========================================================================
  WORLD HISTORY FROM DARIUS TO THE TIME OF THE END
  by John F. Walvoord
========================================================================

Summary: The book of Daniel contains a detailed and specific prophecy of
the future, which corresponds closely to history, confirming its
accuracy and divine inspiration.

Topics: "End Times", "Antichrist Prophecy"
Scripture References: Daniel 11:36-45

------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this sermon, John F. Walvoord delves into the detailed prophecy of
Daniel 11, highlighting the transition from the historical fulfillment
of events with Antiochus Epiphanes to the future unfulfilled prophecies
concerning the end times. The passage shifts to describe a king who
exalts himself above all gods, speaks blasphemous words against the God
of gods, and prospers until the appointed time of indignation. This
king, whether a Jew or a Roman world ruler, is depicted as a tyrant who
disregards all deities, including the Messianic hope symbolized by 'the
desire of women.' The sermon emphasizes the importance of understanding
the symbolic nature of the text in relation to the future reign of the
Antichrist and the ultimate triumph of God's kingdom.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The long introduction of chapter 10 to the fourth and final vision given
to Daniel is followed in chapter 11 by the revelation of important
events beginning with Darius the Mede (539 b.c.) and extending to the
last Gentile ruler in the time of the end. Chapter 11 naturally divides
into two major sections. The first, verses 1-35, describes the major
rulers of the Persian Empire and then gives in great detail some of the
major events of the third empire following Alexander the Great,
concluding with Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 b.c. ). The entire period
from the death of Antiochus Epiphanes to the time of the end is skipped
over with no reference to events of the present church age, and the
second section, verses 36-45, deals with the last Gentile ruler who will
be in power when Christ comes in His second advent. This is followed in
chapter 12 by further prophecy of the last 1335 days, a period including
the great tribulation, the second advent, and the beginning of the fifth
or millennial kingdom. Probably no other portion of Scripture presents
more minute prophecy than Daniel 11:1-35, and this has prompted the
sharpest attack of critics seeking to discredit this prophetic portion.

Interestingly enough, it was the eleventh chapter of Daniel with its
detailed prophecy of about two hundred years of history that prompted
the heathen philosopher Porphyry (third century a.d. ) to attack the
book of Daniel as a forgery. In his study, Porphyry established the fact
that history corresponded closely to the prophetic revelation of Daniel
11:1-35, and the correspondence was so precise that he was persuaded
that no one could have prophesied these events in the future.
Accordingly, he solved the problem by taking the position that the book
of Daniel was written after the events occurred, that is, it was written
in the second century B.C. This attack prompted Jerome to defend the
book of Daniel and to issue his own commentary, which for over one
thousand years thereafter was considered the standard commentary on the
book of Daniel. As Wilbur Smith has said, âThe most important single
work produced by the Church Fathers on any of the prophetic writings of
the Old Testament, commenting upon the original Hebrew text, and showing
a complete mastery of all the literature of the Church on the subjects
touched upon to the time of composition, is without question St.
Jeromeâs Commentary on the Book of Daniel.â578

The controversy between Jerome and Porphyry has characterized discussion
of the book of Daniel ever since, as has been noted in earlier
discussion. Here, however, the lines are clearly drawn as the prophecy
is detailed and specific, and fulfillment has already occurred. Daniel
11:1-35 is either the most precise and accurate prophecy of the future,
fully demonstrating its divine inspiration, or as Porphyry claimed, it
is a dishonest attempt to present history as if prophesied centuries
earlier. Modern critics of Daniel have not gone much beyond the basic
premise of Porphyry, namely, that such detailed prophecy is impossible,
and, therefore, absurd and incredible.579

Farrar, expressing the criticsâ point of view in a modern setting,
introduces his chapter on Daniel 11 with this summary:

If this chapter were indeed the utterance of a prophet in the Babylonian
Exile, nearly four hundred years before the eventsâevents of which many
are of small comparative importance in the worldâs historyâwhich are
here so enigmatically and yet so minutely depicted, the revelation would
be the most unique and perplexing in the whole Scriptures. It would
represent a sudden and total departure from every method of Godâs
providence and of Godâs manifestations of His will to the mind of the
prophets. It would stand absolutely and abnormally alone as an
abandonment of the limitations of all else which has ever been
foretold.580

Leupold observes that Farrarâs criticism was answered long before he
made it by Hengstenberg and others who cite numerous passages in the
Bible of detailed prophecy which at least support the idea that prophecy
can be detailed and specific.581

A case in point is the whole subject of Messianic prophecy which
predicted the coming of Christ with hundreds of details. The Median
conquest of Babylon as a result of the drying up of the Euphrates River
and the Babylonian drunken feast is anticipated in detail in Jeremiah
50-51 (note especially 50:38; 51:32, 36, 39, 57). Other illustrations
include Isaiah 13:17-18; 21:1-10. In a similar way, prophecies
concerning Syria, Phoenicia, Tyre, Gaza, Askelon, Ashdod, and the
Phihstines are given in Zechariah 9:1-8. Actually, however, proof texts
are not needed, as the issue is a clear-cut question as to whether God
is omniscient about the future. If He is, revelation may be just as
detailed as God elects to make it; and detailed prophecy becomes no more
difficult or incredible than broad predictions.

Keil attempts to mediate between the skeptic and the position that this
is detailed prophecy by distinguishing between prediction of details and
prophecy in general. Accordingly, he considers it unimportant whether
the details of the prophecy precisely correspond to history as only the
general fact that world kingdoms will not endure and in the end the
people of God will be delivered constitutes the burden of this passage.
Keil states,

Accordingly, the revelation has this as its object, to show how the
heathen world-kingdoms shall not attain to an enduring stability, and by
their persecution of the people of God shall only accomplish their
purification, and bring on the end, in which, through their destruction,
the people of God shall be delivered from all oppression and be
transfigured. In order to reveal this to him (that it must be carried
forward to completion by severe tribulation), it was not necessary that
he should receive a complete account of the different events which would
take place in the heathen world-power in the course of time, nor have it
especially made prominent that their enmity shall first come to a
completed manifestation under the last king who should arise out of the
fourth world-kingdom.582

In making this concession to the critics, Keil concedes far more than
the record requires. If the text is properly interpreted, the alleged
historical errors fade; and Danielâs record stands accurate and
complete, although not without problems of interpretation such as are
true in any prophetic utterance. The expositor of this portion of
Scripture has no convenient compromise between the two diverse views.
Either this is genuine prophecy or it is not. The fact that it
corresponds so closely to history should be, instead of a basis for
criticism, a marvelous confirmation that prophecy properly understood is
just as accurate as history. As has been previously pointed out, the
attack on the prophecies of Daniel always fall short. The fulfillment of
the complete revelation anticipates a situation yet future and could not
be considered history even from the point of view of an alleged second-
century Daniel.

In attempting the difficult exegesis of this portion, the general
principle should be observed that prophecy, as far as it goes, is
accurate, but that prophecy is selective. The revelation does not
contain all the history of the period nor name all the rulers. It is not
always possible to determine why some facts are included and others
excluded. But the total picture of struggle and turmoil which
characterized the period of the third empire is portrayed by special
reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, who is given more space than any other
ruler in this chapter because of the relevance of his activities to the
people of Israel.

Four Important Kings of Medo-Persia

11:1-2 Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to
confirm and to strengthen him. And now will I show thee the truth.
Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth
shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his
riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.

The opening verse of chapter 11 is often considered the closing verse of
chapter 10. In it, the angel, seen in 10:18, declares his support to
confirm and strengthen Darius the Mede from the very beginning of his
reign in Babylon. The statement that the angel âstoodâ in verse 1 is
probably used in sensu bellico s. militari, that is, standing as in a
military conflict against the enemy, as in 10:13. His stand is usually
taken as being in support of Darius the Mede, âto confirm and strengthen
him,â but it is possible that âhimâ refers not to Darius the Medeâfor
the angel must fight against the prince of Persia (10:13)âbut to
Michael, the prince of Israel, on whose side he contends (10:21). In the
first year of Darius the Mede when the world power passed from the
Babylonian to the Medo-Persian, the angel stood by Michael, the guardian
of Israel, until he succeeded in turning the new kingdom from hostility
to favor toward Israel. The story of chapter 6 demonstrates that efforts
were made in the first year of Darius to make him hostile toward Israel.
But God sent His angel on that occasion and shut the lionsâ mouths (Dan
6:22). The miraculous deliverance by the angel caused Darius the Mede to
reverse his policies to favor Israel (6:24-27). The beginning of the
second great empire with the fall of Babylon in chapter 5 was, then,
more than a military conquest or triumph of the armies of the Medes and
Persians. It was a new chapter in the divine drama of angelic warfare
behind the scenes, and the change was by divine appointment.

The survey of history provided in the opening verses of chapter 11 fixes
the prophecy as dealing with a period later than Nebuchadnezzarâs dream
but coinciding with the prophecy of chapter 8 of the ram and he goat.
Porteous expresses it this way:

The survey of history begins at a slightly later point than in
Nebuchadnezzarâs dream (ch. 2) and in Danielâs vision of the beasts (ch.
7), but at the same point as in Danielâs vision of the ram and the he-
goat (ch. 8). In fact, we are now given the amplification in detail of
that vision, the various kings appearing in propria persona and no
longer disguised as horns of heraldic beasts. Like Macbeth in the
witchesâ cave, Daniel is supposedly permitted to see king after king
appearing on the stage of history, strutting out his part and making way
for his successor.583

With the passing of the Babylonian Empire, the natural question arose
concerning the future of the Medo-Persian Empire. Concerning this, the
angel announces, âAnd now will I show thee the truth,â that is, the
truth of what will come to pass in the future (cf. âthe scripture of
truth,â 10:21). Daniel is informed that there will be three kings in
Persia to be followed by a fourth far richer and greater than the
others, who shall use his strength and riches to âstir up all against
the realm of Grecia.â The identity of these four kings has, of course,
been disputed; and Montgomery uses the many different combinations and
explanations as an evidence of the incredibility of this prophecy.584

The most natural explanation, however, is that the four kings are the
first four Persian rulers in addition to Darius the Mede, the point
being that later Persian rulers were unimportant and in a state of
decline. Assuming that all four kings are still future, Darius the Mede
and Cyrus, known as Cyrus II (550-530 b.c), are probably excluded. Note
that the prophecy states, âBehold, there shall stand up yet three kings
in Persiaâ or, as the New Berkeley Version translates, âthree more kings
shall arise in Persia,â that is, in the future. The prophecy came to
Daniel in the third year of Cyrus (10:1). The four kings would then be
Cambyses (529-522 b.c, not mentioned in the Old Testament), Pseudo-
Smerdis (522-521 B.C.), Darius I Hystaspes (521-486 b.c, Ezra 5, 6), and
Xerxes I (486-465 b.c, Ezra 4:6). This identification has the advantage
of taking Persian kings in order, climaxing with Xerxes I who led the
great expedition against Greece. Xerxes represents, on the one hand, the
acme in the development of Persian power, and, on the other hand, the
beginning of its dissolution. Another conservative interpretation
eliminates Pseudo-Smerdis, who reigned only briefly, and adds after
Xerxes I, Artaxerxes I (465-424 b.c, Ezra 7:11-26) as the fourth ruler.
However, according to the prophecy, the fourth ruler is the one who
contends against Greece, which was not true of Artaxerxes I.

According to Daniel, the climax of Persian rulers came with Xerxes I who
in secular history used his great riches and a period of some four years
to gather a great army amounting to hundreds of thousands, one of the
largest armies in the ancient world. The expedition which he launched in
480 b.c against Greece was disastrous, however, and Xerxes never
recovered. The Ahasuerus of Esther 1 may be identified with Xerxes I,
and the ill-fated expedition against Greece may have occurred between
chapters 1 and 2 of Esther. Details on the Persian Empire are not given
here because these are covered adequately in the books of Ezra, Nehe-
miah, and Esther, insofar as they related to the people of Israel and
the plan of God, and these records are supplemented by the prophetical
books Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The revelation turns immediately
to details of the third empire not given elsewhere in the Word of God.

The Rise and Fall of Alexander the Great

11:3-4 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great
dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his
kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of
heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he
ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside
those.

One of the by-products of the attack on Greece by Xerxes I is that he
incurred the undying hatred of Greece. Montgomery and some critics
believe this is the ultimate meaning of âhe shall stir up allâ in verse
2. Montgomery translates it, ââand he will stir up all, namely (?) the
kingdom of Greece,ââ and comments, âBut the point is not that he made
war against Greece (as far as Asia was concerned, Persia remained
mistress, n.b., the Peace of Callias 449 B.C.), but rather that the
world was aroused against the king.â585 Although there may be question
whether this translation is justified, the facts are that Alexander the
Great in conquering the Persian Empire was repaying Xerxes I. Alexander
the Great was indeed âa mighty kingâ which Leupold translates âa hero-
kingâ586 and the remaining description fits Alexander the Great
perfectly. He indeed had great dominion and was absolute ruler who did
âaccording to his will.â

As previously revealed, in Daniel 8:8, Alexander died prematurely. The
expression in verse 4, when he shall stand up, may be translated âwhile
he was growing strong,â that is, while still ascending in power. Another
rendering, perhaps more normal Hebrew, is âand as soon as he shall have
stood up,â indicating the brief duration of Alexanderâs reign. The word
stood has the same military connotation as in the preceding verses.

The angel predicts to Daniel that his kingdom shall be broken and
divided to the four winds of heaven. This was fulfilled literally in
that his kingdom was shattered after his death and not only divided to
the four winds, but divided among his four generals. Alexanderâs empire
was not given to his posterity. Hercules, the son of Alexander at the
time of his death, whose mother was Barsina, was murdered by
Polysperchon. Young Alexander, born posthumously of Roxana, was murdered
in 310 b.c. The empire of Alexander the Great, after it fell into the
hands of his four generals, did not preserve the glory and power it had
in Alexanderâs day. The strong central rule which had characterized it
passed with the death of Alexander. This event, recorded in Danielâs
prophecy written about 539 B.C., was fulfilled when Alexander died in
323 B.C.

Ptolemy I Soter and Seleucus I Nicator

11:5 And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes;
and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall
be a great dominion.

Beginning in verse 5, the struggle between the various kings of the
south, that is Egypt, and the kings of the north, that is Syria, begin
and are traced by Daniel in this prophecy to the time of Antiochus IV
Epiphanes (175-164 b.c), a period of about 150 years. In verse 8, the
king of the south is identified as Egypt, and the Septuagint translates
south as âEgyptâ throughout this passage. Syria is not mentioned by
name, as at the time of Danielâs writing, no such nation existed and
such a reference would be confusing. In tracing the struggles between
Egypt and Syria, the prophecy is selective and not all the rulers are
mentioned, but usually the identification is clear.

The king of the south in verse 5 is probably Ptolemy I Soter (323-285
b.c). The one.referred to as âlie shall be strong above himâ is the king
of Syria, Seleucus I Nicator (312-281 b.c. ). These rulers took the
title of king in 306 b.c. Seleucus had fled from Antigonus of Babylon
and was temporarily associated with Ptolemy 1. They combined their
strength and defeated Antigonus, thus paving the way for Seleucus to
gain control of the entire area from Asia Minor to India; and in time,
he became stronger than Ptolemy who ruled Egypt. Hence the Scripture
says that Seleucus âshall be strong above him [Ptolemy] and have
dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.â This is qualified by
the statement in the preceding verse, ânot according to his dominion
which he ruled.â The emergence of Ptolemy as ruler of Egypt and Seleucus
as ruler of Syria and surrounding territory laid the basis for these two
lines of rulers in their respective countries and also set up a
situation where they became rivals. The king of the south was also
strong, as verse 5 indicates. The expression one of his princes probably
refers to Seleucus described in the clause which follows. A possible
translation is âand one of his princes shall be stronger than he.â587

Marriage of the Daughter of Egypt to the King of Syria

11:6 And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for
the kingâs daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to
make an agreement: but she shall not retain the power of the arm;
neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they
that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in
these times.

The expression in the end of years means âafter a lapse of several
yearsâ (cf. 2 Ch 18:2; Dan 11:8, 13). In the passage of time, it was
natural that there would be intermarriage for political reasons between
Egypt and Syria, and such is pictured in verse 6. The participants were
the king of the south, Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 b.c.) and his
daughter, Berenice, who was married to Antiochus II Theos (261-246 b.c.)
about 252 b.c. Passed over without mention is Antiochus I Soter (281-261
b.c. ). The marriage was consummated at the demand of Ptolemy
Philadelphus who required Antiochus to divorce his own wife, Laodiceia
(or Laodice), in order to facilitate this marriage. His intent was to
provide a basis of agreement, literally, âto make a straighteningâ
between the two nations. As verse 6 indicates, however, the union was
not successful in that âshe shall not retain the power of the arm,â that
is, physical or political power, and neither of the male participants
prospered. As it was indicated: âneither shall he stand, nor his arm;
but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat
her, and he that strengthened her in these times.â âHe that strengthened
her,â means, âhe that obtained her in marriage.â Within a few years of
the marriage, Ptolemy died; and Antiochus then took back his wife,
Laodiceia. To gain revenge, however, Laodiceia murdered her husband as
well as his Egyptian wife, Berenice, and the infant son of Antiochus and
Berenice. The reference to âhe that begat herâ is, of course, to Ptolemy
II whose death precipitated the murders which followed.

Ptolemy Euergetes and Seleucus Callinicus

11:7-9 But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his
estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress
of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall
prevail: and shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their
princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and he
shall continue more years than the king of the north. So the king of the
south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land.

Subsequent to the events of verse 6, a new king of Egypt known as
Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-221 B.C.) succeeded in prevailing militarily
over the king of the north, Seleucus Callinicus (247-226 b.c. ); and, as
the prophecy indicates, he entered âinto the fortress of the king of the
north,â carried into Egypt princes as hostages, some of their idols, and
their precious vessels of silver and gold. The expression out of a
branch of her roots, literally, âthe sprouting of her roots,â signifies
lineage, the immediate ancestry of Berenice. The person referred to is
consequently the son of her parents, her own brother, Ptolemy III
Euergetes, the successor of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

The Hebrew word translated âprincesâ (11:8) can be rendered âmolten
images,â and the transportation of the idols indicates the total
subjugation of the northern kingdom (cf. Is 46:1-2; Jer 48:7; 49:3; Hos
10:5).588 In commemoration of his deed, Ptolemy Euergetes erected the
monument Marmor Adulitanum, which boasts that he subjugated Mesopotamia,
Persia, Susiana, Media, and all the countries as far as Bactria. The
expression shall continue more years than the king of the north is best
understood as meaning, âhe shall refrain some years from the king of the
northâ (ASV), that is, ârefrain from attacking the king of the northâ
(RSV).

Verse nine is probably better rendered âAnd he shall come into the realm
of the king of the south, but he shall return into his own landâ (ASV,
also RSV). The actor is the king of the north, just mentioned in the
previous verse, rather than the king of the south.

Jerome, in his commentary, provides this description of the conquest by
Ptolemy Euergetes:

He came up with a great army and advanced into the province of the king
of the North, that is Seleucus Callinicus, who together with his mother
Laodice was ruling in Syria, and abused them, and not only did he seize
Syria, but also took Cilicia and the remoter regions beyond the
Euphrates and nearly all of Asia as well. And then, when he heard that a
rebellion was afoot in Egypt, he ravaged the kingdom of Seleucus and
carried off as booty forty thousand talents of silver, and also precious
vessels and images of the gods to the amount of two and a half thousand.
Among them were the same images which Cambyses had brought to Persia at
the time when he conquered Egypt. The Egyptian people were indeed
devoted to idolatry, for when he had brought back their gods to them
after so many years, they called him Euergetes (Benefactor). And he
himself retained possession of Syria, but he handed over Cilicia to his
friend, Antiochus, that he might govern it, and the provinces beyond the
Euphrates he handed over to Xanthippus, another general.589

The precise accuracy of the prophecy written by Daniel three hundred
years before it happened has occasioned the attack of the critics, but
actually its accuracy is a support for the accuracy of scriptural
prophecy as a whole.

Verse 9 as translated in the King James Version seems to imply that the
king of the south returns to his own land. A better translation,
however, would indicate that he, Seleucus Callinicus, is the subject of
the verb shall come into his kingdom and refers to the fact that
Seleucus several years after the Egyptian invasion was able to mount a
return attack on Egypt about 240 b.c. Seleucus, however, was defeated
completely and was forced to âreturn into his own land.â590 This, of
course, was only the beginning of the seesaw battle between the two
nations. The inclusion of this background material leads up to the
important point, which is the burden of the prophecy in verses 10-19âthe
ascendancy of Syria over Egypt and the return of the Holy Land to Syrian
control. This set the stage for the persecutions of Israel under
Antiochus Epiphanes, which is the major concern of verses 21-35 of this
prophecy.

The Struggle Between Seleucus and Antiochus III the Great Against
Ptolemy Philopator

11:10-19 But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a
multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow,
and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his
fortress. And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and
shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north:
and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be
given into his hand. And when he hath taken away the multitude, his
heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but
he shall not be strengthened by it. For the king of the north shall
return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and
shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much
riches. And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of
the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to
establish the vision; but they shall fall. So the king of the north
shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and
the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people,
neither shall there be any strength to withstand. But he that cometh
against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand
before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand
shall be consumed. He shall also set his face to enter with the strength
of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and
he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall
not stand on his side, neither be for him. After this shall he turn his
face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own
behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own
reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him. Then he shall turn his face
toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not
be found.

Although Seleucus Callinicus was unsuccessful in his attack on Egypt,
his successors described as âhis sonsâ proved to be more successful.
Seleucus III (226-223 B.C.) came to an untimely end, having perished in
battle in Asia Minor, but the task was ably carried on by Antiochus III
the Great (223-187 B.C.). Because of the passing of Seleucus, the plural
of the first part of verse 10 is changed to the singular. Antiochus the
Great was able to mount several campaigns against Egypt; and largely
because of the indolence of the Egyptian ruler, Ptolemy Philopator
(221-203 b.c.), he restored to Syria the territory as far south as Gaza.

The approach of the armies this near Egypt proper aroused the Egyptian
ruler, who assembled a large army to combat Antiochus (11:11). In 217
b.c, Antiochus met the Egyptian army at the Palestinian border at
Raphia. The Egyptian army was directed by Ptolemy accompanied by his
sister-wife, Arsinoe.591 There were about 70,000 soldiers on each side.
The battle resulted in a complete victory for Egypt (11:11-12); and as
Jerome comments, âAntiochus lost his entire army and was almost captured
as he fled to the desert.â592 The prophecy was fulfilled that the
multitude of the Syrians was given into the hand of the Egyptians.
However, a peace had to be arranged because Antiochus had managed to
escape. As verse 12 indicates, the Egyptian monarch was too indolent to
pursue his advantage; and although the battle was disastrous for the
Syrians, it tended to bring peace between the two nations, at least
temporarily.593

Meanwhile, Antiochus turned his attention to conquests in the east, in
which he was quite successful, gathering strength and wealth. In the
period 212-204 b.c. he advanced east to the borders of India and as far
north as the Caspian. Ptolemy Philopator and his queen died mysteriously
in 203 b.c. and were succeeded by their infant son, Ptolemy V Epiphanes.

In 201 B.C., Antiochus managed to assemble another great army and again
began a series of attacks on Egypt, as described in verse 13-16. The
expression the robbers of thy people (11:14) refers to persons who
violate law and justice; hence, they are ârobbers,â or âmen of violenceâ
(RSV). As Zockler says, âThe oracle refers to the league against Egypt,
into which a large number of Jews entered with Antiochus the Great, and
to their participation in his warlike operations against that country,
e.g., in his attacks on the garrison which the Egyptian general Scopas
had left in the citadel of Jerusalem.â594 Zockler comments: âThe
theocratic writer sternly condemns this partial revolt to the Syrians as
a criminal course or as common robbery, because of the many benefits
conferred on the Jewish state by the earlier Ptolemies.â595

The reference to establish the vision is probably a prophecy of the
afflictions of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes already recorded in
Daniel 8 and 9. These troubles appropriately can be regarded as a
consequence of the revolt of the Egyptians against Syria. Encouraged by
the rising power of Rome which threatened Syria, Egypt fought back. The
Egyptian armies led by Scopas were defeated at Paneas, near the
headwaters of the Jordan River. Antiochus III subsequently forced Scopas
to surrender at Sidon, referred to as âthe most fenced cities,â
literally âa city of fortifications,â which the Seleucid king captured
in 199-198 b.c. This victory resulted in the Syrian occupation of all
Palestine as far south as Gaza. The allusion to âthe arms at the south
shall not standâ is to the unsuccessful attempt by three Egyptian
leaders, Eropas, Menacles, and Damoyenus to rescue the besieged Scopas
from Sidon. Threatened by Rome, however, Antiochus effected a diplomatic
settlement with Egypt by marrying his daughter Cleopatra to the young
king, Ptolemy V Epiphanes in 192 b.c. In so doing, he fulfilled the
prophecy âhe shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but
she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.â The expression
corrupting her may mean âto ruin the land,â596 that is, Antiochus the
Great purposed by this betrothal of his young daughter to the seven-year
old Ptolemy to ruin his former opponent and present ally. As Young
states, âIn this stratagem, however, Antiochus fails, because Cleopatra
constantly sides with her husband over against her father.â597

In this series of events, the prophecies of verses 13-17 are accurately
fulfilled. Antiochus the Great begins to suffer reverses, however, as
indicated in verse 18, where âprince for his own behalf refers to the
Roman consul Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, who, as Young expresses it,
âbrought about the defeat of Antiochus.â598 The reference to âthe
reproach offered by him,â refers to Antiochusâ scornful treatment of the
Roman ambassadors at a meeting in Lysimachia, when he said
contemptuously, âAsia did not concern them, the Romans, and he was not
subject to their orders.â599

This defeat came about in the following manner. Having successfully
sustained his conquest against Egypt by defeating Scopas, Antiochus then
turned his attention to the threat from the west and attempted to equal
the conquests of Alexander the Great by conquering Greece. In this he
was notably unsuccessful, being defeated in 191 B.C. at Thermopylae
north of Athens and again in 189 b.c. at Magnesia on the Maeander River
southeast of Ephesus by soldiers of Rome and Pergamum under the
leadership of the Roman general Scipio. This fulfilled the prophecies of
verses 18 and 19, and from an historic viewpoint, was important in
removing from Europe theâ control by Asiatic governments. This paved the
way for Roman expansion later.600

Antiochus the Great, who could have gone down in history as one of the
great conquerors of the ancient world if he had been content to leave
Greece alone, instead fulfilled the prophecy of verse 19 in that he had
to return to his own land, defeated and broken. He was killed trying to
plunder a temple in Elam. From the standpoint of the history of Israel,
this was important because Antiochus the Great was followed by Seleucus
IV Philopator (187-175 b.c), who in turn was succeeded by Antiochus IV
Epiphanes (175-164 b.c), the notorious persecutor of the Jews described
in detail in Daniel 11:21-35. In these prophecies, properly interpreted,
is an accurate prophetic picture of this period, which would be
remarkable even if it was history. As prophecy, it bears the
unmistakable imprint of divine inspiration.

Seleucus Philopator, the Raiser of Taxes

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.

The Seleucid king ruling between the times of Antiochus the Great and
Antiochus Epiphanes, Seleucus IV Philopator, is mentioned here for his
oppression by taxation of the people of Israel. Because of the rising
power of Rome, he was forced to pay tribute to the Romans of a thousand
talents annually.601 In order to raise this large amount of money,
Seleucus had to tax all the lands under his domain, including special
taxes from the Jews secured by a tax collector named Heliodorus (2 Mac
3:7) who took treasures from the temple at Jerusalem.602 As Zockler
points out, âSoon after Heliodorus was dispatched to plunder the temple,
Seleucus Philopator was suddenly and mysteriously removed. This explains
the statement, âwithin a few days he shall be destroyedâ (11:20),
possibly by poison administered to him by the same Heliodorus.â603 This
set the stage for the terrible persecutions by Antiochus Epiphanes which
followed.

The Rise of Antiochus IV Epiphanes

11:21-23 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. 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. And after the league made with him he
shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong
with a small people.

Beginning with verse 21, a major section of this chapter is devoted to a
comparatively obscure Syrian ruler who was on the throne from 175 to 164
B.C., previously alluded to as the âlittle hornâ (Dan 8:9-14, 23-25). He
reigned in the days of the decline of the Syrian power and the rise of
Rome to the west, and only his death in 164 B.C. prevented his
humiliation by Rome. From the standpoint of Scripture and the revelation
by the angel to Daniel, this was the most important feature of the
entire third empire. The reasons for the prominence of Antiochus IV
Epiphanes were his desecration of the Jewish temple and altar, and his
bitter persecution of the Jewish people. As is true of the entire
section beginning with chapter 8, Gentile dominion is viewed primarily
from its relationship to the progress of the Jewish nation. By
comparison with Seleucus IV Philopator, his predecessor, he is described
as âa vile person.â The title Epiphanes, meaning âglorious,â was a title
which Antiochus gave himself, in keeping with his desire to be regarded
as god. The description here given is Godâs viewpoint of him because of
his immoral life, persecution, and hatred of the people of God. His life
was characterized by intrigue, expediency, and lust for power in which
honor was always secondary.

The expression to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom has
reference to the fact that he seized the throne rather than obtaining it
honorably. At the time his predecessor died, there were several possible
candidates for the throne. Probably the most legitimate ruler would have
been Demetrius, the young son of his brother Seleucus IV, who at the
time was being held in Rome as a hostage by the Romans. There was also a
younger son of Seleucus IV, also by name of Antiochus, who was still a
baby in Syria. Antiochus IV, the brother of Seleucus IV, was in Athens
at the time of his brotherâs death. There he received word that his
brother Seleucus had been murdered by Heliodorus, as prophesied in
Daniel 11:20, âhe shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.â
Montgomery describes this as dying â âwith his boots on,â a disgrace to
a king; cf. Saulâs death.â604

Posing as the guardian of young Antiochus who was in Syria, Antiochus IV
Epiphanes proceeded to Antioch where by various intrigues, referred to
in verse 21 as âhe shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by
flatteries,â he secured the throne. Meanwhile, young Antiochus was
murdered by Andronicus, whom Antiochus IV then put to death, although it
is possible that Antiochus himself had laid the whole plot. Heliodorus,
who had murdered Seleucus IV, was not able to secure the throne and
disappeared. Antiochus IV was therefore secure on his throne and began
an active life of military conquest and intrigue in his struggle for
power against both Egypt and Rome.

Verse 22 speaks of military activity including several campaigns against
Egypt. The prophecy does not attempt to be specific but describes in
general how armies on various occasions were destroyed as by a flood and
âshall be broken.â The reference to âthe arms of a floodâ may refer to
military forces rather than a natural flood.605 In other words, he shall
be victorious over his enemies. The forces which he overwhelmed include,
as Zockler states, âin part the troops of Heliodorus, whom Antiochus
routed with the assistance of his Pergamenian allies, and in part the
Egyptian forces which sought to deprive him of Coele-Syria soon after
his accession to the throne.â606 When Antiochus learned that the
Egyptians were about to attack him, he invaded Egypt in 170 B.C. and
defeated the Egyptians in a battle which occurred between Mt. Casius and
Pelusium, an area on the southeast sea coast of the Mediterranean Sea
halfway between Gaza and the Nile delta.607 The battle area is today
called Ras Baron.

The reference to the âprince of the covenantâ prophesies the murder of
the high priest Onias, which was ordered by Antiochus in 172 B.C., and
indicates the troublesome times of his reign. The high priest bore the
title âprince of the covenantâ because he was de facto the head of the
theocracy at that time. In 11:28 and 11:32 the âcovenantâ is used for
the Jewish state.

Verse 23 described his various leagues with other nations, especially
with Egypt which involved considerable intrigue and deceit. At the time,
there was a contest for power between two of Antiochusâ nephews, Ptolemy
Philometor and Ptolemy Euergetes for control of Egypt. Antiochus
supported Ptolemy Philometor, but only for his own gain. Out of it,
Antiochus became stronger himself.

Antiochusâ Growth in Power

11:24-26 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the
province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his
fathersâ fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and
riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds,
even for a time. 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. Yea, they that
feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall
overflow: and many shall fall down slain.

Always active to enlarge his kingdom, either by military devices or
intrigue, Antiochus, according to verse 24, like his fathers, robbed the
richest places of the country under his control. The prediction He shall
enter peaceably means that he attacked the enemy âin a time of securityâ
or âpeace,â when the enemy did not expect him. Unlike his father,
Antiochus IV did not use his wealth secured in this way for personal
advantage so much as to buy favor with others and to secure their
cooperation. The expression he shall scatter among them the prey, and
spoil, and riches indicates this distribution of the wealth he had
secured. According to 1 Maccabees 3:30, âHe feared that he might not
have such funds as he had before for his expenses and for the gifts
which he used to give more lavishly than preceding kingsâ (RSV).

Among his military maneuvers were several expeditions against Egypt
which are indicated in verse 25. Which of the several expeditions this
represents is of no importance, as this prophecy is simply describing in
general the characteristics of the reign of Antiochus 4:The outcome of
the battle was that the king of Egypt was defeated as indicated in the
statement but he shall not stand, referring to the king of the south.
Even those who should have supported him conspired against him as
revealed in verse 26. The result was that, generally speaking, Antiochus
was victorious over the Egyptians.

The Wickedness of Antiochus

11:27-28 And both these kingsâ 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. Then shall he return into his land with
great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he
shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

The struggle between Syria and Egypt, however, led to various agreements
which did not prosper. Neither the rulers of Egypt nor Syria were
honorable in their agreements as indicated in verse 27, âthey shall
speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper.â As the last part of
verse 27 makes clear, in spite of all his intrigue, Antiochus was
fulfilling prophecy on schedule.

Antiochus, returning from Egypt with great riches, began to manifest his
hatred against the people of Israel and his covetousness in relation to
the wealth of the temple. This is indicated in the statement, His heart
shall be against the holy covenant.608

Antiochus Opposed by Rome Persecutes the Jews

11:29-31 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the
south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter. 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. And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall
pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily
sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

In another expedition against Egypt, âat the time appointed,â that is,
by God, he managed to capture Ptolemy Philometor but was finally forced
to evacuate Egypt because he failed to take the city of Alexandria.609
His success was not as great as in former expeditions, as stated, âIt
shall not be as the former, or as the latter.â Still another invasion of
Egypt occurred about 168 B.C. Here, however, he was met near Alexandria
by a Roman consul, Gaius Popillius Laenas, who summarily demanded that
he leave Egypt at the pain of being attacked by Rome. The Roman consul
is reported to have drawn a circle about the king and told him that his
decision had to be reached before he stepped out of the circle. Rather
than risk a war with Rome, Antiochus, although greatly displeased,
withdrew from Egypt immediately and conceded Egypt to Roman power.
Prophetically, this is indicated in verse 30 by the statement for the
ships of Chittim shall come against him, usually taken as a symbolic
representation of Roman power which came from the west past Chittim
(also spelled Kittim), a reference to the island of Cyprus which was to
the west of his kingdom. The fleet of Laenas sailed to Egypt after the
Roman victory over Perseus of Macedon near Pydna south of Thessalonica
(June 22, 168 B.C.). In the Septuagint, the expression the ships of
Chittim is translated âthe Romans,â giving the sense if not the exact
translation.

Disgruntled by his defeat in Egypt at the hands of Rome, Antiochus
Epiphanes seems to have vented his wrath upon the Jewish people as
intimated in verse 30 in the expression, âhave indignation against the
holy covenant.â The history of the period is given in 1 and 2 Maccabees.
The added statement and have intelligence with them that forsake the
holy covenant indicates his affiliation with those who sided with
Antiochus, who became his favorites and proteges (cf. 1 Mac 2:18; 2 Mac
6:1).

In the process of his opposition to the Jews, Antiochus polluted the
holy altar in the temple by offering a sow upon the altar and forbidding
the continuance of the daily sacrifices (cf. 1 Mac 1:44-54). He also
issued orders that the Jews should cease their worship and erected in
the holy place an idol, probably the image of Zeus Olympius. This
represents placing âthe abomination that maketh desolate,â mentioned in
verse 31 to which Christ referred in Matthew 24:15. The parallel
prophecy in Daniel 8:23-25 covers the same series of incidents.

This desecration of the temple, in opposition to the Jewish faith,
precipitated the Maccabean revolt which was cruelly suppressed by
Antiochus with tens of thousands of Israelites perishing. The entire
series of incidents, however, including the persecution of Israel, the
desecration of their temple, and the stopping of the daily sacrifice,
although fulfilled historically in Antiochusâ persecution of Israel, is
also prophetic of the future persecution of Israel which will result in
the great tribulation. The reference in Matthew 24:15 where Christ is
describing the beginning of the great tribulation is linked to the
desecration of the temple by Antiochus as being similar in kind.
Antiochus thus becomes a type of the future man of sin and his
activities foreshadow the ultimate blasphemous persecution of Israel and
the desecration of their temple.

The Resulting Persecutions of Israel

11:32-35 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. 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 days. Now when they shall fall, they shall
be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with
flatteries. And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them,
and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end:
because it is yet for a time appointed.

The continued opposition of Antiochus to the Jewish faith is prophesied
in verse 32, indicating how he attempts to corrupt them; but the strong
reaction of the Jewish people is indicated in the expression but the
people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. The
resulting conflict, however, brought much harm on the people of Israel;
and though it caused to some extent a spiritual revival, many were
killed, as indicated in verse 33. Some of the Jews succumbed to the
flattery of the king and defected from their fellow Jews as they
revolted against Antiochus. It was a time of purging and separation of
the true from the false, of those who were courageous from those who
were fainthearted.

Zöckler quotes Fuller to indicate the various processes used to purify
the Jews, âNot only the pretended adherents to Jehovahâs party to
separate themselves from His sincere followers, but the latter
themselves, incited thereto by the example of steadfastness and self-
denial furnished by their martyrs, shall cast out from themselves
everything that is impure; and they shall succeed in gaining over all
those who share their convictions in their hearts, but have been
hindered by fear and timidity from avowing an open connection with them.
In like manner, a Nicodemus and a Joseph of Arimathaea were induced by
the very death of Christ on the cross to confess their allegiance to
him.âThus Antiochus attempts to annihilate the party among the Jews that
is devoted to its God, but succeeds only in contributing to its
purifying.â610

The purging process is indicated in verse 35 to continue âto the time of
the end.â It is clear from this reference that the persecutions of
Antiochus are not the time of the end, even though they foreshadow them.
The mention of âthe time of the endâ in verse 35 is notice, however,
that from verse 36 on, the prophecy leaps the centuries that intervene
to the last generation prior to Godâs judgment of Gentile power and its
rulers. Beginning in verse 36, prophecy is unfolded that is as yet
unfulfilled.

The amazingly detailed prophecies of the first thirty-five verses of
this chapter, containing as they do approximately one hundred and
thirty-five prophetic statements, all now fulfilled, constitute an
impressive introduction to the events that are yet future, beginning in
verse 36. Critics who on the one hand assail this chapter as being so
accurate that it could not possibly be written before the event, and on
the other hand attempt to find discrepancies which support their
contention that the pseudo-Daniel is a poor historian, actually are
arguing on both sides of the question at the same time. The fact is that
there is no supported evidence which can contradict any statement made
in these thirty-five verses. The contention that it cannot be prophetic
because of its accuracy involves assumptions which would undermine the
entire prophetic Scriptures. From the divine viewpoint, the accuracy of
this prophetic word is supporting evidence that prophecy yet unfulfilled
will have the same precise fulfillment in the future. This is especially
relevant to the futuristic aspect of this vision of Daniel beginning in
Daniel 11:36.

The King of the End Time

11:36 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.

Beginning with verse 36, a sharp break in the prophecy may be observed,
introduced by the expression the time of the end in verse 35. Up to this
point, the prophecy dealing with the Persian and Grecian Empires has
been fulfilled minutely and with amazing precision. Beginning with verse
36, however, an entirely different situation obtains. No commentator
claims to find precise fulfillment in the remainder of this chapter.
Although Zockler and others attempt to relate Daniel 11:36-45 to
Antiochus, many students of Scripture have recognized from antiquity
that another king must be in view. Ibn-Ezra, for example, identified
this king with Constantine the Great; Rashi and Calvin referred him to
the Roman Empire as a whole; and Jerome, Theodoret, and Luther, among
others, identified him with the New Testament Antichrist.611 In contrast
to the preceding section, there is no specific correspondence to
history. Accordingly, scholars who regard this as genuine Scripture,
usually regard this section as future and unfulfilled.

As E. B. Pusey has noted, âEven the Jews in S. Jeromeâs time looked upon
this prophecy as having still to receive its fulfillment.â612 In
reference to Daniel 11:36, Jerome comments,

âThe Jews believe that this passage has reference to the Antichrist,
alleging that after the small help of Julian a king is going to rise up
who shall do according to his own will and shall lift himself up against
all that is called god, and shall speak arrogant words against the God
of gods. He shall act in such a way as to sit in the Temple of God and
shall make himself out to be God, and his will shall be prospered until
the wrath of God is fulfilled, for in him the consummation will take
place. We, too, understand this to refer to the Antichrist.â613

Earlier Jerome had pointed out that Antiochus was merely a foreshadowing
of the Antichrist, âJust as the Savior had Solomon and the other saints
as types of His advent, so also we should believe that the Antichrist
very properly had as a type of himself the utterly wicked king,
Antiochus, who persecuted the saints and defiled the Temple.â614

Although many variations of interpretation exist, in general,
interpretations of Daniel 11:36-45 fall into three major categories: (1)
that it is a further historic or prophetic account fulfilled in
Antiochus Epiphanes; (2) that it is fiction, that is, the wishful
thinking of the author which does not correspond to history precisely;
(3) that it is genuine prophecy as yet unfulfilled.

Liberal critics, following the thesis that Daniel was written by a
second-century b.c. writer, almost uniformly hold that this section was
fulfilled in the life and death of Antiochus Epiphanes.615 Even liberal
scholars, however, agree that this section is not nearly as accurate as
the earlier portion. Although finding it an accurate forecast of
Antiochusâ deathâin regarding the passage as a prophecy of the kingâs
catastrophic end, as Montgomery holdsâliberals also admit as Montgomery
does, âbut it cannot, with those conservative theologians, be taken in
any way as an exact prophecy of the actual events of his ruin. The
alleged final victorious war with Egypt, including the conquest of
Cyrenaica and Ethiopia, in the face of the power of Rome and the silence
of secular history, is absolutely imaginary.â616 In other words, even
liberal scholars, who find the earlier section so remarkably accurate
that they hold it as history rather than prophecy, admit a sharp
difference in the latter section beginning in verse 36 as not
corresponding to history. This is the reason why conservative scholars
have rejected the historical interpretation and, with due regard to the
inspiration of Scripture, expect a future fulfillment.

The second possibility, that the passage is fiction, does not seem to
have seriously attracted even the liberal scholar, preferring as he does
to identify it with Antiochus Epiphanes. Other competing
interpretations, such as those that compare the passage to Constantine
the Great, Omar ibn El-Khattab, the Roman Empire (Calvin), the Pope of
Rome, the Papal system, or Herod the Great (Mauro), all cited by Young,
are not generally considered live options today.617

Because of the completely unsatisfactory explanation of an historical
fulfillment of verses 36-45 in contrast with the precise fulfillment of
the earlier portion, conservative expositors relate this passage to the
climax of history culminating in the second advent of Christ. This, of
course, is in keeping with the total tenor of Danielâs prophecies which
characteristically have their climax in the end of the interadvent age
and the triumph of the kingdom of heaven which the Son of man will
accomplish when He returns. The passage, therefore, is to be considered
as contemporaneous with the climax of chapter 2, the destruction of the
image, and the destruction of the little horn of Daniel 7, a period
described in the book of Revelation, chapters 6-19. The king described
in verses 36-39 of Daniel 11 and the events of the subsequent verses
therefore have nothing to do with the second century b.c, and are
entirely future and unfulfilled.

Among conservative scholars, however, two differing identifications of
the king of verse 36 are given. The common identification is that
offered by J. N. Darby that the king of Daniel 11:36 is none other than
the Antichrist, who is an unregenerate Jew living in Palestine at the
end time but in league with the Roman world ruler. Darby, although not
emphasizing the racial background of this king, identifies him with the
man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10 and with the false prophet of
Revelation 13:11-18.618 A. C. Gaebelein offers the same interpretation
with more specific emphasis on the Jewish character of this ruler as a
false Messiah acceptable to the Jewish people.619 The principal support
for this point of view is found in the expression of verse 37 âneither
shall he regard the God of his fathers,â which is identified as the God
of Israel. Further, it is assumed that Jewish people will not accept
even a false Messiah unless he is Jewish in background. As an apostate,
he disregards his fathersâ God, the hope of the Messiah, and instead
honors the Roman world dictator as god.

A better identification of the king, the second identification, however,
is to relate him to the Roman world ruler, the same individual as the
little horn of Daniel 7 and the beast out of the sea of Revelation
13:1-10. Upon careful consideration, the evidence in support of Darbyâs
identification is seen to be insufficient, and the second view is
preferred.

According to verse 36, the king is an absolute ruler who âshall do
according to his will.â If this is the great tribulation, as intimated
in Daniel 12:1, when the Roman ruler is a world ruler, it is difficult
to contemplate any other ruler who could be absolute in authority,
especially in an area so close to the center of Roman power as
Palestine. There can be only one king who does absolutely according to
his will in this period, and this must be the world ruler which
according to Daniel 7:23 âshall devour the whole earth, and tread it
down, and break it in pieces.â Although other rulers will be associated
with him, such as the ten horns of Revelation 17:12 and the false
prophet of Revelation 13:11-18, none of these can be described as
absolute rulers.

Further evidence is found in the fact that he not only assumes complete
political rule but also the role of God. According to verse 36, âhe
shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god.â In his claim
for deity, which he demands that all recognize at the pain of death (Rev
13:15), he clearly asserts his supremacy over all others. To describe a
ruler in Palestine during this time under these extravagant terms would
be incongruous with the total situation. According to verse 36, he shall
also blaspheme against the true God and prosper for a time until he
comes to his end.

Liberal interpreters cite this verse as evidence of identification of
this passage with Antiochus Epiphanes, for it is well established that
Antiochus claimed qualities belonging to God as manifested in the coins
of his realm and in the title of Epiphanes itself, which he considered
as stating that he manifested the powers of God. Montgomery states, for
instance, âbut Epiphanes took his godhead very seriously. He was the
first to assume âTheosâ on his coins, and the addition of âManifestâ
(practically âincarnateâ) indicated his self-identification with Deity,
he was not merely a god like his forebears. The ever-increasing
obsession of godhead appears from the sequence of his coins.â620 The
identification of this passage with Antiochus, however, breaks down as
the prophecy unfolds in succeeding verses. If this is indeed the end
time, just before the second advent of Christ, the description of the
king fits only one person, namely, the Roman who âshall prosper till the
indignation be accomplished,â that is, his blasphemous course be
fulfilled.

The Final World Religion

11:37-39 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.
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. Thus shall he do in the most
strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase
with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide
the land for gain.

One of the more important arguments supporting the conclusion that this
king is a Jew is found in the opening phrase of verse 37, âneither shall
he regard the God of his fathers.â As Gaebelein states, âThe King,
Antichrist shall not regard the God of his fathers. Here his Jewish
descent becomes evident. It is a Jewish phrase âthe God of his fathersâ
and beside this, to establish his fraudulent claim to be the King
Messiah, he must be a Jew.â621 Gaebelein and others upholding this view,
however, overlook a most decisive fact that the word for âGodâ here is
Elohim, a name for God in general, applying both to the true God and to
false gods. If the expression had been the usual one when referring to
the God of Israel, the Jehovah of his fathers, the identification would
be unmistakable. Very frequently in Scripture, the God of Israel is
described as Jehovah, âthe Lord Godâ of their fathers (cf. Ex 3:15-16;
4:5; Deu 1:11, 21; 4:1; 6:3; 12:1; 26:7; 29:25; Jos 18:3; Judg 2:12; 2
Ki 21:22; 1 Ch 29:20; 2 Ch 7:22; 11:16; 13:18; 15:12; 19:4; 20:6; 21:10;
24:24; 28:9; 29:5; 30:7, 19; 34:33; 36:15; Ezra 7:27; 8:28). Although
Daniel uses âGod (Elohim) of my fathersâ in Daniel 2:23 in view of this
common usage elsewhere in Scripture, for Daniel to omit the word Jehovah
or Lord, (KJV) in a passage where a specific name for the God of Israel
would be necessary, becomes significant. The expression should be
rendered âthe gods of his fathers,â that is, any god, as most revisions
translate it.

In keeping with the blasphemous character of this king who magnifies
himself above every god, he disregards whatever deities his fathers
worshiped; In keeping with the general word for god, Elohim, the
expression, âthe gods of his fathers,â becomes a general reference to
any deities whether pagan or the true God.

In keeping with his disregard for former deities, he does not pay
respect to what is called âthe desire of women.â This expression has
been regarded as a reference to a specific pagan goddess such as Ewaldâs
identification with Tammuz-Adonis which Montgomery states has âcome to
be generally adoptedâ since Bevan.622

Bevan in his discussion states, ââThe Desire of womenâ must, to judge by
the context, be some object of women. Most modern interpreters,
following Ephraim Syrus, explain this as a reference to the goddess
Nanaia, whose temple in Elymais the king endeavoured to plunder shortly
before his death. But to this view there are two objections. Firstly,
the attack upon the temple of Nanaia cannot have been heard of in Judaea
till the year 164 b.c. Secondly, there is no reason why Nanaia should be
designated as the Desire of women. Even if her worship was, as has been
supposed, of a voluptuous character, this would scarcely give rise to
such an appellation. It appears, therefore, much more probable that
Ewald is right in explaining the Desire of women as Tammuz (Adonis),
whose cult had been popular in Syria from time immemorial, especially
amongst women (Ezek. 8:14) .â623 Others, like Young after Keil,624
consider it the normal love or desire for women which is natural to men,
meaning that this king is inhuman in his disregard of women.

Although Daniel is not specific, a plausible explanation of this
passage, in the light of Danielâs Jewish background, is that this
expression, the desire of women, is the natural desire of Jewish women
to become the mother of the promised Messiah, the seed of the woman
promised in Genesis 3:15. The expression then becomes a symbol of the
Messianic hope in general. As Gaebelein expresses it, âStill more
interesting is the statement âhe shall not regard the desire of women.â

========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/speakers/john-f-walvoord/world-history-from-darius-to-the-time-of-the-end/
========================================================================