Page 347 - Daniel

women.’ The Lord Jesus Christ is here in view. The word ‘beloved’ is in
the same construct form in Hebrew (hemdat) as in Haggai 2:7 and 1
Samuel 9:20, indicating that the noun following ‘beloved’ is subjective
not objective; hence it means ‘beloved by women,’ not a desire for
women. Pious Jewish women in Pre-messianic times had one great

desire, they wanted to be mothers, with a view to Him, who is the
promised seed of the woman. His birth was beloved by these godly
mothers of Israel. This King then hates God and hates His blessed Son,
the Lord Jesus Christ.” 60

Although none of the explanations can be proved beyond question, as
Daniel is not specific, it is quite clear that this king would be opposed to
the messianic hope; and from Daniel’s point of view, this would be
important. In other words, he would disregard the gods of the past as
well as the promised Son of God who is to come from heaven.

The prophecy continues that this king shall “magnify himself above all
[gods].” His blasphemy is twofold: he rejects both the true God and all

false gods, and assumes deity for himself. Although Antiochus Epiphanes
had some aspirations of being recognized as having divine qualities,
even the liberal scholars who attempt historic fulfillment in him in
relation to this passage are embarrassed by the sweeping statement that
is made. There is no proof that Antiochus went this far, and the futuristic
interpretation makes far more sense.

The characteristics of this king’s “theology” are explained in verse 38.
In the place that God occupies in other people’s thinking, he is stated to
“honor the god of fortresses.” This god is peculiarly different from the

gods that his fathers knew, and the revelation continues, “A god whom
his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with
precious stones and costly gifts.” Here again, the liberal scholar is
embarrassed by this extensive claim, which far exceeds anything true of
Antiochus Epiphanes.

Those who identify this king as an apostate Jew at the end of the age
are likewise embarrassed, as “the god of fortresses” then has to be
identified with the Roman world ruler. Gaebelein states, “The one whom
61
he will honour is none other than the first beast, the little horn.” If this
is intended as an identification, however, it is a strange one and quite
different from any other identification of the Roman ruler in Scripture.