Sinthesis
Member
- Feb 23, 2009
- 5,188
- 264
One thing is needful in understanding the "king of the north" and "the king of the south" in Daniel. We have to understand where these designations come from, and what land masses they encompass.
The Kingdom previous to these two kingdoms being introduced into Scripture was Greece, which was divided into a four-in-one kingdom. Four headed leopard (Dan 7:6) which is also seen as the he goat with four horns (Dan 8:8)
The land masses that were controlled by this four-in-one kingdom goes as such:
- [FONT=Georgia, serif]Cassander – Greece and the neighboring countries (western segment.)[/FONT]
- [FONT=Georgia, serif]Lysimachus – Asia Minor, which included Macedonia (northern segment.)[/FONT]
- [FONT=Georgia, serif]Seleucus – Syria and Babylon (eastern segment.)[/FONT]
- [FONT=Georgia, serif]Ptolemy – Egypt (southern segment.)[/FONT]
Therefore, whomever is the "king of the north" would have to control Asia Minor and Macedonia, or at least be dominate in that area. And as the prophecy proceeds forward in Daniel it is WHOMEVER is in control of that area.
The same is true with regards the "king of the south." It is whatever power is in control of Egypt.
That being said the prophecies about the king of the north and the king of the south cannot be speaking of any king or kingdom, such as Antiochus, for the Seleucid Empire would be "the king of the east." And that division of the four-in-one kingdom is not set forth by the Lord.
Nonsense.2 The interpretation is not based on your particular point of view overlying history with a modern map, but on the point of view of those in Israel at the time. Therefore, one can eventually arrive at the kingdom of the north (whichever kingdom it is, there's more than one) by first heading north out of Israel. The kingdom of the south is reached by first heading south out of Israel.