I see. It's a curious thing that a King of the North (Islam) could be SOUTH the King of the SOUTH (the United States).
It's so remarkable that they don't even mention China.
The King of the North and the King of the South. What gives?
by dgp 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
RubaDub
I've heard that the "new light" on this issue is that the King of the North represents Ulyssis S. Grant and the King of the South represents Robert E. Lee.
The King of the North finally overcame and defeated the King of the South to fulfill the prophesy.
Apparently some previously unreleased hand-written notes by CT Russel have been discovered in which he predicted the fulfillment shortly before his death.
Rub a Dub
-
villabolo
d: "I agre donuthole.I used to hear brothers saying how the violence in the middle east would soon start coming here."
Glenn Becks must be their new prophet.
Villabolo
-
Leolaia
The whole of ch. 11 of Daniel (with the exception of the verses following v. 40, in which the author ventures his own prediction of the future) follows Seleucid history very closely, and is exquisite in detail in relating the careers of Antiochus III (v. 10-19) and Antiochus IV Epiphanes (v. 21-39). It is an important historical account of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Syrian Wars written from the Jewish point of view (in the guise of apocalyptic revelation). But since the demise of Antiochus IV did not occur exactly as predicted, it has been common in devotional interpretation to attribute the later verses, typically v. 36ff, to a future king (e.g. the Antichrist) even though there is no justification for this in the text.
The Society goes further than this. To make the chapter stretch into the 20th century, they take the entire section that refers to Antiochus Epiphanes and apply it to kings throughout history that came AFTER him. Note in particular how in the Daniel Prophecy book they follow Seleucid history for most of ch. 11 and agree that v. 13-19 refers to Antiochus III, but then instead of continuing with Seleucid history and recognizing that v. 21-39 OBVIOUSLY refers to Antiochus IV, they lump Antiochus IV somehow into the end of v. 13-19 and suddenly launch forth outside of Seleucid history, taking v. 20 to refer to Tiberius Caesar, v. 21-24 to refer to the Roman Empire, v. 25-26 to refer to the break down of the Roman Empire and Queen Zenoba (wtf?), and then the rest of the chapter zips centuries ahead to the twentieth century. This is very contrived because the dynamic of north-south is relative to the location of Syria and Egypt vis-a-vis Judea in between, which was a football tossed around back and forth between these two empires during the Syrian Wars. Extending to the series of kings outside the Seleucid-Lagid lines (to a period subsequent to the Syrian Wars) breaks down this whole dynamic. Not only is there no longer any consistency of north and south, but Judea is no longer the frame of reference (e.g. there is no role played by Judea in the Society's identification of the 20th-century kings of the north and south), nor is there any awareness that north and south is relative to something else in between.
The funny thing about all of this is that the references to Antiochus IV in the Daniel Prophecy book do correspond to the sections of the vision that the Society wants to apply to the twentieth century. So for instance, concerning Antiochus IV (which the Society is unable to find a clear reference to him in the prophecy), they write:
***dp chap. 14 p. 231 The Two Kings Change Identities ***SYRIAN monarch Antiochus IV invades Egypt and crowns himself its king. At the request of Egyptian King Ptolemy VI, Rome sends Ambassador Caius Popilius Laenas to Egypt. He has with him an impressive fleet and orders from the Roman Senate that Antiochus IV renounce his kingship of Egypt and withdraw from the country. At Eleusis, a suburb of Alexandria, the Syrian king and the Roman ambassador come face-to-face. Antiochus IV requests time for consultation with his advisers, but Laenas draws a circle around the king and tells him to answer before stepping across the line. Humiliated, Antiochus IV complies with Roman demands and returns to Syria in 168 B.C.E. Thus ends the confrontation between the Syrian king of the north and the Egyptian king of the south.
Now doesn't that sound A LOT like what is described in Daniel 11:29-30? "In due time he will make his way southwards again but this time the outcome will not be as before. The ships of Kittim will oppose him, and he will be intimidated. He will retire and take furious action against the holy covenant..." (Indeed "Kittim" was a common name for the Romans in Jewish literature of time, cf. its rendering as Romaioi in the LXX translation of this verse). But noooooo! This verse cannot refer to Antiochus IV, it has to refer to British ships in WWI!! lol Same thing applies to Antiochus IV's attack on the Temple, razing of Jerusalem, and installation of the Abomination of Desolation: "On the fifteenth day of Chislev in the year one hundred and forty-five [i.e. 167 BC] the king erected the abomination of desolation above the altar" (1 Maccabees 1:54). The Society also describes this event in the Daniel book, but fails to match it with any corresponding verse in Daniel 11
***dp chap. 13 p. 227 Two Kings in Conflict ***
The new king of the north, Antiochus IV, sought to show himself mightier than God by trying to eradicate Jehovah’s arrangement of worship. Defying Jehovah, he dedicated Jerusalem’s temple to Zeus, or Jupiter. In December 167 B.C.E., a pagan altar was erected on top of the great altar in the temple courtyard where a daily burnt offering had been made to Jehovah. Ten days later, a sacrifice to Zeus was offered on the pagan altar. This desecration led to a Jewish uprising under the Maccabees.That's a pretty huge event for the Jews! You'd think it would be mentioned in ch. 11 which heretofore has been devoted to the Syrian Wars. And this pagan altar was called "the abomination of desolation" by the Maccabees. And so this event is clearly described in Daniel 11:31: "Forces of his will come and profane the sanctuary citadel; they will abolish the perpetual sacrifice and install the abomination of desolation there". But the Society cannot have this refer to such a historical event (which Josephus regarded as a fulfillment of this prophecy). Nooooo... it has to refer to the United Nations established after WWII!
-
JRK
Leo,
Of course that didn't stop them from sucking the U.N.'s teet for a decade!
JK
-
pontoon
Leolaia, it's been years since I read any Wat info on the two kings. What you wrote was sure interesting. In the Society's explanation wasn't it Jeh's earthly org. that assumes the role of Judea? It was the king of the n or s (no longer a geographical description) determined by how they treated Jeh's org. not determined by their role in world events? Anyway, lots of interesting thoughts on JWN!
-
dgp
Leolaia, so is it fair to say that the whole thing is simply blown out of proportion, and then the kings of north and south keep changing as circumstances demand?
-
Leolaia
Yeah the Society claims that the "earthly organization" is co-extensive with pre-exilic Judah and the kingdom born in 1914, with the "gentile times" spanning in between when the organization was "dormant". Since it was the post-exilic kingdom of Judea (the "Beautiful Land" referred to in ch. 11) that was the frame of reference for the north and south of the vision, there is no "earthly organization" to assume the role of Judea when the Society extends the dynamic beyond that of the Seleucids and Lagids. Maybe one could claim such for Augustus and Tiberius Caesar, but what about Emperor Aurelian and Queen Zenobia? Or any of the other rulers that followed? It would still be an entirely eisegetical move to stretch the few verses referring to Antiochus Epiphanes over many rulers stretching two millennia into our own day, but one could still talk about how throughout that time Judea and later Palestine were ruled over by other nations to the south and to the north. That would at least be more consistent with the framework of the vision. There is just no "Beautiful Land" that forms a part of the Society's explanation of the identity of the kings of the north and south in the intervening 2,000 years.
-
pontoon
Thanks for reply Leo. I get what your saying.
-
Spade
“And in the time of [the] end the king of the south will engage with him in a pushing, and against him the king of the north will storm with chariots and with horsemen and with many ships; and he will certainly enter into the lands and flood over and pass through. He will also actually enter into the land of the Decoration, and there will be many [lands] that will be made to stumble. But these are the ones that will escape out of his hand, E′dom and Mo′ab and the main part of the sons of Am′mon. And he will keep thrusting out his hand against the lands; and as regards the land of Egypt, she will not prove to be an escapee. And he will actually rule over the hidden treasures of the gold and the silver and over all the desirable things of Egypt. And the Lib′y?ans and the E?thi?o′pi?ans will be at his steps.
“But there will be reports that will disturb him, out of the sunrising and out of the north, and he will certainly go forth in a great rage in order to annihilate and to devote many to destruction. And he will plant his palatial tents between [the] grand sea and the holy mountain of Decoration; and he will have to come all the way to his end, and there will be no helper for him. Daniel 11:40-45
The rivalry between the two kings doesn't continue indefinitely. In 1993 it was stated that events are yet future, so it cannot be said in detail how the prophecy will be fulfilled. In 1991, the political situation regarding the two kings dramatically changed. The Soviet Union was disbanded in 1991 and no longer exists as an entity that aggressively threatens the King of the South. Daniel synchronizes with the Bible book of Revelation and has application to the 20th century.