We are now on sacred ground, in terms of the book of Daniel, for we have arrived at the verses which represent the Midnight Cry for the one hundred and forty-four thousand. The verses also identify the sealing of the ensign who are lifted up. These are the verses that are the portion from the book of Daniel that relates to the last days that is unsealed, and represent Daniel’s expression of the Revelation of Jesus Christ that is unsealed when the “time is at hand,” just before probation closes in verse sixteen.
Nous nous tenons maintenant sur une terre sainte, au regard du livre de Daniel, car nous sommes parvenus aux versets qui représentent le Cri de Minuit pour les cent quarante-quatre mille. Ces versets identifient aussi le scellement de l’étendard de ceux qui sont élevés. Ce sont là les versets qui constituent la portion du livre de Daniel relative aux derniers jours, laquelle est descellée, et qui représentent l’expression, par Daniel, de la Révélation de Jésus-Christ, descellée lorsque « le temps est proche », juste avant la clôture du temps de grâce au verset seize.
It is Rome that establishes the vision, as represented in verse fourteen of chapter eleven, and it is therefore important to look closely at Rome as we navigate through verses eleven through fifteen, for where there is “no vision, the people perish,” and if you will not believe Isaiah chapter seven, verses eight and nine, “surely you will not be established.”
Ni Roma ndiyo inayoliweka msingi wa njozi hiyo, kama inavyowakilishwa katika aya ya kumi na nne ya sura ya kumi na moja; kwa hiyo ni muhimu kulichunguza Roma kwa makini tunapopitia aya ya kumi na moja hadi ya kumi na tano, kwa maana pasipo “maono, watu huangamia,” na ikiwa hamtaamini Isaya sura ya saba, aya ya nane na ya tisa, “hakika hamtaimarishwa.”
Uriah Smith references a prophetic rule at least four times in his book, Daniel and the Revelation. That rule identifies that a prophetic power is not identified in prophecy until it becomes “connected” with the people of God. The first reference he addresses it is in connection with the introduction of Babylon into the prophetic testimony.
Uriah Smith fait référence au moins quatre fois, dans son ouvrage Daniel and the Revelation, à une règle prophétique. Cette règle établit qu’une puissance prophétique n’est pas identifiée dans la prophétie avant qu’elle ne devienne « liée » au peuple de Dieu. La première fois qu’il l’aborde, c’est en rapport avec l’introduction de Babylone dans le témoignage prophétique.
“It is a manifest rule of interpretation that we may look for nations to be noticed in prophecy when they become so far connected with the people of God that mention of them becomes necessary to make the records of sacred history complete.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 46.
«Il est une règle manifeste d’interprétation que l’on peut s’attendre à voir des nations mentionnées dans la prophétie lorsqu’elles en viennent à être à ce point liées au peuple de Dieu que leur mention devient nécessaire pour rendre complets les récits de l’histoire sacrée.» Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 46.
At least three other times, Smith addresses the rule, and he points to the “league” of the Jews in each of the three, but in one reference he identifies the league as being fulfilled in 162 BC, but the other two references are in agreement with the modern historians, who identify the fulfillment of the “league” of the Jews and Rome as 161 BC.
Smith fait mention de cette règle à au moins trois autres reprises, et dans chacune des trois il renvoie à la « ligue » des Juifs ; toutefois, dans l’une de ces références, il identifie l’accomplissement de cette ligue à l’an 162 av. J.-C., tandis que les deux autres références s’accordent avec les historiens modernes, qui situent l’accomplissement de la « ligue » des Juifs et de Rome en 161 av. J.-C.
“It is unnecessary to remind the reader that earthly governments are not introduced into prophecy till they become in some way connected with the people of God. Rome became connected with the Jews, the people of God at that time, by the famous Jewish League, BC 161. 1 Maccabees 8; Josephus’s Antiquities, book 12, chapter 10, section 6; Prideaux, Vol. II, page 166. But seven years before this, that is, in BC 168, Rome had conquered Macedonia, and made that country a part of its empire. Rome is therefore introduced into prophecy just as, from the conquered Macedonian horn of the goat, it is going forth to new conquests in other directions. It therefore appeared to the prophet, or may be properly spoken of in this prophecy, as coming forth from one of the horns of the goat.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 175.
«Չկա անհրաժեշտություն ընթերցողին հիշեցնելու, որ երկրային կառավարությունները մարգարեության մեջ չեն ներկայացվում, մինչև որ որևէ կերպ չկապվեն Աստծո ժողովրդի հետ։ Հռոմը կապվեց հրեաների՝ այն ժամանակվա Աստծո ժողովրդի հետ, Ք.ա. 161 թվականին կնքված նշանավոր Հրեական դաշինքով։ 1 Մակաբայեցիներ 8; Հովսեփոսի «Հնություններ», գիրք 12, գլուխ 10, բաժին 6; Prideaux, հ. II, էջ 166։ Բայց դրանից յոթ տարի առաջ, այսինքն՝ Ք.ա. 168 թվականին, Հռոմը նվաճել էր Մակեդոնիան և այդ երկիրը դարձրել իր կայսրության մի մասը։ Ուստի Հռոմը մարգարեության մեջ ներկայացվում է հենց այն պահին, երբ այծի նվաճված մակեդոնական եղջյուրից ելնելով՝ այն գնում է դեպի նոր նվաճումներ այլ ուղղություններով։ Հետևաբար այն մարգարեին երևաց, կամ այս մարգարեության մեջ կարող է պատշաճորեն ներկայացվել, որպես ելնող այծի եղջյուրներից մեկից»։ Ուրայա Սմիթ, Daniel and the Revelation, 175.
But Smith also states that it was 162 BC.
Kasi Smith mpe alobi ete ezalaki na 162 liboso ya Klisto.
“The same power was also to stand in the Holy Land, and consume it. Rome became connected with the people of God, the Jews, by alliance, BC 162, from which date it holds a prominent place in the prophetic calendar. It did not, however, acquire jurisdiction over Judea by actual conquest till BC 63; and then in the following manner.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 259.
«همان قدرت نیز میبایست در سرزمین مقدّس برپا شود و آن را ببلعد. روم در سال ۱۶۲ پیش از میلاد، از راه همپیمانی، با قوم خدا، یعنی یهودیان، مرتبط شد؛ و از همان تاریخ است که در گاهشمار نبوی جایگاهی برجسته مییابد. با این حال، تا سال ۶۳ پیش از میلاد، از طریق فتح واقعی، بر یهودیه حاکمیت نیافت؛ و سپس این امر به طریق زیر واقع شد.» Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 259.
And then the third time he references the event, he again says 161 BC.
Ug pagkatapos, sa ikatulong higayon nga iyang gihisgotan ang maong hitabo, giingon na usab niya ang 161 BC.
“Having taken us down through the secular events of the empire to the end of the seventy weeks, the prophet, in verse 23, takes us back to the time when the Romans became directly connected with the people of God by the Jewish league, BC 161: from which point we are then taken down in a direct line of events to the final triumph of the church, and the setting up of God’s everlasting kingdom. The Jews, being grievously oppressed by the Syrian kings, sent an embassy to Rome, to solicit the aid of the Romans, and to join themselves in ‘a league of amity and confederacy with them.’ 1 Maccabees 8; Prideaux, II, 234; Josephus’s Antiquities, book 12, chapter 10, section 6. The Romans listened to the request of the Jews, and granted them a decree, couched in these words:—
«После того как пророк провёл нас через светские события империи до конца семидесяти седмин, в стихе 23 он возвращает нас ко времени, когда римляне вступили в непосредственную связь с народом Божиим через иудейский союз, в 161 году до Р. Х.; от этой точки затем нас ведут по прямой линии событий к окончательной победе церкви и утверждению вечного Царства Божия. Иудеи, будучи тяжко угнетаемы сирийскими царями, отправили посольство в Рим, чтобы испросить помощь у римлян и вступить с ними в „союз дружбы и соглашения“. 1 Маккавейская 8; Prideaux, II, 234; Josephus’s Antiquities, book 12, chapter 10, section 6. Римляне вняли просьбе иудеев и даровали им постановление, изложенное в следующих словах:—»
“‘The decree of the senate concerning a league of assistance and friendship with the nation of the Jews. It shall not be lawful for any that are subject to the Romans, to make war with the nation of the Jews, nor to assist those that do so, either by sending them corn, or ships, or money; and if any attack be made upon the Jews, the Romans shall assist them as far as they are able; and again, if any attack be made upon the Romans, the Jews shall assist them. And if the Jews have a mind to add to, or to take from, this league of assistance, that shall be done with the common consent of the Romans. And whatever addition shall thus be made, it shall be of force.’ ‘This decree,’ says Josephus, ‘was written by Eupolemus, the son of John, and by Jason, the son of Eleazer, when Judas was high priest of the nation, and Simon, his brother, was general of the army. And this was the first league that the Romans made with the Jews, and was managed after this manner.’” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 271.
“‘Az zûmanga senatê ya Romayan li ser peymana alîkarî û dostaniyê bi neteweya Cihûyan re. Ji bo kesên ku bin desthilatdariya Romayan de ne, ne qanûnî ye ku bi neteweya Cihûyan re şer bikin, ne jî wan ku wisa dikin alîkarî bikin, ne bi şandina genim, ne keştiyan, ne jî pereyan; û heke êrîşek li ser Cihûyan were kirin, Romayî dê, heta ku karibin, alîkariya wan bikin; û herwiha, heke êrîşek li ser Romayan were kirin, Cihû dê alîkariya wan bikin. Û heke Cihû bixwazin li ser vê peymana alîkariyê tiştek zêde bikin an jê tiştek kêm bikin, ew ê bi razîbûna hevbeş a Romayan were kirin. Û her zêdekirinek ku bi vî awayî were kirin, dê xwedî hêz be.’ ‘Ev ferman,’ Josephus dibêje, ‘ji aliyê Eupolemus, kurê Yohanna, û Jason, kurê Eleazer, hate nivîsandin, dema ku Judas serok-kahînê neteweyê bû û birayê wî Simon fermandarê artêşê bû. Û ev yekem peyman bû ku Romayan bi Cihûyan re çêkir, û bi vî awayî hate birêvebirin.’” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 271.
It is not my burden to explain why Smith cited 162 BC, other than my assumption it was a typo. My point is in referencing the emphasis he places upon what he identifies as “a manifest rule of interpretation that we may look for nations to be noticed in prophecy when they become so far connected with the people of God that mention of them becomes necessary to make the records of sacred history complete.” When Smith emphasizes that rule, he identifies that Rome became connected with the people of God at the “league,” of verse twenty-three in 161 BC, but Smith identifies that Rome is first introduced into the prophetic narrative in 200 BC, thirty-nine years before 161 BC.
Me nohia iau ke wehewehe i ke kumu i kuhikuhi ai ʻo Smith i ka 162 BC, koe wale nō koʻu manaʻo he hewa paʻi ia. ʻO koʻu manaʻo nui, aia nō ia i ka kuhikuhi ʻana i ka koʻikoʻi āna i kau ai ma luna o ka mea āna i kapa ai he “rula ʻike maka o ka wehewehe ʻana, e hiki ai iā kākou ke manaʻo e ʻike ʻia nā lāhui i loko o ka wānana i ka wā e pili loa ai lākou i ka poʻe o ke Akua a lilo ka ʻōlelo ʻana no lākou i mea e pono ai i mea e hoʻopihapiha pono ʻia ai nā moʻolelo o ka mōʻaukala hemolele.” I ka wā a Smith e hoʻoikaika ai i ia rula, hōʻike ʻo ia ua pili ʻo Roma me ka poʻe o ke Akua ma ka “kuʻikahi,” o ka paukū iwakāluakumamākolu i ka 161 BC, akā hōʻike pū ʻo Smith ua hoʻokomo mua ʻia ʻo Roma i loko o ka moʻolelo wānana ma ka 200 BC, he kanakolukūmāiwa makahiki ma mua o ka 161 BC.
“A new power is now introduced,—‘the robbers of thy people;’ literally, says Bishop Newton, ‘the breakers of thy people.’ Far away on the banks of the Tiber, a kingdom had been nourishing itself with ambitious projects and dark designs. Small and weak at first, it grew with marvelous rapidity in strength and vigor, reaching out cautiously here and there to try its prowess, and test the vigor of its warlike arm, till, conscious of its power, it boldly reared its head among the nations of the earth, and seized with invincible hand the helm of their affairs. Henceforth the name of Rome stands upon the historic page, destined for long ages to control the affairs of the world, and exert a mighty influence among the nations even to the end of time.
اوس یو نوی ځواک راپېژندل کېږي—«ستاسو د خلکو لوټماران»؛ بشپ نیوټن په لفظي ډول وایي: «ستاسو د خلکو ماتوونکي.» د ټایبر پر غاړو، په ډېر لرې ځای کې، یوه پاچاهي له جاهطلبو پروژو او تورو نقشو څخه ځان ته روزنه ورکوله. په پیل کې کوچنۍ او کمزورې وه، خو په ځواک او توان کې په حیرانوونکې چټکتیا وده وکړه، او دلته او هلته یې په احتیاط سره لاس غځاوه، څو خپله وړتیا وازمويي او د خپلې جګړهمارې مټې زور وازمېیي، تر دې چې، کله یې چې په خپل ځواک ځان خبر وموند، په زړورتیا یې د ځمکې د ملتونو په منځ کې سر راپورته کړ، او د هغوی د چارو واګې یې په نه ماتېدونکي لاس ونیولې. له دې وروسته د روم نوم د تاریخ پر مخ راڅرګندېږي، داسې برخلیک ورپه برخه چې د اوږدو پېړیو لپاره به د نړۍ چارې اداره کوي، او آن د زمانې تر پایه به د ملتونو په منځ کې ستر اغېز ښندي.
“Rome spoke; and Syria and Macedonia soon found a change coming over the aspect of their dream. The Romans interfered in behalf of the young king of Egypt, determined that he should be protected from the ruin devised by Antiochus and Philip. This was BC 200, and was one of the first important interferences of the Romans in the affairs of Syria and Egypt.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 256.
«Мисрнин йәш батшаһы яҡланып ҡалырға тейеш, тигән ҡәтғи ҡарар менән римлеләр Антиох менән Филипп уйлап сығарған һәләкәттән уны аралап, эшкә ҡыҫылды. Рим һүҙен әйтте; һәм оҙаҡ та үтмәй, Сүриә менән Македония үҙҙәренең хыялдары йөҙөндәге үҙгәреште күрҙе. Был б. э. т. 200 йыл ине, һәм был римлеләрҙең Сүриә менән Мисыр эштәренә тәүге мөһим ҡыҫылыштарының береһе булды». Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 256.
Rome is first introduced into the prophetic narrative in the year 200 BC, and that introduction in verse fourteen, is the most significant reference of Rome in all of Daniel, for it is the very verse that defines Rome as the symbol that establishes the vision. Why Smith could emphasize such a rule of prophecy, then cite 161 BC, while also identifying the year 200 BC, as the point where the power of Rome was “introduced,” is not a problem I wish to resolve. If I have a question that needs to be resolved, it would be whether the rule as defined by Smith is valid or not. If it is valid, then I would argue that verse fourteen, must have a connection with the Jews, that occurred before the league of 161 BC.
Roma bir ilk kez MÖ 200 yılında peygamberlik anlatısına dâhil edilir ve on dördüncü ayetteki bu takdim, Daniel kitabının tamamında Roma’ya ilişkin en önemli atıftır; zira görümü tesis eden simge olarak Roma’yı tanımlayan ayet bizzat budur. Smith’in peygamberlikte böyle bir kuralı vurguladıktan sonra MÖ 161 yılını zikretmesi ve aynı zamanda MÖ 200 yılını Roma gücünün “takdim edildiği” nokta olarak tanımlaması meselesi, çözmeyi arzu ettiğim bir sorun değildir. Eğer çözülmesi gereken bir sorum varsa, o da Smith tarafından tanımlanan bu kuralın geçerli olup olmadığıdır. Eğer geçerliyse, o takdirde on dördüncü ayetin, MÖ 161 yılındaki ittifaktan önce vuku bulan, Yahudilerle ilgili bir bağlantısının bulunması gerektiğini ileri sürerim.
I understand that the history of verses thirteen to fifteen, are identifying a history in the last days when papal Rome intrudes herself into prophetic history, and she does so in connection with the United States, who are God’s people in that history. Because Jesus always illustrates the end with the beginning, the year 200 BC, when pagan Rome came into history, must have a connection with people of God in that history. Therefore, I agree with Smith’s rule, even if he found no direct connection between Rome and the Jews in the year 200 BC.
J’ai compris que l’histoire des versets treize à quinze identifie une histoire des derniers jours où la Rome papale s’introduit elle-même dans l’histoire prophétique, et qu’elle le fait en relation avec les États-Unis, qui sont le peuple de Dieu dans cette histoire. Parce que Jésus illustre toujours la fin par le commencement, l’année 200 av. J.-C., lorsque la Rome païenne entra dans l’histoire, doit avoir un lien avec le peuple de Dieu dans cette histoire-là. Par conséquent, je suis d’accord avec la règle de Smith, même s’il n’a trouvé aucun lien direct entre Rome et les Juifs en l’an 200 av. J.-C.
Verses eleven and twelve, identify the victory and aftermath of the Battle of Raphia, which occurred in 217 BC, between the Seleucid Empire, led by Antiochus III Magnus, or “The Great”, and the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt, led by King Ptolemy IV Philopator. This battle occurred during the struggle for control over Coele-Syria (southern Syria) and southern Palestine, territories contested between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms. Ptolemy IV Philopator’s victory at Raphia allowed him to maintain control over Coele-Syria and southern Palestine for a time.
वर्सेग्यारह और बारह राफिया की लड़ाई की विजय और उसके परिणाम को चिह्नित करते हैं, जो 217 BC में सेल्यूसिड साम्राज्य—जिसका नेतृत्व Antiochus III Magnus, अथवा “The Great”, कर रहा था—और मिस्र के टॉलेमिक राज्य—जिसका नेतृत्व राजा Ptolemy IV Philopator कर रहा था—के बीच हुई थी। यह युद्ध कोएले-सीरिया (दक्षिणी सीरिया) और दक्षिणी पलिश्तीन पर अधिकार के संघर्ष के दौरान हुआ था, जो टॉलेमिक और सेल्यूसिड राज्यों के बीच विवादित प्रदेश थे। राफिया में Ptolemy IV Philopator की विजय ने उसे कुछ समय तक कोएले-सीरिया और दक्षिणी पलिश्तीन पर अपना नियंत्रण बनाए रखने की अनुमति दी।
The Battle of Panium, which occurred seventeen years later in 200 BC, also known as the Battle of Mount Panium or the Battle of Paneas, was between the Seleucid Empire, led by King Antiochus III, and the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt, led by King Ptolemy V.
Panium Savaşı, on yedi yıl sonra, MÖ 200 yılında meydana gelmiş olup, Panium Dağı Savaşı veya Paneas Savaşı olarak da bilinir; Kral III. Antiochus’un önderliğindeki Seleukos İmparatorluğu ile Kral V. Ptolemaios’un önderliğindeki Mısır’daki Ptolemaios Krallığı arasında gerçekleşmiştir.
Thirty-one years later, in 167 BC, the Maccabean Revolt, a Jewish rebellion against the Seleucid Empire’s attempts to suppress Jewish religious practices and impose Hellenistic culture, began in the town of Modein, a small town located in the region of Judea, in what is now modern-day Israel.
៣១ ឆ្នាំក្រោយមក គឺនៅឆ្នាំ ១៦៧ មុនគ.ស. ការបះបោរម៉ាកាបេ ដែលជាការបះបោររបស់ជនជាតិយូដាប្រឆាំងនឹងការប៉ុនប៉ងរបស់អាណាចក្រសេលេអ៊ុយស៊ីដក្នុងការបង្ក្រាបការអនុវត្តសាសនារបស់ជនជាតិយូដា និងបង្ខំឲ្យទទួលយកវប្បធម៌ហេលេននិយម បានចាប់ផ្តើមឡើងនៅទីក្រុងម៉ូឌេអ៊ីន ជាទីក្រុងតូចមួយស្ថិតនៅក្នុងតំបន់យូដា ដែលសព្វថ្ងៃស្ថិតនៅក្នុងប្រទេសអ៊ីស្រាអែលទំនើប។
The event in question involved the infamous Greek Seleucid ruler, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who had imposed strict Hellenistic practices on the Jewish population, including the prohibition of Jewish religious observances and the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem. In an effort to enforce his decrees, Antiochus sent representatives to various towns and villages to compel the Jewish inhabitants to comply with his orders.
Le fait en question concernait l’infâme souverain grec séleucide, Antiochos IV Épiphane, qui avait imposé à la population juive de strictes pratiques hellénistiques, notamment l’interdiction des observances religieuses juives et la profanation du Temple à Jérusalem. Dans le but de faire appliquer ses décrets, Antiochos envoya des représentants dans diverses villes et divers villages afin de contraindre les habitants juifs à se conformer à ses ordres.
In Modein, one of the Seleucid officials arrived to enforce the king’s decree by commanding the Jewish inhabitants to participate in pagan rituals and make offerings to Greek gods. An elderly Jewish priest named Mattathias refused to comply with the order and killed both a Jew who stepped forward to offer the sacrifice and the Seleucid official. This act of defiance by Mattathias and his family marked the beginning of the Maccabean Revolt against Seleucid rule.
In Modein, alikuwapo mmoja wa maafisa wa Seleukia ili kutekeleza amri ya mfalme kwa kuwaamuru wakaaji Wayahudi washiriki katika ibada za kipagani na kutoa dhabihu kwa miungu ya Kigiriki. Kuhani mmoja Myahudi mzee, aitwaye Mattathias, alikataa kutii amri hiyo, akamuua Myahudi aliyesonga mbele kutoa dhabihu hiyo pamoja na afisa wa Seleukia. Tendo hilo la ukaidi la Mattathias na familia yake lilitia alama mwanzo wa Uasi wa Wamakabayo dhidi ya utawala wa Seleukia.
Mattathias and his five sons, including Judas Maccabee, fled to the hills and began a guerrilla war against the Seleucid forces. The revolt eventually grew in strength and support, leading to a series of military victories against the Seleucids.
မတ်တသိယနှင့် ယုဒ မက္ကဘေ အပါအဝင် သူ၏သားငါးယောက်တို့သည် တောင်ကုန်းဒေသများသို့ ထွက်ပြေးကာ ဆဲလျူစစ်တပ်များကို ဆန့်ကျင်သော ဂျရီလာစစ်ပွဲကို စတင်ခဲ့ကြသည်။ ထိုပုန်ကန်ရေးသည် နောက်ဆုံးတွင် အင်အားနှင့် ထောက်ခံမှုတိုးပွားလာကာ၊ ဆဲလျူစစ်တို့ကို ဆန့်ကျင်သော စစ်ရေးအောင်ပွဲများ အစဉ်လိုက် ပေါ်ပေါက်စေခဲ့သည်။
The events at Modein in 167 BC, were a pivotal moment in Jewish history, marking the beginning of the Maccabean Revolt and the struggle for religious freedom and independence against foreign rule. The rededication of the second temple in Jerusalem, which marks the historical event celebrated during Hanukkah, occurred in 164 BC, three years before the “league” of verse twenty-three.
Οι γεγονότα στη Μωδεΐν το 167 π.Χ. υπήρξαν καίρια στιγμή στην εβραϊκή ιστορία, σηματοδοτώντας την έναρξη της Εξέγερσης των Μακκαβαίων και του αγώνα για θρησκευτική ελευθερία και ανεξαρτησία απέναντι σε ξένη κυριαρχία. Ο επανεγκαινιασμός του δευτέρου ναού στην Ιερουσαλήμ, ο οποίος σηματοδοτεί το ιστορικό γεγονός που εορτάζεται κατά τη Χανουκά, έλαβε χώρα το 164 π.Χ., τρία έτη πριν από τη «συμμαχία» του εδαφίου είκοσι τρία.
After reclaiming Jerusalem and the Temple, the Maccabees cleansed the Temple of the pagan defilements and restored it to its proper religious use. According to tradition, they found only a single cruse of consecrated oil, enough to light the menorah for only one day. Actually, no contemporary historical witness of that event exists, and it was not until the sixth century that the Jewish fable is found in literature. Sister White compares the apostate Jewish church with the Catholic church, especially emphasizing that both churches base the religion upon human customs and traditions. As with the many various fabricated miracles within the history of the papal Church, the fable of the one days oil lasting for eight days has no historical witness.
포ൾ ჰែលসალემ과 성전을 되찾은 뒤, 마카베오들은 이교적 더러움에서 성전을 정결하게 하고 그것을 본래의 종교적 용도로 회복시켰다. 전승에 따르면, 그들은 봉헌된 기름이 든 단 하나의 병만을 발견하였는데, 그것은 메노라에 단 하루 동안만 불을 밝힐 수 있는 분량이었다. 실제로 그 사건에 대한 동시대의 역사적 증언은 존재하지 않으며, 유대인의 그 우화가 문헌에서 발견되는 것은 6세기에 이르러서였다. 화잇 자매는 배도한 유대 교회를 가톨릭 교회와 비교하면서, 특히 두 교회가 모두 인간의 관습과 전통 위에 종교를 세운다는 점을 강조한다. 교황권 교회의 역사 안에 있는 수많은 여러 날조된 기적들과 마찬가지로, 하루치 기름이 팔 일 동안 지속되었다는 우화 역시 역사적 증언이 없다.
Verse ten, of Daniel chapter eleven, identifies the first battle of the three battles of verse forty, which I have previously identified as three battles of a cold war, as well as, three proxy wars. A sister questioned my defining the Ukrainian War, which is the second of these three wars as cold wars, for as she correctly pointed out there has been abundant death and destruction. What I have been defining in previous articles as the three battles of the “cold war”, was defined in those terms to draw a distinction between these three battles and the three World Wars that occur during the history of the earth beast of Revelation thirteen. These three wars are proxy wars and have also been defined that way.
Le verset dix du chapitre onze de Daniel identifie la première bataille des trois batailles du verset quarante, que j’ai précédemment identifiées comme trois batailles d’une guerre froide, ainsi que comme trois guerres par procuration. Une sœur a mis en question le fait que je qualifie de guerres froides la guerre d’Ukraine, qui est la deuxième de ces trois guerres, car, comme elle l’a correctement fait remarquer, il y a eu une abondance de mort et de destruction. Ce que j’ai désigné, dans des articles antérieurs, comme les trois batailles de la « guerre froide », l’a été en ces termes afin d’établir une distinction entre ces trois batailles et les trois guerres mondiales qui ont lieu au cours de l’histoire de la bête de la terre d’Apocalypse treize. Ces trois guerres sont des guerres par procuration et ont également été définies ainsi.
I intend to identify those three battles as “the three battles of verse forty” or proxy wars, from this point onward in these articles, to remove the discrepancy of identifying a hot war as a cold war. By my definition, the three battles of verse forty, do not include the battle of 1798, which is part of verse forty, but only the three battles from the time of the end in 1989 unto the Sunday law of verse forty-one. The three battles are more correctly identified as proxy wars, that are accomplished within the context of the warfare between the king of the north and the king of the south, which in the history of verse forty, represent the warfare between Catholicism (the king of the north) and Communism (the king of the south).
Ik ben voornemens die drie veldslagen voortaan in deze artikelen aan te duiden als „de drie veldslagen van vers veertig” of als proxy-oorlogen, teneinde de tegenstrijdigheid weg te nemen dat een hete oorlog als een koude oorlog wordt aangeduid. Volgens mijn definitie omvatten de drie veldslagen van vers veertig niet de veldslag van 1798, die wel deel uitmaakt van vers veertig, maar uitsluitend de drie veldslagen vanaf de tijd van het einde in 1989 tot aan de zondagwet van vers eenenveertig. Deze drie veldslagen worden juister aangeduid als proxy-oorlogen, die plaatsvinden binnen de context van de oorlogvoering tussen de koning van het noorden en de koning van het zuiden, welke in de geschiedenis van vers veertig de oorlogvoering vertegenwoordigen tussen het katholicisme (de koning van het noorden) en het communisme (de koning van het zuiden).
The first of those three battles identifies the victory of Catholicism over Communism in 1989, as the papacy joined with its proxy army, represented by the United States, in sweeping away the Soviet Union in 1989, though Russia, the head (or “fortress”), was left standing. The current Ukrainian War is once again a battle between Catholicism and Communism, with the papacy employing the Ukrainian government as its proxy against Russia, along with the support of the papacy’s previous proxy power, the United States, including the rest of the globalist western world. That war is represented in verses eleven and twelve, and identifies that Communism (Russia), will prevail over Catholicism.
De eerste van die drie veldslagen duidt de overwinning van het katholicisme op het communisme in 1989 aan, toen het pausdom zich verbond met zijn gevolmachtigd leger, vertegenwoordigd door de Verenigde Staten, om in 1989 de Sovjet-Unie weg te vagen, hoewel Rusland, het hoofd (of de „vesting”), bleef staan. De huidige Oekraïense oorlog is opnieuw een strijd tussen het katholicisme en het communisme, waarbij het pausdom de Oekraïense regering als zijn gevolmachtigde tegen Rusland inzet, samen met de steun van de eerdere gevolmachtigde macht van het pausdom, de Verenigde Staten, met inbegrip van de rest van de globalistische westerse wereld. Die oorlog wordt voorgesteld in de verzen elf en twaalf en geeft aan dat het communisme (Rusland) de overhand zal krijgen op het katholicisme.
The third of those three proxy battles is represented in verse fifteen, as the Battle of Panium. The battle was between the Ptolemaic kingdom (the king of the south) and the Seleucid kingdom (the king of the north). In that battle the proxy army of Catholicism is once again the United States.
Ná nke atọ n’ime agha nnọchi anya atọ ahụ ka e gosiri n’amaokwu nke iri na ise, dị ka Agha Panium. Agha ahụ dị n’etiti alaeze Ptolemaic (eze nke ndịda) na alaeze Seleucid (eze nke ugwu). N’agha ahụ, ndị agha nnọchi anya nke Katọlik bụkwa ọzọ United States.
In the first battle in 1989, the proxy army of the Republican horn of the United States was employed by the papacy to bring down the political structure of the Soviet Union, while leaving intact, its head (Russia). In the second battle, which is the Ukrainian war, the proxy army of the Nazi’s is defeated by Russia. In the third battle the United States, the proxy army of the papacy again defeats the king of the south.
Qorsadii ugu horraysay ee sannadkii 1989, ciidankii wakiilka ahaa ee geeska Jamhuuriga ah ee Maraykanka waxaa adeegsaday papacy-gu si loo dumiyo qaab-dhismeedkii siyaasadeed ee Midowgii Soofiyeeti, iyadoo madaxiisa (Ruushka) laga tegay isagoo weli taagan. Qorsada labaad, oo ah dagaalka Yukrayn, ciidankii wakiilka ahaa ee Naasiyiinta waxaa ka adkaada Ruushka. Qorsada saddexaad, Maraykanka, oo haddana ah ciidankii wakiilka ahaa ee papacy-ga, ayaa mar kale ka adkaada boqorka koonfureed.
The three battles bear the signature of “Truth”, with the first and last battles being carried out by the victorious proxy army of the United States. In the first battle the head of the king of the south was left intact, and in the third battle the proxy army of the United States, becomes the head of the king of the south. The second proxy army was also the proxy army of the papacy in the Second World War. In both instances the proxy army of Nazism was and will be defeated. The papacy fully subdues all her enemies before verse sixteen, when the threefold union is accomplished.
Yudh sa a baak ne “Thuhrilna” hmingchhinna an keng a, yudh hmasa leh yudh hnuhnung ber chu United States-a hnehna chang tawh proxy sipai pawlten an kalpui a ni. Yudh hmasaah chhim lama lal ber hriatna chu tihchheh lohin dah a ni a, yudh pathumnaah chuan United States-a proxy sipai pawl chu chhim lama lal ber hriatna a lo ni ta. Proxy sipai pahnihna chu World War Pahnihna hunah papacy-a proxy sipai pawh a ni bawk. A pahnih hian Nazism-a proxy sipai pawl chu hnehsak an ni a, hnehsak an la ni ang bawk. Papacy chuan a hmêlma zawng zawng chu verse sixteen hma lawka a tuk kim vek a, chutah chuan inṭawmna pathum-pum chu tihhlawhtlin a ni.
“Ptolemy [Putin] lacked the prudence to make a good use of his victory. Had he followed up his success, he would probably have become master of the whole kingdom of Antiochus; but content with making only a few menaces and a few threats, he made peace that he might be able to give himself up to the uninterrupted and uncontrolled indulgence of his brutish passions. Thus, having conquered his enemies, he was overcome by his vices, and, forgetful of the great name which he might have established, he spent his time in feasting and lewdness.
“Ptolemäus [Putin] fehlte die Klugheit, aus seinem Sieg rechten Nutzen zu ziehen. Hätte er seinen Erfolg weiterverfolgt, so wäre er wahrscheinlich Herr des ganzen Reiches des Antiochus geworden; doch damit zufrieden, nur einige Drohungen und einige Einschüchterungen auszusprechen, schloss er Frieden, um sich der ununterbrochenen und ungehemmten Befriedigung seiner viehischen Leidenschaften hingeben zu können. So wurde er, nachdem er seine Feinde besiegt hatte, von seinen Lastern überwunden, und indem er den großen Namen vergaß, den er sich hätte erwerben können, verbrachte er seine Zeit in Schmauserei und Ausschweifung.
“His heart was lifted up by his success, but he was far from being strengthened by it; for the inglorious use he made of it caused his own subjects to rebel against him.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 254.
« Son cœur s’éleva à cause de son succès, mais loin d’en être fortifié ; car l’usage ignominieux qu’il en fit poussa ses propres sujets à se rebeller contre lui. » Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 254.
A second witness that the victory of Putin marks his end, is with the southern kingdom of Judah’s king Uzziah, whose heart was also lifted up by his military victories, and thereafter, as with Ptolemy, sought to perform the work of the priests in the sanctuary, and was struck with leprosy and immediately removed from power. Putin’s victory in the Ukrainian war marks the beginning of his end as the king of the south (the king of atheism). His end was typified with the beginning of verse forty’s prophetic king of the south (France), which identified a revolution that overthrew the leadership, as happened with Ptolemy. Putin’s end was also represented with the end of the Soviet Union, where the leader (Gorbachev), dissolved the Soviet Union, and immediately took a job with the United Nations, the last-day globalist symbol of atheism, the king of the south. After Putin’s victory in the Ukraine, he is also typified by Napoleon at Waterloo, and the exile that followed; and also, king Uzziah, with his leprosy, and the exile that followed, as well as Ptolemy’s drunken end and the end of the Soviet Union in 1989.
Un second témoin attestant que la victoire de Poutine marque sa fin se trouve dans le roi Ozias du royaume méridional de Juda, dont le cœur s’éleva également à cause de ses victoires militaires et qui, par la suite, comme Ptolémée, chercha à accomplir l’œuvre des prêtres dans le sanctuaire, et fut frappé de lèpre puis immédiatement écarté du pouvoir. La victoire de Poutine dans la guerre d’Ukraine marque le commencement de sa fin en tant que roi du sud (le roi de l’athéisme). Sa fin a été typifiée par le commencement du roi du sud prophétique du verset quarante (la France), lequel identifiait une révolution qui renversa la direction, comme cela arriva avec Ptolémée. La fin de Poutine fut aussi représentée par la fin de l’Union soviétique, où le dirigeant (Gorbatchev) dissout l’Union soviétique, puis accepta immédiatement un poste auprès des Nations Unies, symbole mondialiste de l’athéisme des derniers jours, le roi du sud. Après la victoire de Poutine en Ukraine, il est aussi typifié par Napoléon à Waterloo, et l’exil qui s’ensuivit ; et aussi par le roi Ozias, avec sa lèpre, et l’exil qui s’ensuivit, ainsi que par la fin d’ivrognerie de Ptolémée et la fin de l’Union soviétique en 1989.
The Battle of Panium occurred in 200 BC, and in that very year Rome openly intercedes into history. Their insertion into the prophetic narrative precedes the conquering of Jerusalem represented in verse sixteen, and fulfilled in 63 BC. at the time she proclaimed that she was the defender of the child king in Egypt. In the third battle of verse forty, involving the kings of the north and south, the papacy will insert itself into history again, pretending to be the protector of Russia. At that same time Seleucus, in the type, defeated Ptolemy in the battle of Panium, thus identifying that the United States, the proxy army of the papacy in the first and last battles of verse forty, defeats “Egypt” (the king of the south).
Morago wa Panium o diregile ka ngwaga wa 200 BC, gomme ka wona ngwaga woo Roma ya tsena pepeneneng historing. Go tsenela ga yona mo kanegelong ya boporofeta go etelela pele go fenngwa ga Jerusalema mo go emelwago ke temana ya lesometshela, gomme gwa phethagatšwa ka 63 BC, nakong yeo e ilego ya bolela gore yona ke mosireletši wa ngwana-kgoši kua Egipita. Ntweng ya boraro ya temana ya masomenne, yeo e akaretšago dikgoši tša leboa le borwa, bopapa bo tla tsenela histori gape, bo ikgakantšha eka ke mosireletši wa Russia. Ka yona nako yeo Seleucus, mo seswantšhong, o fentše Ptolemy ntweng ya Panium, ka go rialo a hlaola gore United States, e lego madira a moemedi a bopapa dintweng tša mathomo le tša mafelelo tša temana ya masomenne, e fenya “Egipita” (kgoši ya borwa).
In the year 200 BC, we symbolically find the papacy, as the whore of Tyre begins to sing her songs of fornication in advance of the threefold union at the Sunday law of verse sixteen. At the same time the United States prevails over the United Nations, thus securing its position as the premier king of the ten kings. All the dynamics of the threefold union that are accomplished at the Sunday law, are settled before verse sixteen.
در سال ۲۰۰ پیش از میلاد، ما بهگونهای نمادین پاپیّت را مییابیم، آنگاه که فاحشهٔ صور آغاز میکند که پیشاپیشِ اتحاد سهگانه در قانون یکشنبهٔ آیهٔ شانزدهم، نغمههای زنای خویش را بسراید. در همان زمان، ایالات متحده بر سازمان ملل متحد چیره میشود و بدینسان جایگاه خود را بهعنوان برجستهترین پادشاه از میان ده پادشاه استوار میسازد. تمامی پویاییهای اتحاد سهگانه که در قانون یکشنبه به انجام میرسند، پیش از آیهٔ شانزدهم تعیین و تثبیت شدهاند.
The dragon power’s political structure, as represented by the United Nations, agrees, in verse sixteen, to give its political structure to the beast, but before it does so the papacy conquers the religion of the dragon. Paganism must once again, be taken away. Protestantism was removed in the Reagan years, in the first battle of verse forty, and in the time of the last Republican president the religion of the dragon will also be placed into subjection to the religion of Catholicism, as it was in the year 508. The process of removing any religious resistance to the papacy being placed upon the throne began in the Reagan years, and it ends in the Trump years. The resistance of apostate Protestantism against Catholicism was removed in the first battle of verse forty, and the resistance of spiritualism will be removed in the last battle of verse forty.
Ŋusẽ-ŋusẽ ƒe hamekɔkɔ si dzesi le Ʋuwo ƒe ƒoƒoƒe Dzeasi me la, le kpukpui wuiade lia me, ɖo ɖe edzi be yeatsɔ eƒe dukɔwo ƒe dɔwɔwɔ ƒe ɖoɖo na la xexlẽme, gake hafi wòawɔe la, papasiatsɔ ɖo gu le ŋusẽ-ŋusẽ la ƒe subɔsubɔ dzi. Ele be wowo avu trɔ subɔsubɔ si tso trɔ̃trɔ̃awo me la ɖa ake. Woɖe Protestantism ɖa le Reagan ƒe ƒeawo me, le kpukpui blaeneawo ƒe aʋawɔwɔ gbãtɔ me, eye le Republican prezident mamlɛtɔ la ƒe gaƒoƒo me la, woaɖo ŋusẽ-ŋusẽ la ƒe subɔsubɔ hã ɖe teƒe na Katoliko subɔsubɔ, abe alesi wòle le 508 ƒe sia me ene. Dɔwɔwɔ si me wowole subɔsubɔ ƒe tsitretsitsi ɖesiaɖe ɖem ɖa tso papasiatsɔ si wole atsɔ ge adza fiazikpui dzi la ŋu, dze egɔme le Reagan ƒe ƒeawo me, eye wòawu le Trump ƒe ƒeawo me. Woɖe apostate Protestantism ƒe tsitretsitsi si etsɔ ɖo Katolikosubɔsubɔ ŋu la ɖa le kpukpui blaeneawo ƒe aʋawɔwɔ gbãtɔ me, eye woaɖe spiritualism ƒe tsitretsitsi la ɖa le kpukpui blaeneawo ƒe aʋawɔwɔ mamlɛtɔ me.
In the same complicated interplay of human events, apostate Protestantism must establish itself as the religious and political authority over the ten kings of Revelation chapter seventeen. Thus, the Battle of Panium is identifying when the United States prevails over the United Nations, just before the Sunday law of verse sixteen.
Dans la même interaction complexe des événements humains, le protestantisme apostat doit s’établir comme l’autorité religieuse et politique sur les dix rois d’Apocalypse chapitre dix-sept. Ainsi, la bataille de Panium identifie le moment où les États-Unis prévalent sur les Nations Unies, juste avant la loi du dimanche du verset seize.
It is an established rule of prophecy that the dragon, the beast and the false prophet each have their own peculiar prophetic characteristics. One of those prophetic characteristics is that the beast (Catholicism), is always prophetically located in the city of Rome. The False Prophet is always prophetically located in the United States. But with the dragon, the characteristic of where the dragon is prophetically located is that it always moves. The dragon began in heaven, then came to the Garden of Eden, and eventually the dragon is located in Egypt.
Es una regla establecida de la profecía que el dragón, la bestia y el falso profeta poseen cada uno sus propias características proféticas distintivas. Una de esas características proféticas es que la bestia (el catolicismo) siempre se halla situada proféticamente en la ciudad de Roma. El falso profeta siempre se halla situado proféticamente en los Estados Unidos. Pero con el dragón, la característica relativa al lugar donde se halla proféticamente es que siempre se desplaza. El dragón comenzó en el cielo, luego vino al Huerto del Edén y, finalmente, el dragón se halla situado en Egipto.
Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself. Ezekiel 29:3.
Parle, et dis: Ainsi parle le Seigneur, l’Éternel: Voici, j’en veux à toi, Pharaon, roi d’Égypte, grand dragon couché au milieu de ses fleuves, toi qui dis: Mon fleuve est à moi, c’est moi qui me le suis fait. Ézéchiel 29:3.
The prophetic location of the dragon moves. In the time of John, the seat of the dragon, which represents its throne, was identified as being in Pergamos.
Poo no tebea dofuu te dragoon mo shifted. E time blo John, te seat blo te dragoon, wea representem hem throne blo hem, olketa bin identify hem se hem stap long Pergamos.
And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; I know thy works and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. Revelation 2:12, 13.
Seerraa waldaa kiristaanaa Pergamoonitti jirtuutti akkana jedhi; Kana kan jedhu isa goraadee qaraa lama qabu sana dha; Ani hojii kee nan beeka, akkasumas iddoo ati keessa jiraattu, jechuunis bakka teessoon Seexanaa jiru sanatti: ati maqaa koo jabeessitee qabatteerta, amantii koos hin ganuu turte, guyyoota Antipaas, shahiidaa koo amanamaa sana, isin gidduutti, bakka Seexanni keessa jiraatutti ajjeefame sana illee keessatti. Mul’ata Yohaannis 2:12, 13.
The practice of pagan Rome was to bring all the pagan deities they became associated with back to the city of Rome, and represent them in the Pantheon Temple. This is why Daniel records that the “place of his sanctuary was cast down.” The place of pagan Rome’s sanctuary was the city of Rome, which was cast down by Constantine in the year 330, but the sanctuary that was “in” Rome was the Pantheon Temple, Pan-Theon meaning, “the temple of all the gods”. The Romans moved the location of Satan’s seat to the Pantheon Temple from Pergamos. Sister White informs us that pagan Rome is the dragon.
La pratique de la Rome païenne consistait à ramener dans la ville de Rome toutes les divinités païennes auxquelles elle venait à être associée, et à les représenter dans le Temple du Panthéon. C’est pourquoi Daniel rapporte que « le lieu de son sanctuaire fut renversé ». Le lieu du sanctuaire de la Rome païenne était la ville de Rome, qui fut renversée par Constantin en l’an 330, mais le sanctuaire qui était « dans » Rome était le Temple du Panthéon, Pan-Theon signifiant « le temple de tous les dieux ». Les Romains déplacèrent le siège de Satan de Pergame au Temple du Panthéon. Sœur White nous informe que la Rome païenne est le dragon.
“Thus while the dragon, primarily, represents Satan, it is, in a secondary sense, a symbol of pagan Rome.” The Great Controversy, 439.
« Ainsi, tandis que le dragon représente, au premier chef, Satan, il est aussi, en un sens secondaire, un symbole de la Rome païenne. » The Great Controversy, 439.
Pagan Rome divided into ten nations, and France became the king of the south when it introduced the atheism of Egypt during the French Revolution. By 1917, the dragon had moved from France to Russia. Verse ten represents 1989, and verses eleven and twelve, represent the battles of “the borderline” (Raphia and Ukraine), and the battle of Panium represents the third step the papacy accomplishes as she secures the threefold union in verse sixteen. It represents the hidden history of verse forty.
रोमी मूर्तिपूजक साम्राज्य दस राष्ट्रों में विभाजित हो गया, और फ्रांसीसी क्रांति के समय जब फ्रांस ने मिस्र के नास्तिकता-भाव को प्रस्तुत किया, तब वह दक्षिण का राजा बन गया। 1917 तक अजगर फ्रांस से रूस में चला गया था। पद दस 1989 का प्रतिनिधित्व करता है, और पद ग्यारह तथा बारह “सीमारेखा” की लड़ाइयों (राफ़िया और यूक्रेन) का प्रतिनिधित्व करते हैं, और पानियम की लड़ाई उस तीसरे चरण का प्रतिनिधित्व करती है जिसे पोपतंत्र पद सोलह में त्रिगुणी संघ को सुरक्षित करते हुए पूरा करता है। यह पद चालीस के गुप्त इतिहास का प्रतिनिधित्व करता है।
We will continue this study in the next article.
Nous poursuivrons cette étude dans le prochain article.
When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi [Panium], he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Matthew 16:13–21.
Yesu alipofika katika maeneo ya Kaisaria Filipi [Panium], akawauliza wanafunzi wake, akisema, Watu hunena mimi Mwana wa Adamu kuwa ni nani? Wakasema, Wengine husema ya kwamba wewe ndiwe Yohana Mbatizaji; wengine, Eliya; na wengineo, Yeremia, au mmoja wa manabii. Akawaambia, Lakini ninyi mwasema mimi ni nani? Simoni Petro akajibu, akasema, Wewe ndiwe Kristo, Mwana wa Mungu aliye hai. Yesu akajibu, akamwambia, Heri wewe, Simoni Bar-yona; kwa kuwa mwili na damu havikukufunulia hili, bali Baba yangu aliye mbinguni. Nami nakuambia pia, ya kwamba wewe ndiwe Petro, na juu ya mwamba huu nitalijenga kanisa langu; wala malango ya kuzimu hayatashinda dhidi yake. Nami nitakupa funguo za ufalme wa mbinguni; na lo lote utakalolifunga duniani litafungwa mbinguni; na lo lote utakalolifungua duniani litafunguliwa mbinguni. Ndipo akawaagiza wanafunzi wake wasimwambie mtu yeyote ya kwamba yeye ndiye Yesu Kristo. Tangu wakati huo Yesu akaanza kuwaonyesha wanafunzi wake jinsi impasavyo yeye kwenda Yerusalemu, na kuteswa mambo mengi na wazee na wakuu wa makuhani na waandishi, na kuuawa, na kufufuliwa siku ya tatu. Mathayo 16:13–21.