Unraveling the Conflation

Month: July 2017

An Interview with Adam Maarschalk

Adam Maarschalk

Adam Maarschalk

Recently, I had the opportunity to talk with outstanding prophecy student and blogger, Adam Maarschalk.  Adam has been actively researching biblical prophecy for more than a decade.  In 2009, he began regularly writing posts for his blog “Pursuing Truth” where he primarily discusses trends in the interpretation of biblical eschatology.  Most recently, he has been dedicating a large portion of his posts to some interesting research he’s done regarding the infamous beasts which are recorded in the book of Revelation. He spoke on this topic in March 2017 at the Blue Point Bible Conference in Long Island, New York.   He has also been invited to present three times on the monthly “Preterist Conference Calls” podcast with Jordan Hardgrave.  Many of these can be viewed at the YouTube channel which bears Adam’s name.

I’d encourage anyone to check out Adam’s research on any of these resources.  He has some really interesting ideas.

Not only is his research intriguing but even if you don’t agree with his conclusions, you’re sure to find encouragement in his infectious enthusiasm for fulfilled prophecy and his charitable demeanor.  Adam has been a true blessing to me.  I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to talk with someone who shares such a passion for eschatology and is also so willing to dialogue openly and honestly on the subject.

I was first introduced to Adam via some discussions I was involved with through theos.org, a forum hosted by bible teacher, Steve Gregg.  In response to one of my comments, someone had posted a link to Adam’s research.  After checking it out, I was immediately very impressed.  Not only with his research and presentation style, but also the overall spirit of his approach and his sincere dedication to seeking spiritual truth.

Following that, I posted a few comments on his blog and to my surprise he actually posted a genuine reply!  A prophecy pundit who actually takes the ramblings of total strangers seriously?  This was indeed a rare find.  I just knew I had to contact him for a more in depth discussion. And, wouldn’t you know it, he even graciously (and indiscriminately) agreed to that as well!

The following is the transcript of the riveting interview that ensued:


Carmine: Adam, thank you so much for joining me today.  It’s a real privilege to talk with you.

Adam: You’re welcome, and it’s also a privilege to talk with you. Thank you as well for having me with you and for hosting this discussion.

Carmine: Like yourself, I have many difficulties with how most Christians today understand biblical prophecy, especially as it relates directly to events of our present time.  This study is something that’s become kind of a consuming passion for us both.  Your studies, at least the ones that I’ve heard and read, seem to focus primarily on the book of Revelation.  Now, many individuals from within my sphere of influence who are reading this are probably only familiar with the idea that the book of Revelation describes some pretty disturbing events that are still in the future with respect to our present time.  It’s not uncommon at all for people to understand it in terms of events surrounding a future globally unified government and economy controlled by an evil, almost divinely charismatic Anti-Christ.  This figure is someone who is expected to cause all people to worship him as God and have them identify themselves with him and all for which he stands by receiving a mark on their forehead or right hand.  A decision that will ultimately condemn them to an eternity apart from the true God.  Of course, that’s an oversimplification but those are some core tenets that would be immediately recognizable by most I think.

However, shocking as it may sound, this popular view is being cast into serious doubt by many people today.  Is that correct?

Adam: Yes, it is. It sounds like you’re primarily describing the premillennialist framework which has become more popular during the last 200 years of church history than it was in earlier church history.  That framework has long been challenged by amillennialists and postmillennialists.  In recent years it’s also facing a more vigorous challenge by those who, like myself, hold to preterism, the belief that most or all prophecy has already been fulfilled.  We can trace preterist teachings all the way back to the late first century AD, but it’s a movement that has become more systematic in recent decades.

Carmine: And are these just uneducated laymen?  Are any serious and well respected biblical scholars adopting this view?

Adam: I’ve observed a wide spectrum when it comes to the education level of those who hold this view.  Among us are men and women with doctorate degrees and some who are considered scholars, like Dr. R.C. Sproul, Dr. Kenneth Gentry, Dr. Don K. Preston, Dr. Jonathan Welton, and others.  They have adopted either what is known as “partial preterism” or what is known as “full preterism.”

Carmine:  For the benefit of my readers who are unfamiliar with this alternative view of prophecy, could you please summarize this shift in trends and the reasons behind the movement?

Adam: Sure.  This movement takes seriously the time statements found throughout the New Testament.  Even many critics of this movement recognize that Jesus and the apostles believed and taught that the Great Tribulation and other events of “the last days” would take place in their own generation.  The preterist movement believes that they were not in any way wrong or mistaken for believing and teaching this way.  Instead, many in our own day hold faulty presuppositions about the nature of apocalyptic events foretold in the New Testament, and these presuppositions often don’t take into account how the Old Testament used similar language to describe apocalyptic events that were fulfilled centuries before the birth of Christ (e.g. the Medo-Persian takeover of Babylon predicted in Isaiah 13).

The preterist movement takes note of the clear statements made by Jesus about the judgment which was soon going to fall on His own adulterous generation, as well as His clear statements about the soon arrival of the kingdom of God.  It was because of these statements that [1] James could say the Judge was already standing at the door (James 5:8-9) [2] Peter could say “the end of all things” was at hand (I Peter 4:7) [3] John could say that it was “the last hour” (I John 2:18), etc.

Regarding reasons behind this movement, I believe this movement answers some notable individuals who have mocked not only popular eschatology, but even the New Testament itself. Besides the constant date setting we’ve all seen, which is embarrassing enough, there are those who have directly challenged Christians by saying that Jesus and the apostles gave false prophecies.

For example, in 1927 the British philosopher Bertrand Russell gave a speech which was later turned into a pamphlet titled, “Why I Am Not a Christian.”  One of his main arguments was that Jesus clearly promised to return within the lifetime of His disciples, but failed to do so.  Here is what Russell said:

“He certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance: ‘Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come.’ Then He says: ‘There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom’; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching… In that respect clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and he was certainly not superlatively wise” (Source).

Similarly, C. S. Lewis, a well-known Christian author, made this surprising statement about the words of Jesus and the expectation of the disciples:

“The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proven to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” (Essay: “The World’s Last Night” (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385.)

If Jesus and the apostles were wrong about eschatology, then what else were they wrong about?  Of course, I don’t believe they were wrong, and I believe that preterism makes more sense of their words than any other system of eschatology.

Carmine: Is this trend something you have always bought into?

Adam: No, not at all.

Carmine: Could you tell us a little bit about that journey?  What beliefs did you formerly hold, what caused you to question those beliefs, and how have they changed as a result?

Adam: I grew up in a church that taught dispensationalism and the pre-tribulation rapture view.  I personally adopted that view and I even told a few people at my high school that I was 100% sure the rapture and the Great Tribulation would begin by the year 2000.  I began to let go of that belief system sometime around 2005, but for a few years I simply shifted to the post-tribulation rapture view, which says that Christians will go through a future tribulation period lasting seven years.

Then in 2009 I was introduced to a study on Daniel’s 70 Weeks prophecy which pointed out that the “he” of Daniel 9:27 was Jesus, not an antichrist figure. Jesus made a covenant with many for the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:28).  He brought an end to sacrifice and offering by Himself becoming the ultimate sacrifice (Heb. 10:10; I John 2:2).  With a new understanding of Daniel 9:24-27, I realized that there are no Scripture passages which predict a 7-year tribulation.  This launched me toward the fulfilled view of eschatology, also known as preterism.  I began to take seriously the many time statements concerning “last days” events, which were already at hand and prophesied to take place soon from the viewpoint of Jesus and the apostles.  There was a great tribulation predicted in Scripture, but it was to last 3.5 years, according to Daniel and John, and it took place during the Jewish-Roman War (AD 66 – AD 73), leading up to the destruction of the temple in AD 70.

Carmine: After becoming convinced of the preterist view of biblical prophecy, you then began to have some difficulties even with those interpretations too.   Could you tell us a little about that?

Adam: Well, I never have accepted the idea that the 1000 years of Revelation 20 began around AD 30 and ended by AD 70, as many preterists believe.  For one thing, according to Revelation 20:4, the ones who reigned for 1000 years were those who were beheaded for refusing to worship the beast.  Yet, as preterists say (and I agree), the 42 months of persecution and beheading (Rev. 13:5-8) took place at the beginning of the Jewish-Roman War (AD 66 – 73).  So that’s when the 1000 years would begin, not end.  This is also confirmed when we see that Satan is later cast into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet already were (Rev. 20:10).  Admittedly, Revelation 20 is a difficult chapter.  I do have ideas on what is represented by the 1000 years, but I’ll save that for another time.

Within the last year, I have abandoned the view I previously held, and which seems to be held by most preterists, concerning the beast of Revelation.  I used to believe that the beast was the Roman Empire, generally, and Nero, specifically.

Carmine: Specifically with regard to the beast of Revelation, could you summarize the main difficulties you see with identifying Rome as the beast which emerges from the sea?

Adam: Sure.  Just to begin with, here are a few reasons:

[1] The beast from the sea ends up being cast into the lake of fire, and the birds feed on the flesh of its followers (Rev. 19:20-21).  That didn’t happen to the Roman Empire, to the city of Rome, or to the Roman soldiers.
[2] According to Revelation 13:10, the saints were to take courage in the fact that, although the beast would take people captive, the beast himself would go into captivity.  This also didn’t happen to Rome.
[3] Revelation 13:11-17 describes a second beast, later called “the false prophet” (Rev. 16:13, 19:20, 20:10) working closely with and on behalf of the first beast, and even performing signs and wonders.  Josephus repeatedly spoke of false prophets working closely with (and even hired by) a certain group of people and claiming to perform signs and wonders, but it wasn’t Rome that they worked with.
[4] In Revelation 17:16 John was told that the 10 horns of the beast would make the harlot desolate, eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.  The harlot was also called “the great city” and in Revelation 11:8 the great city was first identified as the place “where our Lord was crucified,” i.e. Jerusalem.  Well, in “The Wars of the Jews” by Josephus, it’s very apparent that he repeatedly blamed a certain group of people for the destruction of Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple.  That group of people was not the Romans.

Carmine: And you feel recorded history presents us with a better candidate than Rome, correct?  Could you talk a little about who you think that may have been?

Adam: Yes. I believe it was Israel, and the Zealot movement and leaders in particular.  It was Israel and Jerusalem that became like a bloody lake and a fiery inferno, fulfilling the picture of the lake of fire in Revelation 19:20 (and Daniel 7:11).  It was the Jewish Zealots who were taken captive after several years of taking others captive (Rev. 13:10).  It was the Zealots who Josephus repeatedly blamed for the destruction of Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple (Rev. 17:16).
It was the Zealots who worked closely with the false prophets, killing anyone who wouldn’t go along with their war agenda (Rev. 13:11-17).  It was the Zealots who achieved a stunning and unexpected war victory at the outset of the war, being hailed as heroes and nearly invincible (Rev. 13:4), and who then brutally persecuted their opponents for the next 3.5 years (Rev. 13:5-8) before their ultimate defeat at the hands of Titus and the Romans.  It was Israel and the Zealots whose throne and kingdom was plunged into darkness with sores and great pain (Rev. 16:10).

Carmine: Interesting.  Now, your research seems to center predominantly on the study of the Book of Revelation.  But you do touch a little on the book of Daniel.  Could you talk a little about the role Daniel plays in your interpretation?

Adam: Sure. Daniel 2 details Nebuchadnezzar’s dream concerning four kingdoms and Daniel’s interpretation of that dream.  Similarly, Daniel 7 details Daniel’s dream about four beasts and what he learns about them, especially the fourth beast.  We see that at the time of the fourth kingdom, a stone would strike the feet of Nebuchadnezzar’s image and the entire image would be crushed (Dan. 2:34-35, 44-45).  This would happen at the time of the setting up of God’s kingdom (Dan. 2:35, 44).  Likewise, we see that the fourth beast would be destroyed and burned (Dan. 7:11).  This would happen at the time when God’s kingdom would be given into the hands of the saints (Dan. 7:18, 22, 27).

These visions parallel what Jesus said in Matthew 21:43-45 (the Parable of the Tenants) to the religious leaders of Israel about a stone falling on their nation and crushing them to powder, and about the kingdom being taken from them and given to a fruit-bearing nation.  They also seem to parallel the details in the book of Revelation about a beast persecuting God’s people for 3.5 years (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 13:5-8), the downfall of the beast (Rev. 19:20), and the establishment of God’s kingdom (Rev. 11:15).

Now in the book of Daniel we can easily see the transition from the first kingdom (Babylon) to the second kingdom (Medo-Persia), described in Daniel 5:30-31.  We can also see the transition from the second kingdom to the third kingdom (Greece) described in Daniel 8:1-7.  However, Daniel is only shown the destiny of the Greek kingdom up until the breaking of Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. 8:25), and this also seems to be the case in Daniel 11 (note verse 32).  Many believe that the fourth kingdom was Rome.  Yet the perfect time to predict Rome’s conquest of Greece would have been in either Daniel 8 or Daniel 11, since Macedonia was established as a province of the Roman republic in 146 BC, but Daniel didn’t do that.

If Rome was the fourth kingdom foreseen in Daniel 2:40-43 and Daniel 7:7, then the book of Daniel never described the transition from the third kingdom to the fourth kingdom as it did for the previous kingdom transitions.  So my thought is this: What if the description of the Maccabees in Daniel 11:32-35 has everything to do with the transition from the third kingdom to the fourth kingdom?  What if Israel was about to be under no one’s dominion at all?

Carmine: I agree with you.  As I’ve studied prophecy myself, my confidence that the 4th kingdom of Daniel is Rome has also been seriously brought into question, although I think my path to gaining this understanding is quite different from yours.  I think my conclusions are somewhat different too.  This poses something of a dilemma for me.  As I’m sure you know, Daniel’s authenticity and historical reliability is seriously questioned by critical scholars, Christian and secular alike.  Much of my research has been in response to such criticisms.  I talk in great detail about this on my YouTube channel “Daniel Reloaded.”  As a result of these studies, I personally think I would interpret Daniel quite differently.

Among other things, while I would agree that Daniel’s 4th beast is not Rome, I’m not sure that I’m convinced that Daniel’s 4th kingdom and Revelation’s beast of the sea are to be seen as the same entity.  This is contrary to the view you present of Daniel.  Despite this, I do think you make some really good points regarding the beast of Revelation.

So, here’s the question this raises for me.  In your opinion, with regard to your understanding of Revelation, how critical is directly correlating its beast with Daniel’s 4th beast?  Is it possible to hold your view on Revelation while holding a different view on Daniel?

Adam: That’s a good question.  At this time I don’t see it as possible, but I want to keep an open mind.  There are certainly some sections in Daniel that I need to understand better, and when I (hopefully) do I’ll see what that reveals.  Earlier I noted parallels that I see between Daniel and Revelation (e.g. the timing of the establishment of God’s kingdom, and 3.5 years of persecution).  There’s also the parallel of 10 horns on the fourth beast (Dan. 7) and on the beast seen in John’s visions (Revelation 13 and 17).

However, there are also differences, or at least things which Daniel covers that John doesn’t cover and vice versa.  For example, Daniel 7 speaks of “a little horn” while John doesn’t.  Daniel 7:8, 20, 24 speaks of three of the 10 horns being plucked up while John doesn’t single out three horns at all.  John discusses seven heads on the beast (Rev. 13:1 and 17:9-11), but Daniel doesn’t mention seven heads.

Carmine: Are there any indicators in Daniel that stand independent from Revelation that would indicate to you that Daniel’s beast is not Rome.

Adam: As I mentioned earlier, the book of Daniel doesn’t speak of Rome conquering Greece (or anyone) the way that it depicts the Medo-Persian takeover of Babylon and Greece’s takeover of Medo-Persia.  That silence regarding Rome seems to speak volumes.  Also, Jesus drew on the language of Daniel 2 and 7 in the Parable of the Tenants, but He didn’t apply it to Rome.  (He applied it to Israel instead. See the beginning of this article for more details.)

Daniel 2:34-35, 44 Daniel 7:23, 27 Matthew 21:43-45
A.  “a kingdom” “the kingdom” “the kingdom”
B.  “given to the people, the saints of the Most High” “given to a nation bearing the fruits of it”
C.  “a stone”; “the stone” “this stone”
D.  “struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them to pieces”; “crushed together” “ will grind him to powder”
E.  “a fourth kingdom on earth” “He was speaking of them”

Here’s even more on that same point.  This is taken from that same post:

In Matthew 21:43-45 Jesus stunned the religious leaders of Israel by telling them that the kingdom of God would be taken out of their hands and given to another nation.  His statement, however, didn’t come out of nowhere.  Compare the words of Jesus to what is said in Daniel 2 and 7, where we read about the transition from the fourth kingdom to the everlasting kingdom of God.  I’ve letter-coded and highlighted the parallels (A, B, C, D, and E):

“Therefore I say to you, [A] the kingdom of God will be taken from you and [B] given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.  And whoever falls on [C] this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it [D] will grind him to powder.  Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that [E] He was speaking of them” (Matt. 21:43-45).

 

“You watched while [C] a stone was cut out without hands, which [D] struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces.  Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were [D] crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found.  And [C] the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth… And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up [A] a kingdom which shall never be destroyed … The fourth beast shall be [E] a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all other kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, trample it and break it in pieces… Then [A] the kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be [B] given to the people, the saints of the Most High.  His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom…” (Dan. 2:34-35, 44; 7:23, 27).

Carmine: Do you feel that Rome has any role in the prophecies of Revelation or Daniel at all?  If so, what role would that be?

Adam: Yes.  I believe that Rome was the instrument of God’s judgment against unfaithful Israel.  For example, it was during the 5-month Roman siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 that the Jewish Zealots and their followers tried to hide in the caves and rocks of the mountains (Rev. 6:15-17; Luke 23:27-30).  The first and second trumpet judgments, which were characterized by fire and blood (Rev. 8:7-9), were fulfilled when “Galilee was all over filled with fire and blood” (Wars 3.4.1; see also Wars 3.9.3 and 3.10.9) because of Rome’s response to Israel’s revolt.  The giant hailstones that fell during the seventh bowl judgment (Rev. 16:21) were the 75-100 pound white-colored stones that the Romans launched into the temple complex during the siege in AD 70 (Wars 5.6.3).

Carmine: Ok.  Wow.  This is all very interesting Adam.  Thank you so much for taking the time to talk today.  I think everyone who reads this will have a more than adequate taste of what they can expect from your research.  Again, I’d encourage anyone who finds this topic interesting to check out your work.  Could you tell people again where they can learn more about your research?

Adam: You’re welcome, and thank you again for hosting this discussion.  My website can be seen at www.adammaarschalk.com, and my ongoing study about the beast of Revelation can be seen at www.adammaarschalk.com/beast-of-revelation.

Carmine: Adam, again, thank you so much for chatting with us today.  It’s been a real pleasure.  I’d love to do this again some time.


A King Who Exalts Himself

The cryptic prophecies of the biblical book of Daniel have been the subjects of controversy and speculation for thousands of years.  And few portions of Daniel are more fertile grounds for criticism from skeptics and heated debate among believers than the conclusion to the prophecy regarding the Kings of the North and South.  This prophecy can be found in Daniel chapter 11.

It is agreed by biblical scholars of all stripes, secular and non-secular alike, that the majority of this prophecy describes the exploits of and conflicts between various kings of ancient Syria and Egypt.  These events happened several hundred years before Christ.

Surprisingly, there is also nearly unanimous agreement among scholars as to which historical figures are being described at each point during this prophecy.

That is up until verse 36, at least.  Here, opinions begin to vary somewhat as to what historical events are in view.  This point in the prophecy starts the description of a figure who is sometimes known as “the King Who Exalts Himself”.

Some hold that this king is someone of unparalleled influence and malevolence who will arise to usher in the end of the world.  In fact, most Christians today understand this figure as a reference to a future Antichrist.

Still others see no justification at all for such a vast gap in the timeline of this prophecy and tend to correlate these events with history of more ancient times.

And yet others see no convincing correlation between the events described here and world events at any point in history.  They consider the predictions made beyond this point to be complete failures.  These groups consider the contrast between these obvious failures and the striking accuracy of the earlier predictions to be a strong indication that whoever authored this portion of Daniel, was a fraud.  To their minds, the evidence would indicate that the author of Daniel was actually recounting events that had already occurred at the time he wrote about them.  He simply wrote about them using language as if they were yet future.

It is supposed then, that somewhere between verse 36 and 41, that the author began his bold, perhaps delusional, attempt at making authentic predictions.  All of these predictions up to the very end of the chapter, appear to have been horribly inaccurate.  In other words, they believe Daniel was likely nothing more than a prophetic pretender, writing hundreds of years after the events he claimed to be predicting.

Who is correct?  Was Daniel actually a false prophet?  If not, how then are we to understand this portion of prophecy?  Why would God give us such a detailed oracle without providing convincing evidence to verify it?  After so many years of debate and speculative whims, is there any hope that the truth can ever be known with a reasonable degree of confidence?

Personally, I believe the prophecies revealed through Daniel were absolutely correct in every detail.  Yet, possibly like many of you, I feel that skeptics do raise some valid questions.  What exactly are we to conclude from their observations?

In this brief article, we’ll take a fresh look at this bewildering and fascinating portion of biblical prophecy.  I will be your guide to a fascinating walk through the Bible that will shed an immense amount of light on these perplexing passages.  After taking this walk myself, it finally, to my mind at least, laid to rest all of the apparent difficulties with viewing this portion of Daniel as an authentic prophecy -fulfilled in the distant past.  It is my sincere hope that this presentation will also bring closure to the minds of many, believers and skeptics alike, who have been wrestling with these very same difficulties.

While the discoveries put forth here will certainly never end the debates completely, I’m confident that as awareness spreads, this information will vindicate the book of Daniel in the eyes of many who may have doubts about its authenticity and accuracy.  Also, despite any preconceptions you might have, this prophecy is not nearly as intimidating as it may initially sound.  You will not need years of theological training or advanced degrees in history or theology from a prestigious seminary to comprehend it.  I’m just a lay person myself, a software developer by trade.  All you need is an inquisitive mind and your Bible.

With that, let’s begin.

Problems of the Prevailing View

As alluded to earlier, this pivotal point in biblical prophecy can be found in Daniel 11.  Here we read:

Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done.  He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all.  But in their place he shall honor a god of fortresses; and a god which his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things.  Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god, which he shall acknowledge, and advance its glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and divide the land for gain.  At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them, and pass through.  He shall also enter the Glorious Land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape from his hand: Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon.  He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape.  He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; also the Libyans and Ethiopians shall follow at his heels.  But news from the east and the north shall trouble him; therefore he shall go out with great fury to destroy and annihilate many.  And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and no one will help him.

Daniel 11:36-45 NKJV

Throughout history, it has been generally believed that the events described in these verses were references to some event well beyond the life of the historical Jesus.  This is true even in our day.  Most modern Christians at least, believe they refer to someone who will rise up in the end times.

Yet, there are very few indicators from the text itself, that would support such a view.  When given a fair and natural reading, the text certainly leaves one with at least an initial impression that it is a direct continuation of the events described earlier in the prophecy.  As stated in my introduction, scholars are in virtually unanimous agreement that those earlier events focus on the various kings of ancient Syria and Egypt.  It seems more than reasonable then to assume that we should only look to the distant future for possible identities of these kings after we can find no convincing parallels contemporary to them.

Some might say that thousands of years of fruitless searches through the annals of history for such parallels would be sufficient justification for thinking the events have not yet happened.  However, have these searches really been all that thorough or fruitless for that matter?

This is the mystery we are going to be investigating.  By the time we are finished piecing this puzzle together, I think you’ll find the conclusion we reach quite surprising.

Unique Proposal of Dr. Robert Gurney

Let’s just consider for the time being the possibility that this prophecy may have been fulfilled prior to the coming of Christ over 2,000 years ago.  Among the few interpretations that see this last section of the kings of the north and south as being fulfilled in ancient history, perhaps none is more intriguing than that of medical doctor and missionary to Africa, the late Dr. Robert Gurney.

In 1967, Dr. Gurney published an article in the “Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin” detailing what he believed to be the actual historic fulfillment of Daniel 11:36-45.  Later, in 1980, he also published a detailed exposition on a non-traditional view of the major prophecies of Daniel.  God in Control, as the book was titled, presented a convincing, yet unconventional interpretation of Daniel’s 4 kingdoms.  It also included a more detailed justification for his views on verses 36 through 45 of Daniel 11.  In both his article and book, Dr. Gurney proposed that these verses largely dealt with the destruction of the Greek empire followed by some of the failed yet significant military exploits conducted by the founders of the Roman empire.

He argued that, in addition to the already popular view that verses 36 through 39 were a continuation of earlier verses that described the Syrian tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes, verses 40 through the end of the chapter contained references to other ancient historical figures.  Figures such as Antiochus Asiaticus, the last of the kings from the Seleucid monarchy in Syria.  Also, Pompey and Crassus, men who, in conjunction with Julius Caesar, were the three most powerful rulers of Rome in the early days of the Roman Empire.

A detailed investigation of these events is discussed in Gurney’s book but are beyond the scope of this article.  It’s sufficient to note for our purposes that, in general, the events described in the biblical text correspond very well to the events from secular history with which Dr. Gurney associates them.

I say “in general”, because the fit would be nearly perfect if it weren’t for one small problem.  It’s this one problem that most critics of Gurney’s work consider to outweigh all of the other evidence he presents in favor of his arguments.  That issue lies in the seemingly bizarre transition which he proposes takes place in verse 40.  This transition involves the identity of the kings of the north and south.  Let’s take a look at that verse together:

At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them, and pass through.

Daniel 11:40 NKJV

You see, in order for Gurney’s theory to fit this text, the identities of these kings must make an abrupt and unexpected change right in the middle of the verse.  Up through the first clause of verse 40, Gurney’s interpretation is in agreement with the view we already discussed and to which many secular scholars hold.  That interpretation views the king of the north as a king of Syria and the king of the south (designated as ‘him’ in this case) as a king of Egypt.

However, where Gurney’s views depart with current scholarship, is in the second clause of verse 40.  In Gurney’s view, here, the king of the south refers to Syria instead of Egypt and the king of the north (‘him’ in this case) refers to a king associated with the Roman Empire, not Syria.

Gurney's Hypothesized Transition

Gurney’s Hypothesized Transition

Critics of this view see no evidence whatsoever that such a change in identity is warranted.  To them, it seems an awkward and unnatural reading of the passage.  Gurney himself realized this weakness and freely acknowledged it.  This sort of transition does seem unprecedented, unexpected and inexplicable. Yet, he still believed that this interpretation was justifiable because the events of history fit so well with the context surrounding these verses and the overall context of most of Daniel’s other prophecies.  Other than that, he presented very little justification for why the identities would make such a drastic shift.

I have to admit, that once I fully grasped what Dr. Gurney was proposing, his interpretation did give me the impression of a naive and somewhat dubious attempt to evade a long-standing biblical difficulty.  For a long time after reading and thoroughly digesting this theory, I myself remained very skeptical.  In most other areas, his research struck me as quite convincing and seemed based on a sound interpretation of both biblical and extra-biblical evidence.  In particular, his views on Daniel’s 4 kingdoms had the most biblical justification I had seen of any other theory.  Yet, here, his explanation of this one verse seemed just as speculative and suspicious as any of the other interpretations I had encountered.  The biblical support seemed considerably lacking.  While I had initially felt he may have been onto something, over time my hopeful enthusiasm waned and my search for answers continued.

That all changed around March of 2016 with a few discoveries of my own that appear to have escaped the attention of Dr. Gurney.  As unlikely as it may sound, there is far more biblical justification for his view than he or his critics seem to have been aware.  I am now fully convinced that Dr. Gurney was, after all, completely on target regarding the historical reference of these passages.  And with this evidence in hand, one of the most persuasive arguments ever lodged against Daniel falls completely flat.

So, Daniel 11:40 is the crux of what we are going to explore today. We are going to try to answer the question “what justification is there for believing that the identities of the kings of the north and the south in the second half of this verse are different from those in the first half?”  The resolution is actually much simpler than one might expect.  To really grasp the gravity of this interpretation, we’ll need to explore 3 topics:

  • Precedents
  • Imagery
  • Cues from the context

Biblical Precedents

Let’s discuss the precedents first.  As hard as we might find it to believe that such an implicit and abupt change in identities happens here in the middle of verse 40, there are other biblical examples of exactly this sort of thing.  It has been a long accepted, although little discussed fact, that, right here in this very chapter of Daniel, there are at least 6 other verses preceeding this section where such unannounced changes in identity do take place.  I’ve summarized these changes here in this table:

Unannounced Changes Accepted By Scholars

Unannounced Changes Accepted By Scholars

Here we see some of the many kings of Egypt and Syria.  Most kings of Egypt from this period were named Ptolemy, and the kings of Syria generally either Seleucus or Anthiochus.

The names are somewhat intimidating, but don’t let that bother you.  The important thing to understand here is that the individual kings in these 6 verses change their identities with absolutely no indication from the context.  The Ptolemy’s are all lumped under one lablel – the king of the south.  The Anthiochus’s and Seleucus’s are labeled the king of the north.

How then do we know to which historical king each label refers between these verses?  Well, we know from history who the various kings of Egypt and Syria from this period were.  All we have to is look at the lives of these kings as recorded in history and correlate them with the events in these verses.  When the events described no longer seem to apply to one king, we may take this as an indication that the label of north or south has then changed focus to a later ruler.  This is precisely the sort of evidence Dr. Gurney provides for his theory.  If scholars see this approach as being justifiable with these verses, why not in verse 40?

A Dramatic Contrast

Now, someone might say that in the cases in our table, at least the kings all still represent the same nations.  And at least there are breaks in the sentences indicating the possibility that such a change does take place.  Those facts seem to make these sorts of changes easier to accept in those cases.

However, the situation with verse 40 is considerably different.  There, not only are we proposing that the individuals represented by the labels “north” and “south” have changed but also the nationalities of these individuals.  As stated earlier, we are exploring the idea that in the first half of verse 40, the king of the north is Syria and the king of the south is Egypt while in the second half, they are Rome and Syria, respectively.  And all this is supposed to happen mid-sentence?!  There would seem to be no rational way in which to justify that.  The proposal that not one but both kings in these passages simultaneously change their identities and nationalities all in the middle of a single continuous expression of thought without the slightest prompt from the text sounds completely absurd.

However, we’ll see that we have every reason to expect that this sort of change will be required somewhere in this prophecy right from its very beginning and we also have very clear indicators as to exactly where that change occurs!  Unbelievable, right?

In my next post, we’ll begin to see just how this is possible.