Islam and Christianity Exposed, Part 2: The Crusades and the Ottoman Empire Presented by Tim Hayden

Transcription

1 Islam and Christianity Exposed, Part 2: The Crusades and the Ottoman Empire Presented by Tim Hayden Review of Lesson 1: Egypt and Babylon We have already seen that Seleucus held the territory north of the land of Israel, and Ptolemy held the territory south of Israel. That Ptolemy reigned in Egypt should be noted carefully because Egypt is one of the prominent powers mentioned at the end of the prophecy, in Daniel 11: After Ptolemy attacked and plundered the kingdom of the north, the prophecy tells us that he returned to Egypt with the plunder (Daniel 11:8). Egypt is therefore identified as the territory of the king of the south by the prophecy. Moreover, even though Daniel 11 does not directly mention the territory of the king of the north, the Bible and history tell us in many places that the king of the north reigned in Babylon (Jeremiah 25:9; Ezekiel 26:7; Zechariah 2:6-7). 1 Interestingly, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah lived before, during, and after Daniel s day, and they all identified Babylon as the territory of the king of the north. We also learned that during much of the reign of Antiochus the Great, one of the northern kings of Greece, he was limited to the territory of Babylon, and the prophecy calls him king of the north during that time (Daniel 11:11). However, after Rome overthrew Antiochus the Great, Dr. Shea revealed that Rome is not called king of the north in Daniel 11 before verse 40: He [Rome] is not referred to either as the king of the south or the king of the north.... At this point [Daniel 11:16, which refers to Rome overthrowing Antiochus] we find the king of the north does not appear again in chapter 11 until verse It is important not to identify Rome as the king of the north until the prophecy gives us sufficient reason to do so. It is true that Dr. Shea calls pagan Rome king of the north in his interpretation, but he is inconsistent in doing so. This brings us to one point we did not discuss in the first lesson. Historically, pagan Rome did not hold the land of Babylon for any length of time, which proves that it cannot be called the kingdom of the north: 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.... They were unable to conquer and hold the Tigris-Euphrates Valley [the territory of ancient Babylon], once the most civilized and influential region on earth. 3 This historical fact verifies what the Bible already told us. Although every Seventh-day Adventist interpretation makes Rome king of the north throughout much of Daniel 11, it is important for us to know that the prophecy does not identify Rome as such. We must allow the Bible to interpret itself. Another significant point we looked at is that after Stephen was stoned God s people were scattered throughout the earth. Palestinian terminology cannot then be limited to the Middle East. After AD 34 we Copyright , Timothy John Hayden. All rights reserved. This entire document may be copied and freely distributed without modification.

2 must use the spiritual characteristics of the nations mentioned by the prophecies to determine the powers that are being referred to. Since Israel is a spiritual nation of believers, Egypt and Babylon must also be powers identified by spiritual characteristics. When Moses went before Pharaoh and demanded that he let the children of Israel go, Pharaoh uttered the primary spiritual characteristic of Egypt: And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go (Exodus 5:2). The words of Pharaoh are atheistic. Ellen White clearly captured this concept in the Great Controversy. She quoted Exodus 5:2 and said, This is atheism. 4 Ellen White was speaking about France at the time of its revolution in the 1790s. France then exhibited the atheistic spirit. Ellen White was interpreting Revelation 11:8 when she identified France as an atheist power. The passage says, And their [the Old and New Testament witnesses] dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt (Revelation 11:8). Here Sodom and Egypt, which represent the licentiousness and atheism of France during its revolution, are specifically referred to as being spiritual. When Daniel 11:40-43 mentions the king of the south, it is speaking of powers with the atheistic spiritual characteristics of Egypt: paganism, socialism, and communism. Incredibly, the nation that attacked the Papacy in 1798, when the time of the end began, was France: And at the time of the end [AD 1798] shall the king of the south [atheist France] push at him [the Papacy] (Daniel 11:40). France was then spiritual Egypt, the kingdom of the south. That event was a dramatic fulfillment of the prophecy. Daniel and Revelation are speaking of the same spiritual power called Egypt. Moreover, just as Babylon was the territory of the king of the north in the days of Seleucus, so spiritual Babylon is the territory of the king of the north at the end of Daniel s prophecy. It is logical to expect Daniel 11:40-45 to be speaking of spiritual Babylon, as does Revelation. The prophecies often repeat events, especially end time events. We saw in lesson 1 that spiritual Babylon is represented in Revelation as having three parts: the Dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet (Revelation 16:12-13, 19). These three creatures represent satanically led earthly powers, the papal controlled European Union, and protestant America respectively. We should then expect that the Babylon referred to in the final conflict in Daniel 11 is the same power as that identified by Revelation, and the events in both prophetic books should correspond. We also learned in lesson 1 that the three major powers in the final conflict in Daniel 11 (Egypt, Israel, and Babylon) are the same three end time powers discussed in Revelation. Since Revelation identifies them as spiritual powers, then those same powers in Daniel s final conflict should also be understood as spiritual powers. This is logical and consistent. Jesus s Crucifixion is Central to Daniel 11 In the previous presentation, I said that papal Rome, as part of spiritual Babylon, becomes king of the north at the end. To understand the transition to spiritual powers, we need to understand the effect 2

3 that Jesus s death and the establishment of His church have on our interpretation of prophecy. Therefore, we need to look at the verses leading up to and following the crucifixion of Jesus to get a better understanding of the flow of the prophecy. Pastor Roosenberg just repeats the well-known and accepted interpretation of Daniel 11:5-9. His view of Daniel 11:10-12 is also well accepted within Seventh-day Adventism, but he ignores the fact that Antiochus was limited to the land of Babylon during the timeframe of these verses. To admit that Babylon is the territory of the king of the north would be detrimental to his interpretation. Nevertheless, Daniel 11:13-16 is where he really begins to diverge from the typical interpretation of Daniel 11. Although there are some differences in Seventh-day Adventist interpretations of Daniel 11:13-16, most interpreters agree that Rome enters the prophecy by verse 16. Pastor Roosenberg speaks of Antiochus s attack on Ptolemy at Panium (198 BC), which ended Ptolemaic rule in Palestine, but he is silent on some of the important details in these verses. However, he has to apply them to Antiochus the Great because he speaks of Antiochus in Daniel 11:17-19 and he has Rome taking over as king of the north from Antiochus in Daniel 11:20. In the typical interpretation of Daniel 11:13, Antiochus returns from his eastern expedition, some years after the disastrous battle of Raphia, with great riches, and then with a large army he attacks Ptolemy. In Daniel 11:14, the many spoken of is the alliance between Antiochus and Philip who united to divide Ptolemy s territories among themselves, and the robbers who exalt themselves are commonly believed to be the Romans. The word translated robbers in the King James Bible is more correctly translated in the margin as children of robbers. This same word is translated as violent men in the New King James and is translated more literally in the margin as sons of breakage. Therefore, a perfectly logical translation of the last phrase in Daniel 11:14 could be, The young breakers of your people will exalt themselves to establish the vision, but they will fall. This same power is clearly identified in Daniel s other prophecies as Rome: Forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise (Daniel 2:40), and behold a fourth beast;... it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it (Daniel 7:7). When applying this phrase to pagan Rome, the passage is in perfect harmony with the other prophecies of Daniel, as can be seen, but Pastor Roosenberg must necessarily disagree with this. Daniel 11:15 then speaks of the overthrow of Ptolemy by Antiochus the Great at Panion (or Panium). In Daniel 11:16 the he who comes against Antiochus and does according to his own will is Rome. None are able to stand before him. It was Rome who then stood in the glorious land, or the land of Israel, which by his hand was consumed. The Jews were brought under submission to Rome at that time. Ignoring this logical interpretation of Rome s role in Daniel 11:14-16, Pastor Roosenberg next has Daniel 11:17-19 (NKJV) focus on events in the life of Antiochus the Great. In his view, Antiochus s daughter Cleopatra I is central to the passage. However, I could not verify that Cleopatra was not true to her father or husband, neither could I prove that she played the Seleucids and the Romans, as Pastor 3

4 Roosenberg claims. 5 It is up to him to prove historically the validity of his interpretation; but he gives no evidence, and I could find nothing to support his view. What I found from various historical works is that Cleopatra I Syra was true to her brothers and most likely her father: Just before his death, Ptolemy V had planned to conduct a war against the Seleucid kingdom but when Cleopatra I became sole ruler, she immediately ended the war preparations directed against her brother Seleucus IV Philopator. 6 She also stayed out of the conflicts between Rome and her brothers: Despite the fact that she was a Seleucid, she kept Egypt neutral in the conflicts between Rome & her brothers, Seleucus IV & Antiochus IV. 7 After speaking of Cleopatra I, Pastor Roosenberg finishes his discussion of Daniel 11:17-19 by identifying Antiochus the Great as the one who would stumble and fall, and not be found. However, there are many critical events in those verses that are not discussed by Pastor Roosenberg. Ignoring them, he quickly transitions to Rome after claiming that the death of Antiochus fulfilled Daniel 11:19. Rome is his king of the north after that. In the typical interpretation, after Rome overthrew Antiochus and consumed Palestine, as verse 16 reveals, Daniel 11 next describes three of the Caesars who ruled the Roman Empire: Julius, Augustus, and Tiberius. Only the most pronounced events in their lives are given by the prophecy. While there are some differences of interpretation of Daniel 11:17-19 (KJV), Julius Caesar fits well in these verses, and they are typically applied to him. The historical details can be found in many Seventhday Adventist works. It was Caesar who entered Egypt with equal conditions (margin) and corrupted Cleopatra VII, the daughter of women, who bore Caesar a son. Interestingly, Cleopatra had no real desire for him ; that is, for Caesar. Her real motive was control of the world through him: At his death... she would have the world at her feet. 8 Cleopatra s desire was to control the world and Caesar was her bridge. Later in Rome, after Caesar s assassination, Cleopatra had some wild hopes of having her son recognized by the Caesareans. 9 But she never gained her desire; she did not stand by gaining control of Rome. After Caesar left Egypt, before his assassination, he subdued many of the coasts, or isles, of the Mediterranean. He additionally sent Antony to Rome to speak on his behalf and caused his reproach... to cease, but the reproach was later to turn upon Antony when Caesar demoted him. Lastly, Caesar would stumble and fall, and not be found, when he was murdered by the senators of Rome (Daniel 11:19). Daniel 11:20 speaks of Augustus who levied taxes in the glory of the kingdom, which Luke also recorded (see Luke 2:1). And Daniel 11:21 22 identifies the vile Tiberius who obtain[ed] the kingdom by flatteries. In Daniel 11:22, Jesus is introduced as our Prince who made a covenant for us and was broken: And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant (Daniel 11:22). 4

5 Interestingly, while the verse says people would be swept away from before Tiberius by a flood of arms, or with the force of a flood (NKJV), Pastor Roosenberg says the flood links the death of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem, 10 but this is out of chronological order. The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 does not come before the crucifixion (AD 31), and Tiberius died long before Jerusalem was destroyed. Pastor Roosenberg s link is illogical. The prince of the covenant is clearly Jesus. He was baptized (see Luke 3:1, 21-22), ministered, and was crucified during the reign of Tiberius; He is called our Prince (see Acts 3:14-15; 5:31; Daniel 9:25-27; 10:21); and He mediates the new and better covenant (see Hebrews 8:6; 12:24). The events in the lives of the three Caesars were given to help us identify Jesus, the prince of the covenant, in verse 22. The introduction of the crucifixion of Jesus in the prophecy is crucial to understanding the flow of Daniel 11. Consider the image below: Jesus s crucifixion is an important transition point in the prophecy. The focus changes from animal sacrifices, an earthly temple and ministry, the Jewish church, and conflicts between Middle East nations to Jesus s sacrifice, His ministry in the heavenly temple, His global church, and conflicts between global spiritual powers. Thus, there is a transition as the prophecy moves through the cross in Daniel 11:22. It transcends geographical limitations; the territory then expanded to include God s church. Misunderstanding of this concept has made interpretation of Daniel 11 difficult. Consider the following from Dr. Shea: 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. 11 I want to suggest that the difficulty Dr. Shea refers to is because we have limited our understanding by our methods of interpretation. Every Seventh-day Adventist author that I know of has applied these verses to the geography of the Middle East. The reason for doing so is revealed in Daniel 11:25. When reading the phrase the king of the south in that verse, we immediately think of the nation of Egypt, which is located geographically south of national Israel. Examining the flow of a few of the major interpretations will amplify this point. Uriah Smith s view is probably the most well-known to focus the events of Daniel 11 on the geography of the Middle East. Not being able to find history that fulfills all of the events of Daniel 11:23-30 between AD 31 and AD 508, he jumps backward in time to the days of Israel, pagan Rome, and a conflict with Egypt. He then returns to the consecutive flow of the prophecy in verse 31 (see the image below). 12 At the end of the prophecy, he continued to hold onto a geographical interpretation. In his view, Turkey 5

6 is the kingdom of the north that makes war with Egypt at the end in Daniel 11: His view was first published in the late 1800s and has been accepted by many. In the 1940s, Louis Were followed Smith all the way to Daniel 11:31 where papal Rome begins its civil reign as the abomination of desolation (with the exception that Louis Were identified the territory of the Seleucid kings as Babylon, which Smith did not do). In verse 31, when the pope began to reign in AD 538, he transitions to global spiritual powers and conflicts. He doesn t identify the king of the south in Daniel 11:25-26 as a spiritual power; he uses Smith s geographical interpretation there, which places the events in some of those verses before the cross. 14 An alternative to Smith s flow of Daniel 11 was introduced into Seventh-day Adventism in the 1940s, or possibly earlier, when the Crusades view of Daniel 11:23-30 was conceived. There are many variations to this concept. Dr. Shea s interpretation (see the image) has become widely circulated. In his view, the conflicts and other events mentioned in Daniel 11:23-30 happened during the Crusades. As can be seen, he makes large jumps forward and backward in time. Although Dr. Shea uses spiritual concepts to interpret Daniel 11:40-45, his emphasis is on the geography of the Middle East in Daniel 11:23-30 with the focus of verse 25 on papal excursions into Egypt in the south. Interestingly, he mingles geographical and spiritual interpretations. 15 These practices have paved the way for people like Pastor Roosenberg to focus on the geography of the Middle East all the way through the prophecy, even into the last conflict in Daniel 11: Pastor Roosenberg picked up on the Crusades concept, but he introduced a transition in the prophecy in Daniel 11:23. He believes there are two lines of prophecy starting in AD 34, and he does some jumping with his flow of the prophecy. He says that the time of Daniel 11:24 refers to the 1260 years of papal rule. After that, he leaps forward to the Crusades in Daniel 11:25-28 (AD ); he then jumps to a conflict with the Ottoman Turks in Daniel 11:29-30 (AD 1449 to 1840); and he finally returns to the days of Clovis in Daniel 11:31 (AD 508). 16 This jumping around indicates problems in his interpretation that I will speak of in more detail in lesson 4. 6

7 Parallel Geopolitical and Spiritual Conflicts I will start this investigation of Pastor Roosenberg s view by discussing his dual geographical and spiritual lines of prophecy. He claims that there are both geopolitical Middle East conflicts and global spiritual conflicts in Daniel 11 that happen at the same time. He begins both of these lines of prophecy after we go past the time of the cross. He later identifies AD 34 as the beginning date of these two lines of prophecy. Consider his words: After Jesus was crucified, the localized struggles represent a worldwide spiritual conflict. 17 The literal is parallel to the spiritual.... it is both literal and spiritual in Daniel It is geopolitical and religious ; there will be a worldwide religious/spiritual struggle. 19 The geopolitical phase is a model of the religious phase Notice that Pastor Roosenberg calls the local geopolitical conflicts a model of what happens worldwide. This is similar to typology, but it s not the same thing. Types always come before the antitypes they represent, but Pastor Roosenberg has his Middle East conflicts happening simultaneously with his global spiritual conflicts. In a personal to me, Pastor Roosenberg said, References to glorious land etc. are talking about events that actually happen to literal Israel and are models or symbolic of what happens to the church at about the same time. Thus, in his view there are simultaneous local geopolitical conflicts and global spiritual conflicts. As proof of his view, Pastor Roosenberg claims that whenever the Papacy controls literal Jerusalem, it also controls... the church. He applies this concept to the conflicts in Daniel 11: He claims that during the Crusades the Papacy controlled literal Jerusalem and also the church. However, he never says how the Papacy controlled the church, and he doesn t give any historical or biblical proof. During his conflict with the Ottoman Turks, he says the Papacy did not control literal Jerusalem, and because of the Reformation he says it lost control of the church. 21 Does he mean that the Papacy persecuted the church when he says it controlled the church? He is not very clear. The reason the church was persecuted was because she refused to be controlled by papal Rome. She went into the wilderness for 1260 years to flee from the wrath of the papal legions who were trying to force God s church under its control. The persecution lessened because of the Reformation and finally ended in AD There is no historical evidence given, however, by Pastor Roosenberg to show that papal Rome controlled God s church more for the 104 years that it held Jerusalem during the time of the Crusades (88 years from AD 1099 to 1187 and 16 years from AD 1228 to ) then it did when it did not control Jerusalem during the long periods before and after the Crusades. His concepts are vague and his periods span vast amounts of time; they do not warrant acceptance without specifics. In contrast to the vast 1260 years of papal rule, during the short time of the final conflict in Daniel 11:40-45, Pastor Roosenberg claims that the papacy will again control literal Jerusalem and the church. As evidence, he says, Revelation 13:3 says that all the world... followed the beast. 23 He includes the church in all the world as evidence that the papacy will control the church at the end. Here we have a partial passage of scripture that Pastor Roosenberg uses as proof of his view that in the final conflict the papacy will control the church. 7

8 Does Revelation 13:3 really support Pastor Roosenberg s view? Quoting more of the context brings out a real problem with his concept: 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). Not only do all the world follow the beast, but it s clear from the passage that they also worship the dragon and the beast. We must then question, since all the world also worships the dragon (Satan) and the beast (the papal church-state union), is the church included in all the world? Verse 8 answers this question for us: And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him [the beast], whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:8) This verse clearly shows that God s true church is not included in the phrase, all the world. (Revelation 17:8 is also parallel to Revelation 13:8 and reveals the same truth.) Furthermore, the Bible makes a contrast between those who follow the beast, and those who follow Jesus, the Lamb: And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand.... These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. (Revelation 14:1, 4) God s people always follow the Lamb. If they are not following Jesus, they are not his people. God s church is not included in all the world. Moreover, Jesus said about His people, They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world (John 17:16). Jesus clearly told us that His people are not considered to be of the world, and they obviously do not follow the beast at the end. Ironically, Pastor Roosenberg later in his book says the entire world follows the beast at the end except those who are included in the book of life, and that God s true people must be following the Lamb. 24 He knows that Revelation 13:3 doesn t support his view, but he uses it because he has no other biblical evidence. Furthermore, speaking of how the Israelites will be caught in the middle of a conflict between the kings of the north and south at the end, Pastor Roosenberg places the church in the middle of a future Friday, Sabbath, Sunday conflict. He then concludes that there is a parallel transformation from a politically based power to a religiously based one. 25 In other words, a conflict in the Middle East will be the model of a future conflict over the day of worship. However, Ellen White says that the legislation of Sunday in the United States is the example (model) that the world follows; Islam and Friday are not mentioned: As America, the land of religious liberty, shall unite with the papacy in forcing the conscience and compelling men to honor the false sabbath, the people of every country on the globe will be led to follow her example. 26 Underlying his concept of both geopolitical and spiritual conflicts, Pastor Roosenberg insists that Jerusalem and the Jewish nation still have prophetic significance today. In chapter 6 he speaks of the true Israelites as the people of faith, God s global church. At the beginning of the chapter he says between the seas and the glorious holy mountain in Daniel 11:45 is speaking of Israel and/or Jerusalem. 27 Within his description of the true Israel, he says The geopolitical nation or land of Israel still has some significance and Events will still happen in Jerusalem or the land of Israel. 28 He then 8

9 begins the next chapter by saying that the glorious land in Daniel 11:41 is geographical Palestine/Israel. 29 Along with his statements about the importance of Palestine, Israel, and Jerusalem, Pastor Roosenberg says that the end of the 490 years of Daniel 9 (AD 34) was only the end of the exclusivity of the Jewish nation. 30 While he says that the Jewish nation no longer has the exclusive focus of prophecy after AD 34, he still includes the Jewish nation in local Middle East conflicts. He is saying that the conclusion of the 490 years was not the end of the prophetic focus on the Jewish nation; along with global spiritual conflicts, he insists the Jewish nation must have continued focus in prophecy until the end of time. The purpose of God, however, in giving the prophecy in Daniel 9 was to limit the time given to the Jews to accept the gospel and to finish the work: Seventy weeks are determined [cut off] upon thy people and upon thy holy city... (Daniel 9:24). Notice that the allotted time included both the people and the city. They threw away their opportunity (see Matthew 21:43; Acts 13:46). There is nothing in Daniel 9 to support the view that the Jewish nation still has some prophetic significance. Ellen White saw the Jewish nation as forsaken of God because of their part in the crucifixion of Jesus: I saw that God has forsaken the Jews as a nation. 31 The Jewish nation who rejected Christ committed the unpardonable sin. 32 Henceforth the Jewish nation, as a nation, was as a branch severed from the vine... without a Saviour! 33 The Jewish nation has no prophetic focus at the end. There would be no moral purpose in prophecy if that was the case. God has nothing to do with the unbelieving Jewish nation today. Acceptance of a Jerusalem centered interpretation of Daniel 11 would ultimately unite Seventh-day Adventists with Protestants, Evangelicals, and Catholics. Listen again to Ellen White s view of Jerusalem today: The city of Jerusalem is no longer a sacred place [it s not a holy city]. The curse of God is upon it because of the rejection and crucifixion of Christ. A dark blot of guilt rests upon it, and never again will it be a sacred place [like the glorious holy mountain mentioned in Daniel 11:45] until it has been cleansed by the purifying fires of heaven. 34 Ellen White is clearly not in harmony with Pastor Roosenberg, who views Jerusalem as the glorious land and the glorious holy mountain. There is no sacredness to Jerusalem, and there is no longer prophetic focus on the Jewish nation. Consider the words of Dr. LaRondelle as he explains the true focus of Bible prophecy: The biblical focus of 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. 35 The real focus of all prophecy is on that smaller group of believers. The unbelieving Jewish nation has no covenant connection with God today. The geographical focus of any prophecy is only important when God s believing children are limited to a specific territory, as they were prior to AD 34. When they left that territory, the territory lost its significance. All nationality and national focus is wiped away in Jesus. Bloodline loses its significance in Christ. The focus of prophecy is on God s people, wherever they are. 9

10 With this understanding, we can conclude, as Dr. LaRondelle has, that One eschatology binds Israel and the Church together. 36 Thus, all of the prophecies center on the true Israel of God, the church. Not two separate eschatologies, one for national Israel and one for the church, as Pastor Roosenberg has it. As we go past the cross in Daniel 11:22, the territory expands to include the influx of Gentile believers. The correct flow of prophecy is a single line linking the believers in national Israel in Old Testament times with the global group of believers in New Testament times. The territory expanded after AD 34 as the believers came in from the various nations. National Israel was a type, or model, of the church, the antitype, but events that happened in the type do not happen simultaneously in the antitype. The types happened in Old Testament times, as shown in the image and the table below. The antitype is now in process of fulfillment. Type Believers in national Israel Egypt, literally held the territory south of national Israel Babylon, literally held the territory north of national Israel Antitype God s global church, spiritual Israel Spiritual Egypt (atheism, humanism, secularism, communism, paganism) Mystical Babylon (church-state, apostate Christianity) Pastor Roosenberg s View of Daniel 11:23-30 We can now turn to an examination of Daniel 11:23-30, to the part of the prophecy that has given so many interpreters so much difficulty. Let s look at Pastor Roosenberg s verse by verse interpretation of Daniel 11:23-30 using the Bible version that he uses, the New King James. (As we look at these verses, compare pages and pages in his book Islam and Christianity in Prophecy.) And after the league is made with him he shall act deceitfully, for he [papal Rome] shall come up and become strong with a small number of people. (Daniel 11:23, NKJV) Pastor Roosenberg sees the rise of papal Rome, which came in and took control without its own army, in this verse, but he gives little proof of his view. I believe that he is correct here, but I would like to see more information. The next verse is where we begin to depart: He shall enter peaceably [the pope, the man of peace ], even into the richest places of the province; and he shall do what his fathers have not done, nor his forefathers: he shall disperse among them the plunder, spoil, and riches; and he shall devise his plans against the strongholds, but only for a time [the king of the north enters its 1260-year papal phase in AD 538]. (Daniel 11:24, NKJV) 10

11 There is very little information on this verse in his book, his documents, and his videos; much of what the prophecy says he does not comment on. An important point to focus on here is the word time. Pastor Roosenberg makes much out of this. Unfortunately for Pastor Roosenberg, the word time has never been identified as 1260 years by Seventh-day Adventist interpreters that I know of; neither does it make biblical sense. Of the seven places the 1260 years are mentioned in the Bible, three of them are designated a time, times, and a half time (Daniel 7:25; 12:7; Revelation 12:14). The other four are given as forty-two months (Revelation 11:2; 13:5) and one thousand two hundred and sixty days (Revelation 11:3; 12:6). Pastor Roosenberg adds an eighth reference, which breaks the scripture s numerical significance. Making the word time to mean 1260 years obviously also weakens the day for a year principle. The reason he does this is because he needs to introduce the 1260 years before the Crusades began. I want to focus now on Pastor Roosenberg s interpretation of Daniel 11: He gives very little information, so it is sometimes hard to tell what he believes, which complicates the task of revealing his errors. As we have seen, Pastor Roosenberg s main concept revolves around his view of three conflicts between Islam and Christianity. He lists those three conflicts on page 12 of his book as follows: Crusades AD 1095 to AD 1291 (Daniel 11:25-28) Ottoman Empire AD 1449 to AD 1840 (Daniel 11:29-30) Future Conflict it could begin at any time. (Daniel 11:40-45) As can be seen above, Pastor Roosenberg s interpretation of Daniel 11:25-30 includes two of his conflicts between Islam and Christianity; his third conflict is still future. Pastor Roosenberg extends his second conflict through verse 39, 37 but he does not actually apply any of the verses in Daniel 11:31-39 to conflicts or events with the Ottoman Turks. Interestingly, some of the events referred to in his interpretation of that passage actually happened before the Ottoman Turks existed, which signals a problem with his theory. He later created dual timelines to cover his problems, as discussed in lesson 4. Pastor Roosenberg also tells us that his three conflicts in Daniel 11 are the same as the three woes in Revelation, which speaks of conflicts with Islam. 38 In this way, he links Daniel to Revelation as having to do with three conflicts between Islam and Christianity. When we compare the three conflicts using the dates that Pastor Roosenberg gives, we can see that there is a discrepancy. Although he says his first conflict in Daniel 11 begins with the Arab expansion of Islam, 39 he actually begins the conflicts in Daniel 11 with the Crusades (AD ); but in Revelation, he gives the period of the first woe as AD His first conflict in Daniel and Revelation do not correspond. Doctor Pfandl also recognized a discrepancy in Pastor Roosenberg s first conflict. He said that when Pastor Roosenberg interprets Daniel 11:25 28 he finds no room for the Islamic conquest and begins with the Crusades ; he then said, This is historically problematic. 42 In Pastor Roosenberg s interpretation, he skips the most important conflict between Islam and Christianity, the Islamic expansion. Recognizing this problem, Dr. Pfandl finally questioned all of the Islamic views of Daniel 11: 11

12 Why have others ignored the greatest conflict? 43 Not only does Pastor Roosenberg have this problem, but all of the Crusade interpretations of Daniel 11 have this problem. So let s look at Pastor Roosenberg s interpretation of Daniel 11: He claims that the events in Daniel 11:25-28 are referring to the Crusades. Verses 25 and 26 are connected and an important battle between his king of the north and the king of the south comes into focus: He [the papal king of the north] shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the South [Islam during the Crusades] with a great army. And the king of the South shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand, for they shall devise plans against him. Yes, those who eat of the portion of his delicacies shall destroy him; his army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain [there were high casualties during the Crusades]. (Daniel 11:25-26, NKJV) Pastor Roosenberg says that these verses and the next verse are referring to nine major crusades and many minor ones. 44 (This is a clear discrepancy because he said earlier that the first conflict with Islam in Daniel 11 refers to seven major Christian Crusades. 45 He seemed to have forgotten what he wrote earlier and his editor missed the error.) It is difficult to see how a specific battle can turn into so many major conflicts. Both sides had very great armies in the conflict mentioned by the passage. While claiming these verses apply to the entire time of the Crusades, Pastor Roosenberg cites no historical works, so we only have his words to go by. Furthermore, the next verse refers only to a negotiation that took place between two of the kings; no conflict is mentioned by the passage: Both these kings hearts shall be bent on evil, and they shall speak lies at the same table [intrigue, lies, and broken agreements]; but it shall not prosper, for the end will still be at the appointed time [see verse 29]. (Daniel 11:27, NKJV) Pastor Roosenberg s interpretation is so vague that he could claim most anything here. What we need are specific events and dates so we can check things historically. When did this negotiation take place? Who were the two kings? What were the lies they spoke as they negotiated? And how did their lies not prosper? When the Lord puts details in the prophecy, He makes sure that history is available. The next verse is connected to the previous verses and is critical because it introduces an attack on God s holy covenant: While returning to his land with great riches [relics and artifacts from the holy land], his heart shall be moved against the holy covenant [they got people worshiping the relics]; so he shall do damage and return to his own land. (Daniel 11:28, NKJV) Pastor Roosenberg says that the crusaders brought back many relics and artifacts, and then they got people worshipping them. This is his view of how papal Rome attacked God s holy covenant, which he earlier identified as God s law. 46 However, idolatry was instituted in the Roman Church over 300 years earlier, at the second council of Nicaea, in AD 787, so it seems unlikely that the prophecy is referring to idolatry. Without evidence supporting his interpretation of the previous verses, Pastor Roosenberg s view of Daniel 11:28 is just speculation. 12

13 Continuing, the appointed time mentioned in Daniel 11:27 is fulfilled in verse 29. Verse 27 refers to a future end between two kings, but Pastor Roosenberg ignores this and uses the wording in verse 29 as a transition from the Crusades to the Ottoman Turks. This is problematic, because verse 29 should fulfill verse 27, but Pastor Roosenberg uses verse 29 as the beginning of his conflict with the Turks: At the appointed time he [Pius V] shall return and go toward the south [against the Ottoman Turks in 1571]; but it shall not be like the former [Crusades] or the latter [his future conflict]. For ships from Cyprus [the Turks] shall come against him [Pius V]. (Daniel 11:29-30a, NKJV) Pastor Roosenberg has pope Pius V engaging the Ottoman Turks in 1571 in a naval conflict in fulfillment of these verses. (I will speak of the appointed time in lesson 4.) The Turks are his king of the south whom he says had control of the island of Cyprus. 47 Pastor Roosenberg says the Ottoman Turks controlled Cyprus, but not that their ships came from Cyprus, as the passage says. He accepts Cyprus as the correct translation of the original word, but he doesn t acknowledge that the ships also had to come from Cyprus. The naval engagement Pastor Roosenberg is speaking of can only be the Battle of Lepanto, which took place on October 7, AD 1571, and the historians tell us that the ships in that naval battle came from Lepanto, not Cyprus: The Ottoman forces sailing westwards from their naval station in Lepanto met the Holy League forces, which had come from Messina, Sicily, where they had previously gathered. 48 This is biblically and historically a problem for Pastor Roosenberg. He ignores the fact that Daniel 11:30, in the Bible that he uses (NKJV), is not in agreement with his view. The naval conflict with the ships from Cyprus is the only engagement in Daniel 11 that Pastor Roosenberg applies to a conflict between the papacy and the Ottoman Turks, and it does not fit the passage. Lepanto (Italian), or Naupactua (Greek, meaning boatyard ), is in the Gulf of Corinth. Cyprus is much further to the east. It s obvious that Pastor Roosenberg s interpretation is in conflict with the Bible. Another problem he has with the biblical text is the power he has bringing the ships. The passage actually refers to the papal power, Pastor Roosenberg s king of the north, bringing the ships from Cyprus against the south: When the Hebrew wants to say that one army is going against another, it uses the preposition al. However, the text here uses be or beth, which means, by, in, at, with. Thus the ships of the Chittim [Cyprus, NKJV], or western coastlands, did not come against the king of the north; they came with him, they were his ships. 49 Doctor Shea is clear here. It doesn t seem possible that Pastor Roosenberg can be correct about his use of the ships of Cyprus going against the Holy League. They should be his Holy League ships going against the Turks. Nevertheless, let s look at how Pastor Roosenberg applies the rest of the verse to the works of pope Pius V: Therefore he shall be grieved, and return in rage against the holy covenant, and do damage. So he shall return and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant [Pius V reasserted the Liturgical Mass, Inquisition, and decrees of the Council of Trent]. (Daniel 11:30b, NKJV) 13

14 God s covenant is again brought into focus here. Pastor Roosenberg claims that because of his success in gathering Europe to push Islam back that Pius V reasserted and used his influence to ramp up 50 the liturgical Mass, Inquisition, and decrees of the Council of Trent 51 throughout Europe. However, pope Pius V died less than seven month later, and the historical facts show that his works were accomplished before his naval victory, not after it, as Daniel 11:30 requires: Responding to the Council of Trent s call for a catechism and standard liturgical texts, he had published the Roman Catechism (1566), the revised Roman Breviary (1568), and the Roman Missal (1570), and he set up the Congregation of the Index ([March] 1571) to examine [Protestant] books published in Italy. 52 The events of Daniel 11:29-30 are the only events in Daniel 11 that Pastor Roosenberg applies to the Ottoman Turks. He refers to specific historical events, but he does not cite a single work as proof of his view. I have shown that the ships in the naval battle he refers to did not come from Cyprus, as the passage in the New King James requires, but from Lepanto. I have also shown that the ships from Cyprus should have been his Holy League ships going against the south, not the Turkish ships going against the Holy League. And I have lastly shown that Pius V did his works before his naval victory, which is contrary to the passage that requires them to have taken place after the naval conflict. Consequently, while Pastor Roosenberg s claim that Daniel 11:25-28 refers to the Crusades is speculative, his evidence for linkage in Daniel 11:29-30 to the Ottoman Turks is entirely non-existent (none of his events match the prophetic text). The Spiritual View of Daniel 11:23-30 In this section, I want to give a contrast to Pastor Roosenberg s geopolitical view by giving a truly spiritual view of Daniel 11:23-30 without any geographical focus. In the spiritual view, as we have seen, geographical terminology and events are applied to powers that are identified by spiritual characteristics. They are still real, literal events, but they are not confined to the Middle East. I will show that Daniel 11:23-30 actually does fit chronologically between verses 22 and 31 (see the image at the left), which no one in the Seventh-day Adventist church has been able to do using the geography of the Middle East. Daniel 11:23 is interpreted similar to Pastor Roosenberg s view: And after the league made with him [corrupt Christians and pagans unite to form the papal religion] he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people [identical to the rise of little horn in Daniel 7:8, 20]. (Daniel 11:23) The league in this verse can also be translated as union. It is talking about the union between Christians and pagan philosophers in Rome, and through this union the establishment of the papacy. Ellen White speaks of this union: Most of the Christians at last consented to lower their standard, and a union was 14

15 formed between Christianity and paganism. 53 The pagans with their Greek, platonic philosophy and the Christians merged to form a new religion. This new Roman religion was an approximation between them: Justin Martyr is remarkable,... as the first of those better known to us, who became a teacher of the Christian church, in whom we observe an approximation between Christianity and the Grecian, but especially the Platonic philosophy. 54 Justin Martyr is important because he is said here to be the first of a series of Christian philosophers. Philip Schaff makes a similar statement about him: He is also the first Christian philosopher or the first philosophic theologian. 55 From Justin on we really begin to see the Papacy taking shape. The rise of papal Rome, as described in Daniel 11, is parallel to its rise in Daniel 7. As the little horn in Daniel 7 camp up and became stout, Daniel 11 says that the Papacy would come up and become strong with a small people. The next verse continues to speak of the rise of this new Roman religion: He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province [these apostate Christian teachers started schools in Rome and Alexandria]; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches [pagan teachings were brought into the church]: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time [these Christian philosophers would teach, preach, and war against paganism in Rome for 360 years]. (Daniel 11:24) Some important places in the Roman Empire are identified here. It is interesting that it was in the city of Rome where Justin Martyr established his school of Christian philosophy. Justin s student Clement likewise established a school in Alexandria, Egypt, and it was in Alexandria were we find Origin who caused greater corruption to Christianity than all of them. The pagan teachings then began to take root in the Roman church, which many of their doctrines are based upon today. We also see here that a struggle would take place against paganism that would last 360 years. Since Justin Martyr was the first Christian philosopher, this struggle most likely started when he opened his school in Rome: Justin came to Rome around AD 150 or slightly earlier a date fixed by the date of the first Apology where he founded his school of philosophical instruction and engaged in active controversy with other philosophers and Christian teachers. 56 By the year 150 Justin Martyr is living in Rome and actually has his own philosophical school in the city of Rome. 57 Since Justin Martyr was the first philosophic theologian, it is important for us to notice the date at which he entered Rome. I could not find an exact date here, but notice that he must have been in Rome before AD 150. Three hundred sixty years would bring us a short time before AD 510, which is referred to below. Before discussing the next verse, we need to identify who the king of the south is. In the days of pagan Rome, those Christians who refused to worship pagan idols were badly persecuted, even fed to lions, and they were often called atheists because they had no visible gods. Thus, just as surely as Pharaoh 15

16 denied the existence of the Lord, He was denied by the pagan rulers in Rome. It is quite logical then that pagan Rome should be considered spiritual Egypt, the king of the south, not the king of the north as is typically believed. Consider the following: The theory of evolution is built on the age-old philosophy of uniformity of natural forces.... This viewpoint, according to which nature is supposed to be endowed with power for carrying on its activities, was the very essence of all ancient pagan philosophical systems. 58 The Romans had their gods, as the Egyptians did. Most all pagan systems deny the existence of a personal God. In paganism, nature itself is the creator and has power to carry on its activities. Interestingly, it was this ancient paganism of Greece and Rome that came to life in the Renaissance: The Renaissance (meaning rebirth ) has been so named for the very reason that the submerged pre-christian culture of Greece and Rome was revived in this period.... Evolutionism then came to the surface again in the humanistic emphases of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment periods, first in the revival of pantheism, then in deism, and finally in full-fledged atheism.... Darwin and the other nineteenth-century evolutionists made no great scientific discovery, but merely revived ancient paganism in a modern form. 59 It was the revival of evolutionary thought in the Renaissance that brought rise to atheism in France, which was just the revival of Greek and Roman paganism. This revival of atheistic-paganism resulted in the French Revolution and an attack by spiritual Egypt, the revived king of the south, on the papacy. Moreover, if the pagan Pharaoh and the French revolutionaries can be considered atheists, then so can the pagans in Rome. They just as much denied the divinity of Christ as Pharaoh and the French did. Therefore, as we return to the prophecy, pagan Rome is considered spiritual Egypt, the king of the south, not the king of the north as is generally accepted. As the Roman Church grew, it became bolder, and the struggle against paganism became militant in the fourth century. These military conflicts are discussed next by the prophecy: And he [the Catholic Constantine in Gaul] shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south [the pagan Maxentius in Italy] with a great army [98,000 men]; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army [170,000+ men]; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him. (Daniel 11:25) This verse brings us to a time when papal Rome received an army to make war against the pagans in the empire. The king of the south is mentioned by the prophecy here, and I believe the pagan rulers of Rome are the kings of the south, as mentioned above. There is also an important battle that comes into focus, and both sides had very great armies. Jones describes the intrigue that resulted in this battle: In A.D. 312, an embassy from Rome went to Constantine at Arles, and in the name of the Senate and people requested him to deliver the city from the despotism of the tyrant. Constantine gladly embraced the opportunity thus offered, and quickly set out toward Rome