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