20<\/strong>. Seleucus IV. (Philopator), b.c. 187 175.<\/p>\n Antiochus the Great left two sons, Seleucus and Antiochus (Epiphanes), both of whom successively followed him on the throne.<\/p>\n And<\/strong> in his<\/em> place<\/strong> ( Dan 11:7<\/em><\/span>) shall stand up<\/em> one that shall cause an exactor to pass through<\/strong> the glory of the kingdom<\/em> ] Seleucus IV. The words are generally considered to allude to an event from the reign of this monarch which affected the Jews. In 2 Maccabees 3 we read, namely, how one Simon, guardian of the Temple, having quarrelled with the high-priest Onias, gave information to Apollonius, governor of Cle-Syria and Phnicia, of the treasures contained in the Temple, with the suggestion that they might prove useful to the king: Seleucus thereupon commissioned his chief minister ( ), see Niese, op. cit.<\/em> p. 29, to proceed to Jerusalem and appropriate them. Heliodorus accordingly visited Jerusalem for the purpose; but was prevented from carrying it out (according to the author of 2 Macc.) by a supernatural apparition, which appeared to him just as he was on the point of entering the treasury [369] . We are however imperfectly informed as to the events of Seleucus IV.’s reign; and it is possible that the allusion may be of a general kind: Seleucus (below, note) had to pay for nine years an annual sum of 1000 talents to the Romans, which he would naturally exact of his subject provinces; and perhaps the reference may be to the ‘exactor’ who visited Palestine regularly for the purpose [370] .<\/p>\n [369] Cf. Ewald v. 292; Stanley, Jewish Church<\/em>, iii. 287.<\/p>\n [370] Antiochus Epiphanes shortly afterwards sends into Judah an officer called ( 1Ma 1:29 ).<\/p>\n an exactor<\/strong> ] cf. the cognate verb in 2Ki 23:35<\/span>.<\/p>\n the glory of the kingdom<\/em> ] a prophet (Isa 13:19<\/span>) had called Babylon ‘the beauty of kingdoms’; and so here the land of Judah is called ‘the glory of the kingdom’ (viz. of the Seleucidae), their noblest and choicest province. The Heb. in this part of the verse is however unusual; and Bevan, transposing two words, would read, ‘shall stand up an exactor (Seleucus IV. himself), who shall cause the glory of the kingdom (i.e. of his own kingdom) to pass away,’ with allusion to the inglorious reign of Seleucus IV.<\/p>\n but within few days<\/em> (Gen 27:44<\/span>; Gen 29:20<\/span>, Heb.) he shall be<\/em> broken, but not<\/strong> in anger, or in battle<\/em> ] not by a passionate deed of violence, and not in open fight, but (it is implied) in some less honourable way: in point of fact, Seleucus, after an uneventful reign of 12 years, met his death, perhaps by poison, through a plot headed by his chief minister, Heliodorus (Appian, Syr.<\/em> c. 45 ). The ‘few days’ may be reckoned either from the mission of Heliodorus, or perhaps from the inception of the plot: in either case the general meaning will be that he would come to a speedy and untimely end.<\/p>\n broken<\/strong> ] i.e. ruined; of a person, as Pro 6:15<\/span>; Pro 29:1<\/span>; ch.<\/em> Dan 8:25<\/span>. Cf. Dan 11:26<\/em><\/span>, below.<\/p>\n in anger<\/em> ] if this is the meaning, the Heb. is very unusual; Behrmann suggests, on the strength of Aramaic analogies (cf. P.S [371] col. 278, bottom<\/em>), that the expression may perhaps mean openly<\/strong>.<\/p>\n [371] .S. R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus<\/em>.<\/p>\n Then shall stand up in his estate – <\/B>Margin, or, place. The word used – <\/span> ken<\/I> – means, properly, a stand, station, place (see the notes at Dan 11:7<\/span>), and the idea here is simply that he would be succeeded in the kingdom by such an one. His successor would have the character and destiny which the prophecy proceeds to specify.<\/P> A raiser of taxes – <\/B>One who shall be mainly characterized for this; that is, whose government would be distinguished eminently by his efforts to wring money out of the people. The Hebrew word <\/span> nagas’<\/I> means, properly, to urge, to drive, to impel, and it is then applied to one who urges or presses a debtor, or who exacts tribute of a people. The word is used with reference to money exactions in Deu 15:2-3<\/span> : Every creditor that lendeth aught unto his neighbor, he shall not exact it of his neighbor or of his brother. Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again. So in 2Ki 23:35<\/span>, Jehoiakim taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh: he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land. In Zec 9:8<\/span> – And no oppressor shall pass through them anymore – the same word is used. Here it denotes one who would be mainly characterized by his extorting tribute of his people, or using means to obtain money.<\/P> In the glory of the kingdom – <\/B>The word in here is supplied by our translators. Lengerke renders it, who shall suffer the tax-gatherer (eintreiber) to go through the glory of the kingdom. This is evidently the meaning. He would lay the richest and most productive parts of his kingdom under contribution. This might be either to pay a debt contracted by a former monarch; or to carry on war; or to obtain the means of luxurious indulgence; or for purposes of magnificence and display.<\/P> But within few days – <\/B>A comparatively brief period. Compare Gen 27:44<\/span>; Gen 29:20<\/span>. It is impossible from this to determine the precise period which he would live, but the language would leave the impression that his would be a short reign.<\/P> He shall be destroyed – <\/B>Hebrew, shall be broken. That is, his power shall be broken. he shall cease to reign. It would not be certainly inferred from this that he would be put to death, or would die at that time, but that his reign then would come to an end, though it might be in some peaceful way.<\/P> Neither in anger – <\/B>Hebrew, angers. Not in any tumult or excitement, or by any rage of his subjects. This would certainly imply that his death would be a peaceful death.<\/P> Nor in battle – <\/B>As many kings fell. The description would indicate a reign of peace, and one whose end would be peace, but who would have but a brief reign. The reference here is, undoubtedly, to Seleucus Philopator, the oldest son of Antiochus the Great, and his immediate successor. The fulfillment of the prediction is seen in the following facts in regard to him:<\/P> (a) As an exactor of tribute. He was bound to pay the tribute which his father had agreed to pay to the Romans. This tribute amounted to a thousand talents annually, and consequently made it necessary for him to apply his energies to the raising of that sum. The Jewish talent of silver was equal to (in the 1850s) about 1,505 of American money (about 339 British pounds), and, consequently, this thousand talents, of the Jewish talent of silver here referred to, was equal to (in 1850s) about a million and a half dollars. The Greek talent of silver was worth (in 1850s) 1,055 of American money (about 238 British pounds), and, if this was the talent, the sum would be about one million dollars. To raise this, in addition to the ordinary expenses of the government, would require an effort, and, as this was continued from year to year, and as Seleucus was known for little else, it was not unnatural that the should be characterized as the raiser of taxes.<\/P> (b) Especially would this be true in the estimation of the Jews, for no small part of these taxes, or this revenue, was derived from Palestine. Seleucus, taking advantage of the disturbances in Egypt, had reunited to the Syrian crown the provinces of Coelo-Syria and Palestine, which his father Antiochus the Great had given in dowry to his daughter Cleopatra, who was married to Ptolemy Epiphanes. – Jahn, Heb. Commonwealth, p. 255. In the year 176 b.c., Simon, a Benjamite, who became governor of the temple at Jerusalem, the farmer of the revenues of the Egyptian kings, attempted to make some innovations, which were steadily resisted by the high priest Onias III Simon, in anger, went to Apollonius, governor of Coelo-Syria under Seleucus, and informed him of the great treasures contained in the temple. The king, says Jahn (Heb. Commonwealth, p. 255), through a friend to the Jews, and though he had regularly made disbursements, according to the directions of his father, toward sustaining the expenses of the sacrifices at Jerusalem, determined to apply to his own use the treasures of the temple, for the annual payment of one thousand talents to the Romans had reduced his finances to a very low ebb. With the design, therefore, of replenishing his exhausted treasury, he sent Heliodorus to Jerusalem to plunder the temple. Compare Appian, Syriac. xlv. 60-65. See also Prideaux, Con. iii. 208; 2 Macc. 3. Besides this, the necessity of raising so much revenue would give him the character of a raiser of taxes.<\/P> (c) This was done in what might properly be termed the glory of his kingdom, or in what would, in the language of an Hebrew, be so called – Coelo-Syria and Palestine. To the eye of a Hebrew this was the glory of all lands, and the Jewish writers were accustomed to designate it by some such appellation. Compare the notes at Dan 11:16<\/span>.<\/P> (d) His reign continued but a short time – answering to what is here said, that it would be for a few days. In fact, he reigned but eleven or twelve years, and that, compared with the long reign of Antiochus his father – thirty-seven years – was a brief period.<\/P> (e) The manner of his death. He did not fall in battle, nor was he cut off in a popular tumult. He was, in fact, poisoned. In the eleventh year of his reign, he sent his only son Demetrius as hostage to Rome, and released his brother Antiochus, who had resided twelve years in that city. As the heir to the crown was now out of the way, Heliodorus sought to raise himself to the royal dignity, and for this purpose he destroyed the king by poison. He attached a large party to his interests, and finally gained over those who were in favor of submitting to the king of Egypt. Antiochus Epiphanes received notice of these transactions while he was at Athens on his return from Rome. He applied himself to Eumenes, king of Pergamos, whom, with his brother Attalus, he easily induced to espouse his cause, and they, with the help of a part of the Syrians, deprived Heliodorus of his usurped authority. Thus, in the year 175 b.c., Antiochus Epiphanes quietly ascended the throne, while the lawful heir, Demetrius, was absent at Rome. Appian, Syriac. lxv. 60-65; Jahn, Heb. Commonwealth, ch. ix. Section 91. The remainder of this chapter is occupied with a detail of the crimes, the cruelties, and the oppressions of Antiochus Epiphanes, or Antiochus IV.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 20. Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes<\/B><\/I>] Seleucus Philopater<\/I> succeeded his father Antiochus<\/I>. He sent his treasurer Heliodorus<\/I> to seize the money deposited in the temple of Jerusalem, which is here called the glory of the kingdom<\/I>, see 2Macc 9:23<\/I>. He was so cramped to pay the annual tax to the Romans, that he was obliged to burden his subjects with continual taxes.<\/P> <\/P> He shall be destroyed, neither in anger<\/I> – fighting against an enemy, nor in battle – at the head of his troops; but basely and treacherously, by the hand of Heliodorus<\/I> his treasurer, who hoped to reign in his stead.<\/P> <\/p>\n This was Seleucus Philopater, a very covetous griper, who peeled his subjects; who being told by his friends this would alienate his friends from him, answered, Money was his best friend; and therefore spared not to rob the temple, for which cause he sent Heliodorus to rifle that treasury, 2Ma 3:7, therefore said to raise taxes in the glory of his kingdom. <\/P> But within few days he shall be destroyed; for he lived not out the thirst part of his fathers reign. <\/P> Neither in anger, nor in battle; not by open force, but by poison or secret wiles, and treachery of Heliodorus, as some write of him: the seed of evil-doers are never renowned, in life or death. <\/P> <\/p>\n 20. in his estate<\/B>inAntiochus’ stead: his successor, Seleucus Philopater, his son. <\/P> in the glory of thekingdom<\/B>that is, inheriting it by hereditary right. MAURERtranslates, “one who shall cause the tax gatherer (Heliodorus)to pass through the glory of the kingdom,” that is, Judea,<\/I>“the glorious land” (Dan 11:16<\/span>;Dan 11:41<\/span>; Dan 8:9<\/span>).Simon, a Benjamite, in spite against Onias III, the high priest, gaveinformation of the treasures in the Jewish temple; and Seleucushaving reunited to Syria Coeliglo-Syria and Palestine, the dowryformerly given by Antiochus the Great to Cleopatra, Ptolemy’s wife,sent Heliodorus to Jerusalem to plunder the temple. This is narratedin 2 Maccabees 3:4<\/U>, &c. Contrast Zec9:8<\/span>, “No oppressor shall pass through . . . any more.” <\/P> within few days . . .destroyed<\/B>after a reign of twelve years, which were “few”compared with the thirty-seven years of Antiochus’ reign. Heliodorus,the instrument of Seleucus’ sacrilege, was made by God the instrumentof his punishment. Seeking the crown, in the absence at Rome ofSeleucus’ only son and heir, Demetrius, he poisoned Seleucus. ButAntiochus Epiphanes, Seleucus’ brother, by the help of Eumenes, kingof Pergamos, succeeded to the throne, 175 B.C.<\/P> neither in anger, nor inbattle<\/B>not in a popular outbreak, nor in open battle.<\/P><\/p>\n Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom<\/strong>,…. This was not Antiochus Epiphanes, as Theodoret, he is designed in the next verse; nor Ptolemy Epiphanes; as Porphyry, for he did not succeed Antiochus the great; nor Tryphon, tutor to Antiochus, as some Jewish writers; but Seleucus Philopator, the eldest son of Antiochus the great; who succeeded him, and was settled in his kingdom in his father’s room, and stood upon his basis; and might well be called a raiser of taxes, being not only a covetous man, and a lover of money above all things; and therefore laid heavy taxes on his subjects, to gratify his avarice; but was indeed obliged to it, to raise the thousand talents yearly to pay the Romans, which his father had laid himself under obligation to do; and this took up the whole life of this his successor; for as there were twelve thousand talents to pay, a thousand each year, and Seleucus reigned in all but twelve years at most, he did nothing but raise taxes yearly to pay this tribute. It may be rendered, “then shall stand upon his basis”: or, “in his room”, as the Vulgate Latin version, in the room of Antiochus the great, “one that causes the exactors to pass through the glory of the kingdom” o; that causes tax gatherers to go through the kingdom, and collect the tax of the people, who are the glory of the kingdom, especially the rich, the nobility, and gentry; or money, which is the glory of a nation: or, “shall cause the exactors to pass over to the glory of the kingdom”; that is, cause a tax gatherer to go over from Syria to the glorious land, or the glorious part of his dominion, the land of Judea; and so may have respect particularly to Heliodorus his treasurer, whom he sent to Jerusalem to demand the treasure of money he heard was laid up in the temple there; in the Apocrypha:<\/p>\n “Now when Apollonius came to the king, and had shewed him of the money whereof he was told, the king chose out Heliodorus his treasurer, and sent him with a commandment to bring him the foresaid money.” (2 Maccabees 3:7)<\/p>\n but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle<\/strong>; or, within a few years, as Grotius and Prideaux render it; “days” being often put for years. Seleucus reigned but twelve years at most, which were but few in comparison of the long reign of his father, which was a reign of thirty seven years; and he died not through the rage of the populace, or through the sedition and rebellion of his subjects, nor in war, with a foreign enemy; but through the treachery of Heliodorus his treasurer, by whom he was poisoned, as is supposed; either for the sake of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was at that very time returning from Rome, where he had been an hostage ever since the defeat of his father, the money being now paid, which was stipulated; or rather on his own account, having a design to seize the kingdom for himself.<\/p>\n o “stabit autem super basillius, qui transire faciet exactorem per decus regni”, Michaelis.<\/p>\n Another stands up in his place, who causeth to pass over, through his eagerness for riches. most understand as a collector of tribute<\/em>, referring for this to 2Ki 23:35<\/span>, and 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. denotes, no doubt (2Ki 23:35<\/span>), to collect gold and silver; but it does not thence follow that , when silver and gold are not spoken of, means to collect tribute. The word in general designates the taskmaster<\/em> who urges on the people to severe labour, afflicts and oppresses them as cattle. is not synonymous with , Dan 11:16<\/span>, but stands much nearer to , Dan 11:21<\/span>, and designates the glory of the kingdom<\/em>. The glory of the kingdom was brought down by , and 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. ( days few<\/em>), as in Gen 27:44<\/span>; Gen 29:20<\/span>, the designation of a very short time. The reference of these words, “ in days few<\/em>,” to the time after<\/em> 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 in does not mean post<\/em>. , in contradistinction and contrast to , can only denote private enmity or private revenge. “Neither by anger (i.e., private revenge) nor by war” points to an immediate divine judgment.<\/p>\n If we now, before proceeding further in our exposition, attentively consider the contents of the revelation of vv. 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 (Dan 11:4<\/span>) the king of the south shall attain to great power, and one of his princes shall found (Dan 11:5<\/span>) a yet greater dominion in the north. After the 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 (Dan 11:6<\/span>). 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 (Dan 11:7-9<\/span>). 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 (Dan 11:10-15<\/span>). 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 (Dan 11:16-19<\/span>). But his successor, who shall send taskmasters through the most glorious regions of the kingdom, shall be destroyed in a short time (Dan 11:20<\/span>).<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Now, since the king who comes into his place (Dan 11:21<\/span>.) 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, vv. 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. – <\/p>\n Syrian Kings <\/strong> (from b.c.) Egyptian Kings <\/strong> (from b.c.) Seleucus Nicator 310-280 Ptolemy Lagus 323-284 Antiochus Sidetes 280-260 Ptolemy Philadelphus 284 Antiochus Theus 260-245 Ptolemy Euergetes 246-221 Seleucus Callinicus 245-225 Ptolemy Philopator 221-204 Seleucis Ceraunus 225-223 Ptolemy Epiphanes 204-180 Antiochus the Great 223-186 Ptolemy Philometor 180 <\/p>\n But in the prophetic revelation there is mention made of only four kings of the north (one in Dan 11:5-9<\/span>; his sons, Dan 11:10-12<\/span>; a third, Dan 11:13-19<\/span>; and the fourth, Dan 11:20<\/span>) and three kings of the south (the first, Dan 11:5<\/span> and Dan 11:6<\/span>; the “branch,” Dan 11:7-9<\/span>; and the king, Dan 11:10-15<\/span>), distinctly different, whereby of the former, the relation of the sons (Dan 11:10<\/span>) to the king indefinitely mentioned in Dan 11:11<\/span>, is admitted, and of the latter the kings of the south, it remains doubtful whether he who is spoken of in Dan 11:9-15<\/span> is different from or is identical with “the branch of her roots” (Dan 11:7<\/span>). 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 (Dan 11:5<\/span>); the marriage of the daughter of the king of the south to the king of the north (Dan 11:6<\/span>); afterwards the marriage also of the daughter of the king of the north (Dan 11:17<\/span>), 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<\/em>, because even these features of the prophecy which find their actual fulfilments in history do not coincide with the historical reality.<\/p>\n Thus all interpreters regard the king of the south, Dan 11:5<\/span>, as Ptolemy Lagus, and that one of his princes ( ) 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<\/em>. c. 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, Bactrains, 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 Phyrgia 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 designation “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. 55-62). He was accordingly not one of Ptolemy’s generals.<\/p>\n Moreover, the marriage of the king’s daughter, Dan 11:6<\/span>, is thus explained by Jerome, and all interpreters who follow him: – Ptolemy Philadelphus 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<\/em>. c. 65, and Jerome). This factum<\/em> can be regarded as a fulfilling of the prophecy, Dan 11:6<\/span>; 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 two 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.<\/p>\n Further, as to the contents of Dan 11:7-9<\/span>, 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<\/em>. xxvii. 1, 2; Polyb. v. 58; and Appian, Syr<\/em>. c. 65. On the other hand, the announcement of the war of his sons with many hosts overflowing the land, Dan 11:10<\/span>, 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 tow 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 and 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 Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine to the Egyptians (Polyb. v. 79, 80, 82-86). Dan 11:11<\/span> and Dan 11:12<\/span> refer to this war. Thirteen our 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 (Coele-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 bring with her, as her dowry, Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine (Polyb. xv. 20, xxviii. 17; App. Syr<\/em>. c. i.; Liv. xxxiii. 19; and Joseph. Antt.<\/em> xii. 4. 1). Since the time of Jerome, the prophecy Dan 11:13-17<\/span> 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 ( , Dan 11:14<\/span>) against the king of the south is not historically verified; and even the relation spoken of by Josephus ( Antt.<\/em> 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 , Dan 11:14<\/span>. Still less does the statement of Dan 11:16<\/span>, that the king of the north would stand in the glorious land, agree with interpreted of conduct of Antiochus the Great toward the Jews; for according to Josephus, Antt.<\/em> l.c.<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n Moreover, Dan 11:18<\/span>, containing the prophecy of the undertaking of the king 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 Dan 11:19<\/span>, that which is said regarding his return to the fortresses of his own land and his overthrow, does not so correspond with the historical issues 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 Dan 11:20<\/span> must refer, if the foregoing verses treat of Antiochus the Great, nothing further is communicated, than that he quum paternis cladibus fractas admodum Syriae opes accepisset, post otiosum nullisque admodum rebus gestis nobilitatum annorum duodecim regnum, <\/em> was put to death through the treachery of Heliodorus, unius ex purpuratis <\/em> (Liv. xli. 19, cf. App. Syr<\/em>. c. 45), and the mission of Heliodorus to Jerusalem to seize the treasures of the temple, which is fabulously described in 2 Macc. 3:4ff. The ( shall be destroyed<\/em>) of this king ( within few days<\/em>) does not harmonize with the fact of his twelve years’ reign.<\/p>\n From this comparison this much follows, that the prophecy does not furnish a prediction of the historical wars of the Seleucidae 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 comes yet more prominently forward to view in the following prophetic description.<\/p>\n Seleucus, it is well known, did not long survive his father, for he was put to death either by poison, or by his domestics. Suspicion fell upon his brother Antiochus, who was sent back to his country after his father’s death was known. Demetrius alone was retained, who afterwards escaped by flight, for he left the city under the pretense of hunting, and followed the bank of the Tiber as far as Ostia, where he embarked on a small vessel, preferring to run all risks to remaining in perpetual banishment. Concerning Seleucus, the angel says, he shall stand in his place, meaning, he shall succeed by hereditary right to the office of Antiochus the Great. Thus he shall cause the exactor to pass over Some translate, He shall take away the exactor; for the verb עבר gneber, in Hiphil, signifies to take away. The Hebrews use the verb of this clause in the sense of excluding. Some interpreters think this language implies the praise of Seleucus for lessening the tributes imposed by his father, but historians shew this view to be false, and condemn his avarice and rapacity. In some points he was superior to his brother Antiochus; although both lustful and cruel to those around him. Through indulgence in great expenses, he could not be moderate and lenient towards his subjects; for luxury and prodigality always draw with them cruelty in the exaction of tribute. For he who is thus profuse, must necessarily extract the very blood from his people. As Seleucus was thus devoted to self-indulgence, this sense is more appropriate — he made the exactor to pass through, meaning, he laid new and fresh taxes on all his subjects. Nothing but this is said of him, since he was immediately put to death, as the second clause of the verse informs. us. If we prefer taking the words — the glory of the kingdom — by way of opposition, Seleucus will be praised as an honor and an ornament. But I think we must supply the letter ל , l, and understand the passage thus, — He who shall cause the exactor to pass through shall stand in his place, and shall be destroyed in a few days By the word “destroyed,” he signifies a bloody death. But not in anger, says he. I wonder why some translate it “in mutual conflict, ” because the Hebrews imply “anger” by this word; meaning, he should not perish in open warfare, or in the course of a battle, but by the hands of his domestics. Historians differ as to the kind of death which he died, some saying he was poisoned, and others, slain by the sword. But this difference is of no consequence. Antiochus Epiphanes next succeeds him. <\/p>\n (20) A raiser of taxes.<\/strong>The marginal version is to be preferred, as it gives the meaning of the word exactor, or oppressor, which it has in Exo. 3:7<\/span>, and in every passage where it occurs, except perhaps Isa. 9:4<\/span>. The new king of the north causes the oppressor to pass through the majesty of the kingdom (a phrase occurring elsewhere only in Psa. 145:12<\/span>; but comp. 1Ch. 29:25<\/span>), meaning the richest parts of his kingdom, and not necessarily Palestine. The effect of this policy was that the king fell a victim to a conspiracy in a few days. According to St. Jerome, the person alluded to was Seleucus Philopator.<\/p>\n With this verse the first part of the prophecy concludes. It is to be observed that thus far (1) notes of time are very scanty; we only meet with indefinite expressions, such as in the end of years (Dan. 11:6<\/span>), certain years (Dan. 11:13<\/span>), within few days (Dan. 11:20<\/span>), and vague terms expressing sequence of time. (2) There is nothing in the text which implies any change of sovereigns, except in Dan. 11:7<\/span>; Dan. 11:19<\/span>. It follows from a careful study of these verses that according to their natural and literal sense they speak of only two southern kings and only one northern king. The southern king of whom we read most is apparently the offspring of the daughter of the first southern king, mentioned in Dan. 11:5<\/span>, and it is he who engages in conflict with the first northern king, and with his sons (Dan. 11:10<\/span>). The whole prophecy is eschatological, and refers to two opposing earthly powers which will affect the destiny of Gods people in the last times. It relates a series of wars and political intrigues between these two powers, all of which prove futile, and it concludes with the account of the death of the first northern king. Dan. 11:20<\/span> is a transition verse, in which another character is introduced, who will mark the approach of the end; while Dan. 11:21<\/span> introduces the most prominent object of the prophecya person who remains before the reader till the end of the chapter, while the southern king gradually disappears (Dan. 11:25<\/span>; Dan. 11:27<\/span>; Dan. 11:40<\/span>), and what is apparently his country is mentioned without its sovereign in Dan. 11:43<\/span>.<\/p>\n 20<\/strong>. <\/strong> Estate <\/strong> Rather, place <\/em> (as in Dan 11:7<\/span>; Dan 11:21<\/span>; Dan 11:38<\/span>). A raiser of taxes<\/strong>, etc. Or, one that shall cause an exactor to pass over <\/em> ( through<\/em>) the <\/em> glory of the kingdom. <\/em> The various versions greatly differ. The Vulgate renders, “in his stead shall stand a vile person and unworthy of royal dignity.” The reference is either to Heliodorus, the chancellor of Seleucus Philopator, who was sent by this king at the suggestion of Apollonius, governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, to rob the temple of Jerusalem being interrupted super-naturally in his purpose and scourged by divine agents, according to 2 Macc. iii or to Seleucus IV, Philopator himself, who as the son and successor of Antiochus III fell heir to terrible financial embarrassments, which compelled him to exact heavy taxes, and may perhaps have induced him to countenance such robberies as that of Heliodorus. Palestine would most naturally be called by a Hebrew writer the glory of the <\/strong> [Syrian] kingdom<\/strong>; though Dr. Terry understands this to refer not to Palestine specifically, but generally to all of the most beautiful and productive portions of the kingdom. <\/p>\n Within few days <\/strong> Seleucus IV only reigned in all a few days compared with his father (twelve years), and certainly only reigned a “few days” after the bootless mission of Heliodorus, mentioned above; for, according to the ancient account of his death, this courtier poisoned him, 176-175 B.C. Probably the method of his death explains why it can be said that he was “broken” neither in anger <\/strong> [that is, in a quarrel or insurrection, as was his father], nor in battle<\/strong>.<\/p>\n ‘Then will stand up in his place one who will cause an exactor to pass through the glory of the kingdom, but within few days he will be destroyed, neither in anger nor in battle.’<\/p>\n This was Antiochus III’s elder son, Seleucus IV, who succeeded his father. He taxed his people, including Israel, so heavily to pay the Roman indemnity that he was poisoned, by his prime minister, Heliodorus. Heliodorus was probably the exactor that Seleucus sent through “the jewel (glory) of his kingdom,” that is, Israel, collecting taxes, and with the special intention of robbing the temple treasury ( 2Ma 3:7<\/span>). So Seleucus IV did not die through mob violence, as his father did, nor did he die in battle. Rather he died from poison.<\/p>\n ‘Within few days’, that is, within a comparatively short time of his blasphemous activity.<\/p>\n Antiochus Epiphanes – The Scourge of Israel.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Apart from Dan 11:20<\/span>, the remaining verses in the chapter deal with the life of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, second son of Antiochus III, who usurped the throne from his brother’s son, Demetrius, and persecuted Israel, leading on into a mysterious figure who will appear at the end of time (Dan 11:40<\/span>). Antiochus IV is the ‘horn of littleness’ of Dan 8:23-25<\/span>, while the mysterious figure is the ‘horn, the small one’ of Dan 7:24-26<\/span>.<\/p>\n Dan 11:20<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Then shall stand upa raiser of taxes<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> Or, according to the original, One who causeth an exactor to pass over the glory, <\/em>&c. Seleucus Philopater succeeded his father Antiochus the Great in Syria. He had an inclination to throw off the Roman yoke, but had not courage to effect it. He raised an army, with an intent to assist Pharnaces, king of Pontus; but his fear of the Romans was so great, that he disbanded his forces almost as soon as he had levied them. The annual tribute of 1000 talents was a grievous burden to him and his kingdom; and he was little more than a raiser of taxes<\/em> all his days. Being informed of the money deposited in the temple of Jerusalem, he sent his treasurer Heliodorus to seize it. This was literally causing an exactor to pass over the glory of the kingdom, <\/em>that temple, over which even kings did honour, and magnify with their best gifts, <\/em>2M<\/span>a 3:2<\/span>. But within a few days, <\/em>or rather years, <\/em>according to the prophetic style, he was destroyed, <\/em>and his reign was of short duration in comparison of his father’s, being only twelve years, and his father’s thirty-seven. Or perhaps it may be better expounded thus; that within few days, <\/em>or years, <\/em>after his attempt to plunder the temple of Jerusalem, he should be destroyed: <\/em>and, not long after that, he was destroyed, <\/em>neither in anger nor in battle; <\/em>neither in rebellion at home, nor in war abroad; but by the treachery of Heliodorus, who, in the absence of Demetrius and Antiochus, the king’s sons, thought that he had a fair opportunity to usurp the throne. See Newton. Houbigant renders this verse, Then shall one succeed into his place, who shall send a raiser of taxes to the place honoured by kings; but, <\/em>&c. <\/p>\n Dan 11:20 Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes [in] the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.<\/p>\n Ver. 20. Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes.<\/strong> ] Heb., One that causeth an exactor to pass over, who shall gather no less sums of curses than of coin. This was Seleucus Philopator, son to Antiochus the Great, and his father’s darling – whence also he had his surname – but not the people’s darling, as Scipio was at Rome, whom they called Corculum, or sweet heart; for this Seleucus, king of Syria, being the Romans’ tribute gatherer – to whom he was to pay, according to his father’s agreement, a thousand talents by the year – he was hated of the people, and poisoned by Heliodorus, a great man about him, in favour of Antiochus Epiphanes, his brother and successor in the kingdom.<\/p>\n NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Dan 11:20-28<\/p>\n 20Then in his place one will arise who will send an oppressor through the Jewel of his kingdom; yet within a few days he will be shattered, though not in anger nor in battle. 21In his place a despicable person will arise, on whom the honor of kingship has not been conferred, but he will come in a time of tranquility and seize the kingdom by intrigue. 22The overflowing forces will be flooded away before him and shattered, and also the prince of the covenant. 23After an alliance is made with him he will practice deception, and he will go up and gain power with a small force of people. 24In a time of tranquility he will enter the richest parts of the realm, and he will accomplish what his fathers never did, nor his ancestors; he will distribute plunder, booty and possessions among them, and he will devise his schemes against strongholds, but only for a time. 25He will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South with a large army; so the king of the South will mobilize an extremely large and mighty army for war; but he will not stand, for schemes will be devised against him. 26Those who eat his choice food will destroy him, and his army will overflow, but many will fall down slain. 27As for both kings, their hearts will be intent on evil, and they will speak lies to each other at the same table; but it will not succeed, for the end is still to come at the appointed time. 28Then he will return to his land with much plunder; but his heart will be set against the holy covenant, and he will take action and then return to his own land.<\/p>\n Dan 11:20 This refers to the reign of Selecus IV Philopator (187-175 B.C.), who, in order to raise money to pay the Romans, assigned a very heavy tax on his own realm (esp. the temple in Jerusalem). His tax collector (NASB, an oppressor; NKJV, one who imposes taxes; the Hebrew word [BDB 620] means exactor of tribute) was named Heliodorus (cf. 2 Maccabees 3). Many believe that he poisoned Selecus IV in order to gain control, but he himself was overthrown by Antiochus IV (cf. 2Ma 3:7-40).<\/p>\n Dan 11:21 a despicable person will arise This Hebrew VERB’s (BDB 102, KB 117) basic meaning is despised with contempt. In the Niphal form it is used in Psa 15:4; Psa 119:141; Isa 53:3; Jer 22:28; Mal 1:7. The Arabic cognate means to raise the head loftily or disdainfully. This refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163 B.C.).<\/p>\n on whom the honor of kingship has not been conferred The rightful heir of Seleucus IV was his son, Demetrius I. However, Demetrius I had been traded as a hostage to the Romans for Antiochus IV’s freedom. Antiochus IV was the brother of Seleucus IV. When Antiochus IV heard that his brother had died he claimed to be guardian of the kingship, but through flattery and intrigue, conferred it upon himself. It is fortunate for Demetrius I that he was a prisoner in Rome for he would have surely been killed by his uncle.<\/p>\n intrigue History shows Antiochus IV to be a man of great skill in political compromise, bribery, threats and lies (cf. Dan 8:23-25).<\/p>\n Dan 11:22-35 These verses and possibly Dan 11:22-45, describe the continuing warfare between the rulers of the Seleucid Empire (king of the north) and the rulers of the Ptolemaic Empire (king of the south).<\/p>\n Dan 11:22 the prince of the covenant This is a difficult phrase in light of Daniel’s previous use of these two theologically loaded words in Dan 9:26. There have been many possibilities suggested for this reference: (1) some see it as referring to Ptolemy VI Philometor, but better, (2) others believe that it refers to Onias III (198-175 B.C.), the Jewish High Priest (cf. TEV) who opposed Antiochus IV and his Jewish conspirators (Onias’ brother Jason), who attempted to Hellenize their fellow Jews. He was removed in 175 B.C. and killed in 171 B.C.<\/p>\n Dan 11:22-24 This ambiguous passage has several similarities to Dan 9:24-27. Be careful that your systematic eschatological grid does not remove the apocalyptic features. There is no easily discernable reference to these words in the life of Antiochus IV. This is why some explain the possible reference to the end-time antichrist of Dan 11:36-45 to include Dan 11:21-45.<\/p>\n Dan 11:24 he will enter the richest parts of the realm Some commentators say that this refers to Egypt while others say it refers to the taxation of his own land as his predecessor, Seleucus IV, had done before (cf. Dan 11:20).<\/p>\n Dan 11:25-26 This may reflect the tension and conflict between Antiochus IV and his nephew, Ptolemy VI (181-146 B.C.), who was the son of his sister, Cleopatra (Dan 11:17). During this conflict the Egyptian monarch was betrayed by several of his own generals (A Handbook on the Book of Daniel, UBS, p. 305).<\/p>\n The Hebrew term schemes (BDB 364) is used in both Dan 11:24-25 for Antiochus’ schemes and helpers. This reflects the fallen, human heart always planning evil for the purpose of more and more for me! When this is reflected in a ruler the whole society is in jeopardy!<\/p>\n Dan 11:26 those who eat his choice food will destroy him This seems to refer to the political intrigue occurring in the Egyptian court (cf. Dan 11:25-27).<\/p>\n Dan 11:27 As for both kings, their hearts will be intent on evil’ This is the divine understanding of the fallen human heart\/mind (cf. Gen 6:5; Gen 6:11-13; Gen 8:21; Psa 14:1-3; Rom 3:9-18; Rom 3:23).<\/p>\n The evil in this context is the desire for more power and control. This is the essence of sin, more and more for me at any cost!<\/p>\n Dan 11:28 This possibly refers to a successful, but limited, military operation (cf. Dan 11:13) or a failed negotiation (at the same table). Dan 11:28 seems to demand a Seleucid victory of some type at the expense of the Ptolemaic empire.<\/p>\n but his heart will be set against the holy covenant Even with much possessions Antiochus IV had an agenda against the Jews. Whether it was his devotion to Roman or better Hellenistic culture or his animosity toward Jewish exclusivism (monotheism, the God of gods, Dan 11:36), he hated and acted against God’s people (cf. Dan 11:30-33).<\/p>\n a raiser of taxes . . . kingdom. = one [Seleucus] causing the exactor [Heliodorus] to pass through [Judea], the glorious land (compare verses: Dan 16:41; Dan 8:9). Seleucus sent Heliodorus to Jerusalem to plunder the Temple, &c. <\/p>\n neither in anger. Ginsburg suggests “and not with hands”, because it was by poison. Here ends the historical portion, which has been fulfilled now, but which was then future, verse Dan 21:12, Dan 21:3 passes on to the time which is still (1912\/2009) future to us. Here begins the portion of this prophecy which is still future to us (1912\/2009), “the latter days” of Dan 10:14. <\/p>\n Dan 11:20<\/p>\n Dan 11:20 Then shall stand upH5975 inH5921 his estateH3653 a raiserH5674 of taxesH5065 in the gloryH1925 of the kingdom:H4438 but within fewH259 daysH3117 he shall be destroyed,H7665 neitherH3808 in anger,H639 norH3808 in battle.H4421 <\/p>\n Dan 11:20<\/p>\n Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.<\/p>\n Antiochus III was succeeded by his brother, Seleucus IV Philopator, who reigned from 187 to 175 BC. The Roman war indemnity was crippling the Seleucid Syrian Empire so Seleucus IV tried to raise the money from the Jews. In about 178 BC., he sent his prime minister\/ treasurer, Heliodorus to Palestine in order to try and collect tax money to help relieve the burden of the Roman war remuneration. The Jews did not like this arrangement at all and refused to cooperate with Heliodorus so with the help of a Jewish collaborator named Simon, he took money from the temple and the treasury in Jerusalem. <\/p>\n Upon the death of Antiochus III, his son, Antiochus IV was released from Rome and replaced by Demetrius I Soter who was the son of Seleucus IV. Rome was making sure they held the son of the king of the Seleucid – Syrian Empire in order to collect that war indemnity and to help prevent any further mischief on the part of the ruler of the Syrians. Seleucus IV had alienated the Jews who were friendly towards Antiochus III, and he was further politically compromised because of the vast sum of money he was trying to raise from his own subjects in order to keep his hostage son in Rome alive. Thus weakened, Heliodorus, his prime minister returned to Syria from Palestine and assasinated him. Heliodorus, after killing the king seized the throne for himself but it was not long at all before Antiochus IV moved to usurp him and take the throne for himself. Antiochus IV had Heliodorus killed, thus ending his brief reign “within a few days”.<\/p>\n a raiser of taxes <\/p>\n A reference to the tribute exacted of the son of Antiochus the Great by the Romans. <\/p>\n estate: or, place, Dan 11:7, Dan 11:21, *marg. <\/p>\n a raiser of taxes in the: Heb. one that causeth an exactor to pass over the, etc. Seleucus Philopater, who levied on his subjects the tribute imposed on his father, and was poisoned by his treasurer Heliodorus. Deu 15:2, Deu 15:3, 2Ki 23:35 <\/p>\n anger: Heb. angers, Pro 30:33 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Pro 29:4 – he that receiveth gifts<\/p>\n Dan 11:20. His estate means In the place of Antiochus III whose death was predicted in the preceding verse. The prediction raiser of taxes means he will be an extortioner and will lay heavy tax burdens on the people. He was to be destroyed, neither in anger nor in battle denotes he would not die in open warfare nor by voluntary bodily contest with another, hut will die unresistingly by the hand of another. I shall give the reader the history which confirms the predictions of this verse.<\/p>\n “These few words (Dan 11:20) denote, evidently, the short and obscure reign of Seleucus, and the kind of death he was to die. The Hebrew text points him out still more clearly. There shall arise up in his place, (of Antiochus) a man who, aB an extortioner, a collector of taxes, shall cause to pass away, and shall destroy, the glory of the kingdom, And. indeed, this was the sole employment of his reign. He was obliged to furnish the Romans, by the articles of peace concluded between them, a thousand talents annually; and the twelve years of this tribute exactly ended with his life. He reigned but eleven years.- RolIIn’s Ancient History, Volume 4, page 203.<\/p>\n Antiochus was succeeded by his son, Seleucus IV, who took the name of Philopator, and reigned eleven years, B.C. 187 to 176, This period was wholly uneventful. The fear of Rome, and the weakness produced by exhaustion, forced SeleucuB to remain quiet, even when Eumenes of Pergamus seemed about to absorb Pontus. . . . Seleucus was murdered by Heiiodorus, his treasurer (B.C. 176), who hoped to succeed to his dominions.”-Rawlinson, Ancient History, page 255.<\/p>\n After the death of Antiochus the Great, Seleucus Philopator, his eldest son, whom he left at Antioch on bis departure thence into the east, succeeded him in the kingdom, but made a very poor figure of it, by reason of the low estate which the Romans had reduced the Syrian Empire to. and the heavy tribute of one thousand talents a year, which, through the whole time of his reign he was obliged to pay them; by the treaty of peace lately granted by them to his father. The whole of this kings reign is expressed by Dan 11:20. For in that text it Is foretold, that after Antiochus the Great, who is spoken of in the foregoing verses, ‘there should stand up In his estate a raiser of taxes.’ And Seleucus was no more than such all the time, for the whole business of his reign was to raise the thousand talents every year, which, by the treaty of peace that bis father had made with the Romans, he was obliged for twelve years together, annually to pay that people; and the last of these years was the last of his life. For, as the text saith, within a few years after be should be destroyed, and that neither in anger, nor in battle; so accordingly R happened. For he reigned only eleven years, and his death was neither in battle nor in anger; that is, neither in war abroad, nor In sedition or rebellion at home, but by the secret treachery of one of his own friends. His successor was Antiochus Epiph anes his brother, of whom we shall treat in the next book.-Prldeauxs Connexion, years 186, 176.<\/p>\n Dan 11:20. Then shall stand up in his estate Hebrew, , on his base; Vulgate, in his place; or, shall succeed him; a raiser of taxes in the glory of his kingdom Or, as in the margin, one that causeth an exacter to pass over, &c., that is, one who will send the tribute-gatherers through his kingdom. This was a very just description of Seleucus Philopater, the son and successor of Antiochus, who oppressed his people with most grievous taxes, that he might raise the tribute of one thousand talents, which he was obliged to pay annually to the Romans, as well as that he might support his own government. According to Jerome, he performed nothing worthy of the empire of Syria, and of his father, but reigned both idly and weakly, as Appian also testifies. He had an inclination, indeed, to shake off the Roman yoke, and therefore raised an army, with an intent to march over mount Taurus to the assistance of Pharnaces king of Pontus; but his dread of the Romans confined him at home within the bounds prescribed to him, and almost as soon as he had raised, he disbanded, his army. So that he was little more than a raiser of taxes all his days. He even sent his treasurer, Heliodorus, to seize the money deposited in the temple of Jerusalem. This was literally causing an exacter to pass over the glory of the kingdom, when he sent his treasurer to plunder that temple which even kings had honoured and magnified with their best gifts. But within a few days Or rather, years, according to the prophetic style, he was to be destroyed And accordingly his reign was of short duration in comparison of his fathers, for he reigned only twelve years, and his father thirty-seven. Or perhaps the passage may mean, that within a few days, or years, after his attempting to plunder the temple at Jerusalem, he should be destroyed: and not long after that, as all chronologers agree, he was destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle Neither through rebellion at home, nor in war abroad; but by the treachery of his own treasurer Heliodorus; the same wicked hand that was the instrument of his sacrilege being also the instrument of his death. For Seleucus having sent his only son Demetrius to be a hostage at Rome instead of his brother Antiochus, and Antiochus being not yet returned to the Syrian court, Heliodorus thought this a fit opportunity to despatch his master, and, in the absence of the next heir to the crown, to usurp it to himself. But he was disappointed in his ambitious projects, and only made way for anothers usurped greatness instead of his own. Bishop Newton. <\/p>\n Dan 11:20. one: i.e. Seleucus IV (187175 B.C)shall cause an exactor: these words are supposed to refer to an attempt by Seleucus to plunder the Temple in Jerusalem (2Ma 2:1).within few days: after an inglorious reign of twelve years, Seleucus IV was murdered, as the result of a plot formed against him by his chief minister, Heliodorus.<\/p>\n 11:20 {q} Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes [in] the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in {r} anger, nor in battle.<\/p>\n (q) That is, Seleuchus will succeed his father Antiochus.<\/p>\n (r) Not by foreign enemies, or battle, but by treason.<\/p>\n Antiochus’ elder son, Seleucus IV, succeeded his father. He taxed his people, including the Jews, so heavily to pay Rome that his Jewish tax collector, Heliodorus (2Ma 3:7), poisoned him. Heliodorus was evidently the oppressor that Seleucus sent through "the jewel of his kingdom," namely, Israel, collecting taxes. This assassination set the stage for the terrible persecutions of the Jews that followed. Thus Seleucus IV did not die because of mob violence, as his father had, or in battle, but from poison, as this verse predicted.<\/p>\n THIRD SECTION<\/p>\n (Dan 11:20-27)<\/p>\n Events under Seleucus Philopator down to the first attempts of Antiochus Epiphanes against Egypt (B.C. 170).<\/p>\n Dan 11:20 -Seleucus Philopator (B.C. 187-176) had a character the reverse of his fathers. He was no restless seeker for glory, but desired wealth and quietness. Among the Jews, however, he had a very evil reputation, for he sent an “exactor”-a mere tax-collector, Heliodorus-“to pass through the glory of the kingdom.” He only reigned twelve years, and theft was “broken”- i.e ., murdered by Heliodorus, neither in anger nor in battle, but by poison administered by this “tax-collector.” The versions all vary, but I feel little doubt that Dr. Joel is right when he sees in the curious phrase “nogesh heder malkooth,” “one that shall cause a raiser of taxes to pass over the kingdom”-of which neither Theodotion nor the Vulgate can make anything-a cryptographic allusion to the name “Heliodorus”; and possibly the predicted fate may (by a change of subject) also refer to the fact that Heliodorus was checked, not by force, but by the vision in the Temple. {#\/RAPC 2Ma 5:18; 2Ma 3:24-29} We find from #\/RAPC 2Ma 4:1 that Simeon, the governor of the Temple, charged Onias with a trick to terrify Heliodorus, This is a very probable view of what occurred.<\/p>\n Dan 11:21 -Seleucus Philopator died B.C. 175 without an heir. This made room for a contemptible person, a reprobate, who had no real claim to royal dignity, being only a younger son of Antiochus the Great. He came by surprise, “in time of security.” and obtained the kingdom by flatteries.<\/p>\n Dan 11:22.-Yet “the overflowing wings of Egypt” (or “the arms of a flood”) “were swept away before him and broken; yea, and even a covenanted or allied prince.” Some explain this of his nephew Ptolemy Philometor, others of Onias III, “the prince of the covenant”- i.e ., the princely high priest, whom Antiochus displaced in favour of his brother, the apostate Joshua, who Graecised his name into Jason, as his brother Onias did in calling himself Menelaus.<\/p>\n Dan 11:23 -This mean king should prosper by deceit which he practised on all connected with him; and though at first he had but few adherents, he should creep into power.<\/p>\n Dan 11:24 -“In time of security shall he come, even upon the fattest places of the province.” By this may be meant his invasions of Galilee and Lower Egypt. Acting unlike any of his royal predecessors, he shall lavishly scatter his gains and his booty among needy followers, and shall plot to seize Pelusium, Naucratis, Alexandria, and other strongholds of Egypt for a time.<\/p>\n Dan 11:25 -After this (B.C. 171) he shall, with a “great army,” seriously undertake his first invasion of Egypt, and shall be met by his nephew Ptolemy Philometor with another immense army. In spite of this, the young Egyptian King shall fail through the treachery of his own courtiers. He shall be outwitted and treacherously undermined by his uncle Antiochus. Yes! even while his army is fighting, and many are being slain, the very men who “eat of his dainties,” even his favourite and trusted courtiers, Eulaeus and Lenaeus, will be devising his ruin, and his army shall be swept away.<\/p>\n Dan 11:26-27 (B.C. 174).-The Syrians and the Egyptian King, nephew and uncle, shall in nominal amity sit at one banquet, eating from one table; but all the while they will be distrustfully plotting against each other and “speaking lies” to each other. Antiochus will pretend to ally himself with the young Philometor against his brother Ptolemy Euergetes II-generally known by his derisive nickname as Ptolemy Physkon-whom after eleven months the Alexandrians had proclaimed king. But all these plots and counter-plots should be of none effect, for the end was not yet.<\/p>\n Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes [in] the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle. 20. Seleucus IV. (Philopator), b.c. 187 175. Antiochus the Great left two sons, Seleucus and Antiochus (Epiphanes), both of whom successively followed him on … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 11:20”<\/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-22067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22067","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=22067"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22067\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22067"}],"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 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: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/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: 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
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"