The King of the North as you Never Heard ity Explained Before

by raymond frantz 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  raymond frantz

  https://youtu.be/w32nomE-K20?si=a8BhXh5tjRKOmgzq

  Rather than seeing the King of the North as the final opponent of God’s people, I propose that Daniel 11 points to a completely different figure. While the Watchtower Society focuses on the struggle between these two kings, they overlook a third entity mentioned in verse 40, but let’s ready this verse first from the New World Translation. There, it says:
  "At 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 horsemen and many ships, sweeping through like a flood."
  A quick reading of the verse will have you believe that there are only 2 kings fighting out in this verse, the King of the North and the King of the South but look again and a third separate King is emerging.
  First of all, there is an ambiguity in the use of the pronoun, Him.Who is "Him"? The first subject “the king of the South” is engaging Him in battle, whereas the second subject, “the king of the North," comes against him with chariots and horsemen and ships.
  This unclear pronoun ("him") suggests a distinct third party, separate from the king of the South and the king of the North.
  If "him" referred to either the king of the South or North, the sentence would logically state this explicitly. Instead, the construction implies that both the king of the South and the king of the North are interacting with a third figure.
  Secondly, the military actions taken here differ. What do i mean by this?
  The king of the South in the original Hebrew rendering is actually the one who initiates battle, the verse's original rendering says that "He will push at him"—a "phrase" implying provocation or challenge.On the other hand, the king of the North does not merely respond; he storms against him, the original rendering is "he will come like a whirlwind", with an overwhelming military force.
  So this ambigious HIM suggests a neutral power caught between the king of the North and the king of the South.
  The intensity and escalation suggest a third party being overwhelmed, not merely a reciprocal war between two known kings.
  Now, the new picture emerges that supports this understanding once you read the previous 4 verses. Daniel 11:36-39 describes a ruler who exalts himself above all gods, showing no regard for traditional deities.This is the ambiguous HIM.We read there about a
  King who is not described as the King of the North or the King of the South but as a HIM and when we read the verses in their entirety that becomes apparent. Let's read together:
  "The king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt himself and magnify himself above every god; and against the God of gods he will speak astonishing things. And he will prove successful until the denunciation comes to a finish; because what is determined must take place. 37 He will show no regard for the God of his fathers; nor will he show regard for the desire of women or for any other god, but he will magnify himself over everyone. 38 But instead he will give glory to the god of fortresses; to a god that his fathers did not know he will give glory by means of gold and silver and precious stones and desirable things. 39 He will act effectively against the most fortified strongholds, along with a foreign god. He will give great glory to those who give him recognition, and he will make them rule among many; and the ground he will apportion out for a price. 40 “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 horsemen and many ships; and he will enter into the lands and sweep through like a flood."
  Historically, these verses were fulfilled in part by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Seleucid ruler who desecrated the Jewish temple and installed the worship of Zeus. However, many aspects of this prophecy were not entirely fulfilled by Antiochus, leading some Christians, including myself, to believe that this prophecy has a future fulfilment.
  I argue that Daniel 11 points to the well known figure by many other places of the Bible the Antichrist the ultimate figure of power in the last days and what Daniel 11:40 actually says when you open your eyes to this possibility and read a third king in this verse as i made my case earlier them a completely different scenario emerges
  The Antichrist will not merely be another King of the North OR the South but a ruler who surpasses and destroys both the King of the North and the King of the South. This interpretation is one that aligns with the Book of Revelation, which speaks of a world ruler who consolidates power before the final battle at Armageddon. For example we read in
  Revelation 13:7,8:"It was given power(=the beast, the Antichrist) to wage war against the saints and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language, and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life." You see there is no king of the North or king of the South here ONLY the Antichrist. Why? Because Daniel 11:40 has already taken place, both these kings have been destroyed. So this is past Daniel 11:40.
  If this understanding is correct, then today’s King of the North (which the Watchtower identifies as Russia) and the King of the South (likely the United States) are temporary players in a larger conflict. Eventually, the Antichrist will emerge, exploiting a global crisis or power vacuum—possibly linked to instability in Israel and the Middle East. Given current geopolitical shifts, such a scenario is becoming increasingly plausible. For instance, President Donald Trump suggested only few days ago withdrawing NATO forces from Europe, which could create a power void that the Antichrist could exploit.
  You need more evidence? Read Revelation 16:14:"They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and they perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the entire inhabited earth(=where are the kings of the North and the king of the South?), to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty"
  The final confrontation involves "the kings of the Earth" uniting against Christ. Interestingly, the King of the North and the King of the South are not mentioned in this ultimate battle, this again suggests they have already been eliminated. This supports the idea that the Antichrist will consolidate power and remove these two opposing forces before Christ’s return.
  So what is the final take here? The traditional Watchtower interpretation of Daniel 11 focuses too much on identifying the King of the North in a way that aligns with their historical experiences. However, a broader examination suggests that this prophecy is not merely about a continuous political struggle but about the emergence of a final world ruler—the Antichrist—who will surpass and destroy both the King of the North and the King of the South.
  While the Watchtower continues to emphasize Russia as the King of the North, this perspective does not hold up under scrutiny. If the prophecy is truly about the final world power, then we should be looking beyond mere geopolitical struggles to a more significant end-times figure who will usher in the final tribulation before Christ’s return.
• 

  BoogerMan

  Every tribe, people, tongue, and nation will be "offered a choice" - to worship either the wild beast or God Almighty.

  Revelation 13:7 appears to indicate that these ones are separate from existing Christians ("holy ones") while Revelation 7:14 shows that a great crowd of them choose wisely.

  (Revelation 7:9,14) "After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands......“These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

  (Revelation 13:7, 8) "It was permitted to wage war with the holy ones and conquer them, and it was given authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation. And all those who dwell on the earth will worship it."

  (Revelation 14:6, 7) "And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, and he had everlasting good news to declare to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people....worship the One who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and the springs of water.”

  
  
• 

  Vidqun

  Raymond, nope, I don't see it that way. Only two belligerents are mentioned. I go for the United States and allies (unipolar) vs. Sino-Russia and followers (multipolar), giving rise to a bipolar world (Dan. 2:41; 11:40).

  BoogerMan, I agree. Seems like most if not all will receive an identifying mark. IMO the “mark” of Rev. 13:16-18 would point to totalitarian control. In order for the masses to be subjugated, the following aspects of civilized life need to be controlled: 1) Food production. 2) Water supplies. 3) Medical system. 4) Energy production and distribution. 5) Monetary system.

  The choice in the end is worship, i.e., to whom will you be loyal. Each time Revelation refers to those receiving the mark, it is qualified by an additional action, i.e., worship. Worship belongs to God. Satan and his beasts are interested in usurping God’s authority and worship (cf. Matt. 4:9, 10; Rev. 13:2). The mark as well as beast worship will be disqualifying one from having one’s name written in the book (cf. Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:15).

  What does worship here mean? To give one’s honour and allegiance to a higher power. To “express by attitude and possibly by position one’s allegiance to and regard for a higher authority.” See Louw-Nida. To “express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission” to a high authority figure or organization, in this case the beast, its image as well as the dragon.
• 

  Dane88

  There are multiple prophecies regarding the final kings on the earth before Armageddon:

  · Gog of Magog (Ezekiel 38:2-6)

  · Fifth kingdom (Daniel 2:40-45)

  · King of the North (Daniel 11:44, 45)

  · Surrounding nations (Joel 3:11, 12)

  · unidentified nations (Amos 9:9-15)

  · All the nations (Zechariah 14:1-21)

  · Seventh king (Revelation 17:10-17)

  Since all of those prophecies are about the same event our understanding of each prophecy must harmonize with each of the others.

  ===

  That is how the article "End-Time Kings" begins.

  It looks at all the details of each of those prophecies and compares them to show how they correlate with each other, giving us a much more detailed look at what is to come than any individual prophet gives.

  You can read the rest of "End-Time Kings" here: https://tinyurl.com/bibramz
• 

  Vidiot

  “The King of the North as you never heard it explained before…”

  
  
• 

  raymond frantz

  Vidiot 🤣🤣🤣

  A little click bait never hurt anyone
• 

  Jeffro

  🤦‍♂️ Not this again.

  King of the North: Seleucid Dynasty.

  King of the South: Ptolemaic Dynasty.

  i realise some people find it exciting to pretend the story is relevant to today, but that is simply a fantasy.
• 

  Vidqun

  Jeffro, if that is indeed the case, where does Dan. 11:40-45 fit in?
• 

  Jeffro

  Verses 40–43 are set during the “time of the end” and include reference to the ‘land of the decoration’ (Jerusalem), indicating the attacks on Egypt in those verses to refer to events during the Sixth Syrian War rather than later events.

  Verses 44-45 allude to Antiochus being ‘disturbed’ by ‘reports out of the east and north’, Antiochus IV attacked Parthians and sent other troops to deal with the Maccabees (167 BCE).

  And beyond that failure of hyperbolic superstitious expectations does not mean ‘it must be still in the future’.
  
• 

  Vidqun

  Jeffro, it is impossible to fit Dan. 11:40-45 into the reign of Antiochus. It is rather predictive prophecy, deferred to the end time, some future time. Here’s a short summary of Antiochus' reign:

  History of the Hellenizing Antiochus IV Epiphanes: When he returned from Egypt in 167 BCE, he took Jerusalem. The city had to forfeit its privileges and would be permanently garrisoned by Syrian soldiers. The worship of Yahweh as well as all Jewish rites would be banned on the pain of death. In the temple an altar to Zeus Olympios would be erected.

  The desecration of Jerusalem’s temple would lead to a Jewish uprising under the Maccabees. Judas Maccabeus, leader of the Hasideans, led the people in open revolt. He and his followers would conquer Judaea. They tore down the altar of Zeus, and reconsecrated the temple in December 164 BCE. He and his followers would conquer Judaea. They would tear down the altar of Zeus, and reconsecrate the temple on the anniversary of the desecration in December 164 BCE. The festival of dedication—Hanukkah—was instituted.—John 10:22.

  Accordingly the reign of Antiochus falls into two parts, divided by the Roman victory over Perseus of Macedon at Pydna, 169 B.C., when Rome came in position to lay down the law to Antiochus and force him out of Egypt. The history of the first period is taken up with the Syrian wars against Egypt, the second half, after 169, finds Antiochus confined to the role of an Asiatic monarch, the history of which years we know chiefly from the documents of the Jewish people, with whom he became engaged in petty warfare. Antiochus IV battled them for three years. During this time, Antiochus founded the city of Antioch on the Persian Gulf, set out on an expedition to the Arabian coast. Towards the close of 164 BCE, he died at Tabea, Persia. During the last year of his life he pursued obscure campaigns against Armenia and the Parthians, and was killed ingloriously when attempting to loot a temple of ‘Anaitis’ in the Elymais.

  Time of [the] end (= [the] end time). This phrase occurs six times in the Bible and is exclusive to the book of Daniel. “The expression qēş in the book of Daniel (8:17, 19; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9; cf. Hab. 2:3) clearly aims to convey a juxtaposition of the present and the eschatological future; for, although “the time of the final phase” refers primarily to the period of persecution by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, this period is also the time of tribulation that marks the opening phase of the eschaton” (TDOT, vol. XI, p. 450).

  In the majority of cases the phrase “(in) the latter part of the days” could be defined as “the end of human history as we know it” (cf. Jer. 30:24; Is. 2:2; Mic. 4:1; Ezek. 38:8, 16). More specifically, in the book of Daniel: “(God in heaven) has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the ’acharith of the days (2:28). The point of the vision does not lie in the course of future events, but in the destruction of the colossus and in the coming of an indestructible kingdom (v. 44). As seen, modern scholars and critics would apply Dan. 9:24-27 to Antiochus IV Epiphanes according to Maccabean history. Antiochus would defile the sanctuary, but he and his troops never destroyed the city or sanctuary. This flood can only be applied to the Roman siege of 70 CE. Under the leadership of General Titus, it would be instrumental in devastating Jerusalem (and the sanctuary). This is also the application made by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount of Olives (cf. Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20-24).

  Thus the outcome of the future is what is intended, and not the future in general. Similarly, 10:14 says: “I (the angel that had appeared) came to make you understand what is to befall your people in (at) the ’acharith of the days. For the vision is for days yet to come.” Since the following material deals with the stages of history from Cyrus to Antiochus IV, the meaning “future” cannot be excluded here; but the real purpose of the vision is to show how history will culminate, thus its outcome. Therefore, this passage has in mind the end, and not merely the future.” (TDOT, vol. I, pp. 211, 212)