Daniel 11:27

And both these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(27) Both these kings.—The two rival kings are here described as living upon terms of outward friendship, while each is inwardly trying to outwit the other. The context is opposed to any reference to the combination of Antiochus and Philometor against Physcon (see Livy, xlv. 11; Polyb. xxix. 8). The object of the paragraph is to show that the southern king was attempting to fight his rival with his own weapons—viz., deceit—but the plots of each king fail.

For yet . . .—i.e., the end of each will come only at the time definitely ordained by God for the consummation of His kingdom (Daniel 11:35). Man cannot hasten the events decreed by God’s providence. For an interesting commentary, read Isaiah 18:4-6.

Benson Commentary

Daniel 11:27. And both these kings’ hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table — Antiochus and Ptolemy Philometor often met together at Memphis, and frequently ate at the same table as friends, Antiochus pretending to take care of the interests of his nephew Philometor, especially after the Alexandrians had proclaimed his brother Euergetes king; and Philometor seemingly confiding in his uncle’s protection. But herein they were both insincere, designing to impose upon each other; Antiochus’s design being to seize the kingdom of Egypt to himself, and Philometor’s to disappoint that design, by coming to an agreement with Euergetes and the Alexandrians. But still these artifices did not prosper on either side; for neither did Antiochus obtain the kingdom, nor did Philometor utterly exclude him; but at last the pretended friendship broke out into open wars, which were not to have an end till the time appointed, which was not yet come.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

11:1-30 The angel shows Daniel the succession of the Persian and Grecian empires. The kings of Egypt and Syria are noticed: Judea was between their dominions, and affected by their contests. From ver. 5-30, is generally considered to relate to the events which came to pass during the continuance of these governments; and from ver. 21, to relate to Antiochus Epiphanes, who was a cruel and violent persecutor of the Jews. See what decaying, perishing things worldly pomp and possessions are, and the power by which they are gotten. God, in his providence, sets up one, and pulls down another, as he pleases. This world is full of wars and fightings, which come from men's lusts. All changes and revolutions of states and kingdoms, and every event, are plainly and perfectly foreseen by God. No word of God shall fall to the ground; but what he has designed, what he has declared, shall infallibly come to pass. While the potsherds of the earth strive with each other, they prevail and are prevailed against, deceive and are deceived; but those who know God will trust in him, and he will enable them to stand their ground, bear their cross, and maintain their conflict.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

And both these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief - Margin, "their hearts." The meaning is, that their hearts were set on some evil or unjust purpose. The reference here is, evidently, to Antiochus and Ptolemy Philometor, and the time alluded to is when Ptolemy was in the possession of Antiochus, and when they were together forming their plans. Antiochus invaded the country under pretenee of aiding Ptolemy and establishing him in the government, and for the same reason, under pretence of protecting him, he had him now in his possession. At first. also, it would seem that Ptolemy coincided with his plans, or was so far deceived by the acts of Antiochus as to believe in his friendship, and to unite with him in his schemes, for it is expressly said by the historians, as quoted above, that when Antiochus left Egypt, leaving Ptolemy at Memphis, and a strong garrison in Pelusium, Ptolemy began to see through his crafty designs, and to act accordingly. Until that time, however, he seems to have re garded the professions of Antiochus as sincere, and to have entered fully into his plans. To that fact there is allusion here; and the meaning is, that they were forming united schemes of evil - of conquests, and robbery, and oppression. The guiding spirit in this was undoubtedly Antiochus, but Ptolemy seems to have concurred in it.

And they shall speak lies at one table - At the same table. Ptolemy was a captive, and was entirely in the possession of Antiochus, but it was a matter of policy with the latter to hide from him as far as poossible the fact that he was a prisoner, and to treat him as a king. It is to be presumed, therefore, that he would do so, and that they would be seated at the same table; that is, that Ptolemy would be treated outwardly with the respect due to a king. In this familiar condition - in this state of apparently respectful and confidential intercourse - they would form their plans. Yet the devices of both would be "false" - or would be, in fact, "speak ing lies." Antiochus would be acting perfidiously throughout, endeavoring to impose on Ptolemy, and making promises, and giving assurances, which he knew to be false; and Ptolemy would be equally acting a deceitful part - entering into engagements which, perhaps, he did not intend to keep, and which would, at any rate, be soon violated. It is impossible now to know "how" he came into the hands of Antiochus - whether he surrendered himself in war; or whether he was persuaded to do it by the arts of his courtiers; or whether he was really deceived by Antiochus and supposed that he was his friend, and that his protection was necessary. On any of these suppositions it cannot be supposed that he would be very likely to be sincere in his transactions with Antiochus.

But it shall not prosper - The scheme con cocted, whatever it was, would not be successful. The plan of Antiochus was to obtain possession of the whole of Egypt, but in this he failed; and so far as Ptolemy entered into the scheme proposed by Antiochus, on pretence for the good of his country, it also failed. Whatever the purpose was, it was soon broken up by the fact that Antiochus left Egypt, and made war on Jerusalem.

For yet the end shall be at the time appointed - See Daniel 11:29. The end - the result - shall not be now, and in the manner contemplated by these two kings. It shall be at the time "appointed," to wit, by God, and in another manner. The whole case shall issue differently from what they design, and at the time which an over ruling Providence has designated. The "reason" implied here why they could not carry out their design was, that there was an "appointed time" when these affairs were to be determined, and that no purposes of theirs could be allowed to frustrate the higher counsels of the Most High.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

27. both … to do mischief—each to the other.

speak lies at one table—They shall, under the semblance of intimacy, at Memphis try to deceive one another (see on [1105]Da 11:3; [1106]Da 11:25).

it shall not prosper—Neither of them shall carry his point at this time.

yet the end shall be—"the end" of the contest between them is reserved for "the time appointed" (Da 11:29, 30).

Matthew Poole's Commentary

They shall speak lies at one table; they shall meet under pretence of peace, but ‘with treacherous intents on both sides; they both played the gipsies with each other at Memphis, where Ptolemy invited Antiochus to a feast. These interviews of neighbour kings jealous one of another have ever proved fatal, though under the smoothest pro. raises.

But it shall not prosper; for neither shall Antiochus gain Egypt by all his artifice, nor Ptolemy Syria.

At the time appointed, viz. by the Lord, whose purpose and counsel shall stand, whatever the devices of men’s hearts are.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And both these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief,.... Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, and Ptolemy Philometor, king of Egypt, the latter being now in the hands of the former; whether he was taken by him, or voluntarily came to him, is not certain; but though they seemed to carry it very friendly to one another, yet at the same time they were contriving in their minds to do as much mischief to each other as they could:

and they shall speak lies at one table: at an entertainment at Memphis, where they met to eat food together, which shows great familiarity; or at the council table, where they pretended to consult each other's good, and to secure the peace of both kingdoms, but imposed on each other with lies. Antiochus pretended a great respect for Ptolemy, and that he had nothing more at heart than to take care of his affairs, and defend him against his brother Euergetes, whom the Alexandrians had set up for king; when his design was no other than to seize the kingdom of Egypt for himself: on the other hand, Ptolemy seemed greatly satisfied with his uncle's protection, and to place great confidence in him; when his view was to disappoint his scheme, and come to an agreement with his brother; neither of them meant what they said:

but it shall not prosper; the consultations they held, the schemes they laid, succeeded not; the peace made between them did not last:

for yet the end shall be at the time appointed; by the Lord, by whom all events are predetermined; whose counsel shall stand, notwithstanding all the devices in the hearts of men, and of kings themselves: the end of this peace between these two kings, and the end of the wars between them, yea, the end of the two kingdoms, when they should cease, and come into other hands; all was fixed to a time appointed of God, and should surely come to pass, as he had decreed.

Geneva Study Bible

And both these kings' hearts shall be to do {e} mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for {f} yet the end shall be at the time appointed.

(e) The uncle and the nephew will make truce, and banquet together, yet in their hearts they will imagine mischief against one another.

(f) Signifying that it depends not on the counsel of men to bring things to pass, but on the providence of God, who rules the kings by a secret bridle, so that they cannot do what they themselves wish.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

27. And as for the two kings, their heart (shall be) for mischief; and at one table they shall speak lies] Antiochus and Philometor, after the latter had fallen into his uncle’s hands, were outwardly on friendly terms with one another; but their friendship was insincere, as is expressively shewn by the picture which the writer’s words suggest: sitting and eating at one table, they both in fact spoke lies,—Antiochus, in professing disinterestedness, as though his only object were to gain Egypt for his nephew’s benefit, (cui regnum quaeri suis viribus simulabat, Livy xlv.11), and Philometor in feigning that he believed his uncle’s assurances, and cherished for him gratitude and regard.

but it shall not prosper] The common plan, on which they were supposed to be agreed, the conquest of Egypt, ostensibly for Philometor, in reality for Antiochus.

for the end (remaineth) yet for the time appointed] matters will not yet be settled in Egypt: the end of Antiochus’ doings there belongs still to a time fixed in the future.

It must be admitted that some of the references in Daniel 11:25-27 (esp. in Daniel 11:27) would be more pointed and significant, if they could be supposed to allude to events in the second Egyptian campaign of Antiochus, as well as to events in the first. Upon the chronology adopted above (which is that of most modern historians), this can only be, if the author, neglecting the strict chronological sequence, throws the first two Egyptian campaigns together, and then (Daniel 11:28) proceeds to describe the attack upon Jerusalem. We do not, however, possess any continuous narrative of the events of Antiochus’ reign; nor does there seem to be any express statement that Antiochus returned to Syria, or even that he left Egypt, at the close of what is described above as his ‘first’ Egyptian expedition; hence it is possible that Mahaffy[380] is right in his contention that Antiochus’ first two campaigns (as they are commonly called) were in reality only two stages in one campaign—the first stage ending at Pelusium, and the second embracing the conquest of Egypt, and both belonging to the year b.c. 170. If this view be adopted, the attack upon Jerusalem (Daniel 11:28; 1Ma 1:20-24) will come at the end of what is called above the ‘second’ Egyptian expedition (but thrown back now to b.c. 170)[381], and both that and the ‘first’ Egyptian expedition will be summarized in Daniel 11:25-28 and 1Ma 1:16-19.

[380] Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 494 f., cf. pp. 333–337, 340. So Wellhausen, Isr. und Jüd. Gesch. (1894), p. 203 n. (ed. 3, 1897, p. 246 n.).

[381] An interval of two years between this attack upon Jerusalem, and the persecuting edict of b.c. 168 is required by the dates in 1Ma 1:20 and 1Ma 1:29; 1Ma 1:54.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 27. - And both these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed. The Septuagint Version is, "And two kings shall dine alone at the same time, and eat at one table, and they shall speak lies, and they shall not prosper." The translator has read לבדם instead of לבבם. Theodotion is closer to the Massoretic, agreeing in this with the Peshitta and Vulgate. The probable reference is to Ptolemy Philometor, conveyed practically a prisoner with his uncle's army, while Epiphanes carried on his invasion of Egypt. They dined at one table, and probably deceived each the other. The purpose of Ptolemy was to get his usurping brother Physcon dethroned; the object of Antiochus was to possess Egypt for himself. Rashi sees in this a reference to the quarrels and reconciliations which diversified the conflict between John Hyrcanus II. and his brother Aristobulns. Jephet-ibn-Alimakes the two kings mean Arabia and Rome, since, according to him, these are respectively the kings of the south and of the north. Yet the end shall be at the time appointed. The progress of Antiochus was interrupted by the Romans. Daniel 11:27

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Here then is described how the two kings seek through feigned friendship to destroy one another. The two kings are of course the two kings of the north and the south previously named. Of a third, namely, of two kings of Egypt, Philometor and Physkon, Daniel knows nothing. The third, Physkon, is introduced from history; and hence Hitzig, v. Lengerke, and others understand by the "two kings," the two kings Antiochus and Philometor confederated against the king of the south, but Kliefoth, on the contrary, thinks of Antiochus and Physkon, the latter of whom he regards as the king of the south, Daniel 11:25. All this is arbitrary. Jerome has already rejected the historical evidence for this, and remarks: verum ex eo, quia scriptura nunc dicit: duos fuisse reges, quorum cor fuerit fraudulentum ... hoc secundum historiam demonstrari non potest. למרע לבבם Hitzig translates: "their heart belongs to wickedness," contrary to the context. ל denotes also here only the direction: "their heart goes toward wicked deeds," is directed thereto. מרע (from רעע), formed after מצר (cf. Ewald, 160a), the evil-doing, consists in this, that the one seeks to overthrow and destroy the other under the cloak of feigned friendship; for they eat as friends at one table, and "speak lies" - the one tells lies to the other, professing friendship. But their design shall not succeed. All interpretations of these words which are determined by historical facta are arbitrary. The history of Antiochus Epiphanes furnishes no illustrations for this. In the sense of the prophecy תצלח לא has only this meaning: the design of the king of the north to destroy the king of the south, and to make himself master both of the north and the south, shall not succeed, and the king of the south will not fulfil what he promises to his deceitful adversary. For yet the end shall be at the time appointed. These words state the reason why the מרע shall not succeed. Hitzig incorrectly translates: "but the end holds onwards to the appointed time;" for כּי cannot in this connection be rendered by but, and ל cannot express the idea of holding to anything. ל denotes here, as generally, the direction toward the end, as Daniel 11:35, and Daniel 8:17, Daniel 8:19. The end goes yet on to the time appointed by God. That this מועד (appointment of time) does not lie in the present, but in the future, is denoted by עוד, although we do not, with Hvernick, interpret עוד by "for the end lies yet further out," nor, with v. Lengerke and Maurer, may we supply the verb "withdraws itself, is reserved." עוד stands before קץ because on it the emphasis lies. קץ is, however, not the end of the war between Antiochus and Egypt (v. Leng., Maur., Hitzig), but cannot be otherwise taken than קץ עת, Daniel 11:35, Daniel 11:40, and Daniel 12:4. But in the latter passage קץ עת is the time of the resurrection of the dead, thus the end of the present course of the world, with which all the oppression of the people of God ceases. Accordingly קץ in the verse before us, as in Daniel 11:35, Daniel 11:40, is the time in which the conduct of the kings previously described, in their rising up and in their hostility against the people of God, reaches its end (Daniel 11:45); and with the overthrow of these enemies the period of oppression also comes to an end. This end comes only למועד, at the time which God has determined for the purifying of His people (Daniel 11:35). So long may the kings of the north and the south prosecute their aims; so long shall they strive for the possession of the kingdom without succeeding in their plans. למועד has here and in Daniel 11:35 the definite article, because in both verses the language refers not to any definite time, but to the time determined by God for the consummation of His kingdom. The placing of the article in this word in the verse before us is not, with Kliefoth, to be explained from a reference to Daniel 8:17, Daniel 8:19. The two revelations are separated from each other by too long a space of time for this one to refer back to that earlier one by the mere use of the article, although both treat of the same subject. The למועד occurs besides in Daniel 11:29, where it is natural to suppose that it has the same meaning as here; but the contents of the verse oppose such a conclusion. Daniel 11:29 treats, it is true, of a renewed warlike expedition against the south, which, however, brings neither the final deciding of the war with the south (cf. Daniel 11:40), nor yet the end of the oppression of the people of God; המועד is thus only the time determined for the second aggression against the south, not the time of the end.