Introduction

The simplest interpretation of any passage will always be a literal one, in which word meanings lie on the surface and everything is as it first appears. In Dan 11:40-45 interpreting literally would mean "north" is north, "south" is south, "Egypt" is Egypt, and so on. It is true that what was south then is still south today, that north is still north, and that Egypt is still a where it was. So are Libya and Cush. None of this has changed, except that Cush is now called Sudan. These are the best candidates for literality in Dan 11:40-45.

Consider another set of terms. If "Egypt" (vss. 42-43) means literal Egypt, consistency would argue that “Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites” (vs. 41) be understood literally as well. “Edom and Moab” are both singular, and could refer to the lands of Edom and Moab respectively, making a literal application possible. But “Ammonites” is plural. As such it cannot refer to the land of Ammon (there was only one of those), but can only be applied to people. The problem is, the Ammonite people no longer exist,¹ so any reference to them in the end time must be understood figuratively. This is one example. We will discuss other terms requiring a figurative interpretation below. Now the argument from consistency is starting to swing the other way. If some terms can be applied literally but others cannot be, the argument from consistency would favor applying any discretionary cases figuratively.

At the beginning of the chapter the language, for the most part, is not figurative. The “king of the south” in vss. 5, 6, 9, 11, and 14 refers to a power located south of Judea, and the “king of the north” in vss. 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, and 15 is a power north of Judea. So if the language is literal at the beginning of the chapter and figurative at the end, what would motivate such a change?

A number of factors could be mentioned. For example, there are a number of progressions in Dan 11, one of which is that in the early verses South attacks North and South wins, then North attacks South and South wins, then North attacks South and North wins (vss. 5-7, 8-10, 11-13), and in my view there’s a sequel involving literal North/literal South, nonliteral North/literal South, nonliteral North/nonliteral South (vss. 5-15, 23-28, 29-35), but that’s an interpretation. The most solidly empirical evidence of a transition has to do with Christ’s presence. Most historicist interpreters agree that “the prince of the covenant” in Dan 11:22 refers to Jesus. Thus, any verses following the time of Jesus could be expected to have a more spiritual orientation than those before. Some look for a transition at vs 23 and, finding none, conclude that no transition occurs, and therefore that literalism applies throughout.² But this reasoning is flawed. A transition does occur; it just doesn’t occur where people think it should. We don’t see it in vs. 23, but at vs. 31. From vs. 31 onward the angel’s vocabulary becomes predominantly spiritual, and vss. 41 and 45 provide a continuation of this.³

We see a similar process in other parts of the Bible. In Exodus God tells Moses, “Come, I will send you to Pharaoh that you may bring my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt" (Exod 3:10). Here “Egypt” is literal Egypt and the reference is to the literal exodus. In Revelation the sequel to this is, “Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities” (Rev 18:4-5). In Exodus the events are literal; in Revelation they are spiritual. On the one hand what Israel enters is a bit of Middle Eastern real estate; on the other, “a new heaven and a new earth” (21:1).

Things move from literal to spiritual in Daniel also. The same pattern repeats in each of the four major prophecies, such that Dan 2 starts with the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar and ends with the kingdom of God, Dan 7 ends with the final judgment, Dan 8-9 ends with the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, and Dan 11 ends with the second coming of Christ. The progression from literal to spiritual is therefore just as much a trend in Daniel as it is in the rest of Scripture, and we don’t just see it once. We should not be surprised if the same trend occurs in Dan 11, as it clearly does in other chapters. Actually, no historicist interpreter denies that Dan 11 ends with a major spiritual event. The question is how we get there exegetically.

Background

Just as all four of Daniel’s prophecies go from literal to spiritual, all four empires have some association with Babylon. Persia conquers Babylon; Seleucid Greece occupies the territory of Babylon; and in the New Testament, Rome, in both its phases, is called “Babylon.” Thus, “Babylon” in 1 Pet 5:13 is secular Rome, and “Babylon” in Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21 is spiritual Rome. There is a question whether Rome ever actually controlled Babylon. Septimius Severus invaded Mesopotamia and got as far south as Ctesiphon (on the Tigris), which is close to Babylon (on the Euphrates), but not quite. Any connection between Rome and Babylon appears to be entirely spiritual. Daniel starts with literal Babylon and ends with spiritual Babylon.

Dan 11:40 begins by saying, "At the time of the end, the king of the south shall attack him." In this verse who does “him” refer to? The text does not tell us. This is not a new actor. The power in question was introduced earlier. This takes us back to vss. 36-39. "And the king shall do as he wills" (vs. 36). Who is “the king” here? Again we are not told. This takes us back to vss. 29-35. "At the time appointed he shall retur and come into the south" (vs. 29). Who is “he”? We must find this information in earlier verses.

The first place we encounter the power which dominates vss. 29-35, 36-39, and 40-45, is in vss. 16-28. In vs. 16 the Hebrew says, weyaʿaś habbāʾ ʾēlāyw kirṣônô, "But he who comes against him shall do as he wills" (ESV).⁴ Other versions translate habbāʾ ʾēlāyw as "The invader" (NAB, NIV, NJB), or “The one advancing against him" (NET). When one king advances against another so as to invade his territory, that king is arriving from another place. Invasion is a point of entry. Here we have a new power.

So far we have been dealing with the inner two words of the four quoted above (habbāʾ ʾēlāyw, lit. “the one who comes against him”). The outer words (weyaʿaś . . . kirṣônô, "shall do . . . as he wills") are also of interest. They appear four times, in Dan 8:4; 11:3, 16, and 36, and in each case refer to a different empire. The first of these is Persia (8:4), then Greece (11:3), then the verse in question (11:16), then spiritual Rome (11:36). There’s a difference between first mention and the process of rising to dominance. For example, in 11:2 Greece is mentioned for the first time in the chapter, but the formula does not occur there. This is because in 11:2 Greece is not asserting itself but being attacked; only in 11:3 does it defeat the power which had attacked it. The outer words weʿāśâ kirṣônô only apply when Greece becomes dominant. From this I draw that in 11:16 a new power is rising to dominance, but the text does not tell us who this is.

Three verbal parallels connect Dan 9:26-27 to 11:16-17. Both passages have the same power in view. In Dan 9 this power destroys Messiah and Jerusalem in adjacent clauses of vs. 26. This fact identifies the “prince” of 9:26 as Rome, and the parallels between 9:26-27/11:16-17 identify “the invader” of 11:16 as the same as the “prince” in 9:26. Thus, “the invader” of 11:16 is Rome and vs. 16 is the point in the chapter where this power is introduced. In vs. 16 the Rome we encounter is a secular Republic or Empire; in vss. 29, 36, and 40 it is a spiritual power, which most Seventh-day Adventists identify as the papacy. At its peak during the Middle Ages the papacy's power was beyond all challenge. The end of this period is where our story begins in vs. 40.

The Passage

Three distinct events are narrated in Dan 11:40-45. South attacks North (vs. 40a), North attacks South (vss. 40b-43), and North and South together attack the people of God (vss. 44-45). Later it will be useful to analyze vs. 40b into smaller units (40b, 40c, 40d) and make certain other distinctions. But my point is that the clauses of vs. 40 refer forward to verse groups in 11:41-45. More specifically, vss. 40b, 40c, and 40d point forward respectively to vss. 42-43, 41-43, and 44-45. We start with vs. 40a.

Verse 40a

“At the time of the end, the king of the south shall attack him” (Dan 11:40a).

The Southern attack of vs. 40a occurs in 1798. On February 27 of that year Napoleon’s general, Berthier, removed Pius VI from Rome.⁵ In this sense Pius VI was perhaps the most unfortunate of popes, and yet he enjoyed an unusually long reign (1775-99). He died in exile at Valence in southern France, August 29, 1799.⁶

At his death, after one of the longest pontificates in history, many assumed that the destruction of the holy see had at last been accomplished, and the fortunes of the papacy had indeed reached their nadir under him; but Pius had left instructions (13 Jan. 1797 and 13 Nov. 1798) for the holding of the next conclave in emergency conditions.⁷

The papacy survived the events of 1798 of course, but in a weakened condition, which would eventually culminate in its political disappearance when Italy became a modern nation state. What had delayed its emergence previously was the fact that the Papal States occupied the middle part of the Italian peninsula, so unifying Italy meant dissolving the Papal States.⁸

On September 20, 1870, Victor Immanuel occupied Rome with an army. At this point the last vestige of papal secular power was gone and Pius IX (1846-78) became a self-proclaimed prisoner in the Vatican.⁹ Later popes would share this status until the time of Pius XI, who on February 11, 1929, signed a concordat with Mussolini returning Vatican City to papal control as a separate nation independent of Italy.¹⁰ The papacy had gone 131 years without any secular authority. In 1929 that situation was reversed.

Since then the papacy has recovered much of what it lost in 1798, but in some ways the damage was permanent. Religion no longer occupies the dominant role in society that it once did. Theologians ask permission of science to believe what they do and ordinary Christians adopt the assumptions of those they think they oppose. By now science has come to occupy a level of authority not unlike what the papacy enjoyed a thousand years ago. Religion was once considered a source of absolute truth – a court of final appeal for human thought. That role has now been usurped by science. If we want to know which power defeated the papacy in 1798, and therefore who “the king of the south” was in vs. 40a, we should ask who or what was victorious on that occasion. From what we have said, it was not just France, but anti-God secularism. This is the thought world animating Revolutionary France when Berthier was sent to take Pius VI captive in 1798.

The significance of what happened then is that the interface between science and religion was being totally realigned. Prophecy tells us the papacy will regain the power and influence it once had (Rev 13:3), but when this happens it will not be exercised as it once was. The papacy’s current realities are defined by its balance of power with science – and with the news media. The world has changed.

We now divide vs. 40 into four clauses corresponding to the Hebrew accents (40a, 40b, 40c, 40d), and vss. 41-45 into two verse groups based on whether the king is advancing to the South (41-43), or the North (44-45).

Verses 40b, 40c, and 40d in relation to 40a

Verse 40 contains a set of three metaphors. See tables 1 (Hebrew), 2 (English [ESV]), 3 (nature of the metaphors), and 4 (references to later verses), all of which present the same material, but from different points of view.

Table 1

The Three Metaphors of Dan 11:40

(Hebrew)

Table 2

The Three Metaphors of Dan 11:40

(English [ESV])

Table 3

The Three Metaphors of Dan 11:40

(Nature of the Metaphors)

Table 4

The Three Metaphors of Dan 11:40

(References to Later Verses)

The animal metaphor (#1) occurs in vs. 40a and does not refer to anything in later verses. The Southern attack is not repeated.

The wind metaphor (#2) occurs in vs. 40b and looks forward to vss. 42-43. In vs. 40b the king of the North rushes “upon him,” i.e., upon the king of the South. But in order to do that, the king has to recover enough to fight against and then get to “him.” That means getting to his territory (“Egypt”). The king of the South is not mentioned after vs. 40a, but the word “Egypt” appears twice, in vs. 42 and vs. 43. From this I draw that vs. 40b (“the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind”) is a forward reference to vss. 42-43.

Instead of referring forward to vss. 42-43, could the wind metaphor be a reference back to vs. 40a? Syntactically this would be possible, but there is a question whether such an application is contextually appropriate. The verb yitnaggaḥ (*ngḥ) has the root meaning “gore” and is singular. This is not a contest between equals; it is a mauling. Only one king does the goring. Before fighting the king of the South again the king of the North must first do some much-needed recuperating, muster his forces, and get them all down to “Egypt,” where the attack can be expected to occur. This explains why the king passes through so many “countries” (40c) en route in vs. 41. He is heading for “Egypt” and has not gotten there yet.

Verses 41-43 itemize which “countries” the king passes through. These include “the glorious land” (vs. 41), “Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites” (vs. 41), “Egypt” (vss. 42, 43), and “the Libyans and the Cushites” (vs. 43). In addition there is a reference to unnamed “countries” in vs. 42. This would suggest that what we have in vss. 41-43 is not a complete list. There is no metaphor in vs. 40c.

The flood metaphor (#3) occurs in vs. 40d and looks forward to the utter devastation contemplated by the king of the North in vss. 44-45. In the case of a hurricane, water is more damaging than wind.¹¹ But even if the proportions were reversed, it is still the case that the wind response and the water response represent different states of affairs. One king cannot fight one opponent at two levels of intensity simultaneously. From this I draw that metaphors #2 and #3 apply at different times. One describes what the king does in vss. 41-43 where he advances South, the other describes vss. 44-45 where he advances back toward the North. Below is a summary of the relationships discussed above. See fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Visual overview of the relationship between clauses of vs. 40 and verses within the rest of the section.

Verses 41-43

We now return to the matter of who the kings of the North and the South are and seek to establish the manner in which direction terms are used in the section.

From a spiritual point of view, in 1798 the king of the South was the French general Berthier, because in 1798 Berthier did what kings of the South do, i.e., he attacked the king of the North. This is a functional definition of what South is. South is as South does. Similarly, North is as North does.

The entire passage we are studying comes in a geographical wrapper, as it were, which emphasizes directions and informs us concerning relationships and events. This wrapper should be seen as part of the same system of metaphors that we first encountered in vs. 40. Against this geographical backdrop three main events unfold: (a) South attacks North (not shown), (b) North attacks South (blue lines), and (c) the united forces of North and South together attack the people of God (red lines). See fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Map showing the geographical framework of the passage.

Item (c) (above) is unusual and requires explanation. When kings in Dan 11 go to war, they march from their own territory to that of their opponent. Here we have a king of the North marching from his opponent’s territory toward his own, which raises the question whether South really is his opponent’s territory at this point in the narrative. If the king’s role changes along with his direction, South is no longer enemy territory, but conquered territory, and “the Libyans and the Cushites shall follow in his train” (vs. 43). The forces of the North and the South have now merged, such that what we have been calling the king of the North is now simply the king of this world.

Even in earlier verses, where much of the language is literal, the terms North and South are code words for the broken parts of Alexander’s divided empire. They were never just points of the compass. It is anachronistic to map a specifically Greek distinction (North/South) onto Rome with the expectation that it will continue making good literal sense in that context as well as the one where it was introduced.

If we take away what gives the terms North and South their meaning, we lose the ability to define those terms meaningfully. Syria became a Roman province in 64 BC. Egypt became the personal property of the emperor in 31 BC, when Rome changed from Republic to Empire. Judea became a Roman province in AD 6. Then when Jerusalem was demolished in AD 70, it was rebuilt as “Aelia Capitolina.” For many years there was no Jerusalem. When the elements on which the North/South relationship was based disappear from the prophecy, the relationship itself is rendered meaningless in any literal sense. Within our passage, if North and South are not merely points of the compass in the prophecy, how shall we interpret them? They are pointers back to earlier relationships, and the memory of these should continue to inform our understanding.

This does not mean we are free to make things up as we please. It is a hermeneutical commonplace that the Old Testament should influence our understanding of the New, but Hans LaRondelle introduces a bold corollary to this, i.e., that the New Testament should influence our understanding of the Old. He names a book chapter, "The Key to the Old Testament: Literalism or the New Testament?"¹² The part of the New Testament most closely associated with Daniel is Revelation. When we study the two books together, there is a useful synergy between them.

Verses 44-45

When the king regains the power he once had, and has made himself comfortable in “Egypt,” his mood becomes hostile. A similar transition occurs in vs. 30. See table 3.

Table 3

Parallels Between Dan 11:30 and 44

Having conquered “Egypt” and its former political satellites, the king notices a pocket of resistance behind him. He retraces his steps toward “the east and the north,” i.e., the northeast (vs. 44; see fig. 2, above). In my view his return from “Egypt” is an imperfect reflection of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ return from literal Egypt when he and his army were unceremoniously sent home by a single unarmed Roman legate.¹³ On his return through Jerusalem Antiochus massacred thousands of people in the streets (1 Macc 1:16-24). In the present case, the king is not returning home. He has made “Egypt” a home. Instead he is going to “the glorious holy mountain” solely for the purpose of attacking it. The forces with which he does this extend from the city to the sea. They are so numerous they can’t all reach the city they’re supposed to be attacking. The implication is that, under the king’s leadership, the whole world turns on those associated with “the glorious holy mountain” (vs. 45).

If everyone except the comparative handful of people at “the glorious holy mountain” now follows the king, we would expect the text to say, “with none to oppose him,” but instead it says, “with none to help him” (vs. 45). The reason for this will remain unclear until we read the next verse (12:1), where Michael stands up to deliver His people. At the same time these things are happening, the king’s base of authority and support implodes here on earth (Rev 17:16).

Discussion

If the Southern attack occurs “At the time of the end” (vs. 40a), and if the king of the North is the papacy, the meaning of the passage is clear. The Southern attack is Berthier removing Pius VI from Rome in 1798. This attack is real and is carried out by means of an army, but does not fit well in a literal interpretation of the passage. One reason for this is that in a surface reading of vs. 40 the Northern response occurs immediately, whereas from history we know that for 131 years following 1798 the papacy does nothing and its status only declines. Eventually the papacy “shall rush upon him like a whirlwind” (vs. 40b), but the response is not directed at Berthier, or at France, it is not military when it occurs, and it does not occur immediately.

What the papacy eventually does is less clear than the results of his having done it. In hindsight we can see that a dramatic change has occurred since 1798, and even since 1929, but that leaves open the question of what historical forces brought the change about. A Catholic pope has now presided over the demise of world communism (John Paul II, 1989-91), addressed a General Assembly of the United Nations (John Paul II, 1979, 1995), been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom (With Distinction) (John Paul II, 2003), addressed a joint session of the United States Congress (Francis, 2015), and in Sweden assisted in the 500 year anniversary of the Reformation (Francis, 2017).

Nor is this all. A Catholic has served as President of the United States (John F. Kennedy, 1960), and arguably, a Catholic is now serving as Vice President of the United States. Mike Pence was raised Catholic and describes himself as an “evangelical Catholic.”¹⁴ What has happened during the past 200 years to cause such a transformation? Whatever it was, that’s what the passage was trying to tell us.

The Vatican is not just a religious place; it is also a business. Every day over 30,000 people visit the Vatican’s museums and chapels, at prices starting from about 15€ each, with some tours costing significantly more. The papacy does not draw this kind of crowds by being hostile to people, but by welcoming them with smiles and pleasing words. Pope Francis has made every effort to build bridges to non-Catholic Christians, to Jews, to Muslims (especially Muslims), and to members of other faith communities. With reference to Muslims, he specifically rules out any connection between Islam and terrorism, saying,

Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist,” he said in a speech last February. “There are fundamentalist and violent individuals in all peoples and religions ” Last July, Ahmed al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Cairo’s al-Azhar, thanked him for his “defense of Islam against the accusation of violence and terrorism.¹⁵

Being a friend to all does not mean that all will become Catholics. That is not necessary. If they follow without becoming Catholics, that will more than suffice. The main thing is for the world to marvel and to follow. “One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast” (Rev 13:3).

At what point do we pass from vss. 41-43, where the papacy aggressively pursues his agenda, but does so by presenting itself winsomely, to vss. 44-45 where the situation changes so dramatically? Only God knows when this will occur, but when it does, it will be easy to tell. The question is, How angry is the king? If the king is not angry yet, we are not in vss. 44-45 yet.

There are different ways to approach Dan 11:40-45 and different possible hermeneutics to apply in doing so. This does not mean that all hermeneutical systems have equal value, but there are different points of view. Shea sees the final verses as an end time counterpart to Cambyses' Egyptian campaign of 525 BC.¹⁶ Rodríguez sees them as an end time counterpart to the exodus from Egypt.¹⁷ A number of arguments favor this possibility. I see vss. 41-43 as an end time counterpart to Antiochus IV Epiphanes' invasion of Egypt in 170 BC (1 Macc 1:16-24) and vss. 44-45 as a counterpart to his expulsion from Egypt and subsequent attack on Jerusalem in 168 BC (2 Macc 5:11-14).¹⁸ Some historicist interpreters understand the language of our passage literally, others figuratively.¹⁹ My goal in what follows is to start chipping away at this otherwise legitimate latitude in our understanding. Our goal is not to learn what is possible, but to know the Holy Spirit intends.

Revelation

There are a number of passages in Revelation which can be compared with the one we are studying. Knowing what these are will help us start factoring out interpretations that are not useful. We must study Daniel and Revelation together.

Rev 13

Speaking of the sea beast, Rev 13:3 says, “One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast” (Rev 13:3). These three clauses map directly onto our passage. From this comparison it is clear that the king of the North in Dan 11:40-45 is the sea beast of Rev 13:1-10; South attacking North is what inflicts the mortal wound; North positioning itself to attack South, and then attacking it, is the process by which the wound heals (until North overcomes “Egypt” its power and authority are still at pre-Southern attack levels); and North and South assembling their joint forces around “the glorious holy mountain” for one final attack on the people of God is what it means for the whole earth to follow the beast. See table 4.

Table 4

Parallels Between Dan 11:40-45 and Rev 13:3

Rev 14 and 18

In Rev 14 and 18 we are dealing with the three angel’s messages. The first angel’s message is not repeated because it is tied to the year 1844 and the beginning of the judgment, which can only happen once. However, the second angel’s message (Rev 14:8) is repeated in Rev 18:2-3, and the third angel’s message (Rev 14:9-12) is repeated in Rev 18:4-24. See table 5.

Table 5

Parallels Between Rev 14 and Rev 18

We have no independent interest here in either Rev 14 or Rev 18. But if Rev 18 connects the third angel’s message to the exodus, and if the end time exodus is from “Babylon” rather than “Egypt,” this reverses the direction symbolism and direction symbolism is of great interest. In Exod 5-15 God brought His people out of the South; in Rev 18 He brings His people out of the North. Can a corollary to this type of reversal be seen in Dan 11:40-45?

In vss. 11:40b-43 the king of the North marches from the North and attacks “Egypt.” This is the expected state of affairs. Kings of the North attack kings of the South. But in vss. 11:44-45 the king of the North marches North (northeast) out of “Egypt” in order to attack the people of God. Here North assumes a Southern role; in Rev 18 we see South assuming a Northern role. This turbulence in the matter of direction symbolism is highly instructive.²⁰

It would appear that just before the second coming, the king of the North in Dan 11 ceases to be merely a king of the North and becomes instead a king of this world – the entire world, North and South together. When this happens the directionality we had relied on previously falls into disarray. This situation cannot follow from, and is inconsistent with, a model in which prophetic coordinates are isomorphic with geocentric ones. And what the directions are after the change gives insight into what the nature of their significance before the change. Prophetic directions are reversed in Dan 11, as in Rev 18, whereas geocentric directions would be incapable of doing this.

If the call to come out of Babylon (Rev 18:4) is the same as the third angel’s message, the loud cry of the third angel is what first alarms, and then enrages, the king in Dan 11:44. This exodus from the North is further explained in Great Controversy, chap. 38, “The Final Warning.”²¹ The above connection with Great Controversy is something we now consider in greater detail. It is of direct interest to our discussion and involves, not one chapter, but six.

Spirit of Prophecy

Great Controversy chaps. 35-40 map closely onto Dan 11:40-12:3. Their connection is with Dan 11:40b-45, omitting vs. 40a. If we were to include the Southern attack of vs. 40a, that would take us back to chap. 15. Our focus here will be on the Northern response.

A look at the Comprehensive Index to the Writings of Ellen G. White leaves the impression that Ellen White has nothing to say about Dan 11,²² but actually she writes extensively on the topic, and with special emphasis on vss. 40-45. She does not say this is what she’s doing, and might not have realized the full extent of the riches God was giving her. We will never know, and it does not matter.

Overview

In what follows I divide the above six chapters from Great Controversy into two groups (A, B). Group A includes chaps. 35-37, group B, chaps. 38-40. I make this distinction because group B can be related to Dan 11 in an immediately obvious manner, while group A requires more thought. See table 6.

Table 6

Parallels Between Dan 11:40b-45 and

Great Controversy chaps. 35-40

We are here studying a bloc of verses and a bloc of chapters. If the earlier and later verses (Dan 11:40b/41-43, 44-45) form an internally cohesive sequence, and the earlier and later chapters (GC chaps. 35-37, 38-40) form an internally cohesive sequence, and if the later chapters map well onto the later verses (Dan 11:44-45, GC chaps. 38-40), it would be reasonable to suppose – and unreasonable not to suppose – that the earlier chapters would map onto the earlier verses (Dan 11:40b-d, 41-43). I submit that they do. See fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Let the blue double arrows represent textual relationships that are obvious at first glance, and the red double arrow, those requiring more thought.

We now consider both groups of chapters (35-37, 38-40), starting with a quick overview of group B. Dan 11:44a refers to “news from the east and the north,” and GC chap. 38 is entitled, “The Final Warning.” Here the “news” and the “warning” are two ways of saying the same thing. Dan 11:44b says the king responds to this “news” by becoming enraged, and GC chap. 39 is entitled, “The Time of Trouble.” The king’s wrath causes the time of trouble. Dan 11:45 says the king comes to his end in a most unexpected way, and GC chap. 40 is entitled, “God’s People Delivered.” They are delivered when Michael stands up and brings all the angel armies of heaven to the defense of His people. This set of correspondences is entirely straightforward. We now turn to group A in relation to group B.

Group A: Chaps. 35-37

Verse 40b/chap. 35. In chap. 35 of Great Controversy (“Liberty of Conscience Threatened”) Ellen White states that, "Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years" (GC 563). Assuming this is true, what does saying so have to do with the king of the North fighting a war? At issue is the nature of the war. What we see in the passage is an institution fighting in every possible way to regain its influence and the territory over which that influence once extended. But this is not the full extent of the conflict. What we’re talking about here is the final scenes of the great controversy. Every other war is minor when compared with this one. But in regard to the papacy, in hindsight we can see that a dramatic change has occurred in the last 200 years and the reason for this change is the subject of vss. 41-43.

In vss. 41-43 there is collateral damage (“tens of thousands shall fall,” vs. 41), which has nothing to do with the king of the North’s conflict with the South. The “tens of thousands” mentioned in vs. 41 are people associated with “the glorious land.” Since “glorious” is what an angel would consider glorious (he’s the one using the word), this land is something spiritual. Modern Israel does not begin to be glorious in the required sense. If the land is spiritual, the fall of many within that land is spiritual. In any event, “the glorious land” is not the same as “Egypt,” where the king is going. Even when he gets there, there is no Northern blood bath, and no Southern defensive actions. The king just arrives and makes himself at home. Thus, vss. 41-43 describe how the king positions himself for a battle that never really comes. He is successful, but what does this mean?

In 1854, while the Washington Monument was still under construction and before the above statement was written, Pope Pius IX (1846-78) donated a bloc of fine Italian granite as his contribution to the Monument, but at night a mob came, smashed it, and threw the pieces into the Potomac.²³

Seventy-four years later, in 1928, a Catholic candidate, Al Smith, ran for president of the United States. Herbert Hoover soundly defeated him (by a 20% margin), but Smith made history by running.²⁴ In 1929 Pius XI (1922-39) and Mussolini signed a concordat establishing Vatican City as an independent state and the pope as its secular sovereign. In 1960 the United States elected its first Catholic president (John F. Kennedy, 1961-63).²⁵ In 1980 the rise of the trade union Solidarity led to the fall of communism in Poland and then, in 1991, the Soviet Union self-destructed. In both cases the Polish pope, John Paul II (1978-2005), was widely credited with playing a pivotal role.²⁶

What would Ellen White say if she could hear Billy Graham's admiring pronouncement that, "Pope John Paul II was unquestionably the most influential voice for morality and peace in the world during the last 100 years,"²⁷ or if she could know that John Paul II would be invited to address a General Assembly of the United Nations,²⁸ or that in 2004 he would be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom (With Distinction) by George W. Bush,²⁹ or that Francis I (2005-) would be invited to address not only the General Assembly of the United Nations³⁰ but also a joint session of the United States congress?³¹ And how would she ever believe that in Sweden a pope would be invited to assist in celebrating the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation (1517-2017)? Even I can’t believe this and I saw it on the news. The prestige of the papacy has grown exponentially over the past 100 years. Clearly, "Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years" (GC 563). And yet, what does this have to do the king of the North fighting a war?

Verse 40b says "the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships." If the king is fighting with chariots, and horsemen, and ships, he is using every available resource to pursue an objective of great strategic importance to him. When Catholics can win presidential campaigns, receive invitations to address the United Nations, and shape events like the downfall of communism, that's a full range of resources. No army required. The document Laudato Si offers another example in its appeal to public concern for the planet.³² The church has no particular interest in global ecology – that is not one of its topics – but it does have an interest in winning the public support of those it can influence by making such pronouncements.

Make no mistake, the Vatican is truly waging a war, with careful attention to grand strategy, strategy, and tactics. But it is not the war anyone expects, and this is one reason why it has been so successful. The papacy is not fighting for blood, but for popularity, prestige, and a following that transcends all ethnic, religious, and social boundaries. If "Romanism is now regarded by Protestants with far greater favor than in former years" (GC 563), this status did not come easily. The church has had to fight for every inch of ground it has gained. Or has it? In Rev 13:13-15 the earth beast does everything in its power to create an environment favorable to the wounded sea beast’s recovery. The two are closely allied.

Verses 40cd/chap. 36. In chap. 36 (“The Impending Conflict”) Ellen White talks about two widely held beliefs which will be a test for God's people in the end time, i.e., that the dead are not dead and that the seventh-day Sabbath is not binding on Christians. Both beliefs raise important issues, but her primary focus is on the Sabbath, which speaks to the issue of the creatorship of God. This one teaching is the foundation of all theology.

The reason why Satan hates the Sabbath so much is not that God created the world, but that He created it through His Son (John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2, 3, 10). The presence of God sanctifies. This is why the Sabbath sanctifies (Exod 31:13). The sanctifying presence of God in the Sabbath is that of His Son, who as Lord of the Sabbath still comes to us where we are on the day that celebrates His status as our Creator (Mark 2:28; Gen 3:8). The bond with God that is formed through Christ-centered Sabbath keeping is therefore formed through His Son.³³ What Satan cannot accept is the preeminence that the Sabbath gives to God’s Son. “It was Satan’s purpose to bring about an eternal separation between God and man; but in Christ we become more closely united to God than if we had never fallen.”³⁴

Understood in this context, the Sabbath stands for everything that Satan stands against. It is the summing up of everything he opposes. This brings us to the heart of the great controversy. The issues raised by the Sabbath are what this war is about. And this war is what our passage is about.

Dan 11:41-43/chap. 37. In chap. 37 ("The Scriptures a Safeguard") Ellen White tells us, not what will happen and when, but how to come through the conflict successfully. This knowledge is different from, and vastly more useful than, a chart of future events. If we knew exactly what challenges we would face and on what schedule we would face them, such knowledge would only be an impediment to us. What we need to learn is how to trust God, because such knowledge has saving value. What Ellen White tells us in chap. 37 is that our only safety lies in studying our Bibles, which is the source of all saving knowledge. Only in this way can we resist the king’s influence. Anyone unwilling to do this will succumb. This much has to do with group A chapters.

Group B: Chaps. 38-40

Above I suggested that the "news from the east and the north" alarms and then enrages the king in vs. 44a as people start to share with latter rain power the knowledge they gain from the above study of Scripture. This sharing corresponds to Ellen White's chapter entitled, "The Final Warning" (chap. 38). The "news" (ESV, NLT) in this clause is Hebrew šemūʿôt (lit., "things heard"; "tidings" KJV, ASV, RSV; "reports" NAB, NET, NIV, NJB, NRS). It has also been translated as "messages" (see Isa 28:9, 19; Jer 49:14).³⁵ In Rev 14 these compare with "the loud cry," or "the loud cry of the third angel,"³⁶ which refers to the repetition of the third angel’s message in Rev 18.

When the king comes with "great fury to destroy and devote many to destruction" in vs. 44b, that corresponds to "The Time of Trouble" (chap. 39), which describes the king’s wrath as he hears the loud cry.

When the king"shall come to his end, with none to help him" in vs. 45, that corresponds in Great Controversy to "The Final Deliverance" (chap. 40). God responds to the time of trouble by sending Christ and all the angel armies of heaven to rescue His saints, which brings us to Dan 12:1-3 and such other passages as Rev 17:16 and 19:11-21.

Summary

We now return briefly to the matter of whether the terms “north,” “south,” and “Egypt” can be applied literally in Dan 11:40-45. I have suggested that the terms North and South lose their expected meanings in vss. 44-45. In the final verses the king is no longer associated with a direction. If the whole word are his subjects, the whole world is his kingdom. The corollary of this in Revelation is that “the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast” (Rev 13:3c).

This much has to do with “north” and “south.” What about “Egypt”? When Berthier carried Pius VI into exile he was attacking not only a pope (Pius VI), but the papacy. Similarly, the one attacking the papacy in 1798 was not merely Berthier, but Napoleon who sent him, and the government of Revolutionary France that Napoleon represented. Nor was France the only factor. The secularism in France at this time was an isolated manifestation of something global “that symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt” (Rev 11:8). We should define “Egypt,” as it occurs in Dan 11:42-43, in this broader context. End time spiritual “Egypt” is the opposite counterpart to end time spiritual “Babylon” (Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21).

When we allow the Bible to interpret itself, the terms “north,” “south,” and “Egypt” all take on spiritual meaning in the end time. It would be possible to interpret these three words literally if we isolate Dan 11:40-45 from other passages, but that would only isolate the terms from their local figurative contexts and isolate the passage from others that are deeply relevant to it. A majority of terms in our passage cannot be understood literally, e.g., “[gore]” (king of the South = animal), “whirlwind” (king of the North = wind), “overflow” (king of the North = water), “the glorious land,” “the glorious holy mountain,” “the Ammonites” (plural), and perhaps also “the Libyans and the Cushites” (both plural). We are dealing here not only with figurative words, but with a figurative passage which incorporates those words. We cannot have ancient “Ammonites” in vs. 42 and modern “Libyans” and “Cushites” in vs. 43. The passage can have only one timeframe. We must decide which hermeneutic is most appropriate and apply it consistently throughout.

Having said this, and having emphasized the figurative nature of the material, I repeat with emphasis that the papacy is truly conducting a war. The papacy’s war is not military, but this does not make it any less real. It is fought with forces we cannot see (Eph 6:16). The issue before us is, Whose side am I on? Who has my loyalties? One reason for the papacy’s success is that people don’t realize the above war is taking place. This explains the otherwise peculiar fact that “Egypt” gives no evidence of responding to the Northern invasion when it occurs in vss. 42-43. South is not spiritual and has no awareness of spiritual warfare. It does not know it’s being attacked.

The final conflict is global in scope and spiritual in nature. Another name for this conflict is the great controversy. Another name for the end of the war is Armageddon. And another name for Armageddon is the second coming.

Conclusion

Jesus has explicitly warned His followers not to be preoccupied with “wars and rumors of wars” (Matt 24:6; Mark 13:7; Luke 21:9), by which He means people-against-people wars fought with armies. The war we have been discussing, on the other hand, requires the most careful attention. Every other war is an imitation of this one. Yet another military action in the Middle East would not be diagnostic of last events; it would be diagnostic of human history ever since Cain and Abel. But when the opposite occurs, i.e., when instead of fighting everywhere, people everywhere unite for spiritual reasons, that is a sign of the end. The only verse that uses the word “Armageddon” is Rev 16:16, and in that verse the only verb is synēgagen (“assembled”). This kind of assembling is a sure sign that human history is over.

When the whole earth marvels and follows the earth beast, that is the context for Dan 11:44-45. Those who do not follow the king will feel his wrath, but those who do follow him will feel God’s wrath (Rev 14:9-11; 18:4-24). In the end we will give our loyalty to the king of this world, or to God. We will be loyal to earth, or to heaven. The king’s wrath is not one army fighting another, but an entire world turning on God in the person of His saints. When the whole world turns on God in this way, all heaven will turn on the rebellious king. And so will his followers (Rev 17:16).

The unbelieving world does not have a clue that this particular war is taking place, that the above issues are issues, that there is a heaven, or a God. The information we convey in our expositions of prophecy must be such as to enable people to resist the king of the North intelligently and successfully.³⁷ When we get this level of instruction from the prophecy, we can be sure we have correctly understood it.