Daniel eleven verse twenty-four identifies the period which pagan Rome would rule supremely with the word “time.” A “time” represents 360 years in prophetic application, and those years began at the most famous naval battle of ancient history, the battle of Actium in 31 BC. There were other naval battles that were larger and strategically more sophisticated, but Actium was the most iconic naval battle through its association with Marc Antony and Cleopatra. Similar in historical significance to the collapse of the Berlin Wall in fulfillment of Daniel 11:40, and the Twin Towers of 9/11 in fulfillment of Revelation eighteen; for when God chooses the historical events to fulfill His prophetic Word, He does so in a fashion that reaches the attention of the largest possible audience.
Dáníẹ́lì orí kọkànlá ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìnlélógún ń tọ́ka sí àkókò tí Róòmù abọ̀rìṣà yóò fi jọba lórí gbogbo rẹ̀ pátápátá pẹ̀lú ọ̀rọ̀ náà “àkókò.” “Àkókò” kan dúró fún ọdún 360 nínú ìlò àsọtẹ́lẹ̀, àwọn ọdún wọ̀nyẹn sì bẹ̀rẹ̀ ní ogun ojú omi tí ó lókìkí jùlọ nínú ìtàn ayé àtijọ́, ìyẹn ogun Actium ní ọdún 31 BC. Àwọn ogun ojú omi mìíràn wà tí wọ́n tóbi jù ú lọ, tí wọ́n sì ní ọgbọ́n ètò ogun tó gún régé síi, ṣùgbọ́n Actium ni ogun ojú omi tí ó jẹ́ àwòrán pàtàkì jùlọ nítorí ìbáṣepọ̀ rẹ̀ pẹ̀lú Marc Antony àti Cleopatra. Ó jọra nínú ìtúmọ̀ pàtàkì rẹ̀ nínú ìtàn pẹ̀lú ìṣubú Odi Berlin nínú ìmúṣẹ Dáníẹ́lì 11:40, àti Ilé Àgọ̀ Méjì ti 9/11 nínú ìmúṣẹ Ìfihàn orí kọkàndínlógún; nítorí nígbà tí Ọlọ́run bá yan àwọn ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ ìtàn láti mú Ọ̀rọ̀ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ Rẹ̀ ṣẹ, ó máa ń ṣe é ní ọ̀nà tí yóò fa àkíyèsí àwọn olùgbọ́ tó pọ̀ jùlọ tí ó ṣeé ṣe.
And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time. Daniel 11:23, 24.
Àti lẹ́yìn àdéhùn tí a bá a ṣe, yóò fi ẹ̀tàn hùwà: nítorí yóò gòkè wá, yóò sì di alágbára pẹ̀lú àwọn ènìyàn díẹ̀. Yóò wọlé ní àlàáfíà àní sí àwọn ibi tí ó sanra jùlọ ní ìpínlẹ̀ náà; yóò sì ṣe ohun tí àwọn baba rẹ̀ kò ṣe, tàbí àwọn baba àwọn baba rẹ̀; yóò tú ìkógun, àti ìjẹ, àti ọrọ̀ ká láàrín wọn: bẹ́ẹ̀ ni yóò gbìmọ̀ ọgbọ́n rẹ̀ sí àwọn odi agbára, àní fún àkókò kan. Daniẹli 11:23, 24.
Uriah Smith concludes his observations of the league between Rome and the Maccabees of verse twenty-three by commenting upon the small people of the verse.
Uriah Smith parí ìkíyèsí rẹ̀ nípa àjọṣe tí ó wà láàárín Róòmù àti àwọn Maccabees ti ẹsẹ̀ kẹ́tàlélógún nípa ṣíṣe àlàyé lórí àwọn ènìyàn díẹ̀ tí a mẹ́nuba nínú ẹsẹ̀ náà.
“At this time the Romans were a small people, and began to work deceitfully, or with cunning, as the word signifies. And from this point they rose by a steady and rapid ascent to the height of power which they afterward attained.
“Ní àkókò yìí àwọn ará Róòmù jẹ́ ènìyàn kékeré, wọ́n sì bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í hùwà pẹ̀lú ẹ̀tàn, tàbí pẹ̀lú ọgbọ́n-àrékérekè, gẹ́gẹ́ bí ọ̀rọ̀ náà ṣe túmọ̀ sí. Látìgbà yìí ni wọ́n ti gòkè lọ ní ìlọsíwájú tí ó dúró ṣinṣin tí ó sì yára, títí dé góńgó agbára tí wọ́n ní lẹ́yìn náà.”
“[Verse twenty-four quoted].
“[Ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìnlélógún tí a fà yọ.]”
“The usual manner in which nations had, before the days of Rome, entered upon valuable provinces and rich territory, was by war and conquest. Rome was now to do what had not been done by the fathers or the fathers’ fathers; namely, receive these acquisitions through peaceful means. The custom, before unheard of, was now inaugurated, of kings’ leaving by legacy their kingdoms to the Romans. Rome came into possession of large provinces in this manner.
“Ọ̀nà tí ó wọ́pọ̀ tí àwọn orílẹ̀-èdè fi máa ń wọ inú àwọn ẹkùn ìpínlẹ̀ olówóiyebíye àti ilẹ̀ ọlọ́ràá ṣáájú ọjọ́ ayé Róòmù, ni ogun àti ìṣẹ́gun. Ní báyìí ni Róòmù yóò ṣe ohun tí a kò tíì ṣe ní ọjọ́ àwọn baba tàbí àwọn baba àwọn baba wọn; ìyẹn ni pé, kí ó gba àwọn ìníkúnya wọ̀nyí nípasẹ̀ ọ̀nà àlàáfíà. Àṣà kan tí a kò tíì gbọ́ rí tẹ́lẹ̀ ní a sì ṣe ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ rẹ̀ nígbà náà, ti àwọn ọba fi máa ń fi àwọn ìjọba wọn sílẹ̀ fún àwọn ará Róòmù gẹ́gẹ́ bí ogún. Ní ọ̀nà yìí ni Róòmù ṣe di oníni àwọn ìpínlẹ̀ ńlá.”
“And those who thus came under the dominion of Rome derived no small advantage therefrom. They were treated with kindness and leniency. It was like having the prey and spoil distributed among them. They were protected from their enemies, and rested in peace and safety under the aegis of the Roman power.
“Àwọn tí ó sì báyìí wá sí abẹ́ ìṣàkóso Róòmù kò rí èrè kékeré gbà láti inú rẹ̀. Wọ́n fi inú rere àti pẹ̀lẹ́pẹ̀lẹ́ hù sí wọn. Ó dàbí ẹni pé a pín ohun ọdẹ àti ìkógun fún wọn. A dáàbò bò wọ́n kúrò lọ́wọ́ àwọn ọ̀tá wọn, wọ́n sì sinmi ní àlàáfíà àti ààbò lábẹ́ àbo agbára Róòmù.
“To the latter portion of this verse, Bishop Newton gives the idea of forecasting devices from strongholds, instead of against them. This the Romans did from the strong fortress of their seven-hilled city. ‘Even for a time;’ doubtless a prophetic time, 360 years. From what point are these years to be dated? Probably from the event brought to view in the following verse.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 272, 273.
“Sí apá ìkẹyìn ẹsẹ yìí, Bíṣọ́ọ̀bù Newton fi ìtumọ̀ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ọ̀nà ogun láti inú àwọn ibi agbára hàn, dípò sí i lòdì sí wọn. Èyí ni àwọn ará Róòmù ṣe láti inú odi agbára ńlá ìlú wọn tí ó wà lórí òkè méje. ‘Àní fún àkókò kan;’ láìsí àní-àní àkókò àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ni, ọdún 360. Láti ibi-ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ wo ni a ó ti bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í ka àwọn ọdún wọ̀nyí? Ó ṣeé ṣe kí ó jẹ́ láti ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ tí a mú wá sí ìwòye nínú ẹsẹ tí ó tẹ̀lé.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 272, 273.
Smith continues and identifies the battle of Actium in 31 BC as the starting point for the three hundred and sixty years. After quoting verse twenty-five Smith states the following.
Smith tẹ̀síwájú, ó sì sọ ogun Actium ní ọdún 31 Ṣ.K. gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ fún ọdún ọ̀ọ́dúnrún mẹ́ta àti ọgọ́ta náà. Lẹ́yìn tí ó ti fa ẹsẹ̀ kẹ́ẹ̀ẹ́dógún náà yọ, Smith sọ èyí tí ó tẹ̀lé e yìí.
“By verses 23 and 24 we are brought down this side of the league between the Jews and the Romans, BC 161, to the time when Rome had acquired universal dominion. The verse now before us brings to view a vigorous campaign against the king of the south, Egypt, and the occurrence of a notable battle between great and mighty armies. Did such events as these transpire in the history of Rome about this time? — They did. The war was the war between Egypt and Rome; and the battle was the battle of Actium. Let us take a brief view of the circumstances that led to this conflict.
“Nípasẹ̀ ẹsẹ̀ 23 àti 24 ni a ti mú wa sọ̀kalẹ̀ dé apá yìí lẹ́yìn májẹ̀mú láàárín àwọn Júù àti àwọn ará Róòmù, ní ọdún 161 Ṣ.K., sí àkókò tí Róòmù ti gba ìṣàkóso àgbáyé. Ẹsẹ̀ tí ó wà níwájú wa nísinsin yìí fi ìpolongo ogun alágbára kan hàn sí ọba gúúsù, Íjíbítì, àti ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ ogun pàtàkì kan láàárín àwọn ọmọ-ogun ńlá àti alágbára. Ṣé irú àwọn ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ wọ̀nyí ṣẹlẹ̀ nínú ìtàn Róòmù ní ìwọ̀n àkókò yìí bí? — Wọ́n ṣẹlẹ̀. Ogun náà ni ogun láàárín Íjíbítì àti Róòmù; ogun ìjà náà sì ni Ogun Actium. Ẹ jẹ́ kí a wo àwọn ipò ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ tí ó yọrí sí ìjà yìí ní ṣókí.”
“[Marc] Antony, Augustus Caesar, and Lepidus constituted the triumvirate which had sworn to avenge the death of Julius Caesar. This Antony became the brother-in-law of Augustus by marrying his sister, Octavia. Antony was sent into Egypt on government business, but fell a victim to the arts and charms of Cleopatra, Egypt’s dissolute queen. So strong was the passion he conceived for her, that he finally espoused the Egyptian interests, rejected his wife, Octavia, to please Cleopatra, bestowed province after province upon the latter to gratify her avarice, celebrated a triumph at Alexandria instead of Rome, and otherwise so affronted the Roman people that Augustus had no difficulty in leading them to engage heartily in a war against this enemy of their country. This war was ostensibly against Egypt and Cleopatra; but it was really against Antony, who now stood at the head of Egyptian affairs. And the true cause of their controversy was, says Prideaux, that neither of them could be content with only half of the Roman empire; for Lepidus having been deposed from the triumvirate, it now lay between them, and each being determined to possess the whole, they cast the die of war for its possession.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 273.
“[Máàkù] Áńtónì, Ọgọsitọsi Késárì, àti Lépídọsi dá ìjọba mẹ́tẹ̀ẹ̀ta náà sílẹ̀ tí ó ti búra láti gbẹ̀san ikú Júlíọsì Késárì. Áńtónì yìí di àna Ọgọsitọsi nípa fífẹ̀sùn ìyàwó arábìnrin rẹ̀, Ọktéfíà. A rán Áńtónì sí Íjíbítì lórí iṣẹ́ ìjọba, ṣùgbọ́n ó ṣubú di ẹrú ọgbọ́n ẹ̀tàn àti ẹwà Kílíópátrà, ayaba oníwà ìbàjẹ́ ti Íjíbítì. Tó bẹ́ẹ̀ ni ìfẹ́kúfẹ̀ẹ́ tí ó ní sí i lágbára tó, tí ní ìkẹyìn ó fara mọ́ ojúṣe àti èrò Íjíbítì, ó kọ ìyàwó rẹ̀, Ọktéfíà, sílẹ̀ láti wu Kílíópátrà, ó fi agbègbè lórí agbègbè fún un láti tẹ́ ìwọra rẹ̀ lọ́rùn, ó ṣe ayẹyẹ ìṣẹ́gun kan ní Álíksándríà dípò ní Róòmù, ó sì tún ṣe àwọn nǹkan míràn tí ó jẹ́ ìtẹ́síwájú sí àwọn ènìyàn Róòmù tó bẹ́ẹ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí Ọgọsitọsi kò ṣe ní ìṣòro kankan láti mú wọn wọ ogun pẹ̀lú gbogbo ọkàn wọn sí ọ̀tá orílẹ̀-èdè wọn yìí. Ní òde, ogun yìí jẹ́ sí Íjíbítì àti Kílíópátrà; ṣùgbọ́n ní tòótọ́, sí Áńtónì ni í ṣe, ẹni tí ó ti dúró báyìí gẹ́gẹ́ bí olórí ọ̀ràn Íjíbítì. Àti ìdí tòótọ́ ìjà wọn ni, Prideaux wí pé, pé kò sí ẹni kankan nínú wọn méjèèjì tí ó lè ní ìtẹ́lọ́rùn pẹ̀lú ìdájí kan ṣoṣo ti ìjọba Róòmù; nítorí pé nígbà tí a ti yọ Lépídọsi kúrò nínú ìjọba mẹ́tẹ̀ẹ̀ta náà, ó wá wà láàárín wọn méjèèjì, àti pé níwọn bí ọkọọkan wọn ti pinnu láti ní gbogbo rẹ̀, wọ́n ju ẹ̀yà ogun sílẹ̀ fún ìní rẹ̀.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 273.
Prophetically the battle of Actium identifies the Sunday law, for it represented the third conquering of the three geographical obstacles which established pagan Rome’s “universal dominion,” as Smith describes it. As with pagan Rome, it was when the third obstacle of papal Rome was driven from the city of Rome that the “universal dominion” of papal Rome began in 538. Those two witnesses address the Sunday law where and when modern Rome overcomes both the sixth and seventh kingdoms of Bible prophecy, and in doing so, overcomes its third obstacle; thus, establishing “universal dominion” for forty-two symbolic months.
Ní ọ̀nà àsọtẹ́lẹ̀, ogun Actium ń fi òfin Ọjọ́-Àìkú hàn, nítorí pé ó ṣàpẹẹrẹ ìṣẹ́gun kẹta lórí àwọn ìdènà ilẹ̀-ayé mẹ́ta tí ó fi “àkóso àgbáyé” Romu kèfèrí múlẹ̀, gẹ́gẹ́ bí Smith ṣe ṣàlàyé rẹ̀. Gẹ́gẹ́ bí ó ti rí pẹ̀lú Romu kèfèrí, nígbà tí a lé ìdènà kẹta Romu póòpù kúrò ní ìlú Romu ni “àkóso àgbáyé” Romu póòpù bẹ̀rẹ̀ ní ọdún 538. Àwọn ẹlẹ́rìí méjèèjì náà ń tọ́ka sí òfin Ọjọ́-Àìkú ní ibi àti àkókò tí Romu òde-òní ṣẹ́gun ìjọba kẹfà àti keje nínú àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ Bíbélì, àti nípa bẹ́ẹ̀, ó ṣẹ́gun ìdènà kẹta rẹ̀; nípa bẹ́ẹ̀ ni ó sì fi “àkóso àgbáyé” múlẹ̀ fún oṣù àpẹẹrẹ méjìlélógójì.
And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. Revelation 13:5.
A sì fi ẹnu kan fún un láti máa sọ àwọn ọ̀rọ̀ ńláńlá àti ọ̀rọ̀-òdì sí Ọlọ́run; a sì fi agbára fún un láti máa bá a lọ fún oṣù méjìlélógójì. Ifihan 13:5.
Rome Against Egypt
Róòmù Lòdì sí Ejibiti
The prophetic dynamics of the war of Augustus of Rome, against Egypt and Cleopatra was motivated by the rebellion of Marc Antony, and those prophetic dynamics must of prophetic necessity represent the prophetic dynamics that are represented at the Sunday law.
Ìṣiṣẹ̀ amí-ìsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ogun Augustu ti Róòmù sí Ejibiti àti Kíliópátrà ni ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ Máàkù Áńtónì mú wá, àti pé nípa àìní amí-ìsọtẹ́lẹ̀, àwọn ìṣiṣẹ̀ amí-ìsọtẹ́lẹ̀ wọ̀nyí gbọ́dọ̀ ṣojú àwọn ìṣiṣẹ̀ amí-ìsọtẹ́lẹ̀ tí a ṣàfihàn ní òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú.
At Actium Rome conquered Egypt, a power which consisted of an alliance between a rebellious man and an unholy woman. The alliance of Antony and Cleopatra is the combination of church and state. At Actium, Augustine’s Rome conquered a power represented by an unholy combination of church and state.
Ní Átíọ́mù, Róòmù ṣẹ́gun Ejibiti, agbára kan tí ó ní ìpilẹ̀ rẹ̀ nínú àjọṣe ọkùnrin ọlọ̀tẹ̀ kan àti obìnrin aláìmímọ́ kan. Àjọṣe Áńtónì àti Kílíópátírà ni ìdapọ̀ ìjọ àti ìpínlẹ̀. Ní Átíọ́mù, Róòmù Augustine ṣẹ́gun agbára kan tí a fi àpẹẹrẹ hàn gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìdapọ̀ aláìmímọ́ ti ìjọ àti ìpínlẹ̀.
Image of the Beast
Àwòrán Ẹranko náà
Cleopatra represents a corrupted church aligned with Antony, a symbol of Rome. Cleopatra was the ruler over their relationship, as represented by Uriah Smith, when he stated that Antony “fell a victim to the arts and charms of Cleopatra, Egypt’s dissolute queen.” The alliance of church and state represented by Antony and Cleopatra identified Cleopatra as the power ruling in the relationship; so, the combination of church and state represented by their relationship meets the definition of the image of the beast—which is the combination of church and state with the woman in control of the relationship. Actium typified the soon-coming Sunday law.
Kileopatira ṣojú fún ìjọ tí a ti bàjẹ́, tí ó sì darapọ̀ mọ́ Ànítónì, àmì kan ti Róòmù. Kileopatira ni ó jẹ́ olùṣàkóso lórí ìbáṣepọ̀ wọn, gẹ́gẹ́ bí Uriah Smith ti fi hàn nígbà tí ó sọ pé Ànítónì “di ẹlẹ́yà fún ọgbọ́n àrékérekè àti ẹwà Kileopatira, ayaba Íjíbítì tí ó bàjẹ́ ní ìwà.” Ìṣọ̀kan ìjọ àti ìpínlẹ̀ tí Ànítónì àti Kileopatira ṣojú fún fi Kileopatira hàn gẹ́gẹ́ bí agbára tí ń ṣàkóso nínú ìbáṣepọ̀ náà; nítorí náà, àkópọ̀ ìjọ àti ìpínlẹ̀ tí ìbáṣepọ̀ wọn ṣojú fún bá ìtumọ̀ àwòrán ẹranko mu—èyí tí í ṣe àkópọ̀ ìjọ àti ìpínlẹ̀ pẹ̀lú obìnrin náà ní ìṣàkóso ìbáṣepọ̀ náà. Ákítíọ́mù jẹ́ àpẹẹrẹ òfin Ọjọ́-Àìkú tí ó ń bọ̀ láìpẹ́.
Augustus, represents the papal power conquering the United States at the soon-coming Sunday law. Marc Antony is the Republican horn of the earth beast and Cleopatra is the Protestant horn. Antony and Cleopatra come together and speak as a dragon at the soon-coming Sunday law. Both Cleopatra and Antony are symbols of a dragon power, and when they are fully joined together at the Sunday law—they speak as a dragon.
Augustus dúró fún agbára póòpù tí yóò ṣẹ́gun Orílẹ̀-èdè Amẹ́ríkà nípasẹ̀ òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú tí ń bọ̀ lọ́tẹ̀ẹ́tẹ̀. Marc Antony ni ìwo Republikani ti ẹranko ilẹ̀ ayé, Cleopatra sì ni ìwo Pírótẹ́sítántì. Antony àti Cleopatra parapọ̀, wọ́n sì sọ̀rọ̀ bí díràgònì nípasẹ̀ òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú tí ń bọ̀ lọ́tẹ̀ẹ́tẹ̀. Mejeeji Cleopatra àti Antony jẹ́ ààmì agbára díràgònì, àti nígbà tí wọ́n bá ti darapọ̀ mọ́ ara wọn pátápátá ní òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú—wọ́n máa sọ̀rọ̀ bí díràgònì.
Dragons
Àwọn Àjàkálẹ̀-Ẹ̀dá
Both Greece and Egypt prophetically represent a dragon power, and Antony also represented a dragon power. Egypt was the south in Daniel eleven and Greece was the west. Egypt was taken by Ptolemy I after Alexander’s kingdom divided into four parts. Ptolemy I then became the first prophetic king of the south and Cleopatra was the last Ptolemaic ruler in Egypt. Ptolemy was born in Macedon, the birth place of Alexander the Great.
Gíríìsì àti Ejibiti, ní ìtumọ̀ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀, dúró fún agbára dragoni; bẹ́ẹ̀ ni Antony pẹ̀lú dúró fún agbára dragoni. Ejibiti ni gúúsù nínú Dáníẹ́lì orí kọkànlá, Gíríìsì sì ni ìwọ̀-oòrùn. Ptolemy Kìíní gba Ejibiti lẹ́yìn tí ìjọba Alexander pín sí apá mẹ́rin. Nígbà náà ni Ptolemy Kìíní di ọba gúúsù àkọ́kọ́ nínú àsọtẹ́lẹ̀, Cleopatra sì ni alákòóso Ptolemaic ìkẹyìn ní Ejibiti. A bí Ptolemy ní Macedon, ibi tí Alexander Ńlá ti bí.
Macedon was in northern Greece, and claimed their ancestral origins were from Greek mythical heroes. The southern Greek city-states considered the Macedonians as more barbaric than the Hellenists of southern Greece. The Macedonians were a monarchy, and the southern city-states (poleis) like Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Corinth, etc., were in southern and central Greece and the Aegean islands. These poleis often had democratic, oligarchic, or mixed governments, while Macedon was a centralized monarchy with a strong royal dynasty (the Argeads). Still, they were all Hellenists, and when Rome came into history, they labelled the Hellenists Greek. Cleopatra was the last Ptolemaic ruler, which represented the northern kingdom’s monarchial tribe of Greeks from the area of Macedon, or northern Greece.
Makedonia wà ní àríwá ilẹ̀ Gíríìsì, ó sì sọ pé ìpilẹ̀ ìdílé àwọn baba ńlá wọn ti ọ̀dọ̀ àwọn akọni àròsọ ilẹ̀ Gíríìsì wá. Àwọn ìpínlẹ̀-ìlú Gíríìsì ti gúúsù ka àwọn ará Makedonia sí aláìlàṣà jù àwọn Hellénì ti gúúsù ilẹ̀ Gíríìsì lọ. Ìjọba Makedonia jẹ́ ọba-alákòóso, àwọn ìpínlẹ̀-ìlú gúúsù náà sì—gẹ́gẹ́ bíi Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Corinth, àti bẹ́ẹ̀ bẹ́ẹ̀ lọ—wà ní gúúsù àti àárín ilẹ̀ Gíríìsì pẹ̀lú àwọn erékùṣù Aegean. Àwọn poleis wọ̀nyí sábà máa ní ìṣàkóso tiwántìwá, ti àwọn olórí díẹ̀, tàbí èyí tí a dapọ̀; ṣùgbọ́n Makedonia jẹ́ ìjọba ọba tí a ṣàkóso láti àárín pẹ̀lú ìdílé ọba alágbára kan (àwọn Argeads). Síbẹ̀síbẹ̀, gbogbo wọn jẹ́ Hellénì, àti nígbà tí Róòmù wọ inú ìtàn, wọ́n pe àwọn Hellénì ní Greek. Cleopatra ni alákòóso Ptolemaic ìkẹyìn, ẹni tí ó ṣojú ẹ̀yà ọba ìjọba àríwá ti àwọn Greek láti agbègbè Makedonia, tàbí àríwá ilẹ̀ Gíríìsì.
King of the South
Ọba Gúúsù
Cleopatra was the final ruler of the Ptolemaic kingdom that began with Ptolemy I when Alexander’s kingdom divided into four. At the battle of Actium the Ptolemaic kingdom, the literal king of the south, reached its end. The next king of the south would be spiritual Egypt, represented by atheistic France during the French Revolution history.
Kíliópátírà ni olùṣàkóso ìkẹyìn ti ìjọba Pátólóméì tí ó bẹ̀rẹ̀ pẹ̀lú Pátólómì Kínní nígbà tí a pín ìjọba Alẹ́ksándà sí mẹ́rin. Ní ogun Aktíọ́mù, ìjọba Pátólóméì, ọba gidi ti gúúsù, dé òpin rẹ̀. Ọba gúúsù tí ó tẹ̀lé e yóò jẹ́ Íjíbítì ti ẹ̀mí, tí Faranse aláìgbọ́wọ́ Ọlọ́run ṣàpẹẹrẹ rẹ̀ ní ìtàn Iyíká Faranse.
And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. Revelation 11:8.
Àwọn òkú wọn yóò sì dùbúlẹ̀ ní ojú pópó ìlú ńlá náà, èyí tí ní ti ẹ̀mí a ń pè ní Sódómù àti Ejibiti, níbi tí a ti kan Olúwa wa mọ́ àgbélébùú pẹ̀lú. Ìfihàn 11:8.
Literal Egypt was the literal king of the south as related to the division of Alexander’s kingdom, but spiritual Egypt is represented as the king of the south by the prophetic attributes of Egypt, not a literal direction.
Íjíbítì gidi ni ọba gidi ti gúúsù ní ìbámu pẹ̀lú pípín ìjọba Alẹ́kisáńdà, ṣùgbọ́n Íjíbítì ti ẹ̀mí ni a ṣojú gẹ́gẹ́ bí ọba gúúsù nípasẹ̀ àwọn àbùdá àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ti Íjíbítì, kì í ṣe nípasẹ̀ ìtọ́ka sí ìhà gidi kan.
South and West
Gúúsù àti Ìwọ̀-Oòrùn
Cleopatra being the last Ptolemaic ruler of the kingdom was prophetically a twofold power of Greek (west) and Egypt (south), whereas; the next, and then spiritual king of the south would be France, also a twofold power represented in Revelation eleven as Egypt and Sodom. The licentiousness of Sodom aligns with the licentiousness of Cleopatra of the west, and Cleopatra of the south aligns with the atheism of Egypt. The last literal king of the south’s twofold nature aligned with the first spiritual king of the south.
Nítorí Kíliópátírà jẹ́ alákòóso Ptolemaic ìkẹyìn ti ìjọba náà, ní ti àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ó jẹ́ agbára ìlọ́po méjì ti Giriki (ìwọ̀-oòrùn) àti Ejibiti (gúúsù), nígbà tí; ẹni tí ó tẹ̀lé e, tí yóò sì di ọba gúúsù ní ti ẹ̀mí, yóò jẹ́ Faranse, pẹ̀lú, agbára ìlọ́po méjì tí a ṣàfihàn nínú Ìṣípayá mọ́kànlá gẹ́gẹ́ bí Ejibiti àti Sódómù. Àìlera ìwà Sódómù bá àìlera ìwà Kíliópátírà ti ìwọ̀-oòrùn mu, àti Kíliópátírà ti gúúsù bá àìgbàgbọ́ nínú Ọlọ́run ti Ejibiti mu. Ìwà ìlọ́po méjì ti ọba gúúsù gangan ìkẹyìn bá ọba gúúsù àkọ́kọ́ ní ti ẹ̀mí mu.
The battle of Actium was the unholy alliance of Antony’s dragon of Rome and Cleopatra’s dragon of the south and west. Antony and Cleopatra represent a church and a state, so the conquering of Actium by Augustus of Rome, represents a conquering where Rome prevails over an unholy twofold union typifying the image of the beast. Three hundred and sixty years later, in fulfillment of Daniel 11:24, Constantine divided Rome into east and west, leaving the woman of Rome in the west and moving the man of Rome to the east. A conquering of south and west typified the division of east and west after a “time” of three hundred and sixty years, at the battle of Actium. In an earlier encounter Antony was given eastern Rome and Augustus the west, so Actium brought together east and west, but only for a “time.”
Ìjà Actium jẹ́ àjọṣepọ̀ àìmọ́ ti dírágónì Róòmù ti Antony àti dírágónì gúúsù àti ìwọ̀-oòrùn ti Cleopatra. Antony àti Cleopatra dúró fún ìjọ kan àti ìjọba kan, nítorí náà ìṣẹ́gun Actium ní ọwọ́ Augustus ti Róòmù dúró fún ìṣẹ́gun kan níbi tí Róòmù ti borí lórí àjọṣepọ̀ aláìmọ́ alápá méjì kan tí ó jẹ́ àpẹẹrẹ àwòrán ẹranko náà. Ọdún ẹgbẹ̀ta àti ọgọ́ta lẹ́yìn náà, ní ìmúṣẹ Daniel 11:24, Constantine pín Róòmù sí ìlà-oòrùn àti ìwọ̀-oòrùn, ó fi obìnrin Róòmù sílẹ̀ ní ìwọ̀-oòrùn, ó sì kó ọkùnrin Róòmù lọ sí ìlà-oòrùn. Ìṣẹ́gun lórí gúúsù àti ìwọ̀-oòrùn jẹ́ àpẹẹrẹ ìpín ìlà-oòrùn àti ìwọ̀-oòrùn lẹ́yìn “àkókò” kan ti ọdún ẹgbẹ̀ta àti ọgọ́ta, ní ìjà Actium. Nínú ìpàdé ogun kan ṣáájú, a fi Róòmù ìlà-oòrùn fún Antony, àti ìwọ̀-oòrùn fún Augustus, nítorí náà Actium mú ìlà-oòrùn àti ìwọ̀-oòrùn jọ, ṣùgbọ́n fún “àkókò” kan péré.
31 BC and 330
31 Ṣ.K. ati 330 S.K.
Jesus always illustrates the end with the beginning, so the conquering of Actium in 31 BC typifies the division of the empire into east and west in 330. Actium of 31 BC was the alpha of the omega in the 360 years that concluded in 330. Both 31 BC and 330 typify the soon-coming Sunday law as represented in verse sixteen and forty-one of Daniel eleven.
Jésù máa ń fi ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ ṣàpẹẹrẹ òpin nígbà gbogbo, nítorí náà ìṣẹ́gun Ákítíọ́mù ní ọdún 31 Ṣ.K. jẹ́ àpẹẹrẹ ìpín ìjọba náà sí ìlà-oòrùn àti ìwọ̀-oòrùn ní ọdún 330. Ákítíọ́mù ti ọdún 31 Ṣ.K. ni alífà ti òmégà nínú ọdún 360 tí ó parí ní 330. Mejeeji ọdún 31 Ṣ.K. àti 330 jẹ́ àpẹẹrẹ òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú tí ń bọ̀ láìpẹ́ gẹ́gẹ́ bí a ti ṣàfihàn rẹ̀ nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìnlá [16] àti kọkànlélógójì [41] ti Dáníẹ́lì mọ́kànlá.
Another Symbol
Àmì Míìrán-an Míìrán Sìi
Antony of Rome, aligned with Cleopatra of the south and of the west represents a threefold alliance within their twofold union of the image of the beast. The cross also aligns with the Sunday law, and therefore with Actium and 330. At the cross a twofold union of church and state is represented by the Jews (corrupted church) joining with Rome (state) to murder Christ. The third party in the union at the cross is represented by Barabbas, a false Christ, whose name means “son of the father.” Barabbas is symbolically a false prophet when contrasted with Christ as the true prophet. Rome was Antony, and Cleopatra of the south and west represented the Jews and Barabbas.
Antoni ti Róòmù, tí ó bá Kílẹ́ọ́pátírà ti gúúsù àti ti ìwọ̀-oòrùn mu, ń ṣojú ìṣọ̀kan mẹ́ta láàárín ìpapọ̀ wọn méjì ti àwòrán ẹranko náà. Àgbélébùú náà pẹ̀lú bá òfin Ọjọ́-Àìkú mu, nítorí náà pẹ̀lú Aktíọ́mù àti 330. Ní àgbélébùú, ìpapọ̀ méjì ti ìjọ àti ìjọba ni a ṣojú fún nípasẹ̀ àwọn Júù (ìjọ tí a ti bàjẹ́) tí wọ́n darapọ̀ mọ́ Róòmù (ìjọba) láti pa Kristi. Ẹgbẹ́ kẹta nínú ìpapọ̀ tí ó wà ní àgbélébùú ni a ṣojú fún nípasẹ̀ Bárábásì, Kristi èké kan, ẹni tí orúkọ rẹ̀ túmọ̀ sí “ọmọ baba.” Bárábásì jẹ́, ní ti àpẹẹrẹ, wòlíì èké nígbà tí a bá fi í wé Kristi gẹ́gẹ́ bí Wòlíì tòótọ́. Róòmù ni Antoni, Kílẹ́ọ́pátírà sì ti gúúsù àti ìwọ̀-oòrùn ṣojú fún àwọn Júù àti Bárábásì.
The cross also aligns with Elijah on Mount Carmel where the choice was over who was the true or false prophet. The false prophet then was a twofold symbol consisting of the prophets of Baal and the priests of the grove. Baal is a male deity and the priests of the grove represented Ashtaroth, a female deity. The Jews at the cross were Ashtaroth, the female deity and Barabbas, the counterfeit of the Man of Sorrows, was the male deity Baal.
Àgbélébùú náà pẹ̀lú bá ti Elijah lórí Òkè Kámẹ́lì mu, níbi tí ìyànjú náà ti jẹ́ nípa ẹni tí í ṣe wòlíì òtítọ́ tàbí wòlíì èké. Wòlíì èké nígbà náà jẹ́ ààmì onípín méjì tí ó ní àwọn wòlíì Baali àti àwọn àlùfáà ti ọgbà òrìṣà. Baali jẹ́ òrìṣà akọ, àwọn àlùfáà ti ọgbà òrìṣà sì dúró fún Ashtaroth, òrìṣà abo. Àwọn Júù ní àgbélébùú náà jẹ́ Ashtaroth, òrìṣà abo náà, Barabbas sì, àròpò èké ti Ọkùnrin Ìbànújẹ́, ni òrìṣà akọ náà, Baali.
Cleopatra was both the queen of the south and the queen of the west. Antony was the image of Rome, part of the threefold triumvirate sworn to avenge the assassination of Julius. Julius death by twenty-three wounds represented the papacies deadly wound in 1798, in fulfillment of verse forty of Daniel eleven. Augustine at Actium represents the healing of that deadly wound. The wound is healed when Antony and Cleopatra die. Antony and Cleopatra represent the image of the beast in the United States that is a threefold prophetic entity, consisting of the earth beast and its two horns. Antony is one part and Cleopatra represents the other two parts. Whether it is Antony’s Rome, or Cleopatra’s Egypt and Greece, they die together at the Sunday law when the sixth kingdom of Bible prophecy ends. Prophetically Cleopatra in relation to Antony is the mixture of church craft and statecraft, with the church craft seducing and controlling the statecraft.
Cleopatra jẹ́ ayaba gúúsù àti ayaba ìwọ̀-oòrùn pẹ̀lú. Antony jẹ́ àwòrán Romu, apá kan nínú ìṣọ̀kan mẹ́ta ti àwọn aláṣẹ tí wọ́n ti búra láti gbẹ̀san ikú Julius. Ikú Julius nípasẹ̀ ọgbẹ́ mẹ́tàlélógún dúró fún ọgbẹ́ ikú papacy ní ọdún 1798, gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìmúṣẹ ẹsẹ̀ ogójì nínú Danieli mọ́kànlá. Augustine ní Actium dúró fún ìmúlaradá ọgbẹ́ ikú náà. A mú ọgbẹ́ náà lára dá nígbà tí Antony àti Cleopatra kú. Antony àti Cleopatra dúró fún àwòrán ẹranko náà ní orílẹ̀-èdè Amẹ́ríkà, èyí tí ó jẹ́ ẹ̀dá àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ mẹ́ta, tí ó ní ẹranko ilẹ̀ àti ìwo rẹ̀ méjì. Antony jẹ́ apá kan, Cleopatra sì dúró fún àwọn apá méjì yòókù. Bóyá Romu Antony ni, tàbí Ejibiti àti Giriki ti Cleopatra, wọ́n kú papọ̀ ní òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú nígbà tí ìjọba kẹfà nínú àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ Bíbélì parí. Ní ti àsọtẹ́lẹ̀, Cleopatra ní ìbáṣepọ̀ pẹ̀lú Antony jẹ́ àdàpọ̀ ọgbọ́n ìṣàkóso ìjọ àti ọgbọ́n ìṣàkóso ìpínlẹ̀, pẹ̀lú pé ọgbọ́n ìṣàkóso ìjọ ń tàn ìpínlẹ̀ jẹ, tí ó sì ń ṣàkóso rẹ̀.
The Second Death Typified
Ikú Kejì Gẹ́gẹ́ Bí Àpẹẹrẹ
At another prophetic level Cleopatra’s relation to Julius Caesar and Marc Antony represents two times that the church craft of Cleopatra is in a relationship with the statecraft of the Roman Empire. She was left by Julius in 1798 at her first symbolic death, in fulfillment of verse forty of Daniel eleven; and then she comes to her end with none to help, at Actium in fulfillment of verse forty-five of Daniel eleven. Verse forty is the alpha of her first deadly wound that is to be healed and the omega of verse forty-five is where she receives her second and final death.
Ní ìpele mìíràn ti àsọtẹ́lẹ̀, ìbáṣepọ̀ Cleopatra pẹ̀lú Julius Caesar àti Marc Antony dúró fún ìgbà méjì tí ọgbọ́n-ìṣàkóso ìjọ ti Cleopatra wà nínú ìbáṣepọ̀ pẹ̀lú ọgbọ́n-ìṣàkóso ìpínlẹ̀ ti Ilẹ̀-ọba Romu. Julius fi í sílẹ̀ ní ọdún 1798 ní ikú àkọ́kọ́ ààmì rẹ̀, ní ìmúṣẹ ẹsẹ̀ ogójì ti Danieli mọ́kànlá; lẹ́yìn náà ó sì dé òpin rẹ̀ láìsí ẹnikẹ́ni láti ràn án lọ́wọ́, ní Actium, ní ìmúṣẹ ẹsẹ̀ ogójì-dín-lọ́gbọ̀n ti Danieli mọ́kànlá. Ẹsẹ̀ ogójì ni alpha ti ọgbẹ́ apaniyan àkọ́kọ́ rẹ̀ tí a óò mú láradá, àti omega ti ẹsẹ̀ ogójì-dín-lọ́gbọ̀n ni ibi tí ó ti gba ikú kejì rẹ̀ àti ti ìkẹyìn.
As with the four Roman powers of verse sixteen through twenty-two, Cleopatra as a biblical symbol has more than one meaning, based upon the context. Julius left her in 1798 when kingly support was removed, and then her deadly wound is healed at the Sunday law, but the ten kings of Revelation seventeen ultimately destroy her with fire, when she meets her second and final death.
Gẹ́gẹ́ bí ó ti rí pẹ̀lú àwọn agbára Romu mẹ́rin ti ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìndínlógún títí dé kejìlélógún, Kiliopátírà gẹ́gẹ́ bí àmì àpẹẹrẹ Bibeli ní ìtumọ̀ tó ju ọ̀kan lọ, gẹ́gẹ́ bí ọ̀rọ̀ àyíká ṣe ń pinnu rẹ̀. Júlíọ̀sì fi í sílẹ̀ ní ọdún 1798 nígbà tí a yọ ìtìlẹ́yìn ọba kúrò, lẹ́yìn náà a sì mú ọgbẹ́ ikú rẹ̀ lára dá nígbà òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú, ṣùgbọ́n àwọn ọba mẹ́wàá ti Ìfihàn orí kẹtadínlógún yóò pa á run níkẹyìn pẹ̀lú iná, nígbà tí ó bá pàdé ikú kejì rẹ̀ àti ti ìkẹyìn.
Cleopatra is a symbol of the twofold nature represented by the atheism of Pharoah’s Egypt, and the religious philosophy of Greece. Her twofold nature represents the statecraft of Egypt and the church craft of Greece. Greek religious philosophy is represented by the Greek goddess Athena, who was enshrined as a statue in her temple, called the Parthenon. Athena is the symbol of wisdom, and as a woman she represents a religion of human education, in contrast with Divine education.
Kiliopatira jẹ́ àmì ìṣedá méjì tí àìgbọ́gbọ́-ọlọ́run ti Ejibiti Fáráò, àti ọgbọ́n-ìmọ̀ ẹ̀sìn ti Giriki ń ṣojú fún. Ìṣedá méjì rẹ̀ ń ṣojú fún ọgbọ́n ìṣàkóso ìjọba ti Ejibiti àti ọgbọ́n ìṣàkóso ìjọ ti Giriki. Ọgbọ́n-ìmọ̀ ẹ̀sìn ti Giriki ni a fi aṣáájúbọ̀n hàn nínú ọlọ́rìṣà obìnrin Giriki, Athena, ẹni tí a gbé kalẹ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí ère nínú tẹ́ńpìlì rẹ̀, tí a ń pè ní Parthenon. Athena jẹ́ àmì ọgbọ́n, àti gẹ́gẹ́ bí obìnrin, ó ń ṣojú fún ẹ̀sìn ẹ̀kọ́ ènìyàn, ní ìyàtọ̀ pẹ̀lú ẹ̀kọ́ Ọlọ́run.
The two horns of the United States are Republicanism and Protestantism, which were typified in France by Egypt and Sodom. Egypt is statecraft and Sodom is church craft; thus, Republicanism aligns with Egypt and Protestantism with Sodom. Republicanism is Egypt and Protestantism is Sodom and Greece. The symbol of human education is the Greek goddess Athena, whose temple was the Parthenon that finds its modern twin in Nashville, Tennessee’s Parthenon temple. The symbol of the corrupt church that aligns with the Republican horn in the United States at the Sunday law is represented as Cleopatra, Ashtaroth, Salome and Sodom.
Ìwo méjì tí Orílẹ̀-Èdè Amẹ́ríkà ní ni Ìjọba Olómìnira àti Pùròtẹ́sítáǹtì, èyí tí Ejibiti àti Sódómù ṣe àpẹẹrẹ wọn ní ilẹ̀ Faransé. Ejibiti jẹ́ ọgbọ́n ìṣàkóso ìpínlẹ̀, Sódómù sì jẹ́ ọgbọ́n iṣẹ́ ìjọ; nípa bẹ́ẹ̀, Ìjọba Olómìnira bá Ejibiti mu, Pùròtẹ́sítáǹtì sì bá Sódómù mu. Ìjọba Olómìnira ni Ejibiti, Pùròtẹ́sítáǹtì sì ni Sódómù àti Gíríìsì. Àmì ẹ̀kọ́ ẹ̀dá ènìyàn ni Athena, òrìṣàbìnrin ilẹ̀ Gíríìkì, ẹni tí tẹ́ńpìlì rẹ̀ jẹ́ Parthenon, èyí tí ó ní ẹlẹ́gbẹ́ ìgbà òde òní rẹ̀ nínú tẹ́ńpìlì Parthenon ní Nashville, Tennessee. Àmì ìjọ ìbàjẹ́ tí ó darapọ̀ mọ́ ìwo Olómìnira ní Orílẹ̀-Èdè Amẹ́ríkà nígbà òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú ni a fi hàn gẹ́gẹ́ bí Cleopatra, Ashtaroth, Salome àti Sódómù.
Cleopatra portrays the atheism of Pharoah and the religion of the Greeks. The religion that accompanies the philosophy of atheism is the worship of Greek education. Jesus always illustrates the end with the beginning and the tree in the garden that was forbidden to eat was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, typifying the religion of Greek philosophy that Sister White calls, “higher education.” It identifies and emphasizes Cleopatra’s Greek religion of wisdom as the corrupted and counterfeit of true education in the great controversy between Christ and Satan.
Kíliópátírà ń ṣàfihàn àìgbàgbọ́ nínú Ọlọ́run ti Fáráò àti ẹ̀sìn àwọn Gíríìkì. Ẹ̀sìn tí ó bá ọgbọ́n-ìmọ̀ àìgbàgbọ́ nínú Ọlọ́run lọ ni ìjọ́sìn ẹ̀kọ́ Gíríìkì. Jésù máa ń fi òpin ṣàpẹẹrẹ pẹ̀lú ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ nígbà gbogbo, àti igi inú ọgbà tí a kò jẹ́ kí a jẹ nínú rẹ̀ ni igi ìmọ̀ rere àti búburú, èyí tí ó dúró fún ẹ̀sìn ọgbọ́n-ìmọ̀ Gíríìkì tí Sister White pè ní, “ẹ̀kọ́ gíga jùlọ.” Ó ń ṣe ìdánimọ̀, ó sì ń tẹnumọ́ ẹ̀sìn ọgbọ́n Kíliópátírà ti Gíríìkì gẹ́gẹ́ bí èyí tí ó ti bàjẹ́ àti èké àfarawé ẹ̀kọ́ tòótọ́ nínú ìjà ńlá láàárín Kristi àti Sátánì.
Nashville, Tennessee is called the “Athens of the south,” and Cleopatra was the last literal queen of the south. The last queen of the south typified the next and first spiritual king of the south, fulfilled by atheistic France. Atheistic France typifies the United States, where in Nashville, Tennessee, “Athens of the south” the Parthenon temple for the goddess Athena is symbolically represented. The temple is located at 2500 West End in Nashville. The number twenty-five represents the closed door of Matthew twenty-five’s three parables. Cleopatra as both the queen of the “south” and “west” comes to her “end” in Athens of the south.
Nashville, Tennessee ni a máa ń pè ní “Athens ti gúúsù,” Cleopatra sì ni ayaba gidi ìkẹyìn ti gúúsù. Ayaba ìkẹyìn ti gúúsù jẹ́ àpẹẹrẹ ọba ẹ̀mí tí ó tẹ̀lé e, tí ó sì jẹ́ àkọ́kọ́ ti gúúsù, èyí tí a mú ṣẹ nípasẹ̀ France aláìgbàgbọ́-nínú-Ọlọ́run. France aláìgbàgbọ́-nínú-Ọlọ́run jẹ́ àpẹẹrẹ Orílẹ̀-Èdè Amẹ́ríkà, níbi tí, ní Nashville, Tennessee, “Athens ti gúúsù,” tẹ́ńpìlì Parthenon fún ọlọ́run obìnrin Athena ti jẹ́ aṣojú ní ìṣàpẹẹrẹ. Tẹ́ńpìlì náà wà ní 2500 West End ní Nashville. Nọ́mbà méjìlélógún dúró fún ilẹ̀kùn títí ti Mátíù ogún-ún-ún márùn-ún nínú àwòrán-òwe mẹ́ta rẹ̀. Cleopatra gẹ́gẹ́ bí ayaba ti “gúúsù” àti “ìwọ̀-oòrùn” dé “ìparí” rẹ̀ ní Athens ti gúúsù.
With these considerations of Actium, Cleopatra, Augustus and Antony we return to verse twenty-four through verse thirty of Daniel eleven. Perhaps, the vaguest part of the passage is when they speak lies at one table.
Pẹ̀lú àwọn ìrònú wọ̀nyí nípa Actium, Cleopatra, Augustus àti Antony, a padà sí ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìnlélógún títí dé ẹsẹ̀ ọgbọ̀n nínú Danieli mọ́kànlá. Bóyá, apá tí kò ṣe kedere jù lọ nínú àyọkà náà ni nígbà tí wọ́n bá ń sọ irọ́ níbi tábìlì kan náà.
And both these kings’ hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed. Daniel 11:27.
Àwọn ọkàn ọba méjèèjì wọ̀nyí yóò sì wà láti ṣe búburú, wọn yóò sì máa sọ èké níbi tábìlì kan náà; ṣùgbọ́n kì yóò ṣàṣeyọrí; nítorí pé ìkẹyìn náà ṣì ń bẹ fún àkókò tí a yàn. Danieli 11:27.
The time appointed in the verse is 330, the end of the “time” of verse twenty-four. The time appointed represents the Sunday law for the United States and it also represents the close of human probation for the world. Before the Sunday law the two kings, whose hearts were to do mischief will speak lies to one another at one table. Before the Sunday law of verses sixteen and forty-one of Daniel eleven, two kings will speak lies at one table, but their lies do not prosper. Who are the two kings that speak lies to one another? Before we answer that thought, I will remind us of some symbolism we have previously addressed in this series.
Àkókò tí a yàn sípò nínú ẹsẹ náà jẹ́ 330, ìparí “àkókò” ẹsẹ kẹrìnlélógún. Àkókò tí a yàn sípò náà ń ṣojú òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú fún Orílẹ̀-èdè Amẹ́ríkà, ó sì tún ń ṣojú ìpẹ̀yà àkókò ìdánwò ènìyàn fún ayé. Ṣáájú òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú, àwọn ọba méjì, tí ọkàn wọn jẹ́ láti ṣe ìbàjẹ́, yóò máa sọ èké fún ara wọn lórí tábìlì kan. Ṣáájú òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú ti ẹsẹ kẹrìndínlógún àti kọkànlélógójì nínú Dáníẹ́lì mọ́kànlá, àwọn ọba méjì yóò sọ èké lórí tábìlì kan, ṣùgbọ́n èké wọn kì yóò ṣàṣeyọrí. Ta ni àwọn ọba méjì tí ń sọ èké fún ara wọn? Kí a tó dáhùn ìrònú yẹn, èmi yóò rántí fún wa díẹ̀ nínú àpẹẹrẹ àsàmì tí a ti ṣàlàyé tẹ́lẹ̀ nínú àtòlẹ́sẹẹsẹ yìí.
The four Roman rulers represent a variety of prophetic symbols depending on what context they are considered. Though Roman rulers, as a symbol they essentially represent the prophetic history of ancient Judah as they transitioned from the Seleucid domination into the domination of the Romans.
Àwọn alákòóso Romu mẹ́rin náà dúró fún onírúurú ààmì àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí àyíká tí a bá ti ń wo wọn. Bí wọ́n tilẹ̀ jẹ́ alákòóso Romu, gẹ́gẹ́ bí ààmì, ní ìpilẹ̀ṣẹ̀ wọ́n dúró fún ìtàn àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ti Júdà ìgbàanì bí wọ́n ṣe ń yí padà kúrò lábẹ́ ìṣàkóso Séléúsídì sí abẹ́ ìṣàkóso àwọn ará Romu.
Pompey was a general and the next three Roman rulers were all Caesars. Julius in relation to Augustus represented two threefold unions with the two triumvirates, the first unofficial, the second official. All four rulers represent the Sunday law in certain contexts. Pompey conquered the glorious land, Julius, represented by twenty-three stab wounds is the first angel, for he is the first Caesar, and he typifies the third angel, which was Tiberias. Tiberias at the cross, which is the Sunday law is also represented by twenty-three, for twenty-three represents the at-one-ment; and the cross is a most essential part of the work of Christ in combining His Divinity with our humanity. So, Julius and Tiberias are the first and third message, represented by twenty-three.
Pompey jẹ́ ọ̀gágun, àti àwọn alákòóso Romu mẹ́ta tí ó tẹ̀ lé e jẹ́ gbogbo wọn Késárì. Julius ní ìbáṣepọ̀ pẹ̀lú Augustus ṣe aṣojú ìṣọ̀kan méjì mẹ́ta-mẹ́ta pẹ̀lú àwọn triumvirate méjèèjì, àkọ́kọ́ jẹ́ àìfìmọ̀lára, èkejì sì jẹ́ ti òfin. Gbogbo àwọn alákòóso mẹ́rin náà dúró fún òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú nínú àwọn àkópọ̀-ọrọ̀ kan. Pompey ṣẹ́gun ilẹ̀ ògo náà, Julius, ẹni tí a fi ọgbẹ́ abẹ́ mẹ́tàlélógún ṣàpẹẹrẹ, ni áńgẹ́lì àkọ́kọ́, nítorí òun ni Késárì àkọ́kọ́, ó sì jẹ́ àpẹẹrẹ áńgẹ́lì kẹta, èyí tí ó jẹ́ Tiberias. Tiberias ní agbelebu, èyí tí í ṣe òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú, ni a tún fi mẹ́tàlélógún ṣàpẹẹrẹ, nítorí mẹ́tàlélógún dúró fún ìṣọ̀kan-pípé; agbelebu sì jẹ́ apá pàtàkì gidigidi nínú iṣẹ́ Kristi ní fífi Ìwà-Ọlọ́run Rẹ̀ pọ̀ mọ́ ẹ̀dá ènìyàn wa. Nítorí náà, Julius àti Tiberias ni ìhìn àkọ́kọ́ àti ìhìn kẹta, tí a fi mẹ́tàlélógún ṣàpẹẹrẹ.
Julius was not the romantic figure he is often portrayed as in Hollywood lore; he was a ruthless man bent on power. Tiberias was worse than Julius, for his vileness is even addressed in the verse, for the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet is twenty-two and the first letter is one. The alpha is smaller than the omega and Tiberias’ vileness is located in verse twenty-two, which is the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and in between the two vile persons represented by Julius and Tiberias was Augustus. Augustus represents the height of the glory of Rome’s power and prestige. As the opposite of the first and third message he is represented by the letter thirteen, which is a symbol of rebellion. Augustus secured his kingdom by subduing the rebellion of Antony and Cleopatra, the most famous rebellion of Rome’s history.
Julius kì í ṣe ẹni àròsọ ìfẹ́kúfẹ̀ẹ́ bí a ti máa ń fi í hàn ní ọ̀pọ̀lọpọ̀ ìtàn Hollywood; ènìyàn aláìláàánú ni, ẹni tí agbára jẹ́ ète ọkàn rẹ̀. Tiberias burú ju Julius lọ, nítorí a tilẹ̀ tọ́ka sí ìwà ìbàjẹ́ rẹ̀ nínú ẹsẹ náà, nítorí lẹ́tà ìkẹyìn nínú álífábẹ́ẹ̀tì Heberu jẹ́ méjìlélógún, lẹ́tà àkọ́kọ́ sì jẹ́ ọ̀kan. Alpha kere ju omega lọ, a sì rí ìwà ìbàjẹ́ Tiberias ní ẹsẹ méjìlélógún, èyí tí í ṣe lẹ́tà ìkẹyìn nínú álífábẹ́ẹ̀tì Heberu, láàárín àwọn ẹni ìbàjẹ́ méjèèjì tí Julius àti Tiberias dúró fún sì ni Augustus wà. Augustus dúró fún gíga ògo agbára àti iyi Romu. Gẹ́gẹ́ bí òdì sí ìránṣẹ́ àkọ́kọ́ àti ìkẹta, lẹ́tà kẹtàlá ni ó fi jẹ́ aṣojú rẹ̀, èyí tí í ṣe àmì ìṣọ̀tẹ̀. Augustus fi ìtẹ́ọba rẹ̀ múlẹ̀ nípa fífi ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ Antony àti Cleopatra, ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ tí ó gbajúgbajà jù lọ nínú ìtàn Romu, sẹ́gbẹ̀.
Augustus is the Roman power who conquered the third obstacle and in doing so he represented the Sunday law, and the Roman power who reigns during the forty-two symbolic months of Revelation thirteen’s chapter of rebellion. When placed before the Sunday law Pompey is both 1798 and 1989, making Pompey a symbol of Antiochus Magnus ending the fourth Syrian War from 219 unto 217 BC, in fulfillment of verse ten of chapter eleven. Julius Caesar is then aligned with verses eleven and twelve and the battle of the borderline, the battle of Raphia in 217 BC. There Julius is also Antiochus Magnus, and Augustus Caesar is also Antiochus Magnus in verse fifteen’s battle of Panium. Then in verse sixteen Tiberias is the Sunday law, but he is not Antiochus Magnus, for there he is Pompey, for Jesus always illustrates the end with the beginning. The verse marks the end of the Seleucid Empire typifying the end of the United States as the sixth kingdom of Bible prophecy.
Augustus ni agbára Romu tí ó ṣẹ́gun ìdènà kẹta, àti ní ṣíṣe bẹ́ẹ̀ ó ṣojú òfin Ọjọ́-Àìkú, àti agbára Romu tí ń ṣàkóso ní àkókò oṣù méjìlélógójì àmì-ìṣàpẹẹrẹ nínú orí kẹtàlá Ìfihàn, orí ìṣọ̀tẹ̀. Nígbà tí a bá fi í sí iwájú òfin Ọjọ́-Àìkú, Pompey jẹ́ 1798 àti 1989 ní ìgbà kan náà, èyí sì mú kí Pompey di àmì Antiochus Magnus tí ó parí Ogun Síríà kẹrin láti ọdún 219 títí dé 217 ṣáájú Sànmánì Kristi, gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìmúṣẹ ẹsẹ̀ kẹwàá orí kọkànlá. Nígbà náà ni a fi Julius Caesar bá ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá àti kejìlá mu pẹ̀lú ogun ààlà, ìyẹn ogun Raphia ní ọdún 217 ṣáájú Sànmánì Kristi. Níbẹ̀ Julius náà jẹ́ Antiochus Magnus pẹ̀lú, Augustus Caesar náà sì jẹ́ Antiochus Magnus pẹ̀lú nínú ogun Panium ti ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìnlá. Lẹ́yìn náà, nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìndínlógún, Tiberias ni òfin Ọjọ́-Àìkú, ṣùgbọ́n kì í ṣe Antiochus Magnus, nítorí níbẹ̀ ó jẹ́ Pompey, nítorí Jésù máa ń fi ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ ṣàpèjúwe òpin nígbà gbogbo. Ẹsẹ̀ náà ń samisi òpin Ìjọba Seleucid gẹ́gẹ́ bí àpẹẹrẹ òpin Orílẹ̀-Èdè Amẹ́ríkà gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìjọba kẹfà nínú àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ Bíbélì.
There are more alignments to be made of the four Roman rulers, and the line represents the hidden history of verse forty. The Maccabean line of verse twenty-three also illustrates the hidden history of verse forty. Then in verses twenty-four, the story of pagan Imperial Rome is represented by a time—three hundred and sixty years. The line of Roman history represented from verse twenty-four through to verse thirty is also an illustration of the hidden history of verse forty. It ends in verse thirty-one when the subject changes from pagan to papal Rome. Pagan Rome is still in the verse, but there it is not represented as the fourth kingdom of Bible prophecy, but as the political power that placed the papacy on the throne in 538. In 538 the papacy passed a Sunday law, so verse thirty-one is aligning with verses sixteen and forty-one. Verse twenty-four introduced the battle of Actium and the history associated with the line.
Àwọn ìbámu míì tún wà tí a gbọ́dọ̀ ṣe nípa àwọn alákòóso Romu mẹ́rin náà, ìlà náà sì ń ṣàpẹẹrẹ ìtàn àṣírí ẹsẹ̀ ogójì. Ìlà Maccabean ti ẹsẹ̀ mẹ́tàlélógún náà pẹ̀lú ń ṣàfihàn ìtàn àṣírí ẹsẹ̀ ogójì. Lẹ́yìn náà, nínú ẹsẹ̀ mẹ́rìnlélógún, a ṣàfihàn ìtàn Romu Ìjọba Keferi nípasẹ̀ àkókò kan—ọdún ẹgbẹ̀ta lé ọgọ́ta. Ìlà ìtàn Romu tí a ṣàfihàn láti ẹsẹ̀ mẹ́rìnlélógún títí dé ẹsẹ̀ ọgbọ̀n náà náà jẹ́ àpèjúwe ìtàn àṣírí ẹsẹ̀ ogójì. Ó parí ní ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlélọ́gbọ̀n nígbà tí kókó ọ̀rọ̀ náà yí padà kúrò ní Romu keferi sí Romu papal. Romu keferi ṣì wà nínú ẹsẹ̀ náà, ṣùgbọ́n níbẹ̀ a kò ṣàfihàn án gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìjọba kẹrin nínú àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ Bíbélì, bí kò ṣe gẹ́gẹ́ bí agbára òṣèlú tí ó fi ìjọ papacy jókòó lórí ìtẹ́ ní ọdún 538. Ní ọdún 538, ìjọ papacy fi òfin Ọjọ́-Àìkú kalẹ̀, nítorí náà ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlélọ́gbọ̀n ń bá àwọn ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìndínlógún àti mọ́kànlélógójì mu. Ẹsẹ̀ mẹ́rìnlélógún ṣàkọ́kọ́ mú ogun Actium wá síwájú àti ìtàn tí ó ní ìbáṣepọ̀ pẹ̀lú ìlà náà.
Verse twenty-four is identifying when pagan Rome began to rule supremely for three hundred and sixty years, and then in verse thirty-one papal Rome begins to rule supremely for twelve hundred and sixty-years. The beginning and ending of the line bear the signature of Christ, the Alpha and Omega. In the verses we have the history of Marc Antony, Cleopatra and Augustus Caesar. In verse sixteen pagan Rome conquered the Seleucid Empire in 65 BC, and then Judah in 63 BC. The third obstacle of Actium in 31 BC identified the end of the kingdom of Egypt, as typified by the first obstacles of the Seleucid’s in 65 BC. Once again, we find the signature of the First and the Last. 65 BC was the first of three obstacles and it represented the conquering of the king of the north and 31 BC represented the third of three obstacles and it represented the conquering of the king of the south. Judah, as the middle obstacle of the three obstacles, was having a civil war within the walls of Jerusalem when Pompey arrived in 63 BC. The second obstacle is a symbol of rebellion.
Ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìnlélógún ń fi ìgbà tí Romu aláìgbọ́ràn bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í jọba pátápátá hàn fún ọdún ọ̀ọ́dúnrún mẹ́ta àti ọgọ́ta, lẹ́yìn náà ní ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlélọ́gbọ̀n Romu papal bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í jọba pátápátá fún ẹgbẹ̀rún kan, ọ̀ọ́dúnrún méjì àti ọgọ́ta ọdún. Ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ àti òpin ìlà náà ru ààmì Kristi, Alfa àti Omega. Nínú àwọn ẹsẹ̀ náà ni a ti rí ìtàn Marc Antony, Cleopatra àti Augustus Caesar. Nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìndínlógún, Romu aláìgbọ́ràn ṣẹ́gun Ìjọba Seleucid ní ọdún 65 ṣáájú Kristi, lẹ́yìn náà Juda ní ọdún 63 ṣáájú Kristi. Ìdènà kẹta ti Actium ní ọdún 31 ṣáájú Kristi fi òpin ìjọba Ejibiti hàn, gẹ́gẹ́ bí a ti fi àpẹẹrẹ rẹ̀ hàn nínú àwọn ìdènà àkọ́kọ́ ti àwọn Seleucid ní ọdún 65 ṣáájú Kristi. Lẹ́ẹ̀kan sí i, a rí ààmì Ẹni Àkọ́kọ́ àti Ẹni Ikẹyìn. Ọdún 65 ṣáájú Kristi ni àkọ́kọ́ nínú àwọn ìdènà mẹ́ta, ó sì dúró fún ìṣẹ́gun lórí ọba àríwá, ọdún 31 ṣáájú Kristi sì dúró fún ìdènà kẹta nínú àwọn ìdènà mẹ́ta, ó sì dúró fún ìṣẹ́gun lórí ọba gúúsù. Juda, gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìdènà àárín nínú àwọn ìdènà mẹ́ta náà, ní ogun abẹ́lé kan láàárín àwọn ògiri Jerusalẹmu nígbà tí Pompey dé ní ọdún 63 ṣáájú Kristi. Ìdènà kejì jẹ́ àmì ìṣọ̀tẹ̀.
In 538, the third obstacle for papal Rome was driven out of the City of Rome. That obstacle was the Goths, and there the fifth kingdom of Bible prophecy began; right where the fourth kingdom ended. And just as the fourth kingdom began at its third obstacle, the kingdom of Egypt was defeated, as had been typified in the first obstacle of the Seleucid kingdom. This identifies that the prophetic testimony found in verses twenty-four through to verse thirty, represent a line that is also to be located in the hidden history of verse forty. For this reason, it is essential to consider the various prophetic relationships that are represented by Marc Antony, Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, Pompey and Augustus Caesar.
Ní ọdún 538, a lé ìdènà kẹta fún Romu ìjọba póòpù kúrò ní Ìlú Romu. Ìdènà náà ni àwọn Goths, àti níbẹ̀ ni ìjọba karùn-ún nínú àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ Bíbélì ti bẹ̀rẹ̀; gan-an níbi tí ìjọba kẹrin ti parí. Àti gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìjọba kẹrin ti bẹ̀rẹ̀ ní ìdènà kẹta rẹ̀, bẹ́ẹ̀ ni a ṣẹ́gun ìjọba Ejibiti, gẹ́gẹ́ bí a ti ti fi hàn ní àpẹẹrẹ nínú ìdènà àkọ́kọ́ ti ìjọba Seleucid. Èyí ń fi hàn pé ẹ̀rí àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ tí a rí nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìnlélógún títí dé ẹsẹ̀ ọgbọ̀n, dúró fún ìlà kan tí ó tún yẹ kí a wá a nínú ìtàn ìkọ̀kọ̀ ti ẹsẹ̀ ogójì. Nítorí ìdí èyí, ó ṣe pàtàkì gidigidi láti ronú lórí onírúurú ìbáṣepọ̀ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ tí Marc Antony, Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, Pompey àti Augustus Caesar ń ṣojú.
So is the vaguest part of the passage of verse twenty-four unto thirty, when they speak lies at one table?
Ní náà ni apá tí kò ṣe kedere jùlọ nínú ẹsẹ̀ náà, láti ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìnlélógún sí ọgbọ̀n, nígbà tí wọ́n ń sọ irọ́ ní tábìlì kan náà?
And both these kings’ hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed. Daniel 11:27.
Ọkàn àwọn ọba méjèèjì wọ̀nyí yóò sì wà láti ṣe búburú, wọn yóò sì máa sọ irọ́ ní etí tábìlì kan náà; ṣùgbọ́n kò ní ṣàṣeyọrí: nítorí ìkẹyìn náà ṣì máa dé ní àkókò tí a yàn. Danieli 11:27.
Uriah Smith identifies the two kings as Marc Antony and Augustus Caesar.
Uriah Smith fi àwọn ọba méjèèjì náà hàn gẹ́gẹ́ bí Marc Antony àti Augustus Caesar.
“Verse twenty-seven quoted
“Ẹsẹ̀ kẹtàdínlọ́gbọ̀n tí a yọ”
“Antony and Caesar were formerly in alliance. Yet under the garb of friendship they were both aspiring and intriguing for universal dominion. Their protestations of deference to, and friendship for, each other, were the utterances of hypocrites. They spoke lies at one table. Octavia, the wife of Antony and sister of Caesar, declared to the people of Rome at the time Antony divorced her, that she had consented to marry him solely with the hope that it would prove a pledge of union between Caesar and Antony. But that counsel did not prosper. The rupture came; and in the conflict that ensued, Caesar came off entirely victorious.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 276.
“Àtijọ́, Antony àti Caesar wà ní àjọṣe ìṣọ̀kan. Síbẹ̀, lábẹ́ àwọ̀ ìbáṣepọ̀ ọ̀rẹ́, àwọn méjèèjì ń lépa, wọ́n sì ń dìtẹ̀ fún àkóso gbogbo-ayé. Àwọn ìkéde ìbọ̀wọ̀ wọn sí ara wọn, àti ọ̀rẹ́ tí wọ́n ń fi hàn sí ara wọn, jẹ́ ọ̀rọ̀ ẹlẹ́gàn àwọn alágàbàgebè. Wọ́n sọ irọ́ lórí tábìlì kan náà. Octavia, aya Antony àti arábìnrin Caesar, sọ fún àwọn ènìyàn Róòmù nígbà tí Antony kọ̀ ọ́ sílẹ̀, pé òun ti gbà láti fẹ́ ẹ nìkan pẹ̀lú ìrètí pé èyí yóò di àmì ìdánilójú ìṣọ̀kan láàárín Caesar àti Antony. Ṣùgbọ́n ìmọ̀ràn náà kò ṣàṣeyọrí. Ìyapa dé; àti nínú ìjà tí ó tẹ̀ lé e, Caesar jáde pátápátá gẹ́gẹ́ bí olùṣègun.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 276.
When Octavia identified that her marriage to Antony was as a pledge of union, it identified the marital alliance which had been typified earlier in chapter eleven with the Hellenistic-era marriage of Berenice to the Seleucid king Antiochus II Theos around 252 BC. Berenice was the daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Octavia and Berenice represent diplomatic marriages or prophetically, treaties. Verses five through ten identify the history of the diplomatic marriage between the southern and northern kingdoms, and when Marc Antony and Octavian, later known as Augustus Caesar, arranged the marriage, they also divided the kingdom into east and west.
Nígbà tí Octavia fi hàn pé ìgbéyàwó rẹ̀ pẹ̀lú Antony jẹ́ bí ìdánilẹ́kọ̀ọ́ ìṣọ̀kan, ó fi ìfaramọ́ ìgbéyàwó náà hàn, èyí tí a ti ṣe àpẹẹrẹ rẹ̀ tẹ́lẹ̀ nínú orí kẹ́wàálá pẹ̀lú ìgbéyàwó Berenice ti àkókò Hellenistic sí ọba Seleucid Antiochus II Theos ní nǹkan bí ọdún 252 ṣáájú Sànmánì Kristi. Berenice jẹ́ ọmọbìnrin Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Octavia àti Berenice dúró fún àwọn ìgbéyàwó ìpàdé-àlàáfíà tàbí, ní ọ̀nà àsọtẹ́lẹ̀, àwọn májẹ̀mú. Àwọn ẹsẹ̀ karùn-ún títí dé ẹ̀kẹwàá fi ìtàn ìgbéyàwó ìpàdé-àlàáfíà láàárín àwọn ìjọba gúúsù àti àríwá hàn, àti nígbà tí Marc Antony àti Octavian, ẹni tí a mọ̀ lẹ́yìn náà sí Augustus Caesar, ṣètò ìgbéyàwó náà, wọ́n tún pín ìjọba náà sí ìlà-oòrùn àti ìwọ̀-oòrùn.
The Pact of Brundisium (40 BC) was a negotiated settlement between Marc Antony and Octavian (later Augustus) to resolve tensions in the Second Triumvirate after near-civil war. It involved dividing Roman territories (Antony east, Octavian west) and was sealed by Antony’s marriage to Octavia (Octavian’s sister). In 39 BC the original five-year Triumvirate term expired, Antony sailed to Italy with 300+ ships that were initially denied to land at Brundisium, so they ultimately docked at Tarentum. Octavian met him there after prolonged mediations produced by an unwillingness of Antony’s army to fight with Octavian’s army and vise versa. Octavia played a key mediating role, persuading Antony to support Octavian against Sextus Pompey. They renewed the Triumvirate for another five years (to 32 BC), with Antony providing Octavian 120 ships in exchange for promised troops (which Octavian later withheld).
Àdéhùn Brundisium (40 BC) jẹ́ ìpinnu àlàáfíà tí wọ́n fi ìfọ̀rọ̀wérọ̀ ṣe láàárín Máàkù Áńtónì àti Ọ́kítéfíánù (ẹni tí ó di Augustus lẹ́yìn náà) láti yanjú ìfarapa ọkàn tó wà nínú Ìṣàkóso Mẹ́tà Kejì lẹ́yìn ìfẹ́rẹ̀ẹ́ ogun abẹ́lé. Ó ní í ṣe pẹ̀lú pínpín àwọn agbègbè ilẹ̀ Róòmù (Áńtónì ní ìlà-oòrùn, Ọ́kítéfíánù ní ìwọ̀-oòrùn), a sì fi ìgbéyàwó Áńtónì pẹ̀lú Ọ́kítéfíà (arabinrin Ọ́kítéfíánù) jẹ́rìí rẹ̀. Ní ọdún 39 BC, àkókò ọdún márùn-ún ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ Ìṣàkóso Mẹ́tà náà parí; Áńtónì ṣíkọ̀ lọ sí Ítálì pẹ̀lú ọkọ̀ ojú omi tó ju ẹgbẹ̀rún mẹ́ta [300+] lọ, tí wọ́n kọ̀ láti jẹ́ kí wọ́n bà sórí ilẹ̀ ní Brundisium ní ìbẹ̀rẹ̀, nítorí náà ní ìkẹyìn wọ́n dé ibùdó ní Tarentum. Ọ́kítéfíánù pàdé rẹ̀ níbẹ̀ lẹ́yìn àwọn ìlàjà pípẹ́ tí àìfẹ́ ọmọ-ogun Áńtónì láti jagun pẹ̀lú ọmọ-ogun Ọ́kítéfíánù, bẹ́ẹ̀ sì ni ti ọmọ-ogun Ọ́kítéfíánù pẹ̀lú, mú jáde. Ọ́kítéfíà kó ipa pàtàkì gẹ́gẹ́ bí alárinà, ní fífi ọgbọ́n yí Áńtónì padà kí ó ṣe àtìlẹ́yìn fún Ọ́kítéfíánù lòdì sí Sẹ́kstùsù Pọmpéyì. Wọ́n tún sọ Ìṣàkóso Mẹ́tà náà di tuntun fún ọdún márùn-ún mìíràn (títí di 32 BC), pẹ̀lú pé Áńtónì pèsè ọkọ̀ ojú omi 120 fún Ọ́kítéfíánù ní pàṣípààrọ̀ fún àwọn ọmọ-ogun tí wọ́n ṣe ìlérí rẹ̀ (èyí tí Ọ́kítéfíánù dáwọ́ dúró nígbà tí ó yá).
In 32 BC there was an open break between the two antagonists. Relations had deteriorated through propaganda, Antony’s eastern focus (with Cleopatra), and Octavian’s consolidation in the west. Octavian rejected later conference proposals from Antony before Actium.
Ní ọdún 32 ṣáájú ìbí Kristi, ìyapa gbangba wáyé láàárín àwọn alatako méjèèjì náà. Ìbáṣepọ̀ wọn ti bàjẹ́ sí i nípasẹ̀ ìpolongo, ìdojúkọ Antony sí ìlà-oòrùn (pẹ̀lú Cleopatra), àti ìmúgbòòrò agbára Octavian ní ìwọ̀-oòrùn. Octavian kọ àwọn àbá ìpàdé tí Antony gbé kalẹ̀ lẹ́yìn náà kí Actium tó wáyé.
In the diplomatic marriage with the king of the north (Antiochus) and the king of the south (Ptolemy), it was the southern king that supplied the bride, with the diplomatic marriage of Antony (the east) and Octavian (the west); the bride was supplied by the west. Both diplomatic marriages failed and the supplier of the daughter or sister was ultimately victorious over the power who broke the treaty.
Nínú ìgbéyàwó ìbáṣepọ̀ òṣèlú pẹ̀lú ọba àríwá (Antiochus) àti ọba gúúsù (Ptolemy), ọba gúúsù ni ó pèsè ìyàwó; ṣùgbọ́n nínú ìgbéyàwó ìbáṣepọ̀ òṣèlú ti Antony (ìlà-oòrùn) àti Octavian (ìwọ̀-oòrùn), ìwọ̀-oòrùn ni ó pèsè ìyàwó. Ìgbéyàwó ìbáṣepọ̀ òṣèlú méjèèjì kùnà, àti ẹni tí ó pèsè ọmọbìnrin náà tàbí arábìnrin náà ni, ní ìkẹyìn, ṣẹ́gun agbára náà tí ó rú májẹ̀mú náà.
The Testimony of Three
Ẹ̀rí Àwọn Mẹ́ta
At the end of the Seleucid Empire there was a third treaty where lies were spoke at one table. This occurred in the context of the Fifth Syrian War (202–195 BC), when Antiochus III Magnus exploited the weakness of the Ptolemaic Kingdom after Ptolemy IV Philopator’s death in 204 BC. Ptolemy V Epiphanes (Ptolemy V) ascended the throne as a child (around age 5–6), leaving Egypt under regents and vulnerable to internal chaos, native revolts, and external threats.
Ní òpin Ilẹ̀-ọba Seleucid, májẹ̀mú kẹta kan wà níbi tí a ti sọ èké ní orí tábìlì kan náà. Èyí ṣẹlẹ̀ nínú àyíká Ogun Siria Karùn-ún (202–195 BC), nígbà tí Antiochus III Magnus lo àìlera Ìjọba Ptolemaic lẹ́yìn ikú Ptolemy IV Philopator ní ọdún 204 BC. Ptolemy V Epiphanes (Ptolemy V) gòkè sí ìtẹ́ gẹ́gẹ́ bí ọmọ kékeré kan (ní nǹkan bí ọdún 5–6), tí ó fi Ejibiti sílẹ̀ lábẹ́ àwọn alákòóso aṣojú, tí ó sì jẹ́ kí ó ṣí sí ìdàrúdàpọ̀ inú ilú, àwọn ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ ìbílẹ̀, àti àwọn ìrokèré láti òde.
Antiochus Magnus had already invaded and seized much of the Ptolemaic territories in Coele-Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor after victories like the Battle of Panium (200 BC). Rather than fully conquering Egypt (which risked Roman intervention, as Rome was pressuring him to stay out of certain areas), he pursued a diplomatic marriage alliance as a “protector” figure. In 197/195 BC, as part of the peace treaty ending the war, Antiochus Magnus betrothed and then married his young daughter Cleopatra I Syra (also called Cleopatra Syra) to the child Ptolemy V (the marriage took place in 193 BC at Raphia; Ptolemy was 16, Cleopatra 10).
Antiochus Magnus ti ti wọ̀lú, ó sì ti gba púpọ̀ nínú àwọn ilẹ̀ Ptolemaic ní Coele-Syria, Palestine, àti Asia Minor lẹ́yìn àwọn ìṣẹ́gun bíi Ogun Panium (200 BC). Dípò kí ó ṣẹ́gun Ejibiti pátápátá (èyí tí yóò ti fa ìdásí Romu wá, nítorí pé Romu ń fi agbára mú un láti yẹra fún àwọn agbègbè kan), ó lépa àjọṣepọ̀ ìgbéyàwó olóṣèlú kan gẹ́gẹ́ bí ẹni “olùdáàbò bo.” Ní ọdún 197/195 BC, gẹ́gẹ́ bí apá kan nínú àdéhùn àlàáfíà tí ó parí ogun náà, Antiochus Magnus fẹ́ sọ ọmọbìnrin rẹ̀ kékeré Cleopatra I Syra (tí a tún ń pè ní Cleopatra Syra) fún ọmọkùnrin kékeré náà Ptolemy V, lẹ́yìn náà sì fẹ́ ẹ fún un ní ìgbéyàwó (ìgbéyàwó náà wáyé ní 193 BC ní Raphia; ọdún 16 ni Ptolemy, ọdún 10 sì ni Cleopatra).
This was framed as a generous gesture: Antiochus positioned himself as an ally and “protector” of the young king, securing peace while retaining gains in Asia. The marriage gave him indirect influence over Egypt through his daughter (he hoped she would remain loyal to her Seleucid roots and act as a pro-Syrian voice in the Ptolemaic court). The ploy backfired for Cleopatra sided with her husband and Egypt, not her father, undermining Antiochus’s long-term control. This mirrors the Pact of Brundisium (40 BC) and related to Roman events in several ways.
A fi èyí sílẹ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìṣe ọ̀làwọ́: Antiochus fi ara rẹ̀ hàn gẹ́gẹ́ bí alábàákẹ́gbẹ́ àti “olùdáàbòbo” ọba ọdọ náà, nípa fífi àlàáfíà múlẹ̀ nígbà tí ó sì ń pa àwọn èrè rẹ̀ mọ́ ní Ásíà. Ìgbéyàwó náà fún un ní agbára ìfọwọ́kànsí àìtààrà lórí Ejibiti nípasẹ̀ ọmọbìnrin rẹ̀ (ó ní ìrètí pé yóò dúró ṣinṣin nínú ìṣòtítọ́ sí àwọn gbòǹgbò Seleucid rẹ̀, kí ó sì ṣiṣẹ́ gẹ́gẹ́ bí ohùn alátìlẹ́yìn fún Siria ní ilé ẹjọ́ Ptolemaic). Ètò ọgbọ́n náà padà bà á jẹ́, nítorí Cleopatra dúró ti ọkọ rẹ̀ àti Ejibiti, kì í ṣe ti baba rẹ̀, èyí sì ba ìṣàkóso àkókò pípẹ́ Antiochus jẹ́. Èyí jọra pẹ̀lú Pact of Brundisium (40 BC), ó sì ní ìbáṣepọ̀ pẹ̀lú àwọn ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ Romu ní ọ̀nà púpọ̀.
Just as Antony married Octavia (sister of Octavian) to bind rival powers after near-war, Antiochus used his daughter’s marriage to Ptolemy V to formalize a temporary peace and territorial division (Seleucids kept conquests in the north, Ptolemy retained Egypt the south).
Gẹ́gẹ́ bí Antony ṣe fẹ́ Octavia (arábìnrin Octavian) láti fi di agbára àwọn alátakò pọ̀ lẹ́yìn ogun tí ó fẹ́rẹ̀ẹ́ bẹ̀rẹ̀, bẹ́ẹ̀ ni Antiochus lo ìgbéyàwó ọmọbìnrin rẹ̀ pẹ̀lú Ptolemy V láti jẹ́ kí àlàáfíà àkókò kan àti pínpín ilẹ̀ di òfin (àwọn Seleucid pa àwọn ìṣẹ́gun wọn mọ́ ní àríwá, Ptolemy sì dá Ejibiti dúró ní gúúsù).
Antiochus acted as a de facto guardian over the child-king Ptolemy V (via family ties), similar to how Octavian (and the Triumvirate) positioned themselves amid power vacuums or rivalries. In both cases, the “stronger” figure (Antiochus/Octavian) sought leverage over a vulnerable counterpart through kinship. Both arrangements brought short-term stability but ‘did not prosper’ long-term due to underlying distrust—Cleopatra favored Egypt (undermining Antiochus), while Antony’s eastern focus (Cleopatra VII) led to the breakdown with Octavian.
Áńtíókùsì hù gẹ́gẹ́ bí alábòójútó ní ti gidi lórí ọba-ọmọ náà Ptolemy V (nípasẹ̀ ìbátan ẹbí), bí ó ti jọ bí Octavian (àti Ẹgbẹ́ Mẹ́ta Aláṣẹ) ṣe gbé ara wọn kalẹ̀ láàárín àwọn ààyè àìní agbára tàbí ìjàkadì. Nínú ọ̀ràn méjèèjì, ẹni tí ó “lágbára jùlọ” (Áńtíókùsì/Octavian) wá ọ̀nà àǹfààní lórí alábàápín aláìlera kan nípasẹ̀ ìbátan. Àwọn ètò méjèèjì mú ìdúróṣinṣin wá fún àkókò kúkúrú, ṣùgbọ́n wọn ‘kò ní àṣeyọrí’ ní ìgbẹ̀yìn-gbẹ́yà nítorí àìgbọ́kànlé tó wà ní ìpìlẹ̀—Cleopatra ṣojú rere fún Ejibiti (ní fífi Áńtíókùsì ṣubú), nígbà tí ìfojúsùn Antony sí apá ìlà-oòrùn (Cleopatra VII) yọrí sí ìparun àjọṣe rẹ̀ pẹ̀lú Octavian.
Ptolemy V’s minority under regents parallels the instability after Julius Caesar’s death (leading to the Triumvirate’s formation and power struggles). The marriage of Berenice to Antiochus marked the beginning of the Seleucid Empire’s history in Daniel eleven, and the marriage of Antiochus Magnus daughter to the Egyptian child king, marked the ending of the Seleucid Empire. The ending of the marriage of Marc Antony to Octavia marked the ending of the Ptolemaic kingdom. The ending of Judah as God’s covenant people took place at the cross, and that Judean kingdom began with the Maccabees and the league they made with Rome. All of these prophetic lines are represented within the narrative of Daniel chapter eleven, and they all align with the hidden history of verse forty. Beginning in verse five we have the treaty of Berenice, that leads to Antiochus the Great and the treaty of his daughter Cleopatra Syra, that takes place in the history of the Maccabees of verse twenty-three. The Maccabees become part of the line based upon their rebellion against Antiochus Epiphanes, one of the last of the Seleucid Dynasty.
Ìwọ̀nba ọjọ́-ori Ptolemy V lábẹ́ àwọn alákòóso aṣojú jọ ìdàrúdàpọ̀ lẹ́yìn ikú Julius Caesar (èyí tí ó yọrí sí ìdásílẹ̀ Triumvirate àti àwọn ìjàkadì agbára). Ìgbéyàwó Berenice pẹ̀lú Antiochus jẹ́ àmì ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ ìtàn Ilẹ̀-ọba Seleucid nínú Dáníẹ́lì orí kọkànlá, àti ìgbéyàwó ọmọbìnrin Antiochus Magnus pẹ̀lú ọba ọmọ kékeré ti Ejibiti jẹ́ àmì òpin Ilẹ̀-ọba Seleucid. Òpin ìgbéyàwó Marc Antony pẹ̀lú Octavia jẹ́ àmì òpin ìjọba Ptolemaic. Òpin Juda gẹ́gẹ́ bí ènìyàn májẹ̀mú Ọlọ́run ṣẹlẹ̀ lórí àgbélébùú, àti pé ìjọba Judea náà bẹ̀rẹ̀ pẹ̀lú àwọn Maccabees àti àdéhùn tí wọ́n dá pẹ̀lú Róòmù. Gbogbo àwọn ìlà àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ wọ̀nyí ni a ṣojú fún nínú ìtàn Dáníẹ́lì orí kọkànlá, gbogbo wọn sì bá ìtàn ìkọ̀kọ̀ ẹsẹ̀ ogójì mu. Láti ẹsẹ̀ karùn-ún ni a ti ní àdéhùn Berenice, èyí tí ó yọrí sí Antiochus the Great àti àdéhùn ọmọbìnrin rẹ̀ Cleopatra Syra, èyí tí ó ṣẹlẹ̀ nínú ìtàn àwọn Maccabees ti ẹsẹ̀ ọdún mẹ́tàlélógún. Àwọn Maccabees di apá kan nínú ìlà náà ní ìpìlẹ̀ ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ wọn sí Antiochus Epiphanes, ọ̀kan lára àwọn ẹni ìkẹyìn ti Ìdílé-ọba Seleucid.
Antiochus Epiphanes is the Antiochus who was in Egypt in 168 BC near Alexandria during the Sixth Syrian War. Antiochus Epiphanes had invaded Egypt and was on the verge of capturing Alexandria. The Ptolemaic rulers appealed to Rome for help. Rome sent Popillius Laenas (with just a small entourage—no army) to deliver an ultimatum from the Senate; Antiochus must immediately withdraw from Egypt and Cyprus, or face war with Rome. When Antiochus received the letter and asked for time to consult his advisors, Popillius—described as stern and imperious—took his walking stick and drew a circle in the sand around the king’s feet. He then declared, “Before you step out of that circle, give me a reply to lay before the Senate.”
Antiochus Epiphanes ni Antiochus náà tí ó wà ní ilẹ̀ Ejibiti ní ọdún 168 ṣáájú ìbí Kristi nítòsí Alexandria ní àsìkò Ogun Siria Kẹfà. Antiochus Epiphanes ti gbógun wọ ilẹ̀ Ejibiti, ó sì ti fẹ́rẹ̀ẹ́ gba Alexandria. Àwọn alákóso Ptolemaic bẹ Róòmù pé kí ó ràn wọ́n lọ́wọ́. Róòmù rán Popillius Laenas (pẹ̀lú ẹgbẹ́ kékeré kan nìkan—kì í ṣe ọmọ-ogun kankan) láti fi ìkìlọ̀ àṣẹ gíga kan láti ọ̀dọ̀ Ilé Ìgbìmọ̀ Alágba ránṣẹ́; Antiochus gbọ́dọ̀ yọ kúrò ní Ejibiti àti Cyprus lẹ́sẹ̀kẹsẹ̀, bí kò ṣe bẹ́ẹ̀, yóò dojú kọ ogun pẹ̀lú Róòmù. Nígbà tí Antiochus gba lẹ́tà náà tí ó sì béèrè àkókò láti bá àwọn agbani-nímọ̀ràn rẹ̀ gbìmọ̀, Popillius—ẹni tí a ṣàpèjúwe gẹ́gẹ́ bí ẹni líle àti aláṣẹ-lágbára—gbé ọ̀pá ìrìn rẹ̀, ó sì fa àyíká kan sínú iyanrìn yí ẹsẹ̀ ọba náà ká. Lẹ́yìn náà, ó kéde pé, “Kí o tó jáde kúrò nínú àyíká yẹn, fún mi ní ìdáhùn kan tí màá gbé kalẹ̀ níwájú Ilé Ìgbìmọ̀ Alágba.”
The implication was clear; Antiochus could not leave the circle without committing to Rome’s demands—crossing it without agreement would mean war. Stunned and humiliated, Antiochus hesitated briefly but then agreed to comply, withdrew his forces from Egypt, and returned to Syria. This bold act of diplomacy (backed by Rome’s growing reputation for power) forced the retreat without a battle, showcasing Rome’s emerging dominance in the eastern Mediterranean. It’s widely cited as an origin for the phrase “drawing a line in the sand” (though it was literally a circle).
Ìtumọ̀ ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ náà hàn gbangba; Antiochus kò lè jáde kúrò nínú àyíká náà láì fi ara rẹ̀ sílẹ̀ láti tẹ̀lé àwọn ohun tí Róòmù béèrè—bí ó bá kọjá a láìsí ìfọ̀kànsìn, ogun ni yóò túmọ̀ sí. Ní ìyàlẹ́nu àti ìtìjú, Antiochus ṣiyèméjì díẹ̀, ṣùgbọ́n lẹ́yìn náà ó gbà láti ṣe gẹ́gẹ́ bí wọ́n ti béèrè, ó yọ àwọn ọmọ-ogun rẹ̀ kúrò ní Ejibiti, ó sì padà sí Síríà. Ìṣe onígboyà yìí nínú ọ̀nà ìbálòpọ̀ orílẹ̀-èdè (tí orúkọ rere Róòmù tí ń dàgbà fún agbára ti fi ẹ̀yìn tì) mú kí ìpadàsẹ́yìn náà ṣẹlẹ̀ láìsí ogun, ó sì fihàn ìṣàkóso Róòmù tí ń hàn síta ní apá ìlà-oòrùn Òkun Mẹditaréníànù. A máa ń tọ́ka sí i púpọ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí ọ̀kan lára àwọn ìpilẹ̀ṣẹ̀ ọ̀rọ̀ náà “sísàlà ààlà sínú iyanrìn” (bí ó tilẹ̀ jẹ́ pé ní tòótọ́ àyíká ni).
Antiochus Epiphanes also became the Protestant understanding of the power that exalts himself, falls and establishes the vision in verse fourteen of Daniel eleven.
Antiochus Epiphanes pẹ̀lú di ìmọ̀ Protestant nípa agbára náà tí ó gbé ara rẹ̀ ga, tí ó ṣubú, tí ó sì fi ìran náà múlẹ̀ ní ẹsẹ̀ kẹ́rìnlá ti Danieli mọ́kànlá.
And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall. Daniel 11:14.
Ní àwọn àkókò wọ̀nyí, ọ̀pọ̀ ènìyàn yóò dìde sí ọba gúúsù; àwọn ajinigbé láàárín àwọn ènìyàn rẹ yóò sì gbé ara wọn ga láti mú ìran náà dúró ṣinṣin; ṣùgbọ́n wọn yóò ṣubú. Dáníẹ́lì 11:14.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes reigned 175–164 BC, and was the eighth of thirteen Seleucid kings. He sought to impose Hellenistic culture and unify his empire under Greek religious practices. He plundered the Temple in 169 BC, banned Jewish practices (circumcision, Sabbath observance, Torah study), and forced sacrifices to pagan gods. In December 167 BC he erected a pagan altar (to Zeus) on top of the Jewish altar of burnt offerings in the Temple and sacrificed a pig, along with other profane acts. The desecration was the final straw for observant Jews, who saw it as the ultimate violation of the Temple’s sanctity and God’s law. It sparked immediate resistance when Mattathias (a priest from Modein) refused a Seleucid officer’s order to sacrifice to pagan gods and killed an apostate Jew and the officer, then fled to the hills with his sons (the future Maccabees). This ignited guerrilla warfare and revolt from 167–160 BC which aimed to restore Jewish worship, leading to the rededication of the Temple (Hanukkah) in 164 BC under Judas Maccabeus.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes jọba láti ọdún 175 sí 164 ṣáájú ìbí Kristi, ó sì jẹ́ ẹni kẹjọ nínú àwọn ọba Seleucid mẹ́tàlá. Ó wá láti fi àṣà Hellenistic kalẹ̀, kí ó sì sọ ìjọba rẹ̀ di ọ̀kan lábẹ́ àwọn ìṣe ẹ̀sìn Giriki. Ó kó ohun ìní inú Tẹ́ńpìlì lọ ní ọdún 169 ṣáájú ìbí Kristi, ó fòfin dè àwọn ìṣe àwọn Júù (ikọla, pípa ọjọ́ Ìsinmi mọ́, ẹ̀kọ́ Torah), ó sì fi agbára mú wọn láti rú ẹbọ sí àwọn ọlọ́run keferi. Ní oṣù Kejìlá ọdún 167 ṣáájú ìbí Kristi, ó gbé pẹpẹ keferi kan kalẹ̀ (fún Zeus) lórí pẹpẹ àwọn ẹbọ sísun ti àwọn Júù nínú Tẹ́ńpìlì, ó sì fi ẹlẹ́dẹ̀ rúbọ, pọ̀ mọ́ àwọn ìṣe àìmọ́ míì. Ìbàjẹ́ mímọ́ yìí ni ìkìlọ̀kẹ́yìn fún àwọn Júù olùṣọ́ra, tí wọ́n rí i gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìrúfin tó ga jù lọ sí ìmímọ́ Tẹ́ńpìlì àti sí òfin Ọlọ́run. Ó dá ìfaradà lẹ́sẹ̀kẹsẹ̀ sílẹ̀ nígbà tí Mattathias (àlùfáà kan láti Modein) kọ ìlànà aláṣẹ Seleucid kan pé kí ó rúbọ sí àwọn ọlọ́run keferi, ó pa Júù apẹ̀yìndà kan àti aláṣẹ náà, lẹ́yìn náà ó sá lọ sí àwọn òkè pẹ̀lú àwọn ọmọ rẹ̀ (àwọn Maccabees ọjọ́ iwájú). Èyí dá ogun ìjàkálẹ̀ àti ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ sílẹ̀ láti ọdún 167 sí 160 ṣáájú ìbí Kristi, èyí tí ó ní ète láti mú ìjọsìn àwọn Júù padà bọ̀ sípò, tí ó sì yọrí sí ìyàsọ́tọ̀ Tẹ́ńpìlì sí mímọ́ padà (Hanukkah) ní ọdún 164 ṣáájú ìbí Kristi lábẹ́ Judas Maccabeus.
At the beginning and ending of the Seleucid Empire there was a significant treaty represented by a diplomatic marriage that possessed the element of division of either east and west, or north and south. As the Seleucid Empire waned Antiochus Epiphanes becomes the symbol of the rising Roman power, and the focus of the Maccabean’s indignation. Later in history he becomes the counterfeit of the prophetic symbol that establishes the vision. The power in verse twenty-two of chapter eleven is broken when the prince of the covenant was broken.
Ní ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ àti ní òpin Ìjọba Seleucid, àdéhùn pàtàkì kan wà tí ìgbéyàwó aṣojú-ìbánisọ̀rọ̀ dúró fún, tí ó ní èròjà ìpín sí ìlà-oòrùn àti ìwọ̀-oòrùn, tàbí sí àríwá àti gúúsù. Bí Ìjọba Seleucid ṣe ń rọ̀, Antiochus Epiphanes di àmì agbára Romu tí ń dìde, àti kókó ìbínú àwọn Maccabee. Nígbà tí ó yá nínú ìtàn, ó di àròpò èké ti àmì àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ tí ó fi ìran náà múlẹ̀. Agbára tó wà ní ẹsẹ̀ kejìlélógún nínú orí kọkànlá ni a fọ́ nígbà tí a fọ Ọba àdéhùn náà.
And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant. Daniel 11:22.
A ó fi apá ìkún omi gbá wọn kúrò níwájú rẹ̀, a ó sì fọ́ wọn; bẹ́ẹ̀ ni pẹ̀lú, ọmọ-aládé májẹ̀mú náà. Danieli 11:22.
Antiochus Epiphanes’ reign ended in 164 BC, almost two hundred years before Christ, “the prince of the covenant” was “broken” at the cross. What we wish to note here is that the Seleucid Empire began and ended with a diplomatic treaty marriage where the deceit between the two parties is a matter of the historical record. During the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Maccabean revolt began, which typified the American Revolution. In the history of the Maccabees their struggle to throw off the Seleucid power included a significant treaty with Rome. The verse that identifies the treaty directly identifies Rome as working deceitfully, or telling lies at the treaty table.
Ìjọba Antiochus Epiphanes parí ní ọdún 164 KṢ, ó fẹ́rẹ̀ẹ́ tó ọgọ́rùn-ún ọdún méjì kí Kristi tó wá, nígbà tí a “fọ” “ọba àdéhùn” náà lórí àgbélébùú. Ohun tí a fẹ́ kíyèsi níbí ni pé Ilẹ̀-ọba Seleucid bẹ̀rẹ̀, ó sì parí, pẹ̀lú ìgbéyàwó àdéhùn ìjọba kan nípa òsèlú, níbi tí ẹ̀tàn láàárín àwọn ẹgbẹ́ méjèèjì ti jẹ́ ọ̀ràn tí àkọsílẹ̀ ìtàn jẹ́rìí sí. Ní àkókò ìjọba Antiochus Epiphanes, ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ Maccabean bẹ̀rẹ̀, èyí tí ó jẹ́ àpẹẹrẹ Ìyíká Amẹ́ríkà. Nínú ìtàn àwọn Maccabee, ìjàkadì wọn láti ta agbára Seleucid nù ní àdéhùn pàtàkì kan pẹ̀lú Róòmù. Ẹsẹ̀ náà tí ó dá àdéhùn náà mọ̀ ní tààrà tún dá Róòmù mọ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí ẹni tí ń hùwà ẹ̀tàn, tàbí tí ń sọ irọ́ lórí tábìlì àdéhùn.
And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. Daniel 11:23.
Lẹ́yìn ìdàgbàsókè tí a bá sì dá pẹ̀lú rẹ̀, yóò fi ẹ̀tàn hù; nítorí yóò gòkè wá, yóò sì di alágbára pẹ̀lú àwọn ènìyàn díẹ̀. Danieli 11:23.
Every prophetic line that precedes the time of the end in verse forty contains a broken treaty. Uriah Smith commenting on verse thirty’s “them that forsake the holy covenant” records the following:
Gbogbo ìlà àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ tí ó ṣáájú àkókò òpin nínú ẹsẹ̀ ogójì ní májẹ̀mú tí a ti fọ́ nínú. Nígbà tí Uriah Smith ń ṣàlàyé “àwọn tí ó kọ májẹ̀mú mímọ́ sílẹ̀” nínú ẹsẹ̀ ọgbọ̀n, ó kọ ohun wọ̀nyí sílẹ̀:
“‘Indignation against the covenant;’ that is, the Holy Scriptures, the book of the covenant. A revolution of this nature was accomplished in Rome. The Heruli, Goths, and Vandals, who conquered Rome, embraced the Arian faith, and became enemies of the Catholic Church. It was especially for the purpose of exterminating this heresy that Justinian decreed the pope to be the head of the church and the corrector of heretics. The Bible soon came to be regarded as a dangerous book that should not be read by the common people, but all questions in dispute were to be submitted to the pope. Thus was indignity heaped upon God’s word. And the emperors of Rome, the eastern division of which still continued, had intelligence, or connived with the Church of Rome, which had forsaken the covenant, and constituted the great apostasy, for the purpose of putting down ‘heresy.’ The man of sin was raised to his presumptuous throne by the defeat of the Arian Goths, who then held possession of Rome, in A.D.538.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 281.
“‘Ìbínú sí májẹ̀mú náà;’ ìyẹn ni, Ìwé Mímọ́ Mímọ́, ìwé májẹ̀mú náà. Ìyípadà ojú ipò irú èyí ni a ṣẹ ní Róòmù. Àwọn Heruli, Goths, àti Vandals, tí wọ́n ṣẹ́gun Róòmù, gba ìgbàgbọ́ Arian mọ́ra, wọ́n sì di ọ̀tá Ṣọ́ọ̀ṣì Kátólíìkì. Ó jẹ́ ní pàtàkì fún ète píparun ìfẹ̀sìn yìí ni Justinian fi pàṣẹ pé póòpù ni yóò jẹ́ olórí ṣọ́ọ̀ṣì àti olùtúnṣe àwọn aládàámọ̀. Láìpẹ́, a bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í ka Bíbélì sí ìwé eléwu tí kò yẹ kí àwọn ènìyàn àtàtà ka, ṣùgbọ́n gbogbo ọ̀ràn tí ìjàmbá bá wà lórí rẹ̀ ni a ní kí a fi sórí póòpù. Báyìí ni a ṣe fi ẹ̀gàn kó sórí ọ̀rọ̀ Ọlọ́run. Àti pé àwọn ọba-ọba Róòmù, ìpín ìlà-oòrùn rẹ̀ tí ó ṣì ń bá a lọ nígbà náà, ní ìmọ̀ nípa rẹ̀, tàbí wọ́n fara mọ́ Ṣọ́ọ̀ṣì Róòmù, tí ó ti kọ májẹ̀mú náà sílẹ̀, tí ó sì di ìpẹ̀yìndà ńlá náà, fún ète pípa ‘ìfẹ̀sìn asán’ run. A gbé ènìyàn ẹ̀ṣẹ̀ náà sókè sí orí ìtẹ́ agbéraga rẹ̀ nípasẹ̀ ìṣẹ́gun lórí àwọn Goths Arian, tí wọ́n ní ìṣàkóso Róòmù nígbà náà, ní A.D. 538.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 281.
Verse five of Daniel eleven identifies the line of history where the king of the south provides a diplomatic bride as a symbol of a treaty that was thereafter broken by the king of the north. The retaliation of the king of the south typified the retaliation of Napoleon’s spiritual king of the south against the papal king of the north in 1798. The broken treaty of verses five through nine typified Napoleon’s broken treaty of Tolentino, which typified Putin’s claim of a broken treaty by NATO. The retaliation of Napoleon typified the retaliation of Putin against the Ukraine in 2014. Verse ten’s retaliation of Antiochus Magnus ending the fourth Syrian War aligns with Napoleon in 1798 and also Putin in 2014. Following verse fifteen’s battle of Panium n 200 BC, Antiochus arranged a diplomatic marriage with the hidden intent of taking Egypt under his command without employing military boots on the ground. Antiochus Magnus throne was passed to his son, who was assassinated which brought Antiochus Magnus’s youngest son, Antiochus Epiphanes to the throne. His actions in implementing Greek customs and religion brought about the Maccabean revolt, that led to the deceitful treaty with Rome in verse twenty-three. Verse twenty-four introduces pagan Rome and identifies Antony and Augustus’s table of lies. In verse thirty pagan Rome enters into dialogue with the papal church, who are noted as them that had broken the holy covenant.
Ẹsẹ̀ karùn-ún nínú Dáníẹ́lì mọ́kànlá ń ṣàfihàn ìlà ìtàn náà níbi tí ọba gúúsù ti pèsè aya ìbánisọ̀rọ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí ààmì májẹ̀mú kan tí ọba àríwá wá fọ́ lẹ́yìn náà. Ìgbẹ̀san ọba gúúsù náà ṣàpẹẹrẹ ìgbẹ̀san ọba gúúsù ẹ̀mí ti Napoleon sí ọba àríwá ti ìjọ pàápàá ní ọdún 1798. Májẹ̀mú tí a fọ́ nínú ẹsẹ̀ karùn-ún títí dé ẹsẹ̀ kẹsàn-án ṣàpẹẹrẹ májẹ̀mú Tolentino tí Napoleon fọ́, èyí tí ó sì ṣàpẹẹrẹ ìdálẹ́jọ́ Putin pé NATO ti fọ́ májẹ̀mú kan. Ìgbẹ̀san Napoleon ṣàpẹẹrẹ ìgbẹ̀san Putin sí Ukraine ní ọdún 2014. Ìgbẹ̀san Antiochus Magnus nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹwàá, tí ó parí Ogun Síríà kẹrin, bá Napoleon ní 1798 mu, ó sì tún bá Putin ní 2014 mu. Lẹ́yìn ogun Panium nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹẹ̀ẹ́dógún ní ọdún 200 ṣáájú Kristi, Antiochus ṣètò ìgbéyàwó ìbánisọ̀rọ̀ kan pẹ̀lú ète ìkọ̀kọ̀ láti mú Ejibiti wá sábẹ́ àṣẹ rẹ̀ láìlo bàtà ọmọ-ogun lórí ilẹ̀ ogun. Ìtẹ́ Antiochus Magnus kọjá sí ọmọ rẹ̀, ẹni tí wọ́n pa, èyí sì mú kí ọmọkùnrin àbíkẹ́yìn Antiochus Magnus, Antiochus Epiphanes, gún ìtẹ́. Ìṣe rẹ̀ nínú fífi àṣà àti ẹ̀sìn Gíríìkì múlẹ̀ ló fa ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ Maccabean, èyí tí ó yọrí sí májẹ̀mú ẹ̀tàn pẹ̀lú Róòmù nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹtàlélógún. Ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìnlélógún ń ṣàfihàn Róòmù keferi, ó sì tọ́ka sí tábìlì irọ́ Antony àti Augustus. Nínú ẹsẹ̀ ọgbọ̀n, Róòmù keferi wọ ìjíròrò pẹ̀lú ìjọ pàápàá, àwọn náà ni a sì ṣe àkíyèsí wọn gẹ́gẹ́ bí àwọn tí wọ́n ti fọ́ májẹ̀mú mímọ́ náà.
Verses twenty-four to thirty is the testimony of pagan Rome and verses thirty-one to forty provide the testimony of papal Rome. Every line of Daniel eleven verse one on through verse forty represents a line of prophecy that is applied in the hidden history of verse forty. The line of the Seleucid kingdom, the line of the Ptolemaic kingdom, the line of the Judean kingdom of the Maccabees, the line of pagan Rome and the line of papal Rome all illustrate the history of 1989 unto the Sunday law. Each of those lines identify a broken treaty as a major element of the history.
Ẹsẹ̀ mẹ́rìnlélógún sí ọgbọ̀n ni ẹ̀rí Róòmù aláìníbọ̀rìṣà, àti ẹsẹ̀ mọ́kànlélọ́gbọ̀n sí ogójì ń pèsè ẹ̀rí Róòmù Pápà. Gbogbo ìlà nínú Dáníẹ́lì orí kọkànlá ẹsẹ̀ kìn-ín-ní títí dé ẹsẹ̀ ogójì dúró gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìlà àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ tí a ń lò nínú ìtàn ìkọ̀kọ̀ ti ẹsẹ̀ ogójì. Ìlà ìjọba Séléúkídì, ìlà ìjọba Ptolémáíkì, ìlà ìjọba Júdíà ti àwọn Mákábì, ìlà Róòmù aláìníbọ̀rìṣà, àti ìlà Róòmù Pápà, gbogbo wọn ṣàfihàn ìtàn láti 1989 títí dé òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú. Ọ̀kọ̀ọ̀kan àwọn ìlà wọ̀nyí ń tọ́ka sí májẹ̀mú tí a fọ́ gẹ́gẹ́ bí èròjà pàtàkì nínú ìtàn náà.
It is Rome that establishes the vision of Daniel eleven, and both pagan and papal Rome’s prophetic treaties of deceit are marked as progressive and as occurring before Rome ruled supremely for their respective and distinct prophetic periods. Both powers marked the beginning of the prophetic period of supremacy as beginning when their third obstacle was overcome. Before the soon coming Sunday law in the United States there will be a treaty of deceit between two powers. Four times the two powers have been the kings of the south and the north, once between the glorious land of Judah and Rome, once between two parts of the Roman triumvirate and once between pagan and papal Rome. In both deceitful treaties concerning Rome it amounted to a treaty between one half of the Roman empire, whether Antony of the east, Augustus of the west, or pagan Rome of the east and papal Rome of the west. Four treaties of deceit between the kings of the north and south, two between the kings of the east and west and one between the soon-to-be king of the north and the glorious land.
Róòmù ni ó fi ìran Dáníẹ́lì mọ́kànlá lélẹ̀, a sì ti fi àwọn májẹ̀mú àfọ̀tanjẹ́ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ti Róòmù abọ̀rìṣà àti ti Róòmù póòpù hàn gẹ́gẹ́ bí ohun tí ń tẹ̀síwájú àti gẹ́gẹ́ bí ohun tí ó ṣẹlẹ̀ kí Róòmù tó jọba lọ́nà gíga jùlọ ní àkókò àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ tirẹ̀ tí ó yàtọ̀ síra. Àwọn agbára méjèèjì náà fi àkọ́kọ́ àkókò àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ìṣàkóso gíga wọn sí àmì pé ó bẹ̀rẹ̀ nígbà tí a borí ìdènà kẹta wọn. Kí òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú tí ó ń bọ̀ ní kánkán ní Orílẹ̀-Èdè Amẹ́ríkà tó dé, májẹ̀mú àfọ̀tanjẹ́ yóò wà láàárín agbára méjì. Ní ìgbà mẹ́rin ni àwọn agbára méjì náà ti jẹ́ àwọn ọba gúúsù àti àríwá: lẹ́ẹ̀kan láàárín ilẹ̀ ológo Júdà àti Róòmù, lẹ́ẹ̀kan láàárín apá méjì ti ìṣọ̀kan ọba mẹ́ta ti Róòmù, àti lẹ́ẹ̀kan láàárín Róòmù abọ̀rìṣà àti Róòmù póòpù. Nínú àwọn májẹ̀mú àfọ̀tanjẹ́ méjèèjì tí ó ní í ṣe pẹ̀lú Róòmù, ó di májẹ̀mú láàárín ìdajì kan ti ìjọba Róòmù, bóyá Áńtónì ti ìlà-oòrùn, Ọgọ́sítù ti ìwọ̀-oòrùn, tàbí Róòmù abọ̀rìṣà ti ìlà-oòrùn àti Róòmù póòpù ti ìwọ̀-oòrùn. Májẹ̀mú àfọ̀tanjẹ́ mẹ́rin láàárín àwọn ọba àríwá àti gúúsù, méjì láàárín àwọn ọba ìlà-oòrùn àti ìwọ̀-oòrùn, àti ọ̀kan láàárín ẹni tí yóò di ọba àríwá láìpẹ́ àti ilẹ̀ ológo.
This concludes our initial presentation of the book of Daniel. The Panium series represents the conclusion of the series on the book of Daniel, which is the introduction to the hidden history of verse forty which we will continue to consider in the next article.
Èyí parí àfihàn àkọ́kọ́ wa ti ìwé Dáníẹ́lì. Àtòjọ Páníùmù ṣàfihàn ìparí àtòjọ lórí ìwé Dáníẹ́lì, èyí tí í ṣe ìṣàfihàn sí ìtàn ìkọ̀kọ̀ ti ẹsẹ̀ ogójì, èyí tí a ó sì máa tẹ̀síwájú láti kà nínú àpilẹ̀kọ tó kàn.