Bookshelf/ Vol.I / Vol. IV. Part VI. Contents. Chapter I. 1. 2. 3. II. 1. 2. 3. III. 1. 2. 3. IV. 1. 2. V. 1. 2. Appendix I. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. II. 1a. 1b. 2a. 2b. 2c. 3. 4. III 1. 2a. 2b.


In the second part (including from chapter xi. 31 to the end of chapter xii.) the prophecy naturally arranges itself under five sectional subdivisions: - 1st, the prediction of the setting-up of the abomination of desolation, contained in verse 31; - 2nd, the sketch of events following thereupon, till the rise of the self-deifying apostate King, given in verses 31-36; - 3rd, the description of this apostate King in verses 36-39 inclusive; - 4th, the resumed notice of the Kings of the South and North, and their enterprises, in connection with the apostate King’s time and reigns, verses 40-45; - 5thly, and finally, the sketch of the concluding catastrophe, issuing in the grand consummation and the deliverance and blessedness of Daniel’s people, contained in chap. xii.

1. Now with regard to the first of these sectional sub-divisions,[1] were we simply to follow the course of history, we might

and honor; the total defeat of this latter in the first instance, and success in the second; and thereupon his making up the quarrel with the Southern King by some marriage-scheme, and turning his face to the isles of the Mediterranean, and capturing them, until sternly repulsed by some prince or general, on whom that attack was deemed an indignity, and dying soon after ingloriously; - then the reign of a mere raiser of taxes, as the next King of the North; - then his being followed by a king contemptible, and the very reverse of epifanhv (illustrious), and this last invading Egypt with more success than any of his predecessors, once and again, until stopped by the very singular intervention of ships of Chittim; and then, finally, venting his rage against the Jews and their religion, in alliance with certain apostates to heathenism from out of their own body. - All these points seem to be pretty well unambiguous, alike in the prediction and the historical fulfillment.

[1] 31. “And arms [1] shall stand [2] on his part: [3] they shall pollute the sanctuary [4] of strength; [5] and shall take away the daily sacrifice: [6] and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.” [7]

naturally suppose the prediction it contains to have reference to that same Antiochus Epiphanes that was the subject of the verses preceding, and his setting up of what might well be called an abomination of desolation in Jerusalem. For history tells us, that after the repulse of this Syrian King from Egypt by the stern mandate of the Roman ambassadors, he did not only show “indignation against the holy covenant,” by attacking the still holy city Jerusalem, breaking down in part its walls and houses, and massacring many of its inhabitants, - but that he also by a decree abrogated the Jewish worship, enjoined conformity on the pain of death to the Greek heathen religion, defiled the temple by the blood of the Jewish worshippers, set up the statue there of Jupiter Olympius, and at the same time, placing a garrison in a strong fort built in the city of David, fell on all that might come up to worship after the Mosaic ritual, and thereby made the temple and the city desolate.[1] - Yet, on more careful consideration, strong reasons will I think strike the careful inquirer against this historical application of the passage. For 1st, it will

[1]. Such however is Venema’s view; who supposes the history to be continued onward to the end of Dan. xii., all with reference to Maccabean events and times.

be found most difficult, if I mistake not, to explain the sequel of the prophecy consistently with it. With regard to the people spoken of immediately after as “knowing their God,” [8] antithetically to certain that are styled covenant-transgressors, they must on this hypothesis of interpretation be supposed the Maccabean patriots, that rose up in insurrection against Antiochus and his heathenish ordinance. But, as Bishop Newton observes, neither could it be said of them that “they instructed many,” [9] for there is no record of any grand accession of proselytes to the Jews’ religion through their teaching: nor again could it be said of them that “they fell by the sword, and flame, and spoil, and captivity [many] days,” [10] indeed, as verse 35 seems to imply, until the time of the end: the fact being that (except in the case of some that would not resist when attacked on the sabbath-day) [11] they were from the very commencement successful in their patriotic enterprises, at first in more petty guerilla warfare, then soon after in a decisive battle with Antiochus’ chief general Lysias; [12] the result of which, besides, probably precipitating the horrible death of Antiochus, [13] was the cleansing of the temple just three years from the setting up of Jupiter’s image within it by Apollonius, [14] restoration of the Mosaic ritual, and establishment of the high priesthood and sovereignty over the Jewish people in the Maccabean family, where it continued thenceforward for several generations. [15] - Moreover in what follows after this about the self-deifying King, [16] and the Kings of the South and the North pushing at him, [17] the historical interpretation fails still as palpably as before: forasmuch as Antiochus Epiphanes, the supposed predicted King on this hypothesis, instead of not worshipping his fathers’ God, like Daniel’s self-deifying King, [18] was as much given to the worship of Jupiter as his Greek ancestors before him; [19] and neither was pushed at by Egypt’s now prostrate king, nor (being himself in this prophecy the King of the North) could have had the King of the North come against him. - 2. There are two expressions in the verse under consideration, designative alike of the desolating arms or power, and of the desolation itself, which seem to me to give intimation that the history of Antiochus Epiphanes is here broken off from, and another and different enemy of Daniel’s people referred to. For the former is spoken of thus; “And arms shall stand up from, or after, him:” a phrase hardly to be interpreted, I believe, agreeably with the precedents of other analogous Hebrew phrases in the prophecy, except of some new prince or power, arising after in respect of time, or from him, in respect of origin, that was before the subject of description. [20] And the latter has the definite article prefixed to it, “The abomination making desolate:” as if to designate either one particular desolating abomination previously made known to Daniel (Dan. ix. 27, “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”,) or that which was to be emphatically the grand abomination of desolation: [21] on neither of which grounds could that spoken of in the passage before us mean the idol set up in the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes; there having been no previous prediction of it, [22] and the desolation it caused being one of very short duration.

And in fact, while thus excluding the abomination set up by Antiochus, this little but very significant particle in the prophetic language seems to me very strikingly to point out that which was afterwards set up by the Romans, as the one intended: both as being that which introduced the longest and greatest desolation of the Jewish temple and city, and that which alike other previous prophecies, [23] and more especially the one communicated to Daniel himself a little before by the angel Gabriel, [24] distinctly foretold. - nor is there wanting yet other evidence to corroborate this conclusion as to the meaning of the prediction. 1st, the very singular circumstance of Gabriel’s adoption of the language of Balaam’s ancient prophecy, [25] when bringing the Romans just before on the prophetic scene, “And ships shall come from Chittim,” might naturally be supposed to indicate not only that the same power was here intended by him that was intended by Balaam, but that the desolation of the Hebrew nation next after spoken of by him was the same also with that which was next after foreshown by the Spirit that spoke through Balaam; which last was expressly and to be caused by them of the ships from Chittim. [26] - 2 Our Lord’s specification of the abomination of desolation that was to be set up by the Romans as the one spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, [27] When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand;)” Luke xxi. 20, “And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.”. - though explicable by reference simply to the prophecy in Daniel’s ninth chapter, does yet on the most natural interpretation imply a reference to this also. [28] - 3. As from the second to the third, [29] so from the third of the four great empires to the fourth, a transition might surely be expected in the Angel’s far-ranging prophecy: and for this there could be no fitter epoch, according to the evidence of history, than that when the Roman ambassadors arrived in ships from Chittim at Alexandria. For, as Mr. Mede has observed, that precise year was the epoch of the overthrow of the Macedonian kingdom, and its conversion into a subject-province by the Romans: [30] and indeed the very act of their thus dictating terms between the Syro-Macedonian and Egypto-Macedonian dynasties, was at the time of notification to the world that the Roman arms held now the world’s supremacy, having, like the emblem on one of their standards, [31] stood up above the Grecian; just agreeably with this prophecy, which might almost before hand have been deemed to signify as much. - 4thly, and finally, it appears from Jerome that the Jews themselves in his time, who had the two interpretations alike before them, [32] did apply this prophecy, not to the abomination of desolation set up by Antiochus, but to that far more awful one set up by the Romans.1

This important preliminary point being settled, our course will be clearer for the sequel.

2. The second and next subdivision of this part of the prophecy sketches the events that would follow on this setting up of the abomination of desolation by the Romans (as I suppose) in the Jewish temple, down to the rise of the self-deifying King: - a sketch contained in verse 32-35, inclusive. 2

1. Jerome’s words are (in loc.): - “Judi hoc nee de Antioche Epiphane, nec de Antichristo, sed de Romanis intelligi volunt, de quibus supr dictum est, ‘Et venient trieres (sive Itali atque Romani), atque humiliabitur.’ Post multa, inquit, tempora de ipsis Romanis, qui Ptolemo venere auxilio, et Antiocho comminati sunt, consurget rex Vespasianus; surgent brachia ejus et semina, Titus filius cm exercitu; et polluent sanctuarium, auferentque juge sacrificium, et templum tradent tern solitudini.” - On the trieres see the notice from Jerome, in Note 402, pp. 42 supr.

The same Father on Matt. xxiv. 15, after referring to Dan. ix. 27, thus gives his own judgment on the abomination of desolation, meant by Christ: - “Potest aut de Antichristo accipi, aut de imagine Csaris quod Pilatus posuit in temple, aut de Hadriani equestri statu: or, again, as he adds, of all wrong doctrines that may stand in the Holy Place, i.e. in the Church.

I have already in my Vol. i. p. 632, given my own view of the abomination of desolation, in the time of the Romans, intended by Christ and Daniel; and shall have hereafter again to refer to it.

Ambrose too, on Luke xxi. 20 (Lib. x. 15) thus notes the Jews’ opinion. “Vere Hierusalem ab exercitu obsessa est, et expugnata Romano duce; unde Judi puta verunt tunc factam abominationem desolationis, [viz. that predicted alike in Dan. ix. and xi.] co quod caput porci in templum jecerint, illudentes Romani Judaic ritum observanti.” Which explanation, however, Ambrose himself reprobates.

Let me observe that the fact that Ambrose alludes to is confirmed and illustrated by a Roman medal of one of the Emperors, which on the obverse has the device of a woman in bonds standing under a palm-tree, with the legend Juda Devicta, on the reverse a sow with its litter: it being said that the Emperor Claudius ordered a sow to be placed over the gate of the temple at Jerusalem.

In one manuscript Wintle observes, the word arms in this verse is followed by of the sea, or of the West: evidently, if a gloss, written by one who took the same view as the above of the meaning of the passage.

2. 32. “And such as do wickedly [33] against the covenant shall be corrupt [34] by flatteries: [35] but the people [36] that do know their God shall be strong, and do

And it is supposed by Sir Isaac and Bishop Newton, and other interpreters who, in common with them and myself, understand the abomination meant of that placed by the Romans, that they whose character and history are here given, are simply the Christian body; a body constituted just before Judah’s desolation, and here, depicted under the two-fold classification of its faithful and unfaithful members. For they think that no allusion is made to the Jews thenceforward in the prophecy: except in those chronological notices xi. 36, “Till the indignation be accomplished,” and xii. 7 “When he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people:” wherein the Angel marked the end of the indignation against the Jews, and of their penal scattering, as the sign and epoch of the consummation. Thus the passage is explained by them in brief as follows: - “He (the Roman Emperor and his officers) shall by flattering offers induce unfaithful Christians, the transgressors of the new covenant, to apostatize from the faith; but the faithful Christians shall be strong and instruct many. Yet they shall fall many days by sword, flame, captivity, and spoil, - viz. in the ten Pagan persecutions;

exploits. 33. And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: [37] yet [38] they shall fall [39] by the sword and by flame, by captivity [40] and by spoil, many days. [41] . 34. Now when they shall fall [42] they shall be holpen with a little help; [43] but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. [44] 35. And some of them [45] of understanding shall fall to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, [46] even to [47] the time of the end: [48] because it is yet for a time appointed.” [49]

till holpen by the little help of Constantine and his descendants’ adoption and establishment of Christianity in the Roman Empire. [50] Then many shall cleave to them with flatteries, or hypocritically join themselves to the Church; and divers of the true and sincere Christians fall afterwards by new persecutions, to try them, and purify them, till the time of the end.”

But I cannot think that there may be here indicated two divisions of the people spoken of: viz. first, a division of the whole Jewish people into Jews rejecting Christianity, and Jews embracing it and becoming Christians: (this in the two former verses:) then, a further division of the latter, together with the Gentiles incorporated in their body, into the false and the true members of the professing Christian Church. For besides that we might expect, as I think, some notice of the desolated Jewish people at this sad crisis of their history, as well as of their desolate city, - just as in our Lord’s prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, [51] and other earlier prophecies also, [52] - besides this, I say, there are various expressions in the two first verses of the passage under consideration which seem to me scarcely applicable, except to that unhappy people. Is the phrase “they that do wickedly against the covenant,” a fit designation of the insincerity and worldliness in heart of such members of the Christian body as were ultimately induced in the time of Pagan Rome’s persecutions to apostatize? Or, if previously open transgressors of the covenant, did they need at all to be corrupted? Again, was it the fact that the Roman emperors and chief magistrates did then seek by flatteries to draw Christians into apostasy from their faith; and this on a scale as to be marked in history, and to answer to a notice like this in prophecy? Surely cruelty and violence, not flattery, were the characteristic weapons by which Pagan powers sought to destroy Christianity. [53] - Further, did the Christians, as a body or people, fall during these times of Pagan persecution, so as the expression in verse 33 seems to indicate; or only a certain few from among them? [54] - And, once more, could it be said of such as suffered in these persecutions, that they fell by captivity, as well as otherwise: - a word used in Hebrew, just like the words that represent it in the Greek, Latin, English, and other versions, not of imprisonment by order of the civil magistrate, but of the taking of prisoners in war, and holding them, so taken, in captivity and exile? [55]

Thus my impression is that the Jews must be here meant, not Christians. And on the whole, - supposing the first clause in ver. 32 to be read as by Wintle, “They that do wickedly against the covenant will dissemble in flatteries,” [56] I would thus briefly paraphrase the whole passage: - “In connection with this time and fact of Jerusalem’s desolation, the Jewish people generally, though wicked transgressors of the holy covenant, (a covenant just before confirmed and illustrated among them by their Messiah,) [57] shall yet unite with this their transgression of it the show and profession of religious zeal, hypocritically dissembling:” - a character of the Jews of that ra prominently set forth in the awful reproofs of Christ himself; [58] and set forth also as awfully by their own historian Josephus, in his description of them during the siege of Jerusalem. [59] Or else, if Venema’s translation be sustainable, then thus: - “And they, the Jewish transgressors, shall stumble and fall to be broken:” just as predicted in the notable prophecy long before written by Isaiah. [60] “On the other hand, they that know their God, even Jehovah their then-revealed Messiah and Saviour, (such I cannot but believe to be the intent of the expression, especially as considering the time referred to,) [61] - the disciples who, taught from above, shall know what others cannot know, [62] viz. that mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh, [63] shall not only understand themselves, but, strong in faith and spirit, shall instruct and disciple many. Thus the Jewish people, as a nation, shall fall and be scattered, a monument of God’s righteous indignation, [64] by the sword and by flame, by captivity and by spoil, many days: whilst meanwhile the understanding ones, or disciples of the Messiah, shall not only otherwise advance in their work, but be holpen even on this world’s theatre with a little help. [65] Then, however, and on this gleam of visible prosperity, hypocrisy shall insinuate itself even into their body. Many shall cleave to them that are mere dissemblers in religion,[1] just like the Jews before them, and so corrupt the professing people. And thus persecution shall arise against the sincere ones, even out of their own body; and this continue even to the time of the end. But the result shall be only, under the divine overruling, for their good: to try them, and purify them, and make them white; even as silver is purified, and the garment made writer, by the fuller’s soap and the refiner’s fire.”[2]

[1]. So even in apostolic times, “the apostasy,” said St. Paul,”doth already work.”

[2]. Compare and contrast with the above the comment of Ephrem Syrus on the parallel text in Dan. xii. 9, 19, “Many shall be purified and made white,” &c. “Designat futuram apostolorum electionem, et credentium ad cosdem audicudos concursum, quos prdicit baptismi lavaere deulbandos: Judos contr Christi interfectores, sever judicandos et puniendos.”

3. As to the third subdivision,[3] containing the Angel’s prophetic sketch of one who has been often of late, but certainly not very happily, called the willful King, - I would rather designate him as the self-deifying King, - my judgment acquiesces in the well-known interpretation given of it by Mede and the two Newtons: and this with satisfaction, in respect of most particulars. I conceive with them that the king mentioned means the king or ruling chief of those false Christians just spoken of, that would in hypocrisy and mere profession have attached themselves to the Christian Church; in other words, the great Head of the

[3]. 36. “And the king [66] shall do according to his will: [67] and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, [68] and shall speak marvelous things against the god of gods; [69] and shall prosper till [70] the indignation [71] be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. 37 Neither shall he regard [72] the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, [73] nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself

Apostasy, the Roman Pope. For the definite article before the word King seems to me almost to tie down the meaning to some notable ruler, either of these false professors, or of the power just before mentioned as brought on the scene by the ships from Chittim, the same that would place the abomination making desolate: the Syrian King of the North (the only other previously-mentioned potentate whom that article might refer to) being excluded both by considerations elsewhere specified (pp. 44, 45, &c.), and by chronology of the passage; a chronology now brought down into Christian times by the context immediately preceding. - And as to the other two solutions that have been offered, and which would explain this King either of

above all. 38. But in his estate [74] shall he honor the god of forces: [75] (margin, the god Mahuzzim:) [76] and [77] a god whom his fathers knew not shall he

revolutionary atheistic France,1 or of an infidel Antichrist yet future, 2 they too seem equally excluded by the marks laid down of this King’s chronological date and political and religious origin and connection. For did atheistic France rise up as the ruling Head either of the antichristian Apostasy of the fifth and sixth centuries, or of the Roman state and power from Italy and Chittim? 3 Or, again, could the characteristics of a king that was to rise before the time of the end mentioned in Dan. 11:40, “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”, and to prosper, for some time apparently, 4 till the indignation against the Jews was accomplished, be predicated of an infidel Antichrist, yet future, with a duration of but three and a half literal years, all

honor with gold, and with silver, and with precious stones and pleasant things. [78] 39. Thus shall he do in most strong-holds with a strange god, [79] whom he

shall acknowledge and [80] increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule [81] over many, and he shall divide the land for gain.” [82]

1. As Faber on the Prophecies, i. 404, and S.C. II. 160.

2. Maitland, Burgh, &c.

3. There is no various reading. - Mr. Faber in the translation prefixed to the historic sketch on his work on the Prophecies, inadvertently overlooked the definite article of the Hebrew, and translated, “And a king shall do,” &c. - In his 2nd Edition of the S.C. ii. 145, published soon after my first Edition, he corrected this inadvertence. “And that king shall do,” is now his version: the reference being, as he supposes, to the seed or progeny of the Chittim, or Roman Empire mentioned above, xi. 31.

4. Compare the “many days” of verse 33.

within the time of the end?1 Thus, I say, these two other suggested solutions of the self-deifying King of the prophecy seem to me as plainly inadmissible as that which would refer it to Antiochus Epiphanes: whereas, on the other hand, the Pope and Papal power seem to answer to the description, not merely in respect of his origin, as having been the head of the Apostates of Christendom from the sixth century, but in each other main particular also.

For he was alike their head, and the head also (in his time) of the same fourth great dominant power, the Roman, which had been introduced a little before into the Angel’s prophetic sketch with “the ships from Chittim;” just accordantly both with the description here given of the self-deifying King, and with that other memorable prefiguration also, long before shown to Daniel, [83] which depicted the last ruling chief of the fourth great heathen empire as a little horn, with emblems betokening the chief of a religious apostasy. [84] - His supremacy in power - a supremacy that might well be equaled even to that of Alexander the Great, of whom the same expression is used [85] - is another point of correspondency. - And so too his character and pride, as exalting himself above every god; and thus, and therefore, disregarding alike the Pagan gods of his Roman ancestors, and the true God, and Christ “the desire of women;” (for so I take the phrase; [86] ) and against the latter speaking marvelous things and blasphemies: - all which is but another version of what is said of the Antichrist alike in Dan. vii., 2 Thess. ii., and Rev. xiii.; and which, in respect of its application to the Pope, has been already elsewhere in other parts of this Book [87] abundantly illustrated by me, - As to what is said of the self-deifying King’s honoring of the god Mahuzzim, and also of a god whom his fathers knew not, [88] and which was to be glorified with gold and silver and precious stones, in place alike of his ancestors’ gods and of the true God, it seems to me to be well and consistently explained by reference to the two grand objects of worship under the Papacy: - 1st. to these saints, (the Virgin Mary primarily inclusive,) and their relics and images, which the Apostasy from its first development regarded and worshipped as the Mahuzzim, or fortresses, of the places where they were deposited: [89] saints

1. The difficulty is not obviated by the explanation which some expositors of this class give to the abomination of desolation in verse 31, as if one to be set up by an infidel Antichrist, yet future. And the objection to it not merely from the context of the present prophecy, but from our Lord’s prophecy in Matt. xxiv. 15, is one which, as it seems to me, cannot be overcome.

whom the Papal Chief of Anti-Christendom, on the grant of the Pantheon at Rome, [90] solemnly adopted as tutelary deities; whom in the second Council of Nice he prevailed to have recognized as fit objects of worship, with apostate Christendom’s most solemn sanction; [91] and whom afterwards, in the West, he elected and canonized as Mahuzzim, as his own peculiar prerogative, and by his own sole authority: [92] - 2ndly to the transubstantiated breaden god, the creation of his own matchless priestcraft; respecting which, in accordance which seems to me really marvelous with the prophetic language here used by Daniel, he has established the rule that it must “be glorified,” or have rays of glory surround it, “of gold and silver and precious stones,” wherever practicable in the crystal monstranza in which it is elevated for the adoration of the people; such glory as best becomes the divinity. [93] But how so, considering that he is represented as self-deified? Just because, as being the saint-maker and god-maker, he did, in promoting their worship, promote yet more and superlatively his own. [94] How he caused the saints to “rule over many,” attaching to each country, town, monastery, and church its patron-saint, and how effectually he thus “divided the land among them both for gain,” and “at a price,” is a further point of correspondence with the Apostate King of the prophecy, which previous interpreters have well explained; and which I have myself also, after them, illustrated elsewhere fully from history. [95] - Let me add that as the Head of that Apostasy under which the saints were many of them to fall, (to try them, and make them white, &c.,) the Apostate King’s character of persecutor of the saints seems also intimated: and that, I think, not obscurely. [96] How this characteristic applied to the Popes of Rome I need not repeat.

Such I conceive to be the intent of the Angel’s prophecy, and that it thus had its fulfillment in the great and then future Papal Antichrist. And mark the intimation given in verse 36, as to the term of his continuance in power: - viz. that it was to be “till the end of the indignation;” meaning apparently thereby the indignation against the Jewish people. [97]

4. So we come to the fourth sectional subdivision of the prophecy. [98] And as in Balaam’s far-ranging prophecy the prediction of the overthrow, first of Ashur, and then of Eber, by ships from Chittim, was followed by one respecting

him. [99] And the King of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with ships: and he [100] shall enter into the countries [101] and shall overflow and pass over. 41. He shall enter also into the glorious land; [102] and many countries [103] shall be overthrown: and these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. [104] 42. He shall stretch forth his hand [105] also upon the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43. But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and Ethiopians [106] shall be at his steps. [107] 44. But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: [108] therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. [109] 45. And he shall plant the tabernacle of his palaces [110] between the seas, [111] and in the glorious holy mountain. [112]

the fall of the Chittim power itself, (“He shall afflict Ashur, and he shall afflict Eber, and he too shall perish for ever,” so too may this section of Daniel’s prophecy, with its sequel next following, be a prediction of the same also. But it is a passage which has more than one considerable ambiguity and obscurity attached to it.

The primary difficulty of the passage, considered critically, with a view to its historical explanation, arises out of those words at its very commencement, at the time of the end.”1 Taken in their strictest and most proper sense, they must indicate the epoch of the end of the present aiwn, or dispensation: a sense which attaches to them in the two other places in which they occur in the same prophecy. And then the predictions they introduce must be considered as for the most part still future. - If, however, the phrase may be construed less strictly, viz. in the sense of the latter days, or later part of the times of the Christian dispensation,2 then, and if we retain the reading and rendering “push at him’ in verse 40, 3 that is, (assuming that “at” or “against him” is to be taken as the true reading and sense, I also assume that the him is to be understood, in the most natural sense, of the apostate king before spoken of,) - the solution of Mede 4 and Newton becomes admissible: explaining the King of the South, and what is said of him, of the Saracen and his attacks on Roman Christendom; and what is said of the King of the North, of the Turk’s attacks on Roman Christendom also, at a later ra. And certainly it tends to give

1. See Note 506 p. 54.

2. “In the latter days of the Roman empire,” says Bishop Newton.

3. Besides assuming that “at” or “against him” is to be taken in verse 40 as the true reading and sense, I also assume that the him is to be understood, in its most natural sense, of the apostate king before spoken of.

4. p. 816.

plausibility to this as the true solution, that both the little that is here said of the King of the South’s proceedings, and the fuller and more particular prediction of those of the King of the North, well agree with the history of the Saracenic and Turkish invasions of Christendom. The Saracen, after occupying Egypt, and so standing on the ground of the Ptolemies, [113] did push from thence against Western as well as Eastern Christendom; and both conquered Spain and Sicily, [114] and even attacked the Pope and Rome itself, in expeditions up the Tiber. [115] Again, the Turk came afterwards against apostate Christendom like a whirlwind, with chariots [116] and horsemen, and with many ships; and overflowing like a flood, entered both into it and into the once glorious land of Juda: - moreover, though Edom, Ammon, and Moab, or the Arabs of the neighboring desert, escaped from his hand, yet did he further extend his dominion over Egypt, [117] the Upper as well as the Lower; and over Libya also, or Northern Africa; so that from all the three Libyan principalities of Tunis, Algiers, and Morocco, “they were at his steps,” i.e. sent forth auxiliary forces at his command. Of the terribleness of which invader to the Popes of Rome the Papal Councils for some four or five centuries furnish abundant evidence; as also the solemn deprecatory processions at Rome, and efforts of successive Popes at rousing the secular powers of Western Christendom against him. [118] - And, presuming the sense to be thus far as stated, and the Turkish invasion of Christendom to have been the thing predicted in verses 40-43, “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. 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. 42: He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 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.”- the interpreters I speak of suggest further as the most natural, though not indeed necessary, explanation of the prediction in verse 44, next following, [119] (“But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him . . . ) that it too should be referred to the Turkman, as being the subject of all the four verses previous: and thus that he must be considered as the Prince that is to go forth with great fury, and plant the tabernacles of his pavilion between the seas, in the mountain-country probably of Jerusalem; and there come to his end, and none help him. [120] - So, I say, these expositors; as of an event yet future. But indeed if the Turk be the King of the North meant, it seems by no means impossible that even this part of the prophecy may have already and elsewhere had its accomplishment. For, admitting that his early Seljukian greatness, though extended Westward as far even as to Jerusalem, [121] and with political influence too over Egypt, suffices not to answer what is said of the Northern King’s supremacy over Egypt and Libya, and that to meet that part of the prediction we must pass on with Mede and Newton to the later epoch of the Othman Turk’s extremist extent of African greatness, yet we are not without prophetic precedent [122] for supposing that there may be here perhaps a retrogradation to mark certain notable events in his progress to that greatness. Which supposed all answers. The tidings of Zenghis Khan from the East, and of the crusades from the North, troubled and for a while checked the Seljukian career of conquest: [123] and so too, under the later Othman dynasty, that of the last onset of Frank chivalry in the war of Nicopolis from the North, and that of the Tartar Tamerlane from the East. [124] Then he went forth in fury after that trouble, bent on destroying the Christian Empire; and taking Constantinople, fixed his seat of Empire between “the two seas” of Marmora and the Euxine, a local peculiarity often celebrated in the very terms of our prophecy: [125] there in the mount of Santa Sophia, [126] (a glorious holy mountain, as being professedly the Eastern Capital of Christianity,) [127] pitching his royal tent; another singularly appropriate phrase; as Montesquien describes the Turks to be a people encamped in Europe. [128] - If such be admitted as the solution, then all that yet remains to be fulfilled about the Turkish King of the North is that he shall come to his end, and none help him. [129] .

But, if the expression “the time of the end,” in verse 40, introductory of this closing sketch of the history of the Kings of the South and the North, be construed strictly, then the chronographic phrase must indicate a time subsequent to the sounding of the seventh Trumpet; [130] that is, a time subsequent to the French Revolution. And, if we so take it, I would suggest whether that reading of the manuscript Wintle mentions, and also of the Greek Septuagint, which omits wm[at him,” may not be the true one: [131] or else, rather, whether the wm[ may not be construed conjointly with, instead of at, or against him. In the former case all intimations of a king who includes Egypt in his dominions pushing against Rome self-deifying Sovereign, or against Papal Christendom, at the time of the end, (a thing under present political circumstances so improbable, is eliminated out of the prophecy. In the latter case, which I prefer, the self-deifying Man of Rome, and the last King of the South, (possibly the French Chieftain,) [132] push together. Then, as to the last King of the North coming against him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen and ships, and his overflowing thereupon into both other countries and the “glorious land,” a question rises whether this “he” in the last clause of verse 40 is still the King of the North, or the self-deifying King, Antichrist, of verse 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.” preceding; including the Southern power confederate with him. [133] The latter is the general explanation of the Fathers. [134] And so they bring Antichrist and his confederate hosts upon the mountains of the Holy Land, between its two seas, at the last great crisis. There, as it would then seem, he is to overflow for a while with mighty power: then, on occasion of tidings from the North and from the East troubling him, to go forth in fury, bent on destruction. But in vain. “He shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” - And then, and thereupon, as stated in the next Section, comes the fated time of Israel’s restoration, with certain other extraordinary events accompanying it. To which we must now next turn.

5. It does not on the other hand need that I here enter at all fully or particularly into this fifth and last sectional subdivision of the prophecy before us,1 that is: - Its subject-matter is that which in more than one important point chiefly concerns the Millennium, and consequently rather belongs to our next chapter. Suffice it therefore at present to note three points prior to it in time, two clearly declared here, the other more ambiguously and obscurely. The first is, that there will be then (viz. at the time when either the Turk

1. Daniel 12:1-13: “And at that time shall Michael [135] 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. [136] 3: And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; [137] 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: [138] 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; [139] 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. [140] 10: Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; [141] 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, (or an) and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, [142] 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.” [143]

“shall have come to an end, and none help him,” or when the last King of the North, or the Roman Antichrist, with the secular power of the King of the South supporting him, shall have overflowed in might into Juda,) “a season of tribulation such as never was since there was a nation:” - an expression this probably proverbial; but which, from having been used by our Lord in his prophecy of the siege and destruction of the ancient Jerusalem by the Romans, brings the horrors of that siege irresistibly before the mind, as the standard of comparison. - The second is, that God’s faithful servants then alive, (whether Gentiles, or Jews, or both, [144] ) “all that are written in the book,” shall (after partaking apparently in the tribulation) be delivered. - As to the third, it is one that has reference to the chronology of the consummation: and both from its importance, and the measure of obscurity attending it, is one that needs a fuller explanation.

It was the Angel saying then, we read, that the wonder or mystery, [145] should come to an end after the time times and half a time, or 1260 days: - also that from the time of the daily sacrifice being taken away, and an abomination making desolate set up, there should be 1290 days: - and finally that at the end of 1335 days an age of blessedness would begin. Now with regard to these several periods, we may, I conceive, conclude unhesitatingly that they are all three to be measured from one and the same commencing epoch; viz. that stated in verse 11 about the daily sacrifice and abomination that would make desolate. [146] Nor, I think, can we well doubt, that the interval between the 1260 and the 1335 days gives us the duration of the great struggle and troubles of the consummation: or that the 1290 days are specified as marking (at their expiration) some notable epoch in the course of that “time of the end.” [147] As to the question whether these periods are to be reckoned as years, on the year-day principle, or simply and literally as days, it may be deemed at first sight more doubtful: because this whole prophecy of Dan. xi. xii. is not, like those of Dan. vii. and viii., or of Apoc. xii. xiii., enunciated connectedly with any individualizing symbolization of the ruling powers, prophesied of: save and except that in verse 36 “the King is the individualizing appellative given to one power, noted near the conclusion. However, though this my primary ground for the enlarged chronological scale of interpretation may less clearly apply, yet the second defined ground for it seems so to apply as to warrant the application, though perhaps with less certainty, of the year-day principle. [148] - Then, as to the epoch from which the periods are to be reckoned, (an epoch marked by the setting up of some desolating abomination,) there is one thing very important to note, though hitherto, I believe, overlooked by expositors, - viz. that the definite article is wanting before the word abomination in verse 11 [149] - “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.”, so that the correct rendering of the clause would be, “From the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and an abomination that makes desolate set up, there shall be 1290 days.” By this not only is the desolating abomination of xi. 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 same that we saw reason to interpret of the Roman armies that desolated Jerusalem under Vespasian) not plainly and specifically referred to, but rather almost [150] excluded from being the subject of reference. A point this of no little consequence; since, if correct, it removes the difficulty, felt by almost every expositor of prophecy, of calculating these prophetic periods from the epoch of the Roman overthrow of Jerusalem: whence measured they conduct to no terminating chronological points, whether on the day-day or the year-day scale, [151] that can at all satisfy the conditions of the prophecy. - What the abomination making desolate meant is another question. The ancient fathers, partly no doubt from its stated period being that of Antichrist in Dan. vii., thought that it was Antichrist’s desolating abomination that was specially intended; by transition from Antiochus Epiphanes’ type to the Antichrist’s antitype. And, calculating on the year-day principle, we cannot but in the first instance think of the setting up of the abomination of the Papacy by “the King” of verse 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.”: that which was the grand wonder or mystery of the prophecy; [152] and whereby, in the casual sense, (just as in the case of the desolating transgression of Dan. viii. 13, where we read; “Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?”,) - the mystical Jerusalem might be said to have been desolated, or had desolation brought on it: - an event this of which the primary commencing epoch was shown to be about A.D. 530; from which epoch the corresponding period of the 1260 years of Dan. vii. and Apoc. xiii. would also seem primarily, as before shown, to be calculated. The circumstance of a period of not 1260 years only, but also one of 1290 years, reckoned from that same commencing epoch, proving in fact to end each at a very remarkable ra in these latter days, - the one that of the French Revolution in 1790, the other of the Greek Insurrection in 1820, - seem, as I shall have again hereafter to observe, to give corroboration of this view: as also the fact of Daniel’s full prophetic interval of the 75 years being likewise the interval between the two most notable commencing epochs of the establishment of the Popedom. [153] But we must not forget that the additional 75 years may be measured from the full completion of the 1260 years in 1866, or 1867, as well as from the imperfect 1789: and, when we revert to the subject, grave reasons will appear for it. [154] Another abomination making desolate (indeed the only other of past times I can think of) was that of Mahommedism: by which, as the causal agent, alike Christendom and Jerusalem were desolated: [155] and dated from the rise of which the 1260, 1290, and 1335 years would end about 1866, 1896, and 1941, A.D. respectively. - If under the peculiar circumstances of the case it be by any preferred to take the three periods here as periods of literal days, they must then, and in that case, be measured from either the last King of the North, or the Papal Antichrist’s setting up the abomination of his apostasy in his last desolating invasion of the holy mountain-district of Judah, just a little while since considered: [156] the literal 1260 days, with its adjunct periods, supervening in that case as the notable term and limit of the long period of the mystical 1260 days; in other words, of the 1260 years. A supposition possible, as before said, without violating the principle of the year-day; though I think very far from probable.

As to the very remarkable statement about “many that sleep in the dust of the earth” then awaking, and Daniel himself “standing in his lot at the end of days,” and the question whether the resurrection meant be literal or figurative, - I shall, as before intimated, here pass it over in silence; reserving its consideration, as for a fitter place, to my next Chapter on the great Millennial question. Before entering on which however, and before bringing the present Chapter and subject to a close, it will be well to take a passing glance at what other prophecies also intimate to us of the circumstances attending the last crisis: - that crisis which is to precede the restoration of the Jews, and constitute the introduction to new times of blessedness; with some kind of resurrection also accompanying the counterpart of this in Daniel.

[1] ["wOrz] bracioniv, as before.

[2] `rm"[;, the same verb as in verse 3, &c.

[3] ll"j;, from wm; properly from, out of . So verse 7, “Out of a branch from her roots:” Dan. viii. 9, “Out of one of them came forth a little horn:” &c. Moreover it also indicates, chronologically, after. Venema indeed, p. 302, contests this. But the following examples will, I believe, prove that it is so: - Nehem. xiii. 21, “After that time they did not come on the sabbath;” 1 Chron. viii. 8, After he had sent them away.” 2 Sam. xxiii. 4, “After rain.” And such I conceive to be the meaning here; understanding him, viz. the King of the North previously spoken of, as the noun after the preposition. So too Sir I. Newton, p. 203. - Wintle translates, “from these,” viz. the ships of Chittim. And so, apparently, the Jewish interpreters mentioned by Jerome, and given in my Note 1, p. 46; - “Post multa tempora de ipsis Romania . . consurget rex Vespasianus.” But the Heb. word is singular; and therefore, if understood of the Romans, can only have that meaning by reference to a representative of the nation. Our English translation seems to me not happy in its rendering of this preposition; for it gives no idea of the various possible meanings of the phrase.

[4] {4720} vD;q]mi. The verb is one of general application in the Piel, in the sense of profaning or defiling anything sacred, such as the priests, sanctuary, sabbath, name of God, &c.; Lev. xix. 8, xxi. 9, Mal. ii. 11, Exod. xxxi. 14, Lev. xviii. 21, &c.

[5] Literally, “the sanctuary, the fortress.” So Psalm xcvi. 6: “Beauty and strength are in his sanctuary:” - strength, not, I conceive, as some would have it, because of the temple being fortified, and therefore strong; but as implying the presence and protection of Him in whom is everlasting strength. - On the prefixing of the two definite articles Aben Ezra compares Josh iii. 14, Jer. xxxii. 12, where the word for strength is `yi[", from which the word used here used, zW[m; is derived.

[6] So Dan. xii. 11 and viii. 11. Greek, ton endelecismon. Compare Exod. xxix. 42, Numb. xxviii. 6, Ezra. iii. 5, Nehem. x. 33, &c.

[7] make {8074} mev;. The same occurs again in Chap. xii. 11; only without the article prefixed to the first word, and with the second in the Kal conj. not the Piel. In ix. 27 we have also the same phrase, but with the word abominations in the plural. - The former word (translated in the Greek bdelugma ) applies generally to things unclean (as garments, food, &c., Nahum iii. 6, Zech. ix. 7); but is used specially and most frequently of idols.

[8] Verse 32.

[9] Verse 33.

[10] Applying the “they,” as these interpreters do, to the faithful and understanding ones of the former part of the verse. I shall remark under my next head on its possible, or rather probable, reference to a different class of persons. In most MSS. indeed the word, {3117} wOy days, stands without the addition of Hebrew word many. But then comes in v. 35, “to the time of the end.”

[11] 1 Macc. ii. 32-38.

[12] See the history in the chapters ii., iii., and iv of 1 Macc.

[13] Ibid. vi. 5-16. His death is said to have occurred, A.S. 149.

[14] Compare 1 Macc. i. 54 and iv. 52. From the former passage it appears that it was on the 15th of the month Chislen, (the ninth of the Jewish months, or January,) in the year of the Greeks, i.e., of the Seleucidean. ra, 145, that the idol abomination was set up by Apollonius: from the latter, that it was on the 25th of the same month A.S. 148 that the temple was cleansed, and the altar re-dedicated.

[15] See the Maccabean History in the Apocrypha, as before; or Josephus.

[16] The often so-called willful King. But, as will be noticed when I come to the verse, his only claim to that title is because he would do according to his will; the same thing that is predicated also of Alexander the Great in verse 3, and of Antiochus the Great in verse 16.

[17] Dan. xi. 36, 40, “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,” and vs. 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.

[18] Dan. xi. 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.”.

[19] Nothing can better illustrate this than the manifest failure of Venem’s elaborate attempt, from p. 382 to p. 421, at applying this prophetic passage to Antiochus Epiphanes, Says Livy of him; “Ver regius illi animus fuit . . n Deorum culta: magnificent vero in Deos vel Javis Olympii templum Athenis . . potest testis case; sed et Delon aris insignifbus statuarumque copi exernavit.” So again in his splendid games in honor of the gods. And indeed he forced the worship of Jupiter on the Jews at Jerusalem. How then could Epiphanes be said to have disregarded his father’s god, as in verse 38? Because, says Venema, p. 420, he would so honor these gods “in specie” not in reality; his mind and regard not being given them: whereas his mind and regard would be given to a god whom his fathers knew not, viz. Platus, the god of money; who might be designated under the name Mahuzzim, because of his being god of the treasuries in the sacraria of the inner temples. But how so? Did he then proclaim the worship of Plutus, and erect temples to him? Not so; as Venema frankly admits, p. 410. But his heart-idol was money. And was this love of money then peculiar to Antiochus Epiphanes, and aliene to the taste of all his fathers? - As to the god called the desire of women, whom also Daniel’s predicted king was to disregard, Venema explains it to be Venus. But could disregard to her be charged on Epiphanes, of all men? Yes, says Venema, because it was the Venus Urania, or Venus of honorable love! And was she then the desired and honored of Syrian women?

[20] See my Note 410 on the Hebrew preposition, p. 43 supr; also those on braciwn, and the Hebrew word, to stand, or stand up, pp. 30, 33. - Venema, p. 314, translating the phrase ex ipso, would have it to mean simply that the power that desolated was that which appertained to Epiphanes. But I think the parallel phrases that I have referred to show this to be improbable.

Compare too, as to the figure, a somewhat different one in Vol. i. p. 143 Note 4; where we read that another neck growing out behind from his own, was understood by Domitian to signify a new and different line of emperors.

[21] See note 414 p. 44 supr.

[22] In Dan. viii. 13, a transgression of desolation is spoken of, not an abomination of desolation. And in proof of its meaning something very different from the abomination set up in Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes, see my explanation of that prophecy, Vol. iii. p. 423, &c.

[23] A desolation of Judah is often predicted which was to last up to the time of her ultimate restoration and conversion. So, for example, Isa. iii. 26, compared with the sequel, vi. 11, xlix. 8, 21, lxiv. 10, &c.

[24] Dan. ix. 27, “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”.

[25] Numb. xxiv. 24; “And ships shall come from Chittim, and shall afflict (or oppress) Asshur, and shall afflict Eber, and he too shall perish for ever.” See Prof. Lee on Eusebius’ Theophania, Pref. p. cxiv.

[26] Venema indeed p. 279, would explain Balaam’s prophetic declaration “he shall afflict Eber,” not of the Hebrews, but of some quite different trans-Euphratean people. But I believe he stands alone in this opinion.

[27] Matt. xxiv. 15, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth let him understand,)” &c; compared with Luke xxi 20, “When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.”

[28] This is the only passage where the precise phrase, “abomination of desolation” is used, except in xii. 11, the sequel of this same prophecy. In Dan. ix. 27 the wording is, “For the overspreading of abomination he shall make it desolate;” - or, according to the reading of a manuscript of the 13th century, celebrated by Michaelis, and adopted by Clarke, - “And in the temple of the Lord there shall be abomination.” In Dan. viii. 13, as before said, it is “the transgression of desolation.”

[29] In verse 3. See p 30, 31 supr.

[30] After the overthrow and capture of King Perseus in the battle of Pydna, B.C. 168. - So milius Sura, as cited by the Roman historian Velleius Paterculurs, i. 6, and quoted by Mede and Bishop Newton; “Assyrii principes omnium gentiuni rerum potit sunt; deinde Medi; postea Pers; deiude Macedones: exiude, duobus regibus Philippe et Antioche, qui Macedonibus oriundi crant, haud multo post Carthaginem subaetam devictis, summa imperii ad Populum Romanum pervenit.”

[31] On the top of one of the well-known Roman standards an open hand turned upwards was the termination ornament. Engravings may be seen in Montfaucon, or other books on Roman Antiquities. So too on some of the Roman quadrantes and other coins.

[32] For in the Book of Maccabees the application had evidently been made to Antiochus Epiphanes; and the Christians of Jerome’s time many of them applied it to Antichrist, so as stated in the next Note.

[33] [v"r; the participle Hiphil, from [v"r;, from the Hebrew word which is a verb (the opposite, says Gesenius, who translates, 1. to be guilty, 2. to be wicked, as Dan. ix. 15. This Hiphil form occurs again xii. 10, “The wicked shall do wickedly.”

[34] . ‰nej; the Hiphil form of ‰nej; to be profaned, or polluted; as Psalm cvi. 38, “The land was polluted with blood.” The Hiphil here gives the active sense of profaning or making profane and heathenish.” So Gesenius. And perhaps instead of he being the nominative understood, it may be something like the French on; “One shall corrupt,” or, “They shall be corrupted.” - But the Greek version and the Vulgate, (as also the Araman,) read the word as in the plural, not singular: Oi anomountev deaqhkhn epaxousin en olisqhmasi “Impii in testamentum simulabunt fraudulenter.” Thus Wintle prefers to translate the clause, “Those that impiously disregard the covenant will dissemble in flatteries.”

[35] In the Critici Sacri in loc. one expositor thus renders the clause; “Et impi deserentes feodus inducet ut subdol agant per hypocrisin:” applying the charge of flatteries, or hypocrisy, to the seduced, not the seducer. - Venema otherwise thus: “Et foedus scelerat traetantes loripedes agere faciet in lubricitatibus:” so that “in lubricitates incident. . ac in ruinam prcipitabunt.” pp. 315, 316. At p. 318 he refers to Schultens, in evidence of the Hebrew word meaning “pronus esse ad lapsum, et ad interitum vergers.” But the examples in point seem to me questionable. For the nominative to faciet he suggests either Antiochus, whose history he supposes still carried on; or else rather, reflectively, “they each one shall make, &c.”

hQ;l"j}The similar word hQ;l"q]l"j} occurs both in verse 21 supr and verse 34 following: in the former case of Antiochus Epiphanes obtaining the kingdom by his flatteries and dissimulation, that is, hiding under false appearances; in the latter, (if Newton’s interpretation be correct,) of the religious dissimulation and hypocrisy of false professors of Christianity. - See Note 346 p. 36 supr. The reader will see presently the necessity of attention to the possible religious reference of the word.

[36] `[", a word used as well of the Jews, while God’s people, as of the Gentiles: just in this respect like the use of ywOG sometimes, e.g., Josh. x. 13, as observed by Venema, pp. 485, 486.

[37] br", Greek sunhsousin eiv polla and so Wintle, “Shall have understanding in many things.” But the word may be active, in the sense to instruct. So Dan. viii. 16, Job vi 24, Neh. viii. 8, 9, Psalm cxix. 34: in the two first of which passages the Hebrew preposition follows the verb, as here. - It occurs in a different sense in verse 37 infr.

[38] y, and. Our translators vary much in the rendering of this conjunctive particle. - The ambiguity of the pronoun they should also be marked.

[39] lv"K;, Sept. asqenhsousi, from lm"a; to be weak, to totter and so to fall: a verb used in the Niphal, as here, in verses 14, 19 preceding: and also in verses 34, 35, 41 following. Compare 1 Sam. ii. 4, “They that stumbled (or staggered) are girded with strength;” said with reference to weakness: also Jer. vi. 21, “I will lay stumbling-blocks before the people, and the father and the sons together shall fall upon (or over) them.” Psalm cvii. 12, “They rebelled against the words of God; . . therefore he brought down their heart with labour, they fell down, and there was none to help;” and Jer. xxxi. 9, “I will cause them to walk. . in a straight way wherein they shall not stumble;” and of the falling through God’s judgments on sin.

[40] ybiv], aicmalwsia. The word is generally used as an abstract noun in this sense of captivity; but sometimes also in the concrete sense of captives. So in this Chapter, verse 8, of the prisoners taken and led into Egypt by Ptolemy Euergetes, in his great expeditions against the Syrians; and not infrequently in the Books of Moses, (e.g., Numb. xxxi. 12,) the Psalms, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Ezra, Nehemiah, of captives taken in war, especially of the captivity of Judah. - The word used of persons imprisoned by the civil magistrate, as in Gen. xxxix. 20, is one quite different, rysia;

[41] wOy, simply days, according to the best MSS. So read, it may indicate a longer or a shorter time. In 1 Sam. xxvii. 7, it means a year. But nine MSS., says Wintle, read [many] days.

[42] Wintle; “After they shall have fallen.”

[43] wOy, bohqeia, a word of general application, and not restricted to the case of helping such as have fallen, &c. The f["m] connected with this noun is an adjectival sense in our English Version might very properly be rendered adverbially in the sense of a little while. So Ruth ii. 7, Hagg. ii. 6.

[44] hQ;l"q]l"j}, as verse 21, on which see my Note.371. Nearly the same word occurs also in verse 32 just before. - The Greek version is, Kai prosteqhsontai prov automv polloi en olisqhmasi. Wintle’s “Many shall be fastened upon them through flatteries.”

[45] br", “and from or out of;” i.e., some out of. Mark the selection here, in contrast with the generality of the statement in verse 33 just before. Unless indeed with Venema we cannot connect verses 33, 35, making 34 parenthetic.

[46] b"l; The same words occur again in chap. xii. 10, “Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried.” An important corroboration, as it seems to me, of the idea that the prophetic intimation in this verse too, is very far prospective; indeed that it reaches even to the time of the end.

Wintle (on xii. 10) thus distinguishes the particular meaning of each: - “The word b"l; is borrowed from wheat cleansed from the chaff; b"l;, from cloth whitened by the fuller; rr"B; from goldsmiths who try and assay the metal, and separate it from the dross.” The prefix b in compare Jer. iv. 11, “A dry wind. . toward the daughter of my people, not to fan, nor to cleanse;” where however the verb is in the Hiphil, which is here in the Piel. And on the other words, Mal. iii. 2. “He is like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s soap:” the word there used for soap being which is derived from tyriBo, and so from to cleanse.

[47] `t[e, either during, whilst, as Judg. iii. 26, Job i. 18: or, more commonly, up to rather (which is the more common sense) until, as in Dan. xii. 9, “Till the time of the end;” also Gen. xlix. 10, “Until Shiloh come;” Josh. ii. 22, “Until the pursuers were returned, &c.:” - The two-fold meaning of the word, however, should be ovserved.

[48] qe So xi. 40, xii. 9: in the first of which parallel passages the phase will be remarked on. - Venema, in order to make this suit with his idea of the Epiphanic persecutions of the Jews being here still described, explains the phrase, p. 356, as “ad finem adflictionis Epiphanie.” But surely such limitation is unnatural.

[49] Mede and Wintle connect this last clause with the next verse.

[50] Compare the figure of the two wings of the great eagle, &c., being given the woman to help her, in Apoc. xii. 14, 16.

[51] Luke xxi. 20, 24: “When ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh . . . And great wrath shall be on this people; and they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

[52] Deut. xxviii. 32, 52, 64, &c., &c.

[53] No doubt on certain occasons the presiding magistrates, like Pliny, whom Bishop Newton specially refers to, urged the Christians brought before them to spare themselves, and sacrifice to the emperor’s image. But these were not flattering offers. And as to the general and proper character of the Pagan mode of dealing with Christianity, let the reader, after perusing the history of the early persecutions in any ecclesiastical historian, judge for himself whether flattery, or cruelty and terror, was the weapon employed. Or see my historic sketch under the 5th Seal.

[54] Mark the contrast of expression between this general statement, “And they shall fall,” &c., and the particular and restricted statement in verse 35, “And out of them of understanding some shall fall.” &c. See my Note 452 on the word, p. 47.

[55] See my Note 447 p. 47

[56] Wintle does not give this translation in support of the historical explanation that I advocate; for he has followed Bishop Newton in his view of the prophecy. For some corroboration to it, see the ancient Greek and Latin versions in the top Note 442 p. 46.

[57] So it had been foreshown to Daniel previously. “And He (the Messiah) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,” &c. Dan. ix. 27. - I can scarcely err, I think, in supposing that this previous prophecy was remembered and applied by Daniel, while hearing the Angel’s present revelation.

[58] Matt. xxiii. 13-33: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,” &c.: xv. 7, 8; “Ye hypocrites, well did Essias prophecy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” - Compare Rom. ii. 23, written by St. Paul, characteristically in like manner of his nation, a few years later; “Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?” Compare too the prediction in Isa. xxix. 13, 14, declaring that the curse of moral blindness would be adjudged and attach to this dissembling people; even with the light shinning around them.

[59] One grand division of the Jews, - the most horrid and blood-thirsty perhaps of all during the siege, - was that of the zealots for the law.

[60] Compare Isa. viii. 14, 15; “And he shall be . . for a gin and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.”

[61] The phrase is one, I believe (I mean with the noun, the verb, and the possessive pronoun all together) by no means common. A somewhat near parallel occurs in Isaiah xl. 9, “Say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!” - a prophecy of the ultimate revelation of Jesus to them, as their Messiah the Lord Jehovah. - The passage in Isa. xi. 9, about the knowledge of Jehovah filling the earth,” is also a partial parallel; though the possessive pronoun is wanting. And there too Christ seems to be meant. So also in Isa. liii. 7, “That saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth.” And Jer. xxxi. 34, “They shall teach no more every man his neighbor, saying, Know the Lord,” &c.

[62] “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, (and which were born not of blood. . . but of God,) behold his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father:” &c. John i. 10-14. - Compare too 1 Cor. ii. 7, “We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, . . which none of the princes of this world knew; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. . . But God hath revealed it to us by his Spirit.” And John xiv. 9; “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father:” and Col. ii. 9; “In him dwelleth all the fullness of the godhead bodily.”

[63] 1 Tim. iii. 16, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”.

[64] I borrow the words “be scattered” and “indignation” from the verses xi. 36, xii. 7 infr

[65] See note 457, p. 48.

[66] Wintle translates “a king;” but the Hebrew has the article.(the l,m,) As before noted, p. 47, he prefixes here the last clause of verse 35, thus; “For still for an appointed time a [the] king shall even appoint(-ment, a time),{3259}d["y; act, &c.”

[67] A phrase used before of Alexander the Great, verse 3; and also of Antiochus the Great, verse 16, with reference to the time of his success. Hence, as observed p. 44, the impropriety here of the title of willful king, especially as a distinctive one.

[68] Venema, who supposes Antiochus Epiphanes to be still the subject of the prophecy, explains “every god” here to mean omne divinum, or dignities and powers vested with godlike prerogatives; especially the angelic dignities, p. 369. This would well agree with the panta legwmenon qeon h sebasua of St. Paul. So too Psa. lxxxii. 6.

[69] lae of lae. Compare here too the prophecy of 2 Thess. ii. 4, speaking of the Antichrist as sitting in God’s temple, as God; also Dan. vii. 25. - Wintle observes on the strength of meaning in the two verbs exalt himself, magnify himself.

[70] `{5703}d[" as verse 24, Note 386, p. 41.

[71] {2195}["z", the same word as in verse 30 of the indignation of the King of the North. - Gesenius says that it is a word specially used of God’s anger. So Isa. lxvi. 14, “The Lord’s indignation shall be known towards his enemies:” Zech. i. 12, “The cities of Judah against whom thou hast had indignation.” Compare too Isa. x. 5, “O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation: I will send him against an hypocritical nation:” also Ezek. xxii. 24, Mal. i. 4, Isa. xxvi. 20, &c. The Greek version of this important clause is, Kai kateuqunei mecriv ou suntelesqh h orgh.

[72] {995} yBi, with the preposition l[ following it, (I presume in the sense of concerning, as to,) before the noun; precisely as again elsewhere in this same verse, and also in verse 30 supr, translated, “He shall have intelligence with them that forsake the covenant.” The same verb is used in verse 33 of this chapter, and twice over in verse 20 of chap. xii., with the l[, or an accusative, in the sense of to understand. Thus our English rendering in verse 30 seems a just and happy one: and, following this precedent, the phrase here must be considered to mean, He shall have no joint intelligence, or alliance of mind and action, with the gods of his fathers, So the Sept. Epi pantav qeouv twn paterwn autou ou sunhsei.

[73] hD;m]j, hV;ai. The question here is, Are we to consider women as subject of desire, or its object? in other words, the desire felt by women, or the desire (as of men) for women? And the question is so important that it is right that the investigator should carefully note the parallels that Scripture offers.

Now examples such as occur in Psalm cvi. 24, Jer. iii. 19, Ezek. xxvi. 12, Amos v. 11, Dan. x. 3, xi. 8, 38, 43, &c. &c., where we read land of desire, houses of desire, vineyards of desire, &c., in the sense of desired objects, - all these examples, I say, and such like, (though they have sometimes, I think, one or another been referred to by expositors,) must be set aside as altogether irrelevant, because in the Hebrew, as the English, the word for desire there comes last, here first: the word, hD;m]j,, desire, being in the constructive form, and so preceding the word for women.

Setting these aside, then, it is to be observed generally that in the case of nouns, so as here with hD;m]j,, in the constructive form, the word following may be understood either objectively or subjectively. E.g. the hP;r]j,, Zeph. ii. 8, means the reproach which Moab inflicted on others; whilst (have ‰r"j); Ps. lxxxix. 51, is the reproach which the servants of God themselves experienced. Again, (the hq;[;z)] Prov. xxi. 13, is the cry which the poor utter: but (the hq;[;z]) Gen. xviii. 20, is the cry (probably) which Sodom caused others to utter. And so again in Ezek. xii. 19, (the violence, sm;j;) compared with Judg. ix. 24: (the cruelty sm;j;)- where the Hebrew for violence being in the constructive form, the one phrase means the violence exercised by the inhabitants; the other the violence felt, or suffered, by the 70 men of Zerubbaal.

As regards the particular noun in statu constr. in the clause under consideration we have the following clear examples when the noun after desire in the genitive, so as the word women here, indicates the subject, or feeler, of the desire: viz. 1 Sam. ix. 20, “On whom (or towards whom) is the desire of all Israel;” that is, the desire felt by Israel: where the Hebrew is (all the desire dm,j, of Israel); and 1 Kings xx. 6, Lam. ii. 4, Ezek. xxiv. 16, 21, 25, “the desire of thine eyes, where we find the Hebrew word dm;j]m, desire used; (the Hebrew being there a derivative word, cognate to the former;) in the sense of that which the eyes desire. To which might be added also, in my opinion, the famous passage from Hagg. ii. 7 the desire of all nations; though this indeed is one of which the sense, albeit generally explained to a similar effect, as that which was the great object of the desire felt by all nations, is yet by some doubted.

Which being so, I cannot but incline to prefer this sense of the clause to that which Jerome advocated of old; viz., as meant of the desire or appetite for women. “Antichristus simulabit castitatem, ut plurimos decipiat.” As also the yet older expositor Victorinus: who, so understanding the expression, and applying it to Nero revived as the Antichrist, speaks of the total change of character that he would then manifest; “Ait Daniel, ‘desideria mulierum non cognoscet,’ cm prius fuit impurissimus.” B.P.M. iii. 420.

But what then is it, taking the phrase subjectively, which women desire? By Mede, Bishop Newton, and many other Protestant expositors, it is explained to mean marriage; a sense of the phrase itself well accordant with fact; and the non-regard of it here assigned, as they conceive, to the Antichrist notoriously applicable to the Roman Popes, as encouraging monasteries and vows of virginity, and discouraging marriage. Moreover the correspondence of this with St. Paul’s declaration that the “forbidding to marry” would be one marked characteristic of the great predicted antichristian apostasy, both before and after, will strike every reader.

The only objection is that, as the statement comes in a clause which seems to have for its subject the gods that Antichrist would reject, “Neither shall he regard the god of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor any god,” this ought so to mean also. Accordingly Gesenius, in this view of the sense of the phrase, suggest some Syrian goddess to be meant, that was the special object of the worship of the Syrian women. And Venema, p. 387, 395, in the same view of it, explains it of the goddess Astarte, or “heavenly Venus,” (contradistinctively to the impure earthly Venus,) whose temple Antiochus Epiphanes invaded (2 Macc. i. 13, 15); for Venema supposes Antiochus Epiphanes to be still the subject of the prophecy. On the other hand, Protestant expositors ask, Why should not the phrase designate Him who is the Hebrew women was the special object of desire; - the promised seed of the woman, the Messiah? So Faber, S.C. ii. 164, 169. I have also met with the following expression of Professor Lee’s opinion to the same effect, in his work on Eusebius’ Theophanis; Preface, p. cxxvi.: “This, occurring as it does in a context speaking of deities, was probably intended to designate the Messiah; who was the desire of women, as it should seem, among the ancient Hebrews.”

[74] {3653} Ke; either in his stead, or place, as the words mean in verses 7, 20, 21, previous; that is, instead of the God of gods, or the god of his fathers, or any god noted in the preceding verse as rejected by him: or perhaps, as Wintle and other commentators prefer to explain them, in his seat, viz. in the seat of the God of gods; an expression which would then somewhat agree with the descriptive clause in St. Paul’s prophecy of the Man of Sin (2 Thess. ii. 4), “sitting in the temple of God,” &c. - Faber on the Prophecies, i. 401, explains it, “when he is established:” i.e., seated in his own seat: and in his S.C. (ii. 178) in his office, or official station. - Venema, as usual, “super stirpe sd.”

[75] (the God<433>H"wOla of forces<4581>zwO[m) The Hebrew l prefix here may be explained either from the governing verb to honor, or do honor to, which follows: as this verb has sometimes elsewhere the same preposition marking the dative in construction with it; e.g. Psalm lxxxvi. 9, “They shall honor, or do honor to, thy name;” and indeed in the clause of the verse before us next succeeding.

Noldius considers l to be used sometimes as a sign of the accusative: e.g. Lev. xix. 18, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour, &c.;” 1 Sam. xx. 30, “Thou hast chosen the son Jesse;” So too Isa. liii. 11. He compares the use by the Greek Septugint sometimes, and also by the Evangelists, as Matt. ii. 11, John iv. 23, of the phrase proskunein tini, with the dative, for proskunein tina with the accusative. A use of the dative, so governed, which is explicable in the same way as the Hebrew preposition spoken of above.;

[76] {4581} zwO[m; Mahoz, in the singular means a fortress. It is used literally in verse 7 of this chapter; and in Psalm. xxxi. 3, and elsewhere, is applied figuratively to God; “Thou art my strength,” (Eng. Vers.) or “fortress.” - In the present passage the question occurs whether the plural noun is to be taken, so as our English translation renders it, in the simple literal sense of fortresses; in which case it must be the genitive after Elosh, “the god of fortresses:” (so Venema, “Deum arcium,” meaning Plutus, the god of the treasures in the temple-sanctuaries; also Lee, “the god of fortifications:” or whether, with the margin as appellative of certain gods so designated. In common with most commentators, - and in accordance also with the Greek and Vulgate, (“Deum Mahuzzim in loco suo venerabitur,” Qeon Mawzeim epi topou autou doxasei,) - I cannot hesitate to prefer the latter explanation. I am induced to do so by two obvious considerations, not to mention others: 1st, that the god of fortresses, the rendering of the clause offered by the former explanation, could only be a god answering to the Pagan Mars, and consequently one not merely not unknown to the ancient Romans, but one honored by them almost above any other: 2ndly, that it is an historic fact that an appellative precisely answering to the word Mahuzzim was actually given to departed martyrs and saints under the Papal Apostasy; which Apostasy, and its chief, it is plain (without entering into historic particulars which belong rather to the text and will there be noticed) that this prophecy may possibly apply.

Theodoret thus comments on the whole clause. - Twn paterwn autou pantwn thn oikeian fusin egnwkotwn, kai ton epi pantwn qeon sfav autouv onomasai mh tetolmhkotwn, outov qeon escuron kai dunaton (touto gar shmainei to Mawzeim) eauton prosagoreuei. To gar epi topy autou anti tou eauton teqeike.

Malvenda, Vol. ii. p. 82, has a chapter on this subject. In common with most Romish expositors he doubts not that Antichrist is the subject of the prophecy. And as to the Mahuzzim that Antichrist is to honor, he proffers three chief solutions, as what had most found favor with Romish expositors: - viz. 1st, that the god might be Mars; - or, 2ndly, the Devil; - or, 3rdly, Antichrist himself; which last he most of all approves. And he cites Theodoret, as above quoted by me, suggesting this view: and going on thus: “Eriget enim sibi ipsi templa; et auro et argento et lapidibus pretiosis ipse exornabit.” For the Greek of which see my Note, on the following page: (p. 52.)

[77] The y might be rendered even, in the exegetic sense which not seldom attaches to it: in which case the eloah, or god, next mentioned, will be in apposition with, or as explanatory of, the Mahuzzim. But I prefer to take it in its more usual and simple sense of and: and shall hope presently to give a most striking explanation of the descriptive statement as applicable to the Papa Antichrist.

[78] The verb for honor is db"K;, a word illustrated at p. 27. infr.

[79] Here the word Mahuzzim recurs. rx;b]mi is the same that is rendered strong-holds in verse 24. (See pp. 40, 41 supr.) The sense is very obscure. The Vulgate turns it, “Et faciet ut muniat Mahuzzim cm Deo alieno;” the Greek, Kai poihsei toiv ocurwmasi twn katafugwn meta Qeou allotriou; the Syriac, “Transibitque ad urbes munitas contr Deos alienos.” - Of modern commentators Venema (p. 421) translates, “Et faciet munitionibus arciem cum Deo peregrinitatem.” Mede, “And he shall make the strong-holds of the Mahuzzim withal (or jointly) to the foreign god.” Bishop Newton, “Thus shall he do to the defenders of the strange god whom he shall acknowledge.” Wintle, “And he shall provide for fortresses of Mahuzzim together with God.” Faber, on Prophecy, “To the upholders of his tutelary gods, (or S.C. ii. 143, “restrainers of strong military protectors,”) together with the foreign god,” &c. Cuninghame (Investigator, iii. 280), “And he shall make for his fortified cities Mahuzzim, together with the strange god.” Maramensis (ibid. iv. 193), “And he shall make them [i.e., the images and temples which he understands to be the “pleasant things” of the verse preceding] into the strong-holds of the Mahuzzim, together with the strange god.” It is to be observed that hv;[,, like the Latin facio, has the meaning to make, as well as that of to do.) Malvenda, ib. 84, gives also a list of versions, some the same, some different. He concludes “Idem est ac, . . “Et faciet munimenta ipsius Mahuzim, hoc est templa Antichrist.”

To all of these versions, as well as to the authorized English, there seem to be objections. - Mahuzzim, being an appellative before, must surely be either the appellative here, or else explanatory of the appellative; and not strong-holds, as the English version and Greek. Mede overlooks the l. Bishop Newton and Faber give that same noun the figurative sense of defenders, upholders; which sense, however, it has nowhere else in Scripture, being always used literally to signify fortresses, as in Numb. xxxii. 17, 36, Josh. x. 20, xix. 35, Isa. xvii. 3: besides that they suppose it to designate the priests of the Mahuzzim; an application of the figure singularly inapt, as it seems to me; especially considering that the Mahuzzim themselves bear in that very title a figurative name of almost precisely the same character. Nor does Houbigant, quoted by Newton, at all justify it. Maramensis seems to be as little justified in explaining the “pleasant things” with which the Mahuzzim are to be honored, as temples: an explanation essential, however, to his solution of the clause in question; since it is that which furnishes him from the context preceding with what he may apply as a pronominal accusative, understood, designating the things which his so-called Willful King will make into Mahuzzim’s strong-holds.

Perhaps, if the present reading be retained, the clause might be construed thus; “And he shall practice and prosper [so Dan. viii. 12, 24,] in the strong-holds of Mahuzzim, together with a strange god:” meaning by their strong-holds their temples; as the arx, or citadel, was often the site of the tutelary god’s temple of old; for example the Parthenon at Athens, the Capital at Rome, and, I may add, the Sanctuary of strength at Jerusalem. But then there occurs this objection: - the “together with” makes the foreign god a sharer in this his prosperity. Or perhaps the two synonymous nouns may be taken intensitively, explanatorily thus: - “And he shall make them into the strongest fortresses.” Or, if we may suppose a final s to have fallen out from the yy[bm,, - an omission the rather supposable from the circumstance of m,, beginning the word following, and the slight change a vowel points involved in this supposition, viz. of k for x, being one of little importance, - then, the text thus simply corrected, Mr. Cuninghame’s translation becomes admissible, “And he shall make for fortified cities Mahuzzim:” or the following, “He shall make Mahuzzim for fortresses, as well as a strange god.” Of which two the latter translation most approves itself to my mind: because it both furnishes a reason for the appellative Mahuzzim, - how they would be so called because in some way made into zwO[m;, or fortress; and also explains the cause of the apostate self-deifying King’s honoring them, and his consistency in so doing; inasmuch as he would make them into what they were, as objects of worship: and consequently, in setting them up for the popular veneration and honor, would be honoring himself, as their creator, still more. - All this applies also to the strange god spoken of in addition to the Mahuzzim; which god would apparently be of the same fraternity with these latter, only more eminent; the f[ being here used, I conceive, in the conjunctive sense of like as, as also: a sense which it has in Eccles. ii. 16, and elsewhere. See Gesenius, - I may add that the word {5235}rk"n; strange, is similarly used in Gen. xxxv. 2, of the strange gods carried with her by Rachel.

Theodoret’s paraphrase of verse 39 is as follows. Kai poihsei toiv ocurwmasi twn katafugwn meta Qeou allotriou, on egnwrise, kai plhqunei doxan, kai upotaxei touv pollouv, kai ghn fielei en dwroiv. Anasthsei gar, fhsin, eauty naouv, kai argury kai crusy kai leqoiv timioiv autouv kallwpisei, kai uporaxei autoiv pollouv, touv exapatwmenouv dhlonoti toiv terawin, h taiv kolasesin caunwmenouv. Toiv de uphkooiv kai asebein airoumenoiv kai ghn dwrhsetai pleiothn.

Let me add a brief notice of some of the early Reformers’ views of the Mahuzzim. “The Pope,” said Luther, (Table Talk, ii. 40, 51,) “is the true Antichrist; his castle and fort Moosim, the mass.” “Mass cometh of the word Mahuzzim, i.e., a collecting of alms, stipend, or tax for sake of the priests.” - Again Joye gives this as from Melanethon and Œcolampadius; “The idol of destruction, or wasting image, he called the god Maozim: that is, a strong god of diverse churches, set or hanged up. The Hebrews call all images strange gods, and heathen rites abominable destructions; because wheresoever they be set up and honored, in churches or in abbeys, there have we a certain token that the same churches and abbeys shall be made even with the ground, as Christ prophesied of Jerusalem.

Mr. Sims in his Appendix to Peyrani’s Treatise on the Waldenses, p. 509, speaks of the Turkish Liturgy as addrest to “Rabboi Maizza,” or “the God of forces”: - a curious circumstance, if so it be; and which might suggest Mahomet as the King intended, did other points suit, not the Pope.

Rosenmller’s comment is: “Deus munitionum bellieus aliquis Deus erit, cujas tutol rex ille committet munitiones et praesidia, quibus securum praestat suum regnum; ita ut nihil que ac munimenta, et quidquid est bellicorum prsidiorum, aestimet; adeoque, licet ab omni ali religione alienus, tamen hoc Numen, quod sibi ipse quasi creavit, studios colat.” The comment seems to me worthy of remark, and will be referred to again.

[80] There is no and in the original. The clause has therefore by some been rendered, “Whom acknowledging he shall increase the honor;” whether the increased honor accrue to them, or to himself. Venema, p. 421, applies it to the former; “Quos respexerit maetabit honore.”

[81] br", over; as Esther ix. 1, Judges viii. 23.

[82] Or, for a price; ryjim]. The word is used 2 Sam. xxiv. 24, of the purchase-price to be paid for Araunah’s field; “Nay, but I will buy it of thee at a price.” In Micah iii. 11 it signifies the price, reward, or hire, paid for mercenary priest’s service; “The priests teach for hire.”

[83] Dan. vii. 20-25, “And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. 21: I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; 22: Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. 23: Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. 24: And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. 25: And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time”.

[84] The horn had eyes as of a man, like an episkopov, or overseer.

[85] Compare my Note 474 , p.49. The very different meaning of the English word willful to that here intended, (that word being used by us of disposition and temper, whereas the prophetic phrase only indicates absolutism of power,) constitutes an other objection to the appellative, willful King. It is indeed hardly less than absurd.

[86] See my critical Note 480, p. 49.

[87] See my Vol. iii. pp. 189, 190, &c.

[88] Hence probably the general patristic explanation respecting Antichrist, that he would put aside, and be an enemy of idols, the gods of his Roman ancestors; “idola seponens,” as Irenus says. Which indeed the Papal Antichrist was, though a patron of image and saint-worship: asserting somewhat paradoxically the total difference of the two things; and declaring that he who called images idols, was anathema. The real difference was this: - the one was his creation; under his management; and moreover a most fruitful source of gain to him (as will be again observed presently) in Western Christendom: the other not.

[89] See on this Mosheim vi. 2. 4. 4. - Sir I. Newton traces the progressive steps of the Apostasy to this point; first, the celebrating the geneqlia, or martyrdom-days, of the martyred saints at their tombs; then making these tombs places of prayer; then attributing to the saints mediatorial functions; then connecting the favorable exercise of those functions, with honor paid to their relics, and afterwards to their images. Whence those bodies, relics, or images, came to be regarded as pledges of the departed saints’ protection; and the saints themselves the defenders and fortresses, as it were, or mahuzzim, of the places or persons dedicated to them. In fact they were called by this very name. So Basil in one of his Homilies, Aseiston thn ekklhsian tauthn frouroumenhn toiv megaloiv purgoiv twn rmarturwn diatgohson. And again Outoi eisin oi thn kaq hmav cwran dialabontev, [Compare what Daniel says of the Apostate King dividing the land for gain.] oionei purgoi tinev suneceiv asfaleian ek thv twn enantewn katadromhv parecomenoi. Also Chrysostom; Touto to swma teicezei thn polin ekeinhn o pantov purgou kai murewn esti peribolwn asfalesteron. And again; Ta twn agewn swmata toutwn teicouv pantov adamantov. . asfalesteron hmin teicixei thv palin. [Given by Bishop Newton.]

[90] See Vol. iii. p. 303.

[91] It was under Adrian, then Bishop of Rome, that the Council was summoned and held: and very mainly through his influence and authority that the iconoclastic Decrees of the previous Council of Constantinople, which had stigmatized the saints and their images as daimonika scurwmata, [So Wintle on verse 39. (the very word here used in the Greek Version to express the Hebrew Mahuzzim,) were reversed; the worship of saints and their images restored; and punishments awarded to those who maintained that God was the only object of religious adoration. See Mosh. viii. 2, 3, 13.

[92] Compare Rosenmller’s comment on the text, p. 52 supr. - As to the historic fact, it was at first the office of Provincial Councils, with a Bishop presiding, to settle which of the more recently departed might be regarded as saints and mediators, the demand for new saints having become large in corrupted Christendom; and the Pope was only referee on appeal in the matter: - then at length the Pope claimed it as his peculiar prerogative to create saints; the first saint so created by him being Udalric, Bishop of Augsburgh, canonized A.D. 993. See Mosheim ix. 2. 3. 4, and x. 2. 3. 4. Mosheim’s words, - “The judgment of the Roman Pontiff’s was respected in the choice of those that were to be honored with saintship,” till “the Church of Rome engrossed to itself the creation of these tutelary divinities, which at length was distinguished by the title of canonization,” - are like a comment on the prophetic words, “Mahuzzim whom he shall acknowledge and increase with honor;” and (if my rendering be correct), “He shall make into fortresses the Mahuzzim.” See on this Pope Alexander’s Bull, Hard. ix. 1552: also my Vol. iii. p 180. - Under Pagan Rome it was the Senate’s prerogative to grant an apothcosis: - the very word this, by the way, applied sometimes on Papal medals to the saints’ canonization: e.g. on that of Francis of Sales by Alexander VII. Bonanni, p. 654.

For some of the earliest cases of saints deified in the Latin Church as Mahuzzim, see by Vol. i. pp. 333, 334. For an example of such deified saint-protectors take that of Hilary Bishop of Poietiers, with the inscription on a pillar, “ Diuo Hilaro, urbis propugnatori fidelissimo, sanctissimo, certissimo, Pictavorum Episcopo.” (Melner, p. 286.) - In illustration of the Virgin Mary’s worship as a Mahoz, take the extract following, from the authorized Litany in her honor called the Litany of Loretto. (ap. Cuninghame, p. 178.) “We fly to thy patronage, O holy mother of God! . . . Deliver us from all dangers, O ever glorious and blessed Virgin! Tower of David, Tower of ivory, Ark of the Covenant, Refuge of sinners, Help of Christians, Queen of Angels, O holy Mother of God! Deliver us from all dangers!” - In Vol. iii. p. 417 I have exemplified the Mariolatry still established in Rome, and elsewhere in Italy.--- [Editor; And throughout the world!]

So too the Greeks in their Preces Horari; “O thou Virgin Mother of God, thou impregnable wall, thou fortress of salvation.” Compare Psalm xxviii. 8, “Jehovah (ha,r]yi hwO;hy]) is their strength, and he is the saving strength of his anointed.”.

[93] Gesenius says, on the verb, dwOh ld"G;, honor, or glorify, the noun db"K; cognate to which, is used in verse 38; doxa kuriq, (Sept.) the glory of Jehovah: that is, the shining splendor which surrounds the Deity when he appears to men, called by the Rabbins the Shekinah. Exod. xxiv. 16, xl. 34; 1 Ki. viii. 10, 11; 2 Chron. vii. 1; Isa. vi. 3, 4; Ezek. i. 28, iii. 12, 23, viii. 4, x. 4, 18, xi. 22. Compare in N.T. Luke ii. 9, “And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.”, “To which let me add Hebr. 1.3, “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;” - where Christ is called the ajpau>gasma, of the Father’s glory. The Romish Dr. Rock, in his Hierurgia i. 64, describes the Ostensoriam as a species of vessel employed for showing the blessed sacrament [or consecrated wafer] to the people, to receive their worship; and that it is composed of a stem which supports a crystal case, surrounded with rays of glory.” A magnificent specimen of such a monstranza, 7 or 8 feet high, and with the rays of glory formed of gold and precious stones, was exhibited in the Spanish department of the great London Exhibition of 1851.

[94] Nothing can better illustrate my text than some of the engravings given in my 3rd Volume, pp. 180 and 185, from Bonanni and other Roman authorities; e. g. one with the Pope’s transubstantiated god, with its glory” (db"K) of the jeweled monstranza of honor; other of the saints deified by him, with the inscription “Their glory is his honor.” See on the former, the description of the bread-made God’s part in Leo Xth’s procession, Vol. ii. p. 59.

[95] See especially my Vol. ii. pp. 9, 10, 17, 27, &c., with the illustrative Notes. How it was “at a price” appears in Note 1 p. 27; “Clum est venale, Deusque.” See too ib. pp. 72-75, in further illustration of the Pope’s dividing the land at a price. Also compare what is said in our Homily on Peril of Idolatry, Part 3, both on the Mahuzzim, and on dividing the land for gain.

[96] Mr. Faber objects the absence of this mark, in proof that the Willful King (as he calls him) here mentioned was not the Pope. Let me suggest, besides what I have said in the text, that the direct mention of this characteristic is wanting also in St. Paul’s prophecy of the Man of Son; which yet Mr. F. explains of the Papacy.

[97] Wintle, on verse 36, notices the same point; citing that famous observation of Kimchi on Obadiah, which I have also myself elsewhere cited, that “when Rome shall be laid waste there shall be redemption for Israel.”

[98] Dan. 11:40, “And at the time of the end ( Gk. en kairou perati.) This is a very important phrase, and one needing careful investigation, in order to the right understanding of this part of the prophecy.

`t[e is the common Hebrew word for time; and used thus generally in Dan. xii. 1, at that time. To express the mystical times of prophecy, “a time times and half a time,” other words are used: - In Dan. ii. 7, {4150} d[ewOm {4150} d[ewOm {2677} yxije the sequel of the present prophecy, the same word that is used in Gen. i. 14, twOa {226} d[ewOm {4150} “for signs and for times;” - in Dan. vii. 25, {5732} `D;[i {5732} `D;[i {6387} gl"p] {5732} `D;[i : the same word that is used also in Dan. iv. 16, {5732} `D;[i , (Hebr. 13,) &c., to express the seven times that were to pass over Nebuchadnezzar.

Again {7093} qeis a word equally common, in the sense of end. So Psalm xxxix. 4, of the end of a man’s life; Ezek. vii. 2, {7093} qe, of the end of a kingdom; also in the present prophecy, Dan. xi. 27 supra, “for yet the end <7093>qe, [shall be] at the time appointed <4150>” meaning the end of the Syrian king’s schemes of subduing Egypt.

The two words occur together, as here, only I believe in Dan. xi. 35, “To make them white even to the time of the end,” [even] to the time {6256} `t[e of the end {7091} zwOpqi, iwv kairou perav, - Dan. xii. 4, 9, “The words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end,” (same Hebrew and Greek,) - and Dan. viii. 17, “Understand, for at (or to) the time of the end,} for at the time {6256} `t[ of the end {7093} qe. shall be the vision.” In the two first of which passages the epoch of the consummation seems pretty clearly referred to: in the third, if our English version at be retained, certain latter times; viz. times later than that of the quadruple division of Alexander’s kingdom, and flourishing of the four kingdoms consequent; in fact (if my explanation be correct, given in Part v. Chap. vii.) those of the rise of the Turkish Empire. But the l may be rendered to, not at: and then the time of the end will be there, as in the other cases, the epoch of the consummation, or term of the vision about the Turkman. - Compare the en usteroiv kairoiv of 1 Tim. iv. 1, and enescatY, crpny or epescatou twn hmerwn, of Jude 18} in (1722) ejn, the last (2078) e]scatov, time (5550) cro>nov,)and 2 Peter iii. 3, “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last (2078) e]scatov, days scoffers, walking after their own lusts”, used, the former of the times of the great apostasy, which was to end in the Popedom; the latter probably of the times more immediately preceding the consummation.

It is in the larger and less strict sense, and as tantamount to the usteroi kairoi of St. Paul, that Mede and the two Newtons here take the phrase; and so too Wintle on Dan. viii. 17. Certainly to myself it seems that the stricter sense is the more natural. Yet they are possibly justified in their explanation by the usteroi kairoi or cronoi of the New Testament; especially as the definite article is not prefixed to the word q in the Hebrew. Prof. Lee, in his Preface to Eusebius’ Theophania, would have “the last days” of the Old Testament prophecies to signify in still larger sense the whole time of the Gospel dispensation.

N.B. In Dan. xi. 13, “. . .after {7093} qe certain {6256} `t[e years {8141} hn,v;”, that is, “at the end of the times, even years,” said of Antiochus the Great’s certainty then returning against Egypt, it is the end of times, not time of end.

[99] Dan. 11:40, “And at the time of the end shall the king of the South push at him {4428} l,m,, the Hithpael of {5056} jG;n" is used. This verb is used in the Kal, Exod. xxi. 29; “push with his horn jG;n" in time past {8538} hM;Tu {8032} wOvl]vi>” &c.: and the Piel of the same verb applied in the literal sense, Ezek. xxxiv. 21, “. . . . and your sons {1121} Be and your daughters {1323} tB" whom ye have left {5800} `bz"[; shall fall {5307} lp"n; by the sword {2719} br,j,.” Dan. viii. 4, “I saw {7200} ha;r; the ram {352} lyia" pushing {5055} jg"n; westward {3220} y;, and northward {6828} wOpx;, and southward {5045} bg,n,; so that no beasts {2416} yj" might stand {5975} `rm"[; before {6440} ynip; him, neither [was there any] that could deliver {5337} lx"n; out of his hand {3027} dy;; but he did {6213} `hc;[; according to his will {7522} wOxr;, and became great {1431} ld"G;.”, and figuratively,as Deut. xxxiii. 17, “His glory {1926} rd;h; [is like] the firstling {1060} rwOkB] of his bullock {7794} rwOv, and his horns {7161} r,q, [are like] the horns {7161} r,q, of unicorns {7214} aer]: with them he shall push {5055} jg"n; the people {5971} `[" together {3162} dj"y" to the ends {657} sp,a, of the earth {776} r,a,: and they [are] the ten thousands {7233} hb;b;r] of Ephraim {669} yir"p]a,, and they [are] the thousands {505} ‰l,a, of Manasseh {4519} hV,n"m].”, 1 Kings xxii. 11, “And Zedekiah {6667} hY;qid]xi the son {1121} Be of Chenaanah {3668} hn;[}n"K] made {6213} `hc;[; him horns {7161} r,q, of iron {1270} lz,r]B": and he said {559} rm"a;, Thus saith {559} rm"a; theLORD {3068} hwO;hy], With these shalt thou push {5055} jg"n; the Syrians {758} r;a}, until thou have consumed {3615} hl;K; them.”.

Wintle says that one manuscript omits the at him. And so perhaps the Greek translator read the clause. For he renders it Sugkiratisqhsetai meta tou basiliwv tou notou, “He shall push with, or at, the king of the south:” making the self-deifying king, before spoken of, the nominative. A various reading to be observed, if the “time of the end” be construed strictly: also, yet more, that may mean conjointly with, as well as at or against.

Venema, who still applies the prophecy to the Epiphanic history, explains the time of the end to be the end of God’s indignation at that time against Israel; an ending marked by the success of the Maccabees. Another difficulty in his way! See pp. 44, 56.

[100] Mark here the pronominal ambiguity: for he may refer either to the king of the north, or the self-deifying king, Antichrist. And hence in fact a variance, as will be seen, in the historic explanation. The early Fathers explained it in the latter sense, of Antichrist; Venema of the King of the North attacking the King of the South

[101] r,a,, “into lands;” the Hebrew word being as general, and as little distinctive of any particular lands, as the word lands in the English.

[102] ybix] r,a,, the same expression as in verse 16 preceding; and also in Dan. viii. 9, but with land understood. - Doubtless Judaea,says, Venema, p. 451.

[103] Many is feminine in the Hebrew; and therefore some such feminine noun as , r,a,, lands, countries, must be understood.

[104] Compare Isa. xi. 14; a prophecy in which Edom, Ammon, and Moab are similarly conjoined: conjoined, however, as those who are not to escape, when the Lord restores his people Israel. “They shall spoil them of the East together: they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab: and the children of Ammon shall obey them.” See too Jer. xxv. 21; where they are mentioned together as those that would have to drink of the wine-cup of God’s fury.

[105] An expression indicating the exercise of power over, on, or against (hf;n;); the countries. So in Exod. vii. 19, viii. 5, &c., of Moses stretching out his hand over the rivers of Egypt; also in Isa. v. 25, Ezek. xvi. 27, &c., of God doing so in judgment.

[106] {3569} yviWK, the Cushim meaning the Abyssianians, perhaps inclusive of those inhabitants of the northern coast of Africa, west of Egypt. So Acts ii. 10, “The parts of Libya about Cyrene.” - They are mentioned together in 2 Chron. xvi. 8, as having united in the attack on King Asa: and in Nah. iii. 9, as joint supporters of “No,” or the Egyptian Thebes.

[107] Gesenius explains the clause, “At his steps; that is, in his train.” The word is the common one used to signify a man’s steps or paces: as in 2 Sam. v. 13. Compare Judg. iv. 10, “Barak went up with 10,000 men at his feet.”

Venema here sufficiently shows his inability to carry the Epiphanic solution of the prophecy further. Admitting that it cannot apply in any way to Antiochus Epiphanes himself, he refers this passage to Epiphanes’ son Eupator. But did Eupator then conquer Egypt, and have the Libyans and Ethiopians at his steps? Not so, Venema admits; but he had them in imagination: “gyptum Cusham et Libyam actu quidem non intrabit; . . . attamen eas partim sui juris esse, et su potestati subjectas reputabit.” “Successum imaginarium.” pp. 454, 458.

[108] Venema (p. 458) compares Isa. xxxvii. 7, “I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumor, and return to his own land;” said of Sennacherib.

But mark here another ambiguity as to the intent of the pronoun. By the “him” thus to be troubled, is the King of the North meant, or the self-deifying apostate King? The early Fathers, having understood the he in verse 40 of the latter, naturally explained this verse also of the same Apostate King, or Antichrist. And they applied it in illustration of what is said in Dan. vii. of the Little Horn of the fourth Beast cutting off three out of its ten horns: - the three horns so plucked up being explained by them to mean the Libyans, Egyptians, and Ethiopians. - Others explain it (so e.g., Venema, Newton, &c.) of the King of the North.

[109] Wintle, “to devote to utter perdition;” the verb being one of devoting by a curse. Theodoret a little amplifies the Septuagint translation: ’Hxei en qumy polly, tou anaqematisai kai tou afanisai pollouv.

[110] d,P,a". Gesenius and Wintle refer, in illustration of the meaning of this word, to a passage from Jonathan’s Targum on Jer. xliii. 10, (“He shall spread his royal pavilion,”) where the same word is used, and where it signifies royal beauty and splendor.

Venema explains the phrase as meaning tents of a red color: “Plantabit tentoria tunic su coccine inter maria;” i.e., says he, “tents with a red flag above them, in sign of battle.” pp. 468, 472.

[111] Compare Joel ii. 20; “His face toward the east sea, and his hinder part toward the utmost sea;” and Zech. xiv. 8; “In that day living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea:” where the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean seem to be meant. - So Venema explains the words, as well as other expositors.

[112] The word rh", may be a mountainous chain or range, as well as a single mountain. Thus it is used of the hill country of Judah in Josh. xxi. 11: and so too Exod. xv. 17, “Thou shalt plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance;” Numb. xiii. 17; and Deut. iii. 25, “Let me go over, and see the good land that is beyond Jordan, that goodly mountain, and Lebanon.” Of which passage Adam Clarke, on Isa. v. 1, says; “Juda in general was a mountainous country, whence Moses sometimes calls it the mountain.” - Compare on the other hand Psalm ii. 6, xliii. 3; where the holy mountain is used specially for Mount Zion.

[113] Wintle, in explaining this of the Saracens, cites a quotation in Bochart from a book called Juchasin, in which the appellation King of the South is given to the Saracen ruler. - All the Arabian part of the first Ptolemy’s dominion was occupied by Mahomet ere he attacked any neighboring country; then the Cle-Syrian province, which also was a part of Ptolemy’s rightful dominion, was conquered by the Caliphs; and then Egypt; - whence at length they extended their conquests further westward.

[114] A part, as I have observed Vol. iii. p. 171, of the Pope’s own Metropolitan Episcopate.

[115] See Vol. i. p. 466.

[116] I mean the amaxai which generally accompany a Seythian or Asiatic army. Gesenius explains the word bk,r, chariots, or waggons.

[117] A.D. 1517.

[118] Even up to the sixteenth century. For example, there was a deprecatory procession at Rome, on this account, at the time of the fifth Lateran Council.

[119] Not necessary, because of the ambiguity of the pronoun him.

[120] It is a curious fact that a prophecy somewhat accordant therewith has been long rife among the Turks themselves. I heard this myself in 1819 from a Janissary Tartar attached to the British Embassy in Constantinople, who spoke of it as a common subject of talk in the Turkish coffee-houses. It was to the effect that the Moslem crescent would be forced back from Constantinople in the latter days, first to Brusa, and thence to Damascus; and that it would there continue waning till the end of the world. - Compare the earlier Turkish prophecy noticed in the 7th Session of the 5th Lateran Council: “Alionorus (regis Armeni frater) in orientali scribit histori esse apud Mahumetanos hostes indubiam prophetiam, cujus prtextu ad annum 1500 Christi ortu duraturam corum sectum pro comperto asseverat.” Hard. ix. 1703. Also that mentioned by me Vol. i. p. 451.

[121] See my Vol. i. p. 499.

[122] See p. 40 Note 378.

[123] See my Vol. i. pp. 501, 502.

[124] See ib. pp. 531, 532.

[125] Captain Slade, in his “Travels in Turkey,” p. 242, (Ed. 1854,) states that over the Seraglio gate, or Sublime Porte, there is an inscription in Arabic, from which the following, as translated by him, is an extract, descriptive of the Sultan, its founder: “By the assistance of God, and his good pleasure, Lord of the two continents and seas, the shadow of God amongst men, . . . the victorious emperor Mahomet, son of Amurath, laid the foundation of this august building . . May the Almighty perpetuate his empire, and exalt it above the lucid stars of the firmament.” Hence, as Dellaway observes, (Constantinople. p. 41,) “the public style and title” of the Turkish Sultan is “Governor of the earth, and Lord of three continents and two seas.” See too his notice of this characteristic of the site of Constantinople as between “the two seas,” p. 15.

Three centuries ago the great Luther, in his Table Talk, ii. 2, not only noted, but compared with the prophecy before us, this local peculiarity of the Turkish Capital: “The Turk ruleth between the two seas at Constantinople.” And somewhat remarkably, the same is remarked on in a work by Louis Napoleon, the present Emperor of the French, - “The geographical position of Constantinople is such as rendered her the queen of the ancient world . . . Situated between two seas of which she commands the entrance, &c.”

[126] The Sultan’s own Palace at the Seraglio point is, as all visitors there well know, on the hill of the Santa Sophia, and indeed includes it within the royal enclosure. That famous Church, the metropolitan and holiest of Eastern Christendom, was originally built by the great Constantine, and dedicated to the Santa Sophia, or Christ the Divine Wisdom; then rebuilt, yet more magnificently, by Justinian, his architectural masterpiece. See the authorities cited in Bingham viii. 2, 3; also Paul Warnfrid, B. P. M. xiii. 165.

[127] Whether by expressions like this in Daniel, with chronological reference to Christian times, before the Jews’ restoration and conversion, we may understand the sacred localities of the Christian religion, or only those of the old Jewish, is one question that here meets the inquirer: another, whether a place or people may be called holy in prophecy from its professing Christianity, after having become corrupted. I have had to express my opinion on them in the affirmative, in my explanation of Dan. viii. some time since. See Vol. iii. pp. 438-440. - It should however be observed further that the Turk has pitched the ensigns of one of his Pashaliks in the holy mountain of Jerusalem also, between its two seas.

[128] Sur la Grandeur, &c.

[129] The prophecy in Apoc. xvi. 12, “And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.” - of the end of the Turkman power by exhaustion, like as of the drying up of the inundation of Euphrates, seems not inconsistent with the view of its end thus given by me; or with that given in Dan. viii. 25, “And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.”. And the present vain attempts by some of the Christian European powers at revivifying “the sick man,” add peculiar force to the prophetic statement applied.

[130] See, as before Note 505, p. 55

[131] See Note 506 p. 55.

[132] For the power so meant need not be one simply confined to Egypt. When the French under Bonaparte in 1799 occupied and ruled Egypt, they might have been considered the representatives of the former Kings of the South. The same were France, which already possesses the old Roman African province, yet again to get possession of Egypt; which has long been a favorite object with her. If so, every thing looks as if it would be in alliance with the Papacy. The intrigues of French Papal missionaries in Syria, Egypt, Abyssinia, are sufficiently known; and have been already adverted to by me in the last Chapter of my 3rd. Volume.

[133] There is nothing in the phraseology or construction to forbid this. See the examples alluded to in Note 2 p. 43, of pronouns in the earlier part of the prophecy having reference to other persons, and not those last spoken of. The Constructie ad sensum, as Prof. Lee calls it, (on Prophecy, p. 181,) has to be followed.

[134] So I believe universally. See Note 551 p.56, just preceding. E.g. Irenus says of the Antichrist; “Transferet regnum in Jerusalem:” as if from Rome to Jerusalem. See for further exemplification Malvenda i. 593; who has there a Chapter on this particular passage.

[135] See on Michael my Vol. iii. p. 30, Note 1. - I see that Wintle, on Dan. x. 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. - follows Lightfoot in explaining the Michael of Apoc. xii. 7 as Christ. And so too Venema, pp. 479, 490.”

[136] The question as to the nature of the resurrection meant will be the subject of Ch. iii. next following.

[137] Compare the remarks p. 47 on the same class of persons, as described verse 33 supr

[138] the same expression as in xi. 40

[139] Compare Apoc. x. 6, “And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:” - on the passage, Vol. ii. pp. 128-131.

[140] Same as in verse 40.

[141] See Wintle ad loc. Also my remarks Note 454 p 47

[142] ( q"v; mev; t"n; - the abomination that maketh desolate set up) [Editor: I notice that Elliott inserted the indefinite article (an) in verse 11, whereas the King James translation uses the definite article. I don’t know what difference this makes, but its seems to me to be a debatable point.]

[143] {3117} wOy - with the article.

[144] So again the question recurs whether Daniel’s fellow-countrymen, the Jews, be meant, or the Christian servants of God, (we, the consecrated). This is evident, that if Jews it must be converted Jews, having their names written in God’s book of life. Compare Apoc. iii. 5, “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.”, xx. 13, “And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.”. See too Wintle ad loc.

[145] “How long to the end of the wonders?” verse 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? ”; meaning, I conceive, How long from the beginning to the end of the grand wonder of the prophecy, viz. that concerning the Apostate King? There was no wonder in what was foretold about the Kings of the North and South.

[146] Mr. Faber in his Sacred Calendar, ii. 137, makes the 1260 and 1290 prophetic days to run parallel with each other for the larger half of their length: counting 1290 days, or years, (which latter he singularly places first,) from the Roman desolation of the Jewish temple, A.D. 70, down to Wicliff, “the morning-star of the Reformation,” and when “many began to be purified and made white,” A.D. 1360; the 1260 from Phocas’ Decree, A.D. 604, down to A.D. 1864. But the 1335 days (in my opinion most inconsistently) he makes to be quite a new period, beginning A.D. 1865, at the end of the 1260. Its inadmissibility seems to me obvious. May he not, however unconsciously, have been led into the idea, with a view to help a certain millennial theory of his own which I shall have to state in the next chapter?

Jerome, like the mass of modern interpreters, makes both the 30 and the 45 days an addition to the 1260. “Beatus, inquit Daniel, qui, interfecto Antichristo, dies supr numerum prfinitum quadraginta quinque prstolatur. quare autem post interfectionem Antichristi 45 dierum silentium sit, divin scienti.” - So too Porphyry.

[147] I am here supposing that the expression is to be construed strictly.

[148] See my Chapter on the year-day, Vol. iii. pp. 262, 264.

[149] The word is Strongs 8262 shaqats, Compare Note 414 p. 44, on the word in Dan. xi. 31 where the definite article is missing. ton endelecismon- In our translation this omission of the article is unattended to. [Editor: We had difficulty locating this particular Note, but felt that the closest to what Elliott related to was Note 414 on page 44.]

[150] I say almost, because there is not the same uniform attention to the article in Daniel, I believe, as in the earlier Hebrew: although quite enough for my present argument. Thus I find Prof. Lee arguing, from the absence of the article in Dan. ix. 24, “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy” - and elsewhere.

[151] See e.g. the notice of Mr. Faber’s solution, p. 59 - Note 553.

[152] See Note 552, p. 59: and compare St. Paul’s phrase, “The mystery of iniquity,” used of the Papal Apostasy in 2 Thess. ii. 7, “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way

[153] See Vol. iii. pp. 299-305, and 447, &c.

[154] See my Ch. V.

[155] See the Greek Patriarch’s observation, Vol. i. p. 449, on the Caliph Omar’s entering the Patriarchal Church of Jerusalem; “The abomination of desolation is in the Holy Place!”

[156] So Jerome on Dan. xii speaks of Antichrist perishing on the Holy Mount Olivet.