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
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
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.
Hi Carmine,
Thought I would drop a comment here as well, since I just recently in February posted some views on this tricky passage in Daniel 11:36-45 on Adam Maarschalk’s website. For lack of a better place to discuss this text, I put it at the end of his comments about “Revelation 13:3 and the Wounded Head of the Zealot Movement”, since I believe the Daniel 11 text is connected with the Zealot Simon bar Giora, and Adam had been discussing Simon bar Giora extensively in that post.
The way I presented this was a rather different take on this passage in Daniel 11 than you may have encountered before, with the virtue of allowing Daniel’s narrative to continue seamlessly from chapter 11 into the time period of chapter 12 as Michael is “standing up” for the children of Daniel’s people at the VERY SAME SEASON when the events at the end of Daniel 11 are taking place. This time-marker indicator in Daniel 12:1 – “At that time” – is something that must definitely be considered when doing a study of the material in the previous chapter 11:36-45. It links the time of the Great Tribulation period (AD 66-70) with most of the events just described in the closing verses of Daniel 11.
Hi Patricia,
Thank you for contributing to the discussion and for directing me to your comments on these difficult passages. I did consult your post in Adam’s blog. I have to say, you have certainly done your homework!
There is much about what you have observed in these passages with which I agree. There are a few difficulties I have with what you presented but I think our dialogue on those would be more edifying if we could expound on a few of your observations beforehand. They are, I believe extremely important in understanding this portion of Daniel.
I certainly agree that “Edom, Moab and Ammon” are to be understood as the territory of the Nabateans. And when reading your comments on verse 40, I couldn’t help but smile. Particularly with regard to your observations on the significance of the moniker “king of the north” and the “whirlwind”. I can’t recall any commentator who picked up on this significance. These are very keen observations on your part indeed. Brilliant!
I think you are absolutely right to connect the “king of the north” with Gog, especially in light of the connection with the term ‘whirlwind’.
Now, if I may ask, who else do you know from scripture who is associated with ‘the North’ and the ‘whirlwind’ even more so than Gog, yet who still has connections with Gog?
What possibilities does that open up for us when interpreting these verses in Daniel?
Best regards,
Carmine
Hi Carmine,
It’s not difficult to recognize the connection of “the NORTH” with God’s judgments that came upon Israel, if that is what you are emphasizing. Topography has a great deal to do with this, as well as the traffic flow of the trade routes through the Levant region. The North was typically the direction that invaders would enter Israel, as well as being the way migrants would usually gain access to the land of Canaan (like Abram).
However, any question related to “Gog” has to be filtered first and foremost through scriptures’ own definition of just who Gog is. Balaam’s prophecy in Numbers 24:3-9 in the LXX tells us exactly who “Gog” is, and that would be the Old Covenant nation of Israel. The “chief prince” of Gog would be someone connected with OC Israel at the last days of its existence before AD 70’s end (which I believe was Simon bar Giora, as I mentioned last year in Adam’s post about the “Wounded Head of the Zealot Movement”).
Since the land of Canaan was “divided into corners” under Joshua’s leadership (Neh. 9:22-24), those “four corners of the land” (Ez. 7:2-3) can conceivably limit a discussion of “THE NORTH” to the northern quadrant of the land of Canaan – which would be the region of Galilee specifically.
We are inclined to think of things on a more global scale, but both authors of Daniel and Revelation tended to concentrate their prophecies on things as they related to the “earth” or the land of Israel and its people. In other words, it wouldn’t be unprecedented for a “king of the north” to refer to a leader emerging from the northern quadrant of Galilee in Israel, and likewise for a “king of the south” to be a leader coming from the southern quadrant of Israel, especially when the immediate context following Daniel 11 is devoted to the unequalled “Great Tribulation” which would be concentrated for the most part on the nation of Israel’s location.
The “king of the north” and the “king of the south” earlier in Daniel chapter 11 may have been speaking of Egypt and Syria, but by the time Daniel 11 starts talking about the Maccabean struggles in verses 33-35, the prophet transitions into talking about Daniel’s people and “THE king” – Israel’s high priesthood in verses 36-39, whose members were in power during those days of the Maccabean activities, all the way up until the “time of the end” mentioned in verse 40. (The time subsequent to the Maccabean victories with the king / high priest ruling an independent kingdom-nation of Israel is the time when the 3rd, Scarlet Beast “WAS” in existence until Pompey subjugated Israel under Rome’s power.)
Aside from the NORTH being a theme of interest for the Gog prophecy, I actually find more emphasis in OT scripture placed on the EAST – which has definite connections as to the direction a physically-returning Christ would come from for the AD 70 bodily resurrection, relative to Jerusalem’s position on the map. (I’m a believer in three different bodily resurrection events, by the way, with three comings of Christ on the calendar.)
Hi Patricia,
I do think you are correct about there being Messianic significance to “the East”. You’ve probably also observed the connection between East, the Sun, God and His Messiah.
I’ve also spent several hours reading over your comments from the “Pursuing Truth” website regarding Daniel 11:36-45. I thought your points were researched, organized, presented and argued very well. You clearly know your history and Bible, are a capable researcher and able to see things from multiple perspectives. Your correlations seem very plausible and have a definite logic to them.
Below are several questions others may have regarding an interpretation along the lines you present. Convincing answers to these could strengthen your case considerably. Please correct me in areas where I may have misunderstood your proposal.
1) How would you explain the similarities between “the king” of vv. 36-40 and the “little/small horn” (i.e. Antiochus Epiphanes) of 8:11-12,19,23-25? Especially, considering that these sets of verses are the only places in Daniel that use the Hebrew ‘za`am’ (H2195)?
2) Is there any evidence (aside from correlating the text with historic events) that would indicate that “the king” of v. 36 is not “the King of the North” from v. 28?
3) Given the association of God’s judgment with “the North” elsewhere in scripture, couldn’t “prosper till the indignation be accomplished” be a reasonable indication that “The King” was God’s earthly agent chosen to portion out the judgment and therefore be more naturally associated with the role of “King of the North”? Wouldn’t this interpretation fit more naturally with the grammar of the text?
4) Is there any evidence (aside from correlating the text with historic events) that would suggest that the identity of the “King of the South” changes from an Egyptian king to Idumea the nation?
5) Is there any evidence (aside from correlating the text with historic events) that would suggest that the identity of the “King of the North” changes from a Syrian king to a Zealot leader?
6) In v. 40, when the “King of the North” attacks “the king” (him), how would you justify the change in referent of “the king” from being the “Office of High Priest” to “Jerusalem”?
7) If Gog represents Israel, what criteria did you use to decide whether Gog referred to Zealot leader Simon bar Giora (King of the North) or the office of High Priest (The King)? Israel could apply to both entities.
8) In what manner could Simon bar Giora have “broke in pieces” Idumea (i.e. Edom) along with the “glorious land” and Edom still have escaped from his hand?
9) How do you account for the corruption/modification of the Hebrew equivalent for Gōg (G1136) in Numbers 24 (LXX) to the text we have in the Hebrew manuscripts we possess today?
10) In addition to the reference to Gōg (G1136) in Numbers 24 (LXX), do you see any prophetic significance to the reference to Gōg (G1136) in Amos 7:1 (LXX)?
11) Do you believe that this theory takes full advantage of the implications of the imagery of the ‘North’ and ‘whirlwind’ that are evident here? Biblically, this symbolism goes far beyond merely alluding to God’s judgment.
Hi Carmine,
I took note of the theos.org forum where you have been posting for a few years now, and will definitely look into more of the comments on that site. Looks like a very studious, thorough exchange going on there, without any distracting vitriol between members that I can see from a brief review. That’s an encouraging environment where knowledge can really grow.
I’ve also been reading some of the PDFs at the link you gave that Gurney has put up at his biblicalstudies.org.uk site. When he covers the chronological, historical narrative of Daniel 11 up to the Maccabean period, I find that very helpful, since my strict upbringing (and also a different 16-year, independent Baptist church membership) were based on a KJV-only attitude that severely discouraged any study of this period between the Old Testament and the New. It was a crippling mindset in many respects, and is why I have struggled to make sense of Daniel 11, since instruction on this period was totally ignored for the better part of my life. Been trying to make up for lost time…
One quick point on something Gurney says with regard to Daniel 11:35: he is stating that “We are now told that the saints would suffer under Antiochus until ‘the time of the end’. Again, it is apparent that Antiochus and the Greek empire were destroyed AT THE TIME OF THE END”.
Actually, that’s an incorrect assumption, if we compare this verse 35 with its LXX rendering. Here it is in the LXX: “And some of them that understand shall fall, to try them as with fire, and to test them, and THAT THEY MAY BE MANIFESTED AT THE TIME OF THE END, for the matter is yet for a set time.” Here, it is NOT that their torturous trials were to last until the time of the end (which really would make the Greek kingdom be the 4th beast). Instead, it says that they would be MANIFESTED at the time of the end, which was yet to arrive at a set, appointed time in a future season beyond their immediate torments and martyrdom. This MANIFESTING of them at “the time of the end” as true martyrs for the faith could actually be what is given to us in print in the Hebrews “Hall of Faith”, written in the time of the end around AD 64. Among other OT giants of the faith, the writer of Hebrews lauded these Maccabean-era martyrs for their faith under “trials of cruel mockings and scourgings”, etc., etc. These Maccabean-era martyrs were faithful not to give worship and homage to the Rev. 13 Sea Beast (during the Greek phase of it, that is). Their being MANIFESTED could also be as simple as them being revealed as the Sons of God at the AD 70 bodily resurrection. This is the sense that is given in Romans 8:9: “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the MANIFESTATION of the Sons of God”.
Gurney made a couple other points that I didn’t write down regarding the “time of the end” where a look at the LXX language changes the perception of the timing involved. And I didn’t read far enough to see if he mentioned the difference between Antiochus, the “STRONG horn” (ischuros) of Daniel 8:9, and the “LITTLE horn” (mikros) of Daniel 7:8 (who I believe to be Nero who became emperor at 17).
Carmine, the following is a response to each of the 11 points you brought up in your post’s comment above. This is not exactly a scholarly attempt, but I appreciate your giving a challenge to this theory: it helps me walk through it in a critical way from someone else’s perspective to see what its weak points or flaws may be.
#1) You asked how to explain the similarities between “the king” of Dan. 36-40 and Antiochus Epiphanes of Dan. 8:11-12, 19, and 23-25, considering the term “indignation” being used in both places.
I would say that the “indignation” Antiochus had “against the holy covenant” in Dan. 11:30 is just after his humiliating line-in-the-sand encounter with the Romans in 168 BC (the ships of Chittim coming against him to forestall Antiochus’ plans against Egypt). It is the same episode of Antiochus’ “indignation” that the angel spoke of in Dan 8:17-19.
This is another place that the LXX language does not mention a “time of the end”, but instead simply says that “the vision is yet for an appointed time” (v. 17). Also, in v. 19, the language of the LXX does not mention a “time of the end”. In this case, it says “”Behold, I make thee know the things that shall come to pass at the end of the wrath: for the vision is yet for an appointed time.” Nothing here about the “time of the end”, which means this text discussing Antiochus does not place the Greek empire at the end of the Old Covenant Age.
However, when it comes to speaking about “the king” in v. 36, the LXX and the KJV both refer to “the end of the time” and “the time of the end” respectively in v. 40, when “the king”would be opposed. It is “AT THIS TIME” (Dan. 12:1) that the Great Tribulation and the resurrection took place, which links the activity of “the king” to this “end of the time” era. This different “indignation” period for “the king” of v. 36 would necessarily have to be linked also to this “end of the time” episode, and is not the same “indignation” period assigned to Antiochus’ actions in Dan. 8
#2) Next, you ask if there is any evidence, except for historic events, that show “the king” of v. 36 isn’t “the king of the North” from v. 28.
Well, I’m no Greek expert, but I’ve been told that the definite article “Ho” before a noun makes it refer to a very specific identity. There IS this definite article in “The King” (Ho basileus) of Dan. 11:36, making it a very particular type of king, (which I believe is the collective members of the high priesthood between the Maccabean times and the close of AD 70). In addition, “The King” would disregard “the God of his fathers”, which leads me to believe that this is an Israelite (not a king from a foreign nation) who did not regard the God of his fathers, (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). This definite article is not present when mention is made of the “king of the south” and the “king of the north” in Dan. 11:40.
#3) Here you have asked if the phrase “prosper till the indignation be accomplished” couldn’t refer to the judgment passed out by “The King” acting as God’s agent for judgment in the role of the “King of the North”.
Actually, the high priesthood position WAS the OT dispenser of judgment for the tribes. We have indications of this in Ps. 122:2-5 compared with the Old Testament precedent for the high priest passing down judgments for the tribes in Deut. 17:8-13.
If my theory is correct that “The King” is all the high priesthood members acting from Maccabean times until the close of AD 70, then Daniel’s prophecy is that this role of “The King” would “prosper till the indignation be accomplished ” in the close of AD 70. In other words, the high priesthood members would still be around until the close of AD 70 when the wrath of God had all been poured out on his people.
We do know that God had promised to preserve the high priesthood position for the members of the Zadok family, ever since the post exile return when this family was the only one permitted to serve as high priests in the temple, in honor of their faithfulness while in exile (Ez. 44:15-16). This favored position for the Zadok high priests was supposed to operate until it was set aside by Christ, who became the ultimate high priest after a new order – that of Melchizedek. After that, the Levitical, Zadok priesthood was to be set aside in favor of the New Covenant’s terms. But Israel refused to acknowledge Christ as their high priest, and persisted in appointing Sadducee (Zadok) high priests after Christ.
Members of the high priesthood (“The King”) would continue to exist until all high priests and former high priests were killed one after another in the civil conflict leading up to the Romans’ arrival at Jerusalem’s gates in AD 70. The two witnesses of Rev. 11 (former high priests Ananus and Joshua) were used by God to give testimony until they were murdered by Idumeans in AD 68. We also know that Matthias, the ex-high priest, was murdered by Simon bar Giora sometime in AD 70, so it would appear that the high priesthood role actually did “prosper till the indignation was accomplished”. After that Jerusalem siege, Zechariah 13:2 said that God would “cause the prophets…to pass out of the land”. (The two witnesses – former high priests – were said to be prophets also in Rev. 11.) There have been no “kings” / high priests over Israel since then, and won’t be any in the future.
#4) You have asked if there is any evidence, besides historic events, that suggests the identity of the “king of the South” changes from an Egyptian king to Idumea the nation.
We are told in Ez. 29:13-16 that Egypt had already been turned into a “base kingdom” long before the “time of the end” in Dan. 11:40. “It shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations.”
In contrast to this subservient position for the nation of Egypt, the “king of the south” was prophesied to offensively “push at him” (THE king of v. 36) at the “time of the end” (v. 40), which included the time of the Great Tribulation and the resurrection. As a “base kingdom”, it was not likely that Egypt was capable of any offensive action such as this in AD 70.
Idumea was still considered a nation in those last days of the Old Covenant, with their own governor, which had been selected by the Jews themselves in AD 66 when they picked 10 district leaders to head up the war effort (the “10 horns” on the Scarlet Beast from Rev. 17). I believe Idumea’s nighttime attack on Jerusalem in AD 67 or 68 when they killed the 2 former high priests, Ananus and Joshua (the Two Witnesses), was when the “king of the south” would “push at” The King.
#5) Next, you asked if there was any evidence, besides historic events, that suggests the “King of the North” changes from a Syrian king to a Zealot leader.
Coming from the “North parts”, Gog was going to be acting as a “chief prince”, according to Ezekiel 38 and 39. Adam’s post about “Rev. 13:3 and the Wounded Head of the Zealot Movement” covered Simon bar Giora’s career, and mentioned the coins that were minted during the war years with the words “Simon – liberator of Israel, or “Simon – Messiah-king”, or “Simon – Messiah king of Israel” stamped on them. The source Adam gave for this was Riegel and Jordan’s book “Simon, Son of Man” (pp. 257-264, I believe).
If Syria actually was the “king of the North” which v. 40 was speaking about, I am not aware of any Syrian king engaging in a “whirlwind” war with “The King”, after which this “king of the North” would come to his end, without anyone to help him, at the same season when the Great Tribulation and the resurrection was happening.
#6) Your next question asked about v. 40; when the “King of the North” attacks “The King”), you asked how I would justify changing the one attacked from being the “Office of High Priest” to “Jerusalem”.
This question is a bit fuzzy to me, but if I understand your point, I’m not claiming that, in this v.40, the “King of the North” (being the “chief prince”, Simon bar Giora) was attacking Jerusalem here at this point. Simon came against Jerusalem later on in verse 43-45 by pillaging the treasures of Jerusalem. Here in v. 40, Simon came with a whirlwind attack against “The King” – the moderate-party high priests that were opposing his Zealot activity. Simon was already at odds with the moderate party’s former high priest, Ananus ben Ananus (one of the two witnesses), who had driven Simon out of the Acrabattene territory early in the war.
Later on in AD 69, Simon bar Giora brought his vast army to Jerusalem and parked himself outside the walls. After a time, those in Jerusalem were persuaded by the former high priest Matthias to open the gates and admit Simon inside in AD 69. Simon ended up turning against Matthias by having him and his sons murdered together (Wars 5.13.1). Sounds like “the king of the North” coming against “The King” – the high priests’ moderate party here.
#7) Then you asked that if Gog represents Israel, how I decided if Gog referred to the Zealot leader Simon bar Giora (the king of the north) of the office of High Priest (The King), since Israel could apply to both entities.
“Gog” was the title for Israel the NATION, as we can see in the Numbers 24:5-9 LXX prophecy made by Balaam.
“Gog” was also the title for the “chief prince” of Ezekiel 38:3 and 39:1, who had Meshech and Tubal ancestry (as one of Japheth’s descendants.) As the son of a proselyte, Simon bar Giora could lay claim to being both Israel’s chief prince, yet to have also come from Japheth’s ancestry, outside Shem’s line of descent. The high priesthood, (“The King”), as members of the nation of Israel, were included among the nation of “Gog”, but they weren’t the ones given the specific title of “Gog” as that single “chief prince” was.
#8) You asked how Simon bar Giora could have “broken in pieces” Idumea (i.e. Edom) along with the “glorious land” and still have had Edom escape from his hand.
First of all, I believe this “broken in pieces” phrase applies to the actions of the 4th beast in Daniel 7:23: “…The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from al kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth” (tes ges – the land of Israel – not the entire habitable world here) “and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces” (which was done by Gabinius, the Roman procurator, from 57 BC -55 BC, when he divided Israel into 5 districts – Jerusalem, Hammath, Jericho, Sepphoris, and Gadara).
Next, Edom is not identical to Idumea – it shares a border with it, but is not the same. Idumea historically was formed from migrant Edomites who abandoned Edom, south of the Dead Sea, and moved into southern Judah and its cities after Nebuchadnezzar emptied the land by deporting those in Judah to Babylon. Then, the Nabateans moved into the area of Edom which the Edomites had vacated, and claimed the land for their own kingdom of Nabatea (composed then of Edom, Moab and Ammon). We have proof for this in Obadiah 19: “They of the south (the Nabateans) shall possess the mount of Esau.”
When Simon bar Giora was ravaging the land of Israel during the AD 70 era, there were many in the “glorious land” of Israel that were “overthrown”, because he plundered widely to supply his vast army. However, we don’t read anywhere that he entered the Nabatean kingdom area to pillage. Edom, Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon all escaped out of his hands.
#9) And how do I account for the corruption / modification of the Hebrew equivalent for Gog in Numbers 24 LXX compared to the modern Hebrew texts we have today?
For this I will have to plead ignorance, since a history of the Hebrew texts are not my forte’. All I know is that Paul and the first-century disciples used the Septuagint and quoted from it, even in some cases when the particular LXX verse is totally absent in my modern translation.
If the LXX text is corrupted in Numbers 24 about “Gog”, is it also corrupted in the Amos 7:1 text you mentioned as well? What are the odds of both being in error?
#10) Your question: “In addition to the reference to Gog (G1136) in Numbers 24 (LXX), do you see any prophetic significance to the reference to Gog (G1136) in Amos 7:1 (LXX)?
Yes, as a sort of 2nd symbolic fulfillment, I do. “King Gog” the caterpillar in Amos’ writings was God’s threat to judge the land of Israel / Jacob by first having a swarm of locusts come from the east of Israel, and then having the “King Gog” caterpillar devastate the landscape by devouring all the grass of the land of Israel.
Here is a quote from Josephus regarding the effect of Simon’s army sweeping through Idumea (Wars 4:9.7). “And as one may see all the woods behind despoiled of their leaves by locusts, after they have been there, so was there nothing left behind Simon’s army but a desert”. Besides Idumea, Simon also destroyed the country around Masada (Wars 4.9.506), and the mountainous part of the country (Wars 4.9.509), overrunning the Acrabattene toparchy (Wars 4.9.511), and then finally coming into Jerusalem to plunder the resources within the city itself.
Simon helped himself to the spoil of all Israel in order to keep his troops and camp followers supplied. The level of thievery and confiscation of goods by Gog is heavily emphasized in Ezekiel 38, which level of theft matches the Josephus accounts of Simon’s activities exactly. Like a swarm of locusts, headed up by that one “King Gog” caterpillar, Simon would leave very little of value behind him.
#11) Last of all, you have asked if I believe this theory takes full advantage of the implications of the imagery of the “North” and the “whirlwind” that are evident in Daniel 11:40.
Yes, I do. We know the Northern quadrant of Israel (Galilee) was where Christ lived the majority of His life and did much of His ministry. To have judgment come from this Northern quadrant later on in the persons of the Galilean Zealot leaders… this sounds as if God was using His own home turf in the North to be the judgment tool that ravaged Israel during the years of the rebellion, even more so than the Romans.
As for the “whirlwind” connected with the North, the Sea of Galilee is well-known for its violent storm-winds. These can crop up without warning, and can be life-threatening, as the Luke 8 account of the storm on the Sea of Galilee shows. Being situated some 700 ft. below sea level, the steep hills surrounding the Sea of Galilee provide cool air masses that sweep down the valleys and collide with the warmer air of the lake’s basin, creating those sudden, fierce storms.
Okay, all this above might have some holes in it, so feel free to pick it apart, Carmine. I’ll be interested in seeing some further comments from your position developed whenever you put up your next post.