King of the North

King of the North

Copyright © 2013 Jonathan Mukwiri  | 

The “Eastern Question” (4T 279.1) as to who is the King of the North in Daniel 11:40-45 was settled by one of our Seventh-day Adventist pioneers, Uriah Smith (1832-1903), in his much-used and fruitful book called "Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation" also called “Daniel and the Revelation” (Battle Creek, Mtch.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1882; a digital copy is available at California University Library archives at, the book the prophetess Ellen G White said contains “solid, eternal truth for this time” (EGW, 1MR 61.2)

Since the death of our Seventh-day Adventist pioneers, new Adventist theologians have rejected the old view taught in Smith’s 1882 book that the King of the North is Turkey and have held that the King of the North is the Papacy.  The danger of rejecting the old view found in Smith’s 1882 book the testimony of the Spirit of God said contains “solid, eternal truth for this time” (1MR 61.2) is “to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God” and “to unsettle the confidence of God’s remnant people in the true testimony” (Ellen G White, LDE 177.5).

Could it be that, as Seventh-day Adventists, we have repeated the history of ancient Israel recorded in Jeremiah 6:16-17, by refusing to walk in the old paths of prophetic interpretation that the King of the North is Turkey and are refusing to hearken to the trumpet of Ellen White instructing us to read Uriah Smith’s 1882 book?  “Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.  But they said, We will not walk therein.  Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet.  But they said, We will not hearken” (Jeremiah 6:16-17).

The role the Papacy has of persecuting God’s people as given in Revelation 13 and 17 must not be confused with the role Turkey the King of the North has of signaling to the world what next event follows.  “And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain …” (Dan 11:45).  “This movement on the part of Turkey is the signal for the standing up of Michael; that is, it marks this event as next in order” (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, p. 389).  Turkey the King of the North moves during the sealing of saints of God in Ezekiel 9:4 and Revelation 7:1-4.  “The sealing angel goes through Jerusalem (the church) to place the seal of the living God on the foreheads of the faithful, and while this work goes forward, Turkey stands as a national guidepost to the world, that men may know what is going on in the sanctuary above” (Stephen Haskell, The Story of Daniel the Prophet, 1901, p. 248.1).

In Daniel 11:45, the King of the North “come to his end, and none shall help him.”  But the Papacy cannot be the King of the North who “shall come to his end” before the events of Daniel 12:1 of when “Michael stand up” and of the “time of trouble,” for the Papacy will still be around persecuting the people of God even when “Michael stand up” and through the “time of trouble” and when Christ returns it is the Papacy “whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming” (2 Thessalonians 2:8).


Read Daniel and the Revelation 1882

The view taken in this booklet that the King of the North in Daniel 11:40-45 is Turkey, is derived from the book by Uriah Smith, "Daniel and the Revelation" (Battle Creek, Mtch.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1882) that contains “solid, eternal truth for this time” (1MR 61.2).  Seventh-day Adventists need not err in this teaching if they were to heed the Spirit of Prophecy and read Smith’s 1882 book, for the prophetess Ellen G White specifically tells them:

“Those who are preparing to enter the ministry, who desire to become successful students of the prophecies, will find Daniel and the Revelation an invaluable help. They need to understand this book. It speaks of past, present, and future, laying out the path so plainly that none need err therein. Those who will diligently study this book will have no relish for the cheap sentiments presented by those who have a burning desire to get out something new and strange to present to the flock of God. The rebuke of God is upon all such teachers. They need that one teach them what is meant by godliness and truth. The great, essential questions which God would have presented to the people are found in Daniel and the Revelation. There is found solid, eternal truth for this time. Everyone needs the light and information it contains” (Ellen G White, 1MR 61.2).

“God desires the light found in the books of Daniel and Revelation to be presented in clear lines. It is painful to think of the many cheap theories picked up and presented to the people by ignorant, unprepared teachers. Those who present their human tests and the nonsensical ideas they have concocted in their own minds, show the character of the goods in their treasure house. They have laid in store shoddy material. Their great desire is to make a sensation” (Ellen G White, 1MR 62.3).

“The truth for this time has been brought out in many books. Let those who have been dealing in cheap sentiments and foolish tests, cease this work and study Daniel and the Revelation. They will then have something to talk about that will help the mind. As they receive the knowledge contained in this book, they will have in the treasure house of the mind a store from which they can continually draw as they communicate to others the great, essential truths of God’s Word” (Ellen G White, 1MR 62.4).

“The interest in Daniel and the Revelation is to continue as long as probationary time shall last. God used the author [Uriah Smith] of this book as a channel through which to communicate light to direct minds to the truth. Shall we not appreciate this light, which points us to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, our King?” (Ellen G White, 1MR 63.1).

“This book has been the means of bringing many precious souls to a knowledge of the truth. Everything that can be done should be done to circulate Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation. I know of no other book that can take the place of this one. It is God’s helping hand” (Ellen G White, 21MR, 444.3).

“The light given was that Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, The Great Controversy, and Patriarchs and Prophets, would make their way. They contain the very message the people must have, the special light God had given His people.  The angels of God would prepare the way for these books in the hearts of the people’ (Ellen G White, CM 123.3).

Ellen White did not only promote and endorse Uriah Smith’s book that teaches that the King of the North is Turkey, but also rebuked her husband James White who dared to oppose Smith’s teaching.  Whilst Ellen White did not categorically say James was wrong to advocate a contrary view on who is the King of the North, we find no similar rebuke to Uriah Smith in regard to the view he held that the King of the North is Turkey.  We are told of what happened:

“One of the testimonies to individuals, delivered most likely only in oral form, was addressed to James White – a reproof for his course of action just before the combined camp meeting and General Conference session. He and Uriah Smith held conflicting views on the prophecy of the “king of the North” pictured in Daniel 11, and the power presented in verse 45 that would come to his end with none to help him. White, in his Sabbath morning address September 28 in the newly pitched camp-meeting tent, countered Smith’s interpretations. He felt that Smith’s approach, indicating that the world was on the verge of Armageddon, would threaten the strong financial support needed for the rapidly expanding work of the church” (3BIO 96.4, 1878).

Beware of the 1944 edition!  When the first time in 1910 AG Daniells wanted to change Smith’s book, EG White objected: “I have been instructed that the Lord is not the author of the proposal to make many changes in books already published ... Satan would be busy at work implanting seeds of distrust and unbelief, and it would require much labor to remedy the evil that would be wrought” (Letter 70, 1910).  Be sure to read the 1882 edition that was published in Smith’s lifetime, for neither Uriah Smith (1832-1903) nor Ellen White (1827-1915) approved or endorsed, respectively, the changes made in the 1944 edition.

Besides Uriah Smith writing about the King of the North, he publicly taught the topic, as the “Eastern Question,” at the Camp Meeting, and Ellen White attended that Camp Meeting, and wrote: “Sunday morning the weather was still cloudy; but before it was time for the people to assemble, the sun shone forth.  Boats and trains poured their living freight upon the ground in thousands.  Elder Smith spoke in the morning upon the Eastern Question.  The subject was of special interest, and the people listened with the most earnest attention” (Ellen G White, 4T 279.1).

You may ask: Do I have to believe Uriah Smith?  Cannot God give me special light?  This is what the prophetess said: “The very same Satan is at work to undermine the faith of the people of God at this time. There are persons ready to catch up every new idea. The prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation are misinterpreted. These persons do not consider that the truth has been set forth at the appointed time by the very men whom God was leading to do this special work. These men followed on step by step in the very fulfillment of prophecy, and those who have not had a personal experience in this work, are to take the Word of God and believe on ‘their word’ who have been led by the Lord in the proclamation of the first, second, and third angels' messages” (Ellen G White, 2SM 111.2).  That is an indictment to human pride!  If you humble yourself, read the words of pioneers like Uriah Smith and believe “their word.”


Push at him and come against him

Daniel 11:40:  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.

“This application of the prophecy calls for a conflict to spring up between Egypt [king of the south] and France [him], and Turkey [king of the north] and France, in 1798; which year [was] the commencement 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?” (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, pp. 364-365).  It is a fact as history tells us!

“The downfall of the papacy, which marked the termination of the 1260 years, and, according to verse 35, showed the commencement of the time of the end, transpired on the 10th of February, 1798, when Rome fell into the hands of Berthier, the general of the French. On the 5th of March following, Bonaparte received the decree of the Directory relative to the expedition against Egypt.

“May 3, he left Paris, and set sail from Toulon the 19th, with a large naval armament, consisting of 500 sail, carrying 40,000 soldiers and 10,000 sailors. July 5, Alexandria was taken, and immediately fortified. On the 23d, the decisive battle of the pyramids was fought, in which the Mamelukes contested the field with valor and desperation, but were no match for the disciplined legions of the French. Murad Bey lost all his cannon, 400 camels, and 3000 men. The loss of the French was comparatively slight” (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, p. 366).

“On the 24th, Bonaparte entered Cairo, the capital of Egypt, and only waited the subsidence of the floods of the Nile, to pursue Murad Bey to Upper Egypt whither he had retired with his shattered cavalry, and so make a conquest of the whole country. Thus the king of the south was able to make but a feeble resistance.

“At this juncture, however, the situation of Napoleon began to grow precarious. The French fleet, which was his only channel of communication with France, was destroyed by the English under Nelson at Aboukir; and on September 2, of this same year, 1798, the Sultan of Turkey, under feelings of jealousy against France, artfully fostered by the English ambassadors at Constantinople, and exasperated that Egypt, so long a semi-dependency of the Ottoman Empire, should be transformed into a French province, declared war against France.  Thus the king of the north [Turkey] came against him [France] in the same year that the king of the south [Egypt] ‘pushed,’ and both ‘at the time of the end;’ which is another conclusive proof that the year 1798 is the year which begins that period.

“Was the coming of the king of the north, or Turkey, like the whirlwind in comparison with the pushing of Egypt? Napoleon had crushed the armies of Egypt; he essayed to do the same thing with the armies of the Sultan, who were menacing an attack from the side of Asia. Feb. 27, 1799, with 18,000 men, he commenced his march from Cairo to Syria. He first took the fort of El-Arish, in the desert, then Jaffa (the Joppa of the Bible), conquered the inhabitants of Naplous at Zeta, and was again victorious at Jafet” (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, p. 367).

“Meanwhile a strong body of Turks had intrenched themselves at St. Jean d'Acre, while swarms of Mussulmans gathered in the mountains of Samaria, ready to swoop down upon the French when they should besiege Acre.

“Sir Sidney Smith at the same time appeared before St. Jean d'Acre with two English ships, reinforced the Turkish garrison of that place, and captured the apparatus for the siege, which Napoleon had sent round by sea from Alexandria. A Turkish fleet soon appeared in the offing, which, with the Russian and English vessels then co-operating with them, constituted the ‘many ships’ of the king of the north.

“On the 18th of March the siege commenced.  Napoleon was twice called away to save some French divisions from falling into the hand of the Mussulman hordes that filled the country.  Twice also a breach was made in the wall of the city; but the assailants were met with such fury by the garrison, that they were obliged, despite their best efforts, to give over the struggle. After a continuance of sixty days, Napoleon raised the siege, sounded, for the first time in his career, the note of retreat, and on the 21st of May, 1799, commenced to retrace his steps to Egypt.

“‘And he shall overflow and pass over.’  We have found events which furnish a very striking fulfillment of the pushing of the king of the south, and the whirlwind onset of the king of the north, against the French power. Thus far there is quite a general agreement in the application of the prophecy” (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, p. 368).

“The collision between this power and the French we have already noticed. The king of the north with the aid of his allies, gained the day in this contest; and the French, foiled in their efforts, were driven back into Egypt. Now it would seem to be the more natural application to refer the ‘overflowing and passing over’ to that power which emerged in triumph from that struggle; and that power was Turkey” (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, p. 370).


But these shall escape

Daniel 11:41: He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

“Abandoning a campaign in which one third of the army had fallen victims to war and the plague, the French retired from St. Jean d'Acre, and after a fatiguing march of twenty-six days, re-entered Cairo in Egypt. They thus abandoned all the conquests they had made in Judea; and the ‘glorious land,’ Palestine, with all its provinces, here called ‘countries,’ fell back again under the oppressive rule of the Turk. Edom, Moab, and Ammon, lying outside the limits of Palestine, south and east of the Dead Sea and Jordan, were out of the line of March of the Turks from Syria to Egypt, and so escaped the ravages of that campaign” (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, p. 371).


Egypt shall not escape

Daniel 11:42: He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries; and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

“On the retreat of the French to Egypt, a Turkish fleet landed 18,000 men at Aboukir.  Napoleon immediately attacked the place, completely routing the Turks, and re-establishing his authority in Egypt. But at this point, severe reverses to the French arms in Europe called Napoleon home to look after the interests of his own country. The command of the troops in Egypt was left with Gen. Kleber, who, after a period of untiring activity for the benefit of the army, was murdered by a Turk in Cairo, and the command was left with Abdallah Menou.  With an army which could not be recruited, every loss was serious.

“Meantime, the English government, as the ally of the Turks, had resolved to wrest Egypt from the French. March 13, 1800, an English fleet disembarked a body of troops at Aboukir. The French gave battle the next day, but were forced to retire.  On the 18th, Aboukir surrendered. On the 28th, reinforcements were brought by a Turkish fleet, and the grand vizier approached from Syria with a large army.

“The 19th, E/osetta surrendered to the combined forces of the English and Turks. At Ramanieh, a French corps of 4000 men was defeated by 8000 English and 6000 Turks. At Elmenayer, 5000 French were obliged to retreat, May 16, by the vizier who was pressing forward to Cairo with 20,000 men. The whole French army was now shut up in Cairo and Alexandria. Cairo capitulated June 27, and Alexandria, Sept. 2. Four weeks after, Oct. 1, 1801, the preliminaries of peace were signed at London” (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, p. 372).

“‘Egypt shall not escape,’ were the words of the prophecy. This language seems to imply that Egypt would be brought into subjection to some power from whose dominion it would desire to be released.

“As between the French and Turks, how did this question stand with the Egyptians? They preferred French rule. In RR Madden’s travels in Egypt, Nubia, Turkey, and Palestine, in the years 1824-27, published in London in 1829, it is stated that the French were much regretted by the Egyptians, and extolled as benefactors; that ‘for the short period they remained, they left traces of amelioration,’ and that, if they could have established their power, Egypt would now be comparatively civilized. In view of this testimony the language would not be appropriate if applied to the French; for the Egyptians did not desire to escape out of their hands. They did desire to escape from the hands of the Turks, but could not” (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, p. 373).


Power over the treasures

Daniel 11:43: But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

“In illustration of this verse we quote the following from ‘Historic Echoes of the voice of God,’ p. 49:

“‘History gives the following facts: When the French were driven out of Egypt, and the Turks took possession, the Sultan permitted the Egyptians to reorganize their government as it was before the French invasion. He asked of the Egyptians neither soldiers, guns, nor fortifications, but left them to manage their own affairs independently, with the important exception of putting the nation under tribute to himself. In the articles of agreement between the Sultan and the Pasha of Egypt, it was stipulated that the Egyptians should pay annually to the Turkish government a certain amount of gold and silver, and ‘six hundred thousand measures of corn, and four hundred thousand of barley’” (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, 373).

History also shows that, in those years of the Ottoman Empire, the Libyans and the Ethiopians, the unconquered Arabs, who by then sought the friendship of the Turks, became tributary to the Turks (see Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, p. 374).


Forth with great fury to destroy

Daniel 11:44: But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him; therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

We are here brought to Crimean war of 1853 to 1856.  The powers involved were the Persians on the east, and the Russians on the north, which troubled the Ottoman government.

“The Persians on the east and the Russians on the north, were the ones which instigated that conflict. Tidings from these powers troubled him [Turkey]. Their attitude and movements incited the Sultan to anger and revenge. Russia being the more aggressive party was the object of attack. Turkey declared war on her powerful northern neighbor in 1853” (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, p. 374).

“The world looked on in amazement to see a government which had long been called ‘the Sick Man of the East,’ a government whose army was dispirited and demoralized, whose treasuries were empty, whose rulers were vile and imbecile, and whose subjects were rebellious, and threatening secession, rush with such impetuosity into the conflict.

“The prophecy said that they should go forth with ‘great fury’; and when they thus went forth, the profane vernacular of an American writer described them as fighting ‘like devils.’ England and France, it is true, soon came to the help of Turkey; but she went forth in the manner described, and, as is reported, gained victory after victory, before receiving the assistance of these powers” (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, p. 375).


Plant the tabernacles of his palace

Daniel 11:45: And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

“We have now traced the prophecy of the 11th of Daniel down, step by step, and have thus far found events to fulfill all its predictions. It has all been wrought out into history except this last verse. The predictions of the preceding verse having been fulfilled within the memory of the generation now living, we are carried by this one past our own day into the future; for no power has yet performed the acts here described” (Uriah Smith, p. 375).

“But it is to be fulfilled; and its fulfillment must be accomplished by that power which has been continuously the subject of the prophecy from the 40th verse, down to this 45th verse. If the application to which we have given the preference, in passing over these verses, is correct, we must look to Turkey to make the move here indicated.

“And mark, also, how applicable the language to that power: ‘He shall come to his end, and none shall help him.’  This plainly implies that this power has previously received help. And what are the facts? In the war against France in 1798-1801, in the war between Turkey and Egypt in 1838-1840, in the Crimean war in 1853-6, and in the late Russo-Turkish war, Turkey received the assistance of other powers, without which she would probably have failed to maintain her position” (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, p. 376).

“And it is a notorious fact that since the fall of the Ottoman supremacy in 1840, that empire has existed only through the sufferance of the great powers of Europe. Without their pledged support, she would not be long able to maintain even a nominal existence, and when that is withdrawn, she must come to the ground. So the prophecy says the king comes to his end, and none help him, and he comes to his end, as we may naturally infer, because none help him; because the support previously rendered is withdrawn” (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, p. 377).

History shows that gradually the Turks territory diminished. Romania, Serbia, Bosnia, and Albania, gradually, got set up as independent sovereignties.  The allies of the Turks also weakened: France was crushed by Prussia, England was in an embarrassed condition financially, Austria had not recovered from the blow she received in her late war with Prussia, and Italy was busy with the matter of making Rome the capital of the nation (see Smith, 1882, p. 378).

“But none of these powers, nor any others who would be likely to assist Turkey, were in any condition to do so, owing principally to the sudden and unexpected humiliation of the French nation.

“Russia then saw that her opportunity had come.  She accordingly startled all the powers of Europe in the fall of the same memorable year, 1870, by stepping forth and deliberately announcing that she designed to regard no longer the stipulations of the treaty of 1856. This treaty, concluded at the termination of the Crimean war, restricted the warlike operations of Russia in the Black Sea” (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, p. 379).

“When Russia in 1870 announced her intention to disregard the treaty of 1856, the other powers, though incapable of doing anything, nevertheless, as was becoming their ideas of their own importance, made quite a show of offended dignity. A congress of nations was demanded, and the demand was granted. The congress was held, and proved, as everybody expected it would prove, simply a farce, so far as restraining Russia was concerned (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, p. 383).

“Thus all evidence goes to show that the Turk must soon leave Europe. Where will he then plant the tabernacles of his palace? In Jerusalem? That certainly is the most probable point. Newton on the Prophecies, p. 318, says: ‘Between the seas in the glorious holy mountain, must denote, as we have shown, some part of the Holy Land. There the Turk shall encamp with all his power, yet ‘he shall come to his end, and none shall help him’ shall help him effectually, or deliver him’” (Uriah Smith, 1882 edition, p. 388).

“No man knows when Turkey will take its departure from Europe, but when that move is made, earth’s history will be short. Then it will be said, ‘He that is unjust let him be unjust still, ...and he that is righteous let him be righteous still.’ To-day is ‘the day of preparation.’ The fate of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome is recorded for the edification [Margin] of the nations of to-day, and the lessons taught by all center in the events just before us. While the world watches Turkey, let the servant of God watch the movements of his great High Priest, whose ministry for sin is almost over” (Stephen Haskell, The Story of Daniel the Prophet, 1901, p. 248.2).


Papacy not the King of the North

Many misapply Daniel 11:36-39 to the Papacy, yet the power therein is not even the King of the North, but France.  History testify, as fully quoted in Smith’s 1882 book pages 353-362 that the power in Daniel 11:36-39 was France and not the Papacy.  Take a declaration “nor regard any god” in verse 37, this has never been true of the papacy.  God and Christ, though often placed in a false position, have never been set aside and rejected by the Papacy.

In 1793 France discarded the Bible, and denied the existence of God. The churches were closed. The Bible was publicly burned. And “the desire of women” in verse 37 was lost when marriage was declared a civil contract of a transitional character, binding only during the pleasure of the contracting parties, which contract any two persons might engage in, and cast loose at pleasure when their taste was changed or their appetite gratified.

In 1794 the worship of the Goddess of Reason was introduced. The system of paganism which had been introduced into France, as exemplified in the worship of the idol set up in the person of the Goddess of Reason, and regulated by a heathen ritual which had been enacted by the National Assembly for the use of the French people continued in force till the appointment of Napoleon to the provisional consulate of France in 1799. The adherents of this strange religion occupied the fortified places, the strongholds of the nation, as expressed in verse 39. As the government became in need of funds, France sought to “divide the land for gain” as in verse 39 – nobility that owned large undivided estates of land were abolished, and their lands disposed of in small parcels for the benefit of the public exchequer.  Thus Dan 11:36-39 is France.

That Turkey is and the Papacy cannot be the King of the North is proven beyond doubt by Daniel 11:45 when “he shall come to his end, and none shall help him” before the events in Daniel 12:1 of when “Michael stand up” and the “time of trouble” ensues.  To teach that the Papacy is the power that “shall come to his end” before “Michael stand up” and before the “time of trouble” would disarrange the prophecies of Revelation 13 and 17 concerning the Papacy persecuting the people of God until Christ returns, and would make Paul a liar to assert that the Papacy is “whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming” (2 Thessalonians 2:8).

The Papacy does not come to his end; he is brought to an end by “the brightness” of Christ that destroys him.  The King of the North comes to his end and does not play any further role when Michael stands up.  The Papacy plays the role of persecuting God’s people when Michael stands up.  It is not the standing up of Michael that causes the King of the North in Daniel 11:45 to “come to his end”, but rather his coming to his end is a signal that the next event is the standing up of Michael and the time of trouble.

The use of the negative imperative “none shall” in Daniel 11:45 is really another way of saying “none would” as in “none would help him.”  The use of the negative “none” in connection with a positive expression “shall” indicates that someone was able to “help him” but would not to do so.  This expression, therefore, cannot be a reference to the Papacy coming to its end when “Michael shall stand up” because when Michael stands up no one would be in a position to “help” anyone else.

The prophecies in the book of Daniel concerning the activities of the Papacy do not go beyond 1798. Referring to the activities of the Papacy in the dark ages, Daniel 12:7 tells us that “it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.”  Daniel 7:11 talks about the going into the burning flame of the papal beast, and not its activities at the end of time.  The book of Daniel, as regards the activities of the Papacy, does not go beyond 1798, and therefore the Papacy cannot be the King of the North who comes to “his end, and none shall help him” in Daniel 11:45.  After 1798, the book of Revelation takes over from where the book of Daniel left off in regard to the activities of the Papacy when John saw “his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast” (Revelation 13:3).

When we get to Daniel 12:1, the King of the North is no more, as he has already “come to his end, and none shall help him” (Daniel 11:45).  It is misinterpretation of prophecy to say that the Papacy is the power that has “come to his end” (verse 45) when all students of prophecy know well that it is the Papacy that will be persecuting God’s people in the time of trouble after Michael stands up.  The Papacy cannot be the power that “come to his end” (verse 45) because John tells us that the Papacy will be around when Christ returns, for John saw that Christ “avenged the blood of his servants at her hand” (Revelation 19:2).

While Daniel 11:45 mark the end of the King of the North, that end is a signal for the next series of events we look for in Daniel 12 when “at that time shall Michael stand up.”  After Michael stands up, “He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth” and “the people of God will then be plunged into those scenes of affliction and distress described by the prophet as the time of Jacob’s trouble” (GC 614.1, 616.1). The Papacy will obviously still be alive for it is the Papacy that will be the power doing the affliction and distressing of the people of God during “the of Jacob’s trouble.” As such, the papacy cannot be the power that has “come to his end” in Daniel 11:45, for after Michael stands up, the Papacy must continue until Michael delivers His saints from the Papacy’s hands.

EG White said Smith’s 1882 book contains “solid, eternal truth for this time” (1MR 61.2), new Adventist theologians, by their teachings, regard that “solid, eternal truth” as gross error; which do you believe?


Concluding Remarks

To faithful Seventh-day Adventists, the answer to the “Eastern Question” as to who is the King of the North, is simple: the Testimonies of God’s Spirit says that Smith’s 1882 book contains “solid, eternal truth for this time” (White, 1MR 61.2), we read the book, it says the King of the North is Turkey, the question is settled!  To unfaithful Seventh-day Adventists, “One thing is certain: Those Seventh-day Adventists who take their stand under Satan’s banner will first give up their faith in the warnings and reproofs contained in the Testimonies of God’s Spirit” (White, LDE 177).

The voice of faithful Seventh-day Adventists was represented by this declaration: “We have seen no new interpretation which in our judgement is superior to the old. We believe that the conclusions held by us from the beginning of this movement, that Turkey is represented by the term “King of the North” in the prophecy is correct. And because just at this present juncture in the affairs of this world there seem to be no prospect that Turkey will plant her palaces at Jerusalem is no reason why we should change our view of the question. If we can not see then it is best to wait and bide God’s time for fuller light and watch Him work things around us as we believe His Word reveals that He will” (FMW, RH 30 January 1919).