And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and speak monstrous things against the God of gods; and he shall prosper until the indignation be accomplished for that which is determined shall be done.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And he will not regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women; nor regard any +god for he will magnify himself above all.
A new figure steps into Daniel's prophecy at verse 36, called simply "the king," and he dominates the closing scenes. Verse 37 lists three things he refuses to honour, and each refusal tells us who he is and where he comes from.
The chapter has tracked a king of the north and a king of the south. Daniel gives this one no country. That is how an Israelite would speak of his own king.
The second beast of Revelation 13, the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2, the king of Daniel 11:36-39, and the antichrist of 1 John 2:18, 22 are clearly the same person. This chapter deals with a king of the north and a king of the south. So some readers have thought that "the king" must be one of those two. But for an Israelite to mention his own king in this indefinite way is perfectly natural, both here and in Isaiah 30:31. When an English newspaper says that "the King" is going to Scotland, there is no need to add "the King of England"... So Daniel and Isaiah name the king of the north or the king of the south when they mean those kings. But "the king," with nothing added, means the king of Israel.
The ESV reads "the gods of his fathers"; older translations have "the God of his fathers," and the commentators work from that singular. A non-Jew would not use the phrase at all.
An Englishman who believes may speak of God as his Father, but he cannot talk of "the God of his fathers" except as imitating the phrase of a Jew. This reference is of course to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They are the true fathers whom God chose to be the holders of promise, on behalf of their descendants and their land.
One writer adds why that descent matters.
The God of his fathers is mentioned twice, which probably indicates that this person will be of the Jewish race — a strong qualification in someone presenting himself to Israel as Messiah and Messianic king.
The ESV renders this phrase "the one beloved by women"; older translations have "the desire of women." One writer reads it from the company it keeps in the sentence.
The great desire of all Hebrew women was to give birth to the Messiah. So Gabriel greeted Mary as "highly favoured among women," when the miraculous conception of the Saviour was announced. The verse names "the desire of women" between "the God of his fathers" and "any god." That connection shows something similar in nature is meant, not something entirely different. He is an Israelite. Yet he heeds neither the LORD, the God of the nation, nor the Messiah, the hope of the nation, nor even the false gods the nation so often turned to.
Others have read the phrase as the name of an idol. One writer rejects that reading.
In Daniel 11:37, "desire of women" clearly means the Messiah. Gesenius grants some deity is meant, saying the context demands an idol that Syrian women worshipped. Rationalism always cuts down and degrades.
The verse ends with the reason for the whole list: he magnifies himself above all.
This is a strong feature of the pride of man: he magnifies himself above all. He would wipe out every idea of the true God. He is indifferent whether it is real religion of the heart or the religion of his fathers. He dislikes even the name of Christ, called here "the desire of women." He is even against religious customs and religious nationality. He has no respect for any god.
The next verse gives him a god of his own, and that turn exposes something about the human heart.
The Antichrist will be an unbeliever, but not merely an unbeliever. He will have rejected the God of Israel, and the Messiah. Nor will he honour any of the gods of the Gentiles. But even this man, although he sets himself up as the true God on the earth, will still have someone to whom he bows and makes others bow with him. The human heart, even in Antichrist, cannot do without an object of idolatry.
John's letters describe the antichrist by two denials, and they match the refusals here.
On the subject of the Antichrist, the apostle adds in verse 22 that "he denies that Jesus is the Christ... he denies the Father and the Son." We see two sides of his apostasy: first, he joins with Jewish unbelief; second, he rejects Christianity.
- His name. "The king," with no nation attached, is Israel's own king — the same figure called the man of sin and the antichrist elsewhere.
- His first refusal. "The God of his fathers" points back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, marking him out as a Jew who has abandoned Israel's God.
- His second refusal. "The desire of women" is the Messiah every Hebrew mother longed to bear; he refuses the nation's hope as well as the nation's God.
- His third refusal. He will not even keep the idols his people once ran after. One motive drives all three refusals: he magnifies himself above all.
- His substitute. Verse 38 shows that even the man who claims to be God bows to something. The heart that refuses the true God does not stop worshipping; it invents.
And in his place will he honour the +god of fortresses; and a +god whom his fathers knew not will he honour with gold and silver, and with precious stones and pleasant things.
This king sets himself above every god and refuses the God of his fathers, yet he still bows to something. What is this "god of fortresses," and why does a man who claims to be above all gods pour gold and silver into an idol?
The verse puts one god in place of another. One writer explains the swap and the Hebrew word behind it (older translations read "forces"):
"But in his place he shall honour the god of forces." That is, in the place of the true God he will honour Mahuzzim as God — some form of idolatry. Mahuzzim means fortresses or fortified high places. There is probably some connection between this and the forces of war on which the king counted.
The same writer says when this new religion appears: the king brings it in only after clearing away every other god.
He would erase every idea of the true God... he has no respect for any god. But having reached this point, he needs to keep the people in check. For that he needs instruments, as well as his gods, mahuzzim (fortresses) — a kind of idolatry that he brings in once he has denied every god. This idolatry will be tied to the interests of those who govern.
Worship follows what a man wants. One writer names what is hidden under this king's bowing down:
People do not worship what they do not prize or covet. The most daring in pride knows his own nothingness and bows down to some unworthy superstition. Such a secret but enslaving power is unbelief.
Why fortresses? One writer answers from the limits of what this king has to work with:
But man cannot do without an object of some kind. So he honours the god of fortresses or forces. The resources he relies on to carry out his plans and enforce his decrees cannot, after all, go beyond human strength of arms — though Satan's power acts behind it all.
Another writer describes the motives that produce such a religion, and why it counts as new:
His god is a political idol, sought for the strength it gives — a worship made up of fear and greed. So it is indeed a god whom his fathers did not know. It is none of the old gods the world has been so full of. Yet the dark and dreadful power behind it is the same: the face is changed, but not the heart.
One writer reads this honour as the king's backing for another power:
He gives his support and influence to the first beast (Dan. 11:38): "And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed."
One writer reads the spending on gold and silver as a man covering a lack in himself:
Further, this wilful king honours the god of forces. Man is not enough in himself. Despite claiming to be God, this blasphemer must lean on something. So he invents a god to meet his need — probably the image of the first beast set up for worship in the temple.
Writers here identify this king with the antichrist. One shows why people who refuse Christ will welcome him:
Refusing Christ, they would be willing to receive antichrist, who will come in his own name... He will own, and make those he fools own, a god whom his fathers did not know (Dan. 11:38-39), but not "the only God," the God of their fathers.
One writer answers those who say idolatry among the Jews could never return:
I will add that this idolatry belongs to the last days too, however confident some are that idolatry can never be among the Jews again. But the Lord warned them of the contrary, for the last state of that Christ-rejecting generation. The prophets say the same when they speak of the end of the age (Dan. 11:38; Rev. 13:15; Rev. 18:4).
- Empty throne. He clears away the God of his fathers and every other god — then fills the empty place with a new idol.
- Empty man. The one who claims to be above all gods still bows: pride does not remove the need to worship, it only redirects it.
- Empty god. Its name is "fortresses": the worship of armed strength. It is a political idol, sought for the power it lends and made of fear and greed.
- Costly worship. He pours gold, silver, precious stones and costly gifts into a god his fathers never knew — a god he invents to fill his own lack.
- Old heart, new face. The gods of the world change their look, not their nature. Scripture warns that such idolatry will rise again at the end of the age.
And he will practise in the strongholds of fortresses with a strange +god whoso acknowledgeth him will he increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over the many, and shall divide the land [to them] for a reward.
Daniel 11 runs through the long wars of the kings of the north and the south. From verse 36 a new figure steps in — a king who belongs to neither side. Verse 39 finishes his portrait: he leans on a foreign god, and he pays his followers in land.
One writer identifies him from the clues around him: who fights him, and what he refuses to worship.
Verse 35 brings us to another break, and then "the king" abruptly comes in. Who is he? Not of either north or south, for both these come against him (v. 40). He is the king of Isaiah 30:33, and "the man of sin" of 2 Thessalonians 2 — the great antichrist. Daniel speaks of his political, Paul of his religious, character. He is a Jew, for he will not regard the God of his fathers, Jehovah, nor the desire of women, who is the Messiah, nor any god at all. Yet he is an idolater. He invents a god.
The verse has him acknowledging a foreign god. One writer explains why even this man must have one.
Even this man sets himself up as the true God on earth. Yet he will still have someone he bows to, and he makes others bow along with him. The human heart, even in Antichrist, cannot do without an object of idolatry... He makes a god, as well as setting himself up to be God. That god is entirely an invention of his own.
One writer supplies the name of this god, and the name explains the fortresses in the verse.
In the place of the true God he will honour Mahuzzim as God — that is idolatry. Mahuzzim means fortresses, or fortified high places. There is probably some connection between this and the forces of war on which the king relied.
Another writer asks what kind of worship this is.
Yet, though he exalts himself like this, he has a god of his own, the "god of forces," or "fortresses"... a political idol, sought for the strength it gives, a worship made up of fear and greed. So it is indeed a god his fathers never knew. It is none of the old gods the world has been so full of. Yet the dark and dreadful power behind it is the same. The face changes, but not the heart.
One writer names the idol he sets up for the public, and ties it to Revelation.
He himself is an unbeliever and an atheist. But people crave a religion, so he will promote the worship of an idol. That idol, we must conclude, is the image he himself will have made to the beast that had the sword wound and lived — the head of the western Roman Empire in its last revived form. Revelation speaks of the same man, for the beast there with two horns like a lamb, who spoke like a dragon, is this very king. He had power to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image could speak, and could have everyone killed who would not worship it (Rev. 13:15).
The verse ends with what his followers get out of him.
The last clause of verse 39 is not so clear... Most take it to mean that he will promote his own followers to places of honour and rule. He will hand out the land either for his own profit, or as a reward for faithful service and devotion to his interests. The term "the land" settles beyond doubt where this king rules and acts. As far as we know, it always means the land of promise.
Commentators differ on who gains. One takes them to be the king's own followers. Another renders the clause as a promise to anyone who acknowledges him — "whoever acknowledges him he will increase with glory, and cause him to rule over the multitude, and divide the land for gain" (Frederick W Grant).
One writer finds the same pattern in an older story of a man grabbing at a throne.
Adonijah is a type of the man who seeks to exalt himself to the very throne of God (Dan. 11:36); Joab and Abiathar are the men who take advantage of this (Dan. 11:39); Adonijah's followers are those who are subdued by his rise (Rev. 13:4).
- Self-will — the king answers to no one; both north and south come against him, so he is neither of them.
- Substitute — he refuses the God of his fathers, yet he cannot live without a god, so he invents one.
- Strength — that invented god is Mahuzzim, which means fortresses. He worships raw power, out of fear and greed.
- Spoils — he lifts those who acknowledge him to high rank and pays them in land, carving up the country for profit.
- Setting — "the land" always means the land of promise. That fixes where this king rules.
And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him; and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and overflow and pass through.
Daniel 11 tells a long history that stops at verse 35, and verse 40 restarts it at "the time of the end." There two rival powers, north and south, both attack one man in the land between them — but who is he?
Writers point to a gap in the chapter, and verse 40 is one of the two markers that prove it.
We pass now to another section of the chapter, for there is a break between verses 35 and 36. Up to verse 35 we have, in prophetic form, an account of what was still future in Daniel's day but has long since happened. From verse 36 we have the account of what is entirely future. The proof lies in two sentences. In verse 36 the king prospers till the indignation is complete. And verse 40 places the event it gives "at the time of the end."
The phrase itself is not vague. It marks the end of a period with a known beginning.
The end refers to the close of the age that began when Nebuchadnezzar rose to power. It will go on as long as Gentile rule stays on top and Israel is servant to the nations… In Daniel the phrase "the time of the end" comes up again and again (Dan. 8:17; Dan. 11:35, 40; Dan. 12:4, 9). The end therefore means the conclusion of that period called elsewhere "the times of the Gentiles."
The verse settles who "the king" of verse 36 is not. Both sides attack him, so he cannot be either of them.
Could there be clearer proof that "the king" in these verses is a different person from the two rival lines described so far? Here it is beyond doubt that the kings of the north and of the south attack him. How could he be the same as either of the assailing parties?
The two attackers are not allies. What sets off the crisis is the pride of the man they both come against.
Not that they have a common policy: on the contrary, they seem bitter enemies of one another. But "the king" lifts himself up so high, claiming so much for himself in the Holy Land, that God allows the final catastrophe to come. The king of the south comes first. Then comes the king of the north, who it appears will be the great military and naval leader of the east in those days.
The man under attack now has a name. And the two blows against him are not equal: one jabs, the other lands like a storm.
"The king" in verse 36 is the Antichrist, doing as he pleases. "At the time of the end the king of the south shall attack him," or as the Authorised Version reads, "shall push at him" (v. 40). The king of the south is Egypt, but he will not inflict any significant harm on Israel. "And the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind." This is the king who terrorises. He brings suffering on Israel such as they have never known before, for this is "the time of Jacob's trouble."
Earlier prophets speak of this same northern power under another name: Assyria.
God used Assyria as His rod to punish His guilty people Israel. Then, as in other cases, the rod itself had to bear God's judgment for its pride and wickedness… Some of the passages about the kings of Assyria are prophetic. They refer to what is still future, when as "kings of the north" they will again have to do with Israel, and God will judge them… The Assyrian is the overflowing scourge of God's anger because of Israel's connection with idolatry.
Who is the "he" that overflows and passes through into the land? One writer changed his own mind about it.
This king of the north seems to be a very prominent power, which holds the territory of the ancient kings of Syria. My judgment is that the rest of the chapter applies to him, although I once thought it applied to the king… One fact confirms me in the view that the invasion in verse 41 belongs to the king of the north: "he shall enter into the glorious land." If it is a question of "the king," he is already there.
The invader's first success is not the last word.
It is the Assyrian, or king of the north, who acts as the overflowing scourge from outside. At first he succeeds against the wilful king and the mass of Jews who have turned from God. But God shields the righteous remnant. While the king of the north goes down to deal with the king of the south, the Lord appears to destroy the wicked king… Then the king of the north returns into the land to find his dismal end, as the others had before.
- Gap — The chapter's fulfilled history stops at verse 35. "The time of the end" in verse 40 points to what is still future: the close of the times of the Gentiles.
- Three — Both north and south attack "him," so the king in the land is a third figure: the Antichrist, not either attacker.
- Provocation — He so exalts himself in the Holy Land that God permits the final crisis to come.
- Rod — The northern power sweeps in like a whirlwind as God's rod against idolatry. Then God judges the rod for its own pride.
- Remnant — The scourge wins at first, but God shields the faithful, and the invader meets his own end.