DavarLogos

2020 - Vol. XIX - N.º 2

Artículo

2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic

Power in Daniel 11
El papado religioso-político y el poder islámico en Daniel 11
Roy E. Gane

Abstract
Close reading of Daniel 11,2-12 within its context in the Book of Daniel reveals that this
discourse unit predicts a succession of human political powers that affect the lives of God’s
loyal people from the time of Daniel to the commencement of God’s eternal kingdom.
If Daniel 11,25-30 predicts the Crusades fought by the religious-political papacy, with
its allies, as the king of the north, the king of the south here is religious-political Islamic
power. Therefore, the king of the south in verses 40-43 is also Islamic power because it has
never been superseded, just as the papacy has continued. By tracing the cosmic conflict
predicted in Daniel 11, we can recognize the climactic period in which we are living and
have assurance that God will soon deliver us and fulfill the remainder of His promises.

Keywords
Eschatology — King of the north — King of the south — Rome — Papacy — Islam

Resumen
Una lectura detallada de Daniel 11,2-12,3 dentro de su contexto en el Libro de Daniel
revela que esta unidad de discurso predice una sucesión de poderes políticos humanos que
afectan la vida del fiel pueblo de Dios desde la época de Daniel hasta el comienzo del reino
eterno de Dios. Si Daniel 11,25-30 anticipa las Cruzadas peleadas por el papado religioso-
político, con sus aliados, como rey del norte, el rey del sur aquí es el poder religioso-político
islámico. Por lo tanto, en los versículos 40-43, el rey del sur también es el poder islámico,
porque nunca ha sido reemplazado, así como el papado ha continuado. Al trazar el con-
flicto cósmico predicho en Daniel 11, podemos reconocer el momento culminante en que
estamos viviendo y tener la seguridad de que Dios pronto nos librará y cumplirá el resto de
sus promesas.

Palabras claves
Escatología — Rey del norte — Rey del sur — Roma — Papado — Islam

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

38 | Roy E. Gane

Introduction
The goal of this paper is to identify the referents of the kings of the north
and south at the end of Daniel 11 in verses 40-43. To do this, it is neces-
sary to place these rulers in context by ascertaining the overall purpo-
se of the whole literary unit 11,2-12,3 that contains these verses and by
identifying the succession of kings throughout this unit. It is beyond the
scope of the paper to interpret all of the details in the unit, which would
require a book-length treatment. However, this study can help to discern
a textual-historical framework within which details are placed.
Daniel 11,2-12,3 comprises a single discourse unit of historical apoc-
alyptic prophecy communicated to Daniel by an otherworldly being who
appeared to him as a man.1 The unit commences in 11,2 with the words
“And now I will tell you the truth…” (NJPS) and continues through 12,3,
after which the speaker changes his address to an epilogue: “But you,
Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end”
(v. 4).2
The purpose of the discourse unit is stated in the narrative introduc-
tion to it in Daniel 10,1-11,1. The succession of kings in 11,2-12,3 can be
understood from the following factors: (a) explicit mention of successive
kings of Persia in 11,2, which provides an initial base point for working
from that which is clearly known to that which requires interpretation;
(b) transitions between segments of the text from one kingdom or dynas-
ty to another; (c) patterns of succession that emerge from the transitions
between rulers; (d) descriptive profiles of the characters and activities of
rulers within text segments concerning them; (e) additional information
from the following unit in 12,4-13 that forms the conclusion to the larger
literary section consisting of Daniel 10-12; (f ) intratextual parallels with

1
On the genre “apocalypse”, of which “historical apocalypse” is a sub-genre, and the Book of
Daniel, see, e.g., Roy Gane, “Genre Awareness and Interpretation of the Book of Daniel”. In To
Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. by David Merling (Berrien
Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology/Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, 1997), 137-
148, and sources cited there, including Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, ed. by John J.
Collins; Semeia 14 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979).
2
ESV here and in subsequent biblical quotations unless otherwise indicated.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

 2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11 | 39

earlier revelations in the Book of Daniel; and (g) correlations between

text profiles and known historical entities and events.3 Valid exegesis
takes all of these factors into account where they are relevant, without
making one element of interpretation, such as a particular view of literary
structure in Daniel 11 as compared with Daniel 8, override other factors.
The present study will first consider the narrative introduction in
10,1-11,1 and then analyze segments of 11,2-12,3 in terms of the seven
factors just listed to arrive at identification of the kings of the north and
south in 11,40-43. The conclusion will briefly address implications re-
garding alternative interpretations of Daniel 11,2-12,3.

Narrative Introduction to the Discourse Unit

The narrative in Daniel 10,1-11,1 reveals conflict between powerful
heavenly beings on the side of Daniel’s people, who are God’s people
(10,13.21), and apparently evil supernatural forces behind the human
kingdoms of Persia (10,13;10,20a) and then Greece (v. 20b). The fact
that a heavenly being involved in the conflict informs Daniel that he
stood to strengthen Darius the Mede (11,1), a ruler of the (Medo-) Per-
sian Empire, indicates that at least part of the goal of the competing sides
is to influence human kingdoms who affect the lives of God’s people.
The glorious heavenly being announces to Daniel in 10,14: “Now I
have come to help you understand [Hiphil of ‫ ]בין‬what will happen to
your people in the latter days, for the vision [‫]חזֹון‬
ָ pertains to future days”
(NET Bible, with words in brackets supplied). These words introduce
the revelation as concerning the future of Daniel’s people within the con-
text of the cosmic conflict. The revelation must be an additional inter-
pretation of the vision in Daniel 8, which concerns “the time of the end”
(v. 17), because chapters 9-12 do not include a description of a vision.
In Daniel 8 the word ‫חזֹון‬,ָ “vision”, refers to the entire vision recorded in
that chapter (vv. 1-2), which is described in verses 3-14 (and referred to in

3
See further Roy E. Gane, “Methodology for Interpretation of Daniel 11:2-12:3”, Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society 27, no 1-2 (2016; appeared in 2017): 294-343.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

40 | Roy E. Gane

vv. 13.15.17.26), beginning with a ram that represents the kings of Media
and Persia (vv. 3-4.20).
From Daniel 10,14 we can derive two initial points regarding 11,2-
12,3. First, this unit is the third, and now radically expanded, interpreta-
tion of the vision in Daniel 8, following the interpretations in that chap-
ter (8,17.19-26) and in chapter 9 (vv. 24-27). Accordingly, 11,2-12,3 also
begins with the kings of Persia (11,2). Therefore, the interpretations in
Daniel 8 and 9 should provide an intratextual interpretive framework
within which to place the details of chapter 11.4 Second, the interpre-
tation in 11,2-12,3 belongs to the same apocalyptic sub-genre as the
interpretations in chapters 8 and 9, which explain the symbolic vision
of 8,3-14 in non-symbolic language. There is no textual (including dis-
course) indicator of a shift from this non-symbolic sub-genre anywhere
in 11,2-12,3.

Segments Regarding Kings

in Daniel 11,2-12,3
Segments of Daniel 11,2-12,3 regarding different kingdoms or dynas-
ties, including phases in the long career of the king of the north in 11,23-
45, are as follows:

Table 1. Kingdoms/Dynasties of Daniel 11,2-12,3

Reference Kingdom/Dynasty
11,2 Persia
11,3-19 “Mighty king” and four divisions of his empire
11,5-19 Kings of south and north divisions, including wars between them
11,20 “One who shall send an exactor of tribute” (replacing king of
north)
11,21-22 Despised usurper (taking king of north position from ruler in
v. 20)
11,23-45 One who “shall become strong with a small people” = king of
north

4
For parallels between Dan 8-9 and 11, see Appendix II.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

 2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11 | 41

11,25-30a Wars against king of south

11,30b-39 Religious activities: worship replacement, persecution, self-
exaltation
11,40-43 War against king of south
11,44-45 Religious activities: persecution, attempt at self-exaltation, but
meets his demise
12,1-3 “Michael” arises; trouble, deliverance, resurrection

Continuity of the same kingdom or dynasty is shown by repetition

of the designation for that kingdom, such as “king of the north”, or by
Hebrew syntax, i.e., pronouns or person and number elements of verbs
(e.g., 3rd person masculine singular), referring to that designation as an-
tecedent. Transitions between kingdoms or dynasties are indicated by
breaks in continuity with introductions of new rulers.
The designations “king of the north” and “king of the south” refer to
monarchs within lines or dynasties of rulers over northern and southern
kingdoms, just as kings of Persia in verse 2 are individual rulers of that
kingdom. Thus, 11,7 explicitly signals a succession between kings within
the “king of the south” dynasty through the following words: “And from
a branch from her [daughter of the king of the south; cf. v. 6] roots one
shall arise in his [king of the south] place”. This is intradynastic succes-
sion, as indicated by the words “from a branch from her roots”, which ex-
press continuity of the royal family. By contrast, verses 20-21 employ the
expression “in his place”, without any indication of dynastic continuity to
introduce new kingdoms.
The remainder of this paper examines the segments in Daniel 11,2-
12,3 in order to identify the kingdoms or dynasties represented in them.
For the sake of clarity, titles of sections discussing the segments reflect
their conclusions.

Persia (11,2)
Daniel 11 begins its overview of future history from the time of the
prophet’s life during the early Medo-Persian period, the same point
where chapter 8 begins (v. 20). However, Daniel 11 adds the information
that a fourth Persian king, whom we know from history to be Xerxes

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

42 | Roy E. Gane

(= Ahasuerus; reigned 486-465 B.C.), would deploy his vast wealth to

attack Greece. After verse 2 introduces Greece as the object of Persia’s un-
successful invasion (480 B.C.), the next verse skips the remaining Persian
kings after Xerxes and moves directly to the kingdom that later conquers
Persia, which is Greece (including Macedonia). By using the literal terms
“kings” and “kingdom” and referring to the known kingdoms of Persia
and Greece, Daniel indicates at the outset of Daniel 11 that the revela-
tion concerns a historical succession of human political rulers.

Greece (11,3-19)
Daniel 11,3-4 does not name the kingdom of the “mighty king”,
whose kingdom would “be broken and divided toward the four winds
of heaven”, i.e., in four directions (cf. Zech 6,5-6, “four winds of heav-
en… north country… south country”). However, Daniel 8 identifies this
kingdom as Greece (v. 21a; cf. vv. 8.22), of which the first king, whom
we know from history to be Alexander the Great, conquers Medo-Persia
(vv. 5-7, 21b). Daniel 11,4 adds that his descendants would not inherit
his kingdom, which means that he would not establish his own dynasty.
Rather, it would be divided among others. Indeed, Alexander’s empire
split four ways into Antigonid Macedonia, Attalid Pergamum, Seleucid
Syria and Ptolemaic Egypt.
Daniel 11,5-19 predicts political and military competition between
two of the four Greek kingdoms. The fact that individual rulers who are
members of these dynasties are called “the king of the south” and “the
king of the north” identifies the dynasties as two of the four divisions of
Aleander’s kingdom, which is divided toward the four directions (v. 4;
see above). The terms “king of the south” and/or “king of the north” are
explicit in 11,5-9.11.13-15 and pronouns with one or both of these kings
as antecedents appear in verses 10.12, and 16-19.
Verse 8 explicitly identifies the territory of the king of the south as
Egypt and verse 16 predicts that the king of the north would “stand in
the glorious land”, i.e., the land of Israel (Ezek 20,6.15; cf. Dan 11,45 of
the temple mount). Only Ptolemaic Egypt to the south of Israel and then
Seleucid Syria to the north of Israel occupied this land, so Israel is the

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

 2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11 | 43

geographic reference point. Confirming this is the historical fact that

the Seleucid king Antiochus III the Great (ruled 222-187 B.C.) did take
over the land of Israel after he defeated Ptolemaic Egypt (cf. Dan 11,15).
To further support Antiochus III as the ruler in Daniel 11,16, it hap-
pened that within the context of the same reign, it was also Antiochus III
who gave his daughter Cleopatra I to Ptolemy V of Egypt (v. 17), but
Antiochus gained no advantage from this because Cleopatra was loyal to
her husband and to Egypt, fulfilling the last part of Daniel 11,17: “but it
shall not stand or be to his advantage”.5
Notice that the unique sequence of events concerning Antiochus III
in Daniel 11,15-17 shows that the prophecy still concerns the Hellenistic
kingdoms at this point.6 These verses illustrate the fact that Daniel 11
can be correlated with history by matching text descriptions of sequences
of elements, not only individual features, with historical kingdoms, in-
dividuals, and events.7 In fact, events predicted in verses 18-19 continue
to fit the reign of Antiochus III, who tried to expand his kingdom along
the “coastlands” of Asia Minor and Greece, but was stopped by Roman
armies at Thermopylae in Greece in 191 B.C. and at Magnesia in Asia

5
With André Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, trans. by David Pellauer (Atlanta, GA: John Knox,
1979), 225; John E. Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary 30 (Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 1989), 298; John J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993),
381; Carol A. Newsom with Brennan W. Breed, Daniel: A Commentary, Old Testament Library
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 345; Tremper Longman III, Daniel, NIV Applica-
tion Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 277.
6
Some Seventh-day Adventist have introduced Rome before this, including by interpreting “the
daughter of women” in v. 17 as Queen Cleopatra VII, the daughter of Ptolemy XII Auletes
(69-30 B.C.), who had affairs with the Romans Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. Uriah Smith,
The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing As-
sociation, 1944; orig. publ. as Thoughts, Critical and Practical on the Book of Daniel and the
Revelation: Being an Exposition, Text by Text, of These Important Portions of the Holy Scriptures;
Battle Creek, MI: Review and Herald, 1882), 251; The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commen-
tary, ed. by Francis D. Nichol (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1953-1957), 4:869-70;
C. Mervyn Maxwell, God Cares, vol. 1: The Message of Daniel For You and Your Family (Boise,
ID: Pacific Press, 1981), 293; William H. Shea, Daniel: A Reader’s Guide (Nampa, ID: Pacific
Press, 2005), 247. But this later Cleopatra was a Ptolemy from the south, so she was never given
by the “king of the north” in a political marriage to the “king of the south”.
7
See Appendix I on correlations between Dan 11,5-19 and the rulers of the Ptolemaic and Seleu-
cid dynasties.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

44 | Roy E. Gane

Minor in 190 B.C., with the Romans at Magnesia commanded by the

consul Lucius Cornelius Scipio (subsequently called “Asiaticus”). Thus, “a
commander shall put an end to his insolence” (v. 18). After the Romans
forced Antiochus to withdraw to his home territory, he was killed at Ely-
maïs in 187 B.C., fulfilling Daniel 11,19b.8

Rome (11,20-45): Republican (v. 20), Imperial

(vv. 21-22) and Papal (vv. 23-45).

Republican and Imperial Rome (11,20-22)

Daniel 11,20 and 21 both begin with the words ‫ל־כּנֹּו‬ ַ ‫וְ ָע ַמד ַע‬, “Then
there shall arise in his position…” (my translation), i.e., the position of the
king of the north whose reign has ended in verse 19.9 The words “in his
position” indicate a kind of succession. However, here this is not quali-
fied as intradynastic succession as in verse 7, where a transition within the
dynasty of the king of the south is described (see above). This difference
suggests that verses 20 and 21 may signal two larger transitions that trans-
fer the position and therefore the territory of the king of the north from
one dynasty/kingdom/power to another, first from the king of the north
in verse 19 to another power in verse 20 and then to a third power in
verse 21. This possibility is confirmed, at least with regard to the second
transition, by the fact that in verse 21, the despised one who seizes the
kingdom by intrigue (smoothness/slipperiness) has not had royal majesty
conferred on him. That is, he is a usurper, rather than a legitimate succes-
sor within a dynasty.
Thus Daniel 11,20 and 21 appear to indicate transitions of the des-
ignation “king of the north”, which we now know refers to the Seleucid

8
With Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 225; Goldingay, Daniel, 298; Collins, Daniel, 381; New-
som, Daniel: A Commentary, 346. Against Smith, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation,
252; Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 4:870; Maxwell, God Cares, 293; Shea, Daniel,
248; and Zdravko Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise: Commentary on the Book of Daniel
(Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2007), 419, who are off target when they interpret “stumble and fall”
in 11,19 as the assassination of Julius Caesar in Rome in 44 B.C.
9
For the meaning of ‫ ֵכן‬as “place” in the sense of “position” or “office”, cf. Gen 40,13; 41,13.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

 2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11 | 45

dynasty, to another dynasty/kingdom (v. 20) and then to another power

(v. 21). A key to identifying the power in verse 21 is found in the next verse
(v. 22), which continues the activities of this ruler or dynasty: “Armies
shall be utterly swept away and broken before him, and the prince of the
covenant [‫ ]נְ גִ יד ְבּ ִרית‬as well” (NRSV). The only covenant (‫)בּ ִרית‬
ְ other-
wise mentioned in Daniel 11 is “the holy covenant” that the king of the
north opposes (vv. 28.30). This is a covenant with the true God, as shown
by the contrast in verse 32: “Those who do wickedly against the covenant
he shall corrupt with flattery; but the people who know their God shall
be strong, and carry out great exploits” (NKJV). Therefore, “the prince of
the covenant” must be a good person, a leader of the true divine-human
covenant.
This individual was already introduced in Daniel 9 as “an anointed
one, a prince” (‫מ ִשׁ ַיח נָ גִ יד‬,
ָ v. 25). This anointed one (‫)מ ִשׁ ַיח‬,
ָ i.e., Messi-
ah, would “be cut off ” and “have nothing” (v. 26a), after which another
prince (also ‫ )נָ גִ יד‬would come and “destroy the city and the sanctuary”
with overwhelming military power (vv. 26b, 27b). Then, referring to
the anointed/messianic prince (‫)נָ גִ יד‬, “he shall make a strong covenant
(‫)בּ ִרית‬
ְ with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an
end to sacrifice and offering” (v. 27). Therefore, this individual can aptly
be termed “the prince of the covenant” (‫ )נְ גִ יד ְבּ ִרית‬in 11,22.
Daniel 9,25 further identifies the messianic prince in terms of the tim-
ing of his arrival: 7 + 62 = 69 “weeks” from the word/decree to restore
and rebuild Jerusalem. The Hebrew word for “weeks” (plural of ‫בוּע‬ ַ ‫)שׁ‬
ָ
can refer to weeks of days or of years, and only weeks of years suits this
context because the events prophesied here obviously would occur over
a much longer period than 7 + 62 = 69 weeks of days, which is 483 days,
about 1.3 years.10
The going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem, which refers to res-
toring the city to control by the Jews after the Babylonian exile so that they could

10
Cf. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lex-
icon of the Old Testament, trans. and ed. under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson; 2 vols.
(Leiden: Brill, 2001) 2:1383-4, which places the instances in Dan 9,24-27 under the meaning,
“a week of years, a period of seven years”.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

46 | Roy E. Gane

rebuild it, occurred in 457 B.C. when the decree of Artaxerxes I went into effect
in the seventh year (458-457 B.C.) of his reign (Ezra 7). Sixty-nine weeks of years
= 483 years after that, Christ was baptized and anointed by the Holy Spirit (Luke
3:21-22; cf. 4:18; Acts 10:37-38) in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius
Caesar” (Luke 3:1), i.e., in about A.D. 27.

During his ministry on earth, followed by initiation of his priestly ministry in

God’s heavenly temple (Heb 7-10), Christ established the “new covenant” (Luke
22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; Heb 8:6-13; 9:15; 12:24; cf. Jer 31:31-34). So he fits the
profile of “the prince of the covenant” in Dan 11:22, who was “broken”, i.e., died,
during the time of domination by imperial Rome, before which armies were “ut-
terly swept away”. This parallels 9:26-27, where the “anointed one” (māšîaḥ) =
Messiah, i.e., Christ, makes a covenant to be strong for many and is “cut off ”, and
Jerusalem and its temple are destroyed. Therefore, following the Hellenistic king-
doms in 11:5-19, vv. 20-22 transition to the period of imperial Rome.11

Identification of “the prince of the covenant” in Daniel 11,22 with

Christ during the time of imperial Rome constitutes a crucial anchor
point for interpreting Daniel 11.12 For one thing, this means that the de-
spised usurper in verse 21 to whom the pronoun “him” in verse 22 refers
introduces imperial Rome. This indicates that verse 20 refers to another
power between Antiochus III (v. 19) and imperial Rome (v. 21). What
could this be? History shows that the imperial phase of Rome began with
usurpation of rule by the Roman senate of the Roman republic by Julius
Caesar. So the “one who shall send an exactor of tribute for the glory of
the kingdom” is likely the Roman senate. This idea is reinforced by the
fact that the “commander” who stopped Antiochus III in verse 18 (see
above) led an army of republican Rome.

11
Gane, “Methodology for Interpretation of Daniel 11:2-12:3”, 311-312, and cf. sources cited
there in footnotes. “Since Daniel 9:26, 27 and 11:22 obviously refer to the crucifixion of Christ
under the Romans, the Roman Empire must enter the stage of history sometime prior to Daniel
11:22”. Gerhard Pfandl, Daniel: The Seer of Babylon (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald,
2004), 107.
12
On this and other anchor points in Dan 11, including vv. 31.32-34, see on “Relations Between
Daniel 11 and Daniel 7, 8, and 9” in William H. Shea, “Unity of Daniel”. In Symposium on
Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical Studies, ed. by Frank B. Holbrook; Daniel and Revelation
Committee Series 2 (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 245-247.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

 2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11 | 47

Notice that Daniel 11 introduces Rome as defeating a king (Antio-

chus III) of the previous power (the Seleucid dynasty) who was trying to
expand his realm (v. 18; cf. v. 19). Then the text skips all the remaining Se-
leucid rulers, including the infamous Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned
175-164 B.C.), moving immediately to Rome as the power that replaced
the Seleucids (v. 20). We saw the same pattern at the beginning of the
chapter, where a fourth Persian king attempts to expand his empire by
conquering Greece (v. 2) and the next verse skips the remaining Persian
monarchs and moves to Alexander the Great.

Papal Rome (11,23-45)

Going back to the historical framework provided by Daniel 8, a “lit-
tle horn” replaces the four Greek kingdoms (vv. 8-9) “at the latter end
of their kingdom” (v. 23). Daniel describes this “little horn” as growing
“exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glo-
rious land” (v. 9). Earlier in the same vision, Daniel saw a “ram charging
westward and northward and southward” (v. 4), which shows that it
came from the east, as did Medo-Persia, which the ram represents (v. 20).13
So the directions to which the “little horn” expanded (south and east) in-
dicate that it came from the northwest, which fits the location of Rome.
Indeed, republican Rome, which was superseded by imperial Rome, did
conquer from Italy toward the south and east and toward “the glorious
land”, i.e., the land of Israel.14
Thus far, all of the powers in Daniel 8 have expanded in horizontal di-
rections because they are political (including military) powers. In verses
10-12 (cf. v. 13), however, the “little horn” also grows vertically up to the
13
The goat representing Greece came from the west (vv. 5.21), also in harmony with geographic
reality.
14
Cf., e.g., Shea, Daniel, 178. Stefanovic comments on “toward the south and toward the east and
toward the Beautiful Land” in 8,9: “From Daniel’s point of reference in the vision, Palestine was
located in the west. That means that the little horn most likely came from the north, because
the direction left out in this verse is the north”. However, the directions are not from Daniel’s
location in Susa in the Babylonian province of Elam (8:2), just east of Mesopotamia, at the time
of the vision, but from the point of origin of the new power, in this case, Rome in Italy, just as
the ram charged “westward and northward and southward” from its original territory in Persia,
to the east of Elam.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

48 | Roy E. Gane

“host of heaven”, makes himself to be as great as the “prince of the host”,

takes away “that which is regular”, which apparently refers to regular wor-
ship belonging to the prince of the host, and the place of the sanctuary
of the prince of the host is cast down, and the “little horn” throws truth
to the ground (cf. interpretation in vv. 23-25). This is clearly a religious
power,15 but the fact that the “little horn” destroys “holy people” (v. 24b;
cf. vv. 10.13) indicates that it is also a political power possessing coercive
force, although “not by his own power” (v. 24a). This profile matches the
papacy, which we have found to be the “little horn” in Daniel 7 and the
“king of the north” in part of Daniel 11, at least in verses 31-37.
Whereas Daniel 7 represents the political and political-religious
phases of Rome by two different symbols—the fourth beast and the “lit-
tle horn”—to show the distinction between them, Daniel 8 represents
both phases by the same “little horn” symbol to show the continuity be-
tween them.16 These representations are not contradictory, but comple-
mentary and historically accurate because the religious-political power
of papal Rome did arise from imperial Rome but was also distinct from
it. Because Daniel 11 expands on Daniel 8, with the literal “king of the
north” designation in place of the “little horn” symbol, it is likely at the
outset that Daniel 11 emphasizes continuity between the imperial and
papal phases of Rome.
This continuity in Daniel 11 is confirmed by the fact that the pronouns
referring to the despised usurper in verse 21, which is identified as imperi-
al Rome (see above) continue all the way to the end of the chapter (v. 45)
through the portion that predicts activities of papal Rome (vv. 31-37;
see above). This raises the question of where the transition from imperial
to papal Rome appears in the text. The breaking of “the prince of the
covenant” = Christ in verse 22 indicates imperial Rome to this point, but
the profile in the next verse does not fit imperial Rome: “And, from the
time an alliance is made with him, he will practice deceit; and he will rise

15
On the transition from horizontal, earthly directions representing territorial conquests in the
first part of Dan 8 through v. 9 to the vertical, religious dimension introduced in vv. 10-12,
cf. Shea, “Unity of Daniel”, 193-194; ibid., Daniel, 178-179.
16
With Shea, “Unity of Daniel”, 189-190.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

 2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11 | 49

to power with a small band” (v. 23 NJPS). Imperial Rome was already an
overwhelming power with a large number of people before Christ died
(cf. v. 22a) and it needed no alliance or deceit in order to rise to power.
This verse indicates the rise of a new power in a way that fits the rise of
the papacy: The church of Rome grew from a position of smallness and
weakness,17 gained its power through “an alliance” with imperial Rome
and subsequently acted “deceitfully” by, among other things, mixing pa-
ganism with Christianity for political advantage.

Papal wars against Islam = Crusades (11,25-30a)

The papal king of the north also aroused “his power and his heart
against the king of the south with a great army” (v. 25). Here we see the
reemergence of the king of the south, who was last seen when Ptolema-
ic Egypt was defeated by the Seleucid king of the north in verses 15-16
(named in v. 14). What happened to the king of the south, i.e., the ruler/
dynasty of the territory of Egypt, between the Ptolemaic period and the
reign of the papacy? Ptolemaic Egypt, i.e., greater Egypt, was absorbed
into Rome, the king of the north, just after the death of Cleopatra VII in
30 B.C. This was 160 years after the defeat that the Romans inflicted on
Antiochus III at Magnesia (190 B.C.; see v. 18), portending the eventual
transition of power.
The Romans, including the eastern Roman Byzantine Empire, ruled
Egypt from 30 B.C. to A.D. 641, except for a brief period of control
by the Sasanian Empire from A.D. 619-629. Muslim forces conquered
Egypt in A.D. 641, removing it from Roman/Byzantine rule so that it
again became a separate country with its own “king of the south”, and the
country has remained Muslim until the present time. So the “king of the
south” attacked by Rome during the period of the papacy (Dan 11,25)
must be Islamic. Egypt is only part of Islamic territory, which came to
include all of north Africa and most of the Middle East, as well as a num-
ber of other countries in various directions. Compare the fact that Rome
itself is only part of the territory controlled by Rome.

17
Cf. Maxwell, 293.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

50 | Roy E. Gane

Daniel 11,25-30 predicts a series of major conflicts between the

(northern, more precisely, northwestern) papacy and (southern, more
precisely, southeastern) Islamic religious-political power from a num-
ber of middle eastern countries, which were matched in history by the
Crusades.18 As prophesied in verse 25, a king of the north initiated
the conflict: Pope Urban II called on the countries of “Christendom”,
i.e., the Christian nations of Europe, to launch the first crusade in A.D.
1095. The issue was access to and control of pilgrim sites in what had
been the land of Israel. In Daniel 11, conflict between the two powers
continues to the beginning of verse 30, where the king of the north
turns back after failing to subdue the king of the south.

Papal religious activities (11,30b-39)

After failing to overcome the king of the south, the king of the north
turns back to his own territory and carries out actions with religious
significance against “the holy covenant” (v. 30), including changing
worship (v. 31), persecuting God’s faithful people (vv. 32-35) and ex-
alting himself above every deity and speaking blasphemy against “the
God of gods”, i.e., the true God (vv. 36-37; cf. vv. 38-39). Before this,
the power in the king of the north position is depicted simply as a po-
litical (including military) power (vv. 21-30), but in verses 30-39 he
appears as a religious-political power.
Daniel 12,7 confirms the identity of the king of the north at this point
in Daniel 11. In answer to the question regarding the timing of “the end
of these wondrous events” (12,6 NET Bible), i.e., the events predicted in
11,2-12,3, Daniel is first told that there would be “a time, times, and half
a time”19 to the end of the “shattering” (persecution) of “the holy people”
(Dan 12,7). The fact that harassment and persecution of God’s holy peo-
ple, which is perpetrated by the “king of the north” in 11,32-35 before
“the time of the end” (v. 40), lasts 3½ times identifies this period with the
time when the “little horn” power persecutes “the holy ones of the Most
18
As seen by Maxwell, 293-295 and Shea, who also includes Dan 11,23-24 in the Crusades (Dan-
iel, 253-9), but the king of the north does not attack the king of the south until v. 25.
19
Rev 12,6.14 equates this period with 1,260 days.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

 2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11 | 51

High” in 7,25. Therefore, the blasphemous king of the north (cf. 11,36-
37), whose religious-political activities come to dominate the world stage
in the latter part of 11,2-12,3, is the same as the blasphemous “little horn”
(cf. 7,8, 11.20.25), which is papal Rome.20
Now there appears to be a chronological problem. The events in the
first part of Daniel 11 occur in chronological order, but if verses 25-30
concern the Crusades, these began centuries after the papacy gained
dominance and established its worship system, as predicted by verse 31,
where forces from the king of the north replace that which is regular
(worship) with “the abomination that makes desolate”. This is the re-
placement that marks the beginning of the 1,290 days in 12,11.21 How-
ever, the 1,290 days (plural of ‫ )יום‬provides a clue. This cannot be 1,290
literal days, which is about 3.5 literal years, not nearly enough time until
“the end of these wonders” (12,6). So here the plural of ‫יום‬, “day”, must
have the meaning that appears several times elsewhere in the Hebrew Bi-
ble: “years” (e.g., Judg 17,10; 1 Sam 1,21; 27,7).22 Therefore, the worship
replacement by the papacy began a very long period of 1,290 years. While
this period commenced before the Crusades, it continued until the time
after the Crusades, as did the persecution predicted in 11,32-35 (cf. 12,7)
and the blasphemous self-exaltation described in 11,36-37.

20
Daniel 2, 7, 8 and 11 present parallel sweeps of history from the time of the prophet to the
establishment of God’s eternal kingdom. In these prophecies, the first of four great successive
kingdoms is Neo-Babylonia (cf. 2,37-38), which is followed by Medo-Persia (8,20; 11,2) and
then Greece (8,21), which Daniel explicitly names. Daniel does not name the fourth kingdom.
However, it is common historical knowledge that Greece was followed by mighty Rome, which
fits the profile in 7,7.19.23, from which emerged the religious-political power of papal Rome,
which matches the profile of the “little horn” in 7,8.20-21.24-25, which is paralleled by the
profile of the king of the north at least in 11,32-37.
21
Therefore, the time periods in Dan 12 do not cover the full duration of the history covered in
11,2-12,3, but begin with the king of the north. The fact that this event is mentioned in Dan
11,31 just before the king of the north begins to carry out persecution (vv. 32-35), which lasts
3½ times (= 1,260 days; Rev 12,6.14), implies that the two periods of 3½ times and 1,290 days
overlap. The language of Dan 12,12—“Blessed is he who waits and arrives at the 1,335 days”
indicates that this period overlaps and extends beyond the other two periods.
22
Roy E. Gane, Who’s Afraid of the Judgment? The Good News About Christ’s Work in the Heavenly
Sanctuary (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2006), 69.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

52 | Roy E. Gane

Therefore, although the sequence of successive powers in Daniel 11 is

chronological, some arrangement in the long section on the papal peri-
od (vv. 23-39) is thematic, beginning with the political rise of the papacy
(vv. 23-24) and its political-military wars against Islamic power (vv. 25-
30), followed by its religious-political elements throughout its period of
dominance (vv. 31-39). Thus, Daniel 11 follows the pattern set in Daniel 8
by describing political-military aspects and activities of (Medo-) Persia,
Greece and Rome (11,2-30; cf. 8,3-9.20-22) before introducing the reli-
gious-political aspects of papal Rome (11,31-39; cf. 8,10-13.23-25).
Daniel 11,30 provides a seamless transition from the outline of the
Crusades (vv. 25-30), which the papacy ultimately lost, to the account of
its religious-political supremacy over its own territory (so-called “Chris-
tendom”) in the following verses (vv. 31-39). Verse 30 says that after
withdrawing from warfare against the south, the king of the north “shall
turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant.
He shall turn back and pay attention to those who forsake the holy cove-
nant”. This introduces religious activity of the papacy in the aftermath of
the Crusades. The next verse (v. 31) begins: “Forces from him will arise,
desecrate the sanctuary fortress…” (NASB 1995). This appears to be the
next event, but the Hebrew disjunctive syntax at the beginning of this
verse (conjunction ‫ ו‬followed by noun, not verb) allows for the possibil-
ity that it records chronologically earlier background information, the
results of which continue.23

23
“Interclausal waw before a non-verb constituent has a disjunctive role. There are two common
types of disjunction. One type involves a continuity of scene and participants, but a change of
action, while the other is used where the scene or participants shift…the disjunction may come
at the beginning or end of a larger episode or it may ‘interrupt’ one. The ‘interruptive’ use, bet-
ter called explanatory or parenthetical, ‘break[s] into the main narrative to supply information
relevant to or necessary for the narrative’”. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction
to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 650-651; 39.2.3, citing Ruth
4,6-8 as an example and referring to Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, 164, which cites
1 Sam 1,9; Gen 29,16; cf. Gen 13,7. The verbs in Dan 11,31 are imperfect and perfect consec-
utive, indicating future time, which makes sense because the whole prophecy is a prediction,
although v. 31 could have a beginning point that is chronologically earlier than the end of the
Crusades in v. 30.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

 2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11 | 53

Papal war against Islam (11,40-43)

Daniel 11,40 introduces the final episode of the career of the king of
the north, which begins with renewed conflict with the king of the south
in (“at” or “during”) the time of the end. Here both of these kings are
explicitly labelled as “king of the south” and “king of the north”.
This time the situation in verses 25-30 is reversed. There the king of
the north failed after having initiated hostilities against the king of the
south. Here at the end of the chapter, the king of the south initiates hos-
tilities by engaging in warfare (goring/thrusting, i.e., aggressive military
action) with “him” (v. 40). Use of the pronoun “him” in the first clause of
verse 40, with the king of the north in the previous verses as the anteced-
ent, shows that this power remains the same, i.e., the religious-political
papacy with allied nations under its influence, which earlier fought the
Crusades by means of Christian political-military allies under its influ-
ence.24 However, this time the papal king of the north prevails and con-
quers the territory of the king of the south (cf. vv. 41-43).
So, who is the king of the south who once again reemerges here in
11,40? When the king of the south reemerged earlier in verse 25, it had
changed from Ptolemaic Egypt to Islamic power. So, could it be some-
thing else in verse 40?
The change from Ptolemaic Egypt to Islam was due to the Muslim
conquest of Egypt. This accords with the fact that throughout Daniel 11,
one power supersedes another only through military conquest or political
succession. Greece conquers Persia, republican Rome becomes the king of
the north by taking over Seleucid Syria, imperial Rome takes the place
of republican Rome, and papal Rome replaces imperial Rome. So, what
power has superseded Islam in Egypt and the countries named along with
it in Daniel 11,41-43 as parts of the territory of the king of the south
(areas of ancient Edom, Moab, Ammon, Libya, and Cush)? The answer is
none, just as no power has superseded papal Rome. Papal Rome tried to
defeat Islamic power during the Crusades, but failed (cf. v. 30a), so Islam-
ic power continued. If Daniel 11,25-30 predicts the Crusades between

24
Cf. the end-time “Babylon” alliance in Rev 16-18.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

54 | Roy E. Gane

the papacy and Islamic power, the former remains the king of the north
and the latter the king of the south in verses 40-43 during the “time off
the end”, which is the time in which we are living because the long period
of papal persecution predicted in Daniel 12,7 is over.25
The two competing state religions that harness destructive politi-
cal-power developed differently from Abrahamic faith to threaten bib-
lical trinitarian Christianity from opposing sides. Islam’s anti-trinitarian
view of monotheism excludes the divinity of Christ as the Son of God.
The papacy goes beyond trinitarianism to virtual polytheism, with some
humans regarded as heavenly intercessors worthy of veneration.

Papal religious activities (11,44-45)

In Daniel 11,44-45 the papal king of the north is prevented from en-
joying his victory over the Islamic king of the south in peace because he is
alarmed by “news from the east and the north” and is provoked to go out
with the intent to destroy many people and devote them to destruction in
what he regards as holy war (Hiphil of ‫חרם‬, cf., e.g., Deut 7,2; 20,17).
In the process of his campaign, “He will pitch the tents of his royal pa-
vilion between the seas and the beautiful Holy Mountain” (Dan 11,45
NASB 1995). This refers to the location of headquarters that he sets up.
The “beautiful/glorious holy mountain”, which must be in the beau-
tiful land (Dan 11,16, 41), can only be Jerusalem/Zion (cf. Isa 66,20;
Joel 2,1; 3,17 [Heb 4,17]) or, more specifically, the temple mount in
Jerusalem (cf. Isa 27,13; 56,7). The references to holy war and the holy
temple mount indicate religiously motivated activity, as in verses 30-35,
when the king of the north turned back after losing to the king of the
south. Verse 45a does not say that he takes “the beautiful Holy Moun-
tain”, but it appears that he may intend to do so in order to carry out
what he did earlier in verse 36: “He shall exalt himself and magnify
himself above every god”. However, he mysteriously meets his demise
(verse 45b), with no indication that he is destroyed by defeat from a
stronger human military power.

25
On the expression “time of the end”, see Pfandl, Daniel: The Seer of Babylon, 107.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

 2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11 | 55

The fact that Daniel 11,45 refers to the temple mount in Jerusalem
does not support futurist dispensationalism, according to which God
has a covenant plan for literal Jerusalem long after Christ’s death and
the opening of his “new covenant” to the Gentiles. This verse refers
to the papacy’s plan, not God’s plan. Just as the papacy, with its allies,
wanted control of Jerusalem during the Crusades, it will again seek to
control what it regards as a “holy city” in order to advance its agenda
of total religious domination. No doubt verse 45 refers to the moun-
tain of/in Jerusalem as holy in order to identify the location to Daniel,
who prayed toward Jerusalem three times a day (6,10). The possibility
that in some contexts Jerusalem can be a literal geographic referent in
an eschatological prophecy is supported by Zechariah 14,4, where the
Lord “shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on
the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two…”, which Ellen G.
White interprets as taking place at the literal Mount of Olives after the
millennium: “Christ descends upon the Mount of Olives, whence, after
His resurrection, He ascended, and where angels repeated the promise
of His return...”.26

“Michael” arises, with transition to God’s kingdom (12,1-3)

Daniel 12,1-3 predicts that at the time when the career of the king
of the north comes to an end, Michael would arise and there would be
an unprecedented time of trouble, but Daniel’s people whose names are
“written in the book” would be delivered and there would be a resur-
rection from the dead, “some to everlasting life, and some to shame and
everlasting contempt” (v. 2). The fact that Michael is “the great prince
who has charge of your [Daniel’s] people” (v. 1) and that he has helped
the powerful heavenly being who speaks to Daniel (10,13; 10,21) indi-
cates that he is also a heavenly being who is on the side of the true God
and guards Daniel’s people, i.e., people who are faithful to God and are
delivered, and those of whom are dead rise are raised to everlasting life.
This class of people corresponds to the earlier “people who know their

26
Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan: The Conflict of the Ages in the
Christian Dispensation (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1888), 662-663.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

56 | Roy E. Gane

God”, who do not “violate the covenant” (11,32) and “the wise among the
people” who “shall make many understand” (v. 33; cf. 12,3—“those who
are wise… who turn many to righteousness”), whom the king of the north
persecuted (11,32-35).
Therefore, the papal king of the north and Michael with Daniel’s
people are on opposing sides. This suggests that the final religious war of
the papacy (11,44) is directed against God’s true people, who are spared
when Michael arises, and then the king of the north comes to an end.
If so, it appears that heavenly power terminates the king of the north, as
implied by 8,25 regarding the “little horn” power: “and he shall be bro-
ken—but by no human hand” (ESV, supplying “human”). Similarly, the
“little horn” in Daniel 7 is destroyed after it is condemned by the heaven-
ly court (vv. 9-11.26).27
In Daniel 12,2-3, the resurrection is the final event in the cosmic dra-
ma, so it coincides with the commencement of God’s eternal kingdom,
which Daniel also predicts in 2,44-45 and 7,27. 1 Thessalonians 4,13-18
agrees: the resurrection of God’s faithful people will take place at Christ’s
Second Coming.

Conclusion
Close reading of the text of Daniel 11,2-12,3 within its context in the
Book of Daniel has shown that this discourse unit predicts a succession
of human political powers that affect the lives of Daniel’s people, that is,
the people who remain faithful to God, from the time of Daniel to the
commencement of God’s eternal kingdom. Now we can identify the his-
torical powers in this succession as follows (table 2):

27
Cf. 2 Thess 2:8, regarding the “lawless one”, whom “the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his
mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming”.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

 2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11 | 57

Table 2. Historical succession of human political powers

in Daniel 11,2-12,3

Reference Kingdom/Dynasty
11,2 Persia
11,3-19 Greece: Alexander the Great and four divisions of his empire
11,5-19 Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria, including wars between
them
11,20 Republican Rome (replacing king of north)
11,21-22 Imperial Rome (taking king of north position from ruler in v. 20)
11,23-45 Papal Rome = king of north
11,25-30a Wars against Islamic power
11,30b-39 Religious activities: worship replacement, persecution, self-
exaltation
11,40-43 War against Islamic power
11,44-45 Religious activities: persecution, attempt at self-exaltation, but
meets his demise
12,1-3 Transition to God’s kingdom, with resurrection

The following table shows differentiation between northern and

southern kingdoms or combinations of the two (table 3):
Table 3. Differenciation/combination between the northern
and the southern kingdoms/dynasties

Reference Kingdom/Dynasty
11,2 Persia
11,3-19 Greece: Alexander and four divisions
North South
11,5-19 Seleucid Syria Ptolemaic Egypt
11,20 Rome: Republican
11,21-22 Rome: Imperial
11,23-45 Rome: Papal (Byzantine Empire)
11,25-30a Islam
11,30b-39
11,40-43
11,44-45
12,1-3 Transition to God’s kingdom, with resurrection

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

58 | Roy E. Gane

In some cases, there are gaps in the successions of rulers where the text
jumps to the next power when it is introduced as successfully clashing
with the earlier power (11:2-3, 18, 20).28 The terms “king of the north”
and “king of the south” refer to positions that are occupied by successive
individuals within dynasties, beginning with the Seleucid and Ptolemaic
Hellenistic kingdoms and continuing with the geographic progression of
powers that have conquered or superseded these northern and southern
kingdoms.
As in Daniel 8, Rome begins as a political power and later becomes
the religious-political papacy. If 11,25-30 refers to the Crusades fought
by the papacy with its allies, the king of the south is Islamic power here.
Therefore, the king of the south in verses 40-43 is also Islamic power be-
cause it has never been conquered or superseded into the “time of the
end” and there are no signs that it will be, just as the papacy has continued.
The interpretation presented here rules out several alternative ap-
proaches to Daniel 11,2-12,3 or parts of it.
First, the view that Daniel 11,5 already introduces papal Rome29 over-
looks the fact that the designations “king of the south” and “king of the
north” logically follow the divisions of Alexander’s empire to the four
winds = directions, and too many details in verses 5-19 closely match the

28
William H. Shea points out “a basic principle for interpreting Daniel’s apocalyptic prophecy.
That principle is this: it is only necessary to continue with one kingdom, or line of kings, until
the new one of importance is introduced on the scene of action”. Selected Studies on Prophetic
Interpretation, Daniel and Revelation Committee 1; ed. by F. Holbrook (Silver Spring, MD:
Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 41.
29
Jacques Doukhan interprets the words at the end of v. 4—“his kingdom shall be plucked up and
go to others besides these” as “given to Rome”. Daniel: The Vision of the End, revised ed. (Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1987), 78-79; cf. ibid., Secrets of Daniel: Wisdom and
Dreams of a Jewish Prince in Exile (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 168. Because
Doukhan places pagan Rome at the end of v. 4 and regards v. 5 as indicating “a new step in both
form and substance” (Daniel, 79), he interprets vv. 5-39 in a spiritual, rather than literal, sense
(skipping all of the Ptolemies and Seleucids) as paralleling 8,23-25 to cover the period of papal
Rome = the “little horn” (ibid., 79-80, 87-89; Secrets of Daniel, 169-175). For him, “allusions to
the north and south become abstract and metaphorical… On the one hand, we have the north
representing religious power striving to usurp God, while on the other, we have the south stand-
ing for human endeavors that reject God and have faith in humanity alone”. Doukhan, Secrets of
Daniel, 172-173.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

 2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11 | 59

period of Ptolemaic Egypt versus Seleucid Syria.30 Furthermore, the idea

that papal Rome already begins in verse 5 ignores the parallel between
11,22 (breaking of the prince of the covenant = the death of Christ) and
9,25-27, clearly still in the time of pagan rather than papal Rome.
Second, preterists regard most of Daniel 11 (usually to v. 40) as
ex eventu prophecy (history purporting to be prophecy) and believe that
the despised usurper in 11,21 is Antiochus IV Epiphanes,31 although he
was not really a usurper.32 They view most of the remainder of Daniel 11
as describing events during the reign of this Seleucid ruler.33 They miss
the clear indications of Christ as the “prince of the covenant” in verse 22,
referring to 9,25-27, during the period of the usurper, taking this to be
the Jewish high priest Onias III, who was murdered in about 171 B.C.
during the reign of Antiochus IV (2 Macc 4).34 But the death of Onias
was not after 69 weeks of years following the word/decree to restore and
build Jerusalem (Dan 9,25-26), and Onias did not make a strong cove-
nant with many (v. 27).35
Third, Uriah Smith identified the “king of the north” in Daniel 11,40-
45 as literal Turkey, which ruled the territory controlled in ancient times
by the Seleucid kings of the north, in opposition to literal Egypt as the
king of the south.36 Smith overlooked the continuity from the papacy, as
indicated by the pronoun “him” in verse 40, which has the papal king of
the north in the previous verses (clearly identified in v. 31, compared with

30
See Appendix I.
31
E.g., Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 226; Goldingay, Daniel, 299; Collins, Daniel, 382; Newsom,
Daniel: A Commentary, 346-7.
32
Antiochus IV Epiphanes was a son of Antiochus III who succeeded to the throne in a dynastic
succession at a time of difficulty for his royal family after the murder of his brother Seleucus IV.
33
E.g., Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 226-233; Goldingay, Daniel, 299-305; Collins, Daniel, 382-
390; Newsom, Daniel: A Commentary, 347-359.
34
E.g., Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, 196, 226; Goldingay, Daniel, 263, 299; Collins, Daniel, 356,
382; Newsom, Daniel: A Commentary, 306-7, 347.
35
Newsom admits that even in the flow of events during the reign of Antiochus IV, the refer-
ence in Dan 11,22 to the “prince of the covenant” being swept away “is somewhat intrusive and
chronologically out of place” (347; cf. Collins, Daniel, 382).
36
Uriah Smith, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation, 289-299.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

60 | Roy E. Gane

8,11-13) as its antecedent. Smith also missed the facts that Turkey has
never succeeded in conquering or otherwise superseding the papacy, and
the terms “king of the north” and “king of the south” in Daniel 11 move
geographically as powers designated by these terms are politically super-
seded by other powers. Thus, while the Seleucids and Ptolemies were
north and south of the land of Israel, Rome to the northwest has taken
the place of the king of the north, and Islamic power includes not only
Egypt and other parts of north Africa to the south,37 but also most of the
Middle East to the north of Egypt38 and east of Rome, including Turkey.
Fourth, a number of Seventh-day Adventists maintain that the king
of the south in Daniel 11,40-43 is atheism and/or secularism, which op-
poses papal Christianity, the king of the north, as atheism did during the
French Revolution (cf. Rev 11,7-10) and in more recent times in the con-
text of communism and western secularism. Thus, this view holds that
the final victory by the king of the north over the king of the south in-
volves the triumph of the papacy over atheism/secularism.39
Several supports are adduced in support of the atheism/secularism
approach, all of which are off target because they ignore plain indicators
in Daniel 11, picking and choosing textual factors that they wish to ac-
knowledge and eisegeting external elements into the text. These supports
include:

37
Including Libya and Cush (11:43). Cush is an ancient term for modern Sudan. Anson F. Rainey
and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World, 2nd ed. ( Jerusalem:
Carta, 2014), 27).
38
Including Edom, Moab and Ammon in the territory of modern Jordan (v. 41).
39
For example: “In Daniel 11 the prophecy points to a time thousands of years later than his own
day when the king of the north does much more than carry Israel’s sacred treasures to Egypt, a
name that here stands for secular and philosophical powers that deny God (see Rev. 11:8). For
he now wields power over rulers in the secular, atheist domain at the same time that he prac-
tices his grand spiritual pretense”. Jacques Doukhan, “Final Deception”, Adventist Review 195,
no. 8 (August, 2018), 39. “Traditionally staunch enemies, the Roman Catholic Church, king
of the north, and the secular state power, king of the south, are coming into closer and closer
alignment” (ibid., 41). It is unclear how “coming into closer and closer alignment” constitutes
definitive victory, even spiritual/religious victory, after conflict, as predicted in Dan 11,40-43,
and this interpretation appears to be influenced by current events.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

 2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11 | 61

1. Illegitimate totality transfer (a kind of eisegesis) of symbolic

“Egypt” in Revelation 11,8 (referring to a city, not a country, also
called “Sodom” and “where their Lord was crucified”) into the end
of Daniel 11 to identify the king of the south (Egypt) as atheism.40
2. Premature intertextual comparison (another kind of eisegesis) clai-
ming that the Israelite exodus from Egypt serves as the background
to the end of Daniel 11, and therefore reading elements of the exodus
narrative into symbolic interpretation of Daniel  11 while ignoring
important indicators in the text of Daniel  11 itself that should be
considered before any intertextual comparison is made.41
3. Imposing on the text the idea (a further kind of eisegesis) that after
the cross event, an Old Testament apocalyptic prophecy involving
Israel, or terms referring to it, can only be symbolic, referring to spiri-
tual “Israel”.42

40
For example, Doukhan, “Final Deception”, 39 (see above).
41
For example, Ángel M. Rodríguez, pamphlet Daniel 11 and the Islam Interpretation, Biblical
Research Institute Release 13 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2015), 8-17.
42
“The Christological qualification of the name Israel has superseded all former religious-national
boundaries and ethnic limitations (Eph 2:14-16). This has inevitable repercussions on the tra-
ditional territorial promises regarding the Middle East. Rather than being made void, however,
these territorial covenant promises are extended world-wide (Mt 5:5; Rom 4:13) so that the old
limited boundaries and restrictions are eliminated, in harmony with the Christological meaning
of the terms embracing Israel and Judah. From this point of view, since the cross of Christ and
Pentecost, there is theologically no longer a holy land, city, or mountain on earth ( Jn 4:21; Mt
23:38)”. Hans K. LaRondelle, “Interpretation of Prophetic and Apocalyptic Eschatology”. In
A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics, ed. by Gordon M. Hyde (Washington, D.C.: Biblical
Research Committee, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1974), 231.
“All those OT prophecies that apply to the time after the cross of Christ—that is, to eschatologi-
cal time—will find their fulfillment solely in and through Christ and His covenant people as the
true Israel of God and in their avowed enemies” (ibid., 236). It is true that members of spiritual
“Israel” are the people of God in the Christian era (e.g. Rev 7,4; cf. Daniel’s people in Dan 12,1)
and LaRondelle is right that during this period there is no longer any theological role for the
literal land of Israel as having a special spiritual/religious place in God’s plan. However, the
“primary concern for ‘spiritual Israel’ as the Christian church in apocalyptic prophecy referring
to events after the cross does not mean that we should overreact against futurist dispensation-
alism by holding that such events must always be symbolic and cannot in any context involve
the literal land of Israel. Context is king in exegesis of any text, biblical or otherwise, so a strong
pattern observed in many passages does not rule out the possibility of exceptions in some other
contexts”. Gane, “Methodology for Interpretation of Daniel 11:2-12:3”, 326.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

62 | Roy E. Gane

It is true that atheistic power has weakened the papacy, but it is an-
other threat that is predicted in Daniel 11,40-43. The atheism/secularism
view of the king of the south fails because no such philosophy or any
other has ever conquered or superseded (militarily, ideologically, or in
any other way) and thereby replaced Islam, which is the king of the south
in Daniel 11,25-30 during the Crusades. Also, there is no indication of
a shift in sub-genre from literal to symbolic in the Daniel 11,2-12,3 dis-
course unit. The latter half of Daniel 11 after verse 22, which records the
death of Christ, is full of literal language, including some military lan-
guage.43 This cannot be coherently construed as symbolic vision language,
which it is not; it is interpretative language. This language, with some
idioms/metaphors, continues unabated into verses 40-43. If verses 25-30
predict the Crusades, which were fought over literal Jerusalem in the lit-
eral land of Israel, verses 40-43 also involve literal Israel.
In Daniel 11 the interpretation of cosmic conflict involving interac-
tion between human and superhuman beings who are faithful to God and
those who are not (as indicated by Dan 10) necessarily includes some spir-
itual elements, such as “the prince of the covenant” in verse 22, true and
false worship by people who are faithful to God (i.e., true Christians) or
opposed to him in verses 30-35, the blasphemy of the king of the north in
verses 36-39, “Michael” and “the book” in 12,1, and the resurrection
in 12,2. But the text refers to these spiritual entities or actions in literal
descriptive terms, not in symbolic language such as head of gold = Bab-
ylon in Daniel 2; bear = Medo-Persia in Daniel 7; or goat = Greece in
Daniel 8. In Daniel 11 there is no dichotomy between what is “literal”
and what is “spiritual”, and the fact that spiritual elements are included
does not justify spiritualizing most of the chapter.44

43
Cf. the non-symbolic reference to Roman military activity after the death of Christ in Dan 9,26.
The “flood” metaphor emphasizes overwhelming military force that destroys “the city and the
sanctuary”, but other terms are literal (“destroy”, “city”, “sanctuary”, “war”).
44
As Doukhan does (see above); cf. his presentation on Dan 11, “Afternoon Program with
Dr. Jacques B Doukhan”, YouTube video (May 7, 2016), https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=ScdL6mPQTcE.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

 2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11 | 63

Understanding Daniel 11 shows in a marvelous way the detail to

which God’s prophecies to Daniel have been fulfilled in history through
particular individuals and events. This confirms that Jesus is “the prince
of the covenant” (v. 22) because he appeared in precisely the predicted
historical context during Roman imperial rule, following a detailed out-
line of the preceding Hellenistic period that foreshadows later north-
south conflicts. By tracing the cosmic conflict through the Dark Ages of
religious oppression down to the “time of the end” (v. 40), we can recog-
nize the perilous and climactic period in which we are living and have as-
surance that God will soon deliver us and fulfill the remainder of his good
promises. Even if we do not yet comprehend everything in Daniel 11, we
can grasp enough to give us confidence that “the Most High rules the
kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will” (Dan 4,17.25; cf. 5,21).

Roy E. Gane
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary
Andrews University
Michigan, Estados Unidos
gane@andrews.edu

Recibido: 25 de agosto de 2020

Aceptado: 18 de septiembre de 2020

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

64 | Roy E. Gane

Appendix I

Table 1. Ptolemies versus Seleucids in Daniel 11,5-19

Daniel 11,5-19 (NASB 1995) Historical Referent

Dan 11,5. Then the king of the South will grow Ptolemy I Soter (322-285
strong, along with [one] of his princes who will B.C.)
gain ascendancy over him and obtain dominion; Seleucus I Nicator (312-
his domain [will be] a great dominion [indeed]. 280 B.C.)
Dan 11,6. After some years they will form an Berenice, daughter of
alliance, and the daughter of the king of the Ptolemy II Philadelphus
South will come to the king of the North to (285-246 B.C.), married
carry out a peaceful arrangement. But she will to Antiochus II Theos (261-
not retain her position of power, nor will he 246 B.C.)
remain with his power, but she will be given up,
along with those who brought her in and the
one who sired her as well as he who supported
her in [those] times.
Dan 11,7. But one of the descendants of her Ptolemy III Euergetes
line will arise in his place, and he will come (246-221 B.C.), brother of
against [their] army and enter the fortress of the Berenice
king of the North, and he will deal with them
and display [great] strength.

Dan 11,8. Also their gods with their metal

images [and] their precious vessels of silver and
gold he will take into captivity to Egypt, and he
on his part will refrain from [attacking] the king
of the North for [some] years.

Dan 11:9. Then the latter will enter the realm Seleucus II Callinicus (246-
of the king of the South, but will return to his 226 B.C.)
[own] land.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

 2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11 | 65

Dan 11,10. His sons will mobilize and assemble Seleucus III (226-223 B.C.)
a multitude of great forces; and one of them will and Antiochus III the Great
keep on coming and overflow and pass through, (223-187 B.C.)
that he may again wage war up to his [very]
fortress.
Dan 11,11. The king of the South will be enra- Ptolemy IV (221-203 B.C.)
ged and go forth and fight with the king of the Antiochus III (223-187
North. Then the latter will raise a great multi- B.C.), cont.
tude, but [that] multitude will be given into the
hand of the [former].
Dan 11,12. When the multitude is carried away,
his heart will be lifted up, and he will cause tens
of thousands to fall; yet he will not prevail.
Dan 11,13. For the king of the North will again Antiochus III, cont.
raise a greater multitude than the former, and
after an interval of some years he will press on
with a great army and much equipment.

Dan 11,14. Now in those times many will rise Ptolemy V Epiphanes (203-
up against the king of the South; the violent 181 B.C.)
ones among your people will also lift themselves Jews
up in order to fulfill the vision, but they will fall
down.
Dan 11,15. Then the king of the North will Antiochus III, cont.
come, cast up a siege ramp and capture a well-
fortified city; and the forces of the South will
not stand [their ground], not even their choicest
troops, for there will be no strength to make a
stand.
Dan 11,16. But he who comes against him will Antiochus III, cont.
do as he pleases, and no one will [be able to]
withstand him; he will also stay [for a time] in
Palestine
the Beautiful Land, with destruction in his
hand.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

66 | Roy E. Gane

Dan 11,17. He will set his face to come with the Antiochus III, cont.
power of his whole kingdom, bringing with him Ptolemy V, cont., married
a proposal of peace which he will put into effect; to Cleopatra I, daughter of
he will also give him the daughter of women to Antiochus III
ruin it. But she will not take a stand [for him] or
be on his side.
Dan 11,18. Then he will turn his face to the Antiochus III, cont.
coastlands and capture many. But a commander Lucius Cornelius Scipio
will put a stop to his scorn against him; moreo- (Roman general; defeated
ver, he will repay him for his scorn. Antiochus III 190 B.C.)

Dan 11,19. So he will turn his face toward the Antiochus III, cont.
fortresses of his own land, but he will stumble
and fall and be found no more.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

 2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11 | 67

Appendix II
There are several clear points of contact between Daniel 11 and the
earlier prophecy in chapters 8-9 (with 9,24-27 as supplementary inter-
pretation of chap. 8), including use of identical Hebrew terms (in bold
below), as shown in the following table.45 The translation is mostly ESV,
with footnotes indicating ESV in selected places where I have given my
own translation.
Table 1. Parallels between Daniel 8-9 and 1146

Daniel 8-9 Daniel 11 Powers

8,20. As for the ram that you 11,2. Behold, three more Kings of
saw with the two horns, these kings shall arise in Persia... (Medo-)
are the kings of Media and Persia
Persia.
8,8. Then the goat became 11,3. Then a mighty king shall Greek king
exceedingly great... arise, who shall rule with great Alexander the
8,21. And the goat is the king dominion and do as he wills. Great
of Greece. And the great horn
between his eyes is the first
king.
8,8. ... but when he was 11,4. And as soon as he has
strong, the great horn was arisen, his kingdom shall be Four Greek
broken, and instead of it the- broken and divided toward kingdoms,
re came up four conspicuous the four winds of heaven, divided from
horns toward the four winds but not to his posterity, nor Alexander’s
of heaven. according to the authority empire
8,22. As for the horn that was with which he ruled, for his
broken, in place of which four kingdom shall be plucked up
others arose, four kingdoms and go to others besides these.
shall arise from his nation, but
not with his power.

45
On such “Relations Between Daniel 11 and Daniel 7, 8, and 9”, see Shea, “Unity of Daniel”,
245-247; cf. ibid., Daniel, 239, 252-253; Maxwell, 295; Stefanovic, 396, 423.
46
Adapted from Gane, “Methodology for Interpretation of Daniel 11:2-12:3”, 306-310, followed
by explanation in 310-315.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

68 | Roy E. Gane

9,25. ... from the going out of 11,22. Armies shall be utterly Imperial
the word to restore and build swept away before him and Rome
Jerusalem to the coming of an broken, even the prince of the
anointed one, a prince, there covenant.
shall be seven weeks...
9,26. And after the sixty-two
weeks, an anointed one shall
be cut off and shall have
nothing. And the people of
the prince who is to come
shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary. Its end shall come
with a flood, and to the end
there shall be war. Desolations
are decreed.
9,27. And he shall make a
strong covenant with many
for one week...
8,25. By his cunning he shall 11,23. And from the time that Papal Rome
make deceit prosper under his an alliance is made with him
hand, and in his own mind he shall act deceitfully, and he
he shall become great and in shall become strong with a
the midst of peace he shall small people
destroy many. 11,24. In the midst of pea-
ce.47 He shall come into the
richest parts of the province,
and he shall do what neither
his fathers nor his fathers’
fathers have done, scattering
among them plunder, spoil,
and goods. He shall devise
plans against strongholds, but
only for a time.

47
Reading the first phrase of v. 24 as the end of the sentence in v. 23.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

 2. Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11 | 69

8,11. It became great, even as 11,31. Forces from him Papal Rome,
great as the Prince of the host.shall appear and profane the cont.
And that which is regular48 temple, the fortress,52 and
was taken away from him, and shall take away that which
the place of his temple49 was is regular.53 And they shall
overthrown. set up the abomination that
8,12. And a host will be given makes desolate.
rebelliously against that
which is regular,50 and it will
throw truth to the ground,
and it will act and prosper.
8,13. Then I heard a holy
one speaking, and another
holy one said to the one who
spoke, “For how long is the
vision concerning that which
is regular,51 the transgression
that makes desolate, and the
giving over of the sanctuary
and host to be trampled
underfoot?”
8,24. ... and destroy mighty 11,33. And the wise among Papal Rome,
men and the people who are the people shall make many cont.
the saints. understand, though for some
days they shall stumble by
sword and flame, by captivity
and plunder.

48
ESV—“the regular burnt offering”. “Burnt offering” is not in the Hebrew.
49
ESV—“sanctuary”.
50
ESV—“And a host will be given over to it together with the regular burnt offering because of
transgression”.
51
ESV—“the regular burnt offering”.
52
With NJPS because the two nouns are in apposition without the conjunction supplied by
ESV—“the temple and fortress”.
53
ESV—“the regular burnt offering”.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70

70 | Roy E. Gane

8,19. “Behold, I will make 11,36. And the king shall Papal Rome,
known to you what shall be at do as he wills. He shall exalt cont.
the latter end of the indig- himself and magnify himself
nation, for it refers to the above every god, and shall
appointed time of the end. speak astonishing things aga-
8,24. His power shall be inst the God of gods. He shall
great—but not by his own prosper till the indignation
power; and he shall cause is accomplished; for what is
fearful destruction and shall decreed shall be done.
succeed in what he does...
8,25. ... and in his own mind
he shall become great... And
he shall even rise up against
the Prince of princes...
8,19. “Behold, I will make 11,40. At the time of the end, Papal Rome,
known to you what shall be at the king of the south shall cont., versus
the latter end of the indig- attack him, but the king of Islamic power
nation, for it refers to the the north shall rush upon him
appointed time of the end. like a whirlwind...
8,25. ... and he shall be 11,45. Yet he shall come to his Papal Rome,
broken—but by no human end, with none to help him. cont.
hand.

DavarLogos · Julio–diciembre · 2020 · Volumen XIX · N.º 2 · 37–70