Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christians?

The term "Jehovah's Witness" is a Scriptural description for True Christians (Isa.43:10-12).

When you compare two religions who both claim to be Christian you must use Scriptural evidence to identify the true Christians. These evidences are not complicated.

Scriptures say true worshipers could be identified in at least three main ways: Love, Truth (Jn.4:23; 17:17), and Fruitage (Mt.7:16ff). Conversely, by these we can also identify the false.

The True religion would be primarily known for it's love toward all (Jn.13:34,35; 1Jn.3:10-12; 4:7, 8). This would include their enemies (Mat.5:44-48; Rom.12:17-20; 1Pet.2:21-23; 3:8- 9). It would not participate in or condone carnal war (2Cor.10:3,4; Isa.2:4).

Apply this basic evidence to what happened in both world wars and current conflicts. People of the same religions met on battlefields and slaughtered one another because of nationalistic differences. Each side claimed to be Christian, and each side was supported by its clergy, who claimed that God was on their side. The definition of a "Christian" is "one who does what Christ would do": WWJD (1 Pet.2:21). That slaughter of "Christian" by "Christian" is rotten fruitage. It is a denial of any claim to being the true Church (cf. Mat.26:52). No Christian would continue to associate with these religions (Rev.18:4). What is the historical record of Catholics and Protestants regarding warfare? Jehovah’s Witnesses have never participated in warfare.

Another evidence is that the true religion would be made up of people who would all be in agreement on doctrine. It would not have members who believe differently on abortion, war, homosexuality or morals. Its members would not "agree to disagree" (1Cor.1:10; 2Cor.13:11; Phil.1:27). True Christians would be separated from the world by "truth" from God's Word the Bible (Jn.17:17; 4:23). All its teachings would be based on the Bible (2 Tim. 3:14-16; Gal. 1:8, 9).

The true religion would have a reputation for promoting exceptional morality in its members (1Cor.6:9,10; Eph.5:3-5; 2 Pet.3:14; 2Cor.7:1; 2Tim.3:5). Does a religion *require* their congregation members to live moral lives, not allowing practicers of homosexuality, fornication, or adultery to be accepted members of their congregation? Or do they turn a blind eye? If so, their "fruitage" would show they are not true Christians.

True Christians would be associated with God's name: (Jn.17:3,6,26; Acts 15:14/Isa.55:5; 1 Peter 2:9/Ex.19:4- 5; Ps.83:18). They would not use Bibles which have removed the Most Holy Divine Name of God. Replacing the Divine Name with the common noun "Lord" cannot be justified by any translational principles so it is a blatant "subtraction" from God's word which brings a curse on anyone who approves it (Rev.22:18).

The true Church would be engaged in an unprecedented teaching activity (Matthew 24:14, 28:19, 20). Witnesses right now are performing the greatest Bible education work ever done in all human history!

There are more scripture evidences, however these are plenty to show which religion meets the requirements of being the True religion.

Apostate Christianity has neither the spiritual strength nor the support of God's holy spirit to motivate people to follow the truthful teachings of Jesus Christ. For this reason, the result in Christendom is not true Christianity but counterfeit believers, "weeds" unfit for the Kingdom.-Mat13:24ff.

When you examine most religions you find that they cannot meet any of the other requirements of true Christianity. Their historical record is of bloodthirsty wars, immorality, sectarian violence and factional splits (Mat.7:21- 23; 2Tim3:5; Gal.5:19-23). Today Catholics continue to kill Catholics and Protestants kill Protestants, something true Christians would not do (1Jn.3:10,15; 4:8). Our hearts tell us that any religion who is willing to shoot their own members in warfare cannot possibly be trusted to teach Biblical truth.

I have found only one group which has presented absolute evidence of truly being Christian: Jehovah's Witnesses. This is the testimony of the Holy Spirit (1Cor. 6:9-11; Gal.5:19-22).

SOURCE: This is an answer by BAR_ANERGES to a question at Yahoo Answers.

Also see:

Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christians? (JW.ORG)

Must You Believe in the Trinity to Be a Christian? (JW.ORG)

Jehovah's Witnesses ARE Christians - Why Opposers Falsely Claim That They Aren't (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Jehovah's Witnesses Are Christians - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Video - Questions For Trinitarians

(Based on this article. For more, click here.)

The Destruction of Jerusalem - 607 B.C.E.?

(More information about this topic can be found at the bottom of this article.)

The Destruction of Jerusalem - 607 B.C.E?

Some who wish to accuse the Watchtower organization of being a "false prophet" claim that the 607 B.C. date chosen by the Society for the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon is proof. Christendom endorses and teaches the date of 587 B.C. (which is the opinion of secular historians today).

Most secular historians tell us that some captives were taken from Jerusalem in 598 B.C., but that the city was not harmed at that time. They also tell us that a later siege in 587 B.C. destroyed Jerusalem and that all but a handful of the inhabitants of all of Judah were deported from the land at that time.

"All archeologically studied towns of Judah (see Jer. 25:11, 17, 18) were DESTROYED at this time (587 B.C.)." - Encyclopedia Americana, 1957, v. 3, p. 9.

They also tell us that

"the edict of Cyrus in 538 B.C., substantially confirmed by modern archeological discoveries, permitted the Jews to return to their homeland." - Americana.

Now if we insist on perfection in the statements of God's inspired prophets of the Bible concerning time factors, then either the inspired prophets who warned of the desolation of Jerusalem by Babylon must have proclaimed a 49 (or 50) year desolation of Jerusalem - from 587 B.C. to 538 B.C. (or 537 B.C. if we properly allow for preparation and travel time after Cyrus' edict)! OR the secular historians of today are wrong about the 587 B.C. date which most of Christendom (and apostate ex-Jehovah's Witnesses) accepts.

Now Jehovah's Witnesses accept the 538 B.C. date for the edict of Cyrus since the evidence produced "by modern archeological discoveries" is probably better established for it, and it certainly correlates more properly with Bible chronology. And since the date 587 B.C. for the beginning of the desolation period is probably more doubtful than that of the "substantially confirmed" 538 B.C. date for the edict which led to the end of the desolation period and does not fit proper Bible chronology, Jehovah's Witnesses have decided that the date of the desolation of Jerusalem must have been 607 B.C. Why? Because Jehovah's Witnesses believe the inspired prophets Jeremiah and Daniel are more likely to be correct than secular historians! (Be sure to read pp. 186-189 in Let Your Kingdom Come, 1981 Watchtower publication.)

Daniel wrote that he was "reading the scriptures and reflecting on the SEVENTY years which, according to the word of the Lord [Jehovah] to the prophet Jeremiah, were to pass while Jerusalem lay in ruins." - Dan. 9:2, NEB. Also see Jer. 25:8-11, 17, 18.

Now isn't it interesting that Christendom (especially those most vocal dissident ex-Jehovah's Witnesses) condemns Jehovah's Witnesses as being false prophets for interpreting certain ancient dates (most notably the destruction of Jerusalem as 607 B.C.) based upon the clear statements of inspired Bible prophets which seem to contradict the conclusions of secular historians today?

Think about it. What's really happening when certain "Christians" insist that a figurative "prophet" be perfect in its interpretation of time and then turn around and say,

"Yes, Daniel was an inspired prophet (and so was Jeremiah), but, although he literally said Jerusalem would lie desolate for 70 years, HE REALLY MEANT 50 YEARS. We believe the authorities today who tell us it was really 50 years," these `Christians' say, "more than we believe the literal accuracy of the inspired prophet, Daniel (or Jeremiah)."?

In other words, it's o.k. to condemn those who have never claimed to be inspired prophets for an apparent error in the interpretation of a date and proclaim them false prophets, and, in so doing, indirectly (but necessarily) accuse the truly inspired Bible writers, who, they believe, made the very same kind of time "errors," of being false prophets .

Yes, those who insist on the secular historians' dates (which make a 50 year desolation) are, by necessity, insisting that the Bible prophets stated the wrong chronology (70 years of desolation). By their insistence on the 587 B.C. date they are saying the inspired prophets did not prophesy a literally accurate time!

The real difference is that Jehovah's Witnesses admit to being human, making nonessential errors at times, and not being an inspired "prophet." They truly believe the organization, as a whole, and over the long term, has the guidance of Holy Spirit, but this does not mean that every step, every thought, every utterance of every member will be perfect in this present system of things. The first Christians, who were obviously guided by Holy Spirit, admitted as much about themselves. And yet these Jehovah's Witnesses, imperfect as they may be, are courageous enough to say that Daniel and Jeremiah are inspired prophets of God and are certainly more likely to be correct than secular historians.

If Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong on this nonessential "time interpretation," does that make them false prophets because they have chosen the literal accuracy of God's inspired prophets over the statements of uninspired historians? I think not! I believe, instead, a strong statement of their obedience to proper authority (the Bible in this case) is being made in spite of the ridicule and dishonest accusations of many false Christians.

On the other hand, what if the actual inspired prophets (Daniel and Jeremiah) are literally correct? Where does that put those "Christians" who are, in actuality, saying that Daniel and Jeremiah were false prophets? It seems we have a real test of faith and proper heart condition here.

Related Articles:

When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One; Why It Matters; What the Evidence Shows (w11 10/1 pp. 26-31; Watchtower Online Library)

When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two; What the Clay Documents Really Show (w11 11/1 pp. 22-28; Watchtower Online Library)

Jerusalem 607 B.C.E. (Search Results From the Watchtower Online Library)

The Destruction of Jerusalem - 607 B.C.E.? (Search For Bible Truths)

'False Prophet' Claim and Jerusalem 607 B.C.E. (Search For Bible Truths)

Jerusalem - 607 B.C.E. (Jerusalem - 607 B.C.E.)

Was 607 B.C.E. Actually the Year Jerusalem Fell? (From God's Word)

Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. (Pastor Russsel)

Seven Times - The Times of The Gentiles (Pastor Russsel)

1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy (Pastor Russsel)

Appointed Times of the Nations (Pastor Russsel)

Links to more sources concerning 607 B.C.E. (Y/A)

Did Jehovah's Witnesses Really "Change the Original Meaning of the Bible to Suit their Beliefs" as Opposers Claim?

Most religions have their own preferred version of the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses translated and produced our own version of the Bible because we wanted a more accurate translation of the Bible.

In doing this Jehovah's Witnesses have not "changed the original meaning of the Bible". Jehovah's Witnesses will use almost any modern translations when they study with others, while at the same time they realize that some translations are better overall than others.

However, the accuracy of the NWT is proven by facts such as rules of grammar and translation principles.

I have personally found that in every case where the NWT is criticized it has usually proved to be accurate and in most cases more accurate than the most other translations. Most criticisms brought against it are usually themselves unwarranted and unfairly biased and usually demands an ignorance from hearers of Greek words and semantics according to standard Greek Lexicons and Dictionaries.

People who claim that we needed to translate "our own bible" in order to support our beliefs are being misled. Most of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs had been long established before the NWT ever came into existence.

Further, the claim that the NWT has been “changed to deny there being the possibility of a Trinity“ is a ludicrous statement. Even according to Trinitarians own scholars the Trinity is NEVER found in the Bible. And of you think that the NWT is the only bible which reads as it does in your cited examples, then you have been misled. The NWT has not removed any part which calls Jesus “God.” And in EVERY verse in which the NWT differs from the reading of the KJV other non-JW translations have rendered it exactly like the NWT.

In fact, the NWT reads EXACTLY like the KJV at Rm. 1:7! And no version calls Jesus “God” here. In fact this verse completely destroys the Trinity because it clearly and explicitly differentiates Jesus from “GOD.” According to the Trinity there can only be one God and while Jesus can be separated from the Father he cannot be separated from God. Yet the Bible repeatedly shows that Jesus is separate from and less than “GOD” and the Trinity is destroyed!!!

Those who post such simplistic and fallacious criticisms dishonestly demand that hearers do not do even the most basic of research.

Next, the claim that replacing the Greek word KURIOS with Jehovah is incorrect actually requires us to be ignorant of standard translation principles and practice.

The NWT inserts the Name Jehovah in the NT because textual and translation principles demand it. Many other translators have acknowledged these principles either by placing Jehovah "Jehovah" in the NT, or in the case of most translators by capitalizing LORD which ALWAYS denotes Jehovah (e.g., Ac.2:34; Mt.22:44; Mk.12:36). These versions usually state that when "Lord" is written as "LORD" it stands for Jehovah, so they are actually doing exactly what the NWT does.

Also confirming this as a valid principle, some respected Bibles replace the original Greek pronouns "he" or "him" with "Jesus" or “God” (NIV; NJB; NAB). For example look at 1Cor.15:27,28 in several Bibles (e.g., NIV, TEV) and you will see how much clearer replacing the pronouns with “Jesus” and “God” makes the text (cf. 1Jn 5:14, 15).

Now, it can be claimed that there is absolutely no Greek textual support for these translators to use this device, but this claim is simply based on theological bias and not translation principles.

In the above places "Lord" is textually accurate, though factually incorrect. But a translator's prime concern is with transmitting the meaning of the original writer, and it is a fact that in many occurrences of KURIOS the absolute semantic equivalence in the target language must be "Jehovah" (e.g.; Mk.12:25-36; Ac.2:21, 33-34; Rm.10:13) (see Girdlestone’s Synonyms of the OT p. 43).

Standard reference works provide evidence that this is in accord with translation principles:

"In the NT, likewise, KURIOS, when used as a name of God...most usually corresponds to hwhy Jehovah, and in this sense is applied." --A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament, by J. Parkhurst

So in EVERY place where the NWT and others have restored Jehovah to the text of the N.T. it has been fully in accord with the rules of translation. Therefore the NWT fulfills the requirement for accuracy in translation in this regard.

Christ is NEVER placed on an equal level with Almighty God in the Bible.

Even after his return to heaven the Bible speaks of Jesus having a God over him at least 17 times! (Jn.20:17; Rm.15:6; 1Cor.11:3; 2Cor.1:3; Eph.1:17; Heb.1:9; Rev.1:6; 3:2,12). It is illogical to believe that Christ could have equal glory with the One who is called his God.

SOURCE: This is an answer provided by BAR_ANERGES to a question at Yahoo Answers.

Also see:

New World Translation (NWT) - Links to Information that DEFEND THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION BIBLE (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

"Was Jesus a Real Historical Person? Do Scholars Believe That Jesus Existed?"

"Was Jesus a Real Historical Person? Do Scholars Believe That Jesus Existed?"

Yes. The works of Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and a few other classical writers include numerous references to Jesus. Of them, The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1995) says: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”


For much more, see:

Jesus Christ—Our Questions Answered - Was Jesus really a historical person? (w12 4/1 pp. 4-7; Watchtower Online Library)

The Real Jesus (w01 12/15 pp. 5-8; Watchtower Online Library)

Do Scholars Believe That Jesus Existed? (JW.ORG)

Archaeological Evidence of Jesus’ Existence? (w03 6/15 pp. 3-4; Watchtower Online Library)

Jesus Christ—Evidence That He Walked the Earth (w03 6/15 pp. 4-7; Watchtower Online Library)

Is There a Possibility That the Nations Might Completely Ruin the Earth in a Nuclear War?

The Bible shows that God "did not create (earth) simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited." (Isa. 45:18) God described his purpose to have the earth filled with the offspring of Adam and Eve as caretakers of a global paradise:

"`Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.'"

For the earth to become completely destroyed by the nations would run contrary to His purpose. The Bible assures us that God will "bring to ruin those ruining the earth." (Rev. 11:17, 18)

God will not allow the earth to become completely and permanently ruined because Ps. 37:29 says that "The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it."

For more, see:

Will planet Earth be destroyed in a nuclear war? (rs p. 112-p. 117; Watchtower Online Library)

Nuclear War—Is It Still a Threat? (g04 3/8 pp. 3-4; Watchtower Online Library)

Nuclear War—Who Are the Threats? (g04 3/8 pp. 4-7; Watchtower Online Library)

Nuclear War—Can It Be Avoided? (g04 3/8 pp. 8-9; Watchtower Online Library)

“The War to End All Wars” (w08 4/1 pp. 3-4; Watchtower Online Library)

Doomsday Fears Loom Large - Nuclear War (g 9/12 pp. 4-7; Watchtower Online Library)

What Do Many Fear? The threat of nuclear war remains high (w10 8/1 pp. 3-4; Watchtower Online Library)

Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Not Use the Cross in Worship?

"Jehovah’s Witnesses firmly believe that the death of Jesus Christ provided the ransom that opens the door to everlasting life for those who exercise faith in him. (Matthew 20:28; John 3:16) However, they do not believe that Jesus died on a cross, as is often depicted in traditional pictures. It is their belief that Jesus died on an upright stake with no crossbeam." - Excerpt from the article Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Not Use the Cross in Worship? (Read the entire w08 3/1 p. 22 article here.)

Why Don't Jehovah's Witnesses Believe that Jesus Died Upon A Cross?

Many are surprised to read in many Bibles that Jesus was hung upon a "tree" at Acts 5:30.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/acts/5-30-compare.html

This is because the word "Stau·ros´ in both the classical Greek and Koine carries no thought of a "cross" made of two timbers. It means only an upright stake, pale, pile, or pole:

"The Greek word for `cross' (Stau·ros´) means primarily an upright stake or beam, and secondarily a stake used as an instrument for punishment and execution." - Douglas' New Bible Dictionary of 1985 under "Cross," page 253.

And noted Greek scholar W. E. Vine mentions the following concerning this subject:

"STAUROS denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross." - Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1981, Vol. 1, p. 256. Vine also goes on to describe the Chaldean origin of the two-piece cross and how it was adopted from the pagans by Christendom in the third century C.E. as a symbol of Christ's impalement.

The Pagan History of the Cross

Not only does the Greek word Stau·ros´ not mean a "cross" made of two timbers, but the cross "was an emblem to which religious and mystical meanings were attached long before the Christian era." - Chamber's Encyclopaedia, 1969 ed.

The pagan Romans used the symbol of the cross before and during the early days of Christianity: "These crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian sun-god ... and are first seen on a coin of Juolius Caesar, 100-44 B.C., and then on a coin struck by Caesar's heir (Augustus), 20 B.C." - The Companion Bible.

And Prof. G.F. Snyder points out that "The sign of the cross has been a symbol of great antiquity, present in nearly every known culture. .... The universal use of the sign of the cross makes more poignant the striking lack of crosses in early Christian remains, especially any specific reference to the event on Golgotha. Most scholars now agree that the cross, as an artistic reference to the passion event, cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine." - p. 27, Ante Pacem - Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantinte.

The Baptist NT scholar W.E. Vine wrote about "Cross":

"STAUROS ... denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten on a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross. The shape of the latter had its origins in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ." - p. 248, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, 1983 printing.

"In ancient Israel, unfaithful Jews wept over the death of the false god Tammuz. Jehovah spoke of what they were doing as being a `detestable thing.' (Ezek. 8:13, 14) According to history, Tammuz was a Babylonian god, and the cross was used as his symbol. From its beginning in the days of Nimrod, Babylon was against Jehovah and an enemy of true worship. (Gen. 10:8-10; Jer. 50:29) So by cherishing the cross, a person is honoring a symbol of worship that is opposed to the true God." - Reasoning From the Scriptures, "Cross".

The Cross - A Form of Idolatry 

But even if we ignore the evidence and assume that Jesus was killed on a cross, the most important thing is that the cross should not be venerated. Whether it was an upright single torture stake, a cross, an arrow, a lance, or a knife, should such an instrument really be used in worship?

Not only should the thought of venerating the very instrument of Jesus' execution be offensive in itself, but the symbol of the cross is also a pagan symbol...idolatry that God commands us to not even "touch":

“What agreement does God’s temple have with idols?...'Quit touching the unclean thing.'" (2 Corinthians 6:16, 17)

“Guard yourselves from idols.” (1 John 5:21)

"You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion." (Exodus 20:4-5)

Long before the Christian era, crosses were used by the ancient Babylonians as symbols in their worship of the fertility god Tammuz. The use of the cross spread into Egypt, India, Syria, and China. Then, centuries later, the Israelites adulterated their worship of Jehovah God with acts of veneration to the false god Tammuz. The Bible refers to this form of worship as a ‘detestable thing.’ - Ezekiel 8:13, 14.

First-century Christians, however, held the sacrificial death of Christ in high esteem. Likewise today, although the instrument used to torture and kill Jesus is not to be worshipped, true Christians commemorate Jesus’ death as the means by which God provides salvation to imperfect humans. (Matthew 20:28)

For more, see:

Cross - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Why True Christians Do Not Use the Cross in Worship (What Does the Bible Really Teach?; JW.ORG)

Did Jesus Really Die on a Cross? - What Does the Cross Symbolize? (w11 3/1 pp. 18-20; Watchtower Online Library)

Should Icons Be Used in Worship? (g05 5/8 pp. 20-21; Watchtower Online Library)

The King of the North, the King of the South and the "Time of the End”

Chapters 10 through 12 of the Book of Daniel tells of Daniel's prophecy concerning the ongoing enmity between the "King of the North" and the "King of the South". The political identities of these two kings have changed as the battle between them continued for the past 2,000 years and down into our day. Considering that this prophecy also concerns "the time of the end" (Daniel 12:4), this should be of interest to us. This is because this prophecy could give us a clear view of where we are in the stream of time.

The following is specifically centered on the "time of the end” (Daniel 11:40 through Daniel 12:9). But some excellent information concerning the changing of the political identities of these two kings prior to the 20th century can be found in the Daniel's Prophecy book published by the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society.

Concerning the "Time of the End”

Concerning the "time of the end”, Daniel 11:40a reads:

“In the time of the end the king of the south will engage with him [the King of the North] in a pushing.”

If “the time of the end” here means the same as it does at Daniel 12:4, 9, we should look for the fulfillment of these words throughout the last days. What immediately comes to mind when a "pushing" is described between two major powers during the course of our past century? What two "kings" have targeted fearsome nuclear weapons on each other and have engaged in high-tech espionage as well as diplomatic and even limited military offensives? This kind of "pushing" has even adopted a name: The "Cold War".

Daniel 11:40b helps to identify the King of the North in “the time of the end”:

“Against him the king of the north will storm with chariots and with horsemen and with many ships; and he will certainly enter into the lands and flood over and pass through.”

The identity of the King of the North in the time of the end seems apparent when considering that the history of the past century has well recorded the King of the North's expansionism. But, even though—from the viewpoint of his rival—the King of the North has loomed as a menacing presence, he has not achieved world conquest.

Events To Come

But what happens next? The following is a brief excerpt from the 11/1/93 Watchtower, "The Final Victory of Michael, the Great Prince", pars. 10-14:

"Does the rivalry between the two kings continue indefinitely? No. The angel told Daniel: “There will be reports that will disturb him [the king of the north], out of the sunrising and out of the north, and he will certainly go forth in a great rage in order to annihilate and to devote many to destruction. And he will plant his palatial tents between the grand sea and the holy mountain of Decoration; and he will have to come all the way to his end, and there will be no helper for him.”—Daniel 11:44, 45.

"These events are yet future, so we cannot say in detail how the prophecy will be fulfilled. Recently, the political situation regarding the two kings has changed. The bitter rivalry between the United States and Eastern European countries has cooled. Further, the Soviet Union was disbanded in 1991 and no longer exists.—See the March 1, 1992, issue of The Watchtower, pages 4, 5.

"So who is the king of the north now? Is he to be identified with one of the countries that were part of the old Soviet Union? Or is he changing identity completely, as he has a number of times before? We cannot say. Who will be the king of the north when Daniel 11:44, 45 is fulfilled? Will the rivalry between the two kings flare up again? And what of the huge nuclear stockpiles that still exist in a number of lands? Only time will provide the answers to these questions.

"One thing we do know. Soon, the king of the north will conduct an offensive campaign that will be triggered by “reports that will disturb him, out of the sunrising and out of the north.” This campaign will immediately precede his “end.” We can learn more about these “reports” if we consider other Bible prophecies.

"First, though, notice that these acts of the king of the north are not said to be against the king of the south. He does not come to his end at the hands of his great rival. Similarly, the king of the south is not destroyed by the king of the north. The southern king (represented in other prophecies as the final horn to appear on a wild beast) is destroyed “without [human] hand” by God’s Kingdom. (Daniel 7:26; 8:25) In fact, all earthly kings are finally destroyed by God’s Kingdom at the battle of Armageddon, and this evidently is what happens to the king of the north. (Daniel 2:44; 12:1; Revelation 16:14, 16) Daniel 11:44, 45 describes events leading up to that final battle. No wonder “there will be no helper” when the king of the north meets his end!"

For much more, see:

Kings of North and South - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)

North Versus South, Michael Stands Up (si pp. 138-142; Bible Book Number 27—Daniel; Watchtower Online Library)

Time of the End (Insight-2 pp. 1103-1104; Watchtower Online Library)