Question: Can we take “the king” in Dan. 11:3636And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. (Daniel 11:36), as the king of the north, and understand verse 40 as meaning that the king of the south shall push at him: (i.e., the king of the north:) and the king of the north shall come against him, (i.e., the king of the south,) so as to identify the rest of the chapter that follows with the same personage? J. B.
Answer: To me it is evident that “the king” is distinguished from both these monarchs, and that the characteristics and the locality, as well as his abrupt introduction into the scene, as some well-known personage at the time of the end in the holy land, exercising royal rights over the apostate mass of the Jews there, point to one conclusion—that he is the “man of sin” of 2 Thess. 2 and “the antichrist” of the Epistles of John, “the beast of the earth” (or land) and “false prophet” of the Apocalypse. This being so, verse 40 is quite simple, and shows us “the king” assailed both by the ruler of the south and by him of the north. With this, too, agrees verse 41, where “the king of the north” enters into Palestine. Again, in verse 45 he plants the tents of his pavilion in that land. “The king,” on the contrary, lived and reigned there. If “the king” can be naturally understood of one who reigns in the holy land only, the question is decided, and the kings of the north and south mean those of Syria and Egypt respectively. It would be violent indeed to identify “the king of the north” with antichrist or “the king,” of whom he is the deadly enemy.