Grace Theological Journal 4.2 (1983) 205-231.

[Copyright © 1983 Grace Theological Seminary; cited with permission;

digitally prepared for use at Gordon and Grace Colleges and elsewhere]

 

 

AN INTERPRETATION OF

DANIEL 11:36-45

 

 

GEORGE M. HARTON

 

 

            Dan 11:36-45 reveals the path to power of the Antichrist at the

mid-point of the Tribulation period, when he initiates a new policy of

aggression (11:36-39). Once he defeats the Arab and Soviet armies

which attempt to stop him (11:40-45), he will inaugurate the eschato-

logical climax of persecution against Israel which has been Israel's lot

throughout the times of the Gentiles (12:1).

                                                            *     *     *

 

RECENT events in the Middle East are attracting great interest.

Christians especially are challenged to correlate these events with

their understanding of biblical prophecy and to seize upon opportuni-

ties to witness for Christ while conversing about the Middle East.

One significant passage predicting events "at the end time" in

"the Beautiful Land" and at "the beautiful Holy Mountain”1 is Dan

11:36-45. Who is this "King of the North" (11:40)? Who is this king

who "will do as he pleases" (11:36)? A Christian's witness for Christ

concerning prophetic matters could backfire if his positions are based

on anything but careful exegesis of the pertinent passages. Daniel 11

must be examined with special care in light of its difficulty.2

            This study will first examine the context of this passage, then will

address four crucial questions which determine the interpretive frame-

work, and finally will provide a condensed commentary relating the

particulars of the passage to the framework established.

 

                                    CONTEXT OF DAN 11:36-45

 

Context of the book

            Daniel had been carried away captive with other Hebrews into

pagan Babylon. Was Nebuchadnezzar more powerful than YHWH?

 

            l Dan 11:40, 41, 45. All quotations are from the NASB unless otherwise noted.

            2 Daniel 11 is no doubt the most difficult chapter of Daniel's prophecy." Donald

Campbell, Daniel: Decoder of Dreams (Wheaton: Victor, 1977) 32.

 

206                 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

 

Could YHWH provide for their needs outside of the land of promise?

God's purpose in giving this revelation through Daniel appears to

have been to reassure all that he was totally in control of the affairs

of his chosen people Israel and of the affairs of the whole world

as well.

            Dan 11:36-45 traces the efforts of several Gentile kings to

establish themselves as world rulers. Israel appears to be caught in the

middle of these conflicts as the pre-eminent battleground, and all of

this leads to "a time of distress such as never occurred since there was

a nation until that time" (12:1). Thus, this section describes the

climax of the persecution at the hands of a Gentile power like what

Israel was experiencing in Daniel's day. The issue at stake involves a

demonstration that God rules in spite of appearances, and the second

half of the book was given in Hebrew to communicate especially to

the nation of Israel God's plan and protection for them.

 

Context of the Section (10:1-12:13)

            The message of God's rule over Israel (chaps. 8-12, written in

Hebrew) consists of the vision of the ram and the he-goat received by

Daniel in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar (chap. 8), the

prayer of Daniel and the angelic revelation of the seventy weeks in

the first year of Darius (chap. 9), and the vision received in the third

year of Cyrus, king of Persia (chaps. 10-12). This last chronological

identification (10:1) helps to indicate clearly that the final three

chapters comprise a single unit. The point of this final vision is to

project, for Israel, the future history of the nations as they move

toward the consummation of history. The vision was given to Daniel

toward the beginning of the Persian empire. Thus, Israel's problem of

being under Gentile dominion did not stop with the fall of Babylon.

Instead, the vision reveals that Israel would be under the dominion of

Persia, Greece, and then Rome, until her ultimate deliverance through

Messiah. This section may be outlined as follows:

 

                        CONSUMMATION OF HISTORY

            I. The Prologue 10:1-21

            II. The Vision 11:1-12:3

                        A. Introduction (1)

                        B. Persian Rule (2)

                        C. Greek Rule (3-35)

                                    1. Alexander the Great (3-4)

                                    2. Seleucids and the Ptolemies (5-20)

                                    3. Antiochus Epiphanes (21-35)

 

 

HARTON: INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11:36-45    207

 

                        D. Roman Rule (11:36-12:1a)

                                    1. The Power of the final Roman King (11:36-45)

                                    2. The Persecution of the Saints (12:la)

                        E. Messianic Rule (12:lb-3)

                                    1. The Rescue of Israel (12:1b)

                                    2. The Resurrections (12:2)

                                    3. The Reward of the Righteous (12:3)

            III. The Epilogue 12:4-13

 

            Most agree that the chapter division, which isolates 12:1-3 from

the rest of chap. 11 with which it structurally belongs, is poorly

placed. The vision, running from 11:1 through 12:3, forms the heart

of the section, and it reveals once more the same progression of world

rulers as had been previously revealed in chap. 2 in Nebuchadnezzar's

dream and in chap. 7 in the vision of the four beasts followed by the

Son of Man. Persia (11:2) and Greece (11:2) are explicitly named.

The consummative nature of resurrection and final judgment (12:2)

imply the arrival of the smiting stone. If Daniel is to be consistent

with his previous revelation on the progression of world rulers, one

would expect the Roman Empire to appear between the Greek

Empire and the Messianic reign.

            The focus, in fact, in the section is upon the climax of the "times

of the Gentiles." Such a large proportion of material was devoted to

the career of Antiochus Epiphanes (11:21-35) because he was recog-

nized to be a type of the final "man of sin" and persecutor of the

Jews, Antichrist. Then in v 36, the focus shifts from the type to the

antitype himself. Dan 11:36-45 reveals the power of this "wilful king"

and 12:1a the climactic persecution that he unleashes against God's

"people." But in this final hour, when the worst pressure possible is

put upon Israel by Antichrist himself, Israel is rescued (12:1b)! God

rules indeed! Thus, the final verses of Daniel 11 reveal the final

enemy of Israel immediately preceding her final deliverance by the

Messiah.

 

Conclusion

            Climactic power and persecution is concentrated in Antichrist

and prepares the way for Israel's climactic deliverance and Messianic

rule.

            CRUCIAL QUESTIONS ABOUT DAN 11:36-45

            Many of the descriptive phrases in this passage are general or

ambiguous enough to be adaptable to different people at different

times. For example, Otto Zockler adapts these phrases to a description

 

 

208                             GRACE THEOLOGICAL

 

of Antiochus Epiphanes.3 Thomas Robinson, by contrast, applies the

phrases to a continuing description of the Papacy of Rome.4

First, the crucial questions that establish the framework of the

interpretation will be addressed before a verse by verse analysis of the

entire passage will be attempted. The four crucial questions that

establish the framework of Dan 11:36-45 are: (1) What is the

temporal setting of the passage? (2) What is the identity of the "wilful

king"? (3) What is the identity of the King of the North? and (4) What

is the identity of the "attacker" in 11:40-45?

 

The Temporal Setting of 11:36-45.

            1. Proposal: The events described here will take place during the

Great Tribulation. The temporal setting is eschatological.

            2. Proofs:

            a. Dan 12:1 "Now at that time." The end of chap. 11 is tied to

the eschatological events presented in 12:1-3 by the chronological

description "at that time." Robert Culver clearly sets forth the

determinative nature of this textual identification:

 

                        There is small doubt in the minds of any except a very few that the

            first portion of chapter 12 is prophecy concerning "last things"--in the

            theological nomenclature, "eschatology." Events connected with the

            resurrection of the dead and final rewards and punishments can hardly

            be otherwise.

                        If there were a clean break in thought between chapters 11 and 12

            it might be possible to say that all of the previous section of the

            prophecy relates to events of now past history. But such a break does

            not exist. Rather, a chronological connection is clearly provided be-

            tween the last of chapter 11 and the first of chapter 12 by the opening

            words of chapter 12. Referring to the destruction of a certain king

            whose career is predicted in the last part of chapter 11, chapter 12

            opens thus: "And at that time shall Michael stand up," etc. Thus a

            clear connection with the eschatological prediction of chapter 12 is

            established for the last portion, at least, of chapter 11.5

 

            b. Dan 11:35, 36 "until the end time." The transition to the

eschatological period is marked at v 35 when it is indicated that the

"people who know their God" (cf. v 32) will continue to undergo

suffering and persecution "until the end time; because it is still to

            3 Otto Zockler, "The Book of the Prophet Daniel," in Lange s Commentary on the

Holy Scriptures, ed. John Peter Lange (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960)

254ff.

            4 Thomas Robinson, "Homiletical Commentary on the Book of Daniel," The

Preachers Homiletic Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974) 246ff.

            5 Robert D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago: Moody, 1954) 163.

            HARTON: INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11:36-45    209

 

come at the appointed time. " V 36 then opens with the phrase, "Then

the king will do as he pleases." In other words, v 35 appears to

summarize the continuation of the established pattern of the suffering

of Israel during the "times of the Gentiles" "until the end time." Then

in v 36 Daniel records the first revelation in this vision concerning

this appointed end time. Gaebelein summarizes this conclusion: "Be-

tween verse 35 and 36 we must put a long, unreckoned period of

time.”6

            c. Dan 10:14 "in the latter days." The angel giving the vision to

Daniel explained that he had come to give Daniel "An understanding

of what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision

pertains to the days yet future" (10: 14). This introduces a breadth of

scope for the vision that may be expected to include something of the

Messianic age and the final events of human history. But if 11:36-

12:3 is not viewed as being eschatological, then the angel was misin-

formed, for nowhere else in the vision are the latter days in view.7

 

            3. Supporting Arguments:

            a. The events of 11:36-45 do not fit Antiochus Epiphanes. The

leading alternative to the view that the temporal setting of this

passage is eschatological is that it is a continued description of the

career of Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. 11:21-35). The pagan historian

Porphyry is usually cited in order to justify this proposal historically,

but E. J. Young, Robert Dick Wilson, H. C. Leupold, and John F.

Walvoord have all given scholarly and convincing refutations of this

attempt.8

            b. There is a natural break in the text after 11:35. A number of

the versions recognize the break in subject by making 11:36 begin a

new paragraph or section (e.g., NASB).

 

            4. Conclusion:

There is strong and clear chronological evidence in the text for

identifying the temporal setting of the events of 11:36-45 as the

eschatological time of Jacob's trouble falling within Daniel's 70th

 

6 Arno Gaebelein, Daniel (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1968) 179.

7 Some do place the shift to the eschatological earlier than v 36. For example,

Jerome identified the eschatological as beginning at 11:22, while G. H. Lang placed its

beginning at 11:5. A consideration of such views lies outside the scope of this study. All

that is being established now is that 11:36-45 is eschatological and not historical.

8 E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949) 250-51;

Robert Dick Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Baker,

1972) 266; H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1949) 510;

and John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody,

1971) 271.

 

210                 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

week. This conclusion will narrow the number of potential candidates

for the role of the "wilful king."

 

The Identity of the "wilful king” of 11:36

 

1. Historical ruler or eschatological Antichrist?

If the argumentation regarding the temporal setting as presented

above is accepted, then the answer to this question is also solved.

However, not everyone has seen it this way. Mauro identified this

king as Herod the Great, rabbinic interpreters such as Ibn Ezra

identified him as Constantine the Great, Calvin saw in this "king" the

Roman Empire, and Antiochus has remained a favorite candidate

among liberal critics.9 The papal view as cited before (Robinson) is

common among amillennial interpreters, and at least one recent com-

mentator saw in Napoleon Bonaparte the "wilful king" of Dan

11:36-39.10

Jerome and Luther are among earlier men who also saw this

figure as the Antichrist of the last days.11 While other kings may

match some of the descriptive phrases in 11:36-39, none but the

Antichrist can measure up to the temporal qualifications of living "at

that time" in the "time of distress such as never occurred since there

was a nation until that time" (12:1).

 

2. "Beast of the sea" or the "false prophet?"

But complete agreement does not exist among those who agree

that this wilful king is eschatological. Most are comfortable using the

term "Antichrist," but are also comfortable with applying that designa-

tion to anyone they choose. For example, Herod, Constantine, the

Pope, and Napoleon have all been viewed as "Antichrist." Once an

eschatological identification is agreed upon, one must determine to

which eschatological figure this "wilful king" corresponds.

J. N. Darby and Arno Gaebelein identified this king with the

second beast of Revelation 13 (vv 11-17), or the "false prophet."12

However, I am in agreement with most premillennial interpreters who

identify the wilful king with the first beast of Revelation 13 (vv 1-10).

 

9 C. F. Keil, "Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel," Commentaries on the

Old Testament (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 461-62; and Young, The

Prophecy of Daniel, 246 for a listing of these and other interpretations.

10 Roy Allan Anderson, "The Time of the End," Signs of the Times (November,

1970: 22, 23).

11 Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, trans I. by Gleason L. Archer, Jr. (Grand

Rapids: Baker, 1958) 136.

12 Darby is cited by Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, 272; cf.

Gaebelein, Daniel, 180.

 

HARTON: INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11:36-45    211

 

The function of the false prophet is to exalt the first beast, and the

wilful king is said to "exalt and magnify himself" (11:36). The

identification with the "beast of the sea" is preferable on the basis of

the wilful king's preeminence and self-exaltation.

 

3. Jew or Gentile?

Perhaps the majority of premillennial interpreters have identified

this man as a Jew. Since this "prince" (9:26) makes a covenant with

the Jews (9:27) in order to bring about a substitute ("anti") peace,

and since the Jews would accept only a Jew as "Messiah," it is felt

that Antichrist must be a Jew.13

However, an increasing number of commentators are allowing

for a gentile Antichrist. Walvoord points out that 11:37 does not use

the Jewish expression "Jehovah of his fathers," but rather the non-

covenant name "Elohim," which was used by the Gentiles.14 To the

counter argument that Elohim is an equally acceptable designation

for YHWH, Wood replies that since the singular lxe is used in this very

context (11:36) for the singular referent "god," the plural yhelox< must

be translated "gods."15 This would identify the wilful king as a

gentile.

The answer to this question may influence the interpretation of a

few phrases in the passage (such as "he will show no regard. . . for

the desire of women") but is otherwise not a major matter. I am

inclined to agree with Walvoord and Wood that the Antichrist will

probably be of gentile extraction. One need not be a Jew in order to

sign a treaty with Israel. In fact, the treaty of 9:27, being with

"many," will probably involve many nations in addition to Israel.

Perhaps it is more likely that the nations of the world will sign a

peace treaty with a gentile than with a Jew. Furthermore, since the

type of Antichrist, Antiochus, was not a Jew, the antitype need not be

a Jew either.

 

4. Conclusion:

The wilful king of Dan 11:36-45 may be identified as an eschato-

logical personage who will appear in the Tribulation period. His

career and characteristics are elsewhere described in Daniel 7 (the

"little horn"), in Daniel 9 ("prince that shall come"), in 2 Thessalo-

nians 2 ("man of sin "), and in Revelation 13 ("beast. . . of the sea").

With these defining traits in view, he may be called the Antichrist.

 

13 Lehman Strauss, The Prophecies of Daniel (Neptune NJ: Loizeaux Brothers,

1969) 343; J. Allen Blair, Living Courageously (Chicago. Moody, 1971) 225; and

John C. Whitcomb, "The Book of Daniel," The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D.

Douglas (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962) 36.

14 Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, 273.

15 Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973) 306.

212                 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

The identity of the King of the North in 11:40

 

1. Problem of identifying the King of the North.

 

            Dan 11:40 introduces two new kings who attack the wilful king

of 11:36-39. Little problem exists in identifying the King of the

South; most identify him as the king of Egypt or a coalition of

southern kingdoms in which Egypt is prominent. This harmonizes

well with the entire pattern of Daniel 11, in which the Ptolemies are

referred to with this same designation, The Ptolemies ruled from

Egypt during the fractured period of the Hellenistic Empire. This

identification is sealed by the specific reference to Egypt in 11:42 and

11:43.

            However, similar unanimity does not exist with regard to iden-

tifying the King of the North. The reason for this ambivalence may be

traced in part to the absence of any further specific geographical

names as is true in the verses dealing with the King of the South.

Nevertheless, several guidelines do exist in seeking to determine an

identity for this king: his association with the Seleucids through the

title "King of the North" as used throughout Daniel 11 and his

activities as described in 11:40.

 

2. Proposals for identifying the King of the North.

            Robinson and Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown (following Newton)

propose that Turkey best fits this King of the North.16 Ray Baughman

and Merrill Unger anticipate that Syria will fill this role.17 A large

number, including Herman Hoyt, J. Dwight Pentecost, Lehman

Strauss, and Leon Wood, feel that this King of the North will be

Russia.18

 

3. Preferred identity of the King of the North.

            a. Not Turkey. Those proposing Turkey as the origin of the

King of the North do so in order to find a historical fulfillment for

the King of the North. However, the eschatological setting of the

passage forbids a historical fulfillment. Inasmuch as the Seleucids

ruled over part of Turkey, it might be possible that Turkey would

expand in terms of geographical extent and international power so as

 

            16 Robinson, "Homiletical Commentary on the Book of Daniel," 256; and Robert

Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible (Reprint;

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961) 798,

            17 Ray E. Baughman, The Kingdom of God Visualized (Chicago: Moody, 1972)

177, and Merrill Unger, Ungers Bible Dictionary (Chicago: Moody, 1966) 798.

            18 Herman A. Hoyt, The End Times (Chicago: Moody, 1969) 152; J. Dwight

Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958) 344; Strauss; The

Prophecies of Daniel, 345; Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, 308.

            HARTON: INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11:36-45    213

 

to qualify as the eschatological King of the North. This appears to be

very unlikely at the present time.

            b. Not Syria. There is a hermeneutical problem related to the

association of Syria with the Seleucids. One basis of determining a

possible identification is found in the use of the title "King of the

North," which is used earlier in Daniel 11 to refer to the Seleucid

branch of the Greek Empire. At that time

 

            the dominion of the Seleucids . . . reached from Phrygia in the west to

            he Indus on the east. For the sources, see DS 19:58, 59; Appian 55;

            Arrian Anabasis 7:2.19

 

A map of the Seleucid Empire shows its wide geographical range,20

and history has recorded the dominant international influence exerted.

Consequently, since the Seleucid Empire dominated a wide geographi-

cal area and was a world political power, the single fact that Syria is

located north of Israel is insufficient evidence to relate it to the King

of the North.

            Syria is extremely unlikely as a candidate for the role of the land

of the King of the North inasmuch as it possesses neither the wide

geographical range nor the world power that characterized the Seleu-

cid kings. On this basis, Turkey is more likely than Syria. Turkey has

a wider geographical scope, and the royal capital of the Seleucids,

Antioch,21 lies in modern-day Turkey, not Syria. Wood summarizes

the problem of political correspondence:

            The designation "king of the North" is not so easily adapted, for

the present Syrian government hardly qualifies as a world contender of

the stature of the Seleucids.22

            There is also an exegetical problem--the activities of this king in

11:40. "And the king of the North will storm against him [the wilful

king of 36-39] with chariots, with horsemen, and with many ships;

and he will enter countries, overflow them, and pass through." Then

v 41 continues the narrative with the statement: "He will also enter

the Beautiful Land." If it can be demonstrated (I will attempt to do

this in the next section) that the "he" of v 41 does not represent a

change of antecedent, but is continuing the description of the King of

 

            19 Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, 234; cf. Charles Pfeiffer, Howard Vos, The

Wycliffe Historical Geography of Bible Lands (Chicago: Moody, 1967) 268.

            20 See map xii of the Seleucid Empire in Merrill C. Tenney, The Zondervan

Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976) vol. 5.

            21 E. M. Blaiklock, "Seleucia," The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible,

5.331.

            22 Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, 308.

 

214                 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

 

the North's attack against Antichrist, then the King of the North does

not enter Palestine ("the Beautiful Land") until the events described

in 11:41. This means that the attack on Antichrist involves the King

of the North's entering, overflowing, and passing through other coun-

tries en route to Palestine.

            But even if this understanding of the attacker in v 41 as the King

of the North is not accepted, Keil does not believe that Syria matches

the requirements of the activities described in 11:40:

            The plural tOcrAxEBa (into the countries) does not at all agree with the

            expedition of a Syrian king against Egypt, since between Syria and

            Egypt there lay one land, Palestine. . . but it is to be explained from

            this, that the north, from which the angry king comes in his fury

            against the king of the south, reached far beyond Syria. The king of the

            North is thought of as the ruler of the distant north.23

 

Inasmuch as Syria and Palestine are adjoining neighbors, it is difficult

to see how the King of the North can enter countries (plural) en route

to attacking the Antichrist in Israel. The exegesis of 11:40 appears to

require that the country of the King of the North be geographically

removed from Israel by two or more other countries in the national

boundaries of "the end time."

            c. Probably Russia. Probably the majority of premillennial inter-

preters of this passage do identify the King of the North as the

modem U.S.S.R. on the basis of a correlation with Ezekiel 38-39.

However, stronger supports for this view may be recognized in

the hermeneutical and exegetical requirements discussed in connection

with Syria. Russia meets the hermeneutical requirements involved in

the title "King of the North" associated with the Seleucid empire. It

has a corresponding northern location, a corresponding vast geo-

graphical scope, and a corresponding world political preeminence.

            Consideration of Russia's history sheds further light on this

question and makes its association with the Seleucid kings of the

north even stronger. For example, Barabas states that "Magog was

probably located between Cappadocia and Media; Josephus says it

refers to the Scythians (Jos. Antiq. I. vi. 1).”24 In other words, before

the Scythians migrated further north they occupied the area between

Cappadocia and Media which was part of the Seleucid empire.25 A

similar picture of Russia's roots is given in the New Schaff-Herzog

Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:

 

            23 Keil, "Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel," 470.

            24 S. Barabas, "Gog and Magog," The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the

Bible 2.770.

            25 Cf. map xii, Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 5.

HARTON: INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11:36-45    215

 

            A stricter geographical location would place Magog's dwelling between

            Armenia and Media, perhaps on the shores of the Araxes. But the

            people seem to have extended farther north across the Caucasus, filling

            here the extreme northern horizon of the Hebrews (Ezek. xxxviii. 15,

            xxix. 2). This is the way Meshech and Tubal are often mentioned in

            the Assyrian inscriptions (Mushku and Tabal, Gk. Moschoi and

            Tibarenoi).26

 

            Finally, Russia also fits the exegetical requirements of 11:40

inasmuch as they would have to "enter countries, overflow them, and

pass through" in order to attack Antichrist in Israel. Since the associa-

tion with the Seleucids and the activities described in 11:40 provide

the only objective basis for identifying this King of the North, and

since Russia best fits these associations, Russia is the most probable

identification of the origin of this king.

 

            d. Prudence in identifying the King of the North. One should

not stress the name of a current country, because the geographical

and political boundaries of countries are in a state of flux. Wood

points out the proper posture:

 

            Because the political situation in the world could well be different when

            the Antichrist rules, however, it stands to reason that the terms should

            be adapted to whatever that difference may prove to be.27

While the names and fortunes of individual countries may change, the

criteria for identifying the King of the North will not change: his

country will be north of Israel and separated from Palestine by at

least two borders, and his country will occupy a large geographical

area and exert world power and influence.

 

The identity of the “attacker" in 11:40-:45

            Vv 41-45 trace the significant activities of a king designated only

by the pronoun "he." Is the antecedent of these pronouns the attacker

of v 40 (the King of the North) or the person being attacked (the

wilful king)? Since it is not revealed who wins the battle between

Antichrist and the kings of the north and of the south, ambiguity

about the identity of the "he," "his," and "him" referred to throughout

vv 41-45 remains. Is this a continued attack of the King of the North

that began in v 40b, or is this the counterattack by the wilful king?

 

            26 Vol. 5, p. 14 as cited by Pentecost, Things to Come, 328. For similar arguments,

cf. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, 309.

            27 Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, 308.

216                 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

 

1. Antichrist as the counterattacker in vv 41-45

            a. Position. J. Dwight Pentecost states this position as follows:

 

                        From this passage several features concerning the movement of

            this invasion are to be seen. (1) The movement of the campaign begins

            when the King of the South moves against the Beast-False Prophet

            coalition (11:40), which takes place "at the time of the end." (2) The

            King of the South is joined by the northern confederacy, who attacks

            the Wilful King by a great force over land and sea (11:40). Jerusalem is

            destroyed as a result of this attack (Zech. 12:2), and, in turn, the armies

            of the northern confederacy are destroyed (Ezek. 39; Zech. 12:4). (3) The

            full armies of the Beast move into Palestine (11:41) and shall conquer

            all that territory (11:41-42). Edom, Moab, and Ammon alone escape.

            It is evidently at the time that the coalition of Revelation 17:13 is

            formed. (4) While he is extending his dominion into Egypt, a report

            that causes alarm is brought to the Beast (11:44). It may be the report

            of the approach of the Kings of the East (Rev. 16:12) who have assem-

            bled because of the destruction of the northern confederacy to challenge

            the authority of the beast. (5) The Beast moves his headquarters into

            the land of Palestine and assembles his armies there (11:45). (6) It is

            there that his destruction will come (11:45).28

 

In this scenario, the initial aggression is seen to come from the King

of the South and then from the King of the North. Then Antichrist is

seen to seize this opportunity to counterattack and pursue his own

policy of military aggression as described in vv 41-45 until he meets

his end at Armaggedon. Vv 40 and 41 are usually taken as referring

to the middle of the Seventieth Week of Daniel 9, involving the

breaking of the covenant, and vv 44 and 45 are usually taken as

referring to the end of the Seventieth Week and the battle of Ar-

maggedon. Thus, this passage is viewed as summarizing a whole series

of military campaigns spanning the entire 42 months of the end of

Daniel's seventieth week.

            Probably the majority of premillennial interpreters subscribe to

this view. It is especially prominent among "popular" writers such as

Oliver Greene, Charles Ryrie, and C. I. Scofield, and has been

published in such magazines as Moody Monthly and Good News

Broadcaster.29

 

            28 Pentecost, Things to Come, 356.

            29 Oliver Greene, Daniel (Greenville: The Gospel Hour, 1954) 439; Charles C.

Ryrie, ed., The Ryrie Study Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1978) 1242; C.I. Scofield, ed.,

The New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University, 1967) 917; Alfred

Martin, "Daniel: Key to Prophecy," Moody Monthly (July-August, 1972) 64; and

Theodore Epp, "Events in the End Time," Good News Broadcaster (October 1969) 7-9;

"Four Confederations of Nations," Good News Broadcaster (November 1969) 22-25.

            HARTON: INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11:36-45    217

 

            b. Proofs. Usually this position is assumed to be correct rather

than having to be proven to be correct. Two lines of support do seem

to be used: a contextual argument and a chronological argument.

            The prominence of Antichrist in the immediately preceding

context (11:36-40), along with the prominence of Antichrist in pro-

phetic literature, argues for a continued emphasis upon Antichrist in

vv 41-45. Accordingly, the "he" of v 41 would refer back to the "him"

of v 40, which does refer to the wilful king of vv 36-39.

            It appears that the single biggest support for this position is the

mention of "rumors from the East and from the North" (v 44) which

lead to Antichrist's return to Palestine, "the beautiful Holy Mountain"

(v 45), where he comes to his end. The rumors from the east are

associated with Rev 9:13-21 and with Rev 16:12-16, and the end of

this man is associated with Armaggedon, which follows immediately.

Wood explains it this way:

                        While in this section of Africa, the Antichrist will hear of trouble

            from the east and north, which will give him cause for alarm. The nature

            of the rumors or whom they concern is not indicated. Some expositors

            believe they concern the invasion of a vast horde of 200,000,000

            warriors from the far east (Rev. 9:16) under the leadership of "kings of

            the east" (Rev. 16:12), who will have heard of the Antichrist's victory

            over the earlier north-south confederacy and will then wish to challenge

            him for world leadership.30

 

Because Antichrist is defeated and thrown alive into the lake of fire at

this point (Rev 19:19, 20), it is inferred that Antichrist is the subject

of all of vv 41-45.

 

2. The king of the North as the attacker in vv 40-45

 

            a. Position. John C. Whitcomb states the essence of this posi-

tion in the New Bible Dictionary:

            Verse 35b is regarded as providing the transition to eschatological

            times. First the antichrist comes into view (xi. 36-39); and then the

            final king of the north, who, according to some premillennial scholars,

            will crush temporarily both the antichrist and the king of the south

            before being destroyed supernaturally on the mountains of Israel (xi.

            40-45; cf Joel ii. 20; Ezek. xxxix. 4, 17). In the meantime, antichrist will

            have recovered from his fatal blow to begin his period of world

            dominion (Dn. xi. 44; cf. Rev. xiii. 3, xvii. 8).31

 

Vv 40-45, then, are descriptive of the respective defeats of the kings

of the south and of the north. The King of the South is defeated by

 

            30 Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, 313.

            31 John C. Whitcomb, "The Book of Daniel," 293;

218                 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

 

the King of the North, and the King of the North is then brought to

his end by an unnamed adversary (Antichrist?) in v 45. The result of

the elimination of Antichrist's most powerful adversaries is to establish

firmly his absolute worldwide dominion shortly after the middle of

the seventieth week. This in turn leads to his abuse of his tremendous

powers, in part by persecuting the Jews (12:la) throughout the rest of

the seventieth week.

            William Foster, Thomas Robinson, Paul Tan, John Whitcomb,

and J. Allen Blair are among those holding this identification.32

 

            b. Proofs. Grammatical, exegetical, and several contextual argu-

ments may be used to support this position.

            William Foster argues that the antecedent for the pronoun "he"

in v 41 is the King of the North in v 40 who "will storm against him

with chariots. . .":

                        The nature of this problem is not the same as that of the

            ambiguous pronoun which precedes it, since, in the former sense, the

            person referred to by the pronoun was regarded as the passive object of

            the action, whereas in the present instance the pronoun represents the

            active source of the action. Since it is the king of the north who is the

            active contender, the natural reading would probably indicate that he

            also should be the one represented as entering into the countries.33

 

Without any textual indication to reverse the subject (King of the

North) and the object (Antichrist) of the action in v 40, the "he"

which is the subject of v 41 most naturally refers back to the subject

of v 40.

            Furthermore, this identification of the antecedent of "he" in

11:40b as the King of the North is supported by the fact that the King

of the North is the nearest possible antecedent. Most English transla-

tions are misleading at this point because they invert the word order.

For example, the NASB reads ". . . and the king of the North will

storm against him. . . and he will enter countries. . ." (11:40). The

pronoun "him" (Antichrist) appears to be the nearest possible ante-

cedent of the pronoun "he" in the English translation. However, in

the Hebrew text, the object "against him" (vylAfA) precedes the subject

"the King of the North" (NOpc.Aha j`l,m,). This word order makes the King

of the North, and not Antichrist, the nearest possible antecedent for

the pronoun "he." Without any textual indication for doing so, it is

unwarranted to jump over the nearest antecedent, the King of the

North. This identification is critical because this initial pronoun is

 

            32 William Foster, "The Eschatological Significance of the Assyrian," Th.D. disser-

tation, Winona Lake, IN: Grace Theological Seminary, 1956.

            33 Ibid., 152.

            HARTON: INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11:36-45    219

 

followed by an entire series of pronouns in 11:41-45 which continue

the same reference.

            Foster goes on to argue that the geographical progression in the

text between v 40 and v 43 also identifies the attacking king of 11:41-

45 as the King of the North:

           

            . . . the direction of his conquest is a positive proof that this

            description is of the King of the North--"he shall enter also into the

            glorious land. . . the land of Egypt shall not escape. . . and the

            Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps" (Dan. 11:41-42). In

            the prophecy of Daniel the phrase "the glorious land" is used three

            times as a designation for the land of the Jews into which an invader

            proceeds (Dan. 8:9; 11:16; 11:40). In each case, the invader is one who

            comes from the north, and in each case one who comes from the

            Seleucidaean Kingdom. . . .Therefore, the direction of conquest, enter-

            ing first into Palestine, then Egypt, then Lybia and Ethiopia, would

            indicate that the invading army proceeded from the north.34

           

            While not all who hold this view feel that this proof is as conclusive

as Foster makes it sound, the movement against Antichrist begun

from the north (v 40) may be seen to flow most naturally into Palestine

(v 41) and then on south past Edom, Moab, and Ammon into Egypt

(v 42) and finally into Libya and Ethiopia. While this is not the only

way to visualize the geographical progression, it is the smoothest and

most unified movement. It is reasonable to expect that vv 41-45 do

continue the movement begun in v 40 unless there is some textual

clue to indicate another movement.

            Three contextual arguments also support this conclusion. First,

throughout Daniel 11 the King of the South and the King of the

North are depicted as natural enemies who are continually warring

against one another. This identification fits the pattern and also

provides a fitting climax to this struggle in the end time.

            Second, the phrase "Now at that time" of 12:1 immediately

follows the conclusion of this section in 11:45. Inasmuch as 12:1 goes

on to say that at that time "there will be a time of distress such as

never occurred since there was a nation until that time," the very

middle of the seventieth week is in view. If the time of Jacob's trouble

is just about to begin at the time of the demise of the king in 11:45,

then this king cannot be Antichrist, but must be the King of the

North. This temporal designation at 12:1 dare not be treated too

loosely, for it is the cornerstone in the argument in favor of an

eschatological interpretation of this passage.

 

            34 Ibid., 152-53.

220                 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

 

Third, this identification is in keeping with the whole argument

and development of the Book of Daniel and of the last half of the

book in particular. Daniel is demonstrating that God is still the ruler

over all in spite of Israel's captivity. Their persecutions will not soon

end, but when they do reach their climax at the hand of the wilful

king, Antichrist himself, during the time of Jacob's trouble, then

Messiah will rescue Israel (cf. 12:1b) and institute his kingdom. If it is

indeed Antichrist, rather than the King of the North who is destroyed

in 11:45, then 12:1 is both anticlimactic and out of sequence tem-

porally. Preserving the argument and development of this section

involves identifying the attacker in vv 40-45 as the King of the North.

 

3. Conclusion: the King of the North is the attacker in vv 40-45

That I prefer this explanation is evident by now. Not only does

this position rest on good, solid exegesis of the text, but it also avoids

the weaknesses in the alternate view. Following is a brief consideration

of three of these weaknesses.

a. 11:40. There is a complete lack of exegetical indicators for

switching from the kings of the south and north to Antichrist as the

attacker in v 41. George N. H. Peters, who held the Antichrist view

himself, admitted this weakness:

"And he shall enter into the countries"--this is perhaps the clause

which has caused the greatest difficulty to critics, owing to the sudden

transition from one person to another. If we were to confine ourselves

to this prophecy, it would be impossible from the language to decide

what king this was that is to enter into the countries; whether the King

of the North, or of the South, or of the Roman Empire. . . .35

 

Peters then goes on to justify an abrupt shift in 11:40 to the

Antichrist on the basis of other passages, such as Daniel 2 and 7 and

Revelation 17. He openly admits that there is nothing in the language

of the text itself to justify this sudden transition from the description

of the activity of the King of the North in the phrase immediately

preceding "he shall enter into the countries."

b. 11:41. Those favoring the Antichrist view picture the kings

of the south and of the north as coming against Israel in 11:40. Then

Antichrist is seen responding to this aggression in 11:41 by entering

the "beautiful land" for the first time himself and instituting a

counter-attack of his own. There is a serious problem with this

interpretation, however, for the text does not say that the kings of the

south and north attacked Israel. Instead, it twice indicates that these

two kings attacked him (Antichrist; 11:40). Consequently, Antichrist

 

35 George Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952)

2.654. The italics are those of Peters.

HARTON: INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11:36-45    221

 

cannot subsequently enter the scene at the end of v 40 or at v 41. The

attack against him puts him in the middle of the action right from the

beginning of v 40. This fact is also pointed out by Ray Baughman:

". . . the king of the north (and the king of the south) comes against

the Antichrist, not against Israel (Daniel 11:40).”36

c. 11:44, 45. A third weakness is the association of the "rumors

from the East and from the North" with the kings of the east of

Revelation 9 and 16. Almost all commentators will admit that the

King of the North hears these rumors while conducting his Libyan

and Ethiopian campaigns to the south and west of the "Beautiful

Land" that he had passed through on his way down to Egypt. V 45

records his trip back to the east and the north to the "beautiful Holy

Mountain" (Jerusalem). This is textual evidence that the rumors

emanated from or concerned something going on in Palestine. There

is no textual basis whatsoever for seeing kings of the east here. Not a

word is mentioned about kings of the east. And this conjecture is

made on the basis of identifying this king as Antichrist and of

changing the temporal setting from the middle of the seventieth week

to the end of the week at Armaggedon. That it would require

Antichrist 42 months to subdue this coalition of southern kings is

hard to reconcile with Rev 13:4: "Who is like the beast, and who is

able to wage war with him?"

 

Summary

It has been stated that the interpretation of Dan 11:36-45 rests

upon one's answers to four crucial questions. Each of these questions,

therefore, has been considered in depth. The temporal setting of the

text was found to be an eschatological one, specifically that of the

middle of the seventieth week of Dan 9:27. The wilful king was found

to be the Antichrist of the Tribulation period, the beast of Reve-

lation 13. Most premillennial interpreters would agree with these

identifications.

However, premillennialists are divided on the answers to the last

two crucial questions. It was determined that modern Russia is the

most likely identification of the place of origin of the King of the

North in this passage, and that it is this same King of the North (and

not Antichrist) whose final exploits are traced in vv 41-45, ending in

his demise. Thus, in vv 40-45 both the King of the South and the

King of the North are defeated, leaving Antichrist as sole world ruler

at the middle of the seventieth week.

This establishes the basic framework of this interpretation. It

now remains only to do a brief phrase-by-phrase commentary on the

entire passage to determine how the details fit into this framework.

 

36 Baughman, The Kingdom of God Visualized, 179.

222                 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

 

CONDENSED COMMENTARY

 

"Roman Rule: Israel's Final Enemy"

(Daniel 11:36-12:10)

 

Having retraced prophetically the Persian rule (11:2) and the

Greek rule (11:3-35), the angel revealed that the climax of Israel's

suffering under Gentile dominion would be the final Roman ruler

(11:36-12:1a) and that it would last until Messiah comes to rescue

Israel (12:lb) and establish his everlasting kingdom (12:2, 3). So this

is the final stage of the fourth kingdom that will be crushed by the

stone cut without hands (cf. 2:44, 45). This constitutes further revela-

tion about the fourth beast and the little horn (7:7, 8) that will

immediately precede the Son of Man's establishment of his everlasting

dominion (7:9-14).

 

ISRAEL'S FINAL ENEMY

I. The Power of the Roman King. 11:36-45

A. Arrogance and Aggression of the Roman King (36-39)

(Power Asserted)

1. Arrogance of the Roman King (36-38)

2. Aggression of the Roman King (39)

B. Attackers of the Roman King Defeated (40-45)

(Power Attested)

1. The Roman King Attacked (40)

2. The King of the South Defeated (41-43)

3. The King of the North Defeated (44-45)

II. The Persecution of the Saints by the Roman King. 12:la

(Power Abused)

 

Power of the final Roman King: 11:36-45

Vv 36-39 record the assertion of the Roman king's power

through his arrogance (vv 36-38) and his acts of aggression (v 39).

This power is then attested (vv 40-45) when the Roman king is

attacked (v 40) by world powers from the south and from the north.

First the southern coalition is defeated (vv 41-43) and then the

northern armies are defeated (vv 44-45), leaving the Roman king

with absolute, worldwide, unchallenged power.

 

1. Arrogance and aggression of the Roman king (vv 36-39)

a. Arrogance of the Roman king (vv 36-38)

"Then the king will do as he pleases." This introduces a ruler

who has absolute authority and can act in an arbitrary manner

without having to answer to anyone.

"And he will exalt and magnify himself above every god." This

absolute ruler will be arrogant and given to self-exaltation. Paul, in

HARTON: INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11:36-45    223

 

2 Thess 2:4 quotes this phrase ("who opposes and exalts himself

above every so-called god or object or worship") thus identifying this

Roman king with the "man of lawlessness, the son of destruction" in

2 Thessalonians 2. Likewise, the Roman king is associated with the

little horn of Dan 7:8 who also is characterized by self-exaltation:

"and behold, this horn possessed. . . a mouth uttering great boasts."

“And will speak monstrous things against the God of gods."

This Roman king will blaspheme the living God. This is the first hint

that the Roman king has now broken the covenant with Israel (Dan

9:27) and has defiled the temple "in the middle of the week" (Dan

9:27). This corresponds to other pictures given of Antichrist. "And he

will speak out against the Most High" (Dan 7:25); "And he opened

his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and

His tabernacle" (Rev 13:6).

“And he will prosper until the indignation is finished.” Such

terrible blasphemy does not mean that God has lost control. To the

contrary, God foreordained such persecutions against Israel for the

purpose of chastening his chosen people and for preparing them for

repentance. The concept of indignation runs through the entire book.

For example, 8:19 reveals "the final period of indignation; for it

pertains to the appointed time of the end." Dan 7:25 follows the

description of the little horn's blasphemy with an account of his

persecution of the Jews for the final 3 1/2 years of the Tribulation

period: "And he will speak out against the Most High and wear down

the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations

in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time,

times, and half a time."

“For that which is decreed will be done.” Dan 11:36 concludes

this awful description of arrogant blasphemy with a reminder that

God is in control. Dan 9:26 had revealed that "desolations are

determined" and 9:27 had spoken of destruction "that is decreed."

This is the main point of the entire Book of Daniel. "God is

supremely in charge of history, even when the Antichrist rules.”37

“And he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the

desire of women." This Roman king will not blaspheme YHWH out

of allegiance to a rival religious deity; this monarch will be an atheist

who also rejects his own religious heritage. The phrase "desire of

women" is ambiguous, and this ambiguity has opened the door to

many fanciful interpretations.38 The only textual control is that the

 

37 Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, 306.

38 Cf. Keil, "Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel," 464; Leupold, Exposi-

tion of Daniel, 516; George Williams, The Students Commentary on the Holy

Scriptures (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960) 629; Young, The Prophecy of Daniel,

249, for various proposals of pagan goddesses. See M. R. DeHaan, Daniel The

224                 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

 

phrase occurs in a context of Antichrist's religion and his rejection of

his religious heritage. There is good reason to believe that this

religion is probably non-Jewish (see p. 211).

"Nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will magnify

himself above them all." This description continues to be consistent

with the fulfillment of the "Abomination of Desolations" in which

Antichrist causes the sacrifices to cease (cf. Dan 12:11) and he

demands worship of himself. Antichrist "exalts himself above every

so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the

temple of God, displaying himself as being God" (2 Thess 2:4).

"But instead he will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his

fathers did not know; he will honor him with gold, silver, costly

stones, and treasures." In one sense, no one is a complete atheist;

everyone "worships" something. The Roman king's value system will

center in power and force and in materialism (gold, silver, etc.). Might

will make right for this man. Strauss makes an interesting association

of this description of Antichrist's "religion" with that of the first beast

in Revelation 13:

 

It is possible that the god mentioned here is the image of Antichrist,

the first beast in Revelation 13, whose design and construction were

ordered by the second beast (Revelation 13: 11-15). If we are correct in

this, then that image will be made from gold, silver, and precious

stones, as mentioned in Daniel 11:38.39

 

Summary: Everything in vv 36-38 points to the arrogance of this

self-centered Roman king who is answerable to no man or to no god

but himself. The ultimate expression of this arrogance may well be his

breaking of the covenant with Israel and his desolation of the temple

while demanding worship of himself. Such an act would provide an

appropriate background for the aggressive acts recorded in 11:39.

 

b. Aggression of the Roman king (v 39)

”And he will take action against the strongest of fortresses with

the help of a foreign god." Antichrist now puts his faith in power

and might into practice by attacking "the strongest of fortresses."

Such military aggression seems out of place during the first half of

the seventieth week when the covenant of peace is in force. Con-

sequently, the mid-point of the week has just been passed and the

abomination of desolation has just taken place.

 

Prophet (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1947) 299; Gaebelein, Daniel, 188; Strauss, The

Prophecies of Daniel, 343; Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, 274,

for arguments in favor of seeing this as a reference to a Messianic hope.

39Strauss; The Prophecies of Daniel, 344.

HARTON: INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11:36-45    225

 

"He will give great honor to those who acknowledge him, and he

will cause them to rule over the many.” This also could indicate that

the covenant has been broken. Under the covenant, this Roman king

enjoyed significant peace-keeping powers.40 However, he did riot

enjoy corresponding absolute power. At the mid-point of the seven-

tieth week, Antichrist chooses to pursue personal power. This imme-

diately causes factions and choosing of sides. Antichrist will devise a

reward system to delegate some of his ruling authority to those who

choose to follow him.

"And will parcel out land for a price.” Once more Antichrist is

viewed as having engaged in territorial expansion. In his attack upon

"the strongest of fortresses," he appears to have been successful so

that he is now in a position to parcel out this newly acquired land.

Exactly what land is in view is ambiguous, but it is intriguing to

consider that this land may be in Israel. This would place Antichrist

in Palestine on one of his military expeditions of expansion, so that

the kings of the south and of the north attack him while he is in the

"beautiful land" (11:40-41). In any case, this action characterizes an

aggressive expansionist and not a global peacemaker.

c. Summary.

The picture of world conditions under Antichrist's rule at the

close of vv 36-39 is hardly one of tranquility and peace. Fortresses

are being attacked, puppets are being installed as rulers, and land is

being redistributed. The world is witnessing military aggression insti-

tuted by the one who was to have been the peacemaker to end all

peacemakers. That Antichrist entered upon this campaign of raw

aggression presupposes his having broken his covenant with Israel

and the nations.

This aggression provokes an attack against the Roman king by

two of the world power blocks headed by the King of the South and

the King of the North (11:40). However, the defeat of these two

powers (11:40-45) will only serve to demonstrate the power of the

Roman king.

2. Attackers of the final Roman king defeated (vv 40-45)

a. Attack upon the final Roman king (v 40).

"And at the end time the king of the South will collide with

him.” When Antichrist manifests his true character in the middle of

 

40 Thus, the Roman king has already overcome his western opposition (cf. Dan

7:20, 24) by the outset of the seventieth week of Daniel, and the firm covenant "with

the many" (Dan 9:27) must be a peace treaty involving most, if not all, of the major

nations of the world, including Israel.

226                 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

 

the seventieth week, a coalition of southern (Arab) nations move to

block his new policy of aggression.

“And the king of the North will storm against him with chariots,

with horsemen, and with many ships." Simultaneous with, or just

subsequent--to, the attack by the King of the South comes a second

attack upon the Roman king from the north. This distinguishes three

kings: the King of the North, the King of the South, and the "him"

(Om.fi; VylAfA), the Roman king. This prevents identifying the King of the

North as the same person as the Roman king.41 The "him" also does

not permit the interpretation that this attack is against Israel; it is

against the Roman king and his forces. Since the Roman king is

consistently characterized as warring against the saints (cf. Rev 13:7;

Dan 7:24-25; Dan 12:1), it is incomprehensible that the Jews should

now be allied with him. However, it is possible that the attack upon

the Roman king takes place within the confines of Palestine. "The

variety of the resources that are to be employed against the Antichrist

indicate how great his power must be at the latter end--'chariots,

horsemen, and many ships.'”42

“And he will enter countries, overflow them, and pass through."

If the Roman king is situated in Palestine, then the King of the North

will come from some distance and sweep through several other

countries en route to the major attack. The normal sense of the

language is to see this as a continued description of the activities of

the King of the North. There is no textual evidence of a change in

subject.

 

b. Defeat of the King of the South (vv 41-43).

“He will also enter the Beautiful Land." The movement of the

King of the North now carries him as far south as Palestine, which is

the orientation point of "north" and "south" in the first place. Once

more there is a lack of any textual evidence for changing the subject

of this action from the King of the North. The 3 m.s. pronoun cannot

even be considered ambiguous in the context. The only ambiguous

element is the location of the Roman king. Is he located in the land of

Palestine, or is he located in one of the countries entered into and

overflowed by the King of the North in 11:40? Or is he located in one

of the other countries mentioned in this verse?

“And many countries will fall." Wherever Antichrist may be, it

is implied that he is among the fallen as a result of this attack.

 

41 Some do hold that the King of the North and the wilful king are the same here.

See for example, Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 164. Since very few commentators

hold this position, little effort is made here to refute it. See Foster, "The Eschatological

Significance of the Assyrian," 135-37, for arguments that three persons are involved.

42 Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, 521.

HARTON: INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11:36-45    227

 

Whitcomb proposes that this temporary defeat of Antichrist at the

hand of these two opposing kings may shed some light on the "deadly

wound" of the Roman king emphasized in the Book of Revelation

(cf. 13:3, 12, 14; 17:8, 11).43 As Antichrist simply drops out of sight

(and is left for dead?), the King of the North seizes this opportunity

to further his own ambitions for world power. His main enemy

having been eliminated, the King of the North now attacks his rivals,

including former allies.

"But these will be rescued out of his hand: Edom, Moab, and the

foremost of the sons of Ammon." On his way south in attacking the

King of the South, the King of the North evidently bypasses the area

of Edom, Moab, and Ammon to the east of the Jordan (occupied by

modern-day Jordan). While there may be some additional prophetic

significance to the bypassing of these nations at this time,44 the

most simple explanation for "why countries to the southeast of

Palestine will escape destruction is that the path taken. . . will lead

southwest.”45

"Then he will stretch out his hand against other countries and

the land of Egypt will not escape." Now the primary target of this

march to the south is revealed. The King of the North has turned

against his former ally, the King of the South, who is now a chief

rival for world leadership. This battle has truly become a "world war"

because of the repeated summary mention of "countries" being in-

volved (vv 40,41,42). Furthermore, the most probable identity of the

King of the South is herein revealed to be the sovereign of Egypt.

“But he will gain control over the hidden treasures of gold and

silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and Libyans and

Ethiopians will follow at his heels." Egypt evidently will have been

amassing gold and silver in exchange for her natural resources, and

these precious things are stripped from her as part of the booty.

Having conquered Egypt, the King of the North then appears to

divide his forces. One part of his army campaigns in Libya to the west

of Egypt, and another part of the army campaigns in Ethiopia to the

southeast. The King of the North has defeated the King of the South

and is engaged in follow-through campaigns to establish himself

firmly as ruler of the world. His dreams appear to be within reach of

realization when something totally unexpected happens.

 

c. Defeat of the King of the North (vv 44-45).

“But rumors from the East and from the North will disturb him,

and he will go forth with great wrath to destroy and annihilate

 

43 Cf. Whitcomb, "The Book of Daniel," 293.

44 Strauss, The Prophecies of Daniel, 346.

45 Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, 312.

228                 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

 

many.” In light of the sudden return of the King of the North to

Palestine (11:45), these rumors from the east and from the north must

have emanated from, or have concerned, Palestine. The frame of

reference for "east" and "north" is no longer Palestine, but the actual

location of the King of the North in Libya and Ethiopia. Palestine is

"east" of Libya and "north" of Ethiopia. Or if one wishes to de-

emphasize these split campaigns and view the entire operation as one

united campaign against Egypt and her allies, Palestine is northeast

of Egypt.

Perhaps 11:44-45 is intended to reveal nothing more than the

change in direction of the King of the North back to the northeast,

back to Palestine. It is interesting, however, to try to integrate

prophetic truth. The similarity of "rumors from the east" to "the

kings of the east" of Revelation 9 and 16 has led many commentators

to associate them. For at least two reasons these passages probably

are not describing the same events. First, the geographical reference

point differs. In Revelation, east is reckoned from Palestine, whereas

east and north in Dan 11:44 is reckoned from Africa. Second, the

temporal reference points differ. Revelation 16 clearly takes place at

the end of the seventieth week as it climaxes at the battle of

Armaggedon, whereas Dan 12:1 clearly fixes the time of 11:44, 45 as

the middle of the seventieth week and the start of Jacob's trouble.

More likely is the correspondence between Dan 11 :44-45 and the

Roman king's deadly wound as recorded in Revelation 13. The

Roman king is here described as a beast out of the sea (13:1), but his

correspondence with the tenfold symbolism of the Roman empire in

Daniel 2 and 7 is striking. V 3 cites a primary cause of the Roman

king's following:

And I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal

wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed and followed

after the beast.

Newell observes, "here then is Satan's permitted imitation of the

death and resurrection of Christ!”46 This imitation may either be a

deceptive appearance of death and resurrection, or it may be an

actual death and miraculous resuscitation from the dead. Pentecost

argues that the resurrection of Christ is unique and that the Roman

king could not have really risen from the dead.47 Certainly, Antichrist

will be unable to reproduce Christ's unique resurrection in a glorified

body, but he may be able to be resuscitated to life following his

mortal wound. Whether he was merely left for dead and then

 

46 William R. Newell, The Book of Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1935) 186

47 Pentecost, Things to Come, 335-36.

HARTON: INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11:36-45    229

 

"miraculously" recovered, or actually died and was restored to mortal

life by supernatural power, the false prophet will use this event as a

sign and proof of Antichrist's right to be worshipped:

And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had

two horns like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon. And he exercises all

the authority of the first beast in his presence. And he makes the earth

and those that dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound

was healed (Rev. 13:11-12; italics added).

 

Some try to explain this fatal wound as an experience of a nation

and not of a man, but the false prophet's message appears to relate

only to a person and not to a national entity. Newell agrees: "It is a

man that is before our eyes in Revelation 13, all through. God says he

is a Man in 13:18.”48 Furthermore, Rev 13:14 implies that this fatal

wound will be received in battle:

And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs

which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling

those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had

the wound of the sword and has come to life.

 

Here it is revealed that the Roman king receives his wound from a

sword (i.e., during war).

This explanation of the relationship of Dan 11:36-45 to Revela-

tion 13 appears to have real merit. Both involve a military context.

Both have the same temporal setting, the middle of the seventieth

week, and both events serve to launch the worldwide career of

Antichrist. No wonder the world is thereafter awed by the beast,

asking, "who is able to wage war with him?" (Rev 13:4). This

correspondence helps to visualize the possible content of rumors that

would be powerful enough to cause the King of the North to drop his

African ventures and return immediately to Palestine. It would also

provide for the Roman king's continuing into Dan 12:1 and leading

the way during the tremendous persecution of the Jews during the

second half of the seventieth week.

“And he will pitch the tents of his royal pavilion between the seas

and the beautiful Holy Mountain." This verse clearly indicates the

King of the North's return northeast to Palestine. He bivouacs

between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea in the vicinity of

Jerusalem ("Holy Mountain").

“Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him." Little

is said here apart from the revelation of the King of the North's

demise. In view of the Antichrist's subsequent prominence in the

 

48 Newell, The Book of Revelation, 187.

230                 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

 

second half of the Tribulation period, one might assume that the

northern king is either destroyed by Antichrist or that Antichrist will

take credit for his defeat. This defeat of the King of the North

following that of the King of the South serves to prove the Roman

king's power and to leave him in absolute control of the world.

 

d. Summary.

Paul Tan captures the essence of this attestation of Antichrist's

power: "The beast is first defeated (Rev. 13:3), but the northern

confederacy is supernaturally annihilated (Dan. 11:45), and the beast

becomes the world ruler (Rev. 13:7).”49 Walvoord also sees the defeat

of the northern confederacy as a significant link in Antichrist's path

to world rule:

With the northern kingdom destroyed there is no major political force

standing in the way of the Roman Empire, and the world empire is

achieved by proclamation. The apparent invincibility of the Roman

ruler, supported as he is by Satanic power, is intimated in the question

of Revelation 13:4, "Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make

war with him?"50

 

Persecution of the saints: 12:1 a

“Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard

over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of

distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that

time.” At that time, the time of the demise of the King of the North,

the worst persecution of all time against the Jews will break out. It

will be the time of Jacob's trouble (Jer 30:7) and two-thirds of the

Jews will perish (Zech 13:8-9). The Lord Jesus warned that when

they saw the abomination of desolations spoken of by Daniel, they

should flee from Judea to the mountains (Matt 24:15, 16), "for then

there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the

beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall" (Matt 24:21).

It must be granted that 12:1 does not say that the Roman king

takes the lead in this climactic persecution of Israel. But Scripture

does say this explicitly elsewhere. Revelation fills in some of the

details not provided by Daniel at this point:

 

And there was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and

blasphemies; and authority to act for forty-two months was given to

him. And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blas-

pheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in

 

49 Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy (Winona Lake: BMH, 1974) 347.

50 John F. Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1967) 94.

HARTON: INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11:36-45    231

 

heaven. And it was given to him to make war with the saints and to

overcome them; and authority over every tribe and people and tongue

and nation was given to him (Rev. 13:5-7; italics added).

 

In light of later revelation, one can now say that this final persecution

begins at the mid-point of the seventieth week, and thus the events of

11:36-45 also must be viewed as taking place "at that time."

Thus, the stage is set for the arrival of Messiah to put down the

pagan Gentile powers and to establish his kingdom. While 12:1b-3

does not say that this is the work of Messiah, later revelation also

makes it plain that it will be Christ who rescues Israel (12:1), who will

resurrect the dead (12:2), and who will reward the righteous (12:3).

Consequently, this brings the argument of the book to a climax. The

Gentile nations dominating Israel, beginning with Babylon, would

not soon end. Persia, Greece, and Roman would follow. But at the

appointed time in history's darkest hour, Messiah will come and reign

forever. God rules.

 

CONCLUSION

This study has not been concerned with proving every detail of

interpretation concerning Dan 11:36-45. A number of the phrases are

sufficiently ambiguous to allow various "possible" interpretations.

The core of the study has been examining and seeking to answer four

crucial questions.

What is the temporal setting of this passage? It is eschatological,

and more specifically, the mid-point of the seventieth week of Daniel.

What is the identity of the "wilful king?" He is the Antichrist of the

end time, the "man of sin" spoken of by Paul, and the "beast out of

the sea" of John. Who is the King of the North? He is the head of a

great power north of Israel which has wide geographical range and of

world political stature, probably the USSR. Who is the "attacker" in

11:40-45? It is the King of the North and not the Antichrist.

The commentary then dealt with the particulars of this passage

and demonstrated that they may be best understood in the interpretive

framework established by the answers to the four crucial questions.

Not only does this view account for a smooth interpretation of the

passage itself, but it augments the argument of the book of Daniel

and integrates it with other prophetic truth.

 

This material is cited with gracious permission from:

            Grace Theological Seminary

            200 Seminary Dr.

            Winona Lake,  IN   46590

www.grace.edu

Please report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:  thildebrandt@gordon.edu