Sighted Moon News Letter 5843-048
9th day of the Eleventh month 5843 After Creation
January 19, 2008
Shabbat Shalom Family,
Before I begin this weeks News Letter, I have two things to share.
First I want to remind you all to do your due diligence. That is be Berean and prove to your self beyond a doubt those things I am sharing with you. Prove all things. This past week I received many complimentary replies to last weeks News Letter about me reaching 50. And I greatly appreciate them. But I also got a couple negative ones.
I am of no importance in these studies. I am just a ditch digger and nothing more. I am not trying to get a following, and I do not want your money. I share these things with you because I meet so many who have no idea, and others who have so many wrong ideas. Please understand I am not trying to become someone of importance. I would rather return to some one with a few friends who no one else had heard of. But what purpose would it serve to learn about our Father and never share those things you learned with others.
I am pleased to share what I have learned. I am thrilled many of you consider it of value, but to those few who think I have ulterior motives, and choose to send their mean spirited letters, please check your attitude at the door. Disagree if you will but their is no need to become mean or write mean things.
Secondly; I received the following e-mail from a friend who has written articles for this News Letter and are on this site. Stephen Kraner. Because of those things I am going to show you in this current series, and to help promote this news letter by sharing this information with all of those whom you know, I now include this short note on oil.
WHERE TO BUY YOUR USA-GAS, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW. READ ON–
Gas rationing worked even though we grumbled about it.
It might even be good for us!
The Saudis are boycotting American goods. We should return the favor.
An interesting thought is to boycott their GAS. Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia Just buy from gas companies that don’t import their oil from the Saudis.
Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that every time I fill-up the tank, I am sending my money to people who are trying to kill me, my family, and my friends.
I thought it might be interesting for you to know which oil companies are the best to buy gas from and which major companies import Middle Eastern oil.
These companies import Middle Eastern oil :
Shell…………………..â€¦. 205,742,000 barrels
Chevron/Texaco…….â€¦ 144,332,000 barrels
Exxon /Mobil………â€¦.. 130,082,000 barrels
Marathon/Speedway… .117,740,000 barrels
Citgo………………….from South America , from a Dictator who hates Americans
If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION! (oil is now $90-$95 a barrel)
>Here are some large companies that DO NOT import Middle Eastern oil:
All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and each is required to state where they get their oil and how much they are importing. But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of gas buyers. It’s really simple to do.
Now, don’t wimp out at this point…. keep reading and I’ll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!! I’m sending this note to about thirty people . If each of you send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300)… and those 300 send it to a t least ten more (300 x 10 = 3 ,000) .. and so on, by the time t he message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers !!!!!!!
If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it ….. THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!! Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people How long would al l that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next eight days !
Last week we showed you exactly where the King of the South came from and who he is. Some are trying to teach us that the King of the South is current day Iran. Although Iran does look tough and speaks as if they were in charge of all the Moslem forces, you now know that the Bible says Egypt Libya and Ethiopia are the leading forces in this King of the South. The Bible, not me or anyone else but the bible.
And even though India is a descendant of Cush, I do not think they are part of this King of the south, but I am not sure. We should also keep an eye on them for the same reason that Unites the Kingdoms of the South. Their religion. Parts of Pakistan and India are Moslem as is all of Egypt and Libya and the main part of Ethiopia. Remember this point, as it is going to come up again.
When I began to think about doing this study I had an idea of what I was going to present. But as I read the scriptures, I find myself saying wow, I never saw that before. Maybe I wasnâ€™t listening, or paying attention, but wow. I am excited to share this with you.
Last week the emphasis was on the King of the South. We must now show you who is the King of the North. Actually we already did last week. Let me briefly repeat myself.
The Two Babylons
The Child in Assyria
Now, this Ninus, or “Son,” borne in the arms of the Babylonian Madonna, is so described as very clearly to identify him with Nimrod. “Ninus, king of the Assyrians,” * says Trogus Pompeius, epitomized by Justin, “first of all changed the contented moderation of the ancient manners, incited by a new passion, the desire of conquest. He was the first who carried on war against his neighbors, and he conquered all nations from Assyria to Lybia, as they were yet unacquainted with the arts of war.”
* The name, “Assyrians,” as has already been noticed, has a wide latitude of meaning among the classic authors, taking in the Babylonians as well as the Assyrians proper.
This account points directly to Nimrod, and can apply to no other. The account of Diodorus Siculus entirely agrees with it, and adds another trait that goes still further to determine the identity. That account is as follows: “Ninus, the most ancient of the Assyrian kings mentioned in history, performed great actions. Being naturally of a warlike disposition, and ambitious of glory that results from valour, he armed a considerable number of young men that were brave and vigorous like himself, trained them up a long time in laborious exercises and hardships, and by that means accustomed them to bear the fatigues of war, and to face dangers with intrepidity.” As Diodorus makes Ninus “the most ancient of the Assyrian kings,” and represents him as beginning those wars which raised his power to an extraordinary height by bringing the people of Babylonia under subjection to him, while as yet the city of Babylon was not in existence, this shows that he occupied the very position of Nimrod, of whom the Scriptural account is, that he first “began to be mighty on the earth,” and that the “beginning of his kingdom was Babylon.” As the Babel builders, when their speech was confounded, were scattered abroad on the face of the earth, and therefore deserted both the city and the tower which they had commenced to build, Babylon as a city, could not properly be said to exist till Nimrod, by establishing his power there, made it the foundation and starting-point of his greatness. In this respect, then, the story of Ninus and of Nimrod exactly harmonize. The way, too, in which Ninus gained his power is the very way in which Nimrod erected his. There can be no doubt that it was by inuring his followers to the toils and dangers of the chase, that he gradually formed them to the use of arms, and so prepared them for aiding him in establishing his dominions; just as Ninus, by training his companions for a long time “in laborious exercises and hardships,” qualified them for making him the first of the Assyrian kings.
The conclusions deduced from these testimonies of ancient history are greatly strengthened by many additional considerations. In Genesis 10:11, we find a passage, which, when its meaning is properly understood, casts a very steady light on the subject. That passage, as given in the authorized version, runs thus: “Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh.” This speaks of it as something remarkable, that Asshur went out of the land of Shinar, while yet the human race in general went forth from the same land. It goes upon the supposition that Asshur had some sort of divine right to that land, and that he had been, in a manner, expelled from it by Nimrod, while no divine right is elsewhere hinted at in the context, or seems capable of proof. Moreover, it represents Asshur as setting up in the IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOURHOOD of Nimrod as mighty a kingdom as Nimrod himself, Asshur building four cities, one of which is emphatically said to have been “great” (v 12); while Nimrod, on this interpretation, built just the same number of cities, of which none is specially characterised as “great.” Now, it is in the last degree improbable that Nimrod would have quietly borne so mighty a rival so near him. To obviate such difficulties as these, it has been proposed to render the words, “out of that land he (Nimrod) went forth into Asshur, or Assyria.” But then, according to ordinary usage of grammar, the word in the original should have been “Ashurah,” with the sign of motion to a place affixed to it, whereas it is simply Asshur, without any such sign of motion affixed. I am persuaded that the whole perplexity that commentators have hitherto felt in considering this passage, has arisen from supposing that there is a proper name in the passage, where in reality no proper name exists. Asshur is the passive participle of a verb, which, in its Chaldee sense, signifies “to make strong,” and, consequently, signifies “being strengthened,” or “made strong.” Read thus, the whole passage is natural and easy (v 10), “And the beginning of his (Nimrod’s) kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh.” A beginning naturally implies something to succeed, and here we find it (v 11): “Out of that land he went forth, being made strong, or when he had been made strong (Ashur), and builded Nineveh,” &c. Now, this exactly agrees with the statement in the ancient history of Justin: “Ninus strengthened the greatness of his acquired dominion by continued possession. Having subdued, therefore, his neighbours, when, by an accession of forces, being still further strengthened, he went forth against other tribes, and every new victory paved the way for another, he subdued all the peoples of the East.” Thus, then, Nimrod, or Ninus, was the builder of Nineveh; and the origin of the name of that city, as “the habitation of Ninus,” is accounted for, * and light is thereby, at the same time, cast on the fact, that the name of the chief part of the ruins of Nineveh is Nimroud at this day.
* Nin-neveh, “The habitation of Ninus.”
Last week we saw that Nimrod had attacked his father Cush, and David Rohl in his book Legends The Genesis of Civilizations shows us where Cush went by archaeological methods. I have shared with you when we talked about the Garden of Eden exactly where Cush was at, after the flood. [ See https://sightedmoon-archives.com/sightedmoon_2015/?page_id=165 ] The Gaihun-Aras river runs through the Mountains of Cush in present day Northern Iran and into the Caspian Sea. These mountains still bare the name of Kush. There is a mountain there called to this day Kusheh Dagh – the Mountain of Kush.
Nimrod stayed where he was and built up his kingdom. But he also built up Asshur, who became strong as we have already shown once again. As all bible students know Asshur became Assyria and attacked Israel in 722 BC.
You can learn a great deal about the Assyrian history at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria But I want to show you that the history of Assyria which ended in 612 was taken over by another kingdom called Babylon. By going to the wikipedia site you can see the map of the area Assyria controlled. Babylon came up out of the area controlled by Assyria.
The Assyrian kings controlled a large kingdom at three different times in history. These are called the Old (20th to 15th c. BC), Middle (15th to 10th c. BC), and Neo_Assyrian (911-612 BC) kingdoms, or periods, of which the last is the most well known and best documented.
Assyria finally succumbed to the rise of the neo-Babylonians Chaldean Dynasty with the sack of Ninevah in 612 BC.
It was this Babylonian Empire which captured Jerusalem in 586 BC. You can read more on this either in your bible or at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
This Babylon, as I have shown you is still part of the King of the North. Only instead of being lead by the Assyrians this Kingdom of the North is now lead by the Babylonians.
This is very similar to my line of work in construction. Various companies bid on a contract to do all the gas pipelines, in a certain city. One company has been there for many years. Another company wins the contract and takes over the duties of that city. The thing that changes is the executives. The labour crews are the same people. They just change the colour of the trucks and continue to do the same work as before, only now for a different task master.
So it is in the King of the North. Assyria was there for many years building up its empire. Sometimes they were very strong or dominant in their position, and at other times in a weaker dominance. Babylon then comes along, or rises up and takes over, and the government is now different. The territory and the people are basically the same.
It is by these Babylonians that Daniel is captured and given an office in the government. During this time Daniel is given some amazing prophecies.
From http://www.ucg.org/booklets/ME/fourempires.htm we read;
The accuracy of Daniel’s prophecies of remotely distant events is spectacular. For example, in the “70 weeks” prophecy recorded in Daniel 9:24-27, “Daniel predicts the precise year of Christ’s appearance and the beginning of his ministry in A.D. 27” (Expositor’s, p. 9).
Another amazing prophecy recorded by Daniel is his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2. In the second year of his reign the Babylonian king had a troubling dream that none of his counselors could explain. Babylonian culture placed considerable emphasis on dreams, and Nebuchadnezzar was convinced that this one was of great importance (Daniel 2:1-3).
His dream gives us a “disclosure of God’s plan for the ages till the final triumph of Christ” and “presents the foreordained succession of world powers that are to dominate the Near East till the final victory of the Messiah in the last days” (Expositor’s, pp. 39, 46).
Without prior knowledge of its content, Daniel explained the details of the dream to Nebuchadnezzar: “You, O king, were watching; and behold, a great image! This great image, whose splendor was excellent, stood before you; and its form was awesome. This image’s head was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay” (Daniel 2:31-33).
Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar that his Babylonian Empire was represented by the head of gold (verses 37-38). The silver, bronze and iron components of the image, or statue, represented three powerful empires that were to follow mighty Babylon (verses 39-40).
This interpretation provided an astounding preview of history. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream occurred and was interpreted by Daniel about 600 B.C. The image represented, in symbolic form, the sequence of great empires that would dominate the region’s political scene for centuries.
“The silver empire was to be Medo- Persia, which began with Cyrus the Great, who conquered Babylon in 539 … This silver empire was supreme in the Near and Middle East for about two centuries” (Expositor’s, p. 47).
“The bronze empire was the Greco-Macedonian Empire established by Alexander the Great … The bronze kingdom lasted for about 260 or 300 years before it was supplanted by the fourth kingdom” (ibid.).
“Iron connotes toughness and ruthlessness and describes the Roman Empire that reached its widest extent under the reign of Trajan” (ibid.). Trajan reigned as emperor A.D. 98-117, and the Roman Empire itself ruled for many centuries.
The fourth empire was depicted as having 10 toes. The feet and toes were composed partly of iron and partly of clay, as verse 41 explains. “Verse 41 deals with a later phase or outgrowth of this fourth empire, symbolized by the feet and ten toesâ€”made up of iron and earthenware, a fragile base for the huge monument. The text clearly implies that this final phase will be marked by some sort of federation rather than by a powerful single realm” (ibid.).
Another dream adds important details
Additional aspects of this succession of world-ruling empires were revealed to Daniel in a later dream. This time the four empires were represented by four beasts: a lion (Babylonian Empire), a bear (Medo-Persian Empire), a leopard (Greco-Macedonian Empire) and a fourth beast described as “terrible” and unlike the other three (Daniel 7:1-7).
Notice what verse 7 says about this fourth creature: “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth [paralleling the iron legs of the prior dream]; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.”
What does this description mean? It too is a reference to the great power of Rome, which crushed all who opposed it. “Thus the superior power of the colossus of Rome … is emphasized in the symbolism of this terrible fourth beast” (Expositor’s, p. 87).
Verse 8 of Daniel 7 elaborates on the 10 horns: “I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots.” Later in the chapter we see that this little horn exalts himself to the position of an internationally powerful religious leader (verses 24-25), even commanding a false religious system that persecutes the true followers of God.
Daniel 7:9-14 takes us right through to Christ’s establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth: “Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.” So this Roman system, through its periodic revivals down through history, continues right to the time of the end when Jesus Christ returns to rule the earth.
Revelation 17 also helps us in understanding this end-time power. In this chapter it is again depicted as a beast, but now we see that its final manifestation includes 10 “kings”â€”leaders of nations or groups of nationsâ€”who “receive authority for one hour” with the ruler of this end-time superpower, an individual the Bible refers to as “the beast” (Revelation 17:12-13). This final revival of the Roman Empire leads into Christ’s return as they “make war with the Lamb” (verse 14).
All of this concurs with Daniel 2:44, which obviously indicates that the second coming of Christ will occur in a time during which vestiges of the fourth beast or kingdom (the Roman Empire) still exist: “And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.”
The greater part of these prophetic events, as detailed by the two dreams, has already been fulfilled. Their detailed completion affirms the divine inspiration of the Bible. The odds of any person foreseeing this on his own defy credibility. “… There is a God in heaven who reveals secrets, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days” (Daniel 2:28).
Daniel 11 records another phenomenal prophecy. The chronological setting is given in Daniel 10:1 as the “third year of Cyrus king of Persia.” A “man” (verse 5), no doubt an angel (compare Daniel 9:21), came to tell Daniel what would occur “in the latter days” (Daniel 10:14).
The prophecy that follows is the most detailed in all the Bible. The third year of Cyrus was more than 500 years before the birth of Christ. Yet this prophecy foretells events that began to occur almost immediately and will continue until the return of Christ. The initial stages of the prophecy confirm the Bible because they have already been fulfilled, as can be verified by a study of the Persian and Greek empires. No man could foresee such fine historical detail.
Some elements of what follows are intricate, requiring close attention. But a comparison of the prophetic words with the historical record makes them clear.
The first 35 verses of Daniel 11 give an account, written years in advance, of the intrigue between two political entitiesâ€” the “king of the South” and the “king of the North.” In secular history, the king of the South is often referred to as Ptolemy. The Ptolemaic dynasty ruled from Alexandria in Egypt. The king of the North ruled from Antioch in Syria under the name Seleucus, or Antiochus.
With this in mind, let’s examine some of the details of the prophecy. It is important because it reveals the political climate and tensions in the Middle East preceding both the first and second appearances of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. In both instances, Jerusalem is at the center of the political conflicts of the time.
You can find more information on the historical fulfillment of much of this prophecy in resources such as The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, which we quote below, or other reliable reference works. Rather than our quoting the entire scriptural passage, we recommend that you read in your own Bible the verses we cite, and remember that these details were foretold far in advance of their occurrence.
Daniel 11:2: The “three more kings” are Cambyses, the elder son of Cyrus; pseudo-Smerdis, an impostor who passed himself off as Cyrus’s younger son, who had been secretly killed; and Darius the Persian. “The Persian king who invaded Greece was … Xerxes, who reigned 485-464 B.C.” (Expositor’s, p. 128).
Actually there were 12 more kings in the Persian Empire, but only the first four following Cyrus were of importance for the purpose of this prophecy. They were Cambyses, pseudo-Smerdis, Darius and Xerxes. It was the last, or Xerxes, who was the richest of all and stirred up war with Greece.
Then King Philip of Macedonia planned a great war to conquer the Persian Empire, with an army made up mostly of Grecians. He died before the plans were completed. But his son, Alexander the Great, took over his plans, and invaded Persia. He met the Persian army at the Battle of Issus, 333 BC. (Daniel 8:2, 5-6). Then he swept down into Egypt, and then to a final crushing defeat of the Persian Empire at the Battle of Arbella, 331 BC, after which Alexander marched on a conquest clear to India, sweeping all before him.
Verses 3-4: “Verse 3 introduces us to … the rise of Alexander the Great” (ibid.). The language in verse 4 “clearly suggests that this mighty conqueror was going to have a comparatively brief reign … In seven or eight years he accomplished the most dazzling military conquest in human history. But he lived only four years more; and … died of a fever in 323 …” (ibid.).
Alexander’s kingdom was divided “among four smaller and weaker empires” (Expositor’s, p. 129). Alexander’s infant son had been murdered in 310 and an illegitimate brother assassinated in 317. “Thus there were no descendants or blood relatives to succeed Alexander himself” (ibid.). So his kingdom was not divided among his posterity (verse 4).
Alexander’s generals warred for control of his empire. The ensuing struggles for domination eliminated all but four, who became heads of the four divisions of his empire. The four were Cassander, reigning in Greece and the West, Lysimachus in Thrace and Asia Minor, Ptolemy in Egypt and Seleucus in Syria. Of these four, twoâ€”Ptolemy and Seleucusâ€”expanded their rule and territory. These were the kings of Egypt and Syria, respectively.
The machinations that follow relate to these two. They are referred to as the king of the South (Ptolemy) and the king of the North (Seleucus) because of their location relative to Jerusalem.
Verse 5: “The king of the South was to be Ptolemy I” (Expositor’s, p. 130). The biblical expression “one of his princes” refers to Seleucus. He had originally served under Ptolemy. In the intrigue after Alexander’s death, Seleucus ultimately gained control over Syria and became king of the North. Seleucus eventually wielded more power than Ptolemy. The dynasty of the Seleucid line was to continue until 64 B.C.
Verse 6: A state of tension and hostility existed between the king of the South and the king of the North. Ptolemy I died in 285 B.C. In 252 the two powers attempted a treaty under which Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II, was to marry Antiochus II, the king of the North. Laodice, the first wife of Antiochus II, was angry because he had divorced her. In retaliation, she manipulated a conspiracy from her place of banishment. She had Berenice and her infant son assassinated. “Not long afterward the king himself [Antiochus II] was poisoned …” (ibid.).
Laodice established herself as queen, because her son Seleucus II was too young to rule. The prophecy “she [Berenice] shall be given up” refers to the coup that Laodice engineered to effect the execution of Berenice. Some nobles who had supported Berenice as queen were also brought down.
Verses 7-9: Retaliation followed. A series of military actions, which came to be known as the Laodicean War, resulted. Ptolemy II died soon after Laodice killed his daughter, Berenice. Ptolemy III sought to avenge his sister’s death. He attacked the king of the North and captured the Syrian capital of Antioch. Verse 8 describes the recapture by Ptolemy of “long-lost idols and sacred treasures” (Expositor’s, p. 131) that had been stolen from Egypt by Cambyses in 524 B.C.
Peace was concluded between Ptolemy III and Seleucus II in 240, and hostilities ceased until 221, when Ptolemy III died.
Verses 10-12: The sons of Seleucus II attacked the king of the South after their father died. One of these sons, Seleucus III, reigned for only three years. His military activity was relatively minor. He died by poisoning. Another son, Antiochus III (the Great), did “overwhelm and pass through.” He conquered Judea.
Ptolemy IV, the king of the South, retaliated (verse 11) and defeated the larger army of Seleucus III at the Battle of Raphia. After his victory Ptolemy turned to a life of debauchery during which he slaughtered tens of thousands of Jews in Egypt (verse 12). Through all this he weakened his kingdom.
Verses 13-16: The phrase “at the end of some years” refers to an incident when, 14 years after his defeat, Antiochus III came against Ptolemy V, still a young boy. (Ptolemy IV had died in 203.) The Egyptian provinces were in turmoil because of the wretched rule of Ptolemy IV. Many of the peopleâ€”including Jews sympathetic to the king of the Northâ€”joined with Antiochus against the king of the South. The rebellion was ultimately crushed by the Egyptian general Scopus (verse 14).
Scopus also rebuffed the forces of Antiochus during the winter of 201-200. The king of the North responded with another invasion. He captured the city of Sidon (“a fortified city”), where Scopus surrendered (verse 15). Antiochus acquired complete control of the Holy Land, the “Glorious Land” (verse 16).
Verse 17: The Revised English Bible reads: “He [the king of the North] will resolve to advance with the full might of his kingdom; and, when he has agreed terms with the king of the south, he will give his young daughter in marriage to him, with a view to the destruction of the kingdom; but the treaty will not last nor will it be his purpose which is served.” Having defeated Scopus, Antiochus desired to gain control of Egypt itself. He gave his daughter, Cleopatra, to Ptolemy V in marriage. Antiochus believed she would act in his favor and betray the interests of her husband. But she frustrated his plans by siding with Ptolemy.
Verses 18-19: In his frustration, Antiochus attacked islands and cities of the Aegean area. He also gave asylum to Rome’s enemy, Hannibal of Carthage, who assisted him in landing in Greece. Rome responded by attacking Antiochus and inflicting defeat on his forces. The Romans deprived him of much of his territory and took several hostages to Rome, including Antiochus’s son. Rome exacted heavy tribute of him (verse 18).
Antiochus returned in disgrace to his stronghold, Antioch. Unable to pay the heavy fees exacted by the Romans, he attempted to plunder a pagan temple. His action so enraged local inhabitants that they killed him, bringing him to an inglorious end (verse 19).
Verse 20: While not Scripture, the apocryphal book of 2 Maccabees 3:7-40 says that Antiochus’s other son, Seleucus IV, was also unable to pay the taxes. Seleucus sent a Jew, Heliodorus, to plunder the temple at Jerusalem. Heliodorus went to the holy city but obtained nothing. Seleucus was later poisoned by Heliodorus, and so killed, “but not in anger or in battle.”
Daniel 11:21-35: These verses speak of the infamous Antiochus IV (known also as Epiphanes), the brother of Seleucus IV, who had earlier been taken hostage to Rome. He was a “tyrannical oppressor who did his utmost to destroy the Jewish religion altogether” (Expositor’s, p. 136).
Antiochus passed laws that forbade the practice of the Jewish religion, under penalty of death. He was a man of incredible cruelty. On his orders “an aged Scribe, Eleazar, was flogged to death because he refused to eat swine’s flesh. A mother and her seven children were successively butchered, in the presence of the governor, for refusing to pay homage to an image. Two mothers who had circumcised their new-born sons were driven through the city and cast headlong from the wall” (Charles Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, 1974, pp. 81-82).
Verse 31: This refers to the momentous events of Dec. 16, 168 B.C., when a crazed Antiochus entered Jerusalem and killed 80,000 men, women and children (2 Maccabees 5:11-14). He then desecrated the temple by offering a sacrifice to the chief Greek god, Zeus. This outrage was a forerunner of a comparable event that Jesus Christ said would occur in the last days (Matthew 24:15).
Verses 32-35: These verses appear to describe, on one level, the indomitable will and courage of the Maccabees, a family of priests who resisted Antiochus and his successors. The Maccabees’ revolt against the Syrian king was triggered when “Mattathias, the leading priest in the city of Modein …, after killing the officer of Antiochus who had come to enforce the new decree concerning idolatrous worship …, led a guerrilla band that fled to the hills …” (Expositor’s, p. 141).
Mattathias was aided in his cause by five sons, most notably Judah or Judas, nicknamed Maqqaba (Aramaic for hammer, whence derives the name Maccabees). Many of these patriots died in this cause, but their heroics ultimately drove the Syrian forces from the country.
On another level, these verses could even refer to the New Testament Church, with their references to mighty works, persecution and apostasy.
Indeed, at this point Daniel’s prophecy definitely takes on a different tone, referring explicitly to “the time of the end” near the end of verse 35. To quote Expositor’s: “With the conclusion of the preceding pericope [extract] at v. 35, the predictive material that incontestably applies to the Hellenistic empires and the contest between the Seleucids and the Jewish patriots ends. This present section (vv. 36-39) contains some features that hardly apply to Antiochus IV, though most of the details could apply to him as well as to his latter-day antitype, â€˜the beast.’
“Both liberal and conservative scholars agree that all of chapter 11 up to this point contains strikingly accurate predictions of the whole sweep of events from the reign of Cyrus … to the unsuccessful effort of Antiochus Epiphanes to stamp out the Jewish faith” (Expositor’s, p. 143).
From this point forward a little more than a century would pass before the Roman general Pompey would conquer Jerusalem. Much of the Middle East passed to the control of the Roman Empire, and much of its power in turn passed to its eastern leg, the Byzantine Empire, in the following centuries.
Take note that the different wars mentioned above were principally over possession of Judea, called Israel today. And it appears they will go to war again over the land of Judahâ€”specifically Jerusalem. Also note that Assyria is related to the Syrians.
During the Crusades, Jerusalem was always the main prize. This city is of supreme religious importance to Jews, Christians and Muslims. The so-called Christian Crusades were really Catholic crusades. The Roman Catholics generally clashed with Muslim armies.
It is important that we understand this history. It is about to be repeatedâ€”again. After prophecy, history is our next indication of what the future holds.
Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. And in the end-time prophecies about Jerusalem, America and Britain are included. The British peoples (biblical Ephraim), America (biblical Manasseh) (who together represent Israel) as we have just studied, and Judah are all prophesied to fall at the same time (Hosea 5:5 The pride of Israel testifies to his face; Therefore Israel and Ephraim stumble in their iniquity; Judah also stumbles with them.).
And notice the vision of Daniel that we have just looked at carries on down to this present time of the end. We have looked at the Huge image of Daniel 2. We have looked at the four beast of Daniel 7 and when compared to Daniel 8 they all say the same thing.
Babylon is followed by Media-Persia. Media-Persia is followed by Greece. Greece is followed by Rome. And Rome is followed by the Messiah. It is at this point or at this understanding that many in the Messianic groups suffer a brain cramp. It is at this point that they all begin to add to scriptures what is not there. That this fourth beast is not Rome but the USA instead.
We have shown in previous News Letters that the USA is in fact Manasseh and England Canada and Australia and New Zealand are Ephraim. Together they represent Israel as spoken of in the bible. The Jews are Judah, one tribe of the twelve, some of which today live in the land of Canaan which is today called Israel. The State of Israel does not represent all of Israel the same as Kentucky does not represent all of the USA. They are a part of the whole.
They (many in the Messianic community) have taken what is written in Fossilized Customs and accepted what is implied in the book as fact, that the USA is Babylon and the end time Beast. This is not true. Please brethren believe what the Bible says in the book of Daniel. All of the prophecies there are explained by an Angel. They are not left to some man to interpret. I have not interpreted anything. An Angel of the most High came and explained what each of these beast was. So believe him, and not the imaginations of an author of some book.
Daniel 11:36: And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
Who is this king of the north now being spoken of, now in the early and middle New Testament times, to which our prophecy has come? In 65 BC., Syria was swallowed up by the Roman Empire, and became a Roman province. The Roman emperor now controlled Judaea, and therefore the king of the north, here referred to, is, at this time, the emperor of the Roman Empire.
This is a critical piece of the puzzle. The Bible prophesies of 10 resurrections of this Roman Empire, the last seven of which are guided by the Roman Catholic Church. History shows that all but one of those resurrections has already happened. The last resurrection is nearly upon us. This fits perfectly with the prophecy that the king of the north would cause great tribulation. The “time of the end” discussed in Daniel 11:40 through chapter 12 involves the king of the north, which is the seventh resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire. The king of the north will inflict that tribulation on the nations of biblical Israel (primarily the U.S., Britain and the Jews of the Middle East).
After all of the prophecy in Daniel 11 that has already been fulfilled, the prophecy skips forward to this present day, or the “time of the end.” Lets take a look starting at verse 36. Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done. 37 He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all. 38 But in their place he shall honor a god of fortresses; and a god which his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things. 39 Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god, which he shall acknowledge, and advance its glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and divide the land for gain.
We are told that the King of the North shall honour a god of fortresses and a god which his fathers did not know. I have already shown you who this god of fortresses is but for your edification I will again repeat it.
The Two Babylons, Alexander Hislop, The Child in Assyria
The Child in Assyria
But when we look at what is said of Semiramis, the wife of Ninus, the evidence receives an additional development. That evidence goes conclusively to show that the wife of Ninus could be none other than the wife of Nimrod, and, further, to bring out one of the grand characters in which Nimrod, when deified, was adored. In Daniel 11:38, we read of a god called Ala Mahozine *–i.e., the “god of fortifications.”
* In our version, Ala Mahozim is rendered alternatively “god of forces,” or “gods protectors.” To the latter interpretation, there is this insuperable objection, that Ala is in the singular. Neither can the former be admitted; for Mahozim, or Mauzzim, does not signify “forces,” or “armies,” but “munitions,” as it is also given in the margin–that is “fortifications.” Stockius, in his Lexicon, gives us the definition of Mahoz in the singular, rober, arx, locus munitus, and in proof of the definition, the following examples:–
Judges 6:26, “And build an altar to the Lord thy God upon the top of this rock” (Mahoz, in the margin “strong place”); and Daniel 11:19, “Then shall he turn his face to the fort (Mahoz) of his own land.”
Who this god of fortifications could be, commentators have found themselves at a loss to determine. In the records of antiquity the existence of any god of fortifications has been commonly overlooked; and it must be confessed that no such god stands forth there with any prominence to the ordinary reader. But of the existence of a goddess of fortifications, every one knows that there is the amplest evidence. That goddess is Cybele, who is universally represented with a mural or turreted crown, or with a fortification, on her head. Why was Rhea or Cybele thus represented? Ovid asks the question and answers it himself; and the answer is this:
The reason he says, why the statue of Cybele wore a crown of towers was, “because she first erected them in cities.” The first city in the world after the flood (from whence the commencement of the world itself was often dated) that had towers and encompassing walls, was Babylon; and Ovid himself tells us that it was Semiramis, the first queen of that city, who was believed to have “surrounded Babylon with a wall of brick.” Semiramis, then, the first deified queen of that city and tower whose top was intended to reach to heaven, must have been the prototype of the goddess who “first made towers in cities.”
When we look at the Ephesian Diana, we find evidence to the very same effect. In general, Diana was depicted as a virgin, and the patroness of virginity; but the Ephesian Diana was quite different. She was represented with all the attributes of the Mother of the gods (Fig 8) , and, as the Mother of the gods, she wore a turreted crown, such as no one can contemplate without being forcibly reminded of the tower of Babel. Now this tower-bearing Diana is by an ancient scholiast expressly identified with Semiramis. *
* A scholiast on the Periergesis of Dionysius, says Layard (Nineveh and its Remains), makes Semiramis the same as the goddess Artemis or Despoina. Now, Artemis was Diana, and the title of Despoina given to her, shows that it was in the character of the Ephesian Diana she was identified with Semiramis; for Despoina is the Greek for Domina, “The Lady,” the peculiar title of Rhea or Cybele, the tower-bearing goddess, in ancient Rome. (OVID, Fasti)
When, therefore, we remember that Rhea or Cybele, the tower-bearing goddess, was, in point of fact, a Babylonian goddess, and that Semiramis, when deified, was worshipped under the name of Rhea, there will remain, I think, no doubt as to the personal identity of the “goddess of fortifications.”
Now there is no reason to believe that Semiramis alone (though some have represented the matter so) built the battlements of Babylon. We have the express testimony of the ancient historian, Megasthenes, as preserved by Abydenus, that it was “Belus” who “surrounded Babylon with a wall.” As “Bel,” the Confounder, who began the city and tower of Babel, had to leave both unfinished, this could not refer to him. It could refer only to his son Ninus, who inherited his father’s title, and who was the first actual king of the Babylonian empire, and, consequently Nimrod.
The real reason that Semiramis, the wife of Ninus, gained the glory of finishing the fortifications of Babylon, was, that she came in the esteem of the ancient idolaters to hold a preponderating position, and to have attributed to her all the different characters that belonged, or were supposed to belong, to her husband.
Having ascertained, then, one of the characters in which the deified wife was worshipped, we may from that conclude what was the corresponding character of the deified husband. Layard distinctly indicates his belief that Rhea or Cybele, the “tower-crown” goddess, was just the female counterpart of the “deity presiding over bulwarks or fortresses” and that this deity was Ninus, or Nimrod, we have still further evidence from what the scattered notices of antiquity say of the first deified king of Babylon, under a name that identifies him as the husband of Rhea, the “tower-bearing” goddess. That name is Kronos or Saturn. *
* In the Greek mythology, Kronos and Rhea are commonly brother and sister. Ninus and Semiramis, according to history, are not represented as standing in any such relation to one another; but this is no objection to the real identity of Ninus and Kronos; for, 1st, the relationships of the divinities, in most countries, are peculiarly conflicting–Osiris, in Egypt, is represented at different times, not only as the son and husband of Isis, but also as her father and brother (BUNSEN); then, secondly, whatever the deified mortals might be before deification, on being deified they came into new relationships. On the apotheosis of husband and wife, it was necessary for the dignity of both that both alike should be represented as of the same celestial origin–as both supernaturally the children of God.
This god of fortresses is Semiramis, the Queen of Heaven, who today is called the Blessed Virgin Mary of whom the Catholic church worships. This King of the North shall worship this Mary of the Catholic faith. She is the god of fortresses.
Also in verse 38 we are told that he, the King of the North, shall honor a god of fortresses; and a god which his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things.
This is, in my opinion the most amazing verse. Why you ask? We must stop now and back track some more for some more history. But remember this verse. We will continue next week.
Joseph F Dumond
Write to firstname.lastname@example.org
Here is a list of past News Letters and the topics discussed for your reference.