Will the Prophetic King of the South Emerge from the Arab World?
Will an Arab leader or group of Arab nations come to represent a yet future prophetic king of the south simply because some Arab peoples and states are located south of Jerusalem? With the death of Alexander of Macedon the dominion that was his empire became subject to internal conflicts that eventually divided the empire among his trusted guards, regional satrapies, and the leading generals who served Alexander the Great. Consequently, within a comparatively few years the Greco-Macedonian Empire was suffering from a series of wars among the Successors (Diadochi) beginning with a coalition—Ptolemy, Antipater and Craterus—that formed an alliance against the first regent Perdiccas in 320-319 BCE. Then, following the death of Perdiccas there was a rearrangement of the satrapies and Antigonus (the One-Eyed) became general of Asia, and Antipater became the new regent who replaced Perdiccas, while Ptolemy took southern Syria. Setting the stage for the Second War of the Successors. In this second war the major contenders for the empire were Antigonus and Cassander who aligned themselves against Polyperchon and the scholar and military leader Eumenes. This conflict resulted in Cassander ruling Macedon, while Antigonus became the leading ruler of Asia and Asia Minor, which led to Seleucus (later called, Nicator) being expelled from Babylon. Leading then to the Third War of the Successors where Lysimachus, Ptolemy and Cassander struggled against Antigonus, Demetrius and Polyperchon, which brought Seleucus back to the throne of Babylon. The end of this conflict generally marks the beginning of the so-called “Peace of the Dynasts.” (This Seleucus would later overthrow Antigonus and begin the Seleucid dynasty sometime after the Babylonian War of 311-309 BCE.) Eventually we are brought to the Fourth War of the Successors. In this confrontation we see that Antigonus and Demetrius are at war with Ptolemy and Cassander and eventually Lysimachus and Seleucus, which brings us then to the years 305-304 BCE when Ptolemy declares himself to be king of Egypt, and Seleucus becomes the ruler of Asia. Demetrius for a time controls Greece and Lysimachus and Cassander declare themselves kings in their respective dominions, which brings us to the fateful Battle of Ipsus in 301 BCE when the aging Antigonus the One-Eyed is killed in battle and Demetrius is expelled from Greece. However, this was not the end of the struggles for those who contended for what remained of Alexander’s empire. What followed then was the Fifth and Sixth Wars of the Successors. These wars, of course, ensured that there would never again be a consolidated Greco-Macedonian Empire, noting that the only ruler who ever really came close to reestablishing Alexander’s realm was Seleucus I of Asia Minor. (Work on the Septuagint began in the brief period between the fifth and sixth wars of the Diadochi.) Interestingly, the leading Successors who continued after the Battle of Ipsus all died within a few years of each other—Ptolemy in 283 BCE, Demetrius in 282 BCE and Lysimachus and Seleucus in 281 BCE. Still, this was not the end of struggles for the once great Greco-Macedonian Empire founded by Alexander the Great. Rome was now on the rise as a world-ruling empire in Eurasia. By 167 BCE Macedon became divided into Roman republics, and within a few years the Greeks of Corinth came under Roman rule, while Roman expansion continued in Asia until the fall of the independent kingdoms of Bithynia, the Pontic Kingdom south of the Black Sea, and the Kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosphorus (Crimea). Then, finally, came the fall of the remnant Ptolemaic Kingdom in Egypt with the death of Cleopatra VII and her consort Mark Antony, which marked the end of what was the Greco-Macedonian Empire. (The northern kingdom ruled by Mithridates VI had earlier emerged from the dominion of Seleucus I, and this kingdom came to an end when the Bosporus Kingdom of Crimea eventually fell to the Romans.) So, what then is the relevancy of this history to the prophetic kings of the north and south as noted in the prophecies of Daniel? By using this historical backdrop, we see that some biblical expositors assumed a literary method for interpreting Daniel’s prophecy regarding the kings of the north and south, and by doing so many commentaries have placed this prophecy in the context of what happened to the Greco-Macedonian Empire sometime after the death of Alexander the Great. Now, it is true that the prophecies of Daniel do speak about the rise of Macedon-Greece and the overthrow of the Persian Empire and its Achaemenid dynasty at Susa. But it is most difficult, however, to place Daniel’s prophecy regarding the kings of the north and south into a strict historical context, simply because this prophecy contains many abbreviated statements that are nothing short of ambiguous respective to the historical period that followed the death of Alexander. (Compare chapters 8 and 11 of the book of Daniel.) Meaning then that some commentators were more speculative than expositive regarding their interpretations of this prophecy and its relevance to the period of the Successors and the divided kingdoms of the Greco-Macedonian Empire. This, of course, has allowed for various interpretations of Daniel’s prophecies, which, in turn, have made abundant room for many errors in historical judgment regarding the successor kingdoms, which has also created errors in explaining how this prophecy ought to relate to those nation-states that currently occupy the lands that were once within the realm of Alexander. Simply, many expositors and commentators have placed the events of Daniel’s prophecy into an historical context, which is difficult at best given that many statements made in the prophecy of the kings of the north and south could be interpreted in different ways to make them relative to both the Seleucid Kingdom of Asia and the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt. But, more importantly, by placing Daniel’s prophecy into such a context we see that commentators are stressed to interpret how this prophecy relates to end-time events, and the reason for this is that commentators have used a literary method