Who is the king of the North in Daniel 11?

The terms "king of the north" and "king of the south" must be taken in relation to the land of Palestine. Egypt was to the south, and Greco-Syria (the present Turkey-in-Asia) to the north — the Ptolemies and Seleucidae being the lines of kings mentioned. During the period of the history of these kings we find the Romans coming into power; and a Roman consul was the "prince" of ver. 18 who ordered the king of the north to go home again. The Romans are also seen as the ships of Chittim in ver. 30.

And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall … corrupt the mighty ones, and the people of the saints. Scripture describes Israel according to their privileges and moral responsibility, even when they are as far as possible from answering to them. And through his policy also shall he cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he will magnify [himself] in his heart; and by peace (or prosperity) will corrupt many; he will also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand (Dan. 8:19-25). This evil agent is not the wilful king or Antichrist who is to reign in Palestine in that day. It is another king that from without opposes Antichrist, is no less wicked, and perishes as awfully. He is the same who in the last prophecy of Daniel (11:40-45) is called "the king of the north." Many no doubt are aware that out of Alexander's broken empire arose the kingdom of Syria which fell to Seleucus Nicator. Of that line Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. 11:21-32) persecuted the Jews and insulted the God of Israel beyond all others, and sought to destroy the Jews and their religion. Who was raised up as a stay in that day? A great empire? Nothing of the kind; the Maccabees who knew their God and were strong and active. This movement among the Jews, mingled as it was, is described in Dan. 11:32-35; but we need no more now, as it will come before us later.

It cannot be correct to say that a Russian ruler will be the King of the North, if he is to come from the same territory as the king bearing the same designation spoken of in the earlier part of Daniel 11. This king, who proved to be Antiochus Epiphanes, and who fulfilled the prophecies concerning him to the letter, reigned over Syria , the northern part of Alexander's Grecian empire, and became the great persecutor of the Jews, and one of the most blasphemous figures in history. The events from verse 35 to end of chapter await fulfilment, and the King of the North (v. 40) who is to appear must rule over the territory of his predecessor—the northern parts of Asia Minor at present held by Turkey .

As the Turk does not now possess the power that this war-like personage will have, and as what power he has seems likely to be broken, it has been thought that he, or whoever occupies this territory, will come under the rule of, or be allied to, Russia, and so will have Russia's support in his terrible onslaught upon Jerusalem, but we cannot discover anything in the passage to support this thought; it gives the impression that he will act independently of any other political power. Though at the later date to which we have referred Asia Minor, as well as the whole of Persia , will certainly be under Russian control as we shall see, but this refers to a time when the King of the North shall have perished.

Fourthly. A few words as to the "king of the north" first mentioned. This power is not Russia, as would naturally be the first thought of a European. But we must remember that the standpoint of prophecy is always that land which in the divine purposes is the centre of the earth. North and south in prophecy are north and south of Palestine, not of Europe. Hence the king of the south obviously means the king of Egypt, and king of the north in Daniel is that potentate, whoever he may be, who at the time of the end will be the ruler of what is now called Asia Minor, the land to the north of Palestine.

1910 150 Asia Minor at present is held by Turkey. Will the Turkish power be the king of the north? In the past there has been a consensus of opinion that Turkey as a power must decay and pass away. The "sick man of Europe" is the derisive name by which the nation has been called. But its final collapse may have been too hastily assumed. However this may prove to be, the world has quite lately been surprised by an outburst of national energy in Turkey in the direction of constitutional reform. Accompanying this is a startling progress in material development. Twenty years ago Constantinople and the Turkish Army were eating bread made from Russian flour; they are now eating of their own country's growth, while the peasantry are obtaining for their harvest twice to four times the prices formerly paid. Where, near the Sea of Marmora in Asia Minor, the neighbourhood was infested with Tscherkess robbers, the chief of these robbers is now a respected stationmaster in the Anatolian Railway. Such is the effect of railways in Asia Minor. The Turkish Administration has engaged the highest engineering talent to advise as to preventing the overflow of the Tigris and the Euphrates. These works, together with that great undertaking, the Baghdad Railway, are fraught probably with great consequences for the Turkish Empire, augmenting its wealth and material prosperity and restoring to order and civilisation Mesopotamia, once one of the most fertile countries of the earth. But important as this may be politically to Turkey, it may be equally important in its prophetic bearings. Mesopotamia is part of the Turkish dominions; it was part of ancient Assyria, and "the Assyrian" is another name by which in prophecy the king of the north is designated. The reformation of political institutions in Turkey, and the growth of national energy and prosperity may have great significance when we consider that Turkey represents today what in the future time will be "the Assyrian" of Isaiah (Isa. 8, 10, 14), and "the king of the north" of Daniel (Dan. 11:40-45).

Even the incredulous Gibbon in his Letter to Bp. Hurd (Hurd's Work, V. pp. 365, 366) says, "The four empires are clearly delineated, the expedition of Xerxes into Greece, the rapid conquest of Persia by Alexander, his untimely death without posterity, the division of his vast monarchy into four kingdoms, one of which is mentioned by name, their various wars and intermarriages, the persecution of Antiochus, the profanation of the temple, and the invincible arms of the Romans are described with as much perspicuity in the prophecies of Daniel, as in the histories of Justin and Diodorus. From such a perfect resemblance the artful infidel would infer that both were alike composed after the event." He argued that the author of the Book of Daniel was too well informed of the revolutions of the Persian and Macedonian empires, supposed to have happened long after his death; and that he was too ignorant of the transactions in his own times: in a word, that he was too exact for a prophet, and too fabulous for a contemporary historian.

It is enough to reply that the book is no less distinct in Dan. 9 about Christ's death and the destruction of Jerusalem; and that the alleged contemporaneous history is declared to be at "the time of the end" when Israel are to be delivered, and therefore, as future, necessarily unfulfilled prophecy. Hence, to say "fabulous" is not only premature but ignorant, as it will be surely proved to be the baseless scepticism of Gibbon, in the wake of Porphyry. But even they took no exception to the Four Empires as laid down in Dan. 2, 7, and saw no such force in Dan. 7:2-3, 6, or 17, as to enfeeble that interpretation. Now there was no empire of Rome until long after the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, where it pleases unbelief to imagine the writing of the book of Daniel. Yet the book not only speaks of a fourth or Roman empire, but dwells with peculiar fulness on its last phase, not yet accomplished, when its blasphemy is to draw down the holy vengeance of the Son of man. Then will follow, not the white throne judgment when the wicked dead shall arise from their graves for judgment, but the kingdom which He shall previously exercise over all peoples, nations, and languages. This therefore clearly presupposes the earth, when it shall be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea. Indeed even before that kingdom the latter part of Dan. 11 shows us "the time of the end," in which Antiochus Epiphanes has no place whatever. But three kings figure: "the king" (Dan. 11:36-40) in the land, who will be so distinct from the then "king of the north" and the "king of the south," that they will both attack him at the same time. Dan. 11:41-45 are occupied exclusively with "the king of the north" in that future day, who becomes an especial object of divine wrath as "the king," we know from elsewhere, will have been before him. Thus minutely writes the prophet on the solemn crisis at "the end of the age," which future detail is clearly after the gap where Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees are done with.

This same king is called the "King of the North" in Daniel 11:40-45, which we will now turn to, as there we get more details about him. Daniel 11 gives a detailed prophecy of the wars between the kings of two of the monarchies that arose out of the Grecian Empire after the death of Alexander the Great. One was Egypt to the south of Palestine and the other was to the north. Verses 1 to 34 have already been fulfilled. Verses 21 to 32 present prophecy about that notoriously wicked king of the North, Antiochus Epiphanes (B.C. 175 to B.C. 165), who defiled the temple of the Jews. Verses 32 to 34 are a general prophecy of the Maccabees who lived during a portion of the period between Malachi and the birth of Christ. And verse 35 speaks in general terms of the persecution of the remnant that begins then but carries us on to "the time of the end." The whole period of this present dispensation, in which God is calling out a people from Jews and Gentiles to be the heavenly bride of Christ and to reign with Him in His coming glory, is passed over in silence. As we have seen before, the whole Church period from Pentecost to the Rapture of the believers comes in as a parenthetical period of time not reckoned in connection with Israel, because during the Church dispensation God's relation with Israel is temporarily suspended to be resumed only after the Rapture.

"In the last of the indignation the king of fierce countenance (ver. 23), whom Antiochus typified, will have his seat of government in the very quarter where Antiochus had his power, i.e. Turkey in Asia. Elsewhere (Dan. 11:40-45) he is called "the king of the north" to distinguish from Egypt's then king; and also in Isaiah and Micah "the Assyrian," because he will be the representative of Israel's old oppressor. It is well to notice, in passing, that the little horn of Dan. 7 rises out of the Roman Empire when it is finally divided into ten kingdoms, whilst the "King of fierce countenance" comes out of the Syro-Greek kingdom. They are not only not the same person, but persons wholly opposed.

The third personality is the King of the North. He is the king of fierce countenance (Dan. 8:23-25) who is mighty, but not by his own power (Dan. 8:24). There was a historic "King of the North" (Dan. 11:6 and several other times in the chapter). From the many accounts of him as the Assyrian, and knowing the historic limits of the Assyrian Empire, this personality occupied at least part of the land area of modern Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey—Muslim nations who are anything but friendly with modern-day Israel. In the future (as to some degree now), He is backed, at least to the point of supplying arms, by a mightier power, possibly Russia and/or China and/or North Korea, and possibly other nations. He is the Assyrian of Isaiah 10:5-12, 24-27, and "the king" of Isaiah 30:33. At the "time of the end"—during the Great Tribulation—he comes against the "willful king" (the False Prophet of Israel) of Daniel 11:36-39 as an overflowing scourge (Isa. 28:15-18) and as the Desolator of Daniel 9:27.

To understand better what territories the King of the North will occupy, as mentioned above, we will recount a little history and compare it with Daniel 11. In about 320 BC, Alexander the Great's Grecian kingdom was divided among his four chief generals after his death at a young age (Dan. 11:3-4). Only Generals Seleucus and Ptolemy became prominent and established strong kingdoms. They and their descendants often fought back and forth through Israel for about 250 years (Dan. 11:5-35).

The future King of the North will come from the general area occupied by the Seleucid (Dan. 11:6), the area occupied by Alexander's General Seleucus, the historic King of the North. It is the area immediately north and northeast of Israel (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, as we mentioned). As we shall see, he will be punished at the appropriate time by God's display of power (Zech. 14; Isa. 10:12).

Then there is the fourth personality, the King of the South from the area south of Israel (Egypt)—the area occupied by General Ptolemy and the Ptolemies, the historic King of the South (Dan. 11:5, etc). At the end time (toward the end of the Great Tribulation) this king "pushes" at or attacks the Israeli leader (Dan. 11:40), but evidently without much heart in his attack.

The King of the North, we believe, will probably be the Turk driven out of Europe and also out of Palestine and Mesopotamia, forming a compact kingdom somewhere north of Palestine.

†Two things are often put together in connection with this statement, viz., that the seat of the sovereignty of this king will be in Asiatic Turkey; and, secondly, that Russia, as plainly shown in Ezekiel 38 and 39, will be the final enemy of Israel, after their establishment in the land in blessing under their Messiah. The deduction is then made that the power behind this king of the north will be Russia. It may be so, but where Scripture does not speak positively, a conjecture can only be accepted as a possibility.