I read in a question at the web site concerning the prophecies of Daniel 11 in which you said that the Kingdom of the North which were the Seleucids become later identified as the Romans. Why is it that this change seems random as if to accommodate for the fact that Antiochus IV did not campaign in Libya and Egypt, but rather in Susa, Elam? Is there any Biblical basis as to why we should change the identity of the Northern Kingdom from Seleucia to Rome? Thanks.


There are two reasons I make this identity

1. Because the phrase in Daniel 11:10 “at the time of the end” seems to indicate a time-shift.  Note that there is a very similar phrase in Daniel 12:1, “at that time” which certainly marks a shift it time, as it undoubtedly is a shift to the end of time, as the context shows.  In 11:40 the vision shifts from the events at the time of Antiochus to “the time of the end”.   I will admit that my assignment of this as the time of the end, specifically, of the Greek kingdoms would a bit speculative if this was the only evidence but there is the other reason.

2. The details of Daniel 11:41-45 fits Rome and the battle of Actium with incredible accuracy, as I show in the article you already read.   I believe that the Bible inspired by God, so I expect that the prophecy does accurately describe an historical event.  In fact it does, and that event is the Battle of Actium, which happens to be “the end” of the last Greek kingdom.

So, the verse itself implies a change of time-frame and the details of the prophecy point with great accuracy to a time which fits the context of the vision, so I believe that this is the correct interpretation.

You describe this assignment as “random.”  In the article you read, I make it clear that this is far from “random.”  In fact it fits the description as “the time of the end” in 11:40, in that Actium was literally the final end of the Greek empires begun by Alexander the Great–the culture which persecuted the Jews under Antiochus IV.  Is it a little speculative?  I suppose so, but to say that it is random is an overstatement, in my opinion.

I certainly do not expect people to believe my interpretation just because I say so.  If you have a better interpretation, please let me know.  I have read many commentaries and none fit the historical details and the overall picture of prophecy in Daniel as this interpretation, at least as far as I have seen, so I believe I am probably right.  But… I understand that I may be wrong.  Please, if you have seen another suggestion as to how to understand Daniel 11:40-45 which is better, let me know.  I am very open.

John Oakes

Comments are closed.