This verse in Daniel 11 has always intrigued me.

Daniel 11:38
But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

Who is it, lets take a look..

As to who this "god" is said to be, depends on who the one writing their interpretation thinks the "he" of those verses is.

YLT literal translation:
And to the god of strongholds, on his station (or pedestal) , he giveth honour; yea, to a god whom his fathers knew not he giveth honour,

Many Christian commentaries say the "he" is Antiochus Epiphanes and explain the "god" thus--
Maybe the "god his fathers never knew" was probably a pagan god the Seleucids hadn't worshipped prior.
OR Some have supposed that the reference is to Jupiter Olympius, whose statue Antiochus is reported to have set up in the temple.|
OR some say the "he" Antiochus regarded no other god, but only war;
OR some say Antiochus' heathen armies either unwittingly, or through "awe" engaged in some form of worship of the true God due to their exposure to the temple while at Jerusalem.

Stephen Haskell implies the "he" is France, and the "god" was atheism "the goddess of reason".
That was also U.Smith's view.

George McCready Price, Adventist writer of the book "The Greatest of the Prophets". Commentary on the book of Daniel.|
George sides with James White that Daniel 11 needs to follow the same pattern of unfolding Daniel 11 in line with Daniel 7 and 8.
Thus the "he" in verses 36-39 is the papacy.

He gives an interesting interpretation:

The gods of his fathers are simply the traditional false gods of history. If he's rejecting the false gods of history, then maybe he's worshiping the true God? Nope, but Daniel is using an interesting name for the one true God that corresponds with Song of Solomon, and later "The Desire of All Nations" and eventually "The Desire of Ages." "The Desire of Women" an often neglected name for Jesus.

Ok, this last king of the north has no regards for the traditional false gods of history, nor the one true God, will he offer a new false god? Not here either, he only magnifies himself above all.

Take a look at this article from the Review and Herald, and note what it says at the 'a god whom are fathers knew not'...

"l. The pioneers of this movement were for the first twenty-five or thirty years of our history unanimous in stating that papal Rome is the power referred to by the prophet Daniel in these verses. No other conclusion could be reached after a careful study of the literature of the church during this period. William Miller held this view as far back as 1842 (see Evidences From Scripture and Prophecy, by ]. V. Himes, pp. 97, 98). This was the interpretation presented by James White on many occasions, the first being in A Word to the "Little Flock," published in 1847, pages 8, 9. He says: "Michael is to stand up at the time that the last power in chap. 11, comes to his end, and none to help him. This power is the last that treads down the true church of God. . . . This last power that treads down the saints is brought to view in Rev. 13:11-18. His number is 666." Later, in the Review and Herald of November 29, 1877, James White defends this exposition of the text as follows: "Let us take a brief view of the line of prophecy four times spanned in the book of Daniel. It will be admitted that the same ground is passed over in chapters two, seven, eight, and eleven, with this exception that Babylon is left out of chapters eight and eleven. Th'e first pass down the great image of chapter two, "?here Babylon, Persia, Greece, and o r r. . brass, and the iron. All agree that these feet are not Turkish but Roman. And as we pass down, the lion, the bear, the leopard, and the beast with ten horns, representing the same as the great image, again all will agree that it is not Turkey that is cast into the burning flame, but the Roman beast. So of chapter eight, all agree that the little horn that stood up against the Prince of princes is not Turkey but Rome. In all these three lines thus far Rome is the last form of government mentioned. "J\'ow comes the point in the argument upon which very much depends. Does the eleventh chapter of the prophecy of Daniel cover the ground measured by chapters two_. seven, and eight? If so, then the last power mentioned in that chapter is Rome."

Elder White at the same time advised caution in giving a positive' interpretation of unfilled prophecy. He also warns against "removing the landmarks fully established in the advent movement." This article leaves no doubt that James 'ii\Thite considered in 1877 that the power referred to in Daniel ll :36-39 is papal Rome and that this was a landmark "fully established in the advent movement."

Even Uriah Smith, who later departed from this view, in an editorial in the Review and Herald, May 13, 1862, under the title "Will the Pope Remove the Papal Seat to Jerusalem?" refers to the Papacy as the power in Daniel 11:45. He quotes a statement from the Liverpool Mercury in which it is stated that a certain plan was under way which "points to the realizing of Pio Nono's favorite plan of removing the seat of the Papacy to Jerusalem." This is commented on by Uriah Smith as follows: "Is not the above item significant, taken in connection with Daniel XI, 45?" This statement confirms the fact that there was virtual unanimity among the leaders of the church with respect to our denominational teaching; namely, that Rome in its papal form is the power referred to in Daniel 11:36-39, and that papal Rome is also one of the powers referred to in the later verses of Daniel II. 2. Adventists take for granted today what James White emphasized in 1877 and 1878: that the prophecies of Daniel, chapters 2, 7, 8, and ll, show remarkable parallels in treating of Rome. The committee felt that the evidence that there is a parallelism between chapter 11 and the earlier chapters of Daniel has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The eleventh chapter presents a literal exposition of the symbolic prophecies of Daniel 2, 7, and 8. It is generally agreed among Seventh-day Adventist Bible students that the "king" of Daniel MARCH, 1954 7:24, 25, and Daniel 8:23-25 refers to the Roman Catholic power, which accurately fulfills the propeucsym it was the conviction of the committee that where the "king" is again mentioned in Daniel 11:36 and described in almost identical language it could not represent a new power like France or Turkey not previously presented by Daniel in his prophetic outline, and that it would be most reasonable and in harmony with the prophetic outline of the rest of the chapter to conclude that the "king" in these and following verses also refers to papal Rome. The committee felt that a careful study of Daniel ll: 36-39 reveals outstanding characteristics of the Papacy and a remarkably clear picture of the cunning flattery and deceit of this power in its historical activities and its religious practices. These verses parallel not only the above-mentioned verses in Daniel 7 and 8 but also 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 13:5, 6. It was therefore the unanimous conclusion of the committee that, both historically and according to a sound exegesis of the text, Daniel 11:36-39 must refer to the papal power, and further, that these verses are parallel to Daniel 7:24, 25, a~d Daniel 8:23-25, which have always been cons1dered by the Seventh-day Adventist ministry as referring to the Papacy. 3. The committee also studied the possible causes that prompted Uriah Smith and others to depart from this historic denominational interpretation, substituting the history of France during the French Revolution for papal Rome as fulfilling Daniel 11:35, 36, and Turkey as the power in later verses, as well as the results of this shift of position in our denominational teaching. Some of the causes for the shift of position were found to be:

a. The complete loss of temporal power by the Papacy in 1870, resulting in Pius X proclaiming himself a "prisoner in the Vatican." For example, Uriah Smith states in the 1873 edition of Thoughts on Daniel in referring to the events of 1870, which he believed knocked "the last prop from under the papacy": "Victor Emmanuel, seizing his opportunity to carry out the long-cherished dream of a United Italy, seized Rome to make it the capital of his kingdom. To his troops, under General Cadorna, Rome surrendered, September 20, 1870. Then the last vestige of temporal power departed, nevermore, said Victor Emmanuel, to be restored; and the Pope has been virtually a prisoner in his own palace since that time. . . . The last vestige of temporal power was swept from his grasp."Pages 146, 147.

b. The conviction expressed in the secular and religious press that the Papacy had fallen to rise no more. This led Uriah Smith to state in the 1883 edition of Thoughts on Daniel: "The attempt which some make to bring in the Papacy here (that is, in Daniel ll:36-45) is so evidently wide of the mark that its consideration need not detain us."-Page 383.

c. The bringing of France, Turkey, and Egypt into the interpretation of these verses, and those following, seemed to bring a series of current events into the fulfillment of the prophecy, which to those who advocated it gave "great confirmation of faith in the soon loud cry and close of our message." (Comment by James White on the new theories, Review and Herald, November 29, 1877.)

d. Russian armies seemed about ready to close in on Constantinople, and the world press was full of declarations that the "sick man of the East" would soon be expelled from Europe. Uriah Smith, it seems, reflected the popular Protestant and secular viewpoint as he wrote under the title, "Turkish Empire's Downfall," and similar titles, during the last quarter of the nineteenth century.

e. Earlier Protestant commentators, such as Bishop Newton, Adam Clarke, and others, had generally held that the Ottoman Empire was one of the powers designated in Daniel 11:40-45, and events in the decade from 1870 to 1880 seemed undeniably to substantiate this line of reasoning, with current history pointing in the same direction.

f. Uriah Smith was evidently not in agreement with James White, who gave definite warnings that the positions being taken on the Eastern question were based on prophecies that had not yet met their fulfillment. White said, "But what will be the result of the positiveness in unfulfilled prophecies should things not come as very confidently expected, is an anxious question." (Emphasis his. James White in Review and Herald, Nov. 29, 1877.) He then proceeded to point out the parallel between Daniel II and the prophecies of Daniel in earlier chapters that were to him convincing proof "that the last power mentioned in that chapter is Rome!'

James White's position was clearly stated in 1878 as follows: "And there is a line of historic prophecy in chapter eleven, where the symbols are thrown off, beginning with the kings of Persia, and reaching down past Grecia and Rome, to the time when that power 'shall come to his end, and none shall help him.' If the feet and ten toes of the metallic image are Roman, if the beast with ten horns that was given to the burning flames of the great day be the Roman beast, if the little hom which stood up against the Prince of princes be Rome, and if the Page 24 same field and distance are covered by these four prophetic chains, then the last power of the eleventh chapter, which is to 'come to his end and none shall help him,' is Rome. But if this be Turkey, as some teach, then the toes of the image of the second chapter are Turkish, the beast with ten horns of the seventh chapter represents Turkey, and it was Turkey that stood up against the Prince of princes of the eighth chapter of Daniel. True, Turkey is bad enough off; but its waning power and its end is the subject of the prophecy of John and not of Daniel." -Review and Herald, Oct. 3, 1878, p. 116.

The committee therefore concluded that the change from the earlier views held by the denomination came about largely under the direction of Uriah Smith. In light of current political developments of the time, together with the apparent recession of the Papacy into a position of nonpotency in the political and religious world, he presented very ably and with deep conviction :what seemed to him the more reasonable interpretation of the text in question. This view, as taught by Uriah Smith, was published in our periodicals and more permanently in the book Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, written by Smith about this time. This book had a wide circulation and was a large factor in bringing possibly thousands into the truth. Its interpretation of the prophecies was very largely in harmony with former Seventh- day Adventist teachings. It became, therefore, to a large majority of our ministers and laymen the accepted interpretation of all the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. During the years it came to be looked upon as our official denominational teaching. The fact that it differed in some respects from the position of the pioneers was almost lost from view. Not until the events so confidently predicted did not materialize, and the Papacy, instead of having "fallen to rise no more," again became a decisive influence in international affairs with a resumption of temporal power in 1929, did our Bible students undertake a re-examination of our denominational interpretation of these prophecies. Our earlier teaching was then rediscovered, together with the explicit warnings given by Elder White and others concerning the newer views advocated by Elder Smith. These findings, with the realization that current historical events had failed to develop along the lines expected, convinced many of our ministers and Bible teachers that those texts demanded a careful restudy. This study has resulted in again placing the Papacy rather than France as the power referred to in verses 36-39, by many of our Bible students. That this is the correct and historical denominational interpretation was the conviction of the committee, who were in complete agreement in this conclusion. The difference of opinion among Seventh-day Adventists begins with the 36th verse, with the introduction of "the king" who "shall do according to his will" and "shall exalt himself."

In deciding who this "king" represents, it is well to remember that in verses 33-35 there is a slight break in the sequence of thought, where the faithfulness of the honest of heart, and their sufferings, and the brief respite brought to them are described. That Papal Rome is included in the prophecy is made clear in verses 30-32, where its relationship to the "holy covenant," "the daily," and "the abomination that maketh desolate" is presented. Then in verses 33-35 the papal persecutions, together with the Reformation, are presented. "The people" that "instruct many" are "holden with a little help,'' "even to the time of the end." The power causing the people of God their trouble is not mentioned after the 32d verse, but is implicit in the troubled experience of the faithful. When is this persecuting power again referred to? It is "the king" of verse 36. It must be noted that the reading "the king" is found in the accepted Hebrew text, and translated thus in the King James Version and nearly all standard versions of the Scripture. Meter carefully weighing translations of the Hebrew of this question, we feel that the weight of evidence is on the side of the generally accepted rendering, "the king." It helps in the identification of this "king" to notice that the power introduced as Rome is usually spoken of as "he" or "him,'' but in verse 21 it is called a "kingdom," and in verse 27 the "he" and his opponent in the battle are spoken of as "both these kings." When, therefore, the prophet again refers to "the king" in verse 36, it is most reasonable to apply the text to the king already mentioned. In verse 36, without a break in the thought, and without even a new sentence in some translations, "the king" is again presented and his activities further explained. It would, therefore, seem to be but reasonable to conclude that the power here set forth is the same as in previous verses. 4. This is further emphasized by the fact that verses 36-39 so nearly parallel other texts that have always been applied to the Papacy by lost Protestant commentators.

The translation here seems to be obscure and in the King James Version there are three marginal readings indicating the lack of agreement on the part of the translators as to its correct rendering. The first marginal reading indicates that this power would, while seated in "his," or God's, seat, "honour the God of forces.'' The word "forces" is again obscure. One marginal reading gives "munitions," another "Gods protectors." Some translators do not translate the word but retain the original Mauzzim in the text. This word implies "protection," or a "protector," as used in Psalms 27:1; 28:8; and 31:3. Claiming therefore to be God, or at least from God's "seat," he points to a "god whom his fathers knew not" for protection and help. Surely the prayers directed to the saints of the church and to the virgin Mary would accurately fulfill this verse. Also the gifts of "gold, and silver, with precious stones, and pleasant things" point directly to the priceless gifts that the church has bestowed upon the images of the saints.

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1954/03/research

And from Amazing Facts..(look around 16.00)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggxbk38zpNg


And here is more..

"VERSE 36

?And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of
gods?(KJV) According to William H. Shea this whole sentence explain the little horn?s self exaltation and blasphemous character. This is found in Daniel 7 & 8 where ?Daniel 8
specifically states that the little horn with exalt itself, and Daniel 7 directly implies the same.? (Shea, 2005, p. 261) In chapter 7 he speaks ?great words against the most High? and in
chapter 8 the little horn ?grew until it reached the host of the heavens? and ?Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host? (KJV) As William argues further he shows
that the word ?god? is referred to 9 times in verse 36 to 39 implying a religious onslaught.(2005, p. 262)

As Zdravko Stefanovic points out that ?exalt himself, and magnify himself? are used ?to describe the pride of the ram, the goat and the little horn? (2009, p. 410) . Thus this
characteristic can only be used as additional evidence that the little horn is described here. ?speak marvellous things? according to this hypothesis the marvellous things refer to Dan.
7:11,25 and 2 Thessalonica 2:4 and Revelation 15:5. (Nichol, 1976, p. 876) ?the God of gods? This form of description is used to describe the Hebrew God (Stefanovic,
2009, p. 410) as we can see in Daniel 2:47 ?The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets,
seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.?

VERSE 37

?Desire of women? The word women is in the plural form which shows us that the desire is not only the wife?s desire but the daughters. Thus the desire is designated to women,
which are to be with man, to marry men. This idea is strongly linked then to the idea that the Roman Catholic System forbidding his clergy to marry. (Leupold, 1949, p. 516)
?Nor regard any god? ?According to the other position the words are to be understood in a comparative sense; that is, the power here portrayed is not atheistic, but considers itself to
be a spokesman for God and does not regard God as He should be regarded. It blasphemously seeks to put itself in His place (see 2 Thess. 2:4).? (Nichol, 1976, p. 876)

VERSE 38

?Shall he honor the god of forces? According to Adam Clark these forces refer to the Catholic idea of ?worshiping saints and angels as guardians, and protectors, and mediators;
leaving out, in general, the true God, and the only Mediator, Jesus Christ? (Clarke, 1810-1826, p. Daniel 11:38)
?And a god whom his fathers knew not? The argument of Adam Clark also includes that the early apostolic Church did not know these god guardians like Virgin Mary and the saints.
(Clarke, 1810-1826, p. Daniel 11:38)

https://www.daniel11prophecy.com/up...6-40_research_paper_-_jaco_jordaan_3.pdf

Speaking of Atheism during the French revolution, in the book The Great Controversy, pp. 268-269, Mrs White lets us know that many of the nations of Europe had been controlled through the medium of the Papacy, "but here is brought to view a new manifestation of satanic power." In other words, it is different from any of the preceding satanic powers.

Daniel 11:38 tells us that the Papacy will honor a god 'whom his fathers knew not.' That is, his pagan fathers did not know Atheism, as this was a new manifestation of satanic power. This verse is dealing with the lineage of his pagan fathers--Babylon, Medo Persia, Greece, and Pagan Rome, while the preceding verse deals with the lineage of his Christian fathers; remembering again that the Papacy is a marriage of both.

Atheism is distinct from Paganism; in that Paganism admits of a god--whether the sun god, rain god, or fertility god, etc. Paganism also teaches that there is an afterlife. Atheism, on the other hand, admits of no god and no afterlife---period: all science, reason, and logic---no supernatural.

Because of this, Atheism is the strange god of verse 39. It is a 'strange god' because of its claim that God, or any form of a god, cannot exist, yet it becomes a god itself. This is manifested in the atheistic theory of evolution, which removes God as the Creator, and sets itself up as the creator of all things. 1 Samuel 28:13 helps us to better understand this concept in the account of the response to king Saul by the witch of Endor---'I saw gods ascending out of the earth.' Atheism ascends from the bottomless pit---the spiritually wicked realm of the earth, as a strange god.

Understanding this, the verse (Dan. 11:39) goes on to tell us that the Papacy acknowledges this power of Atheism, increases it with glory, and then divides the land for gain; that is, gain to the Papacy. This verse applies to both the time period when Atheism arose, and also beyond, to the end of time. Instead of fighting against the Papacy, Atheism is used by the Papacy to reach a class of people that she herself cannot.

This is accomplished through the medium of education, of which there are only two kinds---the true and the false. Each system of education produces its own system of thought, which in turn produces the necessary mindset required for allegiance.

This is how the Papal policy enters, overflows, and passes over the countries in Daniel 11:40. It is why it is described as a flood in Rev. 12:15-16. It is why even the land of Egypt (the unbelieving world) will not escape. In other words, through the Greek/Papal system of education that underlies all false education, even the unbelieving world will be brought in line to worship on Sunday when the decree goes forth. Atheism is the tool used by the Papacy to accomplish its end in the unbelieving world. It is recognized and acknowledged by the Papacy as a rival system, but it is the Papacy that controls Atheism, and not the other way around.

The Papacy seeks to set itself up as God by claiming to change the law, and Atheism seeks to set itself up as God by claiming to be our creator. Both are a direct attack on the law of God, and specifically the fourth commandment. These two things will provide the common ground necessary for those who yield to the upcoming Sunday law.