Report_on_the_Eleventh_Chapter_of_Daniel_Highlighted_&

THE study group appointed by the Committee on Biblical Study and Research to give study

to Daniel 11 gave careful consideration to a number of manuscripts placed in their hands by

6. Editorials in the Review and Herald of November '29, 1877, and October 3, 1878, by

7. The Eleventh Chapter of Daniel: a Paraphrase and a Partial Interpretation, by Edward

8. A Literal and Historical Application of the Explanation of Daniel Eleven, by William Hyde.

13. The Power That Comes to Its End Without Any Help, by L. L. Caviness.

After a careful study of these manuscripts and a free discussion of the points at issue,

the study group presented to the full committee the following report as their

considered judgment and conclusion pertaining to the problems presented in reference

to the interpretation of Daniel 11, verses 36-45, in its relationship to the historical

I. Daniel 11:1-35. These verses, it was felt, present no great problem. There have been

interpretation of certain verses and the application of some of the prophecies to

past history. However, the committee felt that on the whole there is quite full

agreement among our Bible expositors on this section of the chapter and therefore

II. Daniel 11:36-39. It was recognized by the committee that this passage has

been variously interpreted by our Bible students both in the past and in the

present, and therefore presents a problem that demands careful consideration.

1. The pioneers of this movement were for the first twenty-five or thirty years

of our history unanimous in stating that papal Rome is the power referred to

after a careful study of the literature of the church during this period. (Underscored

William Miller held this view as far back as 1842 (see Evidences From Scripture

and Prophecy, by J. V. Himes, pp. 97, 98). This was the interpretation presented

by James White on many occasions, the first being in A Word to the "Little Flock,"

published in 1847, pages 8, 9. He says: "Michael is to stand up at the time that the

last power in chap. 11, comes to his end, and none to help him. This power is

the last that treads down the true church of God. . . This last power that treads

down the saints is brought to view in Rev. 13:11-18. His number is 666." Later, in

the Review and Herald of November 29, 1877, James White defends this exposition

"Let us take a brief view of the line of prophecy four times spanned in the book of

two, seven, eight, and eleven, with this exception that Babylon is left out of chapters

and eleven, We first pass down the great image of chapter two, where Babylon,

Persia, Greece, and Rome are represented by the gold, the silver, the brass,

and the iron. All agree that these feet are not Turkish but Roman. And as we pass

down, the lion, the bear, the leopard, and the beast with ten horns, representing

the same as the great image, again all will agree that it is not Turkey that is

cast into the burning flame, but. the Roman beast. So of chapter eight, all agree

that the little horn that stood up against the Prince of princes is not Turkey

but Rome. In all these three lines thus far Rome is the last form of government

chapters two, seven, and eight? If so, then the last power mentioned in that

Elder White at the same time advised caution in giving a positive interpretation

of unfulfilled prophecy. He also warns against "removing the landmarks fully

the Papal Seat to Jerusalem?" refers to the Papacy as the power in Daniel 11:45.

He quotes a statement from the Liverpool Mercury in which it is stated that a

certain plan was under way which "points to the realizing of Pio Nono's favorite

plan of removing the seat of the Papacy to Jerusalem." This is commented on by

Uriah Smith as follows: "Is not the above item significant, taken in connection

with Daniel XI, 45?" This statement confirms the fact that there was virtual

unanimity among the leaders of the church with respect to our denominational

teaching; namely, that Rome in its papal form is the power referred to in Daniel

11:36-39, and that papal Rome is also one of the powers referred to in the later

remarkable parallels in treating of Rome. The committee felt that the evidence

presents a literal exposition of the symbolic prophecies of Daniel 2, 7, and 8.

It is generally agreed among Seventh-day Adventist Bible students that the "king"

7:24, 25, and Daniel 8:23-25 refers to the Roman Catholic power, which accurately

fulfills the prophetic symbols. It was the conviction of the committee that where

the "king" is again mentioned in Daniel 11:36 and described in almost identical

language it could not represent a new power like France or Turkey not previously

reasonable and in harmony with the prophetic outline of the rest of the chapter to

conclude that the "king" in these and following verses also refers to papal Rome.

The committee felt that a careful study of Daniel 11:36-39 reveals outstanding

flattery and deceit of this power in its historical activities and its religious

practices. These verses parallel not only the above-mentioned verses in Daniel 7

and 8 but also 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 13:5, 6. It was therefore the

unanimous conclusion of the committee that, both historically and according to a

sound exegesis of the text, Daniel 11:36-39 must refer to the papal power, and

further, that these verses are parallel to Daniel 7:24, 25, and Daniel 8:23-25, which

have always been considered by the Seventh-day Adventist ministry as referring

and others to depart from this historic denominational interpretation, substituting

the history of France during the French Revolution for papal Rome as fulfilling Daniel

11:35, 36, and Turkey as the power in later verses, as well as the results of this

shift of position in our denominational teaching. Some of the causes for the shift

a. The complete loss of temporal power by the Papacy in 1870, resulting in Pius X

proclaiming himself a "prisoner in the Vatican." For example, Uriah Smith states in

the 1873 edition of Thoughts on Daniel in referring to the events of 1870, which he

believed knocked "the last prop from under the papacy": "Victor Emmanuel, seizing

his opportunity to carry out the long-cherished dream of a United Italy, seized Rome t

o make it the capital of his kingdom. To his troops, under General Cadorna, Rome

surrendered, September 20, 1870. Then the last vestige of temporal power departed,

nevermore, said Victor Emmanuel, to be restored; and the Pope has been virtually

a prisoner in his own palace since that time. . . . The last vestige of temporal power

b. The conviction expressed in the secular and religious press that the Papacy had fallen

to rise no more. This led Uriah Smith to state in the 1888 edition of Thoughts on Daniel:

"The attempt which some make to bring in the Papacy here (that is, in Daniel

11:36-45) is so evidently wide of the mark that its consideration need not detain us."

c, The bringing of France, Turkey, and Egypt into the interpretation of these verses, and

those following, seemed to bring a series of current events into the fulfillment of

the prophecy, which to those who advocated it gave "great confirmation of faith in

new theories, Review and Herald, November 29, 1877.) [Oddly, Uriah Smith and

d. Russian armies seemed about ready to close in on Constantinople, and the world

press was full of declarations that the "sick man of the East" would soon be expelled

from Europe. Uriah Smith, it seems, reflected the popular Protestant and secular

viewpoint as he wrote under the title, "Turkish Empire's Downfall," and similar

e. Earlier Protestant commentators, such as Bishop Newton, Adam Clarke, and others,

had generally held that the Ottoman Empire was one of the powers designated in

Daniel 11:40-45, and events in the decade from 1870 to 1880 seemed undeniably to

substantiate this line of reasoning, with current history pointing in the same

direction. [d. and e. should be a warning against following prevailing human opinions

f. Uriah Smith was evidently not in agreement with James White, who gave definite

warnings that the positions being taken on the Eastern question were based on

prophecies that had not yet met their fulfillment. White said, "But what will be the

result of the positiveness in unfulfilled prophecies should things not come as very

confidently expected, is an anxious question." (Emphasis his.) James White in Review

and Herald, Nov. 29, 1877.) He then proceeded to point out the parallel between Daniel

11 and the prophecies of Daniel in earlier chapters that were to him convincing proof

"that the last power mentioned in that chapter is Rome." (Underscored emphasis added.)

"And there is a line of historic prophecy in chapter eleven, where the symbols are

thrown off, beginning with the kings of Persia, and reaching down past Grecia and

Rome, to the time when that power 'shall come to his end, and none shall help him,

' If the feet and ten toes of the metallic image are Roman, if the beast with ten horns

that was given to the burning flames of the great day be the Roman beast, if the

little horn which stood up against the Prince of princes be Rome, and if the

same field and distance are covered by these four prophetic chains, then the last

power of the eleventh chapter, which is to 'come to his end and none shall help

him,' is Rome. But if this be Turkey, as some teach, then the toes of the image of the

represents Turkey, and it was Turkey that stood up against the Prince of princes

of the eighth chapter of Daniel. True, Turkey is bad enough off; but its waning

power and its end is the subject of the prophecy of John and not of Daniel." — Review

The committee therefore concluded that the change from the earlier views held by

the denomination came about largely under the direction of Uriah Smith. In light of

current political developments of the time, together with the apparent recession

of the Papacy into a position of nonpotency in the political and religious world,

This view, as taught by Uriah Smith, was published in our periodicals and more

permanently in the book Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, written by Smith

about this time. This book had a wide circulation and was a large factor in bringing

possibly thousands into the truth. Its interpretation of the prophecies was very

therefore, to a large majority of our ministers and laymen the accepted interpretation

of all the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. During the years it came to be looked

upon as our official denominational teaching. The fact that it differed in some respects

Not until the events so confidently predicted did not materialize, and the Papacy, i

nstead of having "fallen to rise no more," again became a decisive influence in

international affairs with a resumption of temporal power in 1929, did our Bible

students undertake a re-examination of our denominational interpretation of these

Our earlier teaching was then rediscovered, together with the explicit warnings

given by Elder White and others concerning the newer views advocated by Elder

Smith. These findings, with the realization that current historical events had failed

to develop along the lines expected, convinced many of our ministers and Bible

teachers that those texts demanded a careful restudy. This study has resulted in

again placing the Papacy rather than France as the power referred to in verses

36-39, by many of our Bible students. That this is the correct and historical

conviction of the committee, who were in complete agreement in this conclusion.

The difference of opinion among Seventh-day Adventists begins with the 36th verse,

with the introduction of "the king" who "shall do according to his will" and "shall

In deciding who this "king" represents, it is well to remember that in verses 33-35

there is a slight break in the sequence of thought, where the faithfulness of the

honest of heart, and their sufferings, and the brief respite brought to them are described.

its relationship to the "holy covenant," "the daily," and "the abomination that

together with the Reformation, are presented. "The people" that "instruct many" are

verse, but is implicit in the troubled experience of the faithful. When is this

persecuting power again referred to? It is "the king" of verse 36. It must be noted that

the reading "the king" is found in the accepted Hebrew text, and translated thus in

the King James Version and nearly all standard versions of the Scripture. After

carefully weighing translations of the Hebrew on this question, we feel that the

weight of evidence is on the side of the generally accepted rendering, "the king.”

It helps in the identification of this "king" to notice that the power introduced

as Rome is usually spoken of as "he" or "him," but in verse 21 it is called a

"kingdom," and in verse 27 the "he" and his opponent in the battle are spoken of as

"both these kings." When, therefore, the prophet again refers to "the king" in verse

36, it is most reasonable to apply the text to the king already mentioned. In verse 36,

translations, "the king" is again presented and his activities further explained.

It would, therefore, seem to be but reasonable to conclude that the power here set

4. This is further emphasized by the fact that verses 36-39 so nearly parallel other

Daniel 11:36

"The king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god."

Daniel. 8:23

"A king of fierce countenance and

understanding dark sentences shall stand up.”

Daniel 8:11. "Yea, he magnified himself even

to the prince of the host."

2 Thess. 2:4, "Who opposeth and exalteth

himself above all that is called God."

Daniel 11:36

"He shall . . . speak marvellous things against the God of gods."

Daniel 7:25

"He shall speak great words against the most

High."

Daniel 7:11. "Because of the voice of the

great words which the horn spake."

2 Thess. 2:4. ""Shewing himself that he is God."

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.""

Daniel 11:36

"He . . . shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done."

Daniel 11 :35

"Even to the time of the end: because it is yet

for a time appointed."

Daniel 7:25. "They shall be given into his hand

until a time and times and the dividing of time."

Rev. 13:5. "Power was given unto him to

continue forty and two months.””

Daniel 11:37

Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, . . . nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

2 Thess. 2:4

"So that he as God sitteth in the temple

of God, shewing himself that he is God."

Daniel 7:25

"He shall .. . think to change times and laws

[of God]."

Verse 38: "But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall

he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things."

The translation here seems to be obscure and in the King James Version there are three marginal

readings indicating the lack of agreement on the part of the translators as to its correct rendering.

The first marginal reading indicates that this power would, while seated in "his," or God's, seat,

"honour the God of forces." The word "forces" is again obscure. One marginal reading gives

"munitions," another "Gods protectors." Some translators do not translate the word but retain the

original Mauzzim in the text. This word implies "protection," or a "protector," as used in Psalms

27:1; 28:8; and 31:5. Claiming therefore to be God, or at least from God's "seat," he points to a "god

whom his fathers knew not" for protection and help. Surely the prayers directed to the saints of

the church and to the virgin Mary would accurately fulfill this verse. Also the gifts of "gold,

and silver, with precious stones, and pleasant things" point directly to the priceless gifts that

the church has bestowed upon the images of the saints. Here the Hebrew word "Namadeth,"

used also in Isaiah 44:9, signifies the costly ornaments wherewith the heathen decked their images.

been fulfilled thousands of times in Catholic churches where images of the virgin Mary and of the

saints have been decked with gifts of untold value and robed in priceless garments woven

Verse 39: "Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall

acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide

Again the translation is obscure. William Lowth would translate this verse, "And he shall make

the strongholds of the Mauzzims jointly with the strange (or foreign) god." In other words, in

the temples and religious places he shall mingle with these "protectors" or saints, the worship of

"a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory." The exaltation of the pope

as God and his power to "rule over many" is evidently here foretold. Furthermore, he "shall

divide the land for gain," or "distribute the earth for a reward." The pope's assignment of whole

provinces and kingdoms to certain princes, and his granting of the whole overseas world to the

Spanish and Portuguese crowns, certainly accurately fulfills this verse. Also his assignment

of titles and honors and benefices as a reward to kings or princes for their support and protection

Therefore, from the foregoing, we conclude that verses 36-39 of Daniel 11 accurately set forth

in prophetic language the work and history of papal Rome, which we believe has specifically

fulfilled these predictions in the theological claims of the Papacy and in its history as a church.

In the exegesis of the 36th verse, to name France, which is only one of the ten tribes, and not

strikingly influential in spiritual matters, either pro or contra, is to strain more than one point.

Everything that can be said about France here can be said with equal accuracy about Russia.

But neither can be introduced with propriety, for to do so breaks the continuity of thought in

But to apply the prophecy in verses 36-39 to the Papacy is to continue the thought logically and

also to retain the parallel with chapters 7 and 8. The terms of verses 31-39 fit the Papacy better

III. Daniel 11:40-45. The committee spent considerable time and study in a consideration of these

verses. It was agreed that in light of the foregoing conclusions this passage must largely be

It was the considered opinion of the committee that the expression in verse 40, "at the time of the

end," need not refer to a specific date at the beginning of "the time of the end," but could refer with

equal accuracy to any time in or during "the time of the end." Therefore, we need not necessarily

look for the fulfillment of verse 40 and following texts in 1798, but rather to events subsequent

to the beginning of "the time of the end," and yet prior to the close of probation or the standing

The committee were not fully agreed as to the interpretation of the "king of the south" and the

"king of the north" in these verses. It was agreed, however, since all through the eleventh chapter

of Daniel these terms apply to powers geographically located in the eastern Mediterranean, that

the powers indicated here as "king of the north" and "king of the south" must play their part in the

final history within this area. However, the committee agreed it would not be advisable to

attempt to identify these powers too specifically as yet. They would not, however, limit the application

of these terms to Egypt and Turkey. Without doubt the Papacy, if it is the power of Daniel 11:36-39,

must also play a part in the historical fulfillment of these verses, for the pronoun "him" in verse

40 must refer to the power brought to view in verses 36-39. [Clearly Egypt comes into the picture as

the King of the South (the Ptolemaic Empire;) so we should think of the King of the North in

terms of the vast area encompassed by the Seleucid Empire – from Turkey all the way to

Afghanistan and Iran, and of course including Syria.] (Underscored emphasis added.)

With the rapidly changing situation in current world history; with the developing power of

Russia lying to the north, which evidently has national ambitions in the Middle East; with the

determination of the Western powers to restrain the power and growth of Russia; and with the vital

and strategic position of the Papacy in the conflict looming up between the two opposing ideologies,

one of which is the avowed enemy of the Catholic Church, whereas the other recognizes the

Papacy as the greatest spiritual force in the world, it seemed to the committee that these verses need

to be studied in the light of present-day developments and may rightly refer to a larger and more

extensive conflict than a local contest between Egypt and Turkey. [Note that this was written in

1954. World conditions and the power equation have changed since then. Quite apart from that, a

reading of verses 40-44 clearly reveals that the King of the North and the King of the South are not

portrayed as in conflict with each other. They are in conflict with the King, who has been identified

as the papacy by the Report’s irrefutable exegesis of verses 36-39., and its explicit statement that:

"the pronoun "him" in verse 40 must refer to the power brought to view in verses 36-39." It follows

that the “he” and "him" of verse 45 is the same King. This was also James White’s position as stated

earlier in the Report. His position was demonstrably supported by sound exegetical reasoning.

Furthermore, even to the theologically untrained layperson it should be clear that the text flows

logically from verses 40-44 into verse 45. Fulfillment of verses 40-44 remains very obscure, and

There may be here in this passage also a parallel with Daniel 7:26, "And they shall take away his

dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end." Some members of the committee felt

that Revelation 17 and 18 should also be studied in relation to the final events of Daniel 11.

Inasmuch as it is the definite conviction of the committee on Daniel 11 that this portion of the

prophecy refers to events that are largely in the future, we conclude it would be the better part

of wisdom not to make any definite pronouncement at this time as to the exact ap‑

plication of Daniel 11:40-45.¹ The purpose of prophecy is not that one should outline the details

of world events for the future, but as the Saviour said, "that, when it is come to pass, ye might

believe" (John 14:29). It is our opinion that the counsel given by Elder James White in 1877

concerning these very texts might well be recognized as still applicable. He said:

"Fulfilled prophecy may be understood by the Bible student. Prophecy is history in advance. He

can compare history with prophecy and find a complete fit as the glove to the hand, it having

been made for it. But in exposition of unfulfilled prophecy, where the history is not written, the

student should put forth his propositions with not too much positiveness, lest he find himself

straying in the field of fancy. . . . Positions taken upon the Eastern question are based upon

prophecies which have not yet their fulfillment. Here we should tread lightly, and take positions

carefully, lest we be found removing the landmarks fully established in the advent movement."

This has been well stated by Sir Isaac Newton, who was a devout student of the prophecies of

Daniel and the Revelation. He said that "the folly of interpreters has been, to foretell times

and things by this prophecy (the Revelation), as if God designed to make them prophets. By

this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the prophecy also into

contempt."—Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John, p. 251.

The committee, therefore, feels that where the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy are both silent

as to the details of future events, we should exercise extreme care in setting forth

dogmatically the course of human history, lest we assume the role of prophets ourselves, by

attempting to dogmatize on the exact outcome of international events that still lie in the future.

Therefore we conclude that it would be well to hold in abeyance any positive interpretation of

Daniel 11:40-45 until the events foretold can be clearly seen and identified as the fulfillment of

the prophecy. Then we can with assurance and without embarrassment proclaim these events

as signs of the approaching standing up of Michael and the coming of the Lord as presented in

Even in 1954 The Biblical Research Institute was unduly cautious in commenting on Daniel

11:40-45. While “how” verses 40-44 can come to pass was, and still is, obscure, the Institute’s

study itself identifies the parties. There can be no doubt that “the” King is the papacy. The

King of the North and the King of the South are clearly to be found in the territories of the

former Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires. Furthermore, it was, and is, obvious that “he” in