The Final King of the North

This is the place to discuss anything to do with scriptural doctrine. It is the primary purpose of this site, and most discussions will be here.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Message
Author
Bobcat
Posts: 4118
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: The Final King of the North

#31 Post by Bobcat » 3 years ago

This is in connection with Dan 11:37 and its application to Nero. The focus of this post is on the part about the 'desire of women.'

Here is the BibleHub lineup of translations of Dan 11:37. Some refer to 'the god desired by women' and some refer to 'the desire for women.' Constable's Notes has this to say about that part of the verse:
The identity of “the desire of women” is also problematic. It may be a reference to the Messiah. Supposedly the supreme desire of every godly Jewish woman in Daniel’s day was that she bear the Messiah. Another view is that the reference is to Tammuz (Gr. Adonis), a pagan goddess in Daniel’s day that women found very attractive. Others believe that the meaning is that this king will have no desire for women. Some even speculate that he will be abusive toward women. In other words, he will be devoid of natural affection. I tend to favor this third view.
Constable does not apply this "king of the north" (Dan 11:36ff) to Nero. But his description of the possibilities of the phrase are very interesting when applied to Nero and his treatment of the women in his life. The list and links below will add color to Nero's disposition towards women:

Agrippina the Younger (Nero's mother) This article shows that she was not a virtuous woman herself. But see the section, "Death ands Aftermath" for details of what happened to her.

Claudia Octavia (Wife of Nero). See here for her end.

Poppaea Sabina (Wife of Nero). See here for her end.

Pythagorus ("Husband of Nero" - I kid you not!) See here. A twist to Nero's lack of regard for the "desire of women."

Statilia Messalina (Wife of Nero). See here for her.

Sporus (Catamite). See here.

There were also lurid stories of Nero roaming the streets at night, incognito, raping, committing violence and visiting brothels. Some claim these stories were the invention of political opponents.

All this is significant evidence that this part of Dan 11:37 did indeed fit the profile of Nero as the "king of the north" of Dan 11:36-39.

Note: I tried to get these in chronological order of when they entered Nero's life. Some claim that Pythagorus and Sporus were characters created by political opponents.


Bobcat

Index to This Thread

Dajo1
Posts: 355
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: The Final King of the North

#32 Post by Dajo1 » 3 years ago

Of the emperors around in Jesus time Augustus, Tiberius... Nero was significant in who he was and what he was. He was last in sense that he was the one in existence at the destruction of Jerusalem and following on with Sols line of reasoning there will be another cycle culminating in a destruction because of an apostatizing.

I have just finished watching the old WT video “The Bible- Ancient History Reliable Prophecy” and they clearly ID the eighth king with the UN and state that it’s purpose is to create a New World Order. ( they don’t talk like that anymore though).

Is the eighth king of Rev 17 the same as the King of the North of Daniel 11?

Is it the same entity Gog, of Ezekiel 38? And how does it relate to that which puts people “under compulsion” in Rev 13?

Dajo1
Posts: 355
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: The Final King of the North

#33 Post by Dajo1 » 3 years ago

Yes verse 37 seems very specific and points to an individual. Seemingly in no ordinary way, I wonder if that also ties in with the manner and arrogance also described in Rev 13?

Bobcat
Posts: 4118
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: The Final King of the North

#34 Post by Bobcat » 3 years ago

Hi Dajo1,

In connection with the UN, I believe the UN, or some form of it, will prove to be the 8th king of Rev 17. (See here - sorry, couldn't help myself - but I think you will find this post interesting.)

The main difference between myself and the WT on this is that the WT believes the UN is the 8th king contemporaneous with the 7th king. Myself, I believe those kings exist in series, one after the other. One replaces the other. So, the 8th becomes a world power after the 7th ceases to be one. The 8th becomes the 8th because God wills it. (Again, my post in the link explains this.)

Is the UN (when it becomes the 8th) also the final "king of the north"? No. The reason: It would "break the mold." The explanation in your last post is spot on in regards to this. This is one of the ways that the WT's explanation goes awry. They leave the Seleucids at about Dan 11:20-21 and start applying the prophecy to empires and nations rather than individuals. This is why they have arrived at a dead end. The king of the north (of Dan 11:36 NET) was supposed to "succeed until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been decreed must occur."

The WT seems to have an aversion to the Maccabean period, which, in turn, influences their explanation of Dan 11:21-35.

I'll get back to the rest of your questions in a bit.


Bobcat

Index to This Thread

Bobcat
Posts: 4118
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: The Final King of the North

#35 Post by Bobcat » 3 years ago

Here is another look at Nero from the PBS web site.

And here is a BBC article.


Bobcat

Index to This Thread

Get out of her
Posts: 1083
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: The Final King of the North

#36 Post by Get out of her » 3 years ago

Dajo1 wrote:
I have a similar problem (it is my problem) with Bobcat - to a degree. I can say this now as he's flat out trying to sleep.
Oooops! Looks like he's awake now. I think you're busted. (lol)


Thank you for that one Dajo1; I needed a good chuckle. (It's actually David if memory serves; right?) Thank you also for your encouraging words.
Is there a way, though, that you could express yourself and my eyes didn't glaze over? I think my eyes glaze over because there is sometimes too much information.

I suppose you may feel like you are stuck between a rock and a hard place because if you had simply said "I think it's the UN' Some might want to know why and then you would feel a need to explain
I think you basically just hit the nail on the head here when it comes to the dilemma I am always facing when posting, and I greatly appreciated your empathy on the matter. Particularly when we consider scriptures like James 3:1 and Matthew 18:6, we should be reminded that there is a very significant difference between things like perhaps merely sharing thoughts or asking questions as opposed to actually presenting yourself as a Bible teacher. I have to admit that I do indeed present myself as such and in so doing I recognize it as a very weighty responsibility.

It should be very clear to everyone that anyone who goes so far as to not only take a firm position on a given scriptural topic, but then begin promoting or actually teaching it to others (which I have to admit I sometimes do) will eventually be answering to God for the manner in which they do or did so. If we cannot do a respectable job of demonstrating or substantiating our points or teachings scripturally then we have no business teaching them at all. But this is exactly where a delicate balance must now be struck at least when it comes to Bible teaching in a setting such as this website, and this would be for at least two important reasons other than the obvious fact that if we are speaking over everyone's head we are obviously wasting all our time and effort to begin with.

First of all we are dealing with a rather mixed and diverse audience on this forum, with everyone being at different levels or stages of Bible knowledge and understanding. Secondly, while we all seem to have been led to believe otherwise at least most of our lives by a world which is completely inundated or saturated with demonic influence, the actual truth of God's word or at least the teachings that should be recognized as key or pivotal in connection with the purpose for which they were written to begin with are in fact tied up in endless cryptography and symbolisms; designed to only be uncovered by means of God's holy spirit. (Col 2:3) (Mt 11:25) (Pr 2:4, 5) (Lu 11:9:13)

My experience has been that this almost invariably results in people speaking about things or even asking questions that are actually much deeper than they had ever imagined, and in turn this means that the true answers to these questions are most often significantly deeper than they were prepared to accept. (Ro 11:33) I wish I could actually convey how much effort I always expend on keeping things as simple and concise as possible. Nevertheless I realize that most likely the old saying applies that "the biggest room in any house is the room for improvement." I'd like to restate a suggestion I've made before which I think would make things easier for both of us.

If you have questions you would like to direct at me, please try to resist the urge of asking them more than one or two at a time. This in turn will help me to resist the urge to try and answer more than one or two at a time, and by extension help me to not bombard people with too much information at once.

So in other words Dajo1 (David?), if you do happen to have some questions concerning my last post, could you perhaps be a little more specific about them please? Maybe you could jot them all down on a piece of paper and then begin posing them to me one or two at a time. I assure you I will do all I can to keep the answers as simple and concise as possible while at the same time not overlooking the fact that I am responsible for expending at least a reasonable degree of effort in substantiating them scripturally. The fact is I much prefer dealing specifically with questions when I'm teaching. This is because it is at the exact time a person's mind is plagued with a specific question that they are best equipped to both grasp as well as remember the answer.

Agape love;
Sol

Dajo1
Posts: 355
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: The Final King of the North

#37 Post by Dajo1 » 3 years ago

Hello Sol,
Ok thanks for that. I may do as you suggest as you have a unique angle on things there .. a little like I have read elsewhere with much intrigue. I will possibly try to understand some more soon, but not under this topic. Much appreciated!
David

Dajo1
Posts: 355
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: The Final King of the North

#38 Post by Dajo1 » 3 years ago

Yes, those linked articles were absorbing! BTG is confusion at the best.. No WT won't budge on many, even obvious things.. the "Lord's day" is one I always wondered how they came to the conclusion that it was from 1914 on, when it was John having the vision on the first day of the week.

So if the 8th king you feel is the UN in some form or other. It will need to be strengthened obviously .. maybe an event involving " the great city" Jerusalem? Will be a catalyst for giving it teeth.

Yes, unlike what WT says I think the eighth will be after the seventh - in succession to, not alongside of. In view of what you said about breaking the mold..do you feel then that the King of the North is a separate "King" from the eight king? Are they perhaps reigning contemporaneously?

Bobcat
Posts: 4118
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: The Final King of the North

#39 Post by Bobcat » 3 years ago

This post is in connection with Dan 11:38 and "a god of fortresses" that the king of the north honors with a great amount of wealth.

Here is the BibleHub listing of different translations of the verse

And this is the commentary on the verse from Constable's Notes (which is not being applied by Constable towards Nero):
What this king will really trust in is a “god” who he believes can give him military success. Evidently this is not a god in the religious sense. He will probably idolize power. His forefathers typically acknowledged some supreme being or some pagan god or gods. He will honor his “god” by spending money to build his military arsenal. In other words, he will be a materialist. Feinberg and Ironside believed the god in view is the Roman beast (the political leader), whom they distinguished from the Antichrist. They identified the Antichrist with the religious leader in Jerusalem. This is a minority view among premillennialists.
The verse is sufficiently vague enough, as the wording (at least as far as the view being put forth on this thread) would have to describe two persons, a first century example (i.e. Nero), and another ultimate example. Noteworthy also is the anarthrous construction of the phrase, "a god of fortresses," not "the" god. Indicating that no specific "god" is in mind. The immediately preceding context has to also be kept in mind: This king "shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god" (Dan 11:36) and "shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers." (Dan 11:37a) So the passage is not likely trying to contradict itself by saying this selfsame king is worshiping some known god.

In my research on Nero I could not find anything of note on military spending. The only thing noteworthy that stood out, that was related to "fortresses," was the Domus Aurea. Via this Google search page one can find much information and artwork related to this palace Nero had built. It was extravagant to an extreme. And the expense was more than Rome could afford, especially after the great fire of Rome. Nero apparently debased the Roman currency to help pay for it. (He had the amount of precious metal in coins reduced, making them less valuable, and allowing for more coins to be minted. Similar to printing of money to pay bills that a government might do in modern times.) Some claim that Nero had the fire set for the very purpose of clearing land for the Domus Aurea. And some claim that Nero used the building of the palace as an excuse for putting many people back to work after the fire.

One has to understand that the term "fortresses" (Strong's 4581) has a range of both figurative and literal meanings: Of protection by God (many verses); An alter to Baal (Jdg 6:26); Compared with a refuge and high ridge (Ps 31:2-3); Like a helmet (lit. "a fortress of the head"; Ps 60:7; 108:8); A strong city (Isa 17:9); a protective harbor (Isa 23:4, 11, 14); The (hoped for) protection provided by Pharoah (Isa 30:2-3); Jerusalem (Ezek 24:25); The Egyptian city of Pelusium (Ezek 30:15).

In Daniel 11 it is used of: The strengthening done by an angel (Dan 11:1), a king's fortified city (Dan 11:7), a king's homeland represented by its border (Dan 11:10), a king's homeland (Dan 11:19), and the Jewish temple complex (Dan 11:31).

I take it then, that Nero gave honor and glory to "a god of fortresses" in the same way that Paul described some, saying, "their god is their belly." (Phi 3:18-19) Nero honored "a god of fortresses" by sinking a huge amount of wealth into an extremely lavish personal palace, apparently for entertainment purposes. It included the Colossus Neronis, a 30-35 meter high bronze statue of Nero, possibly posing as the sun god, Sol. Suetonius described the whole complex as "ruinously prodigal."

That the Domus Aurea (or "Golden House") was something unique to Nero ("a god his fathers did not know" - Dan 11:38) can be seen by the statement that, "After Nero's death, the Golden House was a severe embarrassment to his successors." (See here.) For an image of what it may have looked like (the Colossus of Nero is in the upper left), see here. This article has a good description of its innovative architecture which Nero took intense interest in.

Here is a four page article on the Domus Aurea and efforts to unearth it in the online magazine Archaeology.

Image

*********************************

On a side note: In the case of Darius and the angel protecting him (Dan 11:1). If this is Cyrus, then, here is a man that was ostensibly installed by Satan (Lu 4:5-6), yet tasked by Jehovah with carrying out a divine mandate. (Isa 44:26-45:4) There was probably much demonic pressure attempting to prevent that. And thus, the angel's help in Dan 11:1. Given these factors, Dan 11:1 is probably as good an evidence as any that this Darius is, in fact, Cyrus. The chronological setting of the verse is the "first year of Darius the Mede," that is, his first year ruling over Babylon. This is the year 539 BCE. It would be the next year (538) when Cyrus would give his decree to send the Jews home.

Consider that! Jehovah telegraphed to Satan two centuries ahead of time who Satan would select as world ruler, and how Jehovah would use him afterwards. And yet, Satan was unable to prevent any of it from happening. And the fact that an angel has to strengthen Cyrus shows that, all the while, Cyrus' free will is kept intact. One could imagine Jesus, at Luke 4:5-7, standing there, with his mouth open, shaking his head, as he listens to the arrogance of Satan.

Contrast Cyrus with Amel-Marduk (c. 560-562 BCE) and his possible attempt to release the Jews: Here.


Bobcat

Index to This Thread

Bobcat
Posts: 4118
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: The Final King of the North

#40 Post by Bobcat » 3 years ago

Hi David,
In view of what you said about breaking the mold..do you feel then that the King of the North is a separate "King" from the eight king? Are they perhaps reigning contemporaneously?
I hate to upstage my own thread and Part Three. :whistle: You are asking good questions. And at the moment I am still trying to 'close the fist' tightly over Nero.

And there are still a few details about the last or ultimate fulfillment that I am pondering over. I'll leave it at that for now.


Bobcat

Index to This Thread

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests