What if the prophecy you are waiting to see fulfilled has already happened?

What if the event you believe must occur before the next great prophetic development is not ahead of us, but behind us?

And what if, because you are waiting for something God has already fulfilled, you fail to recognize what is happening next?

This is a serious question concerning Bible prophecy, particularly the prophecy of the King of the South recorded in Daniel 11:40.

Many today believe that the King of the South must yet arise and make a future push against the King of the North. Consequently, they watch developments in the Middle East, looking for a particular nation, alliance, or military confrontation that they believe will fulfill this prophecy.

But before we begin searching for a future fulfillment, should we not first examine whether the event has already occurred?

Herbert W. Armstrong taught that the prophetic push of the King of the South had already been fulfilled.

He pointed to events involving Ethiopia and Italy, long before Mussolini’s conquest of Ethiopia in 1935–1936.

His teaching was based upon an understanding of the prophetic sequence and its relationship to recorded history.

And that raises an important question.

If the push has already occurred, why are so many still waiting for it?

Perhaps the greatest danger in understanding prophecy is not that we are looking for the wrong event.

Perhaps it is that we are looking for the right event in the wrong place.

WHAT DID HERBERT W. ARMSTRONG TEACH?

Herbert W. Armstrong, whom we recognize as Christ’s apostle, taught that the push of the King of the South in Daniel 11:40 was not necessarily an event awaiting fulfillment in our future.

He identified it with the conflict between Ethiopia and Italy during the closing years of the nineteenth century.

In his explanation of Daniel 11, Armstrong connected the Ethiopian-Italian conflict of 1895–1896 with the push of the King of the South and Mussolini’s later invasion of Ethiopia with the response of the King of the North.

This understanding places the beginning of the sequence considerably earlier than many modern prophetic interpretations.

But should we believe this merely because Herbert W. Armstrong taught it?

No.

God commands us:

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
— 1 Thessalonians 5:21

The responsibility of God’s people is to prove what they believe.

We must examine the Scriptures, consider the historical evidence, and determine whether the interpretation agrees with what God has revealed.

If the push was fulfilled, then it should not be necessary to invent another fulfillment simply because we have become accustomed to expecting one.

And if the historical evidence supports the interpretation, we must be willing to recognize what has already happened.

For the Word of God does not remain unfulfilled simply because we have failed to recognize its fulfillment.

THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE: HAS THE KING OF THE SOUTH ALREADY PUSHED?

Before examining modern events, consider what history records.

There were two significant conflicts between Ethiopia and Italy, separated by approximately forty years.

Understanding the distinction between these conflicts is important to understanding Armstrong’s interpretation.

The First Event: Ethiopia and Italy, 1895–1896

During the nineteenth century, Italy sought to expand its colonial influence in northeastern Africa.

Ethiopia, under Emperor Menelik II, resisted Italian attempts to establish control over the country.

The resulting First Italo-Ethiopian War took place in 1895–1896.

On March 1, 1896, Ethiopian forces decisively defeated the Italian army at the Battle of Adwa.

The victory preserved Ethiopia’s independence and prevented Italy from completing its attempted conquest.

This conflict is historically documented.

Armstrong identified the Ethiopian resistance and conflict with the push described in Daniel 11:40.

Notice the wording:

“And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him…”
— Daniel 11:40

The prophecy describes a push.

It then describes the King of the North coming against him like a whirlwind.

These are distinguishable actions within the same prophetic passage.

If Armstrong correctly identified the Ethiopian-Italian conflict as the push, then that event has already taken place.

It is not something that must occur again before the remaining prophecy can proceed.

The Second Event: Mussolini’s Conquest of Ethiopia, 1935–1936

Nearly forty years after Italy’s defeat at Adwa, Benito Mussolini launched another invasion of Ethiopia.

On October 3, 1935, Italian forces invaded the country.

The Italian military employed aircraft, artillery, mechanized equipment, and chemical weapons during the campaign.

On May 5, 1936, Italian forces entered Addis Ababa.

On May 9, Mussolini proclaimed the establishment of an Italian empire.

Although Ethiopian resistance continued, Italy had achieved its immediate military conquest.

Armstrong connected this later invasion with the response of the King of the North.

“…and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.”
— Daniel 11:40

Consider the progression.

First comes the push.

Then comes the overwhelming response.

In Armstrong’s interpretation, the push was associated with the earlier Ethiopian-Italian conflict, while the later conquest under Mussolini was associated with the response.

The events were separated by decades.

Yet they were understood as belonging to the same prophetic progression.

What Does History Actually Prove?

The historical record establishes several important facts.

• Italy and Ethiopia fought in 1895–1896.
• Ethiopia defeated Italy at Adwa on March 1, 1896.
• Italy invaded Ethiopia again on October 3, 1935.
• Italian forces captured Addis Ababa on May 5, 1936.
• Mussolini proclaimed an Italian empire on May 9, 1936.

These events can be independently verified.

Their identification with Daniel 11:40 is a prophetic interpretation that must be tested against Scripture.

The distinction matters.

History establishes that the events occurred.

Scripture must establish whether those events correspond to the prophecy.

We should not confuse the two, but neither should we disregard the historical evidence simply because a different interpretation has become popular.

If Armstrong’s identification is correct, then the push has already occurred.

And if the push has already occurred, we must ask a different question.

Where does that place us in the prophetic sequence today?

THE IMPORTANCE OF PROPHETIC PLACEMENT

Daniel 11:40 describes a sequence of events.

There is a push.

There is a response.

There is an overflowing and passing over.

The verses that follow continue describing the actions and movements of the King of the North.

Daniel 11:41 states:

“He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown…”
— Daniel 11:41

Verse 42 continues:

“He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.”
— Daniel 11:42

And the prophecy continues through verse 45.

These passages must be examined in their proper order.

If the push has already occurred, then our attention should not remain fixed upon waiting for that push to happen again.

Instead, we should examine what follows.

We must determine which events have been fulfilled, which remain to be fulfilled, and where we presently stand.

This does not mean we should force historical or current events into the prophecy.

It means we must allow Scripture and evidence to establish our position.

Being correct about what