Daniel 11:37

This verse gives more information about the ruler’s religious convictions. The phrase "the God of his fathers" is similar to one that occurs elsewhere in Scripture describing the God of the Jews (cf. Daniel 2:23; Exodus 3:15-16; Exodus 4:5; et al.). This has led some interpreters to conclude that this king will be a Jew. [Note: E.g., J. N. Darby, Studies in the Book of Daniel, pp. 107-14; Gaebelein, pp. 180-95; Young, p. 249; Ironside, p. 218; and Culver, "Daniel," p. 797.] However, the phrase does not require this interpretation. The name "God" is "Elohim," the general word for God, rather than the covenant name "Yahweh," that God often used when stressing His relationship to His chosen people. This word can have a plural translation (gods) or a singular one (God). Moreover, in the light of other revelation about this man, he seems to be a Roman (Daniel 7:8; Daniel 7:24; Revelation 13:1-10). Of course, he could be a Jewish Roman, but the description of him in this verse does not identify him clearly as a Jew. Probably the angel meant that this king will abandon the religion of his past (or ancestry), whatever that religion may have been. He will do this because he will set himself up as the object of worship in place of all gods.

The identity of "the desire of women" is also problematic. It may be a reference to the Messiah. [Note: Pentecost, "Daniel," p. 1371; Gaebelein, p. 188; Walvoord, Daniel . . ., p. 274; Feinberg, p. 175; Ironside, p. 221; Wiersbe, p. 304.] Supposedly the supreme desire of every godly Jewish woman in Daniel’s day was that she bear the Messiah. Another view is that the reference is to Tammuz (Gr. Adonis), a pagan goddess in Daniel’s day that women found very attractive. [Note: Montgomery, pp. 461-62; A. A. Bevan, A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel, pp. 196-97.] Others believe that the meaning is that this king will have no desire for women. Some even speculate that he will be abusive toward women. In other words, he will be devoid of natural affection. [Note: Keil, pp. 464-65; Young, 249; Archer, "Daniel," p. 144; Whitcomb, p. 155. Cf. Leupold, pp. 515-16.] I tend to favor this third view.