21<\/strong>. Antiochus’ accession. Antiochus was the younger brother of Seleucus Philopator; and, in accordance with the terms of the peace concluded by Antiochus the Great with the Romans (p. 175), he had been, for 14 years, one of the Syrian hostages at Rome [372] : Seleucus, in his 12th year had recalled him, sending, to take his place at Rome, his own son Demetrius (a boy aged 11 or 12); and it was while he was at Athens, on his way back to Antioch, that Seleucus was murdered by Heliodorus (above, on Dan 11:20<\/em><\/span>). Heliodorus aspired naturally to the throne, but was thwarted in his designs by Eumenes, king of Pergamum, and his brother, Attalus, who, as Antiochus was proceeding homewards, met him, unsolicited ( ), with great friendliness, supplied him with money and troops, and so enabled him to secure the throne. An inscription has been recently discovered at Pergamum, recording a vote of thanks passed by the Council and people of Antioch to Eumenes and Attalus for the help thus given by them to Antiochus (see p. 205 f.).<\/p>\n [372] He had been well treated during these years, as he afterwards boasted in a message sent to the Senate (Livy xlii. 6), ‘Ea merita in se senatus fuisse, quum Romae esset, eam comitatem iuventutis, ut pro rege, non pro obside, omnibus ordinibus fuerit.’<\/p>\n And in his<\/em> place<\/strong> shall stand up a<\/em> contemptible<\/strong> person<\/em> ] Antiochus IV., called ‘contemptible’ (more lit. despised<\/em>, Psa 15:4<\/span> (R.V.), Psa 119:141<\/span>) on account of his character (p. xxxviii f.), perhaps also in intentional opposition to the title ‘Epiphanes.’ In 1Ma 1:10<\/span> he is called a ‘sinful root.’<\/p>\n upon<\/strong> whom<\/em> had<\/strong> not<\/em> been conferred the majesty of the kingdom<\/strong> ] The phrase, exactly as (in the Heb.) 1Ch 29:25<\/span> (‘bestow,’ lit. put<\/em>), and Num 27:20<\/span> (A.V., R.V., weakly, ‘honour’). The words, taken in conjunction with the two following clauses, imply that Antiochus had not been generally regarded as the heir to the throne, but that he gained it partly by a coup d’tat<\/em>, partly by address. His nephew, Demetrius, the son of Seleucus Philopator, was the lawful heir; but, as has been just said, he was a child, and also now a hostage at Rome.<\/p>\n but he shall come<\/em> in<\/strong> (time of) security<\/strong> ] i.e. unawares ( Dan 11:24<\/em><\/span>, Dan 8:25<\/span>).<\/p>\n by flatteries<\/em> ] or smooth sayings<\/em>, i.e. plausible representations, the exact nature of which we do not know. Cf. Dan 8:23<\/span>, which speaks of his mastery in dissimulation ( ). The details are unknown to us: but it is quite possible that the support given to Antiochus by Eumenes and Attalus took the Antiochenes by surprise: it would be entirely in accordance with Antiochus’ character that he should afterwards ingratiate himself with the people, and lead them to thank his two friends publicly for the part they had taken in securing him the kingdom. According to Jerome, there was a party in Syria, which supported the claims of his nephew (see on Dan 11:17<\/em><\/span>), the youthful son of Ptolemy Epiphanes and Cleopatra (afterwards Ptolemy Philometor), and refused to recognize Antiochus until he had disarmed their opposition simulatione clementiae<\/em>.<\/p>\n Before proceeding further, it will be convenient to give a summary of the chief events of Antiochus Epiphanes’ reign [373] .<\/p>\n [373] The principal authorities are Polybius xxvi. 10, xxvii. 17, xxviii. 1, 16, 17, 18, 19, xxix. 1, 11, xxxi. 3, 4, 5, 11; Livy xli. 20, xlii. 6, 29, xliv. 19, xlv. 11, 12; Porphyry (as cited by Jerome on Dan 11:21<\/span> ff.), who states (see p. 622, ed. Bened.) that he follows various Greek authorities, including some now lost. Some uncertainty arises (especially as regards the 1st and 2nd Egyptian expeditions) from the fact that the records (in particular those of Polyb.) are incomplete. Among modern authorities, reference may be made in particular to J. F. Hoffmann, Antiochus IV. Epiphanes<\/em>, 1873; and U. Wilcken’s art. Antiochus IV<\/em>., in Pauly-Wissowa’s Real-Encyclopdie<\/em> (1894).<\/p>\n Antiochus’ first expedition into Egypt<\/em> (b.c. 170). The death, soon after Antiochus’ accession, in 174 or 173, of his sister, Cleopatra, widow of Ptolemy Epiphanes, was the signal for fresh complications with Egypt. His nephew, Ptolemy Philometor, who was a boy of not more than 15 years old, fell now under the influence of his guardians, the eunuch Eulaeus and a Syrian named Lenaeus, who assured him that, if he would but make the attempt, he would easily recover for Egypt her Syrian possessions. Antiochus, learning through Apollonius, the governor of Cle-Syria (whom he had sent to attend the enthronement of Philometor), Egyptian feeling towards himself, proceeded to act without further delay. First, with the intention, no doubt, of making himself popular with the Jews, he visited Jerusalem, and received there, at the instance of the Hellenizing high-priest Jason (above, on Dan 9:26<\/span>), a magnificent welcome ( 2Ma 4:21-22 ). After this, he led his army into Phnicia ( ibid.<\/em>). Both parties, now that hostilities were actually beginning, sent embassies to Rome, each hoping to enlist the sympathies of the Senate, and each laying the blame of the war upon the other, Antiochus declaring that he held the Syrian provinces by inheritance from his father Antiochus the Great, and that he was only defending rights which had been unjustly ( ) attacked, while Ptolemy contended that Antiochus the Great had taken advantage of the youth of his father, Ptolemy Epiphanes, to wrest these provinces from him. Nothing, however, of importance resulted from these embassies, and hostilities continued. In 170 b.c. Antiochus marched into Egypt with a considerable force ( 1Ma 1:17 ), defeated Ptolemy’s troops between Pelusium and Mons Casius, and by some dishonourable means which Polybius censures (xxviii. 7. 16) obtained possession of the important border-fortress the claustra Aegypti<\/em>, as Livy calls it (xlv. 11) of Pelusium. It was the clemency shewn by Antiochus in the battle near Pelusium he rode about among his troops, and would not permit them to massacre the defeated Egyptians that won for him the favour of the Egyptians, and facilitated considerably both his capture of Pelusium, and his subsequent conquest of Egypt (Diod. xxx. 14). After the fall of Pelusium, Eulaeus, it seems, persuaded Ptolemy to abandon his kingdom, and retire to Samothrace (Polyb. xxviii. 17 a ); but, apparently on the way thither, he was intercepted, and fell into his uncle’s hands. According to Jerome, Antiochus now, simulating friendship with his nephew, proceeded to Memphis, where ex more Aegypti<\/em> he was crowned [374] ; and pretending to be acting in Philometor’s interests ( puerique rebus se providere dicens<\/em>), succeeded in occupying the whole of Egypt (cf. 1Ma 1:18-20 ), an act in which, Jerome adds, tam callidus fuit, ut prudentes cogitationes eorum qui duces pueri erant, sua fraude subverteret<\/em> [375] . After this Antiochus prepared to return to Syria. Meanwhile, however, disturbances had arisen in Jerusalem. A rumour having been current of the death of Antiochus, Jason, the deposed and exiled high-priest (above, on Dan 9:26<\/span>), thought the opportunity a favourable one for recovering his former position; so he attacked Jerusalem with 1000 men, and compelled Menelaus to take refuge in the citadel, but misusing his success for the purpose of slaughtering his own countrymen, was obliged to retire again to the country of the Ammonites ( 2Ma 5:5-10 ). Antiochus, hearing of these proceedings, thought Jerusalem was in revolt: so on his return from Egypt, he made a dtour<\/em> through Judaea, and entering the city with his army, massacred many of the inhabitants, penetrated into the sanctuary, and carried away all the sacred vessels, as well as all the other gold and silver that he could find there ( 1Ma 1:20-24 ; also, probably with some exaggeration, 2Ma 5:11-17 ; 2Ma 5:21 : cf. Jos. B. J<\/em>. i. i. 1) [376] . In all this Antiochus was supported by Menelaus and his other Hellenizing friends among the Jews; indeed, according to Josephus ( Ant.<\/em> xii. Dan 11:3<\/span>) they opened the gates of Jerusalem to admit him.<\/p>\n [374] Cf. the coin, No. 4, on the Plate, p. 192.<\/p>\n [375] Hoffmann thinks that the first campaign against Egypt ended at Pelusium, his occupation of Egypt, mentioned above, in Jerome’s condensed account, belonging really to his second campaign.<\/p>\n [376] The statement in 2Ma 5:1 that these events took place on Antiochus’s return from his second<\/em> expedition into Egypt, appears to be erroneous.<\/p>\n Antiochus’ second expedition into Egypt<\/em> (b.c. 169). It was probably during Antiochus’ absence from Egypt that Philometor’s younger brother, Ptolemy Physcon (afterwards Euergetes II.), was proclaimed king in Alexandria. This led to Antiochus’ second<\/em> invasion of Egypt (b.c. 169), in which he gave out that he was acting from the honourable motive of restoring his nephew and ally, Philometor, to his lawful rights [377] , while, of course, in reality he was simply playing off one brother against the other with the object of securing all for himself. Having defeated the Egyptian fleet in a naval battle near Pelusium, he marched to Memphis, and then sailed down the Nile towards Alexandria. A little S. of Naukratis he was met by an embassy of Achaeans and others, who came on behalf of Physcon to treat for peace. Antiochus received the envoys courteously, and listened to their arguments. They cast the whole blame for what had occurred upon Lenaeus; and referring to Ptolemy’s youth, and his relationship to himself, entreated the king to lay aside his anger. Antiochus replied, stating at length the grounds on which he claimed Syria: it had been held by Antigonus, the founder of the Syrian empire, it had been afterwards ceded formally by the Macedonian kings to his son, Seleucus, and it had been conquered afresh by his own father, Antiochus the Great: the agreement, by which, as was alleged, it had been granted by Antiochus the Great to Cleopatra as a dowry (above, on Dan 11:17<\/em><\/span>) he entirely denied. Polybius adds that he convinced all who heard him of the justice of his contention ( ). After this, Antiochus sailed on to Naukratis, where he treated the inhabitants graciously, giving to every Greek resident a gold coin. He then proceeded to lay siege to Alexandria. During the siege an embassy of Rhodians approached Antiochus with proposals for peace; but these envoys he cut short in their arguments by remarking that “the kingdom belonged to Ptolemy Philometor, that with him he had long been at peace [viz. since he fell into his hands, after the battle of Pelusium], and they were both friends; if therefore the Alexandrians were prepared to call Philometor back, he would not stand in their way.” We do not know how long the siege of Alexandria continued; but the city must have suffered in it severely; Livy (xliv. 19) narrates how an embassy sent on behalf of Physcon to Rome, made a piteous appeal to the Senate, declaring that unless help were speedily forthcoming, the whole of Egypt would fall into the hands of Antiochus. C. Popillius Laenas, and two other envoys, were accordingly deputed by the Senate to terminate the war between the two kings, and to inform both that, whichever persisted in hostilities would not be regarded by the Romans as their friend or ally. However, before these envoys could reach Egypt, Antiochus, finding himself unable to take Alexandria, withdrew to Syria, leaving Philometor, cui regnum quaeri suis viribus simulabat ut victorem mox aggrederetur<\/em> (Livy xlv. 11), as nominal king at Memphis, and stationing a strong garrison in Pelusium.<\/p>\n [377] This was the speciosus titulus<\/em> with the help of which, by means of letters and embassies, he sought to win the sympathy of all the cities of Asia and Greece (Liv. xlv. 11).<\/p>\n Antiochus’ third expedition into Egypt<\/em> (b.c. 168). The garrison left in Pelusium, the ‘key of Egypt,’ opened Philometor’s eyes: it was evident that Antiochus wished to be in a position to return to Egypt with his army when he pleased, and also that the end of the war between the two brothers would be that the victor, whichever he was, would fall afterwards an easy prey to Antiochus. Accordingly Philometor made overtures of peace to Physcon, which, being seconded by Physcon’s friends, and warmly supported by his sister, Cleopatra, were listened to favourably: before long a reconciliation was effected and Philometor was received into Alexandria (Livy xlv. 11). As Livy drily remarks, if Antiochus’ real object had been to restore Philometor to his throne, he ought to have rejoiced at this reconciliation: in point of fact, however, he was so incensed at it, that he proceeded (b.c. 168) to attack the two brothers with far greater animosity ( multo acrius infestiusque<\/em>) than he had ever displayed towards the one. His fleet he sent on at once to Cyprus; he himself, at the beginning of spring, marched by land through Cle-Syria towards Egypt. At Rhinocolura, the border-stream of Egypt, he was met by the envoys of Philometor, who endeavoured to appease him by assuring him that their master gratefully recognized that it was by Antiochus’ help that he had regained his kingdom, and that he hoped the king would still continue to be his friend. Antiochus replied that he would recall neither his army nor his fleet unless the whole of Cyprus were ceded to him, as well as Pelusium, and the country about the Pelusiac arm of the Nile; and appointed a day before which Philometor should declare whether he accepted these terms or not. As no answer came within the stipulated time, Antiochus advanced to Memphis, was well received by the people, ‘partly from good-will, partly from fear,’ and then proceeded by leisurely stages to Alexandria. At Eleusis, four miles from Alexandria, he was met by Popillius Laenas and the other Roman legates. He offered Popillius his hand. The Roman held out to him the ultimatum of the Senate, and bade him first read that. Antiochus, having read it, replied that he would consider with his friends what he would do. Popillius, pro cetera asperitate animi<\/em> (cf. xlv. 10), drew with his staff a circle round the king; and bade him give his answer to the Senate before leaving that circle. Antiochus was taken aback at this unexpected demand; but, after a moment’s hesitation, he replied, ‘I will do what the Senate desires.’ Then Popillius took his proffered hand. Antiochus was obliged to evacuate Egypt by a specified day; the Roman legates then took measures to consolidate the peace between the two brothers, and sailing to Cyprus, obliged the forces of Antiochus (which had already obtained a victory over the Egyptian generals) to retire from the island. Both Philometor and Antiochus afterwards sent flattering and complimentary messages to the Senate (Livy xlv. 13). Thus ended Antiochus’ third<\/em> expedition into Egypt.<\/p>\n For the subsequent years of Antiochus’ reign, see on Dan 11:40<\/span>.<\/p>\n 21 45<\/strong>. Antiochus IV. (Epiphanes), 175 164.<\/p>\n And in his estate – <\/B>In his place. See the notes at Dan 11:7<\/span>, Dan 11:20<\/span>.<\/P> Shall stand up a vile person – <\/B>There shall succeed to the throne. The reference here is to Antiochus Epiphanes, who reigned from 175 b.c. to 163 b.c. The epithet vile here given him was one which his subsequent history showed was eminently appropriate to him in all respects, as a man and as a prince. The Hebrew word rendered vile – <\/span> nb<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>zeh<\/I> – properly means one despised or held in contempt, Isa 49:7<\/span>; Psa 22:6<\/span> (7). The meaning here is, that he was one who deserved to be despised, and who would be held in contempt – a man of a low, base, contemptible character. Vulgate, despectus<\/I>; Greek <\/SPAN><\/span> exoudenothe<\/I>; Luther, ein ungeachteter. Never were terms better applied to a man than these to Antiochus Epiphanes – both before and after his ascension to the throne. The manner of his seizing upon the crown is stated above. He was surnamed Epiphanes (<\/SPAN><\/span> Epiphanes<\/I>), the Illustrious, because, if we believe Appian, he vindicated the claims of the royal family against the usurpations of the foreigner Heliodorus. He also bore the name <\/SPAN><\/span> Theos<\/I>, God, which is still seen upon his coins.<\/P> But by his subjects he was called Epimanes (<\/SPAN><\/span> Epimanes<\/I>) the Insane, instead of Epiphanes – a name which he much more richly deserved. The following statement from Jahn (Heb. Commonwealth, ch. x. Section 92) will show with what propriety the term vile was applied to him: He often lounged like a mere idler about the streets of Antioch, attended by two or three servants, and not deigning to look at the nobles; would talk with goldsmiths and other mechanics in their workshops, engage in idle and trifling conversation with the lowest of the people, and mingle in the society of foreigners and men of the vilest character. He was not ashamed to go into the dissipated circles of the young, to drink and carouse with them, and to assist their merriment by singing songs and playing on his flute. He often appeared in the public baths among the common people, engaging in every kind of foolish jest, without the least regard to the dignity of his station and character. Not unfrequently he was seen drunk in the streets, when he would throw his money. about, and practice various other fooleries equally extravagant. He would parade the streets of his capital in a long robe, and with a garland of roses upon his head: and if any attempted to pass by or to follow him, he would pelt them with stones, which he carried concealed under his garments, etc. See also Appian in Syriacis, 45:70-75; Eusebius in Chronicon; Athenaeus, lib. v. p. 193; x. p. 438; Livy, xli. 20; Diod. Sic. Frag. xxvi. 65; xxxi. 7, 8; Prideaux, Con. iii. 212-214; 1 Macc. 1:9.<\/P> To whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom – <\/B>That is, the people. Or, in other words, it should not be conferred on him by any law or act of the nation, or in any regular succession or claim. The true heir to the crown was Demetrius, who was absent at Rome. On him the crown would have regularly devolved; but in his absence it was obtained by Antiochus by arts which he practiced, and not by any voluntary grant of the nation.<\/P> But he shall come in peaceably – <\/B>Quietly; without war or force; by art rather than by arms. Gesenius (Lexicon) renders the phrase used here in the midst of security; that is, unexpectedly, suddenly. The idea seems to be, that he would do it when the nation was not expecting it, or apprehending it; when they would be taken off their guard, and he would steal a march upon them. All this accorded with fact. The nation seemed not to have anticipated that Antiochus would attempt to ascend the throne on the death of his brother. But he quietly left Rome – while Demetrius, his nephew, the true heir to the crown, remained there; came to Athens, and learned what was the state of things in Syria, where Heliodorus had usurped the authority; made an agreement with the king of Pergamos to aid him, and, by the assistance of a part of the Syrians who were opposed to the usurper Heliodorus, deprived him of the authority, and himself took possession of the crown. No one seemed to suspect that this was his aim, or to doubt that his object was to remove an usurper that his nephew might be placed on the throne.<\/P> And obtain the kingdom by flatteries – <\/B><\/span> chalaq<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>laqqoth<\/I> – lubricitates, blanditioe. The word, says Elliott (Rev. iv. 133), has a double sense, being applied both to the slipperiness of a path, and the slipperiness or flattering and deceit of the tongue. In the former sense it occurs in Psa 35:6<\/span>, Let their way be dark and slippery; in the latter, its originating verb, Pro 2:16<\/span>; Pro 7:5<\/span>, The stranger that flattereth or dissembleth with his words; and Pro 29:5<\/span>, A man that flattereth (or dissembleth to) his neighbor. In this latter sense the verbal seems to be used both here and in the verses Dan 11:32<\/span>, Dan 11:34<\/span> below: arts of dissimulation. – Gesenius. The probable meaning here is, that he would obtain the throne by acts of dissembling, and by promises of rewards and offices. Such promises he would probably make to Eumenes, king of Pergamos, and to the Syrian nobles and people who espoused his cause. It would not be difficult to secure the aid of multitudes in this way, and the character of Antiochus was just such as to permit him to use any of these arts to accomplish his ends. Perhaps, also, he might hold out the hope of aid from the Romans, with whom he had long lived. It was no uncommon thing for an usurper to make his way by flattering certain classes of a people, and by promises of largesses, of offices, and of the removal of oppressive burdens. Compare Prideaux, Con. iii. 212. See also the case of Absalom in 2Sa 15:1-6<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 21. In his estate shall stand up a vile person<\/B><\/I>] This was Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes<\/I> – the Illustrious<\/I>. They did not give<\/I> him the honour of the kingdom<\/I>: he was at Athens, on his way from Rome, when his father died; and Heliodorus had declared himself king, as had several others. But Antiochus came in peaceably<\/I>, for he obtained the kingdom by flatteries<\/I>. He flattered Eumenes<\/I>, king of Pergamus, and Attalus<\/I> his brother, and got their assistance. He flattered<\/I> the Romans, and sent ambassadors to court their favour, and pay them the arrears of the tribute. He flattered<\/I> the Syrians, and gained their concurrence; and as he flattered<\/I> the Syrians, so they flattered him, giving him the epithet of Epiphanes<\/I> – the Illustrious<\/I>. But that he was what the prophet here calls him, a vile person<\/I>, is fully evident from what Polybius<\/I> says of him, from Athenaeus<\/I>, lib. v.: “He was every man’s companion: he resorted to the common shops, and prattled with the workmen: he frequented the common taverns, and ate and drank with the meanest fellows, singing debauched songs,” &c., &c. On this account a contemporary writer, and others after him, instead of Epiphanes<\/I>, called him Epimanes<\/I> – the Madman<\/I>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Antiochus called Epiphanes, i.e. illustrious; thus he was called by his flatterers and admirers: but the people of God accounted him contrary, i.e. infamous, base, treacherous, barbarous; such were his manners, and accordingly the angel calls him here a <\/P> vile person, the type of antichrist, Epimanes, a mad persecutor. <\/P> To whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom, i.e. neither peers nor people; nor was he the heir, but his nephew, or brother, Philopaters son, but he cheated him of the kingdom, and crept in by flatteries, i.e. he was a great flatterer of the Romans, as well as of his people, till he got up, and shut out Demetrius the son of Selencus; so vile a flatterer was he, that he would bathe in the same bath with mean people, to make them believe he was good-natured, and not proud. He soothed and courted the nobles with much kindness and presents, and said he was but guardian to his brothers son the heir, till he destroyed him. <\/P> <\/p>\n 21. vile<\/B>Antiochus calledEpiphanes, that is, “the illustrious,” for vindicating theclaims of the royal line against Heliodorus, was nicknamed, by a playof sounds, Epimanes, that is, “the madman,” for his madfreaks beneath the dignity of a king. He would carouse with thelowest of the people, bathe with them in the public baths, andfoolishly jest and throw stones at passers-by [POLYBIUS,26.10]. Hence, as also for his crafty supplanting of Demetrius, therightful heir, from the throne, he is termed “vile.” <\/P> they shall not give . . .kingdom: but . . . by flatteries<\/B>The nation shall not, by apublic act, confer the kingdom on him, but he shall obtain it byartifice, “flattering” Eumenes and Attalus of Pergamos tohelp him, and, as he had seen candidates at Rome doing, canvassingthe Syrian people high and low, one by one, with embraces [LIVY,41.20].<\/P><\/p>\n And in his estate shall stand up a vile person<\/strong>,…. Upon his basis or stand, in the same place where Seleucus Philopator stood, succeeded Antiochus Epiphanes his brother, called “vile”, being a very immoral man, given to drunkenness, lasciviousness, uncleanness, and unnatural lusts, and a violent persecutor of the church of God. The word signifies “despicable” p; he was a vile person, and justly condemned for his vices, and also for that mean and ignoble life he had lived at Rome, having been an hostage there for eleven or twelve years; and though the other hostages were changed at three years’ end, yet he remained; which shows what little account he was of even with his father; and was in no esteem with the people, among whom, by his freaks and frolics, he made himself very ridiculous; by rambling about streets with a servant or two; conversing with tradesmen about their trades; drinking with strangers, and people of low life; revelling at merry bouts with young people; putting on strange habits; throwing away his money among the rabble, and stones at those that followed him; washing at public baths among the common people; all which, and many others, are reported q of him by historians; hence he was called by some Epimanes the madman; though he took to himself the title of Epiphanes the “illustrious”, the reverse of his character. This is the little horn in Da 8:9<\/span> and who was an eminent type of antichrist, with whom his character agrees, as well as other things:<\/p>\n to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom<\/strong>; neither his father, nor his brother, nor the peers and people of the land of the kingdom of Syria; they never once thought of making him king; they neither chose him, nor called him, nor crowned him:<\/p>\n but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries<\/strong>; pretending to take it, not for himself, but for his nephew Demetrius, the son of his brother Seleucus, now an hostage at Rome, in his stead; so that the states opposed him not, but quietly admitted him, thinking all was safe for the rightful heir and successor; and when he had got possession for his nephew, he obtained it for himself by his flattering speeches to the nobles, and his gifts among the citizens, and his great pretensions to clemency and humanity; or these “flatteries” may refer to the artifices he used to gain Eumenes king of Pergamus, and Attalus his brother, to assist him against Heliodorus the usurper; and the promises of friendship and assistance against the Romans he made to them, and by whose help he came peaceably to the kingdom.<\/p>\n p “despectus”, Pagninus, Montanus; “contemptus”, Vatablus, Piscator, Tigurine version. q See Prideaux’s Connexion, par. 2. B. 3. p. 153, 154, Out of Athenaeus, Diodorus, &c. and the Universal History, vol. 9. p. 276, 277, 289, 290.<\/p>\n The further Unveiling of the Future<\/p>\n In this section we have (Dan 11:21<\/span>) first the description of the prince who, in striving after supremacy, sues all the means that cunning and power can contrive, and in his enmity against the holy covenant knows no bounds. This description is divided into two parts – (1) Dan 11:21-25<\/span>, and (2) vv. 36-12:3-which designate the two stadia of his proceedings. In the first part are described, (1) his gradual rising to power, Dan 11:21-24<\/span>; (2) his war with the king of the south for the supremacy, Dan 11:25-27<\/span>; (3) his rising up against the covenant people, even to the desecration of the sanctuary by the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the setting up of the abomination of desolation, Dan 11:28-32<\/span>; (4) the effect and consequence of this for the people of God, Dan 11:32-35<\/span>. This prince is the enemy of the holy God who is prophesied of in Dan 8:9-13<\/span>, Dan 8:23-25<\/span>, under the figure of the little horn, and is typically represented in the rising up of the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes against the covenant people and their worship of God.<\/p>\n The prince’s advancement to power<\/em>. – He appears as , one despised<\/em>, i.e., not such an one as by reason of birth has any just claim to the throne, and therefore as an intruder, also one who finds no recognition (Kranichfeld); which Hitzig has more definitely explained by mentioning that not Antiochus Epiphanes, but his nephew Demetrius, the son of the murdered Seleucus Philopator, was the true heir, but was of such a character that he was not esteemed worthy of the throne. , is despised<\/em>, not = bad<\/em>, unworthy<\/em>, but yet supposes unworthiness. There was not laid on him the honour or majesty of the kingdom. The dignity of the kingdom requires , splendour<\/em>, majesty<\/em>, such as God lays upon the king of Israel, Psa 21:6<\/span> (5), 1Ch 29:25<\/span>. But here the subject spoken of is the honour which men give to the king, and which was denied to the “despised one” on account of his character. He comes , in security<\/em>, i.e., unexpectedly (cf. Dan 8:25<\/span>), and takes possession of the kingdom. , to grasp<\/em>, here to draw violently to himself. , properly, by smoothnesses<\/em>, intrigues and cunning, not merely flatteries or smooth words, but generally hypocritical behaviour in word and deed; cf. Dan 11:34<\/span>.<\/p>\n Dan 11:22<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> The kingdom he seized he also knew how to hold fast with great power. , arms<\/em> (i.e., warlike strength) of an inundation<\/em>, i.e., armies overflowing the land are swept away before him, destroyed by yet stronger military forces. It is not merely the enemy, but also the “prince of the covenant,” whom he destroys. is analogous to , Gen 14:13<\/span>, and , Oba 1:7<\/span>, cf. Mal 2:14<\/span>, and, as the absence of the article shows, is to be taken in a general sense. The interpretation of of the high priest Onias III, who at the commencement of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes was driven from his office by his brother, and afterwards, at the instigation of Menelaus, was murdered by the Syrian governor Andronicus at Daphne near Antioch, 2 Macc. 4:1ff., 33ff. (Rosenmller, Hitzig, etc.) – this interpretation is not warranted by the facts of history. This murder does not at all relate to the matter before us, not only because the Jewish high priest at Antioch did not sustain the relation of a “prince of the covenant,” but also because the murder was perpetrated without the previous knowledge of Antiochus, and when the matter was reported to him, the murderer was put to death by his command (2 Macc. 4:36-38). Thus also it stands in no connection with the war of Antiochus against Egypt. The words cannot also (with Hvernick, v. Leng., Maurer, Ebrard, Kliefoth) be referred to the Egyptian king Ptolemy Philometor, because history knows nothing of a covenant entered into between this king and Antiochus Epiphanes, but only that soon after the commencement of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes the guardians of the young Philometor demanded Coele-Syria from Antiochus, which Antiochus the Great had promised as a dowry to his daughter Cleopatra, who was betrothed to Ptolemy Philometor, but Antiochus did not deliver it up, and hence a war arose between them. To this is to be added, that, as Dereser, v. Lengerke, Maurer, and Kranichfeld have rightly remarked, the description in Dan 11:22-24<\/span> bears an altogether general character, so that v. Leng. and Maurer find therein references to all the three expeditions of Antiochus, and in Dan 11:25-27<\/span> find more fully foretold what is only briefly hinted at in Dan 11:22-24<\/span>. The undertaking of the king against Egypt is first described in Dan 11:24<\/span>. We must therefore, with Kranichfeld, understand in undefined generality of covenant princes in general, in the sense already given.<\/p>\n Dan 11:23-24<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> In these verses there is a fuller statement of the manner in which he treats the princes of the covenant and takes possession of their territory. The at the beginning of Dan 11:23<\/span> is explicative, and the suffix in , pointing back to , is also to be interpreted collectively. , literally, “from the confederating himself with them” ( is infin. formed in the Syriac manner), i.e., from the time when he had made a covenant with them, he practised deceit. This was done by his coming ( of a warlike coming) and gaining strength with a few people, namely (Dan 11:24<\/span>), by his coming unexpectedly into the fattest and richest places of the province, and there doing unheard-of things – things which no previous king, no one of his predecessors, had ever done, scattering among them (his followers) spoil and prey and riches. Thus rightly, after the Syriac and the Vulgate ( dissipabit <\/em>), Rosenmller, Kranichfeld, and Ewald; while, on the contrary, v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig, and Kliefoth interpret in the sense of to distribute<\/em>, and refer the words to the circumstance that Antiochus Epiphanes squandered money lavishly, and made presents to his inferiors often without any occasion. But to distribute money and spoil is nothing unheard of, and in no way does it agree with the “fattest provinces.” The contest decidedly refers to conduct which injured the fat provinces. This can only consist in squandering and dissipating the wealth of this province which he had plundered to its injury ( [ to them], dativ. incommodi<\/em>). An historical confirmation is found in 1 Macc. 3:29-31. To bring the provinces wholly under his power, he devises plans against the fortresses that he might subdue them. , and indeed (he did this) even for a time. We cannot, with Klief., refer this merely to the last preceding passage, that his assaults against the fortresses succeeded only partly and for a time. The addition (“and that for a time”) denotes a period determined by a higher power (cf. Dan 11:24<\/span> and Dan 12:4<\/span>, Dan 12:6<\/span>), and relates to the whole proceedings of this prince hitherto described; as C. B. Michaelis has already rightly explained: nec enim semper et in perpetuum dolus ei succedet et terminus suus ei tandem erit <\/em>.<\/p>\n The Reign of Antiochus Epiphanes; Cruelty and Impiety of Antiochus; The Death of Antiochus.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 534.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. 22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant. 23 And after the league made<\/I> with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. 24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that<\/I> which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea,<\/I> and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time. 25 And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him. 26 Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain. 27 And both these kings’ hearts shall be<\/I> to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be<\/I> at the time appointed. 28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be<\/I> against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits,<\/I> and return to his own land. 29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter. 30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant. 31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice,<\/I> and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. 32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.<\/I> 33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many<\/I> days. 34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. 35 And some<\/I> of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them<\/I> white, even<\/I> to the time of the end: because it is<\/I> yet for a time appointed. 36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. 37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. 38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. 39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and<\/I> increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain. 40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. 41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries<\/I> shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even<\/I> Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. 42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be<\/I> at his steps. 44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. 45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.<\/P> All this is a prophecy of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn<\/I> spoken of before (ch.<\/I><\/span> viii. 9<\/span>) a sworn enemy to the Jewish religion, and a bitter persecutor of those that adhered to it. What troubles the Jews met with in the reigns of the Persian kings were not so particularly foretold to Daniel as these, because then they had living prophets with them, Haggai and Zechariah, to encourage them; but these troubles in the days of Antiochus were foretold, because, before that time, prophecy would cease, and they would find it necessary to have recourse to the written word. Some things in this prediction concerning Antiochus are alluded to in the New-Testament predictions of the antichrist, especially Dan 11:36<\/span>; Dan 11:37<\/span>. And as it is usual with the prophets, when they foretel the prosperity of the Jewish church, to make use of such expressions as were applicable to the kingdom of Christ,<\/I> and insensibly to slide into a prophecy of that, so, when they foretel the troubles of the church, they make use of such expressions as have a further reference to the kingdom of the antichrist, the rise and ruin of that. Now concerning Antiochus, the angel foretels here,<\/P> I. His character: He shall be a vile person.<\/I> He called himself Epiphanes–the illustrious,<\/I> but his character was the reverse of his surname. The heathen writers describe him to be an odd-humoured<\/I> man, rude and boisterous, base and sordid. He would sometimes steal out of the court into the city, and herd with any infamous company incognito–in disguise<\/I> he made himself a companion of the common sort, and of the basest strangers that came to town. He had the most unaccountable whims, so that some took him to be silly, others to be mad. Hence he was called Epimanes–the madman.<\/I> He is called a vile person,<\/I> for he had been a long time a hostage at Rome for the fidelity of his father when the Romans had subdued him; and it was agreed that, when the other hostages were exchanged, he should continue a prisoner at large.<\/P> II. His accession to the crown. By a trick he got his elder brother’s son, Demetrius, to be sent a hostage to Rome, in exchange for him, contrary to the cartel; and, his elder brother being made away with by Heliodorus (v.<\/I><\/span> 20<\/span>), he took the kingdom. The states of Syria did not give it<\/I> to him<\/I> (v.<\/I><\/span> 21<\/span>), because they knew it belonged to his elder brother’s son, nor did he get it by the sword, but came in peaceably,<\/I> pretending to reign for his brother’s son, Demetrius, then a hostage at Rome. But with the help of Eumenes and Attalus, neighbouring princes, he gained an interest in the people, and by flatteries obtained the kingdom,<\/I> established himself in it, and crushed Heliodorus, who made head against him with the arms of a flood;<\/I> those that opposed him were overflown<\/I> and broken before him,<\/I> even the prince of the covenant,<\/I> his nephew, the rightful heir, whom he pretended to covenant with that he would resign to him whenever he should return, v.<\/I><\/span> 22<\/span>. But (v.<\/I><\/span> 23<\/span>) after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully,<\/I> as one whose avowed maxim it is that princes ought not to be bound by their word any longer than it is for their interest. And with a small people,<\/I> that at first cleave to him, he shall become strong,<\/I> and (v.<\/I><\/span> 24<\/span>) he shall enter peaceably upon the fattest places<\/I> of the kingdom of Syria, and, very unlike his predecessors, shall scatter<\/I> among the people the prey, and the spoil, and riches,<\/I> to insinuate himself into their affections; but, at the same time, he shall forecast his devices against the strong-holds,<\/I> to make himself master of them, so that his generosity shall last but for a time; when he has got the garrisons into his hands he will scatter his spoil no more, but rule by force, as those commonly do that come in by fraud. He that comes in like a fox reigns like a lion. Some understand these verses<\/span> of his first expedition into Egypt, when he came not as an enemy, but as a friend and guardian to the young king Ptolemus Philometer, and therefore brought with him but few followers, yet those stout men, and faithful to his interest, whom he placed in divers of the strong-holds in Egypt, thereby making himself master of them.<\/P> III. His war with Egypt, which was his second expedition thither. This is described, Dan 11:25<\/span>; Dan 11:27<\/span>. Antiochus shall stir up his power and courage<\/I> against Ptolemus Philometer king of Egypt. Ptolemy, thereupon, shall be stirred up to battle<\/I> against him, shall come against him with a very great and mighty army;<\/I> but Ptolemy, though he has such a vast army, shall not be able to stand before him; for Antiochus’s army shall overthrow<\/I> his, and overpower it, and great multitudes of the Egyptian army shall fall down slain.<\/I> And no marvel, for the king of Egypt shall be betrayed by his own counsellors; those that feed of the portion of his meat,<\/I> that eat of his bread and live upon him, being bribed by Antiochus, shall forecast devices against him,<\/I> and even they shall destroy him;<\/I> and what fence is there against such treachery? After the battle, a treaty of peace shall be set on foot, and these two kings shall meet at one council-board,<\/I> to adjust the articles of peace between them; but they shall neither of them be sincere in it, for they shall, in their pretences and promises of amity and friendship, lie to one another,<\/I> for their hearts shall be at the same time to do one another all the mischief they can. And then no marvel that it shall not prosper.<\/I> The peace shall not last; but the end<\/I> of it shall be at the time appointed<\/I> in the divine Providence, and then the war shall break out again, as a sore that is only skinned over.<\/P> IV. Another expedition against Egypt. From the former he returned with great riches<\/I> (v.<\/I><\/span> 28<\/span>), and therefore took the first occasion to invade Egypt again, at the time appointed<\/I> by the divine Providence, two years after, in the eighth year of his reign, v.<\/I><\/span> 29<\/span>. He shall come towards the south.<\/I> But this attempt shall not succeed, as the two former did, nor shall he gain his point, as he had done before once and again; for (v.<\/I><\/span> 30<\/span>) the ships of Chittim shall come against him,<\/I> that is, the navy of the Romans, or only ambassadors from the Roman senate, who came in ships. Ptolemus Philometer, king of Egypt, being now in a strict alliance with the Romans, craved their aid against Antiochus, who had besieged him and his mother Cleopatra in the city of Alexandria. The Roman senate thereupon sent an embassy to Antiochus, to command him to raise the siege, and, when he desired some time to consider of it and consult with his friends about it, Popilius, one of the ambassadors, with his staff drew a circle about him, and told him, as one having authority, he should give a positive answer before he came out of that circle; whereupon, fearing the Roman power, he was forced immediately to give orders for the raising of the siege and the retreat of his army out of Egypt. So Livy and others relate the story which this prophecy refers to. He shall be grieved, and return;<\/I> for it was a great vexation to him to be forced to yield thus.<\/P> V. His rage and cruel practices against the Jews. This is that part of his government, or mis-government rather, which is most enlarged upon in this prediction. In his return from his expedition into Egypt (which is prophesied of, v.<\/I><\/span> 28<\/span>) he did exploits<\/I> against the Jews, in the sixth year of his reign; then he spoiled the city and temple. But the most terrible storm was in his return from Egypt, two years after, prophesied of v.<\/I><\/span> 30<\/span>. Then he took Judea in his way home; and, because he could not gain his point in Egypt by reason of the Romans interposing, he wreaked his revenge upon the poor Jews, who gave him no provocation, but had greatly provoked God to permit him to do it, Dan. viii. 23<\/span>.<\/P> 1. He had a rooted antipathy to the Jews’ religion: His heart<\/I> was against the holy covenant,<\/I>Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
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