Article

# Panium - Number Twenty-Three

Panium - Tus Naj Npawb Nees nkaum Peb

After the league he shall work deceitfully

Tom qab uas muaj kev cog lus sib koom lawm nws yuav ua siab dag ntxias

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

March 20, 2026

Formats

PDF Unavailable
Word Unavailable
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.

Daniyees kaum kaum ib nqes nees nkaum plaub qhia lub caij nyoog uas Loos teev dab yuav kav nrog hwjchim loj tshaj plaws los ntawm lo lus “ib sijhawm.” Hauv kev siv yav tom ntej raws lus faj lem, “ib sijhawm” sawv cev rau 360 xyoo, thiab cov xyoo ntawd pib ntawm qhov kev sib tua nkoj nto moo tshaj plaws hauv keeb kwm puag thaum ub, yog kev sib tua ntawm Actium xyoo 31 BC. Muaj lwm yam kev sib tua nkoj uas loj dua thiab muaj tswv yim kev ua rog tob dua, tiamsis Actium yog qhov kev sib tua nkoj uas muaj lub npe sawv cev tshaj plaws vim nws txuas nrog Marc Antony thiab Cleopatra. Zoo ib yam li qhov tseem ceeb hauv keeb kwm ntawm kev vau ntawm Phab Ntsa Berlin hauv kev ua tiav Daniyees 11:40, thiab Ob Lub Tsev Siab Ntauwd ntawm 9/11 hauv kev ua tiav Qhia Tshwm kaum yim; rau qhov thaum Vajtswv xaiv tej xwm txheej hauv keeb kwm los ua kom tiav Nws Txojlus Faj Lem, Nws ua li ntawd raws ib yam qauv uas ncav cuag cov neeg mloog coob tshaj plaws uas ua tau.

> 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.

> Thiab tom qab tau cog lus nrog nws lawm, nws yuav ua hauj lwm dag ntxias; rau qhov nws yuav tuaj nce mus, thiab yuav muaj zog nrog ib haiv neeg tsawg. Nws yuav nkag mus yam thaj yeeb txawm mus txog rau tej thaj chaw nplua nuj tshaj plaws hauv lub xeev; thiab nws yuav ua yam uas nws cov yawg koob tsis tau ua, thiab nws cov yawg koob tej yawg koob kuj tsis tau ua; nws yuav faib rau lawv tej khoom txeeb, thiab tej khoom nyiag los, thiab tej kev nplua nuj: muaj tseeb, nws yuav npaj nws tej tswv yim tawm tsam tej chaw ruaj khov, txawm yog rau ib ntus. 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 xaus nws cov lus soj ntsuam txog kev koom tes ntawm Loos thiab cov Maccabees hauv nqe nees nkaum peb los ntawm kev hais lus txog cov neeg tsawg hauv nqe ntawd.

> “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.

> “Nyob rau lub sijhawm ntawd cov Loos tseem yog ib haiv neeg me, thiab lawv pib ua hauj lwm dag ntxias, lossis nrog kev txawj ntxias, raws li lo lus ntawd qhia. Thiab txij ntawm no lawv thiaj sawv nce mus, tsis tu ncua thiab sai, mus txog rau qhov siab ntawm hwj chim uas tom qab ntawd lawv tau mus txog.

> “[Verse twenty-four quoted].

> “[Nqe nees nkaum plaub raug hais].”

> “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.

> “Txoj kev uas ib txwm muaj uas ntau haiv neeg, ua ntej txog tiam ntawm Loos, tau nkag mus kav tej xeev muaj nqis thiab thaj av nplua nuj, yog los ntawm kev ua rog thiab kev yeej. Nim no Loos yuav tsum ua yam uas tsis tau ua los ntawm cov yawg koob lossis cov yawg koob tej yawg koob; uas yog, txais tau tej kev tau los no los ntawm txoj kev thaj yeeb. Txoj kev coj uas yav dhau los tsis tau hnov dua tam sim no raug pib, uas vaj ntxwv tso lawv tej nceeg vaj cia ua qub txeeg qub teg rau cov Loos. Loos tau los muaj tej xeev loj heev los ntawm txoj kev no.”

> “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.

> “Thiab cov uas li no tau los nyob hauv txoj kev kav ntawm Loos kuj tau txais txiaj ntsig tsis tsawg los ntawm qhov ntawd. Lawv raug saib xyuas nrog kev siab zoo thiab kev zam txim. Nws zoo ib yam li muaj tus tsiaj txhu uas raug ntes thiab tej khoom txeeg chaw raug nyiag tuaj muab faib rau lawv. Lawv raug tiv thaiv ntawm lawv cov yeeb ncuab, thiab tau nyob so hauv kev thaj yeeb thiab kev nyab xeeb hauv qab qhov kev tiv thaiv ntawm lub hwj chim Loos.

> “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.

> “Rau feem kawg ntawm nqe no, Npis Sov Newton muab lub ntsiab tias yog twj siv los twv yav tom ntej tawm hauv tej chaw ruaj khov, tsis yog tawm tsam lawv. Qhov no cov Loos tau ua los ntawm lub nroog ruaj khov muaj xya lub roob. ‘Txawm yog rau ib lub sij hawm;’ tsis ntseeg tias yog ib lub sij hawm yaj saub, 360 xyoo. Cov xyoo no yuav tsum suav txij lub ntsiab twg? Tej zaum yog txij ntawm qhov xwm txheej uas raug coj los qhia hauv nqe tom qab no.” 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 txuas ntxiv thiab txheeb xyuas kev sib ntaus sib tua ntawm Actium hauv xyoo 31 BC ua qhov pib rau peb puas rau caum xyoo. Tom qab hais nqe nees nkaum tsib, Smith hais li no.

> “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.

> “Los ntawm nqe 23 thiab 24 peb raug coj nqes los rau sab no ntawm daim kev cog lus ntawm cov Yudais thiab cov Loos, BC 161, mus txog rau lub sijhawm uas Loos twb tau txais txoj kev kav thoob qab ntuj lawm. Nqe uas tam sim no nyob ntawm peb xub ntiag no coj los rau hauv kev pom ib txoj kev ua rog muaj zog tawm tsam tus vajntxwv ntawm sab qab teb, uas yog Iyiv, thiab qhov tshwm sim ntawm ib qho kev sib tua tseem ceeb ntawm cov tub rog loj thiab muaj hwjchim. Puas muaj tej xwm txheej zoo li no tshwm sim hauv keeb kwm ntawm Loos nyob rau thaj tsam lub sijhawm no? — Muaj tseeb tiag. Tsov rog ntawd yog tsov rog ntawm Iyiv thiab Loos; thiab kev sib tua ntawd yog kev sib tua ntawm Actium. Cia peb saib luv luv txog cov xwm txheej uas tau coj mus rau qhov kev tsis sib haum no.”

> “[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.

> “[Marc] Antony, Augustus Caesar, thiab Lepidus tau tsim tsa txoj kev kav peb leeg uas tau cog lus tias yuav pauj rau txoj kev tuag ntawm Julius Caesar. Antony no tau los ua Augustus tus kwv tij vauv los ntawm kev yuav nws tus muam, Octavia. Antony raug xa mus rau tim Iyiv ua haujlwm rau tsoom fwv, tiam sis nws poob ua neeg raug ntes los ntawm Cleopatra tej txuj ci dag ntxias thiab ntxim nyiam, tus poj huab tais tsis txaj muag ntawm Iyiv. Txoj kev hlub vwm uas nws muaj rau nws ntawd muaj zog heev, txog nthe thaum kawg nws tig los txhawb nqa Iyiv tej kev txaus siab, ntiab nws tus poj niam, Octavia, tseg kom Cleopatra txaus siab, pub ib xeev dhau ib xeev rau tus tom kawg no kom txaus nws txoj kev ntshaw nyiaj txiag, ua kev ua koob tsheej yeej rog hauv Alexandria hloov chaw ntawm Loos, thiab lwm yam ntxiv kuj tau ua rau cov neeg Loos chim siab ua luaj uas Augustus tsis ntsib kev nyuaj siab li hauv kev coj lawv kom nkag siab thiab koom siab ua rog tawm tsam tus yeeb ncuab ntawm lawv lub teb chaws no. Tsov rog no, nyob rau sab nraud, yog tawm tsam Iyiv thiab Cleopatra; tiam sis qhov tseeb tiag yog tawm tsam Antony, tus uas tam sim no sawv ua tus thawj ntawm Iyiv tej hauj lwm. Thiab qhov laj thawj tseeb ntawm lawv txoj kev sib ceg ntawd, raws li Prideaux hais, yog tias nkawd ob leeg tsis muaj leej twg txaus siab nyob nrog tsuas yog ib nrab ntawm lub teb chaws Loos xwb; vim Lepidus twb raug tshem tawm ntawm txoj kev kav peb leeg lawm, ces tam sim no lub hwj chim ntawd nyob nruab nrab ntawm nkawd, thiab vim nkawd ob leeg txiav txim siab yuav los kav tag nrho, nkawd thiaj muab txoj hmoo ntawm tsov rog pov tseg rau kev txeeb kom tau nws.” 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.

Hais txog yav tom ntej raws li lus cev xwm txheej, kev sib ntaus rog ntawm Actium qhia txog txoj cai Hnub Caiv, vim nws sawv cev rau qhov kev yeej dhau zaum peb ntawm peb yam kev cuam tshuam thaj chaw uas tau tsim tsa “kev kav thoob qab ntuj” ntawm Loos pagan, raws li Smith piav qhia. Ib yam li nrog Loos pagan, nws yog thaum yam kev cuam tshuam thib peb ntawm Loos papal raug ntiab tawm ntawm lub nroog Loos uas “kev kav thoob qab ntuj” ntawm Loos papal tau pib xyoo 538. Ob tug tim khawv ntawd hais txog txoj cai Hnub Caiv nyob qhov twg thiab lub sijhawm twg uas Loos niaj hnub kov yeej ob lub nceeg vaj thib rau thiab thib xya ntawm lus cev xwm txheej hauv Phau Vajlugkub, thiab thaum ua li ntawd, kov yeej nws yam kev cuam tshuam thib peb; yog li ntawd, tsim tsa “kev kav thoob qab ntuj” rau plaub caug ob lub hlis uas yog cim.

> 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.

> Thiab nws tau txais ib lub qhov ncauj hais tej lus loj kawg thiab tej lus thuam Vajtswv; thiab nws kuj tau txais hwjchim kom nws kav mus tau plaub caug ob lub hlis. Tshwmsim 13:5.

## Rome Against Egypt

Loos Tawm Tim Lyiv Tebchaws

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.

Cov txheej xwm yaj saub ntawm tsov rog uas Augustus ntawm Loos tawm tsam Iyi tebchaws thiab Cleopatra raug txhawb los ntawm kev ntxeev siab ntawm Marc Antony, thiab raws li qhov yuav tsum muaj ntawm kev yaj saub, cov txheej xwm yaj saub ntawd yuav tsum sawv cev rau cov txheej xwm yaj saub uas raug sawv cev rau ntawm txoj cai Hnub Caiv.

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.

Ntawm Actium, Loos yeej tim lyiv teb chaws, yog ib lub hwj chim uas muaj los ntawm kev sib koom tes ntawm ib tug txiv neej tawm tsam thiab ib tug poj niam tsis dawb huv. Kev sib koom tes ntawm Antony thiab Cleopatra yog kev sib xyaw ua ke ntawm pawg ntseeg thiab lub xeev. Ntawm Actium, Rome ntawm Augustine tau kov yeej ib lub hwj chim uas raug sawv cev los ntawm ib qho kev sib xyaw tsis dawb huv ntawm pawg ntseeg thiab lub xeev.

## Image of the Beast

Duab Ntawm Tus Tsiaj nyaum

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.

Cleopatra sawv cev rau ib lub koom txoos uas raug kev phem qias thiab koom tes nrog Antony, uas yog ib lub cim ntawm Loos. Cleopatra yog tus kav lawv txoj kev sib raug zoo ntawd, raws li Uriah Smith tau sawv cev, thaum nws hais tias Antony “poob los ua ib tug neeg raug txi rau Cleopatra, tus huab tais poj niam lim hiam thiab coj tsis ncaj ntawm Iyi teb chaws, vim nws tej tswv yim dag ntxias thiab tej yam ntxim nyiam.” Kev sib koom tes ntawm lub koom txoos thiab lub xeev uas Antony thiab Cleopatra sawv cev tau qhia meej tias Cleopatra yog lub hwj chim uas kav hauv txoj kev sib raug zoo ntawd; yog li ntawd, kev sib xyaw ua ke ntawm lub koom txoos thiab lub xeev uas lawv txoj kev sib raug zoo sawv cev ua tau raws nraim li qhov txhais ntawm tus tsiaj qus daim duab—uas yog kev sib xyaw ua ke ntawm lub koom txoos thiab lub xeev thaum tus poj niam yog tus tswj hwm txoj kev sib raug zoo ntawd. Actium yog ib hom piv txwv txog txoj cai Hnub Caiv uas yuav los sai sai no.

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 sawv cev rau lub hwj chim papal uas yuav kov yeej Tebchaws Meskas thaum txoj cai Sunday tab tom yuav los txog. Marc Antony yog lub kub Republican ntawm tus tsiaj qus hauv ntiajteb, hos Cleopatra yog lub kub Protestant. Antony thiab Cleopatra sib koom ua ke thiab hais lus ib yam li ib tug zaj thaum txoj cai Sunday tab tom yuav los txog. Ob leeg—Cleopatra thiab Antony—yog tej cim ntawm ib lub hwj chim zaj, thiab thaum nkawd tau koom ua ib ke tiav hlo rau lub sijhawm ntawm txoj cai Sunday—nkawd hais lus ib yam li ib tug zaj.

## Dragons

Zaj】

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.

Ob qho tim Nkij Teb Chaws thiab Tim Lyiv teb chaws hauv txoj kev yaj saub sawv cev rau ib lub hwjchim zaj, thiab Antony kuj sawv cev rau ib lub hwjchim zaj thiab. Tim Lyiv teb chaws yog sab qab teb hauv Daniyees kaum ib, hos Tim Nkij Teb Chaws yog sab hnub poob. Tim Lyiv teb chaws raug Ptolemy I txeeb tau tom qab Aleksandha lub nceeg vaj raug faib ua plaub feem. Ces Ptolemy I thiaj los ua thawj tus vajntxwv yaj saub ntawm sab qab teb, hos Cleopatra yog tus kav kawg ntawm haiv Ptolemaic hauv Tim Lyiv teb chaws. Ptolemy yug hauv Macedon, uas yog Aleksandha Tus Loj qhov chaw yug.

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.

Macedon nyob rau sab qaum teb ntawm tim Nkij teb chaws, thiab lawv tau hais tias lawv caj ces keeb kwm yug los ntawm cov vajhero cuav dab neeg ntawm cov Greek. Cov xeev-nroog Greek nyob sab qab teb suav hais tias cov Macedonians muaj kev qus dua li cov Hellenists ntawm sab qab teb tim Nkij teb chaws. Cov Macedonians yog ib txoj kev kav vajntxwv, hos cov xeev-nroog (poleis) sab qab teb xws li Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Corinth, thiab lwm yam, nyob rau sab qab teb thiab nruab nrab ntawm tim Nkij teb chaws thiab cov kob Aegean. Cov poleis no feem ntau muaj kev tswj hwm raws li kev cai ywj pheej, kev kav los ntawm ib pab neeg tsawg, lossis kev tswj hwm sib xyaw, thaum Macedon yog ib txoj kev kav vajntxwv nruab nrab ruaj khov nrog ib caj vaj ntxwv muaj hwj chim loj (cov Argeads). Txawm li cas los xij, lawv txhua tus puav leej yog Hellenists, thiab thaum Loos nkag los rau hauv keeb kwm, lawv tau hu cov Hellenists tias yog Greek. Cleopatra yog tus kav Ptolemaic kawg, uas sawv cev rau pab neeg Greek uas kav raws li vajntxwv ntawm lub nceeg vaj qaum teb, los ntawm thaj av Macedon, lossis sab qaum teb tim Nkij teb chaws.

## King of the South

Vajntxwv ntawm Sab Qab Teb

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.

Cleopatra yog tus kav kawg ntawm lub nceeg vaj Ptolemaic uas tau pib nrog Ptolemy I thaum Alexander lub nceeg vaj raug faib ua plaub feem. Hauv kev sib ntaus ntawm Actium, lub nceeg vaj Ptolemaic, uas yog tus vajntxwv tiag tiag ntawm sab qab teb, tau los txog rau nws qhov kawg. Tus vajntxwv tom ntej ntawm sab qab teb yuav yog tim lyiv teb chaws sab ntsuj plig, uas raug sawv cev los ntawm Fabkis uas tsis ntseeg Vajtswv thaum keeb kwm ntawm Kev Kiv Puag Ncig Fabkis.

> 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.

> Thiab lawv tej cev tuag yuav pw ntsoog rau saum txoj kev ntawm lub nroog loj ntawd, uas raws sab ntsuj plig hu ua Xaudoo thiab Iyiv, qhov chaw uas peb tus Tswv kuj raug ntsia saum ntoo khaub lig thiab. Tshwmsim 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.

Tim lyiv tebchaws Iyi tiag yog vajntxwv tiag ntawm sab qab teb raws li kev faib tawm ntawm Alexander lub nceeg vaj, tiamsis sab ntsuj plig Iyi raug sawv cev ua vajntxwv ntawm sab qab teb los ntawm cov yam ntxwv yaj saub ntawm Iyi, tsis yog los ntawm ib qho kev taw qhia tiag.

## South and West

Sab Qab Teb thiab Sab Hnub Poob

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.

Cleopatra, uas yog tus kav tebchaws Ptolemaic kawg ntawm lub nceeg vaj ntawd, raws li txojkev cev Vajtswv lus twb yog ib lub hwjchim ob npaug—Greek (sab hnub poob) thiab Egypt (sab qab teb); hos tus tom ntej, thiab tom qab ntawd yog tus vajntxwv sab qab teb ntawm sab ntsuj plig, yuav yog Fabkis, uas kuj yog ib lub hwjchim ob npaug, sawv cev nyob hauv Tshwmsim kaum ib ua Egypt thiab Sodom. Txojkev qias vuab tsuab ntawm Sodom sib haum nrog txojkev qias vuab tsuab ntawm Cleopatra ntawm sab hnub poob, thiab Cleopatra ntawm sab qab teb sib haum nrog txojkev tsis lees paub Vajtswv ntawm Egypt. Ob yam xwm txheej ntawm tus vajntxwv sab qab teb kawg ntawm lub cev tiag sib haum nrog tus vajntxwv sab qab teb thawj zaug ntawm sab ntsuj plig.

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.”

Tsov rog ntawm Actium yog txoj kev koom tes tsis dawb huv ntawm Antony tus zaj ntawm Loos thiab Cleopatra tus zaj ntawm sab qab teb thiab sab hnub poob. Antony thiab Cleopatra sawv cev rau ib pawg ntseeg thiab ib lub xeev, yog li ntawd qhov uas Augustus ntawm Loos kov yeej Actium sawv cev rau ib qho kev kov yeej uas Loos muaj yeej tshaj ib txoj kev sib koom ua ke ob npaug tsis dawb huv uas ua hom ntxoov ntxoo rau daim duab ntawm tus tsiaj qus. Peb puas rau caum xyoo tom qab ntawd, raws li kev ua tiav ntawm Daniel 11:24, Constantine tau faib Loos ua sab hnub tuaj thiab sab hnub poob, tso tus poj niam ntawm Loos tseg rau sab hnub poob thiab tshem tus txiv neej ntawm Loos mus rau sab hnub tuaj. Ib qho kev kov yeej ntawm sab qab teb thiab sab hnub poob tau ua hom ntxoov ntxoo rau kev faib ua sab hnub tuaj thiab sab hnub poob tom qab ib “lub sijhawm” ntawm peb puas rau caum xyoo, ntawm tsov rog Actium. Hauv ib zaug kev sib ntsib ua ntej ntawd, Antony tau txais Loos sab hnub tuaj thiab Augustus tau txais sab hnub poob, yog li ntawd Actium tau coj sab hnub tuaj thiab sab hnub poob los ua ke, tiamsis tsuas yog rau ib “lub sijhawm” xwb.

## 31 BC and 330

31 BC thiab 330 CE

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.

Yexus ib txwm piav qhov kawg nrog qhov pib, yog li ntawd kev yeej ntawm Actium hauv 31 BC ua qauv qhia txog kev faib lub tebchaws kav loj ua sab hnub tuaj thiab sab hnub poob hauv 330. Actium ntawm 31 BC yog lub alpha ntawm lub omega nyob hauv 360 xyoo uas xaus rau xyoo 330. Ob qho 31 BC thiab 330 puav leej ua qauv qhia txog txoj cai Hnub Caiv uas yuav los sai sai no raws li sawv cev nyob hauv nqe kaum rau thiab plaub caug ib ntawm Daniyee kaum ib.

## Another Symbol

Lwm Cim Lwm Qhov Qhia Tseg

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.

Antony ntawm Loos, uas koom nrog Cleopatra ntawm sab qab teb thiab sab hnub poob, sawv cev rau ib txoj kev sib koom peb tog nyob hauv lawv txoj kev koom ob tog ntawm daim duab ntawm tus tsiaj nyaum. Tus ntoo khaub lig kuj phim nrog txoj cai Hnub Caiv, thiab yog li ntawd kuj phim nrog Actium thiab 330. Ntawm tus ntoo khaub lig, ib txoj kev koom ob tog ntawm pawg ntseeg thiab xeev raug sawv cev los ntawm cov Yudais (pawg ntseeg uas raug ua kom piam tsis huv) koom nrog Loos (xeev) los tua Khetos. Tus tog thib peb hauv txoj kev koom ntawm tus ntoo khaub lig raug sawv cev los ntawm Barabbas, ib tug Khetos cuav, uas nws lub npe txhais hais tias “tus tub ntawm leej txiv.” Hauv txoj kev cim piv txwv, Barabbas yog ib tug yaj saub cuav thaum muab piv rau Khetos uas yog tus yaj saub tseeb. Loos yog Antony, thiab Cleopatra ntawm sab qab teb thiab sab hnub poob sawv cev rau cov Yudais thiab Barabbas.

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.

Tus ntoo khaub lig kuj sib haum nrog Eliyas saum Roob Khamel, qhov uas txoj kev xaiv yog hais txog leej twg yog tus yaj saub tseeb lossis tus yaj saub cuav. Tus yaj saub cuav lub sijhawm ntawd yog ib lub cim ob chav uas muaj cov yaj saub ntawm Npa‑as thiab cov pov thawj ntawm lub hav ntoo. Npa‑as yog ib tug vajtswv txiv neej, thiab cov pov thawj ntawm lub hav ntoo sawv cev rau Ashtaroth, ib tug vajtswv poj niam. Cov Yudais ntawm tus ntoo khaub lig yog Ashtaroth, tus vajtswv poj niam, thiab Npala‑npas, tus cuav ntawm Tus Txiv Neej Kev Tu Siab, yog tus vajtswv txiv neej Npa‑as.

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 yog ob leeg yog huab tais poj niam ntawm sab qab teb thiab huab tais poj niam ntawm sab hnub poob. Antony yog daim duab piv txwv ntawm Loos, ib feem ntawm peb leeg thawj coj koom ua ke uas tau cog lus los pauj kev tua Julius. Julius txoj kev tuag los ntawm nees nkaum peb qhov txhab sawv cev rau txoj kev raug mob tuag taus ntawm lub hwj chim papacy xyoo 1798, raws li kev ua tiav ntawm nqe plaub caug hauv Daniyees kaum ib. Augustine ntawm Actium sawv cev rau kev kho zoo ntawm txoj kev raug mob tuag taus ntawd. Txoj kev raug mob ntawd raug kho zoo thaum Antony thiab Cleopatra tuag. Antony thiab Cleopatra sawv cev rau daim duab ntawm tsiaj qus nyob hauv Tebchaws Meskas uas yog ib lub cev cev faj lem muaj peb ntu, muaj tsiaj qus hauv ntiajteb thiab nws ob tug kub. Antony yog ib feem, hos Cleopatra sawv cev rau ob feem ntxiv. Txawm yog Antony lub Loos, lossis Cleopatra lub Iyi tebchaws thiab Kili tebchaws, lawv tuag ua ke ntawm txoj cai Hnub Caiv thaum lub nceeg vaj thib rau ntawm tej lus faj lem hauv Vajluskub xaus. Hauv txoj kev cev faj lem, Cleopatra nyob rau hauv kev sib raug zoo nrog Antony yog kev sib tov ntawm kev txawj ntse hauv pawg ntseeg thiab kev txawj tswj xeev, uas qhov kev txawj hauv pawg ntseeg ntxias thiab tswj hwm qhov kev txawj tswj xeev.

## The Second Death Typified

Txoj Kev Tuag Zaum Ob Uas Tau Muab Ua Hom Duab Qhia

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.

Nyob rau lwm theem cev yaj saub, Cleopatra txoj kev sib raug zoo rau Julius Caesar thiab Marc Antony sawv cev rau ob lub sijhawm uas pawg ntseeg txoj kev txawj ntse ntawm Cleopatra nyob hauv kev sib raug zoo nrog lub xeev txoj kev txawj kav ntawm lub Faj Tim Teb Chaws Loos. Nws raug Julius tso tseg xyoo 1798 ntawm nws thawj txoj kev tuag uas yog cim, raws li kev ua tiav ntawm nqe plaub caug hauv Daniyee kaum ib; thiab tom qab ntawd nws los txog rau nws qhov kawg uas tsis muaj leej twg pab, ntawm Actium raws li kev ua tiav ntawm nqe plaub caug tsib hauv Daniyee kaum ib. Nqe plaub caug yog alpha ntawm nws thawj qhov txhab tuag uas yuav raug kho kom zoo, thiab omega ntawm nqe plaub caug tsib yog qhov uas nws txais nws txoj kev tuag zaum ob thiab zaum kawg.

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.

Ib yam li plaub lub hwj chim Loos hauv nqe kaum rau txog nees nkaum ob, Cleopatra raws li ib lub cim hauv phau Vajlugkub muaj ntau tshaj ib lub ntsiab, raws li qhov ntsiab lus ib puag ncig. Julius tau tso nws tseg tseg rau xyoo 1798 thaum kev txhawb nqa ntawm vaj ntxwv raug muab tshem tawm, thiab tom qab ntawd nws lub qhov txhab tuag taus raug kho zoo thaum txoj cai hnub Sunday los txog, tiamsis kaum tus vajntxwv hauv Tshwm Sim kaum xya kawg nkaus rhuav tshem nws nrog hluav taws, thaum nws ntsib nws txoj kev tuag zaum ob thiab zaum kawg.

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.

Cleopatra yog ib lub cim ntawm ob yam xwm txheej uas raug sawv cev los ntawm Falau tebchaws Iziv txoj kev tsis ntseeg Vajtswv, thiab tim Nkij teb chaws txoj kev xav txog kev ntseeg. Nws ob yam xwm txheej sawv cev rau Iziv txoj kev tswj hwm hauv xeev thiab Nkij teb chaws txoj kev txawj ntseeg hauv pawg ntseeg. Tim Nkij teb chaws txoj kev xav txog kev ntseeg raug sawv cev los ntawm tus vajtswv poj niam Nkij hu ua Athena, uas raug tsa ua ib tug pej thuam nyob hauv nws lub tuam tsev hu ua Parthenon. Athena yog lub cim ntawm kev txawj ntse, thiab raws li nws yog ib tug poj niam, nws sawv cev rau ib txoj kev ntseeg ntawm tibneeg txoj kev kawm, uas txawv ntawm Txoj Kev Kawm los ntawm Vajtswv.

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.

Ob lub kub ntawm Tebchaws Meskas yog Republicanism thiab Protestantism, uas tau raug ua piv txwv tseg hauv Fabkis los ntawm Egypt thiab Sodom. Egypt yog kev txawj kav xeev, thiab Sodom yog kev txawj ntxias ntawm pawg ntseeg; yog li ntawd, Republicanism thiaj phim nrog Egypt, thiab Protestantism nrog Sodom. Republicanism yog Egypt, thiab Protestantism yog Sodom thiab Greece. Lub cim ntawm kev kawm txawj ntse ntawm tibneeg yog tus vajtswv pojniam Greek hu ua Athena, uas nws lub tuam tsev yog Parthenon, uas muaj nws tus khub niaj hnub no nyob hauv Nashville, Tennessee, yog lub tuam tsev Parthenon. Lub cim ntawm pawg ntseeg uas qias neeg, uas koom tes nrog lub kub Republican hauv Tebchaws Meskas thaum txog txoj cai hnub Sunday, raug sawv cev ua Cleopatra, Ashtaroth, Salome, thiab Sodom.

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.

Cleopatra sawv cev rau Falau txoj kev tsis ntseeg Vajtswv thiab kev ntseeg ntawm cov Kili. Txoj kev ntseeg uas nrog txoj kev xav ntawm kev tsis ntseeg Vajtswv yog kev pe hawm kev kawm txuj ntawm cov Kili. Yexus ib txwm siv qhov kawg los qhia qhov pib, thiab tsob ntoo hauv lub vaj uas raug txwv tsis pub noj yog tsob ntoo paub qhov zoo thiab qhov phem, uas yog ib daim qauv qhia txog txoj kev ntseeg ntawm kev txawj xav Kili, uas Muam White hu ua “higher education.” Qhov no qhia meej thiab hais kom pom tseeb txog Cleopatra txoj kev ntseeg Kili ntawm kev txawj ntse tias yog yam raug ua qias tuaj thiab yog yam cuav uas ua raws yam tseeb ntawm txoj kev kawm tiag tiag hauv txoj kev sib cav loj nruab nrab ntawm Khetos thiab Xatas.

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 raug hu ua “Athens ntawm sab qab teb,” thiab Cleopatra yog tus huab tais poj niam tseeb kawg ntawm sab qab teb. Tus huab tais poj niam kawg ntawm sab qab teb ntawd yog ib qho qauv qhia txog tus vajntxwv sab ntsuj plig tom ntej thiab thawj tus ntawm sab qab teb, uas tau ua tiav nyob rau hauv Fabkis uas tsis ntseeg Vajtswv. Fabkis uas tsis ntseeg Vajtswv yog ib qho qauv qhia txog Tebchaws Meskas, qhov chaw uas nyob hauv Nashville, Tennessee, “Athens ntawm sab qab teb,” lub tuam tsev Parthenon rau tus vajtswv poj niam Athena raug sawv cev ua cim. Lub tuam tsev ntawd nyob rau ntawm 2500 West End hauv Nashville. Tus lej nees nkaum tsib sawv cev rau lub qhov rooj kaw ntawm peb zaj lus piv txwv hauv Mathais nees nkaum tsib. Cleopatra, uas yog tib si tus huab tais poj niam ntawm “sab qab teb” thiab “sab hnub poob,” los txog rau nws “qhov kawg” hauv Athens ntawm sab qab teb.

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.

Nrog rau tej kev xav txog Actium, Cleopatra, Augustus thiab Antony no peb rov qab los rau nqe nees nkaum plaub mus txog nqe peb caug ntawm Daniyees kaum ib. Tej zaum, feem uas tsis meej tshaj plaws hauv nqe lus no yog thaum lawv hais lus dag ntawm tib lub rooj.

> 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.

> Thiab ob tug vajntxwv no lub siab yuav tsom rau kev ua phem, thiab nkawd yuav hais lus dag zaum ntawm tib lub rooj; tiamsis qhov ntawd yuav tsis vam meej, vim qhov kawg tseem yuav txog rau lub sijhawm uas twb teem tseg lawm. 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.

Lub sij hawm uas raug teem tseg nyob hauv nqe no yog 330, uas yog qhov kawg ntawm “lub sij hawm” hauv nqe nees nkaum plaub. Lub sij hawm uas raug teem tseg no sawv cev rau txoj cai Hnub Caiv ntawm Tebchaws Meskas, thiab nws kuj sawv cev rau qhov kaw ntawm tibneeg lub sijhawm sim siab rau ntiajteb. Ua ntej txoj cai Hnub Caiv, ob tug vajntxwv, uas lawv lub siab yog ua kev phem, yuav hais lus dag rau ib leeg ntawm tib lub rooj. Ua ntej txoj cai Hnub Caiv hauv Daniyees kaum ib, nqe kaum rau thiab plaub caug ib, ob tug vajntxwv yuav hais lus dag ntawm tib lub rooj, tiamsis lawv tej lus dag tsis vam meej. Leejtwg yog ob tug vajntxwv uas hais lus dag rau ib leeg? Ua ntej peb teb rau qhov kev xav ntawd, kuv yuav nco peb txog qee yam cim uas peb twb tau hais txog yav tas los hauv zaj lus no.

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.

Plaub tug thawjcoj Loos ntawd sawv cev rau ntau hom cim yaj saub sib txawv raws li qhov ntsiab lus uas muab coj los xav. Txawm yog lawv yog thawjcoj Loos, los raws li ib lub cim lawv yeej tseem ceeb sawv cev rau keeb kwm yaj saub ntawm Yudas thaum ub thaum lawv tab tom hloov ntawm kev tswj kav ntawm cov Seleucid mus rau kev tswj kav ntawm cov Loos.

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 yog ib tug thawj tub rog, thiab peb tug thawj coj Loos tom qab no puav leej yog Caesars. Julius, nyob rau hauv kev txheeb rau Augustus, sawv cev rau ob txoj kev sib koom ua peb chav nrog ob pawg triumvirate, thawj pawg yog tsis raug cai, pawg thib ob yog raug cai. Plaub tug thawj coj no sawv cev rau txoj cai Hnub Caiv nyob rau hauv qee qhov ntsiab lus. Pompey kov yeej lub tebchaws ci ntsa iab; Julius, uas nees nkaum peb qhov txhab nkaug sawv cev rau nws, yog tus tim tswv thawj, rau qhov nws yog tus Caesar thawj, thiab nws ua qauv rau tus tim tswv thib peb, uas yog Tiberias. Tiberias ntawm tus ntoo khaub lig, uas yog txoj cai Hnub Caiv, kuj raug sawv cev los ntawm nees nkaum peb, rau qhov nees nkaum peb sawv cev rau txoj kev ua kom koom ua ib; thiab tus ntoo khaub lig yog ib feem tseem ceeb tshaj plaws ntawm txoj hauj lwm ntawm Khetos hauv kev muab Nws txoj Kev Tswv Ntuj los koom nrog peb txoj kev tib neeg. Yog li ntawd, Julius thiab Tiberias yog txoj xov thawj thiab txoj xov thib peb, uas nees nkaum peb sawv cev rau.

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 tsis yog tus neeg ntxim nyiam raws kev hlub li uas feem ntau raug piav qhia txog nws hauv Hollywood tej dab neeg hais tseg; nws yog ib tug neeg siab phem uas mob siab nrhiav hwjchim. Tiberias phem dua Julius, rau qhov nws txoj kev qias vuab tsuab tseem raug hais txog hauv nqe ntawd, vim tsab ntawv kawg ntawm cov ntawv Hebrew yog nees nkaum ob thiab tsab ntawv thawj yog ib. Alpha me dua omega, thiab Tiberias txoj kev qias vuab tsuab raug muab tso rau hauv nqe nees nkaum ob, uas yog tsab ntawv kawg ntawm cov ntawv Hebrew, thiab nyob nruab nrab ntawm ob tug neeg qias vuab tsuab uas Julius thiab Tiberias sawv cev ntawd yog Augustus. Augustus sawv cev rau qhov siab tshaj plaws ntawm lub hwjchim thiab lub meej mom ci ntsa iab ntawm Loos. Ua tus uas tawm tsam thawj thiab peb cov lus ntawd, nws raug sawv cev los ntawm tsab ntawv kaum peb, uas yog lub cim ntawm kev ntxeev siab. Augustus tau ruaj khov nws lub tebchaws los ntawm kev tua kom swb txoj kev ntxeev siab ntawm Antony thiab Cleopatra, yog txoj kev ntxeev siab uas nto npe tshaj plaws hauv keeb kwm Loos.

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 yog lub hwj chim Loos uas tau kov yeej qhov chaw khuam thib peb, thiab hauv kev ua li ntawd nws sawv cev rau txoj cai hnub Sunday, thiab rau lub hwj chim Loos uas kav nyob rau hauv plaub caug ob lub hlis piv txwv ntawm Tshwm Sim tshooj kaum peb uas yog tshooj kev ntxeev siab. Thaum muab tso ua ntej txoj cai hnub Sunday lawm, Pompey yog ob qho tib si 1798 thiab 1989, ua rau Pompey yog ib lub cim ntawm Antiochus Magnus uas xaus tsov rog Syrian zaum plaub txij xyoo 219 mus txog 217 BC, raws li kev ua tiav ntawm nqe kaum hauv tshooj kaum ib. Ces Julius Caesar raug muab sib haum nrog nqe kaum ib thiab kaum ob thiab nrog tsov rog ntawm ciam teb, yog tsov rog Raphia hauv xyoo 217 BC. Nyob ntawd Julius kuj yog Antiochus Magnus, thiab Augustus Caesar kuj yog Antiochus Magnus hauv nqe kaum tsib qhov tsov rog Panium. Ces hauv nqe kaum rau Tiberias yog txoj cai hnub Sunday, tiam sis nws tsis yog Antiochus Magnus, rau qhov nyob ntawd nws yog Pompey, vim Yexus ib txwm piav txog qhov kawg nrog qhov pib. Nqe ntawd cim txog qhov kawg ntawm lub Faj Tim Tebchaws Seleucid, uas yog ib yam piv txwv txog qhov kawg ntawm Tebchaws Meskas raws li lub nceeg vaj thib rau ntawm kev faj lem hauv Vajlugkub.

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.

Tseem tseem muaj lwm yam kev sib phim uas yuav tsum muab ua raws li plaub tug kav tebchaws Loos, thiab txoj kab ntawd sawv cev rau keeb kwm zais cia ntawm nqe plaub caug. Txoj kab Maccabean ntawm nqe nees nkaum peb kuj qhia txog keeb kwm zais cia ntawm nqe plaub caug thiab. Ces hauv nqe nees nkaum plaub, zaj keeb kwm ntawm Loos Imperial uas tseem teev dab qhuas raug sawv cev los ntawm ib lub sijhawm—peb puas rau caum xyoo. Txoj kab keeb kwm Loos uas raug sawv cev txij nqe nees nkaum plaub mus txog nqe peb caug kuj yog ib daim duab qhia txog keeb kwm zais cia ntawm nqe plaub caug. Nws xaus rau hauv nqe peb caug ib thaum lub ntsiab lus hloov ntawm Loos teev dab qhuas mus rau Loos papal. Loos teev dab qhuas tseem nyob hauv nqe ntawd, tabsis nyob ntawd nws tsis raug sawv cev ua lub nceeg vaj thib plaub ntawm Vajlugkub tej lus faj lem, tiamsis yog lub hwj chim nom tswv uas tsa lub papacy rau saum lub zwm txwv xyoo 538. Xyoo 538 lub papacy tau tshaj tawm ib txoj cai Hnub Caiv, yog li nqe peb caug ib tab tom sib phim nrog nqe kaum rau thiab nqe plaub caug ib. Nqe nees nkaum plaub tau qhia txog kev sib ntaus sib tua ntawm Actium thiab keeb kwm uas txuas nrog txoj kab ntawd.

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.

Nqe nees nkaum plaub tab tom qhia txog thaum Loos tsis teev dab qhuas pib kav ua tus loj tshaj plaws tau peb puas rau caum xyoo, thiab tom qab ntawd hauv nqe peb caug-ib Loos papal pib kav ua tus loj tshaj plaws tau ib txhiab ob puas rau caum xyoo. Qhov pib thiab qhov xaus ntawm txoj kab ntawd nqa tau lub cim kos npe ntawm Khetos, uas yog Alpha thiab Omega. Hauv cov nqe no peb muaj keeb kwm ntawm Marc Antony, Cleopatra, thiab Augustus Caesar. Hauv nqe kaum rau Loos tsis teev dab qhuas tau kov yeej Seleucid tebchaws hauv 65 BC, thiab tom qab ntawd Yudas hauv 63 BC. Qhov kev thaiv thib peb ntawm Actium hauv 31 BC tau qhia txog qhov kawg ntawm lub nceeg vaj ntawm tim lyiv teb chaws, raws li tau ua qauv qhia los ntawm thawj qhov kev thaiv ntawm cov Seleucid hauv 65 BC. Ib zaug ntxiv, peb pom lub cim kos npe ntawm Tus Thawj thiab Tus Kawg. 65 BC yog thawj qhov ntawm peb qhov kev thaiv thiab nws sawv cev rau kev kov yeej tus vajntxwv sab qaum teb, hos 31 BC sawv cev rau qhov thib peb ntawm peb qhov kev thaiv thiab nws sawv cev rau kev kov yeej tus vajntxwv sab qab teb. Yudas, raws li qhov kev thaiv nruab nrab ntawm peb qhov kev thaiv ntawd, tab tom muaj kev tsov rog hauv tsev nyob rau hauv phab ntsa nroog Yeluxalees thaum Pompey tuaj txog hauv 63 BC. Qhov kev thaiv thib ob yog ib lub cim ntawm kev ntxeev siab.

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.

Hauv xyoo 538, qhov kev txwv thib peb rau papal Rome raug ntiab tawm hauv Lub Nroog Loos lawm. Qhov kev txwv ntawd yog cov Goths, thiab nyob ntawd lub nceeg vaj thib tsib ntawm zaj lus faj lem hauv Phau Vajlugkub tau pib; kiag ntawm qhov chaw uas lub nceeg vaj thib plaub xaus lawm. Thiab ib yam li lub nceeg vaj thib plaub tau pib ntawm nws qhov kev txwv thib peb, lub nceeg vaj ntawm tim lyiv teb chaws kuj raug kov yeej, raws li twb tau raug ua qauv qhia tseg hauv qhov kev txwv thawj ntawm lub nceeg vaj Seleucid. Qhov no qhia meej tias zaj lus tim khawv faj lem uas pom nyob hauv nqe nees nkaum plaub mus txog nqe peb caug, sawv cev rau ib txoj kab uas kuj yuav tsum raug nrhiav pom nyob hauv keeb kwm zais ntawm nqe plaub caug thiab. Vim li no, nws yog yam tseem ceeb heev uas yuav tsum xav txog ntau yam kev sib raug zoo hauv zaj lus faj lem uas sawv cev los ntawm Marc Antony, Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, Pompey thiab Augustus Caesar.

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

Yog li no puas yog ntu uas tsis meej tshaj plaws ntawm nqe Vajlugkub txij nqe nees nkaum plaub mus txog peb caug, thaum lawv hais lus dag zaum ua ke ntawm tib lub rooj?

> 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.

> Thiab ob tug vajntxwv no lub siab yuav tsom rau kev ua phem, thiab nkawd yuav hais lus dag ntawm tib lub rooj; tiam sis qhov ntawd yuav tsis vam meej, rau qhov qhov kawg tseem yuav los txog thaum lub sijhawm uas twb teem tseg lawm. Daniel 11:27.

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

Uriah Smith qhia tias ob tug vajntxwv ntawd yog Marc Antony thiab Augustus Caesar.

> “Verse twenty-seven quoted

> “Nqe nees nkaum xya tau raug hais”

> “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.

> “Antony thiab Caesar yav tas los tau koom tes ua phooj ywg. Txawm li ntawd los, nyob hauv daim npog ntawm kev phooj ywg nkawd ob leeg puavleej ntshaw siab thiab npaj tswv yim rau txoj kev kav teb kav chaw thoob qab ntuj. Lawv tej lus lees tias hwm thiab ua phooj ywg rau ib leeg yog tej lus uas cov neeg siab phem dag ntxias hais tawm. Nkawd hais lus cuav ntawm ib lub rooj mov. Octavia, tus pojniam ntawm Antony thiab yog tus muam ntawm Caesar, tau tshaj tawm rau cov neeg hauv Rome thaum lub sijhawm Antony nrauj nws, tias nws tau pom zoo yuav nws tsuas yog nrog txoj kev cia siab tias qhov ntawd yuav ua pov thawj ua ib daim ntawv cog lus ntawm kev sib koom ua ke ntawm Caesar thiab Antony. Tiamsis txoj kev npaj ntawd tsis vam meej. Kev sib tawg tuaj txog; thiab hauv qhov kev tsis sib haum uas txuas ntxiv los ntawd, Caesar thiaj tawm los yeej tag nrho.” 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.

Thaum Octavia raug txheeb pom tias nws txoj kev sib yuav rau Antony yog ib daim ntawv cog lus ntawm kev sib koom, qhov ntawd kuj txheeb pom txog kev sib koom tes ntawm kev sib yuav uas tau raug ua qauv ua ntej lawm hauv tshooj kaum ib nrog kev sib yuav nyob rau tiam Hellenistic ntawm Berenice rau tus vajntxwv Seleucid Antiochus II Theos nyob ncig xyoo 252 BC. Berenice yog tus ntxhais ntawm Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Octavia thiab Berenice sawv cev rau kev sib yuav ntawm kev ua nom ua tswv lossis, raws li yaj saub txoj kev qhia, tej kev cog lus. Nqe tsib txog nqe kaum txheeb pom keeb kwm ntawm kev sib yuav ntawm kev ua nom ua tswv ntawd ntawm cov tebchaws qab teb thiab qaum teb, thiab thaum Marc Antony thiab Octavian, uas tom qab no hu ua Augustus Caesar, tau npaj txoj kev sib yuav ntawd, nkawd kuj tau faib lub nceeg vaj ua sab hnub tuaj thiab sab hnub poob.

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).

Daim Ntawv Cog Lus ntawm Brundisium (40 BC) yog ib qho kev pom zoo uas tau sib tham ua tiav nruab nrab ntawm Marc Antony thiab Octavian (tom qab hu ua Augustus) kom daws tau tej kev ntxhov siab hauv Pawg Thib Ob Triumvirate tom qab ze li yuav muaj kev tsov rog hauv tsev. Qhov no muaj xws li kev faib thaj av Loos (Antony sab hnub tuaj, Octavian sab hnub poob) thiab raug muab khi ruaj los ntawm Antony txoj kev yuav Octavia (Octavian tus muam). Xyoo 39 BC, thawj lub sij hawm tsib xyoos ntawm Triumvirate tau xaus lawm, Antony thiaj caij nkoj mus rau Ltalis nrog ntau tshaj 300 lub nkoj uas thaum chiv thawj tsis raug tso cai los tsaws hauv Brundisium, yog li thaum kawg lawv thiaj nres nkoj ntawm Tarentum. Octavian tau ntsib nws rau ntawd tom qab tej kev sib kho ntev uas tshwm los ntawm Antony cov tub rog tsis kam sib ntaus nrog Octavian cov tub rog thiab kuj ib yam nkaus rov qab los. Octavia tau ua ib txoj haujlwm tseem ceeb heev hauv kev sib kho ntawd, yaum Antony kom txhawb Octavian tawm tsam Sextus Pompey. Nkawd tau rov txuas Triumvirate dua rau ntxiv tsib xyoos ntxiv (mus txog 32 BC), nrog Antony muab 120 lub nkoj rau Octavian pauv rau cov tub rog uas tau cog lus tseg (uas tom qab no Octavian tsis muab).

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.

Xyoo 32 BC tau muaj kev sib tawg qhib kiag ntawm ob tug yeeb ncuab uas tawm tsam ib leeg. Kev sib raug zoo tau puas zuj zus vim yog kev tshaj xov cuav, Antony txoj kev tsom mus rau sab hnub tuaj (nrog Cleopatra), thiab Octavian txoj kev sau thiab ruaj khov hwj chim nyob sab hnub poob. Octavian tsis lees txais cov lus thov kom muaj kev sib tham dua tom qab uas Antony tau muab ua ntej Actium.

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.

Hauv kev sib yuav siv rau kev sib raug zoo ntawm vajntxwv sab qaum teb (Antiochus) thiab vajntxwv sab qab teb (Ptolemy), yog vajntxwv sab qab teb uas muab tus nkauj nyab; hos hauv kev sib yuav siv rau kev sib raug zoo ntawm Antony (sab hnub tuaj) thiab Octavian (sab hnub poob), tus nkauj nyab raug muab los ntawm sab hnub poob. Ob qho kev sib yuav siv rau kev sib raug zoo ntawd puav leej poob tsis tiav, thiab tus uas muab tus ntxhais lossis tus muam ntawd thaum kawg yeej kov yeej lub hwjchim uas tau rhuav txoj kev cog lus.

## The Testimony of Three

Cov Lus Tim Khawv ntawm Peb Leeg

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.

Thaum kawg ntawm lub tebchaws Seleucid muaj ib daim ntawv cog lus thib peb uas tau hais lus dag ntawm ib lub rooj xwb. Qhov no tau tshwm sim hauv lub ntsiab lus ntawm Tsov Rog Syrian zaum Tsib (202–195 BC), thaum Antiochus III Magnus siv kom zoo dua qhov tsis muaj zog ntawm lub Nceeg Vaj Ptolemaic tom qab kev tuag ntawm Ptolemy IV Philopator xyoo 204 BC. Ptolemy V Epiphanes (Ptolemy V) tau nce mus rau lub zwm txwv thaum tseem yog ib tug me nyuam yaus (kwv yees li hnub nyoog 5–6 xyoos), ua rau tim lyiv teb chaws nyob hauv qab cov thawj saib xyuas thiab raug rau kev kub ntxhov sab hauv, kev ntxeev siab ntawm haiv neeg hauv tebchaws, thiab kev hem thawj sab nraud.

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 twb twb txeeb thiab txeeb tau ib feem loj ntawm cov tebchaws Ptolemaic hauv Coele-Syria, Palestine, thiab Asia Minor lawm tom qab tej kev yeej xws li Tsov Rog Panium (200 BC). Tsis yog yuav txeeb kiag tim lyiv teb chaws kom tag nrho (uas yuav ua rau muaj kev phom sij kom Loos cuam tshuam, vim Loos tab tom nias nws kom txhob nkag mus rau qee thaj chaw), nws thiaj nrhiav ib daim ntawv cog lus sib yuav los ntawm kev diplomacy raws li ib tug “tus tiv thaiv” duab xwm txheej. Xyoo 197/195 BC, raws li ib feem ntawm daim ntawv cog lus thaj yeeb uas xaus tsov rog, Antiochus Magnus tau cog lus yuav thiab tom qab ntawd muab nws tus ntxhais hluas Cleopatra I Syra (uas kuj hu ua Cleopatra Syra) rau tus menyuam Ptolemy V ua txij ua nkawm (kev sib yuav tau muaj nyob rau xyoo 193 BC hauv Raphia; Ptolemy muaj 16 xyoos, Cleopatra muaj 10 xyoos).

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.

Qhov no raug teeb tsa ua ib qho kev ua siab dav: Antiochus muab nws tus kheej tso rau hauv txoj hauj lwm ua ib tug phooj ywg thiab “tus tiv thaiv” ntawm tus vajntxwv hluas, ua kom muaj kev thaj yeeb thaum tseem khaws tau tej yam yeej hauv Asia. Txoj kev sib yuav ntawd muab rau nws ib txoj kev cuam tshuam tsis ncaj qha rau tim Iyiv los ntawm nws tus ntxhais (nws cia siab tias nws yuav nyob ruaj nrees rau nws tej cag Seleucid thiab ua ib lub suab txhawb Syria hauv lub tsev hais plaub Ptolemaic). Txawm li cas los xij, txoj kev ntxias ntawd rov tig los ua phem rau nws tus kheej, rau qhov Cleopatra sawv nrog nws tus txiv thiab tim Iyiv, tsis yog nrog nws txiv, ua rau Antiochus txoj kev tswj kav ntev mus tom ntej poob zog. Qhov no phim raws nraim li Pact of Brundisium (40 BC) thiab muaj kev sib txuas nrog cov xwm txheej Loos hauv ntau txoj kev.

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).

Ib yam li Antony tau yuav Octavia (uas yog tus muam ntawm Octavian) kom khi cov hwjchim sib tw ua ke tom qab ze yuav muaj kev ua tsov rog, Antiochus kuj tau siv nws tus ntxhais txoj kev sib yuav nrog Ptolemy V los ua kom muaj kev thajyeeb ib ntus thiab kev faib ciam teb raws cai (cov Seleucids khaws tej thaj av uas lawv tau kov yeej nyob rau sab qaum teb, hos Ptolemy tseem tuav tseg Iyi teb chaws nyob rau sab qab teb).

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.

Antiochus tau ua tus saib xyuas tiag tiag rau tus vajntxwv me nyuam Ptolemy V (los ntawm kev txheeb ze hauv tsev neeg), zoo ib yam li Octavian (thiab Pawg Triumvirate) tau tsa lawv tus kheej nyob hauv nruab nrab ntawm tej chaw uas hwjchim qhuav lossis kev sib tw sib cav. Hauv ob rooj xwm txheej no, tus uas “muaj zog dua” (Antiochus/Octavian) nrhiav kev tuav kom tau qhov zoo dua rau saum tus uas tsis muaj zog tiv thaiv nws tus kheej los ntawm txoj kev txheeb ze. Ob txoj kev teem tseg no coj tau kev ruaj khov rau ib ntus xwb, tiamsis “tsis vam meej” nyob ntev vim yog kev tsis sib ntseeg uas twb zais nyob hauv qab—Cleopatra txhawb tim Iyiv (ua rau Antiochus txoj hauj lwm puas), hos Antony txoj kev tsom mus rau sab hnub tuaj (Cleopatra VII) ua rau nws txoj kev sib raug zoo nrog Octavian tawg ntho.

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.

Kev Ptolemy V yog ib tug vajntxwv tseem yau nyob hauv qab cov neeg sawv cev kav tebchaws, uas phim rau qhov kev tsis ruaj khov tom qab Yuli-us Xixas tuag lawm (uas coj mus rau kev tsim tsa Pab Triumvirate thiab kev sib tw txeeb hwjchim). Kev sib yuav ntawm Berenice rau Antiochus cim txog qhov pib ntawm keebkwm ntawm Lub Tebchaws Seleucid hauv Daniyee tshooj kaum ib, thiab kev sib yuav ntawm Antiochus Magnus tus ntxhais rau tus vajntxwv menyuam yaus ntawm Iyi tebchaws, cim txog qhov xaus ntawm Lub Tebchaws Seleucid. Kev xaus ntawm kev sib yuav ntawm Marc Antony rau Octavia cim txog qhov xaus ntawm lub nceeg vaj Ptolemaic. Kev xaus ntawm Yudas ua Vajtswv haiv neeg ntawm kev cog lus tau muaj tshwm sim ntawm tus ntoo khaublig, thiab lub nceeg vaj Yudas ntawd tau pib nrog cov Maccabees thiab nrog daim ntawv cog lus uas lawv tau ua nrog Loos. Tag nrho cov kab yaj saub no raug sawv cev nyob hauv zaj lus piav hauv Daniyee tshooj kaum ib, thiab lawv txhua tus sib haum nrog keebkwm zais cia ntawm nqe plaub caug. Pib ntawm nqe tsib peb muaj daim ntawv cog lus ntawm Berenice, uas coj mus rau Antiochus tus Loj thiab daim ntawv cog lus ntawm nws tus ntxhais Cleopatra Syra, uas tshwm sim hauv keebkwm ntawm cov Maccabees ntawm nqe nees nkaum peb. Cov Maccabees los ua ib feem ntawm kab ntawd raws li lawv txoj kev tawm tsam Antiochus Epiphanes, ib tug ntawm cov kawg ntawm lub Ces Hwjchim 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 yog tus Antiochus uas nyob hauv tebchaws Iyiv xyoo 168 BC ze Alexandria thaum lub Tsov Rog Syrian zaum rau. Antiochus Epiphanes tau tuaj tua tebchaws Iyiv thiab twb yuav luag txeeb tau Alexandria lawm. Cov vajntxwv kav Ptolemaic tau thov kom Loos pab. Loos thiaj xa Popillius Laenas (nrog tsuas yog ib pab me me raws nws mus xwb—tsis muaj tub rog li) tuaj coj ib lo lus kawg ntawm Senate los tshaj tawm; Antiochus yuav tsum thim tawm hauv tebchaws Iyiv thiab Cyprus tam sid, txwv tsis pub nws yuav ntsib tsov rog nrog Loos. Thaum Antiochus txais tsab ntawv ntawd thiab thov sijhawm mus sab laj nrog nws cov kws pab tswv yim, Popillius—uas raug piav tias nruj thiab hais kom ua raws li nws lub hwjchim—thiaj muab nws tus pas taug kev los kos ib lub voj rau saum xuab zeb ncig tus vajntxwv ob txhais taw. Ces nws thiaj tshaj tawm tias, “Ua ntej koj yuav tawm ntawm lub voj ntawd mus, cia li muab ib lo lus teb rau kuv coj mus hais rau Senate.”

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).

Qhov ntsiab lus twb pom tseeb lawm; Antiochus tsis muaj cuab kav tawm hauv lub voj voog ntawd yam tsis tau cog lus lees raws li Rome cov kev thov—yog nws hla tawm mus yam tsis muaj kev pom zoo ces yuav txhais tias muaj tsov rog. Antiochus poob siab thiab raug txaj muag heev, nws thiaj yig ib pliag xwb, tiam sis tom qab ntawd nws pom zoo mloog raws, rho nws cov tub rog tawm hauv Egypt, thiab rov qab mus rau Syria. Txoj kev ua nom tswv no uas muaj siab tawv heev (thiab tau txais kev txhawb zog los ntawm Rome lub npe nrov uas tab tom loj hlob hauv hwj chim) yuam kom muaj kev thim rov qab yam tsis tas muaj ib qho kev sib ntaus sib tua li, ua rau pom meej txog Rome txoj kev kav loj hlob tuaj hauv sab hnub tuaj ntawm Hiavtxwv Mediterranean. Feem coob thiaj hais txog qhov no tias yog ib qho keeb kwm pib ntawm kab lus “kos ib txoj kab rau hauv cov xuab zeb” (txawm hais tias qhov tseeb tiag ces yog ib lub voj voog).

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 kuj tau los ua tus uas cov Protestant to taub tias yog lub hwjchim uas tsa nws tus kheej kom siab, poob, thiab tsa lub zeem muag uas nyob hauv nqe kaum plaub ntawm Daniyee kaum ib.

> 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.

> Thiab nyob rau lub sijhawm ntawd yuav muaj coob leej sawv tawm tsam tus vajntxwv ntawm sab qab teb; thiab cov tub sab hauv koj haiv neeg kuj yuav tsa lawv tus kheej siab kom tsa tau lub zeem muag ntawd kom ruaj khov; tiamsis lawv yuav poob. 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.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes kav xyoo 175–164 BC, thiab yog tus vajntxwv Seleucid thib yim hauv kaum peb tug. Nws nrhiav kev yuam kom muaj kab lis kev cai Hellenistic thiab koom nws lub tebchaws kom ua ib lub hauv paus nyob rau hauv tej kev xyaum kev ntseeg Greek. Xyoo 169 BC nws txeeb tej nyiaj txiag thiab tej khoom muaj nqis hauv lub Tuamtsev, txwv tsis pub ua tej kev xyaum Yudais (kev cai txiav tawv, kev ceev Hnub Xanpataus, kev kawm Torah), thiab yuam kom muaj kev fij xyeem rau tej vajtswv cuav. Lub Kaum Ob Hlis xyoo 167 BC nws tsa ib lub thaj teev dab qhuas cuav (rau Zeus) saum lub thaj hlawv xyeem Yudais hauv lub Tuamtsev thiab fij ib tug npua, nrog rau lwm yam kev qias vuab tsuab. Qhov kev ua kom lub Tuamtsev tsis huv ntawd yog qhov kawg uas cov Yudais uas ceev kev cai tsis kam ntxiv lawm, vim lawv pom tias nws yog qhov ua txhaum kawg nkaus rau kev dawb huv ntawm lub Tuamtsev thiab Vajtswv txoj kevcai. Nws ua rau muaj kev tawm tsam tam sim ntawd thaum Mattathias (ib tug pov thawj ntawm Modein) tsis kam ua raws li ib tug tub ceev xwm Seleucid txoj lus txib kom fij xyeem rau tej vajtswv cuav thiab tua ib tug Yudais uas thim kev ntseeg thiab tus tub ceev xwm ntawd, ces khiav mus rau saum tej roob nrog nws cov tub (cov Maccabees yav tom ntej). Qhov no thiaj ua rau muaj kev ua rog hom nkaum tua thiab kev sawv ntxeev xyoo 167–160 BC uas lub hom phiaj yog los rov kho kev pe hawm Yudais, ua rau lub Tuamtsev tau rov muab fij dua tshiab (Hanukkah) xyoo 164 BC nyob rau hauv 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.

Thaum pib thiab thaum xaus ntawm Seleucid lub teb chaws muaj ib daim ntawv cog lus tseem ceeb uas tau sawv cev los ntawm ib txoj kev sib yuav rau kev ua nom ua tswv, uas muaj lub ntsiab ntawm kev faib ua ob tog, yog sab hnub tuaj thiab sab hnub poob, los yog sab qaum teb thiab sab qab teb. Thaum Seleucid lub teb chaws poob nqes mus, Antiochus Epiphanes los ua tus cim ntawm lub hwj chim Loos uas tab tom sawv los, thiab yog lub ntsiab uas cov Maccabees txoj kev npau taws tsom rau. Tom qab ntawd hauv keeb kwm nws los ua tus qauv cuav ntawm lub cim yaj saub uas tsa lub zeem muag ntawd kom ruaj. Lub hwj chim hauv nqe nees nkaum ob ntawm tshooj kaum ib raug rhuav thaum tus thawj ntawm daim ntawv cog lus raug rhuav.

> 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.

> Thiab nrog tej caj npab ntawm dej nyab lawv yuav raug muab tshem pov tseg tawm ntawm nws xub ntiag, thiab yuav raug rhuav tshem; muaj tseeb, txawm yog tus thawj ntawm txoj kev cog lus los thiab. 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.

Kev kav ntawm Antiochus Epiphanes xaus rau xyoo 164 BC, yuav luag ob puas xyoo ua ntej Tswv Yexus Khetos, “tus thawj ntawm txoj kev cog lus” raug “rhuav tshem” saum tus ntoo khaub lig. Yam peb xav sau tseg ntawm no yog tias lub Seleucid Faj Tim Teb Chaws tau pib thiab xaus nrog ib txoj kev sib yuav raws li daim ntawv cog lus kev ua nom ua tswv, uas kev dag ntxias ntawm ob tog ntawd yog ib qho uas tau raug sau cia hauv keeb kwm. Thaum Antiochus Epiphanes kav, Maccabean kev sawv ntxeev pib, uas yog ib daim qauv piv txwv txog American Revolution. Hauv keeb kwm ntawm cov Maccabees, lawv txoj kev tawm tsam kom plam dim ntawm Seleucid hwj chim muaj nrog ib daim ntawv cog lus tseem ceeb nrog Loos. Nqe vajlugkub uas qhia ncaj qha txog daim ntawv cog lus ntawd kuj qhia ncaj qha tias Loos tau ua dag ntxias, lossis hais lus cuav ntawm lub rooj sib cog lus.

> 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.

> Thiab tom qab uas tau cog lus nrog nws lawm, nws yuav ua hauj lwm dag ntxias; rau qhov nws yuav sawv tuaj, thiab yuav muaj zog nrog ib haiv neeg tsawg. 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:

Txhua txhua kab lus yaj saub uas ua ntej txog lub sij hawm kawg hauv nqe plaub caug muaj ib daim ntawv cog lus uas raug rhuav. Uriah Smith, thaum piav txog “cov uas tso tseg lub cim dawb huv ntawm txoj kev cog lus” hauv nqe peb caug, tau sau tseg li nram no:

> “‘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.

> “‘Kev chim tawm tsam rau txoj kev khi lus;’ uas yog, Vajluskub Dawb Huv, phau ntawv ntawm txoj kev khi lus. Ib qho kev hloov loj ntawm yam no tau raug ua tiav hauv Loos. Cov Heruli, Goths, thiab Vandals, uas kov yeej Loos, tau txais txoj kev ntseeg Arian, thiab tau los ua yeeb ncuab ntawm lub Koom Txoos Kas Tos Liv. Tshwj xeeb tshaj yog rau lub hom phiaj txhawm rau rhuav tshem txoj kev cuav no xwb, Justinian thiaj li txib tseg kom tus pope yog lub taub hau ntawm lub koom txoos thiab yog tus kho cov neeg ntseeg cuav. Tsis ntev tom qab ntawd phau Vajlugkub raug suav tias yog ib phau ntawv txaus ntshai uas cov pej xeem ib txwm tsis tsim nyog nyeem, tiam sis txhua yam teeb meem uas sib cav yuav tsum raug coj mus tso rau tus pope txiav txim. Yog li ntawd thiaj li muaj kev saib tsis taus raug muab ntxiv rau saum Vajtswv txoj lus. Thiab cov vaj ntxwv kav Loos, uas nws feem sab hnub tuaj tseem muaj nyob ntxiv, tau muaj kev to taub zoo, lossis tau koom tes zais nrog lub Koom Txoos Loos, uas twb tau tso tseg txoj kev khi lus lawm thiab tsim los ua txoj kev thim Vajtswv loj kawg nkaus, rau lub hom phiaj txhawm rau txo kom ploj mus “txoj kev ntseeg cuav.” Tus neeg ntawm txoj kev txhaum raug tsa mus rau nws lub zwm txwv uas khav theeb dhau ciam los ntawm kev swb ntawm cov Arian Goths, uas thaum ntawd tseem tuav Loos nyob, hauv 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.

Nqe tsib ntawm Daniyee kaum ib qhia txog kab keeb kwm uas vajntxwv sab qab teb muab ib tug ntxhais nkauj nyab raws kev sib tham ua cim ntawm ib daim ntawv cog lus uas tom qab ntawd raug vajntxwv sab qaum teb rhuav. Kev pauj rov qab ntawm vajntxwv sab qab teb ntawd yog ib yam piv txwv ua ntej txog kev pauj rov qab ntawm Napoleon tus vajntxwv sab qab teb ntawm sab ntsuj plig tawm tsam tus vajntxwv papacy sab qaum teb xyoo 1798. Daim ntawv cog lus uas raug rhuav hauv nqe tsib mus txog nqe cuaj yog ib yam piv txwv ua ntej txog Napoleon daim ntawv cog lus Tolentino uas raug rhuav, uas kuj yog ib yam piv txwv ua ntej txog Putin qhov kev hais tias NATO tau rhuav ib daim ntawv cog lus. Kev pauj rov qab ntawm Napoleon yog ib yam piv txwv ua ntej txog Putin txoj kev pauj rov qab tawm tsam Ukraine xyoo 2014. Hauv nqe kaum, kev pauj rov qab ntawm Antiochus Magnus uas xaus Tsov Rog Syrian zaum plaub sib haum nrog Napoleon xyoo 1798 thiab kuj nrog Putin xyoo 2014 thiab. Tom qab nqe kaum tsib hais txog kev sib ntaus ntawm Panium xyoo 200 BC, Antiochus tau npaj ib txoj kev sib yuav raws kev sib tham nrog lub hom phiaj zais cia kom coj Iyiv los nyob hauv nws txoj cai yam tsis tas siv tub rog nqis ko taw rau hauv av. Lub zwm txwv ntawm Antiochus Magnus tau dhau mus rau nws tus tub, tus uas raug muab tua, uas ua rau Antiochus Magnus tus tub yau tshaj, Antiochus Epiphanes, los kav lub zwm txwv. Nws tej kev ua hauv kev coj Greek kev cai thiab kev pe hawm los siv tau ua rau muaj kev sawv tawm tsam Maccabean, uas coj mus rau daim ntawv cog lus dag ntxias nrog Loos hauv nqe nees nkaum peb. Nqe nees nkaum plaub qhia txog Loos pagan thiab txheeb xyuas Antony thiab Augustus lub rooj ntawm kev dag. Hauv nqe peb caug, Loos pagan nkag mus rau hauv kev sib tham nrog pawg ntseeg papal, uas raug hais txog tias yog cov uas tau rhuav txoj kev cog lus dawb huv.

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.

Nqe nees nkaum plaub mus txog peb caug yog zaj lus tim khawv ntawm Loos pej kum, hos nqe peb caug ib mus txog plaub caug muab zaj lus tim khawv ntawm Loos papal. Txhua kab ntawm Daniel kaum ib nqe ib mus txog nqe plaub caug sawv cev rau ib kab lus faj lem uas raug siv nyob rau hauv keeb kwm zais ntawm nqe plaub caug. Kab ntawm lub nceeg vaj Seleucid, kab ntawm lub nceeg vaj Ptolemaic, kab ntawm lub nceeg vaj Yudas ntawm cov Maccabees, kab ntawm Loos pej kum, thiab kab ntawm Loos papal, txhua kab no puav leej ua qauv qhia txog keeb kwm txij xyoo 1989 mus txog hnub cai Hnub Caiv. Nyob rau hauv txhua kab ntawd, ib daim ntawv cog lus uas raug rhuav yog raug txheeb tias yog ib feem tseem ceeb ntawm zaj keeb kwm ntawd.

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.

Yog Rome yog tus uas teeb tsa txoj kev ua yog toog ntawm Daniyees kaum ib, thiab ob qho tib si—Rome pagan thiab Rome papal—lawv tej lus cog tseg dag ntxias raws li yaj saub raug cim tias yog mus zuj zus ntxiv thiab yog tshwm sim ua ntej Rome kav loj tshaj plaws hauv lawv nyias lub sijhawm yaj saub uas sib txawv. Ob lub hwj chim no tib si tau cim qhov pib ntawm lub sijhawm yaj saub ntawm kev kav loj tshaj plaws tias pib thaum lawv qhov teeb meem thib peb raug kov yeej lawm. Ua ntej txoj cai Sunday uas yuav los sai sai hauv Tebchaws Meskas, yuav muaj ib daim ntawv cog lus dag ntxias nyob nruab nrab ntawm ob lub hwj chim. Plaub zaug lawm uas ob lub hwj chim ntawd tau yog vajntxwv sab qab teb thiab vajntxwv sab qaum teb: ib zaug nyob nruab nrab ntawm lub tebchaws muaj hwjchim ci ntsa iab ntawm Yudas thiab Rome, ib zaug nyob nruab nrab ntawm ob feem ntawm Roman triumvirate, thiab ib zaug nyob nruab nrab ntawm Rome pagan thiab Rome papal. Hauv ob daim ntawv cog lus dag ntxias uas hais txog Rome no, nws yeej xaus rau ib daim ntawv cog lus nyob nruab nrab ntawm ib nrab ntawm Roman faj tim teb chaws, txawm yog Antony ntawm sab hnub tuaj, Augustus ntawm sab hnub poob, los yog Rome pagan ntawm sab hnub tuaj thiab Rome papal ntawm sab hnub poob. Plaub daim ntawv cog lus dag ntxias nyob nruab nrab ntawm vajntxwv sab qaum teb thiab sab qab teb, ob daim nyob nruab nrab ntawm vajntxwv sab hnub tuaj thiab sab hnub poob, thiab ib daim nyob nruab nrab ntawm tus uas yuav los ua vajntxwv sab qaum teb thiab lub tebchaws muaj hwjchim ci ntsa iab.

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.

Qhov no xaus peb qhov kev nthuav qhia thawj zaug txog phau ntawv Daniyees. Zaj txheej Panium sawv cev rau qhov xaus ntawm zaj txheej hais txog phau ntawv Daniyees, uas yog qhov lus qhib rau keeb kwm zais ntawm nqe plaub caug, uas peb yuav txuas ntxiv los tshuaj xyuas hauv zaj lus tom ntej.

Back to Articles