« AnteriorContinuar »
and in a detail of events under his tyranny, till verse 36. Here he drops the type, and takes the antitype, as
salem? Answer. By no means. Daniel had spoken of the abomination of desolation, in three passages; chap. ix, 27, relative to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans; chap. xi, 31, (the passage under consideration) relative to the persecutions of the Jews by Antiochus; and chap. xii, 11, relative to the rise of Popery, or Mohammedism, or both, at the beginning of the 1260 years. And now, to which of these did our Lord, Mark xiii, 14, refer, as he applied it to the destruction of Jerusalem? Surely to the passage in chap. ix, 27, which relates to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans; and not to either of the two other passages, which relate to different periods and events. A desolating abomination is a common prophetic figure, to denote an invasion of the rights of conscience. It is found in different passages; and in relation to different invasions. We may as well say, Christ referred to the passage in Dan. xii, 11, which relates to the beginning of the 1260 years; as that he referred to that in chap. xi, 31; and thus confound the whole order of those prophecies. The very thing predicted, in the passage under consideration, forbids that it should be applied to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. For folluting the sanctuary of strength, and burning it, are two very different things. The latter was performed by thc Romans: But the former by Antiochus; and the whole verse was fulfilled by him, when he with armed forces plundered, and defiled the temple; called it the temple of Jupiter Olympius; placed in it the image of this heathen god; forbade the Jewish sacrifices; and compelled the Jews to eat swine’s flesh, and to conform to the idolatrous rites and manners of the heathen. Verses 32, 33. And such as do wickedly against the covenant, shall be corrupt by flatteries; but the fleosite, that do know their God, shall be strong, and do exfiloits. And they that understand among the fieofile, shall instruct many, yet they shall fall by the sword, and by the flame, and by captivity, many days. Who shall corrupt by flatteries the apostates from the covenant? It is said he shall do it. Antiochus has been the subject of the whole paragraph, without the least interruption, or notice of the introduction of a new subject. The unity of the whole passage seems to decide, that the people spoken of were the Jews under the persecution of Antiochus, and not the promiscuous Christians of other nations many centuries afterwards. Verse 34: Mow when they shall fail, they shall be holfen with a little hel/l, but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. To apply this to the revolution in Rome, and those lucrative establishments in the Church, by which Constantine designed to set the Church superior to the violence of her enemies; but which
is common in prophetic writings; and he immediately describes the thing, which was to be revealed.
This Infidel Power predicted in Dan. wi, from the 36th verse to the end.
The way being thus prepared, the Angel comes to the Power, who was to be revealed, whose time was long; or who was to exist just at the close of the wicked ages of the world. And the king shall do according to his will, and he shall eralt himself and magnify #ff above every god; and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods; and shall prosper, till the indignation shall be accomplished; for that, which is determined, shall be done. Upon this verse let the following things be noted:
proved, as some say, the occasion of the rise of the Papal hierarchy, appears to violate the unity of the whole prophecy. Verse 35; And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to flurge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end, because it is yet for a time affiointed. And does this relate to a new subject still? to the persecuted witnesses under the Papal hierarchy, down to the sixteenth century? Willnot such a mode of exposition open the door to the wildest conjectures of men, in the interpretation of prophecy? There appears to be a perfect unity in the whole fifteen verses, (from the 21st to the 35th inclusive,) which is incapable of being broken, or of permitting the different parts to be applied to a variety of different powers, and in far distant ages. And it is a fact, that events took place under Antiochus Epiphanes, which appear to answer to every part of the predictions. (See 1 Macc. i, 21–23, and from the 41st to the end; and chap. ii; 2 Macc. the 2d, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th chapters; and Heb. xi, 35 –38.) Its being said, that some of them of understanding should fall to try them—to the time of the end, because it is yet for an affiointed time, does not necessarily carry our thoughts to the battle of the great day, nor to the end of the world, nor to the sixteenth century; but to the end of the tyranny and persecutions of Antiochus, the subject then under consideration. As Antiochus was presented here as the type of Antichrist; so the end of his persecution was typical of the time of the end of the antitypical Antichrist.
1. That here is a change of characters, or a new subject introduced, is acknowledged by expositors; and is evident from all that follows. What precedes was but a few centuries after Daniel’s time. But what follows, or what the Angel had in view to reveal, was to take place at a time then far distant, just at the time of the end. This we learn from verse 40th; .4nd 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. What precedes the 36th verse, is spoken of the king of the south, and king of the north; in order to exhibit Antiochus, as has been shown. But now, at the time of the end, many centuries after the time of Antiochus, we find those two powers uniting against a third Power; who is the new Power introduced verse 36th. And the king, says the Angel; q. d. The king, that I have in view; who has been described in his type; and is now to be described in his own character. 2. By a king, in the language of prophecy, is generally to be understood a dynasty, or government; a kingdom, or civil power; whether monarchical, or republican; and not an individual person. In this sense we are to understand the king in this text. Instances of this kind in prophecy are numerous. Antichrist is by no means an individual person; but a vast Power. 3. In this passage we are presented with a great atheistical Power, who in his commencement is to be anarchical; raised up to be an instrument of the Divine indignation; and who is to exist till that work of judgment shall be accomplished. His licentiousness is first noted; he shall do according to his will; breaking every restraint. His anarchy follows; and he shall eacalt himself and magnify himself above every god; i. e. above every king or legitimate ruler. That this is the sense of the passage, is evident. The following clause decides it; where the Most High is called, The God of gods; i. e. the King of kings, and Lord of lords. Kings and earthly rulers are, in Sacred Writ, called gods. I said, Ye are gods. Thou shalt not revile the gods; i. e. thou shalt not speak evil of the rulers of thy people. Godstandeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judg
eth among the gods. In such passages, kings, and other lawful rulers are called gods; which passages may suggest the true sense of this Power’s exalting himself above every god. War with kings was to be among his first characteristics. His Atheism follows; and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods. He shall blaspheme and deny the God of heaven; the King of kings. And a train of astonishing successes shall follow, or attend his arms; till the work of judgment, for which he is raised up, shall be accomplished. For the Divine counsel has originated the event for judgment; and nothing can frustrate its accomplishment. Verse 37; Neither shall he regard the god of his fathers, nor the desire of woman; for he shall magnify himself above all. Kings, and the God of heaven, were before denounced. Now his fathers’ god, their pretended head of the church, so long venerated, even as a god, in all Popish countries, is by this Power rejected. Antiochus deposed Onias the Jewish high priest. And the Antitype of Antiochus deposed, and reduced to beggary the pope of Rome. And the Seed of the woman, to be the mother of whom was the fervent desire of the Jewish women, before his incarnation, and whose vicar the god of the fathers of this infidel Power pretended to be, is impiously disregarded, and his religion abjured. Eve upon bearing her first son, exclaimed, I have gotten the man, the Lord, as in the original. Her desire to be the mother of the promised Seed, suggested to her fond imagination, that this babe was the person. This same general desire continued in after ages. And it was perhaps chiefly on this account, that barrenness in Israel, where the Seed of the woman was to be born, was deemed so great a reproach. The desire of women, therefore, seems a suitable enigmatical appellation of the Messiah then to come, and then thus desired by women. How exactly does the character here given to the infidel Power, accord with the New Testament characteristics of Antichrist! He is Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son. Denying the Lord wha
bought them. Denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Despising dominions; speaking evil of dignities. Such predictions in the New Testament probably allude to this very passage in Dan. xi, 37. They identify the subject of their description, with that of the prophet; or show that the Power predicted in both is the same. For the first thought of the application of the desire of women to Christ, I am indebted to Mr. Faber. At first, the application appeared to me doubtful. But on deliberation, I apprehend it to be correct; so perfectly does it agree with the characteristics of Antichrist in the New Testament, as is noted above, and as may further appear. The supposition that the clause, Neither shall he regard the desire of women, is the same with the characteristic of the Papal hierarchy, Forbidding to marry, cannot be admitted. For the Power under description is a Power different from Popery, as has been suggested, and as will more fully appear in the course of this Dissertation. And the two passages literally express different things. The desire of women must mean what women desire. It must mean the object of the desire, which women did then entertain, when the passage was written. But forbidding to marry is quite another thing.” - Verse 38; But in his estate shall he honor the god of forces. When this Power shall view himself established, although he deny God, and Christ, and all legitimate authorities, yet shall he acknowledge Mozim, (in the Heb.) translated by Mede and others, gods-protectors; i.e. tutelar gods. He shall adopt his fancied deities, like the country-gods of the ancient heathen.
* Should any doubt relative to this exposition of the passage, let them examine the following; Neither shall he regard, but shall destroy the monarch of his own nation: And his queen, and hundreds of thousands of innocent females, shall he destroy, as though the desire of women for their lives, for the lives of their children, and for that protection, which is their due from man, were wholly disregarded. The queen, and 250,000 females were murdered in France, during the reign of terror there; furnishing an unprecedented trait of character, and of diabolical cruelty, in the history of man. - - * -,