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.
And he shall enter into the land of beauty, and many [countries] shall be overthrown; but these shall escape out of his hand Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
Daniel 11:41 sits in a scene of unstoppable conquest. An invader sweeps into Israel's land, and country after country falls. Yet three small neighbours slip out of his grip. Who is he? And why do Edom, Moab and Ammon go free when he crushes everyone around them?
The verse never names the attacker, so commentators identify him from what he does. He enters the land as an enemy from outside. Then he turns on Egypt. That rules out both the king who reigns in the land and the king of the south.
Beyond question he is not king of the glorious land, because he enters it as an enemy. It is the king of the north, and not the wilful king, who stands before us here. The next verse adds that he stretches out his hand over the countries, and the land of Egypt does not escape (Dan. 11:42). This proves he cannot be the king of the south, because he attacks Egypt and plunders it.
Not everyone has read it that way, and one writer openly recorded changing his own mind on the point:
I have to add that I do not believe Daniel 11:41 applies to Antichrist, but to the king of the north. I am fairly clear about this. But I once thought myself that it was Antichrist, so I am not surprised that others do. I believe both that I was wrong then and that the author is wrong now. But it is a point on which everyone can enquire and judge.
The verse does not call the land by its ordinary name. God gives this one stretch of ground several titles of affection:
"The glorious land" (Dan. 11:16, 41); "the pleasant land" (Dan. 8:9); "the glory of all lands" (Ezek. 20:6, 15); "a land flowing with milk and honey" (Ex. 3:8); "a plentiful land" (Jer. 2:7); "a land that the LORD your God cares for. The eyes of the LORD your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year" (Deut. 11:12). We need not be surprised at the language, for when God chooses for His people, He always chooses the best. God had His eye on this land, and He framed His purposes in connection with it before Israel became a nation at all.
The escape looks like luck, or like good defences. One writer finds the reason in Isaiah 11. These three are held back for another hand to judge:
The escape of Edom, Moab and Ammon out of his hand is a wonderful confirmation of the truth and unity of all Scripture. If we turn to Isaiah 11 we find the explanation. It speaks of the time after God has restored both Judah and Israel: "They shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them" (v. 14). Israel will carry out God's judgment on these three nations. For that reason the Assyrian, the king of the north, may not touch them. They will escape out of his hand.
Their history explains the choice. They were near neighbours and distant relatives of Israel who turned that closeness into hatred:
Edom as a nation had been marked by pride and bitter hatred against the people of God. They were glad when disasters fell on Israel. But if God finds it necessary to discipline His people, He does it for their good. It is always wrong to rejoice over the troubles that come on God's people, even when they deserve correction. Three nations escape out of the hand of the destroying king of the north (Dan. 11:41). They bordered Israel's territory, and distant family ties linked them to Israel. But they held a special spite against God's people. So God uses Israel to judge them at the close.
The obvious complaint is that Edom, Moab and Ammon vanished from the map long ago, so the verse can never come true. One writer answers it directly, setting them beside the ten tribes of Israel:
One cannot help being sorry to see the reviewer repeat the objection of sceptics and others, based on Edom, Moab and the rest having ceased to exist. Even to the poor Jew they still exist. God remembers them, whatever they may be called now, and when the day of visitation comes, He will judge them as such... Their reappearing is no harder than the reappearing of the ten tribes. Those who believe in the future restoration of the one cannot well deny the future judgment of the other.
- Invader. The attacker is the king of the north. He enters the land as an enemy and then attacks Egypt. Commentators differ, and some have applied the verse to Antichrist instead.
- Land. God still calls the ground he invades glorious. It flows with milk and honey, and His eyes are on it from one year's end to the next.
- Escape. Edom, Moab and Ammon slip out of his hand. Their own strength does not save them; the conqueror may not touch them.
- Reserved. God keeps them for Israel's hand, as Isaiah 11:14 says. Relatives who gloated over Israel's disasters will answer to the very people they wronged.
- Certainty. Their disappearance from history proves nothing. God remembers them under whatever name they now carry. This small detail shows that Scripture holds together.
And he shall stretch forth his hand upon the countries; and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
This verse belongs to the closing campaign of Daniel 11, where a northern conqueror sweeps down at "the time of the end." Two questions follow: who is this conqueror, and why can Egypt not escape?
Daniel 11 has three rulers in view: "the king" of verse 36, also called the wilful king, plus the king of the south and the king of the north. This verse settles which of them is invading. A ruler who plunders Egypt cannot be Egypt's own king.
Beyond question he is not king of the glorious land, because he enters it as an enemy. Clearly it is the king of the north, and not the wilful king who is before us here. "He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape" (Dan. 11:42). This proves he cannot be the king of the south, because he attacks Egypt and plunders it.
Egypt is not merely raided here. Her own ruler's reign ends.
Verse 42 announces that the king of the south loses his kingdom. See Isaiah 11:15.
The previous verse named three nations delivered out of his hand: Edom, Moab and Ammon. This verse puts Egypt on the other side of that line.
When the Jews are settled again in their land, these ancient nations that once surrounded it will re-appear, within the borders God first gave them. We know from Isaiah that Israel will carry out God's judgment on these three nations (Isa. 11:14), so it may be that the king of the north is not allowed to touch them. Still, he is permitted to overthrow the Egyptians and strip them of their riches. The Libyans and Ethiopians will apparently do his bidding.
He stretches out his hand, and country after country falls. Yet commentators read the whole movement as controlled. God sets both his success and its limit.
He is the blind instrument of God's will. So he may overcome all the forces sent against him, enrich himself with the treasures of Egypt, and carry out God's judgment on that country. But when his work is done he must return, for "news from the east and the north shall alarm him."
Another writer explains why he gets his run at all, and what draws him south.
The king of the North will be granted temporary success so that the evil Jews may receive their chastisement. He will sweep through the land, destroying everything before him. Jerusalem will fall, and the conqueror will pass south into Egypt. The king of that land had dared to claim the country the Northern King wants for himself.
The Egypt of this prophecy is not the Egypt we see today. That difference is part of why commentators read the passage as still ahead.
This clearly shows that "the king of the north" is hostile to "the king of the south," and in fact ravages his kingdom, apparently much changed from what it now is — Egypt then being as rich as she is now notoriously poor.
Another writer places the same events in the last days.
The closing part of Daniel 11 confirms this. There "the king of the south" stands for Egypt, and we are told that "the king of the north" will yet overrun and plunder Egypt in the last days.
Egypt's failure to escape is not the last word about Egypt. Writers place this stripping inside a longer story that ends in mercy.
Egypt and Assyria will both have a special blessing in the future. Two things should be considered here. First, both lie close to the "glorious land," as they did in the old days — the one on the north, the other on the south. Second, God had used both as rods to chasten His people. A third thing should be noticed: both of these nations will be judged before they are blessed.
- Identity. The one stretching out his hand is the king of the north. He plunders Egypt, so he is not the king of the south. He enters the glorious land as an enemy, so he is not the wilful king who reigns there.
- Reach. His hand goes out over "the countries." Egypt's fall costs the king of the south his whole kingdom.
- Limit. Edom, Moab and Ammon are delivered out of his hand. Egypt is not. God draws the line between escape and capture, not armies.
- Instrument. He is a blind instrument of God's will. His success is temporary. He must turn back the moment his work is done.
- Horizon. Commentators read this as still future. Egypt and Assyria are judged first, then blessed.
And he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.
Daniel's long prophecy ends with a northern invader sweeping down through Israel into Egypt and stripping its wealth, with Libya and Cush trailing behind him. Who is this conqueror, why does Egypt hold such treasure, and who sets the limits on his victories?
The peoples named here have deep roots. Genesis traces them to Ham's family, and they surface again at the end of the story.
Genesis 10:6 points out the children of Ham. Of these, Canaan has been destroyed, and his country turned over to Israel. Cush (Ethiopia) and Phut are also found under Gog (Ezek. 38:5) — those of Cush only in part. One branch of the family of Cush settled on the Euphrates, the other on the Nile, that is, north and south of Israel. Mizraim, or Egypt (Mizraim is simply the Hebrew name for Egypt), and the rest of Cush and the Libyans, you will find in the scenes of the last day; Daniel 11:43.
Daniel 11 has several rulers moving at once. So who is the "he" of this verse? The plunder of Egypt settles it, and shows what happens to the beaten peoples.
"He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape" (Dan. 11:42). This proves he cannot be the king of the south, because he attacks Egypt and spoils it. He will also have power over the treasures of gold and silver and all the precious things of Egypt, and the Libyans and the Cushites will follow in his train (Dan. 11:43). The conquered are forced to fight under his banner.
So Libya and Cush are not volunteers. They march because he has crushed them, and they swell his army as he goes.
A country with treasures of gold and silver worth seizing is a rich country. That is not the Egypt the world sees now.
This clearly shows that "the king of the north" is hostile to "the king of the south," and in fact ravages his kingdom. That kingdom looks much changed from what it is now. Egypt will then be as rich as she is now famously poor.
The invader looks unstoppable. Yet the prophecy that hands him Egypt's gold also refuses him any more ground. He is working for Someone else without knowing it.
But it would not fit God's purpose for him to go further, or even to make his conquests in these southern regions secure. As the blind instrument of God's will, he may overcome every force brought against him, enrich himself with the treasures of Egypt, and so be the executor of God's judgment on that country. But when his work is done, he must return, and "news from the east and the north shall alarm him."
That news pulls him back, and there his story ends.
Whatever the news is, he hurries back from Egypt, pitches his royal tents between the seas — the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea — and there comes to his end, cut off, not by man, but by God.
The seizure of Egypt's wealth is a reckoning, not an accident. But it is not God's last word about that land.
Egypt was a broken stick that the Israelites leaned on: it oppressed them and even attacked and looted Jerusalem. But it has been punished, and it remains desolate to this day. Further, as the kingdom of the South, it will yet be dealt with: compare Daniel 11:42-43. Afterwards God will also heal and bring it into blessing: in grace He says "Blessed be Egypt my people."
- Ancient names. Egypt, Libya and Cush are families traced from Genesis 10, and Scripture brings them back on stage "in the scenes of the last day."
- Identified by his plunder. The attacker cannot be the king of the south, because he is the one who spoils Egypt — the conqueror is the king of the north.
- Forced allies. Libya and Cush follow him as beaten peoples, "compelled to fight under his banner," not as willing partners.
- Rich prey. Gold, silver and precious things point to an Egypt far richer than the poor Egypt we see now — and all of it becomes the invader's spoil.
- Leashed and stopped. He is "the blind instrument of God's will." God lets him punish Egypt, refuses him any more ground, and then cuts him off. Afterwards God heals Egypt and calls it "my people."
But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him; and he shall go forth with great fury to exterminate, and utterly to destroy many.
Daniel 11 ends with a conqueror at the height of his success. He is deep in the south, holding Egypt's treasure, when a report from two directions turns him around. Who is he? What news could shake a man this powerful, and why does it end in slaughter?
The chapter has several kings in it. Which one does the news alarm? One writer works through the passage step by step and shows that the same figure runs from verse 40 to the end:
First, the passage itself shows that this northern king is the person last spoken of through most of verse 40. So "he" in the verses that follow is the same man, the great actor who at last comes to an abrupt end. Next, he will "enter also into the beautiful land" (Judaea) as well as many other lands. This does not apply properly to the king who was at home and reigning there, but to an enemy from outside. Thirdly, it cannot be "the king of the south," since verse 42 tells us in plain terms that "the land of Egypt shall not escape."
He is far from home when the report reaches him:
It is when he is down in the south, beyond Palestine, that he hears these rumours of trouble in the north and east. He had come from the north himself, and he had conquered the east as well. Now news from those areas disturbs him. He hurries back from the land of Egypt and reaches Palestine.
Scripture does not say what the report contains, and commentators differ. One reading takes it as unrest in his own territory:
It is clear that news of enemies coming from the east, the east of Syria, will reach him. There may be enemies at home too, since the north points to his own country. Flushed at the moment with his successes, he will start out confident in his own power, and "with great fury," to deal with his foes.
Another writer links the news to the ten tribes of Israel, whom Assyria carried away long ago:
I have little doubt that the news is about the movement of the ten tribes. God is working in them to bring them back from those parts to the land of their fathers. The king of Assyria moved them there long ago. And now the last holder of that power is on the alert to oppose their return.
The Old Testament uses several different words for anger. One writer sorts them out and places this verse among them:
In Lamentations 2:4, khemah, warmth, heat of anger; in Daniel 11:44, it is khema, fury.
That heat is what makes him careless. He charges back into a region already crowded with armies:
Already the proud powers of the west had gathered there for their doom, but he does not consider this, even if he knew it. Men are easily blinded by their passions; and there will also be the special delusion of Satan.
The verse does not name the people he means to destroy. One writer does:
Here he is back, angry to the highest degree and set on destroying the Jews.
For all his momentum, something limits how far he goes — and it is not an enemy:
But God's purpose would not have him go further, or even secure his conquests in these southern regions. As the blind instrument of God's will, he may overcome every force brought against him. He may enrich himself with the treasures of Egypt, and so carry out God's judgment on that country. But, his work done, he must return.
An earlier Assyrian army met a sudden end in the night. One writer reads that night as the pattern for this last king:
That very night the camp of the Assyrians was struck. In the morning they were all dead bodies. It will be like this also that the Assyrian of the end time, the king of the North, shall meet his judgment.
Another writer treats that older invasion as a preview of the last one:
Isaiah 10 has much in it that looks on to the Assyrian of the last days. Sennacherib was only a foreshadowing of him.
- Rumour. The news alarms the king of the north — the invader from outside in verses 40-43, not the king reigning inside the land.
- Rage. His fury is a word for heat of anger. That heat blinds him, and he storms back toward a region where armies are already gathered for judgment.
- Reach. His victories are real, and Egypt's treasure is in his hands. Yet he goes as far as God's purpose allows and no further.
- Return. He is the blind instrument of God's judgment on Egypt. When that work is done, a rumour turns him back, set on destroying the Jews.
- Ruin. Sennacherib's army died in one night. That night is the pattern for how this last king of the north meets his end.
And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the sea and the mountain of holy beauty; and he shall come to his end, and there shall be none to help him.
The chapter closes with a conqueror at the height of his success. He camps on the doorstep of Jerusalem — and then dies in a single sentence. Who is he, where does he pitch his camp, and what brings him down?
The last verses of Daniel 11 follow one man. Commentators identify him by tracing the pronouns and his movements.
First, the passage itself makes plain that this northern king is the person last spoken of through most of verse 40. So "he" in the verses that follow is the same man — the great actor who at last comes to an abrupt end. Next, he is said to "enter also into the beautiful land" (Judaea) as well as many others. This does not properly apply to the king who was at home and reigning there, but to an enemy from outside... The beautiful holy mountain is none other than the one that marked out Jerusalem and its temple. The seas on either side are the Mediterranean and the Salt or Dead Sea.
So the man who falls here is not "the king" who reigns in the land itself. He is the invader from the north, called elsewhere the Assyrian.
Commentators read the Hebrew wording two ways. One reading places his camp between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea, at the holy mountain itself. The other keeps him outside the city:
It seems that the Hebrew expression means "between." In English this makes a great difference in Daniel 11:45. In that case the person in question does not enter Jerusalem, but stays outside. That point is of the utmost importance for deciding who he is.
Commentators differ here, and one of them sets both options side by side rather than settling it:
If this rendering is accepted it will mean the Mediterranean, or Great Sea, and the Dead Sea; but there are those who understand the expression to mean "between Jerusalem and the sea."
He is far to the south, plundering Egypt, when news from the opposite direction turns him around.
It is when he is down in the south, beyond Palestine, that he hears these rumours of trouble in the north and east. He had come himself from the north, and was the conqueror over the east also; and now he has news from these quarters that disturbs him. He hurries back from the land of Egypt and reaches Palestine.
The verse gives no battle, no rival army, no cause of death. That silence is itself the point.
We are not told the circumstances that end his career. Scripture records only the simple fact: in connection with his hostility against the glorious holy mountain, his end comes, and he dies under the judgment of God. In Daniel 8 we read that the little horn, who is beyond question the king of the north, will "rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—and by no human hand" (v. 25)... He is broken by no human hand, that is, without human agency, and more than that, there is "none to help him."
The closing words say more than that his allies failed. They point to who does the striking.
We are told only this: he will come to his end, and there will be none to help him. That expression seems to show that God will deal directly with this enemy, apart from human agency.
Israel's history had already shown this ending once. An Assyrian army camped against Hezekiah's Jerusalem, and by morning the whole camp lay dead.
That very night the camp of the Assyrians was struck. In the morning they were all dead bodies... It will be the same way that the Assyrian of the end time, the king of the North, will meet his judgment... His own sons struck him with the sword as he bowed in the house of Nisroch his god. He had said to Hezekiah: The Lord will not deliver you. And see — his god Nisroch could not deliver him when he worshipped before him.
This king does not fall at the same moment as the Antichrist and his western ally:
From other scriptures, such as Isaiah 11:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:8 and Revelation 19:20, we know that the false prophet, king in the land, the Antichrist, will perish with his western ally the Beast. This happens when the Lord shines out on the day of His appearing. But the last king of the north comes up afterwards to a no less terrible catastrophe. It falls on him when the Lord takes His place with His people in Jerusalem and fights against this mighty destroyer, who leads the nations he forces to follow his banner.
- Person — The "he" who pitches camp is the king of the north, an invader from outside. He is not the king who reigns in the land.
- Position — He plants his tents at the holy mountain. Readings differ: either between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea, or outside Jerusalem, never entering the city.
- Provocation — His hostility against the glorious holy mountain brings him to his end. He dies under the judgment of God.
- Power — He is broken by no human hand. Scripture gives no details of his death, which points to God dealing with him directly.
- Precedent — An Assyrian army once died in a single night outside the same city, and its king's god could not save him. The last Assyrian ends the same way, with none to help.