As we approach verse 40 -- this is where it gets interesting, yet because it is future we need to tread carefully, and not get too narrow in our thinking.

s it still literal, or does the chapter now switch to spiritual?
One thing -- it needs to fit in with the rest of the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation.


11:40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

Who are the players here?

First who is the "him" against which the king of the south pushes? We know that the focus has been on the papacy which has been using kings to enforce it's policies for most of the last half of Daniel 11.
But in 1798 the papal power was stripped of it's armies (the kings wouldn't fight and enforce his policies any longer} The beast has been wounded and stripped of it's armies. Also the kings themselves lost their kingly power as well about the same time.

Some suggest this verse (Daniel 11:40) is speaking of three powers,
1. the (him)
2. the king of the south and
3. the king of the north.

Comparing this with Rev. 17 it's very possible the "him" is the same power as the harlot in Rev. 17, basically the religious side of the papal power. In Rev. 17 the papal power is depicted in two symbols.
The kings, (the horns) which supported the papal power previous to the time of the end are seen without their crowns in the first part of Rev. 17.
In Rev. 17:8 the beast that was, then was not, but is again, reappears.

In verses Daniel 11:38-39 prior to the time of the end, the antecedent "he" is honoring the god of forces, (countries ruled by kings with strong armies) and offers them financial support and arranges things to increase their power. This he did prior to the time of the end.

So Daniel 11:40 the "him" who is most likely typified as the harlot in Rev. 17 is facing big problems from the king of the south, and is able to mount the beast. In Rev. 17, the harlot is sitting on the beast ( symbolic of the restored position of the king of the north) once again the power of the beast -- the king of the north is once again "healed" and ready for battle.

With "kings" (especially American and Europen rulers) once again lending their armies to enforce papal policies and mandates the "he" and the king of the north are again one and the same power. The king of the north is "healed" and we have the whirlwind with chariots (airplanes) and horsemen ( tanks etc) and many ships enforcing the papal solutions, with power, on the world.

That healing, by the way, is almost completed as we read.



Now we just need to locate the king of the south.

I

I'd like to go back to look again at verse 36 and onward.

Verses 31 to 35 of Daniel 11, definitely refer to the 1260 years of papal primacy, with very clear connections to Daniel 7 and 8's depiction of the same.. The attack was on God's covenant, God's sanctuary, and God's people..

Modern Adventist scholars tend to refer to vs. 36-39 as continuing to describe the papal power, suggesting these verse describe the attitude of the papal power, while the previous verses 31-35 describe the actions of the papal power.

But what if these verses are witnessing the papal's position to be the subject after 1798 .
In verse 11:35 We a have statement concerning time.
And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them and to purge them and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

We are living in the time of the end.

What happens in the "time of the end"?
Daniel 7:25 prophesied that:
He (the papal power) shall speak pompous word against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law, then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time, (1260 day/years) BUT THE COURT SHALL BE SEATED, AND THEY SHALL TAKE AWAY HIS DOMINION.".

That dominion was taken away in 1798. The "beast" received a fatal wound, But it was the "beast" or political power of the papal church that was fatally wounded, the Catholic church continued, as a world wide church.
But even though the deadly wound was inflicted in 1798, even though the heavenly judgement began in 1844, "the time of the end" is not the end of time. We will see yet another Power arising; Revelation 11:7 says a "beast from the bottomless pit" arises after the two witnesses have prophesied for 1260 years. We also have the ultimate blasphemies proclaimed from papal chair.

n spite of the fact that papal primacy over all churches was taken away by Napoleon?s new laws, and the papacy's political influence was stripped away; the papacy made some of it's most blasphemies moves after 1798.

To counteract the terrible "wound" inflicted by the removal of their LEGAL AUTHORITY to control the masses of Europe, the papacy now seeks to regain authority by passing church dogmas proclaiming themselves equal to God Himself! Claiming the prerogatives of God, was nothing new for the papacy, but now it reached new heights. As papal power waned, papal pretensions increased.

Pope Pius IX's called for the convening of the First Vatican Council on December 8, 1869.
In July 18, 1870, the Council promulgated the dogma of Papal Infallibility.
The Council also asserted papal primacy. In July 1870, it issued the Dogmatic constitution Pastor aeternus, defining four doctrines of the Catholic faith: the apostolic primacy conferred on Peter, the perpetuity of this primacy in the Roman pontiffs, the meaning and power of the papal primacy, and Papal infallibility.

Obviously the government of Italy was not very impressed by this announcement for just two months later, on September 20, 1870, Victor Emmanuel II, King of Sardinia and later first King of a united Italy, captured Rome and took over the States of the Church, removing the last claims to political authority from the papacy.

To understand the background of this move here's a bit of history:
Napoleon had declared Italy a republic, and made himself the "king", the Church was stripped of its privileges, its property confiscated. And, even though it was propped up again by Napoleon, it was treated as just another church in his kingdom. With the collapse of the Napoleonic Empire in 1814, the states of the Italian peninsula were reconstituted under the domination of Austria. At the Congress of Vienna most of the papal states were given back to the papacy. The Austrians attempted to restore the old regime. Italy was divided into nine divisions, one of which was the Papal states. Pope Pius VII sought to re-establish the semi-feudal ecclesiastical rule the papacy had enjoyed prior to 1798, including the restoration of the Jesuits which had been suppressed in 1773.
Victor Emmanuel I of Piedmont (not the same as Victor Emmanuel II) returned in 1814 hoping to restore the old regime even to the return of exiled officials who were holding office before the upset in 1798. The Jesuits order was re-established in 1814, and was cordially welcomed as a means of getting people back under the authority of pope. Religious toleration was denied, secret police were used to squelch any "liberty, equality, fraternity" talk, and force was reasserted.

The result was A REVOLUTION-- the people had tasted freedom and they did not want the old regime back.

So yes, there was much unrest and fighting in the years that followed, as the pope and the Austrians tried to re-institute the old ways, and the people fought for their freedom. In 1832 Pope Pius IX wrote a scathing denunciation in which he denounced the separation of Church and state, denounced liberty of the press as abominable and detestable and demanded submission to the encyclical (Mirari Vos). He was fighting to regain his lost primacy! Put thankfully, the old ways did not succeed in re-establishing themselves. As we have seen, the very year the pope exalted himself, he lost the last vestige of temporal authority. The Italian troops marched into Rome in 1870 and the citizens voted, by a majority of 134,000 to 1500, for incorporation into the Italian Kingdom-- obviously the fear of excommunication no longer control the population.

Thus in spite of the papacy's blasphemous declarations of infallibility it was clearly confirmed that the LEGAL control of the papacy over the people was gone-- it had ended in 1798

Thank you for that interesting piece of history.

The thing that struck me while studying some of this is that the battle to re-establish the semi-feudal regime is not just history, it is coming back in full force. And with it the "wound" will be healed, control will be re-established.

The feudal system that brought the dark ages and held that darkness over the people for many centuries, was based on people existing in mainly three levels. Ecclesiastical, the Nobles, and the common peasants.
There were the warrior nobility who were given land when they fulfilled certain military obligations. There was also a whole network of dioceses ruled by arch bishops, bishops and abbots . Then there were the commoners who became the vassals, these were people who were given responsibility for a piece of land, under the control of the nobility or lord. The land was known as a fief. In exchange for the use of the fief and protection by the lord, the vassal would provide some sort of services to the lord. It was a system where the more elite nobility had considerable control over the lower classes, and often exploited them.

When the elite get the ownership of the land and all resources, the rest become servants and vassals, at the mercy of the controlling elite. It was part of the system during the middle ages, and many are the warnings that things are being contrived to move the population into that mode again.

The next verses in Daniel 11 show the king of the North fighting to establish control once again. The more I look into it, the broader this subject seems to be.

Daniel 11:39 Then shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

Honoring the god of forces (vs 38) he divides the land into hierarchical systems to bring many under the rule of a few. From each of these divisions, according to their size and productivity, flows the profits "gains" into the hands of the few.

In Revelation 18 Babylon the Great is described as a great commercial system seeking gain trafficking in the souls of men.

In spite of the papacy's blasphemous declarations of infallibility it was clearly confirmed that the LEGAL control of the papacy over the people was gone-- it had ended in 1798

But in verse 40 things have changed. The papacy finds new military support, especially from the most powerful nation on earth.
They will seek to control, and move into what will look like defensive action at first, but will progress into aggressive action that finally resorts to massive violence.
But they will NOT win!

Jesus, Michael the leader of the whole heavenly hosts will stand up and deliver His people.

I've been hesitant in posting an interpretation of
Daniel 11:40 ?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.
41 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.
42 He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
43 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.
44 But news from the east and the north shall trouble him; therefore he shall go out with great fury to destroy and annihilate many.
45 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.

1. There is Uriah Smith's interpretation based largely on the Turkish wars in 1870's, that view was questioned by James White, saying the king of the North is Papal, not Turkey. We tend to follow James White on that, while Smith's view largely faded into the background.

2. There is Louis Were's interpretation which has been quite popular amongst Adventists, he sees these last six verses as mainly symbolic, rather than the essentially literal translation given to the earlier verses in the chapter.
The symbols standing for thought groups.
King of the North = mainstream Christianity, led by Papacy.
King of the South = Atheism
Glorious Land = the Church which is keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.
This end-time "king of the North" will burst into full power in response to a crises created by the king of the south, and will successfully counterattack the 'king of the South," verses 41-43, by countering the inwards of atheism into Christianity, but it doesn't stop there, the king of the North brings others under his power. (Ecumenical control)
Then it shows that he (king of the north) will enter the Holy Land, God's command keeping church, and set up his power in religious matters over the people of God, and also gain "power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt. (world economy?)" The commandment keeping Church will be placed under the mandates of the church and state. They will take to themselves the honor of dispensing God's precious gifts to whomever they deem deserve them.
The news from the east = the gospel of Christ's immanent return which angers the papacy and the multitudes, and they decide on the death decree for all dissenters,

3. The third view, emphasized by Tim Rosenberg, identifies the King of the South as the Moslems. Which happens to be the position that makes the most sense to me, and which I will outline in my next post.

The third view also makes the most sense to me.

Daniel 11:40 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.

One point stands out as fact. The king of the South does something that arouses the king of the North to act in whirlwind and military action not only against the king of the south but he will use the crises to gain considerable power over countries, overwhelming them with his power.

The king of the south makes his move in verse 40, and then seems to disappear (at least as a power doing any further aggressive action) for the remainder of the prophecy.
His main part in the fulfilling of the prophecy is releasing, or giving an excuse for the display of passion in the King of the North to try to overwhelm the world. The king of the South gives the king of the north the excuse to launch war, after which the king of the south, kind of falls into three categories. 1. the conquered (destroyed), 2. the submissive followers, 3. those who escape. The KS is the key that releases the power of the king of the North to go forth and overwhelm the KS and other countries.

The Kings of the NORTH and SOUTH aspect has been literal throughout Daniel 11. Rome conquered both the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom before the Christian era began. Rome lost the southern territories in the 7th century. The power that pushed Rome out of her southern territories, and conquered all the southern coast of the Mediterranean from Arabia clear across north Africa and even up into Spain, were the Muslims.
The Christian countries stretched across the northern coast of the Mediterranean from England to Turkey. While things shifted some, back and forth especially in the middle east. The north and south overall picture remained, Christians powers (Roman and Orthodox) to the north. Muslims powers generally to the south of the Christian powers.
It's hard to accept that a very short stint of Napoleon in Egypt, would over ride what has been the big picture of who's in the north and who's in the south for centuries.

We've identified the last great power throughout the prophecies as the papal powered Christianity, and the papacy with it's allies should still be the king of the north till the end.

From the 7th century onward the Islamic powers were the main force contending for power against the Christian nations. The northern papal armies led crusade after crusade against the Islamic power. Revelation's fifth and sixth trumpet has been understood by Christian scholars to represent the wars of Islamic forces pounding against the Christian nations. (Though some are denying this now it was recognized as such for many centuries)



Is Islam the king of the South?

A few years back, when radical Islamics were making news that horrified the world, and thousands of Muslim refugees were flooding into Europe and America, we heard a lot more about possible dangers to our countries. Since then the fears have been labelled as a phobia that needs to be dismissed as a mental problem.

Why is there hostility? Is it really just a phobia? Or are Muslims really scheming to convert the whole world by force? According to this website they are.

That website claims "The Koran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war against the infidels. ?Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.? (Koran 9:123) ?Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war].? (Koran 9: 5).

About 1/4 of earth's population identify themselves as Muslim!


In Europe there is considerable animosity against Muslims. Europeans haven't forgotten the history of hundreds of years and they are uneasy, which was augmented rather sharply by the radicalization of many native European Muslims. It also seems that European Muslims tend to cluster together more in little Muslim communities, thus looked upon with more suspicion as they are not integrate with their new society, while Muslims in America are more scattered and integrated.
Now of course, it would be wonderful if everyone could live together in peace and freedom without prejudice. That's the dream, but dreams can turn into nightmares.

I don't know what will trigger the king of the north to launch out with the full force of American and European powers to overwhelm the king of the south, and other countries.
It could be a number of things.
We just know that at first it will appear he is winning, but soon things start to go terribly wrong.

Mohammad married into a Catholic family. In fact, Walter Veith believes Islam was created by the Catholic Church in order to eradicate the Christians who were not under Papal control. If you examine a map of Muslim countries where Christianity was once the majority but is now almost extinct around the southern Mediterranean, it is easy to see that they were quite successful. Whatever the trigger for the great battle between the Kings of the North and South, it seems likely it will begin at the behest of the Papacy.

https://youtu.be/xZAmv1YASdw

Yes, ProdigalOne, I thing you are right. I've heard that before.


One thing the history books bare out --
Constantinople and the eastern Roman Empire would never have fallen to the Turks if the papal church hadn't systematically weaken it.

We think of the crusades being sent out to subdue the Muslims????
We really don't hear much about what those crusades did on their journey through Byzantine land.

History:
1054 the eastern church separated from the west. This "Great Schism" divided the visible Church into Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
The primary causes of the Schism were disputes over papal authority, the east didn't want to be under the pope's authority, and also rejected some of Rome's doctrines at that time, like purgatory, and celibacy for priests.

Now the first crusade in 1095 did manage to reclaim some land from the Turks, but the later ones were more about plundering the eastern Empire.
In 1147 the second crusade came through the eastern Roman Empire, plundering on their way.

Had the Christian countries united against the Turks, the Turks would not of had a chance, as it was the Eastern Empire suffered as much as the Turks under the crusades!

The great blow came with fourth crusade. April 13, 1204 instead of marching against the Turks, the crusade leaders responded to the bribes of a young man, Alexus, whose father had tied to usurp the Byzantine throne. Alexius, promised the crusaders money and if they would help him take the throne, that he would accept the authority of the POPE, and end the big schism. So the crusaders turned on Constantinople and conquered it, placing Alexius on the throne. But Alexius could not pay the bribe, so the crusaders pillaged and ravaged Constantinople. They seized both the city and the empire for themselves. They divided the empire in sections with different rulers, and placed a Latin emperor on the throne in Constantinople. Byzantium had lost its central government which had successfully resisted its enemies so many time before.

However, the Byzantine empire was not yet dead-- in 1261-1328 a strong leader, Michael VIII, began making headway in restoring the eastern empire. However, his advantage turned when Charles, a younger brother of Louis IX of France, and a devotee of the Papacy joined up with the deposed Latin Emperor Baldwin with the ambition of retaking Constantinople.
Pope Gregory X asked Michael VIII to negotiate a reunion of the two churches and he would restrain Charles's crusade against Constantinople. Michael agreed, but was not supported by the eastern church leaders.
Back in the west, Charles made fresh plans for a crusade against Byzantium, with the help of the Pope on the basis that Michael VIII had failed to achieve a genuine reunion of churches. But Sicily rose in revolt against Charles and Charles had to abandon his crusade.
Michael VIII was the last strong ruler, corruption in the Byzantine empire itself as well as the many attacks from all sides, had so weakened the empire that it became easy prey for the Turks to move in.

Why, all this history?

It reveals Papal policy. They wanted all Christianity under their control. During this time they also launched some of the bloodiest crusades against other Christians they termed as heretics, brutally killing thousands.

People believe it was the crusaders that held back the Turks from destroying eastern Christianity-- no, the crusaders helped RELEASE the restraint on the Turks so they could destroy eastern Christianity!.


The west then had to face the consequences, with the eastern empire no longer blocking the Turks advance, the Turks began to move through the Balkans, Hungary, Greece, and terrifying Italy itself. Actually that was an advantage for the Reformation. The papacy so busy fending off Turks they didn't have time to stop the Reformation.