Toward the Kings Identities

While both textual and intertextual analysis of Daniel 11 might give some helpful tips on the identities of both Kings, it is really history that should ultimately settle the issues of both Kings identities.

Pfanld in his Syllabus Daniel comments that Daniel 11:25-30 may apply to the “Muslim rulers who controlled the Middle East at the time of the Crusades.”^[34] He observes that along with persecuting Muslims papacy also persecuted Christian dissidents, many of whom were devoted and “true believers in God’s holy covenant.”^[35]

Indeed, as one looks at the prophecy, one should also look at the prevalent historical realities. Any student of history knows that the only lasting military, political and religious conflict of the Medieval period and far beyond was a conflict between the Muslim (Mohammed­an) Ottoman Empire (King of the South) and the papal North. The numerous recurring Crusades shaped the world and the society of the Middle Ages, and the presence of the two main politico-religious powers throughout the ages, including the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, and Modernity is beyond denying.

With the dawning of "the time of the end" (v. 40) one would expect the identities of the two Kings to expend - not to radically change, nor degrade, nor to switch places. However, this is not what we see with our pioneers. Uriah Smith goes two "dispensations" down as he resurrects the Egyptian identity of the king of the South. And he does something even more remarkable: in his view Turkey, the embodiment of the old Ottoman Empire (considered as the king of the South) suddenly takes a place of the king of the North previously enjoyed by papacy.

Such hermeneutical twist is unacceptable and James White rightly noticed that. In his turn James White associated the King of the North with the same old papacy. That was the easiest thing to do, but apparently not the right one, as it (1) decreased the literal and historical understanding of the text; (2) did not consider the dynamic of the kings progression in Dan 11; (3) contradicted the principle regarding the expiration of the direct papal power after 1798; (4) did not receive the support from his prophetess wife.

Uriah Smith and other pioneers, on the contrary, have insisted on a serious change in the behavior of the King of the North - it became more politicized, more aggressive, and even more ambitious. It became clear to them that they were dealing with the political and military power capable of waging some devastating wars. As the time they remembered that the period of papal political and military supremacy had already expired. That obliged them to look for another religious-political power suitable for replacing the previous aggressor. The second beast would appear the most natural answer, but for some reasons it's been ignored.

As the pioneers overlooked the second beast, which truly comes as a continuation of the papacy, they either had to present the Great Controversy in a rather static form (James White's way), or to reduce the role of the Great Controversy (as Uriah Smith did). As Uriah Smith was looking for a suitable and available political power to replace papacy and to fit the geographical principle, he turned to Turkey. For this he might be partly excused as the pioneers in general didn't consider Dan 11 carefully enough in its entirety focusing only on the eschatological event and thus creating an interpretational shortcut that would later backfire at them and at the future generations of Adventist interpreters of Daniel 11.

What we observe among the pioneers is a sad picture of either a static view on the last battle heroes (the papal identity of the king of the North does not change), or degrading (from great Ottoman Empire to Egypt), or total and unlikely replacement (highly religious and powerful Ottoman Empire as the king of the South replaced by some atheistic force), or switching places (the traditional king of the South of the middle portion of Daniel's exposition suddenly jumps at the last section to the role of the king of the North). But how could the Muslim power assume a place and an identity of the power that in the previous time period was clearly designated as papacy? Uriah Smith ignored warnings from James White and did something that the text of Daniel would not permit one to do. We might certainly talk of the expanding of the roles of the kings and of their evolution, but Daniel leaves little if no room for alternation and substitution. All these violations of the simple principles that Adventist pioneers generally upheld are clearly unacceptable and distort their eschatological vision.

Another major mistake that the pioneers allowed in approaching the identities of the main eschatological players was their failure to apply their own discoveries from the book of Revelation. As Daniel and Revelation go side by side, and as they talk of the same last events, although using different language, it would have been absolutely necessary for the pioneers to look for help in solving Daniel's issues into the Book of Revelation and to use their own insights from it.

It is in Rev 13 that the continuity between the Beast from the Sea (papacy, or the King of the North during 1260 years) and its successor, the Beast from the Earth is clearly established. It is useless to guess over the book of Daniel regarding the identity of the eschatological King of the North without turning to the book of Revelation. And while our pioneers did turn to Rev 13, and did establish the identity of both beasts, somehow this knowledge had not been applied to the Eastern question of Dan 11:40-45.

Let us turn to the book of Revelation. Rev 13: 11, 12, 15-17 reads: "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him... He causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

Ellen G. White make numerous clear statements regarding the identity of this second beast and its relation to the first beast:

" What nation of the New World was in 1798 rising into power, giving promise of strength and greatness, and attracting the attention of the world? The application of the symbol admits of no question. One nation, and only one, meets the specifications of this prophecy; it points unmistakably to the United States of America. Again and again the thought, almost the exact words, of the sacred writer has been unconsciously employed by the orator and the historian in describing the rise and growth of this nation. The beast was seen "coming up out of the earth;" and, according to the translators, the word here rendered "coming up" literally signifies "to grow or spring up as a plant." And, as we have seen, the nation must arise in territory previously unoccupied."^[36]

Why than our pioneers are forgetting about this beast, as they are also forgetting that it is this beast that pursues the interests of the papacy at the last days? The pioneers might be partly excused, as their immediate historicism, focused exclusively on here and now and not leaving much provisions for the future fulfillment, would almost surely prevented them from positing the destructive activity of the king of the North into the future. That was their hermeneutical fallacy that should not, by all means, compromise historicism in general.

Indeed, the beast, coming out of the dry land, which their rightly identified as the United States of America, in their days was more lamb-like and preferred the green pastures of largely agrarian America to the military trenches and ditches of the Middle East. At the time of the Adventist pioneers the United States of America were not involved on the European political scene, and any such involvement seemed impossible. As the pioneers were anxious to see the conflict of the kings with their own eyes, they've failed to see the second beast in otherwise consistent with the book of Revelation account of Daniel.

While the pioneers believed that America will turn into a persecutor, they failed to notice that according to Daniel it is the king of the North, upon its return home, starts the persecution of God's faithful remnant. Could Turkey have ever done it? Could it, upon returning back home, turn to persecuting American and World-wide Remnant?

It is interesting that while maintaining the identity of the second Beast as the United States of America, the focus of our pioneers in relation to the eschatological events was on Europe, while the focus in relation to the persecution of God's people was clearly on the United States of America. The fact that the pioneers have largely overlooked the universal scale of the second beast's activity, as has already been noted, could be explained by the fact that at that time the United States of America was not in a position to interfere with the Eastern question. Nobody at those days could have imagined that in the emerging century Europe would have another devastating war, the Second World War, and that after this war the United States will become a major player at the political arena not only in Europe, but nearly all around the world. Thus, the pioneers greatly underestimated the powers of the second beast that they've discovered. The United States of America was considered by our pioneers as the instrument of the domestic, not an international oppression.

In his recent article Gerhard Pfandl says: "Based on the historicist method of prophetic interpretation, Seventh-day Adventists have understood these two beasts of Revelation 13 as symbols of the papacy and Protestant America respectively. According to Revelation 13, sometime in the future, apostate Protestantism will call upon the world to worship the first beast, i.e., be obedient to the papacy by the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week in place of the seventh-day Sabbath of the Bible. This Sunday legislation will eventuate in a death decree for those who refuse to accept the mark of the beast. But before the death decree can be carried out Christ will come to deliver His people."^[37]

Thus, we might see that not all of the conditions for turning America into a beast have been fulfilled at the time of the pioneers, which was the reason that prevented them from identifying the second beast with the eschatological King of the North. Ellen G. White also talks of those conditions as only been met in the future:

"When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result."^[38]

At the time of the pioneers those conditions were yet far in a future, and even today not all of them have been completely fulfilled. One should keep in mind that any historical process takes time. It would be rather naive to believe that America would turn into aggressor and persecutor suddenly, overnight. When the Sunday Law will be issued, there would be no more time for reflections on the prophecy, no more time to do good things, no more time to save souls. One should not wait until the time of probation to come up with the clear identities of the eschatological persecutors and to act precociously. While the religious persecutions by the second beast (the King of the North) are happening at the time of the close of probation, its other oppressive policies and a dragon-like speech precede those, as it is obvious from Dan 11:40-43 and Rev 13:11. In fact, John from the beginning has seen this beast speaking like dragon.

It is certain that the King of the North is not working in isolation, but becomes a leader of the apostate Protestantism around the world, including the European continent:

"By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near."^[39]

The harmonious and synchronized oppressive activities of the King of the North with those of the European apostate Protestantism is yet to fully emerge in the future with the issuing of the Sunday Law and total intolerance toward the Remnant. However, to some degree, the mechanism of oppression is clearly seen today as NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) pursues the goal of the New World Order. As those words might cause some skeptic smiles today, I think our pioneers would seriously consider those if they would be shown the panoramic picture of the last century. Geopolitical principle traditionally used by the historicists would also fit well in this case, as most of the designated political powers are North of Jerusalem.

It becomes clear that the King of the North is the same as the second beast - an amalgamation of political and religious (both Protestant and Catholic) powers. It is the first beast evolving into the second one. Seventh-day Adventist pioneers have rightly noticed that the activity of this beast goes beyond just religious oppression. Its aggressive character manifests itself in geopolitical activity that is clearly pictured in Dan 11:40-45. To reduce it to purely spiritual warfare would be rather irresponsible. While the beast is coming out of the dry land, he's well capable reaching over the seas and dominating over world's political affairs.

This brief essay would not be complete without designating other participants of the last conflict depicted in Dan 11:40-45. What is, than, the identity of the eschatological king of the South? Without elaborating too much on its identity it seems most logical to conclude that the King of the South, just as the King of the North, remains in both political and religious continuity with its predecessor. The vague atheistic force might somehow fit the general contours of the Great Controversy, but its recent dramatic defeat and its largely non-political orientation makes it a very unlikely candidate. Also, the geopolitical compass, if one would dare to apply it, would wander in vain, as there is no geographical counterpart to this amorphous and highly personal entity. Also, it didn't evolve from the highly religious Ottoman Empire, and one would look in vain trying to establish any tangible link between it and atheism.

As for the identity of the eschatological South, it should have evolved out of the old Ottoman Empire. However, unlike its historic counterpart from the intermediate period, the eschatological king of the South should have reached some international proportions. At the same time geopolitical principle should generally remain unbroken. Also, the political motives of the previous period of expansion of the king of the South should give way to more international and religious character.

There is only one power in the world, mostly manifested in the Southern regions, that openly and unequivocally confront the King of the North and the values it represents. It is the contemporary Muslim world that greatly expanded and grew from the well outlined borders of the old Ottoman Empire. It is the only religious-political-military organization that challenges today the so-called Christian North. Thus, the only power that fits the characteristics derived from the chapter's dynamic is the modern Islam in its international and radicalized form. In our days the conflict between the king of the North (North-Western alliance) and the king of the South (international radicalized Islam as the prevailing religion of the South) is becoming more and more outlined. However, we shall not allow to repeat the mistakes of the pioneers and to look for every detail of this emerging conflict. Apparently, the flourishing of this conflict is still ahead of us.

To conclude I would say, that it is useless to study prophetic books of the Bible without correlating those with historical events. Studying prophetic text in isolation from history for the sake of text might be a great scholastic exercise, but at the end it leaves one with nearly nothing as the main purpose of the prophecy is to give prophetic highlights on the main historical events.

[1] D. E. Mansell, What Adventists have Taught on Armageddon, Ministry, November 1967.

[2]Commenting on verse 25, he refers to the war that broke was between Egypt and Rome at the “mouth of the gulf of Ambracia, near the city of Actium,” on September 2, 31 B.C. Uriah Smith, 262.

[3] Sings of the Times, Nov. 15, 1877. Quoted in Mansell, 42-43.

[4] D. E. Mansell, What Adventists have Taught on Armageddon, Ministry, November 1967.

[5] Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, October 3, 1878, No. 15, p. 116.

[6] Later on she wrote that “my husband had some ideas on same points differing from the view taken by his brethren. I was shown the however true his view were, God did not call for him to put them in from before his brethren and create differences of ideas.”–Ellen G. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors (Nashville, Tennessee: Southern Publishing Association, 1946), 76-77; Regarding Ellen White and her husband see Louis F. Were, Mrs. White, Uriah Smith and the King of the North (Berrien Springer, Michigan: First Impressions, 1977), 1-2, 32-34.

[7] D. E. Mansell, What Adventists have Taught on Armageddon, Ministry, November 1967.

[8] 4T 279.1

[9] Uriah Smith. " Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation. " Battle Creek, Mtch.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1882.

[10] P. T. Magan, England's Responsibilities for Turkey: The Treaty of Paris, Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, March 23, 1911.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] 1916-10-09, Vol. 93, No 50.

[14]Shea, Daniel, 7-12.

[15]Roy Allan Anderson, Unfolding Daniel’s Prophecies. (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1975), p. 130., 147.

[16]Jacques B. Doukhan, Daniel: The Vision of the End, 88

[17]Ibid

[18]Jacques B. Doukhan, Daniel: The Vision of the End, 92.

[19]Ibid, 174-179

[20]Ibid.

[21]Zdravko Stefanovic, Daniel Wisdom to the Wise: Commentary on the book of the Daniel, (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2007), p. 407-432.

[22]Ibid, 407-432.

[23]Timothy J. Hayden, A Review of Daniel 11 in Islam & Christianity in Prophecy, revised August 5, 2013, 25.

[24]Timothy J. Hayden, 25.

[25]Ibid.

[26] Uriah Smith considered the final conflict in Daniel 11 as the one between Egypt and Turkey, geographically related to Jerusalem as the South and the North. Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, pp. 289-299, ed. 1944.

[27]Tim Roosenberg, “Islam and Christianity in Bible Prophecy.” http://www.sealingtime.com/resources/featured-speakers/tim-roosenberg/islam-and-christianity-daniel-11-seminar-tim-roosenberg.html (10 April 2014).

[28]Uriah Smith, The Prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Review & Hearld, 1944 revised), 1:233

[29] Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, October 3, 1878, No. 15, p. 116.

[30] Hans K. LaRondelle, The Historicist Method in Adventist Interpretation (Spes Christiana 21, 2010, 79–89) p. 86.

[31] D. E. Mansell, What Adventists have Taught on Armageddon, Ministry, November 1967.

[32] Hans K. LaRondelle, The Historicist Method in Adventist Interpretation (Spes Christiana 21, 2010, 79–89) p. 86.

[33] Many Adventist scholars believe it starts with v. 22.

[34]Gerhard Pfandl, Gerhard Pfandl, Syllabus for OTST 585 Daniel (Solusi University, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, 2008, 116).

[35]Ibid.

[36] GC, 440.

[37] Gerhard Pfandl, The BRI Newsletter, Number 34, April 2011, p. 1.

[38] GC, 445.

[39] Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, p.451.