Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Daniel. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Daniel 11:36-39
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
_____________________________
Prior to verse 36, the subject matter of this vision felt very squarely in the 2nd century BC. These verses, however, are regularly attributed to a future enemy of God’s people. (From Ellicott’s Bible Commentary)
(36) The king.—He raises himself by his thoughts and deeds, not only above the heathen deities, but above the true God. Though there can be no doubt that the northern king is still spoken of, it must be remarked that the features of Antiochus are gradually fading away from the portrait. In no sense can Antiochus be called an Atheist; nor does the language of the writer of 2Ma. 9:12, “think of himself as if he were God,” correspond with the words of this verse. Antiochus’ main object was to Hellenise the Jewish religion, and to force the Greek gods upon the Jews. The character of the northern king, on the contrary, finds a parallel in St. Paul’s description of Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:4).
Marvellous things.—That is, his utterances and blasphemies against the true God will be astounding. (Comp. Daniel 7:8; Daniel 7:11; Daniel 7:20.) This will continue till God’s indignation against His people is accomplished.
If we take the words of the comment here as being accurate, then we might view the passage as one where it largely refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but also foreshadows a person in the far future. For the sake of seeking out an additional comment on that idea, we’ll consult with The Pulpit Commentaries’s note on verse 36 as well:
And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that that is determined shall be done. The LXX. does not differ greatly from this, “And the king shall do according to his will, and shall be enraged, and be exalted above every god, and against the God of gods shall he speak marvellous things (ἔξαλλα) and shall prosper until the wrath be accomplished; for on him (εἰς αὐτόν) there is an end.” The difference in the last clause is considerable between the LXX, and not easily explicable. Theodotion differs somewhat more, “And he shall do according to his will; and the king shall be exalted, and be magnified, and he shall speak marvellous things, and he shall prosper until the wrath is ended; for it is to a determined end (συντέλειαν).” The Peshitta is closely related to the Massoretic, even in the last clause, where a difference is manifested in the others. The Vulgate affords no occasion of remark. The question that has to be settled here is—Who is the king who shall do according to his pleasure? Aben Ezra maintained the reference was to Constantine the Great. Rashi, followed by Calvin, would make it the Roman Empire personified. He notices the Rabbins’ referring this to Titus and Vespasian. As above mentioned, his own view is that the ‘Monarchia Romana’ is here intended. Jephet-ibn-Ali sees in this a prophecy of Mohammed; others, Wordsworth and Rule, following Jerome and Luther, think the reference here is to the antichrist of the New Testament. For our own part, we see no necessity for supposing any other monarch than Epiphanes is referred to. While Livy and Polybius remark on the piety of Epiphanes, it may seem strange to refer what is said here to him; but his ruthless plundering of temples proved that his piety was merely a political expedient. Speak marvellous things against the God of gods. We have no record of any proclamations of Antiochus which exactly suit this; but then we must bear in mind that we have only compendious accounts of what he did proclaim. To the heathen, moreover, as to Polybius and Livy, words of contempt against Jehovah would seem nothing worse than impolitic; but to the Jew, blasphemous words would be so horrible that they would not be recorded, as being a contamination: hence it is not extraordinary that we hear nothing of blasphemy in the history of Antiochus. The forbidding of sacrifices and of circumcision, while clearly enough dishonouring to God and to the Jewish nation, do not contain enough to justify the statement. Shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished. If by the indignation (זעם, za‛am) is meant the sufferings endured by the Jewish people, then the prosperity of Epiphanes—his life, indeed—did not last so long as the sufferings inflicted on the Jews; for these continued for some time after his death. There is probably here an indication that the writer’s horizon did not reach to the death of Antiochus. Certain, by his faith in God, that Antiochus would perish, he thinks that until that time he may prosper. For that that is determined shall be done. There is considerable difficulty as to the text here, but all the various forms convey the same meaning—a definite limit to oppression.
TPC lays out several candidates for the King of the North, and addresses some of the arguments against Epiphanes. On the whole, I don’t find this to be terribly compelling, particularly when the more ancient sources also doubt the attribution to him.
Nevertheless, the argument that this verse refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes is out there and is somewhat defensible. Continuing on to verse 37, in Ellicott:
(37) Neither shall they.—A further description is now given of the godlessness of this king, but the people of Israel are no longer mentioned in their relation to him. The northern king appears twice again in Palestine (Daniel 11:41; Daniel 11:45), and apparently dies there. He discards his hereditary religion, he has no regard to that natural affection which women look upon as most desirable, but exalts himself over all.
Desire of women.—The language used by Isaiah (Isaiah 44:9), “delectable things,” has led some commentators to think that an idol is here intended. It has been stated that the allusion is to the Asiatic goddess of nature, Mylitta, who, again, has been identified with the “queen of heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18, where see Notes). The context, however, leads us rather to think of human affection, or some other thing highly prized by women, for the words “neither shall he regard any god” would be unmeaning if a god were designated by “the desire of women.” It should be remembered that according to Polybius xxvi. 10, sec. 11, Antiochus exceeded all kings in the sacrifices which he offered at the gates, and in the honours which he paid to the gods.
In his estate—i.e., in the place of the God whom he has rejected, he will worship the “god of forces.” There is no reason for taking this to be a proper name, as is done by the Syriac translator and Theodotion. It can only mean “fortresses” (see margin), so that the whole religion of this king is the taking of fortresses. To him war is everything, and to war everything else must give way. To war, as if it were a god, he does honour with all his wealth.
Some people have interpreted verse 37 to refer to a future antichrist and argued (on the basis of this verse) this person will be a homosexual. This might be confusing to you if you rely only on the ESV (cited above):
ESV: 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.
New KJV: 37 He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all.
New ASB: 37 He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will magnify himself above them all.
There is some ambiguity regarding the translation of the phrase here and translators have rendered it more than one way. However, as this verse is the primary foundation upon which the idea that “the antichrist will be a homosexual” is based, it’s not a lot upon which to rely to make the assertion. Given the ambiguity, it is worth seeing whether this phrase fits well (in one way or another) with something related to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. So let’s take a look at TPC’s note for verse 37 as well.
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. The Septuagint rendering is, “And to the gods of his fathers he will not have respect, and to the desire of women he will not have respect, because in everything he shall be exalted, and by him strong nations shall be subdued.” The last clause belongs really to the next verse, of the first clause of which it is a variant reading. Theodotion is nearly identical in sense with this, “And no god of his fathers will he regard (συνήσει) and a desire of women.”£ “This clause stands thus incomplete, as if the translator would have finished it with (αὐτῷ) “to him”—”he regards no god, because over all he is exalted.” The Peshitta rendering is, “And to the god of his fathers he shall not have regard; nor to the desire of women, nor any god, will he have respect; but over all he shall exalt himself.” It is to be noted that the Peshitta renders as does the English Version, and has the singular, “the God of his fathers,” not as the Greek versions, “the gods of his.” The Hebrew might be either. The Vulgate agrees here with the Syriac. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers. Antiochus is looked upon, not as a man of Macedonian or Greek descent, but as a Syrian, and certainly he had no reverence for the ancient gods of Syria. His opposition to the theocracy and to the worship of Jehovah was but a portion of a wide policy, the object of which was the abolition of all local cults. The desire of women. It might mean that he was not lustful; but there is no evidence that, like Charles XII; he was abstinent. On the ether hand, he never neglected war for luxury, as did some of the Hellenic kings. Moreover, it is almost imperative that it be an object of worship that is here referred to. Taking “the desire of women” as an object of worship, there is an interpretation which has come down to us from Ephrem Syrus and Jerome, that Beltis or Nanaea is here referred to; and the fact that in an attempt to plunder the temple of this goddess, in Elymais, Antiochus lost his life, supports this view. The worship is said to have been very lascivious. On the other hand, it was a worship that would not naturally be prominent to a Palestinian Jew. The suggestion of Ewald, that it was the worship of Adonis or Tammuz which Antiochus despised, is more likely to be meant here. For he shall magnify himself above all. Claiming the right of annulling worship, and taking the sacred utensils from the temple treasures, he allowed himself to be addressed by the Samaritans as a god. Antiochus was probably utterly without faith in the Divine; worship was merely policy.
The explanation here makes some sense, though it is also certainly disputed. We’ll continue forward to verse 38. Again from TPC:
But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stores, and pleasant things. As we have said above, the last clause of the preceding verse according to the LXX. really belongs to this, “Strong nations shall be subject to him,” reading לְאמִּים עְזִּים instead of לֶאֱלהּ מָעֻזִים. There is הin the Massoretic, where יhas been in the reading followed by the Septuagint. After this clause the Septuagint proceeds, “And to his place he shall move, and a god whom his fathers knew not he shall honour with gold, and silver, and precious stones.” It is possible that נדד (nadad),” to flee or move,” was read instead of כבד (kabad),” to honour;” for though κινέω is usually active and transitive, there is no object here. Theodotion has, “And the God of Maozeim he shall honour in his place, and a god whom his father knew not he shall honour with gold, silver, and precious stones, and with offerings.” The Peshitta rendering is freer, “The mighty god he shall honour in his possession, and a god whom his fathers have not known shall he honour with gold and with silver, with precious gems and desirable things.” The Vulgate adopts the transliteration Maozim. In his estate shall he honour the god of forces. There are a number of questions here. To whom does the prenominal suffix refer? The English translators have arranged the words so that we cannot escape the view that “the estate” is the king’s, but the natural meaning of the Hebrew order is that it is “on the place” or “pedestal” of the god. The word translated “estate” is used in Genesis 40:13 for “office.” It is used of the “base” of the “laver.” It may mean “place.” The next point—What Deity is meant by “the god of strong holds”? There is absolutely nothing to guide us in the matter. Some have supposed that the reference is to Jupiter Olympius, whose statue Antiochus is reported to have set np in the temple. Others, that the reference is to Jupiter Capitolinus. Were there any evidences that Antiochus worshipped the genius of Rome, something might be urged for this; but we have no evidence of this. In the absence of anything to fix a definite meaning on this word, we feel inclined to suggest that Jehovah is meant by the slosh mauzzeem. Repeatedly in the Psalms is God declared to be the Strength of the saint; e.g. Psalms 27:1; Psalms 43:2 Of Jehovah it might be said that the ancestors of Antiochus—Greek and Syrian—knew him not. Honour with gold, etc. The repeated defeats of the armies of Antiochus and the spoiling of their camps by the followers of Jehovah, was giving honour to Jehovah, however unwittingly and unwillingly it was done. God “gat him honour upon Pharaoh,” and so now he was honoured upon Epiphanes.
There are a lot of internet theories about the identity of “the god of Fortresses” and in the present, you will see a long list of potential options – including Artificial Intelligence and Donald Trump listed among them. The consensus seems to be that the deity refers to something associated with great might or military strength.
Finishing up the section, we’ll look first at Ellicott’s note for verse 39:
(39). A strange god.—By this help he carries out his schemes, and all who acknowledge him are rewarded. (Comp. Revelation 13:4; Revelation 13:16-17.)
Divide the land.—This is evidently done as a reward offered to those who join his ranks. No such conduct of Antiochus is recorded. Bribery, however, was not an unusual mode of persuasion adopted by him. (See 1Ma. 2:18; 1Ma. 3:30.)
Ellicott again asserts that the attribution to Antiochus IV Epiphanes does not fit well. The importance of that denial is that it means the reader should imagine the ruler being spoken of as still yet to come (or at least someone who came after the 2nd century BC.)
TPC makes the following opposing argument:
Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain. The version of the LXX. is somewhat difficult to render intelligibly, “By desires of cities he shall act, and to a strong fortress shall he come with a strange god whom he will acknowledge; he will increase his glory, and shall master him much, and shall divide his territory freely.” The first words of this belong to the previous verse, and at the same time there has been some confusion with the opening words of the present verse according to the Massoretic division. Theodotion is not much closer to the received text, “And he shall act in strongholds of refuge with a strange god, and shall increase glory, and subject many to them, and shall divide the land in gifts.” The sense of this last, as given in the Greek versions, is illustrated by Psalms 16:4. The Peshitta renders, “He shall pass over£ to the strong cities, on account of (‛al) the strange gods which he shall see, and he shall rule over many, and the land he shall divide for gain” The Vulgate renders more in accordance with Theodotion than with the Massoretic yet independently, “And he shall do (faciet) that he may fortify Maozim with a foreign god, whom he knew not, and shall multiply glory, and shall give to them power in many (things), and shall divide the land gratuitously” This verse as it stands is nearly unintelligible. The suggestion of Hitzig and yon Lengerke, followed by Bevan, that we should read עַם (‛am), “people,” instead of עִם (‛eem), “with,” is very plausible. The only objection is that none of the versions have it. As, however, it seems to us the only way out of the difficulty, we shall take this reading, and render, with Professor Bevan, “He shall procure for the strong fortresses the people of a strange god.” For this use of עשׂה Professor Bevan refers to 2 Samuel 15:1, “Absalom procured for himself chariot and horses;” 1 Kings 1:5, so of Adonijah. Whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory. This we should render, “who have acknowledged him,” making the antecedent to the relative, not the king, but “the people of the strange god;” the reference being to the mercenaries of the Syrian army, who were the people of a god strange to the Israelites, and not impossibly made less difficulty in giving up their national gods, and recognizing the gods of Greece as their gods. The K’thib here is the preterite instead of the imperfect, which occurs in the following clause, the reading which we accept here. He shall increase with glory; or rather, he shall multiply in glory. These mercenaries of his he would increase, and give ever more honour to them. And he shall cause them to rule over many. These mercenaries placed in fenced cities were formed into Hellenic communities, and received many of the natives as subjects. The reference is not merely to garrisons being placed in fortresses, but to a chain of Hellenic cities, which, in imitation of the Romans, Antiochus placed in Palestine. And shall divide the land for gain. As will be seen, the Greek versions and the Vulgate reverse the idea here, and render—the LXX; δωρεάν, “gratuitously;” Theodotion, ἐν δώροις, “in gifts;” the Vulgate, gratuito, which is due to reading מְחִיר (meḥeer) instead of מְהִיר (meheer). The word may mean, as it is taken by the English versions and the Peshitta to mean, “for a price;” as in 2 Samuel 24:24, David purchased the threshing-floor of Araunah bimeheer, “at a price;” but it also means “wages,” as in Micah 3:11, “Her priests teach for hire wages (bimeheer).” The reference, then, is to the fact that in the deplenished state of his treasury, Antiochus divided the land of Palestine to his mercenaries, in lieu of the wages he could not pay.
Again, the statement asserted confidently by Ellicottt finds an unwitting rebuttal here.
The option that incorporates both views is the one that says both are correct. If we view Antiochus IV Epiphanes as a Type of the Antichrist, we are then dealing with a “then and also later” situation – a situation that is common in Christian Biblical interpretation.
When we get through to the end of this Chapter, but especially through the end of Chapter 12, we’ll do a more holistic view of Chapters 10-12 and the various interpretations of this vision.
👌🏼👌🏼
Thank you! ❤️
Welcome 🙂