Answering Objections to the Literal View of Daniel 11:40-45

When I first read Uriah Smith's explanation of the last part of Daniel 11, I thought it was weird. Why would the Bible be talking about Turkey? I liked Smith's comments about most of Daniel and Revelation. But here, I felt, he got off on the wrong track somewhere. I just couldn't see what Turkey had to do with anything.

And that is how most people I've talked with see it as well.

Since then I have been able to study the subject thoroughly from all sides. And guess what? After carefully evaluating each of the other major approaches to Daniel 11, the view that makes the most sense to me now is Uriah Smith's explanation.

I think most people are like I was. The main reason they discount the pioneer view is because they haven't openly and objectively considered all the evidence.

In previous posts I have shared a lot about Daniel 11 and explained how the literal view of the chapter fits the historical record perfectly. In this post I am directing you to the paper I have prepared for this year's Daniel 11 conference in Berrien Springs, Michigan. In it I answer seven common objections to the pioneer view. You'll find the paper posted at http://www.Daniel11prophecy.com under the 2021 Conference Papers.

Nations Are Angry

Bible prophecy foretold conflicts among the nations leading up to the second coming of Christ. Here is a chart placing some of those conflicts in relation to other prophetic events in Daniel and Revelation.

"Thy People" and the Remnant of Israel

Gabriel’s reference to “thy people” throughout the book of Daniel consistently applies to the posterity of Jacob. The expression in Daniel 12:1 does not refer to some other group. Christianity does not replace Israel in God’s plan; it renews and strengthens it.

To understand this better, read the article, "The Restoration of Israel".

Daniel 11 Resources

In preparation for the Daniel 11 Prophecy Conference I want to make it easy for you to find all my material on Daniel 11. Just click here to be directed to my August 24, 2015 post where I maintain an up-to-date index of everything on this site related to Daniel 11.

Daniel 11:16

"But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed."

Most non-Adventist commentaries consider Daniel 11:16 to be a continuation of the narrative in verse 15, referring to Antiochus III the Great, who militarily wrested Palestine from Egyptian control. Adventists, on the other hand, have traditionally viewed verse 16 as the grand entrance of Rome into the prophecy by its defeat of the Seleucid kingdom. The expression "he that cometh" is applied to Rome, and the "him" against whom he comes is the Seleucid king.

Counter to the mainstream Adventist interpretation, Dr. Roy Gane of Andrews University has pointed out several reasons for delaying Rome's introduction until verse 20. His work is cited in my last post, where I provided fourteen reasons in favor of Dr. Gane's application of verses 17-22.

In today's post, however, I will argue in favor of considering verse 16 to be a parenthetical preview describing Rome.

It largely boils down to the correct identity of the first instance of the word "him" in the verse. As usual, the masculine singular personal pronoun is here indicated by a pronominal suffix attached to the Hebrew word for "against." This must necessarily refer back to a masculine singular antecedent. Several of the nouns in verse 15 are either feminine or plural, or both, eliminating them as grammatical candidates. Only through some sort of literary personification of the "south" in verse 15 is it possible to produce an antecedent that would allow one to apply the "him" to Egypt, which is necessary in order for "he that cometh" to be Antiochus.

But an easier antecedent for the "him" is the word "king" in verse 15, which doesn't require us to jump through any literary hoops, for one would naturally assign to a king the masculine singular personal pronoun "him." This natural reading of the text favors the king of the North as the one being attacked in verse 16, rather than being the attacker.

Those who feel that verse 16 describes Antiochus' conquests, on the other hand, would point out two considerations: (1) the lack of any clear textual break in the narrative after verse 15 that would allow us to transition to a new power, and (2) the literary parallels between verses 15 and 16, which would lead one to connect the two verses together in the narrative. Those parallels are significant:

It is clear, therefore, that verse 16 must be tied in some way to verse 15. Considering all the factors involved, I would like to suggest that the relationship of verse 16 to verse 15 is a relationship of comparison rather than of continuation. All that Antiochus the Great accomplished in verse 15 would be exceeded immensely by the power that comes against him. Verse 15 boasts that when Antiochus comes, "the arms of the south shall not withstand." But verse 16 presents the comparison, declaring that "none [nobody at all] shall stand before" the power that comes against Antiochus.

Perhaps the best explanation for the lack of a major break or transition in the text after verse 15 is that Antiochus' story, in fact, does not end here; it only experiences a momentary interruption for a brief parenthetical comment for perspective. Yes, Antiochus did capture Judea. But he that cometh against him would do according to his own will, and none would stand before him. This new invader would also stand in the glorious land, which by his hand would indeed be consumed. This brief preview introduces Rome, a new power, into the prophecy, which would ultimately annihilate Jerusalem.

While the merits of assigning verses 17-19 to Antiochus, chronicling the specific details of his downfall, are well substantiated, several factors support recognizing verse 16 as a snapshot preview of Rome's imminent takeover:

1. The phrase, "shall do according to his own will," indicates that this power is not bound by any existing circumstances. The expression may appropriately be applied to the development of a new power on the prophetic stage, as William Shea has pointed out. Daniel: A Reader's Guide (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2005), 246. Applied to the great empire builders Cyrus (Daniel 8:4) and Alexander the Great (Daniel 11:3), the phrase just doesn't seem to fit a struggling Seleucid who is about to surrender the prophetic spotlight over to another empire that is truly worthy of the expression.

2. It is certainly not true that "none shall stand before" Antiochus III. For when he came into confrontation with Rome, Antiochus could not stand.

3. As a result of conquering Palestine, Antiochus III did stand in the glorious land. But that is about as far as we can apply the verse to him. The word "consumed," meaning complete destruction or annihilation, is too strong of a word to describe Antiochus' relation to the glorious land. He was actually fairly gracious to the Jews.

4. If nearly one fourth of the entire chapter, ten verses (verses 10-19) out of forty-five, involve the career of Antiochus III, that would assign to a single individual a stature without equal in Daniel 11 or elsewhere. Even Alexander the Great, the only prominent individual in Chapter 8, gets only two verses in Chapter 11. Ascribing the superlative declarations of verse 16 to Antiochus III places far too much relative emphasis on this insufficiently worthy individual.

For these reasons, Rome fits the description of verse 16 much better.

But how it happened that this newly emerging empire in the West could end up stealing the prophetic spotlight from the successors of Alexander is a story that must be told. It was the activities of Antiochus III that lured the armies of Rome for the first time into Asia. Daniel 11:17-19 tells us all about it.

After noting Antiochus' determination to expand his kingdom, verse 17 discusses the treaty he made with Ptolemy V of Egypt, pledging to him his daughter, Cleopatra I. After this, moving to reclaim the Thracian territory that his ancestor Seleucus I Nicator had conquered from Lysimachus, Antiochus turned "his face unto the isles" (verse 18), and crossed over into Europe. This alarmed the Romans, who in 191 BC declared war against him. Defeated at Thermopylae, Antiochus retreated to Ephesus. The Romans pursued, and the decisive battle was fought at Magnesia in 190 BC. The Seleucid army was vanquished. The result was that Antiochus had to surrender all of Asia west of the Taurus mountains, all of his war elephants, all but twelve warships, and agree to pay 15,000 talents, which involved an annual tribute, to Rome. Thus came to an inglorious end the great Seleucid Empire. In 187 BC Antiochus was murdered in his own homeland (verse 19) for robbing a temple to make his payment to Rome. He was the last Greek king of the North to appear in the prophecy.

It is important to note that the rulers of Rome, which occupy the next ten verses (20-29), are never referred to as kings of the North. That's because their capital was in the West. From Rome they would control both the North and the South, but their identity was not to be found in either. They were of Rome, the stronghold from which they forecasted their devices (verse 24) lying beyond the dominions of Alexander's Diadochi. Rome was not the king of the North, but "he that cometh against him" (verse 16). Not until the Time of the End would the chapter's focus return to the East.

For an interesting account of the history of verses 17-19, see A. T. Jones, The Great Empires of Prophecy, Chapter 19, paragraphs 30-44.

Testing Daniel 11:16-22

A little over a year ago I was introduced to Dr. Roy Gane's contribution to the study of Daniel 11:16-22. Since then, I have carefully compared his views with the traditional Adventist application of those verses. In this post I will share my analysis of it. For Dr. Gane's actual presentations, see:

• "The Un-Manifestation of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel 11:1-22," Roy E. Gane, presented at the Adventist Theological Society symposium on eschatology in 2007.
• "Methodology for Interpretation of Daniel 11:2 - 12:3," Roy E. Gane, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 27/1-2: (2016): 294-343.
• Andrews Study Bible notes on Daniel 11:16-19.

The guiding principle that has most influenced my analysis of these verses is William Miller's 4th rule of prophetic interpretation:

"To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let every word have its proper influence, and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in an error." Joshua V. Himes, Views of the Prophecies and Prophetic Chronology Selected From Manuscripts of William Miller With a Memoir of His Life (Boston: Joshua V. Himes, 1841), 20.

The part about "forming your theory without a contradiction," is what has most influenced my testing of Daniel 11:16-22. I have concluded that verse 16 must describe the introduction of Rome to the prophecy, as we have traditionally held. But for verses 17-22, I find Dr. Gane's application to be better. In my next post, I will make the case for the introduction of Rome in verse 16 as we have traditionally done. But the compelling reasons for applying verses 17-19 to Antiochus III, as Dr. Gane does, rather than to Julius Caesar, as we have traditionally done, are summarized here.

1. Not readily apparent in the KJV, verse 16 in the Hebrew is grammatically connected with verse 15. In the phrase “he that cometh against him” (verse 16), the “him” best refers to someone mentioned in the previous verse. Verse 15 describes Antiochus III about the year 200 BC, who would a decade later be defeated by Rome. Because of the connection between these two verses, it makes more sense for verse 16 to refer to Rome’s victory over Antiochus III at Magnesia, than it does to apply it to Rome's physical invasion of Syria 126 years later by Pompey. The real loss of Seleucid power occurred in 190 BC, not in 64 BC.
2. In verse 17, Julius Caesar did not “set his face” to enter by force the whole kingdom as Uriah Smith suggests. When Caesar went to Egypt, his intended purpose was to negotiate with Pompey and end the civil war between them. It was not for the purpose of taking over Egypt.
3. Smith explains how certain Jews were an aid to Caesar at this time, which is a good explanation of “upright ones with him” in verse 17. However, Antiochus III also had the Jews on his side in the alternative application of this verse.
4. “He shall give him” in verse 17 is problematic in Uriah Smith’s interpretation. From what I can tell, nobody gave Cleopatra to anybody.
5. “But she shall not stand on his side.” To be consistent, the context here should be Julius Caesar. But Cleopatra didn’t ever betray Caesar. So Smith explains it as Cleopatra later siding against Octavian, which is a little out of place in context.
6. Verse 18 starts out by saying, “After this.” In other words, after the last thing mentioned, which was Cleopatra not standing on Octavian’s side. But the interpretation given for the first part of this verse in Smith’s book is Caesar defeating Pharnaces of Pontus. This was not “after” Cleopatra sided against Octavian. So there is a problem there.
7. Smith offers no historical application of the last half of verse 18. But the alternative explanation offers a very good historical application.
8. Verse 19 says, “Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land.” So all of verse 18 needs to have happened before he turns his face toward the fort of his own land. This rules out any application of the last part of verse 18 to anything that happened in Rome in connection with Caesar’s assassination. This leaves the last part of verse 18 without any historical fulfillment.
9. In verse 19 Caesar did stumble and fall in the fort of his own land, so this part matches him. But it also matches Antiochus III in the alternate view.
10. Augustus was “a raiser of taxes” (verse 20). The only problem here is that that seems to be a KJV wording that, while acceptable, is not the best translation of the Hebrew. The marginal reading shows the Hebrew meaning, which, while including the raising of taxes, is broader than that.
11. “In the glory of the kingdom” does fit the times of Augustus. But a literal translation of this verse says, “Then one will emerge in his stead who will cause a tribute-exacter of royal splendor to pass through.” So the glory or splendor does not necessarily refer to the times. It probably refers to the exacter himself.
12. Augustus did not die “within few days.” This is a major problem with this interpretation. He actually reigned as emperor 40 years, 7 months, and three days. No other emperor in Rome ever ruled that long.
13. “He shall be destroyed.” Augustus died of natural causes. He was not destroyed.
14. In verse 21, the phrase, “to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom” does not fit Tiberius at all. When Augustus died, there was no question but that Tiberius was the next emperor. There was actually no opposition at all to his assuming the position.

In contrast to this, there are no contradictions to be found in the application of verses 17-22 as Dr. Gane has proposed. It just fits.

Side-by-Side Comparison of the Two Views

Who is the King of the South?

I have been invited to speak at the Daniel 11 Prophecy Conference to be held October 19-20, 2018 at the Village SDA Church in Berrien Springs, Michigan. Event information is at http://www.daniel11prophecy.com.

The stated purpose of this conference is "to provide a forum for the public hearing of the leading King of the South (KOS) interpretations of Daniel 11:40ff; to stimulate further study among church members on eschatological prophecy; and to raise awareness among church members of where we are in the broad flow of salvation history."

While the focus of this conference is on the King of the South, that is just a convenient way of categorizing the views to be presented. Each speaker will present his position in the context of the broader interpretation of Daniel 11 as a whole.

I will be speaking on Sabbath afternoon. The paper I will be presenting is entitled, "Identifying the King of the South Through a Natural Reading of Daniel 11." The full paper is posted under "Conference Papers" on the event website and is available now to read. Click here to view and download.

Daniel 11

Interest in Daniel 11 is growing. This includes a desire to understand the last six verses of the chapter. New views have emerged in recent times and Bible students are divided in their interpretations. Having been a part of this discussion for the past few years, and being familiar with the arguments on each side, I have come to the conclusion that the Seventh-day Adventist church was led by God in its early days to a correct understanding of this important prophetic chapter.

Here are some resources that relate to this subject:

Who is the King of the South? (Official 2018 Daniel 11 Prophecy Conference Paper)

Objections Answered (Official 2021 Daniel 11 Prophecy Conference Paper)

Daniel 11:16 (Who is "He that cometh against him?")

Testing Daniel 11:16-22 (Rethinking verses 17-21)

The Time of the End (March 2016 presentation that explains Daniel 11:40-45 and more)

The Eastern Question (Is it something ministers should preach about?)

A Revitalized Prophecy (July 2015 campmeeting presentation with slides; 50 minutes)

The Kings of the North and South

The West in Daniel 11

"Thy People" and the Remnant of Israel (Presented at the 2019 Las Vegas symposium)

Of Those Who Reinterpret the Prophecies

Daniel's Climaxes (Comparing the destinations reached in Daniel's four lines of prophecy)

Daniel 11:45 and the Middle East Crisis (My first attempt presenting the classical view)

Daniel and Revelation Bound Together (A sharing book explaining the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation)

Daniel: History's Empires Foretold (Prophecy Resource Folders for Daniel, arranged by empire or time period)

The Eastern Question

Ellen White's references to the Eastern Question are significant because of statements such as:

"Our people need to be silent upon questions which have no relation to the third angel's message." (2SM 336)

Ellen White could not endorse the presentation by our ministers of any topic that had no relation to the third angel's message.

"Let us confine our public efforts to the presentation of the important lines of truth on which we are united, and on which we have clear light." (1SM 167)

So, her endorsement of a public presentation by our ministers implies (1) that it is an important line of truth, (2) that it is a subject on which the church was united, and (3) that it is a subject on which we have clear light. If a presentation did not meet those criteria, the minister had no business talking about it. The subject should not be discussed in our meetings.

"Matters of vital importance have been plainly revealed in the Word of God. These subjects are worthy of our deepest thought. But we are not to search into matters on which God has been silent." (1SM 173)

If the Eastern Question can be found in the Word of God, it is worthy of our deepest thought. But if not, we certainly should not be preaching about it.

The Eastern Question was the diplomatic problem posed by the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Adventist ministers tied the fulfillment of Daniel 11:45 to the ultimate outcome of that question. If Daniel 11:45 has nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire or its aftermath, our ministers were preaching about something on which God is silent.

But notice the comments of the Lord's messenger endorsing the public presentations on this subject. The sermons were "of special interest." In presenting this subject, Uriah Smith was "fully and thoroughly united with us." What he was presenting was described by Ellen White as "these great events in the near future." And the message was classed as "the truth."

September 6, 1877
“Sunday morning the weather was still cloudy, but before it was time for the people to assemble the sun shone forth. Boats and trains poured their living freight upon the ground, as was the case last year. Elder Smith spoke in the morning upon the Eastern question. The subject was of special interest, and the people listened with the most earnest attention. It seemed to be just what they wanted to hear.” (RH 9-6-1877)

August 24, 1884
“Elder Smith spoke on the Sabbath question to a large congregation this morning, and this evening he speaks on the Eastern question. I feel so grateful that Brother Smith is not lost to the cause. He seems fully and thoroughly united with us; seems like Brother Smith of old. Oh, thank the Lord! Praise His Holy Name, that His love, His wondrous love has been exercised toward the children of men. It is so dark, I must stop. Will write you tomorrow.” (Lt55-1884 par. 6)

August 25, 1884
“Aug. 25, 11:00 a.m. The first two pages were written Sunday after I had spoken to the crowd. The evening meeting was largely attended. Elder Smith spoke with great clearness, and many listened with open eyes, ears, and mouths. The outsiders seemed to be intensely interested in the Eastern question. He closed with a very solemn address to those who had not been preparing for these great events in the near future.” (Lt55-1884 par. 7)

December 25, 1898
“Elder Daniells speaks this evening upon the Eastern Question. May the Lord give His Holy Spirit to inspire the hearts to make the truth plain.” (Ms189-1898 par. 9)

Daniel's Climaxes

Here are the details and dates for the end of each line of prophecy in the book of Daniel.

The Kings of the North and South

Note:
Since writing this post, I have been able to learn more about the transition to Rome in Daniel 11. The relevant impact of that information shows up in two of my more recent posts:
Daniel 11:16 (September 17, 2018)
Testing Daniel 11:16-22 (August 30, 2018).
For the entire chapter laid out with the pronouns identified, you may be interested in the book, Daniel and Revelation Bound Together, available at BibleProphecyCentral.com.

---

Daniel 11 is not so much about kingdoms as it is the story of individual rulers and their exploits. No other chapter gives so much detail on such a large span of history. And it was all foretold long before it ever happened!

Here I have posted the part of Daniel 11 that presents the kings of the north and south. I have supplied the names of the individuals most likely referred to, either replacing the pronouns with a name, or inserting a name in brackets. To establish the setting, I begin with verse 1, although the kings of the north and south don't appear until verse 5.

1     Also I [Gabriel] in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.

 2    And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings [Cambyses II, Smerdis, Darius I] in Persia; and the fourth [Xerxes] shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.

 3    And a mighty king [Alexander the Great] shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.

 4    And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.

 5    And the king of the south [Ptolemy I Soter] shall be strong, and one of Alexander’s princes [Seleucus I Nicator]; and Seleucus I Nicator shall be strong above Ptolemy I Soter, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.

 6    And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king's [Ptolemy II Philadelphus] daughter [Berenice] of the south shall come to the king of the north [Antiochus II Theos] to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times.

 7    But out of a branch of her roots shall one [Ptolemy III Euergetes] stand up in his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north [Seleucus II Callinicus], and shall deal against them, and shall prevail:

 8    And shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and Ptolemy III Euergetes shall continue more years than the king of the north [Seleucus II Callinicus].

 9    Also the king of the north [Seleucus II Callinicus] shall come to the kingdom of the king of the south [Ptolemy III Euergetes], but shall return to his own land.

 10  But Seleucus II Callinicus’ sons [Seleucus III Ceraunus and Antiochus III Magnus] shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one [Antiochus III Magnus] shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress.

 11  And the king of the south [Ptolemy IV Philopator] shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with Antiochus III Magnus, even with the king of the north: and Antiochus III Magnus shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into Ptolemy IV Philopator’s hand.

 12  And when Ptolemy IV Philopator hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it.

 13  For the king of the north [Antiochus III Magnus] shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches.

14   And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south [Ptolemy V Epiphanes]: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.

15   So the king of the north [Antiochus III Magnus] shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand.

[At this point, the focus of Gabriel’s narration shifts to the West. Except for a brief appearance of the king of the South in verse 25, the kings of the North and South are not seen again until “the time of the end.”  We now pick up the continuation of their story in verse 40. For the West in Daniel 11:16-39, see my November 7, 2013 post.]

40   And at the time of the end shall the king of the south [Murad Bey] push at Napoleon Bonaparte: and the king of the north [Sultan Selim III] shall come against Bonaparte like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

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

42   He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

43   But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

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

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

[I used the New King James Version in verse 9. Everything else is from the King James Version.]

The West in Daniel 11

Note:
Since writing this post, I have been able to learn more about the transition to Rome in Daniel 11. The relevant impact of that information shows up in two of my more recent posts:
Daniel 11:16 (September 17, 2018)
Testing Daniel 11:16-22 (August 30, 2018).
For the entire chapter laid out with the pronouns identified, you may be interested in the book, Daniel and Revelation Bound Together, available at BibleProphecyCentral.com.

---

Bible prophecy is history foretold. In no chapter of the Bible is more history detailed than in Daniel 11, written around 535 B.C.

There has been over the years a lot of interest in identifying the kings of the north and south in Daniel 11. But much of the chapter, though not explicitly labeled as such, actually focuses on a third compass point: the West. The spotlight of prophecy moves to the west in 64 B.C. when Syria becomes a province of Rome. And not until the time of the end does the chapter shift its attention back to the kings of the north and south.

The section on the West is reproduced below with my attempt at identifying the players. I've replaced pronouns with the names (in bold) of those most likely referenced, and I've added a few bracketed comments.

16   But Pompey, that cometh against Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.

17   Julius Caesar shall also set his face to enter with the strength of Alexander’s whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall Caesar do: and he shall give him the daughter of women [Cleopatra], corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

18   After this shall Caesar turn his face unto the isles [Pontus, North Africa, and Hispania], and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him.

19   Then Caesar shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.

20   Then shall stand up in Caesar’s estate a raiser of taxes [Augustus] in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.

21   And in Augustus’ estate shall stand up a vile person [Tiberius], to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

22   And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant [Jesus].

[This literary climax mirrors Gabriel’s earlier commentaries that culminated with “the Prince of princes” in Chapter 8 and “the Messiah the Prince” in Chapter 9. At this juncture, before continuing with the narrative, the angel backs up to give us a little more background.]

23   And after the [161 B.C. Jewish] league made with the Roman Senate, the Republic shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.

24   He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and the emperor shall forecast his devices against [or from] the strong holds [Rome], even for a time [that is, one prophetic "year" of 360 prophetic "days" (literal years) extending from the decisive battle of Actium in 31 B.C. (verse 25) to the founding of Constantinople in A.D. 330 (verse 29)].

25   And Octavian shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south [Mark Antony] with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him.

26   Yea, they that feed of the portion of Mark Antony’s meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain.

27   And both these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.

28   Then shall Octavian return into his land with great riches; and Nero’s heart shall be against the holy covenant; and Vespasian, and his son Titus, shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

29   At the time appointed Constantine shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.

30   For the ships of Chittim [suggestive of the Vandal naval attacks, a reference to the barbarian invasions as a whole, the first major blow being the Gothic victory over the Romans at Adrianople] shall come against Valens: therefore Theodosius shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant [the pure gospel]: so shall Theodosius do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with the bishops that forsake the holy covenant.

[After the fall of the Roman Empire in the west, the prophetic narrative continues with the leading western rulers.]

31   And arms shall stand on Clovis’ part, and his army shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

32   And such [the pontiffs] as do wickedly against the covenant shall Pepin, Charlemagne, and their successors corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

33   And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

34   Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.

35   And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

36   And the king [Louis XIV] shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

37   Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

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

39   Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

Daniel 11:45 and the Middle East Crisis

On February 12, 2011, the day after Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak resigned in the midst of the Arab uprisings, I gave a presentation on the Middle East in Prophecy, based on Daniel 11:40-45.

Watch my presentation on YouTube

Daniel chapter 11 is not a symbolic vision such as we find in chapters 2, 7, and 8. Chapter 11 is more like the explanatory verses that follow the vision in those earlier chapters. Below I have listed 12 reasons why the popular figurative interpretations of Daniel 11:40-45 don't work.

1. Symbolism and figurative language are not consistent with the nature of the chapter. Daniel 11 is not an encoded prophecy but an explanation in plain language.

2. We have inspired endorsement of William Miller's principles of prophetic interpretation. One of those principles is that scripture should be understood literally except when a literal interpretation doesn't work. Since a literal interpretation of Daniel 11 does work, we have no legitimate reason to interpret it figuratively.

3. The assumption that pagan Rome was the king of the north, when in fact it was never given that title in scripture, is problematic. Rome is presented, not as the king of the north, but as "he that cometh against him" (v. 16).

4. The lack of evidence that words such as "king," "north" and "ships" are figurative, and the lack of Biblical keys for interpreting them figuratively, suggest that these words are to be taken literally.

5. We have no inspired statement that an ism was ever the king of the south. Revolutionary France was spiritually called "Egypt" in Revelation 11 because it demonstrated certain characteristics of Egypt. But Daniel 11 says nothing about anything being spiritually called Egypt.

6. The papacy in 1798 was wounded by neither literal nor spiritual Egypt. The prophetic period assigned to the beast from the bottomless pit was three and a half years. "It was in 1793 that the decrees which abolished the Christian religion and set aside the Bible passed the French Assembly. Three years and a half later a resolution rescinding these decrees, thus granting toleration to the Scriptures, was adopted by the same body" (GC 287). According to the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, the characteristics of France that qualified it to spiritually be called "Egypt" ceased to characterize it at the end of the three and a half years. Otherwise, the prophecy would have failed.

7. Babylon is never called the king of the north in Daniel 11 or elsewhere. Babylon is not even mentioned in Daniel 11, so there is no hook on which to hang a spiritual interpretation of Babylon in the chapter.

8. The attempt to associate the king of the north with literal Babylon lacks textual support. Babylon as a capital had been abandoned by the Seleucid kings before the first king of the north appeared in Daniel 11:6. Seleucus I, the only ruler of the dynasty ever to rule from Babylon, is never called the king of the north.

9. Neither God nor Jesus nor Satan are ever referred to in Scripture as "King of the North."

10. Neither Medo-Persia nor Greece are ever called the king of the north in Daniel 11 or elsewhere.

11. According to Daniel 12:1 probation closes at the time that the king of the north comes to his end. But from other prophecies we know that neither the papacy nor Western Christianity will come to an end until after probation closes.

12. Any interpretation of Daniel 11 that involves 20th-century world developments invalidates the inspired statements that Christ could have come in the 1800s. How could Jesus have come before all of Daniel 11 was fulfilled? In order for the inspired statements to be correct, the whole chapter would have had to be fulfilled in the 1800s. And according to the pioneer view, it was, except the last verse, which they proclaimed as imminent.

The main objection I have heard to this literal geographical reading of Daniel 11 is this:  How can you introduce into Daniel 11 a kingdom that isn't found in chapters 2, 7, and 8?  My answer is simple:  Daniel 11 isn't about kingdoms. It's about the kings and rulers of territories. All of the individual kings of the north and south are exclusive to chapter 11. No new territories are introduced in Daniel 11 that aren't found in the earlier chapters.