+ All Categories
Home > Documents > HERMENEUTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN DANIEL 11 Introduction · 2019. 6. 26. · 10Hans K. LaRondelle,...

HERMENEUTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN DANIEL 11 Introduction · 2019. 6. 26. · 10Hans K. LaRondelle,...

Date post: 19-Feb-2021
Category:

Documents
Upload: others
View: 0 times
Download: 0 times
Download Report this document
Share this document with a friend
27
1 HERMENEUTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN DANIEL 11 By Pastor Marcus Alden Swearingen Bates Copyright © March 2018 (All Rights Reserved) Introduction Daniel 11, which is located within the larger textual unit of Daniel 10-12, is arguably one of the most difficult and controversial apocalypses in Scripture. Seventh-day Adventist interpreters have given considerable attention to this chapter through the years, and this attention has resulted in the production of much written material and a wide range of interpretations. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary presents some interpretive options for this final apocalypse in Daniel. 1 However, the Adventist Church has not established and does not promote any official interpretation on this challenging prophecy. Current discussions on Daniel 11 among Adventist interpreters involve such subjects as the Eastern Question, 2 the apocalyptic identities of the Kings of the North and South, and the alleged prophetic role of historical trends in the Middle East involving Islam and Jerusalem. Interpretive differences among Adventist interpreters include: (1) the King of the North in Dan. 11:40 as either Papal Rome or Turkey; (2) the King of the South in Dan. 11:40 as either Atheism, Egypt, or Islam; (3) the “king” of Dan. 11:36 as either atheistic France or Papal Rome; and (4) Dan. 11:40- 45 as describing the history of Turkey and Napoleonic France, or an end-time conflict involving Papal Rome. This writer proposes that there are three reasons for the lack of interpretive unity on Daniel 11 among Adventist interpreters. First, there is an apparent lack of agreement on an appropriate hermeneutical method through which to approach this chapter. Second, there is a lack of agreement on a general historical framework for this vision in terms of when the principal kingdoms of Danielic eschatology enter the prophetic stage. Finally, there is a lack of agreement on which specific historical trends are represented by the various passages in Daniel 11. In an attempt to offer a resolution to these challenges, this paper will discuss some important hermeneutical considerations that the Daniel 11 interpreter should keep in mind when studying this apocalypse. Daniel 11 – A Prophetic Narrative The vision of chapter 11 was given to Daniel in a unique fashion. Rather than using symbols such as a metallic image (Daniel 2), wild beasts (Daniel 7), or sanctuary concepts (Daniel 8-9), 3 the prophet received this apocalypse through a visionary conversation with the angel Gabriel (cf. Dan. 8:16; 9:21). Gabriel informed Daniel that he would “tell” him “what is noted in the Scripture of truth” (Dan. 10:21), and proceeded to convey the visionary details of Daniel 11 in a verbal, narrative fashion. Since there is no textual evidence to suggest that Daniel also saw the details of this apocalypse during this visionary experience, Daniel 11 is to be considered a prophetic narrative, which was delivered by Gabriel in a verbal manner. Gabriel also described this apocalypse through an extensive use of personal pronouns (“he” and “him”) when discussing the activities of the Kings of the North and South. These pronouns point to both empires and key rulers within these empires simultaneously. The narrative style and use of personal pronouns have led to the suggestion that the entire vision of Daniel 11 should be understood strictly from a geographic and spatial vantage point. 4 This 1 Francis D. Nichol, editor, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1977), 864-877. 2 Bible Readings for the Home (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1949), 294-298. 3 Daniel 8 and Daniel 9 form a single apocalypse, despite the fact that the details of these two chapters were given more than a decade apart. See Donn W. Leatherman, “Structural Considerations Regarding the Relation of Daniel 8 & Daniel 9,” in The Cosmic Battle for Planet Earth, Ron du Preez and Jiri Moskala, editors (Berrien Springs, MI: Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 2003), 293-305. 4 Example: Roy E. Gane, “Methodology for Interpretation of Daniel 11:2-12:3,” Journal of Adventist Theological Society, 27/1-2 (2016): 319-321.
Transcript

  • 1

    HERMENEUTICALCONSIDERATIONSINDANIEL11ByPastorMarcusAldenSwearingenBates

    Copyright©March2018(AllRightsReserved)IntroductionDaniel11,whichislocatedwithinthelargertextualunitofDaniel10-12,isarguablyoneofthemostdifficultandcontroversialapocalypsesinScripture.Seventh-dayAdventistinterpretershavegivenconsiderableattentiontothischapterthroughtheyears,andthisattentionhasresultedintheproductionofmuchwrittenmaterialandawiderangeofinterpretations.TheSeventh-dayAdventistBibleCommentarypresentssomeinterpretiveoptionsforthisfinalapocalypseinDaniel.1However,theAdventistChurchhasnotestablishedanddoesnotpromoteanyofficialinterpretationonthischallengingprophecy.CurrentdiscussionsonDaniel11amongAdventistinterpretersinvolvesuchsubjectsastheEasternQuestion,2theapocalypticidentitiesoftheKingsoftheNorthandSouth,andtheallegedpropheticroleofhistoricaltrendsintheMiddleEastinvolvingIslamandJerusalem.InterpretivedifferencesamongAdventistinterpretersinclude:(1)theKingoftheNorthinDan.11:40aseitherPapalRomeorTurkey;(2)theKingoftheSouthinDan.11:40aseitherAtheism,Egypt,orIslam;(3)the“king”ofDan.11:36aseitheratheisticFranceorPapalRome;and(4)Dan.11:40-45asdescribingthehistoryofTurkeyandNapoleonicFrance,oranend-timeconflictinvolvingPapalRome.ThiswriterproposesthattherearethreereasonsforthelackofinterpretiveunityonDaniel11amongAdventistinterpreters.First,thereisanapparentlackofagreementonanappropriatehermeneuticalmethodthroughwhichtoapproachthischapter.Second,thereisalackofagreementonageneralhistoricalframeworkforthisvisionintermsofwhentheprincipalkingdomsofDanieliceschatologyenterthepropheticstage.Finally,thereisalackofagreementonwhichspecifichistoricaltrendsarerepresentedbythevariouspassagesinDaniel11.Inanattempttoofferaresolutiontothesechallenges,thispaperwilldiscusssomeimportanthermeneuticalconsiderationsthattheDaniel11interpretershouldkeepinmindwhenstudyingthisapocalypse.Daniel11–APropheticNarrativeThevisionofchapter11wasgiventoDanielinauniquefashion.Ratherthanusingsymbolssuchasametallicimage(Daniel2),wildbeasts(Daniel7),orsanctuaryconcepts(Daniel8-9),3theprophetreceivedthisapocalypsethroughavisionaryconversationwiththeangelGabriel(cf.Dan.8:16;9:21).GabrielinformedDanielthathewould“tell”him“whatisnotedintheScriptureoftruth”(Dan.10:21),andproceededtoconveythevisionarydetailsofDaniel11inaverbal,narrativefashion.SincethereisnotextualevidencetosuggestthatDanielalsosawthedetailsofthisapocalypseduringthisvisionaryexperience,Daniel11istobeconsideredapropheticnarrative,whichwasdeliveredbyGabrielinaverbalmanner.Gabrielalsodescribedthisapocalypsethroughanextensiveuseofpersonalpronouns(“he”and“him”)whendiscussingtheactivitiesoftheKingsoftheNorthandSouth.Thesepronounspointtobothempiresandkeyrulerswithintheseempiressimultaneously.ThenarrativestyleanduseofpersonalpronounshaveledtothesuggestionthattheentirevisionofDaniel11shouldbeunderstoodstrictlyfromageographicandspatialvantagepoint.4This

    1FrancisD.Nichol,editor,Seventh-dayAdventistBibleCommentary,vol.4(Hagerstown,MD:Review&

    Herald,1977),864-877.2BibleReadingsfortheHome(MountainView,CA:PacificPress,1949),294-298.3Daniel8andDaniel9formasingleapocalypse,despitethefactthatthedetailsofthesetwochapters

    weregivenmorethanadecadeapart.SeeDonnW.Leatherman,“StructuralConsiderationsRegardingtheRelationofDaniel8&Daniel9,”inTheCosmicBattleforPlanetEarth,RonduPreezandJiriMoskala,editors(BerrienSprings,MI:Seventh-dayAdventistTheologicalSeminary,2003),293-305.

    4Example:RoyE.Gane,“MethodologyforInterpretationofDaniel11:2-12:3,”JournalofAdventistTheologicalSociety,27/1-2(2016):319-321.

  • 2

    writerproposes,however,thatthenarrativestyleanduseofpersonalpronounsdonotnecessarilysuggestthattheentirevisionshouldbeunderstoodstrictlyinaliteralsensewithrespecttogeography.Theinterpretershouldobservethatthereisstillextensivesymbolisminthischapter,anditwillbediscussedbelowthatthissymbolismundergoesatransitionfromgeographic/spatialpowerstoglobal/spiritualpowersastheapocalypseprogressesinitsdescriptionoftheprincipalkingdomsthatarediscussedinDaniel’svisions.5Daniel’sApocalypticVisions–ThreeKeyQualitiesDaniel’sfourapocalypticvisions(Daniel2,Daniel7,Daniel8-9,andDaniel10-12)revealthreekeyqualitiesfortheDaniel11interpretertoconsider.First,eachapocalypserevealsthesameparallelsequenceofhistoricalempires,andtheseempiresextendinanhistoricistfashionfromDaniel’scontemporarydaytotheeschaton.6Second,thesehistoricalempires,whichmakeuptheprincipalkingdomsofDanieliceschatology,consistofonlythosekingdomsthathavehaddirectinvolvementwithGod’scovenantpeople,whetherOTIsraelortheNTChurch.7Third,eachapocalypsefollowsavision/explanationformat,andeachtimeelementisfoundwithintheexplanationsectionofitsrespectiveapocalypse,andconsistentlyappliestheDay/YearPrinciple.8

    ASummaryofVision/ExplanationFormatofDaniel’sApocalypses

    Apocalypse Vision Explanation PropheticTime InterpretationofPropheticTime

    Daniel2 2:31-35 2:36-45 N/A N/A

    Daniel7 7:1-14 7:15-28 1260days(7:25) 1260years(AD538-1798)

    Daniel8-9 8:1-12 8:13-279:20-272300days(8:14,26-27)490days(9:24-27)

    2300years(457BCtoAD1844)490years(457BCtoAD34)

    Daniel10-12 10:1-12:4 12:5-131260days(12:7)1290days(12:11)1335days(12:12)

    1260years(AD538-1798)1290years(AD508-1798)1335years(AD508-1843)

    ASummaryoftheParallelSequenceofHistoricalEmpiresthatConstitutethePrincipalKingdomsofDanielicEschatologyandExtendfromDaniel’sDaytotheEschaton

    Kingdom Daniel2 Daniel7 Daniel8-9 Daniel10-12

    Babylon 2:32,38 7:4 N/A N/A

    Medo-Persia 2:32,39 7:5 8:3-4,20 10:1,13,20;11:1-2

    5FrankW.Hardy,“AnHistoricistPerspectiveonDaniel11,”M.A.Thesis(BerrienSprings,MI:Andrews

    University,1983),16,217-218.Itwillbedemonstratedbelowthatvs.30-31showthistransition.SeealsoAngelManuelRodriguez,Daniel11andtheIslamInterpretation,BiblicalResearchInstituteReleases13(SilverSpring,MD:BiblicalResearchInstitute,2015),32-36,whichcommentsonthesymbolicscopeofapocalypticprophecy,especiallythepassageofDan.11:40-45.

    6GerhardPfandl,Daniel:TheSeerofBabylon(Hagerstown,MD:Review&Herald,2004),111.7Thispointismadeevidentbythefactthat,whiletheempiresdescribedinDaniel’svisionswereinpower,

    therewerecertainlyotherkingdomsthatwereactiveinotherareasoftheworld.Therefore,itmakessensethatthespecifickingdomsmentionedinDaniel’svisionswerethosethathadadirectinvolvementinthehistoryofGod’scovenantpeople,whetherOTancientIsraelortheNTChristianChurch.

    8Pfandl,Daniel:TheSeerofBabylon,111-112.ForasourcethatdiscussesthebiblicalevidenceinsupportoftheDay/YearPrinciple,seeWilliamH.Shea,SelectedStudiesonPropheticInterpretation,revisededition(SilverSpring,MD:BiblicalResearchInstitute,GeneralConferenceofSDA,1992),67-110.

  • 3

    Greece 2:32,39 7:6 8:5-8,21 10:20;11:2-4

    4GreekKingdoms N/A 7:6 8:8,22 11:4-15

    ImperialRome 2:33,40 7:7,19,23 8:9,23-25;9:26-27 11:16-30

    10Kingdoms 2:33,41-43 7:7,20,24 N/A N/A

    PapalRome 2:41-43 7:8,20-21,24-26 8:10-13,23-25 11:30-45;12:7-11

    Judgment/Kingdom 2:34-35,44-45 7:9-14,18,22,26-27 8:13-14,26-27 12:1-3,12-13ThedatapresentedaboverevealsthattheprincipalkingdomsofDaniel’sapocalypsesconsistofBabylon,Medo-Persia,Greece,ImperialRome,PapalRome,andGod’skingdom.Additionaldetailsarealsopresent,suchasthedividedconditionofEurope(Daniel2andDaniel7)andthefourGreekkingdoms(Daniel7,Daniel8-9,andDaniel10-12).Thefirsttwoapocalypses(Daniel2andDaniel7)begintheirempiresequenceswithBabylonbecauseDanielwaslivingunderitsruleatthetimeofthesevisions.Thesecondtwoapocalypses(Daniel8-9andDaniel10-12)begintheirempiresequenceswithMedo-PersiabecauseDanielwaslivingunderitsruleatthetimeofthesevisions.9Fromahermeneuticalperspective,theDaniel11interpretershouldexpectthatDaniel10-12willrevealtheverysameconsistencyasthepriorthreeapocalypseswithrespecttoitsempiresequence.ApocalypticProphecy–TypeandAntitypeTheDaniel11interpretershouldrecognizetherelationshipbetween“type”and“antitype”inapocalypticprophecy.A“type”canbeidentifiedasanOTperson,place,orentitythatpointstoaNTparallel(an“antitype”)whichcanbeunderstoodinasymbolic,spiritualsenseinrelationshiptoChristandtheChurch.10Theconceptsof“Israel,”the“temple,”and“Babylon”arethreeprominentexamplesofthisprinciple.InOTtimesthesethreeconceptswerespatial,geographic,nationalentities,butnowshouldbeunderstoodasglobal,spiritual,symbolicentities.BecauseofGod’scovenanttransferfromOTIsraeltotheNTChurch,11“Israel”andthe“temple”arenowassociatedwiththefaithful,while“Babylon”isnowassociatedwithreligiousconfusionandapostasy.12Therefore,theDaniel11interpretershouldlearntodifferentiatebetween“type”and“antitype”inDaniel11,asthischapterdiscussesseveralsymbolsrelatingtoend-timeeventsthataredescribedinnational,geographiclanguage,andyetshouldbeunderstoodinanon-geographic,global,spiritual,antitypicalfashion.Thesesymbols,whicharediscussedinDan.11:40-45,includetheKingoftheNorth,theKingoftheSouth,theGloriousLand,Edom,Moab,Ammon,Egypt,theLibyans,theEthiopians,andtheGloriousHolyMountain.Pertheexamplesof“Israel,”the“temple,”and“Babylon,”theDaniel11interpretershouldfocusonidentifyingantitypicalmeaningsforthesesymbols.13Thediscoveryofpotentialantitypicalmeaningsinvolvesidentifyingmodern-dayspiritualparallelsthatareakintothespecificcharactertemperament,disposition,andrelationshiptoancientIsraelthatthesespecificentitiesoncedisplayedinBibletimes,whetherpositivelyornegatively.14

    9DanielwaslivingundertheruleofBelshazzar,thelastBabylonianking,whenthevisionportionofthe

    thirdapocalypsewasgiven(Dan.8:1-12).Yet,whenparttwooftheexplanationwasgiven(Dan.9:20-27),DanielwaslivingunderMedo-Persianrule(Dan.9:1).Thus,theempiresequenceofDan.8-9beginswithMedo-Persia.

    10HansK.LaRondelle,TheIsraelofGodinProphecy(BerrienSprings,MI:AndrewsUniversityPress,1983);“InterpretationofPropheticandApocalypticProphecy,”inASymposiumonBiblicalHermeneutics,GordonM.Hyde,editor(Washington,DC:Review&Herald,1974),225-250.

    11Nichol,4:25-38.12SeeMatt.21:43;1Pet.2:9;Rom.9:6-8;Eph.2:11-22;Gal.3:26-29;1Cor.3:16-17;2Cor.6:14-18;Rev.

    3:12;Rev.14:8;17:1-12;18:1-4.13LouisF.Were,BiblePrinciplesofInterpretation(St.Maries,ID:LaymenMinistries,2008),79-82.14DesmondFord,Daniel(Nashville,TN:SouthernPublishing,1978),275-276;Hardy,16,217-218;Gerhard

    Pfandl,“Daniel,”AdultSabbathSchoolBibleStudyGuide(SilverSpring,MD:GeneralConferenceofSeventh-dayAdventists,October-December2004),105.

  • 4

    AbriefsurveyoftheGloriousHolyMountain(Dan.11:45)demonstratestherelationshipbetween“type”and“antitype.”InOTtimes,JerusalemandMt.Zionwerebothreferredtoasa“holymountain”(cf.Dan.9:16;9:20;Joel2:1;3:17;Zech.8:3),andwereobviouslygeographicinscope.IntheNT,antitypicalJerusalemonearthnowreferstothefaithful(cf.Luke21:24;Rev.11:2).15Inlikemanner,antitypicalMt.Ziononearthisnowassociatedwiththefaithful(Psa.125:1)andaspiritualplaceofdeliverance(cf.Joel2:32;3:16;Heb.12:22;Rev.14:1).Theterm“glorious”isalsoareferencetothespiritualdispositionsoffaithfulnessandholiness(cf.Exo.15:11;Isa.11:10-16;Eph.5:25-27).Therefore,thesetermsaresymbolsthatrepresentGod’sfaithfulfollowers.Tosummarize,theterms“Jerusalem”and“Mt.Zion”aresynonymouswiththeGloriousHolyMountainasantitypicalsymbolsofthefaithful,whoarenotlimitedtoanygeographicregion.GiventhattheGloriousHolyMountainisalsodiscussedjustpriortothefinaldeliveranceofGod’speopleatChrist’sreturn(Dan.11:45-12:1),italsoservesasaspecificantitypicalreferencetoGod’send-timefaithful.Becausethe144,000constituteGod’send-timefaithfulinRevelation(Rev.7:1-8;15:2-4),andaredescribedasbeingonMt.ZionwithChrist(Rev.14:1-5),itcanbeconcludedthatthisspecialgroupissynonymouswiththeGloriousHolyMountainofDan.11:45.Thiskeyexampleoftherelationshipbetween“type”and“antitype”recommendsthattheotherapocalypticsymbolsinDan.11:40-45shouldbesimilarlyunderstoodinanantitypicalfashion.Daniel11–TwoAdditionalHermeneuticalPrinciplesTherearetwootherimportanthermeneuticalprinciplesthattheDaniel11interpretershouldconsider.First,Scriptureistobeitsownexpositorandinterpreter,towheretextsunderconsiderationshouldbeexaminedandinterpretedincomparisonwithotherpassagesthatusesimilarwordsandphrases.16Second,difficultpassagesaretobeunderstoodandinterpretedthroughacomparisonwithclearerpassagesthatdiscussthesamesubjectmatter.17Thesetwoprinciplesareextremelyimportant,becausethereareclearerpassagesinDaniel11thatcanbeinterpretedthroughacomparisonwithothertextsthatusesimilarlanguage.TheseclearerpassagescanserveasanchorpointstonaildownwhentheprincipalhistoricalkingdomsofDaniel’svisionsenterthepropheticnarrative,andthuswillhelptoestablishabasicempireframeworkfortheentireapocalypseasawhole.18Anexaminationofthe“abominationofdesolation”candemonstratetheoperationofthesetwoprinciples.ThistermisdiscussedatotaloffourtimesinthebookofDaniel(Dan.8:9-13;9:26-27;11:31;12:11),aswellasthreetimesintheSynopticGospels(Matt.24:15;Mark13:14;Luke21:20-24).InthebookofDaniel,threeofthefourreferencesassociatethistermwiththe“daily”(Dan.8:9-14;11:31;12:11),whilethefourthreferenceusesthistermwithoutareferencetothe“daily”(Dan.9:26-27).SinceChristmentionedthistermintheSynopticGospelswithoutreferringtothe“daily,”wecandeducethatHewascitingDan.9:26-27inreferencetoImperialRomeasthe“abominationofdesolation,”whichdestroyedthe“sanctuary”andthe“city”ofJerusaleminAD70.Asstatedabove,thethreeotherreferencestothe“abominationofdesolation”inDaniel(Dan.8:9-14;11:31;12:11)associatethistermwiththe“daily.”SinceAdventistinterpretersapplythe“daily”toeitherpaganismorChrist’s“continual”intercessoryministryintheheavenlysanctuary,the“abominationofdesolation”stillpointstoRome,andyetfindsaspecificfulfillmentinthehistoryofmedievalPapalRome.BecauseDan.11:31isonereferencethatusesthesetwotermstogether,theDaniel11interpretercanconcludethatmedievalPapalRomeentersthepropheticnarrativeatleastbyvs.31,andconstitutesthespecificempireinpoweratthisstageinthe

    15InLuke21:24,Christnotedhow“JerusalemshallbetroddendownoftheGentiles,untilthetimesofthe

    Gentilesbefulfilled.”InRev.11:2,Johnmentionedthe“Gentiles”andhowtheywould“tread”the“holycity”for“fortyandtwomonths.”The“Gentiles”inthiscaserefertotheunfaithful,whilethe“42months”are“thetimesoftheGentiles,”whichspannedfromAD538-1798.“Jerusalem”andthe“holycity”aresynonymousandrefertothefaithful.SeeLaRondelle,“ApocalypticProphecy,”229,231,242-243;IsraelofGodinProphecy,13.

    16LaRondelle,IsraelofGodinProphecy,3;17RonE.M.Clouzet,DecodingBibleProphecy(Nampa,ID:PacificPress,2011),54.18Pfandl,Daniel:TheSeerofBabylon,106;ZdravkoStefanovic,Daniel:WisdomtotheWise(Nampa,ID:

    PacificPress,2007),395.

  • 5

    propheticnarrative.The“abominationofdesolation”thereforeservesasanexampleof(1)howclearerpassagesinDaniel11thathavetextualconnectionswithothertextscanbeinterpreted,and(2)howtheseclearerpassagescanidentifyanchorpointsinthisapocalypsethatwillhelptoestablishthebasicframeworkforanhistoricalempiresequence.EstablishingthisframeworkcaninturndemonstratewhentheprincipalhistoricalempiresofDaniel’svisionsenterthepropheticnarrative.Theseanchorpointswillbediscussedbelowinfurtherdetail.Daniel11:1-4–Medo-Persia,Greece,andFourGreekEmpiresThefirstpassageinDaniel11thatservesasanhistoricalanchorpointisDan.11:1-4.ThistextconfirmsthattheempiresequenceofthisapocalypsebeginswithMedo-Persia(cf.Dan.10:1,13,20).Gabrielmentionedthe“firstyearofDariustheMede”(Dan.11:1),andthenmentionedthatfourfuturePersiankingswouldarise(Dan.11:2).BecauseCyruswasthekingofPersiawhenthisapocalypsewasgiven(Dan.10:1),thesefourkingsweretoarisesubsequenttoCyrus,andconsistedofCambyses(530-522BC),FalseSmerdis(522BC),DariusI(522-486BC),andXerxes(486-465BC).The“realmofGrecia”isalsomentionednext(Dan.11:2),akingdomwhose“mightyking,”AlexandertheGreat(336-323BC),would“doaccordingtohiswill”(Dan.11:3).ThisdetailconfirmsthatGreecefollowsMedia-PersiaintheempiresequenceofDaniel11.GabrielwentontomentionthatAlexander’skingdomwould“bedividedtowardthefourwindsofheaven”and“bepluckedup,evenforothersbesidethose”(Dan.11:4).Thesephrasespredictedthat,(1)theGreekempirewouldbedividedintofoursectionsafterAlexander’sdeathin323BC,and(2)eachofthesefoursectionswouldeventuallybeconquered(“pluckedup”)byanotherpoweraltogether.AfteracoalitionvictoryagainstarivalGreekgeneralintheBattleofIpsus(301BC),fourformergeneralsofAlexanderdividedhisempireintofoursections.ThesegeneralsconsistedofCassander(Greece,Macedonia),Lysimachus(Thrace,NWAsiaMinor),Seleucus(Syria,SEAsiaMinor),andPtolemy(Egypt,Judea).ThesefourdivisionslaterdevelopedintofourHellenisticempires,consistingofAntigonidMacedonia,AttalidPergamum,Seleucid-AntiocheanSyria,andPtolemaicEgypt,eachofwhichwerelater“pluckedup”byanotherpoweraltogether,ImperialRome.19ThisdataconfirmsthatfourGreekempiresfollowedMedo-PersiaandGreeceintheempiresequenceofDaniel11.Daniel11:5-15–Northvs.South,Part1Dan.11:5-15discussesthefirstnorth/southconflictinDaniel11.Theterm“KingoftheSouth”(Dan.11:5)followsthedivisionoftheGreekEmpire(Dan.11:4),andreferstothesoutherndivisionofthisempire,whichisPtolemaicEgyptatthisstageinthepropheticnarrative.ThisempiredivisionwasalsogeographicallylocatedsouthofancientJudah,whereGod’scovenantpeoplewerelocatedatthatpointinhistory.Thepassagealsomentionsthat“one”ofAlexander’s“princes”(generals),the“KingoftheNorth,”wouldbecome“stronger”thanthe“KingoftheSouth”(Dan.11:5-6),whichcanbeidentifiedasSeleucid-AntiocheanSyria.BecauseitlaterconqueredsomeofthenorthernterritoriesofAlexander’sformerkingdom,andwaslocatedgeographicallynorthofancientJudah,theSeleucid-Antiocheanempireservesasthe“KingoftheNorth”inthistext,asitwarredextensivelywithPtolemaicEgyptandheavilyinvolveditselfintheaffairsofancientJudahduringthisstageofhistory.Thisfirstnorth/southconflictinDaniel11alsorevealsthefirstextensiveuseofpersonalpronounsthatrepresentbothempiresandspecificrulerswithintheseempiressimultaneously.Dan.11:5-15surveystheactivitiesofseveralindividualrulerswithinthenorthernSeleucidEmpireandthesouthernPtolemaicEmpire,thetextualdetailsofwhichcanbeconfirmedbytherecordofhistory.ThisconflictisalsodiscussedinDaniel11becauseGod’scovenantpeoplewerelocatedbetweenthesetwopowersinageographicsense,andwerecontrolledbybothempiresatvariousstagesthroughoutthisconflict.WhilethisdescriptionisuniquetotheempiresequencesinDaniel’svisions,thesetwoempiresstillfallwithinthehistoricalperiodofthefourGreekempiresthatemergedafterAlexander.Overall,thetextualdetailsshowthattheSeleucid-AntiocheanKingoftheNortheventuallybecame“stronger”thanthePtolemaicKingoftheSouth,perDan.11:15.ThechartbelowdiscussesasummaryoftheSeleucid-

    19JacquesDoukhan,SecretsofDaniel(Hagerstown,MD:Review&Herald,2002),167-168,171.

  • 6

    AntiocheankingsandPtolemaickingsthatwarredagainsteachotherduringtheHellenisticEra,whichextendedfromthedeathofAlexandertotheconquestofthesekingdomsbyImperialRome:

    ASummaryofDaniel11:5-15asaDescriptionoftheHellenisticWarfarebetweentheSeleucid-AntiocheanKingoftheNorthandthePtolemaicKingoftheSouth20

    Daniel11:5-15 KingoftheSouth KingoftheNorth HistoricalDetails

    Dan.11:5PtolemyISoter(reign,305-282BC)

    SeleucusINicator(reign,305-281BC)

    SeleucusbecomesmorepowerfulthanPtolemy

    Dan.11:6PtolemyIIPhiladelphus(reign,282-245BC)

    AntiochusIITheos(reign,261-246BC)

    MarriageofAntiochustoBereniceBothmurderedbyLaodice

    Dan.11:7-9 PtolemyIIIEuergetes(reign,245-222)

    SeleucusIICallinicus(246-225BC)

    RevengeofPtolemyIIIforBerenicePtolemyliveslongerthanSeleucus

    Dan.11:10-13

    PtolemyIVPhilopater(reign,221-203BC)PtolemyVEpiphanes(reign,203-181BC)

    AntiochusIIIMagnus(reign,225-187BC)

    PtolemyVIdefeatsAntiochusIIIintheBattleofRaphia(217BC)AntiochusIIIdefeatsPtolemyVintheBattleofPanium(200BC)

    Dan.11:14-15

    PtolemyVIPhilometor(reign,181-145BC)PtolemyVIIIEuergetes(reign,169-116BC)

    AntiochusIVEpiphanes(reign,175-164BC)

    AntiochusIVinvadesEgypttwiceAntiochusIVattacksJerusalemExitsEgyptafterRomanintimidation

    Daniel11:16-22–TheRiseofImperialRomeAdventistinterpretersofDaniel11generallyagreethatDan.11:16-22introducesImperialRomeintothepropheticnarrative,anddiscussestheactivitiesofPompey,Caesar,Augustus,andTiberius,aswellasthecrucifixionofChrist.Thiswriterproposesthatthetextualdataisconsistentwiththisinterpretation,andthusservesasthenexthistoricalanchorpointinDaniel11.Dan.11:16revealsthatanewpower(“he,”possiblythe“robbers[breakers]ofthypeople”fromvs.14;cf.Dan.2:40;7:7,19,23),ImperialRome,would“comeagainst”theSeleucid-AntiocheanKingoftheNorth(“him”)and“doaccordingtohisownwill”(conquerthispower),andnootherkingdomwouldbeableto“standbeforehim.”ThisconqueringpowerofImperialRomewouldalso“standin”and“consume”the“GloriousLand,”whichreferstoancientJudah,where,onceagain,God’speoplewerelocatedatthattime.ImperialRomaninvolvementintheregionofancientJudahbeganwhenPompeyendedtheSeleucid-AntiocheandynastyandconqueredJudeain64-63BC.Justpriortotheseconquests,hehadsubjugatedArmeniaandAnatoliatothegeographicnorthofJudea.BecausePompeyhadconqueredJudeafromthedirectionofgeographicnorth,ImperialRomeservesasthenextmanifestationofthe“KingoftheNorth”inDaniel11,thusreplacingSeleucid-AntiocheanSyriaatthisstageinthepropheticnarrative.TheImperialRomanKingoftheNorthinitiallysubjugatedthe“GloriousLand”ofancientJudeaduringPompey’scareer,andlater“consumed”thislandwhentheRomangeneralandfutureemperorTitusdestroyedthecityofJerusalemandthetempleinAD70.Dan.11:17-22continuesinitsdiscussionoftheImperialRomanKingoftheNorth,surveyingCaesar(vs.17-19),Augustus(vs.20),Tiberius(vs.21-22),andChrist’scrucifixion(vs.22).After“corrupting”Cleopatra,the“daughterofwomen”(vs.17),Caesarwouldlater“stumbleandfall,andnotbefound”(vs.19),havingbeenassassinatedinMarchof44BC.Next,Caesar’sgrand-nephewAugustus(Octavian),a“raiseroftaxes”(Luke2:1)andthefirstofficialRomanemperor,would“standup”inhis“estate,”andeventuallydieanaturaldeath,“neitherinanger,norinbattle”(vs.20).Augustus’step-son,the“vile”emperorTiberius,would“standup”next(vs.21),andreignfrom

    20C.MervynMaxwell,GodCares,vol.1(Boise,ID:PacificPress,1981),284-293;UriahSmith,Danieland

    theRevelation(Nashville,TN:SouthernPublishing,1949),235-245.

  • 7

    AD12to37.The“princeofthecovenant,”JesusChrist,was“broken”(crucified)inAD31,whileTiberiuswasinpower(vs.22).ThesedetailsconfirmthatImperialRomeisthenextprincipalkingdominDaniel11,andthenextmanifestationofthe“KingoftheNorth”inthischapter.Daniel11:23-29–Northvs.South,Part2Dan.11:23-29isthefirstofthreepassagesinDaniel11inwhichAdventistinterpretershaveadifferenceofopinion.21ThetraditionalviewclaimsthatthispassagecontinueswithadiscussionoftheImperialRomanKingoftheNorth,andcitesdetailsfromthecareersofAugustus(Octavian),MarkAntony,Titus,andConstantine.22AsecondviewclaimsthatthispassagepresentsatransitionintothehistoryofthemedievalpapacyasthenextmanifestationoftheKingoftheNorth.TheKingoftheSouthisalsoidentifiedasIslaminthissecondview,withtheunderstandingthatthetextdescribesthemedievalcrusades.23Thiswriterproposesthatthetraditionalviewofthispassageisbest-supportedbythetextualdataandhistoricalevidence.SincethereisnotextualevidencesuggestingatransferencetoanewempireinDan.11:23,theKingoftheNorthinthistextisstillImperialRome.AswesurveyRomanhistoryinlightofitsrelationshipwithGod’scovenantpeople,the“league”(Dan.11:23)consistsofanagreementbetweenRomeandtheJewishnation,whichwasratifiedin161BC,duringtheMaccabeanrevoltagainstSeleucidoppression.Tofulfillthe“consumption”ofthe“GloriousLand”perDan.11:16,this“league”wasgraduallyexploitedbyImperialRomesothatitcould“becomestrongwithasmallpeople,”theJewishpeople.Throughthis“league,”thispowerwould“peaceably”enterthe“fattestplacesoftheprovince”(Judea)tolater“dothatwhichhisfathershavenotdone,norhisfather’sfathers”bydestroyingJerusalemandthetemple,which,asstatedabove,tookplacethroughtheactivitiesofTitusinAD70(Dan.11:24).Furthermore,after“scattering”the“prey,”“spoil,”and“riches,”theImperialRomanKingoftheNorthwould“forecasthisdevicesagainstthestrongholds”byplottingtheconquestofallrivalMediterraneanpowersfromthecityofRomeasanimperialcenter.ThispolicyofconquestfromtheimperialcenterofRomewouldtakeplace“foratime”(Dan.11:24),a360-yearpropheticperiod,24whichwouldfinditsstartingandendingpointsinDan.11:25-29,atextthatdiscussesthesecondnorth/southconflictinDaniel11.Onceagain,the“KingoftheNorth”inthispassageisstillImperialRome,andsincetherehasbeennocleartransferencetoanotherpower,the“KingoftheSouth”muststillbePtolemaicEgypt,thelastHellenisticempiretobeconqueredbyRome.Inlightofthesedetails,wemustidentifyatimeinRomanhistorywhenRomewouldbothwaragainstandconquerPtolemaicEgypt,thelastremainingkingdomofAlexanderthatstoodinitspathtowardMediterraneandominationasanimperialisticpower.TherecordofhistorydemonstratesthatalongperiodofRomancivilwarentereditsfinalphasewhenOctavian(CaesarAugustus,the“raiseroftaxes”inDan.11:20)facedoffagainstMarkAntony,whohadalignedhimselfwiththeEgyptian-PtolemaicqueenCleopatra.ThisconfrontationisdescribedinDan.11:25-28,withOctavianactingastheImperialRomanKingoftheNorthandAntonyactingastheKingoftheSouth,givenhispoliticalalliancewithCleopatra.Bothofthese“kings”musteredupa“great”and“mightyarmy”tofightagainsteachother(Dan.11:25).Yet,Antonywould“notstand”because“theythatfeedaportionofhismeatshalldestroyhim,”meaningthathewouldlosethesupportofCleopatra’sforces,andthushis“army”would“overflow”(washaway)and“many”would“falldownslain”(Dan.11:25-26).

    21TheothertwocontroversialpassagesareDan.11:36-39andDan.11:40-45.22ExamplesincludeRoyAllanAnderson,UnfoldingDaniel’sProphecies(MountainView,CA:PacificPress,

    1975),142-148;Smith,DanielandtheRevelation,258-266.23ExamplesincludeGane,320-321;Maxwell,1:293-294;TimRoosenberg,Islam&ChristianityinProphecy

    (Hagerstown,MD:Review&Herald,2011),47-50,206-208;WilliamH.Shea,Daniel:AReader’sGuide(Nampa,ID:PacificPress,2005),250-259.

    24SeeDan.7:25;12:7;Rev.11:2-3;12:6,14;13:5.Inthesetexts,42propheticmonths,1260propheticdays,anda“time,times,andhalfatime”eachequateto1260days(years),witha“time”beingasingleperiodof360days(years).Thus,the“time”inDan.11:24canbeviewedasa360-yeartimeprophecy,wherethestartingandendingpointsarediscussedinvs.25-29.

  • 8

    Historyshowsthatbothleadersalsomadeperiodicattemptstoreconcileduringtheirconflict,buttheywould“speakliesatonetable”inorderto“domischief”(Dan.11:27),becausebothsecretlycovetedsolecontroloftheempire.OctavianwouldeventuallyroutAntonyinadecisivenavalbattlenearActiumoffthecoastofwesternGreecein31BC,whichledtotheImperialRomanconquestofPtolemaicEgyptandthesuicidesofbothAntonyandCleopatra.FollowinghisconquestofEgypt,Octavianwould“returnintohislandwithgreatriches”(Dan.11:28),whichdescribeshow,afterdefeatingAntonyandcapturingthePtolemaictreasure,hereturnedtoRomein30BCastherichestpersonintheworld,andwouldlaterbecomeCaesarAugustus,thefirstofficialRomanemperor(27BC).Dan.11:28alsodescribesinageneralsensehowtheImperialRomanKingoftheNorthwould“turnhisheartagainsttheholycovenant”bypersecutingChristians,and“doexploits”byconqueringmanylandstoexpandthisgrowingempire,whicharegeneraltrendsthattookplaceunderseveralRomanemperors.GiventhisvictorybytheOctavian-ledImperialRomanKingoftheNorthovertheAntony-ledPtolemaicKingoftheSouthatActium,theyear31BCcanbeidentifiedasthestartingpointforthe360-yearprophecy,simplybecausethiswastheyearthatthelastremainingkingdomfromAlexander’sformerempirewasconqueredbyRome.Thispassagealsoshowsthat,similartopartoneofthenorth/southconflict(vs.5-15),theKingoftheNorthemergesvictoriousovertheKingoftheSouthinthissecondnorth/southconflict.ThepropheticnarrativealsorevealsthattheKingoftheSouthremainsdormantuntilthe“TimeoftheEnd”(vs.40),afterwhichathirdnorth/southconflictwilltakeplace.Thisthirdnorth/southconflictwillbediscussedinfurtherdetailbelow.Dan.11:29isalsoasignificanttext,fortwoimportantreasons.First,itprovidesanendingpointforthe360-yearprophecy(the“time”ofDan.11:24).Second,itlaysthefoundationforunderstandingDan.11:30.Verse29statesthat“atthetimeappointedheshallreturn,andcometowardthesouth;butitshallnotbeastheformer,orasthelatter.”Atan“appointedtime”(attheendofthe360-yearprophecy),theImperialRomanKingoftheNorthwould“return”bycoming“toward”Egypt(“towardthesouth”),butnot“to”Egypt.Thismove“toward”Egyptwouldbeapeacefulmove,andnotbeforpurposesofconquest,asitwasinthe“former”time(duringthefirstnorth/southconflictinDan.11:5-15),orasitwillbeinthe“latter”time(duringthefinalnorth/southconflictinDan.11:40).Giventhesetextualdetails,theDaniel11interpretermust(1)discoveraneventinRomanhistorysometimeafterEgypt’sconquestbyOctavianin31BCwhereRomemoved“toward”Egypt(butnot“to”Egyptforthepurposeofconquest,asithadalreadyconqueredthispowerin31BC),and(2)identifyhowthismove“toward”Egyptwouldprovideanendingpointforthe360-yearprophecy.Ifwebeginthistimeprophecyin31BCwiththevictoryofRome(“north,”Octavian)overEgypt(“south,”Antony),thentheendingdateofthisprophecywouldbeAD330.Thequestionnowbecomes,whatsignaleventinRomanhistorytookplaceinthisyearthatwitnessedanImperialRomanmove“toward”the“south”ofEgyptinageographicsense?Asitturnedout,onesuchmovedidtakeplaceinAD330–theemperorConstantinededicatedthecityofConstantinopleinthisyearasthe“NewRome.”Asfaraslandtravel,thiseventcanbeviewedasamove“toward”Egyptinageographicsense.ThededicationofConstantinopleinAD330isextremelysignificantforthreereasons:(1)thisnewcapitalwouldgraduallyeclipseoldRomeinpowerandprestige,andbecomethenewimperialcenteroftheempire;(2)theWesternRomanEmpiregrewincreasinglyunstableafterthisdedication,especiallythecityofRomeitself,andthewesternimperialstructureeventuallycollapsedinAD476afterseveraldecadesofbeingstressedbyGermanicinvasionsovertheRhineandDanubeborderregions;and(3)theresultantpowervacuuminRomeandthewestoverallafterthiscollapsecreatedanopportunityforthepapalpowertoemergeastheeventualreligio-politicalleaderofWesternEurope,apointthatisdiscussedinDan.11:30-31.ThisproposedinterpretationofDan.11:23-29helpstoexplaintheprophetic“time”of360years(31BCtoAD330),andformsafoundationforunderstandingDan.11:30-31,whichwewilldiscoverdiscussestheriseofthemedievalpapalpower.Insummary,thetextofDan.11:16-29surveysmajoreventsinthehistoryofImperialRomeastheKingoftheNorthatthisstageinthepropheticnarrativeofDaniel11.Thesehistoricaleventsinclude:(1)Pompey’sconquestofSyriaandJudea(Dan.11:16),whichidentifiesImperialRomeasthenextmanifestationoftheKingoftheNorth;(2)Caesar’sactivitiesandassassination(Dan.11:17-19);(3)CaesarAugustusasthe“raiseroftaxes”(Dan.11:20);(4)Tiberiusasthe“vile”emperor,duringwhoseruleChristwascrucified(Dan.11:21-22);(5)the“league”betweenRomeandtheJewishnation,whichwouldeventuallyresultinthedestructionofJerusalembyTitusinAD70(Dan.

  • 9

    11:23-24);and(6)theprophetic“time”of360years(Dan.11:24),whichextendedfromOctavian’svictoryoverAntonyin31BC(Dan.11:25-28)toImperialRome’smove“toward”the“south”ofEgyptthroughConstantine’sdedicationofConstantinopleinAD330(Dan.11:29).HerearesomefinalthoughtstoconsiderregardingDan.11:16-29.Thiswriterproposesthat,(1)theaboveinterpretationisviablebecauseeachoftheeventsintheseversesfallswithinthescopeofImperialRomanhistorywithrespecttoitsdealingswithGod’scovenantpeople,andthusfitswithintheoverallhistoricalframeworkofthepropheticnarrativeofDaniel11;and(2)itisquitefittingthatDan.11:29endswithadiscussionofConstantine,ashewasthefirstChristianemperor(atleastinname)whoseprolificcareer,advocacyoftheNicene(Catholic)faith,anddedicationofConstantinoplepavedthewayfortheeventualriseanddevelopmentofthemedievalpapalpower,which,onceagain,willbethenexthistoricalempiretoenterthepropheticnarrativeofDaniel11.Daniel11:30-35–MedievalPapalRomeDan.11:30-35describesatransitionintothehistoryofmedievalPapalRome,thenextprincipalkingdomthatisdiscussedinDaniel’svisions.Dan.11:30statesthatthe“shipsofChittim[Cyprus]”wouldcomeagainst“him,”theImperialRomanKingoftheNorth,whichmeansthatsometimeafterthededicationofthecityofConstantinopleinAD330,ImperialRomewouldbeattacked.Althoughthe“shipsofChittim[Cyprus]”isadebatedphrase,theSDABibleCommentarysuggeststhatitcoulddescribe“invadersanddestroyersfromanyquarter.”25Thissourcealsoobservesthat,“Someseeinthe‘shipsofChittim’areferencetothebarbarianhordeswhoinvadedandbrokeuptheWesternRomanEmpire.”26Basedupontheseobservations,thiswriterproposesthatthisphrasediscusseshowImperialRomehadexperiencedaseriesoffatalattacksfromnumerousGermanicinvaders,especiallytheVandalnavalempire,arivalpowerthatviciouslysackedthecityofRomeinAD455.Dan.11:30goesontosaythat“heshallbegrieved”and“return.”Whereasthefirstpartofverse30statesthattheImperialRomanKingoftheNorthwouldbeattacked,theterm“grieved”coulddescribehowthispowerwouldbeseverelyweakenedfromanattacktothepointofcollapse.Asstatedabove,historydemonstratesthat,throughaseriesofGermanicinvasionsinthe4thand5thcenturies,theWesternRomanEmpirereachedthepointofcollapsebyAD476,whenthelastwesternRomanemperor,RomulusAugustulus,wasdeposedbyOdovacar,aGermanic-HerulianleaderwhoproclaimedhimselfkingofItaly.Yet,althoughRomewouldcollapse(“begrieved”)initsimperialphasebyAD476,itwould“return”topowerinitspapalphasebyAD538.Inessence,theImperialRomanKingoftheNorthwould“begrieved”throughalossofpowerinAD476,butlater“return”topowerbyAD538intheformofthePapalRomanKingoftheNorth,whichisthenextmanifestationofthe“KingoftheNorth”inDaniel11.Dan.11:30,therefore,istobeviewedasatransitionalpassagefromImperialRometomedievalPapalRomeinthepropheticnarrative,apowerthatwould“haveindignationagainsttheholycovenant”bypersecutingChristianswhowouldnotrecognizeitsauthority.Itwouldalso“haveintelligencewiththemthatforsaketheholycovenant”bygaininginformationfromformerfaithfulChristianswhorecantedtheirfaithinordertopersecuteallegedheretics.Thesepersecutingactivitiestookplaceduringthemedievaldark-agecareerofthePapalRomanKingoftheNorth,acareerwhichextendedfromAD538to1798.Historydemonstratesthatthispowerwassuccessfulinitspersecutingactivitiesbecause“arms”would“standonhispart”(Dan.11:31).VariousEuropeanarmieswouldhelptoconfirmitspowerandsupremacy,thefirsttwoofwhichwerethemilitaryforcesoftheFrankishkingClovisI(reign,AD486-511)andtheEasternRomanemperorJustinianI(reign,AD527-565).Clovis’victoryagainstthenon-TrinitarianVisigoths(AD507)earnedhimthetitlesofconsulandpatricianbytheeasternemperorAnastasius(AD508),andhisCatholicbaptismonChristmasdayof508madehimthefirstnon-Romanrulerinpost-RomanEuropetoconverttoCatholicismandprovidemilitarysupporttothepapacy.Justinian’smilitaryforcesalsosupportedthemedievalpapalpowerbydestroyingtheVandals(AD534)andtheOstrogoths(AD553),tworivalnon-TrinitariankingdomsinNorthAfricaandItaly,respectively.

    25Nichol,4:873.26Ibid.

  • 10

    Dan.11:31alsodiscussestheterms“pollutethesanctuaryofstrength,”“takeawaythedailysacrifice,”and“placetheabominationthatmakethdesolate.”GiventhefactthatDan.8:9-14usesthesetermstodescribethemedievalpapalpower,Adventistinterpretersgenerallyagreethatthesethreephrasesrelatetothepapacy,apowerthatinjectedmany“spirituallydesolating”religiouspracticesintotheChristianfaithduringthedarkages,includingSundayworshipandtheMass.WhileagreeingthatthistextdescribesmedievalPapalRome,Adventistinterpretersdifferintheirinterpretationofthephrases“sanctuaryofstrength”and“takeawaythedailysacrifice.”Someinterpreterssuggestthatthe“sanctuary”isthecityofRomeandthatthe“daily”ispaganism,whileotherssuggestthatthe“sanctuary”istheheavenlysanctuaryandthatthe“daily”referstothe“continual”intercessoryministryofChristintheheavenlysanctuary,whichthepapacyhassoughttoobscure.Regardless,thesetermsundoubtedlyrefertotheriseofthePapalRomanKingoftheNorthduringthemedievalperiod.Dan.11:32-35confirmsthisconclusionthroughageneraldiscussionofPapalRome’spersecutingactivitiesduringthedarkages.Thispowerwoulduse“flattery”toenticethosewhorecantedtheirfaithto“dowickedly”againsttheChristian“covenant,”whilethe“peoplethatdoknowtheirGod,”thefaithful,wouldremain“strong”and“doexploits”bywinninggenuineconvertstoChrist(Dan.11:32).Thus,thefaithful“thatunderstandamongthepeople”would“instructmany”bysharingthebiblicalfaithduringthosedifficulttimes,andsomewouldeven“fallbythesword,andbyflame,andbycaptivity,andbyspoil,manydays”(Dan.11:33).God’struefollowerswouldonlyreceivea“littlehelp”duringthisperiodofpersecution,andhavetoresistany“flatteries”thatmightleadthemtorenouncetheirfaith(Dan.11:34).Asitturnedout,“someofthemofunderstanding,”thefaithful,wouldbe“tried,”“purged,”and“madewhite”(persecutedandmartyred)duringthisperiod,untilthearrivalofthe“TimeoftheEnd,”whichcameintheyear1798(Dan.12:4-9).27TherearetwoimportanthermeneuticalobservationstobemadefromDan.11:30-35.First,unlikeDan.11:1-29,whichdiscussesthespecificactivitiesofgeographicempiresandtheirselectrulers,Dan.11:30-35shiftsitsfocusbyofferingageneralsurveyofthepersecutingactivitiesofthePapalRomanKingoftheNorthduringthedarkages(AD538-1798),withoutdiscussingthespecificactionsofkeyrulers.Becausethecareerofthispowerspanned1260years,itwouldseemmorereasonableandefficientwithinthescopeofthepropheticnarrativetoprovideageneralsurveyratherthanaspecificone.Second,becausePapalRomeisaspiritualkingdomandnotageographicone,Dan.11:30-35canbeidentifiedasatransitionalpassagefromliteral,spatial,geographicpowerstoglobal,spiritual,worldwidepowers.Thistransitionsuggeststhatallprophetictermsfromthispointforwardinthevisionshouldbeunderstoodasbeingspiritualandglobal(antitypical)inscope,ratherthanspatialorgeographicinscope.ThisunderstandingshouldformthebasisforinterpretingDan.11:40-45.Daniel11:36-39–ThePapacyorAtheisticFrance?MostAdventistinterpretersofDaniel11generallyagreeintheirunderstandingofDan.11:1-35.Thereis,however,adifferenceofopinionastotheidentityofthepowerdiscussedinDan.11:36-39,whichhasresultedinthepromotionoftwomainviewsonthispassage.Oneview,whichconstitutesthelaterpioneerviewandminorityviewtodate,interpretsthistextasintroducinganewpowerintheformofatheistic,revolutionaryFrance.28Thesecondview,whichconstitutestheearlypioneerviewandmajorityviewtodate,interpretsthispassageasacontinueddiscussionofthesamepowerbroughtforthinDan.11:30-35,which,asdemonstratedabove,istobeidentifiedasthemedievalPapalRomanKingoftheNorth.29

    27EllenG.White,GreatControversy(Boise,ID:PacificPress,1911),356.Mrs.Whiteproposedthatthe

    “TimeoftheEnd”beganintheyear1798,atwhichpointthebookofDanielwas“unsealed”perDan.12:4-9.28ExamplesincludeAnderson,152-159;StephenN.Haskell,TheStoryofDanieltheProphet(Brushton,NY:

    TeachServices,1999),240-245;Smith,DanielandRevelation,280-289;RobertJ.Wieland,DanielRevealstheFuture(Grantham,Lincolnshire,England:TheStanboroughPress,2014),158-160.

    29ExamplesincludeRussellBurrill,HopeWhentheWorldFallsApart(Keene,TX:SeminarsUnlimited,2003),293-294;Roosenberg,208;Shea,Daniel:AReader’sGuide,261-262;LouisF.Were,TheKingoftheNorthatJerusalem(St.Maries,ID:LMNPublishing,2002),42;MiltonC.Wilcox,TheKingoftheNorth:ASuggestiveOutlineStudyofDaniel11(MountainView,CA:M.C.Wilcox,1910),21-33.

  • 11

    Thephrase,“Andtheking”(Dan.11:36)doesnotsuggestatransferencetoanotherpower,butratherrevealsacontinuedsurveyofthesamepowerdiscussedinDan.11:30-35.Therearecleartextualparallelsbetweenthis“king”andthe“littlehorn”discussedinDaniel7andDaniel8,whichsuggeststhatthesetwosymbolsdescribethesamehistoricalempire,whichisidentifiedasthemedievalpapalpower.Bothsymbols,(1)speakagainsttheGodofheaven(cf.Dan.7:8,20,25;11:36),(2)exaltthemselvesaboveGod(cf.Dan.8:11,25;11:36-37),and(3)prosperintheirpersecutionofGod’scovenantpeople(cf.Dan.8:11,24-25;11:36).Thephrase,“doaccordingtohiswill”isalsoonethatisattributedtoeachofthefourprincipalkingdomsmentionedinDaniel8andDaniel11,whichareMedo-Persia(Dan.8:4),Greece(Dan.11:3),ImperialRome(Dan.11:16),andPapalRome(Dan.11:36).Thesekeydetailsconfirmthatthe“king”ofDan.11:36isthePapalRomanKingoftheNorth.Therefore,Dan.11:36-39servesasacontinueddiscussionofthepapacy,anddoesnotrevealatransferencetoatheisticFrance.AdventistinterpreterswhoembracetheviewofatheisticFranceinvs.36havealsosuggestedthatthephrase,“norregardanygod”(Dan.11:37)pointstoatheism.However,thisphraseshouldberegardedassynonymouswiththeotherphrasesinDan.11:36-37thatdescribehowthis“king”wouldexaltitselfaboveGod,andthusdoesnot“regardanygod”butitself.Thispowerwouldalsonot“regard”the“desireofwomen,”whichcouldrefertoeitherrequiredcelibacyorhowthispowerwouldseeitselfastheonlytruechurch(Dan.11:37).30Itwouldalso“honortheGodofforces”(Dan.11:38),whichmeansitwouldusemilitaryforcetocontrolconscienceduringthemedievalperiod.Itwouldalsopromotea“godwhomhisfathersknewnot”(Dan.11:38),whichpointstotheworshipoftheVirginMary,a“strangegod”thathasbeen“increasedwithglory,”onethattheoriginalapostles(the“fathers”fromwhichthepapacyclaimsapostolicsuccession)didnotrecognizeasworthyofadoration.This“king”wouldalso“causethem”(the“Godofforces”andthe“strangegod”)to“ruleovermany”and“dividethelandforgain”byexercisingspiritualandeconomiccontroloverthemasses(Dan.11:39).Thedetailsdiscussedabovedemonstratethatthephrase,“norregardanygod”doesnotpointtoanatheisticpower,simplybecausethis“king”would,(1)exaltitselfasbeingequaltoandabovetheGodofheaven,and(2)exaltboththe“Godofforces”(militaryforce)anda“strangegod”(theVirginMary),bothpointsofwhichshowthatitisnotanatheisticpower.Therefore,the“king”ofDan.11:36isclearlythePapalRomanKingoftheNorth,whichisaconclusionconfirmedandpublishedbyAdventistleadersinaMarch1954Ministrymagazinearticle.31ThispointisalsoinferredthroughaninsightfulstatementfromEllenWhite:

    TheprophecyintheeleventhofDanielhasnearlyreacheditscompletefulfillment.Muchofthehistorythathastakenplaceinfulfillmentofthisprophecywillberepeated.Inthethirtiethverseapowerisspokenofthat‘shallbegrieved,andreturn,andhaveindignationagainsttheholycovenant:soshallhedo;heshallevenreturn,andhaveintelligencewiththemthatforsaketheholycovenant.’[Verses31-36,quoted.].32

    Inthereferenceabove,Mrs.WhiteincludedDan.11:36withDan.11:30-35.Shealsoseemedtoinferthatamajorityoftheseverseshadalreadybeenfulfilledinahistoricalsensebythetimeshepennedthisstatementin1904.Shementionedtheriseofaspecific“power”invs.30,andthendescribedtheactivitiesofthis“power”byquotingvs.31-36,whichmeansthatvs.30andvs.31-36areconnectedanddiscussthesamepower.Inessence,Mrs.Whiteadvocatedthatthe“king”ofDan.11:36isthesamepowerthatisdescribedinDan.11:30,andsincevs.30describestheriseofthePapalRomanKingoftheNorth,wecanconcludethatthe“king”ofvs.36isalsothesamepower.Mrs.WhitealsoobservedthatmuchofthehistoryalreadyfulfilledinDaniel11willberepeated.Thiswriterproposesthattherepetitionofhistorywillinvolvehowthedark-agepersecutingactivitiesofthepapacyoutlinedinvs.30-36willberepeatedinthepassageofDan.11:40-45.

    30A“woman”inprophecyrepresentsachurch.See2Cor.11:2;Eph.5:25-32;Rev.12:17;19:6-9.31“AReportontheEleventhChapterofDaniel.”TheMinistry(March1954):26.Thissourcearguesthatit

    seemsmoretextuallyconsistenttoequatethe“king”ofDan.11:36withthelittlehornpowersofDaniel7andDaniel8,aswellasthe“manofsin/sonofperdition”in2Thess.2:3-4.Seealsopage25ofthissource.

    32EllenG.White,ManuscriptReleases,vol.13(SilverSpring,MD:E.G.WhiteEstate,1993),394.

  • 12

    Daniel11:40–Northvs.South,Part3Dan.11:40introducesthethirdandfinalnorth/southconflictinDaniel11,andbeginswiththephrase,“Atthetimeoftheend.”Dan.12:4-9clearlyconveysthatthe“TimeoftheEnd”beganattheconclusionofthe1260-yearmedievalruleofthePapalRomanKingoftheNorth,whichextendedfromAD538to1798.Thismeansthatthe“TimeoftheEnd”arrivedintheyear1798,andconstitutesthelastperiodofhumanhistory,extendingfromthisveryyeartothereturnofChrist.MajorEnglishtranslationsofScriptureusetheterm“at”incontextwiththe“timeoftheend”invs.40,whichseemstoidentifyaspecificpointintime,i.e.theyear1798.ThisevidencesuggeststhatDan.11:40-45describespropheticeventsextendingfrom1798totheeschaton.Dan.11:40alsostatesthat“atthetimeoftheend”(1798),theKingoftheSouthwould“pushathim,”the“king”ofDan.11:36.Theword“push”(Hebrew–nagach)isdefinedas,“togore,”“tobuttwithhorns,”and“towaragainst,”33whichconveystheideathatthe“king”ofDan.11:36,whichisthePapalRomanKingoftheNorth,wouldbeattackedbytheKingoftheSouthintheyear1798.34ThetextalsostatesthatthePapalRomanKingoftheNorthwouldrespondtothis“push”fromtheKingoftheSouth“likeawhirlwind,withchariots,andwithhorsemen,andwithmanyships;andheshallenterintothecountries,andshalloverflowandpassover”(Dan.11:40).ThesedetailssuggestthattheKingoftheNorthwouldre-emergeafterlosingpowerandbevictoriousovertheKingoftheSouth,asitdidinthefirsttwonorth/southconflictsdescribedinDan.11:5-15and25-28.GiventhatthepapacyistheKingoftheNorthinthispassage,wemustnowidentifytheKingoftheSouth.Inthetwoearliernorth/southconflictsinDaniel11,theKingoftheSouthconsistedofPtolemaicEgypt.ThereisnocleartransferencetoanotherpowerastheKingoftheSouth,sowemuststillidentifythispowerasEgypt.ImperialRomeconqueredPtolemaicEgypt,sohowarewetounderstandthe“Egyptian”KingoftheSouthinDan.11:40?BecauseDan.11:30signifiesatransitionfromtypical,national,geographicpowerstoantitypical,global,spiritualpowerswiththeentranceofthepapacyasaspiritualkingdomintothepropheticnarrativeofDaniel11,wemustbeconsistentinviewingthemanifestationoftheKingoftheSouthinDan.11:40asaformofantitypicalEgypt.Sincethepapacyisanantitypicalpower,thesymbolof“Egypt”mustalsopointtoanantitypicalpower.WemustnowidentifyantitypicalEgyptthroughanexaminationofitsancienttemperamentandrelationshiptoOTIsrael.BecausethispowerwasonethatrefusedtoacknowledgeGodandHisprerogatives(Exo.5:1-2),35actingasanenemyofGodandHispeople(Eze.29:1-6),wecanidentifyantitypicalEgyptasatheism.36WemustnowdiscoverwhatatheisticpowerattackedthePapalRomanKingoftheNorthintheyear1798.HistorywilldemonstratethatFrancewasanavowedatheisticpowerfromNovemberof1793toJuneof1797duringtheFrenchRevolution.Atheismasanideologywasessentiallyunleashedduringthisrevolution,andalthoughFrance’satheisticidentificationlastedonly3½yearsinalegalsense,theeffectsofthisideologyarestillbeingfelttoday.Asitturnedout,theFrencharmyendedthecivilpowerofthepapacyinFebruaryof1798,whichwaswithinayearofFrance’sofficialatheisticidentification.SinceFrancewasstillridingtheeffectsofthisidentificationwellafterJuneof1797,wecanidentifyFranceastheatheisticKingoftheSouththat“pushed”thePapalRomanKingoftheNorthin1798.Thisidentification,(1)isconsistentwiththeAdventistunderstandingofRev.11:7-8,whichreferstoatheistic,revolutionaryFranceasthepowerdescribedas“spiritualEgypt,”and(2)isconsistentwiththeAdventistunderstandingthatrevolutionaryFrance,ledbyNapoleon,dealta“deadlywound”tothepapacyin1798(perRev.13:3),whichistheeventdescribedinthefirstpartofDan.11:40.

    33JamesStrong,Strong’sExhaustiveConcordance(GrandRapids,MI:Baker,1997),“push”(H5055).See1

    Ki.22:11;2Chr.18:10;Dan.8:4fortextualexamplesontheuseofthisword.34Rodriguez,4(seethecommentsinfootnote4ofthissource).35Doukhan,173;Rodriguez,15-17.36EllenWhitealsoviewed“Egypt”asasymbolofatheisminRev.11:7-8withrespecttotheFrench

    Revolution,whichisrepresentedbythe“beast”fromthe“bottomlesspit.”SeeWhite,GreatControversy,269.IfantitypicalEgyptisasymbolofatheisminRevelation,then,tobeconsistent,itmustalsohavethesamemeaninginDaniel,asthetwobooksgotogether.SeeEllenWhite,ActsoftheApostles(Boise,ID:PacificPress,1911),585.

  • 13

    Goingastepfurther,AdventistinterpretershavepresentedsomepossibleinterpretiveoptionsforthesecondhalfofDan.11:40,whichdescribestheresponseoftheKingoftheNorthtothe“push”oftheKingoftheSouth.Nodoubt,atheismhasfoughtanideologicalbattleagainsttheChristianfaitheversinceitwasunleashedduringtheFrenchRevolution.Sovietatheisticcommunismundoubtedlyemergedastheresultofthisdevelopment,andBurrillsuggeststhatitscollapsein1990-1991throughtheColdWareffortsofthepapacyandtheUnitedStatesisaspecificfulfillmentofDan.11:40.37Thishistoricaldevelopmentmightconstituteatleastapartialfulfillmentofthesecondhalfofvs.40.However,giventhat,(1)therearestillcommunist-atheisticstatesleftintheworld,and(2)atheisticideologyisthedominantworldviewinwesternacademia,thefallofSovietcommunismhasnotresultedintheconquestofatheism,andthusdoesnotfullysatisfythetextualclaimsofDan.11:40.Toattempttoprovideasatisfactoryexplanation,thiswriterproposesthatthe“healing”ofthe“deadlywound”ofthepapacywillnottakeplaceuntilSundaylegislationbecomesarealityinthefutureasthemarkofthebeast.38Giventhisfutureprospect,itseemsmorereasonabletosuggestthatatheismwillbefinally“conquered”bythePapalRomanKingoftheNorththroughanatheisticsubmissiontoSundaylegislation.Thiswillbeaspiritualandideologicalconquest,onethatwillbeenforcedthroughtheglobalmilitarystrengthofthevariousnationsoftheearth,whichisdiscussedinthesecondhalfofvs.40throughdetailssuchas,“chariots,”“horsemen,”and“ships.”Therefore,thepapalpowerwillusethemilitarystrengthofsubmissivenationstoitsadvantageinthefuture,justasitdidduringthedarkages(pertheterms“arms”and“Godofforces,”cf.Dan.11:31,38).EverynationwilleventuallyalignwiththepapacythroughinternationalcompliancewithSundaylegislation,asalsoevidencedinthesecondhalfofvs.40withthephrase,“heshallenterintothecountries,andpassover.”Thesedetailssuggestthatatheisticnationsandindividualswillnotbeimmunetothisend-timedevelopment.Weshouldalsorememberthattheconquestofthepapacyin1798didnotresultinthecompleteeradicationofthispower.Althoughitlosttheabilitytocontrolcivilgovernments,thisspiritualkingdomstillcontinuedtoexistandfunctionasaninstitutionafterreceivingits“push.”Weshouldviewthefutureconquestofatheisminasimilarfashion.Whilethepapacymightneverbefullysuccessfulineradicatingatheism(atleastnotuntilSatanappearsasChrist,afterwhichthereundoubtedlywillnotbeanatheistleftonearthbecauseoftheovermasteringpowerofthisdeception39),prophecydoesforetellthatthewholeworldwillworshipthebeastbysubmittingtoitsmarkofSundaylegislation(Rev.13:3,16-17),andthissubmissionwillincludebothatheisticnationsandadherents.Simplyput,atheismwillsubmittothemarkofthebeastwhenitisenforced.Thiswritersuggests,therefore,thatthefirsthalfofDan.11:40describesthedeadly“push”againstthePapalRomanKingoftheNorthintheyear1798byatheismasmanifestedinrevolutionaryFrance,whilethesecondhalfofDan.11:40describestheeventualspiritualconquestofatheisminthefuturethroughtheenforcementofthemarkofthebeast.Whenthistakesplace,theantitypical,atheisticKingoftheSouthintheformofatheisticnationsandindividualswillbeconqueredbythePapalRomanKingoftheNorththroughacompliancewithSundaylegislationasthemarkofthebeast.Daniel11:41–TheGloriousLandDan.11:41statesthatthePapalRomanKingoftheNorthwouldnext“enter”intothe“GloriousLand”andengageinthe“overthrow”of“manycountries.”SomeinterpretershavesuggestedthatthistermrepresentseithergeographicIsraelortheUnitedStates.40Tobeconsistentinapplyingthehermeneuticalprincipleof“type”and“antitype,”however,thiswriterproposesanantitypicalmeaningforthisterm.EarlierinthepropheticnarrativeofDaniel11(vs.16),theImperialRomanKingoftheNorth“consumed”the“GloriousLand”ofancientJudea(where

    37Burrill,302-306.38LouisF.Were,BattlefortheKingshipoftheWorld(BerrienSprings,MI:FirstImpressions),59-60.39White,GreatControversy,624-625.40GeographicIsrael:seeHaskell,247;Roosenberg,51-52,73,210.UnitedStates:seeHiramEdson,“The

    TimesoftheGentiles,”Review&Herald(Feb.28,1856):169-170;JamesWhite,“UnfulfilledProphecy,”Review&Herald(Nov.29,1877):172.EdsonandWhitebothequatedthe“GloriousLand”withthe“GloriousHolyMountain,”andproposedthatbothsymbolsrepresenttheUnitedStates.

  • 14

    God’scovenantpeoplewerelocatedatthatpointinhistory)throughthemilitaryconquestsofPompeyandTitus.ThishistoricalconquestisalsodescribedinDan.8:9throughtheactivitiesofthe“littlehorn,”whichconqueredthe“pleasantland.”Theterms“gloriousland”and“pleasantland”(whichbothusethesameHebrewterm)arereferencestogeographicIsrael(cf.Jer.3:18-19;Eze.20:6,15;Dan.8:9;11:16).Onceagain,becauseapocalyptictermsdescribedingeographiclanguageaftervs.30shouldbeunderstoodinasymbolic,antitypicalfashionthatismoreglobalandspiritualinscope,wemustseektoidentifytheantitypical“GloriousLand.”Sincethistermoncerelatedtotheliteral,geographicregionwhereGod’scovenantpeoplewerelocatedinOTtimes(Dan.11:16),thistermnowrelatestowhereGod’send-timecovenantpeoplearelocatedinaspiritualsense,whichpointstotheChristianChurchasthespiritual“Israel”oftheNTdispensation(cf.Matt.21:43;1Pet.2:9-10;Gal.3:26-29;Eph.2:11-22;Rom.9:6-8).The“GloriousLand”ofDan.11:41,therefore,representstheglobalChristianChurch,andconstitutesthespiritualentitythatthePapalRomanKingoftheNorthwill“enter.”ThisspiritualentrancewillactuallytakeplacewhenthemarkofthebeastisenforcedthroughSundayLegislation,41andwillthusconstitutethesecond“fall”ofSpiritualBabylonintoapostasy(Rev.14:8;18:1-4).42So,notonlywilltheatheisticworldcomplywiththemarkofthebeast(perthesecondpartofDan.11:40),buttheChristianworldwillalsocomply(perthefirstpartofDan.11:41).Dan.11:41alsostatesthat,whenthiseventtakesplace,“manycountries”wouldbe“overthrown.”Sincetheword“countries”issuppliedinthetext,itshouldreadthat“many”wouldbe“overthrown”inaspiritualsensewhenthemarkofthebeastisenforced,whichwillincludebothnationsandindividuals.TheentranceofthePapalRomanKingoftheNorthintothe“GloriousLand”alsohasseveralotherscripturalparallels,whichareshowninthechartbelow:

    ParallelBibleSymbolsthatDescribeHowthePapalPowerWillGainControloftheGlobalChristianChurchthroughtheEnforcementoftheMarkoftheBeast

    BibleText SymbolforthePapacy Action SymbolfortheChurch

    Daniel11:41 KingoftheNorth Entersinto TheGloriousLand

    Daniel11:45 KingoftheNorth Plantsin TheGloriousHolyMountain

    Matthew24:15 AbominationofDesolation Standsin TheHolyPlace

    2Thessalonians2:3-4 ManofSin,SonofPerdition Sitsin TheTempleofGod

    ThesecondpartofDan.11:41statesthatsomewill“escape”the“hand”ofthePapalRomanKingoftheNorth,namely“Edom,Moab,andthechiefofthechildrenofAmmon.”Somehavesuggestedthatthesethreetermscouldpossiblypointtomodern-dayIslamicnationsintheMiddleEast.43Onceagain,however,tobeconsistent,wemustunderstandthesenational,geographictermsinanantitypical,symbolic,worldwidesense,whichmustbebaseduponthetemperamentandrelationshiptoancientIsraelthatthesethreepowersoncepracticedinBibletimes.Geographically,thesethreenationswerelocatedoutsideofthebordersofancientIsrael,andwereoftenviewedasenemies.“Edom”isasymbolofEsau,thebrotherofJacob(“Israel”),andwaslocatedonMt.Seir(Gen.25:30;36:1,8).“Moab”and“Ammon”werethesonsofLotbyhisdaughters(Gen.19:30-38),andlaterbecameenemiesofancientIsrael(1Sam.14:47;1Chr.18:11;Jer.9:26;25:15-29).Thesethreepowersalsoformedathree-foldcoalitiontoattackancientJudahduringJehoshaphat’sreign(2Chr.20:1-30).Sincethesethreepowers,(1)werelocatedgeographicallyoutsideofthespatialbordersofOTIsrael,and

    41Were,BattlefortheKingshipoftheWorld,59-60.42ThefirstfallofSpiritualBabylontookplacewhentheProtestantchurchesofAmericarejectedthefirst

    andsecondangel’smessagesoftheMilleriteMovement.ThesecondandfinalfallofSpiritualBabylonwilltakeplacethroughcompliancewithSundaylegislationasthemarkofthebeast.SeeWhite,GreatControversy,389-390.Itisinthissensethatthe“KingoftheNorth”will“enter”the“GloriousLand.”

    43Gane,331-332;Roosenberg,107-108,210.

  • 15

    (2)werehabitualenemiesofIsrael,wecanconcludethat“Edom,”“Moab,”and“Ammon”aresymbolicofpeoplewhoareoutsideofGod’send-timeremnantwhenthemarkofthebeastisenforced.Yet,becausethey“escape”the“hand”ofthePapalRomanKingoftheNorth,theywillchoosetoavoidthemarkofthebeastandjointheremnantjustpriortothebattleofArmageddon,which,interestinglyenough,isdescribedinJoelasthe“valleyofJehoshaphat”(Joel3:9-17).IsaiahobservedhowGodwouldcallpeopleoutofmanynationsintoonefaithfulfoldattheendoftime,andthesenationswillincludepeoplefrom“Edom,”“Moab,”and“Ammon”(Isa.11:10-16).Thesethreetermsessentiallydescribepeopleoutsideoftheend-timeremnantwhoexitbothSpiritualBabylonandtheworldtojointheremnantwhenthemarkofthebeastisenforced(Rev.18:1-4).44Daniel11:42-43–Egypt,Libya,andEthiopiaDan.11:42nextstatesthatthePapalRomanKingoftheNorthwould“stretchforthhishandalsouponthecountries,”meaningthateverynationintheworldwillbeinvolvedandcontrolledintheglobalenforcementofthemarkofthebeast.Onceagain,thisincludesthe“land”ofantitypical“Egypt,”whichstillpointstotheideologyofatheism.Thepapacywillalso“havepoweroverthetreasuresofgoldandofsilver,andoverallthepreciousthingsofEgypt,”whichisadescriptionofhowbuyingandsellingwillberegulatedonlytothosewhoreceivethemarkofthebeast(Rev.13:16-17).Theuseoftheterm“Egypt”revealsare-emphasisofthefactthattheatheisticworldwill“notescape”theenforcementofthemarkofthebeast,thusre-confirmingthespiritualandideologicalconquestofatheismbythepapacy,asdiscussedinthesecondpartofDan.11:40.Tobeconsistent,the“Libyans”and“Ethiopians”ofDan.11:43shouldalsobeunderstoodinanantitypicalsense.InBibletimes,ancientLibya(alsocalledPhut,Lubim,Lud,andCyrene)wasbothafriendofGodandthefaithful(Matt.27:32;Acts2:10;11:20;13:1)andanenemyofGodandthefaithful(2Chr.12:1-4;16:7-8;Jer.46:7-10;Eze.27:10;30:1-5;38:1-5;Nah.3:7-10).Inlikemanner,ancientEthiopia(alsocalledCushandSheba)wasalsobothafriendofGodandthefaithful(Gen.2:13;1Ki.10:1-13;Psa.68:31;Acts8:26-39)andanenemyofGodandthefaithful(Gen.10:6-10;2Chr.12:1-4;16:7-8;Jer.46:7-10;Eze.30:1-5;38:1-5;Nah.3:7-10).Giventhefactthatthesetwonations,(1)werefaithfultoGodattimes,(2)wereunfaithfultoGodandwereenemiesofHispeopleattimes,and(3)willfollow“inthesteps”ofthePapalRomanKingoftheNorth,theymightbeunderstoodinanantitypicalsenseasdescribingpeoplewhowereoncefaithfultoGod,butturnagainstHimundereconomicpressure,andfollow“inthesteps”ofthepapacywhenthemarkofthebeastisenforced.Furthermore,whentheScripturesdiscussthesetwotermsincontextwiththeenemiesofGod(Eze.30:5;38:5),LibyaandEthiopiawerealsoinvolvedinamilitarycoalitionagainstIsrael,andthuslenttheirmilitarystrengthtotheenemiesofIsraelinthequesttoconquerboththefaithfulandtheirrespectiveterritorywheretheywerenationallysituated.Also,ancientBabylonconqueredEgypt,Libya,andEthiopia,andformedamilitarycoalitionwiththesethreepowersbeforeinvadingandtakingJudahfromthedirectionofgeographicnorth(Jer.4:6-7;25:9;46:1-26;Eze.26:7;30:1-19).Therefore,thesetermsmightbeunderstoodinanantitypicalsenseasalsopointingtoaglobalmilitaryconfederationundertheauthorityofthePapalRomanKingoftheNorth(whichcanalsobeidentifiedasantitypical,spiritualBabylon).Thisend-timecoalitionwillenablethepapalpowertoexercisecontrolovertheworldwhenthemarkofthebeastisenforcedonaglobalscale.Daniel11:44–NortheasternTidingsAsthePapalRomanKingoftheNorth,(1)losespowerin1798(Dan.11:40a),(2)regainspowerinthefuturethroughthespiritualandideologicalconquestoftheChristianandatheisticworldswhenthemarkofthebeastisenactedworldwide(Dan.11:40b-41),and(3)formsaglobalconfederacytoenforcethemarkofthebeastinthefuture(Dan.11:42-43),Dan.11:44discusseshowGod’send-timeremnantwillwarnearth’sinhabitantstoavoidreceivingthemarkofthebeast.45Thetextstatesthat,“tidingsoutoftheeastandthenorthshalltroublehim,”

    44Rodriguez,20.45Ibid,22-23.RodriguezsuggeststhatthistextmightparallelRev.18:1,whichheobservesconstitutesa

    morepowerfulrepetitionoftheThreeAngels’MessagesofRev.14:6-12.

  • 16

    meaningthatthe“news”ofan“announcement”(“doctrine”)46fromthe“northeast”will“trouble”thePapalRomanKingoftheNorthinitsquestforglobalworship.These“tidings”consistofaglobalgospelannouncement(Rom.10:15),asindicatedbytheheavenlydirectionsofthe“east”(Eze.46:1-3;Matt.24:27;Rev.7:1-4;16:12)andthe“north”(Psa.48:1-2;Eze.1:4-5,26-28;Isa.14:12-14).InOTtimes,CyrustheGreat(whowasa“type”ofChrist;cf.Isa.44:25;45:1)alsoconqueredancientBabylonfromthe“east”and“north”torescuetheJewishpeoplefromBabyloniancaptivity(Isa.41:2,25).Inanantitypicalsense,ChristwillsendaGospelmessagethroughHisfaithfulfollowerstoannounceHissoonreturnandwarnpeopletoavoidreceivingthemarkofthebeast,andthosewhorespondtothismessagewillexitantitypicalBabylonandberescuedfromdestructionwhenChristreturns.Thisend-timemessageconsistsoftheThreeAngels’Messages(Rev.14:6-12),whichwillbegivenbytheend-timeremnanttocallpeopleoutofantitypicalBabylon(Rev.18:1-4).Morespecifically,thethirdangel’smessagewillfunctionasaloudcrytocallpeopleintoobediencetoGod’scommandments(Rev.14:9-12),andwillpresenttheseventh-daySabbathasthesealofGod(Rev.14:7).Thesenortheastern“tidings”willmakeupthefinalsealingmessagetopreparetheend-timefaithfulforthe“timeoftrouble”andthefinal“deliverance”whenChristreturns(Dan.12:1-3).ThePapalRomanKingoftheNorthwillbe“troubled”andseekto“goforthwithgreatfurytodestroy”theend-timefaithfulwhoproclaimthislast-daysealingmessage.Thisactionwillconstitutethe“greattribulation”(Matt.24:20-21;Rev.7:10),whichisalsocalledthe“timeoftrouble”(Dan.12:1)andthe“timeofJacob’strouble”(Jer.30:5-7).Daniel11:45–TheGloriousHolyMountainDan.11:45discussesthefinalstageofend-timeactivitybythePapalRomanKingoftheNorth.Inresponsetothe“northeasterntidings”ofDan.11:44,thisantichristianpowerwillseekto“plantthetabernaclesofhispalacebetweentheseasinthegloriousholymountain.”Theword“plant”meansliterallyto“strikein,”47andsuggeststhatthepapalpowerwillseektoplantitsreligious(“tabernacles”)andpolitical(“palace”)authorityamongthenationsoftheearth(“betweentheseas,”Rev.17:15).Thisfinalattackwillespeciallyfocusonthe“GloriousHolyMountain,”which,asstatedabove,isasymbolofGod’send-timefaithful,the144,000.48ThesedetailsdescribeaglobalunionofchurchandstateattheendoftimethatwillenforcethemarkofthebeastthroughworldwideSundaylegislation.ThismovementbythePapalRomanKingoftheNorthwillspecificallytargettheend-timefaithfulwhoconscientiouslyresistthemarkofthebeast.Sometranslationsalsorenderthephrase,“betweentheseasinthegloriousholymountain”as“betweentheseasandthegloriousholymountain”(italicssupplied).BecausethePapalRomanKingoftheNorthwillbeunsuccessfulinitsattempttoforcetheend-timefaithful(theGloriousHolyMountainofthe144,000)toreceivethemarkofthebeast,thisalternaterenditionofthepassageconveystheideathatthispowerwillseektoisolatethisspecialgroupfordestruction,whichwillculminateinthebattleofArmageddon(Rev.16:12-16).Despitetheterriblepressuretoconformtothemarkofthebeast,God’send-timeremnantwillremainfaithfultoChrist,receivethesealofGod,faithfullyendurethe“timeoftrouble,”andexperienceagreatdeliveranceastheyaretranslatedtoheavenwhenChristreturns.Simultaneously,thePapalRomanKingoftheNorthwill“cometohisend,andnoneshallhelphim”whenChrist“standsup”to“deliver”thefaithful(Dan.12:1).Therefore,althoughthePapalRomanKingoftheNorthwillseektorepeatitsdark-agepersecutingactivities(asdescribedinDan.11:30-39)throughtheseaggressiveactionsagainstthefaithfulattheendoftime(perDan.11:40-45),theapocalypseofDaniel11revealstheeventualtriumphofGod’send-timefaithfulfollowersandthefinaldestructionofthePapalRomanKingoftheNorthanditsglobalconfederacy(asparalleledinRev.19:11-21).

    46Strong,“tidings”(H8052).47Strong,“plant”(H5193).48Seethecommentaryaboveregardingthe“GloriousHolyMountain”inthesectionentitled“Apocalyptic

    Prophecy–TypeandAntitype”onpages3-4.SeealsoRodriguez,18-19.Onceagain,thiswriterproposesthatthe144,000inRevelationareanalogoustothe“GloriousHolyMountain”inDan.11:45.

  • 17

    Daniel12:1-3–TheFinalDeliveranceoftheFaithfulThepassageofDan.12:1-3describestheculminationoftheend-timebattlebetweenthePapalRomanKingoftheNorthandGod’sfaithfulremnantbelievers.Oncethe“GloriousHolyMountain”ofthesefaithfulbelieversreceiveGod’sseal,theyarepreparedforthefinaltribulationperiodanddeliverancebyChrist.Dan.12:1statesthat,“atthattime,”i.e.whenthepapalpowerseekstoisolateanddestroythemembersofthisfinalremnant(Dan.11:45),“Michael”(Christ)will“standup”indefenseofthefaithfulafterceasingHisintercessoryministryinthemostholyplaceoftheheavenlysanctuarywhenhumanprobationcloses.Atthatpoint,the“timeoftrouble”willcommence,andthefaithful,whosenamesare“writteninthebook”(theBookofLife),willbe“delivered”by“Michael”(Christ)whenHereturns.Whenthisdeliveranceoccurs,therewillbearesurrectionofthedead(Dan.12:2),afterwhichthefaithfulwillreignforeternityinthekingdomofGod(Dan.12:3).ThispassagebringstheapocalypticnarrativeofDan.11:1-12:3toahopeful,inspiringconclusion.ThechartbelowprovidesasummaryofDan.11:40-12:3,theevidenceofwhichparallelstheeschatologyofthebookofRevelationinaconsistentfashion:

    SummaryoftheProposedInterpretationforDaniel11:40-12:3

    Daniel11:40-12:3 PropheticSymbolism Interpretation

    Daniel11:40TheKingoftheSouthpushesagainsttheKingoftheNorth,whorespondstothispushwithavengeance

    AtheismasmanifestedinrevolutionaryFranceremovesthepapacyfrompowerin1798,givingita“deadlywound”;thepapacyexperiencesaresurgencetopower(it’s“wound”is“healed”)

    Daniel11:41KingoftheNorthentersgloriousland;Edom,Moab,AmmonescapetheinfluenceoftheKingoftheNorth

    ThepapalpowercontrolsglobalChristianitythroughSundaylegislation(themarkofthebeast);thoseinspiritualBabylonescapethispowerandjoinGod’sfaithfulend-timeremnant

    Daniel11:42 LandofEgyptdoesnotescapethepoweroftheKingoftheNorth

    Atheismisconqueredthroughitscompliancewiththemarkofthebeast(Sundaylegislation)

    Daniel11:43

    TheKingoftheNorthgainspoweroversilver,gold,andthepreciousthingsofEgypt;theLibyansandEthiopiansalsofollowinthestepsoftheKingoftheNorth

    Thepapalpowercontrolsbuyingandsellingtoenforceitsmark;onceagain,atheismcomplieswiththemarkofthebeast;someChristianswhowereoncefaithfulalsogiveintoeconomicpressureandcomplywiththemarkofthebeast;aglobalcoalition/confederacyiscreatedtohelpthepapacyenforcethemarkofthebeast

    Daniel11:44TidingsfromtheEastandNorthtroubletheKingoftheNorth;itrespondswithfuryagainstmany

    Theloudcryofthethirdangel’smessageisgivenbyGod’send-timefaithfultosealtheremnantbelievers;thepapacyrespondswithpersecutingfuryagainstthisend-timesealingmessage

    Daniel11:45TheKingoftheNorthattacksthegloriousholymountain;theKingoftheNorthcomestoafinalend

    Thepapacyisolatesandattacksthe144,000,whohavereceivedthesealingmessage;yet,thepapacywillcometoitsfinalendandbefinallydestroyedbyChristwhenHereturns

    Daniel12:1Michael(Christ)standsupandthetimeoftroubletakesplace;God’speoplearedeliveredbyMichael

    Christstandsupforthefaithfulwhenhumanprobationcloses;Hedeliversthe144,000fromdeathwhenHereturnsthesecondtime

    Daniel12:2-3 ThedeadawakefromsleepThefaithfulshineasstarsforever

    ThereisaresurrectionofthedeadwhenChristreturns;thefaithfulwillalsoreignforeverintheeternalkingdomofGod

  • 18

    Daniel11–ThePapacy,Turkey,Egypt,andIslamAsstatedabove,therearetwogeneralgroupsofAdventistinterpretersonDaniel11.WhilethesetwogroupsgenerallyagreeontheirunderstandingofDan.11:1-35,49thereisadivergenceofinterpretationonDan.11:36-39,whichinturnleadstoadifferentunderstandingofDan.11:40-45andtheidentityoftheKingoftheNorth.IntheearlyyearsofAdventism(1847-1871),JamesWhiteandUriahSmithbothagreedthatthefinalmanifestationoftheKingoftheNorthwasthepapalpower.50Sometimebetween1866and1871,however,SmithshiftedhisviewontheKingoftheNorthtoTurkey,51whichinturninfluencedhissubsequentinterpretationofDan.11:40-45.Despitethisshift,however,WhitecontinuedtoadvocatethatthefinalpowerineachofDaniel’svisionsisRome,citingthattheidentificationofthisempireasthelastpowerinDaniel11isconsistentwiththeempiresequencesofDaniel’searliervisions.Thefollowingquotationsbelowdemonstratethispoint:

    ThefieldofDaniel’sprophecyembracesfiveuniversalkingdoms.TheseareBabylon,MediaandPersia,Grecia,Rome,andtheeternalkingdomofGod.Thegroundofthefourperishablekingdoms...iscoveredbyfourdistinctlinesofprophecy.Thesearegiveninchapterstwo,seven,eight,andeleven.TheeleventhchapterofDanielcloseswiththecloseofthefourthmonarchy...ThestudentofprophecyisthusborndownthestreamoftimefromBabyloninthehight[sic]ofthegloryofthatkingdom,pastMediaandPersia,thekingdomofGrecia,andtheRomanEmpirewhichcomestoitsendatthesecondcomingofChristandtheresurrectionofthedead,outintotheoceanofeternity,whenthetrulywise“shineasthefirmament,andtheythatturnmanytorighteousnessasthestarsforeverandever.”52LetustakeabriefviewofthelineofprophecyfourtimesspannedinthebookofDaniel.Itwillbeadmittedthatthesamegroundispassedoverinchapterstwo,seven,eight,andeleven,withthisexceptionthatBabylonisleftoutofchapterseightandeleven.Wefirstpassdowntheimageofchaptertwo,whereBabylon,Persia,Greece,andRomearerepresentedbythegold,thesilver,thebrass,andtheiron.AllagreethatthesefeetarenotTurkishbutRoman.Andaswepassdown,thelion,thebear,theleopard,andthebeastwithtenhorns,representingthesameasthegreatimage,againallwillagreethatitisnotTurkeythatiscastintotheburningflame,buttheRomanbeast.Soofchaptereight,allagreethatthelittlehornthatstoodupagainstthePrinceofprincesisnotTurkeybutRome.InallthesethreelinesthusfarRomeisthelastformofgovernmentmentioned...Nowcomesthepointintheargumentuponwhichverymuchdepends.DoestheeleventhchapteroftheprophecyofDanielcoverthegroundmeasuredbychapterstwo,seven,andeight?Ifso,thenthelastpowermentionedinthatchapterisRome.53Andthereisalineofhistoricalprophecy,wherethesymbolsarethrownoff,beginningwiththekingsofPersia,andreachingdownpastGreciatoRome,tothetimewhenthatpower“shallcometohisendandnoneshallhelphim.”IfthefeetandtoesofthemetallicimageareRoman,ifthebeastwithtenhornsthatwasgiventotheburningflameofthegreatdaybetheRomanbeast,ifthelittlehornwhichstoodupagainstthePrinceofprincesbeRome,andifthesamefieldanddistancearecoveredbythesefourpropheticchains,thenthelastpowerofthe

    49SomeinterpretersvaryonDan.11:23-29.Seefootnote23above.50UriahSmith,“ItalyandthePapacy,”Review&Herald(Jan.9,1866):45;“ThePapacy,”Review&Herald

    (Sept.11,1866):116;“WaningofthePope’sPower,”Review&Herald(April18,1865):157;“WillthePopeRemovethePapalSeattoJerusalem,”Review&Herald(May13,1862):192;JamesWhite,AWordtotheLittleFlock(Brunswick,ME:JamesWhite,1847),8-9.Inthislastsource,ElderWhiteseemedtoincludetheearthbeastofRev.13:11-12asapartofthefinalmanifestationoftheKingoftheNorthinDaniel11.

    51UriahSmith,“ThoughtsontheBookofDaniel,”Review&Herald(March21,1871):108-109;“ThoughtsontheBookofDaniel,”Review&Herald(March28,1871):116-117.

    52JamesWhite,“TheTimeoftheEnd,”SignsoftheTimes(July22,1880):330.53White,“UnfulfilledProphecy,”172.

  • 19

    eleventhchapter,whichisto“cometohisendandnoneshallhelphim”isRome.ButifthisbeTurkey,assometeach,thenthetoesoftheimageofthesecondchapterareTurkish,thebeastwithtenhornsoftheseventhchapterrepresentsTurkey,anditwasTurkeythatstoodupagainstthePrinceofprincesintheeighthchapterofDaniel.True,Turkeyisbadenoughoff;butitswaningpoweranditsendisthesubjectoftheprophecyofJohnandnotofDaniel...WhilethelinesofprophecyinthebookofDanielhavetodowithBabylon,Persia,Greece,andRome,thatofJohnpertainstothefourthonly,Rome.54ElderSmithhasgivenaveryfinetalkontheeleventhchapterofDaniel,andhisinterpretationseemsplausible,butIFthelegsofiron,andthefeetofironandclayinthesecondchapterrepresentRome,andIFthenon-descript,ten-hornedbeast,andthelittlehornoftheseventhchapterrepresentRome,andIFthelittlehornwhichwaxedexceedinggreatofthe8thchapterrepresentsRome,theKingoftheNorthrepresentsRomealso.Thesearefourparallelprophecies,brethren,reachingdowntothecomingofourLord.55

    TherearetwoassumptionsthatformthebasisfortheTurkeyviewoftheKingoftheNorth.First,thereisabeliefthattheempiresdiscussedinthepropheticnarrativeofDaniel11arestrictlyliteralintermsofbeinggeographicpowersthroughouttheentirechapter.Second,Dan.11:36-39isnotunderstoodasacontinueddiscussionofthedark-agePapalRomanKingoftheNorth,butisunderstoodtoconstituteashiftintoadiscussionofthehistoryofatheistic,revolutionaryFrance,whichsubsequentlyappliesmostofDan.11:40-45tothehistoryofNapoleonicFrancewithrespecttoitsrelationshipwithTurkeyandEgypt(vs.45isstillviewedasafutureevent).Regardingthefirstassumption,thiswriterhasproposedabovethatthepropheticnarrativeofDaniel11isnotnecessarilyliteralorgeographicthroughouttheentirevisionjustbecauseitwasdeliveredinaverbalmanner.Thetransitiontodark-agePapalRomeinDan.11:30-35demonstratesashiftfrom“type”to“antitype,”simplybecausePapalRomeisaspiritualkingdomthatisnotconfinedtoageographicregion.Moreover,itwouldnotmakesenseforthenarrativetoshiftintoaspiritual,antitypicalfocusinvs.30-35,andthenabruptlyshiftbacktoageographicfocusinvs.36-45.ItwasproposedabovethattheshifttothespiritualpowerofthePapalRomanKingoftheNorthinvs.30-31signifiesatransitioninDaniel11towhereallpropheticsymbolsdescribedingeographiclanguagefromthatpointforward(vs.30-45)aretobeunderstoodinanantitypical,global,symbolicfashion.Regardingthesecondassumption,thiswriterhasalsodemonstratedabovethatthecleartextualconnectionsinDan.11:36-37withthelittlehornpowerofDaniel7andDaniel8,aswellasEllenWhite’sspecificobservationsinManuscriptReleases,13:394,pointtoPapalRomeasthepowerdescribedinDan.11:36-39.Thispassagecontainsnoevidencesuggestingashifttoanotherpoweraltogether,butinsteadconstitutesacontinueddiscussionoftheverysamepowerdiscussedinvs.30-35.Therefore,the“king”inDan.11:36isthePapalRomanKingoftheNorthinitsmedievalphase,anddoesnotdescribeatheistic,revolutionaryFrance.ThisPapalRomanKingoftheNorthinDan.11:36isalsotheverysameKingoftheNorthdescribedinDan.11:40.Assuggestedearlier,thesetwoviewsleadtocompletelydifferentinterpretationsofDan.11:40-45.ThosewhoembracetheTurkeyviewinterpretDan.11:36-39asdescribingatheisticFrance,andunderstandvs.40toinvolveatriangularwarbetweenthreepowers,(1)the“king”ofvs.36,(2)the“KingoftheNorth”invs.40,and(3)the“KingoftheSouth”invs.40.TheseinterpretersviewDaniel11asstrictlygeographic,andthusidentifythe“king”ofvs.36asatheisticFrance,whilethe“KingoftheNorth”andthe“KingoftheSouth”ofvs.40wouldconstitutethenationsthatoccupythesamegeographicareaasdidtheformerdivisionsofAlexander’skingdom.Therefore,theseinterpretersidentifyTurkey(“north”)andEgypt(“south”)asthesetwopowers,andallegethatmostofvs.40-45appliestothehistoricalcareerofNapoleon,withapossiblefutureTurkishcapitaltransferencetoJerusalem.

    54JamesWhite,“WhereareWe?”,Review&Herald(Oct.3,1878):116.55White,quotedinWilcox,44.Inthissource,WilcoxcitesanexcerptfromatalkgivenbyElderWhitein

    responsetoasermononDaniel11preachedbyElderSmith.ThisauthorconcurredwithJamesWhitebyagreeingthatDaniel’sapocalypsescovertheverysamesequenceofworldempiresinparallelfashion.

  • 20

    PrimarilypromotedbyinfluentialAdventistpioneerinterpreterssuchasHaskell,Jones,andSmith,56thisviewofthe“EasternQuestion”dominatedAdventistthoughtuntiltheearly20thcentury.BecauseTurkey,(1)failedtotransferitscapitaltoJerusalem(asallegedlypredictedinDan.11:45)aftertheBritishcaptureofthiscityin1917,and(2)endeditsTurkish-IslamicCaliphatein1924,agrowingdissatisfactionwiththisviewdevelopedamongAdventistinterpreters.AfterAdventistthought-leadershadengagedinseveraldiscussionsonDaniel11inthe1940sand1950s,theBiblicalStudyandResearchCommittee(theforerunnertotheBiblicalResearchInstitute)publishedtheresultsofacollaborativestudyonDan.11:36-39inaMarch1954articleinTheMinistry.ThisstudyconcludedthatthispassagediscussesthepapacyandnotatheisticFrance.57FourothersignificantpointsconfirmthepapalviewoftheKingoftheNorthinDan.11:36andDan.11:40.First,GodonlydiscussesspecifickingdomsinDanieliceschatologythathavedirectlyanddecidedlyimpactedGod’scovenantpeople,whetherOTIsraelortheNTChurch.SincegeographicTurkeyandEgypthavenothadanddonotcurrentlyhaveadirectandsignificantimpactonthefaithful,itwouldnotmakesenseforthesetwonationstohaveanapocalypticroleinDaniel’svisions.Second,asinferredbyElderWhiteabove,adiscussionofTurkeyandEgyptinthisvisionwouldalsoviolatetheconsistencyofempiresequencesinDaniel’sfourapocalypses.NoneofDaniel’spriorvisions(Daniel2,7,or8-9)discussthesetwonations,sowhywouldDaniel10-12discussthem?Third,therearetwoothernorth/southconflictsinDan.11(vs.5-15and25-28),andthesetwoconflictsonlyinvolvenorthandsouth,soitwouldmakesensethatthethirdnorth/southconflictinvs.40wouldonlyinvolvethesetwopowers,andnotathirdpower.Dan.11:40discussesPapalRome’sinvolvementinadualwarbetweennorth(itself)andsouth,notatriangularwarbetweenthreepowersthatexcludesthepapacy.58Finally,Dan.11:40revealsachiasticstructurewhichdescribesthetwo-wayconflictbetweentheKingsoftheNorthandSouth.Thisstructuredemonstratesthefactthatthe“king”ofDan.11:36istheKingoftheNorthinDan.11:40.Thechartbelowexpressesthischiasticstructureintermsofadualwarbetweennorthandsouthinvs.40.ThephenomenonofmodernIslamhasalsoledsomeAdventistinterpreterstoproposethatIslamistheKingoftheSouthinbothDan.11:23-29andDan.11:40,59aconclusionwhichseemstobelargelybasedupongeographyandignorestherelationshipbetween“type”and“antitype”inapocalypticprophecy.WhereassomeinterpretersseeDan.11:23-29asdepictingthemedievalCrusades,thiswriterproposesthattherearetwoproblemswiththisinterpretation.First,itisquestionablethatthehistoricaldetailsoftheCrusadesfitthetextualdataofvs.23-29.Second,bringingthepapacyintothepropheticnarrativebyvs.23doesnotfitthesequentialarrangementofthechapterinahistoricalsense.ThereisnocleartransferencetothemedievalpapalpoweruntilDan.11:30-31,whichisaparallelpassagewithDan.8:9-14throughitsdiscussionoftheterms“daily”andthe“abominationofdesolation,”whichdescribethecharacterandactivitiesofthemedievalpapacy.

    56Haskell,240-245;AlonzoT.Jones,“TheEasternQuestion,”BibleEcho(June8,1896):171;Smith,Daniel

    andRevelation,280-293;SeealsoAnderson,159-160;Wieland,161-162.57Seefootnote31aboveonpage11.58Rodriguez,4(seethecommentsinfootnote5ofthissource).59ForanexcellentcritiqueoftheIslamview,seeRodriguez,30-31.Rodriguezpresentsacompelling

    argumentforatheisminDan.11:40,anddiscusseshowseeingthemedievalcrusadesinvs.23-29leadstoanIslamicKingoftheSouthviewinvs.40.Asstatedabove,vs.23-29describeeventsinImperialRomanhistory.

    ChiasticStructureoftheDualWarbetweentheKingoftheNorthandtheKingoftheSouthinDaniel11:40

    Daniel11:40a Daniel11:40b

    A–TheKingoftheSouth A’–“Him”

    B–ShallPush B’–ShallComeAgainst

    C–“Him” C’–TheKingoftheNorth

  • 21

    ModernIslamalsodoesnotfitthetextualdataofDan.11:40.NoIslamicpower“pushed”againstthePapalRomanKingoftheNorthintheyear1798(“atthetimeoftheend”)todealthispowera“deadlywound.”ThiswriterhasproposedthatantitypicalEgyptbestrepresentsatheism,aviewthat,onceagain,harmonizeswiththeAdventistunderstandingofRev.11:7-8.60ToconcludethatIslamistheKingoftheSouthinDan.11:40istodependsolelyupongeography(andthususesliteral,nationalIsraelasavantagepoint),asmodernEgyptisIslamicinspiritualorientation,whichviolatestherelationshipbetween“type”and“antitype.”SincethePapalRomanKingoftheNorthentersthepropheticnarrativeinDan.11:30asaspiritual,symbolickingdominanantitypicalsense,andremainsassuchfortherestofthechapter,itwouldbeconsistenttoalsoidentifytheKingoftheSouthasasymbolic,antitypicalkingdom.Thepapacyisclearlyaspiritualkingdomthatisnotconfinedtogeography,andthusitwouldseemreasonablethattheKingoftheSouthshouldnotbeconfinedtogeographyeither.ItissimplynotconsistenttointerprettheKingoftheNorthasthepapacyinanon-geographicsense(aninterpretationwhichdoesnotusenationalIsraelasavantagepoint),andyetinterprettheKingoftheSouthasIslaminageographicsense.GiventhatOTEgyptrevealedadispositionthatdeniedGod’sprerogatives,thesymbolickingdomofatheismbestfitstheantitypicalunderstandingofEgypt,becausethismodernideologypracticesthisverysamedisposition.Thedirectionsofthe“north”and“south”providefurtherinsightintotheidentificationofthe“south”asrelatingtoatheisticideology.Thedirectionofthe“north”issymbolicofwhereGoddwells(Eze.1:26-28;Psa.48:2).Usingthecompassasananalogy,the“north”isthehighestdirectionandposition,which,inaspiritualsense,iswhereChristrightlydeservestodwell,giventhatHedeservesthehighestposition.AnypowerorpersonwhoseekstositinHispositionandassumeHisprerogativesisacounterfeitKingoftheNorth.SatanisthefirstcounterfeitKingoftheNorthinScripture(Isa.14:12-14),andanyhistoricalempirethathasattemptedtoconquerandcontrolGod’speople(thusassumingGod’sprerogatives)isacounterfeitKingoftheNorth.AswesurveythevariousKingsoftheNorthinDaniel11–Seleucid-AntiocheanSyria(vs.5-15),ImperialRome(vs.16-30a),andPapalRome(vs.30b-45)–historyrevealsthateachmanifestationofthissymbolhassoughttoconquerandcontrolGod’scovenantpeople,andthuscanbeidentifiedasacounterfeitKingoftheNorth.Giventhiscompassanalogyregardingthedirectionofthe“north,”the“south”istheoppositeofthe“north.”Spirituallyspeaking,therefore,ifthe“north”issymbolicofthehighestpositionwhereGodisexaltedanddeservestodwell,itislogicaltoconcludethatthe“south”wouldbetheoppositeofthisconcept,namelywhereGodisdeniedaltogetherandfindsnodwellingplace.Usingthislineofreasoning,atheismseemstofitthisanalogy,whileIslamdoesnotqualifyasanideologythatdeniestheexistenceandprerogativesofGod.Overall,atheismastheantitypicalKingoftheSouthinDan.11:40harmonizeswiththeAdventistunderstandingofthe1260-yearpapalrule(AD538-1798),thedeadlywoundintheyear1798byatheisticFrance,andthepropheticdescriptionofthisatheisticpowerinRev.11:7-8.AnyattempttoputIslamintothenarrativeofDaniel11seemstobebaseduponsensationalism.Evenso,thiswriterproposesthatmodernIslamhasanindirectroleinend-timeevents.EllenWhiteobservedthattheOttoman-IslamicattacksonEasternandWesternEuropeinthe16thcenturykeptthepapalpowerdistractedsothattheProtestantReformationcouldexpandintowidercirclesofinfluence.61ModernIslamcanhaveasimilarpurposeintheselastdaysbyservingasadistractionforthemodernpapacywhileGod’send-timeremnantcontinuestoproclaimthethirdangel’smessageonaglobalscale.Daniel11–FinalThoughtsThispaperconstitutesanattemptbythewriterto,(1)presentsomeimportanthermeneuticalprinciplesthatshouldbeconsideredbytheDaniel11interpreterwhenstudyingthisdifficultchapter,and(2)presentaviableinterpretationforthisapocalypsethatisbasedupontheconsistentapplicationoftheseprinciples.TheDaniel11interpretershouldalsokeepinmindthatnumerousinterpretationsonthisapocalypsehavebeenproposedbyAdventistinterpretersthroughtheyearssincethemid-19thcentury,andshouldrealizethatnointerpretationisinfallibleorcompletelywithoutdifficulty.

    60White,GreatControversy,269.61Ibid,197.

  • 22

    Thisrealizationisveryimportant,especiallygiventhetersephraseologyofDaniel11.Thisterseness,givenwithinthecontextofanextensiveuseofpersonalpronouns,createsalegitimatechallengewhenconsideringpotentialhistoricaleventsthatmightberepresentedinanygiventext.Asidefromahandfulofcleartextualmarkersinthechapterthatpointtospecifichistoricalempires,therearealsoamultitudeofobscurepassagesthatareexpressedinageneralfashion,whichmightsuggestthattherecouldbemultiplehistoricaleventsthatcouldpotentiallyalignwiththetextualdetailsofthesepassages.Theinterpretermustultimatelyask,howcanoneknowforsurethatthesuggestedhistoricaleventassignedtoanygivenpassage,peritstextualdetails,isactuallywhatGodintendedthattexttodescribe?ThisdifficultyposesalegitimateandsignificantchallengefortheDaniel11interpreter.Therefore,whenproposingpotentialinterpretations,theDaniel11interpretershouldbecarefultoavoidinterpretivedogmatismwithrespecttothisapocalypse,especiallywhenconsideringthecontroversialpassageofDan.11:40-45.Giventhatthisparticularpassagelargelydiscussesfutureevents(atleastfromtheperspectiveofthiswriter),thewisecounselofJamesWhiteregardingunfulfilledprophecyseemsparticularlyprudent:

    FulfilledprophecymaybeunderstoodbytheBiblestudent.Prophecyishistoryinadvance.Hecancomparehistorywithprophecyandfindacompletefitastheglovetothehand,ithavingbeenmadeforit.Butinexpositionofunfulfilledprophecy,wherethehistoryisnotwritten,thestudentshouldputforthhispropositionswithnottoomuchpositiveness,lesthefindhimselfstrayinginthefieldoffancy.62

    Despitethespecificchallengesofinterpretivediversity,thetersewordingofchapter11,andpotentialspeculationsregardingunfulfilledprophecy,thiswriterbelievesthattheHolySpiritwillblessanearnestcollaborationamongDaniel11interpretersintheirquesttoweighoutdifferinginterpretationsandcontemplateproperhermeneuticalprinciplesthatshouldbeappliedinthestudyofthischapter.ThiswritersuggeststhatDaniel11interpretersshouldcontinuetoengageinregulardiscussionsaboutthisapocalypse,withthehopeofeventuallydiscoveringaviableinterpretationofDaniel10-12baseduponsoundhermeneuticalprinciples.Inconfirmation,Leathermanexhortschurchleaderstostudy,pray,andcollaborateregardingDaniel11inthefollowingquotationbelow:

    Icannotpretendtohaveacomprehensive,cogent,andconsistentinterpretationofthelastapocalypseofthebookofDaniel.Ionlyurgethatsuchaninterpretationbesought.Bycollaboration,bydiligentstudyandsincereprayer,wehopetoeventuallyfindsuchaninterpretation.AnditistothistaskthatIwouldexhorttheministryandacademiciansoftheSeventh-dayAdventistChurch.63

    Daniel11–SummaryofHermeneuticalConsiderationsGiventhedatapresentedinthispaper,thiswriterrecommendsthefollowingeight(8)hermeneuticalprinciplesthatshouldberecognizedandappliedinthestudyofDaniel11:

    1. Avoidinterpretivedogmatism.TheDaniel11interpretershouldavoidbeingdogmaticaboutanygiveninterpretationandnotclaiminfallibilityconcerninghisorherpersonalpositiononthisapocalypse,asnoproposedinterpretationiscompletelywithoutdifficulties.

    2. RecognizethestructuralconsistencyrevealedinDaniel’sfourapocalypses.TheDaniel11interpreter

    shouldrecognizethestructuralconsistencyofDaniel’sfourapocalypticvisionsintermsoftheirvision/explanationformat.Moreover,timepropheciesfoundwithinDaniel’sapocalypsesarealsoregularlylocatedwithintheexplanationsectionsofthesevisions,andconsistentlyapplytheDay/YearPrinciple.Dan.10:1-12:4constitutesavision,whileDan.12:5-13servesasitsexplanation.

    62White,“UnfulfilledProphecy,”172.63DonnW.Leatherman,“AdventistInterpretationofDaniel10-12:ADiagnosisandPrescription,”Journal

    oftheAdventistTheologicalSociety,7/1(Spring1996):137-138.

  • 23

    3. RecognizetheconsistenthistoricalempiresequencesrevealedinDaniel’spriorapocalypsesasaninterpretiveframeworkforDaniel10-12.TheDaniel11interpretershouldrememberthatDaniel2,Daniel7,andDaniel8-9revealaparallelsequentialconsistencyintermsoftheirdiscussionoftheprincipalhistoricalempiresofDanieliceschatology,andshouldexpectthatDaniel10-12willrevealtheverysameconsistency.EachempiresequencebeginswithDaniel’scontemporaryempireandextendstoChrist’sreturn.Theprincipleof“repeatandenlarge”isalsoclearlyrevealedaseachapocalypseisgiven.However,therepetitionandenlargementofeachapocalypsebuildsontheestablishedhistoricalempiresequencefromeachoftheearliervisions,anddoesnotdeviatefromthissequence.

    4. RecognizethatthehistoricalempiresequencesinDaniel’sfourapocalypsesconsistonlyofthose

    principalkingdomsinhistorythathavedirectlyandsignificantlyimpactedGod’scovenantpeople.TheDaniel11interpretershouldunderstandthatGodonlydiscussesprincipalhistoricalempiresinprophecythathaveadirectandsignificantimpactinthehistoryofHiscovenantpeople.TheseempiresincludeBabylon,Medo-Persia,Greece,ImperialRome,andPapalRome.Theinterpretershouldexpect,therefore,tofindadiscussionofthesesameprincipalkingdomsinDaniel10-12,startingwiththeMedo-PersianEmpire,whichwasDaniel’scontemporarykingdom(seeAppendixbelow).

    5. ExercisecautionwhenattachinghistoricaleventstothepersonalpronounsinDaniel11.Giventhat

    thereisaprolificuseofpersonalpronounsinthischapter(“he”and“him”),theDaniel11interpretershouldexercisegreatcareinseekingtoidentifyhistoricalinterpretationsforthesepronouns,astheyoftendiscusstheactivitiesofempiresandspecificrulerswithintheseempiressimultaneously.Inthequesttoidentifyspecifichistoricalfulfillmentsofvarioustexts,theDaniel11interpretershouldfocusonwell-establishedhistoricalevents.Giventhetersewordingofthisapocalypse,theinterpretershouldalsostrivetoavoidsensationalistinterpretations.

    6. RecognizethatthenarrativedeliveryofDaniel11doesnotsuggestorrequiregeographicliteralism

    throughouttheentirechapter.TheDaniel11interpretershouldrealizethatthisfinalapocalypsewasdeliveredtoDanielinanarrativefashion.However,theinterpretershouldrealizethatthisdeliverystyledoesnotnecessarilymeanthatitspropheticsymbolsareonlytobestrictlyunderstoodinageographicfashionthroughoutthedurationoftheentirevision.

    7. Recognizetherelationshipbetween“type”and“antitype”inapocalypticprophecy.Pertheexamplesof

    “Israel,”the“temple,”and“Babylon,”theDaniel11interpretermustrespecttherelationshipbetween“type”and“antitype”inapocalypticprophecy,especiallywhenaddressingtheheavily-debatedpassageofDan.11:40-45.Because(a)vs.30-31revealsacleartransitionintoaglobal,spiritualkingdom(PapalRome),and(b)moregeneraldetailsabouthistoricalempiresarerevealedfromthispointforward(vs.30-45)incontrastwiththeactionsofspeci


Recommended
Berrien County Sportsman’s Club, Inc. Newsletter...2016/07/04  · Berrien County Sportsman’s Club, Inc. Newsletter 2985 Linco Road, Berrien Springs, MI 49103 Volume 21 Issue 7

Berrien County Sportsman’s Club, Inc. Newsletter...2016/07/04  · Berrien County Sportsman’s Club, Inc. Newsletter 2985 Linco Road, Berrien Springs, MI 49103 Volume 21 Issue 7

Documents

Minor Guardianship PDF - Berrien County

Minor Guardianship PDF - Berrien County

Documents

Hans k. Larondelle - o Israel d

Hans k. Larondelle - o Israel d

Documents

2021 Interoffice Directory - Berrien County

2021 Interoffice Directory - Berrien County

Documents

Berrien County Historical Association

Berrien County Historical Association

Documents

CONTACT US - Berrien RESA

CONTACT US - Berrien RESA

Documents

REPO · Support 2017-18 School Year 23200 7001718016 BERRIEN RESA Berrien RESA Payroll Services 07/26/2017 1,768.16 Totals for BERRIEN RESA 5,729.69 23201 1501718008 CDW GOVERNMENT,

REPO · Support 2017-18 School Year 23200 7001718016 BERRIEN RESA Berrien RESA Payroll Services 07/26/2017 1,768.16 Totals for BERRIEN RESA 5,729.69 23201 1501718008 CDW GOVERNMENT,

Documents

Occupational Therapy Guidelines - Berrien RESA

Occupational Therapy Guidelines - Berrien RESA

Documents

BERRIEN COUNTY

BERRIEN COUNTY

Documents

Theological Differences on Hermeneutical Key · Web viewTheological Differences: Our Hermeneutical Key የክርስትናና የእስልምና የነገረ-መለኮት ልዩነት

Theological Differences on Hermeneutical Key · Web viewTheological Differences: Our Hermeneutical Key የክርስትናና የእስልምና የነገረ-መለኮት ልዩነት

Documents

THE BIBLICAL CONCEPT OF ARMAGEDDON Hans K. LaRondelle

THE BIBLICAL CONCEPT OF ARMAGEDDON Hans K. LaRondelle

Documents

Berrien RESA’s Blossomland Learning Center

Berrien RESA’s Blossomland Learning Center

Documents

The Universality of Hermeneutical Problem

The Universality of Hermeneutical Problem

Documents

Music in Berrien County

Music in Berrien County

Education

Annual Report 2007 - Berrien County

Annual Report 2007 - Berrien County

Documents

Hermeneutical Understanding

Hermeneutical Understanding

Documents

SLD Procedural Guidelines - Berrien RESA

SLD Procedural Guidelines - Berrien RESA

Documents

Gender Passages in the NT: Hermeneutical Fallacies ... · Andreas J.Köstenberger, “Gender Passages in the NT: Hermeneutical Fallacies Critiqued,” Westminster Theological Journal,

Gender Passages in the NT: Hermeneutical Fallacies ... · Andreas J.Köstenberger, “Gender Passages in the NT: Hermeneutical Fallacies Critiqued,” Westminster Theological Journal,

Documents