22<\/strong>. And as for that which was broken, in the place whereof<\/strong> four stood up<\/em> (R.V.), four kingdoms shall stand up<\/em>, &c.] see on Dan 8:8<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n stand up<\/em> ] i.e. arise<\/em>. Late Hebrew uses ‘mad<\/em>, ‘to stand,’ or ‘stand up,’ where early Hebrew would say m<\/em>, ‘to arise’ (e.g. Exo 1:8<\/span>): similarly Dan 8:23<\/em><\/span>, and several times in ch. 11.<\/p>\n out of the nation<\/em> ] There is no art. in Heb.; and the passage, as it stands, reads baldly. Read probably, with LXX, Theod., Vulg., ‘ his<\/em> nation’ ( gy<\/em> for gy<\/em>), i.e. Alexander’s.<\/p>\n but not<\/em> with<\/strong> his power<\/em> ] None of the four kingdoms which ultimately (see on Dan 8:8<\/em><\/span>) took the place of the Macedonian empire possessed the power which Alexander enjoyed. Cf. Dan 11:4<\/span> b<\/em>.<\/p>\n Now that being broken – <\/B>By the death of Alexander.<\/P> Whereas four stood up for it – <\/B>Stood up in its place.<\/P> Four kingdoms shall stand up – <\/B>Ultimately. It is not necessary to suppose that this would be immediately. If four such should in fact spring out of this one kingdom, all that implied in the prophecy would be fulfilled. On the fulfillment of this, see the notes at Dan 8:8<\/span>.<\/P> But not in his power – <\/B>No one of these four dynasties had at any time the power which was wielded by Alexander the Great.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 22<\/span>. But not in his power.<\/B><\/I>] The four kingdoms<\/I> which shall arise out of the Macedonian empire shall not be of Alexander’s power or family<\/I>, nor have his strength and dignity.<\/P> <\/p>\n Being broken, <\/B>i.e. by death, which breaks the horn of all pride and earthly glory. <\/P> Four stood up for it, <\/B>i.e. four kingdoms of the nations of the Greeks. <\/P> Not in his power; <\/B>that is, not in his majesty and magnificence, but inferior to him. <\/P> <\/p>\n 22. not in his power<\/B>not withthe power which Alexander possessed [MAURER].An empire united, as under Alexander, is more powerful than onedivided, as under the four Diadochi.<\/P><\/p>\n Now that being broken<\/strong>,…. That is, the great horn Alexander, the first king of the Grecian monarchy; whose death, either by drunkenness, or by poison, is here expressed by being “broken”. The sense is, he being dead, or upon his death,<\/p>\n whereas four stood up for it<\/strong>; four horns rose up in the room and stead of the great one broken; see Da 8:8<\/span> these signified that<\/p>\n four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation<\/strong>; which were the kingdoms of Egypt, Asia, Macedonia, and Syria, into which the Grecian monarchy was divided after the death of Alexander; and the first kings of them were all of the Grecian or Macedonian nation, and not Egyptians, Armenians, Syrians, c.:<\/p>\n but not in his power<\/strong> they did not rise and stand up in the power and strength, in the grandeur and magnificence, of Alexander; they were not equal, but greatly inferior to him, though they were notable horns, or famous kingdoms, as in Da 8:8<\/span>. Saadiah interprets it, not of his seed or offspring; these were not his sons that were the heads of these kingdoms; but his captains or generals.<\/p>\n The great horn, says he, which was between his eyes was the first king, and when it was broken, four others sprang up. Alexander, as we have mentioned, perished in the flower of his age, and was scarcely’ thirty years old when he died, through the influence of either poison or disease. Which of the two is uncertain, although great suspicion of fraud attaches to the manner of his death; and whichever way it happened, that horn was broken. In his place there arose four horns, which sprang up, say’s he, from that nation. Here we must notice this, since I very much wonder what has come into some persons’ minds, to cause them to translate it “from the nations” and yet these are persons skilled in the Hebrew language. First, they show great ignorance by changing the number, and next, they do not comprehend the intention of the angel. For he confirms what he formerly said concerning the unity of the kingdom and its division into four parts, and he assigns the reason here. They shall spring, says he, from a nation, meaning the Greeks, and all from a single origin. For by what right did Polemy obtain the empire? solely by being one of Alexander’s generals. At the beginning, he dared not use the royal name, nor wear the diadem, but only after a lapse of time. The same is true of Selcucus, and Antigonus, and Cassander. We see, then, how correctly the kingdom of the Greeks is represented to us under the figure of a single beast, although it was immediately dispersed and torn into four parts. The kingdoms, then, which sprang from the nation meaning; Greece, shall stand, but not in full strength The copula is here taken in the sense of “but; ” the four kingdom shall stand, but not by his strength, for Alexander had touched upon the Indian sea, and enjoyed the tranquil possession of his empire throughout the whole east, having filled all men with the fear of his industry, valor, and speed. Hence, the;angel states the four horns to be so small, that not one of them should be equal to the first king. <\/p>\n (22) Not in his power<\/strong>i.e.,<\/em> not like the first king.<\/p>\n Dan 8:22<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Four kingdoms shall stand up, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> Does not this imply that the remaining kingdom, the kingdom of the little horn, <\/em>should not be of the nation? <\/em>Newton, p. 33. Houbigant reads, Four kingdoms shall arise out of this nation, but not of so great power.<\/em> <\/p>\n Dan 8:22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.<\/p>\n Ver. 22. Now that being broken.<\/strong> ] See Dan 8:8<\/span> .<\/p>\n for it = in the place thereof. <\/p>\n four kingdoms. These are said to have been: (1) Ptolemy’s (Egypt, Palestine, and some parts of Asia Minor); (2) Cassander’s (Macedonia and Greece); (3) Lysimachus’s (Bithynia, Thrace, Mysia, &c.); (4) Seleucus’s (Syria, Armenia, and territory east of the Euphrates). But the continuity of Alexander’s dominion ceased with him, and will not be seen again till “the little horn” arises. <\/p>\n the nation. Septuagint and Vulgate read “his nation”. <\/p>\n not in his power: i.e. not with Alexander’s vigour of action and endurance. <\/p>\n Dan 8:22<\/p>\n Dan 8:22 Now that being broken,H7665 whereas fourH702 stood upH5975 forH8478 it, fourH702 kingdomsH4438 shall stand upH5975 out of the nation,H4480 H1471 but notH3808 in his power.H3581 <\/p>\n Dan 8:22<\/p>\n Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.<\/p>\n Alexander died suddenly with no heir and no regent appointed for his unborn child. The generals of Alexander fought over the empire and it ended up split into four main kingdoms. “Not in his power” means they would never be as powerful as Alexander was. <\/p>\n four kingdoms <\/p>\n The four empires into which Alexander’s empire was divided about B.C. 300; Greece, Asia Minor, including Syria, Egypt, the East. <\/p>\n being broken: After Alexander’s death, in the prime of life and in the height of his conquests, his brother and two sons were all murdered; and the kingdom was divided among four of his generals. <\/p>\n Alexander’s Kingdom DividedFour Generals Portion of Kingdom 1. Seleucus Syria and Babylon 2. Lysimachus Asia Minor 3. Ptolemy Egypt 4. Cassander Greece whereas: Dan 8:3, Dan 11:4 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Jer 49:36 – the four winds Dan 7:6 – four heads Dan 8:8 – the great Zec 6:1 – four<\/p>\n Dan 8:22. The four kingdoms is explained at verse 8. Not in his power means that the four divisions into which the conquests of Alexander fell at bis death were none of them as strong as he. This prediction and conclusion may be verified by secular history, and I shall again quote from Myers’ Ancient Ifistrry, page 286: “There was no one who could wield the sword that fell from the hands of Alexander. It is said that, when dying, being asked to whom the kingdom should belong, he replied, ‘to the strongest, and handed his signet ring to his general Ferdiccas. But Perdic cas was not strong enough to master the difficulties of the situation. Indeed, who is strong enough to rule the world?<\/p>\n 8:22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up {f} out of the nation, but not {g} in his power.<\/p>\n (f) That is, out of Greece.<\/p>\n (g) They will not have similar power as Alexander had.<\/p>\n Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. 22. And as for that which was broken, in the place whereof four stood up (R.V.), four kingdoms shall stand up, &c.] see on Dan 8:8. stand up ] i.e. arise. … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 8:22”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21994","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21994","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21994"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21994\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21994"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21994"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21994"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"