Geopolitical Approach

Adventist pioneers generally agreed on the geographical principle in relation to Jerusalem - at least at the verses previous to v. 40.^[26] This principle has two important and unavoidable implications: first, according to this principle, the geography of the kings can be discerned by their geographic relation toward Jerusalem, and second, that the conflict would take place in the literal Middle East.

In recent years Tim Roosenberg accentuated the importance of what he calls “geopolitical” concept of Daniel, which he defines as “international relations, influenced by geography.”^[27] He emphasizes that the geography of the Middle East is important, as it allows us to see that the kings of the north and south are “geopolitical powers” that attacked Israel from the north and south respectively.

Even among those who don't accept this principle there are still attempts to bind the powers presumably involved in a conflict to Egypt. However, the thesis of Egypt being presumably a symbol of atheism may not enjoy as much biblical support as it often claims.

While I don't insist on the exclusiveness of the geopolitical approach, I don't discount it either. I suggest not going as far as Hayden did, who suggested that "kings could be geopolitical or spiritual, not both." We will put his opinion, as well as the opinions of our pioneers, to the further test.

Where did our Pioneers Ignored Warning Signs

A number of alarm lights rose on the way of the pioneers as pressed on toward their understanding of the eschatological scene of Dan 11.