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.