Answer to Objections: Question on Daniel 11

By koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

12 October 2009

Answer to Objections will be a series starting now with Question 1 dealing with nearly 100 questions asked by an Adventist member to this writer.

Question 1 in English  (translated by van wyk)

How does our church deal with Daniel 11? I have never heard a SDA evangelist who tried to explain this chapter. This chapter gives us a very detailed description of the Hellenistic Kingdoms of the Seleucides (Syria) and Ptolemaic Egypt. Even the Romans appear in verse 30 to be against the Little Horn. It makes me confused. We are saying that the Little Horn is derived from Rome? But chapter 11 makes it plain that the Little Horn is the “king of the north”. Who was this “king of the north”? Whoever it is, Daniel makes it VERY clear that he is coming from the company of the 3^RD KINGDOM (the divided Greek/Hellenistic empires). There is NO holes in this chapter and it speaks so clearly as a person CAN read in Afrikaans or English. Must I now ignore it and move on?

Question 1 (original in Afrikaans)

Hoe hanteer ons kerk Daniel 11? Ek het nog nooit ‘n SDA evangelis teegekom wat hierdie hoofstuk probeer uitle nie.  Hierdie hoofstuk gee vir ons ‘n baie gedetailleerde beskrywing van die Hellenistiese koninkryke van die Seleukiede (Sirie)  en Ptolamiese Egipte. Selfs die Romeine verskyn in vers 30 om TEEN die horinkie op te tree. Dit maak my deurmekaar. Ons  se dan die horinkie IS afkomstig van Rome? Maar hoostuk 11 maak dit baie duidelik dat die horinkie die “koning van die  noorde” is. Wie was hierdie “koning van die noorde”? Wie dit ookal mag wees, Daniel 11 maak dit BAIE duidelik dat hy  afkomstig is uit die geledere van die 3DE KONINKRYK (die verdeelde Griekse/Hellenistiese ryke). Daar is GEEN gate in  hierdie hoofstuk nie en dit praat so duidelik as wat ‘n mens KAN in Afrikaans of Engels. Moet ek dit ignoreer en  aanbeweeg?

van wyk notes:

1. Dwight Nelson preached on it last year 2008 and it is available in the archive of Pioneer Memorial Church.

2. The following scholars I have compared on Daniel 11: Uriah Smith (1881); George McGready Price (1955)* very good; C.  Mervin Maxwell (1981); J. Doukhan (2000); G. Pfandl (2004) SS lesson; K. Shin (2004). I noticed recently that also E. De  Kock in his book The Use and Abuse of Prophecy (Edinburg, Texas: Gateway Printers, 2007), 63-66 has also treated the  grey area in all scholars (SDA and non-SDA) interpretation:  11:36-11:45. It is the unfulfilled pericope and may reach until  our present time. De Kock talked about the role of the contemporary.

3. 11:30 does not mention the word "little horn" although Doukhan uses the word in verse 31 (Doukhan 2000: 169) and the  other scholars listed supra as the papacy (Smith 1881: 273), (Price 1955: 302), (Maxwell 1981: 295), (Shin 2004: 137)  but  in G. Pfandl the words "false system of worship" is used (Pfandl 2004: 100). They are all correct and you are also implying  that the Little Horn in active in verse 30. 

4. Where does it say that the king of the north is the Little Horn? There is nothing in Daniel 11:30 mentioning the king o f  the north. My own interpretation is to see verse 30 as the actions of Justinian and his wife Theodora who reigned as two  sick kings (see online the book by their biographer Procopius) and lost the kingdom as described. It is during his time that  the Little Horn was "born" the year Justinian changed his coins from soldier to theologian, namely 538 BCE, the starting  date of the 1260 years. It is in 11:31 that you have the actions for 1260 years [elsewhere in Daniel and also Revelation]  of the abomination of desolation.

5. Sofar the questions were fine, but suddenly the opinion thrown out to the reader here that chapter 11 makes it clear that  the Little Horn is originating from the 3rd Kingdom (the divided Greek/Hellenistic empire) is out of place here. Scholars are  not divided on interpretation of 11:1-30. It is from 36-45 and for some from 40-45 that we have two interpretational options  and methods of interpretation: literal (Smith, van wyk and de Kock[hybrid?]) and allegorical/symbolic/figurative (Price,  Maxwell, Doukhan, Shin, Pfandl).  Porphyry already interpreted it the way your question is addressed and many Catholic  interpreters do it that way, as well as modern Jewish commentators like Slotki. You will do well to look online for the  commentary of Jerome on Daniel in English on this chapter. Porphyry interpreted it as Antiochus Epiphanes but Jerome   demonstrated from historical facts that Porphyry historical interpretation does not correlate with the text of Daniel. In 11:27  Jerome argued with Porphyry to say that the two kings Antiochus IV and Ptolemy did eat at the same table but Jerome said  that " it cannot be proved from this set of facts that the statement of this Scripture was ever fulfilled in past history".  Jerome in the 4th century CE correctly saw it then as unfilfilled. For Jerome the Antichrist is future to his own date in 396  CE. The Jewish view of 396 CE, says Jerome in his commentary, is that 11:30 refers to the Romans but Jerome's view is  that it is still future. Porphyry claimed that it referred to the book of Maccabees detail (1Macc. 1) after the Romans expelled   Antiochus from Egypt when he became angry against the covenant of the sanctuary and was welcomed by those who had  forsaken the law of God and taken part in the religious rites  of the Gentiles. Jerome translated Aquila's Greek (130 CE)  here as "and he shall devise plans to have the compact of the sanctuary abandoned".

Conclusion: If you want to follow the Catholic interpretation of Herculis Pinti (1579: 198b) (also available online) [Catholic  counter-Reformer] who sees it the same as you suggest supra [namely 167 BCE] that is you own choice. That was  Porphyry's view and historicist interpretational scholars could not find satisfaction in that interpretation through the centuries.