Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 11:37
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
37. And the gods of his fathers he will not regard ] The honours paid by him to foreign deities implied a depreciation of the gods of his own country. He was particularly devoted to the cult of Jupiter Capitolinus, or Zeus Olympios. Even before he became king, while halting at Athens on his way home from Rome, he contributed largely to the restoration of the Olympieion in that city; afterwards, he built in Daphne, the suburb of Antioch, a temple to Zeus Olympios, with a colossal statue of the god, modelled on the famous one of Pheidias at Olympia, and began, though he did not live to complete it, a yet more magnificent temple to him in Antioch itself (Livy xli. 20). His coins also exhibit constantly (on the obverse) the head of either Zeus Olympios or Apollo; and, as was just remarked, in those belonging to the latter part of his reign the king himself bears the title , an epithet belonging properly to Zeus.
and neither the desire of women, nor any god, will he regard ] The ‘desire of women’ must, from the context, be the designation of some divinity most probably (Ewald, Bevan) Tammuz, a celebrated Syrian and Phnician deity, known to the Greeks as Adonis, whose rites were popular among women.
Adonis in the legend was a beautiful youth, the dearly loved spouse of Aphrodit, snatched from her by a cruel fate, and bitterly bewailed by her. The festival of Adonis consisted largely in an imitation of the mourning of Aphrodit, and hence was specially observed by women; cf. Eze 8:14 (where the prophet sees in vision, in the precincts of the Temple, ‘the women weeping for Tammuz’); Jerome on Ez. l. c. ‘plangitur a mulieribus quasi mortuus, et postea reviviscens canitur atque laudatur [388] ’; Aristoph. Lysistr. 389 ff.; and Theocritus’ Idyll (xv.) entitled , or ‘Women keeping festival to Adonis.’ According to Hippolytus, Refut. Hr. Dan 11:9, the ‘Assyrians’ (? Syrians) called him the ‘thrice-desired ( ) Adonis’: cf. Bion, in his , ll. 24, 58.
[388] Cf. Milton, P. L. 1. 456 ff.:
Tammuz came next behind,
Whose annual wound in Lebanon allured
The Syrian damsels to lament his fate
In amorous ditties all a summer’s day;
While smooth Adonis from his native rock
Ran purple to the sea supposed with blood
Of Tammuz yearly wounded. The love-tale
Infected Zion’s daughters with like heat.
nor any god ] While there were some gods whom Antiochus honoured by erecting to them costly temples, he was ready enough, if in need of funds, to rob other temples of their treasures. Polybius (xxxi. 4. 10) expressly says that he plundered very many temples ( ) in order to obtain money for his extravagances. He made an unsuccessful attempt to pillage a wealthy temple in Persia shortly before his death ( ib. xxxi. 11; 1Ma 6:1-4 : see below).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers – The God that his fathers or ancestors had worshipped: That is, he would not be bound or restrained by the religion of his own land, or by any of the usual laws of religion. He would worship any God that he pleased, or none as he pleased. The usual restraints that bind men – the restraints derived from the religion of their ancestors – would in this case be of no avail. See the notes at Dan 11:36. This was in all respects true of Antiochus. At his pleasure he worshipped the gods commonly adored in his country, or the gods worshipped by the Greeks and Romans, or no gods. And, in a special manner, instead of honoring the god of his fathers, and causing the image of that god to be placed in the temple at Jerusalem, as it might have been supposed he would, he caused the altar of Jupiter Olympius to be set up there, and his worship to be celebrated there. In fact, as Antiochus had been educated abroad, and had passed his early life in foreign countries, he had never paid much respect to the religion of his own land. The attempt to introduce a foreign religion into Judea was an attempt to introduce the religion of the Greeks (Jahn, Heb. Commonwealth, p. 267); and in no instance did he endeavor to force upon them the peculiar religion of his own nation. In his private feelings, therefore, and in his public acts, it might be said of Antiochus, that he was characterized in an eminent degree by a want of regard for the faith of his ancestors. The language used here by the angel is what would properly denote great infidelity and impiety.
Nor the desire of women – The phrase the desire of women is in itself ambiguous, and may either mean what they desire, that is, what is agreeable to them, or what they commonly seek, and for which they would plead; or it may mean his own desire – that is, that he would not be restrained by the desire of women, by any regard for women, for honorable matrimony, or by irregular passion. The phrase here is probably to be taken in the former sense, as this best suits the connection. There has been great variety in the interpretation of this expression. Some have maintained that it cannot be applicable to Antiochus at all, since he was a man eminently licentious and under the influence of abandoned women. Jerome, in loc., John D. Michaelis, Dereser, Gesenius, and Lengerke suppose that this means that he would not regard the beautiful statue of the goddess Venus whose temple was in Elymais, which he plundered.
Staudlin and Dathe, that he would not regard the weeping or tears of women – that is, that he would be cruel. Bertholdt, that he would not spare little children, the object of a mothers love – that is, that he would be a cruel tyrant. Jerome renders it, Et erit in concupiscentiis faminarum, and explains it of unbridled lust, and applies it principally to Antiochus. Elliott, strangely it seems to me (Apocalypse, iv. 152), interprets it as referring to what was so much the object of desire among the Hebrew women – the Messiah, the promised seed of the woman; and he says that he had found this opinion hinted at by Faber on the Prophecies (Ed. 5), i. 380-385. Others expound it as signifying that he would not regard honorable matrimony, but would be given to unlawful pleasures. It may not be practicable to determine with certainty the meaning of the expression, but it seems to me that the design of the whole is to set forth the impiety and hard-heartedness of Antiochus. He would not regard the gods of his fathers; that is, he would not be controlled by any of the principles of the religion in which he had been educated, but would set them all at defiance, and would do as he pleased; and, in like manner, he would be unaffected by the influences derived from the female character – would disregard the objects that were nearest to their hearts, their sentiments of kindness and compassion; their pleadings and their tears; he would be a cruel tyrant, alike regardless of all the restraints derived from heaven and earth – the best influences from above and from below.
It is not necessary to say that this agrees exactly with the character of Antiochus. He was sensual and corrupt, and given to licentious indulgence, and was incapable of honorable and pure love, and was a stranger to all those bland and pure affections produced by intercourse with refined and enlightened females. If one wishes to describe a high state of tyranny and depravity in a man, it cannot be done better than by saying that he disregards whatever is attractive and interesting to a virtuous female mind.
Nor regard any god – Any religious restraints whatever – the laws of any god worshipped in his own land or elsewhere – in heaven or on earth. That is, he would be utterly irreligious in heart, and where it conflicted with his purposes would set at nought every consideration derived from reverence to God. This harmonizes well with the previous declaration about women. The two commonly go together. He that is unrestrained by the attractive virtues of the female mind and character; he that has no regard for the sympathies and kindnesses that interest virtuous females; he that sees nothing lovely in what commonly engages their thoughts; and he that throws himself beyond the restraints of their society, and the effects of their conversation, is commonly a man who cuts himself loose from all religion, and is at the same time a despiser of virtuous females and of God. No one will expect piety toward God to be found in a bosom that sees nothing to interest him in the sympathies and virtues of the femme mind; and the character of a woman-hater and a hater of God will uniformly be found united in the same person. Such a person was Antiochus Epiphanes; and such men have often been found in the world.
For he shall magnify himself above all – Above all the restraints of religion, and all those derived from the intercourse of virtuous social life – setting at nought all the restraints that usually bind men. Compare the notes at Dan 8:10-11.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 37. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers] That God who sent the evangelists and apostles to preach the pure doctrine. These true fathers of the Christian Church, and their God, this Church has not regarded, but put councils, and traditions, and apocryphal writings in their place.
Nor the desire of women] Both the Greek and Latin Church, in their antichristian enactments, have discouraged, and in several cases proscribed, marriage, under the pretense of greater chastity, to the discredit of God’s ordinance, and Christianity itself.
Nor regard any god] For the mandates and decrees of that Church have been often in defiance of God and his word, for it has magnified itself above all power and authority in heaven and on earth. It professes to hold the keys, and to open and shut heaven at pleasure, both to states and individuals.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers; he shall so far degenerate from the rule of Christ, and from primitive Christianity, that he shall be the head of that apostacy, 1Ti 4:1; 2Th 2:3; mark those places, the first whereof is so fully opened by Mr. Joseph Mede in his Doctrine of Demons. The other by Bishop Jewel in his comment on that place.
Nor the desire of women, i.e. the desire of wiving, i.e. forbidding to marry, forbidding priests marriage.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
37. Neither . . . regard . . . thedesire of women(Compare Eze 24:16;Eze 24:18). The wife, as thedesire of man’s eyes, is the symbol of the tenderest relations(2Sa 1:26). Antiochus would setat naught even their entreaties that he should cease from his attackon Jehovah’s worship [POLANUS].MAURER refers it toAntiochus’ attack on the temple of the Syrian Venus, worshipped bywomen (1 Maccabees 6:1, c. 2 Maccabees 1:13). NEWTONrefers it to Rome’s “forbidding to marry.” ELLIOTTrightly makes the antitypical reference be to Messiah. Jewishwomen desired to be mothers with a view to Him, the promised seed ofthe woman (Gen 30:23; Luk 1:25;Luk 1:28).
nor regard any god(2Th 2:4).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers,…. Of the apostles of Christ, from whom he pretends to descend, and whose successor he would be thought to be: now their God was the Lord Jesus Christ, whom they worshipped and adored, believed in, embraced, professed, and preached; but whom antichrist disregards, though he would be thought to be his vicar on earth; yet slights him, yea, opposes and acts contrary to him, in his offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, and therefore is rightly called antichrist:
nor the desire of women; or “wives” p; not desirous of having wives, or enjoying women in lawful marriage; but forbidding his priests to marry, as is notoriously a tenet of antichrist, and foretold by the apostle, in agreement to this prophecy, 1Ti 4:3, otherwise, none more lustful or desirous of women in an unlawful way than the Romish priests:
nor regard any god; either the true God, and his laws, or any god in a metaphorical sense, any king or potentate on earth; showing no respect to any authority, or to any laws, divine or human:
for he shall magnify himself above all; above all gods, real or nominal, as in 2Th 2:4.
p “conjuges”, Gejerus.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The exalting of himself above all on the part of the king is further described. “He shall not regard the gods of his fathers,” i.e., shall cast aside the worship of the gods transmitted to him from his fathers. This again does not accord with Antiochus Epiphanes, regarding whom it is true that history records that he wished to suppress the worship practised by the Jews, but it knows nothing
(Note: The statement in 1 Macc. 1:41ff., “Moreover king Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, and every one should have his laws: so all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king,” does not amount to a proof of this. “For,” as Grimm rightly remarks, “the account of such a decree of Antiochus to all (not Hellenic) peoples of his kingdom is very doubtful. No profane historian records anything about it, neither does Josephus, nor the author of the second book of the Maccabees in the parallel passages. It is true that Antiochus, according to Livy, xli. 20, put great honour upon Jupiter by building a splendid temple to Tages, and according to Polybius, xxvi. 10, 11, he excelled all kings who preceded him in expensive sacrifices and gifts in honour of the gods; but this is no proof of a proselytizing fanaticism.” The contrary rather appears from Josephus, Antt. xii. 5. 5, where the Samaritans, in a letter to Antiochus, declare, contrary to the opinion entertained regarding them by their governor, that by descent and custom they were not Jews. Their letter rests on the supposition that the royal decree was directed only against the Jews. Cf. Falthe, Gesch. Macedoniens, ii. p. 596. Diodorus also (xxxiv. 1), to whom Hitzig refers, only states that Antiochus wished to dissolve of the Jewish people, and to compel the Jews to abandon their manner of life ( ).
of attempts made by him to destroy the gods and the worship of other nations. The words which follow, , the old interpreters understood of the love of women, or of conjugal love; the modern, after the example of J. D. Michaelis and Gesenius, on the contrary, understand them of the goddess Anatis or Mylitta, the Assyrian Venus, and refer them specially to the spoiling of the temple of this goddess in Elymas (1 Macc. 6:1, cf. 2 Macc. 1:13). Ewald finally would understand by the expression “the desire of women,” the Syrian deity Tammuz-Adonis. The connection requires us to think on a deity, because these words are placed between two expressions which refer to the gods. But the connection is not altogether decisive; rather the in the clause at the end of the verse denotes that the subject spoken of is not merely the king’s raising himself above the gods, but also above other objects of pious veneration. A verbal proof that denotes the Anatis or Adonis as the favourite deity of women has not been adduced. For these words, desiderium mulierum , denote not that which women desire, but that which women possess which is desirable; cf. under 1Sa 9:20. But it is impossible that this can be Anatis or Adonis, but it is a possession or precious treasure of women. This desirable possession of women is without doubt love; so that, as C. B. Michaelis has remarked, the expression is not materially different from , the love of women, 2Sa 1:26. The thought: “he shall not regard the desire of women, or the love of women,” agrees perfectly with the connection. After it has been said in the first clause: he shall set himself free from all religious reverence transmitted from his fathers, from all piety toward the gods in which he had been trained, it is then added in the second clause: not merely so, but generally from all piety toward men and God, from all the tender affections of the love of men and of God. The “love of women” is named as an example selected from the sphere of human piety, as that affection of human love and attachment for which even the most selfish and most savage of men feel some sensibility. Along with this he shall set himself free from , from all piety or reverence toward God or toward that which is divine (Klief.). This thought is then established by the last clause: “for he shall magnify himself above all.” To we may not supply ; for this clause not only presents the reason for the foregoing clause, , but for both of the foregoing clauses. Hitzig and Kliefoth are right in their interpretation: “above everything, or all, gods and men,” he shall magnify himself, raise himself up in arrogance.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
I do not wonder at those who explain this prophecy of Antiochus, experiencing some trouble with these words; for they cannot satisfy themselves, because this prediction of the angel’s was never accomplished by Antiochus, who did neither neglect all deities nor the god of his fathers. Then, with regard to the love of women, this will not suit this person. But it is easy to prove by other reasons already mentioned, the absence of all allusion here to Antiochus. Some refer this prophecy to the Pope and to Mohammed, and the phrase, the love of women, seems to give probability to this view. For Mohammed allowed to men the brutal liberty of chastising their wives, and thus he corrupted that conjugal love and fidelity which binds the husband to the wife. Unless every man is content with a single wife, there can be no love, because there can be no conjugal happiness whenever rivalry exists between the inferior wives. As, therefore, Mohammed allowed full scope to various lusts, by permitting a man to have a number of wives, this seems like an explanation of his being inattentive to the love of women. Those who think the Pope to be intended here remind us of their enforcing celibacy, by means of which the honor of marriage is trodden under foot. We know with what foulness the Roman Pontiffs bark when marriage is hinted to them, as we may see in the decrees of Pope Siricius, in the seventh chapter of the first volume of the Councils. (188) They quote the passage, Those who are in the flesh cannot please God; and thus compare marriage with fornication, thereby disgracefully and reproachfully throwing scorn upon an ordinance sanctioned by God. We observe, then, some slight correspondence, but the remaining points will not suit this idea. Some assert that as Mohammed invented a new form of religion, so did the Pope; true indeed, but neither of them are intended here, and the reason is, because God wished to sustain the spirits of his people until the first coming of Christ. Hence he predicts by his angel the sufferings to be endured by the Church until Christ was manifest in the flesh. We must now come to the Romans, of whom we began to explain the passage.
The angel says, The king shall pay no regard to the gods of his fathers. The application of this clause is at first sight obscure; but if we come to reflect upon the outrageous pride and barbarity of the Romans, we shall no longer doubt the meaning of the Prophets words. The angel states two circumstances; this king should be a despiser of all deities, and yet he should worship one god, while the singular and magnificent pomp displayed should exceed all common practices. These two points, so apparently opposite, were found united in the Romans. Our explanation will appear clearer by adding the following verses,
(188) The French edition altogether omits this reference to the Concilia — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(37) Neither shall they.A further description is now given of the godlessness of this king, but the people of Israel are no longer mentioned in their relation to him. The northern king appears twice again in Palestine (Dan. 11:41; Dan. 11:45), and apparently dies there. He discards his hereditary religion, he has no regard to that natural affection which women look upon as most desirable, but exalts himself over all.
Desire of women.The language used by Isaiah (Isa. 44:9), delectable things, has led some commentators to think that an idol is here intended. It has been stated that the allusion is to the Asiatic goddess of nature, Mylitta, who, again, has been identified with the queen of heaven (Jer. 7:18, where see Notes). The context, however, leads us rather to think of human affection, or some other thing highly prized by women, for the words neither shall he regard any god would be unmeaning if a god were designated by the desire of women. It should be remembered that according to Polybius xxvi. 10, sec. 11, Antiochus exceeded all kings in the sacrifices which he offered at the gates, and in the honours which he paid to the gods.
In his estatei.e., in the place of the God whom he has rejected, he will worship the god of forces. There is no reason for taking this to be a proper name, as is done by the Syriac translator and Theodotion. It can only mean fortresses (see margin), so that the whole religion of this king is the taking of fortresses. To him war is everything, and to war everything else must give way. To war, as if it were a god, he does honour with all his wealth.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
37. God Or, gods. Antiochus did not reverence the deities of Syria which had been respected by his royal forefathers, but cared only for the “god of fortresses.” (See Dan 11:38.) The difference between he spoke “marvelous things against the God of gods” (Dan 11:36) and he “had no regard for the gods of his fathers” should be noted. According to this statement he cared nothing for the heathen gods, measuring them at their true worth; but the God of the Hebrews he feared and blasphemed.
He shall magnify himself above all He “proudly” thought of himself “as if he were God” ( 2Ma 9:12 ); he allowed himself to be so addressed by the Samaritans (Josephus, Antiquities, XII, Dan 5:5).
Nor the desire of women This is a name probably for the deity Tammuz (Adonis), whose worship was the most popular of all in Syria, and particularly with women. (See note Eze 8:4.) It is generally, however, referred to Nanaea, anciently identified with Artemis or Aphrodite, the feminine counterpart of Adonis, whose temple Antiochus once attempted to plunder.
Nor regard any god He does not give any deity the proper honor, otherwise he would not magnify himself and his own will and his own honor above all temples and priests as he did. He even engraved “Theos” as his accepted title upon his coins.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Nor will he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god, for he will magnify himself above all.’
This one will thrust aside any gods connected with his family, or his forebears, nor will he follow any gods or goddesses or aspects of the occult, that women particularly desire after (compare Eze 8:14), nor will he regard any god. He will magnify himself above them all. The list is complete. He is the great Anti-God. We are reminded here of the one in Revelation who, observing the destruction of Babylon, demanded sole worship (Rev 17:11; Rev 17:13; Rev 17:17; Rev 19:19).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Dan 11:37. Neither shall he regard the god, &c. The prophet’s intention is, to blame the power here mentioned for apostatizing in some measure from the religion of his Christian fathers, as he actually did both in the Greek and Latin church by worshipping Mahuzzim, instead of the true God. Another property of the power here described is, that he should not regard the desire of women. The interpretation is easy of Antichrist, that he should therefore counterfeit chastity, that he might deceive many. The Vulgate reads, And he shall regard, &c. But this is plainly contrary to the original, and most other versions. The word used for women, properly signifies wives, as desire does conjugal affection. The meaning, therefore, of not regarding the desire of women is, neglecting and discouraging marriage, as both the Greeks and Latins did, to the great discredit of the Christian religion. The Julian and Papian laws were enacted in favour of those who were married and had children. Constantine repealed them, and allowed equal or greater immunities to those who were unmarried and had no children. Nay, he held those in the highest veneration who devoted themselves to a monastic life; and almost adored the company of perpetual virgins, from a persuasion, that the God to whom they were consecrated did in a most peculiar or supereminent manner dwell in their minds. His example was followed by his successors; the married clergy were discountenanced, the monks were honoured, and in the fourth century first overran the Eastern church, and afterward the Western, like a torrent. This was evidently not regarding the desire of wives, or conjugal affection. At first, only second marriages were prohibited; but in time the clergy were absolutely restrained from marrying at all. So much did the power here described magnify himself above all, even God himself, by contradicting the primary law of God and nature; and making that dishonourable which the Scripture hath pronounced honourable in all; Heb 13:4. See Bishop Newton.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Dan 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
Ver. 37. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers. ] He shall disannul his own ancient religion, caring neither for the old mumpsimus, a nor the new sumpsimus, b as they say, but showing himself to be a rank atheist. See 1Ma 1:43 .
Nor the desire of women,
Nor regard any god.
a One who obstinately adheres to old ways, in spite of the clearest evidence that they are wrong; an ignorant and bigoted opponent of reform. D
b A correct expression taking the place of an incorrect but popular one ( mumpsimus ). D
c Sir Henry Blount’s Voyage into the Levant.
the desire of women. In view of the context this must refer to any gods desired by women: such as Baaltis, Astarte, or Mylitta of the Babylonians; the Persian Artemis, or the Nanoea of the Syrians; or the “queen of heaven” of Jer 7:18; Jer 44:17, &c.
GOD. Hebrew Eloah. App-4.
Dan 11:37
Dan 11:37 Neither shall he regardH5921 H3808 H995 the GodH430 of his fathers,H1 nor the desireH2532 of women,H802 nor regard anyH3605 H3808 H995 god:H433 forH3588 he shall magnify himselfH1431 aboveH5921 all.H3605
Dan 11:37
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
The leaders of the Roman Empire were interested only in their own self success and power. They were willing to do whatever it took to achieve it. They disregarded the gods of their own fathers in their quest. They could not be swayed by the wiles of women. They followed after no god in their pursuit of power and they magnified themselves above all. They were willing to do anything, say anything, worship any god if it would help promote them in their quest for power.
In 42 BC, the Roman senate posthumously recognized Julius Caesar as a divinity of the Roman state, two years after his death. They also declared Augustus the adopted son of Julius Caesar. Augustus was able to further his cause by emphasizing the fact that he was the son of Julius Caesar thereby making him the “son of god”. Augustus was not really the son of Julius Caesar, but he was his grand nephew by birth.
the desire: Gen 3:16, Deu 5:21, Deu 21:11, Son 7:10, Eze 24:16, 1Ti 4:3
regard: Gen 3:5, Isa 14:13, 2Th 2:4
Reciprocal: Psa 94:4 – boast Pro 30:13 – General Dan 7:20 – whose look Dan 7:25 – he shall speak Dan 8:25 – magnify Col 2:22 – after Rev 13:4 – and they
Dan 11:37. Nor the desire of women. Epiphanes was a very immoral man, and most of his immoral actions were unnatural. The prediction does not mean he never was intimate with women for he was. but that was not the chief object of his carnal desires. Another lengthy paragraph is devoted to the vile character of this king at verse 21 which the reader should see. The rest of the items of this verse have been explained.
Dan 11:37. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers The god or gods worshipped in his own native country, namely, Syria. He made laws to abolish the religion of his country, and to bring in the idols of the Greeks. And though his predecessors had honoured the God of Israel, and given great gifts to the temple at Jerusalem, (2Ma 3:2-3,) he did the greatest indignities to God and his temple. Nor the desire of women This, as some think, means, nor the god that is loved and adored by women; and, taking the clause in connection with the context, this seems the most natural sense of it; for the whole verse speaks of the impiety, or irreligion, of Antiothus, that he had no regard to any god whatever. What god this was that was the desire of women, cannot be certainly said; it is probable it was the moon, (the queen of heaven, as they used to call her,) or some other of the heavenly luminaries; for the Syrian women are described in Scripture as particularly attached to these. Or the expression may refer to his barbarous cruelty, and be intended to signify that he should spare no age nor sex, and should have no regard to women, however lovely or amiable. In fact, the author of the Maccabees informs us, that by his command mothers were killed with their children; and that there was killing of young and old, men, women, and children, slaying of virgins and infants, 2Ma 5:13. Nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all He shall not regard the gods of any country whatsoever, but think himself above them, and treat them as if he were so. He was so proud, that he thought himself above the condition of a mortal man; that he could command the waves of the sea, and reach the stars of heaven, as his insolence and haughtiness are expressed 2Ma 9:8; 2Ma 9:10.
Dan 11:37. the gods of his fathers: Antiochus abandoned his own national cult for the worship of the Greek deities.the desire of women: the context shows that the phrase must refer to some deity, probably to the Phnician god, Tammuz (pp. 631f. Eze 8:14*), whose worship was extremely popular in Syria (see Milton, Paradise Lost, i. 446ff.).
11:37 Neither shall he regard the {u} God of his fathers, nor the desire {x} of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
(u) The Romans will observe no certain form of religion as other nations, but will change their gods at their pleasures, indeed, they will condemn them and prefer themselves to their gods.
(x) Signifying that they would be without all humanity: for the love of women is taken for singular or great love, as 2Sa 1:26 .
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. Dan 2:23; Exo 3:15-16; Exo 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 (Dan 7:8; Dan 7:24; Rev 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.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)