p. 413 | A. G. DANIELLS by Arthur Grosvenor Daniells

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · May 1, 1913

A. G. DANIELLS

By Arthur Grosvenor Daniells

Does the History of Turkey and Egypt Since 1798 Fulfil the Prophecy of Dan. 11:40-44? — No. 15

A. G. DANIELLS

In the statement of events set forth in Dan. 11:40, the prophecy foretells a decisive victory for the “king of the north” in the deadly conflict in which he was to be engaged “at the time of the end.” That conflict, we have shown, was caused by the French invasion of Egypt and Turkey which began in 1798 and ended with a complete victory for Turkey. But the prophecy does not close here, nor does it drop the “king of the north” from further consideration. It goes on foretelling a series of victories this power will achieve. It reads as follows:—

“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 stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 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.” Dan. 11:41-43.

This outline deals altogether with the countries and peoples in the region of Egypt, the “king of the south.” A number of countries are mentioned by name. Edom, Moab, and Ammon, it is said, would escape the domination of the king of the north. But the “glorious land” (Palestine), Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia, were to be brought under his control.

In order fully to appreciate the extent to which these predictions have been fulfilled, it will be necessary to review briefly the relation that existed between these countries and Turkey at the time of the French invasion. The general situation is told by Mr. W. Eton in his book, “A Survey of the Turkish Empire.” This writer was a resident of Turkey and Russia twenty-three years, during which time he held high official positions in both governments. He closed the preface of his book in February, 1798, three months before the French expedition sailed for Egypt. Of Syria and Palestine he says:—

“In the country about Smyrna, there are great agas [army officers], who are independent lords, and maintain armies, and often lay that city under contribution. The Porte never gains but a temporary influence by sometimes intermeddling in their quarrels.”

“All the inhabitants of the mountains, from Smyrna to Palestine, are perfectly independent, and are considered by the Porte as enemies, whom they attack whenever there is opportunity.

“On the coast of Syria, the sultan only virtually possesses the ports of Latakia (Laodicea), a small shallow harbor and a ruined town; Alexandretta (or Scanderoon), the port of Aleppo, a miserable village.

“All Egypt is independent. The pasha sent to Cairo is in effect a prisoner during his government, which is only nominal; the Porte draws little or no revenue from it, and no troops except a few fanatics in time of war with the Christians. The Turks have at different times got possession of Cairo, but never could maintain themselves in the government.” —“A Survey of the Turkish Empire,” pages 299-302, by W. Eton, 1798.

Egypt’s relation to Turkey at that time is very clearly and accurately given by McCoan:—

“The conquest of the country by Sultan Selim I, in 1517, abolished the Mameluke dynasty, but did not establish in its stead the full sovereignty of the Porte. The great military aristocracy of the beys remained in unweakened force, and the conqueror was fain to conclude with them a regular treaty by which Egypt was constituted in effect a republic, feudally subject to the sultan and his successors, but the government of which was still left in the hands of the Mameluke chiefs, acting as a council of regency under a pasha, whose almost only function was to receive and remit to Constantinople the stipulated tribute, and who was himself deposable at will by this Mameluke divan. The beys also retained the right of electing their own chief, who, in concert with his fellows, levied taxes, maintained an army, coined money, and otherwise exercised supreme authority over the country. Shadowy as was the sovereignty thus left to the Porte, it became, if possible, still more unreal during the domestic turbulence and foreign wars of the succeeding reigns, until, in 1763, the then dominant bey refused payment of the tribute, expelled the resident pasha, and proclaimed himself ‘Sultan of Egypt and Lord of the Two Seas.’ Although this revolt was not successful, the Porte gladly compounded the treason by reconfirming the disaffected chiefs in their old powers; and the deposition of its representative, by the simple fiat of the beys, became thenceforward an incident of almost yearly occurrence. To this merely nominal suzerainty had the authority of the sultan been reduced when, in 1798, the French invasion under Bonaparte for three years extinguished it altogether.” —“Egypt as It Is,” pages 75, 76, by J. C. McCoan.

At that time Ethiopia, now known as the Sudan, was in no sense under the domination of Turkey. The same may be said of Libya, lying to the west of Ethiopia.

Now the prophecy states that following the triumphs of the “king of the

north