BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 162 (ApriKJune 2005): 195-209

Is THE ANTICHRIST
IN DANIEL 11?
Andrew E.

ANIEL'S VISION IN DANIEL

Steinmann

10-12 offers fertile ground for

critical scholars who view Daniel as pseudo-prophecy. Only

four Persian kings following Cyrus are mentioned (11:2),
although there were six more (plus a few insurgents who attempted to seize the throne). The kings of the north and the south
seem to be the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kings, and they are mentioned as late as 11:40, almost immediately before the eschatological climax of the vision in 12:1-4. Moreover, the last part of the
discussion of various kings (11:36-45) does not seem to match what
is known about any Seleucid or Ptolemaic king, but the verses immediately preceding this section are a description of events from
the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.).
Therefore it is commonly argued that 11:36-40 is an ideologically motivated description of the king designed to condemn his
actions, whereas verses 41-45 are an attempt by the author to predict the end of Antiochus's reign. According to this interpretation
these verses are not at all accurate. Therefore critical scholars argue that Daniel 11 must have been written about 165 B.C., since
11:41-45 speak of events unknown to Daniel.1
Traditional Christian exegesis has interpreted Daniel
11:36-45 differently, tending to read these verses as a prophecy

Andrew E. Steinmann is Associate Professor of Theology and Hebrew, Concordia

University, River Forest, Illinois.
John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993), 403; Donald E. Gowan, Daniel, Abingdon Old
Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 150-51; Louis F. Hartman
and Alexander A. Di Leila, The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with Notes and
Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1978), 303-5; James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, International
Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1927), 464-70; and D. S. Russell, Daniel,
Daily Study Bible (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1981), 210-14.

196

BlBLlOTHECA SACRA / ApriKJune 2005

about an eschatological king, often identified as the Antichrist (to

use a New Testament term). This was the position of several
church fathers, including Chrysostom, Hippolytus, Theodoret, and
Jerome.2 Luther also adopted this interpretation, and contemporary evangelical scholars often advocate it. 3 It views the end of
Daniel 11 not as inaccurate prophecy but as prophecy that is yet to
be fulfilled. It is part of the larger teaching of Scripture concerning
the events leading up to Jesus' second advent.
Moreover, it is not unreasonable to view these verses as a
separate section of Daniel's vision. Virtually every commentator
recognizes that a new section begins with verse 36. This has been
true from antiquity. The medieval Jewish scholars Rashi and Ibn
Ezra saw these verses as fulfilled in Constantine the Great. In the
Reformation Calvin thought they applied to the Roman Empire.4
In addition the prominent views of verses 36-45 are tied to the
corresponding views of the four kingdoms symbolized earlier in
Daniel. Either the fourth kingdom was the Roman Empire or the
fourth kingdom corresponds to the Greek empires in the ancient
Near East beginning with Alexander the Great. These two views
are summarized in the chart on the following page.
While it is beyond the scope of this study to discuss all the evidence for and against these two interpretations, one can note that
the critical interpretation of Daniel 11:36-45 would seem to argue
that there is no room for the Roman Empire as one of the four
kingdoms in Daniel. Advocates of the critical view claim the author
of Daniel 10-12 was historically inaccurate at times (e.g., he mentioned only four Persian kings) and at other times he was attempting to give genuine predictive prophecy, but got it wrong
(e.g., 11:36-45).
2
Jerome saw some application to the Antichrist starting at 11:21, but he said
verses 36-45 refer exclusively to the Antichrist. See Jerome's commentary on
11:21-45 in Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1998), 306-17. Hippolytus and Theodoret understood 11:36 as the beginning of the prophecy about the
Antichrist, but Chrysostom applied the whole chapter to the Antichrist (see
Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 468-70).
3

C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, trans. M. G. Easton

(Edinburgh: Clark, 1877; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 463-74; H. C.
Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Columbus, OH: Wartburg, 1949; reprint, Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1969), 511; Martin Luther, "Preface to Daniel," ed. E. Theodore
Bachmann, in Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1960), 35:313; John F.
Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1971), 270; and
Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 247.
4

John Calvin, A Commentary on Daniel, Geneva Series of Commentaries (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1966), 339.

Is the Antichrist in Daniel 11 ? 197

Traditional View
Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapters
10-12

Identification

Gold

Lion

Babylon

Silver

Bear

Ram

11:2

Persia

Bronze

Leopard

Male goat

11:3-35

Greek kingdoms

Iron and clay

Beast

11:36-45

Rome

Mountain

Coming of the
Son of Man

12:1-4

God's kingdom

Chapter 2

Chapter 7

Critical View
Chapter 8

Chapters
10-12

Identification

Gold

Lion

Silver

Bear

Ram (first horn)

Bronze

Leopard

Ram (second horn)

11:2

Persia

Iron and
clay
Mountain

Beast

Male goat

11:3-45

Greek kingdoms

12:1-4

God's Kingdom

Coming of the
Son of Man

Babylon
Media

In addition critics argue that Daniel expected God's eschatological kingdom to appear in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes
(12:1-4), but it did not. Thus they say that the resurrection depicted in 12:1-3 was expected during the Hellenistic era, leaving no
room for a Roman Empire before the eschaton.
Given this approach and the fact that critical scholars often
imply that any interpretation that claims 11:36-45 is about the
Antichrist is motivated more by theology and ideology rather than
by sound exegesis, it is imperative for those who affirm the accuracy of the passage to offer good reasons for understanding that
11:36-45 was intended by the author of Daniel to apply to someone
other than Antiochus. A careful look at Daniel 10-12 finds two reasons: (a) the structure and logic of 11:2-12:4, and (b) the parallel
nature of 11:21-35 and 11:36-45.

198

BlBLiOTHECA SACRA / April-June 2005

THE STRUCTURE OF DANIEL

11:2-12:4

Daniel 10-12 begins with someone like a man who appeared to

Daniel and explained that he had been involved in heavenly warfare that effects human events as recorded in the "Book of Truth"
(10:21). He had been embroiled in warfare with the demonic
"prince of Persia" since the fall of Babylon. When that battle would
finally end, a new battle would take place with the "prince of
Greece." Thus the events to be related are the earthly manifestation of this heavenly warfare.
Beginning with 11:2 the events as they will play out on earth
are related in the main body of the revelation, which ends at 12:4.
The epilogue (12:5-13) reveals a few more details, including some
cryptic chronological information. Thus the structure of this vision
may be seen as follows.
I. IntroductionA man appeared to Daniel to reveal coming
events in the "Book of Truth" (10:111:1)
II. Events from the "Book of Truth" (11:212:4)
1. 11:2. Three more kings for Persia with a fourth stirring
up everyone against Greece.
2. 11:3-4. A mighty (Greek) king whose kingdom will be
broken up toward the four winds (directions, v. 4) of
heaven.
3. 11:5-35. The history of the kings of the north and
south, culminating in the purification of "those who have
insight" (w. 33, 35) until the time of the end (v. 35).
4. 11:3612:4. The king who does as he pleases at "the
time of the end" (11:40) along with events that will happen when Michael will arise and "those who have insight
will shine" (12:3).
III. EpilogueFurther explanation of "the time of the end"
(12:5-13)
The main body of this revelation is divided into four sections
that are marked by different types of kings mentioned at the beginning of each section. Also the sections are tied together by a
variation of a wisdom technique, namely, the catchword. This
technique is used at times in Proverbs to string together seemingly
unrelated sayings or groups of sayings, with a common word or
phrase tying one proverb or set of proverbs to the subsequent prov-

Is the Antichrist in Daniel 11 ? 199

erb or set of proverbs. A good example is Proverbs 6:1-19. It contains four sections linked to one another by catchwords or phrases. 5
1-5
6-11

Slumber (6:4)
Slumber (6:10)

1
J

6-11
12-15

Bandit (p 2, 6:11)
Wicked man (pu era, 6:12)

1
J

12-15
16-19

Spreads conflict (6:14)

Spreads conflict (6:19)

In Daniel 11:2-12:4 the sections are bound together by concepts that link one section to the next:
Kings of
Persia

Section 1
(Dan. 11:2)

Mighty king

Section 2
(Dan. 11:3-4)

Greek king
Four winds (directions)

King of the
north, king of
the south

Section 3
(Dan. 11:5-35)

Kings of two directions

Time of the end; those
who have insight

The king

Section 4
(Dan. 11:36-12:4)

Time of the end;

those who have insight

Greece
: >

Thus Section 1 (11:2), the section on Persian kings, progresses only

until a king who interacts with Greece is encountered. Then the
revelation continues immediately in Section 2 (11:3-4) with a discussion of the Greek king Alexander without mentioning any subsequent Persian kings. This section ends with Alexander's kingdom
being split toward the four winds of heaven. Once again details of
the split, a description of the struggles for domination of Alexander's empire, or any mention of two of the four winds (east and
west) are skipped so that Section 3 (11:5-35) can focus on the kings
of the north and the south (Seleucid and Ptolemaic). This section
continues down to one particularly evil king of the north (Antiochus IV Epiphanes) during whose activity many who have insight
will be purified for the time of the end. With the mention of the

Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1993), 95-96. Another example is Proverbs 11:3-11,
in which nine sayings are bound together by several catchwords.

200

BlBLIOTHECA SACRA / April-June 2005

time of the end, the rest of the Seleucids and Ptolemies as well as
the Roman Empire are skipped, and in Section 4 (11:36-12:4) the
author moves ahead to the time of the end and its events, including
the activity of the eschatological king, the Antichrist.
Once one understands the method used to link the various
persons and events in the main body of Daniel's vision, what seem
to be historical inaccuracies or failures in predictive prophecy can
be seen for what they are: intentional gaps as the revelation moves
from one era to another by means of catch concepts.
Moreover, each section begins with the introduction of a king
or kings whose characterization is unique to that section. In section
1 the kings are "kings . . . in Persia." In section 2 the king is a
"mighty king." In section 3 the kings are kings of the north and of
the south. In section 4 the king is simply "the king."
PARALLEL PASSAGES AND THE IDENTITY OF THE KING IN

11:36-45

Who, then, is the king in 11:36-45? Many answers have been

given, but there are two main interpretations. One view is that
these verses continue to describe Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The
other view is that they describe an eschatological figure, the Antichrist of the New Testament. The first assumes that verses 36-45
continue the description of Antiochus IV in verses 21-35, whereas
the other assumes some discontinuity between the two.
REASONS TO DOUBT THAT 11:36-45 DESCRIBES
ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES

Most critical scholars as well as a few evangelicals interpret the

end of Daniel 11 as applying to Antiochus.6 According to this interpretation verses 36-39 depict in general terms Antiochus's religious attitudes, and verses 40-45 are an attempt by the Maccabeanera author to write predictive prophecy concerning the end of Antiochus's reign. Since verses 36-45 do not mention Antiochus's
eastern campaign in 165 B.C. or the rededication of the temple in
Jerusalem in 164 or Antiochus's death in 164, critics often hold
that this passage's unsuccessful attempt at predictive prophecy
serves to date Daniel 10-12 to about 165 B.C.

Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 387-88; John E. Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1989), 304; Hartman and Di
Leila, The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary, 301;
Ernest C. Lucas, Daniel, Apollos Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2002), 289-90; and Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 460.

Is the Antichrist in Daniel 11 ? 201

There are a few verbal connections between the description of

the king in 11:36 and the description of Antiochus in chapter 8 and
in 11:21-35. The word ni1??], "wonderful things," is used in 8:24 to
describe Antiochus's attacks against Jewish religion, most probably
his sacking of the temple in Jerusalem. In 11:36 the word describes
the king's verbal attacks against God. Likewise the word Di?T, "indignant anger," refers in 8:19 to God's wrath against Antiochus,
and in 11:30 it refers to Antiochus's indignation against God's holy
covenant with Israel. Thus there are some parallels between the
king described in verse 36 and other passages that clearly apply to
Antiochus.
Yet one faces several problems in seeking to identify the king
of 11:36-45 with Antiochus. First, no historical facts suggest that
Antiochus exalted and magnified "himself above every god" (v. 36),
or showed "no regard for the gods of his fathers" (v. 37), or honored
"a god whom his fathers did not know" (v. 38). While Antiochus had
his coins inscribed "King Antiochus, God Manifest," these coins
also bore the likeness of Zeus on the reverse, while other coins he
issued depicted Apollo. Moreover, Antiochus was known for his devotion to the Greek gods in general, and in Jerusalem he erected a
statue of Olympian Zeus and ordered that sacrifices be made to it.
He also promoted worship of Dionysius in Jerusalem (2 Mace. 6:7).
Greek historian Polybius, a contemporary of Antiochus, reported
that in 166 B.C. Antiochus held a festival at Daphne where he honored "all gods or spirits worshiped by people."7 In addition Apollo
was honored on the festival's coinage.
Second, critics do not agree on the meaning of the phrase "the
desire of women" (v. 37), for which this king had no regard. A number of critics say this refers to one of the pagan gods whose cult was
especially popular with women. Since the late nineteenth century
many critics have viewed this as a reference to Tammuz/Adonis (cf.
Ezek. 8:14), although some have claimed that the Greek god Dionysius was intended.8 The problem with this is that there is no
evidence that Antiochus ever discouraged the cult of either of these
gods, and he promoted Dionysius in Jerusalem itself.
Given these problems, a recent critical commentator has
claimed that the author engaged in "deliberate polemical distortion, to depict the impiety of the king in the most extreme terms

7
8

Polybius, Histories 30.25-26.

Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel,

461-62.

202

BiBLlOTHECA SACRA / ApriKJune 2005

possible" and was "probably indulging in polemical exaggeration."9

Baldwin, an evangelical, believes that these verses are about Antiochus. But she admits, "Although the chapter finds its first fulfillment in the character and reign of Antiochus IV, the matter
does not stop there."10 However, this raises a problem of its own. If
there is a distortion, exaggeration, or a further application beyond
Antiochus, how does one know that is what the author intended
and that the modern interpreter is correct in his assertions? Could
it be that the interpretation is wrong and is distorting the text instead of the text distorting the facts about Antiochus? Could it be
that the "first fulfillment" is more in the perception of the interpreter than the intention of the author of Daniel? That is, how does
one distinguish between the author's supposed polemic and the
possibility that there is no extreme distortion or exaggeration
based on his polemics? Or how does one distinguish between some
type of double application intended by the author and a mistake by
the interpreter in attempting to have a passage say more than it
was intended to say? It seems more likely that the author never
intended 11:36-45 to be about Antiochus.
When this is added to the fact that scholars who apply these
verses to Antiochus admit that verses 40-45 do not fit what is
known about Antiochus, it is very probable that it is the Antiochene theory, and not some distortion by the author of Daniel,
that is the cause of these problems. The attempt to rescue the Antiochene interpretation of verses 36-45 by resorting to a theory of
extreme polemics that distorted the depiction of Antiochus is more
special pleading than reasoned exegesis, especially since the author
demonstrated hostility toward Greek rulers elsewhere (e.g., vv.
11-12, 17-18 [Antiochus III]). Yet these polemics did not distort
the depiction of other kings so severely as to make identifications a
problem for scholars of any stripe. Even given the fact that Antiochus was the most reviled Hellenistic king among Jews because of
his policies, why does this not distort verses 21-35 so that the identity of the king of the north in these passages (Antiochus IV) becomes similarly a problem for anyone? Clearly the Antiochene view
is far from being proved and depends more on assertion than evidence.

Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 377-78.

10
Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1978), 199.

Is the Antichrist in Daniel 11 ? 203

REASONS FOR AFFIRMING THAT 11:36-45 DESCRIBES AN

ESCHATOLOGICAL KING

While it is often claimed that there is no indication of a change of

time frame or subject in Daniel 11:3e,11 two good factors indicate
that the king in verse 36 is not the same as the king of the north in
verses 21-35. First, verse 35 ends with the notice that the persecution of Antiochus will refine God's people for "the time of the end."
It is reasonable to think that the prophecy will immediately begin a
discussion of the time of the end, in keeping with the catch-concept
organizing principle seen elsewhere in this prophecy. Earlier the
prophecy skipped from a Persian emperor who stirred up Greece to
a Greek king (w. 2-3) and from the breakup of the Greek Empire
toward the four winds of heaven to kings that represent only two of
those four winds, the kings of the north and the south (w. 4-5).
Second, verse 36 introduces the king in a unique way. He is
simply referred to as "the king." No Hellenistic king in this chapter
before verse 36 is referred to simply as "the king," even when having been recently mentioned (cf. v. 25). Alexander is "a mighty
king" (v. 3). Various Seleucid kings are always "the king of the
north" (w. 6-8, 11, 13, 15), and various Ptolemaic kings are always
"the king of the south" (w. 5-6, 9, 11, 14, 25 [twice]). The king of
the north and south together are called "the two kings" (v. 27).
Therefore both the time frame and the subject change from
verse 35 to 36. When "the king" is introduced in verse 36, it is dramatic and unexpected. It is a signal that this king is not a Hellenistic king, but a king who will arise at "the time of the end" (w. 35,
40; 12:4, 9).
But what about the verbal ties between the king in 11:36 and
the descriptions of Antiochus? Antiochus is depicted throughout
the visions in Daniel as foreshadowing the Antichrist. For instance
Antiochus is prophesied as attacking the "wonderful things" in
God's temple, and the Antichrist will attack God by his words
(8:24; 11:36). And both Antiochus and the Antichrist will arouse
God's indignation and anger (8:19; 11:30, 36).
This also explains the similarities and differences between the
little horn in Daniel 7 and the little horn in Daniel 8. Antiochus
Epiphanes (Dan. 8; 11:21-35) is a foreshadowing of the Antichrist
(Dan. 7; 11:36-45), and this revelation clarifies why the two resemble each other yet are distinct. This can be seen by a comparison of the two little horns, as seen on the next page.

For example Lucas, Daniel, 301.

204 BiBLiOTHECA SACRA / April-June 2005

This is why Daniel 11 has verbal and thematic links between

Antiochus (vv. 21-35) and the eschatological king ( w . 36-45) and
makes an almost seamless move from one to the other. It is easy to
miss this shift unless one is paying close attention to the markers
that signal the move from one section to another (catch-concept
and the way the kings are introduced).
The Little Horn in Daniel 7

The Little Horn in Daniel 8

A. "Another horn, a little one" is

never said to become large (7:8),
but it is "larger in appearance
than its associates" (v. 20)

A. A single horn that began

small and became very large
(8:9)

B. A horn grows up among ten

horns (v. 8)

B. A horn grows out of one of

four horns (w. 8-9)

C. Is different from the horns

that preceded it (v. 24)

C. No similar statement

D. Uproots three horns (w. 8,

20, 24)

D. No similar statement

E. Has human features (eyes,

mouth; w . 8, 11, 20, 25)

E. No similar statement

F. No similar statement

F. Understands enigmas (v. 23)

G. Oppresses the saints for "a

times, times, and half a time" (v.
25)

G. Takes away the continual

sacrifice for 2,300 evenings and
mornings (w. 11, 14)

H. Its dominion is taken away by

the divine court (v. 26)

H. Is broken, but not by a hand

(v. 25)

H. Its dominion is given to the

saints of the Highest One (v. 27)

H. No mention of what happens

to its dominion

THE ESCHATOLOGICAL KING AS FORESHADOWED BY ANTIOCHUS IV

An ominous note is sounded by the opening sentence of 11:36, "The
king will do as he pleases." This arrogance is also said to be characteristic of Persia (the ram in 8:4), Alexander the Great (11:3), and
Antiochus III (v. 16). However, unlike the description of those
kings, this is the first thing said about this king. The eschatological
king is chiefly characterized by his willful arrogance. Unlike those
other kings, his arrogance is characterized as primarily religious in
nature (vv. 36-39). This king will be a religious figure, and his

Is the Antichrist in Daniel 11 ? 205

power will be exercised in ways that challenge what is godly in

stead of challenging the geopolitical order as the other kings' ac
tions did. Therefore Antiochus IV was a foreshadowing of this king,
because he was the only one of the Hellenistic kings whose actions
directly challenged the worship of the God of Israel. However, An
tiochus's other acts mentioned in this prophecy were primarily
geopolitical in nature.
The main characteristic of the eschatological king is that he
will elevate himself over every other god and will speak "wonderful
things" against the true God, making him the same as the little
horn in the vision in Daniel 7:25. The Hebrew word for "wonderful
things" occurs forty-six times in the Old Testament. In forty of
these instances it is used nominally as "wonderful acts," most often
meaning miraculous acts of God. Clearly the Antichrist's words
against the true God are designed to replace the wonderful acts of
God by which He redeems His people, and which are God's alone
(Pss. 40:6 [Eng, v. 5]; 72:18; 86:10; 98:1; 136:4).
Interestingly Theodotion translates this word as "arrogant
things," a word used by both Peter and Jude in their descriptions of
false teachers who will arise among Christians. Peter warned, "But
false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be
false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive
heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift
destruction upon themselves. . . . For speaking out arrogant things
[] of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality,
those who barely escape from the ones who live in error" (2 Pet. 2:1,
18). Jude used similar language about such people. He said they
are "ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentious
ness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. . . . These
are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they
speak arrogantly [], flattering people for the sake of gain
ing an advantage" (Jude 4, 16). The prophecy given to Daniel by
the heavenly man who appeared to him predicts the coming of an
eschatological figure whose words will be the epitome of such false
teaching.
Daniel was also told that this king will prosper until God's an
ger against him is completed, since God has determined that his
actions should run their course. Paul called this person "the man of
lawlessness," described him in terms similar to Daniel 11:36-37,
and noted that Christ will end his power. "Let no one in any way
deceive you, for [that day] will not come unless [or, until] the apos
tasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of
destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called
god [cf. Dan 11:36a] or object of worship, so that he takes his seat

206

BlBLlOTHECA SACRA / ApriKJune 2005

in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God [cf. Dan.

11:37]. . . . Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord
will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the
appearance of His coming [cf. Dan. 11:36b] . . . [the man of lawless
ness] whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all
power and signs and false wonders [^ cf. Dan. 11:36]"12 (2
Thess. 2:3-4, 8-9, italics added).
This king will not favor "the God of his fathers" (Dan. 11:37).
This phrase (with "his" and with other pronouns) occurs forty-five
times in the Old Testament and is always a description of Yahweh.13 Therefore this king will come from among the people of God.
Some interpreters see this as an indication that the Antichrist will
be Jewish. However, this phrase is a religious identification, not an
ethnic one. It indicates that the eschatological king will come from
those whose ancestral tradition is to worship the true God. In
Paul's terms he will be seated "in the temple of God" (2 Thess. 2:4).
The king will also favor neither normal human marital rela
tions ("the desire of women") nor any god, because he will make
himself greater than all (Dan. 11:37), rendering him incapable of
the loving devotion that is required by both marriage and true pi
ety.14 Some, however, say that this phrase refers to the Messiah as

The Greek can correspond to the Hebrew ni^S3 (see Exod. 5:11, LXX; Isa.
28:29, LXX).
13
Exodus 3:13, 15-16; 4:5; Deuteronomy 1:11, 21; 4:1; 6:3; 12:1; 26:7; 27:3; 29:24;
Joshua 18:3; Judges 2:12; 2 Kings 21:22; 1 Chronicles 5:25; 12:18; 29:20; 2 Chroni
cles 7:22; 11:16; 13:12, 18; 14:3; 15:12; 19:4; 20:6, 33; 21:10; 24:18, 24; 28:6, 9, 25;
29:5; 30:7, 19, 22; 33:12; 34:32-33; 36:15; Ezra 7:27; 8:28; 10:11; Daniel 11:37. Only
Daniel 11:37; 1 Chronicles 5:25; 12:18; and 2 Chronicles 20:33 do not explicitly iden
tify "the God of the fathers" with Yahweh.
The suggestion by most commentators is that this phrase in Daniel 11:37 should
be translated "the gods of his fathers." See Gleason L. Archer Jr., "Daniel," in The
Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 145; Calvin,
A Commentary on Daniel, 2:346; Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Dan
iel, 386; Goldingay, Daniel, 280; Hartman and Di Leila, The Book of Daniel: A New
Translation with Notes and Commentary, 301; Keil, Biblical Commentary on the
Book of Daniel, 463; Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, 515; Walvoord, Daniel: The Key
to Prophetic Revelation, 274; and Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary,
248. While grammatically possible, this rendering is not supported by the rest of the
Old Testament, where it is always "the God of his fathers" (cf. Lucas, Daniel, 257).

Luther suggested that "the desire of women" is a reference to marital love

("Preface to Daniel," 313). He is followed in this by Archer, "Daniel"; Calvin, A
Commentary on Daniel, 2:345-46; Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel,
464-65; Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, 515-16; and Young, The Prophecy of Daniel:
A Commentary, 249.

Is the Antichrist in Daniel 11 ? 207

One whom women desire to bear.15 To support this theory it is

noted that in the other occurrences of the construct noun mon the
following genitive is always subjective ("desired by") not objective
("desire for"), and that it is used in what may be a messianic designation in Haggai 2:7 ("the desired of the nations"). However, there
are only three other uses of the construct noun (1 Sam. 9:20; 2
Chron. 36:10; Hag. 2:7), which is hardly enough to establish any
pattern of usage, and there are many examples of construct nouns
that are followed by both subjective and objective genitives.
The context suggests that the king will not have an intimate
loving relationship with any god or with humans16 because he will
honor something else, namely, "a god of fortresses" (Dan. 11:38).
What is this god of fortresses, a "god whom his fathers did not
know"? It is temporal power as signified by fortresses.17 This is
what he will value above all else, making it his "god."18 He will
honor temporal power because it will give him the things that fortresses providea way to project his power, a means of defense
and a place of security. Ironically, rta, "fortress," is used most often
in the Old Testament as a metaphor for God as the strength, protection, and salvation of His people (2 Sam. 22:33; Pss. 27:1; 28:8;
31:5 [Eng., v. 4]; 37:39; 43:2; Prov. 10:29; Isa. 17:10; 25:4-5; Jer.
16:19; Joel 4:16 [Eng., 3:16]; Nah. 1:7). When the eschatological
king rejects the God of his fathers, he will seek to use temporal
power to replace what only God can supply.
Therefore this eschatological king will deal with other temporal threats ("strong fortresses") with the help of a "foreign god," a
god whom his fathers did not know (Dan. 11:38). That is, instead of
relying on God and His Word as a fortress to protect him, he will
rely on temporal power to deal with the powers of this world. He
will honor those who acknowledge him and his power, and he will
give them power in this world over people and territory (v. 39).
With this understanding of the eschatological king, one can see
that he and Antiochus are mirror images of each other, one being a
15

Miller, Daniel, 307; and Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, 274.
He relates to other humans only on the basis of power (Dan 11:39).

The identification of this god as warfare is partly true but too narrow (Keil,
Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 466; Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, 517;
Miller, Daniel, 308; Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, 276; and
Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 249).
18
"A god is that to which we look for all good and in which we find refuge in every
time of need" (Martin Luther, Large Catechism, Ten Commandments, par. 2, in
Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord [Philadelphia: Fortress, 19591, 365).

208

BiBLlOTHECA SACRA / ApriKJune 2005

geopolitical figure who stirs up problems of a religious nature, the

other being a religious figure who stirs up problems of a geopolitical nature.
Antiochus IV
(11:21-35)

Eschatological King
(11:36-45)

1. A geopolitical figure occupied

in warfare (w. 21-30a)

1. A religious figure occupied

with temporal power (w. 36-39)

2. He uses his political power to

attack God's people and meddle
in their religious practices (w.
30b-32)

2. Because of his use of religious

authority in geopolitical affairs,
he is attacked and becomes involved in warfare (w. 40-45)

The description of the eschatological king in verses 36-45 is

parallel to the description of Antiochus in verses 21-35. Both passages begin with a general description of their reigns and of events
not related to warfare ( w . 21-24, Antiochus; w . 36-39, eschatological king). This is followed by descriptions of warfare. Twice Antiochus engages in war with Egypt and then enters Palestine ( w .
25-28, 29-35). The same pattern holds true for the king in verses
40-45. He will battle the king of the south (v. 40) and then will invade Palestine, "the beautiful land" (v. 41). Then he will conquer
Egypt ( w . 42-43) and once again will enter Palestine "between the
seas and the beautiful Holy Mountain" (v. 45). Therefore t h e parallel between Antiochus as oppressor of God's people and the eschatological king's oppression of God's people is tightly drawn.
The eschatological king will be like Antiochus IV, who foreshadowed him. Both use temporal power, and both attack God and
His people. Antiochus was primarily a geopolitical figure who used
his status to attack the religious practices of the Jews. But the eschatological king will be primarily a religious figure who will use
his religious position to wield temporal power. This is exactly how
Paul described the Antichrist, "the man of lawlessness," in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12.
CONCLUSION

The contention of critical scholars t h a t Daniel 11:36-45 is a cont i n u a t i o n of t h e description of t h e actions of Antiochus IV
Epiphanes fails when scrutinized closely. The dismissive attitude
of critical scholars toward the traditional Christian view t h a t these
verses speak of an eschatological king identified in the New Test a m e n t as "the m a n of lawlessness," the Antichrist, h a s blinded

Is the Antichrist in Daniel 11 ? 209

many interpreters to the structural features of the revelation in

11:2-12:3 and has led them to miss the tightly drawn parallels between the Antiochus, the king described in 11:21-35, and the Antichrist, the king described in verses 36-45.
Before the rise of modern higher criticism there was a longstanding interpretive tradition among both Jews and Christians
that the king described in verses 36-45 differs from the one
prophesied in previous verses. The consensus of such diverse figures as Chrysostom, Hippolytus, Theodoret, Jerome, Rashi, Ibn
Ezra, Luther, and Calvin was that one should not see these verses
as a description of Antiochus. While they may have made this interpretive assertion partly on intuition about the text and its structure and partly on the grounds that these verses were not descriptive of Antiochus as known from extrabiblical sources, they nevertheless recognized that something was signaling a change in referent from verse 35 to verse 36. A close analysis of the revelation received by Daniel in his final vision testifies that the exegetical intuition exhibited by interpreters from antiquity through the Reformation has a strong basis in the text itself.

^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.