How can Octavian, a Roman, be the one referred to in Daniel 11:45, since the prophecy is calling him a “King of the North?”
Question:
It is my understanding that Octavian, otherwise known as Augustus died in Rome. This does not seem to agree with Daniel 11:45 and therefore does not support him as being the final “King of the North.” What do you say about this? Thanks and God bless.
Answer:
You are doing a great job here of thinking about the details. I commend this! Here is my view of Daniel 11:36-45. Please take if for what it is worth.
It is my understanding that Daniel 11:36 starts a new section, and that this prophecy (Daniel 11:36-45), although related to the previous section (11:2-35), is talking about a somewhat different situation. In other words, the entire prophecy (Daniel 11:2-15) is about the attacks of the Greek kingdoms on God’s people, especially under Antiochus Epiphanes and the final destruction of the Greek powers. However, Daniel 11:2-35 specifically covers the conflict between the kings of the North (the Seleucid kings) and the kings of the South (the Ptolemaic kings), and the destruction of the Seleucids. Then the second section, Daniel 11:36-45 is about the final destruction of the Ptolemaic kingdom. By 11:35, Antiochus and the Seleucids are already judged and out of the scene. So, when we come to Daniel 11:36 we have shifted forward more than one hundred years (from 164 BC to 31 BC, to be exact) to the time when the kings of the South, the Ptolemaic dynasty, was finally destroyed. In this section the “king who will do as he pleases” is Rome and its armies under Octavian. So, by this time, the “king of the North” is now Rome, not the Seleucids who have already disappeared. The details of the prophecy agree with what we know about the Roman Empire. I do not know if you have read my book on Daniel (Daniel, Prophet to the Nations, available at www.ipibooks.com) but I discuss this in my book is much detail. Perhaps you have, as you seem to recognize that the specific Roman emperor in view here is Augustus/Octavian and his destruction of the Ptolemies, specifically under Cleopatra, at the battle of Actium.
So, I can see why you might to tempted to require that the “king” in Daniel 11:36-45 must be a Greek king, but that is not how I have understood this passage. I am open to being shown otherwise, but, as mentioned above, I see a shift of the historical setting of the prophecy between Daniel 11:35 and Daniel 11:36. I hope this helps.
John Oakes
