Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Daniel 11:25 - 11:25
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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 Macc. 1:16-19, with manifest reference to this prophecy. וְיָעֵר (he shall stir up) is potentialis in the sense of divine decree: “he shall stir up his power and his heart.” כֹּחַ is not warlike power, which is mentioned in בְּחַיִל־גָּדֹול (Dan 11:25), but the power which consists in the bringing of a great army under his command; לֵבָב, the mental energy for the carrying out of his plans. For יַעֲמֹד לֹא, cf. Dan 8:4. 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 יַחְשְׁבוּ is not the enemy, the king of the north, with his army, but, according to Dan 11:26, his table-companions.
Dan 11:26
Here it is more definitely stated why he cannot stand. פַתְבָּגוֹ אֹכְּלֵי, who eat his food (פַּתְבָּג, see under Dan 1:5), i.e., his table-companions (cf. Psa 41:10[9]), persons about him. יִשְׁבְּרוּהוּ, 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 יִשְׁטוֹף rushes away, i.e., is disorganized and takes to flight. But שָׁטַף cannot have this meaning.
Dan 11:27
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, Dan 11:25. 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. לְמֵרָע לְבָבָם Hitzig translates: “their heart belongs to wickedness,” contrary to the context. לְ denotes also here only the direction: “their heart goes toward wicked deeds,” is directed thereto. מֵרַע (from רעע), formed after מֵצַר (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 תִצְלָח לֹא 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 מֵרַע shall not succeed. Hitzig incorrectly translates: “but the end holds onwards to the appointed time;” for כִּי cannot in this connection be rendered by but, and לְ cannot express the idea of holding to anything. לְ denotes here, as generally, the direction toward the end, as Dan 11:35, and Dan 8:17, Dan 8:19. The end goes yet on to the time appointed by God. That this מוֹעֵד (appointment of time) does not lie in the present, but in the future, is denoted by עֹוד, although we do not, with Hävernick, interpret עֹוד by “for the end lies yet further out,” nor, with v. Lengerke and Maurer, may we supply the verb “withdraws itself, is reserved.” עֹוד stands before קֵץ because on it the emphasis lies. קֵץ is, however, not the end of the war between Antiochus and Egypt (v. Leng., Maur., Hitzig), but cannot be otherwise taken than קֵץ עֵת, Dan 11:35, Dan 11:40, and Dan 12:4. But in the latter passage קֵץ עֵת 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 קֵץ in the verse before us, as in Dan 11:35, Dan 11:40, 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 (Dan 11:45); and with the overthrow of these enemies the period of oppression also comes to an end. This end comes only לַמוֹעֵד, at the time which God has determined for the purifying of His people (Dan 11:35). 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. לַמוֹעֵד has here and in Dan 11:35 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 us is not, with Kliefoth, to be explained from a reference to Dan 8:17, Dan 8:19. 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 לַמוֹעֵד occurs besides in Dan 11:29, where it is natural to suppose that it has the same meaning as here; but the contents of the verse oppose such a conclusion. Dan 11:29 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. Dan 11:40), nor yet the end of the oppression of the people of God; הַמוֹעֵד is thus only the time determined for the second aggression against the south, not the time of the end.