Article

# Panium - Number Eighteen

Panium — Nọ́mbà Méjìdínlógún

Three Times 250

Ẹ̀ẹ̀mẹ́ta 250

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

February 25, 2026

Formats

PDF
Word
Song MP3

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

A ó wá sọ̀rọ̀ nípa díẹ̀ nínú àwọn ìtúmọ̀ tí ẹsẹ̀ kejìlá ti Dáníẹ́lì mọ́kànlá ní, lẹ́yìn náà, a ó sì mú àwọn ìlà mẹ́ta ti ọdún “250” wá sínú ìtàn àwọn ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá sí mẹ́ẹ̀ẹ́dógún, èyí tí a mú ṣẹ ní ogun Panium ní ọdún 200 BC. Ìlà ọdún “250” tí ó bẹ̀rẹ̀ ní 457 BC parí ní 207 BC láàrín àkókò tí ó bẹ̀rẹ̀ pẹ̀lú ogun Raphia tí ó sì parí pẹ̀lú ogun Panium. Àwọn ọdún “250” nínú ìlà Nero parí pẹ̀lú ìtàn ìgbésẹ̀ mẹ́ta ti Constantine, tí àwọn ọdún 313, 321 àti 330 ṣojú fún. Àwọn ọdún “250” ti United States parí ní July 4, 2026.

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

Laini Nero ṣojú fún ìtàn àkókò ìdánwò àwòrán ẹranko náà, ní ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ ní Orílẹ̀-Èdè Amẹ́ríkà, lẹ́yìn náà ní ayé. Laini ọdún 457 Ṣ.K. fi Trump sí ipò àárín ní ti ológun láàárín ogun méjì. Àkókò tí ó tẹ̀ síwájú láti ọdún 1776 pẹ̀lú ń samisi ipò àárín kan fún ààrẹ ìkẹyìn Trump. Kí a lè fi àwọn laini wọ̀nyí sí ipò wọn tí ó tọ́, a ó kọ́kọ́ ṣàyẹ̀wò ẹsẹ̀ kejìlá, àti ìparun Rọ́ṣíà àti Putin. Lẹ́yìn náà, àwọn laini mẹ́ta ti ọdún “250,” lẹ́yìn náà laini Ìjọba Hasmonean. Nígbà tí a bá ti fi àwọn laini wọ̀nyí sí ipò wọn, a ó fi Peteru ṣe ìbámu pẹ̀lú Panium. Nígbà tí àwọn laini wọ̀nyí bá ti wà ní ipò wọn, ó yẹ kí a lè mọ bí a ṣe gbọdọ̀ tún ìránṣẹ́ ọjọ́ kẹtàlá oṣù Keje, ọdún 2020 ṣe, kí a sì kéde rẹ̀, àti pé òun ni ìránṣẹ́ ìwé Joẹli.

## King Uzziah of Judah & Ptolemy King of Egypt

Ọba Ussiah ti Juda àti Ptolemyi, Ọba Ejibiti

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

Ìtàn tí ó mú ẹsẹ̀ kẹ́wàá ṣẹ ní ogun Raphia bá ìtàn ọba Ussiah mu. Nígbà tí a sọ Isaiah di mímọ́, tí a sì fún un ní agbára láti kéde ìránṣẹ́ òjò àìpẹ́, ìpè rẹ̀ wá ní ọdún tí Ussiah kú.

> In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Isaiah 6:1.

> Ní ọdún tí ọba Ussiah kú ni mo sì rí Olúwa jókòó lórí ìtẹ́, tí a gbé ga tí a sì gbé e sókè, àti pé ẹ̀wù rẹ̀ kún inú tẹ́ńpìlì. Isaiah 6:1.

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

Ìkú Úsáyà ni ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ tí ó fi hàn ṣáájú, ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ tí ó bá ti Pítólémì mu, tí ó sì jọra pẹ̀lú tirẹ̀ lẹ́yìn ìṣẹ́gun ní ogun Ráfíà. Úsáyà àti Pítólémì jẹ́ ààmì ọba gúúsù kan tí a gbé ọkàn rẹ̀ sókè, ẹni tí ń ṣọ̀tẹ̀ nípa wíwá láti so àṣẹ ìjọba rẹ̀ pọ̀ mọ́ àṣẹ ìjọ. Nígbà tí Úsáyà gbìyànjú láti darapọ̀ ìjọ àti ìjọba, ẹ̀tẹ̀ tó wà ní iwájú orí rẹ̀ jẹ́ àpẹẹrẹ àmì ẹranko náà.

> And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. Revelation 14:9–11.

> Áńgẹ́lì kẹta sì tẹ̀lé wọn, ó ń sọ pẹ̀lú ohùn ńlá pé, Bí ẹnikẹ́ni bá jọ́sìn ẹranko náà àti ère rẹ̀, tí ó sì gba àmì rẹ̀ sí iwájú orí rẹ̀ tàbí sí ọwọ́ rẹ̀, ẹni náà yóò mu nínú wáìnì ìbínú Ọlọ́run, èyí tí a ti dà jáde láìdapọ̀ sínú ife ìhónú rẹ̀; a ó sì fi iná àti sulfúrù jẹ ẹ́ ní ìwájú àwọn áńgẹ́lì mímọ́ àti ní ìwájú Ọ̀dọ́-Àgùntàn náà. Èéfín ìyà wọn sì ń gòkè lọ títí láé àti láé: wọn kò sì ní ìsinmi lọ́sàn-án tàbí lóru, àwọn tí ń jọ́sìn ẹranko náà àti ère rẹ̀, àti ẹnikẹ́ni tí ń gba àmì orúkọ rẹ̀. Ìfihàn 14:9–11.

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

Nígbà náà, Ussiah ṣàpẹẹrẹ ikú tí ń lọ síwájú láti ìgbà ìgbìyànjú ọlọ̀tẹ̀ rẹ̀ láti darapọ̀ ìjọ àti ìpínlẹ̀. Lẹ́yìn náà, ó tún ṣàpẹẹrẹ ìjọba àjọṣepọ̀ aláìlera pẹ̀lú ọmọ rẹ̀ fún ọdún mọ́kànlá. Ussiah wà láàyè fún ọdún mọ́kànlá lẹ́yìn ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ rẹ̀. Ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ rẹ̀ jẹ́ àmì ìṣàpẹẹrẹ òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú, níbi tí a ti darapọ̀ ìjọ àti ìpínlẹ̀, tí a sì fi ń mú kí àmì ẹranko náà di dandan. Ọdún mọ́kànlá lẹ́yìn náà ni ó kú, èyí tí ó ṣàpẹẹrẹ òpin ìjọba rẹ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí ọba ìjọba gúúsù Júdà, tí í ṣe ilẹ̀ ológo, èyí tí í ṣe Orílẹ̀-Èdè Amẹ́ríkà.

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

Ní ìbáṣepọ̀ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ pẹ̀lú Ptolemy, Uzziah dúró fún Júdà, ilẹ̀ ológo àti Pùròtẹ́sítáǹtì tí ó ti ṣọ̀tẹ̀ sí ìgbàgbọ́, nígbà tí Ptolemy sì dúró fún Ejibiti, tí í ṣe agbára dragoni, tí ẹ̀sìn rẹ̀ jẹ́ ẹ̀mí-àròyé. Nígbà tí a bá ka àwọn ọba méjèèjì náà gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìlà afiwéra, Uzziah kì í ṣe àpèjúwe ilẹ̀ ológo mọ́, àti pé ní ìpapọ̀ wọn wọ́n di àmì àwọn orílẹ̀-èdè méjì. Ejibiti àti Júdà jẹ́ àmì àwọn ẹ̀sìn ẹ̀mí-àròyé àti Pùròtẹ́sítáǹtì tí ó ti ṣọ̀tẹ̀ sí ìgbàgbọ́. Wọ́n jẹ́ àmì ìjọba àti ìjọ. Ìṣèlú ìjọba àti ìṣètò ìjọ tí wọ́n ṣojú fún, nígbà tí a bá fi wọ́n ṣe àmì kan ṣoṣo, ní àwọn orílẹ̀-èdè méjì nínú; gẹ́gẹ́ bí àwọn Mídì àti Pérsia ti rí, gẹ́gẹ́ bí Ejibiti àti Sódómù Faranse ti rí, gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìwo Republikani àti ti Pùròtẹ́sítáǹtì ti Orílẹ̀-èdè Amẹ́ríkà ṣe rí, gẹ́gẹ́ bí àwọn ìjọba àríwá àti gúúsù ti Ísírẹ́lì àti Júdà ti rí, bẹ́ẹ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí Róòmù keferi àti Róòmù póòpù ti rí. Gẹ́gẹ́ bí àmì àwọn ìjọba méjì, a so wọ́n pọ̀ mọ́ ara wọn ní ti àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ nípasẹ̀ tẹ́ńpìlì tó wà ní Jérúsálẹ́mù, níbi tí Uzziah àti Ptolemy méjèèjì ti wá láti rú ẹbọ ní tẹ́ńpìlì ní Jérúsálẹ́mù. Orílẹ̀-èdè méjì tí méjèèjì ń ṣọ̀tẹ̀ sí ibi-mímọ́ kan náà.

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

Ó ṣe pàtàkì láti ṣàkíyèsí pé ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ àwọn ọba méjèèjì ní ìbáṣepọ̀ pẹ̀lú tẹ́ńpìlì ní Jerúsálẹ́mù, èyí tí í ṣe àmì tẹ́ńpìlì níbi tí Dáníẹ́lì ti rí Kristi nínú orí kẹwàá. Ìtàn àwọn ọba méjèèjì wọ̀nyí bá ara wọn mu ní Ogun Yukiréníà, àti nípa bẹ́ẹ̀ wọ́n bẹ̀rẹ̀ ẹ̀rí wọn ní ọdún 2014. A gbé àwọn méjèèjì ga sókè pẹ̀lú àwọn ìṣẹ́gun ológun tí ogun Ráfíà dúró fún nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹ́wàálá. Ráfíà samisi agbègbè ààlà ìjọba kẹfà ti àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ Bíbélì àti ìṣọ̀kan mẹ́ta ti òfin Ọjọ́-ìsinmi. Ó tún jẹ́ ààlà ìyípadà láti ọ̀dọ̀ ìjọ oníjà sí ìjọ oníṣẹ́gun.

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

Lẹ́yìn ọdún 2014, ọba ọlọ́rọ̀ jùlọ kéde ète rẹ̀ láti díje fún ipò ààrẹ ní ọdún 2015. Ní ọdún 2020, ọba ọlọ́rọ̀ jùlọ, tí ń ṣojú ìwo Republikani, gba ọgbẹ́ ikú rẹ̀ tí yóò sì wá di mímú láradá nígbà tó yá. Ní ọdún 2022, Ogun Ukraine gbòòrò sí i. Nígbà náà ni Trump padà wá ní ìmúṣẹ ẹsẹ̀ kẹtàlá, nínú ìdìbò ọdún 2024. Ní oṣù Keje ọdún 2023, a mú ohùn kan jáde ní aginjù. Ní December 31, 2023, a jí ìwo Protestant dìde, gẹ́gẹ́ bí a ti tún jí ìwo Republikani dìde nínú ìdìbò ọdún 2024, nígbà tí Trump padà wá, lẹ́yìn náà ní ọdún 2025 ìdánwò ìpìlẹ̀ parí pẹ̀lú dídé ìdánwò tẹ́ńpìlì.

## 1989

1989

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

Àwọn òtítọ́ tí a tú ìdìmọ́ wọn sílẹ̀ ní ọdún 1989 jẹ́ onírúurú méjì. Àwọn àfọwọ́kọ wòlíì tí ó jọra ti àwọn ìṣísẹ̀ àtúnṣe àti àwọn ẹsẹ̀ mẹ́fà ìkẹyìn ti Dáníẹ́lì mọ́kànlá ni a tú ìdìmọ́ wọn sílẹ̀ ní àkókò kan náà. Àwọn òfin wòlíì kan wà tí a lò láti fi múlẹ̀ ìhìn iṣẹ́ àkọ́kọ́ ti ẹsẹ̀ ogójì. Díẹ̀ nínú àwọn òtítọ́ wọ̀nyí gan-an ni wọ́n ti di kọ́kọ́rọ́ sí ìtàn-ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ ìpamọ́ ti ẹsẹ̀ kan náà gan-an nínú èyí tí a ti ṣàwárí àwọn iyebíye wòlíì wọ̀nyí. Èmi yóò fi àpẹẹrẹ kan hàn yín.

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

Ní ọdún 1989, kò sí ìmòye kan ṣoṣo tí a fi fohùn ṣọ̀kan nínú Adventism nípa ohun tí àwọn ẹsẹ̀ mẹ́fà ìkẹyìn ti Daniẹli dúró fún. Àìsí ìṣọ̀kan yẹn jẹ́ ní ọ̀nà méjì. Kò sí ìfọ̀kànsìn pátápátá nípa ìtumọ̀ àwọn ẹsẹ̀ náà. Àwọn tí wọ́n jẹ́wọ́ pé àwọn lóye àwọn ẹsẹ̀ náà gbé àwọn èrò ènìyàn kalẹ̀, wọ́n sì dà wọ́n pọ̀ mọ́ ẹ̀kọ́-òrìṣà ti Pùròtẹ́sítáǹtì apẹ̀yìndà àti ti Kátólíìkì, ogún àkọ́bí tí wọ́n gba lọ́wọ́ àwọn baba wọn láti inú ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ ti 1863, nígbà tí wọ́n mú ipa wòlíì aláìgbọ́ràn ṣẹ ní ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ ìpilẹ̀ Jeroboamu. Àwọn èrò kọ̀ọ̀kan wọ̀nyí nípa ohun tí àwọn ẹsẹ̀ náà jẹ́ jẹ́ ìtumọ̀ ikọ̀kọ̀ nìkan, ní dídára jùlọ. Èrò wọn nípa àwọn ẹsẹ̀ náà yálà tako ìlò àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ìpilẹ̀, tí ó sì sábà máa ń lòdì sí ààyè gangan tí àwọn tìkára wọn fi dá àwọn ẹsẹ̀ náà lélẹ̀.

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

Ohun tí a rí nínú àwọn ẹsẹ náà ni ìmòye kan tí ó dúró ṣinṣin nípa gbogbo ẹsẹ mẹ́fà náà. Ìbámu ìránṣẹ́ náà tí a rí ni ó fún mi ní ìgboyà láti gbé ìmòye mi kalẹ̀, àní nígbà tí mo mọ̀ pé gbogbo Adventism kọ ohun tí mo lóye. Ohun tí a lóye nípa àwọn ẹsẹ wọ̀nyí ni a kọ́kọ́ tẹ̀ jáde ní 1996, àti pé ìmòye tí a gbé kalẹ̀ níbẹ̀ ti túbọ̀ ń lágbára sí i nìkan bí àkókò ti ń lọ síwájú lórí ọgbọ̀n ọdún!

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

Bí o bá wo ìtọ́kasí àkọ́kọ́ pátápátá nínú ìwé ìròyìn náà, The Time of the End, ìwọ yóò rí Testimonies, ìdìpọ̀ 9, ojú-ìwé 11. Ọdún márùn-ún kí 9/11 tó dé, ìwé ìròyìn náà bẹ̀rẹ̀ pẹ̀lú 9/11. Ọ̀kan nínú àwọn ìmọ̀ye wọ̀nyẹn tí ó fún mi ní ìgboyà ni ìmọ̀ yìí pé ní “àkókò ìparí” nínú ẹsẹ̀ ogójì, àwọn ọba àríwá àti gúúsù jẹ́ agbára ẹ̀mí, kì í ṣe agbára gidi. Ní àkókò yẹn, mo ti mọ̀ tẹ́lẹ̀ pé Sister White sọ pé àwọn ìwé Dáníẹ́lì àti Ìfihàn jẹ́ ìwé kan náà, àti pé ọ̀nà kan náà ti àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ tí ó wà nínú Dáníẹ́lì ni Johanu tún gbé sókè nínú Ìfihàn. Mo ti rí i nínú Ìfihàn orí kọkànlá, èyí tí a mú ṣẹ ní ìtàn tó yí àkókò ìparí ní ọdún 1798 ká; àsọyé Sister White lórí orí náà fi kedere kọ́ni pé France jẹ́ Ejibiti ti ẹ̀mí, ó sì tún fi kedere gan-an hàn pé nínú Ìfihàn orí kẹtadínlógún, àgbèrè tí ó jókòó lórí ẹranko náà jẹ́ Bábílónì ti ẹ̀mí.

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

Ìdánimọ̀ Agbábìnrin White nípa àwọn agbára méjèèjì wọ̀nyí wà nínú The Great Controversy, àwọn àlàyé wọ̀nyí sì so ẹ̀rí Johanu àti ti Daniẹli pọ̀. Ìtumọ̀ ọba gúúsù nínú Daniẹli orí kọkànlá ni agbára tí ń ṣàkóso Ejibiti, ọba àríwá sì ni agbára tí ń ṣàkóso Babiloni. Nígbà tí Bíbélì àti Ẹ̀mí Àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ṣiṣẹ́ pọ̀ ní ìṣọ̀kan láti fi ìdí òtítọ́ múlẹ̀ nípa mímú Daniẹli àti Ìfihàn papọ̀ láti fi ẹ̀rí náà hàn, èyí jẹ́ ohun tí èmi kò lè fi sílẹ̀ láéláé fún onímọ̀-ìsìn tí ó ti ṣìnà ní ọ̀nà, tàbí aṣáájú tí ó ti ṣìnà ní ọ̀nà tí ó yan ara rẹ̀ sípò nínú iṣẹ́-òjíṣẹ́ alátìlẹ́yìn-ara-ẹni.

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

Láti lóye Ptolemy àti Uzziah gẹ́gẹ́ bí àmì ogun Raphia àti ìdíyọ̀ tí ń ṣẹlẹ̀ lẹ́yìn tí ọkàn wọn gbéga, ni kí a jẹ́ lábẹ́ ìṣàkóso òtítọ́ pé Ptolemy dúró fún agbára dírágónì tí ó ṣẹ́gun agbára aṣojú ti Rome, kìkì kí ó sì tún pàdánù sí agbára aṣojú náà tí ó ti ṣẹ́gun Ptolemy nínú ẹsẹ̀ mẹ́wàá àti ní ọdún 1989. Àwọn ìyàtọ̀ ìtàn náà jẹ́ ète, wọ́n sì ṣe pàtàkì.

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

Ussiah gba àmì ẹranko náà nígbà tí ó gbìyànjú láti mú kí ìjọ àti ìjọba dara pọ̀, Ussiah ni ilẹ̀ ògo náà, ilẹ̀ ògo náà sì jẹ́ àríyànjiyàn pàtàkì ní ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ iṣẹ́ ìránṣẹ́ náà ní ọdún 1989. Ṣé ilẹ̀ ògo náà ni Orílẹ̀-Èdè Amẹ́ríkà, tàbí Ṣọ́ọ̀ṣì Adventist Ọjọ́ Keje ni? Àwọn tí wọ́n nígbà náà dì mọ́ èrò àṣìṣe náà pé ilẹ̀ ògo náà ni ṣọ́ọ̀ṣì Adventist, pẹ̀lú gbogbo àwọn tí ó ṣì ń dì í mú títí di báyìí—yóò jiyàn pé òkè mímọ́ ògo ti ẹsẹ̀ kẹ́rìnlélógójì náà jẹ́ ṣọ́ọ̀ṣì Ọlọ́run ní kedere, nítorí náà ìyẹn túmọ̀ sí fún wọn pé òkè kan àti ilẹ̀ kan jẹ́ ààmì kan náà. Ìrọ̀rùn ìrònú ènìyàn tí ó wọ́pọ̀, mo rò bẹ́ẹ̀.

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

Ussiah ni ilẹ̀ ògo, Ptolemy sì ni Ejibiti. Ussiah, gẹ́gẹ́ bí ilẹ̀ ògo, ní ìwo méjì ti Pùròtẹ́sítántì àti ti Ìjọba Olómìnira. Ìfarahàn òṣèlú Ptolemy ni kọ́múnísìmù àti oríṣiríṣi àwòṣe rẹ̀, ìfarahàn ẹ̀sìn Ptolemy sì ni ẹ̀mí-ìbánisọ̀rọ̀ àti oríṣiríṣi àwòṣe rẹ̀. Àmì àfihàn kan ti agbára dragoni ni pé ó jẹ́ àjọṣepọ̀, ṣùgbọ́n wòlíì èké, ẹni tí í ṣe ilẹ̀ ògo, jẹ́ orílẹ̀-èdè kan ṣoṣo tí ó ní ìwo méjì.

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

Dáníẹ́lì orí kọkànlá ẹsẹ̀ ogójì fi ìdí múlẹ̀ pé Orílẹ̀-Èdè Amẹ́ríkà ni agbára aṣojú ti póòpù nígbà tí a gbá Soviet Union kúrò ní 1989. Òtítọ́ yìí bá ipa ẹranko ilẹ̀ oníwo méjì ti Ìṣípayá mẹ́tàlá mu, nítorí àwọn ìwé méjèèjì jẹ́ ohun kan náà.

> And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. Revelation 13:11, 12.

> Mo sì rí ẹranko mìíràn tí ń gòkè wá láti inú ilẹ̀ ayé; ó sì ní ìwo méjì bí ti ọ̀dọ́-àgùntàn, ó sì ń sọ̀rọ̀ bí dragoni. Ó sì ń lo gbogbo agbára ẹranko àkọ́kọ́ náà níwájú rẹ̀, ó sì mú kí ayé àti àwọn tí ń gbé inú rẹ̀ jọ́sìn ẹranko àkọ́kọ́ náà, ẹni tí ọgbẹ́ ikú rẹ̀ ti wò sàn. Ìfihàn 13:11, 12.

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

Ìfihàn orí kẹtàlá ń dá Orílẹ̀-èdè Amẹ́ríkà mọ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí agbára aṣojú ti Ìjọ Páápà, nítorí ẹranko ilẹ̀ náà “ń lò gbogbo agbára” ẹranko tí ó jáde láti inú òkun, tí ó wà “níwájú rẹ̀.” Nínú ẹsẹ̀ kejì, dragoni ti Róòmù keferi ti fi agbára rẹ̀, ìtẹ́ rẹ̀, àti àṣẹ ńlá rẹ̀ fún Ìjọ Páápà. Ọ̀rọ̀ tí a túmọ̀ sí “agbára” túmọ̀ sí agbára; ṣùgbọ́n nínú ẹsẹ̀ kejìlá, ọ̀rọ̀ mìíràn ni a túmọ̀ sí “agbára,” tí ìtumọ̀ rẹ̀ jẹ́ “àṣẹ tí a fi lé ẹni lọ́wọ́.”

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

Orílẹ̀-èdè Amẹ́ríkà ni agbára aṣojú ti ìjọ papacy, ẹni tí Róòmù aláìsìn ti jẹ́ àpẹẹrẹ rẹ̀, ẹni tí ó fi ìtìlẹ́yìn ologun àti ètò-ọrọ̀ rẹ̀ fún ìjọ papacy gẹ́gẹ́ bí a ti ṣàlàyé nínú ẹsẹ̀ kejì. Nípa bẹ́ẹ̀, Róòmù aláìsìn jẹ́ àpẹẹrẹ Orílẹ̀-èdè Amẹ́ríkà, ẹni tí yóò sì fi “kẹ̀kẹ́-ogun, ọkọ̀ ojú omi àti àwọn ẹlẹ́ṣin” rẹ̀ fún ṣíṣe iṣẹ́ ẹlẹ́gbin agbára papacy.

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

Nígbà tí àwọn ogun mẹ́ta inú ẹsẹ̀ kẹwàá, kọkànlá àti kẹẹ́dógún ṣẹ ní ìtàn, Áńtíókùsì Mágúnùsì wà ní ogun kọ̀ọ̀kan. Òótọ́ yìí fi hàn pé agbára tí a ṣojú fún nínú àwọn ogun mẹ́tẹ̀ẹ̀ta náà jẹ́ agbára aṣojú ti ẹranko náà, nítorí pé Áńtíókùsì ni i máa ń jẹ́ nígbà gbogbo, àti pé Áńtíókùsì ní ọdún 1989 jẹ́ agbára aṣojú ti Orílẹ̀-Èdè Amẹ́ríkà.

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

Àwọn ogun mẹ́ta tí wọ́n ṣí ọ̀nà sí òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú ti ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìndínlógún rú ìfọwọ́sí Alpha àti Omega, wọ́n sì tún ní ètò òtítọ́. Orílẹ̀-èdè Amẹ́ríkà ni ó wà nínú ogun àkọ́kọ́ àti ogun kẹta, èyí sì ń fi Alpha àti Omega hàn nínú ogun àkọ́kọ́ àti ti ìkẹyìn. Àwọn ogun mẹ́ta tí wọ́n ṣí ọ̀nà sí òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú ti ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìndínlógún tún rú ìfọwọ́sí òtítọ́. Agbára aṣojú ti Nazi Ukraine ni ogun tó wà ní àárín, tí ó dúró fún ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ ti àmì ọ̀nà àárín nínú ìlànà ọ̀rọ̀ Hébérù náà, òtítọ́. Àwọn ogun mẹ́ta náà dúró fún 1989 títí dé òfin Ọjọ́ Àìkú, èyí sì túmọ̀ sí pé wọ́n dúró fún “ìtàn tí a fi pamọ́” ti ẹsẹ̀ ogójì.

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

Ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá nínú Ìfihàn kọkànlá tọ́ka sí ọdún 2023 gẹ́gẹ́ bí àkókò tí a jí ìwo méjèèjì dìde. Dáníẹ́lì kọkànlá, ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá, tọ́ka sí ìgbà kan náà gan-an nínú ìtàn. Ìlà inú ti àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ àti ìlà òde ti àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ bá ara wọn mu ní 2023. Ìlà inú ni “ohun náà” tí Dáníẹ́lì lóye, ìlà òde sì ni “ìran náà” tí ó lóye.

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

Ìdánwò tẹ́ńpìlì tí Dáníẹ́lì ṣàfihàn bẹ̀rẹ̀ ní ọjọ́ kejìlélógún, àti ọdún méjìlélógún lẹ́yìn 9/11, èyí tí ó jẹ́ ìpìlẹ̀ àkókò tí Aísáyà wọ tẹ́ńpìlì, mú ọ dé 2023. Aísáyà tọ́ka sí ikú Úsáyà lẹ́yìn tí ó ti gbé pẹ̀lú ẹ̀tẹ̀ fún ọdún mọ́kànlá ní 9/11. Iṣẹ́ kíkọ tẹ́ńpìlì dúró lórí fífi ìpìlẹ̀ rẹ̀ lélẹ̀ ní ìbẹ̀rẹ̀, lẹ́yìn náà kíkọ tẹ́ńpìlì náà sókè àti fífi òkúta ìparí sí i, èyí tí ó sì yọrí sí ìdánwò litmus kẹta, tí a ṣojú fún nípasẹ̀ àjọ̀dún ìpè ní ìlà Léfítíkù ogún-dín-lọ́gbọ̀n. Iṣẹ́ inú ti ìhìnrere àìnípẹ̀kun ni a parí ní àkókò ìtàn ìlà òde. Nínú ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá, a ti fi Pútín ṣe àfihàn nípasẹ̀ Ptolemy, àti Ọba Úsáyà pèsè ẹlẹ́rìí kejì sí àpèjúwe ọba gúúsù tí a gbé sókè nípasẹ̀ àṣeyọrí ológun, ẹni tí lẹ́yìn náà gbìyànjú láti fi ara wọn wọ inú àgbègbè ẹ̀sìn.

> And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand. And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it. Daniel 11:11, 12.

> Ọba gúúsù yóò bínú gidigidi, yóò sì jáde lọ bá a jagun, àní bá ọba àríwá; yóò sì kó ogun ńlá jáde; ṣùgbọ́n a ó fi ogun náà lé e lọ́wọ́. Nígbà tí ó bá ti mú ogun náà kúrò, ọkàn rẹ̀ yóò gbéraga; yóò sì ṣubú ẹgbẹẹgbẹ̀rún mẹ́wàá púpọ̀: ṣùgbọ́n a kì yóò fi èyí fún un ní agbára. Dáníẹ́lì 11:11, 12.

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

Uriah Smith sọ̀rọ̀ nípa ìtàn Ptolemy Philopator àti ìgbìyànjú rẹ̀ láti rú ẹbọ ní tẹ́ńpìlì Jerúsálẹ́mù.

> “Ptolemy lacked the prudence to make a good use of his victory. Had he followed up his success, he would probably have become master of the whole kingdom of Antiochus; but content with making only a few menaces and a few threats, he made peace that he might be able to give himself up to the uninterrupted and uncontrolled indulgence of his brutish passions. Thus, having conquered his enemies, he was overcome by his vices, and, forgetful of the great name which he might have established, he spent his time in feasting and lewdness.

> “Ptolemy kò ní ọgbọ́n ìmòye láti lo ìṣẹ́gun rẹ̀ dáadáa. Bí ó bá ti lépa àṣeyọrí rẹ̀ lọ, ó ṣeé ṣe kí ó ti di olúwa gbogbo ìjọba Antiochus; ṣùgbọ́n ní ìtẹ́lọ́run pẹ̀lú kíkọ àwọn ìhalẹ̀ díẹ̀ péré àti àwọn ìdẹ́rù díẹ̀ péré, ó ṣe àlàáfíà kí ó lè fi ara rẹ̀ jù sí ìtẹ́lọ́run aláìdádúró àti aláìláàlà ti àwọn ìfẹ́kúfẹ̀ẹ́ ẹranko rẹ̀. Báyìí, lẹ́yìn tí ó ti ṣẹ́gun àwọn ọ̀tá rẹ̀, àwọn ìwà búburú rẹ̀ ṣẹ́gun rẹ̀, àti ní fífi orúkọ ńlá tí ó lè ti fi ìdí múlẹ̀ sílẹ̀ lẹ́yìn, ó lo àkókò rẹ̀ nínú àsè àti ìwà àgbèrè.”

> “His heart was lifted up by his success, but he was far from being strengthened by it; for the inglorious use he made of it caused his own subjects to rebel against him. But the lifting up of his heart was more especially manifested in his transactions with the Jews. Coming to Jerusalem, he there offered sacrifices, and was very desirous of entering into the most holy place of the temple, contrary to the law and religion of that place; but being, though with great difficulty, restrained, he left the place burning with anger against the whole nation of the Jews, and immediately commenced against them a terrible and relentless persecution. In Alexandria, where the Jews had resided since the days of Alexander, and enjoyed the privileges of the most favored citizens, forty thousand according to Eusebius, sixty thousand according to Jerome, were slain in this persecution. The rebellion of the Egyptians, and the massacre of the Jews, certainly were not calculated to strengthen him in his kingdom, but were sufficient rather almost totally to ruin it.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 254.

> “Ọkàn rẹ gbéga nítorí àṣeyọrí rẹ̀, ṣùgbọ́n ó jìnnà sí jíjẹ́ fífi agbára mú un láti inú rẹ̀; nítorí lílo aláìlágo tí ó fi í ṣe ló mú kí àwọn ọmọ-abẹ́ rẹ̀ tìkára wọn dìde sí i. Ṣùgbọ́n gbígbéga ọkàn rẹ̀ ni a fihàn ní pàtàkì jùlọ nínú ìbálò rẹ̀ pẹ̀lú àwọn Júù. Nígbà tí ó dé Jerusalẹmu, ó rú àwọn ẹbọ níbẹ̀, ó sì ní ìfẹ́kúfẹ̀ẹ́ púpọ̀ láti wọ ibi mímọ́ jùlọ nínú tẹ́ńpìlì, ní ìtakò sí òfin àti ẹ̀sìn ibẹ̀; ṣùgbọ́n nígbà tí a dá a dúró, bí ó tilẹ̀ jẹ́ pé pẹ̀lú ìṣòro púpọ̀, ó fi ibẹ̀ sílẹ̀ ní ìbínú tí ń jó sí gbogbo orílẹ̀-èdè àwọn Júù, ó sì bẹ̀rẹ̀ lẹ́sẹ̀kẹsẹ̀ sí í ṣe inúnibíni burúkú tí kò sì ní àánú sí wọn. Ní Alẹkisáńdíríà, níbi tí àwọn Júù ti ti ń gbé látìgbà Alẹkisáńdà, tí wọ́n sì ti ń gbádùn àwọn ẹ̀tọ́ àwọn ọmọ ìlú tí a ṣe ojú rere sí jùlọ, ẹgbẹ̀rún mẹ́rìnlélógójì gẹ́gẹ́ bí Eusebius, ẹgbẹ̀rún ọgọ́ta gẹ́gẹ́ bí Jerome, ni a pa nínú inúnibíni yìí. Ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ àwọn ará Ejibiti, àti ìpakúpa àwọn Júù, dájúdájú kì í ṣe ohun tí a lè retí pé yóò fi agbára mú un nínú ìjọba rẹ̀, bí kò ṣe pé wọ́n tó láti fẹ́rẹ̀ẹ́ ba a jẹ́ pátápátá.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 254.

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

Ìṣẹ́gun ológun Ptolemy Philopator ní Raphia ní ọdún 217 ṣáájú ìbí Kristi kò fún Ptolemy ní agbára sí i, ṣùgbọ́n ó mú kí “ọkàn rẹ̀ gbéraga.” Ìṣẹ́gun nínú Ogun Yukiréní kò ní fún Putin ní agbára sí i, ṣùgbọ́n yóò “gbé ọkàn rẹ̀ ga,” gẹ́gẹ́ bí àṣeyọrí ológun ṣe mú kí ọba Ussiah gbé ọkàn rẹ̀ ga.

> And Uzziah prepared for them throughout all the host shields, and spears, and helmets, and habergeons, and bows, and slings to cast stones. And he made in Jerusalem engines, invented by cunning men, to be on the towers and upon the bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great stones withal. And his name spread far abroad; for he was marvellously helped, till he was strong. But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed against the Lord his God, and went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense. 2 Chronicles 26:14–16.

> Usiah sì pèsè fún wọn ní gbogbo ogun ní asà, àti ọ̀kọ̀, àti àṣíborí, àti aṣọ-ogun irin, àti ọrun, àti ìgòkè láti fi ju òkúta. Ó sì ṣe ní Jerusalẹmu àwọn ẹ̀rọ ogun, iṣẹ́ àwọn ọlọ́gbọ́n oníṣirò, kí wọ́n lè wà lórí àwọn ilé-iṣọ́ àti lórí àwọn odi ààbò, láti máa ta ọfà àti òkúta ńlá pẹ̀lú wọn. Orúkọ rẹ̀ sì tàn kálẹ̀ jìnnà réré; nítorí a ràn án lọ́wọ́ lọ́nà àgbàyanu, títí ó fi di alágbára. Ṣùgbọ́n nígbà tí ó di alágbára, ọkàn rẹ̀ gbéraga sí ìparun rẹ̀: nítorí ó ṣẹ̀ sí Olúwa Ọlọ́run rẹ̀, ó sì wọ inú tẹ́ńpìlì Olúwa láti sun tùràrí lórí pẹpẹ tùràrí. 2 Kronika 26:14–16.

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

Àwọn ọba méjì ti gúúsù, tí ọkàn wọn gbéraga nítorí àwọn ìṣẹ́gun ogun, gbìyànjú láti wọ tẹ́ńpìlì kan náà kí wọ́n sì rú ẹbọ kan, ohun tí àlùfáà nìkan ni a yọ̀ǹda fún láti ṣe. Nínú ọ̀ràn méjèèjì, àwọn àlùfáà kọ ojú ìgbìyànjú àwọn ọba agbéraga náà láti ṣe bẹ́ẹ̀. Lẹ́yìn náà, ọba kan bẹ̀rẹ̀ ìgbésẹ̀ ìfàsẹ́yìn sí àwọn Júù, ẹnì kejì sì ni àrùn ẹ̀tẹ̀ lù ní iwájú orí rẹ̀.

> And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord, that were valiant men: And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God. Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord, from beside the incense altar. And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the Lord had smitten him. And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the Lord: and Jotham his son was over the king’s house, judging the people of the land. Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, write. 2 Chronicles 26:17–22.

> Àti pé Azariah àlùfáà sì wọlé tọ̀ ọ́ lẹ́yìn, àti pẹ̀lú rẹ̀ ni àádọ́rin àlùfáà Olúwa, àwọn tí í ṣe akọni ọkùnrin. Wọ́n sì dojúkọ Ussiah ọba, wọ́n sì wí fún un pé, Kì í ṣe ipa rẹ, ìwọ Ussiah, láti sun tùràrí fún Olúwa, bí kò ṣe ti àwọn àlùfáà, àwọn ọmọ Aaroni, tí a ti yà sọ́tọ̀ láti sun tùràrí: jáde kúrò ní ibi mímọ́; nítorí ìwọ ti ṣẹ̀; bẹ́ẹ̀ ni kò ní jẹ́ fún ọ láti jẹ́ ọlá láti ọ̀dọ̀ Olúwa Ọlọ́run. Nígbà náà ni Ussiah bínú, ó sì ní àwo tùràrí lọ́wọ́ rẹ̀ láti sun tùràrí: nígbà tí ó sì ń bínú sí àwọn àlùfáà, ẹ̀tẹ̀ sì ti hàn ní iwájú orí rẹ̀ níwájú àwọn àlùfáà nínú ilé Olúwa, lẹ́gbẹ̀ẹ́ pẹpẹ tùràrí. Azariah olórí àlùfáà, àti gbogbo àwọn àlùfáà sì wo ó, sì kíyèsi i pé, wò ó, ẹlẹ́tẹ̀ ni ní iwájú orí rẹ̀, wọ́n sì lé e jáde kúrò níbẹ̀; àní, òun tìkára rẹ̀ náà yára láti jáde, nítorí pé Olúwa ti lù ú. Ussiah ọba sì jẹ́ ẹlẹ́tẹ̀ títí di ọjọ́ ikú rẹ̀, ó sì ń gbé nínú ilé àdádó, nítorí pé ẹlẹ́tẹ̀ ni; nítorí a ti yà á kúrò nínú ilé Olúwa: Jotamu ọmọ rẹ̀ sì ń bójú tó ilé ọba, ó sì ń ṣe ìdájọ́ fún àwọn ènìyàn ilẹ̀ náà. Ní ti ìyókù iṣẹ́ Ussiah, àkọ́kọ́ àti ìkẹyìn, Isaiah wòlíì, ọmọ Amoz, ni ó kọ ọ́ sílẹ̀. 2 Kronika 26:17–22.

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

Ní ọdún 2014, àwọn alágbájọba-ayé ti Yúróòpù àti ìjọba Obama bẹ̀rẹ̀ ìyípadà àwọ̀ kan sí orílẹ̀-èdè Ukraine. Ní ọdún 2022, Rọ́ṣíà bẹ̀rẹ̀ ìkọlù kan tí yóò parí níkẹyìn sí ìṣẹ́gun fún Putin àti Rọ́ṣíà; èyí tí a ṣàpẹẹrẹ rẹ̀ nípasẹ̀ Ptolemy àti Uzziah, àwọn ọba gúúsù. Ẹsẹ̀ kejìlá sọ pé lẹ́yìn ìṣẹ́gun Putin, “ọkàn rẹ̀ yóò gbéraga; yóò sì sọ ẹgbẹ̀rún mẹ́wàá púpọ̀ lulẹ̀: ṣùgbọ́n a kì yóò fún un ní agbára nípasẹ̀ rẹ̀.” Nígbà náà ni ìtàn sì ṣe àkọsílẹ̀ ìparun ìjọba rẹ̀ tí ń bá a lọ díẹ̀díẹ̀.

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

Ìparun tó ń lọ ní ìtẹ̀síwájú yẹn yọrí sí ikú rẹ̀, àti nígbà tí Antiochus the Great gbẹ̀san fún ìpàdánù rẹ̀ ní Raphia, Antiochus kò tún bá Ptolemy Philopator ṣiṣẹ́ mọ́; nígbà náà Antiochus ń bá ọmọ kékeré kan lò, ẹni tí ó jẹ́ alákóso Ejibiti nígbà náà. Ọmọ kékeré jẹ́ ààmì ìran ìkẹyìn, nítorí náà ní ìpele kan, ọba-ọmọ náà tí Antiochus ṣẹ́gun ní Panium ni ìran ìkẹyìn ìjọba gúúsù. Ní ìpele ìṣe gangan, ọba-ọmọ náà dúró fún àìlera ní ìbáṣepọ̀ pẹ̀lú agbára Antiochus.

> “The peace concluded between Ptolemy Philopater and Antiochus lasted fourteen years. Meanwhile Ptolemy died from intemperance and debauchery, and was succeeded by his son, Ptolemy Epiphanes, a child then four or five years old. Antiochus, during the same time, having suppressed rebellion in his kingdom, and reduced and settled the eastern parts in their obedience, was at leisure for any enterprise when young Epiphanes came to the throne of Egypt; and thinking this too good an opportunity for enlarging his dominion to be let slip, he raised an immense army “greater than the former” (for he had collected many forces and acquired great riches in his eastern expedition), and set out against Egypt, expecting to have an easy victory over the infant king. How he succeeded we shall presently see; for here new complications enter into the affairs of these kingdoms, and new actors are introduced upon the stage of history.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 255.

> “Àlàáfíà tí a dá sílẹ̀ láàárín Ptolemy Philopater àti Antiochus dúró fún ọdún mẹ́rìnlá. Ní àkókò yìí ná, Ptolemy kú nítorí àìní ìwọ̀n àti ìwà ìbàjẹ́, ọmọ rẹ̀ sì ni ó rọ́pò rẹ̀, Ptolemy Epiphanes, ọmọ kékeré kan tí ó jẹ́ ọmọ ọdún mẹ́rin tàbí márùn-ún nígbà náà. Antiochus, ní àkókò kan náà, lẹ́yìn tí ó ti pa ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ mọ́lẹ̀ nínú ìjọba rẹ̀, tí ó sì ti ṣẹ́gun, tí ó sì ti mú àwọn apá ìlà-oòrùn wá sí abẹ́ ìgbọràn, tí ó sì ti fi wọ́n dúró ṣinṣin nínú ìgbọràn náà, wà ní ààyè láti gbé ìgbésẹ̀ kankan kalẹ̀ nígbà tí Epiphanes ọdọ́ dé orí ìtẹ́ Ejibiti; ó sì rò pé èyí jẹ́ àǹfààní tí ó dára jù lọ fún fífẹ̀ ìjọba rẹ̀ sí i, tí kò yẹ kí a jẹ́ kó yọ̀ lára ọwọ́ rẹ̀, ó sì kó ọmọ-ogun púpọ̀ gan-an jọ, “tí ó tóbi ju ti ìṣáájú lọ” (nítorí ó ti kó ọ̀pọ̀ agbára jọ, ó sì ti ní ọrọ̀ púpọ̀ nínú ìrìnàjò rẹ̀ sí ìlà-oòrùn), ó sì gòkè lọ sí Ejibiti, ní ìrètí pé yóò ṣẹ́gun ọba ọmọ ọwọ́ náà ní ìrọ̀rùn. Bí ó ṣe ṣàṣeyọrí ni a óò rí láìpẹ́ yìí; nítorí níbí ni àwọn ìdíwọ̀n tuntun ti wọ inú ọ̀ràn àwọn ìjọba wọ̀nyí, a sì tún mú àwọn osere tuntun wá sí ojú pẹpẹ ìtàn.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 255.

## The King of the South

Ọba Gúúsù

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

Láti ṣàlàyé àwọn ìgbésẹ̀ ìkẹyìn ti Rọ́ṣíà, ni láti ṣàlàyé àwọn ìgbésẹ̀ ìkẹyìn ti ọba wòlíì ti gúúsù. Àmì àfihàn wòlíì kan ti ọba ti gúúsù nípa ti ẹ̀mí, ẹni tí ó dé sínú ìtàn wòlíì ní àsìkò òpin ní ọdún 1798—ni bí ó ṣe dé òpin rẹ̀. Èyí náà pẹ̀lú jẹ́ àmì àfihàn wòlíì ti ọba ti àríwá, àti ti wòlíì èké. Ọ̀kọ̀ọ̀kan nínú àwọn agbára mẹ́tẹ̀ẹ̀ta tí ń darí ayé lọ sí Árímágẹ́dónì ní àwọn òpin tí a ti fi pàtó dá wọn mọ̀ nínú Ọ̀rọ̀ Ọlọ́run. Ohunkóhun tí ó bá ṣẹlẹ̀ sí Putin àti Rọ́ṣíà yóò ti jẹ́ èyí tí a ti ṣe àpẹẹrẹ rẹ̀ tẹ́lẹ̀ nínú àwọn ìlà ìṣáájú ọba ti gúúsù.

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

Àwọn àpẹẹrẹ ìparun ọba ẹ̀mí ti gúúsù ni a ṣe àfihàn rẹ̀ nípasẹ̀ ìparun ọba ẹ̀mí àkọ́kọ́ ti gúúsù, ẹni tí ó jẹ́ Faranse aláìgbàgbọ́-Ọlọ́run ní àkókò Ìyípadà-ọba. Ìparun ìjọba gúúsù ní nínú ìparun ọba gúúsù pẹ̀lú. Ìparun Napoleon bá ìparun Faranse mu, ó sì fara mọ́ ìparun ìjọba tí ó tẹ̀lé e ti gúúsù, ẹni tí ó jẹ́ Rọ́ṣíà. Rọ́ṣíà gẹ́gẹ́ bí ọba òde òní ti gúúsù bẹ̀rẹ̀ pẹ̀lú ìyípadà-ọba, gẹ́gẹ́ bí Faranse pẹ̀lú, gẹ́gẹ́ bí ọba ti gúúsù, ti bẹ̀rẹ̀ pẹ̀lú ìyípadà-ọba.

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

Ìyípadà pátápátá jẹ́ àbùdá ejò ńlá náà, ẹni tí ó jẹ́ àmì àwọn ọba gúúsù. Ejò ńlá náà, àmì àkọ́kọ́ ti ọba gúúsù, ni Sátánì; bí ó sì ti ń gbìyànjú ìyípadà pátápátá kan ní òpin ẹgbẹ̀rún ọdún náà, iná sọ̀kalẹ̀ láti ọ̀run wá, ó sì run ún. Ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ rẹ̀ ní ọ̀run ní ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ ni alífà ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ rẹ̀ ní ìparí ẹgbẹ̀rún ọdún náà.

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

Ní ọdún 1798, ní ìtumọ̀ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀, Faranse gba ìtẹ́ gẹ́gẹ́ bí ọba ẹ̀mí ti gúúsù ní àkókò Ìyíkà Faranse. Ìyíkà náà gba inú àwọn orílẹ̀-èdè Yúróòpù kọjá, ó sì parí ní Ìyíkà Rọ́ṣíà, tí Ìyíkà Bolshevik sì tọ̀ ọ́ lẹ́sẹ̀kẹsẹ̀ ní ọdún kan náà.

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

Ìyípadà orílẹ̀-èdè Rọ́ṣíà ti ọdún 1917 ní ìgbésẹ̀ pàtàkì méjì: Ìyípadà Oṣù Kẹ́ta (èyí tí ó bì íjọba ọba Tsar lulẹ̀, tí ó parí ìṣàkóso aládàáṣẹ, tí ó sì dá ìjọba àkókò sílẹ̀ láàárín àkókò agbára méjì pẹ̀lú àwọn Soviet) àti Ìyípadà Oṣù Kẹwàá (tí a tún ń pè ní Ìyípadà Bolshevik, níbi tí àwọn Bolshevik lábẹ́ Lenin ti gba agbára nípasẹ̀ ìgbèlù kan, èyí tí ó yọrí sí ìdásílẹ̀ ìṣàkóso Soviet àti ọ̀nà sí sosialisimu/komunisimu).

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

Nínú àwọn àyẹ̀wò ìtàn àti ẹ̀kọ́ ìyípadà-gbòǹgbò (ní pàtàkì láti ojú ìwòye Marxist bíi ti Trotsky, Luxemburg, àti àwọn mìíràn tí wọ́n ń fa àfọwọ́kànsí ìbámu), Ìyíká Faranse (1789–1799) ni a sábà máa ń wo gẹ́gẹ́ bí ohun tí ó ṣe àfihàn tàbí tí ó pèsè àtẹ̀wọ́gbà ìlànà fún ipa-ọ̀nà àwọn ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ Rọ́ṣíà. Àwọn ìgbésẹ̀ méjì ti Ìyíká Faranse tí ó ṣe àfihàn àwọn ìpele Rọ́ṣíà wọ̀nyí ni:

- The initial moderate/constitutional phase (roughly 1789–1792), which aligns with the February Revolution. This French phase began with the storming of the Bastille, the convening of the Estates-General/National Assembly, the abolition of feudal privileges, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy under the Girondins and moderate reformers. It overthrew absolute monarchy but retained elements of bourgeois/liberal governance and dual/contested power structures (e.g., between the Assembly and the lingering monarchy). Similarly, February 1917 ended Tsarism, but led to a bourgeois provisional government and dual power with the Soviets.

  Ìpele àkọ́kọ́ oníwọ̀ntúnwọ̀nsì/tì Òfin Ìpilẹ̀ṣẹ̀ (ní ìṣírí láàárín 1789–1792), èyí tí ó bá Iyíká Oṣù Kẹ́ta mu. Ìpele Faranse yìí bẹ̀rẹ̀ pẹ̀lú ìkọlù sí Bastille, ìpèjọpọ̀ Estates-General/Àpéjọ Orílẹ̀-Èdè, ìparun àwọn ànfàní ìjọba amúnisìn, Ìkéde Àwọn Ẹ̀tọ́ Ọmọ ènìyàn, àti ìdásílẹ̀ ọba aláṣẹ tì Òfin Ìpilẹ̀ṣẹ̀ ní abẹ́ àwọn Girondins àti àwọn alátúnṣe oníwọ̀ntúnwọ̀nsì. Ó bì ìjọba ọba aláṣẹ pátápátá ṣubú, ṣùgbọ́n ó pa àwọn èròjà ìṣàkóso bourgeois/liberal mọ́ àti àwọn ìlànà agbára méjì/agbara tí a ń jiyàn lórí wọn mọ́ (fún àpẹẹrẹ, láàárín Àpéjọ náà àti ìjọba ọba tí ó ṣì kù). Bákan náà, Oṣù Kẹ́ta 1917 parí ìjọba Tsarism, ṣùgbọ́n ó yọrí sí ìjọba àkókò bourgeois àti agbára méjì pẹ̀lú àwọn Sovieti.

- The radical/Jacobin phase (roughly 1792–1794, including the establishment of the First Republic, the execution of Louis XVI, and the Reign of Terror under Robespierre and the Jacobins/Committee of Public Safety) aligns with the October (Bolshevik) Revolution. The Jacobins seized power from the more moderate Girondins through radical action, declared a republic, suppressed counter-revolution, and pushed the revolution toward deeper social transformation and defense against internal/external threats. This mirrors how the Bolsheviks overthrew the provisional government, consolidated proletarian/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat rule, and advanced revolutionary socialism.

  Ìpele onígbóná/Jacobin (ní àfojúsùn àkókò láàárín 1792–1794, pẹ̀lú ìdásílẹ̀ Orílẹ̀-èdè Àkọ́kọ́, pípa Louis XVI, àti Àkókò Ìbẹ̀rù lábẹ́ Robespierre àti àwọn Jacobins/Ìgbìmọ̀ Ìgbàlà Gbogbogbò) bá Ìyípadà Oṣù Kẹwàá (Bolshevik) mu. Àwọn Jacobins gba agbára lọ́wọ́ àwọn Girondins tí wọ́n túbọ̀ jẹ́ aláròjinlẹ̀ àárín gbùngbùn nípasẹ̀ ìṣe onígbóná, wọ́n kéde orílẹ̀-èdè olómìnira, wọ́n tẹ ìṣọtẹ̀ ìpadàsẹ́yìn mọ́lẹ̀, wọ́n sì ti ìyípadà náà síwájú sí ìyípadà àwùjọ tí ó jinlẹ̀ síi àti ìdáàbòbò lódì sí àwọn ìhalẹ̀ inú àti òde. Èyí jọ bí àwọn Bolsheviks ṣe bì ìjọba àkókò ṣubú, ṣe fi ìṣàkóso proletariat/ìṣàkóso alákòóso proletariat múlẹ̀ ṣinṣin, tí wọ́n sì gbé socialism ìyípadà síwájú.

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

Àwọn ìfarajọ wọ̀nyí fi hàn bí àwọn ìyípadà olóṣèlú ńlá ṣe máa ń tẹ̀lé àpẹẹrẹ kan ní ọ̀pọ̀ ìgbà: ìkọlù gbòòrò àkọ́kọ́ sí ìjọba àtijọ́ (tí àwọn agbára aláàárín/àwọn ọmọ ẹgbẹ́ oníṣòwò darí), lẹ́yìn èyí sì ni ìgbàgbé agbára púpọ̀ sí i láti ọwọ́ àwọn aláfẹ́fẹ́ ìyípadà jù lọ láti “gbà” kí wọ́n sì mú ìyípadà náà jinlẹ̀ sí i láàrín àkókò ìdààmú. Àwọn Bolshevik fúnra wọn mọ̀ọ́mọ̀ fa láti inú àpẹẹrẹ ilẹ̀ Faransé, níwọ̀n bí wọ́n ti wo ìdìde wọn ní October gẹ́gẹ́ bí ohun tí ó jọ ìṣípaya Jacobin—gẹ́gẹ́ bí ohun tí ó ṣe pàtàkì láti dènà ìyípadà-ìpadàsẹ́yìn kí ó sì mú agbára tí ó wà nínú ìyípadà náà ṣẹ.

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

Àpẹẹrẹ àfihàn àpẹẹrẹ-ìtumọ̀ yìí farahàn nínú àwọn iṣẹ́ bíi History of the Russian Revolution ti Trotsky (èyí tí ó fi gbangba ṣe àfíwéra ìpele agbára-méjì ní Rọ́ṣíà pẹ̀lú irú ìṣàkóso-ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ bẹ́ẹ̀ ní Faranse) àti nínú àwọn ìkọ̀wé Rosa Luxemburg lórí àwọn ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ Rọ́ṣíà, níbi tí ó ti ṣe àkíyèsí pé àkókò àkọ́kọ́ ti Ìyíká Rọ́ṣíà (March–October) tẹ̀lé àkànṣe àwọn ìyíká Faranse (àti Gẹ̀ẹ́sì), pẹ̀lú bí ìgbàba agbára àwọn Bolshevik ṣe bá ìgòkè Jacobin mu.

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

Nígbà gbogbo ni Jésù máa ń fi ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ ṣàpèjúwe òpin, ìparun Napoleon gẹ́gẹ́ bí ọba àkọ́kọ́ ti gúúsù ní ti ẹ̀mí sì tẹ̀lé àwọn àmì ọ̀nà tí ó wà ní ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ ìyípadà-ìjọba náà, àti ní ṣíṣe bẹ́ẹ̀, ó ṣojú fún ìparun Soviet Union.

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

Ìparun Napoléon tí ń tẹ̀ síwájú díẹ̀díẹ̀ (ní ìgbésẹ̀-nípasẹ̀-ìgbésẹ̀) bá ìrẹ̀wẹ̀sì díẹ̀díẹ̀ ti Soviet Union àti ìṣubú rẹ̀ ní ọdún 1991 mu pẹ̀kípẹ̀kí, nínú àtẹ̀jáde àpẹẹrẹ-ìran kan náà níbi tí ìpele méjì ti Ìyíká Faranse ti ṣàfihàn ṣáájú ìpele February àti October 1917 ti Ìyíká Rọ́ṣíà. Àfíwéra náà tún gùn dé ìpele ìfìdí múlẹ̀ lẹ́yìn ìpele onígbẹ̀mì-radical (Bonapartism) àti túútúú ìtúká rẹ̀ tí a kò lè yẹ̀ sílẹ̀. Èyí fà yọ láti inú àpẹẹrẹ ìtàn gbogbogbò àti láti inú àwọn ìtúpalẹ̀ Marxist pẹ̀lú (ní pàtàkì ti Trotsky nínú The Revolution Betrayed àti àwọn iṣẹ́ tó jọmọ́ rẹ̀), tí wọ́n ka Napoleon sí àwòrán àkọ́kọ́ Bonapartism: ìjọba alágbára ọkùnrin-kan tí ó dìde lẹ́yìn gíga onígbẹ̀mì-radical ti ìyíká kan, tí ó ń dọ́gbadọ́gba láàárín àwọn kiláàsì, tí ó ń pa àwọn èrè amúgbékalẹ̀ pàtàkì ti ìyíká náà mọ́ (nígbà tí ó ń tẹ ìtẹ̀síwájú tiwántìwá rẹ̀ mọ́lẹ̀), tí ó kọ́ ìjọba-ọba ti ara ẹni/tí ológun àti ìṣàkóso ọ́fíìsì-ìjọba ń gbé kalẹ̀, tí ó gbooro ju ààlà lọ, lẹ́yìn náà sì ní ìṣubú onípele-onípele tí ó yọrí sí ìmúpadàbọ̀ apá kan ti àtòlẹ́sẹẹsẹ àtijọ́.

## Napoleon’s Bonapartist Rise Parallels the Stalinist Consolidation

Ìgbéga Bonapartisti ti Napoleon Ṣe Àfíwéra pẹ̀lú Ìmúlẹ̀ Agbára Stalinisti

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

Lẹ́yìn ìpele alágbára Jacobin àti ìfàsẹ́yìn Thermidorian (1794), Ìjọba Directory aláìdúróṣinṣin (1795–1799), ìdìtẹ̀ ìyípadà 18 Brumaire ti Napoleon (1799) dá Ìjọba Consulate sílẹ̀, lẹ́yìn náà Ìjọba Empire (1804). Ó ṣe àkójọpọ̀ òfin, ó sì tan àwọn èrè ìyípadà bourgeois ká (Òfin Napoleonic, òpin àwọn ànfààní ìṣèjọba feudal, ìpínlẹ̀ alágbára tí a ṣàkóso láti àárín gbùngbùn), ṣùgbọ́n ó fi wọ́n sábẹ́ ìṣàkóso aláṣẹgàgà, ògo ológun, àti ẹgbẹ́ tuntun àwọn olókìkí.

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

Lẹ́yìn àkókò ìgbésẹ̀ onígbàgbọ́ Bolshevik/Oṣù Kẹwàá àti àwọn àdánwò Soviet ìbẹ̀rẹ̀, ìbàjẹ́ ọ́fíìsì-àṣẹ bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í gbilẹ̀ (ní pàtàkì láti àárín ọdún 1920s). Ìmújọba Stalin ṣẹ́gun Àtakò Òsì, ó fi “ìjọba-àwùjọ nínú orílẹ̀-èdè kan” múlẹ̀, ó sì dá ìṣàkóso apàṣẹ ọlọ́pàá/ológun/ọ́fíìsì-àṣẹ kalẹ̀. Ètò-ọrọ̀ tí a gbero àti ohun-ìní tí a fi sí abẹ́ ìní orílẹ̀-èdè (àwọn àǹfààní pàtàkì ti Oṣù Kẹwàá) ni a pa mọ́, ṣùgbọ́n a yí wọn padà sí irinṣẹ́ ẹgbẹ́ aláṣẹ olówó-àǹfààní kan, pẹ̀lú fífi ìmọ̀lára àgbáyé-sọ̀kan sílẹ̀.

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

Nínú ọ̀ràn méjèèjì, agbára ìyípadà-ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ náà ni a “dì” tí a sì tún darí rẹ̀ sínú agbára ìjọba àti ìfẹ̀síwájú ìtànkálẹ̀ rẹ̀ lábẹ́ ẹni kan ṣoṣo tàbí ẹ̀rọ-ètò kan ṣoṣo (Trotsky sọ ní kedere pé ìjọba Stalin jẹ́ irú “Bonapartism Soviet” kan, tí ó sún mọ́ Ilẹ̀-ọba Napoleon ju Ìgbìmọ̀ Aṣojú-Ìjọba lọ).

## The Step-by-Step Collapse

Ìparun Tí Ń Wáyé Nípasẹ̀ Ìgbésẹ̀ Ní Ìgbésẹ̀

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

Èyí ni ìbámu pàtàkì náà—ìdàkùlẹ̀ náà kì í ṣe ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ kan ṣoṣo lójijì, bí kò ṣe àtẹ̀lé àwọn ìrẹ́wẹ̀sì tí ń tẹ̀ lé ara wọn, tí ìfàgbòòrò ju ààlà lọ, àwọn àtakò inú, àwọn ìdẹkùn ogun, pípadànù ìṣàkóso lórí àwọn agbègbè ààlà, àwọn àtúnṣe tí ó kùnà, àti ìtúká/ìmúpadàbọ̀sípò ìkẹyìn ń fa.

## Napoleonic side (1812 to 1815)

Ẹgbẹ́ Napoléonì (1812 sí 1815)

- 1812: Disastrous invasion of Russia—Grande Armée (600,000 men) decimated by logistics, winter, and resistance. Catastrophic turning point; massive loss of prestige and manpower.

  1812: Ìkọlù apanirun sí Rọ́ṣíà—Grande Armée (ọkùnrin 600,000) ni ìpèsè, òtútù ìgbà òtútù, àti ìfaradàpamọ́ ṣubú lulẹ̀. Òǹpẹ̀ ìyípadà apanirun; àdánù ńlá ní ọlá àti agbára ènìyàn.

- 1813: Coalition forms against him; defeat at Leipzig (“Battle of the Nations”)—loss of German allies and territories; empire begins shrinking.

  1813: Ìṣọ̀kan àwọn orílẹ̀-èdè dá sí i; ìṣẹ́gun lórí rẹ̀ ní Leipzig (“Ogun àwọn Orílẹ̀-èdè”)—ìpàdánù àwọn alábàákẹ́gbẹ́ ara Jámánì rẹ̀ àti àwọn ilẹ̀ rẹ̀; ìjọba-ọba náà bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í kéré kù.

- 1814: Allies invade France proper; Paris falls; Napoleon abdicates and is exiled to Elba.

  1814: Àwọn alájọṣepọ̀ gbogun ti ilẹ̀ Faranse gan-an; París ṣubú; Napoleon fi ipò ọba sílẹ̀, wọ́n sì kó lọ sí Elba ní ìgbèkùn.

- 1815: Brief return (Hundred Days), final defeat at Waterloo; permanent exile to St. Helena; Bourbon monarchy restored (reactionary rollback of revolutionary gains, though not total—some legal/administrative changes survived).

  1815: Ìpadàbọ̀ kékeré (Ọgọ́rùn-ún Ọjọ́), ìparun ìkẹyìn ní Waterloo; ìkó lọ sí ìgbèkùn títí láé ní St. Helena; a tún fi ìjọba ọba Bourbon kalẹ̀ (ìfagilépadà alátakò ti àwọn èrè ìyíká, bí ó tilẹ̀ jẹ́ pé kì í ṣe pátápátá—diẹ ninu àwọn àtúnṣe òfin/ìṣàkóso ṣì wà láàyè).

## Soviet side (1970s to 1991)

Ẹgbẹ́ Sovieti (láti ọdún 1970 sí 1991)

- Late 1970s–1980s: Economic stagnation (“zastoi” under Brezhnev), chronic shortages, technological lag, and crippling arms race with the US/NATO—systemic overextension begins to hollow out the economy.

  Àwọn ọdún ìkẹyìn ọdún 1970 sí ọdún 1980: ìdádúró ọrọ̀-ajé (“zastoi” lábẹ́ Brezhnev), àìní ohun èlò tí ó ti di oníbàjẹ́, ìṣubú sẹ́yìn nínú ìmọ̀ ẹ̀rọ, àti ìdíje ohun ìjà tí ń bani ní jẹ́ pẹ̀lú Orílẹ̀-Èdè Amẹ́ríkà/NATO—ìtẹ̀síwájú ìfẹ̀ sí ìfàgbárí agbára gbogbo ètò bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í sọ ọrọ̀-ajé di òfo ní inú.

- 1979–1989: Afghanistan war—Soviet “Vietnam”; quagmire drains resources, morale, and international standing (note the ironic parallel: Napoleon destroyed in Russia; USSR bled in a rugged, resistant theater).

  1979–1989: Ogun Afghanistan—“Vietnam” ti Soviet; ẹkùn ìjà tí kò rọrùn láti yọ kúrò nínú rẹ̀ ń fa àwọn ohun èlò, ìgboyà ọkàn, àti ipò rẹ̀ lórílẹ̀-èdè àgbáyé rẹ̀ kúrò lọ́wọ́ rẹ̀ díẹ̀díẹ̀ (ṣe àkíyèsí àfíwé aláyàwòrán náà: a pa Napoleon run ní Rọ́ṣíà; USSR sì ṣàn ẹ̀jẹ̀ ní pápá ogun gíga tí ó le, tí ó sì kún fún ìfaradà sí i).

- 1985–1989: Gorbachev’s perestroika/glasnost reforms (attempted “saving” of the system, like some late Napoleonic adjustments) instead expose and accelerate contradictions; Eastern Bloc satellites revolt and break free (Berlin Wall falls November 9, 1989, regimes collapse across 1989–1990)—loss of the “outer empire,” exactly like Napoleon’s loss of allied states.

  1985–1989: Àwọn àtúnṣe perestroika/glasnost ti Gorbachev (ìgbìyànjú láti “gba” ètò náà là, bíi àwọn àtúnṣe Napoleonic kan ní ìparí) dípò bẹ́ẹ̀ ṣí àwọn àtakò inú rẹ̀ payá, wọ́n sì mú wọn yára pọ̀ sí i; àwọn orílẹ̀-èdè satẹlaiti ti Eastern Bloc ṣọ̀tẹ̀, wọ́n sì bọ́ sí òmìnira (Odi Berlin wó lulẹ̀ ní November 9, 1989, àwọn ìjọba sì wó lulẹ̀ káàkiri 1989–1990)—ìsonù “ìjọba òde,” gan-an gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìsonù àwọn orílẹ̀-èdè alájọṣepọ̀ Napoleon.

- 1990–1991: Internal nationalist crises, republics declare sovereignty; August 1991 hardliner coup fails spectacularly; Gorbachev resigns December 25, 1991; USSR dissolves into 15 states. Capitalist restoration follows (Yeltsin-era shock therapy, oligarchs, privatization)—analogous to the Bourbon restoration: prerevolutionary class elements (or their equivalents) return, rolling back full revolutionary property relations while keeping some administrative forms.

  1990–1991: Àwọn ìṣòro orílẹ̀-èdè abẹ́nú gbòde kan, àwọn orílẹ̀-èdè olómìnira kéde àṣẹ-aláṣẹ ara wọn; ìpẹ̀yà ìṣèlú àwọn alágbẹ̀mìnì ní August 1991 kùnà lápàǹdẹ̀; Gorbachev fi ipò rẹ̀ sílẹ̀ ní December 25, 1991; USSR túká sí àwọn ìpínlẹ̀ mẹ́ẹ̀ẹ́dógún. Ìmúpadàbọ̀sípò ètò olú-ìní tẹ̀lé e (ìtọ́jú mọnamọna àkókò Yeltsin, àwọn olígákì, ìmú ohun-ìní sí ọwọ́ aládáni)—ní ìbámu pẹ̀lú ìmúpadàbọ̀sípò Bourbon: àwọn èròjà ẹgbẹ́-òun-ìní ṣáájú ìyípadà-ọba (tàbí àwọn àfọwọ́dọ́gba wọn) padà wá, wọ́n sì ń yí padà sẹ́yìn kúrò nínú àjọṣe ohun-ìní ìyípadà-ọba pípé nígbà tí wọ́n ṣì pa díẹ̀ nínú àwọn àkóso ìṣàkóso mọ́.

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

Nínú àwọn méjèèjì, “ìjọba-ọba” náà (Ètò Ilẹ̀-nlá Faranse sí Ìlànà Ìdènà Ìṣòwò Yúróòpù rẹ̀ lòdì sí agbára Soviet Eastern Bloc/àkóso COMECON) fọ́ káàkiri láti inú síta, ìbàjẹ́ inú sì ń yára pọ̀ sí i, ìṣòro ìkẹyìn kan sì ṣí òfo inú rẹ̀ hàn gbangba, àwọn agbára àwùjọ àtijọ́ sì tún fi ara wọn hàn (ọba-ọba/kapitalisimu). Bonapartism fi hàn pé kò lè dúró pẹ́—“pírámítì kan tí a fi orí rẹ̀ dìde ṣe ìwọ̀ntúnwọ̀nsì,” gẹ́gẹ́ bí Trotsky ti sọ ọ́—nítorí pé ó dá lórí pípà ìpìlẹ̀ àkóso tiwántìwá ti ìyíkà mọ́lẹ̀, nígbà tí ó sì ń dáàbò bo (ṣùgbọ́n tí ó ń yi padà) ìpìlẹ̀ ètò-ọrọ̀ rẹ̀ láàrín àwọn ìkìmọ̀ òde tí ń bínú sí i. Ìṣubú Soviet kì í ṣe ohun “àìròtẹ́lẹ̀” ní ìwo jìnà ìtàn, bí kò ṣe ìpẹ̀yà ikẹyìn ìbàjẹ́ inú tí ń gòkè lọ nípasẹ̀ ìlọsíwájú rẹ̀, gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìjọba-ọba Napoleon náà kò ṣe parẹ́ lójijì, bí kò ṣe pé ó rẹ̀ dànù nípasẹ̀ àwọn ìṣẹ́gun-ìparun tó tẹ̀ lé ara wọn títí di ìmúpadàbọ̀sípò.

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

Ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ àti òpin Faranse àti Soviet Union bá ẹ̀rí ọba Ussiah àti Ptolemy mu. Ptolemy IV Philopator gba ìṣẹ́gun pàtàkì ní Ogun Raphia (217 BC) lórí ọba àríwá (Antiochus III), ṣùgbọ́n “a kì yóò fi í mú un lágbára”—ó dá àlàáfíà sílẹ̀ dípò kí ó tẹ̀síwájú lórí ànfààní náà, ó padà sínú adùn ayé àti gbígbé ara rẹ̀ ga, lẹ́yìn náà (gẹ́gẹ́ bí àkọsílẹ̀ tí a pa mọ́ sínú 3 Maccabees 1–2) Ptolemy bẹ Jerúsálẹmù wò lẹ́yìn ìṣẹ́gun rẹ̀. Níwọ̀n bí ọkàn rẹ̀ ti gbéraga, ó gbìyànjú láti wọ Ibi Mímọ́ Jùlọ kí ó sì fi ẹbọ rúbọ fúnra rẹ̀—ìṣe ìjẹgàba àti ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ sí Ọlọ́run tòótọ́. A fi ìjìyà ọ̀run lu ú (àrùn àìrìn), a sì tẹ́ ẹ ní ìtìjú, ó sì yí padà sí inúnibíni sí àwọn ènìyàn Ọlọ́run. Ìjọba rẹ̀ lẹ́yìn náà di ìjọba ìrẹ̀wẹ̀sì tí ń pọ̀ sí i ní kẹ̀kẹ́: ìbàjẹ́ ìwà, àwọn ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ inú ilú, àti pípàdánù agbára títí di ikú rẹ̀. Èyí ni àwòrán dígí pípé ti Ọba Ussiah (2 Chronicles 26:16–21) ẹni tí ọkàn rẹ̀ gbéraga lẹ́yìn àṣeyọrí ogun, tí ó sì wọ inú tẹ́ńpìlì láti sun tùràrí (nípa jíjẹ́ àṣẹ àwọn àlùfáà gbà), a sì fi ẹ̀tẹ̀ lu ú ní iwájú orí, èyí tí ó jẹ́ ìdájọ́ gbangba tí a lè fi ojú rí. Láti ìgbà náà lọ Ussiah gbé nínú ìyasọ́tọ̀, a gé e kúrò ní ilé Oluwa, títí di ikú—ìparun tí ó lọ lọ́ra, tí ó sì pẹ́, dípò ìparun ojúkan.

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

Àwọn méjèèjì jẹ́ àwọn ọba gúúsù, tí ìgbéraga wọn fi ara hàn nínú ìwọlé àìtọ́ sínú tẹ́ńpìlì ní Jérúsálẹ́mù, tí ìparí rẹ̀ sì tẹ̀lé e ní ìlọsíwájú ìbàjẹ́ díẹ̀díẹ̀ dípò ìṣubú lójijì. Èyí ni àpẹrẹ aṣoju ìtàn-ìran fún gbogbo “ọba gúúsù” tí ó wá lẹ́yìn náà.

## 1798: France Becomes the Spiritual King of the South

1798: Faranse Di Ọba Gúúsù Nípa Ẹ̀mí

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

Ní “àkókò òpin” (1798), Faransé aláìgbàgbọ́ nínú Ọlọ́run (agbára tí ó ṣẹ̀ṣẹ̀ fi àwọn àbùdá ẹ̀mí ti Ejibiti hàn gbangba—ìṣípayá Ọlọ́run ní gbangba, gẹ́gẹ́ bí Ìfihàn 11:8) ta ọba àríwá (Ìjọ Pápá) lójú nípa gbígbé Póòpù ní ìgbèkùn. Napoleon ni àwòrán ìmúṣẹ agbára ológun ìta yẹn. Faransé wọ adé gúúsù ní 1798, nítorí pé ó gbé ẹ̀mí àìgbàgbọ́ kan náà ga tí Ejibiti ìgbàanì ṣojú fún.

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

Ṣùgbọ́n gẹ́gẹ́ bí Ptolemy kò ti lè “lo àǹfààní ìṣẹ́gun rẹ̀ dé òpin,” bẹ́ẹ̀ náà ni ìpele onígbóná janjan ti Ìyíká Faranse kò lè mú àwọn èrè rẹ̀ dúró tàbí kó wọn jáde ní kíkún. Adé gúúsù náà ń lọ síwájú bí ìmọ̀-ọrọ̀ àìgbàgbọ́-Ọlọ́run ṣe ń dàgbà dé ìpẹ̀yà, tí ó sì rí ohùn ìjọba tuntun kan.

## Progressive Leadership Symbols: Napoleon to Lenin to Stalin

Àwọn Àmì Ìṣàkóso Onítẹ̀síwájú: Napoleon dé Lenin dé Stalin

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

Àwọn mẹ́tẹ̀ẹ̀ta wọ̀nyí kì í ṣe àìlètò; wọ́n jẹ́ àwọn ìparí onítẹ̀síwájú—olúkúlùkù wọn ń ṣojú ìpele míràn sí i nínú ìrìnàjò ọba gúúsù sí ìtúká díẹ̀díẹ̀ tirẹ̀ fúnra rẹ̀. Napoleon—àmì ńlá àkọ́kọ́ lẹ́yìn ọdún 1798. Lẹ́yìn tí ó ṣẹ́gun ní Ejibiti (gúúsù gidi), ó tàn ju ààlà lọ (ìpolongo Rọ́ṣíà ti 1812 jẹ́ àjálù tí ó bẹ̀rẹ̀ ọ̀wọ̀n ìpàdánù kan sí ìjọba rẹ̀ tí ó wà ní agbègbè òde rẹ̀ ní ìgbésẹ̀ lẹ́yìn ìgbésẹ̀ [1813–1814]), ó jìyà ìṣẹ́gun-ikẹyìn pátápátá (Waterloo 1815), a sì lé e lọ sí ìgbèkùn lẹ́ẹ̀mejì. Napoleon ṣojú ìparun onítẹ̀síwájú, nípasẹ̀ àwọn ìpele—gẹ́gẹ́ bí Ptolemy àti Uzziah gan-an.

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

Lenin gba adé ní Ìyíká Oṣù Kẹwàá ọdún 1917. “Ìtì” àwọn Bolshevik ń bá ogun sí ìlànà àtijọ́ lọ (pẹ̀lú agbára ẹ̀sìn). Ṣùgbọ́n ìpele ìgbẹ̀mìíró náà kò lè dúró ṣinṣin; àìlera ara Lenin fúnra rẹ̀ bẹ̀rẹ̀ ní kùtùkùtù, ètò náà sì bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í di ti ìṣàkóso ọ́fíìsì.

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

Stalin, olùdásílẹ̀ ìdúróṣinṣin (Bonapartismu Sovieti) “di” ìyíkà padà sínú ilẹ̀-ọba ológun àti ti àlámòfin-ìṣàkóso, ó pa èrè àtàkì rẹ̀ mọ́ (ètò-ọrọ̀ ajẹ́pínlẹ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí àfọwọ́kọ agbára ìjàkadì sí ètò amúnisìn ilẹ̀, ní ìbámu pẹ̀lú Òfin Napoleon), ṣùgbọ́n ó yí agbára náà sí inú ilẹ̀ (ìwẹ̀nùmọ́) àti sí òde (ìfàgbòòrò). Síbẹ̀, ọkàn gbé ara rẹ̀ ga nínú àìgbàgbọ́ nínú Ọlọ́run; ètò náà kò lè dájú pé yóò “lo ìṣẹ́gun rẹ̀ dáadáa” nítòótọ́. Ìfàgbòòrò ju ààlà lọ (Afganistani gẹ́gẹ́ bí àfọwọ́kọ tó bá ìrìnàjò Napoleon sí Russia mu), ìdákẹ́jẹ̀dákẹ́jẹ̀, àwọn àtúnṣe tí ó kùnà (perestroika ni ìsapá ìkẹyìn tí ìrètí rẹ̀ ti fẹ́rẹ̀ẹ́ tán), pípàdánù àwọn orílẹ̀-èdè abẹ́ ìṣàkóso rẹ̀ (1989–90 = pípàdánù “àwọn alábàákẹ́gbẹ́”), àti ìtúká ikẹyìn (1991).

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

Ìṣubú Àjọ Ìṣọ̀kan Soviet kì í ṣe ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ ojijì—ó jẹ́ èyí tí ń lọ síwájú ní ìpele déédéé, gan-an gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìjọba Napoleon ṣe yọ̀ kúrò ní agbára ní ìgbésẹ̀ lẹ́yìn ìgbésẹ̀, àti gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìjọba Ptolemy àti Ussiah ṣe rẹ̀yìn lẹ́yìn àkókò ìgbéraga wọn nípa tẹ́ńpìlì. “Ọba” gúúsù ní ìtumọ̀ ẹ̀mí (àìgbàgbọ́ nínú Ọlọ́run ní ìrísí ìṣàkóso ìjọba) gba ìdájọ́ pẹ́ pẹ̀lú tirẹ̀: a fà á ṣófo láti inú wá, kò sì lè tẹ̀síwájú láti gbé irọ́ náà ró, a sì gbá a kúrò lọ́wọ́ nínú ìṣísẹ̀padà-ọ̀nà ti ọba àríwá (ìjíde padà Ipò Pápá nínú ààyè òfo náà).

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

Ìyíká Faranse (ìgbésẹ̀ méjì) jẹ́ àwòrán àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ti Ìyíká Rọ́ṣíà (Fẹ́búárì àti Ọ̀kítóbà/Bọ́líṣẹ́fíìkì). Bónápátísìmù ti Nàpóléónì àti ìparun rẹ̀ díẹ̀díẹ̀ jẹ́ àwòrán ìfìdí múlẹ̀ Sítálínìstì àti ìparun díẹ̀díẹ̀ ti Ṣófíẹ́ẹ̀tì. Gbogbo èyí ni ìṣiṣẹ́de òde-òní ti ìlà ọba gúúsù nínú Dáníẹ́lì 11, láti inú àìṣeyọrí Tólémì ní Ráfíà àti ìgbéraga rẹ̀ sí tẹ́ńpìlì, kọjá nípasẹ̀ ẹ̀ṣẹ̀ kan náà gẹ́gẹ́ bí ti Úsáyà àti òpin rẹ̀ tí ó lọ díẹ̀díẹ̀, títí dé Faranse ní 1798 àti arole aláìgbàgbọ́ nínú Ọlọ́run rẹ̀ (àkókò Lẹ́nìnì–Sítálínì) tí kò lè fi àwọn ìṣẹ́gun rẹ̀ fúnra rẹ̀ gbé ara rẹ̀ ga.

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

Lenin, olùdásílẹ̀ tàbí olùgbà agbára ìṣàkóso alágbára jùlọ ní ọ̀nà ìyípadà gbígbóná (ní ìbámu pẹ̀lú ìgòkè Jacobin/Bolshevik; ìyẹn ìpele “titẹ síwájú” lẹ́yìn 1917, ó sì jọ Ìjọba Ìgbìmọ̀ Àkọ́kọ́ Napoleon ní ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ lẹ́yìn Brumaire). Stalin ni olùmúlẹ̀ ìṣàkóso Bonapartist (akọ́lé ìkọ́lé ilẹ̀-ọba Soviet, ìwẹ̀numọ́ nípa ìparun, iṣẹ́gun Ogun Àgbáyé Kejì, gíga jùlọ nínú Ogun Tútù; ọkàn rẹ̀ gbé ara rẹ̀ sókè nínú àìgbàgbọ́ nínú Ọlọ́run, ṣùgbọ́n kò lè “fi agbára mú” iṣẹ́gun náà dúró pátápátá ní ìgbà pípẹ́—ìfarapa nítorí ìtànkálẹ̀ ju ààlà lọ bẹ̀rẹ̀).

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

Khrushchev ni olórí “ìtúútù dínkù” lẹ́yìn ìgbà àkókò gíga jùlọ (1953–1964): ó bu Stalin (Ọ̀rọ̀ Àṣírí, 1956), ó ṣí díẹ̀ nínú ìbàjẹ́ payá, ó gbìyànjú àwọn àtúnṣe díẹ̀ tí ó ní ààlà, ṣùgbọ́n ó kùnà láti yanjú àwọn ìforígbárí ètò tí ó jìn ní gbòǹgbò. Èyí jọ ìpele “Thermidorian” tàbí ìpele ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ ìrẹ̀wẹ̀sì—ìdínkù ìjọba ẹ̀rù nígbà tí ìlànà àìgbàgbọ́ nínú Ọlọ́run tó jẹ́ ọ̀kan pàtàkì ṣì wà ní ipò rẹ̀, ṣùgbọ́n ọlá àti iyì rẹ̀ ń ṣubú (fún àpẹẹrẹ, ìtìjú Ìpẹ̀yà Àfọnfò Ojúrere Cuba ní 1962 jọ àwọn ìdènà kékeré ti Napoleon ní ṣáájú àwọn títóbi náà).

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

Gorbachev ni olùtúnṣe aláìnírètí (1985–1991) pẹ̀lú perestroika (àtúnṣe ìṣètò) àti glasnost (ṣíṣí síta) gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìsapá ìkẹyìn láti “gba” ètò náà là, ṣùgbọ́n wọ́n mú ìṣubú náà yára sí i—ìsonù Ìṣọ̀kan Ìlà Oòrùn (Odi Berlin 1989), àwọn ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ inú ilé. Èyí ni àmì “ìparí ìlọsíwájú” tí ó hàn gbangba jù lọ: bíi ti Napoleon nínú àwọn ìsapá àtúnṣe rẹ̀ ní ìkẹyìn kí ìkọlù ọdún 1814 tó dé, tàbí ti Ptolemy/Uzziah nínú ìrẹ̀wẹ̀sì ìtẹ̀síwájú wọn lẹ́yìn ìgbéraga tẹ́ńpìlì. Àdéhùn/ìpàdé Gorbachev ti ọdún 1989 pẹ̀lú Pope John Paul II (ọba àríwá) ṣàpẹẹrẹ ìṣẹ́gun ẹ̀mí yẹn—the ateism ti ọba gúúsù fi ara rẹ̀ jọ̀wọ́ fún ìjípadà agbára papal.

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

Yeltsin ni àwòrán ìtúkákẹ́yìn (láti 1991 lọ) tí ó ṣamọ̀nà sí ìfaradà sí ìdìtẹ̀ Oṣù Kẹjọ 1991, ó di ààrẹ Rọ́ṣíà, ó sì ń bójútó ìparun USSR (Oṣù Kejìlá 1991), ìmúlò ìtọ́jú ìjìyà nípa ìṣòwò aládàáni, àti ìmúpadàbọ̀ ìlànà olówó-ajé. Ó jẹ́ aṣojú òpin ìrudurudu náà àti “ìmúpadàbọ̀” apá kan ti àwọn ẹ̀yà ìṣáájú ìyíká-ọba (olówó-ajé oligarchy, bí ìpadàbọ̀ Bourbon lẹ́yìn Napoleon). A gbá ààfin ọba gúúsù lọ, ní ìmúṣẹ Danieli 11:40 nípa ìṣẹ́gun bí ẹ̀fúùfù àjàkálẹ̀ láti àríwá (Ìjọ Pápá nípasẹ̀ àdéhùn pẹ̀lú US).

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

Àpèjúwe aṣojú-ìran náà fi ìdájọ́ tí ń pẹ́, ní ìgbésẹ̀-nípasẹ̀-ìgbésẹ̀, hàn dípò ìṣubú lójijì, gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìṣẹ́gun Ptolemy IV ní Raphia ṣe yọrí sí ìgbéraga, ìwọlé sínú tẹ́ńpìlì, lílù láti ọ̀dọ̀ Ọlọ́run, àti ìràpadàkù tí ó lọ díẹ̀díẹ̀; bí ìyàtọ̀ Ussiah nínú ẹ̀tẹ̀ títí di ikú; àti bí àwọn ìpàdánù Napoleon ní ìpele-ìpele ṣe rí (Russia, Leipzig, Paris, Elba, Waterloo). Ìlà Soviet náà tọ́ka sí agbára gíga jùlọ lábẹ́ Stalin, sí ìfọ̀rọ̀wọ́kúrò inú tí ń lọ síwájú ní àkókò ìtútù Khrushchev tí ó fi àwọn àlàfo inú ètò náà hàn gbangba. Lẹ́yìn náà, ìdákẹ́jẹ́-ìdúró àkókò Brezhnev, àti lẹ́yìn náà, àwọn àtúnṣe Gorbachev di ohun tí ń mú ìyára kún un; àkókò Yeltsin sì parí ìgbá-kúrò náà (USSR tú ká, ìrísí ìjọba ti àìgbàgbọ́ nínú Ọlọ́run sì dópin). “Ọkàn tí a gbé sókè” hàn jákèjádò ìlà náà (ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ aláìgbàgbọ́ nínú Ọlọ́run), ṣùgbọ́n kò sí ẹni kankan tí ó “lo ìṣẹ́gun náà sí àǹfààní rẹ̀ jùlọ.”

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

Òpin àwọn ọba gúúsù jẹ́ ìlọsíwájú; ìparun Sátánì bẹ̀rẹ̀ ní orí àgbélébùú, a sì máa lé e lọ sí ìgbèkùn fún ẹgbẹ̀rún ọdún 1,000, lẹ́yìn náà ó sì kú.

> And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

> Mo sì rí áńgẹ́lì kan sọ̀kalẹ̀ láti ọ̀run wá, ó ní kọ́kọ́rọ́ kòtò àìnísàlẹ̀ náà àti ẹ̀wọ̀n ńlá kan ní ọwọ́ rẹ̀. Ó sì di ejò ńlá náà mú, ejò àtijọ́ yẹn, ẹni tí a ń pè ní Èṣù, àti Sátánì, ó sì dè é fún ẹgbẹ̀rún ọdún, ó sì ju ú sínú kòtò àìnísàlẹ̀ náà, ó sì tì í mọ́lẹ̀, ó sì fi èdìdì lé e lórí, kí ó má baà tan àwọn orílẹ̀-èdè jẹ mọ́ títí ẹgbẹ̀rún ọdún náà yóò fi pé: lẹ́yìn èyí náà, a gbọdọ̀ tú ú sílẹ̀ fún àkókò díẹ̀.

> And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.

> Mo sì rí àwọn ìtẹ́, wọ́n sì jókòó sórí wọn, a sì fi ìdájọ́ lé wọn lọ́wọ́: mo sì rí ọkàn àwọn tí a gé orí wọn nítorí ẹ̀rí Jesu, àti nítorí ọ̀rọ̀ Ọlọ́run, àti àwọn tí kò foríbalẹ̀ fún ẹranko náà, bẹ́ẹ̀ ni kò sì foríbalẹ̀ fún àwòrán rẹ̀, tí wọn kò sì gba àmì rẹ̀ sí iwájú orí wọn, tàbí sí ọwọ́ wọn; wọ́n sì yè, wọ́n sì jọba pọ̀ pẹ̀lú Kristi fún ẹgbẹ̀rún ọdún. Ṣùgbọ́n àwọn òkú yòókù kò tún yè títí di ìgbà tí ẹgbẹ̀rún ọdún náà fi pé.

> This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

> Èyí ni àjíǹde àkọ́kọ́. Alábùkún-fún àti mímọ́ ni ẹni tí ó ní ìpín nínú àjíǹde àkọ́kọ́: ikú kejì kò ní agbára lórí irú àwọn bẹ́ẹ̀, ṣùgbọ́n wọn yóò jẹ́ àlùfáà Ọlọ́run àti ti Kristi, wọn yóò sì jọba pẹ̀lú rẹ̀ fún ẹgbẹ̀rún ọdún.

> And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Revelation 20:1–10.

> Nígbà tí ẹgbẹ̀rún ọdún náà bá sì parí, a ó tú Sátánì sílẹ̀ kúrò nínú túbú rẹ̀, yóò sì jáde lọ láti tàn àwọn orílẹ̀-èdè tí ń bẹ ní igun mẹ́rin ayé jẹ, Gogu àti Mágogu, láti kó wọn jọ sí ogun; iye wọn sì dàbí iyanrìn etí òkun. Wọ́n sì gòkè lọ káàkiri ilẹ̀ ayé, wọ́n sì yí àgọ́ àwọn ẹni mímọ́ àti ìlú olùfẹ́ náà ká; iná sì sọ̀kalẹ̀ láti ọ̀dọ̀ Ọlọ́run láti ọ̀run wá, ó sì run wọ́n. A sì ju Èṣù tí ó tàn wọ́n jẹ sínú adágún iná àti imí-ọjọ, níbi tí ẹranko náà àti wòlíì èké náà wà; a ó sì máa jẹ wọ́n níyà lọ́sàn-án àti lóru títí láé àti láéláé. Ìṣípayá 20:1–10.

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

A ó tẹ̀síwájú pẹ̀lú ìṣàkíyèsí wa nípa ọba gúúsù nínú Dáníẹ́lì orí kọkànlá, ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá sí mẹ́ẹ̀ẹ́dógún, nínú àpilẹ̀kọ tí ó kàn.

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

Ìwé ìròyìn Àkókò Ìkẹyìn ni a tẹ̀ jáde ní ọdún 1996, ó sì dúró fún àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ láti inú ìwé Dáníẹ́lì tí a tú sílẹ̀ ní ọdún 1989. Láìpẹ́ yìí, ChatGPT ka ìwé ìròyìn náà, a sì béèrè lọ́wọ́ rẹ̀ láti ṣe àyẹ̀wò ipa Ukraine nínú ìtàn ẹsẹ̀ ogójì tí a ṣojú rẹ̀ nínú ìwé ìròyìn náà. Èyí tí ó tẹ̀lé e ni ìtúpalẹ̀ ìwé ìròyìn náà, èyí tí ó ti wà nínú àkọsílẹ̀ gbangba fún ọgbọ̀n ọdún. Ìpínrọ̀ àkọ́kọ́ láti inú àwọn ìkọ̀wé Ellen White nínú ìwé ìròyìn náà ni Testimonies, volume 9, 11.

## Overview: Ukraine in the Prophetic Framework

Àkótán: Ukraine nínú Ètò Àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ náà

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

Nínú àkójọ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ìwé ìròyìn náà lórí Dáníẹ́lì 11:40–45, a sọ̀rọ̀ nípa Ukraine ní ìbáṣepọ̀ pẹ̀lú ìwópalẹ̀ Soviet Union àti ìjàkadì láàárín Pápásì (ọba àríwá) àti komunísìmù aláìgbàgbọ́ nínú Ọlọ́run (ọba gúúsù). A fi Ukraine hàn gẹ́gẹ́ bí pápá ogun pàtàkì kan nípa ẹ̀sìn àti ìṣèlú ayé ní àkókò ìparí àwọn ìjà aṣojú náà, ní pàtàkì ní ìbáṣepọ̀ pẹ̀lú Ṣọ́ọ̀ṣì Kátólíìkì ti Ukraine àti ìfọwọ́sowọ́pọ̀ òfin fún un lẹ́yìn ọ̀pọ̀ ọdún ìkópa rẹ̀ mọ́lẹ̀ lábẹ́ ìṣàkóso Soviet.

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

Ìwé ìròyìn náà fi Ukraine hàn gẹ́gẹ́ bí apá kan nínú ìmúṣẹ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ tó gbòòrò síi ti Danieli 11:40, nípa ṣíṣe àpèjúwe fífà lọ ọba gúúsù náà nítorí àjọṣepọ̀ Vatican–Orílẹ̀-Èdè Amẹ́ríkà. A fi Ukraine hàn gẹ́gẹ́ bí ẹ̀rí ìrẹwẹ̀sì àìgbàgbọ́ Soviet àti ìjípadà agbára ipa Kátólíìkì ní Ìlà Oòrùn Yúróòpù.

## Ukraine in the War Between the King of the North and South

Ukérénì nínú Ogun Láàárín Ọba Àríwá àti Gúúsù

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

Ìwé ìròyìn náà ń kọ́ni pé ọba gúúsù jẹ́ àìgbàgbọ́ nínú Ọlọ́run, èyí tí a kọ́kọ́ fi hàn nínú France (1798) àti lẹ́yìn náà nínú Soviet Russia. Ọba àríwá sì ni ìjọ pàápàá, Daniel 11:40 sì ṣàpèjúwe ogun ti ẹ̀mí kan tí ó bẹ̀rẹ̀ ní ọdún 1798 tí ó sì parí ní ìṣubú Soviet Union ní ọdún 1989. Ukraine farahàn nínú àyíká yìí gẹ́gẹ́ bí ara ìṣọ̀kan Soviet tí a gbá lọ nínú ìmúṣẹ Daniel 11:40. Ìtẹ̀jáde náà fi ìṣubú Soviet Union hàn gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìgbésẹ̀ àkọ́kọ́ nínú ìmúláradá ọgbẹ́ ikú ti Ìjọ Pàápàá (Ìfihàn 13).

## Suppression of the Ukrainian Catholic Church (Quoted Sources)

Ìfipá Mímọ́ Kátólíìkì ti Ukraine (Àwọn Orísun Tí A Sọ Ní Títẹ̀síwájú)

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

Ìwé ìròyìn náà ní ìwé-ẹ̀rí ayé nípa inúnibíni Kátólíìkì lábẹ́ ìṣàkóso Soviet.

From Time Magazine, December 4, 1989:

Látinú ìwé ìròyìn Time Magazine, December 4, 1989:

> “After World War II, fierce but generally less bloody persecution spread into the Ukraine and the new Soviet bloc, affecting millions of Roman Catholics and Protestants as well as Orthodox.”

> “Lẹ́yìn Ogun Àgbáyé Kejì, inúnibíni líle ṣùgbọ́n tí kì í sábà jẹ́ ẹ̀jẹ̀ púpọ̀ tàn dé ilẹ̀ Ukraine àti àwùjọ Soviet tuntun, ó sì kan àràádọ́ta ọ̀kẹ́ àwọn Roman Catholics àti Protestants pẹ̀lú Orthodox.”

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

A mọ Ukrainè sí agbègbè pàtàkì kan níbi tí a ti tẹ Kátólíìkì mọ́lẹ̀ lábẹ́ ìṣàkóso kọ́múnísìmù.

## Legalization of the Ukrainian Catholic Church

Ìfọwọ́sí Òfin ti Ṣọ́ọ̀ṣì Kátólíìkì ti Ukraine

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

Ọ̀kan pàtàkì nínú ìjíròrò lórí Ukraine ni ìfọwọ́sí ní òfin ti Ìjọ Kátólíìkì ti Ukraine, tí a ti fi òfin fòfin dè fún àkókò pípẹ́.

From Life Magazine, December 1989:

Láti inú ìwé ìròyìn Life, Oṣù Kejìlá 1989:

> “Three new Catholic bishops have recently been named in Czechoslovakia. And this month Gorbachev meets Pope John Paul II during a visit to Italy—the first face-to-face encounter between leaders of the Kremlin and the Vatican. The sessions may lead to legalization of the long-banned Ukrainian Catholic Church in the U.S.S.R.”

> “A ti yan àwọn bíṣọ́ọ̀bù Kátólíìkì tuntun mẹ́ta ní Czechoslovakia láìpẹ́ yìí. Ní oṣù yìí pẹ̀lú, Gorbachev yóò bá Pópù John Paul II pàdé nígbà ìbẹ̀wò kan sí Italy—ìpàdé ojúkojú àkọ́kọ́ láàárín àwọn aṣáájú Kremlin àti Vatican. Àwọn ìpàdé náà lè yọrí sí fífi òfin fọwọ́ sí Ìjọ Kátólíìkì ti Ukraine tí a ti fòfin dè fún ìgbà pípẹ́ ní U.S.S.R.”

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

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

> “The revival of religious freedom is expected to include lifting of an official ban on the five-million-member Ukraine Catholic Church, which has survived underground since 1946 when Stalin ordered it absorbed into the Russian Orthodox Church. Winning legalization for the Ukrainian Church has been a primary aim of the pope’s.”

> “A retí ìmúpadàbọ̀sípò òmìnira ẹ̀sìn yóò kún fún ìyọkúrò ìdènà àṣẹ ìjọba kan lórí Ìjọ Kátólíìkì Ukraine tí ó ní ọmọ ẹgbẹ́ mílíọ̀nù márùn-ún, èyí tí ó ti yege ní ìpamọ́ lábẹ́ ilẹ̀ látì ọdún 1946, nígbà tí Stalin pàṣẹ pé kí a fi í sínú Ìjọ Ọ́tọ́dọ́ọ̀sì ti Rọ́ṣíà. Gbigba ìfọwọ́sí lábẹ́ òfin fún Ìjọ Ukraine ti jẹ́ ọ̀kan pàtàkì nínú àwọn ète póòpù náà.”

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

Ìwé ìròyìn náà fi èyí hàn gẹ́gẹ́ bí ẹ̀rí ìrẹ̀wẹ̀sì ìṣàkóso aláìgbàgbọ́ nínú Ọlọ́run àti ìmúpadàbọ̀sípò agbára Kátólíìkì. A dá a mọ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí àbájáde tààràtà ti ìtẹ̀síwájú ìfipá aṣojú Vatican, a sì gbé e kalẹ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí àmì pàtàkì kan nínú ìmúṣẹ Danieli 11:40, ní fífi Ukraine hàn gẹ́gẹ́ bí àpẹẹrẹ tí a lè rí ní kedere pé ìjọ Papacy ń tún ní agbára padà ní ilẹ̀ tí ó ti jẹ́ ti Kọ́múníìsì tẹ́lẹ̀.

## Ukraine as Evidence of the Papacy’s Advance

Ukraine gẹ́gẹ́ bí Ẹ̀rí Ìlọsíwájú Ìjọ Pápá

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

Ìparun ẹ̀kọ́ Komunisiti kì í ṣe gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìyípadà òṣèlú nìkan, bí kò ṣe gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìṣẹ́gun ẹ̀mí lórí àìgbàgbọ́-Ọlọ́run, ìlọsíwájú àgbègbè-ayé fún Ipápà, àti ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ ìpadàbọ̀ Ipápà sí àkóso ayé. Ukraine di àpẹẹrẹ ìwádìí nípa bí a ṣe tú ìfipá-múni pa ẹ̀sìn mọ́lẹ̀ ti Soviet ká, àti gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìṣẹ́gun ọgbọ́n-ọ̀nà ti Rome ní Ìlà Oòrùn Yúróòpù. Ó ṣojú ìyípadà tí a lè fi ojú rí láti inú àìgbàgbọ́-Ọlọ́run tí a fi agbára múlẹ̀ sí àṣẹ Kátólíìkì tí a tún gbé kalẹ̀, àti fífi Ìjọ Kátólíìkì ti Ukraine l’ẹ́tọ̀ọ́ jẹ́ ìmúṣẹ́ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ pé ọba àríwá ń gbá ọba gúúsù kúrò “bí ìjì líle.”

## Ukraine and the Broader Prophetic Sequence

Yúkréènì àti Ìtẹ̀sí Àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ Tí Ó Fẹ̀ Sì I

- 1798 – Papacy receives deadly wound.

  1798 – Ìjọba Pápá gba ọgbẹ́ ikú.

- 1917 – Atheism relocates to Russia (Bolshevik Revolution).

  1917 – Ìkọ̀sílẹ̀ Ọlọ́run kúrò níbi rẹ̀, ó sì ṣílọ sí Rọ́ṣíà (Ìyíkà Bolshevik).

- 1989 – Soviet Union collapses.

  1989 – Soviet Union túká.

- Ukraine – Catholic Church legalized.

  Yukirénì – A ti fọwọ́ sí Ìjọ Kátólíìkì ní òfin.

- Papacy regains geopolitical influence.

  Ìjọ Pápá tún gba àṣẹ ìmúnisìn-òṣèlú padà.

- United States eventually comes under Papal influence (Daniel 11:41).

  Orílẹ̀-èdè Amẹ́ríkà nígbẹ̀yìn-gbẹ́yà wá lábẹ́ àkóso ipa Pápá (Dáníẹ́lì 11:41).

- Entire world follows (Daniel 11:42–43).

  Gbogbo ayé ń tẹ̀lé e (Dáníẹ́lì 11:42–43).

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

Ukraine bá àwọn ìpele 3–4 mu gẹ́gẹ́ bí apá kan nínú ìyípadà láàárín àìgbàgbọ́ Soviet àti ìmúpadàbọ̀ ìfàṣẹ́yọrí ti Pópù.

## Sources Referenced in Ukraine Discussion

Àwọn Orísun Tí A Tọ́ka Sí Nínú Ìjíròrò Lórí Ukraine

- Jeff Pippenger (primary theological framework)

  Jeff Pippenger (àkópọ̀ ìmọ̀-ìjìnlẹ̀ ẹ̀sìn àkọ́kọ́)

Spirit of Prophecy

Ẹ̀mí Àsọtẹ́lẹ̀

- The Great Controversy

  Ìjà Ńlá náà

- Selected Messages

  Àwọn Ìfìrànṣẹ́ Tí A Yàn

- Testimonies for the Church

  Àwọn Ẹ̀rí fún Ìjọ

Secular Press

Àwọn Ìròyìn Aìlèsìn

- Time Magazine

  Ìwé Ìròyìn Time

- Life Magazine

  Ìwé Ìgbésí Ayé

- U.S. News & World Report

  Ìròyìn U.S. & Àrọ̀yé Àgbáyé

Ukraine is mentioned in connection with:

A mẹ́nuba Ukraine ní ìbáṣepọ̀ pẹ̀lú:

- Post-World War II Catholic persecution

  Inúnibíni Kátólíìkì lẹ́yìn Ogun Àgbáyé Kejì

- Underground survival of the Ukrainian Catholic Church

  Ìwalaàyè ìkọ̀kọ̀ ti Ṣọ́ọ̀ṣì Kátólíìkì ti Yukiréníà ní abẹ́ ilẹ̀

- Gorbachev–Vatican diplomacy

  Ìbánisọ̀rọ̀ Gorbachev–Vatican

- Legal restoration of Catholic hierarchy

  Ìtúnmúpadàbọ̀ ẹ̀tọ́ ti ìṣètò olórí Ìjọ Kátólíìkì

## Summary of Ukraine’s Role in the Newsletter

Àkótán Ìpín Ukraine nínú Ìwé Ìròyìn náà

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

Orílẹ̀-èdè Ukraine jẹ́ ibi-odi tí a ti pa Ẹ̀sìn Kátólíìkì mọ́lẹ̀ lábẹ́ àìgbàgbọ́-Ọlọ́run ti Soviet. Ìfòfin sílẹ̀ ti Ìjọ Kátólíìkì ti Ukraine jẹ́ àmì pé agbára ọba gúúsù ti ń rẹ̀wẹ̀sì. Ìfọwọ́kàn Vatican ní Ukraine fi ìjíde ipò Papacy hàn, àti pé ìyípadà ẹ̀sìn ti Ukraine ṣiṣẹ́ gẹ́gẹ́ bí ẹ̀rí gidi pé Danieli 11:40 ń ṣẹ. Àwọn ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ tó yí Ukraine ká jẹ́ apá kan nínú ìgbésẹ̀ àkọ́kọ́ nínú ìmúlaradá ọgbẹ́ ikú Papacy. Nítorí náà, a kò gbé Ukraine kalẹ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ òṣèlú alákòókòọ̀kan, bí kò ṣe gẹ́gẹ́ bí àmì wòlíì nínú àwọn ìṣípò ìkẹyìn ti Danieli 11.

Back to Articles