If we attentively examine first of all the form of this revelation, namely, the manifestation of God, by which there is given to Daniel the understanding of the events of the future (ch. x. 14, cf. ch. xi. and xii.), this revelation will be found to be distinguished from all the others in this, that it is communicated partly by supernatural illumination for the interpretation of the dreamvision, partly by visions, partly by the appearance of angels. Auberlen (d. Proph. Dan, p. 91 f.) has already referred to this distinction, and therein has found a beautiful and noteworthy progression, namely, that the one revelation always prepares the way, in a material and formal respect, for that which follows, from which we may see how God gradually prepared the prophet for the reception of still more definite disclosures. " First Nebuchadnezzar dreams, and Daniel simply interprets (ch. ii. and iv.); afterwards Daniel himself has a dream, but as yet it is only as a vision in a dream of the night (ch. vii. 1, 2); then follows a vision in a waking state (ch. viii. 1-3); and finally, in the last two revelations (ch. ix. and x.-xii.), when Daniel, now a feeble, trembling (?) old man (ch. x. 8 ff.), is already almost transplanted out of this world — now the ecstatic state seems to be no longer necessary for him. Now in his usual state he sees and hears angels speak like men, while his companions do not see the appearances from the higher world, and are only overwhelmed with terror, like those who accompanied Paul to Damascus (ch. ix. 20 ff., x. 4 ff., cf. Acts of Ap. ix. 7)." It is true, indeed, that, as Aub. remarks, there is a progression from interpreting of dreams to the receiving of visions in dreams and in the waking state, but by this reference neither are the actual contents of the revelation given in different forms perfectly comprehended, nor still less is the meaning of the difference made clear. Auberlen, in thus representing the distinction, has left out of view the circumstance, that the visions in ch. vii. and viii. are also interpreted to Daniel by an angel; moreover, that the revelation in ch. viii. does not merely consist of a vision, in which Daniel sees the destruction of the Persian world-kingdom by the Javanic under the figure of a he-goat casting down the ram, but that Daniel, after this vision, also hears an angel speak, and a voice comes to him from above the waters of the Ulai which commands the angel Gabriel to explain the vision to the seer (ch. viii. 13 ff.), and that this second part of that revelation has a great likeness to that in ch. x.-xii.; finally, that the same angel Gabriel again appears in ch. ix., and brings to Daniel the revelation regarding the seventy weeks (ch. ix. 24-27). But as to the interpretation of these revelations given in different forms, this difference is conditioned partly by the subjective relations sustained by the recipients to God, while, on the other hand, the form is in the most intimate manner connected with the contents of the revelation, and indeed in a way wholly different and much deeper than Auberlen thinks, if he therein sees only the material progression to greater speciality in the prophecy.
To comprehend the meaning of the divine revelation in ch. x.-xii., we must examine more closely the resemblance which it presents to ch. viii. 13-19. As in the vision ch. viii., which points to the oppression of the time of the end (ch. viii. 17, 19), Daniel heard a voice from the Ulai (ch. viii. 16), so in ch. x. and xii. the personage from whom that voice proceeded appears within the circle of Daniel's vision, and announces to him what shall happen to his people D^J? rn^r1 (ch. x. 14). This celestial person appears to him in such awful divine majesty, that he falls to the ground on hearing his voice, as already in ch. viii. 17 ff. on hearing his voice and message, so that he feared he should perish; and it was only by repeated supernatural consolation and strengthening that he was able to stand erect again, and was made capable of hearing the revelation. The heavenly being who appears to him resembles in appearance the glory of Jehovah which Ezekiel had seen by the river Chaboras (Chebar); and this appearance of the man clothed in linen prepared the contents of his revelation, for
God so manifested Himself to Daniel (as He will approve Himself to His people in the times of the future great tribulation) as He who in judgment and in righteousness rules the affairs of the world-kingdoms and of the kingdom of God. and conducts them to the issues foreseen; so that the effect of His appearance on Daniel formed a pre-intimation and a pledge of that which would happen to the people of Daniel in the future. As Daniel was thrown to the ground by the divine majesty of the man clothed in linen, but was raised up again by a supernatural hand, so shall the people of God be thrown to the ground by the fearful judgments that shall pass over them, but shall again be raised up by the all-powerful help of their God and His angel-prince Michael, and shall be strengthened to endure the tribulation. According to this, the very appearance of God has prophetic significance; and the reason why this last vision is communicated to Daniel neither by a vision nor by angels, but by a majestic Theophany, does not lie in the more definite disclosures which should be given to him regarding the future, but only in this, that the revelation, as is mentioned in the superscription, ch. x. 1, places in view the riBK bnj KM (ch. x. 1).
Of this oppression, that spoken of in ch. viii., which should come upon the people of God from the fierce and cunning king seen as a little horn, forms a type; therefore Daniel hears the voice from the waters of the Ulai. That which is there briefly indicated, is in ch. x.-xii. further extended and completed. In regard to the definiteness of the prediction, the revelation in ch. x.-xii. does not go beyond that in ch. viii.; but it does so with respect to the detailed description found in it of the wars of the world-rulers against one another and against the people of God, as well as in this, that it opens a glimpse into the spirit-world, and gives disclosures regarding the unseen spiritual powers who mingle in the history of nations. But over these powers God the Lord exercises dominion, and helps His people to obtain a victory over all their enemies. To reveal this, and in actual fact to attest it to the prophet, and through him to the church of God of all times, is the object of the Theophany, which is circumstantially described in ch. x. for the sake of its prophetical character.
Ch. x. 1-3. The introduction to the following manifestation of God. Ver. 1. This verse is to be regarded as an inscription or general statement of the substance of it. Therefore Daniel speaks of himself in the third person, as in ch. vii. 1, and in the historical portions ch. i.-vi. The definition of the time, " In the first year of Cores (Cyrus) king of Persia," refers us back to ch. i. 21, but it does not, as has been there already remarked, stand in contradiction to the first year of Cyrus named there. Tin 1S ^e following revelation, which was communicated to the prophet not by a vision (ptn), but by a manifestation of God (HS")D), and was given in the form of simple human discourse. The remark regarding Daniel, a whose name was Belteshazzar," is designed only to make it obvious that the Daniel of the third year of Cyrus was the same who was carried to Babylon in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (seventytwo years before). To the question why Daniel did not return to his native land in the first year of Cyrus, which Hitzig has thus formulated for the purpose of framing an argument against the genuineness of this prophecy — " How could he, who was a pattern of piety (ch. i. 8, Ezek. xiv. 14), so disregard the opportunity that was offered and the summons of Isaiah (ch. xlviii. 20, lii. 11 ff.) as if he stood on the side of those who forgot the holy mountain?" (Isa. lxv. 11) — the supposition of his advanced old age (Hav.) is no sufficient answer. For, on the contrary, Hitzig has rightly replied that old men also, such as had even seen the former temple, had returned home (Ezra iii. 12), and Daniel was not so infirm as to be unable for the journey. The correct answer is rather this, that Daniel, because divine revelations had been communicated to him, had obtained a position at the court of the world-rulers in which he was able to do much for the good of his people, and might not, without a special divine injunction, leave this place; that he thus, not from indifference toward the holy mountain or from neglect of the injunctions to flee from Babylon (Isa. xlviii. 20, lii. 11 ff.), but from obedience to God, and for the furtherance of the cause of His kingdom, remained at his post till the Lord His God should call him away from it.
In the second hemistich the contents of this new divine revelation are characterized. "in*nn with the article points back to 13^ in the first half of the verse. Of this " word " Daniel says that it contains HEK and 7^3 K3¥. In the statement that " the thing was true," Hitzig finds an intimation that thereby the author betrays his standpoint, namely, the time when u the thing " was realized, for Daniel could not say this before it happened. But this objection supposes that the author was a lying prophet, who spoke from his own heart (Jer. xxlx. 8, 15). But if Daniel had actually received a "word" from God, he could before its fulfilment testify its truth. The testimony to the truth of the word here indicates, as it does in ch. viii. 26 in the mouth of the angel, that the word of God now communicated to the prophet contained things which it would be difficult for the human heart to believe. The second predicate ^IJ N3S shows in what respect this is so. For that these words do not, with the LXX. and Aquil., refer to what follows is obvious, as is acknowledged by all modern interpreters. N3V7 warfare, military service, then the difficulty of this service, and figuratively difficulty, afflictions of life, Job vii. 1, x. 17, and also here. " The word is, i.e. concerns, has as its contents, great afflictions" [E.V. "the time appointed was long"].
In the last clause of this verse p3 and HJ*3 are not the imperative (v. Lengerke), because a summons to give heed, or understand, would not be here in place. H3*3 is a substantive, and the throwing of the accent on the penultima is occasioned by the accented \> which follows, ps is the 3d pers. per/., not the infinitive (Hav.). Understanding was to him n*jH©3j by that which was seen, i.e. by the appearance described in vers. 5 ff. fiNiftli cannot at all be referred (Klief.) to the earlier prophecies of ch. viii. 7, 9. The statement in these two passages serves for the confirmation of that which was said regarding the contents of the word from God, and stands in relation to ch. viii. 27, where Daniel was troubled because no one understood the vision. He was helped out of this state of non-understanding by the following revelation, cf. ver. 14. But the objection that it cannot be here said that Daniel understood the word, because he himself, ch. xii. 8, says that he did not understand it, has been disposed of by Kliefoth, who justly remarks that the non-understanding in ch. xii. 8 regards a single point, namely, the duration of the affliction, regarding which, however, disclosures are given to the prophet in ch. xii. 10 f. The translation: " he heard the word, and understood the vision" (Kran.), is set aside by this circumstance, that it takes p3 in a different sense from n:^ contrary to the parallelism of the passages.
Vers. 2, 3 introduce the following revelation by a statement of the occasion of it. Dnn D^n refers back to the date named in ver.
1. The D1^ after &$$& does not serve to designate the three weeks as common day-weeks, in contrast to the CJ^ of ch. ix. 24 ff., but is an accusative subordinated to the definition of time which expresses the idea of continuance: three weeks long, or three whole weeks, as Gen. xli. 1; cf. Gesen. Gramm. § 118, 3. For three weeks Daniel mourned and fasted, i.e. abstained from the usual food, nnipn DIT^ precious food, delicacies; but Hav., v. Leng., Maur., Hitz., and Kran. interpret it of leavened bread, so called in contrast to the unleavened paschal bread, the bread of affliction (Deut. xvi. 3). But this contrast is not well founded, for the nitfp (unleavened cakes) of the passover was not (notwithstanding Deut. xvi. 3) br?ad of sorrow, but pure, holy bread, which Daniel did not eat, in opposition to the law, for three weeks. Drp is not to be limited to bread in its narrower sense, but denotes food generally. Flesh and wine are festival food, Isa. xxii. 13, Gen. xxvii. 25, which is not had every day. The anointing with oil was the sign of joy and of a joyous frame of mind, as with guests at a banquet, Amos vi. 6, and was intermitted in the time of sorrow; cf. 2 Sam. xiv. 2. Fasting, as an abstaining from the better sustenance of common life, was the outward sign of sorrow of soul.
According to ver. 4, Daniel mourned and fasted in the first month of the year, the month in the middle of which the paschal feast was kept, in which Israel celebrated their deliverance from their state of slavery in Egypt and their advancement to be the people of God, and were joyful before their God. On the 24th day of this month occurred the Theophany (ver. 4 ff\), with which, however, his fasting came to an end. According to this, it appears that he fasted from the third to the twenty-third of the month Nisan; thus it began immediately after the feast of the new moon, which was kept for two days (cf. 1 Sam. xx, 18 f., 27, 34 with vi. 29, ii. 19). Thus Hav. and Hitzig conclude; while v. Leng. and Maurer argue, from ver. 13, that between the time of fasting and the appearance of the angel an interval elapsed, consequently that Daniel fasted from the first to the twenty-first of the month Nisan. But from ver. 13 nothing further follows than that the angel was detained twenty-one days; so that the question as to the beginning and the end of the fast is not certainly answered from the text, and, as being irrelevant to the matter, it can remain undecided. More important is the question as to the cause of such long-continued great sorrow, which is not answered by the remark that he was thus prepared for receiving a divine revelation. According to ver. 12, Daniel sought pan, i.e. understanding as to the state of the matter, or regarding the future of his people, which filled him with concern. The word about the restoration of Jerusalem which he had received through the angel Gabriel in the first year of Darius (ch. ix.) had come to pass since that revelation in the first year of Cyrus, but had had only little effect on the religious lukewarmness of the majority of the people. Of the whole people only a very small portion had returned to the land of their fathers, and had begun, after restoring the altar of burnt-offering, to build the house of God in Jerusalem. But while the foundation of the new temple was laid, there mingled with the joyful shoutings of the people also the loud wailings of the old men who had seen the former temple in its glory, when they beheld this building undertaken amid circumstances so depressing and sorrowful (Ezra iii.). In addition to this, the Samaritans immediately, when the Jewish rulers refused for conscience sake to permit them to take part with them in the building, sought, by means of influences used at the Persian court, to prevent the carrying on of the building (Ezra iv. 1-5). This sad state of matters could not but, at the beginning of the new year, fill the heart of Daniel with deep sorrow, and move him at the return of the time of the passover to mourn in fasting and prayer over the delay of the salvation promised to his people, and to supplicate in behalf of Israel the pardon of their sins, and their deliverance out of the hand of their enemies. Therefore he mourned and fasted before and during the paschal days for three weeks, until on the twenty-fourth day of the month he received a revelation from God.
Vers. 4-6. The Theophany. — On the day named Daniel found himself on the side (banks) of the river Hiddekel, i.e. the Tigris (see under Gen. ii. 14), along with some who accompanied him (ver. 7); thus he was there in reality, and not merely in vision as at the Ulai, ch. viii. 2. For what purpose he was there is not said. Here he saw a celestial being, whose form is described, vers. 5, 6. It was a man (*VJ£,' one, not several) clothed in 0^3, i.e. in a talar of shining white linen (regarding EV:!3, see under Ezek. ix. 2), and his loins girt about with gold of Uphaz. JSW occurs nowhere else, except in Jer. x. 9: gold of Uphaz and silver of Tarshish, from which we must conclude that Uphaz is the name of a region, a country, probably only a dialectically different form for TBitf; the combination with the Sanscr, vipdca = Hyphasis is, on the other hand, very far-fetched.
Yer. 6. His body shone like t^Ehfi, i.e, the chrysolite of the Old and the topaz of the New Testament (see under Ezek. i. 16); his countenance had the appearance of lightning, his eyes as lamps
On the other hand, the opinion maintained to some extent among the Rabbis, which even Hengstenberg has in modern times advocated (Beitr. i. p. 165 ff.; Christol. iii. 2, p. 50 ff.), namely, that the angel of the Lord who here appears to Daniel in divine majesty is identical with the angel-prince Michael, has no support in Scripture, and stands in contradiction to vers. 13 and 21, where he who speaks is certainly distinguished from Michael, for here there is ascribed to Michael a position with reference to the people of God which is not appropriate to the Angel of the Lord or the Logos. It is true, indeed, that Hengstenberg holds, with many old interpreters, that he who speaks with Daniel, ver. 11, and reveals to him the future, is different from him who appears to him, vers. 5 and 6, and is identical with the angel Gabriel. Bat the reasons advanced in support of this are not sufficient. The latter supposition is grounded partly on the similarity of the address to Daniel, nnnn csK, vers. 11 and 19, cf. with ch. ix. 2?, partly on the similarity of the circumstances, ch. viii. 17, 18, cf. with ver. 10 and ch. xii. 5. But the address to Daniel nnpn b*k proves nothing, because it does not express to Daniel the relation of the angel to him, but of the Lord who sent the angel; and Gabriel in ch. ix. 23 does not address the prophet thus, but only says that he is rfiTDn, i.e. a man greatly beloved of God. The similarity of circumstances with ch. viii. 17, 18 proves nothing further than that he who appeared was a heavenly being. More noticeable is the similarity of ch. viii. 13 with ch. xii. 5, so far as in both cases two angels appear along with him who hovers over the waters, and the voice from above the waters in ch. viii. 16 directs the angel Gabriel to explain the vision to the prophet. But from the circumstance that in ch. viii. and also in ch. ix. Gabriel gives to the prophet disclosures regarding the future, it by no means follows, even on the supposition that he who is represented in the chapter before us as speaking is different from him who appears in vers. 5 and 6, that the angel who speaks is Gabriel. If he were Gabriel, he would have been named here, according to the analogy of vers. 9, 21.
To this is to be added, that the assumed difference between him who speaks, ver. 11, and him who appears, vers. 5, 6, is not made out, nor yet is it on the whole demonstrable. It is true that in favour of this difference, he who speaks is on the banks of the river where Daniel stands, while he who appears, vers. 5, 6, and also at the end of the vision, ch. xii., is in the midst of the Tigris, and in ver. 5 of this chapter (ch. xii.) two other persons are standing on the two banks of the river, one of whom asks him who is clothed with linen, as if in the name of Daniel, when the things announced shall happen. Now if we assume that he who is clothed in linen is no other than he who speaks to Daniel, ver. 11, then one of these two persons becomes a /caxpbv TrpoacoTrov, and it cannot be at all seen for what purpose he appears. If, on the contrary, the difference of the two is assumed, then each has his own function. The Angel of the Lord is present in silent majesty, and only by a brief sentence confirms the words of his messenger (ch. xii. 7). The one of those standing on the banks is he who, as the messenger and interpreter of the Angel of the Lord, had communicated all disclosures regarding the future to Daniel as he stood by the banks. The third, the angel standing on the farther bank, directs the question regarding the duration of the time to the Angel of the Lord. Thus Hengstenberg is in harmony with C. B. Michaelis and others.
But however important these reasons for the difference appears, yet we cannot regard them as conclusive. From the circumstance that, ch. x. 10, a hand touched Daniel as he was sinking down in weakness and set him on his knees, it does not with certainty follow that this was the hand of the angel (Gabriel) who stood by Daniel, who spoke to him, ver. 11. The words of the text, u a hand touched me," leave the person whose hand it was altogether undefined; and also in vers. 16 and 18, where Daniel is again touched, so that he was able to open his mouth and was made capable of hearing the words that were addressed to him, the person from whom the touch proceeded is altogether indefinite. The designations, DIN 'Oa JW13, like Hie similitude of the sons of men, ver. 16, and D*]? '^^T??? like the appearance of a man, ver. 18, do not point to a definite angel who appears speaking in the sequel. But the circumstance that in ch. xii., besides the form that hovered over the water, other two angels appear on the banks, does not warrant us to assume that these two angels were already present or visible in ch. x. 5 ff. The words, " Then I looked and saw other two, the one," etc., ch. xii. 5, much rather indicate that the scene was changed, that Daniel now for the first time saw the two angels on the banks. In ch. x. he only sees him who is clothed with linen, and was so terrified by this " great sight " that he fell powerless to the ground on hearing his voice, and was only able to stand up after a hand had touched him and a comforting word had been spoken to him.
Nothing is here, as in ch. viii. 15, said of the coming of the angel. If thus, after mention being made of the hand which by touching him set him on his knees, it is further said, " and he spake to me...." (ver. 11), the context only leads to this conclusion, that he who spake to him was the man whose appearance and words had so overwhelmed him. To suppose another person, or an angel different from the one who was clothed with linen, as speaking, could only be justified if the contents of that which was spoken demanded such a supposition.
He who spake said, among other things, that he was sent to Daniel (vers. 11); that the prince of the kingdom of Persia had withstood him one and twenty days; and that Michael, one of the chief angel-princes, had come to his help (vers. 13 and 21). These statements do not indicate that he was an inferior angel, but they are suitable to the Angel of the Lord; for he also says (Zech. ii. 13, 15, iv. 9) that he is sent by Jehovah; cf. also Isa. xlviii. 16 and lxi. 1. The coming to his help by the angel-prince Michael, also, does not denote that he who speaks was an angel subordinated to the archangel Michael. In Zech. i. 15 ">W denotes help which men render to God; and in 1 Chron. xii. 21 f. it is related that Israelites of different tribes came to David to help him against his enemies, i.e. under his leadership to fight for him. Similarly we may suppose that the angel Michael gave help to the Angel of the Lord against the prince of the kingdom of Persia.
There thus remains only the objection, that if we take the angel clothed with linen and him wTho speaks as the same, then in ch. xii. 5 one of the angels who stood on the two banks of the Tigris becomes a K(ocf>bu irpoo-anrov; but if we are not able to declare the object for which two angels appear there, yet the one of those two angels cannot certainly be the same as he who announced, ch. x. and xi., the future to the prophet, because these angels are expressly designated as two others (0*1(18 BW), and the D^ns excludes the identifying of these with angels that previously appeared to Daniel. This argument is not set aside by the reply that the angels standing on the two banks of the river are spoken of as D^HK with reference to the Angel of the Lord, ver. 6, for the reference of the D^n« to that which follows is inconsistent with the context;♦ see under ch. xii. 5.
Thus every argument utterly fails that has been adduced in favour of the supposition that he wTho speaks, ver. 11, is different from him who is clothed in linen; and we are warranted to abide by the words of the narrative, which in ch. x. names no other angel than the man clothed with linen, who must on that account be the same as he who speaks and announces the future to the prophet. The hand which again set him up by touching him, is, it is true, to be thought of as proceeding from an angel; but it is not more definitely described, because this angel is not further noticed. But after the man clothed with linen has announced the future to the prophet, the scene changes (ch. xii. 5). Daniel sees the same angels over the waters of the Tigris, and standing on the two banks of the river. Where he who was clothed in linen stands, is left indefinite in the narrative. If from the first it is he who hovers over the water of the river, he could yet talk with the prophet standing on its banks. But it is also possible that at first he was visible close beside the banks.
Yer. 7. According to this verse, the form described in vers. 5 and 6 was visible to Daniel alone. His companions saw not the appearance, but they were so alarmed by the invisible nearness of the heavenly being that they fled and hid themselves. What is here said resembles Acts ix. 3 ff., where Christ, after His exaltation, appeared to Paul and spoke to him — Paul's companions hearing only the voice, but seeing no one. In order to account for the flight of Daniel's companions, it is not necessary to suppose the existence of thunder and lightning, of which the text makes no mention. The supposition also of Theodor. and Hitzig, that the men indeed saw not the angel, but that they heard his voice, is incorrect; for the voice was not heard till after his companions had fled. n&r)B»}, pointed as fern., that which was seen, the appearance, seems to be a more limited conception than ftOD, visio. fcqnna vro*: they fled, for they hid themselves; so that the hiding is not to be regarded as the object of the fleeing, but the fleeing is made known in their hiding themselves.
Ver. 8. Daniel here calls the appearance great with reference to the majesty displayed, such as had never hitherto been known to him. Its influence upon him is, therefore, also greater than that of the appearance of Gabriel, ch. viii. 17. There remained in him no strength, i.e. he felt himself overwhelmed, and as if about to perish. His lin, splendour — the same as the Chald. VT, ch. vii. 28, v. 6, 9 — i.e. the fresh colour of life which marked his countenance, was changed NnWy?, properly, to destruction, to entire disfigurement, to corruption. The last clause, u and I retained no strength," gives greater force to the preceding statement.
Vers. 9, 10. When Daniel heard the voice, which according to ver. 6 was like the noise of a multitude, he was stunned, and fell on his face to the ground, as ch. viii. 17. Yet the expression here, CH"!} *0w.?j *s stronger than W33, ch. viii. 17. Ver. 10 shows how great was his amazement in the further description it gives. The touching of him by an unseen hand raised him up and caused him to reel on his knees and hands (W^n, vacillare me fecit), but did not enable him to stand erect. This he was first able to do after he heard the comfortable words, and was directed to mark the communication of the heavenly messenger. Regarding nVlDH £>\x see under ch. ix. 23, and for Tg^ hv TOJ see at ch. viii. 18. He now raises himself up, but still trembling (Tjn»). The nny, now am I sent to thee, points to the delay of his coming spoken of in ver. 12.
Ver. 12. According to this verse, the words of Daniel, i.e. his prayer from the first day of his seeking to understand the future, and of his self-mortification in sorrow and fasting (vers. 2, 3), was heard of God, and the angel was immediately sent forth by God to convey to him revelations. And, he adds, T"}.?1?,J?**?j I am come for thy words, i.e. in consequence of thy prayer, according to it. The *riN3 most interpreters understand of the coming to Daniel; Hofmann (Schriftbew. i. p. 33 1) and Kliefoth, on the contrary, understand it of the coming of the angel to Persia (ver. 13). According to the matter, both views are correct, but in the form in which they are presented they are incorrect. Against the latter stands the adversative i in "lfel (but the prince), ver. 13, by which the contents of ver. 13 are introduced; for, according to this, ver. 13 cannot represent the object of the coming. Against the former stands the fact, that the angel does not come to Daniel immediately, but only after having gained a victory over the prince of the kingdom. The '•riNa is again taken up in ver. 14a, and must have here the same meaning that it has there. But in ver. 14a it is connected with V?J?, " I am come to bring thee understanding," in ver. 12 with T?.?"!?? which only denotes that the "coming" corresponded to Daniel's prayer, but not that he came immediately to him. Daniel had, without doubt, prayed for the accomplishment of the salvation promised to his people, and eo ipso for the removal of all the hindrances that stood in the way of that accomplishment. The hearing of his prayer may be regarded, therefore, as containing in it not merely the fact that God directed an angel to convey to him disclosures regarding the future fortunes of his people, but also at the same time as implying that on the side of
The thirteenth verse speaks of this, not as denoting that the angel came to Persia for the purpose of working for Israel, but much rather as announcing the reason of the twenty-one days' delay in the coming of the angel to Daniel, in the form of a parenthetical clause. His coming to Daniel was hindered by this, that the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood him twenty-one days. The twenty-one days are those three weeks of Daniel's fasting and prayer, ver. 2. Hence we see that the coming of the angel had its referee o ence to Daniel, for he came to bring him a comforting answer from God; but in order that he might be able to do this, he must first, according to ver. 13, enter into war with and overcome the spirit of the king of Persia, hostile to the people of God. The contents of ver. 13 are hence not to be understood as showing that the angel went to Persia in order that he might there arrange the cause of Israel with the king; the verse much rather speaks of a war in the kingdom of supernatural spirits, which could not relate to the court of the king of Persia. The prince (p¥) of the kingdom of Persia, briefly designated in ver. 21 " the prince of Persia," is not king Cyrus, or the collectivum of the kings of Persia, as Hav. and Kran., with Calvin and most of the Reformers, think, but the guardian spirit or the protecting genius of the Persian kingdom, as the Rabbis and most of the Christian interpreters have rightly acknowledged. For the angel that appeared to Daniel did not fight with the kings of Persia, but with a spiritual intelligence of a like nature, for the victory, or precedence with the, kings of Persia. This spirit of the kingdom of Persia, whom, after the example of Jerome, almost all interpreters call the guardian angel of this kingdom, is as little the nature-power of this kingdom as Michael is the nature-power of Israel, but is a spirit-being; yet not the heathen national god of the Persians, but, according to the view of Scripture (1 Cor. x. 20 f.), the hai\ioviov of the Persian kingdom, i.e. the supernatural spiritual power standing behind the national gods, which we may properly call the guardian spirit of this kingdom. In the ^7 1057 lies, according to the excellent remark of Kliefoth, the idea, ihat " the "ifc of the kingdom of Persia stood beside the kings of the Persians to influence them against Israel, and to direct against Israel the power lying in Persian heathendom, so as to support the insinuations of the Samaritans; that the angel, ver. 5, came on account of Daniel's prayer to dislodge this c prince ' from his position and deprive him of his influence, but he kept his place for twenty-one days, till Michael came to his help; then he so gained the mastery over him, that he now stood in his place beside the kings of Persia, so as henceforth to influence them in favour of Israel." He who appeared to Daniel, ver. 5, and spake with him, ver. 11, is not "the angel who had his dominion among the nations of the world," or " his sphere of action in the embodiments of the heathen world-power, to which the Jewish people were now in subjection, to promote therein the working out of God's plan of salvation" (Hofm. Schriftbew. i. p. 334). This supposition is destitute of support from the Scriptures. It is rather the Angel of the Lord who carries out God's plans in the world, and for their accomplishment and execution makes war against the hostile spirit of the heathen world-power. The subjugation of this spirit supposes a particular angel ruling in the heathen world just as little as Jehovah's contending against the heathen nations that oppress and persecute His kingdom and people.
In the war against the hostile spirit of the kingdom of Persia, the archangel Michael came to the help of the Angel of the Lord. The name ^^P, who is as God, comes into view, as does the name Gabriel, only according to the appellative signification of the word, and expresses, after the analogy of Ex. xv. 11, Ps. Ixxxix. 7 f., the idea of God's unparalleled helping power. Michaelis thus the angel possessing the unparalleled power of God. He is here said to be " one of the chief princes," i.e. of the highest angel-princes, — ver. 21, " your prince," i.e. the prince who contends for Israel, who conducts the cause of Israel. The first title points undoubtedly to an arrangement of orders and degrees among the angels, designating Michael as one of the most distinguished of the angel-princes; hence called in Jude 9 ap^d'yyeko^, also in Rev. xii. 7, where he is represented as contending with his angels against the dragon. The opinion that Michael is called " one of the chief princes," not as in contrast with the angels, but only with the demons of the heathen gods (Kliefoth), is opposed by the words themselves and by the context. From the circumstance that the guardian spirit of Persia is called "1B> it does not follow that D*"i6? is not a desifj- nation of the angels generally, but only of the princes of the people, who are the spirits ruling in the social affairs of nations and kingdoms (Hofmann, p. 337); and even though this conclusion may be granted, this meaning for D'n&n with the article and the predicate Dsp'&^on is undemonstrable. For the Scripture does not place the demon-powers of heathendom so on a line with the angels that both are designated as DW*o Dnfc\ The Dtfp&o D'np can only be the princes, chiefs, of the good angels remaining in communion with God, and working for the kingdom of God. Though what is said by the angel Michael, for the sake of the Israelitish people, among whom he has the sphere of his activity, may be said for their comfort, yet it does not follow therefrom that that which is said u cannot give disclosures regarding the relation within the angel-world, but only regarding the relation to the great historical nations and powers of the world" (Hofm. p. 338). For as regards the statement adduced in support of this opinion — " the greatness and importance of the work entrusted to him makes him one of the D^fcO, not that the work is entrusted to him because he is so" — just the contrary is true. To a subordinate spirit God will not entrust a work demanding special power and greatness; much rather the being entrusted with a great and important work supposes a man exalted above the common mass. And for the comforting of Israel the words, a Michael, one of the foremost princes, came to my help," affirm that Israel is under very powerful protection, because its guardian spirit is one of the foremost of the angel-princes, whereby implic. it is said at the same time that the people, though they be little esteemed before the world, yet cannot be destroyed by the nations of the world. This thought follows as a conclusion from what is said regarding the dignity of their guardian angel, but it does not form the contents of the saying regarding Michael and his place among the heavenly spirits.
But we learn from ver. 21 the reason why the archangel Michael, and no other angel, came to the help of him who was clothed with linen. It was because Michael was the prince of Israel, i.e. a the high angel-prince who had to maintain the cause of the people of God in the invisible spirit-world against opposing powers" (Auberlen, p. 289); and as such he appears also in Jude 9 and Rev. xii. 7. The coming of Michael to give help does not include in it this, that he was superior in might or in position to the angel that spake, and thus supplies no proof that the angel that spake was Gabriel, or an angel different from him who was clothed with linen. For even a subordinate servant can bring help to his master, and in a conflict render him aid in gaining the victory. Against the idea of the subjection of Michael to the angel that spake, or the man clothed with linen, stands the further unfolding of the angel's message, the statement in ver. 21 and ch. xi. 1, according to which the angel that spake gave strength and help to Michael in the first year of the Median Darius, from which we have more reason to conclude that the angel who spake stood above the angel Michael; see under ch. xi. 1.
In consequence of the assistance on the part of Michael, the Angel of the Lord obtained the place of superiority by the side of the king of Persia, THfa has rot here the usual meaning, to be over and above, to remain, but is to be translated after i^in, Gen. xlix. 4, to have the pre-eminence, to excel, in the passive signification of the Hiphii: " to be provided ivith the preference, to gain the superiority." The translation, " I have maintained the place" (Hofm.), cannot be proved. S'X, at the side of, near, is explained from the idea of the protecting spirit standing by the side of his protege. The plural, " kings of Persia," neither refers to Cyrus and Cambyses, nor to Cyrus and the conquered kings living with him (Crcesus, etc.), nor to Cyrus and the prince, i.e. his guardian spirit (Hitzig). The plural denotes, that by the subjugation of the demon of the Persian kingdom, his influence not merely over Cyrus, but over all the following kings of Persia, was brought to an end, so that the whole of the Persian kings became accessible to the influence of the spirit proceeding from God and advancing the welfare of Israel.
Ver. 14. With this joyful message the angel comes to Daniel, to open up to him what would befall his people in the last time. The punctuation of n"Jj£ (shall befall) is according to $T\>\ (Gen. xlix. 1); the Kethiv rnj£ has the correct form. COjn nnntfsi as ch. ii. 28, the Messianic world-time, in ch. viii. 17 is called the time of the end. " For," the angel adds, " the vision refers,. or stretches itself out, to the days." ^*?v, with the article, are the days of the rHQM (the latter time), the Messianic world-time, jftn is the revelation which in ver. 1 is called "m and n&no the following revelation in ch. xi. Kliefoth is incorrect in thinking on the revelations already given, ch. vii., viii., ix., to. Daniel, regarding which the angel now seeks to bring to him further understanding. For although those revelations stretch out to the last time, and the revelations in ch. xi. only give further disclosures regarding it, yet neither does the angel who speaks to Daniel here thus represent the matter, nor does the form of the revelation ch. x.-xii., namely, the majestic appearance of the Angel of the Lord, not a common angel-revelation, correspond with this supposition. ]^r< also cannot, without further definition, refer to those earlier revelations; and the opinion that T^n denotes the understanding, as distinguished from the revelation or proclamation, does not accord with the usual style of Daniel's language. \^\} denotes here, as in ch. viii. 16, the interpretation of the vision, which in both cases contains the things which shall befall the people of God in the future. Cf. ch. ix. 22, where |S3J is used of the announcement of the revelation of God regarding the seventy weeks.
Vers. 15-19. In these verses it is further related how Daniel was gradually raised up and, made capable of receiving the revelation of God. The communication of the angel hitherto had not fully gained this object. Daniel " stood trembling," but he could not yet speak. With his face bent towards the earth he was as yet speechless. Then one having the likeness of a man touched his lips, whereby he received the power of speech, and could address him who stood before him, and utter the complaint: " By the vision anguish, i.e. violent terror, has fallen upon me: woes are turned upon me." For this style of speech cf. 1 Sam. iv. 19, and for the matter itself, cf. Isa. xxi. 3, xiii. 8. For the following SOI nb '•rnvy (and I have no strength, ver. 16), cf. ver. 8.
Ver. 17. Therefore he may not talk with this Lord, i.e. with Him who appeared before him in such dread majesty; and he is yet in such a state, since all strength has departed from him and his breath has gone, that he fears he must die; cf. 1 Kings xvii. 17. Then once more one like the appearance of a man touched him. D*JK nyr\ft* is in reality = Dnfcjl tta 1WI3: both forms of expression leave the person of him who touched him undefined, and only state that the touching proceeded from some one who was like a man, or that it was such as proceeds from men, and are like the expression used in ver. 10, a a hand touched me." From this it does not follow that he who spoke to him touched him, but only that it was a spiritual being, who appeared like to a man. After thus being touched for the third time (ver. 18), the encouragement of the angel that talked with him imparted to him full strength, so that he could calmly listen to and observe his communication.
Ver. 20-ch. xi. 1. But before he communicated to Daniel what would befall his people in the " latter days " (ver. 14), he gives to him yet further disclosures regarding the proceedings in the spirit-kingdom which determine the fate of nations, and contain for Israel, in the times of persecution awaiting them, the comforting certainty that they had in the Angel of the Lord and in the guardian angel Michael a strong protection against the enmities of the heathen world. Kliefoth supposes that the angel who speaks in ver. 20-eh. xi. 1 gives a brief rcsumS of the contents of his previous statement (vers. 12-14). But it is not so. These verses, 20-ch. xi. 1, contain new disclosures not yet made known in vers. 12-19, although resembling the contents of ver. 13. Of the coming of the prince of Javan (ver. 20/;), and the help which the angelprince renders to Darius (ch. xi. 1), nothing is said in ver. 13; also what the Angel of the Lord, ver. 20, says regarding the conflict with the prince of Persia is different from that which is said in ver. 13. In ver. 13 he speaks of that which he has done before Ills coming to Daniel; in ver. 20, of that which he will now do. To the question, " Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee?" no answer follows; it has, however, an affirmative sense, and is> only an animated mode of address to remind Daniel of that which is said in vers. 12-14, and to impress it upon him as weighty and worthy of consideration. Then follows the new communication: 11 and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia," i.e. to carry forward and bring to an end the victory gained for thee before my arrival over the demon of Persia, the spirit of the Persian kingdom.
The words which follow, 'til Pern N>V SKI (ver. 206, and when I am gone forth, Zo, etc.), present some difficulty. The ^N} in comparison with SVC'X (ivill I return) points to a contrast, and Hirn plainly indicates that which shall begin with the *TCV *?K. By this, the union of the N^ *3*tt writh that which goes before and the adversative interpretation of H3JT1 (v. Leng.) is excluded. But JOT is interpreted differently. Havernick, Maurer, and others understand it of going forth to war; only we must not then think (with Maurer) of the war against the prince of Persia. il For he will do that even now (in the third year of Cyrus), and at this time the corning of the prince of Grecia has no meaning" (Hitzig). Hofmann and Hitzig understand, therefore, KSi^ in contrast to N3? of a going forth from the conflict, as in 2 Kings xi. 7 u they shall go forth on the Sabbath " is placed over against " that enter in on the Sabbath " in ver. 5; but in an entirely different sense. Hitzig thus renders the clause: a when I have done with the Persians, and am on the point of departing, then shall the king of Grecia rise up against me." JJJ must then be the Seleucidan kingdom, and the *& the guardian spirit of Egypt — suppositions wThich need no refutation, while the interpretation of the words themselves fails by the arbitrary interpolation " against me " after N3. According to Hofmann, the angel says that " he had to return and contend further with the prince of the people of Persia; and that when he has retired from this conflict, then shall the prince of the Grecian people come, compelling him to enter on a new war." This last clause Hofmann thus more fully illustrates: " Into the conflict with the prince of the people of Persia, which the angel retires from, the prince of the Grecian people enters, and against him he resumes it after that the Persian kingdom has fallen, and is then also helped by Michael, the prince of the Jewish people, in this war against the prince of Grecia, as he had been in the war against the prince of Persia" (Schriftbew. i. pp. 333, 334 f.)„ But Hitzig and Kliefoth have, in opposition to this, referred to the incongruity which lies in the thought that the prince of Javan shall enter into the war of the angel against the Persians, and assume and carry it forward. The angel fights against the demon of Persia, not to destroy the Persians, but to influence the Persian king in favour of the people of God; on the contrary, the prince of Javan comes to destroy the Persian king. According to this, we cannot say that the prince of Javan enters into the place of the angel in the war. u The Grecians and the Persians much rather stand," as Hitzig rightly remarks, a on one side, and are adversaries of Michael and our "lfy" i.e. of the angel who spake to Daniel. Add to this, that although fcTCJ, to go out, means also to go away, to go off, yet the meaning to go away from the conflict, to abandon it, is not confirmed: much rather fcWJ, sensu militari, always denotes only u to go out, forth, into the conflict;" cf. 1 Sam. viii. 20, xxiii. 15; 1 Chron. xx. 1; Job xxxix. 21, etc. We have to take the word in this signification here (with C. B. Michaelis, Klief., and Kran.), only we must not, with Kranichfeld, supply the clause, " to another more extensive conflict," because this supplement is arbitrary, but rather, with Kliefoth, interpret the word generally as it stands of the going out of the angel to fight for the people of God, without excluding the war with the prince of Persia, or limiting it to this war. Thus the following will be the meaning of the passage: Now shall I return to resume and continue the war with the prince of Persia, to maintain the position gained (ver. 13) beside the kings of Persia; but when (while) I thus go forth to war, i.e. while I carry on this conflict, lo, the prince of Javan shall come (npr\ with the partic. N3 of the future) — then shall there be a new conflict. This last thought is not, it is true, expressly uttered, but it appears from ver. 21. The warring with the prince, i.e. the spirit of Persia hostile to Israel, refers to the oppositions which the Jews would encounter in the hindrances put in the way of their building the temple from the time of Cyrus to the time of Darius Hystaspes, and further under Xerxes and Artaxerxes till the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem by Nehemiah, as well as at a later time on the side of the Persian world-power, in the midst of all which difficulties the Angel of the Lord promises to guide the affairs of His people. |V ")fc> is the spirit of the Macedonian worldkingdom, which would arise and show as great hostility as did the spirit of Persia against the people of God.
Ver. 21. This verse is antithetically connected with the preceding by?2$, but yet. The contrast, however, does not refer to the fears for the theocracy (Kranichfeld) arising out of the lastnamed circumstance (ver. 20b), according to which the angel seeks to inform Daniel that under these circumstances the prophecy can only contain calamity. For a the prophecy by no means contains only calamity, but war and victory and everlasting victory added thereto" (Klief.). C. B. Michaelis has more correctly interpreted the connection thus: Verum ne forte et sic, quod principem Grcecice Persarum principi successurum intellexisti, animum dtspondeas, audi ergo, quod tibi tuisque solatio esse potest, ego indicabo tibi, quod, etc. a The Scripture of truth " is the book in which God has designated beforehand, according to truth, the history of the world as it shall certainly be unfolded; cf. Mai. iii. 16, Ps. cxxxix. 16, Rev. v. 1. The following clause, *inK fK^ is not connected adversatively with the preceding: u there is yet no one..." (Hofmann and others), but illustratively, for the angel states more minutely the nature of the war which he has to carry on. He has no one who fights ^vith. him against these enemies C?V n^> against the evil spirits of Persia and Greece) but Michael the angel-prince of Israel, who strongly shows himself with him, i.e. as
Ch. xi. 1. The first verse of the eleventh chapter belongs to ch. x. 21; the ^1 (also I) is emphatically placed over against the mention of Michael, whereby the connection of this verse with ch.
indeed thinks (Christol. iii. 2, p. 53) that the reference of the)b to Michael is " against all that is already spoken in relation to Michael, and particularly against that which immediately goes before," under a reference to Hitzig. But Hitzig only says that in ver. 21 Michael is of one lineage with the speaker; but, on the contrary, the expressions P^nop (to confirm) and Ttyiop (to strengthen) are so strong, that in i? we must think on one inferior, a man. Moreover, Hitzig can think of nothing done by Michael under Darius, since the transference of the kingdom to the Medes changed nothing in the fortune of the Jews. This was first effected by Cyrus. But Hengstenberg himself does not recognise this last reason, but remarks that ch. xi. 1 relates to the transference of the sovereignty from the Chaldeans to the Persians, whereby a way was opened for the return of Israel, and rightly, with Hav., thus determines the meaning of the verse in general: " As at that time the Lord made the change of the monarchy a cause of blessing to the covenant people, so in all the troubles that may arise to them in the heathen monarchies He will show Himself to be the same true and gracious God." The other reason, namely, that the strong expressions, " to confirm and strengthen," necessitate us to think of one inferior as referred to in)*?, affects only the view already refuted above, that the speaker is either Gabriel or another inferior angel. If, on the contrary, the speaker is one person with him who is clothed in linen, i.e. with the Angel of the Lord, who is like unto God, then this person can also say of himself that he was a help and protection to the angel -prince Michael, because he stands higher than Michael; and the reference of the Sb to Michael, which the u also I" in contrast to a Michael your prince" demands, corresponds wholly with that which is said of Michael. Besides, the reference of r? to Darius (Hav., Hengstb.) is excluded by this, that the name of Darius the Mede is not at all the object of the statements of the verse to which \b could refer, but occurs only in a subordinate or secondary determination of time. The thought of the verse is accordingly the following: " In the first year of Darius the Mede, Michael effected this, that Babylon, which was hostile to the people of God, was overthrown by the power of Medo-Persia, in doing which the Angel of the Lord rendered to him powerful help." To this follows in order in ver. 2 the announcement of the future, which is introduced by the formula 'Ul HOT resumed from ch. x. 21.
Proceeding from the present, the angel reveals in great general outlines the career of the Persian world-kingdom, and the establishment and destruction, which immediately followed, of the kingdom which was founded by the valiant king of Javan, which would not descend to his posterity, but would fall to others (vers. 2-4). Then there follows a detailed description of the wars of the kings of the south and the north for the supremacy, wherein first the king of the south prevails (vers. 5-9); the decisive conflicts between the two (vers. 10-12), wherein the south is subjugated; and the attempts of the kings of the north to extend their power more widely, wherein they perish (vers. 13-20); finally, the coming of a " vile person," who rises suddenly to power by cunning and intrigue, humbles the king of the south, has u indignation against the holy covenant,'' desolates the sanctuary of God, and brings severe affliction upon the people of God, "to purge and to make them white to the time of the end" (vers. 21-35). At the time of the end this hostile king shall raise himself above all gods, and above every human ordinance, and make the "god of fortresses" his god, " whom he will acknowledge and increase with glory" (vers. 36-39). But in the time of the end he shall pass through the countries with his army as a flood, enter into the glorious land, and take possession of Egypt with its treasures; but, troubled by tidings out of the east and the north, shall go forth in great fury utterly to destroy many, and shall come to his end on the holy mountain (vers. 40-45). At this time of greatest tribulation shall the angel-prince Michael contend for the people of Daniel. Every one that shall be found written in the book shall be saved, and the dead shall rise again, some to everlasting life, some to everlasting shame (ch. xii. 1-3).
This prophecy is so rich in special features which in part have been literally fulfilled, that believing interpreters from Jerome to Kliefoth have found in it predictions which extend far beyond the measure of prophetic revelation, while rationalistic and naturalistic interpreters, following the example of Porphyry, from the speciality of the predictions, conclude that the chapter does not contain a prophetic revelation of the future, but only an apocalyptic description of the past and of the present of the Maccabean pseudo-Daniel. Against both views Kranichfeld has decidedly declared himself, and sought to show that in these prophetic representations " the prediction does not press itself into the place of historical development, i.e. that it does not concern itself with such future dates as do not connect themselves with the historical present of the prophetic author (Daniel), as the unfolding of religious moral thought animated by divine influence." This is on the whole correct. Here also the prophecy does not become the prediction of historical dates which do not stand in inner connection with the fundamental idea of the book, which is to announce the unfolding of the heathen worldpower over against the kingdom of God. This vision, also, as to its contents and form, is accounted for from the circumstances of time stated in ch. x. 1, and contains much which a supposed Maccabean origin makes in the highest degree improbable, and directly contradicts. First, it is " against the nature of a fictitious production which should be written in the time of the greatest national commotion, that the great repeated victories of the people over the Syrian power should have been so slightingly spoken of as is the case here (ch. xi. 34)," i.e. should be designated only as " a little help." Then the prophetic representation over against the historical facts of the case is full of inaccuracies; and these historical inconveniences are found not only in the description which had reference to the history of the times preceding the author, but also, above all, in the history of the times of the Maccabees themselves. Thus, e.g., in ch. xi. 40-45 an Egyptian expedition of Antiochus Epiphanes shortly before his death is prophesied, for which, besides Porphyry, no voucher and, in general, no historical probability exists (Kran.).
Kranichfeld, however, goes too far when he holds all the special features of the prophetic revelation to be only individualizing paintings for the purpose of the contemplation, and therein seeks to find further developed only the fundamental thoughts of the great inner incurable enmity of the heathen ungodly kingdom already stated in ch. ii. 41-43, vii. 8, 20, 24, viii. 8, 22, 24. The truth lies in the middle between these two extremes.
This chapter contains neither mere individualizing paintings of general prophetic thoughts, nor predictions of historical dates inconsistent with the nature of prophecy, but prophetic descriptions of the development of the heathen world-power from the days of Cyrus to the fall of the Javanic world-kingdom, as well as of the position which the two kingdoms (arising out of this kingdom) of the north and south, between which the holy land lay, assumed toward each other and toward the theocracy; for by the war of these two kingdoms for the sovereignty, not merely were the covenant land and the covenant people brought in general into a sorrowful condition, but they also were the special object of a war which typically characterizes and portrays the relation of the world-kingdom to the kingdom of God. This war arose under the Seleucidan Antiochus Epiphanes to such a height, that it formed a prelude of the war of the time of the end. The undertaking of this king to root out the worship of the living God and destroy the Jewish religion, shows in type the great war which the worldpower in the last phasis of its development shall undertake aga'inst the kingdom of God, by exalting itself above every god, to hasten on its own destruction and the consummation of the kingdom of God.
The description of this war as to its origin, character, and issue forms the principal subject of this prophecy. It is set forth in the revelation of the angel from ch. xi. 21 to the end (ch. xii. 3), while the preceding description, as well of the course of the Persian and Javanic world-kingdoms as of the wars of the kings of the north and the south (ch. xi. 2-20), prepares for it. But this preparatory description is not merely individualizing pictures of the idea of the incurable hostility of the heathen ungodly kingdom, but a prophetic delineation of the chief lines of the process which the heathen world-power shall pass through till it shall advance to the attempt to destroy the kingdom of God. These chief lines are so distinctly laid down, that they contain their concrete fulfilment in the historical development of the world-power. In like manner are so described the appearance and the wars of the enemy of God, who desolates the sanctuary of God and takes away the daily sacrifice, that we can recognise in the assault of Antiochus Epiphanes against the temple and the worship of the people of Israel a fulfilling of this prophecy. Yet here the foretelling (Weissagung) does not renounce the character of prophecy (Prophetie): it does not pass over into prediction (Prcediction) of historical facts and events, but so places in the light of the divine foresight and predetermination the image of this enemy of God, and his wickedness against the sanctuary and the people of God, that it brings under contemplation, and places under the point of view of the purification of the covenant people for the time of the end (ch. xi. 35), the gradual progress of his enmity against God till he exalts himself above all divine and human relations.
From the typical relation in which Antiochus, the O. T. enemy of God, stands to Antichrist, the N. T. enemy, is explained the connection of the end, the final salvation of the people of God, and the resurrection from the dead, with the destruction of this enemy, without any express mention being made of the fourth world-kingdom and of the last enemy arising out of it; from which the modern critics have drawn the erroneous conclusion, that the Maccabean pseudo-Daniel expected the setting up of the Messianic kingdom in glory along with the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes. At the foundation of this conclusion there lies an entire misapprehension of the contents and object of this prophecy, namely, the idea that the prophecy seeks to furnish a historical sketch, clothed in an apocalyptic form, of the development of the world-kingdoms from Cyrus to Antiochus Epiphanes. In support of this error, it is true that the church interpretation given by Jerome is so far valid, in that it interprets the prophecy partially considered under the point of view of the very special predictions of historical persons and events, and from this view concludes that vers. 21-35 treat of Antiochus Epiphanes, and vers. 36-45 of Antichrist; according to which there would be in ver. 36 an immediate passing from Antiochus to the Antichrist, or in ch. xii. 1 a sudden transition from the death of Antiochus to the time of the end and the resurrection from the dead. But the prophecy does not at all correspond to this representation. The Angel of the Lord will reveal to Daniel, not what shall happen from the third year of Cyrus to the time of Antiochus, and further to the resurrection of the dead, but, according to the express declaration of ch. x. 14, what shall happen to his people &®\>] rvinsiij i.e. in the Messianic future, because the prophecy relates to this time. In the QsOjn rrnnK takes place the destruction of the world-power, and the setting up of the Messianic kingdom at the end of the present world-aeon. All that the angel says regarding the Persian and the Javanic world-kingdoms, and the wars of the kings of the north and the south, has its aim to the end-time, serves only briefly to indicate the chief elements of the development of the worldkingdoms till the time when the war that brings in the end shall burst forth, and to show how, after the overthrow of the Javanic world-kingdom, neither the kings of the north nor those of the south shall gain the possession of the dominion of the world. Neither by the violence of war, nor by covenants which they will ratify by political marriages, shall they succeed in establishing a lasting power. They shall not prosper, because (ch. xi. 27) the end goes yet to the time appointed (by God). A new attempt of the king of the north to subjugate the kingdom of the south shall be defeated by the intervention of the ships of Chittira; and the anger awakjned in him by this frustration of his plans shall break forth against the holy covenant, only for the purifying of the people of God for the time of the end, because the end goes yet to the appointed time (ch. xi. 35). At the time of the end his power will greatly increase, because that which was determined by God.shall prosper till the end of the indignation (ch. xi. 36); but in the time of the end he shall suddenly fall from the summit of his power and come to his end (ch. xi. 45), but the people of God shall be saved, and the wise shall shine in heavenly glory (ch. xii. 1-3).
Accordingly the revelation has this as its object, to show how the heathen world-kingdoms shall not attain to an enduring stability, and by their persecution of the people of God shall only accomplish their purification, and bring on the end, in which, through their destruction, the people of God shall be delivered from all oppression and be transfigured. In order to reveal this to him (that it must be carried forward to completion by severe tribulation), it was not necessary that he should receive a complete account of the different events which shall take place in the heathen world-power in the course of time, nor have it especially made prominent that their enmity shall first come to a completed manifestation under the last king who should arise out of the fourth world-kingdom. For that the Javanic world-kingdom shall not form the last embodiment of the world-power, but that after it a fourth more powerful kingdom shall arise — this was already revealed to Daniel in ch. vii. Moreover, in ch. viii. the violent enemy of the people of Israel who would arise from the Diadoch-kino;doms of the Javanic world-monarchy, wTas already designated as the type of the last enemy who would arise out of the ten kingdoms of the fourth world-kingdom. After these preceding revelations, the announcement of the great tribulation that would come upon the people of God from these two enemies could be presented in one comprehensive painting, wherein the assault made by the prefigurative enemy against the covenant people shall form the foreground of the picture for a representation of the daring of the antitypical enemy, proceeding even to the extent of abolishing all divine and human ordinances, who shall bring the last and severest tribulation on the church of God, at the end of the days, for its purification and preparation for eternity.
Ver. 2. The revelation passes quickly from Persia (ver. 2b) and the kingdom of Alexander (vers. 3 and 4), to the description of the wars of the kingdoms of the south and the north, arising out of the latter, in which wars the Holy Land, lying between the two, was implicated. Regarding Persia it is only said that yet three kings shall arise, and that the fourth, having reached to great power by his riches, shall stir up all against the kingdom of Javan. Since this prophecy originates in the third year of the Persian king Cyrus (ch. x. 1), then the three kings who shall yet (*iiy) arise are the three successors of Cyrus, viz. Cambyses, the pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes; the fourth is then Xerxes, with whom all that is said regarding the fourth perfectly agrees. Thus Havernick, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Auberlen, and Kliefoth interpret; on the contrary, v. Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, and Kranichfeld will make the fourth the third, so as thereby to justify the erroneous inter* pretation of the four wings and the four heads of the leopard (ch. vii. 6) of the first four kings of the Persian monarchy, because, as they say, the article in *JP?"J*J necessarily requires that the fourth is already mentioned in the immediately preceding statements. But the validity of this conclusion is not to be conceived; and the assertion that the O. T. knows only of four kings of Persia (Hitzig) cannot be established from Ezra iv. 5-7, nor from any other passage. From the naming of only four kings of Persia in the book of Ezra, since from the end of the Exile to Ezra and Nehemiah four kings had reigned, it in no way follows that the book of Daniel and the O. T. generally know of only four. Moreover, this assertion is not at all correct; for in Neh. xii. 22, besides those four there is mention made also of a Darius, and to the Jews in the age of the Maccabees there was well known, according to 1 Mace. i. 1, also the name of the last Persian king, Darius, who was put to death by Alexander. If the last named, the king who by great riches (ver. 2) reached to a higher power, is included among the three previously named, then he should have been here designated " the third." The verb T?y, to place oneself, then to stand, is used here and frequently in the following passages, as in ch. viii. 23, in the sense of to stand up {= Dip), with reference to the coming of a new ruler. The gathering together of greater riches than all (his predecessors), agrees specially with Xerxes; cf. Herodot. iii. 96, vi. 27-29, and Justini Histor. ii. 2. The latter says of him: u Divitias, non ducem laudes} quarum tanta copia in regno ejus fuit, nt, cum jlumina multitwUne consumerentur, opes tamen regies atq nt"
inprn is tlie infiniU or nomen act ion is, the becoming strong; cf. 2 Chron. xii. 1 with 2 Kings xiv. 5 and Isa. viii. 11. i^V'V3 *s n°t in apposition to it, M according to his riches" (Hiiv.); but it gives the means by which he became strong. u Xerxes expended his treasures for the raising and arming of an immense host, so as by such pjn (cf. Amos vi. 13) to conquer Greece" (Hitzig). rilDpo RK \)1 is not in apposition to Pbn, all, namely, the kingdom of Javan (Maurer, Kranichfeld). This does not furnish a suitable sense; for the thought that /3f?, " they all," designates the divided states of Greece, and the apposition, " the kingdom of Javan," denotes that they were brought by the war with Xerxes to form themselves into the unity of the Macedonian kingdom, could not possibly be so expressed. Moreover, the reference to the circumstances of the Grecian states is quite foreign to the context. |V 'o rix is much rather a second, more remote object, and nx is to be interpreted, with Hiivernick, either as the preposition with, so far as "TT involves the idea of war, conflict, or simply, with Hitzig, as the accusative of the object of the movement (cf. Ex. ix. 29, 33), to stir up, to rouse, after the kingdom of Javan, properly to make, to cause, that all (as? = every one, cf. Ps. xiv. 3) set out towards. Daniel calls Greece AwO, after the analogy of the Oriental states, as a united historical power, without respect to the political constitution of the Grecian states, not suitable to prophecy (Kliefoth).
From the conflict of Persia with Greece, the angel (ver. 3) passes immediately over to the founder of the Grecian (Macedonian) world-kingdom; for the prophecy proceeds not to the prediction of historical details, but mentions only the elements and factors which constitute the historical development. The expedition of Xerxes against Greece brings to the foreground the world-historical conflict between Persia and Greece, which led to the destruction of the Persian kingdom by Alexander the Great. The reply of Alexander to Darius Codomannus (Arrian, Exped A lex. ii. 14. 4) supplies a historical document, in which Alexander justifies his expedition against Persia by saying that Macedonia and the rest of Hellas were assailed in war by the Persians without any cause (ovhev nrpo^LKruxevoi), and that therefore he had resolved to punish the Persians. A deeper reason for this lies in this, that the prophecy closes the list of Persian kings with Xerxes, but not in this, that under Xerxes the* Persian monarchy reached its climax, and partly already under him, and yet more after his reign, the fall of the kingdom had begun (Hiivernick, Auberlen); still less in the opinion, proved to be erroneous, that the Maccabean Jew knew no other Persian kings, and confounded Xerxes with Darius Codomannus (v. Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig).
Vers. 3 and 4. But only brief notices, characterizing its nature, were given regarding the Macedonian kingdom, which agree with the prophecies ch. vii. 6 and viii. 5-8, 21, 22, without adding new elements. The founder of the kingdom is called "^33 SfTD, u brave king," "hero-king," and his kingdom "a great dominion." Of his government it is said i^^)3 n^y, he does, rules, according to his will (cf. ch. viii. 4), so that his power might be characterized as irresistible and boundless self-will. Similarly Curtius writes of him (x. 5. 35): Fatendum est, cum plurimum virtuti debuerit, plus debuisse fortunes, quam solus omnium mortalium in potestate habuit. Hujus siquidem beneficio agere videbatur gentibus quidquid placebat. By the 3 in ^V? tne commg °f tne king and the destruction of his kingdom are stated as synchronous, so as to express with great force the shortness of its duration. n^V is not to be otherwise interpreted than *T£JJ in ver. 3, and is thus not to be translated: u when he thus stands up," sc. in the regal power described in ver. 3 (Kran.), or: u on the pinnacle of his might " (Hav.), but: " when (or as) he has made his appearance, his kingdom shall be broken." In the words, also, there does not lie the idea u that he himself in his life-time is deprived of his throne and his kingdom by a violent catastrophe" (Kran.); for the destruction of the kingdom does not necessarily include in it the putting to death of the ruler. The thought is only this: " when he has appeared and founded a great dominion, his kingdom shall be immediately broken.', "^Efri (shall be broken) is chosen with reference to ch. viii. 8, " toward the four winds of heaven." We may neither supply pnn (shall be divided) to fa^irwp tO) (and not to his posterity), nor is this latter expression u connected with pnn in pregnant construction;" for pnn, from rwn, signifies to divide, from which we are not to assume the idea of to allot, assign. We have simply to supply W? in the sense of the verb, subst., shall be, as well here as in the following clause, N?1 WWD2. The n^lflK signifies here as little as in Amos iv. 2, ix. 1, posterity = V~}\, but remnant, that which is left behind, the survivors of the king, by which we are to understand not merely his sons, but all the members of his family. W'M fcOt, " and it shall not be according to the dominion which he ruled." This thought, corresponding to Wba Nvl in ch. viii. 22, is the natural conclusion from the idea of division to all the four winds, which the falling asunder into several or many small kingdoms involves. ^jn? "shall be plucked up" (of plants from the earth), denotes the rooting up of that which is stable, the destroying and dissolving of the kingdom into portions. In this division it shall pass to others npfcTiapp, " with the exclusion of those" (the ri^nK), the surviving members of the family of Alexander. To B^njOl (and for others) supply rvnn (sJiall be).
In ver. 4, accordingly, the prophetic thought is expressed, that the Javanic kingdom, as soon as the brave king has founded a great dominion, shall be broken to pieces and divided toward the four winds of heaven, so that its separate parts, without reaching to the might of the broken kingdom, shall be given not to the survivors of the family of the founder, but to strangers. This was historically fulfilled in the fact, that after the sudden death of Alexander his son Hercules was not recognised by his generals as successor on the throne, but was afterwards murdered by Polysperchon; his son also born by Roxana, along with his guardian Philip Arideus, met the same fate; but the generals, after they had at first divided the kingdom into more than thirty parts (see above, p. 256), soon began to war with each other, the result of which was, that at last four larger kingdoms were firmly established (see above, p. 294). Cf. Diod. Sic. xx. 28, xix. 105; Pausan. ix. 7; Justini hist. xv. 2, and Appiani Syr. c. 51.
Vers. 5 and 6. From the 5th verse the prophecy passes to the wars of the kings of the south and the north for the supremacy and for the dominion over the Holy Land, which lay between the two. Ver. 5 describes the growing strength of these two kings, and ver. 6 an attempt made by them to join themselves together. ptn? to become strong. The king of the south is the ruler of Egypt; this appears from the context, and is confirmed by ver. 8. V'TB? |p* is differently interpreted; IP, however, is unanimously regarded as a partitive: "one of his princes," as e.g. Neh. xiii. 28, Gen. xxviii. 11, Ex. vi. 25. The suffix to Vnfc> (his princes) does not (with C. B. Micliaelis, Bertholdt, Rosenmiiller, and Kranichfeld) refer to "U33 r\b'0J ver. 3, because this noun is too far removed, and then also Ivy must be referred to it; but thereby the statement in ver. 6b, that one of the princes of the king of Javan would gain greater power and dominion than the valiant king had, would contradict the statement in ver. 4, that no one of the Diadochs would attain to the dominion of Alexander.1 The suffix to Vife> can only be referred to the immediately preceding 333H 7]bp: " one of the princes of the king of the south." But then 1 in |EH cannot be explicative, but is only the simple copula. This interpretation also is not opposed by the Atnach under Vj?, for this accent is added to the subject because it stands before separately, and is again resumed in PIHJ.1 by the copula 1, as e.g. Ezek. xxxiv. 19. The thought is this: one of the princes of the king of the south shall attain to greater power than this king, and shall found a great dominion. That this prince is the king of the north, or founds a dominion in the north, is not expressly said, but is gathered from ver. 6, where the king of the south enters into a league with the king of the north.
Ver. 6. BW pj?^ " in the end of years," i.e. after the expiry of a course of years; cf. 2 Chron. xviii. 2. The subject to TOWF (join themselves, 2 Chron. xx. 35) cannot, it is evident, be &*}(?!$, ver. 4 (Kran.), but only the king of the south and his prince who founded a great dominion, since the covenant, according to the following clause, is brought about by the daughter of the king of the south being given in marriage (/£ Ni3, to come to, as Josh. xv. 18, Judg. i. 14) to the king of the north, to make B^Bfy?, to effect an agreement. E^^, rectitudes, synonymous with righteousness and right, Prov. i. 3, here designates the rectitude of the relation of the two rulers to each other in regard to the intrigues and deceits they had previously practised toward each other; thus not union, but sincerity in keeping the covenant that had been concluded. u But she shall not retain the power of the arm."' nte ivy as x. 8, 16, and yiijn, the arm as a figure of help, assistance. The meaning is: she will not retain the power to render the help which her marriage should secure; she shall not be able to bring about and to preserve the sincerity of the covenant; and thus the king of the south shall not be preserved with this his help, but shall become subject to the more powerful king of the north. The following
1 This contradiction is not set aside, but only strengthened, by translating v6y PTn> uhe overcame him" (Kran.), according to which the king of Javan must be thought of as overcome by one of his princes, the king of the south. For the thought that the king of Javan survived the destruction of his kingdom, and that, after one of his princes had become the king of the south and had founded a great dominion, he was overcome by him, contradicts too strongly the statement of ver. 5, that the kingdom of the valiant king of Javan would be destroyed, and that it would not fall to his survivors, but to others with the exception of those, for one to be able to interpret the words in this sense.
passages state this. The subject to "lb}£ t6 is the 3M?pO; and his, t.e. this king's, help is his own daughter, who should establish D^.^B by her marriage with the king of the north, ftftfl is a second subject subordinated or co-ordinated to the subject lying in the verb: he together with his help. We may not explain the passage: neither he nor his help, because in this case ton could not be wanting, particularly in comparison with the following ton. The "not standing" is further positively defined by fH3J}1, to be delivered up, to perish. The plur. rW30 is the plur. of the category: who brought her, i.e. who brought her into the marriage (N^o to be explained after Kin), without reference to the number of those who were engaged in doing so; cf. the similar plur. in particip. Lev. xix. 8, Num. xxiv. 9, and in the noun, Gen. xxi. 7. B"T>*nf particip. with the suffix, wherein the article represents the relative "1^*- P*KP?j in the same meaning as ver. 1, the support, the helper. The sense is: not only she, but all who brought about the establishment of this marriage, and the object aimed at by it. criya has the article: in the times determined for each of these persons. Vers. 7-9. A violent war shall then break out, in which the king of the north shall be overcome. One of the offspring of her roots shall appear. \0 in TOB is partitive, as ver. 5, and TO is used collectively. The figure reminds us of Isa. xi. 1. The suffix to rwi£> refers to the kind's daughter, ver. 6. Her roots are her parents, and the offspring of her roots a brother of the king's daughter, but not a descendant of his daughter, as Kranichfeld by losing sight of TO supposes. i23 is the accusative of direction, for which, in vers. 20, 21, 38, ^3?V stands more distinctly; the suffix refers to the king of the south, who was also the subject in 1b5P, ver. 6b.?!nri"7K tfh* does not mean: he will go to the (to his) army (Michaelis, Berth., v. Leng., Hitz., Klief.); this would be a very heavy remark within the very characteristic, significant description here given (Kran., Hav.); nor does it mean: he attained to might (Hav.); but: he shall come to the army, i.e. against the host of the enemy, i.e. the king of the north (Kran.).?K Nta, as Gen. xxxii. 9, Isa. xxxvii. 33, is used of a hostile approach against a camp, a city, so as to take it, in contradistinction to the following Tten fctaj: to penetrate into the fortress. tfy» has a collective signification, as DH3 referring to it shows. 3 nbW? to act against or with any one, cf. Jer. xviii. 23 (" deal with them "), ad libidinem agere (Maurer), essentially corresponding to Wins) in vers. 33, 36. PTH?; to show power, i.e. to demonstrate his superior power.
Ver. 8. To bring the subjugated kingdom wholly under his power, he shall carry away its gods along with all the precious treasures into Egypt. The carrying away of the images of the gods was a usual custom with conquerors; cf. Isa. xlvi. 1 f., Jer. xlviii. 7, xlix. 3. In the images the gods themselves were carried away; therefore they are called a their gods." Dn^apa signifies here not drink-offerings, but molten images; the form is analogous to the plur. Ev^pS, formed from?D?; on the contrary, ^yp: Ubationes, Deut. xxxii. 38, stands for DjSMj Isa. xli. 29. The suffix is not to be referred to 3WK, but, like the suffix in WJwg, to the inhabitants of the conquered country, snn *]D3 are in apposition to DlJ'T.pn v3, not the genitive of the subject (Kran.), because an attributive genitive cannot follow a noun determined by a suffix. Hav., v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, and Klief. translate Kirn 'U1 IfoJP DW: he shall during (some) years stand off from the king of the north. Literally this translation may perhaps be justified, for Toy, c. IP, Gen. xxix. 35, has the meaning of " to leave off," and the expression " to stand off from war " mav be used concisely for " to desist from making war " upon one. But this interpretation does not accord with the connection. First, it is opposed by the expressive WTO., which cannot be understood, if nothing further should be said than that the king of the south, after he had overthrown the fortresses of the enemies' country, and had carried away their gods and their treasures, abstained from war for some years. The wni much rather leads us to this, that the passage introduced by it states some new important matter which does not of itself appear from the subjugation of the enemy and his kingdom. To this is to be added, that the contents of ver. 9, where the subject to N2 can only be the king of the north, do not accord with the abstaining of the king of the south from warring against the king of the north. JBy Ewald's remark, " With such miserable marchings to and fro they mutually weaken themselves," the matter is not made intelligible. For the penetrating of the king of the south into the fortresses of his enemy, and the carrying away of his gods and his treasures, was not a miserable, useless expedition; but then we do not understand how the completely humbled king of the north, after his conqueror abstained from war, was in the condition to penetrate into his kingdom and then to return to his own land. Would his conqueror have suffered him to do this? We must, therefore, with Kranichfeld, Gesenius, de Wette, and Winer, after the example of the
Syriac and the Vulgate, take V? TbJJ! m tne sonsc °f: t° stand out:. "- in the sense of '—rri contra^ as in Vs. xliii. 1 it is construed with 3*1, which is supported by the circumstance that 1DJ in vers. 6, 15, 17, and 25, has this meaning. By this not only is KVn rightly translated: and he, the same who penetrated into the fortresses of his adversary and carried away his gods, shall also take his stand against him, assert his supremacy for years; but also ver. 9 contains a suitable addition, for it shows how he kept his ground. The king of the north shall after some time invade the kingdom of the kins of the south, but shall return to his own land, namely, because he can effect nothing. Kran. takes the king of the south as the subject to K-1, ver. 9; but this is impossible, for then the word must be Uiotal, particularly in parallelism with InBW. As the words stand, 3Jjn rpD can only be the genitive to rnrfezi; thus the supposition that M the king of the south is the subject" is excluded, because the expression, " the kinfj of the south comes into the kingdom of the south and returns to his own land," has no meaning when, according to the context, the south denotes Egypt. With the K3R there also begins a change of the subject, which, though it appears contrary to the idiom of the German [and English] language, is frequently found in Hebrew; e.g. in vers. 11a and 9a. By the mention of an expedition of the king of the north into the kingdom of the king of the south, from which he again returned without having effected anything, the way is opened for passing to the following description of the supremacy of the king of the north over the king of the south.
Ver. 10. Here the suffix in 1J2 refers to the king of the north, who in ver. 9 was the person acting. Thus all interpreters with the exception of Kranichfeld, who understands 1D2 of the son of the Egyptian prince, according to which this verse ought to speak of the hostilities sought, in the wantonness of his own mind, of the kincr of the south against the kino; of the north. But this interpretation of Kranichfeld is shattered, not to speak of other verbal reasons which oppose it, against the contents of ver. 11. The rage of the king of the south, and his going to war against the king of the north, supposes that the latter had given rise to this rage by an assault. Besides, the description given in ver. 10 is much too grand to be capable of being referred to hostility exercised in mere wantonness. For such conflicts we do not assemble a multitude of powerful armies, and, when these powerful hosts penetrate into the fortresses of the enemy's country, then find that for the victorious invaders there is wanting the occasion of becoming exasperated for new warfare. The Kethiv 132 is rightly interpreted by the Masoretes as plur., which the following verbs demand, while the singulars *ttX?l *)t?B*i, **? (shall come, and overflow, and pass through) are explained from the circumstance that the hosts are viewed unitedly in jton (multitude). NU K3 expresses the unrestrained coming or pressing forward, while the verbs 13V) *\VW9 reminding us of Isa. viii. 8, describe pictorially the overflowing of the land by the masses of the hostile army. 3feh (jussive, denoting the divine guidance), and shall return, expresses the repetition of the deluge of the land by the hosts marching back out of it after the 13V, the march through the land, — not the new arming for war (Hav.), but renewed entrance into the region of the enemy, whereby they carry on the war TOD IV, to the fortress of the king of the south, corresponding with the |iB2?n '^O TijJDl in ver. 7 (to the fortress of the king of the north). niJV signifies properly to stir up to war, i.e. to arm, then to engage in war. In the first member of the verse it has the former, and in the last the latter meaning. The violent pressing forward of the adversary will greatly embitter the king of the south, fill him with the greatest anger, so that he will go out to make war with him. The adversary marshals a great multitude of combatants; but these shall be given into his hand, into the hand of the king of the south. 2} |ion "**?5r (fie raised up a great multitude) the context requires us to refer to the king of the north. VV3 jflJ, v. Leng., Maurer, and Hitzig understand of the acceptance of the command over the army — contrary to the usage of the words, which mean, to give into the hand = to deliver up, cf. 1 Kings xx. 28, Dan. i. 2, viii. 12, 13, and is contrary also to the context. The marshalling of the host supposes certainly the power to direct it, so that it needs not then for the first time to be given into the power of him who marshalled it. The expression also, " to give into his hand," as meaning " to place under his command," is not found in Scripture. To this is to be added, that the article in fXXVl refers back to 3"J Jton. But if ito»J5 is the host assembled by the king of the north, then it can only be given up into the hand of the enemy, i.e. the king of the south, and thus the suffix in ITJ3 can only refer to him. The statements in ver. 12 are in harmony with this, so far as they confessedly speak of the king of the south.
Ver. 12. This Terse illustrates the last dan b of ver. 11,;,. explains mora fully how the great multitude of the enemy are given into hii hand. The first two oianaee of ver. 12 itand in correlation to each other, as the change of the time and the absence "r the copula before on;., (the K*ri m proceeds from a i understanding). The meaning is this: «As the multitude i op, so his heart is Ufted up." |tonn, with the srticle, ran only be the host, of the king 0f the north mentioned in ver. 1l>. The supposition that the Egyptian army is meant, is the result of the difficulty arising out of the misapprehension of the right relation 111 *Wch the perfect Kta kath Ufted up Qds to the the conflict. 2lb en the Lifting up of the heart, commonly in the sense oi pride; here the increase of courage, hut so that pride is not altogether to he excluded. The - •, ory js the king of the south, to whom the suffix to VT3, Ver. 1 1/ points. With Ited courage he overthrows myriads, namelv, the powerful multitude of the enemies, but lie yet docs not reach to power, he does not attain to the supremacy over the king of the north and over his kingdom which he is striving after. The Vulgate, without however fully expressing the meaning, has rendered n> ifcl by sed non prccvalebit.
\ ers. 13-15. This thought is expanded and proved in these verses.— Ver. 13. The king of the north returns to his own land, gathers a host together more numerous than before, and shall then, at the end of the times of years, come again with a more powerful army and with a great train. B^TJ, that which is acquired, the goods, is the train necessary for the suitable equipment of the army— "the condition to a successful warlike expedition" (Kran.). The definition of time corresponding to the DWa in ver 6 is specially to be observed: W# DWH rp) (at the end oftime8 years) in which XtW is to be interpreted (as CW with tflp09 ch. x. 3 4 and other designations of time) as denoting that the* DW stretch over years, are times lasting during years. D^n, with the definite article, are in prophetic discourse the times determined by God.
Ver. 14. In those time? shall many rise up against the king; of the south (ty ID* as ch. viii. 20); also ^V Via *J3, the violent people of ^the nation (of the Jews), shall raise themselves against him D^na >tt are such as belong to the classes of violent men who break through the barriers of the divine law (Ezek. xviii. 10) These shall raise themselves 0m rzyrb, to establish the prophecy i.e. to bring it to an accomplishment. TDJjn = Dsj5, Ezek. xiii. 6, as npy = Dip in Daniel, and generally in the later Hebrew. Almost all interpreters since Jerome have referred this to Daniel's vision of the oppression under Antiochus Epiphanes, ch. viii. 9-14, ver. 23. This is so far right, as the apostasy of one party among the Jews from the law of their fathers, and their adoption of heathen customs, contributed to bring about that oppression with which the theocracy was visited by Antiochus Epiphanes; but the limiting of the pin to those definite prophecies is too narrow. |iin without the article is prophecy in undefined generality, and is to be extended to all the prophecies which threatened the people of Israel with severe chastisements and sufferings on account of their falling away from the law and their apostasy from their God. l«Wfa21, they shall stumble, fall. " The falling away shall bring to them no gain, but only the sufferings and tribulation prophesied of" (Kliefoth).
Ver. 15. In this verse, with K3^ the Ni2 Ni3\ ver. 13, is again assumed, and the consequence of the war announced. '"iptid "!jaty? to heap up an entrenchment; cf. Ezek. iv. 2, 2 Kings xix. 32. TJJ nn^ODj city of fortifications, without the article, also collectively of the fortresses of the kingdom of the south generally. Before such power the army, i.e. the war-strength, of the south shall not maintain its ground; even his chosen people shall not possess strength necessary for this.
Vers. 16-19. The further undertakings of the king of the north, Ver. 16. Having penetrated into the kingdom of the south, he shall act there according to his own pleasure, without any one being able to withstand him; just as before this the king of the south did in the kingdom of the north (ver. 7). With tW the jussive appears instead of the future — cf. DPJ1,)fi\ (ver. 17), 3B* (vers. 18 and 19) — to show that the further actions and undertakings of the king of the north are carried on under the divine decree. ivN Nan is he that comes into the land of the south, the kino* of the north (vers. 14 and 15). Having reached the height of victory, he falls under the dominion of pride and haughtiness, by which he hastens on his ruin and overthrow. After he has subdued the kingdom of the southern king, he will go into the land of beauty, i.e. into the Holy Land (with reference to *3*n p«, ch. viii. 9). VVl rfaj, and destruction is in his hand (an explanatory clause), n?3 being here not a verb, but a substantive. Only this meaning of n?3 is verbally established, see under ch. ix. 27, but not the meaning attributed to tlio word, from the unsuitable introduction of historical events, accomplishing, perfectio, according to which Hiiv., v. Leng., Maur., and Kliefoth translate the clause: and it (the Holy Land) is wholly given into his hand. n?3 means finishing, conclusion, only in the sense of destruction, also in 2 Chron. xii. 2 and Ezek. xiii. 13. For the use of VTC9 of spiritual things which one intends or aims at, cf. Job xi. 14, Isa. xliv. 20. The destruction, however, refers not to the Egyptians (Hitzig), but to the Holy Land, in which violent (rapacious) people (ver. 14) make common cause with the heathen king, and thereby put arms into his hands by which he may destroy the land.
Ver. 17. This verse has been very differently expounded. According to the example of Jerome, who translates it: et ponet faciem suam ut veniat ad tenendum universum regnum ejus, and adds to this the explanatory remark: ut evertat ilium h. e. Ptolemceum, sice illud, h, e. regnum ejus, many translate the words NiX> \y\ *\pp2 by to come in or against the strength of his whole (Egyptian) kingdom (C. B. Michaelis, Venema, Havernick, v. Lengerke, Maurer), i.e. to obtain the superiority over the Egyptian kingdom (Kliefoth). But this last interpretation is decidedly opposed by the circumstance that *]pn means strength not in the active sense = power over something, but only in the intransitive or passive sense, strength as the property of any one. Moreover, both of these explanations are opposed by the verbal use of Ki3 c. 3 vei, which does not signify: to come in or against a matter, but: to come with — cf.?;ri3 N133 to come with power, ver. 13, also Isa. xl. 10, Ps. lxxi. 16 — as well as by the context, for of the completely subjugated south (according to vers. 15 and 16) it cannot yet be said ^lljn frtt3PD. Correctly, Theodot. translates: elaekOeiv iv la%vi irao-nt; tt}? ftacrikeias avrov; Luther: " to come with the strength of his whole kingdom." Similarly M. Geier, Hitzig, and Kran. The king of the north intends thus to come with the force of his whole kingdom to obtain full possession of the kingdom of the south. toy D*"iB^ is an explanatory clause defining the manner in which he seeks to gain his object. B^'!, plur. of the adjective "IB*, in a substantive signification, that which is straight, recta, as Prov. xvi. 13, proba (Ewald's Gram. § 172; while in his commentary he translates the word by agreement). ^V, ivith him, i.e. having in intention. The sense of the passage is determined according to 0*1**? HiiW, ver. 6: w7ith the intention of establishing a direct, right relation, namely, by means of a political marriage to bring to himself the kingdom of the south. HW] forms a clause by itself: he shall do it, carry it out; there is therefore no need for Hitzig's arbitrary change of the text into rityW.
The second half of this verse (ver. 17) describes how he carries out this intention, but yet does not reach his end. " He shall give him the daughter of women." D^n, of women, the plur. of the class, as ni^K "TO??, Judg. xiv. 5, a young lion (of lionesses); nhhK |3? Zech. ix. 9, the foal of an ass (of she-asses). The suffix to '^n^n^np (corrupting her, E.V.) is referred by many to falwB (his kingdom); but this reference fails along with the incorrect interpretation of the *)i?ri3 as the end of the coming. Since in the first half of the verse the object of his undertaking is not named, but in ver. 16 is denoted by ivtf, the suffix in question can only be referred to Wto 113. Thus J. D. Michaelis, Bertholdt, Kosenmuller; the former, however, gives to the word SlWiji Tf? the verbally untenable meaning: a to seduce her into a morally corrupt course of conduct;" but Hitzig changes the text, strikes out the suffix, and translates: " to accomplish vileness." TVtWf} means only to destroy, to ruin, hence " to destroy her " (Kran.). This, it is true, was not the object of the marriage, but only its consequence; but the consequence is set forth as had in view, so as forcibly to express the thought that the marriage could lead, according to a higher direction, only to the destruction of the daughter.
The last clauses of the verse express the failure of the measure adopted. The verbs are fem., not neut.; thus the meaning is not: 11 it shall neither stand, nor succeed to him " (v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig), but: " she (the daughter) shall not stand," not be able to carry out the plan contemplated by her father. The words v"fc6l ny?*? do not stand for r? Win N?l: " she shall not be to him " or u for him." In this case tib must be connected with the verb. According to the text, Sb'tih forms one idea, as nia N7, impotent (cf. Ewald, § 270): "she shall be a not for him" (ein Nichtihm), i.e. he shall have nothing at all from her.