Page 350 - Daniel

north attacks the land of Israel. The context in Ezekiel describes the time
as a period of peace for Israel (Ezek. 38:8, 11, 14), which is probably
best identified as the first half of Daniel’s seventieth week when Israel is
in covenant relationship with the Roman ruler and protected from
attack. This period of peace is broken at the midpoint of the seventieth

week when the Roman ruler becomes a world ruler, and the great
tribulation begins with its persecution of Israel.

The chronology of Daniel 11:36–39 refers to this latter period of world
rule, and, therefore, must occur after Ezekiel 38–39. So it may be
concluded that the battle described in Daniel is a later development,
possibly several years after the battle described in Ezekiel. In light of the
previous context, where the king is pictured as an absolute ruler,
coinciding with other Scriptures picturing a world government at this
time (Dan. 7:23; Rev. 13:7), the war in Daniel is a rebellion against his

leadership and signifies the breaking up of the world government that
previously had been in power. The initial nature of the battle is quite
clear.

A major exegetical problem, however, is the reference in verse 40:
“And he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through.”
The question is whether “he” refers to the king of the south, the king of
the north, or the former world ruler who is defending his empire. Based
on what follows, it is preferable to take the “he” as referring to the king
of 11:36, the world ruler.

Identifying the subject of these verses as the king of 11:36 seems to be
most in keeping with the entire tenor of this passage, which presents the

last world ruler. Other suggestions have been made, which would greatly
alter the meaning of the passage. Among the views, several may be
mentioned. The liberal interpretation is that this refers to the historic
struggles of Antiochus Epiphanes with Egypt; but any comparison of the
predictions here with the actual events of the closing of the reign of
Antiochus presents serious difficulties, and even the liberals have to
accuse their pseudo-Daniel of being guilty of historical inaccuracies. 63

Actually, there is no correspondence to history here.
If the futuristic interpretation is accepted, a number of options are

possible. If the ruler of 11:36 is only a minor character and not a world
ruler, it would open the way for regarding this war to be merely an