Daniel 11, Part 2

Going back to the first of the chapter, the first year of Darius puts this in the same year the decree for the Jews return was issued. There was political jockeying, and many turnovers with uprise and falls.

Contemptible Person - Rise to Power

Daniel 11:21–24 ESV

21 In his place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given. He shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. 22 Armies shall be utterly swept away before him and broken, even the prince of the covenant. 23 And from the time that an alliance is made with him he shall act deceitfully, and he shall become strong with a small people. 24 Without warning he shall come into the richest parts of the province, and he shall do what neither his fathers nor his fathers’ fathers have done, scattering among them plunder, spoil, and goods. He shall devise plans against strongholds, but only for a time.

11:21 When Seleucus IV Philopator died in 175 B.C., his younger brother, another son of Antiochus III (Antiochus “Epiphanes” IV), seized the throne. He is labeled a “contemptible person” by the Scripture writer because from the Jewish vantage point he was a monster. Antiochus IV severely persecuted the Jews, massacring thousands, and represented one of the greatest threats to Yahweh worship in all of Israel’s history. This arrogant monarch referred to himself as Epiphanes, the “Manifest One,” or “Illustrious One”; but others called him Epimanes, the “Madman.”

“The honor of royalty” was not due Antiochus, for the throne rightfully belonged to Demetrius I Soter, the son of Seleucus IV. However, Demetrius was being held hostage in Rome, and this allowed Antiochus to seize power.

“He will invade the kingdom” would be better rendered “he will come to the kingdom,” for Antiochus did not become king of Syria by means of a military invasion. “When its people feel secure” (bĕšalwâ) is literally “in quietness” or “in ease” (cf. 8:25). The idea may be that Antiochus would come in a time of false security or that he would come “unawares.” If the former meaning is correct, the reference probably is to the leaders of Syria, like Heliodorus, who felt “secure” in their new government. “Unawares” would also aptly describe the furtive manner in which Antiochus came to power. Both ideas of false security and stealth may be involved.

Antiochus was a master of political “intrigue” and won support for his government by influencing key figures in Syria. These persons were promised attractive rewards if they cooperated with him.

11:22–23 In 169 B.C. Ptolemy VI Philometor (181–146 B.C.) launched an attack to regain territories (Palestine and Phoenicia) lost to the Syrians, but his “overwhelming army” was defeated by Antiochus’s forces. Ptolemy was even captured and held as a hostage by the Seleucid king (cf. vv. 26–27).

Ptolemy is called “a prince of the covenant” because he agreed (made a covenant) to become an ally of Antiochus if the Syrians would help him regain his throne in Egypt, which had been taken by his younger brother, Ptolemy VII Euergetes II (Physcon). Antiochus was delighted to make such a pact, for he felt that it would give him a foothold in Egypt. So with Syrian help, Ptolemy regained his throne. Later Ptolemy broke this agreement and allied himself with his brother Ptolemy VII to dislodge Antiochus’s troops from Pelusium, a fortress on the border of Egypt.

11:24 When they felt “secure” (or “without warning”; cf. v. 21), Antiochus invaded “the richest provinces” and plundered their treasures. These areas included Egypt, Judea, and other provinces where Syrian forces were successful. Young notes that some historical sources indicate that Antiochus gave gifts to the people. Yet the context of this verse seems to suggest the idea of dividing the spoils of war (“plunder, loot and wealth”) with his followers rather than with the people generally.

Grandiose plans to conquer “fortresses” (in Egypt, etc.) filled the proud king’s head, but his success would last “only for a [brief] time,” that is, “the time decreed by God.”

Southern Invasion

Daniel 11:25–28 ESV

25 And he shall stir up his power and his heart against the king of the south with a great army. And the king of the south shall wage war with an exceedingly great and mighty army, but he shall not stand, for plots shall be devised against him. 26 Even those who eat his food shall break him. His army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain. 27 And as for the two kings, their hearts shall be bent on doing evil. They shall speak lies at the same table, but to no avail, for the end is yet to be at the time appointed. 28 And he shall return to his land with great wealth, but his heart shall be set against the holy covenant. And he shall work his will and return to his own land.

11:25–26 This section refers back to Antiochus’s first campaign against Egypt in 169 B.C. His victory over Ptolemy VI is the subject of v. 25. The “plots devised” against Ptolemy seem to include Antiochus’s plans against him, the activities of disloyal subjects in Egypt, and the poor counsel of his advisers (see next verse). Cumulatively these things prevented Ptolemy from successfully “standing” against the Syrians. “Those who eat from the king’s provisions” (v. 26) were Ptolemy’s trusted counselors, who unwisely urged the young king to recapture Syria and Palestine, thus incurring the wrath of Antiochus.

11:27 While Ptolemy VI was a prisoner, Ptolemy VII Euergetes (Physcon) was made king. This development led Ptolemy VI and Antiochus (“the two kings”) to plan how they would regain the Egyptian throne. Both kings made promises that they had no intention of keeping. Of course, Antiochus was willing to support Ptolemy merely for personal gain, and in turn Ptolemy made insincere promises in order to receive aid from the powerful Syrians. Nevertheless, the plan of Antiochus and Ptolemy to control all Egypt was “to no avail,” even though they did have some successes in Egypt, including the capture of the strategic center, Memphis. Ptolemy VI was installed as king there, but Ptolemy VII still ruled in Alexandria. Later Ptolemy VI established a joint rule with his brother, Ptolemy VII.

In spite of all the plans made by human leaders, God is sovereign, and the “end” of this evil king and his enterprises would come “at the appointed time.” Montgomery comments that the expression “an end will still come at the appointed time” suggests “the ultimate doom in the counsels of God.”

11:28 Then Gabriel arrived at the real purpose of all this historical data—to set the stage for the persecution of the Jewish people (“the holy covenant”). After plundering Egypt, the king returned home by way of Palestine and found an insurrection in progress. He put down the rebellion, massacring eighty thousand men, women, and children (2 Macc 5:12–14) and then looted the temple with the help of the evil high priest, Menelaus. The persecution of the Jews by this evil tyrant had now escalated to calamitous proportions.

Second Southern Invasion

Daniel 11:29–35 ESV

29 “At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south, but it shall not be this time as it was before. 30 For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and pay attention to those who forsake the holy covenant. 31 Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate. 32 He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant, but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action. 33 And the wise among the people shall make many understand, though for some days they shall stumble by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder. 34 When they stumble, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery, 35 and some of the wise shall stumble, so that they may be refined, purified, and made white, until the time of the end, for it still awaits the appointed time.

11:29–30a In 168 B.C. (God’s “appointed time”) Antiochus invaded Egypt again, but this time he was not successful. Verse 30 records that the cause of Antiochus’s failure was that he encountered opposition from the “ships of the western coastlands”. Kittîm was an ancient name for Cyprus that came to be used for the lands of the Mediterranean in general. Here it refers to the Roman fleet that had come to Alexandria at the request of the Ptolemies. Thus the fourth empire, which would eventually defeat the third (Greece), is introduced.

As the Syrians were moving to besiege Alexandria, the Roman commander Gaius Popilius Laenas met Antiochus four miles outside of the city and handed him a letter from the Roman Senate ordering him to leave Egypt or face war with Rome. Then the Roman commander drew a circle in the sand around Antiochus and told him that he must respond before stepping from the circle. Well aware of the might of Rome, having been a hostage there, and also remembering his father’s (Antiochus III) defeat by the Roman legions at the Battle of Magnesia, the Syrian king stood in humiliated silence for a brief interval and then acquiesced to the demand. Antiochus withdrew from Egypt to Antioch in utter humiliation.

FURTHER PERSECUTIONS OF THE JEWS (11:30b–35)

11:30b In 167 B.C., Antiochus turned his humiliation into anger against the Jewish people. He sent Apollonius (2 Macc 5:23–26), the head of his mercenaries and the “chief collector of tribute” (1 Macc 1:29), to Jerusalem. Apollonius pretended to come in peace, but on the Sabbath Day he suddenly attacked, massacring many people and plundering the city (cf. 1 Macc 1:30–32; cf. 2 Macc 5:25–26). But he rewarded those apostate Jews like the high priest Menelaus, who supported his Hellenistic policies (cf. 1 Macc 1:1, 43; 2 Macc 4:7–17).

11:31 The temple is spoken of here as a “fortress” either because it was a place of spiritual strength or more likely because it was used as a military citadel. Later, in 167 B.C., the suppression of the Jewish religion began on a grand scale (1 Macc 1:41–50; 2 Macc 6:1–6). All Jewish religious practices such as circumcision, possessing the Scriptures, sacrifices, and feast days were forbidden on penalty of death (1 Macc 1:50, 63); and the imperial cult was introduced. Desecration of the Jewish religion reached its climax on 15 Chislev (December) 167 B.C. (1 Macc 1:54) when an altar or idol-statue devoted to Olympian Zeus (Jupiter) was erected in the temple (“the abomination that causes desolation”), and on 25 Chislev sacrifices, probably including swine (cf. 1 Macc 1:47; 2 Macc 6:4–5), were offered on the altar (cf. 1 Macc 1:54, 59). In this manner the temple was desecrated and rendered empty of Yahweh worshipers.

11:32 Antiochus made fine sounding promises (“flattery”) in order to entice people to support his policies (cf. 1 Macc 2:18; 2 Macc 7:24); thus he would further “corrupt” the apostate Jews (“those who have violated the covenant”; cf. 1 Macc 1:11–15) who listened to him.

Yet even in this dark period there were true believers (“the people who know their God”) among the Jews who remained faithful to their God. First Maccabees 1:62–63 speaks of them: “Many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. They chose to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die” (NRSV).

Foremost among those who resisted the oppressive measures of Antiochus were the Maccabees. A certain priest named Mattathias who lived in the town of Modein (ca. seventeen miles northwest of Jerusalem) refused to forsake his God (cf. 1 Macc 2:1–14). He had five sons, three of whom (Judas, Jonathan, and Simon) became known as the Maccabees, although the term Maccabeus (“hammer”) originally was given only to Judas (1 Macc 2:4). The Maccabees successfully overthrew the Syrian yoke through a series of brilliant military victories (apparently predicted in Zech 9:13–17) against Antiochus’s military commanders, Apollonius, Seron, Gorgias, and Lysias (cf. 1 Macc 3:10–4:35) between 166 [or 165] and 164 B.C.; as a result the temple was rededicated (Hanukkah) to Yahweh on 25 Chislev (December 14) 164 B.C. (1 Macc 4:52).

11:33 “Those who are wise” also may be rendered “those who cause to be wise,” that is, “teachers.” Either interpretation is possible, and there is support for the latter view in the words “will instruct many.” But some of these persons are martyred according to the latter part of the verse, and it was not only the teachers who suffered this fate but many of the faithful. Moreover, the same expression is employed in 12:3, where it seems to describe believers generally, and the purification of the “wise” described later in this verse is applied to all the faithful (“many”) in 12:10. Therefore these “wise” persons are Israelites who have spiritual discernment, that is, true believers.77

These saints would remain true to Yahweh during Antiochus’s persecution and would “instruct” (lit., “give understanding to”) others in Israel (“many,” lit., “the many”) concerning the truth and the correct course of action, which included a military revolt against the Syrian government. Because of their stand many of the Jewish faithful would be killed. Tens of thousands were slaughtered in these persecutions, and many others died during the fighting, including another son of Mattathias, Eleazar (crushed by an elephant according to 1 Macc 6:43–46) in 162 B.C., and Judas Maccabeus, who perished at the battle of Mount Azotus in 160 B.C. (1 Macc 9:3, 15–18). Others were “captured” for slaves or had their property confiscated (“plundered”). Though intense, this persecution would last only for a short while. Some of these faithful heroes seem to be noted in Heb 11:34. Hebrews 11:35 probably speaks of the martyrdom of a mother and her seven sons who were horribly tortured and then burned (cf. 2 Macc 7:1–41).

11:34 During this period of oppression (“when they fall”), those faithful to Yahweh “will receive a little help,” presumably (according to most commentators) an allusion to the small number of forces who at the first fought against Antiochus. The rest of the verse apparently refers to the fact that as the strength of the Maccabean revolt grew, many uncommitted Jews sided with the rebels out of expediency, particularly when the Maccabean forces, now joined by the Hasidim, began to put to death those who had collaborated with the Seleucids (cf. 1 Macc 2:42–48).

11:35 “Some of the wise will stumble” expresses the same thought as v. 33—true believers will suffer persecution and even martyrdom for their faith. The purpose of this fiery ordeal that fell upon Israel was to cleanse individuals and the nation as a whole of sinful practices and to strengthen their faith. It also separated the true believers from the unregenerate within the Jewish community.

In this context the “end” that has been “appointed” by the Lord denotes the termination of Antiochus’s persecutions. Those suffering in the second century B.C. would have been greatly comforted by the promise of an end to their suffering.

Antiochus IV died in 163 B.C. during an expedition in Persia, bringing to a conclusion both his wicked life and his atrocities against God’s people. Antiochus died a horrible death. Polybius relates that according to some the king died insane (see further discussion of Antiochus’s death at 8:25).

Defiance of God

Daniel 11:36–39 ESV

36 “And the king shall do as he wills. He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is decreed shall be done. 37 He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all. 38 He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these. A god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He shall deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god. Those who acknowledge him he shall load with honor. He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price.

Exegetical necessity requires that 11:36–45 be applied to someone other than Antiochus IV. The context indicates that the ruler now in view will live in the last days, immediately prior to the coming of the Lord. Verse 40 reveals that this king’s activities will take place “at the time of the end” (cf. 10:14), and the “time of distress” mentioned in 12:1 is best understood as the same “distress” (the tribulation) predicted by Jesus Christ in Matt 24:21 as occurring immediately before his second advent (Matt 24:29–31; cf. Rev 7:14). But the clearest indication that this “king” will live in the latter days is that the resurrection of the saints will take place immediately after God delivers his people from this evil individual’s power (cf. 12:2). Of course, the resurrection is an eschatological event. Finally, vv. 36–39 seem to introduce this king as if for the first time.

Daniel previously had described this person (chaps. 7 and 9) and expected the reader to recognize him without an introduction. He is none other than the “little horn” of Dan 7 and “the ruler who will come” of Dan 9:26. He is known in the New Testament as “the man of lawlessness” (2 Thess 2:3–12), the “antichrist” (1 John 2:18), and the “beast” (Rev 11–20). Interpreting this passage to foretell Antichrist has been a widely accepted view since ancient times (e.g., Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodoret), and Young rightly calls this “the traditional interpretation in the Christian Church.” Almost sixteen hundred years ago Jerome declared: “Those of our persuasion believe all these things are spoken prophetically of the Antichrist who is to arise in the end time.” Today the majority of both amillennial (e.g., Young) and premillennial (e.g., Archer) scholars interpret this king to be Antichrist. In reality a description of Antichrist should not be considered surprising in a context with Antiochus IV, for both of these oppressors of God’s people have previously been given a prominent place in Daniel’s prophecies (cf. chaps. 7–9). Thus Gabriel had now ceased to speak of Antiochus and had begun to describe the one he closely resembled (or typified), the eschatological Antichrist.

Antichrist (11:36–45)

Now the most notorious tyrant who will ever live is introduced into the narrative. First Antichrist’s evil character is related (11:36–39); then his wars are described (11:40–45).

11:36 Variations of the expression “do as he pleases” are used of God in 4:35, Persia in 8:4, Alexander the Great in 11:3, and Antiochus III in 11:16. A similar expression, “It prospered in everything it did,” was used of Antiochus IV in 8:12. Because of his personal charisma, intelligence, evil character, and political power, Antichrist will arrogantly believe that he can function sufficiently well without God. The passage seems to indicate that Antichrist will be an atheist (cf. 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 13:6), although he evidently will use religion to gain his position of power (cf. Rev 17). Baldwin declares: “So thoroughgoing is his egotism that he has no option but to be an atheist.”

“Unheard-of things” is a translation of the Hebrew niplāʾôt (from pālāʾ, “be surpassing, extraordinary”; noun, peleʾ, “wonder”), which denotes “astonishing, shocking, or unbelievable things.” Antichrist will spew out shockingly blasphemous words against Christ (cf. 7:8, 11, 20, 25; 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 13:5–6).

The phrase “the time of wrath” is a translation of one Hebrew word, zaʿam, a term that usually denotes the wrath of God (cf. Isa 10:25; 26:20; 30:27; Mal 1:4), and that is the meaning here. God’s wrath will be poured out upon Antichrist and the whole sinful world in the last days during the tribulation period (cf. 12:1; Matt 24:21–22, 29–31; Rev 6–19). When that period is over, this tyrant’s activities will cease. Though Antichrist will be judged, he himself is part of God’s judgment upon the wicked (cf. 2 Thess 2:12), for those who reject the truth will believe his lies and follow him to their doom (cf. Rev 16:13–16). When the evil leader has accomplished his purpose, judgment will fall upon him (cf. 7:11, 26; 2 Thess 2:8; Rev 19:20). Even Antichrist’s activities and the tribulation are permitted by the sovereign God to accomplish his purposes.

11:37 This verse states that Antichrist will reject whatever religion is practiced by his ancestors. If this individual arises from the peoples of ancient Rome (which chaps. 7 and 9 indicate), his family religion probably would be some form of Christianity.

The phrase “the one desired by women” (ḥemdat nāšîm) has been variously interpreted. A literal translation of the phrase would be “the desire of women” and also could be rendered as “that desired by women,” or even “the desire for women.” Mauro felt that “the one desired by women” alluded to Christ because Jewish women desired to be the mother of the Messiah, and the context of the verse seems to support this interpretation. On either side of the phrase are statements concerning Antichrist’s contempt for God and religion. It would not be surprising to find a reference to the rejection of the Messiah in this setting.

This verse concludes by again emphasizing the atheistic nature of Antichrist, “Nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all” (cf. 2 Thess 2:4). This deluded tyrant will even demand that the earth’s inhabitants worship him rather than their deities (cf. Rev 13:12, 14–15).

11:38 Antichrist will not worship the gods (or “god”) of his ancestors; “instead of them [i.e., these deities; lit., “instead of him”], he will honor a god of fortresses,” that is, military power and might. Keil remarks: “The ‘god of fortresses’ is the personification of war, and the thought is this: he will regard no other god, but only war; the taking of fortresses he will make his god; and he will worship this god above all as the means of his gaining the world-power.” Leupold rightly observes that “if men will not have the true god, there must be something to which they will attach the allegiance of their heart.” His ancestors did not worship this god of military power (“a god unknown to his fathers”), but Antichrist will. He “will honor” this god of military power by spending lavishly (“with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts”) to increase the size and strength of his army. Young asserts: “For religion he will substitute war, and war he will support with all that he has.” That Antichrist will engage in war is seen in vv. 40–45; 7:8, 24; and elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Rev 13:4; 16:13–16).

11:39 The future dictator “will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god.” This “foreign god” is the “god unknown to his fathers” of the previous verse, and Antichrist’s god is “foreign” in the sense that this deity was not worshiped by his ancestors. By means of his overwhelming military power (his god), Antichrist will destroy all of those who dare challenge him. The peoples of the world will be so impressed by his might that they will say: “Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?” (Rev 13:4).

Persons who vow allegiance to Antichrist as their king will be rewarded. He “will greatly honor” them, grant them leadership positions (“make them rulers over many people”), and allot them territories to rule (“distribute the land”). The “price” for such rewards includes unquestioning allegiance to Antichrist and his government but may also involve financial payoffs and political favors.

Final Southern Invasion and End Predicted

Daniel 11:40–45 ESV

40 “At the time of the end, the king of the south shall attack him, but the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships. And he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through. 41 He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites. 42 He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt, and the Libyans and the Cushites shall follow in his train. 44 But news from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go out with great fury to destroy and devote many to destruction. 45 And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him.

11:40 The wars of Antichrist are described in vv. 40–45, and the time of this conflict is declared to be “the time of the end” (v. 40). Leupold remarks: “There is nothing in the context that would restrict the force of the word ‘end,’ and so the end of all things must be meant.” Moreover, this battle concludes with the destruction of Antichrist in Palestine (v. 45) followed by the resurrection of the saints (12:2). These events have not yet transpired, and therefore the “end” in view here must be the final days of the present age. “Chariots and calvary and a great fleet of ships” would be representative of their modern counterparts in this eschatological battle. Earlier in this chapter “the king of the South” represented the Egyptian leader; and “the king of the North,” the Syrian king. In this context, however, these kings must symbolize nations or confederations of nations that exist in the last days. Obviously neither present-day Egypt nor Syria qualify as world leaders of the stature of their ancient counterparts (the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires). North and South must be relative to Israel. It seems clear from the description of the “king of the North” that he is none other than Antichrist, but the exact identification of the “king of the South” is a matter of conjecture. If the king of the North is Antichrist, the southern nation or confederacy must have sufficient military force to challenge his power. Since the South earlier in the chapter referred to Egypt, the reference may be to a confederacy of powers led by Egypt or including Egypt.

Some maintain that “the king of the North” and Antichrist should be distinguished. According to this scenario, both the king of the South and the king of the North (presumably allies) will attack Antichrist on two fronts.

There are several arguments favoring this view. (1) In vv. 36–39 Antichrist is simply called “the king,” not the “king of the North.” (2) Antichrist is from Rome, which is not directly north of Palestine. But Babylon was northeast of Judah; nevertheless it was spoken of as “the land of the north” (e.g., Jer 6:22; 10:22) because the invasion came from that direction. (3) Ezekiel 38–39 predicts an invasion of Israel from the north, and this invader is interpreted by some as Russia. (4) The northern threat in Ezekiel has some of the same allies (e.g., Libya) as the king of the North in this passage. In Dan 11:43, however, the Libyans and Nubians are most likely conquered foes of the king of the North, not his allies (see later discussion).

Grammatically, Wood could be justified in understanding both phrases, “will engage him” and “against him,” as referring to Antichrist. Nevertheless, Archer seems correct in stating: “It seems much simpler and more convincing, however, to take the ‘king of the North’ in this verse to be none other than the latter-day little horn, the Antichrist.” Moreover, earlier in this chapter (vv. 6–28) various rulers from the Seleucid line were designated as “the king of the North.” Antiochus IV Epiphanes was a Seleucid-Greek monarch (a “king of the North”) and probably should be understood as a type of the future Antichrist described in the latter portion of the chapter. It would be appropriate, therefore, to designate both the type and the antitype by the same phrase, “the king of the North.”

Thus a southern force (“the king of the South”) will attack Antichrist (“the king of the North”), whereby Antichrist will retaliate and decisively crush his opposition (“against him,” then, refers to the king of the South). He “will invade” the “countries” of those who have attacked him and will “sweep through them like a flood.”

A pertinent question concerns the relationship between the battle depicted here and that of Ezek 38–39. Walvoord maintains that the battle in Ezekiel is different altogether from that in this passage and occurs earlier, evidently at the middle of the seventieth seven. Yet two separate conflicts within such a short period of time (approximately three years) on the massive scale described in Ezek 38–39 and Dan 11:40–45 seems a virtual impossibility. According to Whitcomb, the battles of Daniel and Ezekiel are identical and will transpire at the midpoint of the tribulation period. Whitcomb affirms that when Gog (the leader of the northern foe in Ezek 38–39) is defeated, Antichrist will have “full control of the world,” and his persecutions will begin. Wood adds that at that time Antichrist will “be the supreme master of that part of the world and be in a position to force his will wherever he may desire.” Such an enormous conflict preceding the great Battle of Armageddon (at the end of the tribulation) by only three years seems out of the question. The battle described from different perspectives in Ezek 38–39 and that of Dan 11:40–45 is best construed as occurring immediately prior to the coming of the Lord and may be referred to as the Battle of Armageddon.

11:41 Antichrist “will also invade” Israel, “the Beautiful Land” (cf. 8:9 and 11:16). “Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon” refers to ancient countries southeast of Palestine that today are part of modern Jordan. For some reason Jordan will escape the battle, perhaps because this nation will be an ally of Antichrist or because of its neutral position in the conflict. A simple explanation may be that this area happens not to be in the path of Antichrist’s armies.

11:42 Egypt may perhaps be equated with “the king of the South” mentioned in v. 40, but this title may refer to another modern nation or group of nations (possibly an Arab bloc led by Egypt) to the south of Palestine. Verse 44 suggests that the king of the South will be joined in his assault by other nations.

11:43 Hebrew lûb [“Libyans,” lubîm] designates the area in North Africa west of Egypt that includes modern-day Libya, and Hebrew kûš (“Nubians,” kušîm) was the name of an area roughly equivalent to modern Ethiopia and Sudan. The literal phrase “in his steps” has been taken to signify “in submission” by the NIV translators (also Montgomery) rather than to mean that these nations are allies of (marching with) the king of the North (so Whitcomb, Wood). The NIV’s interpretation seems to be correct since Antichrist’s conquests are in the forefront in vv. 40–44. Libya, Ethiopia, and Sudan will therefore be subdued by Antichrist. If the king of the South (Egypt) represents an Arab bloc of nations, “all the riches of Egypt” may include the oil resources of the Middle East.

11:44 The “reports” that alarm Antichrist evidently are that new attacks have been launched against his interests from nations in the east (possibly the rmies described in Rev 9:13–19; 16:12) and the north (possibly the invasion from the north prophesied in Ezek 38–39). Without support from powerful allies, such as Ezekiel’s northern leader, the king of the South (Arab nations) would not likely venture an attack against Antichrist. The king of the North will go out “in a great rage to destroy and annihilate [ḥāram, “devote to complete destruction”; a strong expression] many.” Furious that anyone would dare oppose his power and authority, the evil dictator will arrogantly marshal his forces against the enemy with the intent of totally obliterating them.

11:45 Antichrist will meet these attacking forces in Palestine and make his headquarters (“pitch his royal tents”) “between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain.” “Seas” denotes the two bodies of water on either side of Israel, the Mediterranean Sea on the west and the Dead Sea on the east. The “beautiful holy mountain” is Mount Zion, where the temple stood, rendering the mountain “beautiful” and “holy.” Antichrist will use the Jerusalem temple for his headquarters (cf. 2 Thess 2:4; possibly Matt 24:15), though the brunt of the battle will be elsewhere. Daniel was here reporting that the final war will be fought in Israel, a fact set forth elsewhere in Scripture (cf. Ezek 39:2–29; Joel 3:2–16; Zech 12:2–9; 14:1–21). The Book of Revelation indicates more specifically that the valley of Megiddo will be the setting of this final conflict—the Battle of Armageddon (cf. Rev 16:16).

Finally, the career of the most evil man in history will be terminated. Earlier in the book Daniel revealed that “the little horn” will be judged when the Lord comes to set up his kingdom (7:11, 26–27); Paul said this “man of lawlessness” will be destroyed “by the splendor of his [Christ’s] coming” (2 Thess 2:8); and John teaches that the “beast” will be captured and thrown into the lake of fire at Christ’s return (Rev 19:20). This chapter closes with the pronouncement that there will be no escape (no “help” from any source) for Antichrist when the judgment of God falls upon him and his evil empire.

Daniel 11 has enormous theological value. First, the reality of the God of the Bible is demonstrated. Since no human being can know the future (apart from divine inspiration), there must be a God in heaven who revealed these matters. Second, the divine omniscience and omnipotence of the Lord is set forth. God foretells future events and therefore must have supreme knowledge and power over history. Third, for those who live after the predicted events have occurred, there is the confidence that since the previous prophecies have been fulfilled, the subsequent promises of deliverance and triumph will just as assuredly come true. Fourth, the fulfillment of these amazing predictions evidences that the Holy Scriptures are truly a product of supernatural revelation. Therefore this section of the Book of Daniel is not an unimportant record of historical events but a rich testimony to the believers’ glorious God and the trustworthiness of his Word.

Baldwin finds significance in the rise and fall of the many rulers set forth in chap. 11: “Yet, despite the fact that rulers become strong, suddenly they stand no longer; their kingdoms are broken, they retreat, they fall. This pattern recurs in the remainder of the chapter and emphasizes the fleeting glory achieved by conquest.” Keil adds that the passage demonstrates that the ungodly kingdoms of this world will not endure, trials purify the church, and the people of God will ultimately be delivered.

Miller, Stephen R. 1994. Daniel. Vol. 18. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.