A Biblical and Seventh-day Adventist Historicist Investigation of Daniel 11, Revelation, Ellen G. White, Alberto R. Treiyer, and Roy E. Gane
Introduction: A prophetic mystery at the time of the end
One of the most consequential questions in the interpretation of biblical prophecy concerns the identity of the King of the South in Daniel 11:40–45.
For centuries, students of prophecy have examined the struggle between the King of the North and the King of the South. The conflict begins with recognizable kingdoms in the ancient world but eventually reaches the time of the end, immediately preceding the deliverance of God’s people described in Daniel 12:1.
Daniel declares:
“And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships.” — Daniel 11:40, KJV
Who is this southern king? Is he the ruler of modern Egypt? Does he represent Islam? Or is the King of the South a prophetic symbol of secularism, atheism, and political systems that reject the authority of God?
These questions have generated substantial discussion among Seventh-day Adventist theologians.
Two important contributors are Dr. Alberto R. Treiyer and Dr. Roy E. Gane. Both work within the historicist approach to prophecy, both recognize the central importance of Daniel 11, and both connect the prophecy with the final triumph of Christ. Yet they reach significantly different conclusions concerning the King of the South.
The central thesis of this article is that the strongest biblical case for the secularism interpretation rests upon the connection between Egypt in Daniel 11, spiritual Egypt in Revelation 11, and Ellen White’s identification of revolutionary France with atheistic opposition to God. Treiyer explicitly adopts this interpretation. Gane, however, offers a serious alternative identifying the King of the South as Islamic religious-political power.
To determine which interpretation is most persuasive, we must distinguish what Scripture states explicitly from what interpreters infer through historical and prophetic parallels.
1. The original King of the South was Egypt
The starting point must be Daniel 11 itself.
Following the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, his empire was divided among his successors. Two dynasties became especially important to the history of the Jewish people:
-
The Ptolemaic dynasty, which ruled Egypt to the south of Israel.
-
The Seleucid dynasty, which ruled Syria and extensive territories north and east of Israel.
Daniel 11:5 begins:
“And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.”
Daniel 11:8 explicitly associates the southern kingdom with Egypt.
The geographical reference point is the land of Israel. These kingdoms were not originally abstract ideological movements. They were actual political and military powers struggling for regional supremacy.
Roy Gane emphasizes this historical foundation in his study of Daniel 11. The territorial relationship between Egypt, Syria, and Israel establishes the original identities of the two kings.
This is important because a sound prophetic interpretation should begin with the original historical meaning before proposing a later symbolic application.
The central question, therefore, is not whether the King of the South originally represented Egypt. It did.
The question is whether the identity of that king develops as the prophecy moves from the ancient world to the Christian era and ultimately to the time of the end.
2. Egypt’s spiritual meaning: Defiance of God’s authority
Egypt occupies a distinctive position throughout Scripture.
It was a land of refuge and provision during certain periods of biblical history. Yet the Exodus narrative also portrays Egypt as a kingdom of bondage, oppression, and resistance to divine authority.
When Moses demanded that Pharaoh release Israel, Pharaoh responded:
“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, KJV
This declaration is significant.
Pharaoh did not simply reject Moses as a political opponent. He challenged the authority of the God whom Moses represented.
Three features emerge from the Exodus narrative.
First, Pharaoh refused to recognize God’s authority over his kingdom.
Second, Pharaoh placed the power of the state in opposition to God’s revealed command.
Third, Pharaoh attempted to maintain human bondage despite God’s demand for liberation.
The Exodus therefore becomes more than an account of ancient history. It establishes a recurring biblical pattern: earthly authority attempting to assert itself against the sovereignty of God.
Nevertheless, an important distinction must be preserved. Ancient Egypt was a polytheistic civilization, not an atheistic society in the modern philosophical sense. Pharaoh’s refusal to acknowledge Israel’s God does not mean that he denied the existence of every deity.
The connection between Egypt and atheism is therefore a prophetic and theological application, not a claim that ancient Egyptians were modern secular atheists.
That distinction becomes especially important when we examine Revelation 11.
3. Revelation 11 identifies a spiritual Egypt
The strongest biblical argument for the secularism interpretation is found in Revelation 11:7–8.
John describes a power that attacks God’s two witnesses:
“And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.” — Revelation 11:8, KJV
The word spiritually is essential.
John is not necessarily describing the geographical nation of Egypt. He is using Egypt as a spiritual designation for a power characterized by certain qualities associated with biblical Egypt.
The two witnesses are commonly identified in Adventist interpretation with the Old and New Testaments.
The beast from the bottomless pit makes war against their testimony.
Thus Revelation 11 portrays an organized opposition to God’s revealed Word.
Within historicist interpretation, the description of spiritual Egypt is associated with revolutionary France and its attacks on established religion and biblical authority.
This interpretation receives explicit support from Ellen G. White.
4. Ellen White identifies spiritual Egypt with revolutionary France
In The Great Controversy, chapter 15, “The Bible and the French Revolution,” Ellen White explains the spiritual significance of Egypt.
She writes:
“This is atheism.” — The Great Controversy, p. 269.
Her statement refers to Pharaoh’s rejection of the authority of the living God.
She then connects the prophetic characteristics of Egypt and Sodom in Revelation 11 with the events of the French Revolution.
White identifies the revolutionary attack on Scripture and religion as a fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the two witnesses.
The French Revolution and the rejection of religious authority
The French Revolution began in 1789 and produced profound political, social, and religious upheaval.
During its radical phase, particularly in 1793–1794, revolutionary authorities pursued dechristianization, suppressed established religious institutions, and promoted alternative civic and philosophical expressions of religion and reason.
In Adventist historicist interpretation, these developments constitute the historical manifestation of spiritual Egypt described in Revelation 11.
Ellen White’s interpretation identifies several prophetic characteristics:
-
Open opposition to biblical revelation.
-
Rejection of divine authority in public life.
-
Hostility toward established religious institutions.
-
Political action against the testimony of Scripture.
This historical application becomes especially important when placed beside Daniel 11:40.
The significance of 1798
Daniel 11:40 introduces the confrontation at the time of the end.
In traditional Adventist historicism, 1798 marks the conclusion of the 1,260 prophetic years associated with the medieval period of papal supremacy.
In February 1798, French forces entered Rome and Pope Pius VI was taken prisoner.
The event is traditionally connected with the deadly wound described in Revelation 13:3.
The historical relationship is striking: the revolutionary movement that opposed established religious authority was associated with the military action that ended the papacy’s temporal rule in Rome at that time.
This provides a central argument for interpreting the King of the South as secular or atheistic political power opposing the King of the North, understood as papal religious-political authority.
But one qualification is essential.
Ellen White explicitly identifies spiritual Egypt in Revelation 11 with revolutionary France. She does not, in that passage, explicitly declare that the King of the South in Daniel 11:40 is atheism.
The connection between these two prophetic passages is an interpretive conclusion drawn by later Adventist expositors.
That conclusion may be persuasive, but it must not be confused with an explicit statement by Ellen White.
5. Alberto R. Treiyer: The King of the South represents secular and atheistic powers
Dr. Alberto R. Treiyer presents a detailed examination of this question in his December 2020 study, The Confrontation Between the Kings of the North and the Kings of the South: From Daniel’s Days to the End of the World in Daniel 11.
His interpretation is particularly valuable because he connects Daniel 11 with the historical development of religious and political power, Revelation’s prophetic symbols, and the final deliverance of God’s people.
Treiyer’s identification is explicit.
In the epilogue of his study, he describes the first confrontation of Daniel 11:40 as a struggle between:
“atheist/secular regimes versus religious/clerical regimes”
He then identifies the King of the South with secular atheism and the King of the North with Rome and end-time Babylon.
Treiyer’s historical sequence
Treiyer interprets the conflict as a developing struggle between two forms of earthly power.
The King of the North represents religious-political domination, culminating in the Roman papal system.
The King of the South represents opposition to this religious-political authority, culminating in secular and atheistic systems.
His interpretation gives particular importance to the French Revolution and the events of 1798.
He also discusses the later hostility of communist governments toward organized religion and the Bible, citing the Soviet Union, China, and other communist regimes as historical expressions of militant opposition to religion.
Treiyer therefore does not restrict the King of the South to one country or one revolutionary government.
Instead, he understands the symbol as representing a broader ideological and political force.
Treiyer’s interpretation of Daniel 11:40
Daniel describes two movements.
First, the King of the South pushes against his opponent.
Second, the King of the North responds with overwhelming force.
Treiyer interprets these as two stages in the final struggle.
Stage one: Secular power challenges religious supremacy.
The French Revolution and the events of 1798 provide the decisive historical illustration.
The political authority of the papacy was severely weakened, and the modern movement toward secular government and separation of church and state gained momentum.
Stage two: Religious-political power reasserts its influence.
Treiyer understands the northern king’s counterattack as the resurgence of a religious-political system that ultimately gains widespread influence over secular governments.
The King of the North temporarily prevails over the King of the South.
But this is not the end of the prophecy.
The final conflict occurs when the earthly powers oppose God’s faithful people and Michael intervenes in Daniel 12:1.
Treiyer describes this last intervention as distinct from the preceding struggle between the two earthly powers.
adventistdistinctivemessages.com
Why Treiyer’s interpretation matters
Treiyer’s model helps explain an apparent paradox in the final chapters of Revelation.
How can secular governments that previously resisted religious domination eventually cooperate with a religious-political system?
The answer, within his interpretation, is that political and ideological opposition does not prevent a later alliance when the interests of those powers converge.
Revelation 17 describes just such a temporary alliance.
It also predicts that the alliance will eventually collapse.
This gives Treiyer’s interpretation a broad explanatory framework for Daniel 11:40–45 and Revelation 17.
It does not, however, establish that every secular government or every nonreligious person fulfills the prophecy. The interpretation concerns systems of political authority and their relationship to God’s revealed will.
6. Roy E. Gane: The King of the South represents Islamic religious-political power
Dr. Roy E. Gane, a Seventh-day Adventist Old Testament scholar associated with Andrews University, offers a substantially different interpretation.
His 2020 peer-reviewed article, Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11, appeared in DavarLogos, volume 19, number 2, pages 37–70.
Gane argues that the King of the South in the later portions of Daniel 11 represents Islamic religious-political power, rather than secular atheism.
This is not merely an incidental suggestion in his work. It is a central component of his interpretation.
Andrews University Research Portal
Gane’s central argument: Continuity of the prophetic actors
Gane begins with the historical structure of Daniel 11.
He argues that the prophecy develops through successive political and military powers affecting God’s people.
After the rise of Christianity, the religious-political papacy becomes the King of the North.
The King of the South, according to Gane, becomes Islamic religious-political power.
His interpretation gives particular importance to Daniel 11:25–30, which he connects with medieval conflicts involving Christian and Islamic powers, including the Crusades.
If the southern power in those verses is Islam, Gane reasons, then the same power should continue into Daniel 11:40–43 unless the text indicates that it has been replaced.
This is the principle of prophetic continuity.
Why Gane rejects the secularism interpretation
The central difficulty Gane identifies is the transition from the historical kingdoms to the ideological identification of secularism.
In his model, the King of the South does not abruptly become a different kind of power at verse 40.
Instead, the religious-political identity established in the preceding verses continues.
This makes the interpretation internally consistent, provided that the identification of Islam in verses 25–30 is correct.
That qualification is important.
Gane’s argument depends heavily upon his historical identification of the earlier verses.
If Daniel 11:25–30 describes different events or powers, the continuity argument becomes less conclusive.
The final confrontation in Gane’s interpretation
Gane interprets Daniel 11:40–43 as describing a final struggle in which the papacy and its political allies overcome Islamic religious-political power.
He then connects the subsequent events with the final persecution of God’s people and the divine intervention of Daniel 12:1.
Gane’s interpretation does not require that all Muslims act together, that every Muslim-majority government participate in a unified campaign, or that ordinary Muslim believers be regarded as enemies of Christians.
His proposed identification concerns religious-political power in an apocalyptic interpretation, not the character or intentions of individual Muslims.
This distinction is essential when discussing prophecy responsibly.
7. Treiyer versus Gane: Which interpretation better explains Daniel 11?
The disagreement between these scholars is not principally about whether Daniel 11 is prophetic.
Both understand the chapter within a historicist framework.
The disagreement concerns how the historical identities of the two kings develop and how Daniel 11 should be related to Revelation.
| Question |
Alberto Treiyer |
Roy Gane |
| Original King of the South |
Ancient Egypt |
Ancient Egypt |
| End-time King of the North |
Papal religious-political power |
Papal religious-political power |
| End-time King of the South |
Secularism and atheistic political power |
Islamic religious-political power |
| Key historical connection |
French Revolution and 1798 |
Medieval Christian-Islamic conflicts |
| Important interpretive principle |
Prophetic parallels with Revelation |
Continuity of powers within Daniel 11 |
| Daniel 11:40 |
Secular opposition followed by religious-political resurgence |
Conflict between Islamic and papal religious-political powers |
| Final outcome |
Michael defeats the end-time coalition |
Michael delivers God’s people after the final conflict |
The existence of these competing interpretations is well documented in Adventist scholarship. A report published by Adventist Review describes three principal Adventist approaches: the Egypt–Turkey interpretation, the papacy–atheism interpretation, and the papacy–Islam interpretation.
The strength of Treiyer’s interpretation
Treiyer’s position draws strength from three biblical and historical connections.
First, Daniel explicitly identifies Egypt as the original southern power.
Second, Revelation explicitly employs Egypt as a spiritual symbol.
Third, Ellen White directly connects spiritual Egypt with the atheistic opposition to Scripture manifested during the French Revolution.
The events of 1798 provide an additional historical link because revolutionary France inflicted a major political blow against the papacy.
Together, these connections make the secularism interpretation substantial rather than speculative.
Its main weakness is that Revelation 11 does not explicitly say that its spiritual Egypt is identical to Daniel 11’s King of the South.
That identification requires a comparison of prophetic symbols across different biblical books.
The strength of Gane’s interpretation
Gane’s position draws strength from the importance of continuity within Daniel 11.
Rather than moving immediately to another biblical book to identify the southern king, he examines the historical actors in Daniel 11 itself.
His approach seeks to maintain the same prophetic identity across the chapter’s later sections.
Its principal difficulty is that the proposed identification of the Crusades and Islamic political power in Daniel 11:25–30 is itself disputed.
Furthermore, the connection between Islam and the events of 1798 is less direct than the connection between revolutionary France and the political defeat of the papacy.
A critical distinction
Both interpretations contain an important inference.
Treiyer must demonstrate that the spiritual Egypt of Revelation 11 should be applied to Daniel 11:40.
Gane must demonstrate that the King of the South in Daniel 11:25–30 represents Islamic power and that this identification continues into verse 40.
Neither inference is explicitly stated in Daniel 11:40 itself.
The strongest interpretation must therefore be evaluated by the coherence of its biblical parallels, its historical application, and its consistency with the broader prophetic narrative.
8. Revelation 17: The ultimate relationship between secular and religious power
One of the most compelling aspects of Treiyer’s interpretation is its relationship to Revelation 17.
John sees a woman sitting upon a scarlet beast.
Within traditional Adventist historicism, the woman represents an apostate religious system, while the beast represents political power.
Revelation 17:12–13 declares:
“And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.”
The picture is unmistakable: political powers voluntarily surrender their strength and authority to a religious-political alliance.
This is significant because Revelation describes the relationship between religion and the state as changing during the final conflict.
From separation to cooperation
In the secularism interpretation, the sequence is as follows:
Daniel 11:40 — The southern attack
Secular and atheistic political forces challenge religious-political supremacy.
Daniel 11:40–43 — The northern resurgence
Religious-political authority gains renewed influence over earthly governments.
Revelation 17:12–13 — The final alliance
Political rulers unite with Babylon and give their authority to the beast.
Revelation 17:16 — The alliance collapses
The political powers turn against the religious system they previously supported.
Daniel 12:1 — Michael stands up
God intervenes to deliver His faithful people.
This is an interpretive synthesis of Daniel and Revelation, not a sequence explicitly labeled this way in either book.
Nevertheless, it provides a coherent explanation of how previously competing political and religious forces could unite temporarily before their final collapse.
Ellen White and the collapse of Babylon
In The Great Controversy, pages 655–656, Ellen White describes the final disillusionment of those who followed deceptive religious leaders.
The people recognize that they have been misled, and their anger turns against those who had claimed spiritual authority.
This closely resembles the reversal described in Revelation 17:16.
Treiyer connects these passages with the destruction of the final religious-political alliance.
adventistdistinctivemessages.com
An important conclusion follows: the final unity of Babylon is neither permanent nor ultimately victorious.
Its apparent triumph precedes its destruction.
9. Daniel 11:41–43 — What do Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia represent?
Daniel 11:42–43 declares:
“He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.”
These verses are especially important because Egypt appears by name.
If the King of the South represents secularism, why does Daniel continue to describe Egypt and its neighboring peoples?
The secularism interpretation regards these territories as symbols of the broad extension of the northern king’s authority over previously resistant powers.
The reference to wealth and treasure can be understood as the expansion of political and economic influence.
Gane’s interpretation, by contrast, gives greater weight to the geographical and historical associations of these territories with Islamic political power.
The passage therefore presents a significant test for both interpretations.
A purely symbolic reading must explain why Daniel retains such specific geographical names.
A primarily geopolitical reading must explain how these locations relate to the global end-time conflict portrayed in Revelation.
Neither interpretation should bypass these questions.
10. The decisive test: Which interpretation best accounts for 1798?
The strongest historical argument for Treiyer’s interpretation concerns the events surrounding 1798.
Consider the prophetic sequence:
| Prophetic or historical event |
Significance |
| Daniel 11:40 |
The King of the South attacks at the time of the end. |
| Revelation 11:7–8 |
Spiritual Egypt opposes God’s witnesses. |
| French Revolution, 1790s |
Revolutionary authorities attack established religious institutions and promote dechristianization. |
| February 1798 |
French forces occupy Rome and take Pope Pius VI prisoner. |
| Revelation 13:3 |
Historicist interpreters associate the papacy’s loss of temporal authority with the deadly wound. |
Treiyer’s interpretation draws these developments into a connected historical explanation.
Gane’s approach does not make the French Revolution the principal identification of the southern king. Instead, it follows what he regards as the continued role of Islamic religious-political power.
The difference is fundamental.
Treiyer emphasizes the prophetic significance of the power that struck papal authority in 1798. Gane emphasizes the continuity of the southern power identified earlier in Daniel 11.
Which principle should carry greater interpretive weight?
If the timing of Daniel 11:40 and its relationship to Revelation 11 and 13 are considered decisive, the secularism interpretation has considerable explanatory strength.
If the continuous historical identity of the southern king throughout Daniel 11 is considered decisive, Gane’s interpretation warrants serious consideration.
The Bible does not explicitly identify the modern King of the South by name. Consequently, the issue should not be presented as though Scripture has settled every interpretive detail beyond dispute.
11. Is the King of the South still active today?
According to Treiyer’s interpretation, the answer is yes.
The King of the South is not confined to revolutionary France.
The prophetic principle continues wherever organized secular or atheistic political authority seeks to oppose biblical religion or the claims of divine revelation.
Treiyer identifies later communist and atheistic regimes as examples of this historical phenomenon.
However, we must distinguish between several very different realities.
A government that protects freedom of conscience and maintains institutional separation between church and state is not necessarily hostile to God.
Likewise, an individual who identifies as secular or atheist is not automatically participating in a prophetic campaign against Scripture.
The prophetic concern is the coercive exercise of political authority against freedom of conscience and faithfulness to God.
This distinction matters because the Bible repeatedly condemns the misuse of governmental power, whether exercised in the name of religion or against religion.
Daniel’s own experience illustrates the principle.
In Daniel 3, faithful worshipers are threatened with death for refusing state-mandated worship.
In Daniel 6, Daniel faces persecution because the law prohibits his customary prayers.
The danger is not merely the ideological label attached to a government.
It is the attempt to compel conscience in opposition to God’s commands.
12. The final answer: Who is the King of the South?
After examining Daniel 11, Revelation 11 and 17, Ellen White’s writings, and the interpretations of Treiyer and Gane, we can distinguish three levels of conclusion.
First, the original historical identity is certain within the context of Daniel 11:5–8.
The King of the South was the Ptolemaic kingdom of Egypt, situated south of Israel.
Second, the spiritual significance of Egypt is explicitly established in Revelation 11.
Egypt becomes a symbol of opposition to divine authority. Ellen White applies that symbolism to revolutionary France and its attack on biblical religion.
Third, the final identity of the King of the South in Daniel 11:40 remains an interpretive question.
Treiyer identifies it with secularism and atheistic political power.
Gane identifies it with Islamic religious-political power.
Both interpretations attempt to preserve the historicist understanding of prophecy, but they differ in how they connect the history of Daniel 11 with the end-time conflict.
My conclusion from the biblical and historical evidence
I find the secularism interpretation advanced by Treiyer more persuasive, particularly when Daniel 11:40 is read alongside Revelation 11, Ellen White’s interpretation of spiritual Egypt, and the historical events of 1798.
The reasons are cumulative rather than dependent on a single proof text.
The original southern king was Egypt. Revelation gives Egypt a spiritual application. Ellen White associates that spiritual Egypt with revolutionary atheism. And the historical attack upon papal political authority in 1798 came from revolutionary France.
These elements form a coherent interpretive argument.
Nevertheless, Gane’s continuity argument is substantial, and the biblical text does not explicitly equate the King of the South in Daniel 11:40 with atheism. That conclusion remains an interpretation rather than an indisputable identification.
The most responsible statement is therefore:
In the Treiyer interpretation of Adventist historicism, the end-time King of the South represents secular and atheistic political power, historically manifested in revolutionary France and later forms of militant secularism. Roy Gane offers the alternative identification of Islamic religious-political power.
Neither interpretation changes the central message of Daniel 12:1.
The final hope of God’s people does not depend upon the victory of a northern or southern earthly kingdom.
It depends upon Michael, the great Prince, who stands for His people.
13. The real issue: Who has authority over human conscience?
The struggle between the two kings raises a question that reaches beyond political geography.
Who has the right to govern human conscience?
Pharaoh claimed authority over Israel despite God’s command to release His people.
Nebuchadnezzar demanded worship of his golden image.
The rulers of Daniel’s day attempted to prohibit prayer.
The religious-political powers of Revelation seek to impose worship through coercive authority.
In each account, the central conflict concerns allegiance.
Human governments claim a degree of authority that belongs ultimately to God.
The answer of the faithful throughout Scripture is expressed in Acts 5:29:
“We ought to obey God rather than men.”
This principle applies whether coercion comes from a secular state or a religious establishment.
The biblical alternative to coerced worship is not another form of coercion. It is faithfulness to God and respect for the freedom of conscience.
Jesus Himself declared:
“My kingdom is not of this world.” — John 18:36, KJV
And Revelation portrays the final people of God as those who maintain their loyalty to Jesus:
“Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” — Revelation 14:12, KJV
Ultimately, Daniel 11 is not simply a prediction of geopolitical competition.
It is part of the larger biblical story of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, divine authority and human rebellion, truth and deception.
The earthly kings struggle for supremacy.
But neither king possesses the final victory.
That victory belongs to Jesus Christ.
References and recommended reading
The following sources provide the foundation for this article and allow readers to examine the differing interpretations directly.
1. The Holy Bible. Daniel 2, 7, 8, 11–12; Exodus 5; Revelation 11–14, 16–17; Acts 5:29; John 18:36.
2. Ellen G. White. The Great Controversy, chapter 15, “The Bible and the French Revolution,” especially pp. 269–270; and the closing chapters, especially pp. 655–656. Read The Great Controversy
3. Alberto R. Treiyer. The Confrontation Between the Kings of the North and the Kings of the South: From Daniel’s Days to the End of the World in Daniel 11 (December 2020), particularly pp. 30–36. Read Treiyer’s complete study (PDF)
4. Roy E. Gane. “Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11,” DavarLogos 19, no. 2 (2020): 37–70. Read Gane’s scholarly article
5. Adventist Review. “What Does Daniel Chapter 11 Mean?” A summary of the principal competing historicist interpretations presented at an Adventist prophecy conference. Read the Adventist Review comparison
6. Biblical Research Institute. “A Prophetic History of Daniel 11 for Today,” discussing the end-time prophetic powers and the competing Islam interpretation. Read the Biblical Research Institute study
Editorial note: This article presents a reasoned historicist interpretation, not an official or unanimously accepted Seventh-day Adventist doctrinal position. It distinguishes the explicit statements of Scripture and Ellen White from the interpretive conclusions of contemporary scholars.
Resources
Read
Who Is the King of the South in Bible Prophecy?
A Biblical and Seventh-day Adventist Historicist Investigation of Daniel 11, Revelation, Ellen G. White, Alberto R. Treiyer, and Roy E. Gane
Introduction: A prophetic mystery at the time of the end
One of the most consequential questions in the interpretation of biblical prophecy concerns the identity of the King of the South in Daniel 11:40–45.
For centuries, students of prophecy have examined the struggle between the King of the North and the King of the South. The conflict begins with recognizable kingdoms in the ancient world but eventually reaches the time of the end, immediately preceding the deliverance of God’s people described in Daniel 12:1.
Daniel declares:
Who is this southern king? Is he the ruler of modern Egypt? Does he represent Islam? Or is the King of the South a prophetic symbol of secularism, atheism, and political systems that reject the authority of God?
These questions have generated substantial discussion among Seventh-day Adventist theologians.
Two important contributors are Dr. Alberto R. Treiyer and Dr. Roy E. Gane. Both work within the historicist approach to prophecy, both recognize the central importance of Daniel 11, and both connect the prophecy with the final triumph of Christ. Yet they reach significantly different conclusions concerning the King of the South.
The central thesis of this article is that the strongest biblical case for the secularism interpretation rests upon the connection between Egypt in Daniel 11, spiritual Egypt in Revelation 11, and Ellen White’s identification of revolutionary France with atheistic opposition to God. Treiyer explicitly adopts this interpretation. Gane, however, offers a serious alternative identifying the King of the South as Islamic religious-political power.
To determine which interpretation is most persuasive, we must distinguish what Scripture states explicitly from what interpreters infer through historical and prophetic parallels.
1. The original King of the South was Egypt
The starting point must be Daniel 11 itself.
Following the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, his empire was divided among his successors. Two dynasties became especially important to the history of the Jewish people:
The Ptolemaic dynasty, which ruled Egypt to the south of Israel.
The Seleucid dynasty, which ruled Syria and extensive territories north and east of Israel.
Daniel 11:5 begins:
Daniel 11:8 explicitly associates the southern kingdom with Egypt.
The geographical reference point is the land of Israel. These kingdoms were not originally abstract ideological movements. They were actual political and military powers struggling for regional supremacy.
Roy Gane emphasizes this historical foundation in his study of Daniel 11. The territorial relationship between Egypt, Syria, and Israel establishes the original identities of the two kings.
Daniel 11 Prophecy
This is important because a sound prophetic interpretation should begin with the original historical meaning before proposing a later symbolic application.
The central question, therefore, is not whether the King of the South originally represented Egypt. It did.
The question is whether the identity of that king develops as the prophecy moves from the ancient world to the Christian era and ultimately to the time of the end.
2. Egypt’s spiritual meaning: Defiance of God’s authority
Egypt occupies a distinctive position throughout Scripture.
It was a land of refuge and provision during certain periods of biblical history. Yet the Exodus narrative also portrays Egypt as a kingdom of bondage, oppression, and resistance to divine authority.
When Moses demanded that Pharaoh release Israel, Pharaoh responded:
This declaration is significant.
Pharaoh did not simply reject Moses as a political opponent. He challenged the authority of the God whom Moses represented.
Three features emerge from the Exodus narrative.
First, Pharaoh refused to recognize God’s authority over his kingdom.
Second, Pharaoh placed the power of the state in opposition to God’s revealed command.
Third, Pharaoh attempted to maintain human bondage despite God’s demand for liberation.
The Exodus therefore becomes more than an account of ancient history. It establishes a recurring biblical pattern: earthly authority attempting to assert itself against the sovereignty of God.
Nevertheless, an important distinction must be preserved. Ancient Egypt was a polytheistic civilization, not an atheistic society in the modern philosophical sense. Pharaoh’s refusal to acknowledge Israel’s God does not mean that he denied the existence of every deity.
The connection between Egypt and atheism is therefore a prophetic and theological application, not a claim that ancient Egyptians were modern secular atheists.
That distinction becomes especially important when we examine Revelation 11.
3. Revelation 11 identifies a spiritual Egypt
The strongest biblical argument for the secularism interpretation is found in Revelation 11:7–8.
John describes a power that attacks God’s two witnesses:
The word spiritually is essential.
John is not necessarily describing the geographical nation of Egypt. He is using Egypt as a spiritual designation for a power characterized by certain qualities associated with biblical Egypt.
The two witnesses are commonly identified in Adventist interpretation with the Old and New Testaments.
The beast from the bottomless pit makes war against their testimony.
Thus Revelation 11 portrays an organized opposition to God’s revealed Word.
Within historicist interpretation, the description of spiritual Egypt is associated with revolutionary France and its attacks on established religion and biblical authority.
This interpretation receives explicit support from Ellen G. White.
4. Ellen White identifies spiritual Egypt with revolutionary France
In The Great Controversy, chapter 15, “The Bible and the French Revolution,” Ellen White explains the spiritual significance of Egypt.
She writes:
Her statement refers to Pharaoh’s rejection of the authority of the living God.
She then connects the prophetic characteristics of Egypt and Sodom in Revelation 11 with the events of the French Revolution.
White identifies the revolutionary attack on Scripture and religion as a fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the two witnesses.
The French Revolution and the rejection of religious authority
The French Revolution began in 1789 and produced profound political, social, and religious upheaval.
During its radical phase, particularly in 1793–1794, revolutionary authorities pursued dechristianization, suppressed established religious institutions, and promoted alternative civic and philosophical expressions of religion and reason.
In Adventist historicist interpretation, these developments constitute the historical manifestation of spiritual Egypt described in Revelation 11.
Ellen White’s interpretation identifies several prophetic characteristics:
Open opposition to biblical revelation.
Rejection of divine authority in public life.
Hostility toward established religious institutions.
Political action against the testimony of Scripture.
This historical application becomes especially important when placed beside Daniel 11:40.
The significance of 1798
Daniel 11:40 introduces the confrontation at the time of the end.
In traditional Adventist historicism, 1798 marks the conclusion of the 1,260 prophetic years associated with the medieval period of papal supremacy.
In February 1798, French forces entered Rome and Pope Pius VI was taken prisoner.
The event is traditionally connected with the deadly wound described in Revelation 13:3.
The historical relationship is striking: the revolutionary movement that opposed established religious authority was associated with the military action that ended the papacy’s temporal rule in Rome at that time.
This provides a central argument for interpreting the King of the South as secular or atheistic political power opposing the King of the North, understood as papal religious-political authority.
But one qualification is essential.
Ellen White explicitly identifies spiritual Egypt in Revelation 11 with revolutionary France. She does not, in that passage, explicitly declare that the King of the South in Daniel 11:40 is atheism.
The connection between these two prophetic passages is an interpretive conclusion drawn by later Adventist expositors.
That conclusion may be persuasive, but it must not be confused with an explicit statement by Ellen White.
5. Alberto R. Treiyer: The King of the South represents secular and atheistic powers
Dr. Alberto R. Treiyer presents a detailed examination of this question in his December 2020 study, The Confrontation Between the Kings of the North and the Kings of the South: From Daniel’s Days to the End of the World in Daniel 11.
His interpretation is particularly valuable because he connects Daniel 11 with the historical development of religious and political power, Revelation’s prophetic symbols, and the final deliverance of God’s people.
Treiyer’s identification is explicit.
In the epilogue of his study, he describes the first confrontation of Daniel 11:40 as a struggle between:
He then identifies the King of the South with secular atheism and the King of the North with Rome and end-time Babylon.
Treiyer’s historical sequence
Treiyer interprets the conflict as a developing struggle between two forms of earthly power.
The King of the North represents religious-political domination, culminating in the Roman papal system.
The King of the South represents opposition to this religious-political authority, culminating in secular and atheistic systems.
His interpretation gives particular importance to the French Revolution and the events of 1798.
He also discusses the later hostility of communist governments toward organized religion and the Bible, citing the Soviet Union, China, and other communist regimes as historical expressions of militant opposition to religion.
Treiyer therefore does not restrict the King of the South to one country or one revolutionary government.
Instead, he understands the symbol as representing a broader ideological and political force.
Treiyer’s interpretation of Daniel 11:40
Daniel describes two movements.
First, the King of the South pushes against his opponent.
Second, the King of the North responds with overwhelming force.
Treiyer interprets these as two stages in the final struggle.
Stage one: Secular power challenges religious supremacy.
The French Revolution and the events of 1798 provide the decisive historical illustration.
The political authority of the papacy was severely weakened, and the modern movement toward secular government and separation of church and state gained momentum.
Stage two: Religious-political power reasserts its influence.
Treiyer understands the northern king’s counterattack as the resurgence of a religious-political system that ultimately gains widespread influence over secular governments.
The King of the North temporarily prevails over the King of the South.
But this is not the end of the prophecy.
The final conflict occurs when the earthly powers oppose God’s faithful people and Michael intervenes in Daniel 12:1.
Treiyer describes this last intervention as distinct from the preceding struggle between the two earthly powers.
adventistdistinctivemessages.com
Why Treiyer’s interpretation matters
Treiyer’s model helps explain an apparent paradox in the final chapters of Revelation.
How can secular governments that previously resisted religious domination eventually cooperate with a religious-political system?
The answer, within his interpretation, is that political and ideological opposition does not prevent a later alliance when the interests of those powers converge.
Revelation 17 describes just such a temporary alliance.
It also predicts that the alliance will eventually collapse.
This gives Treiyer’s interpretation a broad explanatory framework for Daniel 11:40–45 and Revelation 17.
It does not, however, establish that every secular government or every nonreligious person fulfills the prophecy. The interpretation concerns systems of political authority and their relationship to God’s revealed will.
6. Roy E. Gane: The King of the South represents Islamic religious-political power
Dr. Roy E. Gane, a Seventh-day Adventist Old Testament scholar associated with Andrews University, offers a substantially different interpretation.
His 2020 peer-reviewed article, Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11, appeared in DavarLogos, volume 19, number 2, pages 37–70.
Gane argues that the King of the South in the later portions of Daniel 11 represents Islamic religious-political power, rather than secular atheism.
This is not merely an incidental suggestion in his work. It is a central component of his interpretation.
Andrews University Research Portal
Gane’s central argument: Continuity of the prophetic actors
Gane begins with the historical structure of Daniel 11.
He argues that the prophecy develops through successive political and military powers affecting God’s people.
After the rise of Christianity, the religious-political papacy becomes the King of the North.
The King of the South, according to Gane, becomes Islamic religious-political power.
His interpretation gives particular importance to Daniel 11:25–30, which he connects with medieval conflicts involving Christian and Islamic powers, including the Crusades.
If the southern power in those verses is Islam, Gane reasons, then the same power should continue into Daniel 11:40–43 unless the text indicates that it has been replaced.
This is the principle of prophetic continuity.
Why Gane rejects the secularism interpretation
The central difficulty Gane identifies is the transition from the historical kingdoms to the ideological identification of secularism.
In his model, the King of the South does not abruptly become a different kind of power at verse 40.
Instead, the religious-political identity established in the preceding verses continues.
This makes the interpretation internally consistent, provided that the identification of Islam in verses 25–30 is correct.
That qualification is important.
Gane’s argument depends heavily upon his historical identification of the earlier verses.
If Daniel 11:25–30 describes different events or powers, the continuity argument becomes less conclusive.
The final confrontation in Gane’s interpretation
Gane interprets Daniel 11:40–43 as describing a final struggle in which the papacy and its political allies overcome Islamic religious-political power.
He then connects the subsequent events with the final persecution of God’s people and the divine intervention of Daniel 12:1.
Gane’s interpretation does not require that all Muslims act together, that every Muslim-majority government participate in a unified campaign, or that ordinary Muslim believers be regarded as enemies of Christians.
His proposed identification concerns religious-political power in an apocalyptic interpretation, not the character or intentions of individual Muslims.
This distinction is essential when discussing prophecy responsibly.
7. Treiyer versus Gane: Which interpretation better explains Daniel 11?
The disagreement between these scholars is not principally about whether Daniel 11 is prophetic.
Both understand the chapter within a historicist framework.
The disagreement concerns how the historical identities of the two kings develop and how Daniel 11 should be related to Revelation.
The existence of these competing interpretations is well documented in Adventist scholarship. A report published by Adventist Review describes three principal Adventist approaches: the Egypt–Turkey interpretation, the papacy–atheism interpretation, and the papacy–Islam interpretation.
The strength of Treiyer’s interpretation
Treiyer’s position draws strength from three biblical and historical connections.
First, Daniel explicitly identifies Egypt as the original southern power.
Second, Revelation explicitly employs Egypt as a spiritual symbol.
Third, Ellen White directly connects spiritual Egypt with the atheistic opposition to Scripture manifested during the French Revolution.
The events of 1798 provide an additional historical link because revolutionary France inflicted a major political blow against the papacy.
Together, these connections make the secularism interpretation substantial rather than speculative.
Its main weakness is that Revelation 11 does not explicitly say that its spiritual Egypt is identical to Daniel 11’s King of the South.
That identification requires a comparison of prophetic symbols across different biblical books.
The strength of Gane’s interpretation
Gane’s position draws strength from the importance of continuity within Daniel 11.
Rather than moving immediately to another biblical book to identify the southern king, he examines the historical actors in Daniel 11 itself.
His approach seeks to maintain the same prophetic identity across the chapter’s later sections.
Its principal difficulty is that the proposed identification of the Crusades and Islamic political power in Daniel 11:25–30 is itself disputed.
Furthermore, the connection between Islam and the events of 1798 is less direct than the connection between revolutionary France and the political defeat of the papacy.
A critical distinction
Both interpretations contain an important inference.
Treiyer must demonstrate that the spiritual Egypt of Revelation 11 should be applied to Daniel 11:40.
Gane must demonstrate that the King of the South in Daniel 11:25–30 represents Islamic power and that this identification continues into verse 40.
Neither inference is explicitly stated in Daniel 11:40 itself.
The strongest interpretation must therefore be evaluated by the coherence of its biblical parallels, its historical application, and its consistency with the broader prophetic narrative.
8. Revelation 17: The ultimate relationship between secular and religious power
One of the most compelling aspects of Treiyer’s interpretation is its relationship to Revelation 17.
John sees a woman sitting upon a scarlet beast.
Within traditional Adventist historicism, the woman represents an apostate religious system, while the beast represents political power.
Revelation 17:12–13 declares:
The picture is unmistakable: political powers voluntarily surrender their strength and authority to a religious-political alliance.
This is significant because Revelation describes the relationship between religion and the state as changing during the final conflict.
From separation to cooperation
In the secularism interpretation, the sequence is as follows:
Daniel 11:40 — The southern attack
Secular and atheistic political forces challenge religious-political supremacy.
Daniel 11:40–43 — The northern resurgence
Religious-political authority gains renewed influence over earthly governments.
Revelation 17:12–13 — The final alliance
Political rulers unite with Babylon and give their authority to the beast.
Revelation 17:16 — The alliance collapses
The political powers turn against the religious system they previously supported.
Daniel 12:1 — Michael stands up
God intervenes to deliver His faithful people.
This is an interpretive synthesis of Daniel and Revelation, not a sequence explicitly labeled this way in either book.
Nevertheless, it provides a coherent explanation of how previously competing political and religious forces could unite temporarily before their final collapse.
Ellen White and the collapse of Babylon
In The Great Controversy, pages 655–656, Ellen White describes the final disillusionment of those who followed deceptive religious leaders.
The people recognize that they have been misled, and their anger turns against those who had claimed spiritual authority.
This closely resembles the reversal described in Revelation 17:16.
Treiyer connects these passages with the destruction of the final religious-political alliance.
adventistdistinctivemessages.com
An important conclusion follows: the final unity of Babylon is neither permanent nor ultimately victorious.
Its apparent triumph precedes its destruction.
9. Daniel 11:41–43 — What do Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia represent?
Daniel 11:42–43 declares:
These verses are especially important because Egypt appears by name.
If the King of the South represents secularism, why does Daniel continue to describe Egypt and its neighboring peoples?
The secularism interpretation regards these territories as symbols of the broad extension of the northern king’s authority over previously resistant powers.
The reference to wealth and treasure can be understood as the expansion of political and economic influence.
Gane’s interpretation, by contrast, gives greater weight to the geographical and historical associations of these territories with Islamic political power.
The passage therefore presents a significant test for both interpretations.
A purely symbolic reading must explain why Daniel retains such specific geographical names.
A primarily geopolitical reading must explain how these locations relate to the global end-time conflict portrayed in Revelation.
Neither interpretation should bypass these questions.
10. The decisive test: Which interpretation best accounts for 1798?
The strongest historical argument for Treiyer’s interpretation concerns the events surrounding 1798.
Consider the prophetic sequence:
Treiyer’s interpretation draws these developments into a connected historical explanation.
Gane’s approach does not make the French Revolution the principal identification of the southern king. Instead, it follows what he regards as the continued role of Islamic religious-political power.
The difference is fundamental.
Treiyer emphasizes the prophetic significance of the power that struck papal authority in 1798. Gane emphasizes the continuity of the southern power identified earlier in Daniel 11.
Which principle should carry greater interpretive weight?
If the timing of Daniel 11:40 and its relationship to Revelation 11 and 13 are considered decisive, the secularism interpretation has considerable explanatory strength.
If the continuous historical identity of the southern king throughout Daniel 11 is considered decisive, Gane’s interpretation warrants serious consideration.
The Bible does not explicitly identify the modern King of the South by name. Consequently, the issue should not be presented as though Scripture has settled every interpretive detail beyond dispute.
11. Is the King of the South still active today?
According to Treiyer’s interpretation, the answer is yes.
The King of the South is not confined to revolutionary France.
The prophetic principle continues wherever organized secular or atheistic political authority seeks to oppose biblical religion or the claims of divine revelation.
Treiyer identifies later communist and atheistic regimes as examples of this historical phenomenon.
However, we must distinguish between several very different realities.
A government that protects freedom of conscience and maintains institutional separation between church and state is not necessarily hostile to God.
Likewise, an individual who identifies as secular or atheist is not automatically participating in a prophetic campaign against Scripture.
The prophetic concern is the coercive exercise of political authority against freedom of conscience and faithfulness to God.
This distinction matters because the Bible repeatedly condemns the misuse of governmental power, whether exercised in the name of religion or against religion.
Daniel’s own experience illustrates the principle.
In Daniel 3, faithful worshipers are threatened with death for refusing state-mandated worship.
In Daniel 6, Daniel faces persecution because the law prohibits his customary prayers.
The danger is not merely the ideological label attached to a government.
It is the attempt to compel conscience in opposition to God’s commands.
12. The final answer: Who is the King of the South?
After examining Daniel 11, Revelation 11 and 17, Ellen White’s writings, and the interpretations of Treiyer and Gane, we can distinguish three levels of conclusion.
First, the original historical identity is certain within the context of Daniel 11:5–8.
The King of the South was the Ptolemaic kingdom of Egypt, situated south of Israel.
Second, the spiritual significance of Egypt is explicitly established in Revelation 11.
Egypt becomes a symbol of opposition to divine authority. Ellen White applies that symbolism to revolutionary France and its attack on biblical religion.
Third, the final identity of the King of the South in Daniel 11:40 remains an interpretive question.
Treiyer identifies it with secularism and atheistic political power.
Gane identifies it with Islamic religious-political power.
Both interpretations attempt to preserve the historicist understanding of prophecy, but they differ in how they connect the history of Daniel 11 with the end-time conflict.
My conclusion from the biblical and historical evidence
I find the secularism interpretation advanced by Treiyer more persuasive, particularly when Daniel 11:40 is read alongside Revelation 11, Ellen White’s interpretation of spiritual Egypt, and the historical events of 1798.
The reasons are cumulative rather than dependent on a single proof text.
The original southern king was Egypt. Revelation gives Egypt a spiritual application. Ellen White associates that spiritual Egypt with revolutionary atheism. And the historical attack upon papal political authority in 1798 came from revolutionary France.
These elements form a coherent interpretive argument.
Nevertheless, Gane’s continuity argument is substantial, and the biblical text does not explicitly equate the King of the South in Daniel 11:40 with atheism. That conclusion remains an interpretation rather than an indisputable identification.
The most responsible statement is therefore:
In the Treiyer interpretation of Adventist historicism, the end-time King of the South represents secular and atheistic political power, historically manifested in revolutionary France and later forms of militant secularism. Roy Gane offers the alternative identification of Islamic religious-political power.
Neither interpretation changes the central message of Daniel 12:1.
The final hope of God’s people does not depend upon the victory of a northern or southern earthly kingdom.
It depends upon Michael, the great Prince, who stands for His people.
13. The real issue: Who has authority over human conscience?
The struggle between the two kings raises a question that reaches beyond political geography.
Who has the right to govern human conscience?
Pharaoh claimed authority over Israel despite God’s command to release His people.
Nebuchadnezzar demanded worship of his golden image.
The rulers of Daniel’s day attempted to prohibit prayer.
The religious-political powers of Revelation seek to impose worship through coercive authority.
In each account, the central conflict concerns allegiance.
Human governments claim a degree of authority that belongs ultimately to God.
The answer of the faithful throughout Scripture is expressed in Acts 5:29:
This principle applies whether coercion comes from a secular state or a religious establishment.
The biblical alternative to coerced worship is not another form of coercion. It is faithfulness to God and respect for the freedom of conscience.
Jesus Himself declared:
And Revelation portrays the final people of God as those who maintain their loyalty to Jesus:
Ultimately, Daniel 11 is not simply a prediction of geopolitical competition.
It is part of the larger biblical story of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, divine authority and human rebellion, truth and deception.
The earthly kings struggle for supremacy.
But neither king possesses the final victory.
That victory belongs to Jesus Christ.
References and recommended reading
The following sources provide the foundation for this article and allow readers to examine the differing interpretations directly.
1. The Holy Bible. Daniel 2, 7, 8, 11–12; Exodus 5; Revelation 11–14, 16–17; Acts 5:29; John 18:36.
2. Ellen G. White. The Great Controversy, chapter 15, “The Bible and the French Revolution,” especially pp. 269–270; and the closing chapters, especially pp. 655–656. Read The Great Controversy
3. Alberto R. Treiyer. The Confrontation Between the Kings of the North and the Kings of the South: From Daniel’s Days to the End of the World in Daniel 11 (December 2020), particularly pp. 30–36. Read Treiyer’s complete study (PDF)
4. Roy E. Gane. “Religious-Political Papacy and Islamic Power in Daniel 11,” DavarLogos 19, no. 2 (2020): 37–70. Read Gane’s scholarly article
5. Adventist Review. “What Does Daniel Chapter 11 Mean?” A summary of the principal competing historicist interpretations presented at an Adventist prophecy conference. Read the Adventist Review comparison
6. Biblical Research Institute. “A Prophetic History of Daniel 11 for Today,” discussing the end-time prophetic powers and the competing Islam interpretation. Read the Biblical Research Institute study
Editorial note: This article presents a reasoned historicist interpretation, not an official or unanimously accepted Seventh-day Adventist doctrinal position. It distinguishes the explicit statements of Scripture and Ellen White from the interpretive conclusions of contemporary scholars.
Share this post
Bible Commentary/ExpositionGreat Controversy & Cosmic ConflictProphecy & End Time EventsTheology & Doctrine
Related content
Explore this topic by clicking on the resources below.
Article
Seven Last Plagues: God’s Final Judgments Before the End
As probation closes, the fierce “four winds” of violent human passion are let loose. The seven last plagues fall upon the world and plunge humanity into a...
As probation closes, the fierce “four winds” of violent human passion are let loose. The seven last plagues fall upon...
Article
Ten Virgins: A Warning for Spiritual and Carnal Church Members
What does Jesus’ parable of the ten virgins show us in respect to the signs of Parousia and the spiritual and carnal church members? All ten were...
What does Jesus’ parable of the ten virgins show us in respect to the signs of Parousia and the spiritual...
Article
Luke 15: The Lostness of Both Sons in the Parable
In Luke 15 we see that the older brother became angry and refused to go into the father’s feast, after the return of his wayward younger brother. Jesus...
In Luke 15 we see that the older brother became angry and refused to go into the father’s feast, after...