Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Daniel 11:17 - 11:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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 illum h. e. Ptolemaeum, sive illud, h. e. regnum ejus, many translate the words וגו בְּתֹקֶף לָבֹוא by to come in or against the strength of his whole (Egyptian) kingdom (C. B. Michaelis, Venema, Hävernick, 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 תֹּקֶף 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 בֹּוא c. בְ rei, which does not signify: to come in or against a matter, but: to come with - cf. בְּחַיִל בֹּוא, to come with power, Dan 11:13, also Isa 40:10; Psa 71:16 - as well as by the context, for of the completely subjugated south (according to Dan 11:15, Dan 11:16) it cannot yet be said מַלְכוּתוֹ תֹּקֶף. Correctly, Theodot. translates: εἰσελθεῖν ἐν ἰσχύι” πάσης τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ; 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. עִמּוֹ וִישָׁרִים is an explanatory clause defining the manner in which he seeks to gain his object. יְשָׁרִים, plur. of the adjective יָשָׁר, in a substantive signification, that which is straight, recta, as Pro 16:13, proba (Ewald's Gram. §172; while in his commentary he translates the word by agreement). עִמּוֹ, with him, i.e., having in intention. The sense of the passage is determined according to מֵישָׁרִים לַעֲשֹׂות, Dan 11:6 : with the intention of establishing a direct, right relation, namely, by means of a political marriage to bring to himself the kingdom of the south. וְעָשָׂה 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 יַעֲשֶׂה.
The second half of this verse (Dan 11:17) describes how he carries out this intention, but yet does not reach his end. “He shall give him the daughter of women.” הַנָּשִׁים, of women, the plur. of the class, as אֲרָיוֹת כְּפִיר, Jdg 14:5, a young lion (of lionesses); בֶּן אֲתֹנוֹת, Zec 9:9, the foal of an ass (of she-asses). The suffix to לְהַשְׁחִיתָהּ (corrupting her, E.V.) is referred by many to מַלְכוּתוֹ (his kingdom); but this reference fails along with the incorrect interpretation of the בְּתֹקֶף as the end of the coming. Since in the first half of the verse the object of his undertaking is not named, but in Dan 11:16 is denoted by אֵלָיו, the suffix in question can only be referred to הַנָּשִׁים בַּת. Thus J. D. Michaelis, Bertholdt, Rosenmüller; the former, however, gives to the word לְהַשְׁחִיתָהּ the verbally untenable meaning: “to seduce her into a morally corrupt course of conduct;” but Hitzig changes the text, strikes out the suffix, and translates: “to accomplish vileness.” הִשְׁחִית 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: “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 תִּהְיֶה וְלֹא־לוֹ do not stand for לֹו (<) תִּהְיֶה וְלֹא: “she shall not be to him” or “for him.” In this case לֹא must be connected with the verb. According to the text, לֹא־לוֹ forms one idea, as כֹּוחַ לֹא, impotent (cf. Ewald, §270): “she shall be a not for him” (ein Nichtihm), i.e., he shall have nothing at all from her.