Vers. 18 and 19. His fate further drives him to make an assault on the islands and maritime coasts of the west (B^N), many of which he takes. 38^1 is not, after the Keri, to be changed into Dfc^l; for turning himself from Egypt to the islands, he turns back his face toward his own land in the north. The two following clauses are explained by most interpreters thus: " but a captain shall stop his scorn (bring it to silence), and moreover shall give back (recompense) scorn to him in return." This is then, according to the example of Jerome, referred to the expedition of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Grecian islands which were under the protection of Rome, for which he was assailed and overcome by the consul Lucius Scipio (Asiaticus) in a battle fought at Magnesia ad Sipylum in Lydia. But the translation in question affords a tolerable sense only when we take W2 in the meaning moreover, in addition to; a meaning which it has not, and cannot have according to its etymology. In all places where it is so rendered a negative sentence goes before it, cf. Gen. xliii. 3, xlvii. 18, Judg. vii. 14, or a sentence asking a question with a negative sense, as Amos iii. 3, 4; according to which, vb must here stand before IV3B&1 if we would translate it by besides that or only. W2 has the idea of exception, and can only be rendered after an affirmative statement by however, for the passage introduced by it limits the statement going before. Thus Theodot. rightly: Karairavaei ap%ovra<; bvethtaixov avjwv, TrXrjv 6 oveiSLafibs clvtov eTTicrrptyei, avrw; and in close connection with this, Jerome has': et cessare faciet principem opprobrii sui et opprobrium ejus convertetur in eum. In like manner the Peshito. This rendering we must, with Kranichfeld, accede to, and accordingly understand U1 JV3^ni of the king of the north, and interpret the indefinite P¥iJ (leader, chief) in undefined generality or collectively, and insnn (his reproach) as the second object subordinated to pvp, and refer ii> as the dative to P^p. Thus the second Ml Sin gains expressiveness corresponding to its place before the verb as the contrast to v iJ"lQ"]n: " however his reproach," i.e. the dishonour he did to the chiefs, " shall they recompense to him." The subject to y&l is the collective ]^?r. The statement of the last clause introduces us to the announcement, mentioned in ver. 19, of the overthrow of the king of the north, who wished to spread his power also over the west. Since the chiefs (princes) of the islands rendered back to him his reproach, i.e. requited to him his attack against them, he was under the necessity of returning to the fortresses of his own land. With that begins his fall, which ends with his complete destruction.
Ver. 20. Another stands up in his place, who causeth fc$J to pass over, through his eagerness for riches. W3 most understand as a collector of tribute, referring for this to 2 Kings xxiii. 35, and rvDPD Tin as the Holy Land, and then think on Heliodorus, whom Seleucus Nicator sent to Jerusalem to seize the temple treasure. But this interpretation of the words is too limited. K03 denotes, no doubt (2 Kings xxiii. 35), to collect gold and silver; but it does not thence follow that Ma, when silver and gold are not spoken of, means to collect tribute. The word in general designates the taskmaster who urges on the people to severe labour, afflicts and oppresses them as cattle. rvopD fjn is not synonymous with pK '2Xn, ver. 16, but stands much nearer to T\\y?o "rin? ver. 21, and designates the glory of the kingdom. The glory of the kingdom was brought down by Ma, and "*^n refers to the whole kingdom of the king spoken of, not merely to the Holy Land, which formed but a part of his kingdom. By these oppressions of his kingdom he prepared himself in a short time for destruction. B^nK D^pj {days few), as in Gen. xxvii. 44, xxix. 20, the designation of a very short time. The reference of these words, u in days few" to the time after the pillage of the temple of Jerusalem by Heliodorus is not only an arbitrary proceeding, but is also contrary to the import of the words, since 3 in D^\3 does not mean post. B^SfcO fcOl, in contradistinction and contrast to no(TO3 vh\ can only denote private enmity or private revenge. " Neither by anger (i.e. private revenge) nor by war" points to an immediate divine judgment.
If we now, before proceeding further in our exposition, attentively consider the contents of the revelation of vers. 5-20, so as to have a clear view of its relation to the historical fulfilment, we shall find the following to be the course of the thoughts exhibited: — After the fall of the Javanic world-kingdom (ver. 4) the king of the south shall attain to great power, and one of his princes shall found (ver. 5) a yet greater dominion in the north. After a course of years they shall enter into an agreement, for the king of the south shall give his daughter in marriage to the king of the north so as to establish a right relationship between them; but this agreement shall bring about the destruction of the daughter, as well as of her father and all who co-operated for the effecting of this marriage (ver. 6). Hereupon a descendant of that king of the south shall undertake a war against the king of the north, victoriously invade the country of the adversary, gather together great spoil and carry it away to Egypt, and for years hold the supremacy. The king of the north shall, it is true, penetrate into his kingdom, but he shall again return home without effecting anything (vers. 7-9). His sons also shall pass over the kingdom of the south with a multitude of hosts, but the multitude shall be given into the hand of the king, who shall not come to power by casting down myriads. The king of the north shall return with a host yet more numerous; against the king of the south many, also faithless members of the Jewish nation, shall rise up, and the king of the north shall take the fortified cities, without the king of the south having the power to offer him resistance (vers. 10-15). The conqueror shall now rule in the conquered lands after his own pleasure, and set his foot on the Holy Land with the intention of destroying it. Thereupon he shall come with the whole might of his kingdom against the king of the south, and by the marriage of his daughter seek to establish a right relationship with him, but he shall only thereby bring about the destruction of his daughter. Finally, he shall make an assault against the islands and the maritime countries of the west; but he shall be smitten by his chiefs, and be compelled to return to the fortresses of his own land, and shall fall (vers. 16-19). But his successor, who shall send taskmasters through the most glorious regions of the kingdom, shall be destroyed in a short time (ver. 20).
Thus the revelation depicts how, in the war of the kings of the south and of the north, first the king of the south subdued the north, but when at the summit of his conquest he sank under the power of his adversary through the insurrections and the revolt of an apostate party of the Jews; whereupon, by an assault upon the west in his endeavour after a firmer establishment and a wider extension of his power, he brings about his own overthrow, and his successor, in consequence of the oppression of his kingdom, comes to his end in a few days.
Now, since the king who comes into his place (ver. 21 ff.) after he has become strong raises himself up against the holy covenant, takes away the daily worship in the temple of the Lord, etc., is, according to the historical evidence found in the books of the Maccabees, the Seleucidan Antiochus Epiphanes, so the prophetic announcement, vers. 5-20, stretches itself over the period from the division of the monarchy of Alexander among his generals to the commencement of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes in the year 175 B.C., during which there reigned seven Syrian and six Egyptian kings, viz. —
But in the prophetic revelation there is mention made of only four kings of the north (one in vers. 5-9; his sons, vers. 10-12; a third, vers. 13-19; and the fourth, ver. 20) and three,kings of the south (the first, vers. 5 and 6; the a branch," vers. 7-9; and the king, vers. 10-15), distinctly different, whereby of the former, the relation of the sons (ver. 10) to the king indefinitely mentioned in ver. 11, is admitted, and of the latter the kings of the south, it remains doubtful whether he who is spoken of in vers. 9-15 is different from or is identical with " the branch of her roots " (ver. 7). This circumstance shows that the prophecy does not treat of individual historical personages, but only places in view the king of the south and the king of the north as representatives of the power of these two kingdoms. Of these kings special deeds and undertakings are indeed mentioned, which point to definite persons; e.g. of the king of the north, that he was one of the princes of the king of the south, and founded a greater dominion than his (ver. 5); the marriage of the daughter of the king of the south to the king of the north (ver. 6); afterwards the marriage also of the daughter of the king of the north (ver. 17), and other special circumstances in the wars between the two, which are to be regarded not merely as individualizing portraitures, but denote concrete facts which have verified themselves in history. But yet all these specialities do not establish the view that the prophecy consists of a series of predictions of historical facta, because even these features of the prophecy which find their actual fulfilments in history do not coincide with the historical reality.
Thus all interpreters regard the king of the south, ver. 5, as Ptolemy Lagus, and that one of his princes (Yn55>"|D) who founded a greater dominion as Seleucus Nicator, or the " Conqueror,' ' who, in the division of the countries which the conquerors made after the overthrow and death of Antiochus, obtained, according to Appian, Syr. e. 55, Syria from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean Sea and Phrygia; then by using every opportunity of enlarging his kingdom, he obtained also Mesopotamia, Armenia, and a part of Cappadocia, and besides subjugated the Persians, Parthians, Bactrians, Arabians, and other nations as far as the Indus, which Alexander had conquered; so that, after Alexander, no one had more nations of Asia under his sway than Seleucus, for from the borders of Phrygia to the Indus all owned his sway. While this extension of his kingdom quite harmonizes with the prophecy of the greatness of his sovereignty, yet the de- signatlon u one of his princes " does not accord with the position of Ptolemy Lagus. Both of these were certainly at the beginning generals of Alexander. Seleucus, afterwards vicegerent of the Babylonians, found himself, however, from fear of Antigonus, who sought to put him to death, under the necessity of fleeing to Egypt to Ptolemy, by whom he was hospitably received, and with whom and other vicegerents he entered into a league against Antigonus, and when war arose, led an Egyptian fleet against Antigonus (Diod. Sic. xix. 55-G2). He was accordingly not one of Ptolemy's generals.
Moreover, the marriage of the king's daughter, ver. G, is thus explained by Jerome, and all interpreters who follow him: — Ptolemy Philadelphia made peace with Antiochus Theus, after many years' war, on the condition that Antiochus should put away his own wife Laodice, who was at the same time his half-sister, and disinherit her son, and should marry Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy, and should appoint her first-born son as his successor on the throne of the kingdom (Appian, Syr. c. 65, and Jerome). This factum can be regarded as a fulfilling of the prophecy, ver. 6; but the consequences which resulted from this political marriage do not correspond with the consequences prophesied of. According to the testimony of history, Ptolemy died twTo years after this marriage, whereupon Antiochus set aside Berenice, and took to himself again his former wife Laodice, along with her children. But she effected the death of her husband by poison, as she feared his fickleness, and then her son Seleucus Callinicus ascended the throne. Berenice fled with her son to the asylum of Daphne, but she was there murdered along with him. The prophecy, according to this, differs from the historical facts, not merely in regard to the consequences of the events, but also in regard to the matter itself; for it speaks not only of the daughter, but also of her father being given up to death, while the natural death of her father is in no respect connected with that marriage, and not till after his death did the consequences fatal to his daughter and her child develop themselves.
Further, as to the contents of vers. 7-9, history furnishes the following confirmations: — In order to save his sister, who was put aside by Antiochus Theus, her brother, Ptolemy Euergetes, invaded the Syrian kingdom, in which Seleucus Callinicus had succeeded his father on the throne, in alliance with the armies of the Asiatic cities, and put to death his mother Laodice, since he had come too late to save his sister, in revenge for her murder, overthrew all the Syrian fortresses from Cilicia to the Tigris and Babylonia, and would have conquered the whole of the Syrian kingdom, if an insurrection which had broken out in Egypt had not caused him to return thither, carrying with him many images of the gods, and immense treasure, which he had taken from the vanquished cities. Then, while engaged in Egypt, Callinicus recovered the cities of Asia Minor, but failed to conquer the maritime countries, because his fleet was wrecked in a storm; and when he thereupon undertook a land expedition against Egypt, he was totally defeated, so that he returned to Antioch with only a few followers: cf. Justin, Hist, xxvii. 1,2; Polyb. v. 58; and Appian, Syr. c. 65. On the other hand, the announcement of the war of his sons with many hosts overflowing the land, ver. 10, is not confirmed by history. After the death of Callinicus in captivity, his son Seleucus Ceraunus succeeded to the government, a very incompetent man, who after two years was poisoned by his generals in the war with Attalus, without having undertaken anything against Egypt. His brother Antiochus, surnamed the Great, succeeded him, who, in order to recover Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, renewed the war against the king of Egypt (not till about two years after he ascended the throne, however, did Ptolemy Philopator begin to reign), in which he penetrated twice to Dura, two (German) miles north from Caesarea (Polyb. x. 49), then concluded a four months' truce, and led his host back to the Orontes (Polyb. v. 66; Justin, xxx. 1). After the renewal of hostilities he drove the Egyptian army back to Sidon, conquered Gilead ^nd Samaria, and took up his winter-quarters in Ptolemais (Polyb. v. 63-71). In the beginning of the following year, however, he was defeated by the Egyptians at Raphia, not far from Gaza, and was compelled, with great loss in dead and prisoners, to return as quickly as possible to Antioch, and to leave Ccele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine to the Egyptians (Polyb. v. 79, 80, 82-86). Vers. 11 and 12 refer to this war. Thirteen or fourteen years after this, Antiochus, in league with Philip III. of Macedon, renewed the war against the Egyptians, when, after Philopator's death, Ptolemy Epiphanes, being five years old, had ascended the throne, retook the three above-named countries (Ccele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine), vanquished the Egyptian host led by Scopas near Paneas, and compelled the fortress of Sidon, into which the Egyptians had fled, to surrender after a lengthened siege, and then concluded a peace with Ptolemy on the condition that he took to wife the daughter of Antiochus, Cleopatra, who should brine with her, as her dowry, Ccele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine (Polyb. xv. 20, xxviii. 17; App. Syr. c. i.; Liv. xxxiii. 19; and Joseph. Antt. xii. 4. 1). Since the time of Jerome, the prophecy vers. 13-17 has been referred to this last war. But also here the historical events fall far behind the contents of the prophecy. The prophecy points to the complete subjugation of the king of the south, while this war was carried on only for the possession of the Asiatic provinces of the Egyptian kingdom. Also the rising up of many (D^T, ver. 14) against the king of the south is not historically verified; and even the relation spoken of by Josephus {Antt. xii. 3. 3) in which the Jews stood to Antiochus the Great was not of such a kind as to be capable of being regarded as a fulfilling of the " exalting themselves" of the DV1B *J3, ver. 14. Still less does the statement of ver. 1G, that the king of the north would stand in the glorious land, agree with H73 interpreted of conduct of Antiochus the Great toward the Jews; for according to Josephus, Antt. I.e., he treated the Jews round about Jerusalem favourably, because of their own accord they had submitted to him and had supported his army, and granted to them not only indulgence in regard to the observance of their religious ordinances, but also afforded them protection.
Moreover, ver. 18, containing the prophecy of the undertaking of the kin£ of the north against the islands, has not its historical fulfilment in the expedition of Antiochus the Great against the coasts and islands of Asia Minor and the Hellespont; but ver. 19, that which is said regarding his return to the fortresses of his own land and his overthrow, does not so correspond with the historical issue of the reign of this king that one would be able to recognise therein a prediction of it. Finally, of his successor, Seleucus Philopator, to whom ver. 20 must refer, if the foregoing verses treat of Antiochus the Great, nothing further is communicated, than that he quum paternis cladibus fractas admodum Syrice opes accepisset, post otiosum nullisque admodum rebus gestis nobilitatum annorum duodecim regnum, was put to death through the treachery of Heliodorus, unius ex purpuratis (Liv. xii. 19, cf. App. Syr. c. 45), and the mission of Heliodorus to Jerusalem to seize the treasures of the temple, which is fabulously described in 2 Mace. iii. 4 ff. The "Dtf; (shall be destroyed) of this king DHJlK DWa (within few days) does not harmonize with the fact of his twelve years' rei^n.
From this comparison this much follows, that the prophecy does not furnish a prediction of the historical wars of the Seleucidse and the Ptolemies, but an ideal description of the war of the kings of the north and the south in its general outlines, whereby, it is true, diverse special elements of the prophetical announcement have historically been fulfilled, but the historical reality does not correspond with the contents of the prophecy in anything like an exhaustive manner. This ideal character of the prophecy conies yet more prominently forward to view in the following prophetic description.
In this section we have (ver. 21) first the description of the prince who, in striving after supremacy, uses all the means that cunning and power can contrive, and in his enmity against the holy covenant knows no bounds. This description is divided into two parts — (1) vers. 21-35, and (2) vers. 36-ch. xii. 3 — which designate the two stadia of his proceedings. In the first part are described, (1) his gradual rising to power, vers. 21-24; (2) his war with the king of the south for the supremacy, vers. 25-27;
(3) his rising up against the covenant people, even to the desecration of the sanctuary by the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the setting up of the abomination of desolation, vers. 28-32;
(4) the effect and consequence of this for the people of God, vers. 32-35. This prince is the enemy of the holy God who is prophesied of in ch. viii. 9-13, 23-25, under the figure of the little horn, and is typically represented in the rising up of the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes against the covenant people and their worship of God.
Vers. 21-24. The prince's advancement to power. — He appears as HD3, one despised, i.e. not such an one as by reason of birth has any just claim to the throne, and therefore as an intruder, also one who finds no recognition (Kranichfeld); which Hitzig has more definitely explained by mentioning that not Antiochus Epiphanes, but his nephew Demetrius, the son of the murdered Seleucus Philopator, was the true heir, but was of such a character that he was not esteemed worthy of the throne. np3, is despised, not = bad, unworthy, but yet supposes unworthiness. There was not laid on him the honour or majesty of the kingdom. The dignity of the kingdom requires Tin, splendour, majesty, such as God lays upon the king of Israel, Ps. xxi. 6 (5), 1 Chron. xxix. 25. But here the subject spoken of is the honour which men give to the king, and which was denied to the a despised one'* on account of his character. He comes »TJ?^3, in security, i.e. unexpectedly (cf. ch. viii. 25), and takes possession of the kingdom. PI??, to grasp, here to draw violently to himself. ^wp^O?, properly, by smoothnesses, intrigues and cunning, not merely flatteries or smooth words, but generally hypocritical behaviour in word and deed; cf. ver. 34.
Ver. 22. The kingdom he seized he also knew how to hold fast with great power. *\®'J>? TO"^, arms (i.e. warlike strength) of an inundation, i.e. armies overflowing the land are swept away before him, destroyed by yet stronger military forces. It is not merely the enemy, but also the u prince of the covenant," whom he destroys, rmn TJU is analogous to mn ^ya Gen. xiv. 13, and HWK nna, Obad. 7, cf. Mai. ii. 14, and, as the absence of the article shows, is to be taken in a general sense. The interpretation of ITna TJ3 of the high priest Onias III., who at the commencement of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes was driven from his office by his brother, and afterwards, at the instigation of Menelaus, was murdered by the Syrian governor Andronicus at Daphne near Antioch, 2 Mace. iv. 1 ff., 33 ff. (Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, etc.) — this interpretation is not warranted by the facts of history. This murder does not at all relate to the matter before us, not only because the Jewish high priest at Antioch did not sustain the relation of a " prince of the covenant," but also because the murder was perpetrated without the previous knowledge of Antiochus, and when the matter was reported to him, the murderer was put to death by his command (2 Mace. iv. 36-38). Thus also it stands in no connection with the war of Antiochus against Egypt. The words cannot also (with Havernick, v. Leng., Maurer, Ebrard, Kliefoth) be referred to the Egyptian king Ptolemy Philometor, because history knows nothing of a covenant entered into between this king and Antiochus Epiphanes, but only that soon after the commencement of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes the guardians of the young Philometor demanded Coele-Syria from Antiochus, which Antiochus the Great had promised (see above, p. 448) as a dowry to his daughter Cleopatra, who was betrothed to Ptolemy Philometor, but Antiochus did not deliver it up, and hence a war arose between them. To this is to be added, that, as Dereser, v. Lengerke, Maurer, and Kranichfeld have rightly remarked, the description in vers. 22-24 bears an altogether general character, so that v. Leng. and Maurer find therein references to all the three expeditions of Antiochus, and in vers. 25-27 find more fully foretold what is only briefly hinted at in vers. 22-24. The undertaking of the kin£ against Egypt is first described in ver. 24. We must therefore, with Kranichfeld, understand rra TJJ in undefined generality of covenant princes in general, in the sense already given.
Vers. 23 and 24. In these verses there is a fuller statement of the manner in which he treats the princes of the covenant and takes possession of their territory. The 1 at the beginning of ver. 23 is explicative, and the suffix in 1v£, pointing back to '2 T55j is also to be interpreted collectively. TON JrnannrrjB, literally, " from the confederating himself with them" (flnannn is infin. formed in the Syriac manner), i.e. from the time when he had made a covenant with them, he practised deceit. This was done by his coming (njy of a warlike coming) and gaining strength with a few people, namely (ver. 24), by his coming unexpectedly into the fattest and richest places of the province, and there doing unheard-of things — things which no previous king, no one of his predecessors, had ever done, scattering among them (his followers) spoil and prey and riches. Thus rightly, after the Syriac and the Vulgate (dissipabit), Rosenmiiller, Kranichfeld, and Ewald; while, on the contrary, v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig, and Kliefoth interpret ">T2 m ^ie sense of to distribute, and refer the words to the circumstance that Antiochus Epiphanes squandered money lavishly, and made presents to his inferiors often without any occasion. But to distribute money and spoil is nothing unheard of, and in no way does it agree with the u fattest provinces." The context decidedly refers to conduct which injured the fat provinces. This can only consist in squandering and dissipating the wealth of this province which he had plundered to its injury (p\b [to theni], dativ. incommodi). An historical confirmation is found in 1 Mace. iii. 29-31. To bring the provinces wholly under his power, he devises plans against the fortresses that he might subdue them. W*1^ and indeed (he did this) even for a time. We cannot, with Klief., refer this merely to the last preceding passage, that his assaults against the fortresses succeeded only partly and for a time. The addition ("and that for a time") denotes a period determined by a higher power (cf. ver. 35 and ch. xii. 4, 6), and relates to the whole proceedings of this prince hitherto described; as C. B. Michaelis has already rightly explained: nee enim semper et in perpetuum dolus ei succedet et terminus suus ei tandem eriL
Vers. 25-27. These verses describe the victorious war of the king who had come to power against the king of the south, the war of Antiochus Epiphanes against king Ptolemy Philometor, which is described in 1 Mace. i. 16-19, with manifest reference to this prophecy. ^V]) (he shall stir zip) is potentialls in the sense of divine decree: u he shall stir up his power and his heart.'' nb is not warlike power, which is mentioned in pHir^na (Ver. 25), but the power which consists in the bringing of a great army under his command; 33?, the mental energy for the carrying out of his plans. For IblP &6, cf. eh. viii. 4. The subject is the last-named king of the south, who, notwithstanding his very great and powerful army, shall not stand in battle, but shall give way, because devices are contrived against him. The subject to ttB>n* is not the enemy, the king of the north, with his army, but, according to ver. 26, his table-companions.
Ver. 26. Here it is more definitely stated why he cannot stand. faziriD yl'S, icho eat his food (3?1??, see under ch. i. 5), i.e. his tablecompanions (cf. Ps. xli. 10), persons about him. *nr>3^, shall break him, i.e. cast him to the ground. His army shall therefore overflow, but shall execute nothing, only many shall fall down slain. The first member of the verse points to treachery, whereby the battle was lost and the war was fruitless. Hitzig incorrectly interprets spDi^ rushes away, i.e. is disorganized and takes to flight. But *lt3B> cannot have this meaning.
Ver. 27. Here then is described how the two kings seek through feigned friendship to destroy one another. The two kings are of course the two kings of the north and the south previously named. Of a third, namely, of two kings of Egypt, Philometor and Physkon, Daniel knows nothing. The third, Physkon, is introduced from history; and hence Hitzig, v. Lengerke, and others understand by the " two kings" the two kings Antiochus and Philometor confederated against the king of the south, but Kliefoth, on the contrary, thinks of Antiochus and Physkon, the latter of whom he regards as the king of the south, ver. 25. All this is arbitrary. Jerome has already rejected the historical evidence for this, and remarks: verum ex eo, quia scriptura nunc dicit: duos fuisse regeS) quorum cor fuerit fraudulentum... hoc secundum historiam demonstrari non potest, jnip? B2^> Hitzig translates: " their heart belongs to wickedness," contrary to the context,? denotes also here only the direction: " their heart goes toward wicked deeds," is directed thereto. JHD (from yjn), formed after
"WR? (cf. Ewald, § 160a), the evil-doing, consists in this, that the one seeks to overthrow and destroy the other under the cloak of feigned friendship; for they eat as friends at one table, and " speak lies" — the one tells lies to the other, professing friendship. But their design shall not succeed. All interpretations of these words which are determined by historical facta are arbitrary. The history of Antiochus Epiphanes furnishes no illustrations for this. In the sense of the prophecy n^T) VO has only this meaning: the design of the king of the north to destroy the king of the south, and to make himself master both of the north and the south, shall not succeed, and the king of the south will not fulfil what he promises to his deceitful adversary. For yet the end shall be at the time appointed. These words state the reason why the jnp shall not succeed. Hitzig incorrectly translates: u but the end holds onwards to the appointed time;" for ^ cannot in this connection be rendered by but, and? cannot express the idea of holding to anything, p denotes here, as generally, the direction toward the end, as ver. 35, and ch. viii. 17, 19. The end goes yet on to the time appointed by God. That this "Wto {appointment of time) does not lie in the present, but in the future, is denoted by "liy, although we do not, with Havernick, interpret liy by " for the end lies yet further out," nor, with v. Lengerke and Maurer, may we supply the verb " withdraws itself, is reserved." l\y stands before Y? because on it the emphasis lies. YP. is, however, not the end of the war between Antiochus and Egypt (v. Leng., Maur., Hitzig), but cannot be otherwise taken than Y?. ny, vers. 35, 40, and ch. xii. 4. But in the latter passage YP. ny is the time of the resurrection of the dead, thus the end of the present course of the world, with which all the oppression of the people of God ceases. Accordingly Y? in the verse before us, as in vers. 35 and 40, is the time in which the conduct of the kings previously described, in their rising up and in their hostility against the people of God, reaches its end (ver. 45); and with the overthrow of these enemies the period of oppression also comes to an end. This end comes only "iyi^, at the time which God has determined for the purifying of His people (ver. 35). So long may the kings of the north and the south prosecute their aims; so long shall they strive for the possession of the kingdom without succeeding in their plans. "Wift? has here and in ver. 35 the definite article, because in both verses the language refers not to any definite time, but to the time determined by God for the consummation of His kingdom. The placing of the article in this word in the verse before ns is not, with Kliefoth, to be explained from a reference to ch. viii. 17, 19. The two revelations are separated from each other by too long a space of time for this one to refer back to that earlier one by the mere use of the article, although both treat of the same subject. The *iyift? occurs besides in ver. 29, where it is natural to suppose that it has the same meaning as here; but the contents of that verse oppose such a conclusion. Ver. 29 treats, it is true, of a renewed warlike expedition against the south, which, however, brings neither the final deciding of the war with the south (cf. ver. 40), nor yet the end of the oppression of the people of God; *iVV3n is thus only the time determined for the second aggression against the south, not the time of the end.
Vers. 28-32. The rising up against the holy covenant.
Ver. 28. The success gained by the crafty king of the north in his war against the king of the south (ver. 25 f.) increases his endeavours after the enlarging of his dominions. Returning from Egypt with great riches, i.e. with rich spoil, he raises his heart against the holy covenant. By the potent ia lis 3B^ (lie shall return) this new undertaking is placed in the point of view of a divine decree, to denote that he thereby brings about his own destruction. tnp n*ia signifies not the holy people in covenant with God (v. Lengerke, Maurer, and many older interpreters), but the divine institution of the Old Covenant, the Jewish Theocracy. The Jews are only members of this covenant, cf. ver. 30. Calvin is right when he says: Mihi simplicior sensus probatur, quod scilicet helium gerat adversus Deum. The holy covenant is named instead of the covenant people to represent the undertaking as an outrage against the kingdom of God, which was founded in Israel. nbW, and he shall do, 'perform, that which his heart thinks, or that which he has in his mind against the holy covenant. The historical fulfilment is narrated in 1 Mace. i. 22-29. \Ytih 1W resumes tei.K 3fefj], and teaches us that Antiochus undertook the first assault against the holy covenant on his return from Egypt into his kingdom (to Antioch), as is expressly stated in 1 Mace, i. 20.
Ver. 29. In order that he might bring Egypt wholly under his power, he undertook a new expedition thither (K^ 3^? he comes again). But this expedition, like the first, was not successful (3 — 3, as — so, cf. Josh. xiv. 11, Ezek. xviii. 4). For the ships of Chittim come against him. 0^3 D"1^ ships the Chittcei, for
D^ns 1U3 D^ Num. xxiv. 24, whence the expression is derived D^ni) is Cyprus with its chief city Klttlov (now Chieti or Chitti): see under Gen. x. 4. Ships coming from Cyprus are ships which come from the west, from the islands and coasts of the Mediterranean. In 1 Mace. i. 1 and viii. 5 t^flS is interpreted of Macedonia, according to which Bertholdt and Dereser think of the Macedonian fleet with which the Roman embassy sailed to Alexandria. This much is historically verified, that the Roman embassy, led by Popillius, appeared with a fleet in Alexandria, and imperiously commanded Antiochus to desist from his undertaking against Egypt and to return to his own land (Liv. xlv. 10-12). The LXX. have therefore translated these words by: koX ij^ovat 'Ptofiaioi teal i^cocrovaiv clvtov kcl\ ififtpifirjaovrai aura), and correctly, so far as the prophecy has received the first historical accomplishment in that factum. •"|N3J1, he shall lose courage, is rightly explained by Jerome: non quod interierit, sed quod omnem arrogantio3 jpcrdiderit magnitudinem} &yv\ 2Vhm1 not: he was again enraged, for nothing is said of a previous DVJ. 3P1, and he turned round (back) from his expedition against Egypt. Since he was not able to accomplish anything against the 333 (the south), he turns his indignation against Judah to destroy the covenant people (cf. ver. 28). The 3^: in ver. 306 resumes the 3wl in- ver. 30a, so as further to express how he gave vent to his anger. Hitzig's interpretation of the first y&\ of the return to Palestine, of the second, of the return from Palestine to Antioch, is not justified. \y\, he shall observe, direct his attention to the Jews who forsook the holy covenant, i.e. the apostate Jews, that he might by their help execute his plans against the Mosaic religion — paj'tim ornando illos honoribus, partim illorum studiis ad patriam religionem obliterandam comparatis obsecundando, as C. B. Michaelis excellently remarks; cf. 1 Mace. i. 11-16 with ii. 18.
1 The historical facts have been briefly and conclusively brought together by Hitzig thus: "On the complaint of the Alexandrians the Roman senate sent an embassage, at the head of which was C. Popillius Laenas (Polyb. xxix. 1; Liv. xliv. 19). After being detained at Delos (Liv. xliv. 29), they set sail to Egypt after the battle at Pydna (Liv. xlv. 10). Here he met Antiochus four Roman miles from Alexandria, and presented to him the message of the senate. When Antiochus explained that he wished to lay the matter before his counsellors, Popillius described with the staff he carried in his hand a circle round the king, and commanded him to give his answer before he left this circle. Antiochus, confounded by the circumstance, submitted and withdrew from Egypt (Liv. xlv. 12; Polyb. xxix. 11; Appian, Syr. c. 66; Justin, xxxiv. 3)."
Ver. 31. Here is stated what he accomplished by the help of the apostate Jews. WJ*tt, arms, figuratively for help (ver. 5), are warlike forces, as vers. 15 and 22. That the plur. has here the masculine form, while in those verses it has the fein. form, furnishes no reason for a difference of meaning, since Jjfaf in its proper sense of arm occurs promiscue with both endings in the plur.; cf. for ^jhT Gen. xlix. 24, Isa. li. 5, 2 Kings ix. 24. |p in *3BB is not partitive, a part of him, i.e. the host as a part of the king (Hitzig), but out from him, or by his command. ^W, to stand up, not to stand still, as Hitzig, on the ground of the supposition that Antiochus on his return from Egypt placed a standing army-corps in Jerusalem, would interpret it, contrary to the usage of the word, since *lby does not signify to stand still in the sense of to remain behind, though it means to endure, to keep the ground (vers. 6, 15). It is disputed whether these E^JtnT denote military forces, troops of the hostile king (Havernick, v. Leng., Maur., Hitz., Klief.), or his accomplices of the apostate party of the Jews, and thus essentially identical with TVna 'QT'y, ver. 30 (Calvin, Hengstb. Christol. iii. 1, p. 110, Kran., and others). In favour of the latter view, Kranichfeld argues that the IVJ3 ^T'y {those that forsake the covenant), according to ver. 30, come under consideration as a support to the king, and the WE» of this verse before us evidently refers to the king's own army, and therefore would be superfluous. But these two reasons prove nothing. The ^pp is not superfluous, even though it were used of the king's own army. Since in vers. 30 and 32 the king of the north is the subject of the clause, it was necessary in D'jnt to define in what relation they stood to the king. But the other remark, that the nnn "QT'y come into view as a support to the king, does not prove that these are the same who desecrate the sanctuary and set up the abomination of desolation. On the contrary, if ^pp denotes the causal exit, the D^'it cannot be the apostate Jews, but only warlike forces which the king leads forth. If we refer D^hT to the apostate Jews, then we must, with Hengstenberg and Gesenius, take ^ftp in the sense of eo jubente. Moreover, the E^t? manifestly stand in contrast to the T^"]P JV13 of ver. 32. By his troops (military forces) the king lays waste the sanctuary, and he makes by means of smooth words those who sin against the covenant heathen. Kranichfeld himself recognises this contrast, and therefore will understand as the subject to vprn not merely " those that forsake the covenant " (ver. 30), but these along with and including the warlike power of the hostile king. An expedient which the difficulty suggested, Vfa\fBB\ is the temple, and Tton (the strength) is in apposition. This apposition, however, does not say that the temple was fortified (v. Leng., Hitzig, Ewald), but it points out the temple as the spiritual fortress of Israel. The temple is the " Feste Burg " (firm tower) of the holy covenant (ver. 28), as the dwelling-place of Jehovah, which is a firm fortress to His people; cf. Ps. xxxi. 4, 5 (3, 4); Isa. xxv. 4; Ps. xviii. 3 (2). 'EH £bn is essentially identical with |i3B rfem iKHpE, ch. viii. 11. The two following clauses state what the desecration consists in: in the taking away, the removal of the stated worship of Jehovah, and iu the placing, setting up of the abomination of desolation, i.e. of the idol-altar on Jehovah's altar of -burnt-offering; see under ch. viii. 11 (p. 297 f.). Dftbto is not the genitive, but an adjective to pp$n (without the article after the definite noun, as e.g. ch. viii. 13): the desolating abomU nation, i.e. the abomination which effects the desolation. With reference to the fulfilment, cf. 1 Mace. i. 37, 45, 54, and above, p. 371.
Vers. 32-35. The consequences to the people of Israel which result from this sin against the holy covenant, — The ungodly shall become heathen, i.e. shall wrholly apostatize from the true God; but, on the other hand, the pious shall be strengthened in their confidence in the Lord. This is in general the import of ver. 32, the first half of which, however, has been very differently interpreted, rnn *S*Kno signifies neither "those who sinfully make a covenant" (Havernick), nor " sinners among the covenant people " (v. Lengerke), nor a those who condemn the covenant," i.e. those who reject the sign of the covenant, circumcision (Hitzig). The latter meaning is altogether arbitrary. Against the second is the fact that tFJflSh is in use for sinners; against the first, that ma V'^nn could only mean: u to declare the covenant punishable.")PWy) means to act wickedly, to sin, and nnn can only be the accusative of reference, which is subordinated to the participle for the purpose of limitation (Ewald, § 288); literally, " the acting wickedly with reference to the covenant." The absence of the article in rp"l3 is no proof against the reference of the word to the holy covenant. The article is wanting in Daniel where otherwise the determination is found from the connection, e.g. ch. viii. 13. Sinning against the covenant is, it is true, a stronger expression than fpia 2}V (to forsake the covenant), but it does not include the idea of the entire apostasy t'rom God, but only insolent violation of the covenant law, so that of nnn y?htD it can very well be predicated *|W. *p3nn does not mean to pollute (Kran.), but to desecrate, to make profane; and spoken of persons, to make them as heathen, as frequently in the Syriac. ^P?H? flatteries, here deceitful promises of earthly advantage; cf. under ver. 21. For the subject spoken of here, see 1
•L. T v.: suffix to WTHJ is neither to be interpreted distributively nor to be referred to DP. To *pW we are to supply 11*1212 from the context:
"to hold fast to the covenant." ifejn, as vers. 17, 28, 30, to carry out the design. In what way this is done is explained in vers. 33
Ver. 33. v*?^? is not the teachers, but intelligentes, those who have insight or understanding. The pious are meant by the word, those who know their God (ver. 32). This is seen from the contrast B^l, ch. xii. 10. According to the O. T. view, wisdom, insight, are correlative ideas with the fear of God, piety, Ps. xiv. 1, Job xxviii. 28; and M"v with the article, the many, the great multitude of the people who bring themselves forward to view by the judicious appearance of the pious, are moved to hold fast by the law of the Lord. Yet they who understand shall for a time fall by the sword, etc. The subject to w?3 is not the Ml, or those with the teachers (Hitzig), but the DV y'SGWD, but not all, but, according to ver. 35, a number of them; for in ver. 35 falling is not first specially predicated of the teachers, as Hitzig thinks, but only the effect which that would have on the whole people. The words point to a warlike rising up of the faithful members of the covenant people against the hostile king, and have had their first historical fulfilment in the insurrection of the Maccabees against Antiochus Epiphanes; cf. 1 Mace. ii. ff. In 1 Mace. i. 57, ii. 38, iii. 41, v. 13, 2 Mace. vi. 11, there are examples of this falling by the sword. The D^l after CBJ in several Codd. is a worthless gloss.
Ver. 34. Through the fall of the pious in war little help shall come to the people of God. BVD (little) is not " spoken contemptuously" (Hitzig), but the help is so named in comparison with the great deliverance which shall come to the people of God in the time of the end by the complete destruction of the oppressor. We may not therefore, with Hitzig and others, limit this expression to the circumstance that with the victories of Judas Maccabaeus (1 Mace. iii. 11 ff., 23 ff., iv. 14, etc.) they were far from gaining all, for they also met with a defeat (1 Mace. v. 60 f.). For with the overthrow of Antioehus and the liberation of the Jews from the Syrian yoke, full help was not yet rendered to the people of God. The " little help" consists in this, that by the rising up and the wars of those that had understanding among the people the theocracy was preserved, the destruction of the service of Jehovah and of the church of God, which was aimed at by the hostile king, Was prevented, and, as the following clauses express, the purifying of the people of God is brought about. This purifying is the design and the fruit of the oppression which God brings upon His people by means of the hostile king. The attaining of this end is a " little help" in comparison with the complete victory over the archenemy of the time of the end. Many shall connect themselves with the Dv^p (intelligentes, ver. 33a) with flatteries (as ver. 21). "The successes of Judas, and the severity with which he and Mattathias treated the apostates (1 Mace. ii. 44, iii. 5, 8), had the result of causing many to join them only through hypocrisy (1 Mace. vii. 6; 2 Mace. xiv. 6), who again forsook them as soon as opportunity offered; 1 Mace. vi. 21 ff., ix. 23" (Hitzig, Kliefoth).
Ver. 35. Such has been the experience in all periods of the church's history. Therefore does the church need to pass through the purifying process of affliction, in which not only the lukewarm fall away in the time of conflict, but also many even DvN3b^rrjp. IP is here partitive. W3* (they shall fall) is to be understood (cf. ver. 33, 'ni w33) not merely of death in battle, but of other calamities, such as being imprisoned, plundered, etc. D[}3 *)™?> to melt, i.e. to purify by them, not as to them; for 3 does not represent the accusative, as Kranichfeld thinks, referring in confirmation to Ewald, § 282. The use of 3 there spoken of is of a different nature. The suffix in BH3 refers neither to " those that understand" alone (Hav.), nor to the "many," ver. 33 (v. Leng.), still less to the flatterers in ver. 34 (Maurer), but to all of these together, or to the whole company of the people of God in the sum of their individuals. The verbs ]?$) TTQp serve to strengthen the expression (l^pp for psp? on account of the assonance). Y\> W""W (to the time of the end) is connected with w3*, the chief idea of the passage. The stumbling and falling of " those who understand" (the pious) shall continue to the time of the end, to bring about the purification of the people for their glorification in the time of the end. For the end stretches itself out yet to the time appointed (cf. ver. 27); i.e. it does not come in with the " little help" which Israel received by the rising up of "those who understand" against the hostile king, thus not with the afflictions that came upon them by Antiochus, but it shall come afterwards at the time appointed by God. The assertion that " the end is connected with the death of king Antiochus Epiphanes" (Hitzig, Bleek, and others) is founded on a misunderstanding of the following section, vers. 36-45. On the contrary, Kraniehfeld has rightly remarked, that u the statements made in vers. 36 to 39 incL regarding the king of the north, now fall, in accordance with the context, into the period which shall expire at that time of the end (ver. 35, cf. ver. 40)." From ver. 40 the events of the time of the end are then to be prophesied.
Ver. 36-ch. xii. 3. The second and last stadium in the dominion of the enemy of God, with his destruction, and the deliverance of the •people of God.
This part of the prophecy is divided into three sections: (1) Vers. 36-39 describe the rising of the hostile king above all divine and human ordinances; (2) vers. 40-45, his last undertaking against the king of the south for the gaining of the dominion of the world, together with his overthrow; (3) ch. xii. 1-3, the deliverance of the people of God from the last tribulation.
Re^ardino; the kin^ whose course to its end is described in vers. 36-45, the views of interpreters differ. Following the example of Porphyry, Ephrem Syrus, and Grotius, almost all modern interpreters find predicted here only a description of the conduct of Antiochus Epiphanes to the time of his destruction; believing interpreters, such as C. B. Michaelis, Havernick, and others, regarding the whole as having a typical reference to Antichrist. On the contrary, Jerome, Theodoret, Luther, Oecolarnpadius, Osiander, Calovius, Geier, and at length Kliefoth, interpret this section as a direct prophecy of Antichrist; according to which, ^^l1, ver. 36, representing not Antiochus Epiphanes, but the prince, i.e. the Antichrist, who is prophesied of under the figure of the little horn growing up among the ten kingdoms of the fourth world-kingdom, and described in ch. ix. 26 as N2H TJ3 must be introduced as a new subject in ver. 36. The rabbinical interpreters have also adopted the idea of a change of subject in ver. 36, for Aben Ezra, Jacchiades, and Abarbanel take Constantine the Great, while E-. Solomon takes the Roman empire generally, as the subject. Essentially the reference of the section to the Antichrist is correct; but the supposition of a change of subject in the prophetic representation is not established. If in the words, " the fall of those who understand, to purify and make white, shall continue to the time of the end" (ver. 35), it is also said that the end does not yet come with the proceedings of the enemy of God prophesied of in vers. 28-34, but lies beyond that; so also, in the verses referred to, the destruction of this enemy (iVntiochus) is neither directly nor indirectly so spoken of as to justify the conclusion that " the words 1 to purify and make white,' etc., extend beyond his time." If the contents of vers. 36-45 lie beyond the end of the enemy who has been hitherto spoken of, then ought his destruction to have been mentioned, especially since with the words, " to the time of the end, because yet for a time appointed," ver. 35, the words of ver. 27, " for yet the end of the time appointed," are resumed. All attempts to give to the former of these expressions in ver. 35 a different meaning from that contained in the latter, ver. 27 (Calovius, Geier, Kliefoth), amount to verbally impossible interpretations. The non-mention also of the destruction of this enemy (Antiochus) in vers. 32-35 is not justified by the remark that this was already known to Daniel from ch. viii., and that in vers. 36-45 the duration of Antichrist is also omitted (Klief.). For the verses do not treat of the duration of the proceedings of the enemy of God, but of his end or his destruction. The destruction of the enemy at the time of the end is, however, expressly declared, ver. 45. This would also have been stated in vers. 32-34 if the kino; in ver. 36 had been a different person from the one previously described, "Sp^n with the definite article undeniably points back to the king whose appearance and conduct are described in vers. 21-33. The definite article neither denotes that the Antichrist of ch. vii. and ix. 26 f. was known to Daniel (Klief.), nor is it to be emphatically interpreted in the sense of the king simply (Geier). This is only so far right, that that which is said regarding this king, vers. 36-39, partly goes far beyond what Antiochus did, partly does not harmonize with what is known of Antiochus, and, finally, partly is referred in the N. T. expressly to the Antichrist; cf. ver. 36 with 2 Thess. ii. 4, and ch. xii. 1 with Matt. xxiv. 21. These circumstances also are not satisfactorily explained by the remark that the prophecy regarding Antiochus glances forward to the Antichrist, or that the image of the type (Antiochus) hovers in the image of the antitype (Antichrist); they much rather show that in the prophetic contemplation there is comprehended in the image of one king what has been historically fulfilled in its beginnings by Antioclius Epiphanes, but shall only meet its complete fulfilment by the Antichrist in the time of the end.
Vers. 3G-39. The hostile Icing exalting himself above all divine and human ordinances at the time of the end,
Ver. 36. This exaltation of the king is here introduced by the formula ^'iP3 flBWl, which expresses the self-will and the irresistible might of his proceeding; cf. ch. iii. 16 and viii. 4, — u a feature common to Antioclius and Antichrist" (Klief.). He shall raise himself above every god, not merely u subjectively in his lofty imagination" (Hitzig), but also by his actions.?£ '?, every god, not merely the God of Israel, but also the gods of the heathen. This does not agree with Antioclius. The laoQea fypoveiv virepy)- <f)avco<; which is said of him, 2 Mace. ix. 12, is not an exalting of himself above every god. u Antioclius was not an aOeos; he even wished to render the worship of Zeus universal; and that he once spoiled the temple does not imply his raising himself above every god" (Klief.). Of Antioclius much rather, as is said by Livy (xli. 20), in duabus tamen magnis honestisque rebus fere regius erat animus, in urbium donis et deorum cultu. On the contrary, these words before us are expressly referred to Antichrist, *2 Thess. ii. 4.
Yet further, in his arrogance he shall speak HiSJBj, wonderful, i.e. impious and astonishing things, against the God of gods, i.e. the true God. This clause expounds and strengthens the 15"!?"}??*? {speaking great things), which is said of the enemy at the time of the end, ch. vii. 8, 11, 20. In this he will prosper, but only till the anger of God against His people (DJ?T as ch. viii. 19) shall be accomplished. Regarding n?3 see at ch. ix. 27. This anger of God is irrevocably determined (HVirrj),. that His people may be wholly purified for the consummation of His kingdom in glory. The perf. nriBW} does not stand for the imperf. because it is decreed, but in its proper meaning, according to which it represents the matter as finished, settled. Here it accordingly means: " for that which is irrevocably decreed is accomplished, is not to be recalled, but must be done."
Ver. 37. The exalting of himself above all on the part of the king is further described. " He shall not regard the gods of his fathers," i.e. shall cast aside the worship of the gods transmitted to him from his fathers. This ao;ain does not accord with Antiochus Epiphanes, regarding whom it is true that history records that he wished to suppress the worship practised by the Jews, but it knows nothing1 of attempts made by him to destroy the gods and the worship of other nations. The words which follow, D^J fi^pn"*?, the old interpreters understood of the love of women, or of conjugal love; the modern, after the example of J. D. Michaelis and Gesenius, on the contrary, understand them of the goddess Ana'itis or Mylitta, the Assyrian Venus, and refer them specially to the spoiling of the temple of this goddess in Elyma'is (1 Mace. vi. 1, cf. 2 Mace. i. 13). Ewald finally would understand by the expression " the desire of women," the Syrian deity Tammuz-Adonis. The connection requires us to think on a deity, because these words are placed between two expressions which refer to the gods. But the connection is not altogether decisive; rather the 72 s$ in the clause at the end of the verse denotes that the subject spoken of is not merely the king's raising himself above the gods, but also above other objects of pious veneration. A verbal proof that rnpn CIPJ denotes the Anaitis or Adonis as the favourite deity of women has not been adduced. For these words, desiderium mulierum^ denote not that which women desire, but that which women possess which is desirable; cf. under 1 Sam. ix. 20. But it is impossible that this can be Anaitis or Adonis, but it is a possession or precious treasure of women. This desirable possession of women is without doubt love; so that, as C. B. Michaelis has remarked, the expression is not materially different from DTO rnn^ the love of women. 2 Sam. i. 26. The thought: " he shall not regard the
1 The statement in 1 Mace. i. 41 ff., " Moreover king Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, and every one should have his laws: so all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king," does not amount to a proof of this. " For," as Grimm rightly remarks, " the account of such a decree of Antiochus to all (not Hellenic) peoples of his kingdom is very doubtful. No profane historian records anything about it, neither does Josephus, nor the author of the second book of the Maccabees in the parallel passages. It is true that Antiochus, according to Livy, xli. 20, put great honour upon Jupiter by building a splendid temple to Tages, and according to Polybius, xxvi. 10, 11, he excelled all kings who preceded him in expensive sacrifices and gifts in honour of the gods; but this is no proof of a proselytizing fanaticism." The contrary rather appears from Josephus, Anlt. xii. 5. 5, where the Samaritans, in a letter to Antiochus, declare, contrary to the opinion entertained regarding them by their governor, that by descent and custom they were not Jews. Their letter rests on the supposition that the royal decree was directed only against the Jews. Cf. Flathe, Gesch. Macedoniens, ii. p. 596. Diodorus also (xxxiv. 1), to whom Hitzig refers, only states that Antiochus wished to dissolve r« v6^itu» of the Jewish people, and to compel the Jews to abandon their manner of life (roc g ocyaydg fierccd-ioOou).
desire of women, or the love of women," agrees perfectly with the connection. After it has been said in the first clause: he shall set himself free from all religious reverence transmitted from his fathers, from all piety toward the gods in which he had been trained, it is then added in the second clause: not merely so, but generally from all piety toward men and God, from all the tender affections of the love of men and of God. The " love of women" is named as an example selected from the sphere of human piety, as that affection of human love and attachment for which even the most selfish and most savage of men feel some sensibility. Alon^ with this he shall set himself free from nvS"73? from all piety or reverence toward God or toward that which is divine (Klief.). This thought is then established by the last clause: " for he shall magnify himself above all." To?3?V we may not supply jjJvK; for this clause not only presents the reason for the foregoing clause, 'ui ni^X"72 by. but for both of the foregoing clauses. HitziV and Kliefoth are right in their interpretation: " above everything, or all, gods and men," he shall magnify himself, raise himself up in arrogance.
Ver. 38. On the other hand, he will honour the god of fortresses. That Ev)yD is not, with Theodotion, the Vulgate, Luther, and others, to be regarded as the proper name of a god, is now generally acknowledged. But as to which god is to be understood by the " god of fortresses," there is very great diversity of opinion. Grotius, C. B. Michaelis, Gesenius, and others think on Mars, the god of war, as the one intended; Havernick, v. Lengerke, Maurer, and Ewald regard. Jupiter Capitolinus, to whom Antiochus purposed to erect a temple in Antioch (Livy, xli. 20); others, Jupiter Olympius; while Hitzig, by changing BvTy» into DJ to, fortress of the sea, thinks that Melkart, or the Phoenician Hercules, is referred to. But according to the following passage, this god was not known to his fathers. That could not be said either of Mars, or Jupiter, or Melkart. Add to this, " that if the statement here refers to the honouring of Hercules, or Mars, or Zeus, or Jupiter, then therewith all would be denied that was previously said of the king's being destitute of all religion" (Klief.). The wrords thus in no respect agree with Antiochus, and do not permit us to think on any definite heathen deity. 133?y does not signify on his foundation, pedestal (Hav., v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald), because the remark that he honoured God on his pedestal would be quite inappropriate, unless it had been also said that he had erected a statue to him. 133?y has here the same meaning as in vers. 20, 21, and 7: "in his place or stead" (Gesenius, de Wette, Kliefoth, and others). But the suffix is not, with Klief., to be referred to 73 bv: in the place of all that, which he did not regard, but it refers to IjrtTJTTJ: in the place of every god; which is not overthrown by the objection that in that case the suffix should have been plur., because the suffix is connected with the singular iWK. The " god of fortresses" is the personification of war, and the thought is this: he will regard no other god, but only war; the taking of fortresses he will make his god; and he will worship this god above all as the means of his gaining the world-power. Of this god, war as the object of deification, it might be said that his fathers knew nothing, because no other king had made war his religion, his god to whom he offered up in sacrifice all, gold, silver, precious stones, jewels.
Ver. 39. With the help of this god, who was unknown to his fathers, he will so proceed against the strong fortresses that he rewards with honour, might, and wealth those who acknowledge him. This is the meaning of the verse, which has been very differently rendered. The majority of modern interpreters separate the two parts of the verse from each other, for they refer the first hemistich to the preceding, and in the second they find a new thought expressed. Havernick and v. Lengerke supply a demonstrative H3, thus: — thus shall he do to the armed fortresses together with the strange gods, i.e. fill the fortified temples with treasures, and promote their worship. But the supplement H3 is here just as arbitrary as is the interpreting of the armed fortresses of temples. Hitzig misses the object to ^V, and seeks it by changing &y into &y: he prepares for the armed fortresses a people of a strange god; but apart from the fact that the change of the text is arbitrary, the use of the expression " people of a strange god " for colonists is most singular. Ewald translates the expression thus: u he proceeds with the strong fortresses as with the strange god," and explains: " he loves the fortresses only just as a god;" but he has given no proof that? nvy means to love. The missing object to nb^l follows in the second hemistich, just as in Deut. xxxi. 4, Josh. viii. 2, Isa. x. 11. nb'y means simply to do anything to one (Kran., Klief.). 133 HvK By, with the help of the strange god {pV of assistance, as in 1 Sam. xiv. 45), not: in the mind of the strange god (Kliefoth). BVW£ *"BW> fortified, i.e. strong fortresses, are not the fortified walls and houses, but the inhabitants of the fortified cities. With these he does according to his will with the help of his god, i.e. of war, namely in this, that he rewards with honour and power only those who acknowledge him. "Van "WK| who acknowledges, sc. him, the king who made war his god. Hitzig has incorrectly interpreted: whom he acknowledges. The Keri "V3J for the Kethw T3H is an unnecessary emendation here, as in Isa. xxviii. 15 with "oy. The verb T3H is chosen to reflect upon the word "OJ. It means to recognise, properly to acknowledge him as what he is or wishes to be; cf. Deut. xxi. 17. Such an one he shall increase with honour, confer upon him sovereignty over many, and divide the land. TncQ is not for payment, for recompense, as the contrast to D3n (gratuitously) (Kran.). That is not a suitable rendering here. The word rather means pro prajmio, as a reward (Maur., Klief.), as a reward for the recognition accorded to him. The Vulgate renders it rightly according to the sense, gratuito. In this most modern interpreters find a reference to the circumstance that Antiochus occupied the Jewish fortresses with heathen garrisons, and rewarded his adherents with places of honour and with possessions of land (2 Mace, iv* 10, 24, v. 15). But this is what all conquerors do, and it was not peculiar to Antiochus, so that it could be mentioned as characteristic of him. The words contain the altogether common thought that the king will bestow honour, power, and possessions on those who acknowledge him and conduct themselves according to his will, and they accord with the character of Antichrist in a yet higher degree than with that of Antiochus.
Vers. 40-43. The last undertakings of the hostile king, and his end.
By the words Y\> nya? which introduce these verses, the following events are placed in the time of the end. Proceeding from the view that the whole of the second half of this chapter (vers. 21-45) treats of Antiochus and his undertakings, most modern interpreters find in the verses the prophecy of a last expedition of this Syrian king against Egypt, and quote in support of this view the words of Jerome: Et ho3c Porphyrins ad Antiochum refert, quod undecimo anno regni sui rursus contra sororis filium, Ptolem. Pldlometorem dimicaveritj qui audiens venire Antiochum congregaverit multa populorum millia, sed Antiochus quasi tempestas valida in curribus et in equitibus et in classe magna ingressus sit terras plurimas et transeundo universa vastaveritj veneritque ad Judaam et arcem munierit de minis murorum civitatis et sic perrexerit in ^Egyptian. But regarding this expedition not only are historians silent, but the supposition of such a thing stands in irreconcilable contradiction to the historical facts re£ardincr the last undertakings of Antiochus. According to 1 Mace. iii. 27 ff., Antiochus, on receiving tidings of the successful insurrection of the Maccabees, and of the victory which Judas had won, since he found that money was wanting to him to carry on the war, resolved to return to Persia, " there to collect the tribute of the countries" (1 Mace. iii. 31); and after he had made Lysias governor, he delivered to him the one half of his army, that he might with it a destroy and root out the strength of Israel," and with the other half departed from Antioch and crossed the Euphrates into the high countries, i.e. the high-lying countries on the farther side of the Euphrates (1 Mace. iii. 33-37). There he heard of the great treasures of a rich city in Persia, and resolved to fall upon this city and to take its treasures; but as the inhabitants received notice of the king's intention, he was driven back and compelled to return to Babylon, having accomplished nothing. On his return he heard in Persia the tidings of the overthrow of Lysias in a battle with the Maccabees, and of the re-erection of the altar of Jehovah at Jerusalem; whereupon he was so overcome with terror and dismay, that he fell sick and died (1 Mace. vi. 1-16). The historical truth of this report is confirmed by Polybius, who mentions (Fragm. xxxi. 11) that Antiochus, being in difficulty for want of money, sought to spoil the temple of Artemis in Elymais, and in consequence of the failure of his design he fell ill at Tabae in Persia, and there died. By these well-established facts the supposition of an invasion of Egypt by Antiochus in the eleventh, i.e. the last year of his reign, is excluded. The Romans also, after they had already by their intervention frustrated his design against Egypt, would certainly have prevented a new war, least of all would they have permitted an entire subjugation of Egypt and the south, which we must accept after vers. 42 and 43. Besides, the statement made by Porphyry shows itself to be destitute of historical validity by this, that according to it, Antiochus must have made the assault against Egypt, while on the contrary, according to the prophecy, ver. 40, the king of the south begins the war against the king of the north, and the latter, in consequence of this attack, passes through the lands with a powerful host and subdues Egypt.
For these reasons, therefore, v. Lengerke, Maurer, and Hitzig have abandoned the statement of Porphyry as unhistorical, and limited themselves to the supposition that the section (vers. 40-45) is only a comprehensive repetition of that which has already been said regarding Antiochus Epiphanes, according to which " the time of the end" (ver. 40) denotes not the noar time of the death of Antiochus, but generally the whole period of this king. But this is, when compared with vers. 27 and 35, impossible. If thus, according to ver. 35, the tribulation with which the people of God shall be visited by the hostile king for their purification shall last till the time of the end, then the time of the end to which the prophecies of vers. 40-45 fall cannot designate the whole duration of the conduct of this enemy, but only the end of his reign and of his persecutions, in which he perishes (ver. 40). On the contrary, the reference to ch. viii. 17 avails nothing, because there also }V ny has the same meaning as here, i.e. it denotes the termination of the epoch referred to, and is there only made a more general expression by means of rip than here, where by J1V2 and the connection with ver. 35 the end is more sharply defined. To this is to be added, that the contents of vers. 40-45 are irreconcilable with the supposition that in them is repeated in a comprehensive form what has already been said of Antiochus, for here something new is announced, something of which nothing has been said before. This even Maurer and Hitzig have not been able to deny, but have sought to conceal as much as possible, — Maurer by the remark: res a scriptore iterum ac scepius periractatas esse, extremam vero manum operi defuisse; and Hitzig by various turnings — u as it seems," " but is not more precisely acknowledged," " the fact is not elsewhere communicated " — which are obviously mere make-shifts.
Thus vers. 40-45 do not apply to Antiochus Epiphanes, but, with most ancient interpreters, they refer only to the final enemy of the people of God, the Antichrist. This reference has been rightly vindicated by Kliefoth. We cannot, however, agree with him in distinguishing this enemy in ver. 40 from the king of the south and of the north, and in understanding this verse as denoting " that at the time of this hostile king;, which shall be the time of the end, the kings of the south as well as of the north shall attack him, but that he shall penetrate into their lands and overthrow them." Without taking into account the connection, this interpretation is not merely possible, but it is even very natural to refer the suffix in IvJJ and in toy to one and the same person, namely, to the king who has hitherto been spoken of, and who continues in vers. 40-45 to be the chief subject. But the connection makes this reference impossible. It is true, indeed, that the suffix in toy refers without doubt to this king, but the suffix in V?y can be referred only to the king of the south named immediately before, who pushes at him, because the king against whom the king of the south pushes, and of whom mention is made vers. 21-39, is not only distinctly designated as the king of the north (vers. 13-21), but also, according to vers. 40-43, he advances from the north against the Holy Land and against Egypt; thus also, according to vers. 406-43, must be identical with the kinor of the north. In vers. 40-43 we do not read of a war of the hostile king against the king of the south and the king of the north. The words in which Kliefoth finds indications of this kind are otherwise to be understood. Ver. 40. If we now more closely look into particulars, we find that Y? ny is not the end of the hostile king, but, as in vers. 27 and 35, the end of the present world-period, in which also, it is true, occurs the end of this king (tep, ver. 45). For the figurative expression H|:n^ {shall push), cf. ch. viii. 4. In the word there lies the idea that the king of the south commences the war, makes an aggression against the hostile king. In the second clause the subject is more precisely defined by u the king of the north " for the sake of distinctness, or to avoid ambiguity, from which it thence follows that the suffix in Ivy refers to the kin£ of the south. If the subject were not named, then u the king of the south " might have been taken for it in this clause. The words, u with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships," are an oratorical exemplification of the powerful war-host which the king of the north displayed; for the further statement, u he presses into the countries, overflows and passes over" (~W *)t?B> as ver. 10), does not agree with the idea of a fleet, but refers to land forces. The plur. nfanfcQ {into the countries) does not at all agree with the expedition of a Syrian king against Egypt, since between Syria and Egypt there lay one land, Palestine; but it also does not prove that " the southland and the north-land, the lands of the kings of the south and of the north, are meant" (Klief.), but it is to be explained from this, that the north, from which the angry king comes in his fury against the king of the south, reached far beyond Syria. The king of the north is thought of as the ruler of the distant north.
with his host, he comes into the glorious land, i.e. Palestine, the land of the people of God. See at ver. 16 and ch. viii. 9. " And many shall be overthrown." T\ST\ is not neuter, but refers to rtiyjK, ver. 40. For "that the whole lands are meant, represented by their inhabitants (cf. the verb masc. w3^ [shall be overthrown'])) proceeds from the exceptions of which the second half of the verse makes mention" (Kran.). The three peoples, Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, are represented as altogether spared, because, as Jerome has remarked, they lay in the interior, out of the way of the line of march of Antiochus to Egypt (v. Leng., Hitzig, and others). This opinion Hitzig with justice speaks of as altogether superficial, since Antiochus would not have omitted to make war against them, as e.g. his father overcame the Ammonites in war (Polyb. y. 71), if they had not given indubitable proofs of their submission to him. Besides, it is a historical fact that the Edomites and Ammonites supported Antiochus in his operations against the Jews (1 Mace. v. 3-8, iv. 61); therefore Maurer remarks, under *iu?fc\ {they shall escape): eorum enim in oppremendis Judais Antiochus usus est auxilio. But since the king here spoken of is not Antiochus, this historizing interpretation falls of itself to the ground. There is further with justice objected against it, that at the time of Antiochus the nation of Moab no longer existed. After the Exile the Moabites no longer appear as a nation. They are only named (Neh. xiii. 1 and Ezra ix. 1), in a passage cited from the Pentateuch, along with the Philistines and the Hittites, to characterize the relations of the present after the relations of the time of Moses. Edom, Moab, and Ammon, related with Israel by descent, are the old hereditary and chief enemies of this people, who have become by name representatives of all the hereditary and chief enemies of the people of God. These enemies escape the overthrow when the other nations sink under the power of the Antichrist. fiW *3 JW**n, « the firstling of the sons of Ammon," i.e. that which was most valued or distinguished of the Ammonites as a first-fruit, by which Kranichfeld understands the chief city of the Ammonites. More simply others understand by the expression, u the flower of the people, the very kernel of the nation;" cf. Num. xxiv. 20, Amos vi. 1, Jer. xlix. 35. The expression is so far altogether suitable as in the flower of the people the character of the nation shows itself, the enmity against the people of God is most distinctly revealed; but in this enmity lies the reason for this people's being spared by the enemy of God.
Ver. 42. The stretching forth of his hand upon the countries is a sign expressive of his seizing them, taking possession of them, for which he falls upon them. ni^HK3 are not other countries besides those which, according to ver. 40, he overflowed (Klief.), but the same. Of these lands Egypt is specially noticed in ver. 42 as the most powerful, which had hitherto successfully withstood the assaults of the king of the north, but which in the time of the end shall also be overthrown. Egypt, as the chief power of the south, represents the mightiest kingdoms of the earth. SWTTI ^ nt^pap (and there shall not be for an escape), expressive of complete overthrow, cf. Joel ii. 3, Jer. 1. 29.
Ver. 43. Alono* with the countries all their treasures fall into the possession of the conqueror, and also all the allies of the fallen kingdom shall be compelled to submit to him. The genitive Bn^D belongs not merely to rnipn (precious things), but to all the beforenamed objects. Viyvpn (at his steps) = VW2L, Judg. iv. 10, denotes the camp-followers, but not as mercenary soldiers (v. Leng., Hitz.). The Lybians and Cushites represent all the allies of the Egyptians (cf. Ezek. xxx. 5, Nah. iii. 9), the most southern nations of the earth.