Article

# Panium - Number Twenty-Three

Panij — broj dvadeset i tri

After the league he shall work deceitfully

Nakon saveza postupat će prijevarno.

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

March 20, 2026

Formats

PDF
Word
Song MP3

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.

Daniel 11, redak 24, razdoblje u kojem će poganski Rim vladati vrhovno označava riječju „vrijeme“. U proročkoj primjeni jedno „vrijeme“ predstavlja 360 godina, a te su godine započele kod najznamenitije pomorske bitke drevne povijesti, bitke kod Akcija 31. pr. Kr. Bilo je i drugih pomorskih bitaka koje su bile veće i strateški složenije, ali Akcij je bio najikoničkija pomorska bitka zbog svoje povezanosti s Markom Antonijem i Kleopatrom. Slična po povijesnoj važnosti padu Berlinskoga zida kao ispunjenju Daniela 11:40, i Blizancima 11. rujna kao ispunjenju Otkrivenja 18; jer kada Bog odabire povijesne događaje kako bi ispunio svoju proročku Riječ, On to čini na način koji privlači pozornost najveće moguće publike.

> 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.

> I nakon saveza sklopljena s njim, postupat će prijevarno; jer će uznapredovati i osnažiti se s malobrojnim narodom. Ući će mirno čak i u najrodnija mjesta pokrajine; i činit će ono što nisu činili njegovi oci, ni oci njegovih otaca; među njima će razdijeliti plijen, i grabež, i bogatstvo; da, smišljat će svoje naume protiv utvrda, ali samo za neko vrijeme. Daniel 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 zaključuje svoja zapažanja o savezu između Rima i Makabejaca iz dvadeset trećega retka osvrćući se na malen narod iz toga retka.

> “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.

> „U to vrijeme Rimljani su bili malen narod te su počeli djelovati prijevarno, odnosno lukavo, kako ta riječ označuje. I od toga su se trenutka uzdigli postojanim i brzim usponom do vrhunca moći koji su poslije dostigli.״

> “[Verse twenty-four quoted].

> „[Citiran dvadeset četvrti redak].“

> “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.

> „Uobičajeni način na koji su narodi, prije rimskih dana, stupali u posjed vrijednih pokrajina i bogatih zemalja bio je ratom i osvajanjem. Rim je sada trebao učiniti ono što nisu učinili ni oci ni oci njihovih otaca; naime, primiti te stečevine mirnim putem. Tada je uveden dotad nečuven običaj da kraljevi oporukom ostavljaju svoja kraljevstva Rimljanima. Rim je na taj način došao u posjed velikih pokrajina.

> “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.

> „A oni koji su tako potpali pod vlast Rima izvukli su odatle neznatnu korist. S njima se postupalo ljubazno i blagonaklono. Bilo je to kao da se među njima dijeli plijen i grabež. Bili su zaštićeni od svojih neprijatelja te su počivali u miru i sigurnosti pod okriljem rimske moći.“

> “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.

> „Za potonji dio ovoga retka biskup Newton iznosi misao o smišljanju naprava iz utvrda, a ne protiv njih. To su Rimljani činili iz čvrste tvrđave svoga grada na sedam brežuljaka. ‘Čak za jedno vrijeme;’ bez sumnje proročko vrijeme, 360 godina. Od koje točke valja računati te godine? Vjerojatno od događaja koji se iznosi u sljedećem retku.” 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 nastavlja i određuje bitku kod Akcija 31. pr. Kr. kao početnu točku tristo šezdeset godina. Nakon što citira dvadeset peti redak, Smith navodi sljedeće.

> “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.

> „Stihovi 23 i 24 dovode nas na ovu stranu saveza između Židova i Rimljana, 161. pr. Kr., do vremena kada je Rim stekao sveopću vlast. Stih koji je sada pred nama iznosi na vidjelo snažan pohod protiv kralja juga, Egipta, te zbivanje znamenite bitke između velikih i moćnih vojski. Jesu li se takvi događaji doista odigrali u povijesti Rima otprilike u to vrijeme? — Jesu. Rat je bio rat između Egipta i Rima, a bitka je bila bitka kod Akcija. Uzmimo ukratko u obzir okolnosti koje su dovele do ovoga sukoba.“

> “[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.

> „[Marko] Antonije, August Cezar i Lepid činili su trijumvirat koji se zakleo osvetiti smrt Julija Cezara. Taj je Antonije postao šurjak Augusta ženidbom s njegovom sestrom Oktavijom. Antonije je bio poslan u Egipat državnim poslom, ali je postao žrtvom umijeća i čari Kleopatre, razuzdane egipatske kraljice. Toliko je snažna bila strast koju je prema njoj začeo da je naposljetku prigrlio egipatske interese, odbacio svoju ženu Oktaviju kako bi ugodio Kleopatri, darovao ovoj pokrajinu za pokrajinom da zadovolji njezinu lakomost, slavio trijumf u Aleksandriji umjesto u Rimu, i na druge načine toliko uvrijedio rimski narod da August nije imao nikakve poteškoće navesti ga da svim srcem stupi u rat protiv toga neprijatelja njihove domovine. Taj je rat prividno bio protiv Egipta i Kleopatre; ali je zapravo bio protiv Antonija, koji je sada stajao na čelu egipatskih poslova. A pravi uzrok njihova sukoba bio je, kaže Prideaux, taj što se nijedan od njih nije mogao zadovoljiti samo polovicom Rimskoga Carstva; jer nakon što je Lepid bio svrgnut iz trijumvirata, ono je sada ležalo među njima, i budući da je svaki bio odlučan posjedovati cjelinu, bacili su kocku rata za njegovo zadobivanje.” 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.

U proročkom smislu bitka kod Akcija označava nedjeljni zakon, jer je predstavljala treće osvajanje triju zemljopisnih prepreka koje su uspostavile „sveopću vlast” poganskoga Rima, kako to Smith opisuje. Kao i s poganskim Rimom, upravo je onda kada je treća prepreka papinskoga Rima bila uklonjena iz grada Rima započela „sveopća vlast” papinskoga Rima 538. godine. Ta dva svjedoka govore o nedjeljnom zakonu ondje i onda kada suvremeni Rim nadvlada i šesto i sedmo kraljevstvo biblijskoga proročanstva te time nadvlada svoju treću prepreku; uspostavljajući tako „sveopću vlast” tijekom četrdeset i dva simbolična mjeseca.

> 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.

> I bi mu dana usta koja govorahu velike stvari i hule; i bi mu dana vlast da djeluje četrdeset i dva mjeseca. Otkrivenje 13,5.

## Rome Against Egypt

Rim protiv Egipta

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.

Proročki slijedovi rata rimskoga Augusta protiv Egipta i Kleopatre bili su potaknuti pobunom Marka Antonija, i ti proročki slijedovi po proročkoj nužnosti moraju predstavljati proročke slijedove koji su prikazani u nedjeljnom zakonu.

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.

Kod Akcija je Rim osvojio Egipat, silu koja se sastojala od saveza između buntovnoga čovjeka i nesvete žene. Savez Antonija i Kleopatre predstavlja spoj crkve i države. Kod Akcija Augustinov je Rim osvojio silu predstavljenu nesvetim spojem crkve i države.

## Image of the Beast

Slika Zvijeri

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.

Kleopatra predstavlja iskvarenu crkvu usklađenu s Antonijem, simbolom Rima. Kleopatra je bila vladajuća strana u njihovu odnosu, kako to prikazuje Uriah Smith kada izjavljuje da je Antonije „postao žrtvom umijeća i čari Kleopatre, razvratne egipatske kraljice”. Savez crkve i države, predstavljen Antonijem i Kleopatrom, pokazuje da je Kleopatra sila koja vlada u tome odnosu; stoga spoj crkve i države, predstavljen njihovim odnosom, odgovara definiciji slike zvijeri — koja je spoj crkve i države, pri čemu je žena ta koja upravlja odnosom. Akcij je predočavao uskoro dolazeći nedjeljni zakon.

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.

August predstavlja papinsku silu koja osvaja Sjedinjene Države u uskoro dolazećem nedjeljnom zakonu. Marko Antonije jest republikanski rog zemaljske zvijeri, a Kleopatra je protestantski rog. Antonije i Kleopatra udružuju se i govore kao zmaj u uskoro dolazećem nedjeljnom zakonu. I Kleopatra i Antonije simboli su zmajeve sile, i kada se potpuno sjedine u nedjeljnom zakonu — govore kao zmaj.

## Dragons

Zmajevi

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.

I Grčka i Egipat proročki predstavljaju zmajsku silu, a i Antonije je također predstavljao zmajsku silu. Egipat je bio jug u jedanaestom poglavlju Daniela, a Grčka je bila zapad. Egipat je zauzeo Ptolemej I. nakon što se Aleksandrovo kraljevstvo podijelilo na četiri dijela. Ptolemej I. tada je postao prvi proročki kralj juga, a Kleopatra je bila posljednja ptolemejska vladarica u Egiptu. Ptolemej je rođen u Makedoniji, rodnom mjestu Aleksandra Velikoga.

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.

Makedonija se nalazila u sjevernoj Grčkoj i tvrdila je da njezino pradjedovsko podrijetlo potječe od grčkih mitskih junaka. Južne grčke gradske države smatrale su Makedonce barbarskijima od helenista južne Grčke. Makedonci su bili monarhija, a južne gradske države (poleis) poput Atene, Sparte, Tebe, Korinta itd. nalazile su se u južnoj i središnjoj Grčkoj te na egejskim otocima. Te su poleis često imale demokratske, oligarhijske ili mješovite oblike vladavine, dok je Makedonija bila centralizirana monarhija sa snažnom kraljevskom dinastijom (Argejadi). Ipak, svi su oni bili helenisti, a kada je Rim stupio na povijesnu pozornicu, heleniste je označio kao Grke. Kleopatra je bila posljednja ptolemejska vladarica, što je predstavljalo monarhijsko pleme Grka sjevernoga kraljevstva iz područja Makedonije, odnosno sjeverne Grčke.

## King of the South

Kralj juga

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.

Kleopatra je bila posljednja vladarica Ptolemejskoga kraljevstva koje je započelo s Ptolemejem I. kada se Aleksandrovo kraljevstvo podijelilo na četiri dijela. U bitci kod Akcija Ptolemejsko kraljevstvo, doslovni kralj juga, doseglo je svoj kraj. Sljedeći kralj juga bio bi duhovni Egipat, predstavljen ateističkom Francuskom tijekom povijesti Francuske revolucije.

> 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.

> I njihova će mrtva tijela ležati na ulici velikoga grada, koji se duhovno zove Sodoma i Egipat, gdje je i Gospodin naš bio razapet. Otkrivenje 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.

Doslovni Egipat bio je doslovni kralj juga u vezi s podjelom Aleksandrova kraljevstva, ali duhovni Egipat predstavljen je kao kralj juga proročkim obilježjima Egipta, a ne doslovnim smjerom.

## South and West

Jug i Zapad

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.

Budući da je Kleopatra bila posljednja ptolemejska vladarica kraljevstva, ona je u proročkom smislu predstavljala dvostruku silu Grčke (zapada) i Egipta (juga), dok bi sljedeći, a potom i duhovni kralj juga bila Francuska, također dvostruka sila predstavljena u Otkrivenju jedanaest kao Egipat i Sodoma. Razuzdanost Sodome podudara se s razuzdanošću Kleopatre zapada, a Kleopatra juga podudara se s ateizmom Egipta. Dvostruka narav posljednjega doslovnog kralja juga bila je usklađena s prvim duhovnim kraljem juga.

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.”

Bitka kod Akcija bila je nesveti savez Antonijeva rimskog zmaja i Kleopatrina zmaja juga i zapada. Antonije i Kleopatra predstavljaju crkvu i državu, stoga osvajanje Akcija od strane Augusta Rimskog predstavlja osvajanje u kojem Rim nadvladava nesveti dvostruki savez koji predoznačuje sliku Zvijeri. Tri stotine i šezdeset godina poslije, u ispunjenju Daniela 11:24, Konstantin je podijelio Rim na istok i zapad, ostavivši ženu Rima na zapadu i premjestivši čovjeka Rima na istok. Osvajanje juga i zapada predoznačivalo je podjelu istoka i zapada nakon jednoga „vremena” od tri stotine i šezdeset godina, u bitki kod Akcija. U ranijem susretu Antoniju je bio dodijeljen istočni Rim, a Augustu zapad, tako da je Akcij ujedinio istok i zapad, ali samo na jedno „vrijeme”.

## 31 BC and 330

31. pr. Kr. i 330. po. Kr.

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.

Isus uvijek prikazuje svršetak početkom, tako da osvajanje Akcija 31. pr. Kr. predstavlja predsliku podjele Carstva na istok i zapad 330. godine. Akcij 31. pr. Kr. bio je alfa omege u 360 godina koje su završile 330. godine. I 31. pr. Kr. i 330. godina predstavljaju predsliku uskoro nadolazećega nedjeljnog zakona, kako je prikazan u šesnaestom i četrdeset i prvom retku jedanaestoga poglavlja Daniela.

## Another Symbol

Drugi simbol

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.

Antonije iz Rima, usklađen s Kleopatrom juga i zapada, predstavlja trostruki savez unutar njihova dvostrukog jedinstva slike Zvijeri. Križ je također usklađen sa zakonom o nedjelji, i stoga s Akcijem i 330. Na križu je dvostruko jedinstvo crkve i države predstavljeno Židovima (iskvarena crkva) koji se pridružuju Rimu (državi) da ubiju Krista. Treća strana u savezu na križu predstavljena je Barabom, lažnim Kristom, čije ime znači „sin oca”. Baraba je simbolički lažni prorok kada se suprotstavi Kristu kao pravomu Proroku. Rim je bio Antonije, a Kleopatra juga i zapada predstavljala je Židove i Barabu.

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.

Križ se također usklađuje s Ilijom na gori Karmelu, gdje je izbor bio o tome tko je pravi, a tko lažni prorok. Lažni je prorok tada bio dvostruk simbol, koji su sačinjavali Baalovi proroci i svećenici gaja. Baal je muško božanstvo, a svećenici gaja predstavljali su Aštarotu, žensko božanstvo. Židovi na križu bili su Aštarota, žensko božanstvo, a Baraba, krivotvorina Čovjeka boli, bio je muško božanstvo Baal.

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.

Kleopatra je bila i kraljica juga i kraljica zapada. Antonije je bio slika Rima, dio trostrukoga trijumvirata koji se zakleo osvetiti Julijevo ubojstvo. Julijeva smrt od dvadeset i tri rane predstavljala je smrtonosnu ranu papinstva 1798. godine, u ispunjenju četrdesetoga retka jedanaestoga poglavlja Daniela. Augustin kod Akcija predstavlja iscjeljenje te smrtonosne rane. Rana biva iscijeljena kada Antonije i Kleopatra umru. Antonije i Kleopatra predstavljaju sliku Zvijeri u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, koja je trostruki proročki entitet, sastavljen od Zvijeri iz zemlje i njezina dva roga. Antonije je jedan dio, a Kleopatra predstavlja druga dva dijela. Bilo da je riječ o Antonijevu Rimu ili Kleopatrinu Egiptu i Grčkoj, oni zajedno umiru pri zakonu o nedjelji, kada završava šesto kraljevstvo biblijskoga proročanstva. Proročki gledano, Kleopatra je u odnosu na Antonija mješavina crkvene vještine i državničke vještine, pri čemu crkvena vještina zavodi i upravlja državničkom vještinom.

## The Second Death Typified

Druga smrt predoznačena

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.

Na drugoj proročkoj razini Kleopatrin odnos s Julijem Cezarom i Markom Antonijem predstavlja dva razdoblja u kojima je crkvena vještina Kleopatre u odnosu s državničkom vještinom Rimskoga Carstva. Julije ju je napustio 1798. godine pri njezinoj prvoj simboličkoj smrti, u ispunjenju četrdesetoga retka jedanaestoga poglavlja Daniela; a potom dolazi svojemu svršetku bez ijednoga da joj pomogne, kod Akcija, u ispunjenju četrdeset i petoga retka jedanaestoga poglavlja Daniela. Četrdeseti redak jest alfa njezine prve smrtonosne rane koja treba biti iscijeljena, a omega četrdeset i petoga retka jest mjesto gdje prima svoju drugu i konačnu smrt.

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.

Kao i u slučaju četiriju rimskih sila iz redaka šesnaest do dvadeset i dva, Kleopatra kao biblijski simbol ima više od jednoga značenja, ovisno o kontekstu. Julije ju je napustio 1798., kada je uklonjena kraljevska potpora, a potom joj se smrtonosna rana iscjeljuje pri nedjeljnom zakonu, no deset kraljeva iz Otkrivenja sedamnaest na koncu je uništava ognjem, kada susreće svoju drugu i konačnu smrt.

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.

Kleopatra je simbol dvostruke naravi koju predstavlja ateizam faraonskog Egipta i religijska filozofija Grčke. Njezina dvostruka narav predstavlja državničko umijeće Egipta i crkveno umijeće Grčke. Grčku religijsku filozofiju predstavlja grčka božica Atena, koja je bila postavljena kao kip u svojem hramu, zvanom Partenon. Atena je simbol mudrosti, a kao žena predstavlja religiju ljudskog obrazovanja, nasuprot božanskom obrazovanju.

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.

Dva roga Sjedinjenih Država jesu republikanizam i protestantizam, koji su u Francuskoj bili predočeni Egiptom i Sodomom. Egipat je umješnost države, a Sodoma je umješnost crkve; stoga se republikanizam podudara s Egiptom, a protestantizam sa Sodomom. Republikanizam je Egipat, a protestantizam je Sodoma i Grčka. Simbol ljudskog obrazovanja jest grčka božica Atena, čiji je hram bio Partenon, koji svoj suvremeni pandan nalazi u Partenonu u Nashvilleu, Tennessee. Simbol pokvarene crkve koja se usklađuje s republikanskim rogom u Sjedinjenim Državama pri nedjeljnom zakonu prikazan je kao Kleopatra, Aštarota, Saloma i Sodoma.

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.

Kleopatra prikazuje faraonov ateizam i religiju Grka. Religija koja prati filozofiju ateizma jest štovanje grčkoga obrazovanja. Isus uvijek kraj prikazuje početkom, a stablo u vrtu s kojega je bilo zabranjeno jesti bilo je stablo spoznaje dobra i zla, koje predočuje religiju grčke filozofije koju sestra White naziva „višim obrazovanjem“. To prepoznaje i naglašava Kleopatrinu grčku religiju mudrosti kao iskvarenu i krivotvorenu zamjenu za pravo obrazovanje u velikoj borbi između Krista i Sotone.

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, naziva se „Atenom juga“, a Kleopatra je bila posljednja doslovna kraljica juga. Posljednja kraljica juga predočavala je sljedećega i prvoga duhovnog kralja juga, ispunjenog u ateističkoj Francuskoj. Ateistička Francuska predočava Sjedinjene Države, gdje je u Nashvilleu, Tennessee, „Ateni juga“ simbolički prikazan hram Partenon božici Ateni. Hram se nalazi na adresi 2500 West End u Nashvilleu. Broj dvadeset i pet predstavlja zatvorena vrata triju prispodoba iz Mateja dvadeset i pete glave. Kleopatra, kao kraljica i „juga“ i „zapada“, dolazi do svojega „kraja“ u Ateni juga.

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.

S ovim razmatranjima o Akciju, Kleopatri, Augustu i Antoniju vraćamo se na dvadeset četvrti do trideseti redak jedanaestoga poglavlja Daniela. Možda je najneodređeniji dio ovoga odlomka ondje gdje za istim stolom govore laži.

> 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.

> A srca će obojice tih kraljeva biti upravljena na činjenje zla, i govorit će laži za istim stolom; ali to neće uspjeti, jer će svršetak još biti u određeno vrijeme. Daniel 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.

Vrijeme određeno u retku iznosi 330, završetak „vremena” iz dvadeset četvrtoga retka. Određeno vrijeme predstavlja zakon o nedjelji za Sjedinjene Države, a također predstavlja i završetak ljudskoga vremena milosti za svijet. Prije zakona o nedjelji dva kralja, kojima su srca upravljena da čine zlo, govorit će laži jedan drugomu za istim stolom. Prije zakona o nedjelji iz šesnaestoga i četrdeset i prvoga retka Daniela jedanaest, dva će kralja govoriti laži za istim stolom, ali njihove laži neće uspjeti. Tko su ta dva kralja koja govore laži jedan drugomu? Prije nego odgovorimo na tu misao, podsjetit ću nas na nešto od simbolike kojom smo se prethodno bavili u ovom nizu.

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.

Četiri rimska vladara predstavljaju raznolikost proročkih simbola, ovisno o kontekstu u kojem se promatraju. Premda su rimski vladari, kao simbol u biti predstavljaju proročku povijest drevne Jude dok je prelazila iz prevlasti Seleukida pod prevlast Rimljana.

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.

Pompej je bio vojskovođa, a sljedeća tri rimska vladara svi su bili Cezari. Julije u odnosu na Augusta predstavljao je dva trostruka saveza s dva trijumvirata, prvi neslužbeni, a drugi službeni. Sva četiri vladara u određenim kontekstima predstavljaju nedjeljni zakon. Pompej je osvojio slavnu zemlju, Julije, predstavljen s dvadeset i tri ubodne rane, jest prvi anđeo, jer je on prvi Cezar, i on predoznačuje trećega anđela, koji je bio Tiberije. Tiberije na križu, koji je nedjeljni zakon, također je predstavljen brojem dvadeset i tri, jer dvadeset i tri predstavlja pomirenje; a križ je najsuštinskiji dio Kristova djela u sjedinjenju njegova božanstva s našom ljudskom naravi. Tako su Julije i Tiberije prva i treća poruka, predstavljeni brojem dvadeset i tri.

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.

Julije nije bio romantična figura kakvom ga se često prikazuje u holivudskoj predaji; bio je nemilosrdan čovjek usmjeren na moć. Tiberije je bio gori od Julija, jer se njegova pokvarenost čak i spominje u retku, budući da je posljednje slovo hebrejskog alfabeta dvadeset i dva, a prvo slovo jedan. Alfa je manja od omege, a Tiberijeva pokvarenost smještena je u retku dvadeset i dva, koji odgovara posljednjem slovu hebrejskog alfabeta, a između te dvije opake osobe, koje predstavljaju Julije i Tiberije, nalazio se August. August predstavlja vrhunac slave moći i ugleda Rima. Kao suprotnost prvoj i trećoj poruci, prikazan je slovom trinaest, koje je simbol pobune. August je osigurao svoje kraljevstvo pokorivši pobunu Antonija i Kleopatre, najpoznatiju pobunu u povijesti Rima.

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.

August je rimska sila koja je svladala treću prepreku i time je predstavljao zakon o nedjelji, te rimsku silu koja vlada tijekom četrdeset i dva simbolična mjeseca pobune iz trinaestoga poglavlja Otkrivenja. Kada se postavi ispred zakona o nedjelji, Pompej je i 1798. i 1989., čime Pompej postaje simbol Antioha Magna koji je okončao četvrti sirijski rat od 219. do 217. pr. Kr., u ispunjenju desetoga retka jedanaestoga poglavlja. Julije Cezar tada se usklađuje s jedanaestim i dvanaestim retkom te s bitkom na granici, bitkom kod Raphije 217. pr. Kr. Ondje je Julije također Antioh Magn, a August Cezar također je Antioh Magn u bitci kod Panija iz petnaestoga retka. Zatim je u šesnaestom retku Tiberije zakon o nedjelji, ali on nije Antioh Magn, jer je ondje Pompej, budući da Isus uvijek prikazuje svršetak pomoću početka. Taj redak označuje kraj Seleukidskoga Carstva kao predsliku kraja Sjedinjenih Država kao šestoga kraljevstva biblijskoga proroštva.

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.

Treba još uspostaviti više podudaranja četvorice rimskih vladara, a ta crta predstavlja skrivenu povijest četrdesetoga retka. Makabejska crta dvadeset i trećega retka također prikazuje skrivenu povijest četrdesetoga retka. Zatim se u dvadeset i četvrtom retku priča o poganskom imperijalnom Rimu prikazuje vremenom — tristo šezdeset godina. Crta rimske povijesti predstavljena od dvadeset i četvrtoga retka pa sve do tridesetoga također je prikaz skrivene povijesti četrdesetoga retka. Ona završava u trideset i prvom retku kada se predmet mijenja s poganskoga na papinski Rim. Poganski Rim i dalje je u retku, ali ondje nije predstavljen kao četvrto kraljevstvo biblijskoga proročanstva, nego kao politička sila koja je 538. postavila papinstvo na prijestolje. Godine 538. papinstvo je donijelo zakon o nedjelji, stoga se trideset i prvi redak usklađuje sa šesnaestim i četrdeset i prvim retkom. Dvadeset i četvrti redak uveo je bitku kod Akcija i povijest povezanu s tom crtom.

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.

Dvadeset četvrti redak određuje kada je poganski Rim počeo vrhovno vladati tristo šezdeset godina, a zatim u trideset i prvom retku papinski Rim počinje vrhovno vladati tisuću dvjesto šezdeset godina. Početak i završetak crte nose potpis Krista, Alfe i Omege. U tim recima imamo povijest Marka Antonija, Kleopatre i Augusta Cezara. U šesnaestom retku poganski je Rim osvojio Seleukidsko Carstvo 65. pr. Kr., a zatim Judu 63. pr. Kr. Treća prepreka kod Akcija 31. pr. Kr. označila je kraj egipatskoga kraljevstva, kao što su to predočile prve prepreke Seleukida 65. pr. Kr. Još jednom nalazimo potpis Prvoga i Posljednjega. Godina 65. pr. Kr. bila je prva od triju prepreka i predstavljala je osvajanje kralja sjevera, a 31. pr. Kr. predstavljala je treću od triju prepreka i predstavljala je osvajanje kralja juga. Juda je, kao srednja prepreka od triju prepreka, imala građanski rat unutar zidina Jeruzalema kada je Pompej stigao 63. pr. Kr. Druga prepreka simbol je pobune.

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.

Godine 538. treća je prepreka papinskom Rimu bila uklonjena iz grada Rima. Ta su prepreka bili Goti, i ondje je započelo peto kraljevstvo biblijskog proroštva, upravo tamo gdje je završilo četvrto kraljevstvo. I kao što je četvrto kraljevstvo započelo kod svoje treće prepreke, kraljevstvo je Egipta bilo poraženo, kao što je to bilo predočeno u prvoj prepreci Seleukidskoga kraljevstva. To utvrđuje da proročko svjedočanstvo koje se nalazi od dvadeset četvrtoga do tridesetoga retka predstavlja liniju koju također treba smjestiti u skrivenoj povijesti četrdesetoga retka. Iz toga je razloga nužno razmotriti različite proročke odnose koje predstavljaju Marko Antonije, Kleopatra, Julije Cezar, Pompej i car August.

So is the vaguest part of the passage of verse twenty-four unto thirty, when they speak lies at one table?

Je li, dakle, najnejasniji dio odlomka od dvadeset četvrtoga do tridesetoga retka onaj kada govore laži za istim stolom?

> 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.

> I srce obojice tih kraljeva bit će sklono zlu, i za istim će stolom govoriti laži; ali to neće uspjeti, jer će svršetak ipak doći u vrijeme određeno. Daniel 11,27.

Uriah Smith identifies the two kings as Marc Antony and Augustus Caesar.

Urija Smith poistovjećuje dva kralja s Markom Antonijem i carem Augustom.

> “Verse twenty-seven quoted

> „Naveden je dvadeset i sedmi redak“

> “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.

> „Antonije i Cezar nekoć su bili u savezu. Ipak, pod krinkom prijateljstva obojica su težili i spletkarili za sveopću vlast. Njihova očitovanja obzira prema, i prijateljstva jedan prema drugomu, bila su iskazi licemjera. Za istim su stolom govorili laži. Oktavija, žena Antonijeva i sestra Cezarova, izjavila je narodu Rima u vrijeme kada ju je Antonije otpustio, da je pristala udati se za njega jedino u nadi da će to biti jamstvo jedinstva između Cezara i Antonija. Ali taj naum nije uspio. Došlo je do raskida; i u sukobu koji je uslijedio, Cezar je izašao kao potpuno pobjednik.” Uriah Smith, Daniel i Otkrivenje, 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.

Kada je Oktavija označila da je njezin brak s Antonijem bio kao zalog sjedinjenja, time je označila bračni savez koji je ranije u jedanaestom poglavlju bio predočen helenističkim brakom Berenike sa seleukidskim kraljem Antiohom II Teom oko 252. pr. Kr. Berenika je bila kći Ptolemeja II Filadelfa. Oktavija i Berenika predstavljaju diplomatske brakove ili, proročki, saveze. Redci pet do deset iznose povijest diplomatskoga braka između južnoga i sjevernoga kraljevstva, a kada su Marko Antonije i Oktavijan, kasnije poznat kao August Cezar, ugovorili taj brak, također su podijelili kraljevstvo na istok i zapad.

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).

Brundizijski sporazum (40. pr. Kr.) bio je pregovorima postignuta nagodba između Marka Antonija i Oktavijana (kasnije Augusta) radi razrješenja napetosti u Drugom trijumviratu nakon gotovo izbijenoga građanskog rata. Uključivao je podjelu rimskih područja (Antonije istok, Oktavijan zapad), a zapečaćen je Antonijevim brakom s Oktavijom (Oktavijanovom sestrom). Godine 39. pr. Kr. istekao je izvorni petogodišnji rok Trijumvirata; Antonije je otplovio u Italiju s više od 300 brodova, kojima isprva nije bilo dopušteno pristati u Brundiziju, pa su se naposljetku usidrili u Tarentu. Oktavijan se ondje susreo s njim nakon dugotrajnih posredovanja do kojih je došlo zbog nespremnosti Antonijeve vojske da se bori protiv Oktavijanove vojske, i obratno. Oktavija je odigrala ključnu posredničku ulogu, nagovorivši Antonija da podupre Oktavijana protiv Seksta Pompeja. Obnovili su Trijumvirat za još pet godina (do 32. pr. Kr.), pri čemu je Antonije dao Oktavijanu 120 brodova u zamjenu za obećane čete, koje je Oktavijan poslije uskratio.

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.

Godine 32. pr. Kr. došlo je do otvorenog raskida između dvaju protivnika. Odnosi su se pogoršali zbog promidžbe, Antonijeve usmjerenosti na istok (s Kleopatrom) i Oktavijanove konsolidacije na zapadu. Oktavijan je odbacio kasnije Antonijeve prijedloge za konferenciju prije Akcija.

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.

U diplomatskom braku sa sjevernim kraljem (Antiohom) i južnim kraljem (Ptolemejem), nevjestu je dao južni kralj; u diplomatskom braku Antonija (istoka) i Oktavijana (zapada) nevjestu je dao zapad. Oba diplomatska braka propala su, a onaj koji je dao kćer ili sestru naposljetku je odnio pobjedu nad silom koja je prekršila savez.

## The Testimony of Three

Svjedočanstvo trojice

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.

Na kraju Seleukidskog Carstva postojao je treći savez u kojem su se za jednim stolom izgovarale laži. To se zbilo u kontekstu Petoga sirijskog rata (202.–195. pr. Kr.), kada je Antioh III. Veliki iskoristio slabost Ptolemejskoga Kraljevstva nakon smrti Ptolemeja IV. Filopatora 204. pr. Kr. Ptolemej V. Epifan (Ptolemej V.) uzašao je na prijestolje kao dijete (u dobi od oko 5–6 godina), ostavivši Egipat pod upravom namjesnika i izloženim unutarnjem kaosu, domaćim pobunama i vanjskim prijetnjama.

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).

Antioh Veliki već je bio provalio i zauzeo velik dio ptolemejskih područja u Koile-Siriji, Palestini i Maloj Aziji nakon pobjeda kao što je bila Bitka kod Panija (200. pr. Kr.). Umjesto da posve osvoji Egipat (što je nosilo opasnost od rimske intervencije, budući da ga je Rim prisiljavao da se drži podalje od određenih područja), nastojao je sklopiti diplomatski bračni savez u svojstvu figure „zaštitnika”. Godine 197./195. pr. Kr., kao dio mirovnog ugovora kojim je okončan rat, Antioh Veliki zaručio je, a zatim i udao svoju mladu kćer Kleopatru I. Siru (također zvanu Kleopatra Sira) za dijete Ptolemeja V. (vjenčanje se održalo 193. pr. Kr. u Raphiji; Ptolemeju je bilo 16, a Kleopatri 10 godina).

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.

To je bilo prikazano kao velikodušna gesta: Antioh se postavio kao saveznik i „zaštitnik” mladoga kralja, osiguravajući mir, a istodobno zadržavajući dobitke u Aziji. Brak mu je preko njegove kćeri dao neizravan utjecaj na Egipat (nadao se da će ona ostati odana svojim seleukidskim korijenima i djelovati kao protu-sirijski glas na ptolomejskom dvoru). Lukavstvo mu se izjalovilo, jer je Kleopatra stala uz svoga muža i uz Egipat, a ne uz svoga oca, čime je potkopala Antiohov dugoročni nadzor. To odražava Brundizijski sporazum (40. pr. Kr.) i bilo je na nekoliko načina povezano s rimskim događajima.

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).

Kao što se Antonije oženio Oktavijom (sestrom Oktavijana) kako bi nakon gotovo izbijenoga rata povezao suparničke sile, tako je Antioh iskoristio udaju svoje kćeri za Ptolemeja V. kako bi ozakonio privremeni mir i teritorijalnu podjelu (Seleukidi su zadržali osvajanja na sjeveru, a Ptolemej Egipat na jugu).

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.

Antioh je djelovao kao de facto skrbnik nad dječakom-kraljem Ptolemejem V. (putem obiteljskih veza), slično tomu kako su se Oktavijan (i Trijumvirat) postavili usred vakuuma moći ili suparništava. U oba slučaja „jača“ osoba (Antioh/Oktavijan) nastojala je steći prevagu nad ranjivijom stranom putem srodstva. Oba su aranžmana donijela kratkoročnu stabilnost, ali dugoročno „nisu uspjela“ zbog prikrivenoga nepovjerenja — Kleopatra je bila naklonjena Egiptu (potkopavajući Antioha), dok je Antonijeva istočna usmjerenost (Kleopatra VII.) dovela do sloma s Oktavijanom.

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.

Maloljetnost Ptolemeja V. pod namjesnicima odgovara nestabilnosti nakon smrti Julija Cezara (što je dovelo do stvaranja Trijumvirata i borbi za vlast). Brak Berenike s Antiohom označio je početak povijesti Seleukidskoga Carstva u Danielu jedanaest, a brak kćeri Antioha Velikoga s egipatskim dječakom-kraljem označio je završetak Seleukidskoga Carstva. Okončanje braka Marka Antonija s Oktavijom označilo je završetak ptolemejskoga kraljevstva. Završetak Jude kao Božjega zavjetnog naroda zbio se na križu, a to je judejsko kraljevstvo započelo s Makabejcima i savezom koji su sklopili s Rimom. Sve su te proročke linije prikazane unutar narativa jedanaestoga poglavlja Daniela, i sve su usklađene sa skrivenom poviješću četrdesetoga retka. Počevši od petoga retka, imamo savez Berenike, koji vodi do Antioha Velikoga i saveza njegove kćeri Kleopatre Sire, što se zbiva u povijesti Makabejaca iz dvadeset trećega retka. Makabejci postaju dio te linije na temelju svoje pobune protiv Antioha Epifana, jednoga od posljednjih iz seleukidske dinastije.

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.”

Antioh Epifan je onaj Antioh koji je 168. pr. Kr., tijekom Šestoga sirijskog rata, bio u Egiptu blizu Aleksandrije. Antioh Epifan bijaše napao Egipat i bio nadomak zauzimanja Aleksandrije. Ptolemejski vladari obratili su se Rimu za pomoć. Rim je poslao Popilija Lenu (s tek malom pratnjom — bez vojske) da preda ultimatum Senata; Antioh se mora odmah povući iz Egipta i Cipra, ili se suočiti s ratom protiv Rima. Kad je Antioh primio pismo i zatražio vremena da se posavjetuje sa svojim savjetnicima, Popilije — opisan kao strog i zapovjedan — uze svoj štap te povuče krug u pijesku oko kraljevih nogu. Potom izjavi: „Prije nego što istupiš iz toga kruga, daj mi odgovor koji ću iznijeti pred Senat.”

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).

Značenje je bilo jasno; Antioh nije mogao izaći iz kruga a da se ne obveže na rimske zahtjeve — prijeći ga bez sporazuma značilo bi rat. Zapanjen i ponižen, Antioh je nakratko oklijevao, ali je potom pristao udovoljiti, povukao svoje snage iz Egipta i vratio se u Siriju. Ovaj smioni čin diplomacije (potkrijepljen sve većim ugledom Rima kao sile) iznudio je uzmak bez bitke, očitujući sve izraženiju rimsku prevlast u istočnom Sredozemlju. Često se navodi kao ishodište izraza „povući crtu u pijesku” (premda je doslovno bio riječ o krugu).

Antiochus Epiphanes also became the Protestant understanding of the power that exalts himself, falls and establishes the vision in verse fourteen of Daniel eleven.

Antioh Epifan također je postao protestantsko razumijevanje sile koja se uzvisuje, pada i uspostavlja viđenje u četrnaestom retku jedanaestog poglavlja Daniela.

> 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.

> A u ono će vrijeme mnogi ustati protiv kralja juga; i nasilnici iz tvoga naroda uzvisit će se da utvrde viđenje, ali će pasti. Daniel 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.

Antioh IV. Epifan vladao je od 175. do 164. pr. Kr. i bio je osmi od trinaestorice seleukidskih kraljeva. Nastojao je nametnuti helenističku kulturu i ujediniti svoje carstvo pod grčkim vjerskim običajima. Opljačkao je Hram 169. pr. Kr., zabranio židovske običaje (obrezanje, svetkovanje subote, proučavanje Tore) i nametnuo žrtvovanje poganskim bogovima. U prosincu 167. pr. Kr. podigao je poganski žrtvenik (Zeusu) na vrhu židovskoga žrtvenika za paljenice u Hramu i žrtvovao svinju, zajedno s drugim oskvrnjujućim činima. To oskvrnuće bilo je posljednja kap za pobožne Židove, koji su ga smatrali krajnjom povredom svetosti Hrama i Božjega zakona. Potaknulo je neposredan otpor kada je Matatija (svećenik iz Modiina) odbio naredbu jednoga seleukidskog časnika da prinese žrtvu poganskim bogovima te ubio jednoga odmetnutog Židova i toga časnika, a zatim pobjegao u brda sa svojim sinovima (budućim Makabejcima). Time je započeo gerilski rat i ustanak od 167. do 160. pr. Kr., kojemu je cilj bio obnoviti židovsko bogoštovlje, što je dovelo do ponovnoga posvećenja Hrama (Hanuka) 164. pr. Kr. pod Judom Makabejcem.

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.

Na početku i na završetku Seleukidskoga Carstva postojao je značajan savez, predstavljen diplomatskim brakom, koji je sadržavao element podjele bilo na istok i zapad, bilo na sjever i jug. Kako je Seleukidsko Carstvo slabilo, Antioh Epifan postaje simbol rastuće rimske sile i žarište ogorčenja Makabejaca. Kasnije u povijesti on postaje krivotvorina proročkoga simbola koji uspostavlja viđenje. Sila u dvadeset i drugom retku jedanaestoga poglavlja biva slomljena kada je slomljen knez Saveza.

> 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.

> I silama poplave bit će preplavljeni pred njim i bit će skršeni; da, i knez saveza. Daniel 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.

Vladavina Antioha Epifana završila je 164. pr. Kr., gotovo dvjesto godina prije nego što je Krist, „knez Saveza“, bio „slomljen“ na križu. Ono što ovdje želimo zapaziti jest da je Seleukidsko Carstvo započelo i završilo diplomatskim ugovornim brakom u kojem je prijevara između dviju strana stvar povijesnog zapisa. Za vrijeme vladavine Antioha Epifana započela je Makabejska pobuna, koja je bila praslika Američke revolucije. U povijesti Makabejaca njihova je borba za zbacivanje seleukidske vlasti uključivala značajan ugovor s Rimom. Redak koji izravno prepoznaje taj ugovor također izravno prikazuje Rim kako postupa prijevarno, odnosno kako govori laži za ugovornim stolom.

> 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.

> I nakon saveza sklopljena s njime djelovat će prijevarno, jer će doći i ojačati s malim narodom. Daniel 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:

Svaki proročki redak koji prethodi vremenu svršetka u četrdesetom retku sadrži prekršeni savez. Uriah Smith, komentirajući trideseti redak i „one koji napuštaju sveti savez”, bilježi sljedeće:

> “‘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.

> “‘Gnjev protiv Saveza’; to jest, protiv Svetoga pisma, knjige Saveza. Revolucija takve naravi ostvarena je u Rimu. Heruli, Goti i Vandali, koji su osvojili Rim, prihvatili su arijansku vjeru i postali neprijatelji Katoličke crkve. Upravo radi iskorjenjivanja toga krivovjerja Justinijan je odredio da papa bude poglavar crkve i ispravitelj heretika. Biblija je uskoro počela biti smatrana opasnom knjigom koju običan narod ne bi smio čitati, nego se sva sporna pitanja trebaju podnositi papi. Tako je na Božju riječ svaljena sramota. A rimski su carevi, čiji je istočni dio još uvijek opstajao, imali sporazum, ili su bili u dosluhu, s Rimskom crkvom, koja je napustila Savez i sačinjavala veliki otpad, s ciljem suzbijanja ‘krivovjerja’. Čovjek grijeha bio je uzdignut na svoje drsko prijestolje porazom arijanskih Gota, koji su tada držali Rim, godine 538. po Kr.” Uriah Smith, Daniel i Otkrivenje, 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.

Peti redak jedanaestog poglavlja Daniela prepoznaje povijesnu liniju u kojoj kralj juga daje diplomatsku nevjestu kao simbol saveza koji je potom prekršio kralj sjevera. Odmazda kralja juga predoznačavala je odmazdu Napoleonova duhovnog kralja juga protiv papinskog kralja sjevera 1798. godine. Prekršeni savez u recima pet do devet predoznačavao je Napoleonov prekršeni Tolentinski ugovor, koji je predoznačavao Putinovu tvrdnju o prekršenom ugovoru od strane NATO-a. Napoleonova odmazda predoznačavala je Putinovu odmazdu protiv Ukrajine 2014. godine. Odmazda Antioha Velikog u desetom retku, kojom je završio Četvrti sirijski rat, podudara se s Napoleonom 1798. godine, a također i s Putinom 2014. godine. Nakon bitke kod Panija iz petnaestog retka 200. pr. Kr., Antioh je ugovorio diplomatski brak sa skrivenom namjerom da Egipat stavi pod svoje zapovjedništvo bez uporabe vojne sile na terenu. Prijestolje Antioha Velikog prešlo je na njegova sina, koji je bio ubijen, što je na prijestolje dovelo najmlađeg sina Antioha Velikog, Antioha Epifana. Njegovi postupci u provođenju grčkih običaja i religije doveli su do Makabejskog ustanka, koji je vodio do prijevarnog saveza s Rimom u dvadeset trećem retku. Dvadeset četvrti redak uvodi poganski Rim i prepoznaje Antonijev i Augustov stol laži. U tridesetom retku poganski Rim ulazi u dijalog s papinskom crkvom, koja je označena kao oni koji su prekršili sveti savez.

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.

Stihovi dvadeset četiri do trideset predstavljaju svjedočanstvo poganskoga Rima, a stihovi trideset jedan do četrdeset pružaju svjedočanstvo papinskoga Rima. Svaki redak Daniela 11, od prvoga stiha pa sve do četrdesetoga, predstavlja jednu proročku liniju koja se primjenjuje u skrivenoj povijesti četrdesetoga stiha. Linija seleukidskoga kraljevstva, linija ptolemejskoga kraljevstva, linija judejskoga kraljevstva Makabejaca, linija poganskoga Rima i linija papinskoga Rima — sve one prikazuju povijest od 1989. do nedjeljnoga zakona. Svaka od tih linija prepoznaje prekršeni savez kao glavni element te povijesti.

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.

Rim uspostavlja viđenje iz Daniela jedanaest, a i poganski i papinski Rimovi proročki savezi prijevare označeni su kao progresivni i kao takvi da se zbivaju prije nego što je Rim vrhovno vladao tijekom svojih odgovarajućih i zasebnih proročkih razdoblja. Obje su sile označile početak proročkog razdoblja nadmoći kao onaj koji započinje kada je svladana njihova treća prepreka. Prije uskoro dolazećega nedjeljnog zakona u Sjedinjenim Državama postojat će savez prijevare između dviju sila. Četiri su puta te dvije sile bile kraljevi juga i sjevera: jednom između slavne zemlje Jude i Rima, jednom između dvaju dijelova rimskoga trijumvirata i jednom između poganskoga i papinskoga Rima. U obama prijevarnim savezima koji se odnose na Rim to je u biti bio savez između jedne polovice Rimskoga Carstva, bilo Antonija s istoka, Augusta sa zapada, ili poganskoga Rima s istoka i papinskoga Rima sa zapada. Četiri saveza prijevare između kraljeva sjevera i juga, dva između kraljeva istoka i zapada i jedan između uskoro budućega kralja sjevera i slavne zemlje.

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.

Ovim završavamo naše početno izlaganje o knjizi Daniela. Serija o Paniju predstavlja završetak serije o knjizi Daniela, koja je uvod u skrivenu povijest četrdesetoga retka, koju ćemo nastaviti razmatrati u sljedećem članku.

Back to Articles