Rome Establishes the Vision - Number Five

In the last article we identified six prophetic lines of controversy which have occurred in the history of Adventism from the Millerite time period until the present day. I contend the first and the last controversy over the “robbers of thy people” in verse fourteen of Daniel chapter eleven are prophetically identical. The Millerites understood the “robbers” to be Rome, and the Protestants taught the “robbers” were a Syrian king named Antiochus Epiphanes.

Beginning in verse ten, and continuing through verse fifteen a warfare between the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria is represented. Egypt is the king of the south in the passage, and the Syrian king is represented as the king of the north. Verse ten identifies what the historians call the beginning of the Fourth Syrian war in 219 BC, verses eleven and twelve represent the battle of Raphia in 217 BC, and its aftermath. Then verses thirteen through fifteen identify the battle of Panium in 200 BC. In verses ten through fifteen the Syrian king is Antiochus Magnus, ruler of the Seleucid Empire.

Verse ten represents the history when Antiochus Magnus begins a war to regain territory that was taken from the Seleucid kingdom years before. In the verse he regains the lost territory in 219 BC, but he temporarily ceases his aggressions, and seeks to regroup his military strength. He had regained control of the lost territory, and made it all the way to the border of Egypt, the southern kingdom ruled by the Ptolemy dynasty. Between 219 BC and 217 BC, both the king of the south and the king of the north made plans for the approaching battle of Raphia.

The battle of Raphia took place in 217 BC, and the southern kingdom of Egypt, ruled by Ptolemy prevailed over the Syrian king Antiochus Magnus, king of the north in the prophetic passage. Then in verses thirteen through fifteen, seventeen years later in 200 BC, Antiochus Magnus, who had then formed an alliance with Philip of Macedon engaged Egypt in the battle of Panium. The southern kingdom of Egypt then had a child king of five or six years old, and Antiochus Magnis and Philip could not resist taking advantage of the child king of Egypt, and Antiochus Magnus prevailed in the battle of Panium. The three verses that represent the battle of Panium contain verse fourteen, where a new power is introduced into the prophetic narrative.

The robbers of thy people are a different power than the Egyptian king of the south, or the Seleucid king of the north, or Philip the Macedonian ruler. The Millerites recognized that Rome is the robbers of thy people. One of the Hebrew root words that is translated as “robbers,” means breaker. Pagan Rome is represented in prophecy as the power who would break in pieces.

When Uriah Smith comments on the robbers, he quotes a historian who points out that robbers represent breakers.

The prediction set forth in the verses was fulfilled in roughly twenty years from 219 BC unto 200 BC, but the prophets speak more about the last days than the days in which they lived.

Although Daniel did not live in the twenty-year time period we are considering, inspiration through the writings of Sister White informs is that much of the history recorded in Daniel eleven is to be repeated in the final fulfillment of Daniel eleven.

Verses ten through fifteen of Daniel eleven represent the history of the last days which leads up to the soon-coming Sunday law, for verse sixteen identifies when Rome, for the first time, conquered the “glorious land.”

Daniel employs the expression “glorious land” twice in his writings. The first is verse sixteen, when literal pagan Rome conquered the literal glorious land of Judah.

The other verse where Daniel employs the “glorious land” is in verse forty-one.

Verse forty-one of course follows verse forty, and verse forty begins with the words “and at the time of the end.” In The Great Controversy, Sister White identifies 1798 as the “time of the end,” so verse forty-one is identifying history that follows after the time of the end in 1798.

The glorious land of verse forty-one is not literal ancient Judah of old, but spiritual modern Judah. The United States is spiritual modern Judah, and verse forty-one is identifying the soon-coming Sunday law in the United States.

That Sunday law is typified by verse sixteen, for “much of the history that has taken place” in the fulfillment of Daniel eleven is to be repeated. Verses ten through fifteen in the last days, represents the history preceding and leading up to the Sunday law.

The king of the north in those five verses, as well as the king of the south who were fulfilled by the Seleucid king Antiochus Magnus and the Egyptian kings of the Ptolemaic kingdom, typify powers that are the focus of the history that leads to the soon-coming Sunday law. These verses identify the history of the movement of the one hundred and forty-four thousand, for verse ten identifies the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, and verse sixteen the soon-coming Sunday law.

Christ emphasizes these verses by aligning verse ten with verse forty and verse sixteen with verse forty-one. The direct reference to the literal glorious land which typifies the spiritual glorious land of verse forty-one is the end of the six verses, and verse ten is the beginning.

Just as Christ made sure verse sixteen has a direct connection with verse forty-one, and so too, verse ten has a direct connection with verse forty. The expression in verse ten “overflow, and pass through,” is the identical Hebrew phrase that is translated as “overflow and pass over,” in verse forty. The phrase is only found one other place in the Scriptures, but it is translated a little differently than verse ten and verse forty. Still, it is the same Hebrew phrase.

Isaiah’s “overflow and go over,” is the same as verse ten’s “overflow, and pass through,” and verse forty’s “overflow and pass over.” More than this, each of the three verses are describing an attack from the king of the north upon the king of the south. In Isaiah, the northern king of Assyria, Sennacherib, was attacking Judah, the southern kingdom of Israel. In verse ten Antiochus Magnus, the northern king of the Seleucid Empire was attacking the southern kingdom of Egypt. In verse forty, the king of the north, the papal power, who had received a deadly wound at the beginning of verse forty, was attacking the southern atheistic power of the Soviet Union. Each verse represents the same prophetic structure of a conflict between the kings of the north and south, and in each verse the northern king “overflows and passes over.”

Isaiah’s testimony and verse ten both identify that when the northern king attacks he ceases before entering into the capital of the southern kingdom. Sennacherib brought his warfare to the walls of Jerusalem, and no further. In 219 BC, Antiochus Magnus came to the border of Egypt and stopped. Then he lost the battle of Raphia that occurred two years later in 217 BC. Sennacherib came to the walls of Jerusalem and lost the battle as God intervened.

In 1989, the king of the north swept away the Soviet Union, but he did not overcome the capital of the Soviet Union. Russia was left standing. The next battle, typified in verses eleven and twelve, was the battle of Raphia, which was also typified by the overthrow of Sennacherib’s army and his subsequent death which identifies a victory for the southern king, which was Judah in the testimony of Sennacherib, and Raphia in the testimony of Antiochus Magnus.

Verse ten provides a direct connection to verse forty and verse sixteen provides a direct connection with verse forty-one. Verses ten through sixteen represent the history of 1989 unto the Sunday law. The verse represents a hidden history in verse forty that begins with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 and continues unto the Sunday law. Verse ten also directly connects the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six to the hidden history, but that line of truth is outside what we are here setting forth.

In Millerite history the first of six primary controversies within Adventism concerning the correct identification of Rome occurred, and it was over who the robbers of verse fourteen represented. The Protestants held they represented Antiochus Epiphanes, and the Millerites identified them as Rome. In the last controversy of Adventism concerning the correct identification of Rome it is also over the robbers of verse fourteen. One class, represented by the Millerites, is upholding the foundational understanding of the Millerites, which was endorsed by the Spirit of Prophecy.

That sacred chart identifies the controversy with the notation of 164 BC.

The reference of that controversy upon the sacred chart represents the only truth represented upon the sacred chart that is not based upon a prophetic passage from God’s Word. In doing so it identifies a waymark, not of biblical history, but of Advent history, and “it should not be altered,” for the controversy identifies how the prophetic vision is established. To reject that foundational truth is to simultaneously reject the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy’s endorsement of the sacred chart.

The last controversy of “the robbers of thy people”, is the same as the first, and without an understanding of the symbol which establishes the vision, “the people perish.” They “perish” because they “make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God.”

The other class claims that the United States is represented as the robbers of verse fourteen. That class is unable or unwilling to see that Antiochus Magnus in verses ten through fifteen represents the United States. Just as the Protestants of Millerite history claimed the robbers were Antiochus, the class who is unwilling to see identifies the robbers as the power (the United States) that is typified by Antiochus.

Sennacherib’s attack upon Judah that reached to the capital, Jerusalem, and that failed, was led by Sennacherib’s general, the Rabshakeh.

The Rabshakeh was presenting not his words, but the words of Sennacherib, king of Assyria. In Daniel eleven verse forty the king of the north is the papal power who at the time of the end in 1798 received a deadly wound at the hands of atheistic France, the southern king. In the verse the king of the north ultimately retaliates and overflows the southern kingdom (the USSR) in 1989. When the king of the north accomplished that work, he brought with him “chariots, and with horsemen, and many ships.” “Chariots and horsemen” represent military might and “ships” represent economic power. Those symbols identify the United States as papal Rome’s proxy army in the victory of 1989, as typified by Rabshakeh. Antiochus Magnus in verse ten through fifteen represents the United States, and as William Miller correctly identified that the word “also” in verse fourteen establishes a new power entering the prophetic narrative, the “robbers” must represent a power distinct from either the Ptolemaic kings of the south, or Antiochus the king of the north or Philip of Macedon.

“Antiochus” was a name selected by many of the kings of the Syrian Seleucid Empire. The founder of that empire was Seleucid Nicator, and somewhere between twenty-six to thirty kings made up the entire list of Seleucid kings. Many of those kings chose the name “Antiochus”, just as the many popes choose throne-names when they are selected as popes. The popes are all “antichrist,” which means “against Christ”. The word “anti” meaning “against”. As antichrists they have taken the name of their spiritual forefather, who is Satan. Satan and the popes are both identified as the antichrist in inspiration.

A pope is a representative of Satan, and thus they are both against Christ, and therefore are the “antichrist.” They choose a name when they take the position as pope, and become Satan’s earthly representative.

By their works you shall know them, and the popes carry on the same work as Satan.

Though Seleucus Nicator established the Seleucid Empire, many of the following kings chose the name “Antiochus,” in honor, not of Seleucus, but of his father. Seleucus’ father, Antiochus, was a nobleman and a general in the service of King Philip II of Macedon, who was the father of Alexander the Great. This noble status and military background helped establish the foundation for Seleucus’s own prominent role and subsequent rise to power after the death of Alexander the Great.

Seleucus’ kingdom was established when he took control of three of the four areas of Alexander’s kingdom. Rome also conquers three geographical powers in order to take control and become the king of the north. When Seleucus had secured the east, the west and the north he became the king of the north in the historical narrative, and his capital was the city of Babylon. Many of the following kings chose the name “Antiochus” when they took the northern throne in order to honor their political forefather. The parallel is easy to see, if you choose to see. If you don’t, you don’t.

The name “Antiochus” (Ἀντίοχος in Greek) comes from the Greek elements’ “anti” (meaning “against” or “opposite”) and “ocheo” (meaning “to hold fast” or “to maintain”). The northern kings chose the name to maintain their political heritage with the father, just as the antichrist (popes) choose names when they begin to rule. Just as the popes are representatives of their father, the devil, so too the Antiochus’ of the Syrian Empire typify representatives of their father. In this application Antiochus represents a proxy of their father. The proxy of the papal power in 1989 was the United States, and the secular testimony upholds the relationship between the antichrist, Pope John Paul II, and Ronald Reagan in their work to bring down the former Soviet Union.

In verses ten through sixteen, the first and last verse possess direct references to verses forty and forty-one. Verse ten directly represents verse forty. Verse sixteen directly represents verse forty-one. The verses represent the portion of the prophecy of Daniel that relates to the last days.

At the time of the end in 1989 the last six verses of Daniel chapter eleven represent the “portion of the prophecy of Daniel which related to the last days.” It was recognized when it was then unsealed, and that unsealing produced an increase of knowledge on the “institution of the Papacy, making of no effect the law of Jehovah.” The Alpha and Omega always illustrates the end with the beginning, and the testing process that began in 1989, was designed to produce two classes of worshippers.

We are now in the final period of that testing process, for the controversy of the robbers at the beginning of Adventism is now being repeated. To identify the robbers as the United States is to identify Antiochus as the robbers. It is the identical controversy of the Millerites and Protestants.

At the end of the testing process, just as in the beginning of the testing process, which began in 1989, the Lion of the tribe of Judah unseals “that portion of the prophecy of Daniel which related to the last days.” In 1989 it was the last six verses of Daniel eleven, and at the ending it is the hidden history of verse forty, that is typified by verses ten through sixteen.

We will continue our consideration of the six lines of controversies within the history of Adventism in the following articles. The first of those six controversies illustrates the last of those six controversies. We will use the first and last controversies to overlay the other four controversies as we unfold the elements involved with the efforts of the enemy of righteousness to prevent God’s people from rightly dividing “the vision”, which is established with the symbol of Rome.