EXPOSÉ ON VARIANT PROPHETIC MISUNDERSTANDINGS  -3 

DANIEL 8: 10 

Dear Jeff:

I would like to know what your view of Daniel 8:10 is. Do you see it as related to Satan’s work in heaven, or to Rome’s part in persecuting the saints in the first century? 

 Dear ____

I have a very good doctrinal thesis on the “Daily” in the book of Daniel. It focuses on Daniel chapter eight. I believe it to be sound and occasionally provide copies of the book to interested parties. In verse eight, Daniel purposely uses gender to identify the “four notable ones” in contrast to “the four winds” which are the opposite gender of “the four notable ones”. He does this to establish two important points. One is a literary sign, and another is a proof or evidence.

He uses the gender of verse eight to link with verse nine, when he places the, “out of one of them” in the same gender as “the four winds” of the previous verse, providing evidence that the little horn in verse nine, did not directly descend from Greece, but came from a specific geographical area as represented by “four winds”. This is evidence.

This is evidence that disproves the challenges of people like Desmond Ford, who identify the descendent of Alexander as Antiochus Epiphanes as the antichrist. They teach the antichrist had to descend through Alexander’s heritage based on the fact (they incorrectly say) that the little horn, came “out of one of them”. But the verse specifically teaches, through the employment of “gender”, that the “little horn” power came from one of the “four winds”. Not from Alexander’s descendents—but from a specific geographical area of his kingdom. That is evidence.

The other point is simply that by speaking with gender in verse eight and nine Daniel gives a sign that he is beginning to identify and convey information at a different level of thought—through the use of gender. This is most critical to see at this point, because in verses nine through twelve, Daniel changes the gender of the subject in each of the four verses. It changes from verse nine’s “little horn” in the masculine; to verse ten’s “it” in the feminine, to verse eleven’s “he” is masculine, and verse twelve’s, “him” is feminine.

Until you recognize the use of gender, you don’t see Daniel teaching that verse nine is pagan Rome, verse ten is papal Rome, verse eleven is pagan Rome again, and verse twelve returns to papal Rome. Male, female, male, female. Pagan, papal, pagan, papal.

So verse nine is describing how pagan Rome came up from a geographical area that had been part of the kingdom of Alexander the Great and not from the lineage of Greece. It also identifies the three areas of conquest that Rome would overcome in order to begin its time period to rule the world, as set forth in Daniel 11:24.

Verse ten now changes to the papacy by changing genders to feminine for the word “it” and the verse describes two characteristics of the papacy. It’s arrogance towards God and heaven, and its persecution of God’s people.

Note here that the characteristics of Rome whether pagan or papal in these two verses are similar. Pagan Rome had to conquer three geographical areas to take control of the world and papal Rome needed to overcome three horns. They both would rule the world for a specific time. And in verse ten the arrogance against God and persecution of His people was also a characteristic of pagan Rome. One of the truths of pagan and papal Rome is that they have many prophetic characteristics that they both possess. Verse eight and nine are confirming this truth, as well as the other information. Though in both verses, even with the similarities, the testimony is most directed at the subject that has been isolated by its gender.

So in verse eleven Daniel changes back to masculine gender, thus identifying pagan Rome, and in so doing teaches, it was pagan Rome that stood against Christ, (at the cross). The “by him”, (which is most accurately translated as “through him”), is teaching that “through” pagan Rome, the “Daily” (which is paganism), would be “taken away”.

The Hebrew word translated as “taken away” in this verse is different than the Hebrew word translated as “taken away” in Daniel 11:31 and 12:11. In these two verses the Hebrew word means to remove. It is a word used in the sanctuary service to identify when the priest would remove ashes from beneath the alter. Paganism was removed. Daniel 11:31 and 12:11 are identifying a different prophetic aspect of the “Daily” than is being portrayed in Daniel 8:11. In Daniel 8:11, it is a different Hebrew word translated as “taken away”, though it is also a word used in the sanctuary service. It is the word used when the priest would lift up a wave offering before the Lord. The word means to: lift up and exult. So in verse eleven:

Pagan Rome is the one who stands against Christ at the cross, and through pagan Rome, paganism is lifted up and exulted. Daniel includes that the “place” of pagan Rome’s sanctuary is cast down.

Daniel is conveying information here in many ways. Here he chooses a Hebrew word that has been translated in the verse as “sanctuary” that can be used to identify any sanctuary, whether it is God’s sanctuary or a pagan sanctuary. It is translated either way in the Bible. Whereas; the word translated as “sanctuary” in verse thirteen and fourteen is a word that can only identify God’s sanctuary. Daniel wants us to understand that the sanctuary in verse eleven, is Rome’s pagan sanctuary, called the Pantheon. By choosing this Hebrew word in contrast with the word he chooses twice only two verses later, Daniel is emphasizing that this is an “ungodly” sanctuary. The “casting down” is when the city of Rome (where the Pantheon was), was rejected as the seat of authority for the empire of Rome by Constantine in the year 330. This verse was identifying pagan Rome, but in verse twelve, the “him” returns to feminine, and therefore switches back to papal Rome.

The “host” given the papal power was the armies of seven of the ten horns that ultimately changed the profession of their nations from pagan to Catholic and began the work of placing the papacy on the throne of the earth, by removing the three Arian horns of Daniel seven. The formerly pagan civil governments surrendering their authority to the dictates of the pope accomplished this. This was a process not a single event, but in the very action described (giving the host to the support of the papacy), the “transgression” of the verse is illustrated. The transgression is the combination of church and state. These two verses, (eleven and twelve) are not describing parallel characteristics of pagan and papal Rome, as were verses nine and ten. In verses eleven and twelve, the message is the change over from pagan to papal Rome. The historical transition betweens these two powers is the very heart of many of the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation.

Verse eleven says pagan Rome, the power who stood against Christ when he walked among men, was also the power that lifted up and exulted paganism, which is certainly why we call pagan Rome—“pagan”. This power, pagan Rome would come to its end in the year 330, when the “place” (the city of Rome) was “cast down” in that the city of Rome was no longer the capital of the empire of Rome. This historical understanding is how the pioneers saw it. They identified Daniel 11:24 as identifying a 360 year time period for pagan Rome to rule the world. The starting date being 31 B.C. is identified as Rome’s defeat of Egypt at the battle of Actium. By adding 360 years to that date, you arrive at the year 330.

The verse (Daniel 11:24), where this time prophecy is set forth, has a phrase connected to the time prophecy which says, “he [pagan Rome} shall forecast his devices against the strongholds, even for a time” [360 years]. The pioneers and other commentators teach that forecasting his devices from his stronghold is a more concise translation than, “against the strongholds”. Viewing it this way, which the Hebrew allows, portrays the time prophecy in Daniel 11:24 teaching that pagan Rome would rule the world for 360 years from their stronghold—the city of Rome. This understanding identifies that the time which pagan Rome rules the world is directly connected to the story of the city of Rome. In this sense, verse eleven’s “and the place of his sanctuary, was cast down” is tied into and supported by Daniel eleven twenty-four’s time prophecy.

In the year 330, the Roman Empire would begin to divide, first into an eastern and western division, and ultimately into the ten nations of Daniel chapter seven. In the divided state they would reach a time period where they would begin to surrender their civil powers, including their armies, to the dictation of the papacy. This history is where verse twelve continues the flow of events. But now the gender subject identifies the feminine, so the subject becomes papal Rome. The pagan armies or “host” were given to the support of the papacy through the combination of church and state. The reason the armies came to the aid of the papacy is identified in the next phrase through the term, “by reason of transgression”. The “transgression” being, the combination of church and state. Once in that position the papacy “cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced and prospered”.

There is much more information in these verses, but it is only clearly established by looking at the entire chapter, which then allows you to demonstrate some of the other truths in these verses. Some are very profound, but they are established in the entire passage, not simply in the six verses we have considered.

URIAH SMITH'S ABERRANT POSITION

We are still in the process of responding to several questions that we set forth in our previous newsletter. The subject we are dealing with is Uriah Smith’s position on Daniel 11:36–45.

Part of the questions raised previously concerning verses thirty-six through thirty-nine was stated as follow:  “If in fact the persecution of God’s people is fully described in the preceding verses, should not the prophet have more to say about the Reign of Terror and the worship of the goddess of reason? Your line of argument actually rides over the excesses of the French Revolution, putting everything in that word ‘push’ which seems to be inadequate.”

This is a valid and fair question. How does a conclusion fit with the overall testimony of inspiration, including the priority of topics set forth within the Scriptures? We are told in a variety of ways, the books of Daniel and Revelation are more than simply closely related—they are the same book. It is not unreasonable to expect that because the same lines of prophecy are represented in both books that something mentioned in Revelation might also be mentioned in Daniel.

“Many ministers make no effort to explain Revelation. They call it an unprofitable book to study. They regard it as a sealed book, because it contains the record of figures and symbols. But the very name that has been given it, ‘Revelation,’ is a denial of this supposition. Revelation is a sealed book, but it is also an opened book. It records marvelous events that are to take place in the last days of this earth's history. The teachings of this book are definite, not mystical and unintelligible. In it the same line of prophecy is taken up as in Daniel. Some prophecies God has repeated, thus showing that importance must be given to them. The Lord does not repeat things that are of no great consequence.” Manuscript Releases, volume 8, 413.

 Analysis of external issues related to the actual passage of Scripture is a valid test, but the strength of logic contained in the external questions should be compared against the logic from the other side of the argument. For instance:

Out of forty-five verses, Smith would have us believe that verses thirty-six through forty-four (fully one-fifth of the whole chapter) begins with the French Revolution, then vaguely winds it way up to the latter part of the nineteenth century in verse forty-four and then, out of the clear blue sky, the story restarts and concludes at the close of probation in verse forty-five—without even mentioning one word of the papal power, that is so much the focus of end-time prophecy. My point is:

When we raise the question of how the pioneer position could “ride over the excesses of the French Revolution”, we should also ask what understanding of the pioneers was ridden over when Smith applied his new idea? We should compare the logic of the question against the logic of the counter-question: How can Smith’s view take the final fifth of Daniel eleven, (the passage that leads to the very climax of the great controversy; that “controversy” being the main theme in Daniel’s last vision), and portray the final verses as silent in regard to the prophetic role of the papacy?

We should include the teaching of Smith on verse fourteen, where he, in agreement with many others; makes mention of the fact that this verse identifies Rome as “the robbers of thy people” and therefore, Rome is the primary prophetic object that establishes Daniel’s last vision. Smith teaches that Rome is the main prophetic symbol in the entire vision, yet excludes Rome from the sequence of events that transpire just before probation closes. A prophetic time period when typically the prophecies throughout the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, portray scenes of the spiritual battle between modern Babylon and God’s people. Yet when Smith comes to the final climax of this prophetic history, he points to events that have no reference to Rome, and have no inferences about God’s people during the final end-time narrative.

Another part of the question under consideration has to do with the word “push” in verse forty and the significance that I place upon it. As I present verse forty, I understand “push” to be identifying the war that was brought about between atheism and Catholicism during the 1798 time period. I identify that the Hebrew definition of the word translated “push” in verse forty means: to war against. This is also how Daniel used it previously in Daniel 8:4:

I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.

In Smith’s book, on page 150, he concurs that the “pushing” of the ram is describing the conquests of the Medes and Persians where he upholds that the Hebrew meaning of the word “push” means war. The “westward, and northward, and southward” describe the specific areas of conquest accomplished by the Medes and Persians.

Because Smith builds his position on identifying the king of verse thirty-six as the French Revolution, when he arrives at verse forty he portrays three powers. (I also view three powers in verse forty, but they are widely different than Smith’s conclusions. In doing so, I retain the pioneer position of identifying “the king of the north” in the verse as the papacy.)

In any case, if you carefully study Smith’s scenario of verse forty you will recognize a very flawed and unacceptable position in connection with the word “push”. I would submit that it is such a flawed position that when compared with our application of the word “push” in verse forty, the stronger argument certainly does not reside in Smith’s reasoning.

Smith takes France from verse thirty-six all the way into verse forty and then breaks down verse forty from that perspective.

And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him 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.

 He identifies the “king of the south” as Egypt, the “king of the north” as Turkey, and “him” as France. (Make a note here—that the pioneer view identifies the papacy as “the king of the north” from its appearance into the narrative in verse thirty-one. Therefore the pioneer view identifies the “him” of verse forty in the same fashion as Smith in one sense, but in contradiction with Smith in another. Both teach the “him” of verse forty is the power identified in the verses immediately prior to verse forty. Whoever the “him” is, he is the same person in both verse thirty-nine and forty. For Smith that is France, for James White and the pioneers it is the papacy.)

Therefore Smith sees France, Turkey, and Egypt as opposed to the pioneer view identifying two entities, the papacy and the king of the south. The “him” and the “king of the north” are both the papacy, in the pioneer scenario. An impossible problem arises on two counts for Smith when he attempts to apply the word “push” into the history he sets forth.

First, he ends up contradicting the definition of “push”, as well as his own description of what “pushing” symbolizes in Daniel 8. Smith teaches that in the time of the end, which we agree is the 1798 time period, the king of the south (Egypt) will push against him (France). He points to a very small skirmish that Napoleon initiated against Egypt during that time period. If that were the historical fulfillment of this verse, based upon the Hebrew definition of the word “push”, and upon Daniel’s previous usage of the word and upon Smith’s previous commentary of the word, you would expect to see much more evidence of a genuine full-fledged war, than what actually took place between France and Egypt.

But secondly, is the fact that Smith himself doesn’t deny that it was France that initiated and perpetuated the war he refers to. Smith defines the “him” as France, the “king of the south” as Egypt and the “king of the north” as Turkey. Therefore using Smith’s identifications of the powers symbolized in verse forty: Egypt should have attacked France, for the king of the south (Egypt) was to push against him (France). Smith teaches that in fulfillment of this verse France attacks (or pushes) Egypt. This is more, than a “red flag”—this is unacceptable.

“There is nothing in the word of God to be thrown aside; there is nothing in the plan of redemption that is unimportant or that may be lightly disregarded. . . . But although the long line of events extends through so many centuries, and new and important truths are from time to time developed, that which was truth in the beginning is the truth still. The increased light of the present day does not contradict or make of none effect the dimmer light of the past.” Signs of the Times, 1886.

 Smith acknowledges that his view is just the opposite of the description in the verse. Smith’s interpretation openly contradicts the verse. Remember, he started down the path to this point when he chose to understand “the king”, as “a king”, in opposition to Scripture.

“We are . . . to reason from cause to effect.” Review and Herald, January 21, 1909.

 Smith also comments on Daniel 11:10:

But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress.

 He points out, as do others in Adventism, that verse ten is describing a military conquest that was completely overwhelming and far reaching in its accomplishments. The Hebrew words employed by Daniel confirm this definition. He and others rightly assign this thorough military victory as being symbolized by the words “overflow, and pass through”. In terms of military campaigns Daniel describes a complete victory with the words “overflow, and pass through”. Yet when Smith addresses verse forty, the historical conquest he points to as fulfilling the words “overflow, and pass over” describe a feeble and incomplete military campaign at best. For Smith, Daniel’s understanding of “push” and “overflow, and pass over” in verse forty are definitely different than when Daniel used them previously. The lack of any decisive historical event to correspond to the meaning of the words “push” and “overflow, and pass over” in the verse weakens his position, but portraying (France) “him”, as the one who initiates a war against (Egypt) “the king of the south”, totally destroys his assumptions.

 With that in mind, let us begin an overview of Daniel 11:36–40 and uphold and retain the pioneer description of the “king of the north” representing the papacy while evaluating if Smith’s statement about verse thirty-six on page 280, is correct:

“The king here introduced cannot denote the same power that was last noticed, namely, the papal power; for the specifications will not hold good if applied to that power.”

I submit that all the specifications hold good if the papacy is viewed as “the king of the north” in these verses. Lets consider “the king of the north”.

The best that I can find is that James White and by implication the other pioneers, concluded the papacy was “the king of the north” in the final verse of Daniel eleven primarily, if not exclusively upon the rule that Louis F. Were would later is his written studies title, “Repeat and Enlarge”. Basically the rule identifies that each prophecy repeats and enlarges the previous prophecy. It is obvious James White understood this rule and believed it to be sound, for it is the rule he consistently pointed to when he opposed Smith’s new view of Turkey as “the king of the north”. He certainly didn’t refer to the rule by any given name or define the rule itself as Were does; He simply applied the rule when dealing with Smith’s new teaching.

The following is one sample of James White’s application of this rule, and it should be noted that this was in the middle-to-latter part of this disagreement between he and Smith. By middle-to-latter, I mean in terms of the different recorded events that I am aware of, where this disagreement is historically noted. The point being is that he was choosing his words on this subject very carefully at this point. The following is part of a sermon he preached at the General Conference around 1878.

“There is a line of historic prophecy in chapter eleven, where the symbols are thrown off, beginning with the kings of Persia, and reaching down past Grecia and Rome, to the time when that power shall come to his end, and none shall help him. If the feet and ten toes of the metallic image are Roman, if the beast with ten horns that was given to the burning flames of the great day be the Roman beast, if the little horn which stood up against the Prince of princes be Rome, and if the same field and distance are covered by these four prophetic chains, then the last power of the eleventh chapter, which is to ‘come to his end and none shall help him’, is Rome.” James White, Review and Herald, October 3, 1878.

The pioneers concluded “the king of the north” in the end of Daniel eleven was the papacy based upon the principle that Louis Were calls “Repeat and Enlarge”. Maybe this is the only proof they had, but from James White’s perspective it was enough to prove who “the king of the north” is. I do not know his other reasons and proofs, but like him, I believe this rule is strong enough all by itself to reach the same conclusion that White and the pioneers did.

There is another rule that is also clearly set forth by Louis F. Were, which he calls, “The Local Symbolizes the Worldwide”. Simply stated this rule teaches that the representations of local people, local places and local events in Biblical history—portray worldwide events and situations at the end of the world. Sister White upholds this rule consistently in her works. When she selects passages from Scripture to portray end-time events, she applies those literal stories in a worldwide setting. The following she incorporates a passage where Christ Himself is referring to the local symbolizes the worldwide:

“Jesus, seated upon the Mount of Olives, gave instruction to His disciples concerning the signs which should precede His coming. He said: ‘But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the Flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the Flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.’

“The same sins exist in our day which brought the wrath of God upon the world in the days of Noah. Men and women now carry their eating and drinking to gluttony and drunkenness. This prevailing sin, the indulgence of perverted appetite, inflamed the passions of men in the days of Noah and led to general corruption, until their violence and crimes reached to heaven, and God washed the earth of its moral pollution by a flood.

“The same sins of gluttony and drunkenness benumbed the moral sensibilities of the inhabitants of Sodom so that crimes seemed to be the delight of the men and women of that wicked city. Christ thus warns the world: ‘Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.’” Testimonies, volume 3, 163–164.

 A secondary understanding of this rule is that the fulfillment of prophecy today is to be identified and established from a spiritual application. We are now spiritual Israel.

“The experiences of Israel were recorded for our instruction. ‘All these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.’ 1 Corinthians 10:11. With us, as with Israel of old, success in education depends on fidelity in carrying out the Creator’s plan. Adherence to the principles of God’s word will bring as great blessings to us as it would have brought to the Hebrew people.” Education, 50.

 Louis Were demonstrates that when applying Bible prophecy during the time period before the cross we should look for literal fulfillments. But, when applying prophecy after the time period of the cross we should look for fulfillments within a spiritual setting. Before the cross: literal Israel. After the cross: spiritual Israel. Before the cross: literal Jerusalem. After the cross: spiritual Jerusalem. Prophecies before the cross that address Israel would be identifying literal ancient Israel; prophecies after the cross that identify Israel would be identifying spiritual modern Israel. Applying these rules provides another and perhaps stronger simple proof to identify the “king of the north”.

The story of the kings of the north and south is only specifically addressed in Daniel eleven. It is there that the rule to identify the two kings is located. Smith is very clear and accurate when he shows how verses six through eight identify the “king of the south” as Egypt. At that point you have but to compare the prophecy identified in Daniel eleven with the historical record, to establish the sequence of events set forth in the verses. This truth is one of the factors why Rome is identified as the symbol that “establishes the vision” in verse fourteen. Following verse fourteen Rome is portrayed in such a concise and profound way that you cannot shake the evidence of the historical record set forth throughout the passage. It was Rome that interacted with Cleopatra. It was Rome that called for the taxation that Joseph and Mary responded to. It was Rome’s authority that crucified Christ.

As we look to the history set forth in Daniel eleven, we recognize Egypt as the southern king, and then we demonstrate from the history of Egypt, which historical powers were being portrayed in the verses of Daniel eleven. With the historical record it is easy to see, that the power that ruled Babylon during the history portrayed in a verse, if referred to at all, was identified in the verse as “the king of the north”. Likewise, the power that was ruling Egypt was the “king of the south”. North equates to Babylon and south equates to Egypt. This is the rule to identify the kings of these two kingdoms in Daniel eleven.

In verse sixteen of Daniel eleven, literal Rome conquers both Syria and the Judea. When Rome conquered Syria, it began its time period to be “the king of the north” for it had taken control of literal Babylon, which was formerly part of Syria. Syria ceased to be “the king of the north”, while literal Rome ascended the throne. Rome also conquered Asia Minor, which included the city of Pergamos.

History teaches that at the fall of Babylon the leaders of the religion of Babylon, known as Chaldeans, fled to the city of Pergamos. This is why Pergamos is identified in Revelation 2:13, as “the city where Satan’s seat” was. The Chaldeans fled from Babylon to Pergamos with their abominable religion. When literal pagan Rome conquered Pergamos, it did what it always did. It took possession of all the idols and religious relics and then incorporated that local religion into the multi-religious paganism that was one of the main historical characteristics of pagan Rome.

The Romans brought all the conquered religious artifacts, including the priests, back to Rome and provided them a special place within the pagan sanctuary called, the Pantheon. When the capital, or seat of authority of the empire of Rome was transferred from the city Rome, to the city of Constantinople in 330 the following verse describes the place where the pagan sanctuary of Rome (the Pantheon) resided as being “cast down”. The place was the city of Rome.

Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. Daniel 8:11.

 When Pergamos, the city where Satan’s seat of authority was located fell to the Romans, history teaches that the religion of Pergamos, (the religion that was brought to Pergamos by the Chaldeans of Babylon) was then moved to the next city where “Satan’s seat” of authority was to be located. That city was the seven-hilled city of Rome.

And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. . . . And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. Revelation 17:5, 9.

 Pagan literal Rome moved its seat of authority from the city of Rome to Constantinople and in this sense gave its “seat”, or its “place” of authority to the Roman church.

And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. Revelation 13:2.

 The dragon is both pagan Rome and Satan.

“Thus while the dragon, primarily, represents Satan, it is, in a secondary sense, a symbol of pagan Rome.” The Great Controversy, 439.

 Pagan Rome gave papal Rome its “power” as the pagan armies came to the aid and support of the papacy. Pagan Rome gave papal Rome its “seat” when it moved its government away from the city of Rome. And pagan Rome gave papal Rome its “authority” when it ultimately turned its civil authority over to the Roman church.

The transition from pagan to papal Rome is one of the primary histories on which Bible prophecy is built. Daniel seven, eight, eleven and twelve, along with other passages of Bible prophecy including Revelation thirteen and seventeen address this transition from literal to spiritual Rome.

Prophetically, when prophecy changes from a literal to spiritual application during the time period of the cross, the symbol we identify as the “king of the north” is subject to that prophetic rule. No longer would “the king of the north” be the power that controls literal Babylon, it would be the power that controls spiritual Babylon.

When pagan Rome gave way to papal Rome (the Chaldean religion or spiritual Babylon) had through the providence of history, moved its center of operation to the city where the last literal “king of the north” had resided—that city being Rome. Not only is spiritual Rome the “king of the north” from verse thirty-one onward based upon the rule James White so often used called “Repeat and Enlarge”, but the “king of the north” is also the power who rules spiritual Babylon. That power being, the Roman church.

Another strong argument that establishes this understanding, though less often referred to is found within the entire book of Daniel.  The first verses describe when Babylon conquered Israel. It is not a simple coincidence that the final climax of the book, just before human probation closes in Daniel 12:1, is paralleling that identical battle.

In the beginning Babylon attacks and enters Jerusalem, but in the end, he comes to his end, before he can enter. He comes to his end outside Jerusalem. Several Bible prophets confirm this location, not simply Daniel 11:45. In the opening of the book, literal Babylon carries off the trophies of the temple. But in the climax of Daniel’s testimony, Christ carries the “trophies” of the spiritual temple away.

“Of surpassing beauty and unrivaled splendor was the palatial building which Solomon and his associates erected for God and His worship. Garnished with precious stones, surrounded by spacious courts with magnificent approaches, and lined with carved cedar and burnished gold, the temple structure, with its broidered hangings and rich furnishings, was a fit emblem of the living church of God on earth, which through the ages has been building in accordance with the divine pattern, with materials that have been likened to ‘gold, silver, precious stones,’ ‘polished after the similitude of a palace.’ 1 Corinthians 3:12; Psalm 144:12. Of this spiritual temple Christ is ‘the chief Cornerstone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord.’ Ephesians 2:20, 21.” Prophets and Kings, 36.

 Those who think this observation about Daniel’s literary arrangement of his testimony is nothing more than coincidence must be unfamiliar with God’s word. The fact that Daniel’s testimony opens and concludes with a war between Israel and Babylon, in both the literal and the spiritual aspects is a solid and extremely profound argument that “the king of the north” in verse forty-five is none other than modern Babylon—the papal power!

For Smith to identify the king of the north in Daniel 11:45 as literal Turkey opposes all the passages in the Scriptures and Spirit of Prophecy that describe the final warfare in terms of spiritual Israel confronting spiritual Babylon. The pioneer position supports the literary climax found in the book of Daniel, while Smith’s turns the climax into irrelevance.

Another avenue to demonstrate the strength of the pioneer view is in the other passages in the Old Testament that portray a final end-time enemy coming from the north, and, he is always symbolizing modern Babylon. If you bring together those passages, along with the story of Lucifer and his desire to set upon the “sides of the north” (which is where the true worship of God is centered), you then also see Satan’s long held desire to be “the King of the north”. He works out the accomplishment of his long-held design through the papacy.

“This compromise between paganism and Christianity resulted in the development of ‘the man of sin’ foretold in prophecy as opposing and exalting himself above God. That gigantic system of false religion is a masterpiece of Satan’s power—a monument of his efforts to seat himself upon the throne to rule the earth according to his will.” The Great Controversy, 50.

 The prophetic enemy from the north, modern Babylon, the history of Satan, Old Testament prophecies and the Spirit of Prophecy identify that the climax at the end of the world, will be focused upon the controversy between modern spiritual Babylon and modern spiritual Israel. For Smith to identify the “king of the north” in verse forty-five as Turkey destroys not only the climax of Daniel’s last vision, but also the climax of Daniel’s entire testimony!

In verse thirty-one of Daniel eleven the transition from pagan to papal Rome is portrayed. From the point where the papacy is set up we see in verses thirty-two to thirty five a description of how the papacy came to control the world, the prediction of how long that period would last, and the persecution that followed the papacy ascending the throne of the earth. In verse thirty-six a fourth characteristic of the papacy is added to the previous information, and it is perhaps the premier characteristic of papal Rome.

Self-exaltation

And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Daniel 11:36.

 Did the papacy exercise its will during the Dark Ages?

Did they exalt the pope?

Did they magnify the pope above every god?

Did they speak against God? Sister White states that “speaking” in Bible prophecy means something very specific:

“The ‘speaking’ of the nation is the action of its legislative and judicial authorities.” The Great Controversy, 442.

 Did the papacy speak marvelous words against God when it passed papal legislation against His law and His people?

Unlike the anarchy of the French Revolution, does the papacy exist until “the indignation”? All these questions are answered in the affirmative. In so identifying the papacy as “the king of the north” in this verse, you do not have to reinterpret the Hebrew word for “the”. In identifying this king as the papacy you uphold a truth, which the pioneers recognized as foundational. Unlike Smith’s idea, you also have a firm answer for each characteristic identified in the verse, though you do arrive at completely different historical fulfillments than Smith’s book suggests.

Consider the rule of literal and spiritual that we have referred to. This rule impacts many truths of God’ word. It is sound. 

CONTINUE