Panium - Number Eighteen

We will now address some of the implications of verse twelve of Daniel eleven, and thereafter, bring the three lines of “250” years into the history of verses eleven through fifteen, that was fulfilled at the battle of Panium in 200 BC. The line of “250” years that began in 457 BC ends in 207 BC in the middle of the period that begins with the battle of Raphia and ends with the battle of Panium. The “250” years in the line of Nero ends with the three-step history of Constantine, represented by the years 313, 321 and 330. The “250” years of the United States ends on July 4, 2026.

Nero’s line represents the history of the image of the beast testing time, first in the United States, and then in the world. The line of 457 BC places Trump at a midpoint militarily between two battles. The period that extends from 1776 also marks a midpoint for Trump’s final presidency. In order to place these lines in their proper place we will first address verse twelve, and the demise of Russia and Putin. Then the three lines of “250” years, then the line of the Hasmonean Dynasty. With those lines in place, we will place Peter in alignment with Panium. When those lines are in place we should be able to recognize how the message of July 18, 2020 is to be corrected and proclaimed, and that it is the message of the book of Joel.

The history that fulfilled verse eleven at the battle of Raphia aligns with the history of king Uzziah. When Isaiah is purified and empowered to proclaim the message of the latter rain, his calling came in the year that Uzziah died.

Uzziah’s death was preceded by the rebellion he manifested that paralleled and aligned with the rebellion of Ptolemy just after the victory at the battle of Raphia. Uzziah and Ptolemy are symbols of a southern king whose heart has been lifted up, who rebel by seeking to combining their state authority with church authority. When Uzziah attempted to combine church and state, the leprosy on his forehead typified the mark of the beast.

Uzziah then represents a progressive death from the time of his rebellious attempt to combine church and state. He then represents a lame-duck co-regency with his son for eleven years. Uzziah lived for eleven years after his rebellion. The beginning of his rebellion symbolizes the Sunday law, where church and state are combined and the mark of the beast is enforced. Eleven years later he died, representing the end of his reign as king of the southern kingdom of Judah, which was the glorious land, which is the United States.

In prophetic relation to Ptolemy, Uzziah represents Judah, the glorious land and apostate Protestantism, whereas; Ptolemy represents Egypt, which is the dragon power, whose religion is spiritualism. When the two kings are considered as parallel lines, Uzziah ceases to be an illustration of the glorious land and together they become a symbol of two nations. Egypt and Judah are symbols of the religions of spiritualism and apostate Protestantism. They are a symbol of the state and the church. The statecraft and the churchcraft they represent when they are aligned as one symbol contain two nations, as was the Medes and Persians, as was France’s Egypt and Sodom, as is the United States Republican and Protestant horns, as were the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel and Judah, as well as pagan Rome and papal Rome. As a symbol of two kingdoms, they are prophetically tied together by the temple in Jerusalem where both Uzziah and Ptolemy sought to sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem. Two nations who both rebel at the same sanctuary.

It is important to notice that the rebellion of both kings was in relation to the temple at Jerusalem, which is a symbol of the temple where Daniel saw Christ in chapter ten. Both these king’s histories align at the Ukrainian War, and in so doing they begin their testimony in 2014. They both were lifted up with military victories represented by the battle of Raphia in verse eleven. Raphia marks the borderland of the sixth kingdom of Bible prophecy and the threefold union of the Sunday law. It is also the border of the transition of the church militant unto the church triumphant.

After 2014, the richest king announced his intention to run for the presidency in 2015. In 2020 the richest king, representing the Republican horn received its deadly wound that would later be healed. In 2022 the Ukrainian War escalated. Trump then returned in fulfillment of verse thirteen, in the election of 2024. In July of 2023, a voice in the wilderness was sounded. December 31, 2023 the Protestant horn was resurrected, as was the Republican horn in the election of 2024, when Trump returned and then in 2025 the foundation test ended with the arrival of the temple test.

The truths which were unsealed in 1989 was twofold. The prophetic parallels of the reform movements and the last six verses of Daniel eleven were unsealed at the same time. There are certain prophetic rules that were employed to establish the initial message of verse forty. Some of those very truths are now the key to the hidden history of the very same verse where those prophetic gems were discovered. I’ll give you an example.

In 1989, there was no unified understanding in Adventism as to what the last six verses of Daniel represented. That lack of unification was twofold. There was no consensus of the meaning of the verses. Those who professed to have understanding of the verses presented human ideas mixed the theology of apostate Protestantism and Catholicism, the birthright heritage they received from their forefathers of the rebellion of 1863, when they fulfilled the role of the disobedient prophet at Jeroboam’s foundational rebellion. Those individual ideas of what the verses were private interpretations, at best. Their ideas of the verses were either contradictory to basic prophetic application, and often contrary to the very premise they themselves identified of the verses.

What we saw in the verses was a consistent understanding of all six verses. It was the consistency of the message we saw that encouraged me to present my understanding, even when I knew all of Adventism rejected what I understood. What we understood of those verses was published first in 1996, and the understanding there set forth has only grown stronger as time has marched out over thirty years!

If you consider the very first reference in the magazine The Time of the End, you find Testimonies, volume 9, page 11. Five years before 9/11, the magazine starts with 9/11. One of those understandings that encouraged me was in understanding that at “the time of the end” in verse forty, the kings of the north and south were spiritual, not literal powers. At that time, I already knew that Sister White said that the books of Daniel and Revelation are the same book, and that the same line of prophecy that is in Daniel, is taken up by John in the Revelation. I had found that in Revelation eleven, which was fulfilled in the history surrounding the time of the end in 1798; Sister White’s commentary upon the chapter clearly teaches that France was spiritual Egypt, and she was just as clear that in Revelation seventeen, the whore upon the beast was spiritual Babylon.

Sister White’s identification of those two powers is in The Great Controversy, and those comments tie together John and Daniel’s testimony. The definition of the king of the south in Daniel chapter eleven is the power that controls Egypt, and the king of the north is the power who controls Babylon. When the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy worked in tandem to establish a truth by bringing Daniel and Revelation together to prove the point, was something I could never surrender to any misguided theologian, or misguided self-appointed leader of a self-supporting ministry.

To understand Ptolemy and Uzziah as symbols of the battle of Raphia and the fallout that occurs after their hearts are lifted up, is to be governed by the fact that Ptolemy represents the dragon power who defeats the proxy power of Rome, only to lose to the proxy power who had defeated Ptolemy in verse ten and in 1989. The historical distinctions are purposeful and important.

Uzziah receives the mark of the beast when he attempts to bring church and state together, Uzziah is the glorious land, and the glorious land was a major argument in the beginning of the message in 1989. Is the glorious land the United States, or is it the Seventh-day Adventist church? Those who then held to the erroneous idea that the glorious land is the Adventist church, along with any who still do—would argue that the glorious holy mountain of verse forty-five was clearly God’s church, so that meant to them, that a mountain and a land were the same symbol. Standard human reasoning, I suppose.

Uzziah is the glorious land, and Ptolemy is Egypt. Uzziah, as the glorious land has the two horns of Protestantism and Republicanism. The political manifestation of Ptolemy is communism and its varied forms, and the religious manifestation of Ptolemy is spiritualism and its varied forms. A characteristic of the dragon power is that it is a confederacy, but the false prophet, who is the glorious land is a single nation with two horns.

Daniel eleven verse forty established that the United States was the proxy power of the papacy when the Soviet Union was swept away in 1989. This truth aligns with the role of the two-horned earth beast of Revelation thirteen, for the two books are the same.

Revelation thirteen identifies the United States as the proxy power of the Papacy, for the earth beast “exerciseth al the power of the” beast out of the sea that came “before him.” In verse two the dragon of pagan Rome had given the Papacy its power, seat and great authority. The word translated as “power” means power, but in verse twelve it is a different word that is translated as “power,” meaning “delegated authority.”

The United States is the proxy power of the papacy, who has been typified by pagan Rome, who gave its military and economic support to the papacy as set forth in verse two. In doing so pagan Rome typified the United States who would also give its “chariots, ships and horsemen” to do the dirty-work of the papal power.

When the three battles of verse ten, eleven and fifteen were fulfilled in history, Antiochus Magnus was at each battle. This fact identifies that the power represented in the three battles is a proxy power of the beast, for it is always Antiochus, and Antiochus in 1989 was the proxy power of the United States.

The three battles that lead to the Sunday law of verse sixteen bear the signature of Alpha and Omega, and also the structure of truth. It is the United States in the first battle and the third battle, identifying an alpha and omega in the first and last battle. The three battles that lead to the Sunday law of verse sixteen also bear the signature of truth. The proxy power of Nazi Ukraine is the battle in the middle that represents the rebellion of the middle waymark in the framework of the Hebrew word truth. The three battles represent 1989 unto the Sunday law, which means they represent the “hidden history” of verse forty.

Verse eleven of Revelation eleven identifies 2023, as the point where both horns are resurrected. Daniel eleven, verse eleven identifies the very same period of history. The internal line of prophecy and the external line of prophecy align in 2023. The internal line is the “thing” Daniel understood and the external line is the “vision” he understood.

The temple test that Daniel illustrates began at the twenty-second day, and twenty-two years after 9/11, which is the point that Isaiah entered the temple brings you to 2023. Isaiah identifies the death of Uzziah after living with leprosy for eleven years at 9/11. The work of erecting the temple consists of first laying the foundation, and thereafter erecting the temple and placing the cap stone which then leads to the third litmus test, represented by the feast of trumpets in the line of Leviticus twenty-three. The internal work of the everlasting gospel is accomplished during the history of the external line. In verse eleven Putin has been typified by Ptolemy, and king Uzziah provides a second witness to the illustration of the king of the south who is lifted up through military success, who thereafter attempts to insert themselves into the realm of religion.

Uriah Smith addresses Ptolemy Philopator’s history and his attempt to offer sacrifices in Jerusalem’s temple.

Ptolemy Philopator’s military victory at Raphia in 217 BC, did not strengthen Ptolemy, but it caused “his heart to be lifted up.” Victory in the Ukrainian War will not strengthen Putin, but it will “lift up his heart,” as did military success cause king Uzziah to lift up his heart.

Two southern kings whose hearts were lifted up from military victories, attempted to enter the same temple and offer and offering, which only a priest was allowed to do. In both cases, the priests resisted the proud kings attempts to do so. One king then initiated a retaliation upon the Jews, and the other was struck in the forehead with leprosy.

In 2014, the globalists of Europe and the Obama regime initiated a color revolution upon the nation of the Ukraine. In 2022 Russia began an invasion that will ultimately lead to a victory for Putin and Russia; represented by Ptolemy and Uzziah, the kings of the south. Verse twelve says that after the victory of Putin, “his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it.” History then records a progressive demise of his kingdom.

The progressive demise led to his death, and by the time Antiochus the Great retaliates for his loss at Raphia, Antiochus was no longer engaged with Ptolemy Philopator, Antiochus was then addressing a young child who was then Egypt’s ruler. A child is a symbol of the last generation, so at one level the child king that Antiochus defeats at Panium is the final generation of the kingdom of the south. At the practical level the child king represents weakness in relation to Antiochus’s strength.

To outline the final steps of Russia, is to outline the final steps of the prophetic king of the south. A prophetic characteristic of the spiritual king of the south that arrived in prophetic history at the time of the end in 1798—is how it comes to its end. It is also a prophetic characteristic of the king of the north, and the false prophet. Each of the three powers that lead the world to Armageddon have endings that are specifically identified in God’s Word. Whatever happens to Putin and Russia will have been typified with past lines of the king of the south.

The examples of the spiritual king of the south’s demise were typified by the demise of the first spiritual king of the south, who was atheistic France during the period of the Revolution. The demise of the southern kingdom includes the demise of the southern king. Napoleon’s demise corresponds to the demise of France, and aligns with the demise of the next kingdom of the south, who was Russia. Russia as the modern king of the south began in revolution, just as France, as the king of the south, began with revolution.

Revolution is a characteristic of the dragon, who is the symbol of the southern kings. The dragon, the primary symbol of the king of the south is Satan, and as he attempts a revolution at the end of the millennium, fire comes down out of heaven and devours him. His rebellion in heaven at the beginning was the alpha of his rebellion at the conclusion of the millennium.

In 1798, France prophetically took the throne as the spiritual king of the south during the French Revolution. That revolution swept through the nations of Europe and ultimately arrived at the Russian Revolution that was quickly followed by the Bolshevik Revolution in the same year.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 consisted of two main steps: the February Revolution (which overthrew the Tsarist monarchy, ended autocracy, and established a provisional government amid a period of dual power with the Soviets) and the October Revolution (also called the Bolshevik Revolution, where the Bolsheviks under Lenin seized power in a coup, leading to the establishment of Soviet rule and the path to socialism/communism).

In historical analyses and revolutionary theory (particularly from Marxist perspectives like those of Trotsky, Luxemburg, and others drawing parallels), the French Revolution (1789–1799) is often seen as typifying or providing a schema for the course of the Russian events. The two steps of the French Revolution that typified these Russian phases are:

These parallels emphasize how revolutions often follow a pattern: an initial broad uprising against the old regime (led by moderates/bourgeois forces), followed by a more extreme seizure of power by radicals to ‘save’ and deepen the revolution amid crisis. The Bolsheviks themselves consciously drew on the French example, viewing their October uprising as akin to the Jacobin coup—necessary to prevent counter-revolution and fulfill the revolution’s potential.

This typology appears in works like Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution (which explicitly compares the dual power phase in Russia to similar dynamics in France) and Rosa Luxemburg’s writings on the Russian events, where she notes the Russian Revolution’s first period (March–October) follows the schema of the French (and English) revolutions, with the Bolshevik takeover paralleling the Jacobin ascent.

Jesus always illustrates the end with the beginning, and the demise of Napoleon as the first spiritual king of the south followed the waymarks at the beginning of the revolution, and in so doing represented the demise of the Soviet Union.

Napoleon’s progressive (step-by-step) demise aligns closely with the Soviet Union’s gradual decline and 1991 collapse, in the same typological framework where the French Revolution’s two phases prefigured the Russian Revolution’s February and October 1917 stages. The parallel extends into the post-radical consolidation phase (Bonapartism) and its inevitable unraveling. This draws from both general historical patterns and Marxist analyses (especially Trotsky’s in The Revolution Betrayed and related works), which treat Napoleon as the archetype of Bonapartism: a strongman regime that arises after a revolution’s radical peak, balances between classes, preserves key structural gains of the revolution (while suppressing its democratic thrust), builds a personal/military-bureaucratic empire, overextends, and then suffers a phased collapse leading to partial restoration of the old order.

After the Jacobin radical phase and Thermidorian reaction (1794), the unstable Directory (1795–1799), Napoleon’s 18 Brumaire coup (1799) establishes the Consulate, then the Empire (1804). He codifies and exports bourgeois revolutionary gains (Napoleonic Code, end of feudal privileges, strong centralized state) but subordinates them to authoritarian rule, military glory, and a new elite.

After the Bolshevik/October radical phase and early Soviet experiments, bureaucratic degeneration sets in (especially from the mid-1920s). Stalin’s consolidation defeats the Left Opposition, enforces “socialism in one country,” and creates a police/military-bureaucratic dictatorship. The planned economy and nationalized property (core gains of October) are preserved but turned into tools of a privileged caste, with internationalism abandoned.

In both cases, the revolutionary energy is “frozen” and redirected into state power and expansion under a single figure or apparatus (Trotsky explicitly called the Stalin regime a form of “Soviet Bonapartism,” closer to Napoleon’s Empire than the Consulate).

This is the core alignment—the decline is not one sudden event but a successive series of erosions driven by overextension, internal contradictions, military quagmires, loss of peripheral control, failed reforms, and final dissolution/restoration.

In both, the “empire” (French Continental System vs. Soviet Eastern Bloc/COMECON influence) fragments outward-in, internal decay accelerates, a final crisis exposes the hollowness, and the old social forces reassert (monarchy/capitalism). Bonapartism proves unsustainable—a “pyramid balanced on its point,” as Trotsky put it—because it rests on suppressing the revolution’s democratic base while defending (but distorting) its economic base amid hostile external pressures. The Soviet collapse was not “sudden” in the long view but the culmination of progressive internal rot, just as Napoleon’s empire did not vanish overnight but eroded through successive defeats until restoration.

The beginning and ending of France and the Soviet Union align with the testimony of king Uzziah and Ptolemy. Ptolemy IV Philopator wins a decisive victory at the Battle of Raphia (217 BC) against the king of the north (Antiochus III), but “he shall not be strengthened by it”—he makes peace instead of pressing the advantage, returns to luxury and self-exaltation, then (per the record preserved in 3 Maccabees 1–2) Ptolemy visits Jerusalem after his triumph. His heart lifted up, he attempts to enter the Holy of Holies and offer sacrifice himself—an act of usurpation and defiance against the true God. He is divinely struck (paralysis), humiliated, and turns to persecution of God’s people. His reign thereafter is one of progressive decline: moral corruption, internal revolts, and loss of strength until his death. This is the exact mirror of King Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:16–21) whose heart was lifted up after military success., who then entered the temple to burn incense (usurping the priests) and was struck with leprosy in the forehead, which was a public, visible judgment. From then on Uzziah lived in isolation, cut off from the house of the Lord, until death—a slow, lingering demise rather than instant destruction.

Both are southern kings whose pride manifests in a temple intrusion at Jerusalem, followed by a progressive, erosive ending instead of immediate collapse. This is the typological template for every later “king of the south.”

At “the time of the end” (1798), atheistic France (the power that had just manifested the spiritual characteristics of Egypt—open denial of God, as in Revelation 11:8) pushes at the king of the north (the Papacy) by taking the Pope captive. Napoleon is the military embodiment of that push. France wears the crown of the south in 1798, because it exalts the same atheistic spirit that ancient Egypt embodied.

But just as Ptolemy could not “make the most of his victory,” the French Revolution’s radical phase could not sustain or fully export its gains. The crown of the south passes onward as the philosophy of atheism matures and finds a new governmental voice.

These three are not random; they are progressive endings—each representing a further stage in the king of the south’s trajectory toward its own slow dissolution. Napoleon—the first great symbol after 1798. Victorious in Egypt (the literal south), he overreaches (Russian campaign of 1812 was a disaster beginning a series of losses to his peripheral empire step by step (1813–1814), suffers final defeat (Waterloo 1815), and is exiled twice. Napoleon represents a progressive, phased demise—exactly like unto the Ptolemy and Uzziah.

Lenin seized the crown in the 1917 October Revolution. The Bolshevik “push” continues the war against the old order (including religious power). But the radical phase cannot stabilize; Lenin’s own health fails early, and the system begins to bureaucratize.

Stalin, the consolidator (Soviet Bonapartism) “freezes” the revolution into a military-bureaucratic empire, preserves the core gains (nationalized economy the anti-feudal parallel to Napoleon’s Code), but turns the power inward (purges) and outward (expansion). Yet the heart is lifted up in atheism; the system cannot truly “make the most of its victory.” Overextension (Afghanistan parallel to Napoleon’s Russia), stagnation, failed reforms (perestroika was the last desperate attempt), loss of satellites (1989–90 = loss of “allies”), and final dissolution (1991).

The Soviet Union’s collapse was not sudden—it was progressive, exactly as Napoleon’s empire eroded step by step and as Ptolemy’s and Uzziah’s reigns withered after their temple-pride moment. The “spiritual” king of the south (atheism in governmental form) received its own lingering judgment: hollowed out from within, unable to sustain the lie, swept away in the counter-movement of the king of the north (the Papacy’s resurgence in the vacuum).

The French Revolution (two steps) typifies the Russian Revolution (February and October/Bolshevik). Napoleonic Bonapartism and progressive demise typify Stalinist consolidation and Soviet progressive demise. All of it is the modern outworking of Daniel 11’s king of the south line, from Ptolemy’s Raphia failure and temple arrogance, through Uzziah’s identical sin and slow end, to France in 1798 and its atheistic heir (Lenin–Stalin era) that could not strengthen itself by its victories.

Lenin, the radical founder or seizer of power (parallel to the Jacobin/Bolshevik ascent; the “push” phase post-1917, is akin to Napoleon’s early Consulate after Brumaire). Stalin was the Bonapartist consolidator (Soviet empire builder, purges, WWII victory, Cold War peak; heart lifted up in atheism, but unable to fully “strengthen” the victory long-term—overextension begins).

Khrushchev was the post-peak “thaw” leader (1953–1964): denounces Stalin (Secret Speech 1956), exposes some corruption, attempts limited reforms, but fails to resolve systemic contradictions. This parallels a “Thermidorian” or early-decline phase—loosening terror while the core atheist structure remains, yet prestige erodes (e.g., Cuban Missile Crisis humiliation 1962 mirrors minor Napoleonic setbacks before the big ones).

Gorbachev was the desperate reformer (1985–1991) with perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness) as last-ditch efforts to “save” the system, but they accelerate collapse—loss of the Eastern Bloc (1989 Berlin Wall), internal revolts. This is the clearest “progressive ending” marker: like unto Napoleon’s late attempts at adjustment before the 1814 invasion, or Ptolemy/Uzziah’s lingering decline after temple-pride. Gorbachev’s 1989 concordat/meeting with Pope John Paul II (king of the north) symbolizes the spiritual defeat—the southern king’s atheism yielding to papal resurgence.

Yeltsin was the final dissolution figure (1991 onward) who led to the August 1991 coup resistance, becomes president of Russia, oversees USSR breakup (December 1991), shock therapy privatization, capitalist restoration. He embodies the chaotic end and partial “restoration” of prerevolutionary elements (oligarchic capitalism, like Bourbon’s return post-Napoleon). The southern king’s palace is swept away, fulfilling Daniel 11:40’s whirlwind conquest by the north (Papacy via US alliance).

The typology emphasizes lingering, step-by-step judgment rather than instant fall, just as Ptolemy IV’s Raphia victory led to pride, temple intrusion, divine striking, and slow decay; Uzziah’s leprosy isolation until death; Napoleon’s phased losses (Russia, Leipzig, Paris, Elba, Waterloo). The Soviet line identifies the peak strength under Stalin, the progressive hollowing during Khrushchev’s thaw that exposes the cracks in the system. Then the Brezhnev-era stagnation and then Gorbachev’s reforms become accelerants; Yeltsin’s era completes the sweep (USSR dissolved, atheism’s governmental form ends). The “heart lifted up” manifests across the line (atheistic defiance), but none “makes the most of victory.”

The end of the southern kings are progressive, Satan’s demise began at the cross, and he is ultimately sent into exile for 1,000 years and then he dies.

We will continue our considerations of the southern king in Daniel eleven, verses eleven through fifteen in the next article.

The Time of the End magazine was published in 1996 and it represents the prophecy from the book of Daniel that was unsealed in 1989. Recently the magazine was read by ChatGPT and asked to evaluate the role of Ukraine in the history of verse forty represented in the magazine. The following is the breakdown of the magazine that has been in the public record for thirty years. The first passage from the writings of Ellen White in the magazine is Testimonies, volume 9, 11.

Within the magazine’s prophetic outline of Daniel 11:40–45, Ukraine is discussed in connection with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the struggle between the Papacy (king of the north) and atheistic communism (king of the south). Ukraine is presented as a key religious and geopolitical battleground during the closing stages of the proxy wars, particularly in relation to the Ukrainian Catholic Church and its legalization after decades of suppression under Soviet rule.

The magazine presents Ukraine as part of the broader prophetic fulfillment of Daniel 11:40, describing the sweeping away of the king of the south through a Vatican–United States alliance. Ukraine is shown as evidence of the weakening of Soviet atheism and the resurgence of Catholic influence in Eastern Europe.

The magazine teaches that the king of the south is atheism, embodied first by France (1798) and later by Soviet Russia. The king of the north is the papacy and Daniel 11:40 describes a spiritual war beginning in 1798 and culminating in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. Ukraine appears within this context as part of the Soviet bloc that is swept away in fulfillment of Daniel 11:40. The publication presents the collapse of the Soviet Union as the first step in the healing of the Papacy’s deadly wound (Revelation 13).

The magazine includes secular documentation of Catholic persecution under Soviet rule.

From Time Magazine, December 4, 1989:

Ukraine is identified as a major area where Catholicism was suppressed under communism.

A major focus of the Ukraine discussion is the legalization of the long-banned Ukrainian Catholic Church.

From Life Magazine, December 1989:

From U.S. News & World Report, December 11, 1989:

The magazine presents this as evidence of the weakening of atheistic control, the restoration of Catholic power. It is identified as a direct outcome of Vatican diplomatic pressure and a milestone in Daniel 11:40’s fulfillment is set forth as the Ukraine as a visible example of the Papacy regaining influence in former communist territory.

The collapse of communism not merely as political change but as a spiritual defeat of atheism, a geopolitical advance of the Papacy and the beginning of the Papacy’s return to world dominance. The Ukraine becomes a case study in the dismantling of Soviet religious suppression and a strategic victory of Rome in Eastern Europe. It represents the visible shift from enforced atheism to restored Catholic authority and the legalization of the Ukrainian Catholic Church is treated as prophetic confirmation that the king of the north was sweeping away the king of the south “like a whirlwind.”

Ukraine fits into stages 3–4 as part of the transition between Soviet atheism and restored Papal influence.

Spirit of Prophecy

Secular Press

Ukraine is mentioned in connection with:

The Ukraine was a stronghold of suppressed Catholicism under Soviet atheism. The legalization of the Ukrainian Catholic Church signaled the weakening of the king of the south. The Vatican’s influence in the Ukraine demonstrated the Papacy’s resurgence and the Ukraine’s religious shift served as tangible evidence that Daniel 11:40 was being fulfilled. The events surrounding Ukraine formed part of the first step in the healing of the Papacy’s deadly wound. The Ukraine is therefore presented not as an isolated political event, but as a prophetic marker within the final movements of Daniel 11.