Albert Barnes
Daniel 11:40
And at the time of the end - See Dan_11:35. The “time of the end” must properly denote the end or consummation of the series of events under consideration, or the matter in hand, and properly and obviously means here the end or consummation of the transactions which had been referred to in the previous part of the vision. It is equivalent to what we should say by expressing it thus: “at the winding up of the affair.” In Dan_12:4, Dan_12:9, Dan_12:13, the word “end,” however, obviously refers to another close or consummation - the end or consummation of the affairs that reach far into the future - the final dispensation of things in this world. It has been held by many that this could not be understood as referring to Antiochus, because what is here stated did not occur in the close of his reign. Perhaps at first sight the most obvious interpretation of what is said in this and the subsequent verses to the end of the chapter would be, that, after the series of events referred to in the previous verses; after Antiochus had invaded Egypt, and had been driven thence by the fear of the Romans, he would, in the close of his reign, again attack that country, and bring it, and Libya, and AEthiopia into subjection Dan_11:43; and that when there, tidings out of the north should compel him to abandon the expedition and return again to his own land.
Porphyry (see Jerome, in loc.) says that this was so, and that Antiochus actually invaded Egypt in the “eleventh year of his reign,” which was the year before he died; and he maintains, therefore, that all this had a literal application to Antiochus, and that being so literally true, it must have been written after the events had occurred. Unfortunately the fifteen books of Porphyry are lost, and we have only the fragments of his works preserved which are to be found in the Commentary of Jerome on the book of Daniel. The statement of Porphyry, referred to by Jerome, is contrary to the otherwise universal testimony of history about the last days of Antiochus, and there are such improbabilities in the statement as to leave the general impression that Porphyry in this respect falsified history in order to make it appear that this must have been written after the events referred to. If the statement of Porphyry were correct, there would be no difficulty in applying this to Antiochus. The common belief, however, in regard to Antiochus is, that he did not invade Egypt after the series of events referred to above, and after he had been required to retire by the authority of the Roman ambassadors, as stated in the notes at Dan_11:30.
This belief accords also with all the probabilities of the case. Under these circumstances, many commentators have supposed that this portion of the chapter Dan_11:40-45 could not refer to Antiochus, and they have applied it to Anti-christ, or to the Roman power. Yet how forced and unnatural such an application must be, anyone can perceive by examining Newton on the Prophecies, pp. 308-315. The obvious, and perhaps it may be added the honest, application of the passage must be to Antiochus. This is that which would occur to any reader of the prophecy; this is what he would obviously hold to be the true application; and this is that only which would occur to anyone, unless it were deemed necessary to bend the prophecy to accommodate it to the history. Honesty and fairness, it seems to me, require that we should understand this as referring to the series of events which had been described in the previous portion of the chapter, and as designed to state the ultimate issue or close of the whole.
There will be no difficulty in this if we may regard these verses Dan_11:40-45 as containing a recapitulation, or a summing up of the series of events, with a statement of the manner in which they would close. If so interpreted all will be clear. It will then be a general statement of what would occur in regard to this remarkable transaction that would so materially affect the interests of religion in Judea, and be such an important chapter in the history of the world. This summing up, moreover, would give occasion to mention some circumstances in regard to the conquests of Antiochus which could not so well be introduced in the narrative itself, and to present, in few words, a summary of all that would occur, and to state the manner in which all would be terminated. Such a summing up, or recapitulation, is not uncommon, and in this way the impression of the whole would be more distinct.
With this view, the phrase “and at the time of the end” Dan_11:40 would refer, not so much to the “time of the end” of the reign of Antiochus, but to the “time of the end” of the whole series of the transactions referred to by the angel as recorded “in the scripture of truth” Dan_10:21, from the time of Darius the Mede Dan_11:1 to the close of the reign of Antiochus - a series of events embracing a period of some three hundred and fifty years. Viewed in reference to this long period, the whole reign of Antiochus, which was only eleven years, might be regarded as “the time of the end.” It was, indeed, the most disastrous portion of the whole period, and in this chapter it occupies more space than all that went before it - for it was to be the time of the peculiar and dreadful trial of the Hebrew people, but it was “the end” of the matter - the winding up of the series - the closing of the events on which the eye of the angel was fixed, and which were so important to be known beforehand. In these verses, therefore Dan_11:40-45, he sums up what would occur in what he here calls appropriately “the time of the end” - the period when the predicted termination of this series of important events should arrive - to wit, in the brief and eventful reign of Antiochus.
Shall the king of the south - The king of Egypt. See Dan_11:5-6, Dan_11:9.
Push at him - As in the wars referred to in the previous verse - in endeavoring to expel him from Coelo-Syria and Palestine, and from Egypt itself, Dan_11:25, Dan_11:29-30. See the note at those verses.
And the king of the north shall come against him - The king of Syria - Antiochus. Against the king of Egypt. He shall repeatedly invade his lands. See the notes above.
Like a whirlwind - As if he would sweep everything before him. This he did when he invaded Egypt; when he seized on Memphis, and the best portion of the land of Egypt, and when he obtained possession of the person of Ptolemy. See the notes at Dan_11:25-27.
With chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships - All this literally occurred in the successive invasions of Egypt by Antiochus. See the notes above.
And he shall enter into the countries - Into Coelo-Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and the adjacent lands.
And shall overflow and pass over - Like a flood he shall spread his armies over these countries. See the notes at Dan_11:22.
Adam Clarke
Daniel 11:40
At the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him - These kings are to be understood in reference to the times of which the prophet speaks. While the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria were subsisting, the king of the south and the north applied to them exclusively: but they did not exist at the time of which the prophet speaks; therefore other southern and northern powers must be sought. These we may find in the Saracens, who were of the Arabians, who came from the south, headed by the false prophet Mohammed, who pushed at him - made war on the Greek emperor Heraclius, and with amazing rapidity deprived him of Egypt, Syria, and many of his finest provinces.
And the king of the north - The Turks, who were originally Scythians, seized on the remains of the Greek empire; and in process of time rendered themselves masters of the whole. They are represented as coming like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen; their armies being chiefly composed of cavalry.
And with many ships - With these they got possession of many islands and maritime countries; and were so powerful in their fleets, that they entirely defeated the Venetians; and at last their fleets became of the utmost consequence to them in besieging, and afterwards taking, Constantinople, a.d. 1453, which they hold to the present day. So they entered into the countries, and overflowed, rendering themselves masters of all Asia Minor and Greece.
John Gill
Daniel 11:40
And at the time of the end,.... At the end of the time appointed of God, when antichrist is arrived to the height of his power and authority:
shall the king of the south push at him; not Philometor king of Egypt; nor is Antiochus meant in the next clause by the king of the north; for, after he was required by the Romans to quit the land of Egypt, there was no more war between him and the king of Egypt; rather therefore the Saracens are meant by the king of the south, as Mr. Mede
and Cocceius think, who came from the south, from Arabia Felix: and so Gravius interprets it of the king or caliph of the Saracens, and his successors; who, extending their empire through Asia and Africa, repressed the attempts of the Roman antichrist affecting primacy in the east; and this way goes Mr. Mede, who takes them to be the same with the locusts in Rev_9:3, that distressed antichrist:
and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind; not Antiochus, as before observed; but either emperors, kings, and Christian princes, the chief of which was Godfrey of Bullain, who was crowned king of Jerusalem, as Cocceius: or the Turks, as Jacchiades, so Mr. Brightman on the place, and Mr. Mede; who were originally Tartars or Scythians, and came from the north, the same with the horsemen at Euphrates, Rev_9:15, who also came against antichrist; for he seems to be the "him" they both came against; both the king of the south, and the king of the north, the two woes that came upon Christendom the Saracens are the first woe, and the Turks the second; and who chiefly afflicted the antichristian states, and came like a whirlwind upon them, suddenly, swiftly, and with great rapidity and force:
with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; which well agrees with the Turks, whose armies chiefly consist of horse:
and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow, and pass over; into the countries belonging to antichrist; particularly the Greek or eastern empire; which they overran like a flood, seized it for themselves, and set up an empire for themselves, which still continues; as well as entered into some parts of Europe, and did much damage.
Works, B. 3. p. 674.
Jamieson Fassett and Brown
Daniel 11:40
The difficulty of reconciling this with Antiochus’ history is that no historian but Porphyry mentions an expedition of his into Egypt towards the close of his reign. This Dan_11:40, therefore, may be a recapitulation summing up the facts of the first expedition to Egypt (171-170 b.c.), in Dan_11:22, Dan_11:25; and Dan_11:41, the former invasion of Judea, in Dan_11:28; Dan_11:42, Dan_11:43, the second and third invasions of Egypt (169 and 168 b.c.) in Dan_11:23, Dan_11:24, Dan_11:29, Dan_11:30. Auberlen takes rather Porphyry’s statement, that Antiochus, in the eleventh year of his reign (166-165 b.c.), invaded Egypt again, and took Palestine on his way. The “tidings” (Dan_11:44) as to the revolt of tributary nations then led him to the East. Porphyry’s statement that Antiochus starting from Egypt took Arad in Judah, and devastated all Phoenicia, agrees with Dan_11:45; then he turned to check Artaxias, king of Armenia. He died in the Persian town Tabes, 164 b.c., as both Polybius and Porphyry agree. Doubtless, antitypically, the final Antichrist, and its predecessor Mohammed, are intended, to whom the language may be more fully applicable than to Antiochus the type. The Saracen Arabs “of the south” “pushed at” the Greek emperor Heraclius, and deprived him of Egypt and Syria. But the Turks of “the north” not merely pushed at, but destroyed the Greek empire; therefore more is said of them than of the Saracens. Their “horsemen” are specified, being their chief strength. Their standards still are horse tails. Their “ships,” too, often gained the victory over Venice, the great naval power of Europe in that day. They “overflowed” Western Asia, and then “passed over” into Europe, fixing their seat of empire at Constantinople under Mohammed II [Newton].
(You can always go with commentators instead of forcing scripture to fit the view of your particular church or your views.)
