Contemporary Adventist Approach

Today some historic Adventist still look up at the country of Turkey, known mostly for its affordable resorts, as a mysterious King of the North capable of waging massive wars against many nations, persecuting all over the world the saints of God, and whose downfall would signify the end of the world. Overall, however, the Turkish obscurity resulted in a gradual replacement of the identity of Uriah Smith's understanding of the King of the North with that of William Miller and James White. The historic-prophetic pendulum seems returned to its initial position. Let us briefly look at what some of the contemporary Adventist interpreters have to say on the closing part of Daniel 11 before continuing drawing some lessons from the pioneers. In other words, let us first consider what other Adventist theologians learned, and what they teach.

Commenting on 11:40-45, William H. Shea sees the time of the end king of the south as, “modeled upon the Anti-Yahwistic attitudes of ancient Egypt, fits well with the modern movement of rationalistic humanism that leads to atheism or agnosticism.”^[14] The powers presented in the passage, according to Shea, are no longer engaged into a literal warfare. He further identifies the king of the north with papacy, and sees it as fighting with the powers of atheistic communism.

One can see that Shea learns a valuable lesson from the pioneers as he looks for more prominent candidate for the king of the South than degraded Egypt. Generally, he follows James White approach, where the key players gain the proportions of the Great Controversy players, such as papacy and atheism. However, he does it at expense of Uriah Smith's geopolitical and more literal interpretation. Atheistic powers, centered in France and later on in the former USSR could not have been geographically considered as the Southern neighbors of Jerusalem. Jerusalem also seem to lose its role of a central geographical point of the prophecy, as believed by Uriah Smith and most of the pioneers.

As Dr. Shea was writing of the atheistic powers, alluding to the Soviet Union, his interpretation seemed to be viable one. Today, however, the atheistic powers in the world faded and nearly disappeared. I applaud William H. Shea consideration for the watchfulness for the signs of the times as he turned to the Soviet Union - a tangible political player, but I dare to suggest that a simple application of the geopolitical principle could have been helpful to him in his otherwise correct estimation of prophetic powers. The typologically superior period does not necessarily excludes literal geopolitical principle. Rather, it considers it and moves in harmony with it. In the same way our High Priest moves in the Holy Sanctuary, progressively forward, always in one geographical direction, from East to West. Even at His Second Coming Jesus is moving from the East. God is consistent with the geographical directions, and we all might learn it from Him.

Roy Allan Anderson seems to be in agreement with Shea regarding the identities of the eschatological kings. Considering verses 36-45 as the end time conflict he sees papacy in conflict with “worldwide atheistic socialism” that originated in France.^[15]

Unlike previously mentioned theologians, Jacques B. Doukhan avoids using direct references to papacy. It might be due to his honoring an admonition of Ellen G. White not to consider papacy as the king of the North, or his ageographical and more spiritualized view on the conflict. To him the eschatological passage of Dan 11:40-45 depicts the spiritual battle between Babylon, which is some institution of “a religious nature usurping God’s power,”^[16] and Egypt, which is “of secular and political essence.”^[17] Doukhan catches sight of valid connection between Revelation 16 and Dan 11: “Revelation 16 attributes to Isaiah 14 constitute another connection with Daniel 11, which also has the latter in its background.”^[18] Generally, Doukhan admits that Daniel 11 is not easy to interpret and thus difficult to find its “historical counterpart.”^[19] Consequently, he exhorts the reader to wait patiently for the last semblance which concerns the time of the end and its consummation.^[20] Follow Doukhan's advice as we move on with our research among other things, we will look for that last semblance.

Zdravko Stefanovic also identifies the king of the North with some apostate religion.^[21] Regarding the intermediate period he alludes to the work of Shea who speaks of the Crusades initiated by papacy. Yet, Stefanovic never delineates the position neither on the king of the North, nor on the king of the South. He points out to a danger of the literalistic application of the passage, which is “not limited to the time prior to the first coming of Christ.”^[22] In other words, since the described event took place after the death of the Apostles, there is no way of a sure historical understanding of this text. In our article, however, we entertain, more optimistic outlook at the comprehensibility of the prophecy.

As if to emphasize the apparent incompatibility of literal-geographical and spiritual approaches and to broaden the gap between the perspective on the early Adventist historicists, Timothy J. Hayden insists that “to interpret Daniel 11:40-45 spiritually and Daniel 11:23-30 geographically is inconsistent”.^[23] The spiritual interpretation considers “the king of the south” in commendation to “spiritual Egypt,” consequently, “the king of the south has nothing to do with geography after Daniel 11:22.”^[24]

One might only wonder what makes Hayden so sure of his view. After all, the Muslim world has always remained largely to the south of Jerusalem. According to Hayden, however, “it is also not possible for Daniel 11:23-31a to identify both geopolitical and global spiritual conflicts at the same time.”^[25] Subsequently, the spiritual and geopolitical approaches seem to be at variance and at war with each other. He arrives to conclusion that the conflict between the kings could be geopolitical or spiritual, not both. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this radical 'principle', the tendency is very clear: the gap between the two pioneers approaches had only widened with time.

Reflecting on this brief overview of the recent tendencies in Adventist approach to Dan 11:40-45, one might observe that the position of the contemporary interpreters is more general, than that of our pioneers. It is partly due to the disappointment with the Uriah Smith's take on Turkey.

On the other hand, one could also observe that recent interpretation is based on the principles rather distinct from those used by Uriah Smith and even James White. The clear shift took place toward and far beyond James White.

We dare to question the artificial alienation of two of the pioneers' approaches. We are reminded by Ellen G. White, that Uriah Smith's approach (not necessarily all of his conclusion) is a valid one. It should encourage us to look for a more balanced approach to the resolution of the problem. The two of our pioneers have nearly met on a common prophetic ground and shook each other hands. Would it be, in principle, possible? I believe it would. To demonstrate it I would like to extract some valuable lessons from our pioneers discussion.