Daniel 11:36-45 is about Augustus

How most of Daniel 11 is about the Hellenistic Kingdoms in the 3rd and 2nd Centuries BC is well known, lots of commentaries on that exist. 

Many of those commentaries don't think the Hasmonean Revolt itself is referred to however, but I think in verse 32 "the people that know their God shall be strong and do exploits" is referring to the Maccabees.  It seems "do exploits" can alternatively be translated "take action".  Then 33-35 sums up further Hasmonean history including them falling to the Romans beginning under Pompey in 63 BC the same year Augustus was born but completed with Anthony's conquest of Antigonus Matthias in 37 BC.

Augustus never admitted to being a King but we see in John 19:15 that the Israelites in Judea didn't care about those semantics.

I will cover 40-45 first because that's the specific events, and get into how the primarily spiritual details of 36-39 apply later.

First I want to say terms like "Time of the end" also occur earlier during what few deny was fulfilled in the Hellenistic age.  So selectively using that as proof we're in the full End Times here is rather disingenuous.  What is notable is that Augustus lifetime overlaps into the New Testament era.  In fact he was younger then the Prophetess Anna.

Daniel 11:40

And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

The Naval aspect of this battle is usually not emphasized when trying to interpret it in a modern context, since Naval warfare hasn't really been as important as it used to be since WWII.  These ships could still be aircraft carriers, but those are just glorified launching pads.

Chris White's argument for the "he" here being separate from the King of The North is very good in his commentary on this.  People generally do not note that the King of The South has the leadership role here.  Even how this is tied into the Mahdi theory with Sufyani needs to consider the North more important.

You can probably guess where I'm going here is that this is Actium, and that the two "kings" of north and south are Anthony and Cleopatra.  You may be thinking "but wouldn't it be the Queen of the South then?"  The Prophetic sense simply means the King as synonymous with Nation more or less in these kinds of verses.  But I could also point out that Antony and Cleopatra were more or less officially ruling in the names of Cleopatra's children.

The main one was Ptolemy Caesarion who she had by Julius Caesar, who was Pharaoh of Egypt.  Then there was her and Anthony's youngest son Ptolemy Philadelhus who at the Donations of Alexandria was proclaimed King of Syria and other core Seleucid lands.  Alexander Helios was mostly given Kingdoms they didn't actually control yet, Parthia, Media and Armenia.  And Cleopatra Selene was given the usual Ptolemaic lands peeled off for younger brothers and bastard sons to rule.  I personally speculate that Cleopatra was planning to marry Selene to Caesarion once she was old enough, the question is how okay Anthony would have been with that.

Now the movies about Anthony and Cleopatra and Octavian usually skip right from Actium to the fall of Alexandria, but in fact plenty happened in-between.  You could learn about it by reading ancient historians like Josephus, or you could just read Daniel 11:41.

He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

Yes Augustus did enter the Biblical Promised Land during this time. Herod switched sides over to him and he confirmed Herod's kingship increasing his power.  A number of local governments were overthrown at this time.  However Biblical Edom, Moab and much of Ammon were part of the Nabatean Kingdom that Rome never conquered till the reign of Trajan.  What little of Ammon wasn't part of Nabatea was part of the Decapolis, independent city states.  The Nabatean kingdom was a thorn in Rome's side all through the Julio-Claudian and Flavian periods.

Then in Daniel 11:42-43 is the fall of Alexandria.

He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.  But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

This is when the Fourth Beast fully replaced the Third.

Augustus gave Egypt a special status among Roman Provinces.  It was treated as his personal possession.  Which is why it's Governors were appointed by him rather then the Senate even though it wasn't a military province.  Egypt became his gold mine basically.

Libya (Phut in the Hebrew) in the Bible doesn't really correlate well to modern Libya or what would become the Roman province of Libya, it's more like the rest of North Africa west of Libya and Cyrene. What Rome controlled of the rest of North Africa was only ever the very northern Mediterranean coast-lands.  And even then right after Egypt fell Mauritania remained a client kingdom.

Also there were wars fought between Rome and Kush during Augustus reign, but Rome never conquered them.  It annoys me that people want to make Cleopatra black when there was a black African Queen contemporary with her who unlike her did keep her nation independent from Rome.  But Hollywood doesn't make movies about that Queen.

Daniel 11:44

But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

The east here no doubt means east of the Euphrates, Parthia and it's client Kingdoms.  The north here must be further north then the Seleucid lands already conquered, probably other nations that were proxies between Rome and Parthia like Armenia.  Alluding to the sort of cold war between Rome and Parthia.  But it could also have in mind Rome's ongoing wars with the northern Celts and Germans.

The earlier parts of Daniel 11 sometimes moved to a successor without it being obvious it was doing so.  So it could be carrying over into Tiberius here, or even later Julio-Claudians.  But both this and the next verse I feel can remain in the time of Augustus.

Daniel 11:45

And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

The word for "tabernacles" here means tents. the Preterists who want to make everything about 70 AD say this refers to the tents Roman soldiers camped in in Jerusalem then.  Similar Roman encampments could have happened earlier during any time Roman soldiers had to take Jerusalem from rebels.  Including the rebellions that broke out after Herod died, or when Archelaus was removed in 6 AD.

The word translated "palace" was not even a Hebrew word but a Persian one.  So it's not an allusion to The Temple or anyone deifying themselves in The Temple.  It's probably the Antonia Fortress finished by Herod in 19 BC.

Augustus died in 14 AD, many scholars now are skeptical of the rumor that Livia poisoned him.  Either way it fits the end of Daniel 11:45 fine in my opinion.  And so would any other Judeo-Claudian Emperor.

Herod had a Kingdom that was pretty sizable, all of modern Israel and chunks of Jordan and Syria.  After he died Augustus divided it into four Teterarchies.  Archelaus got Judea, Idumea and Samaria, and Antipas got Galilee and Perea.  Philip got Batanea, Trachonitis, Aurantis, Gaulantis and Ceasarea Philippi.  And Herod's sister got the Gaza strip.   So that is probably what "shall divide the land for gain" in verse 39 means.  Though it's apparent chronological placement before Actium means it could be Rome's division between the second Triumphirate.

Now to get into the spiritual aspects of 36-39.

Augustus did not deify himself in the obvious insane way some later Emperors like Caligula would.  But it was considered perfectly acceptable in Rome for him to be worshiped as a god by the conquered peoples.  He didn't force it on the Jews, but the other people around Israel worshiped him as a god, in Egypt he basically took over the traditional Pharaonic worship.

In Rome, he was not openly worshiped as a god while he lived, but there was a lot of quasi deification going on.  The name Augustus effectively meant divine, and he was given that name the same year his adopted father Julius Caesar was officially deified, so he officially became the son of a god.  More of his deification of himself will become relevant later.

Saying Augustus didn't honor the god(s) of his father or desire of women may seem odd, but I think those have nuances abstract applications.  A lot did change about Roman Religion during his time.

Now "the God of forces" sounds like a war god.  Rome identified their local deities with Greek ones, but Ares was never a favored deity among the Greeks.  To Rome however Mars was their Patron, the father of Romulus and Remus.  They defined themselves by their military nature, this is part of what America has inherited from Rome, and Christians sadly take part in it.

The word for "Strange" means foreign.  Apollo was the only Olympian the Romans didn't have their own deity to identify with, so even in Latin he is just worshiped as Apollo.  But Apollo was not a very poplar deity in Rome before Augustus.  In fact Apollo was almost unheard of to Romans before Augustus. A number of articles have been written on how greatly Augustus popularized Apollo.

A rumor circulated that Augustus was actually fathered by Apollo.  Augustus's birthday (September 23rd) became Apollo's national holiday.  Virgil's fourth Ecolouge contained a pseudo Prophecy from the Cumea Sybil of Augustus as an incarnation of Apollo.

The fascination that the renaissance, enlightenment and modern world has with Apollo mainly goes back to Augustus' promotion of him.  Especially since it largely tends to be filtered through Virgil.  So the fact that the ships that took us to the moon were all called Apollo you can thank Augustus for.

Due to the DSS manuscripts of Daniel skeptics are limited in how late they can get away with late dating Daniel.  Generally they can't even allow it past the death of Epiphanes.  The fact that it describes Augustus as accurately as it did Epiphanes is a major problem for them.

You may think "there were no chapter divisions originally, Daniel 12 says "at that time" referring to what just happened", 10-12 is all one revelation.  Well how Daniel 12 can refer to the Time of Christ is something I'm working on will hopefully be able to make a post on before the end of the year.