Prophetic Reckoner of the Visions of Daniel          Online Index          Feedback/Discussion


Daniel Chapter 10

1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.

2 In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks.

3 I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.

4 And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel;

5 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz:

6 His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

7 And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves.

8 Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength.

9 Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground.

10 ¶ And, behold, an hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and upon the palms of my hands.

11 And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee am I now sent. And when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling.

12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.

13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.

15 And when he had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the ground, and I became dumb.

16 And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips: then I opened my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, and I have retained no strength.

17 For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? for as for me, straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me.

18 Then there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me,

19 And said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me.

20 Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.

21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

Chapter 11

1 Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.

2 And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.

Three kings: This was revealed in the days of Cyrus, the first king of the Persian Empire. The Persian Empire was the second in the series prophesied by Daniel, the silver in the Image and the Bear in Chapter 7. Cyrus was succeeded as king of Persia by Cambyses and Cambyses by two Magi. The fourth king was Darius I Hystaspes, who stirred up the Persian Empire against Greece. This was the beginning of a long historical phase which lasted till the end of the Persian Empire and involved every Persian king (“all”) thereafter in wars and skirmishes with the city-states of Greece.

3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.

Mighty king: This was Alexander the Great of Macedon, who invaded the Persian Empire and destroyed it. The Greek or Macedonian Empire took its place, the third in the series prophesied by Daniel, the brass in the Image, and the leopard in Chapter 7. It continues in the reigns described in the next verse.

4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.

Shall be divided: When Alexander the Great died, his Empire was split up amongst four dynasties of his successors, descended from his generals (not his “posterity”), the Seleucid dynasty in the east (Babylonia), the Ptolemaic dynasty in the south (Egypt), the Attalid dynasty in the north (Asia Minor, Turkey), and the Antigonid dynasty in the west (Macedon, Greece), the two most important of the four being the Seleucids (in Babylonia) and the Ptolemies (in Egypt).

5 ¶ And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.

King of the south: This was Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt. Egypt and Ethiopia formed the southern section of the Greek-controlled area. Gradually power centered here in the south under the Ptolemies (named after the first Greek general of Egypt, Ptolemy), and in the north (Asia Minor, modern Turkey) for the most part under the Seleucids (named after the first Greek general of Babylonia, Seleucus). The terms “north”, “south”, etc., are the directions of the compass (“winds of heaven”, verse 4) as viewed from the Promised Land. The Seleucids ruled Babylonia (in the east) but also, more importantly Asia Minor (in the north), where Greek civilization had been longer established. As time went on, the north and east tended to form a single entity in opposition to the south and west. (The west comprised mainly Greece and the Aegean.) That is why it is the kings of the north and the south, so named, who feature in this prophecy. Here the king of the south, Ptolemy II Philadelphus is noted to have been in rivalry with his prince Magas of Libya. Ptolemy II eventually prevailed in that political tug-of-war, and became one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt.

This is the first of the seven important kings listed in this chapter. The king of the south, Ptolemy II Philadelphus. He appears here and dies (“given up” = betrayed to death) in verse 6.

6 And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king’s daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times.

The king’s daughter of the south: Ptolemy II Philadelphus and Magas were eventually reconciled. Ptolemy married Magas’ daughter, Berenice, and the product of their union was another Berenice, the “king’s daughter of the south” referred to here. She was wedded to Antiochus II Theos, the king of the north, in an attempt to bring the two major wings of the former single empire into political union. However, Antiochus’ previous wife Laodice conspired against the arrangement. All the parties involved were betrayed (“given up”) as a result, especially the plan’s instigator, Ptolemy II (“he that begat her”): to secure her own position, Laodice even had her rival Berenice murdered, and her attendants (“they that brought her”), as well as her own husband Antiochus (“he that strengthened her”).

This is the second of the seven kings, the king of the north, Antiochus II Theos. He both appears and dies here (“given up”) in verse 6.

7 But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail:

Shall one stand up: This was Ptolemy III Euergetes the brother of the murdered Berenice, and the successor to Ptolemy II Philadelphus. He avenged her death my launching an invasion of Babylonia, which resulted in his capturing Babylon itself (“the fortress of the king of the north”)

This is the third of the seven kings, the king of the south, Ptolemy III Euergetes, who appears here, arising from the “roots” (i.e. from Ptolemy II Philadelphus), and dying between verse 9 and verse 10, in the latter of which his succeeding “sons” are mentioned.

8 And shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the north.

Gods: Ptolemy III Euergetes took back to Egypt with him, not only the normal prisoners of war, and plundered treasures, but also idols which had been removed from Egypt by the Persian king Cambyses to Babylon. He continued in power in place of any recognized successor to Antiochus II Theos, the murdered king of the north, as the latter’s sons fought one another to reclaim the kingdom.

9 So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land.

Come into his kingdom: Having captured Babylon Ptolemy III Euergetes installed himself as king of the united kingdom, of the south and north, achieving the ultimate goal of Ptolemy II Philadelphus when he married his daughter to Antiochus II Theos. However, Ptolemy III Euergetes did not rule from Babylon, or establish a new capital in some other part of the united kingdom, but returned to his Egyptian homeland.

10 But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress.

His sons: These were Ptolemy IV Philopator followed by Ptolemy V Epiphanes, whose rousing of nationalist sentiments in Egypt (when “stirred up”) had the effect of vastly increasing the size of the Egyptian army (“a multitude of great forces”), as well as causing native discontent with foreign Greek rule. By this time a rival king of the north had emerged, Antiochus III the Great. He rose to power in Babylon, depriving Ptolemy III of his Seleucid territories towards the end of the latter’s reign, then attacked Egypt during the reign of his son, Ptolemy IV Philopator, and was only stopped at Gaza on Egypt’s eastern border at the Battle of Raphia 217 BC (“even to his fortress”), with the aid of the native forces now incorporated in Ptolemy’s ranks.

11 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.

Fight with him: Ptolemy V Epiphanes was provoked (“moved with choler”) to go beyond the borders of Egypt (“come forth”) and do battle with Antiochus III the Great, who was looking for an opportunity to drag the youthful king of Egypt into a war. Ptolemy’s army under Scopas marched to Syria, where, however, it was soundly defeated by Antiochus at the Battle of Panion near the sources of the Jordan c. 200 BC.

These are the fourth and fifth of the seven kings. The fourth is the king of the north, Antiochus III the Great, who appears here and dies in verse 18. The fifth, the king of the south (and the latter of the two sons referred to in verse 10), is Ptolemy V Epiphanes, who appears here and dies in verse 26. The predecessor of Ptolemy V Epiphanes as king of Egypt (the first of the sons referred to in verse 10, Ptolemy IV Philopator), does not figure in the list of seven kings, because it is a list of the seven kings recognized by the Chaldaean priesthood as kings of Babylon (later of Mystery Babylon), as detailed in the following section: and by the time the first son took power in Egypt, the kingship of Babylon had already been seized from Ptolemy III Euergetes, the third king, at the very end of his reign, by Antiochus III the Great, the fourth king. Thus the son of Ptolemy III Euergetes never succeeded to the throne of Babylon won by his father. However, his successor, the latter of the two sons, Ptolemy V Epiphanes, entered into a political union with Antiochus III the Great, as described in verse 17, which re-established his claim to the kingdom.

12 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.

He shall not be strengthened by it: The victory at Panion was a moral boost for Antiochus, but did not materially affect the balance of power between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, as Ptolemy V Epiphanes now had the backing of Rome. The huge number of victims sacrificed to the ambitions of Antiochus, running in the tens of thousands (at Raphia alone more than 11,500) had not at all advanced his cause of welding the eastern Greek empires into one under his own autocratic control. Antiochus III was “Great” only in the sense that he was politically and militarily energetic, not in the sense that he achieved anything of lasting worth.

13 For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches.

For the king of the north shall return: Antiochus III the Great turned to a new strategy, using his gains in manpower and resources to win by subtlety what he could not win by force, given Ptolemy’s Roman alliance. The new strategy of Antiochus aimed to exploit nationalist stirrings (the “multitude”) amongst the former allies of Ptolemy, as Ptolemy had done amongst the native Egyptians. This strategy was put into effect when he returned to Syria and Palestine in the first few years of the second century BC.

14 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.

Many stand up against the king of the south: Amongst those whose nationalist ambitions were encouraged by Antiochus III the Great were the Jews. They now abandoned Ptolemaic Egypt as their chief political support and looked to Antiochus, the victor of Panion, instead. Antiochus scrupulously fostered favor with them. Nationalist aspirations led some Jews to promote the idea of an independent Jewish state. This led eventually to the Maccabaean revolt and the failed experiment of the Hasmonaean kingdom. The participants in those movements saw them (wrongly) as a fulfillment of the visions of Daniel. Most modern commentators have adopted their nationalist propaganda and interpret the Book of Daniel accordingly as a prophecy ex eventu of the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the days of the Maccabees.

15 So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand.

Cast up a mount: Antiochus followed up his victory at Panion by besieging Gaza (“cast up a mount”) which remained loyal to Ptolemy, and eventually laid it waste. This was considered one of the great military episodes of the times. The other fortified cities of Batanea, Abila and Gadara east of Jordan, along with Sidon, and the cities of Judaea and Samaria, fell likewise to Antiochus, with or without a struggle. Ptolemy was powerless to prevent the occupation.

16 But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.

He shall stand in the glorious land: Judaea and Jerusalem willingly accepted Antiochus, who now had a free hand throughout Syria to implement his new policy (“his own will”).

17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

He shall give him the daughter of women: Antiochus was still unable to break the power of Ptolemy in Egypt itself, and so continued his policy of intrigue rather than outright conflict. Even faithful Israelites (“upright ones”) were grateful for Antiochus’ willingness to benefit their nation and came over to his cause. He offered Ptolemy peace along with the hand of his daughter Cleopatra, and the revenues of his Syrian and Palestinian territories. This was a marriage of convenience (“corrupting her”), intended merely to further Antiochus’ imperialist ambitions. His hope was that through it the whole kingdom would be brought under his control. As it turned out, Cleopatra defended her new husband and his right to the territories whose revenues had been transferred to him, rather than her father Antiochus.

18 After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him.

After this shall he turn his face unto the isles: Antiochus in 197 BC moved out of Syria and shifted the focus of his operations to the coast of Asia Minor, the Aegean islands and Greece, where he made important territorial gains. His meddling here, however, brought upon him the wrath of Rome, and the consul Lucius Cornelius Scipio (“a prince for his own behalf”) was sent to curb his ambitions. Rome was busy building a bridgehead in Asia, with the help of Pergamum, and Antiochus’ territorial interests conflicted directly with theirs, though Antiochus had otherwise no quarrel with Rome, and certainly was not seeking one. (“Without his own reproach he [Scipio] shall cause it to turn upon him.”) The Roman consul forced Antiochus to retreat not only from Greece and the Aegean but from the whole of Asia Minor, by routing him militarily at the Battle of Magnesia 190 BC.

19 Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.

He shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: Antiochus returned humiliated to Mesopotamia, and lost his life shortly thereafter in a raid on a temple area in the eastern mountains of Elymais, attempting to rob it of its wealth in order to pay the reparation imposed by his Roman conquerors.

20 Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.

Raiser of taxes: This successor of Antiochus III the Great, Seleucus IV Philopator, is not called king of the north here, as Antiochus was heretofore. That is because the north (Asia Minor) had been lost to the Seleucids at the Battle of Magnesia, and they only held the east (Babylonia) now. The kings of the north and south in Daniel’s last vision, who appear later as the seven heads on the beast in Revelation Chapter 13, are a select group of seven, and must not be confused with other participants in the action mentioned incidentally as the narrative proceeds. Seleucus IV Philopator is one of these incidental participants and is therefore referred to merely as a “raiser of taxes”, not “king”. Indeed, he was forced to pay a heavy annual tribute to Rome on account of the recent war. He was notorious for his attempt to confiscate the Temple treasures of the Jews through the mission of his minister Heliodorus, as detailed in II Maccabees 3. 1 through 4.7. Heliodorus betrayed and murdered Seleucus on his return to Babylonia (“he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle”).

21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

And in his estate shall stand up a vile person: The “raiser of taxes” of the previous verse is not termed king, and did not take the place of Antiochus III the Great as king. Here another is said to have stood up “in his estate”, and, in his case, to have indeed obtained “the kingdom”, if only by “flatteries”. The kingdom is the kingdom of the north, as this same person is called later, in verse 40, the “king of the north”. Most commentators wrongly presume this “vile person” simply replaced the “raiser of taxes”, viz. Seleucus IV Philopator, and, in view of the following prophecies about his activities targeting the Jewish people, identify him as Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It has been found impossible, however, to mesh the prophecies of the latter part of this Chapter with the history of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Secular critics then claim the writer of the prophecy must have “got it wrong” when he prophesied about the future doings of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, as opposed to events which had already happened. That is, they assume the whole thing was faked after the event, and made to look like a prophecy of the future. Simply put, and casting aside the ramblings of critics, the common view is contradicted by history. The very first words of the prophecy (“in his estate shall stand up a vile person”) cannot apply to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, since he did not directly succeed Seleucus IV Philopator, the “raiser of taxes”, but only took the throne after two intervening reigns, viz. that of Heliodorus, the murderer of Seleucus IV Philopator, and that of Antiochus, the infant son of Seleucus IV. Furthermore, the king of the south whom this “vile person” is said to have been contemporary with, and to have rivaled, a little later in the account, in verse 25, is the very same king of the south whose history has just been recounted in the preceding verses, viz. Ptolemy V Epiphanes, for he is not noted to have died in the interval. (Ptolemy’s death is referenced later in verse 26.) But Ptolemy V Epiphanes never was a contemporary of Antiochus IV Epiphanes: the latter came to the throne years after the death of the former. Seleucus IV Philopator was still king of the Seleucid realms when Ptolemy V Epiphanes started the war referred to in verse 25, which resulted in the latter’s death (in verse 26). The “vile person” of this verse, therefore, must be someone else. Indeed, Antiochus IV Epiphanes was not at any time “king of the north”, because, by the time he took the throne, Asia Minor (the “north”) had been removed from the dominion of the Seleucids: Antiochus III the Great was ousted by the Romans from Asia Minor at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC. Historically, the king who replaced Antiochus III the Great as king of the north (Asia Minor) was the king of Pergamum. This, therefore, the king of Pergamum, must be the “vile person” referred to here who stands up in the “estate” of Antiochus III as king of the north. The following verses inform us that this same “vile person” continues to rule till the end time, even until God Himself sets up His kingdom. He is, therefore, identical with the mysterious, evil, “little horn” of Daniel Chapter 8 (as well as the “little horn” of Daniel Chapter 7 in the end-time phase of his activity), who emerges out of one of the four horns of the Greek empire which are located at the four cardinal directions, and rules till the time God establishes His kingdom on earth: as is clear from this passage in Chapter 11, the horn (kingdom) from which he emerges is located in the north quarter, Asia Minor. The same is indicated by the wording in Chapter 8 (8. 9) which says the little horn “waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land” (the last being the Promised Land), since the directions of the compass advanced upon by the little horn were east and south, showing his own land (from which he advanced) was in neither of those directions. The “little horn” is said in Chapter 8 to be animated by an evil spiritual power. He is, in fact, the embodiment of the Luciferian spirit of the ancient Babylonian kingdom, for the reasons outlined in the following section. Lucifer is incarnated multiple times in this “vile person”, and shifts the seat of his power from Babylon, to Pergamum, and finally to Rome, till his ousting at the end time by the advent of the Messiah. The following prophecies relate first to his incarnation in successive kings of Pergamum, then to his incarnations in successive holders of the office of Pontifex Maximus in pagan Rome, in the latter part of that phase, the Roman Emperors, and then in successive holders of the same office in Papal Rome, that is, in the Bishops or “Popes” of Rome. The first king of Pergamum, Attalus I, once controlled the whole of the Asian dominions of the Seleucids of Babylon, and subsequently a reduced area in Asia Minor, which he disputed with Antiochus III the Great. Already, therefore, even during the life time of Antiochus III the Great, Attalus I, the king of Pergamum, opposed him, and made a claim on his territories (that is, stood up “in his estate”). As predicted in the vision, Attalus I and his successors finally obtained the kingdom by “flatteries”, that is, by flattering the Romans. After the Battle of Magnesia Asia Minor (the kingdom of the north) was completely in their power by the dictat of Rome.

This “vile person” is the sixth king of the group of seven, the king of the north, multiply reincarnated, first in the kings of Pergamum, then as the pagan Pontifex Maximus of Rome, and finally as the Papal Pontifex Maximus of Rome, as already described. He appears here and perishes in verse 45.

22 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.

The prince of the covenant: The covenant in this chapter is God’s Covenant with Israel (see verses 30 and 32). The Prince of the Covenant, therefore, is the Messiah, the Seed promised to David and termed the Prince of the kings of the earth (Revelation 1. 5). Lucifer incarnate in the “vile person” attacked the Prince (Jesus) with the “arms of a flood”, that is, with the troops of Rome who flooded into Palestine in the days of the Empire. Similarly the “little horn” of Chapter 8 (8. 10-11) is said to attack the Prince of the Host (the Messiah), and His heavenly Temple (the Body of Jesus), and the stars (the saints of God), and to trample the latter underfoot. The invasion of Palestine (“flood”) is referred to again later in the prophecy. Note that the “vile person”, the “king of the north”, uses armed forces, but is not said to lead them. In his incarnation as the king of Pergamum, he used the armed forces of the Seleucids and of Rome against his enemies; in his incarnation as the pagan chief priest of Rome, the Pontifex Maximus, he was the religious head, not the military head, of the armed forces; and in his final incarnation as the Papal Pontifex Maximus he masqueraded, and continues to masquerade, as a religious authority, yet directing all the while the political and military forces of the nations subject to his authority or his intrigue.

23 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 come up, and shall become strong with a small people: Following the pact made between the Chaldaean priesthood, represented by the Chaldaean priest Berossus and his daughter, and Attalus I, the ruler of the comparatively minor kingdom of Pergamum rose to a prominent position, in religious terms, as the “bull-horned” incarnation of the god Dionysus (known as Tammuz in Babylon), and, in political terms, as an influential figure through whom Rome could exercise a measure of control over the boisterous Hellenistic kingdoms of the east.

24 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.

He shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: The most productive portions of Asia (“the fattest places of the province”) gradually fell under the control of Attalus I and his successors, principally because of the backing they received from Rome. Another significant factor was the wealth which had otherwise mysteriously fallen into the hands of the Pergamene dynasty, and was liberally dispensed in return for political favors. It was a calculated policy (“forecast his devices”) aimed at achieving maximum power for minimum cost in manpower, which was where Pergamum paled in comparison to its rivals, the Seleucids and Ptolemies, who were notorious for the immense hosts they were able to field in battle.

25 And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him.

He shall stir up his power and his courage: Here the king of Pergamum, the king of the north, is said to stir up his “power and courage”, with his substantial military forces (“great army”), against Ptolemy V Epiphanes, the king of the south, but not actually to have embarked on any military enterprise against him. This was the case: a rivalry between Pergamum and Egypt developed, even over such matters as the size and quality of their respective royal libraries, but no outright conflict. On the other hand, Ptolemy V Epiphanes initiated a military campaign (“shall be stirred up to battle”) against Seleucus IV Philopator, king of the eastern territories of Babylonia, and introduced a fiscal reform to pay for the huge forces needed to accomplish it. His plan failed to materialize on account of its unpopularity with the ruling classes of Egypt, who plotted, in fact, to overthrow Ptolemy (“they shall forecast devices against him”).

26 Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain.

They that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him: The plot succeeded, and Ptolemy V Epiphanes died by the administration of poison (as implied in the phrase “portion of his meat”, one part being poisoned). The military forces of the Ptolemaic Empire drifted into a long phase of internecine conflict (“shall overflow”) in which the innumerable casualties were Egyptians themselves (“many shall fall down slain”). This period only came to an end with the overthrow of the House of Ptolemy by the Romans and the incorporation of Egypt finally into the Roman Empire 30 BC.

27 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.

They shall speak lies at one table: Here the duplicity of the two lines of kings, of the north and south, is highlighted, and the fact that they made treaties and alliances with each other in order to unite their kingdoms together (especially the two alliances sealed by the marriages of Berenice and Cleopatra), but failed to achieve their aim. The kingdoms were not united under one head till the time of the Roman Empire. So here “yet” another “time appointed” (Hebrew “moed”) is said to come round till that end-time result is attained, of the union under the “vile person”. The word “yet” means “later in a series”: the end will be at an appointed time (“moed”) “later in the series”. This is the first mention of a “moed”, and is followed by two other references in the following verses, making three “moeds” in all. These precede the placing of the “abomination that maketh desolate” (filth put on the desolate Temple site in Jerusalem) mentioned in verse 31. Following that point, there is a final period, which is comprised of a “moed, moeds and one of the two portions made by halving a moed”, and is equated with 1290 days (12. 7 and 11): in other words, the final period after the “abomination that maketh desolate” comprises three and one half “moeds”, each “moed” lasting 360 days, which totals 1260 days, plus an intercalary 30 days. The terminus of the final period of 1290 days is the revealing of the sealed mysteries at the end-time (12. 9). This means the vision spans seven “moeds” or “times” in all, the first three simple “moeds”, plus the final three simple “moeds” and the one divided “moed”, and is therefore the precise macrocosmic equivalent, transpiring in history, of the prophetic “seven times” (years) which passed over Nebuchadnezzar. These “moeds” are proved to be, by the content of the narrative itself, long cycles of historical time, not merely single years. A single “moed”, for example, encompasses all the historical activity referred to between verse 29 (where the passing of one “moed”, “time”, is mentioned) and verse 35 (where the passing of the next “moed”, “time”, is mentioned). Nebuchadnezzar’s years being the prophetic foreshadowing of these “moeds”, each “moed” comprises 360 years (prophetic years termed “days”), rather than 360 literal days, as in the luni-solar year of the Jews. The first “moed” of 360 prophetic (360-day) years, or just under 355 years in the Julian calendar, beginning from the recovery of Nebuchadnezzar in 552 BC, lasted till 197 BC: this is at the transition between the end of the reigns of the fourth and fifth kings (Antiochus III the Great and Ptolemy V Epiphanes) and the beginning of the reign of the multiply reincarnated sixth king (of Pergamum, pagan Rome, and Papal Rome) and hence is mentioned here, at the beginning of the sole rule of the sixth king. The Jewish year Tishri 198 to Elul 197 BC was, in fact, the year of the betrothal of Cleopatra to Ptolemy V Epiphanes, during the reign of Attalus I of Pergamum (the first of the incarnations of the sixth king), which was the last of the deceitful agreements between the two kings mentioned in this verse.

28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

His heart shall be against the holy covenant: The “heart”, that is the Chaldaean religion, of the king of Pergamum was “against the Holy Covenant”, but his “exploits” did not result in any territorial gains, either in Palestine or elsewhere. For example, in the only notable military adventure which can be demonstrated for that era, but depending largely on his Roman allies, the king of Pergamum (Eumenes II) won a victory against the fleet of Antiochus III the Great at Corycus in 191 BC, thereafter returning “to his own land”. The riches, not the military prowess, of the Attalids of Pergamum are what their Empire was built on. The word “return” also means “be renewed”, and could be understood as a reference to the sixth king’s “change of form” from one king to another, in this case from Attalus I to his successor Eumenes II. (See likewise on verse 30, and the cross-reference to verse 29.)

29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.

At the time appointed he shall return: Here is the second “moed” or “time appointed”. It begins in 197 BC and runs on till AD 159. The king of the north comes towards the south, but not as on the “former” or the “latter” occasions (the two campaigns against Egypt in the days of Antiochus III the Great, verses 10 and 13ff.), when no harm was suffered by the Jews, rather the reverse. Now, with his “heart” against the Holy Covenant, the Jews find themselves under persecution. (On the word “return” here see the comment on verse 30 infra.)

30 ¶ For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

He shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: The ships of Chittim are Roman ships, the people of Italy being anciently known as Chittim. The king of Pergamum, in the new spirit of rivalry with the House of Ptolemy, made an alliance with the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and the latter launched an assault on Egypt. This was frustrated, however, by the arrival of a Roman delegation by ship: the Romans forced Antiochus to withdraw. Here the Pergamene king is said to have suffered a political, rather than a military, humiliation (“shall be grieved”), having advanced on a course he later had to abandon. On the way back to his Seleucid homeland, Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem, and turned it for a limited period of time into a Temple of Zeus, c. 169-164 BC. This is the incident wrongly identified by the Maccabaean propagandists and by many modern, liberal, scholars, as the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy of the “abomination that maketh desolate” of verse 31, but that was a “desolation”, not a “desecration”, and was not fulfilled till a later time. (See on verse 14 supra for the false interpretation, and on verse 31 infra for the true fulfillment of the vision. The “abomination that maketh desolate” of these verses is different also from the “transgression of desolation” of Daniel 8. 13, cf. 8. 12, which was an assault by sinful “transgression” on the Heavenly Sanctuary. The “little horn” of Chapter 8 committed this spiritual assault on heaven only after his political and military expansion on earth, including an advance on the Promised Land, cf. 8. 9-10. A spiritual assault of the king of the north is referenced later in this chapter, in verses 36ff., placed chronologically likewise after the attack on the Promised Land and the associated desolation of the Temple in Jerusalem.) The religious component in Antiochus’ persecution expressed, nevertheless, the “indignation” of the Seleucid king and his Pergamene backers, who were worshipers of the Greek supreme god Zeus identified with the Chaldaean god Bel, “against the Holy Covenant”. The religious “indignation” was building up awaiting an appropriate opportunity to attack and destroy the People of God. Historically, these indirect dealings were the last Pergamum had with the Jewish State. The Seleucids, on the other hand, continued to war with Jewish nationalists they had stirred up to open rebellion, the Maccabees and Hasmonaeans, and they eventually managed to carve out a kingdom for themselves, which endured for a short while. Thereafter the Seleucid power declined till it was extinguished by the Parthians in 141 BC. The short and sharp persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes was a foretaste merely of what was to follow. But this was not the work of the sixth king in his incarnation as the king of Pergamum: Pergamum faded at the same time as the Seleucid power in the east. The first occurrence of the word “return” in this verse, meaning “return to his own land”, as in verse 28, refers to the only other, very minor, military exploit embarked on by the king of Pergamum (Attalus II) in that era, viz. the war with Diegylus the Thracian in 145 BC, at the successful conclusion of which he returned to the Pergamene homeland. Again, the word “return” can mean “be renewed”, as in verse 28, with reference to the sixth king’s change of form from one king to another, in this case from Eumenes II to his successor Attalus II. Thereafter the sixth king of the north is said to “return” at a later time, alternatively, or additionally, to “be renewed”, as Attalus III, the last of the Pergamene line. During this phase he is said to “have intelligence with them that forsake the Holy Covenant”. Even before the Pergamene kingdom was transferred to Rome, the Chaldaean priesthood had incorporated elements of heretical Judaism into its religious system, identifying Jehovah with Zeus Sabazios, and representing the Chaldaean Sibyl, Berossus’ daughter Sambethe, as an exponent of Hebrew monotheism. When the Pergamene kingdom was handed over to Rome by Attalus III, the Roman Chief Priest and Sacred King, the Pontifex Maximus, became the multiply reincarnated sixth king of the north (the “return” or “renewal” referred to by way of anticipation in verse 29), and the Romans absorbed the Jewish State into their Empire. They took under their wing at that time heretical Jewish and pseudo-Christian sects (“them that forsake the Holy Covenant”), who, like the Hellenizing Jews in the days of Antiochus, turned against the Jewish State and eventually, in the course of the first century AD, advised the Romans to destroy it.

31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

The abomination that maketh desolate: As the Roman Pontifex Maximus, at this stage in history, the Emperor of Rome himself, — the king of the north had power to do what he had been contemplating for so long: the “arms”, that is, the armed forces of Rome, were at his disposal, and under the command of the general Titus they polluted and utterly destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem AD 70. They removed the daily sacrifice and replaced it with filth (the Hebrew word “abomination” means “filth”), spread over the “desolate” Temple site. This was not simply a “desecration”, like that of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but a total “desolation”. Jesus Himself identified this event as still future in the days of His incarnation. (Matthew 24. 15, Mark 13. 14.) It could not be, therefore, as it has commonly been mistaken to be, the less significant desecration of Antiochus IV. The account in the following verses also of a new god promoted by the king of the north, of the prolonged persecution by him of the saints, of his invasion of Egypt and Ethiopia, of the end-of-the-world battle between him and Michael, culminating in the Resurrection and Judgment, can not, by any stretch of the imagination, be understood to have been fulfilled in the history of Antiochus IV.

32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

The people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits: The corruption of the professing Church by heretical teachers went on apace in this period, especially by those who ingratiated themselves with the pagan Roman ruling classes, like those “Christians” who forged Sibylline Oracles, and mixed Christianity with paganism. On the other hand, the true Church of Jesus Christ preached the Gospel in its original purity with the power of the Holy Spirit, confirmed by signs and wonders as promised by Jesus (Mark 16. 17f.).

33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

Yet they shall fall by the sword: This also was the age of persecution, when the faithful, non-heretical, believers in Jesus Christ were persecuted mercilessly by the Roman authorities and put to death in the hundreds of thousands. Still faithful Christian ministers (“they that understand”) persisted in instructing throngs of new converts to the faith, many responding on account of the gallantry demonstrated by fearless Christian martyrs in the face of the persecution itself.

34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.

A little help: Some small relief was given to Christians in this “pre-Nicene” Age (meaning the era of the first three Christian centuries, before the Roman Emperor Constantine legalized an institutionalized form of Christianity), by more tolerant rulers, who, on occasions, issued edicts favorable to the Christians. On the other hand, heretical congregations in the major cities of the Empire began to attract large numbers of lukewarm, semi-pagan “converts”. These eventually exerted an influence on the politics of the Empire.

35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

Some of them of understanding shall fall: The elect of God were not immune from persecution: faithful Spirit-filled Christians suffered with the rest, just as Jesus Himself suffered, even to death, for our sakes. The trials that fell on the elect fell on them, as is said here, to “try them, and to purge, and to make them white”, conforming them to the image of Jesus, to the ultimate benefit of the Church Universal. Here the turn of the next “time” (“moed”) is mentioned, which lasted from AD 159 to AD 514. This was the age of the fall of pagan and the rise of Papal Rome, the transition being in large part a reaction to the amazing God-given fortitude of the martyrs of Jesus.

36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

He shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god: Some have misunderstood the philosophy of the Antichrist (the multiply reincarnated sixth king of the north, the “little horn” etc.) to be atheism, on account of a misreading of Paul’s statements about him in II Thessalonians 2. 3f.: “3. …. that man of sin [shall] be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” Here Paul says the Antichrist exalts HIMSELF above all that is called God, and his reference is to this very verse of Daniel. The prophecy is that the Antichrist in practice makes HIMSELF God, but as can be seen from verses 38 and 39 of Daniel Chapter 11 infra, the sixth king of the north’s public worship is directed indeed towards what he calls “God”, which is actually a NEW GOD of his own making, and he endows that god with gold, silver and precious stones. At the same time he blasphemes (“speaks marvellous things against”) the True God, and even prospers in his blasphemy because God’s plan is openly, triumphantly, utterly, and eternally, to damn, judge and destroy him at the end-time.

37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers: The Papal Antichrist discarded the Jesus of the New Testament, the “God of his [Apostolic] fathers”, whose Spirit must be discerned by testing doctrine on the anvil of the Apostolic writings, as the Apostle John himself commanded (I John 4. 6). For example, the paganizing doctrine of Roman Catholicism embraced pseudo-celibacy (“neither shall he regard … the desire of women”) of the kind found commonly in pagan cults: this merely to bind ministers in a closer psychological bond to the higher levels of the hierarchy. The Apostle Paul warned the New Testament Church of his day that this heresy would arise in the professing church of the latter times (I Timothy 4. 3). The pseudo-Christianity of Rome was and is, in fact, a system of submission to, and worship of, the Antichrist himself alone: members are directed to the “infallible” dogma of the Pope instead of to the Word of God, which is Jesus Himself (John 1. 1 and 14).

38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

The God of forces: The word “forces”, in Hebrew “mauzzim”, is otherwise translated “fortresses”, but it more properly means “sanctuaries”, or “strongholds [see the next verse] in which people seek refuge”. The new god which the Antichrist invents is located in sanctuaries. Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread of the mass, the round communion wafer, or “host”, becomes, when it is blessed by the priest, the literal flesh of Jesus Christ. This process is called “transubstantiation”. The bread (now, supposedly, the “flesh of God”) must therefore be literally worshiped by the faithful, who bow down, or make gestures of submission, towards the altar in the sanctuaries where it is located. It has, in fact, in the Roman system, taken the place of Jesus Himself (“in his estate [viz. in place of Jesus Christ, the God of the Apostolic Fathers] shall he honour the God of sanctuaries”). The ridiculous doctrine of transubstantiation, a complete travesty of what the Apostolic writings teach about communion, exalts the wafer of the mass to divinity. It is THE god of the Papal system, a god wholly unknown to the Apostles and their disciples. The Papal god is placed on sumptuous altars decked with gold, silver and jewels, as this verse prophesies it would be. The sanctuaries (cathedrals, basilicas, churches, convents, etc.), sanctified by the presence of the bread-god, are inviolate to secular authority: if a criminal flees to the sanctuary he must be protected by the Roman priest. This was one of the means by which Rome extended its power in the Dark Ages, and continues to extend it today: members of “religious” orders of the Roman Church engage in criminal activity, then find a convenient refuge from prosecution by pleading “sanctuary”.

39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

He shall cause them to rule over many: The increasing emphasis put on the mass-god in the Roman system and therefore on the (often fortified) sanctuaries housing it, led eventually to the establishment of a network of such sanctuaries which harbored the illegal activities of the Roman priesthood and the “religious” orders (monks, nuns etc.). Through these the political power of the Papacy could be extended. One of the principal sources also of the wealth of the Roman hierarchy was the lands with which they were endowed by secular rulers and deluded benefactors, supposedly for religious purposes, but actually for the advancement of the Papal despotism.

40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

At the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: The prophetic scene shifts at this point to the end time. The Papal Antichrist, the king of the north, begins to reassert his power through a dictator financed by him at the beginning of the twentieth century, Benito Mussolini. Mussolini restores the Papal political power by granting the Papacy its own State within a State, the Vatican. He also strengthens Rome’s hold over its colonies. Ethiopia, meanwhile, the ancient kingdom of the south, under its king Haile Selassie, the royal head of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, resists the Italian colonial regime in Africa, challenging Mussolini to thwart him (the king of the south “shall … push at him”). This induces Mussolini, on behalf of the Papacy, to move against Haile Selassie with advanced weapons of modern warfare, tanks, airplanes etc., in a “blitzkrieg” style (“come against him like a whirlwind”). This incident in 1935-1936 was the harbinger of World War 2, following which the Papacy advanced in many countries throughout the world (“overflow and pass over”).

Here is the seventh king, the king of the south, Haile Selassie of Ethiopia.

41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

He shall enter also into the glorious land: After World War 2, for the first time in history, the Pope of Rome entered the Promised Land personally, the first to do so being Paul VI. Many other countries, along with Israel, fell under Vatican control through its alliance with the United States, but certain ancient areas of the Promised Land, those under Muslim control on the east of Jordan (“ Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon”) escaped that control for religious reasons.

42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: This relates to the “long arm” of Vatican power, operating through the money markets (as the next verse informs us). That is why Africa is of particular interest to the Papacy Africa comprising Egypt, Libya and Ethiopia in Biblical terminology: access to the precious metal reserves in Africa enable dominance of the financial system. Through the presence of Oriental Churches in Egypt and other African countries, infiltrated by, or affiliated to, the Vatican, the Papacy exercises its control throughout that region.

43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

He shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver: This is an absolute expression: the Papacy completely dominates the trade of gold, silver, and precious commodities throughout the world (as confirmed in Revelation 17 and 18). For the reason already given, this explains the Papacy’s interest in Africa, and specifically in the invasion of Ethiopia in 1935-1936. In a vision given to Brother William Branham in 1933, God showed him the end-time scenario, and foretold Ethiopia would “fall at the steps” of Mussolini, in a direct quotation from this verse, proclaiming its fulfillment then.

44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

Tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: In the same pre- and post-war period there has been only one major political challenge to the Papacy and its expanding financial Empire: that has been the rise of Communism in the North (Russia) and East (China). It has been the Communist threat in these areas that has motivated the Papacy to embark on its adventures, first in World War 2 itself, using dictators as front-men, particularly Mussolini, Hitler and Franco, in order to crush Communism, along with those influential Jews involved in the Communist Revolution, and, after the War, in a constant stream of minor wars against Russian and Chinese influence in the Third World.

45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

He shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain: Here is it is prophesied the Papacy will establish its ecclesiastical presence in the Promised Land, even in Jerusalem itself, by the means of “the tabernacles of his palace” (which means “his palatial temples”, basilicas etc.) in the very city sacred to the Jews, and they shall be powerless to stop him. Yet as clearly it is prophesied the Antichrist will come to his end, and no-one will be able to prevent the pouring out of God’s vengeance on him.

Chapter 12 (For Comments on this Chapter go to the section The Prophecy of the 1290 and 1335 Days.)

1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

5 ¶ Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.

6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?

7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

The Period of Transitioning of the Priest of Bel from Babylon to Pergamum, and then to Rome

This is the story of how the Luciferian kingship or Satan’s Seat in Babylon (Isaiah 14. 4-20) moved from literal Babylon on the Euphrates to “Mystery Babylon” (Revelation 17. 5) in Rome via Pergamum. The transition happened in the days of Berossus the priest of the god Bel of Babylon. The Bible refers to the current king of Babylon during this period as either the King of the North (Asia Minor) or the King of the South (Egypt), whichever held political power over Babylon at the time. At first the kingdom of the North included Asia Minor and the city of Babylon, but latterly it was reduced to Asia Minor only under the dynasty of Pergamum. The priest Berossus moved from Babylon to the kingdom of Pergamum, and Babylon itself then fell to the Medo-Persian Parthians. The Pergamene kingdom of the North with its Babylonian immigrant priesthood, the only remaining stronghold of the Luciferian religion of Babylon, finally was transferred by the last king of Pergamum to Rome, where it has remained ever since.

The name “Mystery Babylon” is applied in the Book of Revelation to the “woman”, the harlot Church, and mother of harlots, which is said to commit spiritual fornication with the kings of the earth (Revelation 17 and 18 passim, and 18. 9). The latter are principally the seven kings (Revelation 17. 10) prefigured in the seven heads of the Beast on which “Mystery Babylon” is seated. (That is, Satan’s Seat.) The Beast itself is the earthly embodiment of Satan. (Compare Revelation 12. 3, 9 with 13. 1.)

In the account of the Seven Churches this fornicating “woman” is called Jezebel (Revelation 2. 20), the false prophetess of Thyatira in Asia Minor, who teaches God’s servants to commit fornication and eat things sacrificed to idols. She likewise is said to have “children”. (Revelation 2. 23.) Her teaching is called the “Depths of Satan”. (Revelation 2. 24.) The spiritual allusion in the case of Thyatira is to the shrine of the Chaldaean Sibyl (pagan prophetess) Sambethe, the so-called Sambatheion, which existed in Roman Imperial times in front of the city of Thyatira. (Corp. Inscrip. Graec. No. 3509.) Sambethe commemorated in this shrine was the daughter of Berossus the priest of Bel. She claimed falsely to be a worshiper of the One True God of the Hebrews and deceived many in later times to accept the fusion of Biblical and pagan traditions found in her oracular pronouncements. The “Sibylline Oracles” authored originally by her and subsequently enlarged by anonymous editors and amplifiers were popular in the Jewish Diaspora and early Christian circles. She is given the spiritual name of “Jezebel” in the Book of Revelation because Jezebel in ancient Israel similarly seduced Israelites to combine the worship of Jehovah with Baal (Bel) worship. Sambethe and the cultists amongst whom she operated believed in reincarnation. This means the souls of dead humans were thought to inhabit their bodies, giving inspiration, as they imagined, for the utterance of Sibylline prophecies, and producing a fusion of identity between them and the departed. Sambethe herself was identified with the Queen of Sheba. (Glycas, Annales, ed. Bekker, 1836, p. 343, Cedrenus, Compendium, ed. Bekker, vol. I., 1838, p. 166f.) The Queen of Sheba (called Bilqis by the Arabs) was, in turn, identified with Almaqah, the goddess of the planet Venus (e.g. in Bekri, Geographical Dictionary, ed. Wüstenfeld, p. 855). Venus was her Roman name, Aphrodite her Greek name, Balthi her Syrian name, and Ishtar her Babylonian name. Balthi was held to have been a mortal originally, in fact, the wife of Ham, the son of Noah, who later was deified. Her husband Ham was similarly deified by the pagans and called Hephaestus or Ptah: the “god-kings” of Egypt were believed to be descended from him. Balthi or Ishtar had a lover called Tammuz. He was an athletic hunter of the Lebanese mountains who attracted her amorous attention, and who therefore murdered her husband Hephaestus (Ham) out of jealousy. (On Hephaestus, Balthi and Tammuz, see Melito of Sardis in Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum, London 1855, p. 25, translation Ante-Nicene Fathers VIII, p. 1483, Bar-Bahlul, s.v. Tamuz; and on Hephaestus-Ptah = Ham, Moses of Khorene, History of the Armenians, lib. I. cap. VII, and more generally lib. I. capp. VI, VIII.) Tammuz was subsequently deified and became the most popular object of worship in the Near East. In Babylonian paganism the high priestess was identified with Ishtar (Ham’s deified wife), and the king of Babylon with Tammuz (her deified lover). In the Book of Revelation successive kings of Babylon (so many reincarnations of Tammuz) are symbolized as the seven heads of the Beast, and the kings’ mistress (Ishtar) is the Harlot named “Mystery Babylon” who rides the Beast, and who commits fornication with the kings of the earth. Ishtar in Babylonia was commonly depicted in the identical pose, riding a beast.

Thus, Berossus’ daughter Sambethe types “Mystery Babylon”, according to the symbology of the Book of Revelation. The seven kings (heads) of the Beast are those kings on whom the false harlot Church (“Sambethe”, “Mystery Babylon”) relied, and still relies, to support her. Now as stated earlier, Sambethe was believed to have had multiple incarnations throughout history. One of her incarnations was a “witch form” called Lilith, and Lilith was the wife of Aeneas, the founder of Rome. Lilith was known as “Aenea” (that is, the “female Aeneas”, Hebrew “Yaniyya”) and “Roma”, Mother Rome. This is the woman riding the Beast in the Book of Revelation. The seven kings or “heads” on which she sits are prefigured in the seven hills upon which the physical city of Rome (“Mystery Babylon”) is situated. The first five of these kings are said in the Book of Revelation to have already “fallen”, that is, they existed in the past. They were the five kings of the North and South identified as such in Daniel 11, who were the historical contemporaries of the Sibyl Sambethe, the prophetess of Bel, around 300 years and more before John’s time. The Babylonian politico-religious system of which she was the original embodiment and type has continued to dominate the world from that time to this, no longer relying now on those kings of the North and of the South, but on the sixth or multiply reincarnated king, first in his incarnation as the king of Pergamum, then as the chief pagan royal priest or Pontifex Maximus of Rome, who took the king of Pergamum’s position, and finally, when the pagan priesthood of Rome came to an end (or when, as the Book of Revelation describes it, the sixth head received a wound “as unto death”), as the eighth head (that is, the revived sixth head), the Papal Pontifex Maximus or Pope of Rome, who continues to manipulate world politics to the present day. (On the identity of the seventh head or king, see below.)

Summary of main incidents during the transition:

246 BC. Disturbances and new powers on death of Antiochus II:

1) Ptolemy III

2) Parthians

3) Eumenes of Bithynia

4) War between the sons of Antiochus II.


Death of Antiochus II Theos.

His son Seleucus Callinicus takes the throne, but the latters

younger brother, Antiochus Hierax, disputes his claim.

The Parthians revolt. Arsaces I (Tiridates) king of Parthia captures

Seleucus Callinicus and holds him prisoner a considerable period.

Ptolemy III Euergetes invades Asia and takes Babylon, returning

with idols and treasures to Egypt shortly thereafter.

c. 246-241 BC Probably around 242 BC Seleucus Callinicus is released and retires to

Asia Minor.

Occupation of the greater part of Asia (a term which includes

Mesopotamia and Babylon) by Eumenes I of Bithynia, son of Philetaerus.

Seleucus Callinicus is driven out to Orthosia just north of Tripolis

in Phoenicia, most probably by Eumenes I or by his successor, Attalus I.

Ptolemy III still holds parts of Syria.

241 BC. Disturbances on death of Eumenes I:

1) Renewal of war between the sons of Antiochus II

2) Capture of Babylon by Parthians

3) War of Attalus I successor of Eumenes I with Antiochus Hierax son

of Antiochus II and the Gauls.


Attalus I succeeds to Eumenes I’s greater Asian dominions.

War revives between the brothers Seleucus Callinicus and

Antiochus Hierax.

The Parthian king Arsaces I expands his dominions and drives the

Macedonians (now under Attalus I) out of Babylon.

Attalus I defeats Antiochus Hierax in Asia Minor and his Gaulish

mercenaries, and makes Pergamum his capital, taking the title king

and inaugurating the Attalid Dynasty of Pergamum.

c. 240-226 BC Towards the latter part of this period Antiochus Hierax is defeated

a second time by Attalus I and retreats via Babylon to Ariamenes king

of Cappadocia, whose daughter he marries.

The mention of Babylon probably indicates a retreat of the Parthians

some time prior from the city, and Seleucus Callinicus also is

noted as present there shortly before his death.

226-225 BC The death of Seleucus Callinicus (by falling from his horse) and

of Antiochus Hierax.

The move of Berossus the priest of Bel of Babylon and his priestly circle from Babylon to the Aegean island of Cos occurred after the reign of Antiochus II Theos (261-246 BC). By Chaldaean mystic tradition the priest of the chief god Bel had to receive the aspirant to the throne of Babylon and lead him to the idol of Bel, whose hand he took hold of, in order for his rule to be considered legitimate. Berossus thus recognized Antiochus II Theos as the king of Babylon. He also dedicated a book to him. Following the death of Antiochus II Theos, the greater Asian domains of him and his line fell first for a short time to Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt, then to the latter’s son Ptolemy III Euergetes, and then to Eumenes I of Bithynia in Asia Minor (263-241 BC) and his successor Attalus I Soter (241-197 BC). See Justinus’ Epitome of Pompeius Trogus XXVII. 3. 1-6, for the last of these occupations, of the “greater part of Asia”, by Eumenes I. The occupation was still in force, according to Justinus, up to the time of the defeat of Antiochus Hierax, the son of Antiochus II Theos, and therefore during the first part of the reign of Eumenes’ successor, Attalus I Soter, who was the king who defeated Antiochus Hierax c. 241 BC. The statement of Justinus is usually misread and the “greater part of Asia” occupied by Eumenes I, and held initially by Attalus I, taken to mean Asia Minor. However, the context shows clearly the reference is to the Asian domains of the Seleucids as a whole, which included Babylon: the sons of Antiochus II Theos and Ptolemy III Euergetes are said by Justinus to have contended for this same prize, and their struggle historically was for the domains of their father Antiochus II Theos, that is, the Seleucid Empire in toto, and principally the city of Babylon. The identical phrase “greater part of Asia” is accordingly used in Livy XXXI. 1, Livy being a near contemporary of Justinus, to describe all the Asian domains conquered by Alexander of Macedon.

The Macedonians were driven out of Babylon for an undetermined period by the Parthian king Arsaces I c. 241 BC (Moses of Khorene II. 2). The precise date is unknown, but it was some time after the capture of Babylon by Ptolemy III Euergetes c. 246 BC, and after the occupation of Eumenes I, which continued into the reign of Attalus I, according to Justinus ut cit. supra, but prior to the appearance of the sons of Antiochus II Theos in the city for brief periods in the 230s or early 220s. Therefore it must have occurred during the early part of the reign of Attalus I, and probably at its very beginning c. 241 BC, since there is no mention of an occupation of Asia east of the Taurus by Attalus thereafter in the admittedly meager records that have survived of his reign. Attalus I withdrew before the Parthians and set up an independent kingdom in Pergamum in the north-western corner of Asia Minor. He was the founder of the Attalid Dynasty of Pergamum, so named after him. The Parthian invaders were Zoroastrian by religion, claiming descent from the ancient Medo-Persian king Artaxerxes II, and dogmatically opposed to the idolatrous religion of Bel. The priest Berossus and his prophetess daughter Sambethe left Babylon in haste (Justin Martyr, Cohortatio 37) and set up a Chaldaean school on the island of Cos in the Aegean Sea, not many miles south of Attalus’ Pergamum.

At that time, as has been stated, the greater part of Asia, now excepting Babylon, was claimed by Attalus, even if he was unable to impose his authority on it, and the new island home of Berossus, relatively close to his capital Pergamum, was included. Attalus was the priest-king recognized as authoritative by Berossus’ prophetess daughter Sambethe. He is termed “bull-horned” in the circle of Sibylline prophetesses to which Sambethe belonged, and this means he was a sacred king incarnating the bull-horned god Dionysus. The Greek god Dionysus was the same as the Babylonian god Tammuz, with whom Bel, the chief god of Babylon, was identified. However, Sambethe herself did not take up, or at least did not keep, residence in the territory claimed by Attalus, but moved on to Cumae in Italy. There she recommended Attalus to the Romans as the custodian of the sacred rites of the Mother of the Gods, and they imported these, on her supposedly inspired advice, from the kingdom of Pergamum into the City of Rome in 204 BC. (Justin Martyr, ibid., with Livy XXIX. x-xi.)

The Romans were more interested in Attalus’ gold than his religion, as they were involved at the time in a costly war with Hannibal. The Pergamene channel thus opened up to them resulted in a reverse in their fortunes, and set them on the path to victory. This, of course, was credited to the beneficent influence of the Mother of the Gods whose sacred stone was now in the city. The easing of Rome’s financial hardships doubtless played the major role. Considering Attalus’ mediocre performance in martial affairs, the question arises: how did he come into possession of the vast monetary resources for which he was renowned throughout the ancient world and with which he was able to buy the favor of Rome? Suspicion falls on the Chaldaean priesthood ensconced in his kingdom, whose temple in Babylon had until recently been the storehouse, not only of the plunder of Alexander the Great, from conquered territories stretching westwards to the Aegean, southwards to the Sahara, and from the Nile to the Indus, but also of more ancient riches such as the fabulous treasure of Solomon, raided from the Temple of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. The financial resources amassed by Attalus more than compensated for his political insignificance.

There is no evidence Attalus gave up his claim to the larger Asian territory at any time during his reign over Pergamum from 241 to 197 BC, though he was constantly compelled to fend off the incursions of neighboring potentates and their predatory armies, who ended up controlling parts of it for longer or shorter periods of time. Thereafter, early in the reign of Attalus’ successor Eumenes II (197-159 BC), the Romans intervened decisively and confirmed the whole of Asia west of the Taurus mountains in the hands of the king of Pergamum. In 141 BC the old city of Babylon finally and permanently fell to the Parthians, leaving the Kingdom of Pergamum as the sole surviving home of the authentic cult of Bel of Babylon. It thus became the center of the Chaldaean priesthood of Bel, or “Satan’s Seat”, as it is denominated in the Book of Revelation (2. 13). Then in 133 BC the Kingdom of Pergamum was willed by its last king, Attalus III, to Rome. At that time Rome had no king in the political sense, but was a Republic. However, the royal powers of the ancient kings of Rome had been preserved during this phase of the State’s history in the office of the Pontifex Maximus, or Chief Priest of Rome, and he now, therefore, became the only regal authority in Rome that could be received by the Babylonian priesthood as the political head of the Babylonian religious system. When the Roman Republic turned into the Roman Empire, the office of Pontifex Maximus was assumed by each Emperor of Rome in turn. After the Christianization of the Empire, the office of Pontifex Maximus passed from the Emperor of Rome to the Pope or Bishop of Rome, where it remains to this day. The Pope of Rome is thus the sole authentic modern representative of the Luciferian kingship, that is, of Satan’s Babylonian religious system.

Attalus I Soter of Pergamum was merely one of several claimants to the Babylonian politico-religious supremacy in the third century BC, but the Pergamene claims which he represented in the event prevailed. Berossus the priest of Bel recognized Antiochus II Theos as the legitimate king of Babylon in the earliest phase of his career, when he was still present in Babylon. Antiochus is called “the King of the North” in the Book of Daniel, the North being Asia Minor, roughly equivalent in a territorial sense to modern Turkey, which was the most prosperous and politically significant part of his kingdom (though the religious center of the whole kingdom at that time was Babylon).

Antiochus II Theos made a treaty with Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285-247 BC). In the Book of Daniel Ptolemy is called “the King of the South”, the South being Egypt and Ethiopia, which were the most significant parts of his kingdom. Antiochus married Ptolemy’s daughter, Berenice, as a seal of their accord. Berenice’s offspring were to be the heirs of the kingdom of Antiochus. However, the treaty was reneged on by Laodice, the jealous first wife of Antiochus II Theos. She murdered her husband Antiochus II Theos, and his new wife Berenice, and Berenice’s young son, the heir to the throne. At that point the Egyptian king Ptolemy II Philadelphus asserted his rights to the whole of Asia, including Babylon.

Ptolemy III Euergetes (247-222 BC), the successor of Ptolemy II Philadelphus and brother of Berenice, avenging her murder, invaded and captured Babylon for a short time c. 246 BC in the confusion after the death of Antiochus II Theos. He and those who followed him on the throne of Egypt claimed a right to the Syrian king’s domains on account of the broken treaty. These domains included Babylon itself and the territories in Asia Minor, with the coastal areas and islands in the Aegean. Amongst the latter was the island of Cos, the birthplace, as it happened, of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, which was to be the new center of the Chaldaean priesthood. However, effective control was rarely achieved over all or even the majority of these regions by any Ptolemy after Ptolemy III Euergetes.

One intervening reign followed the death of Ptolemy III Euergetes, then Ptolemy V Epiphanes (202-181 BC) was established, at a young age, as king of Egypt. He was forced immediately to fend off the incursions of the rising power in Syria, Antiochus III the Great (223-187 BC), the descendant of Antiochus II Theos. Antiochus III the Great became the recognized and effective ruler of Babylon, Syria and Asia Minor.

The two kings eventually concluded a treaty in 198 BC by the betrothal of Cleopatra, Antiochus’ daughter, to Ptolemy, and she received the revenues of Syria as her dowry. This was an attempt by Antiochus to outmaneuver the inexperienced Ptolemy by subtlety rather than by outright force, which had already failed. It was also an acknowledgement by Ptolemy that the Syrian domains were Antiochus’ to give, though Ptolemy was to enjoy their financial fruits. It was essentially a reconstruction of the treaty made earlier by the marriage of Berenice to Antiochus II Theos, accepting for the first time the legitimacy of the claims of the murderess Laodices line, to which Antiochus III the Great belonged, but leaving the exact rights of each party to the treaty undefined. It only applied in any case to Syria (Coele-Syria between the Lebanon mountain ranges, Phoenicia, Judaea and the environs), and made no mention of Babylon. This implies Ptolemy V Epiphanes had not yielded his claims on the very heartland of Antiochus empire in Babylon itself. Each side, no doubt, hoped to gain effective power over all the territory in the east occupied by Macedonians, at the minimum through an heir by the union, and, like the earlier marriage-treaty, this seems to have given both parties rights and claims to that end. In the event Cleopatra was faithful to her husband rather than her father and supported Egyptian hegemony in Syria.

The Kings of Babylon during the Transition

The priest Berossus and his circle did not move back to Babylon, even when the Parthians withdrew for a time and Macedonians retook the city under the warring sons of Antiochus II Theos: they remained in Cos. On account of the treaty made between Antiochus II Theos and Ptolemy II Philadelphus, both claimed Babylon as their domain. The life of Ptolemy II Philadelphus was drawing to a close when Antiochus II Theos, Berenice and her son, were murdered. By pretending that the mother and child were still alive, but under threat, the citizens of Antioch persuaded Ptolemy II Philadelphus to write letters throughout the empire, securing his hold over all the territories from the Taurus mountains to India, which territories included Babylon. (Polyaenus VIII. 50.) Thus, for a short time, Ptolemy II Philadelphus was king of Babylon. Ptolemys successor Ptolemy III Euergetes physically invaded Babylon and took it, when the priesthood of Berossus was still present there. During the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes Berossus himself and the priests in his circle migrated to Cos. At the death of Ptolemy III Euergetes, Antiochus III the Great, the new aggressive king of Syria, was already the master of Babylon. Later the accommodation with Ptolemy V Epiphanes was made by the betrothal of Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus III the Great, to the Egyptian king in 198 BC, and this gave both monarchs undefined and thereafter contested rights over the eastern territories in toto. Antiochus III the Great was able to incorporate the Aegean coastal territories for a short time within his own imperial domains, until he was compelled to retire by the Romans at the Battle of Magnesia 190 BC. According to the terms of the Peace of Apamea in 188 BC, and yielding to Roman insistence, Antiochus III the Great ceded Asia Minor to the Kingdom of Pergamum founded by Attalus I, and ruled then by his successor Eumenes II (197-159 BC). This left the Pergamene king as the undisputed king of the North in Biblical terminology. The Seleucid kings of Babylon were now kings only of the East. The kings of Pergamum, of course, had not yielded their claims to the whole of Asia, including Babylon, as the supposed successors of Alexander, and financed the Seleucid kings as proxies in an effort to enforce those claims against the kings of the South.

The successive non-Attalid kings who had political power over Babylon during the phase of Berossus’ removal from Babylon to Cos were, therefore: whilst Berossus was still resident in Babylon — Antiochus II Theos, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, and Ptolemy III Euergetes; during the reign of the latter Berossus moved to Cos, and whilst he was resident in Cos Antiochus III the Great and Ptolemy V Epiphanes, followed by the kings of Pergamum, first as kings of the North with one-time claims on the kingdom of Babylon, then, after the seizure of Babylon by the Parthians, as the continuation of the sacred kingship of Babylon, authorized by Berossus, priest of Bel, and called in the Book of Revelation “Mystery Babylon”. Though the first king of Pergamum, Attalus I, exercised political power over Babylon already in the days of Ptolemy III Euergetes, it is the whole royal line descended from him which is the multiply-reinarnated Luciferian “horn”: it continued to hold power long after the other kings perished, changing its form from king of Babylon, to king of Pergamum, to Pontifex Maximus of Rome, and thus is the latest or “sixth king” in the list.

The kings of the North and South, the Luciferian kings at old Babylon, and in Pergamum, until the transfer of Pergamum to Rome, were:

1) The king of the South, Ptolemy II Philadelphus (282-246 BC), Daniel 11. 5-6.

2) The king of the North, Antiochus II Theos (261-246 BC), Daniel 11. 5.

3) The king of the South, Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-222 BC), Daniel 11. 7-9.

4) The king of the North, Antiochus III the Great (223-187 BC), Daniel 11. 11-19.

5) The king of the South, Ptolemy V Epiphanes (204-180 BC), Daniel 11. 11-17, 25-26.

6) The king of the North, the beast who “was, and is not, and yet is” (Revelation 17. 8), that is, Lucifer incarnate, moving from one body to the next: the kings of Pergamum, of “Mystery Babylon”, rather than of literal Babylon on the Euphrates as heretofore, Attalus I Soter (241-197 BC), Eumenes II (197-159 BC), Attalus II Philadelphus (159-138 BC), and Attalus III (138-133 BC), replaced by the holders of the office of Pontifex Maximus at Rome, first in the role of royal priests, later as Emperors, and finally as Popes. Daniel 11. 21-45.

The emergence of the final beast, Daniels fourth mixed beast, out of the Greek or Macedonian kingdom of Pergamum explains why in one vision of Daniel the final anti-God king, who is destroyed at the end time by God Himself, emerges as a “little horn” out of one of the four Greek horns, and hence has been thought by some commentators to be a Greek king, yet in another, emerges as a fourth beast separate from the third Greek beast. In the latter case the fourth beast is Rome. But the king of this same fourth beast is the multiply recurring incarnation of Lucifer, who started in the Greek kingdom of Pergamum, as an offshoot of the kingdom of the North, and passed from there to Rome. Hence also in the Book of Revelation in chapter 13 the mixed beast (Daniel’s fourth beast), Rome, is said to have been given “Satan’s Seat” by the Dragon or Devil. Since “Satan’s Seat” in the same book is identified as Pergamum, this is a direct acknowledgement that the kingdom of Pergamum was “given” by Satan to Rome through the will of Attalus III, and so the Luciferian power passed from Pergamum to Rome.

The proof that the king of the North (6) in Daniel 11. 11-17 is not Antiochus Epiphanes, as is commonly imagined, is that the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes was 175-165 BC, beginning five years after the death of Ptolemy V Epiphanes, number (5), who was poisoned by his own people in 180 BC. But it is the King of the North of Daniel 11. 11-17, number (6), who is said to have roused up his power and courage against this same Ptolemy V Epiphanes, the king of the South, number (5), therefore, he was already king of the North in 180 BC. The real identity of the king of the North of Daniel 11. 11-17 etc. is the beast who “was, and is not and yet is”, that is, Lucifer incarnate, at this time in the king of Pergamum: the particular incarnation in 180 BC was Eumenes II of Pergamum. Eumenes II did precisely as this prophecy foretold. Now he had the military and political backing of Rome, he stirred up his power and courage in rivalry (but note, Daniel does not say, in active conflict) with Ptolemy V Epiphanes. Eumenes even furnished a great Library in Pergamum to rival the famous one of Ptolemy at Alexandria. In a fit of pique Ptolemy refused him supplies of Egyptian papyrus for the project and Eumenes had to resort to the older material of animal skins for his books, whose treatment he so perfected they were in consequence called “parchment” (Latin “pergamena”) from the name of his city, Pergamum.

In the Book of Revelation (chapter 17) it is said the beast who “was, and is not, and yet is” is the sixth of the seven heads of the beast, and the current ruler at the time John wrote the Book of Revelation. The angel told him “five are fallen” already and the “sixth is”. The five fallen kings are numbers (1) through (5) above. They had “fallen” long before the time of John. The sixth was still in existence in Johns day, since he was the multiple reincarnated Luciferian beast head, at that time in his incarnation as the Pontifex Maximus Emperor of Rome. The classic Roman incarnation was the evil Emperor Nero, who murdered his mother, slaughtered the saints, and fiddled while Rome burned. Nero died in mysterious circumstances, but was believed still to be alive somewhere, haunting the world with the fear he would return. Some thought Emperor Domitian in the time of John was Nero come again. The Nero-like sixth head, according to the Bible, comes, and comes again: “was, is not, and yet is”.

Now, in addition to this sixth head, there is a “seventh” head. The angel said to John the “seventh” king was yet to come, and when he came he was to continue a “short space”. (Revelation 17. 10.) Who is this seventh head? To find out, we must go back in ancient history. In the earliest days, before the Ptolemies took over, the kingdom of the South, or the kingdom of Ethiopia, belonged to the royal line of the Queen of Sheba. Jesus accordingly called the Queen of Sheba “the Queen of the South” in the New Testament. (Matthew 12. 42, Luke 11. 31.) The Queen of Sheba gave birth to a long line of kings of Ethiopia. The literal descendant of this Queen of the South, and, in fact, the very last king of Ethiopia, was Haile Selassie (AD 1930-1974). He was the seventh and last “king of the South” in Daniel 11. 40, and is specifically prophesied there to rule at the “end time”. No later king of the South is mentioned in Daniel and the great tribulation and universal judgment follow next in order some time after his rule. (Daniel 12. 1-2.) Since the Book of Revelation is built on the earlier visions of Daniel, this seventh king of Daniel, the last king of the South, is likewise the seventh head of the beast in the Book of Revelation. Haile Selassie was part of the beast system of the Pontifex Maximus of Rome because, as well as being the literal descendant of the Queen of the South, he was the royal head of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which is an Eastern branch of the ancient Roman Catholic cult, under the supremacy of the Coptic Church of Egypt, gone its own way since the fifth century AD. Here the politico-ecclesiastical realms are equivalent precisely to the kingdom of the South in the Book of Daniel: Egypt as the main power, with Ethiopia as the secondary power. As a king of the beast-system of the Papal Pontifex Maximus of Rome, Haile Selassie inherited power through the pagan Pontifex Maximus Emperors and priests of Rome, from the kings of the South and North of Daniel 11. Some of his foolish followers still worship Haile Selassie as a god, breaking the First and Greatest Commandment, just like the deluded Roman cultists bow down to and worship the Pope, and as the ancient Romans worshiped the Emperor, and the Egyptians worshiped the Ptolemies and the Pharaohs before them.

Finally, in the Book of Revelation mention is made of an “eighth” head on the beast, which is said to be actually one “of the seven”, who emerges out of the abyss and goes into perdition. This is the beast who is Satans final incarnation and leads the persecution of the saints at the end time, being destroyed by the returning Messiah Jesus. This final Antichrist is called by Paul the “son of perdition” (II Thessalonians 2. 3), which is the title of Judas Iscariot (John 17. 12). Judas went to “his own place” (Acts 1. 25), that is, perdition, when he committed suicide. The eighth head likewise goes into perdition (Revelation 17. 8, 11). This is a professing “Christian” like Judas, who loves money more than God and betrays Jesus to the State. The fact he is one “of the seven” heads and comes back as an eighth, shows he is that sixth reincarnated head who “was, and is not, and yet is” in a later form. The same Antichrist head is said to have received a wound at one time, as unto death, but to have revived, causing all the world to wonder after him. The sixth head we know was the Pagan Nero-like Pontifex Maximus, but when Roman paganism received its “wound as unto death” by the Christianization of the Empire, the Pagan Pontifex Maximus revived and turned into the Papal Pontifex Maximus of Rome, now, like Judas claiming to be Christian. Thus this eighth head is the Papal Pontifex Maximus who will lead the world at the end time in the final apostasy and be destroyed by the returning Messiah at the re-establishment of the Kingdom of God.                        

Previous     Next