“In the time of the end the king of the south will engage with him in a pushing, and against him the king of the north will storm with chariots and horsemen and many ships; and he will enter into the lands and sweep through like a flood. (Daniel 11:40)
In the May 2021 episode of JW Broadcasting hosted by Kenneth Cook member of the governing body and governing body helper Herman Van Selm explanation was given as to how the Watchtower society arrives at its interpretation of Daniel chapter 11 in which they identify Russia as the king of the north.
This information was presented in the Watchtower exactly one year prior in the May 2020 issue in an article entitled: “The King of the North” in the Time of the End.
Paragraph 4 of that article states:
IDENTIFYING THE KING OF THE NORTH AND THE KING OF THE SOUTH
4 The titles “king of the north” and “king of the south” were initially given to political powers located north and south of the literal land of Israel. Why do we say that? Notice what the angel who delivered the message to Daniel said: “I have come to make you understand what will befall your people in the final part of the days.” (Dan. 10:14) Until Pentecost 33 C.E., the literal nation of Israel was God’s people. From then on, however, Jehovah made it obvious that he viewed Jesus’ faithful disciples as his people. Therefore, much of the prophecy recorded in Daniel chapter 11 involves, not the literal nation of Israel, but Christ’s followers. (Acts 2:1-4; Rom. 9:6-8; Gal. 6:15, 16) And the identity of the king of the north and the king of the south changed over time. Even so, several factors remained constant. First, the kings interacted with God’s people in a significant way. Second, they showed by their treatment of God’s people that they hated the true God, Jehovah. And third, the two kings engaged in a power struggle with each other. (The Watchtower May 2020 study edition)
According to Daniel 10:14, the angel came to make Daniel understand what would befall his people in the future. Daniel’s people were the Jews. Of course, the Jews at that time were God’s people but the Watchtower makes a subtle shift to God’s people in order to allow for the prophecy to be extended to include Christians after Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 C.E. (Gal. 6:16) However, Daniel was not told by the angel what was to befall God’s people.
Furthermore, did you notice in the video, as they traced the identity of both kings, that there was no King of the South in the first century? Rome occupied both positions. Why is this significant?
Scholars are divided as to whether this prophecy finds fulfillment beyond the first century. If it can be demonstrated that Daniel chapter 11 had its fulfillment in the first century, any interpretation stretching beyond that would be unwarranted without an explicit statement in the Bible that there is to be a secondary fulfillment. Otherwise, we would be going beyond the things that have been written. (1 Cor. 4:6)
It is important to remember that, according to their own admission, the governing body is neither inspired nor infallible, can err in doctrinal matters, have made adjustments to their scriptural understanding for over 100 years and is unable to provide perfect spiritual food. (See The Watchtower February 2017 pg. 26 par. 12)
Hence, what reason does anyone have for trusting their interpretation of this, or any prophecy, above that of any other biblical scholar?
Many commentators apply the words of Daniel 11:5-35 concerning the king of the North to the Seleucid kings following the death of Alexander the Great and the dissolution of his empire. Most prominent are Antioches III and Antioches IV Epiphanes.
For example the Cambridge Bible Commentary states:
Dan 11:2 to Dan 12:4. The revelation given to Daniel.
This consists of a survey of the history from the beginning of the Persian period down to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, followed by a description of the Messianic age, to begin afterwards. The description is brief and general in its earlier part, more detailed in the later parts. The angel first refers briefly to the doings of four Persian kings (Dan 11:2), and of Alexander the Great (Dan 11:3), with the division of his empire after his death (Dan 11:4); then narrates more fully the leagues and conflicts between the kings of Antioch (‘the kings of the north’), and of Egypt (‘the kings of the south’), in the centuries following (Dan 11:5-20); and finally, most fully of all, describes the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan 11:21-45), including his conflicts with Egypt, and the persecution of the Jews (Dan 11:30 b–39). The death of Antiochus is followed by a resurrection (of Israelites), and the advent of the Messianic age (Dan 12:1-3). The revelation is intended to shew that the course of history is in God’s hands, and that though it may bring with it a period of trial for His people, this will be followed, at the appointed time, by its deliverance. It is thus designed particularly for the encouragement of those living in the season of trial, i.e. under the persecution of Antiochus; it is accordingly to be ‘sealed up’ by Daniel until then (Dan 12:4).
Regarding Daniel 11:36-45 this commentary states:
“Many of the older expositors supposed that at this point there was a transition from Antiochus to the future Antichrist, and that Dan 11:36-45 related exclusively to the latter; but whatever typical significance might be legitimately considered to attach to the character and career of Antiochus as a whole, it is contrary to all sound principles of exegesis to suppose that, in a continuous description, with no indication whatever of a change of subject, part should refer to one person, and part to another, and that ‘the king’ of Dan 11:36, and ‘the king of the south’ of Dan 11:45 should be a different king from the one whose doings are described in Dan 11:21-35. The fact that traits in the N.T. figure of Antichrist are suggested (apparently) by the description in Dan 11:36-39, does not authorize the inference that these verses themselves refer to Antichrist (cf. the Introd. p. xcvii).” (Cambridge Bible Commentary)
Regarding Daniel 11:36, Albert Barnes states:
“And the king shall do according to his will – Shall be absolute and supreme, and shall accomplish his purposes. This refers, it seems to me, beyond question, to Antiochus Epiphanes, and was exactly fulfilled in him. He accomplished his purposes in regard to the city and temple in the most arbitrary manner, and was, in every respect, an absolute despot. It should be said, however, here, that most Christian interpreters suppose that the allusion here to Antiochus ceases, and that henceforward, it refers to Antichrist. So Jerome, Gill, Bp. Newton, and others; and so Jerome says many of the Jews understood it. The only reason alleged for this is, that there are things affirmed here of the “king” which could not be true of Antiochus. But, in opposition to this, it may be observed
(a) that the allusion in the previous verses is undoubtedly to Antiochus Epiphanes.
(b) There is no indication of any “change,” for the prophetic narrative seems to proceed as if the allusion to the same person continued.
(c) The word “king” is not a word to be applied to Antichrist, it being nowhere used of him.
(d) Such a transition, without anymore decided marks of it, would not be in accordance with the usual method in the prophetic writings, leaving a plain prediction in the very midst of the description, and passing on at once to a representation of one who would arise after many hundreds of years, and of whom the former could be considered as in no way the type. The most obvious and honest way, therefore, of interpreting this is, to refer it to Antiochus, and perhaps we shall find that the difficulty of applying it to him is not insuperable.” (Barnes Notes on the Bible)
Paragraph 5 of the Watchtower continues:
5 At some time during the second century C.E., the true Christian congregation began to be overrun by false Christians, who had adopted pagan teachings and who were hiding the truths found in God’s Word. From that time until the late 19th century, there was no organized group of God’s servants on earth. The weeds of false Christianity flourished and hid the identity of true Christians. (Matt. 13:36-43) Why is that fact significant? It indicates that what we read about the king of the north and the king of the south could not apply to rulers or kingdoms that held power from sometime in the 2nd century to the second half of the 19th century. There was no organized group of God’s people for them to attack. However, we can expect that the king of the north and the king of the south would reappear in the late 19th century. Why is that the case?
6 From 1870 onward, God’s people began to get organized as a group. It was in that year that Charles T. Russell and his associates formed a Bible study class. Brother Russell and his close associates acted as the foretold messenger who ‘cleared up a way’ before the Messianic Kingdom was established. (Mal. 3:1) God’s people could once again be identified! Were there any world powers on the scene that would have a significant impact on God’s servants? Consider the following facts. (The Watchtower May 2020 study edition)
Two things need to be pointed out. First, in his parable of the wheat and the weeds Jesus specifically stated that the gathering of the wheat would take place not by men but when he sends out his angels at his future coming:
“So the slaves of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow fine seed in your field? How, then, does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy, a man, did this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go out and collect them?’ 29 He said, ‘No, for fear that while collecting the weeds, you uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’” (Matthew 13:27-30)
“The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, (Matthew 13:41)
What right does any religious group today have to claim that they can identify and gather together the Christian wheat before the arrival of the master? Since the identity of the modern-day king of the North depends on identifying God’s people how can such an identification be made?
Furthermore, nowhere does Jesus say that at his arrival he would have to save his chosen ones from an attack of an earthly king.
Secondly, the Watchtower society claims Malachi 3:1 finds fulfillment in the 1870’s and the work of C. T. Russell and his Bible study group. But what does the Bible say?
You yourselves bear me witness that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent ahead of that one.’ (John 3:28)
While these were on their way, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed being tossed by the wind? 8 What, then, did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft garments? Why, those wearing soft garments are in the houses of kings. 9 Really, then, why did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I tell you, and far more than a prophet. 10 This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Look! I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way ahead of you!’ 11 Truly I say to you, among those born of women, there has not been raised up anyone greater than John the Baptist, but a lesser person in the Kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it. 13 For all, the Prophets and the Law, prophesied until John; 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is ‘E·liʹjah who is to come.’ 15 Let the one who has ears listen. (Matthew 11:7-15)
This Watchtower article does not state how they arrive at the 1870’s for the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy. Why would C.T. Russell and not Martin Luther or one of the reformers be the one to fulfill this prophecy? Furthermore, Russell believed that Christ’s presence had already begun in 1874 and he was enthroned in heaven in 1878. He did not believe his preaching was to prepare the hearts of people prior to the coming of the king but to alert people that his presence had already begun and to gather the chosen ones before the coming of Armageddon which he believed would occur in 1914.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught that Jesus invisible presence began and the Messianic Kingdom was established in 1914. This is obviously not what Russell taught. We can only conclude that the Watchtower’s application of Daniel chapter 11 to modern-day political powers, such as Germany, the Soviet Union or Russia, is made in order to lay the foundation for their claim of being God’s people that will be protected by Michael during the great tribulation mentioned in the next chapter. (Dan. 12:1)
But here again, Daniel is told by the angel that Michael stands up for his, Daniel’s people, the Jews and that it would be his people, the Jews, those written down in the book that would escape.
This leaves us no option but to conclude that the prophecy was fulfilled with the conclusion of the Jewish system of worship.
Regarding Daniel 12:2 the NET Bible comments:
This verse is the only undisputed reference to a literal resurrection found in the Hebrew Bible.
If taken literally, this could be a reference to the tombs opening as a result of the earthquake at the time of his death. (Matt. 27:52,53) Or perhaps could have reference to a spiritual resurrection as many Jews accepted Christ, thus passing from death to life. (John 5:24; Eph. 2:4-6) Not all that accepted Christ, however, continued faithful. Some forsook Christianity and became apostates. (Phil. 3:18,19; 1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17,18; Acts 20:29,30; 2 Pet. 2:1-22) Thus resulting in their disgrace and everlasting contempt. This could explain why Jesus said the hour is coming, and it is now. The difficulty with this of course is how to understand Daniel’s specific mention of those asleep in the dust of the ground. It is a difficult passage and not all scholars agree on how it is to be interpreted.
Both John and Jesus clearly make application of Malachi 3:1 to the work of John the Baptist in the first century. Nowhere does Jesus indicate that this prophecy would have a greater, secondary fulfillment in the future. In the absence of such an explicit statement along with the fact that Jesus makes no mention of a future attack on an organized group of Christians prior to Armageddon, the rest of the article with its application to political entities in the 20th and 21st century, is nothing more than the opinions of uninspired men aimed at keeping witnesses in a constant state of dependence on any instructions coming from headquarters about an imminent attack. Opinions that have had to be adjusted numerous times since the 1870’s up to and including this very article. Such a track record hardly inspires confidence in the ability of the governing body to interpret correctly God’s prophetic word.
The Watchtower society’s interpretation of the king of the north is the result of the same confirmation bias leading them to conclude that Gog of Magog will attack Jehovah’s Witnesses shortly before Armageddon even though there is no mention of Gog’s attack in Revelation until after the thousand years have ended.
Regarding Daniel 11:40-45 and the king of the North Albert Barnes comments:
Porphyry (see Jerome, in loc.) says that this was so, and that Antiochus actually invaded Egypt in the “eleventh year of his reign,” which was the year before he died; and he maintains, therefore, that all this had a literal application to Antiochus, and that being so literally true, it must have been written after the events had occurred. Unfortunately the fifteen books of Porphyry are lost, and we have only the fragments of his works preserved which are to be found in the Commentary of Jerome on the book of Daniel. The statement of Porphyry, referred to by Jerome, is contrary to the otherwise universal testimony of history about the last days of Antiochus, and there are such improbabilities in the statement as to leave the general impression that Porphyry in this respect falsified history in order to make it appear that this must have been written after the events referred to. If the statement of Porphyry were correct, there would be no difficulty in applying this to Antiochus. The common belief, however, in regard to Antiochus is, that he did not invade Egypt after the series of events referred to above, and after he had been required to retire by the authority of the Roman ambassadors, as stated in the notes at Daniel 11:30.
This belief accords also with all the probabilities of the case. Under these circumstances, many commentators have supposed that this portion of the chapter Daniel 11:40-45 could not refer to Antiochus, and they have applied it to Anti-christ, or to the Roman power. Yet how forced and unnatural such an application must be, anyone can perceive by examining Newton on the Prophecies, pp. 308-315. The obvious, and perhaps it may be added the honest, application of the passage must be to Antiochus. This is that which would occur to any reader of the prophecy; this is what he would obviously hold to be the true application; and this is that only which would occur to anyone, unless it were deemed necessary to bend the prophecy to accommodate it to the history. Honesty and fairness, it seems to me, require that we should understand this as referring to the series of events which had been described in the previous portion of the chapter, and as designed to state the ultimate issue or close of the whole.
…In these verses, therefore Daniel 11:40-45, he sums up what would occur in what he here calls appropriately “the time of the end” – the period when the predicted termination of this series of important events should arrive – to wit, in the brief and eventful reign of Antiochus.