:10), and in response to
prayer (Psalm 138:3).
Ø
The knowledge of God is a condition for
the receiving of spiritual
strength.
o
This is necessary that
we may have understanding and faith to
ask strength of God.
o
It is necessary as a
means for attaining the strength; because
ideas of the
greatness, goodness, and might of God
are
bracing and invigorating.
o
It is necessary as a
moral condition. If we seek to know God,
He will give us
strength, but if we are neglectful
of this duty,
it is not right that God
should honor us with such favor.
Ø
Union with God
in living sympathy is the direct means for
receiving this
strength. The people referred to
in the text know God as THEIR GOD!
This appropriation of God
secures to us His strength.
needs of life. We often pray for
relief of the burden and release from the
task. God leaves the burden and
task undiminished, but gives strength by
which to do and bear. This method
of help involves less disarrangement of
the order of the outside world,
and is for us a nobler and more fruitful
blessing. Thus when we seek
peace through relaxation and ease, God gives
it in inspiration and energy (II
Corinthians 12:8-9).
Ø
It is needed for the resistance of temptation. Temptation is too
strong
for our unaided powers. In God’s
strength we are conquerors!
“There hath no temptation taken you but such as
is common to man:
but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to
be tempted above that ye
are able; but will with the temptation also
make a way to escape,
that ye may be able to bear it!” (I Corinthians 10:13)
Ø
It is useful for the endurance of trouble. The
necessary trouble must be
gone through in any case. But spiritual strength is essential to patient,
calm,
unmurmuring endurance. “I can do all things through Christ
who strengtheneth me.” (Philippians
4:13).
Ø
It is helpful for active
service. We often fail in work for want of energy
of soul. Divine strength brings
zeal, capacity, and successful activity
“Be ye strong
therefore, and let not your hands be weak:
for your
work shall be
rewarded.” (II Chronicles 15:7).
Ø
It is needful for growth of the spiritual nature. As we are strong in soul
we can know more of Divine
truth, and enlarge and elevate the life of
the INNER
MAN. This growth is the
result of the working out of
indwelling
spiritual energy (Luke 1:80).
33 “And they that
understand among the people shall instruct
many: yet, they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by
captivity,
and by spoil, many days.”
The Septuagint rendering is, “The
prudent of the
people shall understand (εἰς
πολλούς – eis pollous - in multitudes), and
they
shall push against them with the sword, and shall grow old
with it
(παλαιωθήσονται
ἐν αὐτῇ - palaiothaesontai en autae – shall
grow old
with it).”
We should feel inclined to read επαλαισαν
–
epalaisan -
had Paulus Tellensis not read as the text, “And by bondage
and by plunder of days they shall be disgraced.” The
mysterious clause,
“shall grow old with it,” is due to the translation of ybiv](shevee),
“captivity,” as if it had been hb;yci (seebah),”old
age.” Theodotion is
obscure also, “The understanding of the people shall
understand in regard
to many things, and (ἀσθενήσουσιν
–
asthenaesousin – they shall suffer)
by the sword, and with fire, and by
captivity, and in plunder of days.”
The Peshitta renders, “The
dispersed of the people shall instruct many,
and they shall fall by the sword,
and by fire, by captivity, and by spoil,
a thousand days.” The Vulgate
does not supply any point worthy of remark.
And they that understand among the people
shall instruct many. In
I Maccabees 2:27 we have an account of a multitude instructed in the Law
and determined to keep it, who, with their wives, children, and cattle,
retired
into the desert. Yet they shall fall by the sword, etc. After the
multitude
pursued the army of King Antiochus, which was at
them, the fugitives would not submit to sacrifice to idols. The army
assailed
them on the sabbath day; from a superstitious reverence for the day
of rest,
they did not even defend themselves, and therefore fell an easy prey
to their
enemies (Ibid. v. 38), “They slew them with their wives, and
children, and their
cattle to the number of a thousand people”). While we would
not be held
as regarding as literally historical the sufferings of
Eleazar and the seven
brethren and their mother, as related in II Maccabees 6. and 7, and more
fully in IV Maccabees, yet it can only have been an
exaggeration of what
must have actually occurred.
34 “Now when they shall
fall, they shall be holpen with a little
help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.” The Septuagint
rendering is, “And when they are crushed many shall be
gathered to them
(ἐπὶ - epi - in ) the city, even many as in (κληροδοσίᾳ - klaerodosia –
distribution by
lot).” This phrase is rendered by
Paulus Tellensis <ARABIC>
(poolog pesa), “the division of the lots;” wrongly rendered by Bugati, in
hereditate. The reading here is due to
dropping of the reduplication in
heltqluqoth. The Peshitta generally agrees
with the Massoretic, only it
renders the last clause, “Many shall add themselves to them in division,
<ARABIC> (palgootha),”
which, however, Castelli renders in this one
case as simulatio. When
success crowned the arms of Judas and his brethren,
many of the Sadducean party joined themselves to them, although
formerly
they belonged to the Hellenizers. This association rendered the
Assidaeans
dissatisfied, and resulted in disaster. Probably the
reference is to nothing so
far down history. When Judas began to be successful, many
would join
him, hoping, by a limited amount of treachery to Judas, to
secure safety if
the king ultimately prevailed, while at the same time,
their presence with
the Maccabees would save them from the vengeance of their
own
countrymen if Judas were successful and the Syrian yoke
thrown off.
35 “And some of them of understanding
shall fall, to try them,
and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of
the end;
because it is yet for a time appointed.” The rendering of the Septuagint is,
“And some of those of understanding shall consider to
purify themselves
both to be chosen and to be purified to the time of the
end, for the season is
for hours.” The translator must have read Wlk]c]yi,
instead of Wlv]K;yi. The
reading of the Massoretes is to be preferred. Theodotion’s,
while closer to
the Massoretic text,’ is not identical with the sense as
represented by the
Authorized and Revised Versions, “And some of those of
understanding
shall be weak to try them, that they may be chosen out and revealed at the
end of time, for it yet is for a season.” Both Greek versions, as will be seen,
render barar, “choose” — a meaning it has in the
pual — and both omit
one of the clauses. In this the Greek versions have the
support of the
Peshitta, which renders, “And (some) of the wise shall be
overthrown to
choose among them, and that they may understand to the end,
because it is
again protracted for a season.” Here, too, the last of the
clauses descriptive
of the effect of the fall of the wise is omitted. Although
the Vulgate
supports the Massoretic in this, we feel it suspicious. And some of them of
understanding
shall fall. Though marvelously successful, yet Judas and
his comrades suffered some reverses; the reference may be
to those that fell
in battle. The rendering in Theodotion would seem to point to some
apostatizing. We
have no record of any such cases, yet it is not impossible
that some would fall away. This would be a greater trial
than defeat and the
death in battle of such heroes as Eleazar, surnamed Avaran,
or even of
Judas Maccabaeus himself. To try them, and to purge, and to make them
white. The death of teachers
and of military leaders would be a severe test
of the zeal and enthusiasm of the faithful. All the fearful and insincere
would fall off from the ranks of the faithful. Those zealous
for the Law of
God would be at once tried and purified by these untoward
events. This
has been the experience of the Christian Church in every age. Because
more a trial, therefore more purifying would be the failure
of some to
maintain the faith under trial. Even to the time of the end: because it is yet
for a time
appointed. It is in perfect accordance with the view that the
purpose of the death of teachers and leaders, even their
failure, is the
purification of the saints, that the time of the trial
should be fixed and
definite. This view is
frequent in the Apocalypse (Revelation).
Purged by Trial (v. 35)
understanding” are to be purged and made white. These are clearly the
people who are “wise unto salvation” — the true Church.
Ø The ends of the gospel are not attained until the Church is
completely
purified. The first aim is to gather men into the Church by penitence
and faith. The second is to
perfect them when they are in the Church.
The forgiving grace of God does
not dispense with the necessity of
holiness. It passes over the sin of the past, that it may secure a
better
life for the future. The ends of Christ’s work are not satisfied
in
releasing us from the penalties
of our sins, and securing present
peace and future blessedness. They seek the complete renewal
and purification
of our lives.
Ø
These ends are only
attained by a lifelong process of purification. The
act of conversion does not
satisfy them. Though the life may be turned
from sin to God, evil still
lingers, old sins rise up again, and new
temptations often prove too
strong. Hence the need of the Christian’s
daily prayer for
forgiveness, and the need of a continual discipline
n holiness.
to try, and thus to purge. Trial
purges:
Ø
by making us think humbly of
ourselves, and suggesting the
question
whether we have not brought
it on ourselves by our sin;
Ø
by making us dissatisfied
with this world, and therefore anxious to be
right in relation to the
spiritual world;
Ø
by leading us to feel the need of God, and so to seek to be conformed
to His mind. These, however, are
only secondary means, and need
right using. Trouble may harden
in sin or result in complaints against
influences of
trial.
This conception of the end of trial should lead us:
o
to accept it with patient
submission, since it is sent, not as
vindictive punishment, but
as purifying chastisement; and
o
to seek grace to
use it profitably.
ACCOMPLISHED, HER TRIALS WILL CEASE.
Ø
This will be complete. The battle with
sin will not last for ever. The
dross will be all purged away,
and the people of God will be free from
all taint of sin
and all indwelling love and power of it.
This is the final
issue of the discipline of this
life which will be accomplished in the
next.
Ø
Then trial will cease. The present life of
probation, education, and
discipline is only temporary (II
Corinthians 4:17). It will be followed
by a life of perfect peace (Revelation 21:4).
36 “And the king shall do
according to his will; and he shall
exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and
shall speak
marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper
till the
indignation be accomplished; for that that is determined
shall be
done.” The Septuagint does not differ greatly from this, “And the
king shall do
according to his will, and shall be enraged, and be exalted
above every god,
and against the God of gods shall he speak marvelous things
(ἔξαλλα – exalla –
astonishing things) and shall prosper until the wrath be accomplished; for
(εἰς αὐτὸν
– eis auton - on him) there is an
end.” The difference in the last clause
is considerable between the Septuagint and not easily
explicable. Theodotion
differs somewhat more, “And he shall do according to his
will; and the king shall
be exalted, and be magnified, and he shall speak marvelous
things, and he shall
prosper until the wrath is ended; for it is to a determined
end (συντέλειαν
–
sunteleian – completion;
bring to an end).” The Peshitta is closely
related to the
Massoretic, even in the last clause, where a difference is
manifested in the others.
The Vulgate affords no occasion of remark. The question
that has to be settled
here is — Who is the king who shall do according to his
pleasure? Aben Ezra
maintained the reference was to Constantine the Great.
Rashi, followed by
Calvin, would make it the
referring this to Titus and Vespasian. As above mentioned,
his own view is
that the ‘Monarchia Romana’ is here intended.
Jephet-ibn-Ali sees in this a
prophecy of Mohammed; others, Wordsworth and Rule,
following Jerome
and Luther, think the reference here is to the antichrist of the New Testament.
For our own part, we see no necessity for supposing any
other monarch than
Epiphanes is referred to.
(Remember that this was written two centuries
ago. A lot has
happened in things eschatological. I
recommend a
Dispensational
Truth by Clarence Larkin. CY – 2014)
While Livy
and Polybius remark on the piety of Epiphanes, it may seem
strange to refer
what is said here to him; but his ruthless plundering of
temples proved that his
piety was merely a political expedient. Speak marvelous things against the
God of gods. We have no record of
any proclamations of Antiochus which
exactly suit this; but then we must bear in mind that we
have only compendious
accounts of what he did proclaim. To the heathen, moreover,
as to Polybius and
Livy, words of contempt against Jehovah would seem nothing
worse than impolitic;
but to the Jew,
blasphemous words would be so horrible that they would not be
recorded, as
being a contamination: hence it is not extraordinary that we
hear nothing of blasphemy in the history of Antiochus. The
forbidding of
sacrifices and of circumcision, while clearly enough
dishonoring to God
and to the Jewish nation, do not contain enough to justify
the statement.
Shall prosper
till the indignation be accomplished.
If by the indignation
(μ[z, za’am) is meant the sufferings endured by
the Jewish people, then
the prosperity of Epiphanes — his life, indeed — did not
last so long as the
sufferings inflicted on the Jews; for these continued for
some time after his
death. There is probably here an indication that the
writer’s horizon did not
reach to the death of Antiochus. Certain, by his faith in
God, that
Antiochus would perish, he thinks that until that time he
may prosper. For
that that is
determined shall be do,to. There is considerable
difficulty as to
the text here, but all the various forms convey the same
meaning — a
definite limit to oppression.
37 “Neither shall he
regard the God of his fathers, nor the
desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify
himself
above all.” The
Septuagint rendering is, “And to the gods of his fathers he
will not have respect, and to the desire of women he will
not have respect,
because in everything he shall be exalted, and by him
strong nations shall
be subdued.” The last clause belongs really to the next
verse, of the first
clause of which it is a variant reading. Theodotion is
nearly identical in
sense with this, “And no god of his fathers will he regard
(συνήσει – sunaesei)
and a desire of women.” “This
clause stands thus incomplete, as if the translator
would have finished it with (αὐτῳ - auto - to him) “he regards no god,
because over all he is exalted.” The Peshitta rendering is,
“And to the god
of his fathers he shall not have regard; nor to the desire
of women, nor any
god, will he have respect; but over all he shall exalt
himself.” It is to be
noted that the Peshitta renders as does the English
Version, and has the
singular, “the God of his fathers,” not as the Greek
versions, “the gods of
his.” The Hebrew might be either. The Vulgate agrees here
with the Syriac.
Neither shall
he regard the God of his fathers. Antiochus is looked upon,
not as a man of Macedonian or Greek descent, but as a
Syrian, and
certainly he had no reverence for the ancient gods of
to the theocracy and to the worship of Jehovah was but a
portion of a wide
policy, the object of which was the abolition of all local
cults. The desire of
women. It might mean that he
was not lustful; but there is no evidence that,
like Charles XII., he was abstinent. On the other hand, he
never neglected
war for luxury, as did some of the Hellenic kings.
Moreover, it is almost
imperative that it be an object of worship that is here
referred to. Taking
“the desire of women” as an object of worship, there is an
interpretation
which has come down to us from Ephrem Syrus and Jerome,
that Beltis or
Nanaea is here referred to; and the fact that in an attempt
to plunder the
temple of this goddess, in Elymais, Antiochus lost his
life, supports this
view. The worship is said to have been very lascivious. On
the other hand,
it was a worship that would not naturally be prominent to a
Palestinian
Jew. The suggestion of Ewald, that it was the worship of
Adonis or
Tammuz which Antiochus despised, is more likely to be meant
here. For he
shall magnify
himself above all. Claiming the right of annulling worship,
and taking the sacred utensils from the temple treasures,
he allowed himself
to be addressed by the Samaritans as a god. Antiochus was
probably
utterly without faith in the Divine; worship was merely
policy.
38 “But in his estate
shall he honor the God of forces: and a
god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and
silver,
and with precious stores, and pleasant things.” As we have said above,
the last clause of the preceding verse according to the
Septuagint really belongs
to this, “Strong nations shall be subject to him,” reading μyZi[] μyMial]
instead of μyzi[um; Hla’l,. There is h in
the Massoretic, where y has been in
the reading followed by the Septuagint. After this clause
the Septuagint
proceeds, “And to his place he shall move, and a god whom
his fathers
knew not he shall honor with gold, and silver, and precious
stones.” It is
possible that ddn (nadad),” to flee or
move,” was read instead of dbk
(kabad),” to honor;” for though κινεῳ kineo – to move - is usually active and
transitive, there is no object here. Theodotion has, “And
the God of Maozeim
he shall honor in his place, and a god whom his father knew
not he shall honor
with gold, silver, and precious stones, and with
offerings.” The Peshitta
rendering is freer, “The mighty god he shall honor in his
possession, and a
god whom his fathers have not known shall he honor with
gold and with
silver, with precious gems and desirable things.” The
Vulgate adopts the
transliteration Maozim. In his estate shall he honor the god of forces.
There are a number of questions here. To whom does the
prenominal suffix
refer? The English translators have arranged the words so
that we cannot
escape the view that “the estate” is the king’s, but the
natural meaning of
the Hebrew order is that it is “on the place” or “pedestal”
of the god. The
word translated “estate” is used in Genesis 40:13 for “office.”
It is used
of the “base” of the “laver.” It may mean “place.” The next
point — What
Deity is meant by “the god of strong holds”? There is
absolutely nothing to
guide us in the matter. Some have supposed that the
reference is to Jupiter
Olympius, whose statue Antiochus is reported to have set np
in the temple.
Others, that the reference is to Jupiter Capitolinus. Were
there any
evidences that Antiochus worshipped the genius of
be urged for this; but we have no evidence of this. In the
absence of
anything to fix a definite meaning on this word, we feel inclined to suggest
that Jehovah is meant by the slosh mauzzeem. Repeatedly in the Psalms is
God declared to be the Strength of the saint; e.g. Psalm
27:1; 43:2 Of
Jehovah it might be said that the ancestors of Antiochus —
Greek and
Syrian — knew Him not. Honour
with gold, etc. The repeated defeats of
the armies of Antiochus and the spoiling of their camps by
the followers of
Jehovah, was giving honor to Jehovah, however unwittingly
and
unwillingly it was done. God “gat
Him honor upon Pharaoh” (Exodus
14:4), and so now He was honored upon Epiphanes.
Self (vs. 36-38)
The undue prominence of self is a leading characteristic of
all sin, just as all
goodness implies self-denial. Where this is allowed, it is
shown in every
sphere of life.
according to his will.” This implies the neglect of
law and right, of the will
of others and of the will of God.
It is seen in tyranny, in rebellion against
lawful authority, and in the denial of our duty as servants of God.
himself, and
magnify himself above every god.” The
shadow of self is
thrown over everything. All
things are viewed in their relation to self, and
valued according as they please
or inconvenience self. Self is the ideal
standard to which nothing is
equal, and by comparison with which all merit
is measured.
CHOICE OF WORSHIP ACCORDING TO PRIVATE
CONVENIENCE. The king rejects the God of his fathers, and blasphemes
the “God
of gods” because the will of the great
God is against his evil conduct.
He selects for worship a “god
of forces” as more suited to his lawless violence.
Thus where self dominates, the truth of religion counts
for nothing, no
reverence is felt for the
awful holiness and majesty of God, but convenience
settles the creed, and
that religion is adopted which involves the least self-
denial. Thus degraded,
religion is no longer the master, it is the slave of man.
But surely religion should be accepted because it is true,
whether it suits our
convenience or not, and must
then be felt to guide and overawe our lives.
AND NEEDLESS BREACH OF CUSTOM. The king
disregards the habits of his
age, apparently out of contempt and pure
indifference. The bondage of
custom is degrading. But indifference to the
habits of others is insulting and
sometimes cruel. It is a proof of cold
selfishness. Where it is necessary to be independent, we should let our
conduct be conciliatory rather
than irritating, if we would practice humility
and generosity.
EVIDENCED BY DESTRUCTIVE VIOLENCE. The god chosen is
the “god of forces.” Might takes the
place of right. The will and welfare
of others are often crossed. How many wars have no better origin!
SUCCEED FOR A SEASON, IT IS
DOOMED TO ULTIMATE
FAILURE. The king
prospers, but only “till the indignation be
accomplished.” In the final issue self-seeking brings ruin. Selfishness
prospers for a time, and
unselfishness means temporary loss, but ultimately
the suppression of self would
lead to our lasting welfare. “For
whosoever
will save his life
shall lose it: and whosoever will lose
his life for my sake
shall find it.” (Matthew 16:25).
39 “Thus shall he do in
the most strong holds with a strange
god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory; and
he shall
cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for
gain.” The
Septuagint is somewhat difficult to render intelligibly,
“By desires
of cities he shall act, and to a strong fortress shall he
come with a strange
god whom he will acknowledge; he will increase his glory,
and shall master
him much, and shall divide his territory freely.” The first
words of this
belong to the previous verse, and at the same time there
has been some
confusion with the opening words of the present verse
according to the
Massoretic division. Theodotion is not much closer to the
received text,
“And he shall act in strongholds of refuge with a strange
god, and shall
increase glory, and subject many to them, and shall divide
the land in gifts.”
The sense of this last, as given in the Greek versions, is
illustrated by
Psalm 16:4. The Peshitta renders, “He shall pass over to the
strong
cities, on account of (‘al) the strange gods which
he shall see, and he shall
rule over many, and the land he shall divide for gain” The
Vulgate renders
more in accordance with Theodotion than with the Massoretic
yet
independently, “And he shall do (faciet) that he may
fortify Maozim with a
foreign god, whom he knew not, and shall multiply glory,
and shall give to
them power in many (things), and shall divide the land
gratuitously” This
verse as it stands is nearly unintelligible. The suggestion
of Hitzig and yon
Lengerke, followed by Bevan, that we should read μ[" (‘am), “people,”
instead of μ[i (eem), “with,”
is very plausible. The only objection is that
none of the versions have it. As, however, it seems to us
the only way out
of the difficulty, we shall take this reading, and render,
with Professor
Bevan, “He shall procure for the strong fortresses the
people of a strange
god.” For this use of hc[ Professor Bevan refers to
II Samuel 15:1,
“Absalom procured
for himself chariot and horses;” I Kings
1:5, so of
Adonijah. Whom he
shall acknowledge and increase with glory. This we
should render, “who have acknowledged him,” making the
antecedent to
the relative, not the king, but “the people of the strange
god;” the reference
being to the mercenaries of the Syrian army, who were the
people of a god
strange to the Israelites, and not impossibly made less
difficulty in giving
up their national gods, and recognizing the gods of
The K’thib here is the preterite instead of the imperfect,
which occurs in
the following clause, the reading which we accept here. He
shall increase
with glory; or rather,
he shall multiply in glory. These mercenaries of his
he would increase, and give ever more honor to them. And he shall cause
them to rule
over many. These mercenaries placed in fenced cities were
formed into Hellenic communities, and received many of the
natives as
subjects. The reference is not merely to garrisons being
placed in
fortresses, but to a chain of Hellenic cities, which, in
imitation of the
Romans, Antiochus placed in
As will be seen, the Greek versions and the Vulgate reverse
the idea here,
and render — the Septuagint δωρεάν - gratuitously; for a price. Theodotion,
ἐν δώροις –
en dorois - in gifts; the Vulgate,
gratuito, which is due to reading
ryjim] (meheer) instead of ryhim](meheer).
The word may mean, as it is taken
by the English versions
and the Peshitta to mean, “for a price;” as in II Samuel
24:24, David purchased the threshing-floor of Araunah bimeheer,
“at a price;” but it also means “wages,” as
in Micah 3:11, “Her priests
teach for hire wages (bimeheer).” The reference,
then, is to the fact that in
the deplenished state of his treasury, Antiochus divided
the land of
40 “And at the time of the
end shall the king of the south push
at him: and the king of the north shall come against him
like a
whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many
ships;
and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow
and pass over.”
The Septuagint Version is somewhat shorter, “And at the
time of the end
the King of Egypt shall push at him: and the king of the
north shall be
enraged at him, with chariots and many horses and many
ships, and shall
enter into the
Still it is a possible thing that, as
military preparations of
instead of the longer paraphrase of the Massoretic. Throughout
in the
Septuagint Version, as may be noted, “
south.” Theodotion is much closer to the Massoretic, but
omits “the
whirlwind,” and has. instead of “countries,”( γῆν – gaen - “the
land).The
Peshitta differs in some respects more from the Massoretic
than either of the
Greek texts, “And at the end of time the king of the south
shall strive with him:
and the king of the north shall be moved against him, with
chariots and
horsemen and with many ships; and he shall act impiously in
the land.” The
Vulgate agrees with the Massoretic text. At the time of the end. This
refers
to the same “time of the end” as that in v. 35; that is to
say, not the end
of the world, but the end of this distress. It is possible
that to the writer the
entrance of the new era — the Messianic time — would
coincide with the
fall of Antiochus, and that this era might be regarded as
the end of the
world. The king
of the south shall push at him. This suggests war begun by
the King of
place after the fourth expedition of Antiochus into
brothers, Philometor and Euergetes (Physcon), were at war
with each other
shortly after this, and though Philometor gained the
mastery, he was not in
a position to threaten
position to take vengeance on his uncle, the successful
rebellion of the
Jews afforded an opportunity. We have no record in
Polybius, Livy, 1
Maccabees, or Josephus of any expedition of
either planned or attempted. Polybius is certainly
fragmentary, and so to a
greater extent is Livy; yet what has come down bears on
events so near
chronologically to this alleged expedition planned against
would scarcely fail to be noticed. And the king of the north shall dome
against him
like a whirlwind, with chariot, and
with horsemen, and with
many ships. This purports to be
an account of an expedition undertaken by
Epiphanes against Ptolemy, presumably Philometor. Of this
there is not a
trace; Antiochus is in so great need of money that he must
use one half his
army to collect money by robbing temples in Elymais, while
the other,
under Lysias, is occupied in attempting to put down the
rebellion of the
Jews. Again the historians of the period are silent, and
what they tell us is
inconsistent with this fifth expedition. Jerome, in his
commentary on
Daniel, quotes Porphyry, who gives an account of an
expedition against
death — the year, therefore, of his expedition against
Elymais. It is
impossible that in the beginning of that year he should
undertake such an
expedition into
time to march into Elymais. It cannot be the expedition of
Lysias which is
referred to, for he is represented (I Maccabees 3:32) as
having the oversight of
all the territory of the king from the river
of ships And he
shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass
over. This might refer to
the expedition which Antiochus undertook to
Elymais, but in the following verse we learn the direction
was toward
to be given of this? The explanation favored by Keil of
this whole chapter,
that the king of the north is
antichrist, is applied here; but so
much of the
earlier portion of this chapter can be interpreted as
history, that we, for our
part, are loath to give an eschatological interpretation to
this. The view
favored by most is that here the author narrated his
expectations, but
these expectations were contrary to facts. This is
Professor Bevan’s view.
If this view had been correct, the expectations of the
author would be
falsified almost as soon as they were recorded; this would
certainly seem to
render it impossible for the book to get the vogue it did.
We, for our part,
favor a modification of the view maintained by Hitzig, that
this section is
a repetition of what has been previously mentioned. Against
this is the
chronological statement at the beginning. Regarding, as we
do, this chapter
as an interpolation and the work of a later hand, our idea
is that the section
before us is one attempt to interpolate, and the preceding
section is
another, and that both have been incorporated in the
narrative.
41 “He shall enter also
into the glorious land, and many
countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out
of his hand,
even
Septuagint rendering is slightly of the nature of a
paraphrase, “And he shall
pass into my land, and many (feminine) shall be
offended, and these shall
be saved from his hand,
Ammon.” It is possible that the word tzebee was
omitted, and the
pronominal suffix attached to ‘aretz. Theodotion
renders, “And he shall
enter into the land of the Sabaeem, and many shall be made
weak; but these
shall be delivered out of his hand,
of Ammon.” The transliteration here might suggest μyib"x] instead of ybix],
and a mistake of the former for μl;y[ is in the square letters not
impossible; but x and [ are,
in the older scripts, very unlike. The Peshitta,
while agreeing with the Massoretic generally, renders, “the
glorious land,”
“the
before
expedition of Antiochus reaches
tempest is represented as being directed. The countries
adjacent escape.
disappeared as a national name. It may have been
inserted in consequence of
the frequent conjunction of the three names, “
It is, however, singular that these nations should be named
as “escaping,” since
they were the allies of Antiochus, or more properly, as
they would be regarded
by him as subjects, his instruments in the oppression of
version of the vision of Daniel has been less modified from
the original than
what has preceded. In the original document,
might have some symbolic reference. The glorious land can scarcely be
other than
might be rendered, “the land of the gazelle.” Out of the
thirty passages in
which this word occurs in Scripture, fourteen times it must
have this
meaning, in some of the other cases it may have it. So far,
then, as the
name goes, it might apply to any country fitted for the
habitation of the
gazelle; but the mention of “
necessity that the reference here be to
overthrown. The verb used is kashal, which means, in the niphal,
“to
totter,” “to fall,” “to be weak.” It is assumed by Hitzig
and Fuller, as by the
English versions, that “countries” is to be understood.
Ewald, however,
and many other commentators, following the older versions,
would refer to
men, and translate, “myriads shall fall.” In the version
from which Origen
has supplemented the Septuagint it is rendered, “Many women
or countries
(σκανδαλὶσθήσονται
–
skandalisthaesontai - shall be offended),” the feminine
rendering being due to the feminine
termination -oth in rabboth, but the verb is
masculine.
42 “He shall stretch forth
his hand also upon the countries:
and the
“And he shall send forth his hand upon the countries, and
in the land of
marked with an asterisk. Evidently the text before the
translators had
hf;lep] hl; (lah pelaytah), “to her deliverance,” and
“deliverance” in the
abstract became “deliverer” in the concrete. Theodotion
renders in a
different sense, “And he shall stretch his hand upon the
land, and the land
of
The Peshitta agrees with the Massoretic pretty closely, “He
shall stretch his
hand over the countries, and the
hands.” The Vulgate has nothing to justify remark. Probably
this verse, in
the way it is rendered by Theodotion, is a portion of the
lost vision of
Daniel. The vagueness of “countries” stands in contrast to
the definiteness
of
expected from
claimed the subjection of the
43 “But he shall have
power over the treasures of gold and of
silver, and over all the precious things of
the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.” The rendering of the Septuagint is
somewhat fuller, “He shall have power over the place of
gold and the place
of silver, and over all the desire of
be in his multitude.” The word translated “treasures” is a
late one, but
evidently the Septuagint translator had μqm (maqom) instead of ynem"k]mi.
(michemanay). Theodotion renders, “And he
shall have power over the
secret hoards of gold and silver, and over all the
desirable things of
and of Libyans, and of AEthiopians in their fortresses.”
Theodotion has
read wyrwxm
(metzorayo) instead of wyd;[;x]mi (mitz’adoyo). The Peshitta
rendering is, “And he shall have power over the house of
the treasures of
gold and silver, and of the pleasant things of
the Cushites (Ethiopians) are his allies.” The Vulgate
follows a slightly
different rendering, “And he shall rule the treasures of
gold and silver, and
over all the precious things of
shall he pass.” Having a different reading in the last
clause from the
Massoretic, the natural Hebrew equivalent for transibit is
rbo[]y" (ya’bor)
— a word that could scarcely arise by mistake from
that in the text. He
shall have
power over the treasures of gold and silver,
and over all the
precious
things of
Antiochus never wholly conquered
which he had laid siege to
conquest. And the
Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. This
certainly is not true in the sense in which Jerome takes
it, “he shall pass
through
associated with each other; e.g. in Jeremiah 46:8-9,
we have, “The
Ethiopians and the
Libyans that handle the shield.” So in
Ezekiel 30:5
we have the countries spoken of together. It may merely
mean that
individuals belonging to these nationalities had joined his
armies. This is
altogether a more ornate and poetical passage than the rest
of this chapter,
and gives the feeling of a different hand; therefore,
probably, it belongs to a
time nearer that of Daniel, and contains more of the
original prophecy.
Professor Fuller remarks on a reference being made to the
help Ptolemy
received from
of this chapter, but not here. The Lubim and Cushim are
contemporary
with
44 “But tidings out of the
east and out of the north shall
trouble him; therefore he shall go forth with great fury to
destroy,
and utterly to make away many.” The version of the
Septuagint is very
like this, “A rumor out of the east and out of the north
shall trouble him,
and he shall come out in great rage to lay waste with the
sword, and to slay
many.” The version of Theodotion is somewhat briefer,
“Rumors and
disturbances out of the east and from the north shall
trouble him, and he
shall come in much wrath to destroy many.” The Syriac is
closer than any
other version to the Massoretic text. The Vulgate renders,
“A rumor out
of the east and north shall trouble him, and he shall come
with a great
multitude that he may beat down and slay many.” The word am;je (hayma)
may mean either “wrath” or “multitude.” It is difficult to
identify the
rumors that recalled Antiochus from his conquests. The
account given by
Porphyry (quoted by Jerome) of his receiving news that led
him to ravage
the coasts of
other historians. A phrase in Tacitus (‘Hist.,’ 5:8) seems
to throw light on
this, “After the Macedonians held the supremacy, King
Antiochus, when he
was endeavoring to change the superstition of this people, i.e.
the Jews,
into the manners of the Greeks, was hindered by a Parthian
war.” There is,
however, no record of such a Parthian war; but such a war
may have
arisen, and not be recorded, as the histories for the
period before us are
very incomplete. Should we regard these verses as giving
another account
of the war between Epiphanes and Ptolemy, the tidings out
of the north
might mean the arrival of the Roman envoys, headed by
Popilius Laenas. If
there were also a threat of a Parthian invasion, we should
then have,
“tidings out of the east and north.” Therefore he shall go forth with great
fury to
destroy, and utterly to make away many. Certainly Antiochus
did
return furious from the expedition in which he was stayed
by the Romans;
and certainly also he set himself thereafter to compel the
Jews to become
Greeks in religion, punishing with death refusal to yield
to his demands
(I Maccabees
1:24-28; Josephus, ‘
45 “And he shall plant the
tabernacles of his palace between
the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come
to his end,
and none shall help him.” The rendering of the Septuagint is, “Then shall he
set up his tent between the seas and the mountains of the
choice of the
sanctuary, and the hour of his end shall come, and he shall
have no helper.”
Theodotion’s rendering is, “He shall pitch his tent
Epha-dano between the
seas at the holy
will not be a deliverer to him.” It is to be observed that
the word yond]p"a"
(appadno), “royal tent,” a late word in Hebrew, was
not present in the text
before the translator of the Septuagint. Further,
Theodotion did not know
the meaning of the word, although his recension was
prepared under
Jewish supervision. The Peshitta renders, “And he shall
place his tent on
the plain space between the sea and the mountain, and shall
assail its
sanctuary, and he shall come to his end; there shall not be
to him a helper.”
The Vulgate renders, “And he shall place his tabernacle, aphadno,
between
the two seas upon the glorious and holy mountain; he shall
come even to
its (his) highest point, and no one shall help him.” He shall plant the
tabernacle of
his palace. The word here used (appadno) does not occur
elsewhere, and seems to denote the royal tent. The fact
that it does not
appear in the Septuagint or Peshitta renders its right to
be in the text
somewhat doubtful. Theodotion and Jerome transliterate it,
as if it had not
got a place in Hebrew even in their day. It does occur in
the Targum and
the Peshitta. At the same time, a purely technical word
like this might really
be of ancient usage, yet the occasion for its use might not
have previously
occurred; the literature of ancient Hebrew is exceedingly
limited. Between
the seas in
the glorious holy mountain. Havernick maintains that the
glorious and holy mountain here is the mountain on which
the temple of
Nanaia was placed, and that the seas in question
were the Caspian and the
a heathen temple was placed, “glorious holy,” even were we
sure that the
temple in question was on a mountain, for which we have no
evidence. The
Jews probably knew of the sea into which the
waters; but it is not prominent in their writings, and the
Caspian may be
looked upon as unknown. The distance between these two seas
is so great
that no one would locate such a small thing as a city by
saying that it was
between them. The natural interpretation is that the seas
in question are the
Mediterranean — the great sea — and the Dead Sea — the
the Hebrew leads rather to the idea that the plural is one
of excellence. ˆybe
(bayn), “between,” is not infrequently construed
with l] (le), “to,” as here;
hence the translation would be between the seas, i.e. the
great sea and the
holy mountain. There can
be no doubt that “the glorious and holy
mountain” is
help him. The death of
Antiochus, baffled in his attempt to rifle the temple
of Nanaia, humiliated not only by his own disaster, but by the
news
received from
we get rid of the rhetoric with which the events are
clothed in Polybius and
I and II Maccabees. One-half of his army under Lysias had
been baffled and
defeated by Judas Maccabaeus; he himself had been repulsed
in his attempt
to replenish his coffers; there is therefore for him no
helper, so he dies of
disappointment at Tabes.
The Specious Success of a Bad Monarch (vs.
21-45)
There is mystery in the fact that, under the administration
of a righteous
God, bad men should be elevated to highest rank. Yet, evil
though it is, it
would probably be a greater evil to employ mere force to
prevent it. It is
evident that God rules among men by moral agencies. This is
one
circumstance among the “all things” that “work
together for the good” of
God’s elect. (Romans
8:28)
IMPERIAL THRONES.
There is a sense in which it is true that “God
setteth up one,
and putteth down another” (Psalm 75:7). Yet it is not true
that God acts apart from men, nor is He responsible for any unrighteous act.
Without His permission it could
not be; but if power should interfere to
prevent wrongdoing, this would
be to make virtuous by compulsion — this
would be to destroy virtue’s
essential nature. The people of
day, clamored for a king. God
did not approve; yet, in anger, He permitted
them to have a king. Nor would
it have then availed for God to have
furnished Israel with a king ”after
his own heart.” The people would not at
that time have tolerated such a prince. Very clear is it that God
sets no
high value on the highest
earthly distinctions. The wealth and dignities and
scepters of earth are not deemed
worthy to be rewards for His friends.
Riches and sovereignties often
fall to the lot of the vilest of mankind —
clear proof this how God
values such possessions. “That which is highly
esteemed anong men
is often an abomination in the sight of God.”
(Luke 16:15) The wise men in God’s kingdom will not envy
any of
fortune’s favorites.
PASSING SUCCESS.
From the hour when Antiochus was liberated from
duplicity and treachery. If men
wish to make a lie succeed, they must make
it big enough and utter it
boldly, and it will travel far and wide. So too any
act of wickedness will best
succeed if it is carried out with brazen
effrontery. No consideration of
truth, or duty, or feeling, or self-consistency,
was allowed by Antiochus to
stand in the way of vile success.
To be rightly or wrongly a
monarch over a large area — this was his one
ambition, and to this evil deity everything was sacrificed. If lying, or
reserve, or deceit, or
tergiversation, would serve his turn, all were resorted
to. No covenant, or treaty, or
promise, issuing from him, was worth a
groat. He was more a demon than a man; for all manly qualities had been
parted with. To the
eye of his courtiers and generals it would seem as if
this course of life secured
success; yet it was a very doubtful success and
very ephemeral. Granted that it
continued, more or less, through his
lifetime; this was merely a
period of eleven years. To estimate justly the
success of a man’s life, we
must measure it, not by years, but by centuries
— not by the fleeting hour’s of
time, but by its continuance through
eternity. Posterity has
long since reversed the judgment of this Syrian
king’s contemporaries. Scorn and detestation are his inheritance.
SIDE. The majority of
men are more fitted to follow than to lead. If only a
bold and self-assertive leader
appear, crowds of weaker men will attach
themselves to his
person; and if only something can be
gained, be it earthly
spoil or glory, the appetite of
avarice will be sharply whetted. The public
and faithful
testimony of a good man will
strengthen the confidence of
feebler saints, and make the
pulse of piety beat stronger. This has an
effect
in drawing righteous spirits
more closely together, and, as a consequence,
increasing their
severance from the wicked. So it is
also a fact that the
public success of a bad man
(especially if he be an opponent and persecutor
of the Church) will serve to
detach hypocrites and self-deceivers from the
cause of truth and
righteousness. The successful violence and blatant
profanity of Antiochus separated
the impious Jews from the pious. Then it
was discovered that many who
observed the sacred rites of Judaism were
atheists at heart, and were more eager to share in the spoils of sacrilege
than to defend their temple and
their God. In days of prosperity and peace,
multitudes are content with
a superficial faith. But persecution
is a sterling
test, and well
brings out the genuine and the spurious in character.
COURAGE AND FAITH OF THE RIGHTEOUS. The tyrannic violence
of Antiochus drove good men
nearer to God; it led them to examine the
foundations of their hope; it brought them to the fount of Divine strength;
it disposed them to inflame each
other’s zeal. Though the pious in
invader; and if they were not at
once successful, their devotion to the
Jewish cause soon developed
sufficient martial skill to defeat and drive out
the foe. Out of evil came good. Had
it not been for the violence and
sacrilege of Antiochus, the Jews
would have borne the yoke of the Syrian
monarchs. But now a Jewish hero
— Judas Maccabaeus — is brought to
the front, who resolves on the
bold enterprise of Jewish independence. If
vice can be bold and fearless, much more ought virtue to be.
instructive to observe how the
mind of this usurping king vacillates on the
matter of religion. He who
sought to dethrone the true God from his seat
in Jerusalem, and to overturn
His altars, sought also to enthrone the
mythical idol Jupiter, and to erect
an altar for this imaginary deity. Man
must worship somewhat. His
religious faculty cries out for some exercise.
If the true God
be rejected, some counterfeit god must be
invented. Well
did the leaders of the French
Revolution affirm, “If there be no God, we
must make one” But, in truth,
Antiochus believed in nothing save himself.
The world existed for him. Armies
existed for him. Men’s lives, or family
happiness, or national weal, or
religion’s temples, were counted as nothing,
if seemingly opposed to his
advantage. He was simply a
monster of
egotistic
selfishness. He might have said truly, “
‘tis only for me!” If it seems
to serve a passing caprice, a temple is erected
for some Roman deity. If money
is wanted for war, he will strip every
temple of its treasures. The
only deity his soul worshipped was force —
vulgar power.
TO A DIVINE RULE. Even good men are
sometimes impatient to see the
progress and the success of
villainy. In their anguish they often cry out,
“How long? O Lord, how long?”
But God does not move, in His
administration of the world,
with premature haste. “The time is
appointed’’
when iniquity shall cease to be
successful, and when complete retribution
shall overtake the unrighteous
man. A royal tyrant may as well knock his
head against a granite wall —
and better — than to work against God, or
to fling himself on the bosses
of the Almighty’s shield. In the midst of
apparent success, such a man
feels oft times that fate (as he calls it) is
against him. Strangely are his
ends defeated, as were Napoleon’s by a
snowstorm. The mightiest warrior
is working, with his blustering noise,
within a very tiny circle; and
all imperial and martial events are embraced
within the supreme purpose and
administration of God. Let appearances be
as they may, “God
has prepared his throne in the heavens and His kingdom
ruleth over all” (Psalm
103:19). At last, reward and
retribution shall be
distributed by ROYAL AND IMPARTIAL HANDS.
Every one shall
“receive the due
reward of his deeds” (I Corinthians 3:8).
God’s end may
be far off, humanly speaking,
yet it shall “surely come.” Though it tarry,
childlike faith will wait for it! (Habakkuk 2:3)
Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.