This study is setting a foundation for the last few verses of Daniel 11 and addressing Daniel 12 clearly and decisively. The verses that we’re looking at should be nothing more than review for Seventh-day Adventists, but unfortunately, they aren’t review for us, very few of us seem to be studying these things. If we were studying them, there would be a better understanding of the last 6 verses of Daniel 11.

Some of the ideas about the symbols and truths of the last 6 verses of Daniel 11, are distinctly different and many of those ideas at best leave you with the understanding that the last 6 verses of Daniel 11 are not that relevant and are not that important.

I’m hoping that with this study, we’ll see that the last 6 verses of Daniel 11 are Present Truth for this hour; serious Present Truth!

If so, then the ideas that take a different approach to the symbols in these verses and end up placing these verses in a lesser category of importance are serious. It is a necessary and important part of Present Truth to clearly defend these verses and to do this, you have to look at the entire story in Daniel 11, and that includes Daniel 10 and Daniel 12.

In our last presentation, we made it up to verse 14. This study we’re going verse 29.

In Adventism for some time there have been two different understandings of the flow of events described in verses 14 to 29. They both come to the same historical point at verse 29, so it’s not as if it challenges prophecy overall.

One approach, used by Uriah Smith, teaches that when Rome comes into this narrative in verse 14 and finally verse 16 onward it’s all about Rome. Both approaches agree that from verse 16 onward, it’s all about Rome.

Uriah Smith suggests the story from verse 14–22 is telling how Pagan Rome came to rule the world as the supreme ruler. Then Uriah Smith says, in verse 23, the prophecy drops back into that same history and the emphasis from verse 23-29 is not so much how Rome came to control the world but it’s how Rome dealt with God’s people during that same history.

In the ‘Story of Daniel the Prophet’, Stephen Haskell, does as many modern interpreters do with this chapter, he tries from verse 22 onward, to maintain the sequential flow of historical events on to verse 29 but they all come together at verse 29 at the same point in history.

I agree with Uriah Smith, but Uriah Smith, arriving at this understanding doesn’t have the same reasoning for supporting that position. His reasoning may have been sounder than mine, but I see a specific literary technique used by Daniel when Rome is mentioned in Daniel 11.

You’ll remember verse 14 in our last presentation:

Adventist commentators will tell you that the ‘Robbers of Thy People’ means Rome and the subject of Rome is what establishes this vision that we find in Daniel 10, 11, 12. Some go so far as to say that it establishes all the visions of Daniel because the primary focus of these powers of Bible prophecy in the book of Daniel is Rome. That’s how I understand it.

From verse 14 onward, that Rome is the focus of this prophecy. But I found that there are three different identifications of Rome and when you get to verse 29, you’re going to begin dealing with the history of how Papal Rome came to control the world.

Uriah Smith takes a different approach in verse 40 and onward but I would suggest that in verse 40 and onward, you have the third history of Rome, the history of modern Rome.

Rome from verses 14-29 is the history of Pagan Rome and then verses 29–40 is the history of Papal Rome, the first time around, and verse 40 and onward is modern Babylon, the Papacy of today. There is a literary technique that Daniel uses in all three of those scenarios, he first describes how Rome comes to control the world, then he drops back into that same history and describes how Rome dealt with God’s people during that time period.

Recognizing these three times that Rome is addressed in Daniel 11 and seeing this literary technique, isn’t anything that Uriah Smith found to confirm his reasoning in this chapter, because he has a different understanding of verses 36 and onward. But looking at Rome in these three settings, you see evidence that first Daniel shows how Rome comes to control the world and then drops back into that same history and describes how Rome dealt with God’s people during that time.

Uriah Smith supports this at least for Pagan Rome’s scenario here in verse 14-29. He says that at verse 23 it drops back into the year 161 BC when there was a confederacy formed between Israel and Rome, and then he takes that point in history and starts through the very same history in verses 14-22. Many commentators, including Haskell, take verse 23 and continue to identify historical events that take place after the historical events of verse 22 and they try to weave a sequence of events that lead us to the same place that Uriah Smith arrives at in verse 29.

For myself, because I see this literary technique illustrated every time all three of the Romes are identified in Daniel 11, I believe it is sound from that point of view. One of the things lost when you try to place the story of Rome from verse 14-29 as sequential, is that you loose the ability to address the time prophecy that was given for Pagan Rome in verse 24. We’ll show you how Uriah Smith and many of the pioneers understood the very last phrase of verse 24. Speaking of Pagan Rome, that they were going to forecast their devices for a ‘time’, this ‘time’ was understood as Biblical time, a prophetic year; 360 days.

The pioneers understood that Pagan Rome was going to rule the world for 360 years and they marked the starting point for that in 31 BC, from the Battle of Actium that finally subdued fully the nation of Egypt—the last obstacle that Pagan Rome needed to overcome before it was the true fourth power of Bible Prophecy, and they would continue in that place until the year 330 AD, 360 years later. Remember of course that there is no ‘0’ year, you go from 1BC to 1AD in your calculation of prophetic time.

In the year 330 AD, Constantine moved the capitol of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople and historians mark that as the end of the dominance of Pagan Rome and the disintegration began then that turned them into the ten horns.

If you run these verses in a sequence from verse 14 to verse 29, it’s very difficult to make any emphases about this time prophecy being associated with Pagan Rome, because by the time you’re trying to explain verse 24 you’ve already went past the battle of Actium in 31 BC.

Let’s look at how we should understand verses 14 and onward. I haven’t been taking the time to hang the names on all these different Kings of the North and Kings of the South—this information is difficult enough to understand the first time through without trying to memorize the names. I would encourage you to get the book Daniel and Revelation and look at that history—all the kings are there.

But if you remember in verse 13 it says: "For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches."

That verse was describing a time when Egypt’s king had died and left the kingdom of Egypt to his five-year-old son and his daughter Cleopatra. The next verses talk about Rome coming into the picture. Verse 14 says that there would many stand up against the king of the south in this time period. Uriah Smith points out that not only was there a struggle in Egypt itself going on trying to take control immediately after the king died leaving his kingdom to his children, but Phillip of Macedon and the Assyrian kingdom, the King of the North decided they would come together and attack Egypt and divide up the geography connected with that kingdom among themselves.

Verse 14 is following in that scenario and says in this time period that the ‘robbers of thy people’ will stand up and sure enough, historically during that situation, Rome who had began to make moves towards being a kingdom in the world, had already been to some wars in northern Africa and they accepted the responsibility of being the protectors of these children. They let it be known that if Syria, the King of the North and Macedonia were going to come after Egypt that they were going to have to deal with Rome as well.

If you look at history, the King of the North begins to make his march on Egypt, on the child king. The protectorate, Rome, that was managing Egypt during that time, hired an army. In verse 15 this is the ‘chosen people’, the protectorate of Egypt selected this army. The King of the North came against them and he just wiped them out. There’s more to the battling that went on there but this hired army of mercenaries, as we would call them today, those ‘chosen people’ couldn’t stand, they didn’t have any strength to withstand and the King of the North came almost all the way into Egypt but they don’t quite get there. Then we see verse 16:

This was Pompey. And as the King of the North, Assyria, decides to make its move on Egypt, even though the Romans had said, "leave Egypt alone", Rome goes into battle against them and Pompey goes through Assyria and levels it.

So who is the King of the North and who is the King of the South? at this point in the first part of this verse, when Rome overcomes Assyria, Rome becomes the King of the North. Because the rule of thumb is the power that controls the geographical area of Egypt is the King of the South, and the power that controls the geographical area of Babylon is the King of the North.

The centre of the Assyrian kingdom was Babylon, and when Rome in verse 16 came in and the Assyrians could not stand against him and they took control of that area by the rule established here in Daniel 11, they became the King of the North. They did that as they swept through Assyria, then they followed on in and took the ‘Glorious Land’ of Israel as well.

It’s important to see that when Pompey is making this move against Assyria and then the Glorious Land, what Uriah Smith says about it. This term the ‘Glorious Land’ is used twice by Daniel, he uses the term ‘Pleasant Land’ as well and I don’t have a problem with equating the pleasant land with the Glorious Land. Glorious Land is used twice in chapter 11 by Daniel and the first time here in verse 16, everyone understands that it’s describing when Rome comes in and conquers the LAND of Israel. But when we get to verse 41, some insist that the ‘Glorious Land’ is God’s church.

In Daniel and Revelation by Uriah Smith, although certainly the sanctuary is impacted by Rome coming in and conquering Israel, he is talking about the Roman army taking control of the country of Israel.

In page 247 of Uriah Smith’s book, coming to the very close of this commentary on verse 16; speaking about responding to a quarrel for power among the Israelites themselves, it talks about Pompey coming back to Jerusalem to deal with those who were resisting his power. "At the end of three months, the breach was made in the walls sufficient for an assault and the place was carried at to point of the sword. In the terrible slaughter that ensued 12,000 slain. It was an affecting sight, observes the historian, to see the priest engaged at the time in the Divine service with clam hand and steady purpose pursue their accustomed work apparently unconscious of the wild tumult until their own blood was mingled with that of the sacrifices they were offering.

"After putting an end to the war, Pompey demolished the walls of Jerusalem, transferred several cities from the jurisdiction of Judea to that of Syria and imposed tribute on the Jews. For the first time, Jerusalem was by conquest placed in the hands of Rome. That power which was to hold the Glorious Land in its iron grasp until it had utterly consumed it."

When Rome conquered the ‘Glorious Land’ in verse 16, they weren’t just overthrowing the religion of the Jews, or destroying the temple, they were taking control of the country of Israel, the Glorious Land. We must keep that in mind if we’re going to correctly divide the Word of God when we get to the end.

All Adventist commentators as far as I know, say that what is described here initially in verse 17 is that Rome at this point determines that it’s going to use its strength to conquer the entire kingdom, and in verse 17, this is the entire kingdom of Alexander the Great.

Rome has already taken the kingdom of the North when Assyria fell, and then it has taken the kingdom of the ‘Glorious Land’ and now it decides it’s going to take the King of the South and when it does that, it will have taken the whole kingdom of Alexander the Great.

In Daniel 8:9 it says, "And out of one of them came forth a little horn," And this ‘little Horn’ has been correctly understood by Adventists for years as Pagan Rome. "which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land." Rome had to overcome 3 geographical obstacles, before it would become the fourth kingdom of Bible prophecy. Daniel 11 is simply building upon that truth.

Verse 16, it takes Assyria, to the east of Rome, then it takes the Glorious Land or the Pleasant Land in chapter 8, and its next point of attack is the King of the South which in verse 17 is when Julius Caesar goes into Egypt. Julius Caesar was heading to Egypt and somewhere in this flow of History, he and Pompey, who was also Roman, got crossways of one another and Julius Caesar was coming to deal with him.

When Pompey came into Egypt, the son of the King of Egypt that the Assyrians and the Macedonians were going to take advantage of, who was initially five years old, had reached an age where he was willing to struggle for his kingdom. So he had Pompey murdered and Pompey had been placed in the protectorate of the children, of Cleopatra and Ptolemy. So when Ptolemy had Pompey killed, then Julius Caesar continued his pursuit that began after Pompey, right into Egypt and he then takes the position that since Pompey is removed from the protectorate, he’s the protectorate. He starts to try to settle some of the dissent going on in Egypt between whether Ptolemy is going to rule the kingdom or Cleopatra is going to rule the kingdom.

You can find some variations according to what historian you read, even though they all identify this as Julius Caesar and Cleopatra. They might tell you Cleopatra was Julius Caesar’s mistress; some will say that he married her. A very interesting insight by Leslie Harding was that the royalty in Egypt was passed down through the female side of the family, and the reason Julius Caesar, and later Mark Anthony married Cleopatra, was because that made them the King of Egypt.

If you understand that the blood line passed down through the female side in Egypt, then this verse that says, "and he shall give him the daughter of women, (which the commentators will tell you is Cleopatra) corrupting her:" You can see it could have been Julius Caesar who was initiating this marriage to take control of Egypt, then he would be the corruptor of her. But most of the commentators try to turn this around to where Cleopatra corrupted him and later on corrupted Mark Anthony—but that isn’t what the verse says.

The most important theme through these verses is that Rome has come to control the world at this point, and as the Bible wants to be very clear about this sequence of leadership in Rome—Julius Caesar, then Caesar Augustus then Tiberius Caesar—because this sequence of Caesars so clearly identified in these verses, is what places Rome as the only possible entity that could fulfil this prophecy. Remember that this vision is about Rome. There is some very clear history set forth here and to cover these verses for yourself, just pick up Uriah Smith’s book and read through this.

In these verses, Julius Caesar comes into Egypt, finds all kinds of problems to resolve and after he fought some of the battles there and seemed to have brought it under control then he turns to the islands in verse 18 and this describes his march through the Mediterranean where he very quickly brought those islands and sea-coasts that he attacked under the authority of Rome. By verse 19 he returns to Rome a Hero, only to be assassinated at the foot of the statue of Pompey.

Augustus Caesar clearly is the raiser of taxes. He called for the taxing that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, one of the most easily recognisable events in the Bible. These verses in Daniel 11 are saying that this is the history that can’t be mistaken; therefore the kingdom under discussion here, if we’re going to understand the Bible correctly, is Rome, the Pagan Roman Empire. After Augustus, the raiser of taxes dies in peace, we see verse 21:

History says that Tiberius Caesar was the son of the wife of Augustus Caesar, he wasn’t Augustus’ son. She petitioned for Augustus Caesar to proclaim her son to be emperor when Augustus died. He refused and picked another person who died before Augustus did. Then Tiberius’ mother came back and pled with Augustus Caesar and in his old age, he agreed to let him take control of the kingdom at his death. This is how he took the kingdom by flatteries.

But no one in Rome ever had any respect for him, history shows he definitely was a vile man and finally died as some of his own men executed him by suffocation with pillows. This is what verse 22 is symbolizing; that with all his wickedness, using his arms, his military power to work his own will, finally a revolt overthrows him.

But in the last phrase it says "yea, also the prince of the covenant", would be broken during his reign in Rome. This is not Daniel 9:25-27, the Prince of the covenant will be cut off in the midst of the week. This information in these verses clearly identifies this kingdom that in verse 14 is going to establish the vision, this kingdom called the ‘robbers of thy people’, that will exult themselves and ultimately fall—as Rome.

This is the focus of this vision, what establishes it, and Daniel in chapter 10 said he had understanding of the vision and the vision was about what was going to befall God’s people in the later days. This truth about Rome being the power that establishes the vision, in connection with the truth that this vision is about what would befall God’s people in the later days, impacts the incorrect presentation of the last 6 verses of Daniel 11 that Uriah Smith makes.

This vision is about the last days and according to verse 14, it is about Rome. So when Uriah Smith came up with this conclusion that this King of the North that is portrayed in the last six verses of Daniel 11 was not Rome, he was came up with an understanding that isn’t in agreement with what the vision is about according to verse 14. It’s not in agreement with what was going to befall God’s people in the last days. According to Smith’s reasoning in the book, ‘Daniel and Revelation’ on those final verses in Daniel 11, verse 44 is supposedly already fulfilled, and the fulfilment of it and of the previous verses had virtually no consequences for God’s people. His understanding of verse 40–44 just doesn’t fit with the emphasis that’s established in chapter 10-11 by the Holy Spirit.

What does fit in agreement with Uriah Smith is that in verse 23, Daniel drops back into the history of Rome just covered from verses 13, 14-22, he drops back into that history to a time period when Israel was under constant attack by Syria and Israel entered into a league with Rome in order to get some protection from Rome. If you’re going to understand these verses clearly, you need to take them in sections.

These two verses are giving us the starting place of the league with the Jews that Rome made in 161, so it places us back in the history of the previous verses. Then it begins to describe the characteristics of Rome shown earlier in Daniel, that this fourth kingdom would be different.

One of the differences all the pioneer commentators bring out is that Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece conquered through their military might and Rome conquered through it’s military might as well but Rome also conquered through what I’ll call ‘politics’. They formed ‘leagues’ and it starts here in verse 23 with the league they formed with the Jews.

They made agreements with countries to be their protector, like they were watching over Egypt, to protect the young King of Egypt; they formed a league with Greece to protect Greece from the Macedonians and the Assyrians. They took control of countries through politics and military might and this was one of the ‘differences’ of this fourth kingdom that it becomes ‘strong with a small people’. They began as a small people, but if you’re going to conquer a country by signing a truce with it, a peace treaty that ultimately brings that country under your control, you don’t need a large army, you just need a diplomatic chore. These characteristics of the fourth kingdom carry on in the second phase of the fourth kingdom.

But in verse 24 it’s simply carrying on this description, ‘he’ll enter peaceably upon the fattest places of the province’. When it took control of Greece it was through peaceable measures and ‘he’ll do what his fathers have not done or his father’s fathers’. This is saying, according to Uriah Smith and others, Alexander the Great, or the Medes and the Persians or Babylon, being the ‘fathers, the grandfathers and the great grandfathers’, never conquered this way. They never conquered through politics, they conquered through warfare.

‘He shall scatter among them the prey and the spoil and riches’, and this was one of the characteristics of Rome when they conquered a place, the booty was divided between the members of the participating army also some of the countries that would come along with them and form the treaties, were also given initially some of the riches. Ultimately they came under the slavery-type dominance of Rome, but one of the techniques was to share the wealth as they took the wealth and this is the technique that historians clearly identified with the Roman power as it rose to conquer the world.

Now if you look at the last couple phrases of verse 23 it says that Rome shall ‘forecast his devices against the stronghold’ and you can see much discussion about this. It can be understood that Rome will forecast his devices ‘from’ his stronghold; this seems like the clearest understanding of this verse. Those that understand the Hebrew, say that the ‘stronghold’ that Rome forecast it’s devices from, was the city of Rome and it says ‘even for a time’. What it is saying is that Rome would prosecute its taking control of the world from the city of Rome for 360 years.

So when you have a starting point 31 BC and you put this time prophecy into play and the time prophecy comes to a conclusion in 330, you’ll find that in 330 the capitol of the Roman Empire was moved from the city of Rome to the city of Constantinople. They were going to forecast their devices from the city of Rome for 360 years and when the 360 years was up this stronghold of Rome was no longer going to be a stronghold.

I believe verses 25–28, is a passage that needs to be understood in a block, in a broader way than simply verse by verse.

Verse 25 is describing the final conquering of Egypt which included the battle of Actium in 31 BC and the King of the South at this time in verse 25 isn’t one of the lineage of Ptolemy, it’s Mark Anthony, who had come together with Lepidus and Caesar to form a triumvirate, a three-party rule in Rome and one of the reasons was to avenge the assassination of Julius Caesar and they all three began to go after things in their own ways.

Ultimately, Mark Anthony ends up in Egypt and depending on which point of historical testimony you want to believe, he either falls in love with Cleopatra in such a way that he can’t control himself, or if you take the reasoning set forth by Leslie Harding in his historical references, he realized, ‘Well, if I marry Cleopatra, then I become the king of Egypt.’ There’s a logic to that, which seems to make sense. But at this point in verse 25, the King of the South that the king is going to come against is Mark Anthony and verse 26-27 just builds upon this story.

What Uriah Smith and others will tell you is being described here is that the Triumvirate, the 3 man rule in Rome that was set up after Julius Caesar—Lepidus, Augustus Caesar and Mark Anthony—they had come together to accomplish their task of controlling the world and working revenge against Julius Caesar’s enemies. They sat at the same table and talked about doing mischief together but they were lying to one another and their lies weren’t going to prosper.

Ultimately when Caesar comes into Egypt to deal with Mark Anthony, he is destroyed and when he is destroyed, he has his army in place to battle against another Roman army—they’re both Roman armies, but he also has the Egyptian army of Cleopatra with him and as they see the folly of fighting with Mark Anthony, one by one the Egyptian army and his army itself, switches over to the other Roman army, the Egyptian army fled and Mark Anthony is totally wiped out. This is what’s being described in verse 25; he’s not able to stand.

When Caesar comes back to Rome with all the booty from Egypt and all the human trophies, he would have had Cleopatra but at this time, Cleopatra commits suicide. So she isn’t carried back into Rome.

In verse 26 it says ‘they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him’, it’s talking about how Mark Anthony’s army turned on him so that his troops instead of coming to his aid, saw the position he was in and switched over back to Rome. That’s what’s being discussed in these verses.

These verses are significant because this battle where the King of the South, Mark Anthony, is finally dealt with, is the Battle of Actium 31 BC, the starting point of the ‘time’ of verse 24, the 360 years that Rome would rule the world, and verse 27, ‘yet the end shall be at the time appointed’ is just a concluding thought to this time prophecy.

Now if you don’t take this concept of first the verses tell how Rome conquered the world and then drop back in history and show how Rome related to God’s people; you’re forced to continue verse 23 onward in a sequence that follows the death of Christ on the cross and you don’t have as much historical evidence of your sequence of events as Uriah Smith and others set forth.

Up to verse 27, we see Rome described as different from other powers that have come to control the world; they’re going to use politics as well as military might; they’re going to rule the world for a ‘time’, 360 years, from the stronghold of Rome and the starting point for this is the battle where Mark Anthony and his supporters are overthrown and the end will be at the time appointed.

This term, ‘the end will be at the time appointed’, in the book of Daniel is a very important understanding to the conclusion of this vision in Daniel 12.

Let’s move on to verse 28:

Then Caesar comes back to Rome after this battle of Actium, and he has all the booty that he has taken from Egypt and he parades it through the streets of Rome and historians testify this is just what he did.

Uriah Smith points out correctly in verse 28, that there are two ‘returnings’ in this verse. The first ‘returning’, is when he returns from conquering the King of the South, when he returns from being established as the king of the earth, the fourth kingdom of Bible prophecy, in the year 31 BC. Then it says, "his heart shall be against the holy covenant and he shall do exploits and return to his own land"; and this ‘returning is the returning from the next conquest, that military campaign where Rome undertakes going down into Israel and ultimately destroying Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. This is why his heart is against the holy covenant. After he conquers Egypt and becomes the king of the world, his next military campaign ends up in Israel and his heart is against the holy covenant in the sense that he’s going to destroy the temple and Jerusalem and the people that formerly had been God’s people.

Now the ‘time appointed’ jumps forward in history because verse 27 says ‘the end shall be at the time appointed, and that Rome would forecast its power from the stronghold of the city of Rome for 360 years. The next couple verses are describing the starting point, 31 BC. Verse 27 is letting us know that the end of this time period of verse 24, the end of the 360 years, will be at the ‘time appointed’, and verse 29 is carrying this thought forward saying ‘at the time appointed’, in the year 330, he shall return and come towards the south, but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.’

The ‘time appointed’ is the end of the time prophecy of the 360 years and in 330 when the capitol of the Roman empire was moved from the city of Rome to Constantinople by Constantine, that was the end of the supremacy of Rome. The 360 years of prophetic time had come to a close and from that point on, the ability of Rome to control the world at will, through its military might and its political prowess ceased.

So in verse 29, it says at the time appointed—in 330 AD—when he moved the capitol, then all the problems begin for Rome. It was immediately divided into east and west and the western empire immediately comes under attack from the Barbarians out of the north.

The islands of the Mediterranean that Rome had formerly controlled suddenly become the launching points for some of the powers designed by God to bring Rome down and contribute to the environment that needed to be developed for Rome to turn into the ten horns and then the three horns to be removed. (Daniel 7)

Verse 29 says ‘At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.’ The ‘former or later’ means this; when Rome attempts to defend itself and maintain its authority from Constantinople, the changed capitol of the kingdom, he won’t have the ability to be successful in his military campaigns from that point on. It won’t be as the former; it won’t be like when he went into Egypt and dealt with Mark Anthony and had such great success, nor will it be as the latter; when he went into Judea and destroyed the temple in AD 70 and wiped out Israel. He had success then, but in 330 on his military successes just weren’t going to be the same as the former or the latter.

This point in history is where both Uriah Smith, and other commentators, both come to verse 29 and agree that this is the year 330. They have a different understanding of verse 23 up to verse 29 and as I said earlier, I think Uriah Smith is accurate because he provides the prophetic historical understanding that allows you to deal with this time prophecy for Pagan Rome.

This is important to understand, because in the time prophecy for Pagan Rome, you get some of the pieces to the puzzle that lets you understand that in the Book of Daniel, the phrase ‘time of the end’ meant something very specific. The ‘time of the end’, the ‘time appointed’ means the end of the time prophecy. When the time prophecy is finally come to the point in history where it is fulfilled—that is the time of the end. This has great bearing on how you understand Daniel 12.

You’ll find those in Adventism that want to re-apply these time prophecies in Daniel 12, the 1260, 1290 and 1335, at the end of the world. They go to great lengths to teach that the time of the end is a special time period at the very end of earth’s history and in doing that they’re not only denying the definition of what the ‘time of the end’ is in the book of Daniel, but they’re also opposing Sister White.

Sister White does not simply call the time of the end 1798, as she does in the Great Controversy, but there’s other places where she says 1843 and 1844 were the time of the end. So was Sister White speaking against herself, or confused? Well no. Sister White was using the reasoning that is established in the book of Daniel—the ‘time of the end’ is the end of a time prophecy. 1798, 1843, and 1844 were all the ends of time prophecies. So she was more accurate than we might see at first glance.

Manuscript Releases volume 13, pg. 394; "We have no time to lose. Troublous times are before us. The world is stirred with the spirit of war. Soon the scenes of trouble spoken of in the prophecies will take place. The prophecy in the eleventh of Daniel has nearly reached its complete fulfillment. Much of the history that has taken place in fulfillment of this prophecy will be repeated. In the thirtieth verse a power is spoken of that "shall 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."

Then she quotes verses 30-36 and says, "Scenes similar to those described in these words will take place." To understand the last 6 verses, of Daniel 11, according to this passage in Manuscript releases, it must line up with the history portrayed in verses 30-36. Understanding that clearly, is something that has an impact on those last 6 verses which come to a conclusion just as probation closes. Daniel 12:1 says that’s when Michael stands up. When Michael stands up, probation closes.