Copyright © 2012-2013, Timothy J. Hayden, All rights reserved. You may distribute, or post online, this entire document without modifying it.

A Review of Daniel 11 in Islam & Christianity in Prophecy By Timothy J. Hayden, hayden@jamadots.com, revised August 5, 2013

Introduction This review of the book Islam & Christianity in Prophecy, as well as some supporting videos and

documentation, is not meant to be an attack on Pastor Roosenberg; it is an examination of his

teachings on Daniel 11. He gives many new thoughts on that prophecy, which includes a

controversial interpretation of final events in Daniel 11:40-45. Therefore, it is necessary that his

views be carefully examined. Investigation will only serve to strengthen genuine new light.

Pastor Roosenberg claims to have “had an ah-ha moment, an epiphany of sorts” in 2002, where

his concept of major struggles between Islam and Christianity in Daniel 11 was realized. (pp. 7,

97.) He claims to have spent “several years testing” his findings. Since his book contains a new

interpretation of major sections of Daniel 11, I would expect to see a detailed explanation of his

methods of interpretation. His moment of enlightenment should have been carefully proved by

the Bible, Ellen White, and historical facts. Therefore, I will first look at some of the principles

on which his interpretation is based.

Principles used to Interpret Daniel 11 Pastor Roosenberg claims that the kings of the north and south in Daniel 11 refer to geographical

powers situated in relation to Israel. He often uses the term “geopolitical” throughout his book,

which he defines to be “international relations, as influenced by geography.” (p. 9.) Thus, the

geography of the Middle East is important to Pastor Roosenberg’s interpretation; his view

requires that the various powers in Daniel 11 be situated in geographical relation to Palestine.

He believes that the kings of the north and south are “geopolitical powers” that attack Israel

from the north and south respectively.

To show consistency and to solidify his geopolitical concepts, Pastor Roosenberg adopts “certain

keys” as foundational for his interpretation of Daniel 11. (p. 13.) He does not list his keys, neither

does he identify them as such, but he states his concepts at various places throughout his book.

The first key that I will look at contrasts the usage of “Israel” in the Old and New Testaments. He

says that Israel “had more of a geopolitical definition” in the Old Testament, while it “acquires a

more spiritual definition” in the New Testament. (p. 90.)

In another key that I will examine, Pastor Roosenberg identifies a transition in Daniel 11 where

the various powers go from “geopolitical” to both “geopolitical and religious.” (p. 92, see also pp.

51-52.) Although this key defines a transition at a specific time, it is closely related to the first

key which contrasts Israel in the Old and New Testaments. (p. 90.) He says that his “geopolitical

and religious” period continues “from the breakup of the Roman Empire” and lasts until the

end. (p. 51.)

Note that Pastor Roosenberg also says on page 91 that this transition takes place “after we go

past the time of the cross.” He identifies Jesus as “the prince of the covenant” who was “broken

(killed)” in Daniel 11:22 (p. 27), and recognizes the Papacy’s beginning in Daniel 11:23. (p. 38.)

2

Therefore, he must obviously believe that the “breakup of the Roman Empire” came between

those two verses. There is no discrepancy then in his two statements. The transition from

geopolitical to geopolitical and religious must then take place when Rome was divided—between

verses 22 and 23.

With the two keys that I have identified so far, Pastor Roosenberg can speak of Israel, Egypt,

and Babylon in Revelation as spiritual powers, while the powers in Daniel’s final conflict are

identified with both geographical and spiritual characteristics. (See pp. 51-52.) Thus, Pastor

Roosenberg is able to teach that the final conflict in Daniel 11:40-45 is both a local Middle East

conflict and a global spiritual conflict. All of his keys are needed to identify and support a

conflict in Daniel 11 between Islam, national Israel, apostate Christianity, and God’s global

Church; they are foundational to his prophetic interpretation.

Pastor Roosenberg’s focus on the geography of the Middle East at the end is crucial to his

conflict with Islam; without it, everything falls. Therefore, the first goal in this review is to

discover whether Pastor Roosenberg’s keys are correct. His keys are intertwined and should not

be considered distinct from each other. I will examine the keys already mentioned, as well as

other keys, separately where possible, but their interconnection should not be ignored.

Israel Contrasted in the Old and New Testaments That Israel “had more of a geopolitical definition” in the Old Testament, while it “acquires a

more spiritual definition” in the New, is not proved in Pastor Roosenberg’s book. (p. 90.) Most

of chapter six is devoted to showing that Israel is a spiritual nation of believers in both the Old

and New Testaments. He proves that anyone who believes in Jesus is part of Spiritual Israel.

However, he doesn’t prove that Israel is defined more geopolitically in the Old Testament than

in the New.

Since it’s up to the reader to determine if Pastor Roosenberg’s concept is correct, I will look at

the Bible and what other authors are saying about the meaning of Israel. I’m sure that Pastor

Roosenberg will agree with much of what I have written here. Some of it is redundant to what he

has said, but the contrast will be obvious. To start, Dr. LaRondelle makes an insightful

statement in regards to the linkage between the Old and New Testaments:

“The Christian interpreter of the Old Testament is once and for all obliged to read the Hebrew

Scriptures in the light of the New Testament as a whole, because the Old is interpreted

authoritatively, under divine inspiration, in the New Testament as God’s continuous history of

salvation. Historic Christianity has always confessed that the New Testament is the goal and

fulfillment of the Old.” 1

Both the Old and New Testaments are closely connected. Jesus and the New Testament authors

constantly referred to the Old Testament as proof of their teachings. (See Luke 24:27; Acts 3:19-

26; 7; Romans 10:6-10; 11:1-7; 2 Corinthians 3:15-16; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; James 2:21-24; 1 Peter

2:1-10.) To understand who Israel is in the Old Testament, we are to look to the New Testament

for clarification. Both Testaments refer to ethnic and spiritual Israel; their primary focus being

on the spiritual. (See Genesis 49:1-29; Psalm 73:1; John 1:47; etc.) Louis Were’s comment on the

use of the Old Testament by the apostles is insightful:

3

“At Pentecost the disciples of Jesus were united in Peter’s interpretation because he made his

declaration ‘standing up with the eleven’ (Acts 2:14). Their present spiritual application of the

kingdom prophecies (which the Jews applied only in a strictly literal sense in relation to the

future) made the Old Testament a new and living book for them and their hearers.” 2

Once converted, the disciples began to see the Old Testament as a spiritual book that related to

their new spiritual condition. The Apostle Paul also identified Old Testament Israel as a spiritual

body within ethnic Israel, he declared, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” Romans

9:6. Ethnic Israel is only Israel in name. Israel has a deeper spiritual significance in the Bible

than is normally perceived.

To understand that deeper significance, we only need to examine what Israel means. God

renamed Jacob to Israel because of his refusal to let Him go during his time of distress. (See

Genesis 32:24-30.) Ellen White speaks of Jacob’s name change:

“As an evidence that he had been forgiven, his name was changed from one that was a reminder

of his sin, to one that commemorated his victory. ‘Thy name,’ said the Angel, ‘shall be called no

more Jacob [the supplanter], but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men,

and hast prevailed.’” 3

Israel is the name given to Jacob as he, repentant and pleading for mercy and forgiveness from

God, refused to let Him go. Whenever the Bible speaks of Israel, it must be understood in this

light. Israel is a spiritual name with a spiritual meaning. Dr. LaRondelle describes it this way:

“The name ‘Israel’ from the beginning symbolizes a personal relation of reconciliation with God.

The rest of Holy Scripture never loses sight of this sacred root of the name.” 4

To contrast Israel in the Old and New Testaments disrupts the continuity of Scripture and

invalidates the doctrines of the New Testament authors. Their definition of Israel was drawn

from the Old Testament. Israel is the name of a person as well as the nation that descended from

him, but its meaning is spiritual. Although primarily composed of ethnic Israelites, there were

always non-ethnic believers, such as Rahab and Ruth, in Israel.

The only reason I can see for Pastor Roosenberg to define Israel as more geopolitical in the Old

Testament than the New is his need to strengthen his argument for a geopolitical conflict in

Daniel 11:40-45. In regard to the use of Israel in Bible prophecy, Dr. LaRondelle makes this

insightful statement:

“The biblical focus on prophecy is never on Israel as a people or a nation, as such, but on Israel

as the believing, worshiping, covenant people, as the messianic community.” 5

Bible eschatology revolves around Christ and His Church. Geography is only important to its

interpretation when the bulk of God’s “believing, worshiping, covenant people” are limited to a

specific territory, as they were before Stephen was stoned. That limited territorial scope ended

when the Church was scattered and they began to call in the Gentiles after Paul’s conversion.

Therefore, there is a geographical relevance in some of the prophecies, but the application to

geography has to do with the time the prophecy is referring to.

4

To claim that Israel “had more of a geopolitical definition” in the Old Testament than in the New

lacks support and ignores the purpose of the New Testament. The New Testament defines Old

Testament Israel; there is no geopolitical difference between them. Although my conclusion here

does not entirely invalidate Pastor Roosenberg’s interpretation, I cannot rely on his contrast

between Israel in the two Testaments as evidence of a Middle East conflict in Daniel 11:40-45.

Parallel Geographical and Spiritual Conflicts We will now examine the second key that I identified in Pastor Roosenberg’s book, which

recognizes a transition in Daniel 11 where the various powers go from “geopolitical” to both

“geopolitical and religious.” (p. 92.)

Also in line with this second key, Pastor Roosenberg says, after Jesus is crucified in Daniel 11:22,

that the local geographical conflicts also “represent a worldwide spiritual conflict.” And in the

next paragraph he says that “it is both literal and spiritual.” He places geographical and spiritual

conflicts in “parallel” claiming that it is not “either/or—it is both.” (p. 91.)

In order to maintain an end time geopolitical conflict and a parallel global spiritual conflict,

Pastor Roosenberg has to link God’s Church to national Israel. He does this by claiming that

whenever “the Papacy controlled literal Jerusalem,” as it did for 100 years during the Crusades,

that it also controlled the Church. He then says that the Papacy did not control Jerusalem

during the conflict with the Ottoman Empire, and that it “lost control of the church” because of

the Protestant Reformation. (p. 91.) Thus he tries to link God’s Church to conflicts in Palestine.

History should be able to easily verify Pastor Roosenberg’s claim that the Papacy controlled the

Church during the Crusades; yet he gives no historical proof or explanation. It is clear that the

Papacy controlled the nations of Europe for 1260 years, and that the Papacy persecuted God’s

Church during that time. However, I don’t know of any historical evidence to prove that the

Papacy controlled the Church during the Crusades. Consider Dr. Wilkinson’s description of the

Church throughout the 1260 years of Papal Rome’s civil rule:

“Implacable and unrelenting persecution was the resort of the church and state system.

Wielding a power greater than that ever exercised by the caesars, Romanism pursued the church

farther and farther into the wilderness. Nevertheless, affliction and trials caused the persecuted

church to live on, shining brighter and brighter until, at the hand of God’s providence, her

persecutor received a ‘deadly wound’ when the 1260 years ended.” 6

Papal Rome pursued God’s Church into the wilderness as the prophecies declared it would do

(see Revelation 12:6, 14; 13:7; 17:6), but Pastor Roosenberg gives no historical evidence of his

claim that the Papacy controlled the Church in any way. It is true that the Papacy persecuted the

Church, but this continued throughout much of the Reformation period, as at other times, and

as Pastor Roosenberg also agrees. (See pp. 48-49.)

The fact that the Papacy persecuted God’s Church is evidence that the Papacy did not control the

Church during the 1260 years. The reason the Papacy pursued God’s Church into the wilderness

was to force her submission. God’s children refused to be controlled and therefore they received

Rome’s wrath.

5

In an attempt to show that the Church will be controlled by the Papacy in the final conflict,

Pastor Roosenberg says that the Papacy will again control Jerusalem, and it will also control

God’s Church “because Revelation 13:3 says that ‘all the world . . . followed the beast.’” (See p.

91.) Does this passage really teach that God’s people follow the Beast? Quoting more of this

passage from Revelation, we find that “all the world” does more than follow the Beast:

“And all the world marveled and followed the beast. So they worshiped the dragon who gave

authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast . . .” Revelation 13:3-4, NKJV.

All people on earth are declared here to marvel, follow, and worship the Beast, and they also

worship the Dragon, who is Satan. (See Revelation 12:9.) Interestingly, the phrase “all the

world” is not all inclusive. Revelation 13:8 says, “All who dwell on the earth will worship him

[the beast], whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the

foundation of the world.” NKJV. This verse adds a qualifier; all the world refers to the lost, not

the saved. We have this same qualifier in Revelation 17:

“And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life

from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast . . .” Revelation 17:8, NKJV.

It is quite clear that only the lost follow the Beast at the end. In contrast, God’s last day people

“follow the Lamb wherever He goes.” Revelation 14:4, NKJV. Jesus likewise declared of His

disciples, “They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.” John 17:16, NKJV. There is

no evidence that God’s people follow the Beast. Ironically, Pastor Roosenberg later says that

everyone follows the beast “except those who are included in the book of life.” (p. 109.)

In another attempt to link the Church to national Israel, Pastor Roosenberg says that the good

olive tree that Paul speaks of in Romans 11 “represents the ancient nation of Israel.” (p. 79, see

also p. 52.) Since the branches on the olive tree refer only to believers, is Pastor Roosenberg

saying that believers are actually grafted into national Israel? (See Romans 11:13-24.) Ellen

White sees the good olive tree as a remnant of believers within national Israel:

“Paul likens the remnant in Israel to a noble olive tree, . . . the true stock of Israel—the remnant

who had remained true to the God of their fathers.” 7

The “remnant in Israel” is not the same as “the ancient nation of Israel.” Although originally

made up of genetic Israelites, the good olive tree has no specific nationality. Doctor LaRondelle

has the roots of this tree of faith going back to Abraham:

“[Paul] portrays the conversion of Gentiles to Christ as the ingrafting of wild olive branches

(Gentiles) into the one olive tree of the Israel of God. . . . Through faith in Christ, Gentiles are

legally incorporated in the olive tree, the covenant people of God, and share in the root of

Abraham (verse 18).” 8

While Pastor Roosenberg says that all believers are true Israelites, he doesn’t clearly separate

them from the Jewish nation in the olive tree illustration. Later he says that “the geopolitical

nation or land of Israel still has some significance.” (p. 87.) And speaking of Ephesians 2:19-21,

he says on the next page that “all believers, both Jew and Gentile, are the citizens of Israel!” Is

6

he using these verses to link God’s global Church to national Israel? It is difficult to tell since he

doesn’t qualify Israel as national or spiritual. I will leave it up to the reader to decide.

In harmony with his view of a geopolitical conflict during the final crisis, Pastor Roosenberg

tries again to link the Church to a geopolitical conflict in the Middle East by identifying the

Friday, Sabbath, and Sunday holy day differences between Islam, the Church, and the Papacy

respectively. He then concludes somewhat mysteriously that there is a “parallel transformation”

from the geopolitical to the spiritual. (p. 95.) It’s an interesting correlation that he makes, but

how does a holy day conflict in the Middle East relate to the global Church? It’s the United

States that forces the world to keep Sunday holy, and that includes the Middle East.

The principles used to interpret Daniel 11 geopolitically are entirely different than those used to

interpret the prophecy spiritually. Pastor Roosenberg gives only a geopolitical interpretation. He

interprets Daniel 11 geopolitically and then tries to attach a global spiritual conflict on top of it.

But the use of geopolitical principles to interpret the prophecy completely invalidates the

spiritual interpretation. They are incompatible, and it seems that Pastor Roosenberg does not

understand the difference.

An example of the incompatibility between spiritual and geopolitical interpretations of Daniel 11

can be seen in Pastor Roosenberg’s list of reasons where he rejects one of the popular spiritual

concepts that teaches that atheistic communism is the kingdom of the south. He mockingly says

that those who believe this spiritual concept are “forced to explain how the king of the south got

so far north into Russia.” And in the next sentence he says that this spiritual view is not

“geopolitically consistent” with Daniel 11. (p. 214.)

Pastor Roosenberg misses the point. The spiritual interpretation is not meant to be

geopolitically consistent; it is meant to be spiritually consistent. Although geopolitical

terminology is important, geographical location is not. So let me say it again, Pastor

Roosenberg’s interpretation of Daniel 11 is not geopolitical and spiritual; it is geopolitical only!

Pastor Roosenberg’s claim that there must be a parallel geopolitical and spiritual conflict is

without support. He only gives a geopolitical interpretation and tries to link that to a global

spiritual conflict. (I will give examples of the spiritual interpretation later.)

The Middle East Territorial Limitation

Using a Bible passage to support his key that Daniel 11 continues its geopolitical focus on the

Middle East after Daniel 11:22, Pastor Roosenberg refers to Jesus’ parable of the husbandmen

and the vineyard in Matthew 21:33-46. He concludes, “The vineyard is the same but the people

have changed.” (p. 91, see also pp. 86-87.) He is saying that the vineyard in the parable is limited

to the Middle East, but the people now include Gentile believers; the territory remains the same

while Israel has expanded to include everyone who believes in Jesus.

Speaking of the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 21, Ellen White quotes Isaiah and begins by

identifying the people of Israel and Judah as the vineyard:

“So God had chosen a people from the world to be trained and educated by Christ. The prophet

says, ‘The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant

plant.’ Isaiah 5:7.” 9

7

Ellen White begins her description of the vineyard with the Jewish people; she then goes on to

say that “they were to represent the character of God” to the world. When the Jewish leaders

rejected Christ, God called the Gentiles into His Church through His chosen messengers. Gentile

believers are now part of the “nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” Matthew 21:43. Ellen

White then continues her description of the vineyard later in the chapter:

“The parable of the vineyard applies not alone to the Jewish nation. It has a lesson for us. The

church in this generation has been endowed by God with great privileges and blessings, and He

expects corresponding returns.” 10

The parable of the vineyard now applies to the Church; it cannot be limited to the Middle East as

Pastor Roosenberg has it. Listen again as the prophet speaks of the vineyard today, “God claims

the whole earth as His vineyard. Though now in the hands of the usurper, it belongs to God. By

redemption no less than by creation it is His.” 11 Ellen White now gives the vineyard a global

scope. With the influx of the Gentiles, the territorial limitation of the Middle East was removed

and the vineyard now includes the whole world.

Likewise, in Jesus’ words to His disciples before His ascension, He explains their mission in

words to clear to be ignored. Notice the progression of expansion of the territory:

“But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be

witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost

part of the earth.” Acts 1:8.

Jesus starts in Jerusalem and expands the territory to “the uttermost part of the earth.” The

Apostle Paul also speaks of a territorial expansion in the promise made to Abraham: “For the

promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the

law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Romans 4:13. Abraham is the father of all believers.

Here the apostle speaks of his territorial inheritance as the world. Not only has the Jewish

Church expanded to include the Gentiles, but the territory has expanded to include the earth.

When speaking of Jesus’ use of Psalm 37:11 and 29 in Matthew 5:5, Dr. LaRondelle also

explains, “Christ is definitely not spiritualizing away Israel’s territorial promise when He

includes His universal Church. On the contrary, He widened the scope of the territory until it

extended to the whole world.” 12 Like Ellen White, Jesus, and Paul, Dr. LaRondelle sees a

territorial expansion with the influx of the Gentiles that includes “the whole world.” And after

discussing Israel’s territorial expansion, Dr. LaRondelle spiritualizes Israel’s promises:

“An underlying principle seems to govern Christ’s applications of Israel’s promises: the removal

of the old ethnic restriction among the new-covenant people entails the removal of the old

geographic Middle East center for Christ’s Church. Wherever Christ is, there is the holy space.

This is the essence of the New Testament application of Israel’s holy territory. For the holiness

of old Jerusalem, the New Testament substitutes the holiness of Jesus Christ. It ‘Christifies’ the

old territorial holiness and thus transcends its limitations. This should not be regarded as the

New Testament rejection of Israel’s territorial promise, but rather as its fulfillment and

confirmation in Christ.” 13

8

With the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Jewish Church, the territory expands to include the

globe. This expansion is critical to understanding Daniel 11, and should not be quickly

discarded. Therefore, I find it difficult to rely on Pastor Roosenberg’s view that Jesus’ parable in

Matthew 21 is evidence for localized Middle East conflicts after the Cross. The territory is

wherever Jesus and His people are.

Dr. LaRondelle said above, “Wherever Christ is, there is the holy space.” We find this concept

throughout the Bible. Jesus said, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name,

there am I in the midst of them.” Matthew 18:20. And when Moses was at the burning bush, the

Lord told him, “The place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” Exodus 3:5. The ground is

holy because the Lord and His people are there. Without Jesus and His believing, covenant

people there is no territorial significance.

Geographical Terminology in Daniel 11:23-45 Pastor Roosenberg gives no Biblical proof, except his own statements about the geographical

phrases in the prophecy, that Daniel 11:23-45 includes Middle East conflicts. Throughout his

book, Pastor Roosenberg relies entirely on Daniel’s geographical wording as confirmation that

there is a localized territorial focus throughout Daniel 11. Phrases like north, south, glorious

land, Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya, and other geographical terminology are his main evidence.

Pastor Roosenberg’s literalistic interpretation of the territorial terminology in Daniel 11 can be

considered another key to his interpretation. He always applies Daniel’s geographical

terminology to nations located geographically in relation to the nation of Israel. Thus, “One of

the keys” is to know who “is attacking Israel from the north or the south. Israel is always the

country in the middle.” And, “The geographical depicts real events.” (pp. 73, 91.) He claims that

“the Glorious Land” and “the glorious holy mountain” in Daniel 11:41 and 45 is “Israel and/or

Jerusalem” in Palestine. (p. 73, see also pp. 51-52.)

Pastor Roosenberg’s entire understanding of a conflict between Islam and Christianity relies on

the powers discussed in Daniel 11:23-45 being geographically situated in relation to the literal

city of Jerusalem. He identifies “papal-dominated Western Christianity” as the northern power

and the Islamic nations “south of Jerusalem” as the southern power. In the last conflict, Pastor

Roosenberg claims that something will “compromise the sovereignty of the geopolitical nation of

Israel.” (pp. 94-95, see also pp. 9, 107.)

This method of interpreting the prophecies is used by many of those who oppose the Seventh-

day Adventist Church. Therefore, we need to question if words such as Jerusalem, Israel, Egypt,

north, south, glorious holy mountain, and glorious land really confirm geographical conflicts

after Daniel 11:22, and we need to prove if the method Pastor Roosenberg uses is correct. Again,

listen to Dr. LaRondelle’s testimony on the use of geographical terminology:

“Paul interprets God’s promises to Abraham concerning land and offspring ‘in the sight of God’

as being fulfilled through Christ. That is not according to the hermeneutic of literalism, but

Paul’s theological exegesis. The land becomes the world; the nations become the believers who

trust in God and who are justified by faith, as was Abraham.” 14

9

Notice that Palestinian terminology takes on new and expanded meaning in the New Testament.

Although land and nations are mentioned, other principles must be applied. We cannot use a

straight literalistic interpretation. Louis Were agrees with this conclusion when interpreting last

day prophecies:

“Failure to understand the New Testament principle that Old Testament terminology is now

employed in a spiritual, world wide sense in connection with the church is responsible for much

theological confusion.” 15

The Book of Revelation uses geographical terminology, such as Israel, Babylon, and Egypt, when

it is clearly speaking of spiritual powers. The principle of geographical expansion is applied, and

nations must then be determined by spiritual characteristics. This principle not only applies to

New Testament prophecies, but also includes prophecies in the Old Testament that refer to New

Testament times. This must be clearly understood when interpreting Daniel 11. Interestingly,

Pastor Roosenberg’s literalistic, geopolitical method forces him to interpret end time events in

Daniel and Revelation differently:

“But, in Daniel, every place-name means what it says. Persia means Persia, Greece means

Greece, Egypt means Egypt, right on down the line. Daniel always means the place he says;

Revelation, between the beginning and the end, all the way through in the middle, never means

exactly what it says. It’s always a symbol for something else. So do not apply the same rules of

interpretation to Daniel and Revelation. . . . Daniel is literal; Revelation is symbolic.” 16

Are the prophecies in Daniel literal or symbolic like Revelation? Daniel 2 speaks of nations

constructed with different metals, Daniel 7 identifies the same nations as beasts, and Daniel 8

identifies Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome as a Ram, a Goat, and a Little Horn. Is this not

symbolic? Do these symbols always refer to these nations as having geographical location in

reference to Jerusalem? Because Daniel never uses the word “symbolic,” doesn’t mean he never

uses symbolism.

Isn’t it possible for Old Testament prophecies referring to New Testament times to lose their

territorial significance and take on a greater spiritual dimension? Didn’t early Adventists

embrace the possibility of a spiritual interpretation in Daniel’s prophecies when they proclaimed

that the heavenly sanctuary needed cleansing in 1844? Isn’t this a spiritual interpretation of the

sanctuary in Daniel 8:14? Isn’t this Seventh-day Adventist theology? And, isn’t it also possible

for the nations referenced by the terms north and south after Daniel 11:22 to be identified by

spiritual characteristics, without a Middle East territorial limitation?

As we pass through the time of Jesus’ crucifixion and the establishment of His Church, there is a

territorial expansion in the prophecies that cannot be ignored. The Church and Israel are one,

and the prophecies referring to Israel and its territory are references to the Church in its Jewish

and Gentile phases, as Dr. LaRondelle also says, “One eschatology binds Israel [Old Testament

believers] and the Church [New Testament believers] together.” 17 Daniel 11 expands Israel’s

territory as it moves through the Cross. The “glorious land” is the “glorious church” that has

been scattered around the globe. Ephesians 5:27. An attack on the glorious land by the king of

the north in Daniel 11:41 is an attack on the Church, not the Jewish nation.

10

Notice how Ellen White applies Old Testament, end time, territorial prophecies in a spiritual

sense to the Church:

“Especially in the closing work for the church . . . will they feel most deeply the wrongs of God’s

professed people. This is forcibly set forth by the prophet’s illustration of the last work, . . . ‘And

the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and

set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for the abominations that be

done in the midst thereof.’” 18

“When this work shall have been accomplished, the followers of Christ will be ready for his

appearing. ‘Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, . . .’ The

church which our Lord at his coming is to receive to himself will be ‘a glorious church, not

having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing,’ ‘fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an

army with banners.’” 19

“Through His servant Isaiah God is calling His church to appreciate her exalted privilege in

having the wisdom of the infinite at her demand: ‘O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up

into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength.’

(Isaiah 40:12-17, 28-31)” 20

“By men and women . . . whose names are on the church record, there are embezzlements, fraud,

licentiousness, adultery, and all kinds of wickedness. At such a time as this the Lord has

commanded, ‘Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the

inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand. . . .’” 21

In these few references, Ellen White applies the words City, Jerusalem, Judah, Zion, the Holy

Mountain, and the Land to Christ’s global Church, not to national Israel. She always applies a

spiritual interpretation to Old Testament, end time, territorial prophecies, which is in obvious

conflict with Pastor Roosenberg, who always applies the geographical terminology in Old

Testament prophecies of end time events to the Middle East.

In her last quote above, Ellen White is citing Joel, who later says of the power attacking the

Church, “But I will remove far off from you the northern army . . .” Joel 2:20. Having identified

Zion, God’s Holy Mountain, and the Land in connection with the Church in Joel 2:1, “the

northern army” in verse 20 must necessarily be interpreted spiritually also. Thus we have an Old

Testament passage referring to the north that is applied spiritually.

When speaking of the last conflict in Daniel 11, Louis Were identifies the problem with any

geopolitical interpretation:

“The purpose for which the last, long prophecy of Daniel was written was not to point to a

supposed gathering of the nations to Palestine for an ‘Armageddon’ which has nothing to do

with God’s moral purpose. . . . Actually this prophecy says absolutely nothing regarding a

supposed conflict of nations in Palestine; it says nothing concerning a military ‘Armageddon,’

but it does point to the deliverance from death at the hands of spiritual Babylon of those who

have obeyed the Law of God.” 22

11

The question that must always be asked when examining prophecy is, “What is God’s moral

purpose in giving this prophecy?” Like Louis Were, I can find no moral purpose in a territorial

conflict in the Middle East between the corrupt Roman Church, the apostate Jewish nation, and

the unbelieving Muslims. A Middle East conflict has absolutely nothing to do with God’s Church.

The majority of God’s people don’t reside in the territory now held by national Israel. There is no

innate holiness in that little patch of land. God’s Church has nothing to do with it. National

Israel is not Israel; the Church is Israel! The prophecy’s territorial terminology after Daniel 11:22

applies only to spiritual powers, and they must be interpreted spiritually.

Israel and Egypt in Daniel’s Final Conflict God called Israel to evangelize the world, not to keep His truths to themselves. The Apostle Paul

tells us that “unto them were committed the oracles of God.” Romans 3:2. They were to

propagate the Word until the knowledge of God was universal. As a nation they failed; they

looked at people of other nations as “dogs,” and they made it “an unlawful thing for a man that is

a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation.” Matthew 15:26; Acts 10:28.

It wasn’t until the 490 years of the Jews were complete, Stephen was stoned, the Church was

scattered, and Paul was converted that the Gospel began to go to the Gentiles. (See Daniel 9:24-

27; Acts 7:58-8:4; 9:1-22; 13:44-47.) Therefore, it was in AD 34 that the territorial expansion

commenced and Palestine ceased to be the geographical focus of Daniel’s last prophecy.

Pastor Roosenberg says of the prophecy in Daniel 9 that the end of the 490 years ended the

“exclusivity of the Jewish nation.” (p. 138, see also p. 28.) He means that national Israel and

spiritual Israel are both the focus of prophecy, not only national Israel. On the other hand, Ellen

White saw the Jewish nation as forever forsaken of God: “I saw that God has forsaken the Jews

as a nation. . . . Individuals among the Jews will be converted; but as a nation they are forever

forsaken of God.” 23 And again, “The Jewish nation who rejected Christ committed the

unpardonable sin.” 24 And her words in The Youth’s Instructor are clear:

“Henceforth the Jewish nation, as a nation, was as a branch severed from the vine—a dead,

fruitless branch, to be gathered up and burned—from land to land throughout the world, from

century to century, dead—dead in trespasses and sins—without a Saviour!” 25

It was not their bloodline nor was it their territory that made the Jews special. When the Jews as

a nation rejected Jesus, He rejected the nation. God chose to give the Jews His oracles. When

they rejected Him, “The kingdom of God” was taken from them and “given to a nation bringing

forth the fruits thereof”—a global “nation” of believers who would bear fruit and spread His

Word everywhere. Matthew 21:43, (see also 1 Peter 1:1; 2:9).

After He established His Church, Jesus “sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers,

and burned up their city.” Matthew 22:7. God is not giving the Jewish nation another chance.

Earthly Jerusalem is no longer called His city; His city is New Jerusalem. (See Hebrews 12:22.)

His people fled Palestine, earthly Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Jewish nation no longer has

significance.

12

Although the bulk of believers were ethnic Israelites in Jesus’ day, this is not the case today.

Spiritual Israel includes believers from every nation on earth. They are scattered everywhere.

Few live in the Middle East. The Jewish nation did not and is not spreading God’s Word to the

world today. They are not the focus of prophecy, the Church is.

At the end of chapter six, Pastor Roosenberg states that “the Glorious Land” in Daniel 11 “is

geographical,” and that it is not speaking “about the people—only about the land.” (p. 91.) He

focuses on the territory mentioned in the passage; the Glorious Land being the territory of the

Jewish nation. However, the angel states specifically why he gave the prophecy to Daniel: “Now

I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days.” Daniel 10:14.

No land is mentioned by the angel. The prophecy was given so Daniel’s people, Spiritual Israel,

can know what to expect in the final conflict.

The word “countries” in Daniel 11:41 was added by the translators. The passage actually reads:

“He shall also enter the Glorious Land, and many shall be overthrown; but these shall escape

from his hand: Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon.” Daniel 11:41, NKJV. Here

the prophecy talks about the global Church, “the Glorious Land,” being attacked, and certain

“people” escaping. The prophecy’s focus is clearly on people at the end, not land.

Consider again what Dr. LaRondelle says in the conclusion of his book about the Church and the

Jewish nation:

“It is not correct, therefore, to state that the Church has replaced Israel. Rather, the Church is

the continuity of the Old Testament Israel of God; it has only replaced the Jewish nation.” 26

Now if the Church replaced the Jewish nation in AD 34, then where geographically is Egypt in

Daniel 11:23-45? It’s clear that Egypt is the kingdom of the south in the prophecy. (See Daniel

11:7-9; Genesis 12:9-10.) Since Israel is not limited to the Middle East, than neither is Egypt. The

New Testament speaks of Egypt as a spiritual kingdom in Revelation 11:8, so must Daniel after

verse 22. It is inconsistent to limit Daniel’s description of Egypt to the Middle East while

Revelation speaks of it as a spiritual kingdom. They are speaking of the same spiritual power.

Since AD 34, we must look for spiritual Egypt in fulfillment of Daniel 11:23-45.

Daniel and Revelation cannot be interpreted separately, for the Holy Spirit has linked them.

(See 2 Pet. 1:20-21; Daniel 7; Revelation 13:1-8.) The king of the south must refer to spiritual

Egypt at the end of Daniel 11, just as it does in Revelation 11:8. The words of Pharaoh, as

recorded in Scripture, are atheistic, and characterize spiritual Egypt. (See Exod. 5:2.) Many

Bible scholars have understood this, and Ellen White also uses this principle:

“Of all nations presented in Bible history, Egypt most boldly denied the existence of the living

God and resisted His commands. No monarch ever ventured upon more open and highhanded

rebellion against the authority of Heaven than did the king of Egypt. When the message was

brought him by Moses, in the name of the Lord, Pharaoh proudly answered: ‘Who is Jehovah,

that I should hearken unto His voice to let Israel go? I know not Jehovah, and moreover I will

not let Israel go.’ Exodus 5:2, A.R.V. This is atheism, and the nation represented by Egypt would

give voice to a similar denial of the claims of the living God and would manifest a like spirit of

unbelief and defiance.” 27

13

In her context, Ellen White identifies atheist France as spiritual Egypt at the time of the French

Revolution. She interprets Egypt using spiritual characteristics. Not only does this fit perfectly in

Revelation 11, but it also fits perfect with the spiritual interpretation of Daniel’s final conflict:

“And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him . . .” Daniel 11:40. In AD 1798,

atheist France, the king of the south, attacked the Papacy and brought the 1260 years of the

papal church-state system to an end. The “time of the end” then began. Many Seventh-day

Adventist authors have noted this.28 (I will speak more on the year AD 1798 later.)

The conflicts in Daniel 11 must be interpreted as geographically limited to the Middle East

through Daniel 11:22 because that’s where God’s people were. They must be understood as real

conflicts between spiritual powers scattered around the earth after that. Spiritual kingdoms are

real powers that are identified by spiritual characteristics, not geographical location. There are

no Middle East geographical conflicts in Daniel 11:23-45. The geopolitical nations mentioned

through Daniel 11:22 are types of the spiritual, antitypical nations mentioned after that.

Pastor Roosenberg has limited the territory to the Middle East so he can focus on a conflict

between Islam, the Papacy, and national Israel, but the focus of the prophecy is not the Jewish

nation and the Church, it is only the Church. I will speak more about the nations in the final

conflict later. For now we must discuss some chronological issues in Pastor Roosenberg’s

interpretation.

Chronological Problems As the book’s name implies, Pastor Roosenberg focuses the prophecy of Daniel 11 around

conflicts between Islam and Christianity. He identifies three periods of major conflicts between

them. Two of the periods are identified as in the past and one in the future: the period of the

Crusades (AD 1095-1291), the period of the Ottoman Empire (AD 1449-1840), and a future third

conflict that “could begin at any time.” (p. 12.)

The concept of applying some of the conflicts in Daniel 11 to Islam is not new. Uriah Smith saw

the final conflict in Daniel 11 between Egypt and Turkey.29 Many modern interpretations also

include the Crusades in Daniel 11. In his book called Daniel, Doctor Shea places Daniel 11:23-30

at the time of the Crusades, from “the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries.” 30 And Dr. Maxwell

places Daniel 11:25-30 at the time of the Crusades, from AD 1095 to AD 1250.31

In his interpretation, Pastor Roosenberg uses Daniel 11:25-30 to squeeze the periods of the

Crusades and the Ottoman Empire. He quotes Daniel 11:25-27 and says that the passage is

speaking of “nine major crusades and many minor ones,” but he gives no real evidence for his

position. (p. 48.) Pastor Roosenberg identifies the period of the Ottoman Empire in Daniel

11:30-39. (pp. 48, 101.) However, he connects no events in Daniel 11:31-39 to the Ottoman

Turks, but relies entirely on the “ships from Cyprus,” mentioned in Daniel 11:30, being a naval

conflict in AD 1571, led against the Turks by Pope Pius V. (p. 48.)

Though all of the works discussed above do touch on Islam in Daniel 11, all are very different in

their details. While Dr. Maxwell is random in his interpretation and does not attempt a strict

chronology, Dr. Shea is methodical and gives justification for his view. Realizing that his view

doesn’t fit chronologically, Dr. Shea divides Daniel 11:23-39 into four topical sections and calls

his interpretation of the Crusades a “working hypothesis.” 32 Conversely, Pastor Roosenberg

14

seems to force his view into the scheme of the prophecy by manipulating words and phrases to

fit his chronological order. (p. 13.)

As for his historical interpretation, Pastor Roosenber gives very little information and no works

are quoted to support his view. His historical links to Daniel are also somewhat general, which

has made it difficult for me at times to understand exactly what he believes. Furthermore, after

further study, Pastor Roosenberg made some changes to his view, which can be found in his

videos. (This is not necessarily bad. Everybody grows in their understanding, and updates are

inevitable.) After watching his videos, I’ve revised this section to reflect the changes in his view.

Let’s look at a few examples of his chronology, from his book and his videos.

The “time” of Daniel 11:24

In a clear manipulation of the chronological flow, Pastor Roosenberg applies the phrase “but

only for a time” of Daniel 11:24 (NKJV) to the 1260 years of Papal rule, from AD 538 to AD 1798.

(p. 47.) Of the seven places in the Bible where the 1260 years are mentioned, not one is called a

“time.” The 1260-year period is termed, “a time, times, and an half” (Daniel 12:7; 7:25;

Revelation 12:14); it is identified, “forty and two months” (Revelation 11:2; 13:5); and it is

designated, “a thousand two hundred and threescore days” (Revelation 11:3; 12:6). The “time” in

Daniel 11:24 is typically understood as 360 years, not 1260 years.33

The fact that there are seven specific passages in Scripture that give the 1260 years is divinely

ordained. Pastor Roosenberg disrupts that number by adding the “time” of Daniel 11:24. It’s

obvious that he is trying to get this period to fit sequentially in his chronological interpretation.

He needs to introduce the beginning of the 1260 years, which began in AD 538, before the

Crusades began in AD 1095. To make it fit his sequence, he interprets the “time” mentioned in

the verse like an indefinite period, or as if it’s the beginning period of the 1260 years. He then

jumps forward over 500 years to the time of the Crusades in Daniel 11:25-28.

The Attack on the Holy Covenant

Pastor Roosenberg identifies Jesus as “the prince of the covenant” who is “broken” in verse 22.

(p. 27.) This is logical and is confirmed by other passages of Scripture. (Acts 3:14-15; 5:31;

Daniel 9:25, 27; 10:21; 12:1; Hebrews 8:6; 12:24.) Later he identifies the prophesied assault

against God’s covenant in Daniel 11:28, 30, and 32 as an attack against His Law, especially

against the Sabbath Commandment. (pp. 41-43.) This I also believe to be true.

In the New Covenant, God promises to change people’s hearts so they can obey His Law. (See

Hebrews 8:10-12; Romans 11:27; Ezekiel 36:26-27; Acts 3:25-26.) Any attempt to destroy the

“holy covenant” certainly could include the elevation of human tradition above God’s

Commandments. (See Dueteronomy 31:16; 2 Kings 17:14-16; Matthew 15:3-6.) This exalting of

human tradition, by the institution of a Sunday Law, is what the prophecy points to specifically

in verses 28 and 40, as I will show later. But for now, we must examine Pastor Roosenberg’s use

of the holy covenant in Daniel 11.

In a paragraph on page 48, Pastor Roosenberg quotes Daniel 11:28 again and vaguely applies

this critical verse to the worship of relics and the riches gained by the Christian “incursions into

the Holy Land” during the Crusades. God’s Law and His Sabbath are not mentioned, and no

15

specific event or historical proof is given to identify how this power set “his heart shall be against

the holy covenant.” Pastor Roosenberg then seems to link the attack against God’s covenant in

Daniel 11:30 to “the liturgical Mass, Inquisition, and decrees of the Council of Trent” during the

Ottoman Empire. (pp. 48, 208.) Daniel’s passages dealing with the “covenant” are important

enough to require clear explanation, but Pastor Roosenberg only alludes to his meaning.

In order to maintain the prophecy’s connection to Islam, Pastor Roosenberg appears to retreat

from the correct view of an attack on the holy covenant, which actually took place in the days of

Constantine, to events in the time of the Crusades and the Ottoman Empire, nearly 800 years

later. To fit these events at later times, he unwittingly conceals the clear meaning of this attack

on God’s “holy covenant.” I will give more evidence of this later when I explain Daniel 11:23-30.

The Abomination and the 1290 and 1335 Years

The establishment of the “abomination of desolation” in Daniel 11:31, which has typically been

accepted by Seventh-day Adventists to be the beginning of papal civil rule in Rome in AD 538 34,

is quoted in Pastor Roosenberg’s second conflict with Islam. He says, “Verses 30, 31 indicate a

naval battle,” which he identifies as a naval conflict led by Pope Pius V in AD 1571. (p. 48.)

Because he has only one paragraph of interpretation for Daniel 11:30-31, I previously thought he

was linking the abomination of desolation to “the Inquisition” and “the liturgical Mass

throughout Europe,” which are described in that paragraph.

However, Pastor Roosenberg later connects Daniel 11:31 with Daniel 8:11-13, and says only that

it applies to “the religious phase of the little horn.” (p. 208.) No events or dates are applied to

the abomination of desolation. On the same page, he links Daniel 11:30 to “one of the largest

Middle Ages naval battles” of Pope Pius V in 1571, and he is most likely linking the attack against

the “holy covenant” in that verse to “the liturgical Mass, Inquisition, and decrees of the Council

of Trent,” as noted in the previous section. There is no clear interpretation of the “abomination

of desolation” in his book.

The well-known and accepted view, that the placing of the abomination of desolation in Daniel

11:31 is the establishment of Papal civil rule in AD 538, clearly didn’t fit Pastor Roosenberg’s

discussion of the Ottoman Empire in AD 1571. He has since changed, or updated, his view in his

presentations and subsequent documentation. In the fourth video of his Daniel 11 Seminar 35,

Pastor Roosenberg uses Jesus’ explanation of the “abomination of desolation” in Matthew 24 to

apply the two prophetic times of Daniel 12:11-12 (the 1290 and 1335 days) to the abominations

mentioned in Daniel 9:27 and 11:31. (Note that (min:sec) are time references into his fourth

video.) He supplies two starting dates for his prophetic timelines: the destruction of Jerusalem

in AD 70, and the conversion of Clovis in France in AD 508. Obviously, his view of the prophecy

must then jump back over 1000 years, from AD 1571 in Daniel 11:30 to AD 508 in Daniel 11:31.

Pastor Roosenberg uses Daniel 8:13 to determine what events begin his two timelines: “In

Daniel 8, it’s both for the sanctuary and the host. In other words, we can play this prophecy

twice.” (37:14.) He makes two distinct prophetic timelines: one for the sanctuary, and the other

for the host. The sanctuary in Jerusalem is first: “So Jesus understood the abomination of

desolation to be the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD” (34:08), and “his [the Lord’s] sanctuary was

destroyed” at that time. (34:59.) He also says that “Daniel 11:31 is the second abomination of

16

desolation,” (35:21) which takes place in AD 508, and that verses “31-35 includes Papal religious

persecution [against the host] from the beginning to the end.” (35:45.) Thus, “Daniel said it was

about desecrating the sanctuary and then the host.” (35:04.) So, in his view, there are two

tramplings called the abomination of desolation: the Lord’s earthly “sanctuary,” which was

destroyed in AD 70, and the persecution of “the host” of Christians beginning in AD 508.

In his first timeline, Pastor Roosenberg begins the 1290 and the 1335 years (prophetic days) at

the same time, in AD 70, with the destruction of Jerusalem. He says that the 1290-year period

ended in AD 1360, and that “1360 is the year that John Wycliffe begins writing tracts attacking

the Friars and the Papacy”; consequently, he claims that that year was “the beginning of the

Reformation.” (38:03.) He then quotes Wikipedia as saying that Wycliffe was “the theoretician

of the Reformation.” (38:44.) Pastor Roosenberg further claims that Daniel 11:29 “brought the

1290 [years] to a conclusion” (37:06), that “the first [abomination] comes to its conclusion in

verse 29” (36:08), that the “appointed time” in that verse is AD 1360, and that the prophecy

then “begins to describe the Reformation.” (39:47.)

Also part of his first timeline, Pastor Roosenberg says that the 1335 years of Daniel 12:12 ends in

AD 1405, in the days of John Huss. He says that Huss, when told to destroy Wycliffe’s writings,

in June of 1405, began to comply, but ultimately refused. He then goes on to say that “John

Huss is called the first practicing reformer, in Wikipedia and other places” (38:58), and that

“1360 and 1405 aren’t just any years of the Reformation; they are the beginning of the Morning

Star [Wycliffe], and the beginning of the first practicing reformer [Huss].” (39:35.) Thus, Pastor

Roosenberg’s first timeline links the prophecies in Daniel 8:13; 9:27; 11:29; 12:11-12; and

Matthew 24:15-16 to the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Reformation.

Pastor Roosenberg’s second timeline also spans the 1290 and 1335 years. He says that both of

these periods begin with another abomination of desolation; that is, when Clovis was converted

to Catholicism in AD 508. He says that the Papacy then “began to persecute other Christians

who didn’t agree. That’s when they got the force of arms to push out the Arians and establish the

Papacy. And by 538 they were in power.” (36:35.) He then says that the 1290 years end in 1798

when “the Papacy loses its power to persecute” (41:15), and that the 1335 years end in 1843.

Once he formulated his dual timelines, Pastor Roosenberg addresses his chronological problem

in Daniel 11:30-31: “The reason it flashes back is that it doesn’t want to overlap them.” (40:32.)

He’s saying that Daniel gives the first timeline until it’s done, then Daniel “flashes back” and

gives the second one. He is saying that Daniel doesn’t mingle the events of the two timelines

together, or there would be confusion and misunderstanding.

Pastor Roosenberg then fills in his idea of the appointed times and finishes his discussion of the

time of the end. He says that 1844 is “the last appointed time” and the end of “the 2300 days.”

(42:08.) He then links the two appointed time end-points in Daniel 11:29 and 40 together: “The

appointed time, on the 1290 and the 1335, give you the beginning of the Reformation and the

end of it. After that you’re in the time of the end.” (42:16.) He then uses a quote from the Great

Controversy, page 79, to strengthen his concept that the 1290 years in his first timeline ended

when the Reformation began, and to support his idea of the appointed times: “When John

17

Wycliffe begins his work, Ellen White said, ‘the time had come.’ What time? 1360.” (43:35.)

Pastor Roosenberg then spans the two appointed times:

“And so, I’ve come to this simple conclusion, all the time periods relative to Papal Rome come to

their conclusion between 1360 and 1844, it’s the appointed time of Daniel 11. After that, you are

now in the time of the end.” (44:54.)

Pastor Roosenberg considers the appointed time and the time of the end as points in time as

well as periods of time. He also has an introduction to the time of the end, which he says is a

period of time. (See his timeline below.) I will discuss this more later.

Now that I have explained Pastor Roosenberg’s timelines, I will examine the obvious problems.

The first is his usage of Daniel 12:11. It is true that Matthew 24:15 is referring to more than one

abomination of desolation, but Daniel 12:11 is not. That passage says, “And from the time that

the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there

shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.” Pastor Roosenberg doesn’t discuss “the

daily,” but the prophecy is very specific. In order “to set up the abomination,” the “daily” has to

be “taken away.” (See Daniel 12:11, margin.) But the daily is not mentioned in Daniel 9:27, and

Pastor Roosenberg does not discuss it. The daily is only revealed in Daniel 11:31 and the parallel

passage in Daniel 8:11-13; it’s only taken away once.

Just as there can be only one beginning point to the 1290 years, so there is only one ending point

to the 1290 years. In Daniel 12:6, one of the angel’s asked, “How long shall it be to the end of

these wonders?” The Lord then answered in the next verse, “It shall be for a time, times, and a

half”; in other words, a 1260-year period would precede the end. But Daniel didn’t understand,

so he asked again about “the end” in verse 8, and he was told that the understanding of the

prophecy would be “closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” The Lord then says that the

wicked would not understand, but that the wise would, and that there would be “a thousand two

hundred and ninety days” after the daily is “taken away.” Daniel 12:9-11. This passage clearly

links the end of the 1290 years with the end of the 1260 years. It does not have a second

fulfillment.

AD 1095 – 1291

Crusades

Future Conflict

with Islam

AD 1449 – 1840

Ottoman Empire

Jerusalem

Destroyed

AD 70

Wycliffe

AD 1360

Huss

AD 1405

Clovis

AD 508

Appointed Time

Intro to

Time of

the End Papal Rule

Begins AD 538

Time of the End

and Judgment

Begin in AD 1844

Disappoint-

ment AD 1843

First Timeline: 1290 and 1335 years

Papal Rule: 1260 years

Second Timeline: 1290 and 1335 years

Pastor Tim Roosenberg’s Prophetic Timelines

Reformation

Begins Reformation

Ends

Papal Rule

Ends AD 1798

18

Additionally, in Daniel 11:31-40 and 12:6-11, there are clear verbal links in the Hebrew. Speaking

of these linkages, Dr. Frank Hardy says that there is “an almost perfect chiastic progression

incorporating 13 terms and linking 11 verses.” 36 Words derived from the same Hebrew roots

indicate a parallel connection between Daniel 11 and 12. These connections can even be seen in

the English of the King James Bible, as is shown in the table below. Notice especially how Daniel

11:31 and 12:11 are clearly linked, and how the phrase “the end of” is linked with “the time of the

end” in Daniel 11:40 and 12:6. The passages in Pastor Roosenber’s first timeline do not fit into

this chiastic structure, which indicates that they are unnaturally linked to Daniel 12:11-12.

12:6 “the end of” “wonders”

11:40 11:36

“the time of the end” “marvelous things”

12:7 “when he shall have accomplished . . . shall be finished”

11:36 “is finished”

12:9 “until the time of the end” 11:35 “until the time of the end” 12:10 “shall be purified, and

made white, and tried” “but the wise” “shall understand” “the wicked shall do wickedly . . . the wicked”

11:35 11:33 11:32

“to try them, and to purge, and to make them white” “those who understand” “those who understand” “shall instruct” “those who do wickedly”

12:11 “abomination” “that maketh desolate” “shall be taken away” “the daily”

11:31 “abomination” “that maketh desolate” “shall take away” “the daily”

Analyzing Pastor Roosenberg’s first timeline more closely, we can see that he places the

destruction of Jerusalem and the earthly sanctuary in AD 70 as its beginning point. What should

be obvious to anyone who is familiar with the prophecies is that the earthly sanctuary lost its

significance in AD 31, when Jesus was crucified. Pastor Roosenberg speaks of the sanctuary as

the Lord’s, but shortly before His passion, Jesus lamented to the Jews, “Behold, your house is

left unto you desolate.” Matthew 23:38. (Pastor Roosenberg recognized this on page 87 of his

book, but he changed his view to support his first timeline.) And when Jesus died, the Bible says,

“And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom,” signifying the end of

“sacrifice and offering” in an earthly temple. Mark 15:38; Daniel 9:27, NKJV.

Furthermore, Pastor Roosenberg makes the trampling of “the sanctuary and the host” in Daniel

8 as two separate events, which begin his two timelines of the 1290 and 1335 years; first the

sanctuary, then the host. What may not be obvious is that his reference to the sanctuary is to the

Old Covenant one, but his reference to the host is to the New Covenant Church. This is hugely

inconsistent. Speaking about the trampling of the sanctuary, Daniel 8:14 says it would continue

until the sanctuary’s cleaning in AD 1844. It’s obviously the trampling of the New Covenant

sanctuary that’s being referred to in Daniel 8:13-14. The Old Covenant sanctuary and host were

both trampled in AD 70, which would leave Pastor Roosenberg with only one event, so his

timeline must have the trampling of the Old Covenant sanctuary in AD 70, and the trampling of

the Church after Clovis comes to power in AD 508. A problem that’s irreconcilable.

19

As we have seen, Pastor Roosenberg also calculates the ending point of the 1290 years, in his

first timeline, as AD 1360. He says that it was this year that Wycliffe began writing tracts against

“the Friars and the Papacy.” This he says indicates the beginning of the Reformation; he even

quotes Ellen White as saying that “‘the time had come.’ What time? 1360!” In other words, he is

saying that she agrees that the time for the Reformation had come in AD 1360, but Ellen White’s

words do not indicate this:

“Except among the Waldenses, the word of God had for ages been locked up in languages known

only to the learned; but the time had come for the Scriptures to be translated and given to the

people of different lands in their native tongue.” 37

Ellen White was clearly talking about Wycliffe’s translation of the Bible, but the date was not AD

1360. History gives us a different date for his work on the Bible:

“From August 1380 until the summer of 1381, Wycliffe was in his rooms at Queen’s College, busy

with his plans for a translation of the Bible and an order of Poor Preachers who would take Bible

truth to the people.” 38

Pastor Roosenberg is 20 years off. Wycliffe’s first Bible translation was not finished until 1382.

John Wycliffe may have written some tracts against the Friars in 1360, but this is not in

harmony with what Ellen White is saying about his translation of the Bible. If it’s true that

Wycliffe began the Reformation in 1360 by writing tracts, then Pastor Roosenberg needs to

come up with the evidence. As for its beginning date being in 1360, historians tell us otherwise:

“At Oxford he [Wycliffe] developed a comprehensive activity as academic teacher; there he

penned his first reformatory writings and also preached with success. But it was not in these

fields that Wyclif gained his position in history; this came from his activities in ecclesiastical

politics, in which he engaged about the middle of the seventies, when also his reformatory

operations began.” 39

Most historians are in harmony when saying that Wycliffe began his reformatory work in the

mid-1370s. Therefore, Pastor Roosenberg’s reliance on the year 1360 as the beginning of the

Reformation is questionable. However, even if there was something significant that took place

that year, which proved that the Reformation began then, the Bible does not support two

timelines for the 1290 and 1335 years. Pastor Roosenberg’s first timeline is based on a few

passages of Scripture that are taken out of context. We must stand on proper methods when

interpreting prophetic time.

Another example of a passage taken out of context is Pastor Roosenberg’s use of Daniel 12:12

when referring to the 1290 years:

“If I take 70 AD, and run 1290 and 1335 from it, does it bring me to good news? And by the way,

verse 12 of Daniel 12 says it would bring me to good news from the abomination of desolation.”

(37:47.)

Pastor Roosenberg was speaking of Wycliffe and AD 1360 when he made this statement. The

blessing placed on those who make it till the end of the 1335 years, he applies at the end of the

20

1290 years. He changed the context of the passage. The prophecy of the 1290 years only

indicates that it concludes at the same time as the 1260 years. This may seem like a small issue,

but it is characteristic of Pastor Roosenberg’s usage of the Bible throughout his interpretation.

In the same statement he says that Daniel 12:12 would “bring me to good news from the

abomination of desolation.” However, the passage in Daniel 12:11-12 says, “And from the time

that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away . . .” The 1290 and 1335 years begin from the time

the daily is “taken away”; but again, he ignores the daily.

One thing we must remember when examining Pastor Roosenberg’s interpretation is that

everything is done to support his view of a conflict between Islam and Christianity. Every

passage is interpreted in support of his “ah-ha moment.” (pp. 7, 97.) In his book, Pastor

Roosenberg did not clearly interpret the daily or the abomination in Daniel 11:31, or the

prophetic times in Daniel 12:11-12. When he introduced his interpretation of the timelines in his

video, it was to support his view already given in his book. Interestingly, when developing his

timelines, he needed a way to backtrack more than 1000 years in Daniel 11:31, because that

verse didn’t fit his concept of Daniel 11 moving “in a straightforward way through human

history.” (p. 13.) The dual timeline concept is quite clever; it gives him a reason to “flash back”

from 1571 to AD 508, and thus it provides cover for his chronological problem.

However, the dual timeline concept, based on Matthew 24:15-16 and Daniel 12:11-12, required

that Pastor Roosenberg make the abomination, in Daniel 11:31, something other than Papal civil

reign beginning in AD 538. He had to make the abomination work for both timelines, and it had

to fit the year 508, instead of 538, to keep the 1290 and 1335-year historicist model intact. So he

identifies the abomination of desolation with the trampling of Jerusalem and its sanctuary in AD

70, and the trampling of the host of Arian Christians after Clovis’ conversion in AD 508. As

previously mentioned, Pastor Roosenberg says that AD 508 was the beginning of Papal

persecution, and that it ended 1290 years later, in AD 1798:

“And what do we have when we take 508? Well, 1260 years [he obviously means 1290 years

here] after 508 brings you to 1798, when the Papacy loses its power to persecute.” (41:08.)

Interestingly, the first Arian power to fall was the Heruli in AD 493. After that, the Vandals and

the Ostrogoths were overthrown by Justinian’s general Belisarius in 534 and 538 respectively.40

So it’s obviously not Clovis’ conversion, or use of his army against Arianism, that began the

persecution of the Church. According to the Bible, the persecution lasted 1260 years, not 1290

years. The saints were “given into his had until a time and times and the dividing of time.”

Daniel 7:25. And Ellen White clearly agrees that the persecution lasted 1260 years:

“In the sixth century the papacy had become firmly established. Its seat of power was fixed in

the imperial city. . . . And now began the 1260 years of papal oppression foretold in the

prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation. Daniel 7:25; Revelation 13:5-7.” 41

Since Papal persecution lasted for 1260 years, and not 1290 years, it had to begin in AD 538, not

AD 508 as Pastor Roosenberg has it. (Also of interest here is the fact that Daniel 11:35 says the

persecution would continue “until the time of the end,” which Pastor Roosenberg claims is 1844.

Because he plainly says that the Papacy lost “its power to persecute” in 1798, we have identified

yet another contradiction in Pastor Roosenberg’s interpretation.) And since the conversion of

21

Clovis and the persecution of the Arian Christians after AD 508 cannot be the abomination of

desolation, what was? Jesus clearly identifies it as an organized power:

“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet,

stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea

flee into the mountains.” Matthew 24:15-16.

The word “stand” is used in Daniel 11 in connection with a person or organization that

overthrows or gains control of an empire. (See Daniel 11:2-4, 6-7, 14-16, 20-21, 25, 31; 12:1.) The

abomination of desolation can’t be the trampling of Jerusalem in AD 70; it has to be the power

which then stood up to trample Jerusalem. Daniel 11:16 says that Pagan Rome would “stand in

the glorious land, which by his had shall be consumed.” The abomination in Daniel 11:31 also

cannot be the trampling of Arian Christians after Clovis’ conversion in AD 508, “when the

Papacy gets its ability to persecute other Christians.” (36:30.) The daily was then “taken away”

so the Papal abomination of desolation could be put in “place” in AD 538. Pastor Roosenberg is

just manipulating times and events to fit his interpretation.

The Time of the End and the Appointed Times

Pastor Roosenberg says that “according to Daniel 7 and 8 the judgment in heaven and the time

of the end started in 1844.” (p. 140.) And in another document he says of the time of the end

mentioned in Daniel 11:40 that it is speaking of “events to take place after 1844. . . . We should

then understand the ‘time of the end’ as parallel with the judgment.” 42 It is interesting that he

uses Daniel 8:14 and 17 to determine the beginning date of “the time of the end” in Daniel 11:40.

Nearly all previous Seventh-day Adventist interpreters of Daniel 11 place the beginning of the

time of the end in AD 1798, at the end of the 1260 years of Papal rule. The passage in Daniel

12:4-7 is used by many of them as proof of that date.43

Each of the parallel prophecies of Daniel finish with an expanded explanation: Daniel 2:36-45;

7:15-28; 8:15-27. As already noted, this is also true of Daniel’s last prophecy; Daniel 12:4-13 is a

clarification of much of Daniel 11, especially the parts speaking of the time of the end. There are

definite verbal links between Daniel 11:31-40 and Daniel 12:6-13 that cannot be ignored (see the

table on page 18), and which proves that the time of the end began in 1798.44 This prophecy

explains itself, and we should not rely entirely on language in Daniel 8 when the explanation

already exists in Daniel’s last prophecy. (I do believe that “the time of the end” and “the

appointed time” in Daniel 8:17 and 19 are the same as in Daniel 11:35 and 40, but that point in

time is revealed in Daniel 12.)

It is interesting that Pastor Roosenberg doesn’t mention the angel’s explanation in Daniel 12:4-7

when discussing “the time of the end.” Instead, he claims the beginning date of the time of the

end to be in AD 1844, at the end of the 2300 days in Daniel 8:14. The Angel Gabriel does not

equate the time “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” with “at the time of the end shall be the

vision.” Daniel 8:14, 17. The New King James says in verse 17 that “the vision refers to the time

of the end.” And The Interlinear Bible has it, “the vision is for the time of the end.” 45 Daniel

8:14 and 17 are two separate statements, and Pastor Roosenberg needs to explain their linkage,

as well as their connection to “the time of the end” in Daniel 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9.

22

Since his book was written, Pastor Roosenberg has updated his view of the time of the end

slightly. He now claims that the beginning date of “the time of the end” in Daniel 11:40 is an

introductory period, beginning in 1798 and culminating in 1844. He speaks of Ellen White’s

understanding of the phrase, but he never quotes her:

“I find her using it in three different ways: a time of the end that was a beginning of an

understanding, from 1798 to 1844; time of the end specifically as a time of judgment, while the

judgment is going on in heaven; and time of the end, as something that’s going to happen yet

future, to around 1900 when she was writing.” (27:38.)

Pastor Roosenberg’s claim that Ellen White understands that the time of the end has a 46-year

“beginning of an understanding” is unbelievable. He gives no proof of his statement, but goes on

further:

“The time of the end from 1798 is kind of like the introduction; there is a growing understanding

of Daniel. But the judgment had not yet begun, once it begins, we are in the time of the end

proper. We’re in the body of the time of the end.” (28:49.)

In other words, Pastor Roosenberg claims that 1798 is not the beginning of the time of the end,

as is typically understood; it’s only the beginning of the introduction to the time of the end. He

believes that the time of the end actually begins in 1844. He can do no other because his

interpretation relies on 1844 being the beginning of the time of the end. If the time of the end

begins in 1798, his whole scheme collapses, as I will show later.

Nevertheless, when Ellen White speaks of “the time of the end,” she often applied that phrase to

the time in which she was living: “But at the time of the end, the time in which we are now living

. . .” 46 “Cannot we who are living in the time of the end . . . ?” 47 “We are living in the time of the

end.” 48 She also speaks of “the time of the end” as the close of the final conflict: “It is true that in

the time of the end, when God’s work in the earth is closing . . .” 49 “The time of the end is near.” 50 “During the time of the end the activity of Satan’s servants will greatly increase.” 51 These

statements are representative of her general usage of the phrase. I don’t find her using “the time

of the end” as an introductory period, neither do I find her equating it to the judgment, but she

does identify it as having a beginning point.

Ellen White sometimes speaks of the proclamation of the judgment in connection with the time

of the end: “The message of Revelation 14, proclaiming that the hour of God’s judgment is come,

is given in the time of the end.” 52 Here she is saying that the judgment is proclaimed during the

time of the end. William Miller’s preaching in the 1830s was the result of Daniel being unsealed.

His preaching culminated with the beginning of the judgment and the end of the prophetic

periods in 1844. The book of Daniel was unsealed in 1798, before the end of the 2300 days.

Since 1798, many scholars have been running “to and fro” through the Scriptures, and they have

been gaining a better understanding than they could’ve had before then. Daniel 12:4.

Interestingly, there is one sentence by Ellen White that could be misunderstood: “Daniel stood

in his lot to bear his testimony, which was sealed until the time of the end, when the first angel’s

message should be proclaimed to our world.” 53 On careful examination, this sentence is saying

that Daniel could not bear his testimony in the proclamation of the first angel until his book was

23

unsealed at the time of the end. Thus the proclamation of the coming judgment could not be

given until Daniel was unsealed in 1798, but the judgment didn’t being until 1844. When we

read every word of the sentence carefully, the meaning is clear.

I can find no statements by Ellen White to support the idea that the year 1844 is the beginning

of the time of the end, that the period from 1798 to 1844 is an introduction to the time of the

end, or that the time of the end should be understood as a time of judgment. Rather, the

proclamation that the judgment was coming was given prior to the commencement of the

judgment and after the time of the end began in 1798. In the Great Controversy, Ellen White

quotes Daniel 12:4 when identifying AD 1798 as the beginning of the time of the end:

“The [first angel’s] message itself sheds light as to the time when this movement is to take place.

It is declared to be a part of the ‘everlasting gospel;’ and it announces the opening of the

judgment. The message of salvation has been preached in all ages; but this message is a part of

the gospel which could be proclaimed only in the last days, for only then would it be true that

the hour of judgment had come. The prophecies present a succession of events leading down to

the opening of the judgment. This is especially true of the book of Daniel. But that part of his

prophecy which related to the last days, Daniel was bidden to close up and seal ‘to the time of

the end.’ Not till we reach this time could a message concerning the judgment be proclaimed,

based on the fulfillment of these prophecies. But at the time of the end, says the prophet, ‘many

shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.’ Daniel 12:4.

“. . . since 1798 the book of Daniel has been unsealed, knowledge of the prophecies has

increased, and many have proclaimed the solemn message of the judgment near.” 54

Notice, Ellen White clearly says that knowledge of the prophecies could not increase and the

judgment be proclaimed until the book of Daniel was unsealed in 1798. She is perfectly clear in

these paragraphs from The Great Controversy, pages 355 and 356, but Pastor Roosenberg

changes her meaning: “In Great Controversy, page 356, talking about that time period, of 1798

to 1844, she calls it ‘judgment near.’ And then, in 355, just before then, she had said, ‘when

judgment had come.’ She referred to that as the time of the end.” (28:08.) Pastor Roosenberg

doesn’t quote her full statements. He just puts his view on a few of her phrases. Ellen White

clearly supports the 1798 date as the beginning of the time of the end. Nowhere does she refer to

the judgment as the time of the end, but says that the “message of the judgment near” was

proclaimed after Daniel was unsealed in 1798, when the time of the end began.

Why is it necessary for Pastor Roosenberg to change the beginning date of the time of the end

from 1798 to 1844? Simply because his third conflict cannot be introduced by the prophecy until

after the second conflict with the Ottoman Empire is finished in 1840. (p. 102.) This is the

reason he chose to use “the time of the end” mentioned in Daniel 8:17, which he claims to be

1844. To accept 1798 as the beginning date of “the time of the end” would obviously be

catastrophic to his interpretation. The solution he gives in his video is to make 1798 to 1844 an

introductory period, but I can find no support for this in the Bible or Ellen White’s writings.

As already mentioned, the Bible says the persecution of God’s people would continue until a

specific time: “And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to

make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.” Daniel

24

11:35 (see also Daniel 12:7-9.) Pastor Roosenberg contradicts himself when he says the period of

persecution ended in 1798 while insisting that the time of the end begins in 1844. He tries to

justify his view by saying that the beginning of the time of the end was an introductory period,

but he is just juggling numbers. He does the same thing with the phrase “appointed time.”

The phrase “time appointed” (KJV), or “appointed time” (NKJV), is used to identify two specific

points of time in Daniel 11, events in verse pairs 27, 29 and 35, 40. This phrase comes from the

Hebrew word, mô‘ēd. It is used often in the Old Testament, and is translated in over two dozen

different ways in the King James Bible. As many English words have multiple meanings, so the

Hebrew word, mô‘ēd, has multiple meanings:

“This masculine noun occurs 223 times. It frequently designates a determined time or place

without regard to the purpose of the designation. It may be the time for the birth of a child (Gen

17:21; 18:14; 21:2), the coming of a plague (Ex 9:5), the season of a bird’s migration (Jer 8:7), an

appointed time (I Sam 13:8; 20:35), the time for which a vision is intended (Hab 2:3), the times

of the end (Dan 8:19), or the time for the festivals (Lev 23:2) and solemnities (Deut 31:10).” 55

The meaning of mô‘ēd can only be determined by the immediate context in which it is used, as

in Jeremiah 8:7: “The stork . . . knoweth her appointed times.” Although linguistically correct, it

is out of context to translate the passage as “the stork . . . knoweth her feasts.” Interestingly,

mô‘ēd is used out of context by Feast Keeping groups today to say that the feast days were

instituted at creation: “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament . . . for signs, and for

feasts.” Genesis 1:14. So we must be careful not to read something into Daniel’s words that

aren’t there. The context must be used to determine whether the word is referring to “an

appointed sign, appointed time, appointed season, place of assembly, [or] set feast.” 56

Connecting the end of his first 1290-year timeline to Wycliffe and the “appointed time” in verse

29, Pastor Roosenberg says, “This makes 1360 AD an appointed time or end of a time prophecy.” 57 The context doesn’t indicate that the appointed time of Daniel 11:29 is the end of a time

prophecy; neither does it identify that appointed time as the beginning of a 484-year prophetic

period, as Pastor Roosenberg has it in his timelines. Daniel 11:27 says, “For the end will still be

at the appointed time,” and in Daniel 11:29-30, the prophecy says, “At the appointed time he

shall return and go toward the south. . . . For ships from Cyprus shall come against him.” NKJV.

Verse 27 is referring to a naval conflict identified in Daniel 11:29-30. That is the immediate

context; but Pastor Roosenberg makes it the beginning of a long “Appointed Time” period

without any evidence whatsoever.

Pastor Roosenberg needs to have the “Appointed Time” as a long period after AD 1360, because

he says that the European navy later came against the Ottoman Turks who “had control of the

island of Cyprus.” (p. 48.) He says that they “defeated the Ottomans” in a naval conflict in 1571.

He cannot have it as both AD 1360 and AD 1571, unless the appointed time lasts for hundreds of

years. Thus his “Appointed Time” period continues from 1360 to 1844, or 484 years; that is, in

his view, it continues “until the time of the end; because it is still for the appointed time.” Daniel

11:35, NKJV. The problem with this view is that the immediate context of verse 35 makes no

reference to Daniel 11:29-30. The passage says, “And some of those of understanding shall fall,

to refine them, purity them, and make them white, until the time of the end; because it is still for

25

the appointed time.” Daniel 11:35, NKJV. It’s saying that the persecution of God’s people would

last until the time of the end begins in AD 1798 (Daniel 11:40), there’s nothing else in the

context. Therefore, to make the appointed times a period of time is nothing but conjecture.

The Spiritual Interpretation and Chronology in Daniel 11:23-30

Pastor Roosenberg’s failed attempts to fit Daniel’s last prophecy into logical chronological order

reveals the real problem of trying to interpret Daniel 11 geographically after verse 22. I became

aware of this geographical, chronological problem in Daniel 11:23-30 about 1985, shortly after I

began to study Daniel 11. Recently, Dr. Shea also acknowledged the difficulty of trying to

interpret Daniel 11:23-30:

“Daniel 11:23-30 is the most difficult passage to interpret historically in terms of events that now

lie in the past. It is difficult to be definite about the interpretation of Daniel 11:23-30, and we

should keep this difficulty in mind when studying this passage.” 58

As I stated above, the problem is one of trying to interpret the passage geographically. Although

many Seventh-day Adventists interpret Daniel 11:40-45 spiritually, every one of them that I’m

aware of, except me, interprets Daniel 11:23-30 geographically.59 To interpret Daniel 11:40-45

spiritually and Daniel 11:23-30 geographically is inconsistent, and this inconsistency has given

Pastor Roosenberg room to work. Without interpreting Daniel 11:23-30 spiritually, it will be

difficult to come to a proper spiritual conclusion in Daniel’s final conflict; the tendency is to

apply it geographically to the Middle East.

Most Seventh-day Adventist interpretations of Daniel 11 clearly place the end of Daniel 11:22 in

AD 31, when Jesus the “prince of the covenant” was crucified. Most of these interpretations also

place the end of Daniel 11:31 in AD 538, when the papal “abomination” gained civil power.60

Therefore, it only makes sense that Daniel 11:23-30 should fit chronologically between those two

dates. These verses cannot be interpreted in their proper chronological order—between AD 31

and AD 538—while seeking a geographical fulfillment, as Dr. Shea’s failed attempts show.61 Only

when we interpret them spiritually can the chronological problem be resolved.

As I said earlier, the spiritual method of interpretation is completely incompatible with the

geopolitical view because they are based on different principles. The spiritual interpretation

understands “the king of the south” as a reference to spiritual Egypt. Just as Pharaoh and the

French legislature denied the existence of Jehovah, so the power represented as spiritual Egypt

in Daniel 11:23-30 will have similar characteristics. Despite the terminology, the king of the

south has nothing to do with geography after Daniel 11:22.

The passage in Daniel 11:23-30 does fit the defined historical timeframe when it is interpreted

spiritually. We can connect the events of the prophecy to real powers existing between AD 31

and AD 538. With the geographical limitation removed, we will now look at Daniel 11:23-30

using only the spiritual interpretation. The following is an abbreviation of those verses detailed

in chapter four of The Vision by the Tigris. Notice the clear chronological order:

Daniel 11:23: With the influx of pagans into the early Church, many of its members had no real

love for truth. Some of these professed Christians ultimately created a “league,” or union, with

pagan philosophy, and a new Roman religion was formed. The prophecy says of this new

26

philosophical Christian organization, “he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up and

became strong with a small people.” This prophetic description is parallel with the “little horn”

of Daniel 7, which “came up” and became “more stout” than the other horns. Daniel 7:8, 20. The

foundation of this power was already beginning in Paul’s day. (See 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10.)

Daniel 11:24: In the second century, this corrupt Church began to incorporated into its teachings

the “prey, and spoil, and riches” of paganism when its teachers—philosophers like Justin

Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origin—entered “peaceably even upon the fattest places of

the province,” the philosophical centers of the Roman Empire. They set up schools in Rome and

Alexandria to teach these new philosophical ideas.

This emerging religious power then “forecast his devices against the strongholds” by preaching

and warring against Pagan Rome. This struggle began when Justin Martyr, who is identified in

history as the “first philosophic theologian,” 62 entered Rome, just before AD 150, and started a

school of Christian philosophy.63 This conflict between apostate Roman Christianity and

paganism continued for a “time,” or 360 literal years, when using the day-for-a-year principle.

During those years there were religious and political, military, and naval struggles for power.

Daniel 11:25-26: The prophecy says that “he shall stir up his power and his courage against the

king of the south with a great army.” This passage identifies the first military campaign in

history fought in the name of Christ. Just like Pharaoh in Egypt, the pagans in Rome had many

gods and denied Christ. Hence, the pagan rulers in Rome are identified as the various kings of

the south in these verses. (I will give more on Rome and the king of the north later.) Working

with the corrupt Church, Constantine assembled an army of 98,000 men. Under the banner of

Christ he attacked the king of the south, the pagan Maxentius, ruler of Italy, in AD 312.

Maxentius had “a very great and mighty army” of 170,000 men in northern Italy and large

reserves at Rome. The prophecy says before the “battle” of Milvian Bridge was engaged that “his

army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain.” When the battle was finally fought,

Constantine attacked him from two sides, and Maxentius was forced to retreat over the bridge.

Thousands of Maxentius’ men were forced into the Tiber River and drowned, and many others

were slain.

Maxentius’ officers, who may have been part of an embassy that came from Rome earlier that

year to ask Constantine to deliver Italy from the pagan Maxentius, purposely failed to inform

him of the division of Constantine’s army.64 Thus, the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “They

that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him.” Maxentius died in the battle.

This prophesied conflict between Christianity and paganism in Daniel 11 is parallel to Daniel 8

where the papal “little horn” power receives a “host” to work politically and militarily against

paganism. Daniel 8:12.

Daniel 11:27: Constantine and Licinius, another pagan ruler in the Roman Empire, met together

and created the Edict of Milan in AD 313. This edict gave freedom to Christians throughout the

Empire. The prophecy says, “And both these kings’ hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall

speak lies at one table.” Even while they sat in negotiation, Licinius plotted to murder

Constantine, and Constantine was planning the overthrow of Licinius. However, the prophecy

27

says, “It shall not prosper.” Constantine detected and foiled the plot of Licinius that summer,

and their two armies engaged in a small battle in AD 314. A year later they negotiated peace,

which lasted until “the time appointed.” (See verse 29 below.)

Daniel 11:28: The prophecy next says that Constantine would “return into his land with great

riches.” The Hebrew here for “great riches” can also be translated “large estate.” Along with the

wealth he acquired in Rome, Constantine gained through his military campaigns large portions

of land, including Italy and Greece.

The verse then says that Constantine would set his heart “against the holy covenant.” That is, he

established a Sunday law on March 7, AD 321; he created a law in opposition to one of God’s

Commandments. This event is related to Daniel 7 where the “little horn” power “thinks to

change times and laws.” Daniel 7:25. It is also linked to the “transgression” phase of the “little

horn” in Daniel 8:9-13.

The verse finally says that Constantine “shall do exploits and return to his own land.” Shortly

after the Sunday edict, in the spring of AD 321, the Roman Bishops persuaded Constantine to

send his armies to do “exploits” against the Donatists. The Donatists were a group of African

Christians who refused to have a Catholic Bishop over them. The corrupt bishops were pleased

to see the Donatists massacred, but after three months, Constantine accepted an appeal from

them, recalled his armies, and reestablished religious freedom, fulfilling the passage.

Daniel 11:29-30a: “At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south.” That is,

Constantine would attack the pagan Licinius. It was not “as the former,” when Justin Martyr,

and other Christian philosophers, “forecast . . . devices” against the pagans, neither was it “as the

latter,” when Constantine attacked the pagan Maxentius with his “great army.” Constantine then

used “the ships of Chittim,” that is, he used ships from “the Greeks or Romans on the shores

opposite to Palestine” 65 to overthrow the navy of Licinius in AD 323.

After his naval victory, Constantine pursued, captured, and finally killed Licinius. He then

became the sole ruler in the Roman Empire.

Daniel 11:30b: This passage says that Constantine would “be grieved, and return, and have

indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence

with them that forsake the holy covenant.” Constantine then had “intelligence” with the bishops

who were forsaking the “holy covenant” when he presided over the first council of the Roman

Church, the Council of Nicea, in AD 325. During the assembly, and for the first time in Christian

history, canons were formed regulating the forms and practices of worship. The laws of men

were replacing the Commandments of God.

Daniel 11:31a: “And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of

strength.” Constantine removed the capital of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople in AD

330, and he took the pagan idols from their temples to adorn his new capital, thus polluting the

city of Rome—“the sanctuary, the fortress” of paganism. (Literal translation.) The Christian

emperors after him were finally to “take away the daily,” or paganism, from Rome at the end of

the 360-year “time” mentioned in Daniel 11:24 above, in AD 508. The king of the south then

passes from the prophecy until verse 40.

28

Here are events associated with Pagan and Papal Rome, and its attack on God’s Law, that fit

perfectly within the designated timeframe. The focus of six full verses on the life of Constantine

was given to corroborate the Sunday law apostasy revealed in verse 28. All of the events before

and after that verse line up in perfect chronological sequence. Here in Daniel 11, the Lord reveals

the utter corruption of humanity in enforcing human tradition above His Law—His “perpetual

covenant.” Exodus 31:16.

When interpreting Daniel 11:23-31a using only the spiritual interpretation, the prophecy

pinpoints Constantine’s Sunday law apostasy. Isn’t this significant to Seventh-day Adventists?

God’s people should be ecstatic to learn this most important truth. The spiritual interpretation

flows naturally and effortlessly with these verses, as the Lord designed it to.

No geopolitical interpretation can reveal this most important revelation from the prophecy

because geographical location and terminology will not allow it. It is also not possible for Daniel

11:23-31a to identify both geopolitical and global spiritual conflicts at the same time. The

principles used to reveal the geopolitical and the spiritual are completely different. It is

geopolitical or spiritual, not both. Inserting the Crusades and the Ottoman Empire into Daniel

11:25-30 completely destroys the chronological flow of the prophecy and invalidates the spiritual

interpretation.

Other Inconsistencies There are other problems in Pastor Roosenberg’s interpretation. I can’t address them all. Some

are minor, or do not deal with Daniel 11; therefore I haven’t discussed them. Still, there are some

that need to be addressed, so I’ve placed them here.

Edom, Moab, and Ammon

Pastor Roosenberg said in his original book that the people groups listed in Daniel 11:41 (Edom,

Moab, and Ammon) “were heirs of Abraham through his son Ishmael.” (p. 108.) After I, and

possibly others, identified Pastor Roosenberg’s view as in error, he changed his sentence in the

revision to read, “They were related to Abraham through Lot, Esau, and Ishmael.” The Bible is

clear that Moab and Ammon were sons of Lot, who was Abraham’s nephew, and that Edom was

Esau, the brother of Jacob. (See Genesis 12:5; 19:30-38; 25:24-30; 36:1, 19.) Yet it is amazing

that he still includes Ishmael since none of them were related to Abraham through Ishmael.

Pastor Roosenberg claims that the Biblical territories of Edom, Moab, and Ammon are now

included in “western Jordan,” and he classifies these three people groups as Muslim. (pp. 52,

108.) He therefore has a definite need to link them to Ishmael. To make these people Muslim

because the nation that now controls their original territory is Muslim is without foundation.

The prophecy is obviously probing us to identify spiritual characteristics associated with them.

There is absolutely no indication in the prophecy to identify them as Muslim.

Is Rome the King of the North?

Pastor Roosenberg says that all four kingdoms mentioned by Daniel (Babylon, Medo-Persia,

Greece, and Rome) must be considered kings of the north. He comes to this conclusion because

the passage in Jeremiah 1:15 tells him “to expect one kingdom to replace another,” and that “a

series of kings would come to Jerusalem.” (pp. 26, 95.) Here Pastor Roosenberg understands “all

29

the families of the kingdoms of the north,” which “set every one his throne at the entering of the

gates of Jerusalem,” to be the four successive kingdoms of Daniel. He argues that “the verse says

‘kingdoms,’” and therefore proves that the kingdoms of Daniel are all “correctly identified” as

kings of the north. However, Jeremiah says that the kingdoms that came against Jerusalem

would all come with Nebuchadnezzar to overthrow Jerusalem:

“The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and

all his army, all the kingdoms of the earth under his dominion, and all the people, fought

against Jerusalem and all its cities, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: “Go and

speak to Zedekiah king of Judah and tell him, ‘Thus saith the LORD: “Behold, I will give this city

into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire.” ’ ” ’ ” Jeremiah 34:1-2,

NKJV.

Here we have clear evidence that the “kingdoms” that came with Nebuchadnezzar were included

“under his dominion.” They were clearly not successive kingdoms; they all came against

Jerusalem at the same time. Using similar wording, 1 Kings 4:21 speaks of “kingdoms” under

Solomon: “And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the

Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt.” Solomon reigned over all of these kingdoms at the

same time. Obviously then, the passage in Jeremiah 1:15 is saying that all of the families of the

various regions under Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion would come with him and lay siege to

Jerusalem. Jeremiah also says that these kingdoms must come against Jerusalem before the

seventy-year captivity:

“Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar

the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the

inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them. . . .

And these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” Jeremiah 25:9-11.

Here Jeremiah says that these families of the north are led by Nebuchadnezzar to overthrow

Jerusalem and the surrounding nations, and to lead them into captivity. All of these families

from the north actually invaded Jerusalem together and before the seventy year captivity, and

they obviously didn’t include Medo-Persia, Greece, or Rome, which came later. These

observations are further verified by Jeremiah 1:16, which gives the reason that these nations

came against Jerusalem:

“And I will utter my judgments against them touching all their wickedness, who have forsaken

me, and have burned incense unto other gods, and worshiped the works of their own hands.”

Jeremiah 1:16.

The Jews were committing idolatry like the nations around them, so God brought down “all the

families of the kingdoms of the north,” led by Nebuchadnezzar, to overthrow them and lead

them into captivity. After that, they no longer indulged in idolatry: “By the Babylonish captivity

the Israelites were effectually cured of the worship of graven images.” 66 It makes no sense that

God would bring Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome against Jerusalem because of idolatry after

they were “effectually cured of the worship of graven images.”

30

Nonetheless, Pastor Roosenberg further contends that Daniel’s four powers “would seize

Jerusalem and, as each conquered it, set up their throne.” (p. 26.) However, this is not true of all

of Daniel’s four kingdoms. Rather than laying siege to and conquering Jerusalem, the Medo-

Persians provided for its restoration. (See Ezra 6:14; 9:9; Nehemiah 2:1-10; 6:15.) They never set

up their “throne at the entering of the gates of Jerusalem.”

As further evidence of his view, that all of the powers in Daniel come from the north, Pastor

Roosenberg says that Jeremiah 50:9 “declares that Babylon’s conqueror” would come from the

north, which makes “Medo-Persia the second king of the north.” (p. 26.) The passage is clearly

referring to the Medes and their allies coming against Babylon. (See Jeremiah 51:11, 27-29.) We

know that it was Cyrus the Great who overthrew Babylon and placed Darius the Mede on the

throne there. (See Isaiah 45:1-6; Daniel 5:30-31.) What is interesting though is that the Jews

were captives in Babylon at that time, and the passage is referring to the overthrow of Babylon,

not an attack on Jerusalem. The passage doesn’t attempt to prove that Medo-Persia comes

“against Israel from the north.” (p. 9.)

Likewise, Greece (before its breakup) and pagan Rome are also not identified as coming from

the north. Daniel reveals Greece as coming from the west: “And as I was considering, behold, an

he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground.” Daniel

8:5. And Daniel also identifies Rome as coming from one of the “four winds” to which Greece

was divided. (See Daniel 8:8-9.) Like Pastor Bohr, I have to agree that Rome comes from the

west: “The papacy is certainly not literally north of literal Israel (it is actually west).” 67 Nowhere

are undivided Greece and pagan Rome identified as kingdoms from the north.

Clearly, the last three kingdoms in Daniel’s prophecies are not being referred to in Jeremiah 1:15

as Pastor Roosenberg says. I also cannot agree that Rome is the king of the north based on

geography, or by any of the evidence Pastor Roosenberg has supplied. It is imperative to his

interpretation that he makes Rome the king of the north throughout Daniel 11:20-45, but he has

no evidence in support of his view. Consider the critical point that Dr. Shea makes when Rome

overthrows the king of the north in Daniel 11:16:

“He [Rome] is not referred to either as the king of the south or the king of the north, . . . At this

point we find the king of the north does not appear again in chapter 11 until verse 40.” 68

Dr. Shea reveals a problem in identifying Rome as king of the north in Daniel 11. Most Seventh-

day Adventist interpretations introduce Rome in Daniel 11:14; others introduce it in Daniel

11:16.69 In both cases, Rome overthrows “the king of the north” in Daniel 11:16: “But he [Rome]

that cometh against him [Antiochus the Great, the king of the north] shall do according to his

own will, and none shall stand before him . . .” Rome is not called the king of the north by the

prophecy after it overthrew Antiochus. Some of the different interpretations, which see Rome as

the king of the north throughout the rest of the prophecy, develop principles to apply that

phrase to Rome 70, but Daniel 11:16-39 does not call Rome, or its rulers, the king of the north.

In Pastor Roosenberg’s view, Rome becomes the king of the north after Antiochus the Great

dies, which he says happens in verse 19; then the northern king’s “role . . . switches to Rome.”

(pp. 25-26, 206.) As I have shown, he also uses Jeremiah 1:15 as his main piece of evidence to

identify Rome as one of four kings that come from the north against Jerusalem, but that verse

31

clearly doesn’t support his view. The only one of Daniel’s kingdoms that can clearly be identified

as king of the north in the Bible is Babylon:

“For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyre Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon,

a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and

companies, and much people.” Ezekiel 26:7.

“Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you

abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD. Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest

with the daughter of Babylon.” Zechariah 2:6-7.

When using the spiritual method to interpret Daniel 11:23-45, I have shown that atheist France

clearly fits “the king of the south” in Daniel 11:40. We can also see that Jeremiah and Daniel do

not identify Rome as king of the north. And there is no evidence that Rome is called the king of

the north because it overthrew Antiochus the Great. So the question is, how do we determine

who the king of the north is at the end of the prophecy? If the Papacy is really the king of the

north in Daniel 11:40, then how does it become the king of the north?

Spiritually, Babylon is the Kingdom of the North

There is a reason that the phrase, “the king of the north,” is not used from Daniel 11:15 until

Daniel 11:40. The Lord is precise in His usage of the phrase at specific places in the prophecy. I

do believe that the Papacy is the king of the north in Daniel 11:40. However, since I don’t see any

geographical conflict in Daniel 11:40-45, I cannot accept Pastor Roosenberg’s interpretation

solely on a geographical premise. There is a deeper moral issue for the use of that phrase in

Daniel 11:40. The king of the north must be identified through spiritual principles.

The prophecy in Daniel 11 starts in the days of the Persian Empire and quickly transitions to

Alexander the Great and the Greek Empire. (Daniel 11:2-3.) It next speaks of the breakup of

Greece into four divisions. (Daniel 11:4.) The focus then shifts to two of those divisions, the

kings of the north and south. (Daniel 11:5-6.) Correctly identifying the spiritual characteristics of

these two powers is vital to understanding the rest of the prophecy, and I have already identified

spiritual Egypt as having atheist characteristics, which many others have also done.

A common spiritual interpretation, and one that I also hold, is that Babylon is the territory of

the king of the north. The Bible points to the land of Babylon when it refers to the north. (See

Jeremiah 25:9; Ezekiel 26:7; Zechariah 2:6-7.) Louis Were was the first to identify ancient

Babylon as the king of the north by using Scripture and historical facts.71 It was his

understanding that laid the foundation for today’s spiritual interpretations of Daniel 11.

Antiochus the Great was especially limited to the territory of Babylon during the time the

prophecy is speaking of him as the king of the north. The prophecy spends six full verses on

Antiochus the Great (Daniel 11:10-16a), and two of those, verses 11 and 12, focus on the battle of

Raphia when Antiochus was not in control of Asia Minor or the territory east of Babylon. It was

not until later in his reign that Asia Minor and his eastern provinces were recovered. This fact is

of great significance and should not be overlooked when interpreting the prophecy.

32

The historical facts show that the Seleucid monarchs termed king of the north by the prophecy

reigned in the territory of ancient Babylon. Notably, the Seleucid Empire was established when

Seleucus took that territory. While Ptolemy was at war in Syria, Seleucus marched to Babylon:

“Seleucus, however, seized this moment to dash across the desert to Babylon and reinstate

himself in his old satrapy. The Seleucids dated their Era from this event (October, 312 B.C.).” 72

In verse 16, the king of the north passes from the prophecy and does not return until verse 40.

This is a key to understanding the prophecy at the end. The pagan Roman Empire is never called

the kingdom of the north by the prophecy. It is clear from history that Pagan Rome did not gain

the territory of ancient Babylon. Consider the clear and obvious statement made by a historian

on this point:

“One thinks of the Roman Empire as including the whole ancient civilized world, except distant

China and India. But it should be remembered that, if the Romans had spread Greek culture to

Western lands like Gaul and Britain, they had lost a large part of the empire of Alexander the

Great, and that their frontier went no farther east than the Euphrates River and the Arabian

Desert. They were unable to conquer and hold the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, once the most

civilized and influential region on earth. Here they were successfully opposed, first, by the

Parthian, and then, after 227 A.D., by the Persian Kingdom.” 73

Pastor Roosenberg views the king of the north in Daniel 11:20-45 as Rome, Pagan and Papal,

because he claims that Rome literally comes against Jerusalem from the north. In the spiritual

interpretation, the king of the north must reign in Babylon. Pagan Rome cannot then be the king

of the north after Daniel 11:16 because it never controlled that territory. The spiritual view also

identifies the territory of the king of the north after Daniel 11:22 as spiritual Babylon. The king

of the north must then reign there. Therefore, the king of the north cannot return to the

prophecy until the Pope reigns in spiritual Babylon. This is why the prophecy doesn’t mention

the king of the north until Daniel 11:40. The Pope doesn’t reign in spiritual Babylon yet.

A Spiritual Interpretation of the King of the North in Daniel 11:40

Daniel 11:32-39 prophesied of events during the 1260 years of papal rule—the first reign of the

Papal phase of the “abomination of desolation.” Daniel 11:31, NKJV. It talks about the

persecution of the Church and the exaltation of the popes and their blasphemy. It reveals papal

celibacy, idolatry, and saint worship. Finally, the prophecy speaks of papal greed for power and

money, and its control over the land and nations of the earth.

Verse 40 begins with an attack on the Papacy by the king of the south, atheist France, in AD

1798, as I have already noted. Since that time, atheist principles have spread to other nations of

earth, especially the socialist and communist nations. In 1957, Louis Were identified Communist

Russia as spiritual Egypt, the kingdom of the south. He claimed that it would have to fall to the

Papacy, the king of the north, before the end.74

Were’s concept brought rise to the modern interpretation that communism’s collapse in Russia

was the fulfillment of Daniel 11:40.75 That communism in Russia fell through the working of the

Papacy and the Western nations is true, but not every specification required by the prophecy

was fulfilled by that event. The king of the north has not yet returned to the prophecy.

33

The king of the north returns to the prophecy in verse 40, and he must reign in spiritual

Babylon, which includes all the apostate churches in Europe and America, not just the Catholics.

When the second angel’s message was first given, it declared that the denominational churches,

by their rejection of the proclamation of the first angel’s message, had “fallen” and become part

of spiritual Babylon. Revelation 14:8. Babylon means confusion (see Genesis 10:10, margin; 11:9,

margin), and spiritual Babylon is thus symbolic of confusion of religious organizations and

doctrines. Ellen White clearly identifies spiritual Babylon:

“Babylon is said to be ‘the mother of harlots.’ By her daughters must be symbolized churches

that cling to her doctrines and traditions, and follow her example of sacrificing the truth and the

approval of God, in order to form an unlawful alliance with the world. The message of

Revelation 14, announcing the fall of Babylon must apply to religious bodies that were once pure

and have become corrupt. Since this message follows the warning of the judgment, it must be

given in the last days; therefore it cannot refer to the Roman Church alone, for that church has

been in a fallen condition for many centuries. . . .

“Many of the Protestant churches are following Rome’s example of iniquitous connection with

‘the kings of the earth’—the state churches, by their relation to secular governments; and other

denominations, by seeking the favor of the world. And the term ‘Babylon’—confusion—may be

appropriately applied to these bodies, all professing to derive their doctrines from the Bible, yet

divided into almost innumerable sects, with widely conflicting creeds and theories.” 76

Ellen White is clear that spiritual Babylon includes most of the churches of Christendom, not

just the Roman Catholic Church. According to Scripture, spiritual Babylon consists of the fallen

churches as they unite with the various nations. It is a conglomerate kingdom with three parts:

the Dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet. (See Revelation 16:13, 19.)

The Dragon is Satan working through the “ten horns,” the various nations of Europe. These

nations have united and will yet give their “power,” their “seat” of government, and “great

authority” to the Papacy to form the resurrected European Beast. Revelation 12:3; 13:1-8. The

“abomination of desolation” will have then returned to the prophecy. Matthew 24:15; Revelation

17:5, 12-13. After that, the False Prophet creates an Image to the European Beast when the

Protestants of America unite with the state. The United States then repudiates its constitution

and enforces the papal Sunday institution, the Mark of the Beast. (See Revelation 13:11-17.)

With the legislation of Sunday, the churches of America will give their authority to the Pope.

James says, “There is one lawgiver,” and Isaiah declares, “The LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is

our king.” James 4:12; Isaiah 33:22. Therefore, when Protestant America enforces Sunday

worship, they choose to make the Pope their lawgiver, and therefore their lord and king. He will

then reign over spiritual Babylon—he then becomes the king of the north. Consequently, the

king of the north returns to the prophecy when the Sunday law is enforced, not before! Again,

consider what Ellen White has to say about the restoration of Papal power:

“When the land which the Lord provided as an asylum for his people, . . . the land which God has

favored by making it the depository of the pure religion of Christ—when that land shall, through

its legislators, abjure the principles of Protestantism, and give countenance to Romish apostasy

in tampering with God’s law—it is then that the final work of the man of sin will be revealed.

34

Protestants will throw their whole influence and strength on the side of the Papacy; by a

national act enforcing the false Sabbath, they will give life and vigor to the corrupt faith of

Rome, reviving her tyranny and oppression of conscience.” 77

“Sunday observance owes its existence as a so-called Christian institution to ‘the mystery of

iniquity;’ and its enforcement will be a virtual recognition of the principles which are the very

cornerstone of Romanism. When our nation shall so abjure the principles of its government as

to enact a Sunday law, Protestantism will in this act join hands with popery; it will be nothing

else than giving life to the tyranny which has long been eagerly watching its opportunity to

spring again into active despotism.” 78

With the institution of Sunday, “Protestants will throw their whole influence and strength on the

side of the Papacy; . . . they will give life and vigor to the corrupt faith of Rome, reviving her

tyranny and oppression of conscience.” Sunday “enforcement will be a virtual recognition of the

principles which are the very cornerstone of Romanism.” When the Protestants in America

enforce Sunday, they will be granting power back to the Pope. He then becomes king over

spiritual Babylon; he becomes king of the north. Only when the United States institutes Sunday

can the Pope be declared the king of spiritual Babylon. This legislation is key to understanding

how and when the king of the north returns to the prophecy.

When the king of the north returns to the prophecy war will begin. The conflict in verse 40

requires literal war. Every conflict in the prophecy, even those fought by spiritual powers, were

real, military engagements. Constantine clearly fought spiritual battles in the name of Christ

against the pagans in Rome, and his battles were real, literal engagements. The French general

Berthier also marched a real army into Rome and took the Pope captive in 1798, fulfilling the

first phrase of Daniel 11:40. This was a literal use of the French military.

Here the proper interpretation of Daniel 11:23-30 again shows its importance. Without it, we

would not have much evidence to develop this important principle. When we talk of spiritual

Egypt in conflict with spiritual Babylon, we are speaking of real wars with real weapons. The

collapse of communism in Russia could not have been the fulfillment of Daniel 11:40; no war

took place then. Notice that Ellen White also speaks of literal war in Daniel 11:

“The world is stirred with the spirit of war. The prophecy of the eleventh chapter of Daniel has

nearly reached its complete fulfillment. Soon the scenes of trouble spoken of in the prophecies

will take place.” 79

In the last conflict there will be a military engagement between the kings of the north and south.

The kingdom of the north is spiritual Babylon, which represents the united European and

American church-state powers led by the Pope. The Pope will then be king of spiritual Babylon,

“the king of the north.” This spiritual kingdom united under the leadership of the Pope will

attack the kingdom of the south:

“. . . and the king of the north shall come against him [the king of the south] 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.” Daniel 11:40.

35

The kingdom of the south is most likely China and its allies. (Some may think it impossible that

Europe and America would unite and attack China, but what other major atheist power is there?

Russia is no longer an atheist kingdom since the collapse of communism there; it does not fit the

prophecy. I see no other choice, but the reader can draw his own conclusion.) Satan will incite a

major conflict against spiritual Egypt and the allied kingdoms of the south to divert people’s

attention from investigating the Sabbath-Sunday issue, and thus keep them deceived.80

Satan then uses these deceived people to oppose and persecute the Church. God’s people are in

the midst of the conflict, as I previously showed. (See Daniel 10:14; 11:41.) Daniel 11:41 is an

obvious reference to an attack on the Church, “the glorious land,” by the kingdom of the north,

spiritual Babylon. This attack occurs simultaneously with the war in Daniel 11:40-43. The

institution of Sunday places the Pope over spiritual Babylon and brings war and the persecution

of the Church.

Consequently, Daniel’s final crisis does not describe a geopolitical conflict with Islam in the

Middle East and a parallel global spiritual conflict, as Pastor Roosenberg has it. The prophecy

only describes a global spiritual conflict over God’s law. Every nation on earth will be involved,

and God’s people will be in the midst of the conflict. In the end, the king of the north will try to

exterminate them, but the Lord will deliver them. (See Daniel 11:44-12:3.)

The False Latter Rain

As I consider Pastor Roosenberg’s interpretation of Daniel 11 in the light of the Bible and Ellen

White, it has become clear to me that it is not based on sound principles. It’s also amazing to me

that his interpretation can be accepted by so many. In reality though, what is the real harm if

people accept a false interpretation of Daniel 11? Having an error in theology doesn’t determine

whether a person is saved or lost. Many saved people have gone to the grave in ignorance over

the correct day of worship, and the Lord honors them. What harm will come to God’s Church if

some of its members hold an incorrect interpretation of Daniel 11? The answer will become clear

as we consider one more problem that I find in Pastor Roosenberg’s interpretation of Daniel 11.

Commenting on Daniel 11:44, Pastor Roosenberg claims that the proclamation of the loud cry

described in Revelation 18 will “anger the Papacy”; and because of this proclamation, he says

that the false Christian “alliance will enforce its mark,” they will institute the Sunday law. (p.

211, see also chapter 9.) This is an interesting, and very dangerous, position to take. The Bible

has the false latter rain, not the loud cry, causing the enforcement of Sunday:

“And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in

the sight of men, and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles

which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that

they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. . . . And

he causeth all . . . to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads.” Revelation 13:13-

16.

The mark of the beast in clearly enforced because of the fire and the miracles that are produced

by the second beast. These events deceive people and bring about the union of church and state

in America, which is the creation of the image of the beast, and the enforcement of Sunday,

which is the mark of the beast. As I have showed in the previous section, it is the Sunday law

36

that makes the Pope “king of the north.” Therefore, I don’t believe it’s possible to proclaim the

loud cry (Daniel 11:44) until after the Sunday law is enforced (Daniel 11:40). Certainly God’s

people will have His Spirit, and they will be warning against apostasy, but the Bible says that it’s

not until the sins of Babylon “have reached unto heaven,” by legislating Sunday, that the loud

cry is given to call people to “come out” of Babylon. Revelation 18:1-5.

Ellen White speaks of the relationship between these events: “When do her sins reach unto

heaven? When the law of God is finally made void by legislation.” 81 Obviously then, the loud cry

cannot be given until after the Sunday law is enforced. So the order is clear; first comes the false

latter rain, which causes the image and mark to be enforced, and then the loud cry is

proclaimed. Accordingly, Ellen White says that Satan’s spirit is poured out before the true:

“Before the final visitation of God’s judgments upon the earth, there will be, among the people of

the Lord, such a revival of primitive godliness as has not been witnessed since apostolic times.

The Spirit and power of God will be poured out upon His children. . . . The enemy of souls

desires to hinder this work; and before the time for such a movement shall come, he will

endeavor to prevent it, by introducing a counterfeit.” 82

To say that the loud cry causes the mark to be enforced will put God’s people in the place where

they will be looking for the true latter rain when the false is poured out. Satan intends to sweep

in the entire world with his spiritual manifestations, even Seventh-day Adventists. Those who

believe Pastor Roosenberg’s interpretation of Daniel 11 will be subjected to Satan’s deceptive

power and could be carried away by the counterfeit movement. Therefore, to accept and teach

his interpretation of Daniel’s last prophecy could have devastating consequences.

Summary and Conclusion I have examined some of the keys that Pastor Roosenberg uses to interpret his view of three

major conflicts between Islam and Christianity in Daniel 11:23-45. Historical evidence and

Biblical proof are lacking, and the little that is given typically does not support his view.

Pastor Roosenberg’s claim, that he identifies Middle East geopolitical conflicts and global

spiritual conflicts after Daniel 11:22, is without foundation. Geopolitical and spiritual methods

are different, even contradictory, and he uses none of the principles for identifying spiritual

conflicts in Daniel 11. His view is only geopolitical with some global spiritual events artificially

attached. All of his attempts to link the Middle East with global spiritual events at the end of the

prophecy have proved false.

If we apply Daniel’s final conflict geopolitically to the Middle East as Pastor Roosenberg has, to

be consistent, we must also apply all Old Testament prophecies of end time events geopolitically.

This will invalidate Ellen White’s spiritual application of those prophecies and will lead

ultimately to her rejection. Ellen White and Pastor Roosenberg cannot both be correct.

Pastor Roosenberg claims rightly that Daniel 11 is chronological in nature. However, it’s

apparent that he has to reinterpret major sections of Daniel 11 to fit his chronological order; he

doesn’t always accomplish his task. His dual timelines are complicated and clever, but are

lacking Biblical support. A careful look at them exposes many problems. Making the beginning

of the time of the end as an introductory period also has no support in the Bible or the writings

37

of Ellen White; neither does his concept of the appointed times. It is clear that he worked hard

to create a chronological, geopolitical interpretation of the prophecy to support his “ah-ha

moment.”

The spiritual interpretation of Daniel 11 flows naturally. In Daniel 11:23-30, the spiritual

interpretation identifies Constantine’s Sunday law as an attack on God’s “holy covenant.” The

prophecy spends six verses on events in the life of Constantine the Great to direct us to that

event, and they are in perfect chronological order. Using the spiritual interpretation, we can see

that the return of the king of the north in verse 40 also takes place with the enforcement of the

Sunday law in America. Thus, it should be obvious that the focus of Daniel 11 is the Sabbath-

Sunday controversy, which can only be identified by spiritual methods. When this fact sinks into

our consciousness, it will deepen and solidify our faith so that we cannot be moved.

Pastor Roosenberg’s geopolitical interpretation does not reveal the Sabbath-Sunday controversy

in Daniel 11. He tries to link it in, but it is not revealed from Daniel 11 by the geopolitical method

he uses to interpret the prophecy. His method of interpretation actually masks the controversy.

If we are deceived by his geopolitical method, we will be lacking the light that the Lord wants to

bring us, and we will be in danger of accepting the outpouring of Satan’s spirit. Jesus is calling

us now to “run to and fro”; to study Daniel’s last prophecy. It has been unsealed since AD 1798.

38

References 1 Dr. Hans K. LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, p. 19. 2 Louis F. Were, The Moral Purpose of Prophecy, p. 39. 3 Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 198. 4 LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, p. 82. 5 Ibid., p. 209. 6 Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, p. 153. 7 Acts of the Apostles, p. 377. 8 LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, p. 126. 9 Christ Object Lessons, p. 285. 10 Ibid., p. 296. 11 Ibid., p. 301. 12 LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, p. 138. 13 Ibid., p. 142. 14 Ibid., p. 139. 15 Louis F. Were, The Moral Purpose of Prophecy, p. 23. 16 See Pastor Roosenberg’s Daniel 11 Seminar, fourth video at 6 min, 21 seconds. 17 LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, p. 140. 18 The Review and Herald, June 8, 1886. 19 The Southern Watchman, January 24, 1905. 20 The Paulson Collection, p. 278. 21 The Review and Herald, June 5, 1894. 22 Were, The Moral Purpose of Prophecy, p. 57. 23 Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 107. 24 The Youth’s Instructor, August 8, 1895. 25 Ibid., February 1, 1900. 26 LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, p. 210. 27 The Great Controversy, p. 269. 28 Dr. William H. Shea, Daniel, pp. 264-265; Heidi Heiks, King of the North, p. 3; Russell Burrill, The New World Order, pp. 85-90; Were, The King of the North at Jerusalem, pp. 68-70; Timothy J. Hayden, The Vision by the Tigris, pp. 145-148, ed. 2011. 29 Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, pp. 289-299, ed. 1944. 30 Shea, Daniel, p. 253. 31 C. Marvyn Maxwell, God Cares, vol. 1, p. 293. 32 Shea, Daniel, pp. 252, 254. 33 Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, pp. 259-260, ed. 1944; Steven N. Haskell, The Story of Daniel the Prophet, pp. 227-228; Were, The King of the North at Jerusalem, p. 42; Justus G. Lamson, The Eleventh of Daniel Narrated, p. 17; Hayden, The Vision by the Tigris, pp. 96, 110, ed. 2011. 34 Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, pp. 273-278, ed. 1944; Haskell, The Story of Daniel the Prophet, p. 233; Shea, Daniel, pp. 260-261; Were, The King of the North at Jerusalem, p. 46; Hayden, The Vision by the Tigris, pp. 107-110, ed. 2011. 35 Pastor Roosenberg’s Daniel 11 Seminar videos can be found on www.sealingtime.com. 36 Prophetic Principles: Crucial Exegetical, Theological, Historical & Practical Insights, p. 290. 37 The Great Controversy, p. 79. 38 Encyclopedia Britannica, article: John Wycliffe 39 The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Philip Schaff Vol. XII: Abridged and edited for greater clarity. JOHN WICLIF (WYCLIFFE) (c. 1324–1384) 40 C. Marvyn Maxwell, God Cares, vol. 1, pp. 129, 145-147. 41 The Great Controversy, p. 54. 42 Pastor Roosenberg, in a document called Daniel 11:2-12:3 Islam and Christianity in Prophecy, verse 40. 43 John N. Andrews, The Three Messages of Revelation 14:6-12, pp. 19-20; Loren M. K. Nelson, Understanding the Mysteries of Daniel & Revelation, pp. 130-132; Haskell, The Story of Daniel the Prophet, pp. 259-265; Hayden, The Vision by the Tigris, pp. 203-206, ed. 2011. 44 Prophetic Principles: Crucial Exegetical, Theological, Historical & Practical Insights, pp. 288-292. 45 Jay P. Green, Sr., The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew-Greek-English, Daniel 8:17.

39

46 Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 9. 47 Ibid., vol. 8, p. 115. 48 Ibid., vol. 9, p. 11. 49 Acts of the Apostles, p. 54. 50 Review and Herald, December 15, 1910. 51 1888 Materials, p. 1801. 52 Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 107. 53 Manuscript Releases, vol. 18, p. 15. 54 The Great Controversy, pp. 355-356. 55 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 1, p. 388. 56 Ibid. 57 Pastor Roosenberg, in a document called Daniel 11:2-12:3 Islam and Christianity in Prophecy, verse 29. 58 Shea, Daniel, p. 254. 59 Burrill, The New World Order, pp. 43-44; Were, The King of the North at Jerusalem, pp. 41-42; Shea, Daniel, pp. 251-259; Nelson, Understanding the Mysteries of Daniel & Revelation, pp. 119-123; Hayden, The Vision by the Tigris, pp. 85-111, ed. 2011. 60 Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, pp. 256-258, 273-278, ed. 1944; Haskell, The Story of Daniel the Prophet; Shea, Daniel, pp. 249-250, 260; Lamson, The Eleventh of Daniel Narrated, pp. 60-62, 81-82; Hayden, The Vision by the Tigris, pp. 76-83, 107-110, ed. 2011. 61 Shea, Daniel, pp. 251-252. 62 Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, chap. XIII, sec. 173, par. 1. 63 Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought, p. 13. 64 Jones, The Two Republics, p. 180. 65 Strongs: Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, word number 3794. 66 The Desire of Ages, p. 28. 67 Pastor Stephen Bohr, Secrets Unsealed, Ministry Update, first quarter, 2013, p. 15. 68 Shea, Daniel, p. 245. 69 Shea, Daniel, pp. 245-246; Nelson, Understanding the Mysteries of Daniel & Revelation, pp. 117-118; Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, pp. 242-243, ed. 1944; Maxwell, God Cares, vol. 1, pp. 290-291; Haskell, The Story of Daniel the Prophet, pp. 200-217; Lamson, The Eleventh of Daniel Narrated, pp. 44-46. 70 Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, pp. 247-252, ed. 1944; Marc Alden Swearingen, Tidings out of the Northeast, p. 37-38. 71 Were, The King of the North at Jerusalem, 1949, pp. 38-40. 72 Botsford and Robinson, Hellenic History, p. 375. 73 Thorndike, The History of Medieval Europe, p. 40. Emphasis supplied. 74 Were, “Preparing for the Close of Probation.” 75 Burril, The New World Order, pp. 95-114; Nelson, Understanding the Mysteries of Daniel & Revelation, pp. 126-127. 76 The Great Controversy, pp. 382-383. 77 Signs of the Times, June 12, 1893. 78 Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 712. 79 Ibid., vol. 9, p. 14. 80 See The Great Controversy, p. 589. 81 Signs of the Times, June 12, 1893. 82 The Great Controversy, p. 464.