Resumen:
This research analyzes the different interpretive positions of the prophecy of Daniel 11, according to the perspective of futurism, preterism and historicism, considering common aspects which took place throughout Christian history in light of the biblical text. The analysis of biblical terms and expressions propitiated a more coherent comprehension of this prophecy. It also permitted getting to know up to what point the interpretation currents of apocalyptic prophecy walked together and where they distanced themselves. The preterist school admits that Daniel 11 may not be a prophecy but a report of events which took place in the days of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the second century B.C. The futurist school, on the other hand, believes it is a prophecy and was fulfilled as of the days of the prophet concentrating thereafter on the activities of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in verse 35, and leaving a gap from verse 36 – 39, to then emerge the antichrist in the future, when the last week of the seventy of Daniel 9:24-27 would take place. On this occasion the antichrist, a type of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, would emerge. The historicist school walks together with the others, but only to verse 13, and Antiochus and his activities are restricted to verses 14 and 15. From then on it considers the presence of Rome being introduced in the Middle East. And the last part (vv. 40-45), is the part that presents the widest varieties of interpretations. However, historicism contrasts with futurism which admits three powers: the king of the South, the king of the North and the Antichrist. For the historicist interpreters, the king of the North is not a literal territorial king, but a religious power, just as the king of the South is not a literal Egyptian king but a symbol of atheism and in some way, these will come together to act against the people who do the will of God.
