Daniel 11:40-45 - "King of the North" is Pompey the Great

[3Resurrections]

This section of Daniel 11 has proved to be an elusive topic as to who this "King of the North" actually is.

Anyone reading the extensive record of Pompey the Great and his military exploits should be able to make the connection to the activities of this "King of the North" in Daniel 11:41-45. It is a spot-on match.

Pompey's three military Roman Triumphs celebrated these military victories which Daniel prophesied for us in these verses #41-45. Pompey "entered into many countries", including "the glorious land" of Israel, with many of those countries overthrown. Pompey amassed immense wealth in the Mithridatic war campaign ("He shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver...").

Those "tidings out of the east and out of the north" that troubled this "King of the North" were the growing threat of Julius Caesar's forces building an army against Pompey's troops in 49 BC. Realizing that a battle with his former ally in the Triumvirate was inevitable, Pompey "went forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many."

Despite Pompey's superior numbers and better placement of his army, Daniel predicted that "yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him." Pompey lost the battle against Caesar near Pharsalus in Greece, and he fled to Egypt. But Pompey's former connections with Egypt's Ptolemy XIII turned against him and plotted his assassination, using a soldier formerly under Pompey's command to put a sword through him just as he was coming ashore to meet Ptolemy's troops at Pelusium. In the end, there were only two men who were willing to perform the funeral rites of cremating Pompey's beheaded naked body on the shore of Pelusium.

The timing of this also aligns with "the time of the end" for Daniel's people, since this Roman empire phase of the Sea Beast's existence was to be part of the armies which shattered the power of the holy people (Daniel 12:7).

[mikew]

Is this noted in any commentaries on Daniel?

Does Steve mention this or else propose a different idea?

Sorry. I'm lazy.

[3Resurrections]

Is this noted in any commentaries on Daniel?

Does Steve mention this or else propose a different idea?

Sorry. I'm lazy.

Pompey the Great was not proposed as being this "king of the north" in any commentaries I have reviewed yet. And I did listen to Steve's coverage of this section of his studies on Daniel 11-12. He only mentioned that he had heard about 7 proposed identities for this "king of the north" in Daniel 11:40-45, but he was not willing to confirm any of them. From what I heard him say, Steve might be merging the identity of the willful "King" in Daniel 11:36 with the "king of the north" in Daniel 11:40-45, but this I believe to be incorrectly mixing up which "king" belongs to which pronoun "him" in these verses. Since the time this study on Daniel 11-12 was posted, Steve may have altered his views on this.

Steve did say that he thought this "king of the north" was a military leader, simply because of the reference to his "tents" of his tabernacles between the seas at Jerusalem (the "glorious holy mountain"). After all, tents are often used to signify an army encampment. I agree with Steve on this, since Pompey the Great did come and set up his army's camp on the northern side of Jerusalem as he began an attack on the wall of Jerusalem in 64 BC, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea.

[3Resurrections]

.

[mikew]

.

I like your point here. I like knowing when Steve has taught on a subject and then am curious if that is the lastest time he has taught on it. Thanks for sharing on the topic. I only remember vague details about chapter 11 -- maybe that the end of the chapter was harder to follow and that some people use that chapter as a reason to say Daniel was written around 200BC. But then we find Belshazzar was forgotten in history until some archaeological finds a thousand years or so later.

[3Resurrections]

A bit further explanation of this "king of the north" and his identity...

We know that in the earlier part of Daniel 11 (Daniel 11:5-35), the designation of "king of the south" indicated Egypt and its succession of Ptolemaic rulers. Likewise, the "king of the north" in these earlier verses indicated the Syrian succession of Seleucid rulers.

Egypt and Syria were the prevailing powers that developed in the time following the breakup of Alexander the Great's Greek empire, split among his four generals, which eventually coalesced into those two main kingdoms of "south" and "north".

But after that, in Daniel 11:35, we have introduced a certain title of "king" (neither north nor south) which would do "according to his will" in honoring a god of forces contrary to the "God of his fathers". This "king" was the Hasmonean high priest / king Alexander Jannaeus. His 27 year reign in Judea was composed almost entirely of wars, including civil war against the Pharisees of his own nation in which Alexander Jannaeus had some 50 to 60 thousand of them slain.

This "king's" impiety and cruelty to his own people with his fawning attentions to the Roman Republic were widely documented, with this record of the Hasmonean high priest / "king" Alexander Jannaeus' actions and warfare precisely matching the context in Daniel 11:36-39. His two sons, (Hyrcanus and Aristobulus), wrangled with each other for control of Judea - each of them appealing to Pompey the Great to favor one of them over the other. Pompey eventually raised Hyrcanus to power in the annexed, subjugated nation of Judea in 63 BC (but forbad him to wear a crown), and took Aristobulus and his four children captive, and sent them to Rome (in fulfillment of the "king of the north" coming against the "king" and into "the glorious land" in Daniel 11:40-41a).

The reason why we can switch the designation of the "king of the north" from a Syrian over to the Roman Pompey the Great is because Pompey annexed the weakened Seleucid kingdom of Syria and made it part of the Roman Republic in 64 BC. The last Seleucid king Antiochus XIII Asiaticus was killed, and the next in line Phillip II Philoromaeus ("friend of Rome") was deposed. Pompey put Scaurus into the position of governor of Syria, effectively ending the Syrian "kingship" and appropriating that power to himself. This was when scripture's designation of "king of the north" switched over from a Seleucid ruler to a Roman one instead.

From Daniel 11:40-45, this "king of the north" and his actions were describing Pompey the Great's accomplishments in history, up until his assassination in 48 BC, when he "came to his end, and none shall help him."

[3Resurrections]

This comment is going to highlight the mention of the "MANY SHIPS" which this "king of the north" brought against the "king" in Daniel 11:40-41.

These verses read, "And at the time of the end shall the king of the south" (of Egypt) "push at him" (push at the Hasmonean "king" of Israel in Dan. 11:36-39), "and the king of the north" (Pompey the Great) "shall come against him like a whirlwind" (come against the Hasmonean "king" of Israel), "with chariots and with horsemen, and with MANY SHIPS; and he" (the "king of the north", Pompey the Great) "shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow, and pass over. He shall enter also into the glorious land," (the land of Judea) "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." (curiously, God mentions sparing some of all of these in the "latter days" in Jeremiah 48:47 through 49:11)

Pompey the Great having sailed across the Mediterranean with his "MANY SHIPS" came swiftly to the countries around the "glorious land" (of Judea), overthrowing those countries (Armenia, Pontus, much of Asia, and Syria), and subjecting Judea under tribute to the Roman Republic in 63 BC.

Those "MANY SHIPS" of the fleet which Pompey used to come against those countries near Judea (and including Judea) were in large measure confiscated from the battle Pompey had just waged with the pirates who before then had been infesting the Roman provinces on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. Many, many Roman commanders since 189 BC had attempted to bring this plague of Mediterranean pirates under control, but had never been capable of getting rid of this problem.

Enter Pompey the Great. In 67 BC, within a mere 3 months' time, Pompey with about 250 Roman ships (other sources say 500) under his command had managed to completely eradicate the problem of piracy in the Mediterranean. At the height of their success, the pirates and their varied commanders had a well-organized fleet of around 1,000 ships at their disposal. Pompey ended up with a minimum of 377 captured pirate ships (other sources say 800). Those many pirates and their families who surrendered to Pompey he relocated to cities inland where they could take up farming for their living instead of piracy.

When Daniel 11:40 says that the "king of the north" came like a "whirlwind" with "MANY SHIPS", it means exactly that. Pompey the Great was well known for how quickly he could accomplish his battle campaigns against his foes, on both land and sea.

And incidentally, if the designation of "king of the NORTH" was still referring to a Syrian monarch being the protagonist, then why would Syria coming against the "king" in the land of Judea even need "MANY SHIPS" to get there? In that case, it would have taken an inland march of armies against Judea to accomplish that - not those "MANY SHIPS" that Daniel 11:40 says were used to get the "king of the north" to his target.

[mikew]

This comment is going to highlight the mention of the "MANY SHIPS" which this "king of the north" brought against the "king" in Daniel 11:40-41.

These verses read, "And at the time of the end shall the king of the south" (of Egypt) "push at him" (push at the Hasmonean "king" of Israel in Dan. 11:36-39), "and the king of the north" (Pompey the Great) "shall come against him like a whirlwind" (come against the Hasmonean "king" of Israel), "with chariots and with horsemen, and with MANY SHIPS; and he" (the "king of the north", Pompey the Great) "shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow, and pass over. He shall enter also into the glorious land," (the land of Judea) "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." (curiously, God mentions sparing some of all of these in the "latter days" in Jeremiah 48:47 through 49:11)

Pompey the Great having sailed across the Mediterranean with his "MANY SHIPS" came swiftly to the countries around the "glorious land" (of Judea), overthrowing those countries (Armenia, Pontus, much of Asia, and Syria), and subjecting Judea under tribute to the Roman Republic in 63 BC.
...

I could see how the mention of many ships could lead you to recognize Pompey with Dan 11 verses when becoming familiar with both narratives. The history of Pompey's campaign also appears to be close enough in history for many people to be familiar with that history even to the time of Christ (through parents and grandparents). I suspect few people actually were paying attention to the progress of Daniel 11, but the details could be recognized while read in light of Christ's incarnation.

Do you have this material with references or just the descriptive form? My mind is going a thousand directions for topics to address on scripture -- to get organized and on places such as websites. One part of that concerns the evidence of fulfillment of the OT prophecy. I also have a concept of an apologetic explaining the Jewish situation in light of such fulfillment.

[3Resurrections]

Hi mikew, appreciate the feedback on this...

You mentioned that you suspect that few people back in the first century were paying attention to the progress of Daniel 11. On the contrary, I believe that most of the entire nation of Judea as well as that of Samaria were well aware of Daniel's prophecy, even of the history of Daniel 11.

I believe this almost universal knowledge of Daniel's prophetic content is shown in Luke 3:15. "And as the people were in expectation, and ALL MEN mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not..." This "ALL MEN" trying to figure out if John the Baptist was Daniel's prophesied "Messiah the Prince" of Dan. 9:25 is pretty obvious. They knew exactly what year Daniel's 70-week prophecy had indicated that Messiah the Prince would come to their nation, at the beginning of that 70th week, and they were on the alert.

Those in Israel also knew that Malachi 3:1 had predicted that God would send a messenger to "prepare the way" before that Messiah - "the messenger of the covenant" whom they delighted in. John showed up baptizing for repentance around that time, so they were wondering if John the Baptist were the actual fulfillment of Daniel's "Messiah the Prince" or not.

The Pharisees and the chief priests were also very well aware of what year Daniel's "Messiah the Prince" would show up. Which is why they sent that delegation to John in AD 30 , asking if he were the Messiah, or the prophet, or Elijah (John 1:19-28). Once John saw Jesus again for a second time in John 1:29, he told his own disciples that Jesus was the Lamb of God. They then switched their discipleship over to Christ at that point, openly testifying to others, "We have found the Messiah (which is, being interpreted, the Christ)." These disciples would not have been looking for Daniel's Messiah to appear at that time if they had not been familiar with the content of Daniel's prophecies.

Even the Samaritan woman at the well knew that the appearance of Daniel's Messiah was on the near horizon, saying, "I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ. When He is come, He will tell us all things." (John 4:25). So apparently Daniel's prophecy of the exact year for the prophesied Messiah to appear in Israel was common knowledge across the board.

Of course, once the Pharisees learned that Christ Jesus was opposed to how they had distorted the law with vain traditions in their own best interests, their enthusiasm was dropped and most of them became His enemy. I believe the very reason why the Jewish Seder Olam eventually altered the calendar was in order to remove the fact that Daniel's predictions pointed directly to Jesus as being that Messiah the Prince. By erasing chunks of history from the ancient calendars, Judaism could then have Daniel's prophecies point to Bar Kochba instead as being "Messiah the Prince".

We also have that story of the high priest and the Jews coming out to meet Alexander the Great, and bringing him back to Jerusalem to show Alexander that he was the fulfillment of Daniel's "leopard" kingdom which was to conquer the Persian empire. It would explain why Alexander the Great made such concessions for the Jews to worship according to their own laws, and exempted them from paying tribute every 7th year. So the Jews of that era also were aware of how Daniel's prophecies were progressing through time for them.

Don't know if any of the above fits into your purposes of research or not, mikew, but for me, its fascinating seeing that the "greatly beloved" Daniel was given such precise visions of the future of his own people, right up until the point when God "shattered the power of the holy people" in AD 70. Daniel was promised to share in the bodily resurrection on that last, 1,335th day (which turned out to be AD 70's Pentecost day). That also means the "Great Tribulation" (as in Daniel 12:1) was for Daniel's own people during the AD 66-70 years, and we are not anticipating it for fulfillment in our future.

The entire book of Daniel is one of ancient history. All of it. I've been working on a point-by-point, matching historical record of fulfillment for all of Daniel 11, and I have just a couple verses yet to finish. Others besides me have also noticed the same historical fulfillments, so I'm not all alone out there in left field on this.

I noticed that Steve's series of studies covering Daniel 12 didn't have any idea of how all of that played out, but I do know what those numbers meant and when they were fulfilled back in the first century. This material about Daniel 12's content I've posted on other websites before.

[mikew]

Hi mikew, appreciate the feedback on this...

You mentioned that you suspect that few people back in the first century were paying attention to the progress of Daniel 11. On the contrary, I believe that most of the entire nation of Judea as well as that of Samaria were well aware of Daniel's prophecy, even of the history of Daniel 11.

...
The entire book of Daniel is one of ancient history. All of it. I've been working on a point-by-point, matching historical record of fulfillment for all of Daniel 11, and I have just a couple verses yet to finish. Others besides me have also noticed the same historical fulfillments, so I'm not all alone out there in left field on this.

I noticed that Steve's series of studies covering Daniel 12 didn't have any idea of how all of that played out, but I do know what those numbers meant and when they were fulfilled back in the first century. This material about Daniel 12's content I've posted on other websites before.

I have the concept that most people were only mildly acquainted with the message of the prophets. The leaders were not likely interested except to the sense that they might have power through this. Also, the prophecies are difficult to work through and anticipate what would happen. The people in general were not ready to follow the Messiah and repent, even with the appearance of John, per Mal 3. It does seem however that they did have a general expectation. The key thing is they should have known enough, but that was kind of much for people, when limited to the flesh, to be able to grasp.

I agree that Daniel is past fulfillment. People have noted the fulfillment of Daniel 11 in various ways but never completely -- which those books would mention the lack of clarity they saw. But it is odd that people often think many parts are still to come. oh well.