(d). “and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods”

Compare this, line upon line, with:

Daniel 7:8 – “…and, behold, in this horn [were] eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.”

And again in Daniel 7:25 - “And he shall speak [great] words against the most High,…”

This is again repeated in Rev 13:5,6 – “And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty [and] two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.”

First mention principles of interpretation establishes that the power referred to here is Rome and not France.

 

(e). “and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished:”

Notice in Daniel 8:12 that this power prospered. “And an host was given [him] against the daily [sacrifice] by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered.”

This is repeated in verse 25 – “And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify [himself] in his heart,..” Again, the wording of scripture is unmistakable and dictates that the power referred to here in Daniel 11:36 must be Rome not France.

 

(f). “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers”.

The Papacy did not regard the God of the Apostles. It is only a professed Christian religion. The apostles likened themselves to fathers of their converts (1 Cor 4:15; 3 John 4) Though the apostles were in a way spiritual fathers of those converted through them, we are not to call any man our spiritual Father. Matt 23:9. By commanding unbiblical doctrines, the Papacy shows that it does not regard the God of its ‘fathers.’. In fact the Pope is referred to as the Holy Father and priests are called Father.

 

(g). “nor the desire of women”

Marriage is forbidden the catholic clergy and nuns. “Although celibacy is not expressly enforced by the Saviour...the [Catholic] Church felt it her duty to lay it down as a law.” The Faith of Our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, (Roman Catholic) 1917 ed., p401. 

 

Prophetically, Women represent churches and Christ is the desire of the churches. They all claim His name, "Christian," but few do as He asks... In Isaiah 4:1 Christ is represented as the desire of women. Women symbolize churches (Jer 6:2; 2Cor 11:2). In the end-times many churches desire to be called by Christ’s name while doing contrary to what He says. The Papacy has not regarded Christ, the desire of churches (women), in that the Papacy has done contrary to Christ’s word - the Scriptures.

 

(h). “nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.”

Remember in verse 36, “he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god” and this is repeated in verse 37, “nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.” While professing faith in the Christian God, the man of sin actually exalts himself above God and does not regard any god because he sees himself as above all. Paul spoke of this in 2Thess 2:4 – “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

 

(i). “But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not….”

Verse 37 said he regards no God except himself. The God of forces must therefore be himself. The word “forces” in this verse is from the Hebrew “mauwz” which means STRENGTH. The word “Rome‚“ in the New Testament is from the Greek “Rhome” and means “STRENGTH.” In the place of God, the Papacy worships the GOD OF FORCES - the GOD OF ROME. Christ draws by love. Rome compels by force. The marginal reading of verse 38 says, “...as for the Almighty God, IN HIS SEAT he shall honour yea, he shall honour A GOD, whom his fathers knew not.”

 

Paul called this power the “man of sin” “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God SITTETH IN THE TEMPLE OF GOD, shewing himself that he is God.”  The temple (Gr. naos) in which he would sit is the professed Christian church. See Eph 2:21-22. 

• Paul’s words in 2Thess 2 are clearly linked to Daniel 11.

• Paul speaks of a withholder that had to be taken out of the way to reveal "the man of sin" (the Papacy)

• Daniel spoke of the daily which had to be taken away in order to set up the abomination that maketh desolate (the Papacy).  Dan 11:31

• Paul spoke of the Man of sin sitting in the temple of God (evidently in God’s seat).

• Daniel spoke of this power sitting in God’s seat. 

• Paul spoke of this self exalting power.

• Daniel spoke of this self exalting power.

 

(j). “shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.”

Revelation 17 speaks of the whore of Babylon who fornicates with the kings of the earth and is decked in GOLD, PRECIOUS STONES etc. Claiming that she holds the keys to heaven or hell, Rome has had a captivating control over kings and nations. Exerting their influence through the places of power among the nations, the Popes have increased in glory and ruled over many.

 

THE KING OF DANIEL 11:36 IS PAPAL ROME & NOT FRANCE

The definite article “the,” not the indefinite article “a.” is applied to this King  This indicates that the king of verse 36 is THE king discussed in the previous verses, namely Papal Rome. Therefore, the power of versus 30-35 and verse 36 are the SAME power - the Papacy, not two powers of Papal Rome in verses 31-35 and France in verse 36 as the Turkey view of Daniel 11 tell us.

 

“according to his will.”

This phrase is applied to those nations which had total power over the people of God (cf. Dan 8:4; Dan 11:3; Dan 11:16). France never had such power. Papal Rome did.

 

To magnify oneself above God (verse 36)

2Thess speaks of the power of Daniel 11 exalting itself above God.  

The context of Daniel 7:25 is that the Little Horn, Papal Rome, would change the laws of the Most High.

To show its power to exalt itself, Papal Rome did change the ten commandment law of God

Papal Rome removed the second commandment dealing with the worship of idols

It divided the tenth commandment in order to maintain ten commandments.

It changed the Seventh day Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, the first day of the week.

Therefore, the change of the Sabbath of God is said to be the sign or identifying MARK of that power that would exalt itself above God. Needless to say France did not change the Sabbath, Papal Rome did.

 

The French disregarded the permanence of marriage but not women (Dan 11:37). This fits the Papacy as noted above. While the French did honor reason and personified it by a woman, nothing is said about France ever honoring either the woman or “reason” with “gold and silver, and precious stones, and pleasant things” as the verse necessitates.

​

​

9. THE LITERAL VIEW’S INTERPRETATION OF “PUSH” INCONSISTENT WITH THE MEANING IN DANIEL 8:4 - "PUSHING".  

 

Daniel 11:40 states that the king of the South would “push” at HIM.

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

 

"PUSH" / "PUSHING"

Note Daniel 8:4: “I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.”

 

There is no suggestion that the Ram would make “a comparatively feeble” attempt (Uriah Smith - see below)  but it conquers and destroys in battle with total victory that no kingdom might stand before it, that no kingdom can deliver out of his hand and it did according to its will.

 

This is not the case with the literal view and its interpretation of the word “push” in Daniel 11:40 where literal Egypt, the king of the south, is said to make “a comparatively feeble resistance” against France. In prophecy, to “push” or “pushing” means to attack and conquer as in Daniel 8:4 and not simply to engage in battle or resist. In the literal Turkey Islam view of Daniel 11, Egypt (the literal King of the South) did not attack and conquer France in 1798 ; it was the exact opposite. (See on verse 40).

 

Uriah Smith admits: “We inquire, therefore, Is it a fact that at the time of the end, Egypt did "push," or make a comparatively feeble resistance,…” against France.  "Daniel and Revelation" pg 302 by Uriah Smith

 

Note Smith’s view. “This application of the prophecy calls for a conflict to spring up between Egypt and France, and Turkey and France, in 1798, which year, as we have seen, marked the beginning of the time of the end; and if history testifies that such a triangular war did break out in that year, it will be conclusive proof of the correctness of the application. We inquire, therefore, Is it a fact that at the time of the end, Egypt did "push," or make a comparatively feeble resistance, while Turkey did come like a resistless "whirlwind," against "him," that is, the government of France? We have already produced some evidence that the time of the end commenced in 1798; and no reader of history need be informed that in that very year a state of open hostility between France and Egypt was inaugurated. {1897 UrS, DAR 302.4,5}

 

If one goes with Smith’s interpretation, then verse 40 is being turned on its head by the literal view. The verse states that the King of the South (literal Egypt according to Smith et al) would push at him (Napoleon / France) and not the other way around.

 

Therefore,  the literal view should read: “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south (Egypt) push at him (France / Napoleon): and the king of the north (Turkey) shall come against him (France / Napoleon) like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.”  

 

However, in the explanation by Smith, he states: “…at the time of the end, Egypt did "push," or make a comparatively feeble resistance,…”  

 

Verse 40 says that the King of the South would push at him. According to the literal view and the correct meaning of the word “push” in Daniel 8:4: 

 

1. Egypt should have pushed at France / Napoleon

2. Egypt should have conquered France / Napoleon

3. Egypt should have been victorious against France / Napoleon,

4. that France could not be delivered out of Egypt’s hand,

5. that Egypt would do according to his will against France / Napoleon.

 

Did this happen? No! Instead Smith says that Egypt made “a comparatively feeble resistance,…” which is not the meaning of the word “push” according to Daniel 8:4. In addition, to “push” means the one doing the pushing is the aggressor but Smith contradicts himself  by saying, “Egypt did "push," or make a comparatively feeble resistance,…” Push and resistance have different meanings.

 

Smith is trying to justify this triangular war but is stuck with history so tries to marry both “push” and resistance” and makes a mess of the interpretation.  

 

Egypt did not “push” against France / Napoleon. He admits that France / Napoleon came against Egypt and Egypt made a feeble resistance against him which is not the way verse 40 constructs it or ought to be read and understood. 

 

Furthermore, according to the evidence tabled so far, France / Napoleon is not the King of verse 36 anyway, so there was never a triangular war according to the prophecy regardless of how one tries to fit history into the prophecy. 

 

Prophecy is the future foretold or predicted and history is the fulfilment of that prediction and not the other way around.  

 

Uriah Smith admits it was a feeble attempt by Egypt to “push” against France when it was attacked by the latter, which is not in keeping with the true meaning of “pushing”. But if we allow the Bible to interpret the meaning of “PUSH”, then it is a definitive conquer and destroy and not a feeble attempt as Smith says.

 

Note Daniel 8:4 again, “I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither [was there any] that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.” cf the Bear in Daniel 7 had three ribs in its mouth which represents total victory over three beasts (kingdoms) which those ribs came from. 

 

Egypt did not conquer and destroy France in the time of the end - 1798.

​

10. FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE TRANSITION FROM LITERAL LOCAL PAGAN ROME TO GLOBAL SPIRITUAL PAPAL ROME.

​

1. The Turkey view fails to consider the transition from the literal & local to the spiritual & global

2. That Daniel 11 begins with literal local kings & kingdoms & transitions to the global spiritual Papacy  

3. From Pagan Rome to Papal Rome in Daniel chapters 2, 7, 8 and 11:30-31

4. The significance is that after Papal Rome (v 31) everything as in (5) takes on a spiritual meaning.

5. The phrases and words  King of the North & South, Edom, Moab, Ammon, Egypt, Libya & Ethiopia

6. Daniel 11 (Turkey view) is, therefore, seen to be wholly literal including the phrases & words in (5)

7. To legitimise this interpretation they must make the KING of verse 36, Napoleon Bonaparte.

8. They simply drag this interpretation out of thin air with no scripture to support the view.

 

William Miller, Ellen White, James White, William Gage and “The Word to the little Flock, p.9” all point to Rome as the last power and King of verse 36.  Hence the connecting verses from 37 to 40 are also describing Rome and not Napoleon or France. 

​

POOR REASONING  - (PERSONAL COMMUNICATION)

1. A proponent of the Turkey view agreed that the King of verse 36 was Papal Rome - see below

2. However, he continued to advocate that verse 37 onwards was still consistent with the Turkey view.

3. This has to be one of the saddest indictments on the interpretation of Daniel 11. 

4. The reasoning is not sound and cannot be sound.

5. Please review the connections between verses 36 to 39, even to the first “him” of verse 40.

6. Now see if  you can identify two different powers, Papal Rome (v 36) & France or Napoleon in vs 37-39 

7. Can you remain true to the line upon line, precept upon precept principle of scriptural interpretation? 

8. The answer is, you cannot. It is a private interpretation of the verses with no regard to point (7).

​

Note the disconnect of the identity of the pronouns between verses 36 & 37 with Papal Rome in verse 36 and then a sudden shift to Napoleon Bonaparte in verse 37 in the Turkey view with NO scriptural backup for it whereas all the phrases in verse 36 onwards have referred to Papal Rome in the past whether it be in Daniel 7, 8 or 2 Thessalonians:

​

verse 36. "And the king shall do according to his will;..."  - Papal Rome

verse 36 "... and he shall exalt himself,..." - Papal Rome

verse 36 "... and magnify himself above every god..." - Papal Rome

verse 36 "... and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods,..." - Papal Rome

verse 36 "...and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: ........" - Papal Rome

 

verse 37 "Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers,..." - Napoleon Bonaparte 

verse 37 "... nor the desire of women, ..." - Napoleon Bonaparte 

verse 37 "...nor regard any god:..." - Napoleon Bonaparte 

verse 37 "... for he shall magnify himself above all." - Napoleon Bonaparte 

​

verse 38 "But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces:..."

verse 38 "... and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour..."

verse 38 "... with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things."

​

verse 39 "Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god,..."

verse 39 "...whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory:..."

verse 39 "...and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain."

​

verse 40 "And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him:..."

verse 40 "... and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind,..."

verse 40 "... with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships;..."

verse 40 "... and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over."

​

​

11. OTHER END TIME PROPHECIES DEMONSTRATE THE LITERAL & LOCAL TRANSITIONING TO THE GLOBAL & SPIRITUAL - REV 14,17 & 18

​

• Events and terms such as the fall of Jerusalem, Jerusalem itself, Babylon, Jezebel, Euphrates, Israel (the church) etc. are all to be understood symbolically and applied spiritually in the end-time.

• To read the last portions of Daniel 11 literally i.e. Kings of the North & South, chariots, horsemen, ships, Glorious land, Glorious holy mountain, Edom, Moab, Ammon, Egypt, Libya & Ethiopia is out of harmony with Revelation.

• Jesus told the woman at the well in John chapter 4 that it is not at literal Jerusalem nor at this literal mountain that people are to worship God, but they are to worship Him in spirit and in truth.

 

12. AT THE "TIME OF THE END" (1798 ONWARDS) EGYPT WAS A PART OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

Egypt was a state of Turkey with the sultan of Constantinople as its ruler. Therefore, in 1798 Egypt was actually a part of what the Turkey view calls the King of the North and can hardly be called the King of the South at this point in the prophecy.

​

​

13. AT THE "TIME OF THE END" (1798 ONWARDS), PALESTINE WAS NOT THE GLORIOUS LAND OR GLORIOUS HOLY MOUNTAIN

• God had rejected the Jewish nation centuries earlier in AD34 because of their unbelief. 

• Only God’s presence makes a thing holy.

• Acts 13:46 "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

 

14. THE KING OF THE NORTH OF DANIEL 11:40-45 IS REPRESENTED AS A SIGNIFICANT POWER

The King of the North grows from strength to strength from verses 40-44 whereas Turkey / the Ottoman empire is of no great significance today having met its predicted end as foretold in Revelation 9.

​

​

15. THE VISION WAS GIVEN "TO MAKE THEE UNDERSTAND WHAT SHALL BEFALL THY PEOPLE"

"Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.” Daniel 10:14. The vision was NOT given to show what would befall Turkey or Islam.

Obviously God’s people must be involved in the latter portion of Daniel 11. Some claim that Turkey has already fulfilled the first part of Daniel 11:45, in planting her palaces in Jerusalem, namely the Dome of the Rock and  the El Aska mosque. However, these buildings were not ‘planted’ in the "time of the end", i.e. after 1798, as the prophecy demands, but over 1100 years before, in AD691. Neither were these buildings “planted” by Turkey, but by Omar, the Arabian Moslem.

 

An attempt has been made to bolster the application of Turkey as the King of the North by including with Turkey the Islamic religion. If the phrase, the King of the North is taken as a symbol for Islam then the king of the South, the glorious land, etc. should also be taken as symbols. This inconsistency, and the failure of Islam to fit the specifications of the prophecy show the error of this view.

 

ISLAM IS NOT A LITERAL PLACE NORTH OF LITERAL ISRAEL BUT A GLOBAL RELIGION / IDEOLOGY LIKE THE PAPACY.

There are other aspects of the prophecy which cannot be easily explained by a completely literal interpretation of Daniel 11.

​

15. EDOM,MOAB AND THE CHILDREN OF AMMON 

• These people escape out of the King of the North's hand.

• They cannot be explained by a literal interpretation.

• These peoples do not exist today. 

• The events of Daniel 11:40-45 occur IN the “time of the end” after 1798.

• Edom, Moab and Ammon are not literal places or peoples in “the time of the end”.

• The name Edom, Moab and Ammon is used figuratively here

• It is applied spiritually to those who escape out of the King of the North's hand (Papal Rome) vs 41, 44. 

• Edom, Moab and Ammon were not in the glorious land

• They escape from the control of the king of the north INTO the glorious land.

•  Literal Edom, Moab & Ammon no longer exist.

• This confirms that the countries & lands in the latter parts of Daniel 11 have a spiritual application. 

• These three peoples were related to Israel.

• Edom was the descendant of Esau.

• Moab & Ammon are Lot’s sons through his daughters incestuous relationship (Genesis 19:36-38).

 

The whoredoms Israel committed with the Moabites (Numbers 25:1-3) typifies the ecumenical apostasy that some in God’s end-time church are entering into with the fallen churches of Babylon.  Moab and Ammon escaped the destruction of Sodom while in their father's "loins", so to speak (cf. Hebrews 7:9-10). These of Moab and Ammon represent the remnant of God’s people in the various denominations who escape out of the hand of the King of the North, Papal Rome. They escape the end-time destruction by heeding the three angels messages and coming out of Babylon to join the true people of God. (cf. Revelation 18:4).

 

Edom, Moab and the Children of Ammon escape out of the King of the North's hand.

“The Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people.... they shall lay their hand upon EDOM and MOAB; and the chief of the children of AMMON shall obey them.” Isa 11:11-16. 

 

This is being fulfilled in the call to come out of Babylon:  “September 23, the Lord showed me that He had stretched out His hand the second time to recover the remnant of His people [this is drawn from Isa 11:11-16 quoted above], and that efforts must be doubled in this gathering time.” E.G. White, Early Writings, p74.  Bracketed comment supplied.

 

“Company after company from the Lord’s army joined the foe and tribe after tribe [Edom, Moab and Ammon?] from the ranks of the enemy united with the commandment keeping people of God.”  E.G. White, Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 8, p41.  Bracketed comment supplied. Amos 9:11-12 compared with Acts 15:16, 17 shows that Edom and the heathen which follow God, represent “the residue of men.” When enlightened with the truth and the call to “come out of her my people,” multitudes of God’s people presently in Babylon will separate from the fallen churches and unite themselves with the remnant. (Amos 9:9-13; Isa 56:6-8; Jer 40:11-12). 

 

“I saw that this message will close with power and strength far exceeding the midnight cry. Servants of God, endowed with power from on high with their faces lighted up, and shining with holy consecration, went forth to proclaim the message from heaven. Souls that were scattered all through the religious bodies answered to the call, and the precious were hurried out of the doomed churches, as Lot [Moab & Ammon being yet in Lot’s loins] was hurried out of Sodom before her destruction.” E.G. White, Early Writings, p278-279. Bracketed comment supplied.

​

16. ISLAM IS NOT A LITERAL PLACE NORTH OF LITERAL JERUSALEM

Islam is a global ideology and not a literal place north of literal Jerusalem. If Daniel 11 were to be taken literally, then one could make a case for Islam being the King of the South rather than the King of the North for it literally came into existence "south" of Jerusalem in Medina, Arabia and swept across the middle east. Furthermore while Turkey is a literal location, Islam is an ideology, a religion, something spiritual and inconsistent with a literal interpretation of Daniel 11. Hence Islam is not the King of the North by any stretch of the imagination.

​

17. THE TABERNACLES OF HIS PALACE ARE NOT THE DOME OF THE ROCK OR THE AL AQSA MOSQUE

• "Tabernacles" is literally interpreted as the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque of Islam.

• These were to be planted in the “time of the End” i.e. after 1798 but all know that this is not the case.

• These were built well before 1798 and not by Turkey.

• Nowhere in the text of Daniel 11 does it say that the tabernacles were to be planted before 1798.

• The problem is the literal interpretation vacillates between Turkey and Islam. 

• Turkey for a literal location and Islam because the interpretation includes global terrorism as its basis.

• The other problem is Daniel 11's King of the North, the Seleucid Empire, began in Syria and not Turkey. 

• Proponents of the literal interpretation speak of Turkey as the King of the North but favour Islam.

• However, Islam is spiritual and not consistent with a LITERAL interpretation of Daniel 11.  

• Islam is not a literal place north of literal Jerusalem. 

• Islam is an ideology, a spiritual entity, a religion much like Papal Rome.

• In suggesting Islam, the literalists have gone from a literal to a spiritual interpretation of Daniel 11 

• This is the very position the literal interpretation denies for the Papacy being the King of the North.

• The religion of Islam began, if anything, in a more southerly direction to Jerusalem, in Medina

• Hence Islam cannot be the King of the North.

• The Turkey Islam view of Daniel 11 believes that when the King of the North "shall plant the tabernacles of his palace (i.e. Al Asqa mosque & Dome of the Rock) between the seas in (and) the glorious holy mountain;", it is at this time that Michael will stand up. However, these structures were built more than a thousand years ago and not in "the time of the end" i.e. 1798 onwards when Michael will stand up ("Time" in Daniel 12:1 cf Daniel 11:40)

 

Michael will stand up sometime in "the time of the end" which we currently live in, at the close of the judgment after the events of Revelation 13:15-17 and not at the misinterpreted "time" of Daniel 11:45.  The "time" in Daniel 12:1 is not referring to Daniel 11:45 but to the "time" mentioned in Daniel 11:40. It is in this period of time, "the time of the end" (1798 began this period) in which Michael will stand up - when the judgment and probation will close for the planet.

​

18. THE GLORIOUS HOLY MOUNTAIN OF DANIEL 11:45

The Glorious Holy Mountain cannot refer to literal Jerusalem as there is nothing glorious or holy about the present city.  Jesus said in Matthew 23:38: "Behold your house is left unto you desolate". While Jerusalem is a prophetic location in Daniel 9 and Matthew 24, it cannot be God’s glorious holy mountain in the "time of the end".  Everything about it terminated with the 70 weeks prophecy. It was rejected by God. (Matthew 23:37-39) It’s temple was destroyed and it’s religion made of none effect as everything centered around the sanctuary service – there is no salvation in the Jews religion – no high priest, no temple, no blood sacrifice and with the latter, no forgiveness of sin, therefore, like every other pagan religion, only death awaits it.  The Testimonies also says they became the agents of Satan for the destruction of the world. 

​

19. DANIEL'S PEOPLE ARE TO BE DELIVERED IN THE "TIME OF THE END" DURING THE TIME OF TROUBLE OF DANIEL 12:1

• We do not understand this to mean that Daniel's people, the literal Jews of today are to be delivered.

• The literal Jews in rejecting Christ gave way to the Spiritual Jews (the true Christian church)

• The transition occurred at the close of the 70 weeks prophecy with the stoning of Stephen.

• Paul under inspiration said in Acts 13:46: "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."

• John had stated in John 1:11-13: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

• Hence Daniel's literal people, the Jews, cannot be the ones intended by Daniel 12:1

• The new "Jews" (Revelation 2:8,9) are a Spiritual people, God's true Christian Church.

• Paul also bears this out in Galatians 3:26-29

​

20. IF TURKEY IS THE LITERAL KING OF THE NORTH AND IT REPRESENTS THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE...

• then MICHAEL SHOULD HAVE STOOD UP ALREADY (Daniel 12:1)

• The tabernacles of his palace (Dome of the Rock & Al Asia mosque) have already been planted

• The Ottoman Empire came to its end in the 1840s

• BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE Michael has still not stood up.

• Problem with the Turkey view: the tabernacles were to be planted in the time of the end, after 1798 

• 1798 begins the "time of the end"

• We have been living in “the time of the end.” since 1798 

• Verses 40 to 45 of Daniel 11 occur in "the time of the end" - 1798 onwards

• It is in this time that the King of the North was to plant his tabernacles but Turkey is a spent force.

• The Al Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock were 'planted' long before 1798.

• The Book of Revelation predicted the Ottoman Empire's demise.

• The Turk came to his end in Revelation 9 and Michael has not stood up yet.

• Hence the Turkey / Islam view as the King of the North is a false prophecy.