17<\/strong>. And<\/strong> he shall set his face<\/em> i.e. purpose, plan (2Ki 12:17<\/span>; Jer 42:15<\/span>; Jer 42:17<\/span>; Jer 44:12<\/span>) to<\/em> come<\/strong> with the strength<\/em>, &c.] to advance with all his force against Egypt. Livy (xxxiii. 19) describes how, in the spring of 197, omnibus regni viribus connixus, quum ingentes copias terrestres maritimasque comparasset<\/em>, Antiochus himself set out with a fleet for the purpose of attacking all the cities on the coast of Cilicia, Lycia, and Caria, which were subject to Ptolemy. He did not actually invade Egypt, nor does the present verse say that he would do so.<\/p>\n and upright ones with him; thus shall he do<\/em> ] the words yield no sense: read, with very slight changes, but shall make an agreement<\/strong> (see Dan 11:6<\/em><\/span>) with him<\/em>: so LXX. Theod. Vulg. (cf. R.V. marg.<\/em>). He did not carry out his intention, but found it convenient to come to terms with Ptolemy ( , Jos. Ant.<\/em> xii. iv. 1). Antiochus had his eye on Asia Minor, and even on Europe: but being opposed by the Romans, he was glad to be on good terms with Egypt; he accordingly betrothed his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy Epiphanes, promising that she should receive as her dowry what was afterwards understood by the Egyptians to be the provinces of Cle-Syria, Phnicia, and Palestine, though this was denied before the Roman legates by Antiochus Epiphanes (Polyb. xxviii. 17, who appears to think that Antiochus Epiphanes was right) [366] . The marriage actually took place in the winter of 194 3, Antiochus taking his daughter to Raphia for the purpose (Livy xxxv. 13).<\/p>\n [366] The dowry seems in fact to have been not the provinces themselves, but their revenues<\/em> (Wilcken [see p. 178 n.<\/em> ]; Mahaffy, p. 306).<\/p>\n Cleopatra’s betrothal is alluded to in Polyb. xviii. 51 end<\/em> (whence Livy xxxiii. 40): in reply to the Roman legates who were sent to him in 196 at Lysimacheia (in Thrace) to demand (among other things) that he should restore the cities taken from Ptolemy, Antiochus replied that he was on friendly terms with Ptolemy, ‘et id agere se, ut brevi etiam affinitas jungatur<\/em>.’<\/p>\n and he shall give him the daughter of women<\/em> ] his daughter Cleopatra.<\/p>\n corrupting her<\/em> ] a very improbable rendering: Cleopatra was not (as was the case with many of the queens of the Ptolemies) her husband’s sister; and (Mahaffy, p. 330) she “bears an excellent character in Egyptian history.” Keil renders to destroy her<\/em>; but Cleopatra, so far as we know, lived happily in Egypt, and died a natural death. The only reasonable rendering is to destroy it<\/strong>, the pronoun being referred ad sensum<\/em> to Egypt. Antiochus was not really actuated by friendliness to Egypt; his true motives, no doubt, being (Hitz.) ‘to protect himself against Roman interference, to gain a footing in Egypt, and, if the opportunity should offer, to secure the country for himself.’ In 196, upon a false report of the death of Ptolemy reaching Lysimacheia (below, note), he actually started for the purpose of seizing Egypt (Livy xxxiii. 41).<\/p>\n but<\/em> it<\/strong> shall not stand, neither be for<\/em> him<\/strong> (emph.)] his plan will not succeed (cf. for the expression, Isa 7:7<\/span>; Isa 14:24<\/span>), nor turn out to his advantage, but (as is implied by the position of the pron., ‘and not for him shall it be’) to that of another. Jerome writes, ‘Neque enim obtinere potuit Aegyptum: quia Ptolemaeus Epiphanes et duces eius, sentientes dolum, cautius se egerunt, et Cleopatra magis viri partes quam parentis fovit.’ In point of fact, Ptolemy retained the friendship of the Romans, while Antiochus, to his cost (see on Dan 11:18<\/em><\/span>), lost it.<\/p>\n He shall also set his face – <\/B>Antiochus. That is, he shall resolve or determine. To set ones face in any direction is to determine to go there. The meaning here is, that Antiochus, flushed with success, and resolved to push his conquests to the utmost, would make use of all the forces at his disposal to overcome the Egyptians, and to bring them into subjection to his sway. He had driven Scopas from Coelo-Syria, and from Sidon; had subjected the land of Palestine to his control; and now nothing seemed to prevent his extending his conquests to the utmost limits of his ambition. The reference here is to a purpose of Antiochus to wage war with Egypt, and to invade it. From that purpose, however, he was turned, as we shall see, by his wars in Asia Minor; and he endeavored, as stated in the subsequent part of the verse, if not to subdue Egypt and to bring it under his control, at least to neutralize it so that it would not interfere with his wars with the Romans. If his attention had not been diverted, however, by more promising or more brilliant prospects in another direction, he would undoubtedly have made an immediate descent on Egypt itself.<\/P> With the strength of his whole kingdom – <\/B>Summoning all the forces of his empire. This would seem to be necessary in invading Egypt, and in the purpose to dethrone and humble his great rival. The armies which he had employed had been sufficient to drive Scopas out of Palestine, and to subdue that country; but obviously stronger forces would be necessary in carrying the war into Egypt, and attempting a foreign conquest.<\/P> And upright ones with him – <\/B>Margin, or, much uprightness, or, equal conditions. The Hebrew word used here (<\/span> yashar<\/I>) means, properly, straight, right; then what is straight or upright – applied to persons, denoting their righteousness or integrity, Job 1:1<\/span>, Job 1:8<\/span>; Psa 11:7<\/span>. By way of eminence it is applied to the Jewish people, as being a righteous or upright people – the people of God – and is language which a Hebrew would naturally apply to his own nation. In this sense it is undoubtedly used here, to denote not the pious portion, but the nation as such; and the meaning is, that, in addition to those whom he could muster from his own kingdom, Antiochus would expect to be accompanied with large numbers of the Hebrews – the upright people – in his invasion of Egypt. This he might anticipate from two causes,<\/P> (a) the fact that they had already rendered him so much aid, and showed themselves so friendly, as stated by Josephus in the passage referred to above; and<\/P> (b) from the benefits which he had granted to them, which furnished a reasonable presumption that they would not withhold their aid in his further attempts to subdue Egypt.<\/P> The Jews might hope at least that if Egypt were subjected to the Syrian scepter, their own country, lying between the two, would be at peace, and that they would no more be harassed by its being made the seat of wars – the battlefield of two great contending powers. It was not without reason, therefore, that Antiochus anticipated that in his invasion of Egypt he would be accompanied and assisted by not a few of the Hebrew people. As this is the natural and obvious meaning of the passage, and accords entirely with the sense of the Hebrew word, it is unnecessary to attempt to prove that the marginal reading is not correct. Thus shall he do. That is, in the manner which is immediately specified. He shall adopt the policy there stated – by giving his daughter in marriage with an Egyptian prince – to accomplish the ends which he has in view. The reference here is to another stroke of policy, made necessary by his new wars with the Romans, and by the diversion of his forces, in consequence, in a new direction. The natural step after the defeat of the Egyptian armies in Palestine, would have been to carly his conquests at once into Egypt, and this he appears to have contemplated. But, in the meantime, he became engaged in wars in another quarter – with the Romans; and, as Ptolemy in such circumstances would be likely to unite with the Romans against Antiochus, in order to bind the Egyptians to himself, and to neutralize them in these wars, this alliance was proposed and formed by which he connected his own family with the royal family in Egypt by marriage.<\/P> And he shall give him – <\/B>Give to Ptolemy. Antiochus would seek to form a matrimonial alliance that would, for the time at least, secure the neutrality or the friendship of the Egyptians.<\/P> The daughter of women – <\/B>The reference here is undoubtedly to his own daughter, Cleopatra. The historical facts in the case, as stated by Lengerke (in loc<\/I>.), are these: After Antiochus had subdued Coelo-Syria and Palestine, he became involved in wars with the Romans in Asia Minor, in order to extend the kingdom of Syria to the limits which it had in the time of Seleucus Nicator. In order to carry on his designs in that quarter, however, it became necessary to secure the neutrality or the cooperation of Egypt, for Ptolemy would naturally, in such circumstances, favor the Romans in their wars with Antiochus. Antiochus, therefore, negotiated a marriage between his daughter Cleopatra and Ptolemy Epiphanes, the son of Ptolemy Philopater, then thirteen years of age. The valuable consideration in the view of Ptolemy in this marriage was, that, as a dowry, Coelo-Syria, Samaria, Judea, and Phoenicia were given to her. – Josephus, Ant. b. xii. ch. 4, Section 1. This agreement or contract of marriage was entered into immediately after the defeat of Scopas, 197 b.c. The contract was, that the marriage should take place as soon as the parties were of suitable age, and that Coelo-Syria and Palestine should be given as a dowry. The marriage took place 193 b.c., when Antiochus was making preparation for his wars with the Romans. – Jahn, Heb. Commonwealth, ch. ix. Section 89, p. 246. In this way the neutrality of the king of Egypt was secured, while Antiochus prosecuted his work against the Romans. The appellation here bestowed on Cleopatra – daughter of women – seems to have been given to her by way of eminence, as an heiress to the crown, or a princess, or as the principal one among the women of the land. There can be no doubt of its reference to her.<\/P> Corrupting her – <\/B>Margin, as in Hebrew, to corrupt. There has been some doubt, however, in regard to the word her, in this place, whether it refers to Cleopatra or to the kingdom of Egypt. Rosenmuller, Prideaux, J. D. Michaelis, Bertholdt, Dereser, and others, refer it to Cleopatra, and suppose that it means that Antiochus had instilled into her mind evil principles, in order that she might betray her husband, and that thus, by the aid of her arts, he might obtain possession of Egypt. On the other hand, Lengerke, Maurer, DeWette, Havernick, Elliott (Apocalypse, iv. 130), and others, suppose that the reference is to Egypt, and that the meaning is, that Antiochus was disposed to enter into this alliance with a view of influencing the Egyptian government not to unite with the Romans and oppose him; that is, that it was on his part an artful device to turn away the Egyptian government from its true interest, and to accomplish his own purposes.<\/P> The latter agrees best with the connection, though the Hebrew will admit of either construction. As a matter of fact, both these objects seem to have been aimed at – for it was equally true that in this way he sought to turn away the Egyptian government and kingdom from its true interests, and that in making use of his daughter to carry out this project, it was expected that she would employ artifice to influence her future husband. This arrangement was the more necessary, as, in consequence of the fame which the Romans had acquired in overcoming Hannibal, the Egyptians had applied to them for protection and aid in their wars with Antiochus, and offered them, as a consideration, the guardianship of young Ptolemy. This offer the Romans accepted with joy, and sent M. Aemilius Lepidus to Alexandria as guardian of the young king of Egypt. – Polybius, xv. 20; Appian, Syriac. i. 1; Livy, xxxi. 14; xxx. 19; Justin, xxx. 2, 3; xxxi. 1. The whole was, on the part of Antiochus, a stroke of policy; and it could not be accomplished without what has been found necessary in political devices – the employment of bribery or corruption. It accords well with the character of Antiochus to suppose that he would not hesitate to instil into the mind of his daughter all his own views of policy.<\/P> But she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him – <\/B>That is, she would become attached to her husband, and would favor his interests rather than the crafty designs of her father. On this passage, Jerome remarks: Antiochus, desirous not only of possessing Syria, Cilicia, and Lycia, and the other provinces which belonged to Ptolemy, but of extending also his own scepter over Egypt itself, betrothed his own daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy, and promised to give as a dowry Coelo-Syria and Judea. But he could not obtain possession of Egypt in this way, because Ptolemy Epiphanes, perceiving his design, acted with caution, and because Cleopatra favored the purposes of her husband rather than those of her father. So Jahn (Heb. Commonwealth, p. 246) says: He indulged the hope that when his daughter became queen of Egypt, she would bring the kingdom under his influence; but she proved more faithful to her husband than to her father.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 17. He shall also set his face to enter<\/B><\/I>] Antiochus purposed to have marched his army into Egypt; but he thought it best to proceed by fraudulence<\/I>, and therefore proposed a treaty of marriage between him and his daughter Cleopatra, called here the<\/I> daughter of women<\/I>, because of her great beauty and accomplishments. And this he appeared to do, having “upright ones with him.” Or, as the Septuagint<\/I> have it ‘ , “and he will make all things straight with him;” that is, he acted as if he were influenced by nothing but the most upright views<\/I>. But he intended his daughter to be a snare to Ptolemy, and therefore purposed to corrupt her<\/I> that she might betray her husband.<\/P> <\/P> But she shall not stand<\/B><\/I> on his side] On the contrary, her husband’s interests became more dear to her than her father’s; and by her means Ptolemy was put upon his guard against the intentions of Antiochus.<\/P> <\/p>\n He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom; he shall use all the force and fraud he can to master Egypt, and engross it to himself, because Ptolemy was then young, and not able to match him. <\/P> And upright ones with him, i.e. many of the religions Jews joined with him, Num 23:10<\/span>, called righteous in opposition to the rest of his army, which was composed of idolaters, and a profane rabble of rude heathens. <\/P> He shall give him the daughter of women, i.e. Antiochus shall give Cleopatra his daughter, who was young, to young Ptolemy, called <\/P> the daughter of women for her beauty, and rare parts, which she afterwards discovered; and gave in dowry with her Coelosyria, Phoenice, and Judea, dividing the tribute and revenues between them. <\/P> But she shall not stand on his side: as Saul gave Michal to David to be a snare to her husband, to betray him and destroy him, but she stuck to her husbands interest, and not her fathers. <\/P> <\/p>\n 17. set his face<\/B>purpose<\/I>steadfastly. Antiochus purpose was, however, turned from open assaultto wile, by his war with the Romans in his endeavor to extend hiskingdom to the limits it had under Seleucus Nicator. <\/P> upright one<\/B>Jasher,<\/I>or Jeshurun<\/I> (Deu 32:15<\/span>;Isa 44:2<\/span>); the epithet applied bythe Hebrews to their nation. It is here used not in praise; for in Da11:14<\/span> (see on Da 11:14<\/span>)they are called “robbers,” or “men of violence,factious”: it is the general designation of Israel, as havingGod for their God.<\/I> Probably it is used to rebuke those who oughtto have been God’s “upright ones” for confederating withgodless heathen in acts of violence<\/I> (the contrast to the termin Da 11:14<\/span> favors this). <\/P> thus shall he do<\/B>Insteadof at once invading Ptolemy’s country with his “whole strength,”he prepares his way for doing so by the following plan: he gives toPtolemy Epiphanes his daughter Cleopatra in marriage, promisingCoeliglo-Syria and Judea as a dowry, thus securing his neutrality inthe war with Rome: he hoped through his daughter to obtain Syria,Cilicia, and Lycia, and even Egypt itself at last; but Cleopatrafavored her husband rather than her father, and so defeated hisscheme [JEROME]. “Sheshall not stand on his side.”<\/P><\/p>\n He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom<\/strong>,…. Antiochus, having conquered Coelesyria, Phoenicia, and Judea, should set his face towards the land of Egypt, having a greedy desire after it, and bend his mind and forces that way; form a design of invading it, and for that purpose determine to bring all the forces he could master together throughout his dominions. So Justin b says, that upon the death of Ptolemy Philopator, Antiochus king of Syria determined to seize on Egypt. The Vulgate Latin version is, “that he might come to lay hold on his whole kingdom”; to seize the whole kingdom of the king of Egypt:<\/p>\n and upright ones with him<\/strong>: meaning, as many think, the Jews, so called to distinguish them from the Heathens, and even from those Jews who had took on the side of Ptolemy, and had changed their religion; but these persevered in it, which Antiochus approved of; and had now a great opinion of them, and had bestowed many favours upon them, as before observed; wherefore he might take some of them, and they might choose to go with him on this expedition, and especially to assist in his intended agreement with the king of Egypt, and the marriage of his daughter to him; in bringing about which they were to have a concern, as being reckoned men of probity and uprightness: or rather the sense is, according to the Vulgate Latin version,<\/p>\n and he shall do right things<\/strong>; in show and appearance: or “he shall make agreement”, or peace, as Aben Ezra; enter into covenants of alliance and marriage, upon seeming just conditions, with a great show of sincerity and uprightness:<\/p>\n thus shall he do<\/strong>; in the following manner: or, “and he shall do” c; that is, succeed in his proposals:<\/p>\n and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her<\/strong>; this was the stratagem he used; finding he could not obtain the kingdom of Egypt by force of arms, for fear of the Romans, who were the guardians of the king of Egypt, he proposed to give his daughter Cleopatra to him in marriage, a beautiful virgin; and therefore called the “daughter of women”; or rather because she was as yet under the care of the women she was first committed to, as Gussetius d observes; and so he did marry her, and gave for her dowry Coelesyria, Samaria, Judea, and Phoenicia e: this was done at Raphia f, a fortified city of Egypt, where the famous battle had been fought between him and Ptolemy Philopator; see<\/p>\n Da 11:10<\/span> and if the former clause is rendered, as I think it may, “he shall also set his face to enter into the fortress of the whole kingdom”; this is the place intended, where he was desirous of going to meet the king of Egypt, and execute this scheme of his; which, though done under a plausible pretence of peace, and of putting ahead to their quarrels, was with a view to get his kingdom into his hands; “corrupting” his daughter to betray the counsels of her husband; or to put him to death by poison, or otherwise, that he might seize the kingdom on her behalf; or it may be rendered, to “corrupt” or “destroy it” g, the kingdom; he married his daughter to the king of Egypt with this view, to obtain the kingdom from him:<\/p>\n but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him<\/strong>; being married, she forgot her own people, and her father’s house, and cleaved to her husband; took his part, and not her father’s, yea, took part with her husband against her father; for ambassadors were sent out of Egypt by both her husband and herself, congratulating the Romans on the victory Acilius gained over Antiochus her father, and that he had drove him out of Greece, exhorting them to carry their army into Asia h; and thus he was disappointed of his design in this marriage: and this may be the meaning of the expression here; for it may be rendered, “it shall not stand” i; his counsel shall not stand, his scheme shall not take place, but fall to the ground, and come to nothing:<\/p>\n and it shall not be for him<\/strong>; the kingdom shall not be his, he shall never possess it, as he did not.<\/p>\n b E Trogo, I. 31. c. 1. c “et faciet”, Pagninus, Montanus, Munster, Gejerus; “efficietque”, Junius & Tremellius. d Ebr. Comment. p. 540. e Joseph. Antiqu. l. 12. c. 4. sect. 1. f Liv. Hist. l. 35. c. 13. p. 597. g “ad corrumpendum illam”, Montanus, Gejerus. h Liv. ibid. l. 37. c. 3. p. 633. i “et non succedet hoc”, Grotius<\/p>\n 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 <\/em>, and adds to this the explanatory remark: ut evertat illum h. e. Ptolemaeum, sive illud, h. e. regnum ejus <\/em>, many translate the words by to come in or against the strength of his whole <\/em> (Egyptian) kingdom<\/em> (C. B. Michaelis, Venema, Hvernick, 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 means strength<\/em> not in the active sense = power over something<\/em>, but only in the intransitive or passive sense, strength as the property of any one<\/em>. Moreover, both of these explanations are opposed by the verbal use of c. rei<\/em>, which does not signify: to come in or against a matter, but: to come with<\/em> – cf. , to come with power, Dan 11:13<\/span>, also Isa 40:10<\/span>; Psa 71:16<\/span> – as well as by the context, for of the completely subjugated south (according to Dan 11:15<\/span>, Dan 11:16<\/span>) it cannot yet be said . Correctly, Theodot. translates: ” ; 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. is an explanatory clause defining the manner in which he seeks to gain his object. , plur. of the adjective , in a substantive signification, that which is straight, recta<\/em>, as Pro 16:13<\/span>, proba<\/em> (Ewald’s Gram. 172; while in his commentary he translates the word by agreement<\/em>). , with him<\/em>, i.e., having in intention. The sense of the passage is determined according to , Dan 11:6<\/span>: 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. 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 .<\/p>\n The second half of this verse (Dan 11:17<\/span>) describes how he carries out this intention, but yet does not reach his end. “He shall give him the daughter of women.” , of women<\/em>, the plur. of the class, as , Jdg 14:5<\/span>, a young lion<\/em> ( of lionesses<\/em>); , Zec 9:9<\/span>, the foal of an ass<\/em> ( of she-asses<\/em>). The suffix to ( corrupting her<\/em>, E.V.) is referred by many to ( his kingdom<\/em>); but this reference fails along with the incorrect interpretation of the 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<\/span> is denoted by , the suffix in question can only be referred to . Thus J. D. Michaelis, Bertholdt, Rosenmller; the former, however, gives to the word 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.” means only to destroy, to ruin<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n 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 do not stand for (<) : “she shall not be to him” or “for him.” In this case must be connected with the verb. According to the text, forms one idea, as , impotent<\/em> (cf. Ewald, 270): “she shall be a not for him<\/em> ” ( ein Nichtihm <\/em>), i.e., he shall have nothing at all from her.<\/p>\n He here describes the second war of Antiochus against Epiphanes, who was then growing old; and so he gave, him his daughter Cleopatra in marriage, hoping in this way, by subtle contrivances, to subdue the kingdom of Egypt. For he thought his daughter would remain faithful to his interests; but she rather preserved her conjugal fidelity to her husband, and hesitated not to espouse her husband’s quarrel against her father. She faithfully adhered to her husband’s interests according to her duty, and never listened to the cunning designs of Antiochus. Thus he was deprived of his expectation, and his daughter never became the means of his acquiring authority over Egypt. Before this marriage of his daughter with Ptolemy, he had tried the effect of war, bug in this he failed; and when he perceived the interposition of the Romans, he desisted from future hostilities, and consoled himself with the thought which we have already expressed, of receiving immediate assistance against Egypt through his daughter. He turns, therefore, to come with the power of his whole kingdom; meaning, he collects all his forces to overwhelm Ptolemy Epiphanes, who was then but a young man, and had neither obtained any great authority, nor arrived at sound wisdom and discretion. When he perceived his want of success in the fortune of war, he gave him the daughter of women, referring to her beauty. This is the explanation of interpreters, who suppose the phrase to imply her remarkable beauty. <\/p>\n As to the next clause, those who translate it, and the upright with him, think the Jews are intended, for Antiochus had received them in surrender, and there were many who openly espoused his cause. They think the Jews so called as a mark of honor, and as upright with respect to the worship of God. But this appears to me too forced. I hesitate not to suppose the angel to signify the superior character of the agreement between Antiochus and Ptolemy, when the former found the impossibility of obtaining his adversary’s kingdom by open warfare. Although the Romans had not yet sent forth any armament, yet Antiochus began to fear them, and he preferred the use of cunning in providing for his own interests. Besides this, as we lately mentioned, he was longing for other booty, for he immediately transferred the war into Greece, as the angel will inform us. But he first announces, his giving away his daughter to destroy her He here reproves the artifice of Antiochus the Great, in thus basely selling his (laughter, as if she were a harlot. As far as he possibly could, he induced her to slay her husband either by poison or by other devices. Hence, he gave up his daughter to destroy her, but she did not stand by him, and was not for him; meaning, she did not assent to her father’s impious desires, and was unwilling to favor such monstrous wickedness. We read in profane writers the fulfillment of these predictions of the angel, and thus it more clearly appears how God placed before the eyes of the pious, a mirror in which they might behold his providence in ruling and preserving his Church. It now follows, — <\/p>\n (17) He shall also.<\/strong>He has further plans for subduing the dominions of the southern king. He brings together all the forces he can amass, and then attempts by means of a political marriage to establish peace; but this also proves a failure.<\/p>\n Upright ones.<\/strong>Literally, all that is right;<\/em> hence the words have been explained, straightforward pleas. If persons are intended, it is not impossible that there may be a hint at the Jews taking the part of the northern king in the contest.<\/p>\n Daughter of women<\/strong>i.e.<\/em>, a woman. (Comp. the phrase son of man, Eze. 2:1<\/span>.) The rest of the verse is obscure. It seems to mean that the consequence of this marriage was the destruction of the woman mentioned. Or it is possible that her refers to the southern kingdom. St. Jerome explains it, ut evertat Ptolemum sive regnum ejus.<\/em> This has been supposed to point to the marriage of Ptolemy Epiphanes with Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus the Great. However, the language is very general. (Comp. Dan. 11:6<\/span>.)<\/p>\n But she shall not stand.<\/strong>These words form an explanatory clause, meaning that the plan will not answer.<\/p>\n 17<\/strong>. <\/strong> Translate, with Bevan, “And he shall set his face to come with the power of his whole kingdom; but he shall make an agreement with him.” After the conquests just mentioned Antiochus determined to subjugate Egypt, but because of Roman intervention he was restrained from doing this and therefore made an alliance by marriage with the reigning Ptolemy. <\/p>\n The daughter of women <\/strong> This was Cleopatra, the very young daughter of Antiochus, who was betrothed to Ptolemy at this time (198 B.C.) and married to him five years later, receiving the taxes of Coele-Syria, Palestine, and Phoenicia as her dowry. Having failed to obtain Egypt by conquest this sly Syrian king hoped to obtain some advantage in this way. <\/p>\n Corrupting her <\/strong> Rather, to corrupt her. <\/em> That is, he hoped by her influence or intrigues to control the Egyptian policy. The text may be read, “to her ruin,” or, “to its [Egypt’s] ruin,” but we prefer the former view. As we have before remarked, these apocalyptic descriptions were intentionally veiled in phrases which could bear several interpretations, and were plain only to the “wise.” But she shall not stand<\/strong>, etc. Or, it shall not stand nor shall he attain it <\/em> ( his object<\/em>). Instead of acting as a Syrian spy and for her father’s interests, Cleopatra at once threw herself with energy into all her husband’s plans, even joining him in the public rejoicing which followed her father’s defeat by the Romans in the critical battle of Magnesia (190 B.C.).<\/p>\n ‘And he will set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him, and he will do his pleasure, and he will give him the daughter of women to corrupt her, but she will not stand, nor be for him.’<\/p>\n Antiochus came against Egypt with all his strength, including ‘upright ones’. This may represent Israelites who in the Psalms are often thought of as ‘the upright’. Alternately the word may mean ‘equitable conditions’ and refer to an agreement. Either way he did make an alliance and offered his daughter Cleopatra in marriage to the boy Pharaoh. His hope was to ‘corrupt her’, that is make her act in a way not fitting for a wife by desiring her to betray her husband. But Cleopatra in fact refused to cooperate and was thenceforth faithful to her husband. She no doubt felt that her future lay in Egypt and that it was in her interests.<\/p>\n Dan 11:17<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>He shall also set his face, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> Rather, He shall also set his face to enter by force the whole kingdom: <\/em>for Antiochus, not contented with having rent the principal provinces from Egypt, was forming schemes for that purpose. If the next words be rightly translated, the upright ones <\/em>are the Jews, who marched under the banners of Antiochus, and are so denominated to distinguish them from the idolatrous soldiers. The LXX and Vulgate, however, give a more probable rendering; he shall set things right, <\/em>or make agreement with him, <\/em>as the phrase is used, Dan 11:6<\/span>. Antiochus would have seized upon Egypt by force; but, as he was meditating a war with the Romans, he judged it better to proceed with Ptolemy by stratagem. For this purpose, we read, he shall give him the daughter of women, <\/em>his daughter, so called, as being one of the most eminent and beautiful women: and accordingly he proposed a treaty of marriage to Ptolemy, betrothed his daughter Cleopatra to him in the seventh year of his reign, married her to him in the thirteenth, conducted her himself to Raphia, where the solemnity was performed; and gave Ptolemy the provinces of Coelo-Syria and Palestine, on condition that the revenues should be equally divided between the two kings: and all this he transacted with a fraudulent intention to corrupt her, <\/em>and to induce her to betray her husband’s interests. But his designs did not take effect; she shall not stand on his part, <\/em>&c. Ptolemy and his generals, aware of his artifices, stood upon their guard, and Cleopatra herself affected more the cause of Ptolemy than of her father; insomuch that she joined with him in an embassy to the Romans, to congratulate them upon their victories over her father, and to exhort them, after they had expelled him out of Greece, to prosecute the war in Asia, assuring them of her husband’s and her concurrence and compliance with the commands of the senate. See Newton. <\/p>\n Dan 11:17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand [on his side], neither be for him.<\/p>\n Ver. 17. He shall also set his face.<\/strong> ] Antiochus longed sore to be lord of Egypt, and therefore undertook a third expedition against Epiphanes; but that not succeeding to his mind, he seweth the fox’s skin to the lion’s hide, and seeketh to get that by treachery which by open hostility he could not. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And upright ones with him.<\/strong> ] Or, Equal conditions with him. He shall palliate his treachery with very fair pretences; he shall seem to do righteous things, drawing a fair glove over a foul hand; thus shall he do. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And he shall give him the daughter of women.<\/strong> ] The fair Cleopatra, his beautiful daughter, filiam e mulieribus selectam; <\/em> like as Saul gave Michal to David, to be a snare to him. <\/p>\n “ Munera pulchra quidem mittis, sed mittis in hamo.<\/em> ”<\/p>\n – Martial.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Corrupting her.<\/strong> ] Suborning her to make away her husband, Ptolemaeus Epiphanes. This was devilish policy, simulata necessitudo duplex simultas,<\/em> but it took not. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n But she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.<\/strong> ] As became a good wife, she clave to her husband; so did the before mentioned Michal, in whom, though we find no great store of religion – for both she had an image in the house, and afterwards mocked David for his devotion – yet nature had taught her to prefer a husband to a father.<\/p>\n set his face. The idiom for expressing a fixed purpose. Compare 2Ki 12:17. <\/p>\n and upright ones . . . shall he do = he will make equitable terms with him (i.e. Ptolemy V). The words which follow tell us what the terms were. With this agree the Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate. <\/p>\n the daughter of women: i.e. Cleopatra, his own daughter, then only eleven years of age. The term denotes beauty, &c. <\/p>\n women: i.e. her mother and grandmother, probably still caring for her education, &c. <\/p>\n not stand, &c. She sided with her husband, and defeated her father’s plans. <\/p>\n Dan 11:17<\/p>\n Dan 11:17 He shall also setH7760 his faceH6440 to enterH935 with the strengthH8633 of his wholeH3605 kingdom,H4438 and upright onesH3477 withH5973 him; thus shall he do:H6213 and he shall giveH5414 him the daughterH1323 of women,H802 corruptingH7843 her: but she shall notH3808 standH5975 on his side, neitherH3808 beH1961 for him. <\/p>\n Dan 11:17<\/p>\n He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.<\/p>\n Seeking to establish Judaea as his buffer territory, Antiochus III made concessions to the Jews. He later gave his daughter Cleopatra (daughter of women), to Ptolemy V as the security of a peace treaty marriage. His goal was similar to the goal of Ptolemy II when he gave his daughter Berenice to Antiochus II. He wanted to gain some sort of political control of Egypt without any further battle through the influence of his daughter. This is not the same Cleopatra that was associated with Mark Antony. To seal the deal, Antiochus III promised Palestine and the hotly disputed southern region of Syria, Coele Syria, as the wedding dowry for marrying Ptolemy V. This marriage was arranged in 197 BC., but did not actually occur until 193 because Ptolemy V was only seven years old at the time. <\/p>\n This plan actually worked against the strategy of Antiochus III, as Cleopatra with her husband, Ptolemy V, would later temporarily rule as regent with her son Ptolemy VI as the Egyptian rival to Seleucid-Syria. The conflict arising because the land promise was broken when the son of Antiochus III invaded Egypt anew. <\/p>\n daughter of women <\/p>\n Probably a reference to the marriage of Cleopatra to an Egyptian king, Ptolemy Philometor. <\/p>\n He shall also: Being assisted by the Jews, he purposed to subdue Egypt; but, entering into treaty with Ptolemy, he gave him his daughter Cleopatra in marriage, thinking to engage her to betray the interests of her husband; but in which he was deceived <\/p>\n set: Dan 11:19, 2Ki 12:17, 2Ch 20:3, Pro 19:21, Eze 4:3, Eze 4:7, Eze 25:2, Luk 9:51 <\/p>\n upright ones: or, much uprightness, or, equal conditions, corrupting. Heb. to corrupt. neither. Dan 9:26, Psa 56:9, Eze 17:17, Mat 12:30, Luk 11:23, Rom 8:31 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Jer 42:15 – If<\/p>\n Dan 11:17. He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom Or rather, He shall also set his face to enter, by force, the whole kingdom: and upright ones with him; thus shall he do If this translation be right, the upright ones here intended are the Jews who marched under his banners, and are so denominated to distinguish them from the other idolatrous soldiers. But the LXX. read, , he shall make all things right, or straight, or make agreement with him, that is, with Ptolemy. So also the Vulgate. Antiochus would have seized upon the kingdom of Egypt by force; but fearing, according to Appian, if he did so, he should bring the Romans upon him, he judged it better to proceed by stratagem, and to carry on his designs by treaty rather than by arms. He therefore proposed a marriage between his own daughter Cleopatra and King Ptolemy, now sixteen years old, to be consummated when they should come of age; which offer, made by Eucles of Rhodes, was accepted, and a contract fully agreed between them. Thus the text, And he shall give him the daughter of women His daughter, so called, as being one of the most eminent and beautiful of women. He himself afterward conducted her to Raphia, where they were married; and gave in dowry with her the provinces of Closyria and Palestine, upon condition of the revenues being equally divided between the two kings. All this he transacted with a fraudulent intention, corrupting, or to corrupt, her, and induce her to betray her husbands interests to her father. But his designs did not take effect: for it is here said, she shall not stand on his part, neither be for him Ptolemy and his generals were aware of Antiochuss artifices, and therefore stood upon their guard; and Cleopatra herself affected more the cause of her husband than of her father, insomuch that, as Livy relates, (lib. xxxvii, cap. 3,) she joined with her husband in an embassy to the Romans, to congratulate them upon their victories over her father, and to exhort them, after they had expelled him out of Greece, to prosecute the war in Asia, assuring them, at the same time, that the king and queen of Egypt would readily obey the commands of the senate.<\/p>\n Dan 11:17. upright ones: read mg., which is based on the text of the Versions, shall make equitable conditions. Owing to the intervention of the Romans, Antiochus was unable to invade Egypt, and was compelled to make terms with Ptolemy.the daughter of women: his daughter Cleopatra.to destroy it (mg.): the real motive of the marriage was to obtain a hold over Egypt.but it (mg.) shall not stand: the plan did not succeed. Cleopatra took the part of her husband rather than her father.<\/p>\n 11:17 He shall also {g} set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the {h} daughter of women, corrupting {i} her: but {k} she shall not stand [on his side], neither be for him.<\/p>\n (g) This was the second battle that Antiochus fought against Ptolemais Epiphanes.<\/p>\n (h) That is, a beautiful woman who was Cleopatra, Antiochus’ daughter.<\/p>\n (i) For he did not regard the life of his daughter in respect of the kingdom of Egypt.<\/p>\n (k) She will not agree to his wicked counsel, but will love her husband, as her duty requires, and not seek his destruction.<\/p>\n Antiochus III, under threat from Rome, then initiated peace with Egypt and offered his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy V in marriage to cement their alliance. He hoped that Cleopatra would remain pro-Syrian and that her loyalty to him would give him control over Egypt. This attempt failed, however. Cleopatra consistently sided with her husband against her father, even though Ptolemy V was then only a boy.<\/p>\n He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand [on his side], neither be for him. 17. And he shall set his face i.e. … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 11:17”<\/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-22064","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22064","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=22064"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22064\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22064"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22064"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22064"}],"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: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/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: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/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: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"