Does the History of Turkey and Egypt Since 1798 Fulfil the Prophecy of Dan. 11:40-44?
By A. G. DANIELLS
“At the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him.” Dan. 11:40, first clause. This statement is plain and direct. Its three simple parts are these: at the time of the end—shall the king of the south push at—him. The first part—the time of the end—was the subject of last week’s study, in which it was found from other specifications in this and other lines of prophecy, that the time of the end was to begin at the close of the twelve hundred sixty years allotted to the supremacy of the Papacy. The history of the Papacy shows that its supremacy was proclaimed by the Roman emperor Justinian in 533 A. D., that the proclamation went into effect in 538 A. D., and that this supremacy, after a period of just twelve hundred sixty years, was taken away by a series of events in that revolutionary period in France extending from 1793 to 1798 A. D. The subject now before us is “the king of the south.” What power is here referred to? It will not be difficult to determine this, for ample data are given in the line of prophecy we are studying. The king of the south is introduced in the fifth verse of this chapter, and is kept before us as one of the principal subjects of the prophecy down to the fifteenth verse. We shall get our bearings clearly by starting at the beginning of the prophecy:— “And now will I show 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.” Dan. 11:2. From this statement we see that Persia is the kingdom with which this long line of prophecy starts. Persia was to “stir up all against the realm of Grecia,” but was to meet in Grecia a “mighty king” who would “rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.” Verse 3. This was undoubtedly Alexander. Persia and Grecia are both subjects of the prophecy recorded in the eighth chapter of Daniel, and are there represented as follows:— “The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.” Dan. 8:20, 21. The long line of prophecy of Daniel 11 opens with these two kingdoms, and it seems fair to conclude that the “mighty king” who “shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will” (Dan. 11:3), is the same as “the first king” of Grecia represented by the notable horn of Dan. 8:21. The first king of Grecia all know was Alexander. Of him and the vast dominion52over which he extended his conquests the prophecy declares:— “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.” Dan. 11:4. Note these specifications: (1) When he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken; (2) it shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; (3) not to his posterity; (4) but to others. These specifications are all clearly met in the history of Alexander’s conquests, and the division of his empire after his death. Immediately at the close of his triumphant march through Asia as far east as India, Alexander died in the city of Babylon, while still young and at the pinnacle of his glory and power. As he left no heir to his throne, his generals made his weak-minded half-brother Arrhidæus king. It was also arranged that if the expected child from Roxana, Alexander’s wife, should be a son, he should succeed to the throne. Perdiccas, one of the generals, was appointed regent, and other leading generals were appointed governors of various provinces and divisions of the empire. Roxana’s child proved to be a son, but in a short time both mother and child were murdered. “With the death of Alexander’s son, the empire of Alexander the Great became only a geographical conception. In fact, it was split up into separate parts, and the central power, continually weakened since Antipater’s death, had completely vanished. The generals now regarded the provinces, which had been originally assigned to them by the high power merely for administration, as their own dominions. It was, therefore, only natural that after 306 B. C. they styled themselves ‘kings,’ for kings they had been for years.”—“The World’s History,” Vol. IV, page 134, Dr. Hans F. Helmolt, historian of Grecian department. “The battle of Ipsus [B. C. 301] resulted in a permanent division of the vast empire founded by Alexander the Great, after twenty-two years of sanguinary wars among his generals, during which the whole of Alexander’s family and all his relatives perished. The triumphant Seleucus and Lysimachus divided the dominion of Asia between them; Seleucus received the Euphrates valley, northern Syria, Cappadocia, and part of Phrygia; while Lysimachus obtained the remainder of Asia Minor in addition to Thrace, which extended along the western shores of the Euxine as far north as the mouths of the Danube. Ptolemy was allowed to hold Egypt, along with Palestine, Phœnicia, and Coele-Syria; while Cassander was allowed to reign in Macedon and Greece until his death.”—“Library of Universal History,” Vol. III, page 779. These two short statements record the fulfilment of every specification given in verse 4. In two hundred thirty-five years after this prophecy was given, Persia had been overthrown by Grecia, Alexander, the “mighty king,” had been broken by the hand of death, and his kingdom had been divided toward the four winds of heaven, not to “his posterity,” but “for others.” At this point two of these divisions, the east and the west, drop out of sight, while the other two, the north and the south, are given great prominence. Here history bears the following testimony:— “After the death of Cassander, Demetrius seized the throne of Macedon and Greece; but seven years afterward, Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, and Lysimachus, king of Thrace, successively possessed themselves of the kingdom of Macedon, and Demetrius died in captivity (B. C. 283).”—“Library of Universal History,” Vol. III, page 779. “The empire of Lysimachus had been gradually extended and consolidated. . . . Besides Macedonia proper and Thrace, Lysimachus ruled over Lydia, Mysia, Ionia, Caria, and, no doubt, over Phrygia Major also—an empire as beautiful as he could have wished.” (283 B. C.)—“The Historians’ History of the World,” Vol. IV, chap. 59, page 454. Here we have the three kingdoms as stated by Duruy. Cassander’s division in the west had been conquered by Lysimachus and added to his kingdom, which constituted the northern division. But this “empire as beautiful as he could have wished” was soon wrested from Lysimachus:— “Seleucus advanced into Asia Minor, where he easily reduced all the places belonging to Lysimachus. The city of Sardis was soon obliged to capitulate. Lysimachus met the enemy at Corupedion, in Phrygia. The engagement was very bloody, and the victory long doubtful; but at last Lysimachus, who had fought the whole time at the head of his troops with incredible bravery, being run through with a spear by Malacon, of Heraclea, and killed on the spot, his soldiers betook themselves to flight, and left Seleucus master of the field and all their baggage. Thus died Lysimachus, after having seen the death of fifteen of his children; and as he was, to use the expression of Memnon, the last stone of his house to be pulled down, Seleucus, without opposition, made himself master of all his dominions.” (B. C. 282.)—Id., chap. 65, page 555. This placed the vast territory of Alexander’s empire in the hands of two kings—Ptolemy in Egypt and Seleucus in western Asia and eastern Europe. One occupied the southern part of the territory, and the other the northern. And these two divisions are designated in the prophecy as the king of the south and the king of the north. There can be no question as to which is the king of the south. It surely would not be the kingdom occupying the northern division. Egypt, being in the south, must be the king of the south. This is established beyond question by the fact that the history of Egypt following this division meets all the specifications of the prophecy regarding the king of the south.