I came across a study on the King of the North by Donn W. Leatherman of Southern called "Adventist University Adventist Interpretation of Daniel 10-12:A Diagnosis and Prescription".
Its very good on how Adventist have been struggling with this issue, here is what he writes:

"The 'king of the south' is understood to refer to the nation of Egypt. The 'king of the north' was whatever power controlled the area north of Palestine, which, by the end of Daniel 11, was understood to be the Ottoman Empire. These interpreters expected the culmination of human history and the return of Christ to occur when Turkey, having failed in its attempts to reestablish control over Egypt, and beset by enemies from the North and East (possibly Russia and Persia), removed its capital from Istanbul to Jerusalem.

Foremost among the exponents of this interpretation was Uriah Smith, whose Thoughts Critical and Practical on the Book of Daniel, published in 1881, had extensive influence on subsequent generations of Adventists. Later editions of his works, which combined his book on Daniel with a similar volume on the Revelation, are less specific regarding the interpretation of the latter part of Daniel 11. This is particularly true of the editions printed after Smith's death. These later editions state that the prophecy of verse 45 centers in that power known as the king of the north. It is the power that shall hold the territory possessed originally by the king of the north. Clearly, after the demise of the Ottoman Empire, Smith's original interpretation seemed dubious.

Another Adventist, who had adopted views similar to those of Smith, was Stephen N. Haskell,3 the popularity of whose volume on Daniel rivaled that of Smith's work for some time after its publication in 1901. Other Adventist books expressing similar views include those of J. Grant Lamson (1909),4 Max Hill (1915),5 and O. A. Johnson (1919).6 One might have expected this interpretive tradition, especially the parts involving Turkey, to have died with the Ottoman Empire, but it persisted in the anonymous Two Great Prophecies (1925),7 and the works of M. H. Brown (1926)8 and W. H. Wakeham (1930),9 and even after
the Second World War in the works of E. A. Nixon (1945)10 and Walter E. Straw (1947).11 Without attempting to exegete the book of Daniel, other Adventist writers from this era reflected similar views in their works. These include Alonzo T. Jones (1900)12 and Arthur G. Daniels (1917).

After World War II many interpreters adopted a more radical revision of the earlier position represented by Uriah Smith, Stephen Haskell, and the great majority of Adventist writers of the early twentieth century. Beginning with Edwin R. Thiele,19 some Adventists identified Rome not only in verses 14 through 35, but in the last 10 verses of the chapter as well. Thiele's explanations of the last 6 verses of the chapter are somewhat vague historically, but nevertheless apply this passage to the papacy without hesitation.20 Thiele also differs from earlier interpreters in applying vss. 29-30 to the Crusades and the medieval church, rather than to the sack of Rome by the barbarian kingdoms.21 Thus Thiele's interpretation of Daniel 11:29-45 has a somewhat later historical framework and omits reference to the French revolution and to the Ottoman Empire. A similar position was adopted by Louis Were in 1949.22 Were makes no attempt to exegete the entire chapter; his focus is more narrow, but he does assert that the references to literal (i.e., pagan) Rome end in Daniel 11:30, and that vss.31-45 describe spiritual Rome.23 References to the 'king of the north' in this part of the prophecy point to the papacy:
The power brought to view in Dan. 11:40-45 must be one whose activities concern the people of God such has been Daniel's previous presentations of the work of the papacy.24

In a 1955 publication, George McCready Price returned to the essential position of Uriah Smith regarding the interpretation of Daniel 11:29-32, but accepted the views of later interpreters who applied vss. 36-39 to the papacy. Price denies emphatically that these verses can be made to refer to revolutionary France.25 Furthermore, the last six verses of the chapter are also held to describe the demise of the papacy. Egypt, the king of the south, represents atheistic science. Price acknowledges two possible scenarios: one in which there are two major actors (the 'king of the north' and the 'king of the south' and another in which there are three major actors, with the third person pronouns of verses 40
to 45 refer to some other entity. The differences between these interpretations Price holds to be slight, since both views agree in saying that the main world power dealt with here is the Roman papacy, . . .26

The last three verses of the chapter receive only brief comments. Price denies that the geographic references should be literally understood, states that parts of the passage are yet unfulfilled, and encourages the reader to wait until these passages are clarified by unfolding events before insisting on a specific interpretation.27

Robert Brinsmead (1960) concurs in the identification of the 'king of the north' with the papal system and the 'king of the south' with atheism.28 He sees in the final verses of Daniel 11 a conflict between two opposing ideologies, Babylonian and Egyptian. . . . Babylonian is to profess to be a Christian, to have a form of godliness, but to
deny the power thereof. Egyptian is to repudiate the Christian religion and to deny the very existence of God.29 Clearly, the major focus of the closing verses of Daniel 11 in this interpretation is still on the demise of the papacy.

The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary declines to speak decisively on this passage. In verse after verse the reader is presented with tentative speculation (Some see specific reference here . . .) or alternative and mutually contradictory views (Others suggest . . .).30 The editors suggest two possible interpretations of verse 40: that the 'king of the north' is Turkey, and that the 'king of the north' is the papacy.31 No comment is offered on vss. 41-44, and the comment on vs. 45 consists primarily of a warning from James White to be cautious in offering interpretations of unfulfilled prophecy.32

The view that the 'king of the north' represents the papacy and that the final portion of Daniel 11 describes the eschatological demise of papal power is also supported (though with important differences in interpretation) by both Desmond Ford (1978) and Mervyn Maxwell (1981). Ford applies Daniel 11:29,30 to the evacuation of Antiochus IV from Egypt at the command of the Roman Senate. In subsequent passages he sees intimations of both the Antiochene desecration of the Jerusalem temple and the anti-Jewish and anti-Christian activities of Rome. Thus Ford holds the possibility for multiple fulfillmentsof these passages...Ford applies vss. 36-39 to the papacy, but is reluctant to be very specific on
vss. 40-45. He remarks that at this point "we . . . enter upon delicate ground, as this is obviously in the realm of unfulfilled prophecy." He does insist (against Price and Bunch) that there are only two powers, not three, in the conflict described in these verses.34 He associates the 'king of the south' with atheism, or "some latter-day movement opposed to religion."

Maxwell, whose interpretations are significantly closer to Adventist tradition, associates all of Daniel 11:29-45 with the papacy, specifically identifying the last six verses of the chapter with the "demise of Roman Christianity."36 Nevertheless, he is considerably less specific in his interpretation of this passage than in his treatment of earlier chapters, or even of earlier parts of this chapter. He gives a detailed verse-by-verse interpretation of Daniel 11: 1-16. His comments on subsequent verses are more general, and are not always in canonical
order.37...."https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jats/vol7/iss1/7/

Thanks for this Rick. Interesting ideas some of them. I'll look into it some more.

In the mean time here's a quote from Ellen White that if Ford and others had taken to heart they would have put the primary fulfillment of Daniel 11:30 - 45 in the future:She wrote that over a hundred years ago and it is still yet to be fulfilled. If Gates is right, we're on the cusp of it now.

There is that word again, "IF". He could be right for the wrong reason, and time setting when it does not happen on time is damaging to the whole work of the church. THIS makes much more sense of a method of interpretation that David Gates or you Mark.

Here is a fascinating study of Daniel 11, by Tim Roosenberg:
https://youtu.be/Q1Zzjyt88TQ

I think I watched that a while ago. Doesn't he say the King of the South is Islam?

Prodigal, when I saw this is a new lecture I watched the first half hour. He makes a good case as always for his view of the King of the North and South. One reason you may have posted Tim's video is because it agrees with my thread on the Euphrates and the overthrow of Babylon. Tim expects radical Islam to anger the King of the North and overrun the Middle East in the near future which is what I also say about it. But do you recall whether he says anything about verses 29 and 30 in Daniel 11 and a major military humiliation of Christian forces? If I remember right, he puts that in the past, but in my view we should be on high alert for this between now and the spring. This precedes the final western invasion of the Middle East imo.

And if it is not in the spring? then summer? Fall? What timeline will you invent then?

As James White told Uriah Smith, "caution" especially with David Gates. Now I found more history on the Adventist view, very interesting:

"History of the Churchs Teaching on the King of the North.

Three Main Periods

1. 1846-1871 The King of the North said to be the Papacy.

There was general agreement on this during this time. James White and Uriah Smith both taught it. Uriah Smith applied Daniel 11:45 to the Papacy. See his editorial in the Review and Herald May 13, 1862 under the title, 'Will the Pope Remove the Papal seat to Jerusalem?'

2. 1871-1952. The King of the North said to be Turkey.

Around the beginning of this period Uriah Smith changed his views and began to teach that Daniel 11:36-39 Spoke about Revolutionary France, and that verses 40-45

dealt with Turkey. He wrote up these views in his book 'Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation', published by the Review and Herald Publishing House of which he was the editor on and off for many years.

James White who was also editor of the Publishing House at times advised caution.

In 1877 war broke out between Turkey and Russia, and Smith preached on the 'Eastern Question' at a camp meeting attended by the Whites, and there the two men

clashed publicly over the issue. In November 15, 1877 an editorial by James White appeared. It was reprinted in the Review and Herald 27 November, 1877, urging caution. Uriah Smith did not heed James Whites appeal, and in the Review and Herald of June 6, 1878 (page 180) he wrote. 'we have reached the preliminary movements of the battle of Armageddon'. See Ministry Magazine November 1967, page29 and onwards.

Reasons why Uriah Smith changed his views. See Ministry Magazine, March 1954
1. In 1798 the Pope was taken prisoner by the French general Berthier, and he died in exile in France. In 1870 the Pope lost all temporal power, after Garibaldi took away the Papal States and united Italy.
2.Secular opinion held that the Papacy would never recover. It seems strange to us now that Smith would go along with this idea since Rev. 13:3 says 'the deadly wound was healed and all the world wondered after the beast'.
3.Introducing France, Turkey and Egypt into Daniel 11, made the prophecies seem to be current to people of those times, and thus more interesting and urgent. Smith did what so many others have done, and that is to try to interpret the prophecies by looking at the newspaper headlines of the day. The danger of doing this is that he forgot that prophecy was not given to us to make us wise about political event, but to let us know what is going to happen to Gods church.
4.At that time Russia seemed ready to close in on Constantinople (now called Istanbul), Smith thought that this move could well lead Turkey to move its capital to Jerusalem.
5.Bishop Newton and Adam Clarke and others had linked Daniel 11:40-45 to the Ottoman Empire.
6.Many scholars of the day also taught that Rev. 9 spoke about the Ottoman Empire and that Rev. 11 dealt with the French Revolution. Thus it was thought that these two chapters were parallel prophecies to those in Dan. 11:36-45.



Reasons why Smiths views became dominate.

a. James White withdrew from the controversy for the sake of peace. See Ministry Magazine Nov. 1967, and Counsels to Writers and Editors,pp.76-77.

b. White did not spell out his views as clearly as did Smith.

c. Smith wrote his views into a book, 'Thoughts on Daniel and Revelation,' which out-lasted any thing White wrote in a magazine.

d. White died in 1881, while Smith served as editor of the Review and Herald for another eight years after Whites death. Thus Smiths views became the dominate interpretation until about 1952.

3. 1952 to the Present. The King of the North again said to be the Papacy.

Reasons for the Return to the Earlier Position. See Ministry Magazine March 1954, p 24.

'Not until the events so confidently predicted did not materialize, and the Papacy, instead of having '?fallen to rise no more,' again became a decisive influence in international affairs with a resumption of temporal power in 1929, did our Bible students undertake a re-examination of our denominational interpretations of these prophecies (Note that this quotation is dealing specifically with Dan. 11:36-39, but that which it states is also true about the King of the North as being the Papacy.)


See Ministry Magazine 1967 p 26. 'The Papacy is generally held to be the King of the North, and Armageddon is understood to be primarily the climatic struggle between the forces of Christ and those of Satan at the end of time. The years between 1924 and 1952 were transition years.'.....http://bereanbiblecorner.com/2014/03/05/the-king-of-the-north/

This vision begins with a reference to Cyrus and ends with God’s people delivered. Like the other chapters in Daniel it is not just past history but covers from his time to the end of the world.

So, from the 50's to today the church has mostly reverted back to the White view (James). Tim Roosenburg's view is similar to James White but he says the King of the North is the combined forces of Christianity, Catholic and Protestant and that the King of the South is radical Islam. That's a better fit with scripture imo. What are your thoughts?