Daniel 11:26 · Bible study
Daniel 11:26 Commentary: Treachery at the Table
Hebrew · 11 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Who betrays the king? Commentators identify the 'eaters of his delicacies' as trusted courtiers whose treason causes military disaster.
Research Summary
- Meaning: The king of the south is betrayed by his own courtiers, leading to a military defeat with many casualties.
- Key words: 'Eaters of his patbag' (פתבג), those who share the king's choice provisions; 'overflow' (שׁטף), to sweep away, overwhelm.
- Main debate: Whether the army that 'overflows' is the king of the south's (swept away) or the king of the north's (sweeping).
- Theological theme: Human treachery under God's sovereign plan; the vulnerability of misplaced trust.
- Best use: Teaching on the reliability of God versus human allies; as background to the betrayal of Christ.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
Those who eat from his provisions will seek to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall slain.
WEB World English Bible 2000
Yes, those who eat of his delicacies will destroy him, and his army will be swept away. Many will fall down slain.
KJV King James Version 1769
Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
Yea, they that eat of his dainties shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
and those eating his portion of food destroy him, and his force overfloweth, and fallen have many wounded.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And they that eat of his delicate food shall break him, and his army shall be dissolved; and many shall fall down slain.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And they that eat bread with him, shall destroy him, and his army shall be overthrown: and many shall fall down slain.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Aun los que comerán su pan, le quebrantarán; y su ejército será destruído, y caerán muchos muertos.
Até os que comerem de sua comida o destruirão; e seu exército será repelido, e muitos cairão mortos.
Ceux qui mangeront des mets de sa table causeront sa perte; ses troupes se répandront comme un torrent, et les morts tomberont en grand nombre.
Und eben die sein Brot essen, die werden ihn helfen verderben und sein Heer unterdrücken, daß gar viele erschlagen werden.
En die de stukken zijner spijze zullen eten, zullen hem breken, en de heirkracht deszelven zal overstromen, en vele verslagenen zullen vallen.
Quelli che mangeranno alla sua mensa saranno la sua rovina, il suo esercito si dileguerà come un torrente, e molti cadranno uccisi.
Bo ci, którzy jedzą chleb jego, zniszczą go, gdy wojsko onego jako powódź przypadnie, a pobitych wiele polęże.
Даже участники трапезы его погубят его, и войско его разольется, и падет много убитых.
吃 王膳的，必敗壞他；他的軍隊 必被沖沒，而且被殺 的甚多。
And his fears will overcome him and be the cause of his downfall, and his army will come to complete destruction, and a great number will be put to the sword.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Daniel 11:26
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators consistently identify the treachery in this verse as the betrayal of the king of the south (Ptolemy Philometor) by his own trusted associates. Calvin notes the angel specifies 'the kind of treachery', not common soldiers but the king's chief counselors who ate at his table. Clarke, Barnes, and Gill concur: those who were in his pay and confidence betrayed him, leading to his defeat. Keil and Delitzsch read 'his table-companions' and cite Psalm 41:9 as a parallel. The Hebrew phrase 'eaters of his patbag' (פַּת־בָּג) echoes Daniel 1:5, designating those who shared the king's choice food, a sign of honor that makes the betrayal more severe. The result: the king's army 'overflows' (יִשְׁטוֹף), likely indicating it is swept away, and many fall slain. The consensus holds that this verse explains why the king of the south cannot stand in battle (v.25): internal betrayal, not just external force, brings him down.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Betrayal of the king of the south: The pronouns in v.25b-26 refer to Philometor; his table companions break him and his army is swept away (Calvin, Barnes, Keil).
- Betrayal of the king of the north: Some interpreters read 'his army shall overflow' as Antiochus' army overwhelming Egypt, implying the betrayers serve Antiochus.
- Textual repointing for passive: Cambridge Bible proposes reading יִשָּׁטֵף as passive so the army of the south is clearly the one swept away.
What is clear: Betrayal by those who shared the king's table leads to a military defeat with many casualties. The prophecy is set within the conflict between the king of the north and the king of the south.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Identity of the betrayers | They are the king's table companions, the ones who shared his choice food (patbag). | Most commentators identify them as Ptolemy Philometor's courtiers (Eulaeus, Lenaeus, etc.), but a few argue the verse might refer to Antiochus Epiphanes' own men. The supplied sources overwhelmingly support the Ptolemy interpretation. |
| Whose army overflows? | The result is a military disaster with many slain. | Calvin, Barnes, and Clarke treat the overflow as the sweeping away of the king of the south's army. Gill and Keil view it as Antiochus' army overwhelming Egypt. The ambiguous pronoun reference fuels the difference. |
| Historical campaign referenced | The context is Antiochus Epiphanes' invasion of Egypt against Ptolemy Philometor (c. 170-168 BC). | Some (e.g., Lange) apply it to the second Egyptian war against Physcon; others (e.g., Keil) argue it is the first war. Both agree the core fulfillment lies in the Maccabean period. |
| Theological significance of betrayal | The verse underscores the pain and danger of treachery from those closest to a leader. | Historic Protestants often read the entire chapter as a type of Antichrist, with the betrayal pointing to the apostasy of the end times. Other traditions keep it strictly historical. |
Historical & Cultural Context
This verse sits within Daniel 11's detailed prophecy of conflict between the king of the north and the king of the south, widely understood by commentators to describe the wars of Antiochus Epiphanes against Ptolemy Philometor (mid-2nd century BC). Verse 25 sets the scene: the king of the south mobilizes a massive army but 'will not stand' because 'they devise plans against him.' Verse 26 names the planners: those who eat his delicacies.
The Hebrew phrase 'eaters of his patbag' appears only in Daniel (1:5, 8, 11:26). In ancient Near Eastern courts, sharing a king's table meant receiving his personal provision and protection, and it implied reciprocal loyalty (compare 2 Samuel 9:11; 1 Kings 2:7). To be betrayed by such men was a deep violation of trust. Several commentaries link this to Psalm 41:9, 'my own familiar friend, who ate bread with me, has lifted up his heel against me', making the treachery almost a type of the betrayer.
Historically, defenders of Ptolemy Philometor blame the disastrous counsel of his guardians Eulaeus and Lenaeus for provoking the war, and later one of them (Eulaeus) urged the king to flee after the battle of Pelusium (Cambridge Bible). Ptolemy's defeat is described in 1 Maccabees 1:18: 'Ptolemy was afraid of him and fled, and many were wounded to death.' The verb 'overflow' (שָׁטַף) recurs at Daniel 11:10 and 11:22 to picture overwhelming military force. The commentators differ on whether the army 'overflowed' is the south's swept away or the north's sweeping, but the outcome is the same: the king who trusted his companions loses everything.
Textual Notes
The Masoretic Text reads יִשְׁטוֹף (yishṭôf, Qal imperfect 3ms) in the clause 'his army shall overflow.' The Cambridge Bible suggests repointing the verb as a passive (יִשָּׁטֵף, 'shall be swept away') to clarify the subject as the king of the south's army. No manuscript evidence supports this change; it remains an interpretive proposal. The primary difficulty is not textual but pronominal, the referent of 'his' in verses 25-26 shifts between the king of the south and the king of the north. The supplied commentaries do not note any significant manuscript variants.
Reception History
Early Christian readers, notably Jerome, treated Daniel 11 as a straightforward prophecy of Antiochus Epiphanes, fulfilled in the Maccabean period. Verse 26 was understood as part of that detailed historical prediction. During the Reformation, commentators such as Calvin and Matthew Henry read the chapter as both a literal record and a typological foreshadowing of the Antichrist's persecution of the church. The betrayal at the table theme occasionally appeared in passion week sermons, linked to Judas (Psalm 41:9 cited in John 13:18). In more recent scholarship, the debate over the exact historical referent (first or second Egyptian campaign) has overshadowed doctrinal use, but the verse continues to serve as a warning against trusting human alliances over divine purpose.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The Betrayers, 'Those who eat of his delicacies' points to the king's innermost circle. When trust is placed in human loyalty, it can fail at the critical moment.
- The Outcome, The army is swept away; many fall slain. No matter how strong the defenses, internal division can undo them.
- The Sovereign over Treachery, The prophecy is not a warning to be more cautious; it is a declaration that God controls even the plots of traitors. The appointed end (v.27, 29, 35) will come.
Five-point outline
- Dinner at the palace, The honor of eating at the king's table (patbag, Dan 1:5) becomes the setting for conspiracy.
- Trust betrayed, The closest advisors turn.
- Battle lost, Because of treason, the king cannot stand.
- Army overwhelmed, Even a great force cannot save when the leaders have sold out.
- Many fallen, The cost of betrayal is measured in bodies on the field.
Illustration hooks
- A company CFO quietly shares trade secrets with a competitor while the CEO is distracted with a crisis.
- A political campaign collapses when a key staffer leaks strategy to the opposition.
- A friend who has always been welcomed into your home spreads rumors about you to others.
Questions your congregation is asking
- How can I know who I can truly trust?
- When others let me down, does it mean God has lost control?
- Does this verse have any relevance beyond ancient history?
Leading a Discussion
This verse calls us to consider the fragility of human trust and the sovereignty of God over every scheme. As you discuss, reflect on how the Bible consistently shows that no betrayal catches God by surprise, and that the greatest betrayal (Judas at the Last Supper) became the entry point for redemption.
Discussion questions
- Read Daniel 11:25-26 together. Who are the 'those who eat of his delicacies' according to the commentators you've read?
- Why is betrayal by a close friend or advisor especially devastating? How does the phrase 'eat of his delicacies' intensify the treachery?
- Look at Psalm 41:9. How does this verse echo the experience of David, and later, Jesus (John 13:18)?
- Verse 26 says the army 'shall overflow.' What do you think that means in this context? How does the different interpretation (whose army is it?) affect your reading?
- What does this prophecy teach us about God's control over human events, even the sinful actions of traitors?
- In what situations might you be tempted to trust in human alliances rather than in God? How can this verse warn or encourage you?
- How does seeing this verse as part of a long chain of prophecies (the appointed time in v.27, 35) give you hope when you see betrayals in the world today?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| II Samuel 4:2 | Saul’s son had two men who were captains of raiding bands. The name of one was Baanah and the name of the other Rechab, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, of the children of Benjamin (for Beeroth also is considered a part of Benjamin; |
| II Samuel 4:12 | David commanded his young men, and they killed them, cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged them up beside the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ishbosheth and buried it in Abner’s grave in Hebron. |
| II Kings 8:14 | Then he departed from Elisha, and came to his master, who said to him, “What did Elisha say to you?” He answered, “He told me that you would surely recover.” |
| II Kings 10:6 | Then he wrote a letter the second time to them, saying, “If you are on my side, and if you will listen to my voice, take the heads of the men who are your master’s sons, and come to me to Jezreel by tomorrow this time.” Now the king’s sons, being seventy persons, were with the great men of the city, who brought them up. |
| II Kings 10:9 | In the morning, he went out and stood, and said to all the people, “You are righteous. Behold, I conspired against my master and killed him, but who killed all these? |
| Psalms 41:9 | Yes, my own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, who ate bread with me, has lifted up his heel against me. |
| Daniel 11:10 | His sons will wage war, and will assemble a multitude of great forces which will come on, and overflow, and pass through. They will return and wage war, even to his fortress. |
| Daniel 11:22 | The overwhelming forces will be overwhelmed from before him, and will be broken. Yes, also the prince of the covenant. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
11 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke highlights that the king's own trusted officials, who shared his table and were in his pay, were the ones who betrayed him. Their inside knowledge of state secrets allowed them to destroy both him and his army from within, leading to his defeat.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes identifies the betrayers as the king’s own inner circle — those fed at his table and trusted as counselors. They turn treacherous because, seeing Antiochus’s power, they doubt their king can hold out. The king’s army is vast like overflowing water, yet many still fall slain in battle.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin stresses that the king's most trusted counselors, those who eat at his table, are the ones who betray him. This illustrates a broader pattern: rulers select advisors based on shared appetites rather than integrity, and they reap the treachery they deserve.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentary argues that the pronouns in this verse refer to Ptolemy Philometor, not Antiochus. The phrase “they that eat of his delicacies” points to Philometor’s own courtiers who betray him. The word for “overflow” should be read as passive, describing Philometor’s army being swept away, not Antiochus’s.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The note highlights that the king’s own trusted associates, those who eat from his own table, will turn against him and cause his destruction. His army will be overwhelmed, and many will fall in battle.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill identifies a betrayal from within: the king of Egypt's own advisors and generals caused his defeat through bad counsel or corruption. Then Antiochus's army swept through like a flood, overwhelming all resistance and leaving many dead.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB highlights a bitter irony: the very people the king relied on, his inner circle and his vast army, become the instruments of his defeat. Their numbers, which should guarantee victory, instead hasten disaster through poor management, and many of his own side fall in battle.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch interprets this conflict as unfolding under divine decree: the king of the north is stirred up by God, and the king of the south falls not by military defeat but by treachery from his own table-companions. The two kings' mutual deceit will fail because God has set an appointed time for the end.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange argues that the detailed wars between northern and southern kingdoms in this chapter are not entirely original prophecy. He sees the central section as a later Maccabean addition, where scribes inserted precise historical events to make the prediction appear perfectly fulfilled. Only the opening and closing verses belong to Daniel's genuine prophetic work.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry focuses on the character of Antiochus Epiphanes as a "vile person" who seizes power through flattery and deceit rather than rightful honor. He observes that Antiochus directs his treachery especially against the holy covenant, using lies and betrayal to attack God's people, yet all his schemes remain under God's sovereign timetable and ultimately do not prosper.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley highlights that the destruction will strike the figure's closest friends and confidants, not just distant enemies. The comparison to the Nile's overflow suggests a sudden, overwhelming slaughter that sweeps away even those nearest to him.