Larger Context

The Eastern Question Revisited

The unresolved by the Adventist pioneers dispute over the Eastern Question is one of the pending historical-theological issues in the Seventh-day Adventist theology. This article attempts to analyze both sides of the dispute and to extract lessons both from the findings and from the slip-ups of the pioneers. Those findings will be applied toward finding a key to resolution of the age-long argument.

Historical Background of the Eastern Question

At the heart of the Eastern Question is the interpretation of the Rev 16:12 and Dan 11:45, particularly a historic identity of the King of the North on which the pioneers could not have agreed. Who of the pioneers was right? Why did the discussion come to a dead end? Finally, should we leave it just where our pioneers have left it, or should we continue seeking for a more balanced theological and historical view on the eschatological part of Dan 11? This article attempts answering these and some other question as it focuses on the Eastern Question from biblical, historical, and theological perspectives.

The early stage of the discussion started within the Millerite movement, but contributed little into a mature discussion among Sabbatarian Adventists. For those unfamiliar with the early Adventist discussions on the Eastern question a brief historical introduction on the development of this teaching seem to be appropriate.

Seventh-day Adventists originated from the Millerite movement of the 1830's and early 1840's. Millerism was an all-American phenomenon, and drew supporters mostly from among American Protestant denominations. As a movement heralding the soon Second Advent it had been naturally interested in seeing biblical prophecies being fulfilled in history.

The great majority of Protestant expositors held that Rev 16:12 reference to the Euphrates River should be interpreted as representing Tur­key or Mohammedanism. William Mil­ler, the founder of the movement called after his name, seemed to be in harmony with this prevailing view. Yet, he never connected the prophecy of Rev 16:12 to that of Daniel 11:45. He understood the Euphrates River as Mohammedanism, and the King of the North to be the Papacy.

Josiah Litch' perspective was also blurred:

"Under the sixth plague the Euphrates would be literally dried up to prepare the way for the kings of the Eastern world (the kings of the East). Following this the dev­il's armies (the kings of the earth and of the whole world) would be gathered in Jerusalem and Palestine by the three un­clean spirits—proceeding from Mohammed­anism (the dragon), popery (the beast), and infidelity (the false prophet)—for the purpose of battling against the King of kings and Lord of lords. At this point Christ would come with all His saints to drive out the wicked from Jerusalem."^[1]

Litch considered the kings of the East as the oppressive, evil power, and this vision (later rejected by the Seventh-day Adventist interpreters as erroneous one) deterred him from careful consideration of the other parties involved in the eschatological conflict.

Smith vs. White

In 1860-s the chief interpreter of Daniel and Revelation among the Seventh-day Adventists becomes Uriah Smith. At that time Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald had regularly published his series of articles on Daniel and Revelation in relation to the contemporary political and military events. In matters of identity of the king of the North his early writings reveal un­certainty as to whether this power is the Papacy, or Tur­key, but gradually he started putting more and more emphasis on Mohammedanism.

Another influential interpreter of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation was James White, tended to believe, that the king of the North remains same as during the previous period - namely, papacy. Thus, the stage has been set for a conflict.

As Smith approaches Dan 11 literally, already early in the chapter he establishes that the kings of the North and South are Syria and Egypt respectively. He recognizes, however, that along the chapter the identity of the king of the North changes to Rome (v. 25), while the identity of Egypt doesn't change.^[2]

With the progress of the chapter, Smith rightfully shifts the identity of king of the North from the Roman Empire to Papal Rome (around the year 476 A.D.). Somehow, Smith's identity of the king of the South remains blurred during the reign of Papal Rome. Later yet, starting with v. 35, Smith talks of the king of the North as Turkey, and for the king of the South he's resurrecting Egypt.

Uriah Smith's interpretation gained prominence when war broke out between Turkey and Russia in 1877. While Egypt was far from the epicenter of this war, Uriah Smith brought it to the arena as an alleged king of the South.

White, who also was a historicist, said that Smith's “positions taken on the Eastern Question are based upon prophecies which have not yet [had] their fulfillment.”And then, “here we should tread lightly, and take positions carefully, lest we be found removing the landmarks fully established in the advent movement."^[3]

The following year James White responded even strongly with an editorial in the Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, where he asserted that the last power of Dan­iel 11 must be pagan-papal Rome, not Turkey:^[4]

"If the feet and the toes of the metallic image are Roman, if the beast with ten horns that was given to the burning flames of the great day be the Roman beast, and the little horn which stood up against the Prince of princes be Rome, and if the same field and distance are covered by these four prophetic chains, then the last power of the eleventh chapter, which is to 'come to his end and none shall help him,' is Rome. But if this be Turkey, as some teach, then the toes of the image of the second chapter are Turkish, the beast with ten horns of the seventh chapter represents Turkey, and it was Turkey that stood up against the Prince of princes of the eight chapter of Daniel."^[5]

However, his arguments did not convince Uriah Smith. While Smith believed, that papacy played a crucial role in the previous section of Dan 11, he believes that with verse 40, with the beginning of the time of the end, there is a certain shift in the identity of the king of the North. This shift in his view has some good reasons.

First, it upholds more literal and historicism perspective on the passage, as the passage clearly talks of the literal, not spiritual, warfare. The explicit political and military language of Daniel 11 suggested to Uriah Smith and his followers that at the core of the conflict lays something more than just a religious controversy.

Second, and most importantly, Smith reminds his opponents that they should be aware of the exhaustion of the papal power towards the end of 1260 year period.

James White, however, remained unconvinced. He sees Smith's interpretation of the powers involved in the designated conflict as ambiguous. However, contrary to his often confrontational style, James White did not campaign against Uriah Smith's view. Why? D. E. Mansell gives us some details on it:

"The first part of White's rebuttal ap­peared in the Review and Herald of Oc­tober 3, 1878, and was to have been con­tinued, but it stopped right there. Why? William C. White, son of James and Ellen White, relates that a day or two after the meeting at which Smith and White spoke, Ellen White was given a vision showing that her husband erred in publicly disa­greeing with Smith. After coming out of vision, she related to her husband what she had been shown.^[6] James White accepted the rebuke and discontinued his series of articles. In rebuking her husband, Mrs. White did not attempt to resolve the ques­tion of the identity of the king of the north. Indeed, the question is not settled in any way in her writings."^[7]

This silence on behalf of both Ellen and James White^[8] encouraged some Adventist interpreters to join hands with Uriah Smith. With a publication of his book " Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation " also called “ Daniel and the Revelation ”^[9], the matter seemed to be solved. Armageddon would start with a defeat of Turkey in the Russo-Turkish War.

However to many interpreters disappointment, Russian efforts to win over Turkey proved to be fruitless, as England, France, and most of the Europe suddenly took sides with Turkey. While Daniel 11:45 with a reference to the King of the North claims that "none shall help him," the apparent historical reality demanded some different approach. James White's initial concern with the common assertion that Prince Michael will stand up on behalf of His people at the time of the defeat of the Turkey (the perceived King of the North) had now been revived.

Smith's Followers

The disciples of Uriah Smith have speedily come up with an explanation of this unexpected turn of events. Percy Tilson Magan, one of the pioneers in the field of Adventist Christian education, seemed to be in a full agreement with Uriah Smith as he wrote: "The mighty Word of God had said that the passing of Turkey would mark the advent of a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time."^[10] In his article in Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald he explains that the fact that Turkey didn't yet come to its end is to be explained by the fact that unparallel event took place in European history as all the European countries united to fight against Russia. P. T. Magan gets very excited as he quotes numerous political sources, mostly of British origin, on the strategic goal of the European countries to debase Russia. He nearly applauds the effort of the Great Britain and France to restrict and to humiliate Russia, as it would signify the God's granted delay of the prophetic fulfillment:

"An unseen hand was against Russia, and all her efforts were futile. The mighty Word of God had said that the passing of Turkey would mark the advent of a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time. Dan. 2:45; 12:1. Providence decreed that that time was not yet to be."^[11]

He concludes his article with the following words: "As previously stated, the Scriptures have foretold that Turkey shall come to his end, and none shall help him. And this very word of Sacred Writ clearly indicates that the only thing which will have prevented his coming to his end long before he does, is because some one does help him. There is not, of all prophecy, a more remarkable fulfillment than this."^[12]

This explanation seemed to be sufficient for certain time, as Turkey still preserved some of its power after the war with Russia. The First World War fueled the Eastern question once again bringing Turkey out of nearly obscurity that surrounded it in the previous five years. While the War was primarily fought in Europe, between Russia and Germany, some Adventist interpreters, following the tradition of Uriah Smith, continued seeing Turkey at the heart of the conflict.

Arthur G. Daniels, the longest serving president of the General Conference, did not hesitate to come up with the main editorial article in the Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald entitled: The Eastern Questions: Its Relation to the Great War, and Its Meaning in the Light of Prophecy. ^[13] The title already reflects an attempt on behalf of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to come up with a prophetic estimation of the current political events. In fact, the entire issue of October 1916 Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald is dedicated to the Eastern Question. It's been just over one year since Ellen G. White had passed, but it was neither the first, nor the last time when the Eastern question would come into the focus of the Adventist Church.

A. G. Daniels undertakes a painstaking effort to give a political analysis of the powers involved in the World War I in order to support the claims of Smith and to demonstrate the prominence of Istanbul in the bloody European conflict. However, his efforts have fallen short of its goal, as at that time Turkey's role in the World War I became rather obscure. Few years later its former prominence faded without any serious political or military shaking.

Contemporary Adventist Approach

Today some historic Adventist still look up at the country of Turkey, known mostly for its affordable resorts, as a mysterious King of the North capable of waging massive wars against many nations, persecuting all over the world the saints of God, and whose downfall would signify the end of the world. Overall, however, the Turkish obscurity resulted in a gradual replacement of the identity of Uriah Smith's understanding of the King of the North with that of William Miller and James White. The historic-prophetic pendulum seems returned to its initial position. Let us briefly look at what some of the contemporary Adventist interpreters have to say on the closing part of Daniel 11 before continuing drawing some lessons from the pioneers. In other words, let us first consider what other Adventist theologians learned, and what they teach.

Commenting on 11:40-45, William H. Shea sees the time of the end king of the south as, “modeled upon the Anti-Yahwistic attitudes of ancient Egypt, fits well with the modern movement of rationalistic humanism that leads to atheism or agnosticism.”^[14] The powers presented in the passage, according to Shea, are no longer engaged into a literal warfare. He further identifies the king of the north with papacy, and sees it as fighting with the powers of atheistic communism.

One can see that Shea learns a valuable lesson from the pioneers as he looks for more prominent candidate for the king of the South than degraded Egypt. Generally, he follows James White approach, where the key players gain the proportions of the Great Controversy players, such as papacy and atheism. However, he does it at expense of Uriah Smith's geopolitical and more literal interpretation. Atheistic powers, centered in France and later on in the former USSR could not have been geographically considered as the Southern neighbors of Jerusalem. Jerusalem also seem to lose its role of a central geographical point of the prophecy, as believed by Uriah Smith and most of the pioneers.

As Dr. Shea was writing of the atheistic powers, alluding to the Soviet Union, his interpretation seemed to be viable one. Today, however, the atheistic powers in the world faded and nearly disappeared. I applaud William H. Shea consideration for the watchfulness for the signs of the times as he turned to the Soviet Union - a tangible political player, but I dare to suggest that a simple application of the geopolitical principle could have been helpful to him in his otherwise correct estimation of prophetic powers. The typologically superior period does not necessarily excludes literal geopolitical principle. Rather, it considers it and moves in harmony with it. In the same way our High Priest moves in the Holy Sanctuary, progressively forward, always in one geographical direction, from East to West. Even at His Second Coming Jesus is moving from the East. God is consistent with the geographical directions, and we all might learn it from Him.

Roy Allan Anderson seems to be in agreement with Shea regarding the identities of the eschatological kings. Considering verses 36-45 as the end time conflict he sees papacy in conflict with “worldwide atheistic socialism” that originated in France.^[15]

Unlike previously mentioned theologians, Jacques B. Doukhan avoids using direct references to papacy. It might be due to his honoring an admonition of Ellen G. White not to consider papacy as the king of the North, or his ageographical and more spiritualized view on the conflict. To him the eschatological passage of Dan 11:40-45 depicts the spiritual battle between Babylon, which is some institution of “a religious nature usurping God’s power,”^[16] and Egypt, which is “of secular and political essence.”^[17] Doukhan catches sight of valid connection between Revelation 16 and Dan 11: “Revelation 16 attributes to Isaiah 14 constitute another connection with Daniel 11, which also has the latter in its background.”^[18] Generally, Doukhan admits that Daniel 11 is not easy to interpret and thus difficult to find its “historical counterpart.”^[19] Consequently, he exhorts the reader to wait patiently for the last semblance which concerns the time of the end and its consummation.^[20] Follow Doukhan's advice as we move on with our research among other things, we will look for that last semblance.

Zdravko Stefanovic also identifies the king of the North with some apostate religion.^[21] Regarding the intermediate period he alludes to the work of Shea who speaks of the Crusades initiated by papacy. Yet, Stefanovic never delineates the position neither on the king of the North, nor on the king of the South. He points out to a danger of the literalistic application of the passage, which is “not limited to the time prior to the first coming of Christ.”^[22] In other words, since the described event took place after the death of the Apostles, there is no way of a sure historical understanding of this text. In our article, however, we entertain, more optimistic outlook at the comprehensibility of the prophecy.

As if to emphasize the apparent incompatibility of literal-geographical and spiritual approaches and to broaden the gap between the perspective on the early Adventist historicists, Timothy J. Hayden insists that “to interpret Daniel 11:40-45 spiritually and Daniel 11:23-30 geographically is inconsistent”.^[23] The spiritual interpretation considers “the king of the south” in commendation to “spiritual Egypt,” consequently, “the king of the south has nothing to do with geography after Daniel 11:22.”^[24]

One might only wonder what makes Hayden so sure of his view. After all, the Muslim world has always remained largely to the south of Jerusalem. According to Hayden, however, “it is also not possible for Daniel 11:23-31a to identify both geopolitical and global spiritual conflicts at the same time.”^[25] Subsequently, the spiritual and geopolitical approaches seem to be at variance and at war with each other. He arrives to conclusion that the conflict between the kings could be geopolitical or spiritual, not both. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this radical 'principle', the tendency is very clear: the gap between the two pioneers approaches had only widened with time.

Reflecting on this brief overview of the recent tendencies in Adventist approach to Dan 11:40-45, one might observe that the position of the contemporary interpreters is more general, than that of our pioneers. It is partly due to the disappointment with the Uriah Smith's take on Turkey.

On the other hand, one could also observe that recent interpretation is based on the principles rather distinct from those used by Uriah Smith and even James White. The clear shift took place toward and far beyond James White.

We dare to question the artificial alienation of two of the pioneers' approaches. We are reminded by Ellen G. White, that Uriah Smith's approach (not necessarily all of his conclusion) is a valid one. It should encourage us to look for a more balanced approach to the resolution of the problem. The two of our pioneers have nearly met on a common prophetic ground and shook each other hands. Would it be, in principle, possible? I believe it would. To demonstrate it I would like to extract some valuable lessons from our pioneers discussion.

Lessons from Pioneers

There are some lessons that could be learned from the experience of our pioneers. As we consider those, we will get a more balanced view, which hopefully will help us to arrive to a more accurate understanding of the eschatological scene of Dan 11 - the one that would be in principle hermeneutically acceptable by both Uriah Smith and James White.

The recent tendency in Adventist scholarship, as we have seen, had been to distance prophetic interpretation from tangible historical events. I believe that while we should not necessarily agree with our pioneers on all their conclusions, we'll certainly benefit as we consider both sides of the prophecy: the hermeneutical and the historical ones. Though the early Adventists would mostly dwell on the historical side, the modern Adventist scholarship dwells on its hermeneutical side. While not undermining and questioning the hermeneutical emphasis (in fact, it was largely due to the lack of this emphasis, that our pioneers failed to find unity), and without making an appeal to the "traditional Adventism', I would like to embark on the search for the balance.

Consistent Historicism

First positive lesson that I learn as I contemplate on the early Adventist debates on Dan 11, is that our pioneers, being consistent historicists, considered current political events from the prophetic perspective. Even James White, who seems to be more cautious than others in associating kings with contemporary Egypt and Turkey, wrote numerous articles reflecting on his acute interest in current geopolitics. For him, as well as other Adventist pioneers, the Great Controversy was more than vague and uncertain scholarly perspective on the spiritual war between God and Satan, but rather a tangible struggle with the real earthly nations involved.

While we should certainly learn from the mistakes of our pioneers and to be more meticulous in our Bible study, the pioneers' boldness and uncompromising determination are called to teach the Seventh-day Adventist Church today some valuable lessons.

Geopolitical Approach

Adventist pioneers generally agreed on the geographical principle in relation to Jerusalem - at least at the verses previous to v. 40.^[26] This principle has two important and unavoidable implications: first, according to this principle, the geography of the kings can be discerned by their geographic relation toward Jerusalem, and second, that the conflict would take place in the literal Middle East.

In recent years Tim Roosenberg accentuated the importance of what he calls “geopolitical” concept of Daniel, which he defines as “international relations, influenced by geography.”^[27] He emphasizes that the geography of the Middle East is important, as it allows us to see that the kings of the north and south are “geopolitical powers” that attacked Israel from the north and south respectively.

Even among those who don't accept this principle there are still attempts to bind the powers presumably involved in a conflict to Egypt. However, the thesis of Egypt being presumably a symbol of atheism may not enjoy as much biblical support as it often claims.

While I don't insist on the exclusiveness of the geopolitical approach, I don't discount it either. I suggest not going as far as Hayden did, who suggested that "kings could be geopolitical or spiritual, not both." We will put his opinion, as well as the opinions of our pioneers, to the further test.

Where did our Pioneers Ignored Warning Signs

A number of alarm lights rose on the way of the pioneers as pressed on toward their understanding of the eschatological scene of Dan 11.

Two Poles of Historicism

The difference between the two interpreters was above all in their hermeneutical emphasis (not principles), in understanding of the use of language by Daniel. Uriah Smith approached Daniel 11 as written in a rather clear, literal language and “clothed not in figures and symbols, as in vision of Daniel 2, 7, and 8.”^[28] Thus, to him Dan 11:40-45 should have been dealing with some current political and military conflict in the Middle East.

Yet, Uriah Smith and his followers failed to clarify: what is a relevance of the current political events under consideration to the Great Controversy that intensifies and reaches its highest point at the last days? While talking of the centrality of the Three Angels Message, the Adventist pioneers following Uriah Smith, seemed to forgot, that at least one of the involved powers should have somehow be related to Babylon.

On the other hand James White saw Daniel 11 as a chapter "where the symbols are thrown off."^[29] Been historicist as well, James White insisted on a larger scale of a prophetic fulfillment than what Uriah Smith proposed. He had not forgotten that Babylon and Christ should be in a picture. However, in his attempt to save a Great Controversy focus James White indirectly downplayed the importance of the literal political and military dimensions of the conflict.

Hans K. LaRondelle rightly notices: "As long as the historicist approach adheres to the covenant history that is centred in the messianic people of God, its progressive applications to church history will retain their Christ-centered nature and theological validity."^[30] The pioneers have divorced historicist approach from Christ-centered message of Daniel. It resulted in a theological confusion.

Absence of the Beast

Another important signal that the Adventist pioneers should have not dismissed was the absence in their eschatological picture of Daniel one of the main figures of the eschatological ending of Revelation - the beast from the dry land. While asserting that Revelation was a key to the book of Daniel, the pioneers generally failed to apply this principle to unlock Daniel's eschatological narrative and to identify the kings.

Josiah Litch at his early attempt to decipher this prophecy came close to associate the kings with the prominent players previously mentioned in Revelation as: "proceeding from Mohammed­anism (the dragon), popery (the beast), and infidelity (the false prophet)."^[31] However, he failed to understand, that while the beast is bound to the popery, it has its distinctive identity.

James White at some time also supported a similar view, however he also failed to see the activity of the second and the last beast in the battle of the kings. To him the king of the North was papacy in its pure form - or the first ten horned beast. It is not altogether clear why he excluded the second beast from the apocalyptic scene. Ignoring the second beast might have been a key cause of the failure of the creative dialog between the two interpreters, as they both excluded this essential eschatological player from their view. We will return to this question later as we discuss the reasons for such an omission, as well as the implications of it.

Weakness of Egypt

Another alarm light should have come from a suspiciously weak and insignificant appearance of the proposed king of the South. In their attempt to consistently follow the geographical and geopolitical principle majority of the pioneers ignored a simple fact, that in their days Egypt had long since lost its prominence. In fact, Egypt lost its prominence already before the First Coming of Jesus Christ. Bringing up Egypt into eschatological picture could by no means be justified by the fact that in the first part of Dan 11, up until verse 22, Egypt played an important role in the political affairs of the world and was prophetically represented by the King of the South.

Inaccurate Fulfillment

Another yet alarm went on as the conflict wasn't developing according to the biblical outline. More countries got involved into this war, and it became apparent that it wasn't anymore Turkey-Egypt affair. In fact, it has never been. While the historical and geographical details of the narrative seemed important to the pioneers, they preferred not to notice that the things were not going as the Bible would present those.

Summary

Those and other challenges and warning signs were called to encourage our pioneers to take a closer look at the prophecies, and to listen to both sides more carefully. Instead, both sides choose to cling to their stories. The train of prophetical thoughts of our pioneers in regard to the kings came to the full stop and a dead end when the conflict they considered turned into a defeat and an obscurity of the king of the North.

As it's been noted, the Adventist pioneers mostly used proper hermeneutical tools to approach the problem. Yet, the differences in their emphasis seem to be at the very heart of the unresolved Eastern Question. Those differences are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as some of Adventist scholars concluded. In fact, the differences between Uriah Smith and James White approaches had to encourage both sides to listen to each other arguments more closely, and not to try widening up what seemed to be a gap. However, as both great commentators followed their stated principles, representing one of the sides of historicism, it set up a stage for the conflict.

On behalf of Uriah Smith and his followers the problem was that in their attempt to preserve geographical and literal principles that had to stick to purely political and territorial dispute, irrelevant to the Great Controversy, as the last battle of the kings. On the other hand James White approached the issues from the perspective of the Great Controversy, while lowering the importance of a more literal interpretation of the prophecy pointing to the political and military conflict.

Both sides failed to consistently apply their own prophetic discoveries to prophetic narrative of Dan 11:40-45 as they excluded both the second beast and the kings from the East from their picture of the last battle. Also, none of the commentators succeeded in approaching the prophecy from a larger prophetic and historical perspective, failing to consider the previous biblical context of the prophecy, its progressive dynamics, and a possibility that the fulfillment of the prophecy is yet in the future.

Steps toward Resolution

As the pioneers stretched their approaches far enough to ignore each other respective views, they received some warning signs from the Bible, from the history, and from the Spirit of Prophecy. Unfortunately, those warning signs largely remained ignored. In the following section we will try to consider and to avoid the omissions of the pioneers as we continue our search for the possible resolution of the argument.

Larger Context

As Hans K. LaRondelle reflects on the new discoveries of the composition of Daniel and Revelation he notices that "an interpretation of Daniel and Revelation can no longer detach a text or chapter from the total composition and try to fit the dissected part with some event of world history. The literary approach provides a new standard for evaluating the exegesis of Daniel and the Revelation by previous historicists."^[32]

In order to put the conflict between the king of the South and the king of the North, one should necessarily consider the threefold structure and dynamics of Daniel 11 - perhaps a reflection on the threefold ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Sanctuary. We will call them early, intermediate, and last periods. While the borders of those historical periods scholars see differently, most conservative scholars recognize this kind of chapter's division.

First part of the chapter 11, or the early period, is dealing with the national Israel, second one, intermediate, focuses on the activities of the emerged Christian Church,^[33] and the third and the last period presents the history "at the time of the end" (v. 40). The dynamic of Daniel's narrative is such that with each successive section its horizon inevitably broadens from the local, national issues, to the international and geopolitical affairs. Thus, the identities of the main players, such as the King of the South and the King of the North should also inevitably broaden and evolve with each section. They never remain the same (James White's oversight), they always progress forward (not backward, as it was a case with Uriah Smith), and the kings never switch roles. To understand this would be a significant step toward revisiting of the Eastern Question. Proving this principle, however, would be beyond the point that this paper is making. Thus, we take it as an assumption.

In the early verses of Daniel 11 the prophecy is dealing with the national Israelite history, where the King of the South is certainly Egypt, the old foe of Israel. At the same time, close to the end of this period the identity of the King of the North evolves from old Syria to "his successor" (v. 20), the newly emerged power of Rome. After the First Coming of Christ designated in v. 22 the previously political conflict gains also a religious prominence. The military conflict is certainly still there, while the added religious issues give this conflict a new dynamic. The King of the North is now an explicitly religious power, usually associated with papacy, and its war against the King of the South is more than a political conflict - it is a religious war, implying that the King of the South, at least religiously, is more than what it previously used to be. Note the evolutionary, progressive and inclusive dynamic of Daniel's vision of history.

Дата добавления: 2015-10-23